Climate Change Impacts And Responses

1 OVERVIEW OF THE WORKSHOPThis part of the workshop report summarizes thepresentations and discussions that occurred at theworkshop “Climate Change Impacts and Responses:Societal Indicators for the National ClimateAssessment” (referred to as the Societal Indicatorsworkshop) on April 28-29, 2011, sponsored by theNational Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA) and the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA) for the National ClimateAssessment (NCA). The purpose of the workshopwas to assist the National Climate Assessment(NCA) in developing a strategic framework forclimate-related physical, ecological, and societalindicators that can be easily communicated withthe U.S. population that will support monitoring,assessment, prediction, evaluation, and decisionmaking. The NCA indicators are envisioned as arelatively small number of policy-relevant integratedindicators designed to provide a consistent,objective, understandable, and transparentoverview of major variations in climate impacts,vulnerabilities, adaptation, and mitigation activitiesacross sectors, regions, and timeframes. Over 50people participated in the workshop, includingsocial science researchers with expertise in best practices for developing indicators, indigenous cultures and Tribes, poverty and social vulnerability, adaptive capacity, multi-stakeholder decision making, environmental governance and institutions, environmental justice and equity, complex emergencies and disasters, food security and agricultural development, land and water resource management, energy security, economic development and growth, and remote sensing data as applied to human healthand societal impacts.The program was developed with input from theworkshop steering committee, which includedrepresentatives of the social science community. Theworkshop and steering committee were chaired byMelissa A. Kenney, a AAAS Science and TechnologyPolicy Fellow hosted by the NOAA Climate ProgramOffice and Assistant Research Scientist at JohnsHopkins University; Robert Chen, the Director andSenior Research Scientist at Columbia University’sCenter for International Earth Science InformationNetwork (CIESIN) and Manager of the NASASocioeconomic Data and Applications Center10(SEDAC); and Jim Smoot, manager of the EarthScience Office at the NASA Marshall Space FlightCenter. A white paper was written to help calibratethinking, frame key issues for the workshop, and laythe foundation for some of the significant elementsof the NCA effort. [The White Paper has beenrevised after the workshop to reflect participants’comments and suggestions and is included in thisworkshop report.]During the opening session, Kathy Jacobs, AssistantDirector of Climate Adaptation and Assessment atthe White House Office of Science and TechnologyPolicy, remarked that one of the major effortsmoving forward in the NCA is the developmentof indicators. The goal of this indicator frameworkis to identify a small number of policy-relevant,integrated indicators, designed to provide aconsistent, objective and transparent overviewof major trends and variations in climate impactsand our ability to respond. Such a system shouldinclude metrics; assess progress of adaptation andmitigation; and to the extent possible integratephysical, social and ecological components.Lawrence Friedl, Director of NASA’s AppliedSciences Program, gave the welcoming remarksto the workshop participants. To frame the effortcharged to the workshop participants, he quotedMeriwether Lewis on his thirty-first birthday:“I reflected that I had as yet done but little, verylittle indeed, to further the happiness of thehuman race, or to advance the information of thesucceeding generation.”He noted that future generations could not informus of what priorities they had; therefore, we have tobe the trustees of the future. In that regard, we mustdevelop and implement indicators that help informthe public and decision makers about past andprojected climate change impacts, opportunities,vulnerabilities, and adaptation over time.The workshop participants were asked to provideinput on a number of topics, including (1) categoriesof societal indicators for the NCA; (2) alternativeapproaches to constructing indicators and thebetter approaches for NCA to consider; (3) specificrequirements and criteria for implementing theindicators; and (4) sources of data for and creatorsof such indicators. Socioeconomic indicatorscould include demographic, cultural, behavioral,economic, public health, and policy componentsrelevant to impacts, vulnerabilities, and adaptation

Climate Change Impacts and Responses:Societal Indicators for the National Climate Assessmentto climate change as well as both proactive andreactive responses to climate change. Participantswere given explicit instructions that consensusadvice was not being sought by the workshoporganizers or NCA staff.What follows is a summary of the workshop’spresentations, breakout sessions, and discussions.The statements in the following sections do notrepresent consensus of all participants, but aregeneral themes that emerged from presentations andindividual comments regarding societal indicatorsduring the workshop, as observed by the authors ofthis report and other rapporteurs and participants.See the accompanying appendices and sectionsfor the White Paper, societal indicators inventory,agenda, list of members of the steering committee,and societal indicators bibliography.2 INDICATOR SYSTEMS - PANELPRESENTATIONSThe first panel discussed societal indicators for theNCA. The panelists were Tom Wilbanks, Pat Gober,Mike McGeehin, Ben Campbell, Gemma Cranston,and Radley Horton. The panelists each provided a10-minute informal presentation that summarizedindicator systems that they have developed (orcontributed to), the lessons learned from developingsuch indicators, and thoughts for the NCA indeveloping an indicator framework that includessocietal indicators.2.1 Tom Wilbanks - Oak Ridge NationalLaboratoryTom Wilbanks opened by pointing out thatthere is a rich tradition of work done on socialindicators – health, education, security, livingconditions, and others. He noted that indicatorsneed to focus on vulnerability (exposure to threats,sensitivity to threats, and coping capacity) as wellas resilience. For the latter, he suggested that thisis not a case of whether the conditions are good,but whether the social dynamics are good. Forthese reasons, we need to develop compositeindicators instead of indicators focused on onevariable (for definitions of different indicatorapproaches, such as “composite,” please seethe White Paper). Wilbanks noted that a criticaldeficiency in developing societal indicators is thatno time series data exist for many of the importantsocial or economic indicators. If time series data areavailable, they exist in crude form (e.g., every 10years). He made several references to the NationalAcademies report entitled “Our Common Journey:A Transition toward Sustainability” (1999). Thisreport describes how we can get to a sustainableworld in 50 years and includes an entire chapter onsustainability indicators. Wilbanks also noted thatin the last decade, there has been much interest inconnecting societal indicators with what can beobserved from Earth Observation from space. Thishas led to a number of workshops sponsored by theNational Academies and the U.S. Group on EarthObservations (USGEO).Wilbanks indicated that there has been significantinterest in a report by the National Academies on“Monitoring Climate Change Impacts: Metrics at theIntersection of Human and Earth Systems” (NRC,2010), particularly by the intelligence community.He alluded to the concept that for developingsocietal indicators, it is important to ask whatquestions you want answered before you startworking with the data available now. He suggestedthe need for caution because the “hunger” forindicators leads to questionable practices: thisunderscores the importance of validation ofindicators before they are implemented. This alsoleads to the question of how one would validatesocietal indicators given the lack of time series data.There is not one set of indicators that will be equallygood for all purposes. The existing knowledgebase does not support what we want to know, andbecause of this, developing a knowledge basewill require new research and possibly new datasystems. On the other hand, Wilbanks pointed outthat indicators of vulnerability and resilience needto be developed even if the knowledge base is notyet developed. Climate-sensitive health indicatorsand land use indicators need to be identified:these should in many cases not focus on currentconditions, but characterize rates of change of theseconditions. Moreover, indicators ought to identifysociety’s response to risk of extreme weather events– not just responses to climate change. Society alsoneeds to have some idea of changes in resourcerequirements to respond to risks; e.g., rechargingwater tables in water scarce areas.2.2 Patricia Gober - Arizona StateUniversityPatricia Gober reported on lessons learned in thesix-year National Science Foundation-funded studyon “Decision Center for Desert City” that is focusedon determining how climate science products canbe turned into tools useful to decision makers andthe public. The lessons learned here relate to the11

science of knowledge translation, i.e., how scientifictools are produced, communicated to, and usedby decision makers and the public at large. Shenoted that five years ago the president of ArizonaState University undertook the task of creatingan indicator system for the Greater Phoenix area.Their goal was to produce sustainability indicators- those factors that connected the human to thephysical system to identify trends in these humancoupled natural systems. Are we making progresstoward sustainability goals? Are we approachingcritical thresholds when policy decisions needto be made and implemented? They developedfour sets of indicators: air quality, water quality,the urban heat island, and energy. One aspectwas the charting of local temperature over time,with the data downloadable by any citizen. Othermeasures included cooling degree days and theextent to which the urban heat island affectedenergy consumption over time. They also lookedat how energy consumption is linked to electricalpower use; average low temperatures; number ofdays with a low temperature of 90 F or more; etc.,as a measure of relative consumption of renewablesources.Gober identified the lessons learned from thisactivity. First, citizen participants need an historicalcontext and expert interpretation to make senseof the information transition from the data that isprovided to what is meaningful to people on theground; for example, the number of people livingwithin walking distance to public transportation asan indicator. Second, there was considerably moreinterest in population and income variables thanin sustainability indicators; e.g., the link betweenthe urban heat island and potential populationgrowth and between air quality and water qualityand energy. Third, th

Climate Change Impacts and Responses: Societal Indicators for the National Climate Assessment 11 to climate change as well as both proactive and reactive responses to climate change. Participants were given explicit instructions that consensus advice was not being sought by the workshop organizers or NCA staff.