An Evaluation of the Utility of a Decision-Maker-Driven Climate Hazard Assessment Tool

Decision-makers who have little to no formal training in atmospheric science are increasingly accessing and interpreting climate data and information within planning contexts. Many climate decision support tools (DSTs) have been developed to support decision-making across a variety of sectors and scales, but evaluation of such tools has only recently begun to take place. This study conducted a summative evaluation of the utility of a decision-maker-driven climate hazard assessment tool, the Simple Planning Tool (SPT), a climate DST. The SPT was inspired by and codeveloped with emergency managers, planners, and a boundary organization in two south-central U.S. states. The SPT’s target audience was surveyed to assess the tool’s utility, including its saliency, credibility, trustworthiness, and reasons for and impact of information use on decision-making. A high utility was found despite a relatively limited user base at the time of the study. In addition, SPT users represented a range of jurisdictional sizes, geographical scales, and years of experience. Although the small user sample limits generalizability of the study, it is likely a realistic reflection of the number of emergency managers and planners in the two states who are actively and regularly incorporating climate hazards into planning. The data also indicate that climate boundary organizations and climate service providers should work toward utilizing trusted information sources, channels, and procedures within the sectors to which their tool applies to help increase decision-maker awareness and use of their tool.

The creation of inclusive governance infrastructures through participatory agenda-setting

Though a stronger orientation of research and innovation with a focus on societal needs, demands, and preferences has recently become the main argument under the header of responsible research and innovation, the processes by which community members are included in studies of the future, as well as forward-looking science, technology, and innovation are underexplored. This paper explores the role of participatory agenda-setting in creating governance infrastructures that reflect community participation, boundary object creation, and experimental innovation for increased understanding of future decision tradeoffs. Drawing upon the authors’ leadership and participant observation of two participatory agenda-setting projects, this paper contributes to our understanding of what participatory agenda-setting looks like in practice at a boundary organization in higher education. Though not a traditional research study with control and experiment groups, we seek to share our insights and lessons learned from our leadership of two projects with inherent participatory agenda-setting components. The paper culminates in recommendations for future projects which seek to incorporate laypeople into future-oriented research.

Think Tanks in a Limited Access Order: The Case of Ukraine

This article belongs to the special cluster, “Think Tanks in Central and Eastern Europe”, guest-edited by Katarzyna Jezierska and Serena Giusti. Think tanks outside liberal democracies have distinctive features that go beyond the features of the original concept that emerged within the US context. Departing from this empirical observation, we investigate the sources of the organizational power of think tanks in Ukraine as a case of a limited access order (LAO), a social order where privileged individuals maintain discretionary access to societal resources, functions, and institutions. To accomplish this goal, we apply Thomas Medvetz’s analytical concept of a “boundary organization,” which allows us to highlight the hybridity and flexibility of think tanks and thus understand their methods of gaining political access in an LAO. The analysis of interviews with senior representatives of nongovernmental think tanks in Ukraine in 2016–2017 demonstrates that Ukrainian think tanks are resourceful and find indirect ways of influencing politics. These organizations publish their reports in the media and deliver assessments of Ukraine’s international commitments to the country’s donors, thereby indirectly influencing the policy process in the country. Ukrainian think tanks also comply with the expectations of a boundary organization, accumulating and converting economic, academic, and media capital into political capital, using advocacy and networking as conversion tools. One important difference between the expectations of Medvetz’s framework and our findings is that political capital seems to be the goal of think tank activity, while the three other types are used merely instrumentally.

Making the Transition from Science Delivery to Knowledge Coproduction in Boundary Spanning: A Case Study of the Alaska Fire Science Consortium

Boundary organizations facilitate two-way, sustained interaction and communication between research and practitioner spheres, deliver existing science, and develop new, actionable scientific information to address emerging social–ecological questions applicable to decision-making. There is an increasing emphasis on the role of boundary organizations in facilitating knowledge coproduction, which is collaborative research with end users to develop actionable scientific information for decision-making. However, a deeper understanding of how boundary organizations and knowledge coproduction work in practice is needed. This paper examines the Alaska Fire Science Consortium (AFSC), a boundary organization focused on fire science and management in Alaska that is working to address climate impacts on wildfire. A case study approach was used to assess AFSC activities over time. AFSC’s boundary spanning involves a continuum of outputs and activities, but their overall trajectory has involved a deliberate transition from an emphasis on science delivery to knowledge coproduction. Key factors that facilitated this transition included a receptive and engaged audience, built-in evaluation and learning, subject matter expertise and complementarity, and embeddedness in the target audience communities. Recommendations for boundary organizations wishing to develop knowledge coproduction capacity include knowing your audience, employing trusted experts in boundary spanning, and engaging in frequent self-evaluation to inform change over time.

Knowledge Co-production in Contested Spaces: An Evaluation of the North Slope Borough – Shell Baseline Studies Program

Supporting the development of trusted and usable science remains a key challenge in contested spaces. This paper evaluates a collaborative research agreement between the North Slope Borough of Alaska and Shell Exploration and Production Company—an agreement that was designed to improve collection of information and management of issues associated with the potential impacts of oil and gas development in the Arctic. The evaluation is based on six categories of knowledge co-production indicators: external factors, inputs, processes, outputs, outcomes, and impacts. Two sources of data were used to assess the indicators: interviews with steering committee members and external science managers (n = 16) and a review of steering committee minutes. Interpretation of the output and outcome indicators suggests that the Baseline Studies Program supported a broad range of research, though there were differences in how groups perceived the relevance and legitimacy of project outcomes. Several input, process, and external variables enabled the co-production of trusted science in an emergent boundary organization and contested space; these variables included governance arrangements, leveraged capacities, and the inclusion of traditional knowledge. Challenges to knowledge co-production on the North Slope include logistics, differences in cultures and decision contexts, and balancing trade-offs among perceived credibility, legitimacy, and relevance. Reinforced lessons learned included providing time to foster trust, developing adaptive governance approaches, and building capacity among scientists to translate community concerns into research questions.