the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Quantifying and Communicating Uncertain Climate Change Hazards in Participatory Climate Change Adaptation Processes
Laura Müller
Abstract. Participatory processes for identifying local climate change adaptation measures have to be performed all around the globe. It is therefore of utmost importance to investigate methods for the optimal design of such processes. A central aspect is how to address the epistemic uncertainties of future developments, in particular how to appropriately inform the stakeholders about the uncertain potential climate change hazards. In a participatory process on water-related adaptation in a biosphere reserve in Germany, we used the freely available output of a multi-model ensemble to quantify the wide range of potential future changes in (ground)water resources. We analyzed groundwater recharge and runoff computed according to the ISIMIP2b protocol by eight global hydrological models, each of which was driven by the output of four global climate models. To support participatory climate change adaptation processes, we propose to present uncertain local climate change hazards with percentile boxes rather than with boxplots or with simple averages and a verbal description of model agreement on the sign of change. This enables stakeholders to identify the future changes they wish to adapt to depending on the problem (e.g., resource scarcity vs. resource excess) and their risk aversion. Using or adapting our analysis and communication approach, flexible climate change risk management strategies can and should be developed worldwide in a participatory and transdisciplinary manner involving stakeholders and scientists.
- Preprint
(2039 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Laura Müller and Petra Döll
Status: open (until 01 Nov 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1958', Usha Harris, 29 Sep 2023
reply
Let me say at the outset that I can only comment on the participatory approach and how it may be improved, as the scientific data and models discussed in this manuscript are beyond the scope of my area of expertise.
It would be useful to have a clear definition of what the authors mean by the participatory process. Participatory processes enable ordinary people to collectively identify problems, gather information, analyse, design and identify solutions which has value to them and their network. As such an authentic participatory process includes stakeholders in all phases of the research - identification of the problem, design and dissemination of the research.
A better definition for this project would be one developed by Harris (2019) specifically for environmental communication: “Participatory Environmental Communication integrates interdisciplinary knowledge, inspires collaboration and dialogue, and utilises information networks to catalyse the agency of ordinary people towards collective action.”
A participatory process that engages stakeholders in all aspects of the research would be difficult to fully enact in scientific research such as this which requires a high level of expertise and scientific knowledge in the field of hydrology as stated by the researchers in the following quotes:Scientists or experts have to decide on what and how to produce climate change risk information before they communicate it to local stakeholders., “An interdisciplinary team of two sociologists and us, two hydrologists, designed and conducted the participatory process.” ... “The aim of all workshops was that stakeholders jointly develop climate change adaptation strategies, learn about other perspectives and network.”It is evident that the participatory process was limited to the dissemination of knowledge - “to what effect is communicated”— to raise awareness about uncertainties and enable stakeholders to make more informed decisions in their respective roles and engage better discussions during the subsequent workshops in the participatory process of the project KlimaRhön.
I suggest that the authors clarify:
- How did the participants contribute (or not) to the design of the research i.e choice of study area, method, or other input into the research design?
- What was the contribution of the sociologists in the interdisciplinary team?
- How did the process benefit the stakeholders to make informed decisions in their respective roles?
- Did the stakeholders jointly develop climate change adaptation strategies, learn about other perspectives and network.”?
Some of these questions can be answered by conducting a focus group or distributing a qualitative research questionnaire in which the stakeholders are asked how the process benefited them to make informed decisions in their respective roles and develop climate change adaptation strategies and learn about other perspectives and network.”
Their comments can then be included in the manuscript. The voices of the participants would increase the credibility of the participatory process.
As a communication scholar with no expertise in this area, I found it difficult to navigate the data-laden research results and terminology despite the authors’ attempts to simplify the terminology and research results. Since the manuscript will be published in EGUsphere, the comprehensive engagement with data is valid. However, I would recommend less reliance on technical explanations, if they were to publish this for wider public consumption.
Note: This reviewer has proposed a model for participatory environmental communication which the authors may like to consult for future projects. See
Harris, U. S. (2019). Participatory media in environmental communication: engaging communities in the periphery. (Routledge studies in environmental communication and media). London; New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1958-RC1
Laura Müller and Petra Döll
Laura Müller and Petra Döll
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
124 | 42 | 8 | 174 | 4 | 4 |
- HTML: 124
- PDF: 42
- XML: 8
- Total: 174
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1