Stakeholder Dialogue Resources

Stakeholder Guidance Note CIRCE RL11: Integrating case studies Maureen Agnew and Clare Goodess, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK

Interactions between scientists and stakeholders should not be envisaged as a simple linear process involving a mere unidirectional exchange of information. The activity is much more complex, involving a two-way process shaped by a communication network that exists at multiple levels and scales (Kasperson, 2005; Vogel et al., 2007). Successful engagement is in part dependent on a spirit of cooperation, trust, and a convergence of interests.

“Stakeholders are characterised as individuals or groups who have anything of value (both monetary and non-monetary) that may be affected by climate change or by the actions taken to manage anticipated climate risks. They might be policy-makers, scientists, communities, and/or managers in the sectors and regions most at risk both now and in the future” (Carter et al., 2007).

This guidance note discusses: 1. Stakeholder contribution; 2. Levels of stakeholder involvement with particular reference to CIRCE and the integrating case studies; 3. Available resources to enhance stakeholder involvement; 4. Stakeholder contribution to CIRCE RL11 tasks / milestones; and 5. Bibliography for stakeholder dialogue with particular reference to climate change research.

1. Stakeholder contribution

The principal contribution of stakeholders is in the form of individual and organisational (private or public) knowledge and expertise. The success of stakeholder participation exists not only in informing the most appropriate players but also in empowering them to act on the additional information (Kasperson, 2006). Seven key areas of stakeholder contribution have been recognised.

1.1. Decision making: Close collaboration between researchers and stakeholders is generally necessary to make the best use of information to manage uncertainty in decision making (Parry et al., 2007). Vogel et al. (2007) present this as a cyclical and iterative process in which scientists play a range of roles at different stages of the decision-making process (Figure 1).

1.2. Risk assessment and management: Stakeholder involvement is one component of the risk management framework designed for climate-change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability (CCIAV) assessments (Carter et al., 2007; 2.2.6). The contribution of stakeholders is in respect to the range of risks and their management. Understanding how a system or community manages current climate risks facilitates the assessment of future climate risks.

05a4607ee9980ecbfcede92b430bed9a.doc 1 07/05/2018 1.3. Assessment of thresholds: Thresholds, or limits of tolerable risk for climate impacts, can be derived with the aid of stakeholders, and form part of the risk analysis (Kenny et al., 2000; Conde and Lonsdale, 2005). The stakeholders then become responsible for managing uncertainties connected to the critical threshold.

1.4. Establishing credibility: The involvement of stakeholders in risk management helps to establish credibility or legitimisation, stakeholder ‘ownership’ of the assessment process and results, builds trust, and increases the probability of successful adaptation (Cash et al., 2003; Cash et al., 2006; McKenzie Hedger et al., 2006; Kloprogge and van der Sluijs, 2006; Welp et al., 2006; Carter et al., 2007).

1.5. Data and knowledge: Stakeholder dialogues are important for gaining access to data, insight or knowledge that would otherwise be difficult to obtain and might be left unknown (Welp et al., 2006). This might include local (e.g., Finan and Nelson, 2008) or sector knowledge of vulnerabilities or impacts to climate change. Through the provision of such information, stakeholders can make an essential contribution to integrated assessments of climate change (e.g., Lemos and Morehouse, 2005; Kloprogge and van der Sluijs, 2006).

1.6. Adaptive process: Clearly stakeholders have an important contribution in the process to reduce vulnerability or increase adaptive capacity to climate change. Stakeholders input to the process of adaptation may range from the use of indigenous knowledge (e.g., Goldtooth and Carino, 2006; Osman-Elasha et al., 2006; Goulden et al, 2008; Reinert et al., 2008), to identification of current measures of adaptation, and an evaluation of the viability of adaptive options (Thomalla et al., 2005; Conde and Lonsdale, 2005; Conde et al., 2006). The attitudes and reactions stakeholders (Arnell and Charlton, 2008) and the cultures and values of communities (Reid and Huq, 2007; O’Brien, 2008; Coulthard, 2008) can act as socio-political barriers to adaptation. Structured discussions are important to discuss adaptation options and their potential barriers (Arnell and Charlton, 2008). The different experiences of stakeholders in adaptation and mitigation (separately or conjointly) decision making can be compared to provide further insight (Klein et al., 2007).

1.7. Recommendations: Stakeholders may be central to the assessment of future needs for the formulation and recommendation of policies and strategies for adaptation and mitigation (Nadarajah and Rankin, 2005). Effective communication is the key to translating information into policy or action (Vogel et al., 2007).

05a4607ee9980ecbfcede92b430bed9a.doc 2 07/05/2018 Figure 1. Scientific input at various stages of the decision-making process and the nature of science’s influence (Vogel et al., 2007)

CIRCE aims to capitalise on the real-life experience and expertise of local and regional stakeholders for each of the integrating case studies. The EU project MICE (Hanson et al., 2006) placed an emphasis on the contribution of stakeholders towards the end of the project, RL11 places a high priority on stakeholder involvement at each stage of the CIRCE project.

2. Levels of stakeholder involvement

There are a wide variety of approaches and levels at which stakeholder involvement may take place, from the lowest level of passive engagement at which stakeholders solely supply information, to the highest level at which stakeholders actively design and initiate the process (Figure 2). At an intermediary level, stakeholders may be consulted or act as equal partners in the research program. For example, the Living with Environmental Change ten-year programme (LWEC) has been designed by the UK major funders of environment-related research to build resilience, mitigate problems and adapt to future change (http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/programmes/lwec/). The programme has partners within government departments, agencies, and the private sector. Within CIRCE, it is likely that the level of involvement will vary from partner to partner, e.g., from a general discussion of impacts and adaptation to climate change in the region, to direct involvement in indicator selection, exchange of ideas, the provision of data, and testing and evaluating measures of adaptation (such as using an adaptation toolkit).

05a4607ee9980ecbfcede92b430bed9a.doc 3 07/05/2018 Figure 2. Ladder of stakeholder participation (based on Pretty et al., 1995; Conde and Lonsdale, 2005).

For RL11, it might be realistic to aim for the level of stakeholder participation. In the CIRCE description of work for RL11, the contribution of stakeholders is given prominence.

RL11.”Provides a unique opportunity to identify and explore specific measures using both top- down (based on literature review and the modelling expertise of the academic research teams) and bottom-up (based on the real-life experiences and expertise of regional stakeholders) approaches. Strong stakeholder involvement from the early stages will allow identification of any adaptation and mitigation measures already in place and construction of an ‘adaptation database’, together with the non-climatic factors that may act as a constraint to, or facilitate, successful adaptation and mitigation. Adaptation measures will encompass both planned adaptation to climate change projections and responsive adaptation to experienced weather events. Where appropriate, regional stakeholder involvement will be enhanced by holding workshops and producing focused material in languages other than English” (CIRCE DOW, p88)

The definition of stakeholders provided by Carter et al. (2007) is very broad. It is envisaged that the category of stakeholders participating and contributing to RL11 will be much more focused and will be different to the much broader, strategic type of policy makers involved in the Paris stakeholder workshop and proposed follow-up (18-19 Oct 2007; http://www.circeproject.eu/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=40&func=fileinfo&id=71 ). The stakeholder pool is identified by the arena in which decisions related to climate change are made. For RL11 this comprises local and regional decision and policy makers within government departments, agencies, and public / private sector entities (Table 1). The case-study briefing notes have each included a section outlining access to local/regional stakeholders and providing a potential list for each region. These lists have been catalogued into a RL11 stakeholder database (based on the format developed for the CIRCE kick-off meeting, May 2007) and partners will add further details to this database as the project evolves. Initiating contacts with relevant stakeholders and agreeing participation within CIRCE represents a preliminary stage in the stakeholder participatory process. At a higher level, there is a need to consider linkages of stakeholders, communities and organisations at multiple levels and sectors (Moser, 2008 a, b).

05a4607ee9980ecbfcede92b430bed9a.doc 4 07/05/2018 Table 1: Generic types of stakeholders relevant to RL11 Integrating case studies

CIRCE Case- Sector Generic stakeholders study category

WP11.3 Urban Urban planning Planners / developers / councils case studies Health Government department^ / hospital managers / consultants Industry Managers / investors Energy Power corporations Government department^ Water Government department^ Environment Government department^ / agency Tourism Government department^ Civil protection Government department^ / agency Society General public Research Research councils / Academic institutions / private consultants

WP11.4 Rural Environment / Government department^ / agencies / International case studies conservation governmental organisations (UNESCO) / academic institutes Agriculture Farmer consortiums / farmer union / producers / vintners / Government department^ Forestry Government department^ / agency / charitable conservation organisations and societies Water Government department^ Energy Government department^ Health Government department^ Planning Government department^ Tourism Government department^ Economy Financial organisations / regional agencies Insurance Company managers / insurance associations Research Academic institutions Society Rural communities

WP11.5 Coastal Fisheries Fishermen / guilds / authorities / producer unions / case studies government department^ Environment Government department^ / agency Rivers Authorities / agencies Coasts / harbours Authorities / agencies Waste Authorities / agencies Agriculture Farmers / academic institutions Planning and Government department^ / planners / developers development Economy Government department^ Tourism Government department^ Research Academic institutions

^ local / regional government departments were permissible.

05a4607ee9980ecbfcede92b430bed9a.doc 5 07/05/2018 2.1 Areas of stakeholder involvement in RL11:

■ Assessment / sub-selection of indicators. The definitive list of environmental, vulnerability and sustainability indicators appropriate for the Mediterranean will be agreed in consultation with all CIRCE partners and with stakeholder involvement. Draft lists of indicators (see the indicator criteria document, “Part I: Proposed method for the selection of CIRCE indicators”) should be discussed with stakeholders after the first iteration of consultation among CIRCE partners. It is important that indicators are socially and scientifically relevant to the Mediterranean. The criteria of direct relevance include:

▷ “Is the indicator relevant to policy makers and stakeholders?

▷ Does the indicator have resonance – is it accessible and readily understood and interpreted by decision-makers and scientists?”

The insight and experience of local stakeholders may help determine the most pertinent indicators in a ‘real world’ context. Following an agreement, the constructed indicators, together with documentation and information for stakeholders and the general public will be available from the CIRCE RL11 web portal.

■ Discussion of adaptation and mitigation issues. This will involve recognising sources of uncertainty in the decision-making process, identification of any adaptation and mitigation measures already in place, construction of an ‘adaptation database’, and identification of barriers to, or facilitators of, successful adaptation. Stakeholder involvement and the case-study work of RL11 ‘should make a major contribution to building adaptive capacity in the case-study regions and other parts of the Mediterranean, and hence facilitate delivering actual adaptation’ (DOW, and see Adaptation Policy Framework, published by the UK Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/adapt/policyframe.htm). Adaptive capacity is developed through the reinforcement of networks, knowledge and resources (Cohen, 1997; Cebon et al., 1999; Ivey et al., 2004).

■ Evaluating adaptation and mitigation options. ‘Another key aspect of WP11.2 is to determine the way in which CIRCE partners will work with stakeholders to identify and evaluate potential adaptation and mitigation measures (the focus of the stakeholder workshops to be held during months 36-42). This will be done by collaborating with RL13 on the development, and, if possible, eventual testing in the workshops, of the open source toolkit for the identification and evaluation of adaptation options’ (CIRCE DOW). Stakeholders can evaluate adaptive measures through an iterative process by which scientific information is integrated into the socio-economic, cultural and political environment of the stakeholder (Asselt and Rotmans, 2002). Due to the uncertainty of future climate and many other factors, decision makers should systematically assess the performance of adaptation options over a broad range of plausible futures to select the most robust strategy (Dessai et al., 2008). It is anticipated that some of the stakeholder workshops will be able to evaluate the utility of CIRCE tools such as weADAPT (http://www.weadapt.org/; http://www.weadapt.org/docs/Climate_Change_Explorer_V1.pdf ) which will provide the basis for the proposed RL13 toolkit and Antonella Battaglini’s (PIK) bayesian tool for risk analysis.

In CIRCE, it is envisaged that stakeholder dialogue will be an ongoing component of the research process, involving several cycles or phases. Initial cycles will aim to identify key

05a4607ee9980ecbfcede92b430bed9a.doc 6 07/05/2018 research issues in the case-study regions; these will progress to cycles involving the selection of key indicators, and consultation on impacts, adaptation and mitigation, and policy recommendations.

It may be useful to consider the different tools and approaches to science-based stakeholder dialogues. For example, Welp at al (2006) consider three theoretical frameworks for staging stakeholder dialogue: Rational Actor Paradigm, Bayesian Learning and Organisational Learning. The Rational Actor Paradigm conceptualises decision- makers as having varying degrees of risk aversion. This may be a useful tool for guiding climate change policy analysis when set within a social-rational framework (see Jaeger et al., 1998). The Bayesian approach accepts uncertainty and assumes that events are associated with a set of probabilities. It is useful for framing problems, improving integrated assessments of climate impacts, and in the development of analytical tools (e.g., Haas and Jaeger, 2005; CRANIUM project http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/projects/cranium/ ; ACER project http://www.adaptation.nl/ ). Organisational learning (e.g., Senge, 1990; High and Pelling, 2004; Shackley et al., 2005) recognizes the conditions for and process by which a disparate group of scientists and stakeholders extend their knowledge base through the dialogue arena and focuses on communication tools such as focus groups and climate simulation games. This approach supports the notion of an intermediary that acts as a mediator and ‘process facilitator.’

3. Available resources to enhance stakeholder involvement

Stakeholder involvement in CIRCE will be enhanced by establishing early contacts and building on these relationships through ongoing mechanisms which involve the sharing of information, and make use of the following resources:

■ The CIRCE brochure http://www.circeproject.eu/images/stories/circe_brochure.pdf, and hardcopies.

■ The CIRCE website http://www.circeproject.eu ■ The case-study briefing notes. These can be translated into the language of the case-study country if desired (note: there is no CIRCE funding for translation, so this would be the responsibility of individual partners).

■ Indicator document (once it has been through the first iteration of review) ■ Framework / methodology document (once it has been through the first iteration of review) In addition, a bibliography of stakeholder involvement in research and in particular climate change is included at the end of this document, and includes useful material.

There is no specific funding for stakeholder involvement until the round of workshops in months 36-42. Therefore, having established initial contacts with stakeholders, partners will have to rely on email and informal meetings to develop these relationships and share information. The research team should aim to share good practice, tips on mechanisms which work well, and a discussion session on stakeholder engagement will be included at each RL11 meeting.

05a4607ee9980ecbfcede92b430bed9a.doc 7 07/05/2018 4. Stakeholder contribution to CIRCE RL11 tasks/milestones

■ Selection of environmental vulnerability and sustainability indicators ■ Assessment of current risks / thresholds in CCIAV case study assessments ■ Participation in a round of workshops focusing on adaptation (one for each case study towards the end of the project) – some of which will provide an opportunity to test the open source adaptation tool kit (to be developed by RL13) and other CIRCE tools

■ Identification and evaluation of potential adaptation and mitigation measures ■ Recommendations on adaptation and mitigation strategies ■ Data provision ■ Design / content of the web portal

4.1. CIRCE RL11 Milestones / tasks up to month 18 relevant to stakeholder engagement:

WP11.2 Common tools and central datasets (Goodess Clare, UEA, 01/04/2007 - 31/03/2011) WP11.2(T12).M1 Agreement on a common set of environmental, sustainability and vulnerability indicators appropriate for the Mediterranean (due: 31/03/2008)

WP11.3 Urban case studies (Giannakopoulos Christos, NOA, 01/04/2007 - 31/03/2011) WP11.3(T12).M1 Establish formal links with stakeholders in the RL11 urban case-study areas (due: 31/03/2008) D11.3.2 Information sheets on the RL11 urban case studies (Giannakopoulos Christos, NOA, due: 30/09/2008)

WP11.4 Rural case studies (Bindi Marco, IBIMET-CNR, 01/04/2007 - 31/03/2011) WP11.4(T12).M1 Establish formal links with stakeholders in the RL11 rural case-study areas (due: 31/03/2008) D11.4.2 Information sheets on the RL11 rural case studies (Bindi Marco, IBIMET-CNR, due: 30/09/2008)

WP11.5 Coastal case studies (Sanchez-Arcilla Agustin, UPC, 01/04/2007 - 31/03/2011) WP11.5(T12).M1 Establish formal links with stakeholders in the RL11 coastal case-study areas (due: 31/03/2008) D11.5.2 Information sheets on the RL11 coastal case studies (Sanchez-Arcilla Agustin, UPC, due: 30/09/2008)

WP11.6 Synthesis and wider implications of the case-study work (Goodess Clare, UEA, 01/03/2010 - 31/03/2011)

05a4607ee9980ecbfcede92b430bed9a.doc 8 07/05/2018 4.2. RL11 Major milestones beyond month 18:

WP11.2 “- Construction of a common set of environmental, sustainability and vulnerability indicators appropriate for the Mediterranean, for the present and scenario time periods (month 36) - Final version of the case-study web portal - public (month 48) - Finalisation and archiving of the case-study datasets - public unless subject to third party restrictions (month 48)”

WP11.3; WP11.4; WP11.5 “- Briefing notes outlining the climate scenarios and projected impacts for the urban (rural, coastal) case studies (month 36) - Completion of the urban (rural, coastal) case-study workshops which will focus on the identification of practical and specific adaptation and mitigation measures (month 42) - Recommendations on adaptation and mitigation measures for the urban (rural, coastal) case studies (month 48)”

WP11.6 “1. A case-study synthesis report aimed at stakeholders both internal and external to the CIRCE community. 2. A journal paper suitable for peer-reviewed publication focusing on the methodologies used in RL11, together with recommendations on how future integrated assessments could be undertaken.”

Stakeholder Meetings / Workshops A round of CIRCE RL11 stakeholder workshops is scheduled during the months 36-42. There is funding for one workshop in each case-study region. It is envisaged that the workshops will be participatory, and in some cases there will be an opportunity to evaluate decision tools for adaptation to climate change.

Previous studies (e.g., Hanson et al., 2006) have found that successful interchange of ideas and information can be achieved through a combination of pre-workshop documentation, presentations (researchers and stakeholders); break-out groups for discussing specific issues; and structured plenary sessions. For some studies, e.g., the EU project MICE, some contacts were established just prior to the stakeholder workshops. In the project CIRCE, relationships with stakeholders should have been in existence for a couple of years – which should help to ensure active participation (Figure 2).

05a4607ee9980ecbfcede92b430bed9a.doc 9 07/05/2018 5. Bibilography for stakeholder dialogue with particular reference to climate research

Agrawala, S 2004. Adaptation, development assistance and planning: Challenges and opportunities, IDS Bulletin-Institute of Development Studies, 35 (3): 50-+ Arnell N and Charlton M. 2008. Adapting to the effects of climate change on water supply reliability. In, Living with Climate Change: Are there limits to adaptation? Royal Geographical Society, London 7-8 February, 2008. pp 21-28. Bales, RC; Liverman, DM; Morehouse, BJ 2004. Integrated assessment as a step toward reducing climate vulnerability in the Southwestern United States, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 85 (11): 1727-+ NOV Bardsley, DK; Edwards-Jones, G 2007. Invasive species policy and climate change: social perceptions of environmental change in the Mediterranean, Environmental Science & Policy, 10 (3): 230-242 Barrett, JH; Haslam, RA; Lee, KG; et al. 2005. Assessing attitudes and beliefs using the stage of change paradigm - case study of health and safety appraisal within a manufacturing company, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35 (10): 871-887 Berkes, F; Berkes, MK; Fast, H 2007. Collaborative integrated management in Canada's north: The role of local and traditional knowledge and community-based monitoring, Coastal Management, 35 (1): 143-162. Blenkinsop, S; Fowler, HJ 2007. Changes in European drought characteristics projected by the PRUDENCE regional climate models, International Journal of Climatology, 27 (12): 1595-1610 Boorman, DB 2003. Climate, Hydrochemistry and Economics of Surface-water Systems (CHESS): adding a European dimension to the catchment modelling experience developed under LOIS, Science of the Total Environment, 314: 411-437 Brenkert, AL; Malone, EL 2005. Modeling vulnerability and resilience to climate change: A case study of India and Indian states, Climatic Change, 72 (1-2): 57-102 SEP 2005 Bulkeley, H; Mol, APJ 2003. Participation and environmental governance: Consensus, ambivalence and debate, Environmental Values, 12 (2): 143-154 Carter, T.R., R.N. Jones, X. Lu, S. Bhadwal, C. Conde, L.O. Mearns, B.C. O’Neill, M.D.A. Rounsevell and M.B. Zurek, 2007: New Assessment Methods and the Characterisation of Future Conditions. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 133-171. Cash D et al. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14): 8086-8091. Cash D, Borck J, Patt AG. 2006. Countering the ‘loading dock’ approach to linking science and decision making: a comparative analysis of ENSO forecasting systems. Science, Technology, and Human Values 31: 465-494. Cebon, P., U. Dahinden, H.C. Davies, D. Imboden and C.G. Jaeger, 1999: Views from the Alps: Regional Perspectives on Climate Change. MIT Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 536 pp.

05a4607ee9980ecbfcede92b430bed9a.doc 10 07/05/2018 Cohen, S.J., 1997: Scientist-stakeholder collaboration in integrated assessment of climate change: lessons from a case study of Northwest Canada. Environ. Model. Assess., 2, 281-293. Cohen, S; Neilsen, D; Smith, S; et al. 2006. Learning with local help: Expanding the dialogue on climate change and water management in the Okanagan Region, British Columbia, Canada, Climatic Change, 75 (3): 331-358. Conde, C. and K. Lonsdale, 2005, Engaging stakeholders in the adaptation process. Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change:Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures, B. Lim, E. Spanger-Siegfried, I. Burton, E. Malone and S. Huq, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 47-66. Conde, C., R. Ferrer and S. Orozco, 2006, Climate change and climate variability impacts on rainfed agricultural activities and possible adaptation measures: a Mexican case study. Atmosfera, 19, 181-194. Conde, C; Ferrer, F; Orozco, S 2006. Climate change and climate variability impacts on rainfed agricultural activities and possible adaptation measures. A Mexican case study, Atmosfera, 19 (3): 181-194. Coulthard S. 2008. Should we hang up our nets? Adaptation and conflict within fisheries – insights for living with climate change. In, Living with Climate Change: Are there limits to adaptation? Royal Geographical Society, London 7-8 February, 2008. pp 148-156. Dabelko, G., 2005. Speaking their language: How to communicate better with policymakers and opinion shapers—and why academics should bother in the first place. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 15 (4), 381–386. Demeritt, D., Langdon, D., 2004. The UK Climate Change Programme and communication with local authorities. Global Environmental Change 14, 325– 336. Dempsey, R; Fisher, A 2005. Consortium for Atlantic Regional Assessment: Information tools for community adaptation to changes in climate or land use, Risk Analysis, 25 (6): 1495-1509 Dessai S, Hulme M, Lempert R, Pielke R. 2008. Climate prediction: a limit to adaptation? In, Living with Climate Change: Are there limits to adaptation? Royal Geographical Society, London 7-8 February, 2008. pp 49-57. Downing, TE; Moss, S; Pahl-Wostl, C 2001. Understanding climate policy using participatory agent-based social simulation, Lecture Notes In Artificial Intelligence, 1979: 198-213 Ebi, KL; Kovats, RS; Menne, B 2006. An approach for assessing human health vulnerability and public health interventions to adapt to climate change. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114 (12): 1930-1934 Few, R; Brown, K; Tompkins, EL 2007 Public participation and climate change adaptation: Avoiding the illusion of inclusion Climate Policy, 7 (1): 46-59 Few, R; Brown, K; Tompkins, EL 2007. Climate change and coastal management decisions: Insights from Christchurch Bay, UK Coastal Management, 35 (2-3): 255-270. Finan TJ and Nelson DR. 2008. Decentralised planning and adaptation to drought in rural northeast Brazil: An application of GIS and participatory appraisal toward transparent governance. In, Living with Climate Change: Are there limits to adaptation? Royal Geographical Society, London 7-8 February, 2008. pp194- 204.

05a4607ee9980ecbfcede92b430bed9a.doc 11 07/05/2018 Furstenau, C; Badeck, FW; Lasch, P; et al. 2007. Multiple-use forest management in consideration of climate change and the interests of stakeholder groups European Journal of Forest Research, 126 (2): 225-239. Goldtooth T and Carino J. 2006. UN Division for Sustainable Development: Commission on Sustainable Development: Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue Session, Wednesday, May 3, 2006, Indigenous Peoples Caucus Statement on the Thematic Issue of Climate Change and Atmospheric Pollutants, http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd14/statements/indigenous_multi_03may. pdf Goulden M, Naess LO, Vincent K, and Adger N. 2008. Local adaptations to climate extremes in rural Africa: opportunities and barriers. In, Living with Climate Change: Are there limits to adaptation? Royal Geographical Society, London 7- 8 February, 2008. pp 212-220. Greening, LA; Bernow, S 2004. Design of coordinated energy and environmental policies: use of multi-criteria decision-making, Energy Policy, 32 (6): 721-735 Gupta, J; van Asselt, H 2006. Helping operationalise Article 2: A transdisciplinary methodological tool for evaluating when climate change is dangerous, Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 16 (1): 83-94.

Haas, A. and Jaeger, C. 2005. Agents, Bayes, and Climatic Risks – a modular modelling approach. Advances in Geosciences 4: 3–7. Hanson, CE; Palutikof, JP; Dlugolecki A; Giannakopoulos C. 2006. Bridging the gap between science and the stakeholder: the case of climate change research, Climate Research 31: 121-133. Hanson, CE; Palutikof, JP; Livermore, MTJ; et al. 2007. Modelling the impact of climate extremes: an overview of the MICE project Climatic Change, 81: 163-177 Suppl. 1 MAY Hedger, MM; Connell, R; Bramwell, P 2006. Bridging the gap: empowering decision- making for adaptation through the UK Climate Impacts Programme Climate Policy, 6 (2): 201-215. High, C. & Pelling, M. (2004). Understanding adaptive capacity to rapid climate change: Drawing on theories of social and organisational learning. Rapid climate change project working paper, No. 1, University of Liverpool, Liverpool. Holman, IP; Rounsevell, MDA; Shackley, S; et al. 2005. A regional, multi-sectoral and integrated assessment of the impacts of climate and socio-economic change in the UK, Climatic Change, 71 (1-2): 9-41 Iglesias, A; Garrote, L; Flores, F; et al. 2007. Challenges to manage the risk of water scarcity and climate change in the Mediterranean Water Resources Management, 21 (5): 775-788 Ivey, JL; Smithers, J; De Loe, RC; et al. 2004. Community capacity for adaptation to climate-induced water shortages: Linking institutional complexity and local actors, Environmental Management, 33 (1): 36-47 Jaeger CC, Renn O, Rose EA, Webler T (1998) Decision analysis and rational action. In: Rayner S, Malone EL (eds) Human choice and climate change, Vol 3, tools for policy analysis. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, p 141–216 Karl, H.A., Susskind, L.E., Wallace, K.H., 2007. A dialogue, not a diatribe: effective integration of science and policy through joint fact finding. Environment 49, 20– 34.

05a4607ee9980ecbfcede92b430bed9a.doc 12 07/05/2018 Kasperson, R.E., 2006: Rerouting the stakeholder express. Global Environ. Chang., 16, 320-322. Kasperson, RE 2005. Bridging vulnerability science and practice. Paper present at the Open Meetings of the International Human Dimensions Program, Bonn, Germany, October 2005. Kenny, G.J., Warrick, R.A., Campbell, B.D., Sims, G.C., Camilleri, M., Jamieson, P.D., Mitchell, N.D., McPherson, H.G. and Salinger, M.J. 2000. Investigating climate change impacts and thresholds: an application of the CLIMPACTS integrated assessment model for New Zealand agriculture, Climate Change, 46, 91–113. Klein, R.J.T., S. Huq, F. Denton, T.E. Downing, R.G. Richels, J.B. Robinson, F.L. Toth, 2007: Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 745-777. Kloprogge, P; Van Der Sluijs, JP 2006. The inclusion of stakeholder knowledge and perspectives in integrated assessment of climate change, Climatic Change, 75 (3): 359-389 Kok, K; Patel, M; Rothman, DS; et al. 2006. Multi-scale narratives from an IA perspective: Part II. Participatory local scenario development, Futures, 38 (3): 285-311 Lagos, P 2007. Peru's approach to climate change in the Andean mountain region: Achieving multidisciplinary regional cooperation for integrated assessment of climate change, Mountain Research and Development, 27 (1): 28-31. Ledoux, L; Cornell, S; O'Riordan, T; et al. 2005. Towards sustainable flood and coastal management: identifying drivers of, and obstacles to, managed realignment, Land Use Policy, 22 (2): 129-144 Lemos MC, Morehouse BJ. 2005. The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Global Environmental Change, 15: 57-68. Lenzen, M 2006. Uncertainty in impact and externality assessments - Implications for decision-making, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11 (3): 189- 199. Letcher, RA; Jakeman, AJ; Croke, BFW 2004. Model development for integrated assessment of water allocation options, Water Resources Research, 40 (5): Art. No. W05502. Marjolein, BAV; Rijkens-Klomp, N 2002. A look in the mirror: reflection on participation in Integrated Assessment from a methodological perspective, Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 12 (3): 167-184 McKenzie Hedger M., Connell R. and Bramwell P. 2006. Bridging the gap: empowering decision-making for adaptation through the UK Climate Impacts Programme. Climate Policy 6(2): 201–215 McNie, L., Elizabeth, C., 2007. Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands; an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environmental Science and Policy 10, 17–38. Metzger, MJ; Schroter, D 2006. Towards a spatially explicit and quantitative vulnerability assessment of environmental change in Europe, Regional Environmental Change, 6 (4): 201-216

05a4607ee9980ecbfcede92b430bed9a.doc 13 07/05/2018 Morgan, MG; Cantor, R; Clark, WC; et al. 2005. Learning from the US National Assessment of Climate Change impacts, Environmental Science & Technology, 39 (23): 9023-9032 Moser S. 2008a. Whether our levers are long enough and the fulcrum strong? Exploring the soft underbelly of adaptation decisions and actions. In, Living with Climate Change: Are there limits to adaptation? Royal Geographical Society, London 7- 8 February, 2008. pp 176-193. Moser SC. 2008b. A new charge: Engaging at the science-practice interface. IHDP Update (Newsletter of the Int. Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change). Under review. Nadarajah, C. and J.D. Rankin, 2005: European spatial planning: adapting to climate events. Weather, 60, 190-194. O’Brien K. 2008. Climate change and changing values in Norway: Are their limits to adaptation? In, Living with Climate Change: Are there limits to adaptation? Royal Geographical Society, London 7-8 February, 2008. pp 91-100. Osman-Elasha, B. Goutbi N., Spanger-Siegfried E., Dougherty B., Hanafi A., Zakieldeen S., Sanjak A., Atti H.A. and Elhassan H.M. 2006. Adaptation strategies to increase human resilience against climate variability and change: Lessons from the arid regions of Sudan. AIACC Working Paper No. 42, 41pp. http://www.aiaccproject.org/working_papers/working_papers.html (Accessed Dec 2007) Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof and Co-authors 2007: Technical Summary. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 23-78. Parson, EA; Corell, RW; Barron, EJ; et al. 2003. Understanding climatic impacts, vulnerabilities, and adaptation in the United States: Building a capacity for assessment, Climatic Change, 57 (1-2): 9-42 Patt, A; Klein, RJT; de la Vega-Leinert, A 2005. Taking the uncertainty in climate-change vulnerability assessment seriously, Comptes Rendus Geoscience, 337 (4): 411-424 Pretty, J.N., I. Guijt, J. Thompson and I. Scoones, 1995: Participatory Learning and Action: A Trainer’s Guide. IIED Training Materials Series No. 1. IIED, London, 268 pp. Purkey, DR; Huber-Lee, A; Yates, DN; et al. 2007. Integrating a climate change assessment tool into stakeholder-driven water management decision-making processes in California Water Resources Management, 21 (1): 315-329 Reid H and Huq S. 2007. Community-based adaptation. A vital approach to the treat climate changes poses to the poor, an IIED briefing. IIED, London. Reinert ES, Aslaksen I, Eira IMG, Mathiesen S, Reinert H, Turi EI. Adaptating to climate change in reindeer herding: The nation-state as problem and solution. In, Living with Climate Change: Are there limits to adaptation? Royal Geographical Society, London 7-8 February, 2008. pp 272-298. Rikkonen, P 2005. Scenarios for future agriculture in Finland: a Delphi study among agri- food sector stakeholders, Agricultural and Food Science, 14 (3): 205-223

05a4607ee9980ecbfcede92b430bed9a.doc 14 07/05/2018 Sauchyn, DJ; Joss, BN; Nyirfa, WN 2003. Sharing the geo-referenced results of climate change impact research, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 88 (1-3): 389-397 Scheraga, JD; Furlow, J 2001. From assessment to policy: Lessons learned from the US National Assessment, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 7 (5): 1227- 1246. Schneider, SH; Mastrandrea, MD 2005. Probabilistic assessment "dangerous" climate change and emissions pathways, Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences of The United States of America, 102 (44): 15728-15735 Senge P., J. Laur, S. Schley, and B. Smith. 2006. Learning for Sustainability. The Society for Organizational Learning. Cambridge, MA: Senge, P. 1990. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organisation. Doubleday, New York. Shackley, S., Bray, D. and Bleda, M., 2005. Developing discourse coalitions to incorporate stakeholder perceptions and responses within the Tyndall Integrated Assessment, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 19 Shackley, S; Deanwood, R 2003. Constructing social futures for climate-change impacts and response studies: building qualitative and quantitative scenarios with the participation of stakeholders, Climate Research, 24 (1): 71-90 Stokes, KE; O'Neill, KP; Montgomery, WI; et al. 2006. The importance of stakeholder engagement in invasive species management: A cross-jurisdictional perspective in Ireland, Biodiversity and Conservation, 15 (8): 2829-2852 Sutherland, J; Gouldby, B 2003. Vulnerability of coastal defences to climate change, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Water and Maritime Engineering, 156 (2): 137-145 Thomalla, F., T. Cannon, S. Huq, R.J.T. Klein and C. Schaerer, 2005:Mainstreaming adaptation to climate change in coastal Bangladesh by building civil society alliances. Proceedings of the Solutions to Coastal Disasters Conference, L.Wallendorf, L. Ewing, S. Rogers and C. Jones, Eds., Charleston, South Carolina, 8-11May 2005,American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, 668-684. Tol, RSJ; Bohn, M; Downing, TE; et al. 2006. Adaptation to five metres of sea level rise, Journal of Risk Research, 9 (5): 467-482 Valkering, P; Rotmans, J; Krywkow, J; et al. 2005. Simulating stakeholder support in a policy process: An application to river management, Simulation-Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International, 81 (10): 701-718 van Asselt, M.B.A. and J. Rotmans, 2002: Uncertainty in integrated assessment modelling: from positivism to pluralism. Climatic Change, 54, 75-105. van Asselt, M.B.A. and N. Rijkens-Klomp, 2002: A look in the mirror: reflection on participation in Integrated Assessment from a methodological perspective. Global Environ. Chang., 12, 167-184. van de Kerkhof, M 2006. Making a difference: On the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues, Policy Sciences, 39 (3): 279-299 van de Kerkhof, M; Wieczorek, A 2005. Learning and stakeholder participation in transition processes towards sustainability: Methodological considerations, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72 (6): 733-747

05a4607ee9980ecbfcede92b430bed9a.doc 15 07/05/2018 Vogel, C; Moser, SC; Kasperson, RE; et al. 2007 Linking vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience science to practice: Pathways, players, and partnerships Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 17 (3-4): 349-364 Welp, M., Battaglini, A. & Jaeger, C. 2007. Social relevance of vulnerability assessments: role of stakeholder dialogues in defining dangerous levels of climate. In: Anthony Patt, Richard Klein, & Anne de la Vega-Leinert (Eds.) 2007. Environmental Vulnerability Assessment for Policy and Decision-Making. Earthscan (in prep). Welp, M., Battaglini, A. and Jaeger, C.C. 2007. The Role of Stakeholder Dialogues in Defining Dangerous Climate Change: The Beijng Excercise. In: Anthony Patt, Dagmar Schröter, Anne de la Vega-Leindert & Richard Klein (Eds) 2007. Environmental VulnerabilityAssessment for Policy and Decision-Making. Earthscan (in preparation). Welp, M., de la Vega-Leinert, A, Stoll-Kleemann, S. and Fürstenau, C. 2006. Science- based stakeholder dialogues in climate change research. In: Stoll-Kleemann, S. & Welp, M. (Eds.) 2006. Stakeholder dialogues in natural resources management: Theory and practice. Springer, Berlin. Welp, M., de la Vega-Leinert, A., Stoll-Kleemann, S. and Jaeger, C. C. 2006. Science- based stakeholder dialogues: tools and theories. Global Environmental Change 16 (2): 170-181. Wilbanks, TJ 2005. Issues in developing a capacity for integrated analysis of mitigation and adaptation, Environmental Science & Policy, 8 (6): 541-547 2005 Ziervogel, G; Downing, TE 2004. Stakeholder networks: Improving seasonal climate forecasts, Climatic Change, 65 (1-2): 73-101

05a4607ee9980ecbfcede92b430bed9a.doc 16 07/05/2018