3 research outputs found
Framework for sustained climate assessment in the United States
Author Posting. © American Meteorological Society, 2019. This article is posted here by permission of American Meteorological Society for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 100(5), (2019): 897-908, doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-19-0130.1.As states, cities, tribes, and private interests cope with climate damages and seek to increase preparedness and resilience, they will need to navigate myriad choices and options available to them. Making these choices in ways that identify pathways for climate action that support their development objectives will require constructive public dialogue, community participation, and flexible and ongoing access to science- and experience-based knowledge. In 2016, a Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) was convened to recommend how to conduct a sustained National Climate Assessment (NCA) to increase the relevance and usability of assessments for informing action. The FAC was disbanded in 2017, but members and additional experts reconvened to complete the report that is presented here. A key recommendation is establishing a new nonfederal “climate assessment consortium” to increase the role of state/local/tribal government and civil society in assessments. The expanded process would 1) focus on applied problems faced by practitioners, 2) organize sustained partnerships for collaborative learning across similar projects and case studies to identify effective tested practices, and 3) assess and improve knowledge-based methods for project implementation. Specific recommendations include evaluating climate models and data using user-defined metrics; improving benefit–cost assessment and supporting decision-making under uncertainty; and accelerating application of tools and methods such as citizen science, artificial intelligence, indicators, and geospatial analysis. The recommendations are the result of broad consultation and present an ambitious agenda for federal agencies, state/local/tribal jurisdictions, universities and the research sector, professional associations, nongovernmental and community-based organizations, and private-sector firms.This report would not have been possible without the support and participation of numerous organizations and individuals. We thank New York State Governor Andrew M. Cuomo for announcing in his 2018 State of the State agenda that the IAC would be reconvened. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (Contract ID 123416), Columbia University’s Earth Institute, and the American Meteorological Society provided essential financial support and much more, including sage advice and moral support from John O’Leary, Shara Mohtadi, Steve Cohen, Alex Halliday, Peter deMenocal, Keith Seitter, Paul Higgins, and Bill Hooke. We thank the attendees of a workshop, generously funded by the Kresge Foundation in November of 2017, that laid a foundation for the idea to establish a civil-society-based assessment consortium. During the course of preparing the report, IAC members consulted with individuals too numerous to list here—state, local, and tribal officials; researchers; experts in nongovernmental and community-based organizations; and professionals in engineering, architecture, public health, adaptation, and other areas. We are so grateful for their time and expertise. We thank the members and staff of the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee to Advise the U.S. Global Change Research Program for providing individual comments on preliminary recommendations during several discussions in open sessions of their meetings. The following individuals provided detailed comments on an earlier version of this report, which greatly sharpened our thinking and recommendations: John Balbus, Tom Dietz, Phil Duffy, Baruch Fischhoff, Brenda Hoppe, Melissa Kenney, Linda Mearns, Claudia Nierenberg, Kathleen Segerson, Soroosh Sorooshian, Chris Weaver, and Brian Zuckerman. Mary Black provided insightful copy editing of several versions of the report. We also thank four anonymous reviewers for their effort and care in critiquing and improving the report. It is the dedication, thoughtful feedback, expertise, care, and commitment of all these people and more that not only made this report possible, but allow us all to continue to support smart and insightful actions in a changing climate. We are grateful as authors and as global citizens. Author contributions: RM, SA, KB, MB, AC, JD, PF, KJ, AJ, KK, JK, ML, JM, RP, TR, LS, JS, JW, and DZ were members of the IAC and shared in researching, discussing, drafting, and approving the report. BA, JF, AG, LJ, SJ, PK, RK, AM, RM, JN, WS, JS, PT, GY, and RZ contributed to specific sections of the report
Evaluating knowledge to support climate action: A framework for sustained assessment. report of an independent advisory committee on applied climate assessment.
Author Posting. © American Meteorological Society, 2019. This article is posted here by permission of American Meteorological Society for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Weather Climate and Society 11(3), (2019):465-487, doi: 10.1175/WCAS-D-18-0134.1.As states, cities, tribes, and private interests cope with climate damages and seek to increase preparedness and resilience, they will need to navigate myriad choices and options available to them. Making these choices in ways that identify pathways for climate action that support their development objectives will require constructive public dialogue, community participation, and flexible and ongoing access to science- and experience-based knowledge. In 2016, a Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) was convened to recommend how to conduct a sustained National Climate Assessment (NCA) to increase the relevance and usability of assessments for informing action. The FAC was disbanded in 2017, but members and additional experts reconvened to complete the report that is presented here. A key recommendation is establishing a new nonfederal “climate assessment consortium” to increase the role of state/local/tribal government and civil society in assessments. The expanded process would 1) focus on applied problems faced by practitioners, 2) organize sustained partnerships for collaborative learning across similar projects and case studies to identify effective tested practices, and 3) assess and improve knowledge-based methods for project implementation. Specific recommendations include evaluating climate models and data using user-defined metrics; improving benefit–cost assessment and supporting decision-making under uncertainty; and accelerating application of tools and methods such as citizen science, artificial intelligence, indicators, and geospatial analysis. The recommendations are the result of broad consultation and present an ambitious agenda for federal agencies, state/local/tribal jurisdictions, universities and the research sector, professional associations, nongovernmental and community-based organizations, and private-sector firms.This report would not have been possible without the support and participation of numerous organizations and individuals. We thank New York State Governor Andrew M. Cuomo for announcing in his 2018 State of the State agenda that the IAC would be reconvened. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (Contract ID 123416), Columbia University’s Earth Institute, and the American Meteorological Society provided essential financial support and much more, including sage advice and moral support from John O’Leary, Shara Mohtadi, Steve Cohen, Alex Halliday, Peter deMenocal, Keith Seitter, Paul Higgins, and Bill Hooke. We thank the attendees of a workshop, generously funded by the Kresge Foundation in November of 2017, that laid a foundation for the idea to establish a civil-society-based assessment consortium. During the course of preparing the report, IAC members consulted with individuals too numerous to list here—state, local, and tribal officials; researchers; experts in nongovernmental and community-based organizations; and professionals in engineering, architecture, public health, adaptation, and other areas. We are so grateful for their time and expertise. We thank the members and staff of the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee to Advise the U.S. Global Change Research Program for providing individual comments on preliminary recommendations during several discussions in open sessions of their meetings. The following individuals provided detailed comments on an earlier version of this report, which greatly sharpened our thinking and recommendations: John Balbus, Tom Dietz, Phil Duffy, Baruch Fischhoff, Brenda Hoppe, Melissa Kenney, Linda Mearns, Claudia Nierenberg, Kathleen Segerson, Soroosh Sorooshian, Chris Weaver, and Brian Zuckerman. Mary Black provided insightful copy editing of several versions of the report. We also thank four anonymous reviewers for their effort and care in critiquing and improving the report. It is the dedication, thoughtful feedback, expertise, care, and commitment of all these people and more that not only made this report possible, but allow us all to continue to support smart and insightful actions in a changing climate. We are grateful as authors and as global citizens. Author contributions: RM, SA, KB, MB, AC, JD, PF, KJ, AJ, KK, JK, ML, JM, RP, TR, LS, JS, JW, and DZ were members of the IAC and shared in researching, discussing, drafting, and approving the report. BA, JF, AG, LJ, SJ, PK, RK, AM, RM, JN, WS, JS, PT, GY, and RZ contributed to specific sections of the report.2020-05-2
Econometric Drivers of Forest Change in India
International
funding
institutions
acknowledge
that
curbing
deforestation
can
be
one
of
the
cheapest
methods
for
climate
change
mitigation.
To
be
as
cost
effective
as
possible,
international
institutions
need
ways
to
identify
areas
with
high
rates
of
deforestation
and
with
a
proven
record
for
using
funds
effectively.
Using
global,
open-¿
source
satellite
data
on
forest
change,
donors
can
now
track
deforestation
alerts
on
a
monthly
basis
and
analyze
annual
trends
in
forest
loss.
Besides
Indonesia
and
Brazil,
however,
there
has
been
little
research
that
uses
satellite
data
to
investigate
national
drivers
of
forest
change.
In
this
thesis,
I
investigate
forest
change
in
India.
A
country
with
increasing
international
clout
and
greenhouse
gas
impacts,
India
is
seen
as
a
success
story
for
community
forestry.
Government
sources
attribute
increasing
forest
cover
to
the
devolution
of
power
from
state
to
community
hands;
independently
collected
sources
disagree,
finding
that
India¿s
forests
are
decreasing.
I
compared
government-¿collected
data
with
independently-¿sourced
data
from
Hansen
et
al.
(Chapter
2).
The
two
datasets
agree
on
which
states
have
the
most
and
least
forest
cover,
but
disagree
on
the
scale
of
forest
cover
in
each
state.
Hansen
et
al.
find
that
total
forest
has
decreased
since
2002,
while
government
data
assert
forest
cover
has
risen.
Both
datasets
agree
that
India¿s
densest
forests
have
experienced
degradation
from
2002-¿2011.
In
Chapter
3,
I
constructed
four
econometric
models
to
tease
apart
the
drivers
of
forest
change.
I
found
forests
that
were
not
legally
protected
suffered
from
more
forest
loss
as
did
states
with
higher
forest
revenues
per
hectare
of
forest
and
lower
levels
of
expenditures
per
hectare
of
forest.
Agriculture
and
livestock
pressures
were
not
as
significant
as
expected,
though
they
did
show
more
significance
over
longer
timescales.
Chapter
4
looked
at
India¿s
northeastern
region,
which
experiences
2/3rds
of
the
nation¿s
forest
loss
by
hectare
though
it
covers
just
8%
of
its
land
area.
I
found
that
the
northeast¿s
physical
isolation
has
protected
its
forest
resources.
Tribes
govern
the
region
and
communities
manage
the
majority
of
forest
resources,
decreasing
the
effectiveness
of
central-¿led
forestry
policy.
India
has
poured
money
into
the
northeast
to
stimulate
economic
development
without
success,
leaving
local
communities
with
few
options
but
to
extract
forest
resources
for
survival.
Finally,
I
offer
several
recommendations
to
national
policymakers
in
India,
to
northeastern
policymakers
and
to
international
actors.
In
brief,
the
country
would
benefit
from
a
better
understanding
of
its
forest
resources,
including
demarcated
maps
showing
forest
ownership
and
complete
data
on
non-¿timber
forest
product
(NTFP)
extraction.
The
northeast
should
increase
community
empowerment,
legally
protect
more
land
and
increase
the
sustainability
of
traditional
livelihoods.
International
actors
could
better
leverage
open-¿source
satellite
data
to
identify
deforestation
hotpots,
verify
country
reports,
prioritize
funding
and
build
technical
capacity
in
countries