Exploring the science–policy interface on climate change: The role of the IPCC in informing local decision-making in the UK

Building on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) review of how to make its Assessment Reports (ARs) more accessible in the future, the research reported here assesses the extent to which the ARs are a useful tool through which scientific advice informs local decision-making on climate change in the United Kingdom. Results from interviews with local policy representatives and three workshops with UK academics, practitioners and local decision makers are presented. Drawing on these data, we outline three key recommendations made by participants on how the IPCC ARs can be better utilized as a form of scientific advice to inform local decision-making on climate change. First, to provide more succinct summaries of the reports paying close attention to the language, content, clarity, context and length of these summaries; second, to better target and frame the reports from a local perspective to maximize engagement with local stakeholders; and third, to work with local decision makers to better understand how scientific advice on climate change is being incorporated in local decision-making. By adopting these, the IPCC would facilitate local decision-making on climate change and provide a systematic review of how its reports are being used locally. We discuss implications of these recommendations and their relevance to the wider debate within and outside the IPCC as to the most effective way the IPCC can more effectively tailor its products to user needs without endangering the robustness of its scientific findings. This article is published as part of a collection on scientific advice to government

Climate Change and Local Public Health in the United States: Preparedness, Programs and Perceptions of Local Public Health Department Directors

While climate change is inherently a global problem, its public health impacts will be experienced most acutely at the local and regional level, with some jurisdictions likely to be more burdened than others. The public health infrastructure in the U.S. is organized largely as an interlocking set of public agencies at the federal, state and local level, with lead responsibility for each city or county often residing at the local level. To understand how directors of local public health departments view and are responding to climate change as a public health issue, we conducted a telephone survey with 133 randomly selected local health department directors, representing a 61% response rate. A majority of respondents perceived climate change to be a problem in their jurisdiction, a problem they viewed as likely to become more common or severe over the next 20 years. Only a small minority of respondents, however, had yet made climate change adaptation or prevention a top priority for their health department. This discrepancy between problem recognition and programmatic responses may be due, in part, to several factors: most respondents felt personnel in their health department–and other key stakeholders in their community–had a lack of knowledge about climate change; relatively few respondents felt their own health department, their state health department, or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had the necessary expertise to help them create an effective mitigation or adaptation plan for their jurisdiction; and most respondents felt that their health department needed additional funding, staff and staff training to respond effectively to climate change. These data make clear that climate change adaptation and prevention are not currently major activities at most health departments, and that most, if not all, local health departments will require assistance in making this transition. We conclude by making the case that, through their words and actions, local health departments and their staff can and should play a role in alerting members of their community about the prospect of public health impacts from climate change in their jurisdiction

The Green Infrastructure Transect: An Organizational Framework for Mainstreaming Adaptation Planning Policies

When considering the range of spatial planning actions that cities can take to adapt to climate change, many of them fall under the conceptual umbrella of green infrastructure (GI). GI has been defined as the spatial planning of landscape systems at multiple scales and within varying contexts to provide open space, safeguard natural systems, protect agricultural lands, and ensure ecological integrity for cultural, social, and ecosystem benefits (Benedict andMcMahon, Renew Resour J 20:12–17, 2002, Green infrastructure: linking landscape and communities. Island Press,Washington, DC, 2006; Ahern, Cities of the future. IWA Publishing, London, 2008). While the traditional definition of GI refers to areas of land that are least intervened by human action, in this expanded definition, we are deliberately including areas that are engineered to mimic natural processes and which provide cost-effective ecosystem services. Although climate adaptation is a fairly new policy goal for GI (Gill et al., Built Environ 33(1):115–133, 2007; CCAP, http://www.ccap.org/docs/resources/989/Green Infrastructure FINAL.pdf, 2011), three key characteristics qualify GI as a suitable tool for adaptation planning including multifunctionality (to match ecosystem benefits with adaptation needs), multi-scalar nature of the spatial elements, and a ‘no-regrets approach’. However, GI needs to be matched to the character of the urban environment and coordinated across jurisdictions and planning scales to become an effective adaptation policy. In this chapter, we present a policy framework, the green infrastructure transect, that can help planners and policymakers identify appropriate GI policies for different urban environments and describe how these policies can create a regional adaptation planning framework

Climbing the Adaptation Planning Ladder: Barriers and Enablers in Municipal Planning

Local municipal governments have a crucial role in helping communities adapt to climate change. Recognizing different levels of climate preparedness, this chapter analyzes what steps communities tend to follow when they move forward on climate adaptation, including prerequisites for planning and the selection of policies. Drawing on content analyses of local climate adaptation plans from the United States (US) and Australia, as well as interviews with municipal planners in both nations, the chapter explores the adaptation policy choices communities are making and explains the range of strategies local governments have used to move forward on a ‘ladder’ of climate adaptation, proceeding from awareness and constituency building activities through formal risk analyses and strategic planning for climate adaptation, through implementation through specific changes to land use planning and infrastructure investment. Factors found to support or hinder these efforts relate to political will, staff resources, technical information, and training in potential policy responses. Significant barriers include issues of property rights and sunk investment in vulnerable locations (particularly along the coast), as well as shifting community and political views about the reality of climate change. Overall, progress in municipal climate adaptation planning is patchy, and affected by wider policy frameworks and access to state or national level support. However, this chapter highlights opportunities for municipalities to move forward on climate adaption planning, despite local barriers to action