New York City Panel on Climate Change 2019 Report Chapter 8: Indicators and Monitoring

The Indicators and Monitoring chapter of the first New York City Panel on Climate Change Report began with the paradigm: What cannot be measured cannot be managed (Rosenzweig et al., 2010). This statement is as valid today as it was then.The NPCC1 (2010) Indicators and Monitoring chapter addressed the need for assembling a suite of indicators to monitor climate change and adaptation in order to inform climate change decision making. It outlined criteria for selection of indicators (policy relevance, analytic soundness, measurability), defined categories of indicators (physical climate change; risk exposure, vulnerability, and impacts; adaptation; new research), and provided examples of specific indicators. Table 8.1 is a summary table of indicator development contribution from the NPCC1 I&M chapter (Jacob et al., 2011). The chapter explored the institutional requirements for indicator data availability, continuity, archiving, and public accessibility

Assessment of Urban Flood Vulnerability Using theSocial-Ecological-Technological Systems Framework in Six US cities

As urban populations continue to grow through the 21 st century, more people are projected to be at risk of exposure to climate change-induced extreme events. To investigate the complexity of urban floods, this study applied an interlinked social-ecological-technological systems (SETS) vulnerability framework by developing an urban flood vulnerability index for six US cities. Indicators were selected to reflect and illustrate exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity to flooding for each of the three domains of SETS. We quantified 18 indicators and normalized them by the cities’ 500-yr floodplain area at the census block group level. Clusters of flood vulnerable areas were identified differently by each SETS domain, and some areas were vulnerable to floods in more than one domain. Results are provided to support decision-making for reducing risks to flooding, by considering social, ecological, and technological vulnerability as well as hotspots where multiple sources of vulnerability coexist. The spatially explicit urban SETS flood vulnerability framework can be transferred to other regions facing challenging urban floods and other types of environmental hazards. Mapping SETS flood vulnerability helps to reveal intersections of complex SETS interactions and inform policy-making for building more resilient cities in the face of extreme events and climate change impacts

Risk and promotive effects in the explanation of persistent serious delinquency in boys

Risk and promotive effects were investigated as predictors of persistent serious delinquency in male participants of the Pittsburgh Youth Study (R. Loeber, D. P. Farrington, M. Stouthamer-Loeber, & W. B. van Kammen, 1998), living in different neighborhoods. Participants were studied over ages 13–19 years for the oldest sample and 7–13 years for the youngest sample. Risk and promotive effects were studied in 6 domains: child behavior, child attitudes, school and leisure activities, peer behaviors, family functioning, and demographics. Regression models improved when promotive effects were included with risk effects in predicting persistent serious delinquency. Disadvantaged neighborhoods, compared with better neighborhoods, had a higher prevalence of risk effects and a lower prevalence of promotive effects. However, predictive relations between risk and promotive effects and persistent serious delinquency were linear and similar across neighborhood socioeconomic status. Although advances have been made in the study of predictors of serious delinquency (Hawkins et al., 1998; Lipsey & Derzon, 1998), little is known about predictors of persistent serious offend-ing, which from a societal point of view is of particular concern. Most youth commit some delinquent acts in childhood or adoles

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

Issues of Classification in Environmental Equity: How We Manage is How We Measure

This Article addresses how concepts of race and ethnicity have been operationalized as a basis for defining and locating subpopulations (either explicitly or implicitly) for the purpose of analyzing environmental equity issues, and recommends some future directions. Part II focuses on how subpopulations are currently defined and on some problems encountered to date. The implications of these inconsistencies on the accuracy of health and environmental risk measures for a given subpopulation are addressed. Part III focuses on how spatial areas have been defined to aggregate these subpopulations within confined geographic boundaries