1932

Abstract

Climate change decision-making has emerged in recent decades as an area of research and practice, expanding on an earlier focus on climate policy. Defined as the study of decisions relevant for climate change, it draws on developments in decision science, particularly advances in the study of cognitive and deliberative processes in individuals and organizations. The effects of climate, economic, social, and other framings on decision-making have been studied, often showing that nonclimate frames can be as effective as, or more effective than, climate frames in promoting decision-making and action. The concept of urgency, linked to the ideas of climate crisis and climate emergency, has taken on importance in recent years. Research on climate decision-making has influenced numerous areas of climate action, including nudges and other behavioral interventions, corporate social responsibility, and Indigenous decision-making. Areas of transformational change, such as strategic retreat in the face of sea-level rise, are emerging.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-085130
2020-10-17
2024-04-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/energy/45/1/annurev-environ-012320-085130.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-085130&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    Morgan MG, Dowlatabadi H. 1996. Learning from integrated assessment of climate change. Clim. Change 34:3–4337–68
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. 
    Simon HA. 1955. A behavioral model of rational choice. Q. J. Econ. 69:199–118
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3. 
    Simon HA. 1982. Models of Bounded Rationality Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  4. 4. 
    Simon HA. 1947. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization New York: MacMillan
  5. 5. 
    Selznick P. 1948. Foundations of the theory of organization. Am. Sociol. Rev. 13:125–35
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. 
    Selznick P. 1949. TVA and the Grass Roots: A Study in the Sociology of Formal Organization Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  7. 7. 
    Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness New Haven: Yale Univ. Press
  8. 8. 
    Kahneman D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux
  9. 9. 
    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); 2006. OECD Economics Glossary: English-French Paris: OECD Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. 
    Lemos MC, Agrawal A. 2006. Environmental governance. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 31:297–325
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11. 
    Waring SP. 2016. Taylorism Transformed: Scientific Management Theory Since 1945 Chapel Hill, NC: Univ. North Carolina Press
  12. 12. 
    Morris PWG. 2011. A brief history of project management. The Oxford Handbook of Project Management PWG Morris, JK Pinto, J Söderlund 15–36 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13. 
    Barondeau R, Hobbs B. 2019. A pragmatic sociological examination of projectification. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 12:2282–97
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14. 
    Hwang H, Powell WW. 2009. The rationalization of charity: the influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Adm. Sci. Q. 54.22009:268–98
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15. 
    Radin BA. 1998. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA): Hydra-headed monster or flexible management tool. Public Adm. Rev. 58:4307–16
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16. 
    Paoli G, Bass B. 1997. Climate change and variability, uncertainty and decision making. J. Environ. Manag. 49:11–6
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17. 
    Ürge-Vorsatz D, Tirado-Herrero S, Dubash NK, Lecocq F 2014. Measuring the co-benefits of climate change mitigation. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39:549–82
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18. 
    Sathaye J, Najam A, Cocklin C, Heller T, Lecocq F et al. 2007. Sustainable development and mitigation. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change B Metz, OR Davidson, PR Bosch, R Dave, LA Meyer 691–743 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19. 
    Sloman SA. 1996. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psych. Bull. 119:13–22
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20. 
    Morewedge CK, Kahneman D. 2010. Associative processes in intuitive judgment. Trends Cogn. Sci. 14:10435–40
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21. 
    Melnikoff DA, Bargh JA. 2018. The mythical number two. Trends Cogn. Sci. 22:4280–93
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22. 
    Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W. 2011. Heuristic decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 62:451–82
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23. 
    Workman S, Jones BD, Jochim AE 2009. Information processing and policy dynamics. Policy Stud. J. 37:175–92
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24. 
    Shannon B, McGee Z, Jones B 2019. Bounded rationality and cognitive limits in political decision making. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics WR Thompson, R Dalton, F Laursen, K Lippert-Rasmussen, BG Peters, K Rasler, L Tiede. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.961
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  25. 25. 
    Robb R. 2019. Willful: How We Choose What We Do New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  26. 26. 
    Orlove B, Taddei R, Podesta G, Broad K 2011. ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZENSHIP IN LATIN AMERICA: Climate, Intermediate Organizations, and Political Subjects. Lat. Am. Res. Rev. 46:SI115–40
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. 
    Fujii S, Kitamura R. 2003. What does a one-month free bus ticket do to habitual drivers. Transportation 30:181–95
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. 
    Chapman DA, Lickel B. 2016. Climate change and disasters: how framing affects justifications for giving or withholding aid to disaster victims. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 7:113–20
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. 
    Hall JW, Lempert RJ, Keller K, Hackbarth A, Mijere C, McInerney DJ 2012. Robust climate policies under uncertainty: a comparison of robust decision making and info-gap methods. Risk Anal. Int. J. 32:101657–72
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. 
    Weaver CP, Lempert RJ, Brown C, Hall JA, Revell D, Sarewitz D 2013. Improving the contribution of climate model information to decision making: the value and demands of robust decision frameworks. WIREs Clim. Change 4:139–60
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31. 
    Hanger S, Pfenninger S, Dreyfus M, Patt A 2013. Knowledge and information needs of adaptation policy-makers: a European study. Reg. Environ. Change 13:191–101
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32. 
    von Detten R, Faber F 2013. Organizational decision-making by German state-owned forest companies concerning climate change adaptation measures. For. Policy Econ. 35:57–65
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33. 
    van Valkengoed AM, Steg L 2019. Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour. Nat. Clim. Change 9:158–63
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34. 
    Chapman DA, Lickel B, Markowitz EM 2017. Reassessing emotion in climate change communication. Nat. Clim. Change 7:850–52
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35. 
    Schneider C, Zaval L, Weber EU, Markowitz EM 2017. The influence of anticipated pride and guilt on pro-environmental decision making. PLOS ONE 12:11e0188781
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. 
    Fulmer AC, Gelfand MJ. 2012. At what level (and in whom) we trust: trust across multiple organizational levels. J. Manag. 38:41167–230
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. 
    Lacey J, Howden M, Cvitanovic C, Colvin RM 2018. Understanding and managing trust at the climate science-policy interface. Nat. Clim. Change 8:22–28
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. 
    Delmas MA, Fischlein M, Asensio OI 2013. Information strategies and energy conservation behavior: a meta-analysis of experimental studies from 1975 to 2012. Energy Policy 61:729–39
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. 
    Bauner C, Crago CL. 2015. Adoption of residential solar power under uncertainty: implications for renewable energy incentives. Energy Policy 86:27–35
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40. 
    Markowitz E, Shariff A. 2012. Climate change and moral judgement. Nat. Clim. Change 2:243–47
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41. 
    Wilson RS, Hardisty DJ, Epanchin‐Niell RS, Runge MC, Cottingham KL et al. 2016. A typology of time‐scale mismatches and behavioral interventions to diagnose and solve conservation problems. Conserv. Biol. 30:142–49
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42. 
    Hurlstone M, Price A, Wang S, Leviston Z, Walker I 2020. Activating the legacy motive mitigates intergenerational discounting in the climate game. Glob. Environ. Change 60:102008
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43. 
    Howe PD, Marlon JR, Wang X, Leiserowitz A 2019. Public perceptions of the health risks of extreme heat across US states, counties, and neighborhoods. PNAS 116:146743–48
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44. 
    Song K, Qu S, Taiebat M, Liang S, Xu M 2019. Scale, distribution and variations of global greenhouse gas emissions driven by U.S. households. Environ. Int. 133:Part A105137
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45. 
    Gould K, Pellow D, Schnaiberg A 2004. Interrogating the treadmill of production: everything you wanted to know about the treadmill but were afraid to ask. Organ. Environ. 17:3296–316
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46. 
    Ebeling F, Lotz S. 2015. Domestic uptake of green energy promoted by opt-out tariffs. Nat. Clim. Change 5:868–71
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47. 
    Truelove HB, Carrico AR, Weber EU, Raimi KT, Vandenbergh MP 2014. Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: an integrative review and theoretical framework. Glob. Environ. Change 29:127–38
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48. 
    Maki A, Carrico AR, Raimi KT et al. 2019. Meta-analysis of pro-environmental behaviour spillover. Nat. Sustain. 2:307–15
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49. 
    Hargreaves T. 2011. Practice-ing behaviour change: applying social practice theory to pro-environmental behaviour change. J. Consum. Cult. 11:179–99
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50. 
    Bollinger B, Gillingham K. 2012. Peer effects in the diffusion of solar photovoltaic panels. Mark. Sci. 31:6873–1025
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51. 
    Sweetman J, Whitmarsh LE. 2016. Climate justice: high-status ingroup social models increase pro-environmental action through making actions seem more moral topics. Cogn. Sci. 8:1196–221
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52. 
    Wise RM, Fazey I, Stafford Smith M, Park SE, Eakin HC et al. 2014. Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response. Glob. Environ. Change 28:325–36
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53. 
    Denton F, Wilbanks TJ, Abeysinghe AC, Burton I, Gao Q et al. 2014. Climate-resilient pathways: adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change CB Field, VR Barros, DJ Dokken, KJ Mach, MD Mastrandrea et al.1101–31 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54. 
    Gersonius B, Ashley R, Pathirana A, Zevenbergen C 2013. Climate change uncertainty: building flexibility into water and flood risk infrastructure. Clim. Change 116:2411–23
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55. 
    Thompson A, Robbins P, Sohngen B, Arvai J, Koontz T 2006. Economy, politics and institutions: from adaptation to adaptive management in climate change. Clim. Change 78:11–5
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56. 
    Yousefpour R, Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ, Meilby H, Hanewinkel M, Oehler K 2012. A review of decision-making approaches to handle uncertainty and risk in adaptive forest management under climate change. Ann. For. Sci. 69:11–15
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57. 
    Liu Y, Gupta H, Springer E, Wagener T 2008. Linking science with environmental decision making: experiences from an integrated modeling approach to supporting sustainable water resources management. Environ. Model. Softw. 23:7846–58
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58. 
    Lempert RJ, Groves DG. 2010. Identifying and evaluating robust adaptive policy responses to climate change for water management agencies in the American West. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 77:6960–74
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59. 
    O'Reilly J, Isenhour C, McElwee P, Orlove B 2020. Climate change: expanding anthropological possibilities. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 49:1329
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60. 
    Nisbet MC. 2009. Communicating climate change: why frames matter for public engagement. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 51:212–23
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 61. 
    Fløttum K, Gjerstad Ø 2017. Narratives in climate change discourse. WIREs Clim. Change 8:1e429
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62. 
    van Hulst M, Yanow D 2016. From policy “frames” to “framing”: theorizing a more dynamic, political approach. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 46:192–112
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 63. 
    Tversky A, Kahneman D. 1986. Rational choice and the framing of decisions. J. Bus. 59:4S251–78
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 64. 
    van der Linden S, Maibach E, Leiserowitz A 2015. Improving public engagement with climate change: five “best practice” insights from psychological science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10:6758–63
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 65. 
    Dewulf A. 2013. Contrasting frames in policy debates on climate change adaptation. WIREs Clim. Change 4:4321–30
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66. 
    Dew N, Aten K, Ferrer G 2017. How many admirals does it take to change a light bulb? Organizational innovation, energy efficiency, and the United States Navy's battle over LED lighting. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 27:57–67
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67. 
    Wright C, Nyberg D. 2017. An inconvenient truth: how organizations translate climate change into business as usual. Acad. Manag. J. 60:51633–61
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 68. 
    York JG, Hargrave TJ, Pacheco DF 2016. Converging winds: logic hybridization in the Colorado wind energy field. Acad. Manag. J. 59:2579–610
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 69. 
    Benford RD, Snow DA. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 26:611–39
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70. 
    McCright AM, Dunlap RE. 2000. Challenging global warming as a social problem: an analysis of the conservative movement's counter-claims. Soc. Probl. 47:4499–522
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 71. 
    McCright AM, Dunlap RE. 2003. Defeating Kyoto: the conservative movement's impact on US climate change policy. Soc. Probl. 50:3348–73
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 72. 
    Boykoff MT. 2007. From convergence to contention: United States mass media representations of anthropogenic climate change science. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 32:4477–89
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73. 
    Whitmarsh L. 2011. Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: dimensions, determinants and change over time. Glob. Environ. Change 21:2690–700
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 74. 
    Marisa Dispensa J, Brulle RJ 2003. Media's social construction of environmental issues: focus on global warming—a comparative study. Int. J. Sociol. Soc. Policy 23:1074–105
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 75. 
    McCright AM, Charters M, Dentzman K, Dietz T 2016. Examining the effectiveness of climate change frames in the face of a climate change denial counter-frame. Top. Cogn. Sci. 8:176–97
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 76. 
    Maibach EW, Nisbet M, Baldwin P, Akerlof K, Diao G 2010. Reframing climate change as a public health issue: an exploratory study of public reactions. BMC Public Health 10:1299
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 77. 
    Myers TA, Nisbet MC, Maibach EW, Leiserowitz AA 2012. A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Clim. Change 113:3–41105–12
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 78. 
    Dalby S. 2015. Climate change and the insecurity frame. Reframing Climate Change S O'Lear, S Dalby 99–115 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 79. 
    Hsiang S, Kopp R, Jina A, Rising J, Delgado M et al. 2017. Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States. Science 356:63451362–69
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 80. 
    Kester J, Sovacool BK. 2017. Torn between war and peace: critiquing the use of war to mobilize peaceful climate action. Energy Policy 104:50–55
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 81. 
    Fuller S, McCauley D. 2016. Framing energy justice: perspectives from activism and advocacy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 11:1–8
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 82. 
    Hurlstone MJ, Lewandowsky S, Newell BR, Sewell B 2014. The effect of framing and normative messages in building support for climate policies. PLOS ONE 9:12e114335
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 83. 
    Feldman L, Hart PS. 2018. Climate change as a polarizing cue: framing effects on public support for low-carbon energy policies. Glob. Environ. Change 51:54–66
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 84. 
    Orlove B, Milch K, Zaval L, Ungemach C, Brugger J et al. 2019. Framing climate change in frontline communities: anthropological insights on how mountain dwellers in the USA, Peru, and Italy adapt to glacier retreat. Reg. Environ. Change 19:51295–309
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 85. 
    Spence A, Pidgeon N. 2010. Framing and communicating climate change: the effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Glob. Environ. Change 20:4656–67
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 86. 
    Shwom R, Kopp RE. 2019. Long-term risk governance: When do societies act before crisis. J. Risk Res. 29:1374–1390
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 87. 
    Marx SM, Weber EU, Orlove BS, Leiserowitz A, Krantz DH et al. 2007. Communication and mental processes: experiential and analytic processing of uncertain climate information. Glob. Environ. Change 17:147–58
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 88. 
    Hulme M Is it too late (to stop dangerous climate change)? An editorial. WIREs Clim. Change 11:e619
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 89. 
    Farrell J. 2016. Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change. PNAS 113:192–97
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 90. 
    Bocquillon P. 2018. (De-)Constructing coherence? Strategic entrepreneurs, policy frames and the integration of climate and energy policies in the European Union. Environ. Policy Gov. 28:5339–49
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 91. 
    Jones RN, Patwardhan A, Cohen SJ, Dessai S, Lammel A et al. 2014. Foundations for decision making. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change CB Field, VR Barros, DJ Dokken, KJ Mach, MD Mastrandrea et al.195–228 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 92. 
    Steel P, König CJ. 2006. Integrating theories of motivation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31:4889–913
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 93. 
    Janis IL. 1982. Groupthink Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascos Boston: Houghton Mifflin
  94. 94. 
    Janis IL. 1989. Crucial Decisions: Leadership in Policymaking and Crisis Management New York: Simon & Schuster
  95. 95. 
    Bronner R. 1982. Decision Making Under Time Pressure: An Experimental Study of Stress Behavior in Business Management Lexington, MA: Lexington Books
  96. 96. 
    Holsti OR, George AL. 1975. The effects of stress on the performance of foreign policy-makers. Political Sci. Annu. 6:3255
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 97. 
    Rastegary H, Landy FJ. 1993. The interactions among time urgency, uncertainty, and time pressure. Time Pressure and Stress in Human Judgment and Decision Making O Svenson, AJ Maule 217–39 Boston: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 98. 
    Wilson AJ, Orlove B. 2019. What do we mean when we say climate change is urgent? Work. Pap. 1, Cent. Res. Environ. Dec., Acad. Commons, Columbia Univ New York: https://doi.org/10.7916/d8-b7cd-4136
    [Crossref]
  99. 99. 
    Paglia E. 2018. The socio-scientific construction of global climate crisis. Geopolitics 23:196–123
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 100. 
    The Climate Reality Project 2019. Communicating the urgency of the climate crisis. The Climate Reality Project May 15. https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/communicating-urgency-climate-crisis
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 101. 
    Herring SC, Hoell A, Hoerling MP, Kossin JP, Schreck CJ, Stott PA 2016. Introduction to explaining extreme events of 2015 from a climate perspective. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 97:12S1–3
    [Google Scholar]
  102. 102. 
    Krupp F, Keohane N, Pooley E 2019. Less than zero: Can carbon-removal technologies curb climate change. Foreign Aff 98:2142–52
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 103. 
    Smock CD. 1955. The influence of psychological stress on the “intolerance of ambiguity. .” J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 50:2177–82
    [Google Scholar]
  104. 104. 
    Price VA. 1982. Type A behavior pattern: a model for research and practice New York: Academic
  105. 105. 
    MacCrimmon KR, Taylor RN. 1976. Decision making and problem solving. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology MD Dunnette 1397–463 Chicago: Rand McNally
    [Google Scholar]
  106. 106. 
    Laurmann JA. 1986. Scientific uncertainty and decision making: the case of greenhouse gases and global climate change. Sci. Total Environ. 55:177–86
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 107. 
    The World Bank 2012. Inclusive Green Growth: The Pathway to Sustainable Development Washington, DC: The World Bank
  108. 108. 
    Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, Barnard P, Moomaw WR 2020. World scientists’ warning of a climate emergency. BioScience 70:8–12
    [Google Scholar]
  109. 109. 
    McSweeney K, Coomes OT. 2011. Climate-related disaster opens a window of opportunity for rural poor in northeastern Honduras. PNAS 108:135203–8
    [Google Scholar]
  110. 110. 
    Howden SM, Soussana J, Tubiello FN, Chhetri N, Dunlop M, Meinke H 2007. Adapting agriculture to climate change. PNAS 104:5019691–96
    [Google Scholar]
  111. 111. 
    Stern NH. 2015. Why Are We Waiting? The Logic, Urgency, and Promise of Tackling Climate Change Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  112. 112. 
    Boran I, Heath J. 2016. Attributing weather extremes to climate change and the future of adaptation. Policy Ethics, Policy Environ 19:3239–55
    [Google Scholar]
  113. 113. 
    Salamon MK. 2019. Leading the public into emergency mode: introducing the climate emergency movement. Noteworthy: The Climate Blog May 24. https://blog.usejournal.com/leading-the-public-into-emergency-mode-b96740475b8f
    [Google Scholar]
  114. 114. 
    Dubash NK. 2019. Revisiting climate ambition: the case for prioritizing current action over future intent. WIREs Clim. Change 11:1e622
    [Google Scholar]
  115. 115. 
    van Slobbe E, Werners SE, Riquelme-Solar M, Bölscher T, van Vliet MTH 2016. The future of the Rhine: Stranded ships and no more salmon. Reg. Environ. Change 16:131–41
    [Google Scholar]
  116. 116. 
    Archie KM, Chapman R, Flood S 2018. Climate change response in New Zealand communities: local scale adaptation and mitigation planning. Environ. Dev. 29:19–31
    [Google Scholar]
  117. 117. 
    Rooney-Varga JN, Sterman JD, Fracassi E, Franck T, Kapmeier F et al. 2018. Combining role-play with interactive simulation to motivate informed climate action: evidence from the World Climate simulation. PLOS ONE 13:8e0202877
    [Google Scholar]
  118. 118. 
    Rinscheid A, Pianta S, Weber EU 2019. Fast track or Slo-Mo? Public support and temporal preferences for phasing out fossil fuel cars in the United States. Clim. Policy 20:30–45
    [Google Scholar]
  119. 119. 
    Rinscheid A, Wuestenhagen R. 2019. Germany's decision to phase out coal by 2038 lags behind citizens’ timing preferences. Nat. Energy 4:10856–63
    [Google Scholar]
  120. 120. 
    Franco GD, Cayan A, Luers M, Hanemann M, Croes B 2012. Linking climate change science with policy in California. Integrating Science and Policy: Vulnerability and Resilience in Global Environmental Change RE Kasperson, M Berbarian 151–68 Abingdon, UK: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  121. 121. 
    Huntjens P, Pahl-Wostl C, Rihoux B, Schlüter M, Flachner Z et al. 2011. Adaptive water management and policy learning in a changing climate: a formal comparative analysis of eight water management regimes in Europe, Africa and Asia. Environ. Policy Gov. 21:3145–63
    [Google Scholar]
  122. 122. 
    Kirchhoff CJ, Lemos MC, Engle NL 2013. What influences climate information use in water management? The role of boundary organizations and governance regimes in Brazil and the U.S. Environ. Sci. Policy 26:6–18
    [Google Scholar]
  123. 123. 
    Rayner S, Lach D, Ingram H 2005. Weather forecasts are for wimps: why water resource managers do not use climate forecasts. Clim. Change 69:2197–227
    [Google Scholar]
  124. 124. 
    Blades JJ, Klos PZ, Kemp KB, Hall TE, Force JE et al. 2016. Forest managers’ response to climate change science: evaluating the constructs of boundary objects and organizations. For. Ecol. Manag. 360:376–87
    [Google Scholar]
  125. 125. 
    Kemp KB, Blades JJ, Zion Klos P, Hall TE, Force JE et al. 2015. Managing for climate change on federal lands of the western United States: perceived usefulness of climate science, effectiveness of adaptation strategies, and barriers to implementation. Ecol. Soc. 20:217
    [Google Scholar]
  126. 126. 
    Mase AS, Prokopy LS. 2014. Unrealized potential: a review of perceptions and use of weather and climate information in agricultural decision making. Weather Clim. Soc. 6:147–61
    [Google Scholar]
  127. 127. 
    Bassen A, Gödker K, Lüdeke-Freund F, Oll J 2019. Climate information in retail investors’ decision-making: evidence from a choice experiment. Organ. Environ. 32:162–82
    [Google Scholar]
  128. 128. 
    Rickards L, Wiseman J, Kashima Y 2014. Barriers to effective climate change mitigation: the case of senior government and business decision makers. WIREs Clim. Change 5:6753–73
    [Google Scholar]
  129. 129. 
    Surminski S. 2013. Private-sector adaptation to climate risk. Nat. Clim. Change 3:943–45
    [Google Scholar]
  130. 130. 
    Grothmann T, Patt A. 2005. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change. Glob. Environ. Change 15:3199–213
    [Google Scholar]
  131. 131. 
    Lemos MC, Eakin H, Dilling L, Worl J 2019. Social sciences, weather, and climate change. Meteorol. Monogr. 59:26–31
    [Google Scholar]
  132. 132. 
    Kirchhoff CJ, Carmen Lemos M, Dessai S 2013. Actionable knowledge for environmental decision making: broadening the usability of climate science. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 38:1393–414
    [Google Scholar]
  133. 133. 
    Zavalloni C, Andresen JA, Winkler JA, Flore JA, Black JR et al. 2006. The Pileus Project: climatic impacts on sour cherry production in the Great Lakes Region in past and projected future time frames. Acta Hortic 707:101–8
    [Google Scholar]
  134. 134. 
    Winkler JA, Thornsbury S, Artavia M, Chmielewski FM, Kirschke D et al. 2010. A conceptual framework for multi-regional climate change assessments for international market systems with long-term investments. Clim. Change 103:3–4445–70
    [Google Scholar]
  135. 135. 
    Morss RE, Demuth JL, Lazo JK, Dickinson K, Lazrus H, Morrow BH 2016. Understanding public hurricane evacuation decisions and responses to forecast and warning messages. Weather Forecast 31:2395–417
    [Google Scholar]
  136. 136. 
    Thompson RR, Garfin DR, Silver RC 2017. Evacuation from natural disasters: a systematic review of the literature. Risk Anal 37:4812–39
    [Google Scholar]
  137. 137. 
    Hamilton LC, Lemcke-Stampone M, Grimm C 2018. Cold winters warming? Perceptions of climate change in the North Country. Weather Clim. Soc. 10:4641–52
    [Google Scholar]
  138. 138. 
    Whitmarsh L. 2008. Are flood victims more concerned about climate change than other people? The role of direct experience in risk perception and behavioural response. J. Risk Res. 11:3351–74
    [Google Scholar]
  139. 139. 
    Zanocco C, Boudet H, Nilson R, Satein H, Whitley H, Flora J 2018. Place, proximity, and perceived harm: extreme weather events and views about climate change. Clim. Change 149:3–4349–65
    [Google Scholar]
  140. 140. 
    Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N et al. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100:148086–91
    [Google Scholar]
  141. 141. 
    Bremer S, Meisch S. 2017. Co-production in climate change research: reviewing different perspectives. WIREs Clim. Change 8:6e482
    [Google Scholar]
  142. 142. 
    Clark WC, van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L, Gallopin GC 2016. Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. PNAS 113:174570–78
    [Google Scholar]
  143. 143. 
    Lemos MC, Morehouse BJ. 2005. The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Glob. Environ. Change 15:157–68
    [Google Scholar]
  144. 144. 
    Vincent K, Daly M, Scannell C, Leathes B 2018. What can climate services learn from theory and practice of co-production. Clim. Serv. 12:48–58
    [Google Scholar]
  145. 145. 
    Hoppe R, Wesselink A. 2014. Comparing the role of boundary organizations in the governance of climate change in three EU member states. Environ. Sci. Policy 44:73–85
    [Google Scholar]
  146. 146. 
    Hoppe R, Wesselink A, Cairns R 2013. Lost in the problem: the role of boundary organisations in the governance of climate change. WIREs Clim. Change 4:4283–300
    [Google Scholar]
  147. 147. 
    Lemos MC, Kirchhoff CJ, Kalafatis SE, Scavia D, Rood RB 2014. Moving climate information off the shelf: boundary chains and the role of RISAs as adaptive organizations. Weather Clim. Soc. 6:2273–85
    [Google Scholar]
  148. 148. 
    Miller C. 2001. Hybrid management: boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 26:4478–500
    [Google Scholar]
  149. 149. 
    Guston DH. 2001. Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  150. 150. 
    Hewitt CD, Stone RC, Tait AB 2017. Improving the use of climate information in decision-making. Nat. Clim. Change 7:614–16
    [Google Scholar]
  151. 151. 
    McNie EC. 2012. Delivering climate services: organizational strategies and approaches for producing useful climate-science information. Weather Clim. Soc. 5:114–26
    [Google Scholar]
  152. 152. 
    Bundy A. 2017. Preparing for the future of Artificial Intelligence. AI & Soc 32:2285–87
    [Google Scholar]
  153. 153. 
    Stone P, Brooks R, Brynjolfsson E, Calo R, Etzioni O et al. 2016. Artificial Intelligence and Life in 2030. One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: Report of the 20152016 Study Panel Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  154. 154. 
    Sperotto A, Molina JL, Torresan S, Critto A, Marcomini A 2017. Reviewing Bayesian Networks potentials for climate change impacts assessment and management: a multi-risk perspective. J. Environ. Manag. 202:320–31
    [Google Scholar]
  155. 155. 
    Parkes DC, Wellman MP. 2015. Economic reasoning and artificial intelligence. Science 349:6245267–72
    [Google Scholar]
  156. 156. 
    Gershman SJ, Horvitz EJ, Tenenbaum JB 2015. Computational rationality: A converging paradigm for intelligence in brains, minds, and machines. Science 349:6245273–78
    [Google Scholar]
  157. 157. 
    McGovern A, Elmore K, Gagne DJ, Haupt SE, Karstens C et al. 2017. Using artificial intelligence to improve real-time decision-making for high-impact weather. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 98:102073–90
    [Google Scholar]
  158. 158. 
    Groeneveld J, Müller B, Buchmann CM, Dressler G, Guo C et al. 2017. Theoretical foundations of human decision-making in agent-based land use models—a review. Environ. Model. Softw. 87:39–48
    [Google Scholar]
  159. 159. 
    Hadjimichael A, Comas J, Corominas L 2016. Do machine learning methods used in data mining enhance the potential of decision support systems? A review for the urban water sector. AI Commun 29:6747–56
    [Google Scholar]
  160. 160. 
    Yang JR, Lv H, Isabwe A, Liu L, Yu XQ et al. 2017. Disturbance-induced phytoplankton regime shifts and recovery of cyanobacteria dominance in two subtropical reservoirs. Water Res 120:52–63
    [Google Scholar]
  161. 161. 
    Perez A, Ganguli S, Ermon S, Azzari G, Burke M et al. 2019. Semi-supervised multitask learning on multispectral satellite images using Wasserstein generative adversarial networks (GANs) for predicting poverty. arXiv:1902.11110 [cs.CV]
  162. 162. 
    Cheong S. 2020. AI for climate change adaptation Symposium Abstract at the 186th Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Seattle, Feb 13–16
  163. 163. 
    Mosier KL, Skitka LJ. 2018. Human decision makers and automated decision aids: Made for each other?. Automation and Human Performance R Parasuraman, M Mouloua 201–20 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  164. 164. 
    Calo R. 2017. Artificial Intelligence policy: a primer and roadmap. UCDL Rev 51:399
    [Google Scholar]
  165. 165. 
    Spiess J, Gillis T. 2019. Big data and discrimination. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 86:2459–87
    [Google Scholar]
  166. 166. 
    Baum SD. 2017. Social choice ethics in artificial intelligence. AI & Soc 35:165–76
    [Google Scholar]
  167. 167. 
    Russell S, Dewey D, Tegmark M 2015. Research priorities for robust and beneficial artificial intelligence. AI Mag 36:4105–14
    [Google Scholar]
  168. 168. 
    Moser SC. 2016. Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: What more is there to say. WIREs Clim. Change 7:3345–69
    [Google Scholar]
  169. 169. 
    van der Linden S, Leiserowitz A, Maibach E 2019. The gateway belief model: a large-scale replication. J. Environ. Psychol. 62:49–58
    [Google Scholar]
  170. 170. 
    Zaval L, Cornwell JF. 2017. Effective education and communication strategies to promote environmental engagement. Eur. J. Educ. 52:4477–86
    [Google Scholar]
  171. 171. 
    Nisa C, Varum C, Botelho A 2017. Promoting sustainable hotel guest behavior: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cornell Hosp. Q. 58:4354–63
    [Google Scholar]
  172. 172. 
    Bolderdijk JW, Steg L, Geller ES, Lehman PK, Postmes T 2013. Comparing the effectiveness of monetary versus moral motives in environmental campaigning. Nat. Clim. Change 3:4413–16
    [Google Scholar]
  173. 173. 
    Abrahamse W, Shwom R. 2018. Domestic energy consumption and climate change mitigation. WIREs Clim. Change 9:4e525
    [Google Scholar]
  174. 174. 
    Shwom R, Lorenzen JA. 2012. Changing household consumption to address climate change: social scientific insights and challenges. WIREs Clim. Change 3:5379–95
    [Google Scholar]
  175. 175. 
    Yang Y, Markowitz EM. 2012. Integrating parental attitudes in research on children's active school commuting: evidence from Community School Travel Survey. Transp. Res. Record. 2318:116–27
    [Google Scholar]
  176. 176. 
    Yoeli E, Budescu D, Carrico A, Delmas M, DeShazo J et al. 2017. Behavioral science tools for energy and environmental policy. Behav. Sci. Policy 3:69–80
    [Google Scholar]
  177. 177. 
    Carrico A, Vandenbergh M, Stern P, Dietz T 2015. US climate policy needs behavioural science. Nat. Clim. Change 5:177–19
    [Google Scholar]
  178. 178. 
    Ferrari L, Cavaliere A, De Marchi E, Banterle E 2019. Can nudging improve the environmental impact of food supply chain? A systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Tech. 91:184–92
    [Google Scholar]
  179. 179. 
    Kristal AS, Whillans AV. 2019. What we can learn from five naturalistic field experiments that failed to shift commuter behaviour. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4:169–76
    [Google Scholar]
  180. 180. 
    Nisa CF, Belander JJ, Schumpe BM, Faller DG 2019. Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials testing behavioural interventions to promote household action on climate change. Nat. Commun. 10:14545
    [Google Scholar]
  181. 181. 
    Vandenbergh M, Gilligan J. 2017. Beyond Politics: The Private Governance Response to Climate Change (Business and Public Policy) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  182. 182. 
    Pulver S. 2011. Corporate responses. The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society JS Dryzek, RB Norgaard, D Schlosberg New York: Oxford Univ. Press https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566600.003.0039
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  183. 183. 
    Green JF. 2013. Order out of chaos: public and private rules for managing carbon. Glob. Environ. Politics 13:21–25
    [Google Scholar]
  184. 184. 
    Vandenbergh MP. 2013. Private environmental governance. Cornell Law Rev 99:1129–99
    [Google Scholar]
  185. 185. 
    Emery M, Redlin M, Young W 2012. Native leadership and adaptation to climate change: a case study. Environmental Leadership: A Reference Handbook DR Gallagher 481–89 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
    [Google Scholar]
  186. 186. 
    Nüsser M, Schmidt S. 2017. Nanga Parbat revisited: evolution and dynamics of sociohydrological interactions in the Northwestern Himalaya. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 107:2403–15
    [Google Scholar]
  187. 187. 
    Parveen S, Winiger M, Schmidt S, Nüsser M 2015. Irrigation in Upper Hunza: evolution of socio-hydrological interactions in the Karakoram, Northern Pakistan. Erdkunde 69:169–85
    [Google Scholar]
  188. 188. 
    Walter AM. 2014. Changing Gilgit-Baltistan: perceptions of the recent history and the role of community activism. Ethnoscripts 16:131–49
    [Google Scholar]
  189. 189. 
    Nyima Y, Hopping KA. 2019. Tibetan lake expansion from a pastoral perspective: local observations and coping strategies for a changing environment. Soc. Nat. Resour. 32:9965–82
    [Google Scholar]
  190. 190. 
    Caine AE. 2019. Restless ecologies in the Andean Highlands PhD Thesis, Univ. Michigan Ann Arbor:
  191. 191. 
    Kates RW, Travis WR, Wilbanks TJ 2012. Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. PNAS 109:197156–61
    [Google Scholar]
  192. 192. 
    Pelling M, O'Brien K, Matyas D 2015. Adaptation and transformation. Clim. Change 133:1113–27
    [Google Scholar]
  193. 193. 
    Koslov L. 2019. Avoiding climate change: “agnostic adaptation” and the politics of public silence. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2568–80
    [Google Scholar]
  194. 194. 
    O'Brien K. 2012. Global environmental change II: from adaptation to deliberate transformation. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 36:5667–76
    [Google Scholar]
  195. 195. 
    O'Brien K. 2017. Climate change adaptation and social transformation. International Encyclopedia of Geography: People, the Earth, Environment and Technology D Richardson 1–8 Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  196. 196. 
    Koslov L. 2014. Fighting for retreat after Sandy: The Ocean Breeze buyout tent on Staten Island. Metropolitiques Apr. 23. https://www.metropolitiques.eu/Fighting-for-Retreat-after-Sandy.html
    [Google Scholar]
  197. 197. 
    Geels FW. 2014. Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Theory Cult. Soc. 31:521–40
    [Google Scholar]
  198. 198. 
    Geels FW, Sovacool BK, Schwanen T, Sorrell S 2017. Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonization. Science 357:63571242–44
    [Google Scholar]
  199. 199. 
    Geels FW. 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Res. Policy 33:6–7897–920e
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-085130
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error