Through integrative assessment, experts evaluate the state of knowledge on complex problems relevant to societies. In this review, we take stock of recent advances and challenges, rooting our analysis in climate change assessment. In particular, we consider four priorities in assessment: () integrating diverse evidence including quantitative and qualitative results and understanding, () applying rigorous expert judgment to evidence and its uncertainties, () exploring widely ranging futures and their connections to ongoing choices and actions, and () incorporating interactions among experts and decision makers in assessment processes. Across these assessment priorities, we survey past experiences, current practices, and possibilities for future experimentation, innovation, and learning. In our current era of climate and broader global change, integrative assessment can bolster decisions about contested and uncertain futures. We consider both opportunities and pitfalls in synthesizing and encompassing evidence and perspectives. Our aim is to advance transparent assessment for a sustainable future.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK. 1.  et al. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  2. Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD. 2.  et al. 2014. 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 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  3. Barros VR, Field CB, Dokken DJ, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ. 3.  et al. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  4. Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Minx JC, Farahani E. 4.  et al. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switz.: IPCC [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends Washington, DC: Island Press [Google Scholar]
  7. 7. Global Energy Assessment. 2012. Global Energy Assessment—Toward a Sustainable Future Cambridge, UK.: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. World Meteorological Organization (WMO). 2014. Assessment for decision-makers: scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 2014 Proj. Rep. No. 56, Glob. Ozone Res. Monit WMO Geneva, Switz.: [Google Scholar]
  9. Mitchell RB, Clark WC, Cash DW, Dickson NM. 9.  2006. Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  10. Liverman D. 10.  2016. US National Climate Assessment gaps and research needs: overview, the economy and the international context. Clim. Change 135:173–86 [Google Scholar]
  11. Reid WV, Mooney HA. 11.  2016. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: testing the limits of interdisciplinary and multi-scale science. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 19:40–46 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N. 12.  et al. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100:8086–91 [Google Scholar]
  13. Meehl GA, Stocker TF, Collins WD, Friedlingstein P, Gaye AT. 13.  et al. 2007. Global climate projections. See Ref. 136 747–845
  14. Church JA, Clark PU, Cazenave A, Gregory JM, Jevrejeva S. 14.  et al. 2013. Sea level change. See Ref. 1 1137–216
  15. O'Reilly J, Oreskes N, Oppenheimer M. 15.  2012. The rapid disintegration of projections: the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Soc. Stud. Sci. 42:709–31 [Google Scholar]
  16. Brysse K, Oreskes N, O'Reilly J, Oppenheimer M. 16.  2013. Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?. Glob. Environ. Change 23:327–37 [Google Scholar]
  17. Oppenheimer M, Alley RB. 17.  2016. How high will the seas rise?. Science 354:1375–77 [Google Scholar]
  18. 18. IPCC. 2007. Summary for policymakers. See Ref. 136 1–18
  19. Schneider SH, Semenov S, Patwardhan A, Burton I, Magadza CHD. 19.  et al. 2007. Assessing key vulnerabilities and the risk from climate change. See Ref. 137 779–810
  20. Oppenheimer M, Little CM, Cooke RM. 20.  2016. Expert judgement and uncertainty quantification for climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 6:445–51 [Google Scholar]
  21. 21. IPCC. 2013. Summary for policymakers. See Ref. 1 3–29
  22. Oppenheimer M, Campos M, Warren R, Birkmann J, Luber G. 22.  et al. 2014. Emergent risks and key vulnerabilities. See Ref. 2 1039–99
  23. 23. IPCC. 2007. Summary for policymakers. See Ref. 137 7–22
  24. Fischlin A, Midgley GF, Price JT, Leemans R, Gopal B. 24.  et al. 2007. Ecosystems, their properties, goods, and services. See Ref. 137 211–72
  25. 25. IPCC. 2014. Summary for policymakers. See Ref. 2 1–32
  26. Settele J, Scholes R, Betts R, Bunn S, Leadley P. 26.  et al. 2014. Terrestrial and inland water systems. See Ref. 2 271–359
  27. Adger WN, Pulhin JM, Barnett J, Dabelko GD, Hovelsrud GK. 27.  et al. 2014. Human security. See Ref. 2 755–91
  28. Clarke L, Jiang K, Akimoto K, Babiker M, Blanford G. 28.  et al. 2014. Assessing transformation pathways. See Ref. 4 413–510
  29. 29. IPCC. 2014. Summary for policymakers. See Ref. 4 1–30
  30. Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, Bilir TE, Field CB. 30.  2016. Understanding and responding to danger from climate change: the role of key risks in the IPCC AR5. Clim. Change 136:427–44 [Google Scholar]
  31. Smith JB, Schneider SH, Oppenheimer M, Yohe GW, Hare W. 31.  et al. 2009. Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “reasons for concern.”. PNAS 106:4133–37 [Google Scholar]
  32. Smith JB, Schellnhuber H-J, Mirza MMQ, Fankhauser S, Leemans R. 32.  et al. 2001. Vulnerability to climate change and reasons for concern: a synthesis. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change JJ McCarthy, OF Canziani, NA Leary, DJ Dokken, KS White 913–67 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  33. Field CB, Barros VR, Stocker TF, Qin D, Dokken DJ. 33.  et al. 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  34. Gattuso J-P, Magnan A, Bille R, Cheung WWL, Howes EL. 34.  et al. 2015. Contrasting futures for ocean and society from different anthropogenic CO2 emissions scenarios. Science 349:aac4722 [Google Scholar]
  35. Mechler R, Schinko T. 35.  2016. Identifying the policy space for climate loss and damage. Science 354:290–92 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kennel CF, Briggs S, Victor DG. 36.  2016. Making climate science more relevant. Science 354:421–22 [Google Scholar]
  37. Houser T, Kopp R, Hsiang SM, Delgado M, Jina A. 37.  et al. 2014. American Climate Prospectus: Economic Risks in the United States Oakland, CA: Rhodium Gr. [Google Scholar]
  38. Moser SC, Melillo JM, Jacobs KL, Moss RH, Buizer JL. 38.  2016. Aspirations and common tensions: larger lessons from the third US national climate assessment. Clim. Change 135:187–201 [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. IPCC. 2014. Annex II: Glossary. See Ref. 5 117–30
  40. Flottum K, Gasper D, St Clair AL. 40.  2016. Synthesizing a policy-relevant perspective from the three IPCC “Worlds”—a comparison of topics and frames in the SPMs of the Fifth Assessment Report. Glob. Environ. Change 38:118–29 [Google Scholar]
  41. O'Neill BC, Oppenheimer M, Warren R, Hallegatte S, Kopp RE. 41.  et al. 2017. IPCC reasons for concern regarding climate change risks. Nat. Clim. Change 7:28–37 [Google Scholar]
  42. Pidgeon N, Fischhoff B. 42.  2011. The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nat. Clim. Change 1:35–41 [Google Scholar]
  43. O'Brien KL, Wolf J. 43.  2010. A values-based approach to vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. WIREs Clim. Change 1:232–42 [Google Scholar]
  44. Lowe TD, Lorenzoni I. 44.  2007. Danger is all around: eliciting expert perceptions for managing climate change through a mental models approach. Glob. Environ. Change 17:131–46 [Google Scholar]
  45. Hallegatte S, Rogelj J, Allen M, Clarke L, Edenhofer O. 45.  et al. 2016. Mapping the climate change challenge. Nat. Clim. Change 6:663–68 [Google Scholar]
  46. Field CB, Barros VR, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, van Aalst M. 46.  et al. 2014. Technical summary. See Ref. 2 35–94
  47. 47. IPCC. 2014. Summary for policymakers. See Ref. 5 1–31
  48. Morgan MG, Dowlatabadi H, Henrion M, Keith DW, Lempert RJ. 48.  et al. 2009. Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating, and incorporating scientific uncertainty in decision making: US Climate Change Science Program Synth. Assess. Prod. 5.2, Nat. Oceanic Atmos. Admin. Washington, DC: https://downloads.globalchange.gov/sap/sap5-2/sap5-2-final-report-all.pdf [Google Scholar]
  49. Moss RH, Schneider SH. 49.  2000. Uncertainties in the IPCC TAR: recommendations to lead authors for more consistent assessment and reporting. Guidance Papers on the Cross Cutting Issues of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC Geneva, Switz.: Intergov. Panel Clim. Change [Google Scholar]
  50. 50. IPCC. 2005. Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties Geneva, Switz.: Intergov. Panel Clim. Change [Google Scholar]
  51. Mastrandrea MD, Field CB, Stocker TF, Edenhofer O, Ebi KL. 51.  et al. 2010. Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties Geneva, Switz.: Intergov. Panel Clim. Change [Google Scholar]
  52. Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ. 52.  2011. Treatment of uncertainties in IPCC Assessment Reports: past approaches and considerations for the Fifth Assessment Report. Clim. Change 108:659–73 [Google Scholar]
  53. Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Plattner G-K, Edenhofer O, Stocker TF. 53.  et al. 2011. The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: a common approach across the working groups. Clim. Change 108:675–91 [Google Scholar]
  54. Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, Freeman PT, Field CB. 54.  2017. Unleashing expert judgment in assessment. Glob. Environ. Change 44:1–14 [Google Scholar]
  55. Karl TR, Melillo JM, Peterson TC. 55.  2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  56. 56. Intergov. Sci. Policy Platf. Biodivers. Ecosyst. Serv. (IPBES). 2016. Summary for Policymakers of the Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production Bonn, Ger.: IPBES [Google Scholar]
  57. Moss RH. 57.  2016. Assessing decision support systems and levels of confidence to narrow the climate information “usability gap.”. Clim. Change 135:143–55 [Google Scholar]
  58. Morgan MG. 58.  2014. Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy. PNAS 111:7176–84 [Google Scholar]
  59. Straus SG, Parker AM, Bruces JB, Dembosky JW. 59.  2009. The Group Matters: A Review of the Effects of Group Interaction on Processes and Outcomes in Analytic Team Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp. [Google Scholar]
  60. Sutherland WJ, Burgman M. 60.  2015. Policy advice: use experts wisely. Nature 526:317–18 [Google Scholar]
  61. Corbera E, Calvet-Mir L, Hughes H, Paterson M. 61.  2016. Patterns of authorship in the IPCC Working Group III report. Nat. Clim. Change 6:94–99 [Google Scholar]
  62. Oppenheimer M, O'Neill BC, Webster M, Agrawala S. 62.  2007. The limits of consensus. Science 317:1505–6 [Google Scholar]
  63. McKinnon MC, Cheng SH, Garside R, Masuda YJ, Miller DC. 63.  2015. Map the evidence. Nature 528:185–87 [Google Scholar]
  64. Wong-Parodi G, Strauss BH. 64.  2014. Team science for science communication. PNAS 111:13658–63 [Google Scholar]
  65. Kahneman D, Klein G. 65.  2009. Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree. Am. Psychol. 64:515–26 [Google Scholar]
  66. Zenko M. 66.  2015. Red Team: How to Succeed by Thinking Like the Enemy New York: Basic Books [Google Scholar]
  67. Trutnevyte E, Guivarch C, Lempert RJ, Strachan N. 67.  2016. Reinvigorating the scenario technique to expand uncertainty consideration. Clim. Change 135:373–79 [Google Scholar]
  68. Morgan MG, Keith DW. 68.  1995. Climate change—subjective judgments by climate experts. Environ. Sci. Technol. 29:A468–A76 [Google Scholar]
  69. Morgan MG, Adams PJ, Keith DW. 69.  2006. Elicitation of expert judgments of aerosol forcing. Clim. Change 75:195–214 [Google Scholar]
  70. Morgan MG, Pitelka LF, Shevliakova E. 70.  2001. Elicitation of expert judgments of climate change impacts on forest ecosystems. Clim. Change 49:279–307 [Google Scholar]
  71. Morgan MG. 71.  1998. Uncertainty analysis in risk assessment. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 4:25–39 [Google Scholar]
  72. Yohe G, Oppenheimer M. 72.  2011. Evaluation, characterization, and communication of uncertainty by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—an introductory essay. Clim. Change 108:629–39 [Google Scholar]
  73. Kriegler E, Hall JW, Held H, Dawson R, Schellnhuber H-J. 73.  2009. Imprecise probability assessment of tipping points in the climate system. PNAS 106:5041–46 [Google Scholar]
  74. Zickfeld K, Morgan MG, Frame DJ, Keith DW. 74.  2010. Expert judgments about transient climate response to alternative future trajectories of radiative forcing. PNAS 107:12451–56 [Google Scholar]
  75. Gattuso J-P, Mach KJ, Morgan MG. 75.  2013. Ocean acidification and its impacts: an expert survey. Clim. Change 117:725–38 [Google Scholar]
  76. Morgan MG. 76.  2011. Certainty, uncertainty, and climate change. Clim. Change 108:707–21 [Google Scholar]
  77. Anadon LD, Bosetti V, Bunn M, Catenacci M, Lee A. 77.  2012. Expert judgments about RD&D and the future of nuclear energy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46:11497–504 [Google Scholar]
  78. 78. InterAcademy Council (IAC). 2010. Climate Change Assessments: Review of the Processes and Procedures of the IPCC Amsterdam: IAC [Google Scholar]
  79. Socolow RH. 79.  2011. High-consequence outcomes and internal disagreements: Tell us more, please. Clim. Change 108:775–90 [Google Scholar]
  80. Anderegg WRL, Callaway ES, Boykoff MT, Yohe G, Root TL. 80.  2014. Awareness of both type 1 and 2 errors in climate science and assessment. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 95:1445–51 [Google Scholar]
  81. Hinkel J, Jaeger C, Nicholls RJ, Lowe J, Renn O, Shi PJ. 81.  2015. Sea-level rise scenarios and coastal risk management. Nat. Clim. Change 5:188–90 [Google Scholar]
  82. Schneider SH. 82.  2010. A constructive deconstruction of deconstructionists: a response to Demeritt. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 91:338–44 [Google Scholar]
  83. Adler CE, Hadorn GH. 83.  2014. The IPCC and treatment of uncertainties: topics and sources of dissensus. WIREs Clim. Change 5:663–76 [Google Scholar]
  84. Victor DG. 84.  2015. Embed the social sciences in climate policy. Nature 520:27–29 [Google Scholar]
  85. Adger WN, Barnett J, Brown K, Marshall N, O'Brien K. 85.  2013. Cultural dimensions of climate change impacts and adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change 3:112–17 [Google Scholar]
  86. Black R. 86.  2015. No more summaries for wonks. Nat. Clim. Change 5:282–84 [Google Scholar]
  87. Taylor AL, Dessai S, de Bruin WB. 87.  2015. Communicating uncertainty in seasonal and interannual climate forecasts in Europe. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373:20140454 [Google Scholar]
  88. Wong-Parodi G, Krishnamurti T, Davis A, Schwartz D, Fischhoff B. 88.  2016. A decision science approach for integrating social science in climate and energy solutions. Nat. Clim. Change 6:563–69 [Google Scholar]
  89. Harold J, Lorenzoni I, Shipley TF, Coventry KR. 89.  2016. Cognitive and psychological science insights to improve climate change data visualization. Nat. Clim. Change 6:1080–89 [Google Scholar]
  90. McMahon R, Stauffacher M, Knutti R. 90.  2015. The unseen uncertainties in climate change: reviewing comprehension of an IPCC scenario graph. Clim. Change 133:141–54 [Google Scholar]
  91. Leviston Z, Price J, Bishop B. 91.  2014. Imagining climate change: the role of implicit associations and affective psychological distancing in climate change responses. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 44:441–54 [Google Scholar]
  92. Parson EA. 92.  2008. Useful global-change scenarios: current issues and challenges. Environ. Res. Lett. 3:045016 [Google Scholar]
  93. van Vuuren DP, Kok MTJ, Girod B, Lucas PL, de Vries B. 93.  2012. Scenarios in global environmental assessments: key characteristics and lessons for future use. Glob. Environ. Change 22:884–95 [Google Scholar]
  94. Rounsevell MDA, Metzger MJ. 94.  2010. Developing qualitative scenario storylines for environmental change assessment. WIREs Clim. Change 1:606–19 [Google Scholar]
  95. 95. IPCC. 1992. Climate Change 1992: The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment. Report prepared for IPCC by Working Group I. Geneva, Switz.: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Google Scholar]
  96. 96. IPCC. 2000. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios: A Special Report of Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Geneva, Switz.: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Google Scholar]
  97. Moss RH, Edmonds JA, Hibbard KA, Manning MR, Rose SK. 97.  et al. 2010. The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463:747–56 [Google Scholar]
  98. van Vuuren DP, Kriegler E, O'Neill BC, Ebi KL, Riahi K. 98.  et al. 2014. A new scenario framework for climate change research: scenario matrix architecture. Clim. Change 122:373–86 [Google Scholar]
  99. O'Neill BC, Kriegler E, Riahi K, Ebi KL, Hallegatte S. 99.  et al. 2014. A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Clim. Change 122:387–400 [Google Scholar]
  100. Lempert RJ. 100.  2007. Can scenarios help policymakers be both bold and careful?. Blindside: How to Anticipate Forcing Events and Wild Cards in Global Politics F Fukuyama 109–19 Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Press [Google Scholar]
  101. Lempert RJ. 101.  2013. Scenarios that illuminate vulnerabilities and robust responses. Clim. Change 117:627–46 [Google Scholar]
  102. Lempert RJ, Kalra N, Peyraud S, Mao Z, Tan SB. 102.  et al. 2013. Ensuring robust flood risk management in Ho Chi Minh City: a robust decision making demonstration Work. Pap. 6465, World Bank Policy Res. World Bank Washington, DC: [Google Scholar]
  103. Tschakert P, Dietrich K, Tamminga K, Prins E, Shaffer J. 103.  et al. 2014. Learning and envisioning under climatic uncertainty: an African experience. Env. Plan. A 46:1049–68 [Google Scholar]
  104. Fresco N, Timm K. 104.  2016. Fostering resilience in the face of an uncertain future: using scenario planning to communicate climate change risks and collaboratively develop adaptation strategies. Communicating Climate-Change and Natural Hazard Risk and Cultivating Resilience JL Drake, YY Kontar, JC Eichelberger, TS Rupp, KM Taylor 79–94 Basel, Switz.: Springer Int. Publ. [Google Scholar]
  105. Rickards L, Wiseman J, Edwards T, Biggs C. 105.  2014. The problem of fit: scenario planning and climate change adaptation in the public sector. Env. Plan. C 32:641–62 [Google Scholar]
  106. van der Linden S, Maibach E, Leiserowitz A. 106.  2015. Improving public engagement with climate change: five “best practice” insights from psychological science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10:758–63 [Google Scholar]
  107. Star J, Rowland EL, Black ME, Enquist CAF, Garfin G. 107.  et al. 2016. Supporting adaptation decisions through scenario planning: enabling the effective use of multiple methods. Clim. Risk Manag. 13:88–94 [Google Scholar]
  108. Ranger N, Reeder T, Lowe J. 108.  2013. Addressing “deep” uncertainty over long-term climate in major infrastructure projects: four innovations of the Thames Estuary 2100 Project. EURO J. Decis. Process. 1:233–62 [Google Scholar]
  109. Watkiss P, Hunt A, Dyszynski J. 109.  2015. The use of new economic decision support tools for adaptation assessment: a review of methods and applications, towards guidance on applicability. Clim. Change 132:401–16 [Google Scholar]
  110. Finkel AM. 110.  2011. “Solution-focused risk assessment”: a proposal for the fusion of environmental analysis and action. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 17:754–87 [Google Scholar]
  111. Preston BL, Maloney M, Thomsen D, Smith T, Mangoyana R, Conlon B. 111.  2013. A multi-criteria analysis of coastal adaptation options for local government prepared for the Sydney Coastal Councils Group by Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the University of the Sunshine Coast Oak Ridge, TN, and Sippy Dawns, Queensland: [Google Scholar]
  112. Kunreuther H, Heal G, Allen M, Edenhofer O, Field CB, Yohe G. 112.  2013. Risk management and climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 3:447–50 [Google Scholar]
  113. Adams-Schoen SJ, Badrinarayana D, Carlarne CP, Craig RK, Dernbach JC. 113.  et al. 2015. A response to the IPCC Fifth Assessment. Environ. L. Report. News Anal. 45:10027–48 [Google Scholar]
  114. Bain PG, Milfont TL, Kashima Y, Bilewicz M, Doron G. 114.  et al. 2016. Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world. Nat. Clim. Change 6:154–59 [Google Scholar]
  115. Lane L, Montgomery WD. 115.  2014. An institutional critique of new climate scenarios. Clim. Change 122:447–58 [Google Scholar]
  116. Weaver CP, Lempert RJ, Brown C, Hall JA, Revell D, Sarewitz D. 116.  2013. Improving the contribution of climate model information to decision making: the value and demands of robust decision frameworks. WIREs Clim. Change 4:39–60 [Google Scholar]
  117. Drouet L, Bosetti V, Tavoni M. 117.  2015. Selection of climate policies under the uncertainties in the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Nat. Clim. Change 5:937–43 [Google Scholar]
  118. O'Neill B, Pulver S, VanDeveer S, Garb Y. 118.  2008. Where next with global environmental scenarios?. Environ. Res. Lett. 3:045012 [Google Scholar]
  119. Kunkel KE, Moss R, Parris A. 119.  2016. Innovations in science and scenarios for assessment. Clim. Change 135:55–68 [Google Scholar]
  120. de Suarez JM, Suarez P, Bachofen C, Fortugno N, Goentzel J. 120.  et al. 2012. Games for a new climate: experiencing the complexity of future risks Pardee Cent. Task Force Rep., Frederick S. Pardee Cent. Stud. Longer-Range Future Boston, MA: [Google Scholar]
  121. Arney C, Coronges K, Fletcher H, Hagen J, Hutchinson K. 121.  et al. 2013. Using rare event modeling & networking to build scenarios and forecast the future. Network Science Workshop (NSW), 2013 IEEE, Vol. 231–36 New York: IEEE [Google Scholar]
  122. Suarez P. 122.  2015. Rethinking engagement: innovations in how humanitarians explore geoinformation. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 4:1729–49 [Google Scholar]
  123. Parker HR, Cornforth RJ, Suarez P, Allen MR, Boyd E. 123.  et al. 2016. Using a game to engage stakeholders in extreme event attribution science. IJDRS 7:353–65 [Google Scholar]
  124. 124. IPCC. 2012. Appendix A: Procedures for the preparation, review, acceptance, adoption, approval and publication of IPCC reports. Principles Governing IPCC Work Geneva, Switz.: IPCC [Google Scholar]
  125. 125. IPCC 2013. Principles Governing IPCC Work Batumi, Ga.: IPCC [Google Scholar]
  126. Mach KJ, Freeman PT, Mastrandrea MD, Field CB. 126.  2016. A multistage crucible of revision and approval shapes IPCC policymaker summaries. Sci. Adv. 2:e1600421 [Google Scholar]
  127. Clark WC, Tomich TP, van Noordwijk M, Guston D, Catacutan D. 127.  et al. 2016. Boundary work for sustainable development: natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). PNAS 113:4615–22 [Google Scholar]
  128. Dubash NK. 128.  2009. Global norms through global deliberation? Reflections on the World Commission on Dams. Glob. Gov. 15:219–38 [Google Scholar]
  129. Watson RT. 129.  2005. Turning science into policy: challenges and experiences from the science-policy interface. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 360:471–77 [Google Scholar]
  130. O'Neill S, Williams HTP, Kurz T, Wiersma B, Boykoff M. 130.  2015. Dominant frames in legacy and social media coverage of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Nat. Clim. Change 5:380–85 [Google Scholar]
  131. Kowarsch M. 131.  2016. Policy assessments to enhance EU scientific advice. Nat. Clim. Change 6:15–17 [Google Scholar]
  132. O'Neill SJ, Smith N. 132.  2014. Climate change and visual imagery. WIREs Clim. Change 5:73–87 [Google Scholar]
  133. Rapley C, De Meyer K, Carney J. 133.  2014. Time for change? Climate Science Reconsidered London: Univ. Coll. Lond. Policy Comm. Commun. Clim. Sci. [Google Scholar]
  134. Jackson ST, Duke CS, Hampton SE, Jacobs KL, Joppa LN. 134.  et al. 2016. Toward a national, sustained US ecosystem assessment. Science 354:838–39 [Google Scholar]
  135. Jasanoff S. 135.  2010. Testing time for climate science. Science 328:695–96 [Google Scholar]
  136. Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M. 136.  et al. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  137. Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE. 137.  2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]

Data & Media 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