Page - 118 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options
Image of the Page - 118 -
Text of the Page - 118 -
118 R.A. Jameset al.
Box5.2Evidence fromstakeholder interviews
ThediscussionofperspectivesofattributioninthecontextofL&Dpolicyinthischapter
draws on qualitative evidence from two research projects which included interviews
with stakeholders to L&Ddiscussions. The first project aimed to explore stakehold-
ers’ understandings of probabilistic event attribution in relation toL&D(Parker et al.
2017a), and the secondprojectwas designed tomore broadly investigate stakeholder
perspectivesonL&D(Boydet al. 2017). Inbothprojectsweasked stakeholderswhat
kindofscientificevidencemightberelevantforL&Dpolicy,andhow;andbothprojects
ledtoinsights intostakeholderperspectivesonattributionscience, includingsomecon-
sistentfindings.Themethodologiesaredescribedmorethoroughlyinthekeyacademic
papers, but hereweprovide a brief overviewof the interviewdesign andparticipants
to provide context for the quotations that are included in this chapter. All interview
datawereanonymisedandanalysedfor therespectivepapers,andherewedrawonkey
quotationswhichemerged fromtheseanalyses.
Thefocusof theParkeretal. (2017a)studywasonjustoneareaofattributionresearch:
probabilistic event attribution (PEA), a rapidly emerging fieldwhich aims to explore
the extent towhich anthropogenic emissions influence the likelihood andmagnitude
of specific extremeweather events such as heatwaves, floods and droughts in a spe-
cific location (see Sect. 5.3). Qualitative, semi-structured interviewswere conducted
betweenNovember2013andJuly2014with31stakeholders includingUNFCCCdel-
egates, representatives from non-governmental organisations, climate scientists, and
social scientists. Interviewquestions focusingon the extent towhich the interviewees
understoodPEA,and theirviewsabout its relevance toL&Dpolicy.
ThebroaderstudyofstakeholderperspectivesonL&D,describedinBoydetal. (2017),
was prompted by the authors’ work on the relevance of attribution science for L&D
policy (including Parker et al. 2017a). One of the emerging insights from the initial
engagementwithL&Ddiscussionswas thedifficultyof initiatingdetaileddiscussions
about science and practice to understand and address L&D, given the controversy of
the topic, but also the lack of clarity on the concept of L&D (James et al. 2014a).
Thispromptedan in-depth investigationofstakeholderperspectivesofL&D, inwhich
intervieweeswere askedhow theywoulddefineL&D, the relationshipbetweenL&D
andadaptation,andwhatactionsmightbeneededtoaddressL&D.Onthebasisofthese
interviews a diverse spectrumof ideas about L&Dwas identified, characterised as a
typology of four perspectives (seeFig. 5.1). The interviews included questions about
therelevanceofanthropogenicclimatechange in thecontextofL&Dandwhatkindof
sciencemight be needed forL&Dpolicy, and it is these aspectswhichwediscuss in
this chapter. 36qualitative, semi-structured interviewswere conductedbetweenApril
andNovember 2015with stakeholders from science, policy, and practice, including
negotiators,adaptationanddisaster riskpractitioners,andresearcherswithexpertise in
climate science, social science, law,philosophy, andeconomics.
Loss and Damage from Climate Change
Concepts, Methods and Policy Options
- Title
- Loss and Damage from Climate Change
- Subtitle
- Concepts, Methods and Policy Options
- Authors
- Reinhard Mechler
- Laurens M. Bouwer
- Thomas Schinko
- Swenja Surminski
- JoAnne Linnerooth-Bayer
- Publisher
- Springer Open
- Date
- 2019
- Language
- English
- License
- CC BY 4.0
- ISBN
- 978-3-319-72026-5
- Size
- 16.0 x 24.0 cm
- Pages
- 580
- Keywords
- Environment, Climate change, Environmental law, Environmental policy, Risk management
- Categories
- International
- Naturwissenschaften Umwelt und Klima