Seite - 118 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

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.