Maria Carmen Lemos

Building city practitioners’ capacity to prepare for and respond to climate change-driven events can increase coastal cities’ resilience. We conducted a first-of-its-kind mixed methods research project from 2021 to 2023 with 46 US Gulf Coast small and midsize cities to measure the effectiveness of an adaptive capacity-building intervention: a stormwater planning tool called FloodWise Communities (FWC) deployed through the engagement between researchers and practitioners in each city. City practitioners were surveyed preintervention and postintervention between September 2021 and December 2022. Interviews were then conducted through July 2023. We found (i) FWC positively relates to perceptions of actionable knowledge and a change in adaptation intentions; (ii) city practitioners’ adaptation-relevant roles and responsibilities positively related to their perceptions of actionable knowledge and adaptation intentions, with implications for their agency to build adaptive capacity; and (iii) anticipated and unanticipated uses of the FWC tool influenced city practitioners’ perceptions of their adaptive capacity.

To address climate-driven crises, we need actionable climate knowledge to inform decision-making and support problem solving. Although the science of actionable knowledge is rapidly evolving, less is known about how and why actionable climate knowledge scales up and with what outcomes. We advance three outcome-driven pathways to scale up actionable climate knowledge: 1) broadening participation by increasing the diversity and number of actors involved in actionable climate knowledge coproduction; 2) diffusing actionable climate knowledge uptake among actors not originally involved in its coproduction, and 3) aggregating impact by coproducing actionable climate knowledge with influential actors, such as practitioners and policy-makers, whose decisions affect many others. These pathways can intersect, complement, interact, and tradeoff with each other. Understanding how these pathways work, evolve, and change is critical if we want to better inform the production and scaling of climate actionable knowledge to solve climate problems.

Marine systems are rapidly changing in response to global heating. The scale and intensity of change are triggering a host of novel interventions to sustain oceans and ocean-dependent societies. However, the pace of new interventions is outstripping capacity to prevent unintended consequences because governance systems to ensure responsible transformation of marine systems are not yet in place. Responsible transformation entails transitioning marine systems to sustainable, equitable, and adaptive states through weighing intervention risks against benefits, resolving ethical liabilities, improving social cobenefits, establishing legitimacy, and managing climate policy integrity. Global, national, and local actors must urgently convert responsible transformation principles into rules—and practice—to ensure that novel marine-climate interventions are safe, equitable, and effective.

Background: Elected members of the US Congress rely on staff, including fellows with scientific and engineering expertise, to find and interpret information for use in policymaking. Factors that impede, or facilitate, the communication of scientific information within the institution thus can play a critical role in legislative capacity, but there is a limited understanding of these dynamics in the hyper-partisan body. Aims and objectives: This study presents and tests a four-dimensional model describing how the obstacles to science communication in Congress change depending on whether information is sought for use in support of established policy positions (‘strategic use’) or to inform decision making (‘substantive use’). Methods: Data were collected between November 2017 and February 2019 through interviews with 58 congressional staff members in personal offices assigned to energy, natural resources, and science issue portfolios, and through surveys with 68 science and engineering fellows who completed their year in Congress between 2015 and 2019. Findings: Placing scientists and engineers in Congress as fellows augments staffing and institutional expertise. Yet we find that both staff and fellows experience communication-related impediments in using scientific information. Staff report more challenges in using science to substantively make policy decisions, due not only to lack of time, but also factors such as contacts, access, and information presentation. Fellows report fewer barriers and use science for policy in largely identical ways to staff. Discussion and conclusion: These findings support the proposed model and highlight the importance of staff scientific fluency and the decision-making context for science communication in Congress.

The term “climate emergency” represents a new phase in climate change framing that many hope will invigorate more climate action. Yet there has been relatively little discussion of how the new emergency framing might shape broader governance and policy. In this advanced review, we critically review and synthesize existing literature on crisis and emergency to inform our understanding of how this new shift might affect governance and policy. Specifically, we explore the literature on crisis governance and policy to argue that there is no simple answer to whether the “climate emergency” framing will be supportive of climate governance and policy; rather, more work needs to be done to understand how different political actors respond according to their perceptions, interests and values. To assist this endeavor, we develop a typology of four policy pathways, ranging from “no emergency,” to “no emergency, but recognize risk,” “emergency as a threat” and “emergency as an opportunity.” We highlight the need to consider the effects of multiple and overlapping emergency frames, using the example of the intersection of climate change and COVID‐19. Finally, we suggest new interdisciplinary research directions for critically analyzing and refining this new phase of climate change framing.This article is categorized under: Policy and Governance > Governing Climate Change in Communities, Cities, and Regions Policy and Governance > Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance