Transcript How will the USCCSP contribute to policy and decision making?

Priorities, Goals, Metrics and Reality: How will the USCCSP contribute to policy and decision making?
Ryan Meyer; Consortium for Science Policy and Outcomes; Arizona State University
Introduction
CCSP Vision
The United States has committed billions of dollars to the improvement of scientific knowledge of climate systems and
climate change. The vast and complex nature of the climate system has required that research occur across a broad
range of disciplines with funding by many different agencies. However, one unifying theme of climate funding
programs, from the Global Change Research Program (GCRP) to the Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) and
now the US Climate Change Science Program (USCCSP), has been the primary goal of contributing to policy and
other decision making processes.
• Improve knowledge of the Earth’s past and present climate
environment.
• Improve quantification of the forces bringing about changes in the
Earth’s climate.
The USCCSP, announced by President Bush in 2002, represents our country’s current effort to combine a broad
portfolio of research into one coherent climate science program aimed at supporting decision making and policy
making. The program's strategic plan, published in 2003, outlines an enormous body of work, all integrated within a
framework for enabling the effective use of growing scientific knowledge.
• Reduce uncertainty in projections of how the Earth’s climate may
change.
• Understand the sensitivity and adaptability of various systems.
The purpose of my research, currently in its early stages, is to analyze and compare the goals, priorities, activities and
potential outcomes of the CCSP in its strategic plan and subsequent supporting publications. In addition to mapping
these elements of the plan, the work will characterize “implicit policy models” that emerge as a combination of stated
goals, planned activities and (implicit or explicit) expected outcomes. This poster presents one example of a CCSP
implicit policy model, as well as some observations and questions that will guide further work.
• Explore the uses and identify the limits of evolving knowledge
Basic Structure of the Plan
As suggested by its vision (above), the USCCSP is clearly aimed at an outcome in which science positively
influences the world we live in. We must look deeper into the strategic plan to see how pathways toward this
outcome are laid out. The plan outlines five over-arching goals and four core approaches as a framework for
achieving the vision (right). The five goals are primarily associated with the generation of scientific
information (though goal five suggests possible connections with decision making and policy processes). The
first two core approaches are directly related to scientific work, while the second two address the building of
connections between science and those who would use and benefit from results.
EXPLICIT
Research
• Plan, sponsor and conduct scientific research.
• Enhance observations and data management.
• Aid decision making with science-based resources.
• Communicate results to scientific and stakeholder communities.
Results
Synthesis
Example: Communication of Results
A major output of the CCSP will be the transmission of information in the form of synthesis and assessment
reports. The program currently has plans for more than 20 such reports, which contribute to “Decision
Support Resources Development.” The figure on the left shows an implicit policy model that emerges from
the specific plans for these reports.
The dashed lines represent connections that are not stated explicitly. Rather we are left to assume that these
must be expected outcomes of the activities explicitly described. It may seem intuitive that improved
scientific knowledge should lead to better policy, but this is not necessarily the case. In fact, there is little
evidence that supplying information with no consideration for political context or process can influence
policy (e.g. Bimber 1996; Sarewitz 2004; Shulock 1999). It is not clear from the plan whether or not the
political context will be a consideration in the provision of information.
Thus, in this particular case, the plan falls short of explaining how its activities, goals and overarching
vision are connected by leaving out any discussion of the policy processes that are assumed to benefit from
its activities. The plan notes in its glossary that policy decisions “usually involve balancing competing value
issues” (p. 112) but offers no explanation for what it would mean to “improve” such decisions using
scientific knowledge.
IMPLICIT
Further work
Additional topics for analysis include:
US Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan 2003
• Modeling: a large portion of the research described in the plan is in support of modeling activities. My
work will focus on the balance between regional and global models and between the short and long term
with comparisons to the plan’s perceived stakeholder and decision maker needs.
• Reduction of uncertainty: as noted in the plan’s glossary, uncertainty can take on many forms. I will
investigate which forms seem to have priority, and how reductions, if achieved, are assumed to aid
decision making.
Better Climate
Science Policy
Better
Management
Better Climate
Policy
• Priorities: the plan contains more than 200 “milestones, products and payoffs.” A framework for
categorizing these, will be developed to better understand how these items map onto the goals of the
program.
• Metrics: the National Research Council published a report (NRC 2005) which outlines metrics for
evaluating the progress of CCSP. I will examine the metrics put forward in that document for a
comparison to the mapping of priorities and goals mentioned above.
Conclusions
Perhaps the most impressive aspect of the CCSP’s strategic plan is the intricate web
of connections drawn among the incredibly diverse scientific activities that it will
facilitate. The goal of my work is not to criticize this science in particular; it is clear
that our knowledge of climate systems may be greatly enhanced by the program.
Instead, I hope to use this analysis as a constructive reminder that in addressing
challenges of global change, science (climate or otherwise) can only be one part of a
complex political equation.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Dan Sarewitz for valuable input to the poster, and to Genevieve Maricle
and Bets McNie for collaborating with the project.
Thanks to Roger Pielke, Lisa Dilling and others with the Science Policy Assessment
and Research on Climate (SPARC) team.
Thanks to the Consortium for Science Policy and Outcomes (CSPO) for support in
getting me to this conference.
References
Bimber, B. A. (1996). The Politics of Expertise in Congress: The Rise and Fall of the
Office of Technology Assessment. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
NRC (2005). Thinking Strategically: The Appropriate Use of Metrics for the Climate
Change Science Program. Committee on Metrics for Global Change Research,
Climate Research Committee, National Research Council.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11292.html
Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse.
Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 385-403.
Shulock, N. (1999). The Paradox of Policy Analysis: If It Is Not Used, Why Do We
Produce So Much of It? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18:226-244.
Strategic Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. (2003).
http://www.climatescience.gov