Online Resources to the Paper:

Building an Integrated U.S. National Climate Indicators System

Online Resource 1: Outcomes of National Climate Assessment Workshops

focused on Indicators

Melissa A. Kenney1, Anthony C. Janetos2, and Glynis Lough3

Affiliations 1University of Maryland, Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center / Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites-Maryland, 5825 University Research Court, Suite 4001, College Park, MD 20740-3823, USA

2Boston University, The Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future, 67 Bay State Road, Boston, MA 02215, USA

3U.S. Global Change Research Program, 1800 G Street, NW, Suite 9100, Washington DC 20006, USA

Corresponding author: Melissa A. Kenney, University of Maryland, Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center / Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites-Maryland, 5825 University Research Court, Suite 4001, College Park, MD 20740-3823, USA; ; phone: 301-405-3226; fax: 301-405-8468

This article is part of a Special Issue on “The National Climate Assessment: Innovations in Science and Engagement” edited by Katharine L. Jacobs, Susanne Moser, and James L. Buizer

OR1 Summary of indicators workshops

In 2010-2011 the U.S. Global Change Research Program co-sponsored three indicators workshops focused on ecological (USGCRP 2010), physical (USGCRP 2011b), and societal (USGCRP 2011a) indicators. All the workshops included a range of Federal and non-Federal scientists who had experience in both developing the scientific information needed to create indicators, as well as experts in the communication and translation of scientific information for user communities.

All workshops similarly concluded that leveraging existing indicator efforts is paramount, and all indicators must be scientifically defensible using the highest quality data available. Additionally, though there were differences in the recommendations from the workshops of the vision, scope, and audience for the indicators set or system, there was general agreement that these goals should be clearly defined before moving forward with the development of indicators for the National Climate Assessment. The workshops also mentioned that the process should include both experts and user communities, implying the need for inclusion of indicators spanning the topic areas included in the three workshops. There were, however, several differences in the goals and key points that resulted from each of the workshops, presented below. The results from all of these workshops were used by the Indicators Working Group as a starting point for discussions on the recommended indicators vision and decision criteria.

OR1.1 Ecosystem Indicators (adapted from USGCRP 2010)

The goals of the ecological indicators workshop were two-fold: 1) to suggest a process for selecting ecosystem climate impact indicators, and 2) to identify leveraging and coordination opportunities for observational networks that could be used for understanding ecosystem impacts or to develop indicators. A couple of key points emerged from the workshop including the needs for:

  • developingclear goals and identifying a target audience for a set of indicators;
  • establishing a consistent lexicon to promote consistency in the use of terms;
  • using of indicators for attribution or describing causal relationships;
  • linking indicator to a conceptual model of ecosystem functions and services;
  • identifying groups to engage in creating indicator recommendations;
  • generating buy-in from user communities; and
  • creating linkages between indicators and environmental management.

Additionally, the workshop participants identified some important questions related to the linkage between indicators and observational data and networks, including data collection and use requirements, observational network coordination requirements, and data information requirements, including the scale and metadata. And they discussed the topics of terrestrial, marine, and freshwater ecosystems.

OR1.2 Physical Climate Indicators (adapted from USGCRP 2011b)

The goal of the physical climate indicators workshop were to identify several high-level categories of physical climate indicators that would be useful for inclusion in the National Climate Assessment and for informing the U.S. public. Related to these goals was providing input on both the process of indicator selection and potential methodologies for indicator construction. Several high-level comments that were expressed by the workshop participantson the needs for an indicators set including:

  • the spatial scalability of the indicators and the information desired by different audiences;
  • the types of indicators, i.e., should they be exclusively impact indicators or also include vulnerabilities or drivers of climate change?;
  • the need to inventory existing indicators and leverage existing resources,whenever possible, to increase the likelihood of sustaining the effort;
  • therequirement of datasets and indicators to be scientifically rigorous, credible, and transparent;
  • understandability of the indicators by non-scientists and involvement of graphic designers and communication experts to support this objective;
  • clarity of the relationship between climate changes and impacts; and
  • integration of the physical climate indicators with ecological and societal indicators.

Three major indicator methodologies for indicator groupings were suggested – statistical, thematic, and physical system – and the workshop participants generally thought a combination of approaches would be most advantageous. Specifically, an analogy of vital signs (i.e., lagging indicators) and warning lights (i.e., leading indicators), were suggested with a slight preference of lagging indicators being expressed by the participants.

Additionally, there were several categories of indicators that were discussed, specifically: extreme events/natural hazards, biophsysical changes, hydrological/freshwater, timing, coastal, and cryospheric changes. The participants disagreed about whether there was a need for indicators of anthropogenic forcing and the level of causal linkage between the indicators. But there was general agreement that indicators should have some linkage to adaptation and mitigation decisions.

OR1.3 Societal Indicators (adapted from USGCRP 2011a)

The goal of the societal indicators workshop was to develop a framework for identifying physical, ecological, and socioeconomic indicators that are understood by non-scientists and support a range of uses from assessment to decision-making. The workshop was scoped to consider indicators of climate impacts, vulnerabilities, and responses for a range of scales and sectors. Thus the specific focus of the workshop discussions were on categories of societal indicators, approaches to constructing indicators, decision criteria for development and implementation of indicators, and data sources and other leveraging opportunities. The key results from this workshop included:

  • the indicators should be relevant, credible, and inspire action for a particular audience(s);
  • use an objective driven approach that starts with the goals and choses indicators that map to those objectives;
  • leverage existing resources, when appropriate;
  • do not prescribe to a particular indicators methodologybecause of the diversity of topics and disciplines;
  • the process should start with what is easily doable and build the system from those initial indicators;
  • the indicators and data sources should be scientifically rigorous, credible, and transparent;
  • engage diverse groups of stakeholders early in a co-production process;
  • create flexibility and customizability into the indicators framework to support the needs of multiple audiences;
  • include citizen science and experiential knowledge for the selection, data, and evaluation processes, when appropriate;
  • indicators should be representative not comprehensive and include the range of impacts that is value neutral about the result of the indicator;
  • indicators need to be consistently measured and with data appropriate to address the phenomenon represented by the indicator;
  • include temporal scales with appropriate frequency and longevity to develop reasonable baselines of change over time; and
  • include evaluation research to support adaptive management of the indicators over time.

References

USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program) (2011a) Societal Indicators for the National Climate Assessment. Kenney, M.A., R.S. Chen, et al. Eds. NCA Report Series, vol. 5c. April 28-29, 2011, Washington, DC.

USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program) (2011b) Monitoring Climate Change and its Impacts: Physical Climate Indicators. NCA Report Series, vol. 5b. March 29-30, 2011, Washington, DC.

USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program) (2010) Ecosystem Responses to Climate Change: Selecting Indicators and Integrating Observational Networks. NCA Report Series, vol. 5a. November 30-December 1, 2010, Washington, DC.

1