Understanding scientists' computational modeling decisions about climate risk management strategies using values-informed mental models

Global Environmental Change 42:107-116 (2017)

Authors
Bryan Cwik
Portland State University
Nancy Tuana
Pennsylvania State University
Chad Gonnerman
University of Southern Indiana
Abstract
When developing computational models to analyze the tradeoffs between climate risk management strategies (i.e., mitigation, adaptation, or geoengineering), scientists make explicit and implicit decisions that are influenced by their beliefs, values and preferences. Model descriptions typically include only the explicit decisions and are silent on value judgments that may explain these decisions. Eliciting scientists’ mental models, a systematic approach to determining how they think about climate risk management, can help to gain a clearer understanding of their modeling decisions. In order to identify and represent the role of values, beliefs and preferences on decisions, we used an augmented mental models research approach, namely values-informed mental models (ViMM). We conducted and qualitatively analyzed interviews with eleven climate risk management scientists. Our results suggest that these scientists use a similar decision framework to each other to think about modeling climate risk management tradeoffs, including eight specific decisions ranging from defining the model objectives to evaluating the model’s results. The influence of values on these decisions varied between our scientists and between the specific decisions. For instance, scientists invoked ethical values (e.g., concerns about human welfare) when defining objectives, but epistemic values (e.g., concerns about model consistency) were more influential when evaluating model results. ViMM can (i) enable insights that can inform the design of new computational models and (ii) make value judgments explicit and more inclusive of relevant values. This transparency can help model users to better discern the relevance of model results to their own decision framing and concerns.
Keywords Values-informed mental models  Climate change  Risk management  Decision making under uncertainty
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,819
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Understanding Pluralism in Climate Modeling.Wendy Parker - 2006 - Foundations of Science 11 (4):349-368.
Distinguishing Between Legitimate and Illegitimate Values in Climate Modeling.Kristen Intemann - 2015 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5 (2):217-232.
Ethics and the Role of the Manager.John R. Boatright - 1988 - Journal of Business Ethics 7 (4):303 - 312.
Climate Change: Do We Know Enough for Policy Action? [REVIEW]Stephen H. Schneider - 2006 - Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (4):607-636.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-10-21

Total views
3 ( #1,336,028 of 2,463,235 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,456 of 2,463,235 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes