Understanding scientists' computational modeling decisions about climate risk management strategies using values-informed mental models
Lauren Mayer, Kathleen Loa, Bryan Cwik, Nancy Tuana, Klaus Keller, Chad Gonnerman, Andrew Parker & Robert Lempert
Global Environmental Change 42:107-116 (2017)
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.Author Profiles
My notes
Similar books and articles
Understanding pluralism in climate modeling.Wendy Parker - 2006 - Foundations of Science 11 (4):349-368.
Informing Public Perceptions About Climate Change: A ‘Mental Models’ Approach.Gabrielle Wong-Parodi & Wändi Bruine de Bruin - 2017 - Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (5):1369-1386.
Intrinsic Ethics Regarding Integrated Assessment Models for Climate Management.Erich W. Schienke, Seth D. Baum, Nancy Tuana, Kenneth J. Davis & Klaus Keller - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (3):503-523.
The role of climate models in adaptation decision-making: the case of the UK climate projections 2009.Liam James Heaphy - 2015 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5 (2):233-257.
Do advisors perceive climate change as an agricultural risk? An in-depth examination of Midwestern U.S. Ag advisors’ views on drought, climate change, and risk management.Sarah P. Church, Michael Dunn, Nicholas Babin, Amber Saylor Mase, Tonya Haigh & Linda S. Prokopy - 2018 - Agriculture and Human Values 35 (2):349-365.
Distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate values in climate modeling.Kristen Intemann - 2015 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5 (2):217-232.
Making Uncertainties Explicit: the Jeffreyan Value-Free Ideal and its Limits.David M. Frank - 2017 - In Kevin C. Elliott & Ted Richards (eds.), Exploring Inductive Risk. New York, NY, USA:
Intrinsic Ethics Regarding Integrated Assessment Models for Climate Management.Erich W. Schienke, Seth D. Baum, Nancy Tuana, Kenneth J. Davis & Klaus Keller - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (3):503-523.
Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management.Deborah G. Mayo & Rachelle D. Hollander (eds.) - 1994 - Oxford University Press USA.
Climate Change and Second-Order Uncertainty: Defending a Generalized, Normative, and Structural Argument from Inductive Risk.Daniel Steel - 2016 - Perspectives on Science 24 (6):696-721.
Ethics and the role of the manager.John R. Boatright - 1988 - Journal of Business Ethics 7 (4):303 - 312.
Metaphors, Stories, Models: A Unified Account of Decisions: Part 1 Making Sense of the Decision Context.Johannes M. Lehner - 2002 - Philosophy of Management 2 (1):35-46.
Building Confidence in Climate Model Projections: An Analysis of Inferences from Fit.Baumberger Christoph, Knutti Reto & Hirsch Hadorn Gertrude - 2017 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:1-20.
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
2018-10-21
Downloads
3 (#1,313,661)
6 months
1 (#447,139)
2018-10-21
Downloads
3 (#1,313,661)
6 months
1 (#447,139)
Historical graph of downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Author Profiles
Citations of this work
Improving philosophical dialogue interventions to better resolve problematic value pluralism in collaborative environmental science.Bethany K. Laursen, Chad Gonnerman & Stephen J. Crowley - 2021 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 87:54-71.
Attention to Values Helps Shape Convergence Research.Casey Helgeson, Robert E. Nicholas, Klaus Keller, Chris E. Forest & Nancy Tuana - 2022 - Climatic Change 170.
Building Community Capacity with Philosophy: Toolbox Dialogue and Climate Resilience.Bryan Cwik, Chad Gonnerman, Michael O'Rourke, Brian Robinson & Daniel Schoonmaker - 2022 - Ecology and Society 27 (2).
It Takes a Village to Run a Model—The Social Practices of Hydrological Modeling.L. A. Melsen - 2022 - Water Resources Research 58.