visualization of slow-developing hazards …...visualization of slow-developing hazards 3...

Visualization of Slow-Developing Hazards 1

Visualization of Slow-Developing Hazards: Influencing Perceptions and Behaviors to Facilitate Adaptation Planning Garrett Broad1, Donovan Campbell2, Tim Frazier3, Peter Howe4, Felipe Murtinho5, Humberto Reyes Hernandez6

1 Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern California, USA 2 Department of Geography and Geology, The University of the West Indies at Mona, Jamaica 3 Departments of Geography and Bio-Regional Planning, University of Idaho, USA 4 Department of Geography, The Pennsylvania State University, USA 5 Department of Geography, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA 6 Coordinación de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, México

Melon field in rural Jamaica during a drought. Photo by Donovan Campbell.

Pan-American Advanced Studies Institute for the Integration of Research on Climate Change and Hazards in the Americas. July 2010.


Executive Summary

Many of major global environmental problems are chronic rather than acute. Climate change, food insecurity, and water scarcity are prime examples. While science is advancing rapidly at being able to describe, model, and predict these phenomena, the communication of scientific findings to people ‘on the ground’ can be limited by the availability of tools to depict the full depth and breadth of available data. At the same time, people facing hazards can be limited in their ability to communicate their depth of knowledge to researchers and policymakers by differences in organizational knowledge and access to technology, among other concerns.

In this white paper, we discuss both the importance and difficulty of visualizing slow-developing hazards as a way to influence the perceptions of people in vulnerable communities and motivate action to mitigate and adapt to the hazards. We define visualization broadly, to encompass multiple modes and audiences in place-specific situations.

We outline some of the key concerns when developing intervention strategies, with a focus on the role of media in addition to community-based social, occupational, and organizational networks. We present several brief case studies from rural Jamaica, Colombia, Mexico, and Southern California as a way to explicate the opportunities and constraints for visualization efforts in diverse settings across the Americas.


Introduction

Increasingly federal, state, and local community decision-makers face the challenge of preparing for and adapting to impacts from climate change, often with a lack of full understanding of the risks associated with these impacts. Some climate change impacts, for example, will be felt in the short term (quick onset hazards such as sea level rise-enhanced hurricanes and their storm surge) (Frazier et al., 2010), while others will be manifested as changes to climate continue (e.g. slower developing hazards such as drought). Often these decisions are made with a lack of scientific knowledge because of a disconnect between scientists and local decision makers (Sarewitz and Pielke 2007). Although there are many reasons why this gap in knowledge exchange exists, most notably science tends to focus on generalizations that are theory based without explicit applications to a specific problem or location. Another primary cause for this gap is that when science does provide research of a specific applied nature, scientific publications are often the targets of research results instead of local decision makers (Jackobs et al. 2005 Sarewitz and Pielke 2007; Tribbia and Moser 2008). Even when local decision-makers know of relevant scientific research, they may not have the opportunity to evaluate the literature because they lack of access to most academic journals. Given the potentially grave consequences of failing to exchange knowledge about climate change impacts, the scientific community must increase efforts to bridge this gap so that local decision makers have the latest information.

Also problematic for decision makers is their lack of scientific knowledge and understanding of the disaster risk is often combined with the public’s lack of experience with past disasters. The lack of the public’s past disaster experience usually translates to a lower tolerance for risk-reduction efforts. Without a high tolerance for risk-reduction efforts many elected officials lack the political will to enact controversial and economically demanding mitigation and adaptation efforts. Insufficient or incorrect

knowledge of risks and potential consequences has been cited as a factor in delaying mitigation and adaptation efforts and in slowing negotiations (Moser, 2005; Tol et al., 2008; Tribbia & Moser, 2008; US Environmental Protection Agency, 2009). To address these challenges, programs that educate both the general public and elected officials on societal risks and adaptation strategies related to current and future hazards can be developed and coupled with stakeholder interaction in long-range planning could result in a higher public tolerance for mitigation and adaptation strategies. The role of stakeholder interaction in long-range comprehensive planning is well documented and increasing (Jankowski and Nyerges 2001a; Godschalk et al. 2003; Moser 2005; Berke and Campanella 2006; Burby 2006; Mitchell 2006; Van Aalst et al. 2008). The desire to increase stakeholder involvement has grown out of the realization that those affected by public decisions should have more input in the decision making process (Jankowski and Nyerges 2001a, 2001b). Stakeholder involvement in research that has profound societal impacts (e.g., climate change) also provides local participants the opportunity to improve their understanding of this scientific research, which serves to validate and confirm the science in the minds of nonscientists (Moser 2005; Schröter et al. 2005; Rojas Blanco 2006; Van Aalst et al. 2008).

There is a long history of public education efforts for quick onset hazards, for example the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood plain mapping program. Although there have been attempts to map, visualize, and communicate the risk associated with slow developing hazards such as drought, the public’s perception of these types of hazards is usually low. A possible explanation could be that the public believes that slow-developing hazards can be easily mitigated during their onset and thus response requires much less preparation. Whatever the rationale, adaptation efforts for drought hazards are not on pace with those of faster onset hazards. Public education efforts that include visualization techniques


communicated in a way that increases the public’s perception of risk to slow-developing hazards could enable societal adjustment to these environmental stressors.

The foundations for hazard-related vulnerability research can be traced to Barrows (1923), who focused on society’s adjustment to environmental stressors, and to Gilbert White and colleagues at the University of Chicago, whose research reshaped United States flood management policy (White 1945; White 1964; Kates and Burton 1986; Kirby 1990; Cutter et al. 2000). Prior to this work, hazard studies emphasized physical aspects of extreme events and engineering solutions with little to no discussion of human exposure and adaptation. Work by White and others focused on human exposure to hazards and discussed how exposure was a complex issue involving human contestation with the physical environment for space. Research also focused on why this contestation existed (e.g., why people chose to live in flood risk zones), offering the notion that modifying human action and implementing engineering options could both be viable solutions to limiting exposure to hazards (Kirby 1990) and can be applied to mitigation and adaptation efforts to both fast- and slow-developing hazards.

While fast-developing hazards such as hurricanes provide compelling visual imagery for future mitigation efforts, slow-developing hazards, such as drought, do not lend themselves to easy visualization. In the following sections, this paper will briefly describe the rationale behind the use of visualization regarding risk perceptions, provide a summary of current research on hazard visualization, situate visualization within communication research, and illustrate the need for visualization with place-based case studies in rural Jamaica, Colombia, Southern California, and Mexico. This paper concludes with suggestions for future research and applications of slow-developing hazard visualization.

Risk perception & behavioral responses to slow-developing hazards among individuals and communities

Behavioral responses to slow-onset hazards are moderated by various factors, including individual and collective risk perceptions. Risk can be broadly defined as the threat of adverse consequences to an individual or system due to a hazard (Blaikie et al. 1994). Risk perceptions are the intuitive judgments people make about their risks (Slovic 1987). Research in risk perception revolves around understanding the processes by which people think about and respond to risks. For slow-onset hazards like climate change, the risk perceptions of vulnerable people can help or hinder effective adaptation. These limits of human cognition include gaps between perception, attitudes, and behavior; the role of perceived efficacy and self-efficacy; and the role of societal context (Adger et al. 2007).

There are several examples of studies that show how people change their behavior and adapt to slow-onset hazards (Eakin 2005; Vedwan & Rhoades 2001; Grothmann & Patt 2006; Howe 2009; Berkes & Turner 2006). Much of this research focuses on individuals and how their perceptions and their personal characteristics influence their behavior to manage their land, their farming practices, or the protection of their property. However, in some cases people need to manage common-pool resources, which requires organization and collective decisions in order to be successfully managed (Ostrom 1990). For example, a single individual response or adaptation will prove insufficient to solve water scarcity and watershed problems, so collective adaptations are needed (Murtinho 2010).

Research focusing on a range of natural and technological hazards has determined that risk perceptions do not have a direct relationship to behavior; instead, perceptions work in conjunction with additional cognitive and


societal processes to determine if people respond to a risk, and whether their response is adaptive or maladaptive. A model of individual behavior that can be applied to climate change and other slow-onset hazards has been proposed by Grothmann and Patt (2005) (Figure 1). The Model of Private Proactive Adaptation to Climate Change (MPPAC) is based on Protection Motivation Theory (Rogers and Prentice-Dunn 1997). These models explain that adaptive or maladaptive behavioral responses to risk are the result of two processes: 1) threat/risk appraisal, which includes the probability and severity of harm that would result without behavior change; and 2) coping/adaptation appraisal, which includes the efficacy of possible behavioral responses, and self efficacy, which includes one’s confidence in the ability to perform the response. For climate change risks, both threat appraisal and coping appraisal can be influenced by social discourses and norms, and access to various resources (money, knowledge, social networks, institutional support, etc.) can influence coping appraisal.

The cognitive processes leading to adaptation can also be influenced by previous risk experience and limited by the bounded rationality under which people make decisions under uncertainty. For example, the format in which risks are communicated—either descriptions or personal experience—may be processed by separate cognitive paths that can lead to differences in behavioral response. Risk descriptions in terms of probabilities tend to be processed by the analytic system, requiring greater cognitive load and an understanding of statistical concepts like probability; risk experiences, however, tend to be processed more intuitively

and can generate affect and vivid imagery (Weber 2006; Marx et al. 2007). Research in psychology indicates that communication that appeals to both paths is more likely to promote long-lasting effective behavior change.

Kasperson et al.'s (1988) model of the social amplification of risk provides some of the best understanding of the ways in which individual psychology and perception interacts with broader social networks and communication channels to amplify or downplay hazard risk. In short, "amplification systems" like scientific agencies, news media, opinion leaders, or direct personal experience transmit risk messages through some mediated or direct communication channel. These risks are then cognitively and affectively processed; this processing takes place both individually and collectively through peer interaction and the attachment of social values. Behavioral intentions are then formulated, followed by actions on the part of individuals and groups to take (or not take) actions to deal with the risk. Far from an isolated process, these behaviors lead to secondary impacts which can be long-term and enduring - like value changes or

Figure 1: Grothmann and Patt’s (2005) Model of Private Proactive Adaptation to Climate Change.


political and educational shifts, among others - which then continue to "ripple", creating additional dynamic impacts that influence future risk perceptions and behaviors. In all, the work of Kasperson et al. (1998) and others who have followed demonstrates the importance of perception in risk behaviors, but also affirms that perception is a culturally, socially, and communicatively constituted phenomenon.

In rural Zimbabwe, Grothmann & Patt (2005) show the role that cognitive biases and lack of perceived adaptive capacity can play in adaptation. The study shows whether subsistence farmers are able to use the seasonal climate forecasts in order to change their decisions, and improve their yields. Although farmers can use these forecasts, they are insensitive to the different risk degrees and they are unwilling to believe that their actions can actually protect themselves from harm, indicating low perceived adaptive capacity. The complexity of predicting behavior from risk perception can be illustrated by a case study in Colombia and south Florida. Among rural communities in the Andes of Colombia, Murtinho (2010) shows the importance of self-organization in order to facilitate collective water management to adapt to water scarcity hazards. In addition to the organizational characteristics of communities, the study suggests those communities that perceive high water scarcity are more likely to engage in adaptation processes. Alternatively, risk perceptions, adaptation appraisal, and perceptions of self efficacy were related to the number of actions business owners take to protect their property from flooding linked to sea-level rise (Howe 2009). In this example, people who had property located in more vulnerable areas were less likely to report precautionary behavior than those in less vulnerable areas, indicating the need to communicate both the risk and the efficacy of behavioral response.

Existing research on the visualization of slow-developing hazards

In recent years, several scholars have collaborated with professionals in geographic information science, remote sensing, landscape design, computer programming and other areas to develop visualizations that depict the impacts of slow-onset hazards. Applications have focused on a range of potential hazards, including regional water allocation (Widcorp, 2009) and food security (Rochon et al., 2002), as well as issues related to global climate change (Dockerty et al., 2005; McConville, 2005; Sheppard, 2005; Sheppard et al., 2008). Visualizations offer a potentially powerful tool in the communication of climate change issues and other slow-developing hazards for several reasons. Researchers like Tickell (2002) and Nicholson-Cole (2005) have noted the difficulty of communicating global environmental changes which occur over a broad stretch of time and have uncertain consequences. Visualizations offer the opportunity to “feature the invisible” (Neset & Glad, 2005) in these uncertain situations – they can represent past, present, and future elements of hazards, as well as explicate alternative and uncertain paths in such a way that would otherwise be difficult for decision-makers and community members to conceptualize.

In the communication of slow-developing hazards, it is essential to recognize the ways in which citizens and policy-makers might respond to different presentation formats, in line with Gardner's (2006) theories of multiple intelligences. As McConville (2005) notes, by integrating textual, narrative, scientific, audio or other data sources, visualizations and virtual worlds can serve as a point of conjuncture for these varied inputs, together stimulating linguistic, emotional, and visual-spatial intelligences. Indeed, multi-sensory experience with the natural environment is a central component of human understanding – visualizations that include these multiple components of human-environment interaction


offer a potential to simulate and stimulate human cognition and activity. From there, this stimulation has the ability to alter the perceptions and attitudes that have a strong locus of control over individual and community-level behaviors.

With that said, all visualizations are hardly created equal. The work of a number of researchers to date informs some of the key elements that should be included in the development of such applications, while their work leaves a good deal of room for further refinement and theorizing. Sheppard et al. (2008) outline the “Three D's” of visualizing future climate change scenarios – disclosure, drama, and defensibility. In this sense, the visualizations must disclose meaningful and tangible impacts in an understandable and personable fashion, must be vividly compelling and engaging, and must arise as the result of a transparent and credible scientific process. The final point is the most clear-cut. For the sake of scientific credibility and trust-building, any visualizations must be grounded in solid research. As Lowe et al. (2006) demonstrated, visually compelling Hollywood films like “The Day After Tomorrow” have real problems influencing perceptions and behavior because they lack scientific credibility. This can leave those who have viewed such depictions confused about the potential outcomes, or worse, suggest to viewers that the depicted impacts are purely fictional.

On Sheppard and colleagues' point of disclosure, researchers like Nicholson-Cole (2005) and Irving and Hamilton (2005) have argued that it is important to downscale visualizations to the local level in order to provide users with a more familiar and relatable experience that can raise issue salience. O'Neill and Nicholson-Cole (2009) and O'Neill and Hulme (2009) have demonstrated the efficacy of using “iconic images” of local figures – whether a place, person, animal, landscape or otherwise – when visualizing climate impacts, as opposed to much of the global-scale impact information that has previously been

communicated. Dockerty et al. (2005) have also suggested that, in such downscaled representations, the realism of digitally-rendered photographs and photo-montages – as opposed to simulations which are clearly the product of virtual reproduction – may be the best way to influence the perceptions of viewers.

Figure 2: Visualizations of existing conditions and projections under two climate change scenarios in Norfolk (Sheppard 2005, reproduced from Dockerty et al. 2005).


With respect to the role of drama, there is a wide body of research to suggest that engagement with and enjoyment of media products is a key to affective involvement (Green, Brock & Kauffman, 2004). Engagement with dramatic narratives can influence perceptions and attitudes, prompt conversations with others, and lead to individual and community level change (Singhal & Rogers, 1999; Singhal et al., 2006). This last feature – prompting conversation – is an additional element that must be paramount in the development and deployment of any visualization of slow-onset hazards. Risk perceptions and decision-making do not occur in a vacuum, but are rather part of broader processes related to society and social relationships (Douglas & Wildavsky, 1983; Kasperson et al., 1988). With that in mind, it is important for such processes to incorporate local knowledge and participation from an early stage, as a way to better tailor the visualization to the community's perceptions and real-life issues as well as to promote ownership in the application. Further, the “visioning” workshops arranged by Sheppard and colleagues (among others) – in which community members are brought together to work through and discuss the features of the visualization – can be an invaluable force to integrate the issue and application into the daily mindset and practices of participants.

In Focus: Situating the Role of Hazard Visualization

Many regions face the threat of slow-developing natural hazards. The following examples provide regional illustrations of these hazards and describe the potential role for visualization as a tool for precautionary planning.

Focus on: Rural Jamaica

The Agricultural sector in Jamaica contributes 5.7% to GDP and provides around 20% of total employment (FAO, 2010). Despite limited state support and marginal environmental conditions, small-scale farmers dominate the agricultural

landscape of Jamaica and account for most domestic production and some exports. Only 15% of the arable land is in the hands of small farmers who live by cultivating areas of about 0.75 hectares while most of the flat fertile lands are occupied by large-scale plantations of sugar cane, coffee and bananas. After decades of marginalization and neglect small farmers now rely heavily on their local knowledge-arguably their most important resource. However, climate change and increase variability is confusing local farmers and complicating their livelihood security. Gyampoh et al (2008: p3) observes that "the ability to, and how long one can cope with or adapt to these [climate] changes depends on the resources available and local knowledge in a major resource’. Farmers may not understand the science behind climate change but because observing the environment is crucial to their livelihood, they are well in tuned with the weather and as such are well positioned to discern even minor deviations from what is normal condition.

This case study draws upon previous and as ongoing research to exemplify how small farmers in Jamaica (specifically, southern St. Elizabeth parish) have incorporated local knowledge into their livelihood to reduce their vulnerability to drought. Previous research in the area has highlighted the fact that farmers in some areas of the island are experiencing significant changes in the weather patterns, which has complicated farm planning and practices (McGregor et al, 2009; Campbell & Beckford, 2009; Campbell et al, 2010; Gamble et al, (forthcoming)). While fast-onset geophysical hazards such as hurricanes pose a great threat to the livelihood of farmers, slow-onset events such as droughts can be equally as devastating. McGregor et al (2009) observes that 'Though losses may be significant in a hurricane, drought is a more insidious hazard, and farmers are probably less resilient because a key aspect of vulnerability is access to critical farm inputs, both of which are more affected by drought than hurricanes'. The parish of St. Elizabeth is recognized locally as the bread basket of Jamaica by virtue of being a major


supply area of local food for both the tourist and local markets.

Recent work by Gamble et al (forthcoming) reiterates the urgent need to bridge the gap between local and scientific knowledge. The authors used remotely sensed precipitation and vegetation data along with a survey of local farmers in southern St. Elizabeth to assess the congruence between scientific and local knowledge. It was discovered that farmers are observing changes in local weather patterns which are well supported by actual climate data. Specifically, the authors concludes that "the somewhat marginal environment for agriculture in this area [southern St. Elizabeth] means that farmers are particularly sensitive to changes in weather and climate, with many expressing concerns about an increase in drought. In accordance with farmer perceptions of worsening drought conditions, satellite estimates of rainfall suggest that severe (high magnitude/long-duration) drought events are becoming more frequent in St Elizabeth Parish" (Gamble et al: 15).

Small farmers in southern St. Elizabeth experience drought events within a context of multiple stresses. Campbell et al (2010) observe that the adaptive capacity of farmers in the area is fundamentally altered by a number of local stresses such as lack of basic services (such as water supply and irrigation), poverty, high fertilizer price, cheap food imports, lack of market. The authors also noted that in order to capture the different sources of vulnerability among farmers it is necessary to develop a multifaceted framework which incorporates the ideas of 'double exposure' and multiple stresses. A lack of an irrigation system in the area has forced many farmers to rely on purchased water which typically costs US$142.8 for a 4000gl truck load and twice as much for an 8000gl load (McGregor et al., 2009 and Campbell et al, 2010). Most farmers in the

area finds it difficult to obtain water during a drought event and even if they do, it is usually well after the farmer has lost a significant amount of his/her crops.

To counteract the negative effects of droughts, farmers in southern St. Elizabeth have developed a number of coping strategies which are underpinned by their local knowledge of the environmental conditions under which they operate. These strategies include, deliberately altering planting methods (e.g. growing drought resistant crops during the dry season); employing techniques to reduce moisture-loss (e.g. mulching); developing damage-reducing strategies during the event (e.g. borrowing money or water) and; post-drought strategizing to restore production levels (e.g. scaling down production or temporarily exiting farming) (Campbell et al, 2010). Cooper et al (2008) observes that coping strategies (such as these) are ‘risk spreading’ by nature and designed to mitigate the negative impacts of poor seasons, so usually fail to exploit the positive opportunities of average and better than average seasons'. However, coping strategies are often the 'blueprint' for future adaptation and

Figure 3: Farmer in Jamaica harvesting grass to use as crop mulch, a coping strategy during drought. Photo by Donovan Campbell.


provides useful insights into the socio-spatial behaviour of farmers.

Drought remains a fundamental problem to the livelihood security of farmers in southern St. Elizabeth. Chief among the current challenges for farmers and practitioners is how to effectively communicate the nature and changing dimensions of drought. Hence, there is an urgent need to develop a comprehensive communication framework that incorporates the knowledge of farmers and practitioners.

Focus on: Colombia

In the Andean region of South America, understanding local collective decisions is particularly important for watershed management, as many rural communities receive minimal government support for water management and the communities themselves must decide if and how they will protect their watersheds and distribute their water. In many Andean communities of Colombia, autonomous water associations have emerged in the absence of outside intervention to solve conflicts of water distribution due to increasing water demand and water shortages in the dry seasons (Peña, Reyes, and García 2007). In 2005, water associations provided water to almost half the Colombian rural population (approximately 4.5 million people) (Colmenares and Mira 2007).

The collective water management decisions of these associations may be pivotal in determining whether Andean communities will have continued access to freshwater. In the Andes, appropriate management of páramos (high altitude ecosystems), forests and river systems is necessary to provide an adequate supply of water for many rural Andean communities (Buytaert et al. 2006; Harden 2006; Murtinho 2009). In many regions, however, these ecosystems are threatened by increasing population density and its associated agricultural economic activities (Ortiz et al. 2005; Murtinho 2010). The degradation of the micro watersheds is further compounded by

natural climate variability, such as El Niño Southern Oscillation - ENSO. El Niño events can reduce the average annual rainfall by 40%, thereby accentuating water shortages in the region (IDEAM 2002). And in the future, Global Climate Change may further increase the rainfall variability in the Andes of Colombia (Christensen et al. 2007).

In the Fúquene watershed, located in the northern part of the eastern mountain range of the Andes, some water user associations (WUAs) are implementing adaptation strategies to cope with increasing water shortages due to land use changes and rainfall variability in the region (Murtinho 2010). These strategies require a high degree of coordination and cooperation among community members to implement them since they include adaptations relatively expensive and difficult to put into action, such as upstream land purchases for ecosystem protection, infrastructure improvements and changes in pricing rules to conserve the water resources.

Figure 4: Leader perceptions of water scarcity in the Fúquene Watershed, Colombia.


Based on the analysis of 111 water user associations in the Fúquene watershed, Murtinho (2010) shows how the differences in the communities´ adaptive capacity and risk perceptions play an important role in their initiative to implement adaptation strategies. Key aspects of their adaptive capacity include their self-organization capacity, the years of experience managing water shortages, and their ability to find external financial resources to invest in their adaptation strategies. In addition, the adaptation appraisal and the risk appraisal are important factors to predict water user associations’ management decisions. In Fúquene, communities with high self-efficacy perception (ie. perceive that their water association is the legitimate organization to solve water problems and has the capacity to do it), are more likely to take the initiative and invest in adaptation strategies. In the same way, water user association leaders´ that perceive relatively high water scarcity risk (shown in red in Figure 4) are also more likely to take the initiative to adapt.

Facing further changes in rainfall variability due to global climate change, it is critical that water user associations start implementing adaptation strategies, even if currently they are not facing water shortages. The Colombian case study shows that besides the challenge of increasing communities’ adaptive capacity, in order to promote adaptation strategies implementation, we need to change communities risk appraisal of the future water shortages. Due to the uncertainty on the time frame and magnitude of these future changes, the challenge is how to communicate and visualize these slow-onset/slow-developing hazards so communities start changing their water management practices today.

Focus on: Southern California, USA

The Southern California region is one of the most populous and economically productive in all of the United States. It is also a region that is particularly prone to negative impacts from slow-onset hazards related to climate change,

including water scarcity and food insecurity. Perhaps above all else, the future social and economic productivity of the region depends on a steady stream of fresh water. Due to what Wilkinson & Rounds (1998) refer to as “disparities between availability and demand”, California has long been engaged in a control and alteration of nature as a means to ensure the conveyance of water to major population centers and agricultural centers. In the Los Angeles area, for instance, water is derived from a number of sources. The State Water Project (approved in 1960), includes some 22 dams and reservoirs, a Delta pumping plant, and a 444-mile-long aqueduct that carries water from the Delta through the San Joaquin Valley to southern California. The 1,440 mile-long Colorado river grants the state 4.4 million acre-feet of water annually, and an aqueduct operated by the Metropolitan Water District serves 18 million customers in six Southern California counties, including Los Angeles. Los Angeles has also constructed several other aqueducts which deliver more than 400 million gallons of water to the area each day, while local groundwater supplies are also used in significant but variable numbers depending on drought conditions (Water Education Foundation, 2006).

In their analysis of the long-term impact of climate change on California water availability, Tanaka et. al. (2006) argue that California's water supply system appears physically capable of adapting to climate and population changes. However, this will require significant economic investment and social change – the operation of the state's groundwater storage capacity must be drastically improved, transfers among water users must occur, and new technologies must be adopted and developed. The authors note that the 100-year time frame they used in their analysis, while conceptually and personally distant for most citizens and decision-makers, is in fact well-within the lifetime of most major pieces of water infrastructure, as well as the regulatory bodies


that oversee them. Of course, this calls for long-term visioning and planning beyond normal human tendencies, which lends itself well to the increased use of visualization techniques for water system change. In this sense, visualizations could be a potentially useful tool to work with policy-makers, water system managers, farmers and major businesses on the one hand, as the different options for infrastructural change, water and land management are debated. On the other hand, it could also prove to be a useful tool to engage average citizens, whose support and willingness to potentially alter their lifestyles or pay additional costs will be central as a means to advance systemic change.

Focus on: Mexico

Mexico provides an illustration of a region simultaneously facing both slow-developing hazards, such as drought, and fast-onset hazards, such as hurricanes. More than 85 percent of the land area of Mexico is classified as arid or semi-arid, and annual rainfall is highly variable. In those regions, the experience of drought has resulted in a wide range of adaptations to climate variability. Yet, today, many Mexicans are still extremely vulnerable to lower than average rainfall. The government has constructed storage reservoirs and rationed water in order to respond to drought and increased demand (Liverman 2000). At present Mexico City pumps water at great expense from an area 100 miles away and a thousand feet lower, but many northern cities had severe water rationing during the drought season. The dry period has also lent new urgency to longtime water worries in metropolitan Mexico City, home to 20 million residents. During 2009, the National Agency of Water rationed water for more than 5 months of the drought season and currently threatens even more significant cuts as Mexico endures one of its driest spells in more than half a century. In the decade of the 1990s, four years of scarce rainfall produced severe drought conditions in northern Mexico. Reservoirs were at 50-year lows, below 5

percent of capacity in some cases. More than 4.6 million hectares of cropland was damaged and 6 million hectares remained unplanted because of the drought. The 1996 drought drew attention to the overall and differential vulnerability of Mexican agriculture and society to climate variability. Mexican growers reported more than $1 billion in losses from crops planted during spring, in anticipation of seasonal rain (Liverman 2005). Hardest hit have been corn, beans, barley and sorghum, as well as livestock. Ranching suffered great losses, with estimates of 300,000 cattle deaths and 700,000 sold at very low prices. By the early 2000s, Mexico's livestock herd had declined by one-third from 1990 levels, and the Federal Agricultural Department estimated farm losses at more than 1 billion dollars (U.S.) and planned to import an extra 4 million metric tons of basic grains for a total grain import. The drought also provoked several national and international political conflicts for the water supply. The sparse rainfall nationwide has made 2009 the driest in 69 years of government record-keeping.

At the same time, Mexico faces the immediate threat of hurricanes during the hurricane season that begins at the end of May and lasts through November. Situated between two warm oceans, Mexico has been battered throughout its history by the storms that form as the oceans heat in summer. Since 1955 at least 12 powerful hurricanes had affected the country – including events in 1955, 1959, 1967, 1988, 1995, 1997, 2005, 2007 and 2010.

Most hurricanes, and certainly the most destructive ones, strike in September and October, when the warm ocean waters that fuel the storms reach peak temperatures. 2010 has been an atypical year; at the end of June, Hurricane Alex ripped off roofs, caused severe flooding and forced thousands of people to flee coastal fishing villages before weakening to a tropical storm over northern Mexico. It was the first June hurricane in the Atlantic since 1995, according to the National Hurricane Center. Hurricane Alex swept into northern Mexico,


bringing with it damaging wind, torrential rain and isolated tornadoes. The storm made landfall, with a sustained wind of approximately 105 mph. The storm caused severe flooding in three important Mexico's states: Tamaulipas, Nuevo León and Coahuila, and the most cities along of US border were flooded, besides Monterrey, the third most important city in Mexico. At present the damages are incalculable, hundreds of people were evacuated and at least 12 people die and these cities are practically under water.

For Mexico, as in many places, effective and comprehensive hazard visualization would account for both slow-developing hazards, such as drought, and fast-onset hazards, such as hurricanes.

The role of communication in adaptation to slow-developing hazards

To this point, the use of high-quality and scientifically grounded visualizations has largely been confined to small-scale academic exercises or isolated community “visioning” workshops (Sheppard et al., 2008). While this work is a necessary first step, there is a need in future research and action to broaden the scope of the aims of such productions. Indeed, if such visualizations prove to be a key tool in the communication of slow-onset hazards like climate change, food insecurity, and water scarcity, this will only come as a result of a broader engagement in the process and broader proliferation of the messages to decision makers and citizens within local communities. As Burch et al. (2004) discuss, despite a variety of critiques, there has long been a tendency in the communication of science, and in the communication of climate change in particular, to rely on an expert-driven process. Those authors argue that the “communication-as-transmission” concept – in which scientific knowledge is simply transmitted to the public and to decision-makers as a means to induce action – is outmoded and empirically unfounded. In order to raise salience

and motivate long-term action, interventions that use visualization techniques to communicate slow-onset hazards must move away from this ethos of transmission and instead integrate a broader understanding of communities' indigenous communication networks and media usage in a more participatory fashion.

Perhaps the key role of visualization techniques is to encourage conversations amongst decision-makers and within communities. It is through conversation within social networks that individual and community-level perceptions are shaped, attitudes and values are formed, and action is taken to deal with community issues (Ball-Rokeach et al., 2001; Katz, 2006). Media play a key role in setting the agenda for what is talked about within the social networks of citizens and decision makers (Dearing & Rogers, 1996). Media have particularly strong influence in times of crisis or social ambiguity (like the challenges presented by slow-onset hazards), as citizens look to trusted media as a way to make sense of the world around them and they look for solutions to problems (Ball-Rokeach & DeFleur, 1976). Further, community spaces of sociability (like popular parks, cafes, etc) that are conducive to conversation are important venues in which the topics presented by media are discussed and deliberated (Tarde, 1969; Oldenburg, 1989). Too often in the communication of hazards, a great deal of time and money is spent developing educational applications and outreach materials that are barely used because practitioners do not take the time to sufficiently understand and connect to the specific media and the specific communicative spaces that residents rely upon in their daily lives. Because of the potential perceptual influence of visualization techniques, it is important that visualizations of slow-onset hazards move beyond their current state of small-scale exposure to become better integrated into the media and communication networks of the communities that are affected.


Communication Infrastructure Theory (CIT) (Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2006) offers one potential theoretically grounded strategy to improve the salience of visualizations within communities. In short, CIT places much of its focus on the community storytelling network, which is created when residents, community organizations, and local or ethnic media participate in communicative actions about the local community. Previous research has found that individuals who are more connected to these local storytellers have higher levels higher levels of neighborhood belonging (Ball-Rokeach et al., 2001) and civic engagement (Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2006). Relevant for this paper, connection to the storytelling network has also been shown to have a direct effect on individuals' likelihood to take pre-hurricane precautions (Kim & Kang, 2010). The storytelling network is situated within the communication environment, which consists of the physical and social structure of a community that can promote or hinder communication. This suggests that, in the production and deployment of slow-developing hazard visualizations, researchers should do due diligence to identify – through formative interviews and surveys with local residents and decision makers – exactly what organizational and occupational networks, media outlets, social network connections and spaces of sociability they rely upon most for information and advice about hazard-related issues. This formative research could go a long way to better inform the outreach strategy as a way to get more individuals involved in the visualization development, as well as to disseminate the findings and messages of the hazard visualization once the intervention has taken place. With its local and culturally situated orientation, it is clear that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to the visualization of slow-onset hazards. Indeed, strategies will differ based on the intended audience of the application, as well as the technological infrastructure of the community in question.

Future research directions, needs, and innovations

One glaring limitation thus far in research on the impacts of visualizations of slow-onset hazards is that behavioral changes have rarely, if ever, been monitored. This is, of course, a common state of affairs in social scientific research; one that can only be remedied by the increased use of multiple research methodologies. In this case, some experimental research might be appropriate, but there is an even more central need for longitudinal research projects that gauge social and behavioral changes over time within communities that have developed or disseminated these visualization applications.

In the implementation of these visualizations, there are also opportunities to learn from work currently being conducted in the areas of participatory game development and “games for change.” At this point, it seems that these bodies of literature have remained fairly separate, but both areas could benefit from increased cooperation and knowledge-sharing. As an example, the collection Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects, edited by Ritterfield and Cody (2008), brought together an interdisciplinary group of researchers and designers to theorize and empirically demonstrate the ways in which games and virtual environments can influence attitudes and behavioral changes in the real world. Writing in that collection, Bryant and Fondren (2008) outline a number of key considerations that should be integrated into serious game development – things like personalization, dimensionality, complexity, competition and entertainment factors – which could prove useful to the visualization of slow-developing hazards. Indeed, it seems that increased interactivity is one thing that the visualization field could significantly improve. The community-research partnership that led to the development of Participatory Chinatown (http://participatorychinatown.org/), a 3-D immersive game designed to be part of the


master plan redevelopment of Boston's Chinatown neighborhood, demonstrates how computer imagery and game development can be integrated with psychological and communication theory in a participatory manner.

It will be difficult to balance this level of interactivity with the tenets of downscaling and localizing slow-onset hazards, which suggests that research and development should focus on ways in which local settings can alter and tailor visualization programs. Pearce, Fuller and Wrobel (2008) have suggested that Open Source tools and freeware offer better access and flexibility for local designers. It seems that such tools have great promise in encouraging more widespread adoption by simplifying highly technical applications. Indeed, the issues of technical expertise and technological access are something that the field of slow-onset hazard visualization must critically interrogate and troubleshoot in the years ahead. There is great disparity in these arenas within and across the Americas, which suggests that researchers will have to make difficult decisions at times with respect to who their target audience is and what application fits best. In sites such as Southern California and Mexico City, given the fairly widespread use of computers and internet technology, it seems that visualization applications could be used and exhibited in community visioning hubs, as well as designed for personal use by citizens or decision makers. In rural Jamaica and Colombia, on the other hand, visualization for farmers facing drought in rural areas might take the form of narratives from individuals and communities who have successfully coped with past droughts that describe their vulnerabilities and provide a successful 'blueprint' for future adaptation practices.


References

Adger, W. N., S. Agrawala, M.M.Q. Mirza, C. Conde, K. O'Brien, J. Pulhin, R. Pulwarty, B. Smit, and K. Takahashi. 2007. Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contributions of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson, 717-743. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ball-Rokeach, S. J., & DeFleur, M. L. 1976. A dependency model of mass-media effects. Communication Research, 3(1), 3.

Ball-Rokeach, S. J., Kim, Y. C., & Matei, S. 2001. Storytelling Neighborhood. Communication Research, 28(4), 392–428.

Barrows, H., 1923. Geography as human ecology. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 13:1–14.

Berke, P. R., and T. J. Campanella. 2006. Planning for postdisaster resiliency. The Annals of the American Academy 604: 192-207.

Berkes, F., and N. J. Turner. 2006. Knowledge, learning and the evolution of conservation practice for social-ecological system resilience. Human Ecology 34 (4).

Blaikie, P. M., T. Cannon, I. Davis, and B. Wisner. 1994. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability, and Disasters. New York: Routledge.

Bryant, J., & Fondren, W. 2009. Psychological and Communicological Theories of Learning and Emotion Underlying Serious Games. In Ritterfeld, Cody & Vorderer (Eds), Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects. Routledge.

Burby, R. J.. 2006. Hurricane Katrina and the paradoxes of government disaster policy: Bringing about wise governmental decisions for hazardous areas. The Annals of the American Academy 604: 171-191.

Burch, S., Shaw, A., Sheppard, S., & Flanders, D. 2009. Climate Change Visualization: Using 3D Imagery of Local Places to Build Capacity and Inform Policy. In Neset, T-S S., Johansson, J. and Linnér, B-O. (eds.) State of Climate Visualization, CSPR Report N:o 09:04, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Norrköping, Sweden.

Buytaert, W., R. Celleri, B. De Bievre, F. Cisneros, G. Wyseure, J. Deckers, and R. Hofstede. 2006. Human impact on the hydrology of the Andean paramos. Earth-Science Reviews 79 (1-2):53-72.

Campbell, D., Barker,.D and McGregor , D 2010. Dealing with drought: Small farmers and environmental hazards in southern St. Elizabeth, Jamaica, Applied Geography (2010), doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.03.007

Campbell, D & Beckford, C. 2009. 'Negotiating uncertainty: Small farmers' coping strategies before and after an encounter with Hurricane Dean, Sustainability, 1, 1366-1387; doi:10.3390/su1041366: http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/1/4/1366/pdf

Christensen, J. H., B. Hewitson, A. Busuioc, A. Chen, X. Gao, I. Held, R. Jones, R. K. Kolli, W. T. Kwon, R. Laprise, V. Magaña Rueda, L. Mearns, C. G. Menéndez, J. Räisänen, A. Rinke, A. Sarr, and P. Whetton. 2007. Regional Climate Projections. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H. L. Miller. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.

Cooper, P. J. M., Dimes, J., Rao, K. P. C., Shapiro, B., Shiferaw, B., & Twomlow, S. 2008. Coping better with current climatic variability in the rain-fed farming systems of sub-Saharan Africa: an essential first step in adapting to future climate change? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 126, 24e35.

Colmenares, R., and J. C. Mira. 2007. Paradojas del agua en Colombia. Privatización y alternativas públicas. In Colombia: ¿Un futuro sin agua?, ed. H. D. Correa, 334. Bogota: Ecofondo, Foro Nacional Ambiental y Ediciones desde Abajo.

Cutter, S. L., J. T. Mitchell, and M. S. Scott. 2000. Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: A case study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90:713-737.


Dearing, J. W., & Rogers, E. M. 1996. Agenda-setting. Sage Publications, Inc.

Dockerty, T., Lovett, A., S\ünnenberg, G., Appleton, K., & Parry, M. 2005. Visualising the potential impacts of climate change on rural landscapes. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 29(3), 297–320.

Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. 1983. Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. Univ of California

Eakin, H. 2005. Institutional change, climate risk, and rural vulnerability: Cases from central Mexico. World Development 33 (11):1923-1938.

FAO. 2010. ‘FAOSTAT: Jamaica’, Retrieved June 15, 2010, from http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx

Frazier, T. G., et al. 2010. Stakeholder perspectives on land-use strategies for adapting to climate-change-enhanced coastal hazards: Sarasota, Florida, Applied Geography , doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.05.007

Gamble, D., Campbell, D., Allen, T., Barker, D., Curtis, S. & McGregor, D (accepted) Climate change, drought, and Jamaican agriculture: the climate record and local perception, Annals of the Association of American Geographers

Gardner, H. 2006. Multiple intelligences: New horizons. Basic Books.

Godschalk, D. R., S. Brody, and R. J. Burby. 2003. Public participation in natural hazard mitigation policy formation: Challenges for comprehensive planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46 (5): 733-754.

Green, M. C., Brock, T. C., & Kaufman, G. F. 2004. Understanding media enjoyment: The role of transportation into narrative worlds. Communication Theory, 14(4), 311–327.

Grothmann, T., and A. Patt. 2005. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environmental Change Part A 15 (3):199-213.

Gyampoh, B, Amisah, S, and Idinoba, M 2008 Coping with climate change: how local communities use traditional knowledge in rural Ghana, Presented at: “Adaptation of Forests and Forest Management to Changing Climate with Emphasis on Forest Health: A Review of Science, Policies, and Practices”. Umea, Sweden, August 25-28, 2008.

Harden, C. P. 2006. Human impacts on headwater fluvial systems in the northern and central Andes. Geomorphology 79 (3-4):249-263.

Howe, P.D. 2009. “Relationship of Hurricane Hazard Proximity to Risk Perception and Preparedness.” Society for Risk Analysis Annual Meeting. Baltimore: December 2009.

IDEAM. 2002. Efectos naturales y socioeconómicos del fenómeno El Niño en Colombia, 58: Instituto de Hidrología, Metereología y Estudios Ambientales - IDEAM.

Irving, L. & Hamilton, H. 2005. Forecasting the Effects of Climate Change on Biodiversity: Visualizing Change to Inspire Public Action. In Neset, T-S S., Johansson, J. and Linnér, B-O. (eds.) State of Climate Visualization, CSPR Report N:o 09:04, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Norrköping, Sweden.

Jacobs, K., G. Garfin, and M. Lemart. 2005. More than just talk: connecting science and decision making. Environment 47 (9): 6–21.

Jankowski, P. and T. Nyerges. 2001a. Geographic Information Systems for Group Decision Making. London: Taylor & Francis.

———. 2001b. GIS-supported collaborative decision making: Results of an experiment. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91 (1): 48-70.

Kates, R. and I. Burton, eds. 1986. Geography, Resources, and Environment, vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J. X., et al. 1988. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk analysis, 8(2), 177–187.


Katz, E., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Roper, E. 2006. Personal influence: the part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Transaction Publishers.

Kim, Y. C., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. 2006. Civic engagement from a communication infrastructure perspective. Communication Theory, 16(2), 173–197.

Kim, Y. C., & Kang, J. 2010. Communication, neighbourhood belonging and household hurricane preparedness. Disasters, 34(2), 470–488.

Kirby, A. ed 1990. Nothing to Fear: Risks and hazards in American Society. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press.

Liverman, D. M. 2000. Adaption to drought in México. In: D. Whilhite (Ed.), Drought: A Global assessment. Rutledge, N. Y. Vol. 3. Chapter 31: 35-45.

Liverman, D. M. 2005. Drought impacts in México: climate, agriculture, technology and land tenure in Sonora and Puebla. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. VoI. 80:49-72.

Lowe, T., Brown, K., Dessai, S., de Franca Doria, M., Haynes, K., & Vincent, K. 2006. Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and public perceptions of climate change. Public understanding of science, 15(4), 435.

Marx, S. M., E. U. Weber, B. S. Orlove, A. Leiserowitz, D. H. Krantz, C. Roncoli, and J. Phillips. 2007. Communication and mental processes: Experiential and analytic processing of uncertain climate information. Global Environmental Change 17 (1):47-58.

McConville, D. 2005. Visualizing WorldViews: Shifting Perspectives on Global Change. In Neset, T-S S., Johansson, J. and Linnér, B-O. (eds.) State of Climate Visualization, CSPR Report N:o 09:04, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Norrköping, Sweden.

McGregor, D.F.M., Barker, D. & D. Campbell 2009. ‘Environmental Change and Caribbean Food Security: recent hazard impacts and domestic food production in Jamaica’, in McGregor, D.F.M., Dodman, D. & D. Barker(eds) /Global Change and Caribbean Vulnerability: Environment, Economy and Society at Risk, /UWI Press, Kingston, Jamaica

Mitchell, J. K. 2006. The primacy of partnership: Scoping a new national disaster recovery policy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 604: 228-255.

Moser, S. C. 2005. Impact assessments and policy responses to sea-level rise in three US states: An exploration of human-dimension uncertainties. Global Environmental Change, 15, 353-369.

Murtinho, F. 2009. Contrasting climate and land use changes with local perceptions: a case study of water management adaptation in the Andes of Colombia. In AWRA Annual Conference. Seattle: American Water Resources Association - AWRA.

———. 2010. Understanding Adaptation to Climate Variability: Challenges and Opportunities of Community Based Water Management. In ICARUS Workshop: "Climate Vulnerability and Adaptation: Theory and Cases". Urbana-Champaign, IL.

Neset, T. & Glad, W. 2005. Energy Visualization – what, how and why? In Neset, T-S S., Johansson, J. and Linnér, B-O. (eds.) State of Climate Visualization, CSPR Report N:o 09:04, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Norrköping, Sweden.

Nicholson-Cole, S. A. 2005. Representing climate change futures: a critique on the use of images for visual communication. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 29(3), 255–273.

O'Neill, S. J., & Hulme, M. 2009. An iconic approach for representing climate change. Global Environmental Change, 19(4), 402-410. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.07.004

O'Neill, S., & Nicholson-Cole, S. 2009. " Fear Won't Do It": Promoting Positive Engagement With Climate Change Through Visual and Iconic Representations. Science Communication, 30(3), 355.

Oldenburg, R. 1989. The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, community centers, beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts, and how they get you through the day. Paragon House Publishers.


Ortiz, N., M. Morales, N. R. Bernal, N. Rodríguez, M. P. Baptiste, and A. M. Franco. 2005. Línea base de la biodiversidad en la jurisdicción de la Corporación Autónoma Regional de Cundinamarca - CAR. Bogotá, D.C.: Instituto de Investigacion de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt y Corporación Autónoma Regional de Cundinamarca - CAR.

Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action, The Political economy of institutions and decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pearce, D., Fuller, I., & Wrobel, L. 2008. On the use of visualization tools to present complex simulated environmental data for policy making. In 3rd International Conference on Research in Air Transport, 1st–4th June, Fairfax, VA.

Peña, D., J. Reyes, and J. García. 2007. Un caso de acueductos comunitarios: El Tunjuelo, Bogotá. In Colombia: ¿Un futuro sin agua?, ed. H. D. Correa, 334. Bogota: Ecofondo, Foro Nacional Ambiental y Ediciones desde Abajo.

Rochon, G. L., Szlag, D., Daniel, F. B., & Chifos, C. 2002. Remote sensing applications for sustainable watershed management and food security. In Observing our environment from space: new solutions for a new millennium: proceedings of the 21st EARSeL Symposium, Paris, France, 14-16 May 2001.

Ritterfeld, U., Cody, M. J., & Vorderer, P. 2008. Serious games: Mechanisms and effects. Routledge.

Rogers, R. W., and S. Prentice-Dunn. 1997. Protection motivation theory. In Handbook of Health Behavior Research, ed. D. S. Gochman. New York: Plenum Press.

Rojas Blanco, A. V. 2006. Local initiatives and adaptation to climate change. Disasters 30 (1): 140-147.

Sarewitz, D., and R. A. Pielke Jr. 2007. The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply and demand for science. Environmental Science and Policy 10: 5–16.

Schlager, Edella. 2002. Rationality, Cooperation, and Common Pool Resources. American Behavioral Scientist 45 (5):801-819.

Schröter, D., C. Polsky, and A. G. Patt. 2005. Assessing vulnerabilities to the effects of global change: An eight step approach. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 10: 573-596.

Sheppard, S. R. 2005. Landscape visualisation and climate change: the potential for influencing perceptions and behaviour. Environmental Science & Policy, 8(6), 637–654.

Sheppard, S. R., Shaw, A., Flanders, D., & Burch, S. 2008. Can visualization save the world? Lessons for landscape architects from visualizing local climate change. In Digital Design in Landscape Architecture 2008; 9th International Conference on IT in Landscape Architecture.

Singhal, A., Cody, M. J., Rogers, E. M., & Sabido, M. 2006. Entertainment-education and social change. Journal of Creative Communications, 1(1).

Singhal, A., & Rogers, E. M. 1999. Entertainment-education: A communication strategy for social change. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236 (4799):280-285.

Tanaka, S. K., Zhu, T., Lund, J. R., Howitt, R. E., Jenkins, M. W., Pulido, M. A., Tauber, M., et al. 2006. Climate warming and water management adaptation for California. Climatic Change, 76(3), 361–387.

Tarde, G., & Clark, T. N. 1969. On communication and social influence: Selected papers. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Tickell, C., 2002. Communicating climate change. Science 297, 737 (Editorial).

Tol, R. S. J. 2007. The double trade-off between adaptation and mitigation for sea level rise: An application of FUND. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12: 741-753.

Tol, R.S.J., Klein, R.J.T., & Nicholls, R.J. 2008. Towards successful adaptation to sea-level rise along Europe’s coasts. Journal of Coastal Research, 24(2), 432-442.


Tribbia, J., & Moser, S. 2008. More than information: What coastal managers need to plan for climate change. Environmental Science & Policy, II, 315-328.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Coastal sensitivity to sea level rise: a focus on the Mid-Atlantic region. U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.1.

Van Aalst, M. K., T. Cannon, and I. Burton. 2008. Community level adaptation to climate change: The potential role of participatory community risk assessment. Global Environmental Change 18: 165-179.

Vedwan, N. & Rhoades, R. 2001. Climate change in the Western Himalayas of India: a study of local perception and response. Climate Research, Vol 19.

Water Education Foundation 2006. Where Does My Water Come From? Los Angeles. Retrieved from http://www.water-ed.org/watersources/community.asp?rid=9&cid=562.

Weber, E. U. 2006. Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: Why global warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change 77 (1):103-120.

White, G. F. 1945. Human Adjustments to Floods. Department of Geography Research Paper 29. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

———. 1964. Choice of Adjustments to Floods. Department of Geography Research Paper 93. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

WIDCORP. 2009. Driving Water Futures: The Use of an Interactive Visualisation Tool for Community Water Allocation Engagement. Retrieved from http://www.widcorp.com/docs/4F%20Driving%20water%20futures%20report.pdf.

Wilkinson, R. & Rounds, T. 1998. Climate Change and Variability in California; White Paper for the California Regional Assessment. National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, California Research Paper No. 4. Retrieved from "http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/papers/climate.pdf".

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the National Science Foundation for providing funds for the 2010 Pan-American Advanced Studies Institute in Panama City, Panama (NSF Award #OISE-0921613).

visualization of slow-developing hazards …...visualization of slow-developing hazards 3...

Documents