Communicating Complex Information to Enhance Decision Making
Complexity is an inescapable aspect of environmental decision making as individuals and institutions try to make informed choices with complex and uncertain information.
One major challenge stems from the need to communicate complexity and frame information in a way that is relevant and useful for decision makers.
In this Water/Climate Briefing, our panelists will discuss techniques – such as information products/simulation models, scenarios, and decisional games – for communicating complexity in policy and governance processes for water sustainability and climate change adaptation.
Panelists will describe examples at multiple scales – from water management in Phoenix to global climate change negotiations – that illustrate the challenges and opportunities of communicating complexity.
Join the conversation!
Panelists
Andy Terrey 
Project Coordinator
Water Resource Department
City of Phoenix
Erik Johnston
Associate Professor of Policy Informatics
School of Public Affairs
Arizona State University
Manjana Milkoreit
Postdoctoral Fellow
Walton Sustainability Solutions Initiative
Arizona State University
Dave White
Moderator
Co-Director, Decision Center for a Desert City
Arizona State University
RSVP Today
Contact Estella O’Hanlon.
When
Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:00-1:30 p.m.
Location
Decision Center for a Desert City, 21 East 6th Street, Suite 126B, Tempe Map
The Strategic Vision creates the framework for addressing future water supply challenges and helps to secure sufficient and dependable water supplies for Arizona. The Strategic Vision has been prepared at the request of Governor Brewer and is identified as part of her January 13, 2014 “The Four Cornerstones of Reform”, building on Arizona’s past successes to meet our future challenges in water supply sustainability.
In this study, we examine how development status and water scarcity shape people’s perceptions of “hard path” and “soft path” water solutions. Based on ethnographic research conducted in four semi-rural/peri-urban sites (in Bolivia, Fiji, New Zealand, and the US), we use content analysis to conduct statistical and thematic comparisons of interview data. Our results indicate clear differences associated with development status and, to a lesser extent, water scarcity. People in the two less developed sites were more likely to suggest hard path solutions, less likely to suggest soft path solutions, and more likely to see no path to solutions than people in the more developed sites. Thematically, people in the two less developed sites envisioned solutions that involve small-scale water infrastructure and decentralized, community-based solutions, while people in the more developed sites envisioned solutions that involve large-scale infrastructure and centralized, regulatory water solutions. People in the two water-scarce sites were less likely to suggest soft path solutions and more likely to see no path to solutions (but no more likely to suggest hard path solutions) than people in the water-rich sites. Thematically, people in the two water-rich sites seemed to perceive a wider array of unrealized potential soft path solutions than those in the water-scarce sites. On balance, our findings are encouraging in that they indicate that people are receptive to soft path solutions in a range of sites, even those with limited financial or water resources. Our research points to the need for more studies that investigate the social feasibility of soft path water solutions, particularly in sites with significant financial and natural resource constraints.
The once broad and blue river has in many places dwindled to a murky brown trickle. Reservoirs have shrunk to less than half their capacities, the canyon walls around them ringed with white mineral deposits where water once lapped. Seeking to stretch their allotments of the river, regional water agencies are recycling sewage effluent, offering rebates to tear up grass lawns and subsidizing less thirsty appliances from dishwashers to shower heads.