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

Lauren A. Mayer, Kathleen Loa, Bryan Cwik, Nancy A. Tuana, Klaus Keller, Chad Gonnerman, Andrew M. Parker, Robert J. Lempert

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)107-116
Number of pages10
JournalGlobal Environmental Change
Volume42
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2017

Fingerprint

risk management
climate
modeling
Values
value judgement
decision
research approach
transparency
climate modeling
mitigation
welfare

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Global and Planetary Change
  • Geography, Planning and Development
  • Ecology
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Cite this

Mayer, Lauren A. ; Loa, Kathleen ; Cwik, Bryan ; Tuana, Nancy A. ; Keller, Klaus ; Gonnerman, Chad ; Parker, Andrew M. ; Lempert, Robert J. / Understanding scientists’ computational modeling decisions about climate risk management strategies using values-informed mental models. In: Global Environmental Change. 2017 ; Vol. 42. pp. 107-116.
@article{52c25b8b8fce4d8687ac3bd5864b923e,
title = "Understanding scientists’ computational modeling decisions about climate risk management strategies using values-informed mental models",
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 = "Mayer, {Lauren A.} and Kathleen Loa and Bryan Cwik and Tuana, {Nancy A.} and Klaus Keller and Chad Gonnerman and Parker, {Andrew M.} and Lempert, {Robert J.}",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.12.007",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "42",
pages = "107--116",
journal = "Global Environmental Change",
issn = "0959-3780",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

Understanding scientists’ computational modeling decisions about climate risk management strategies using values-informed mental models. / Mayer, Lauren A.; Loa, Kathleen; Cwik, Bryan; Tuana, Nancy A.; Keller, Klaus; Gonnerman, Chad; Parker, Andrew M.; Lempert, Robert J.

In: Global Environmental Change, Vol. 42, 01.01.2017, p. 107-116.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Understanding scientists’ computational modeling decisions about climate risk management strategies using values-informed mental models

AU - Mayer, Lauren A.

AU - Loa, Kathleen

AU - Cwik, Bryan

AU - Tuana, Nancy A.

AU - Keller, Klaus

AU - Gonnerman, Chad

AU - Parker, Andrew M.

AU - Lempert, Robert J.

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85007079301&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85007079301&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.12.007

DO - 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.12.007

M3 - Article

VL - 42

SP - 107

EP - 116

JO - Global Environmental Change

JF - Global Environmental Change

SN - 0959-3780

ER -