‘climate change’ Category

climaps.eu, a global issue atlas of adaptation to climate change, is online

November 21st, 2014

Climate change is happening; we have no choice but to adapt. Yet how are we going to live with a changing climate? How are we going to share the burden of adaptation among countries, regions and communities? How to be fair to all human and non-human beings affected by such a planetary transition? Since our collective life depends on these questions, they deserve discussion, debate and even controversy.

To provide some help to navigate in the uncharted territories that lead to our future, the three-year EMAPS project has produced an electronic atlas called Climaps.

The atlas offers 33 data visualizations. They deal with topics ranging from the funding of adaptation, the calculations of vulnerability to climate change, to the scenarios of the future in the cli-fi literature. The atlas also proposes 5 issue stories that bind together visualizations to produce novel narratives about climate change adaptation.

Digital data have been harvested, processed and visualized through a unique methodology created by the teams involved in EMAPS, which the médialab coordinated until its end on October 31st. This methodology involves working right from the start with the communities of experts that the maps are addressing. In the future, it could be applied to other issues of societal and political relevance.

EMAPS (Electronic Maps to Assist Public Science) was funded under the EU FP7 Science in Society Programme.

For more information write us at info@climaps.eu.

Mapping Climate Change Vulnerability together with its Indexes

May 10th, 2014

Post by Sophie Waterloo and Richard Rogers

The Amsterdam EMAPS sprint (March 24th-28th 2014), entitled ‘Coping with Vulnerability to Climate Change: Adaptation, its Limits and Post-adaptation Mechanisms’, was dedicated to the mapping of climate change vulnerabilities, vulnerability indexes and adaptation across a variety of relevant information, media and policy spaces. We are happy to share some of the findings that resulted from the 6 mapping projects that were developed, in two formats. First, below please find links to detailed project pages, with the research questions, methods, findings as well as the visualization output. Second we have created a pdf walk-through — a slide show to view the main findings at a glance (download document here). We would like to thank all the participants and the climate change experts who were able to join us in Amsterdam and whose input helped make this sprint productive.

The mapping projects were inspired by the climate change experts invited to present the current state of the art in the field as well as their analytical needs with respect to the topics of climate change adaptation, public policy, risk and vulnerability monitoring. Hans-Martin Füssel of the European Environment Agency provided insights into the opportunities and pitfalls of vulnerability mapping, explaining the differences in interpreting vulnerability and the varied outcomes each type of mapping produces. The work inspired questions concerning the extent to which adaptation and mitigation policies, as a way to manage vulnerability within Europe, compete and compliment, and how different ethical perspectives on vulnerability would influence the allocation of funding for European countries. Richard Klein, Senior Research Fellow at the Stockholm Environment Institute and Adjunct Professor at the Centre for Climate Science and Policy followed with a discussion on the difficulties associated with the assessment of vulnerability on an academic as well as a political level, encouraging critical thought about the purposes of vulnerability indices, and their use cases. Matthew McKinnon from the United Nations Developed Programme (UNDP) and Editor of DARA’s Climate Vulnerability Monitor talked about the approaches, applications and actions of measuring the impact of climate change on a global scale. He introduced thinking about the emerging issues of food security, human mobility and the militarization of the Arctic, all as a result of vulnerability to climate change. Lastly, Sönke Kreft, Team Leader of International Climate Policy at Germanwatch, provided methodological considerations, key messages and limitations from Germanwatch’s Climate Risk Index, which initiated the idea of examining the users and uses of vulnerability indexes.


Maps on climate change adaptation / Part one : international negotiations

March 20th, 2014

Dear all,

We are very proud to introduce the results of the EMAPS first data Sprint (Paris January 6th to 10th 2014) and share them with you.

The UNFCCC negotiations was the topic we selected as an important arena for global governance of climate change & adaptation. This arena produces a lot of data which we collected and used to build the visualisatons. Here is the total list of “raw” data visualized in the 4 mapping projects we are sharing now:

  • All UNFCCC available documents, in particular : COP proceding reports, SBSTA & SBI meeting reports, side events list, adaptation committee documents,  NAPA Project Database available, National Adaptation Programmes of Action: Index of NAPA Projects by Sector
  • Scientific literature on adaptation
  • IPCC reports
  • Earth Negotiations Bulletins
  • Climate Funds Update database
  • OECD DAC ODA (Official Development Aid) database from 2010 to 2012
  • Data on Adaptation Funds board members (Global Environment Facility, Adaptation Fund, Green Climate Fund and of the World Bank PPCR)
  • World Bank database

Browse the results of the Sprint below:
(or click here to download all the visualizations in a single pdf)


Amsterdam Sprint: Coping with Vulnerability to Climate Change

January 30th, 2014

The University of Amsterdam is pleased to announce the second in its series of four EMAPS sprints dedicated to mapping climate change controversies, entitled “Coping with Vulnerability to Climate Change: Adaptation, its Limits and Post-adaptation Mechanisms.” The sprint will take place between 24 and 28 March 2014 at the University of Amsterdam. The sprint is five days, with the first day dedicated to presentations by issue experts, followed by three days of project work and a last day devoted to presenting the outcomes and discussing the next steps to follow.

The 19th conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which took place in November 2013, culminated in the establishment of an “international mechanism for loss and damage”. According to the UNFCCC Decision CP.19, “such an international mechanism include[s] functions and modalities to address loss and damage associated with the impacts of climate change in developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.” Some of the adverse effects prompting this arrangement include extreme weather events and sea level rise. Crucially, the same document acknowledges that “loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change includes, and in some cases involves more than, that which can be reduced by adaptation”. This recognition of the limits of adaptation marks the opening up of the climate change debates to a new phase that deals with loss and damage as a consequence of the failure to adapt and to mitigate. The sprint “Coping with Vulnerability to Climate Change: Adaptation, its Limits and Post-adaptation Mechanisms” addresses national and urban adaptation mechanisms, as well as mechanisms to cope with vulnerability post-adaptation, such as the increasingly prominent “loss and damage” arrangement. Building on a Digital Methods Initiative workshop from October 2013, this sprint also explores other prominent scenarios resulting from the limits or failure to adapt, such as risk management, regional tensions and conflict.


Vulnerability, Resilience and Conflict: Mapping Climate Change, Reading Cli-fi.

December 11th, 2013

We dedicated this year’s Digital Methods Fall data sprint (25-21 October, 2013) to mapping climate change conflicts, climate refugees, water wars and other future risk scenarios. The interest in studying the intersection between climate change and conflict derives not only from the growing attention given to the topic (with more articles, studies and radio shows addressing this issue), but also an analytical question. Are we indeed able to identify a fourth ‘phase (after scepticism, mitigation and adaptation) in the climate change issue evolution organised around ‘conflict’?

The presentations on the first day of the data sprint set the tone. Sabine Niederer, who studies climate skepticism on the Web, gave an overview of scholarly work that focuses on the climate change debate and its coverage in mass media. Afterwards, Sophie Waterloo together with Richard Rogers presented the topic of climate change as an indirect cause of human conflict, discussing how this issue is approached in relevant literature and ways of mapping climate conflict scenarios online. Natalia Sanchez-Querubin introduced the genre of climate fiction (or cli-fi) and the underlying question: what does fiction add to the ongoing discourses around climate change? In order to be used as source material we acquired nearly twenty printed cli-fi books. The day came to an end with group formation, the formulation of specific research questions and preliminary strategies to address them, such as the treatment of cli-fi as offering alternative narratives about how to cope with climate change.


Sprint / International negotiations on climate change adaptation

November 18th, 2013

Dear all, here is a short outline on the preparation of the Paris Sprint.

  • Dates & Venue

Jan 6th to 10th, at Sciences Po, Paris. We have pre-booked rooms in a nearby hotel.

  • Programme

Under deverlopment.

The first morning will be dedicated to presentations by alpha-users. Then, we will form interdisciplinary teams of 5/6 people constituted of EMAPS members + friends.

  • Topic

Adaptation is a latecomer on the scene of climate negotiations and is, to a large extent, unfit to such arena. Rooted in the tradition of United Nations diplomacy, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was originally instituted to address the eminently global challenge of greenhouse gases reduction through mitigation.

Local in its actions and effects, adaptation definitely entered the UNFCCC arena in 2000, when the inevitability of climate change impacts became evident and with it the need of developing countries to find international support for adaptation policies. In this framework, adaptation has largely become a question of financial flows.

Since mid-2000, however, the place of adaptation in the international negotiations has grown incessantly and actors have been struggling to put new issues on the negotiation agenda. The traditional boundaries of the UNFCCC are thus under pressure.

The controversies relating to the international negotiations on climate change adaptation tend to fall into two categories:

1. The controversies that take place within the UNFCCC itself and concern the rationales governing the transactions of adaptation money and the arguments and issues mobilized to support them:

a. What is adaptation money? A help from rich to poor countries to prepare for future climate change impacts (according to the development paradigm) VS a compensation from polluting to polluted countries to repair the current climate impacts (according to the “loss and damage” paradigm) VS a contribution to anticipate current extreme events (according to “disaster risk reduction” paradigm) ?
b. How should adaptation money be transferred? Which countries and institutions should govern the ‘adaptation funds’? How should the use of the money be monitored and accounted for? Which type of institutions should this funds be and how they should be organized?
c. Which objectives should drive financial aid for adaptation? decrease vulnerability to climate impacts (e.g. sea level, extreme events, droughts, environmental migrations, etc.)? increase adaptive capacity (e.g. poverty reduction, water security, food security, land use change, economic compensation, security, etc.)?
d. For all the previous questions, we can also ask who defended which position and when a given position or controversy was more discussed.

2. The controversies that take place outside the UNFCCC, or on the sideline of it, and concern the representativeness and the weight of the Convention’s negotiations in the larger debate on adaptation.

a. To what extent an essentially local problem such as adaptation can be managed effectively through an international forum?
b. When and to what extent issues discussed outside the UNFCCC in relation to adaptation have (or have not) become the subject of international negotiations?
c. Are the discourses of the actors in the negotiation coherent with their discourses and actions outside the UNFCCC?
d. How do non-national actors (NGOs, industrial lobbies) engage in and influence the negotiations ?

  •  Datasets

ENB reports
Climate Funds Update
Web corpus
Scientific literature
IPCC reports
UNFCCC documents (included COP country submissions, side events and SBSTA reports)
(if we have time) adaptation projects from different project collections
(The NY Times articles)

  • Alpha-users

We have contacted experts potentially interested in co-producing the maps with us, whom we adress as “alpha-users”. We want 5/6 of them. The contacted persons might of course redirect us to other experts. We will discuss the content of their presentation beforehand.
We are in discussion with Neil Adger & Richard Klein (academics), Alix Mazounie (NGO), Troels Dam Christensen (NGO/negotiator), the Green Climate Fund…
  • Other participants

EMAPS members : I already got some answers. Here is the form which you are invited to fill in to confirm your participation ASAP (and before the end of the week) :


EMAPS members are encouraged to stay the whole duration of the Sprint.

Advisors : we have sent an invitation to Pelle Ehn and David Chavalarias.

Students : we plan to have 3 Density Design former students.

Issue experts : we want to have experts of the climate controversy (apart from Mark who will be there as well) like Amy Dahan & Christophe Buffet (Centre Alexandre Koyré), Clive Hamilton, Alice Caravani of Climate Funds Update (Overseas Development Institute). François Gemenne will moderate the presentations by alpha-users on the first morning.

  • Expenses

All expenses including transportation will be borne by Sciences Po. We will book hotel rooms, but we ask EMAPS participants to take care of their own travel, which will be reimbursed after the sprint.


DMI Summer School 2013: Mapping keyword uptake in the climate change debate

August 5th, 2013

Entitled “You are not the API I used to know: On the challenges of studying social media data”, the 7th annual DMI Summer School took place from 24th June to 5th July 2013 at the University of Amsterdam. This year’s Summer School generated tremendous interest and the turnout has never been this high. Participants attended lectures and workshops from experts in social media data and mapping, and conducted a variety of research projects.

One larger research project conducted at the DMI Summer School was dedicated to the mapping of climate change. The aim of this project was to explore the uptake of climate change issues across platforms and over time. The platforms included in this study were: the Google search engine, Google Trends, Twitter and Amazon. We asked: are there different discourses in the climate change issue space across platforms? Are these time-specific? Geo-specific? Platform-specific? User(type)-specific?

As a starting point for the cross-platform research first a list of keywords associated with each of the three approaches (scepticism, mitigation and adaptation) was build. This was done in a rather experimental but effective way, namely by means of the Amazon Book Explorer tool. As search terms, the three approaches to climate change (scepticism, mitigation and adaptation) were queried. As a result, the tool output the most popular books associated with the terms and any relevant metadata about them. From the book titles the researchers manually captured keywords, which were later cleaned and compiled into three different lists.

After compiling the three lists of keywords, their uptake in the different platforms was analysed. By means of the DMI tool TCAT (Twitter Capture and Analysis Tool), Twitter was queried for the presence of each of the keywords over a period of 7 months, as well as Google.com for a period of 10 years by using the Wayback Machine. For the platform Twitter it was also of interest which clusters can be identified within tweets on climate change, which resulted in a co-hashtag map (figure 1). This revealed that some geo-locations appeared to dominate the discourse, such as Australia and US (politics, flood and drought), and Canada (flood). Interestingly, the top clusters do not particularly match vocabularies of scepticism, mitigation and adaptation. Further, it was examined who the users of these hashtags are, and if certain hashtags relate to specific events. We found political polarisation among the users of conservative and progressive hashtags within the cluster around the Obama speech on climate change.

Figure 1: Twitter hashtag clusters around the hashtag global warming/climate change. Depicted as network graph. The visualization reveals clusters around geolocations such as Australia and US (politics, flood and drought), and Canada (flood), with each color representing a different cluster. Source: Hashtags associated with the queries [global warming], [globalwarming], [climate], [climatechange], [drought], [flood], collected through the DMI Twitter Capture and Analysis Tool (TCAT). Queries performed between Nov. 2012 – June 2013.

The sub-project on climate change popular language uptake on Amazon is another interesting project, as Amazon is approached and repurposed as a research engine rather than a mere online retailer of books. Here the question is what sub-issues in the climate change debate sell best over time and how the uptake of the different sub-areas of climate change (scepticism, mitigation and adaptation) evolves over time in the mainstream literature. For scepticism most of the successful language emphasizes the scandalous and urgent nature of deception, such as: “corruption”, “conspiracy” and “hoax”. The keywords or sub-issues captured for mitigation and adaptation are clustered around shared terms, even though they obey a different logic. When seen in a (issue) timeline (figure 2), it appears that popularity for mitigation and adaptation centers around more recent published books, while best selling books in the realm of scepticism is composed of both older and newer titles. This indicates that keywords used on the subject of climate change scepticism in mainstream literature remained relevant over the years. As for popularity, the analysis on Amazon’s query autocomplete system revealed that adaptation and several keywords associated with scepticism are suggested while mitigation is not, perhaps indicating a less popular or effective terminology.

Figure 2: Climate change formats and keyword uptake. Depicted as bubble matrix. The visualization includes on the right side the keywords captured from book titles, and below the year that corresponds to each of the books from which the keywords were captured. Every approach to climate change (adaptation, mitigation and skepticism) is depicted with a different color, allowing to identify overlapping and repetition amongst keywords. Source: best sellers books in Amazon.com associated with the queries [climate change mitigation], [climate change adaptation] and [climate change skepticism]. Queries performed on 30 June 2013.

This last project has caught our interest on how Amazon can further be repurposed as a research engine as a means to map issues.

Mapping with Others: How to Work with Climate Change Issue Experts

May 17th, 2013

Since February of this year we have been running the second version of the Issue Mapping for Politics course where students have engaged in climate change controversy mapping through three periods of the controversy: (1) the very existence of climate change, skepticism and causes, (2) mitigation (quantified self approach and carbon market approach), and (3) adaptation. Climate change issue experts have been involved in each of these stages. More precisely, they were invited to describe and present the state of affairs of their fields and tell us about their analytical needs. Based on these presentations students were asked to produce maps. Afterwards, we will organise a follow up with the issue experts to present them with the maps, and engage with them concerning the extent to which they meet their needs, including any new needs that arise from reading the maps.

During the EMAPS meeting last month, the University of Amsterdam presented field notes from our work with these climate change issue experts. Below is a summary of some of the most relevant things we learned from them, which we consider could be useful to other project members working with issue experts. The slides from our talk can be found here:


University of Amsterdam new strategy for the second year of the project

February 22nd, 2013

This blog post is a response to Axel’s post asking each partner to rethink their work according to the new strategy discussed in the project meeting back in December. It details the work that the University of Amsterdam will be conducting in this second year of the project.

Over a period of 16 weeks, which started in the first week of February,  the University of Amsterdam will be running the Issue Mapping for Politics course. The course takes students through four different mapping methodologies and theories: controversy mapping in the style of Bruno Latour and Tomasso Venturini, risk cartography using Ulrich Beck’s theories about global risks, critical and neo-cartography using Jeremy Crampton guidelines on the subject, and finally issue mapping techniques developed at the University of Amsterdam.

Students are encouraged to apply these methods and theories on mapping climate change. We are aiming to study climate change controversies through three periods: (1) climate change existence, skepticism and causes, (2) mitigation (personal approach and market approach), and (3) adaptation. This practical part of the course is where the University of Amsterdam will be implementing the new project strategy discussed in December. In each class we are inviting one issue expert: one climate change skepticism expert, one carbon trader, one carbon footprint quant, and one city auditor to talk to students about their work in these areas and about their mapping needs. The students are invited to produce maps and visualisations in response to these discussions with climate change experts. In parallel we will connect with the Guardian Datablog and other media organisations in order to understand mapping needs of yet another important category of users, and aim to collaboratively produce maps and visualisations that are of interest to the Datablog and other publications.

In terms of the project plan and description of work, there is one main change that we anticipate. According to the Gantt chart, in the second year of the project, the main contributions that the University of Amsterdam brings are the release of D1.2 “Recommendations and guidelines for the project” in March, which will consist of the ageing book, now in its final stages of production, and the work under work package 4, “Platform development and community building.” The UvA can include the engagement with expert users and production of climate change maps and visualisations in this work package. In this case, the starting date of the work package, which is now the second half of the year, would need to be changed to February 2013. The outcome of the work will be documented on the EMAPS platform and included in one of the final deliverables, due in the last month of the project.

Studying factions of users in Wikipedia

December 11th, 2012

In a recent study, we analysed the interactions between self-proclaimed Democrats and Repubblicans in Wikipedia.

We started from the identification of users having in their personal page a userbox indicating support for one of the two major US parties. In this way, we were able to identify about 800 Democrats and 600 Republicans.

This allowed us to study representation practices, activity and interactions of these two sets of users according to several dimensions, such as the kind of the other userboxes they had in their profile, the articles most edited by each party, the presence of conflict in the threads in which they were involved, and the emotional content of their messages.