Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
In September 2010, the Center for Engineering, Ethics, and Society at the National Academy of Engineering began working with four other partners on a Climate Change Educational Partnership (CCEP) Phase I planning grant from the National Science Foundation about “Climate Change, Engineered Systems, and Society.” The partners were Arizona State University (ASU), the Boston Museum of Science (MOS), the Colorado School of Mines (CSM) and the University of Virginia (U VA).
The CCEP project focused on defining and characterizing the societal and pedagogical challenges posed by the interactions of climate change, engineered systems and society, and identifying the educational efforts that a network could use to enable engineers, teachers, students, policymakers, and the public to meet the challenges. For instance, improving public infrastructure requires attending to transit, waste, energy, water, and buildings as integrated systems. It also requires addressing the need for changes in engineering education to consider complex systems rather than individual technical problems, and the need for improved communications between public as well as private sector agencies.
Societies develop engineered systems to address or mediate climate-related problems, such as drought, sea-level rise or wildfire control; the mediation involves public trust, public engagement, and governance. In these efforts, societies also decide—intentionally or implicitly—questions of justice and sustainability, such as what areas will receive mediation measures, what types of measures will be used, and what levels and kinds of local impacts are tolerated. The project also aimed to build awareness of these complexities among a diverse set of communities affected by climate change and engineered systems and to engage the communities in addressing these challenges.
Over the course of the grant, the CCEP planning project on Climate Change, Engineered Systems, and Society held three workshops on the interactions of climate change with engineered systems in society and the educational efforts needed to address them.1 The first workshop provided the partners with an introduction to the varied social and technical dimensions found in the relationships among climate, engineered systems, and society. These systems include social as well as technological factors and they both influence climate and are affected by it in positive and negative ways. For instance, water systems adequate under many climate conditions will be inadequate in others and inadequacy will depend to some degree on societal capabilities, perceptions, and expectations. The legitimacy of these expectations involves issues of governance, public trust, and equity of access to an essential resource.
The second workshop built on the common language developed in the first. It allowed the partners to expand involvement in the project to include representatives from community and tribal colleges, professional societies and business. It examined the opportunities and challenges for formal and informal education, particularly in engineering classrooms and science museums, to prepare students and citizens to address these issues. Presentations and discussions described the technical, societal, and ethical considerations that must be present in engineering education and societal decision making, if engineers and citizens are to be able to make informed choices.
The third workshop allowed the partners to broaden further the discussion and the audience. It solicited participation from government officials, Native American tribal representatives, professional society
_______________
1 NSF awarded 15 CCEP phase I planning grants. The phase II competition made five awards for implementation projects. The partnership did not receive NSF funding for the second phase of this project. The Phase I CCEP award ends on August 31, 2014.
leaders, as well as educators, artists, scientists, and engineers who are developing programs that can manage change and educate students and citizens in ways that foster their leadership skills. The workshop focused the discussion primarily on infrastructure systems but also included cases that involved energy, agricultural/ecological, and manufacturing systems. Additionally, this final workshop modeled the range of interests and viewpoints that need to be represented in societal decision making processes about climate change, engineered systems, and society.
All three workshops attendees included leading academic researchers, from climate and earth sciences, engineering, ethics, science and technology studies, environmental science, and science and engineering education, and leaders from science museums specializing in informal science education. At the second workshop three additional communities were engaged: faculty from Native American and tribal colleges, representatives from professional engineering societies in the US and Canada, and practicing engineers and managers from corporate engineering firms, including Lockeed Martin, DuPont, General Electric, and CH2M Hill. At the final workshop, designed to engage a wide range of communities, all previous communities participated along with three new ones: (1) well known artists working to communicate climate science and environmental impacts through art; (2) leaders on Native American policy including the director of the US Department of Energy’s Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs, the director of the American Indian Policy Institute at Arizona State University, and the director of the Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals; and (3) local and federal government officials ranging from the assistant director for climate adaptation and assessment at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to the county manager for Washoe County, Nevada.
This report summarizes the workshop presentations and discussions as they explored the project themes, from a variety of perspectives. This information may be useful to engineers, educators, corporate leaders, local and regional officials, members of professional societies, and others in their efforts to understand and address the challenges of climate change and its societal impacts.
NAE President’s Perspective
Charles M. Vest, then president of the NAE, addressed the project team members and attendees at the second workshop. He spoke about his disappointment in the lack of US political and corporate leadership on climate change. Commenting on the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, which occurred just months before the workshop, he warned that this is an example of the kind of infrastructure disaster and vulnerability the world could experience as a result of climate change, and that the events in Japan should be a learning experience. Part of our opportunity and obligation regarding climate change, he said, is to minimize the probability that these natural disasters will have such devastating impacts. The international political response to the Fukushima nuclear plant incident showed that political will needs to be built now, rather than in times of crisis, to minimize the risks and impacts of disasters.
The Fukushima results also demonstrate opportunities and challenges in science and engineering education. For the CCEP project, Dr. Vest mentioned an NAE study on the use of engineering as an integrating factor for how to teach math and science at the elementary and secondary education levels.2 It is hoped that the subject matter and discussions of the CCEP project will inform other NAE programs on issues in engineering education, especially as they relate to climate change, engineered systems, and society.
_______________
2 Toward Integrated STEM Education: Developing A Research Agenda. The project report, STEM Integration in K–12 Education, was released in March 2014.
Workshops 1 and 2: Characterization of Issues
The first workshop, on “Climate, Technology, and Society,” held in June 2011, included discussion of the social and technical facets of engineered responses to climate and their implications for governance, social justice, sustainability, and public trust and engagement. Speakers presented results from research on climate and its interaction with engineered systems, understood as sociotechnical systems. They examined adaptation, mitigation, and geoengineering as components in climate and engineered systems. (Session summaries are in chapters 2 and 3.)
Although the research literature addresses sustainability questions, sustainability is generally considered an environmental rather than a social issue, and relatively few articles consider or critically explore issues of social sustainability. The presenters explored the ways in which scientific, engineering, political, and social interventions and priorities can, do, and should influence the interactions of climate, engineered systems, and society, and how these influences are likely to affect the success of programs and proposed changes.
Discussions about responding to climate change often involve projections about the potential costs and benefits of various strategies. Going beyond cost-benefit analysis, speakers probed the social justice dimensions of these options—e.g., the kinds and distribution of potential benefits, costs, risks, and harms associated with them—and related considerations of governance, sustainability, and public engagement and trust. (See chapter 4.) There was general agreement that information at the national or international level tended to be abstract and speculative, whereas discussion about local initiatives tended to be pragmatic, inclusive, and involve grassroots participation.
If engineers and the public are to be prepared to address these issues, new and expanded educational programs must be provided. In considering the implications for education at the second workshop, “Networking Educational Priorities for Climate, Engineered Systems, and Society,” held in October 2011, there was an effort to identify effective educational interventions, spanning undergraduate engineering curricula, community and tribal college programs, K–12 education, informal education and public engagement, public policy education, and outreach, dissemination, and special projects. Chapters 5 and 6 of the report summarize the results of the second workshop.
Effective undergraduate interventions may include innovations to improve (1) the integration of climate change issues and engineered system approaches to them in engineering curricula and (2) scale-up across multiple institutions. The overarching premise is that engineers should be specifically trained to address climate change issues. From a corporate perspective, for example, engineers should have an understanding of the association between their practice and its implications for climate, engineered systems, and society. Businesses that employ engineers can provide useful information about the demands and technological and organizational challenges they see ahead, and about the principles, skills, and experiences needed for future engineers to meet the challenges of climate change.
Effective informal educational efforts must focus on relevant topics and use engaging formats and materials, which can be adapted to different contexts. Professional societies also are developing initiatives relevant to educational priorities for climate, society, and technology. And there is a role for science and technology centers, which can communicate multifaceted information and present a model for engaging both the general public and school-aged audiences.
Workshops 1 and 2: Opportunities and Needs in Formal and Informal Education
A number of presentations revealed opportunities for the implementation or development of educational interventions and innovations; for example, informal education activities can address the needs of teachers and students in secondary schools, web-based initiatives can be a forum for online collaborations and shared resources, and case studies can be used to illuminate issues of climate, engineered systems, and society.
Informal evidence from science centers suggests that the topic of climate change, engineered systems, and society has strong appeal for engaging a lay audience in examining the important relationship between the natural and human-made worlds.
A variety of approaches can be used to encourage formal and informal education on climate change, engineered systems, and society, such as case studies, courses, degrees, modules, exhibits, extracurricular activities, interdisciplinary collaboration, prizes, institutes, forums, and specialized training involving rethinking concepts, theories, and worldviews.
Research is growing about climate change and engineered systems, but two important gaps persist. First, climate change remains largely absent in engineering curricula, with the exception of offerings in renewable energy engineering. Second, few if any materials fully engage the integration of climate, engineering, and human systems. To promote effective learning, new materials, particularly new case studies, are needed.
Case studies are likely to have the most general applicability; they can be tailored to diverse learning contexts and audiences by adapting them with local data and information as well as problems of professional relevance, and by crafting educational packages for four target audiences: adults and youth, communities and community leaders, undergraduates, and engineering and technical students. The project partners identified four areas for preliminary cases that would allow for region-specific adaptations—ports and sea level rise, urban heat islands, urban water and wastewater systems, and engineered river systems—as well as a globally significant example: the Panama Canal. Cases in these areas take advantage of ongoing activities and interests of the network partners.
Pedagogical needs arise at multiple levels. Faculty interviews3 about constraints and possibilities for addressing the selected issues in the engineering curriculum indicate that they perceive both threats and opportunities—institutional (budget and faculty availability, possibilities for collaborations and funding), curricular (changing course content), epistemic (the indeterminate and unpredictable relationship of climate change to design criteria for engineered systems), and political (industry affiliations and the political sensitivities of climate change).
In informal education, the general public and community leaders need knowledge about local vulnerabilities and venues in which to discuss their implications. Community leaders need to be able to engage stakeholders in productive problem solving. In formal education, students need to recognize how natural, social, and technological forces together influence the future and to learn to work in interdisciplinary contexts. Areas of technical specialization require knowledge in subjects such as design and resilience. Training for all professions should include information about professional responsibilities. Effective dissemination and adoption of new methods and resources will require educationally appropriate materials and professional development opportunities for faculty members and specialists in informal learning as well.
_______________
3 The CSM partners conducted these interviews as part of the phase I project, to determine faculty responses to suggestions for curricular innovation.
Efforts to meet these ends should incorporate (1) a focus on adults and college students, (2) the identification and design of integrated learning resources around key vulnerabilities of US infrastructure and energy and manufacturing systems to climate change, (3) the design of resources based on the latest insights into STEM learning from the learning sciences, and (4) the establishment of professional and online educational networks to expand educational opportunities. In addition, policymakers and others should be engaged to promote attention to and understanding of the importance of these approaches for national educational initiatives.
Themes Articulated at the Capstone Workshop
At the capstone workshop in January 2013, on “Climate Change and America’s Infrastructure: Engineering, Social, and Policy Challenges,” experts and stakeholders presented perspectives on vulnerabilities in engineered systems, the role of art in communicating with the public, uncertainty, local impacts, and Native American experiences, among others. Summaries of the presentations and discussions are integrated in all of the report chapters, with chapter 7 containing the contributions from representatives of professional societies, business, and Native American tribes to the capstone.
In the session discussions, participants indicated that in seeking to address engineering, social, and policy challenges associated with infrastructure, it is important to take into account the implications of regional climate variability, strengths and weaknesses in interconnected infrastructures, and the need for integrated action to deal with increasing potentials for risks and disasters to engineered systems in the face of climate change. These are often linked with issues of policy, governance, justice, and human rights, for which government action and responsiveness are required, although educational and community programs can also be engaged to identify problems and propose solutions.
Workshop speakers and participants demonstrated a deep appreciation for the relationships between climate and society and for the difficult challenges to engineered systems that experts and communities need to face together. Infrastructure, including energy and manufacturing systems, needs to be planned and built to last many years. Furthermore, as it often takes many years to build and complete, during which social and environmental conditions change, planning needs to take that into account to ensure that the infrastructure is resilient. This understanding is important to both experts—urban planners, regulators, elected officials, and engineers, among others—and the public.
Two examples at the capstone examined infrastructure vulnerability and ways to engage with policymakers and the public: Florida’s vulnerability to sea level rise, and approaches to climate-related decisions when the science is uncertain. Panels on vulnerability featured local government officials, both legislative and executive, and artists who had initiated projects to illustrate climate change impacts, with slides and videos of their efforts. The panel on uncertainty brought together scientists, engineers, and officials from the private and public sectors to discuss issues associated with Colorado River water resources. The panelists presented reports from studies and decision exercises that seek to address problems associated with increasing claims on resources and growing uncertainty about their availability.
Native American communities face particular issues associated with climate change ranging from substandard infrastructures to difficulties in maintaining their jurisdictional prerogatives. They also have some advantages insofar as they have a young population, opportunities to build from scratch and develop resources, and a deeply held concern about place and sustainability.
Several areas of particular interest emerged from the presentations and discussions throughout the workshop: the importance of focusing on decision-making processes, technical analysis, and educational priorities.
Decision-Making Processes
Many speakers and audience members agreed that all constituencies and stakeholders need to be involved in decision making about climate and infrastructure,4 and that technical approaches need to be inclusive. Engineering efforts should engage professionals, operators, and managers with pertinent local knowledge and they should emphasize robustness, adaptive management, and the ability to respond positively to crisis and change.
Experts and local government officials in attendance observed that building social capital requires involving all stakeholders, including media and business as well as multiple agencies, perhaps multiple jurisdictions. Knowledge is distributed in all these groups; governance should increase social sustainability and reduce long-term social risks through inclusive efforts. Many at the conference agreed that advance preparation could establish social capital and thus take advantage of moments and targets of opportunity.
There was general agreement that more attention to questions of infrastructure, justice, and human rights is needed, especially because of human vulnerabilities and the length of time it takes to develop infrastructure. Objectives change over time and technological fixes that at first seem wonderful or even adequate may end up being of limited value. For example, as the levees were built for New Orleans, their height was not changed although the ground was demonstrably sinking during the project.
Technical Analysis
Participants noted the needs for flexibility in assumptions about climate and infrastructure change, sustained climate assessment over time, and development of process (not just physical) indicators (an example of a process indicator would be whether a city has considered its vulnerabilities).
Many agreed on the need to do “backward” analysis, rather than traditional risk assessment, to focus first on plans/scenarios and analysis of implications of their vulnerabilities, and then develop robust strategies that are good over a wide range of potential outcomes. Iterative analyses are necessary because of the immense uncertainties.
Educational Priorities
Engineering faculty at the workshop agreed that societal and ethical questions can be built into engineering classes, but not easily. Critical and systems thinking, social inclusion, and environmental justice are not part of the standard engineering curriculum. Training the next generation of engineers to consider questions of climate, infrastructure, and society is a very important step, but engineering faculty members need incentives to develop new courses or modules in these areas.
Audience members pointed out that science and technology centers and museums are trusted community resources and have developed popular and informative programs on climate, infrastructure, and society. These programs frame the issues, convene participants, and catalyze action. Visitors of all ages come to participate in forums and to view and interact with exhibits. These centers share resources and program results with their sister organizations around the country, and many at the conference agreed that they have a useful role to play in developing and continuing the nation’s conversation on climate and America’s infrastructure needs.
_______________
4 The term “infrastructure” here includes energy and manufacturing systems as well as other civil works infrastructures.
Organization of the Report
This chapter provides an overview of the project, characterizing the challenges and approaches to address them identified in the series of public workshops. The chapters that follow are organized thematically, drawing from relevant presentations across workshops. Chapters 2, 3, and 4 draw on material and discussions from the first and final (capstone) workshops to identify and analyze the problems associated with the interactions of climate change, engineered systems, and society. Chapters 5 and 6 draw from the second and final workshops to identify and explore opportunities for formal and informal education in academic institutions and other community venues such as science museums. Chapter 7 summarizes perspectives from professional society, business and industry, local government, and Native American representatives, using material from the second and capstone workshops. The appendices contain the workshop agendas, the lists of project participants, and a summary of the results from the workshop evaluations.
This report presents a sociotechnical systems approach to engineering education and to broader societal consideration of responses to climate change. It identifies the technical, societal, and ethical issues that need to be addressed. As a factual summary of the contents of presentations and discussions at the workshops, it does not draw conclusions from the material. Rather, it presents the wide variety of perspectives and resources that need to be brought to bear on the topic. The final workshop in particular modeled the range of interests and viewpoints that need to be represented in societal decision making processes about climate change, engineered systems, and society. Analysis of the workshop evaluations, presented in Appendix C, demonstrates the success of these workshops in increasing understanding for the many different participants and provides suggestions for future activities.
