Climate Risk Management - COnnecting REpositoriesNathan P. Kettlea,b,c, ... (Elkana, 1981). Gieryn (1983) later argued that demar-cation was a practical problem and ideological effort

Climate Risk Management 9 (2015) 6–19

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Climate Risk Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate /crm

The role of remote engagement in supporting boundary chainnetworks across Alaska

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2015.06.0062212-0963/� 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

⇑ Corresponding author at: Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy, 930 Koyukuk Drive, Fairbanks, AK 99775, United States. Tel.: +15574.

E-mail address: [email protected] (N.P. Kettle).

Nathan P. Kettle a,b,c,⇑, Sarah F. Trainor a,ca Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy, 930 Koyukuk Drive, Fairbanks, AK 99775, United Statesb Alaska Climate Science Center, 930 Koyukuk Drive, Fairbanks, AK 99775, United Statesc University of Alaska Fairbanks, 930 Koyukuk Drive, Fairbanks, AK 99775, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Available online 2 July 2015

Keywords:Boundary chainsNetworksScience–practice interfaceAlaskaWebinarsInnovation

Boundary organizations serve multiple roles in linking science and decision making,including brokering knowledge, supporting local- and cross-level networks, facilitatingthe co-production of knowledge, and negotiating conflict. Yet they face several challengesin providing services for an ever-increasing number of actors and institutions interested inclimate information and adaptation. This study evaluates how the Alaska Center forClimate Assessment and Policy (ACCAP) innovated its boundary spanning role to improveoutcomes by partnering with other boundary organizations through its ongoing climatewebinar series. We utilize the concept of boundary chains to investigate outcomes associ-ated with different extended network connections. Our evaluation is based on the analysisthree datasets, including interviews (2013) and two web-based questionnaires (2010 and2013–2015). Findings from the evaluation reveal several ways that remote engagement viathe ACCAP webinar series facilitates learning, decision application, and cross-level networkbuilding, and overcomes barriers associated with large geographic distances between com-munities. In an organic evolution and innovation of the climate webinar series, ACCAP part-nered with other boundary organizations to establish satellite hub sites to facilitatein-person gatherings at remote locations, thereby increasing the number and diversity ofparticipants served and supporting local networking within organizations, agencies, andcommunities. Leveraging complementary resources through the satellite hub sites pro-vided mutual benefits for ACCAP and partnering boundary organizations. These findingsadvance our understanding of the value of remote engagement in supporting boundaryspanning processes and how boundary organizations innovate their roles to build capacityand increase the usability of climate information.� 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC

BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Introduction

Boundary organizations are emerging as an important feature of the science–policy interface given their ability to fostercommunication between researchers and decision makers, facilitate the two-way transfer and translation of information,support local networking and cross-level linkages, and mediate conflict (Cash, 2001; Buizer et al., 2010; Hoppe et al.,2013). In the climate arena alone, several processes and approaches are utilized by boundary organizations to increase

907 474

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.crm.2015.06.006&domain=pdfhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2015.06.006http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2015.06.006http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/22120963http://www.elsevier.com/locate/crm

N.P. Kettle, S.F. Trainor / Climate Risk Management 9 (2015) 6–19 7

the usability of information and build adaptive capacities (McNie, 2013). These processes vary greatly in terms of their insti-tutional arrangements and commitment of human and financial resources, and evaluations consistently highlight the impor-tance of understanding specific decision making contexts, sustained interaction, trust building, and innovation andadaptability (Dilling and Lemos, 2011; Lemos et al., 2012; Knapp and Trainor, 2013).

Empirical studies reveal several challenges facing boundary organizations in providing and sustaining climate servicesamong a growing number of individuals involved in climate-sensitive decisions, including time and resource constraintsand willingness to sustain partnerships (Kirchhoff, 2013). Social networks serve several important roles in overcoming thesechallenges and supporting climate adaptation through the dissemination of information, leveraging and pooling of resources,negotiation of conflict, and co-production of knowledge to meet the ever increasing and dynamic needs along thescience-policy divide (Pahl-Wostl, 2009; Juhola and Westeroff, 2011; Dow et al., 2013; Kalafatis et al., 2015). Extendednetworks between two or more boundary organizations, known as boundary chains, are theorized to further improve theprovision and use of climate information as well as increase the efficiency and effectiveness that services are provided(Bidwell et al., 2013; Lemos et al., 2014).

Information and communication technologies, including teleconferencing and web-based seminars, offer great potentialin supporting boundary organizations and boundary chains, especially for organizations separated by large geographic dis-tances (Trainor et al., accepted). These remote forms of engagement have demonstrated their ability to overcome distanceand cost barriers in the delivery of information and the development of social networks (Sheppard and Mackintosh,1998; Porter and Donthu, 2008; Johnstone and Boyd, 2014). Although different approaches have been used by boundaryorganizations to create and adapt their boundary spanning activities to local contexts (Feldman and Ingram, 2009; Riceet al., 2009; Lemos et al., 2014), there remains a limited understanding of the role of remote engagement in supportingboundary spanning processes and enabling boundary chains.

This paper explores the role of remote engagement in supporting traditional boundary spanning processes and boundarychains in Alaska, with a case study of an ongoing climate webinar series (CWS) hosted by the Alaska Center for ClimateAssessment and Policy (ACCAP). We begin by discussing the role of boundary organizations, social networks, and informationand communication technologies in supporting climate adaptation. We then provide background information about ACCAPand the CWS, situating the CWS as a boundary object in facilitating the transfer of information and knowledge betweenscience and society and developing network connections among participants and speakers. We discuss two innovations ofCWS, whereby ACCAP partnered with other boundary organizations, to promote networking and information exchange, fit-ting the boundary chain model. We highlight how the organic evolution of webinar series increases the capacity of ACCAPand participating boundary organizations to reach a larger and more diverse audience, foster local network connections, andreach key organizational missions. We situate these findings in how boundary organizations innovate their boundary span-ning roles to build capacity and increase the usability of climate science for decision making.

Literature review

Boundary organizations

The conceptual and theoretical foundation of a boundary organization stems back to social studies of science in the 1960swhen philosophers and scholars theorized on the demarcation of science, a long standing analytical problem. These earlyefforts focused on the institutionalization of scientific norms and specification of criteria that separated science from otherintellectual activities (Popper et al., 1965; Merton, 1973); however, scholars struggled to demarcate science as many of theproposed characteristics also existed in other intellectual activities (Elkana, 1981). Gieryn (1983) later argued that demar-cation was a practical problem and ideological effort by scientists to distinguish their work from non-scientific intellectualactivities, as the construction of a social boundary provided protection against ‘pseudo-science’ and political interference inscientific research. Gieryn (1983) labeled these efforts of scientists as ‘‘boundary work.’’ The concept of boundary work wassoon extended into science-policy applications and the separation of scientific and political activities (Jasanoff, 1990).

Boundary organizations are generally considered to have three defining characteristics (Guston, 1999). First, they involveindividuals engaged in the production of science, use of information, and mediation of interests. Second, they provide a spacefor the creation of boundary objects and other products that facilitate communication among actors across both sides of theboundary. These objects allow ‘‘members of different communities to work together around them, and yet maintain theirdisparate identities’’ (Guston, 1999, 89). Boundary objects can take many different forms including, climate models, decisionsupport tools, workshops, scenarios, and web-based seminars (Girod et al., 2009; Buizer et al., 2010; White et al., 2010;Trainor et al., accepted). Third, they function at the frontier of science and decision making and maintain distinct lines ofaccountability for the producers and users of information (Guston, 1999). This third characteristic is built onprincipal-agent theory (Jensen and Meckling, 1976; Eisenhardt, 1989), a political-economic approach, which when appliedto science-policy contexts, suggests that organizational relationships are based on contracts between ‘principals’ (users) thatseek information from the scientific community and ‘agents’ (producers) seeking incentives from the policy community.Principal-agent theory helps structure boundary organizations as a mechanism to address conflict of interest betweenprincipals and agents.

8 N.P. Kettle, S.F. Trainor / Climate Risk Management 9 (2015) 6–19

Several boundary organizations have emerged in the past decade to address climate variability and change at multiplelevels of governance (Hoppe et al., 2013). In the US, this includes federal programs such as NOAAs Regional IntegratedSciences and Assessment (RISA) program (Pulwarty et al., 2009), Regional Climate Centers, and regionally-based Fish andWildlife Service (FWS) Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC, 2014), and state-level cooperative extension programsof National Sea and Land Grant Institutions (Tribbia and Moser, 2008; Prokopy et al., 2015). These boundary organizationsoften vary in terms of their degree of formalization, size, geographic scope of services, and stakeholder diversity (Crona andParker, 2012). Some boundary organizations serve a relatively homogenous group of constituents, while others serve con-stituents with more diverse backgrounds, interests, experience, and scales of jurisdiction. These parameters significantlyinfluence the boundary objects applied, strategies used, level of interaction, and the qualities deemed important in evaluat-ing the success of boundary organizations.

Boundary organizations serve two major roles in linking science and decision making (Guston, 2001). First, they facilitatethe brokering and co-production of knowledge, including translating scientific research into decision making and commu-nicating decision maker priorities, needs, and concerns to scientists and policy makers (Cash et al., 2003; Buizer et al.,2010). Such a role is critical given the increasing desire to production ‘usable’ information for decision and policy making(US Congress, 1990; NRC, 2007). Second, they act as an impartial broker that maintains duel lines of accountability in orderto enable both sides of the boundary to preserve their identities and adhere to principals (e.g., Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1996;Guston, 1999; Sarewitz, 2004).

Several studies have investigated the role of boundary organizations in linking climate science and decision making(Buizer et al., 2010; Kirchhoff, 2013; McNie, 2013). Early research focused the production and use of climate informationin applied research settings, including air pollution (Keating, 2001), agricultural extension (Cash, 2001), and climate predic-tions in industrialized and less-industrialized regions (Agrawala and Broad, 2001). More recently, a significant body of schol-arship has demonstrated that fostering iterative interactions between scientists and decision makers through boundaryorganizations increases the use and usability of climate information, especially when such information is aligned with userneeds and decision contexts and interplays with existing information use (Tribbia and Moser, 2008; White et al., 2010; Cronaand Parker, 2011; Lemos et al., 2012). Boundary organizations also serve critical capacities in supporting local networkingand cross-level linking, negotiating conflict, and ensuring equitable representation (Cash, 2001; Hahn et al., 2006; Trainoret al., accepted). These functions institutionalize a space to foster communication, develop partnerships, and exchangeknowledge (Cash, 2001; Tribbia and Moser, 2008; Buizer et al., 2010), though specific roles and features of each boundaryorganization may vary considerably (Miller, 2001; Cash et al., 2003).

At the same time, boundary organizations face several challenges in providing an arena for and facilitating interactionsbetween scientists and decision makers (Lemos et al., 2014). It may be difficult to support the dynamic and growing land-scape of actors, organizations, and agencies involved in climate sensitive decisions. Supporting interactions requires thecommitment of time and resources, which may overwhelm the capacity of a single boundary organization (Bidwell et al.,2013; Kirchhoff et al., 2013). As a consequence, boundary organizations may underserve some populations, especially thosewith limited capacities (Kirchhoff, 2013). Creating and maintaining linkages across science and policy may also pose signif-icant costs, especially for those that facilitate cross-level linkages (Termeer et al., 2010; Fidelman et al., 2013).

Various methods are used to evaluate the effectiveness of boundary organizations in supporting climate adaptation anddecision making. Crona and Parker (2011) use social network analysis to evaluate how interactions between researchers andpolicy makers affect knowledge utilization by policy makers within a boundary organization. Other research engages stan-dard program evaluation techniques, including interviews, questionnaires, and web statistics to evaluate the success ofclimate-related boundary organizations and advance use-inspired research (Singletary et al., 2011; Moser, 2013).

Social networks and boundary chains

Research on the role of social networks suggests they may play an important role in supporting boundary organizations tomore effectively link science and decision making (Crona and Parker, 2011; Lemos et al., 2014). Social networks facilitate theexchange of climate information and the specific needs, priorities, and concerns between scientists and decision makers(Cash and Buizer, 2005; Owen et al., 2012; Dow et al., 2013); aid in distributing risk, identification of common prioritiesand goals, negotiation of conflict, and consensus building (Juhola and Westeroff, 2011); support collaborative partnershipsby reducing costs through the pooling of resources and sharing lessons learned (Armitage et al., 2011); and increase the cred-ibility, legitimacy, and saliency of shared efforts (Cash et al., 2003). Within boundary organizations, more frequent interac-tion among policy makers and researchers is related to a greater likelihood of information use (Crona and Parker, 2011).

Researchers are beginning to theorize and examine the role of extended network connections between boundary organi-zations (Bidwell et al., 2013; Kirchhoff, 2013; Lemos et al., 2014). These extended network connections, which establishinteractive collaborations between two or more boundary organizations, are known as ‘‘boundary chains.’’ Emerging empir-ical research suggests that boundary chains increase the capacity of partnering organizations to improve production effi-ciency and provision of use-inspired science (Lemos et al., 2014). For example, through a competitive grant proposalcompetition, the Great Lakes RISA demonstrated how emerging partnerships with local boundary organizations enabledthe RISA program to reach a wider range of decision makers and increase exposure to (and use of) their products and ser-vices, while also providing partnering boundary organizations increased access to climate data and regional climate experts(Lemos et al., 2014).


Social networks, including boundary chains, may take several different forms (Bodin and Crona, 2009; Klijn andKoppenjan, 2012; Lemos et al., 2014). Some networks have stable network membership over time, while others are morefluid. In terms of their level of formality, some networks are based on regulatory frameworks and others are more sponta-neous, self-organized, or ad-hoc. Both formal and informal networks play important roles in capacity building efforts toaddress multi-level governance challenges such as climate change (Pahl-Wostl, 2009). Networks also vary based on the typesof connections, including boundary spanning between and within organizations as well as networking across multiple levelsof governance (Cash, 2001; Buizer et al., 2010). Social networks may also be supported virtually or in-person. Although theemerging literature is beginning to document how boundary chains are supporting use-inspired science through in-personinteractions, there remains a limited understanding of the role of remote engagement in supporting extended network con-nections between boundary organizations.

Information and communications technology

Information and communications technologies, such as video conferencing, teleconferencing, and web-based seminars,offer significant potential in supporting climate adaptation and boundary chains, especially for organizations with sharedinterests that are separated by geographic distance (Trainor et al., accepted). These remote forms of engagement haveemerged as important means for disseminating information across a wide range of applications, including health care,university-based distance learning, extension services, and science-policy contexts (Sheppard and Mackintosh, 1998;Willems and de Lange, 2007; Porter and Donthu, 2008; Rich et al., 2011; Johnstone and Boyd, 2014), fostering innovationin research and development (Ahuga et al., 2003), and supporting continuing education (Buxton et al., 2012). They also pro-vide opportunities to link previously unconnected or minimally connected groups, which enables access to new information,resources, and contacts (Granovetter, 1973; Wellman et al., 1996), and maintain and strengthen existing networks(Haythornthwaite, 1996). In the context of economics, online communities serve a critical role as intermediaries betweenmarketers and advertisers (Kannan et al., 2000). Although trust building and sustained interaction are often best accom-plished with face-to-face meeting, remote engagement is often necessary when boundary organizations serve large geo-graphic regions (Trainor et al., accepted).

Background: ACCAP and the climate webinar series

ACCAP was established as one of NOAAs RISA programs in 2007 with the mission to improve the ability of Alaskans toprepare for and respond to climate variability and change. ACCAP partners with scientists, decision makers, and other bound-ary organizations to advance climate science, integrate research and decision support tools, and inform climate adaptationplanning and strategies. Our primary audience consists of scientists, planners and engineers, policy makers, NGOs, AlaskaNative communities, and industry. In this section we discuss the both the context and design of the ACCAP CWS.

Alaska

The State of Alaska encompasses roughly 580,000 square miles of land, spans 44,500 miles of coastline, and covers mul-tiple ecoregions including intermontane, arctic tundra, boreal forests, and coastal rainforests (Nowacki et al., 2003). Althoughthe majority of Alaskans reside in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau, there are over 300 smaller communities, including sev-eral Alaska Native villages – many of which have limited infrastructure and may only be accessed via river or air. Oil and gasdevelopment, mining, seafood and fishing, and tourism are the primary economic activities across the state.

Notable climate- and environmental-related changes have occurred across Alaska over the past century, includingincreased coastal erosion, permafrost melt, sea ice loss, wildfires, and ocean acidification (Markon et al., 2012). Thesechanges pose a high risk potential for government services, subsistence food harvest, the diversity of economic sectors acrossthe state. To address these challenges, there is a wide range of actors working on multiple aspects of climate in Alaska – allwith different ranges of experience and expertise. These actors include state and federal resource managers, Alaska Nativecommunities, NGOs, as well as researchers and climate service providers, such as the National Weather Service (NWS) AlaskaPacific River Forecasting Center (APRFC). They also include several climate-related boundary organizations in Alaska, such asAlaska Sea Grant, five Alaska LCCs, Kachemak Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (KBRR), and the Alaska OceanObserving System (AOOS). A meta-analysis of stakeholder needs assessments in Alaska highlights a wide range of climatesensitive decisions and information needs, as well as the desire for climate information, decision support tools, and adapta-tion planning (Knapp and Trainor, 2013). There is also increasing support for the development of organizations and partner-ships to support network building and knowledge sharing (State of Alaska, 2011; Markon et al., 2012; Knapp and Trainor,2013).

Webinars, or web-based seminars, may be especially well suited for supporting networks in Alaska given their ability tocreate virtual communities of practice, facilitate collaboration across large geographic spaces, and increase group solidarityand trust (Johnson, 2001; Pigg and Crank, 2004). In the climate realm alone, webinars are increasingly being used to dissem-inate information and support knowledge to action networks (Trainor et al., accepted).


Climate webinar series

The ACCAP CWS was created in 2007 to increase the usability of climate science information, provide a forum for dialogueamong scientists and stakeholders with interests in climate across Alaska, and establish a platform for ACCAP to connectwith its stakeholders directly. Individual webinars are hosted monthly and last approximately one hour. The webinar seriesaddresses a wide range of topics, reflecting the diversity climate impacts across Alaska, rather than targeting hazard or sectorspecific issues. Webinar presentations focus on climate science and impacts, decision support, adaptation planning, as welllocal- to international-level reports and initiatives. We seek a balance among marine/coastal and terrestrial issues as well asissues of specific interest across Alaska (Trainor et al., accepted). Speakers are invited from a wide range of professions andoutlets including universities, federal and state agencies, boundary organizations, and NGOs across Alaska and throughoutthe US. Participants may attend individually or as a group at a ‘‘satellite site,’’ typically sponsored by a partnering boundaryorganization.

ACCAP webinars are designed deliberately to ensure that topics are timely and relevant. In the late summer webinartopics often include research on impacts to sea ice, salmon populations, or wildfire. In other cases, webinars areselected based on the release of relevant national or artic-wide reports (e.g., National Climate Assessment). TheACCAP team frequently solicits webinar presentations, though some webinars are hosted at the request of other orga-nizations (e.g., National Science Foundation, U.S. Arctic Research Commission, and the U.S. Global Change ResearchProgram).

The accessibility of webinars is enhanced through consideration of several factors. First, participants may attend webinarsvia either telephone audio only or through internet based coupled audio and visual components, which facilitates participa-tion among individuals in rural villages in Alaska with limited internet bandwidth or connectivity (Goodman et al., 2001).Webinar slides are available for download on the ACCAP website a day prior to the presentation if participants cannot streamthe presentations. Second, participants direct their internet browser to URL directly, rather than installing software.Installing software on computers may be especially problematic for government officials that do not have administrativepermissions to install software on government-owned computers. Third, presentations are archived on the ACCAP websiteto facilitate people access who were interested in participating but could not attend. Fourth, webinars are publicized widelyvia the ACCAP listserv and social media (Facebook and Twitter), other organizations and agencies, such as the Arctic Institute,the Arctic Research Consortium of the US, NOAA, the University of Alaska Fairbanks media relations, as well as through satel-lite sites that publicize within their own networks.

Methods

Analysis of the ACCAP CWS is based on three datasets, including interviews (2013) and web-based questionnaires (2010and 2013–2015). Fourteen semi-structured interviews conducted in April and May 2013 with webinar participants (n = 12)and speakers (n = 2) were the primary dataset for analysis. Interviewees were asked questions relating to knowledgeobtained during the webinar, actions taken based on that knowledge, and feedback on the content and organization ofthe CWS. Of the 14 interviewees, 4 were hosts of active and formal satellite sites, which were asked additional questionsrelated to motivations for establishing a satellite hub, level of interaction before, during, and after the webinar, and organi-zational benefits from hosting. Interviewees were selected based on their previous participation in the ACCAP CWS. A pur-poseful sampling technique was used to select participations representing a wide range of organizations (federal, state, NGO,Alaska native, etc.), frequency of attendance, and geographic locale in Alaska. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed,and coded using NVIVO content analysis software. Interviews were coded based on themes related to information transfer,network processes, and how networking among boundary organizations provided mutual events. Specific sub-themesincluded climate information needs, priorities, and concerns and cross-level and local networking. Transcripts werereviewed to ensure accuracy of the transcription process.

Interviews are supplemented by two web-based questionnaires. These questionnaires were designed according to stan-dard program evaluation methods (Singletary et al., 2011) and administered to assess the efficacy of the CWS. The 2010questionnaire (n = 56; 11% response rate) was distributed to the entire ACCAP listserv and focused on themes related to par-ticipant motivation for attending the CWS over the past three years, as well as the use and relevancy of information obtainedduring the webinar. The Sept 2013–April 2015 questionnaire (n = 220; 13% response rate) obtains information from partic-ipants immediately following each webinar presentation and focuses on satisfaction of the webinar content and technologyplatform.

Findings

Webinar participation

The network created by the ACCAP CWS is expanding, fluid, and diverse (Trainor et al., accepted). The mean attendancefor climate webinars in 2014 was approximately 87 participants per event; nearly triple the participation in 2007. In total,


over 2200 unique individuals have participated in ACCAP webinars from June 2007 to May 2015. The majority of participants(72%) have attended only one webinar. The increasing webinar participation per event over time suggests the high propor-tion of participants attending only one webinar is likely due to the breadth topics presented, not because participants weredissatisfied. Most of the participants work for federal agencies (37%), colleges/universities (17%), and NGOs (9%), and there isa wide range of experience with climate-related issues. The webinar series is attended by individuals across the State ofAlaska, including rural villages and throughout the USA. For a detailed analysis of participation in the ACCAP CWS, seeTrainor et al. (accepted).

Facilitating learning, decision-application, and network building remotely

Analysis of the interview and questionnaire data reveals several ways that remote engagement via the ACCAP CWS servescapacity building functions within ACCAP as well as in its partner boundary organizations. These include facilitating learningand decision-applications and supporting network development – functions consistent with other traditional boundaryorganizational arrangements to support climate-sensitive decisions (Cash, 2001; Buizer et al., 2010).

The majority of interviewees provided examples of how the ACCAP CWS facilitated learning about specific aspects of cli-mate science, impacts, adaptation, and decision-support tools. For example, many interviewees, including those from otherboundary organizations, commented that the March 2013 webinar on the Alaska Chapter of the National Climate Assessmentwas especially helpful in providing a ‘‘foundational’’ overview that helped to clarify ‘‘competing scientific visions’’ for what ishappening across Alaska. Others commented that they gained information on specific climate impacts, such as infrastruc-ture, public health, and food security. Such information is deemed important for informing operational management deci-sions, such as parameterizing hydrologic models and learning about the linkages between climate and managementconcerns, and increasing the knowledge base among staff at boundary organizations. These findings are consistent withresults from both the 2010 and 2013–2015 questionnaires. In the 2010 questionnaire, 54% (n = 22) of survey respondentsindicated they had used information obtained from the webinar in their work. For the 2013–2015 questionnaire, 89%(n = 192) of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the information presented in the webinar was useful for theirwork (based on a five-point Likert response option question).

The CWS also fosters learning among participants and boundary organizations regarding constituent priorities, needs, andconcerns. For example, a state-level employee, who had recently moved to Alaska, attended multiple webinars because‘‘being new in the area, new to Alaska entirely, and it’s a new job, I thought it would be a good way to keep informedand a good way to get to know my clients and stakeholders’’ (Participant 11, College/University). Other individuals, suchas a hydrologist for the APRFC, participate to further understand client needs and improve climate services. This sentimentis shared by other participants seeking to increase their understanding of local concerns across the state.

Other interviewees and respondents in the web-based questionnaires commented that the ACCAP CWS facilities buildingnetwork connections. ‘‘It’s great to find out who the experts are within the state of Alaska, to know there are those localexperts, that one can go to if needed’’ (Participant 3, Media). As described by one respondent in the 2013–2015 question-naire, ‘‘if you work in Alaska, you need to hear what is going on, who is doing what. . .it helps to form collaborative partner-ships and keep up to date’’ (Anonymous). The webinar on the five Alaska LCCs was considered especially effective insupporting network connections and dialog. This webinar was designed specifically to introduce what the LCCs are, whatthey do, where their boundaries are, and who are the points of contact. Several interviewees, including the LCCs and partic-ipants from other boundary organizations, discussed how the webinar helped build and maintain partnerships, networking,and collaboration among private and public organizations to address landscape-scale challenges. During an interview, a LCCscience coordinator who gave the webinar presentation discussed the importance of the webinar series in facilitating dialogwith Alaska Native constituents.

How to engage aboriginal participation and how to incorporate cultural values into the LCC planning process. . .is some-thing we have struggled with. . . But through follow-up conversations with the [webinar] participant, we’ve been able toidentify various individuals that we would like to talk [with] about. . . how to move forward.

[(Speaker 1, USFWS)]

As such, ACCAP CWS provides one avenue for increasing adaptive capacities through facilitating network connectionsbetween federal agencies and Alaska Native communities (Knapp and Trainor, 2013).

Significantly, the webinar series fosters cross-level linkages by creating a virtual environment for participants to gatherand connect with experience and jurisdiction at multiple levels of governance. Bridging across levels most commonly occursduring presentations and subsequent discussions for state to national level engagement sessions such as the USGCRPNational Climate Assessment, the Integrated Arctic Management Report on ‘‘Managing for the Future in A RapidlyChanging Arctic: A Report to the President’’, and the America’s Climate Choices report. These webinars provide opportunitiesfor Alaskans to learn about national level reports and for state and national level policy makers to learn about local- andregional-level concerns and interests. On some occasions, federal agencies such as the US Arctic Research Commissionand the National Science Foundation have contacted ACCAP, requesting an opportunity to solicit Alaskan input. Thesecross-level linkages and local networking functions enabled through the CWS are critical in supporting knowledge to actionnetworks, especially for climate adaptation, where the driving forces, impacts, and vulnerabilities occur at multiple levelsand scales (Mimura et al., 2014).


Using information and communication technologies to reduce geographic isolation

Webinars were considered an effective platform to connect scientists and decision makers across Alaska and overcomebarriers associated with the geographic isolation of and distance between communities, including travel costs and time con-straints. As illustrated by two webinar speakers:

In a place like Alaska where travel distance is large and long, this is a good way to efficiently get [climate] information topeople across the state, and out of state.

[(Speaker 2, Alaska Climate Science Center)]

When you are working across the entire state of Alaska, or in our case in Alaska, Northwest Territories, Yukon territory,and British Columbia, there’s no way to get people face to face at that frequency.


This sentiment was shared by several other webinar participants who referenced the challenges of bringing experts intorural communities and traveling to other locations. One participant noted that the ACCAP CWS was ‘‘one of the few optionswe have’’ given his/her remote location. As stated by another participant: ‘‘It is one of the few opportunities for rural Alaskacommunities (non-scientists) to hear about what research is going on’’ (Webinar questionnaire 11/2015).

Building the boundary chain: linking with other boundary organizations and expanding engagement

There are at least two ways that the ACCAP CWS illustrates the ‘‘key chain arrangement’’ proposed by Lemos et al. (2014)– an arrangement theorized to enable boundary organizations to save resources and reach broader networks. Below we dis-cuss innovations in the ACCSAP CWS to establish these boundary chain arrangements and how partnerships establishedbetween ACCAP and other boundary organizations extend the reach of the CWS to a larger and more diverse audienceand provide benefits through the sharing of resources.

Boundary organizations as webinar presenters

First, shortly after the inception of the CWS in 2007, ACCAP began inviting individuals from other boundary organizationsto present their work in the CWS, in addition to inviting presentations by scientists. This innovation provides opportunitiesfor other boundary organizations to connect with their constituents directly and builds ACCAP constituents and expands net-work ties. For example, a speaker from The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) gave a presentation on the LocalEnvironmental Observer Network, a decision support tool developed by ANTHC, which provides Alaska communities aninternet-based reporting and monitoring tool to track health related climate impacts across the state. Additional examplesinclude presentations on climate adaptation planning in Alaska Native Communities by an Alaska Sea Grant extension agentand Alaska climate forecast briefings by a NWS climate science and service manager. By inviting presentations from otherboundary organizations for the CWS, ACCAP simultaneously strengthens partnerships with those organizations and buildsconstituent bases. As articulated by a science coordinator for an Alaska LCC:

[The webinar] gave us access to a broader group of stakeholders than we may have gotten from a different venue or hold-ing a webinar on our own, so it was great to have this connection with people who tie into the ACCAP webinars and areinterested in learning more about different issues that are going on in Alaska that are related to climate change.


Boundary organizations as satellite hubs for webinars

Second, and most significantly, ACCAP began developing and fostering satellite sites for the CWS in 2009. Satellite sitesare located in partner boundary organizations, where individuals set up a conference room with a screen and audio link as aplace to convene local webinar participants remotely. The organic evolution of the CWS was aimed to strengthen relation-ships between ACCAP and partnering boundary organizations, extend the reach of the webinar series, and support local net-working. While a few organizations self-organize ad hoc satellite viewings, formal satellite sites were first organized as a wayto extend the reach of ACCAP and further build and support partnerships state-wide. For each of the formal satellites, ACCAPidentifies a host contact and provides additional publicity material.

There is a wide variety of satellite sites in terms of their stakeholder base, attendance rates, frequency of participation,level of formality, and mission (Table 1). Satellite sites are hosted by various agencies and organizations, including the fed-eral government, NGOs, and rural campuses of the University of Alaska System. Some satellite sites host webinars internally(e.g., APRFC, National Park Service (NPS)) and others open their doors to the community (e.g., KBBR, Alaska Sea Grant). Eightformal satellite sites are currently active (Fig. 1). Individual webinars typically have 2–4 hub sites per webinar and atten-dance for formal satellite sites generally ranges from 3 to 15 people. The design of the CWS to enable individual satellite sitesto participate or opt out of monthly webinars depending on topic salience and time availability addresses one of the critical

Table 1Sample satellite sites (formal) for the ACCAP climate webinar series.

Boundary organization Mission Stakeholders Attendance(perwebinar)

Alaska Ocean ObservingSystem (AOOS)

Increase access to existing coastal/ocean data; package data in amanner that meets stakeholder needs; increase observing andforecasting capacity

Fisherman, search and rescue;scientists; managers, educators,subsistence

3–10

Alaska Sea Life Center Generate & share scientific knowledge to promote understanding &stewardship of marine ecosystems

General public; K-12 teachersand students

5–10

Alaska Sea Grant – MarineAdvisory Program(MAP)

‘‘Enhance the wise use and conservation of Alaska’s marine, coastal,and watershed resources through research, education, andextension’’ (Alaska Sea Grant, 2013)

Costal managers, planners,teachers, industry

3

Kachemak Bay NationalEstuarine ResearchReserve (KBRR)

Enhance understanding of estuaries; provide information coastalmanagers to inform decisions; partner with local communities,researchers, and agencies; build capacity

Coastal managers; K-12 teachersand students; researchers

4–7

University of AlaskaFairbanks (UAF)Cooperative Extension

‘‘Interpret and extend relevant research-based knowledge in anunderstandable and usable form; and to encourage the application ofthis knowledge to solve the problems and meet the challenges thatface the people of Alaska; and, to bring the concerns of thecommunity back to the university’’ (CES, 2014)

General public, researchers 3–10

University of Alaska RuralCampuses

‘‘The University of Alaska inspires learning, and advances anddisseminates knowledge through teaching, research, and publicservice, emphasizing the North and its diverse peoples’’ (Universityof Alaska, 2000)

Local communities, students,researchers

3–10

Fig. 1. Locations of active satellite sites.


challenges of institutionalizing activities in a boundary space, while also adapting to constantly changing needs and interests(Cash et al., 2003).

Satellite hub sites contributed to 20% of the total views (n = 1043) between 2009 and 2014. Although the total number ofsatellite site viewings and individuals participating at those sites varied from year to year, there was a substantial increase in


satellite site participation in 2011 (less than 10 viewings per year from 2009 to 2010, and 34–49 viewings per year from2011 to 2014). Satellite sites, such as the Alaska Sea Grant and AOOS, increased viewership among coastal managers andsubsistence users and extended the reach of the CWS to include the audiences beyond the primary target of ACCAP, suchas the general public and educators (e.g., Alaska Sea Life Center) (Table 1).

Hosting satellite site viewings also provided participating boundary organizations opportunities to strengthen their localnetwork connections by convening community members, organization staff, or agency personnel into a single location andholding pre- and post-webinar discussions. Within the NPS and APRFC, webinars serve as a focal point for gathering employ-ees with diverse backgrounds from a single agency into a single location. As articulated by a regional education coordinatorfor the NPS Alaska Region:

I work in a regional office, so it’s an opportunity for folks from [different] disciplines to get together and watch it [thewebinar]. I’ve been in the room with folks from our air quality division and maybe a couple of natural resource managersor cultural resource managers and so as we’re colleagues that know each other anyway because we work on otherclimate-change related topics, but in many cases, the topic or the speaker is something germane to what we’re workingon, so bringing us together in a room and listening to it we can have a conversation around the presentation itself andsometimes it inspires more conversation once the presentation is finished.

[(Participant 6, NPS)]

Local networking within communities also provides opportunities for participants from a diverse community of needs togather face to face. Local face-to-face networking is especially well described by KBRR staff, although similar discussionswere reported for other satellite sites.

Following the webinar we usually take 15–20 min to just debrief on the webinar, share our thoughts on the informationthat was learned [and share] any ideas on how the information could be applied to our work. . . It’s just the idea of sharingand seeing what new information was learned and how that information could be applied for the work that they[community members attending satellite site viewing] are doing.

[(Participant 2, KBRR)]

Finally, satellite partnering assisted other boundary organizations reach key organizational objectives and engageremote and difficult to reach stakeholders. For example, the KBRR disseminates climate information through theACCAP webinar series and uses participation records for their satellite site in their annual reports to quantifyand document stakeholder engagement. In other instances, satellite hosts organize webinar viewings to providean opportunity for members of local communities to hear about national level reports. For example, staff from astate-level boundary organization, which provides services to rural communities, organized a satellite site viewingto hear about a recently released report entitled: ‘‘Managing for the Future in A Rapidly Changing Arctic: A Reportto the President’’ (Clement et al., 2013). Residents in these communities had provided input into the report, and thewebinar provided an opportunity for her/his constituents to hear the results of the findings. As stated by theinterviewee:

Here’s an opportunity to talk about marine mammals and we’re out in the rural satellite areas where we often are pro-viding information, we’re often a topic of discussion that we’re not fully engaged both at the gathering information stageor with the dissemination of information. So I said hey, here’s a way I can get somebody that may have participated in thisearlier and also for our region that relies on marine mammals for food and this topic is pertinent.

[(Participant 12, Anonymous)]

Even single participation in the webinar series may lead to meaningful collaborations and partnerships. For example, aparticipant saw direct linkages between his research and the mission of the LCCs and contacted the speaker following thepresentation, which resulted in the LCC Steering committee endorsing his research proposal. ‘‘Had it not been for the webi-nar, he would not have made that connection.’’ (Speaker 1, USFWS)

Mutual benefits: partnering, leveraging and sharing resources

Partnerships established between ACCAP and other boundary organizations through the CWS provide several benefitsand efficiencies through the sharing, leveraging, and pooling of human, technical, and financial resources (Bidwell et al.,2013; Lemos et al., 2014). For partnering satellite sites, the ACCAP CWS increases access to climate information by coveringthe costs of hosting each webinar (approximately $1000 per webinar, including licenses for the online software, telephonecosts, and staff time to organize and publicize the event) and providing fliers and other publicity information for satellitesites. As stated by one satellite host, ‘‘Having the fliers helped because it’s such a time sink to make your own’’(Participant 12, university/college). At the same time, satellite sites offer their facilities for a webinar viewing, thus reducingthe costs for ACCAP to provide remote viewings and further expand ACCAP engagement. Further, leveraging existing and cas-cading long-term relationships with satellite sites and their constituents is key to extending the reach of the ACCAP CWS andaccelerating the brokering of relevant and timely climate information. In this way the shared investment of resources and


leveraging of existing networks increases opportunities to develop and strengthen connectivity among the links in theboundary chain and increase the usability of climate information.

Discussion

Although boundary organizations are widely acknowledged as an important feature in the climate science–practice inter-face, there remains limited work on the role of remote engagement in supporting boundary spanning processes, includingboundary chains. This study illustrates how remote engagement via webinars can serve as effective boundary object for con-necting science and practice (Fig. 2) through supporting the two-way transfer of information and knowledge betweenscience and society and developing local- and cross-level network connections. This research also reveals how employingsatellite webinar host sites adds links to the chain of networked boundary organizations (Fig. 3). These extended networkconnections provide mutual benefits for partnering boundary organizations, promote organizational missions, enhancelearning, networking and decision-application, and expand stakeholder bases – conditions important in supportingclimate-sensitive decision making and adaptation (Dilling and Lemos, 2011). The following sections discuss the efficacy ofclimate webinars in supporting climate-related boundary spanning processes, factors contributing the success of remoteengagement, and the use of emerging technologies to support remotely-based boundary spanning processes.

Efficacy of webinars in support of remote engagement

Our findings reveal insights into efficacy of climate webinars in supporting the goals of climate-related boundary orga-nizations. First, climate webinars have the capacity to remotely bring scientists, decision makers, and boundary organiza-tions together across vast geographic regions (i.e., individuals involved in the production, use, and mediation ofinformation) (Guston, 1999). Facilitating network interactions through remote engagement is a critical step in overcomingdistance barriers, which may constrain opportunities for the co-production of knowledge, development of networks, andimplementation of adaptation strategies.

Second, the ability of webinars to facilitate interactions within and across multiple levels of governance remotely offers apromising direction for supporting cross-level networking opportunities. Such opportunities are important in multi-levelrisk governance challenges, such as climate adaptation, especially when there are differences in planning priorities acrossmultiple jurisdictions (Kettle and Dow, 2014). Informal and ad hoc networking opportunities, enabled through the CWS,may also be important in supplementing more formal networks, especially in situations where political support for climatechange is limited (Dow et al., 2013; Haywood et al., 2014).

Third, the innovation of satellite hub sites increases the capacity of the CWS to support and expand networks, enhanceinformation flow, and leverage resources. Building on standard webinar formats, this case study illustrates how the CWSsatellite hub configuration strengthens the links in the boundary chain between ACCAP and its partner organizations andprovides mutual benefits (whereby reducing ‘‘transaction costs’’) (Lemos et al., 2014). However, additional research isneeded that explicitly focuses on efficiencies obtained through boundary chains, including how efficiencies fromin-person interactions compare to remote engagement.

Factors contributing to successful remote engagement

Our experience highlights several factors contributing to the success of webinars as a remote form of engagement in sup-porting boundary spanning processes. ACCAP’s function as network leader and sponsor of the CWS plays a critical role infostering its success through core funding, initiating partnerships, and project management (Provan and Kenis, 2008;Giest and Howlett, 2014). Within this role, the commitment of human and financial resources to develop long-term relation-ships with individuals on both sides of the boundary is critical in support of the CWS (Dilling and Lemos, 2011). In the case ofthe CWS, this includes staying current with issues and activities to ensure topics are relevant and salient for both individualparticipants and satellite hub sites. It also requires interacting with satellite host sites, presenters, and participants before,during, and after the presentations, and nurturing network connections in order to identify new speakers and satellite sites.There are also significant commitments of financial resources critical in supporting the technical platform, including thewebinar software and phone lines. The institutional structure of the CWS is dependent on the skills, relationships, reputa-tion, and experience of the individuals who run and sustain the project (Guido et al., 2013). At the same time, satellite sitesprovide local venues for participants to gather together remotely, and provide local name recognition for the CWS. These

Fig. 2. Traditional boundary arrangement, whereby ACCAP links science and society through the climate webinar series. Figure modified from Lemos et al.(2014).

Fig. 3. Examples of networking between ACCAP and other boundary organizations vis-a-vis the climate webinar series. Solid ovals represent formal satellitesites and the dashed ovals represent informal satellite sites.


mutually supportive relations between ACCAP and participate satellite sites, whereby each node in the network provides acomplementary input or clear division of labor, increases the potential for positive synergies and efficiencies and is the foun-dation for knowledge co-production and interaction (Evans, 1996; Ostrom, 1996).

The ACCAP CWS has been presented monthly since 2007. Building and sustaining long-term relationships is fundamentalto the success of supporting use-inspired science (Dilling and Lemos, 2011). One could hypothesize that the longevity andinstitutionalization of the CWS contributes to participant awareness of the CWS as a platform for engagement, participation,and science application in decision-making. However, more work is needed to develop a better understanding of the extentto which the long-term institutionalization of the CWS and the establishment of satellite hub sites enhances the efficacy ofthe CWS in decision application and climate adaptation over time. Findings from such research would have policy implica-tions for supporting the longevity of existing boundary organizations and similar programs.

Use of emerging technology in the design of remote-based boundary spanning

The remote engagement and boundary chain configuration described in this paper is contingent upon the utilization ofwebinar technology that allows for remote presentation, remote viewing, and dialog among presenter and participants. Overthe eight year lifetime of the CWS, ACCAP has changed the technical platform three times to overcome technical limitationswith growing participation and stay current with and meet user demands for new tools such as on-line chat and Voice OverInternet Protocol (Trainor et al., accepted). These adaptations are important as the success of organizationally-sponsoredonline communities is related to the provision of quality content, level of interaction, trust, and perceived memberembeddedness (Porter and Donthu, 2008) – factors consistent with the literature on use-inspired science. While emergingtechnology makes the CWS and expanded network and information exchange possible, it is also important to note potentiallimitations of relying on technology for engagement and boundary work (Reddy et al., 2009). For example, the CWS is depen-dent on reliable internet and phone connections. Early in the CWS, a webinar had to be canceled because a road constructionsevered the fiber optic cable and Fairbanks was without internet for two days.

Our findings demonstrate how complementary forms of interaction are a key feature in enabling boundary chainsthrough remote technology, increasing networking opportunities, and enhancing the usability of climate information(Lemos and Morehouse, 2005; Lemos et al., 2012). Virtual interactions, such as providing other boundary organizationsan opportunity to be a webinar speaker, facilitate the transfer of knowledge between science and decision-making, promotedialog and network connections, and build social capital within and across groups (Pigg and Crank, 2004). At the same time,face-to-face interactions that occur before, during, and following the webinar at satellite hub sites provide additionalopportunities to build bonding and linking social capital through local- and cross-level networking within communitiesand agencies (Adger, 2003; Szreter and Woolcock, 2004).

This research also shows how ACCAP’s use of information and communication technologies expands networking andknowledge exchange boundary functions through the CWS and the satellite hub sites (Figs. 2 and 3). Continued researchis needed on the extent to which the ACCAP CWS intersects with and is embedded within other networks in Alaska. Suchassessments could reveal additional boundary chain arrangements, how the CWS builds upon more established environmen-tal networks, and what could be done to integrate these networks more effectively (Vogel et al., 2007). Further research


could also assess the extent that virtual networking and engagement via technology such as webinars emulates personalinteraction and the extent that remote engagement may be effective across different socio-cultural contexts. For example,how does the efficacy of webinars to support climate adaptation vary based on the sector served, population of stakeholdercommunity, and degree of geographic isolation?

Conclusion

Our research advances understanding of how boundary organizations innovate their boundary spanning roles to buildcapacity and increase the usability of information to inform decision making (van Kerkhoff and Slezak, 2010; Lemoset al., 2014). Two innovations are particularly germane to our analysis. First, ACCAP’s adoption of remote engagement visa vis the CWS helped overcome several time and resource constraints that are often associated with supporting boundaryspanning processes across large distances between communities. Information and communication technologies were akey asset in providing a platform to connect scientists, decision makers, and other boundary organizations, as well asfacilitate learning, decision application, and network building. Second, ACCAP innovated its boundary spanning role by part-nering with other boundary organizations in order to enhance information exchange and foster network development.Partnering occurred through inviting individuals from other boundary organizations to be speakers for the CWS and estab-lishing satellite hub sites. Consistent with emerging research on boundary chains and knowledge co-production (Evans,1996; Lemos et al., 2014), these partnerships provide mutual benefits and synergies through the sharing of complementaryresources. Developing new and innovative arrangements to foster partnerships between boundary organizations is central intackling complex challenges such as climate adaptation.

Acknowledgements

Funding for this research was supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate ProgramOffice, Award NA11OAR431014152. The authors wish to thank the webinar participants for their participation in thisresearch and Anna Schemper for interview transcription and review.

References

Adger, W.N., 2003. Social capital, collective action and adaptation to climate change. Econ. Geogr. 79 (4), 387–404.Agrawala, S., Broad, K., 2001. Integrating climate forecasts and societal decision making: challenges to an emergent boundary organization. Sci. Technol.

Human Values 26 (4), 454–477.Ahuga, M.K., Galletta, D.F., Carley, K.M., 2003. Individual centrality and performance in virtual R&D groups: an empirical study. Manage. Sci. 49 (1), 21–38.Alaska Sea Grant, 2013. Alaska Sea Grant College Program Strategic Plan 2014–2017. 13: Alaska Sea Grant.Armitage, D., Berkes, F., Dale, A., Kocho-Schellenberg, E., Patton, E., 2011. Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: learning to adapt in

Canada’s Arctic. Global Environ. Change 21, 995–1004.Bidwell, D., Dietz, T., Scavia, D., 2013. Fostering knowledge networks for climate adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 610–611.Bodin, O., Crona, B.I., 2009. The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what relational patterns make a difference? Global Environ. Change

19, 366–374.Buizer, J., Jacobs, K., Cash, D., 2010. Making short-term climate forecasts useful: linking science and action. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.Buxton, E.C., Burns, E.C., De Muth, J.E., 2012. Professional development webinars for pharmacists. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 76 (8), 1–7.Cash, D.W., 2001. ‘‘In order to aid in diffusing useful and practical information’’: agricultural extension and boundary organizations. Sci. Technol. Human

Values 26 (4), 431–453.Cash, D.W., Buizer, J., 2005. Knowledge-action systems for seasonal to interannual climate forecasting, 32. Washington, DC.Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., Jager, J., Mitchell, R.B., 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development.

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100 (14), 8086–8091.CES, 2014. Cooperative Extension Service 2014. Available from: (cited 23.10.14).Clement, J.P., Bengtson, J.L., Kelly, B.P., 2013. Managing for the Future in a Rapidly Changing Arctic: a Report to the President, 59. Interagency Working Group

on Coordination of Domestic Energy Development and Permitting in Alaska, Washington, DC.Crona, B.I., Parker, J.N., 2011. Network determinants of knowledge utilization: preliminary lessons from a boundary organization. Sci. Commun. 33 (4),

448–471.Crona, B., Parker, J.N., 2012. Learning in support of governance: theories, methods, and a framework to assess how bridging organizations contribute to

adaptive resource governance. Ecol. Soc. 17 (1). http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04534-170132.Dilling, L., Lemos, M.C., 2011. Creating usable science: opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy.

Global Environ. Change 21, 680–689.Dow, K., Haywood, B., Kettle, N., Lackstrom, K., 2013. The role of ad hoc networks in supporting climate change adaptation: a case study from the

Southeastern United States. Reg. Environ. Change. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0440-8.Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H., 1996. Brownlash: the new environmental anti-science. Humanist 56, 21–25.Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Agency theory: an assessment and review. Acad. Manage. Rev. 14 (1), 57–74.Elkana, Y., 1981. A programmatic attempt at an anthropology of knowledge. In: Elkana, E.M.a.Y. (Ed.), Sciences and Cultures, Sociology of the Sciences

Yearbook. D. Reidel, Boston, pp. 1–76.Evans, P., 1996. Government action, social capital and development: reviewing the evidence on synergy. World Dev. 24 (6), 1119–1132.Feldman, D.L., Ingram, H.M., 2009. Making science useful to decision makers: climate forecasts, water management, and knowledge networks. Weather

Clim. Soc. 1, 9–21.Fidelman, P.I.J., Leitch, A.M., Nelson, D.R., 2013. Unpacking multilevel adaptation to climate change in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Global Environ.

Change 23, 800–812.Gieryn, T.F., 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am. Sociol.

Rev. 48 (6), 781–795.Giest, S., Howlett, M., 2014. Understanding the pre-conditions of commons governance: the role of network management. Environ. Sci. Policy 36, 37–47.Girod, B., Wiek, A., Mieg, H., Hulme, M., 2009. The evolution of the IPCC’s emission scenarios. Environ. Sci. Policy 12 (2), 103–118.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0060http://www.uaf.edu/ces/about/missioncontact/http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0075http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04534-170132http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0085http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0440-8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0135


Goodman, S.E., Gottstein, J.B., Goodman, D.S., 2001. Wiring the wilderness in Alaska and the Yukon: breaking down the partitions that divide the digitalworld. Commun. ACM 44 (6), 21–25.

Granovetter, M.S., 1973. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78 (6), 1360–1380.Guido, Z., Hill, D., Crimmins, M., Ferguson, D.B., 2013. Informing decisions with a climate synthesis product: implications for regional climate services.

Weather Clim. Soc. 5, 83–92.Guston, D.H., 1999. Stabilizing the boundary between politics and science: the role of the Office of Technology Transfer as a boundary organization. Soc.

Stud. Sci. 29 (1), 87–112.Guston, D.H., 2001. Boundary organization in environmental science and policy: an introduction. Sci. Technol. Human Values 26 (4), 399–408.Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Johansson, K., 2006. Trust-building, knowledge generation and organizational innovations: the role of a bridging organization

for adaptive comanagement of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Human Ecol. 24, 573–592.Haythornthwaite, C., 1996. Social network analysis: an approach and technique for the study of information exchange. Libr. Inform. Sci. Res. 18 (4), 323–

342.Haywood, B., Brennan, A., Dow, K., Kettle, N., Lackstrom, K., 2014. Negotiating a mainstreaming spectrum: climate change response and communication in

the Carolinas. J. Environ. Planning Policy Manage. 16 (1), 75–94.Hoppe, R., Wesselink, A., Cairns, R., 2013. Lost in a problem: the role of boundary organizations in the governance of climate change. WIREs Clim. Change 4,

283–300.Jasanoff, S., 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policy Makers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Jensen, M.C., Meckling, W.H., 1976. Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. J. Financ. Econ. 3 (4), 305–360.Johnson, C.M., 2001. A survey of current research on online communities of practice. Internet Higher Educ. 4, 45–60.Johnstone, S.M., Boyd, J.R., 2014. Technology and distance education: challenges facing the American west. In: Goodchild, L.F., Jonsen, R.W., Limerick, P.,

Longanecker, D.A. (Eds.), Public Policy Challenges Facing Higher Education in the American West. Palgrave MacMillan, New York, NY, pp. 143–158.Juhola, S., Westeroff, L., 2011. Challenges of adaptation to climate change across multiple scales: a case study of network governance in two European

countries. Environ. Sci. Policy 14 (3), 239–247.Kalafatis, S.E., Lemos, M.C., Lo, Y.-J., Frank, K., 2015. Increasing information usability for climate adaptation: the role of knowledge networks and

communities of practice. Global Environ. Change 32, 30–39.Kannan, P.K., Chang, A.-M., Whinston, A.B., 2000. Electronic communities in e-business: their role and issues. Inform. Syst. Front. 1 (4), 415–426.Keating, T.J., 2001. Lessons from the Recent History of the Health Effects Institute. Sci. Technol. Human Values 26 (4), 409–430.Kettle, N.P., Dow, K., 2014. Cross-scale differences and similarities in coastal climate change adaptation planning. Environ. Sci. Policy 44, 279–290.Kirchhoff, C.J., 2013. Understanding and enhancing climate information use in water management. Clim. Change 119, 495–509.Kirchhoff, C.J., Lemos, M.C., Dessai, S., 2013. Actionable knowledge for environmental decision making: broadening the usability of climate science. Annu.

Rev. Environ. Resour. 38, 393–414.Klijn, E., Koppenjan, J., 2012. Governance network theory: past, present and future. Policy Politics 40 (4), 587–606.Knapp, C.N., Trainor, S.F., 2013. Adapting science to a warming world. Global Environ. Change 23, 1296–1306.LCC, 2014. Landscape Conservation Cooperatives 2014. Available from: (cited 20.06.14).Lemos, M.C., Morehouse, B.J., 2005. The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Global Environ. Change 15, 57–68.Lemos, M.C., Kirchhoff, C.J., Ramprasad, V., 2012. Narrowing the climate information usability gap. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 789–794.Lemos, M.C., Kirchhoff, C.J., Kalafatis, S.E., Scavia, D., Rood, R.B., 2014. Moving climate information off the shelf: boundary chains and the role of RISAs as

adaptive organizations. Weather Clim. Soc. 6, 273–285.Markon, C.J., Trainor, S.F., Chapin, F.S., 2012. The United States National Climate Assessment – Alaska Technical Regional Report. U.S. Geological Survey

Circular 1379, pp. 148.McNie, E.C., 2013. Delivering climate services: organizational strategies and approaches for producing climate-science information. Weather Clim. Soc. 5 (1),

14–26.Merton, R.K., 1973. The Sociology of Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Miller, C., 2001. Hybrid management: boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime. Sci. Technol. Human

Values 26 (4), 478–500.Mimura, N.R., Pulwarty, M.D.D., Elshinnaway, I., Redsteer, M.H., Huang, H.Q., Nkem, J.N., Rodriquez, R.A.S., van Aalst, M., Donohue, J., Gitay, H., Miralles-

Wilhelm, F., Storbjork, S., Sourminski, S., 2014. Adaptation planning and implementation. In climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.In: IPCC Working Group II Contribution to AR5. W. V. R. Moss, p. 46.

Moser, S.C., 2013. PICRC Evaluation: Development, Delivery, and Traceable Impacts – with Particular Emphasis on the Contributions of the Pacific RISA, 60.Susanne Moser Research and Consulting, Santa Cruz, CA.

Nowacki, G.J.P., Spencer, M., Fleming, T., Brock, Jorgenson, T., 2003. Unified Ecoregions of Alaska: 2001: USGS.NRC, 2007. Evaluating Progress of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program: Methods and Preliminary Results. The National Academies Press, Washington,

DC.Ostrom, E., 1996. Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development. World Dev. 24 (6), 1073–1087.Owen, G., McLeod, J.D., Kolden, C.A., Ferguson, D.B., Brown, T.J., 2012. Wildfire management and forecasting fire potential: the role of climate information

and social networks in the southwest United States. Weather Clim. Soc. 4, 90–102.Pahl-Wostl, C., 2009. A conceptual framework for analyzing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global

Environ. Change 19, 354–365.Pigg, K.E., Crank, L.D., 2004. Building community social capital: the potential and promise of information and communications technologies. J. Commun.

Inform. 1 (1), 58–73.Popper, K.R., Harper, T., Row, P., 1965. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Harper and Row, New York.Porter, C.E., Donthu, N., 2008. Cultivating trust and harvesting value in virtual communities. Manage. Sci. 54 (1), 113–128.Prokopy, L.S., Carlton, J.S., Arbuckle, J.G.J., Haigh, T., Lemos, M.C., Mase, A.S., Babin, N., Bunn, M., Andresen, J., Angel, J., Hart, C., Power, R., 2015. Extension’s

role in disseminating information about climate change to agriculture stakeholders in the United States. Clim. Change. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1339-9.

Provan, K.G., Kenis, P., 2008. Modes of network governance: structure, management, and effectiveness. J. Public Admin. Res. Theory 18, 229–252.Pulwarty, R.S., Simpson, C., Nierenberg, C.R., 2009. The regional integrated sciences and assessments (RISA) program: crafting effective assessments for the

long haul. In: Jager, C.G.K.a.J. (Ed.), Integrated Regional Assessment of Global Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 367–393.Reddy, M.C., Paul, S.A., Abraham, J., McNeese, M., DeFlitch, C., Yen, J., 2009. Challenges to effective crisis management: using information and

communication technologies to coordinate emergency medical services and emergency department teams. Int. J. Med. Inform. 78, 259–269.Rice, J.L., Woodhouse, C., Lukas, J.L., 2009. Science and decision making: water management and tree-ring data in the western United States. J. Am. Water

Resour. Assoc. 45 (5), 1248–1259.Rich, S.R., Komar, S., Schilling, B., Tomas, S.R., 2011. Meeting extension programming needs with technology: a case study of agritourism webinars. J.

Extension 49 (6), 1–14.Sarewitz, D., 2004. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ. Sci. Policy 7, 385–403.Sheppard, L., Mackintosh, S., 1998. Technology and education: what is appropriate for rural and remote allied health professionals. Aust. J. Rural Health 6,

189–193.Singletary, L., Evans, B., Sicafuse, L., 2011. Evaluation Resource Guide for Joint Fire Science Program Consortia, 55. University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0175http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0175http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0245http://lccnetwork.org/Abouthttp://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0255http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0260http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0265http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0265http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0270http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0270http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0280http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0285http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0285http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0290http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0290http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0290http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0295http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0295http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0300http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0305http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0305http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0310http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0315http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0315http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0320http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0320http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0325http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0325http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0330http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0335http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1339-9http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1339-9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0345http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0350http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0350http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0355http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0355http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0360http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0360http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0365http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0365http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0370http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0375http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0375http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0380


State of Alaska, 2011. Adaptation Advisory Group of the Governor’s Sub-Cabinet on Climate Change 2011. Available from: .

Szreter, S., Woolcock, M., 2004. Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of public health. Int. J. Epidemiol. 33 (4), 650–667.

Termeer, C., Dewulf, A., van Lieshout, M., 2010. Disentangling scale approaches in governance research: comparing monocentric, multilevel, and adaptivegovernance. Ecol. Soc. 15 (4), .

Trainor, S.T., Kettle, N.P., Gamble, J.B., accepted. Not another webinar! Regional webinars as a platform for climate knowledge to action networking inAlaska. In: Garfin, G.M., Parris, A. (Eds.), Climate in Context. Wiley and Sons (accepted).

Tribbia, J., Moser, S.C., 2008. More than information: what coastal managers need to plan for climate change. Environ. Sci. Policy 11 (4), 315–328.University of Alaska, 2000. Regents’ Policy. University of Alaska 2000. Available from: .US Congress, 1990. U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990: USA.van Kerkhoff, L., Slezak, N.S., 2010. The role of innovative global institutions in linking knowledge and action. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/

pnas.0900541107.Vogel, C., Moser, S.C., Kasperson, R.E., Dabelko, G.D., 2007. Linking vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience science to practice: pathways, players, and

partnerships. Global Environ. Change 17, 349–364.Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M., Haythornthwaite, C., 1996. Computer networks as social networks: collaborative work, telework,

and virtual community. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 22, 213–238.White, D.D., Wutich, A., Larson, K.L., Gober, P., Lant, T., Senneville, C., 2010. Credibility, salience, and legitimacy of boundary objects: water managers’

assessment of a simulation model in an immersive decision theater. Sci. Public Policy 37 (3), 219–232.Willems, P., de Lange, W.J., 2007. Concept of technical support to science-policy interfacing with respect to the implementation of European water

framework directive. Environ. Sci. Policy 10, 464–473.

http://www.climatechange.alaska.gov/aag/aag.htmhttp://www.climatechange.alaska.gov/aag/aag.htmhttp://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0390http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0390http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art29/http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0400http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0400http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0405https://www.alaska.edu/bor/policy-regulations/http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900541107http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900541107http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0425http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0425http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0430http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0430http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0435http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0435http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0440http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-0963(15)00024-8/h0440

The role of remote engagement in supporting boundary chain networks across AlaskaIntroductionLiterature reviewBoundary organizationsSocial networks and boundary chainsInformation and communications technology

Background: ACCAP and the climate webinar seriesAlaskaClimate webinar series

MethodsFindingsWebinar participationFacilitating learning, decision-application, and network building remotelyUsing information and communication technologies to reduce geographic isolationBuilding the boundary chain: linking with other boundary organizations and expanding engagementBoundary organizations as webinar presentersBoundary organizations as satellite hubs for webinarsMutual benefits: partnering, leveraging and sharing resources

DiscussionEfficacy of webinars in support of remote engagementFactors contributing to successful remote engagementUse of emerging technology in the design of remote-based boundary spanning

ConclusionAcknowledgementsReferences

Documents

Climate Risk Management - COnnecting REpositoriesNathan P. Kettlea,b,c, ... (Elkana, 1981). Gieryn (1983) later argued that demar-cation was a practical problem and ideological effort