IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v168y2021i3d10.1007_s10584-021-03171-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Co-designing engaging and accessible data visualisations: a case study of the IPCC reports

Author

Listed:
  • Angela Morelli

    (InfoDesignLab)

  • Tom Gabriel Johansen

    (InfoDesignLab)

  • Rosalind Pidcock

    (Université Paris Saclay
    Climate Outreach)

  • Jordan Harold

    (University of East Anglia
    University of East Anglia)

  • Anna Pirani

    (Université Paris Saclay)

  • Melissa Gomis

    (Université Paris Saclay)

  • Irene Lorenzoni

    (University of East Anglia
    University of East Anglia)

  • Eamon Haughey

    (Imperial College London
    Trinity College Dublin)

  • Kenny Coventry

    (University of East Anglia)

Abstract

Creating scientifically rigorous and user-friendly data visualisations can play a critical role in making complex information more accessible to wider audiences and supporting informed decision-making. ‘Co-design’ encapsulates a way of approaching data visualisation that ensures a deep and shared understanding between those creating the visuals (e.g. information designers, content experts, cognitive scientists) and the audience/users. This essay describes co-designing data visualisations with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A multidisciplinary design team made up of information designers and cognitive and social scientists worked closely with IPCC authors and staff to develop data visualisations for the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C and the Special Report on Climate Change and Land. In this essay, the authors consider the three crucial elements that underpin a successful co-design process—practical tools and a flexible method; cognitive science and psychology to better understand the needs of users; and the importance of trust and leadership. The authors reflect on the application of the co-design approach in an IPCC context, noting specific challenges and including recommendations for future IPCC reports. The mutual learning experience of the special reports indicates a shift towards a design culture within parts of the IPCC that recognises the value of telling a compelling visual story while retaining scientific integrity—an approach that has been retained for the Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report.

Suggested Citation

  • Angela Morelli & Tom Gabriel Johansen & Rosalind Pidcock & Jordan Harold & Anna Pirani & Melissa Gomis & Irene Lorenzoni & Eamon Haughey & Kenny Coventry, 2021. "Co-designing engaging and accessible data visualisations: a case study of the IPCC reports," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 168(3), pages 1-11, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:168:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-021-03171-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-021-03171-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-021-03171-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-021-03171-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rosemarie McMahon & Michael Stauffacher & Reto Knutti, 2016. "The scientific veneer of IPCC visuals," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 369-381, October.
    2. Jordan Harold & Irene Lorenzoni & Thomas F. Shipley & Kenny R. Coventry, 2016. "Cognitive and psychological science insights to improve climate change data visualization," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(12), pages 1080-1089, December.
    3. Valentina Bosetti & Elke Weber & Loïc Berger & David V. Budescu & Ning Liu & Massimo Tavoni, 2017. "COP21 climate negotiators’ responses to climate model forecasts," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 7(3), pages 185-190, March.
    4. Rosemarie McMahon & Michael Stauffacher & Reto Knutti, 2015. "The unseen uncertainties in climate change: reviewing comprehension of an IPCC scenario graph," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 133(2), pages 141-154, November.
    5. Richard Black, 2015. "No more summaries for wonks," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(4), pages 282-284, April.
    6. Valentina Bosetti & Elke Weber & Loïc Berger & David V. Budescu & Ning Liu & Massimo Tavoni, 2017. "Correction: Corrigendum: COP21 climate negotiators' responses to climate model forecasts," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 7(4), pages 304-304, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jordan Harold & Irene Lorenzoni & Thomas F. Shipley & Kenny R. Coventry, 2020. "Communication of IPCC visuals: IPCC authors’ views and assessments of visual complexity," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 158(2), pages 255-270, January.
    2. Astrid Kause & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Fai Fung & Andrea Taylor & Jason Lowe, 2020. "Visualizations of Projected Rainfall Change in the United Kingdom: An Interview Study about User Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-21, April.
    3. Arjan Wardekker & Susanne Lorenz, 2019. "The visual framing of climate change impacts and adaptation in the IPCC assessment reports," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 156(1), pages 273-292, September.
    4. Melissa A. Kenney & Anthony C. Janetos, 2020. "National indicators of climate changes, impacts, and vulnerability," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(4), pages 1695-1704, December.
    5. Michael D. Gerst & Melissa A. Kenney & Irina Feygina, 2021. "Improving the usability of climate indicator visualizations through diagnostic design principles," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 1-22, June.
    6. Joseph Daron & Susanne Lorenz & Andrea Taylor & Suraje Dessai, 2021. "Communicating future climate projections of precipitation change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 1-20, May.
    7. Marta Terrado & Luz Calvo & Isadora Christel, 2022. "Towards more effective visualisations in climate services: good practices and recommendations," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 172(1), pages 1-26, May.
    8. Watanabe, Masahide & Fujimi, Toshio, 2022. "Ambiguity of scientific probability predictions and willingness-to-pay for climate change mitigation policies," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(4), pages 386-402.
    9. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Andrew Dugan, 2022. "On the differential correlates of climate change concerns and severe weather concerns: evidence from the World Risk Poll," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 171(3), pages 1-24, April.
    10. Evelina Trutnevyte & Céline Guivarch & Robert Lempert & Neil Strachan, 2016. "Reinvigorating the scenario technique to expand uncertainty consideration," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 135(3), pages 373-379, April.
    11. Jonathan Lynn & Nina Peeva, 2021. "Communications in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report cycle," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 1-10, November.
    12. Emily Ho & David V. Budescu & Valentina Bosetti & Detlef P. Vuuren & Klaus Keller, 2019. "Not all carbon dioxide emission scenarios are equally likely: a subjective expert assessment," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 545-561, August.
    13. Benedikt Becsi & Daniela Hohenwallner-Ries & Torsten Grothmann & Andrea Prutsch & Tobias Huber & Herbert Formayer, 2020. "Towards better informed adaptation strategies: co-designing climate change impact maps for Austrian regions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 393-411, February.
    14. Loïc Berger & Massimo Marinacci, 2020. "Model Uncertainty in Climate Change Economics: A Review and Proposed Framework for Future Research," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(3), pages 475-501, November.
    15. Loïc Berger & Valentina Bosetti, 2020. "Are Policymakers Ambiguity Averse?," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(626), pages 331-355.
    16. Loic Berger & Massimo Marinacci, 2017. "Model Uncertainty in Climate Change Economics," Working Papers 616, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    17. Toshio Fujimi & Masahide Watanabe & Hirokazu Tatano, 2021. "Public trust, perceived accuracy, perceived likelihood, and concern on multi-model climate projections communicated with different formats," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 1-20, June.
    18. Franziska Steinberger & Tobias Minder & Evelina Trutnevyte, 2020. "Efficiency versus Equity in Spatial Siting of Electricity Generation: Citizen Preferences in a Serious Board Game in Switzerland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-17, September.
    19. Nikas, A. & Gambhir, A. & Trutnevyte, E. & Koasidis, K. & Lund, H. & Thellufsen, J.Z. & Mayer, D. & Zachmann, G. & Miguel, L.J. & Ferreras-Alonso, N. & Sognnaes, I. & Peters, G.P. & Colombo, E. & Howe, 2021. "Perspective of comprehensive and comprehensible multi-model energy and climate science in Europe," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 215(PA).
    20. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Meredith T. Niles & Jeroen A. Veraart & Saskia E. Werners & Fiona C. Korporaal & Bob C. Mulder, 2020. "Communicating Climate Change Risk: A Content Analysis of IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-14, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:168:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-021-03171-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.