Disrupting Linear Models of Climate Science Use: Attribution Knowledge in Disaster Governance

• In Event: Science, Knowledge & Technology Section Roundtables
  In Refereed Roundtable (60 minute): Table 10: The Contested Science of Climate Crisis

Abstract

Sociological accounts of the science–policy interface often assume a linear model in which scientific knowledge is produced by experts and subsequently taken up by decision-makers. This paper disrupts that assumption by examining how policy-relevant actors interpret and engage climate attribution science in the aftermath of Hurricane Ida. Focusing on local and state stakeholders involved in disaster recovery, mitigation, and resilience planning in Louisiana, the study analyzes how attribution knowledge is translated, evaluated, and situated within institutional practice.

The analysis draws on semi-structured interviews with planners, emergency managers, regulators, and nonprofit practitioners. Rather than treating attribution science as information that is either accepted or rejected, the study examines how it is filtered through professional experience, organizational mandates, and governance constraints. This approach highlights the relational and institutional processes that shape how climate knowledge is used in practice.

Findings indicate that attribution science is rarely engaged as abstract scientific proof. Instead, it is interpreted as applied risk knowledge whose relevance depends on alignment with observed impacts, decision scales, and institutional responsibilities. Attribution claims gain traction when they are presented through visual or comparative formats and translated into economic or planning-relevant terms. At the same time, their use is constrained by capacity limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and political sensitivities. For many actors, attribution functions less as a trigger for immediate action and more as scenario-based intelligence that informs longer-term planning and advocacy.

By foregrounding interpretation rather than information transfer, this paper challenges linear models of climate science use and demonstrates how attribution knowledge is actively reworked within disaster governance. The findings contribute to sociological debates on science, knowledge, and institutions by showing how climate expertise both disrupts and is constrained by existing policy arrangements.

Author

• Teye Yevuyibor, Louisiana State University