Skip to main content
ARS Home » Research » Publications at this Location » Publication #332812
Title: Regional climate enterprises in the south central U.S.: Crossover relationships to maximize user engagement effectiveness

Author
item LANGSTON, MICHAEL - Us Geological Survey (USGS)
item SHAFER, MARK - University Of Oklahoma
item BARTUSH, BILL - Us Fish And Wildlife Service
item Brown, David

Submitted to: Annual American Geophysical Union Hydrology Days
Publication Type: Abstract Only
Publication Acceptance Date: 8/26/2016
Publication Date: 12/12/2016
Citation: Langston, M., Shafer, M., Bartush, B., Brown, D.P. 2016. Regional climate enterprises in the south central U.S.: Crossover relationships to maximize user engagement effectiveness [abstract]. Annual American Geophysical Union Hydrology Days. Available at: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AGUFMPA43B2211L.

Interpretive Summary: Abstract only.

Technical Abstract: Several Federal agencies have recently established regional enterprises that provide climate science and services. These include DOI’s Climate Science Centers (CSCs), USDA’s Regional Climate Hubs (Hubs), DOI’s Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs), and NOAA’s Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments Programs (RISAs), all of which have missions that include translating climate information for various constituencies and user groups. Each of these organizations makes a unique contribution to the regional climate services landscape; however, the potential for duplication of effort is also present. To ensure that appropriate levels of programmatic coordination are taking place, these entities have developed roles and relationships that crossover between organizations. These efforts have typically not been formally codified or prescribed; rather, they have developed organically and effectively in a fashion appropriate for the regional context. In this presentation, both advantages and disadvantages of this approach are addressed via examples from the South Central U.S. Advantages include flexibility and the development of extensive, multi­disciplinary networks; disadvantages include the lack of a holistic approach to oversight and planning. Best practices and opportunities to continue strengthening cross­ organizational regional efficiencies are also highlighted.