Journal article
6. Rural heat health disparities: Evidence from the U.S. National Emergency Medical Services Information (NEMSIS), forthcoming
Minwoo Ahn, Ladd Keith, Heidi Brown
Background: Increasing average temperatures and extreme heat events due to climate change have adverse effects on human health. Previous studies focus on the heat impacts in urban areas due to the focus on the greater population and urban heat island effect, but this tendency results in the effect of heat on rural health being overlooked. Methods: Using the National Emergency Medical Services Information System (NEMSIS) data from 2021-2023, this study compares heat-related illness (HRI) in urban and rural areas of the U.S. Results: We found the odds of EMS events in an urban area resulting with a positive outcome for the patient was 1.24 times that of EMS events in rural areas. This urban-rural disparity was not equal across regions with the odds of EMS events to rural areas of the Western U.S. resulting with a positive outcome for the patient was 54% less than that for urban areas. Conclusion: This critical evidence of a rural-urban heat health disparity calls attention to the impact of climate change-fueled heat impacts on health in communities of all sizes, and a need for more rural heat resilience research to inform practice.
5. Convergence research as transdisciplinary knowledge coproduction within cases of effective collaborative governance of social-ecological systems
Candice Carr Kelman, Jaishri Srinivasan, Theresa Lorenzo Bajaj, Aireona B. Raschke, R. Nana Brown-Wood, Minwoo Ahn, Rebecca W. Kariuki, Michael Simeone, Elke Kellner, Michael Schoon. Convergence research as transdisciplinary knowledge coproduction within cases of effective collaborative governance of social-ecological systems, Ecology and Society
Successful collaborative governance (CG) of social-ecological systems (SES) involves multiple stakeholders convening iteratively over the long term to reach a commonly held vision. This often involves building knowledge for social learning processes induced to come to collective decisions about managing complex systems in flux. Because of the complexity of any SES in the Anthropocene, this coproduced knowledge is frequently transdisciplinary, using a convergence of applied and scientific knowledge from a variety of disciplines and stakeholders outside academia. We find evidence that these cases of effective SES CG involve both knowledge coproduction and convergence research. We evaluated seven case studies of CG across four continents using criteria (principles and methods) developed to facilitate and describe convergence research on SES and found them to be largely present. We also assess these CG cases using indicators of knowledge coproduction, and show that they all involved transdisciplinary knowledge coproduction, which can provide an informative lens for deepening our shared understanding of convergence and its application to complex adaptive systems. All the cases selected for this paper are examples of CG of SES in which research was conducted as part of a collaborative effort to improve the social-ecological conditions in a particular place, and several incorporate various forms of knowledge and ways of knowing. We suggest that these cases demonstrate both convergence research and knowledge coproduction because of the overlap and similarity of these concepts, providing a brief comparison and contrasting of these approaches to addressing sustainability problems collaboratively.
4. When does group chat promote cooperation in shared resource governance?
Ahn, M., Balakrishna, R., Simeone, M., Janssen, M. (2024) When does group chat promote cooperation in shared resource governance?, Humanities and Social Science Communications
When people use shared resources, overextraction can occur. While deliberation tends to mitigate shared resource exploitation problems, the question remains: under what conditions does group chat improve cooperation in shared resource dilemmas? This study analyzes chat and game data from about 1500 rounds of gameplay involving 143 groups across 4 resource types using Sentiment Analysis and Structural Topic Model. We find that, despite their fundamental differences, the 4 games tend to have similar discussions, including strategizing actions, coordinating on choices, and socialization, but that they differ in which topics explain cooperation within each game. Discussion topics promoting cooperation include coordination in the foraging game (FOR) and long-term goals in the groundwater game (GG). However, discussion topics negatively associated with cooperation include off-topic/socialization in FOR and the irrigation game (IRR) and crop choice affirmation in GG. We suggest that the context in which communication occurs matters and biophysical characteristics, rules of the game, and levels of uncertainty explain some variations of our findings.
3. Using Strategic Games to Illustrate Environmental Policy Concepts for Undergraduates
Baldwin, E. and Ahn, M. (2024). Using Strategic Games to Illustrate Environmental Policy Concepts for Undergraduates. Journal of Political Science Education
A growing body of literature highlights the benefits of using class-room games to help students understand policy concepts. In prac-tice, however, instructors often use games as ad-hoc activities toincrease student engagement, rather than as an integrated way toconsolidate student understanding of core course topics. The goal ofthis paper is to help instructors design and systematically integrategames into their undergraduate policy courses. Drawing on ourexperiences as instructors and researchers, we describe how wedeveloped a sequence of games to help undergraduate studentsunderstand three of the core concepts in environmental policy, andhow we integrated them into our undergraduate courses on envir-onmental policy. We then provide a basic framework for instructorswho are interested in designing games that illustrate core policyconcepts by simulating real-world policy interactions.
2. Caution as a Response to Scientific Uncertainty: A Groundwater Game Experiment
Ahn, M., Baldwin, E., Girone, D. (2024). Caution as a Response to Scientific Uncertainty: A Groundwater Game Experiment. International Journal of the Commons.
Understanding and managing uncertainty is critical for robust governance. In groundwater management, where collaborative, community-based governance is increasingly common, scientific uncertainty about hydrological conditions could pose challenges to effective and equitable resource management. This study bridges two literatures – collaborative governance and collective action – to examine whether scientific uncertainty about hydrologic conditions undermines the performance of groups that engage in collaborative governance of shared groundwater resources. We conducted a modified groundwater game experiment, based on Meinzen-Dick et al. (2016), where participants engage as resource users in a crop choice game over multiple rounds. But unlike the original game, where participants had full information about recharge rate, two treatments introduced scientific uncertainty in water recharge: uncertainty framed as a range of estimates about groundwater recharge, and uncertainty framed as competing hydrological models predicting different groundwater recharge rates. We also expand on the original game by exploring a wider range of outcomes that include not only sustainable resource use but also group earning and equitable distribution of earnings across players. Analyzing data from 30 group games, our findings suggest that scientific uncertainty can help safeguard shared groundwater resources by prompting users to exercise caution in the face of uncertain recharge rates. This effect was more consistent for the range of estimates treatment than for the competing hydrological models treatment. To unpack the mechanisms behind the experimental result, we also analyzed participants’ communications during the game to understand the strategies that collaborative groups use to cope with uncertainty. In the presence of scientific uncertainty, collaborative processes foster cautious behavior and protect shared resources.
1. Who Benefits from Collaborative Governance? An Empirical Study from the Energy Sector
Ahn, M., & Baldwin, E. (2024). Who benefits from collaborative governance? An empirical study from the energy sector. Public Management Review,
Collaborative governance can positively affect desired policy outcomes, but questions remain about who benefits. This article asks how and to what extent collaborative governance of utility conservation programmes in the U.S. states affects industrial, commercial, and residential ratepayers’ programme benefits. Panel data analysis shows that collaborative processes improve the equitable distribution of energy savings, but inequities persist, particularly for residential ratepayers. Additional qualitative analysis suggests representation in the collaborative process is not a major driver of equitable distribution of benefits, but that over time, collaboration can help participants to look beyond their individual interests and advocate for other stakeholders’ interests.
Book chapter
1. Collaborative Governance Regimes: Informing Practice through Research
Emerson Kirk and Ahn Minwoo 2021. "Collaborative Governance Regimes: Informing Practice through Research," Edited by Daniel P. Gitterman and Neil Britto, "The Intersector: How the Public, Nonprofit, and Private Sectors Can Address America's Challenges. Brookings Institution Press. DOI: 10.48558/bzf8-wv37
Cross-sector collaboration takes many forms and works at a variety of scales in multiple policy domains. When issue complexity requires ongoing engagement of interdependent stakeholders in one or more sectors, systems of cross-boundary cooperation are needed to integrate across institutional structures, design and manage participation of diverse actors, and enable joint action and the creation of public value. These open and dynamic collaborative systems have been referred to as collaborative governance regimes. CGRs are systems of public governance where autonomous organizations work together over time to achieve some collective public purpose; they are specifically defined as “a particular mode of, or system for, public decision making in which cross-boundary collaboration represents the prevailing pattern of behavior and activity.” Collaborative governance regimes occur at a variety of scales (local, subnational, national, cross-national, and global) and across different policy domains, from environmental to public health, emergency management, and public education. This chapter offers a review of research on CGRs and some implications for practice. Following an illustration of the integrative framework for Collaborative Governance Regimes that encompasses CGRs (their system context, formation, collaboration dynamics, and actions), the chapter offers an analysis of CGR research published by a range of social scientists since 2012. Finally, key findings are highlighted, and the chapter concludes with a discussion of the implications of this research for practice.
Blog post
2. Documenting rural heat health disparities in the U.S.
Minwoo Ahn, Ladd Keith, Heidi Brown 2025. Link
Our analysis systematically demonstrates with nuance that, in the U.S, rural regions tend to have worse HRI outcomes than urban regions despite the focus on urban heat. This difference is more pronounced in the Western U.S. than other regions.
To fully understand and address these disparities, we need better data collection and further research. We hope our findings encourage key stakeholders to prioritize rural heat resilience and improve health outcomes for those most at risk.
1. Expanding the Focus: Toward Heat Equity in Rural Areas
Anne-lise Boyer, Minwoo Ahn, Ladd Keith 2025. Expanding the Focus: Toward Heat Equity in Rural Areas. Just Rural Futures. Link
“the many challenges our country faces in becoming more heat resilient, including the fact that many populations are disproportionately affected by extreme heat. This includes but is not limited to: workers in hot environments, (...) Tribal Nations, Indigenous communities, rural communities, (...) and more.”