This chapter should be cited as:
Carter, T.R., R.N. Jones, X. Lu, S. Bhadwal, C. Conde, L.O. Mearns, B.C. O’Neill, M.D.A. Rounsevell and M.B. Zurek, 2007: New Assessment Methods and the Characterisation of Future Conditions. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 133-171.
This chapter describes the significant developments in methods and approaches for climate change impact, adaptation and vulnerability (CCIAV) assessment since the Third Assessment Report (TAR). It also introduces some of the scenarios and approaches to scenario construction that are used to characterise future conditions in the studies reported in this volume.
The growth of different approaches to assessing CCIAV has been driven by the need for improved decision analysis.
The recognition that a changing climate must be adapted to has increased the demand for policy-relevant information. The standard climate scenario-driven approach is used in a large proportion of assessments described in this report, but the use of other approaches is increasing. They include assessments of current and future adaptations to climate, adaptive capacity, social vulnerability, multiple stresses, and adaptation in the context of sustainable development. [2.2.1]
Risk management is a useful framework for decision-making and its use is expanding rapidly.
The advantages of risk-management methods include the use of formalised methods to manage uncertainty, stakeholder involvement, use of methods for evaluating policy options without being policy prescriptive, integration of different disciplinary approaches, and mainstreaming of climate change concerns into the broader decision-making context. [2.2.6]
Stakeholders bring vital inputs into CCIAV assessments about a range of risks and their management.
In particular, how a group or system can cope with current climate risks provides a solid basis for assessments of future risks. An increasing number of assessments involve, or are conducted by, stakeholders. This establishes credibility and helps to confer ‘ownership’ of the results, which is a prerequisite for effective risk management. [2.3.2]
The impacts of climate change can be strongly modified by non-climate factors.
Many new studies have applied socio-economic, land-use and technology scenarios at a regional scale derived from the global scenarios developed in the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). Large differences in regional population, income and technological development implied under alternative SRES storylines can produce sharp contrasts in exposure to climate change and in adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Therefore, it is best not to rely on a single characterisation of future conditions. [126.96.36.199, 188.8.131.52]
Scenario information is increasingly being developed at a finer geographical resolution for use in CCIAV studies.
A range of downscaling methods have been applied to the SRES storylines, producing new regional scenarios of socio-economic conditions, land use and land cover, atmospheric composition, climate and sea level. Regionalisation methods are increasingly being used to develop high spatial-resolution climate scenarios based on coupled atmosphere-ocean circulation|ocean general circulation model (AOGCM) projections. [184.108.40.206 to 220.127.116.11]
Characterisations of the future used in CCIAV studies are evolving to include mitigation scenarios, large-scale singularities, and probabilistic futures.
CCIAV studies assuming mitigated or stabilised futures are beginning to assess the benefits (through impacts ameliorated or avoided) of climate policy decisions. Characterisations of large-scale singularities have been used to assess their potentially severe biophysical and socio-economic consequences. Probabilistic characterisations of future socioeconomic and climate conditions are increasingly becoming available, and probabilities of exceeding predefined thresholds of impact have been more widely estimated. [18.104.22.168, 2.4.7, 2.4.8]
Assessments of climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability (CCIAV) are undertaken to inform decision-making in an environment of uncertainty. The demand for such assessments has grown significantly since the release of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), motivating researchers to expand the ranges of approaches and methods in use, and of the characterisations of future conditions (scenarios and allied products) required by those methods. This chapter describes these developments as well as illustrating the main approaches used to characterise future conditions in the studies reported in this volume.
In previous years, IPCC Working Group II has devoted a Special Report and two chapters to assessment methods (IPCC, 1994; Carter et al., 1996; Ahmad et al., 2001). Moreover, the TAR also presented two chapters on the topic of scenarios (Carter et al., 2001; Mearns et al., 2001), which built on earlier descriptions of climate scenario development (IPCC-TGCIA, 1999). These contributions provide detailed descriptions of assessment methods and scenarios, which are not repeated in the current assessment.
In this chapter, an approach is defined as the overall scope and direction of an assessment and can accommodate a variety of different methods. A method is a systematic process of analysis. We identify five approaches to CCIAV in this chapter. Four are conventional research approaches: impact assessment, adaptation assessment, vulnerability assessment, and integrated assessment. The fifth approach, risk management, has emerged as CCIAV studies have begun to be taken up in mainstream policy-making.
Section 2.2 describes developments in the major approaches to CCIAV assessment, followed in Section 2.3 by discussion of a range of new and improved methods that have been applied since the TAR. The critical issue of data needs for assessment is treated at the end of this section. Most CCIAV approaches have a scenario component, so recent advances in methods of characterising future conditions are treated in Section 2.4. Since many recent studies evaluated in this volume use scenarios based on the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES; Naki?enovi? et al., 2000) and derivative studies, boxed examples are presented to illustrate some of these. Finally, in Section 2.5, we summarise the key new findings in the chapter and recommend future research directions required to address major scientific, technical and information deficiencies.
2.2 New developments in approaches
2.2.1 Frameworks for CCIAV assessment
Although the following approaches and methods were all described in the TAR (Ahmad et al., 2001), their range of application in assessments has since been significantly expanded. Factors that distinguish a particular approach include the purpose of an assessment, its focus, the methods available, and how uncertainty is managed. A major aim of CCIAV assessment approaches is to manage, rather than overcome, uncertainty (Schneider and Kuntz-Duriseti, 2002), and each approach has its strengths and weaknesses in that regard. Another important trend has been the move from research-driven agendas to assessments tailored towards decision-making, where decision-makers and stakeholders either participate in or drive the assessment (Wilby et al., 2004a; UNDP, 2005).
The standard approach to assessment has been the climate scenario-driven ‘impact approach’, developed from the seven-step assessment framework of IPCC (1994). This approach, which dominated the CCIAV literature described in previous IPCC reports, aims to evaluate the likely impacts of climate change under a given scenario and to assess the need for adaptation and/or mitigation to reduce any resulting vulnerability to climate risks. A large number of assessments in this report also follow that structure.
The other approaches discussed are adaptation- and vulnerability-based approaches, integrated assessment, and risk management. All are well represented in conventional environmental research, but they are increasingly being incorporated into mainstream approaches to decision-making, requiring a wider range of methods to fulfil objectives such as (SBI, 2001; COP, 2005):
- assessing current vulnerabilities and experience in adaptation,
- stakeholder involvement in dealing with extreme events,
- capacity-building needs for future vulnerability and adaptation assessments,
- potential adaptation measures,
- prioritisation and costing of adaptation measures,
- interrelationships between vulnerability and adaptation assessments,
- national development priorities and actions to integrate adaptation options into existing or future sustainable development plans.
The adaptation-based approach focuses on risk management by examining the adaptive capacity and adaptation measures required to improve the resilience or robustness of a system exposed to climate change (Smit and Wandel, 2006). In contrast, the vulnerability-based approach focuses on the risks themselves by concentrating on the propensity to be harmed, then seeking to maximise potential benefits and minimise or reverse potential losses (Adger, 2006). However, these approaches are interrelated, especially with regard to adaptive capacity (O’Brien et al., 2006). Integrated approaches include integrated assessment modelling and other procedures for investigating CCIAV across disciplines, sectors and scales, and representing key interactions and feedbacks (e.g., Toth et al., 2003a, b). Risk-management approaches focus directly on decision-making and offer a useful framework for considering the different research approaches and methods described in this chapter as well as confronting, head on, the treatment of uncertainty, which is pervasive in CCIAV assessment. Risk-management and integrated assessment approaches can also be linked directly to mitigation analysis (Naki?enovi? et al., 2007) and to the joint assessment of adaptation and mitigation (see Chapter 18 of the full report).
Two common terms used to describe assessment types are ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’, which can variously describe the approach to scale, to subject matter (e.g., from stress to impact to response; from physical to socio-economic disciplines) and to policy (e.g., national versus local); sometimes mixing two or more of these (Dessai et al., 2004; see also Table 2.1). The standard impact approach is often described as top-down because it combines scenarios downscaled from global climate models to the local scale (see Section 2.4.6) with a sequence of analytical steps that begin with the climate system and move through biophysical impacts towards socio-economic assessment. Bottom-up approaches are those that commence at the local scale by addressing socio-economic responses to climate, which tend to be location-specific (Dessai and Hulme, 2004). Adaptation assessment and vulnerability assessment are usually categorised as bottom-up approaches. However, assessments have become increasingly complex, often combining elements of top-down and bottom-up approaches (e.g., Dessai et al., 2005a) and decision-making will utilise both (Kates and Wilbanks, 2003; McKenzie Hedger et al., 2006). The United Nations Development Programme’s Adaptation Policy Framework (UNDP APF: see UNDP, 2005) has also identified a policy-based approach, which assesses current policy and plans for their effectiveness under climate change within a risk-management framework.
Table 2.1. Some characteristics of different approaches to CCIAV assessment. Note that vulnerability and adaptation-based approaches are highly complementary.
|Scientific objectives||Impacts and risks under future climate||Processes affecting vulnerability to climate change||Processes affecting adaptation and adaptive capacity||Interactions and feedbacks between multiple drivers and impacts|
|Practical aims||Actions to reduce risks||Actions to reduce vulnerability||Actions to improve adaptation||Global policy options and costs|
Standard approach to CCIAV
response (DPSIR) methods
Hazard-driven risk assessment
Vulnerability indicators and profiles
Past and present climate risks
Risk perception including critical thresholds
Development/sustainability policy performance
Relationship of adaptive capacity to sustainable development
Integrated assessment modelling
Integration of climate with other drivers
Stakeholder discussions Linking models across types and scales
Combining assessment approaches/methods
Global -› Local
Local -› Regional
(macro-economic approaches are top-down)
Exploratory scenarios of climate and other factors (e.g., SRES)
Normative scenarios (e.g., stabilisation)
Scenarios or inverse methods
Adaptation analogues from history, other locations, other activities
Exploratory scenarios: exogenous and often endogenous (including feedbacks)
2.2.2 Advances in impact assessment
Application of the standard IPCC impact approach has expanded significantly since the TAR. The importance of providing a socio-economic and technological context for characterising future climate conditions has been emphasised, and scenarios assuming no climate policy to restrict greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have been contrasted with those assuming GHG stabilisation (e.g., Parry et al., 2001; see also Sections 22.214.171.124 and 126.96.36.199). The use of probabilities in impact assessments, presented as proof-of-concept examples in the TAR (Mearns et al., 2001), is now more firmly established (see examples in Section 2.4.8). Some other notable advances in impact assessment include: a reassessment of bioclimatic niche-based modelling, meta-analyses summarising a range of assessments, and new dynamic methods of analysing economic damages. Nevertheless, the climate-sensitive resources of many regions and sectors, especially in developing countries, have not yet been subject to detailed impact assessments.
Recent observational evidence of climatic warming, along with the availability of digital species distribution maps and greatly extended computer power has emboldened a new generation of bioclimatic niche-based modellers to predict changes in species distribution and prevalence under a warming climate using correlative methods (e.g., Bakkenes et al., 2002; Thomas et al., 2004; see also Chapter 4, Section 4). However, the application of alternative statistical techniques to the same data sets has also exposed significant variations in model performance that have recently been the subject of intensive debate (Pearson and Dawson, 2003; Thuiller et al., 2004; Luoto et al., 2005; Araújo and Rahbek, 2006) and should promote a more cautious application of these models for projecting future biodiversity.
A global-scale, meta-analysis of a range of studies for different sectors was conducted by Hitz and Smith (2004) to evaluate the aggregate impacts at different levels of global mean temperature. For some sectors and regions, such as agriculture and the coastal zone, sufficient information was available to summarise aggregated sectoral impacts as a function of global warming. For other sectors, such as marine biodiversity and energy, limited information allowed only broad conclusions of low confidence.
Dynamic methods are superseding statistical methods in some economic assessments. Recent studies account, for example, for the role of world markets in influencing climate change impacts on global agriculture (Fischer et al., 2002), the effect on damage from sea-level rise when assuming optimal adaptation measures (Neumann et al., 2000; Nicholls and Tol, 2006), the added costs for adapting to high temperatures due to uncertainties in projected climate (Hallegatte et al., 2007), and increasing long-term costs of natural disasters when explicitly accounting for altered extreme event distributions (Hallegatte et al., 2006). The role of economic dynamics has also been emphasised (Fankhauser and Tol, 2005; Hallegatte, 2005; Hallegatte et al., 2006). Some new studies suggest damage overestimations by previous assessments, while others suggest underestimations, leading to the conclusion that uncertainty is likely to be larger than suggested by the range of previous estimates.
2.2.3 Advances in adaptation assessment
Significant advances in adaptation assessment have occurred, shifting its emphasis from a research-driven activity to one where stakeholders participate in order to improve decision-making. The key advance is the incorporation of adaptation to past and present climate. This has the advantage of anchoring the assessment in what is already known, and can be used to explore adaptation to climate variability and extremes, especially if scenarios of future variability are uncertain or unavailable (Mirza, 2003b; UNDP, 2005). As such, adaptation assessment has accommodated a wide range of methods used in mainstream policy and planning. Chapter 17 of this volume discusses adaptation practices, the processes and determinants of adaptive capacity, and limits to adaptation, highlighting the difficulty of establishing a general methodology for adaptation assessment due to the great diversity of analytical methods employed. These include the following approaches and methods.
- The scenario-based approach (e.g., IPCC, 1994; see also Section 2.2.1), where most impact assessments consider future adaptation as an output.
- Normative policy frameworks, exploring which adaptations are socially and environmentally beneficial, and applying diverse methods, such as vulnerability analysis, scenarios, cost-benefit analysis, multi-criteria analysis and technology risk assessments (UNDP, 2005).
- Indicators, employing models of specific hypothesised components of adaptive capacity (e.g., Moss et al., 2001; Yohe and Tol, 2002; Brooks et al., 2005; Haddad, 2005).
- Economic modelling, anthropological and sociological methods for identifying learning in individuals and organisations (Patt and Gwata, 2002; Tompkins, 2005; Berkhout et al., 2006).
- Scenarios and technology assessments, for exploring what kinds of adaptation are likely in the future (Dessai and Hulme, 2004; Dessai et al., 2005a; Klein et al., 2005).
- Risk assessments combining current risks to climate variability and extremes with projected future changes, utilising cost-benefit analysis to assess adaptation (e.g., ADB, 2005).
Guidance regarding methods and tools to use in prioritising adaptation options include the Compendium of Decision Tools (UNFCCC, 2004), the Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact Assessment and Adaptation Strategies (Feenstra et al., 1998), and Costing the Impacts of Climate Change (Metroeconomica, 2004). A range of different methods can also be used with stakeholders (see Section 2.3.2).
The financing of adaptation has received minimal attention. Bouwer and Vellinga (2005) suggest applying more structured decision-making to future disaster management and adaptation to climate change, sharing the risk between private and public sources. Quiggin and Horowitz (2003) argue that the economic costs will be dominated by the costs of adaptation, which depend on the rate of climate change, especially the occurrence of climate extremes, and that many existing analyses overlook these costs (see also Section 2.2.2).
2.2.4 Advances in vulnerability assessment
Since the TAR, the IPCC definition of vulnerability has been challenged, both to account for an expanded remit by including social vulnerability (O’Brien et al., 2004a) and to reconcile it with risk assessment (Downing and Patwardhan, 2005). Different states of vulnerability under climate risks include: vulnerability to current climate, vulnerability to climate change in the absence of adaptation and mitigation measures, and residual vulnerability, where adaptive and mitigative capacities have been exhausted (e.g., Jones et al., 2007). A key vulnerability has the potential for significant adverse affects on both natural and human systems, as outlined in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), thus contributing to dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system (see Chapter 19). Füssel and Klein (2006) review and summarise these developments.
Vulnerability is highly dependent on context and scale, and care should be taken to clearly describe its derivation and meaning (Downing and Patwardhan, 2005) and to address the uncertainties inherent in vulnerability assessments (Patt et al., 2005). Frameworks should also be able to integrate the social and biophysical dimensions of vulnerability to climate change (Klein and Nicholls, 1999; Polsky et al., 2003; Turner et al., 2003a). Formal methods for vulnerability assessment have also been proposed (Ionescu et al., 2005; Metzger and Schröter, 2006) but are very preliminary.
The methods and frameworks for assessing vulnerability must also address the determinants of adaptive capacity (Turner et al., 2003a; Schröter et al., 2005a; O’Brien and Vogel, 2006; see also Chapter 17, Section 17.3.1) in order to examine the potential responses of a system to climate variability and change. Many studies endeavour to do this in the context of human development, by aiming to understand the underlying causes of vulnerability and to further strengthen adaptive capacities (e.g., World Bank, 2006). In some quantitative approaches, the indicators used are related to adaptive capacity, such as national economic capacity, human resources, and environmental capacities (Moss et al., 2001; see also Section 2.2.3). Other studies include indicators that can provide information related to the conditions, processes and structures that promote or constrain adaptive capacity (Eriksen et al., 2005).
Vulnerability assessment offers a framework for policy measures that focus on social aspects, including poverty reduction, diversification of livelihoods, protection of common property resources and strengthening of collective action (O’Brien et al., 2004b). Such measures enhance the ability to respond to stressors and secure livelihoods under present conditions, which can also reduce vulnerability to future climate change. Community-based interactive approaches for identifying coping potentials provide insights into the underlying causes and structures that shape vulnerability (O’Brien et al., 2004b). Other methods employed in recent regional vulnerability studies include stakeholder elicitation and survey (Eakin et al., 2006; Pulhin et al., 2006), and multi-criteria modelling (Wehbe et al., 2006).
Traditional knowledge of local communities represents an important, yet currently largely under-used resource for CCIAV assessment (Huntington and Fox, 2005). Empirical knowledge from past experience in dealing with climate-related natural disasters such as droughts and floods (Osman-Elasha et al., 2006), health crises (Wandiga et al., 2006), as well as longer-term trends in mean conditions (Huntington and Fox, 2005; McCarthy and Long Martello, 2005), can be particularly helpful in understanding the coping strategies and adaptive capacity of indigenous and other communities relying on oral traditions.
2.2.5 Advances in integrated assessment
Integrated assessment represents complex interactions across spatial and temporal scales, processes and activities. Integrated assessments can involve one or more mathematical models, but may also represent an integrated process of assessment, linking different disciplines and groups of people. Managing uncertainty in integrated assessments can utilise models ranging from simple models linking large-scale processes, through models of intermediate complexity, to the complex, physically explicit representation of Earth systems. This structure is characterised by trade-offs between realism and flexibility, where simple models are more flexible but less detailed, and complex models offer more detail and a greater range of output. No single theory describes and explains dynamic behaviour across scales in socioeconomic and ecological systems (Rotmans and Rothman, 2003), nor can a single model represent all the interactions within a single entity, or provide responses to questions in a rapid turn-around time (Schellnhuber et al., 2004). Therefore, integration at different scales and across scales is required in order to comprehensively assess CCIAV. Some specific advances are outlined here; integration to assess climate policy benefits is considered in Section 2.2.6.
Cross-sectoral integration is required for purposes such as national assessments, analysis of economic and trade effects, and joint population and climate studies. National assessments can utilise nationally integrated models (e.g., Izaurralde et al., 2003; Rosenberg et al., 2003; Hurd et al., 2004), or can synthesise a number of disparate studies for policy-makers (e.g., West and Gawith, 2005).Markets and trade can have significant effects on outcomes. For example, a study assessing the global impacts of climate change on forests and forest products showed that trade can affect efforts to stabilise atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and also affected regional welfare, with adverse effects on those regions with high production costs (Perez- Garcia et al., 2002). New economic assessments of aggregated climate change damages have also been produced for multiple sectors (Tol, 2002a, b; Mendelsohn and Williams, 2004; Nordhaus, 2006). These have highlighted potentially large regional disparities in vulnerability to impacts. Using an integrated assessment general equilibrium model, Kemfert (2002) found that interactions between sectors acted to amplify the global costs of climate change, compared with single-sector analysis.
Integration yields results that cannot be produced in isolation. For example, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment assessed the impact of a broad range of stresses on ecosystem services, of which climate change was only one (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Linked impact and vulnerability assessments can also benefit from a multiple stressors approach. For instance, the AIR-CLIM Project integrated climate and air pollution impacts in Europe between 1995 and 2100, concluding that that while the physical impacts were weakly coupled, the costs of air pollution and climate change were strongly coupled. The indirect effects of climate policies stimulated cost reductions in air pollution control of more than 50% (Alcamo et al., 2002). Some of the joint effects of extreme weather and air pollution events on human health are described in Chapter 8, Section 8.2.6.
Earth system models of intermediate complexity that link the atmosphere, ocean|oceans, cryosphere, land system, and biosphere are being developed to assess impacts (particularly global-scale, singular events that may be considered dangerous) within a risk and vulnerability framework (Rial et al., 2004; see also Section 2.4.7). Global climate models are also moving towards a more complete representation of the Earth system. Recent simulations integrating the atmosphere with the biosphere via a complete carbon cycle show the potential of the Amazon rainforest to suffer dieback (Cox et al., 2004), leading to a positive feedback that decreases the carbon sink and increases atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Friedlingstein et al., 2006; Denman et al., 2007).
2.2.6 Development of risk-management frameworks
Risk management is defined as the culture, processes and structures directed towards realising potential opportunities whilst managing adverse effects (AS/NZS, 2004). Risk is generally measured as a combination of the probability of an event and its consequences (ISO/IEC, 2002; see also Figure 2.1), with several ways of combining these two factors being possible. There may be more than one event, consequences can range from positive to negative, and risk can be measured qualitatively or quantitatively.
To date, most CCIAV studies have assessed climate change without specific regard to how mitigation policy will influence those impacts. However, the certainty that some climate change will occur (and is already occurring – see Chapter 1) is driving adaptation assessment beyond the limits of what scenario-driven methods can provide. The issues to be addressed include assessing current adaptations to climate variability and extremes before assessing adaptive responses to future climate, assessing the limits of adaptation, linking adaptation to sustainable development, engaging stakeholders, and decision-making under uncertainty. Risk management has been identified as a framework that can deal with all of these issues in a manner that incorporates existing methodologies and that can also accommodate other sources of risk (Jones, 2001; Willows and Connell, 2003; UNDP, 2005) in a process known as mainstreaming.
The two major forms of climate risk management are the mitigation of climate change through the abatement of GHG emissions and GHG sequestration, and adaptation to the consequences of a changing climate (Figure 2.1). Mitigation reduces the rate and magnitude of changing climate hazards; adaptation reduces the consequences of those hazards (Jones, 2004). Mitigation also reduces the upper bounds of the range of potential climate change, while adaptation copes with the lower bounds (Yohe and Toth, 2000). Hence they are complementary processes, but the benefits will accumulate over different time-scales and, in many cases, they can be assessed and implemented separately (Klein et al., 2005). These complementarities and differences are discussed in Section 18.4 of this volume, while integrated assessment methods utilising a risk-management approach are summarised by Naki?enovi? et al. (2007).
|Figure 2.1. Synthesis of risk-management approaches to global warming. The left side shows the projected range of global warming from the TAR (bold lines) with zones of maximum benefit for adaptation and mitigation depicted schematically. The right side shows likelihood based on threshold exceedance as a function of global warming and the consequences of global warming reaching that particular level based on results from the TAR. Risk is a function of probability and consequence. The primary time horizons of approaches to CCIAV assessment are also shown (modified from Jones, 2004).|
Some of the standard elements within the risk-management process that can be adapted to assess CCIAV are as follows.
- A scoping exercise, where the context of the assessment is established. This identifies the overall approach to be used.
- Risk identification, where what is at risk, who is at risk, the main climate and non-climate stresses contributing to the risk, and levels of acceptable risk are identified. This step also identifies the scenarios required for further assessment.
- Risk analysis, where the consequences and their likelihood are analysed. This is the most developed area, with a range of methods used in mainstream risk assessment and CCIAV assessment being available.
- Risk evaluation, where adaptation and/or mitigation measures are prioritised.
- Risk treatment, where selected adaptation and/or mitigation measures are applied, with follow-up monitoring and review.
Two overarching activities are communication and consultation with stakeholders, and monitoring and review. These activities co-ordinate the management of uncertainty and ensure that clarity and transparency surround the assumptions and concepts being used. Other essential components of risk management include investment in obtaining improved information and building capacity for decision-making (adaptive governance: see Dietz et al., 2003).
Rather than being research-driven, risk management is oriented towards decision-making; e.g., on policy, planning, and management options. Several frameworks have been developed for managing risk, which use a variety of approaches as outlined in Table 2.1. The UNDP Adaptation Policy Framework (UNDP, 2005) describes risk-assessment methods that follow both the standard impact and human development approaches focusing on vulnerability and adaptation (also see Füssel and Klein, 2006). National frameworks constructed to deliver national adaptation strategies include those of the UK (Willows and Connell, 2003) and Australia (Australian Greenhouse Office, 2006). The World Bank is pursuing methods for hazard and risk management that focus on financing adaptation to climate change (vanAalst, 2006) and mainstreaming climate change into natural-hazard risk management (Burton and van Aalst, 2004; Mathur et al., 2004; Bettencourt et al., 2006).
Therefore, risk management is an approach that is being pursued for the management of climate change risks at a range of scales; from the global (mitigation to achieve ‘safe’ levels of GHG emissions and concentrations, thus avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference), to the local (adaptation at the scale of impact), to mainstreaming risk with a multitude of other activities.
2.2.7 Managing uncertainties and confidence levels
CCIAV assessments aim to understand and manage as much of the full range of uncertainty, extending from emissions through to vulnerability (Ahmad et al., 2001), as is practicable, in order to improve the decision-making process. At the same time, a primary aim of scientific investigations is to reduce uncertainty through improved knowledge. However, such investigations do not necessarily reduce the uncertainty range as used by CCIAV assessments. A phenomenon or process is usually described qualitatively before it can be quantified with any confidence; some, such as aspects of socio-economic futures, may never be well quantified (Morgan and Henrion, 1990). Often a scientific advance will expand a bounded range of uncertainty as a new process is quantified and incorporated into the chain of consequences contributing to that range. Examples include an expanded range of future global warming due to positive CO2 feedbacks, fromthe response of vegetation to climate change (see Section 2.2.5; WG I SPM), and a widened range of future impacts that can be incurred by incorporating development futures in integrated impact assessments, particularly if adaptation is included (see Section 188.8.131.52). In such cases, although uncertainty appears to be expanding, this is largely because the underlying process is becoming better understood.
The variety of different approaches developed and applied since the TAR all have their strengths and weaknesses. The impact assessment approach is particularly susceptible to ballooning uncertainties because of the limits of prediction (e.g., Jones 2001). Probabilistic methods and the use of thresholds are two ways in which these uncertainties are being managed (Jones and Mearns, 2005; see also Section 2.4.8). Another way to manage uncertainties is through participatory approaches, resulting in learning-by-observation and learning-by-doing, a particular strength of vulnerability and adaptation approaches (e.g., Tompkins and Adger, 2005; UNDP, 2005). Stakeholder participation establishes credibility and stakeholders are more likely to ‘own’ the results, increasing the likelihood of successful adaptation (McKenzie Hedger et al., 2006).
2.3 Development in methods
2.3.1 Thresholds and criteria for risk
The risks of climate change for a given exposure unit can be defined by criteria that link climate impacts to potential outcomes. This allows a risk to be analysed and management options to be evaluated, prioritised, and implemented. Criteria are usually specified using thresholds that denote some limit of tolerable risk. A threshold marks the point where stress on an exposed system or activity, if exceeded, results in a non-linear response in that system or activity. Two types of thresholds are used in assessing change (Kenny et al., 2000; Jones 2001; see also Chapter 19, Section 184.108.40.206):
- a non-linear change in state, where a system shifts from one identifiable set of conditions to another (systemic threshold);
- a level of change in condition, measured on a linear scale, regarded as ‘unacceptable’ and inviting some form of response (impact threshold).
Thresholds used to assess risk are commonly value-laden, or normative. A systemic threshold can often be objectively measured; for example, a range of estimates of global mean warming is reported in Meehl et al. (2007) defining the point at which irreversible melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet would commence. If a policy aim were to avoid its loss, selecting from the given range a critical level of warming that is not to be exceeded would require a value judgement. In the case of an impact threshold, the response is the non-linear aspect; for example, a management threshold (Kenny et al., 2000). Exceeding a management threshold will result in a change of legal, regulatory, economic, or cultural behaviour. Hence, both cases introduce critical thresholds (IPCC, 1994; Parry et al., 1996; Pittock and Jones, 2000), where criticality exceeds, in risk-assessment terms, the level of tolerable risk. Critical thresholds are used to define the coping range (see Section 2.3.3).
Thresholds derived with stakeholders avoid the pitfall of researchers ascribing their own values to an assessment (Kenny et al., 2000; Pittock and Jones, 2000; Conde and Lonsdale, 2005). Stakeholders thus become responsible for the management of the uncertainties associated with that threshold through ownership of the assessment process and its outcomes (Jones, 2001). The probability of threshold exceedance is being used in risk analyses (Jones, 2001, 2004) on local and global scales. For example, probabilities of critical thresholds for coral bleaching and mortality for sites in the Great Barrier Reef as a function of global warming show that catastrophic bleaching will occur biennially with a warming of about 2°C (Jones, 2004). Further examples are given in Section 2.4.8. At a global scale, the risk of exceeding critical thresholds has been estimated within a Bayesian framework, by expressing global warming and sea-level rise as cumulative distribution functions that are much more likely to be exceeded at lower levels than higher levels (Jones, 2004; Mastrandrea and Schneider, 2004; Yohe, 2004). However, although this may be achieved for key global vulnerabilities, there is often no straightforward way to integrate local critical thresholds into a ‘mass’ damage function of many different metrics across a wide range of potential impacts (Jacoby, 2004).
2.3.2 Stakeholder involvement
Stakeholder involvement is crucial to risk, adaptation, and vulnerability assessments because it is the stakeholders who will be most affected and thus may need to adapt (Burton et al., 2002; Renn, 2004; UNDP, 2005). Stakeholders are characterised as individuals or groups who have anything of value (both monetary and non-monetary) that may be affected by climate change or by the actions taken to manage anticipated climate risks. They might be policy-makers, scientists, communities, and/or managers in the sectors and regions most at risk both now and in the future (Rowe and Frewer, 2000; Conde and Lonsdale, 2005).
Individual and institutional knowledge and expertise comprise the principal resources for adapting to the impacts of climate change. Adaptive capacity is developed if people have time to strengthen networks, knowledge, and resources, and the willingness to find solutions (Cohen, 1997; Cebon et al., 1999; Ivey et al., 2004). Kasperson (2006) argues that the success of stakeholder involvement lies not only in informing interested and affected people, but also in empowering them to act on the enlarged knowledge. Through an ongoing process of negotiation and modification, stakeholders can assess the viability of adaptive measures by integrating scientific information into their own social, economic, cultural, and environmental context (van Asselt and Rotmans, 2002; see also Chapter 18, Section 18.5). However, stakeholder involvement may occur in a context where political differences, inequalities, or conflicts may be raised; researchers must accept that it is not their role to solve those conflicts, unless they want to be part of them (Conde and Lonsdale, 2005). Approaches to stakeholder engagement vary from passive interactions, where the stakeholders only provide information, to a level where the stakeholders themselves initiate and design the process (Figure 2.2).
Current adaptation practices for climate risks are being developed by communities, governments, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), and other organised stakeholders to increase their adaptive capacity (Ford and Smit, 2004; Thomalla et al., 2005; Conde et al., 2006). Indigenous knowledge studies are a valuable source of information for CCIAV assessments, especially where formally collected and recorded data are sparse (Huntington and Fox, 2005). Stakeholders have a part to play in scenario development (Lorenzoni et al., 2000; Bärlund and Carter, 2002) and participatory modelling (e.g.,Welp, 2001; van Asselt and Rijkens-Klomp, 2002).
Stakeholders are also central in assessing future needs for developing policies and measures to adapt (Nadarajah and Rankin, 2005). These needs have been recognised in regional and national approaches to assessing climate impacts and adaptation, including the UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) (West and Gawith, 2005), the US National Assessment (National Assessment Synthesis Team 2000; Parson et al., 2003), the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA, 2005), the Finnish National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (Marttila et al., 2005) and the related FINADAPT research consortium (Kankaanpää et al., 2005), and the Mackenzie Basin Impact Study (Cohen, 1997).
2.3.3 Defining coping ranges
The coping range of climate (Hewitt and Burton, 1971) is described in the TAR as the capacity of systems to accommodate variations in climatic conditions (Smith et al., 2001), and thus serves as a suitable template for understanding the relationship between changing climate hazards and society. The concept of the coping range has since been expanded to incorporate concepts of current and future adaptation, planning and policy horizons, and likelihood (Yohe and Tol, 2002; Willows and Connell, 2003; UNDP, 2005). It can therefore serve as a conceptual model (Morgan et al., 2001) which can be used to integrate analytical techniques with a broader understanding of climate-society relationships (Jones and Mearns, 2005).
Figure 2.2. Ladder of stakeholder participation (based on Pretty et al., 1995; Conde and Lonsdale, 2005).
The coping range is used to link the understanding of current adaptation to climate with adaptation needs under climate change. It is a useful mental model to use with stakeholders –who often have an intuitive understanding of which risks can be coped with and which cannot – that can subsequently be developed into a quantitative model (Jones and Boer, 2005).It can be depicted as one or more climatic or climate-related variables upon which socio-economic responses are mapped (Figure 2.3). The core of the coping range contains beneficial outcomes. Towards one or both edges of the coping range, outcomes become negative but tolerable. Beyond the coping range, the damages or losses are no longer tolerable and denote a vulnerable state, the limits of tolerance describing a critical threshold (left side of Figure 2.3). A coping range is usually specific to an activity, group, and/or sector, although society-wide coping ranges have been proposed (Yohe and Tol, 2002).
Risk is assessed by calculating how often the coping range is exceeded under given conditions. Climate change may increase the risk of threshold exceedance but adaptation can ameliorate the adverse effects by widening the coping range (right side of Figure 2.3). For example, Jones (2001) constructed critical thresholds for the Macquarie River catchment in Australia for irrigation allocation and environmental flows. The probability of exceeding these thresholds was a function of both natural climate variability and climate change. Yohe and Tol (2002) explored hypothetical upper and lower critical thresholds for the River Nile using current and historical streamflow data. The upper threshold denoted serious flooding, and the lower threshold the minimum flow required to supply water demand. Historical frequency of exceedance served as a baseline from which to measure changing risks using a range of climate scenarios.
2.3.4 Communicating uncertainty and risk
Communicating risk and uncertainty is a vital part of helping people respond to climate change. However, people often rely on intuitive decision-making processes, or heuristics, in solving complicated problems of judgement and decision-making (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974). In many cases, these heuristics are surprisingly successful in leading to successful decisions under information and time constraints (Gigerenzer, 2000; Muramatsu and Hanich, 2005). In other cases, heuristics can lead to predictable inconsistencies or errors of judgement (Slovic et al., 2004). For example, people consistently overestimate the likelihood of low-probability events (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979; Kammen et al., 1994), resulting in choices that may increase their exposure to harm (Thaler and Johnson, 1990). These deficiencies in human judgement in the face of uncertainty are discussed at length in the TAR (Ahmad et al., 2001).
Participatory approaches establish a dialogue between stakeholders and experts, where the experts can explain the uncertainties and the ways they are likely to be misinterpreted, the stakeholders can explain their decision-making criteria, and the two parties can work together to design a risk-management strategy (Fischoff, 1996; Jacobs, 2002; NRC, 2002). Because stakeholders are often the decision-makers themselves (Kelly and Adger, 2000), the communication of impact, adaptation, and vulnerability assessment has become more important (Jacobs, 2002; Dempsey and Fisher, 2005; Füssel and Klein, 2006). Adaptation decisions also depend on changes occurring outside the climate change arena (Turner et al., 2003b).
Figure 2.3. Idealised version of a coping range showing the relationship between climate change and threshold exceedance, and how adaptation can establish a new critical threshold, reducing vulnerability to climate change (modified from Jones and Mearns, 2005).
If the factors that give rise to the uncertainties are described (Willows and Connell, 2003), stakeholders may view that information as more credible because they can make their own judgements about its quality and accuracy (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1990). People will remember and use uncertainty assessments when they can mentally link the uncertainty and events in the world with which they are familiar; assessments of climate change uncertainty are more memorable, and hence more influential, when they fit into people’s pre-existing mental maps of experience of climate variability, or when sufficient detail is provided to help people to form new mental models (Hansen, 2004). This can be aided by the development of visual tools that can communicate impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability to stakeholders while representing uncertainty in an appropriate manner (e.g., Discovery Software, 2003; Aggarwal et al., 2006).
2.3.5 Data needs for assessment
Although considerable advances have been made in the development of methods and tools for CCIAV assessment (see previous sections), their application has been constrained by limited availability and access to good-quality data (e.g., Briassoulis, 2001; UNFCCC, 2005; see also Chapter 3, Section 3.8; Chapter 6, Section 6.6; Chapter 7, Section 7.8; Chapter 8, Section,8. 8; Chapter 9, Section 9.5; Chapter 10, Section 10.8; Chapter 12, Section 12.8; Chapter 13, Section 13.5; Chapter 15, Section 15.4; Chapter 16, Section 16.7).
In their initial national communications to the UNFCCC, a large number of non-Annex I countries reported on the lack of appropriate institutions and infrastructure to conduct systematic data collection, and poor co-ordination within and/or between different government departments and agencies (UNFCCC, 2005). Significant gaps exist in the geographical coverage and management of existing global and regional Earth-observing systems and in the efforts to retrieve the available historical data. These are especially acute in developing-country regions such as Africa, where lack of funds for modern equipment and infrastructure, inadequate training of staff, high maintenance costs, and issues related to political instability and conflict are major constraints (IRI, 2006). As a result, in some regions, observation systems have been in decline (e.g., GCOS, 2003; see also Chapter 16, Section 16.7).
Major deficiencies in data provision for socio-economic and human systems indicators have been reported as a key barrier to a better understanding of nature-society dynamics in both developed and developing countries (Wilbanks et al., 2003; but see Nordhaus, 2006). Recognising the importance of data and information for policy decisions and risk management under a changing climate, new programmes and initiatives have been put in place to improve the provision of data across disciplines and scales. Prominent among these, the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) plan (Group on Earth Observations, 2005) was launched in 2006, with a mission to help all 61 involved countries produce and manage Earth observational data. The Centre for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) provides a wide range of environmental and socioeconomic data products. In addition, the IPCC Data Distribution Centre (DDC), overseen by the IPCC Task Group on Data and Scenario Support for Impact and Climate Analysis (TGICA), hosts various sets of outputs from coupled Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs), along with environmental and socio-economic data for CCIAV assessments (Parry, 2002). New sources of data from remote sensing are also becoming available (e.g., Justice et al., 2002), which could fill the gaps where no ground-based data are available but which require resourcing to obtain access. New and updated observational data sets and their deficiencies are also detailed in the WG I report for climate (Trenberth et al., 2007) and sea level (Bindoff et al., 2007).
Efforts are also being made to record human-environment interactions in moderated online databases. For instance, the DesInventar database records climatic disasters of the recent past in Latin America, documenting not only the adverse climatic events themselves, but also the consequences of these events and the parties affected. Information on local coping strategies applied by different communities and sectors is being recorded by the UNFCCC.
Many assessments are now obtaining data through stakeholder elicitation and survey methods. For example, in many traditional societies a large number of social interactions may not be recorded by bureaucratic processes, but knowledge of how societies adapt to climate change, perceive risk, and measure their vulnerability is held by community members (e.g., Cohen, 1997; ACIA, 2005; see also Section 2.3.2). Even in data-rich situations, it is likely that some additional data from stakeholders will be required. However, this also requires adequate resourcing.
2.4 Characterising the future
2.4.1 Why and how do we characterise future conditions?
Evaluations of future climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability require assumptions, whether explicit or implicit, about how future socio-economic and biophysical conditions will develop. The literature on methods of characterising the future has grown in tandem with the literature on CCIAV, but these methods have not been defined consistently across different research communities. Box 2.1 presents a consistent typology of characterisations that expands on the definitions presented in the TAR (Carter et al., 2001), for the purpose of clarifying the use of this terminology in this chapter. Although they may overlap, different types of characterisations of the future can be usefully distinguished in terms of their plausibility and ascription of likelihood, on the one hand, and the comprehensiveness of their representation, on the other (see Box 2.1 for definitions). Since the TAR, comprehensiveness has increased and ascriptions of likelihood have become more common. The following sections make use of the typology in Box 2.1 to address notable advances in methods of characterising the future.
2.4.2 Artificial experiments
The most significant advance in artificial experiments since the TAR is the development of a new set of commitment runs by AOGCMs. These are climate change projections that assume that the radiative forcing at a particular point in time (often the current forcing) is held constant into the future (Meehl et al., 2007). The projections demonstrate the time-lags in the climate response to changes in radiative forcing (due to the delayed penetration of heat into the oceans), and of sea level to warming. Recent experiments estimate a global mean warming commitment associated with radiative forcing in 2000 of about 0.6°C by 2100 (Meehl et al., 2007). Sea-level rise due to thermal expansion of the oceans responds much more slowly, on a time-scale of millennia; committed sea-level rise is estimated at between 0.3 and 0.8 m above present levels by 2300, assuming concentrations stabilised at A1B levels in 2100 (Meehl et al., 2007). However, these commitment runs are unrealistic because the instantaneous stabilisation of radiative forcing is implausible, implying an unrealistic change in emission rates (see Naki?enovi? et al., 2007). They are therefore only suitable for setting a lower bound on impacts seen as inevitable (Parry et al., 1998).
Box 2.1. Definitions of future characterisation
Figure 2.4 illustrates the relationships among the categories of future characterisations most commonly used in CCIAV studies.Because definitions vary across different fields, we present a single consistent typology for use in this chapter. Categories are distinguished according to comprehensiveness and plausibility.
Comprehensiveness indicates the degree to which a characterisation of the future captures the various aspects of the socioeconomic/biophysical system it aims to represent. Secondarily, it indicates the detail with which any single element is characterised.
Figure 2.4. Characterisations of the future.
Plausibility is a subjective measure of whether a characterisation of the future is possible. Implausible futures are assumed to have zero or negligible likelihood. Plausible futures can be further distinguished by whether a specific likelihood is ascribed or not.
Artificial experiment. A characterisation of the future constructed without regard to plausibility (and hence often implausible) that follows a coherent logic in order to study a process or communicate an insight. Artificial experiments range in comprehensiveness fromsimple thought experiments to detailed integrated modelling studies.
Sensitivity analysis. Sensitivity analyses employ characterisations that involve arbitrary or graduated adjustments of one or several variables relative to a reference case. These adjustments may be plausible (e.g., changes are of a realistic magnitude) or implausible (e.g., interactions between the adjusted variables are ignored), but the main aim is to explore model sensitivity to inputs, and possibly uncertainty in outputs.
Analogues. Analogues are based on recorded conditions that are considered to adequately represent future conditions in a study region.These records can be of past conditions (temporal analogues) or from another region (spatial analogues). Their selection is guided by information from sources such as AOGCMs; they are used to generate detailed scenarios which could not be realistically obtained by other means. Analogues are plausible in that they reflect a real situation, butmay be implausible because no two places or periods of time are identical in all respects.
Scenarios. A scenario is a coherent, internally consistent, and plausible description of a possible future state of the world (IPCC, 1994; Naki?enovi? et al., 2000; Raskin et al., 2005). Scenarios are not predictions or forecasts (which indicate outcomes considered most likely), but are alternative images without ascribed likelihoods of how the future might unfold. They may be qualitative, quantitative, or both. An overarching logic often relates several components of a scenario, for example a storyline and/or projections of particular elements of a system. Exploratory (or descriptive) scenarios describe the future according to known processes of change, or as extrapolations of past trends (Carter et al., 2001). Normative (or prescriptive) scenarios describe a pre-specified future, either optimistic, pessimistic, or neutral (Alcamo, 2001), and a set of actions that might be required to achieve (or avoid) it. Such scenarios are often developed using an inverse modelling approach, by defining constraints and then diagnosing plausible combinations of the underlying conditions that satisfy those constraints (see Naki?enovi? et al., 2007).
Storylines. Storylines are qualitative, internally consistent narratives of how the futuremay evolve. They describe the principal trends in socio-political-economic drivers of change and the relationships between these drivers. Storylines may be stand-alone, but more often underpin quantitative projections of future change that, together with the storyline, constitute a scenario.
Projection. A projection is generally regarded as any description of the future and the pathway leading to it. However, here we define a projection as a model-derived estimate of future conditions related to one element of an integrated system (e.g., an emission, a climate, or an economic growth projection). Projections are generally less comprehensive than scenarios, even if the projected element is influenced by other elements. In addition, projections may be probabilistic, while scenarios do not ascribe likelihoods.
Probabilistic futures. Futures with ascribed likelihoods are probabilistic. The degree to which the future is characterised in probabilistic terms can vary widely. For example, conditional probabilistic futures are subject to specific and stated assumptions about how underlying assumptions are to be represented. Assigned probabilities may also be imprecise or qualitative.
2.4.3 Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis (see Box 2.1) is commonly applied in many model-based CCIAV studies to investigate the behaviour of a system, assuming arbitrary, often regularly spaced, adjustments in important driving variables. It has become a standard technique in assessing sensitivity to climatic variations, enabling the construction of impact response surfaces over multi-variate climate space (e.g., van Minnen et al., 2000; Miller et al., 2003). Response surfaces are increasingly constructed in combination with probabilistic representations of future climate to assess risk of impact (see Section 2.4.8). Sensitivity analysis sampling uncertainties in emissions, natural climate variability, climate change projections, and climate impacts has been used to evaluate the robustness of proposed adaptation measures for water resource management by Dessai (2005). Sensitivity analysis has also been used as a device for studying land-use change, by applying arbitrary adjustments to areas, such as +10% forest, −10% cropland, where these area changes are either spatially explicit (Shackley and Deanwood, 2003) or not (Ott and Uhlenbrook, 2004; van Beek and van Asch, 2004; Vaze et al., 2004).
Temporal and spatial analogues are applied in a range of CCIAV studies. The most common of recently reported temporal analogues are historical extreme weather events. These types of event may recur more frequently under anthropogenic climate change, requiring some form of adaptation measure. The suitability of a given climate condition for use as an analogue requires specialist judgement of its utility (i.e., how well it represents the key weather variables affecting vulnerability) and its meteorological plausibility (i.e., how well it replicates anticipated future climate conditions). Examples of extreme events judged likely or very likely by the end of the century (see Table 2.2) that might serve as analogues include the European 2003 heatwave (see Chapter 12, Section 12.6.1) and flooding events related to intense summer precipitation in Bangladesh (Mirza, 2003a) and Norway (Næss et al., 2005). Other extreme events suggested as potential analogues, but about which the likelihood of future changes is poorly known (Christensen et al., 2007a), include El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)-related events (Glantz, 2001; Heslop-Thomas et al., 2006) and intense precipitation and flooding events in central Europe (Kundzewicz et al., 2005). Note also that the suitability of such analogue events should normally be considered along with information on accompanying changes in mean climate, which may ease or exacerbate vulnerability to extreme events.
Spatial analogues have also been applied in CCIAV analysis. For example, model-simulated climates for 2071 to 2100 have been analysed for selected European cities (Hallegatte et al., 2007). Model grid boxes in Europe showing the closest match between their present-day mean temperatures and seasonal precipitation and those projected for the cities in the future were identified as spatial analogues. These ‘displaced’ cities were then used fas a heuristic device for analysing economic impacts and adaptation needs under a changing climate. A related approach is to seek projected climates (e.g., using climate model simulations) that have no present-day climatic analogues on Earth (‘novel’ climates) or regions where present-day climates are no longer to be found in the future (‘disappearing’ climates: see Ohlemüller et al., 2006; Williams et al., 2007). Results from such studies have been linked to risks to ecological systems and biodiversity.
Storylines for CCIAV studies (see Box 2.1) are increasingly adopting a multi-sectoral and multi-stressor approach (Holman et al., 2005a, b) over multiple scales (Alcamo et al., 2005; Lebel et al., 2005; Kok et al., 2006a; Westhoek et al., 2006b) and are utilising stakeholder elicitation (Kok et al., 2006b).As they have become more comprehensive, the increased complexity and richness of the information they contain has aided the interpretation of adaptive capacity and vulnerability (Metzger et al., 2006). Storyline development is also subjective, so more comprehensive storylines can have alternative, but equally plausible, interpretations (Rounsevell et al., 2006). The concept of a ‘region’, for example, may be interpreted within a storyline in different ways − as world regions, nation states, or subnational administrative units. This may have profound implications for how storylines are characterised at a local scale, limiting their reproducibility and credibility (Abildtrup et al., 2006). The alternative is to link a locally sourced storyline, regarded as credible at that scale, to a global scenario.
Storylines can be an endpoint in their own right (e.g., Rotmans et al., 2000), but often provide the basis for quantitative scenarios. In the storyline and simulation (SAS) approach (Alcamo, 2001), quantification is undertaken with models for which the input parameters are estimated through interpretation of the qualitative storylines. Parameter estimation is often subjective, using expert judgement, although more objective methods, such as pairwise comparison, have been used to improve internal consistency (Abildtrup et al., 2006). Analogues and stakeholder elicitation have also been used to estimate model parameters (e.g., Rotmans et al., 2000; Berger and Bolte, 2004; Kok et al., 2006a). Moreover, participatory approaches are important in reconciling long-term scenarios with the short-term, policy-driven requirements of stakeholders (Velázquez et al., 2001; Shackley and Deanwood, 2003; Lebel et al., 2005).
Advances in scenario development since the TAR address issues of consistency and comparability between global drivers of change, and regional scenarios required for CCIAV assessment (for reviews, see Berkhout et al., 2002; Carter et al., 2004; Parson et al., 2006). Numerous methods of downscaling from global to sub-global scale are emerging, some relying on the narrative storylines underpinning the global scenarios. At the time of the TAR, most CCIAV studies utilised climate scenarios (many based on the IS92 emissions scenarios), but very few applied contemporaneous scenarios of socio-economic, land-use, or other environmental changes. Those that did used a range of sources to develop them. The IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES: see Naki?enovi? et al., 2000) presented the opportunity to construct a range of mutually consistent climate and non-climatic scenarios. Originally developed to provide scenarios of future GHG emissions, the SRES scenarios are also accompanied by storylines of social, economic, and technological development that can be used in CCIAV studies (Box 2.2).
Box 2.2. The SRES global storylines and scenarios
Figure 2.5. Summary characteristics of the four SRES storylines (based on Naki´cenovi´c et al., 2000).
SRES presented four narrative storylines, labelled A1, A2, B1, and B2, describing the relationships between the forces driving GHG and aerosol emissions and their evolution during the 21st century for large world regions and globally (Figure 2.5). Each storyline represents different demographic, social, economic, technological, and environmental developments that diverge in increasingly irreversible ways and result in different levels of GHG emissions. The storylines assume that no specific climate policies are implemented, and thus form a baseline against which narratives with specific mitigation and adaptation measures can be compared.
The SRES storylines formed the basis for the development of quantitative scenarios using various numerical models that were presented in the TAR. Emissions scenarios were converted to projections of atmospheric GHG and aerosol concentrations, radiative forcing of the climate, effects on regional climate, and climatic effects on global sea level (IPCC, 2001a). However, little regional detail of these projections and no CCIAV studies that made use of them were available for the TAR. Many CCIAV studies have applied SRES-based scenarios since then, and some of these are described in Boxes 2.3 to 2.7 to illustrate different scenario types.
There has been an increasing uptake of the SRES scenarios since the TAR, and a substantial number of the impact studies assessed in this volume that employed future characterisations made use of them. For this reason, these scenarios are highlighted in a series of boxed examples throughout Section 2.4. For some other studies, especially empirical analyses of adaptation and vulnerability, the scenarios were of limited relevance and were not adopted.
While the SRES scenarios were specifically developed to address climate change, several other major global scenario-building exercises have been designed to explore uncertainties and risks related to global environmental change. Recent examples include: the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment scenarios to 2100 (MA: see Alcamo et al., 2005), Global Scenarios Group scenarios to 2050 (GSG: see Raskin et al., 2002), and Global Environment Outlook scenarios to 2032 (GEO-3: see UNEP 2002). These exercises were reviewed and compared by Raskin et al. (2005) and Westhoek et al. (2006a), who observed that many applied similar assumptions to those used in the SRES scenarios, in some cases employing the same models to quantify the main drivers and indicators. All the exercises adopted the storyline and simulation (SAS) approach (introduced in Section 2.4.5). Furthermore, all contain important features that can be useful for CCIAV studies; with some exercises (e.g., MA and GEO-3) going one step further than the original SRES scenarios by not only describing possible emissions under differing socio-economic pathways but also including imaginable outcomes for climate variables and their impact on ecological and social systems. This helps to illustrate risks and possible response strategies to deal with possible impacts.
Five classes of scenarios relevant to CCIAV analysis were distinguished in the TAR: climate, socio-economic, land-use and land-cover, other environmental (mainly atmospheric composition), and sea-level scenarios (Carter et al., 2001). The following sections describe recent progress in each of these classes and in four additional categories: technology scenarios, adaptation scenarios, mitigation scenarios, and scenario integration.
220.127.116.11 Climate scenarios
The most recent climate projection methods and results are extensively discussed in the WG I volume (especially Christensen et al., 2007a;Meehl et al., 2007), and most of these were not available to the CCIAV studies assessed in this volume. Box 2.3 compares recent climate projections from Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) with the earlier projections relied on throughout this volume. While AOGCMs are the most common source of regional climate scenarios, other methods and tools are also applied in specific CCIAV studies. Numerous regionalisation techniques have been employed to obtain high-resolution, SRES-based climate scenarios, nearly always using low-resolution General Circulation Model (GCM) outputs as a starting point. Some of these methods are also used to develop scenarios of extreme weather events.
Scenarios from high-resolution models
The development and application of scenarios from high-resolution regional climate models and global atmospheric models (time-slices) since the TAR confirms that improved resolution allows a more realistic representation of the response of climate to fine-scale topographic features (e.g., lakes, mountains, coastlines). Impact models will often produce different results utilising high-resolution scenarios compared with direct GCM outputs (e.g., Arnell et al., 2003; Mearns et al., 2003; Stone et al., 2003; Leung et al., 2004; Wood et al., 2004). However, most regional model experiments still rely on only one driving AOGCM and scenarios are usually available from only one or two regional climate models (RCMs).
More elaborate and extensive modelling designs have facilitated the exploration of multiple uncertainties (across different RCMs, AOGCMs, and emissions scenarios) and how those uncertainties affect impacts. The PRUDENCE project in Europe produced multiple RCM simulations based on the ECHAM/OPYC AOGCM and HadAM3H AGCM simulations for two different emissions scenarios (Christensen et al., 2007b). Uncertainties due to the spatial scale of the scenarios and stemming from the application of different RCMs versus different GCMs (including models not used for regionalisation) were elaborated on in a range of impact studies (e.g., Ekstrom et al., 2007; Fronzek and Carter, 2007; Hingray et al., 2007; Graham et al., 2007; Olesen et al., 2007). For example, Olesen et al. (2007) found that the variation in simulated agricultural impacts was smaller across scenarios from RCMs nested in a single GCM than it was across different GCMs or across the different emissions scenarios.
The construction of higher-resolution scenarios (now often finer than 50 km), has encouraged new types of impact studies. For example, studies examining the combined impacts of increased heat stress and air pollution are now more feasible because the resolution of regional climate models is converging with that of air-quality models (e.g., Hogrefe et al., 2004). Furthermore, scenarios developed from RCMs (e.g., UKMO, 2001) are now being used in many more regions of the world, particularly the developing world (e.g.,Arnell et al., 2003; Gao et al., 2003; Anyah and Semazzi, 2004; Government of India, 2004; Rupa Kumar et al., 2006). Results of these regional modelling experiments are reported in Christensen et al. (2007a).
Statistical downscaling (SD)
Much additional work has been produced since the TAR using methods of statistical downscaling (SD) for climate scenario generation (Wilby et al., 2004b; also see Christensen et al., 2007a). Various SD techniques have been used in downscaling directly to (physically-based) impacts and to a greater variety of climate variables than previously (e.g., wind speed), including extremes of variables. For example, Wang et al. (2004) and Caires and Sterl (2005) have developed extreme value models for projecting changes in wave height.
While statistical downscaling has mostly been applied for single locations, Hewitson (2003) developed empirical downscaling for point-scale precipitation at numerous sites and on a 0.1°-resolution grid over Africa. Finally, the wider availability of statistical downscaling tools is being reflected in wider application; for example, the Statistical Downscaling Model (SDSM) tool of Wilby et al. (2002), which has been used to produce scenarios for the River Thames basin (Wilby and Harris, 2006). Statistical downscaling does have some limitations; for example, it cannot take account of small-scale processes with strong time-scale dependencies (e.g., land-cover change). See Christensen et al. (2007a) for a complete discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of both statistical and dynamical downscaling.
Scenarios of extreme weather events
The improved availability of high-resolution scenarios has facilitated new studies of event-driven impacts (e.g., fire risk – Moriondo et al., 2006; low-temperature impacts on boreal forests – Jönsson et al., 2004). Projected changes in extreme weather events have been related to projected changes in local mean climate, in the hope that robust relationships could allow the prediction of extremes on the basis of changes in mean climate alone. PRUDENCE RCM outputs showed non-linear relationships between mean maximum temperature and indices of drought and heatwave (Good et al., 2006), while changes in maximum 1-day and 5-day precipitation amounts were systematically enhanced relative to changes in seasonal mean precipitation across many regions of Europe (Beniston et al., 2007). In a comprehensive review (citing over 200 papers) of the options available for developing scenarios of weather extremes for use in Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs), Goodess et al. (2003) list the advantages and disadvantages of applying direct GCM outputs, direct RCM outputs, and SD techniques. Streams of daily data are the outputs most commonly used from these sources, and these may pose computational difficulties for assessing impacts in IAMs (which commonly consider only large-scale, period-averaged climate), requiring scenario analysis to be carried out offline. Interpretation of impacts then becomes problematic, requiring a method of relating the large-scale climate change represented in the IAM to the impacts of associated changes in weather extremes modelled offline. Goodess et al. suggest that a more direct, but untested, approach could be to construct conditional damage functions (cdfs), by identifying the statistical relationships between the extreme events themselves (causing damage) and large-scale predictor variables. Box 2.4 offers a global overview of observed and projected changes in extreme weather events.
Box 2.3. SRES-based climate scenarios assumed in this report
Not all of the impact studies reported in this assessment employed SRES-based climate scenarios. Earlier scenarios are described in previous IPCC reports (IPCC, 1992, 1996; Greco et al., 1994). The remaining discussion focuses on SRES based climate projections, which are applied in most CCIAV studies currently undertaken.
In recent years, many simulations of the global climate response to the SRES emission scenarios have been completed with AOGCMs, also providing regional detail on projected climate. Early AOGCM runs (labelled ‘pre-TAR’) were reported in the TAR (Cubasch et al., 2001) and are available from the IPCC DDC. Many have been adopted in CCIAV studies reported in this volume. A new generation of AOGCMs, some incorporating improved representations of climate system processes and land surface forcing, are now utilising the SRES scenarios in addition to other emissions scenarios of relevance for impacts and policy. The new models and their projections are evaluated in WG I (Christensen et al., 2007a; Meehl et al., 2007; Randall et al., 2007) and compared with the pre-TAR results below. Projections of global mean annual temperature change for SRES and CO2-stabilisation profiles are presented in Box 2.8.
Pre-TAR AOGCM results held at the DDC were included in a model intercomparison across the four SRES emissions scenarios (B1, B2, A2, and A1FI) of seasonal mean temperature and precipitation change for thirty-two world regions (Ruosteenoja et al., 2003). The inter-model range of changes by the end of the 21st century is summarised in Figure 2.6 for the A2 scenario, expressed as rates of change per century. Recent A2 projections, reported in WG I, are also shown for the same regions for comparison.
Almost all model-simulated temperature changes, but fewer precipitation changes, were statistically significant relative to 95%confidence intervals calculated from 1,000-year unforced coupled AOGCM simulations (Ruosteenoja et al., 2003; see also Figure 2.6). Modelled surface air temperature increases in all regions and seasons, with most land areas warming more rapidly than the global average (Giorgi et al., 2001; Ruosteenoja et al., 2003). Warming is especially pronounced in high northern-latitude regions in the boreal winter and in southern Europe and parts of central and northern Asia in the boreal summer. Warming is less than the global average in southern parts of Asia and South America, Southern Ocean areas (containing many small islands) and the North Atlantic (Figure 2.6a).
For precipitation, both positive and negative changes are projected, but a regional precipitation increase is more common than a decrease. All models simulate higher precipitation at high latitudes in both seasons, in northern mid-latitude regions in boreal winter, and enhanced monsoon precipitation for southern and eastern Asia in boreal summer. Models also agree on precipitation declines in Central America, southern Africa and southern Europe in certain seasons (Giorgi et al., 2001; Ruosteenoja et al., 2003; see also Figure 2.6b).
Comparing TAR projections to recent projections
The WG I report provides an extensive intercomparison of recent regional projections from AOGCMs (Christensen et al., 2007a; Meehl et al., 2007), focusing on those assuming the SRES A1B emissions scenario, for which the greatest number of simulations (21) were available. It also contains numerous maps of projected regional climate change. In summary:
Figure 2.6. AOGCM projections of seasonal changes in (a) mean temperature (previous page) and (b) precipitation up to the end of the 21st century for 32 world regions. For each region two ranges between minimum and maximum are shown. Red bar: range from 15 recent AOGCM simulations for the A2 emissions scenario (data analysed for Christensen et al., 2007a). Blue bar: range from 7 pre-TAR AOGCMs for the A2 emissions scenario (Ruosteenoja et al., 2003). Seasons: DJF (December–February); MAM (March–May); JJA (June–August); SON (September–November). Regional definitions, plotted on the ECHAM4 model grid (resolution 2.8 * 2.8°), are shown on the inset map (Ruosteenoja et al., 2003). Pre-TAR changes were originally computed for 1961-1990 to 2070-2099 and recent changes for 1979-1998 to 2079-2098, and are converted here to rates per century for comparison; 95% confidence limits on modelled 30-year natural variability are also shown based on millennial AOGCM control simulations with adCM3 (mauve) and CGCM2 (green) for constant forcing (Ruosteenoja et al., 2003). Numbers on precipitation plots show the number of recent A2 uns giving negative/positive precipitation change. Percentage changes for the SAH region (Sahara) exceed 100% in JJA and SON due to low present-day precipitation. Key for (a) and (b):
18.104.22.168 Scenarios of atmospheric composition
Projections of atmospheric composition account for the concurrent effects of air pollution and climate change, which can be important for human health, agriculture and ecosystems. Scenarios of CO2 concentration ([CO2]) are needed in some CCIAV studies, as elevated [CO2] can affect the acidity of the oceans (IPCC, 2007; Chapter 6, Section 6.3.2) and both the growth and water use of many terrestrial plants (Chapter 4, Section 4.4.1; Chapter 5, Section 5.4.1), with possible feedbacks on regional hydrology (Gedney et al., 2006). CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, so concentrations at a single observing site will usually suffice to represent global conditions. Observed [CO2] in 2005 was about 379 ppm (Forster et al., 2007) and was projected in the TAR using the Bern-CC model to rise by 2100 to reference, low, and high estimates for the SRES marker scenarios of B1: 540 [486 to 681], A1T: 575 [506 to 735], B2: 611[544 to 769], A1B: 703 [617 to 918], A2: 836 [735 to 1080], and A1FI: 958 [824 to 1248] ppm (Appendix II in IPCC, 2001a). Values similar to these reference levels are commonly adopted in SRES-based impact studies; for example, Arnell et al. (2004) employed levels assumed in HadCM3 AOGCM climate simulations, and Schröter et al. (2005b) used levels generated by the IMAGE-2 integrated assessment model. However, recent simulations with coupled carbon cycle models indicate an enhanced rise in [CO2] for a given emissions scenario, due to feedbacks from changing climate on the carbon cycle, suggesting that the TAR reference estimates are conservative (Meehl et al., 2007).
Box 2.4. SRES-based projections of climate variability and extremes
Possible changes in variability and the frequency/severity of extreme events are critical to undertaking realistic CCIAV assessments. Past trends in extreme weather and climate events, their attribution to human influence, and projected (SRES-forced) changes have been summarised globally by WG I (IPCC, 2007) and are reproduced in Table 2.2.
Elevated levels of ground-level ozone (O3) are toxic to many plants (see Chapter 5, Box 5.2) and are strongly implicated in a range of respiratory diseases (Chapter 8, Section 8.2.6). Increased atmospheric concentrations of sulphur dioxide are detrimental to plants, and wet and dry deposition of atmospheric sulphur and nitrogen can lead to soil and surface water acidification, while nitrogen deposition can also serve as a plant fertiliser (Carter et al., 2001; see also Chapter 4, Section 4.4.1; Chapter 5, Section 22.214.171.124). Projections with global atmospheric chemistry models for the high-emissions SRES A2 scenario indicate that global mean tropospheric O3 concentrations could increase by 20 to 25% between 2015 and 2050, and by 40 to 60% by 2100, primarily as a result of emissions of NOx, CH4, CO2, and compounds from fossil fuel combustion (Meehl et al., 2007). Stricter air pollution standards, already being implemented in many regions, would reduce, and could even reverse, this projected increase (Meehl et al., 2007). Similarly, the range of recent scenarios of global sulphur and NOx emissions that account for new abatement policies has shifted downwards compared with the SRES emissions scenarios (Smith et al., 2005; Naki?enovi? et al., 2007).
For the purposes of CCIAV assessment, global projections of pollution are only indicative of local conditions. Levels are highly variable in space and time, with the highest values typically occurring over industrial regions and large cities. Although projections are produced routinely for some regions in order to support air pollution policy using high-resolution atmospheric transport models (e.g., Syri et al., 2004), few models have been run assuming an altered climate, and simulations commonly assume emissions scenarios developed for air pollution policy rather than climate policy (see Alcamo et al., 2002; Naki?enovi? et al., 2007). Exceptions include regionally explicit global scenarios of nitrogen deposition on a 0.5° latitude °— 0.5° longitude grid for studying biodiversity loss in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Alcamo et al., 2005) and simulations based on SRES emissions for sulphur and nitrogen over Europe (Mayerhofer et al., 2002) and Finland (Syri et al., 2004), and for surface ozone in Finland (Laurila et al., 2004).
126.96.36.199 Sea-level scenarios
A principal impact projected under global warming is sea-level rise. Some basic techniques for developing sea-level scenarios were described in the TAR (Carter et al., 2001). Since the TAR, methodological refinements now account more effectively for regional and local factors affecting sea level and, in so doing, produce scenarios that are more relevant for planning purposes. Two main types of scenario are distinguished here: regional sea level and storm surges. A third type, characterising abrupt sea-level rise, is described in Section 2.4.7. Analogue approaches have also been reported (e.g., Arenstam Gibbons and Nicholls, 2006). More details on sea level and sea-level scenarios can be found in Bindoff et al. (2007), Meehl et al. (2007) and Chapter 6 of this volume. Examples of SRES-based sea-level scenarios are provided in Box 2.5.
Box 2.5. SRES-based sea-level scenarios
At the global level, simple models representing the expansion of sea water and melting/sliding of land-based ice sheets and glaciers were used in the TAR to obtain estimates of globally averaged mean sea-level rise across the SRES scenarios, yielding a range of 0.09 to 0.88 m by 2100 relative to 1990 (Church et al., 2001). This range has been reassessed by WG I, yielding projections relative to 1980-1999 for the six SRES marker scenarios of B1: 0.18 to 0.38 m, A1T: 0.20 to 0.45 m, B2: 0.20 to 0.43 m, A1B: 0.21 to 0.48 m, A2: 0.23 to 0.51 m, and A1FI: 0.26 to 0.59 m (Meehl et al., 2007). Thermal expansion contributes
A number of studies have made use of the TAR sea-level scenarios. In a global study of coastal flooding and wetland loss, Nicholls (2004) used global mean sea-level rise estimates for the four SRES storylines by 2025, 2055, and 2085. These were consistent with climate scenarios used in parallel studies (see Section 188.8.131.52). Two subsidence rates were also applied to obtain relative sea level rise in countries already experiencing coastal subsidence. The United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme adopted the TAR global mean sea-level rise estimates in national scenarios out to the 2080s. Scenarios of high water levels were also developed by combining mean sea-level changes with estimates of future storminess, using a storm surge model (Hulme et al., 2002). SRES-based sea-level scenarios accounting for global mean sea level, local land uplift, and estimates of the water balance of the Baltic Sea were estimated for the Finnish coast up to 2100 by Johansson et al. (2004), along with calculations of uncertainties and extreme high water levels.
Regional sea-level scenarios
Sea level does not change uniformly across the world under a changing climate, due to variation in ocean density and circulation changes. Moreover, long-term, non-climate-related trends, usually associated with vertical land movements, may affect relative sea level. To account for regional variations, Hulme et al. (2002) recommend applying the range of global-mean scenarios ±50% change. Alternative approaches utilise scenario generators. The Dynamic Interactive Vulnerability Assessment (DIVA) model computes relative sea-level rise scenarios using either global-mean or regional patterns of sea-level rise scenarios from CLIMBER-2, a climate model of intermediate complexity (Petoukhov et al., 2000; Ganopolski et al., 2001). CLIMsystems (2005) have developed a software tool that rapidly generates place-based future scenarios of sea-level change during the 21st century, accounting for global, regional, and local factors. Spatial patterns of sea-level rise due to thermal expansion and ocean processes from AOGCM simulations are combined with global-mean sea-level rise projections from simple climate models through the pattern-scaling technique (Santer et al., 1990). Users can specify a value for the local sea-level trends to account for local land movements.
Storm surge scenarios
In many locations, the risk of extreme sea levels is poorly characterised even under present-day climatic conditions, due to sparse tide gauge networks and relatively short records of high measurement frequency.Where such records do exist, detectable trends are highly dependent on local conditions (Woodworth and Blackman, 2004). Box 6.2 in Chapter 6 summarises several recent studies that employ extreme water level scenarios. Two methods were employed to develop these scenarios, one using a combination of stochastic sampling and dynamic modelling, the other using downscaled regional climate projections from global climate models to drive barotropic storm surge models (Lowe and Gregory, 2005).
184.108.40.206 Socio-economic scenarios
Socio-economic changes are key drivers of projected changes in future emissions and climate, and are also key determinants of most climate change impacts, potential adaptations and vulnerability (Malone and La Rovere, 2005). Furthermore, they also influence the policy options available for responding to climate change. CCIAV studies increasingly include scenarios of changing socio-economic conditions, which can substantially alter assessments of the effects of future climate change (Parry, 2004; Goklany, 2005; Hamilton et al., 2005; Schröter et al., 2005b; Alcamo et al., 2006a). Typically these assessments need information at the sub-national level, whereas many scenarios are developed at a broader scale, requiring downscaling of aggregate socio-economic scenario information.
Guidelines for the analysis of current and projected socioeconomic conditions are part of the UNDP Adaptation Policy Framework (Malone and La Rovere, 2005). They advocate the use of indicators to characterise socio-economic conditions and prospects. Five categories of indicators are suggested: demographic, economic, natural resource use, governance and policy, and cultural. Most recent studies have focused on the first two of these.
The sensitivity of climate change effects to socio-economic conditions was highlighted by a series of multi-sector impact assessments (Parry et al., 1999, 2001; Parry, 2004; see Table 2.3). Two of these assessments relied on only a single representation of future socio-economic conditions (IS92a), comparing effects of mitigated versus unmitigated climate change (Arnell et al., 2002; Nicholls and Lowe, 2004). The third set considered four alternative SRES-based development pathways (see Box 2.6), finding that these assumptions are often a stronger determinant of impacts than climate change itself (Arnell, 2004; Arnell et al., 2004; Levy et al., 2004; Nicholls, 2004; Parry et al., 2004; van Lieshout et al., 2004). Furthermore, climate impacts can themselves depend on the development pathway, emphasising the limited value of impact assessments of human systems that overlook possible socio-economic changes.
Table 2.3. Key features of scenarios underlying three global-scale, multi-sector assessments: [a] Parry et al. (1999); [b] Arnell et al. (2002); [c] Parry (2004).
|Impacts of unmitigated emissions [a]||Impacts of stabilisation of CO2 concentrations [b]||Impacts of SRES emissions scenarios [c]|
|Emissions scenarios||IS92a (1% per increase in CO2-equivalent concentrations per year from 1990)||Stabilisation at 750 and 550 ppm||Four SRES emissions scenarios: A1FI, A2, B1, and B2|
|Climate scenarios (AOGCM-based)||Derived from four ensemble HadCM2 simulations and one HadCM3 simulation forced with IS92a emissions scenarios||Derived from HadCM2 experiments assuming stabilisation at 550 and 750 ppm; comparison with IS92a||Derived from HadCM3 ensemble experiments (number of runs in brackets): A1FI (1), A2 (3), B1 (1), and B2 (2)|
|Socio-economic scenarios||IS92a-consistent GDPa and population projections||IS92a-consistent GDPa and population projections||SRES-based socio-economic projections|
|a GDP = Gross Domestic Product.|
The advantages of being able to link regional socio-economic futures directly to global scenarios and storylines are now being recognised. For example, the SRES scenarios have been used as a basis for developing storylines and quantitative scenarios at national (Carter et al., 2004, 2005; van Vuuren et al., 2007) and sub-national (Berkhout et al., 2002; Shackley and Deanwood, 2003; Solecki and Oliveri, 2004; Heslop-Thomas et al., 2006) scales. In contrast, most regional studies in the AIACC (Assessments of Impacts and Adaptations to Climate Change in Multiple Regions and Sectors) research programme adopted a participatory, sometimes ad hoc, approach to socio-economic scenario development, utilising current trends in key socioeconomic indicators and stakeholder consultation (e.g., Heslop-Thomas et al., 2006; Pulhin et al., 2006).
Methods for downscaling quantitative socio-economic information have focused on population and gross domestic product (GDP). The downscaling of population growth has evolved beyond simple initial exercises that made the sometimes unrealistic assumption that rates of population change are uniform over an entire world region (Gaffin et al., 2004). New techniques account for differing demographic conditions and outlooks at the national level (Grübler et al., 2006; van Vuuren et al., 2007). New methods of downscaling to the sub-national level include simple rules for preferential growth in coastal areas (Nicholls, 2004), extrapolation of recent trends at the local area level (Hachadoorian et al., 2007), and algorithms leading to preferential growth in urban areas (Grübler et al., 2006; Reginster and Rounsevell, 2006).
Downscaling methods for GDP are also evolving. The first downscaled SRES GDP assumptions applied regional growth rates uniformly to all countries within the region (Gaffin et al., 2004) without accounting for country-specific differences in initial conditions and growth expectations. New methods assume various degrees of convergence across countries, depending on the scenario; a technique that avoids implausibly high growth for rich countries in developing regions (Grübler et al., 2006; van Vuuren et al., 2007). GDP scenarios have also been downscaled to the sub-national level, either by assuming constant shares of GDP in each grid cell (Gaffin et al., 2004; van Vuuren et al., 2007) or through algorithms that differentiate income across urban and rural areas (Grübler et al., 2006).
Box 2.6. SRES-based socio-economic characterisations
SRES provides socio-economic information in the form of storylines and quantitative assumptions on population, gross domestic product (GDP), and rates of technological progress for four large world regions (OECD-1990, Reforming Economies, Africa + Latin America + Middle East, and Asia). Since the TAR, new information on several of the SRES driving forces has been published (see also the discussion in Naki?enovi? et al., 2007). For example, the range of global population size projections made by major demographic institutions has reduced by about 1−2 billion since the preparation of SRES (van Vuuren and O’Neill, 2006). Nevertheless, most of the population assumptions used in SRES still lie within the range of current projections, with the exception of some regions of the A2 scenario which now lie somewhat above it (van Vuuren and O’Neill, 2006). Researchers are now producing alternative interpretations of SRES population assumptions or new projections for use in climate change studies (Hilderink, 2004; O’Neill, 2004; Fisher et al., 2006; Grübler et al., 2006).
SRES GDP growth assumptions for the ALM region (Africa, Latin America and Middle East) are generally higher than those of more recent projections, particularly for the A1 and B1 scenarios (van Vuuren and O’Neill, 2006). The SRES GDP assumptions are generally consistent with recent projections for other regions, including fast-growing regions in Asia and, given the small share of the ALM region in global GDP, for the world as a whole.
For international comparison, economic data must be converted into a common unit; the most common choice is US$ based on market exchange rates (MER). Purchasing-power-parity (PPP) estimates, in which a correction is made for differences in price levels among countries, are considered a better alternative for comparing income levels across regions and countries. Most models and economic projections, however, use MER-based estimates, partly due to a lack of consistent PPP-based data sets. It has been suggested that the use of MER-based data results in inflated economic growth projections (Castles and Henderson, 2003). In an ongoing debate, some researchers argue that PPP is indeed a better measure and that its use will, in the context of scenarios of economic convergence, lead to lower economic growth and emissions paths for developing countries. Others argue that consistent use of either PPP- or MER-based data and projections will lead to, at most, only small changes in emissions. This debate is summarised by Naki?enovi? et al. (2007), who conclude that the impact on emissions of the use of alternative GDP metrics is likely to be small, but indicating alternative positions as well (van Vuuren and Alfsen, 2006). The use of these alternative measures is also likely to affect CCIAV assessments (Tol, 2006), especially where vulnerability and adaptive capacity are related to access to locally traded goods and services.
220.127.116.11 Land-use scenarios
Many CCIAV studies need to account for future changes in land use and land cover. This is especially important for regional studies of agriculture and water resources (Barlage et al., 2002; Klöcking et al., 2003), forestry (Bhadwal and Singh, 2002), and ecosystems (Bennett et al., 2003; Dirnbock et al., 2003; Zebisch et al., 2004; Cumming et al., 2005), but also has a large influence on regional patterns of demography and economic activity (Geurs and van Eck, 2003) and associated problems of environmental degradation (Yang et al., 2003) and pollution (Bathurst et al., 2005). Land-use and land-cover change scenarios have also been used to analyse feedbacks to the climate system (DeFries et al., 2002; Leemans et al., 2002; Maynard and Royer, 2004) and sources and sinks of GHGs (Fearnside, 2000; El-Fadel et al., 2002; Sands and Leimbach, 2003).
The TAR concluded that the use of Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) was the most appropriate method for developing land-use change scenarios, and they continue to be the only available tool for global-scale studies. Since the TAR, however, a number of new models have emerged that provide fresh insights into regional land-use change. These regional models can generate very different land-use change scenarios from those generated by IAMs (Busch, 2006), often with opposing directions of change. However, the need to define outside influences on land use in regional-scale models, such as global trade, remains a challenge (e.g., Sands and Edmonds, 2005; Alcamo et al., 2006b), so IAMs have an important role to play in characterising the global boundary conditions for regional land-use change assessments (van Meijl et al., 2006).
Regional-scale land-use models often adopt a two-phase (nested scale) approach with an assessment of aggregate quantities of land use for the entire region followed by ‘downscaling’ procedures to create regional land-use patterns (see Box 2.7 for examples). Aggregate quantities are often based on IAMs or economic models such as General Equilibrium Models (van Meijl et al., 2006) or input-output approaches (Fischer and Sun, 2001). Methods of downscaling vary considerably and include proportional approaches to estimate regional from global scenarios (Arnell et al., 2004), regional-scale economic models (Fischer and Sun, 2001), spatial allocation procedures based on rules (Rounsevell et al., 2006), micro-simulation with cellular automata (de Nijs et al., 2004; Solecki and Oliveri, 2004), linear programming models (Holman et al., 2005a, b), and empirical-statistical techniques (de Koning et al., 1999;Verburg et al., 2002, 2006). In addressing climate change impacts on land use, Agent- Based Models (ABMs: see Alcamo et al., 2006b) aim to provide insight into the decision processes and social interactions that underpin adaptation and vulnerability assessment (Acosta-Michlik and Rounsevell, 2005).
Box 2.7. SRES-based land-use and land-cover characterisations
Future land use was estimated by most of the IAMs used to characterise the SRES storylines, but estimates for any one storyline are model-dependent, and therefore vary widely. For example, under the B2 storyline, the change in the global area of grassland between 1990 and 2050 varies between −49 and +628 million ha (Mha), with the marker scenario giving a change of +167 Mha (Naki?enovi? et al., 2000). The IAM used to characterise the A2 marker scenario did not include landcover change, so changes under the A1 scenario were assumed to apply also to A2. Given the differences in socio-economic drivers between A1 and A2 that can affect land-use change, this assumption is not appropriate. Nor do the SRES land-cover scenarios include the effect of climate change on future land cover. This lack of internal consistency will especially affect the representation of agricultural land use, where changes in crop productivity play an important role (Ewert et al., 2005; Audsley et al., 2006). A proportional approach to downscaling the SRES land-cover scenarios has been applied to global ecosystem modelling (Arnell et al., 2004) by assuming uniform rates of change everywhere within an SRES macro-region. In practice, however, land-cover change is likely to be greatest where population and population growth rates are greatest. A mismatch was also found in some of the SRES storylines, and for some regions, between recent trends and projected trends for cropland and forestry (Arnell et al., 2004).Figure 2.7. Percentage change in cropland area (for food production) by 2080, compared with the baseline in 2000 for the four SRES storylines (A1FI, A2, B1, B2) with climate calculated by the HadCM3 AOGCM. From Schröter et al., 2005b. Reprinted with permission from AAAS.
More sophisticated downscaling of the SRES scenarios has been undertaken at the regional scale within Europe (Kankaanpää and Carter, 2004; Ewert et al., 2005; Rounsevell et al., 2005, 2006; Abildtrup et al., 2006; Audsley et al., 2006; van Meijl et al., 2006). These analyses highlighted the potential role of non-climate change drivers in future land-use change. Indeed, climate change was shown in many examples to have a negligible effect on land use compared with socio-economic change (Schröter et al., 2005b). Technology, especially as it affects crop yield development, is an important determinant of future agricultural land use (and much more important than climate change), contributing to declines in agricultural areas of both cropland and grassland by as much as 50% by 2080 under the A1FI and A2 scenarios (Rounsevell et al., 2006). Such declines in land use did not occur within the B2 scenario, which assumes more extensive agricultural management, such as ‘organic’ production systems, or the widespread substitution of agricultural food and fibre production by bioenergy crops. This highlights the role of policy decisions in moderating future land-use change. However, broad-scale changes often belie large potential differences in the spatial distribution of land-use change that can occur at the sub-regional scale (Schröter et al., 2005b; see also Figure 2.7), and these spatial patterns may have greater effects on CCIAV than the overall changes in land-use quantities (Metzger et al., 2006; Reidsma et al., 2006).
Most land-use scenario assessments are based on gradual changes in socio-economic and climatic conditions, although responses to extreme weather events such as Hurricane Mitch in Central America have also been assessed (Kok and Winograd, 2002). Probabilistic approaches are rare, with the exception being the effects of uncertainty in alternative representations of land-use change for hydrological variables (Eckhardt et al., 2003). Not all land-use scenario exercises have addressed the effects of climate change even though they consider time-frames over which a changing climate would be important. This may reflect a perceived lack of sensitivity to climate variables (e.g., studies on urban land use: see Allen and Lu, 2003; Barredo et al., 2003, 2004; Loukopoulos and Scholz, 2004; Reginster and Rounsevell, 2006), or may be an omission from the analysis (Ahn et al., 2002; Berger and Bolte, 2004).
18.104.22.168 Technology scenarios
The importance of technology has been highlighted specifically for land-use change (Ewert et al., 2005; Rounsevell et al., 2005, 2006; Abildtrup et al., 2006) and for ecosystem service changes, such as agricultural production, water management, or climate regulation (Easterling et al., 2003; Nelson et al., 2005). Technological change is also a principal driver of GHG emissions. Since the TAR, scenarios addressing different technology pathways for climate change mitigation and adaptation have increased in number (see Naki?enovi? et al., 2007). Technological change can be treated as an exogenous factor to the economic system or be endogenously driven through economic and political incentives. Recent modelling exercises have represented theories on technical and institutional innovation, such as the ‘Induced Innovation Theory’, in scenario development (Grübler et al., 1999; Grubb et al., 2002), although more work is needed to refine these methods.
For integrated global scenario exercises, the rate and magnitude of technological development is often based on expert judgements and mental models. Storyline assumptions are then used to modify the input parameters of environmental models (e.g., for ecosystems, land use, or climate) prior to conducting model simulations (e.g., Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Ewert et al., 2005). Such an approach is useful in demonstrating the relative sensitivity of different systems to technological change, but the role of technology remains a key uncertainty in characterisations of the future, with some arguing that only simple models should be used in constructing scenarios (Casman et al., 1999). In particular, questions such as about the rates of uptake and diffusion of new technologies deserve greater attention, especially as this affects adaptation to climate change (Easterling et al., 2003). However, only a few studies have tackled technology, suggesting an imbalance in the treatment of environmental change drivers within many CCIAV scenario studies, which future work should seek to redress.
22.214.171.124 Adaptation scenarios
Limited attention has been paid to characterising alternative pathways of future adaptation. Narrative information within scenarios can assist in characterising potential adaptive responses to climate change. For instance, the determinants of adaptive capacity and their indicators have been identified for Europe through questionnaire survey (Schröter et al., 2005b). Empirical relationships between these indicators and population and GDP from 1960 to 2000 were also established and applied to downscaled, SRES-based GDP and population projections in order to derive scenarios of adaptive capacity (see Section 126.96.36.199). The SRES storylines have also been interpreted using GDP per capita scenarios to estimate, in one study, the exposure of human populations under climate change to coastal flooding, based on future standards of coastal defences (Nicholls, 2004) and, in a second, access to safe water with respect to the incidence of diarrhoea (Hijioka et al., 2002). The rate of adaptation to climate change was analysed for the agriculture sector using alternative scenarios of innovation uptake (Easterling et al., 2003) by applying different maize yields, representing adaptation scenarios ranging from no adaptation through lagged adaptation rates and responses (following a logistic curve) to perfect (clairvoyant) adaptation (Easterling et al., 2003). This work showed the importance of implied adaptation rates at the farm scale, indicating that clairvoyant approaches to adaptation (most commonly used in CCIAV studies) are likely to overestimate the capacity of individuals to respond to climate change.
One adaptation strategy not considered by Easterling et al. (2003) was land-use change, in the form of autonomous adaptation to climate change driven by the decisions of individual land users (Berry et al., 2006). The land-use change scenarios reported previously can, therefore, be thought of as adaptation scenarios. Future studies, following consultation with key stakeholders, are more likely to include adaptation explicitly as part of socio-economic scenario development, hence offering the possibility of gauging the effectiveness of adaptation options in comparison to scenarios without adaptation (Holman et al., 2005b).
188.8.131.52 Mitigation/stabilisation scenarios
Mitigation scenarios (also known as climate intervention or climate policy scenarios) are defined in the TAR (Morita et al., 2001), as scenarios that “(1) include explicit policies and/or measures, the primary goal of which is to reduce GHG emissions (e.g., carbon taxes) and/or (2) mention no climate policies and/or measures, but assume temporal changes in GHG emission sources or drivers required to achieve particular climate targets (e.g., GHG emission levels, GHG concentration levels, radiative forcing levels, temperature increase or sea level rise limits).” Stabilisation scenarios are an important subset of inverse mitigation scenarios, describing futures in which emissions reductions are undertaken so that GHG concentrations, radiative forcing, or global average temperature change do not exceed a prescribed limit.
Although a wide variety of mitigation scenarios have been developed, most focus on economic and technological aspects of emissions reductions (see Morita et al., 2001; van Vuuren et al., 2006; Naki?enovi? et al., 2007). The lack of detailed climate change projections derived from mitigation scenarios has hindered impact assessment. Simple climate models have been used to explore the implications for global mean temperature (see Box 2.8 and Naki?enovi? et al., 2007), but few AOGCM runs have been undertaken (see Meehl et al., 2007, for recent examples), with few direct applications in regional impact assessments (e.g., Parry et al., 2001). An alternative approach uses simple climate model projections of global warming under stabilisation to scale AOGCM patterns of climate change assuming unmitigated emissions, and then uses the resulting scenarios to assess regional impacts (e.g., Bakkenes et al., 2006).
Box 2.8. CO2 stabilisation and global mean temperature response
Global mean annual temperature (GMAT) is the metric most commonly employed by the IPCC and adopted in the international policy arena to summarise future changes in global climate and their likely impacts (see Chapter 19, Box 2). Projections of global mean warming during the 21st century for the six SRES illustrative scenarios are presented by WG I (Meehl et al., 2007) and summarised in Figure 2.8. These are baseline scenarios assuming no explicit climate policy (see Box 2). A large number of impact studies reported by WG II have been conducted for projection periods centred on the 2020s, 2050s and 2080s, but only best estimates of GMAT change for these periods were available for three SRES scenarios based on AOGCMs (coloured dots in the middle panel of Figure 2.8). Best estimates (red dots) and likely ranges (red bars) for all six SRES scenarios are reported only for the period 2090-2099. Ranges are based on a hierarchy of models, observational constraints and expert judgement (Meehl et al., 2007).
A more comprehensive set of projections for these earlier time periods as well as the 2090s is presented in the lower panel of Figure 2.8. These are based on a simple climate model (SCM) and are also reported in WG I (Meehl et al., 2007, Figure 10.26). Although SCM projections for 2090-2099 contributed to the composite information used to construct the likely ranges shown in the middle panel, the projections shown in the middle and lower panels should not be compared directly as they were constructed using different approaches. The SCM projections are included to assist the reader in interpreting how the timing and range of uncertainty in projections of warming can vary according to emissions scenario. They indicate that the rate of warming in the early 21st century is affected little by different emissions scenarios (brown bars in Figure 2.8), but by midcentury the choice of emissions scenario becomes more important for the magnitude of warming (blue bars). By late century, differences between scenarios are large (e.g. red bars in middle panel; orange and red bars in lower panel), and multi-model mean warming for the lowest emissions scenario (B1) is more than 2°C lower than for the highest (A1FI).
GHG mitigation is expected to reduce GMAT change relative to baseline emissions, which in turn could avoid some adverse impacts of climate change. To indicate the projected effect of mitigation on temperature during the 21st century, and in the absence of more recent, comparable estimates in the WG I report, results from the Third Assessment Report based on an earlier version of the SCM are reproduced in the upper panel of Figure 2.8 from the Third Assessment Report. These portray the GMAT response for four CO2-stabilisation scenarios by three dates in the early (2025), mid (2055), and late (2085) 21st century. WG I does report estimates of equilibrium warming for CO2-equivalent stabilisation (Meehl et al., 2007). Note that equilibrium temperatures would not be reached until decades or centuries after greenhouse gas stabilisation.
The scarcity of regional socio-economic, land-use and other detail commensurate with a mitigated future has also hindered impact assessment (see discussion in Arnell et al., 2002). Alternative approaches include using SRES scenarios as surrogates for some stabilisation scenarios (Swart et al., 2002; see Table 2.4), for example to assess impacts on ecosystems (Leemans and Eickhout, 2004) and coastal regions (Nicholls and Lowe, 2004), demonstrating that socio-economic assumptions are a key determinant of vulnerability. Note that WG I reports AOGCM experiments forced by the SRES A1B and B1 emissions pathways up to 2100 followed by stabilisation of concentrations at roughly 715 and 550 ppm CO2 (equated to 835 and 590 ppm equivalent CO2, accounting for other GHGs: see Meehl et al., 2007).
|SRES illustrative scenario||Description of emissions||Surrogate stabilisation scenario|
|A1FI||High end of SRES range||Does not stabilise|
|A1B||Intermediate case||750 ppm|
|A1T||Intermediate/low case||650 ppm|
|A2||High case||Does not stabilise|
|B1||Low end of SRES range||550 ppm|
|B2||Intermediate/low case||650 ppm|
A second approach associates impacts with particular levels or rates of climate change and may also determine the emissions and concentration paths that would avoid these outcomes. Climate change and impact outcomes have been identified based on criteria for dangerous interference with the climate system (Mastrandrea and Schneider, 2004; O’Neill and Oppenheimer, 2004; Wigley, 2004; Harvey, 2007) or on meta-analysis of the literature (Hitz and Smith, 2004). A limitation of these types of analyses is that they are not based on consistent assumptions about socio-economic conditions, adaptation and sectoral interactions, and regional climate change.
A third approach constructs a single set of scenario assumptions by drawing on information from a variety of different sources. For example, one set of analyses combines climate change projections from the HadCM2 model based on the S750 and S550 CO2-stabilisation scenarios with socioeconomic information from the IS92a reference scenario in order to assess coastal flooding and loss of coastal wetlands from longterm sea level rise (Nicholls, 2004; Hall et al., 2005) and to estimate global impacts on natural vegetation, water resources, crop yield and food security, and malaria (Parry et al., 2001; Arnell et al., 2002).
184.108.40.206 Scenario integration
The widespread adoption of SRES-based scenarios in studies described in this report (see Boxes 2.2 to 2.7) acknowledges the desirability of seeking consistent scenario application across different studies and regions. For instance, SRES-based downscaled socio-economic projections were used in conjunction with SRES-derived climate scenarios in a set of global impact studies (Arnell et al., 2004; see Section 220.127.116.11). At a regional scale, multiple scenarios for the main global change drivers (socio-economic factors, atmospheric CO2 concentration, climate factors, land use, and technology), were developed for Europe, based on interpretations of the global IPCC SRES storylines (Schröter et al., 2005b; see Box 2.7).
Nationally, scenarios of socio-economic development (Kaivooja et al., 2004), climate (Jylhä et al., 2004), sea level (Johansson et al., 2004), surface ozone exposure (Laurila et al., 2004), and sulphur and nitrogen deposition (Syri et al., 2004) were developed for Finland. Although the SRES driving factors were used as an integrating framework, consistency between scenario types could only be ensured by regional modelling, as simple downscaling from the global scenarios ignored important regional dependencies (e.g., between climate and air pollution and between air pressure and sea level: see Carter et al., 2004). Similar exercises have also been conducted in the east (Lorenzoni et al., 2000) and north-west (Holman et al., 2005b) of England.
Integration across scales was emphasised in the scenarios developed for the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), carried out between 2001 and 2005 to assess the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). An SAS approach (see Section 2.4.5) was followed in developing scenarios at scales ranging from regional through national, basin, and local (Lebel et al., 2005). Many differed greatly from the set of global MA scenarios that were also constructed (Alcamo et al., 2005). This is due, in part, to different stakeholders being involved in the development of scenarios at each scale, but also reflects an absence of feedbacks from the sub-global to global scales (Lebel et al., 2005).
2.4.7 Large-scale singularities
Large-scale singularities are extreme, sometimes irreversible, changes in the Earth system such as abrupt cessation of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) or melting of ice sheets in Greenland or West Antarctica (see Meehl et al., 2007; Randall et al., 2007; also Chapter 19, Section 19.3.5). With few exceptions, such events are not taken into account in socio-economic assessments of climate change. Shutdown of the MOC is simulated in Earth system models of intermediate complexity subject to large, rapid forcing (Meehl et al., 2007; also Chapter 19, Section 18.104.22.168). Artificial ‘hosing’ experiments, assuming the injection of large amounts of freshwater into the oceans at high latitudes, also have been conducted using AOGCMs (e.g., Vellinga and Wood, 2002; Wood et al., 2003) to induce an MOC shutdown. Substantial reduction of greenhouse warming occurs in the Northern Hemisphere, with a net cooling occurring mostly in the North Atlantic region (Wood et al., 2003). Such scenarios have subsequently been applied in impact studies (Higgins and Vellinga, 2004; Higgins and Schneider, 2005; also see Chapter 19, Section 22.214.171.124)
Complete deglaciation of Greenland and the West Antarctica Ice Sheet (WAIS) would raise sea level by 7 m and about 5 m, respectively (Meehl et al., 2007; also Report Chapter 19, Section 126.96.36.199). One recent study assumed an extreme rate of sea level rise, 5 m by 2100 (Nicholls et al., 2005), to test the limits of adaptation and decision-making (Dawson et al., 2005; Tol et al., 2006). A second study employed a scenario of rapid sea level rise of 2.2 m by 2100 by adding an ice sheet contribution to the highest TAR projection for the period, with the increase continuing unabated after 2100 (Arnell et al., 2005). Both studies describe the potential impacts of such a scenario in Europe, based on expert assessments.
2.4.8 Probabilistic futures
Since the TAR, many studies have produced probabilistic representations of future climate change and socio-economic conditions suitable for use in impact assessment. The choices faced in these studies include which components of socioeconomic and climate change models to treat probabilistically and how to define the input probability density functions (pdfs) for each component. Integrated approaches derive pdfs of climate change from input pdfs for emissions and for key parameters in models of GHG cycles, radiative forcing, and the climate system. The models then sample repeatedly from the uncertainty distributions for inputs and model parameters, in order to produce a pdf of outcomes, e.g., global temperature and precipitation change. Either simple climate models (e.g.,Wigley and Raper, 2001) or climate models of intermediate complexity (Forest et al., 2002) have been applied.
Alternative methods of developing pdfs for emissions are described in Naki?enovi? et al. (2007), but they all require subjective judgement in the weighting of different future outcomes, which is a matter of considerable debate (Parson et al., 2006). Some argue that this should be done by experts, otherwise decision-makers will inevitably assign probabilities themselves without the benefit of established techniques to control well-known biases in subjective judgements (Schneider, 2001, 2002; Webster et al., 2002, 2003). Others argue that the climate change issue is characterised by ‘deep uncertainty’– i.e., system models, parameter values, and interactions are unknown or contested – and therefore the elicited probabilities may not accurately represent the nature of the uncertainties faced (Grübler and Naki?enovi?, 2001; Lempert et al., 2004).
The most important uncertainties to be represented in pdfs of regional climate change, the scale of greatest relevance for impact assessments, are GHG emissions, climate sensitivity, and inter-model differences in climatic variables at the regional scale. Other important factors include downscaling techniques, and regional forcings such as aerosols and land-cover change (e.g., Dessai, 2005). A rapidly growing literature reporting pdfs of climate sensitivity is providing a significant methodological advance over the long-held IPCC estimate of 1.5°C to 4.5°C for the (non-probabilistic) range of global mean annual temperature change for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (see Meehl et al., 2007, for a detailed discussion). For regional change, recent methods of applying different weighting schemes to multi-model ensemble projections of climate are described in Christensen et al. (2007a). Other work has examined the full chain of uncertainties from emissions to regional climate. For example, Dessai et al. (2005b) tested the sensitivity of probabilistic regional climate changes to a range of uncertainty sources including climate sensitivity, GCM simulations, and emissions scenarios. The ENSEMBLES research project is modelling various sources of uncertainty to produce regional probabilities of climate change and its impacts for Europe (Hewitt and Griggs, 2004).
Methods to translate probabilistic climate changes for use in impact assessment (e.g., New and Hulme, 2000; Wilby and Harris, 2006; Fowler et al., 2007) include those assessing probabilities of impact threshold exceedance (e.g., Jones, 2000, 2004; Jones et al., 2007). Wilby and Harris (2006) combined information from various sources of uncertainty (emissions scenarios, GCMs, statistical downscaling, and hydrological model parameters) to estimate probabilities of low flows in the River Thames basin, finding the most important uncertainty to be the differences between the GCMs, a conclusion supported in water resources assessments in Australia (Jones and Page, 2001; Jones et al., 2005). Scholze et al. (2006) quantified risks of changes in key ecosystem processes on a global scale, by grouping scenarios according to ranges of global mean temperature change rather than considering probabilities of individual emissions scenarios. Probabilistic impact studies sampling across emissions, climate sensitivity, and regional climate change uncertainties have been conducted for wheat yield (Howden and Jones, 2004; Luo et al., 2005), coral bleaching (Jones, 2004; Wooldridge et al., 2005), water resources (Jones and Page, 2001; Jones et al., 2005), and freshwater ecology (Preston, 2006).
2.5 Key conclusions and future directions
Climate change impact, adaptation and vulnerability (CCIAV) assessment has now moved far beyond its early status as a speculative, academic endeavour. As reported elsewhere in this volume, climate change is already under way, impacts are being felt, and some adaptation is occurring. This is propelling CCIAV assessment from being an exclusively research-oriented activity towards analytical frameworks that are designed for practical decision-making. These comprise a limited set of approaches (described in Section 2.2), within which a large range of methods can be applied.
The aims of research and decision analysis differ somewhat in their treatment of uncertainty. Research aims to understand and reduce uncertainty, whereas decision analysis seeks to manage uncertainty in order to prioritise and implement actions. Therefore, while improved scientific understanding may have led to a narrowing of the range of uncertainty in some cases (e.g., increased consensus among GCM projections of regional climate change) and a widening in others (e.g., an expanded range of estimates of adaptive capacity and vulnerability obtained after accounting for alternative pathways of socio-economic and technological development), these results are largely a manifestation of advances in methods for treating uncertainty. Decision makers are increasingly calling upon the research community to provide:
- good-quality information on what impacts are occurring now, their location and the groups or systems most affected,
- reliable estimates of the impacts to be expected under projected climate change,
- early warning of potentially alarming or irreversible impacts,
- estimation of different risks and opportunities associated with a changing climate,
- effective approaches for identifying and evaluating both existing and prospective adaptation measures and strategies,
- credible methods of costing different outcomes and response measures,
- an adequate basis to compare and prioritise alternative response measures, including both adaptation and mitigation.
To meet these demands, future research efforts need to address a set of methodological, technical and information gaps that call for certain actions.
- Continued development of risk-management techniques. Methods and tools should be designed both to address specific climate change problems and to introduce them into mainstream policy and planning decision-making
- New methods and tools appropriate for regional and local application. An increasing focus on adaptation to climate change at local scales requires new methods, scenarios, and models to address emerging issues. New approaches are also reconciling scale issues in scenario development; for example by improving methods of interpreting and quantifying regional storylines, and through the nesting of scenarios at different scales.
- Cross-sectoral assessments. Limited by data and technical complexity, most CCIAV assessments have so far focused on single sectors. However, impacts of climate change on one sector will have implications, directly and/or indirectly, for others – some adverse and some beneficial. To be more policy-relevant, future analyses need to account for the interactions between different sectors, particularly at national level but also through global trade and financial flows.
- Collection of empirical knowledge from past experience. Experience gained in dealing with climate-related natural disasters, documented using both modern methods and traditional knowledge, can assist in understanding the coping strategies and adaptive capacity of vulnerable communities, and in defining critical thresholds of impact to be avoided.
- Enhanced observation networks and improved access to existing data. CCIAV studies have increasing requirements for data describing present-day environmental and socioeconomic conditions. Some regions, especially in developing countries, have limited access to existing data, and urgent attention is required to arrest the decline of observation networks. Integrated monitoring systems are needed for observing human-environment interactions.
- Consistent approaches in relation to scenarios in other assessments. Integration of climate-related scenarios with those widely accepted and used by other international bodies is desirable (i.e., mainstreaming). The exchange of ideas and information between the research and policy communities will greatly improve scenario quality, usage, and acceptance.
- Improved scenarios for poorly specified indicators. CCIAV outcomes are highly sensitive to assumptions about factors such as future technology and adaptive capacity that at present are poorly understood. For instance, the theories and processes of technological innovation and its relationship with other indicators such as education, wealth, and governance require closer attention, as do studies of the processes and costs of adaptation.
- Integrated scenarios. There are shortcomings in how interactions between key drivers of change are represented in scenarios. Moreover, socio-economic and technological scenarios need to account for the costs and other ancillary effects of both mitigation and adaptation actions, which at present are rarely considered.
- Provision of improved climate predictions for near-term planning horizons. Many of the most severe impacts of climate change are manifest through extreme weather and climate events. Resource planners increasingly need reliable information, years to decades ahead, on the risks of adverse weather events at the scales of river catchments and communities.
- Effective communication of the risks and uncertainties of climate change. To gain trust and improve decisions, awareness-building and dialogue is necessary between those stakeholders with knowledge to share (including researchers) and with the wider public.
- ^ Hereafter, IPCC Working Groups I, II, and III are referred to as WG I, WG II, and WG III, respectively.
- ^ The seven steps are: 1. Define problem, 2. Select method, 3. Test method/sensitivity, 4. Select scenarios, 5. Assess biophysical/socio-economic impacts, 6. Assess autonomous adjustments, 7. Evaluate adaptation strategies.
- ^The degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity (IPCC, 2001b, Glossary).
- ^ http://www.ciesin.org/index.html
- ^ http://www.desinventar.org/desinventar.html
- ^ http://maindb.unfccc.int/public/adaptation
^ Of 17 chapters surveyed, SRES-based scenarios were used by the majority of impact studies in 5 chapters, and by a large minority in 11
chapters. The most common usage is for climate scenarios, while examples of studies employing SRES-based socio-economic, environmental,
or land-use scenarios comprise a small but growing number. The remaining impact studies used either earlier IPCC scenarios (e.g., IS92) or
characterisations derived from other sources.
- ^ Defined in the TAR as “techniques developed with the goal of enhancing the regional information provided by coupled AOGCMs and providing fine-scale climate information” (Giorgi et al., 2001).
- ^ Scatter diagrams are downloadable at: http://www.ipcc-data.org/sres/scatter_plots/scatterplots_region.html
- ^ 30-year averaging periods for model projections held at the IPCC Data Distribution Centre.
- ^ Best estimate and likely range of equilibrium warming for seven levels of CO2-equivalent stabilisation: 350 ppm, 1.0°C [0.6–1.4]; 450 ppm, 2.1°C [1.4–3.1]; 550 ppm, 2.9°C [1.9–4.4]; 650 ppm, 3.6°C [2.4–5.5]; 750 ppm, 4.3°C [2.8–6.4]; 1,000 ppm, 5.5°C [3.7–8.3] and 1,200 ppm, 6.3°C [4.2–9.4] (Meehl et al., 2007, Table 10.8).
Coordinating Lead Authors:
Timothy R. Carter (Finland), Roger N. Jones (Australia), Xianfu Lu (UNDP/China)
Suruchi Bhadwal (India), Cecilia Conde (Mexico), Linda O. Mearns (USA), Brian C. O’Neill (IIASA/USA), Mark D.A. Rounsevell (Belgium), Monika B. Zurek (FAO/Germany)
Jacqueline de Chazal (Belgium), Stéphane Hallegatte (France), Milind Kandlikar (Canada), Malte Meinshausen (USA/Germany), Robert Nicholls (UK), Michael Oppenheimer (USA), Anthony Patt (IIASA/USA), Sarah Raper (UK), Kimmo Ruosteenoja (Finland), Claudia Tebaldi (USA), Detlef van Vuuren (The Netherlands)
Hans-Martin Füssel (Germany), Geoff Love (Australia), Roger Street (UK)
Print versions of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Reports are available from Cambridge University Press.
- Abildtrup, J., E.Audsley, M. Fekete-Farkas, C. Giupponi, M. Gylling, P. Rosato and M.D.A. Rounsevell, 2006: Socio-economic scenario development for the assessment of climate change impacts on agricultural land use: a pairwise comparison approach. Environ. Sci. Policy, 9, 101-115.
- ACIA, 2005: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1042 pp.
- Acosta-Michlik, L. and M.D.A. Rounsevell, 2005: From generic indices to adaptive agents: shifting foci in assessing vulnerability to the combined impacts of climate change and globalization. IHDPUpdate: Newsletter of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change, 01/2005, 14-15.
- ADB, 2005: ClimateProofing: A Risk-based Approach to Adaptation. Pacific Studies Series, Pub. Stock No. 030905, Asian Development Bank, Manila, 191 pp.
- Adger, W.N., 2006: Vulnerability. Global Environ. Chang., 16, 268-281.
- Aggarwal, P.K., N. Kalra, S. Chander and H. Pathak, 2006: InfoCrop: a dynamic simulation model for the assessment of crop yields, losses due to pests and environmental impact of agro-ecosystems in tropical environments – model description. Agr. Syst., 89, 1-25.
- Ahmad, Q.K., R.A. Warrick, T.E. Downing, S. Nishioka, K.S. Parikh, C. Parmesan, S.H. Schneider, F. Toth and G. Yohe, 2001: Methods and tools. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange, J.J. McCarthy, O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken and K.S. White,Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 105-143.
- Ahn, S.E.,A.J.PlantingaandR.J.Alig,2002: Determinants and projections of land-use in the South Central United States. South. J.Appl. For., 26, 78-84.
- Alcamo, J., 2001: Scenarios as a tool for international environmental assessments.Environmental Issue Report No 24, European Environmental Agency, 31.
- Alcamo, J., P. Mayerhofer, R. Guardans, T. van Harmelen, J. van Minnen, J.Onigkeit, M. Posch and B. de Vries, 2002: An integrated assessment of regionalair pollution and climate change in Europe: findings of the AIR-CLIM Project.Environ. Sci. Policy, 4, 257-272.
- Alcamo, J., D. van Vuuren, C. Ringler, J. Alder, E. Bennett, D. Lodge, T. Masui, T.Morita, M. Rosegrant, O. Sala, K. Schulze and M. Zurek, 2005: Methodologyfor developing the MA scenarios. EcosystemsandHumanWell¬Being:Scenarios:Findings of the Scenarios Working Group (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series), S.R. Carpenter, P.L. Pingali, E.M. Bennett and M.B. Zurek, Eds., IslandPress, Washington, D.C., 145-172.
- Alcamo, J., M. Flörke and M. Märker, 2006a: Changes in Global Water Resources Driven by Socio-economic and Climatic Changes. Research Report, Center for Environmental Systems Research, University of Kassel, Germany, 34 pp.
- Alcamo, J., K. Kok, G. Busch, J. Priess, B. Eickhout, M.D.A. Rounsevell, D. Roth-man and M. Heistermann, 2006b: Searching for the future of land: scenarios fromthe local to global scale. Land Use and Land Cover Change: Local Processes, Global Impacts, E. Lambin and H. Geist, Eds., Global Change IGBP Series,Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 137-156.
- Allen, J. and K. Lu, 2003: Modeling and prediction of future urban growth in the Charleston region of South Carolina: a GIS-based integrated approach. Conserv. Ecol., 8, 2. Accessed 26.02.07: http://www.consecol.org/vol8/iss2/art2.
- Anyah, R. and F. Semazzi, 2004: Simulation of the sensitivity of Lake Victoria basin climate to lake surface temperatures. Theor. Appl. Climatol., 79, 55-69.
- Araújo, M.B. and C. Rahbek, 2006: How does climate change affect biodiversity? Science, 313, 1396-1397.
- Arenstam Gibbons, S.J. and R.J. Nicholls, 2006: Island abandonment and sea-level rise: an historical analog from the Chesapeake Bay, USA. Global Environ. Chang., 16, 40-47.
- Arnell, N., D. Hudson and R. Jones, 2003: Climate change scenarios from a regional climate model: estimating change in runoff in southern Africa. J.Geophys. Res.–Atmos., 108(D16), doi:10.1029/2002JD002782.
- Arnell, N., E. Tompkins, N. Adger and K. Delaney, 2005: Vulnerability to abrupt climate change in Europe. Technical Report 34, Tyndall Centre for ClimateChange Research, Norwich, 63 pp.
- Arnell, N.W., 2004: Climate change and global water resources: SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environ. Chang., 14, 31-52.
- Arnell, N.W., M.G.R. Cannell, M. Hulme, R.S. Kovats, J.F.B. Mitchell, R.J.Nicholls, M.L. Parry, M.T.J. Livermore and A. White, 2002: The consequences of CO2 stabilisation for the impacts of climate change. ClimaticChange, 53, 413-446.
- Arnell, N.W., M.J.L. Livermore, S. Kovats, P.E. Levy, R. Nicholls, M.L. Parry and S.R. Gaffin, 2004: Climate and socio-economic scenarios for global-scale climate change impacts assessments: characterising the SRES storylines. Global Environ. Chang., 14, 3-20.
- AS/NZS, 2004: Risk Management. Australian/New Zealand Standard for RiskManagement, AS/NZS 4360:2004. 38 pp.
- Audsley, E., K.R. Pearn, C. Simota, G. Cojocaru, E. Koutsidou, M.D.A. Rounsevell, M. Trnka and V.Alexandrov, 2006: What can scenario modelling tell us about future European scale agricultural land use and what not? Environ.Sci.Policy, 9,148-162.
- Australian Greenhouse Office, 2006: Climate Change Impacts and Risk Management: A Guide for Business and Government. Prepared for the Australian Greenhouse Office by Broadleaf Capital International and Marsden Jacob Associates,73 pp.
- Bakkenes, M., J. Alkemade, F. Ihle, R. Leemans and J. Latour, 2002: Assessing theeffects of forecasted climate change on the diversity and distribution of Europeanhigher plants for 2050. Glob. Change Biol., 8, 390-407.
- Bakkenes, M., B. Eickhout and R.Alkemade, 2006: Impacts of different climate stabilisation scenarios on plant species in Europe. Global Environ. Chang., 16, 19-28.
- Barlage, M.J., P.L. Richards, P.J. Sousounis and A.J. Brenner, 2002: Impacts of climate change and land use change on runoff from a Great Lakes watershed. J. Great Lakes Res., 28, 568-582.
- Bärlund, I. and T.R. Carter, 2002: Integrated global change scenarios: surveyinguser needs in Finland. Global Environ. Chang., 12, 219-229.
- Barredo, J.I., M. Kasanko, N. McCormick and C. Lavalle, 2003: Modelling dynamic spatial processes: simulation of urban future scenarios through cellular automata. Landscape Urban Plan., 64, 145-160.
- Barredo, J.I., L. Demicheli, C. Lavalle, M. Kasanko and N. McCormick, 2004:Modelling future urban scenarios in developing countries: an application case study in Lagos, Nigeria. Environ. Plann. B, 31, 65-84.
- Bathurst, J.C., G. Moretti, A. El-Hames,A. Moaven-Hashemi and A. Burton, 2005:Scenario modelling of basin-scale, shallow landslide sediment yield, Valsassina,Italian Southern Alps. Nat. Hazard. Earth Sys., 5, 189-202.
- Beniston, M., D.B. Stephenson, O.B. Christensen, C.A.T. Ferro, C. Frei, S. Goyette, K. Halsnaes, T. Holt, K. Jylhä, B. Koffi, J. Palutikof, R. Schöll, T. Semmler and K. Woth, 2007: Future extreme events in European climate: an exploration of regional climate model projections. Climatic Change, 81 (Suppl. 1), 71-95.
- Bennett, E.M., S.R. Carpenter, G.D. Peterson, G.S. Cumming, M. Zurek and P. Pingali, 2003: Why global scenarios need ecology. Front. Ecol. Environ., 1, 322-329.
- Berger, P.A. and J.P. Bolte, 2004: Evaluating the impact of policy options on agricultural landscapes: an alternative-futures approach. Ecol. Appl., 14, 342-354.
- Berkhout, F., J. Hertin and A. Jordan, 2002: Socio-economic futures in climate change impact assessment: using scenarios as “learning machines”. GlobalEnviron. Chang., 12, 83-95.
- Berkhout, F., J. Hertin and D.M. Gann, 2006: Learning to adapt: organisational adaptation to climate change impacts. Climatic Change, 78, 135-156.
- Berry, P.M., M.D.A. Rounsevell, P.A. Harrison and E. Audsley, 2006: Assessing the vulnerability of agricultural land use and species to climate change and the role of policy in facilitating adaptation. Environ. Sci. Policy, 9, 189-204.
- Bettencourt, S., R. Croad, P. Freeman, J. Hay, R. Jones, P. King, P. Lal, A. Mearns, G. Miller, I. Pswarayi-Riddihough, A. Simpson, N. Teuatabo, U. Trotz and M.Van Aalst, 2006: Not If but When: Adapting to Natural Hazards in the Pacific Islands Region: A Policy Note. The World Bank, East Asia and Pacific Region, Pacific Islands Country Management Unit, Washington, DC, 43 pp.
- Bhadwal, S. and R. Singh, 2002: Carbon sequestration estimates for forestry options under different land-use scenarios in India. Curr. Sci. India, 83, 1380-1386.
- Bindoff, N., J. Willebrand, V.Artale,A. Cazenave, J. Gregory, S. Gulev, K. Hanawa, C.L. Quéré, S. Levitus, Y. Nojiri, C.K. Shum, L. Talley and A. Unnikrishnan, 2007: Observations: oceanic climate change and sea level. Climate Change 2007:The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H. L. Miller,Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 385-432.
- Bouwer, L.M. and P. Vellinga, 2005: Some rationales for risk sharing and financing adaptation. Water Sci. Technol., 51, 89-95.Briassoulis, H., 2001: Policy-oriented integrated analysis of land-use change: ananalysis of data needs. Environ. Manage., 27, 1-11.
- Brooks, N., W.N. Adger and P.M. Kelly, 2005: The determinants of vulnerabilityand adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation.Global Environ. Chang., 15, 151-163.
- Burton,I. and M.vanAalst,2004: Look Before You Leap: A Risk Management Approach for Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation into World Bank Operations. World Bank, Washington, DC, 47 pp.
- Burton, I., S. Huq, B. Lim, O. Pilifosova and E.L. Schipper, 2002: From impactsassessment to adaptation priorities: the shaping of adaptation policy. Clim. Policy, 2, 145-159.
- Busch, G., 2006: Future European agricultural landscapes: what can we learn from existing quantitative land use scenario studies? Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 114, 121-140.
- Caires, S. and A. Sterl, 2005: 100-year return value estimates for ocean wind speed and significant wave height from the ERA-40 data. J. Climate, 18, 1032-1048.
- Carter, T.R., M.L. Parry, S. Nishioka, H. Harasawa, R. Christ, P. Epstein, N.S. Jodha, E. Stakhiv and J. Scheraga, 1996: Technical guidelines for assessing climate change impacts and adaptations. Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific Technical Analyses. Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, R.T. Watson, M.C. Zinyowera and R.H. Moss, Eds.,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 823-833.
- Carter, T.R., E.L. La Rovere, R.N. Jones, R. Leemans, L.O. Mearns, N. Naki?enovi? A.B. Pittock, S.M. Semenov and J. Skea, 2001: Developing and applying scenarios. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.J. McCarthy, O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken and K.S. White, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 145-190.
- Carter, T.R., S. Fronzek and I. Bärlund, 2004: FINSKEN: a framework for developing consistent global change scenarios for Finland in the 21st century. Boreal Environ. Res., 9, 91-107.
- Carter, T.R., K. Jylhä, A. Perrels, S. Fronzek and S. Kankaanpää, Eds., 2005: FINADAPT scenarios for the 21st century: alternative futures for considering adaptation to climate change in Finland. FINADAPT Working Paper 2, FinnishEnvironment Institute Mimeographs 332, Helsinki, 42 pp. Accessed 26.02.07:http://www.environment.fi/default.asp?contentid=162966&lan=en
- Casman, E.A., M.G. Morgan and H. Dowlatabadi, 1999: Mixed levels of uncertainty in complex policy models. Risk Anal., 19, 33-42.
- Castles, I. and D. Henderson, 2003: The IPCC emission scenarios: an economic-statistical critique. Energ. Environ., 14, 159-185.
- Cebon, P., U. Dahinden, H.C. Davies, D. Imboden and C.G. Jaeger, 1999: Views from the Alps: Regional Perspectives on Climate Change. MIT Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 536 pp.
- Christensen, J.H., B. Hewitson, A. Busuioc, A. Chen, X. Gao, I. Held, R. Jones,W.-T. Kwon, R. Laprise, V.M. Rueda, L.O. Mearns, C.G. Menéndez, J. Räisänen, A. Rinke, R.K. Kolli, A. Sarr and P. Whetton, 2007a: Regional climate projections. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B.Averyt, M. Tignor and H. L. Miller, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 847-940.
- Christensen, J.H., T.R. Carter, M. Rummukainen and G. Amanatidis, 2007b: Eval¬uating the performance and utility of regional climate models: the PRUDENCEproject. Climatic Change, 81 (Suppl. 1), 1-6.
- Church, J.A., J.M. Gregory, P. Huybrechts, M. Kuhn, K. Lambeck, M.T. Nhuan, D.Qin and P.L. Woodworth, 2001: Changes in sea level. ClimateChange2001:TheScientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.T. Houghton, Y. Ding,
- D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell and C.A. Johnson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 639-693.CLIMsystems, 2005: SimCLIM Sea Level Scenario Generator Overview of Methods, R. Warrick, 5 pp. Accessed 27.02.07: http://www.climsystems.com/site/downloads/?dl=SSLSG_Methods.pdf.
- Cohen, S.J., 1997: Scientist-stakeholder collaboration in integrated assessment ofclimate change: lessons from a case study of Northwest Canada. Environ.Model. Assess., 2, 281-293.
- Conde, C. and K. Lonsdale, 2005: Engaging stakeholders in the adaptation process. Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures, B. Lim, E. Spanger-Siegfried, I. Burton, E. Malone and S.Huq, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 47-66.
- Conde, C., R. Ferrer and S. Orozco, 2006: Climate change and climate variability impacts on rainfed agricultural activities and possible adaptation measures: a Mexican case study. Atmosfera, 19, 181-194.
- COP, 2005: Five-year programme of work of the Subsidiary Body for Scientificand Technological Advice on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. Decision -/CP.11, Proceedings of Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Montreal, 5 pp. Accessed 27.02.07: http://unfccc.int/adaptation/sbsta_agenda_item_adaptation/items/ 2673.php.
- Cox, P.M., R.A. Betts, M. Collins, P.P. Harris, C. Huntingford and C.D. Jones, 2004: Amazonian forest dieback under climate-carbon cycle projections for the 21st century. Theor.Appl. Climatol., 78, 137-156.
- Cubasch, U., G.A. Meehl, G.J. Boer, R.J. Stouffer, M. Dix, A. Noda, C.A. Senior, S. Raper and K.S. Yap, 2001: Projections of future climate change. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.T.Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K.Maskell and C.A. Johnson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 525-582.
- Cumming, G.S., J. Alcamo, O. Sala, R. Swart, E.M. Bennett and M. Zurek, 2005: Are existing global scenarios consistent with ecological feedbacks? Ecosystems,8, 143-152.
- Dawson, R.J., J.W. Hall, P.D. Bates and R.J. Nicholls, 2005: Quantified analysis ofthe probability of flooding in the Thames Estuary under imaginable worst-case sealevel rise scenarios. Int. J. Water Resour. D., 21, 577-591.
- de Koning, G.H.J., P.H. Verburg, A. Veldkamp and L.O. Fresco, 1999: Multi-scalemodelling of land use change dynamics in Ecuador. Agr. Syst., 61, 77-93.
- de Nijs, T.C.M., R. de Niet and L. Crommentuijn, 2004: Constructing land-usemaps of the Netherlands in 2030. J. Environ. Manage., 72, 35-42.
- DeFries, R.S., L. Bounoua and G.J. Collatz, 2002: Human modification of the landscape and surface climate in the next fifty years. Glob. Change Biol., 8, 438-458.
- Dempsey, R. and A. Fisher, 2005: Consortium for Atlantic Regional Assessment: information tools for community adapation to changes in climate or land use. Risk Anal., 25, 1495-1509.
- Denman, K.L., G. Brasseur, A. Chidthaisong, P. Ciais, P. Cox, R.E. Dickinson, D.Hauglustaine, C. Heinze, E. Holland, D. Jacob, U. Lohmann, S. Ramachandran,
- P.L. Silva Dias, S.C. Wofsy and X. Zhang, 2007: Couplings between changes inthe climate system and biogeochemistry. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H. L. Miller, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 499-588.
- Dessai, S., 2005: Robust adaptation decisions amid climate change uncertainties.PhD thesis, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, 281 pp.
- Dessai, S. and M. Hulme, 2004: Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities? Clim. Policy, 4, 107-128.Dessai, S., W.N.Adger, M. Hulme, J.R. Turnpenny, J. Köhler and R. Warren, 2004:Defining and experiencing dangerous climate change. Climatic Change, 64, 11-25.
- Dessai, S., X. Lu and J.S. Risbey, 2005a: On the role of climate scenarios for adap¬tation planning. Global Environ. Chang., 15, 87-97.
- Dessai, S., X. Lu and M. Hulme, 2005b: Limited sensitivity analysis of regional cli¬mate change probabilities for the 21st century. J. Geophys. Res.–Atmos., 110,doi:10.1029/2005JD005919.
- Dietz, T., E. Ostrom and P.C. Stern, 2003: The struggle to govern the commons. Sci¬ence, 302, 1907-1912.
- Dirnbock, T., S. Dullinger and G. Grabherr, 2003: A regional impact assessment ofclimate and land-use change on alpine vegetation. J. Biogeogr., 30, 401-417. Discovery Software, 2003: FloodRanger:EducationalFloodManagementGame. Accessed 27.02.07: http://www.discoverysoftware.co.uk/FloodRanger.htm
- Downing,T.E.andA.Patwardhan,2005:Assessing vulnerability for climate adaptation. Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures, B. Lim, E. Spanger-Siegfried, I. Burton, E. Maloneand S. Huq, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 67-90.
- Eakin, H., M. Webhe, C. Ávila, G.S. Torres and L.A. Bojórquez-Tapia, 2006: Acomparison of the social vulnerability of grain farmers in Mexico and Argentina. AIACC Working Paper No. 29, Assessment of Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change in Multiple Regions and Sectors Program, Washington, DC, 50 pp.
- Easterling, W.E., N. Chhetri and X. Niu, 2003: Improving the realism of modelingagronomic adaptation to climate change: simulating technological substitution.Climatic Change, 60, 149-173.
- Eckhardt, K., L. Breuer and H.G. Frede, 2003: Parameter uncertainty and the significance of simulated land use change effects. J. Hydrol., 273, 164-176.
- Ekstrom, M., B. Hingray, A. Mezghani and P.D. Jones, 2007: Regional climate model data used within the SWURVE project. 2. Addressing uncertainty in regional climate model data for five European case study areas. Hydrol.EarthSyst. Sc., 11, 1085-1096.
- El-Fadel, M., D. Jamali and D. Khorbotly, 2002: Land use, land use change andforestry related GHG emissions in Lebanon: economic valuation and policy options. Water Air Soil Poll., 137, 287-303.
- Eriksen, S.H., K. Brown and P.M. Kelly, 2005: The dynamics of vulnerability: locating coping strategies in Kenya and Tanzania. Geogr. J., 171, 287-305.
- Ewert, F., M.D.A. Rounsevell, I. Reginster, M. Metzger and R. Leemans, 2005:Future scenarios of European agricultural land use. I. Estimating changes in cropproductivity. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 107, 101-116.
- Fankhauser, S. and R.S.J. Tol, 2005: On climate change and economic growth. Resour. Energy Econ., 27, 1-17.
- Fearnside, P.M., 2000: Global warming and tropical land-use change: greenhousegas emissions from biomass burning, decomposition and soils in forest conversion, shifting cultivation and secondary vegetation. Climatic Change, 46, 115-158.
- Feenstra, J., I. Burton, J.B. Smith and R.S.J. Tol, Eds., 1998: Handbook on Methods of Climate Change Impacts Assessment and Adaptation Strategies. United Nations Environment Programme, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Institute for Environmental Studies, Amsterdam, 464 pp.
- Fischer, G. and L.X. Sun, 2001: Model based analysis of future land-use development in China. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 85, 163-176.
- Fischer, G., M. Shah and H.V. Velthuizen, 2002: Climate Change and Agricultural Vulnerability. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenberg, 152 pp.
- Fischoff, B., 1996: Public values in risk research. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. SS., 45,75-84.
- Fisher, B.S., G. Jakeman, H.M. Pant, M. Schwoon and R.S.J. Tol, 2006: CHIMP:a simple population model for use in integrated assessment of global environmental change. Integrated Assess. J., 6, 1-33.
- Ford, J. and B. Smit, 2004: A framework for assessing the vulnerability of communities in the Canadian Arctic to risks associated with climate change. Arctic,57, 389-400.
- Forest,C.E.,P.H.Stone,A.P. Sokolov, M.R.Allenand M.D.Webster, 2002: Quantifying uncertainties in climate system properties with the use of recent climate observations. Science, 295, 113-117.
- Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R.A. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Hay-wood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulzand R.V. Dorland, 2007: Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiativeforcing. Climate Change2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B.Averyt, M. Tignor and H. L. Miller, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 129-234.
- Fowler, H.J., S. Blenkinsop and C. Tebaldi, 2007: Linking climate change modelling to impacts studies: recent advances in downscaling techniques for hydrological modelling. Int. J. Climatol., in press.
- Friedlingstein, P., P. Cox, R. Betts, L. Bopp, W. von Bloh, V. Brovkin, P. Cadule, S. Doney, M. Eby, I. Fung, G. Bala, J. John, C. Jones, F. Joos, T. Kato, M.Kawamiya, W. Knorr, K. Lindsay, H.D. Matthews, T. Raddatz, P. Rayner, C.Reick, E. Roeckner, K.-G. Schnitzler, R. Schnur, K. Strassmann, A.J. Weaver, C.Yoshikawa and N. Zeng, 2006: Climate-carbon cycle feedback analysis: resultsfrom the C4MIP model intercomparison. J. Climate, 19, 3337-3353.
- Fronzek, S. and T.R. Carter, 2007:Assessing uncertainties in climate change impactson resource potential for Europe based on projections from RCMs and GCMs. Climatic Change, 81 (Suppl. 1), 357-371.
- Funtowicz, S.O. and J.R. Ravetz, 1990: Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 229 pp.
- Füssel, H.-M. and R.J.T. Klein, 2006: Climate change vulnerability assessments: anevolution of conceptual thinking. Climatic Change, 75, 301-329.
- Gaffin, S.R., C. Rosenzweig, X. Xing and G. Yetman, 2004: Downscaling and geospatial gridding of socio-economic projections from the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). Global Environ. Chang., 14, 105-123.
- Ganopolski, A., V. Petoukhov, S. Rahmstorf, V. Brovkin, M. Claussen, A. Eliseevand C. Kubatzki, 2001: CLIMBER-2: a climate system model of intermediate complexity. Part II. Model sensitivity. Clim. Dynam., 17, 735-751.
- Gao, X.J., D.L. Li, Z.C. Zhao and F. Giorgi, 2003: Numerical simulation for influence of greenhouse effects on climatic change of Qinghai-Xizang Plateau along Qinghai-Xizang railway [in Chinese with English abstract]. PlateauMeteorol., 22,458-463.
- GCOS, 2003: The second report on the adequacy of the global observing systemsfor climate in support of the UNFCCC. Global Climate Observing System, GCOS-82, WMO/TD No. 1143, World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, 74 pp.
- Gedney, N., P.M. Cox, R.A. Betts, O. Boucher, C. Huntingford and P.A. Stott, 2006: Detection of a direct carbon dioxide effect in continental river runoff records. Nature, 439, 835-838.
- Geurs, K.T. and J.R.R. van Eck, 2003: Evaluation of accessibility impacts of land-use scenarios: the implications of job competition, land-use and infrastructure developments for the Netherlands. Environ. Plann. B., 30, 69-87.
- Gigerenzer, G., 2000: Adaptive Thinking: Rationality in the Real World. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 360 pp.
- Giorgi, F., B.C. Hewitson, J.H. Christensen, M. Hulme, H. von Storch, P.H. Whet-ton, R.G. Jones, L.O. Mearns and C.B. Fu, 2001: Regional climate information: evaluation and projections. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contri¬bution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M.Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell and C.A. Johnson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 581-638.
- Glantz, M.H., 2001: Once Burned, Twice Shy? Lessons Learned fromthe 1997=98 El Niño. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, 294 pp.
- Goklany, I., 2005: Is a richer-but-warmer world better than poorer-but-coolerworlds? 25th Annual North American Conference of the US Association for Energy Economics/International Association of Energy Economics, 21¬23 September, 2005.
- Good, P., L. Bärring, C. Giannakopoulos, T. Holt and J. Palutikof, 2006: Non-linear regional relationships between climate extremes and annual mean temperatures in model projections for 1961–2099 over Europe. Climate Res., 31, 19-34.
- Goodess, C.M., C. Hanson, M. Hulme and T.J. Osborn, 2003: Representing climate and extreme weather events in integrated assessment models: a review of existing methods and options for development. Integrated Assess. J., 4, 145-171.
- Government of India, 2004: Vulnerability assessment and adaptation. India’s Initial National Communication to the UNFCCC, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi, 57-132.
- Graham, L.P., S. Hagemann, S. Jaun and M. Beniston, 2007: On interpreting hydrological change from regional climate models. ClimaticChange, 81(Suppl. 1), 97-122.
- Greco, S., R.H. Moss, D. Viner and R. Jenne, 1994: Climate Scenarios and Socio-Economic Projections for IPCC WG II Assessment. Working Document, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Working Group II Technical Support Unit, Washington, DC, 67 pp.
- Group on Earth Observations, 2005: Global Earth Observation System of Systems, GEOSS:10-Year Implementation Plan Reference Document. GEO 1000R / ESASP-1284, ESA Publications Division, Noordwijk, 209 pp. Accessed 27.02.07: http://www.earthobservations.org/docs/10¬Year%20Plan%20Reference%20Document%20(GEO%201000R).pdf
- Grubb, M., J. Köhler and D. Anderson, 2002: Induced technical change in energy and environmental modeling: analytic approaches and policy implications. Annu. Rev. Energ. Env., 27, 271-308.
- Grübler,A.and N. Naki?enovi?,2001:Identifying dangers in an uncertain climate. Nature, 412, 15.
- Grübler,A., N. Naki?enovi? and D.G. Victor, 1999: Modeling technological change:implications for the global environment. Annu. Rev. Energ. Env., 24, 545-569.
- Grübler, A., B. O’Neill, K. Riahi, V. Chirkov, A. Goujon, P. Kolp, I. Prommer, S.Scherbov and E. Slentoe, 2006: Regional, national, and spatially explicit scenarios of demographic and economic change based on SRES. Technol. Forecast. Soc., doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2006.05.023
- Hachadoorian, L., S.R. Gaffin and R. Engleman, 2007: Projecting a gridded pop¬ulation of the world using ratio methods of trend extrapolation. Human Population: The Demography and Geography of Homo Sapiens and their Implicationsfor Biological Diversity, R.P. Cincotta, L. Gorenflo and D. Mageean, Eds.,Springer-Verlag, Berlin, in press.
- Haddad, B.M., 2005: Ranking the adaptive capacity of nations to climate change when socio-political goals are explicit. Global Environ. Chang., 15, 165-176.
- Hall, J., T. Reeder, G. Fu, R.J. Nicholls, J. Wicks, J. Lawry, R.J. Dawson and D.Parker, 2005: Tidal flood risk in London under stabilisation scenarios. Extended Abstract, Symposium on Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, Exeter, 1-3 Feb¬ruary 2005, 4 pp. Accessed 27.02.07: http://www.stabilisation2005.com/posters/Hall_Jim.pdf
- Hallegatte, S., 2005: The long timescales of the climate-economy feedback and theclimatic cost of growth. Environ. Model. Assess., 10, 277-289.
- Hallegatte, S., J.C. Hourcade and P. Dumas, 2006: Why economic dynamics matter in the assessment of climate change damages: illustration extreme events. Ecol. Econ., doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.06.006
- Hallegatte, S., J.-C. Hourcade and P. Ambrosi, 2007: Using climate analogues forassessing climate change economic impacts in urban areas. Climatic Change, 82,47-60.
- Hamilton, J.M., D.J. Maddison and R.S.J. Tol, 2005: Climate change and international tourism: a simulation study. Global Environ. Chang., 15, 253-266.
- Hansen, J., 2004: Defusing the global warming time bomb. Sci. Am., 290, 68-77.
- Harvey, L.D.D., 2007: Dangerous anthropogenic interference, dangerous climate change and harmful climatic change: non-trivial distinctions with significant policy implications. Climatic Change, 82, 1-25.
- Heslop-Thomas, C., W. Bailey, D.Amarakoon,A. Chen, S. Rawlins, D. Chadee, R.Crosbourne, A. Owino, K. Polson, C. Rhoden, R. Stennett and M. Taylor, 2006:Vulnerability to dengue fever in Jamaica. AIACC Working Paper No. 27, Assessment of Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change in Multiple Regions and Sectors Program, Washington, DC, 40 pp.
- Hewitson, B., 2003: Developing perturbations for climate change impact assessments. Eos T. Am. Geophys. Un., 84, 337-348.
- Hewitt, C.D. and D.J. Griggs, 2004: Ensemble-based predictions of climate changesand their impacts. Eos, 85, 566.
- Hewitt, K. and I. Burton, 1971: The Hazardousness of a Place: A Regional Ecology of Damaging Events. University of Toronto, Toronto, 154 pp.
- Higgins, P.A.T. and M. Vellinga, 2004: Ecosystem responses to abrupt climate change: teleconnections, scale and the hydrological cycle. Climatic Change, 64,127-142.
- Higgins, P.A.T. and S.H. Schneider, 2005: Long-term potential ecosystem responsesto greenhouse gas-induced thermohaline circulation collapse. Glob.ChangeBiol.,11, 699-709.
- Hijioka, Y., K. Takahashi, Y. Matsuoka and H. Harasawa, 2002: Impact of globalwarming on waterborne diseases. J. Jpn. Soc. Water Environ., 25, 647-652.
- Hilderink, H., 2004: Population and scenarios: worlds to win? Report 550012001/2004, RIVM, Bilthoven, 74 pp.
- Hingray, B., N. Mouhous, A. Mezghani, B. Schaefli and A. Musy, 2007: Accounting for global-mean warming and scaling uncertainties in climate change impact studies: application to a regulated lake system. Hydrol.EarthSyst.Sc., 11, 1207¬1226.
- Hitz, S. and J. Smith, 2004: Estimating global impacts from climate change. Global Environ. Chang., 14, 201-218.
- Hogrefe, C., B. Lynn, K. Civerolo, J.-Y. Ku, J. Rosenthal, C. Rosenzweig, R. Goldberg, S. Gaffin, K. Knowlton and P.L. Kinney, 2004: Simulating changes in regional air pollution over the eastern United States due to changes in global andregional climate and emissions. J. Geophys. Res., 109,doi:10.1029/2004JD004690.
- Holman, I.P., M.D.A. Rounsevell, S. Shackley, P.A. Harrison, R.J. Nicholls, P.M. Berry and E. Audsley, 2005a: A regional, multi-sectoral and integrated assessment of the impacts of climate and socio-economic change in the UK. II. Results.Climatic Change, 70, 43-73.
- Holman, I.P., M.D.A. Rounsevell, S. Shackley, P.A. Harrison, R.J. Nicholls, P.M.Berry and E. Audsley, 2005b: A regional, multi-sectoral and integrated assessment of the impacts of climate and socio-economic change in the UK. I. Methodology. Climatic Change, 70, 9-41.
- Howden, S.M. and R.N. Jones, 2004: Risk assessment of climate change impactson Australia’s wheat industry. New Directions for a Diverse Planet, Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science Congress, Brisbane, Australia, T. Fischer, Ed. Accessed 27.02.07: http://www.cropscience.org.au/icsc2004/sym¬posia/6/2/1848_howdensm.htm] [Australia and New Zealand, risk
- Hulme, M., G.J. Jenkins, X. Lu, J.R. Turnpenny, T.D. Mitchell, R.G. Jones, J. Lowe, J.M. Murphy, D. Hassell, P. Boorman, R. McDonald and S. Hill, 2002: Climate Change Scenarios for the United Kingdom: The UKCIP02 Scientific Report. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich,120 pp.
- Huntington, H. and S. Fox, 2005: The changing Arctic: indigenous perspectives.Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 61- 98.
- Hurd, B.H., M. Callaway, J. Smith and P. Kirshen, 2004: Climatic change and US water resources: from modeled watershed impacts to national estimates. J. Am. Water Resour.As., 40, 129-148.
- Ionescu, C., R.J.T. Klein, J. Hinkel, K.S. Kavi Kumar and R. Klein, 2005: Towardsa formal framework of vulnerability to climate change. NeWater Working Paper2, 24 pp. Accessed from http://www.newater.info.
- IPCC, 1992: Climate Change 1992: The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment, J.T. Houghton, B.A. Callander and S.K. Varney, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 200 pp.
- IPCC, 1994: IPCC Technical guidelines for assessing climate change impacts andadaptations. IPCC Special Report to the First Session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Working Group II, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, T.R. Carter, M.L. Parry, S. Nishioka and H. Harasawa, Eds., University College London and Center for Global Environmental Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba,59 pp.
- IPCC, 1996: Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.T. Houghton, L.G.M. Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris,A. Kattenberg and K. Maskell, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,572 pp.
- IPCC, 2001a: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van derLinden, X. Dai, K. Maskell and C.A. Johnson, Eds., Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, 881 pp.
- IPCC, 2001b: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.J. McCarthy, O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken and K.S. White, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1032 pp.
- IPCC, 2001c: Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, R.T. Watson and the Core Writing Team, Eds., CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, 398 pp.
- IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H. L. Miller, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 996 pp.
- IPCC-TGCIA, 1999: Guidelines on the Use of Scenario Data for Climate Impactand Adaptation Assessment: Version 1. Prepared by T.R. Carter, M. Hulme and M. Lal, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Task Group on Scenariosfor Climate Impact Assessment, Supporting Material, 69 pp. Accessed 27.07.02:http://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/ggm_no1_v1_12-1999.pdf
- IRI, 2006: A Gap Analysis for the Implementation of the Global Climate Observing System Programme in Africa. International Research Institute for Climate and Society, The Earth Institute at Columbia University, Palisades, New York, 47 pp.
- ISO/IEC, 2002: Risk management: vocabulary: guidelines for use in standards, PDISO/IEC Guide 73, International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 16 pp.
- Ivey, J.L., J. Smithers, R.C. de Loë and R.D. Kreutzwiser, 2004: Community capacity for adaptation to climate-induced water shortages: linking institutional complexity and local actors. Environ. Manage., 33, 36-47.
- Izaurralde, R.C., N.J. Rosenberg, R.A. Brown and A.M. Thomson, 2003: Integrated assessment of Hadley Centre (HadCM2) climate-change impacts on agricultural productivity and irrigation water supply in the conterminous United States. Part
- II. Regional agricultural production in 2030 and 2095. Agr.ForestMeteorol., 117, 97-122. Jacobs, K., 2002: Connecting Science, Policy and Decisionmaking: A Handbook for Researchers and Science Agencies. NOAA Office of Global Programs, Washington, DC, 30 pp.
- Jacoby, H.D., 2004: Informing climate policy given incommensurable benefits estimates. Global Environ. Chang., 14, 287-297.
- Johansson, M.M., K.K. Kahma, H. Boman and J. Launiainen, 2004: Scenarios forsea level on the Finnish coast. Boreal Environ. Res., 9, 153-166.
- Jones, R.N., 2000: Managing uncertainty in climate change projections: issues forimpact assessment. Climatic Change, 45, 403-419.
- Jones, R.N., 2001: An environmental risk assessment/management framework forclimate change impact assessments. Nat. Hazards, 23, 197-230.
- Jones, R.N., 2004: Managing climate change risks. The Benefits of Climate Policies:Analytical and Framework Issues, J. Corfee Morlot and S. Agrawala, Eds., OECD, Paris, 251-297.
- Jones, R.N. and C.M. Page, 2001: Assessing the risk of climate change on the water resources of the Macquarie River catchment. Integrating Models for Natural Resources Management Across Disciplines, Issues and Scales (Part 2), Modsim2001InternationalCongress on Modelling and Simulation, F. Ghassemi, P. Whet-ton, R. Little and M. Littleboy, Eds., Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, Canberra, 673-678.
- Jones, R.N. and R. Boer, 2005: Assessing current climate risks. Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures, B. Lim, E. Spanger-Siegfried, I. Burton, E. Malone and S. Huq, Eds., CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge and New York, 91-118.
- Jones, R.N. and L.O. Mearns, 2005:Assessing future climate risks. Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures, B. Lim, E. Spanger-Siegfried, I. Burton, E. Malone and S. Huq, Eds.,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 119-143.
- Jones, R.N., P. Durack, C. Page and J. Ricketts, 2005: Climate change impacts onthe water resources of the Fitzroy River Basin. Climate Change in Queensland under Enhanced Greenhouse Conditions, W. Cai et al., Eds., Report 2004–05,CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Melbourne, 19-58.
- Jones, R.N., P. Dettmann, G. Park, M. Rogers and T. White, 2007: The relationshipbetween adaptation and mitigation in managing climate change risks: a regionalapproach. Mitig.Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change, 12, 685–712.
- Jönsson, A.M., M.-L. Linderson, I. Stjernquist, P. Schlyter and L. Bärring, 2004:Climate change and the effect of temperature backlashes causing frost damage in Picea abies. Global Planet. Change, 44, 195-207.
- Justice, C.O., L. Giglio, S. Korontzi, J. Owens, J.T. Morisette, D. Roy, J. Descloitres, S. Alleaume, F. Petitcolin and Y. Kaufman, 2002: The MODIS fire products. Remote Sens. Environ., 83, 244-262.Jylhä, K., H. Tuomenvirta and K. Ruosteenoja, 2004: Climate change projectionsfor Finland during the 21st century. Boreal Environ. Res., 9, 127-152.Kahneman, D. andA. Tversky, 1979: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision underrisk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
- Kaivo-oja, J., J. Luukkanen and M. Wilenius, 2004: Defining alternative socio-economic and technological futures up to 2100: SRES scenarios for the case of Finland. Boreal Environ. Res., 9, 109-125.
- Kammen, D., A. Shlyakter and R. Wilson, 1994: What is the risk of the impossible? J. Franklin I., 331(A), 97-116.
- Kankaanpää, S. and T.R. Carter, 2004: Construction of European forest land use sce¬narios for the 21st century. The Finnish Environment 707, Finnish EnvironmentInstitute, Helsinki, 57 pp.
- Kankaanpää, S., T.R. Carter and J. Liski, 2005: Stakeholder perceptions of climatechange and the need to adapt. FINADAPT Working Paper 14, Finnish Environment Institute, Mimeographs 344, Helsinki, 36 pp. Accessed 27.02.07:http://www.environment.fi/default.asp?contentid=165486&lan=en
- Kasperson, R.E., 2006: Rerouting the stakeholder express. GlobalEnviron.Chang.,16, 320-322.
- Kates, R.W. and T.J. Wilbanks, 2003: Making the global local: responding to climate change concerns from the ground. Environment, 45, 12-23.
- Kelly, P.M. and W.N. Adger, 2000: Theory and practice in assessing vulnerabilityto climate change and facilitating adaptation. Climatic Change, 47, 325-352.Kemfert, C., 2002:An integrated assessment model of economy-energy-climate: the model Wiagem. Integrated Assess., 3, 281-298.
- Kenny, G.J., R.A. Warrick, B.D. Campbell, G.C. Sims, M. Camilleri, P.D. Jamieson, N.D. Mitchell, H.G. McPherson and M.J. Salinger, 2000: Investigating climate change impacts and thresholds: an application of the CLIMPACTS integrated assessment model for New Zealand agriculture. Climatic Change, 46, 91-113.
- Klein, R. and R.J. Nicholls, 1999: Assessment of coastal vulnerability to climate change. Ambio, 28, 182-187.
- Klein, R.J.T., E.L.F. Schipper and S. Dessai, 2005: Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: three research questions. Environ. Sci. Policy, 8, 579-588.
- Klöcking, B., B. Strobl, S. Knoblauch, U. Maier, B. Pfutzner andA. Gericke, 2003:Development and allocation of land-use scenarios in agriculture for hydrological impact studies. Phys. Chem. Earth, 28, 1311-1321.
- Kok, K. and M. Winograd, 2002: Modeling land-use change for Central America,with special reference to the impact of hurricane Mitch. Ecol. Model., 149, 53-69.
- Kok, K., D.S. Rothman and M. Patel, 2006a: Multi-scale narratives from an IA perspective. Part I. European and Mediterranean scenario development. Futures, 38,261-284.
- Kok, K., M. Patel, D.S. Rothman and G. Quaranta, 2006b: Multi-scale narrativesfrom an IA perspective. Part II. Participatory local scenario development. Futures, 38, 285-311.
- Kundzewicz, Z.W., U. Ulbrich, T. Brücher, D. Graczyk, A. Krüger, G.C. Lecke¬busch, L. Menzel, I. Pi?skwar, M. Radziejewski and M. Szwed, 2005: Summerfloods in Central Europe: climate change track? Nat. Hazards, 36, 165-189.
- Laurila, T., J.-P. Tuovinen, V. Tarvainen and D. Simpson, 2004: Trends and scenarios of ground-level ozone concentrations in Finland. Boreal Environ. Res., 9,167-184.
- Lebel, L., P. Thongbai, K. Kok, J.B.R. Agard, E. Bennett, R. Biggs, M. Ferreira, C.Filer, Y. Gokhale, W. Mala, C. Rumsey, S.J. Velarde and M. Zurek, 2005: Sub-global scenarios. Ecosystems and Human Well¬Being: Multiscale Assessments,Volume 4, Millennium EcosystemAssessment, S.R. Carpenter, P.L. Pingali, E.M.Bennett and M.B. Zurek, Eds., Island Press, Washington, DC, 229-259.
- Leemans, R. and B. Eickhout, 2004: Another reason for concern: regional andglobal impacts on ecosystems for different levels of climate change. Global Environ. Chang., 14, 219-228.
- Leemans, R., B. Eickhout, B. Strengers, L. Bouwman and M. Schaeffer, 2002: The consequences of uncertainties in land use, climate and vegetation responses on the terrestrial carbon. Sci. China Ser. C, 45, 126-142.
- Lempert, R., N. Naki?enovi?, D. Sarewitz and M.E. Schlesinger, 2004: Characterizing climate change uncertainties for decision-makers. Climatic Change, 65,1-9.
- Leung, L.R., Y. Qian, X. Bian, W.M. Washington, J. Han and J.O. Roads, 2004:Mid-century ensemble regional climate change scenarios for the western United States. Climatic Change, 62, 75-113.
- Levy, P.E., M.G.R. Cannell and A.D. Friend, 2004: Modelling the impact of future changes in climate, CO2 concentration and land use on natural ecosystems and the terrestrial carbon sink. Global Environ. Chang., 14, 21-52.
- Lorenzoni, I., A. Jordan, M. Hulme, R.K. Turner and T. O’Riordan, 2000: Aco-evolutionary approach to climate change impact assessment. Part I. Integrating socio-economic and climate change scenarios. Global Environ. Chang., 10, 57-68.
- Loukopoulos, P. and R.W. Scholz, 2004: Sustainable future urban mobility: using ‘area development negotiations’ for scenario assessment and participatory strategic planning. Environ. Plann. A, 36, 2203-2226.
- Lowe, J.A. and J.M. Gregory, 2005: The effects of climate change on storm surgesaround the United Kingdom. Philos. T. R. Soc.A, 363, 1313-1328.
- Luo, Q., R.N. Jones, M. Williams, B. Bryan and W.D. Bellotti, 2005: Construction of probabilistic distributions of regional climate change and their application in the risk analysis of wheat production. Climate Res., 29, 41-52.
- Luoto, M., J. Pöyry, R.K. Heikkinen and K. Saarinen, 2005: Uncertainty of bioclimate envelope models based on the geographical distribution of species. Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 14, 575-584.
- Malone, E.L. and E.L. La Rovere, 2005: Assessing current and changing socio-economic conditions. Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Strategies, Policies and Measures, B. Lim, E. Spanger-Siegfried, I. Burton, E. Malone and S. Huq, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 145-163.
- Marttila, V., H. Granholm, J. Laanikari, T. Yrjölä, A. Aalto, P. Heikinheimo, J.Honkatukia, H. Järvinen, J. Liski, R. Merivirta and M. Paunio, 2005: Finland’s National Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change. Publication 1a/2005, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Helsinki, 280 pp.
- Mastrandrea, M.D. and S.H. Schneider, 2004: Probabilistic integrated assessment of “dangerous” climate change. Science, 304, 571-575.
- Mathur, A., I. Burton and M.K. van Aalst, Eds., 2004: An Adaptation Mosaic: A Sample of the Emerging World Bank Work in Climate Change Adaptation. The World Bank, Washington, DC, 133 pp.
- Mayerhofer, P., B. de Vries, M. den Elzen, D. van Vuuren, J. Onigheit, M. Poschand R. Guardans, 2002: Long-term consistent scenarios of emissions, deposition and climate change in Europe. Environ. Sci. Policy, 5, 273-305.
- Maynard, K. and J.F. Royer, 2004: Effects of “realistic” land-cover change on agreenhouse-warmed African climate. Clim. Dynam., 22, 343-358.
- McCarthy, J.J. and M. Long Martello, 2005: Climate change in the context of multiple stressors and resilience. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 879-922.
- McKenzie Hedger, M., R. Connell and P. Bramwell, 2006: Bridging the gap: empowering adaptation decision-making through the UK Climate Impacts Programme. Clim. Policy, 6, 201-215.
- Mearns, L.O., M. Hulme, T.R. Carter, R. Leemans, M. Lal and P.H. Whetton, 2001:Climate scenario development. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M.Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell and C.A. Johnson, Eds., Cam¬bridge University Press, Cambridge, 739-768.
- Mearns, L.O., G. Carbone, E. Tsvetsinskaya, R.Adams, B. McCarl and R. Doherty, 2003: The uncertainty of spatial scale of climate scenarios in integrated assess¬ments: an example from agriculture. Integrated Assess., 4, 225-235.
- Meehl, G.A., T.F. Stocker, W. Collins, P. Friedlingstein, A. Gaye, J. Gregory, A.Kitoh, R. Knutti, J. Murphy, A. Noda, S. Raper, I. Watterson, A. Weaver and Z. C. Zhao, 2007: Global climate projections. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignorand H. L. Miller, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 747-846.
- Mendelsohn, R. and L. Williams, 2004: Comparing forecasts of the global impactsof climate change. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change, 9, 315-333.
- Metroeconomica, 2004: Costing the Impacts of Climate Change in the UK. UKCIP Technical Report, United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme Oxford, 90 pp.
- Metzger, M. and D. Schröter, 2006: Towards a spatially explicit and quantitative vulnerability assessment of environmental change in Europe. Reg. Environ. Change, 6, 201-206.
- Metzger, M.J., M.D.A. Rounsevell, R. Leemans and D. Schröter, 2006: The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use change. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 114,69-85.
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005: Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing.Vol. 2: Scenarios: Findings of the Scenarios Working Group, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, S.R. Carpenter, P.L. Pingali, E.M. Bennett and M.B. Zurek, Eds., Island Press, Washington, DC, 560 pp.
- Miller, N.L., K.E. Bashford and E. Strem, 2003: Potential impacts of climate changeon California hydrology. J.Am. Water Resour. As., 39, 771-784.
- Mirza, M.M.Q., 2003a: Three recent extreme floods in Bangladesh, a hydro-meteorological analysis. Nat. Hazards, 28, 35-64.
- Mirza, M.M.Q., 2003b: Climate change and extreme weather events: can developing countries adapt? Clim. Policy, 3, 233-248.
- Morgan, M.G. and M. Henrion, 1990: Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York, 344 pp.
- Morgan, M.G., B. Fischhoff, A. Bostrom and C.J. Atman, 2001: Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 366 pp.
- Moriondo, M., P. Good, R. Durao, M. Bindi, C. Giannakopoulos and J. Corte-Real,2006: Potential impact of climate change on forest fire risk in the Mediterranean area. Climate Res., 31, 85-95.
- Morita, T., J. Robinson, A. Adegbulugbe, J. Alcamo, D. Herbert, E.L. La Rovere, N. Naki?enovi?, H. Pitcher, P. Raskin, K. Riahi, A. Sankovski, V. Sokolov, B. deVries and D. Zhou, 2001: Greenhouse gas emission mitigation scenarios and implications. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange, B. Metz, O. Davidson, R. Swart and J. Pan, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 115-166.
- Moss, R.H., A.L. Brenkert and E.L. Malone, 2001: Vulnerability to Climate Change: A Quantitative Approach.Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
- Muramatsu, R. and Y. Hanich, 2005: Emotions as a mechanism for boundedly rational agents: the fast and frugal way. J. Econ. Psychol., 26, 201-221.Nadarajah, C. and J.D. Rankin, 2005: European spatial planning: adapting to climate events. Weather, 60, 190-194.
- Næss, L.O., G. Bang, S. Eriksen and J. Vevatne, 2005: Institutional adaptation to climate change: flood responses at the municipal level in Norway. Global Environ. Chang., 15, 125-138.
- Naki?enovi?, N., J. Alcamo, G. Davis, B. DeVries, J. Fenhann, S. Gaffin, K. Gre¬gory, A. Gruebler, T.Y. Jung, T. Kram, E.L. La Rovere, L. Michaelis, S. Mori, T.Morita, W. Pepper, H. Pitcher, L. Price, K. Riahi, A. Roehrl, H.-H. Rogner, A.Sankovski, M. Schlesinger, P. Shukla, S. Smith, R. Swart, S. VanRooijen, N. Vic¬tor and Z. Dadi, 2000: Special Reporton Emissions Scenarios: A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 600 pp.
- Naki?enovi?, N., B. Fisher, K. Alfsen, J. Corfee Morlot, F. de la Chesnaye, J.-C.Hourcade, K. Jiang, M. Kainuma, E.L. La Rovere, A. Rana, K. Riahi, R. Richels, D.P. van Vuuren and R. Warren, 2007: Issues related to mitigation in the long-term context. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, B. Metz, O. Davidson, P. Bosch, R. Dave and L.Meyer, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
- National Assessment Synthesis Team, 2000: Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, Overview. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 154 pp.
- Nelson, G.C., E. Bennett, A. Asefaw Berhe, K.G. Cassman, R. DeFries, T. Dietz, A. Dobson, A. Dobermann, A. Janetos, M. Levy, D. Marco, B. O’Neill, N.Naki?enovi?, R. Norgaard, G. Petschel-Held, D. Ojima, P. Pingali, R. Watson and M. Zurek, 2005: Drivers of change in ecosystem condition and services. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Scenarios: Findings of the Scenarios Working Group, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, S.R. Carpenter, P.L. Pingali, E.M.Bennett and M.B. Zurek, Eds., Island Press, Washington, DC, 173-222.
- Neumann, J.E., G. Yohe, R. Nicholls and M. Manion, 2000: Sea-level rise andglobal climate change: a review of impacts to U.S. coasts. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, Virginia.
- New, M. and M. Hulme, 2000: Representing uncertainty in climate change scenarios: a Monte Carlo approach. IntegratedAssess., 1, 203-213.
- Nicholls, R.J., 2004: Coastal flooding and wetland loss in the 21st century: changes under the SRES climate and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environ. Chang.,14, 69-86.
- Nicholls, R.J. and J.A. Lowe, 2004: Benefits of mitigation of climate change forcoastal areas. Global Environ. Chang., 14, 229-244.
- Nicholls, R.J. and R.S.J. Tol, 2006: Impacts and responses to sea-level rise: Aglobalanalysis of the SRES scenarios over the 21st century. Philos.T.R.Soc., 364, 1073-1095.
- Nicholls, R.J., R.S.J. Tol and A.T. Vafeidis, 2005: Global estimates of the impact ofa collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet: an application of FUND. WorkingPaper FNU78, Research Unit on Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, and Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Science, Hamburg, 34 pp.
- Nordhaus, W.D., 2006: Geography and macroeconomics: new data and new findings. P. Natl.Acad. Sci., 103, 3510-3517.
- NRC, 2002: Alerting America: Effective Risk Communication: Summary of a Forum, October 31, 2002, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 10 pp.
- O’Brien, K. and C.H. Vogel, 2006: Who can eat information? Examining the effectiveness of seasonal climate forecasts and regional climate-risk management strategies. Climate Res., 33, 111-122.
- O’Brien, K., S. Eriksen, A. Schjolden and L. Nygaard, 2004a: What’s in a word? Conflicting interpretations of vulnerability in climate change research. Working Paper 2004:04, Centre for International Climate and Environmental ResearchOslo, University of Oslo, Oslo, 16 pp.
- O’Brien, K., R. Leichenko, U. Kelkar, H. Venema, G. Aandahl, H. Tompkins, A.Javed, S. Bhadwal, S. Barg, L. Nygaard and J. West, 2004b: Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors: climate change and globalization in India. Global Environ. Chang., 14, 303-313.
- O’Brien, K., S. Eriksen, L. Sygna and L.O. Naess, 2006: Questioning complacency: climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation in Norway. Ambio, 35, 50-56.
- O’Neill, B.C., 2004: Conditional probabilistic population projections: an application to climate change. Int. Stat. Rev., 72, 167-184.O’Neill, B.C. and M. Oppenheimer, 2004: Climate change impacts are sensitive to the concentration stabilization path. P. Natl.Acad. Sci., 101, 16311-16416.
- Ohlemüller, R., E.S. Gritti, M.T. Sykes and C.D. Thomas, 2006: Towards European climate risk surfaces: the extent and distribution of analogous and non-analogous climates 1931-2100. Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 15, 395-405.
- Olesen, J.E., T.R. Carter, C.H. Díaz-Ambrona, S. Fronzek, T. Heidmann, T. Hickler, T. Holt, M.I. Minguez, P. Morales, J. Palutikof, M. Quemada, M. Ruiz-Ramos, G. Rubæk, F. Sau, B. Smith and M. Sykes, 2007: Uncertainties in projected impacts of climate change on European agriculture and terrestrial ecosystems basedon scenarios from regional climate models. Climatic Change, 81(Suppl. 1), 123-143.
- Osman-Elasha, B., N. Goutbi, E. Spanger-Siegfried, B. Dougherty, A. Hanafi, S. Za¬kieldeen, A. Sanjak, H.A. Atti and H.M. Elhassan, 2006: Adaptation strategies to increase human resilience against climate variability and change: lessons from the arid regions of Sudan. AIACC Working Paper No.42, Assessment of Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change in Multiple Regions and Sectors Program, Washington, DC, 42 pp.
- Ott, B. and S. Uhlenbrook, 2004: Quantifying the impact of land-use changes at the event and seasonal time scale using a process-oriented catchment model. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sc., 8, 62-78.
- Parry, M., N. Arnell, T. McMichael, R. Nicholls, P. Martens, S. Kovats, M. Livermore, C.Rosenzweig, A. Iglesias and G. Fischer, 2001: Millions at risk: defining critical climate change threats and targets. Global Environ. Chang., 11, 181-183.
- Parry, M.L., 2002: Scenarios for climate impact and adaptation assessment. Global Environ. Chang., 12, 149-153.
- Parry, M.L., 2004: Global impacts of climate change under the SRES scenarios.Global Environ. Chang., 14, 1.
- Parry, M.L., T.R. Carter and M. Hulme, 1996: What is dangerous climate change?Global Environ. Chang., 6, 1-6.
- Parry, M.L., N. Arnell, M. Hulme, R.J. Nicholls and M. Livermore, 1998: Adapting to the inevitable. Nature, 395, 741.
- Parry, M.L., N.W. Arnell, M. Hulme, P. Martens, R.J. Nicholls and A. White, 1999:The global impact of climate change: a new assessment. GlobalEnviron.Chang.,9, S1-S2.
- Parry, M.L., C. Rosenzweig, A. Iglesias, M. Livermore and G. Fischer, 2004: Ef¬fects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environ. Chang., 14, 53-67.
- Parson, E.A., R.W. Corell, E.J. Barron, V. Burkett, A. Janetos, L. Joyce, T.R. Karl, M.C. MacCracken, J. Melillo, M.G. Morgan, D.S. Schimel and T. Wilbanks,2003: Understanding climatic impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptation in the United States: building a capacity for assessment. Climatic Change, 57, 9-42.
- Parson, E.A., V. Burkett, K. Fisher-Vanden, D. Keith, L. Mearns, H. Pitcher, C.Rosenzweig and M. Webster, 2006: Global Change Scenarios: Their Development and Use, US Climate Change Science Program No. 2.1b (Final draft forpublic comment), Washington, DC, 339 pp.
- Patt, A. and C. Gwata, 2002: Effective seasonal climate forecast applications: examining constraints for subsistence farmers in Zimbabwe. Global Environ. Chang., 12, 185-195.
- Patt,A.G., R. Klein and A. de la Vega-Leinert, 2005: Taking the uncertainties in climate change vulnerability assessment seriously. C. R. Geosci., 337, 411-424.
- Pearson, R. and T. Dawson, 2003: Predicting the impacts of climate change on thedistribution of species: are bioclimatic envelope models useful? Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 12, 361-371.
- Perez-Garcia, J., L.A. Joyce, A.D. McGuire and X.M. Xiao, 2002: Impacts of climate change on the global forest sector. Climatic Change, 54, 439-461.
- Petoukhov, V.,A. Ganopolski, V. Brovkin, M. Claussen,A. Eliseev, C. Kubatzki and S. Rahmstorf, 2000: CLIMBER-2: a climate system model of intermediate complexity. Part I. Model description and performance for present climate. Clim. Dynam., 16, 1-17.
- Pittock, A.B. and R.N. Jones, 2000: Adaptation to what and why? Environ. Monit. Assess., 61, 9-35.
- Polsky, C., D. Schöeter, A. Patt, S. Gaffin, M.L. Martello, R. Neff, A. Pulsipherand H. Selin, 2003: Assessing vulnerabilities to the effects of global change: an eight-step approach. Belford Centre for Science and International Affairs Working Paper, Environment and Natural Resources Program, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 31 pp.
- Preston, B.L., 2006: Risk-based reanalysis of the effects of climate change on U.S.cold-water habitat. Climatic Change, 76, 91-119.
- Pretty, J.N., I. Guijt, J. Thompson and I. Scoones, 1995: Participatory Learning and Action: A Trainer’s Guide. IIED Training Materials Series No. 1. IIED, London, 268 pp.
- Pulhin, J., R.J.J. Peras, R.V.O. Cruz, R.D. Lasco, F. Pulhin and M.A. Tapia, 2006:Vulnerability of communities to climate variability and extremes: the Pantabangan-Carranglan watershed in the Philippines.AIACC Working Paper No. 44,Assessment of Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change in Multiple Regions and Sectors Program, Washington, DC, 56 pp.
- Quiggin, J. and J. Horowitz, 2003: Costs of adjustment to climate change. Aust. J. Agr. Resour. Ec., 47, 429-446.
- Randall, D., R.A. Wood, S. Bony, R. Colman, T. Fichefet, J. Fyfe, V. Kattsov,A. Pitman, J. Shukla, J. Srinivasan, R.J. Stouffer, A. Sumi and K. Taylor, 2007: Climate models and their evaluation. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H. L. Miller, Eds., CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, 589-662.
- Raskin, P., T. Banuri, G. Gallopin, P. Gutman,A. Hammond, R. Kates and R. Swart,2002: Great Transition: The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead. Global Scenario Group, Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, 99 pp.
- Raskin, P., F. Monks, T. Ribeiro, D. van Vuuren and M. Zurek, 2005: Global scenarios in historical perspective. Ecosystems and Human Well¬Being: Scenarios:Findings of the Scenarios Working Group, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,
- S.R. Carpenter, P.L. Pingali, E.M. Bennett and M.B. Zurek, Eds., Island Press,Washington, DC, 35-44.Reginster, I. and M.D.A. Rounsevell, 2006: Future scenarios of urban land use in Europe. Environ. Plan. B, 33, 619-636.
- Reidsma, P., T. Tekelenburg, M. van den Berg and R. Alkemade, 2006: Impacts of land-use change on biodiversity: an assessment of agricultural biodiversity in the European Union. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 114, 86-102.
- Renn, O., 2004: The challenge of integrating deliberation and expertise: participation and discourse in risk management. Risk Analysis and Society: An Interdisciplinary Characterization of the Field, T.L. MacDaniels and M.J. Small, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 289-366.
- Rial, J.A., R.A. Pielke, M. Beniston, M. Claussen, J. Canadell, P. Cox, H. Held, N.De Noblet-Ducoudre, R. Prinn, J.F. Reynolds and J.D. Salas, 2004: Nonlinearities, feedbacks and critical thresholds within the Earth’s climate system. Climatic Change, 65, 11-38.
- Rosenberg, N.J., R.A. Brown, R.C. Izaurralde and A.M. Thomson, 2003: Integratedassessment of Hadley Centre (HadCM2) climate change projections on agricultural productivity and irrigation water supply in the conterminous United States. I. Climate change scenarios and impacts on irrigation water supply simulated withthe HUMUS model. Agr. Forest Meteorol., 117, 73-96.
- Rotmans, J. and D. Rothman, Eds., 2003: Scaling Issues in Integrated Assessment. Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse, 374 pp.
- Rotmans, J., M.B.A. Van Asselt, C. Anastasi, S.C.H. Greeuw, J. Mellors, S. Peters, D.S. Rothman and N. Rijkens-Klomp, 2000: Visions for a sustainable Europe.Futures, 32, 809-831.
- Rounsevell, M.D.A., F. Ewert, I. Reginster, R. Leemans and T.R. Carter, 2005: Future scenarios of European agricultural land use. II. Estimating changes in land use and regional allocation. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 107, 117-135.
- Rounsevell, M.D.A., I. Reginster, M.B. Araújo, T.R. Carter, N. Dendoncker, F.Ewert, J.I. House, S. Kankaanpää, R. Leemans, M.J. Metzger, C. Schmit, P. Smithand G. Tuck, 2006: A coherent set of future land use change scenarios for Europe. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 114, 57-68.
- Rowe, G. and L. Frewer, 2000: Public participation methods: an evaluative reviewof the literature. Sci. Technol. Hum. Val., 25, 3-29.
- Ruosteenoja, K., T.R. Carter, K. Jylhä and H. Tuomenvirta, 2003: Future climate inworld regions: an intercomparison of model-based projections for the new IPCC emissions scenarios. The Finnish Environment 644, Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, 83 pp.
- Rupa Kumar, K.,A.K. Sahai, K. Krishna Kumar, S.K. Patwardhan, P.K. Mishra, J.V.Revadekar, K. Kamala and G.B. Pant, 2006: High-resolution climate change scenarios for India for the 21st century. Curr. Sci. India, 90, 334-345.
- Sands, R.D. and M. Leimbach, 2003: Modeling agriculture and land use in an integrated assessment framework. Climatic Change, 56, 185-210.
- Sands, R.D. and J.A. Edmonds, 2005: Climate change impacts for the conterminous USA: an integrated assessment. Part 7. Economic analysis of field crops and landuse with climate change. Climatic Change, 69, 127-150.
- Santer, B.D., T.M.L. Wigley, M.E. Schlesinger and J.F.B. Mitchell, 1990: Developing climate scenarios from equilibrium GCM results. Report No. 47, Max Planck-Institut für Meteorologie, Hamburg, 29 pp.
- SBI, 2001: National communications from Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention. Report of the Consultative Group of Experts to the Subsidiary Bodies. Subsidiary Body for Implementation, Document FCCC/SBI/2001/15, United Nations Office, Geneva.
- Schellnhuber, H.J., R. Warren, A. Hazeltine and L. Naylor, 2004: Integrated assessments of benefits of climate policy. The Benefits of Climate Change Policies: Analytic and Framework Issues, J.C. Morlot and S. Agrawala, Eds., Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Paris, 83-110.
- Schneider, S.H., 2001: What is ‘dangerous’ climate change? Nature, 411, 17-19.
- Schneider, S.H., 2002: Can we estimate the likelihood of climatic changes at 2100? Climatic Change, 52, 441-451.
- Schneider, S.H. and K. Kuntz-Duriseti, 2002: Uncertainty and climate change policy. Climate Change Policy: A Survey, S.H. Schneider, A. Rosencranz and J.O.Niles, Eds., Island Press, Washington, DC, 53-87.
- Scholze, M., W. Knorr, N.W. Arnell and I. Prentice, 2006: A climate-change risk analysis for world ecosystems. P. Natl. Acad. Sci., 103, 13116-13120.
- Schröter, D., C. Polsky andA.G. Patt, 2005a: Assessing vulnerabilities to the effectsof global change: an eight-step approach. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change, 10,573-596.
- Schröter, D., W. Cramer, R. Leemans, I.C. Prentice, M.B. Araújo, N.W. Arnell, A. Bondeau, H. Bugmann, T.R. Carter, C.A. Garcia, A.C. de laVega-Leinert, M. Erhard, F. Ewert, M. Glendining, J.I. House, S. Kankaanpää, R.J.T. Klein, S. Lavorel, M. Lindner, M.J. Metzger, J. Meyer, T.D. Mitchell, I. Reginster, M.Rounsevell, S. Sabaté, S. Sitch, B. Smith, J. Smith, P. Smith, M.T. Sykes, K.Thonicke, W. Thuiller, G. Tuck, S. Zaehle and B. Zierl, 2005b: Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science, 310, 1333-1337
- Shackley, S. and R. Deanwood, 2003: Constructing social futures for climate-change impacts and response studies: building qualitative and quantitative scenarios with the participation of stakeholders. Climate Res., 24, 71-90.
- Slovic, P., M.L. Finucane, E. Peters and D.G. MacGregor, 2004: Risk as analysisand risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality. Risk Anal., 24, 311-322.
- Smit, B. and J. Wandel, 2006: Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environ. Chang., 16, 282-292.
- Smith, J.B., H.-J. Schellnhuber, M.M.Q. Mirza, S. Fankhauser, R. Leemans, L.Erda, L. Ogallo, B. Pittock, R. Richels, C. Rosenzweig, U. Safriel, R.S.J. Tol, J.Weyant and G. Yohe, 2001: Vulnerability to climate change and reasons for concern: a synthesis. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.J. McCarthy, O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken and K. S. White, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 913-967.
- Smith, S.J., H. Pitcher and T.M.L. Wigley, 2005: Future sulfur dioxide emissions. Climatic Change, 73, 267-318.
- Solecki, W.D. and C. Oliveri, 2004: Downscaling climate change scenarios in an urban land use change model. J. Environ. Manage., 72, 105-115.
- Stone, M.C., R.H. Hotchkiss and L.O. Mearns, 2003: Water yield responses to high and low spatial resolution climate change scenarios in the Missouri River Basin.Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, doi:10.1029/2002GL016122.
- Swart, R., J. Mitchell, T. Morita and S. Raper, 2002: Stabilisation scenarios for climate impact assessment. Global Environ. Chang., 12, 155-165.
- Syri, S., S. Fronzek, N. Karvosenoja and M. Forsius, 2004: Sulfur and nitrogen oxides emissions in Europe and deposition in Finland during the 21st century. Boreal Environ. Res., 9, 185-198.
- Thaler, R. and E.J. Johnson, 1990: Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: the effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Manage.Sci., 36, 643-660.
- Thomalla, F., T. Cannon, S. Huq, R.J.T. Klein and C. Schaerer, 2005: Mainstreaming adaptation to climate change in coastal Bangladesh by building civil society alliances. Proceedings of the Solutions to Coastal Disasters Conference, L. Wallendorf, L. Ewing, S. Rogers and C. Jones, Eds., Charleston, South Carolina, 8-11 May 2005, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, 668-684.
- Thomas, C.D., A. Cameron, R.E. Green, M. Bakkenes, L.J. Beaumont, Y.C.Collingham, B.F.N. Erasmus, M. Ferreira de Siqueira, A. Grainger, L. Hannah, L. Hughes, B. Huntley, A.S. Van Jaarsveld, G.F. Midgley, L. Miles, M.A. Ortega Huerta, A.T. Peterson, O.L. Phillips and S.E. Williams, 2004: Extinction risk from climate change. Nature, 427, 145-148.
- Thuiller, W., M.B.Araújo, R.G. Pearson, R.J. Whittaker, L. Brotons and S. Lavorel,2004: Uncertainty in predictions of extinction risk. Nature, 430, 34.
- Tol, R.S.J., 2002a: New estimates of the damage costs of climate change. Part I. Benchmark estimates. Environ. Resour. Econ., 21, 45-73.
- Tol, R.S.J., 2002b: New estimates of the damage costs of climate change. Part II. Dynamic estimates. Environ. Resour. Econ., 21, 135-160.
- Tol, R.S.J., 2006: Exchange rates and climate change: an application of FUND. Climatic Change, 75, 59-80.
- Tol, R.S.J., M. Bohn, T.E. Downing, M.-L. Guillerminet, E. Hizsnyik, R. Kasperson, K. Lonsdale, C. Mays, R.J. Nicholls, A.A. Olsthoorn, G. Pfeifle, M.Poumadere, F.L. Toth, A.T. Vafeidis, P.E. van der Werff and I.H. Yetkiner, 2006: Adaptation to five metres of sea level rise. J. Risk Res., 9, 467-482.
- Tompkins, E.L., 2005: Planning for climate change in small islands: insights fromnational hurricane preparedness in the Cayman Islands. GlobalEnviron.Chang.,15, 139-149.
- Tompkins, E.L. and W.N. Adger, 2005: Defining a response capacity for climate change. Environ. Sci. Policy, 8, 562-571.
- Toth, F.L., T. Bruckner, H.-M. Füssel, M. Leimbach and G. Petschel-Held, 2003a: Integrated assessment of long-term climate policies. Part 1. Model presentation.Climatic Change, 56, 37-56.
- Toth, F.L., T. Bruckner, H.-M. Füssel, M. Leimbach and G. Petschel-Held, 2003b: Integrated assessment of long-term climate policies. Part 2. Model results anduncertainty analysis. Climatic Change, 56, 57-72.
- Trenberth, K.E., P.D. Jones, P.G. Ambenje, R. Bojariu, D.R. Easterling, A.M.G.Klein Tank, D.E. Parker, J.A. Renwick, F. Rahimzadeh, M.M. Rusticucci, B.J.Soden and P.-M. Zhai, 2007: Observations: surface and atmospheric climate change. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B.Averyt, M. Tignor and H. L. Miller, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 235-336.
- Turner, B.L., II, R.E. Kasperson, P.A. Matson, J.J. McCarthy, R.W. Corell, L. Christensen, N. Eckley, J.X. Kasperson, A. Luers, M.L. Martello, C. Polsky, A. Pulsipher and A. Schiller, 2003a: A framework for vulnerability analysis insustainability science. P. Natl. Acad. Sci., 100, 8074-8079.
- Turner, B.L., II, P.A. Matson, J.J. McCarthy, R.W. Corell, L. Christensen, N. Eckley, G.K. Hovelsrud-Broda, J.X. Kasperson, R. Kasperson, A. Luers, M.L.Martello, S. Mathiesen, R. Naylor, C. Polsky, A. Pulsipher, A. Schiller, H. Selinand N. Tyler, 2003b: Illustrating the coupled human-environment system for vulnerability analysis: three case studies. P. Natl. Acad. Sci., 100, 8080-8085.
- Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman, 1974: Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics andbiases. Science, 211, 1124-1131.
- UKMO, 2001: The Hadley Centre Regional Climate Modelling System: PRECIS– Providing Regional Climates for Impacts Studies. UK Meteorological Office, Bracknell, 17 pp.
- UNDP, 2005: Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures. B. Lim, E. Spanger-Siegfried, I. Burton, E. Malone and S. Huq, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and NewYork, 258 pp.
- UNEP, 2002: Global Environment Outlook 3: Past, Present and Future Perspectives, Earthscan, London, 416 pp.
- UNFCCC, 2004: Compendium of Decision Tools to Evaluate Strategies for Adaptation to Climate Change. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, 49 pp.
- UNFCCC, 2005: Sixth Compilation and Synthesis of Initial National Communications from Parties Not Included in Annex I to the Convention: Executive Summary. FCCC/SBI/2005/18, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, 21 pp. Accessed 27.02.07: http://unfccc.int/resource/ docs/2005/sbi/eng/18.pdf
- van Aalst, M., 2006: Managing Climate Risk: Integrating Adaptation into World Bank Group Operations. World Bank Global Environment Facility Program, Washington, DC, 42 pp.
- van Asselt, M.B.A. and N. Rijkens-Klomp, 2002: A look in the mirror: reflectionon participation in Integrated Assessment from a methodological perspective.Global Environ. Chang., 12, 167-184.
- van Asselt, M.B.A. and J. Rotmans, 2002: Uncertainty in integrated assessment modelling: from positivism to pluralism. Climatic Change, 54, 75-105.
- van Beek, L.P.H. and T.W.J. van Asch, 2004: Regional assessment of the effects of land-use change on landslide hazard by means of physically based modelling.Nat. Hazards, 31, 289-304.
- van Lieshout, M., R.S. Kovats, M.T.J. Livermore and P. Martens, 2004: Climate change and malaria: analysis of the SRES climate and socio-economic scenarios.Global Environ. Chang., 14, 87-99.
- van Meijl, H., T. van Rheenen, A. Tabeau and B. Eickhout, 2006: The impact of different policy environments on agricultural land use in Europe. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 114, 21-38.
- van Minnen, J.G., J. Alcamo and W. Haupt, 2000: Deriving and applying response surface diagrams for evaluating climate change impacts on crop production. Climatic Change, 46, 317-338.
- van Vuuren, D.P. and K.H. Alfsen, 2006: PPP versus MER: searching for answersin a multi-dimensional debate. Climatic Change, 75, 47-57.
- van Vuuren, D.P. and B.C. O’Neill, 2006: The consistency of IPCC’s SRES scenarios to recent literature and recent projections. Climatic Change, 75, 9-46.
- van Vuuren, D.P., J. Weyant and F. de la Chesnaye, 2006: Multi-gas scenarios to stabilize radiative forcing. Energ. Econ., 28, 102-120.
- van Vuuren, D.P., P. Lucas and H. Hilderink, 2007: Downscaling drivers of global environmental change scenarios: enabling use of the IPCC SRES scenarios at the national and grid level. Global Environ. Chang., 17, 114-130.
- Vaze, J., P. Barnett, G. Beale, W. Dawes, R. Evans, N.K. Tuteja, B. Murphy, G.Geeves and M. Miller, 2004: Modelling the effects of land-use change on water and salt delivery from a catchment affected by dryland salinity in south-east Australia. Hydrol. Process., 18, 1613-1637.
- Velázquez, A., G. Bocco and A. Torres, 2001: Turning scientific approaches intopractical conservation actions: the case of Comunidad Indigena de Nuevo San Juan Parangaricutiro, Mexico. Environ. Manage., 27, 655-665.
- Vellinga, M. and R.A. Wood, 2002: Global climatic impacts of a collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation. Climatic Change, 54, 251-267.
- Verburg, P., C.J.E. Schulp, N. Witte and A. Veldkamp, 2006: Downscaling of landuse change scenarios to assess the dynamics of European landscapes. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 114, 39-56.
- Verburg, P.H., W. Soepboer, A. Veldkamp, R. Limpiada, V. Espaldon and S.S.A.Mastura, 2002: Modeling the spatial dynamics of regional land use: the CLUES model. Environ. Manage., 30, 391-405.
- Wandiga, S.O., M. Opondo, D. Olago, A. Githeko, F. Githui, M. Marshall, T.Downs,A. Opere, P.Z. Yanda, R. Kangalawe, R. Kabumbuli, J. Kathuri, E.Apindi, L. Olaka, L. Ogallo, P. Mugambi, R. Sigalla, R. Nanyunja, T. Baguma and P.Achola, 2006: Vulnerability to climate-induced highland malaria in East Africa. AIACC Working Paper No. 25, Assessments of Impacts and Adaptations to Climate Change in Multiple Regions and Sectors Program, Washington, DC, 47 pp.
- Wang, X., F. Zwiers and V. Swal, 2004: North Atlantic ocean wave climate changescenarios for the twenty-first century. J. Climate, 17, 2368-2383.
- Webster, M.D., M. Babiker, M. Mayer, J.M. Reilly, J. Harnisch, M.C. Sarofim and C. Wang, 2002: Uncertainty in emissions projections for climate models. Atmos. Environ., 36, 3659-3670.
- Webster, M.D., C. Forest, J. Reilly, M. Babiker, D. Kicklighter, M. Mayer, R. Prinn, M.C. Sarofim, A. Sokolov, P. Stone and C. Wang, 2003: Uncertainty analysis of climate change and policy response. Climatic Change, 61, 295-320.
- Wehbe, M., H. Eakin, R. Seiler, M. Vinocur, C. Ávila and C. Marutto, 2006: Local perspectives on adaptation to climate change: lessons from Mexico and Argentina. AIACC Working Paper No. 39, Assessment of Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change in Multiple Regions and Sectors Program, Washington, DC, 37 pp.
- Welp, M., 2001: The use of decision support tools in participatory river basin management. Phys. Chem. Earth Pt B., 26, 535-539.
- West, C.C. and M.J. Gawith, Eds., 2005: Measuring Progress: Preparing for Climate Change through the UK Climate Impacts Programme. UKCIP, Oxford, 72 pp.
- Westhoek, H., B. Eickhout and D. van Vuuren, 2006a: A brief comparison of scenario assumptions of four scenario studies: IPCC-SRES, GEO-3, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and FAO towards 2030. MNP Report, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), Bilthoven, 48 pp. Accessed 27.02.07: http://www.mnp.nl/image/whats_new/
- Westhoek, H.J., M. van den Berg and J.A. Bakkes, 2006b: Scenario developmentto explore the future of Europe’s rural areas. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 114, 7-20. Wigley, T.M.L., 2004: Choosing a stabilization target for CO2. ClimaticChange, 67,1-11.
- Wigley, T.M.L. and S.C.B. Raper, 2001: Interpretation of high projections for global-mean warming. Science, 293, 451-454.
- Wilbanks, T.J., S.M. Kane, P.N. Leiby, R.D. Perlack, C. Settle, J.F. Shogren and J.B. Smith, 2003: Possible responses to global climate change: integrating mitigation and adaptation. Environment, 45, 28-38.
- Wilby, R., M. McKenzie Hedger and C. Parker, 2004a: What We Need to Know and When: Decision Makers’ Perspectives on Climate Change Science. Report of Workshop, February 2004, Climate Change Unit, Environment Agency, London,41 pp.
- Wilby, R.L.and I. Harris, 2006: A framework for assessing uncertainties in climate change impacts: low-flow scenarios for the River Thames, UK. Water Resour. Res., 42, W02419, doi:10.1029/2005WR004065.
- Wilby, R.L., R. Dawson and E.M. Barrow, 2002: SDSM: a decision support tool for the assessment of regional climate change assessments. Environ. Modell. Softw.,17, 145-157.
- Wilby, R.L., S.P. Charles, E. Zorita, B. Timtal, P. Whetton and L.O. Mearns, 2004b: Guidelines for Use of Climate Scenarios Developed from Statistical Downscaling Methods. Supporting material of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Task Group on Data and Scenario Support for Impact and Climate Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 27 pp. Accessed 26.02.07:http://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/dgm_no2_v1_09_2004.pdf
- Williams, J.W., S.T. Jackson and J.E. Kutzbach, 2007: Projected distributions of novel and disappearing climates by 2100 AD. P.Natl. Acad. Sci., 104, 5738-5742
- Willows, R. and R. Connell, 2003: Climate adaptation: risk, uncertainty and decision-making. UKCIP Technical Report, UK Climate Impacts Programme, Oxford, 154 pp.
- Wood, A.W., L.R. Leung, V. Sridhar and D.P. Letterman, 2004: Hydrologic implications of dynamical and statistical approaches to downscaling climate model outputs. Climatic Change, 62, 189-216.
- Wood, R.A., M. Vellinga and R. Thorpe, 2003: Global warming and thermohaline circulation stability. Philos. T. R. Soc.A, 361, 1961-1975.
- Woodworth, P.L. and D.L. Blackman, 2004: Evidence for systematic changes inextreme high waters since the mid-1970s. J. Climate, 17, 1190-1197.
- Wooldridge, S., T. Done, R. Berkelmans, R. Jones and P. Marshall, 2005: Precursors for resilience in coral communities in a warming climate: a belief network approach. Mar. Ecol.–Prog. Ser., 295, 157-169.
- World Bank, 2006: World Development Report 2006: Equity and Development.The World Bank, Washington, DC, and Oxford University Press, Oxford, 336 pp.
- Yang, D.W., S. Kanae, T. Oki, T. Koike and K. Musiake, 2003: Global potential soil erosion with reference to land use and climate changes. Hydrol.Process., 17,2913-2928.
- Yohe, G., 2004: Some thoughts on perspective. Global Environ. Chang., 14, 283-286.
- Yohe, G. and F. Toth, 2000: Adaptation and the guardrail approach to tolerable climate change. Climatic Change, 45, 103-128.
- Yohe, G. and R.S.J. Tol, 2002: Indicators for social and economic coping capacity: moving toward a working definition of adaptive capacity. Global Environ. Chang., 12, 25-40.
- Zebisch, M., F. Wechsung and H. Kenneweg, 2004: Landscape response functionsfor biodiversity: assessing the impact of land-use changes at the county level.Landscape Urban Plan., 67, 157-172.
This is a chapter from IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group II.
Previous: Chapter 1: Assessment of observed changes and responses in natural and managed systems | Table of Contents | Next: Chapter 3: Freshwater resources and their management