Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 28, Issue 1–2, pp 209–219 | Cite as

Conclusions, remaining issues, and next steps

  • Kenneth D. Frederick
  • Indur M. Goklany
  • Norman J. Rosenberg
Article

Abstract

The workshop focused on methodologies to assess the impacts of climate change on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and their socioeconomic consequences. It did not deal in any detail with the other components (i.e., models designed to estimate changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases or in climatic factors) of an integrated assessment shown in Figure 2 of the introduction. This final chapter discusses some of the issues addressed during the San Diego workshop and highlights a few of the major findings of the papers. Issues discussed below include limitations of past modeling efforts and impediments to developing better models of the impacts of climate change on forest, grassland, and water resources; suggestions for future research both to develop better data and models and to employ existing data and modeling capabilities to improve the usefulness of climate impact assessments for policy purposes; and the need for developing a common assessment framework.

Keywords

Climate Change Water Resource Aquatic Ecosystem Impact Assessment Modeling Effort 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ayers, M. A., Wolock, D. M., McCabe, G. J., Hay, L. E., and Tasker, G. D.: 1993,Sensitivity of Water Resources in the Delaware River Basin to Climate Variability and Change, Open-file report 92-52, U.S. Geological Survey, West Trenton, N.J.Google Scholar
  2. Diamond, P. A., Hausman, J. A., Leonard, G. K., and Denning, M. A.: (undated), ‘Does Contingent Valuation Measure Preferences? Experimental Evidence’, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Economics, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  3. Frederick, K. D., McKenney, M. S., Rosenberg, N. J., and Balzer, D. K.: 1993, ‘Estimating the Effects of Climate Change and Carbon Dioxide and Water Supplies in the Missouri River Basin’, Discussion Paper ENR 93-18, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  4. Goklany, I. M.: 1992, ‘Adaptation and Climate Change’, Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Department of the Interior, paper presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting, Chicago, February 6-11, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 1991,Climate Change: The IPCC Response Strategies, Island Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 1992,Preliminary Guidelines for Assessing Impacts of Climate Change, Environmental Change Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  7. McKenney, M. S. and Rosenberg, N. J.: 1991, ‘Climate Data Needs from GCM Experiments for Use in Assessing the Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Natural Resource Systems’, Discussion Paper ENR 91-15, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  8. Mitchell, R. C. and Carson, R. T.: 1989,Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  9. National Academy of Sciences: 1992,Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  10. Rosenberg, N. J., guest editor (special issue): 1993, ‘Towards an Integrated Impact Assessment of Climate Change: The MINK Study’,Clim. Change 24, 1–2, June, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  11. Rosenberg, N. J. and Crosson, P. R.: 1991, ‘Processes for Identifying Regional Influences of and Responses to Increasing Atmospheric CO2 and Climate Change - The MINK Project’, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  12. Smith, V. K.: 1993, ‘Nonmarket Valuation of Environmental Resources: An Interpretive Appraisal’,Land Econom. 69(1), February, 1–26.Google Scholar
  13. Zak, D. R., Pregitzer, K. S., Curtis, P. S., Teeri, J. A., Fogel, R., and Randlett, D. L.: 1993, ‘Elevated Atmospheric CO2 and Feedback between Carbon and Nitrogen Cycles’,Plant Soil 151, 105–117.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth D. Frederick
    • 1
  • Indur M. Goklany
    • 2
  • Norman J. Rosenberg
    • 3
  1. 1.Resources for the FutureWashington DCUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Department of the InteriorUSA
  3. 3.Battelle, Pacific Northwest LaboratoriesWashington DCUSA

Personalised recommendations