Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 128, Issue 3–4, pp 395–407 | Cite as

Assessing policy robustness of climate change adaptation measures across sectors and scenarios

  • J. JägerEmail author
  • M. D. A. Rounsevell
  • P. A. Harrison
  • I. Omann
  • R. Dunford
  • M. Kammerlander
  • G. Pataki
Article

Abstract

Recent research has increasingly focussed on whether long-term policies for adaptation to climate change are robust given uncertainties about future climate change, technological advances and alternative socio-economic development pathways. The aim of this study was to examine whether adaptation responses are ‘robust’, by looking at whether they reduce vulnerability to climate and socio-economic changes for a selection of ecosystem services across scenarios and two spatial scales: Europe (EU27 plus Norway and Switzerland) and a case study in Scotland. Outputs of the CLIMSAVE Integrated Assessment Platform (IAP) for multiple land-based sectors were used to test whether clusters of adaptation options referred to as policy archetypes reduced vulnerability to climate and socio-economic change for ecosystem service indicators related to biodiversity, flooding, water exploitation, land use diversity, land use intensity and food provision. The results show that the People-based Adaptation archetype is the most robust. This is because it reduces vulnerability by increasing coping capacity (people learn and build networks) and not only by reducing the impacts of climate and socio-economic change. By allowing comparative levels of vulnerability to be explored across sectors and scenarios, the CLIMSAVE approach provides a flexible tool for decision-makers and other stakeholders to increase understanding of which mixes of adaptation measures are robust responses to climate change.

Keywords

Ecosystem Service Climate Scenario Adaptation Measure Coping Capacity Vulnerable People 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgement

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme under Grant Agreement No. 244031 (The CLIMSAVE Project; Climate change integrated assessment methodology for cross-sectoral adaptation and vulnerability in Europe; www.climsave.eu). CLIMSAVE is an endorsed project of the Global Land Project of the IGBP. We thank George Cojocaru and Cristina Savin for running the IA platform to produce the results reported here and Julia Wesely, Christoph Campregher and Daniela Fuchs for assistance in preparing and analysing the policy archetypes.

References

  1. Brown, C. (2011) Decision-Scaling for Robust Planning and Policy under Climate Uncertainty. World Resources Report Uncertainty Series. Available online at http://www.worldresourcesreport.org
  2. Dessai S, Hulme M (2007) Assessing the robustness of adaptation decisions to climate change uncertainties: A case study on water resources management in the East of England. Global Environmental Change 17(1):59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gramberger, M., Harrison, P., Jäger, J., Kok, K., Libbrecht, S., Maes, M., Metzger, M., Stuch, B., and Watson, M. (2013a) Report on the third CLIMSAVE European stakeholder workshop. http://www.climsave.eu/climsave/doc/Report_on_the_third_European_workshop.pdf
  4. Gramberger, M., Harrison, P., Jäger, J., Kok, K., Libbrecht, S., Maes, M., Metzger, M., Stuch, B., and Watson, M. (2013b) Report on the third CLIMSAVE regional stakeholder workshop. http://www.climsave.eu/climsave/doc/Report_on_the_third_regional_workshop.pdf
  5. Groves, D. G., Fischbach, J. R., Bloom, E., Knopman, D. and Keefe, R. (2013) Adapting to a Changing Colorado River: Making Future Water Deliveries More Reliable Through Robust Management Strategies, RAND Corporation. RR242Google Scholar
  6. Hallegatte S, Shah A, Lempert R, Brown C, Gill S (2012) Investment Decision Making Under Deep Uncertainty: Application to Climate Change. Washington, DC, World Bank. PRWP, 6193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Harrison PA, Holman IP, Cojocaru G et al (2013) Combining qualitative and quantitative understanding for exploring cross-sectoral climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability in Europe. Reg Environ Chang 13:761–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jäger, J., Rounsevell, M., Omann, I., Harrison, P., Wesely, J., Pataki, G. and Dunford, R. (2013) Assessing the robustness of climate adaptation measures in the face of uncertainties. http://www.climsave.eu/climsave/doc/Report_on_policy_robustness_under_uncertainty.pdf
  9. Lempert RJ, Collins MT (2007) Managing the Risk of Uncertain Threshold Response: Comparison of Robust, Optimum, and Precautionary Approaches. Risk Analysis 27(4):1009–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lempert, R. J., Kalra, N., Peyraud, S., Mao, Z., Tan, S. B., Cira D.and Lotsch A. (2013) Ensuring Robust Flood Risk Management in Ho Chi Minh City: A robust decision making demonstration, World Bank. WPS6465Google Scholar
  11. Murphy JM, Sexton DMH, Jenkins GJ, Boorman PM, Booth BBB, Brown CC, Clark RT, Collins M, Harris GR, Kendon EJ, Betts RA, Brown SJ, Howard TP, Humphrey KA, McCarthy MP, McDonald RE, Stephens A, Wallace C, Warren R, Wilby R, Wood RA (2009) UK climate projections science report: Climate change projections. Met Office Hadley Centre, ExeterGoogle Scholar
  12. Reeder T, Ranger N (2011) How Do You Adapt in an Uncertain World? Lessons From the Thames Estuary 2100 Project. World Resources Report, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  13. Twomey, P. (2012) Resilience lessons for Australian Climate Change Mitigation Policy. Seminar. 35th Annual IAEE International Conference, Perth, Western Australia. June 25th 2012. Online: http://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/staff/paul-twomey, 11.04.2013
  14. Watkiss, P. and Hunt, A. (2012) The Use of New Economic Decision-Support Tools for Adaptation: A review of methods and applications, and guidance on applicability. http://www.circle-era.eu/np4/%7B$clientServletPath%7D/?newsId=385&fileName=Lisbon_adaptation_conference_paul_watkis.pdf
  15. Yemshanov D, Koch FH, Ben-Haim Y, Smith WD (2009) Robustness of risk maps and survey networks to knowledge gaps about a new invasive pest. Risk Analysis 30:261–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Jäger
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. D. A. Rounsevell
    • 2
  • P. A. Harrison
    • 3
  • I. Omann
    • 1
  • R. Dunford
    • 3
  • M. Kammerlander
    • 1
  • G. Pataki
    • 4
  1. 1.Sustainable Europe Research InstituteViennaAustria
  2. 2.School of GeoSciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  3. 3.Environmental Change InstituteOxford University Centre for the EnvironmentOxfordUK
  4. 4.Environmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG) and Department of Environmental Economics and TechnologyCorvinus University of BudapestBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations