Incorporating stakeholder decision support needs into an integrated regional Earth system model

  • J. S. RiceEmail author
  • R. H. Moss
  • P. J. Runci
  • K. L. Anderson
  • E. L. Malone
Original Article


A new modeling effort exploring the opportunities, constraints, and interactions between mitigation and adaptation at regional scale is utilizing stakeholder engagement in an innovative approach to guide model development and demonstration, including uncertainty characterization, to effectively inform regional decision making. This project, the integrated Regional Earth System Model (iRESM), employs structured stakeholder interactions and literature reviews to identify the most relevant adaptation and mitigation alternatives and decision criteria for each regional application of the framework. The information is used to identify important model capabilities and to provide a focus for numerical experiments. This paper presents the stakeholder research results from the first iRESM pilot region. The pilot region includes the Great Lakes Basin in the Midwest portion of the United States as well as other contiguous states. This geographic area (14 states in total) permits cohesive modeling of hydrologic systems while also providing strong gradients in climate, demography, land cover/land use, and energy supply and demand. The results from the stakeholder research indicate that, for this region, iRESM should prioritize addressing adaptation alternatives in the water resources, urban infrastructure, and agriculture sectors, including water conservation, expanded water quality monitoring, altered reservoir releases, lowered water intakes, urban infrastructure upgrades, increased electric power reserves in urban areas, and land use management/crop selection changes. For mitigation in this region, the stakeholder research implies that iRESM should focus on policies affecting the penetration of renewable energy technologies, and the costs and effectiveness of energy efficiency, bioenergy production, wind energy, and carbon capture and sequestration.


Adaptation alternatives Regional climate change Decision support Framework capability Mitigation alternatives Stakeholders Modeling framework PNNL 


  1. Center for Integrative Environmental Research (CIER) (2007) The U.S. economic impacts of climate change and the costs of inaction. University of Maryland, College ParkGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen C, Wiser R, Mills A, Bolinger M (2009) Weighing the costs and benefits of state renewables portfolio standards in the United States: a comparative analysis of state-level policy impact projections. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 13(3):552–566. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2008.01.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. City of New York (2008) Assessment and action plan, Report 1. New York City Department of Environmental Protection Climate Change ProgramGoogle Scholar
  4. Coffee JE, Parzen J, Wagstaff M, Lewis RS (2010) Preparing for a changing climate: the Chicago climate action plan’s adaptation strategy. Journal of Great Lakes Research. In Press, Corrected Proof. doi: 10.1016/j.jglr.2009.11.011.
  5. CNA Corporation (2007) National security and the threat of climate change. Alexandria, Virginia. Available via
  6. de Loe R, Kreutzwiser R, Moraru L (2000) Climate variability, climate change and water resource management in the Great Lakes. Clim Chang 45:163–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. General Accounting Office (GAO) (2009) Climate change adaptation. Strategic federal planning could help government officials make more informed decisions. Report to the Chairman, Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. US House of Representatives GAO-10-113Google Scholar
  8. Green Building Alliance (2008) Pittsburgh climate action plan. Pittsburgh Climate Initiative, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  9. Karl TR, Mellilo JM, Peterson TC (eds) (2009) Global climate change impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Lemman DS, Warren FJ (eds) (2004) Climate change impacts and adaptation: a Canadian perspective. Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Directorate, Natural Resources Canada. Available at
  11. Leung LR, Kuo Y-H, Tribbia J (2006) Research needs and directions of regional climate modeling using WRF and CCSM. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 87(12):1747–1751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Malone EL, Engle N (2011) Evaluating regional vulnerability to climate change: purposes and methods. WIREs Clim Chang 2(3):462–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Midwest Governors Association (2009) Midwestern energy security and climate stewardship roadmap—advisory group recommendationsGoogle Scholar
  14. Morgan MG, Cantor R, Clark WC et al (2005) Learning from the US national assessment of climate change impacts. Environ Sci Technol 39(23):9023–9032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moss R, Edmonds JA, Hibbard KA et al (2010) The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463:747–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nature (2010) Validation required. Nature 463(7283):849Google Scholar
  17. Parson EA, Correll RW, Barron EJ et al (2003) Understanding climatic impacts, vulnerabilities, and adaptation in the United States: building a capacity for assessment. Clim Chang 57(1–2):9–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pew Center on Global Climate Change (2009) Renewable and alternative energy portfolio standards. Accessed August 9, 2010 at
  19. Rayner S, Lach D, Ingram H (2005) Weather forecasts are for wimps: why water resource managers do not use climate forecasts. Clim Chang 69(2–3):197–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Salter J, Robinson J, Wiek A (2010) Participatory methods of integrated assessment—a review. WIRES Clim Chang 1:697–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Unwin SD, Moss RH, Rice JS, Scott MJ (2011) Characterizing uncertainty for regional climate change mitigation and adaptation decisions. PNNL-20788, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WAGoogle Scholar
  22. Wilbanks TJ, Sathaye J (2007) Integrating mitigation and adaptation as responses to climate change: a synthesis. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 12:957–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wilbanks TJ, Leiby P, Perlack R, Ensminger JT, Wright SB (2007) Toward an integrated analysis of mitigation and adaptation: some preliminary findings. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 12:713–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. S. Rice
    • 1
    Email author
  • R. H. Moss
    • 2
  • P. J. Runci
    • 2
  • K. L. Anderson
    • 3
  • E. L. Malone
    • 2
  1. 1.Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryRichlandUSA
  2. 2.Joint Global Change Research InstitutePacific Northwest National Laboratory/University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  3. 3.World Wildlife FundWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations