Environmental Management

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 118–134 | Cite as

A Framework for Assessing Climate Change Impacts on Water and Watershed Systems



In this article we present a framework for assessing climate change impacts on water and watershed systems to support management decision-making. The framework addresses three issues complicating assessments of climate change impacts—linkages across spatial scales, linkages across temporal scales, and linkages across scientific and management disciplines. A major theme underlying the framework is that, due to current limitations in modeling capabilities, assessing and responding to climate change should be approached from the perspective of risk assessment and management rather than as a prediction problem. The framework is based generally on ecological risk assessment and similar approaches. A second theme underlying the framework is the need for close collaboration among climate scientists, scientists interested in assessing impacts, and resource managers and decision makers. A case study illustrating an application of the framework is also presented that provides a specific, practical example of how the framework was used to assess the impacts of climate change on water quality in a mid-Atlantic, U.S., watershed.


Climate Assessment Framework Decision support Management Risk Uncertainty Monocacy 


  1. Bicknell BR, Imhoff JC, Kittle J, Donigian AS, Johansen RC (1996) Hydrological simulation program-FORTRAN, user’s manual for release 11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Research Laboratory, AthensGoogle Scholar
  2. Cash DW, Borck JC, Patt AG (2006) Countering the loading-dock approach to linking science and decision making. Science, Technology & Human Values 31:465–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cash DW, Moser SC (2000) Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Global Environmental Change 10(2):109–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. CCSP (2005) Report on the U.S. Climate Change Science Program Workshop: climate science in support of decisionmaking, Arlington, VA, 14–16 November 2005Google Scholar
  5. CCSP (2007) Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations (Part A) and Review of Integrated Scenario Development and Application (Part B). A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Clarke L, Edmonds J, Jacoby J, Pitcher H, Reilly J, Richels R, Parson E, Burkett V, Fisher-Vanden K, Keith D, Mearns L, Rosenzweig C, Webster M (Authors)]. Department of Energy, Office of Biological & Environmental Research, Washington, DC, USA, 260 ppGoogle Scholar
  6. CCSP (2008a) Best Practice Approaches for Characterizing, Communicating and Incorporating Scientific Uncertainty in Climate Decision Making. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Morgan MG (author) with Dowlatabadi H, Henrion M, Keith D, Lempert R, McBride S, Small M, Wilbanks T (contributors)]. Public review draft available from http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap5-2/public-review-draft/default.htm
  7. CCSP (2008b) Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. [Julius SH, West JM (eds) Baron JS, Griffith B, Joyce LA, Kareiva P, Keller BD, Palmer MA, Peterson CH, Scott JM (Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 873 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Chess C, Dietz T, Shannon M (1998) Who should deliberate when? Human Ecology Review 5(1):45–48Google Scholar
  9. CIG (2006) Climate Impacts Group (CIG), Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, University of Washington. “Planning for Climate Variability and Change.” Available from Worldwide Web: http://www.cses.washington.edu/cig/fpt/cvplanning.shtml
  10. Craig PP, Gadgil A, Koomey JG (2002) What can history teach us? a retrospective examination of long-term energy forecasts for the United States. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 27:83–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duinker PN, Greig LA (2007) Scenario analysis in environmental impact assessment: improving explorations of the future. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27:206–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gleick P, Adams DB (2000) Water: the potential consequences of climate variability and change for water resources of the United States, Report of the Water Sector Assessment Team of the National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. Pacific Institute, Oakland, p 151Google Scholar
  13. Glicken J (2000) Guiding stakeholder participation “right”: a discussion of participatory processes and possible pitfalls. Environmental Science & Policy 3:305–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Groisman P, Knight R, Easterling D, Karl T, Hegerl G, Razuvaev V (2005) Trends in intense precipitation in the climate record. Journal of Climate 18:1326–1350sCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Herrick CJ, Pendleton JM (2000) A decision framework for prediction in environmental policy. In: Sarewitz D, Pielke RA Jr, Byerly R Jr (eds) Prediction: science, decision making, and the future of nature. Island Press, Washington, 405 ppGoogle Scholar
  16. Hooke WH, Pielke RA Jr (2000) Short-term weather prediction: an orchestra in need of a conductor. In: Sarewitz D, Pielke RA Jr, Byerly R Jr (eds) Prediction: science, decision making, and the future of nature. Island Press, Washington, 405 ppGoogle Scholar
  17. IPCC (2001) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability: contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 [Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, 996 ppGoogle Scholar
  19. IPCC-TGICA (2007) General Guidelines on the Use of Scenario Data for Climate Impact and Adaptation Assessment. Version 2. Prepared by T.R. Carter on behalf of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Task Group on Data and Scenario Support for Impact and Climate Assessment, 66 ppGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson T, Kittle J Jr (2006) Sensitivity analysis as a guide for assessing and managing the impacts of climate change on water resources. AWRA Water Resources Impact 8(5):15–17Google Scholar
  21. Jones RN (2001) An environmental risk assessment/management framework for climate change impact assessments. Natural Hazards 23(2–3):197–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leung LR, Qian Y, Bian X, Washington WM, Han J, Roads JO (2004) Mid-century ensemble regional climate change scenarios for the western. United States Climatic Change 62:75–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liang X-Z, Pan J, Zhu J, Kunkel KE, Wang JXL, Dai A (2006) Regional climate model downscaling of the U.S. summer climate and future change. Journal of Geophysical Research 111. doi:10.1029/2005JD006685
  24. Lookingbill TR, Gardner RH, Townsend PA, Carter SL (2007) Conceptual models as hypotheses in monitoring urban landscapes. Environmental Management 40(2):171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Means E, Patrick R, Ospina L, West N (2005) Scenario planning: a tool to manage future water utility uncertainty. Journal of American Water Works Association 97(10):68Google Scholar
  26. Mearns LO, Giorgi F, Whetton P, Pabon D, Hulme M, Lal M (2003) Guidelines for use of climate scenarios developed from regional climate model experiments. Report to the Task Group on Scenarios for Climate Impact Assessment (TGCIA) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 38 ppGoogle Scholar
  27. Moss R, Schneider SH (2000) Uncertainties in the IPCC TAR: Recommendations to lead authors for more consistent assessment and reporting. In: Guidance Papers on the Cross Cutting Issues of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC [Pachauri, R., T. Taniguchi, 880 K. Tanaka (eds.)]. World Meteorological Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland, pp 33–51Google Scholar
  28. Nilsson C, Pizzuto JE, Moglen GE, Palmer MA, Stanley EH, Bockstael NE, Thompson LC (2003) Ecological forecasting and the urbanization of stream ecosystems: challenges for economists, hydrologists, geomorphologists, and ecologists. Ecosystems 6(7):659–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. NOAA (2004) RISA: The Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments Program, Enhancing Decision-Making Through Integrated Climate Research, Summary of an Exploratory Workshop, Anchorage, AK, 18–19 February 2004Google Scholar
  30. NRC (2007a) Evaluating Progress of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program: Methods and Preliminary Results, Committee on Strategic Advice on the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, National Research Council, 180 ppGoogle Scholar
  31. NRC (2007b) Analysis of global change assessments: lessons learned. committee on Analysis of Global Change Assessments, National Research Council, 206 ppGoogle Scholar
  32. NRC (1996) Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. National Research Council, National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  33. Peterson GD, Cumming GS, Carpenter SR (2003) Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conservation Biology 17(2):358–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pielke RA Sr, Bravo de Guenni L (eds) (2004) How to evaluate vulnerability in changing environmental conditions. Part E. In: Vegetation, water, humans and the climate: a new perspective on an interactive system. Global Change—The IGBP Series. Kabat P et al (eds) Springer, pp 483–544Google Scholar
  35. Policansky D (1998) Science and decision making for water resources. Ecological Applications 8(3):610–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Purkey DR, Huber-Lee A, Yates DN, Hanemann M, Herrod-Julius S (2007) Integrating a climate change assessment tool into stakeholder-driven water management decision-making processes in California. Water Resource Management 21:315–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pulwarty RS, Pyke CR (2006) Elements of effective decision support for water resource management under a changing climate. AWRA Water Resources Impact 8(5):8–10Google Scholar
  38. Pyke CR, Bierwagen BG, Furlow J, Gamble J, Johnson T, Julius S, West J (2007) A decision inventory approach for improving decition support for climate change impact assessment and adaptation. Environmental Science & Policy 10(7–8):610–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sarewitz D, Pielke RA Jr, Byerly R Jr (2000) Introduction: death, taxes, and environmental policy. In: Sarewitz D, Pielke RA Jr, Byerly R Jr (eds) Prediction: science, decision making, and the future of nature. Island Press, Washington, 405 ppGoogle Scholar
  40. Shoemaker PJH (1995) Scenario planning: a tool for strategic thinking. Sloan Management Review 36(2):25–39Google Scholar
  41. Smith JB, Hulme M (1998) Climate change scenarios. In: Feenstra J, Burton I, Smith JB, Tol RSJ (eds) Handbook on methods of climate change impacts assessment and adaptation strategies. United Nations Environment Program, IES, Version 2.0, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 310 ppGoogle Scholar
  42. Suter GW II (1999) Developing conceptual models for complex ecological risk assessments. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 5:375–396Google Scholar
  43. USEPA (1986) Guidelines for the health risk assessment of chemical mixtures. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/630/R-98/002Google Scholar
  44. USEPA (1998) Guidelines for ecological risk assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/630/R-95/002FGoogle Scholar
  45. USEPA (2001) Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS), Version 3.0 User’s Manual, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA-823-C-01-001Google Scholar
  46. PA USE (2003) Getting in step: engaging and involving stakeholders in your watershed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  47. USEPA (2007) Climate change effects on stream and river biological indicators: a preliminary analysis (External Review Draft). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-07/085Google Scholar
  48. USEPA (2008) Application of Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment Methods to Watershed Management. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-06/037FGoogle Scholar
  49. van der Meijden MJ, Tange HJ, Troost J, Hasman A (2003) Determinants of success of inpatient clinical information systems: a literature review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association 10(3):235–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. von Storch H (1995) Inconsistencies at the interface of climate impact studies and global climate research. Meteorol Zeitschrit 4:72–80Google Scholar
  51. von Storch H (1999) On the use of “inflation” in statistical downscaling. Journal of Climate 12:3505–3506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wagener T, Liu Y, Stewart S, Hartman H, Mahmoud M (2006) Imagine—scenario development for environmental impact assessment studies, In: Voinov A, Jakeman AJ, Rizzoli AE (eds). Proceedings of the iEMSs Third Biennial Meeting: “Summit on Environmental Modelling and Software”. International Environmental Modelling and Software Society, Burlington, VTGoogle Scholar
  53. Wears RL, Berg M (2005) Computer technology and clinical work-still waiting for Godot. Journal of American Medical Association 293(10):1261–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wilby RL, Harris I (2006) A framework for assessing uncertainties in climate change impacts: low-flow scenarios for the River Thames, UK. Water Resources Research 42. doi:10.1029/2005WR004065
  55. Wilby RL, Charles SP, Zorita E, Timbal B, Whetton P, Mearns LO (2004) Guidelines for use of climate scenarios developed from statistical downscaling methods, http://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/dgm_no2_v1_09_2004.pdf, 27 pp
  56. Wright G, Goodwin P (2000) Future-focussed thinking: combining scenario planning with decision analysis. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 8(6):311–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.U.S. EPA Office of Research and DevelopmentGlobal Change Research ProgramWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations