Climate pp 433-464 | Cite as

Integrated Modeling to Mitigate Climate Change Risk Due to Sea Level Rise

Imperiled Shorebirds on Florida Coastal Military Installations
  • M. Convertino
  • G. A. Kiker
  • M. L. Chu-Agor
  • R. Muñoz-Carpena
  • C. J. Martinez
  • M. Aiello-Lammens
  • H. R. Akçakaya
  • R. A. Fischer
  • I. Linkov
Conference paper
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security book series (NAPSC)


Climate change is expected to significantly alter low-lying coastal and intertidal areas, which provide significant seasonal habitats for a variety of shoreline-dependent organisms. Many coastal military installations in Florida have significant coastal habitats and shoreline-dependent bird data strongly illustrate their seasonal importance for birds. Potential land use changes and population increases, coupled with uncertain predictions for sea level rise, storm frequency, and intensity have created a significant planning challenge for natural resource managers. This paper provides a framework to integrate multiscale climate, land cover, land use, and ecosystem information into a systematic tool to explore climate variability and change effects on habitat and population dynamics for the state-threatened residential Snowy Plover, and the migratory Piping Plover and Red Knot, on selected coastal Florida military sites in Northwest Florida. A proof-of-concept study is described that includes climate data, species distribution and a coastal wetland land cover model coupled with global sensitivity/uncertainty analysis methods. The results of these integrated models are used to explore habitat dynamics and management options within an uncertain world.


Tropical Cyclone Adaptive Management National Wetland Inventory National Park Service Piping Plover 
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.



This research was supported by the U.S. Department of Defense, through the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP), Projects SI-1699. J.B. Elsner and J.F. Donoghue at Florida State University are kindly acknowledged for their collaboration in research (project SI-1700 at FSU). Eglin AFB, Tyndall AFB, and Florida Wildlife Commission are gratefully acknowledged for the assistance with the Snowy Plover data and their active collaboration. Additionally Patricia Kelly and Chris Burney at Florida Wildlife Commission are kindly acknowledged. Permission was granted by the USACE Chief of Engineers to publish this material. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the individual authors and not those of the U.S. Army, or other sponsor organizations.


  1. 1.
    Aiello-Lammens M, Chu-Agor ML, Convertino M, Fischer RA, Linkov I, Akcakaya HR (2010) The impact of sea-level rise on snowy plovers in Florida: integrating climate, habitat, and metapopulation models. Glob Change Biol (submitted)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akçakaya HR (2000) Viability analyses with habitat-based metapopulation models. Popul Ecol 42:45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Akçakaya HR (2001) Linking population-level risk assessment with landscape and habitat models. Sci Total Environ 274:283–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Akçakaya HR, Burgman MA, Kindvall O, Wood C, Sjögren-Gulve P, Hatfield J, McCarthy MA (eds) (2004) Species conservation and management: case studies. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Akçakaya HR, Butchart S, Mace GM, Stuart SN, Hilton-Taylor C (2006) Use and misuse of the IUCN Red List Criteria in projecting climate change impacts on biodiversity. Glob Change Biol 12:2037–2043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Akçakaya HR, Franklin J, Syphard AD, Stephenson JR (2005) Viability of Bell’s sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli ssp. belli): altered fire regimes. Ecol Appl 15:521–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Akçakaya HR, McCarthy MA, Pearce J (1995) Linking landscape data with population viability analysis: management options for the helmeted honeyeater. Biol Conserv 73:169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Akçakaya HR, Mladenoff DJ, He HS (2003) RAMAS Landscape: integrating metapopulation viability with LANDIS forest dynamics model. User manual for version 1.0. Applied biomathematics. Setauket, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Akçakaya HR, Radeloff VC, Mladenoff DJ, He HS (2004) Integrating landscape and metapopulation modeling approaches: viability of the sharp-tailed grouse in a dynamic landscape. Conserv Biol 18:526–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Akçakaya HR, Raphael MG (1998) Assessing human impact despite uncertainty: viability of the northern spotted owl metapopulation in the northwestern USA. Biodivers Conserv 7:875–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Akçakaya HR, David Breininger in consultation with Gary Page (2000) Viability of the western snowy plover population at Vandenberg. Unpublished report by applied biomathematics. Mar 2000Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Andréasson J, Bergström S, Carlsson B, Graham LP, Lindström G (2004) Hydrological change – climate change impact simulations for Sweden. Ambio 33:228–234Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bengtsson L, Hodges KI, Esch M, Keenlyside N, Kornbleuh L, Luo JJ, Yamagata T (2007) How may tropical cyclones change in a warmer climate? Tellus 59A:539–561Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beven K (1993) Prophecy, reality and uncertainty in distributed hydrological modelling. Adv Water Res 16:41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Beven K, Binley A (1992) The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrol Process 6:279–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brook BW, Akcakaya HR, Keith DA, Mace GM, Pearson RG, Araujo MB (2009) Integrating bioclimate with population models to improve forecasts of species extinctions under climate change. Biol Lett 6:723–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brown S, Hickey C, Harrington B, Gill R (2001) United States shorebird conservation plan, 2nd edn. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, ManometGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Campolongo F, Cariboni J, Saltelli A (2007) An effective screening design for sensitivity analysis of large models. Environ Modell Softw 22:1509–1518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    CCSP (2008) Climate models: an assessment of strengths and limitations. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Bader DC, Covey C, Gutowski WJ Jr, Held IM, Kunkel KE, Miller RL, Tokmakian RT, Zhang MH(Authors)]. Department of Energy, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Washington, D.C., USA, 124ppGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chu-Agor ML, Convertino M, Kiker GA, Munoz-Carpena R, Aiello-Lammens M, Akçakaya HR, Fischer RA, Linkov I (2010b) Vulnerability of Eglin Air Force Base to sea level rise: a preliminary assessment, SERDP ReportGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chu-Agor ML, Munoz-Carpena R, Convertino M, Aiello-Lammens M, Kiker GA, Akçakaya HR, Linkov I (2011) Global sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of snowy plover metapopulation dynamics in Florida. Ecol Eng, submittedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chu-Agor ML, Munoz-Carpena R, Kiker GA, Emanuelsson A, Linkov I (2010a) Exploring sea-level rise vulnerability of coastal habitats through global sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. Environ Modell Soft. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.12.003Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    U.S. Congress (1993), President’s 1993 Climate change action planGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Convertino M, Kiker GA, Munoz-Carpena R, Chu-Agor ML, Fisher RA, Linkov I (2010a) Scale and resolution invariance of habitat suitability geographic range for shorebird metapopulations. Ecol complexity, in reviewGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Convertino M, Munoz-Carpena R, Kiker GA, Chu-Agor ML, Fisher RA, Linkov I (2010b) Epistemic uncertainty in predicted species distributions: models and space-time gaps of biogeographical data. Biol Conserv , in reviewGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Convertino M, Chu-Agor ML, Kiker GA, Munoz-Carpena R, Fisher RA, Linkov I (2010e) Coastline fractality as fingerprint of scale-free shorebird patch-size fluctuations due to climate change. PLoS ONE, in reviewGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Convertino M, Donoghue JF, Chu-Agor ML, Kiker GA, Munoz-Carpena R, Fisher RA, Linkov I (2010d) Anthropogenic renourishment feedback on shorebirds: a multispecies bayesian perspective. Ecol Eng, in reviewGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Convertino M, Elsner JB, Munoz-Carpena R, Kiker GA, Martinez CJ, Fisher RA, Linkov I (2010) Do tropical cyclones shape shorebird habitat patterns? Biogeoclimatology of snowy plovers in Florida. PLoS ONE 6(1):e15683. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cowardin LM, Golet FC, LaRoe ET (1979) Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Available at:
  30. 30.
    Cukier RI, Levine HB, Shuler KE (1978) Non sensitivity analysis of multiparameter model systems. J Comput Phys 26:1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    de Souza Munoz ME, et al (2009) openModeller: a generic approach to species` potential distribution modellingGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Draper D (1995) Assessment and propagation of model uncertainty. J R Stat Soc 57:45–98, Series BGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Elith J, Leathwick JR (2009) Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:677–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Emanuel K, Sundararajan R, Williams J (2008) Hurricanes and global warming. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 89(3):347–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Florida Geographic Data Library (FGDL) (2010) Available at:
  36. 36.
    Galbraith H, Jones R, Park R, Clough J, Herrod-Julius S, Harrington B, Page G (2002) Global climate change and sea level rise: potential losses of intertidal habitat for shorebirds. Waterbirds 25(2):173–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gregory R, Failing L, Higgins P (2006) Adaptive management and environmental decision making: a case study application to water use planning. Ecol Econ 58:434–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Grinsted A, Moore JC, Jevreva S (2009) Reconstructing sea level from paleo and projected temperatures 200 to 2100 AD. Climate Dyn. doi:10.1007/s00382-008-0507-2Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Guilfoyle MP, Fischer RA, Pashley DN, Lott CA (eds) (2006) Summary of first regional workshop on dredging, beach nourishment, and birds on the South Atlantic Coast. DOER technical notes collection (TN DOER- EL TR 06–10), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MSGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8:993–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gunderson HH, Holling CS, Light SS (eds) (1995) Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Haan CT, Allred B, Storm DE, Sabbagh GJ, Prabhu S (1995) Statistical procedure for evaluating hydrologic/water quality models. Trans ASAE 38(3):725–733Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hidalgo HG, Dettinger MD, Cayan DR (2008) Downscaling with constructed analogs: Daily precipitation and temperature fields over the United States. CEC-500-2007-123. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental ResearchGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Himes JG, Douglass NJ, Pruner RA, Croft AM, Seckinger EM (2006) Status and distribution of snowy plover in Florida – 2006 study final Report. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida, 27ppGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Horton R, Herweijer C, Rosensweig C, Liu J, Gornitz W, Ruane A (2008) Sea level rise projections for current generation CGCMs based on the semi-empirical method. Geophys Res Lett 35:L02715. doi:10.1029/2007GL032486, 2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios. In: Nakicenovic N, Swart R (eds). Cambridge University Press, 599ppGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    IPCC-TGICA, (2007) General guidelines on the use of scenario data for climate impact and adaption 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, 66pGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jawitz JW, Muñoz-Carpena R, Grace KA, Muller S, James AI (2007) Development, testing, and sensitivity and uncertainty analyses of a transport and reaction simulation engine (TaRSE) for spatially distributed modeling of phosphorus in South Florida peat marsh wetlands. Scientific investigations report 2006-XXXX. U.S. Department of the Interior- U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia (in review)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Keith D, Akçakaya HR, Thuiller W, et al (in preparation) Predicting extinction risks under climate change: a synthesis of stochastic population models with dynamic bioclimatic habitat modelsGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kiker GA, Bridges TS, Varghese A, Seager T, Linkov I (2005) Application of multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental decision-making. Integr Environ Assess Manage 1(2):95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kiker GA, Muñoz-Carpena R, Wolski P, Cathey A, Gaughn A Kim J (2008, in press) Incorporating uncertainty into adaptive, transboundary water challenges: a conceptual design for the Okavango river basin. Int J of Risk Assess and Manage (in press)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Knutti R (2008) Should we believe model predictions of future climate change? Philos Trans R Soc A 366:4647–4664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lafferty KD, Goodman D, Sandoval CP (2006) Restoration of breeding by snowy plovers following protection from disturbance. Biodivers Conserv 15:2217–2230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Landsea CW (2007) Counting Atlantic Tropical cyclones back to 1900. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 88(18):197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lee JK, Park RA, Mausel PW (1991) GIS-related modeling of impacts of sea level rise oncoastal areas. Pages 356–367. GIS/LIS ’91 Conference, Atlanta GeorgiaGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lee JK, Park RA, Mausel PW (1992) Application of geoprocessing and simulations modeling to estimate impacts of sea level rise on the Northeast Coast of Florida. Photogramm Eng Rem S 58:1579–1586Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Levinson DH, Vickery P.J, Resio DT (2009) A review of the climatological characteristics of landfalling gulf hurricanes for wind, wave, and surge hazard estimation. Ocean Eng (In Press)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Linkov I, Varghese A, Jamil S, Seager TP, Kiker G, Bridges T (2004) Multi- criteria decision analysis: framework for applications in remedial planning for contaminated sites. In: Linkov I, Ramadan A (eds) Comparative risk assessment and environmental decision making. Kluwer, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lott CA, Durkee PA, Gierhart WA, Kelly PP (2007) Florida coastal engineering and bird conservation Geographic Information System (GIS) Manual. US Army Corp of engineers, ERDC technical reportGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Lott CA, Volansky KL, Ewell CS Jr (2009) Habitat associations of shoreline-dependent birds in barrier island ecosystems during fall migration in Lee County, Florida. US Army Corp of Engineers, ERDC/EL TR-09-14Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lott CA, Volansky KL, Ewell CS Jr (2009b) Distribution and abundance of piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) and snowy plovers (Charadrius alexandrinus) on the West Coast of Florida before and after the 2004/2005 hurricane seasons. US Army Corp of Engineers, ERDC/EL TR-09-13Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mann M, Emanuel K (2006) Atlantic hurricane trends linked to climate change. Eos Trans Amer Geophys Union 87(24): 233, 238, 241Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Maurer EP, Hidalgo HG (2007) Utility of daily vs. monthly large-scale climate data: An intercomparison of two downscaling methods. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 4:3413–3440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    McKay M D (1995) Evaluating prediction uncertainty. NUREG/CR‐6311. Los Alamos, N.M.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Los Alamos National LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Meehl GA, Covey C, Delworth T, Latif M, McAvaney B, Mitchell JFB, Stouffer RJ, Taylor KE (2007) The WCRP CMIP3 multi-model dataset: A new era in climate change research. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 88:1383–1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Morris MD (1995) Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments, 1991. Technometrics 33–2:161–174Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Muñoz-Carpena R, Zajac Z, Kuo YM (2007) Evaluation of water quality models through global sensitivity and uncertainty analyses techniques: application to the vegetative filter strip model VFSMOD-W. Trans ASABE 50(5):1719–1732Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    National Assessment Synthesis Team (2001) Climate change impacts on the United States, 2000. Available at:
  69. 69.
    New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC) (2009) Climate risk information, 67 pages. Available at:
  70. 70.
    NOAA (2008) Environmental Sensitivity Index Mapping. Technical re- port, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Available at:
  71. 71.
    NWI (2009) National Wetland Inventory – US Fish and Wildlife Service. Available at:
  72. 72.
    Oppenheimer M, O′Neill B, Webster M, Agrawala S (2007) The limits of consensus. Science 317:1505–1506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Park RA, Lee JK, Canning D (1993) Potential effects of sea level rise on Puget Soundwetlands. Geocarto Int 8:99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Park RA, Lee JK, Mausel PW, Howe RC (1991) Using remote sensing for modeling the impacts of sea level rise. World Resour Rev 3:184–205Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Pearson RG (2007) Species Distribution modeling for conservation educators and practitioners – synthesis. American Museum of Natural History. Available at:
  76. 76.
    Pfeffer WT, Harper JT, O′Neel S (2008) Kinematic constraints on glacier contributions to 21st-century sea-level rise. Science 321:1340–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Shapire RE (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model 190:231–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Pincus R, Batstone CP, Hofmann RJP, Taylor KE, Gleckler PJ (2008) Evaluating the present-day simulation of clouds, precipitation, and radiation in climate models. J Geophys Res 113:D14209. doi:10.1029/2007JD009334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Pruner R (2010) Assessing habitat selection, reproductive performance, and the affects of anthropogenic disturbance of the Snowy Plover along the Florida Gulf coast, MSc thesis, University of FloridaGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Rahmstorf S (2007) A semi-empirical approach to projecting future sea-level rise. Science 315:368–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Reckhow KH (1994) Water quality simulation modeling and uncertainty analysis for risk assessment and decision making. Ecol Modell 72:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Saltelli A, Ratto M, Tarantola S, Campolongo F (2005) Sensitivity analysis for chemical models. Chem Rev 105(7):2811–2827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Saltelli A, Tarantola S, Campolongo F, Ratto M (2004) Sensitivity analysis in practice: a guide to assessing scientific models. Wiley, Chichester, p 219Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Scott EM (1996) Uncertainty and sensitivity studies of models of environmental systems. In: Charnes JM, Morrice DJ, BrunnerDT, Swain JJ. Proceedings of the 28th conference on Winter simulation, Coronado, California, United States, pp 255–259Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Semenov MA (2008) Simulation of extreme weather events by a stochastic weather generator. Climate Res 35(3):203–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Semenov MA, Barrow EM (1997) Use of a stochastic weather generator in the development of climate change scenarios. Clim Change 35(4):397–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    SERDP/ESTCP/DOD (2007) Proceedings from the DoD southeast region threatened, endangered and at-risk species workshop. 27 February–1 March 2007. Available at:
  88. 88.
    Sobol IM (1993) Sensitivity estimates for non-linear mathematical models. Math Modell Comput Exp I 4:407–414Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Stockwell DRB, Peters DP (1999) The GARP modelling system: problems and solutions to automated spatial prediction. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 13:143–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Stucker JH., Cuthbert FJ (2006) Distribution of non-breeding Great Lakes Piping PloversGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1996) Piping plover (Charadrius melodus), Atlantic coast population, revised recovery plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 258ppGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2003) Recovery plan for the great lakes piping plover (Charadrius melodus). Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. viii + 141ppGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Vecchi GA, Soden BJ (2007) Increased tropical Atlantic wind shear in model projections of global warming. Geophys Res Lett 34:L08702. doi:10:10292007GL030740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Wilby RL, Dawson CW, Barrow EM (2002) SDSM – a decision support tool for the assessment of regional climate change impacts. Environ Model Softw 17:147–159Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Wintle BA, Bekessy SA, Venier LA, Pearce JL, Chisholm RA (2005) Utility of dynamic-landscape metapopulation models for sustainable forest management. Conserv Biol 19:1930–1943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Wood AW, Maurer EP, Kumar A, Lettenmaier DP (2002) Long-range experimental hydrologic forecasting for the eastern United States. J Geophys Res 107(D20):4429. doi:10.1029/2001JD000659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Zwick P, Carr MH (2006) Florida 2060: A population distribution scenario for the state of Florida. Report prepared by the UF GeoPlan Center.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Convertino
    • 1
  • G. A. Kiker
    • 1
  • M. L. Chu-Agor
    • 1
  • R. Muñoz-Carpena
    • 1
  • C. J. Martinez
    • 1
  • M. Aiello-Lammens
    • 2
  • H. R. Akçakaya
    • 2
  • R. A. Fischer
    • 3
  • I. Linkov
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Biological EngineeringUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and EvolutionSUNY Stony BrookNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.USACE ERDC Environmental LaboratoryVicksburgUSA
  4. 4.US Army Engineer Research and Development CenterConcordUSA

Personalised recommendations