IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v167y2021i3d10.1007_s10584-021-03169-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Divergent, plausible, and relevant climate futures for near- and long-term resource planning

Author

Listed:
  • David J. Lawrence

    (National Park Service)

  • Amber N. Runyon

    (National Park Service)

  • John E. Gross

    (National Park Service)

  • Gregor W. Schuurman

    (National Park Service)

  • Brian W. Miller

    (U.S. Geological Survey, North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center)

Abstract

Scenario planning has emerged as a widely used planning process for resource management in situations of consequential, irreducible uncertainty. Because it explicitly incorporates uncertainty, scenario planning is regularly employed in climate change adaptation. An early and essential step in developing scenarios is identifying “climate futures”—descriptions of the physical attributes of plausible future climates that could occur at a specific place and time. Divergent climate futures that describe the broadest possible range of plausible conditions support information needs of decision makers, including understanding the spectrum of potential resource responses to climate change, developing strategies robust to that range, avoiding highly consequential surprises, and averting maladaptation. Here, we discuss three approaches for generating climate futures: a Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP)-ensemble, a quadrant-average, and an individual-projection approach. All are designed to capture relevant uncertainty, but they differ in utility for different applications, complexity, and effort required to implement. Using an application from Big Bend National Park as an example of numerous similar efforts to develop climate futures for National Park Service applications over the past decade, we compare these approaches, focusing on their ability to capture among-projection divergence during early-, mid-, and late-twenty-first century periods to align with near-, mid-, and long-term planning efforts. The quadrant-average approach and especially the individual-projection approach captured a broader range of plausible future conditions than the RCP-ensemble approach, particularly in the near term. Therefore, the individual-projection approach supports decision makers seeking to understand the broadest potential characterization of future conditions. We discuss tradeoffs associated with different climate future approaches and highlight suitable applications.

Suggested Citation

  • David J. Lawrence & Amber N. Runyon & John E. Gross & Gregor W. Schuurman & Brian W. Miller, 2021. "Divergent, plausible, and relevant climate futures for near- and long-term resource planning," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-20, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:167:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-021-03169-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-021-03169-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-021-03169-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-021-03169-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christine M. Albano & Maureen I. McCarthy & Michael D. Dettinger & Stephanie A. McAfee, 2021. "Techniques for constructing climate scenarios for stress test applications," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 1-25, February.
    2. Detlef Vuuren & Jae Edmonds & Mikiko Kainuma & Keywan Riahi & Allison Thomson & Kathy Hibbard & George Hurtt & Tom Kram & Volker Krey & Jean-Francois Lamarque & Toshihiko Masui & Malte Meinshausen & N, 2011. "The representative concentration pathways: an overview," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 5-31, November.
    3. Penny Whetton & Kevin Hennessy & John Clarke & Kathleen McInnes & David Kent, 2012. "Use of Representative Climate Futures in impact and adaptation assessment," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 433-442, December.
    4. Richard H. Moss & Jae A. Edmonds & Kathy A. Hibbard & Martin R. Manning & Steven K. Rose & Detlef P. van Vuuren & Timothy R. Carter & Seita Emori & Mikiko Kainuma & Tom Kram & Gerald A. Meehl & John F, 2010. "The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment," Nature, Nature, vol. 463(7282), pages 747-756, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ryan J. Longman & Abby G. Frazier & Christian P. Giardina & Elliott W. Parsons & Sierra McDaniel, 2022. "The Pacific Drought Knowledge Exchange: A Co-Production Approach to Deliver Climate Resources to User Groups," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-14, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Taylor, Chris & Cullen, Brendan & D'Occhio, Michael & Rickards, Lauren & Eckard, Richard, 2018. "Trends in wheat yields under representative climate futures: Implications for climate adaptation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-10.
    2. Kokou Amega & Yendoubé Laré & Ramchandra Bhandari & Yacouba Moumouni & Aklesso Y. G. Egbendewe & Windmanagda Sawadogo & Saidou Madougou, 2022. "Solar Energy Powered Decentralized Smart-Grid for Sustainable Energy Supply in Low-Income Countries: Analysis Considering Climate Change Influences in Togo," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-24, December.
    3. Qun'ou Jiang & Yuwei Cheng & Qiutong Jin & Xiangzheng Deng & Yuanjing Qi, 2015. "Simulation of Forestland Dynamics in a Typical Deforestation and Afforestation Area under Climate Scenarios," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-26, September.
    4. Pedro Pérez-Cutillas & Pedro Baños Páez & Isabel Banos-González, 2020. "Variability of Water Balance under Climate Change Scenarios. Implications for Sustainability in the Rhône River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-22, August.
    5. Sabina Thaler & Herbert Formayer & Gerhard Kubu & Miroslav Trnka & Josef Eitzinger, 2021. "Effects of Bias-Corrected Regional Climate Projections and Their Spatial Resolutions on Crop Model Results under Different Climatic and Soil Conditions in Austria," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-39, October.
    6. Rusu, Liliana, 2019. "Evaluation of the near future wave energy resources in the Black Sea under two climate scenarios," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 137-146.
    7. Gregory Casey & Soheil Shayegh & Juan Moreno-Cruz & Martin Bunzl & Oded Galor & Ken Caldeira, 2019. "The Impact of Climate Change on Fertility," Department of Economics Working Papers 2019-04, Department of Economics, Williams College.
    8. Dobes Leo & Jotzo Frank & Stern David I., 2014. "The Economics of Global Climate Change: A Historical Literature Review," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 65(3), pages 281-320, December.
    9. Grundy, Michael J. & Bryan, Brett A. & Nolan, Martin & Battaglia, Michael & Hatfield-Dodds, Steve & Connor, Jeffery D. & Keating, Brian A., 2016. "Scenarios for Australian agricultural production and land use to 2050," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 70-83.
    10. Vassiliki Varela & Diamando Vlachogiannis & Athanasios Sfetsos & Stelios Karozis & Nadia Politi & Frédérique Giroud, 2019. "Projection of Forest Fire Danger due to Climate Change in the French Mediterranean Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-13, August.
    11. Antolin, Luís A.S. & Heinemann, Alexandre B. & Marin, Fábio R., 2021. "Impact assessment of common bean availability in Brazil under climate change scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    12. Zhang, Feng & Zhang, Wenjuan & Li, Ming & Zhang, Yuan & Li, Fengmin & Li, Changbin, 2017. "Is crop biomass and soil carbon storage sustainable with long-term application of full plastic film mulching under future climate change?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 67-77.
    13. Gilardelli, Carlo & Confalonieri, Roberto & Cappelli, Giovanni Alessandro & Bellocchi, Gianni, 2018. "Sensitivity of WOFOST-based modelling solutions to crop parameters under climate change," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 1-14.
    14. Huanbi Yue & Chunyang He & Qingxu Huang & Da Zhang & Peijun Shi & Enayat A. Moallemi & Fangjin Xu & Yang Yang & Xin Qi & Qun Ma & Brett A. Bryan, 2024. "Substantially reducing global PM2.5-related deaths under SDG3.9 requires better air pollution control and healthcare," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    15. O'Neill, Brian, 2016. "The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and their extension and use in impact, adaptation and vulnerability studies," Conference papers 332808, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    16. Daniel Ganea & Elena Mereuta & Liliana Rusu, 2018. "Estimation of the Near Future Wind Power Potential in the Black Sea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-21, November.
    17. Yingying Lu & David I. Stern, 2016. "Substitutability and the Cost of Climate Mitigation Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(1), pages 81-107, May.
    18. Vanessa J. Schweizer, 2020. "Reflections on cross-impact balances, a systematic method constructing global socio-technical scenarios for climate change research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(4), pages 1705-1722, October.
    19. Tokimatsu, Koji & Konishi, Satoshi & Ishihara, Keiichi & Tezuka, Tetsuo & Yasuoka, Rieko & Nishio, Masahiro, 2016. "Role of innovative technologies under the global zero emissions scenarios," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 1483-1493.
    20. Matthias Kühnbach & Felix Guthoff & Anke Bekk & Ludger Eltrop, 2020. "Development of Scenarios for a Multi-Model System Analysis Based on the Example of a Cellular Energy System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-23, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:167:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-021-03169-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.