Upload
hoanglien
View
221
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Application of the New Scenario Framework for Climate Change Research: Human Vulnerability
Scenarios of Human Vulnerability to Heat Stress in European Regions
Guillaume Rohat1, Johannes Flacke2, Hy Dao1,3
1Institute for Environmental Sciences, University of Geneva, Switzerland2Faculty of Geo‐Information Science and Earth Observation, University of Twente, The Netherlands
3United Nations Environment Programme DEWA/GRID‐Geneva, Switzerland
EGU General Assembly 2016 – [email protected]
Rationale – 1
Füssel H. and Klein R.J.T. (2006) Climate change vulnerability assessments: An evolution of conceptual thinking. Climatic Change 75: 301‐329
Definition:
Human vulnerability to climate change = socioeconomic sensitivity ‐ socioeconomic adaptive capacity + climate change exposure
So far, most (if not all) future human vulnerability assessments arebased on:
o Climatic projections (scenarios, GCMs, RCMs)o Current socioeconomic conditions (lack ofprojected data and lack of frameworks)
Do not consider the influence of socioeconomic development pathways on future human vulnerability
Rationale – 2
The new scenario framework for climate change research addressesthis issue. It is made of:
o SSPs: Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (socioeconomicscenarios)
o RCPs: Representative Concentration Pathways (climatescenarios)
o [ SPAs: Shared Policy Assumptions ]
These elements are combined together in a Scenario Matrix Architecture (SMA)
We attempt to illustrate the applicability of this framework: Case‐study: Assessment of future human vulnerability to
climate change‐induced heat stress in European regions
van Vuuren D.P. et al. (2014) A new scenario framework for climate change research: Scenario matrix architecture. Climatic Change 122: 373‐386
Overall Methodology
Climatic component (exposure)
Socioeconomic component
(sensitivity and adaptive capacity)
Combinations
Production of scenarios of human vulnerability to climate change
Quantitative projections of the indicators
Selection of scenarios and key indicators
European Regions – NUTS
Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS)Administrative units Policy‐relevant
NUTS‐2:
o 271 European regions o Administrative units(regions, provinces, counties, …)
o 28 countries o 500 millions inhabitants o 4 millions km²o Heterogeneous (e.g. population densityranging from 2.7 to 9’620 inhab/km²)
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nuts/overview
GDP per capita [2010] Population density
(‐) (+)
Socioeconomic Component – 1
Scenarios:
1. Selection of European socioeconomic scenarios, developed within ESPON research projects, up to 2030.
https://www.espon.eu/main/Menu_Projects/Menu_ProjectOverview/
Indicators (equal weights):
GDP per capita Education level Population density Urban land take Old dependency ratio
Projections at NUTS‐2 scale made available within ESPON.
2. Matching of these European scenarios with global SSPs.
SSP2: Business‐as‐usual ; SSP5: Fossil‐fueled development
(+)
(‐)
Socioeconomic Component – 2
Current and future conditions (2 scenarios, 2030) of the socioeconomic component (combined socioeconomic sensitivity and adaptive capacity)
The different socioeconomic pathways greatly influence the socioeconomic sensitivity and adaptive capacity
Socioeconomic sensitivity
(including adaptive capacity)
[Current] [SSP5][SSP2]
Climatic Component – 1
Multi‐model ensembles projections of climatic variables made available within EURO‐CORDEX project. Daily data, high‐resolution (12.5 km).
http://www.euro‐cordex.net/
Scenarios RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5
Radiative forcing Low High
European mean surface temperature increase (2050) 1.0 °C 2.0 °C
Scenarios: selection of two RCPs.
Indicator of heat exposure: changes of the average daily max temperature in summer months (JJA), from the reference period (2000‐2010) to the projected period (2025‐2035).
(+)
(‐)
Climatic Component – 2
Heat Exposure in 2030, at NUTS‐2 scale, for two RCPs:
Heat exposure
[RCP 8.5][RCP 2.6]
Combinations
Combinations of socioeconomic and climatic scenarios (equalweights between the two components):
Current SSP2 SSP5
RCP 2.6 X X X
RCP 8.5 X X X
Some scenarios are more likely than others:
A combination of a low radiative forcing (RCP 2.6) with a fossil‐fueled development (SSP5) is very unlikely to happen.
6 scenarios of human vulnerability to heat stress for 271 European regions, in 2030.
(+)
(‐)
Vulnerability Scenarios – 1
Human vulnerability to heat stress
[SSP5 * RCP2.6]
[SSP5*RCP8.5]
[Current*RCP2.6]
[SSP2 * RCP8.5]
[SSP2 * RCP2.6]
[Current * RCP8.5]
The production of vulnerability scenarios is relevant to study the impacts of different climatic and socioeconomic pathways (and their combinations) on future human vulnerability.
Vulnerability Scenarios – 2
The different socioeconomic pathways influence the future humanvulnerability to heat stress, under each climatic scenario. As expected, the“business‐as‐usual” socioeconomic scenario leads to the greatestvulnerability levels.
0
20
40
60
80
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Freq
uenc
y
Human vulnerability from low (0) to high (1)
Current * RCP2.6
SSP2 * RCP2.6
SSP5 * RCP2.6
0
20
40
60
0 0.2 0.4 0.6Freq
uenc
y
Human vulnerability from low (0) to high (1)
Current * RCP8.5
SSP2 * RCP8.5
SSP5 * RCP8.5
Conclusion
Future human vulnerability based on future socioeconomic conditions issignificantly different than the one based on current conditions.
The new scenario framework for climate change research providesuseful guidelines and methods to produce vulnerability scenarios.
However,
o This framework is rather new and has not been used much (yet?) inthe field of vulnerability assessment.
o Reliable quantifications of socioeconomic indicators are still hard tofind, although the quantification of SSPs key indicators is ongoing.
o Pros and cons of using projected socioeconomic rather than currentsocioeconomic conditions to assess future human vulnerability have to beidentified and quantified.