English
 
Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT
 
 
DownloadE-Mail
  Inconsistent recognition of uncertainty in studies of climate change impacts on forests

Petr, M., Vacchiano, G., Thom, D., Mairota, P., Kautz, M., Goncalves, L. M. S., Yousefpour, R., Kaloudis, S., Reyer, C. P. O. (2019): Inconsistent recognition of uncertainty in studies of climate change impacts on forests. - Environmental Research Letters, 14, 11, 113003.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab4670

Item is

Files

show Files
hide Files
:
8598oa.pdf (Publisher version), 2MB
Name:
8598oa.pdf
Description:
-
Visibility:
Public
MIME-Type / Checksum:
application/pdf / [MD5]
Technical Metadata:
Copyright Date:
-
Copyright Info:
-
License:
-

Locators

show

Creators

show
hide
 Creators:
Petr, M.1, Author
Vacchiano, G.1, Author
Thom, D.1, Author
Mairota, P.1, Author
Kautz, M.1, Author
Goncalves, L. M. S.1, Author
Yousefpour, R.1, Author
Kaloudis, S.1, Author
Reyer, Christopher P. O.2, Author              
Affiliations:
1External Organizations, ou_persistent22              
2Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, ou_persistent13              

Content

show
hide
Free keywords: -
 Abstract: Background. Uncertainty about climate change impacts on forests can hinder mitigation and adaptation actions. Scientific enquiry typically involves assessments of uncertainties, yet different uncertainty components emerge in different studies. Consequently, inconsistent understanding of uncertainty among different climate impact studies (from the impact analysis to implementing solutions) can be an additional reason for delaying action. In this review we (a) expanded existing uncertainty assessment frameworks into one harmonised framework for characterizing uncertainty, (b) used this framework to identify and classify uncertainties in climate change impacts studies on forests, and (c) summarised the uncertainty assessment methods applied in those studies. Methods. We systematically reviewed climate change impact studies published between 1994 and 2016. We separated these studies into those generating information about climate change impacts on forests using models –'modelling studies', and those that used this information to design management actions—'decision-making studies'. We classified uncertainty across three dimensions: nature, level, and location, which can be further categorised into specific uncertainty types. Results. We found that different uncertainties prevail in modelling versus decision-making studies. Epistemic uncertainty is the most common nature of uncertainty covered by both types of studies, whereas ambiguity plays a pronounced role only in decision-making studies. Modelling studies equally investigate all levels of uncertainty, whereas decision-making studies mainly address scenario uncertainty and recognised ignorance. Finally, the main location of uncertainty for both modelling and decision-making studies is within the driving forces—representing, e.g. socioeconomic or policy changes. The most frequently used methods to assess uncertainty are expert elicitation, sensitivity and scenario analysis, but a full suite of methods exists that seems currently underutilized. Discussion & Synthesis. The misalignment of uncertainty types addressed by modelling and decision-making studies may complicate adaptation actions early in the implementation pathway. Furthermore, these differences can be a potential barrier for communicating research findings to decision-makers.

Details

show
hide
Language(s):
 Dates: 2019
 Publication Status: Finally published
 Pages: -
 Publishing info: -
 Table of Contents: -
 Rev. Type: Peer
 Identifiers: DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab4670
PIKDOMAIN: RD2 - Climate Resilience
eDoc: 8598
Research topic keyword: Ecosystems
Regional keyword: Global
Organisational keyword: RD2 - Climate Resilience
Working Group: Forest and Ecosystem Resilience
 Degree: -

Event

show

Legal Case

show

Project information

show

Source 1

show
hide
Title: Environmental Research Letters
Source Genre: Journal, SCI, Scopus, p3, oa
 Creator(s):
Affiliations:
Publ. Info: -
Pages: - Volume / Issue: 14 (11) Sequence Number: 113003 Start / End Page: - Identifier: CoNE: https://publications.pik-potsdam.de/cone/journals/resource/150326