assessment of regional climate vulnerability in germany and the policy science interaction
Post on 22-Feb-2016
25 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Assessment of regional climate vulnerability in Germany and the
policy science interactionJürgen P. Kropp
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) Head North-South Theme (www.pik-potsdam.de/nsp)
Team: M. Lüdeke, D. Reckien, H. Förster, T. Grothmann, L. Costa, T. Sterzel, O. Roithmeyer, A. Holsten, M. , C. Walther, V. Tekken, T. Lissner, S. Ritchie, T. Weiss, C. Pape, M. Moneo, D. Rybski, I. Niemeyer, M. Wrobel, O. Kit, M. Budde, S. Hofmann, N. Lux, S. Kriewald, J. Kossak, N. Protze , M. Böttle, P. Pradhan, J. Briganti, M. Röse, S. Fabri, R. Moreaux, M. Röse
„Negative
Emissions“
Peaking of Emission beyond 2020: > 1x Kyoto/yr
Source: after Meinshausen et al. 2009/PIK
Temperature guardrail: 2 °C - 2100, < 0.2°C/yrActual +0.8 °C, at least 0.4 °C in the “pipeline”0.2 °C we have approx. approached!
2°
2Gt/cap/yr!0.1 Gt/cap yrPoorest 3527 Gt/cap yr US
What are the difficulties?
Science and policy/decision makers have different “styles of thinking”:
• Science is interested in systematic analysis of mechanisms and functions, or in other words science seeks for the “thruth”
• Policy/decision makers are interested in concrete problem solving and do not want too much about the background
“Climate Change” is increasingly misused for labeling of anyway necessary action
Science cannot (yet) solve problems and political aims of policy makers, we can make rough suggestions.
Impact analyses are hardly comparable, cause institution use different scenarios
Height (in m)
Cities
Rivers
Admin. districts
Example: North-Rhine Westphalia
22 % (18 Mio.) of total population of Germany
26 % forests, 50 % agriculture Ca. ¼ GDP
4 PIK-Studies:NRW I Study (1998-1999) Regional climate scenarios NRW (2004-2006)NRWII Study (2008-2009) ESPON-CLIMATE case study (2008-2011)
Integrated, by usage of non-linear classifiers
Integrated Vulnerability: NRW I (1998)
Kropp et al. 2006, Climatic Change
396 communities24 indicatorssocietyeconomytourismecosystems
Insufficient, cause sectoral focus is not visible, no cause effect chain, etc.Retrieval for methods
Source: Kropp et al. 2006, Climatic Change
Source: Kropp et al. 2006, Climatic Change
Sectorale Vulnerability 1999 Stimulus: stormsExposed unit: forestry; Indicators: tree types, slope, relativeStrom frequency
Actual damage 2007 > 19 Mio m3
Regional Distribution of Functional City Types
#1: Industrial Centres (mainly Rhine-Ruhr basin)
#2: Recreation Regions
#13: Suburbs and Low Diversified Cities
#24: Rural Communities
Kropp et al. 2006, Climatic Change
North-Rhine Westphalia18 m residents, 34.000 km2, 397 communities, 25% GDP
Neuronal Network Approach, 24 input variables(Source: Kropp et al. 2006/PIK)
Deterministic and sectoral, by review of literature,
and “distillation” of relevant mechanism,in particular, what are the drivers of risk!
Inclusion of climate scenarios in sectoral approaches
Mandatory: Comparisoncf. models scenarios, e.g.CCLM/STAR for NRW z.B. Annual mean T: C-CLM is too cold! (A1B)
Source: Kropp , Holsten et al. 2009
Health Risk related to heat waves(time demand 6 man month)
Increase in number and duration of heatwaves (CCLM, scenario A1B)
Densely populated areas, in particular in the Rhine-Ruhr basin and in the large cities alog the river rhine, cause number and temperature could become very high.
Heatwaves
Example Rhine valley/ Cologne Bight:
Amount of heatwaves Duration in days
Source: Kropp , Holsten et al. 2009
Health Risks in Urban Agglomerations
Health Risk - Vulnerability
Change
Change
Vulnerability a), b)Very smallSmallMediumHighVery high
Unch.Slight changeMedium changehigh changeVery high change
Comparative analysis by an indicator-based fuzzy model
e.g. sealed surface, amount of elderly people, demographic & regional scenarios,...
will become not only for densely populated areas a problem
Source: Lissner & Kropp 2008
Storm risk
Tree types Topography
Strom frequency Soil types
corniferousdeciduous
mixed
Risk categoryNo data Very lowLowMediumHighVery high
Change of storm days %
Analysis of mechanisms, e.g. what are the
determinants of risk?time demand 3.5 man month
Source: Kropp , Klaus, Holsten 2008
Once again: climate related drivers(time demand 4 man month)
from here input for otherquestions, e.g. cooling demand for power plants….
Transpiration
Precipitation
run-off mm/yr
groundwater recoverage mm/yr
River Weser/Intschede
Climatic water balance summer
CCLM: too humid
Climatological: fire risk(time demand 4 man month)
Longer and more!
Days with high fire risk
Change in seasonality
Shift to summer, but is there really a risk?
Source: Costa, Kropp , Holsten 2008
Putting the things together
integrating climate risk, settlementdistribution, land use, etc….
Source: Costa, Kropp , Holsten 2008
A compromise: Cause effect chains are useful for the analysis of the effects of adaptation effects
Isstimulus related, butneeds time, cause “networks and interlinkages” have to be defined
damages to power grids
damages to buildings
traffic breakdown
damages to traffic infrastr.
inundation
Clearly allows to identify how an stimulus and/or impact(s)will propagate through a system or how influential adaptationcould be!
Source: Kropp & Reckien 2009
seek here for responses to risk regionalpropagation mechanisms!
… and than perform economic analyses!
Implications/ConclusionsBroadening of science/stakeholder interface: clear target definition, e.g. of what is wanted, which questions should be answered
Fuzzy definitions of tasks may lead finally to frustration on stakeholder’s side
Do not underestimate the time demand
Clearly define mechanisms jointly for vulnerability analyses
Regarding adaptationCannot finally discussed by science, decision maker’s bias is too large!
I prefer that science should solve academic questions related to adaptation (there are still enough!)
Ongoing & future activities
CI:grasp: Climate Impacts: global & regionaladaptation support platform (running, Focus developing countries, two institutions PIK/GTZ, 1.8m)
PROGRESS (fall 2009 – four years, 4(+4) partners, 11m, BMBF), Potsdam Research Cluster on Georisk Analysis, Environmental Change, and Sustainability, worldwide with specific foci, coordinator: University of Potsdam
MEDIATION: Methodology for Effective Decision-making on Impacts and Adaptation (11 Partners, beginning 2010, 3.5 years, coordinator : Alterra, 7 FRP, 3m , Focus: Europe)
top related