Co-adapting water supply and demand to changing climate in agricultural water management: evidences from a

model-based analysis in Northern Italy

Matteo Giuliani matteo.giuliani@polimi.it

NRM Polimi

Cosa suggeriscono le previsioni scientifiche?

Proiezioni climatiche: incremento delle temperature

Source: IPCC, 2014

SPM

Summary for Policymakers

21

Figure SPM.7 | CMIP5 multi-model simulated time series from 1950 to 2100 for (a) change in global annual mean surface temperature relative to 1986–2005, (b) Northern Hemisphere September sea ice extent (5-year running mean), and (c) global mean ocean surface pH. Time series of projections and a measure of uncertainty (shading) are shown for scenarios RCP2.6 (blue) and RCP8.5 (red). Black (grey shading) is the modelled historical evolution using historical reconstructed forcings. The mean and associated uncertainties averaged over 2081−2100 are given for all RCP scenarios as colored verti-cal bars. The numbers of CMIP5 models used to calculate the multi-model mean is indicated. For sea ice extent (b), the projected mean and uncertainty (minimum-maximum range) of the subset of models that most closely reproduce the climatological mean state and 1979 to 2012 trend of the Arctic sea ice is given (number of models given in brackets). For completeness, the CMIP5 multi-model mean is also indicated with dotted lines. The dashed line represents nearly ice-free conditions (i.e., when sea ice extent is less than 106 km2 for at least five consecutive years). For further technical details see the Technical Summary Supplementary Material {Figures 6.28, 12.5, and 12.28–12.31; Figures TS.15, TS.17, and TS.20}

6.0

4.0

2.0

−2.0

0.0

(o C)

4232

39

historicalRCP2.6RCP8.5

Global average surface temperature change(a)

RC

P2.6

R

CP4

.5

RC

P6.0

RC

P8.5

Mean over2081–2100

1950 2000 2050 2100

Northern Hemisphere September sea ice extent(b)

RC

P2.6

R

CP4

.5

RC

P6.0

R

CP8

.5

1950 2000 2050 2100

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

(106 k

m2 )

29 (3)

37 (5)

39 (5)

1950 2000 2050 2100

8.2

8.0

7.8

7.6

(pH

uni

t)

12

9

10

Global ocean surface pH(c)

RC

P2.6

R

CP4

.5

RC

P6.0

R

CP8

.5

Year

Proiezioni climatiche: diminuzione della disponibilita' idrica

Source: Arnell, 2004

Proiezioni climatiche: eventi estremi piu' frequenti

La dimensione umana del cambiamento globale

Beijing 1977 Beijing 2011

Articles

The Human Footprint and the Last of the Wild

ERIC W. SANDERSON, MALANDING JAITEH, MARC A. LEVY, KENT H. REDFORD, ANTOINETTE V. WANNEBO, AND GILLIAN WOOLMER

n Genesis, God blesses human beings and bids us to take dominion over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air,

and every other living thing. We are entreated to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth, and subdue it (Gen. 1:28). The bad news, and the good news, is that we have almost suc- ceeded.

There is little debate in scientific circles about the impor- tance of human influence on ecosystems. According to sci- entists' reports, we appropriate over 40% of the net primary productivity (the green material) produced on Earth each year (Vitousek et al. 1986, Rojstaczer et al. 2001). We consume 35% of the productivity of the oceanic shelf (Pauly and Christensen 1995), and we use 60% of freshwater run-off (Postel et al. 1996). The unprecedented escalation in both human popu- lation and consumption in the 20th century has resulted in environmental crises never before encountered in the history of humankind and the world (McNeill 2000). E. O. Wilson (2002) claims it would now take four Earths to meet the consumption demands of the current human population, if every human consumed at the level of the average US in- habitant. The influence of human beings on the planet has be- come so pervasive that it is hard to find adults in any coun- try who have not seen the environment around them reduced in natural values during their lifetimes-woodlots converted to agriculture, agricultural lands converted to suburban de- velopment, suburban development converted to urban areas. The cumulative effect of these many local changes is the global phenomenon of human influence on nature, a new ge- ological epoch some call the "anthropocene" (Steffen and Tyson 2001). Human influence is arguably the most impor- tant factor affecting life of all kinds in today's world (Lande 1998, Terborgh 1999, Pimm 2001, UNEP 2001).

Yet despite the broad consensus among biologists about the importance of human influence on nature, this phenomenon and its implications are not fully appreciated by the larger hu- man community, which does not recognize them in its eco- nomic systems (Hall et al. 2001) or in most of its political de- cisions (Soulk and Terborgh 1999, Chapin et al. 2000). In part,

THE HUMAN FOOTPRINT IS A GLOBAL

MAP OF HUMAN INFLUENCE ON THE

LAND SURFACE, WHICH SUGGESTS THAT

HUMAN BEINGS ARE STEWARDS OF

NATURE, WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT

this lack of appreciation may be due to scientists' propensity to express themselves in terms like "appropriation of net pri- mary productivity" or "exponential population growth," ab- stractions that require some training to understand. It may be due to historical assumptions about and habits inherited from times when human beings, as a group, had dramatically less influence on the biosphere. Now the individual deci-

Eric W. Sanderson (e-mail: esanderson@wcs.org) is associate director, and

Gillian Woolmer is program manager and GIS analyst, in the Landscape Ecology and Geographic Analysis Program at the Wildlife Conservation So- ciety Institute, 2300 Southern Blvd., Bronx, NY 10460. Kent H. Redford is di- rector of the institute. MalandingJaiteh is a research associate and GIS spe- cialist, MarcA. Levy is associate director for science applications, andAntoinette V Wannebo is senior staff associate at the Center for International Earth Sci- ence Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University, 61 Route 9W,

Pal- isades, NY 10964. Sanderson's research interests include applications of land- scape ecology to conservation problems and geographical and historical contexts for modern conservation action; he has recently published scientific articles on conservation planning for landscape species and rangewide con- servation priorities for the jaguar. Woolmer's research interests include the ap- plication ofgeographic information systems and other technologies forfield and broad-based conservation activities. Redford has written extensively about the theory and practice of conservation. Levy, a political scientist with a background in international relations and public policy, conducts research on international environmental governance, sustainability indicators, and environment-security interactions. Jaiteh's research interests include applications of remote sensing and geographic information systems technologies in human-environment interactions, particularly the dynamics of land use and cover change in Africa. Wannebo's research interests include detecting land use and land cover changes using remote sensing. @ 2002 American Institute of Biological Sciences.

October 2002 / Vol. 52 No. 10 * BioScience 891

Articles

The Human Footprint and the Last of the Wild

ERIC W. SANDERSON, MALANDING JAITEH, MARC A. LEVY, KENT H. REDFORD, ANTOINETTE V. WANNEBO, AND GILLIAN WOOLMER

n Genesis, God blesses human beings and bids us to take dominion over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air,

and every other living thing. We are entreated to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth, and subdue it (Gen. 1:28). The bad news, and the good news, is that we have almost suc- ceeded.

There is little debate in scientific circles about the impor- tance of human influence on ecosystems. According to sci- entists' reports, we appropriate over 40% of the net primary productivity (the green material) produced on Earth each year (Vitousek et al. 1986, Rojstaczer et al. 2001). We consume 35% of the productivity of the oceanic shelf (Pauly and Christensen 1995), and we use 60% of freshwater run-off (Postel et al. 1996). The unprecedented escalation in both human popu- lation and consumption in the 20th century has resulted in environmental crises never before encountered in the history of humankind and the world (McNeill 2000). E. O. Wilson (2002) claims it would now take four Earths to meet the consumption demands of the current human population, if every human consumed at the level of the average US in- habitant. The influence of human beings on the planet has be- come so pervasive that it is hard to find adults in any coun- try who have not seen the environment around them reduced in natural values during their lifetimes-woodlots converted to agriculture, agricultural lands converted to suburban de- velopment, suburban development converted to urban areas. The cumulative effect of these many local changes is the global phenomenon of human influence on nature, a new ge- ological epoch some call the "anthropocene" (Steffen and Tyson 2001). Human influence is arguably the most impor- tant factor affecting life of all kinds in today's world (Lande 1998, Terborgh 1999, Pimm 2001, UNEP 2001).

Yet despite the broad consensus among biologists about the importance of human influence on nature, this phenomenon and its implications are not fully appreciated by the larger hu- man community, which does not recognize them in its eco- nomic systems (Hall et al. 2001) or in most of its political de- cisions (Soulk and Terborgh 1999, Chapin et al. 2000). In part,

THE HUMAN FOOTPRINT IS A GLOBAL

MAP OF HUMAN INFLUENCE ON THE

LAND SURFACE, WHICH SUGGESTS THAT

HUMAN BEINGS ARE STEWARDS OF

NATURE, WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT

this lack of appreciation may be due to scientists' propensity to express themselves in terms like "appropriation of net pri- mary productivity" or "exponential population growth," ab- stractions that require some training to understand. It may be due to historical assumptions about and habits inherited from times when human beings, as a group, had dramatically less influence on the biosphere. Now the individual deci-

Eric W. Sanderson (e-mail: esanderson@wcs.org) is associate director, and

Gillian Woolmer is program manager and GIS analyst, in the Landscape Ecology and Geographic Analysis Program at the Wildlife Conservation So- ciety Institute, 2300 Southern Blvd., Bronx, NY 10460. Kent H. Redford is di- rector of the institute. MalandingJaiteh is a research associate and GIS spe- cialist, MarcA. Levy is associate director for science applications, andAntoinette V Wannebo is senior staff associate at the Center for International Earth Sci- ence Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University, 61 Route 9W,

Pal- isades, NY 10964. Sanderson's research interests include applications of land- scape ecology to conservation problems and geographical and historical contexts for modern conservation action; he has recently published scientific articles on conservation planning for landscape species and rangewide con- servation priorities for the jaguar. Woolmer's research interests include the ap- plication ofgeographic information systems and other technologies forfield and broad-based conservation activities. Redford has written extensively about the theory and practice of conservation. Levy, a political scientist with a background in international relations and public policy, conducts research on international environmental governance, sustainability indicators, and environment-security interactions. Jaiteh's research interests include applications of remote sensing and geographic information systems technologies in human-environment interactions, particularly the dynamics of land use and cover change in Africa. Wannebo's research interests include detecting land use and land cover changes using remote sensing. @ 2002 American Institute of Biological Sciences.

October 2002 / Vol. 52 No. 10 * BioScience 891

Articles

The Human Footprint and the Last of the Wild

ERIC W. SANDERSON, MALANDING JAITEH, MARC A. LEVY, KENT H. REDFORD, ANTOINETTE V. WANNEBO, AND GILLIAN WOOLMER

n Genesis, God blesses human beings and bids us to take dominion over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air,

and every other living thing. We are entreated to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth, and subdue it (Gen. 1:28). The bad news, and the good news, is that we have almost suc- ceeded.

There is little debate in scientific circles about the impor- tance of human influence on ecosystems. According to sci- entists' reports, we appropriate over 40% of the net primary productivity (the green material) produced on Earth each year (Vitousek et al. 1986, Rojstaczer et al. 2001). We consume 35% of the productivity of the oceanic shelf (Pauly and Christensen 1995), and we use 60% of freshwater run-off (Postel et al. 1996). The unprecedented escalation in both human popu- lation and consumption in the 20th century has resulted in environmental crises never before encountered in the history of humankind and the world (McNeill 2000). E. O. Wilson (2002) claims it would now take four Earths to meet the consumption demands of the current human population, if every human consumed at the level of the average US in- habitant. The influence of human beings on the planet has be- come so pervasive that it is hard to find adults in any coun- try who have not seen the environment around them reduced in natural values during their lifetimes-woodlots converted to agriculture, agricultural lands converted to suburban de- velopment, suburban development converted to urban areas. The cumulative effect of these many local changes is the global phenomenon of human influence on nature, a new ge- ological epoch some call the "anthropocene" (Steffen and Tyson 2001). Human influence is arguably the most impor- tant factor affecting life of all kinds in today's world (Lande 1998, Terborgh 1999, Pimm 2001, UNEP 2001).

Yet despite the broad consensus among biologists about the importance of human influence on nature, this phenomenon and its implications are not fully appreciated by the larger hu- man community, which does not recognize them in its eco- nomic systems (Hall et al. 2001) or in most of its political de- cisions (Soulk and Terborgh 1999, Chapin et al. 2000). In part,

THE HUMAN FOOTPRINT IS A GLOBAL

MAP OF HUMAN INFLUENCE ON THE

LAND SURFACE, WHICH SUGGESTS THAT

HUMAN BEINGS ARE STEWARDS OF

NATURE, WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT

this lack of appreciation may be due to scientists' propensity to express themselves in terms like "appropriation of net pri- mary productivity" or "exponential population growth," ab- stractions that require some training to understand. It may be due to historical assumptions about and habits inherited from times when human beings, as a group, had dramatically less influence on the biosphere. Now the individual deci-

Eric W. Sanderson (e-mail: esanderson@wcs.org) is associate director, and

Gillian Woolmer is program manager and GIS analyst, in the Landscape Ecology and Geographic Analysis Program at the Wildlife Conservation So- ciety Institute, 2300 Southern Blvd., Bronx, NY 10460. Kent H. Redford is di- rector of the institute. MalandingJaiteh is a research associate and GIS spe- cialist, MarcA. Levy is associate director for science applications, andAntoinette V Wannebo is senior staff associate at the Center for International Earth Sci- ence Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University, 61 Route 9W,

Pal- isades, NY 10964. Sanderson's research interests include applications of land- scape ecology to conservation problems and geographical and historical contexts for modern conservation action; he has recently published scientific articles on conservation planning for landscape species and rangewide con- servation priorities for the jaguar. Woolmer's research interests include the ap- plication ofgeographic information systems and other technologies forfield and broad-based conservation activities. Redford has written extensively about the theory and practice of conservation. Levy, a political scientist with a background in international relations and public policy, conducts research on international environmental governance, sustainability indicators, and environment-security interactions. Jaiteh's research interests include applications of remote sensing and geographic information systems technologies in human-environment interactions, particularly the dynamics of land use and cover change in Africa. Wannebo's research interests include detecting land use and land cover changes using remote sensing. @ 2002 American Institute of Biological Sciences.

October 2002 / Vol. 52 No. 10 * BioScience 891

Articles

The Human Footprint and the Last of the Wild

ERIC W. SANDERSON, MALANDING JAITEH, MARC A. LEVY, KENT H. REDFORD, ANTOINETTE V. WANNEBO, AND GILLIAN WOOLMER

n Genesis, God blesses human beings and bids us to take dominion over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air,

and every other living thing. We are entreated to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth, and subdue it (Gen. 1:28). The bad news, and the good news, is that we have almost suc- ceeded.

There is little debate in scientific circles about the impor- tance of human influence on ecosystems. According to sci- entists' reports, we appropriate over 40% of the net primary productivity (the green material) produced on Earth each year (Vitousek et al. 1986, Rojstaczer et al. 2001). We consume 35% of the productivity of the oceanic shelf (Pauly and Christensen 1995), and we use 60% of freshwater run-off (Postel et al. 1996). The unprecedented escalation in both human popu- lation and consumption in the 20th century has resulted in environmental crises never before encountered in the history of humankind and the world (McNeill 2000). E. O. Wilson (2002) claims it would now take four Earths to meet the consumption demands of the current human population, if every human consumed at the level of the average US in- habitant. The influence of human beings on the planet has be- come so pervasive that it is hard to find adults in any coun- try who have not seen the environment around them reduced in natural values during their lifetimes-woodlots converted to agriculture, agricultural lands converted to suburban de- velopment, suburban development converted to urban areas. The cumulative effect of these many local changes is the global phenomenon of human influence on nature, a new ge- ological epoch some call the "anthropocene" (Steffen and Tyson 2001). Human influence is arguably the most impor- tant factor affecting life of all kinds in today's world (Lande 1998, Terborgh 1999, Pimm 2001, UNEP 2001).

Yet despite the broad consensus among biologists about the importance of human influence on nature, this phenomenon and its implications are not fully appreciated by the larger hu- man community, which does not recognize them in its eco- nomic systems (Hall et al. 2001) or in most of its political de- cisions (Soulk and Terborgh 1999, Chapin et al. 2000). In part,

THE HUMAN FOOTPRINT IS A GLOBAL

MAP OF HUMAN INFLUENCE ON THE

LAND SURFACE, WHICH SUGGESTS THAT

HUMAN BEINGS ARE STEWARDS OF

NATURE, WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT

this lack of appreciation may be due to scientists' propensity to express themselves in terms like "appropriation of net pri- mary productivity" or "exponential population growth," ab- stractions that require some training to understand. It may be due to historical assumptions about and habits inherited from times when human beings, as a group, had dramatically less influence on the biosphere. Now the individual deci-

Eric W. Sanderson (e-mail: esanderson@wcs.org) is associate director, and

Gillian Woolmer is program manager and GIS analyst, in the Landscape Ecology and Geographic Analysis Program at the Wildlife Conservation So- ciety Institute, 2300 Southern Blvd., Bronx, NY 10460. Kent H. Redford is di- rector of the institute. MalandingJaiteh is a research associate and GIS spe- cialist, MarcA. Levy is associate director for science applications, andAntoinette V Wannebo is senior staff associate at the Center for International Earth Sci- ence Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University, 61 Route 9W,

Pal- isades, NY 10964. Sanderson's research interests include applications of land- scape ecology to conservation problems and geographical and historical contexts for modern conservation action; he has recently published scientific articles on conservation planning for landscape species and rangewide con- servation priorities for the jaguar. Woolmer's research interests include the ap- plication ofgeographic information systems and other technologies forfield and broad-based conservation activities. Redford has written extensively about the theory and practice of conservation. Levy, a political scientist with a background in international relations and public policy, conducts research on international environmental governance, sustainability indicators, and environment-security interactions. Jaiteh's research interests include applications of remote sensing and geographic information systems technologies in human-environment interactions, particularly the dynamics of land use and cover change in Africa. Wannebo's research interests include detecting land use and land cover changes using remote sensing. @ 2002 American Institute of Biological Sciences.

October 2002 / Vol. 52 No. 10 * BioScience 891

Proiezioni demografiche: stabilizzazione improbabile a fine secolo

Source: Gerland, 2014

Proiezioni demografiche: concentrazione della popolazione in aree urbane

US246.2

Urban population in millions

81%Urban percentage

Mexico84.392

77%

Colombia34.373%

Brazil162.685%

Argentina35.690%

Ukraine30.968%

Russia103.673%

China559.2

Urban population in millions

42%Urban percentage

Turkey51.168%

India329.329%

Bangladesh38.226%

Philippines55.064%

Indonesia114.150%

S Korea39.081%

Japan84.766%

Egypt33.143%

S Africa28.660%

Canada26.3

Venezuela26.0

Poland23.9

Thailand21.5

Australia18.3

Netherlands13.3

Peru21.0

Saudi Arabia20.9

Iraq20.3 Vietnam

23.3

DR Congo20.2

Algeria22.0Morocco

19.4

Malaysia18.1

Burma16.5

Sudan16.3

Chile14.6

N Korea14.1

Ethiopia13.0

Uzbekistan10.1

Tanzania9.9

Romania11.6

Ghana11.3

Syria10.2

Belgium10.2

80%

94%

62%

33%

89%

81%

73%

81%

67%

27%

33%

65%60%

69%

32%

43%

88%

62%

16%

37%

25%

54%

49%

51%

97%

Nigeria68.650%

UK54.090%

France46.977%

Spain33.677%

Italy39.668%

Germany62.075%

Iran48.468%

Pakistan59.336%

Cameroon

AngolaEcuador

IvoryCoast

Kazakh-stan

Cuba

Afghan-istan

Sweden

Kenya

CzechRepublic

9.5

9.38.7

8.6

8.6

8.5

7.8

7.6

7.6

7.4

Mozam-bique

HongKong

Belarus

Tunisia

Hungary

Greece

Israel

Guate-mala

Portugal

Yemen

DominicanRepublic

Bolivia

Serbia &Mont

Switzer-land

Austria

Bulgaria

Mada-gascar

Libya

Senegal

Jordan

Zimbabwe

Nepal

Denmark

Mali

Azerbaijan

Singapore

ElSalvador

Zambia

Uganda

PuertoRico

Paraguay

UAE

Benin

Norway

NewZealand

Honduras

Haiti

Nicaragua

Guinea

Finland

Uruguay

Lebanon

Somalia

Sri Lanka

Cambodia

Slovakia

Costa Rica

Palestine

Kuwait

Togo

ChadBurkina

Ireland

Croatia

Congo

Niger

Sierra Leone

Malawi

Panama

Turkmenistan

Georgia

Lithuania

Liberia

Moldova

Rwanda

Kyrgyzstan

Oman

ArmeniaBosnia

Tajikistan

CAR

Melanesia

Latvia

Mongolia

Albania

Jamaica

Macedonia

Mauritania Laos

Gabon

Botswana

Slovenia

Eritrea

Estonia

Gambia

Burundi

Papua New Guinea

NamibiaMauritius

Guinea-Bissau

Lesotho E Timor

Bhutan

Swaziland

Trinidad & Tobago

The earth reaches a momentous milestone: by next year, for the first time in history, more than half its population will be living in cities. Those 3.3 billion people are expected to grow to 5 billion by 2030 — this unique map of the world shows where those people live now

At the beginning of the 20th century, the world's urban population was only 220 million, mainly in the west

By 2030, the towns and cities of the developing world will make up 80% of urban humanity

The new urban world

Urban growth, 2005—2010

Predominantly urban75% or over

Predominantly urban50—74%

Predominantly rural25—49% urban

Predominantly rural0—24% urban

Cities over 10 million people(greater urban area)

Key

Tokyo33.4

Osaka16.6

Seoul23.2

Manila15.4

Jakarta14.9

Dacca 13.8

Bombay21.3

Delhi21.1 Calcutta

15.5

Karachi14.8

Shanghai17.3

Canton14.5

Beijing12.7

Moscow13.4

Tehran12.1

Cairo15.9

Istanbul11.7

London12.0

Lagos10.0

MexicoCity22.1

New York21.8

Sao Paulo20.4

LA17.9

Rio deJaneiro

12.2

BuenosAires13.5 3,307,950,000

The world’s urban population — from a total of 6,615.9 million SOURCE: UNFPA GRAPHIC: PAUL SCRUTONAfrica Asia Oceania Europe0.1%

Eastern Europe-0.4%

Arab StatesLatin America& Caribbean North America

3.2%2.4%

1.3%

2.8%

1.7%1.3%

Quanto lontane nel tempo sono queste previsioni?

Cambiamenti osservati: riduzione dei poli

Cambiamenti osservati: scioglimento dei ghiacciai

Pederse Glacier, Alaska

1917 2005

Cambiamenti osservati: espansione dell'agricoltura

Cairo, Egypt

1972 2003

Cambiamenti osservati: sovrasfruttamento delle risorse disponibili

Lake Urmia, Iran

2000 2010 2014

Coupled Human Natural Systems

timePRESENT

natural system human system

exogenous drivers

Coupled Human Natural Systems

timePRESENT FUTURE

natural system human system

exogenous drivers

SPM

Summary for Policymakers

21

Figure SPM.7 | CMIP5 multi-model simulated time series from 1950 to 2100 for (a) change in global annual mean surface temperature relative to 1986–2005, (b) Northern Hemisphere September sea ice extent (5-year running mean), and (c) global mean ocean surface pH. Time series of projections and a measure of uncertainty (shading) are shown for scenarios RCP2.6 (blue) and RCP8.5 (red). Black (grey shading) is the modelled historical evolution using historical reconstructed forcings. The mean and associated uncertainties averaged over 2081−2100 are given for all RCP scenarios as colored verti-cal bars. The numbers of CMIP5 models used to calculate the multi-model mean is indicated. For sea ice extent (b), the projected mean and uncertainty (minimum-maximum range) of the subset of models that most closely reproduce the climatological mean state and 1979 to 2012 trend of the Arctic sea ice is given (number of models given in brackets). For completeness, the CMIP5 multi-model mean is also indicated with dotted lines. The dashed line represents nearly ice-free conditions (i.e., when sea ice extent is less than 106 km2 for at least five consecutive years). For further technical details see the Technical Summary Supplementary Material {Figures 6.28, 12.5, and 12.28–12.31; Figures TS.15, TS.17, and TS.20}

6.0

4.0

2.0

−2.0

0.0

(o C)

4232

39

historicalRCP2.6RCP8.5

Global average surface temperature change(a)

RC

P2.6

R

CP4

.5

RC

P6.0

RC

P8.5

Mean over2081–2100

1950 2000 2050 2100

Northern Hemisphere September sea ice extent(b)

RC

P2.6

R

CP4

.5

RC

P6.0

R

CP8

.5

1950 2000 2050 2100

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

(106 k

m2 )

29 (3)

37 (5)

39 (5)

1950 2000 2050 2100

8.2

8.0

7.8

7.6

(pH

uni

t)12

9

10

Global ocean surface pH(c)

RC

P2.6

R

CP4

.5

RC

P6.0

R

CP8

.5

Year

natural system human system

exogenous drivers

Il sistema del Lago di Como

Matteo Giuliani

Il sistema del Lago di Como

Area del bacino = 4,500 km2 Capacita' di invaso attiva = 254 Mm3 Capacita' serbatoi alpini = 515 Mm3 Area agricola = 1400 km2

elevationin [m]

8

4000

0 5 10 20 30 km

Como

Milano

Lake Como

AddaRiver

Muzzairrigationdistrict

Regime idrologico sn

ow w

ater

equ

ival

ent (

Mm

)3

0

500

1000

wat

er fl

ows (

m /s

)3

400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

inflow

snow water equivalentestimated by ARPA

water demand

snow-dominatedspring peak rain-dominated

fall peakwater deficit

Observed trends

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 35050

100

150

200

250

300Av

erage

d net

inflow

rate

[m3 /s

]

[ 1946 - 1966 ] [ 1990 - 2010 ]

reduction of summer flow

Matteo Giuliani

elevationin [m]

8

4000

0 5 10 20 30 km

Como

Milano

Lake Como

AddaRiver

Muzzairrigationdistrict

Principali interessi

Irrigation supply

Flood control in Como

Modello integrato del sistema

Lake Como

Upstream catchment

Adda River and main irrigation canals

Muzza agricultural district

Modello integrato del sistema

Decisions of Lake Como operator

Decisions of Farmers

Lake Como

Upstream catchment

Adda River and main irrigation canals

Muzza agricultural district

Opzioni di adattamento

Decisions of Lake Como operator

Decisions of Farmers

Lake Como

Upstream catchment

Adda River and main irrigation canals

Muzza agricultural district

• Baseline = situazione attuale (no coordinamento) • Unilateral adaptation (demand) = solo modifica scelta colture • Unilateral adaptation (supply) = solo modifica regolazione lago • Co-adaptation = modifica colture con conseguente rinnovo licenze e modifica regolazione lago

Opzioni di adattamento

Decisions of Lake Como operator

Decisions of Farmers

Lake Como

Upstream catchment

Adda River and main irrigation canals

Muzza agricultural district

• Baseline = situazione attuale (no coordinamento) • Unilateral adaptation (demand) = solo modifica scelta colture • Unilateral adaptation (supply) = solo modifica regolazione lago • Co-adaptation = modifica colture con conseguente rinnovo licenze e modifica regolazione lago

Opzioni di adattamento

Decisions of Lake Como operator

Decisions of Farmers

Lake Como

Upstream catchment

Adda River and main irrigation canals

Muzza agricultural district

• Baseline = situazione attuale (no coordinamento) • Unilateral adaptation (demand) = solo modifica scelta colture • Unilateral adaptation (supply) = solo modifica regolazione lago • Co-adaptation = modifica colture con conseguente rinnovo licenze e modifica regolazione lago

Opzioni di adattamento

Decisions of Lake Como operator

Decisions of Farmers

Lake Como

Upstream catchment

Adda River and main irrigation canals

Muzza agricultural district

• Baseline = situazione attuale (no coordinamento) • Unilateral adaptation (demand) = solo modifica scelta colture • Unilateral adaptation (supply) = solo modifica regolazione lago • Co-adaptation = modifica colture con conseguente rinnovo licenze e modifica regolazione lago

Risultati

Validazione del modello: operatore del lago

0

1

2

3

lake

leve

l [m

]

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec0

200

400

600

800

lake

rele

ase

[m3 /s

]

historical observationmodel simulation

historical observationmodel simulation

flooding threshold

water demand

Validazione del modello: scelte dei contadini

coadaptation

baseline

Il valore del co-adattamento: produttivita' dell'acqua in condizioni attuali

+59%limited improvement

Afflussi futuri in condizioni di cambiamento climatico

panel (b)

20012002200320042005

50100150200250300350400450500550

scenar

io 1

scenar

io 2

scenar

io 3

scenar

io 4

scenar

io 5 inflow[m3/s]

crop growing period

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

baseline

unilateral adaptation (demand)

coadaptation

unilateral adaptation (supply)

panel (b)

20012002200320042005

50100150200250300350400450500550

scenar

io 1

scenar

io 2

scenar

io 3

scenar

io 4

scenar

io 5 inflow[m3/s]

crop growing period

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Il valore del co-adattamento: profitto dei contadini in condizioni di cambiamento climatico

coadaptation +10M€ /y

wrt baseline

Conclusioni

• Gli effetti dei cambiamenti climatici sono gia' visibili nei nostri sistemi e richiedono lo studio e l'implementazione di strategie di adattamento a tale cambiamento

• Abbiamo bisogno di modelli di simulazione avanzati che descrivano la componente naturale e quella umana per rappresentare la situazione attuale e fornire proiezioni credibili sulla evoluzione futura del sistema

• Meccanismi di coordinamento rappresentano opzioni di adattamento efficaci per mitigare potenziali impatti negativi dei cambiamenti climatici

Ricerche future

SOft path WATer management adaptation to CHanging climate

DAFNE1: A Decision-Analytic Framework to explore the water-energy-food NExus in complex and transboundary water resources systems of fast growing

developing countries

Annex B of the Proposal

to

Horizon2020 Research and Innovation Action

WATER-5c: Development of water supply and sanitation technology, systems and tools, and/or methodologies

8 September 2015

List of participants

Participant No. Participant organisation name Type Country 1 ETHZ (CO)2 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Public Switzerland 2 POLIMI Politecnico di Milano Public Italy 3 ICRE8 International Centre for Research on the Environment

and the Economy Private Greece

4 KULEUVEN Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Public Belgium 5 UABDN University of Aberdeen Public UK 6 UO University of Osnabruck Public Germany 7 IWMI International Water Management Institute Public Ethiopia 8 ACCESS African Collaborative Center for Earth System Science Public Kenya 9 AMU Arba Minch University Public Ethiopia 10 UNZA University of Zambia Public Zambia 11 EMU Eduardo Mondlane University Public Mozambique 12 VISTA-GEO Vista Geowissenschaftliche Fernerkundung GmbH SME Germany 13 ATEC-3D ATEC-3D Ltd. SME UK 14 EIPCM European Institute for Participatory Media Research Germany

1 Daphne (Greek: Δάφνη, meaning "laurel") is a minor figure in Greek mythology known as a Naiad—a type of female nymph asso-

ciated with fountains, wells, springs, streams, brooks and other bodies of freshwater (from wikipedia.org) 2 The partner ETHZ consists of three research groups with different expertise. In this technical annex they are identified separately as

HWRM-ETHZ (Hydrology and Water Resources Management), AC-ETHZ (Aquatic Chemistry) and EM-ETHZ (Ecosystems Management) to highlight their different competencies

Decision-Analytic Framework to explore water-energy-food NExus in complex and transboundary

water resources systems of fast growing countries

At Hotel Ekwos (right), Mińsk Mazowiecki, Poland. Reservations: Email: ekwos@ekwos.com.pl (write AMBER in subject) €27 single room €35 double (2 people) €42 triple Includes breakfast 10 ha of land with small pond, sport facilities (tennis courts, beach ball, volleyball), fitness room, sauna and outside jacuzzi. Nearby woodland

Optional Excursions: 4th July: Biebrza River Valley Dam 7th July: AMBER case study; controversial Vistula River Dam (notify riverpiotr@gmail.com if you are interested, before end of May)

Travel by air From Modlin (Warsaw) airport, a bus to a railway station and train to Wschodnia (eastern) station. Trains are cash only. http://en.modlinairport.pl/modlin-en-new/web/passenger/access/koleje-mazowieckie-trains.html. From Chopin Airport easier - train is accessible direct from the building and goes to Wschodnia (every 30 minutes). From Wschodnia station catch train to Mińsk Mazowiecki (MM) From MM station phone hotel reception for special rate taxi +48 25 752 54 10 (We are also proposing to arrange shuttle from MM at around 14:20 and 16:20 on 5th). by GPS: Rozwojowa 79, 05-300 Mińsk Mazowiecki, Poland train/bus times: http://warszawa.jakdojade.pl/?locale=en

Main objectives: x integration of activities to ensure efficient deliverables x distribution of project reference documents

Adaptive Management of Barriers in

European Rivers start 18:00 hrs on 5th - finish 11:00 hrs on 7th

For more info: riverpiotr@gmail.com

i.r.dodkins@swansea.ac.uk

Adaptive Management of Barriers in European Rivers

At Hotel Ekwos (right), Mińsk Mazowiecki, Poland. Reservations: Email: ekwos@ekwos.com.pl (write AMBER in subject) €27 single room €35 double (2 people) €42 triple Includes breakfast 10 ha of land with small pond, sport facilities (tennis courts, beach ball, volleyball), fitness room, sauna and outside jacuzzi. Nearby woodland

Optional Excursions: 4th July: Biebrza River Valley Dam 7th July: AMBER case study; controversial Vistula River Dam (notify riverpiotr@gmail.com if you are interested, before end of May)

Travel by air From Modlin (Warsaw) airport, a bus to a railway station and train to Wschodnia (eastern) station. Trains are cash only. http://en.modlinairport.pl/modlin-en-new/web/passenger/access/koleje-mazowieckie-trains.html. From Chopin Airport easier - train is accessible direct from the building and goes to Wschodnia (every 30 minutes). From Wschodnia station catch train to Mińsk Mazowiecki (MM) From MM station phone hotel reception for special rate taxi +48 25 752 54 10 (We are also proposing to arrange shuttle from MM at around 14:20 and 16:20 on 5th). by GPS: Rozwojowa 79, 05-300 Mińsk Mazowiecki, Poland train/bus times: http://warszawa.jakdojade.pl/?locale=en

Main objectives: x integration of activities to ensure efficient deliverables x distribution of project reference documents

Adaptive Management of Barriers in

European Rivers start 18:00 hrs on 5th - finish 11:00 hrs on 7th

For more info: riverpiotr@gmail.com

i.r.dodkins@swansea.ac.uk

At Hotel Ekwos (right), Mińsk Mazowiecki, Poland. Reservations: Email: ekwos@ekwos.com.pl (write AMBER in subject) €27 single room €35 double (2 people) €42 triple Includes breakfast 10 ha of land with small pond, sport facilities (tennis courts, beach ball, volleyball), fitness room, sauna and outside jacuzzi. Nearby woodland

Optional Excursions: 4th July: Biebrza River Valley Dam 7th July: AMBER case study; controversial Vistula River Dam (notify riverpiotr@gmail.com if you are interested, before end of May)

Travel by air From Modlin (Warsaw) airport, a bus to a railway station and train to Wschodnia (eastern) station. Trains are cash only. http://en.modlinairport.pl/modlin-en-new/web/passenger/access/koleje-mazowieckie-trains.html. From Chopin Airport easier - train is accessible direct from the building and goes to Wschodnia (every 30 minutes). From Wschodnia station catch train to Mińsk Mazowiecki (MM) From MM station phone hotel reception for special rate taxi +48 25 752 54 10 (We are also proposing to arrange shuttle from MM at around 14:20 and 16:20 on 5th). by GPS: Rozwojowa 79, 05-300 Mińsk Mazowiecki, Poland train/bus times: http://warszawa.jakdojade.pl/?locale=en

Main objectives: x integration of activities to ensure efficient deliverables x distribution of project reference documents

Adaptive Management of Barriers in

European Rivers start 18:00 hrs on 5th - finish 11:00 hrs on 7th

For more info: riverpiotr@gmail.com

i.r.dodkins@swansea.ac.uk

At Hotel Ekwos (right), Mińsk Mazowiecki, Poland. Reservations: Email: ekwos@ekwos.com.pl (write AMBER in subject) €27 single room €35 double (2 people) €42 triple Includes breakfast 10 ha of land with small pond, sport facilities (tennis courts, beach ball, volleyball), fitness room, sauna and outside jacuzzi. Nearby woodland

Optional Excursions: 4th July: Biebrza River Valley Dam 7th July: AMBER case study; controversial Vistula River Dam (notify riverpiotr@gmail.com if you are interested, before end of May)

Travel by air From Modlin (Warsaw) airport, a bus to a railway station and train to Wschodnia (eastern) station. Trains are cash only. http://en.modlinairport.pl/modlin-en-new/web/passenger/access/koleje-mazowieckie-trains.html. From Chopin Airport easier - train is accessible direct from the building and goes to Wschodnia (every 30 minutes). From Wschodnia station catch train to Mińsk Mazowiecki (MM) From MM station phone hotel reception for special rate taxi +48 25 752 54 10 (We are also proposing to arrange shuttle from MM at around 14:20 and 16:20 on 5th). by GPS: Rozwojowa 79, 05-300 Mińsk Mazowiecki, Poland train/bus times: http://warszawa.jakdojade.pl/?locale=en

Main objectives: x integration of activities to ensure efficient deliverables x distribution of project reference documents

Adaptive Management of Barriers in

European Rivers start 18:00 hrs on 5th - finish 11:00 hrs on 7th

For more info: riverpiotr@gmail.com

i.r.dodkins@swansea.ac.uk

Bandi 2015RICERCA SCIENTIFICA

Ricerca sull’inquinamento dell’acqua e per una corretta gestione della risorsa idrica

www.fondazionecariplo.itCOMUNITÀBENESSERE GIOVANI

Improve our forecasting capability of hydrological extremes for multiple economic sectors, including hydropower and farmers

thank you

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

@MxgTeo @NRMPolimi

http://giuliani.faculty.polimi.it www.nrm.deib.polimi.itYu Li Andrea Castelletti Claudio Gandolfi

Matteo Giuliani matteo.giuliani@polimi.it