Combining landscape variables and species traits can improve the utility of climate change vulnerability assessments

2016 ◽  
Vol 202 ◽  
pp. 30-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher P. Nadeau ◽  
Angela K. Fuller
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Species Traits ◽  
Landscape Variables ◽  
Climate Change Vulnerability ◽  
Vulnerability Assessments

A strategic analysis of climate vulnerability of national park resources and values

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Michalak ◽  
Josh Lawler ◽  
John Gross ◽  
Caitlin Littlefield
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Adaptive Capacity ◽  
National Park ◽  
Climate Changes ◽  
Climate Change Impacts ◽  
Cultural Resources ◽  
Vulnerability Factors ◽  
Climate Change Vulnerability ◽  
Vulnerability Assessments ◽  
Wide Range

The U.S. national parks have experienced significant climate-change impacts and rapid, on-going changes are expected to continue. Despite the significant climate-change vulnerabilities facing parks, relatively few parks have conducted comprehensive climate-change vulnerability assessments, defined as assessments that synthesize vulnerability information from a wide range of sources, identify key climate-change impacts, and prioritize vulnerable park resources (Michalak et al. In review). In recognition that funding and planning capacity is limited, this project was initiated to identify geographies, parks, and issues that are high priorities for conducting climate-change vulnerability assessments (CCVA) and strategies to efficiently address the need for CCVAs across all U.S. National Park Service (NPS) park units (hereafter “parks”) and all resources. To help identify priority geographies and issues, we quantitatively assessed the relative magnitude of vulnerability factors potentially affecting park resources and values. We identified multiple vulnerability factors (e.g., temperature change, wildfire potential, number of at-risk species, etc.) and sought existing datasets that could be developed into indicators of these factors. To be included in the study, datasets had to be spatially explicit or already summarized for individual parks and provide consistent data for at least all parks within the contiguous U.S. (CONUS). The need for consistent data across such a large geographic extent limited the number of datasets that could be included, excluded some important drivers of climate-change vulnerability, and prevented adequate evaluation of some geographies. The lack of adequately-scaled data for many key vulnerability factors, such as freshwater flooding risks and increased storm activity, highlights the need for both data development and more detailed vulnerability assessments at local to regional scales where data for these factors may be available. In addition, most of the available data at this scale were related to climate-change exposures, with relatively little data available for factors associated with climate-change sensitivity or adaptive capacity. In particular, we lacked consistent data on the distribution or abundance of cultural resources or accessible data on infrastructure across all parks. We identified resource types, geographies, and critical vulnerability factors that lacked data for NPS’ consideration in addressing data gaps. Forty-seven indicators met our criteria, and these were combined into 21 climate-change vulnerability factors. Twenty-seven indicators representing 12 vulnerability factors addressed climate-change exposure (i.e., projected changes in climate conditions and impacts). A smaller number of indictors measured sensitivity (12 indicators representing 5 vulnerability factors). The sensitivity indicators often measured park or landscape characteristics which may make resources more or less responsive to climate changes (e.g., current air quality) as opposed to directly representing the sensitivity of specific resources within the park (e.g., a particular rare species or type of historical structure). Finally, 6 indicators representing 4 vulnerability factors measured external adaptive capacity for living resources (i.e., characteristics of the park and/or surrounding landscape which may facilitate or impede species adaptation to climate changes). We identified indicators relevant to three resource groups: terrestrial living, aquatic living (including living cultural resources such as culturally significant landscapes, plant, or animal species) and non-living resources (including infrastructure and non-living cultural resources such as historic buildings or archeological sites). We created separate indicator lists for each of these resource groups and analyzed them separately. To identify priority geographies within CONUS,...

The impact of methodological choices on the outcome of national-level climate change vulnerability assessments: An example from the global fisheries sector

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 717-731 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iris Monnereau ◽  
Robin Mahon ◽  
Patrick McConney ◽  
Leonard Nurse ◽  
Rachel Turner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
National Level ◽  
Climate Change Vulnerability ◽  
Methodological Choices ◽  
Vulnerability Assessments ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals Climate change vulnerability for species – assessing the assessments

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Wheatley ◽  
Colin M. Beale ◽  
Richard B. Bradbury ◽  
James W. Pearce-Higgins ◽  
Rob Critchlow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Historical Data ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Climate Change Vulnerability ◽  
Vulnerability Assessments ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Trend Data ◽  
Historic Data ◽  
Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment

AbstractClimate change vulnerability assessments are commonly used to identify species at risk from global climate change, but the wide range of methodologies available makes it difficult for end users, such as conservation practitioners or policy makers, to decide which method to use as a basis for decision-making. Here, we compare the outputs of 12 such climate change vulnerability assessment methodologies, using both real and simulated species, and we test the methods using historic data for British birds and butterflies (i.e., using historical data to assign risks, and more recent data for validation). Our results highlight considerable inconsistencies in species risk assignment across all the approaches considered and suggest the majority of the frameworks are poor predictors of risk under climate change – two methods performed worse than random. Methods that incorporated historic trend data were the only ones to have any validity at predicting distributional trends in subsequent time periods.

Fostering uptake: lessons from climate change vulnerability assessments in Africa and Latin America

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 444-457 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynnette Wood ◽  
Alex Apotsos ◽  
Patricia Caffrey ◽  
Kenneth Gibbs
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Climate Change Vulnerability ◽  
Vulnerability Assessments

scholarly journals Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Forest Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

Forests ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 1030 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Timberlake ◽  
Courtney A. Schultz
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Forest Management ◽  
Vulnerability Assessment ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Forest Service ◽  
Fundamental Aspect ◽  
Climate Change Vulnerability ◽  
Vulnerability Assessments ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Forest Managers

Forest managers need access to targeted scientific information about the impacts of climate change in order to adapt to climate change. Vulnerability assessments address this need and are common across a range of disciplines and geographies; however, the practice of vulnerability assessment has revealed challenges that warrant further examination in a specific context. The U.S. Forest Service, a national forest-management agency in charge of 78 million hectares, has developed a collection of climate change vulnerability assessments to support adaptation by forest managers. We conducted a qualitative document analysis, informed by a series of research interviews with scientists, of 44 vulnerability assessments developed for the U.S. Forest Service. We found that partnerships between research scientists and land managers were central to the development of vulnerability assessments in the U.S. Forest Service. Assessment processes vary across settings. As the practice has developed, vulnerability assessments increasingly cover larger spatial extents and a broader range of resources associated with forest management. We identified ways in which vulnerability assessments can support decision-making, including approaches already in use and opportunities to improve practice. In particular, we discuss how vulnerability assessments are well-positioned to support the development of land-management plans, which set strategic management direction for periods of at least a decade. This paper provides baseline knowledge on a fundamental aspect of a large national forestry agency’s climate change adaptation strategy, with many findings transferable to the study of other forest-management organizations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document