The role of uncertainty in climate change adaptation strategies—A Danish water management example

Abstract

We propose a generic framework to characterize climate change adaptation uncertainty according to three dimensions: level, source and nature. Our framework is different, and in this respect more comprehensive, than the present UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) approach and could be used to address concerns that the IPCC approach is oversimplified. We have studied the role of uncertainty in climate change adaptation planning using examples from four Danish water related sectors. The dominating sources of uncertainty differ greatly among issues; most uncertainties on impacts are epistemic (reducible) by nature but uncertainties on adaptation measures are complex, with ambiguity often being added to impact uncertainties. Strategies to deal with uncertainty in climate change adaptation should reflect the nature of the uncertainty sources and how they interact with risk level and decision making: (i) epistemic uncertainties can be reduced by gaining more knowledge; (ii) uncertainties related to ambiguity can be reduced by dialogue Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (and knowledge sharing between the different stakeholders; and (iii) aleatory uncertainty is, by its nature, non-reducible. The uncertainty cascade includes many sources and their propagation through technical and socio-economic models may add substantially to prediction uncertainties, but they may also cancel each other. Thus, even large uncertainties may have small consequences for decision making, because multiple sources of information provide sufficient knowledge to justify action in climate change adaptation.

Climate change impacts on groundwater hydrology – where are the main uncertainties and can they be reduced?

“…As uncertainties related to climate projections are often considerable (Jiménez Cisneros et al 2014), many stakeholders and policy makers may, at a first glance, get scared of the propagation and addition of new uncertainties through the uncertainty cascade, where it may be perceived that uncertainties will increase dramatically. The impacts of the different sources of uncertainties on the resulting hydrological change uncertainty are, however, context specific (Refsgaard et al 2013).…”

“…Kundzewicz and Stakhiv (2010) argue that climate models, because of their large inherent uncertainties, are not ready for water resources management applications, while Wilby (2010) argues that relatively little is known about the significance of climate model uncertainty. Depending on the nature of the uncertainty sources the strategies to deal with uncertainty in climate change adaptation may vary from reducing the uncertainty by gaining more knowledge (epistemic uncertainty) to living with the uncertainty that is non-reducible (aleatory uncertainty) (Refsgaard et al 2013). In this respect it is interesting to evaluate which sources of uncertainty in the uncertainty cascade could potentially be reduced.…”

Preface: climate change proof flood risk management

“…Mechler and Kundzewicz 2010. The topic of flood risk management practice and planning in view of global changes, as tackled in this special issue, is also germane to other papers in this journal, such as: Refsgaard et al (2013), Botzen et al (2013), Lacerda et al (2013), Lin et al (2013), and Razafindrabe et al (2014).…”

Socio-economic Impacts—Agricultural Systems

“…Such efforts may have long time perspectives and involve many actors and so require planning and in some cases approval from authorities. Actions for managing water at the catchment scale require a consideration not only of the needs of farmers, but also of the needs of human settlements and nature conservation, including consideration of surface and groundwater quality (Refsgaard et al 2013).…”