Agricultural climate impacts assessment for economic modeling and decision support
Abstract
A range of approaches can be used in the application of climate change projections to agricultural impacts assessment. Climate projections can be used directly to drive crop models, which in turn can be used to provide inputs for agricultural economic or integrated assessment models. These model applications, and the transfer of information between models, must be guided by the state of the science. But the methodology must also account for the specific needs of stakeholders and the intended use of model results beyond pure scientific inquiry, including meeting the requirements of agencies responsible for designing and assessing policies, programs, and regulations. Here we present methodology and results of two climate impacts studies that applied climate model projections from CMIP3 and from the EPA Climate Impacts and Risk Analysis (CIRA) project in a crop model (EPIC - Environmental Policy Indicator Climate) in order to generate estimates of changes in crop productivity for use in an agricultural economic model for the United States (FASOM - Forest and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model). The FASOM model is a forward-looking dynamic model of the US forest and agricultural sector used to assess market responses to changing productivity of alternative land uses. The first study, focused on climate change impacts on the UDSA crop insurance program, was designed to use available daily climate projections from the CMIP3 archive. The decision to focus on daily data for this application limited the climate model and time period selection significantly; however for the intended purpose of assessing impacts on crop insurance payments, consideration of extreme event frequency was critical for assessing periodic crop failures. In a second, coordinated impacts study designed to assess the relative difference in climate impacts under a no-mitigation policy and different future climate mitigation scenarios, the stakeholder specifically requested an assessment of a mitigation level of 3.7 W/m2, as well as consideration of different levels of climate sensitivity (2, 3, 4.5 and 6oC) and different initial conditions for addressing uncertainty. Since the CMIP 3 and CMIP5 protocols did not include this mitigation level or consider alternative levels of climate sensitivity, additional climate projections were required. These two cases will be discussed to illustrate some of the trade-offs made in development of methodologies for climate impact assessments that are intended for a specific user or audience, and oriented towards addressing a specific topic of interest and providing useable results. This involvement of stakeholders from the design phase of climate impacts methodology serves to both define the appropriate method for the question at hand and also to engage and inform the stakeholders of the myriad options and uncertainties associated with different methodology choices. This type of engagement should benefit decision making in the long run through greater stakeholder understanding of the science of future climate model projections, scenarios, the climate impacts sector models and the types of outputs that can be generated by each along with the respective uncertainties at each step of the climate impacts assessment process.
- Publication:
-
AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts
- Pub Date:
- December 2013
- Bibcode:
- 2013AGUFMGC41B1002T
- Keywords:
-
- 1630 GLOBAL CHANGE Impacts of global change;
- 0402 BIOGEOSCIENCES Agricultural systems