I met with David Brookshire, Craig Broadbent, and Don Coursey (by phone) in Albuquerque on June 14. We had a discussion about the scenario’s approach we will be taking to look at alternative futures in our two systems. There is a strong interest on their part to tackle the spatial and temporal components that they were not previously able to address in their work on the San Pedro. As this works in well with the overall goals of the project it seems like a good way to go. Ultimately we will have 3 or 4 scenarios that will be used by the economics group to pursue but this will only be the case once all of the population projections, physical and biological modeling can be completed. In the meantime we need to develop qualitative and then quantitative scenarios that can be used by the economists to assess individuals preferences for differing outcomes along the San Pedro and Santa Cruz. As this will be an involved process first we should step through the whole process for a single instance. These scenarios will also inform the perturbations we will have to impose upon the coupled models of the system we have proposed to conduct. For simplicity and existing state of knowledge among the team we should first develop a scenario for the San Pedro.
The EPA ICLUS project (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/
From http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=94
4.3.2. A2 Storyline and Scenario Family
The A2 scenario family represents a differentiated world. Compared to the A1 storyline it is characterized by lower trade flows, relatively slow capital stock turnover, and slower technological change. The A2 world "consolidates" into a series of economic regions. Self-reliance in terms of resources and less emphasis on economic, social, and cultural interactions between regions are characteristic for this future. Economic growth is uneven and the income gap between now-industrialized and developing parts of the world does not narrow, unlike in the A1 and B1 scenario families.
The A2 world has less international cooperation than the A1 or B1 worlds. People, ideas, and capital are less mobile so that technology diffuses more slowly than in the other scenario families. International disparities in productivity, and hence income per capita, are largely maintained or increased in absolute terms. With the emphasis on family and community life, fertility rates decline relatively slowly, which makes the A2 population the largest among the storylines (15 billion by 2100). Global average per capita income in A2 is low relative to other storylines (especially A1 and B1), reaching about US$7200 per capita by 2050 and US$16,000 in 2100. By 2100 the global GDP reaches about US$250 trillion. Technological change in the A2 scenario world is also more heterogeneous than that in A1. It is more rapid than average in some regions and slower in others, as industry adjusts to local resource endowments, culture, and education levels. Regions with abundant energy and mineral resources evolve more resource-intensive economies, while those poor in resources place a very high priority on minimizing import dependence through technological innovation to improve resource efficiency and make use of substitute inputs. The fuel mix in different regions is determined primarily by resource availability. High-income but resource-poor regions shift toward advanced post-fossil technologies (renewables or nuclear), while low-income resource-rich regions generally rely on older fossil technologies. Final energy intensities in A2 decline with a pace of 0.5 to 0.7% per year.
In the A2 world, social and political structures diversify; some regions move toward stronger welfare systems and reduced income inequality, while others move toward "leaner" government and more heterogeneous income distributions. With substantial food requirements, agricultural productivity in the A2 world is one of the main focus areas for innovation and research, development, and deployment (RD&D) efforts, and environmental concerns. Initial high levels of soil erosion and water pollution are eventually eased through the local development of more sustainable high-yield agriculture. Although attention is given to potential local and regional environmental damage, it is not uniform across regions. Global environmental concerns are relatively weak, although attempts are made to bring regional and local pollution under control and to maintain environmental amenities.
As in other SRES storylines, the intention in this storyline is not to imply that the underlying dynamics of A2 are either good or bad. The literature suggests that such a world could have many positive aspects from the current perspective, such as the increasing tendency toward cultural pluralism with mutual acceptance of diversity and fundamental differences. Various scenarios from the literature may be grouped under this scenario family. For example, "New Empires" by Schwartz (1991) is an example of a society in which most nations protect their threatened cultural identities. Some regions might achieve relative stability while others suffer under civil disorders (Schwartz, 1996). In "European Renaissance" (de Jong and Zalm, 1991; CPB, 1992), economic growth slows down because of a strengthening of protectionist trade blocks. In "Imperial Harmonization" (Lawrence et al., 1997), major economic blocs impose standards and regulations on smaller countries. The Shell scenario "Global Mercantilism" (1989, see Schwartz, 1991) explores the possibility of regional spheres of influence, whereas "Barricades" (Shell, 1993) reflects resistance to globalization and liberalization of markets. Noting the tensions that arise as societies adopt western technology without western culture, Huntington (1996) suggests that conflicts between civilizations rather than globalizing economies may determine the geo-political future of the world.
Since it will be hard for us to produce and for participants to digest a year by year description of changing conditions on the San Pedro the discussion I had with the economics team focused on descriptions of the system as specific time points in the future - year 0, year 5, year 10, year 25 and year 50. At each of these times there would be decisions that could be made that would affect the future ecosystem services of the river system.
Here are the three tasks we have in front of us-
- First we need to define the specific outcomes that our modelling effort can provide.
I have started on this step below. Please correct and add information as needed. - Describe decision points that are at year 0, year 5, year 10, year 25 and year 50
- Describe conditions at these same years.
Outcomes
Outcomes from the models are the things that we can predict that people can understand and potentially care about. I have taken a first swing here that needs better detail from each modeling group and the economists. Also each outcome must be explicit in space, time and the value of what can be described (i.e. what can be predicted at what temporal and spatial resolution?). More precise and more detailed descriptions are better we can always simplify down later.
Climate Modelling-
Outcomes - Changes in annual precipitation (at 35km resolution) and occurrence of “extreme”/intense rainfall events, changes in mean annual temperature
Rainfall-Runoff Modelling-
Outcomes- changes in surface runoff and groundwater recharge at 10 km resolution and on an hourly basis, changes in magnitude frequency and duration of floods through the San Pedro channel network.
Scour Modelling-
Outcomes- stream power at 250 m2 resolution, seed bed creation at 250 m2 resolution
Groundwater Modelling-
Outcomes - Seasonal depth to groundwater, variability of depth to groundwater and streamflow presence/absence at 250 m2 resolution. Seasonal ET flux at 250 m2 resolution.
Biological Modelling-
Outcomes - at river reach scale (~2-3km) vegetation condition class, species richness of herbaceous cover
No comments:
Post a Comment