• Energy Research

Adaptation is necessary to cope with or take advantage of the effects of climate change on socio-ecological systems. This is especially important in the forestry sector, which is sensitive to the ecological and economic impacts of climate change, and where the adaptive decisions of owners play out over long periods of time. Relatively little is known about how successful these decisions are likely to be in meeting demands for ecosystem services in an uncertain future. We explore adaptation to global change in the forestry sector using CRAFTY-Sweden; an agent-based model that represents large-scale land-use dynamics, based on the demand and supply of ecosystem services. Future impacts and adaptation within the Swedish forestry sector were simulated for scenarios of socio-economic change (Shared Socio-economic Pathways) and climatic change (Representative Concentration Pathways, for three climate models), between 2010 and 2100. Substantial differences were found in the competitiveness and coping ability of land owners implementing different management strategies through time. Generally, multi-objective management was found to provide the best basis for adaptation. Across large regions, however, a combination of management strategies was better at meeting ecosystem service demands. Results also show that adaptive capacity evolves through time in response to external (global) drivers and interactions between individual actors. This suggests that process-based models are more appropriate for the study of autonomous adaptation and future adaptive and coping capacities than models based on indicators, discrete time snapshots or exogenous proxies. Nevertheless, a combination of planned and autonomous adaptation by institutions and forest owners is likely to be more successful than either group acting alone.

Natural resource managers urgently need to adapt to climate change, and extension services are increasingly using targeted communication campaigns to promote individual engagement with adaptation. This study compares two groups of Swedish forest owners: 1493 who participated in two climate communication projects by the Swedish Forest Agency, and 909 who were randomly sampled. The study finds statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of climate change awareness and concern, belief in the urgency to act and intentions to take adaptive measures. Results suggest that the primary effect of the climate chance communication seems to have been on forest owners' subjective risk perceptions and beliefs in their knowledge and ability, which make it more likely that individuals will take adaptive action in the future. The study also finds that experience with extreme events affects people's intentions to take adaptive measures independently from their beliefs that these extremes were caused by climate change. Furthermore, findings also highlight the need for communication research and practice to recognise the impeding role social norms and economic rationales can play for individual adaptation. Future research should make use of longitudinal and qualitative research to assess the effect of deliberation- and solution-orientated communication on people's intentions and actions to adapt to climate change.

Achieving food and nutrition security for all in a changing and globalized world remains a critical challenge of utmost importance. The development of solutions benefits from insights derived from modelling and simulating the complex interactions of the agri-food system, which range from global to household scales and transcend disciplinary boundaries. A wide range of models based on various methodologies (from food trade equilibrium to agent-based) seek to integrate direct and indirect drivers of change in land use, environment and socio-economic conditions at different scales. However, modelling such interaction poses fundamental challenges, especially for representing non-linear dynamics and adaptive behaviours. We identify key pieces of the fragmented landscape of food security modelling, and organize achievements and gaps into different contextual domains of food security (production, trade, and consumption) at different spatial scales. Building on in-depth reflection on three core issues of food security – volatility, technology, and transformation – we identify methodological challenges and promising strategies for advancement. We emphasize particular requirements related to the multifaceted and multiscale nature of food security. They include the explicit representation of transient dynamics to allow for path dependency and irreversible consequences, and of household heterogeneity to incorporate inequality issues. To illustrate ways forward we provide good practice examples using meta-modelling techniques, non-equilibrium approaches and behavioural-based modelling endeavours. We argue that further integration of different model types is required to better account for both multi-level agency and cross-scale feedbacks within the food system.

AbstractUnderstanding uncertainties in land cover projections is critical to investigating land‐based climate mitigation policies, assessing the potential of climate adaptation strategies and quantifying the impacts of land cover change on the climate system. Here, we identify and quantify uncertainties in global and European land cover projections over a diverse range of model types and scenarios, extending the analysis beyond the agro‐economic models included in previous comparisons. The results from 75 simulations over 18 models are analysed and show a large range in land cover area projections, with the highest variability occurring in future cropland areas. We demonstrate systematic differences in land cover areas associated with the characteristics of the modelling approach, which is at least as great as the differences attributed to the scenario variations. The results lead us to conclude that a higher degree of uncertainty exists in land use projections than currently included in climate or earth system projections. To account for land use uncertainty, it is recommended to use a diverse set of models and approaches when assessing the potential impacts of land cover change on future climate. Additionally, further work is needed to better understand the assumptions driving land use model results and reveal the causes of uncertainty in more depth, to help reduce model uncertainty and improve the projections of land cover.

AbstractBumblebees (Bombus ssp.) are among the most important wild pollinators, but many species have suffered from range declines. Land‐use change, agricultural intensification, and the associated loss of habitat have been identified as drivers of the observed dynamics, amplifying pressures from a changing climate. However, these drivers are still underrepresented in continental‐scale species distribution modeling. Here, we project the potential distribution of 47 European bumblebee species in 2050 and 2080 from existing European‐scale distribution maps, based on a set of climate and land‐use futures simulated through a regional integrated assessment model and consistent with the RCP–SSP scenario framework. We compare projections including (1) dynamic climate and constant land use (CLIM); (2) constant climate and dynamic land use (LU); and (3) dynamic climate and dynamic land use (COMB) to disentangle the effects of land use and climate change on future habitat suitability, providing the first rigorous continental‐scale assessment of linked climate–land‐use futures for bumblebees. We find that direct climate impacts, although variable across species, dominate responses for most species, especially under high‐end climate change scenarios (up to 99% range loss). Land‐use impacts are highly variable across species and scenarios, ranging from severe losses (up to 75% loss) to considerable gains (up to 68% gain) of suitable habitat extent. Rare species thereby tend to be disproportionally affected by both climate and land‐use change. COMB projections reveal that land use may amplify, attenuate, or offset changes to suitable habitat extent expected from climate impact depending on species and scenario. Especially in low‐end climate change scenarios, land use has the potential to become a game changer in determining the direction and magnitude of range changes, indicating substantial potential for targeted conservation management.

AbstractRestoring ecosystems is an imperative for addressing biodiversity loss and climate change, and achieving the targets of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. One form of restoration, rewilding, may have particular promise but may also be precluded by requirements for other forms of land use now or in the future. This opportunity space is critical but challenging to assess. We explored the potential area available for rewilding in Great Britain until the year 2080 with a multisectoral land‐use model with several distinct climatic and socioeconomic scenarios. By 2080, areas from 5000 to 7000 km2 were either unmanaged or managed in ways that could be consistent with rewilding across scenarios without conflicting with the provision of ecosystem services. Beyond these areas, another 24,000–42,000 km2 of extensive upland management could provide additional areas for rewilding if current patterns of implementation hold in the future. None of these areas, however, coincided reliably with ecosystems of priority for conservation: peatlands, ancient woodlands, or wetlands. Repeatedly, these ecosystems were found to be vulnerable to conversion. Our results are not based on an assumption of support for or benefits from rewilding and do not account for disadvantages, such as potential losses of cultural landscapes or traditional forms of management, that were beyond the modeled ecosystem services. Nevertheless, potential areas for rewilding emerge in a variety of ways, from intensification elsewhere having a substantial but inadvertent land‐sparing effect, popular demand for environmental restoration, or a desire for exclusive recreation among the wealthy elite. Our findings therefore imply substantial opportunities for rewilding in the United Kingdom but also a need for interventions to shape the nature and extent of that rewilding to maintain priority conservation areas and societal objectives.