scenarios under the conditions of climate change. Hence, the adaptation of management needs to be included in a broader assessment framework to be useful in a
decision-making context. This framework should comprise methods to compare
scenario results as well as methods to evaluate options and prioritise actions. Risk
management is suggested as one tool to provide this framework (e.g. Rannow 2011,
2013; Lorenzoni et al. 2005; Willows and Connell 2003). ‘Stress tests’ that help to
identify critical changes and thresholds for resilience of ecosystems might be
another tool (Brown and Wilby 2012).
5.5 Conclusion – How to Deal with Models?
Including the results from modelling climate change impacts can be important and
provide a useful instrument to highlight possible negative impacts of climate
change, especially when analysed in combination with land use change and degradation, as well as assessing the consequences of different management options.
However, modelling results can only support the decision-making process in
combination with other methods. Models cannot be better than their input data. If
the density of climate stations and temporal resolution is very low or if the
functional relationships are unknown, models might show up with numbers but
they cannot be interpreted properly. At the local scale the identification of key
parameters is complicated and should be done in cooperation with protected area
managers as well as local experts. A special challenge in modelling is reflecting
user needs and ensuring the applicability of results for decision-making and adaptation of management.
Consequently, modelling results on local to regional scales are accompanied by
high uncertainties. These uncertainties must be taken into account and treated
accordingly when management decisions are based on modelling results. This is
best done through the joint development of management scenarios that include the
whole spectrum of climate change impacts. The definition of relevant scales for
decision-making and the acceptable limits of uncertainty must be considered a
prerequisite for this. Uncertainty of facts should not corrupt decisions and needs to
be separated from uncertainty of decisions. Models should be included in a wider
framework to make them useful for the decision-making process in conservation
management. Risk management, no-regret measures, and adaptive management
have great potential to foster the profitable application of modelling results in
conservation management. However, it should be emphasised that projections
based on computer models are not the only option to prepare for climate change
and support decisions for adaptation actions. Analysing and mapping sensitivity
might be a useful method to identify driving factors, thresholds for resilience and
management options even when results from climate models or detailed model
based analysis are missing, as illustrated in Chap. 8.
5 Climate Change Impact Modelling Cascade – Benefits and Limitations. . .
73
decision-making context. This framework should comprise methods to compare
scenario results as well as methods to evaluate options and prioritise actions. Risk
management is suggested as one tool to provide this framework (e.g. Rannow 2011,
2013; Lorenzoni et al. 2005; Willows and Connell 2003). ‘Stress tests’ that help to
identify critical changes and thresholds for resilience of ecosystems might be
another tool (Brown and Wilby 2012).
5.5 Conclusion – How to Deal with Models?
Including the results from modelling climate change impacts can be important and
provide a useful instrument to highlight possible negative impacts of climate
change, especially when analysed in combination with land use change and degradation, as well as assessing the consequences of different management options.
However, modelling results can only support the decision-making process in
combination with other methods. Models cannot be better than their input data. If
the density of climate stations and temporal resolution is very low or if the
functional relationships are unknown, models might show up with numbers but
they cannot be interpreted properly. At the local scale the identification of key
parameters is complicated and should be done in cooperation with protected area
managers as well as local experts. A special challenge in modelling is reflecting
user needs and ensuring the applicability of results for decision-making and adaptation of management.
Consequently, modelling results on local to regional scales are accompanied by
high uncertainties. These uncertainties must be taken into account and treated
accordingly when management decisions are based on modelling results. This is
best done through the joint development of management scenarios that include the
whole spectrum of climate change impacts. The definition of relevant scales for
decision-making and the acceptable limits of uncertainty must be considered a
prerequisite for this. Uncertainty of facts should not corrupt decisions and needs to
be separated from uncertainty of decisions. Models should be included in a wider
framework to make them useful for the decision-making process in conservation
management. Risk management, no-regret measures, and adaptive management
have great potential to foster the profitable application of modelling results in
conservation management. However, it should be emphasised that projections
based on computer models are not the only option to prepare for climate change
and support decisions for adaptation actions. Analysing and mapping sensitivity
might be a useful method to identify driving factors, thresholds for resilience and
management options even when results from climate models or detailed model
based analysis are missing, as illustrated in Chap. 8.
5 Climate Change Impact Modelling Cascade – Benefits and Limitations. . .
73