Adaptation to Climate Change: A Comparative Analysis of Modeling Methods for Heat-Related Mortality

Simon N. Gosling, David M. Hondula, Aditi Bunker, Dolores Ibarreta, Junguo Liu, Xinxin Zhang, Rainer Sauerborn

Research output: Research - peer-reviewArticle

  • 1 Citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Multiple methods are employed for modeling adaptation when projecting the impact of climate change on heat-related mortality. The sensitivity of impacts to each is unknown because they have never been systematically compared. In addition, little is known about the relative sensitivity of impacts to "adaptation uncertainty" (i.e., the inclusion/exclusion of adaptation modeling) relative to using multiple climate models and emissions scenarios.

OBJECTIVES: This study had three aims: a) Compare the range in projected impacts that arises from using different adaptation modeling methods; b) compare the range in impacts that arises from adaptation uncertainty with ranges from using multiple climate models and emissions scenarios; c) recommend modeling method(s) to use in future impact assessments.

METHODS: We estimated impacts for 2070-2099 for 14 European cities, applying six different methods for modeling adaptation; we also estimated impacts with five climate models run under two emissions scenarios to explore the relative effects of climate modeling and emissions uncertainty.

RESULTS: The range of the difference (percent) in impacts between including and excluding adaptation, irrespective of climate modeling and emissions uncertainty, can be as low as 28% with one method and up to 103% with another (mean across 14 cities). In 13 of 14 cities, the ranges in projected impacts due to adaptation uncertainty are larger than those associated with climate modeling and emissions uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should carefully consider how to model adaptation because it is a source of uncertainty that can be greater than the uncertainty in emissions and climate modeling. We recommend absolute threshold shifts and reductions in slope. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP634.

LanguageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalEnvironmental health perspectives
Volume125
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 16 2017

Fingerprint

Climate Change
Uncertainty
Hot Temperature
Mortality
Climate
Research Personnel

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis

Cite this

Adaptation to Climate Change : A Comparative Analysis of Modeling Methods for Heat-Related Mortality. / Gosling, Simon N.; Hondula, David M.; Bunker, Aditi; Ibarreta, Dolores; Liu, Junguo; Zhang, Xinxin; Sauerborn, Rainer.

In: Environmental health perspectives, Vol. 125, No. 8, 16.08.2017.

Research output: Research - peer-reviewArticle

Gosling, Simon N. ; Hondula, David M. ; Bunker, Aditi ; Ibarreta, Dolores ; Liu, Junguo ; Zhang, Xinxin ; Sauerborn, Rainer. / Adaptation to Climate Change : A Comparative Analysis of Modeling Methods for Heat-Related Mortality. In: Environmental health perspectives. 2017 ; Vol. 125, No. 8.
@article{2870cfec68794336a27e42b65e1402e4,
title = "Adaptation to Climate Change: A Comparative Analysis of Modeling Methods for Heat-Related Mortality",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Multiple methods are employed for modeling adaptation when projecting the impact of climate change on heat-related mortality. The sensitivity of impacts to each is unknown because they have never been systematically compared. In addition, little is known about the relative sensitivity of impacts to {"}adaptation uncertainty{"} (i.e., the inclusion/exclusion of adaptation modeling) relative to using multiple climate models and emissions scenarios.OBJECTIVES: This study had three aims: a) Compare the range in projected impacts that arises from using different adaptation modeling methods; b) compare the range in impacts that arises from adaptation uncertainty with ranges from using multiple climate models and emissions scenarios; c) recommend modeling method(s) to use in future impact assessments.METHODS: We estimated impacts for 2070-2099 for 14 European cities, applying six different methods for modeling adaptation; we also estimated impacts with five climate models run under two emissions scenarios to explore the relative effects of climate modeling and emissions uncertainty.RESULTS: The range of the difference (percent) in impacts between including and excluding adaptation, irrespective of climate modeling and emissions uncertainty, can be as low as 28% with one method and up to 103% with another (mean across 14 cities). In 13 of 14 cities, the ranges in projected impacts due to adaptation uncertainty are larger than those associated with climate modeling and emissions uncertainty.CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should carefully consider how to model adaptation because it is a source of uncertainty that can be greater than the uncertainty in emissions and climate modeling. We recommend absolute threshold shifts and reductions in slope. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP634.",
author = "Gosling, {Simon N.} and Hondula, {David M.} and Aditi Bunker and Dolores Ibarreta and Junguo Liu and Xinxin Zhang and Rainer Sauerborn",
year = "2017",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1289/EHP634",
volume = "125",
journal = "Environmental Health Perspectives",
issn = "0091-6765",
publisher = "Public Health Services, US Dept of Health and Human Services",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Adaptation to Climate Change

T2 - Environmental Health Perspectives

AU - Gosling,Simon N.

AU - Hondula,David M.

AU - Bunker,Aditi

AU - Ibarreta,Dolores

AU - Liu,Junguo

AU - Zhang,Xinxin

AU - Sauerborn,Rainer

PY - 2017/8/16

Y1 - 2017/8/16

N2 - BACKGROUND: Multiple methods are employed for modeling adaptation when projecting the impact of climate change on heat-related mortality. The sensitivity of impacts to each is unknown because they have never been systematically compared. In addition, little is known about the relative sensitivity of impacts to "adaptation uncertainty" (i.e., the inclusion/exclusion of adaptation modeling) relative to using multiple climate models and emissions scenarios.OBJECTIVES: This study had three aims: a) Compare the range in projected impacts that arises from using different adaptation modeling methods; b) compare the range in impacts that arises from adaptation uncertainty with ranges from using multiple climate models and emissions scenarios; c) recommend modeling method(s) to use in future impact assessments.METHODS: We estimated impacts for 2070-2099 for 14 European cities, applying six different methods for modeling adaptation; we also estimated impacts with five climate models run under two emissions scenarios to explore the relative effects of climate modeling and emissions uncertainty.RESULTS: The range of the difference (percent) in impacts between including and excluding adaptation, irrespective of climate modeling and emissions uncertainty, can be as low as 28% with one method and up to 103% with another (mean across 14 cities). In 13 of 14 cities, the ranges in projected impacts due to adaptation uncertainty are larger than those associated with climate modeling and emissions uncertainty.CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should carefully consider how to model adaptation because it is a source of uncertainty that can be greater than the uncertainty in emissions and climate modeling. We recommend absolute threshold shifts and reductions in slope. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP634.

AB - BACKGROUND: Multiple methods are employed for modeling adaptation when projecting the impact of climate change on heat-related mortality. The sensitivity of impacts to each is unknown because they have never been systematically compared. In addition, little is known about the relative sensitivity of impacts to "adaptation uncertainty" (i.e., the inclusion/exclusion of adaptation modeling) relative to using multiple climate models and emissions scenarios.OBJECTIVES: This study had three aims: a) Compare the range in projected impacts that arises from using different adaptation modeling methods; b) compare the range in impacts that arises from adaptation uncertainty with ranges from using multiple climate models and emissions scenarios; c) recommend modeling method(s) to use in future impact assessments.METHODS: We estimated impacts for 2070-2099 for 14 European cities, applying six different methods for modeling adaptation; we also estimated impacts with five climate models run under two emissions scenarios to explore the relative effects of climate modeling and emissions uncertainty.RESULTS: The range of the difference (percent) in impacts between including and excluding adaptation, irrespective of climate modeling and emissions uncertainty, can be as low as 28% with one method and up to 103% with another (mean across 14 cities). In 13 of 14 cities, the ranges in projected impacts due to adaptation uncertainty are larger than those associated with climate modeling and emissions uncertainty.CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should carefully consider how to model adaptation because it is a source of uncertainty that can be greater than the uncertainty in emissions and climate modeling. We recommend absolute threshold shifts and reductions in slope. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP634.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85031026894&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85031026894&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1289/EHP634

DO - 10.1289/EHP634

M3 - Article

VL - 125

JO - Environmental Health Perspectives

JF - Environmental Health Perspectives

SN - 0091-6765

IS - 8

ER -