ateam - Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research

ATEAM final report Section 5 and 6 (2001-2004) 11
IPCC Special Report of Emission Scenarios (SRES) A1f, A2, B1 and B2. We used four different general
circulation models to simulate possible climatic changes resulting from these four emission scenarios.
We then developed a set of land use and nitrogen deposition scenarios that are linked to the climate
scenarios and the socio-economics derived from the SRES storylines. This resulted in a consistent set
of scenarios at high spatial resolution for the main global change drivers in Europe (10’ x 10’ grid
resolution over EU15 plus Norway and Switzerland, baseline 1990, future time slices 2020, 2050, 2080).
Europe’s managed ecosystems are sensitive to the exposure to these environmental changes. The
resulting potential impacts (red box, Figure 1) are changes in ecosystem service supply. Humans can
be vulnerable to such potential impacts because they rely on ecosystem services. In ATEAM, we model
potential impacts using the input scenarios of global change and a range of state-of-the-art ecosystem
models that represent the sensitivity of the human-environment system. The ecosystem services
considered in the ATEAM project are listed in Table 1. In a stakeholder-guided process we selected a
range of indicators for ecosystem services that are related to the sectors agriculture, forestry, carbon
storage and energy, water, biodiversity and nature conservation, and mountains 8 . Different ecosystem
modelling techniques are used for different sectors and environments, but all ecosystem models, use
the same input scenarios, i.e. climate change scenarios, land use change scenarios, and, in some
cases, nitrogen deposition scenarios.
To obtain a dimension of the third element of vulnerability, adaptive capacity (green box, Figure 1), we
developed a spatially explicit and quantitative generic index of adaptive capacity (macro-scale: province
level). This index is based on six determinants which were identified by the IPCC Third Assessment
Report: power, flexibility, freedom, motivation, knowledge and urgency. For these determinants we
selected twelve indicators such as gross domestic product, female activity rate, age structure, literacy
index and urbanisation. We used projections of socio-economic variables (gross domestic product and
population) and regression analysis with historic data of the indicators to obtain future projections.
Fuzzy inference rules were then applied to aggregate the individual indicator values into one generic
measure of adaptive capacity per spatial unit. The resulting generic index captures one of many
dimensions of adaptive capacity. Elements of adaptive capacity furthermore enter the assessment with
the land use scenarios (which consider assumptions about decision-making in a socio-economic and
policy context) as well as with those ecosystem models that include human management (e.g.
agricultural and forestry models).
How were these elements (exposure and sensitivity, resulting potential impacts and adaptive capacity)
integrated into maps of vulnerability (blue box, Figure 1)? Empirical and theoretical evidence of how
potential impacts and adaptive capacity can be combined into measures of vulnerability is very limited.
Therefore, we created a visual combination of these elements without quantifying a specific relationship.
The resulting maps illustrate vulnerability in terms of negative potential impacts and limited adaptive
capacity. All results are made available to stakeholders in form of a digital atlas (spatially and temporal
explicit maps of Europe) of exposures, potential impacts, adaptive capacity and a dimension of
vulnerability. This tool allows comparison of scenarios, time slices and regions for each ecosystem
service indicator. The maps are accompanied by careful documentation of the underlying assumptions
and limitations of the approach. This digital atlas of Europe adds to the basis for discussion between
different stakeholders and policy makers, thereby facilitating sustainable management of Europe’s
natural resources under global change.
Stakeholders were involved in the project from the very beginning for a more appropriate assessment of
vulnerability (grey bar, Figure 1). In a number of workshops and through other interactions we discussed
our approach with stakeholders from private sectors and with policy makers. The general objective of
this dialogue was to facilitate a more appropriate assessments of ecosystem vulnerability, i.e. to
8 “Mountains” is a type of environment, rather than a sector. Due to the unique nature of mountain system, we have
nevertheless considered mountains in particular, focusing especially on mountain ecosystem services to the tourism sector.