Logo do repositório
 
Publicação

Inconsistent recognition of uncertainty in studies of climate change impacts on forests

2019-11-06Recensão Acesso aberto
Ver registo simples
dc.contributor.authorPetr, M.
dc.contributor.authorVacchiano, G.
dc.contributor.authorThom, D.
dc.contributor.authorMairota, P.
dc.contributor.authorKautz, M.
dc.contributor.authorGonçalves, Luísa Maria da Silva
dc.contributor.authorYousefpour, R.
dc.contributor.authorKaloudis, S.
dc.contributor.authorReyer, C. P.O.
dc.contributor.institutionNOVA Information Management School (NOVA IMS)
dc.contributor.pblIOP Publishing
dc.date.accessioned2020-02-26T23:50:06Z
dc.date.available2020-02-26T23:50:06Z
dc.date.issued2019-11-06
dc.descriptionPetr, M., Vacchiano, G., Thom, D., Mairota, P., Kautz, M., Gonçalves, L. M. D. S., ... Reyer, C. P. O. (2019). Inconsistent recognition of uncertainty in studies of climate change impacts on forests. Environmental Research Letters, 14(11), 1-13. [113003]. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab4670
dc.description.abstractBackground. Uncertainty about climate change impacts on forests can hinder mitigation and adaptation actions. Scientific enquiry typically involves assessments of uncertainties, yet different uncertainty components emerge in different studies. Consequently, inconsistent understanding of uncertainty among different climate impact studies (from the impact analysis to implementing solutions) can be an additional reason for delaying action. In this review we (a) expanded existing uncertainty assessment frameworks into one harmonised framework for characterizing uncertainty, (b) used this framework to identify and classify uncertainties in climate change impacts studies on forests, and (c) summarised the uncertainty assessment methods applied in those studies. Methods. We systematically reviewed climate change impact studies published between 1994 and 2016. We separated these studies into those generating information about climate change impacts on forests using models -'modelling studies', and those that used this information to design management actions-'decision-making studies'. We classified uncertainty across three dimensions: nature, level, and location, which can be further categorised into specific uncertainty types. Results. We found that different uncertainties prevail in modelling versus decision-making studies. Epistemic uncertainty is the most common nature of uncertainty covered by both types of studies, whereas ambiguity plays a pronounced role only in decision-making studies. Modelling studies equally investigate all levels of uncertainty, whereas decision-making studies mainly address scenario uncertainty and recognised ignorance. Finally, the main location of uncertainty for both modelling and decision-making studies is within the driving forces-representing, e.g. socioeconomic or policy changes. The most frequently used methods to assess uncertainty are expert elicitation, sensitivity and scenario analysis, but a full suite of methods exists that seems currently underutilized. Discussion & Synthesis. The misalignment of uncertainty types addressed by modelling and decision-making studies may complicate adaptation actions early in the implementation pathway. Furthermore, these differences can be a potential barrier for communicating research findings to decision-makers.en
dc.description.versionpublishersversion
dc.description.versionpublished
dc.format.extent13
dc.format.extent1118526
dc.identifier.doi10.1088/1748-9326/ab4670
dc.identifier.issn1748-9318
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 17046543
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: ea97e7b1-e060-4680-a2da-6f604e4cb943
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85079425702
dc.identifier.otherWOS: 000499973700001
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10362/93404
dc.identifier.urlhttps://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85079425702
dc.identifier.urlhttp://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=WOS_CPL&DestLinkType=FullRecord&UT=WOS:000499973700001
dc.language.isoeng
dc.peerreviewedyes
dc.subjectDecision-making
dc.subjectModelling
dc.subjectScience communication
dc.subjectUncertainty assessment methods
dc.subjectUncertainty recognition
dc.subjectRenewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
dc.subjectGeneral Environmental Science
dc.subjectPublic Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
dc.subjectSDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
dc.subjectSDG 7 - Affordable and Clean Energy
dc.subjectSDG 13 - Climate Action
dc.titleInconsistent recognition of uncertainty in studies of climate change impacts on forestsen
dc.typereview
degois.publication.firstPage1
degois.publication.issue11
degois.publication.lastPage13
degois.publication.titleEnvironmental Research Letters
degois.publication.volume14
dspace.entity.typePublication
rcaap.rightsopenAccess

Ficheiros

Principais
A mostrar 1 - 1 de 1
Miniatura
Nome:
Inconsistent_recognition_uncertainty_studies_climate_change_impacts_forests.pdf
Tamanho:
1.07 MB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Ver/Abrir

Coleções

NIMS: MagIC - Artigos em revista internacional com arbitragem científica (Peer-Review articles in international journals)