Climatic Change

, Volume 118, Issue 3–4, pp 565–577 | Cite as

The regional nature of global challenges: a need and strategy for integrated regional modeling

  • Kathy A. Hibbard
  • Anthony C. Janetos


In this paper, we explore the regional nature of global environmental challenges. We take a broad approach by examining the scientific foundation that is needed to support policy and decision making and identifying some of the most important barriers to progress that are truly scale-dependent. In so doing, we hope to show that understanding global environmental changes requires understanding a number of intrinsically regional phenomena, and that successful decision making likewise requires an integrated approach that accounts for a variety of regional Earth system processes—which we define to include both human activities and environmental systems that operate or interact primarily at sub-continental scales. Understanding regional processes and phenomena, including regional decision-making processes and information needs, should thus be an integral part of the global change research agenda. To address some of the key issues and challenges, we propose an integrated regional modeling approach that accounts for the dynamic interactions among physical, ecological, biogeochemical, and human processes and provides relevant information to regional decision makers and stakeholders.


Mitigation Option Integrate Assessment Model Geological Carbon Sequestration Regional Decision Maker Assessment Modeling Community 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bennaceur K, Gielen D (2010) Energy technology modelling of major carbon abatement options. Int J Green Gas Control 4(2):309–315. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.10.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhardwaj AK, Zenone T, Jasrotia P, Robertson GP, Chen J, Hamilton SK (2010) Water and energy footprints of bioenergy crop production on marginal lands. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 3(3):208–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. CCSP (2008) The effects of climate change on agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity in the United States. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC., USA, 362 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. Clarke L, Emonds J, Krey V, Richels R, Rose S, Massimo T (2009) International climate policy architectures: overview of the EMF 22 International Scenarios. Energy Econ 31:S64–S81. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2009.10.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dolan KA, Hurtt GC, Chambers J, Dubayah R, Frolking S (2011) Using ICESat’s geoscience laser altimeter system to assess large scale forest disturbance caused by Hurricane Katrina. Remote Sens Environ 115(1):86–96. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2010.08.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dooley JJ, Trabucchi C, Patton L (2010a) Design considerations for financing a national trust to advance the deployment of geologic CO2 storage and motivate best practices. Int J Green Gas Control 4(2):381–387. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.09.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dooley JJ, Dahowski RT, Davidson CL (2010b) CO2-driven enhanced oil recovery as a stepping stone to what? PNNL-19557. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, RichlandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edmonds JA et al (2001) Global energy technology strategy: addressing climate change–initial findings from a public-private collaboration. Battelle Memorial Institute, Washington, 60 ppGoogle Scholar
  9. Edmonds JA et al (2007) Global energy technology strategy: addressing climate change–phase 2 findings from a public-private sponsored research program. Battelle Memorial Institute, College Park, 142 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. Harte J, El-Gasseir M (1978) Energy and water. Science 199(10):623–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Houghton RA (1993) Is carbon accumulating in the northern temperate zone? Global Biogeochem Cycles 7(3):611–617. doi: 10.1029/93GB01163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. IPCC (2007a) Summary for policymakers. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 7–22Google Scholar
  13. IPCC (2007b) Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri RK, Reisinger A (eds)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. Israelsson PH, Chow AC, Adams EE (2010) An updated assessment of the acute impacts of ocean carbon sequestration by direct injection. Int J Green Gas Control 4(2):262–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Janetos AC, Clarke L, Collins W, Ebi K, Edmonds J, Foster I, Jacoby HJ, Judd K, Leung L, Newell R, Ojima D, Pugh G, Sanstad A, Schultz P, Stevens R, Weyant J, Wilbanks T, Knotek M, Malone E (2009) Science challenges and future directions: climate change integrated assessment research. Dept. of Energy, Washington, 80 ppGoogle Scholar
  16. Loarie SR, Lobell DB, Asner GP, Mu Q, Field CB (2011) Direct impacts on local climate of sugar-cane expansion in Brazil. Nat Clim Chang 1:105–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Malewitz J (2011) Persistent drought threatens Texas oil industry, Stateline, October 7, 2011.
  18. McMillan HK, Brasington J (2008) End-to-end flood risk assessment: a coupled model cascade with uncertainty estimation. Water Resour Res 44(W03419):doi: 10.1029/2007WR005995
  19. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  20. Morgan MG, Cantor R, Clark WC, Fisher A, Jacoby AD, Janetos AC, Kinzig AP, Melillo J, Street RB, Wilbanks TJ (2005) Learning from the U.S. National Assessment of Climate Change. Environ Sci Technol 39:9023–9032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST) (2000) Climate change impacts on the United States: the potential consequences of climate variability and change, overview report. US Global Change Research Program, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. National Research Council (2010) America’s climate choices: panel on adapting to the impacts of climate change. National Acadamies Press, Washington, 293 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. Nelson GC, Bennett E, Berhe AA, Cassman KG, DeFries R, Dietz T, Dobson A et al (2005) Chapter 7—Drivers of change in ecosystem condition and services. In: S.R. Carpenter, et al. (Eds) Ecosystems and human well-being: Scenarios. Findings of the Scenarios Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, vol. 2. Island Press, Washington, pp 173–222Google Scholar
  24. O'Neill BC et al (2012) The effect of urbanization on energy use in India and China in the iPETS model. Energy Econ. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2012.04.004
  25. Pappenberger F, Beven KJ, Hunter NM, Bates PD, Gouweleeuw BT, Thielen J, de Roo APJ (2005) Cascading model uncertainty form medium range weather forecasts (10 days) through a rainfall-runoff model to flood inundation predictions within the European Flood Forecasting System (EFFS). Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 9(4):381–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Raffa KF, Aukema BH, Bentz BJ, Carroll BAL, Hicke JA, Turner MG, Rome WH (2008) Cross-scale drivers of natural disturbances prone to anthropogenic amplification: the dynamics of bark beetle eruptions. BioScience 58(6):501–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ramanathan V, Crutzen PJ, Kiehl JT, Rosenfeld D (2001) Aerosols, climate and the hydrologic cycle. Science 294:2119–2124. doi: 10.1126/science.1064034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rausch S, Rutherford TF (2010) Computation of equilibria in OLG models with many heterogeneous households. Comput Econ 36(2):171–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reilly J, Paltsev S (2009) Biomass energy and competition for land. In: Hertel T, Rose S, Tol R (eds) Economic analysis of land use in global climate change policy. Routledge, UK, pp 184–207Google Scholar
  30. Rice JS, Moss RH, Runci PJ, Anderson KL, Malone EL (2012) Incorporating stakeholder decision support needs into an integrated regional Earth system model. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang. doi: 10.1007/s11027-011-9345-3
  31. Root T, Schneider S (2002) Strategic cyclical scaling: bridging five orders of magnitude scale gaps in climatic and ecological studies. Integr Assess 3(2–3):188–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Skaggs R, Hibbard KA (2012) Climate and energy-water-land system interactions: Technical Report to the U.S. Department of Energy in support of the National Climate Assessment. Report No. PNNL-21185. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, p 152Google Scholar
  33. Skamarock WC, Klemp JB, Dudhia J, Gill DO, Barker DM, Duda MG, Huang X-Y, Want W, Powers JG (2008) A description of the advanced research WRF version 3. NCAR Technical Note 475+STR. 113. PpGoogle Scholar
  34. Tans PP, Fung IY, Takahashi T (1990) Observational constraints on the global atmospheric CO2 budget’. Science 247:1431–1438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2011) Regulatory impact analysis: final national ambient air quality standard for Ozone. 87 ppGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Vuuren DP, Edmonds J, Kainuma M, Riahi K, Thomson A, Hibbard K, Hurtt G, Kram T, Krey V, Lamarque J-F, Masui T, Meinshausen M, Nakicenovic N, Smith SJ, Rose SK (2011) The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim Chang 109:5–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Voldoire A, Eickhout B, Schaeffer M, Royer J-F, Chauvin F (2007) Climate simulation of the twenty-first century with interactive land-use changes. Clim Dyn 29(2–3):177–193. doi: 10.1007/s00382-007-028-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang Y, Leung LR, McGregor JL, Lee D-K, Wang W-C, Ding Y, Kimura F (2004) Regional climate modeling: progress, challenges and prospects. J Meteorol Soc Jpn 82(6):1599–1628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wise MA, Calvin KV, Thomson AM, Clarke LE, Bond-Lamberty B, Sands RD, Smith SJ, Janetos AC, Edmonds JA (2009) Implications of limiting CO2 concentrations for land use and energy. Science 324(5931):1183–1186Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pacific Northwest National LabRichlandUSA
  2. 2.Pacific Northwest National LabCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations