+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Assessment of mitigation strategies as tools for risk management under future uncertainties: a multi-model approach



Assessment of mitigation strategies as tools for risk management under future uncertainties: a multi-model approach



Sustainability Science 13(2): 329-349



Although the world understands the possible threat of the future of climate changes, there remain serious barriers to be resolved in terms of policy decisions. The scientific and the societal uncertainties in the climate change policies must be the large part of this barrier. Following the Paris Agreement, the world comes to the next stage to decide the next actions. Without a view of risk management, any decision will be "based on neglecting alternatives" behavior. The Ministry of the Environment, Japan has established an inter-disciplinary research project, called Integrated Climate Assessment-Risks, Uncertainties, and Society (ICA-RUS) conducted by Dr. Seita Emori, National Institute for Environmental Studies. ICA-RUS consists of five research themes, i.e., (1) synthesis of global climate risks, (2) optimization of land, water, and ecosystem for climate risks, (3) analysis of critical climate risks, (4) evaluation of climate risk management options, and (5) interactions between scientific and social rationalities. We participated in the fourth theme to provide the quantitative assessment of technology options and policy measures by integrating assessment model simulations. We employ the multi-model approach to deal with the complex relationships among various fields such as technology, economics, and land use changes. Four different types of integrated assessment models, i.e., MARIA-14 (Mori), EMEDA (Washida), GRAPE (Kurosawa), and AIM (Masui), participate in the fourth research theme. These models contribute to the ICA-RUS by providing two information categories. First, these models provide common simulation results based on shared socioeconomic pathway scenarios and the shared climate policy cases given by the first theme of ICA-RUS to see the ranges of the evaluation. Second, each model also provides model-specific outcomes to answer special topics, e.g., geoengineering, sectoral trade, adaptation, and decision making under uncertainties. The purpose of this paper is to describe the outline and the main outcomes of the multi-model inter-comparison among the four models with a focus upon the first and to present the main outcomes. Furthermore, in this study, we introduce a statistical meta-analysis of the multi-model simulation results to see whether the differently structured models provide the inter-consistent findings. The major findings of our activities are as follows: First, in the stringent climate target, the regional economic losses among models tend to diverge, whereas global total economic loss does not. Second, both carbon capture and storage (CCS) as well as BECCS are essential for providing the feasibility of stringent climate targets even if the deployment potential varies among models. Third, the models show small changes in the crop production in world total, whereas large differences appear between regions. Fourth, the statistical meta-analysis of the multi-model simulation results suggests that the models would have an implicit but common relationship between gross domestic product losses and mitigation options even if their structures and simulation results are different. Since this study is no more than a preliminary exercise of the statistical meta-analysis, it is expected that more sophisticated methods such as data mining or machine learning could be applicable to the simulation database to extract the implicit information behind the models.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 050468937

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 30147784

DOI: 10.1007/s11625-017-0521-6


Related references

A national approach to multi-hazard risk assessment and mitigation. Congres Geologique International, Resumes 33, 2008

Multi-stakeholder decision analysis and comparative risk assessment for reuse- recycle oriented e-waste management strategies a game theoretic approach. Waste Management & Research, 2013

Multi-stakeholder decision analysis and comparative risk assessment for reuse-recycle oriented e-waste management strategies: a game theoretic approach. Waste Management and Research 31(9): 881-895, 2013

A simulation-optimization modeling approach for watershed-scale agricultural N2O emission mitigation under multi-level uncertainties. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 32(9): 2683-2697, 2018

Multi-Tools Approach for Food Safety Risk Management of Steam Meals. Journal of Food Protection 72(12): 2638-2645, 2009

Multi-tools approach for food safety risk management of steam meals. Journal of Food Protection 72(12): 2638-2645, 2009

Expert judgment based multi-criteria decision model to address uncertainties in risk assessment of nanotechnology-enabled food products. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 13(5): 1813-1831, 2011

Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies With Elements to Assure Safe Use: Alignment of the Goals With the Tools to Manage Risk. Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science 48(6): 724-733, 2014

Incorporating model uncertainties along with data uncertainties in microbial risk assessment. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 32(1): 68-72, 2000

Studying Fire Mitigation Strategies in Multi-Ownership Landscapes Balancing the Management of Fire-Dependent Ecosystems and Fire Risk. Ecosystems 12(3): 445-461, 2009

Assessment of risk evaluation and mitigation strategies in oncology: summary of the oncology risk evaluation and mitigation strategies workshop. Journal of Oncology Practice 9(2): E24-E39, 2013

Tools for visualizing and integrating pest risk assessment ratings and uncertainties. EPPO Bulletin 42(1): 35-41, 2012

Exploring the uncertainties in cancer risk assessment using the integrated probabilistic risk assessment (IPRA) approach. Risk Analysis 34(8): 1401-1422, 2014

FDA's risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS): effective and efficient safety tools or process poltergeist?. Food and Drug Law Journal 66(4): 569-85 Ii, 2011

Multi-disciplinary approach to perioperative risk assessment and post-transplant management for liver transplantation in a patient at risk for Brugada syndrome. Journal of Perioperative Practice 29(5): 140-146, 2019