You are on page 1of 28


Methods and Tools for Assessing
the Vulnerability of Forests and
People to Climate Change
An introduction

Bruno Locatelli
Hety Herawati
Maria Brockhaus
Monica Idinoba
Markku Kanninen


Working Paper No. 43 Methods and Tools for Assessing the Vulnerability of Forests and People to Climate Change An introduction Bruno Locatelli Hety Herawati Maria Brockhaus Monica Idinoba Markku Kanninen December 2008 .

O. Luis Molina. This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union (EuropeAid/ENV/2004- 81719).2    Methods and Tools for Assessing the Vulnerability of Forests and People to Climate Change Contact Bruno Locatelli Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and Agricultural Research Center for International Development (CIRAD) P. Box 0113 BOCBD Bogor 16000 Indonesia Tel: +62 251 8622 622 Fax: +62 251 8622 100 Email: b. Pablo Imbach. Stephen Lartey Tekpetey. Raffaele Vignola. Javier Saborio. Heru Santoso. Houria Djoudi. The contents of this document can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union. Angela Diaz. Cover photo by Bruno Locatelli Acknowledgements The authors thank CIFOR and associated scientists who provided information about their use of methods and tools for vulnerability assessment: Benjamin Apraku Gyampoh. Kologo Oumarou. Disclaimers The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of CIFOR. Placide Hien.

Then generic methods and tools are presented (section 3). sectoral or local scale and bring useful results for policies on climate change. Adaptation. Ecosystem Services. Methods and tools can help identify the impacts of climate change at the global. and integrated socio-ecological systems (section 6). Other methods and tools aim at assessing local vulnerability for prioritising policy interventions or developing and monitoring adaptation responses. Keywords Climate change. forest ecosystem services and forest-dependent people or sectors to climate change. The scope of the analysis is first described (section 2). w o r k i n g pap e r N o . taken mostly from the experience of Center for International Forest Research (CIFOR) and Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center (CATIE) in the Tropical Forests and Climate Change Adaptation (TroFCCA) project in Central America. Forest Communities. forests. followed by methods and tools for the vulnerability of ecosystems (section 4). So far. Forest. Vulnerability. and forest-dependent people or sectors have not been adequately represented in adaptation studies or policies. Tools. Methods. people (section 5). national. forest ecosystem services. This working paper provides an overview of methods and tools suitable for assessing the vulnerability of forests. West Africa and Asia. Models. even though many methods and tools are available to help scientists or practitioners address questions related to vulnerability and adaptation. 4 3     3 Abstract Adaptation is necessary for reducing the impacts of climate change on forests and societies. It provides a typology of methods and tools and gives examples. .

1 Models of Partial Ecosystem Processes 13 4.1 For Analysing Stakeholder Behaviours and Perceptions 16 5.2 Simple Ecosystem Models 14 4.3 For Various Purposes 10 4 Methods and Tools for Assessing the Vulnerability of Forests and Forest Ecosystem Services 13 4.2 For Analysing Institutions and Stakeholder Interactions 16 5.2 For Building Empirical Models from Observations 10 3.3 Integrated Ecosystem Models 15 5 Methods and Tools for Assessing the Vulnerability of Forest-Dependent People or Sectors 16 5.4    Methods and Tools for Assessing the Vulnerability of Forests and People to Climate Change Table of contents Abstract 3 1 Introduction 5 2 Scope of the Paper 6 3 Generic Methods and Tools 9 3.3 For Simulating Vulnerability 17 6 Integrative Methods and Tools 18 7 Conclusion 19 References 20 .1 For Analysing Vulnerability Interactively with Stakeholders 9 3.

generally called top-down or scenario-driven. or national scale. a serious limitation in the assessment be the impacts of climate change? To what extent is the of vulnerability and adaptation comes from the system vulnerable? Who is vulnerable? What coping unsuitability of methods and tools (UNFCCC 2005a). forest ecosystem services. local Adaptation (TroFCCA) project in Central America. suitable for adaptation planning and assessment. and integrated socio-ecological So far. people (section 5). followed by methods and vulnerability for prioritising policy interventions or tools for the vulnerability of ecosystems (section 4). and forest. National Communications of Parties of the United Various pertinent questions arise when planning Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and implementing adaptation in any system: What will (UNFCCC). They aim at assessing local are presented (section 3). dependent people or sectors have not been adequately . and tools are available to help scientists or practitioners It provides a typology of methods and tools and gives address these questions. described (section 2). including those 2004). Many methods forest-dependent people or sectors to climate change. raising West Africa and Asia. taken mostly from the experience of Center Methods and tools can help identify the impacts for International Forest Research (CIFOR) and Tropical of climate change at the global scale and bring useful Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center results for the international policies on climate change. In the of climate change on ecosystems and societies. 4 3     5 1. and identifying key issues (UNFCCC thorough analysis of tools and methods. for informing decision makers. Introduction A daptation is necessary for reducing the impacts represented in adaptation studies or policies. Then generic methods and tools up or vulnerability-driven. forests. w o r k i n g pap e r N o . (CATIE) in the Tropical Forests and Climate Change They can also help assess the impacts at sectoral. the scope of the analysis is first applications of available methods and tools are bottom. examples. other In this paper. systems (section 6). In addition to these impact assessments. developing and monitoring adaptation responses. It is a first step towards a more awareness. forest ecosystem services and adaptation policies? (UNFCCC 2004). strategies exist? How can adaptation decrease impacts? This working paper provides an overview What can we do to adapt? What institutional support of methods and tools suitable for assessing the is available to enhance adaptation? How to develop vulnerability of forests.

benefit-cost analysis. screening.g.3 of the UNEP an approach is a complete framework for guiding the handbook (Feenstra et al. Scope of the Paper Focus on methods and tools.2 assessment of vulnerability and adaptation (UNFCCC of the Compendium (UNFCCC 2005b). This paper focuses on scenarios and supporting decisions on adaptation methods and tools rather than methodologies or (UNFCCC 2004). As an and other drivers of change (Downing and Patwardhan example. range or variability of temperature) or indirect (e. A methodology or and tools are given in chapter 5. The signs under the arrows mean that high exposure. It is composed of different methods and include: forecasting by analogy. the increase in temperature. high sensitivity and low adaptive capacity induce high vulnerability. Vulnerability ‘The degree to which a system is susceptible to. Exposure is external to the system. For building scenarios. Adaptive Capacity AC ‘All impacts that may occur given a projected ‘The ability of a system to adjust to climate change change in climate. implementing three main components of vulnerability are exposure. and the Adaptation Policy vulnerability. or unable to cope with. i.g. Framework (Lim and Spanger-Siegfried 2004). Designing. This paper focuses on the methods and tools vulnerability of forest growth to temperature changes available for vulnerability assessment in the specific case could be. Figure 1: The components of vulnerability (definitions are from McCarthy et al. methods approaches.1. methods specific task (UNFCCC 2005b). The most commonly used frameworks are the environmental assessment and management. without considering (including climate variability and extremes) to adaptation’ moderate potential damages. Examples 2005a).6    Methods and Tools for Assessing the Vulnerability of Forests and People to Climate Change 2. According to IPCC (McCarthy et al. including climate variability and extremes’ Potential Impacts PI + . Compendium on Methods and Tools (UNFCCC 2005b). 1994).3 of the can be implemented through using a number of tools. 2001). and evaluating adaptation policies or projects require sensitivity and adaptive capacity (see figure 1 for identifying the way in which ecosystems and societies definitions). 2001). 2002). a change in crop yield in response to a variations’ change in the mean. S and AC explaining 2004). either adversely which a system is exposed or beneficially. to take advantage of opportunities. 1998) or in chapter 3. This paper Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) guidelines does not present them but focuses on components of (UNFCCC. the of forests and forest-dependent people or sectors. climate change sensitivity and adaptive capacity are internal. tool for tools. while are vulnerable to climate variability. by climate-related stimuli. respectively. cost-effectiveness technical guidelines (Carter et al. or to cope with the consequences’ + + Exposure E Sensitivity S ‘The nature and degree to ‘The degree to which a system is affected. the three factors E. a means or instrument used for accomplishing a For supporting decisions on adaptation.e. methods changes of ecosystem composition following changes in and tools are used for two other purposes: building tree dynamics. damages caused by an increase in the frequency of coastal flooding due to sea level rise’ . A method is a set of steps or tasks and and tools are described in the chapter 3. adverse effects of climate change. The effect may to significant climatic be direct (e. and the In addition to vulnerability assessment. adaptation Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) decision matrix. and implementation analysis. the National analysis. the Focus on vulnerability. sensitivity of tree dynamics to temperature.

vulnerability assessment requires fine temporal climate An intermediate level of interaction is possible with climate change assessment (Carter et al. are described in chapter 3. some small social or policy pressures have been presented elsewhere. results to regional scales. to forest ecosystems. precis. A Regional Climate ecosystem services influences the vulnerability of Scenario Generator (MAGICC/SCENGEN) is an society and as society affects positively or negatively the user-friendly algorithm package that downscales vulnerability of ecosystems. present different levels of complexity.2 of the Compendium Focus on methods and tools easily applicable. . For instance. Tools At local and national scales. whereas others deal with social PRECIS is a regional climate model based on systems. (e. for instance SDSM. scenarios defined as integrated and complex systems in which The Model for Assessment of Greenhouse-Gas ecosystems and society interact. Vulnerability mean temperature and sea level rise with different assessment should consider the links between these two emissions scenarios and SCENGEN downscales systems (see figure 2). PRECIS was tools for forest ecosystems (section 4). we will present methods and at approximately 50 km resolution. However.5° resolution. This paper simple tools and methods (e. this paper mentions the methods and applying climatic or socio-economic scenarios in and tools that can be applied with a higher resolution. climate change and other market. and information on PRECIS may be found at http:// coupled socio-ecological systems (section 6). 4 3     7 This paper focuses on methods and tools for Many scientific works have been dealing with global assessing sensitivity and adaptive capacity. This Box 1: Tools used in TroFCCA for climate change report focuses on coupled socio-ecological systems. social systems used in TroFCCA Indonesia and West Africa. Methods and tools for assessing exposure to spatial resolution that impedes downscaling the findings climate variability. rather than assessment of impacts and vulnerability. More information on Few methods and tools deal with the vulnerability MAGICC/SCENGEN may be found at http:// of coupled socio-ecological system. Downscaling Model (SDSM) (Wilby et al. 2002) Different levels of interaction are possible with the or with regional climate models such as “Providing methods and tools. For this reason. Some are specific www. adaptation policies should and produces projections of regional climate aim at reducing the vulnerabilities of both ecological change at 2. It can provide hourly climate variables services. from a total interaction (with Regional Climates for Impacts Studies” (PRECIS) experiments or participatory approaches) to an absence (Jones et al. from rather Focus on local to national scales. 2004. As the provision of Induced Climate Change. with statistical methods such as the Statistical issue in assessing vulnerability and planning adaptation.cgd. MAGICC predicts global and social systems at the same time. see examples in Box 1). simulation of integrated socio-ecological systems or dynamic vegetation modelling). to national or local scales. tools can be used for generating daily sequences interactive models in which abstract models are of weather variables.1. Focus on coupled socio-ecological systems.g. Other tools presented to stakeholders who provide feedback. More depending on forest ecosystem services (section 5).edu/cas/wigley/magicc. It can be set up over any region and and these results can be brought into the vulnerability run on a personal computer with a simple user assessment of a social system to the loss of ecosystem interface. When a of interaction (with abstract models of ecosystems). as most tools for creating This paper focuses on methods and tools that can be climate change scenarios require high levels of expertise. with a low exposure. This paper gives emphasis on easily applicable methods and tools. applied by practitioners and managers in the field of practitioners and scientists in the field of forestry adaptation and ecosystem management. (UNFCCC 2005b). countries with diverse ecological and socio-economic The Group on Scenarios for Climate Impact Assessment contexts are represented by only one pixel in global of the IPCC has produced guidelines for selecting assessments. a key scale. 1999).metoffice. the application of tools are available for downscaling climate scenarios to a local and methods allows interaction with stakeholders. An ecosystem model can provide results about the Hadley Centre’s regional climate modelling the vulnerability of ecosystem services to climate change system.g. However. The tools and generally use existing climate change scenarios as an methods generally used for vulnerability assessment input for vulnerability assessment. w o r k i n g pap e r N o . using expert judgement focuses on methods and tools that provide useful or comparing with similar cases) to complex ones results for adaptation at local and national scales.

capacity Adapt. capacity Vulnerability of a coupled socio-ecological system .8    Methods and Tools for Assessing the Vulnerability of Forests and People to Climate Change Figure 2: Representation of a coupled socio-ecological system Climate change Other drivers of change Exposure Sensitivity Ecosystem services Sensitivity Forest Social ecosystem Management system Adapt.

instance when stakeholders build a cognitive map that gender analysis. Cognitive mapping Cognitive mapping was used in Central America 3. and adaptive capacity. issues. or infrastructure. incoherencies or gaps in data.proventionconsortium. Participants can write the elements on for national or local issues. . Many methods and tools are available at for and examples of cognitive mapping include Trochim specialised websites1. w o r k i n g pap e r N o . cognitive mapping and causal loop diagrams allow building formal models. close dialogue.g. be used by policymakers or stakeholders. e. for dams in the UK. It is vulnerability assessment. Guidelines focus groups). or initiating events. 2006) or community-based adaptation (e. feeds the model. A last step consists whose knowledge of the local context makes them of explaining these links. due to the subjective nature of with a brainstorming about the different elements the collected information. Kane and Trochim Cognitive mapping (or concept mapping or (2006) and Borne (2007). methods The method was inspired by Granger Morgan. for assessment (e. collecting data or modelling. 1  For example.1  For Analysing Vulnerability for studying local stakeholders and policymakers’ Interactively with Stakeholders perceptions of the impacts of climate change on In opposition to advanced simulation models of soil erosion and the role of land management in impacts or vulnerability that are not designed to reducing the impacts (Vignola and Calvo 2008). water scarcity. and used the results for simulating the effect of different Many generic methods and tools developed and it helps stakeholders and experts to define are lacking for conducting an in-depth analysis of problems and structure their mental model. and Pitelka et al. social systems. Ozesmi for vulnerability assessment involving stakeholders and and Ozesmi (2004) applied a cognitive mapping experts. (2001). especially for controversial market price fluctuation. (2008).eu for problem analysis and creative system modelling. pests. cognitive mapping can start easy to implement but. It is a useful method when resources 2005). Generic Methods and Tools Some generic methods and tools can be applied to ecosystems. resource mapping. forest ecosystems at a global scale (Granger Morgan. Stakeholder-oriented cognitive mapping and applied by social sciences can be used for vulnerability science-oriented simulation models can be linked. outcome. Cooke and Goossens 1999). 2001). to the selection of experts. 4 3     9 3. websites on system analysis (e. Venn diagram. Ackermann et al. exposure. intermediate events. case studies. It can also involve local stakeholders instance with arrows in the flipchart. experts for local vulnerability assessment. As do other methods the field and at the level of detail being elicited’ (Meyer of model-structuring (see Bana e Costa and Beinat and Booker 1991). discourse analysis. and tools exist for involving stakeholders (including Fischhoff et al. agricultural crop yield. health.g. www. For a scientific literature. special care must be given related to vulnerability. these elements can be clustered into groups (for been applied to the case of climate change impacts on example.g. about results. for example Brown and cards and group them on a flipchart. elicitation of expert judgements have step.g drought.g. either qualitative or quantitative (Giupponi et al. Meyer and Booker 1991. as well as software. netsymod. In a second For example. (1992). This method can also be used consequences). such as brainstorming or checklists. or coupled socio-ecological Box 2: Methods and tools used in TroFCCA: system. (1989). Cognitive mapping can also be used for simulation We describe below two generic methods and tools models as shown by van Kouwen et al. For instance. such as Excalibur (Delft University Giupponi et al. flooding. mental model) is a structured process that enables Expert judgement is a method for eliciting participants to produce a map of the concepts or informed opinions from experts of a specific topic. which in turn informs stakeholders community timeline. in-depth interviews. An ideas behind a topic of discussion and to describe expert is defined as ‘anyone especially knowledgeable in how these ideas are interrelated. http:// of Technology 2007). policymakers) in an assessment process. http://www. sensitivity. Guidelines for elicitation of expert judgements are available (e. Other methods are described in Downing and approach for analysing conflicting views of stakeholders Ziervogel (2004). 2008). A third step aims Aspinall (2004) used it for quantifying erosion rates in at representing causal links between the elements.

Data food insecurity in Africa (Misselhorn 2005) or the links mining was applied with sets of regression trees. relationships with nonlinearity. forecasting drought (Mishra and Desai 2006). meta. phenomenon. 2007). Witten and Compared with narrative reviews of literature. such as a classification tree.g.e.g. a set of computational techniques climate or human activities).g. forest fires) and possible explanatory variables (e. for vulnerability and in Central America for Data mining consists of sorting through large eliciting information about the climatic and soil datasets and picking out relevant information.3  For Various Purposes Meta-analysis was used for studying the Some generic methods and tools can be applied hydrological services delivered by forest ecosystems. statistical approaches (e. 2004). Expert judgement Osenberg et al. for results about impacts and uncertainties (Arnqvist example Weka (Witten and Frank 2005. These models aim at establishing a relationship Data mining methods include classification trees. such as meta-analysis and data rainfall-runoff relationships (Dawson et al. Frank 2005). 2000). It can reveal complex relationships forest plantations. between a dependent variable and explanatory variables.10    Methods and Tools for Assessing the Vulnerability of Forests and People to Climate Change Procedures for meta-analysis are described in many Box 3: Methods and tools used in TroFCCA: books and articles (e. Imbach et al. Data requirements of some selected species of forest mining is a more powerful tool than classical statistics plantation. . to machine learning.g. thresholds. modelling elaborated methods. Javier Lozano et al. al. Parmesan 2006) and soils (Rustad et Data mining was used in Central America to study al. Data mining can be used for knowledge discovery (i.g. The infiltration (Ilstedt et al. stakeholders or building empirical models from More information may be found in Locatelli and observations. meta-analysis can be used for example for summarising the results of different studies of the impacts of climate change on ecosystems or human health. producing an explicit model or a black box used for When observations are available about a phenomenon predicting future events).e. In an impact or vulnerability Waikato 2008). biophysical and climatic variables. Cooper and Hedges 1994. For example. (2008). fuzzy systems and uncertainty analysis. 2001). linear models) or more modelling deforestation (Mas et al.2  For Building Empirical Models from by producing an explicit model. Gurevitch et al. Data mining is closely related (e. for various purposes during a vulnerability assessment. 2003. mining. 1999. climate change or adaptation practices) on the fire (McKenzie et al. combining the quantitative findings of different studies. empirical models can be for knowledge discovery (Recknagel 2001). and can be used for testing the effects of changes Examples of applications include modelling forest (e. The results of studies comparing watersheds under including analysing vulnerability interactively with forests and non-forest land uses were synthesised. The objective was to study the potential for searching patterns in voluminous data (Witten impacts of climate change on the distribution of and Frank 2005). assessment. the drivers of under climatic and socio-economic scenarios. meta-analysis has been applied to Box 5: Methods and tools used in TroFCCA: studying the effect of global warming on biodiversity Data mining (Root et al. or modelling the distribution of vegetation in future Meta-analysis is a statistical technique for climate (Hilbert and Ostendorf 2001). Several guidebooks are available (e. that can be understood by the user) or prediction Observations (i. between an observed impact and explanatory variables classification rules and artificial neural networks. e. 2006). the effects of elevated CO2 on plants (Curtis the relationships among forest fires and socio- and Wang 1998). Software Expert judgement has been used in West Africa is also available (for a review see Egger et al. 2000.g.g. the effect of afforestation on water economic. the effects of climate objective was to study the future of forest fires change on human health (Martens 1998). 3. and complex interactions between explanatory variables. User-friendly and open-source software analysis has the advantage of producing quantitative makes data mining accessible to non-experts. indicators. between risk perception and maladaptation (Milne et Find more information in Locatelli. University of and Wooster 1995). built. 2001). Three examples are given below: Vignola (2009). Box 4: Methods and tools used in TroFCCA: Meta-analysis 3. Building models can be done with simple 2008). 1998 or to identify extinct forest species and indicators Meta-Analysis Unit 2008).

Moss et al. (2005) build a wide array Fuzzy systems. Adger Fuzzy theory enables researchers to deal with and Vincent (2005) developed the social vulnerability polymorphous and ambiguous concepts for which index (SVI). in models of fuzzy reasoning. propositions and producing values of vulnerability (Cox in particular sensitivity.g. al. as many components of vulnerability are various environmental and development factors (e. a sustainable related to economy. 2003.g. For instance. health and nutrition. a social dimensions of the vulnerability of social ecological system or a coupled socio-ecological system. 2009).g. 2008) and vulnerability of farmers in Central driven approach define a set of indicators and select America (Benegas et al. w o r k i n g pap e r N o . They can systems was conceptualised by stakeholders also be used for mapping vulnerability. 1995). but they presented without mathematical aggregation in a also require certain ability with mathematics. Several authors have proposed indicators of 2008). representing the grade of Adequate vulnerability indicators should membership of x in the fuzzy set (Zadeh 1965). The application of fuzzy systems is and a standard deviation of 1). stability and strength of public infrastructure. vulnerability profile (Downing et al. Fuzzy systems represent a useful approach to assumptions about the link between vulnerability and vulnerability. Those using an inductive data. The SVI is composed and to produce concrete unambiguous answers (Phillis of five composite subindices: economic wellbeing and Andriantiatsaholiniaina 2001). a democratic country or a vulnerable infrastructure. collinearity and 1994). For instance. coverage of the various dimensions of vulnerability Fuzzy system theory has been used in many (Downing and Patwardhan 2004). use of a resource. They select 11 membership. ecology and technology.g. Then fuzzy propositions background understanding of the topic and the area of can be defined (e. education. institutional fuzzy theory is the concept of membership function. averages (Malczewski 1999). at the scale of US counties). 2008). 2001). Criteria and procedures for area is critically exposed to climate change THEN selecting indicators are described in detail by Niemeijer vulnerability is high’). Indicators can also be Tools are available.g. 2001). . Several technical issues should procedures exist for working mathematically with these be considered when developing and using indicators. Different methods exist not highly demanding in terms of computation but can for creating aggregate indices. an aggregate index of human sensitivity a straightforward quantification is impossible. Brooks et al. The various components of vulnerability of an ecosystem. It describes the degree of possibility (or truth. indicator values are generally environmental impact evaluation (Enea and Salemi transformed into normalised indices (for instance 2001) or natural resource management (Bender and indices between 0 and 1 or indices with a mean of 0 Simonovic 2000). The core of the and stability. e. Another technical issue is related to normalisation: sustainability assessment (Cornelissen et al. global A fuzzy set in X is characterised by a membership interconnectivity and dependence on natural resources function f that associates each point x in X with a real (Vincent 2004). plausibility) and is different from indicators that have a strong correlation with mortality probabilistic uncertainty (probability of occurrence from climate-related disasters. fuzzy For indicators being a way of meeting adaptation or functions can be defined for characterising the set sustainability goals. group. the indicators that are the most correlated with proxies of vulnerability (e. geography and demography. governance. not well-defined. 2001). ‘IF community is poor AND study (Reed et al. A series of mathematical and de Groot (2008). of an event. research and operational areas. and described with indicators (Idinoba et al. Other experiences with indicators include sensitivity and adaptive capacity to climate change vulnerability of peat lands in Asia (Murdiyarso et at a national scale. Indicators of vulnerability have been developed Indicators can be used for describing the different in West Africa in a participatory way. they should also be developed with of ‘poor communities’ and the set of ‘areas critically active participation of local stakeholders with in-depth exposed to climate change’. theory-driven studies start from 1994). especially for MatlabTM. to and adaptive capacity to climate change-induced mathematically handle the reasoning for these concepts changes in water availability. data reliability. 4 3     11 Indicators. before being aggregated. agriculture. summarise and measure relevant information and make Fuzzy systems enable handling linguistic variables vulnerability visible (Downing and Patwardhan 2004). for example. An indicator is ‘something that provides a clue to a matter of larger significance or Box 6: Methods and tools used in TroFCCA: makes perceptible a trend or phenomenon that is Indicators not immediately detectable’ (Hammond et al.1]. Cutter et al. averages or weighted be challenging for those unfamiliar with mathematics. Fuzzy uncertainty relates to events of potential national-scale vulnerability indicators that have no well-defined meaning. e. number in the interval [0. using data on past disasters) or that are perceived by experts to be best indicators of vulnerability (e. based on true-or-false statements) (Cox Conversely.g. demographic structure.

Uncertainty analysis. 2007. 2008). (2005) describe uncertainty analyses in forest and global vegetation modelling. 2008). .12    Methods and Tools for Assessing the Vulnerability of Forests and People to Climate Change Many methods and tools exist for analysing Box 7: Methods and tools used in TroFCCA: Fuzzy uncertainties (New and Hulme 2000). (2005) and van Oijen et al. Zaehle et al. or Bayesian methods (see Katz. climate or socio-economic scenarios). Rojas and Salinas models or different representations of a social system. services for selected socio-economics sectors It is also possible to combine different scenarios with (Gonzalez et al.g. The most systems common approach is the application of different Fuzzy systems were used in Central America for climatic or socio-economic scenarios and the various purposes: a fuzzy multi-criteria analysis presentation of the range of outcomes. Another of the impacts of payment for ecosystem services approach can involve applying different ecosystem in Central America (Locatelli. A vulnerability assessment must recognise and inform about the uncertainties inherent in the assessment. Leguia et al. the lack of knowledge about the behaviour of a social system facing climate change) and the lack of certainties about the external conditions (e. more formal and socio-economic scenarios (Locatelli. 2007) and for different system models.g. 1999). These uncertainties come from the lack of understanding of the studied systems (e. Imbach et methods can be applied. In addition to the simple studying the future of forest fires under climatic presentation of the range of outcomes. such as Monte Carlo analyses al. the determination of hotspots of ecosystem for exploring a different sensitivity or adaptive capacity.

artificially modifying precipitation site factor and combined using Liebig’s Law of the reaching an ecosystem or increasing the concentration Minimum (i. with linear regression in Sebastián-López et al. the most limiting factor determines of CO2). with classification simple method for assessing the suitability of a site to trees in Sturtevant Cleland 2007 and with numeric a given tree species. We present different kinds ecosystem perturbations. with data mining (e. 4 3     13 4. The work identified areas that are suitable linear modelling. Hódar et al. w o r k i n g pap e r N o . of models used for ecosystem vulnerability assessment: Regarding pests and diseases in forest ecosystems. Various process-based models with scenarios of climate change). suitability indices are calculated for each experiments (e. using information impacts of climate change on the outbreaks of bark on soil and climatic requirements of selected beetles in Honduras: a statistical approach with species. a data mining approach based to forest plantations under the current climate on decision trees.g. pests or diseases. climate (e. winter temperature) and pests (e. Methods and Tools for Assessing the Vulnerability of Forests and Forest Ecosystem Services Assessing vulnerability of or impacts of climate about the suitability of a site or for creating suitability change on forest ecosystems can be done through maps.g.g. 2003). a meaningful impacts study that does not make some Perturbations. soil depth or average temperature). Other models data about fire spots makes easy and relevant the are empirical and. in Carroll et al.g. and epidemiological models 4. The method is based on graphs trees in McKenzie et al. However. modelling studies are less costly plant performance). soils and vegetation. have been developed. Hessburg et al. al. 2008 and with logistic regression in Westerling and Hackett and Vanclay (1998) have developed a Bryant 2006).g.g. with classical statistics calculate site indices representing the potential growth (e. . Schumacher et al. Box 8: Methods and tools used in TroFCCA for Box 9: Methods and tools used in TroFCCA for forest plantation and climate change perturbations The impacts of climate change on forest plantations Several tools were developed for studying the were studied in Central America.g. 2000) and with fuzzy logic (e.g. Empirical models 2008). Most models of managed forests rate as a function of bark temperature) (see Bergot et link forest productivity with environmental variables.e. survival Managed forests. Landscape models climate factor (e. 2006.g. representing a suitability index in function of a soil or Iliadis 2005. 2003). Syphard et al. Imbach et al. Landsberg et al.1  Models of Partial Ecosystem represent the dynamics of well-studied pests in function Processes of factors related to trees (e. development of empirical data. 2004). from measurements of forest growth. have also been developed for simulating the spread of These graphs can be derived from an existing database fires or the dynamics of vegetation before and after fires or from expert judgements. and a simulation approach with and may become unsuitable in the future (Leguia dynamic systems (Rivera 2007). models of partial ecosystem processes. 2004 for an example about an oat disease in Europe e. For making a prediction (e. such as 3-PG (Landsberg and Regarding forest fires. 2008). simple ecosystem empirical studies use observations on past outbreaks models and integrated ecosystem models. (e. 2007). such as fires. According to suitability are presented in Booth (1990) and Bones and Price and Flannigan (2000). Some models deal with specific use of computer models’. 2007). with decision trees were also developed for forest fires in Central America (Locatelli. biogeographical studies use data about the suitability of climate to pests (e. bark temperature). the availability of satellite Waring 1997. ‘It is hard to conceive of Jones (1998).g. of a given forest species. Similar approaches based on site and more flexible than experiments.g.g.

classification trees and artificial neural networks The simplest bioclimatic methods applied to ecosystems (Thuillier et al. 3  FLORAMAP http://www. The soil erosion model. 1999). such as hydrological services. 2003. Such models are static and link the (Miles et al.floramap-ciat. Calibrated Simulation of Transported Erosion (CALSITE) was used in Costa Rica. e. BIOME (Prentice et al. Pearson BIOCLIM2 (e. the revised universal soil loss equation used (Locatelli and Imbach 2008).org/index. based on the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE). for an artificial neural network (Hilbert and van der a first approximation of impacts of climate change on Muyzenberg 1999).org/. models can box 10. (2003) provide a review of erosion and sediment transport models. 2005) or with 2006).edu/desktopgarp/.worldagroforestry. linear models. Specific ecosystem services.g.g. Find more information at http://www. additive models. Some models Holdridge life zones under changing climate. studying the future distribution of ecosystems under Community and landscape dynamics. some authors vegetation model (e. doc/bioclim.usgs. Find more information at http://eprints. distributions is the lack of understanding of ecosystem Empirical models are also used for modelling processes such as migration or species interaction the distribution of ecosystems. is combined with sediment transport modelling in a geographical information system. 2006. Some examples of tools for assessing erosion are presented in Regarding the distribution of species. such as rectilinear models or ecosystems. Examples of for forecasting changes in distributions comes from classification include the Holdridge life zones (e. Merritt et al. . models at http://biodiversityinformatics. Different methods can be used for Bioclimatic models are widely used tools for modelling species distribution (see a review in Guisan assessing the impacts of climate change on species and Zimmermann 2000). landscape (Goudriaan et al.g. by Lim et Find more information at http://pubs. The on hydrological regimes (e.htm.g. Bathurst et al. in the variability in the projections provided by different Villers-Ruiz and Trejo-Vázquez 1997). Some models deal with specific ecosystem services. php?section=sdm_soft. del Barrio et al. characteristics to predict ecosystem distribution A concern about the use of bioclimatic models (see Leemans et al. regression tree analysis (Iverson geographical distribution of species or ecosystems to and Prasad 2001). the Budyko bioclimatic models. (2005). in China (Weng and Zhou 2006). the recommend to work with multiple models (Araújo Kira scheme (e. These models can be applied for ecosystems and species (Pearson and Dawson 2003).2  Simple Ecosystem Models distributions.amnh. their environment (Guisan and Zimmermann 2000). 1993). 1992). Some climate change (Hilbert and Ostendorf 2001). 2004). More models emphasise the interactions between species complex models predict ecosystem physiognomy from in an ecosystem and between ecosystem patches in a soil and climate data. Spatial Explicit Individual-based Forest Simulator (SExI-FS) was used in Indonesia for analysing the role of trees in reducing the risk of landslide. in Beaumont et al. Honduras and Nicaragua to predict soil erosion and sedimentation within catchments. One limit to forecasting future types of Box (1996). be built from observations and applied with climate change scenarios for predicting potential future 4. DesktopGarp http://www. such as are based on existing classifications using environmental FLORAMAP or DesktopGARP3. Tools are available. e.g. in Cha 1997).html. or the plant functional and New 2006).gov/of/2002/ ofr-02-424/.g. 2006). 1996.14    Methods and Tools for Assessing the Vulnerability of Forests and People to Climate Change Box 10: Tools used in TroFCCA for modelling soil erosion and landslides Program for Transient Rainfall Infiltration and Grid-Based Regional Slope-Stability Analysis (TRIGRS) was used in Indonesia for analysing rainfall infiltration and slope stability. Box 11: Methods and tools used in TroFCCA: Empirical or process-based hydrological models can be Bioclimatic models used for assessing the impacts of climate and land-use The vulnerability of protected areas to climate change (or impacts of climate change on ecosystems) change was studied in Central America.ku. The question underlying this analysis was how climate change could affect landslide AFModels/SExI/index. See also links to available free software and tools that can be used in species distribution 2  http://fennerschool. 2004). 1992) or national Bioclimatic models are useful tools.g. applied at the global (Prentice et al.g. 1996 for a review). in Monserud et al. For this reason.nhm. e. The are specifically addressing water quality issues and soil study identified the most sensitive protected areas sensitivity was assessed with the displacement of Parkin et al. with tools such as (Schmitz et al. however. Ewen and Parkin 1996.

They are generally applied at a global or Schmitz et al. cellular automata. Neilson and Marks For example. Examples include IBIS (Foley et al. describing carbon and nitrogen dynamics of plants and they can simulate transient changes in ecosystems. MC1 (Daly et al. total leaf area index and net primary changes in fire regimes induced by climate changes. shrubs and grasses). temperature. agricultural lands. Mapped interactions can determine the effects of climate change Atmosphere Plant Soil System (MAPSS) is a on ecosystems. the Terrestrial Ecosystem natural disturbances affect ecosystem dynamics and Model (TEM) is a process-based ecosystem model processes (Peng 2000). Biogeochemical models can be used for studying the effects of climate change on the functioning of ecosystems. LPJ (Sitch et al. 1999). Examples example the distribution of ecosystem types and of application include studying the distribution of the functioning of these ecosystems in terms of trees under scenarios of climate change (Sykes et al. surface runoff and base the role of biological corridors in the adaptation flow. . 1993). fs. Biogeochemical models. It has been applied at global. (2001) developed a 1995). biogeochemical cycles. Spatial models are also developed The BIOME3 model predicts ecosystem state in terms for studying the sensitivity of landscapes to the of plant types. linking climate with three trophic distribution and functioning of ecosystems under levels (plants. They link dynamically vegetation structure have on the atmosphere and climate change (Goudriaan and functioning. soil nutrient cycling that allows simulating carbon and and Orchidee (Krinner et al. Opposite to equilibrium models. The objective was to study monthly soil moisture. studying the effects of climate change. w o r k i n g pap e r N o . deterministic point model representing the relationship Landscape models simulate the interaction between between growth and distribution of vegetation and spatially connected patches (Goudriaan et al. The models (DGVMs) are the most advanced ecosystem fluxes of carbon have received much attention because models for studying the impacts of climate change on of the possible feedback that ecosystem changes may ecosystems. performs well Imbach 2008). especially the dynamic global vegetation adaptation to climate change (Lindner 2000). Ostendorf et al. 2005). Dynamic global vegetation regards to the fluxes of carbon. water and energy. The model is executed in monthly time steps. of protected areas to climate change (Locatelli and The model is simple to understand. 1995). continental and spatially dynamic model of ecosystem shift using national scales (Neilson 1995. site water-balance (Neilson 1995. Find more information at http://www. process model (LINKAGES) with a spatial landscape model (LANDIS) to study the response of forest species responses to climate change in heterogeneous Box 13: Ecosystem models used in TroFCCA landscapes. Lauenroth et models require a high level of expertise in ecosystem al. Several models predict dynamic system. especially with Dynamic models. soils for terrestrial ecosystems (McGuire et al. 1998). 1996. for periods of time (Price and Flannigan 2000). The outputs In Central America. Hargrove outputs allow classifying ecosystems into biomes for et al. with a cellular automata.3  Integrated Ecosystem Models of tree regeneration. 2005). He et al. 1992. (2003) give examples of models continental scale but can also be used for studies at a representing the trophic interactions in ecosystems for more local scale.fed. The model requires input Box 12: Methods and tools used in TroFCCA: about monthly climate (precipitation. These and vegetation (Peng 2000). These for instance EMBYR (Gardner et al. 4 3     15 At the patch level. MAPSS was applied in Mesoamerica for assessing the impacts of climate change on ecosystems’ hydrological functions. 1996. production (Haxeltine and Prentice 1996). 2000).us/pnw/corvallis/mdr/mapss/. Comparisons of six nutrient dynamics for grasslands. (1999) link an ecosystem comparison with vegetation maps. DGVMs are presented in Cramer et al. models. For example. 2000). growth and mortality and represent successional dynamics of forests over long Many models integrate different components. The CENTURY model is a general model of plant. These models are generally 1996) and developing forest management strategies for complex. Bachelet et al. 1999). Foley et al. herbivores and carnivores) and illustrating the assumption of equilibrium conditions of climate the interactions among level in food webs. and simulate how climate change and et al. (2001). and allows for easy modification of parameters for calibration. gap models simulate dynamics 4. modelling. 2003). Community dynamics humidity and wind speed) and soils. These forests and savannas (Parton et al. For example. for instance a Equilibrium models. the capacity of ecosystems to of the model include vegetation characteristics adapt through organisms migration was simulated (such as leaf area index of trees.

analysis such as historical axes. such as the social livelihoods approach or studying local knowledge (see impact methods (World Bank resilience/climate_phase2. A livelihood for analysing interactions and dependence. For example. Even though change or the loss of ecosystem services. the links between local livelihoods and climate and planning adaptation projects.ifad. the tools examples in box 15). natural.1  For Analysing Stakeholder The Agroecological Knowledge Toolkit (AKT5) Behaviours and Perceptions was also used in Ghana to study the ecological Understanding the context and the rationale behind knowledge of local people. used in Participatory Action Research (see box 14) or Other much more quantitative tools can also be other participatory tools (Rietbergen-McCracken and used for vulnerability assessment. financial. Find more information at http://www. strategies for meeting livelihoods objectives. can influence the sensitivity or the adaptive capacity institutional and organisational environment influences of actors. The social. Many generic methods and tools can be Ziergovel 2004).asp. for Sustainable Development for understanding htm). People have access to several assets (human. adaptation tree and other the Community-based Risk Screening Tool - visualisation tools. The sustainable livelihoods framework helps understanding and analysing livelihoods in a context that the framework is an effective tool for vulnerability other methods and tools were specifically developed assessment in face of multiple changes. 2003). resource The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework and maps. Many methods and tools are available knowledge acquisition from farmers and scientists for this purpose. Methods and Tools for Assessing the Vulnerability of Forest-Dependent People or Sectors Several methods and tools are available for studying sensitivity matrix can be developed for assessing how the vulnerability of social systems to climate change. including . Some of the drivers of vulnerability can be the way people use their assets for their livelihood understood only with an analysis of the interactions strategies. stakeholder analysis is a or from written material. activities and livelihood types are sensitive to changes in the provision of ecosystem services and different exposures (see an example in Downing and other threats. Tools are available for applying the applied to vulnerability assessment. 5. Knutsson and Ostwald (2006) show sections consider social and institutional contexts. such as rules. which are combined and used in livelihood Institutions. and stakeholders and investigating stakeholder interests (Grimble 1998.2  For Analysing Institutions and of vulnerability (DFID. norms or organisations. household production functions or economic and econometric modelling (Downing and Patwardhan 2004). Box 14: Participatory action research methods and tools used in TroFCCA Several tools related to participatory action Box 15: Tools used in TroFCCA for stakeholder research were applied in Mali and Burkina Faso. The sustainable livelihoods framework can be between actors and the institutions that govern used for studying the vulnerability of people to climate behaviour (Downing and Ziervogel 2004). in combination some methods and tools described in the previous with other threats. such input-output Narayan 1996). problem tree. social and Stakeholder Interactions physical). CRiSTAL is a user- International Fund for Agricultural Development friendly tool developed by International Institute ( models. World Bank 2003). AKT5 is a software the behaviour of a stakeholder is crucial for analysing developed by the University of Wales for facilitating vulnerability. Find more information in Adaptation & Livelihoods (CRiSTAL) were used ‘Methods for Monitoring and Evaluation’ by in Ghana and Honduras.16    Methods and Tools for Assessing the Vulnerability of Forests and People to Climate Change 5. fodder calendar. Find more information at systematic methodology for identifying decision-makers http://akt.

g. An example of policy starting from assumptions about the behaviour of its network analysis is given in box 16. individuals or Policy network analysis can be used to understand institutions such as rules and norms). This approach allows modelling (Downing and Ziervogel 2004). the impacts of changes on the systems. elements. Central America and Indonesia for increasingly combined with empirical methods. laboratory experiments (Janssen and Ostrom 2006). their networks) and identifying windows of opportunity for mainstreaming adaptation. For this reason it enables observing the emergence of system properties that were not obvious from the observation of the elements. rather than imposing rules for the evolution of the system. w o r k i n g pap e r N o . These tools can simulate the Capital Assessment Tool is a set of tools for studying sensitivity and adaptive capacity of social systems and institutions. com. The approach includes interviews and mathematical procedures for representing networks.analytictech. With a focus on adaptive capacity. social impact Vulnerability assessment can be assisted by simulation analysis is an analytical framework for identifying tools. between arena. 4 3     17 conflicts or synergies.g. Social a system facing changes. . Agent-based models have been Africa. stylised facts. this helps individuals or between individuals and institutions) and to understand vulnerability and to target policy the interactions with the environment (Bousquet and interventions. such understanding the structure of the policy arena on as case studies. For example. networks and norms (World Bank 2003). their belief systems. The characteristics of agent-based simulation make it Box 16: Methods and tools used in TroFCCA for useful for representing complex adaptive systems and policy network analysis modelling vulnerability and adaptation (Patt and Policy network analysis was conducted in West Siebenhuner 2005). The main advantage of this modelling specific policy arena enables one to inform and actively approach is that it simulates the behaviour of a system influence the policy process itself.3 For Simulating Vulnerability is an analytical approach for understanding institutional decision-making (World Bank 2003). Find more information in Wasserman and Faust (1994) and Hannemann (2001). stakeholder thematic network is a method for analysing One promising simulation approach is agent-based stakeholders and the networks in which they operate social simulation. Tools such as the social network analysis software UCINET and the network visualisation software NetDraw are available at http://www. the interactions which actors interact—and how—in a given policy between elements at different scales (e. institutional analysis 5. the different elements of a system (e. role-playing games and forests and adaptation to climate change (the actors. Knowing the structure and content of a Le Page 2004). for integrating diverse sources of information into the social impacts of changes and the responses by a common framework and simulate the behaviour of people and institutions (World Bank 2003).

Integrative Methods and Tools Some methods and tools have been developed for Within a spatially explicit and quantitative assessing the vulnerability of socio-ecological systems. several taking into account the vulnerability of both ecosystems ecosystem models are used for assessing the changes and people and their relationships. the most vulnerable sectors in a global change also results from impacts on ecosystems given region and the least harmful scenarios for regions and the services they provide (Metzger et al. . Then scenario- (ATEAM. the in the supply of different ecosystem services under Advanced Terrestrial Ecosystem Analysis and Modelling scenarios of climate change in Europe. and sectors (Metzger et al. Metzger et al. exposure. energy and nature conservation. The general framework is based on the IPCC definitions of vulnerability. The a consequence of climate and land use change. 2005. water may be vulnerable to the loss of ecosystem services as management. For project based changes in adaptive capacity are used to assess developed a toolkit to assess where people or sectors vulnerability of different sectors: agriculture. 2006). http://www. sensitivity and adaptive capacity. framework for vulnerability assessment. This vulnerability maps allow identification of the most approach highlights that the societal vulnerability to vulnerable regions.pik-potsdam. 2006).18    Methods and Tools for Assessing the Vulnerability of Forests and People to Climate Change 6.

Institutional (e. cognitive mapping or expert judgement) and for analysis and policy network analysis enable analysis of building empirical models from observations (e. while deal with community and landscape dynamics. consider many methods that facilitate the links among the different ecosystem processes and are generally complex.g. methods are lacking for integrating them into (e. static or dynamic. short-term on biogeochemical cycles in ecosystems. w o r k i n g pap e r N o . Conclusion Various methods and tools are available for assessing the Several methods and tools can be applied for vulnerability of forests. approaches of vulnerability. Some for analysing the vulnerability of ecosystems or social models are restricted to specific ecosystem processes systems. institutions and stakeholder interactions. Other simple ecosystem models work long-term ecosystem modelling and local. meta.g. Indicators. of ecosystems. Generic or sectors. Other simple ecosystem models Ecosystem tools are generally quantitative. . Time horizons emphasis on the interactions between species or patches and spatial scale differ also greatly between large-scale. Simple systems. and social simulation is a promising way for simulating uncertainty analysis can be applied for various purposes. 4 3     19 7. The challenge is to build ecosystem models. Even if different tools and methods can be bioclimatic models can represent the distribution of applied separately to ecosystems and social systems. vulnerability of social systems to climate change. Integrated social vulnerability assessment. forest ecosystem services and assessing the vulnerability of forest-dependent people forest-dependent people or economic sectors. Agent-based analysis or data mining). forest vulnerability assessments of coupled socio-ecological perturbations or specific ecosystem services). the productivity of managed forests. fuzzy systems. Stakeholder analysis and sustainable methods and tools can be applied to diverse systems for livelihoods framework can be used for analysing analysing vulnerability interactively with stakeholders stakeholder behaviours and perceptions.g. to climate change. Numerous ecosystem models can be used for Whereas many methods and tools are available studying the impacts of climate change on forests. the ecosystems and help assessing ecosystem vulnerability challenge is to link them into an integrated assessment. with an social methods are often qualitative.

2005 Uncertainty in adaptive dams. P.) 1994 The handbook of drought in watersheds in Central America. Shore. et al.R.. E. 69p. J. 2003 Social and ecosystem management: a review. British Bachelet. J. Forest Ecology and Management 108: 167– change: results from six dynamic global vegetation 173.L. and Ojima. The Netherlands.. and Le Page. Régnière. Young OR conference. Japan. van den Berg.. mainly due to Cooper. 2005 Predicting Panel on Climate Change. Pérarnaud.M. L.B. Grossman. 1994 The fuzzy systems handbook: a practitioner’s particular tree species at the global scale. J. Cornelissen. Parton..P.. Mitigation research synthesis.R. W. 1999 Procedures guide approach to water resource systems planning under for structured expert judgment. 2007 Mitigating disaster: mapping cognitive Curtis. Journal of Forest 186: 250–269. 2004 Validation of catchment models for for Environmental Studies. C. Information Report BC- Bana e Costa. started with cognitive mapping. (eds. F. Boruff. J. D. 1998 Identifying climatically Cramer. and physiology. Paper presented at the 13th British Dams Society capacity. M. UK.G. O’Connell. and Management 36: 47–60. Working Paper LSEOR 1994 IPCC technical guidelines for assessing climate 05/79. Lenihan. Ewen.C.H. H.M. S.L. M. University of Warwick. and Cropper S. V. global scale. G. J. 2003.N. A. farmer’s adaptation to climate variability. J. and Goossens. In: synthesizing research findings in ecology and evolution. IPCC Working Group Bathurst. 1996 Plant functional types and climate at the Daly.S. D. E. D.D. Victoria. W.L. Russell Sage Foundation. 1995 Meta-analysis: by the mountain pine beetle in British Columbia. M. MSc thesis. Ecological Modelling natural vegetation distribution. F. University College London.P.. October 30–31.S. Eden.E. New York. 1992 Getting the national level and the implications for adaptation.E.L. J. Mountain Pine Beetle Symposium: Challenges and Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10(6): 236–240. and Aspinall.) Natural resources Canada. R. Canterbury. 2000 A fuzzy compromise Cooke. R. Canadian Forest Ecological Modelling 109: 77–98.P. 2004 Use of expert opinion April 1992. Ecosystems and Environment 86: Change Biology 10: 1539–1552. D.L. models. R. Global Change Biology 7: 357–373. Academic Press. Journal of Vegetation Science 7: 309–320. S. and Nishioka..M. 298p. and maintaining fuzzy systems. Ecological vulnerability to environmental hazards. Araújo.G. M.J. and Lal. Boston.J.P. Technology Delft.. X. M.A.L. Bousquet. Harasawa.. G. M. and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 14(2): 573p. and Stone.O. and Shirley W. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 115. K. CO2 effects on woody plant mass. and Simonovic. Forest Ecology guide to building. in public decision-making. and Vincent. Social Science Modelling 176: 313–332. and Udoa.J. 2000 Dynamic simulation of tree- Brooks. 1998 Columbia. Poulsen. Box. H... M. Pacific Forestry Centre. under contract No. Bender. species distributions.N. Tutorial paper at the 7th Global Environmental Change 15: 151–163. T. BIOCLIM and its impact on predictions of species’ Cha. Research 2: 147–152. Kelowna. Task Group on Scenarios for species distributions: use of climatic parameters in Climate Impact Assessment. Jiménez F.20    Methods and Tools for Assessing the Vulnerability of Forests and People to Climate Change References Ackermann. L. Sensitivity of a biogeography model to soil properties. T. C.J. T. 2005 Model-structuring X-399. Brugnach. Faustino J.. Conference. 3: Blind Carter. Hughes. and Beinat. (eds. Global set theory. L. Version 1. 1997 The impacts of climate change on potential current and future distributions.. J. and Wooster. and Neilson. and adaptation assessment. B. 35–44.. change impacts and adaptations. J. 173–185. W. and Safranyik. and Desprez-Loustau M. Oecologia 113: 299–313. L.. 2004 Simulation of of the contribution of sustainability indicators to potential range expansion of oak disease caused by sustainable development: a novel approach using fuzzy Phytophthora cinnamomi under climate change.J. Quarterly 84(2): 242–261. 2004 Effects of climate change on range expansion Arnqvist. form. Solutions.. ETNU-CT93-0104-NL for the 2009 A methodological proposal for the evaluation of Commission of European Communities. Koops. Bergot. Locatelli B. E. and 2. M.M.J... 2005 The grass interactions for global change studies. Bachelet. 22(1): 42–46. Adger. P. 1998 A meta-analysis of elevated processes in applying technology to crises.H. Geoscience 337: 399–410. R. 13–16 Brown. S. Agriculture.. T. The London School of Carter. W. T. Intergovernmental Beaumont. pp.M. Booth. M. Hulme. C. held at the University of Kent.H.. Borne. 2004 Multi-agent simulations Cutter.. Economics and Political Science. Report prepared Benegas L. and Kelly. G. Louisiana State University.. H. E. predicting land-use and climate change impacts. M.. N.W. C.. Service. 65–82. A.C. [IPCC-TGCIA] 1999 validation for internal and outlet responses. and New. Journal of Guidelines on the use of scenario data for climate impact hydrology 287: 74–94. 2001 Global response of terrestrial suitable areas for growing particular trees in Latin ecosystem structure and function to CO2 and climate America. 2006 Ensemble forecasting of 22–26 June 2004.. using... P. 1990 Mapping regions climatically suitable for Cox.. elicitation to quantify the internal erosion process in Adger. Parkin.V. C.J. W. 169-183. Déqué. National Institute Copper.. A. Delft University of uncertainty. Taylor. and Jones. Parry. and Wang. BC.. and Hedges. Booth. Campos M.E. Trends in Ecology and Evolution Carroll. P. Ecological determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at Applications 10: 449–469. Brooks. M. Neilson. MA. Cloppet.. 2001 Assessment B. Marçais. S. W. . L.

policies and measures.G. M. Recursos Naturales y Ambiente (51–52): 33–39.H. Note di Lavoro 13/2008. version 2.. R. on forest ecosystems.S. and Stephen. Reynolds. carbon balance. 2001 Hammond. T. 106–140. Tennessee. N.bmj. S. Hackett. Washington. Diversity and Distributions 5: modelling and decision support for natural resources 263–274. 2005 Integrated He. E. 1998 Stakeholder methodologies in natural guidancesheets. http://dutiosc. resource availability and Institute for Environmental Studies/Vrije Universiteit. P.H. Pollard. and Tol. Ecological Modelling 135: 583–594.A. R... Advances in Ecological Research 32: tools for vulnerability and adaptation assessment. J. B. Y. Environmental Science and Policy 9: 129–147. 67–89. 135: 147–186. and Steffen. Canadell.A. bosques y sistemas agroforestales proveedores de servicios A. 2008 Participatory tropical vegetation mosaic. vegetation in past. UNEP. Forest biosphere model of land surface processes. A. L. contrasting regions: comparison and implications for Granger Morgan. Enea. Imbach.C. Global Hilbert.twi. Feenstra. Hessburg.) The terrestrial biosphere and global multiple modelling approaches to predict the potential change.E.H. IGBP Book artificial neural network to characterize the relative Series No.. Oak Modelling 114: 213–233. and Dawson. Sterne. B. USA. . T. Neural Networks 19: 236–247..W.K. 1995 Environmental indicators: adaptation... 2001 Meta- Downing. D. R. J.. 2007 Evaluating wildland fire danger D. Mladenoff. In: Walker..) 2004 Guisan. See. and Despain.J.. Sitch.. The Fondazione Hódar. M.. Moss. 1999 Linking biosphere simulator model (IBIS).. and P. http:// sustainable development.H. Vignola.G. Ecological W.S. 1998 Meta..B. dynamics. Available on-line from Oak Ridge National forest species response to climate warming.. 2006. A. and Haxeltine. Nairobi. Smith. 2001 Fuzzy approach to the Hannemann. C. UNEP Policy Series 3.ucr. R.J. A. C. J. et al. B. 2003 Pine Eni Enrico Mattei. Cambridge University Press... Berry. and van der Muyzenberg. SEI Oxford.G. J.J.. and Patwardhan.S.htm. Ewen. and Crow.E. 2007 Identificacion de 123–129. R.W. C. Rodenburg. policy.C. Technical Paper Chatham. Romme. 243–263. and Spanger-Siegfried. Harrison. Bryant. UK. Butt. and M. P.W. a systematic approach to measuring and reporting on Egger. M. (eds) 2004 Assessing best practice guidelines.. 1999 Use of models in global change del Barrio.M. online textbook. edu/~hanneman/nettext/. W. A. Cambridge University Press. In: Lim. Foley. 199–247. W.. 1: Methods. D. London.. Pérez. L. G.A... 2001 The utility of artificial Biogeochemical Cycles 10(4): 603–628. Turner.. management in climate change research. Gurevitch. Pearson. 2001 Netherlands. Foley. The Granger Morgan.R. Journal of Hydrology 175: in heterogeneous landscapes.. M. studies. R. Cambridge University Press. 135: 131–147. Biological Conservation 110: M.. http://www. and Zimmermann. R. 2001 Introduction to social network environmental impact evaluation.. (eds. J. and Zamora. competition among plant functional types.J. and Polzin. I. Burton.2.. 1999 Using an change and terrestrial ecosystems. Symbiotic adaptive neuro-evolution applied ecosistemicos para el sector agua potable en Nicaragua. E. and Salter. G. R. D. 3. DC. Natural Resources Institute.tudelft. INFER systems. Training materials produced for ENDA. and Sgobbi. Campos.. I.. E.) Haxeltine. UK. M. Ridge. and Ziervogel.. Bostrom. knowledge of tree growth with the PLANTGRO and Downing. Prentice. models for predicting land-use and climate change W.M. 2006 Integrating Ingram. 2000 Predictive habitat Adaptation policy frameworks for climate change: distribution models in ecology. D. present and future climates. D. 2004 Choosing and adapting analysis in ecology.. K. P. 1996 Climate change. neural networks for modelling the distribution of Gardner. 4 3     21 Dawson. Adriaanse. and Romme. Mysiak. and Heppenstall.W. R. Curtis. terrestrial Ecology and Management 247: 1–17. Huq. 1998 Mobilizing expert UK..M. 149–172. S. suitability of environments for forest types in a complex Giupponi. Abrahart. to rainfall–runoff modelling in northern England. Hargrove. Ecological Modelling developing strategies. Milan.) Global Hilbert. DFID. impacts of climate change on species’ distributions in Cambridge. (eds. and Prentice.faculty. www. A. B.. In: Walker. C. Gardner. Cambridge. vulnerability for climate adaptation. Castro. British Medical Journal 316. Fischhoff. Biogeochemical Cycles 10: 693–709. Sanjuan. J. and Ostendorf.E. 1996 BIOME3: an 1998 Handbook on methods for climate change impact equilibrium terrestrial biosphere model based on eco­ assessment and adaptation strategies. Cohen. James.B. and Jones.. T. R. A. Vulnerability indices: climate change impacts and and Woodward. M.. resource management: socioeconomic methodologies— Downing. D. G. C. R. T. (EXpert CALIBRation) Windows program. Global Nairobi and Amsterdam. disturbances and landscape Modelling 146: 311–327. R.C. and Vaast.A. B. B.R. and Parkin.F. environmental policy performance in the context of analysis software. Ecological Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center. T. J.. J. doi:10.. under climatic warming.html. Elicitation of expert judgments of climate change impacts DFID 2001 Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets..F. World Resources Institute. new threat for relict Mediterranean Scots pine forests Gonzalez. W. 1996 An integrated and prioritizing vegetation and fuels treatments.W. G. J. Ramankutty. Rahman... N. J.J. K. 50p. Butterfield. R. I. Cambridge. Delft.E.J. Ecological Modelling 106: 233–246.. A. Goudriaan.H.. Steffen. UK. R. and Salemi. Model an ecosystem model and a landscape model to study product.A.F. Cambridge University Press. (eds. and Vanclay. J. Ecological Modelling methods. J. (eds.J.G. M. processionary caterpillar Thaumetopoea pityocampa as a Italy. UNEP and physio­logical constraints. Pitelka. J. A. J. Keane.. C. http://www.3334/ORNLDAAC/808. Sokona.. L. J. P.5. 2001 Risk communication: a mental models Delft University of Technology 2007 EXCALIBUR approach. Locatelli. P. and Davey Smith. G. and Shevliakova.A. Turner.. 2000 Simulating fire patterns impacts. Levis. and vegetation dynamics. C. W. 1996 Validation of catchment Hargrove. S. w o r k i n g pap e r N o . S. N. A.. Climatic Change 49: 279– Grimble. H.

and Palacios.K. F. http://www.. P. 2005 A decision support system applying an Rica.. Wilson. Ciais. M... Katz. and Perez. Locatelli. R. Sitch. and White. Managing watershed resolution climate change scenarios using PRECIS. G.M.22    Methods and Tools for Assessing the Vulnerability of Forests and People to Climate Change Idinoba. B. Lauenroth. and Sosa-Lopez. applied to a wide range of forest types. Wiley and Sons. and Ostrom. 2006 A process-oriented development in northern Costa Rica: a fuzzy multi- sustainable livelihoods approach: a tool for increased criteria analysis. In: Melillo. A. under climate change and socio-economic scenarios. model for studies of the coupled atmosphere-biosphere Mas. N. Recursos naturales y Ilstedt. Cambridge Landsberg. mortality changes. and Agee. J. 2008 A conceptual model E. Finland. V.S. integrated fuzzy model for long-term forest fire risk Leguia.. J.. strategies to cope with climatic change.. 20: 299–307. Tang. B. Uppsala.. W. policies and measures. B.W. 1997 A generalised model 461–471. 1998 Climate change. Canziani. 135. Forest Policy and Economics 10(5): understanding of vulnerability. precis. W. Kim. policies and practices.H. H.J.) Effects of global change on coniferous forests and of forests and forest management to changing climate: grassland.. Locatelli. Prediction of global biome distribution using bioclimatic timber forest goods for planning adaptation to climate equilibrium models. In: Carter. A. (eds..K. 2005 GIS-based sediment assessment tool. Journal of Biogeography 22: 785–796. and Coops. 2007 The effect of afforestation on water infiltration in Lim. Uppsala.C. 2007 Servicios ecosistémicos e 613–621. J. Locatelli. K. Sweden.A. studies proceedings of the ECLAT-2 Helsinki Workshop. 2003 University Press. Cambridge University Iverson. Kelly. (eds. L. Viovy. Z. Swedish University of Agricultural forestales bajo escenarios de cambio climático: un Sciences.. O. Kalame. in tree species richness and forest community types Lim. T..1029/2003GB002199. Environmental Modelling & Software 19: Landsberg. 2004 system.J.M. 2008 A multi-scale approach for modeling fire for studying the effects of landscape connectivity occurrence probability using satellite data and on ecosystem adaptation to climate change in classification trees: a case study in a mountainous Central America. Sagong. Parton. carbon balance and partitioning.. Alpizar. I. and following climate change. Swedish University of uncertainty in climate change scenarios and impact Agricultural Sciences. Remote Sensing of Environment management to changing climate: a review of science.A. A. adaptation and resilience. Exeter.M. estudio de caso en Costa Rica. Imbach. J..php?sf=25.F... 275–285.. H. and Viner. B. policies and T. 2006 Empirically-based. 1995 Equilibrium responses of soil carbon to and Management 172: 199–214. radiation-use efficiency.K.L.. Rojas. change and variability in West Africa.G. Ogée. P. Hulme. estimation. F. R. 186. Performance of the forest productivity model 3-PG McGuire. Y..1007/s11027-006-4421-9. of payments for environmental services on local Knutsson.. S. B. Engel. Sweden. 2008 Zonas edafoclimáticas aptas para especies abstracts. Puig.E. S. Analysis. 2000 Developing adaptive forest management Ecology and Society 25.. GB1015.J.. in press. J. J. UK. R. Malmer. climate change: empirical and process-based estimates. and Luis. Kirchner. Ecosystems 4: 186–199. N. W. Cambridge. D.. Hudson. P. Nkem. M. Book of Leguia. hidroelectricidad en Nicaragua. K.J.B. M. M.. Forest policy frameworks for climate change: developing Ecology and Management 251(1–2): 45–51.. and Prasad. M. .M. Lindner. J. Catena 64: 61–80. D. J. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 19.H.J. Swedish Jones. P. Javier Lozano. CATIE.. 1999 GIS and Multicriteria Decision DOI 10. changing climate: a review of science.S. In: Adaptation of forests and forest Mediterranean region. http:// analyses help? Forest Ecology and Management.D. 2001 Potential changes Met Office Hadley Centre. D.L. Verbeeten.. R.. Book of abstracts.. V. and Joyce. 2009. K. and Mitchell.G. adaptation and vulnerability. A. 1996 2008 A framework for vulnerability assessment of non. Kicklighter. M. Peterson.B. Choi.P. Uppsala. and Smith. and Ostwald. 413–450. D. a review of science. D. T. Krinner.) 2001 Climate change 2001: Forest Ecology and Management 95(3): 209–228. J. C. 258p.. Noguer. Applications 10(5): 1497–1516.R.S.A.. J.. Leary. Martens. G. J. 1999. Environmental Modelling & Software 20: R.A. Z. of forest productivity using simplified concepts of McCarthy. E. policies and practices.C. N. London.W.R. Cambridge. Leemans. B. Urban. Melillo. Janssen. and Imbach. Ecological regional models from fire history data.. 2004 Generating high Locatelli. Locatelli. Kane. R. Malczewski. J..... Suárez-Seoane. Tree Physiology org/viewissue. 2005 A dynamic global vegetation 331–344. Canada.M. and Spanger-Siegfried. New York. UK. agent-based modeling of social-ecological systems. 2006 Concept mapping for 2008 The future of forest fires in Central America planning and evaluation.J.J. E. and Breymeyer.. impacts.. Palacio.) Representing practices. John Wiley & Sons..F. L. Waring.M. U.. Sweden.) 2004 Adaptation the tropics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. B. University of Agricultural Sciences. M. P. M. D. networks. M. 1993 McKenzie. Costa Iliadis. Modelling deforestation using GIS and artificial neural doi:10. 2008 Impacts Helsinki. Dokken. Vignola. L. Social Science & Medicine 46(3): and Prentice.H. and Trochim. and van Minnen. Ecological Modelling 67: 49–80. Forest Ecology L. strategies. and Salinas.. W. J.. 2000 Fire Modeling vegetation structure-ecosystem process frequency in the interior Columbia River basin: building interactions across sites and ecosystems. Sage Publications. D.J. de Noblet-Ducoudré. 38–53. Coffin. W.. In: Adaptation (eds.. (eds. Techniques for estimating uncertainty in In: Adaptation of forests and forest management to climate change scenarios and impact studies. A.. D. Shugart. UK. and Murdiyarso. Polcher. and Vignola.ecologyandsociety. D. 187. S.G. D. E. Hassell. Jenkins. and Coulibaly. Molina.J. F. 112: 708–719. and Waring. Cramer. Book of abstracts. J. Imbach. ambiente 51–52: 40–47. services of tropical forests and plantations: can meta- report.metoffice. E. Friedlingstein. Turrialba.L. N. E. thermal stress and J. P. E. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change.

P. Oak Ridge. 1105–1117. Reed. Global Environmental Change 15: 33–43. Uppsala.E. Germany.W.A... A. 2001 Applications of machine learning to regional vegetation and hydrologic sensitivities from ecological modelling.D. A. A. 1999 Resolving ecological questions through meta. F..D. D.. R.P.L. M. Hulme. Applications 18(5): 1253–1269.L. 2008 The of climate change on forests and. 2004 The impact of Pearson. 74(2): 310–320. and Lavabre. Brenkert.M. R. and de Groot. and Solomon.. Cornelissen. Journal of Biogeography Vulnerability to climate change: a quantitative approach. 715–730. 2000 From static biogeographical model to dynamic Mishra. Trends in Ecology and Evolution in Amazonia. 1992 CENTURY users manual. B... and models. Global vegetation change predicted by the modified Monserud. Colorado State 253–267.php (Dec 2008). International Journal of Parton. multidisciplinary multi-scale framework for assessing Evolution.A. 2008 Participatory Neilson. 1993 Prentice. 2005 Agent based modeling of ecosystem services to land use change. and Ozesmi. 2005 What drives food insecurity in Phillis. 2003 Predicting the impacts Milne.. R. R... 2004 Ecological models based Mitchell. J. 19(2): 117–134. Sheeran. V. D. and Idinoba. R. B. Harrison. and Holt. 2006 Ecological and evolutionary responses Metzger. R.S.worldbank.. R... (eds. Ewen. and using an ecosystem approach.. DC. and Hopkins. German Institute for Economic Research) judgement: a practical guide. R. using fuzzy logic. 2006 Drought forecasting global vegetation model: a global perspective on using feed-forward recursive neural network. Pearson. framework for selecting environmental indicator sets. 2008 A conceptual go. In: Cramer. Ecological Modelling Modelling 198: 127–138. Cooper. J. T. 553–565.. 2: Case study for a Mediterranean analysis Unit. M.A. and Desai. CATIE. A.M. Phillips. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Leemans. Dougill. Agriculture. T. forestry using climate challenges of assessing climate change vulnerability scenarios. 135(1): 35–54. TN.R. R. biome model based on plant physiology and dominance. N. 2000 Prediction and of climate change on the distribution of species: are intervention in health-related behaviour: a meta-analytic bioclimate envelope models useful? Global Ecology and review of protection motivation theory. Bathurst. J. M.J. Action Initiative ECLAT-2 Workshop 2. metrics.J. 1996 in climate change scenarios: a Monte-Carlo approach. P. Schneider. Ecological local communities learn from each other? Ecological Applications 5: 362–385. Norwich. Participation and social assessment: tools and techniques.P. 2006 The vulnerability Patt.E. MSc thesis. 2005 A to recent climate change. A.. J.A. D.. Integrated Assessment 1: 203–213. catchment models for predicting land-use and climate Meta-analysis Unit 2008 Meta-analysis software.C. 210. Climatic Change 25: 59–83..M. Price. Leemans. Proceedings of the EU Concerted science. Miles.G. UK. C. A. E. Acosta-Michlik. pino Dendroctonus frontalis en Honduras. University.J. of soil respiration. J.. L. S. review of erosion and sediment transport models. Journal of Vegetation Science 5: 303–310. G. Ecological Modelling 176: 43–64. H.L. New.. Rosenzweig.colostate. and Hulme. M.. Report Marion. Metzger. D. D. w o r k i n g pap e r N o . Annual Review of Ecology. J. G.A. In: Adaptation of forests Viner. 2007 Impacto potencial del cambio climatico Ecological Indicators 8: 14–25.W. and Marks. R. Journal of Biogeography 12: 361–371. Washington.. R. Climatic Research Sweden. Ecological Economics 37: 435–456.T. http:// Niemeijer. and Baker. Representing uncertainty Rietbergen-McCracken. um.J.P.. Book of abstracts. Fort Collins. Global Ecology and Biogeography 13: 21(3): 111–113. 2001 A meta-analysis of the response mapping approach. and Schröter. W.H.R.. Vierteljahrshefte zur Ecosystems and Environment 114: 69–85. R. 1995 A model for predicting continental scale indicator development: what can ecologists and vegetation distribution and water balance. Tchebakova. and Orbell. Leemans. Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 7(4): D. M.J. 2000. Rustad. Ecological modelling vegetation dynamics. D. T. O’Donnell. Cramer. and Jakeman. Moss. Ecological Modelling 145: 211–224. A. net nitrogen mineralization. M. Nature 421: effect of climate change on tropical rainforest vegetation 57–60. University of Murcia.nrel.J. Potsdam. 2001 The global warming on wild animals and plants. 2001 soil properties and climate.K.J. 2006 Climate change and the migration global climate change on tropical forest biodiversity capacity of species. 1992 A global Budyko model. change impacts. Rounsevell. R. M. M. W. K. D.. O. Y..S. Hall. I.. Peng. M.S. S. World Bank. G. M. vulnerabilities to global CO. 1996 Validation of Environmental Modelling & Software 18: 761–799.. W. US Department of Energy..J. M.) Climate scenarios for agricultural and and forest management to changing climate: a review of ecosystem impacts. O’Connell. McKeown.D. S. 1991 Eliciting and analyzing expert Research. and Flannigan. Price.A. A. Wirtschaftsforschung (Quarterly Journal of Economic Meyer. 2001 southern Africa? A meta-analysis of household economy Sustainability: an ill-defined concept and its assessment studies. L. 2000 Modelling impacts Murdiyarso. Norby. Hilbert. Ecology 80(4): Root. M.D.R. and Malone.A. C. J.. and Dawson. Doherty. 2003 Fingerprints of Ostendorf. Costa Rica. S. Academic Press. Letcher.E. J. Kirchner. 1995 A global perspective of Recknagel. and Narayan.L.. Journal of Hydrology 175: 595–613. and Leemans. and Andriantiatsaholiniaina. and adaptation to climate change. R. Ecological Modelling 146: climatic change. and Booker.H. 4 3     23 Merritt. analysis: goals. J. Unit. Grainger. O. R. Applied Social Psychology 30: 106–143. and on people’s knowledge: a multi-step fuzzy cognitive Gurevitch. http://www. U.. L... M.. and Ojima. D. L. W. catchment. and . Campbell. en eventos epidémicos del gorgojo descortezador del Osenberg.T. Santoso.C. 2003 A Parkin. 13–15 October 2000.A. USA.L. and Systematics 37: 637–669. and Schröter. C. Turrialba. and Siebenhuner. C.G.C. Hartley. S. Rivera. Ozesmi.S. D. and Pounds.S. The Meta.H. V. Misselhorn. Monserud. R. J... policies and practices. http://www. Spain. S. B. Sarnelle. Parmesan. A. Neilson. NREL Publication. pattern. A.J. S..pdf.E. 1965 Fuzzy sets. Salvador-Civil. Environmental and Planning 12. 2006 Climate change and simulate frequent fire in Mediterranean-type shrublands. Kaufmann. climate change on tree functional diversity in Europe. DC. and Calvo. 155p. S. M. DC. Bonn. UNFCC Secretariat. B. 47–80. K. World Bank. and Hatterman. and Cleland. L. Prentice. Using niche-based modelling to assess the impact of California Environmental Protection Agency. Post. and Trejo-Vázquez.E. http://go. Vincent. and Frank. Information and Control 8. 2008 A warming. J. O. cs. 1–16. and Johnston.M. and Keeley. November 2008. F. 2005 evaluate impacts of. Yang. 2006 Modeling distribution European tree species under present and future climates. F. wbi/sourcebook/sbpdf. Sykes. H. R. J. and Zhou. 1989 An introduction to concept mapping SDSM—a decision support tool for the assessment of for planning and evaluation. 2006 Climate Change Center. climate change: mainstreaming ecosystem management J. C. calibration of process-based forest models: bridging the Schumacher. Working Paper 56. UNFCCC 2002 Annotated guidelines for the preparation of Witten. eng/18. machine learning tools and techniques. into adaptation strategies in Reventazon watershed. E. Germany. R. In: The assessing impacts and vulnerability. W. Bonn. B. hydropower production in the context of land use and Sebastián-López. interactive cognitive maps. In: A user’s guide to poverty and national communications from Parties not included in social impact analysis. FCCC/ Bank. and vulnerability and adaptation to. 45–58.B. New Zealand. and developing World Bank participation sourcebook. in northern Wisconsin. Global Change Mexico. A. University of Waikato. Franklin. 2007 Calibrating a forest landscape model to Westerling. Turrialba. UNFCCC. 2005 Bayesian 1199–1205.. Sacramento. http://www. and Smith. change.C. 181–204. int/resource/docs/2004/sbsta/inf13. A. 3–5 Journal of Forest Research 127(2): 149–163. 2005 Data mining: practical national adaptation programmes of action. Schot. and Wassen..T. Environmental Modelling & 2003 Ecosystem responses to global climate change: Software 23: 1133–1144. University of East Anglia.. gaps between models and data.. W. G. and SanMiguel-Ayanz. 2004 Creating an index of social vulnerability for Sturtevant.13. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 11: Syphard.R. Report CEC-500-2006-190-SF.T. Gonzalo-Jiménez. B. Sibold. K. P. S. Evaluation and Program regional climate change impacts. .worldbank. Wilby. FCCC/SBI/2005/18. Wasserman.. 2008 Integration of socio. European Climate Change: the Role of Ecosystem Services. 2002 Trochim. moving beyond color mapping. Burns. Dawson.J. 2007 Human and Africa. Tree Physiology 25: 915- 2006 Modeling the impact of climate and vegetation on 927.htm. Modelling Software 17: 145–157..T. wildfire in and around California: fire modeling and loss Environmental Modelling & Software 22: 1641–1653. M. 338–353.A.. 1994 Social network analysis. Reineking. I. and Faust. Costa Rica. changes of vegetation in China under future climate Journal of Biogeography 23: 203–233. K. Washington. G.S. California Thuillier. M. A Cambridge University Press. M. S. S. S. 2008 Hydrological services for 21(4): 539–554.. Effects of parameter uncertainties on the modelling climate change.L. Global Biogeochem University of Waikato 2008 Weka 3: data mining software in Cycles 19: GB3020. Rougier.. Germany. E. Zadeh. Germany. D. Sitch. Morgan Bonn.. Wildland Fire 16: 398–413. CATIE. framework for linking advanced simulation models with Schmitz..pdf. modeling. http://unfccc. Smith. and Bugmann.D. UNFCCC 2005b Compendium on methods and tools to Zaehle. economic and environmental variables for modelling Costa Rica.S.24    Methods and Tools for Assessing the Vulnerability of Forests and People to Climate Change aboveground plant growth to experimental ecosystem van Kouwen. UNFCCC 2004 Application of methods and tools for World Bank 1996 Appendix 1: methods and tools. International Journal of UK.. 1996. 2003 Evaluation of ecosystem dynamics.waikato.M. Climate Research 9: 87–93.. International Seminar on Adaptation to long-term fire danger in southern Europe. R. E. BioScience 53(12): van Oijen. Lavorel. B. Villers-Ruiz. and Araú SBSTA/2004/INF. and Cramer. I. He. I. 2nd ed. Norwich. Annex I to the Convention. World Bank 2003 Economic and social tools for poverty and UNFCCC 2005a Sixth compilation and synthesis of initial social impact analysis. L..S. 1997 Assessment of the plant geography and terrestrial carbon cycling in the vulnerability of forest ecosystems to climate change in LPJ dynamic global vegetation model. Washington. Diversity and Distributions 12: 49–60. http://www. fire regimes in mountain landscapes. J. W. H. Tyndall Centre for Climate biophysical factors influencing modern fire disturbance Change Research. Biology 9. J. World adaptation responses: background paper. J. http://unfccc.. San Francisco.worldbank. and Barrow. 161–185. and Bryant. California Energy Commission. Landscape Ecology Vignola. Sitch. M.P. R. of terrestrial biosphere dynamics. J. bioclimatic model for the potential distribution of North Weng. Oecologia 126: 543–562. Cambridge. E. Sykes. et al.


CIFOR works in over 30 countries worldwide and has links with researchers in 50 international. environmental conservation. Africa and South America. It also has offices in Asia. please contact cifor@cgiar. CIFOR is one of 15 centres within the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).cgiar. and equity by conducting research to inform policies and practices that affect forests in developing countries. regional and national organisations. To request a copy of this . www. CIFOR’s headquarters are in Bogor.Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) CIFOR advances human wellbeing.