2016, Ruane, Alex C., Teichmann, Claas, Arnell, Nigel W., Carter, Timothy R., Ebi, Kristie L., Frieler, Katja, Goodess, Clare M., Hewitson, Bruce, Horton, Radley, Kovats, R. Sari, Lotze, Heike K., Mearns, Linda O., Navarra, Antonio, Ojima, Dennis S., Riahi, Keywan, Rosenzweig, Cynthia, Themessl, Matthias, Vincent, Katharine

This paper describes the motivation for the creation of the Vulnerability, Impacts, Adaptation and Climate Services (VIACS) Advisory Board for the Sixth Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6), its initial activities, and its plans to serve as a bridge between climate change applications experts and climate modelers. The climate change application community comprises researchers and other specialists who use climate information (alongside socioeconomic and other environmental information) to analyze vulnerability, impacts, and adaptation of natural systems and society in relation to past, ongoing, and projected future climate change. Much of this activity is directed toward the co-development of information needed by decision-makers for managing projected risks. CMIP6 provides a unique opportunity to facilitate a two-way dialog between climate modelers and VIACS experts who are looking to apply CMIP6 results for a wide array of research and climate services objectives. The VIACS Advisory Board convenes leaders of major impact sectors, international programs, and climate services to solicit community feedback that increases the applications relevance of the CMIP6-Endorsed Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs). As an illustration of its potential, the VIACS community provided CMIP6 leadership with a list of prioritized climate model variables and MIP experiments of the greatest interest to the climate model applications community, indicating the applicability and societal relevance of climate model simulation outputs. The VIACS Advisory Board also recommended an impacts version of Obs4MIPs and indicated user needs for the gridding and processing of model output.

2012, Heinke, J., Ostberg, S., Schaphoff, S., Frieler, K., Müller, C., Gerten, D., Meinshausen, M., Lucht, W.

Interactions between food demand, biomass energy and forest preservation are driving both food prices and land-use changes, regionally and globally. This study presents a new model called Nexus Land-Use version 1.0 which describes these interactions through a generic representation of agricultural intensification mechanisms within agricultural lands. The Nexus Land-Use model equations combine biophysics and economics into a single coherent framework to calculate crop yields, food prices, and resulting pasture and cropland areas within 12 regions inter-connected with each other by international trade. The representation of cropland and livestock production systems in each region relies on three components: (i) a biomass production function derived from the crop yield response function to inputs such as industrial fertilisers; (ii) a detailed representation of the livestock production system subdivided into an intensive and an extensive component, and (iii) a spatially explicit distribution of potential (maximal) crop yields prescribed from the Lund-Postdam-Jena global vegetation model for managed Land (LPJmL). The economic principles governing decisions about land-use and intensification are adapted from the Ricardian rent theory, assuming cost minimisation for farmers. In contrast to the other land-use models linking economy and biophysics, crops are aggregated as a representative product in calories and intensification for the representative crop is a non-linear function of chemical inputs. The model equations and parameter values are first described in details. Then, idealised scenarios exploring the impact of forest preservation policies or rising energy price on agricultural intensification are described, and their impacts on pasture and cropland areas are investigated.

2017, Clift, R., Sim, S., King, H., Chenoweth, J.L., Christie, I., Clavreul, J., Mueller, C., Posthuma, L., Boulay, A.-M., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Chatterton, J., DeClerck, F., Druckman, A., France, C., Franco, A., Gerten, D., Goedkoop, M., Hauschild, M.Z., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Koellner, T., Lambin, E.F., Lee, J., Mair, S., Marshall, S., McLachlan, M.S., Milà i Canals, L., Mitchell, C., Price, E., Rockström, J., Suckling, J., Murphy, R.

The Planetary Boundaries (PB) framework represents a significant advance in specifying the ecological constraints on human development. However, to enable decision-makers in business and public policy to respect these constraints in strategic planning, the PB framework needs to be developed to generate practical tools. With this objective in mind, we analyse the recent literature and highlight three major scientific and technical challenges in operationalizing the PB approach in decision-making: first, identification of thresholds or boundaries with associated metrics for different geographical scales; second, the need to frame approaches to allocate fair shares in the 'safe operating space' bounded by the PBs across the value chain and; third, the need for international bodies to co-ordinate the implementation of the measures needed to respect the Planetary Boundaries. For the first two of these challenges, we consider how they might be addressed for four PBs: climate change, freshwater use, biosphere integrity and chemical pollution and other novel entities. Four key opportunities are identified: (1) development of a common system of metrics that can be applied consistently at and across different scales; (2) setting 'distance from boundary' measures that can be applied at different scales; (3) development of global, preferably open-source, databases and models; and (4) advancing understanding of the interactions between the different PBs. Addressing the scientific and technical challenges in operationalizing the planetary boundaries needs be complemented with progress in addressing the equity and ethical issues in allocating the safe operating space between companies and sectors.

2022, Nicola, Lena, Loebel, Erik, Zuhr, Alexandra M.

A lot of things in life need money and so does polar science: money is needed to participate in conferences, undertake fieldwork campaigns or pay for salaries, such as in PhD projects or permanent research positions. To give an overview on the general funding landscape for polar early-career scientists in Germany, APECS Germany (the German National Committee of the Association of Polar Early Career Scientists, APECS) has started to host a list of grant, fellowship and other funding opportunities at https://apecs-germany.de/funding/ (last access: 15 October 2022). This is visualized in Fig. . Once a suitable funding scheme has been found, grant writing requires good preparation, a well-structured and written proposal, and several back-up plans.

2016, Kundzewicz, Z. W., Krysanova, V., Dankers, R., Hirabayashi, Y., Kanae, S., Hattermann, F. F., Huang, S., Milly, P. C. D., Stoffel, M., Driessen, P. P. J., Matczak, P., Quevauviller, P., Schellnhuber, H.-J.

This paper interprets differences in flood hazard projections over Europe and identifies likely sources of discrepancy. Further, it discusses potential implications of these differences for flood risk reduction and adaptation to climate change. The discrepancy in flood hazard projections raises caution, especially among decision makers in charge of water resources management, flood risk reduction, and climate change adaptation at regional to local scales. Because it is naïve to expect availability of trustworthy quantitative projections of future flood hazard, in order to reduce flood risk one should focus attention on mapping of current and future risks and vulnerability hotspots and improve the situation there. Although an intercomparison of flood hazard projections is done in this paper and differences are identified and interpreted, it does not seems possible to recommend which large-scale studies may be considered most credible in particular areas of Europe.

2022, Kemp, Luke, Xu, Chi, Depledge, Joanna, Ebi, Kristie L., Gibbins, Goodwin, Kohler, Timothy A., Rockström, Johan, Scheffer, Marten, Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim, Steffen, Will, Lenton, Timothy M.

[no abstract available]

2019, Sietz, D., Frey, U., Roggero, M., Gong, Y., Magliocca, N., Tan, R., Janssen, P., Václavík, T.

In sustainability research, archetype analysis reveals patterns of factors and processes that repeatedly shape social-ecological systems. These patterns help improve our understanding of global concerns, including vulnerability, land management, food security, and governance. During the last decade, the portfolio of methods used to investigate archetypes has been growing rapidly. However, these methods differ widely in their epistemological and normative underpinnings, data requirements, and suitability to address particular research purposes. Therefore, guidance is needed for systematically choosing methods in archetype analysis. We synthesize strengths and weaknesses of key methods used to identify archetypes. Demonstrating that there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach, we discuss advantages and shortcomings of a range of methods for archetype analysis in sustainability research along gradients that capture the treatment of causality, normativity, spatial variations, and temporal dynamics. Based on this discussion, we highlight seven analytical frontiers that bear particular potential for tackling methodological limitations. As a milestone in archetype analysis, our synthesis supports researchers in reflecting on methodological implications, including opportunities and limitations related to causality, normativity, space, and time considerations in view of specific purposes and research questions. This enables innovative research designs in future archetype analysis, thereby contributing to the advancement of sustainability research and decision-making.

2012, Souty, F., Brunelle, T., Dumas, P., Dorin, B., Ciais, P., Crassous, R., Müller, C., Bondeau, A.

Interactions between food demand, biomass energy and forest preservation are driving both food prices and land-use changes, regionally and globally. This study presents a new model called Nexus Land-Use version 1.0 which describes these interactions through a generic representation of agricultural intensification mechanisms within agricultural lands. The Nexus Land-Use model equations combine biophysics and economics into a single coherent framework to calculate crop yields, food prices, and resulting pasture and cropland areas within 12 regions inter-connected with each other by international trade. The representation of cropland and livestock production systems in each region relies on three components: (i) a biomass production function derived from the crop yield response function to inputs such as industrial fertilisers; (ii) a detailed representation of the livestock production system subdivided into an intensive and an extensive component, and (iii) a spatially explicit distribution of potential (maximal) crop yields prescribed from the Lund-Postdam-Jena global vegetation model for managed Land (LPJmL). The economic principles governing decisions about land-use and intensification are adapted from the Ricardian rent theory, assuming cost minimisation for farmers. In contrast to the other land-use models linking economy and biophysics, crops are aggregated as a representative product in calories and intensification for the representative crop is a non-linear function of chemical inputs. The model equations and parameter values are first described in details. Then, idealised scenarios exploring the impact of forest preservation policies or rising energy price on agricultural intensification are described, and their impacts on pasture and cropland areas are investigated.

2017, Mielke, J., Vermaßen, H., Ellenbeck, S.

This paper evaluates current stakeholder involvement (SI) practices in science through a web-based survey among scholars and researchers engaged in sustainability or transition research. It substantiates previous conceptual work with evidence from practice by building on four ideal types of SI in science. The results give an interesting overview of the varied landscape of SI in sustainability science, ranging from the kinds of topics scientists work on with stakeholders, over scientific trade-offs that arise in the field, to improvements scientists wish for. Furthermore, the authors describe a discrepancy between scientists’ ideals and practices when working with stakeholders. On the conceptual level, the data reflect that the democratic type of SI is the predominant one concerning questions on the understanding of science, the main goal, the stage of involvement in the research process, and the science–policy interface. The fact that respondents expressed agreement to several types shows they are guided by multiple and partly conflicting ideals when working with stakeholders. We thus conclude that more conceptual exchange between practitioners, as well as more qualitative research on the concepts behind practices, is needed to better understand the stakeholder–scientist nexus.