Use of contaminated well water, example reference biospheres 1 and 2A

The BIOMASS programme's Theme 1 evaluated a number of scenarios, which assisted in the development of practical guidance. A total of four Example Reference Biospheres were fully developed, with the assumptions, data, and models thoroughly documented. These Examples display both the practicality and the transparency available through the use of the Reference Biosphere Methodology. While the methodology is designed to promote transparency and traceability, proper documentation and justification is still the responsibility of the user. The Examples can also be used as generic analyses in some situations. Although it is anticipated that each of the Reference Biospheres explored within BIOMASS Theme 1 should be a useful practical example, the quantitative results of the model calculations are not intended to be understood as prescribed biosphere 'conversion factors'. In choosing to implement an Example, careful consideration would need to be given to their relevance (including associated data) to the particular assessment context at hand. In general, the more complex the model is, the more limited applicability it has for generic purposes. For example, ERB1A (direct use of well water for drinking) can be used straightforwardly, with minor or no adjustments, at a number of generic sites. Example 2A, however, for which climatic conditions and agricultural practices need to be specified, would need to be implemented for each specific situation.     

Biosphere modelling for the assessment of radioactive waste repositories; the development of a common basis by the BIOMOVS II reference biospheres working group

Performance criteria for radioactive waste repositories are often expressed in terms of dose or risk. The characteristics of biosphere modelling for performance assessment are that: (a) potential release occurs in the distant future, (b) reliable predictions of human behaviour at the time of release are impracticable, and (c) the biosphere is not considered to be a barrier as the geosphere and the engineered barriers. For these and other reasons, differences have arisen in the approaches to biosphere modelling for repository dose and risk assessment. The BIOMOVS II Reference Biospheres Working Group has developed (a) a recommended methodology for biosphere model development, (b) a structured list of features, events and processes (FEPs) which the model should describe, and (c) an illustrative example of the recommended methodology. The Working Group has successfully tested the Interaction Matrix (or Rock Engineering Systems, RES) approach for developing conceptual models. The BIOMOVS II Working Groups on Reference Biospheres and Complementary Studies have laid the basis for considerable harmonisation in approaches to biosphere modelling of long term radionuclide releases.     

Natural releases from contaminated groundwater, Example Reference Biosphere 2B

Safety assessment is a tool which, by means of an iterative procedure, allows the evaluation of the performance of a disposal system and its potential impact on human health and the environment. Radionuclides from a deep geological disposal facility may not reach the surface environment until many tens of thousands of years after closure of the facility. The BIOMASS Programme on BIOsphere Modelling and ASSessment developed Examples of "Reference Biospheres" to illustrate the use of the methodology and to demonstrate how biosphere models can be developed and justified as being fit for purpose. The practical examples are also intended to be useful in their own right. The Example Reference Biosphere 2B presented here involves the consideration of alternative types of geosphere-biosphere interfaces and calculation of doses to members of hypothetical exposure groups arising from a wide range of exposure pathways within agricultural and semi-natural environments, but without allowing for evolution of the corresponding biosphere system. The example presented can be used as a generic analysis in some situations although it was developed around a relatively specific conceptual model. It should be a useful practical example, but the above numerical results are not intended to be understood as prescribed biosphere 'conversion factors'.     

"Reference Biospheres" for solid radioactive waste disposal: the BIOMASS methodology

The BIOMASS Theme 1 project has developed a methodology for the logical and defensible construction of 'assessment biospheres': mathematical representations of biospheres used in the total system performance assessment of radioactive waste disposal. The BIOMASS Methodology provides a systematic approach to decision making, including decisions on how to address biosphere change. The BIOMASS Methodology was developed through consultation and collaboration with many relevant organisations, including regulators, operators and a variety of independent experts. It has been developed to be practical and to be consistent with recommendations from ICRP and IAEA on radiation protection in the context of the disposal of long-lived solid radioactive wastes. The five main steps in the methodology are described in this paper. The importance of a clear assessment context, to clarify intentions and to support a coherent biosphere assessment process within an overall repository performance assessment, is strongly emphasised. A well described assessment context is an important tool for ensuring consistency across the performance assessment as a whole. The use of interaction matrices has been found to be helpful in clarifying the interactions between different habitats within the biosphere system and the significant radionuclide transfer pathways within the biosphere system. Matrices also provide a useful means of checking for consistency.     

A global empirical typology of anthropogenic drivers of environmental change in deltas

It is broadly recognized that river delta systems around the world are under threat from a range of anthropogenic activities. These activities occur at the local delta scale, at the regional river and watershed scale, and at the global scale. Tools are needed to support generalization of results from case studies in specific deltas. Here, we present a methodology for quantitatively constructing an empirical typology of anthropogenic change in global deltas. Utilizing a database of environmental change indicators, each associated with increased relative sea-level rise and coastal wetland loss, a clustering analysis of 48 global deltas provides a quantitative assessment of systems experiencing similar or dissimilar sources and degrees of anthropogenic stress. By identifying quantitatively similar systems, we hope to improve the transferability of scientific results across systems, and increase the effectiveness of delta management best practices. Both K-Means and Affinity Propagation clustering algorithms find similar clusters, with relative stability across small changes in K-Means cluster number. High-latitude deltas appear similar, in terms of anthropogenic environmental stress, to several low-population, low-latitude systems, including the Amazon delta, despite substantially different climatic regimes. Highly urbanized deltas in Southeast Asia form a distinct cluster. By providing a quantitative boundary between groups of delta systems, this approach may also be useful for assessing future delta change and sustainability given projected population growth, urbanization, and economic development trends.     

Dwelling in the biosphere: exploring an embodied human–environment connection in resilience thinking

Resilience has emerged as a prominent paradigm for interpreting and shaping human–environment connections in the context of global environmental change. Resilience emphasizes dynamic spatial and temporal change in social–ecological systems where humans are inextricably interwoven with the environment. While influential, resilience thinking has been critiqued for an under-theorized framing of socio-cultural dynamics. In this paper, we examine how the resilience concepts of planetary boundaries and reconnecting to the biosphere frame human–environment connection in terms of mental representations and biophysical realities. We argue that focusing solely on mental reconnection limits further integration between the social and the ecological, thus countering a foundational commitment in resilience thinking to social–ecological interconnectedness. To address this susceptibility we use Tim Ingold’s ‘dwelling perspective’ to outline an embodied form of human–environment (re)connection. Through dwelling, connections are not solely produced in the mind, but through the ongoing interactivity of mind, body and environment through time. Using this perspective, we position the biosphere as an assemblage that is constantly in the making through the active cohabitation of humans and nonhumans. To illustrate insights that may emerge from this perspective we bring an embodied connection to earth stewardship, given its growing popularity for forging local to global sustainability transformations.     

Assessing biodiversity vulnerability to climate change: testing different methodologies for Portuguese herpetofauna

Assessing biodiversity vulnerability to future climate change is essential for developing robust adaptation strategies. A number of vulnerability assessment methodologies have been developed, from bioclimatic envelop models to more complex approaches that also consider biological traits and population status. However, the lack of comparative studies leaves the user to choose among the different methodologies without much guidance. This study applied three vulnerability assessment approaches to the Portuguese herpetofauna: (I) impact assessment approach based on bioclimatic models; (II) integrated vulnerability assessment approach, adding the evaluation of adaptive capacity to approach I; and (III) integrated vulnerability assessment and validation based on expert consultation. Results showed disagreement between the different approaches for 19 % of the species studied. Most differences were found between approach III and the two other approaches. All approaches showed advantages and limitations, the choice of a methodology being ultimately dependent on the study goals. Approach I has proven efficient to capture general vulnerability patterns. Approach II, although presenting results similar to approach I, allows for the identification of key factors affecting the species adaptive capacity and may be useful in tailoring adaptation measures. Approach III further allows us to identify knowledge gaps and to evaluate vulnerability when data availability or quality is reduced. Further, because this approach is based on an expert workshop, it has proven a perfect means to build on the vulnerability assessment results to identify indicator species and prioritize specific adaptation options.     

How do we assess vulnerability to climate change in India? A systematic review of literature

In countries like India where multiple risks interact with socio-economic differences to create and sustain vulnerability, assessing the vulnerability of people, places, and systems to climate change is a critical tool to prioritise adaptation. In India, several vulnerability assessment tools have been designed spanning multiple disciplines, by multiple actors, and at multiple scales. However, their conceptual, methodological, and disciplinary underpinnings, and resulting implications on who is identified as vulnerable, have not been interrogated. Addressing this gap, we systematically review peer-reviewed publications (n = 78) and grey literature (n = 42) to characterise how vulnerability to climate change is assessed in India. We frame our enquiry against four questions: (1) How is vulnerability conceptualised (vulnerability of whom/what, vulnerability to what), (2) who assesses vulnerability, (3) how is vulnerability assessed (methodology, scale), and (4) what are the implications of methodology on outcomes of the assessment. Our findings emphasise that methods to assess vulnerability to climate change are embedded in the disciplinary traditions, methodological approaches, and often-unstated motivations of those designing the assessment. Further, while most assessments acknowledge the importance of scalar and temporal aspects of vulnerability, we find few examples of it being integrated in methodology. Such methodological myopia potentially overlooks how social differentiation, ecological shifts, and institutional dynamics construct and perpetuate vulnerability. Finally, we synthesise the strengths and weaknesses of current vulnerability assessment methods in India and identify a predominance of research in rural landscapes with a relatively lower coverage in urban and peri-urban settlements, which are key interfaces of transitions.     

Modelling change in state of complex ecological systems in space and time: An application to sustainable grazing management

Meeting the challenge of sustainable development requires substantial advances in understanding of the interaction of natural and human systems. The emerging ecosystem management paradigm of multiple stable states, non-linear systems behaviour, discontinuous change, self-organisation and multiple development pathways has major implications for when and how change in complex systems occurs and how it can be managed. It also poses considerable challenges for modelling the structure and function of natural and human management systems, including fundamental constraints relating to: scaling mismatches, synthesis of non-homogeneous information, multiscaled system interactions, complex management systems, uncertainty in causal relationships, assessment of trade-offs, and validation. This paper examines how a decision support system (DSS) for sustainable grazing management, called Landassess DSS, attempts to deal with some of these issues through an integrated systems approach to DSS development. This approach utilises object-oriented techniques, knowledge-based systems, geographical information systems (GIS), and a state-and-transition model framework to model the critical change processes. It provides for the identification of the major driving factors and constraints to change in complex resource management systems, as well as the assessment of the likely trade-offs between resource sustainability and economic production at a scale relevant to management decision-making (i.e., paddock or property).     

Geo-based model of intrinsic resilience to climate change: an approach to nature-based solution

A substantial amount of researches have been done on the understanding and assessment of resilience from multiple perspectives, e.g., ecological, social, economic, and disaster management; however, recent international approach is trending toward more systematic and comprehensive risk assessment processes. Pivotal element of such approach is to emphasizing on promoting resilience in the face of climate change impacts. Conceptualization and identification of parameters to assess climate change resilience is one of the remaining challenges that academia is facing. Reviewing the principles of the climate change resilience highlighted in the literature, the goal of this study is to introduce a theoretical model about the climate change resilience concept to facilitate and enhance future climate change resilience-related researches. The model proposed in this study is named as the climate change resilience of place (C-CROP) model, a geo-based model which is designed to assess climate change resilience for any geographic region with an approach to the incorporation of nature-based solution (NBS). C-CROP model considers vulnerability, exposure, sensitivity to climate change on one side; another side is co-benefit, climate proofing, and disservices of proposed NBS. An operational framework of the C-CROP model is also proposed, that allows spatially explicit assessment of climate change resilience in real world by developing an indicator-based framework and comprehensive mapping using the geospatial approach. Therefore, this model includes vulnerability hotspots identification; better understanding of the pathways of resilience; and solutions (i.e., NBS) to infer the impacts and effectiveness of resilience-building interventions.

     

Climate adaptation of interconnected infrastructures: a framework for supporting governance

Infrastructures are critical for human society, but vulnerable to climate change. The current body of research on infrastructure adaptation does not adequately account for the interconnectedness of infrastructures, both internally and with one another. We take a step toward addressing this gap through the introduction of a framework for infrastructure adaptation that conceptualizes infrastructures as complex socio-technical “systems of systems” embedded in a changing natural environment. We demonstrate the use of this framework by structuring potential climate change impacts and identifying adaptation options for a preliminary set of cases—road, electricity and drinking water infrastructures. By helping to clarify the relationships between impacts at different levels, we find that the framework facilitates the identification of key nodes in the web of possible impacts and helps in the identification of particularly nocuous weather conditions. We also explore how the framework may be applied more comprehensively to facilitate adaptation governance. We suggest that it may help to ensure that the mental models of stakeholders and the quantitative models of researchers incorporate the essential aspects of interacting climate and infrastructure systems. Further research is necessary to test the framework in these contexts and to determine when and where its application may be most beneficial.     

The environmental impact assessment of wheat and barley production by using life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology

This study was conducted to assess the impact of cereals (wheat and barley) production on environment under rainfed and irrigated farming systems in northeast of Iran. Life cycle assessment (LCA) was used as a methodology to assess all environmental impacts of cereal grain production through accounting and appraising the resource consumption and emissions. The functional unit considered in this study was one ton grain yield production under different rates of nitrogen application. All associated impacts of different range of N fertilizer application were evaluated on the basis of the functional unit. In this study, three major impact categories considered were climate change, acidification, and eutrophication. In order to prepare final evaluation of all impacts on environment, the EcoX was determined. Results represented that, under low consumption of N fertilizer, the environmental impacts of both rainfed farming systems of wheat and barley was less than irrigated farming systems. Considering grain yield as response factor to different fertilizer application level, irrigated farming systems of wheat and barley with the range of 160–180 and?>220 (Kg?N?ha^?1) showed the maximum impact on environment. It seems LCA is an appropriate method to quantify the impact of utilized agricultural inputs and different managements on environment.     

Australian approaches to coastal vulnerability assessment

The Australian coastline is one of the longest and most diverse of any in the world, and Australian researchers have developed preliminary models of the behaviour of major coastal systems such as beaches and reefs. The Australian population is particularly focused along the coastline, especially in metropolitan centres; however, the population of regional centres along the coast is increasing steadily in response to a phenomenon termed seachange. Coastal systems are increasingly threatened by potential impacts as a result of climate change, as indicated by the successive assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Although Australia played a central role in applying a common methodology (CM), developed from IPCC guidelines in the 1990s, and in devising alternative approaches, which were initially trialled at nine sites on the Australian coast, there has not been a nationally co-ordinated approach to assessing the coastal vulnerability of Australia, and such an approach is only emerging now. Instead, there have been a series of different approaches adopted to look at the different parts of the Australian coast, including wetland mapping in northern Australia; geomorphic unit mapping in South Australia; storm surge vulnerability modelling in Queensland; probabilistic approaches to beach erosion in New South Wales; indicative mapping of potential coastal retreat in Tasmania. Additionally, there have been methods proposed by insurers and coastal engineers to meet their requirements. Since 2005, the Australian government has once again seen the need for a national coastal vulnerability assessment, and a series of studies are planned or under way to achieve the aims of a National Climate Change Adaptation Framework.     

Vulnerability assessment within climate change and natural hazard contexts: revealing gaps and synergies through coastal applications

The climate change and natural hazard communities have developed the notion of vulnerability and associated methods for its assessment in parallel, with only limited interaction. What are the underlying reasons for this diversity; is there advantage in greater synergy? If yes, what are the pathways through which greater integration could be fostered? This paper discusses these issues using vulnerability studies in coastal areas to describe gaps between climate change and natural hazard approaches, and investigates scope for mutual learning and collaboration in the development of methodologies for vulnerability assessment. An overview of methods highlights the separation between climate change and natural hazard approaches. The main differences identified, beyond formal divergences in terminology, are linked to: process (stress vs shock), scale (temporal, functional and spatial), assessment approach (statistical vs prospective) and levels of uncertainty. We argue that the underlying source of divergence is the initial difference of purpose, one being identification of climate change adaptation pathways, the other being disaster risk reduction. In this context, the notion of vulnerability and its expression through assessment studies is the focal point connecting both domains. Indeed, the ongoing and active development of vulnerability concepts and methods have already produced some tools to help overcome common issues, such as acting in a context of high uncertainties, taking into account the dynamics and spatial scale of a social-ecological system, or gathering viewpoints from different sciences to combine human and impact-based approaches. Based on this assessment, this paper proposes concrete perspectives and possibilities to benefit from existing commonalities in the construction and application of assessment tools.     

Making the user more efficient: design for sustainable behaviour

User behaviour is a significant determinant of a product's environmental impact; while engineering advances permit increased efficiency of product operation, the user's decisions and habits ultimately have a major effect on the energy or other resources used by the product. There is thus a need to change users' behaviour. A range of design techniques developed in diverse contexts suggest opportunities for engineers, designers and other stakeholders working in the field of sustainable innovation to affect users' behaviour at the point of interaction with the product or system, in effect ‘making the user more efficient’. Approaches to changing users' behaviour from a number of fields are reviewed and discussed, including: strategic design of affordances and behaviour‐shaping constraints to control or affect energy‐ or other resource‐using interactions; the use of different kinds of feedback and persuasive technology techniques to encourage or guide users to reduce their environmental impact; and context‐based systems which use feedback to adjust their behaviour to run at optimum efficiency and reduce the opportunity for user‐affected inefficiency. Example implementations in the sustainable engineering and ecodesign field are suggested and discussed.