IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v129y2015i3p555-571.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

BioEarth: Envisioning and developing a new regional earth system model to inform natural and agricultural resource management

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer Adam
  • Jennie Stephens
  • Serena Chung
  • Michael Brady
  • R. Evans
  • Chad Kruger
  • Brian Lamb
  • Mingliang Liu
  • Claudio Stöckle
  • Joseph Vaughan
  • Kirti Rajagopalan
  • John Harrison
  • Christina Tague
  • Ananth Kalyanaraman
  • Yong Chen
  • Alex Guenther
  • Fok-Yan Leung
  • L. Leung
  • Andrew Perleberg
  • Jonathan Yoder
  • Elizabeth Allen
  • Sarah Anderson
  • Bhagyam Chandrasekharan
  • Keyvan Malek
  • Tristan Mullis
  • Cody Miller
  • Tsengel Nergui
  • Justin Poinsatte
  • Julian Reyes
  • Jun Zhu
  • Janet Choate
  • Xiaoyan Jiang
  • Roger Nelson
  • Jin-Ho Yoon
  • Georgine Yorgey
  • Kristen Johnson
  • Kiran Chinnayakanahalli
  • Alan Hamlet
  • Bart Nijssen
  • Von Walden

Abstract

As managers of agricultural and natural resources are confronted with uncertainties in global change impacts, the complexities associated with the interconnected cycling of nitrogen, carbon, and water present daunting management challenges. Existing models provide detailed information on specific sub-systems (e.g., land, air, water, and economics). An increasing awareness of the unintended consequences of management decisions resulting from interconnectedness of these sub-systems, however, necessitates coupled regional earth system models (EaSMs). Decision makers’ needs and priorities can be integrated into the model design and development processes to enhance decision-making relevance and “usability” of EaSMs. BioEarth is a research initiative currently under development with a focus on the U.S. Pacific Northwest region that explores the coupling of multiple stand-alone EaSMs to generate usable information for resource decision-making. Direct engagement between model developers and non-academic stakeholders involved in resource and environmental management decisions throughout the model development process is a critical component of this effort. BioEarth utilizes a bottom-up approach for its land surface model that preserves fine spatial-scale sensitivities and lateral hydrologic connectivity, which makes it unique among many regional EaSMs. This paper describes the BioEarth initiative and highlights opportunities and challenges associated with coupling multiple stand-alone models to generate usable information for agricultural and natural resource decision-making. Copyright The Author(s) 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer Adam & Jennie Stephens & Serena Chung & Michael Brady & R. Evans & Chad Kruger & Brian Lamb & Mingliang Liu & Claudio Stöckle & Joseph Vaughan & Kirti Rajagopalan & John Harrison & Christina , 2015. "BioEarth: Envisioning and developing a new regional earth system model to inform natural and agricultural resource management," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 129(3), pages 555-571, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:129:y:2015:i:3:p:555-571
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-014-1115-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10584-014-1115-2
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-014-1115-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elizabeth Allen & Chad Kruger & Fok-Yan Leung & Jennie Stephens, 2013. "Diverse Perceptions of Stakeholder Engagement within an Environmental Modeling Research Team," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(3), pages 343-356, September.
    2. Elena G. Irwin, 2010. "New Directions For Urban Economic Models Of Land Use Change: Incorporating Spatial Dynamics And Heterogeneity," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 65-91, February.
    3. Kathy Hibbard & Anthony Janetos, 2013. "The regional nature of global challenges: a need and strategy for integrated regional modeling," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 118(3), pages 565-577, June.
    4. Maria Carmen Lemos & Christine J. Kirchhoff & Vijay Ramprasad, 2012. "Narrowing the climate information usability gap," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(11), pages 789-794, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xueke Li & Amanda H. Lynch, 2023. "New insights into projected Arctic sea road: operational risks, economic values, and policy implications," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(4), pages 1-16, April.
    2. Chunhong Zhao & Jennifer L.R. Jensen & Russell Weaver, 2020. "Global and Local Modeling of Land Use Change in the Border Cities of Laredo, Texas, USA and Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico: A Comparative Analysis," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-18, September.
    3. Chris Knudson & Zack Guido, 2019. "The missing middle of climate services: layering multiway, two-way, and one-way modes of communicating seasonal climate forecasts," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 157(1), pages 171-187, November.
    4. Dai, Jiangyu & Wu, Shiqiang & Han, Guoyi & Weinberg, Josh & Xie, Xinghua & Wu, Xiufeng & Song, Xingqiang & Jia, Benyou & Xue, Wanyun & Yang, Qianqian, 2018. "Water-energy nexus: A review of methods and tools for macro-assessment," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 393-408.
    5. Dominique Prunetti & Alexandre Muzy & Eric Innocenti & Xavier Pieri, 2014. "Utility-based Multi-agent System with Spatial Interactions: The Case of Virtual Estate Development," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 43(3), pages 271-299, March.
    6. Qingxu Huang & Dawn C Parker & Tatiana Filatova & Shipeng Sun, 2014. "A Review of Urban Residential Choice Models Using Agent-Based Modeling," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 41(4), pages 661-689, August.
    7. Xiaoying Bai & Wenheng Wu & Limeng Liu & Wanying Shang & Haixia Dong, 2024. "Spatio-Temporal Evolution and Implications of Urban Residential Space Based on the New Commercial Housing in Xi’an, China, 2006–2022," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-21, September.
    8. Ojha, Hemant & Regmi, Udeep & Shrestha, Krishna K. & Paudel, Naya Sharma & Amatya, Swoyambhu Man & Zwi, Anthony B. & Nuberg, Ian & Cedamon, Edwin & Banjade, Mani R., 2020. "Improving science-policy interface: Lessons from the policy lab methodology in Nepal's community forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    9. Thomas de Graaff & Frank G. van Oort & Raymond J.G.M. Florax, 2012. "Regional Population–Employment Dynamics Across Different Sectors Of The Economy," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 60-84, February.
    10. Snow, Stephen & Fielke, Simon & Fleming, Aysha & Jakku, Emma & Malakar, Yuwan & Turner, Charles & Hunter, Tammy & Tijs, Sigrid & Bonnett, Graham, 2024. "Climate services for agriculture: Steering towards inclusive innovation in Australian climate services design and delivery," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    11. Kane, Kevin & York, Abigail M., 2017. "Prices, policies, and place: What drives greenfield development?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 415-428.
    12. Magliocca, Nicholas & McConnell, Virginia & Walls, Margaret & Safirova, Elena, 2012. "Zoning on the urban fringe: Results from a new approach to modeling land and housing markets," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 198-210.
    13. Elena G. Irwin & Andrew M. Isserman & Maureen Kilkenny & Mark D. Partridge, 2010. "A Century of Research on Rural Development and Regional Issues," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(2), pages 522-553.
    14. Gillian L. Galford & Julie Nash & Alan K. Betts & Sam Carlson & Sarah Ford & Ann Hoogenboom & Deborah Markowitz & Andrew Nash & Elizabeth Palchak & Sarah Pears & Kristen L. Underwood, 2016. "Bridging the climate information gap: a framework for engaging knowledge brokers and decision makers in state climate assessments," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 383-395, October.
    15. Kevin Raaphorst & Gerben Koers & Gerald Jan Ellen & Amy Oen & Bjørn Kalsnes & Lisa van Well & Jana Koerth & Rutger van der Brugge, 2020. "Mind the Gap: Towards a Typology of Climate Service Usability Gaps," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-21, February.
    16. Chandra R. Bhat & Subodh K. Dubey & Mohammad Jobair Bin Alam & Waleed H. Khushefati, 2015. "A New Spatial Multiple Discrete-Continuous Modeling Approach To Land Use Change Analysis," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(5), pages 801-841, November.
    17. Ahmad, Shakeel & Jia, Haifeng & Chen, Zhengxia & Li, Qian & Xu, Changqing, 2020. "Water-energy nexus and energy efficiency: A systematic analysis of urban water systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    18. Grundy, Michael J. & Bryan, Brett A. & Nolan, Martin & Battaglia, Michael & Hatfield-Dodds, Steve & Connor, Jeffery D. & Keating, Brian A., 2016. "Scenarios for Australian agricultural production and land use to 2050," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 70-83.
    19. Svenja Keele, 2019. "Consultants and the business of climate services: implications of shifting from public to private science," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 157(1), pages 9-26, November.
    20. Zack Guido & Sara Lopus & Kurt Waldman & Corrie Hannah & Andrew Zimmer & Natasha Krell & Chris Knudson & Lyndon Estes & Kelly Caylor & Tom Evans, 2021. "Perceived links between climate change and weather forecast accuracy: new barriers to tools for agricultural decision-making," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 1-20, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:129:y:2015:i:3:p:555-571. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.