Letter | Published:

The environmental impact of climate change adaptation on land use and water quality

Nature Climate Change volume 5, pages 255260 (2015) | Download Citation

  • An Erratum to this article was published on 25 March 2015

This article has been updated

Abstract

Encouraging adaptation is an essential aspect of the policy response to climate change1. Adaptation seeks to reduce the harmful consequences and harness any beneficial opportunities arising from the changing climate. However, given that human activities are the main cause of environmental transformations worldwide2, it follows that adaptation itself also has the potential to generate further pressures, creating new threats for both local and global ecosystems. From this perspective, policies designed to encourage adaptation may conflict with regulation aimed at preserving or enhancing environmental quality. This aspect of adaptation has received relatively little consideration in either policy design or academic debate. To highlight this issue, we analyse the trade-offs between two fundamental ecosystem services that will be impacted by climate change: provisioning services derived from agriculture and regulating services in the form of freshwater quality. Results indicate that climate adaptation in the farming sector will generate fundamental changes in river water quality. In some areas, policies that encourage adaptation are expected to be in conflict with existing regulations aimed at improving freshwater ecosystems. These findings illustrate the importance of anticipating the wider impacts of human adaptation to climate change when designing environmental policies.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Change history

  • 24 February 2015

    In the version of this Letter originally published the title was incorrect. This error has been corrected in the online versions.

References

  1. 1.

    , , & Lifting the taboo on adaptation. Nature 445, 597–598 (2007).

  2. 2.

    , , & Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277, 494–499 (1997).

  3. 3.

    , & Climate trends and global crop production since 1980. Science 333, 616–620 (2011).

  4. 4.

    , & The impact of global land-cover change on the terrestrial water cycle. Nature Clim. Change 3, 385–390 (2013).

  5. 5.

    , , & Eutrophication: Nitrate flux in the Mississippi River. Nature 414, 166–167 (2001).

  6. 6.

    Ecology: Save the Baltic Sea. Nature 486, 463–464 (2012).

  7. 7.

    Water Quality Standards Handbook 2nd edn, EPA-823-B-12-002 (Environmental Protection Agency, 2012)

  8. 8.

    Water Framework Directive. J. Eur. Comm. 43(L327), 1–72 (2000).

  9. 9.

    & Biodiversity and climate change. Science 326, 806–807 (2009).

  10. 10.

    et al. Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 7565–7570 (2012).

  11. 11.

    Nitrates Directive. J. Eur. Comm. 34(L375), 1–8 (1991).

  12. 12.

    et al. Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision making: Land use in the UK. Science 314, 45–50 (2013).

  13. 13.

    et al. Projected land-use impacts on ecosystem services in the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 7492–7497 (2014).

  14. 14.

    , , , & Global agriculture and carbon trade-offs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 12342–12347 (2014).

  15. 15.

    , , & Implementing the optimal provision of ecosystem services. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 6248–6253 (2014).

  16. 16.

    & Structural agricultural land use modeling for spatial agro-environmental policy analysis. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 93, 1168–1188 (2011).

  17. 17.

    Economic incentives to improve water quality in agricultural landscapes: Some new variations on old ideas. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 93, 297–309 (2011).

  18. 18.

    , & Sewage-effluent phosphorus: A greater risk to river eutrophication than agricultural phosphorus? Sci. Total Environ. 360, 246–253 (2006).

  19. 19.

    UK Climate Projection: Briefing Report (Met Office Hadley Centre, 2011).

  20. 20.

    Government Forestry and Woodlands Policy Statements Incorporating the Government’s Response to the Independent Panel on Forestry’s Final Report (Department for Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs, 2013);

  21. 21.

    The State of Natural Capital: Restoring Our Natural Assets (Natural Capital Committee, 2014);

  22. 22.

    , & Seasonal temperature variations and energy demand: A panel cointegration analysis for climate change impact assessment. Climatic Change 116, 805–825 (2013).

  23. 23.

    et al. Impacts of climate change on marine ecosystem production in societies dependent on fisheries. Nature Clim. Change 4, 211–216 (2014).

  24. 24.

    & The value of adaptation: Climate change and timberland management. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 65, 452–468 (2013).

  25. 25.

    , , & Impact of regional climate change on human health. Nature 438, 310–317 (2005).

  26. 26.

    et al. Understanding policy coherence: Analytical framework and examples of sector–environment policy interactions in the EU. Environ. Policy Governance 22, 395–423 (2012).

  27. 27.

    Regression analysis when the dependent variable is truncated normal. Econometrica 41, 997–1016 (1973).

  28. 28.

    GQA Headline Indicators of Water Courses (Nutrients) (Environment Agency, 2012)

  29. 29.

    Introducing Geographic Information Systems with ArcGIS 433–443 (John Wiley, 2009).

  30. 30.

    & Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the European Union Marie Curie International Outgoing Fellowship ‘Land Use Change, Environment and Society (LUCES)’ (Ref: FP7-PEOPLE-2011-IOF-302290), the SEER Project, funded by the ESRC (ref: RES-060-25-0063) and WEPGN, Brock University. We thank R. Carson, S. Ferrini and K. Schwabe for their helpful comments on a previous version of this paper, and A. De-Gol for his assistance with the UKCIP data.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, California 92093-0508, USA

    • Carlo Fezzi
  2. CSERGE, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

    • Carlo Fezzi
    • , Amii R. Harwood
    • , Andrew A. Lovett
    •  & Ian J. Bateman

Authors

  1. Search for Carlo Fezzi in:

  2. Search for Amii R. Harwood in:

  3. Search for Andrew A. Lovett in:

  4. Search for Ian J. Bateman in:

Contributions

The analysis was designed by C.F. with contributions from I.J.B. and all the authors, A.R.H. and A.A.L. undertook the data collection and the Geographical Information System analysis, C.F. undertook the econometric analysis of the land-use and the water-quality models, C.F. and I.J.B. wrote the paper with contributions from all the authors.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlo Fezzi.

Supplementary information

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2525

Further reading