Complexity and interdisciplinary approaches to environmental research

Daniel M. Kammen, The need and challenge for <em> Environmental Research Letters </em> , <em> Environmental Research Letters </em> , October-December 2006. (Thanks to Sustainable Research.) An editorial in the inaugural issue of a new OA journal.

It is now commonly understood that much of the worldwide burden of environmental ill health falls disproportionately on poorer peoples [1,2]. There is also substantial evidence that much environmental damage internationally is the result of the actions of richer nations or richer groups within nations—with impacts on poorer nations and poorer groups within nations [1,3,4]. It is becoming clear also that poorer peoples internationally experience multiple environmental harms, and that these may have a cumulative effect. The world is becoming more urbanized, and cities are becoming the locus for many of the local issues of environmental damage and environmental harm [4,5]. But cities are also responsible for substantial international environmental damage: for example, it is increasingly evident that cities are one of the main generators of climate change, and that the actions of people in cities in the rich world are deeply linked to the well-being of the overall ecosystem and of people worldwide. Environmental justice is a concept that links the environmental health science documenting these harms, to debates around rights, justice and equity. It fundamentally deals with the distribution of environmental goods and harms—and looks at who bears those harms and who is responsible for creating those harms, in both a practical sense but also in terms of policy decisions. It is a radical environmental health movement that has evolved from civil society groups, angered at what they perceive as the `unjust' distribution of environmental resources for health and, conversely the `unjust' distribution of environmental harms. The movement now includes a collaboration of non-governmental organizations with environmental scientists, public health professionals, and lawyers, all working on the issue of the distributions of environmental harms and the rights of everyone to a healthy environment.This special issue is both timely and important. Environmental justice is moving conceptually and empirically. It started in the US as a movement of local civil society groups against local environmental injustice and distribution of environmental harms [6]. It is becoming a movement that encompasses international environmental injustices and issues of access to environmental goods—and it discusses environmental justice issues both across countries and also across generations. One such definition was pulled together by academics and NGOs in the UK in 2001:‘that everyone should have the right and be able to live in a healthy environment, with access to enough environmental resources for a healthy life’‘that responsibilities are on this current generation to ensure a healthy environment exists for future generations, and on countries, organisations and individuals in this generation to ensure that development does not create environmental problems or distribute environmental resources in ways which damage other peoples health’ [7].This kind of broad definition of environmental justice has been gaining currency internationally, and language around justice is moving into many topic areas of environmental science—shifting discourse on ‘climate change’ to ‘climate justice’, ‘water pollution’ to ‘rights to clean water’, ‘air pollution’ to ‘rights to healthy air’.Policy is changing too. In Europe the public is gaining more access to information on environmental harms through policy mechanisms such as the Aarhus Convention [8,9] and internationally, civil society groups are becoming aware that there are mechanisms to support them if they challenge environmental pollution. As the public becomes more aware of the issues of environmental justice, and as policy shifts in this direction, environmental scientists have a challenge. We have some of the methodology necessary to measure the distribution of environmental harms and environmental responsibilities. But we also need to develop new methods to deal with the new challenges: for example, how do we measure when an issue of water contamination becomes an issue of environmental injustice? How do we measure the impacts of environmental harm today on future generations? How do we measure the distribution of multiple or cumulative impacts on poorer groups? How do we quantify the responsibility of richer citizens in the world for the environmental harms distributed unequally to the poorer citizens?The papers in this focus issue do not answer all these questions, but we hope that this theme will recur in Environmental Research Letters and that more environmental scientists will begin to frame their analyses around the critical issues of distributions of environmental harms and benefits.

AimBioclimatic envelope models are widely used to describe changes in climatically suitable areas for species under future climate scenarios. Climate change metrics are applied independently of species data to characterize the spatio‐temporal dynamics of climate, and have also been used as indicators of the exposure of species to climate change. Here, we investigate whether these two approaches provide qualitatively similar indications about where biodiversity is potentially most exposed to climate change.LocationSub‐Saharan Africa.MethodsWe compared a range of climate change metrics for sub‐Saharan Africa with ensembles of bioclimatic envelope models for 2723 species of amphibians, snakes, mammals and birds. For each taxonomic group, we performed three comparisons between the two approaches: (1) is projected change in local climatic suitability (models) greater in grid cells with larger temporal differences in local climate (metrics); (2) are projected losses or gains of climatically suitable areas (models) greater for species in grid cells with climates that are projected to be less or more available in the future, respectively (metrics); and (3) are projected shifts in the position of climatically suitable areas (models) greater for species in grid cells with climates projected to move farther in space (metrics)?ResultsThe changes in climatic suitability projected by the bioclimatic envelope models covaried with the climatic changes measured with the metrics. Agreement between the two approaches was found for all taxonomic groups, although it was stronger for species with a narrower climatic envelope breadth.Main conclusionsFor sub‐Saharan African vertebrates, projected patterns of exposure to climate change given by climate change metrics alone were qualitatively comparable to bioclimatic model projections of changes in areas of suitable climate for species. Assessments based on climate change metrics can thus be useful for making first‐cut inferences about the potential effects of climate change on regions with poorly known biodiversity.

Climate Change and Health: Strengthening the Evidence Base for Policy

Landslides are among the deadliest natural hazards. Their impact is the highest in urban areas, where human exposure peaks. However, in addition to increasing exposure, multiple human-induced landscape alterations may also increase the probability of landslide occurrence. Hence, when we consider landslide risk in urban areas, not only does elevated exposure increase risk, but the exposed elements may also alter the frequency and intensity of the hazard.This relationship between exposure and hazard has already been demonstrated in physics-based hazard models that explore landslide potential in informal neighbourhoods. There is also ample evidence of landslides along intercity roads, linking hillslope modification to landslide occurrences. However, the number of observations is limited in urban areas. Here, we discuss the Granizal Landslide that occurred in June 2025, killing 27 people in the Metropolitan Area of the Aburrá Valley, Colombia. The rainfall-induced Granizal Landslide occurred in the steepest section of the urban zone, as could be expected. However, the landslide’s source area coincides with a road and a potentially malfunctioning sewage system, indicating that the exposed elements may have contributed to the landslide[1].The Granizal Landslide is alarming, as such incidents may increase as climate change intensifies. Especially in the tropical urban centres, more extreme rainfall events may overburden water infrastructure, not only informal infrastructure but also infrastructure that complies with the design standards. The statistical thresholds used to design the infrastructure may become inadequate due to shifts in rainfall patterns. Hence, we could broadly argue that climate change may be eroding the knowledge base that we used to design infrastructure. Perhaps not in the Aburrá Valley, but in other places we have already observed landslides in locations with little or no prior experience and risk awareness. This poses an additional risk due to the lack of knowledge among the newly exposed population about effective behavioural responses[2].[1] Ozturk, U., Braun, A., Gómez-Zapata, J. C., and Aristizábal, E.: Urban poor are the most endangered by socio-natural hazards, but not exclusively: the 2025 Granizal Landslide case, Landslides, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-025-02680-y, 2025.[2] Bubeck, P., Ozturk, U., Aristizabal, E., Thieken, A. H., and Wagener, T.: Mortality reduction despite changing climate extremes requires better understanding of human behavioral response to warnings, Environmental Research Letters, 20, 101004, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ae034f, 2025.

2019 Julie S Denslow &amp; Peter Ashton Prizes for the Outstanding Articles Published in <i>Biotropica</i>

Hi Reddit, Last year, I retired from Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy (the only chemist on the faculty!), where I founded and directed the Center for International Environment and Resource Policy (http://fletcher.tufts.edu/CIERP) for 22 years. I supervised many masters’ and doctoral students during that time, including the co-chair of the Paris climate negotiations. I continue to work on climate science and policy, energy, water, forests and oceans to develop scientifically valid and effective strategies and policies. I served as a lead author on five IPCC reports over a 19-year period. Until recently I served as Chief Scientist at Earthwatch Institute (http://earthwatch.org/) and continue to serve as the Chair of their Science Committee. I also serve on the board of directors of Woods Hole Research Center (http://whrc.org/), ranked as the most influential climate think tank for the past two years, and several additional environmental science and consensus building organizations. The science of climate change is complex, and the politics are more so. I have always found the interaction between the two to be fascinating, and remember being shocked as a young scientist that science did not always determine the political outcome of a policy process. I want to share with you the role of science in the outcome of the Paris climate negotiation that just ended on December 11th, 2015. A bit of history: back in the 1980s, a group of scientists convinced some governments that based on their research, the release of heat trapping gases into the atmosphere would heat the earth to a point where there could be uncontrollable and irreversible warming with devastating consequences for all life, including humans. This science prompted two actions. The first was to create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide scientific input to governments on the science, impacts, vulnerabilities, adaptation, and mitigation of climate change. The second was to negotiate an international treaty, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change that was signed by 154 nations in 1992. The Paris negotiations were the 21st meeting of the parties to the original treaty, and its actions both utilized and ignored science in the final outcome. I invite you to join me in a discussion about how science and policy came together and diverged over issues like the 2oC global temperature goal during the recent Paris talks. I’ll be back at 1 pm EST (10 AM PST, 6 pm UTC) to answer your questions, ask me anything! EDIT: We are live! EDIT IN CLOSING: Thank you all for your engagement, and your thoughtful questions. It has been very gratifying to hear your concerns. Let me close with one final thought. So many actions to address climate change have many additional benefits for providing sustainable energy to all and lift people out of poverty. There would be far less damage to the planet and our health if we can make the shift away form fossil fuels. As I said earlier, we also need to do Restorative Development to mobilize the biosphere so that we improve our forests and land quality every time we use them instead of constantly degrading them. Perhaps, you will enjoy one of my favorite cartoons as a closing. http://imgur.com/up6yu

Objectives: The objective of this article is to investigate the dynamic relationship between Climate Science, Policy and Law. It aims to analyse how climate change policy requires accurate information for decision- making, and climate change science needs a ccurate information on economic development. Since neither of these can be achieved, climate change policy has to learn decision-making under uncertainty, and climate change science has to base its projections on possible scenarios and storylines. Methods: The article argues that the link between climate change science and climate change policy are projections of future climate change and impact. Results: The article highlights how initially, concern about the nature of the problems associated with climate change did not invite universal agreement among scientists howsoever; the line of thinking became very much clearer throughout the 1990s. The second assessment report of the IPCC contains general thrust of the scientific arguments. Conclusion: The article concludes that, among policymakers a consensus began to emerge that indeed a problem did exist. The increasingly apocalyptic predictions of the IPCC seem to have won over the policy makers. The apocalyptic prediction entertains the idea that instead of being a gradual process, global warming, may involve a sudden switch to a new climate system

Book ReviewsBook ReviewPublished Online:December 20, 2006https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.11.3.244PDFView Full Text ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInReddit SectionsMoreReferences Allen, I. , Olkin, I. (1999). Estimating time to conduct a meta-analysis from number of citations retrieved. Journal of the American Medical Association, 282, 634– 635 Crossref, Google Scholar Button, K. , Kerr, J. (1996). The effectiveness of traffic restrain policies: A simple meta-regression analysis. International Journal of Transport Economics, 23, 213– 225 Google Scholar Cooper, H. (1989). Integrating research: A guide for literature reviews . Newbury Park: Sage Google Scholar Cooper, H. , Hedges, L.V. Eds. (1994). The handbook of research synthesis . New York: Russell Sage Foundation Google Scholar Lipsey, M.W. , Wilson, D.B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis . Thousand Oakes: Sage Google Scholar Lösel, F. , Beelmann, A. (2003). Effects of child skills training in preventing antisocial behavior: A systematic review of randomized evaluations. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 84– 109 Crossref, Google Scholar Smith, M.L. , Glass, G.V. (1977). Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. American Psychologist, 32, 752– 760 Crossref, Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byUnderstanding and Promoting Industrial Sustainability in Africa Through the Triple Helix Approach: a Conceptual Model and Research Propositions15 May 2020 | Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Vol. 12, No. 3A Systematic Literature Review on RAMS analysis for critical infrastructures protectionInternational Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Vol. 33Business Management and Strategy in Cybersecurity for Digital TransformationHow ideas matter in public policy: a review of concepts, mechanisms, and methodsInternational Review of Public Policy, Vol. 2, No. 3Firm–civil society organizational collaborations in the context of corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives; development of collaboration typologyWorld Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 16, No. 4Risk Factors of Supply Chain in Biopharmaceutical Companies in Iran15 November 2020 | Pharmaceutical Sciences, Vol. 27, No. 3Determinants of low-carbon transport mode adoption: systematic review of reviews21 September 2020 | Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 15, No. 10Production and supply-chain as the basis for SMEs’ environmental management development: a systematic literature reviewJournal of Cleaner ProductionContext awareness in healthcare: a systematic literature review2 July 2019 | Universal Access in the Information Society, Vol. 19, No. 2Patient and physician preferences for type 2 diabetes medications: a systematic review11 November 2019 | Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders, Vol. 18, No. 2Performance measurement for supply chain management and quality management integrationBenchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 27, No. 7System Dynamics in Tourism Planning and Development21 February 2018 | Tourism Planning & Development, Vol. 16, No. 3Use of VR Headsets in Education: A Systematic Review Study31 January 2019 | Journal of Educational Technology and Online LearningTapping into the wearable device revolution in the work environment: a systematic reviewInformation Technology & People, Vol. 31, No. 3Systematic Literature Reviews in Social Sciences and HumanitiesJournal of Information Technology Research, Vol. 11, No. 1Performance measurement in airport settings: a systematic literature reviewBenchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 23, No. 4Meta-analysis of influential factors on crop yield estimation by remote sensing5 March 2014 | International Journal of Remote Sensing, Vol. 35, No. 6Software fault prediction metrics: A systematic literature reviewInformation and Software Technology, Vol. 55, No. 8Family Support in Prevention Programs for Children at Risk for Emotional/Behavioral Problems12 November 2011 | Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, Vol. 14, No. 4 Volume 11Issue 3September 2006ISSN: 1016-9040eISSN: 1878-531X InformationEuropean Psychologist (2006), 11, pp. 244-245 https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.11.3.244.© 2006Hogrefe & Huber PublishersAcknowledgments:PDF download

The geographical literature is contributing with critical insights to the debate on issues connected with climate change asking for a cultural shift on responses. In particular, geographers focus on the implications of mitigation and adaptation policies considering ethical, social, political, and legal aspects. Looking at global mitigation responses, they focus on the complex spatial relations deriving from making carbon into a commodity. They highlight the underlying capitalist vision consisting in continual capital accumulation and growth. As a result, it emerges that approaches and processes determined by solutions like carbon offsets, CO2 lonialism, and GHG inventories do not foundationally address the real causes of the crisis. Looking at adaptation, the geographical literature highlights the need to link adaptation policies to broader processes of socioenvironmental change considering sociocultural, economic, political, financial, and governance processes and involving relations and negotiations at different geographical scales. There is also a debate on the limits to adaptation that indicates transformation as a way to go beyond adaptation: transformation challenges the status quo, threatening those who benefit from current systems and structures. Geographers are giving an important contribution in asking for a cultural shift on developing and managing climate change responses also thanks to the debate on scales, giving insights on the kind of processes that determine the production of scales of action, the kind of knowledge and expertise that dominate, and the priorities favored at different scales. In particular, the geographical literature is focusing on the role of the rescaling of environmental governance in creating its own governance objects, like “the global climate.” The chapter also considers the contribution of the geographical literature to change the perspective of the IPCC on topics like vulnerability, resilience, mitigation, and adaptation policies and to introduce transformation, between the fourth and fifth assessment reports. In particular, the geographical research allowed the IPCC to situate these topics within sociopolitical and socioenvironmental processes.

Elevation-dependent temperature change is a phenomenon found in mountain regions with complex terrain, mostly in the Himalayas and the high terrain of the Tibetan Plateau, where regions in high elevation feature high rates of warming than the region in lower elevation. This pattern referred to as elevation-dependent warming. However, does elevation-dependent warming exist in Eocene hothouse without Tibetan Plateau as well and lower altitude mountain ranges?The Eocene era is considered a replication of the future climate with high atmospheric carbon dioxide. We utilized CESM1.2 as part of the DeepMIP simulations to analyze elevation-dependent temperature change in different mountain ranges in the Eocene and explained the findings using a linear surface energy balance decomposition. The results feature a land-sea contrast with amplification over land and elevation-dependent temperature changes in all mountain ranges with distinct seasonality and pattern. The results suggest that radiative feedback processes have a strong contribution to elevation-dependent warming in the warming climate. Our modeling results provide relevant information for mountain climate change in a past hot climate. Further, the analysis opens new mystery and perspectives related to elevation-dependent warming.&amp;#160;Keywords: Eocene, paleoclimate modeling, elevation-dependent warming, CO2&amp;#160;Related Publication:Kad P, Blau M T, Ha K-J, and Zhu J (2022) Elevation-dependent temperature response in early Eocene using paleoclimate model experiment. Environmental Research Letters, 17(11), 114038. (https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac9c74)

The rise of ‘ecological consciousness’ from the late 1970s onwards has complicated the already hugely contentious field of development policy and studies by adding a reflectivist dynamic, which seems impossible to avoid (see, for example, Beck 1992, 2009; Beck et al. 1994). In this chapter, I want to trace broadly why environmental questions are today central to development debates, and what this means for political debates over the future of our contemporary civilizations. The chapter begins with an outline of the reflectivist challenge posed by ecological concerns, and provides a basic account of the contradictions this raises for development policy and analysis. This is followed by a discussion of some case examples, which help to highlight central problems in the environment/development debate. In the third part, I step sideways to take a look at some of the reasons why the debates take on the forms they have, and investigate the intellectual, practical and political conditions that sustain things in this way. The final part concludes by drawing out three broad ideas central to reconciling environmental and developmental concerns. Before proceeding, I want to put a few preliminaries in place, which will help to scope and evaluate the exposition below. In developing the observations and points that follow, I won’t be able provide any arguments regarding some rather large issues. For example, whether anthropogenic climate change is or is not ‘happening’ is one of the questions that has-rightly or wronglyoccupied most of the headline news on environmental concerns, and has underpinned much political work in multilateral forums. (Think, for instance, of the importance assigned to the allocation of, and trade in, emission permits; see United Nations 1998; HM Treasury 2006). Beneath such pre-eminent, global concerns, others occasionally gain public exposure, such as the problems of ‘food security’, the provision of drinking water, disease control, deforestation and desertification, the integrity of oceanic ecosystems, and waste management; all are intermittently prominent concerns in debates involving scientists, interest groups, governments, bureaucracies, businesses and laypersons. For the purpose of the discussion that follows, I want to move away from one aspect of these discourses that has been fairly pervasive, namely the tendency to treat the issues in question in terms of an either/or logic. On such a reading, for instance, either climate change is (significantly) down to the active transformation of ecological conditions through human activity, or it is a coincidental occurrence, contingent upon cosmic or geological cycles and their implications, but beyond (decisive) human influence. The general expectation is that either of these two positions will eventually be validated on the strength of evidence produced through scientific research. In the meantime, politics revolves around people throwing their lot behind either one of the two approaches, sometimes out of conviction, but more often than not out of selfinterested motives. Once the truth about climate change is established, the condition of uncertainty that feeds the political debates will be removed, and social and political organization be conducted in the light of the new scientfic consensus. This strikes me as unhelpful for the question of how environmental and developmental imperatives may or may not contradict one another, what to do about it, and how to construct an analysis for such purposes. While the question of human agency in climate change is eminently important, for example, for considering some really rather tough questions about justice, both intergenerational and intercultural, the effects of alterations in climatic conditions require responses, whether these particular justice dimensions can be explicated with the help of scientific consensus or not: some of the Pacific Islands, which are threatened by rising sea levels, for example, are home to populations for whom assistance will be essential, whatever the expediencies of the ‘blame’ question might be (COP15 2009). For the purpose of this chapter, I will then assume that the main challenges posed by the ecological question for thinking about development are social and political, rather than about scientific validation, and epistemological arguments over what sorts of criteria should count in the latter. Lest I be misunderstood in this move, this is not to suggest that the debates about the science of climate change and about the ethics of responsibility and guilt are not important and worthwhile; instead, I want to suggest that a rather large part of why environmental questions have the effect of complicating and altering the ‘development’ narrative retains its plausibility and importance irrespective of settling on the science of either climate change, or any of the other constellations alluded to above. As we will see below, the paradoxes posed by considering developmental and environmental imperatives next to one another occur in a variety of contexts with discernible impacts, and are therefore already a persistent part of what people have to negotiate in their day-to-day lives around the world (Bass et al. 2005). Having said this, I should also point out that a constitutive assumption I do make for the purpose of this chapter is that human societies in general do have the proven capacity to alter their natural environment in ways that are potentially, and frequently were, actually detrimental to their ‘interests’. Overexploitation of natural resources has been a frequent contributory cause for the collapse of civilizations, not to speak of smaller communities (indicatively, see Diamond 2006). Once we step inside human history for orienting our frame of reference, we will thus find ample reason for proceeding very carefully with claims regarding links between ‘know-how’ and technology, and ecological sustainability.1.

This article outlines the latest scientific knowledge on global warming/climate change, especially in the meteorological and climatological fields, presented in the fourth assessment report (AR4) from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007, and provides a comparison with the third assessment report (TAR). In the review of WG1 report, we summarize “Observed recent climate change” and “Future climate projection, ” referring to major events and climate variables. In the review of WG2, we summarize the results on the main potential impacts of global warming projected on the natural environment and ecosystems in the future. Finally, a review of downscaling studies is presented, which are very important as they provide a bridge between regional scale climate change information presented in WG1 and WG2.Since TAR, progress in understanding how climate is changing in space and in time has been gained through improvements and extensions of numerous datasets and data analyses, broader geographic coverage, better understanding of uncertainties, and a wider variety of measurements. Understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has also improved. AR4 concludes with very high confidence (higher than TAR) that : i) climate warming is unequivocal and ii) the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming. In studies on the impacts of global warming, understanding of global warming risk is evaluated more quantitatively based on greatly increased studies of observed trends in the physical and biological environment and their relationships with regional climate change, as well as improved future climate projections on a regional scale.

Rapid industrialization and urbanization in the 20th century have led to increasing volumes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere[...]

Climate and land-use changes are posing increasing threats to freshwater-related ecosystem services, acting both on the supply and demand sides. These changes disrupt critical processes such as nutrient cycling, sediment transport, and water flow regulation, leading to declining water quality and reduced ecosystem resilience. There is an urgent need for a deeper understanding of the dynamics of these threats, which can help enhance water management, environmental protection, and human well-being. To effectively tackle these risks, it is essential to quantitatively combine physical hazards and vulnerabilities by pinpointing hotspots where multiple stressors greatly increase the risk of water quality degradation. In response to this challenge, Bayesian network models offer a promising decision-support tool for evaluating adaptation options for water resource management, as they can integrate both quantitative and qualitative data. Building upon this approach, we developed a Spatial Bayesian Network (SBN) model to predict the probability of potential risks to water quality at the river basin scale in Italy and support the goal of achieving good chemical and ecological status according to the Water Framework Directive. This integrated model incorporates the complex relationships between land use change, climate change indicators (e.g., flood and drought intensity), and their combined impacts on water degradation. First, the baseline model uses historical patterns of climate change metrics from the CMCC DSS dataset and land use indicators from the Corine Land Cover as inputs to generate probabilistic predictions of potential risks to water quality. Then, the relationships between these variables are captured in their conditional probabilities, allowing for quantifying interactions and identifying key stressors, paving the way for scenario analysis. Finally, different future scenarios will be developed to predict the changes in water quality, considering projected climate data and socio-economic conditions. The outcome of this analysis contributes to developing an integrated management strategy that will help water managers make decisions and ultimately improve the resilience of freshwater ecosystems while supporting the implementation of adaptation strategies to address such problems.Keywords: Water Framework Directive, Water quality, Climate change, Land-use/ land-cover change Bayesian Network (BN) model