MODELING THE IMPACTS OF ARCTIC CLIMATE CHANGE ON ACCESS AND DEVELOPMENT

184 Pages·2013·9.37 MB·English

The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

Department of Geography
MODELING THE IMPACTS OF ARCTIC CLIMATE CHANGE ON ACCESS AND
DEVELOPMENT
A Dissertation in

Geography

by

Justin David VanderBerg
 2013 Justin David VanderBerg
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

December 2013
The dissertation of Justin VanderBerg was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Dr. William E. Easterling III
Dean of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences
Dissertation Advisor
Chair of Committee

Dr. Andrew M. Carleton
Professor
Department of Geography

Dr. John A. Kelmelis
Professor of International Affairs and Affiliate Law Faculty
Courtesy Appointment in Department of Geography

Dr. Anastasia V. Shcherbakova
Assistant Professor
Department of Energy and Mineral Engineering

Dr. Karl Zimmerer
Department Head
Department of Geography

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School
iii

ABSTRACT

The accelerating pace of Arctic climate change is creating economic opportunities in the
newly accessible North. Reductions in sea ice are permitting increasing annual transits of the
Northern Sea Route and expanded resource exploration throughout the Arctic Ocean. Additional
infrastructure in the form of new and expanded ports and roads are required in order to utilize
these emerging opportunities. The timing and location of physical changes allows for estimates
of infrastructure development that will facilitate expanding Arctic accessibility, which it turn
allows for utilization of emerging opportunities.
This dissertation establishes the Climate Infrastructure and Accessibility Model (CIAM)
that explores the relationship between current physical constraints and economic development
patterns, and projects how those patterns may change in response to anticipated changes. CIAM
incorporates sea ice projections from the Max Planck Institute’s Earth System Model (ESM) with
infrastructure projections developed from literature-derived port citing criteria and theory-derived
location factors, to project changes in Arctic accessibility throughout the 21st century.
Accessibility change then identifies how the Arctic economy is likely to reconfigure under
changed physical conditions.
CIAM projects accessibility changes under four scenarios built on two physical pathways
and two economic pathways, thus investigating a range of potential future conditions. The results
suggest unequal impacts with Russia, Alaska, and western Canada emerging as the new Arctic
development centers. Furthermore, CIAM projects that trans-Arctic shipping routes will become
increasingly efficient, although not necessarily shorter through utilization of increasingly open
coastal waters. This dissertation elucidates future Arctic economic configurations, but more
importantly, establishes a framework for exploring integrated impacts of physical and economic
change.
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures..................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... xi
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. xiii

Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
Objective ..................................................................................................................... 8
Chapter 2 Historical Background and Physical Changes ...................................................... 10
The Arctic Frontier ...................................................................................................... 10
History of Arctic Development .................................................................................... 11
Current Arctic Development ........................................................................................ 15
Physical Changes ........................................................................................................ 17
Chapter 3 Literature Review and Theoretical Foundation .................................................... 22
Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 22
Accessibility ........................................................................................................ 23
Arctic Port Development ...................................................................................... 24
Arctic Transportation Infrastructure Development ................................................ 28
Other Factors in Arctic Location Decisions .......................................................... 32
Theoretical Foundations .............................................................................................. 34
Land economics ................................................................................................... 34
Development Economics...................................................................................... 38
Chapter 4 Modeling Methods and Data ............................................................................... 41
Climate Components ................................................................................................... 42
Climate Pathways ................................................................................................ 48
Climate Variables and Data .................................................................................. 49
Accounting for Coordinate Convergence at the Pole ............................................. 52
Accounting for Climate Model Uncertainty .......................................................... 54
Infrastructure Components........................................................................................... 56
Port selection ....................................................................................................... 56
Port Selection Criteria .......................................................................................... 59
Overland Infrastructure Development................................................................... 61
Accessibility Component ............................................................................................. 65
Destinations ......................................................................................................... 66
Accessibility Values and Metrics ......................................................................... 68
Scenario Formulation .................................................................................................. 71
v

Model Validation ........................................................................................................ 73
Climate Infrastructure and Accessibility Model Summary ............................................ 75
Chapter 5 Results and Analysis of the Climate Infrastructure and Accessibility Model ........ 76
Application of CIAM .................................................................................................. 76
Pan-Arctic Climate Projections .................................................................................... 77
Alaska Infrastructure: Port Evaluation and Projection .................................................. 80
Alaska Infrastructure: Road and Rail Development Projections .................................... 92
Alaska Accessibility Calculation ................................................................................. 94
Arctic Infrastructure: Port Evaluation and Projection ................................................... 107
Arctic Infrastructure: Road and Rail Development Projections ..................................... 111
Arctic Accessibility Calculation................................................................................... 113
Implications of CIAM Results ..................................................................................... 137
Shipping Potential ................................................................................................ 137
Discussion and Results Comparison ............................................................................ 145
Chapter 6 Summary and Conclusions .................................................................................. 150
Objective and Approach Summary .............................................................................. 150
Results Summary ........................................................................................................ 151
Major Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 154
Advancement of Theory .............................................................................................. 155
Study Limitations ........................................................................................................ 156
Future Applications ..................................................................................................... 158
Applications for decision makers ......................................................................... 158
References................................................................................................................... 161
vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Political map of Arctic ownership and shipping lanes. The blue shades
depict bathymetry, while black outlined areas represent claimed Exclusive
Economic Zones as demarcated by the Marine Boundaries Geodatabase (Marine
Regions, 2012). Shipping lane data are acquired from the Arctic Marine Shipping
Assessment database of ship tracks (AMSA, 2009). ..................................................... 2
Figure 2-1. Monthly mean Arctic sea ice extent from 1978-2009. Data courtesy National
Snow and Ice Data Center............................................................................................ 20
Figure 3-1. Taaffe et al.’s 1963 model of hinterland accessibility stemming from port
development shows one possible Arctic future whereby a network of roads and rails
creates a fully interconnected transportation network, fostering future development. .... 31
Figure 4-1. The Climate Infrastructure and Accessibility Model (CIAM) development
flow chart. ................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 4-2. Wang and Overland (2012) show modeled sea ice extents from 1950 to 2100
using 7 models under various forcings (RCP 4.5: blue, RCP 6.0: green, and RCP 8.5:
magenta) Observed data shown in red, and control runs shown in grey. ....................... 44
Figure 4-3. Sea ice model comparisons versus actual observations. Top row displays
NSIDCobserved daily sea ice minimum extent from September 2007 (a) and 2012
(b). Middle row displays CCSM4 monthly mean sea ice concentration for
September 2007 (c) and 2012 (d). Bottom row displays ESM monthly mean sea ice
concentration for September 2007 (e) and 2012 (f). ..................................................... 46
Figure 4-4. Max Planck Institute Earth System Model schematic showing the
atmospheric (a), ocean (d), ocean chemistry (e), and terrestrial biosphere (c)
subcomponents and the coupler program (b) that calculates the exchange of energy,
momentum, water, and CO between the subcomponents. ............................................ 47
2
Figure 4-5. RCPs shown in relation to SRES scenarios through mid century. (Figure
from Peters et al., 2012). .............................................................................................. 49
Figure 4-6. Ice-free months during 2010 as forecasted by MPI ESM RPC 4.5. .................... 52
Figure 4-7. Greenland Dipole Projection by Roberts et al., 2006. ........................................ 53
Figure 4-8. MPI ESM sea ice concentration data (Blue = 0%, Red = 100%) imported in
the Greenland Dipole Projection before correction shows data converging on the
displaced Pole over Greenland as opposed to the North Pole.. ...................................... 54
Figure 4-9. Port and overland infrastructure development map for Alaska constructed
from the infrastructure methods described above. Map shows the timing and
location of projected port and road developments (various shades of blue), overlaid
upon current infrastructure (red, maroon, and orange lines), natural resources (pink),
vii

and topography (gray).The timing of infrastructure development is represented by
the various shades of blue. ........................................................................................... 64
Figure 4-10. Map showing the calculated destinations for modeling accessibility................ 67
Figure 4-11. CIAM scenarios shown in context of physical and economic continuums. ...... 73
Figure 5-1. Ice free months over the 21st century. constructed from the MPI ESM under
RCP 4.5. Sea ice monthly extent is calculated for 2010 (A), 2025 (B), 2050 (C),
2075 (D), and 2100 (E). Each time point is calculated as a 5-year average to
minimize interannual variability. ................................................................................. 78
Figure 5-2. Ice free months over the 21st century, constructed from the MPI ESM under
RCP 8.5. Sea ice monthly extent is calculated for 2010 (A), 2025 (B), 2050 (C),
2075 (D), and 2100 (E). Each time point is calculated as a 5-year average to
minimize interannual variability. ................................................................................. 79
Figure 5-3. Potential port locations in proximity to natural resources and infrastructure as
identified by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and the Alaska
Department of Transportation, respectively. ................................................................. 81
Figure 5-4. Potential port locations with proximity to environmentally protected areas as
established by the United Nations World Database on Protected Areas and shipping
lanes as collected by the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment. ..................................... 82
Figure 5-5. Alaska Port Impact Value (PIV) scores displayed as percent of maximum
possible value. ............................................................................................................. 83
Figure 5-6. Preferentially-weighted PIV scores for Alaskan ports. ...................................... 87
Figure 5-7. Alaska port rankings by criteria. Each of the top 5 ports for each criterion
are shown. ................................................................................................................... 90
Figure 5-8. Alaska port and road infrastructure development projections 2010-2100. ........... 93
Figure 5-9. Initial Alaskan accessibility cost in 2010 using scenario 85F calculated under
the RCP 8.5. ................................................................................................................ 95
Figure 5-10. Alaskan accessibility cost in 2025 under scenario 85F. ................................... 96
Figure 5-11. Alaskan accessibility cost in 2050 under scenario 85F. ................................... 97
Figure 5-12. Alaskan accessibility cost in 2075 under scenario 85F. ................................... 98
Figure 5-13. Alaskan accessibility cost in 2100 under scenario 85F. ................................... 99
Figure 5-14. Changed Alaska accessibility from 2010-2100 under scenario 85F. ................ 102
Figure 5-15. Comparison of accessibility differences under scenario 45L (a), 45F (b),
85L (c), and 85F (d).................................................................................................... 104
viii

Figure 5-16. Mean Alaska accessibility values for each scenario. Blue lines represent
RCP 4.5. Red lines represent RCP 4.5. Light blue (higher of the two) represents
45L. Dark blue represents 45F. Light red represents 85L. Dark red represents 85F.
White is the minimum ports-only end-member and black is the ice-free end-member. .. 106
Figure 5-17. Accessibility of selected Alaska Cities projected through 2100. ...................... 107
Figure 5-18. Arctic port evaluation criteria shown with results of PIV scores. Resources,
Environmental Areas, and Shipping Lanes are shown to depict general PIV patterns.
Harbor Depth, and Intermodal Connectivity are not shown. ......................................... 109
Figure 5-19. Arctic port and infrastructure projections. ....................................................... 112
Figure 5-20. Arctic accessibility cost in 2010 under the 85F scenario. Yellow represents
the most accessible and dark blue represents the least accessible areas as calculated
from the Arctic destinations. The white line displays the optimal trans-Arctic
shipping route under these conditions. This particular configuration, 85B or
85baseline, uses current infrastructure (2010) and therefore there is no variation
between 85F and 85L, so the title ―85B‖ is used to avoid duplication. .......................... 114
Figure 5-21. Arctic accessibility calculated as approximate days of travel time. Values
represent average time during the entire year, rather than just summer season. Cost-
time units are converted to days using the mean cost value of major transport modes,
road, rail, and ship. ...................................................................................................... 115
Figure 5-22. Arctic accessibility cost in 2025 under the 85F scenario. Yellow represents
the most accessible and dark blue represents the least accessible areas as calculated
from the Arctic destinations. The white line displays the optimal trans-Arctic
shipping route under these conditions. ......................................................................... 116
Figure 5-23. Arctic accessibility cost in 2050 under the 85F scenario. Yellow represents
the most accessible and dark blue represents the least accessible areas as calculated
from the Arctic destinations. The white line displays the optimal trans-Arctic
shipping route under these conditions. ......................................................................... 118
Figure 5-24. Arctic accessibility cost in 2075 under the 85F scenario. Yellow represents
the most accessible and dark blue represents the least accessible areas as calculated
from the Arctic destinations. The white line displays the optimal trans-Arctic
shipping route under these conditions. ......................................................................... 119
Figure 5-25. Arctic accessibility cost in 2100 under the 85F scenario. Yellow represents
the most accessible and dark blue represents the least accessible areas as calculated
from the Arctic destinations. The white line displays the optimal trans-Arctic
shipping route under these conditions. ......................................................................... 121
Figure 5-26. Arctic accessibility in 2100 under 85F calculated as approximate days of
travel time. Values represent average time during the entire year. Cost-time units
are converted to days using the mean cost value of major transport modes, road, rail,
and ship. ...................................................................................................................... 122
ix

Figure 5-27. Accessibility cost for scenario 85F. Panel shows accessibility calculation
for the Total Expansion Scenario for all five timepoints: 2010 (a), 2025 (b), 2050
(c), 2075 (d), 2100 (e). Destinations are shown (white points) as well as calculated
optimal shipping routes (white line). ............................................................................ 124
Figure 5-28. Accessibility cost for scenario 85L. Panel shows accessibility calculation
for the Limited Coastal Expansion Scenario for all five timepoints: 2010 (a), 2025
(b), 2050 (c), 2075 (d), 2100 (e). Destinations are shown (white points) as well as
calculated optimal shipping routes (white line). ........................................................... 125
Figure 5-29. Accessibility cost for scenario 45F. Panel shows accessibility calculation
for the Emergent Total Expansion Scenario for all five timepoints: 2010 (a), 2025
(b), 2050 (c), 2075 (d), 2100 (e). Destinations are shown (white points) as well as
calculated optimal shipping routes (white line). ........................................................... 127
Figure 5-30. Accessibility cost for scenario 45L. Panel shows accessibility calculation
for the Limited Expansion Scenario for all five timepoints: 2010 (a), 2025 (b), 2050
(c), 2075 (d), 2100 (e). Destinations are shown (white points) as well as calculated
optimal shipping routes (white line). ............................................................................ 128
Figure 5-31. Accessibility cost for end-member scenario MinL. Panel shows
accessibility calculation for the minimum ports-only expansion scenario for all five
timepoints: 2010 (a), 2025 (b), 2050 (c), 2075 (d), 2100 (e). Destinations are shown
(white points) as well as calculated optimal shipping routes (white line). ..................... 130
Figure 5-32. Accessibility cost for end-member scenario MaxF. Panel shows
accessibility calculation for the maximum ice-free expansion scenario for all five
timepoints: 2010 (a), 2025 (b), 2050 (c), 2075 (d), 2100 (e). Destinations are shown
(white points) as well as calculated optimal shipping routes (white line). ..................... 131
Figure 5-33. Changed accessibility under scenario 85F between 2010 and 2100. ................ 133
Figure 5-34. Changed accessibility under various scenarios between 2010 and 2100........... 135
Figure 5-35. Changes in mean accessibility by scenario. Scenarios incorporating RCP
4.5 are displayed in blue and 8.5 in red, and the limited development displayed in
lighter shade of each color and full development displayed in a darker shade. *To
clarify, the x-axis is scaled between 1 billion CTU and 1.5 billion CTU. ...................... 136
Figure 5-36. CIAM optimal shipping route analyses, comparing optimal route distance
(top), total transit time (middle), and total transit cost (bottom) between RCP 4.5
(blue) and 8.5 (red). ..................................................................................................... 138
Figure 5-37. Optimal shipping route comparison showing RCP 4.5 (top) and RCP 8.5
(bottom). Maps show calculated optimal routes for each timepoint in conjunction
with the associated September monthly sea ice minimum. For example, the white
line represents the optimal 2100 shipping route while the white area displays the
estimated September sea ice pack. ............................................................................... 140
x

Figure 5-38. Accessibility change for the 12 largest access potential cities. ......................... 142
Figure 5-39. Arctic development centers under 85F scenario, identified by multiplying
the PIV for each location by the change in accessibility. .............................................. 144
Figure 5-40. Arctic development centers under 45F scenario, identified by multiplying
the PIV for each location by the change in accessibility. .............................................. 145
Figure 5-41. Results comparison with Stephenson et al.,2011 results shown in bottom
panel for baseline period (2000-2014, C) and mid-century (2045-2059, D),
compared with CIAM results of the 85F scenario at 2010 (A) and 2050 (B). ............... 147