Reflections on cross-impact balances, a systematic method constructing global socio-technical scenarios for climate change research

Experiences with an algorithmic technique—cross-impact balances (CIB)—for exploring scenarios rather than relying solely upon expert intuitions are discussed. With CIB, two types of uncertainty for climate change research have been explored: (1) socio-technical uncertainties not represented explicitly in integrated assessment models (sometimes called “context scenarios”) and (2) sampling the space of possible futures to model. By applying CIB retrospectively and prospectively to two global socio-economic scenario exercises for climate change research (the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios and the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways), CIB proved instructive in two ways. First, CIB revealed system behaviors that were not obvious when social variables, such as quality of governance, were not captured explicitly by integrated assessment models. Second, CIB can algorithmically rank different plausible futures according to their self-consistency. These two capabilities have raised awareness about the limitations of accepting what may be “obvious” to model, as practices that focus solely on quantitative variables or rely upon intuitions for scenario analysis may result in detailed analyses of only a subset of important policy-relevant futures. From these experiences, systematic methods like CIB are recommended in conjunction with more detailed modeling to develop integrated socio-technical scenarios in energy-economy research.

[1]  S. Beck,et al.  The IPCC and the new map of science and politics , 2018, WIREs Climate Change.

[2]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared climate policy assumptions , 2014, Climatic Change.

[3]  E. L. Kelly.  Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and review of the evidence. , 1955 .

[4]  Peter Westoby,et al.  Carbon colonialism and the new land grab: Plantation forestry in Uganda and its livelihood impacts , 2014 .

[5]  Anders Hansson,et al.  From polarization to reluctant acceptance–bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and the post-normalization of the climate debate , 2019, Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences.

[6]  Wolfgang Lucht,et al.  Biomass-based negative emissions difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries , 2018, Nature Climate Change.

[7]  Elisabeth A. Lloyd.  Objectivity and the double standard for feminist epistemologies , 2005, Synthese.

[8]  Kevin Ashton.  How to Fly a Horse: The Secret History of Creation, Invention, and Discovery , 2001 .

[9]  William F. Lamb,et al.  Negative emissions—Part 3: Innovation and upscaling , 2018 .

[10]  Brian C. O'Neill,et al.  The Need for and Use of Socio-Economic Scenarios for Climate Change Analysis , 2012 .

[11]  Vaclav Smil,et al.  Energy at the Crossroads: Global Perspectives and Uncertainties , 2005 .

[12]  Henrik Carlsen,et al.  Transparent scenario development , 2017 .

[13]  P. Kyle,et al.  The SSP4: A world of deepening inequality , 2017 .

[14]  Benjamin L. Preston,et al.  Extending the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways for sub-national impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability studies , 2015 .

[15]  Heleen de Coninck,et al.  Technical Summary. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways , 2018 .

[16]  Robert U. Ayres,et al.  On Forecasting Discontinuities , 2000 .

[17]  Dale S. Rothman,et al.  Multi-scale narratives from an IA perspective: Part I. European and Mediterranean scenario development , 2006 .

[18]  A. Thomson,et al.  The representative concentration pathways: an overview , 2011 .

[19]  Thomas J. Wilbanks,et al.  SSPs from an impact and adaptation perspective , 2014, Climatic Change.

[20]  T. Carter,et al.  This chapter should be cited as: , 2022 .

[21]  Jude Herijadi Kurniawan,et al.  Systematically linking qualitative elements of scenarios across levels, scales, and sectors , 2016, Environ. Model. Softw..

[22]  Wim Carton,et al.  “Fixing” Climate Change by Mortgaging the Future: Negative Emissions, Spatiotemporal Fixes, and the Political Economy of Delay , 2019, Antipode.

[23]  Lukas H. Meyer,et al.  Summary for Policymakers , 2022, The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.

[24]  Alexei G. Sankovski,et al.  Special report on emissions scenarios : a special report of Working group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2000 .

[25]  Peter C. Bishop,et al.  The current state of scenario development: an overview of techniques , 2007 .

[26]  Heather Douglas,et al.  The Irreducible Complexity of Objectivity , 2004, Synthese.

[27]  Vanessa J. Schweizer,et al.  Systematic construction of global socioeconomic pathways using internally consistent element combinations , 2014, Climatic Change.

[28]  W. Lucht,et al.  Trade‐offs for food production, nature conservation and climate limit the terrestrial carbon dioxide removal potential , 2017, Global change biology.

[29]  Erin Bohensky,et al.  Young Scholars Dialogue, part of a Special Feature on Scenarios of global ecosystem services Linking Futures across Scales: a Dialog on Multiscale Scenarios , 2007 .

[30]  Bengt Johansson,et al.  Systematic exploration of scenario spaces , 2016 .

[31]  A. Weale.  Embedded Case Study Methods: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Knowledge , 2003 .

[32]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways , 2013, Climatic Change.

[33]  Joanna Isobel House,et al.  Climate change 2001 : synthesis report , 2001 .

[34]  Dale S. Rothman,et al.  Challenges to adaptation: a fundamental concept for the shared socio-economic pathways and beyond , 2014, Climatic Change.

[35]  Witold-Roger Poganietz,et al.  Building scenarios for energy consumption of private households in Germany using a multi-level cross-impact balance approach , 2017 .

[36]  N. Nakicenovic,et al.  Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions , 2016 .

[37]  Jan Corfee-Morlot,et al.  Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “reasons for concern” , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[38]  Jonathan G. Koomey,et al.  WHAT CAN HISTORY TEACH US? A Retrospective Examination of Long-Term Energy Forecasts for the United States* , 2002 .

[39]  David W. Cash,et al.  Knowledge systems for sustainable development , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[40]  Arnim Wiek,et al.  The evolution of the IPCC's emissions scenarios , 2009 .

[41]  Céline Guivarch,et al.  Scenario techniques for energy and environmental research: An overview of recent developments to broaden the capacity to deal with complexity and uncertainty , 2017, Environ. Model. Softw..

[42]  Wolfgang Weimer-Jehle,et al.  Cross-impact balances: A system-theoretical approach to cross-impact analysis , 2006 .

[43]  Thomas Henrichs,et al.  Linking scenarios across geographical scales in international environmental assessments , 2007 .

[44]  Céline Guivarch,et al.  Scenario Techniques for Energy and Environmental Research , 2017 .

[45]  J. Alcamo,et al.  Scenarios as Tools for International Environmental Assessments , 2002 .

[46]  Pierre Wack,et al.  Scenarios : Uncharted Waters Ahead , 1996 .

[47]  Ottmar Edenhofer,et al.  Scientific assessments to facilitate deliberative policy learning , 2016, Palgrave Communications.

[48]  Frans Berkhout,et al.  A proposal for a new scenario framework to support research and assessment in different climate research communities , 2012 .

[49]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  Open discussion of negative emissions is urgently needed , 2017 .

[50]  E. Brody.  Science as Social Knowledge. Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry , 1990 .

[51]  Jan Rotmans,et al.  Uncertainty in Integrated Assessment Modelling , 2002 .

[52]  Peter M. Haas,et al.  A road map for global environmental assessments , 2017 .

[53]  Max Henrion,et al.  Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis , 1990 .

[54]  G. Finnveden,et al.  Scenario types and techniques: Towards a user's guide , 2006 .

[55]  Hannah Kosow,et al.  Context scenarios and their usage for the construction of socio-technical energy scenarios , 2016 .

[56]  Peter Christoff,et al.  Co-producing climate policy and negative emissions: trade-offs for sustainable land-use , 2018, Global Sustainability.

[57]  P. Meehl.  Causes and effects of my disturbing little book. , 1986, Journal of personality assessment.

[58]  Aisling Kelliher,et al.  Scenarios and the art of worldmaking , 2015 .

[59]  E. Parson,et al.  Opinion: Climate policymakers and assessments must get serious about climate engineering , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[60]  Vaclav Smil,et al.  Perils of Long-Range Energy Forecasting , 2000 .

[61]  David W. Keith,et al.  Improving the way we think about projecting future energy use and emissions of carbon dioxide , 2008 .

[62]  Peter Schwartz,et al.  The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World , 1996 .

[63]  Tom Ritchey,et al.  General morphological analysis as a basic scientific modelling method , 2018 .

[64]  S. Beck,et al.  The IPCC and the politics of anticipation , 2017 .

[65]  William D. Nordhaus,et al.  Revisiting the social cost of carbon , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[66]  W. Grove,et al.  Clinical versus statistical prediction: the contribution of Paul E. Meehl. , 2005, Journal of clinical psychology.

[67]  Elmar Kriegler,et al.  Improving environmental change research with systematic techniques for qualitative scenarios , 2012 .

[68]  Wolfgang Weimer-Jehle.  Properties of Cross-Impact Balance Analysis , 2009 .

[69]  John F. B. Mitchell,et al.  The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment , 2010, Nature.

[70]  Jude Herijadi Kurniawan,et al.  What Scenarios Are You Missing? Poststructuralism for Deconstructing and Reconstructing Organizational Futures , 2018 .

[71]  Mark Rounsevell,et al.  Developing qualitative scenario storylines for environmental change assessment , 2010 .

[72]  Elisabeth A. Lloyd,et al.  Objectivity and a comparison of methodological scenario approaches for climate change research , 2013, Synthese.

[73]  William F. Lamb,et al.  Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects , 2018 .

[74]  Céline Guivarch,et al.  The diversity of socio-economic pathways and CO2 emissions scenarios: Insights from the investigation of a scenarios database , 2016, Environ. Model. Softw..

[75]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Nonpersuasive communication about matters of greatest urgency: climate change. , 2007, Environmental science & technology.

[76]  GuivarchCéline,et al.  The diversity of socio-economic pathways and CO2 emissions scenarios , 2016 .

[77]  Eric Kemp-Benedict,et al.  Large-scale scenarios as ‘boundary conditions’: A cross-impact balance simulated annealing (CIBSA) approach , 2019, Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

[78]  J. Palutikof,et al.  Climate change 2007 : impacts, adaptation and vulnerability , 2001 .

[79]  K. Riahi,et al.  The roads ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century , 2017 .

[80]  Chris Bataille,et al.  The Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project , 2018 .

[81]  Per Wikman-Svahn,et al.  Choosing small sets of policy-relevant scenarios by combining vulnerability and diversity approaches , 2016, Environ. Model. Softw..

[82]  Nebojsa Nakicenovic,et al.  A Framework for the Development of New Socio-economic Scenarios for Climate Change Research: Introductory Essay , 2014, Climatic Change.

[83]  Georgina H. Endfield,et al.  Climate and colonialism , 2018 .

[84]  Arnim Wiek,et al.  Functions of scenarios in transition processes , 2006 .

[85]  Danny Pudjianto,et al.  Linking a storyline with multiple models: A cross-scale study of the UK power system transition , 2014 .

[86]  Gregor Betz,et al.  In defence of the value free ideal , 2013 .

[87]  Roland W. Scholz,et al.  Embedded Case Study Methods , 2002 .

[88]  K. Riahi,et al.  The Shared Socio-economic Pathways : Trajectories for human development and global environmental change , 2017 .

[89]  Felix Creutzig,et al.  Negative emissions—Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis , 2018 .

[90]  Wolfgang Weimer-Jehle,et al.  Introduction to the special issue ‘Integrated scenario building in energy transition research’ , 2020, Climatic Change.

[91]  Brian C. O'Neill,et al.  Meeting Report of the Workshop on The Nature and Use of New Socioeconomic Pathways for Climate Change Research , 2012 .

[92]  G. Ropohl.  PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIO-TECHNICAL SYSTEMS , 1999 .

[93]  S. Inayatullah.  Causal layered analysis , 1998 .

[94]  Hannah Kosow,et al.  The best of both worlds? : An exploratory study on forms and effects of new qualitative-quantitative scenario methodologies , 2016 .

[95]  Olaf Tietje,et al.  Identification of a small reliable and efficient set of consistent scenarios , 2005, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[96]  Cynthia Selin,et al.  Trust and the illusive force of scenarios , 2006 .

[97]  Alejandro Esguerra,et al.  Future objects: tracing the socio-material politics of anticipation , 2019, Sustainability Science.

[98]  P. Burger.  Embedded Case Study Methods: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Knowledge , 2001 .

[99]  Wolfgang Weimer-Jehle,et al.  Cross-impact balances , 2008 .

[100]  Tadhg O’ Mahony,et al.  Integrated scenarios for energy: A methodology for the short term , 2014 .

[101]  Rachel E. Mitchell,et al.  The Human Dimensions of Climate Risk in Africa's Low and Lower-Middle Income Countries , 2018 .

[102]  Joseph Alcamo,et al.  Chapter Six The SAS Approach: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Knowledge in Environmental Scenarios , 2008 .

[103]  Heather Douglas.  Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal , 2009 .

[104]  D. Kahneman.  Thinking, Fast and Slow , 2011 .

[105]  J. Edmonds,et al.  A new scenario framework for climate change research: background, process, and future directions , 2013, Climatic Change.

[106]  Yulia Yamineva,et al.  Lessons from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on inclusiveness across geographies and stakeholders , 2017 .