Abstract
Participatory integrated assessments (PIAs) can be defined as ‘an IA approach in which social stakeholders… contribute their knowledge and policy preferences to the assessment of complex policy problems’ (Schlumpf et al. 1999: p. 2). PIAs often involve dialogues between scientists, decision-makers and other stakeholders. Participatory research is increasingly used in integrated assessments (IAs) of climate change (Dahinden et al. 2000; Kloprogge and van der Sluijs 2006). PIAs differ with respect to their degree of involvement of stakeholders (Van de Kerkhof 2004). Here, we focus on PIAs with co-productive participation, where the IA is carried out in co-production between stakeholders and scientists (Van de Kerkhof 2004). In co-productive PIAs, participants decide what information to use and therefore also decide what models they are willing to use for producing the integrated insights in the PIA.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The AGBM is a UNFCCC body which was established at the first Conference of the Parties in 1995, aimed to assist the Kyoto negotiations by assessing greenhouse gas emission reduction options, targets and time frames ‘in the light of the best available scientific information’ (UNFCCC 1995, Art.2,3).
- 2.
We are indebted to Dale Rothman, for pointing this out in his review.
References
Berk, M., van Daalen, E., & Grünfeld, H. (1995). First International Workshop on Using the IMAGE 2 Model to Support Climate Negotiations, Summary Report, Delft, Faculty of Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and Management, and National Institute of Public Health and Environment.
Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H., Jäger, J., & Mitchell, R. B. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100, 8086–8091.
Cuppen, E., Leemans, R., Hisschemöller, M., & Stalpers, S. I. P. (2007, May 24–26). Enhancing the use of scientific models in participatory integrated assessment: Applying a method to articulate argumentations to the IMAGE 2.2 model. In Amsterdam Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, Amsterdam.
Dahinden, U., Querol, C., Jäger, J., & Nilsson, M. (2000). Exploring the use of computer models in participatory integrated assessment – Experiences and recommendations for further steps. Integrated Assessment, 1(4), 253–266.
Dowlatabadi, H. (1995). Integrated assessment models of climate change: An incomplete overview. Energy Policy, 23(4–5), 289–296.
Dumont, E., Bakker, E. J., Bouwman, A. F., Kroeze, C., Leemans, R., & Stein, A. (2008). A framework to identify appropriate spatial and temporal scales for modelling N flows from watersheds. Ecological Modelling, 212(3–4), 256–272.
Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15(2), 226–243.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755.
Gabbert, S., & Kroeze, C. (2003). Uncertainty analysis in integrated assessment models for acidification. In J. Wesseler, H.-P. Weikard, & R. D. Weaver (Eds.), Risk and uncertainty in environmental and natural resource economics (pp. 189–214). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Gupta, J., van Asselt, H., Amelung, B., Berk, M., Buiteveld, H., Dalenoord, E., Hein, L., Huynen, M., Kuik, O., Leemans, R., Martens, P., Mulder, J., Oost, A., Schaeffer, M., Verbeek, K., & van der Wegen, M. (2004). Re-evaluation of the Netherlands’ long-term climate targets, summary report. Institute for Environmental Studies, Free University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
Holman, I. P., & Loveland, P. J. E. (2001). Regional climate change impact and response studies in East Anglia and North West England (RegIS). London, UK: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs.
IMAGE-team (2001). The IMAGE 2.2 Implementation of the SRES Scenarios: A comprehensive analysis of emissions, climate change and impacts in the 21st century. RIVM CD-ROM publication 481508018.
IPCC (2005). Guidance notes for lead authors of the IPCC fourth assessment report on addressing uncertainties. IPCC, Geneva.
Kloprogge, P., & van der Sluijs, J. P. (2006). The inclusion of stakeholder knowledge and perspectives in integrated assessment of climate change. Climatic Change, 75, 359–389.
McNie, E. C. (2007). Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: An analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environmental Science & Policy, 10(1), 17–38.
Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system. Hartland: The Sustainability Institute.
Parker, P., Letcher, R., Jakeman, A., Beck, M. B., Harris, G., Argent, R. M., Hare, M., Pahl-Wostl, C., Voinov, A., Janssen, M., Sullivan, P., Scoccimarro, M., Friend, A., Sonnenshein, M., Barker, D., Matejicek, L., Odulaja, D., Deadman, P., Lim, K., Larocque, G., Tarikhi, P., Fletcher, C., Put, A., Maxwell, T., Charles, A., Breeze, H., Nakatani, N., Mudgal, S., Naito, W., Osidele, O., Eriksson, I., Kautsky, U., Kautsky, E., Naeslund, B., Kumblad, L., Park, R., Maltagliati, S., Girardin, P., Rizzoli, A., Mauriello, D., Hoch, R., Pelletier, D., Reilly, J., Olafsdottir, R., & Bin, S. (2002). Progress in integrated assessment and modelling. Environmental Modelling & Software, 17(3), 209–217.
Peterson, S. (2006). Uncertainty and economic analysis of climate change: A survey of approaches and findings. Environmental Modelling and Assessment, 11(1), 1–17.
Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7(5), 385.
Schlumpf, C., Behringer, J., Dürrenberger, G., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (1999). The personal CO2-calculator: A modelling tool for participatory integrated assessment methods. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 4(1), 1–12.
Schröter, D., Cramer, W., Leemans, R., Prentice, I. C., Araujo, M. B., Arnell, N. W., Bondeau, A., Bugmann, H., Carter, T. R., Gracia, C. A., de la Vega-Leinert, A. C., Erhard, M., Ewert, F., Glendining, M., House, J. I., Kankaanpaa, S., Klein, R. J. T., Lavorel, S., Lindner, M., Metzger, M. J., Meyer, J., Mitchell, T. D., Reginster, I., Rounsevell, M., Sabate, S., Sitch, S., Smith, B., Smith, J., Smith, P., Sykes, M. T., Thonicke, K., Thuiller, W., Tuck, G., Zaehle, S., & Zierl, B. (2005). Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science, 310(5752), 1333–1337.
Schröter, D., Polsky, C., & Patt, A. (2005). Assessing vulnerabilities to the effects of global change: An eight step approach. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 10(4), 573–595.
Siebenhüner, B., & Barth, V. (2005). The role of computer modelling in participatory integrated assessments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(4), 367–389.
Stalpers, S. I. P., van Amstel, A. R., Dellink, R. B., Mulder, I., Werners, S. E., & Kroeze, C. (2007). Lessons learnt from a participatory integrated assessment of greenhouse gas emission reduction options in firms. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 13(4), 359–378.
Stalpers, S. I. P., van Ierland, E. C., & Kroeze, C. (2009). Reconciling model results with user needs to improve climate policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(7), 959–969.
Toth, F. L., & Hizsnyik, E. (1998). Integrated environmental assessment methods: Evolution and applications. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 3, 193–207.
Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1979). An introduction to reasoning. New York: Macmillan.
Tuinstra, W., Hordijk, L., & Kroeze, C. (2006). Moving boundaries in transboundary air pollution: Co-production of science and policy under the convention on long range transboundary air pollution. Global Environmental Change, 16(4), 349–363.
UNFCCC (1995). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its First Session. Berlin, 27 March–7 April 1995, FCCC/CP/1995/7.
Van Aardenne, J. A. (2002). Uncertainties in emission inventories (p. 143). Wageningen: Wageningen University.
Van Asselt, M. B. A. (2000). Perspectives on uncertainty and risk: The PRIMA approach to decision support. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Van Asselt, M. B. A., & Rotmans, J. (1996). Uncertainty in perspective. Global Environmental Change, 6(2), 121–157.
Van Daalen, E., & Grünfeld, H. (1995). Second International Workshop on Using the IMAGE 2 Model to Support Climate Negotiations, Summary Report, Delft, Faculty of Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and Management, and National Institute of Public Health and Environment.
Van Daalen, E., & Grünfeld, H. (1996). Third International Workshop on Using the IMAGE 2 Model to Support Climate Negotiations, Summary Report, Delft, Faculty of Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and Management, and National Institute of Public Health and Environment.
Van Daalen, C. E., Thissen, W. A. H., & Berk, M. M. (1998). The delft process: Experiences with a dialogue between policy makers and global modelers. In J. Alcamo, R. Leemans, & E. Kreileman (Eds.), Global change scenarios of the 21st century, results from the IMAGE 2.1 model (pp. 267–285). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Van de Kerkhof, M. (2004). Debating climate change: A study of stakeholder participation in an integrated assessment of long-term climate policy in the Netherlands. Utrecht: Lemma.
Van de Kerkhof, M., & Leroy, P. (2000). Recent environmental research in the Netherlands: Towards post-normal science? Futures, 32(9–10), 899.
Van der Sluijs, J. P. (1997). Anchoring amid uncertainty: On the management of uncertainties in risk assessment of anthropogenic climate change. Ph.D. thesis Faculteit Scheikunde, Utrecht University, Utrecht.
Van der Sluijs, J. P., Craye, M., Funtowicz, S., Kloprogge, P., Ravetz, J., & Risbey, J. (2005). Combining quantitative and qualitative measures of uncertainty in model based foresight studies: The NUSAP system. Risk Analysis, 25(2), 481–492.
Van Ierland, E. C., de Groot, R. S., Kuikman, P. J., Martens, P., Amelung, B., Daan, N., Huynen, M., Kramer, K., Szonyi, J., Veraart, J., Verhagen, A., van Vliet, A., van Walsum, P. E. V., & Westein, E. (2001). Integrated assessment of vulnerability to climate change and adaptation options in the Netherlands. Bilthoven: RIVM.
Yearley, S., Forrester, J., & Bailey, P. (2001). Participation and expert knowledge: A case study analysis of scientific models and their publics. In M. Hisschemöller, R. Hoppe, W. Dunn, & J. Ravetz (Eds.), Knowledge, power, and participation in environmental policy analysis (pp. 47–72). New Jersey: Transaction.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Dale Rothman, Eefje Cuppen, Matthijs Hisschemöller, Rik Leemans and Ekko van Ierland for comments; members of COST Action 22 for lively and useful discussions; and participants of the 2007 Amsterdam Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change ‘Earth System Governance: Theories and Strategies for Sustainability’, 24–26 May 2007, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, and the COST A22 Conference ‘From Oracles to Dialogue’, 9–11 July 2007, National Technical University, Athens, at which a previous version of this chapter was presented.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stalpers, S., Kroeze, C. (2013). Willingness of Stakeholders to Use Models for Climate Policy: The Delft Process. In: Giaoutzi, M., Sapio, B. (eds) Recent Developments in Foresight Methodologies. Complex Networks and Dynamic Systems, vol 1. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5215-7_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5215-7_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5214-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5215-7
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)