Climatic Change

, Volume 128, Issue 3–4, pp 187–200 | Cite as

European participatory scenario development: strengthening the link between stories and models

  • Kasper Kok
  • Ilona Bärlund
  • Martina Flörke
  • Ian Holman
  • Marc Gramberger
  • Jan Sendzimir
  • Benjamin Stuch
  • Katharina Zellmer
Article

Abstract

Scenario development methods get to grips with taking a long-term view on complex issues such as climate change through involvement of stakeholders. Many of the recent (global) scenario exercises have been structured according to a Story-and-Simulation approach. Although elaborately studied, conceptual and practical issues remain in linking qualitative stories and quantitative models. In this paper, we show how stakeholders can directly estimate model parameter values using a three-step approach called Fuzzy Set Theory. We focus on the effect of multiple iterations between stories and models. Results show that we were successful in quickly delivering stakeholder-based quantification of key model parameters, with full consistency between linguistic terms used in stories and numeric values. Yet, values changed strongly from one iteration to the next. A minimum of two and preferably at least three iterations is needed to harmonise stories and models. We conclude that the application of Fuzzy Set Theory enabled a highly valuable, structured and reproducible process to increase consistency between stories and models, but that future work is needed to show its true potential, particularly related to the effect of iterations. Additionally, the number of tools that need to be applied in a short period of time to execute a Story-And-Simulation approach introduces drawbacks that need to be studied. However, an approach such as Story-And-Simulation is indispensable and effective in marrying the perspectives of scientists and other stakeholders when studying complex systems and complex problems.

Keywords

Linguistic Term Fuzzy Membership Function Group Model Building Qualitative Scenario Iteration Round 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by SCENES (EC-funded FP6, contract number 036822) and CLIMAVE (EC-funded FP7, contract number 244031). We wish to thank also all stakeholders that were involved in the process of scenario development.

Supplementary material

10584_2014_1143_MOESM1_ESM.docx (8.7 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 8.72 kb)

References

  1. Alcamo J (2008) Environmental futures: the practice of environmental scenario analysis. Developments in Integrated Environmental Assessment—Volume 2. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcamo J, Van Vuuren D, Rosegrant M et al (2005) Methodology for developing the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment scenarios. In: Carpenter SR et al (eds) Ecosystems and human well-being: scenarios. Findings of the Scenarios Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington, pp 145–172Google Scholar
  3. Amer M, Daim TU, Jetter A (2013) A review of scenario planning. Futures 46:23–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aus der Beek T, Flörke M, Lapola DM, Schaldach R (2010) Modelling historical and current irrigation water demand on the continental scale: Europe. Adv Geosci 27:79–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carpenter SR, Pingali PL, Bennett EM et al (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: scenarios. Findings of the Scenarios Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  6. Damigos D, Anyfantis F (2011) The value of view through the eyes of real estate experts: a Fuzzy Delphi Approach. Landsc Urban Plan 101:171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EEA (2005) The European environment. State and outlook 2005. EEA, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  8. EEA (2007) Land-use scenarios for Europe: qualitative and quantitative analysis on a European scale (PRELUDE). EEA, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  9. EEA (2010) The European Environment, state and outlook 2010. Assessment of global megatrends. EEA, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  10. Eierdanz F, Alcamo A, Acosta-Michlik L et al (2008) Using fuzzy set theory to address the uncertainty of susceptibility to drought. Reg Environ Chang 8:197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Flörke M, Bärlund I, Schneider C et al (2012) Pan-European freshwater resources in a changing environment: how will the Black Sea region develop? Water Sci Technol 12:563–572Google Scholar
  12. Flörke M, Kynast E, Bärlund I et al (2013) Domestic and industrial water uses of the past 60 years as a mirror of socio-economic development: a global simulation study. Glob Environ Chang 23:144–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gallopín G, Hammond A, Raskin P, et al. (1997) Branch Points: Global scenarios and human choice. PoleStar Series Report no. 7, Stockholm Environment Institute, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  14. Gramberger M, Zellmer M, Kok K, Metzger M (submitted for this issue) Stakeholder Integrated Research (STIR): A new approach tested in climate change adaptation research. Climatic ChangeGoogle Scholar
  15. Harrison PA, Holman IP, Cojacaru G et al (2013) Combining qualitative and quantitative understanding for exploring cross-sectoral climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability in Europe. Reg Environ Chang 13:761–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harrison PA, Holman IP, Berry PM (submitted for this issue) Assessing cross-sectoral climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation:An introduction to the CLIMSAVE project. Climatic ChangeGoogle Scholar
  17. Henrichs T, Zurek M, Eickhout B et al (2010) Scenario Development and Analysis for forward-looking ecosystem assessments. Chapter 5. In: UNEP (ed) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: a Manual for Assessment Practitioners. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  18. Holman, IP, Harrison, PA (2011) Report describing the development and validation of the sectoral meta-models for integration into the IA platform. CLIMSAVE Deliverable 2.2. Available online at http://www.climsave.eu/climsave/outputs.html
  19. Holman IP, Rounsevell MDA, Cojacaru G et al (2008) The concepts and development of a participatory regional integrated assessment tool. Clim Chang 90:5–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jetter, AJ, Kok, K (2014) Fuzzy Cognitive Maps for futures studies. A methodological assessment of concepts and methods. Futures: accepted for publicationGoogle Scholar
  21. Kok K (2009) The potential of Fuzzy Cognitive Maps for semi-quantitative scenario development, with an example from Brazil. Glob Environ Chang 19:122–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kok K, Van Delden H (2013) Linking narrative storylines and quantitative models to combat desertification in the Guadalentín watershed (Spain). In: Giaoutzi M, Sapio B (eds) Recent developments in foresight methodologies. Complex Networks and Dynamic Systems 1. Springer, New York, pp 203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kok K, Patel M, Rothman DS, Quaranta G (2006) Multi-scale narratives from an IA perspective: Part II. Participatory local scenario development. Futures 38:285–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kok K, Van Vliet M, Bärlund I, Dubel A, Sendzimir J (2011) Combining participative backcasting and explorative scenario development: experiences from the SCENES project. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 78(5):835–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Raskin P, Tariq B, Gallopín G et al. (2002) Great transition: the promise and lure of the times ahead. SEI PoleStar Series Report no. 10. Stockholm Environment Institute, BostonGoogle Scholar
  26. Rothman DS, Agard J, Alcamo J (2007) Chapter 9: the future today. Global Environment Outlook 4: environment for development. UNEP, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  27. Rotmans J, Van Asselt MBA, Anastasi C et al (2000) Visions for a sustainable Europe. Futures 32:809–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schaldach R, Koch J, aus der Beek T et al (2012) Current and future irrigation water requirements in pan-Europe: a comparative analysis of influencing factors. Glob Planet Chang 94–95:33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. UNEP (2007) Global Environment Outlook 4: Environment for development. UNEP, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  30. Van Notten PWF, Rotmans J, Van Asselt MBA et al (2001) An updated scenario typology. Futures 35:423–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van’t Klooster SA, Van Asselt MBA (2006) Practising the scenario-axes technique. Futures 38:15–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Verzano K, Bärlund I, Flörke M (2012) Modeling variable river flow velocity on continental scale: current situation and climate change impacts in Europe. J Hydrol 424–42:238–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kasper Kok
    • 1
  • Ilona Bärlund
    • 2
  • Martina Flörke
    • 3
  • Ian Holman
    • 4
  • Marc Gramberger
    • 5
  • Jan Sendzimir
    • 6
  • Benjamin Stuch
    • 3
  • Katharina Zellmer
    • 5
  1. 1.Soil Geography and Landscape GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ)MagdeburgGermany
  3. 3.Center for Environmental Systems ResearchUniversity of KasselKasselGermany
  4. 4.Cranfield Water Science InstituteCranfield UniversityBedfordUK
  5. 5.Prospex bvbaKeerbergenBelgium
  6. 6.International Institute for Applied Systems AnalysisLaxenburgAustria

Personalised recommendations