Advertisement

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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 199

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Ritchey (2018) provides a typology of scientific modeling methods (see Ritchey’s Table 2). In this typology, CIB can be situated as a dynamic model employing discrete variables whose relationships are directed (i.e., CIB models contain dependent and independent variables). Variable interrelationships are quantified on an ordinal scale, and interrelationships can represent mathematical, logical, or non-causal relationships (e.g., correlations). CIB collects data in a pairwise fashion, so it resembles an acyclic model. However, cyclic connectivity between variables (i.e., circular feedback) is uncovered through the impact-balance calculation that determines whether scenarios are internally consistent. In Ritchey’s hierarchy of scientific models, CIB has greater information content than morphological analysis and occupies modeling typology spaces proximal to Bayesian Networks. A key difference between CIB and Bayesian Networks, however, is that CIB does not employ probabilistic connections between variables.

  2. 2.

    In principle, CIB is a Turing machine, which means that it can represent any finite-state system (Weimer-Jehle 2009).

  3. 3.

    In CIB, internal consistency is the criterion for selecting a small number of scenarios from a large set of possibilities. Tietje (2005) makes a similar argument for consistency analysis as part of Formative Scenario Analysis (Scholz and Tietje 2002). Börjeson et al. (2006) insinuate this purpose as well in their discussion of consistency techniques for scenario analysis (with the methods of cross-impact analysis and morphological analysis provided as examples). However, as summarized by Alcamo (2001), the characteristics of good scenarios include not only the internal consistency but also the ability to broaden the understanding of experts and decision makers. Focusing on the latter characteristic, proponents of diversity analysis (Amanatidou et al. 2016; Carlsen et al. 2016) argue that a formal approach to maximizing differences between alternative scenarios, rather than internal consistency, can be used to select a small number.

  4. 4.

    Bell (1997) provides a helpful ontological explanation for why holistic judgments about plausible futures overwhelm human judgment. After acknowledging that simple individual events have frequentist and subjective probabilities, he adds that complex events are “the intersection of two (or more) causal chains” (p. 153). Such intersections are akin to “being at the right place at the right time” and are the simultaneous event combinations that CIB systematically searches for. In CIB, the complete matrix of cross-impacts acts as a database embedding causal chains for each state of each scenario driver in the system under study.

  5. 5.

    How scientific inquiry manages to result in knowledge with predictive power is explored by philosophers of science. A key claim is that objective methods may foster objectivity in study results (Reiss and Sprenger 2017), which, in turn, may be useful for policy recommendations. Objectivity is an ideal never fully achieved; nevertheless, most philosophers have argued that objectivity in science is worth preserving and maximizing. As thoroughly discussed by Lloyd and Schweizer (2014), CIB better exemplifies objectivity across multiple dimensions compared with the well-established scenario approach of Intuitive Logics.

  6. 6.

    Absar and Preston (2015) demonstrate narrative downscaling for SSP extensions to the Southeastern USA using the Factor-Actor-Sector (FAS) framework (Kok et al. 2006). Similar to CIB, FAS specifies each scenario element (a factor, actor, or sector) relevant at each spatial scale and may make use of influence diagrams to track gross interactions between elements. However, beyond this, methodological similarities between FAS and CIB end. Absar and Preston, as well as Kok et al., noted challenges with FAS for the analysts (or stakeholder study participants) to exercise their judgment to maintain vertical and horizontal (i.e., across-scale and within-scale) consistency for multi-scale scenarios. Similar to statements made by Alcamo acknowledging the limitations of SAS, both Absar and Preston as well as Kok et al. noted that it is unlikely that FAS would yield reproducible multi-scale scenarios.

  7. 7.

    Dooley et al. (2018) also criticized the lack of explicit policy assumptions for ensuring food security. This criticism may be misplaced however. In later studies (van Vuuren et al. 2017b), modeling teams used the SSPs to replicate the Representative Concentration Pathways (van Vuuren et al. 2011). Through agreed-upon SSP quantifications and qualitative scenarios, modeling teams harmonized assumptions about the size of the global population as well as global trends for meat consumption, food waste, and restoration of marginal lands. All of these factors have significant implications for how much land is required for food security (Boysen et al. 2017). Setting policy constraints for food security on modeling exercises a priori as advocated by Dooley et al. would not only be artificial but also likely to skew IAM calculations regarding the land cover required to feed different possible worlds.

  8. 8.

    Importantly, practices of inclusion also involve diversity, in reflecting both a diversity of worldviews (e.g., van Asselt and Rotmans 2002) and a diversity of participants meaningfully engaged (Beck and Mahony 2018; Yamineva 2017). Current efforts toward transparency invite more diverse participation in scenario-based research through intellectual contributions, but it remains to be seen how much diverse participation will increase.

  9. 9.

    Another option is to pair different models embodying complementary “expertise”; see Trutnevyte et al. (2014).

References

  1. Absar SM, Preston BL (2015) Extending the shared socioeconomic pathways for sub-national impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability studies. Glob Environ Chang 33:83–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.04.004

  2. Alcamo, J., 2001. Scenarios as tools for international environmental assessments (environmental issue report no. 24), Experts’ corner report: prospects and scenarios no. 5. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen

  3. Alcamo J (2008) Chapter six, the SAS approach: combining qualitative and quantitative knowledge in environmental scenarios. In: Alcamo J (ed) Environmental futures: the practice of environmental scenario analysis, developments in integrated environmental assessment. Elsevier, New York, pp 123–150

  4. Amanatidou E, Carlsen H, Eriksson EA, Dreborg KH, Johansson B, Bodin Ö (2016) Systematic exploration of scenario spaces. Foresight. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-02-2015-0011

  5. Ashton K (2015) How to fly a horse: the secret history of creation, invention, and discovery. Doubleday, Toronto

  6. Ayres RU (2000) On forecasting discontinuities. Technol Forecast Soc Change 65:81–97

  7. Baghramian, M., Carter, J.A., 2018. Relativism, in: Zalta, E.N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University

  8. Beck S, Mahony M (2017) The IPCC and the politics of anticipation. Nat Clim Chang 7:311–313. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3264

  9. Beck S, Mahony M (2018) The IPCC and the new map of science and politics. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 9:e547. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.547

  10. Bell W (1997) Assumptions of futures studies, in: foundations of futures studies: human science for a new era. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick

  11. Betz G (2013) In defence of the value free ideal. Eur J Philos Sci 3:207–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-012-0062-x

  12. Biggs R, Raudsepp-Hearne C, Atkinson-Palombo C, Bohensky E, Boyd E, Cundill G, Fox H, Ingram S, Kok K, Spehar S, Tengö M, Timmer D, Zurek M (2007) Linking futures across scales: a dialog on multiscale scenarios. Ecol Soc 12. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02051-120117

  13. Bishop P, Hines A, Collins T (2007) The current state of scenario development: an overview of techniques. Foresight 9:5–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680710727516

  14. Börjeson L, Höjer M, Dreborg K-H, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2006) Scenario types and techniques: towards a user’s guide. Futures 38:723–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.12.002

  15. Boysen LR, Lucht W, Gerten D (2017) Trade-offs for food production, nature conservation and climate limit the terrestrial carbon dioxide removal potential. Glob Chang Biol 23:4303–4317. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13745

  16. Calvin K, Bond-Lamberty B, Clarke L, Edmonds J, Eom J, Hartin C, Kim S, Kyle P, Link R, Moss R, McJeon H, Patel P, Smith S, Waldhoff S, Wise M (2017) The SSP4: a world of deepening inequality. Glob Environ Chang 42:284–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.010

  17. Carlsen H, Lempert R, Wikman-Svahn P, Schweizer V (2016) Choosing small sets of policy-relevant scenarios by combining vulnerability and diversity approaches. Environ Model Softw 84:155–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.06.011

  18. Carlsen H, Klein RJT, Wikman-Svahn P (2017) Transparent scenario development. Nat Clim Chang 7:613. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3379

  19. Carpenter SR, Pingali PL, Bennett EM, Zurek MB (eds) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: scenarios, volume 2. Island Press, Washington

  20. Carter TR, Jones R, Lu X, Bhadwal S, Conde C, Mearns LO, O’Neill BC, Rounsevell MDA, Zurek MB (2007) New assessment methods and the characterisation of future conditions. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  21. Carton W (2019) “Fixing” climate change by mortgaging the future: negative emissions, spatiotemporal fixes, and the political economy of delay. Antipode 51:750–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12532

  22. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:8086–8091. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100

  23. Condor S, Tileagă C, Billig M (2013) Political rhetoric. In: Huddy L, Sears DO, Levy JS (eds) The Oxford handbook of political psychologyhttps://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199760107.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199760107-e-009. Accessed 28 August 2019

  24. Craig PP, Gadgil A, Koomey JG (2002) What can history teach us? a retrospective examination of long-term energy forecasts for the United States. Annu Rev Energy Environ 27:83–118. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.27.122001.083425

  25. DDPP, 2015. Deep decarbonization pathways project [WWW document]. DDPP. URL http://deepdecarbonization.org/ (Accessed 10.30.17)

  26. Dooley K, Christoff P, Nicholas KA (2018) Co-producing climate policy and negative emissions: trade-offs for sustainable land-use. Glob Sustain 1. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2018.6

  27. Douglas H (2004) The irreducible complexity of objectivity. Synthese 138:453–473

  28. Douglas H (2009) Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh

  29. Ebi, K.L., Hallegatte, S., Kram, T., Arnell, N.W., Carter, T.R., Edmonds, J., Kriegler, E., Mathur, R., O’Neill, B.C., Riahi, K., Winkler, H., Vuuren, D.P.V., Zwickel, T., 2014. A new scenario framework for climate change research: background, process, and future directions. Clim. Change 122, 363–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0912-3

  30. Esguerra A (2019) Future objects: tracing the socio-material politics of anticipation. Sustain Sci 14:963–971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00670-3

  31. Fischhoff B (2007) Nonpersuasive communication about matters of greatest urgency: climate change. Environ Sci Technol 41:7204–7208. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0726411

  32. Frederick S. Pardee Center for International Futures, 2019. Forum on scenarios for climate and societal futures [WWW document]. Scenar. Forum 2019. URL https://www.scenariosforum2019.com (Accessed 8.31.19)

  33. Fuss S, Lamb WF, Callaghan MW, Hilaire J, Creutzig F, Amann T, Beringer T, de Oliveira Garcia W, Hartmann J, Khanna T, Luderer G, Nemet GF, Rogelj J, Smith P, Vicente JLV, Wilcox J, del Mar Zamora Dominguez M, Minx JC (2018) Negative emissions—part 2: costs, potentials and side effects. Environ Res Lett 13:063002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f

  34. Girod, B., Flüeler, T., 2009. Future IPCC scenarios—lessons learned and challenges to scenario building in climate change policy.Conference paper International Energy Workshop 2009, Venice http://internationalenergyworkshop.org/iew2009/speakersdocs/Girod-Flueeler_IPCCScenariosLessons.pdf

  35. Girod B, Wiek A, Mieg H, Hulme M (2009) The evolution of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios. Environ Sci Pol 12:103–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2008.12.006

  36. Grove WM (2005) Clinical versus statistical prediction: the contribution of Paul E Meehl. J Clin Psychol 61:1233–1243. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20179

  37. Guivarch C, Rozenberg J, Schweizer V (2016) The diversity of socio-economic pathways and CO2 emissions scenarios: insights from the investigation of a scenarios database. Environ Model Softw 80:336–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.03.006

  38. Guivarch C, Lempert R, Trutnevyte E (2017) Scenario techniques for energy and environmental research: an overview of recent developments to broaden the capacity to deal with complexity and uncertainty. Environ Model Softw 97:201–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.07.017

  39. Haikola S, Hansson A, Anshelm J (2019) From polarization to reluctant acceptance–bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and the post-normalization of the climate debate. J Integr Environ Sci 16:45–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2019.1579740

  40. Heck V, Gerten D, Lucht W, Popp A (2018) Biomass-based negative emissions difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries. Nat Clim Chang 8:151–155. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0064-y

  41. Inayatullah S (1998) Causal layered analysis: poststructuralism as method. Futures 30:815–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(98)00086-X

  42. IPCC, 1990. Climate change: the IPCC response strategies. World Meteorological Organization /United Nations Environment Program

  43. IPCC (2001) Climate change 2001: synthesis report. In: A contribution of working groups I, II, and III to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, New York

  44. IPCC (2018) Summary for policymakers. In: Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pörtner HO, Roberts D, Skea J, Shukla PR, Moufouma-Okia W, Péan C, Pidcock R, Connors S, Matthews JBR, Chen Y, Zhou X, Gomis MI, Lonnoy E, Maycock M, Tignor M, Waterfield T (eds) 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, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, p 32

  45. Kahneman D (2013) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York

  46. Kemp-Benedict E, Carlsen H, Kartha S (2019) Large-scale scenarios as ‘boundary conditions’: a cross-impact balance simulated annealing (CIBSA) approach. Technol Forecast Soc Change 143:55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.03.006

  47. Kok K, Rothman DS, Patel M (2006) Multi-scale narratives from an IA perspective: part I. European and Mediterranean scenario development. Futures 38:261–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.07.001

  48. Kosow H (2016) The best of both worlds? An exploratory study on forms and effects of new qualitative-quantitative scenario methodologies (PhD). University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart

  49. Kowarsch M, Garard J, Riousset P, Lenzi D, Dorsch MJ, Knopf B, Harrs J-A, Edenhofer O (2016) Scientific assessments to facilitate deliberative policy learning. Palgrave Commun 2:16092. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.92

  50. Kowarsch M, Jabbour J, Flachsland C, Kok MTJ, Watson R, Haas PM, Minx JC, Alcamo J, Garard J, Riousset P, Pintér L, Langford C, Yamineva Y, von Stechow C, O’Reilly J, Edenhofer O (2017) A road map for global environmental assessments. Nat Clim Chang 7:379–382. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3307

  51. Kriegler E, O’Neill BC, Hallegatte S, Kram T, Lempert RJ, Moss RH, Wilbanks T (2012) The need for and use of socio-economic scenarios for climate change analysis: a new approach based on shared socio-economic pathways. Glob Environ Chang 22:807–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.05.005

  52. Lloyd EA (1995) Objectivity and the double standard for feminist epistemologies. Synthese 104:351–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064505

  53. Lloyd EA, Schweizer VJ (2014) Objectivity and a comparison of methodological scenario approaches for climate change research. Synthese 191:2049–2088. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-013-0353-6

  54. Longino HE (1990) Science as social knowledge: values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey

  55. Lyons K, Westoby P (2014) Carbon colonialism and the new land grab: plantation forestry in Uganda and its livelihood impacts. J Rural Stud 36:13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.06.002

  56. Mahony M, Endfield G (2018) Climate and colonialism. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 9:e510. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.510

  57. Meehl PE (1954) Clinical versus statistical prediction: a theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

  58. Meehl PE (1986) Causes and effects of my disturbing little book. J Pers Assess 50:370–375. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5003_6

  59. Minx JC, Lamb WF, Callaghan MW, Fuss S, Hilaire J, Creutzig F, Amann T, Beringer T, de Oliveira Garcia W, Hartmann J, Khanna T, Lenzi D, Luderer G, Nemet GF, Rogelj J, Smith P, Vicente JLV, Wilcox J, del Mar Zamora Dominguez M (2018) Negative emissions—part 1: research landscape and synthesis. Environ Res Lett 13:063001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9b

  60. Mitchell RE (2018) The human dimensions of climate risk in Africa’s low and lower-middle income countries (masters). University of Waterloo, Waterloo

  61. Morgan MG, Henrion M (1990) Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York

  62. Morgan MG, Keith DW (2008) Improving the way we think about projecting future energy use and emissions of carbon dioxide. Clim Chang 90:189–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9458-1

  63. Moss RH, Edmonds JA, Hibbard KA, Manning MR, Rose SK, van Vuuren DP, Carter TR, Emori S, Kainuma M, Kram T, Meehl GA, Mitchell JFB, Nakicenovic N, Riahi K, Smith SJ, Stouffer RJ, Thomson AM, Weyant JP, Wilbanks TJ (2010) The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463:747–756. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08823

  64. Nakicenovic N, Swart R, Alcamo J, Davis G, de Vries B, Fenhann J, Gaffin S, Gregory K, Grübler A, Jung TY, Kram T, La Rovere EL, Michaelis L, Mori S, Morita T, Pepper W, Pitcher H, Price L, Riahi K, Roehrl A, Rogner H-H, Sankovski A, Schlesinger M, Shukla P, Smith S, van Rooijen S, Victor N, Zhou D (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios: a special report of working group III of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, New York

  65. Nakicenovic N, Lempert RJ, Janetos AC (2014) A framework for the development of new socio-economic scenarios for climate change research: introductory essay. Clim Chang 122:351–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0982-2

  66. Nemet GF, Callaghan MW, Creutzig F, Fuss S, Hartmann J, Hilaire J, Lamb WF, Minx JC, Rogers S, Smith P (2018) Negative emissions—part 3: innovation and upscaling. Environ Res Lett 13:063003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabff4

  67. Nordhaus WD (2017) Revisiting the social cost of carbon. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114:1518–1523. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1609244114

  68. O’Mahony T (2014) Integrated scenarios for energy: a methodology for the short term. Futures 55:41–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.11.002

  69. O’Neill, B.C., Carter, T.R., Ebi, K.L., Edmonds, J., Hallegatte, S., Kemp-Benedict, E., Kriegler, E., Mearns, L., Moss, R., Riahi, K., van Ruijven, B., van Vuuren, D., 2012. Meeting report of the workshop on the [sic] nature and use of new socioeconomic pathways for climate change research. Boulder, CO, USA

  70. O’Neill BC, Kriegler E, Riahi K, Ebi KL, Hallegatte S, Carter TR, Mathur R, van Vuuren DP (2014) A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Clim Chang 122:387–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0905-2

  71. O’Neill BC, Kriegler E, Ebi KL, Kemp-Benedict E, Riahi K, Rothman DS, van Ruijven BJ, van Vuuren DP, Birkmann J, Kok K, Levy M, Solecki W (2017) The roads ahead: narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Glob Environ Chang 42:169–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.004

  72. Parson EA (2017) Opinion: climate policymakers and assessments must get serious about climate engineering. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114:9227–9230. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1713456114

  73. Poganietz, W.-R., Weimer-Jehle, W., Pregger, T., 2015. Integrated scenario building in energy transition research. Conference presentation. Society for Risk Analysis 2015 Annual meeting, Arlington

  74. Reiss, J., Sprenger, J., 2017. Scientific objectivity, in: Zalta, E.N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University

  75. Ritchey T (2018) General morphological analysis as a basic scientific modelling method. Technol Forecast Soc Change 126:81–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.027

  76. Ropohl, G., 1999. Philosophy of Socio-Technical Systems. Society for Philosophy and Technology. 4, 59–71

  77. Rothman DS, Romero-Lankao P, Schweizer VJ, Bee BA (2014) Challenges to adaptation: a fundamental concept for the shared socio-economic pathways and beyond. Clim Chang 122:495–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0907-0

  78. Rounsevell MDA, Metzger MJ (2010) Developing qualitative scenario storylines for environmental change assessment. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 1:606–619. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.63

  79. Scheele R, Kearney NM, Kurniawan JH, Schweizer VJ (2018) What scenarios are you missing? Poststructuralism for deconstructing and reconstructing organizational futures. In: Krämer H, Wenzel M (eds) How organizations manage the future: theoretical perspectives and emprical insights. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  80. Scholz RW, Tietje O (2002) Embedded case study methods: integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California

  81. Schwartz P (1996) The art of the long view: planning for the future in an uncertain world, reprint edition. ed. Currency Doubleday, New York

  82. Schweizer VJ, Kriegler E (2012) Improving environmental change research with systematic techniques for qualitative scenarios. Environ Res Lett 7:044011. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044011

  83. Schweizer VJ, Kurniawan JH (2016) Systematically linking qualitative elements of scenarios across levels, scales, and sectors. Environ Model Softw 79:322–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.12.014

  84. Schweizer VJ, O’Neill BC (2014) Systematic construction of global socioeconomic pathways using internally consistent element combinations. Clim Chang 122:431–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0908-z

  85. Selin C (2006) Trust and the illusive force of scenarios. Futures 38:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.04.001

  86. Smil V (2000) Perils of long-range energy forecasting: reflections on looking far ahead. Technol Forecast Soc Change 65:251–264

  87. Smil V (2003) Energy at the crossroads: global perspectives and uncertainties. The MIT Press, Cambridge

  88. Smith JB, Schneider SH, Oppenheimer M, Yohe GW, Hare W, Mastrandrea MD, Patwardhan A, Burton I, Corfee-Morlot J, Magadza CHD, Füssel H-M, Pittock AB, Rahman A, Suarez A, van Ypersele J-P (2009) Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “reasons for concern.”. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:4133–4137. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0812355106

  89. Smith P, Davis SJ, Creutzig F, Fuss S, Minx J, Gabrielle B, Kato E, Jackson RB, Cowie A, Kriegler E, van Vuuren DP, Rogelj J, Ciais P, Milne J, Canadell JG, McCollum D, Peters G, Andrew R, Krey V, Shrestha G, Friedlingstein P, Gasser T, Grübler A, Heidug WK, Jonas M, Jones CD, Kraxner F, Littleton E, Lowe J, Moreira JR, Nakicenovic N, Obersteiner M, Patwardhan A, Rogner M, Rubin E, Sharifi A, Torvanger A, Yamagata Y, Edmonds J, Yongsung C (2016) Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat Clim Chang 6:42–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2870

  90. Tietje O (2005) Identification of a small reliable and efficient set of consistent scenarios. Eur J Oper Res 162:418–432

  91. Trutnevyte E, Barton J, O’Grady Á, Ogunkunle D, Pudjianto D, Robertson E (2014) Linking a storyline with multiple models: a cross-scale study of the UK power system transition. Technol Forecast Soc Change 89:26–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.08.018

  92. van Asselt MBA, Rotmans J (2002) Uncertainty in integrated assessment modelling. Clim Chang 54:75–105. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015783803445

  93. van Vuuren DP, Edmonds J, Kainuma M, Riahi K, Thomson A, Hibbard K, Hurtt GC, Kram T, Krey V, Lamarque J-F, Masui T, Meinshausen M, Nakicenovic N, Smith SJ, Rose SK (2011) The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim Chang 109:5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z

  94. van Vuuren DP, Riahi K, Moss R, Edmonds J, Thomson A, Nakicenovic N, Kram T, Berkhout F, Swart R, Janetos A, Rose SK, Arnell N (2012) A proposal for a new scenario framework to support research and assessment in different climate research communities. Glob Environ Chang 22:21–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.08.002

  95. van Vuuren DP, Hof AF, van Sluisveld MAE, Riahi K (2017a) Open discussion of negative emissions is urgently needed. Nat Energy 2:902–904. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-017-0055-2

  96. van Vuuren DP, Riahi K, Calvin K, Dellink R, Emmerling J, Fujimori S, Kc S, Kriegler E, O’Neill B (2017b) The shared socio-economic pathways: trajectories for human development and global environmental change. Glob Environ Chang 42:148–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.009

  97. Vervoort JM, Bendor R, Kelliher A, Strik O, Helfgott AER (2015) Scenarios and the art of worldmaking. Futures 74:62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.08.009

  98. Vögele S, Hansen P, Poganietz W-R, Prehofer S, Weimer-Jehle W (2017) Building scenarios for energy consumption of private households in Germany using a multi-level cross-impact balance approach. Energy 120:937–946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.12.001

  99. Wack P (1985) Scenarios: uncharted waters ahead. Harv Bus Rev 63(5):73–89

  100. Weimer-Jehle W (2006) Cross-impact balances: a system-theoretical approach to cross-impact analysis. Technol Forecast Soc Change 73:334–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005.06.005

  101. Weimer-Jehle W (2008) Cross-impact balances: applying pair interaction systems and multi-value Kauffman nets to multidisciplinary systems analysis. Physica A 387:3689–3700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2008.02.006

  102. Weimer-Jehle, W., 2009. Properties of cross-impact balance analysis. ArXiv09125352 Physicssoc-Ph

  103. Weimer-Jehle W, Buchgeister J, Hauser W, Kosow H, Naegler T, Poganietz W-R, Pregger T, Prehofer S, von Recklinghausen A, Schippl J, Vögele S (2016) Context scenarios and their usage for the construction of socio-technical energy scenarios. Energy 111:956–970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.05.073

  104. Wiek A, Binder C, Scholz RW (2006) Functions of scenarios in transition processes. Futures 38:740–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.12.003

  105. Wilbanks TJ, Ebi KL (2014) SSPs from an impact and adaptation perspective. Clim Chang 122:473–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0903-4

  106. Yamineva Y (2017) Lessons from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on inclusiveness across geographies and stakeholders. Environ Sci Pol 77:244–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.005

  107. Zurek MB, Henrichs T (2007) Linking scenarios across geographical scales in international environmental assessments. Technol Forecast Soc Change 74:1282–1295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.11.005

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges Witold-Roger Poganietz and Ricarda Scheele for helpful discussions and three anonymous reviewers for feedback that improved the manuscript.

Funding information

This essay was invited by Wolfgang Weimer-Jehle in connection with the Helmholtz Alliance ENERGY-TRANS. Dr. Schweizer thanks the Helmholtz Association for supporting a visiting professorship with the Alliance.

Author information

Correspondence to Vanessa J. Schweizer.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of a Special Issue on 'Integrated Scenario Building in Energy Transition Research' edited by Witold-Roger Poganietz and Wolfgang Weimer-Jehle.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schweizer, V.J. Reflections on cross-impact balances, a systematic method constructing global socio-technical scenarios for climate change research. Climatic Change (2020) doi:10.1007/s10584-019-02615-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Scenarios
  • Socio-economic
  • Socio-technical
  • Cross-impact
  • Energy
  • Climate change