Skip to main content

Building SSPs for climate policy analysis: a scenario elicitation methodology to map the space of possible future challenges to mitigation and adaptation

Abstract

The scientific community is now developing a new set of scenarios, referred to as Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) that will be contrasted along two axes: challenges to mitigation, and challenges to adaptation. This paper proposes a methodology to develop SSPs with a “backwards” approach based on (i) an a priori identification of potential drivers of mitigation and adaptation challenges; (ii) a modelling exercise to transform these drivers into a large set of scenarios; (iii) an a posteriori selection of a few SSPs among these scenarios using statistical cluster-finding algorithms. This backwards approach could help inform the development of SSPs to ensure the storylines focus on the driving forces most relevant to distinguishing between the SSPs. In this illustrative analysis, we find that energy sobriety, equity and convergence prove most important towards explaining future difference in challenges to adaptation and mitigation. The results also demonstrate the difficulty in finding explanatory drivers for a middle scenario (SSP2). We argue that methodologies such as that used here are useful for broad questions such as the definition of SSPs, and could also be applied to any specific decisions faced by decision-makers in the field of climate change.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. Note that there is no consensus of the terminology used in scenario analysis. Here, we label each of our model runs a “scenario.” The Robust Decision-Making tradition (e.g., Lempert and Groves 2010) labels these runs “cases” and considers a “scenario” as a set of “case” particularly relevant to the analysis of a given decision.

  2. The scenario discovery literature generally refers to the entries in the database of model results as cases. Here we use the term scenarios because we have added to the database entries information associated with narratives in addition to the results of model runs.

  3. Combining all assumptions creates 288 model runs, but one baseline did not run until the end of the simulation period. Thus, two scenarios are excluded from the database (derived from this model run and the two hypotheses on equity).

  4. Coverage is analogous to “sensitivity” or “recall” in the classification and information retrieval literatures. Density is analogous to “precision” or “positive predictive value” in those literatures.

  5. The “energy sobriety” driver contains hypotheses on behaviors, localization choices, and the potential for energy efficiency (energy efficiency is endogenous and driven by energy prices). In scenarios with high energy sobriety, energy prices are lower, accelerating GDP growth. This result warns against the use of exogenous GDP scenarios, developed independently from natural resources and energy modeling.

  6. We credit the idea for a diamond-shaped domain corresponding to SSP2 to Jae Edmonds of the GCAM modelling group at the Joint Global Change Research Institute.

References

  • Arnel NW, Kram T, Carter T, Ebi K, Edmonds J, Hallegatte S, Kriegler E, Mathur R, O’Neill B, Riahi K, Winkler H, van Vuuren D, Zwickel T (2011) A framework for a new generation of socioeconomic scenarios for climate change impact, adaptation, vulnerability, and mitigation research

  • Arnell NW (2004) Climate change and global water resources: SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Glob Environ Chang 14(1):31–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker T, Koehler J, Villena M (2002) The costs of greenhouse gas abatement: a meta-analysis of post-SRES mitigation scenarios. Environ Econ Pol Stud 5:135,166

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker T, Quereshi MS, Koehler J (2006) The costs of greenhouse gas mitigation with induced technological change: a meta-analysis of estimates in the literature. 4CMR, Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research

  • Birkmann J et al. (2013) Scenarios for vulnerability. Climate Change, in press.

  • Bryant BP, Lempert RJ (2010) Thinking inside the box: a participatory, computer-assisted approach to scenario discovery. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 77:34–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Environment Agency (EEA) (2009) Looking back on looking forward: a review of evaluative scenario literature Rep. ISSN 1725–2237 European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen

  • Friedman JH, Fisher NI (1999) Bump hunting in high-dimensional data. Stat Comput 9:123–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Füssel H-M (2009) Review and quantitative analysis of indices of climate change exposure, adaptive capacity, sensitivity, and impacts. Background note to the World Development Report 2010. World Bank, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Garb Y, Pulver S, VanDeveer SD (2008) Scenarios in society, society in scenarios: toward a social scientific analysis of storyline-driven environmental modeling. Environ Res Lett 3:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerst MD, Wang P, Borsuk ME (2013) Discovering plausible energy and economic futures under global change using multidimensional scenario discovery. Environ Model Software 44:76–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haasnoot M, Kwakkel JH, Walker WE, ter Maat J (2013) Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: a method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Glob Environ Chang 23(2):485–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallegatte S (2009) Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Glob Environ Chang 19:240–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallegatte S, Przyluski V, Vogt-Schilb A (2011) Building world narratives for climate change impact, adaptation and vulnerability analyses. Nat Clim Change 1(3):151–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamarat C, Kwakkel JH, Pruyt E (2013) Adaptive Robust Design under deep uncertainty. Technol Forecast Soc Change 80(3)

  • IPCC (2007) The IPCC 4th assessment report, technical report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

  • Kriegler E et al. (2010) Socio-economic scenario development for climate change analysis, CIRED Working Paper

  • Kriegler E, O’Neill BC, Hallegatte S, Kram T, Lempert R, Moss R, 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lempert RJ (2012) Scenarios that illuminate vulnerabilities and robust responses. Climatic Change

  • Lempert R, Groves DG (2010) Identifying and evaluating robust adaptive policy responses to climate change for water management agencies in the American West. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 77:960–974

    Google Scholar 

  • Lempert R, Kalra N (2011) Managing climate risks in developing countries with robust decision makingRep. World Resources Report, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Lempert RJ, Popper SW, Bankes SC (2003) Shaping the next one hundred years: new methods for quantitative, long-term policy analysis, xxi. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, 187 p. pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Lempert RJ, Groves DG, Popper SW, Bankes SC (2006) A general, analytic method for generating robust strategies and narrative scenarios. Manag Sci 52(4):514–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lempert RJ, Bryant BP, Bankes SC (2008) Comparing algorithms for scenario discovery. RAND, Santa Monica

    Google Scholar 

  • McJeon HC, Clarke L, Kyle P, Wise M, Hackbarth A, Bryant B, Lempert RJ (2011) Technology interactions among low-carbon energy technologies: what can we learn from a large number of scenarios? Energ Econ 33:619–631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss RH et al (2010) The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463:747–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, de Vries B, Fenhann J et al (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios: a special report of working group III of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill BC, Carter T, Ebi KL, 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 nature and use of new socioeconomic pathways for climate change research. Boulder, CO, November 2–4, 2011. Available at: http://www.isp.ucar.edu/socio-economic-pathways

  • O’Neill et al (2013) A new scenario framework for Climate Change Research: the concept of shared socio-economic pathways. Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0905-2

  • Parson EA, Burkett V, Fischer-Vanden K, Keith D, Mearns L, Pitcher H, Rosenweig C, Webster M (2006) Global-change scenarios: their development and use, synthesis and assessment product 2.1b, public review draft Rep., US Climate Change Science Program

  • Peace J, Weyant J (2008) Insights not numbers: the appropriate use of economic models, Pew Center on Global Climate Change White Paper

  • Petschel-Held G, Schellnhuber H-J, Bruckner T, Tóth FL, Hasselmann K (1999) The tolerable windows approach: theoretical and methodological foundations. Clim Chang 41(3–4):303–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozenberg J, Hallegatte S, Vogt-Schilb A, Sassi O, Guivarch C, Waisman H, Hourcade J-C (2010) Climate policies as a hedge against the uncertainty on future oil supply. Clim Chang 101(3–4):663–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer VJ, O’Neill BC (2013) Systematic construction of global socioeconomic pathways using internally consistent element combinations. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0908-z

  • Toman MA, Griffin J, Lempert RJ (2008) Impacts on U.S. energy expenditures and greenhouse-gas emissions of increasing renewable-energy use: technical report Rep. 9780833044976 (pbk. alk. paper), xvii. RAND Corp, Santa Monica, 54 p. pp

    Google Scholar 

  • van Vuuren DP et al. (2010) Developing new scenarios as a thread for future climate research IPCC working paper

  • Waisman HD, Guivarch C, Grazi F, Hourcade J-C (2012) The Imaclim-R Model: infrastructures, technical inertia and the costs of low carbon futures under imperfect foresight. Climatic Change 114(1):101–120

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Patrice Dumas and three anonymous referees for their useful comments on a previous version of this article. All remaining errors are the authors’. The views expressed in this paper are the sole responsibility of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the World Bank, its executive directors, or the countries they represent.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie Rozenberg.

Additional information

This article is part of the Special Issue on “A Framework for the Development of New Socio-economic Scenarios for Climate Change Research” edited by Nebojsa Nakicenovic, Robert Lempert, and Anthony Janetos.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 1315 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rozenberg, J., Guivarch, C., Lempert, R. et al. Building SSPs for climate policy analysis: a scenario elicitation methodology to map the space of possible future challenges to mitigation and adaptation. Climatic Change 122, 509–522 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0904-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0904-3

Keywords

  • Climate Policy
  • Energy Price
  • Mitigation Policy
  • SRES Scenario
  • Climate Change Vulnerability