Managing stakeholder knowledge for the evaluation of innovation systems in the face of climate change

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to frame the stakeholder-driven system mapping approach in the context of climate change, building on stakeholder knowledge of system boundaries, key elements and interactions within a system and to introduce a decision support tool for managing and visualising this knowledge into insightful system maps with policy implications. Design/methodology/approach-This methodological framework is based on the concepts of market maps. The process of eliciting and visualising expert knowledge is facilitated by means of a reference implementation in MATLAB, which allows for designing technological innovation systems models in either a structured or a visual format. Findings-System mapping can contribute to evaluating systems for climate change by capturing knowledge of expert groups with regard to the dynamic interrelations between climate policy strategies and other system components, which may promote or hinder the desired transition to low carbon societies. Research limitations/implications-This study explores how system mapping addresses gaps in analytical tools and complements the systems of innovation framework. Knowledge elicitation, however, must be facilitated and build upon a structured framework such as technological innovation systems. Practical implications-This approach can provide policymakers with significant insight into the strengths and weaknesses of current policy frameworks based on tacit knowledge embedded in stakeholders. Social implications-The developed methodological framework aims to include societal groups in the climate policy-making process by acknowledging stakeholders' role in developing transition pathways. The system map codifies stakeholder input in a structured and transparent manner. Originality/value-This is the first study that clearly defines the system mapping approach in the frame of climate policy and introduces the first dedicated software option for researchers and decision makers to use for implementing this methodology.

Evaluating Consistency in Environmental Policy Mixes through Policy, Stakeholder, and Contextual Interactions

“…The next group are 'service providers' and include the business services that support the market operations (e.g., banks, legal advisors). The last group are 'enabling/inhibiting environment stakeholders' and comprise of organisations or institutions that are involved in the policy processes that shape the market environment [18,19].…”

“…This tool focuses on different types and categories of stakeholder groups (as defined by Albu and Griffith [18]). We do not demonstrate how we applied system maps in this paper, but only refer to the method as part of the analytical process for evaluating policy mixes (see Nikas et al, 2017 for system mapping methodology [19]). System maps can be developed through desk research and stakeholder consultation, to identify: key players in the supply chain, the enabling/inhibiting environment, and the facilitating service providers.…”

“Consensus Building in Engagement Processes” for Reducing Risks in Developing Sustainable Pathways: Indigenous Interest as Core Elements of Engagement

“…More time should be spent at this stage to gather resources by learning about Indigenous values, the community context, protocols and communication methods (Government of Canada 2015). Tools including stakeholder mapping methods (see Nikas et al 2017;Karakosta et al 2011) can help to identify a broader stakeholder group through participatory approaches that may not be typically included in conventional consultation processes, for example, single parents, young members of the community and other groups that in number are not the dominant voice in the area. This technique can ensure a heterogenous representation can participate on the CBEP.…”

Investments in the EU Power System: A Stress Test Analysis on the Effectiveness of Decarbonisation Policies

“…In order to limit GHG emissions, the electricity sector is facing the challenge to undertake a major transformational phase towards a low-carbon system by substituting the existing carbon-intensive technologies with climate-friendly ones. In this regard, energy analysts and policymakers face a future that is technologically, institutionally and politically complex and uncertain (Nikas et al 2017); furthermore, assessments of the energy transition must take into account different perspectives to reflect the interests of numerous stakeholder groups (Papapostolou et al 2017). On this matter, portfoliobased approaches are one of the established methods to evaluate national energy strategies and climate policies.…”