‘Plausible’ energy scenarios?! How users of scenarios assess uncertain futures

Schmidt-Scheele, Ricarda

doi:10.1016/j.esr.2020.100571

Cited by 22 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 88 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although it might be built on the best available information, it is still imperfect knowledge. 12 However, if its outputs and process cannot be scrutinized and built upon, it is not possible to know if due diligence was applied. )…”

Section: Appropriate Answerability: Accountability For Related Nationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy system analytics and good governance -U4RIA goals of Energy Modelling for Policy Support

Howells

Quirós-Tortós

Morrison³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Energy modelling is the process of using mathematical models to develop abstractions and then seek insights into future energy systems. It can be an abstract academic activity. Or, it can insert threads that influence our development. We argue therefore, that energy modelling that provides policy support (EMoPS) should not only be grounded in rigorous analytics, but also in good governance principles. As, together with other policy actions, it should be accountable. Almost all aspects of society and much of its impact on the environment are influenced by our use of energy. In this context, EMoPS can inspire, motivate, calibrate, and ‘post assess’ energy policy. But, such modeling is often undertaken by too few analysts under time and resource pressure. Building on the advances of ‘class leaders’, we propose that EMoPS should reach for practical goals — including engagement and accountability with the communities it involves, and those it will later affect. (We use the term Ubuntu, meaning ‘I am because you are’ to capture this interdependency). We argue that Ubuntu, together with retrievability, repeatability, reconstructability, interoperability and auditability (U4RIA) of EMoPS should be used to signal the beginnings of a new default practice. We demonstrate how the U4RIA principles can contribute in practice using recent modelling of aspirational energy futures by Costa Rica as a case study. This modelling effort includes community involvement and interfaces and integrates stakeholder involvement. It leaves a trail that allows for its auditing and accountability, while building capacity and sustainable institutional memory.

show abstract

Section: Appropriate Answerability: Accountability For Related Nationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy system analytics and good governance -U4RIA goals of Energy Modelling for Policy Support

Howells

Quirós-Tortós

Morrison³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…the different options participants needed to choose between. Model-based energy scenarios are complex 'if…then' statements derived from multiple assumptions and parameters [75] and are difficult for non-modelers to interpret [76]. Therefore, it was not a suitable option to present participants with such complex scenarios.…”

Section: Discrete Choice Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bridging the Gap: An Empirical Approach to Studying the Social Sustainability of Future Energy Systems

Schmidt-Scheele

Hauser

Scheel

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Given the multitude of scenarios on the future of our energy systems, multi-criteria assessments are increasingly called for to analyze and anticipate long-term effects of possible pathways with regards to their environmental, economic and social sustainability. While economic and ecologic indicators are covered through energy systems modelling and life cycle sustainability assessments, approaches to the social sustainability of future energy systems remain methodologically under-developed. Previous studies have either focused only on the social acceptance of single energy technologies or used expert-based environmental and economic indicators with social implications. Approach and results: We argue that in order to gather empirical insights on the social sustainability of future energy systems and to integrate it in multi-criteria assessments, citizens’ preferences and values need to be more systematically analyzed while informing their decisions more transparently with full life cycle data. Given the lack of theoretical underpinnings of sustainability and of empirical insights into citizens’ perceptions of sustainability with respect to future energy systems, we further argue that an explorative research design is needed. Therefore, next to six focus groups, we conducted a discrete choice experiment. The method is currently becoming more popular to analyze individuals’ preference structures for energy technologies or investments. As we show in our paper, it can be fruitfully applied to study the values and trade-offs of citizens with regards to sustainability issues. Our combined empirical methods provide two main insights with strong implications for the future development and assessment of energy pathways: While environmental and climate-related effects significantly influenced citizens’ preferences for or against certain energy pathways, total systems and production costs were of far less importance to citizens than the public discourse suggests. Conclusions: Our findings are contrary to the focus of many scenario studies that seek to optimize pathways according to total systems costs. The role of fairness and distributional justice in transition processes featured as a dominant theme in all focus groups. This adds central dimensions for future multi-criteria assessments that, so far, have been neglected by current energy systems models.

show abstract

“…It is precisely the socio-epistemic quality of the argumentative and reasoning dynamics that shapes the construction/assessment of the (un)desirability and (im)plausibility of the FSs that will define the potential degree of reflexivity and disruptiveness of the heuristics derived from the anticipatory exercises. These heuristics can become operative afterwards (in step 4) with different levels of strength, and they can be finally materialised depending on a series of factors influencing whether and how these (un)desirable/ (im)plausible FSs finally mobilise action [135].…”

Section: Responsibility Through the Search For The Future's Plausibility And Desirabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As Lucivero, Swiestra, and Boenink note, '[t]he concept of 'plausibility' is inherently intersubjective: a statement is plausible when it makes sense to a specific audience'[115] (p. 138). See also[116,135,137].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsibility through Anticipation? The ‘Future Talk’ and the Quest for Plausibility in the Governance of Emerging Technologies

López

2021

Nanoethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In anticipatory governance (AG) and responsible innovation (RI), anticipation is a key theoretical and practical dimension for promoting a more responsible governance of new and emerging sciences and technologies. Yet, anticipation has been subjected to a range of criticisms, such that many now see it as unnecessary for AG and RI. According to Alfred Nordmann, practices engaging with ‘the future’, when performed under certain conditions, may reify the future, diminish our ability to see what is happening, and/or reproduce the illusion of control over the future. Several authors have stressed that these critiques fail to capture the heterogeneous character of anticipatory practices, and yet research on the question of what particular kind of socio-epistemic engagements with ‘the future’ AG and RI aim to enact through anticipation remains fragmentary and their underlying rationale under-theorised. This article aims to advance the theoretical characterisation and problematisation of anticipation as key interventive tools for AG and RI. By distinguishing between four modes of anticipation and heuristically testing them against Nordmann’s critiques, the article argues that despite his assessment failing to recognise the heterogeneity of anticipatory practices considered valuable for AG and RI, it reinforces the relevance of performing certain modes of anticipatory exercises, namely critical-hermeneutic ones. Thus, anticipation continues to be a necessary heuristic dimension for AG and RI. More concretely, the article maintains that such anticipatory heuristics may find their radical constructive and critical-reflective character in the dynamics of inclusive scrutiny and negotiation about the (im)plausibility and (un)desirability of the envisioned or (co-)created futures.

show abstract

‘Plausible’ energy scenarios?! How users of scenarios assess uncertain futures

Cited by 22 publications

References 88 publications

Energy system analytics and good governance -U4RIA goals of Energy Modelling for Policy Support

Energy system analytics and good governance -U4RIA goals of Energy Modelling for Policy Support

Bridging the Gap: An Empirical Approach to Studying the Social Sustainability of Future Energy Systems

Responsibility through Anticipation? The ‘Future Talk’ and the Quest for Plausibility in the Governance of Emerging Technologies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About