11 Interfakultäre Einrichtungen

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/handle/11682/12

Browse

Filters

2021 - 20222

Settings

Institute: search.filters.UBSInstitut.Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e. V. (DLR)Subject: search.filters.subject.300

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative energy models: knowledge integration in different methodological designs
    (2021) Prehofer, Sigrid; Kosow, Hannah; Naegler, Tobias; Pregger, Thomas; Vögele, Stefan; Weimer-Jehle, Wolfgang
    Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative models is a common approach to integrate assumptions on possible future societal contexts into modeling. But reflection on how and to what degree knowledge is effectively integrated during this endeavor does not generally take place. In this paper, we reflect on the performance of a specific hybrid scenario approach (qualitative Cross-Impact Balance analysis, CIB, linked with quantitative energy models) concerning knowledge integration through eleven different process steps. In order to guide the scenario community in applying this approach, we reflect on general methodological features as well as different design options. We conceptualize different forms of interdisciplinary knowledge integration (compiling, combining and synthesizing) and analyze how and to what degree knowledge about society and uncertainty are integrated into scenario process and products. In addition, we discuss trade-offs regarding design choices and forms of knowledge integration. On the basis of three case studies we identify two general designs of linking which build on each other (basic and extended design) and which differ in essence regarding the balance of power between the CIB and the energy modeling. Ex-post assessment of the form of interdisciplinary knowledge integration in each step revealed that specific method properties of CIB as well as the interaction with additional quantitative as well as specific qualitative methods foster distinct forms of knowledge integration. The specific roles assigned to CIB in the hybrid scenario process can also influence the form of knowledge integration. In this study, we use a joint process scheme linking qualitative context scenarios with energy modeling. By applying our conceptualization of different forms of knowledge integration we analyze the designs´ respective potential for and respective effects on knowledge integration. Consequently, our findings can give guidance to those who are designing their own hybrid scenario processes. As this is an explorative study, it would be useful to further test our hypotheses in different hybrid scenario designs. Finally, we note that at some points in the process a more precise differentiation of three forms of knowledge integration would have been useful and propose to further differentiate and detail them in future research.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Sustainability assessments of energy scenarios : citizens’ preferences for and assessments of sustainability indicators
    (2022) Schmidt-Scheele, Ricarda; Hauser, Wolfgang; Scheel, Oliver; Minn, Fabienne; Becker, Lisa; Buchgeister, Jens; Hottenroth, Heidi; Junne, Tobias; Lehr, Ulrike; Naegler, Tobias; Simon, Sonja; Sutardhio, Claudia; Tietze, Ingela; Ulrich, Philip; Viere, Tobias; Weidlich, Anke
    Background: Given the multitude of scenarios on the future of our energy systems, multi-criteria assessments are increasingly called for to analyze and assess desired and undesired effects of possible pathways with regard to their environmental, economic and social sustainability. Existing studies apply elaborate lists of sustainability indicators, yet these indicators are defined and selected by experts and the relative importance of each indicator for the overall sustainability assessments is either determined by experts or is computed using mathematical functions. Target group-specific empirical data regarding citizens’ preferences for sustainability indicators as well as their reasoning behind their choices are not included in existing assessments.
    Approach and results: We argue that citizens’ preferences and values need to be more systematically analyzed. Next to valid and reliable data regarding diverse sets of indicators, reflections and deliberations are needed regarding what different societal actors, including citizens, consider as justified and legitimate interventions in nature and society, and what considerations they include in their own assessments. For this purpose, we present results from a discrete choice experiment. The method originated in marketing and is currently becoming a popular means to systematically analyze individuals’ preference structures for energy technology assessments. As we show in our paper, it can be fruitfully applied to study citizens’ values and weightings with regard to sustainability issues. Additionally, we present findings from six focus groups that unveil the reasons behind citizens’ preferences and choices.
    Conclusions: Our combined empirical methods provide 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. Many scenario studies seek to optimize pathways according to total systems costs. In contrast, our findings show that the role of fairness and distributional justice in transition processes featured as a dominant theme for citizens. This adds central dimensions for future multi-criteria assessments that, so far, have been neglected by current energy systems models.