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.333.7

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Integrative scenario assessment as a tool to support decisions in energy transition
    (2021) Kopfmüller, Jürgen; Weimer-Jehle, Wolfgang; Naegler, Tobias; Buchgeister, Jens; Bräutigam, Klaus-Rainer; Stelzer, Volker
    Energy scenarios represent a prominent tool to support energy system transitions towards sustainability. In order to better fulfil this role, two elements are widely missing in previous work on designing, analyzing, and using scenarios: First, a more systematic integration of social and socio-technical characteristics of energy systems in scenario design, and, second, a method to apply an accordingly enhanced set of indicators in scenario assessment. In this article, an integrative scenario assessment methodology is introduced that combines these two requirements. It consists of: (i) A model-based scenario analysis using techno-economic and ecological indicators; (ii) a non-model-based analysis using socio-technical indicators; (iii) an assessment of scenario performances with respect to pre-determined indicator targets; (iv) a normalization method to make the two types of results (model-based and non-model-based) comparable; (v) an approach to classify results to facilitate structured interpretation. The combination of these elements represents the added-value of this methodology. It is illustrated for selected indicators, and exemplary results are presented. Methodological challenges and remaining questions, e.g., regarding the analysis of non-model-based indicators, resource requirements, or the robustness of the methodology are pointed out and discussed. We consider this integrative methodology being a substantial improvement of previous scenario assessment methodologies.
  • 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.