Future Studies Tackling Wicked Problems: Where Futures Research, Education and Action Meet 11-12 June 2015, Turku, Finland Theory-based and (more) systematic scenario factor definition. An application in energy system modelling. Sigrid Prehofer ZIRIUS (Center for Interdisciplinary, University of Stuttgart)
Knowledge integration through combining quantitative AND qualitative methods ZIRIUS The challenge of modelling energy transitions Complex problems consist of multiple problems, are multi-dimensional and affect multiple scales (van Asselt 2000). the energy transition (in Germany) is a complex problem The energy system and its transition is embedded in society, which is multi-causal and complex itself and therefore future societal developments are highly insecure (e.g. EEA 2007, Garb et al. 2008, O Mahony 2014) Energy scenarios are considered an adequate tool to take account of future uncertainty and are full of assumptions about the society in which the energy system is transforming energy scenarios explicitly consider societal developments in a rather limited way, but are full of (implicit) assumptions about society (Kiraly et al. 2013) If complex systems (like the socio-technical energy system) are exposed to uncertainty, they can only be explained sufficiently with sophisticated (horizontal and vertical) knowledge integration (e.g. Greeuw et al. 2000, van Notten 2002) the context of the energy system (society) should be part of the energy system analysis.
The applied method combination Linking qualitative scenarios constructed with cross-impact balance method (CIB) with quantitative energy models (Weimer-Jehle/ Prehofer/ Vögele 2013; Weimer-Jehle et al. 2015 (forthcoming); this method combination in other fields, see Kosow 2011; Schweizer/ O Neill 2013) Energy model Context scenarios with CIB method AGIL-Scheme Context-Focus-Scheme Advantages (relevant for later proposed concepts): Explicit consideration of energy system context Possibility to explore societal developments (uncertainty assessment) Semi-qualitative analysis and therefore possibility to integrate qualitative AND quantitative knowledge (CIB as tool for knowledge integration, see Prehofer et al. 2015 (forthcoming)) Systematic and formalized construction of qualitative scenarios and therefore possibility to integrate many (scenario) system factors
The challenge of defining qualitative scenarios What is the adequate scope for the scenario? Which factors are relevant and do describe best the chosen scenario scope? scenario factor definition is a challenge beyond methodical difficulties! The selection of scenario factors can be realized by participatory approaches desk research Open question to experts (Varho & Tapio e.g. Study of the Netherlands Bureau 2013) for Economic Policy Analysis s (Deep dive) Workshop (z.b. EC Energy scenarios on transport in a globalized Roadmap) world (van Notten 2003) Group Delphi Typical key indicators of the topic (Varho Focus groups (van Notten 2003) & Tapio 2013) Etc. scenario factor definition can be realized in rather intuitive or more structured (and in-depth) forms
The challenge of defining qualitative scenarios Furthermore, auxiliary taxonomies are often used as conceptual tool to inspire the brainstorming process STEEPV STEEP PEST STEP SEPT STEPL PESTLE PESTEL LEPEST STEEPLE STEEPLED Advantages of PEST&Co: Known scheme Simple to realize (no theoretical background needed) Disadvantages of PEST&Co: Low formalization level Range and quality of factors dependent on output of participants risk that customary patterns of perception remain Final selection depends on other methods or criteria Rather lacking scientific quality
Conceptual tool 1: AGIL-scheme of Talcott Parsons Parsons system theory and general action theory: Main question: How social order is established Social systems are based on interactions between actors and there are four basic functions required to construct, maintain or change the system AGIL Figure 1. Social system adapted after Münch 2004.
Conceptual tool 1: AGIL-scheme of Talcott Parsons Expected benefits of AGIL: 1. More systematic and detailed thinking about relevant societal drivers 2. Structuring and differentiating relevant scenario factors and its selection 3. Identification of knowledge gaps (checklist) 4. Enhance scientific quality of qualitative scenarios through integration of scientific theory 5. Help scenario practitioners to think out of the (current practice) box Increases horizontal knowledge integration Expected limitations of AGIL: 1. Can be difficult to apply if theory is totally unknown 2. Can be more time-consuming 3. The range and quality of the factors is still dependent on output of the participating actors 4. The selection process still depends on the methodology chosen AGIL-scheme can only be a part of it 5. Parsons system theory is only ONE possibility to consider the world; other theories need other interpretations
Conceptual tool 2: Context-Focus-Scheme What are focus factors? Focus factors operate on the study focus (e.g. energy system) Direct input from the energy model to the context scenario Energy factors reflecting the whole energy topic What are context factors? Context factors reflect the embedding of the study object (e.g. society in case of energy system) General social developments Explanatory factors for specific focus factors Energy model Context scenarios Context scenarios Energy model General social development factors + explanatory factors Joint factors + energy topic factors
Conceptual tool 2: Context-Focus-Scheme Expected benefits of focus factors: 1. Direct input should ensures that relevant and context sensitive energy parameter are considered within its context. 2. The inclusion of energy topic factors may lead to a better understanding of the broader energy transition topic. Increases vertical knowledge integration Expected limitations of the contextfocus-scheme: 1. The selection process still depends on the methodology chosen context-focusscheme can only be a part of it Expected benefits of context-focusscheme: 1. The explicit distinction of context and focus factors enables a better overview on available factors. 2. The selection of factors for further analysis can be designed more balanced. 3. The topic under study and its context can be reflected in a systematic way (specific context sensitive energy parameter + topic energy + society ) Increases the balance between horizontal and vertical knowledge integration 2. The context-focus-scheme has no influence on the quality of the factors
Conceptual tool 2: Context-Focus-Scheme Focus Energy Focus Energy Focus Energy Focus Energy
Application in energy system modeling methodology These two concepts were applied within the following methodology: 1. Exploration 2. Composition a.literature review and unstructured interviews b. AGIL- and Context-Focus Scheme Final selection 3. Impact network Cross-Impact- Analysis with expert interviews 4.Scenario building Societal scenarios with energy focus Energy modelling
SOCIAL SYSTEM POLITICAL SUBSYSTEM ZIRIUS 1. Exploration project results Systemlevel Action level 1 Action level 2 Political Interchange Administration Context factors Party system Political stability Persistent political paradigms Lobbyism Steering decisions Steering instruments Legal security Handling of administration with applicants Focus factors Eletricity market design Regulatory instruments in the field of energy Cooperative instruments in the field of energy Economic instruments in the field of energy Communication instruments in the field of energy Legal security in the field of energy (legal foundations for investment decisions) Performance of administration for implementation of laws Planning regulations/ Public infrastructural planning Table 1. Selection of the elaborated list of factors structured by the AGIL-Scheme and the context-focus distinction
1. Exploration project results Table 2. Selection of the elaborated list of factors structured by the AGIL-Scheme and the context-focus distinction
Application in energy system modeling methodology These two concepts were applied within the following methodology: 1. Exploration 2. Composition a.literature review and unstructured interviews b. AGIL- and Context-Focus Scheme Final selection 3. Impact network Cross-Impact- Analysis with expert interviewe 4.Scenario building Societal scenarios with energy focus Energy modelling
2. Composition criteria for selection Composing the scenario factors according 1. the statistical analysis of the standardized expert rating a. the unweighted mean (the mental map of the participants) b. the unweighted mean of participating disciplinary groups 2. the AGIL-Scheme (4-fields or 16-fields) 3. the Context-Focus-Scheme 4. disciplinary joker
Number of factors ZIRIUS 2. Composition project results Some statistics Selected context and focus factors 25 20 15 10 5 0 A G I L Four main functions of Parsons social system Focus factors Context factors GG GA AG AA GI GL AI AL IG IA LG LA II IL LI LL Figure 2. Focus and context factors distributed to the 16 fields of sub-subsystems
First conclusions Positive effects of applying AGIL- and the context-focus-scheme: Structuring effects: helped to clearly define factors and bring diverse factors in a clear presentation helped to identify and close knowledge gaps helped to enable a systematized reflection and selection of scenario factors may have the potential to guide also the scenario selection process to a certain degree Brainstorming effects: triggered ideas for relevant social system factors and possible energy topic factors the inclusion of more energy topics has the potential to trigger ideas for the integration of new (relevant) sub-models
Thank you very much for your attention! sigrid.prehofer@zirius.uni-stuttgart.de www.energy-trans.de www.energyscenarios.kit.edu www.cross-impact.de www.zirius.eu