Assessing stakeholder preferences on low-carbon energy transitions

References

• Anderson, K., and G. Peters. 2016. The trouble with negative emissions. Science 354 (6309):182–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, M. L., B. F. Hobbs, and E. M. Elliott. 2000. An evaluation of multicriteria decision-making methods in integrated assessment of climate policy. In Research and practice in multiple criteria decision making, ed.. Yacov Y. HaimesRalph E. Steuer, 228–37. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Burger, J. 2011. Stakeholders and Scientists: Achieving implementable solutions to energy and environmental issues. New York, U.S.: Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Cairns, G., I. Ahmed, J. Mullett, and G. Wright. 2013. Scenario method and stakeholder engagement: Critical reflections on a climate change scenarios case study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80 (1):1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calvin, K., L. Clarke, P. Kyle, M. Wise, C. Hartin, and P. Patel, 2015. Introduction to the global change assessment model (GCAM). Joint GCAM Community Modelling Meeting and GTSP Technical Workshop. Global Change Research Institute (JGCRI) in College Park, Maryland.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, J. F., and J. Edmonds. 1993. Modeling energy technologies in a competitive market. Energy Economics 15 (2):123–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, L., P. Kyle, M. Wise, K. Calvin, J. Edmons, S. Kim, M. Placet, and S. Smith, 2009. CO2 emissions mitigation and technological advance: An updated analysis of advanced technology scenarios. (Scenarios Updated January 2009). Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy. PNNL-18075.
   Google Scholar
• Doukas, H., and A. Nikas. 2020. Decision support models in climate policy. European Journal of Operational Research 280 (1):1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doukas, H., A. Nikas, M. González-Eguino, I. Arto, and A. Anger-Kraavi. 2018. From integrated to integrative: Delivering on the Paris agreement. Sustainability 10 (7):2299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dütschke, E. 2011. What drives local public acceptance–comparing two cases from Germany. Energy Procedia 4:6234–40.
   Google Scholar
• Edenhofer, O., B. Knopf, T. Barker, L. Baumstark, E. Bellevrat, B. Chateau, and M. Leimbach. 2010. The economics of low stabilization: Model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. The Energy Journal 31 (1):11–48.
   Google Scholar
• Edmonds, J., and J. Reilly. 1983. A long-term, global, energy-economic model of carbon dioxide release from fossil fuel use. Energy Economics 5 (2):74–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eker, S., E. Rovenskaya, M. Obersteiner, and S. Langan. 2018. Practice and perspectives in the validation of resource management models. Nature Communications 9 (1):e5359.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flamos, A. 2015. The timing is ripe for an EU-GCC “Clean Energy” network. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy 10 (3):314–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GCAM documentation. 2017. http://jgcri.github.io/gcam-doc/v4.2/solver.html.
   Google Scholar
• Geels, F. W., F. Berkhout, and D. P. van Vuuren. 2016. Bridging analytical approaches for low-carbon transitions. Nature Climate Change 6 (6):576–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray, S., A. Voinov, M. Paolisso, R. Jordan, T. BenDor, P. Bommel, P. Glynn, B. Hedelin, K. Hubacek, J. Introne, et al. 2018. Purpose. Processes, Partnerships, and Products: Four Ps to Advance Participatory Socio-environmental Modeling. Ecological Applications: A Publication of the Ecological Society of America 28 (1):46–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanson, C. E., J. P. Palutikof, A. Dlugolecki, and C. Giannakopoulos. 2006. Bridging the gap between science and the stakeholder: The case of climate change research. Climate Research 31 (1):121–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IPCC. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed.. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. Averyt, and H. Miller, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• IPCC. 2013a. IPCC data distribution center- definition of terms used within the DDC pages. Accessed June 17 2013. <http://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/definitions.html>.
   Google Scholar
• IPCC. 2013b. Summary for policymakers. In: climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK, New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• IPCC. 2014b. Technical Summary. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
   Google Scholar
• IPCC. 2018. Summary for Policymakers. In Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty, ed. V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, et al., In Press.
   Google Scholar
• IPCC. 2014a. Synthesis Report. In Climate change 2014: Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, ed. Core Writing Team, R. K. Pachauri and L. A. Meyer, IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland. 151.
   Google Scholar
• Kriegler, E., J. P. Weyant, G. J. Blanford, V. Krey, L. Clarke, J. Edmonds, and S. K. Rose. 2014. The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: Overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies. Climatic Change 123 (3–4):353–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyle. 2015. Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM) Tutorial.
   Google Scholar
• Lemos, M. C., C. J. Kirchhoff, and V. Ramprasad. 2012. Narrowing the climate information usability gap. Nature Climate Change 2:789–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieu, J., Hanger, S., Sorman A. and van Vliet, O. 2020. Assessing risks and uncertainties of low-carbon transition pathways [Special issue]. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 35:261–524.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mietzner, D., and G. Reger. 2005. Advantages and disadvantages of scenario approaches for strategic foresight. International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning 1 (2):220–39.
   Google Scholar
• Poumadère, M., R. Bertoldo, and J. Samadi. 2011. Public perceptions and governance of controversial technologies to tackle climate change: Nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, wind, and geoengineering. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Climate Change 2 (5):712–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ranger, N., L. K. Gohar, J. A. Lowe, S. C. B. Raper, A. Bowen, and R. E. Ward. 2012. Is it possible to limit global warming to no more than 1.5 °C? Climatic Change 111:973–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogelj, J., G. Luderer, R. C. Pietzcker, E. Kriegler, M. Schaeffer, V. Krey, and K. Riahi. 2015. Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5 [deg] C. Nature Climate Change 5 (6):519–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saygin, D., J. Rigter, B. Caldecott, N. Wagner, and D. Gielen. 2019. Power sector asset stranding effects of climate policies. Energy Sources. Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy 14 (4):99–124.
   Google Scholar
• Schleussner, C. F., Lissner, T. K., Fischer, E. M., Wohland, J., Perrette, M., Golly, A., … and Mengel, M. 2016. Differential climate impacts for policy-relevant limits to global warming: The case of 1.5 °C and 2°C. Earth System Dynamics 7:327–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selma, L., O. Seigo, S. Dohle, and M. Siegrist. 2014. Public perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS): A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 38:848–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shackley, S., and R. Deanwood. 2003. Constructing social futures for climate-change impacts and response studies: Building qualitative and quantitative scenarios with the participation of stakeholders. Climate Research 24 (1):71–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, P., S. J. Davis, F. Creutzig, S. Fuss, J. Minx, B. Gabrielle, … D. P. van Vuuren. 2016. Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change 6 (1):42–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, S. J., H. Pitcher, and T. M. L. Wigley. 2005. Future sulfur dioxide emissions. Climate Change 73 (3):267–318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, S. J., and T. M. L. Wigley. 2006. Multi-gas forcing stabilization with the MiniCAM. Energy Joule SI 27:373–91.
   Google Scholar
• Tàbara, J. D., A. L. S. Clair, and E. A. Hermansen. 2017. Transforming communication and knowledge production processes to address high-end climate change. Environmental Science & Policy 70:31–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turnheim, B., F. Berkhout, F. Geels, A. Hof, A. McMeekin, B. Nykvist, and D. van Vuuren. 2015. Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: Bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges. Global Environmental Change 35:239–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Berg, N. J., A. F. Hof, L. Akenji, O. Y. Edelenbosch, M. A. van Sluisveld, V. J. Timmer, and D. P. van Vuuren. 2019. Improved modelling of lifestyle changes in Integrated Assessment Models: Cross-disciplinary insights from methodologies and theories. Energy Strategy Reviews 26:100420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Vuuren, D. P., E. Stehfest, D. E. Gernaat, M. Van Den Berg, D. L. Bijl, H. S. De Boer, … A. F. Hof. 2018. Alternative pathways to the 1.5 C target reduce the need for negative emission technologies. Nature Climate Change 8 (5):391–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verdolini, E., D. Anadon, and B. Laura. 2018. Erin and Bosetti, Valentina and Reis, Lara Aleluia, The Future Prospects of Energy Technologies: Insights from Expert Elicitations. FEEM Working Paper No. 47.
   Google Scholar
• Vergragt, P. J., N. Markusson, and H. Karlsson. 2011. Carbon capture and storage, bio-energy with carbon capture and storage, and the escape from the fossil-fuel lock-in. Global Environmental Change 21 (2):282–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voinov, A., K. Jenni, S. Gray, N. Kolagani, P. D. Glynn, P. Bommel, C. Prell, M. Zellner, M. Paolisso, R. Jordan, et al. 2018. Tools and methods in participatory modeling: Selecting the right tool for the job. Environmental Modelling and Software 109:232–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voinov, A., N. Kolagani, M. K. McCall, P. D. Glynn, M. E. Kragt, F. O. Ostermann, S. A. Pierce, and P. Ramu. 2016. Modelling with stakeholders - Next generation. Environmental Modelling and Software 77:196–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar