IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v127y2018icp245-257.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Benefits and challenges of participatory methods in qualitative energy scenario development

Author

Listed:
  • Ernst, Anna
  • Biß, Klaus H.
  • Shamon, Hawal
  • Schumann, Diana
  • Heinrichs, Heidi U.

Abstract

Energy scenarios are a tool for exploring possible future developments or states of energy systems. However, traditional energy scenarios mainly concentrate on technological feasibility and economic impacts and lack consideration of social feasibility. Participatory methods, meaning the involvement of external scientists and stakeholders in the scenario development process, can integrate different types of knowledge, perspectives, and values to improve energy scenario development. This paper reports on an approach which is deduced from the strengths and weaknesses of current research applying participatory methods to generate qualitative scenarios. Three different participatory methods - envisioning storylines, futures wheel, and evaluation of narratives - are combined in order to balance the strengths and weaknesses of each of them to create transparent, plausible qualitative scenarios without predisposition. At these three workshops, a total of 25 external and eleven internal participants discussed future developments of the German energy transformation (Energiewende). The paper examines whether this approach overcomes the limitations of current approaches and is ultimately suitable for improving energy scenarios. The findings suggest that a combination of different participatory methods and also a variety of participants help to overcome bias, explore different future pathways in depth, and distinguish between certain and uncertain developments.

Suggested Citation

  • Ernst, Anna & Biß, Klaus H. & Shamon, Hawal & Schumann, Diana & Heinrichs, Heidi U., 2018. "Benefits and challenges of participatory methods in qualitative energy scenario development," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 245-257.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:127:y:2018:i:c:p:245-257
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004016251730450X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.026?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andreescu, Liviu & Gheorghiu, Radu & Zulean, Marian & Curaj, Adrian, 2013. "Understanding normative foresight outcomes: Scenario development and the ‘veil of ignorance’ effect," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 711-722.
    2. Frank W. Geels & Frans Berkhout & Detlef P. van Vuuren, 2016. "Bridging analytical approaches for low-carbon transitions," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(6), pages 576-583, June.
    3. Varho, Vilja & Tapio, Petri, 2013. "Combining the qualitative and quantitative with the Q2 scenario technique — The case of transport and climate," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 611-630.
    4. Butler, C. & Demski, C. & Parkhill, K. & Pidgeon, N. & Spence, A., 2015. "Public values for energy futures: Framing, indeterminacy and policy making," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 665-672.
    5. Fortes, Patrícia & Alvarenga, António & Seixas, Júlia & Rodrigues, Sofia, 2015. "Long-term energy scenarios: Bridging the gap between socio-economic storylines and energy modeling," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 161-178.
    6. Evelina Trutnevyte & Céline Guivarch & Robert Lempert & Neil Strachan, 2016. "Reinvigorating the scenario technique to expand uncertainty consideration," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 135(3), pages 373-379, April.
    7. Duckett, Dominic George & McKee, Annie J. & Sutherland, Lee-Ann & Kyle, Carol & Boden, Lisa A. & Auty, Harriet & Bessell, Paul R. & McKendrick, Iain J., 2017. "Scenario planning as communicative action: Lessons from participatory exercises conducted for the Scottish livestock industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 138-151.
    8. Carlsson, Julia & Eriksson, Ljusk Ola & Öhman, Karin & Nordström, Eva-Maria, 2015. "Combining scientific and stakeholder knowledge in future scenario development — A forest landscape case study in northern Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 122-134.
    9. Heinrichs, Heidi Ursula & Schumann, Diana & Vögele, Stefan & Biß, Klaus Hendrik & Shamon, Hawal & Markewitz, Peter & Többen, Johannes & Gillessen, Bastian & Gotzens, Fabian & Ernst, Anna, 2017. "Integrated assessment of a phase-out of coal-fired power plants in Germany," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 285-305.
    10. Meissner, Philip & Wulf, Torsten, 2013. "Cognitive benefits of scenario planning: Its impact on biases and decision quality," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 801-814.
    11. Li, Francis G.N. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Strachan, Neil, 2015. "A review of socio-technical energy transition (STET) models," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 290-305.
    12. Trutnevyte, Evelina & McDowall, Will & Tomei, Julia & Keppo, Ilkka, 2016. "Energy scenario choices: Insights from a retrospective review of UK energy futures," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 326-337.
    13. Weimer-Jehle, Wolfgang & Buchgeister, Jens & Hauser, Wolfgang & Kosow, Hannah & Naegler, Tobias & Poganietz, Witold-Roger & Pregger, Thomas & Prehofer, Sigrid & von Recklinghausen, Andreas & Schippl, , 2016. "Context scenarios and their usage for the construction of socio-technical energy scenarios," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 956-970.
    14. Trutnevyte, Evelina & Barton, John & O'Grady, Áine & Ogunkunle, Damiete & Pudjianto, Danny & Robertson, Elizabeth, 2014. "Linking a storyline with multiple models: A cross-scale study of the UK power system transition," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 26-42.
    15. Schmid, Eva & Knopf, Brigitte, 2012. "Ambitious mitigation scenarios for Germany: A participatory approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 662-672.
    16. Heinrichs, Heidi Ursula & Markewitz, Peter, 2017. "Long-term impacts of a coal phase-out in Germany as part of a greenhouse gas mitigation strategy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 234-246.
    17. Bowman, Gary & MacKay, R. Bradley & Masrani, Swapnesh & McKiernan, Peter, 2013. "Storytelling and the scenario process: Understanding success and failure," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 735-748.
    18. Harald Rohracher, 2008. "Energy systems in transition: contributions from social sciences," International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 9(2/3), pages 144-161.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. McGookin, Connor & Ó Gallachóir, Brian & Byrne, Edmond, 2021. "Participatory methods in energy system modelling and planning – A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    2. Hoffart, Franziska, 2022. "What is a feasible and 1.5°C-aligned hydrogen infrastructure for Germany? A multi-criteria economic study based on socio-technical energy scenarios," Ruhr Economic Papers 979, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    3. Dawud Ansari, Franziska Holz, and Hashem Al-Kuhlani, 2020. "Energy Outlooks Compared: Global and Regional Insights," Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 21-42.
    4. Ehlers, Melf-Hinrich & Finger, Robert & El Benni, Nadja & Gocht, Alexander & Sørensen, Claus Aage Grøn & Gusset, Markus & Pfeifer, Catherine & Poppe, Krijn & Regan, Áine & Rose, David Christian & Wolf, 2022. "Scenarios for European agricultural policymaking in the era of digitalisation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    5. Bouw, Kathelijne & Noorman, Klaas Jan & Wiekens, Carina J. & Faaij, André, 2021. "Local energy planning in the built environment: An analysis of model characteristics," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    6. de Almeida, Liliane & Augusto de Jesus Pacheco, Diego & Caten, Carla Schwengber ten & Jung, Carlos Fernando, 2021. "A methodology for identifying results and impacts in technological innovation projects," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    7. Axel Lindfors & Roozbeh Feiz & Mats Eklund & Jonas Ammenberg, 2019. "Assessing the Potential, Performance and Feasibility of Urban Solutions: Methodological Considerations and Learnings from Biogas Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-20, July.
    8. Süsser, Diana & Gaschnig, Hannes & Ceglarz, Andrzej & Stavrakas, Vassilis & Flamos, Alexandros & Lilliestam, Johan, 2022. "Better suited or just more complex? On the fit between user needs and modeller-driven improvements of energy system models," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PB).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bouw, Kathelijne & Noorman, Klaas Jan & Wiekens, Carina J. & Faaij, André, 2021. "Local energy planning in the built environment: An analysis of model characteristics," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    2. Jahel, Camille & Bourgeois, Robin & Bourgoin, Jérémy & Daré, William's & De Lattre-Gasquet, Marie & Delay, Etienne & Dumas, Patrice & Le Page, Christophe & Piraux, Marc & Prudhomme, Rémi, 2023. "The future of social-ecological systems at the crossroads of quantitative and qualitative methods," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    3. McGookin, Connor & Ó Gallachóir, Brian & Byrne, Edmond, 2021. "Participatory methods in energy system modelling and planning – A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    4. Xexakis, Georgios & Hansmann, Ralph & Volken, Sandra P. & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2020. "Models on the wrong track: Model-based electricity supply scenarios in Switzerland are not aligned with the perspectives of energy experts and the public," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    5. Metz, Ashley & Hartley, Paul, 2020. "Scenario development as valuation: Opportunities for reflexivity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    6. Vögele, Stefan & Poganietz, Witold-Roger & Kleinebrahm, Max & Weimer-Jehle, Wolfgang & Bernhard, Jesse & Kuckshinrichs, Wilhelm & Weiss, Annika, 2022. "Dissemination of PV-Battery systems in the German residential sector up to 2050: Technological diffusion from multidisciplinary perspectives," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 248(C).
    7. Ramboarison-Lalao, Lovanirina & Gannouni, Kais, 2019. "Liberated firm, a leverage of well-being and technological change? A prospective study based on the scenario method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 129-139.
    8. Geels, F.W. & McMeekin, A. & Pfluger, B., 2020. "Socio-technical scenarios as a methodological tool to explore social and political feasibility in low-carbon transitions: Bridging computer models and the multi-level perspective in UK electricity gen," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    9. van Sluisveld, Mariësse A.E. & Hof, Andries F. & Carrara, Samuel & Geels, Frank W. & Nilsson, Måns & Rogge, Karoline & Turnheim, Bruno & van Vuuren, Detlef P., 2020. "Aligning integrated assessment modelling with socio-technical transition insights: An application to low-carbon energy scenario analysis in Europe," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    10. Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2016. "Does cost optimization approximate the real-world energy transition?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 182-193.
    11. DeCarolis, Joseph & Daly, Hannah & Dodds, Paul & Keppo, Ilkka & Li, Francis & McDowall, Will & Pye, Steve & Strachan, Neil & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Usher, Will & Winning, Matthew & Yeh, Sonia & Zeyring, 2017. "Formalizing best practice for energy system optimization modelling," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 184-198.
    12. Tobias Witt & Matthias Klumpp, 2021. "Multi-Period Multi-Criteria Decision Making under Uncertainty: A Renewable Energy Transition Case from Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-20, June.
    13. Fodstad, Marte & Crespo del Granado, Pedro & Hellemo, Lars & Knudsen, Brage Rugstad & Pisciella, Paolo & Silvast, Antti & Bordin, Chiara & Schmidt, Sarah & Straus, Julian, 2022. "Next frontiers in energy system modelling: A review on challenges and the state of the art," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    14. Cotterman, Turner, 2019. "Why Rapid and Deep Decarbonization isn’t Simple: Linking Bottom-up Socio-technical Decision-making Insights with Top-down Macroeconomic Analyses," Conference papers 333088, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    15. Ajay Gambhir & Isabela Butnar & Pei-Hao Li & Pete Smith & Neil Strachan, 2019. "A Review of Criticisms of Integrated Assessment Models and Proposed Approaches to Address These, through the Lens of BECCS," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-21, May.
    16. Hof, Andries F. & van Vuuren, Detlef P. & Berkhout, Frans & Geels, Frank W., 2020. "Understanding transition pathways by bridging modelling, transition and practice-based studies: Editorial introduction to the special issue," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    17. Odenweller, Adrian, 2022. "Climate mitigation under S-shaped energy technology diffusion: Leveraging synergies of optimisation and simulation models," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    18. Li, Francis G.N. & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2017. "Investment appraisal of cost-optimal and near-optimal pathways for the UK electricity sector transition to 2050," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 89-109.
    19. Hanna, Richard & Gross, Robert, 2021. "How do energy systems model and scenario studies explicitly represent socio-economic, political and technological disruption and discontinuity? Implications for policy and practitioners," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    20. Crawford, Megan M., 2019. "A comprehensive scenario intervention typology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:127:y:2018:i:c:p:245-257. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.