IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-00003925.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Scenarios, probability and possible futures

Author

Listed:
  • Minh Ha-Duong

    (CIRED - centre international de recherche sur l'environnement et le développement - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AgroParisTech - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

This paper provides an introduction to the mathematical theory of possibility, and examines how this tool can contribute to the analysis of far distant futures. The degree of mathematical possibility of a future is a number between O and 1. It quantifies the extend to which a future event is implausible or surprising, without implying that it has to happen somehow. Intuitively, a degree of possibility can be seen as the upper bound of a range of admissible probability levels which goes all the way down to zero. Thus, the proposition `The possibility of X is Pi(X) can be read as `The probability of X is not greater than Pi(X).Possibility levels offers a measure to quantify the degree of unlikelihood of far distant futures. It offers an alternative between forecasts and scenarios, which are both problematic. Long range planning using forecasts with precise probabilities is problematic because it tends to suggests a false degree of precision. Using scenarios without any quantified uncertainty levels is problematic because it may lead to unjustified attention to the extreme scenarios.This paper further deals with the question of extreme cases. It examines how experts should build a set of two to four well contrasted and precisely described futures that summarizes in a simple way their knowledge. Like scenario makers, these experts face multiple objectives: they have to anchor their analysis in credible expertise; depict though-provoking possible futures; but not so provocative as to be dismissed out-of-hand. The first objective can be achieved by describing a future of possibility level 1. The second and third objective, however, balance each other. We find that a satisfying balance can be achieved by selecting extreme cases that do not rule out equiprobability. For example, if there are three cases, the possibility level of extremes should be about 1/3.

Suggested Citation

  • Minh Ha-Duong, 2006. "Scenarios, probability and possible futures," Post-Print halshs-00003925, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00003925
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00003925v2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00003925v2/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen H. Schneider, 2001. "What is 'dangerous' climate change?," Nature, Nature, vol. 411(6833), pages 17-19, May.
    2. Arnulf Grübler & Nebojsa Nakicenovic, 2001. "Identifying dangers in an uncertain climate," Nature, Nature, vol. 412(6842), pages 15-15, July.
    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. Rob Swart & Lenny Bernstein & Minh Ha-Duong & Arthur Petersen, 2009. "Agreeing to disagree: uncertainty management in assessing climate change, impacts and responses by the IPCC," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 92(1), pages 1-29, January.

    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. Minh Ha-Duong, 2012. "Review of risk and uncertainty concepts for climate change assessments including human dimensions," Working Papers halshs-00008089, HAL.
    2. Francisco Estrada & Carlos Gay & Cecilia Conde, 2012. "A methodology for the risk assessment of climate variability and change under uncertainty. A case study: coffee production in Veracruz, Mexico," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(2), pages 455-479, July.
    3. Amro Nasr & Oskar Larsson Ivanov & Ivar Björnsson & Jonas Johansson & Dániel Honfi, 2021. "Towards a Conceptual Framework for Built Infrastructure Design in an Uncertain Climate: Challenges and Research Needs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-19, October.
    4. Olaleye, Olaitan & Baker, Erin, 2015. "Large scale scenario analysis of future low carbon energy options," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 203-216.
    5. Tulkens, Philippe & Tulkens, Henry, 2006. "The White House and the Kyoto Protocol: Double Standards on Uncertainties and Their Consequences," Climate Change Modelling and Policy Working Papers 12063, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    6. Francisco Estrada & Richard S. J. Tol, 2015. "Toward Impact Functions For Stochastic Climate Change," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 6(04), pages 1-13, November.
    7. Espinet, Xavier & Schweikert, Amy & van den Heever, Nicola & Chinowsky, Paul, 2016. "Planning resilient roads for the future environment and climate change: Quantifying the vulnerability of the primary transport infrastructure system in Mexico," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 78-86.
    8. Howard Kunreuther & Geoffrey Heal & Myles Allen & Ottmar Edenhofer & Christopher B. Field & Gary Yohe, 2013. "Risk management and climate change," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(5), pages 447-450, May.
    9. Richard Moss, 2011. "Reducing doubt about uncertainty: Guidance for IPCC’s third assessment," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(4), pages 641-658, October.
    10. Judith Curry, 2011. "Reasoning about climate uncertainty," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(4), pages 723-732, October.
    11. Nigel W. Arnell & Emma L. Tompkins & W. Neil Adger, 2005. "Eliciting Information from Experts on the Likelihood of Rapid Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1419-1431, December.
    12. 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.
    13. Tol, Richard S.J., 2007. "Europe's long-term climate target: A critical evaluation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 424-432, January.
    14. José Edmundo de Almeida Pais & Hugo D. N. Raposo & José Torres Farinha & Antonio J. Marques Cardoso & Pedro Alexandre Marques, 2021. "Optimizing the Life Cycle of Physical Assets through an Integrated Life Cycle Assessment Method," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-24, September.
    15. Donghoon Cha & Sangeun Lee & Heekyung Park, 2012. "Investigating the Vulnerability of Dry-Season Water Supplies to Climate Change: A Case Study of the Gwangdong Reservoir Drought Management System, Korea," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(14), pages 4183-4201, November.
    16. Céline Guivarch & Julie Rozenberg & Vanessa Schweizer, 2016. "The diversity of socio-economic pathways and CO2 emissions scenarios: Insights from the investigation of a scenarios database," Post-Print halshs-01292901, HAL.
    17. Iverson, Terrence, 2012. "Communicating Trade-offs amid Controversial Science: Decision Support for Climate Policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 74-90.
    18. Baard, Patrik & Carlsen, Henrik & Edvardsson Björnberg, Karin & Vredin Johansson, Maria, 2011. "Scenarios and Sustainability A Swedish Case Study of Adaptation Tools for Local Decision-Makers," Working Papers 124, National Institute of Economic Research.
    19. Robert Lempert, 2013. "Scenarios that illuminate vulnerabilities and robust responses," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 117(4), pages 627-646, April.
    20. Richard S.J. Tol, 2016. "Dangerous Interference With The Climate System: An Economic Assessment," Working Paper Series 10016, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Futures; futurible; scenarios; possibility; imprecise probabilities; uncertainty; fuzzy logic;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hal:journl:halshs-00003925. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.