Search

[Display omitted] • Arguments for the importance of diversity within scenario sets are developed. • The diversity of six global scenario sets is assessed. • Results show relatively good performance with regards to scenario set diversity. • There is a trade-off between covering the scenario space and redundancy. Scenario development and analysis is an important methodological approach in the assessment of global environmental change. Scenarios are used to assess climate change and its impacts on societies, economies, and ecosystems, and identify, test, and improve policy responses to manage the negative consequences of a changing environment. Evaluation of scenarios, especially global scenarios widely used in the climate research and policy community, is therefore urgently needed. While the quality and usefulness of individual scenarios have been extensively examined through a wide array of criteria, standards for systematic evaluation of scenario sets are only emerging. Scenario diversity (i.e., diversity between individual scenarios in a set) has been advanced as a measure to assess the quality of global scenario sets. In this paper, we use scenario diversity analysis, a systematic and transparent quantitative method, to examine six major global scenario sets with regards to scenario set diversity. Results show that the assessed scenario sets show relatively good performance with regards to scenario set diversity. However, the use of classic methods for building scenario architectures and the number of scenarios included in a set raise important questions about the potential trade-offs between covering a bigger space of futures possibilities and adding redundancy to the scenario set. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Scenario planning for climate adaptation is increasingly popular but has not been evaluated. • We present reflections from practitioners at the European Climate Change Adaptation conference. • Participatory processes focussed locally over short (<20 year) timeframes were most effective. • Scenario planning did not sufficiently engage in decision-making processes, limiting outcomes. • Reflexive 'transient scenarios' embedded in iterative adaptation pathways were recommended. Scenario planning is a popular decision-support method that is increasingly being applied to climate change adaptation. However, evaluation of scenario planning for adaptation is lacking. In this paper we summarise a science-policy session held at the European Climate Change Adaptation Conference in May 2019, where practitioners explored the strengths and weaknesses of scenario planning for climate adaptation and identified modifications to enhance the method's utility. Eight case studies spanning three scenario planning types (problem-focused, actor-focused and reflexive-interventionist) from varied socio-cultural contexts were presented by the authors, followed by discussion amongst the 40 participants. Strengths focussed on opportunities provided by scenario planning for stakeholder participation, and raising their awareness about future risks, vulnerability and uncertainty. Participatory scenario planning was most useful for building stakeholder consensus at the local scale (e.g. communities, neighbourhoods) over shorter timeframes (e.g. 20 years). Weaknesses centred on the inability of scenarios to generate quantitative predictions and concrete adaptation solutions. This was partly attributed to practitioners' limited understanding of stakeholder politics and power dynamics, and the resulting lack of integration of scenario exercises within decision-making processes. Scenarios were also limited by being static, and participatory processes were resource-intensive. Suggested modifications were to develop iterative scenario planning embedded within decision-making cycles. Such 'transient scenarios' could absorb system feedbacks and updated information to prioritise adaptation responses, thus actively contributing to ongoing adaptation pathways. Applying monitoring, evaluating and learning would enable reflexive refinement of the method, adapting it to become an agile approach applicable to varied socio-cultural and political contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We present a framework combining capitals and capacities within SSPxRCP scenarios. • Capitals and capacities are needed for society to move towards the 1.5 °C target. • Locally derived capitals and capacities complement global mitigation scenarios. • Social equality is more important than technological development to achieve the 1.5 °C target. • "Business-as-usual" SSP5 has potential only if capitals and capacities are high. With a range of potential pathways to a sustainable future compatible with the Paris Agreement 1.5 °C target, scenario analysis has emerged as a key tool in studies of climate change mitigation and adaptation. A wide range of alternative scenarios have been created, and core amongst these are five socio-economic scenarios (Shared Socio-economic Pathways or SSPs) and four emission scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathways or RCPs). Whilst mitigation scenarios (the Shared Policy Assumptions, or SPAs) have been developed for each SSP-RCP combination, describing the actions necessary to match the climate pathway of the RCP, there has not yet been a systematic approach to address whether and how these actions can be enabled in practice. We present a novel and transferable framework to understand society's capacity to achieve the 1.5 °C target, based on four participatory case studies using the SSP-RCP scenarios. The methodology builds on a framework for categorising different types of societal capitals and capacities and assessing their impact on the potential to implement different types of mitigation actions. All four case studies show that SSP1 has the highest potential to reach the target. Although environmental awareness is high in both SSP1 and SSP4, continued social inequalities in SSP4 restrict society's capacity to transform, despite economic growth. In the two least environmentally-aware SSPs, SSP3 and SSP5, the transformation potential is low, but the view on capitals and capacities nonetheless helps identify opportunities for actors to develop and implement mitigation actions. The study highlights that techno-economic assessments of climate strategies need to be complemented by consideration of the critical role played by social and human capital, and by societal capacity to mobilise and create these capitals despite different socio-economic trends. These capitals and capacities are essential to enable the rapid innovation, behavioural change and international co-ordination needed to achieve the 1.5 °C target. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The challenge of meeting the UNFCCC CoP21 goal of keeping global warming ‘well below 2 °C and to pursue efforts towards 1.5 °C’ (‘the 2–1.5 °C target’) calls for research efforts to better understand the opportunities and constraints for fundamental transformations in global systems dynamics which currently drive the unsustainable and inequitable use of the Earth's resources. To this end, this research reviews and introduces the notion of positive tipping points as emergent properties of systems–including both human capacities and structural conditions — which would allow the fast deployment of evolutionary-like transformative solutions to successfully tackle the present socio-climate quandary. Our research provides a simple procedural synthesis to help identify and coordinate the required agents’ capacities to implement transformative solutions aligned with such climate goal in different contexts. Our research shows how to identify the required capacities, conditions and potential policy interventions which could eventually lead to the emergence of positive tipping points in various social–ecological systems to address the 2–1.5 °C policy target. Our insights are based on the participatory downscaling of global Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) to Europe, the formulation of pathways of solutions within these scenarios and the results from an agent-based economic modelling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Achieving sustainability and resilience transformations under climate change requires transformative and multi-scale visions to stimulate coherent thinking and action towards radically alternative futures. We present our approach to co-produce transformative visions contextualised in different regions across Europe, while exploring emergent 'pan-European' vision elements to guide transformative climate action across scales. We co-produced visions with stakeholders in four case studies: European, national (Scotland), transboundary river basin (Iberia) and two municipalities (Hungary). All visions share core aspirations for good living, justice and social and environmental wellbeing in Europe, while allowing contextualised interpretation to remain meaningful in view of context-specific needs, priorities, cultural perceptions and aspirations. The visions point to areas where deep transformations are required: in service provisioning from critical infrastructures like energy, food, health and education, and in lifestyles and governance. We discuss two key methodological considerations for the co-production of transformative visions across multiple scales. Firstly, the application of a systematic and comprehensive framework across all scales provided a guide to compare and ensure coherence between visions across multiple scales. Secondly, the creation of transformative spaces to co-produce the visions with stakeholders supported critical reflections and learning about the radical and multi-dimensional changes necessary in different regions in Europe. • Transformative visions can be important drivers of desirable societal change. • Transformative visions need to be contextualised and coherent across scales. • A systematic framework guides coherent envisioning across multiple scales. • Transformative spaces gauge critical reflections, learning and empowerment. • Pathways can translate visions into concrete actions to support implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]