Bridging the gap between scenarios and models

Fontela, Emilio

doi:10.1108/14636680010802447

Cited by 29 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hughes (2013) proposes the development of a reflexive scenario process (with an iteration of linkages) to more effectively link near-term decisions to long-term objectives through transitions pathways. Other integrative efforts have focussed on linking qualitative storylines (or narrative scenarios) with more quantitative modelling exercises (Nakicenovic et al, 2000;O'Neill et al, 2015;van Vuuren and Kok, 2012;Fortes et al, 2015;McDowall, 2014;Fontela, 2000;Alcamo, 2008;Trutnevyte et al, 2014).…”

Section: Bridging Between Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: Bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges

Turnheim

Berkhout

Geels

et al. 2015

Global Environmental Change

425

294

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TThe paper sets out a proposal for bridging and linking three approaches to the analysis of transitions to sustainable and low-carbon societies: quantitative systems modelling; socio-technical transition analysis; and initiative-based learning. We argue that each of these approaches presents a partial and incomplete picture, which has implications for the quality and usefulness of the insights they can deliver for policy and practice. A framework for bridging these different approaches promises to enrich each of the approaches, while providing the basis for a more robust and complete analysis of sustainable transitions pathways that serves better to address questions and dilemmas faced by decision-makers and practitioners. We elaborate five key challenges for the analysis and governance of transitions pathways, and compare the three approaches in relation to each of these. We suggest an integration strategy based on alignment, bridging, and iteration, arguing that a structured dialogue between practitioners of different approaches is needed. In practical terms, such a dialogue would be organised around three areas of joint knowledge production: defining common analytical or governance problems to be tackled through integration; establishing shared concepts (boundary objects); and establishing operational bridging devices (data and metrics, pathways evaluation and their delivery). Such processes could include experts and societal partners. We draw conclusions about future research perspectives and the role of analysis in transitions governance.

show abstract

Section: Bridging Between Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: Bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges

Turnheim

Berkhout

Geels

et al. 2015

Global Environmental Change

425

294

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, the scenarios we have generated should be submitted to further analysis in order to quantify the changes that may be experienced in a range of key variables that can be regarded as endogenous to the sector (crop area, production level, employment generation, existence of positive and negative externalities, etc. ), by means of mathematical modelling [37]. This new information will certainly provide a powerful framework for testing the credibility of potential futures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Foresight analysis of agricultural sector at regional level

Gómez‐Limón

Gómez-Ramos

Fernández

2009

Futures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…There are many elements to credibility including testable calculations, transparency (of models assumptions, cause-effect linkages etc), inclusion of critical issues (Alcamo et al 1996) and for an acceptable balance between openness and rigour (Fontela 2000). The multiple facets that underpin the credibility of an IAM in the eyes of stakeholders must be approached from a variety of perspectives.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%