Achievements and needs for the climate change scenario framework (original) (raw)

References

  1. Moss, R. H. et al. The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463, 747 (2010).
    CAS Google Scholar
  2. Ebi, K. L. et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research: background, process, and future directions. Climatic Change 122, 363–372 (2014).
    Google Scholar
  3. van Vuuren, D. P. et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research: scenario matrix architecture. Climatic Change 122, 373–386 (2014).
    Google Scholar
  4. O’Neill, B. C. et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Climatic Change 122, 387–400 (2014).
    Google Scholar
  5. Kriegler, E. et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared climate policy assumptions. Climatic Change 122, 401–414 (2014).
    Google Scholar
  6. van Vuuren, D. P. et al. The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Climatic Change 109, 5 (2011).
    Google Scholar
  7. Riahi, K. et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2017). A synthesis of the SSP narratives, quantitative elements and integrated assessment model scenarios of energy, land use and emissions.
    Google Scholar
  8. O’Neill, B. C. & Scientific Steering Committee. Forum on Scenarios of Climate and Societal Futures: Meeting Report (University of Denver, 2019); https://pardee.du.edu/forum-scenarios-climate-and-societal-futures-meeting-reportDocuments the wide variety of topics being addressed by a growing and diverse community developing and using scenarios.
  9. Chowdhury, S., Dey, S. & Smith, K. R. Ambient PM 2.5 exposure and expected premature mortality to 2100 in India under climate change scenarios. Nat. Commun. 9, 318 (2018).
    Google Scholar
  10. Williges, K., Mechler, R., Bowyer, P. & Balkovic, J. Towards an assessment of adaptive capacity of the European agricultural sector to droughts. Clim. Serv. 7, 47–63 (2017).
    Google Scholar
  11. Bauer, N. et al. Shared Socio-economic Pathways of the energy sector – quantifying the narratives. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 316–330 (2017).
    Google Scholar
  12. Popp, A. et al. Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 331–345 (2017).
    Google Scholar
  13. Rogelj, J. et al. Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 325–332 (2018).
    CAS Google Scholar
  14. Jones, B. & O’Neill, B. C. Spatially explicit global population scenarios consistent with the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 084003 (2016).
    Google Scholar
  15. Merkens, J.-L., Reimann, L., Hinkel, J. & Vafeidis, A. T. Gridded population projections for the coastal zone under the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Glob. Planet. Change 145, 57–66 (2016).
    Google Scholar
  16. Terama, E., Clarke, E., Rounsevell, M. D. A., Fronzek, S. & Carter, T. R. Modelling population structure in the context of urban land use change in Europe. Reg. Environ. Change 19, 667–677 (2019).
    Google Scholar
  17. Wear, D. N. & Prestemon, J. P. Spatiotemporal downscaling of global population and income scenarios for the United States. PLoS ONE 14, e0219242 (2019).
    CAS Google Scholar
  18. Rao, N. D., Sauer, P., Gidden, M. & Riahi, K. Income inequality projections for the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs). Futures 105, 27–39 (2018).
    Google Scholar
  19. Van der Mensbrugghe, D. Shared Socio-economic pathways and global income distribution. In 18th Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis (GTAP, 2015).
  20. Hallegatte, S. & Rozenberg, J. Climate change through a poverty lens. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 250–256 (2017).
    Google Scholar
  21. Byers, E. et al. Global exposure and vulnerability to multi-sector development and climate change hotspots. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 055012 (2018). Integrates a variety of climate and societal information to identify locations of high exposure and vulnerability.
    Google Scholar
  22. Jones, B., Tebaldi, C., O’Neill, B. C., Oleson, K. & Gao, J. Avoiding population exposure to heat-related extremes: demographic change vs climate change. Climatic Change 146, 423–437 (2018).
    Google Scholar
  23. Harrington, L. J. & Otto, F. E. L. Changing population dynamics and uneven temperature emergence combine to exacerbate regional exposure to heat extremes under 1.5 °C and 2 °C of warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 034011 (2018).
    Google Scholar
  24. Rohat, G. et al. Influence of changes in socioeconomic and climatic conditions on future heat-related health challenges in Europe. Glob. Planet. Change 172, 45–59 (2019).
    Google Scholar
  25. Rao, S. et al. Future air pollution in the Shared Socio-economic Pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 346–358 (2017).
    Google Scholar
  26. Ebi, K. Health in the new scenarios for climate change research. Int. J. Env. Res. Pub. He. 11, 30–46 (2013).
    Google Scholar
  27. Graham, N. T. et al. Water sector assumptions for the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways in an integrated modeling framework. Water Resour. Res. 54, 6423–6440 (2018).
    Google Scholar
  28. Kemp-Benedict, E., de Jong, W. & Pacheco, P. In Forests Under Pressure, Local Responses to Global Issues (eds Katila, P. et al.) 539–553 (IUFRO, 2014).
  29. Maury, O. et al. From Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) to oceanic system pathways (OSPs): building policy-relevant scenarios for global oceanic ecosystems and fisheries. Glob. Environ. Change 45, 203–216 (2017).
    Google Scholar
  30. Hegre, H. et al. Forecasting civil conflict along the shared socioeconomic pathways. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 054002 (2016).
    Google Scholar
  31. Andrijevic, M., Cuaresma, J. C., Muttarak, R. & Schleussner, C.-F. Governance in socioeconomic pathways and its role for future adaptive capacity. Nat. Sustain. 3, 35–41 (2020). Extends the SSPs with projections of governance to facilitate integrated studies.
    Google Scholar
  32. Absar, S. M. & Preston, B. L. Extending the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways for sub-national impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability studies. Glob. Environ. Change 33, 83–96 (2015).
    Google Scholar
  33. Rohat, G., Flacke, J., Dao, H. & van Maarseveen, M. Co-use of existing scenario sets to extend and quantify the shared socioeconomic pathways. Climatic Change 151, 619–636 (2018).
    Google Scholar
  34. McManamay, R. A., DeRolph, C. R., Surendran-Nair, S. & Allen-Dumas, M. Spatially explicit land-energy-water future scenarios for cities: guiding infrastructure transitions for urban sustainability. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 112, 880–900 (2019).
    Google Scholar
  35. Kok, K., Pedde, S., Gramberger, M., Harrison, P. A. & Holman, I. P. New European socio-economic scenarios for climate change research: operationalising concepts to extend the shared socio-economic pathways. Reg. Environ. Change 19, 643–654 (2019).
    Google Scholar
  36. Harrison, P. A. et al. Differences between low-end and high-end climate change impacts in Europe across multiple sectors. Reg. Environ. Change 19, 695–709 (2019).
    Google Scholar
  37. Frantzeskaki, N. et al. Transition pathways to sustainability in greater than 2 °C climate futures of Europe. Reg. Environ. Change 19, 777–789 (2019).
    Google Scholar
  38. Hasegawa, T. et al. Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent global climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 699–703 (2018).
    Google Scholar
  39. Hanasaki, N. et al. A global water scarcity assessment under Shared Socio-economic Pathways – Part 2: water availability and scarcity. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17, 2393–2413 (2013).
    Google Scholar
  40. Park, C. et al. Avoided economic impacts of energy demand changes by 1.5 and 2 °C climate stabilization. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 4 (2018).
    Google Scholar
  41. IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).
  42. IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) (WMO, 2019).
  43. IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (eds Pörtner, H.-O. et al.) (WMO, 2019).
  44. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019).
  45. TWI2050 Report: Transformations to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (IIASA, 2018).
  46. Global Environment Outlook – GEO-6: Healthy Planet, Healthy People (United Nations Environment Programme, 2019).
  47. O’Neill, B. C. et al. The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 3461–3482 (2016).
    Google Scholar
  48. Rosa, I. M. D. et al. Challenges in producing policy-relevant global scenarios of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 22, e00886 (2020). Addresses the extension of scenarios to the biodiversity community.
    Google Scholar
  49. Mason-D’Croz, D. et al. Multi-factor, multi-state, multi-model scenarios: exploring food and climate futures for Southeast Asia. Environ. Modell. Soft. 83, 255–270 (2016).
    Google Scholar
  50. Cradock-Henry, N. A., Frame, B., Preston, B. L., Reisinger, A. & Rothman, D. S. Dynamic adaptive pathways in downscaled climate change scenarios. Climatic Change 150, 333–341 (2018).
    Google Scholar
  51. van Ruijven, B. J. et al. Enhancing the relevance of Shared Socioeconomic Pathways for climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability research. Climatic Change 122, 481–494 (2014).
    Google Scholar
  52. Scheffer, M. et al. Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Nature 461, 53–59 (2009).
    CAS Google Scholar
  53. Hazeleger, W. et al. Tales of future weather. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 107–113 (2015).
    Google Scholar
  54. Shepherd, T. G. et al. Storylines: an alternative approach to representing uncertainty in physical aspects of climate change. Climatic Change 151, 555–571 (2018).
    Google Scholar
  55. de Bruijn, K. M., Lips, N., Gersonius, B. & Middelkoop, H. The storyline approach: a new way to analyse and improve flood event management. Nat. Hazards 81, 99–121 (2016).
    Google Scholar
  56. Shepherd, T. G. Storyline approach to the construction of regional climate change information. P. Roy. Soc. A—Math. Phy. 475, 20190013 (2019).
    Google Scholar
  57. Sillmann, J. et al. Physical Modeling Supporting a Storyline Approach (CICERO Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, 2019).
  58. Giorgi, F. & Gutowski, W. J. Regional dynamical downscaling and the CORDEX initiative. Annu. Rev. Env. Resour. 40, 467–490 (2015).
    Google Scholar
  59. Challinor, A. J., Adger, W. N. & Benton, T. G. Climate risks across borders and scales. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 621–623 (2017).
    Google Scholar
  60. van Ruijven, B. J., De Cian, E. & Sue Wing, I. Amplification of future energy demand growth due to climate change. Nat. Commun. 10, 2762 (2019).
    Google Scholar
  61. Biggs, R. et al. Linking futures across scales: a dialog on multiscale scenarios. Ecol. Soc. 12, 17 (2007).
    Google Scholar
  62. Zurek, M. B. & Henrichs, T. Linking scenarios across geographical scales in international environmental assessments. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 74, 1282–1295 (2007).
    Google Scholar
  63. Nilsson, A. E. et al. Towards extended shared socioeconomic pathways: a combined participatory bottom-up and top-down methodology with results from the Barents region. Glob. Environ. Change 45, 124–132 (2017).
    Google Scholar
  64. Mitter, H. Shared Socio-economic Pathways for European agriculture and food systems: the Eur-Agri-SSPs. Glob. Environ. Change 65, 102159 (2020). Develops regional SSPs for application to the agricultural sector.
    Google Scholar
  65. Kebede, A. S. et al. Applying the global RCP-SSP-SPA scenario framework at sub-national scale: a multi-scale and participatory scenario approach. Sci. Total Environ. 635, 659–672 (2018).
    CAS Google Scholar
  66. Tàbara, J. D. et al. Exploring institutional transformations to address high-end climate change in Iberia. Sustainability 10, 161 (2018).
    Google Scholar
  67. Hunt, D. V. L. et al. Scenario archetypes: converging rather than diverging themes. Sustainability 4, 740–772 (2012).
    Google Scholar
  68. van Vuuren, D. P., Kok, M. T. J., Girod, B., Lucas, P. L. & de Vries, B. Scenarios in global environmental assessments: key characteristics and lessons for future use. Glob. Environ. Change 22, 884–895 (2012).
    Google Scholar
  69. Guillaume Rohat, Johannes Flacke, Hy Dao, Martin van Maarseveen, (2018) Co-use of existing scenario sets to extend and quantify the shared socioeconomic pathways. Climatic Change 151 (3-4):619-636.
  70. Reidmiller, D. R. et al. (eds) Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment Volume II (US Global Change Research Program, 2018).
  71. Pereira, L. M. et al. Developing multi-scale and integrative nature-people scenarios using the Nature Futures Framework. People and Nature https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10146 (2020).
  72. O’Neill, B. C. et al. The roads ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 169–180 (2017).
    Google Scholar
  73. van Vuuren, D. P. et al. A proposal for a new scenario framework to support research and assessment in different climate research communities. Glob. Environ. Change 22, 21–35 (2012).
    Google Scholar
  74. Grant, N., Hawkes, A., Napp, T. & Gambhir, A. The appropriate use of reference scenarios in mitigation analysis. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 605–610 (2020).
    Google Scholar
  75. Roelfsema, M. Taking stock of climate policies: future impact of national policies in the context of the Paris Agreement climate goals. Nat. Commun. 11, 2096 (2020).
    CAS Google Scholar
  76. Wilbanks, T. J. & Ebi, K. L. SSPs from an impact and adaptation perspective. Climatic Change 122, 473–479 (2014).
    Google Scholar
  77. Otero, I. et al. Biodiversity policy beyond economic growth. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12713 (2020).
    Google Scholar
  78. Buhaug, H. & Vestby, J. On Growth Projections in the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Global Environ. Polit. 19, 118–132 (2019).
    Google Scholar
  79. Grubler, A. et al. A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5 °C target and sustainable development goals without negative emission technologies. Nat. Energy 3, 515–527 (2018).
    Google Scholar
  80. van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Alternative pathways to the 1.5 °C target reduce the need for negative emission technologies. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 391–397 (2018).
    Google Scholar
  81. Cash, D. W. et al. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 8086–8091 (2003).
    CAS Google Scholar
  82. Beck, S. & Mahony, M. The IPCC and the politics of anticipation. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 311–313 (2017).
    Google Scholar
  83. Edenhofer, O. & Kowarsch, M. Cartography of pathways: a new model for environmental policy assessments. Environ. Sci. Policy 51, 56–64 (2015).
    Google Scholar
  84. Kowarsch, M. & Jabbour, J. Solution-oriented global environmental assessments: opportunities and challenges. Environ. Sci. Policy 77, 187–192 (2017).
    Google Scholar
  85. Inayatullah, S. Deconstructing and reconstructing the future: predictive, cultural and critical epistemologies. Futures 22, 115–141 (1990).
    Google Scholar
  86. Sardar, Z. Colonizing the future: the ‘other’ dimension of futures studies. Futures 25, 179–187 (1993).
    Google Scholar
  87. Inayatullah, S. (eds) in The Causal Layered Analysis Reader: Theory and Case Studies of an Integrative and Transformative Methodology 1–52 (Tamkang Univ. Press, 2004).
  88. Slaughter, R. A. From forecasting and scenarios to social construction: changing methodological paradigms in futures studies. Foresight 4, 26–31 (2002).
    Google Scholar
  89. Schweizer, V. J. & O’Neill, B. C. Systematic construction of global socioeconomic pathways using internally consistent element combinations. Climatic Change 122, 431–445 (2014).
    Google Scholar
  90. Lamontagne, J. R. et al. Large ensemble analytic framework for consequence‐driven discovery of climate change scenarios. Earth’s Future 6, 488–504 (2018).
    Google Scholar
  91. Carlsen, H., Lempert, R., Wikman-Svahn, P. & Schweizer, V. Choosing small sets of policy-relevant scenarios by combining vulnerability and diversity approaches. Environ. Modell. Soft. 84, 155–164 (2016).
    Google Scholar
  92. Clapp, C. & Sillmann, J. Facilitating climate-smart investments. One Earth 1, 57–61 (2019).
    Google Scholar
  93. Final Report: Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD, 2017); https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/publications/final-recommendations-report/
  94. First Comprehensive Report: A Call For Action (NGFS, 2019); https://www.ngfs.net/en/first-comprehensive-report-call-action
  95. Weber, C. et al. Mitigation scenarios must cater to new users. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 845–848 (2018).
    Google Scholar
  96. Vaughan, C. & Dessai, S. Climate services for society: origins, institutional arrangements, and design elements for an evaluation framework: climate services for society. WIREs Clim. Change 5, 587–603 (2014).
    Google Scholar
  97. Rogelj, J. et al. A new scenario logic for the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal. Nature 573, 357–363 (2019).
    CAS Google Scholar
  98. Green, C. et al. Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) Literature Database, v1, 2014–2019 (NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC), 2020); https://doi.org/10.7927/HN96-9703
  99. Kriegler, E. et al. The need for and use of socio-economic scenarios for climate change analysis: a new approach based on shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 22, 807–822 (2012).
    Google Scholar
  100. KC, S. & Lutz, W. The human core of the shared socioeconomic pathways: population scenarios by age, sex and level of education for all countries to 2100. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 181–192 (2017).
    Google Scholar
  101. Dellink, R., Chateau, J., Lanzi, E. & Magné, B. Long-term economic growth projections in the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 200–214 (2017).
    Google Scholar
  102. Crespo Cuaresma, J. Income projections for climate change research: a framework based on human capital dynamics. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 226–236 (2017).
    Google Scholar
  103. Leimbach, M., Kriegler, E., Roming, N. & Schwanitz, J. Future growth patterns of world regions – a GDP scenario approach. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 215–225 (2017).
    Google Scholar
  104. Jiang, L. & O’Neill, B. C. Global urbanization projections for the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 193–199 (2017).
    Google Scholar
  105. Gidden, M. J. et al. Global emissions pathways under different socioeconomic scenarios for use in CMIP6: a dataset of harmonized emissions trajectories through the end of the century. Geosci. Model Dev. 12, 1443–1475 (2019).
    CAS Google Scholar
  106. Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J. & Meehl, G. A. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2011).
    Google Scholar
  107. Frame, B., Lawrence, J., Ausseil, A.-G., Reisinger, A. & Daigneault, A. Adapting global shared socio-economic pathways for national and local scenarios. Clim. Risk Manag. 21, 39–51 (2018). A regional extension to the framework that points the way to accommodating adaptation policy.
    Google Scholar
  108. Spangenberg, J. H. et al. Scenarios for investigating risks to biodiversity. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 21, 5–18 (2012).
    Google Scholar
  109. Le Quéré, C. et al. Temporary reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 647–653 (2020).
    Google Scholar
  110. Forster, P. M. et al. Current and future global climate impacts resulting from COVID-19. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 913–919 (2020).
    CAS Google Scholar
  111. Samset, B. H., Fuglestvedt, J. S. & Lund, M. T. Delayed emergence of a global temperature response after emission mitigation. Nat. Commun. 11, 3261 (2020).
    CAS Google Scholar
  112. David Tàbara, J. et al. Positive tipping points in a rapidly warming world. Curr. Opin. Env. Sust. 31, 120–129 (2018).
    Google Scholar
  113. Scheidel, W. The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century (Princeton Univ. Press, 2018).
  114. Osterhammel, J. The Transformation of the World: A Global History of the Nineteenth Century (Princeton Univ. Press, 2015).
  115. Raskin, P. & Swart, R. Excluded futures: the continuity bias in scenario assessments. Sustain. Earth 3, 8 (2020).
    Google Scholar
  116. Kaivo-oja, J. Weak signals analysis, knowledge management theory and systemic socio-cultural transitions. Futures 44, 206–217 (2012).
    Google Scholar
  117. Harrison, P.A., Harmáčková, Z. & Pedde, S. Online Workshop on Co-creating UK Socio-economic Scenarios: Summary of Workshop Output on Drivers of Future Socio-economic Development and their Mapping to the Shared Socio-economic Pathways (UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, 2020); https://www.camecon.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/UK-SSPs-Workshop_Preliminary_Results_on_Drivers.pdf

Download references