Integrating modelling-based and stakeholder-focused scenario approaches to close the planning gap and accelerate low-carbon transitions

While many transition scenarios describe potential low-carbon systems, few link these system-level outcomes to the microlevel stakeholder decision-making needed to actualise them, resulting in a ‘planning gap’. Closing this gap requires that insights from modelling-based transition scenarios on what must happen to achieve climate targets are linked to those on how to make it happen from stakeholder-focused transition scenarios. This link requires a different understanding of decision-making rationality from that of a representative agent with rational expectations, as employed in much climate-change modelling currently. Rationality conceived as ‘frame-sensitive reasoning’ can better account for heterogenous stakeholders’ alternative preferences, the actions they take in pursuit of them, and the effect of these actions on low-carbon transitions. This paper augments the Intuitive Logics (IL) stakeholder-focused scenario approach to enable frame-sensitive reasoning and provide modelling-based transition scenarios with realistic innovation-diffusion assumptions. In so doing, the paper assists in closing the planning gap

Augmenting the Intuitive Logics scenario planning method for a more comprehensive analysis of causation

This paper shows the standard approach to scenario planning, known as ‘Intuitive Logics’, to be, in practice, overly-focused on uncovering cause of one type, known as ‘efficient cause’. We outline and apply a broader consideration of cause, leading to a more sophisticated analysis of uncertainty. Our focus is on incorporation of Aristotle’s nuanced analysis of causation. We incorporate the features of our augmented scenario development approach in a practical step-by-step methodology and draw out several implications for expert knowledge elicitation

The critical role of history in scenario thinking: augmenting causal analysis within the intuitive logics scenario development methodology

The historian Eric Hobsbawm stated that ‘The safest empirical generalization about history is still that nobody heeds its obvious lessons much’. Whether at a macroeconomic level or within individual organisations there are numerous examples of this, such as the economic crash of 2008, the causes of which had many parallels with those that caused the great depression 80 years previously. On the other hand however, overly-relying on the past as a guide to the future has its own obvious dangers – not least that important future events may have no past precedent. As such, the present paper firstly provides a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of using the past as a guide to the future. It then examines the role of history in scenario work, arguing that history should receive greater emphasis as part of the scenario planning process. We suggest changes to the standard Intuitive Logics (IL) approach to scenario planning which would render learning from history a more central component of the scenario process, in contrast to its current peripheral role. Rather than diminishing scenario planning’s ability to facilitate a consideration of how the future may differ from the past, we show how a greater emphasis on history can enhance consideration of the causality of future change. An adapted IL that has more emphasis on historical analysis can augment scenario planning’s effectiveness as a tool for consideration of the future