Global Climate Forum GCF

Berlin, Germany

Global Climate Forum GCF

Berlin, Germany
Time filter
Source Type

Mielke J.,Global Climate Forum GCF | Mielke J.,University of Potsdam | Vermassen H.,University of Erfurt | Ellenbeck S.,Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research | And 4 more authors.
Energy Research and Social Science | Year: 2016

Discussions about the opening of science to society have led to the emergence of new fields such as sustainability science and transformative science. At the same time, the megatrend of stakeholder participation reached the academic world and thus scientific research processes. This challenges the way science is conducted and the tools, methods and theories perceived appropriate. Although researchers involve stakeholders, the scientific community still lacks comprehensive theoretical analysis of the practical processes behind their integration - for example what kind of perceptions scientists have about their roles, their objectives, the knowledge to gather, their understanding of science or the science-policy interface. Our paper addresses this research gap by developing four ideal types of stakeholder involvement in science - the technocratic, the functionalist, the neoliberal-rational and the democratic type. In applying the typology, which is based on literature review, interviews and practical experiences, we identify and discuss three major criticisms raised towards stakeholder involvement in science: the legitimacy of stakeholder claims, the question whether bargaining or deliberation are part of the stakeholder involvement process and the question of the autonomy of science. Thus, the typology helps scientists to better understand the major critical questions that stakeholder involvement raises and enables them to position themselves when conducting their research. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Hinkel J.,Global Climate Forum GCF | Cox M.E.,Dartmouth College | Schluter M.,University of Stockholm | Binder C.R.,Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich | Falk T.,University of Marburg
Ecology and Society | Year: 2015

The framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems (SES) framework of Elinor Ostrom is a multitier collection of concepts and variables that have proven to be relevant for understanding outcomes in diverse SES. The first tier of this framework includes the concepts resource system (RS) and resource units (RU), which are then further characterized through lower tier variables such as clarity of system boundaries and mobility. The long-term goal of framework development is to derive conclusions about which combinations of variables explain outcomes across diverse types of SES. This will only be possible if the concepts and variables of the framework can be made operational unambiguously for the different types of SES, which, however, remains a challenge. Reasons for this are that case studies examine other types of RS than those for which the framework has been developed or consider RS for which different actors obtain different kinds of RU. We explore these difficulties and relate them to antecedent work on commonpool resources and public goods. We propose a diagnostic procedure which resolves some of these difficulties by establishing a sequence of questions that facilitate the step-wise and unambiguous application of the SES framework to a given case. The questions relate to the actors benefiting from the SES, the collective goods involved in the generation of those benefits, and the action situations in which the collective goods are provided and appropriated. We illustrate the diagnostic procedure for four case studies in the context of irrigated agriculture in New Mexico, common property meadows in the Swiss Alps, recreational fishery in Germany, and energy regions in Austria. We conclude that the current SES framework has limitations when applied to complex, multiuse SES, because it does not sufficiently capture the actor interdependencies introduced through RS and RU characteristics and dynamics. © 2015 by the author(s).

Hinkel J.,Global Climate Forum GCF | Hinkel J.,Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research | van Vuuren D.P.,Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency PBL | van Vuuren D.P.,University Utrecht | And 3 more authors.
Climatic Change | Year: 2013

This paper studies the effects of mitigation and adaptation on coastal flood impacts. We focus on a scenario that stabilizes concentrations at 450 ppm-CO2-eq leading to 42 cm of global mean sea-level rise in 1995-2100 (GMSLR) and an unmitigated one leading to 63 cm of GMSLR. We also consider sensitivity scenarios reflecting increased tropical cyclone activity and a GMSLR of 126 cm. The only adaptation considered is upgrading and maintaining dikes. Under the unmitigated scenario and without adaptation, the number of people flooded reaches 168 million per year in 2100. Mitigation reduces this number by factor 1. 4, adaptation by factor 461 and both options together by factor 540. The global annual flood cost (including dike upgrade cost, maintenance cost and residual damage cost) reaches US$ 210 billion per year in 2100 under the unmitigated scenario without adaptation. Mitigation reduces this number by factor 1. 3, adaptation by factor 5. 2 and both options together by factor 7. 8. When assuming adaptation, the global annual flood cost relative to GDP falls throughout the century from about 0. 06 % to 0. 01-0. 03 % under all scenarios including the sensitivity ones. From this perspective, adaptation to coastal flood impacts is meaningful to be widely applied irrespective of the level of mitigation. From the perspective of a some less-wealthy and small island countries, however, annual flood cost can amount to several percent of national GDP and mitigation can lower these costs significantly. We conclude that adaptation and mitigation are complimentary policies in coastal areas. © 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

Hinkel J.,Global Climate Forum GCF | Nicholls R.J.,University of Southampton | Tol R.S.J.,University of Sussex | Tol R.S.J.,VU University Amsterdam | And 9 more authors.
Global and Planetary Change | Year: 2013

This paper presents a first assessment of the global effects of climate-induced sea-level rise on the erosion of sandy beaches, and its consequent impacts in the form of land loss and forced migration of people. We consider direct erosion on open sandy coasts and indirect erosion near selected tidal inlets and estuaries, using six global mean sea-level scenarios (in the range of 0.2-0.8m) and six SRES socio-economic development scenarios for the 21st century. Impacts are assessed both without and with adaptation in the form of shore and beach nourishment, based on cost-benefit analysis that includes the benefits of maintaining sandy beaches for tourism. Without nourishment, global land loss would amount to about 6000-17,000km2 during the 21st century, leading to 1.6-5.3million people being forced to migrate and migration costs of US$ 300-1000billion (not discounted). Optimal beach and shore nourishment would cost about US$ 65-220billion (not discounted) during the 21st century and would reduce land loss by 8-14%, forced migration by 56-68% and the cost of forced migration by 77-84% (not discounted). The global share of erodible coast that is nourished increases from about 4% in 2000 to 18-33% in 2100, with beach nourishment being 3-4 times more frequent than shore nourishment, reflecting the importance of tourism benefits. In absolute terms, with or without nourishment, large countries with long shorelines appear to have the largest costs, but in relative terms, small island states appear most impacted by erosion. Considerable uncertainty remains due to the limited availability of basic coastal geomorphological data and models on a global scale. Future work should also further explore the effects of beach tourism, including considering sub-national distributions of beach tourists. © 2013 Elsevier B.V.

Schluter M.,Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries | Schluter M.,University of Stockholm | Hinkel J.,Global Climate Forum GCF | Bots P.W.G.,Technical University of Delft | And 2 more authors.
Ecology and Society | Year: 2014

Social-ecological systems (SES) are dynamic systems that continuously change in response to internal or external pressures. A better understanding of the interactions of the social and ecological systems that drive those dynamics is crucial for the development of sustainable management strategies. Dynamic models can serve as tools to explore social-ecological interactions; however, the complexity of the studied systems and the need to integrate knowledge, theories, and approaches from different disciplines pose considerable challenges for their development. We assess the potential of Ostrom's general SES framework (SESF) to guide a systematic and transparent process of model development in light of these difficulties. We develop a stepwise procedure for applying SESF to identify variables and their relationships relevant for an analysis of the SES. In doing so we demonstrate how the hierarchy of concepts in SESF and the identification of social-ecological processes using the newly introduced process relationships can help to unpack the system in a systematic and transparent way. We test the procedure by applying it to develop a dynamic model of decision making in the management of recreational fisheries. The added value of the common framework lies in the guidance it provides for (1) a structured approach to identifying major variables and the level of detail needed, and (2) a procedure that enhances model transparency by making explicit underlying assumptions and choices made when selecting variables and their interactions as well as the theories or empirical evidence on which they are based. Both aspects are of great relevance when dealing with the complexity of SES and integrating conceptual backgrounds from different disciplines. We discuss the advantages and difficulties of the application of SESF for model development, and contribute to its further refinement. © 2014 by the author(s).

Bisaro A.,Global Climate Forum GCF | Hinkel J.,Global Climate Forum GCF | Hinkel J.,Humboldt University of Berlin
Nature Climate Change | Year: 2016

In the field of adaptation governance research, current discussion on the barriers to adaptation shows that theoretical explanations for why institutions emerge and how they enable or constrain adaptation are underdeveloped. In this Perspective, we show that there is a significant opportunity to advance the understanding of adaptation governance by integrating insights that have been developed in the extensive commons literature on the institutions that work to overcome social conflicts or dilemmas. 'Realist-materialist' approaches to understanding such collective action are particularly valuable to adaptation governance research because they emphasize how biophysical conditions give rise to certain types of social dilemma. Climate change affects these biophysical conditions, and thus may alter dilemmas or create new ones. Based on realist-materialist reasoning, this Perspective describes six types of dilemma, illustrates each with a case from the adaptation literature and draws on insights from the commons literature regarding relevant contextual conditions and effective policy instruments for overcoming social dilemmas. The dilemma types provide entry points for rigorous comparative adaptation research to deepen understanding of how context influences adaptation governance processes. © 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.

Wolf S.,Global Climate Forum GCF | Furst S.,Global Climate Forum GCF | Mandel A.,Global Climate Forum GCF | Lass W.,Global Climate Forum GCF | And 3 more authors.
Environmental Modelling and Software | Year: 2013

This paper presents Lagom regiO: a multi-agent model of several growing economic areas in interaction. The model is part of the Lagom model family: economic multi-agent models developed to make steps toward understanding equilibrium selection and identifying win-win opportunities for climate policy. The particular feature of the model presented here is that it locates agents in one of a user-chosen number of regions. It can thus be used to represent diverse economic areas by specifying characteristics of agents and their interaction network as depending on their regions. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd.

Loading Global Climate Forum GCF collaborators
Loading Global Climate Forum GCF collaborators