Unpacking the modeling process for energy policy making

Samuele Lo Piano; Máté János Lőrincz; Arnald Puy; Steve Pye; Andrea Saltelli; Stefán Thor Smith; Jeroen van der Sluijs

doi:10.1111/risa.14248

Unpacking the modeling process for energy policy making

Samuele Lo Piano, Máté János Lőrincz, Arnald Puy, Steve Pye, Andrea Saltelli, Stefán Thor Smith, Jeroen van der Sluijs

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

This article explores how the modeling of energy systems may lead to an undue closure of alternatives by generating an excess of certainty around some of the possible policy options. We retrospectively exemplify the problem with the case of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) global modeling in the 1980s. We discuss different methodologies for quality assessment that may help mitigate this issue, which include Numeral Unit Spread Assessment Pedigree (NUSAP), diagnostic diagrams, and sensitivity auditing (SAUD). We illustrate the potential of these reflexive modeling practices in energy policy-making with three additional cases: (i) the case of the energy system modeling environment (ESME) for the creation of UK energy policy; (ii) the negative emission technologies (NETs) uptake in integrated assessment models (IAMs); and (iii) the ecological footprint indicator. We encourage modelers to adopt these approaches to achieve more robust, defensible, and inclusive modeling activities in the field of energy research.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1273-1284
Number of pages	12
Journal	Risk Analysis
Volume	44
Issue number	6
Early online date	Nov 2023
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14248
Publication status	Published - Jun 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors. Risk Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Risk Analysis.

Funding

This research received funding from UK Research and Innovation grant agreement EP/R035288/1 as part of the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions (CREDS). Andrea Saltelli acknowledges the funding of i4Driving, an EU Horizon Europe R&I project (Grant Agreement ID 101076165). Arnald Puy acknowledges funding by the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) under the UK government's Horizon Europe funding guarantee [grant number EP/Y02463X/1, project DAWN].

Funders	Funder number
EU Horizon Europe R&I project	101076165
Horizon Europe funding guarantee	EP/Y02463X/1
UK Research and Innovation	EP/R035288/1

Keywords

NUSAP
energy systems modeling
non-neutrality of methods
postnormal science
sensitivity auditing
uncertainty

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1111/risa.14248Licence: CC BY

Risk Analysis - 2023 - Lo Piano - Unpacking the modeling process for energy policy makingFinal published version, 473 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{ef514ba7dde6425a83cdc01d342596b9,

title = "Unpacking the modeling process for energy policy making",

abstract = "This article explores how the modeling of energy systems may lead to an undue closure of alternatives by generating an excess of certainty around some of the possible policy options. We retrospectively exemplify the problem with the case of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) global modeling in the 1980s. We discuss different methodologies for quality assessment that may help mitigate this issue, which include Numeral Unit Spread Assessment Pedigree (NUSAP), diagnostic diagrams, and sensitivity auditing (SAUD). We illustrate the potential of these reflexive modeling practices in energy policy-making with three additional cases: (i) the case of the energy system modeling environment (ESME) for the creation of UK energy policy; (ii) the negative emission technologies (NETs) uptake in integrated assessment models (IAMs); and (iii) the ecological footprint indicator. We encourage modelers to adopt these approaches to achieve more robust, defensible, and inclusive modeling activities in the field of energy research.",

keywords = "NUSAP, energy systems modeling, non-neutrality of methods, postnormal science, sensitivity auditing, uncertainty",

author = "{Lo Piano}, Samuele and L{\H o}rincz, {M{\'a}t{\'e} J{\'a}nos} and Arnald Puy and Steve Pye and Andrea Saltelli and Smith, {Stef{\'a}n Thor} and {van der Sluijs}, Jeroen",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023 The Authors. Risk Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Risk Analysis.",

year = "2024",

month = jun,

doi = "10.1111/risa.14248",

language = "English",

volume = "44",

pages = "1273--1284",

journal = "Risk Analysis",

issn = "0272-4332",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd",

number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Unpacking the modeling process for energy policy making

AU - Lo Piano, Samuele

AU - Lőrincz, Máté János

AU - Puy, Arnald

AU - Pye, Steve

AU - Saltelli, Andrea

AU - Smith, Stefán Thor

AU - van der Sluijs, Jeroen

PY - 2024/6

Y1 - 2024/6

N2 - This article explores how the modeling of energy systems may lead to an undue closure of alternatives by generating an excess of certainty around some of the possible policy options. We retrospectively exemplify the problem with the case of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) global modeling in the 1980s. We discuss different methodologies for quality assessment that may help mitigate this issue, which include Numeral Unit Spread Assessment Pedigree (NUSAP), diagnostic diagrams, and sensitivity auditing (SAUD). We illustrate the potential of these reflexive modeling practices in energy policy-making with three additional cases: (i) the case of the energy system modeling environment (ESME) for the creation of UK energy policy; (ii) the negative emission technologies (NETs) uptake in integrated assessment models (IAMs); and (iii) the ecological footprint indicator. We encourage modelers to adopt these approaches to achieve more robust, defensible, and inclusive modeling activities in the field of energy research.

AB - This article explores how the modeling of energy systems may lead to an undue closure of alternatives by generating an excess of certainty around some of the possible policy options. We retrospectively exemplify the problem with the case of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) global modeling in the 1980s. We discuss different methodologies for quality assessment that may help mitigate this issue, which include Numeral Unit Spread Assessment Pedigree (NUSAP), diagnostic diagrams, and sensitivity auditing (SAUD). We illustrate the potential of these reflexive modeling practices in energy policy-making with three additional cases: (i) the case of the energy system modeling environment (ESME) for the creation of UK energy policy; (ii) the negative emission technologies (NETs) uptake in integrated assessment models (IAMs); and (iii) the ecological footprint indicator. We encourage modelers to adopt these approaches to achieve more robust, defensible, and inclusive modeling activities in the field of energy research.

KW - NUSAP

KW - energy systems modeling

KW - non-neutrality of methods

KW - postnormal science

KW - sensitivity auditing

KW - uncertainty

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85176908756&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/risa.14248

DO - 10.1111/risa.14248

M3 - Article

C2 - 37963564

SN - 0272-4332

VL - 44

SP - 1273

EP - 1284

JO - Risk Analysis

JF - Risk Analysis

IS - 6

ER -

Unpacking the modeling process for energy policy making

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Funding

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this