Integrated assessment modelling explained

Integrated assessment modelling (IAM) or integrated modelling (IM) is a term used for a type of scientific modelling that tries to link main features of society and economy with the biosphere and atmosphere into one modelling framework. The goal of integrated assessment modelling is to accommodate informed policy-making, usually in the context of climate change [1] though also in other areas of human and social development.[2] While the detail and extent of integrated disciplines varies strongly per model, all climatic integrated assessment modelling includes economic processes as well as processes producing greenhouse gases.[3] Other integrated assessment models also integrate other aspects of human development such as education,[4] health,[5] infrastructure,[6] and governance.[7]

These models are integrated because they span multiple academic disciplines, including economics and climate science and for more comprehensive models also energy systems, land-use change, agriculture, infrastructure, conflict, governance, technology, education, and health. The word assessment comes from the use of these models to provide information for answering policy questions.[8] To quantify these integrated assessment studies, numerical models are used. Integrated assessment modelling does not provide predictions for the future but rather estimates what possible scenarios look like.

There are different types of integrated assessment models. One classification distinguishes between firstly models that quantify future developmental pathways or scenarios and provide detailed, sectoral information on the complex processes modelled. Here they are called process-based models. Secondly, there are models that aggregate the costs of climate change and climate change mitigation to find estimates of the total costs of climate change. A second classification makes a distinction between models that extrapolate verified patterns (via econometrics equations), or models that determine (globally) optimal economic solutions from the perspective of a social planner, assuming (partial) equilibrium of the economy.[9] [10]

Process-based models

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has relied on process-based integrated assessment models to quantify mitigation scenarios.[11] [12] They have been used to explore different pathways for staying within climate policy targets such as the 1.5 °C target agreed upon in the Paris Agreement.[13] Moreover, these models have underpinned research including energy policy assessment[14] and simulate the Shared socioeconomic pathways.[15] [16] Notable modelling frameworks include IMAGE,[17] MESSAGEix,[18] AIM/GCE, GCAM,[19] REMIND-MAgPIE,[20] [21] and WITCH-GLOBIOM.[22] [23] While these scenarios are highly policy-relevant, interpretation of the scenarios should be done with care.[24]

Non-equilibrium models include[25] those based on econometric equations and evolutionary economics (such as E3ME),[26] and agent-based models (such as the agent-based DSK-model). These models typically do not assume rational and representative agents, nor market equilibrium in the long term.

Aggregate cost-benefit models

Cost-benefit integrated assessment models are the main tools for calculating the social cost of carbon, or the marginal social cost of emitting one more tonne of carbon (as carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere at any point in time.[27] For instance, the DICE,[28] PAGE,[29] and FUND[30] models have been used by the US Interagency Working Group to calculate the social cost of carbon and its results have been used for regulatory impact analysis.[31]

This type of modelling is carried out to find the total cost of climate impacts, which are generally considered a negative externality not captured by conventional markets. In order to correct such a market failure, for instance by using a carbon tax, the cost of emissions is required.[27] However, the estimates of the social cost of carbon are highly uncertain[32] and will remain so for the foreseeable future.[33] It has been argued that "IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision that is illusory, and can fool policy-makers into thinking that the forecasts the models generate have some kind of scientific legitimacy".[34] Still, it has been argued that attempting to calculate the social cost of carbon is useful to gain insight into the effect of certain processes on climate impacts, as well as to better understand one of the determinants international cooperation in the governance of climate agreements.[32]

Integrated assessment models have not been used solely to assess environmental or climate change-related fields. They have also been used to analyze patterns of conflict, the Sustainable Development Goals,[35] trends across issue area in Africa,[36] and food security.[37]

Shortcomings

All numerical models have shortcomings. Integrated Assessment Models for climate change, in particular, have been severely criticized for problematic assumptions that led to greatly overestimating the cost/benefit ratio for mitigating climate change while relying on economic models inappropriate to the problem.[38] In 2021, the integrated assessment modeling community examined gaps in what was termed the "possibility space" and how these might best be consolidated and addressed.[39] In an October2021 working paper, Nicholas Stern argues that existing IAMs are inherently unable to capture the economic realities of the climate crisis under its current state of rapid progress.[40]

Models undertaking optimisation methodologies have received numerous different critiques, a prominent one however, draws on the ideas of dynamical systems theory which understands systems as changing with no deterministic pathway or end-state.[41] This implies a very large, or even infinite, number of possible states of the system in the future with aspects and dynamics that cannot be known to observers of the current state of the system. This type of uncertainty around future states of an evolutionary system has been referred to as ‘radical’ or ‘fundamental’ uncertainty.[42] This has led some researchers to call for more work on the broader array of possible futures and calling for modelling research on those alternative scenarios that have yet to receive substantial attention, for example post-growth scenarios. [43]

External links

Notes and References

  1. Book: Integrated Assessment Models of Climate Change Economics. Wang. Zheng. Wu. Jing. Liu. Changxin. Gu. Gaoxiang. 2017. Springer Singapore. 9789811039430. Singapore. 10.1007/978-981-10-3945-4.
  2. Book: Hughes . Barry . International Futures: Building and Using Global Models . 2019 . Elsevier Academic Press . 978-0128042717.
  3. Weyant. John. 2017. Some Contributions of Integrated Assessment Models of Global Climate Change. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. 11. 1. 115–137. 10.1093/reep/rew018. 1750-6816. free.
  4. Book: Dickson . Janet . Hughes . Barry . Irfan . Mohammod . Advancing Global Education . 2010 . Paradigm Press . 978-1-59451-755-6.
  5. Book: Hughes . Barry . Kuhn . Randall . Peterson . Cecilia . Rothman . Dale . Solorzano . Jose . 2011 . Paradigm Press . 978-1-59451-896-6.
  6. Book: Rothman . Dale . Irfan . Mohammod . Margolese-Malin . Eli . Hughes . Barry . Moyer . Jonathan . 2014 . Paradigm Press . 978-1-61205-092-8.
  7. Book: Hughes . Barry . Joshi . Devin . Moyer . Jonathan . Sisk . Timothy . Solorzano . Jose . 2014 . Paradigm Press . 978-1-61205-561-9.
  8. Web site: Inaugural lecture Detlef van Vuuren: Integrated Assessment: Back to the Future - PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. www.pbl.nl. 2019-06-01.
  9. Pauliuk. Stefan. Arvesen. Anders. Stadler. Konstantin. Hertwich. Edgar G.. 2017. Industrial ecology in integrated assessment models. Nature Climate Change. en. 7. 1. 13–20. 10.1038/nclimate3148. 2017NatCC...7...13P. 1758-6798. 11250/2779855. free.
  10. Lamperti. F.. Dosi. G.. Napoletano. M.. Roventini. A.. Sapio. A.. 2018. Faraway, So Close: Coupled Climate and Economic Dynamics in an Agent-based Integrated Assessment Model. Ecological Economics. en. 150. 315–339. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.03.023. 0921-8009. 11382/517765. free.
  11. Book: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Staff.. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change : Working Group III Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.. 978-1107654815. 994399607. 2015-01-26. Cambridge University Press .
  12. Book: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, issuing body.. Global warming of 1.5°C. 1056192590.
  13. Book: Rogelj, J. Popp, A. Calvin, K.V. Luderer, G. Emmerling, J. Gernaat, D. Fujimori, S. Strefler, J. Hasegawa, T. Marangoni, G. Krey, V. Kriegler, E. Riahi, K. van Vuuren, D.P. Doelman, J. Drouet, L. Edmonds, J. Fricko, O. Harmsen, M. Havlik, P. Humpenöder, F. Stehfest, E. Tavoni, M.. Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C. 2018-03-05. Nature Publishing Group. 1039547304.
  14. Böhringer. Christoph. Rutherford. Thomos F.. September 2009. Integrated assessment of energy policies: Decomposing top-down and bottom-up. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control. 33. 9. 1648–1661. 10.1016/j.jedc.2008.12.007. 0165-1889.
  15. Web site: Explainer: How 'Shared Socioeconomic Pathways' explore future climate change. 2018-04-19. Carbon Brief. 2019-06-02.
  16. Riahi. Keywan. van Vuuren. Detlef P.. Kriegler. Elmar. Edmonds. Jae. O’Neill. Brian C.. Fujimori. Shinichiro. Bauer. Nico. Calvin. Katherine. Katherine Calvin. Dellink. Rob. 2017-01-01. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Global Environmental Change. 42. 153–168. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009. 0959-3780. free. 10044/1/78069. free.
  17. Book: Stehfest, E. (Elke). Integrated assessment of global environmental change with IMAGE 3.0 : model description and policy applications. 9789491506710. 884831253. 2014. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency .
  18. Huppmann. Daniel. Gidden. Matthew. Fricko. Oliver. Kolp. Peter. Orthofer. Clara. Pimmer. Michael. Kushin. Nikolay. Vinca. Adriano. Mastrucci. Alessio. February 2019. The MESSAGE Integrated Assessment Model and the ix modeling platform (ixmp): An open framework for integrated and cross-cutting analysis of energy, climate, the environment, and sustainable development. Environmental Modelling & Software. 112. 143–156. 10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.11.012. 57375075 .
  19. Calvin. Katherine. Patel. Pralit. Clarke. Leon. Asrar. Ghassem. Bond-Lamberty. Ben. Cui. Ryna Yiyun. Di Vittorio. Alan. Dorheim. Kalyn. Edmonds. Jae. 2019-02-15. GCAM v5.1: representing the linkages between energy, water, land, climate, and economic systems. Geoscientific Model Development. 12. 2. 677–698. 10.5194/gmd-12-677-2019. 2019GMD....12..677C. 1991-9603. free.
  20. Luderer. Gunnar. Leimbach. Marian. Bauer. Nico. Kriegler. Elmar. Baumstark. Lavinia. Bertram. Christoph. Giannousakis. Anastasis. Hilaire. Jerome. Klein. David. 2015. Description of the REMIND Model (Version 1.6). SSRN Working Paper Series. 10.2139/ssrn.2697070. 11719708. 1556-5068.
  21. Baumstark. Lavinia. Bauer. Nico. Benke. Falk. Bertram. Christoph. Bi. Stephen. Gong. Chen Chris. Dietrich. Jan Philipp. Dirnaichner. Alois. Giannousakis. Anastasis. Hilaire. Jérôme. Klein. David. 2021-10-28. REMIND2.1: transformation and innovation dynamics of the energy-economic system within climate and sustainability limits. Geoscientific Model Development. English. 14. 10. 6571–6603. 10.5194/gmd-14-6571-2021. 2021GMD....14.6571B . 1991-959X. free.
  22. Bosetti. Valentina. Carraro. Carlo. Galeotti. Marzio. Massetti. Emanuele. Tavoni. Massimo. 2006. WITCH - A World Induced Technical Change Hybrid Model. SSRN Working Paper Series. 10.2139/ssrn.948382. 155558316. 1556-5068.
  23. Gambhir. Ajay. Butnar. Isabela. Li. Pei-Hao. Smith. Pete. Strachan. Neil. 2019-05-08. A Review of Criticisms of Integrated Assessment Models and Proposed Approaches to Address These, through the Lens of BECCS. Energies. 12. 9. 1747. 10.3390/en12091747. 1996-1073. free.
  24. Huppmann. Daniel. Joeri Rogelj. Rogelj. Joeri. Kriegler. Elmar. Krey. Volker. Riahi. Keywan. 2018-10-15. A new scenario resource for integrated 1.5 °C research. Nature Climate Change. 8. 12. 1027–1030. 10.1038/s41558-018-0317-4. 2018NatCC...8.1027H. 92398486. 1758-678X.
  25. Hafner. Sarah. Anger-Kraavi. Annela. Monasterolo. Irene. Jones. Aled. 2020-11-01. Emergence of New Economics Energy Transition Models: A Review. Ecological Economics. en. 177. 106779. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106779. 224854628 . 0921-8009.
  26. Mercure. Jean-Francois. Pollit. Hector. Neil. Edward. Holden. Philip. Unnada. Unnada. 2018. Environmental impact assessment for climate change policy with the simulation-based integrated assessment model E3ME-FTT-GENIE. Energy Strategy Reviews. en. 20. 195–208. 10.1016/j.esr.2018.03.003. 2211-467X. free. 1707.04870.
  27. Web site: Q&A: The social cost of carbon. 2017-02-14. Carbon Brief. 2019-06-01.
  28. Nordhaus . William . An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases . Science . 1992 . 258 . 5086 . 1315–1319 . 10.1126/science.258.5086.1315. 17778354 . 23232493 .
  29. Climate policy implications of nonlinear decline of Arctic land permafrost and other cryosphere elements. Yumashev, Dmitry Hope, Chris Schaefer, Kevin Riemann-Campe, Kathrin Iglesias-Suarez, Fernando Jafarov, Elchin Burke, Eleanor J. Young, Paul J. Elshorbany, Yasin Whiteman, Gail. Nature Communications. 2019-04-23. 10. 1. 1900. 10.1038/s41467-019-09863-x. 31015475. 6478735. 2019NatCo..10.1900Y. 1099183857.
  30. Web site: FUND - Climate Framework for Uncertainty, Negotiation and Distribution. www.fund-model.org. 2019-06-01.
  31. Book: United States. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, issuing body. Council of Economic Advisers (U.S.), sponsoring body.. Technical support document, technical update of the social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis--under executive order 12886. 959713749.
  32. Ricke. Katharine. Drouet. Laurent. Caldeira. Ken. Tavoni. Massimo. 2019-03-25. Author Correction: Country-level social cost of carbon. Nature Climate Change. 9. 7. 567. 10.1038/s41558-019-0455-3. 2019NatCC...9..567R. 1758-678X. free.
  33. Pezzey. John C. V.. 2018-11-12. Why the social cost of carbon will always be disputed. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 10. 1. e558. 10.1002/wcc.558. 1757-7780. free.
  34. Pindyck. Robert S.. 2017. The Use and Misuse of Models for Climate Policy. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. 11. 1. 100–114. 10.1093/reep/rew012. free. 1721.1/120585. free.
  35. Moyer . Jonathan . Hedden . Steve . Are we on the right path to achieve the sustainable development goals? . World Development . 2020 . 127 . 104749 . 10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104749 . free .
  36. Book: Moyer . Jonathan . Bohl . David . Hanna . Taylor . Mayaki . Ibrahim . Bwalya . Martin . Africa's path to 2063: choice in the face of great transformation . 2019 . African Union Development Agency . Midrand, South Afric .
  37. Book: Hedden . Steve . Rafa . Mickey . Moyer . Jonathan . Achieving Food Security in Uganda . August 2018 .
  38. Ackerman . Frank . et al. . Limitations of integrated assessment models of climate change . Climatic Change . 2009 . 95 . 3–4 . 297–315 . 10.1007/s10584-009-9570-x. free .
  39. Keppo . Ilkka Johannes . Butnar . I . Bauer . N . Caspani . M . Edelenbosch . O . Emmerling . J . Fragkos . P . Guivarch . C . Harmsen . M . Lefèvre . J . Le Gallic . T . Leimbach . M . McDowall . W . Mercure . J-F . Schaeffer . R . Trutnevyte . E . Wagner . F . Exploring the possibility space: taking stock of the diverse capabilities and gaps in integrated assessment models . April 2021 . Environmental Research Letters . 16 . 5 . 053006 . 10.1088/1748-9326/abe5d8 . 2021ERL....16e3006K . 1748-9326 . free . 10871/127148 . free .
  40. Book: Stern . Nicholas . A time for action on climate change and a time for change in economics — Working paper 370 . 26 October 2021 . Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment . London, United Kingdom . 2515-5717 . 2021-10-26.
  41. Book: Sharpe . Simon . Five Times Faster: Rethinking the Science, Economics, and Diplomacy of Climate Change . 2023 . Cambridge University Press . 2024-08-05.
  42. Book: King. Mervyn . Kay. John . Radical Uncertainty: Decision-making for an unknowable future . 2020 . Little, Brown Book Group . 2024-08-05.
  43. Hickel . J. Kallis . G. et al. . Urgent need for post-growth climate mitigation scenarios. Nature Energy . 2021. 6 . 766-768 . 10.1038/s41560-021-00884-9.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Integrated assessment modelling".

Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2024, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Cookie policy.