Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative energy models: knowledge integration in different methodological designs

Background Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative models is a common approach to integrate assumptions on possible future societal contexts into modeling. But reflection on how and to what degree knowledge is effectively integrated during this endeavor does not generally take place. In this paper, we reflect on the performance of a specific hybrid scenario approach (qualitative Cross-Impact Balance analysis, CIB, linked with quantitative energy models) concerning knowledge integration through 11 different process steps. In order to guide the scenario community in applying this approach, we reflect on general methodological features as well as different design options. We conceptualize different forms of interdisciplinary knowledge integration (compiling, combining and synthesizing) and analyze how and to what degree knowledge about society and uncertainty are integrated into scenario process and products. In addition, we discuss trade-offs regarding design choices and forms of knowledge integration. Results On the basis of three case studies, we identify two general designs of linking which build on each other (basic and extended design) and which differ in essence regarding the balance of power between the CIB and the energy modeling. Ex post assessment of the form of interdisciplinary knowledge integration in each step revealed that specific method properties of CIB as well as the interaction with additional quantitative as well as specific qualitative methods foster distinct forms of knowledge integration. The specific roles assigned to CIB in the hybrid scenario process can also influence the form of knowledge integration. Conclusions In this study, we use a joint process scheme linking qualitative context scenarios with energy modeling. By applying our conceptualization of different forms of knowledge integration we analyze the designs’ respective potential for and respective effects on knowledge integration. Consequently, our findings can give guidance to those who are designing their own hybrid scenario processes. As this is an explorative study, it would be useful to further test our hypotheses in different hybrid scenario designs. Finally, we note that at some points in the process a more precise differentiation of three forms of knowledge integration would have been useful and propose to further differentiate and detail them in future research. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Prehofer, Sigrid [verfasserIn] Kosow, Hannah [verfasserIn] Naegler, Tobias [verfasserIn] Pregger, Thomas [verfasserIn] Vögele, Stefan [verfasserIn] Weimer-Jehle, Wolfgang [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2021

Schlagwörter:	Interdisciplinary knowledge integration Context scenarios Energy modeling Case study Cross-impact balance analysis (CIB) Hybrid scenario approach

Anmerkung:	© The Author(s) 2021

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: Energy, Sustainability and Society - Berlin : Springer, 2011, 11(2021), 1 vom: 12. Juli
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:11 ; year:2021 ; number:1 ; day:12 ; month:07

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s13705-021-00298-1

Katalog-ID:	SPR044539916

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	SPR044539916
003	DE-627
005	20220111200520.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	210713s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s13705-021-00298-1 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR044539916
035			\|a (SPR)s13705-021-00298-1-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
082	0	4	\|a 333.7 \|q ASE
100	1		\|a Prehofer, Sigrid \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative energy models: knowledge integration in different methodological designs
264		1	\|c 2021
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
500			\|a © The Author(s) 2021
520			\|a Background Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative models is a common approach to integrate assumptions on possible future societal contexts into modeling. But reflection on how and to what degree knowledge is effectively integrated during this endeavor does not generally take place. In this paper, we reflect on the performance of a specific hybrid scenario approach (qualitative Cross-Impact Balance analysis, CIB, linked with quantitative energy models) concerning knowledge integration through 11 different process steps. In order to guide the scenario community in applying this approach, we reflect on general methodological features as well as different design options. We conceptualize different forms of interdisciplinary knowledge integration (compiling, combining and synthesizing) and analyze how and to what degree knowledge about society and uncertainty are integrated into scenario process and products. In addition, we discuss trade-offs regarding design choices and forms of knowledge integration. Results On the basis of three case studies, we identify two general designs of linking which build on each other (basic and extended design) and which differ in essence regarding the balance of power between the CIB and the energy modeling. Ex post assessment of the form of interdisciplinary knowledge integration in each step revealed that specific method properties of CIB as well as the interaction with additional quantitative as well as specific qualitative methods foster distinct forms of knowledge integration. The specific roles assigned to CIB in the hybrid scenario process can also influence the form of knowledge integration. Conclusions In this study, we use a joint process scheme linking qualitative context scenarios with energy modeling. By applying our conceptualization of different forms of knowledge integration we analyze the designs’ respective potential for and respective effects on knowledge integration. Consequently, our findings can give guidance to those who are designing their own hybrid scenario processes. As this is an explorative study, it would be useful to further test our hypotheses in different hybrid scenario designs. Finally, we note that at some points in the process a more precise differentiation of three forms of knowledge integration would have been useful and propose to further differentiate and detail them in future research.
650		4	\|a Interdisciplinary knowledge integration \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Context scenarios \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Energy modeling \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Case study \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Cross-impact balance analysis (CIB) \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Hybrid scenario approach \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Kosow, Hannah \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Naegler, Tobias \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Pregger, Thomas \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Vögele, Stefan \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Weimer-Jehle, Wolfgang \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t Energy, Sustainability and Society \|d Berlin : Springer, 2011 \|g 11(2021), 1 vom: 12. Juli \|w (DE-627)679779221 \|w (DE-600)2641015-1 \|x 2192-0567 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:11 \|g year:2021 \|g number:1 \|g day:12 \|g month:07
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13705-021-00298-1 \|z kostenfrei \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_152
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_370
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2027
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2034
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2108
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2129
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2360
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4046
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 11 \|j 2021 \|e 1 \|b 12 \|c 07

Indexfelder

author_variant	s p sp h k hk t n tn t p tp s v sv w w j wwj
matchkey_str	article:21920567:2021----::iknqaiaiecnrowtqatttveegmdlkoldenertoid
hierarchy_sort_str	2021
publishDate	2021
allfields	10.1186/s13705-021-00298-1 doi (DE-627)SPR044539916 (SPR)s13705-021-00298-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 333.7 ASE Prehofer, Sigrid verfasserin aut Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative energy models: knowledge integration in different methodological designs 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2021 Background Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative models is a common approach to integrate assumptions on possible future societal contexts into modeling. But reflection on how and to what degree knowledge is effectively integrated during this endeavor does not generally take place. In this paper, we reflect on the performance of a specific hybrid scenario approach (qualitative Cross-Impact Balance analysis, CIB, linked with quantitative energy models) concerning knowledge integration through 11 different process steps. In order to guide the scenario community in applying this approach, we reflect on general methodological features as well as different design options. We conceptualize different forms of interdisciplinary knowledge integration (compiling, combining and synthesizing) and analyze how and to what degree knowledge about society and uncertainty are integrated into scenario process and products. In addition, we discuss trade-offs regarding design choices and forms of knowledge integration. Results On the basis of three case studies, we identify two general designs of linking which build on each other (basic and extended design) and which differ in essence regarding the balance of power between the CIB and the energy modeling. Ex post assessment of the form of interdisciplinary knowledge integration in each step revealed that specific method properties of CIB as well as the interaction with additional quantitative as well as specific qualitative methods foster distinct forms of knowledge integration. The specific roles assigned to CIB in the hybrid scenario process can also influence the form of knowledge integration. Conclusions In this study, we use a joint process scheme linking qualitative context scenarios with energy modeling. By applying our conceptualization of different forms of knowledge integration we analyze the designs’ respective potential for and respective effects on knowledge integration. Consequently, our findings can give guidance to those who are designing their own hybrid scenario processes. As this is an explorative study, it would be useful to further test our hypotheses in different hybrid scenario designs. Finally, we note that at some points in the process a more precise differentiation of three forms of knowledge integration would have been useful and propose to further differentiate and detail them in future research. Interdisciplinary knowledge integration (dpeaa)DE-He213 Context scenarios (dpeaa)DE-He213 Energy modeling (dpeaa)DE-He213 Case study (dpeaa)DE-He213 Cross-impact balance analysis (CIB) (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hybrid scenario approach (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kosow, Hannah verfasserin aut Naegler, Tobias verfasserin aut Pregger, Thomas verfasserin aut Vögele, Stefan verfasserin aut Weimer-Jehle, Wolfgang verfasserin aut Enthalten in Energy, Sustainability and Society Berlin : Springer, 2011 11(2021), 1 vom: 12. Juli (DE-627)679779221 (DE-600)2641015-1 2192-0567 nnns volume:11 year:2021 number:1 day:12 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13705-021-00298-1 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2360 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 11 2021 1 12 07
spelling	10.1186/s13705-021-00298-1 doi (DE-627)SPR044539916 (SPR)s13705-021-00298-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 333.7 ASE Prehofer, Sigrid verfasserin aut Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative energy models: knowledge integration in different methodological designs 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2021 Background Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative models is a common approach to integrate assumptions on possible future societal contexts into modeling. But reflection on how and to what degree knowledge is effectively integrated during this endeavor does not generally take place. In this paper, we reflect on the performance of a specific hybrid scenario approach (qualitative Cross-Impact Balance analysis, CIB, linked with quantitative energy models) concerning knowledge integration through 11 different process steps. In order to guide the scenario community in applying this approach, we reflect on general methodological features as well as different design options. We conceptualize different forms of interdisciplinary knowledge integration (compiling, combining and synthesizing) and analyze how and to what degree knowledge about society and uncertainty are integrated into scenario process and products. In addition, we discuss trade-offs regarding design choices and forms of knowledge integration. Results On the basis of three case studies, we identify two general designs of linking which build on each other (basic and extended design) and which differ in essence regarding the balance of power between the CIB and the energy modeling. Ex post assessment of the form of interdisciplinary knowledge integration in each step revealed that specific method properties of CIB as well as the interaction with additional quantitative as well as specific qualitative methods foster distinct forms of knowledge integration. The specific roles assigned to CIB in the hybrid scenario process can also influence the form of knowledge integration. Conclusions In this study, we use a joint process scheme linking qualitative context scenarios with energy modeling. By applying our conceptualization of different forms of knowledge integration we analyze the designs’ respective potential for and respective effects on knowledge integration. Consequently, our findings can give guidance to those who are designing their own hybrid scenario processes. As this is an explorative study, it would be useful to further test our hypotheses in different hybrid scenario designs. Finally, we note that at some points in the process a more precise differentiation of three forms of knowledge integration would have been useful and propose to further differentiate and detail them in future research. Interdisciplinary knowledge integration (dpeaa)DE-He213 Context scenarios (dpeaa)DE-He213 Energy modeling (dpeaa)DE-He213 Case study (dpeaa)DE-He213 Cross-impact balance analysis (CIB) (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hybrid scenario approach (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kosow, Hannah verfasserin aut Naegler, Tobias verfasserin aut Pregger, Thomas verfasserin aut Vögele, Stefan verfasserin aut Weimer-Jehle, Wolfgang verfasserin aut Enthalten in Energy, Sustainability and Society Berlin : Springer, 2011 11(2021), 1 vom: 12. Juli (DE-627)679779221 (DE-600)2641015-1 2192-0567 nnns volume:11 year:2021 number:1 day:12 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13705-021-00298-1 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2360 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 11 2021 1 12 07
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s13705-021-00298-1 doi (DE-627)SPR044539916 (SPR)s13705-021-00298-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 333.7 ASE Prehofer, Sigrid verfasserin aut Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative energy models: knowledge integration in different methodological designs 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2021 Background Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative models is a common approach to integrate assumptions on possible future societal contexts into modeling. But reflection on how and to what degree knowledge is effectively integrated during this endeavor does not generally take place. In this paper, we reflect on the performance of a specific hybrid scenario approach (qualitative Cross-Impact Balance analysis, CIB, linked with quantitative energy models) concerning knowledge integration through 11 different process steps. In order to guide the scenario community in applying this approach, we reflect on general methodological features as well as different design options. We conceptualize different forms of interdisciplinary knowledge integration (compiling, combining and synthesizing) and analyze how and to what degree knowledge about society and uncertainty are integrated into scenario process and products. In addition, we discuss trade-offs regarding design choices and forms of knowledge integration. Results On the basis of three case studies, we identify two general designs of linking which build on each other (basic and extended design) and which differ in essence regarding the balance of power between the CIB and the energy modeling. Ex post assessment of the form of interdisciplinary knowledge integration in each step revealed that specific method properties of CIB as well as the interaction with additional quantitative as well as specific qualitative methods foster distinct forms of knowledge integration. The specific roles assigned to CIB in the hybrid scenario process can also influence the form of knowledge integration. Conclusions In this study, we use a joint process scheme linking qualitative context scenarios with energy modeling. By applying our conceptualization of different forms of knowledge integration we analyze the designs’ respective potential for and respective effects on knowledge integration. Consequently, our findings can give guidance to those who are designing their own hybrid scenario processes. As this is an explorative study, it would be useful to further test our hypotheses in different hybrid scenario designs. Finally, we note that at some points in the process a more precise differentiation of three forms of knowledge integration would have been useful and propose to further differentiate and detail them in future research. Interdisciplinary knowledge integration (dpeaa)DE-He213 Context scenarios (dpeaa)DE-He213 Energy modeling (dpeaa)DE-He213 Case study (dpeaa)DE-He213 Cross-impact balance analysis (CIB) (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hybrid scenario approach (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kosow, Hannah verfasserin aut Naegler, Tobias verfasserin aut Pregger, Thomas verfasserin aut Vögele, Stefan verfasserin aut Weimer-Jehle, Wolfgang verfasserin aut Enthalten in Energy, Sustainability and Society Berlin : Springer, 2011 11(2021), 1 vom: 12. Juli (DE-627)679779221 (DE-600)2641015-1 2192-0567 nnns volume:11 year:2021 number:1 day:12 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13705-021-00298-1 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2360 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 11 2021 1 12 07
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s13705-021-00298-1 doi (DE-627)SPR044539916 (SPR)s13705-021-00298-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 333.7 ASE Prehofer, Sigrid verfasserin aut Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative energy models: knowledge integration in different methodological designs 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2021 Background Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative models is a common approach to integrate assumptions on possible future societal contexts into modeling. But reflection on how and to what degree knowledge is effectively integrated during this endeavor does not generally take place. In this paper, we reflect on the performance of a specific hybrid scenario approach (qualitative Cross-Impact Balance analysis, CIB, linked with quantitative energy models) concerning knowledge integration through 11 different process steps. In order to guide the scenario community in applying this approach, we reflect on general methodological features as well as different design options. We conceptualize different forms of interdisciplinary knowledge integration (compiling, combining and synthesizing) and analyze how and to what degree knowledge about society and uncertainty are integrated into scenario process and products. In addition, we discuss trade-offs regarding design choices and forms of knowledge integration. Results On the basis of three case studies, we identify two general designs of linking which build on each other (basic and extended design) and which differ in essence regarding the balance of power between the CIB and the energy modeling. Ex post assessment of the form of interdisciplinary knowledge integration in each step revealed that specific method properties of CIB as well as the interaction with additional quantitative as well as specific qualitative methods foster distinct forms of knowledge integration. The specific roles assigned to CIB in the hybrid scenario process can also influence the form of knowledge integration. Conclusions In this study, we use a joint process scheme linking qualitative context scenarios with energy modeling. By applying our conceptualization of different forms of knowledge integration we analyze the designs’ respective potential for and respective effects on knowledge integration. Consequently, our findings can give guidance to those who are designing their own hybrid scenario processes. As this is an explorative study, it would be useful to further test our hypotheses in different hybrid scenario designs. Finally, we note that at some points in the process a more precise differentiation of three forms of knowledge integration would have been useful and propose to further differentiate and detail them in future research. Interdisciplinary knowledge integration (dpeaa)DE-He213 Context scenarios (dpeaa)DE-He213 Energy modeling (dpeaa)DE-He213 Case study (dpeaa)DE-He213 Cross-impact balance analysis (CIB) (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hybrid scenario approach (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kosow, Hannah verfasserin aut Naegler, Tobias verfasserin aut Pregger, Thomas verfasserin aut Vögele, Stefan verfasserin aut Weimer-Jehle, Wolfgang verfasserin aut Enthalten in Energy, Sustainability and Society Berlin : Springer, 2011 11(2021), 1 vom: 12. Juli (DE-627)679779221 (DE-600)2641015-1 2192-0567 nnns volume:11 year:2021 number:1 day:12 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13705-021-00298-1 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2360 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 11 2021 1 12 07
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s13705-021-00298-1 doi (DE-627)SPR044539916 (SPR)s13705-021-00298-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 333.7 ASE Prehofer, Sigrid verfasserin aut Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative energy models: knowledge integration in different methodological designs 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2021 Background Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative models is a common approach to integrate assumptions on possible future societal contexts into modeling. But reflection on how and to what degree knowledge is effectively integrated during this endeavor does not generally take place. In this paper, we reflect on the performance of a specific hybrid scenario approach (qualitative Cross-Impact Balance analysis, CIB, linked with quantitative energy models) concerning knowledge integration through 11 different process steps. In order to guide the scenario community in applying this approach, we reflect on general methodological features as well as different design options. We conceptualize different forms of interdisciplinary knowledge integration (compiling, combining and synthesizing) and analyze how and to what degree knowledge about society and uncertainty are integrated into scenario process and products. In addition, we discuss trade-offs regarding design choices and forms of knowledge integration. Results On the basis of three case studies, we identify two general designs of linking which build on each other (basic and extended design) and which differ in essence regarding the balance of power between the CIB and the energy modeling. Ex post assessment of the form of interdisciplinary knowledge integration in each step revealed that specific method properties of CIB as well as the interaction with additional quantitative as well as specific qualitative methods foster distinct forms of knowledge integration. The specific roles assigned to CIB in the hybrid scenario process can also influence the form of knowledge integration. Conclusions In this study, we use a joint process scheme linking qualitative context scenarios with energy modeling. By applying our conceptualization of different forms of knowledge integration we analyze the designs’ respective potential for and respective effects on knowledge integration. Consequently, our findings can give guidance to those who are designing their own hybrid scenario processes. As this is an explorative study, it would be useful to further test our hypotheses in different hybrid scenario designs. Finally, we note that at some points in the process a more precise differentiation of three forms of knowledge integration would have been useful and propose to further differentiate and detail them in future research. Interdisciplinary knowledge integration (dpeaa)DE-He213 Context scenarios (dpeaa)DE-He213 Energy modeling (dpeaa)DE-He213 Case study (dpeaa)DE-He213 Cross-impact balance analysis (CIB) (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hybrid scenario approach (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kosow, Hannah verfasserin aut Naegler, Tobias verfasserin aut Pregger, Thomas verfasserin aut Vögele, Stefan verfasserin aut Weimer-Jehle, Wolfgang verfasserin aut Enthalten in Energy, Sustainability and Society Berlin : Springer, 2011 11(2021), 1 vom: 12. Juli (DE-627)679779221 (DE-600)2641015-1 2192-0567 nnns volume:11 year:2021 number:1 day:12 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13705-021-00298-1 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2360 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 11 2021 1 12 07
language	English
source	Enthalten in Energy, Sustainability and Society 11(2021), 1 vom: 12. Juli volume:11 year:2021 number:1 day:12 month:07
sourceStr	Enthalten in Energy, Sustainability and Society 11(2021), 1 vom: 12. Juli volume:11 year:2021 number:1 day:12 month:07
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Interdisciplinary knowledge integration Context scenarios Energy modeling Case study Cross-impact balance analysis (CIB) Hybrid scenario approach
dewey-raw	333.7
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Energy, Sustainability and Society
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Prehofer, Sigrid @@aut@@ Kosow, Hannah @@aut@@ Naegler, Tobias @@aut@@ Pregger, Thomas @@aut@@ Vögele, Stefan @@aut@@ Weimer-Jehle, Wolfgang @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2021-07-12T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	679779221
dewey-sort	3333.7
id	SPR044539916
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR044539916</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20220111200520.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">210713s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s13705-021-00298-1</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR044539916</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s13705-021-00298-1-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">333.7</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Prehofer, Sigrid</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative energy models: knowledge integration in different methodological designs</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative models is a common approach to integrate assumptions on possible future societal contexts into modeling. But reflection on how and to what degree knowledge is effectively integrated during this endeavor does not generally take place. In this paper, we reflect on the performance of a specific hybrid scenario approach (qualitative Cross-Impact Balance analysis, CIB, linked with quantitative energy models) concerning knowledge integration through 11 different process steps. In order to guide the scenario community in applying this approach, we reflect on general methodological features as well as different design options. We conceptualize different forms of interdisciplinary knowledge integration (compiling, combining and synthesizing) and analyze how and to what degree knowledge about society and uncertainty are integrated into scenario process and products. In addition, we discuss trade-offs regarding design choices and forms of knowledge integration. Results On the basis of three case studies, we identify two general designs of linking which build on each other (basic and extended design) and which differ in essence regarding the balance of power between the CIB and the energy modeling. Ex post assessment of the form of interdisciplinary knowledge integration in each step revealed that specific method properties of CIB as well as the interaction with additional quantitative as well as specific qualitative methods foster distinct forms of knowledge integration. The specific roles assigned to CIB in the hybrid scenario process can also influence the form of knowledge integration. Conclusions In this study, we use a joint process scheme linking qualitative context scenarios with energy modeling. By applying our conceptualization of different forms of knowledge integration we analyze the designs’ respective potential for and respective effects on knowledge integration. Consequently, our findings can give guidance to those who are designing their own hybrid scenario processes. As this is an explorative study, it would be useful to further test our hypotheses in different hybrid scenario designs. Finally, we note that at some points in the process a more precise differentiation of three forms of knowledge integration would have been useful and propose to further differentiate and detail them in future research.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Interdisciplinary knowledge integration</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Context scenarios</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Energy modeling</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Case study</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Cross-impact balance analysis (CIB)</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Hybrid scenario approach</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kosow, Hannah</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Naegler, Tobias</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Pregger, Thomas</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Vögele, Stefan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Weimer-Jehle, Wolfgang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Energy, Sustainability and Society</subfield><subfield code="d">Berlin : Springer, 2011</subfield><subfield code="g">11(2021), 1 vom: 12. Juli</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)679779221</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2641015-1</subfield><subfield code="x">2192-0567</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:11</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:12</subfield><subfield code="g">month:07</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13705-021-00298-1</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2108</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2360</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">11</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">12</subfield><subfield code="c">07</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Prehofer, Sigrid
spellingShingle	Prehofer, Sigrid ddc 333.7 misc Interdisciplinary knowledge integration misc Context scenarios misc Energy modeling misc Case study misc Cross-impact balance analysis (CIB) misc Hybrid scenario approach Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative energy models: knowledge integration in different methodological designs
authorStr	Prehofer, Sigrid
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)679779221
format	electronic Article
dewey-ones	333 - Economics of land & energy
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	2192-0567
topic_title	333.7 ASE Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative energy models: knowledge integration in different methodological designs Interdisciplinary knowledge integration (dpeaa)DE-He213 Context scenarios (dpeaa)DE-He213 Energy modeling (dpeaa)DE-He213 Case study (dpeaa)DE-He213 Cross-impact balance analysis (CIB) (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hybrid scenario approach (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	ddc 333.7 misc Interdisciplinary knowledge integration misc Context scenarios misc Energy modeling misc Case study misc Cross-impact balance analysis (CIB) misc Hybrid scenario approach
topic_unstemmed	ddc 333.7 misc Interdisciplinary knowledge integration misc Context scenarios misc Energy modeling misc Case study misc Cross-impact balance analysis (CIB) misc Hybrid scenario approach
topic_browse	ddc 333.7 misc Interdisciplinary knowledge integration misc Context scenarios misc Energy modeling misc Case study misc Cross-impact balance analysis (CIB) misc Hybrid scenario approach
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Energy, Sustainability and Society
hierarchy_parent_id	679779221
dewey-tens	330 - Economics
hierarchy_top_title	Energy, Sustainability and Society
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)679779221 (DE-600)2641015-1
title	Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative energy models: knowledge integration in different methodological designs
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR044539916 (SPR)s13705-021-00298-1-e
title_full	Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative energy models: knowledge integration in different methodological designs
author_sort	Prehofer, Sigrid
journal	Energy, Sustainability and Society
journalStr	Energy, Sustainability and Society
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
dewey-hundreds	300 - Social sciences
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2021
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Prehofer, Sigrid Kosow, Hannah Naegler, Tobias Pregger, Thomas Vögele, Stefan Weimer-Jehle, Wolfgang
container_volume	11
class	333.7 ASE
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Prehofer, Sigrid
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s13705-021-00298-1
dewey-full	333.7
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative energy models: knowledge integration in different methodological designs
title_auth	Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative energy models: knowledge integration in different methodological designs
abstract	Background Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative models is a common approach to integrate assumptions on possible future societal contexts into modeling. But reflection on how and to what degree knowledge is effectively integrated during this endeavor does not generally take place. In this paper, we reflect on the performance of a specific hybrid scenario approach (qualitative Cross-Impact Balance analysis, CIB, linked with quantitative energy models) concerning knowledge integration through 11 different process steps. In order to guide the scenario community in applying this approach, we reflect on general methodological features as well as different design options. We conceptualize different forms of interdisciplinary knowledge integration (compiling, combining and synthesizing) and analyze how and to what degree knowledge about society and uncertainty are integrated into scenario process and products. In addition, we discuss trade-offs regarding design choices and forms of knowledge integration. Results On the basis of three case studies, we identify two general designs of linking which build on each other (basic and extended design) and which differ in essence regarding the balance of power between the CIB and the energy modeling. Ex post assessment of the form of interdisciplinary knowledge integration in each step revealed that specific method properties of CIB as well as the interaction with additional quantitative as well as specific qualitative methods foster distinct forms of knowledge integration. The specific roles assigned to CIB in the hybrid scenario process can also influence the form of knowledge integration. Conclusions In this study, we use a joint process scheme linking qualitative context scenarios with energy modeling. By applying our conceptualization of different forms of knowledge integration we analyze the designs’ respective potential for and respective effects on knowledge integration. Consequently, our findings can give guidance to those who are designing their own hybrid scenario processes. As this is an explorative study, it would be useful to further test our hypotheses in different hybrid scenario designs. Finally, we note that at some points in the process a more precise differentiation of three forms of knowledge integration would have been useful and propose to further differentiate and detail them in future research. © The Author(s) 2021
abstractGer	Background Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative models is a common approach to integrate assumptions on possible future societal contexts into modeling. But reflection on how and to what degree knowledge is effectively integrated during this endeavor does not generally take place. In this paper, we reflect on the performance of a specific hybrid scenario approach (qualitative Cross-Impact Balance analysis, CIB, linked with quantitative energy models) concerning knowledge integration through 11 different process steps. In order to guide the scenario community in applying this approach, we reflect on general methodological features as well as different design options. We conceptualize different forms of interdisciplinary knowledge integration (compiling, combining and synthesizing) and analyze how and to what degree knowledge about society and uncertainty are integrated into scenario process and products. In addition, we discuss trade-offs regarding design choices and forms of knowledge integration. Results On the basis of three case studies, we identify two general designs of linking which build on each other (basic and extended design) and which differ in essence regarding the balance of power between the CIB and the energy modeling. Ex post assessment of the form of interdisciplinary knowledge integration in each step revealed that specific method properties of CIB as well as the interaction with additional quantitative as well as specific qualitative methods foster distinct forms of knowledge integration. The specific roles assigned to CIB in the hybrid scenario process can also influence the form of knowledge integration. Conclusions In this study, we use a joint process scheme linking qualitative context scenarios with energy modeling. By applying our conceptualization of different forms of knowledge integration we analyze the designs’ respective potential for and respective effects on knowledge integration. Consequently, our findings can give guidance to those who are designing their own hybrid scenario processes. As this is an explorative study, it would be useful to further test our hypotheses in different hybrid scenario designs. Finally, we note that at some points in the process a more precise differentiation of three forms of knowledge integration would have been useful and propose to further differentiate and detail them in future research. © The Author(s) 2021
abstract_unstemmed	Background Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative models is a common approach to integrate assumptions on possible future societal contexts into modeling. But reflection on how and to what degree knowledge is effectively integrated during this endeavor does not generally take place. In this paper, we reflect on the performance of a specific hybrid scenario approach (qualitative Cross-Impact Balance analysis, CIB, linked with quantitative energy models) concerning knowledge integration through 11 different process steps. In order to guide the scenario community in applying this approach, we reflect on general methodological features as well as different design options. We conceptualize different forms of interdisciplinary knowledge integration (compiling, combining and synthesizing) and analyze how and to what degree knowledge about society and uncertainty are integrated into scenario process and products. In addition, we discuss trade-offs regarding design choices and forms of knowledge integration. Results On the basis of three case studies, we identify two general designs of linking which build on each other (basic and extended design) and which differ in essence regarding the balance of power between the CIB and the energy modeling. Ex post assessment of the form of interdisciplinary knowledge integration in each step revealed that specific method properties of CIB as well as the interaction with additional quantitative as well as specific qualitative methods foster distinct forms of knowledge integration. The specific roles assigned to CIB in the hybrid scenario process can also influence the form of knowledge integration. Conclusions In this study, we use a joint process scheme linking qualitative context scenarios with energy modeling. By applying our conceptualization of different forms of knowledge integration we analyze the designs’ respective potential for and respective effects on knowledge integration. Consequently, our findings can give guidance to those who are designing their own hybrid scenario processes. As this is an explorative study, it would be useful to further test our hypotheses in different hybrid scenario designs. Finally, we note that at some points in the process a more precise differentiation of three forms of knowledge integration would have been useful and propose to further differentiate and detail them in future research. © The Author(s) 2021
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2360 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative energy models: knowledge integration in different methodological designs
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13705-021-00298-1
remote_bool	true
author2	Kosow, Hannah Naegler, Tobias Pregger, Thomas Vögele, Stefan Weimer-Jehle, Wolfgang
author2Str	Kosow, Hannah Naegler, Tobias Pregger, Thomas Vögele, Stefan Weimer-Jehle, Wolfgang
ppnlink	679779221
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s13705-021-00298-1
up_date	2024-07-04T01:11:41.944Z
_version_	1803608918019014656
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR044539916</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20220111200520.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">210713s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s13705-021-00298-1</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR044539916</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s13705-021-00298-1-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">333.7</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Prehofer, Sigrid</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative energy models: knowledge integration in different methodological designs</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative models is a common approach to integrate assumptions on possible future societal contexts into modeling. But reflection on how and to what degree knowledge is effectively integrated during this endeavor does not generally take place. In this paper, we reflect on the performance of a specific hybrid scenario approach (qualitative Cross-Impact Balance analysis, CIB, linked with quantitative energy models) concerning knowledge integration through 11 different process steps. In order to guide the scenario community in applying this approach, we reflect on general methodological features as well as different design options. We conceptualize different forms of interdisciplinary knowledge integration (compiling, combining and synthesizing) and analyze how and to what degree knowledge about society and uncertainty are integrated into scenario process and products. In addition, we discuss trade-offs regarding design choices and forms of knowledge integration. Results On the basis of three case studies, we identify two general designs of linking which build on each other (basic and extended design) and which differ in essence regarding the balance of power between the CIB and the energy modeling. Ex post assessment of the form of interdisciplinary knowledge integration in each step revealed that specific method properties of CIB as well as the interaction with additional quantitative as well as specific qualitative methods foster distinct forms of knowledge integration. The specific roles assigned to CIB in the hybrid scenario process can also influence the form of knowledge integration. Conclusions In this study, we use a joint process scheme linking qualitative context scenarios with energy modeling. By applying our conceptualization of different forms of knowledge integration we analyze the designs’ respective potential for and respective effects on knowledge integration. Consequently, our findings can give guidance to those who are designing their own hybrid scenario processes. As this is an explorative study, it would be useful to further test our hypotheses in different hybrid scenario designs. Finally, we note that at some points in the process a more precise differentiation of three forms of knowledge integration would have been useful and propose to further differentiate and detail them in future research.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Interdisciplinary knowledge integration</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Context scenarios</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Energy modeling</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Case study</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Cross-impact balance analysis (CIB)</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Hybrid scenario approach</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kosow, Hannah</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Naegler, Tobias</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Pregger, Thomas</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Vögele, Stefan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Weimer-Jehle, Wolfgang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Energy, Sustainability and Society</subfield><subfield code="d">Berlin : Springer, 2011</subfield><subfield code="g">11(2021), 1 vom: 12. Juli</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)679779221</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2641015-1</subfield><subfield code="x">2192-0567</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:11</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:12</subfield><subfield code="g">month:07</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13705-021-00298-1</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2108</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2360</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">11</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">12</subfield><subfield code="c">07</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.4003916

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Linking qualitative scenarios with quantitative energy models: knowledge integration in different methodological designs

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?