ULYSSES and Integrated Assessment

It is frequently argued that Integrated Assessment (IA) should be an international, multi-institute program, in which projects are covering for each other. In the current chapter, the research described in the first two parts of this volume is discussed from such a broad point of view. To that end, the authors explore if, and if so how, this research built upon previous IA projects and whether it provided input for subsequent IA projects. In doing so, its value for Integrated Assessment beyond the study's main products and insights is explored.

Apart from being a project that addressed the climatic change issue from the perspective of citizens, the ULYSSES project was explicitly designed as an Integrated Assessment (IA) project. For decades, scientists have been working with decision-makers to address local and regional problems in a more or less integrative manner, especially in the field of environmental policy, most of them without calling it “Integrated Assessment.” Although the term IA dates back to the 1980s, it is only since the late 1990s that IA has been recognized as a kind of profession and as a specific branch of scientific research. For that reason, it was not at all trivial that the project explicitly aimed to develop new IA methodologies.

When this study was designed, modelers, mainly natural scientists and economists, dominated IA. Modeling was considered as the way to do IA.

Introduction

Although mathematical modelling is often used by epidemiologists – to gain insights into the observed dynamics of infectious disease epidemics, for example, or to estimate future time trends in diseases – the complex task of estimating future trends and outcomes in relation to global atmospheric change and human health requires the use of integrated, systems-based mathematical models (McMichael & Martens, 1995). Looking at the complexity of the interactions between global (environmental) changes and human health, we need an integrated approach to ensure that key interactions, feedbacks and effects are not inadvertently omitted from the analysis. The various pieces of this complex puzzle can no longer be examined in isolation. Integrated Assessment (IA) aims to fit the pieces of the puzzle together, thereby indicating priorities for policy.

There is increasing recognition and credibility for the rapidly evolving field of IA. Within the setting of the political arena, it is accepted that IA can be supportive in the long-term policy-planning process, while in the scientific community more and more scientists realize the complementary value of IA research.

At present modelling is the dominant method of performing IA, including looking at global-change impacts on human health. However, many studies that are either explicitly or implicitly integrated assessments are still qualitative in nature, without using any models. Furthermore, the complexity of the issues addressed and the value-laden character of assessment activities make it impossible to address this process using only one approach.

This chapter explores dystopian futures. After a summary of the uncertainties and risks discussed for each of the subsystems, integrated experiments are presented in which world view and management style throughout the world system are at odds. We also investigate the effectiveness of various response options and of the timing of certain policy measures.

Introduction

In the previous chapter we outlined possible futures which are based on coherent sets of assumptions about how the world system functions and how it is managed. These are called utopias and constitute the diagonal elements in the matrix presented in Figure 10.7. In a way, they are idealised and therefore implausible images of the future. In this chapter we first present some simulation experiments in which dystopian trends are explored with the integrated TARGETS 1.0 model. This is a prelude to the next section in which we analyse in more detail images of the future where world view and management style are at odds. These are referred to as integrated dystopias (see Chapter 11) and they are actually more plausible because they contain real-world tensions between diverging world views and management styles. Two major chains which cause feedback loops are presented as a framework discussing some interesting dystopian futures and to give an assessment of associated risks. Finally, we explore the adequacy of response actions in terms of intensity and timing, and the consequences of allocating insufficient investments to the food, water and energy sectors.

The CYCLES submodel describes the long-term dynamics of the global biogeochemical cycles of carbon (C), nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and sulphur (S), their interactions and their impacts on climate change. The model analysis balances past carbon and nitrogen budgets – emphasising the importance of the N fertilisation feedback – and supports the future projections of the fate of anthropogenic emissions of both carbon and nitrogen compounds in the global environment presented in Chapter 16. This chapter focuses on the link between the global cycles of C and N and their feedbacks, providing calculations of global flows of these basic elements and their related compounds within and between the major reservoirs.

Introduction

Carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, together with the basic nutrient elements nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur, are essential for life on Earth. The term ‘global biogeochemical cycles’ is used to describe the transport and transformation of these substances in the global environment. In recent decades detailed studies have been carried out on the global biogeochemical cycles of the basic elements, in particular carbon (C), nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and sulphur (S) (Bolin et al., 1979; Bolin and Cook, 1983; Schlesinger, 1991; Butcher et al., 1992; Wollast et al., 1993). Figure 8.1 depicts how anthropogenic disturbances of the global cycles of the basic elements of C, N, P and S lead to a variety of global environmental consequences.

Introduction

We know that the future is inherently uncertain, yet we are fascinated by insights into ways in which we may be influencing the planet. This interest is intensified because there is widespread perception that the world is changing at an unprecedented speed. Undeniably, many parts of the global system are accelerating or decelerating compared to previously observed, natural rates of change. For some people these processes of change may just look like more of the same. There are, however, underlying behavioural and structural changes at work which suggest deeper, more radical change in the longer term. Many of those long-term changes can be viewed as part of transition processes. Several of these are within the human system: from many to 1 or 2 children per family, twice as many older people per thousand compared to today, a factor of 3 to 5 less energy and water use per unit of economic activity, increasing pressure to cultivate more land and use it more intensively to feed the population. More gradual, but possibly of overriding importance, are the changes in the environmental system, such as the accelerating increase in the concentration of some atmospheric gases and increasing accumulation of pollutants in soils and water bodies which are the result of past and present practices. It is difficult to disentangle the human-induced, structural long-term changes from the natural changes, which makes it even harder to see where the world is heading.

The key question underlying the controversies addressed in this chapter is to what extent the global biogeochemical cycles and the climate system are being disturbed by anthropogenic processes. The CYCLES submodel is used to explore the influence of various model routes on future projections of global environmental change. These routes are characterised by specific assumptions about the key processes within the global carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) cycle and the climate system. This creates the possibility to assess various emission scenarios, paving the way for the more integrated experiments described in Chapters 17 and 18. It is reiterated that the current state of scientific knowledge with respect to global C and N cycles and climate change is still beset with major uncertainties.

Introduction

Although scientific knowledge of global biogeochemical cycles is increasing rapidly, there are still major gaps. Subjective interpretation of these gaps results in different assessments of the rate, magnitude and impacts of human-induced changes in global cycles. The climate debate exemplifies the kind of intellectual battle that can take place, given uncertainties about the global biogeochemical cycles of the basic elements carbon (C), nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and sulphur (S), and the climate system. In general, the controversies within the scientific community on global biogeochemical cycles focus on the relationships among the physical, biological and chemical processes comprising the complex dynamics of the global biogeochemical cycling as well as the role of the various feedbacks.

This chapter introduces Part Two of the book, which reports on experiments with submodels of TARGETS 1.0 carried out to assess a number of global change controversies. The experiments include a range of utopias and dystopias to discover whether the problem at the core of each controversy is likely to occur, and if so, under what conditions. The hierarchist utopia, which reflects the assumptions behind many reputable scenario studies, is used as a reference case to explore issues such as population growth, demand for food, water and energy, the environmental consequences of these pressures, and a range of societal responses. The results of integrated experiments with the TARGETS 1.0 model are presented at the end of this part of the book.

Introduction

Part One of this book described tools for performing integrated assessments of global change. The aim of Part Two is to gain insights by using these tools, both withthe separate submodels and with the integrated TARGETS 1.0 model. The main goal of TARGETS is to put possible developments within the subsystems of the world into perspective in an integrated way. In this way we hope to provide a context for discussing global change and sustainable development. The quantitative modelling framework is used to support the qualitative framing of important issues. Though they are partial and limited in scope, the resulting images of possible global futures enable us to localise areas of tension and directions for sustainable development strategies.

In 1992 the National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) launched the interdisciplinary research programme ‘Global Dynamics and Sustainable Development’. The main objective of this research has been to investigate the concept of sustainable development from a global perspective. A key project within the programme was the development of a global model called TARGETS (Tool to Assess Regional and Global Environmental and health Targets for Sustainability). TARGETS belongs to a class of integrated assessment models which build on a tradition started in the early 1970s with the World3 model used in the Report to the Club of Rome. Despite better information and greater insights into the global system, a model like TARGETS only represents a simplified description of the world, and therefore still has many limitations and deficiencies. However, TARGETS distinguishes itself from previous integrated assessment models in that it deals explicitly with prevailing uncertainties in the form of perspective-based model routes.

It has been our intention for the TARGETS model to be used to assess the interlinkages between social, economic and biophysical processes on a global scale. One of our motivations has been the fact that the increasing rate and complexity of global change processes forces us to go beyond disciplinary boundaries and carry out integrative research, using integrated assessment models. We see the TARGETS model as a tool for experimenting with new concepts and techniques, not as some kind of ‘truth machine’ that generates predictions. More particularly, we have aimed at to produce fresh insights – not ready-made answers – on issues of global change processes in the context of the Rio Declaration on Sustainable Development and Agenda 21.

Any exploration of future developments inevitably involves a considerable degree of uncertainty and integrated assessment modelling is no exception. One of the major uncertainties has to do with the direction of policy-making. In order to accommodate a wide variety of world views and management styles, this chapter introduces the concept of multiple model routes. These are alternative ways of looking at model relationships, taking into account the bias and preferences of a number of stereo-typical perspectives. These perspectives, which each represent a different attitude to nature and society, are typified as hierarchist, egalitarian, individualist and fatalist. Matching a consistent management style with the first three (active) perspectives permits an analysis of ‘utopias’, while the opposite case – when world view and management style are out of step – reveals the risk of a number of possible ‘dystopias’.

Introduction

The future is inherently uncertain and thus unpredictable. Nevertheless, people in general, and decision-makers in particular, are interested in exploring future developments in order to make plans. One of the roles of science is to assist decisionmakers by sketching images of the future of the planet and of humankind. Scientists are facing an increase in both the magnitude and the degree of complexity. The issues currently associated with global change differ from other scientific problems in several respects (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993):

• they are global in scale and long term in their impact;

• the available data is lamentably inadequate; and

• the phenomena, being novel, complex and variable, are themselves not well understood.

This chapter provides an introduction to the theme of the book by explaining the importance of the three central concepts global change, sustainable development and integrated assessment. The book focuses on five areas: population and human health, energy, water, land and food, and global biogeochemical cycles. The idea of using multiple definitions of sustainable development in an integrated approach to global change is put forward. The construction and use of the TARGETS integrated assessment model (Tool to Assess Regional and Global Environmental and health Targets for Sustainability) is justified in terms of providing a platform for communication within the scientific community that can inform policy debates about likely trends over the next 100 years or so.

Introduction

With the approach of a new millennium, global change and sustainable development are evolving as key concepts for assessing the future of the planet and of humankind. Over the last few decades, we have become used to the idea that our activities may have serious and irreversible impacts on the environment. Human-induced changes are recognised as having the potential to significantly modify the structure and functioning of the Earth system as a whole. Furthermore, activities at one place on Earth can affect the lives of people around the globe and even jeopardise those of future generations. The use of land, water, minerals and other natural resources by humans has increased more than tenfold during the past two centuries.

When tackling a subject as complex as global change and sustainable development, it is essential to be able to ‘frame the issues’. This was one of the main reasons for developing the TARGETS model, an integrated model of the global system, consisting of metamodels of important subsystems. In this chapter we introduce TARGETS. Building on the previous chapters, we elaborate on the possibilities and limitations of integrated assessment models. Some of the key issues discussed are aggregation, model calibration and validation, and dealing with uncertainty.

Introduction

One of the main tools used in integrated assessment of global change issues is the Integrated Assessment (IA) model. This chapter introduces such an integrated model, TARGETS, which builds upon the systems approach and related concepts introduced in Chapter 2. Previous integrated modelling attempts either focused on specific aspects of global change, for instance the climate system (IPCC, 1995), or consisted merely of conceptual descriptions (Shaw et al., 1992). We have tried to go one step further, linking a series of cause-effect chains of global change. Although we realise the shortcomings in our current version of the TARGETS model, we felt there was a need to present our model to a wide audience. We first give some advantages and limitations of IA models. Next, we discuss issues of aggregation, calibration, validation and uncertainty. We proceed with a brief description of the five TARGETS submodels which coincides with the PSIR concept and the vertical integration as introduced in Chapter 2. A more detailed description of these submodels is given in Chapters 4 to 8.

The most widely used social, economic and environmental indicators are scale, sector or subject-specific. Indicators for sustainable development, however, need to address the linkages between different aspects of global change and this requires a systemic approach. One way of systematically structuring the interlinkages between indicators is by using integrated assessment models. In this chapter we discuss indicators from a modeller's point of view, including their use for communicating model results. A hierarchical framework is introduced for models in general and TARGETS in particular.

Introduction

Indicators are pieces of information designed to communicate complex messages in a simplified, (quasi-)quantitative manner so that progress in the field of decision-making can be measured. Social and economic indicators have been used for decades at both the national and international level. More recently, environmental indicators have been developed, which are not yet as widely adopted as socio-economic indicators. The most widely used social, economic and environmental indicators are scale, sector or subject-specific. Indicators for sustainable development, however, need to address the interlinkages between the social, economic and environmental aspects of sustainable development. Because there are so many different linkages at different levels, this requires a systemic approach. One way of systematically structuring the interlinkages between indicators is by using models, in particular integrated assessment models.

Chapter 40 of Agenda 21 (UNCED, 1992) calls for the development of indicators for sustainable development, at multiple levels. Indicators for sustainable development are needed in order to provide decision-makers with information on sustainable development that is simpler and more readily understood than raw or even analysed data (Billharz and Molda, 1995).