% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Prehofer:894885,
      author       = {Prehofer, Sigrid and Kosow, Hannah and Naegler, Tobias and
                      Pregger, Thomas and Vögele, Stefan and Weimer-Jehle,
                      Wolfgang},
      title        = {{L}inking qualitative scenarios with quantitative energy
                      models. {K}nowledge integration in different methodological
                      designs.},
      journal      = {Energy, Sustainability and Society},
      volume       = {11},
      issn         = {2192-0567},
      address      = {Heidelberg},
      publisher    = {Springer},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2021-03451},
      pages        = {25},
      year         = {2021},
      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 linked with
                      quantitative energy models) concerning knowledge integration
                      through eleven 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, many
                      roads for further empirical research are indicated. Finally,
                      we note that at some points in the process a more precise
                      differentiation of knowledge integration forms would have
                      been useful and propose to further differentiate and detail
                      the three forms of interdisciplinary knowledge integration
                      in future research.},
      cin          = {IEK-STE},
      ddc          = {333.7},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-STE-20101013},
      pnm          = {1112 - Societally Feasible Transformation Pathways
                      (POF4-111)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-1112},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000672446800001},
      doi          = {10.1186/s13705-021-00298-1},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/894885},
}