16 Susanne Hanger-Kopp et al.
constitutes the strength of this framing. Conventionally, such a distinction is
only implied and remains opaque for anybody who is not familiar with the specific context.
The ideas of implementation and consequential risks easily translate to more
conventional language, such as barriers and negative impacts, which is useful in
dialogues with stakeholders.
For the sake of clarity, the stylised depiction of risks and uncertainties in
Figure 2.1 omits several more complex aspects. First, the cause of any implementation risk, and the negative effect of any consequential risk, are not isolated
but can be traced back and forth in cascades respectively. For example, public
acceptance/opposition as an implementation risk may have several different
root causes, such as experience, fundamental values, or common social practice,
to name just a few. Similarly, negative impacts on the environment may result
in negative impacts on health or other ecosystems services, which in turn may
lead to economic implications for both economic sectors and individuals.
Second, the framework does not address trade- offs and benefits. In any decisionmaking effort, benefits will play a role as well as risks, and trade- offs will be
made. We neglect this in the framework as we assume that low- carbon pathways
are mostly designed with their eventual benefits in mind, and that underestimating potential negative outcomes is one of the greatest implementation
risks to any such pathway. Third, the distinction between implementation and
consequential risks does not always completely hold. For instance, a badly
implemented pathway may have negative impacts that affect the pathway itself,
which has been the case in some emissions trading schemes.
Across all disciplines we find consensus that risk is context dependent. To
account for this, the overarching framing for each narrative is based on the
human innovation systems (HIS) idea, a framework developed based on the
extended approach of the technology innovation system (TIS) framework
(Hekkert et al., 2007). The framework explicitly acknowledges the spatial
context and dimension of time, while considering the interaction between the
natural ecological system (resource potential and limitations) and the human
system. A low- emission pathway choice depends on the interaction between the
environmental context (ecological system) and the HIS that encompasses
social, economic, technological, administrative, and political contexts. Within
the HIS there are also differing priorities at various scales (community, city,
national, regional, etc.) governed by formal and informal institutions comprising actors with individual preferences.
Categorising barriers and potential negative outcomes in low- carbon pathways related to the contextual factors can help to conceptually disaggregate
broadly defined categories of implementation and consequential risks, and specifically identify the problem. Systematically thinking through each category
may help to identify the point from which the problems or barriers stem (e.g.
lack of monetary funds, social resistance, level of technological readiness, etc.).
The exercise can then help to identify the actors, institutions or policies that
can address the barrier and prevent negative outcomes. These context categories
constitutes the strength of this framing. Conventionally, such a distinction is
only implied and remains opaque for anybody who is not familiar with the specific context.
The ideas of implementation and consequential risks easily translate to more
conventional language, such as barriers and negative impacts, which is useful in
dialogues with stakeholders.
For the sake of clarity, the stylised depiction of risks and uncertainties in
Figure 2.1 omits several more complex aspects. First, the cause of any implementation risk, and the negative effect of any consequential risk, are not isolated
but can be traced back and forth in cascades respectively. For example, public
acceptance/opposition as an implementation risk may have several different
root causes, such as experience, fundamental values, or common social practice,
to name just a few. Similarly, negative impacts on the environment may result
in negative impacts on health or other ecosystems services, which in turn may
lead to economic implications for both economic sectors and individuals.
Second, the framework does not address trade- offs and benefits. In any decisionmaking effort, benefits will play a role as well as risks, and trade- offs will be
made. We neglect this in the framework as we assume that low- carbon pathways
are mostly designed with their eventual benefits in mind, and that underestimating potential negative outcomes is one of the greatest implementation
risks to any such pathway. Third, the distinction between implementation and
consequential risks does not always completely hold. For instance, a badly
implemented pathway may have negative impacts that affect the pathway itself,
which has been the case in some emissions trading schemes.
Across all disciplines we find consensus that risk is context dependent. To
account for this, the overarching framing for each narrative is based on the
human innovation systems (HIS) idea, a framework developed based on the
extended approach of the technology innovation system (TIS) framework
(Hekkert et al., 2007). The framework explicitly acknowledges the spatial
context and dimension of time, while considering the interaction between the
natural ecological system (resource potential and limitations) and the human
system. A low- emission pathway choice depends on the interaction between the
environmental context (ecological system) and the HIS that encompasses
social, economic, technological, administrative, and political contexts. Within
the HIS there are also differing priorities at various scales (community, city,
national, regional, etc.) governed by formal and informal institutions comprising actors with individual preferences.
Categorising barriers and potential negative outcomes in low- carbon pathways related to the contextual factors can help to conceptually disaggregate
broadly defined categories of implementation and consequential risks, and specifically identify the problem. Systematically thinking through each category
may help to identify the point from which the problems or barriers stem (e.g.
lack of monetary funds, social resistance, level of technological readiness, etc.).
The exercise can then help to identify the actors, institutions or policies that
can address the barrier and prevent negative outcomes. These context categories