Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Achievements and needs for the climate change scenario framework

  • Perspective
  • Published:

From Nature Climate Change

View current issue Submit your manuscript

A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 20 January 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

Long-term global scenarios have underpinned research and assessment of global environmental change for four decades. Over the past ten years, the climate change research community has developed a scenario framework combining alternative futures of climate and society to facilitate integrated research and consistent assessment to inform policy. Here we assess how well this framework is working and what challenges it faces. We synthesize insights from scenario-based literature, community discussions and recent experience in assessments, concluding that the framework has been widely adopted across research communities and is largely meeting immediate needs. However, some mixed successes and a changing policy and research landscape present key challenges, and we recommend several new directions for the development and use of this framework.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1: Application of SSPs by primary topic of analysis.
Fig. 2: Numbers of applications of SSP–RCP combinations in 715 total studies applying integrated scenarios, published over the period 2014–2019.

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 20 January 2021

    A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00981-9.

References

  1. Moss, R. H. et al. The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463, 747 (2010).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ebi, K. L. et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research: background, process, and future directions. Climatic Change 122, 363–372 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  3. van Vuuren, D. P. et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research: scenario matrix architecture. Climatic Change 122, 373–386 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  4. O’Neill, B. C. et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Climatic Change 122, 387–400 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kriegler, E. et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared climate policy assumptions. Climatic Change 122, 401–414 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  6. van Vuuren, D. P. et al. The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Climatic Change 109, 5 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Riahi, K. et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2017). A synthesis of the SSP narratives, quantitative elements and integrated assessment model scenarios of energy, land use and emissions.

    Google Scholar 

  8. O’Neill, B. C. & Scientific Steering Committee. Forum on Scenarios of Climate and Societal Futures: Meeting Report (University of Denver, 2019); https://pardee.du.edu/forum-scenarios-climate-and-societal-futures-meeting-reportDocuments the wide variety of topics being addressed by a growing and diverse community developing and using scenarios.

  9. Chowdhury, S., Dey, S. & Smith, K. R. Ambient PM 2.5 exposure and expected premature mortality to 2100 in India under climate change scenarios. Nat. Commun. 9, 318 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Williges, K., Mechler, R., Bowyer, P. & Balkovic, J. Towards an assessment of adaptive capacity of the European agricultural sector to droughts. Clim. Serv. 7, 47–63 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bauer, N. et al. Shared Socio-economic Pathways of the energy sector – quantifying the narratives. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 316–330 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Popp, A. et al. Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 331–345 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rogelj, J. et al. Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 325–332 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Jones, B. & O’Neill, B. C. Spatially explicit global population scenarios consistent with the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 084003 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Merkens, J.-L., Reimann, L., Hinkel, J. & Vafeidis, A. T. Gridded population projections for the coastal zone under the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Glob. Planet. Change 145, 57–66 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Terama, E., Clarke, E., Rounsevell, M. D. A., Fronzek, S. & Carter, T. R. Modelling population structure in the context of urban land use change in Europe. Reg. Environ. Change 19, 667–677 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wear, D. N. & Prestemon, J. P. Spatiotemporal downscaling of global population and income scenarios for the United States. PLoS ONE 14, e0219242 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rao, N. D., Sauer, P., Gidden, M. & Riahi, K. Income inequality projections for the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs). Futures 105, 27–39 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Van der Mensbrugghe, D. Shared Socio-economic pathways and global income distribution. In 18th Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis (GTAP, 2015).

  20. Hallegatte, S. & Rozenberg, J. Climate change through a poverty lens. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 250–256 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Byers, E. et al. Global exposure and vulnerability to multi-sector development and climate change hotspots. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 055012 (2018). Integrates a variety of climate and societal information to identify locations of high exposure and vulnerability.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Jones, B., Tebaldi, C., O’Neill, B. C., Oleson, K. & Gao, J. Avoiding population exposure to heat-related extremes: demographic change vs climate change. Climatic Change 146, 423–437 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Harrington, L. J. & Otto, F. E. L. Changing population dynamics and uneven temperature emergence combine to exacerbate regional exposure to heat extremes under 1.5 °C and 2 °C of warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 034011 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rohat, G. et al. Influence of changes in socioeconomic and climatic conditions on future heat-related health challenges in Europe. Glob. Planet. Change 172, 45–59 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rao, S. et al. Future air pollution in the Shared Socio-economic Pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 346–358 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ebi, K. Health in the new scenarios for climate change research. Int. J. Env. Res. Pub. He. 11, 30–46 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Graham, N. T. et al. Water sector assumptions for the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways in an integrated modeling framework. Water Resour. Res. 54, 6423–6440 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kemp-Benedict, E., de Jong, W. & Pacheco, P. In Forests Under Pressure, Local Responses to Global Issues (eds Katila, P. et al.) 539–553 (IUFRO, 2014).

  29. Maury, O. et al. From Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) to oceanic system pathways (OSPs): building policy-relevant scenarios for global oceanic ecosystems and fisheries. Glob. Environ. Change 45, 203–216 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hegre, H. et al. Forecasting civil conflict along the shared socioeconomic pathways. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 054002 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Andrijevic, M., Cuaresma, J. C., Muttarak, R. & Schleussner, C.-F. Governance in socioeconomic pathways and its role for future adaptive capacity. Nat. Sustain. 3, 35–41 (2020). Extends the SSPs with projections of governance to facilitate integrated studies.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Absar, S. M. & Preston, B. L. Extending the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways for sub-national impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability studies. Glob. Environ. Change 33, 83–96 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Rohat, G., Flacke, J., Dao, H. & van Maarseveen, M. Co-use of existing scenario sets to extend and quantify the shared socioeconomic pathways. Climatic Change 151, 619–636 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  34. McManamay, R. A., DeRolph, C. R., Surendran-Nair, S. & Allen-Dumas, M. Spatially explicit land-energy-water future scenarios for cities: guiding infrastructure transitions for urban sustainability. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 112, 880–900 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kok, K., Pedde, S., Gramberger, M., Harrison, P. A. & Holman, I. P. New European socio-economic scenarios for climate change research: operationalising concepts to extend the shared socio-economic pathways. Reg. Environ. Change 19, 643–654 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Harrison, P. A. et al. Differences between low-end and high-end climate change impacts in Europe across multiple sectors. Reg. Environ. Change 19, 695–709 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Frantzeskaki, N. et al. Transition pathways to sustainability in greater than 2 °C climate futures of Europe. Reg. Environ. Change 19, 777–789 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hasegawa, T. et al. Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent global climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 699–703 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hanasaki, N. et al. A global water scarcity assessment under Shared Socio-economic Pathways – Part 2: water availability and scarcity. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17, 2393–2413 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Park, C. et al. Avoided economic impacts of energy demand changes by 1.5 and 2 °C climate stabilization. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 4 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  41. IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).

  42. IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) (WMO, 2019).

  43. IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (eds Pörtner, H.-O. et al.) (WMO, 2019).

  44. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019).

  45. TWI2050 Report: Transformations to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (IIASA, 2018).

  46. Global Environment Outlook – GEO-6: Healthy Planet, Healthy People (United Nations Environment Programme, 2019).

  47. O’Neill, B. C. et al. The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 3461–3482 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Rosa, I. M. D. et al. Challenges in producing policy-relevant global scenarios of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 22, e00886 (2020). Addresses the extension of scenarios to the biodiversity community.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Mason-D’Croz, D. et al. Multi-factor, multi-state, multi-model scenarios: exploring food and climate futures for Southeast Asia. Environ. Modell. Soft. 83, 255–270 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Cradock-Henry, N. A., Frame, B., Preston, B. L., Reisinger, A. & Rothman, D. S. Dynamic adaptive pathways in downscaled climate change scenarios. Climatic Change 150, 333–341 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  51. van Ruijven, B. J. et al. Enhancing the relevance of Shared Socioeconomic Pathways for climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability research. Climatic Change 122, 481–494 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Scheffer, M. et al. Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Nature 461, 53–59 (2009).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Hazeleger, W. et al. Tales of future weather. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 107–113 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Shepherd, T. G. et al. Storylines: an alternative approach to representing uncertainty in physical aspects of climate change. Climatic Change 151, 555–571 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  55. de Bruijn, K. M., Lips, N., Gersonius, B. & Middelkoop, H. The storyline approach: a new way to analyse and improve flood event management. Nat. Hazards 81, 99–121 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Shepherd, T. G. Storyline approach to the construction of regional climate change information. P. Roy. Soc. A—Math. Phy. 475, 20190013 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Sillmann, J. et al. Physical Modeling Supporting a Storyline Approach (CICERO Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, 2019).

  58. Giorgi, F. & Gutowski, W. J. Regional dynamical downscaling and the CORDEX initiative. Annu. Rev. Env. Resour. 40, 467–490 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Challinor, A. J., Adger, W. N. & Benton, T. G. Climate risks across borders and scales. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 621–623 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  60. van Ruijven, B. J., De Cian, E. & Sue Wing, I. Amplification of future energy demand growth due to climate change. Nat. Commun. 10, 2762 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Biggs, R. et al. Linking futures across scales: a dialog on multiscale scenarios. Ecol. Soc. 12, 17 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Zurek, M. B. & Henrichs, T. Linking scenarios across geographical scales in international environmental assessments. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 74, 1282–1295 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Nilsson, A. E. et al. Towards extended shared socioeconomic pathways: a combined participatory bottom-up and top-down methodology with results from the Barents region. Glob. Environ. Change 45, 124–132 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Mitter, H. Shared Socio-economic Pathways for European agriculture and food systems: the Eur-Agri-SSPs. Glob. Environ. Change 65, 102159 (2020). Develops regional SSPs for application to the agricultural sector.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Kebede, A. S. et al. Applying the global RCP-SSP-SPA scenario framework at sub-national scale: a multi-scale and participatory scenario approach. Sci. Total Environ. 635, 659–672 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Tàbara, J. D. et al. Exploring institutional transformations to address high-end climate change in Iberia. Sustainability 10, 161 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Hunt, D. V. L. et al. Scenario archetypes: converging rather than diverging themes. Sustainability 4, 740–772 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  68. van Vuuren, D. P., Kok, M. T. J., Girod, B., Lucas, P. L. & de Vries, B. Scenarios in global environmental assessments: key characteristics and lessons for future use. Glob. Environ. Change 22, 884–895 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Guillaume Rohat, Johannes Flacke, Hy Dao, Martin van Maarseveen, (2018) Co-use of existing scenario sets to extend and quantify the shared socioeconomic pathways. Climatic Change 151 (3-4):619-636.

  70. Reidmiller, D. R. et al. (eds) Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment Volume II (US Global Change Research Program, 2018).

  71. Pereira, L. M. et al. Developing multi-scale and integrative nature-people scenarios using the Nature Futures Framework. People and Nature https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10146 (2020).

  72. O’Neill, B. C. et al. The roads ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 169–180 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  73. van Vuuren, D. P. et al. A proposal for a new scenario framework to support research and assessment in different climate research communities. Glob. Environ. Change 22, 21–35 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Grant, N., Hawkes, A., Napp, T. & Gambhir, A. The appropriate use of reference scenarios in mitigation analysis. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 605–610 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Roelfsema, M. Taking stock of climate policies: future impact of national policies in the context of the Paris Agreement climate goals. Nat. Commun. 11, 2096 (2020).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Wilbanks, T. J. & Ebi, K. L. SSPs from an impact and adaptation perspective. Climatic Change 122, 473–479 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  77. Otero, I. et al. Biodiversity policy beyond economic growth. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12713 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  78. Buhaug, H. & Vestby, J. On Growth Projections in the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Global Environ. Polit. 19, 118–132 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  79. Grubler, A. et al. A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5 °C target and sustainable development goals without negative emission technologies. Nat. Energy 3, 515–527 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  80. van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Alternative pathways to the 1.5 °C target reduce the need for negative emission technologies. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 391–397 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  81. Cash, D. W. et al. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 8086–8091 (2003).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Beck, S. & Mahony, M. The IPCC and the politics of anticipation. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 311–313 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  83. Edenhofer, O. & Kowarsch, M. Cartography of pathways: a new model for environmental policy assessments. Environ. Sci. Policy 51, 56–64 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Kowarsch, M. & Jabbour, J. Solution-oriented global environmental assessments: opportunities and challenges. Environ. Sci. Policy 77, 187–192 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  85. Inayatullah, S. Deconstructing and reconstructing the future: predictive, cultural and critical epistemologies. Futures 22, 115–141 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  86. Sardar, Z. Colonizing the future: the ‘other’ dimension of futures studies. Futures 25, 179–187 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  87. Inayatullah, S. (eds) in The Causal Layered Analysis Reader: Theory and Case Studies of an Integrative and Transformative Methodology 1–52 (Tamkang Univ. Press, 2004).

  88. Slaughter, R. A. From forecasting and scenarios to social construction: changing methodological paradigms in futures studies. Foresight 4, 26–31 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  89. Schweizer, V. J. & O’Neill, B. C. Systematic construction of global socioeconomic pathways using internally consistent element combinations. Climatic Change 122, 431–445 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  90. Lamontagne, J. R. et al. Large ensemble analytic framework for consequence‐driven discovery of climate change scenarios. Earth’s Future 6, 488–504 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  91. Carlsen, H., Lempert, R., Wikman-Svahn, P. & Schweizer, V. Choosing small sets of policy-relevant scenarios by combining vulnerability and diversity approaches. Environ. Modell. Soft. 84, 155–164 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  92. Clapp, C. & Sillmann, J. Facilitating climate-smart investments. One Earth 1, 57–61 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  93. Final Report: Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD, 2017); https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/publications/final-recommendations-report/

  94. First Comprehensive Report: A Call For Action (NGFS, 2019); https://www.ngfs.net/en/first-comprehensive-report-call-action

  95. Weber, C. et al. Mitigation scenarios must cater to new users. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 845–848 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  96. Vaughan, C. & Dessai, S. Climate services for society: origins, institutional arrangements, and design elements for an evaluation framework: climate services for society. WIREs Clim. Change 5, 587–603 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  97. Rogelj, J. et al. A new scenario logic for the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal. Nature 573, 357–363 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Green, C. et al. Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) Literature Database, v1, 2014–2019 (NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC), 2020); https://doi.org/10.7927/HN96-9703

  99. Kriegler, E. et al. The need for and use of socio-economic scenarios for climate change analysis: a new approach based on shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 22, 807–822 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  100. KC, S. & Lutz, W. The human core of the shared socioeconomic pathways: population scenarios by age, sex and level of education for all countries to 2100. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 181–192 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  101. Dellink, R., Chateau, J., Lanzi, E. & Magné, B. Long-term economic growth projections in the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 200–214 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  102. Crespo Cuaresma, J. Income projections for climate change research: a framework based on human capital dynamics. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 226–236 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  103. Leimbach, M., Kriegler, E., Roming, N. & Schwanitz, J. Future growth patterns of world regions – a GDP scenario approach. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 215–225 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  104. Jiang, L. & O’Neill, B. C. Global urbanization projections for the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 193–199 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  105. Gidden, M. J. et al. Global emissions pathways under different socioeconomic scenarios for use in CMIP6: a dataset of harmonized emissions trajectories through the end of the century. Geosci. Model Dev. 12, 1443–1475 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J. & Meehl, G. A. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  107. Frame, B., Lawrence, J., Ausseil, A.-G., Reisinger, A. & Daigneault, A. Adapting global shared socio-economic pathways for national and local scenarios. Clim. Risk Manag. 21, 39–51 (2018). A regional extension to the framework that points the way to accommodating adaptation policy.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Spangenberg, J. H. et al. Scenarios for investigating risks to biodiversity. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 21, 5–18 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  109. Le Quéré, C. et al. Temporary reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 647–653 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  110. Forster, P. M. et al. Current and future global climate impacts resulting from COVID-19. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 913–919 (2020).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Samset, B. H., Fuglestvedt, J. S. & Lund, M. T. Delayed emergence of a global temperature response after emission mitigation. Nat. Commun. 11, 3261 (2020).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. David Tàbara, J. et al. Positive tipping points in a rapidly warming world. Curr. Opin. Env. Sust. 31, 120–129 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  113. Scheidel, W. The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century (Princeton Univ. Press, 2018).

  114. Osterhammel, J. The Transformation of the World: A Global History of the Nineteenth Century (Princeton Univ. Press, 2015).

  115. Raskin, P. & Swart, R. Excluded futures: the continuity bias in scenario assessments. Sustain. Earth 3, 8 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  116. Kaivo-oja, J. Weak signals analysis, knowledge management theory and systemic socio-cultural transitions. Futures 44, 206–217 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  117. Harrison, P.A., Harmáčková, Z. & Pedde, S. Online Workshop on Co-creating UK Socio-economic Scenarios: Summary of Workshop Output on Drivers of Future Socio-economic Development and their Mapping to the Shared Socio-economic Pathways (UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, 2020); https://www.camecon.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/UK-SSPs-Workshop_Preliminary_Results_on_Drivers.pdf

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all participants in Scenarios Forum 2019 for their contributions to developing, using and assessing the scenario framework. The following authors gratefully acknowledge funding: B.C.O. for support of the Scenarios Forum from the ClimateWorks Foundation, the Pardee Center for International Futures and the University of Denver; K.R. and B.v.R. from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreements no. 821471 (ENGAGE) and 642147 (CD-LINKS); P.A.H. from the Natural Environment Research Council (UK-SCAPE programme: 601 NE/R016429/1) and the Met Office (Climate Resilience Strategic Priority Fund: DN420214 – CR19-3); T.R.C. from the European Commission (R&I Action 821010) and Academy of Finland (Decisions 329223 and 330915); T.H. from the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (JPMEERF20202002) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan and JSPS KAKENHI (19K24387) and the Sumitomo Foundation.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Brian C. O’Neill

    Present address: Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, College Park, MD, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pardee Center for International Futures, Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver, Denver, CO, USA

    Brian C. O’Neill, David Carlisle & Carole Green

  2. Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), Helsinki, Finland

    Timothy R. Carter

  3. Center for Health and the Global Environment, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Kristie Ebi

  4. UK Centre of Ecology & Hydrology, Lancaster, UK

    Paula A. Harrison

  5. Stockholm Environment Institute, Somerville, MA, USA

    Eric Kemp-Benedict

  6. Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands

    Kasper Kok

  7. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Member of the Leibniz Association, Potsdam, Germany

    Elmar Kriegler

  8. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA

    Benjamin L. Preston

  9. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria

    Keywan Riahi & Bas J. van Ruijven

  10. Center for International Climate Research (CICERO), Oslo, Norway

    Jana Sillmann & Jan Fuglestvedt

  11. Netherland Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), The Hague, the Netherlands

    Detlef van Vuuren

  12. Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands

    Detlef van Vuuren

  13. Center of Atmospheric Sciences, National Autonomous University of Mexico (CCA-UNAM), Mexico City, Mexico

    Cecilia Conde

  14. Ritsumeikan University, Kasuatsu, Japan

    Tomoko Hasegawa

  15. German Development Institute, Bonn, Germany

    Julia Leininger

  16. ClimateWorks Foundation, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Seth Monteith

  17. Centre for World Economy Studies (CIEM), Havana, Cuba

    Ramon Pichs-Madruga

Authors
  1. Brian C. O’Neill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timothy R. Carter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kristie Ebi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paula A. Harrison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Eric Kemp-Benedict
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kasper Kok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Elmar Kriegler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Benjamin L. Preston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Keywan Riahi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jana Sillmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Bas J. van Ruijven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Detlef van Vuuren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. David Carlisle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Cecilia Conde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Jan Fuglestvedt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Carole Green
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Tomoko Hasegawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Julia Leininger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Seth Monteith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Ramon Pichs-Madruga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

B.C.O. coordinated, and all authors contributed to, the study design and drafting of the manuscript. T.R.C., K.E., P.A.H., E.K.-B., K.K., E.K., B.C.O., B.L.P., K.R., J.S., B.v.R. and D.v.V. led the drafting of specific sections of the manuscript. D.C., C.G. and B.C.O. carried out the literature review and coding. B.C.O. prepared the figures.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian C. O’Neill.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review statement Nature Climate Change thanks Judy Lawrence, Edward Parson and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary methods, Fig. 1 and references.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

O’Neill, B.C., Carter, T.R., Ebi, K. et al. Achievements and needs for the climate change scenario framework. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 1074–1084 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00952-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00952-0

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Search

Navigation

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy