IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v162y2020i1d10.1007_s10584-020-02777-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unveiling assumptions through interdisciplinary scrutiny: Observations from the German Priority Program on Climate Engineering (SPP 1689)

Author

Listed:
  • Judith Kreuter

    (Technische Universität Darmstadt)

  • Nils Matzner

    (Technical University of Munich
    Klagenfurt University)

  • Christian Baatz

    (Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel)

  • David P. Keller

    (GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel)

  • Till Markus

    (Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research)

  • Felix Wittstock

    (Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research)

  • Ulrike Bernitt

    (GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel)

  • Nadine Mengis

    (GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel
    Simon Fraser University)

Abstract

The interdisciplinary exchange in climate engineering research offers a unique opportunity to make assumptions more explicit for such research projects. While making assumptions explicit is the standard in all disciplinary sciences, some assumptions in the context of societal challenges can only be usefully unveiled, discussed, and verified from the perspective of other research disciplines. Results from successful interdisciplinary collaborations are then more accessible and more generalizable to actors beyond the confines of the academic community. We aim to illustrate how interdisciplinary exchange helps to unveil assumptions in research endeavors and why this is important for successful interdisciplinary collaborations. We therefore follow different stages of the German Priority Program on Climate Engineering (SPP 1689), which we use as an example case of a successful interdisciplinary project. SPP 1689 focused on risks, challenges, and opportunities of Climate Engineering from the perspectives of numerous disciplines. Major results were that the initial assessments of technologies had to be sobered, the consideration of trade-offs is crucial for the potential assessment, and governance issues appeared larger than previously considered. From the reflections of SPP 1689, we conclude with three lessons learned: (1) The project profited from egalitarian organizational structures and communicative practices, preventing the predominance from single disciplines. (2) Within the project continuous efforts were undertaken to foster interdisciplinary understanding. In addition, the flexible project structure allowed for the accommodation of research needs arising as a result of these exchanges. (3) SPP 1689 offered early career researchers a platform for professional exchange on common challenges and best practices of being a part of an interdisciplinary research project.

Suggested Citation

  • Judith Kreuter & Nils Matzner & Christian Baatz & David P. Keller & Till Markus & Felix Wittstock & Ulrike Bernitt & Nadine Mengis, 2020. "Unveiling assumptions through interdisciplinary scrutiny: Observations from the German Priority Program on Climate Engineering (SPP 1689)," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(1), pages 57-66, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:162:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s10584-020-02777-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-020-02777-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-020-02777-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-020-02777-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nadine Mengis & David P. Keller & Wilfried Rickels & Martin Quaas & Andreas Oschlies, 2019. "Climate engineering–induced changes in correlations between Earth system variables—implications for appropriate indicator selection," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 153(3), pages 305-322, April.
    2. Oschlies, Andreas & Held, Hermann & Keller, David & Keller, Klaus & Mengis, Nadine & Quaas, Martin & Rickels, Wilfried & Schmidt, Hauke, 2017. "Indicators and Metrics for the Assessment of Climate Engineering," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 226354, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    3. David P. Keller & Ellias Y. Feng & Andreas Oschlies, 2014. "Potential climate engineering effectiveness and side effects during a high carbon dioxide-emission scenario," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, May.
    4. Oschlies, Andreas & Klepper, Gernot, 2017. "Research for Assessment, not Deployment of Climate Engineering: The German Research Foundation's Priority Program SPP 1689," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 226373, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    5. Elnaz Roshan & Mohammad M. Khabbazan & Hermann Held, 2019. "Cost-Risk Trade-Off of Mitigation and Solar Geoengineering: Considering Regional Disparities Under Probabilistic Climate Sensitivity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(1), pages 263-279, January.
    6. Steve Rayner & Clare Heyward & Tim Kruger & Nick Pidgeon & Catherine Redgwell & Julian Savulescu, 2013. "The Oxford Principles," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(3), pages 499-512, December.
    7. Bronislaw Szerszynski & Maialen Galarraga, 2013. "Geoengineering Knowledge: Interdisciplinarity and the Shaping of Climate Engineering Research," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(12), pages 2817-2824, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Masahiro Sugiyama & Shinichiro Asayama & Atsushi Ishii & Takanobu Kosugi & John C. Moore & Jolene Lin & Penehuro F. Lefale & Wil Burns & Masatomo Fujiwara & Arunabha Ghosh & Joshua Horton & Atsushi Ku, 2017. "The Asia-Pacific’s role in the emerging solar geoengineering debate," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 143(1), pages 1-12, July.
    2. Nadine Mengis & David P. Keller & Wilfried Rickels & Martin Quaas & Andreas Oschlies, 2019. "Climate engineering–induced changes in correlations between Earth system variables—implications for appropriate indicator selection," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 153(3), pages 305-322, April.
    3. Wylie Carr & Christopher Preston & Laurie Yung & Bronislaw Szerszynski & David Keith & Ashley Mercer, 2013. "Public engagement on solar radiation management and why it needs to happen now," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(3), pages 567-577, December.
    4. Jesse L. Reynolds & Edward A. Parson, 2020. "Nonstate governance of solar geoengineering research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 323-342, May.
    5. Lomax, Guy & Workman, Mark & Lenton, Timothy & Shah, Nilay, 2015. "Reframing the policy approach to greenhouse gas removal technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 125-136.
    6. Elspeth Spence & Emily Cox & Nick Pidgeon, 2021. "Exploring cross-national public support for the use of enhanced weathering as a land-based carbon dioxide removal strategy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-18, March.
    7. Jan Youtie & Philip Shapira, 2017. "Exploring public values implications of the I-Corps program," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(6), pages 1362-1376, December.
    8. Feng, Jing-Chun & Sun, Liwei & Yan, Jinyue, 2023. "Carbon sequestration via shellfish farming: A potential negative emissions technology," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    9. Yiwen Pan & Long You & Yifan Li & Wei Fan & Chen-Tung Arthur Chen & Bing-Jye Wang & Ying Chen, 2018. "Achieving Highly Efficient Atmospheric CO 2 Uptake by Artificial Upwelling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-19, March.
    10. Rickels, Wilfried & Merk, Christine & Honneth, Johannes & Schwinger, Jörg & Quaas, Martin & Oschlies, Andreas, 2019. "Welche Rolle spielen negative Emissionen für die zukünftige Klimapolitik?," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 261840, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    11. Held, Hermann, 2020. "Cost Risk Analysisː How Robust Is It in View of Weitzman's Dismal Theorem and Undetermined Risk Functions?," WiSo-HH Working Paper Series 55, University of Hamburg, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, WISO Research Laboratory.
    12. Fridahl, Mathias, 2017. "Socio-political prioritization of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 89-99.
    13. Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch & Katrin Rehdanz, 2019. "Do climate engineering experts display moral-hazard behaviour?," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 231-243, February.
    14. Stefano Caserini & Beatriz Barreto & Caterina Lanfredi & Giovanni Cappello & Dennis Ross Morrey & Mario Grosso, 2019. "Affordable CO2 negative emission through hydrogen from biomass, ocean liming, and CO2 storage," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 24(7), pages 1231-1248, October.
    15. Bozeman, Barry & Rimes, Heather & Youtie, Jan, 2015. "The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 34-49.
    16. Khara D. Grieger & Tyler Felgenhauer & Ortwin Renn & Jonathan Wiener & Mark Borsuk, 2019. "Emerging risk governance for stratospheric aerosol injection as a climate management technology," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 371-382, December.
    17. Elettra Agliardi & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2019. "Introduction: Special Issue on the Economics of Climate Change and Sustainability," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(1), pages 1-4, January.
    18. Malcolm Fairbrother, 2016. "Geoengineering, moral hazard, and trust in climate science: evidence from a survey experiment in Britain," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 139(3), pages 477-489, December.
    19. Kathryn Yusoff, 2013. "The Geoengine: Geoengineering and the Geopolitics of Planetary Modification," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(12), pages 2799-2808, December.
    20. Rickels, Wilfried & Quaas, Martin F. & Ricke, Katharine & Quaas, Johannes & Moreno-Cruz, Juan & Smulders, Sjak, 2020. "Who turns the global thermostat and by how much?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:162:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s10584-020-02777-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.