Past peak prominence: The changing role of integrated assessment modeling in the IPCC

The main task of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to provide comprehensive assessments of climate science. However, there are accusations of bias toward certain research fields based on limited empirical evidence. By analyzing the evidence base of Working Group 3 (WG3) reports, we show that integrated assessment modeling (IAM) research was influential in all six assessments, and overrepresented in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). Further, we show that a small number of men working in Western Europe and the USA dominate IAM research. Thus, global climate negotiations and science may have historically prioritized mitigation solutions suggested by an unrepresentative scientific sample and missed solutions from other perspectives like those of females and non-Western cultures. However, we also show that IAM research influence decreased in AR6, implying a leveling playing field between research fields. But more effort is needed to ensure a comprehensive assessment.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
iScience
Published
2024-10-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2024.111213
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Climate Change Policy and Economics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.39

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Past peak prominence: The changing role of integrated assessment modeling in the IPCC

Johan Lilliestam, Ema Gusheva, Stefan Pfenninger
3 citations
iScience
Climate Change Policy and Economics
3.39
article

Past peak prominence: The changing role of integrated assessment modeling in the IPCC

Johan Lilliestam, Ema Gusheva, Stefan Pfenninger
article en
3 citations

Abstract

The main task of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to provide comprehensive assessments of climate science. However, there are accusations of bias toward certain research fields based on limited empirical evidence. By analyzing the evidence base of Working Group 3 (WG3) reports, we show that integrated assessment modeling (IAM) research was influential in all six assessments, and overrepresented in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). Further, we show that a small number of men working in Western Europe and the USA dominate IAM research. Thus, global climate negotiations and science may have historically prioritized mitigation solutions suggested by an unrepresentative scientific sample and missed solutions from other perspectives like those of females and non-Western cultures. However, we also show that IAM research influence decreased in AR6, implying a leveling playing field between research fields. But more effort is needed to ensure a comprehensive assessment.

iScienceVol. 27(11)
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE), Delft University of Technology (NL)
European Commission, Horizon 2020
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Climate Change Policy and Economics
3.39
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.