Expert perspectives on incorporating justice considerations into integrated assessment modelling

There is growing criticism aimed towards global integrated assessment models (IAMs) and an ongoing academic debate on how justice considerations can be incorporated in those models. By relying on 39 interviews with a multidisciplinary group of experts, we map three shapes of change containing multiple avenues for incorporating justice considerations into IAM tools and scenarios: to improve representation within IAMs (Shape 1), to couple to new models and expand points of access to disciplines and users (Shape 2), and to refine the role of IAMs within a wider array of practices (Shape 3). These shapes reflect multi-disciplinary agreements and divergences over the capacity of IAMs to incorporate justice considerations—regarding kinds of representation, greater involvement of new disciplines and users, and the objective of mitigation scenarios in climate policy. Our analysis is among the first to describe and integrate a variety of opinions from different communities, fostering a more holistic understanding of the opportunities and challenges of incorporating justice into IAMs.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
npj Climate Action
Published
2025-02-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-025-00218-5
Citations
10
Primary Topic
Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
21.07

Funders

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

Expert perspectives on incorporating justice considerations into integrated assessment modelling

Sean Low, Elina Brutschin, Chad M. Baum, Benjamin Kenneth Sovacool
10 citations
npj Climate Action
Evaluation and Performance Assessment
21.07
article

Expert perspectives on incorporating justice considerations into integrated assessment modelling

Sean Low, Elina Brutschin, Chad M. Baum, Benjamin Kenneth Sovacool
article en
10 citations

Abstract

There is growing criticism aimed towards global integrated assessment models (IAMs) and an ongoing academic debate on how justice considerations can be incorporated in those models. By relying on 39 interviews with a multidisciplinary group of experts, we map three shapes of change containing multiple avenues for incorporating justice considerations into IAM tools and scenarios: to improve representation within IAMs (Shape 1), to couple to new models and expand points of access to disciplines and users (Shape 2), and to refine the role of IAMs within a wider array of practices (Shape 3). These shapes reflect multi-disciplinary agreements and divergences over the capacity of IAMs to incorporate justice considerations—regarding kinds of representation, greater involvement of new disciplines and users, and the objective of mitigation scenarios in climate policy. Our analysis is among the first to describe and integrate a variety of opinions from different communities, fostering a more holistic understanding of the opportunities and challenges of incorporating justice into IAMs.

npj Climate ActionVol. 4(1)
Boston University (US), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (AT), University of Sussex (GB), Aarhus University (DK), Wageningen University & Research (NL)
European Commission, HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Evaluation and Performance Assessment
21.07
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.