DIAMOND: D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy Update – 1

www.climate-diamond.eu 26/04/2024 D2.2 – MULTI-LAYERED STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY – UPDATE 1 WP2 – Codesign Page i D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 Disclaimer Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. This work has also received funding from the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI). Copyright Message This report, if not confidential, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0); a copy is available here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. You are free to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially) under the following terms: (i) attribution (you must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made; you may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use); (ii) no additional restrictions (you may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits). Grant Agreement Number 101081179 Acronym DIAMOND Full Title Delivering the next generation of open Integrated Assessment MΟdels for Netzero, sustainable Development Topic HORIZON-CL5-2022-D1-02 Funding scheme HORIZON EUROPE, RIA – Research and Innovation Action Start Date December 2022 Duration 48 Months Project URL http://www.climate-diamond.eu/ EU Project Advisor Silvia Vaghi Project Coordinator Institute of Communications and Computer Systems - ICCS Deliverable D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy Update – 1 Work Package WP2 – Codesign Date of Delivery Contractual 30/04/2024 Actual 26/04/2024 Nature Report Dissemination Public Lead Beneficiary ISINNOVA Responsible Author Daniel R. Cassolà E-mail address [email protected] ISINNOVA Telephone No. Contributors Carlo Sessa [ISINNOVA]; Glen Peters [CICERO]; Sonja Sechi [E4SMA]; Lukas Engels, Julius Fenn [UNIBAS] Reviewer(s) Clàudia Rodés Bachs [BC3]; Stephanie Briers [ETH]; Konstantinos Koasidis [ICCS] Keywords Co-design; engagement plan; stakeholders; citizens; cross-disciplinary integration; participatory process Page ii D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 EC Summary Requirements 1. Changes with respect to the DoA No changes with respect to the work described in the DoA. 2. Dissemination and uptake Much like the first version of the stakeholder engagement strategy (D2.1), this deliverable and its next version will serve as a reference document among consortium partners to describe the engagement strategy of the co-design phase of the project, including the methodology and approaches used for cross-disciplinary integration. The deliverable also documents the stakeholder engagement plan and its foreseen events, which is a dynamic plan for identifying and engaging all stakeholder groups. It can also be used by policymakers and other stakeholder groups as a documentation of cross-disciplinary participatory processes and citizens’ involvement. 3. Short summary of results (<250 words) The DIAMOND multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy will accompany and enrich the research process by enabling the exploration of the multiplicity of perspectives on how models can address concerns from the target groups, attending carefully to differences, complexities, and range of variation in the data. It provides a description of the heuristic cross-disciplinary integration methodology adopted in the project; illustrates the co-design process involving researchers (e.g., modellers, SSH researchers), policymakers, business, social and environmental stakeholders, and citizens; and gives details on the stakeholder engagement plan. In this update, we highlight how the integrated approach facilitates seamless interaction with other WPs, optimising co-creation and application of models, scenario building, and policy roadmap development. The strategy also takes stock of the work done in Phase 1 of the co-design process. It provides an update on the status of the stakeholder database, which—by the time of the submission of this document—incorporates more than 50 stakeholders pledging to actively participate in all DIAMOND stakeholder-related activities. Stakeholders from an initial mapping of 300 project partner contacts are continuously approached to gather their interest in participating in project activities like foresight workshops, meetings, and surveys, and ensure representativeness and diversity. These are expected to play a key role in the co-design process, and those initially allowing us to contact them will be invited to strategic foresight workshops alongside other experts, and other project activities. The report also provides examples of the macro-questions to trigger each stage of the dialogue loop between researchers and practitioners aiming to co-create and assess climate change neutralisation actions, and the database structure for stakeholder engagement. 4. Evidence of accomplishment This report. A future update will be delivered in month 29 of the project. Page iii D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 Preface DIAMOND will update, upgrade, and fully open six Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) that are emblematic in scientific and policy processes, improving their sectoral and technological detail, spatiotemporal resolution, and geographic granularity. It will further enhance modelling capacity to assess the feasibility and desirability of Pariscompliant mitigation pathways, their interplay with adaptation, circular economy, and other SDGs, their distributional and equity effects, and their resilience to extremes, as well as robust risk management and investment strategies. This will be done via integration of tools and insights from psychology, finance research, behavioural and labour economics, operational research, and physical science. The project will develop a transdisciplinary scientific approach to legitimise the implementation process and co-create research questions that stretch the frontiers of climate science, as well as establish vibrant communities of practice to transparently open model enhancements and to develop capacities, thereby lowering the entrance barriers to the established IAM community. ICCS INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICATIONS AND COMPUTER SYSTEMS EL BC3 ASOCIACION BC3 BASQUE CENTRE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE - KLIMA ALDAKETA IKERGAI ES CESAR KRATENA KURT AT CICERO CICERO SENTER FOR KLIMAFORSKNING NO CYI THE CYPRUS INSTITUTE CY E4SMA ENERGY ENGINEERING ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT SYSTEMS MODELING AND ANALYSIS SRL IT HOLISTIC HOLISTIC IKE EL COMILLAS UNIVERSIDAD PONTIFICIA COMILLAS ES ISINNOVA ISTITUTO DI STUDI PER L'INTEGRAZIONE DEI SISTEMI (I.S.I.S) - SOCIETA'COOPERATIVA IT SEURECO SEURECO SOCIETE EUROPEENNE D'ECONOMIE SARL FR UM UNIVERSITEIT MAASTRICHT NL ESMIA ESMIA CONSULTANTS INC. CA USMF THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND FOUNDATIION INC US UMD UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND US EPFL ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE CH ETH EIDGENOESSISCHE TECHNISCHE HOCHSCHULE ZUERICH CH UNIBAS UNIVERSITAT BASEL CH Imperial IMPERIAL COLLEGE OF SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND MEDICINE UK Oxford THE CHANCELLOR, MASTERS AND SCHOLARS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD UK UCL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON UK Page iv D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 Executive Summary This report constitutes an update of the multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy of the DIAMOND project—as described in the preceding deliverable D2.1—for model co-development, scenario building and policy roadmaps’ co-creation exercises. This report takes stock of progress during ‘Phase 1 - Toward mutual understanding’, and provides details on activities and foreseen events belonging to Phase 1 and ‘Phase 2 – Towards knowledge co-production’, notably the strategic foresight workshops with stakeholders and the values and practice driven foresight with citizens. Applying a heuristic cross-disciplinary integration methodology, the project aspires to both equip participating models with advanced decision rules and acceptance insights on different aspects of the transition, and improve the communication, usability, uptake, and relevance of modelling results to the wider society. The integrated assessment literature has long pinpointed the benefits and challenges of opening up participation of non-expert stakeholders in modelling activities and scenario development. Wide stakeholder participation and co-production can improve the legitimacy and robustness of the modelling outputs as well as help build consensus and a sense of ownership among stakeholders over specific solutions, reinforcing the success and speed of their implementation. In order to meet this challenge and achieve understanding between diverse actors with different scientific backgrounds and traditions of thought, it is necessary to create a common frame of reference. DIAMOND will develop continuous dialogue loops between researchers and practitioners aiming to co-create and assess climate change neutralization actions - and two boundary objects – a Three Horizons participatory foresight framework and the suite of IAMs – which will support the DIAMOND cross-disciplinary dialogue loops. Each loop iteration starts by exploring together future scenarios – A: EXPLORE SCENARIOS –, then goes down to test possible solutions in the modelling simulation environment – B: SIMULATE SOLUTIONS – to go back to assess how these solutions actually fit into present reality – C: VALIDATE OUTCOMES – to end with the formulation of recommended further research and policy actions – D: FORMULATE RESEARCH & POLICY AGENDAS. To help shaping such specific dialogues, DIAMOND identifies a list of macro-questions to trigger each stage of the dialogue loop. Six specific dialogues with researchers and stakeholders will take place within the co-design process (i.e., circular economy and climate change mitigation; land use and nature-based solutions; household heterogeneity and distributional impacts; refining climate mitigation strategies assessment; integrating finance, labour dynamics and novel operationalization of well-being; and improving the electricity system assessment). One additional ethical foresight dialogue will be organised with a representative group of citizens, focusing on behavioural change and ethical issues of climate change neutralization. In this report, the co-design process will be developed through a path identified by three, closely connected and sequential, phases: it starts with the definition of a common knowledge base and the common understanding of the content, goals, and limitations of the IAMs in the DIAMOND project, and continues with the co-development of tools and knowledge, and ends with the joint validation and quality assessment of modelling improvements. The concluded stages of Phase 1 of the co-design process have been conducted with a special focus on reaching mutual understanding within DIAMOND partners. The results of these activities have been integrated into the updated stakeholder strategy. In order to meet the project expectations in terms of model co-development and policy scenarios and roadmaps co-creation, the stakeholder engagement in DIAMOND is structured through the involvement of three groups of stakeholders, namely the wider community of IAM developers and researchers, climate stakeholders and decision makers concerned with climate policymaking and/or climate change impacts, and citizens and civil society representatives). Ethical foresight is used to explain why the socio-political dimension needs to involve ordinary Page v D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 citizens to lay down the foundations for mature information societies. The aim is to ensure a good balance of stakeholders across groups (and gender), and maintain stakeholder contacts throughout the project’s life. The stakeholder database will be a vessel in all activities related to co-creation and engagement in WP2. This report also provides updates on the interactions of the stakeholder engagement strategy with other work packages within the project framework, the approach to identify and include all relevant stakeholders in the codesign process of DIAMOND, the strategic foresight workshops with stakeholders and the values and practice driven foresight with citizens. Page vi D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 Contents 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 2 Cross-disciplinary integration methodology ...................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Knowledge integration: the heuristic approach to cross-disciplinary integration in DIAMOND .................... 3 2.2 Three Horizons foresight framework ...................................................................................................................................... 6 2.3 DIAMOND integrated assessment modelling framework............................................................................................. 11 3 The Co-design process ................................................................................................................................................................... 13 3.1 The DIAMOND approach and objectives ............................................................................................................................ 13 3.2 Which types of stakeholders to be involved ..................................................................................................................... 13 3.3 The Co-design pathway ............................................................................................................................................................. 15 3.3.1 Multi-stakeholder co-design process ........................................................................................................................... 15 3.3.2 Interactions of the stakeholder engagement strategy with other project work packages .................. 18 3.3.3 Citizens’ involvement ......................................................................................................................................................... 21 4 Stakeholder engagement plan .................................................................................................................................................. 23 4.1 Organisation of stakeholders mapping and database ................................................................................................... 23 4.2 The introductory survey: register in the DIAMOND stakeholder pool ................................................................... 24 4.3 Planning of the stakeholders engagements events ....................................................................................................... 28 4.3.1 Phase 1 – Towards mutual understanding and framing of project goals and requirements .............. 28 4.3.2 Phase 2 – Towards knowledge co-production ........................................................................................................ 28 4.3.3 Phase 3 – Towards model co-ownership .................................................................................................................. 32 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 33 ANNEX I. “Stem-questions” ........................................................................................................................................................................ 35 Table of Figures Figure 1. DIAMOND common cross-disciplinary goal ........................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 2. 3H methodology applied to envision conservative vs transformative climate change neutralization scenarios (Participatory Foresight Framework) .................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3. The Diamond participatory foresight space ..................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 4. Types of stakeholders in DIAMOND .................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 5. The co-design pathway in DIAMOND ................................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 6. Professional capacity of the stakeholders that agreed to participate in collaborative activities ................ 25 Figure 7. Familiarity of stakeholders agreeing to participate in collaborative activities with IAMs .............................. 25 Figure 8. Familiarity of stakeholders agreeing to participate in collaborative activities with the project IAMs ...... 26 Table of Tables Table 1. “Stem questions” of the dialogue loop .................................................................................................................................. 6 Table 2. Models used in DIAMOND ......................................................................................................................................................... 11 Page vii D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 Table 3. Disciplines and Areas of Expertise of the stakeholders ................................................................................................ 26 Table 4. Current structure and timeline for the organisation of strategic foresight workshops .................................... 30 D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 Page 1 1 Introduction The main purpose of the DIAMOND project is to update, upgrade, and fully open six Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) that are emblematic in scientific and policy processes so that they provide a comprehensive and integrated framework of analysis to inform and support the design of climate policies based on: • theories from a plurality of scientific disciplines that address causal factors and phenomena in the personal sphere (e.g. behavioural economics and psychology), in the socio-economic sphere (e.g. economics, social sciences), and in the ecological sphere (e.g., natural and life sciences) • insights from societal actors themselves; • empirical data from cross-national surveys of EU citizens to examine their mobility and energy use behaviours and willingness to change consumption behaviour. Developing and implementing a comprehensive stakeholder engagement strategy is the primary objective of the stakeholder engagement activities conducted within WP2 of the DIAMOND project. This strategy aims to facilitate meaningful interactions and collaborations with stakeholders throughout the project lifecycle, particularly focusing on the integration and utilisation of updated IAMs within climate policy and decision-making processes. Applying transdisciplinary methods, the project aspires to co-create the research questions, legitimise the implementation process and model development, and improve the communication, usability, uptake, and relevance of modelling results to the wider society. To this end, the entire work structure of DIAMOND is operationalised with the help of a heuristic cross-disciplinary integration methodology for model co-development, application to scenario building and policy roadmaps’ cocreation exercises. Recognizing that knowledge flows through various communities with diverse disciplinary perspectives and stakeholders, this mechanism ensures a balanced flow of information that is both relevant to policy needs and unbiased, providing comprehensive yet easily understandable information for all researchers, policymakers, and stakeholders involved. In connection with the transdisciplinary approach that DIAMOND adopts, establishing meaningful linkages between science, policy, and society presents significant challenges. Specifically, engaging stakeholders in a meaningful way involves identifying the appropriate stakeholders and building trust. Delivering impactful outcomes for decision-makers is similarly challenging and is intertwined with technical model challenges. Political factors, such as competing agendas and a lack of transformative commitment from stakeholders, also influence the interplay between science outcomes and policy making processes. To provide substance to these objectives and start their implementation, we illustrate: • The heuristic cross-disciplinary integration methodology adopted in the project (Section 2); • The co-design process involving researchers (modellers); policy makers; business, social and environmental stakeholders; and groups of citizens (Section 3); • The detailed stakeholder engagement plan (Section 3). In order to complement the theoretical framework of the multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy described in the preceding deliverable D2.1 based on the progress made since its publication, here we provide updates on: • The interactions of the stakeholder engagement strategy with other work packages within the project framework (Section 3.3.2); D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 Page 8 Figure 2. 3H methodology applied to envision conservative vs transformative climate change neutralization scenarios (Participatory Foresight Framework) Source: Adapted from J. Fullerton (2015), Regenerative Capitalism, Capital Institute, p. 43 D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 Page 9 Switching to a regenerative economy The rationale of switching to a regenerative economy paradigm worldwide is increasingly evident. We are in a situation where rapid change to a healthy relationship with the planet is in order. In this respect, the concept of “regeneration” and “regenerative growth” moves our frame of discourse from “doing things to nature” to “participate as partners with and as nature”. At the core of the regeneration paradigm the economic system is conceived as a living system, working with the same universal pattern of self-organization, interdependence between and diversity of the various parts connected in a whole organic system. By taking this regenerative worldview we radically change the concept of sustainability. Rather than a “goal” measured by targets that can be achieved and then maintained forever after, sustainability is interpreted as a dynamic “process” of nature and human techno-sphere co-evolution, and a community-based process of continuous conversation and learning how to participate appropriately in the constantly transforming life-sustaining processes that we are part of and that our future depends upon. What a regenerative economy would sustain is the underlying pattern of planetary and human health, resilience and adaptability that maintain this planet in a condition where life satisfaction and human well-being can flourish. The best-known example of regenerative economy is in the agriculture sector, where it is now technologically possible and economically competitive to produce food while simultaneously living the plot of land better off. But regeneration can work across all development sectors – not just agriculture – going beyond sustainability. The question in sustainable development was “How can the economy work in such a way that we sustain or do not hurt the underlying (ecological and social) support systems?” Now, the question in regenerative development becomes “How can the economy work in such a way that we improve the capacity of the underlying support systems?”. It is no longer enough to do no harm, sustainability and zero-waste and zero-emissions policies are noble goals, but we can and must do better than zero, we need to do good – this is the key message of regenerative economy. Given the wide ‘diversity’ of scientific disciplines and stakeholders’ knowledge involved in the cross-disciplinary process, the DIAMOND dialogue loops will aim to match the scientific knowledge embodied in the IAM models with the values, mind-sets and perspectives of users/stakeholders. This “matching” is achieved by immersing the holders of different kinds of knowledge – scientific and experimental – in the dialogue setting represented in Figure 3 below as synergic sense making space. This conceptual representation of the DIAMOND dialogue setting considers: • Three definitions of the term “sense” to identify a 3D field of synergic sense making from three angles: 1) sense as meaning (the scientific knowledge perspective), 2) sense as sensation/feeling (the practitioners knowledge perspective), and 3) sense as way to/direction (the forward-looking systemic perspective shared by both scientists and practitioners). • Four fields of simultaneously co-existing systemic relations between agents – represented in the figure as superimposed layers, but tightly interwoven in reality: the ecological, economy & technology, society & culture, and political layers. • A purpose-driven participatory process with structured dialogues spanning across the different layers, generated by using the Three Horizon scenarios framework. • The synergic sense making game players, i.e., the participants involved in the dialogue loops from the different practical perspectives - policy makers, environmental stakeholders, business and social stakeholders, and citizens – and from nested holistic evidence-based perspectives. The latter are “holistic” insofar as they combine multiple disciplines to explain human behaviour (“ego-logy”), the economy and innovation dynamics D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 Page 10 (“eco-nomy”), the ecosystem dynamics (“eco-logy”) and finally the influence of historical, societal, and cultural value contexts (“context-ology”, the focus of social science, art and humanities).8 Figure 3. The Diamond participatory foresight space Source: Own elaboration In this space – an immaterial boundary object - researchers (modellers) and different groups of stakeholders will meet and confront themselves from different perspectives. The scientific evidence-informed modelling of individual/household behaviour, economy, natural processes, and policy regulations will have to be married with the value-driven mindsets and experiential knowing of lay citizens, business and social stakeholders, environmental stakeholders, and policy makers, to discuss relevant topics in the different macro-layers: ecological, economy and technology, society and culture, and political. In this process, conversations “across the boundaries” will help participants to disclose the ingrained disciplinary or mind frames, filtering their own vision of the reality of such things as, for instance, what is driving the adoption of a certain innovation. Modellers could discover hidden motivations and drivers, that could be feasible to include 8 It is useful to note that “ego-logy”, “eco-nomy” and “eco-ecology” are nested holistic perspectives, i.e. holons, while “contextology” is key to contextualise any intervention – policy, decision, investment, etc. – in the real-life setting. A holon (Greek: ὅλον, from ὅλος, holos, 'whole' and -ον, -on, 'part') is something that is simultaneously a whole in and of itself, as well as a part of a larger whole. In other words, holons can be understood as the constituent part–wholes of a hierarchy. “Ego-logy”, looking to individuals, “Eco-nomy” looking to economic systems, and “Eco-logy” looking to ecological systems are in an holonic hierarchy. In other terms, holistic thinking considers the individual immersed in nested systems of relations internally with himself (body and mind organisms and functions), and externally in economic (market and non-market) and ecological relations. These systems of relations exist and evolves in concrete geographical, historical, anthropological, and cultural contexts - what human sciences study most (“context-ology”) - which eventually influence most of the policy makers decisions. LESS Energy/Materials Required MORE Energy/Materials Required SYSTEMS NERATIVE YSTEMS Natural system design Holistic thinking Mechanistic design Reductionistic thinking H0 nothing ce scenario) H1 Climate policy scenarios H3 Transformative scenarios Real-life perspectives Mutual understandingof complexity (system thinking) Modelling & Simulation Real-life perspectives Mutual understandingof complexity (system thinking) Modelling & Simulation Real-life perspectives Mutual understandingof complexity (system thinking) Modelling & Simulation Real-life perspectives Mutual understandingof complexity (system thinking) Modelling & Simulation Society & Culture layer: H1 demographic and societal trends & challenges Ecological layer: H1 climate change and environmental trends & challenges Economy & Technology layer: H1 economic/technological trends & challenges Sense as direction (systemic foresight) Sense as meaning (scientific knowledge/ rational thinking) Sense as feeling (experiential knowing/ Intuitive thinking) Practitioners perspectives Eco-logy Eco-nomy Context-ology Ego-logy Environmental stakeholders Social & Business stakeholders People Policy makers Interacting with nature (environment) Conducting work (production) Living and being (consumption) Governing (governance) Dialogue loops for synergic sense making from 3 angles: P 1 P 2 P 3 P 4 H3 transformative perspectives : Change in the way of H 1 H 2 H 3 H 4 Sense as feeling (experiential knowing) Sense as meaning (scientific knowledge) Sense as way to/direction (foresight) Pathways to climate change neutralization Political layer: H1 governance trends & challenges DIAMOND participatory foresight space Integrated Assessment Models inputs to holistic thinking: H 1 Exogenous context variables H 2 MAgPIE, SILICONE, OpenSCM H 3 H 4 Behavioural choice surveys & GCAM-EU, OMNIA, GEMINI-E3 EU CLEWs-EU Nemesis-World & GCAM Europe, OMNIA, GEMINI-E3 EU, OPEN-PROM H1 conservative perspectives; D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 Page 11 in a model to build more realistic representations, while stakeholders could overcome mental barriers against innovation by better understanding potential benefits or how to handle trade-offs. This whole process of collective intelligence’ will be catalysed by sharing the third dimension shown in the cross-disciplinary space graphic, i.e., the imagination of future scenario pathways for climate change mitigation and/or adaptation. 2.3 DIAMOND integrated assessment modelling framework The first boundary object is a purely abstract thinking – the Three Horizons scheme applied to frame transition scenarios. The second boundary object is still immaterial, but more concrete, being a collection of IAMs codified with software procedures and databases. While the first object has the highest interpretive flexibility – it is a shared language for collaborative future thinking that can be adapted to the purpose and context of specific foresight exercises to deliver scenario narratives and policy roadmaps – the second object it is unavoidably more rigid. This dichotomy occurs because models are a code environment that provides a structured testing ground to simulate the effects of hypothetical assumptions, and they can be modified to a certain extent, but never without several limitations that modellers face (e.g., model limitations, data limitations, time limitations). Moreover, models are a broad approximation to reality: they are only as good as the assumptions that go into them, but there will be always relevant aspects that escape quantification and can only be considered in a qualitative fashion in the scenario narratives. Often these qualitative aspects are equally important as simulated outcomes, and they can be fundamental to interpret some quantitative results. This is also the reason why in DIAMOND we suggest combining the two boundary objects—the participatory foresight framework and the IAMs—together to feed forwardlooking dialogue loops. Table 2 summarises the list of models used in DIAMOND. For more information on the models, see project deliverable “D3.1 Model development strategy” and the I2AM PARIS platform.9 Table 2. Models used in DIAMOND CLEWs CLEWs is a nexus modelling framework for integrated assessment of resource systems and of interlinkages among energy, water, and agricultural systems as well as their impacts on—and vulnerability to—climate change. GCAM GCAM is a dynamic-recursive model with technology-rich representations of the economy, energy sector, land use and water linked to a climate model that can be used to explore climate change mitigation policies. GEMINI-E3 GEMINI-E3 is a multi-country, multi-sector, recursive computable general equilibrium (CGE) model. It simulates all relevant markets, domestic and international. NEMESIS NEMESIS is a sectoral detailed macro-econometric model for the EU used to assess a wide spectrum of policies, including fiscal, budgetary, labour market, research and innovation, energy, climate, and environment. OMNIA TIAM is a leading partial-equilibrium, inter-temporal optimisation IAM, based on the TIMES model generator, along with which it has been used to support national and international climate policy. DIAMOND will produce 9 https://www.i2am-paris.eu/ D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 Page 12 OMNIA, featuring fully open access. PROMETHEUS PROMETHEUS is a global energy system model covering in detail the complex interactions between energy demand, supply and energy prices at the regional and global level. D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 Page 13 3 The Co-design process The co-design process elaborates on the stakeholder engagement, which, is structured through the involvement of researchers (modellers and experts), policy makers, business (i.e., industry and private sector), social and environmental organisations, and civil society representatives, to achieve model co-development and co-creation of policy scenarios and roadmaps. 3.1 The DIAMOND approach and objectives DIAMOND conducts an open and cross-disciplinary research process based on adjusting and integrating knowledge from the wider IAM community and relevant experts from other scientific disciplines (e.g., psychology, behavioural economics, labour economics), as well as from policy, industry, and civil society stakeholders. This process accompanies and enriches all other methodological modules of the project: it will refine the requirements for model improvements (UPDATE & UPGRADE), pinpoint critical aspects for climate action that are currently missing from (or underrepresented in) IAMs (INTEGRATE & EXPAND), jointly co-create currently unexplored mitigation scenarios to simulate using the improved models (APPLY & EXPLORE), and codesign communication tools and applications of IAM results that are useful and user-friendly (OPEN). Most co-productive activities will take stock of experience/knowledge systematised in the td-net toolbox10 of transdisciplinary methods, allowing us to create a community of experts and societal actors that will inform project activities based on a distributed model of knowledge instead of a hierarchical one. This cross-disciplinary process will help us explore the multiplicity of perspectives on IAMs, understand how new models and scenarios address concerns from diverse stakeholders as well as map actionable knowledge and ensure usability via participatory development and validation. Based on this general and conceptual framework, at the end of its implementation path, the DIAMOND co-design process will provide the following key outcomes: • Co-produce the guiding questions to ensure transformational impact of our modelling framework in practice. • Implement an interactive cross-disciplinary approach to inform modelling improvements and ensuing scenarios. • Validate all project outputs to ensure policy relevance, usefulness in industry, and societal robustness. 3.2 Which types of stakeholders to be involved As already outlined in the previous chapter, to implement in the most effective manner the DIAMOND crossdisciplinary co-design process, the project will involve three groups of stakeholders as shown in Figure 4 below: 10 The td-net toolbox is an online resource platform containing different methods for systematically co-producing knowledge in heterogenous groups across science and society. D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 Page 14 Figure 4. Types of stakeholders in DIAMOND Source: Own elaboration In the first group, we will engage with the wider community of IAM developers and researchers to involve them in the development of the new, enhanced, open-source IAMs as well as relevant datasets and applications. Key experts to invite will include the coordinators of other European or national research IAM-oriented projects in support of climate, energy, and environmental/sustainability policies (e.g., WorldTrans11, PRISMA12, LOCOMOTION13, NAVIGATE14). To guarantee a robust interdisciplinary integration process, representatives from Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) disciplines will actively participate in the analysis of societal impacts related to climate policies. In the second group, we will invite climate stakeholders and decision makers concerned with climate policymaking and/or climate change impacts to understand their perspectives, expectations, and requirements. This broad group encompasses several categories, including but not limited to European Commission and national policymakers (including negotiators in UNFCCC processes), local governments, industry, business associations, NGOs, unions, and other institutions. In the third group, we will invite citizens and civil society representatives concerned with future impacts of climate 11 https://worldtrans-horizon.eu/ 12 https://www.net0prisma.eu/ 13 https://www.locomotion-h2020.eu/ 14 https://www.navigate-h2020.eu/ D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 Page 15 change and climate-related actions on everyday life and the ethical acceptability of policy measures to further inform model development and increase societal relevance. The actor constellation15 method will be used to identify the stakeholders that could contribute to and benefit from the project using, acknowledging the increasing complexity of global, multi-level environmental governance (Jänicke, 2008; Feldoff, Fanderl, Stockmann, Gahle, 2019). 3.3 The Co-design pathway 3.3.1 Multi-stakeholder co-design process The co-design process will develop through a path identified by three, closely connected and sequential, phases: it starts with the definition of a common knowledge base and the common understanding about the contents, objectives and limits of the DIAMOND project IAMs, it then follows with co-developing tools and knowledge and ends by jointly validating and assessing the quality of modelling improvements. Phase 1 – Towards mutual understanding and framing of project goals and requirements. In the first stage of the project, and notably Task 2.2, the focus is placed on exploring how IAMs are being perceived by different stakeholders and identify relevant understandings on current IAM gaps and needs. The “but why” technique (Virapongse et al., 2020) is used to extensively discuss the existing situation and reach to the root causes of problems with current IAMs as well as define research questions from the perspective of different fields of knowledge (project partners) and practice (stakeholders). Moreover, multi-stakeholder discussion groups (Fry, 2021) are employed to ensure that our project asks relevant research questions from the point of view of societal priorities and stakeholder interests and will complement this qualitative approach with representative studies to examine how IAM outputs are understood and interpreted by the public. Based on this multimethodological assessment, we will identify the respective demand for knowledge that the improved IAMs will need to provide. In this context, we will also identify citizen-sensitive research topics—i.e., related to behavioural change and societal transformation practices at small scale, but with the potential to deliver effective impacts if upscaled (Nikas et al., 2020). The main aim of this initial phase is reaching a mutual understanding of models’ interpretations and needs. The output will take the form of research questions from the perspectives of both researchers and stakeholders and of shared co-created research questions that will be used in the next Phase 2 of knowledge coproduction to trigger the DIAMOND dialogue loops illustrated in Section 2.2. During this first period of the project (between deliverable D2.1 and this updated version), under T2.2, the first two stages of phase 1 have been concluded, with a focus on reaching mutual understanding within DIAMOND partners. Stage 1 focused on familiarising with DIAMOND’s ‘problem space’ and outlined project member perceptions around the DIAMOND mission and opportunities; gaps and limitations of IAMs; and stakeholder engagement barriers and opportunities. Stage 2 focused on reaching mutual understanding within the consortium and explored how project members envision different codesign activities, and clarified DIAMOND partner understandings and expectations of stakeholder engagement. The findings of these activities have been integrated into the updated stakeholder strategy (see deliverable “D2.4 - Stakeholder-informed research questions”, more details). 15 According to the Swiss Academy of Sciences (SCNAT), an actor constellation is a role-play, in which all scientific and societal actors involved in a project are represented and positioned around the central research question. The distance from an actor to the research question, and to other actors, expresses how relevant (s)he is in the project. D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 Page 16 Through these two initial stages of mutual understanding, a set of codesign activities have been produced under three criteria: i) strengthening the external and internal community of practice will allow DIAMOND to learn from other experiences and transfer knowledge on such co-productive processes in IAMs; ii) achieving more effective stakeholder engagement will focus on developing a richer understanding of stakeholders, when to engage them, how to improve communication with them, and how to achieve a heterogenous representation of stakeholders; and iii) an elaboration on where to focus co-design and co-productive activities in model development. With these three criteria well framed, a rich set of information has been created to be used in Stage 3. Stage 3 will focus on reaching mutual understanding between stakeholders and DIAMOND partners and commenced in January 2024. The codesign activities will be designed as multi-stakeholder discussion groups, a flexible, tailor-made format that caters to the different needs depending on the codesign activity. ETH will run these multi-stakeholder discussion groups in parallel with the foresight workshops described in Phase 2 and the results of the two formats aim to feed into one another. More details on the description of this phase are provided in deliverable “D2.4 - Stakeholder-informed research questions”. Phase 2 – Towards knowledge co-production This is the main phase of the stakeholder engagement process, aiming to involve the different groups of stakeholders either in co-developing the IAMs upgrades and in co-producing scenarios making use of the expanded tools. Along with members from the broader IAM community (in collaboration with H2020 ECEMF16 and the IAMC17, openmod18, OpTIMUS19, CCG20, IEA-ETSAP21, IEW22, EMP-E23, and CLEWs24 communities/networks), we will organise capacity building activities to co-develop new modelling capabilities and harmonise modelling assumptions/inputs in order to address across-the-board gaps and needs of the community. The use of these improvements will not be restricted to the DIAMOND modelling armoury but will be made available to duplicate in/export to other IAMs and accompanied with adequate support and training material. In parallel, we will engage with the group of stakeholders and decision makers in scenario planning workshops to envision and assess alternative, feasible, and desirable policy scenarios. We will reflect on validity problems associated with existing reference/baseline scenarios to which modelling research anchors and subsequently improve these scenarios by accounting for current policies, restrictions, and game-changing issues. Thus, we will first understand what “we are currently looking at” before grasping “what we need to do against that”. For this, we will employ a “strategic foresight” methodology (Iden et al., 2017), a systematic approach for stakeholders to look beyond current expectations, account for a variety of plausible future developments, and identify implications for policies. More in detail, we will apply here the heuristic approach to cross-disciplinary integration described in Section 2.2 to frame six dialogue loops focused on the DIAMOND WP4 planned extensions. In addition, an “ethical foresight” approach (Floridi and Strait, 2020) will be used to engage with our citizens group, looking into the ethical implications of technology development and policies, focusing on what is actually feasible in everyday 16 https://www.ecemf.eu/ 17 https://www.iamconsortium.org/ 18 https://openmod-initiative.org/ 19 http://www.optimus.community/ 20 https://climatecompatiblegrowth.com/ 21 https://www.iea-etsap.org/ 22 https://www.internationalenergyworkshop.org/ 23 http://www.energymodellingplatform.org/ 24 https://www.sparkblue.org/dashboard/CLEWs D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 Page 17 practice, and privileging—within this—what is environmentally sustainable, socially acceptable, and preferable by the citizens (see section 3.3.3.1 below). This will be complemented by representative surveys allowing to make assumptions about the support of various policies and scenarios in the public as well as associated risk perceptions. Through this approach, we will define reference scenarios and modelling improvements for IAMs that respond to the most relevant citizens’ concerns, perceptions, needs, and desires. As described in section 3.3.3.2 below, climate-friendly practice workshops with citizens will be organised to develop scenarios for a sustainable transition based on local practices and behavioural shifts that could be transformed into powerful, bottom-up actions for climate mitigation and adaptation, drawing from recent experience of consortium partners in H2020 projects (e.g., Nikas et al., 2021). Finally, the outputs of the strategic and ethical foresight exercises will be synthesised in Task 2.3.3 using a Situation Analysis (Task 2.3.3). This qualitative interpretative method will explore the multiplicity of perspectives as they will emerge in the dialogue loops structured with the heuristic cross-disciplinary integration approach described in Section 2.2. Phase 3 – Towards model co-ownership In the last phase, all stakeholder groups will be brought together to jointly validate and assess the quality of the modelling improvements and resulting scenarios with respect to scientific robustness and contribution to the IAM community (researchers), practical relevance (decision makers, industries, and NGOs), and societal robustness (civil society). We will use the emancipatory boundary critique (Pohl, 2020) to uncover priorities and assumptions of the different stakeholders within project outputs—for instance, system boundaries that were set when creating the new IAMs and aspects that were stressed or neglected in defining scenarios. Most importantly, we will employ the “most significant change” method (Wülser, 2020) to evaluate the impact of implemented model improvements and scenarios and discuss them considering stakeholders’ interests. Finally, we will identify potential impacts that the project can achieve in the midand longer term. D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 Page 24 • Email • Partner Reference • Organization • Individuals’ position within organization • Main Field of activity/interest: Agriculture, Citizen Association, Climate, Construction, Economy, Energy, Engineering, Food, Health, Labour, Model development, Natural Environment, Policy government, Social sciences and humanities (SSH), Technology, Transport/mobility. • Country • City • Category: Academia, Cities Network, Consultant, EU policymaker, International Agency, Local Energy Agency, Local Government, National Agency, National Government, NGO, Private sector/Industry, Regional Government, Research Center, Trade Union. • Level of Activity: Global, National, Regional, Local. • Date of registration During the first stage of the database development, more than 300 relevant stakeholder contacts from all project partners were gathered, with the aim to ensure a good balance of stakeholders across groups (and gender). In order to have heterogenous stakeholders involved in DIAMOND, partners reviewed the breakdown of the stakeholder database and noted key stakeholder groups/backgrounds missing and how to fill those gaps. By doing this, partners were involved in ensuring that the database is heterogenous through their active participation in searching for and adding stakeholders of interest. Ensuring a heterogenous representation of stakeholders is very important to the success of effectively co-producing model developments that represent society more accurately. It is crucial, during initial engagements with stakeholders, to effectively communicate DIAMOND’s expectations and in turn receive feedback and perceptions of those expectations from stakeholder, as well as incorporate stakeholder perceptions and expectations into the codesign focus. 4.2 The introductory survey: register in the DIAMOND stakeholder pool Based on this initial stakeholder mapping, stakeholders have been contacted in the past months via a survey to express their interest in joining the project activities, on the merits of their previous contact with each project partner. As core members of the co-design process, they have been told that they may be invited to participate in a series of events and/or activities, including but not limited to foresight workshops, bilateral meetings/interviews, discussion groups with other stakeholders, and surveys, always in consideration of their valuable time. For example, in the first phase of this process, they will be invited to participate with other experts in three strategic foresight workshops described in the next section. The survey asks for permission to contact the stakeholders again in the context of this project and allow us to understand their interest in and level of knowledge of IAMs. A total of 73 experts completed the survey, 53 of whom expressed interest in participating in DIAMOND collaborative activities such as workshops. The rest agreed to participate in project-related online surveys rolled out by the consortium and/or to be kept informed of the project activities and results (e.g., by around 6 newsletters per year). Following GDPR guidelines, only stakeholders that provided their permission to be contacted again will be kept as part of the DIAMOND stakeholder database. In the survey, we made sure to include all necessary disclaimers for stakeholders to be able to exercise their rights D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 Page 25 based on GDPR guidelines. Stakeholder that did not respond will not be part of the database. It therefore falls to the partners’ jurisdiction whether they can be invited through personal communications (depending on their previous contacts and familiarity—always in respect of GDPR rules). The summary of the survey results is shown in Figures 6-8 below. Figure 6. Professional capacity of the stakeholders that agreed to participate in collaborative activities Figure 7. Familiarity of stakeholders agreeing to participate in collaborative activities with IAMs Academia / Research 43% Civil society 2% International Institution 6% National government 11% NGO 13% Other (please specify) 6% Private sector / Industry 15% Regional / Local government 4% 38% 53% 9% No, never Yes, sometimes Yes, always D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 Page 26 Figure 8. Familiarity of stakeholders agreeing to participate in collaborative activities with the project IAMs The respondents' fields of expertise cover a wide range of disciplines26, such as sustainability, energy, climate change, economics, and policy. Table 3 provides a categorised summary of the areas of expertise based on the provided open-ended response. Table 3. Disciplines and Areas of Expertise of the stakeholders Discipline Areas of Expertise Num. Stakeholders Energy and Climate Modelling • Long-term energy planning • Energy decarbonization scenarios • Renewable energy power system integration • Energy system modelling (Vensim, CGE, TIMES) • Carbon pricing policy and market modelling • Energy scenario interface and user interaction • Energy system analysis and modelling • Capacity development in energy systems 21 Economics and Policy • Ecological economics • Macroeconomics • Climate economics • Economic modelling and integration with energy systems • Climate change policy and mitigation scenarios 16 26 Some stakeholders may possess expertise spanning multiple disciplines. Therefore, their contributions and perspectives may reflect diverse knowledge areas within the project's scope. 45% 53% 2% None of them Some of them All of them D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 Page 27 • International macroeconomics and finance • Legal regulation in renewable energy Sustainability and Sustainable Development • Sustainability sciences • Social and ecological sustainability • Integrated assessment of urban resource systems • Sustainable development policy and analysis 6 Systems Analysis and Modelling • Integrated land use modelling (bottom-up IAMs) • Macroeconomic implications of climate policies • Energy system capacity expansion modelling • Life cycle assessment (LCA) and sustainability analysis • Linear programming for energy systems • Social lifecycle assessment 7 Technology and Engineering • Energy system engineering and planning • Energy access and open-source software engineering • Mobility and urban transportation planning • Engineering for energy transition • Assessment of energy and transport technologies 9 Stakeholder Engagement and Participation • Participative research methods and stakeholder engagement • Barriers and enablers of collective forms of energycitizenship • Stakeholder engagement in energy communities 4 Other Expertise Areas • Risk modelling and reliability analysis • Project management and strategy development • Applied ethics, research ethics, and epistemology • Conservation, agriculture, agroforestry and biotechnology • Comparative politics and international cooperation 9 These diverse areas of expertise reflect a comprehensive approach to addressing complex challenges related to climate change, energy transition, sustainability, and policy formulation. The respondents' collective knowledge and skills encompass various dimensions of sustainable development, offering valuable insights and contributions to the DIAMOND project's objectives and activities. The stakeholder database will be a vessel in all activities related to cocreation and engagement in WP2. D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 Page 28 4.3 Planning of the stakeholders engagements events 4.3.1 Phase 1 – Towards mutual understanding and framing of project goals and requirements Progress on this Phase was reported in Section 3 of this deliverable, while outstanding activities and a detailed description of this phase is provided in deliverable “D2.4 – Stakeholder-informed research questions”. 4.3.2 Phase 2 – Towards knowledge co-production This phase aims to involve the different groups of stakeholders either in co-developing the IAM upgrades and in co-producing alternative, feasible, and desirable policy scenarios that respond to the most relevant stakeholders’ and citizens’ concerns. 4.3.2.1 Strategic foresight workshops with stakeholders (Task 2.3.1) A core element of stakeholder engagement within the DIAMOND project is organising participatory foresight workshops informed by cross-disciplinary integration methodologies and leveraging the Three Horizons foresight framework, introduced in section 2.2, to drive collaborative policy scenario building and long-term impact assessment exercises. Key research questions will be developed to guide model co-development, scenario building, and the co-creation of policy roadmaps, emphasising a participatory approach that incorporates insights from societal actors. This collaborative process ensures that scenario-building efforts are inclusive, relevant, and aligned with stakeholder needs and expectations. One of the key objectives of the strategic foresight workshops is to integrate IAM developers into the discussion process. This integration allows for the exploration of broad and overarching questions related to climate action. The workshops enable modellers to interact with stakeholders from various sectors and disciplines, translating technical insights into accessible and actionable strategies. By engaging with modellers, stakeholders can contribute their expertise and perspectives to shape the development of scenarios and policy roadmaps. This integration ensures that modelling efforts align with real-world needs and priorities, promoting the relevance and applicability of project outcomes. Three main workshops are going to be held, all organised via online conference platforms with interactive tools, such as inter alia a MURAL27 board, supporting the interaction and lasting approximately 3 hours. • Requirements Workshop: co-define the requirements of IAM improvements to best respond to relevant stakeholders’ concerns. • Reference Scenarios Workshop: validate realistic reference scenarios describing where we are heading based on current policies. • Alternative Scenarios Workshop: envision and assess alternative/desirable policy scenarios. For each event, ISINNOVA will: • Ensure a transparent and inclusive participation process and timely invitation. 27 https://www.mural.co/ D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 Page 29 • Prepare and send background documents to the participants before each workshop. A brief will be shared containing information regarding the project, aims and progress as well as the agenda and the objectives of the related workshop. • Apply the facilitation techniques most suitable for the workshop aims and participants. • Draft workshop reports to be then analysed to gather insights for the next stages. The workflow will be articulated in three consecutive steps as follows: preparatory step phase, on-stage step (online delivery) and reporting step: 1. Preparatory step: o Workshop organisation: selecting dates, streamlining the invitation process, and defining workshops roles. Efforts will be made to send an invitation to workshop participants a month before the workshop. o Workshop operational design: selection of facilitation techniques and supporting tools, preparation of agenda, workshop guide and report template. A draft will be shared with the project partners no later than two weeks before the workshop. o Workshop brief: prioritising comprehensible items to be presented to the workshop participants thus allowing swift and effective interaction during the workshop sessions. A brief will be sent to the workshop participants no later than one week before the workshop. Following, the mutual understanding principles set forth in Phase 1, continuous interactions between project partners will take place to ensure that the workshops’ scope and structure will be useful for the activities of DIAMOND. 2. On-stage step: The three specialised workshops will follow a similar structure in which: o In the first session, the team shortly recaps the workshop objectives and methods. o In the second session, interactive breakout rooms will be moderated by a member of the team to gather inputs from the participants. Though it is challenging to ensure that each and every participant has a chance to express their views, this constraint can be satisfactorily addressed by making use of boards and polls, which will allow participants to contribute. Nonetheless, efforts will be made to ensure that all voices are heard within the workshops. o In the third session, a plenary discussion will be held to compare and summarise the group’s discussion findings (qualitative and/or quantitative). For each workshop, the following roles will be distributed among the DIAMOND team members: • Moderator and rapporteur: o Remind participants of the task and encourage the initiation of the discussion; o Try to keep the discussion on topic by bringing it back if it starts to drift. Prompts will be provided for each activity; o Ensure all participants have a chance to contribute to the discussion: encourage non-contributing participants to engage; o Double-check that breakout room operate as intended; o Capture the key points of the discussion; o Synthesise all different perspectives; o Share the highlights of the discussion during the plenary session in roughly 5 minutes; • Discussant: o Have the technical role of co-host to share slides; o Present the project and the relevant model(s) to the discussion in roughly 15 minutes; D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 Page 30 o Try to be as receptive as possible to participants ideas and sensitivities; o Intervene in the discussion when explicitly requested by participants and/or moderator; • Note taker: o Have the technical role of co-host to facilitate the operation of breakout rooms; o Capture the discussion by taking as much notes as possible (depending on the rules of the workshop; e.g., whether the Chatham House Rule applies or not). 3. Reporting step: To summarise workshops results and feed them to the next stages of the project in order to influence model development and drive applications that are customised to the needs and abilities of each stakeholder group. Table 4. Current structure and timeline for the organisation of strategic foresight workshops WHAT HOW WHEN WHO Mode Methodology Frame Requirements Online 3H • Breakout rooms • MURAL support June 2024 • Team facilitators • Stakeholders Reference Scenarios Online 3H • Breakout rooms • MURAL support Month 24 • Team facilitators • Stakeholders Alternative Scenarios Online 3H • Breakout rooms • MURAL support Month 25 • Team facilitators • Stakeholders 4.3.2.2 Requirements Workshop (June 2024) The first strategic foresight workshop in the DIAMOND project is the Requirements Workshop, which serves as a foundational step in aligning stakeholder needs and expectations with modelling objectives. The Requirements Workshop aims to kickstart collaborative efforts between modellers and stakeholders. Its primary objective is to confront and reconcile the expectations of both parties, ensuring a shared understanding of useful and feasible stakeholders-driven research and IAMs application. In this workshop, we will co-define the requirements of IAM improvements to best respond to relevant stakeholders’ concerns. This workshop is particularly relevant for WP3 and WP4. The workshop aims to engage stakeholders who are part of the research modelling community and utilize IAMs in specific sectors. By involving these stakeholders, who have expertise in model development and sector-specific applications, the workshop fosters interdisciplinary collaboration and knowledge exchange. This engagement ensures that IAMs are not only technically robust but also relevant and applicable to real-world challenges faced by different sectors. The expected outcome of the Requirements Workshop is a clear set of stakeholders-driven priorities that will be used by IAM researchers to guide model refinement and scenario design, ensuring that research efforts are aligned with stakeholder interests and priorities. 4.3.2.3 Reference Scenarios Workshop (Month 24) The Reference Scenarios Workshop is the project's second strategic foresight workshop, dedicated to scenario development and stakeholder engagement. This workshop focuses on validating realistic reference scenarios that depict the trajectory based on current policies and practices. The primary objective of the Reference Scenarios Workshop is to validate and refine reference scenarios that describe the projected future trajectory under existing D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 Page 31 policies and trends. During the workshop, participants will analyse and discuss research questions related to scenario development, particularly those identified within WP5. These questions will serve as guiding principles for scenario design and will help identify key areas of focus for further investigation and analysis. Research questions and task queries from WP5 will be shared with stakeholders to gather feedback and insights, allowing for the adjustment and enhancement of scenario parameters based on diverse perspectives and expertise. Concrete scenario developed during the workshop will be tailored to the input and involvement of stakeholders. By incorporating stakeholder feedback and insights, the scenarios are envisioned to become more robust, relevant, and representative of real-world dynamics. It is worth noting that DIAMOND partners think that stakeholders often misunderstand that IAMs do projections (scenarios) rather than predictions (forecasts), and the importance of understanding this difference between the two communities has been internally highlighted. 4.3.2.4 Alternative Scenarios Workshop (Month 25) The Alternative Scenarios Workshop is the last step of the DIAMOND project's strategic foresight approach, aiming to envision and assess alternative and desirable policy scenarios. This workshop serves as a platform for stakeholders and modellers to explore innovative and transformative pathways that deviate from current trajectories. By envisioning alternative scenarios, participants can assess the potential impacts of different policy interventions, technologies, and societal changes on climate action. Through collaborative discussions and scenario-building exercises, the workshop will foster creativity and critical thinking, enabling stakeholders to cocreate plausible and aspirational futures that align with sustainable development goals. By engaging in this process, stakeholders contribute valuable insights and perspectives that inform the development of holistic and forward-thinking policy recommendations and strategies. Ultimately, the Alternative Scenarios Workshop will empower stakeholders to explore novel approaches and envision pathways towards a more resilient and sustainable future. 4.3.2.5 Values and practice driven foresight with citizens (Task 2.3.2) Details on how to organise the climate-friendly practice workshop engaging citizens, introduced in section 3.3.3.2, will be described in the next update of the stakeholder engagement strategy (D2.3), also based on the results of Tasks 4.3 and 4.6, which will respectively clarify to what extent and how the heterogeneity of households’ behaviour and behavioural change for desirability of climate action is represented in IAMs, which are expected to produce a set of answers these models can provide to questions on the matter. However, a general approach that we plan to follow to engage the citizens can already be described. This will be done considering the following principles: • Concrete choices and impacts: citizens, divided in focus groups, will be asked to consider their concrete habits, behaviours and choices in the real everyday life practice concerning: o Energy at home, especially house insulation; o Mobility and transportation; o Food consumption; o Waste; • People-relevant research questions: a first question will aim to raise awareness of the global consequences of their own individual behaviours and choices, that emerge when data are aggregated in model computations D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 Page 32 and scenarios. Other questions will follow that apply a subsidiarity principle, asking what can be done first by people/households themselves, what can be done by people aggregated in communities of collective consumption or production, and then what should be done by governments, at different levels (local, regional, national, global). The following are examples of such questions: o To what extent and how people choices have an impact on climate change? o What can we do by changing our individual/household behaviour and/or investment choices to mitigate/adapt to climate change? o What can be done at the community level, by changing collective behaviour? o What the governments can/should do to help people change behaviours towards climate-neutral everyday life and investment in durable goods/services choices? o To what extent and how this will contribute to change people well-being? • Citizens’ engagement strategy: an efficient approach will be to find synergies with the online citizens survey organised in Task 4.6 for selecting and recruiting the target of 40 citizens to investigate behavioural changes for climate-neutral action. Survey responses could be scanned to identify groups of citizens with different personal profile (age, gender, other relevant characteristics asked in the survey) and typology of responses that may show different values and habits, and this information could be used to form and recruit focus groups of balanced participants to co-create and discuss relevant research questions in the four fields of everyday life practice: energy at home, mobility, food, and waste. Online citizens workshops can be organised with plenary sessions involving the whole group of citizens and DIAMOND modellers, followed by breakout session for the four fields (approximately 10 citizens for each session), and again a plenary session to wrap up conclusions and recommendations. 4.3.3 Phase 3 – Towards model co-ownership This phase will commence on Month 31. The detailed description of this phase will be provided in the final update of this deliverable and deliverable “D2.5 Stakeholder-informed research questions – Update”. D2.2 – Multi-layered stakeholder engagement strategy – Update 1 Page 33 Bibliography Bammer, G. (2013). Disciplining interdisciplinarity: Integration and implementation sciences for researching complex real-world problems. Canberra: ANU E-Press. Bergmann, M., Jahn, T., Knobloch, T., Krohn, W., Pohl, C., & Schramm, E. (2012). Methods for transdisciplinary research. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag. Berker, T.; Kvellheim, A.K. (2018) Boundary Objects as Facilitators in Sustainable Building Research. Sci. Public Policy 2018, 45, 202–210. Braunreiter, L., van Beek, L., Hajer, M., & van Vuuren, D. (2021). Transformative pathways–Using integrated assessment models more effectively to open up plausible and desirable low-carbon futures. Energy Research & Social Science, 80, 102220. Brooks, S., Leach, M., Lucas, H., & Millstone, E. (2009). Silver bullets, grand challenges and the new philanthropy (STEPS Working Paper 24). http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/STEPSWorkingPaper24.pdf Capros, P., Paroussos, L., Fragkos, P., Tsani, S., Boitier, B., Wagner, F., ... & Bollen, J. (2014). Description of models and scenarios used to assess European decarbonisation pathways. Energy Strategy Reviews, 2(3-4), 220230. Elsawah, S., Hamilton, S. H., Jakeman, A. J., Rothman, D., Schweizer, V., Trutnevyte, E., ... & van Delden, H. (2020). Scenario processes for socio-environmental systems analysis of futures: a review of recent efforts and a salient research agenda for supporting decision making. Science of the Total Environment, 729, 138393. ENABLE.EU Horizon 2020 project. http://www.enable-eu.com/ (accessed on 31 March 2023) European Data Protection Supervisor EDPS (2018). Ethics Advisory Group Report 2018. https://edps.europa.eu/data-protection/our-work/publications/ethical-framework/ethics-advisorygroup-report-2018_en (accessed on 31 March 2023) Floridi, L. (2018). Soft ethics and the governance of the digital. Philosophy & Technology, 31, 1-8. Floridi, L., & Strait, A. (2021). Ethical foresight analysis: what it is and why it is needed?. The 2020 Yearbook of the Digital Ethics Lab, 173-194. Fry (2021). Multi-stakeholder discussion group. (Number 15). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4627091 Fullerton J. (2015). Regenerative Capitalism. How Universal Principles and Patterns Will Shape Our New Economy. Capital Institute. https://capitalinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2015-RegenerativeCapitalism-4-20-15-final.pdf Iden, J., Methlie, L. B., & Christensen, G. E. (2017). The nature of strategic foresight research: A systematic literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 116, 87-97. Jänicke, M. (2008). Ecological modernisation: new perspectives. Journal of cleaner production, 16(5), 557-565. Klein, J. T. (2010). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, & C. Mitcham (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 15e30). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Klein, J. T. (2012). Research integration: A comparative knowledge base. In A. F. Repko, W. H. Newell, & R. Szostak (Eds.), Case studies in interdisciplinary research (pp. 283-298). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Loulou, R., & Labriet, M. (2008). ETSAP-TIAM: the TIMES integrated assessment model Part I: Model structure.