Vanessa Schweizer
I'm an assistant professor in the Department of Knowledge Integration (formerly the Centre for Knowledge Integration) at the University of Waterloo in Canada. My research and teaching interests focus on interdisciplinary scholarship around knowledge synthesis and design thinking.
Prior to joining Waterloo, I was a postdoctoral fellow at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in the US, where I researched novel methods for systematically constructing long-term socioeconomic scenarios for climate change research. Previously, I was a Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellow at The National Academies in the US. While there, I worked with the Human Dimensions of Global Change Committee (now the Board on Environmental Change and Society) for the panel on Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making.
I am an alumna of the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, where I was affiliated with the Climate Decision Making Center. I have a Masters degree in Environmental Studies from The Evergreen State College and a BSc in Physics from the University of Nevada-Reno, where I graduated Magna Cum Laude.
Phone: +1 (519) 888-4567 x.35106
Prior to joining Waterloo, I was a postdoctoral fellow at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in the US, where I researched novel methods for systematically constructing long-term socioeconomic scenarios for climate change research. Previously, I was a Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellow at The National Academies in the US. While there, I worked with the Human Dimensions of Global Change Committee (now the Board on Environmental Change and Society) for the panel on Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making.
I am an alumna of the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, where I was affiliated with the Climate Decision Making Center. I have a Masters degree in Environmental Studies from The Evergreen State College and a BSc in Physics from the University of Nevada-Reno, where I graduated Magna Cum Laude.
Phone: +1 (519) 888-4567 x.35106
less
InterestsView All (25)
Uploads
Papers
to conceptualize alternative outcomes for global greenhouse gas emissions.
These are used in conjunction with climate models to make projections of future
climate. Specifically, the estimations of greenhouse gas emissions based on socioeconomic
scenarios constrain climate models in their outcomes of temperatures, precipitation,
etc. Traditionally, the fundamental logic of the socioeconomic scenarios—that
is, the logic that makes them plausible—is developed and prioritized using methods
that are very subjective. This introduces a fundamental challenge for climate change
assessment: The veracity of projections of future climate currently rests on subjective
ground. We elaborate on these subjective aspects of scenarios in climate change
research. We then consider an alternative method for developing scenarios, a systems
dynamics approach called ‘Cross-Impact Balance’ (CIB) analysis. We discuss
notions of ‘objective’ and ‘objectivity’ as criteria for distinguishing appropriate scenario
methods for climate change research. We distinguish seven distinct meanings
of ‘objective,’ and demonstrate that CIB analysis is more objective than traditional
subjective approaches. However, we also consider criticisms concerning which of the
seven meanings of ‘objective’ are appropriate for scenario work. Finally, we arrive
at conclusions regarding which meanings of ‘objective’ and ‘objectivity’ are relevant for climate change research. Because scientific assessments uncover knowledge relevant
to the responses of a real, independently existing climate system, this requires
scenario methodologies employed in such studies to also uphold the seven meanings
of ‘objective’ and ‘objectivity.’
to conceptualize alternative outcomes for global greenhouse gas emissions.
These are used in conjunction with climate models to make projections of future
climate. Specifically, the estimations of greenhouse gas emissions based on socioeconomic
scenarios constrain climate models in their outcomes of temperatures, precipitation,
etc. Traditionally, the fundamental logic of the socioeconomic scenarios—that
is, the logic that makes them plausible—is developed and prioritized using methods
that are very subjective. This introduces a fundamental challenge for climate change
assessment: The veracity of projections of future climate currently rests on subjective
ground. We elaborate on these subjective aspects of scenarios in climate change
research. We then consider an alternative method for developing scenarios, a systems
dynamics approach called ‘Cross-Impact Balance’ (CIB) analysis. We discuss
notions of ‘objective’ and ‘objectivity’ as criteria for distinguishing appropriate scenario
methods for climate change research. We distinguish seven distinct meanings
of ‘objective,’ and demonstrate that CIB analysis is more objective than traditional
subjective approaches. However, we also consider criticisms concerning which of the
seven meanings of ‘objective’ are appropriate for scenario work. Finally, we arrive
at conclusions regarding which meanings of ‘objective’ and ‘objectivity’ are relevant for climate change research. Because scientific assessments uncover knowledge relevant
to the responses of a real, independently existing climate system, this requires
scenario methodologies employed in such studies to also uphold the seven meanings
of ‘objective’ and ‘objectivity.’