@misc{WolfSchuetzeJaeger2016,
  author    = {Wolf, Sarah and Sch{\"u}tze, Franziska and Jaeger, Carlo},
  title     = {Balance or synergies between environment and economy},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {126},
  issn      = {1867-5808},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43699},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-436998},
  pages     = {13},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {The UN sustainable development goals contain environmental, economic, and social objectives. They may only be reached, or at least it would be easier to reach them, if instead of a trade-off between these objectives that implies a need for balancing them, there are synergies to be reaped. This paper discusses how the structures of economic models typically used in policy analysis influence whether win-win strategies for the environment and the economy can be conceptualised and analysed. With a focus on climate policy modelling, the paper points out how, by construction, commonly used model structures find mitigation costs rather than benefits. This paper describes mechanisms that, when added to these model structures, can bring win- win options into a model's solution horizon, and which provide a spectrum of alternative modelling approaches that allow for the identification of such options.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SiliverstovsOetschKemfertetal.2010,
  author    = {Siliverstovs, Boriss and {\"O}tsch, Rainald and Kemfert, Claudia and Jaeger, Carlo and Haas, Armin and Kremers, Hans},
  title     = {Climate change and modelling of extreme temperatures in Switzerland},
  issn      = {1436-3240},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00477-009-0321-3},
  year      = {2010},
  abstract  = {This study models maximum temperatures in Switzerland monitored in twelve locations using the generalised extreme value (GEV) distribution. The parameters of the GEV distribution are determined within a Bayesian framework. We find that the parameters of the underlying distribution underwent a substantial change in the beginning of the 1980s. This change is characterised by an increase both in the level and the variability. We assess the likelihood of the heat wave of the summer 2003 using the fitted GEV distribution by accounting for the presence of a structural break. The estimation results do suggest that the heat wave of 2003 is not that statistically improbable if an appropriate methodology is used for dealing with nonstationarity.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{BattistonFarmerFlacheetal.2016,
  author    = {Battiston, Stefano and Farmer, J. Doyne and Flache, Andreas and Garlaschelli, Diego and Haldane, Andrew G. and Heesterbeek, Hans and Hommes, Cars and Jaeger, Carlo and May, Robert and Scheffer, Marten},
  title     = {COMPLEX SYSTEMS Complexity theory and financial regulation},
  series = {Science},
  volume    = {351},
  journal   = {Science},
  publisher = {American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science},
  address   = {Washington},
  issn      = {0036-8075},
  doi       = {10.1126/science.aad0299},
  pages     = {818 -- 819},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Traditional economic theory could not explain, much less predict, the near collapse of the financial system and its long-lasting effects on the global economy. Since the 2008 crisis, there has been increasing interest in using ideas from complexity theory to make sense of economic and financial markets. Concepts, such as tipping points, networks, contagion, feedback, and resilience have entered the financial and regulatory lexicon, but actual use of complexity models and results remains at an early stage. Recent insights and techniques offer potential for better monitoring and management of highly interconnected economic and financial systems and, thus, may help anticipate and manage future crises.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{BattistonFarmerFlacheetal.2016,
  author    = {Battiston, Stefano and Farmer, Doyne and Flache, Andreas and Garlaschelli, Diego and Haldane, Andy and Heesterbeek, Hans and Hommes, Cars and Jaeger, Carlo and May, Robert and Scheffer, Marten},
  title     = {Financial complexity: Accounting for fraud Response},
  series = {Science},
  volume    = {352},
  journal   = {Science},
  publisher = {American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science},
  address   = {Washington},
  issn      = {0036-8075},
  doi       = {10.1126/science.352.6283.302},
  pages     = {302 -- 302},
  year      = {2016},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{MielkeVermassenEllenbecketal.2016,
  author    = {Mielke, Jahel and Vermassen, Hannah and Ellenbeck, Saskia and Milan, Blanca Fernandez and Jaeger, Carlo},
  title     = {Stakeholder involvement in sustainability science-A critical view},
  series = {Global biogeochemical cycles},
  volume    = {17},
  journal   = {Global biogeochemical cycles},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {2214-6296},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.erss.2016.04.001},
  pages     = {71 -- 81},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Discussions about the opening of science to society have led to the emergence of new fields such as sustainability science and transformative science. At the same time, the megatrend of stakeholder participation reached the academic world and thus scientific research processes. This challenges the way science is conducted and the tools, methods and theories perceived appropriate. Although researchers involve stakeholders, the scientific community still lacks comprehensive theoretical analysis of the practical processes behind their integration - for example what kind of perceptions scientists have about their roles, their objectives, the knowledge to gather, their understanding of science or the science-policy interface. Our paper addresses this research gap by developing four ideal types of stakeholder involvement in science - the technocratic, the functionalist, the neoliberal-rational and the democratic type. In applying the typology, which is based on literature review, interviews and practical experiences, we identify and discuss three major criticisms raised towards stakeholder involvement in science: the legitimacy of stakeholder claims, the question whether bargaining or deliberation are part of the stakeholder involvement process and the question of the autonomy of science. Thus, the typology helps scientists to better understand the major critical questions that stakeholder involvement raises and enables them to position themselves when conducting their research. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}