- Research
- Open access
- Published:
Modelling policy scenarios: refocussing the model-policy logic for the case of German passenger transport
Energy, Sustainability and Society volume 14, Article number: 38 (2024)
Abstract
Background
National energy and climate scenarios are typically simulated or optimised using sectoral or energy system models, which include a large number of model settings and scenario assumptions. However, their realisation is contingent upon framework conditions and policy settings, which are often included in accompanying narrative scenarios. This paper therefore proposes refocussing the model-policy logic towards directly modelling policy effects. Applying this approach to the case of German passenger transport, I focus on demand-side policies and use open-source databases and models to develop a module for the translation of policies into model parameters.
Results
Separate model runs were used to test a ceteris paribus policy reference scenario for 2035, the marginal impacts of modelled single policy effects, and a joint policy package scenario. Relative to the reference, demand-side policies show significant impacts: an annual reduction of 355 bn person-kilometres (30%) and a reduction of car-owning households from 95 to 90% in rural areas and from 76 to 64% in urban areas. The resulting mode shift decreases car-driven kilometres by 400 bn and increases public transport by 45 bn per year. This may reduce GHG emissions by an additional 30 Mt (or 33%) relative to the reference in 2035.
Conclusions
Transport demand policies can significantly mitigate GHG, calling for a stronger policy focus beyond the much-studied shift to electric vehicles. While further research and model development are needed, the feasibility of policy scenario modelling increases its utility for policy-making.
Introduction
Background
Despite the climate targets of the Paris Agreement [1] and recent advances in scientific understanding of climate change and its mitigation [2,3,4], political action has failed to adequately curb emissions. As a result, the remaining carbon budgets to reach climate targets [5] are now running low, such that industrialised countries must decarbonise all sectors by 2050 at the latest. The transport sector presents a special challenge globally, given the incompatibility of its current path with climate targets. This sector has seen the highest recent increases in final energy demand, which almost doubled from 65EJ in 1990 to 120EJ in 2019 [6], as well as the highest CO2 increases, which rose from 4.6Gt/a in 1990 to 8.2 Gt/a in 2019 [7]. In high-income countries like Germany, transport emissions rose by 5% between 1995 and 2020 [8], making transport the only sector to experience an emission increase in recent decades. A policy framework conducive to transport decarbonisation is thus key to achieving climate targets.
Germany is the largest European economy and also the largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter, with a 2045 net zero-emission target in the enacted climate law [9], plus interim sectoral targets. There are numerous scenarios and underlying models (see [10,11,12]), as well as many different proposed energy transition policies and databases (see [13, 14] for an overview). In general, both planned and enacted policies [15] and research have tended to focus on technical options, but demand-side options are considered to have high mitigation potential [16, 17]. This leaves a research gap in scenarios, especially concerning the types of policies that may realise this potential.
Use of models in policy-making
In the field of energy transitions, modelling tools play a crucial role in decision-making: they are used to inform policy-making by laying out possible future pathways (ex ante evaluations), facilitate the ex post assessment of implemented policies, and justify policy decisions [18]. Model-based scenario studies can help clarify complex systems and interactions, anticipate the effects of virtual experiments, illustrate potential futures [19], and identify “big points” and “key points” [20] in the parameters that lead to substantial changes in the defined scenarios, including through systematic sensitivity analysis [21, 22]. This approach provides policy-makers with insights into the specific areas and target indicators for those policies needed to effect change.
For most national energy and decarbonisation scenario modelling, the applied techno-economic sectoral or energy system models vary key exogenous input parameters, often through sub-scenarios. For example, they may vary energy efficiency ambition levels, the degree of lifestyle change, levels of acceptance, and/or the depth of policy action. The literature is extensive, offering examples from the broader transport sector [23,24,25] and the German context [26,27,28,29]; for a review of the “Big Five” scenarios, see Luderer et al. [11]. In many scenarios, parameter variations are typically embedded in accompanying storylines or narratives that cover social and environmental factors [30] as well as policy frameworks. Some key parameter changes are directly linked to policy instruments. Carbon pricing when set as a tax, or technology shares when directly regulated, e.g. through phase-outs, are examples of such instruments. Other parameters are exogenously set as assumptions within the respective narrative scenario context. In this idealised standard approach, policies expected to be necessary are iteratively derived or formulated while the scenario narrative is being developed [30]. This process is shown as stylised approach a) in Fig. 1.
Research gap and proposed approach
The likeliness of presented scenarios (for the German case see [10,11,12]) hinges on the materialisation of specific parameter changes—which, in turn, are influenced by existing political framework conditions. The narrative scenario’s dependency on existing policy frameworks is a feature of stylised standard energy scenario modelling, which uses connected narrative scenarios. The direct derivation of scenarios from policy settings (approach b in Fig. 1) constitutes at least a partial research gap not closed by many models. To address this gap, this paper extends the scope of the model to include explicit policy quantification and applies this method to the case of German passenger transport. Using both direct and indirect methods, I model policy impacts on parameters and make assumptions transparent. Since implementing demand-side policies and measures for transportation are key to reaching climate targets, and as the modelling of transport demand pathways is understudied in comparison to technology choice and fuel switch, the paper focuses on demand-side policies.
The research question is whether, how, and to what extent demand-side policies can be directly modelled by assessing the potential impacts of policy packages on German passenger transport, yielding insights of relevance to policy-making.
The proposed approach requires applied models that can integrate policy effects. Whether and to what degree this is possible depends on two factors: (1) the ability to operationalise policies into quantifiable parameters for model integration and (2) the scope and architecture of the specific model.
Energy system models (ESM) typically do not represent demand sectors like transportation, buildings or industry, or do so only at a general level. Thus, they cannot accurately represent sectoral policies. For sector policy modelling, specialised models are needed that can cover identified policy impact chains within the model or through annex calculations [15]. Figure 2 shows three options: (a) the policy’s impact logic aligns with the model’s and thus can be directly represented in the model, as happens when developing a new rail or bicycle infrastructure that alters available networks; (b) the policy impacts certain parameters that are used as exogenous inputs to models, which requires partial pre-modelling of the policy impact chain, as when taxation instruments interact to alter variable costs; or (c) impact chains cannot be integrated because they fall outside the model’s logic; in that case, full side-quantification would be needed. Examples of cases requiring a simulation model include demand-related policies; policies related to technology or vehicle fleet require additional models. In addition, some policies cannot be quantified at all and therefore must be excluded from a policy modelling approach. Examples may include certain changes to the legal framework that are undeniably necessary—for example, to alter long-term infrastructure planning—but that affect logics that lie outside the scope of transport models.
To implement the proposed approach, I build on open-source models and data. Section "Methods" , introduces the used methods and materials, including the policy database and the transport model, and outlines the modules necessary for incorporating demand-side policies and defining policy scenarios. Section "Results" presents the results of modelled policy impacts, which are discussed in Sect. "Discussion" alongside the limitations and further development needs of the model. Section "Conclusions" concludes.
Methods
Transport policy collection and categorisation
As a first step, I generated a transport policy database by collecting individual policy instruments from sources listed in Table 1. This policy collection is part of the Energy Sufficiency Policy Database and follows the same methodology [13]. However, it also covers policies that aim not only to avoid, but also improve and shift modes of transport.
The resulting policy database includes single policy instruments categorised by policy strategy, measure and activity induced, instrument type as per the reporting categories listed in [36], estimated time-to-impact, and sufficiency type [37]. A complete version of 140 collected transport policies, including those intended to improve transport, is provided as a tab in the supplementary material with additional policy categorisations. However, this database is not entirely used for this article and is thus only briefly outlined in Appendix A.
Prioritisation and model logic
To select the policies to be implemented in the model, an “initial sifting” [38] was conducted to filter out policies not aligned to the objectives, problems and opportunities of the policy (decarbonisation of the transport sector), as well as those outside of the sector scope (passenger transport) and/or that lacked sufficient detail.
To prioritise policies for model implementation, I used the approach proposed by Climact and NCI [33] to assess three characteristics of each policy entry: (1) maturity, i.e. the policy’s implementation phase (in planning or implemented, in how many constituencies, and for how long); (2) replicability (extent to which the identified policy can be replicated in theory, and whether it has been replicated in practice), and (3) expected impact (potential to mitigate emissions). Appendix A includes details on the coding and procedure. The coding was reviewed by two external transport researchers whose detailed feedback was included in the coding revision. The average of the above indicators yields a combined traffic light priority indicator.
Finally, I assessed the feasibility of representing each policy from the prioritised list within the target model. This step is specific to the target model(s) under consideration, as it depends on model architecture and scope. For instance, a model may or may not directly represent specific policies, require additional model development, or need auxiliary quantifications (Fig. 2). For the case of transport modelling, bottom-up transport simulation, as well as agent-based and aggregated transport models can represent policies that change prices or infrastructures. Policies that pursue “avoidance” strategies will require explicit transport demand modelling and mobility infrastructures, and policies aimed at technology choice or car ownership will need modelling capacities for those issues. For this study, I evaluated the feasibility of incorporating these policies into the macroscopic transport model quetzal_germany as a representative model in the field. Importantly, model-specific differences can lead to different feasibility outcomes for other models. For example, if the framework allows modelling vehicle technology choices, policies addressing technologies can be included. This is not the case for this work, which uses exogenous results from other studies [27] for vehicle fleet development.
Applied transport model: quetzal_germany
Transportation modelling applies two main approaches: microscopic and macroscopic. Microscopic models typically simulate individual mobility decisions and movements along transport infrastructures with high spatial and temporal resolution. Macroscopic models address the total volumes of traffic flows across various modes of transport and transport infrastructures. They typically follow a classic four-step (often consecutive) modelling approach [39] that addresses: (1) trip generation (modelling of trip volumes and origins); (2) trip distribution (modelling of destinations of trips); (3) mode choice (of available transportation modes); and (4) traffic assignment (the matching of modelled trips by modes on transport infrastructures, like roads and railways).
For this study, focused on the case of Germany, I use the open-source macroscopic transport model quetzal_germany [40]. This aggregated transport model, written in Python and implemented through Jupyter Notebooks, estimates intra-zone traffic based on external data and simulates traffic between 2225 zones within Germany.Footnote 1 The model is segmented into the following demand segments: commuting, business, education, grocery shopping or medical executions, leisure, and accompanying trips; each of which is also segmented by car availability within households. The main data sources used to calibrate and validate the model are the Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan 2030 (VP2030, [42]) and the national mobility survey (MiD2017 [43]). The mode choice step is designed as a random utility theory-based Nested Logit model for each segment, with land and air transport alternatives. The road network model is based on OpenStreetMap (OSM) data and, for public transport, on General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) [44] timetable data. Emissions calculations are based on TREMOD/ HBEFA data [45]. Model results yield that for business trips, travel price has no impact on mode decisions, and that for commuting, price elasticity is double the average. Mode choice for trips of both purposes is more time-sensitive on longer distances, while trips for shopping and education are less time-sensitive on shorter distances [46]. For detailed elasticity estimates by trip purposes see the “input” folder in the github repository [40]. Model outputs have been validated based on 2017 MiD empirical data and show only marginal deviations from validation data in terms of modal split [for details see Table 3 in 46]. Data sources, model design, specification and the calibration/validation of the model are outlined in detail in the literature [46]; Fig. 3 displays major model parts and interactions.
This work focuses on modelling demand-side policies aligned with avoid and shift strategies, but incorporates technical improve measures (efficiency and drive-train switch) in the reference/background assumptions. The initial assessment of modelling feasibility revealed that many mode shift policies could be modelled with the 2022 version (v1.1.0) [47] of the mode choice module, but that several policies, especially avoid strategies, needed additional model features that are now included in the latest version (v2.1.0) [40]. These features include an endogenous trip generation and distribution module [41], a railway expansion module, and a module for car ownership choice modelling [48].
Car ownership (CO) rates are key, because the model is fully segmented by CO due to the differing mobility choices of households with or without access to a car. Initially, CO rates were determined based on exogenous statistical data [43]. However, a dedicated representative survey in Germany [49] analysing the determinants of car ownership [50] led to the development of an openly available module for endogenously modelled car ownership levels [48]. Due to limitations of its underlying dataset, the model can only link to a limited number of the selected policies. The model is segmented by three urbanisation categories (rural/suburban/urban; for details see [48, 50]).
Policy representation in the model
Avoid and shift policies alter numerous input parameters at different stages of the modelling process. For mode shift policies, the main leverage points alter prices, availability and frequency of different modes, which are then processed during the mode choice modelling step. The same parameters, together with specific local points of interest (POI) or regulations (e.g. regarding working from home), alter the transport demand and destinations—and thus the number and distance of trips—modelled in the transport demand module. Other parameters, like the availability of a local public transport infrastructure have an influence on car ownership, and are modelled in a dedicated module. Car ownership levels determine subsequent transport demand and choice steps, which are segmented accordingly. Figure 3 outlines the modelling steps and key leverage points of demand-side policies.
To make variations in the input parameter as a function of policies, the model input parameters file includes a policy tab, which gives access to the shortlist of policies to be modelled. For every policy instrument, the model represents that policy’s impact on input parameters. Depending on the impact chain type (see "Introduction" section), policies can either directly or indirectly influence a certain parameter. Either they directly link to the parameters tab, or indirectly influence the parameter via auxiliary impact chain calculations (for example, when influencing prices, policies may have cumulative impacts or preclude others). Auxiliary calculations are included in the XLS for full transparency; these either follow mathematical logic or include the relevant source studies.
For scenario definition, every policy has one of two features: either a checkbox for activating or deactivating the policy, or an input field for setting a value. Statistical baseline values (for 2022) are shown for orientation. Leaving an input field blank defaults to this baseline setting. Table 2 shows the list of policies, their input type, baseline values and policy ID. The latter references the ID in the energy sufficiency policy database [13] for more detailed descriptions. The latest version of parameters.xls, which also includes background assumptions (e.g. on fuel prices, fleet efficiency and technology propulsion), is available from github [40] in the github-branch “policy”.
Policy scenarios
This study models a total of 28 scenarios: one base scenario (calibrated for the base year 2017), one reference scenario (ref_35), based on assumptions about future landscape developments, such as changes in global fuel prices and propulsion technology diffusion based on[27]; and 25 individual policy scenarios. Each policy scenario alters only one policy, in accordance with the settings in Table 2 relative to ref_35, and in some cases combines several sub-settings (e.g. those for speed limit) into one scenario. Marginal policy effect scenarios are identified by their specific policy codes. In addition, the policy_35 scenario combines all previously modelled individual policies except those that overlap with others. The latter are excluded from the joint policy package and marked with the superscript “d” in Table 2.
Results
The impact end-point indicator [60] for this work is GHG mitigation, measured in Mt CO2eq. Prior to this, I present results for each sub-scenario for the impact mid-points car availability and passenger kilometres, as these are key drivers of emissions.
Car availability
In its current version, quetzal_germany can endogenously model CO—a key determinant in subsequent modelling steps—by categorising the population based on car availability. Here, the model results are presented; a model link was only possible for three of the policies listed due to data limitations, other policies thus show no impact.
My findings (Fig. 4) indicate that the roll-out of on-demand local public transport (inf_2) has the greatest impact on CO, followed by enhancements in the frequency and quality of public transportation (inf_1). This is due to the strong link between poor PT quality and the decision to own a car (as modelled in [50]). In addition, the availability of a remote work option (reg_4) has a small impact on car ownership. Interestingly, these effects are consistently stronger in urban areas than elsewhere, since the higher PT frequency and denser PT availability in urban areas enable people to live car-free. In the policy package (policy_35) scenario, household car availability drops from 76 to 64% in urban areas and from 94 to 90% in rural areas. Grey markers in Fig. 4) indicate respective policy impacts on CO were not possible to model due to the underlying dataset that did not allow to establish respective policy impact chains.
Appendix B, which gives more detailed outputs on the number of cars per household, shows that this number drops substantially in the policy_35 scenario.
Passenger kilometres
Overall, the scenarios show that the modelled policies had a significant impact on passenger kilometres (pkm). Figure 5 presents the absolute pkm outcomes; Fig. 6 shows the differences in pkms relative to the 2035 reference scenario (ref_35). Between 2017 (base_17) and 2035 (ref_35), the total pkm increased only marginally. By contrast, in the scenario combining individual policies (policy_35) they decreased by 30%, amounting to an overall reduction of 355 bn pkm. This reduction is accompanied by a modal shift in the direction of public transport (PT), with car pkm decreasing by about 400 bn and public transport pkm increasing by about 45 bn.
A more detailed look at the individual policies modelled (see Table 2 for characterisations) shows differences in the sizes and directions of impacts. The availability of a remote work option (reg_4)—set in this scenario as an additional 50% days of remote work—shows the strongest impact on pkm, thus reducing commuting kms for all modes. However, the model does not consider substitutive or rebound trips of remote workers. For two other policies, which introduce on-demand local public transport (inf_2) and a full road tax charge of 9ct/km (tax_12), the modelling indicates a high impact on reducing car pkm. These and all other policies aimed at reducing car usage (e.g. parking price increases) also serve to increase public transport km, leading to a mode shift. Pull-policies that aim to increase public transport by decreasing prices (pt_5 to 365€/y or pt_6 to free) also increase pkm.
A number of policies have no significant modelled impact. These include a high EU-ETS carbon price of 250€ (tax_9), stricter speed limits (lim_1-3), reducing public transport VAT to 0% (pt_1), free educational transport (pt_7), and support for stationary car sharing (inf_6).
The highest impacts on passenger kms is observed for those policies that also impact car availability. This is because the model is segmented by car availability, and car-free households both have a lower transport demand and do not use cars. This effect partially adds to quetzal-internal mode choice and transport demand effects.
Policies effecting only minor adjustments in the model parameters or those with parameters of limited explanatory power have negligible modelled impacts. For example, increasing EU-ETS carbon prices from 100€ (2022) to 250€ (2035) may seem significant, but its effect is limited—as electricity prices are only a fraction of the total variable costs for electric vehicles (EVs). In addition, EVs constitute only 50% of the 2035 model fleet [27], such that the impact on the total weighted average variable car costs is only marginal, making EU-ETS pricing a policy of limited effect in this context.
The only policy that leads to a substantial increase in pkm, including car pkm, is a nationwide increase in the frequency and connectivity of public transport (“Deutschlandtakt”, inf_1). This initially surprising outcome stems from the model’s architecture: an improved transportation system boosts overall transport demand. In subsequent modelling steps, high shares of car use are still modelled, leading to an increase of pkm.
The aggregate effect of all individually modelled policy impacts is slightly higher than that for the joint policy package, especially for the additional public transport travels (see “sum” in Fig. 6). This does not support often-expected policy synergy effects.
Spatial disaggregation of transport demand
Policy impacts are not evenly distributed across the modelled geographical territory; rather, they depend on regional characteristics. Already in the reference scenario (ref_35), the intensity of transport demand, measured in pkm/capita, is inversely related to population density (car ownership rates, mode split, trip distances) and additionally related to commuting patterns (see Fig. 7).
Car use decreases in all model regions. Especially in regions with high car transport demands in the ref_35 scenario yield the highest reductions in car pkm in the policy_35 scenario, while more urbanised regions show lower reductions in car transport demand (Fig. 8a). The significant reduction in pkm in some regions, averaging up to 14726 pkm/cap, can only be understood as the modelled consequence of a package implementation of all policies, including those that increase remote working time (i.e. decrease commuting) and implement a full on-demand roll-out, among other measures. For rail transport demand, patterns are similar but more diverse. Some regions with high car transport intensity in the ref_35 scenario show a strong mode shift towards rail, thus increasing rail intensity. This is the case for large areas of rural southern and northeastern Germany. Conversely, in regions with moderate to high car intensities in the reference scenario, total transport demand reductions in the policy scenario are so high that rail transport demand also decreases. This is the case, for example, in Eastern Bavaria or the suburban regions around Hamburg, Hannover, the Middle Rhine Valley near Mannheim, the Freiburg region, and rural eastern Germany (Fig. 8b).
GHG emissions
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions calculations use a simplified emissions module, applying emission factors per mode [46] to results of pkm per mode. In essence, emission results are a function of pkm results, emission factors, and exogenous settings regarding the vehicle stock in the scenario year. Emission factors are taken from the literature [45] and vehicle stock projections for 2035 for Germany from existing scenarios [27].Footnote 2
In the ref_35 scenario, GHG emissions from passenger transport drop by about 40% from 145 to 88 Mt CO2eq due to an ambitious drive-train switch in the vehicle fleet (from 0.8% BEV and PHEV in the base year to 53.7% in 2035), along with an additional increase in renewable shares in electricity. In the policy package scenario (policy_35), these can be further reduced by 30 Mt (33%) to about 58 Mt CO2eq, amounting to a 60% reduction relative to 2017. This is primarily due to reduced car use and partially due to a shift towards bus and rail. Figure 9 shows total modelled emissions by scenario and mode; differences from the ref_35 scenario are detailed in Appendix B for better visibility.
Discussion
The results of this study show that integrating policies into the modelling framework is achievable. Single policies yielded highly variable effect sizes, partially due to the model type and data limitations. Furthermore, the policy modelling approach offers several insights. First, some single policies—economic (taxation), infrastructural (higher frequency and local on-demand services), and employment-related (increasing remote working days to reduce commuting trips)—have especially strong effects on transport demand and mode split. Second, transport demand elasticity is relatively low for most single policies. To manifest visible effects in the model for single policies, very stringent values would be necessary (e.g. electricity tax, EU-ETS prices, VAT on PT tickets). Third, the combined effect of all policies has however significant potential to influence transport demand and emissions. Although not every policy impact chain is fully or adequately represented, the collective package of stringent policies can significantly contribute to achieving climate targets.
As with all models, those used in this study do not perfectly mirror reality [61]. However, the modelled policy impacts—derived from variations in input parameters based on policy impact chains, and grounded in estimations and calibrations from empirical data—do provide a solid foundation. This section discusses the reliability of modelled policy impacts for the specific case of transport demand-side policies and the quetzal_germany model.
There are a number of possible biases that likely lead to discrepancies between modelled outcomes and real-world impacts. Key among these is the reliance on empirical data from 2017 for estimating and calibrating preferences, which are subsequently used for all other scenarios. In reality, preferences change over time, leading to different elasticities and thus to different policy impacts. More specifically, a consistently changing transport policy framework will alter preference structures, probably leading to higher marginal impacts and synergy effects for the policy package. A possible outcome has been shown in a transport scenario that alters the immensely car-biased preferences [41]. As preferences are contingent on framework conditions, a link that the current model cannot yet represent, this scenario only presents the direct effects of policies with fixed preferences. This underscores the need for an endogenisation of preferences [62] in the future, potentially also by modelling peer-comparison and network effects [50].
Another general issue concerns the model’s current implementation of impact chains. This implementation is extensive for pricing policies targeting a single common parameter (fossil fuel or public transport prices), but for other policies the potential interlinkages between impact chains, while possible in theory, are still missing in the model. As an example, car-free zones may not only reduce transport in that specific area; they may also affect residents outside the car-free zone due to peer-network-effects or restrictions on city centre access to public transport, suggesting that current modelling may substantially underestimate effects. These potential policy interactions require further study that will advance the development of policy models.
As a limiting factor, individual policy impact chains may be incomplete or oversimplified. One example is how the model treats increased remote working days. Here, the model considers reduced commuting but overlooks potential rebound effects, like substitutive trips or changes in consumption [63]. Additionally, improving the public transport system may yield biased results for mode pkms. As detailed in the "Methods" section, the modelling process begins by representing total trip volumes, then distances and destinations, and finally mode choice. Improving public transport reduces average travel time or costs, leading to higher volumes. However, the subsequent mode choice model, assuming constant preferences, still predicts high shares of car mode and an increase in car pkm. Apparently, price elasticities in inter-zonal trips are relatively low (result probably dominated by especially low-elastic business trips and much higher time-elasticities). This is aggravated by the limitation of the CO module that cannot process changes to public transport pricing. This effect may thus be substantially underestimated and needs further study.
Another challenge is the difficulty of including policies that are incompatible with the current model scope, such as taxation on car ownership or acquisition. This is another reason why the results presented give a rather conservative estimate of the total potential of demand-side policies.
The findings of this study are based on a model that draws on German transport survey data and is thus specific to the German context. While a certain validity for similar (i.e., Central European) contexts can be expected, for different contexts the model would need to be set up and calibrated accordingly. Because the modelling framework is a fully open one, this is possible as long as national survey data are available.
In the future, modelling additional aspects of the transport system may maximise the benefits for informing policy-making. Through simplified quantification, external effects such as air quality, noise or accidents could be covered, also in spatial distribution. Other factors, such as required investments in infrastructure or rolling stock, would require model development. In order to evaluate overall mobility system performance, overarching indicators (e.g., on accessibility or welfare distribution) could be developed and linked to model parameters.
Finally, this work focuses on demand-side policy. Future model developments or integrations into other models could allow to model policies that influence technology choice and fuel switch, impacting on vehicle fleets and emissions.
Conclusions
This study has suggested refocussing the model logics: instead of using scenario parameters to inform policy narratives, it explicitly models the impacts of policies with the resultant scenarios. Unlike most previous German passenger transport scenario studies, which often assume reductions in transport demand and mode split changes or model them as outcomes of other assumed conditions, this study demonstrates the feasibility of direct policy modelling. When applied to the case of German transport demand, this approach still has several shortcomings. As discussed in the previous section, individual policy impact chains may be imperfectly represented and may include biases; preferences are estimated and calibrated on data from 2017 and are assumed to stay constant, while in reality they are likely to change; and the lack of endogenisation may substantially underestimate the overall impacts and synergy effects of the policies modelled. Nevertheless, the modelled impacts derive from parameter variations following policy impact chain logics and are based on estimations from empirical data. Given these considerations, they are likely conservative, possibly underestimating the full impact of a comprehensive policy package.
The approach is validated as fundamentally viable. Even if specific policy implementations hinge on the model’s capabilities, this scope can be expanded through additional model developments or auxiliary quantifications. For the German case, coverage was already possible for a large number of demand-side policies, yielding significant results: relative to the reference scenario in 2035, household car availability falls by 4 to 12 percentage points depending on urbanisation degree, total passenger kms are reduced by about 30% or 355 bn pkm, car use drops strongly while rail use increases (with geographically varying patterns), and transport GHG emissions fall by 33% or 30 Mt CO2eq. Considering the inclusion of outcomes from future modelling of additional policies and interaction effects, the demand-side effects promise to be even higher.
This study shows the feasibility of constructing policy-backed scenarios, stressing the need for the enactment of policy frameworks to achieve certain GHG mitigation scenarios. This approach substantially increases the utility of scenarios to policy-making, not only on the local or national levels, but also globally. Although these conclusions derive from a model that was specifically calibrated for Germany, they can also inform other constituencies—and the fully open-source approach is applicable to any other case. The modelled scenario reveals that in addition to technological advancements in drive-train electrification, demand-side strategies for the avoid and shift strategies have a decisive potential for decarbonising the transport sector.
Notes
The share of endogenously modelled inter-zonal passenger transport volume amounts to approx. 86%, the remainder to intra-zonal volumes estimated from each zone’s population density and the number of attractions relevant to each demand segment [41].
Additional auxiliary calculation sources are included in the supplementary material parameters.xls.
References
UNFCCC (2015). Paris Agreement: Decision 1/CP.17 - UNFCCC Document FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2024
IPCC (2021) Climate Change 2021. The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2024
IPCC (2018) Global warming of \(1.5^{\circ }\)C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of \(1.5^{\circ }\)C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Geneva: World Meteorological Organization
UNFCCC (2021). Key aspects of the Paris Agreement | UNFCCC. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement/key-aspects-of-the-paris-agreement. Accessed 13 June 2024
Rogelj J, Forster PM, Kriegler E, Smith CJ, Séférian R (2019) Estimating and tracking the remaining carbon budget for stringent climate targets. Nature. 571(7765):335–342. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1368-z
IEA (2023). Data and statistics: final energy consumption by sector. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-browser. Accessed 13 June 2024
IEA (2023). Data and Statistics: CO2 emissions by sector. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-browser. Accessed 13 June 2024
Umweltbundesamt (2023). Emissionen des Verkehrs. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/verkehr/emissionen-des-verkehrs. Accessed 13 June 2024
Deutscher Bundestag (2021). Erstes Gesetz zur Änderung des Bundes-Klimaschutzgesetzes. http://www.bgbl.de/xaver/bgbl/start.xav?startbk=Bundesanzeiger_BGBl &jumpTo=bgbl121s3905.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2024
Wiese F, Thema J, Cordroch L (2022) Strategies for climate neutrality. Lessons from a meta-analysis of German energy scenarios. Renew Sustain Energy Trans 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rset.2021.100015
Luderer G, Kost C, Sörgel D (2021) Deutschland auf dem Weg zur Klimaneutralität 2045 - Szenarien und Pfade im Modellvergleich. Kopernius-Projekt Ariadne. p. 359 pages. Artwork Size: 359 pages Publisher: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. https://doi.org/10.48485/PIK.2021.006
NRW S (2022) Quantitativer Vergleich aktueller Klimaschutzszenarien für Deutschland. Wuppertal: Wuppertal Institut/Sascha Samadi. https://www.energy4climate.nrw/fileadmin/Service/Publikationen/Ergebnisse_SCI4climate.NRW/Szenarien/2022/SCI4climate.NRW-Samadi-2022-Vergleich-aktueller-Klimaschutzszenarien-fu__r-Deutschland.pdf
Best B, Thema J, Zell-Ziegler C, Wiese F, Barth J, Breidenbach S et al (2022) Building a database for energy sufficiency policies [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000 Res. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.108822.2
Lage J, Thema J, Zell-Ziegler C, Best B, Cordroch L, Wiese F (2023) Citizens call for sufficiency and regulation—a comparison of European citizen assemblies and National Energy and Climate Plans. Energy Res Soc Sci 104:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103254
Zell-Ziegler C, Thema J (2022) Impact chains of energy sufficiency policies: a proposal for visualization and possibilities for integration into energy modeling. TATuP - Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis. 31(2):40–47. https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.31.2.40
Creutzig F, Callaghan MW, Ramakrishnan A, Javaid A, Niamir L, Müller-Hansen F et al (2021) Reviewing the scope and thematic focus of 100,000 publications on energy consumption, services and social aspects of climate change: A big data approach to demand-side mitigation. Environ Res Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd78b
Creutzig F, Niamir L, Bai X, Callaghan M, Cullen J, Díaz-José J et al (2022) Demand-side solutions to climate change mitigation consistent with high levels of well-being. Nat Clim Change 12(1):36–46. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01219-y
Süsser D, Ceglarz A, Gaschnig H, Stavrakas V, Flamos A, Giannakidis G et al (2021) Model-based policymaking or policy-based modelling? How energy models and energy policy interact. Energy Res Soc Sci 75:101984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.101984
Calder M, Craig C, Culley D, de Cani R, Donnelly CA, Douglas R et al (2018) Computational modelling for decision-making: where, why, what, who and how. R Soc Open Sci 5(6):172096. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.172096
Bilharz M (2008) Key Points nachhaltigen Konsums. vol. 4 of Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Nachhaltigkeitsforschung. Marburg: Metropolis
Löffler K, Burandt T, Hainsch K, Oei PY, Seehaus F, Wejda F (2022) Chances and barriers for Germany’s low carbon transition - Quantifying uncertainties in key influential factors. Energy. 239:121901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121901
Eerma MH, Manning D, Økland GL, Rodriguez Del Angel C, Seifert PE, Winkler J et al (2022) The potential of behavioral changes to achieve a fully renewable energy system–a case study for Germany. Renew Sustain Energy Transit 2:100028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rset.2022.100028
Anable J, Brand C, Tran M, Eyre N (2012) Modelling transport energy demand: a socio-technical approach. Energy Policy 41:125–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.08.020
Brand C, Anable J, Ketsopoulou I, Watson J (2020) Road to zero or road to nowhere? Disrupting transport and energy in a zero carbon world. Energy Policy. 139:111334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111334
Capros P, Zazias G, Evangelopoulou S, Kannavou M, Fotiou T, Siskos P et al (2019) Energy-system modelling of the EU strategy towards climate-neutrality. Energy Policy. 134:110960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.110960
Fraunhofer ISE (2020) Wege zu einem klimaneutralen Energiesystem. Die deutsche Energiewende im Kontext gesellschaftlicher Verhaltensweisen Update November 2021: Klimaneutralität 2045. https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/Fraunhofer-ISE-Studie-Wege-zu-einem-klimaneutralen-Energiesystem-Update-Klimaneutralitaet-2045.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2024
Prognos, Öko Institut, Institut W (2020) Klimaneutrales Deutschland. https://static.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2020/2020_10_KNDE/A-EW_195_KNDE_WEB.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2024
Purr K, Günther J, Lehmann H, Nuss P (2019) Wege in eine ressourcenschonende Treibhausgasneutralität – RESCUE-Studie. No. 36/2019 in Climate Change. Dessau: Federal Ministry of the Environment - Umweltbundesamt (UBA). https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/376/publikationen/rescue_studie_cc_36-2019_wege_in_eine_ressourcenschonende_treibhausgasneutralitaet.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2024
Rudolph F, Koska T, Schneider C (2017) Verkehrswende für Deutschland - der Weg zu CO2-freier Mobilität bis 2035. Wuppertal: Greenpeace. Available from: https://epub.wupperinst.org/frontdoor/index/index/docId/6812
Krumm A, Süsser D, Blechinger P (2022) Modelling social aspects of the energy transition: What is the current representation of social factors in energy models? Energy 239:121706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121706
European Commission.: National energy and climate plans (NECPs). https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-strategy/national-energy-and-climate-plans-necps_en
GermanZero (2021) Maßnahmen für ein 1,5-Grad- Gesetzespaket. Arbeitsstand September 2021. 2nd ed. Berlin. https://germanzero.de/media/pages/assets/fcd6e7bfe9-1638758195/GermanZero_Massnahmenkatalog_210907.pdf
Martin B, Pestiaux J, Schobbens Q, Emmrich J, Hagemann M (2020) A radical transformation of mobility in Europe: exploring the decarbonisation of the transport sector by 2040. Climact, New Climate Institute. https://newclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/TransportRoadmap_Report_September2020.pdf
Faber J, Schroten A, Bles M, Sevenster M, Markowska A, Smit M, et al (2012) Behavioural climate change mitigation options and their appropriate inclusion in quantitative longer term policy scenarios. EU Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/system/files/2016-11/main_report_en.pdf
Matthias V, Bieser J, Mocanu T, Pregger T, Quante M, Ramacher MOP et al (2020) Modelling road transport emissions in Germany—current day situation and scenarios for 2040. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 87:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102536
UNFCCC (2000) Review of the implementation of commitments and of other provisions of the Convention. UNFCCC guidelines on reporting and review. Bonn. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop5/07.pdf
Zell-Ziegler C, Thema J, Best B, Wiese F, Lage J, Schmidt A et al (2021) Enough? The role of sufficiency in European energy and climate plans. Energy Policy 157:112483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112483
Hickman R, Saxena S, Banister D, Ashiru O (2012) Examining transport futures with scenario analysis and MCA. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 46(3):560–575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2011.11.006
Ortüzar JdD, Willumsen LG (2011) Modell Transp. Wiley, Hoboken
Arnz M. quetzal_germany. Original-date: 2021-02-19T15:12:46Z. https://github.com/marlinarnz/quetzal_germany
Arnz M, Krumm A (2023) Sufficiency in passenger transport and its potential for lowering energy demand. Environ Res Lett 18(9):094008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acea98
Schubert M, Kluth T, Nebauer G, Ratzenberger R, Kotzagiorgis S, Butz B, et al. Verkehrsverflechtungsprognose 2030 - los 3: Erstellung der Prognose der deutschlandweiten Verkehrsverflechtungen unter Berücksichtigung des Luftverkehrs. Intraplan Consult and BVU Beratergruppe Verkehr+Umwelt
Nobis C, Kuhnimhof T (2018) Mobilität in Deutschland – MiD Ergebnisbericht. Studie von infas, DLR, IVT und infas 360 im Auftrag des Bundesministers für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur. Bonn, Berlin. http://www.mobilitaet-in-deutschland.de/pdf/MiD2017_Ergebnisbericht.pdf
GTFS. GTFS for Germany. https://gtfs.de/en/
Allekotte M, Biemann K, Heidt C, Colson M, Knörr W. Aktualisierung der Modelle TREMOD/TREMOD-MM für die Emissionsberichterstattung 2020 (Berichtsperiode 1990–2018). Umweltbundesamt
Arnz M (2022) The demand-side mitigation gap in German passenger transport. Eur Transp Res Rev 14(1):44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-022-00568-9
Arnz M. quetzal_germany_input_static. Zenodo. https://zenodo.org/record/5659679
Nelle K, Arnz M. car_ownership_module_quetzal_germany. Zenodo. https://zenodo.org/record/7809061
Thema J, Sendker J, Johannes S, Best B, Wiese F, Götte S. TRA-DE 2022 German OAP survey data on mobility patterns, car ownership and use. Zenodo
Thema J, Reul J, Arnz M, Wiese F. Drivers of car driving: lessons from a Survey on Car Ownership and Usage in Germany (under review)
ADAC (2023). Benzin und Diesel werden immer teurer. https://www.adac.de/verkehr/tanken-kraftstoff-antrieb/tipps-zum-tanken/7-fragen-zum-benzinpreis/. Accessed 21 June 2023
Bundesfinanzministerium (2023). Stromsteuer. https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Glossareintraege/S/Stromsteuer.html?view=renderHelp. Accessed 13 June 2024
Strom Report (2017). Strompreiszusammensetzung 2017
Strom Report (2022). Strompreiszusammensetzung 2022. https://strom-report.com/medien/strompreis-zusammensetzung-2022.jpg. Accessed 13 June 2024
Trading Economics (2023). EU Carbon Permits. https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/carbon. Accessed 13 June 2024
Statista (2023). Parkgebühren in deutschen Großstädten. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/254465/umfrage/preise-fuer-parkplaetze-in-deutschen-grossstaedten/. Accessed 13 June 2024
Bundesfinanzministerium (2020). Umsatzsteuer; Absenkung des Steuersatzes für die Beförderung von Personen im Schienenbahnfernverkehr. https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Downloads/BMF_Schreiben/Steuerarten/Umsatzsteuer/2020-01-21-absenkung-des-steuersatzes-fuer-die-befoerderung-von-personen-im-schienenbahnfernverkehr.pdf?__blob=publicationFile &v=1. Accessed 23 Sept 2023
ADAC (2021). ÖPNV Ticketpreisvergleich. https://www.adac.de/reise-freizeit/ratgeber/tests/oepnv-preisvergleich/. Accessed 13 June 2024
ECA (2018). A European high-speed rail network: not a reality but an ineffective patchwork. EU court of auditors. https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/high-speed-rail-19-2018/en/. Accessed 13 June 2024
Ürge Vorsatz D, Kelemen A, Tirado-Herrero S, Thomas S, Thema J, Mzavanadze N et al (2016) Measuring multiple impacts of low-carbon energy options in a green economy context. Appl Energy 179:1409–1426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.027
Box GEP (1979) Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building. In Robustness in statistics. Academic Press.
Mattauch L, Hepburn C, Spuler F, Stern N (2022) The economics of climate change with endogenous preferences. Resource Energy Econ 69:101312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2022.101312
Sorrell S, Gatersleben B, Druckman A (2020) The limits of energy sufficiency: a review of the evidence for rebound effects and negative spillovers from behavioural change. Energy Res Soc Sci 64:101439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101439
Arnz M. quetzal_germany_input_static. Zenodo. https://zenodo.org/record/8046472. Accessed 13 June 2024
Reul J, Grube T, Linßen J, Stolten D. MO|DE.behave. https://github.com/FZJ-IEK3-VSA/mode_behave
Fulton L, Unander F, Schipper L, Difiglio C (2000) CO2 emission trends and reduction opportunities in transport, households and commercial sectors. In: Fulton L (ed) Workshop on best practices in policies and measures, vol 11. UNFCC, Copenhagen, p 13
GIZ (2014) Urban transport and climate change. Module 5e. Sustainable transport: a sourcebook for policy-makers in developing cities. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273259318_GIZ_Sourcebook_5e_Transport_and_Climate_Change. Accessed 13 June 2024
Marcuse W, Pilati D, Sparrow FT (1978) Energy conservation: technology push or policy pull. Brookhaven National Lab, Upton
Steg L, Tertoolen G (1999) Sustainable transport policy: the contribution from behavioural scientists. Public Money Manag 19(1):63–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9302.00154
Erickson MA, Krout J, Ewen H, Robison J (2006) Should i stay or should i go?: Moving plans of older adults. J Hous Elderly 20(3):5–22. https://doi.org/10.1300/J081v20n03_02
Loukopoulos P, Jakobsson C, Gärling T, Schneider CM, Fujii S (2005) Public attitudes towards policy measures for reducing private car use: evidence from a study in Sweden. Environ Sci Pol 8(1):57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2004.07.008
de Groot JIM, Schuitema G (2012) How to make the unpopular popular? Policy characteristics, social norms and the acceptability of environmental policies. Environ Sci Pol 19–20:100–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.03.004
Jakobsson C, Fujii S, Gärling T (2000) Determinants of private car users’ acceptance of road pricing. Transp Pol 7(2):153–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(00)00005-6
Abrahamse W, Steg L, Vlek C, Rothengatter T (2005) A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. J Environ Psychol 25(3):273–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.002
Marks G (1992) Structural policy in the European Community. In: Sbragia A (ed) Europolitics: institutions and policy making in the ‘New’ European community. The Brookings Institution, Washington D.C., pp 191–224
Marks G (1993) Structural policy and multilevel governance in the EC. The state of the European Community 2:391–410
Peters BG, Pierre J (2004) Multi-level governance: a Faustian bargain? Multi-level governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 75–89
Tortola PD (2017) Clarifying multilevel governance. Eur J Polit Res 56(2):234–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12180
Javaid A, Creutzig F, Bamberg S (2020) Determinants of low-carbon transport mode adoption: systematic review of reviews. Environ Res Lett 15(10):103002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aba032
Acknowledgements
This work would not have been possible without the close collaboration of Marlin Arnz, the developer of the quetzal_germany model, the many exchanges and collaboration on model developments that made policy inclusions possible, and his assistance with model handling. Also key were contributors to model developments described in other publications: Johanna Heimrich, Kikan Nelle and Julian Reul. Johannes Parschau provided invaluable technical assistance for repeated model runs, bug fixing and output formatting. I am also indebted to my adviser Frauke Wiese for guidance along the development of this work and repeated comments and discussions. Thank you to two anonymous referees who provided very helpful comments, critique and requests that helped correcting some flaws of the initial manuscript and complement necessary sections and details. Special thanks also to Laura Cunniff at EUF for her professional language editing of the manuscript.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This research was conducted as part of the “EnSu” project funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), within the framework of the Strategy Research for Sustainability (FONA), as part of its Social-Ecological Research funding priority [grant number 01UU2004B]. The sole responsibility of the content lies with the author.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
This manuscript is the work of the single author. F. Wiese and M. Arnz commented on the first draft and the work was only possible due to the collaboration of all colleagues mentioned in the acknowledgements.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The author declares that he has no competing of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Appendices
Appendix A: Transport policy database categorisations
Categorisations included in the supplementary material cover
-
ASI-framework [66, 67]: (1) Avoid/Reduce policies aim to reduce travel needs and trips/trip lengths, thus improving transport system efficiency; (2) Shift policies seek to effect a mode shift from the most energy consuming modes of transport (like car and air travel), to more environmentally friendly modes (non-motorised transport or public transport), thereby improving trip efficiency; while (3) Improve policies seek to maximise vehicle energy efficiency and alternative energy use, thus improving vehicle and fuel efficiency.
-
Instrument type [4, 37]: (1) economic (e.g. taxes, tradable certificates, market reform), (2) fiscal (e.g., subsidies and grants, tax exemptions and public expenditures for infrastructure), (3) voluntary agreements, 4) regulation (laws, standards and product identification), (5) information, (6) education (institutional), 7) research and development, 8) other (e.g., plans) and 9) not specified
-
Push and pull: In a 1978 concept, push measures were defined as governmental R &D agencies that support or develop energy conserving technologies, while being careful not to displace private investment. “Policy pull” measures were defined as those that changed financial incentive structures through taxation or requirements [68]. In the more recent transport literature, the terms are adapted: “car use can be made less attractive by ‘push’ measures, or the use of alternatives may be stimulated by ‘pull’ measures. Push measures restrict people’s freedom of choice; pull measures do not” [69]. In political science literature, pull measures promote the desired environmentally friendly behaviour and are regarded as non-coercive [70, 71], push measures are considered more coercive, and more likely to enforce behaviour change [72,73,74].
-
Governance level: For situating a policy in its polity context, developing and analysing policy mixes, the governance level (local, national, international) is a structuring factor. The analytical concept of multilevel governance (MLG) was developed in the 1990 s [75, 76]. In subsequent studies, it was debated whether to include [77] or exclude [78] non-state actors. For our policy-based approach, only state actors can sensibly be assessed. Policies are categorised according to the government level at which they prompt changes to the institutional setting or procedures: EU, national, regional, or local.
-
Traffic light prioritisation [33]: This combines three subindicators (maturity, replicability and impact), each with 3 possible values. Codings are specified as follows:
-
Maturity: 1= the intention/formulated idea of an unimplemented policy; 2 = an example of implementation, but with limited information or with very specifically formulated policy goals and actions; 3 = a broadly implemented and clearly formulated policy, which has been implemented and evaluations
-
Replicability, deliverability, feasibility: This indicator aims to assess the feasibility of implementing a policy in the area of interest. [33] use a replicability indicator, which “assesses the extent to which the identified policy could be replicated in theory and whether it has been replicated in practice”, which we apply to the case of Germany on a 1 = poor to 3 = high scale.
-
Expected impact: This assessment refers to a policy’s potential expected relevant impact, if the policy is consistently and ambitiously implemented [33]. The assessment is informed by impact assessments for instruments, where readily available, and research findings, as synthesised in [79]. The expected impact on GHG emissions is rated on a 1–3 scale.
-
Combined traffic light priority indicator: [33] propose combining the three previous dimensions with equal weighting. The result is again rated on a 1–3 scale, represented by the authors as a traffic light score from 1=red to 3=green. I follow this approach to generate a combined traffic light indicator (see Table 3).
-
Appendix B: Additional results
This annex section presents selected additional model results complementing the results section . Figure 10 shows the nr. of cars per household, as averages per rural, suburban and urban households. The general picture and explication is essentially the same as Fig. 4.
Figure 11 shows the absolute differences between GHG emissions of various policy scenarios relative to the reference scenario (ref_35). We observe the same patterns as with differences in pkm (Fig. 6), as GHG emissions are a linear transformation of pkm.
Figure 12 shows the distribution of the number of trips and their mode split by distance classes: the greatest number of trips occurs over short distances (inner-zonal), with the number decreasing as the distance increases. The policy scenario, here exemplary for prk_4, especially decreases short-distance trips.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Thema, J. Modelling policy scenarios: refocussing the model-policy logic for the case of German passenger transport. Energ Sustain Soc 14, 38 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-024-00467-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-024-00467-y