Master Thesis
Measuring and
modeling
geoengineering
research
Science and Innovation Management
Siemen Eijkemans
13-10-2013
Abstract
Scientific interest in geoengineering has ascended in recent years (Belter & Seidel, 2013). Position
statements and reports on geoengineering have been issued by scientific societies (AGU, The Royal
Society, AMS), conferences and publications on geoengineering have proliferated, and some
scientists and individuals are advocating additional research, and in some cases implementation of
various proposals (Belter & Seidel, 2013).
In this context, including the large amount of controversy in geoengineering research, makes it
constructive to examine the current state of scientific research on geoengineering. Such an analysis
would be useful in order to inform policy discussion surrounding geoengineering experiments, to
suggest future research directions on this topic (Belter & Seidel, 2013), and to provide a baseline for
similar analyses designed to monitor future developments in this research.
This research examines both the current state of geoengineering research and how this reflects on
the Oxford Principles. Applying a bibliometric analysis of three case studies. Together the case
studies represent the knowledge base in geoengineering research, making use of a defined set of
publications. The current scientific state of geoengineering research, has not been highlighted in
recent studies and past discussions about the potential of geoengineering schemes, which therefore
might lead to an improved understanding of geoengineering research. This research concentrated on
the developments in geoengineering research in the time span (2000-2013).
The results of the bibliometric analysis indicated to a large extent, the incorporation of the Oxford
Principles in geoengineering research. Geoengineering research involves many different disciplines,
organizations and collaborations. Research is largely funded by both Government and University
related organizations, leading to open publications and research to be regulated for the public good.
Furthermore is geoengineering research almost completely reliable on the output of prolific
countries, with the United States as absolute dominant country in geoengineering research.
Keywords: Geoengineering, Scientometrics, Governance, Oxford Principles.
1
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
Contents
1.
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Problem definition ............................................................................................................ 3
1.2 Geoengineering, two ‘classes’........................................................................................... 5
1.3 Focus on CDR schemes...................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Risks................................................................................................................................... 7
1.5 Research Question ............................................................................................................ 8
1.6 Structure ........................................................................................................................... 9
2.
Oxford Principles ........................................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Case studies..................................................................................................................... 12
2.2 Why encourage this? ....................................................................................................... 14
2.3 The Oxford Principles ...................................................................................................... 15
2.4 Theory ............................................................................................................................. 16
2.5 Theoretical framework (sub research questions) ........................................................... 17
2.6 Collaboration ................................................................................................................... 20
2.7 Similar studies ................................................................................................................. 21
3.
Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 23
3.1 Demarcation .................................................................................................................... 23
3.2 Performance Indicator .................................................................................................... 24
3.3 Data Collection ................................................................................................................ 24
3.4 Output ............................................................................................................................. 26
3.5 Justification ..................................................................................................................... 27
4.
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 28
4.1 Direct air capture ............................................................................................................ 28
4.2 Ocean fertilization ........................................................................................................... 39
4.3 Afforestation ................................................................................................................... 47
5.
Discussion...................................................................................................................................... 56
6.
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 58
7.
Timeplanning ........................................................................ Ошибка! Закладка не определена.
8.
Literature list ................................................................................................................................. 61
2
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
1. Introduction
1.1 Problem definition
The current global energy system is mainly based on electricity generated from fossil fuels
(Jacobbson & Bergek, 2004; Loorbach, 2010). These have proven to be very harmful to the
environment and are the main source for climate changes caused by global warming (Serrano et al.,
2009). To prevent the continuing rise in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases and
further climate change from happening there are two options: new energy fuels that do not result in
CO2 emissions or ‘geoengineering’.
The development of new sustainable alternative fuels, mitigating measures and CO2 emissions
guidelines, have not led to desired new energy sources and the energy sector still produces around
80% of CO2 emissions in the world (Gerlagh & van der Zwaan, 2012; Sundblad et al., 2012). Global
emissions would have to go down by 50-85% from 2000 levels by 2050, only to limit global warming
up to 2 C° (IPCC, 2011, Bodansky, 2011). Limiting emissions only, however, does not seem to work, as
an increase up to more than 30% higher than 2000 levels has already been notified (Olivier, 2011).
Current measures to develop new energy fuels to lower carbon dioxide emissions are, thus, not
effectively leading to the necessary short-time basis results (Lindsay & Zhang, 2005; Victor et al.,
2009).
The second option stands in the highly controversial option of geoengineering; to lower the greenhouse-gases (G-H-G) in the atmosphere and to limit the impacts of climate change (Blackstock &
Long, 2010; The Royal Society, 2009; Bracmort et al, 2011). Geoengineering, also called climate
engineering, is a term to describe difficult technologies that on a large-scale deliberately intervene in
the Earth’s climate system, to offset the threats of climate change (Oxford principles, 2012; The Royal
Society, 2009; Weber, 2012). The great complexity in geoengineering is the high amount of
controversy and uncertainty. There is a large amount of dissension between scientists and policy
makers, while it remains difficult if not impossible to detect and describe important effects of
geoengineering techniques that might occur months to years later (Lukacs, 2012). The uncertainty of
potential implications mainly due to the large global impact and the rather little understanding about
it, makes geoengineering next to a solution also a form of technology that frightens many reputable
scientists and policymakers. This has led to numerous policy implications and discussions between
scientists and policy makers about the potential contribution, research and deployment of
geoengineering. Not any technology has ever stirred as much controversy before actual research or
3
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
deployment has taken place. This moved the editors of Nature in 2012 to state “Geoengineering
research has a problem” (Nature 485, 2012). They position geoengineering as a relatively new and
underexplored topic, for both the science and ethics. The controversies surrounding geoengineering
are manifold. Risks and uncertainties include various unwanted environmental consequences and
there is possible failure of the technology (Hultman et al., 2010; Keith, 2000). Important risks do also
relate to climate management itself, which raises the difficult questions to what extent, where and
by whom the climate should be managed (Luokkanen et al., 2013; Virgoe, 2009). Furthermore
geoengineering lifts ethical considerations inducing the question of how far humans are allowed to
manipulate the earth and its systems (Luokkanen et al., 2013; Preston, 2009). This makes
geoengineering an interesting object to study, but the high controversy also raises the question
whether we should do so.
Geoengineering not only profoundly stirs controversy, the structure and methods of studying such a
comprehensive technology also largely vary from the standard approach, whilst the impacts on the
climate remains uncertain (Blackstock & Long, 2010; Victor et al., 2009; Clingerman, 2012; Lynn et
al., 2012; Shepherd et al., 2009). This supports the question of whether we should do the research,
Clive Hamilton (2013) even goes as far to state that “geoengineering rests on a string of questionable
assumptions and a naïve understanding of the world that owes more to the quaint ideal of the whitecoated scientist dispassionately going about the process of knowledge generation than it does to
reality”. This statement serves as response to the IPCC, that demands global oversight in
geoengineering research and claims that “we should at least do the research” (IPCC, 2012). This
raises scientists and policy makers to the real question; why should we? Geoengineering comes with
controversy it provokes on socio-economic, ethical and political respects. Whilst, recent prominent
reviews just emphasized that predicted schemes are fraught with uncertainties and potential
negative effects (Blackstock et al., 2009) and, thus, cannot be used as substitute for comprehensive
mitigation (Shepherd et al., 2009). Hamilton (2013) even states that the potential negative effects
and the controversy it provokes should already be sufficient reason to ‘not’ do the research. For
instance, who is the ‘we’? Is this indirectly the public through worldwide national research
programs? Or is it all right to let the private companies finance the research, the ‘lone rangers’
billionaires, energy and oil companies? This again moves another complex issue; the private sector
may finance the research, but the possible unintended consequences demand global oversight of
geoengineering. The private sector might be reluctant to share their knowledge. The private sector is
not bound to open research and pursuing for the good of the public. They might benefit largely from
geoengineering alternatives, even though this could result in harming a much larger share of the
climate and the people and species living in it. It is not to say whether organizations in the private
4
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
sector would implement schemes that could benefit them, while having potentially a negative
impact on the climate and its species. The impacts of geoengineering schemes are however of such a
large extent, that no individual, organization or country should have the power to artificially create a
new (regional) climate, thereby affecting other parties and countries. This could lead to impulsive
decisions made by subjective judgment.
To apprehend the serious consequences of geoengineering research, Blackstock et al., (2009) state
that in the end it comes down to three questions that first need answering to lower the amount of
controversy and uncertainty. “Who decides which geoengineering research should be pursued?”
There are several geoengineering schemes that vary in their potential, costs and regional, national or
global impact. Relating to that, “Who decides which and where geoengineering schemes should be
deployed?” The impacts are not border-bound, which makes it an international matter. And finally,
“Who decides what the ‘optimal’ target climate should be, both globally and regionally?” These
questions strongly relate to the basic policy question whether geoengineering can be trusted to any
organization and especially private companies and countries. Energy and oil companies could be
expected to allocate lots of money to geoengineering research due to their reliance on fossil fuels.
The same applies to Middle-east countries and Russia who share dependence on fossil fuels. These
one-sided benefits exemplify the controversy of geoengineering. Their motivations might not be
universal and are the prime cause for the large disagreement between stakeholders.
The power and trans boundary effects of geoengineering come with complex questions that no
single government or organization should bear responsibility for. However important, the policy
implications or the bigger issue whether research should or should not be done are not the topic of
this thesis. The research focuses on the current state of scientific research on geoengineering and
how it relates to the current policy and ethical frameworks. In order to create an understanding
about geoengineering development so far, I made an inventory of and analysed research activities in
three particular case studies. These cover the period between 2000-2013 and reflect on trends and
progress in geoengineering and how these relate to existing frameworks (Oxford Principles).
1.2 Geoengineering, two ‘classes’
Geoengineering exists of different technologies which largely are in the research phase. The different
technologies fall into one of the two main categories: Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and
Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) (Galaz, 2012).
SRM seeks to reduce the amount of sunlight absorbed. This is achieved by deflecting sunlight away
from the earth, or by increasing the reflectivity of the atmosphere (albedo) or the earth’s surface
(Crutzen, 2006). These methods are focused on reducing the amount of absorbed sunlight without
5
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
diminishing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (Crutzen, 2006; Galaz, 2012).
In contrast CDR projects want to tackle the root cause of global warming and remove the exact
greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. CDR focuses on directly removing or seeks to alternatively
influence natural processes to do so. The advantage of tackling the root causes makes CDR strategies
(schemes) a rather comprehensive solution to the problem of excess gases in the atmosphere.
However it only takes a long time-period to work fully (Marchetti, 1977; Cao & Caldeira, 2010). CDR
might offer a more complete solution, however SRM is required to create instant results. Together
they make up the two categories of geoengineering (Cao & Caldeira, 2010). It is advised to consider
these approaches as independent, since both methods have different mode of action, effectiveness
time frame, and consequences (The Royal Society, 2009).
Scientists have not, yet, attempted to deploy geoengineering schemes at an international scale
(Corner & Pidgeon, 2010). The Royal Society (2009) recommended further research and
development of the technologies in order to sufficiently decide the effectiveness and efficiency of
using these technologies to avoid extreme climate change. Additionally, there is lack of published
assessment and reports on the costs, environmental effects, socio-political impacts and the legal
implications of geoengineering (Corner & Pidgeon, 2010).
1.3 Focus on CDR schemes
This paper focuses specifically on research governance for CDR schemes. It is assumed that SRM
schemes can be deployed at an effectively faster rate than CDR schemes. However, within
geoengineering CDR schemes are the safer bet due to less unforeseen consequences and possible
side-effects (Blackstock & Long, 2010). CDR schemes, such as direct air capture, afforestation or
ocean fertilization would (partly) remove the cause of climate change. Nonetheless, technical
challenges and large uncertainties surrounding large-scale CDR deployment, alongside delays in the
climatic response to carbon forcing, mean that it would also take decades to have notable effect
(Blackstock & Long, 2010; Bracmort et al, 2011). The more promising approaches of CDR introduce
no unprecedented environmental or political risks and especially important, are expected not to
introduce fundamentally new issues in governance or regulation procedures (Caldeira & Keith, 2010;
Bracmort et al, 2011). As a consequence that the two strategies are so different, would it make sense
for governance to at least develop two research program structures (Caldeira & Keith, 2010). The
emphasis of this research is on CDR strategies. Mostly because even though SRM is promising and
relatively inexpensive, the unprecedented environmental and political risks and their challenges for
governance and regulation, makes the SRM proposal never been seriously considered in
international climate negotiation (Caldeira & Keith, 2010). The attractiveness of CDR strategies for
this research is supported by a pilot search of Web-of-Science (WoS) using the CDR strategies as
6
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
keywords; the strategies together returned more records than keywords related to SRM
geoengineering. In this thesis I create an overview of performed geoengineering research. To render
current developments in CDR scheme research this thesis applies three case studies. Every case
study represents a potentially promising CDR scheme, together they represent the current state of
scientific research on Carbon Dioxide Removal projects. The CDR schemes are selected on behalf of
their potential, the three strategies with the highest potential are afforestation, ocean fertilization
and direct air capture. Potential in this study has been related to the number of records in the Webof-Science.
1.4 Risks
Research and experiments on geoengineering schemes contain risks, which the public and some
reputable scientists find unacceptable (Lawrence, 2006; The Royal Society, 2009). It is relatively easy
to imagine future scenarios in which certain nations begin to undertake large-scale geoengineering
efforts on their own. It does not take a substantial amount of effort to come up with a variety of
climate change mitigating geoengineering proposals (Lawrence, 2006). However, thoroughly
assessing the effectiveness, economic and technological requirements, and unforeseen
consequences, does take extensive knowledge and requires proper research. As a consequence,
geoengineering is always accompanied by questionable risks and unpredictable effectiveness,
feeding the controversy and stimulating debate about the desirability of research. This will be
compounded when current research is not supported or widely condemned (Lawrence, 2006).
The risks of conducting research regarding both methods of geoengineering are amplified by the fact
that unforeseen and side-effects are trans boundary (Schneider, 1996; Blackstock & Long, 2010).
Especially because there are indications that certain nations have the capability to unilaterally
develop and deploy these technologies (Ricke et al., 2008). For instance, Russia recently urged the
UN to include geoengineering in their Climate Report (2013), mainly because Russia is expected to
benefit more than other nations when artificially cooling the earth would be an option. Russia largely
depends on fossil fuels. Mitigating measures to reduce the negative impact of fossil fuels would
therefore be a positive development for Russia, which might move them to implement
geoengineering too easily and too swiftly, without giving due consideration to possible implications
for others. This is only one example of differing motivations to unilaterally develop and deploy
geoengineering schemes. Essentially, due to the trans boundary effects, geoengineering has the
potential to become highly problematic. Some technological interventions might be beneficial for a
certain country but inflict damage on others (Schneider, 1996; Bracmort et al, 2011; Shepherd,
2009). This has led to intensifying discussions on geoengineering among policy-makers and scientists
(Horton, 2011).
7
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
A major issue is the impact that private sector or individual countries could have by acting
unilaterally (Horton, 2011). The particular discussions about unilateralism and the trans-boundary
effects, led to close attention to governance issues and research efforts surrounding geoengineering.
Geoengineering is a powerful technology with a large scale impact, many different actors and parties
could benefit from geoengineering or to control bits of it, this is why it needs strong governance
when doing the research. Countries are however not likely to give up their governance to an
independent international institution, which is the dilemma or governance issue of geoengineering.
1.5 Research Question
Scientific interest in geoengineering has ascended in recent years (Belter & Seidel, 2013). Position
statements and reports on geoengineering have been issued by scientific societies (AGU, The Royal
Society, AMS), conferences and publications on geoengineering have proliferated, and some
scientists and individuals are advocating additional research, and in some cases implementation of
various proposals (Belter & Seidel, 2013).
In this context, including the large amount of controversy in geoengineering research, makes it
constructive to examine the current state of scientific research on geoengineering. Such an analysis
would be useful in order to inform policy discussion surrounding geoengineering experiments, to
suggest future research directions on this topic (Belter & Seidel, 2013), and to provide a baseline for
similar analyses designed to monitor future developments in this research.
In order to do so, this thesis examines the most tangible products of geoengineering research –
scientific publications – making use of bibliometric analysis that looks at three case studies (further
elaborated in section 2.1). The multidisciplinary nature of published items on geoengineering makes
it an ideal candidate for bibliometric analysis. The multidisciplinary nature makes geoengineering
research also involve multiple stakeholders, which compose geoengineering as post-normal science
(Funtowicz et al., 1993; Egede-Nissen, 2010; Bellamy et al., 2012). As a result, should geoengineering
research adopt a multi-stakeholders approach, extending to the participation of the international
community in research governance, including a diverse range of organizations and disciplines (EgedeNissen, 2010). Due to the wide set of stakeholders and disciplines involved, The Royal Society (2009)
recommended that geoengineering research should only be conducted under strong governance in
order to proceed openly, safely and responsibly. They formulated the Oxford Principles (further
elaborated in 2.4) as an ethical policy framework for geoengineering governance, intended to guide
development of geoengineering research from early research to the point where they may be for
eventual development (OxfordPrinciples, 2012), and serve as foundation for future policy-making.
Mainly, because there are still many policy implications and discussions about geoengineering,
8
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
geoengineering research governance is still undecided. The Oxford Principles do however serve as,
the most dominant and overall accepted, policy framework that serves as foundation for future
policy.
This makes it constructive to examine both the current state of geoengineering research and how
this reflects on the Oxford Principles. The bibliometric analysis includes three case studies. These
focus on the current state of scientific research in three different CDR schemes. Together the case
studies represent the knowledge base in geoengineering research, making use of a defined set of
publications. The current scientific state of geoengineering research, has not been highlighted in
recent studies and past discussions about the potential of geoengineering schemes, which therefore
might lead to an improved understanding of geoengineering research. Hence, this research will
concentrate on the developments in geoengineering research (2000-2013). Mainly, to generate the
possibility to reflect on the current state of geoengineering research and how these relate to the
Oxford Principles. In order to do so, I would like to address the main research question of this paper.
The main research question:
“How does the current state of geoengineering research incorporate the Oxford Principles and how
could they inform the governance issue?
The main research question is a comprehensive issue that can be divided into two sub parts. The first
is mapping the current (time-span 2000-2013) developments in geoengineering research, followed
by reflecting on how these relate to the policy framework. To analyze both parts of the main research
question, several analyses at a sub level via sub-questions were done. The sub questions are
formulated to address the main research question, using a specific set of questions that correspond
to each of the Oxford Principles. They are analyzed for the disciplines and actors addressed by the
implemented Mode 2 innovation approach. The sub questions apply to the three case studies, in
order to create a rather large understanding of the developments, trends, disciplines and actors
involved in geoengineering research. These sub questions are addressed in a later stage, because the
decided upon direction of geoengineering research first needs introduction. The same accounts for
the Oxford Principles and the theory of choice, together these make up the theoretical framework
that is used to diminish the comprehensive research question in five smaller sub questions.
1.6 Structure
The remains of this study are structured in the following order of sections: Oxford Principles,
Methodology, Results, Discussion and Conclusion. The research question covers the selected
technologies, the Oxford principles and the main research and sub questions. Subsequently, the
9
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
Methodology section explains the decision for the bibliometric study, how to conduct scientometric
analysis and the method the data is being gathered. Consequently followed by the Results section,
which elaborates the findings on four levels: Countries, Cities, Organizations and Disciplines. The
trends and collaboration patterns are also discussed, for every level analysed the emphasis is on
collaboration patterns following the trend of treating geoengineering as a public good. The
discussions section addresses the limitations of the research, and recommendation for further
research. Lastly, the Conclusions section addresses the research question and is structured by linking
the analysis findings to the guidelines of the Oxford Principles and the related research questions
10
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
2. Oxford Principles
The Royal Society (2009) states that the greatest challenges towards successful deployment of
geoengineering might be the social, ethical, legal and political issues associated with governance,
rather than scientific and technical issues. Scientists and climate activists are very much divided over
the wisdom, potential and practicality of geoengineering (Rayner et al., 2012, Victor et al., 2010;
Hulme, 2012; Blackstock et al., 2009; Bodansky, 2011). Despite the many discussions and
disagreements surrounding geoengineering, do scientists collectively agree that geoengineering
faces uncertainties with respect to potential costs, risks, feasibility and effectiveness of the schemes
and the unknown side-effects on regional, national or global basis (Blackstock et al., 2009; Crutzen,
2006; Walker & King, 2008). Resulting in the formerly stated fact that geoengineering is not
necessarily a positive development and has currently only shown to be an uncertain solution that
provokes some controversy (Bodansky, 2011; Corner & Pidgeon, 2010; Gardiner, 2011).
To lower controversy and uncertainty surrounding geoengineering research The Royal Society (2009)
advised that strong governance is crucial to proceed safely, openly and responsibly.
In order to reflect on geoengineering research and how these relate to the Oxford Principles, this
research looks at three case studies. That operationalize the knowledge base of geoengineering
research through a defined set of publications, which represent the developments, collaborations
and trends in geoengineering research. To execute this several scientometric analyses apply, which
address the case studies at four different levels, (1) Countries, (2) Cities, (3) Organizations and (4)
Disciplines. This section furthermore elaborates on three different case studies, the use of the Oxford
Principles and their relation to policy framework.
11
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
2.1 Case studies
The earth’s climate depends on two forces: (1) intensity of solar radiation that irradiates the earth,
this depends on the solar cycle and the Milankovitch cycles (effects of orbital movement)(Bennet,
1990), and (2) the amount of solar radiation trapped in the atmosphere (this is determined by the GH-G concentration) (Beer et al., 2000). Geoengineering consists of technologies/strategies that
artificially manipulate the amount of solar radiation and concentration of G-H-G; the technologies
are referred to as SRM and CDR schemes. In efforts to modify the earth’s climate, CDR schemes work
by either (1) removing large quantities of carbon from the atmosphere through photosynthesis or (2)
reducing the amount CO2 concentration by large scale carbon capture. Two factors are particularly
critical in determining the potential of CDR. First, the rate of CDR (flux) that can be achieved at a
given time and, secondly, the total storage capacity of removed CO2 (Lenton, 2010). Together with
the anthropogenic emissions flux and natural sinks flux, can be determined whether CO2 can be
stabilized, reduced or will continue rising at a given time (Lenton, 2010). Carbon Dioxide Removal
schemes seek to remove all G-H-G from the atmosphere and therewith tackle the root cause of
global warming, see figure 2.1.1. This is either directly done by removing G-H-G or alternatively
seeking to influence natural processes to remove G-H-G indirectly (Afforestation). The Carbon
Dioxide Removal techniques are split into two categories; land-based and ocean-based carbon
dioxide removal. This research works with a selection of three case studies; these have proven the
highest potential in relation to the amount of publications (WoS, 2013).
“Ocean fertilization” is an ocean-based CDR scheme based on the determined introduction of
nutrients to the upper layer of the ocean. “The oceans play a key role in the global carbon cycle and
climate regulation”(Chrisholm et al., 2001). Central to this function are phytoplankton, single-celled
photosynthetic organisms that combine carbon and organic nutrients to produce organic matter.
Phytoplankton is very small, accounting less than 1% of photosynthetic biomass, nevertheless it is
responsible for almost half of the carbon fixation on Earth (Chrisholm et al., 2013). The CO2
concentration gradient
maintained by this photosynthetic process removes CO2 from the
atmosphere by storing it in the ocean interior. Some entrepreneurs and scientist propose that if the
oceans were fertilized, this would increase the rate of carbon flux to the deep sea, and the
incremental carbon could be sold as credits in the developing global market place (Ney & Schoor,
2000). Ocean fertilization offers the prospect to reduce the concentration of G-H-G due to the
photosynthesis of phytoplankton. When implemented on a large scale, ocean fertilization would, by
design, change the ecology of oceans. The potential long-term consequences of this purposeful
strategy are uncertain and cause for great concern (Chrisholm et al., 2013). The idea is however
gaining momentum, a rather large amount of research has been conducted, while entrepreneur Russ
12
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
George already dumped 100 metric tons of iron dust into the Pacific. This was the first time iron
fertilization was implemented, Russ George did however do this on an illegal bases, stirring
controversy some more.
“Afforestation” is large scale forest management (afforestation) for the purpose of removing
atmospheric CO2 is a form of geoengineering. It appears, that temperate-zone northern-hemisphere
forests already capture around 10 to 20% of fossil fuel carbon (Keith, 1998). There however remains
uncertainty about the dynamics of carbon in forests ecosystem, this limits the ability to predict their
response to climatic change and increasing CO2. “It is uncertain whether such changes would
accelerate or reverse the sequestration of carbon in forests” (Keith, 1998). Capturing a considerable
amount of fossil fuel carbon would likely require intensive management of forests on a very large
scale. This makes afforestation and land-use management perhaps the cheapest options when
measured in dollars, but what they provide in safety measures they most likely lack in efficiency
(Chalecki & Ferrari, 2012). Both refer to establishment of trees on non-treed land (IPCC, 2013). The
IPCC guidelines define afforestation as ‘planting of new forests on lands which, historically, have not
contained forests’ (IPCC, 2013). The main purpose for implementing afforestation are on behalf of
geoengineering use, which usually involves planting and harvesting fast-growing trees as large
agricultural crops, known as plantation forests.
“Direct air capture” is a form of geoengineering because it directly modifies the biosphere as well as
it would be implemented with the aim of counterbalancing other human actions (Keith, 2006). Its
availability, along with other geoengineering proposals, might reduce our vulnerability to some highconsequence of low probability events. Direct air capture methodologies captures waste CO2 from
large point sources, industries with major CO2 emissions, transports it to a storage site and deposit in
such a manner that it will not re-enter the atmosphere (Keith et al., 2006; Ranjan & Herzog, 2011).
Usually an underground location is used as depleted oil reservoirs and deep ocean (Herzog, 2001).
Aim is to prevent release of large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. Power plants emit more
than 1/3 of CO2 emissions; this makes them a prime candidate for carbon capture, even though the
concentration of CO2 in emissions is low; 3-5% for gas and 13-15% for coal (Ranjan & Herzog, 2011).
In combination with the relatively little costs makes this direct air capture one of the important
candidates of CDR schemes. Keith (2006) has analysed direct air capture and some other
geoengineering schemes in an optimal sequential decision framework. In which he concluded that
the consequence and one of the risks of geoengineering schemes is the decrease in the need for
precautionary short-term abatement. Because air capture and other geoengineering schemes may
provide some insurance against climate damages, it presents a large risk for public policy: “the mere
13
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
expectation that air capture or similar technologies can be achieved reduces the incentive to invest in
mitigation” (Keith, 2006). Plus, while direct air capture removes irreversibility in carbon dioxide
concentration increases, it does not protect against irreversibility’s in the climate system’s response
to forcing (Keith, 2006).
2.2 Why encourage this?
The main reason to encourage CDR schemes stands that no fundamentally new issues in regulation
procedures and governance need introduction. In contrast to SRM schemes are there less
unforeseen consequences, possible side effects and political risks, which is considered a great
advantage over SRM schemes in research negotiation (Rayner et al., 2012). Additionally, remains
there also no comparable technical lock-in with CDR technologies, CDR machines could be more
easily switched off, whereas injection of Sulphate Aerosols without complementary mitigation
presents what has been called the termination effect (Shepherd et al., 2009). A discontinuation of
the program would result in a rapid rise of global temperature, which could very well lead to more
severe consequences than a gradual rise of the same magnitude. Nevertheless, also complications
from possible CDR scheme deployment are far from fully explored yet, and may less likely but
possibly create catastrophic and irreversible outcomes (Bracmort et al., 2011). There have been
some small studies and few computer-assisted simulations, which have delivered some news of likely
consequences, but remain not entirely reliable. Hence, prior to actual deployment, CDR schemes
could do with further research and experiments, which should be run on a limited scale to
apprehend all possible situations and effects (Barret, 2008). The state of geoengineering science and
CDR strategies largely absences certainty on technical and political side. A critical issue in
geoengineering is the concern of global environmental governance. Geoengineering technologies are
to be experimented with; therefore they have to be deployed at larger scales, but there remains
ambiguity in governance mechanisms as participation, legitimacy, transparence and liability (Barret,
2008). This is a leading topic in academic debate surrounding geoengineering measures (Blackstock
& Long, 2010; Barret, 2008).
In an effort to establish governance for geoengineering research, a group of scientists provided a set
of principles to regulate geoengineering research. These are known as the Oxford Principles of
Geoengineering Governance, and form the basis of geoengineering research governance. These are
not the only set of suggested principles, but they have by far been most influential. The principles
were proposed by a highly respected group of scholars, to provide a flexible architecture, operating
at different levels that involved formal and informal mechanisms, depending on the stages of
research and issues raised by the technology (Rayner et al., 2012). The authors explained that they
were intended to be interpreted and implemented in different ways, appropriate to the technology
14
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
of consideration and the stage of its development (Hulme, 2012). The principles stipulate that any
decisions with respect to deployment are only to be taken with robust governance structures in place
in order to ensure social legitimacy (Oxford geoengineering programme, 2013).
2.3 The Oxford Principles
Principle 1: Geoengineering is to be regulated as a public good: Regulation of the techniques should
be undertaken in the public interest by the appropriate bodies at state and international levels. The
effects of geoengineering are almost incalculable and regulation should therefore be done as a public
good. While the involvement of the private sector in the delivery of a geoengineering technique
should not be prohibited, it is too much a risk for only the private sector, due to the possible
immense amount of power and control.
Principle
2: Public
participation
in
geoengineering
decision-making:
When
conducting
geoengineering research it is required to notify, consult and ideally obtain the prior informed consent
at any level to those affected by research activities. The identity of affected parties differs per
technology; carbon capture can be at a regional or national level, while changing the albedo of the
planet by injecting aerosols requires a global agreement.
Principle 3: Disclosure of geoengineering research and open publication of results: There should be
complete disclosure of research plans and open publication of results in order to facilitate better
understanding of the risks and to reassure the public as the integrity of the process. It is essential
that the results of all research, including negative results, be made publicly available.
Principle 4: Independent assessment of impacts: An assessment of the impacts of geoengineering
research by a body independent of those undertaking the research; where techniques are likely to
have transboundary impact, such assessment should be carried out through the appropriate regional
and/or international bodies. Assessments should address both the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of research, including mitigating the risks of lock-in to particular technologies or
vested interests.
Principle 5: Governance before deployment: Decisions with respect to deployment should be taken
with strong governance structures already in place, using the existing rules and institutions.
“The Oxford Principles highlight the fact that the question of social control over geoengineering will
be key, and signal core societal values that must be respected if geoengineering research and any
possible deployment is to be legitimate” (Rayner et al., 2012). They as well emphasize the need for
several stakeholders to start the process of ensuring that scientists, politicians and officials involved
in the development can be called into account. These considerations indicate that the issue of social
15
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
control over the different schemes is absolutely vital in deciding whether to advance with
geoengineering research. In the same order of magnitude stands the public trust of the managing
institutions, in their technical competence and integrity (Poortinga & Pidgeon, 2003).
2.4 Theory
In this thesis I judge geoengineering as a post-normal science, which involves multiple stakeholders,
uncertainties and attached risks. Post-normal science shares a number of characteristics with Mode
2 knowledge production, it does however place slightly different accents (Hessels & van Lente, 2008).
Outstanding common features of both approaches are the increased interaction across disciplinary
and organizational boundaries, creating a greater reflexivity and quality criteria (Hessels & van Lente,
2008). Nevertheless, there is an apparent difference in scope between both. Post-normal science is
evidently only relevant for policy-supporting research, it does not include any University-Industry
interaction. In this research are both policy supporting research and University-Industry interaction
interesting, due to the widely embracing effects of geoengineering schemes. Analyzing
geoengineering research requires a multi-stakeholders approach at the international community, to
include Policy, University and Industry. In order to do so this research applies the Mode 2 approach,
due to its shared characteristics with post-normal science and its framework appears to correspond
to several aspects of the Oxford Principles. A combination of the disciplines addressed in Mode 2
and the actors and institutions involved in the Oxford Principles structure the framework for the
analyses in this thesis.
Gibbons et al., (1994) introduced mode 2 as a new mode of production of scientific knowledge;
context driven, problem focused and interdisciplinary. The context driven approach means that
research is carried out in a context of application, arising from the work of problem solving and is not
governed the paradigms of traditional disciplines of knowledge (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000). It
includes different stakeholders and rests like a hyper-network on the networks on which it builds;
these include disciplines, industries (organizations) and national organizations (Etzkowitz &
Leydesdorff, 2000). In this thesis these disciplines are relevant to create insight of the current state of
geoengineering research, to reflect how this incorporates the Oxford Principles.
Mode 2 is a claim about the changes in the research system (Hessels & van Lente, 2008), caused by a
transformation in the nature of the research process (Gibbons et al., 1994). This transformation
made a demand for management of knowledge infrastructure necessary (Smits, 2002). It started
with the increasing trend of Universities being expected to account for themselves (Nowotny et al.,
2003). Scientists furthermore gradually lost exclusive rights to act as the sole producer of scientific
and technological knowledge (Smits, 2002). This is mostly because of the emergence of knowledge16
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
intensive services (Private actors, Engineering firms, Software houses) which similarly to CDR
schemes, play an important role in this respect. Smits (2002) research indicated that these services
play a crucial role in innovation processes and manifestation of new technologies, both in the
industry and service sector. This is known as the new production of knowledge and has been first
referred to by Gibbons et al., (1994); the transition from Mode 1 to Mode 2 science. The Mode 2
characteristics identify many actors and disciplines that also play a major role in establishing
geoengineering governance. This makes mode 2 applicable as framework to research geoengineering
and its incorporation of the Oxford Principles.
Geoengineering stands for a comprehensive set of technologies that involves multiple actors and
new technologies with unforeseen effects (Nowotny et al., 2003). It comprises a wide variety of
actors, multiple stakeholders and many attached risks. The Oxford Principles addressed before, were
proposed to serve as indicative guidelines when conducting geoengineering research. The Mode 2
approach applies to reflect on geoengineering governance. The Oxford Principles have created a
foundation for geoengineering governance and act correspondingly towards the disciplines
considered in Mode 2. Furthermore, does Mode 2 effectively research governance structure with the
use of its heterogeneous, trans disciplinary application-oriented method of studying innovation. The
Oxford Principles state geoengineering research as having a global impacts. Hence, lies the emphasis
of this thesis not primarily on the scientific community; Mode 2 excels less accountability to the
science community and is more directed towards accountability to society (Nowotny et al., 2003).
This accounts to measure the quality of research by a wider set of criteria than only academic quality
control (Nowotny et al., 2003). The defined criteria are the disciplines, actors and concerns involved
in the five proposed Oxford Principles. The principles stand for research structure and provide
guidance for the criteria in the Mode 2 framework.
2.5 Theoretical framework (sub research questions)
The UK Government (2010) endorsed the Oxford Principles at the Asimolar Conference on Climate
Intervention Technologies, and the conference report presented five recommendations to conduct
further geoengineering research (Rayner et al., 2012). The recommendations were particularly
drawn from the issues identified in the Oxford Principles (ASOC, 2010:8).
To break down the comprehensive research question this thesis applies five different sub questions
that relate to the Oxford Principles and the recommendations at the Asimolar conference.
Throughout the research the sub research questions apply a thorough analysis at the four different
levels/disciplines, to provide insight of the incorporation of each singular Oxford Principle. Together
the five sub questions provide the possibility to reflect on geoengineering research and answer the
17
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
main research question.
The five sub research questions:
(1)Which countries (and cities) are currently involved in conducting research on the CDR
schemes?
Important aspect of this question is to investigate whether CDR scheme research accommodates
patterns of international collaborations or exhibits more like unilateralism. This is important in
understanding; who would bear the costs of unforeseen consequences and side-effects of the CDR
schemes. This stands to clarify responsibilities and liability mechanisms when CDR schemes are
deployed. The private sector could very well be involved, it should at least not be prohibited, since it
may assist in a more speedily deployment of the schemes. Regulation of the CDR schemes should
however be undertaken in the public interest, by the appropriated bodies at state or international
level. This makes it important to identify who the public is and their interest. To understand this, a
wide variety of actors should be involved in this research. As a result, I aim to map the research
performance on the CDR schemes and to identify which countries are developing (publishing) CDR
scheme research. To indicate the collaborative activities between countries (developed-developed,
developed-developing) and whether this is based on geographical proximity.
(2)To which extent does research and investigation on CDR schemes involve developing
countries?
This sub question is related to Oxford Principle II, public participation in geoengineering decisionmaking is necessary. Therefore, those countries or organizations conducting research should notify,
consult and ideally obtain those affected by the research activities. The identity of affected parties is
not always to predict and depends also on the specific schemes that are being deployed or
researched. Fact remains that developing countries are those most prone and vulnerable to climatic
effects (Blackstock & Long, 2010). Mostly because developing countries have been universal in their
refusal to make credible commitments to reduce growth in G-H-G emissions (Aldy et al, 2001). They
put a higher priority on economic growth and there often is little administrative ability to control
emissions of any sector in economy (Victor, 2008). They by now account for almost half of total CO2
production and their share remains rapidly rising (Aldy et al, 2001). This could make developing
countries most affected by CDR schemes; this effect could be both beneficial and harmful. To study
the development utilizing specific research patterns or publication growth within developing
countries permits the possibility to determine whether developed countries should advance in a
guiding role towards developing countries. To make sure every country possibly affected by CDR
18
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
schemes has equal prospects and access in decision-making. I expect a leading role for developed
countries because they are scientifically further advanced and are expected to have more money to
invest in research and experiments regarding CDR schemes.
(3)Which types of organizations are currently conducting research on the CDR schemes?
To create global geoengineering research governance should there be complete disclosure of
research plans, conducted research and open publication of results.
To facilitate a better
understanding concerning the risks involved and assure the public’s integrity in the process. To make
all research publicly available, essentially all organizations involved have to be identified.
Identification of organizations is as well necessary because in practice there remains identification of
competition between scientist and organizations (Gewin, 2010). Therefore remains the question
mentioned by Victor (2008) whether geoengineering activities are pursued as public good, or plans
the private sector for own use and advantage; this is called the greenfinger scenario (Bodansky,
2012). In case of geoengineering it’s of main importance to prevent countries and especially the
private sector from unilaterally developing geoengineering research. Therefore, I think it is vital to
identify the organizations involved in geoengineering research, their collaborative activities and to
identify challenges by the private sector.
(4) What disciplines are involved in research on the CDR schemes?
This sub question is related to Oxford Principle IV, the assessment of the impacts of geoengineering
research should be conducted by an independent body. CDR schemes are likely to have trans
boundary effect, than it should be carried out through the appropriate regional or international
bodies. This is meant to understand the impacts of CDR schemes, both the environmental and socioeconomic impacts. In response to the Oxford Principles did ASOC recommend that when CDR
schemes are large scale, surrounding assessments need to incorporate all aspects, including
scientific, environmental and socio-economic (ASOC, 2010). In order to ensure this full range
assessment has research on CDR schemes to involve lots of disciplines. Identifying these disciplines,
which conduct research on CDR schemes, provides conclusions about the aspects and impacts of the
research. This could help assess whether there remain knowledge gaps around the scheme. In order
to understand till which extent research in CDR schemes has extended, explicated by the scientific
publication originating from different disciplines. I aim to map the involved disciplines on CDR
schemes and to sort them on the amount of publications per discipline, also the collaborative
activities between various disciplines are interesting to identify and are to be mapped.
(5)Which countries conduct the most research on the CDR scheme?
19
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
The last sub question is related to the last Principle (V). Governance before deployment, any
decisions with respect to deployment should only be considered with strong governance structures
in place. In case of geoengineering it’s difficult to provide a governance framework as research
expands beyond national boundaries. ASOC (2010) therefore addressed that new governance is
needed to address international problems of the cross-boundary impacts of the CDR schemes. This
might be a country identified that absolutely dominates geoengineering research, as the United
States often does, than other countries could indirectly relate to these governance structures. Ricke
et al., (2008) did however argue that countries are not likely to give up their geoengineering
decision-making to an international institution. Their argument was mostly based on the situation
within the United States, as it is hard to make 50 states collectively agree, about any topic in
particularly to international bodies (Ricke et al., 2008). Nevertheless, still provides this the possibility
to establish an international scientific body rather than giving up geoengineering decisions to an
international established institution. Bottom line remains that research governance could very well
depend on the presence of a country with a strong research capacity. Therefore, identifying the most
dominant and strongest countries, based on geoengineering publications, assists in drawing
scenarios of international geoengineering governance. I therefore aim to identify the most dominant
country participating in geoengineering research to relate their governance structure to the Oxford
Principles.
2.6 Collaboration
In addition to the theoretical framework, is research collaboration an important aspect in this thesis.
Scientific collaboration has become a major issue in science policy. This makes it interesting to reveal
the structure and change in collaborative behavior. Collaboration can best be seen as an intense form
of interactions that allows for effective communication as well for sharing competence and other
resources (Melin & Persson, 1996). When using co-authorship to measure collaboration I imply the
risk of neglecting some collaboration, as well as being insecure about the actual reasons behind coauthorship (Melin & Persson, 1996). It should therefore only be seen as a rough indicator of
collaboration between scientists, countries and organizations. Consequently I have to accept a
certain level of uncertainty, and hope that almost every collaboration leads to co-authored papers at
least in most cases. Melin and Persson (1996) analyzed that only 5 % of collaboration does not lead
into co-authorship, which supports co-authorship as a rather valid indicator. Co-authorship might
only be a partial indicator of collaboration according to Katz & Martin (1997), however in later
studies the use of co-authorship became more scientifically accepted and prominent in scientometric
studies (Wagner & Leydesdorff, 2005). Analyzing for collaboration is essential in this thesis as
geoengineering is studied as a public good, which indicates collaboration between scientists,
20
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
politicians, countries and organizations. Co-authorship stands therefore a useful indicator in the
aspiration to follow the first Oxford Principle and to understand trends in CDR scheme development.
2.7 Similar studies
This thesis applies bibliometrics as it has shown to be particularly useful for studying interdisciplinary
research. It provides a rich overview of the sub-domains contributing to an emergent field by
constructing relatedness groupings displayed in two-dimensional maps and/or graphs (Weber, 2012).
Sub-domains that are strongly present or related to one another display a tight proximity, while the
weak relations are emphasized with greater relative distance. Such geographical overviews, exploring
the mapping of fields becomes a matter of inference from related clusters of concepts, organizations,
authors and disciplines. This creates a rather complete overview of the current state of research.
Geoengineering involves a wide set of actors and disciplines, which makes geoengineering
particularly well suited for analyzing the topics by means of biblimetric analysis. Geoengineering
contains large bodies of research literature and spanning different scientific disciplines, this makes
geoengineering difficult to review by traditional means. However, almost none of such attempts to
gather systemic data on global scientific production on geoengineering have been made. Despite the
high growth rate of publications about geoengineering and climate change.
There have been two exceptions on this rule as Stanhill (2001) conducted a scientometric study and
Li et al., (2011) performed an analysis of scientometric nature to the relevance of climatic change.
Climatic change was used as main issue in both these analysis. In this study serves climatic change as
the incubator for the development of geoengineering. The keywords used in the scientometric
studies are therefore diverse and have likely reached scientific articles without any validation
towards the study of CDR schemes. CDR schemes differ from climatic change, in that it tries to
artificially control and restore the earth and its climate. Climate change is a worldwide problem due
to the abundance of greenhouse gases, and receives many different approaches to prevail climate
change; as a result of this keyword does it for example also reach studies of sustainable alternatives
and their mitigation approaches. These are not of concern in this bibliometric study of geoengineering. The similarity in structure make the scientometric analyses on climate change in the
progress have stumbled on records relevant to the scientometric analysis in this study. This provides
the option to learn from these studies and use their knowledge to form expectations or
hypothesizes.
The study of Li et al., (2011) made use of the timeframe 1992-2009 and found a total of 2000
publications. They concluded that environmental sciences and environment were increasingly
becoming the top subjects for papers with climate change topics. This proved the relationship
21
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
between climate change and environmental problems, as geoengineering too establishes. In addition
they concluded that the USA reported as the top country in publication of climate change, both
unilaterally and in combination with international scholars. The close relation between climate
change and geoengineering leads to the expectation that the USA could also very well dominate the
research articles about the selected CDR schemes. In relation to the last sub question of this thesis,
might the domination of USA indirectly lead to other countries relating to the governance structures
applied in the USA.
Stanhill (2001) researched the history and the sudden increase in the number of abstracts of the
scientific literature dealing with both the causes and effects of climate change. The bibliometric
analyses contained 7000 abstracts and are doubling every 11 years. The annual rate of publications
per author is 1.75 and respectively 2.5 authors work together per publication. Stanhill (2001) also
states that climate change research is carried out by the advanced economies; developing countries
have a rather small role. This leads to two expectations relevant to this thesis. First do I on the hand
of Stanhill’s (2001) study expect that the major part of research is carried out by developed
countries, and I think they advance in a leading role concerning CDR scheme research and
deployment. Secondly, I might find much collaboration between authors of different countries, which
comes down to a more collaborative character of research than unilateral behavior.
22
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
3. Methodology
This section discusses the methodology used for answering the main research question and sub
questions. The steps elaborated in this section account for the three selected case studies and the
five sub research questions. First I will discuss the demarcation of the research, followed by the units
used in this analysis, thirdly I present the data collection procedure, followed by the section at which
I explain the four different levels of output for this analysis. And finally, the justification and
techniques to conduct scientometrics on the data after the bibliometric analysis have taken place.
3.1 Demarcation
The first step in evaluating the CDR schemes applying scientometrics and a bibliometric data set is
delineating the search of study. In this research this is the period 2000-2013. Two small searches in
the Web-of-Science indicated that the level of publications before the year 2000 was incredibly low,
and in case of citation there were not any (Web-of-Science, 2013), see figure 2. This makes the
period 2000-2013 a valid time-frame (when comparing to the amount of publications) in which
period the discussion and interest towards geoengineering has rapidly emerged. The development of
different technologies has greatly improved in this timeframe and also changed in materials of use.
Figure 3.1.1, Overview published items geoengineering
The appropriate data set is of essential importance in performing scientometric analyses.
Geoengineering is a concept of a wide-ranging amount of different technologies. Hence, before
executing data conduction it’s essential to first conduct a thorough literature study to understand the
central notion in the selected CDR schemes. The data for the scientometric analysis are obtained in
the search engine of web-of-knowledge, however to obtain only the valid and useful scientific
records remains a very detailed and difficult process. Especially in case of geoengineering are there
difficulties in summarizing the proper technologies involved and including the relevant research in a
set of key-words to obtain these. The literature study provides an overview of the technologies
23
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
involved and creates a general idea about the CDR schemes and the key publications that essentially
have to be included in the data set.
The method I have applied in this thesis is the following: there are two key publications considered in
geoengineering governance, The Royal Society (2009) and the Bracmort report (2011). The articles
that the key publications mention for their scheme assessments are to be included in the data
collected. In any case these publications need to include in the data, when they are not, the search
needs to be broader. In correspondence to the literature study provide the key publications the
information necessary to propose a set of keywords that exclude the non-relevant and acquire the
relevant articles regarding the CDR schemes. Checking the data is always one of the main issues in
conducting scientometrics. To analyse the relevant data set this thesis utilizes the Oxford Principles
and the Mode 2 innovation theory, which shape the basis of the main research question and sub
questions.
3.2 Performance Indicator
A measurable indicator is required to signify the performance of each actor on conducting the CDR
scheme research. This is of significant importance to purposely rank the actors, based on their
performance. This paper uses scientometrics and makes use of a large number of publications as
such an indicator. I use four different levels in this research, and for each level a computer assisted
analysis is run to extract information about the number of scientific publications from each
organization, city, and country or for each discipline. The same procedure is executed for the
number of publications co-authored by different organizations, cities, countries and multiple
disciplines. Later on, further analysis applies to measure the amount scientific articles published
without involving other disciplines, co-authorship or any form of collaborations. This could deliver
insights on the trends of collaboration and multidisciplinary on conducting CDR scheme research.
A difficulty in conducting scientometrics is the sole focus on the quantity of publications, which one
might argue as insufficient research. One possibility to solve this problem is to also measure how
often an article is being cited, this creates the possibility of taking into account the impact of a paper.
For the sake of this research this remains however irrelevant, as I aim to identify emerging
disciplines, prominent organizations, cities and countries. In order to assist in improving structure to
facilitate research and deployment. It is therefore that I assume all scientific publications share equal
weight, which might eventually lead to create some bias in understanding the research performance
of actors.
3.3 Data Collection
The Scientific Thomson's Web-of-Science (WoS) is elected as the data source for this thesis. The
24
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
database contains three different indexes: the Science Citation Index, The Social Sciences Citation
Index, and the Arts & Humanities Citation index. For the object of this current thesis, I only make use
of the first two citation databases. This is mainly because I believe that the first two are more closely
related to the subject of study, geoengineering originates from Science and the controversies aligned
with the subject resulted in interest towards the Social Sciences. The input from the Arts &
Humanities is expected to be rather low and therefore not subjected in this analysis.
As already established in the demarcation of the research is the search parameter determined on
time span 2000-2013. It is expected that within the first five to six years less information about CDR
schemes is published than in the second period, the small amount could however be helpful in
determining changes and trends. After having established the time span of study the most crucial
part of research is to be determined; defining the keywords used to extract the proper amount of
data. Difficulty in extracting the data set for further analysis is including every key sample related to
the study and excluding samples unrelated to study. When extracting the data from citation indexes
available at the Web-of-Science keywords determine two things: the completeness of the search
results, the minimization of excluded samples that are related to the study, and, secondly, the quality
of the amount of search results. Because the vital importance of keyword selection, I have conducted
a rather broad literature study for all three CDR schemes and contacted experts on this opinion
about my findings. To make sure that the selected set of keywords includes all related samples and
hardly excludes any. In the end the key publications were included in the three data samples, this has
however taken a rather long period of time doing ground research. The following sets of key words
have been entered in the citation index for the three CDR schemes:

("Carbon capt*" OR "CO2 capt*" OR "Carbon dioxide capt*" OR "Point sources" OR "direct
air capt*") AND Topic=("Climat*") = hits 897

("afforestation" OR "reforestation CO*" OR "forest*carbon" OR "terrestrial carbon storage"
OR "land use management") AND Topic=(climat*) = hits 821

("Ocean* carbon*" OR "marine carbon storage" OR "Ocean Iron*" OR "Ocean Fertiliz*" OR
"Ocean Ure*" OR "phytoplankton geo*" OR "ocean nourish*" OR "Iron fertiliz*") = hits 1397
(Timespan=2000-2013. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH)
The asterisks are used to enable the possibility on word variants.
For interpreting the bibliographic data used for this current thesis, it should be acknowledged that
the Web-of-Science faces limitations to this indicator as a top-down classification approach (Wagner
et al., 2011). Nevertheless, for the purposes of this study it is valuable to explore, in view of the fact
that the method is often-used and broadly accepted (Daim et al., 2006). In addition should be
25
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
noticed that the ISI Web-of-Science does not include many developing country journals, especially
the ones in local languages. This could limit the visibility of authors from developing countries.
Furthermore it should be pointed out that Web-of-Science also includes biases in regard to natural
science and engineering and towards English language publications. Wagner et al., (2011) identified
in their study that Science Citation Index material is for 50% accounted by just three countries: the
United States (34%), England (19%) and the Netherlands (8%), clearly reflecting the documented
English bias. This would suggest that developed countries (English speaking) have more scientific
publications in the SCIE and makes developing countries less visible in this research. In Wagner et al.,
(2011) study the amount of unseen science was researched, and concluded in retrospect to
expectations and former studies that most high quality science produced by BRIC’s (taken as
developing countries) is included in SCIE. A significant number of articles are published in English and
all of the venues are abstracted in English. The SCIE includes non-English articles which have made
use of an English abstract (Wagner et al., 2011). As this master thesis sees no relevance in the impact
of individual papers and shares equal weight towards all articles, I confidently expect no biases as
consequence of English publications. In addition to these arguments is English adopted as the
international language of Science, which means that in order to ensure quality and impact of
publication, it’s vital to write the published article in English. In conclusions, although there are some
remarks, remains the database a quite authoritative one for scientometric analyses, which has been
used for a long time as standard for scientometric analyses.
3.4 Output
This research on forehand aims to conduct scientometrics on four levels: (1) Countries, (2) Cities, (3)
Organizations and (4) Disciplines. This does however not mean a strict script. It might very well be
possible that analyses on the Topics, Keywords and for instance collaborative character are of great
value for this study. I therefore would like to address no strict boundaries and leave the part of
scientometrics rather open.
Furthermore an outline is provided of the amount of publications within the time span per CDR
scheme. Followed, by a geographic rendition of the authoring cities and countries. This also provides
an overview of the difference in performance between developed and developing countries, and
indicates the possible dominance of one country, as expectation of the last sub question. If the
visualization shows a certain dominance of one country, could other countries indirectly relate to
these governance structures. On the organization level further analysis is conducted, in line with sub
question 3, on the identified organizations. Inspired by the paper of Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff (2000)
on mode 2 and the triple helix the organizations are grouped within three types of organizations;
University, Business and Government in order to understand the revolution of science and which of
26
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
them has the largest role in publishing the most research. On the discipline level, are the identified
disciplines categorized into a certain amount of clusters, to understand how far the interest in CDR
schemes has extended in scientific publications from these different disciplines.
3.5 Justification
This paper applies the use of scientometrics for its methodology, this accounts a method to measure
and analyze scientific production using records generated from citation databases. The use of citation
indexes has been demonstrated as far back as 1743 and publication counts have also been located in
legal writings since at least 1817 (Hood & Wilson, 2001). Furthermore it has been proven that
scientometrics with the use of bibliometric methods is a solid way of performing research. For the
time span of 2000-2013 I will conduct three searches for the three CDR schemes, the amount of
publications found in WoS are than further processed with the use of scientometric tools. This can be
executed with database management and a spreadsheet program. The only step before processing
with these programs is cleaning the data set. Cleaning in the form of checking for duplications and
detecting and correcting inaccurate records.
27
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
4. Results
4.1 Direct air capture
The established dataset from the bibliometric search in web-of-science contains of 897 published
items. The h-index1 is 52, the average citations per item is 12.87 which is around average and the
sum of items cited without self-citation is 11432. First thing that stands out from the raw data is the
relative increase in published records and citations since the year 2008. The Royal Society report was
published in 2009, which might have worked as a catalyst for CDR scheme research, when looked at
figure 4.1.1 this could be pointed out as plausible effect. The graph shows an increase from the year
2008 off, only the year 2010 forming an exception on this rule. The amount of citations on the
contrary demonstrates a steady increase of about 500 citations per year. Both figures indicate a
growing interest and research in the CDR technology direct air capture.
Figure 4.1.1, published items and citations on direct air capture
The first sub research question addresses the importance of understanding which countries (cities)
are most actively involved in current CDR scheme research. This is an interesting aspect in identifying
the knowledge hubs, that experience both more know-how on the technologies and the
accommodating governance structures. It remains also a worthy analysis to discover whether actual
geoengineering research and deployment accommodate patterns of international behavior or exhibit
more like unilateralism (Low et al., 2013).
In total 57 countries have published on direct air capture in the time span 2000-2013. The USA
clearly remains the leader in direct air capture research with an established amount of 294
publications. In total there were 897 publications found which makes the USA responsible for almost
1
H-index: Hirsch-index attempts to measure both the productivity and impact of a paper. The higher the
h-index the more impact these papers and authors have had. The index is based on the set of the
scientist’s most cited papers and the number of citations that they have received in other publications.
The h-index was developed by J.E. Hirsch and published in Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America 102 (46): 16569-16572 November 15 2005
28
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
1/3 of them. Figure 4.1.2, indicates the absolute dominance of the USA in this scheme, the figure
however includes both collaborations and unilateral articles. For this reason might the results be a
little tainted, of the 897 published items, might one publication due to collaborations be assigned to
multiple countries depending on co-authorship. In a later stage of the analysis the data is cleaned for
co-authorship, to question whether this could change the momentum of the relationship. In the first
overview of the raw data is the USA only followed by the United Kingdom, say it on a respectable
distance, the other 8 publishing countries in the top 10 have together only published just as much as
the USA singularly. This makes the USA both the most developed and knowledgeable one in direct-air
capture research, but also the one most responsible and most likely to bearing the costs when sideeffects occur during deployment.
Figure 4.1.2, Article count per country
Figure 4.1.2, provides an overview of the published data over the last 13 years. The figure displays
that the USA is largely involved in direct air capture research and stands out as largest hub. The
figure however provides no indication or whatsoever about the developments within the last
thirteen years, as this is the total sum and no annual overviews are provided. Trends in direct air
capture research are easier to perceive when looked at developments on annual basis, fluctuations,
sudden increases or small depressions could explain much about the progress of the CDR scheme. An
overview of the publication growth on annual basis is provided in figure 4.1.3. Articles published in
2013 were excluded from both phases to focus the analysis on full calendar years, this accounts for
all three case studies.
Examining the development in direct air capture research annually shows no different hype visible
than in earlier results. Publications have increased since the year 2008 or during 2009, and every
29
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
singular country faces a small decrease within the period around the year 2010. The increasing
publications indicate the growing awareness and potential of the CDR scheme. No lack of
technological performance or ethical barriers to conduct further research are apparently present,
otherwise this would have shown by a stagnating production or decrease in publications or very little
publications over all. The small depression in the year 2010 indicates there might have been some
issue in potential, ethical respects or research structure. The growth in publications afterwards does
however signify that these issues have been solved and are of no further issue anymore. One thing
that clearly stands out from the analysis; the growth rate of CDR publications and development is
largely dependent on the prolific countries. Especially the United States and in a lesser state the
United kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands and Canada. Developing countries are not apparent
anywhere close to the top ten and do not seem to play any role of interest. The BRICS2 countries on
the contrary have provided some input of which especially China, India and Brazil show some
growing potential. The BRICS account for more than a quarter of the world’s land area and around
45% of the world’s population, they however account for only a quarter of world gross national
income. They are at a stage between developing and prolific countries and therefore very interesting
in this study, they show the potential of upcoming countries and might challenge the prolific ones in
time.
Figure 4.1.3, Publication growth per country per year
The last aspect of the first sub research question is cleaning the data for co-authorship. The first
research question essentially focuses on understanding which countries are dominant in publishing
CDR scheme research. An overview of the articles published per country evidently shows their
contribution to the science of direct air capture. Although the first figures indicated the large
2
BRICS is grouping acronym that refers to the countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, which
are all deemed to be at a similar stage of newly advanced economic development.
30
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
contribution of the United States, it remains impossible to point out a country’s capacity to deploy
direct air capture unilaterally. The United States geoengineering research and deployment clearly
accommodate patterns of international behavior and in much lesser state like unilateralism. This
makes the United States less dominant and relatively dependent on other countries, institutions and
authors. In addition to the United States establish the prolific countries together a great amount of
publications, these are however for a large part co-authored. This questions the possibility whether
such a prolific country might have the capabilities to act unilaterally. Cleaning the data for coauthorship might very well show more impact of one country than other ones and change the top 10
publishing countries.
Table 4.1.1 co-authorship between countries
The United States establishes a position in which it is involved in every collaboration within the top
ten research collaborations on direct air capture. A notable observation from the plain data therefore
is the dominance of the USA. It is only from collaboration 11 with over 4 co-authoring papers that
the United States is not involved, that honor is reserved for Malaysia-England, Malaysia-India and
Italy-Switzerland. Interesting aspect of these results is the amount of collaborations in which the USA
is involved, in total 2/3 of their published items result from collaborations. Thus, the USA both
demonstrates dominance in the top 10 publications, but also indicates that the knowledge base is
not solely originating from the USA. Their publications and knowledge are a combination of a strong
research hub in the USA and collaborations with authors, organizations and research institutes from
other countries. The top 10 co-authorships does not indicate to have further remarkable differences.
Pointedly differences are the high notation of Australia and Spain and the absence of the
Netherlands, with only 6 international collaborations of 70 articles (8.57%). In total 240
31
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
collaborations were found which accounts for almost 27% of the total published records. The
relatively large amount of international collaborations designates that countries overall do not
exhibit like unilateralism but much more accommodate in patterns of international behavior. Most
of the collaboration are contained with the USA, this points to the fact that collaborations are only
slightly influenced by geographical proximity, it does not seem to be a decisive factor in forming coauthorship.
THE SECOND SUB RESEARCH QUESTION focuses on the influence of both developed and developing
countries. Essentially to understand whether there is a difference in involvement. Mainly because
the oxford principles claim that it is essential to notify and consult the affected parties by CDR
schemes deployment. This research expects a leading role for the developed countries because they
are technically and scientifically more advanced and have more money to invest in research and
experiments.
Developing countries have been universal in their refusal to make credible commitments to reduce
growth in their G-H-G emissions. Mostly because they put a higher priority on economic growth and
secondly there is often little administrative ability to control emissions of many sectors in the
economy (Victor, 2008). They by now account for almost half the CO2 production and their share
remains rapidly rising.
Figure 4.1.4, displays the geographical distribution of direct air capture research. It shows a very
large contribution of prolific countries, while the input of the developing countries remains rather
marginal. Several observations could be made when studying the figure. The distribution of
publications shows the worldwide involvement in direct air capture research. The contribution of
both Africa and Russia is very low as almost no part accounts for any direct air capture research. Of
the BRICS countries show Brazil, China and India some contribution to the matter, of which the sum
of publications have intensified in the last several years. This could mean that they could potentially
act as large contributors to direct air capture research, as it also largely involves them. Most
outstanding observation is the established knowledge hubs Europe and the United states, especially
the Eastern-part. These parts of the international science community show to be largely involved and
dominate direct air capture research. When studying the figure it would be an observable conclusion
that geographical proximity looks like it plays a major role in geoengineering research. This is
however a difficult statement, as the prolific countries with the best research accommodations and
facilities are geographically closely related. Collaborations therefore either exist on the basis of the
level of research, accommodations and facilities of a country or because of geographical proximity.
Prolific countries seem according to the figure to contain a leading role in direct air capture research.
32
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
Much more research and money is involved in those countries which also makes them more likely to
collaborate together.
Figure 4.1.4, geography of publications
To understand whether the dominant position of the prolific countries is at any time going to be
challenged, this research includes observations of the potential growth rate of both developing and
prolific countries. To maintain these calculations organized are only the top 2 prolific countries and
the top 2 BRICS included in the analysis. The BRICS have developed themselves as potential growing
economies and are not defined as developing country anymore, this research does however apply
BRICS as the measure of developing and upcoming countries. To calculate future trends and trends in
the past 13 years a moving average applies, in order to analyze a set of data points by creating a
series of averages of different subsets of the full data set. Given the time span of the study, the first
element of the moving average is obtained by taking the average of initial fixed subset of the number
series (2000 + 2001 / 2). Furthermore this subset is modified by “shifting forwards”: excluding the
first number of the series and including the next number following the original subset in the series.
The plot line connects all the averages, called the moving average, and shows the trends in the past
series. In this research it is interesting to see whether developing countries have the potential to
challenge the prolific ones in direct air capture research, which might change the momentum of the
relationship. To show the potential of both the top 2 prolific and developing countries figure 4.1.5
applies which uses trend lines to show future potential.
33
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
60
UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA
50
UNITED KINGDOM
40
30
PEOPLES RUPUBLIC OF
CHINA
20
INDIA
10
Линейная (UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA)
-10
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
0
Линейная (UNITED
KINGDOM)
United States (R² = 0,8715): y = 4,489x - 8,7692
United Kingdom (R² = 0,9042): y = 2,4698x - 6,0192
China (R² = 0,727): y = 0,9368x - 3,2115
India (R² = 0,585) :y = 0,4615x - 1,4231
Figure 4.1.5, trendlines
The application of the moving average provides clear view at the annual development, it reduces the
amount of fluctuations in the graph. Figure 4.1.5, demonstrates trend lines for the annual
developments of the top 2 prolific and BRICS countries. In addition, to the figure are the linear
formulas of trend lines presented. These are included to look at the potential future developments in
direct air capture research. As the trend lines and formulas indicate is the potential of direct air
capture positive. Any country presents a progressing trend line, which demonstrates the future
potential of the CDR scheme. Studying the formulas and trend lines additionally designates that the
relationship between the prolific and developing countries is not about to change. Although BRICS
countries substantially increase their annual publication growth, the prolific countries will according
to the trend lines continuously improve their annual publications as well. The formulas explicate a
higher growth rate for both the United States and the United Kingdom over China and India. Thus,
even though global research increases will this not affect the momentum of the relationship
between, developed and developing countries.
THE THIRD RESEARCH QUESTION applies to ensure the public’s integrity in the process. The Oxford
principles clearly stipulate the importance of open research and to make all research publicly
available. To do so, essentially all organizations need at least to be identified. Research stimulated by
Government initiatives and Universities is of an open nature to create a better understanding of a
34
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
phenomenon. This is publicly available on a regional, national and global scale. Research and
deployment by the private sector is of a different set up, in many situations is the commercial aspect
more important than sharing knowledge (Seidel & Kodikara, 2000). This makes it complicated to
determine whether the private sector active in CDR scheme research pursue this as public good or
whether they plan for own use and advantage. It remains a difficult and time consuming task to
determine the interest of the private sector for every single project. To still formulate an answer
about the openness of research it’s valuable to look at the involvement of the triple helix. University,
Business and Government in order to understand the revolution of science and which of them is
fundamentally involved in CDR scheme research. Table 4.1.2 displays an overview of the top ten
funding agencies in direct air capture research. In first instance this analysis only looks at the
involvement of the three different aspects of the triple Helix, it does not revolutionize the
relationship. As table 4.1.2. displays contains the top ten not many organizations that have funded a
spectacular amount of research. There is not one organization that largely influences worldwide
direct air capture research. Striking fact is however the absence of any privately funded research
organizations in the top ten. The overview involved only government initiatives and research
subjected by Universities.
Earlier results and geographical analyses explained the large influence of the United States. Also in
this figure the United States is largely involved in the top 3 largest funding agencies. In the analysis I
found many government initiatives but from different departments. This partly explains that not one
organization stands out as funding agency, mostly because research is spread out over different
Universities and government departments within a country. The influence of the private sector is not
visible in the top ten organizations. During the analysis and sorting the data I however stumbled on a
small range of private sector research. These were almost solely energy companies or involved
automobile industry: Shell, Ford motor company, Fluor Corporation and Statoil ASA. This is only a
small example of private organizations funding geoengineering research. These however all had at
least two published items that were funded, which did not account for any of the other private
organizations. This does not tell much about the influence of the intentions of the private sector in
direct air capture research. The results do nevertheless display a rather small involvement in current
CDR scheme research.
Table 4.1.2, Funding agencies
Funding agencies
United States: Department of Energy (DOE)
European Union (EU)*
Amount of
Publications
32
25
35
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
United States: National Science Foundation (NSF)
National Natural Science Foundation of China (NFSC)
United Kingdom: Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
Canada: Natural Science and Engineering Council (NSERC)
The Netherlands: Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
(NWO)
Academy of Finland
India: Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)
Korea government (Ministry of Education, Science and Technology)
*European Union is a combination of the EU (12), European Commission (6), European Community
(5) and European Social (1) and Regional Development fund (1).
19
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
THE FOURTH RESEARCH QUESTION is related to Oxford Principle IV, the assessment of the impacts of
geoengineering research should be conducted by an independent body. This is meant to understand
the impacts of CDR schemes, both the environmental and socio-economic impacts. In response to
the Oxford Principles did ASOC recommend that it is important to initiate further research in all
relevant disciplines. With the intention to better understand and communicate whether additional
strategies to moderate future climate change are, or are not, viable, appropriate and ethical. In order
to incorporate all aspects that involve CDR schemes a lot of disciplines are involved. This analysis
looks at the disciplines involved, that conduct research on direct air capture, to provide conclusions
about the magnitude and impacts of the research. Table 4.1.4, provides an overview of the top 10
involved disciplines. Environmental Science & Ecology is the most dominating discipline closely
followed by Engineering and at a little more distance Energy & Fuels. Engineering and Energy & Fuels
show the technical part of the direct air capture research, these disciplines are primarily involved
with how to create the technology and apply the CDR scheme. Energy & Fuels are most likely
interested in making the process as efficient as possible as it applies to large point sources (energy
plants) and influences the marginal profit of the plant. Environment Sciences & Ecology should be
more involved with the environmental aspects of too much CO2 in the atmosphere and the
sociological effects on the climate, the Earth and its species. Furthermore are the disciplines of
Geology, Chemistry, Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences and Business & Economics present within
the top 10. Indicating that there are no knowledge gaps around the CDR scheme. Scientific research
on direct air capture has extended to the technical (Engineering, Chemistry), ethical (Environmental
Sciences & Ecology) and socio-economic (Business & Economics) disciplines which all effectively
influence the development of the CDR scheme. Furthermore it is striking that many technical
sciences have published about direct air capture and a cluster of applied sciences. Applied sciences is
a discipline that applies existing scientific knowledge in order to develop more practical applications.
Applied science applies the existing scientific knowledge towards practical endeavors. It is typically
the deployment aspect in CDR scheme research, applied science develops technology which in a
36
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
later stage might be feedback between basic and applied science. The high involvement in the top
ten disciplines shows that science is engineering direct air capture technologies, which is one step
closer to deployment of the CDR scheme. Strikingly is also the involvement of only one social science
(Business & Economics). This indicates that more value is placed on technical aspects of the
technology than the socio-economic ones.
Table 4.1.3, Disciplines involved in direct-air capture research
Discipline
Environmental Sciences & Ecology
Engineering
Energy & Fuels
Geology
Chemistry
Water Resources
Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences
Science & Technology - Other Topics
Marine & Freshwater Biology
Business & Economics
Number of publications
115
97
55
26
25
20
18
15
14
12
SUB RESEARCH QUESTION FIVE elaborates on the former sub questions and the basis of governance
before deployment. Any future decision with respect to direct air capture deployment should only be
considered with strong governance structures in place. Governance is needed to address
international problems of cross-boundary impacts. This research addresses the fact that
international governance could relate to the structures of the most dominant country in direct air
capture research. Countries are expected to be reluctant to give up their geoengineering decision
making to an international institution. Mostly because it is rather difficult to make many different
countries, with different cultures and values, collectively agree about any topic in particularly to
international bodies (Ricke et al., 2008). The United States has however established itself as a large
knowledge hub with an absolutely dominant position in every aspect of the analyses. It has by far
published most scientific publications about direct air capture management, more than half of their
produced publications come forth out of a collaboration with scientists from different countries. This
shows that their knowledge is not solely based in the United States and the importance of sharing
knowledge to establish a solid knowledge base. In the United States was almost all research funded
by government departments or Universities themselves, this makes research in the public interest
and maintains a low level of influence of the private sector. The disciplines involved in the direct air
capture research indicated that no knowledge gaps are apparent, creating a rather advanced
understanding of all possible impacts of the comprehensive scheme. The United States overall has
37
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
shown to incorporate all aspects of the Oxford Principles in their research structure, which might
make their research governance pertaining to direct air capture research relevant for an international
scientific body to coordinate geoengineering research.
38
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
4.2 Ocean fertilization
The data used for the scientometric analysis contains of 1397 published items. The h-index lies at 81,
the average citations per item is 24.38 which is above average and the sum of items cited without
self-citation is 28273. First thing that stands out from this dataset is the much larger knowledge base
in comparison to direct air capture and afforestation and a more steady development of published
records. The amount of publications have been quite large in the period 2000-2013. In the first seven
years (2001-2007) there was a steady amount of 80 publications annually, afterwards has there been
an increase closely to 140 publications a year. Citations of the published items is remaining steady
with a substantial growth of about 500 citations annually. In comparison to the other two CDR
schemes consist ocean fertilization of a much larger scientific base, especially the difference in the
first few years is noteworthy.
Figure 4.2.1, published items and citations on direct air capture
In total 63 countries worldwide have published at least one item on CDR scheme ocean fertilization
research in the time span 2000-2013. The dominance of the USA in ocean fertilization research is
even more spectacular with an impressive amount of 666 publications. In total there were 1397
publications found which makes the USA responsible for the rather large share of 47.2%. Figure 4.2.2
, indicates the authority of the USA in this scheme. In accordance to the results of the other CDR
schemes does figure 4.2.2 also include publications of both co-authored and singular published
items. This makes the overview possibly a little less reliable as international co-authorship can lead
to assigning one publication to multiple countries. Fact is however the domination of research of the
United States and this remains not largely influenced by cleaning the data for collaboration. The
United States is only followed by the United Kingdom and Germany, say it on a respectable distance,
the other 7 publishing countries in the top 10 have together not even published as much as the
United States. The republic of China (62), Switzerland (56) and Belgium (47) are not included in the
top ten, but have still produced a respectable sum of published items. China is again the
representative of the BRICS countries with the high notation of respectively 62 publications and a
39
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
publication increase of 550% onwards of 2003 levels.
Figure 4.2.2, Published records per country
To identify the developments of publishing countries, the publications of the top ten are analyzed on
annual basis. Overall the publications have experienced a rather steady development with no
exceptional growth, only involving an increase in annual publication from the year 2007 and
onwards. The increase in publications shows a growing potential and awareness of the potential of
the ocean fertilization scheme. There is apparently no lack of technological performance or ethical
barriers to conduct further research. This would have shown by a decrease in publications or very
little publications over all. One of the clear aspects is the large research base of the United States,
every single year they have produced the most research on ocean fertilization. Although they also
experience rather large fluctuations they easily keep themselves as the main producer of ocean
fertilization publications. Another notable aspect is the fluctuating development of the United
Kingdom and the more productive years of Japan and Germany in respectively 2004 and 2005, of
Germany and France in 2007 and 2008 and Germany again in 2011. Furthermore does the figure
show some fluctuations, the most remarkable are the small drop in (2005, 2006) and the one 2010.
As the former statistics indicated is ocean fertilization also largely dependent on the input of the
prolific countries. Especially the United States and in a lesser state the United kingdom and Germany.
40
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
Figure 4.2.3., Publication growth on annual basis
THE SECOND SUB RESEARCH QUESTION focuses on the influence of both developed and developing
countries. The first sub research question identified the prolific countries as major players in Ocean
Fertilization research, but also observed the upcoming and potential of China. Although prolific
countries are scientifically more advanced and overall have more money to invest in research and
experiments, has China as BRICS representative shown potential for the up and coming countries.
Figure 4.2.4, shows the very large contribution of prolific countries, while that of the developing
countries is rather marginal. The geographical overview expresses a global distribution of ocean
fertilization publications. In harmony with direct air capture account both Africa and Russia for
almost no contribution to ocean fertilization research. Of the BRICS shows especially China to have
produced a large share of scientific publications. Brazil and India have also produced some
publications but account for a much smaller size, South Africa cannot really be considered as
contributor to global research. Most outstanding observations are the large knowledge hubs, of
Europe and the United States. These parts of the world are largely involved in ocean fertilization
research, plus on a smaller scale China, Japan and Australia. The geographical distribution of research
seems to be influenced by geographic proximity, but as in former stage already explained is it difficult
to make this statement. There are many aspects that can be of influence in the formation of closely
aligned knowledge hubs. This makes it close to impossible to point out one decisive factor in the
formation of knowledge hubs. Fact remains that ocean fertilization research is globally distributed
with two outstanding knowledge hubs that are largely based on the input of prolific countries.
41
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
Figure 4.2.4, Geography of publications
The geographic overview demonstrates dominance of Europe and the United States, but also the
upcoming of China and Japan. The relationship between prolific and developing countries is currently
controlled by a large input of ocean fertilization research of prolific countries. They have better
facilities and more money at their dispense which translates into more research. In geoengineering
research it is important to determine the relationship between different countries, as deployment of
the schemes is not border bound and could affect other parties and countries. By now mainly the
prolific countries determine ocean fertilization research, it is however difficult to determine whether
this relationship will change in the future. To get a clearer idea about the future developments in
ocean fertilization research, the top 2 prolific and developing countries are plotted against each
other. In figure 4.2.5, the plotted lines are assisted by trend lines to show future behavior. The
formulas presented accordingly, provide the opportunity to calculate future development for the
coming years.
42
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
70
60
UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA
50
UNITED KINGDOM
40
PEOPLES RUPUBLIC OF
CHINA
30
INDIA
20
Линейная (UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA)
10
-10
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
0
Линейная (UNITED
KINGDOM)
United States (R² = 0,7864): y = 2,706x + 31,288
United Kingdom (R² = 0,7734): y = 1,9918x + 6,9423
China (R² = 0,9359): y = 0,8901x - 1,6154
India (R² = 0,5506) y = 0,1951x + 0,25
Figure 4.2.5, trendlines
The use of the moving average provides a better view of the trends in the developments in
publication growth. Applying a moving average does not cancel out any fluctuation, it however
creates a more smooth data. The trend lines come with a linear formula, the formula provides the
opportunity to calculate future results/expectations. The linear trend lines of ocean fertilization are
quite clear in that they maintain the momentum. The increase of publications of China will not any
time soon threaten the position of both the United Kingdom and the United States. The trend lines
display an increase for the four countries, which demonstrates the potential and interest in the CDR
scheme, ocean fertilization. Although the relationship between prolific and developing or BRICS
countries will not change any time soon, is the potential of ocean fertilization established.
THE THIRD RESEARCH QUESTION
applies to the importance of open research and to make all research
publicly available. In direct air capture research are the reasons behind identifying the largest
funding agencies explicated. For ocean fertilization the same procedure applies creating the
possibility to directly analyze the table. Table 4.2.2, provides an overview of the largest funding
agencies in Ocean fertilization research. Ocean fertilization is little more controversial than
afforestation and direct air capture and more difficulties and uncertainties are involved. The effects
of ocean fertilization could possibly relate to a much larger scale than the other two CDR schemes
account for, which makes it even more essential that all knowledge and research is in the public’s
43
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
interest and open to the public. Effects of ocean fertilization could on a large scale effect the climate
also including many animals, people, cities and countries. The table does not confirm any
organization that largely funds ocean fertilization research. The National Science Foundation
accounts with 77 funded publications for 5.51% of the total amount of funded research and remains
leader in this field. Clearly indicating that no dominating organization largely influences ocean
fertilization research. This confirms the results of direct air capture management, that no
organization is capable of acting unilaterally, they need to collaborate or at least share knowledge.
Furthermore, the top ten funding agencies noted only government or university related agencies
involved in scientific research on ocean fertilization This does not mean that from all 1397
publications almost none is funded by a private party. It does however show that the dominant
organizations in ocean fertilization research are government or university related. Of which both are
interested in sharing knowledge and pursue research for the public good. The top ten shows in total
286 publications that have been funded by in total ten organizations, this is however only 20.47% of
all publications around ocean fertilization. Which makes 80% of the funded research unaccounted
for, during the analysis it however showed that many smaller national departments or universities
accounted for a certain amount of publications. The influence of private organizations remained
rather low. Also in the top of the funding agencies there are only agencies from the United States,
the United Kingdom and European Union involved, this agrees with the large knowledge base from
these geographic locations.
Table 4.2.2, Funding Agencies
Funding agency
Number of publications
USA: National Science Foundation (NSF)
77
UK: Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
49
European Union (EU)*
43
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
21
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)
20
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
18
European FP6 project Carbo Ocean
16
China: National Science Foundation
Australian Research Council (ARC)
15
11
Spain: Ministry of Science and Innovation (MICINN)
11
*European Union is a combination of the EU (18),European Research Council (11), European
Commission (10) and European Community (8).
THE FOURTH RESEARCH QUESTION is to understand the impacts of ocean fertilization deployment, both
the environmental and socio-economic ones. Many different disciplines are included in the impact
assessment of ocean fertilization. This research looks at the disciplines involved that conduct
44
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
research on ocean fertilization capture, to provide conclusions about the magnitude, reach and
effects of the research. Table 4.2.3, provides an overview of the top 10 involved disciplines. As first
outstanding fact stands the clustering of only life sciences and applied sciences. This could lead to
under addressing some major social issues of the technology and leaving a gap in the research. To
address whether this is relevant, it is essential to analyze the discipline table firmly. In accordance
with direct air capture does Environmental Science & Ecology also account for ocean fertilization as
most dominating discipline. Closely followed by Geology, Oceanography, Marine & Freshwater
Biology and Chemistry. As was the case with direct air capture research do Engineering and
Chemistry represent the technological potential and impacts of the study. Oceanography, Marine &
Freshwater Biology and Geology are concerned with the environmental effects and especially how
the supply of nutrients effects the ecosystem under water and the effects on solid earth. The
sociological aspects are mainly considered by the Environmental Sciences & Ecology, while the
effects on the climate are also addressed in the discipline Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences. It is
difficult to state whether their remain knowledge gaps in ocean fertilization research. The disciplines
involved do not vary much from each other, the main issues of every discipline are the chemistry of
the technology and more importantly the impacts on the environment, earth and climate. When
respecting engineering as a discipline only interested in providing the technology, than the economic
aspects of ocean fertilization might be too little taken into account. This could very well be a small
knowledge gap, although every paper published about the technology of ocean fertilization firmly
addresses the costs in relation to deployment of the scheme. Eventually present the analyses results
of which the main disciplines are relatively much related, nonetheless are the technological, ethical
and sociological aspects still addressed and influence the comprehensive assessment of the CDR
scheme.
Table 4.2.3 Disciplines involved in Ocean Fertilization research
Disciplines
Environmental Sciences & Ecology
Geology
Oceanography
Engineering
Marine & Freshwater Biology
Chemistry
Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences
Agriculture
Amount of publications
72
54
38
36
35
33
24
20
Geochemistry & Geophysics
Science & Technology - Other Topics
16
14
45
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
SUB RESEARCH QUESTION FIVE elaborates on the former sub questions and the basis of geoengineering
research, governance before deployment. Any future decisions with respect to ocean fertilization
should only be considered with strong governance structures in place. As aforementioned it is rather
difficult to create an international institution that determines geoengineering governance. This
research applies the common method of looking at a dominant factor (country) in geoengineering
research. In the former research questions has the domination of the United States been established,
it is by far the largest producer of ocean fertilization research. The knowledge base of the United
States remains varied and spread out all over the country, several states and cities have published
items, and collaborative activities are very important for the United States. This counters unilateral
behavior of the United States as country. In addition, plays the United States in case of funding
organizations also a major role, much of their research is government or university based. This makes
their research open to the public and open to other organizations and countries. Correspondingly is
the USA largely involved in collaborations with other countries, making the USA the largest
contributor to ocean fertilization that remains dependent on other countries in their research. This is
a healthy situation for research as advanced and controversial as geoengineering and makes the
performed research and deployment highly controllable. In addition, did also the disciplines involved
in the ocean fertilization research indicate that no particular knowledge gaps are apparent, this
makes an understanding of all possible impacts quite comprehensive. The United States overall has
shown to incorporate all aspects of the Oxford Principles in their research structure, which might
make their research governance pertaining to ocean fertilization research relevant for an
international scientific body to coordinate geoengineering research.
46
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
4.3 Afforestation
The data found for the CDR scheme afforestation and land-use-management contains 821 published
items. The h-index stands at 52, the average citations per item is 17.48, which is relatively high for a
new technology. The sum of items cited without self-citations is 13388. Since the year 2005 has there
been a relatively steady growth in publications per year, from around 40 items to 120 items annually.
The same accounts for the amount of citations each year, which rose in the same period with 500
citations annually. The data points to a growing interest and potential of the technology, due to both
increase(on annual basis) in published items and citations.
Figure 4.3.1, published items and citations on direct air capture
A great amount of countries have at least published one record on afforestation. In total have 83
different countries published 821 publications on afforestation and land-use-management in the
time span 2000-2013. One thing that stands out from the data is many countries (83), more in
comparison to the other CDR schemes, have published on the subject of afforestation. Also in this
case contains the United States a very dominant position, but many other countries too experience
some knowledge about the subject. There is also not a great gap from the top ten downwards.
France, Italy, India, Sweden and Austria all have published 23 or more publications over the years.
This is close to the countries that have made the top ten.
Figure 4.3.2, provides an overview of the published data over the last 13 years. The figure displays
that the USA is largely involved in afforestation research and stands out as largest hub (more than
double the amount of publications of number two). The figure is dominated by the USA, but also
shows the United Kingdom, China, Germany, Canada and Australia as countries that have the
respectable amount of over seventy published records. The knowledge about afforestation is
according to the figure much more spread out over a several amount of countries, therewith
supporting international collaborative behavior instead of unilateralism. Remarkable is the great
amount of publications of the Republic of China. Almost passing the United Kingdom as number 2
47
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
with 100 publications. In the other two analyses the upcoming of China was already noticed, in
afforestation however has China already taken a position as largely involved contributor.
Figure 4.3.2, Article count per Country
To create an understanding of the development of afforestation research, the top ten publishing
countries are analyzed on an annual basis. Analyses on annual basis provide an outline of trends,
fluctuations and up and coming countries. In comparison with the other CDR schemes, experiences
afforestation more fluctuations and a less steady development. Even the two largest publication
sources, the United States and United Kingdom, heavily fluctuate in their research progression. The
most notable observation is the drop in publications of the United Kingdom between 2007 and 2008
and the sudden increase afterwards. The drop is reflected in figure 4.3.3, the steep regression line
reflecting the drop from 14 to 4 publications onto 10 publications the year after. Remarkable is the
steady increase of China, in the first half of the figure China produced around 3 publications a year,
while in the second part the publications grew substantially. This resulted in passing the United
Kingdom as second largest publisher since the year 2010. China experiences the largest growing
potential and might even challenge the United States as major contributor.
The United States has clearly established a leading position in CDR scheme research, in afforestation
research their publications growth stands out as well, but 2007 forms an exception on their
domination on annual basis. Afforestation research is characterized by large fluctuation in the annual
developments and trends also affecting the United States. The developments in publication records
behave not as steady as in the former studied CDR schemes. With the exception of large fluctuations
remains the output in the figure overall relatively the same. In addition to the United States are the
prolific countries very much dominating afforestation research. The figure contains, with the
48
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
exception of the Republic China, only prolific countries, and also a top 25 would still include solely
developed countries, indicating their absolute authority in afforestation research. Many of these
developed countries thank their position to the collaborations with other developed countries, which
seems to occur much more than ones between developed-developing countries.
Figure 4.3.3, Publication growth per country per year
THE SECOND SUB RESEARCH QUESTION focuses on the influence of both developed and developing
countries. Mainly to understand whether there is a difference in involvement. Also are the main
producers of geoengineering en deployment required to notify and consult the affected parties by
CDR scheme deployment. In the first research questions different tables showed the large
involvement of the USA as producer and collaborator in afforestation research. In addition were the
prolific countries identified as major players in afforestation research, but also an impressive growth
in published items within China was observed. Prolific countries are scientifically more advanced and
used to have more money to invest in research and experiments. Lately has China however exposed
a rapid development at many different aspects and disciplines, which also account for afforestation
research. China part of the BRICS shows the great potential of these up and coming countries.
Figure 4.3.4, displays the global distribution of afforestation research. Europe and both the Eastern
and Western part of the USA present the two large knowledge hubs identified in the figure. The
global distribution is a little more widespread than was accounted for the other CDR schemes. Africa,
Brazil, Australia and New Zealand have all published several items, which makes the geographical
distribution look more evenly. Remarkable is also the amount of research in Asia, merely accounted
for by China, India, Japan and Korea. Further notable observation are, although the upcoming of
China, the large knowledge hubs in the USA and Europe. Geographic proximity looks like it plays an
important role. This observation has been addressed for the other CDR schemes and was argued as
not the major reason for collaborations between closely located prolific countries.
49
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
Figure 4.3.4, Geography of publications
The geographic overview demonstrates dominance of Europe and the United States, but also the
upcoming of China and Japan. The relationship between prolific and developing countries is currently
controlled by a large input of afforestation research of prolific countries. They have better facilities
and more money at their dispense which translates into more research. In geoengineering research it
is important to determine the relationship between different countries, as deployment of the
schemes is not boundary bound and could also affect other parties and countries. By now mainly the
prolific countries determine ocean fertilization research, it is however difficult to determine whether
this relationship will change in the future. To get a clearer idea about the future developments in
ocean fertilization research the top 2 prolific and developing countries are plotted against each other.
In figure 4.2.5, the plotted lines are assisted by trend lines to show future behavior. The formulas
shown provides the possibility to calculate future development for the coming years.
50
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
30
China
25
UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA
20
UNITED KINGDOM
15
INDIA
10
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
-5
2003
Линейная (UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA)
2002
0
2001
Линейная (China)
2000
5
United States (R² = 0,754): y = 1,4066x + 5,0385
China (R² = 0,8882):y = 1,4148x - 2,5577
United Kingdom (R² = 0,2208):y = 0,3104x + 5,75
India (R² = 0,5676):y = 0,3462x - 0,8462
Figure 4.3.5, trendlines
Also for afforestation research the moving average is applied to decrease the amount of fluctuation
in the annual publications. The graph clearly demonstrates that the United States has at any point
contribute the largest amount of publications. The United Kingdom has in earlier results and for the
other CDR schemes always produced the second large amount of publications. Figure 4.3.5.,
demonstrates however large fluctuations in the annual results for the United Kingdom and a much
more steady progression of China. China shows a clear progression since 2004 and has surpassed the
United Kingdom since 2007. China displays large potential in afforestation research, and might in the
future even challenge the United States as major leader. The question remains whether China is
really capable of replacing the United States and change the momentum of the relationship between
developed and developing countries. The formulas that represent the trend lines are included in this
research in order to calculate if and if so, when China replaces the United States as largest
contributor of afforestation research.
Table 4.3.1, Future trends
Year
2020
2030
2040
2050
United States
16.29
30.35
44.42
58.48
China
8.76
22.91
37.06
51.2
51
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
The table shows an overview of the next 40 years. The year 2050 has been a yardstick and climate
change and climate engineering research. Carbon Dioxide levels have to substantially been dropped
in 2050 otherwise transition to an irreversible state could occur. China demonstrates a large growing
potential and has surpassed the United Kingdom in the process. The formula is of linear nature and
has also included the years (2000-2004) in which China’s contribution was marginally low. This makes
the trend line show potential for China, but not yet the potential to overthrow the United States as
largest contributor. The relationship between developed and developing countries will be maintained
for the coming years.
THE THIRD RESEARCH QUESTION
states that essentially all organization involved have to be identified. As
aforementioned has there been some identification of competition between scientists and
organizations (Gewin, 2010). Understanding or clearing this competition is essential in
geoengineering research, because activities and research are only to be pursued as public good. The
big fear is a too large and dominant involvement of the private sector for own use and advantage.
This can imply unilateral behavior and the so-called greenfinger scenario. The greenfinger scenario is
the prospect of a single nation taking matters into its own hands. A wealthy individual “lone
greenfinger” could also decide upon doing it unilaterally (Victor, 2008; Hamilton, 2013). In case of
geoengineering it’s of main importance to prevent countries and especially the private sector from
unilaterally developing geoengineering research. The greenfinger scenario is often mentioned but
never has there been proof of such a threat. This makes it valuable to identify the funding agencies
of CDR scheme research, to check their collaborative character and the influence of the private
sector, see table 4.3.2.
Table 4.3.2, Funding agencies
Funding agencies
Number of publications
China: National Natural Science Foundation (NSFC)
26
European Union (EU)*
21
USA: National Science Foundation (NSF)
17
China: National Science Foundation (NSF)
11
European Community's 7th Framework programme
11
USA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
11
National Basic Research Programme of China
11
Chinese Academy of Sciences
11
Australian Research Council (ARC)
9
Ontario Innovation Trust (OIT)
7
*The European Union is a combination of the EU (10), theEuropean commission (6), European
Regional Development (2), European Research Project (2) and European Science Foundation (1).
The third research question is done to ensure which organizations are involved in conducting
52
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
research on CDR schemes. Table 4.3.2, shows the top ten funding agencies in afforestation research.
In this research it’s important to check whether organizations are Government, University or
Busniness. As the top ten shows, are 9 out of the ten organizations government or University based.
The last organization Ontario Innovation Trust (OIT) acts as a link between the private sector and
Universities. It is a large corporation that selects promising research and invests large sums of money
in these particular research projects. OIT believes that Universities are the most important drivers for
the economy, thus, the private sector and therefore invests in the most promising research.
Furthermore do the results explicate that afforestation research fundamentally based on
government and University, which is in line with the Oxford Principles. Knowledge should be shared,
there should be complete disclosure of research plans, conducted research and open publications of
results. To facilitate a better understanding concerning the risks involved and assure the public’s
integrity in the process. The greenfinger scenario is still something to take very seriously, but the
results show much government involvement which decreases the greenfinger threat substantially.
Earlier results indicated the dominance of the United States in the amount of publications.
Therefore, it is remarkable that the Republic China contains such a dominant position in top ten of
funding agencies. China has 59 of its 100 publications (59%) as a results of large government
oriented research. Not many private actors are active in afforestation research and only a small part
of other departments. This is the difference with the United States and the United Kingdom, also
they were dominant during the selection of the top ten. Only their research is spread out over
different Universities and governmental departments instead of a combined research platform. This
often makes research more innovative, it could however also mean that parties are working around
each other and not optimally sharing their knowledge. In the end the less dominant position of the
United States and the United Kingdom is largely explained by many departments and organizations.
These are examples of departments/organizations that are multiple times used. But did not make the
top ten: State forestry association, Nation Research Foundation, Royal Society, Energy agency,
International development cooperation agency and Environmental protection agency
THE FOURTH RESEARCH QUESTION addresses the assessment and variation of disciplines in afforestation
research. The CDR scheme afforestation faces slightly no controversies, is the most conventional
technology and technological easiest to implement. The impacts of implementation of afforestation
will be less drastic than implementing ocean fertilization or direct air capture and the effects are
expected to be much more controlled. Still there are several aspects of afforestation that have an
impact on the environment, the climate, the natural habitats of species and the economy and
people. This makes it comprehensive to conduct an assessment on the impacts, which necessarily
53
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
involves many different disciplines. This research looks at several aspects of afforestation research,
and one of them is the amount of actively involved disciplines. In order to provide conclusions about
the magnitude and impacts of afforestation research. Table 4.3.3., provides an overview of the top
10 most actively contributing disciplines. In accordance with the former two CDR schemes is the
discipline, Environmental Science & Ecology, the most dominating one. More than three times as
much published items as the number two origin from this discipline, therewith ensuring social and
ethical respects to the Earth, Climate and the habitats of the species (including humans) living in the
Earth’s environment. Following at an respectable distance with around 45 published records are the
disciplines Agriculture, Forestry and Geology. The first two are relevant to both the environment and
the ethical respects of moderating the Earth, but mainly are these disciplines concerned with the
technological aspects of the CDR scheme. Geology is closely related because it is also known as the
study of the Earth and weathering of hard solid earthy materials, which makes any technology
affecting the Earth of interest. The top 10 is furthermore shaped by Engineering and Business &
Economics, which account for respectively the technological and manufacturing aspects, while
Business & Economics relates to the economic aspects that influence the development of the CDR
scheme. Studying the top ten provides a clear overview of the different disciplines and actors that
are involved in afforestation research. It seems as if there are no recognizable knowledge gaps, as
every discipline exerts its influence on the matter. This makes afforestation a CDR scheme that
ensures a full range assessment from many different disciplines, which contributes to the potential of
the CDR scheme.
Disciplines
Environmental Sciences & Ecology
Agriculture
Forestry
Geology
Water Resources
Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences
Plant Sciences
Engineering
Physical Geography
Business & Economics
Amount of Publications
142
45
44
42
33
30
24
22
17
15
54
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
SUB RESEARCH QUESTION FIVE elaborates on the former sub questions and the basis of geoengineering
research, governance before deployment. In the former research questions has the domination of
the United States been established, it is by far the largest producer of ocean fertilization research.
The United States is according to trendlines in 2050 still market leader in scientific research on
afforestation. Interesting remark is up and coming of China. China shows high potential and has
surpassed the United Kingdom is second publisher in the process. Also this case study explicated the
large sum of organizations, disciplines and collaboration that are important for the United States.
Additionally is the government in combination with University the largest contributor to scientific
research on afforestation. This creates an open research, to both the public and other organizations
and countries. This makes the situation of afforestation a rather healthy one. The suggestive threat
of unilateral behavior and transboundary effect is according to data not as direct as would be
expected. The research is very much open to the public and not any organization or country has
shown the capability to unilaterally produce a large sum of scientific research. The effects of
afforestation research and deployment are not as controversial as the other case studies. This makes
research and deployment highly controllable. Additionally, did this research not identify any
noteworthy knowledge gaps. Many different disciplines have published research on afforestation,
which highlight the different perspectives in afforestation research and makes it a rather
comprehensive assessment of the CDR scheme. The analyses explicated afforestation research to
have incorporated all important aspects of the Oxford Principles. The United States stood out as
most dominating in any level of analysis, which might make their research governance interesting for
global geoengineering research governance.
55
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
5. Discussion
During this study, I encountered certain difficulties. In order to formulate that I am aware of these
difficulties in the research, each of these complications will be discussed as follows.
First, and most important aspect is the use and formation of the theoretical framework. The
theoretical framework consists of five sub research questions that guide the use of scientometric
analyses in this bibliometric study. The difference with a “standard” theoretical framework is the
absence of linkages/relationships between several aspects that together lead to a final result. Due to
the bibliometric aspect and quantifying the data uses this study an unorthodox theoretical
framework. The theoretical framework consists of five sub research questions based on the Oxford
Principles and the mode 2 innovation theory. The Oxford Principles are formulated by The Royal
Society (2009), as foundation for further geoengineering research. This study aims to address the
current state of scientific research on geoengineering and how this incorporates the Oxford
principles. In order to do so the mentioned aspects and disciplines of the principles were linked to an
innovation theory that accounts to measure the quality of research by a wider set of criteria than
only academic quality control (Nowotny et al., 2003). The mode 2 multi-stakeholder approach
corresponds to the principles, and applies to formulate sub research questions that provide the
possibility to reflect on the Oxford Principles and how they inform the governance issue. It seems
however unlikely that the set-up of this study enlarges the Oxford Principles. This research is
therefore not at liberty to further improve the Oxford Principles, but only to validate or invalidate the
proper application of the geoengineering guidelines in CDR scheme research.
Another aspect of discussion is the relevance of this study. The results of this geoengineering
research are only based on three different CDR schemes. Although the analyses have been quite
comprehensive in examining every aspect of the CDR schemes, does this not allow for generalization
towards all geoengineering research. CDR schemes considerable differ from the application of SRM
schemes, and given the two strategies are so different would it make sense to at least develop two
research structures. CDR schemes face a lesser amount of unprecedented risks and uncertainties,
which makes them more likely to be seriously considered in international climate negotiation. The
results of this study therefore only apply to CDR scheme geoengineering research.
Third point up for discussion are the quantitative scientometric data analyses. This master thesis did
not see relevance in the impact of individual papers and shares equal weight towards all articles. As
the output of the analyses were mainly interested in the geographical distribution of research and
this on the different levels of Countries, Cities, Organizations and Disciplines. To make statements
about strong research hubs, it could however be relevant to study the published items for their
56
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
impact factor. Mainly because for instance the Royal Society Report (2009) has a larger impact than a
random non-cited paper. In this genre it is also important to mention that the SCIE web-of-Science
shares some bias to English language publications. Although the use of Web-of-Science is largely
accepted, it should be noticed that the impact factor and English language bias could affect the
results of this study.
As final point in this discussion, should there be acknowledged that future trends are very difficult to
measure. Some calculations have been implemented making use of future trend lines of the top 2
prolific and top 2 developing countries. It remains however difficult and not very reliable to calculate
future expectations by means of current data, while failing to monitor new, unexpected and
secondary conditions.
57
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
6. Conclusion
The objective from this study was to inform on the geoengineering governance issue. The study
therefore applied a framework consisting out of several sub research questions. To examine the
current state of scientific research on geoengineering and how this incorporates the Oxford
Principles.
The main research question involves a comprehensive technology that is influenced by many
different aspects. These aspects are analyzed on a smaller level in the form of sub questions. The
results of the sub questions for the three CDR schemes are first covered, afterwards the concluding
remarks of the main research question are provided.
The first sub research question is important to create understanding whether CDR scheme research
accommodates patterns of international collaborations or exhibits more like unilateralism. It also
stands to clarify responsibilities and liability mechanisms when CDR schemes are deployed. The
results unanimously demonstrated the dominance of the United States in all CDR scheme research.
The United States is the country that experiences the largest knowledge hub, most scientific
publications and the highest amount of collaborations. In addition to the dominance of the United
States could be stated that CDR scheme research is largely dependent on the prolific countries, with
the exception of the up and coming BRICS country, China. CDR scheme research furthermore seems
to accommodate in patterns of international collaborations, almost exclusively collaborations
between prolific countries. Tempering the threat of unilateral behavior and stating the leading role of
prolific countries and making developing countries reliant on them.
The second sub research question displayed the geographical distribution of CDR scheme research,
indicating the large dependence on two research hubs: Europe and the United States. The
contribution of developing countries was rather marginal. Also in the future is the publication growth
of developing countries expected to be much lower than in developed/prolific countries. Only China,
seems to be an exception on this rule, its publication growth is however potentially not able to
challenge the leading prolific countries. This confirms the low contribution of developing and BRIC
countries and the leading role for the prolific ones.
The third sub research question is mainly concerned with preventing the private sector from
unilateral behavior; the “greenfinger” scenario. To create global geoengineering research governance
should there be complete disclosure of research plans, conducted research and open publication of
results. The results demonstrated a very large share of Government and University funded research.
The influence of the private sector seemed rather marginal. This could mean two things: one the
58
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
threat of the greenfinger scenario is implausible, or two the private sector is interested in open
research and autonomously researches the opportunities of geoengineering. According to the results
seems geoengineering research however to be organized by University and Government initiatives,
which indicates geoengineering research to be very well controllable.
The fourth sub research question is concerned with the trans boundary effect of geoengineering
research. Impact assessments of geoengineering research should be conducted, to identify
knowledge gaps and to create a thorough understanding of geoengineering. Due to the trans
boundary effects should this involve a large sum of different disciplines and be conducted by an
independent body. This is meant to understand the impacts on all levels; environmental, technical
and socio-economic. This research applies an assessment through identifying the different disciplines
involved in CDR scheme research. The results demonstrated a large amount of different disciplines
which all have published great amount of records on CDR scheme research. The results illustrated no
apparent knowledge gaps and large involvement of environmental, technical and socio-economic
disciplines.
The final sub research question is concerned with governance before deployment. Any decisions with
respect to deployment should only be considered with strong governance structures in place.
Countries are however unlikely to give up their geoengineering decision-making to an international
institution. This research identifies one dominant country in CDR scheme research, to which
governance structures other countries could indirectly relate, in order to assist in drawing scenarios
of international governance. This research identifies the United States as the absolute dominant
country and striving factor behind CDR scheme research. It has produced by far the most
publications, it is involved in almost every collaboration and has the most published research funded
by Government or Universities. This makes the United States the absolute leader in CDR scheme
research and positively relates to the governance concerns of the Oxford Principles.
This research has created an overview of the current state of geoengineering research. The sub
research questions represent the basis of the Oxford Principles. To create the possibility to reflect on
the Oxford Principles. The Oxford Principles are not a definitive governance structure meant for
geoengineering research. They are however seen as the most dominant directory in geoengineering
research. When reflecting the influence and guidance of the Oxford Principles, it seems that the
principles are rather well incorporated in geoengineering research. The assessment of CDR scheme
research is rather complete due to the involvement of many different disciplines. The relation
between the tripe helix (Government-University-Business) is very much skewed towards Government
and University, leaving almost non-funded research for the private sector. Leading geoengineering to
59
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
be regulated as a public good, disclosure of geoengineering research and open publications of
results. This in combination with the large amount of collaboration between different countries also
effectively lowers the threat of unilateral behavior of a country or the private sector. Additionally,
are the most notable conclusions the very large dependence on prolific countries (Hub in United
States and Europe) in CDR scheme research, and the absolute dominance of the United States on all
levels. Indicating a leading role for the developed countries. Hence, those countries or organizations
conducting research should notify, consult and ideally obtain those affected by the research
activities. In order to maintain public-participation in geoengineering decision making.
As concluding remarks could be stated that the Oxford Principles are largely adopted in
geoengineering research. Even though the principles were not meant to provide definitive guidance
in scientific research on geoengineering, they seem to have been incorporated in most aspects of the
research. The principles could therefore very well be part of the solution in the governance issue.
The first four aspects of the principles are acknowledged in current geoengineering research, only
the fifth principle, governance before deployment remains difficult. Mainly because there is no
absolute governance yet, and because it concerns a global matter this remains complicated. This
research did however analyze the absolute dominance of the United States. The United States also
positively related to the Oxford principles and the recommendations mentioned at the ASOC (2010)
conference. This would make it interesting to let the United States governance structure assist in
structuring global CDR scheme research. To create clear governance before deployment. I would
recommend a closer look to the governance structure applied by the United States. Future research
could examine whether their research structure could truly be a directory for international
geoengineering governance.
Furthermore I would like to state that determining how well the analysis of geoengineering
publications reflects the actual current state of geoengineering research is beyond the capabilities of
this bibliometric analysis. Even though bibliometric analysis has been excepted as an established
method of analyzing scientific research. The sole focus on publications remains an oversimplification
of the complexities considered in geoengineering research. Mostly, because bibliometric analysis is
useful in identifying organizations, disciplines, countries and particularly trends and developments. It
can however not by itself, offer explanations why these trends and developments occur. It does
however create a valuable overview of the current state of geoengineering research, and provided
the possibility to reflect on the Oxford Principles.
60
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans
7. Literature list

Aldy, J. E., Orszag, P. R., & Stiglitz, J. E. (2001, October). Climate change: an agenda for global
collective action. In Prepared for the conference on The Timing of Climate Change Policies,
Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Washington, DC.

Barrett, S. 2008. The incredible economics of geoengineering.Environmental and Resource
Economics 39:45-54.

Beer J., Mende W., Stellmacher R., The role of the sun in climate forcing, Quaternary Science
Reviews, 2000 – Elsevier

Bennett, K. D. "Milankovitch cycles and their effects on species in ecological and
evolutionary time." Paleobiology (1990): 11-21.

Bellamy R., Chilvers J., Vaughan N.E., Lenton T.M., Appraising geoengineering, Tyndall
Centre, for climate change research, 2012

Blackstock J.J, Battisti D.S., Caldeira K., Eardley D.M., Katz J.I., Keith D.W., Patrinos A.A.N.,
Schrag D.P., Socolow R.H., Koonin S.E., Climate Engineering Responses to Climate
Emergencies (Novim, Santa Barbara, CA, 2009); available at http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.5140.

Blackstock J.J., Long J.C.S., The politics of geoengineering - Science, 2010 sciencemag.org

Bodansky, D. (1996) May we engineer the climate? Climatic Change 33

Bodansky D., Governing Climate Engineering: Scenarios for Analysis, Harvard Project on
Climate Agreements Discussion Paper, 2011

Bodansky D., The Who, What, and Wherefore of Geoengineering Governance, Social Science
Research Network, 2012 – papers.ssrn.com

Budyko, M. I. (1977), Climatic Changes, translated from Russian by R. Zolina,
AGU, Washington, D. C.

Caldeira K., Keith D.W., The need for climate engineering research, Issues in Science and
Technology, 2010 - freepatentsonline.com

Cao L., Caldeira K., Atmospheric carbon dioxide removal: long-term consequences and
commitment - Environmental Research Letters, 2010 - iopscience.iop.org
61
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans

Chalecki E.L., Ferrari L.L., More maple leaf, less CO2: Canada and a global geoengineering regime, Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 2012 - Taylor & Francis

Chisholm, S. W., Falkowski, P. G., & Cullen, J. J. (2001). Dis-crediting ocean
fertilization. Science, 294(5541), 309-310.

Clingerman,
F.
(2012)
"Between
Babel
and
Pelagius:
Religion,
Theology
and
Geoengineering," in Preston, C. (ed.), Engineering the Climate: The Ethics of Solar Radiation
Management. Lantham, MD: Lexington, pp. 201-219

Corner A,
Pidgeon N,
Parkhill K, Perceptions of geoengineering: public attitudes,
stakeholder perspectives, and the challenge of 'upstream'engagement Reviews: Climate
Change, 2012 - Wiley Online Library

Crutzen PJ., Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A contribution to
resolve a policy dilemma? - Climatic change, 2006 – Springer

Daim, T. U., Rueda, G., Martin, H., & Gerdsri, P. (2006). Forecasting emerging technologies:
Use of bibliometrics and patent analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(8),
981-1012.

Egede-Nissen B., Scientists in the Geoengineering Discourse: Social Advocates or Neutral
Umpires?- umt.edu, 2010

Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff L., The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode
2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations, 2000

Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Perspectives on
Ecological Integrity, 34-48

Gerlagh R, Van Der Zwaan B, Options and instruments for a deep cut in
CO2 emissions: Carbon dioxide capture or renewables, taxes or subsidies? - The Energy
Journal, 2012 - ideas.repec.org

Galaz V., Geo-engineering, governance, and social–ecological systems: critical issues and
joint research needs - Ecol Soc, 2012 - ecologyandsociety.org

Gardiner S.M., Some early ethics of geoengineering the climate: a commentary on the values
of the Royal Society Report, Environmental Values, 2011 – ingentaconnect.com

Gewin V., Collaboration: Social networking seeks critical mass - Nature, 2010 – nature.com
62
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans

Hamilton C., No, we should not just ‘at least do the research’, Yale University press, 2013

Hekkert M. P., Suurs R. A. A., Negro S. O., Kuhlmann S., Smits R. E. H. M., 2007, Functions of
innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change,Vol. 74, No. 4, pp. 413-432.

Herzog H.J., Peer Reviewed: What Future for Carbon Capture and Sequestration? - Environmental science & technology, 2001 - ACS Publications

Hessels, L. K., & Van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature
review and a research agenda. Research policy, 37(4), 740-760.

Hood W.W., Wilson C.S., The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetricsScientometrics, 2001 – Springer

House of Commons-Science, and Technology Committee. The Disclosure of Climate Data
from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia: Eighth Report of Session
2009-10,[Vol. 1]: Report, Together with Formal Minutes. Vol. 387. No. 1. The Stationery Office, 2010.

Hulme M., Climate change : Climate engineering through stratospheric aerosol injection
Progress in Physical Geography 2012 36: 694 originally published online 9 August 2012

Jacobbson S., Bergek A., 2004, Transforming the energy sector: the evolution of
technological systems in renewable energy systems, Industrial Corporate Change, Vol. 13,
No. 5, pp. 815-849.

Keith D.W.,Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University, 12 Oxford St.,
Cambridge MA, 02138. July, 1998

Keith, D. W., Ha-Duong, M., & Stolaroff, J. K. (2006). Climate strategy with CO2 capture from
the air. Climatic Change, 74(1-3), 17-45.

Klemperer P., What is the top priority on climate change? 2009 - papers.ssrn.com

Kosugi T, Fail -safe solar radiation management geoengineering - Mitigation and Adaptation
Strategies for Global Change, 2012 – Springer
63
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans

Kunzig, R., & Broecker, W. (2008). Fixing climate: The story of climate science—and how to
stop global warming. London, UK: Green Profile

Lenton
T.M.,
Vaughan
N.E.,The
radiative
forcing
potential
of
different
climate geoengineering options, Atmos. Chem. Phys, 2009 - agriculturedefensecoalition.org

Li j., Wang M.H.,, Ho Y.S., Trends in research on global climate change: A Science Citation
Index Expanded-based analysis, Global and Planetary Change, 2011 – Elsevier

Lindsay R.W., Zhang J., The thinning of Arctic sea ice, 1988-2003: Have we passed a tipping
point?- Journal of Climate, 2005 - journals.ametsoc.org

Linsky, M. 1986. Impact: how the press affects federal policymaking, New York: W.W.
Norton

Low, S., Moore, N., Chen, Z., McManamen, K., & Blackstock, J. J. (2013). Geoengineering
Policy and Governance Issues. In Geoengineering Responses to Climate Change (pp. 169191). Springer New York.

Lynn M. Russell, Philip J. Rasch, Georgina M. Mace,Robert B. Jackson, John Shepherd, Peter
Liss, Margaret Leinen, David Schimel, Naomi E. Vaughan, Anthony C. Janetos, Ecosystem
Impacts of Geoengineering: A Review for Developing a Science Plan, June 2012, Volume 41,
Issue 4, pp 350-369

Lukacs, M. (2012). World’s biggest geoengineering experiment ‘violates’ UN rules. The
Guardian.

Marchetti C., On geoengineering and the CO 2 problem Climatic Change, 1977 – Springer

Melin G., Persson O., Studying research collaboration using co-authorships, Scientometrics,
1996 – Springer

Melin G., Persson O., A bibliometric study of collaboration at European Universities.
Performance at the National, Regional and Institutional Level, 1995

Nerlich, B and Jaspal, R. 2012. Metaphors we die by? Geoengineering, metaphors and the
argument from catastrophy. Metaphor Sym., 27: 131–147

Nowotny H., Scott P., Gibbons – Minerva M., Introduction: Mode 2'revisited: The new
production of knowledge, 2003 – Springer
64
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans

Preston CJ, Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation
management and carbon dioxide removal - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change,
2013 - Wiley Online Library

Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF (2003) Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk
Anal 23:961–972

Pyle DM, Small volcanic eruptions and the stratospheric sulfate aerosol burden,
Environmental Research Letters, 2012 - iopscience.iop.org

Ranjan, M., & Herzog, H. J. (2011). Feasibility of air capture. Energy Procedia,4, 2869-2876.

Rasch, P. J., et al. (2008), An overview of geoengineering of climate using stratospheric
sulphate aerosols, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A,366, 4007–4037

Rayner S, Heyward C, Kruger T, Pidgeon N, Redgwell C, Savulescu J (2012) The Oxford
Principles

Scheider S.H., Geoengineering: Could—or should—we do it? Climatic Change, 1996 –
Springer

Scholte S., Vasileiadou E., Petersen A.C ,Opening up the societal debate on climate
engineering: how newspaper frames are changing, journal of integrative,

Serrano E., Rus G., Garcia-Martinez J., Nanotechnology for sustainable energyJournal of High
Technology Management ResearchVolume 21, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 23-30

Seidel, J. P., & Kodikara, J. K. (2000, November). Current issues in academia and geoengineering education. In GeoEng2000, an International Conference on Geotechnical Geological
Engineering (Vol. 1, pp. 826-840).

Shepherd et al., Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty (The
Royal Society, London, 2009).

Smits R., Innovation studies in the 21st century;: Questions from a user's perspective,
Technological forecasting and social change, 2002 - Elsevier

Stanhill G., The growth of climate change science: a scientometric study. Clim. Change, 48
(2001), pp. 515–524
65
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans

Sundblad EL, Biel A, Gärling T, Intention to change activities that reduce carbon dioxide
emissions related to worry about globalclimate change consequences - Revue Européenne
de Psychologie …, 2012 - Elsevier

Victor, D. G. (2008). On the regulation of geoengineering. Oxford Review of Economic Policy,
24(2), 322-336.

Victor, DG, Morgan, MG , Apt, F Steinbruner, J ,Ricke, K , The geoengineering option A Last
resort against Global Warming, Foreign Affiars, volume88 issue 2, 2009

Vasileiadou, E, Heimeriks, G and Petersen, AC. 2011. Exploring the impact of IPCC
assessment reports on science. Environ Sci Policy., 14(8): 1052–1061.Hulme M., 2 How
Climate Models Gain and Exercise Authority, The Social Life of Climate Change Models, 2012

Wagner C.S., Leydesdorff L.,
Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of
international collaboration in science, Research policy, 2005 – Elsevier

Weber, N. M. (2012, February). Rainmakers, space mirrors and atmospheric vacuums: a
bibliometric
mapping
of
geoengineering
research.
In Proceedings
of
the
2012
iConference (pp. 639-640). ACM.

Welch A., Gaines S., Marjoram T.,Fonseca L., Climate engineering: The way forward?,
Environmental Development, 2012 – Elsevier
66
Measuring and modeling geoengineering research by Siemen Eijkemans