Stefan Nabernegg

Mr. Stefan Nabernegg

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

13Years (2014-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
25 July 2018 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CUChristian Unterberger
Christian Unterberger
LBLukas Brunner
Lukas Brunner
SNStefan Nabernegg
Stefan Nabernegg
KSKarl Steininger
Karl Steininger
ASAndrea K. Steiner
Andrea K. Steiner
HTHeimo Truhetz
Heimo Truhetz
Spring frosts, as experienced in Europe in April 2016 and 2017, pose a considerable risk to agricultural production, with the potential to cause significant damages to agricultural yields. Meteorological blocking events (stable high-pressure systems) have been shown to be one of the factors that trigger cold spells in spring. While current knowledge does not allow for drawing conclusions as to any change in future frequency and duration of blocking episodes due to climate change, the combination of their stable occurrence with the biological system under a warming trend can lead to economic damage increases. To evaluate future frost risk for apple producers in south-eastern Styria, we combine a phenological sequential model with highly resolved climate projections for Austria. Our model projects a mean advance of blooming of –1.6 ± 0.9 days per decade, shifting the bloom onset towards early April by the end of the 21st century. Our findings indicate that overall frost risk for apple cultures will remain in a warmer climate and potentially even increase due to a stronger connection between blocking and cold spells in early spring that can be identified from observational data. To prospectively deal with frost risk, measures are needed that either stabilize crop yields or ensure farmers’ income by other means. We identify appropriate adaptation measures and relate their costs to the potential frost risk increase. Even if applied successfully, the costs of these measures in combination with future residual damages represent additional climate change related costs.

1 April 2019 in Ecological Economics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
SNStefan Nabernegg
Stefan Nabernegg
BBBirgit Bednar-Friedl
Birgit Bednar-Friedl
PMPablo Muñoz
Pablo Muñoz
MTMichaela Titz
Michaela Titz
JVJohanna Vogel
Johanna Vogel

13 July 2020 in Buildings and Cities
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KSKarl Steininger
Karl Steininger
LMLukas Meyer
Lukas Meyer
SNStefan Nabernegg
Stefan Nabernegg
GKGottfried Kirchengast
Gottfried Kirchengast

14 March 2017 in Energies
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SNStefan Nabernegg
Stefan Nabernegg
BBBirgit Bednar-Friedl
Birgit Bednar-Friedl
FWFabian Wagner
Fabian Wagner
TSThomas Schinko
Thomas Schinko
JCJanusz Cofala
Janusz Cofala
JCJanusz Cofala
Janusz Cofala
Industrial processes currently contribute 40% to global CO2 emissions and therefore substantial increases in industrial energy efficiency are required for reaching the 2 °C target. We assess the macroeconomic effects of deploying low carbon technologies in six energy intensive industrial sectors (Petroleum, Iron and Steel, Non-metallic Minerals, Paper and Pulp, Chemicals, and Electricity) in Europe, China and India in 2030. By combining the GAINS technology model with a macroeconomic computable general equilibrium model, we find that output in energy intensive industries declines in Europe by 6% in total, while output increases in China by 11% and in India by 13%. The opposite output effects emerge because low carbon technologies lead to cost savings in China and India but not in Europe. Consequently, the competitiveness of energy intensive industries is improved in China and India relative to Europe, leading to higher exports to Europe. In all regions, the decarbonization of electricity plays the dominant role for mitigation. We find a rebound effect in China and India, in the size of 42% and 34% CO2 reduction, respectively, but not in Europe. Our results indicate that the range of considered low-carbon technology options is not competitive in the European industrial sectors. To foster breakthrough low carbon technologies and maintain industrial competitiveness, targeted technology policy is therefore needed to supplement carbon pricing.

15 September 2025 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
TFTatiana Filatova
Tatiana Filatova
JAJoos Akkerman
Joos Akkerman
FBFrancesco Bosello
Francesco Bosello
TCTheodoros Chatzivasileiadis
Theodoros Chatzivasileiadis
IAIgnasi Cortés Arbués
Ignasi Cortés Arbués
Taoyuan WeiTaoyuan Wei
Taoyuan Wei
Climate policy faces increasingly complex challenges that span multiple human decision scales in nature–society systems. Contemporary climate policy models, while valuable and increasingly versatile in handling spatial and temporal scales, struggle to capture interacting multiscale decisions on the socioeconomic side. This perspective draws attention to the power of coupling among different modeling families, taking integrated assessment models (IAM), computable general equilibrium models (CGE), and agent-based models (ABM) as examples. Recent computational advances, maturity of models, availability of data, and interdisciplinary expertise make model coupling an increasingly feasible, effective, and useful tool for climate policy analysis. We examine the unique contributions of each modeling approach, highlight synergies from uniting their strengths, and discuss alternatives to and conditions for coupling. In addressing methodological challenges, we present examples of effective coupling of IAM–ABM–CGE, emphasizing the importance of maintaining model integrity while enhancing policy relevance. By bridging human decision scales and leveraging complementary strengths, coupled models can provide nuanced insights into climate–economy interactions, ultimately supporting effective and equitable—not just efficient and optimal—climate policies.

26 November 2014
Verified
Book Chapter
Closed access
PDF file
Manfred J. LexerManfred J. Lexer
Manfred J. Lexer
RJRobert Jandl
Robert Jandl
SNStefan Nabernegg
Stefan Nabernegg
BBBirgit Bednar-Friedl
Birgit Bednar-Friedl