Co-producing energy futures: impacts of participatory modelling

Abstract

This transdisciplinary research case study sought to disrupt the usual ways public participation shapes future energy systems. An interdisciplinary group of academics and a self-assembling public of a North English town co-produced 'bottom-up' visions for a future local energy system by emphasizing local values, aspirations and desires around energy futures. The effects of participatory modelling are considered as part of a community visioning process on participants' social learning and social capital. This paper examines both the within-process dynamics related to models and the impact of the outside process, political use of the models by the participants. Both a numerical model (to explore local electricity generation and demand) and a physical scale model of the town were developed to explore various aspects of participants' visions. The case study shows that collaborative visioning of local energy systems can enhance social learning and social capital of communities. However, the effect of participatory modelling on these benefits is less clear. Tensions arise between 'inspiring' and 'empowering' role of visions. It is argued that the situatedness of the visioning processes needs to be recognized and integrated within broader aspects of governance and power relations.Keywords: agency, built environment, cooperation, co-production, energy model, renewable energy, resilience, social capitalIntroduction: bottom-up engagement with future energy systemsThe UK energy system is changing, with a transition from a high dependence on fossil fuels to a more complex, varied and intermittent energy supply landscape. The consequences of this for the socio-material environment of neighbourhoods is significant; however, democratic involvement in the shaping of energy futures remains low (Seyfang, Park, & Smith, 2013;Walker & Devine-Wright, 2008). While there is a long legacy of involving local publics in re-imagining the built fabric of their neighbourhoods (Aylett, 2013), this participatory approach has not been brought to bear on the interaction between landscapes, built environment and future energy systems. Adopting what Chilvers and Kearnes (2015) term 'residual realist' understandings of the public and of participation, dominant approaches to societal engagement BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION 2016 Vol. 44, No. 7, 804-815, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2016 # Gansmo, 2012;Ivner et al., 2010; and Sheppard et al., 2011). Consequently, there are few opportunities for residents of neighbourhoods to engage with the future of the energy system on their own terms to influence it according to locally held values and visions of the good life.This paper presents a case study of a transdisciplinary research project called Solar Energy in Future Societies (SEFS) that sought to disrupt the usual ways public participation in the shaping of future energy systems is performed. The project brought together an interdisciplinary group of academics and a self-assembling public at the town of Stocksbridge, in the Sheffield area o...

One-way street? Spatiality of communities in low carbon transitions in Scotland

“…This methodological approach is not without its challenges though. Krzywoszynka et al [91] point out that participative approaches in energy research are much more power-laden than often acknowledged.…”

The dynamics of trust during public participation

“…A clear result of the social‐oriented evaluation of public participation has been to recognize the mutual connection between social capital and public participation, because social capital affects the likelihood of public engagement and the effectiveness of participatory processes (Jones, Clark, Panteli, Proikaki, & Dimitrakopoulos, ; Pretty & Ward, ; Putnam et al, ; Wagner & Fernandez‐Gimenez, ), and because public participation affects the social capital level of the participants (Adger, ; Bullock & Hanna, ; Cameron, Olivia, & Shah, ; Grootaert, ; Krzywoszynska et al, ; Leach, Pelkey, & Sabatier, ; Leach & Sabatier, ; Menzel et al, ; Van Oorschot, Arts, & Gelissen, ; Wagner & Fernandez‐Gimenez, , ).…”

Opening Up the Participation Laboratory

“…These pathways used locally relevant issues as a starting point for engaging with questions around the future of renewable energy technologies and their associated socio-technical infrastructures. The five pathways explored: using renewable energy technology to power local 15 electric vehicles; using renewable energy technology to grow food locally; increasing the energy sustainability of local community buildings; generating renewable energy for the benefit of the wider community; and raising awareness of sustainability issues through the use of renewable energy technologies (for a detailed discussion of the content of the pathways see Krzywoszynska et al 2016). By proposing to work through the five themes the participants identified, we hoped to incorporate locally relevant ideas of a good life into visions of future socio-technical change.…”

“…(Cao andXue 2014, 2124) 2. For a discussion of this stage of the project, see (Krzywoszynska et al 2016). …”

“…The participating residents received support to continue building viable projects around socio-technical change in the locality, while the academic team continued to generate academic learning from the SEFS spaces of encounter. But while this partnership generated multiple and diverse impacts in the lifeworlds of participants and academics alike, only some of them arrived in the form of co-created outputs or fully collaborative activities, as we discuss in more detail elsewhere (Krzywoszynska et al 2016). …”