Power and People

Apt, Jay; Fischhoff, Baruch

doi:10.1016/j.tej.2006.09.008

Cited by 18 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Cappers et al [87] have found that, under carefully designed ToU systems, vulnerable groups need not suffer adverse impacts and may in fact benefit financially from flexible energy systems which compensate users for services rendered to the system. Incentives for storage could be designed in such a way as to specifically target the needs of the energy poor and vulnerable, or to socialise the costs of flexibility rather than imposing regressive impacts on less well-off households [14,31]. Enhanced levels of engagement by some need not preclude socialised provision for others; although in some cases such as district heating, trade-offs may need to be made in order for socialised systems of provision to become viable [88].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Energy justice matters for system flexibility because to a large extent, the success or failure of various strategies for providing it will be contingent upon the active involvement or passive toleration of lay citizens [14]. Wider literatures on public perceptions of energy systems change have consistently found the fair allocation of risks and benefits, the equitable inclusion of citizens in decision processes effecting their lives to be significant factors shaping how energy technologies and systems are received [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Energy justice discourses in citizen deliberations on systems flexibility in the United Kingdom: Vulnerability, compensation and empowerment

Thomas

Demski

Pidgeon

2020

Energy Research & Social Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article details the application of energy justice as an analytic lens for exploring social acceptability of energy systems flexibility and governance in the UK. Drives towards the uptake of inflexible, low-carbon generation technologies are expected to generate new challenges for balancing energy supply with demand, requiring changes in network management. From the uptake of new storage technologies to shifts in practices and governance, such changes may impact on everyday energy users in a variety of ways. Drawing on data collected from deliberative workshops conducted in England, Scotland and Wales, we examine how members of the public interpret and respond to six models for governing future, more flexible energy systems. In so doing, we illustrate the value of energy justice literature in making sense of the ways citizens identify and balance concerns relating to how distributions of needs, capacities, and benefits, may shape novel forms of energy system participation. We also draw attention to the ways in which alternative discourses about fairness rooted in neoliberal understandings of market exchange may interact with and contradict more socially salient understandings of flexibility justice rooted in concern for vulnerable groups.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy justice discourses in citizen deliberations on systems flexibility in the United Kingdom: Vulnerability, compensation and empowerment

Thomas

Demski

Pidgeon

2020

Energy Research & Social Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In recent years, studies have also started to consider public or specific stakeholder groups' perceptions in relation to the fledgling offshore wind industry and/or to aquaculture development in the open ocean (examples given in Nichols et al 2003;Robertson and Carlsen 2003;James and Slaski 2006). It has been recognized that powerful stakeholder groups, in particular those directly involved in or affected by innovations, exert a great influence on new developments: they can impact negatively on progress of projects (Tango-Lowy and Robertson 2002) but also contribute positively to the improvement of management processes (Dalton 2006;Apt and Fischhoff 2006).…”

Section: Knowledge and Information Gaps In Offshorementioning

confidence: 99%

Governance and Offshore Aquaculture in Multi-resource Use Settings

Krause

Stead

2017

Aquaculture Perspective of Multi-Use Sites in the Open Ocean

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The notion of the sea as a seemingly endless source of resources has long dominated marine governance. This is despite that different perceptions and valuation systems underlie the institutional structures that govern and manage marine systems. Socio-political considerations cover the whole range of stakeholders and their type of involvement in the establishment and operation of multi-use offshore systems. However, within the vast variety of regulations inside the EU, the EU Member States as well as in North America, their implementation for offshore multi-use settings is as yet incipient and examples of best practice in multi-use scenarios are needed. These need to combine different knowledge systems (e.g. authorities, decision-makers, local communities, science, etc.) to generate effective insights into the management of multiple uses of ocean space and to complement risk-justified decision-making. Pre-existing social networks can provide significant political leverage for governance transformations as required for the move offshore. That said, a range of organizational and social challenges related to the collective use of a defined ocean territory have to be taken into account. For instance, the creation and compliance with defined responsibilities and duties or the introduction of cross-sectoral management lines, such as an offshore co-management, that integrates the different demands and practices of the involved parties within an operational scheme that is practical on a day to day manner are in case in point. Indeed, how people perceive and value marine environments and the resources they provide determines individual and collective preferences, actions and strategies in the marine realm.

show abstract

“…The automatic assumption tends to be that people are being hypocritical and selfish; however, social scientific research has shown that there are hidden depths to local opposition that go well beyond this so-called NIMBYism (Not in My Backyard) [4]. The reasons for objection of local facilities, much like the people who hold them, are diverse and can be driven and shaped by, among other things, concerns about the perceived risks of a technology that those designing or promoting it would not always anticipate (e.g., [5][6][7][8][9]). In short, I would argue that the eventual success of innovation often has less to do with the objective qualities of the technology-although evidently certain thresholds of use, quality, reliability and cost need to be reached-than a typical engineer might think.…”

Section: A View From the Countrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Two Blind Mice: It Is Time for Greater Collaboration between Engineers and Social Scientists around the RDD & D of Industrial Technologies

Jones

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within this short communication article, we consider the value that closer and earlier collaboration between engineers and social scientists could offer the research, development, demonstration and deployment (RDD & D) of industrial technologies. We consider perspectives taken from both the social sciences and engineering in order to highlight the prejudices and misunderstandings that currently limit the extent and quality of such collaboration. It is reasoned that the complex engineering challenges of the future demand a move towards greater interdisciplinarity. Current successful approaches towards fostering interdisciplinarity within the Carbon Dioxide Utilisation (CDU) research community are then used to illustrate the benefits of employing a more holistic approach to the design and introduction of new industrial technologies. It is our hope that this article will catalyse similar collaborative research efforts within other sectors.

show abstract

Power and People

Cited by 18 publications

References 5 publications

Energy justice discourses in citizen deliberations on systems flexibility in the United Kingdom: Vulnerability, compensation and empowerment

Energy justice discourses in citizen deliberations on systems flexibility in the United Kingdom: Vulnerability, compensation and empowerment

Governance and Offshore Aquaculture in Multi-resource Use Settings

Two Blind Mice: It Is Time for Greater Collaboration between Engineers and Social Scientists around the RDD & D of Industrial Technologies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About