Co-production in distributed generation:Renewable energy and creating space for fitting infrastructure within landscapes

This review describes the infrastructural elements of the socio-technical system of power supply based on renewables and the role of landscape concerns in decision-making about emerging ‘intelligent grids’. The considerable land areas required for energy infrastructure call for sizable ‘distributed generation’ close to energy consumption. Securing community acceptance of renewables’ infrastructure, perceived impacts on the community, and ‘landscape justice’ requires two types of co-production: in power supply and in making space available. With co-production, landscape issues are prominent, for some options dominant. However, ‘objectification’ of landscape, such as the use of ‘visibility’ as proxy for ‘visual impact’, is part of lingering centralised and hierarchical approaches to the deployment of renewables. Institutional tendencies of centralisation and hierarchy, in power supply management as well as in siting, should be replaced by co-production, as follows from common pool resources theory. Co-production is the key to respecting landscape values, furthering justice, and achieving community acceptance

Shifts in the smart research agenda? 100 priority questions to accelerate sustainable energy futures

Energy transitions are at the top of global agendas in response to the growing challenges of climate change and international conflict, with the EU positioning itself as playing a pivotal role in addressing climate risks and sustainability imperatives. European energy transition policies identify 'smart consumption' as a key element of these efforts, which have previously been explored from a predominantly technical perspective thus often failing to identify or address fundamental interlinkages with social systems and consequences. This paper aims to contribute to interdisciplinary energy research by analysing a forward looking 'Horizon Scan' research agenda for smart consumption, driven by the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH). Reflecting on an extensive systematic Delphi Method exercise surveying over 70 SSH scholars from various institutional settings across Europe, we highlight what SSH scholars see as future directions for smart consumption research. Building from seven thematic areas (under which are grouped 100 SSH research questions), the study identifies three key 'shifts' this new smart research agenda represents, when compared to previous agendas: (1) From technological inevitability to political choice, highlighting the need for a wider political critique, with the potential to open up discussions of the instrumentalisation of smart research; (2) From narrow representation to diverse inclusion, moving beyond the shortcomings of current discourses for engaging marginalised communities; and (3) From individual consumers to interconnected citizens, reframing smart consumption to offer a broader model of social change and governance. Social Sciences and Humanities scholarship is essential to address these shifts in meaningful (rather than tokenistic) ways. This agenda and the shifts it embodies represent key tools to enable better interdisciplinary working between SSH and teams from the technical and natural sciences.Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic DKRVO, (RP/CPS/2022/005); Horizon 2020 Framework Programme, H2020; European Commission, EC; Horizon 2020, (826025)European Union [826025]; Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic DKRVO [RP/CPS/2022/005

Shifts in the smart research agenda? 100 priority questions to accelerate sustainable energy futures

Energy transitions are at the top of global agendas in response to the growing challenges of climate change and international conflict, with the EU positioning itself as playing a pivotal role in addressing climate risks and sustainability imperatives. European energy transition policies identify ‘smart consumption’ as a key element of these efforts, which have previously been explored from a predominantly technical perspective thus often failing to identify or address fundamental interlinkages with social systems and consequences. This paper aims to contribute to interdisciplinary energy research by analysing a forward looking ‘Horizon Scan’ research agenda for smart consumption, driven by the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH). Reflecting on an extensive systematic Delphi Method exercise surveying over 70 SSH scholars from various institutional settings across Europe, we highlight what SSH scholars see as future directions for smart consumption research. Building from seven thematic areas (under which are grouped 100 SSH research questions), the study identifies three key ‘shifts’ this new smart research agenda represents, when compared to previous agendas: (1) From technological inevitability to political choice, highlighting the need for a wider political critique, with the potential to open up discussions of the instrumentalisation of smart research; (2) From narrow representation to diverse inclusion, moving beyond the shortcomings of current discourses for engaging marginalised communities; and (3) From individual consumers to interconnected citizens, reframing smart consumption to offer a broader model of social change and governance. Social Sciences and Humanities scholarship is essential to address these shifts in meaningful (rather than tokenistic) ways. This agenda and the shifts it embodies represent key tools to enable better interdisciplinary working between SSH and teams from the technical and natural sciences

UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Contested environmental policy infrastructure: socio-political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste facilities Contested environmental policy infrastructure: Socio-political acceptance of renewable energy

Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. Abstract Decisions to build new infrastructure are often contested. The general idea is that such infrastructure is considered to serve the (proclaimed) public interests, whereas the impact or risk is concentrated at a smaller scale, for example in local communities. The nature of such risk is that it concerns threats to environmental quality. A frequently arising type of environmental conflict arises when the proclaimed public good lies within the domain of environmental policy and sustainability. Impact assessments are essential parts of identification and assessment of acceptability and risks associated with projects, plans or programs. The social acceptability of building infrastructure as a part of environmental policy, however, is hardly conceptually defined so far, and the role of policy appraisal methods is unclear. The social acceptance of environmental-policy infrastructure is conceptually defined as institutionally determined, and will be elaborated in three cases. The first case is the policy domain of renewable energy implementation, which is a major component of climate change mitigation strategies. The empirical basis comes mainly from studies on the implementation of wind power. The second case concerns the building of waste infrastructure, which is part of environmental policies that, however, not only focus upon sound waste management and disposal, but primarily upon waste minimization (the 'waste management hierarchy'). The third case is the Dutch policy on space-water management, that tries to implement a new style of management that contrasts with the current style of water management and governance that is based on control and 'hard' infrastructure. This is now becoming the spearhead of climate change adaptation policy. All three cases show a large variety of social acceptance issues, in which the appraisal of the impact of siting the facilities is confronted with the desirability of the policies. The latter can also be questioned, and within the framework of the projects of infrastructure, they tend to be highly contested. The social acceptance of such facilities becomes a multi-dimension phenomenon, that manifests itself at all geographical scales and levels of governance

Reshaping the Dutch planning system: a learning process?

The Dutch physical planning system is at a turning point. Recently the government proposed a new institutional framework for spatial planning. At first sight, the intended changes look like an example of improvements resulting from a learning process. However, the main lines of the proposal blatantly deviate from the insights into planning, balanced decisionmaking, and 'governance' that have emerged during the past decade. This is illustrated and explained from three perspectives. First, the growing need for change was put forward several times by the Scientific Council for Government Policy, a think tank whose task is to advise the government from a certain intellectual distance. The development of ideas by this agency is an example of cognitive learning. Second, the example of infrastructure planning that is crucial in this cognitive development is used to illustrate this by confronting the ideas with the experiences in two major national projects. As a third line, the deviations between the empirical evidence, the analysis, and the advice to the government on the one hand, and the governmental proposal on the other, are explained in relation to the `advocacy coalition framework' theory on policy-oriented learning.