超越利益相关者磋商:红绿联盟使缅因州海上风能决策民主化

IF 6.9 2区 经济学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
{"title":"超越利益相关者磋商:红绿联盟使缅因州海上风能决策民主化","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.erss.2024.103692","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Stakeholder consultations organized by government agencies are the most ubiquitous form of public engagement in renewable energy transition in the U.S. and other industrialized countries. Despite the growing frequency and scope of these consultations, energy social sciences research shows that they are usually not effective at responding adequately to social and environmental concerns. This article presents research findings on how Maine's red-green coalition made of diverse social constituencies – labor unions, environmental groups, and climate advocates – presented a more democratic alternative. By utilizing the method of exploratory process tracing, we show how the coalition intervened to shape policymaking on offshore wind development. Our research shows that this success is due to the Maine coalition's ability to draw on cross-scale political resources, undertake multi-pronged campaigns to challenge the beneficiaries of the status quo, and to develop negotiated policy solutions acceptable to key constituencies. This research contributes new policy and scholarly insights about the conditions under which the efforts to promote a just and sustainable energy transition advance the goals of energy democracy.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48384,"journal":{"name":"Energy Research & Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629624002834/pdfft?md5=ed56c548b64a0613d73e2411b8b169fb&pid=1-s2.0-S2214629624002834-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beyond stakeholder consultations: Red-green coalition democratizes Maine's offshore wind energy policymaking\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.erss.2024.103692\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Stakeholder consultations organized by government agencies are the most ubiquitous form of public engagement in renewable energy transition in the U.S. and other industrialized countries. Despite the growing frequency and scope of these consultations, energy social sciences research shows that they are usually not effective at responding adequately to social and environmental concerns. This article presents research findings on how Maine's red-green coalition made of diverse social constituencies – labor unions, environmental groups, and climate advocates – presented a more democratic alternative. By utilizing the method of exploratory process tracing, we show how the coalition intervened to shape policymaking on offshore wind development. Our research shows that this success is due to the Maine coalition's ability to draw on cross-scale political resources, undertake multi-pronged campaigns to challenge the beneficiaries of the status quo, and to develop negotiated policy solutions acceptable to key constituencies. This research contributes new policy and scholarly insights about the conditions under which the efforts to promote a just and sustainable energy transition advance the goals of energy democracy.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48384,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Energy Research & Social Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629624002834/pdfft?md5=ed56c548b64a0613d73e2411b8b169fb&pid=1-s2.0-S2214629624002834-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Energy Research & Social Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629624002834\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy Research & Social Science","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629624002834","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在美国和其他工业化国家,由政府机构组织的利益相关者咨询是公众参与可再生能源转型的最普遍形式。尽管这些咨询的频率和范围越来越大,但能源社会科学研究表明,它们通常不能有效地充分回应社会和环境问题。本文介绍了缅因州红绿联盟的研究成果,该联盟由工会、环保团体和气候倡导者等不同的社会群体组成,是如何提出一种更加民主的替代方案的。通过利用探索性过程追踪的方法,我们展示了该联盟如何干预海上风电开发的政策制定。我们的研究表明,这一成功得益于缅因州联盟有能力利用跨规模的政治资源,开展多管齐下的运动来挑战现状的受益者,并通过协商制定出主要支持者可以接受的政策解决方案。这项研究为我们提供了新的政策和学术见解,让我们了解在何种条件下,促进公正和可持续能源转型的努力能够推进能源民主的目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Beyond stakeholder consultations: Red-green coalition democratizes Maine's offshore wind energy policymaking

Stakeholder consultations organized by government agencies are the most ubiquitous form of public engagement in renewable energy transition in the U.S. and other industrialized countries. Despite the growing frequency and scope of these consultations, energy social sciences research shows that they are usually not effective at responding adequately to social and environmental concerns. This article presents research findings on how Maine's red-green coalition made of diverse social constituencies – labor unions, environmental groups, and climate advocates – presented a more democratic alternative. By utilizing the method of exploratory process tracing, we show how the coalition intervened to shape policymaking on offshore wind development. Our research shows that this success is due to the Maine coalition's ability to draw on cross-scale political resources, undertake multi-pronged campaigns to challenge the beneficiaries of the status quo, and to develop negotiated policy solutions acceptable to key constituencies. This research contributes new policy and scholarly insights about the conditions under which the efforts to promote a just and sustainable energy transition advance the goals of energy democracy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Energy Research & Social Science
Energy Research & Social Science ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
14.00
自引率
16.40%
发文量
441
审稿时长
55 days
期刊介绍: Energy Research & Social Science (ERSS) is a peer-reviewed international journal that publishes original research and review articles examining the relationship between energy systems and society. ERSS covers a range of topics revolving around the intersection of energy technologies, fuels, and resources on one side and social processes and influences - including communities of energy users, people affected by energy production, social institutions, customs, traditions, behaviors, and policies - on the other. Put another way, ERSS investigates the social system surrounding energy technology and hardware. ERSS is relevant for energy practitioners, researchers interested in the social aspects of energy production or use, and policymakers. Energy Research & Social Science (ERSS) provides an interdisciplinary forum to discuss how social and technical issues related to energy production and consumption interact. Energy production, distribution, and consumption all have both technical and human components, and the latter involves the human causes and consequences of energy-related activities and processes as well as social structures that shape how people interact with energy systems. Energy analysis, therefore, needs to look beyond the dimensions of technology and economics to include these social and human elements.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信