地方规模能源转型数字支持工具的参与式开发:来自两个欧洲案例研究的经验教训

Q1 Social Sciences
Richard J. Hewitt, Cheryl de Boer, Johannes Flacke
{"title":"地方规模能源转型数字支持工具的参与式开发:来自两个欧洲案例研究的经验教训","authors":"Richard J. Hewitt,&nbsp;Cheryl de Boer,&nbsp;Johannes Flacke","doi":"10.1016/j.glt.2020.07.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Spatial planning systems at local and regional levels are often not well-adapted to the growth of small-scale and local social innovations in renewable energy. Participatory decision support tools have been developed to support the implementation of many areas of environmental policy, but are less common in energy contexts. In response to this knowledge gap, we discuss, compare and contrast the participatory development of two different types of digital support tools for the cases of Spain and the Netherlands, leading to insights into the characteristics that local-level stakeholders find particularly desirable. We adopt an integrative approach, hybridizing implementation theory and action research for, respectively, analysis of implementation characteristics of key actors, and knowledge co-construction with participant stakeholders. The tools developed represent two extremes of the spatial decision support tool spectrum, a simple touchscreen application on the one hand (COLLAGE) and a more complicated spatial model on the other (APoLUS). COLLAGE was used and well-liked by stakeholders, whereas APoLUS was not adopted by the participant group, who nevertheless contributed much essential information to its development. We identify eight key differences between the two tools which shed light on the nature of bottom-up energy transition processes: 1: Target users; 2: Target scale of action; 3: Relevance to users’ needs; 4: Interactive quality; 5: Key emphasis; 6: Level of complexity; 7: Ease of communication of tool rationale; 8: Cost. The differences between these tools also relate to a recognized dichotomy in sustainability transition research, with complex spatial support systems like APoLUS tending towards <em>descriptive-analytical</em> modes of sustainability science and simpler tools like COLLAGE being more clearly related to <em>transformational</em> modes. Approaches to supporting local-scale energy transitions that are able to span both modes are likely to become increasingly relevant as the climate crisis evolves. We also identify a research gap between support tools for implementation of established policy and support tools for transformative actions at local scales, and suggest the study of digital “transition support tools” as a promising avenue for future research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":33615,"journal":{"name":"Global Transitions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.glt.2020.07.003","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Participatory development of digital support tools for local-scale energy transitions: Lessons from two European case studies\",\"authors\":\"Richard J. Hewitt,&nbsp;Cheryl de Boer,&nbsp;Johannes Flacke\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.glt.2020.07.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Spatial planning systems at local and regional levels are often not well-adapted to the growth of small-scale and local social innovations in renewable energy. Participatory decision support tools have been developed to support the implementation of many areas of environmental policy, but are less common in energy contexts. In response to this knowledge gap, we discuss, compare and contrast the participatory development of two different types of digital support tools for the cases of Spain and the Netherlands, leading to insights into the characteristics that local-level stakeholders find particularly desirable. We adopt an integrative approach, hybridizing implementation theory and action research for, respectively, analysis of implementation characteristics of key actors, and knowledge co-construction with participant stakeholders. The tools developed represent two extremes of the spatial decision support tool spectrum, a simple touchscreen application on the one hand (COLLAGE) and a more complicated spatial model on the other (APoLUS). COLLAGE was used and well-liked by stakeholders, whereas APoLUS was not adopted by the participant group, who nevertheless contributed much essential information to its development. We identify eight key differences between the two tools which shed light on the nature of bottom-up energy transition processes: 1: Target users; 2: Target scale of action; 3: Relevance to users’ needs; 4: Interactive quality; 5: Key emphasis; 6: Level of complexity; 7: Ease of communication of tool rationale; 8: Cost. The differences between these tools also relate to a recognized dichotomy in sustainability transition research, with complex spatial support systems like APoLUS tending towards <em>descriptive-analytical</em> modes of sustainability science and simpler tools like COLLAGE being more clearly related to <em>transformational</em> modes. Approaches to supporting local-scale energy transitions that are able to span both modes are likely to become increasingly relevant as the climate crisis evolves. We also identify a research gap between support tools for implementation of established policy and support tools for transformative actions at local scales, and suggest the study of digital “transition support tools” as a promising avenue for future research.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":33615,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Transitions\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.glt.2020.07.003\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Transitions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589791820300128\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Transitions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589791820300128","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

地方和区域一级的空间规划系统往往不能很好地适应可再生能源方面的小规模和地方社会创新的增长。参与性决策支持工具已经开发出来,以支持环境政策许多领域的实施,但在能源环境中不太常见。针对这一知识差距,我们讨论、比较和对比了西班牙和荷兰案例中两种不同类型的数字支持工具的参与式开发,从而深入了解地方层面利益相关者特别需要的特征。我们采用实施理论与行动研究相结合的方法,分别对关键行为体的实施特征进行分析,并与参与的利益相关者进行知识共建。开发的工具代表了空间决策支持工具谱系的两个极端,一方面是简单的触摸屏应用程序(COLLAGE),另一方面是更复杂的空间模型(APoLUS)。COLLAGE被利益相关者使用并很受欢迎,而APoLUS没有被参与者群体采用,尽管他们为其开发贡献了许多重要信息。我们确定了这两种工具之间的八个关键区别,这些区别揭示了自下而上的能源转型过程的本质:1:目标用户;2:目标行动规模;3:与用户需求相关;4:互动质量;5:重点;6:复杂程度;7:工具基本原理易于沟通;8:成本。这些工具之间的差异也与可持续性转型研究中公认的二分法有关,像APoLUS这样的复杂空间支持系统倾向于可持续性科学的描述分析模式,而像COLLAGE这样的简单工具更明显地与转型模式相关。随着气候危机的发展,支持能够跨越两种模式的地方能源转型的方法可能会变得越来越重要。我们还发现了实施既定政策的支持工具与地方层面变革行动的支持工具之间的研究差距,并建议将数字化“转型支持工具”作为未来研究的一个有希望的途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Participatory development of digital support tools for local-scale energy transitions: Lessons from two European case studies

Spatial planning systems at local and regional levels are often not well-adapted to the growth of small-scale and local social innovations in renewable energy. Participatory decision support tools have been developed to support the implementation of many areas of environmental policy, but are less common in energy contexts. In response to this knowledge gap, we discuss, compare and contrast the participatory development of two different types of digital support tools for the cases of Spain and the Netherlands, leading to insights into the characteristics that local-level stakeholders find particularly desirable. We adopt an integrative approach, hybridizing implementation theory and action research for, respectively, analysis of implementation characteristics of key actors, and knowledge co-construction with participant stakeholders. The tools developed represent two extremes of the spatial decision support tool spectrum, a simple touchscreen application on the one hand (COLLAGE) and a more complicated spatial model on the other (APoLUS). COLLAGE was used and well-liked by stakeholders, whereas APoLUS was not adopted by the participant group, who nevertheless contributed much essential information to its development. We identify eight key differences between the two tools which shed light on the nature of bottom-up energy transition processes: 1: Target users; 2: Target scale of action; 3: Relevance to users’ needs; 4: Interactive quality; 5: Key emphasis; 6: Level of complexity; 7: Ease of communication of tool rationale; 8: Cost. The differences between these tools also relate to a recognized dichotomy in sustainability transition research, with complex spatial support systems like APoLUS tending towards descriptive-analytical modes of sustainability science and simpler tools like COLLAGE being more clearly related to transformational modes. Approaches to supporting local-scale energy transitions that are able to span both modes are likely to become increasingly relevant as the climate crisis evolves. We also identify a research gap between support tools for implementation of established policy and support tools for transformative actions at local scales, and suggest the study of digital “transition support tools” as a promising avenue for future research.

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
Global Transitions
Global Transitions Social Sciences-Development
CiteScore
18.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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