Catálogo de publicaciones - libros

The energy-related Social Sciences and Humanities (energy-SSH) are commonly overlooked as a central evidence base for energy policy; the traditional Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines instead dominate the setting of policy goals. We argue that energy-SSH are insightful for energy policymaking and thus need more attention. We also make clear that to maximise their impact the considerable differences within energy-SSH need to be embraced rather than glossed over. From this position, we strongly advocate closer working of energy-SSH with STEM, as well as between the energy-SSH disciplines themselves. In illustrating all these points, we discuss the current European Union (EU) energy policy and research funding contexts and also outline our own SHAPE ENERGY project that aims to further the energy-SSH integration agenda across European circles. We finish the chapter with a brief commentary of this book’s three core ‘Parts’, and their constituent chapters, which address different contributions and experiences of utilising energy-SSH.

In this chapter, we illustrate the value of a multidisciplinary approach to energy poverty policy, drawing on insights from research into the lived experience of energy poverty in three European countries. We argue that understanding the lived experience of energy poverty is critical in designing energy policies which are fair, effective and aligned with people’s daily lives. In addition, we contend that bringing together a range of disciplines to examine dimensions of the lived experience of energy poverty (such as housing, employment, education, social policy, health, energy, etc.) is essential to give breadth to our understanding of this challenging and multifaceted condition. We propose five principles for policy design, informed by our multidisciplinary understanding of the lived experience. These principles can be applied at a range of scales (local, regional, national and European) to help ensure that the energy poor are both well served, and represented, by energy policy.

The development of the Marine Renewable Energy (MRE) industry is part of the EC Blue Growth Strategy. It brings together a range of relationships across people, sea, and energy, from developers to local communities and policymakers. This calls for diverse approaches, moving beyond an oppositional mindset to one that can establish an inclusive community around MRE development. Ownership of the marine environment is a legal issue, but MRE devices operate within a cultural and emotional sense of place. Early, sustained community engagement and advocacy is crucial to developing an industry whose impacts are likely to be felt before its social benefits materialise. Crucially, local communities could be supported by Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) research in creating new mythologies and imaginaries through which MRE technologies become an integral part of their culture, as well as part of their biophysical environment. A complex physical, political, and legal environment provides the context for these new marine energy technologies, and its development provides opportunities for SSH research to address issues around the sea and to integrate into the design of new marine energy seascapes.

Transitioning to less carbon-intensive energy systems involves making difficult choices and priorities. This chapter imagines three individuals who are affected in different ways by EU energy policy. Their fictional stories illustrate that energy policies are embedded in social, historical and cultural practices and need to take a broader perspective than either technological fixes or a narrowly defined goal of low or zero carbon emissions to be fair and effective. We argue that this is often not reflected in the EU’s energy policy frameworks, and use the Energy Roadmap 2050 to demonstrate our point. Contrary to the impression given by the roadmap, a narrow technocratic empirical basis for a policy is not enough to define and solve an energy problem. Energy issues are societal problems and need to be addressed as such.

Good quality research depends on good quality data. In multidisciplinary projects with quantitative and qualitative data, it can be difficult to collect data and share it between partners with diverse backgrounds in a timely and useful way, limiting the ability of different disciplines to collaborate. This chapter will explore two examples of the impact of data collection and sharing on analysis in a recent Horizon 2020 project, RealValue. The main insight is that it is not only projects but also the processes within them such as data collection, sharing and analysis that are socio-technical. We shall examine two examples within the project—validating the models and triangulating the qualitative data—to examine data synergy across four dimensions: (synchronising activities), (managing and coordinating actors), (in this case focusing mainly on connectivity) and . Recommendations include developing a data protocol for the energy demand community built on these four dimensions.

Improving the energy efficiency of multi-owned properties (MoPs)—commonly known as apartment or condominium buildings—is central to the achievement of European energy targets. However, little work to date has focused on how to facilitate retrofit in this context. Drawing on interdisciplinary Social Sciences and Humanities expertise in academia, policy and practice, this chapter posits that decision-making processes within MoPs might provide a key to the retrofit challenge. Existing theories or models of decision-making, applied in the MoP context, might help to explain how collective retrofit decisions are taken—or overlooked. Insights from case studies and practitioners are also key. Theories of change might then be employed to develop strategies to facilitate positive retrofit decisions. The chapter maps the issues and sets an agenda for further interdisciplinary research in this novel area.

Our chapter brings together four Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) scholars into a conversation about their research and policy engagements, working within History, Political Science, Sociology, and Science and Technology Studies. We develop a socio-technical perspective and turn that into a conceptual tool pack, to interrogate and explore the emerging concept of Energy Systems Integration (ESI) with a special interest in European energy integration. Our contributions include, first, advancing the concepts of socio-technical energy system and seamless web for our research topics. Second, we open up select frameworks for ESI using the socio-technical perspective and highlight very different interpretations of systems integration terminologies and their effects. Third, the chapter explores of how the production of scale matters greatly for integrated energy systems, from a variety of infrastructural scales to urban, national, and supranational scales. The chapter rounds up by suggesting ideas for future interdisciplinary research between SSH researchers and designers of more integrated energy systems.

This chapter explores potential ways to implement, and benefits for policymaking of, the complementary use of two different types of modelling for analysing residential energy consumption and ethnographic research. The more traditional approach of techno-economic modelling is considered alongside agent-based modelling that incorporates both causal and intentional relationships; ethnographic approaches provide ‘thick understanding’ of the relationships between social and technical elements and the environment. In doing so, the chapter builds on real examples from academic-policy engagement in the EU on energy demand, consumption and services. We examine three myths of the role of modelling in policymaking and propose practical ways of employing different types of modelling in a complementary way to increase policymakers’ understanding of residential energy demand, consumption and services. Finally, we make three concrete recommendations for developing future interdisciplinary work on integrating social and technical models for informing policy.

This chapter aims (1) to identify problematic framings relating to the integration of Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) research with the developing EU Energy Union and (2) to account for the practice of SSH-related energy policy integration with regard to the disciplines, actors, initiatives and processes involved. It articulates an imaginary of SSH and policy integration prevalent in Horizon 2020 funding calls relating to the EU Energy Union, which prefigures what is asked of SSH. Implications of this imaginary for the framing, substance and process of energy policymaking and the role of SSH research therein are discussed. An alternative imaginary is depicted, based on reflection on ‘European Network for Research, Good Practice and Innovation for Sustainable Energy’ (ENERGISE), a three-year, pan-European Horizon 2020-funded project being undertaken by the authors and other partners. The conclusion identifies priorities which need to be addressed in future Horizon 2020-funded research, centring on further probing of alternative imaginaries of, and approaches to, eliciting energy policy integration of SSH.

Addressing global climate change calls for rapid, large-scale deployment of renewable energy technologies (RETs). Such an accelerated diffusion constitutes a new phenomenon, which challenges existing analytical approaches. The implied fundamental reconfiguration of energy systems will inevitably involve adjoining shifts in the structure of energy markets, the socio-cultural significance of energy and related rules and institutions—producing new societal tensions that are largely understudied. This chapter draws on insights from socio-technical, social-ecological and techno-economic systems studies to better understand, assess and support the exploration of low-carbon futures. We sketch out an agenda that encompasses four major tasks for governing the energy transition: i) a richer understanding of the dynamics of socio-technical and social-ecological systems; ii) multidimensional assessments of prospective environmental, social and economic impacts of these transformations; iii) methods that enable actors to anticipate future impacts in their everyday innovation and decision practices; and iv) elaborate new governance arrangements to tackle the upcoming transformations.