• Energy Research
• Swiss National Science Foundation close
• 12. Responsible consumption close
• RO close

Sustainable energy consumption is a research area of a large interest in the last years. New energy-efficient lighting technologies exist, and can significantly reduce household electricity consumption, but their adoption has been slow. A considerable number of international studies show that sustainable development scenarios will be realistic if they involve the human behavior. The paper provides a solution to integrate consumer behavior with techno-economic energy issues, inside a complex energy model. This approach aims to reduce the systematic error on the demand side of the energy model that stems from the hypotheses of perfect information and of perfect economic rationality. These hypotheses are common to all optimization models based on the concept of economic equilibria. The TIMES energy modeling software tool has been used to integrate the techno-economic energy specific data and consumer behavior. Consumer behavior in energy consumption is described using specific attributes of energy technologies as virtual technologies. Technical coefficients of virtual technologies come from a sociological survey about Romanians’ behavior in energy consumption. This approach, known as “Social MARKAL”, allows the analyst to evaluate the possible contribution of information campaigns in changing lighting consumers’ behavior and effect of technology switch. The model is developed for the period 2010-2026, and is implemented by using TIMES/VEDA software platform. The implementation presented this paper focuses on the household lighting technologies but the approach can be extended to other demand sectors as well.

La promesse d'une coproduction pour relever des défis complexes en matière de durabilité est convaincante. Pourtant, la coproduction, le tissage collaboratif de la recherche et de la pratique, englobe divers objectifs, terminologies et pratiques, avec peu de clarté sur leurs implications. Pour explorer cette diversité, nous avons systématiquement cartographié les différences dans la façon dont 32 initiatives de 6 continents coproduisent divers résultats pour le développement durable des écosystèmes à l'échelle locale et mondiale. Nous avons constaté des variations dans leur objectif d'utilisation de la coproduction, de compréhension du pouvoir, d'approche de la politique et de voies d'impact. Une analyse par grappes a identifié six modes de coproduction : (1) la recherche de solutions ; (2) l'autonomisation des voix ; (3) le pouvoir de courtage ; (4) le pouvoir de recadrage ; (5) la gestion des différences et (6) l'agence de recadrage. Aucun mode n'est idéal ; chacun possède un potentiel unique pour atteindre des résultats particuliers, mais pose également des défis et des risques uniques. Notre analyse fournit un outil heuristique aux chercheurs et aux acteurs de la société pour explorer de manière critique cette diversité et naviguer efficacement dans les compromis lors de la coproduction de la durabilité. La coproduction comprend divers objectifs, terminologies et pratiques. Cette étude explore cette diversité en cartographiant les différences dans la façon dont 32 initiatives de 6 continents coproduisent divers résultats pour le développement durable des écosystèmes à l'échelle locale et mondiale. La promesa de la coproducción para abordar los complejos desafíos de sostenibilidad es convincente. Sin embargo, la coproducción, el tejido colaborativo de la investigación y la práctica, abarca diversos objetivos, terminologías y prácticas, con poca claridad sobre sus implicaciones. Para explorar esta diversidad, mapeamos sistemáticamente las diferencias en cómo 32 iniciativas de 6 continentes coproducen diversos resultados para el desarrollo sostenible de los ecosistemas a escala local y global. Encontramos variaciones en su propósito de utilizar la coproducción, la comprensión del poder, el enfoque de la política y los caminos hacia el impacto. Un análisis de clústeres identificó seis modos de coproducción: (1) investigar soluciones; (2) empoderar las voces; (3) poder de intermediación; (4) poder de replanteamiento; (5) navegar las diferencias y (6) replantear la agencia. Ningún modo es ideal; cada uno tiene un potencial único para lograr resultados particulares, pero también plantea desafíos y riesgos únicos. Nuestro análisis proporciona una herramienta heurística para que los investigadores y los actores sociales exploren críticamente esta diversidad y naveguen eficazmente por las compensaciones al coproducir sostenibilidad. La coproducción incluye diversos objetivos, terminologías y prácticas. Este estudio explora dicha diversidad mediante el mapeo de las diferencias en la forma en que 32 iniciativas de 6 continentes coproducen diversos resultados para el desarrollo sostenible de los ecosistemas a escala local y global. The promise of co-production to address complex sustainability challenges is compelling. Yet, co-production, the collaborative weaving of research and practice, encompasses diverse aims, terminologies and practices, with poor clarity over their implications. To explore this diversity, we systematically mapped differences in how 32 initiatives from 6 continents co-produce diverse outcomes for the sustainable development of ecosystems at local to global scales. We found variation in their purpose for utilizing co-production, understanding of power, approach to politics and pathways to impact. A cluster analysis identified six modes of co-production: (1) researching solutions; (2) empowering voices; (3) brokering power; (4) reframing power; (5) navigating differences and (6) reframing agency. No mode is ideal; each holds unique potential to achieve particular outcomes, but also poses unique challenges and risks. Our analysis provides a heuristic tool for researchers and societal actors to critically explore this diversity and effectively navigate trade-offs when co-producing sustainability. Co-production includes diverse aims, terminologies and practices. This study explores such diversity by mapping differences in how 32 initiatives from 6 continents co-produce diverse outcomes for the sustainable development of ecosystems at local to global scales. إن الوعد بالإنتاج المشترك لمواجهة تحديات الاستدامة المعقدة أمر مقنع. ومع ذلك، فإن الإنتاج المشترك، وهو النسيج التعاوني للبحث والممارسة، يشمل أهدافًا ومصطلحات وممارسات متنوعة، مع ضعف الوضوح بشأن آثارها. لاستكشاف هذا التنوع، قمنا بشكل منهجي بتحديد الاختلافات في كيفية مشاركة 32 مبادرة من 6 قارات في إنتاج نتائج متنوعة للتنمية المستدامة للنظم الإيكولوجية على المستويات المحلية إلى العالمية. وجدنا تباينًا في غرضهم من استخدام الإنتاج المشترك وفهم القوة ونهج السياسة ومسارات التأثير. حدد تحليل عنقودي ستة أنماط للإنتاج المشترك: (1) حلول البحث ؛ (2) تمكين الأصوات ؛ (3) قوة الوساطة ؛ (4) قوة إعادة الصياغة ؛ (5) التنقل في الاختلافات و (6) وكالة إعادة الصياغة. لا يوجد وضع مثالي ؛ يحمل كل منها إمكانات فريدة لتحقيق نتائج معينة، ولكنه يشكل أيضًا تحديات ومخاطر فريدة. يوفر تحليلنا أداة إرشادية للباحثين والجهات الفاعلة المجتمعية لاستكشاف هذا التنوع بشكل نقدي والتنقل بفعالية في المفاضلات عند المشاركة في إنتاج الاستدامة. يتضمن الإنتاج المشترك أهدافًا ومصطلحات وممارسات متنوعة. تستكشف هذه الدراسة هذا التنوع من خلال تحديد الاختلافات في كيفية مشاركة 32 مبادرة من 6 قارات في إنتاج نتائج متنوعة للتنمية المستدامة للنظم الإيكولوجية على المستويات المحلية إلى العالمية.

The European Landscape Convention (ELC) defines landscape as "an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors". Because all aspects linked to landscape are evaluated during the Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) procedure, we assessed the Swiss and Romanian experts' perception and EIA reports regarding the landscape concept. Therefore, we analysed Swiss and Romanian experts' perception of landscape, we evaluated concepts and methods used in environmental impact reports to assess landscape characteristics and functions, and how the ELC's aim and objectives are reflected by the EIA reports. The Canonical Correspondence Analysis performed to evaluate the experts' perception of landscape integration in the EIA procedure showed a significant relationship among pattern of answers and experts' professional background. Moreover, there is a significant difference between Swiss and Romanian expert's perception. Longer experience in the field and a higher level of education indicates higher awareness of landscape characteristics and properties, which demonstrates that alongside with the initial training, there is a need for developing a coherent long-life learning systems having landscape analysis as a focus. The ELC is familiar to nearly 86% of the Romanian Environmental Impact Assessment actors and nearly 29% of the Swiss experts. By contrast, most of the Romanian EIA reports analysed do not employ many concepts of the ELC, while most of the Swiss environmental reports incorporate objectives of landscape protection consistent with the Convention. Our study relies on the comparative investigation of representative case studies of Environmental Impact Assessment reports for industry, local infrastructures, tourism facilities, and wind farm projects, as well on tracking how the European Landscape Convention is reflected by the EIA reports. We found that EIA reports from both countries evaluate the visual landscape, thus, achieving subjective assessment of landscape aesthetics without focusing on social and ecological sub-systems. Quantitative elements of landscape analysis are mostly absent and it is challenging to evaluate whether environmental assessments are consistent among European Landscape Convention countries. To overcome the abstract way of evaluation of project's impact on landscape through EIA procedure, an improved landscape analysis procedure is needed and we propose developing technical guidelines, under the European Landscape Convention umbrella, in order to enhance landscape management. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

AbstractResearch in global change ecology relies heavily on global climatic grids derived from estimates of air temperature in open areas at around 2 m above the ground. These climatic grids do not reflect conditions below vegetation canopies and near the ground surface, where critical ecosystem functions occur and most terrestrial species reside. Here, we provide global maps of soil temperature and bioclimatic variables at a 1‐km2resolution for 0–5 and 5–15 cm soil depth. These maps were created by calculating the difference (i.e. offset) between in situ soil temperature measurements, based on time series from over 1200 1‐km2pixels (summarized from 8519 unique temperature sensors) across all the world's major terrestrial biomes, and coarse‐grained air temperature estimates from ERA5‐Land (an atmospheric reanalysis by the European Centre for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasts). We show that mean annual soil temperature differs markedly from the corresponding gridded air temperature, by up to 10°C (mean = 3.0 ± 2.1°C), with substantial variation across biomes and seasons. Over the year, soils in cold and/or dry biomes are substantially warmer (+3.6 ± 2.3°C) than gridded air temperature, whereas soils in warm and humid environments are on average slightly cooler (−0.7 ± 2.3°C). The observed substantial and biome‐specific offsets emphasize that the projected impacts of climate and climate change on near‐surface biodiversity and ecosystem functioning are inaccurately assessed when air rather than soil temperature is used, especially in cold environments. The global soil‐related bioclimatic variables provided here are an important step forward for any application in ecology and related disciplines. Nevertheless, we highlight the need to fill remaining geographic gaps by collecting more in situ measurements of microclimate conditions to further enhance the spatiotemporal resolution of global soil temperature products for ecological applications.