• Energy Research

Abstract In this article we introduce a Special Issue of Energy Research and Social Science focused on energy infrastructure and the political economy of national development. Many countries are experiencing transformational growth in energy infrastructure, such as transmission and distribution systems; import, export and storage facilities; the development of domestic energy resources; and construction of new power generating stations based on wind, water, coal, gas and nuclear sources. Large-scale projects like these are frequently justified by appeals to grand narratives – promoting economic growth, securing energy supply, modernizing energy service provision, and transitioning to more environmentally sustainable energy systems - in which the fate of the nation is closely tied to infrastructural development. The papers in this collection present compelling empirical evidence of how claims for energy infrastructure’s national significance and/or necessity intersect with the (re)production of political and economic power. Drawing on case material from Africa, the Americas, Asia, Australia and Europe, they highlight the capacity of different energy technologies and infrastructural assemblages to shape political and economic outcomes beyond their role in storing, transporting or transforming energy. This Introduction to the Special Issue does three things. First, it characterises the scale and significance of the contemporary ‘infrastructural moment’, observing how, in many national contexts, energy policy-making remains centralised and divorced from public participation. Second, it critically differentiates existing literature on the political economy of energy infrastructure to identify five distinctive ways in which research understands the ‘political work’ infrastructure performs. Third, it introduces the papers in the Special Issue and organises them into four key themes. Overall, the Introduction affirms the importance for social science of understanding the economically and politically constitutive power of energy infrastructures. The critical reflexivity this requires is essential to moving towards energy infrastructures that are just, equitable and sustainable.

AbstractIn this commentary we critically discuss the suitability of payments for ecosystem services and the most important challenges they face. While such instruments can play a role in improving environmental governance, we argue that over‐reliance on payments as win‐win solutions might lead to ineffective outcomes, similar to earlier experience with integrated conservation and development projects. Our objective is to raise awareness, particularly among policy makers and practitioners, about the limitations of such instruments and to encourage a dialogue about the policy contexts in which they might be appropriate.

Abstract This paper explores Turkish urban households’ willingness to pay (WTP) for CO2 emission reductions expected to result from improvements in power production. A face-to-face questionnaire, with a Contingent valuation (CV) module prepared using the double-bounded dichotomous choice elicitation framework, was administered to 2422 respondents representative of urban Turkey—a developing country with low but rapidly increasing greenhouse gas emissions. The determinants of WTP were identified by considering not only the impact of standard socio-economic factors but also the effects of environmental knowledge, attitudes and behaviour, the relevance of the identity of the collection agent (national versus international institutions) in terms of trust people have towards them, and the degree of perceived participation of others in the realization of the project. Our study confirms the existing literature in demonstrating that WTP figures reported by young and educated people that are active on environmental issues, and who also possess material security and environmental knowledge, are more likely to be high. However, their willingness to make contributions is hampered significantly by their belief that their fellow citizens will not contribute and the general lack of trust in institutions. Overall, this study may be taken as a call to eliminate governance-related uncertainties in climate change deals.

Abstract Based on data from a face-to-face survey of 2422 residents from urban Turkey, this paper presents an analysis of citizens’ preferences in Turkey on nuclear and renewable energy sources. Findings indicate that opposition to nuclear power was strong, and only a small number of respondents endorsed it by listing it in their top two choices. Conversely, almost two-thirds of the sample endorsed investment in renewable energy sources (such as wind and solar), and only a small minority was opposed to it. Econometric analyses revealed that knowledge of the climate change problem was a common factor that explained endorsement of both nuclear and renewables. Yet, high levels of concern for the environment and a negative perception regarding its future differentiated the endorsers of renewables from those of nuclear energy. Endorsers of nuclear energy were found to be males who were knowledgeable about climate change and engaged in environmental issues, but less concerned about the environment, and optimistic about its future. Nuclear opponents, on the other hand, were found to be concerned about the environment, pessimistic about its future, and not fully relying on technology.

AbstractTwenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being1,2, addressing the global biodiversity crisis3 still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever4. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)5 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals6, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature7. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change8, pandemic emergence9 and socio-environmental injustices10. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions7,11. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures.