• Energy Research

Insights from different academic disciplines become relevant when developing solutions for a sustainable future. This gradual realization has influenced the emergence of dedicated inter- and transdisciplinary fields of enquiry such as sustainability science and sustainability economics. However, despite this concerted academic effort we are still far from agreeing on how to define, plan and measure the progress towards sustainability. The aim of this commentary is to suggest ways to choose the most appropriate sustainability assessment tool. After briefly introducing the main assumption of each sustainability assessment tool category, we identify the main implications that the choice of a tool entails. We then proceed to offer four different suggestions for conscious tool selection.

The importance of grid extension in Europe has risen in the last decade as a result of an aging grid and the energy transition toward a decarbonized electricity sector. While grid extension is claimed as necessary, stakeholder opposition has slowed down this process. To alleviate this tension, increased stakeholder participation is considered as a solution to increase acceptance. The question of stakeholder empowerment is central to participation and it is assumed that higher levels of empowerment improve planning processes. In this paper, we describe, evaluate and compare the planning processes for very high-voltage transmission lines in France and Norway by means of a document analysis. We operationalize the degree of empowerment in three levels: information, consultation and cooperation. The results reveal low stakeholder empowerment that barely rises above the level of consultation. The evaluation of recent projects entailing innovations to enhance stakeholder participation reveals a trend of increasing empowerment levels, especially in the early phases of the planning procedure, i.e. the discussion about the needs for new lines and about the needs of the affected stakeholders. The results suggest that current planning regulations can benefit from high levels of stakeholder empowerment, especially in the early phases of the planning process. Energy Research & Social Science, 23 ISSN:2214-6296

Including stakeholder perspectives in environmental decision making is in many countries a legal requirement and is widely seen as beneficial as it can help increase decision legitimacy, likelihood of implementation, and quality of the outcome. Whereas the theoretical literature on stakeholder engagement is large, less attention has been devoted to comparing and discussing different methodological approaches. Here, we compare three approaches—multi-criteria analysis, plural rationality theory, and scenario construction—that include stakeholders’ perspectives in environmental decision making. We find differences between the approaches concerning the assumptions about stakeholder rationality and whether experts and/or stakeholders are in charge of framing the problem. Further differences concern the type of data input from stakeholders and how it is used by the experts, as well as the role of stakeholders and whether they are involved early—already for identifying options—or later in the process, for evaluating or ranking alternatives analyzed by the experts. The choice of approach thus predetermines the type and depth of stakeholder engagement. No approach is “better” than another, but they are suited for different problems and research aims: the choice of the approach, however, has a large impact on the results.

There is growing recognition that using the properties of nature through nature-based solutions (NBS) can help to provide viable and cost-effective solutions to a wide range of societal challenges, including disaster risk reduction (DRR). However, NBS realization depends critically on the governance framework that enables the NBS policy process. Drawing from three case studies in Nocera Inferiore (Italy), Munich (Germany), and Wolong (China), we identify key governance enablers—the contextual preconditions, policy processes, and institutions—that proved essential for NBS initiation, planning, design, and implementation. In the three cases, interviews confirm the success of the NBS measures and their benefits in terms not only of DRR but of multiple ecological and social–economic co-benefits. Results highlight critical governance enablers of NBS, including: polycentric governance (novel arrangements in the public administration that involved multiple institutional scales and/or sectors); co-design (innovative stakeholder participatory processes that influenced the final NBS); pro-NBS interest and coalition groups (organized pressure groups that advocated for an NBS); and financial incentives (financing community-based implementation and monitoring of NBS). Findings show that the transition to NBS can contribute to multiple global agendas, including DRR, climate change adaptation, and sustainable development.

Geothermal energy is an essential component for the successful decarbonization of the global energy supply. Its success will depend both on technological progress and on public reaction to this technology. The goal of this study is to analyze how deep geothermal energy has been discussed in the mass media in Switzerland, with an emphasis on the actors, as well as on the arguments and frames they use. We analyze media articles published from 1997 to 2013 in two major Swiss newspapers. In addition to scrutinizing arguments in favor of or against deep geothermal energy, we cluster them around four major frames–energy transition, risks, technology, and costs–with the first and second being the most prevalent. We compare which actors promote which frames and show that industry predominantly focuses on the technology's potential for energy transition, while science presents information about risks. We discuss how these frames might impede the future development of deep geothermal energy and conclude by stressing the importance of transparency and public engagement in the siting process of future geothermal projects.

These datasets are the result of two nation-wide surveys conducted in Italy and Sweden in August 2020 and in november 2020. The surveys (which are identical in the two rounds) explore the respondents' risk perception, preparedness, knowledge, and experience regarding a set of hazards, namely: epidemics, floods, droughts, earthquakes, wildfires, terror attacks, domestic violence, economic crises, and climate change. The data files include the questionnaire survey (the Italian and Swedish versions as well as the English translation) and the two datasets of all the answers to the two surveys. Each column in the dataset refers to an item in the survey (e.g. a question or a sub-question), and each row represents a single respondent. For additional information on the August 2020 dataset, see Mondino et al. (2020).

AbstractAffluence and vulnerability are often seen as opposite sides of a coin—with affluence generally understood as reducing forms of vulnerability through increased resilience and adaptive capacity. However, in the context of climate change and an increase in associated hazards and disasters, we suggest the need to re-examine this dynamic relationship—a complex association we define here as the Affluence–Vulnerability Interface (AVI). We review research in different national contexts to show how a more nuanced understanding of the AVI can (a) problematize the notion that increasing material affluence necessarily has a mitigating influence on social vulnerability, (b) extend our analysis of social vulnerability beyond low-income regions to include affluent contexts and (c) improve our understanding of how psychosocial characteristics influence people’s vulnerability. Finally, we briefly outline three methodological approaches that we believe will assist future engagement with the AVI.