A methodology for community engagement in the introduction of renewable based smart microgrid

Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 314–323

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy for Sustainable Development

A methodology for community engagement in the introduction of renewable based smart microgrid Carla Alvial-Palavicino ⁎, Natalia Garrido-Echeverría, Guillermo Jiménez-Estévez, Lorenzo Reyes, Rodrigo Palma-Behnke Center of Energy, Faculty of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, School of Engineering, University of Chile (CMM, ISCI, DIE), Chile

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 22 March 2011 Revised 24 June 2011 Accepted 25 June 2011 Available online 23 July 2011 Keywords: Smart microgrids Socio-ecological systems Community energy Adaptability Learning Reflexivity

a b s t r a c t Introduction of new technologies is necessarily a social and cultural transformation that implies adaptation to a new context, co-created by the interaction between those intervened and interveners. Sustainable technologies should be aimed to preserve basic functions of socio-ecological systems while limiting evolution of unsustainable practices, as it is the case of non-conventional renewable energy sources. In this research we propose a methodology of intervention for the introduction of smart microgrid system in a rural community. The introduction of new energy technologies in a rural setting is a challenge, since it generates changes in patters of energy use that affect the demand of the system. Smart microgrid systems have the advantage of being more resilient than conventional approaches to renewable energy, as they can adapt to changes in the demand and through time. The proposed methodology is based on the concept of a community as a socio-ecological system approach affected by a technological intervention, aimed to move towards a stage of more sustainable use of resources. The method is divided in three stages, each one focused on enhancing elements of the socio-ecological systems and integration among stakeholders: trust, diversity, boundaries of the system, territoriality, adaptability and reflexivity. This methodology is validated in a case study on smart microgrids development in a rural community in the north of Chile. The application of this methodology highlights the importance of learning processes among stakeholders, specially the development of reflexivity within developers. Adoption and adaptation to new technologies depends on the characteristics of each community, but it can be enhanced when participation shapes the evolution of the technological intervention, opening up to a diversity of expectations associated to the complexity of the system. © 2011 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction Energy systems have historically developed as large technical systems (Hughes, 1987), characterized, especially in Latin America, by large generation sites distant from consumption areas. This dominant paradigm is currently changing to more flexible energy systems, such as smart micro generation systems that can be developed at community level and engage users actively also in the production and management of energy (Peppermans et al., 2005). Smart micro generation systems belong to the type of applications called smart grids. Smart grids are understood as the key technology that allows the development of renewable energy sources and improvements on energy efficiency (Palma-Behnke et al., 2011). It can be called a transformed electricity grid (transmission and distribution levels) that uses bidirectional communication systems. The concept of smart grid can be utilized to define a diverse group of applications, which ⁎ Corresponding author at: Av. Tupper 2007, Santiago, Chile. Tel.: + 56 2 978 4203. E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Alvial-Palavicino).

fosters the ability of monitoring and control of an electricity network (US Department of Energy, 2010). There is no unique definition of smart grid, even though it is easily distinguished from a conventional power grid. Conventional grids have a limited capability of monitoring and control; control centers communicate with generation centers, power substations and large consumers; control functions are often operated manually. In contrast, a smart grid is characterized by a two-way flow of electricity and information and is capable of monitoring everything from power plants to customer preferences to individual appliances. It delivers real-time information and enables the near-instantaneous balance of supply and demand at the device level. It can operate at different scales as long as it is located near the source of energy and near the areas of delivery. As a conclusion, the smart grid concept is an umbrella for different types of applications, including rural areas with available energy resources. Local renewable and conventional energy sources can operate together in a smart grid. The idea of energy production and consumption at the community level leads to energy production systems radically different from the

0973-0826/$ – see front matter © 2011 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.esd.2011.06.007

C. Alvial-Palavicino et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 314–323

standard: small scale, locally appropriate, environmentally and socially benign (Walker and Cass, 2007), centered in benefits to the community and not only to investors. A transformation in the energy production system is a complex process that encompasses a broad set of aspects, and our ability to change it is dependent on the way it has been historically conceived and the practices and institutions that have arisen as a consequence (Kunneke, 2008). It involves changes not only in the technology, but also in the elements such as users' practices, regulations, industrial networks, infrastructure and symbolic meaning (Geels and Schot, 2007). Large technical systems tend to be extremely resilient as a particular system is locked into a set social, institutional and cultural configuration (Smith and Stirling, 2010), which in case of energy prevents its evolution to more sustainable energy systems (Unruh, 2000). The introduction of a distributed generation energy scheme requires a change in the paradigm of energy production; that is, not the technical but also the social and cultural roles and perception of energy systems. These changes cannot be addressed by simple referring to “the facts” (Owen and Driffill, 2008) since public attitudes are complex and multi-dimensional in nature. Cultural and social aspects of energy and technology are reflected on the way communities react to the introduction of non-conventional renewable energy, with locality, ownership, trust, symbolic, affective and discursive aspects affecting the behavior of people in relation with energy (Walker et al., 2010; Devine-Wright, 2007). These multiple factors can lead to unexpected conflicts if not addressed properly. Conflicts at small scale can be complex issues, but they can also be managed more easily because of the dimension of the area to intervene and the limited number of stakeholders (Buchholz et al, 2007). Central to get a deep understanding of a community in order to prevent conflicts is the issue of trust. Trust—among stakeholders, institutions and society—enables the community to work collectively, consensually and effectively towards a common goal. An ideal cohesive community can be enrolled in strongly participatory and cooperative projects, improving their levels of social capital (Walker et al., 2010). Projects where community is actively engaged tend to be more successful (Walker and Cass, 2007; Warren ad McFayden, 2010). In an ideal scenario, it is the community that proposes an energy related solution to be implemented. In reality, projects tend to appear as a combination of community desires and external developers that have the technical and economic resources, as well as personal objectives associated with a technological intervention. Nevertheless, projects can have a favorable and active response from the community if management is appropriate (Wüstenhagen et al, 2007). It will depend strongly on the ability of the community to participate in decisionmaking processes with respect to the energy system that is determined by how much engagement is desirable from the developers. Community participation can encourage the community to get personally involved with projects and therefore strengthen its further development, by sharing the benefits of the energy system. It comes at a price for the project implementers, as they need to share decision power with end users (Villalobos and Schweizer-Ries, 2004), but an active involvement is more beneficial for local communities since they can benefit from local training as well as employment (Devine-Wright, 2005). Local issues are the main reason to want to be involved in a community energy project, but such forms of involvement tend to be more “reactive than proactive” (Rogers et al., 2008). The implementation of successful renewable energy projects that are sustainable in time, especially at community level, has been related to more open and participatory processes where views, expectations and framings from different stakeholders become integrated. Different methodologies can be found in the literature. Some of them are scenario planning, which seeks to address and put limits to uncertainty, improving the response capacity to multiple futures (Peterson et al., 2003). Kowalski et al (2009), using a combination of scenario planning and Multi Criteria Assessment (MCA) to reduce uncertainty in energy

315

development, where a diversity of stakeholders is included in the decision-making process, considering a broad spectrum of social, economic, environmental and technical criteria. MCA is commonly utilized to address issues of generation, management and energy policies (Polatidis and Haralambopoulos, 2004). Another approach is Participatory Technological Assessment (PTA) oriented to generate a feedback process between technological and social actors, as a way to predict social aspects during the technological development and increase social acceptance, focusing on expectations of different stakeholders and the construction of a common vision (Raven et al, 2009). The methodologies focus on integrating and managing stakeholders, but put little attention to non-human components on energy system. On the other hand, strong emphasis is put on renewable energy as sustainable technologies, focusing on the relation of renewable energy projects with the overall sustainability of a particular community or system (Karger and Henningsa, 2009). It is usually stated that renewables contribute to the sustainability of specific territories by providing them with a wide variety of socioeconomic and environmental benefits (Del Río and Burguillo, 2008). These assessments focus on specific components of sustainability (ecological, social, economic) through the monitoring of indicators, with few cases giving attention to the dynamic component of sustainability. Sustainability is a system issue, not a technology or organizational issue (Kemp, 2008) yet in renewable energy literature it is rarely addressed as such. Bringing insights from sustainability science and socio-ecological systems theory, in analyzing the sustainability of an energy system strong emphasis is put on the importance of understanding complexity of the system, adaptative management and adaptative capacity in the successful adoption of renewable energy technologies (Brent and Rogers, 2010). However, there is little reference in the literature to the relation between energy technologies and socioecological systems, with reference to the learning process associated with the sustainable adoption of technological that enhances ecosystem services and social components. There is little emphasis on how energy projects can increase resilience (if possible), as the ability to cope with changes within a community, associated to aspects such as social capital, reflexivity and adaptability. This emphasis should be given not only in the outcomes of a technological intervention, but also in the process of assessment, decision-making and implementation, which is where this research is focused on. In this work a methodology of technology appraisal for local scale introduction of new technologies based on smart microgrids and renewables is proposed. This methodology aims to: i) open up to the plurality of stakeholder's visions, ii) promote transparency and trust among stakeholders, iii) engage and integrate the community with the project, becoming owners, managers and responsible for the energy production and consumption system iv) build capacities that enhance their ability to cope autonomously with changes, and v) promote sustainable use of resources, i.e. energy efficiency. This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the theoretical framework used for the methodology, the third section describes the basis of the methodology; the fourth section describes a case study on smart microgrid development were this methodology was implemented; lastly, in the fifth section methodology is discussed in general as well as in reference to the case study. Theoretical framework The methodology proposed in this research relies on understanding the community to intervene as a socio-ecological system, defined as “human and natural elements that are closely interacting and mutually constituting” (Folke et al., 2005), comprising ecological, social, economic, cultural, institutional and technical characteristics. Here, we understand the functions of a socio-ecological system beyond ecosystem services to include also technologies (Smith and Stirling, 2010). This system is

316

C. Alvial-Palavicino et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 314–323

intervened by a technological transformation, in this case, a more sustainable energy system, generating changes in the original conditions. Technological transformations can be conceptualized through the concept of socio technical system. Socio technical systems emerge through the interaction of multiple actors and institutions creating and reinforcing a particular technological system (Foxon et al., 2009). This system operates in different spatial and temporal scales, engaging in the construction of a technological setting with specific expectations and objectives associated to multiple visions and narratives. In contrast, a socio-ecological system occurs in a specific geographic area. Thus, to integrate both systems it is necessary to expand the definition of socio-ecological system beyond the geographical boundaries of the area to intervene, including also those stakeholders that have the ability to act over the system and change its development path towards multiple directions—directly and indirectly. Specifically, we understand the system defined here as comprised by the community and the socio-ecological system associated, the energy system, the technical developers of the energy system as well as funders, regulatory institutions, and facilitators. Knowledge about social and ecological systems is uncertain and pluralistic given by multiple visions according to the experience of each particular participant within the system. By vision we understand the way each actor understands the technological intervention and the context where it is developed, depending on its priorities as well as historic relations with the object, and the way it structures the technical, human and environmental (Scoones et al., 2007), or in reference to the system, different ways of understanding or representing it (Leach et al., 2009). This multiplicity of perspectives enhances the ability to cope with changes, but at the same time might generate conflicts if not treated properly. Conflicts arise when a project approaches a community in a narrow way, without opening up to the diversity of vision, expectations and possibilities that a new technology brings in. Socio-ecological systems move through different trajectories given by endogenous and exogenous processes (Walker et al., 2006). Change in the system can be oriented to particular goals, such as more sustainable use of energy. It evolves from its original state to a second state 1 with a particular trajectory. The trajectory to achieve this objective is a process of learning among actors: learning about stakeholders and their visions, learning about the plurality of the system, learning by doing and reformulating, and learning to interact among participants. Learning is essential to promote a system that is capable of adapting to changes without losing its essential components and networks, and is an iterative process given by the ability to reflect on the knowledge acquired through different stages (Brand and Karvonen, 2007; Siebenhüner, 2004).

Proposed methodology The proposed methodology starts by defining the project implementation process as a system composed of the community, developers and other relevant stakeholders such as funders, electricity company and others,—and their multiple visions, the socio-ecological aspects associated directly and indirectly to the project, and a set of actions that take place during the process of implementation. It is composed by three stages and a stage zero, each of them aimed to comply with a particular objective (Fig. 1). The objective of the stage zero is the formation of the development group. The initiative for an energy system might arise from the community or from external developers. In both cases, the project starts as an idea that takes form through interaction between

1 These stages are dynamic, that is, they are constantly changing and are used only as a heuristic to understand the evolution of the system.

community and developers. Thus, the very first stage is the coordination of the human group in charge of making this idea a concrete project. The initial stage requires acknowledging that there is no one-fit-all solution for complex systems management, and that one discipline is unable to respond to all aspects of the problem. Thus, an interdisciplinary group is required that acknowledges their own limitations and the uncertainties associated with technological implementation, giving space to the integration of multiple disciplines. The group has to develop a common vision about their expectations of the project and abilities. The objective of the first stage called Building Trust is to generate a preliminary vision of the locality to intervene, as well as identify the main stakeholders of the systems and their own visions and narratives. The second objective is to understand the social structure of the community, in order to understand the power structures and organization where the participatory process is to be developed. The third objective is to build trust between stakeholders, specially the community. It is also in this stage where the viability of the project is defined, considering technical, environmental, social and financial constraints. The second stage called Co-construction is aimed to discuss the different visions and narratives previously identified among relevant stakeholders, and from these discussions, to build consensus and guidelines that encompass the complexity of multiple visions and objectives that each stakeholder brings to the project. This is a crucial stage since it allows generating a long-term action plan for the project. The third stage called Ensuring Sustainability, has the objective of identifying socio-environmental components that could be affected by the project (positive and negative impacts); and create a monitoring systems to identify impacts and potential conflict and problems. Next, each stage is described in detail. Stage I. Building Trust The first stage includes the collection of information about the locality as well as to introduce the project developers to the community. These two processes occur simultaneously, since most of the information is obtained from different primary sources (interviews, questionnaires, direct observation). A first approach to the locality to be intervened should be presented as an invitation and an opportunity for community members to get to know the project, and express their impression about the proposal. For the case of a project proposed by the community, it is also necessary to start with an exploration of particular viewpoints about the project development, as the initial idea of community members must be translated through the intervention into a technical and financial appropriate project. This first approach does not necessarily mean a formal meeting, but could be performed as informal interviews, participation in traditional activities, etc. The main objective at this stage is to build trust between local resident and developers, a process that continues throughout the whole project development. Trust is an essential element in the acceptance of renewable energy innovation (Sinclair and Lofstedt, 2001) and should be the basis of any intervention. To do so, a key step is to identify those stakeholders related with the technological intervention using stakeholder analysis methodology. Stakeholders' analysis can lead to the design of strategies and processes that more effectively represent and involve stakeholders in decision-making processes (Reed, 2008). To work with multiple stakeholders in a way that their concerns and expectations are taken into account, it is necessary to identify the visions of multiple stakeholders. This should be achieved through interviews organized with each one of them (Raven et al., 2009). It can occur that visions would give different perceptions and narratives of the issue, each depending on the particular experience of the stakeholder. Despite these differences, visions should be integrated

C. Alvial-Palavicino et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 314–323

317

Fig. 1. Stages of the methodology for intervention.

and never ignored, and treated as equally relevant for the development of the intervention. From the compiled information the viability of the project can be evaluated. We defined three basic criteria that could determine to what extent the project is plausible to be implemented in the community. The first criterion is to identify if there is any opposition to the project not open to negotiation; the second is to identify any protected areas of ecological and/or cultural value; and the third is to assess the degree of disagreement of visions and communication skills among stakeholders. These three criteria give an estimation of the viability of the project. These criteria encompass the social and ecological aspects of the project viability; financial and technical viability should also be considered at this stage.

Stage II. Co-construction Once the objectives of the first stage are reached (stakeholder analysis, social structure and build trust), two lines of work are developed. On one side, local residents are introduced to the technical aspects of the project. The methodology used to work with local resident will depend on their particular ways of meeting and decision-making, as well as internal divisions and cultural aspects.2 Different stakeholders are engaged at different levels through different mechanisms (Reed, 2008). It is convenient to make use of the institutional arrangements of the community to present the project and its components; it is also necessary to explain technical aspects in a way that community members can relate it to their personal experiences and associate it with their reality. On the other side, it is necessary to understand the deep context where the project is going to be developed, that is, the complexity of its social relations and territoriality. 3 These aspects are needed as a basis for meaningful participation as well as to create a long-term strategy that considers the changes in the systems caused by the interactions between socio-ecological and technical components. Community engagement should seek genuine participation, that is, one that encourages empowerment and cooperation, in contrast to pseudo participation that promotes asistencialismo 4 and domestication (Michener, 1998). Community engagement should seek to make transparent all aspects of project development, which includes: financial constraints, technical difficulties, and others, as a way to explicitly expose trade-offs with community members and open up the decision-making process in all its aspects. There are multiple

2 By cultural aspect, we refer to those traditional practices where certain groups are excluded/included, the ability of each group to express their opinion in front of others, power relations within the village, etc. 3 Territoriality is understood as the appropriation of a space where a history with spatial identity and emotion is constructed (Dematteis and Governa, 2005: Sosnowski, 1996). 4 “Asistencialismo” is a Spanish word that refers to basic aid that does not attack the roots of the problem, it can be translated as “help-ism” and it is related to the idea of paternalism.

participatory methodologies to be used in this type of intervention (Kumar and Chambers, 2002) the ones utilized on each case will depend on the community to intervene and the degree of trust among local resident and developers. However, there are certain criteria that should be used to choose appropriate methodologies: representativeness, allowing exploration of the evolution of the system (past, present and future) and that reflects the links between institutions related to the community. When these methodologies are applied, attention needs to be paid to critical points that are not exposed explicitly and need to be inferred by the developers. These critical points need to deepen down through extensive interviews with the identified key stakeholders. A considerable amount of information will be obtained from the previous steps, which needs to be classified and organized into topics and—ideally—integrated on a scheme of the different topics. There are multiple aspects where a project can have impact and that cannot be foreseen clearly before an extensive appraisal is performed. Complexity is poorly understood initially, and therefore deductive rather than inductive learning should direct technological design and intervention (Brent and Rogers, 2010). Thus, it is needed to reevaluate the objectives and implications of the project as it was planned previous to the intervention. To discriminate between topics to be included, it is needed to consider the relevance and feasibility of the implementation of each of them, considering the time and resources allocated to the project. Finally, to decide the scope of the intervention goes beyond technical criteria, and will depend on practical and subjective considerations, 5 considering allocation of resources, time, interest, ethical aspects as well as any other aspect deemed necessary. Actors in a system judge differently the desirability of a new energy project; as a result, the decision-making process and its outcome is inherently uncertain and highly political (Raven et al., 2009). It is important to keep in mind that incumbent interest enjoys privileged economic, cultural and institutional positions; therefore this decision is implicitly subjected to special groups (Stirling, 2008) that need to be made explicit as such when choosing a particular pathway. Once the objectives and implications of the project are settled, a long-term action plan can be developed, that would serve as a guideline for future activities. This plan should be flexible and adapt to changes in the social and ecological conditions, recognizing the inherent uncertainties of the system (Frame and Brown, 2008). Stage III. Ensuring Sustainability Any technological intervention will inevitably have some impacts —positive and negative—in the community intervened. Some of these impacts can be predicted and managed, some of them are inevitable, and some cannot even be predicted being part of the uncertainty of

5 We refer to subjective criteria as those which cannot be validated by scientific or technical data, and will depend on ethical and political considerations of the group.

318

C. Alvial-Palavicino et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 314–323

the project (Buchholz et al, 2007). At this stage, there should be enough trust with the community to evaluate impacts from informal interviews. Impacts serve as a basis for the development of indicators and as early warning signs to react to threats to the viability and sustainability of the project (Bell and Morse, 1999). Once the assessment stage is completed, the commissioning period begins. If the community has been truly engaged in the project, they should be able to react to the changes and challenges that the technological intervention brings into their daily life, as the intervention is aimed to promote their adaptative capacity (Pahl-Wost, 2009). Developers at the same time, should pay attention to these changes and be able to react and help when it is necessary. The initial operation is a stage of multiple changes in the everyday life and adaptation of the community. To track these changes and the evolution of the project it is necessary to develop a monitoring system that is objective and easy to use. Sustainability indicators are the tools proposed to monitor the evolution of the technological systems on its social context. These indicators should include the substantive—economic, social and environmental—as well as procedural—participation—components of sustainability assessment (Del Río and Burguillo, 2008). The process of development of indicators is out of the scope of this paper, yet there are some general ideas that should be considered when doing it. Indicators have technical (what can be done) and normative (what should be done) components (McCool and Stankey, 2004). The first ones depend on the technical objectives of the project, and the second ones should be decided based on what is relevant for the community and according to the scope of the implementation. Case study The ESUSCON rural electrification project (Electrificación Sustentable Cóndor, Condor Sustainable Electrification Project in English) is an initiative from the Energy Center, Faculty of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Universidad de Chile, and a local mining company, in the locality of Huatacondo, Tarapacá Region, Chile. It aims to develop an electricity supply solution for an isolated system under a scheme known as smart microgrid, where, by means of information technology automation devices and power electronics, a group of different electric energy sources, storage devices, metering equipment and network equipment are coordinated and optimized to provide the final user with a continuous good quality electricity supply service. In the case of ESUSCON, it involves generation sources like wind, solar, biomass and a diesel; and as storage, a lead-acid battery pack. These elements are commanded by a central Energy Management System (EMS) that provides signals for optimizing their operation according to load and resources forecasts in order to minimize the consumption of diesel and keep the power quality indicators close to optimal values. Additionally, it includes a demand side management system, which sends to the customer visual information about recommended daily load profiles according to forecasted resource availability; actual consumption data is recorded and sent back to the EMS through smart metering (Palma et al., 2010b). The group that develops this technology is composed by a multidisciplinary team of electrical engineers, geophysics (technical team) and designers, geographers, natural resource experts and sustainability scientist (facilitators). Both teams work closely in the design, implementation, operation and decision-making of the project. The methodology referred in this paper corresponds to the assessment and intervention stages of the project, developed from November 2009 to February 2011. Huatacondo is a village of about 100 inhabitants, mainly elderly people of Indo-Spanish origin and most of its cultural practices are strongly attached to catholic religion. During traditional festivals (in August) the population increases to 400 to 500 inhabitants. The main economic activities are mining and subsistence agriculture. These activities do not contribute to the local economy since most of the local residents receive their income from government retirement programs. During recent years, there has been an

increase in the emigration of youngsters, 6 due to the lack of employment and higher education. Additionally, rainfall has not been reported during the last year, adding to problems in the quality of water sources, which is endangering the sustainability of the village in the long-term. Stage I. Building Trust The first stage was performed between November 2009 and February 2010. The first visit by the technical team, gave a basic impression of the natural resources and social aspects of the village, and it was complemented by a second visit by the facilitators. In this visit, semi structured interviews to each household were performed, as well as direct observation. It was possible to identify two main groups of external stakeholders: private companies, corresponding to mining companies with activities in the area, and government related organizations. One of these mining companies is partially funding the project. These companies constantly contribute to the village as part of their corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. Inside the village, the Neighborhood Council (NC) is the single most important organization in the village, where all the relevant local issues are discussed. Under the NC authority, the Electricity Committee is in charge of the management and maintenance of the electricity system. There is also a Drinking Water Committee depending on the NC in charge of securing quality water provision to the community. These organizations are under the authority of the Pozo Almonte Municipality that funds its operations and is involved in relevant decision-making processes. The Municipality and the mining companies are the main providers of fuel for the current electricity system. All these entities are relevant stakeholders in the project, adding also the developers and the electricity company (Fig. 2). The electricity system is managed almost independently by the local resident, with the support of the organizations mentioned above. There is no charge for energy consumption, but permanent residents of the village have to pay a fee of $2000 Chilean pesos (about US$4) per month and those who only come during the weekends pay about the double of that fee once a year. These funds are intended for emergency use, not covering labor expenses that are supplied by the Municipality. 7 This system only provides electricity for 10 h a day (14:00 to 24:00), and in the case that energy is required out of this period it has to be financed privately. Since there are no incentives for energy efficiency, local resident often overuse the energy available. The identified motives of the stakeholders are diverse, yet their visions in reference to the electricity system do not diverge drastically in relevant aspect. For the developers the project in Huatacondo is the first real implementation of a microgrid for tests and innovation that also seek to benefit the community; for the mining company it's a way to improve the relationship with the village by improving their living standards, and for local residents of Huatacondo this appears as an extra benefit that the mining company wanted to implement. A possible source of conflict identified was the different resources each stakeholder brings out to the system, in relation with decision-making processes. Local residents perceive little decision-making ability because of the paternalistic (asistencialismo) relationship they have with the mining company funding the project and their lack of financial resources, as it is a community that lives in relative poverty. A conflict could emerge if resources were prioritized to the vision of a particular group with more economic power. Stage II. Co-construction Since one of the finding of the first stage was that the village has a strong social capital, and relevant decisions are made in meetings 6

We will call this group “migrants”. A single villager is in charge of the operation and maintenance of the electricity system; he has no decision-making ability within the Electricity Committee. 7

C. Alvial-Palavicino et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 314–323

319

Fig. 2. Stakeholder analysis of the ESUSCON project.

organized by the NC where all local resident where invited to participate, we used these same settings to organize the workshops and participatory activities in the village. This stage started with three workshops aimed to introduce the technological aspects of the project to the community: (1) general aspects of renewable energy, (2) basic aspects of the project in the village and (3) demand side management system. Local resident reflected their opinion and ideas about the project that served as a basis to understand their vision, as well as to explore aspects that were previously ignored such as areas of risk and cultural value, and energy resources available in the area, embodied in their local ecological knowledge about the locality. In parallel, the participatory methodologies used in this case were social cartography (Alberich, 2007), social map and dream map (Kumar and Chambers, 2002). A social cartography is a representation of space, where elements, relations, dimensions and tendencies that characterize a territory are integrated. A dream map is a tool to visualize a desirable future state within the community, as to visualize strengths, opportunities, and weakness and treats to achieve that state. A major finding was the identification of a conflicting relation between the Drinking Water Committee and the NC that could complicate the development of one of the objectives of the project. This conflict implied a change in the scope of intervention with respect to the water system, as described in the following section. Another aspect is that local resident had a short-term vision of the future of their community, although a strong attachment to their territory was always manifested. During one of the workshops, a few local resident manifested their criticisms and reluctance to the project, making explicit that the priorities for the village were different from an improvement on the electricity system. In this way, critical topics were identified and classified according to their relevance (Table 1). Here we identified different priorities among groups in Huatacondo that were poorly represented in the previous discussions in the community. These excluded groups were approached in private in order to be able to capture their opinions of the project and the decisions made through community meetings. Special attention was taken to represent their opinions among the community as equal as those of the most notorious groups. When the energy issue was clear in the village in all its complexity, it became necessary to communicate to the technical team the

findings in order to jointly reformulate the objectives and scope of the project. In particular, initially the project included an improvement in the drinking water system. 8 The conflict observed with the committee in charge, and lack of credibility of the local government institutions in charge of the water system infrastructure, made it difficult to implement the original proposal in this aspect. The original proposal was redefined by the developers, deciding not to get involved in institutional and community aspects, limiting the scope of intervention to an improvement of the water supply system provided by the local government. Once the information gathered in the previous activities was analyzed, it was possible to formulate an action plan for the project that explicitly defined: the scope of intervention (both technical and non-technical aspects), the boundaries settled by the community and their allocation of responsibilities. A series of scenario was developed, allowing developers and facilitators to reflect on possible futures of the project and where it was more desirable to be guiding it (Kowalski et al., 2009). Stage III. Ensuring Sustainability To evaluate the impacts of the implementation of the project, a questionnaire was developed based on the information obtained by interviews and direct observation of the village. The aspects included in the questionnaire were landscape, economic activities, community, empowering and participation. This questionnaire was applied to most of the villagers 9 and surprisingly most of them did not mention any negative impacts of the project, besides an increase in the time spent watching television (to the point that it could endanger their daily and traditional activities). A second questionnaire was applied to

8 The president of the water committee had several conflicts with the neighborhood council and the community in general. The more severe conflicts were: bad chlorination process and lack of community engagement on a specific project she wanted to develop. These issues ended up in a lack of agreement within the community and with local authorities that would allow an improvement of the drinking water system, finally not embraced. 9 It was possible to talk to each villager because of the small size of the community. In cases where the community is bigger, it would be necessary to find a representative sample of community members.

320

C. Alvial-Palavicino et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 314–323

Table 1 Critical topics identified in the community. Topic by relevance

Specific issue

1. Communications (telephone) 2. Water

• • • • • • •

3. Agriculture 4. Migration 5. Energy

Isolation Water-borne diseases Scarcity Decreasing production Farm infections Decreasing population Intermittent supply

the migrant population in order to assess those impacts that were not mentioned by the local resident. In this case, the vision of the project was considerably different. They manifested their concerns about the source of funding of the project (mining company) and the final purpose and real viability of the project in the long-term, since it was clear for many of them that the village was going to be inevitably abandoned in future. Analyzing the perception of impacts from both groups (migrants and local resident), we realized that necessarily there would be two stages on the development and long-term sustainability of the project, associated to each group. The migrant group is concern with the loss of cultural identity due to higher energy availability, and reinforcing the “asistencialismo” relationship with mining companies, jeopardizing the capacity for adaptation and autonomy of the community. At this stage, we would focus on the local resident but to sustain this energy system in the long-term, it became imperative to work with the migrants with a reformulated strategy. From this basis, a set of indicators was developed, aimed to monitor the evolution of the project (Table 2). These indicators reflect socio-ecological aspects that are relevant for the village, such as quality and availability of water, academic performance, access and communications and maintenance of religious festival. Since these

indicators are aimed to follow changes in long periods of time (yearly), it is required to continue with visits to the village to monitor the first stages of the project implemented, as well as reactions from the local resident that could lead to an improvement of the action plan proposed for the project. At the same time, community members participate actively in monitoring and assessment of indicators based on their own perception of the relevant changes in the village and guided by facilitators. In this way, it is possible to reinforce their capacity to learn and reflect on changes as a means to promote adaptative capacity. Many projects that are operational when installed fail once they are operational, generating user's dissatisfaction and the abandonment of the project (García and Bartolomé, 2010). This project understands the long-term sustainability of the energy system based on community ownership, as community members become responsible of the proper management and performance of the electricity system. Taking advantage of the ability of the smart microgrid system of providing real-time information about availability and demand of energy (Palma et al., 2010a,b), an computational tool was created that could provide this information to the community and receive feedback on the status of the system from them at the same time, what was named as Social-SCADA (Palma-Behnke et al., 2011). This development was motivated by the requirements of villagers, who wanted to be able to visualize the energy available on the system and their consumption, and the high social capital found in the community that allowed a centralized management system. One of the objectives of the Social-SCADA approach is to transfer decision power to the community about technical and organizational aspects of the energy system. It also serves as an interface to present (and receive feedback on) the evolution of the selected sustainability indicators in a way that they can be used for decision-making in the community. The electricity system started its operations in December 2010. At this stage, it has been possible to implement a base line of indicators, and a second evaluation would be during the second half of 2011.

Table 2 Sustainability indicators for the performance and impact of microgrid system. Name Social Academic motivation and achievement Cultural transformation Security Social organizations Migration Telecommunications Access roads Environmental AviFauna Drinking water

Economic Tourism Gross income Economic activities External investment

Electrical Household electricity consumption Electric appliances Demand side management system

Objective

Measurement unit

Describes the impact of the project in the quality of education in the local school, as well as the motivation of students. Describes the evolution of relevant cultural practices: festival and farming. Identifies the increase or decrease in self-protection measures from households in the locality, a possible consequence of increase immigration. Describes the relevance of social organizations in the community and the emergence of new ones. Determines the migration patterns, consequence of the new electricity system. Describes the evolution of connectivity systems (internet, cell phone signal, telephone) Describes the conditions of access roads to the village and changes in these conditions.

Variation on average grades (%) Variation on number of festivals and farms (%) Variation on security measures (%) Variation on number and persistence of social organizations(%) Variation on migration patterns (%) Variation in means for accesibility (%) Variation on availability and quality of roads (%)

Identifies changes in the avifauna in the area. Describes the quality of drinking water available in the locality as well as the coverage of this service within the area.

Number of dead birds Variation on community members' perception of water availability

Describes changes in tourism and related activities in the area. Determines the impact in the gross income of community members after the project, due to maintenance, tourism and other associated activities. Identifies changes in economic activities due to the implementation of the project. Describes changes on foreign investment from public or private organizations, at local and regional scale.

Variation on touristic activities (%) Annual gross income per capita and variation among villagers (%) Variation on economic activities (%) Number of investments

Identifies changes in household electricity consumption of those residents who live in the locality throughout the whole year. Determines the acquisition of new electric appliances. Describes the evolution of energy behavior once the energy demand side management system is implemented.

Variation on electricity consumption Number of electric appliances acquired Energy shift (%)

C. Alvial-Palavicino et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 314–323

321

Fig. 3. Interactions between relevant components of socio-ecological system in reference to acceptance and adaptation of new technologies.

Discussion Throughout the case study, it is possible to identify elements of the socio-ecological system and aspects of the interaction among stakeholders that orient the intervention process towards an integration of the new technology that sustain the elements that are essential for the community to be viable in time, and at the same time, modify those habits and practices that are needed to be changed to introduce more sustainable practices on energy production and use.

•

•

•

•

•

•

Trust. It is considered a key element in the first stage that has to be maintained through the project. It determines the ability of dialogue and discussion, and promotes active involvement of stakeholders. Diversity. Any project would have many relevant stakeholders, with their particular visions. Stakeholders have links of different nature between each other that can be strong, weak or inexistent, when the creation of a link is part of the intervention process. Territoriality. Every community has a historical linkage with is geographical space. Community and spaces entrenches, defining levels of attachment with their territory. This attachment determines the space and dynamic of action, and the ability of others to interfere with it. Boundaries of the system. The project implementation, defined as a socio-ecological system, should have specific boundaries. The boundaries define the scope of action and its directionality, that is, what can be done and what is desirable to be done, in the context of the multiplicity of visions and expectations associated to the project. Reflexivity. It is the ability of the developers to identify, incorporate and redefine unexpected aspects of the project that arises during the assessment process. It relates to the definition of boundaries of the system and the ability to meet expectations of others stakeholders. Adaptability. It is the ability of the community to cope with external change and to incorporate that change internally. It is a feature of each community, depending highly on their willingness to adapt to new circumstances.

The first two elements—trust and diversity—are more relevant in the first stage; in the second stage is where territoriality and boundaries of the system stand out; and in the third stage is where qualities of reflexivity and adaptability are promoted. These elements also can relate to particular stakeholders. Territoriality and adaptability are elements associated to the community, trust and reflexivity are more closely related to the developers, and diversity and boundaries are qualities of the whole system that define the characteristics of the intervention.

As shown in Fig. 3 these elements generate positive and negative feedbacks among each other to reduce conflicts and promote adaptation. Trust is a key element; it enhances adaptability and reduces conflicts. Diversity is connected with trust, as it depends on the multiplicity of stakeholders and their ability to communicate with each other. Diversity can be positively or negatively related to trust, depending on the characteristics of the social networks among stakeholders (Norberg and Cumming, 2008). Territoriality, as an intrinsic characteristic of the system, determines adaptability and boundaries of the system. Setting boundaries and adapting to these new ones requires reflexivity from developers. Lack of reflexivity could lead to conflicts, as it would mean an inability to reflect other stakeholders' visions on the project outcome. The purpose of this methodology is to promote adoption of technology at the same time of enhancing the sustainability of a system. By being divided in stages, allows setting short-term goals of the intervention without losing the long-term vision of the project. Each stage places emphasis on certain elements that enhance the resilience of the community in relation to the new energy system, being this the ability to adapt to external or internal shocks, to preserve critical components of the community and to take advantage of the project as a tool to update not only energy but other aspects that could improve the quality of life of the community and its relation with its environment. At the same time, a smart microgrid energy system is also a resilient system, since it can adapt to changes in availability of energy as well as demand. As a consequence, there are decisions that require feedback from the community. These decisions are those associated with the spatial area where community and project intersects, such us availability and usability of resources and conflict with other uses, location of generating units, interventions to the occupied space, etc. The first step is to address the multiplicity of visions and ideas of sustainability that are associated to the stakeholders involved in the process. Normally technological interventions tend to prioritize particular objectives, not paying attention to the possibilities of the intervention to affect (positively or negatively) other aspects of the community-system. By addressing multiple visions and expectation it is possible to generate more adaptative responses to inherent uncertainties of technologies intervention, as it gives broader vision of the project and promotes deliberation and collaboration among actors of the system. As the knowledge of different realities of the project advances, the complexity of the system is revealed and understood. It becomes necessary to organize and incorporate these aspects into the planning process and make decisions according to the new scenario that a broader understanding presents. The direction that was taken originally might change as a consequence, but this change should be deliberative and responsible. Setting short-term goals brings a space

322

C. Alvial-Palavicino et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 314–323

for reflection about the evolution of intervention that allows discriminating between the gathered information as to rescue what is relevant for the project, and should guide the directionality of intervention. In this context, facilitators act as translators with the community and other stakeholders, to communicate those aspects that are not explicitly manifested. The definition of planning objectives, specific activities and outcomes of a local energy project responds to multiple objectives and trade-offs, related to stakeholders with multiple and sometimes opposing visions and expectations. Multi criteria analysis and decision-making are useful in grasping stakeholder values and visions in relation to a project. The use a combination of methods such as MCA, MCDM and scenario planning to build understanding and confidence of stakeholders is recommended (Hobbs and Horn, 1997; Kowalski et al., 2009). These methods are a basis for dialogue, but finally, decision-making should be a deliberative process among all participants. One essential characteristic of this methodology is that promotes social learning among stakeholders (Pahl-Wost, 2009; Reed et al., 2010). As it is designed to be revised on each stage and to promote deliberation, it obliges each stakeholder to get involved directly with others, especially with the community. Stakeholders learn not only about facts, but also how to relate with others and how they frame their particular visions. Learning that is shared and build through deliberation is reflected in changes on practices, which are the basis for transitions on technology uses locked into particular societal settings. Learning also broadens up visions of the system and its possibilities, and such, creates space for adaptability to changing environment. It has been argued that technologies are not sustainable on themselves (Kemp, 2008) but only when related to the system where they are located in. It can be added that a technological intervention not necessarily improves sustainability of a system (Brent and Rogers, 2010), and assessment and intervention process should be considered as building blocks in generating technological interventions that enhance sustainability at local level. This methodology seeks to fulfill this gap by looking not only at adoption of technology, but also to the linkage between technologies and adaptative capacity of a socioecological system. As seen in the case study, there are some aspects of the locality intervened that facilitated the use of this methodology. Huatacondo has a strong social capital and a well-represented decision-making system. Their inhabitants are capable of reaching the objectives they propose themselves, promoting benefits for the whole community even though there are conflicts between groups. Practical aspects include the fact that the population is concentrated in a limited space, facilitating group activities as well as to integrate those who do not participate of these activities. Even though the original energy system of Huatacondo was not the most efficient, energy was not one of the priorities for the local resident. Communications and connectivity was the main issue, as they felt their isolation did not allow them to catch up with the processes occurring in the outside world. When this issue became obvious, it was necessary to rethink the project not as a need but at a benefit that could have impact in other aspects of higher priority. On the other side, facing these new priorities required to define to what extent the project would be involved in these aspects and to assume the limitations of the intervention. This was the critical point were feedback between the community and developers was necessary. Developers started to consciously get involved more actively in community issues as a way to form their own perception and opinion about the issues discussed. This is a particularity of this project, since most of the time the technical developers tend to remain distant from communities and more subjective decision-making processes. In the case of the ESUSCON project, the funding mechanism was almost totally covered by the mining company. A tariff system was

proposed to the community but it was not successful (in the first stage of the intervention). In part, this was due to the historical relation with the mining company and local government who have funded the previous electricity system; also, the funders did not have any interest in recovering their investment and only focused on covering the maintenance cost. For future developments, investment cost must be tackled in a way that is possible for the funding organization to recover their investment. Allowing the project to be an open system that promotes learning and reflexivity, enhances meaningful participation of the community. Participation that goes beyond instrumental rationales of acceptance of a project is when the opinion and ideas of the community are integrated as a basis to generate guidelines for the project and follow a path of evolution that considers the strengthening of the socioecological system as a central component. Usually rural electrification programs make use of simple technological applications at household level, such as solar panels, solar stoves, small hydropower, etc.; but rarely make use of more complex technological applications that benefits the whole community and can be managed centrally within the community context. Rural electrification systems tend to fail as they cannot cope with changes (increase) in the demand; do not make use efficiently of renewable energy resources; and tend to be abandoned due to lack of appropriate management and maintenance (Brent and Rogers, 2010). In this paper we prove that these complex applications are suitable for rural electrification. Furthermore, compared to other rural electrification systems for isolated areas, smart microgrids have the advantage of being able to growth in capacity according to changes in the energy demand. Since it does not rely on a unique generation unit or source, prevents black-outs when one generation unit fails as it can be compensated by the others. As it can be remotely monitored, maintenance costs are cheaper and the community can become partly responsible of management. Consequently, smart microgrids are a viable alternative for rural electrification, especially in isolated areas. Nevertheless, it is important to note that there are some other factors that should be taken into account such as dispersed communities where distances between households make difficult its application from the economic point of view. Conclusion In this paper, we present a methodology for assessment and intervention for the introduction of renewable energy technologies in these communities. Renewable energy technologies affect social systems broader than on its technical aspects as there are co-constructed in a particular societal setting. Consequently, the introduction can produce conflict or can lead to failure of the technology in the mid and long-term. It is necessary a methodology for assessment that can embrace this complex relation between technology and the socio-ecological system where is settled in, and that at the same time, embraces its dynamic component. This methodology is characterized by promoting learning among stakeholders and embracing sustainability as a process of Co-construction of adaptability and reflexivity that moves a system from a particular regime to a more sustainable use of resources. To hand over the project to the community, but entitle them with the ownership, management and responsibilities of the project can only be achieved when the community is participating actively in the process of decision-making of relevant aspects of the technology to introduce. They become familiar with the technology as well as how to relate the components to their local reality. This methodology is suitable to be used especially in rural communities of the developing world, were assumptions about relations with technology differ from conventional ones in urban areas. One limitation is that it requires time and considerable engagement of stakeholders, an effort that might not be applicable for all types of projects. Even though, the outcomes can be

C. Alvial-Palavicino et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 314–323

substantially better in terms of technological acceptance and adaptation and sustainability than in the case of conventional, less dynamic methodologies of intervention. Acknowledgements This work has been partially supported by the mining company Doña Inés de Collahuasi, Millennium Institute “Complex Engineering Systems” (ICM: P-05-004-F, CONICYT: FBO16) and CGE Electricity Company. We also would like to thank the community members of Huatacondo for working with us in the development of this project.

References Alberich T. Investigación—Acción Participativa y Mapas Sociales. Castellon: Benlloch; 2007. Bell S, Morse S. Sustainability indicators: measuring the immeasurable. London: Earthscan; 1999. Brand R, Karvonen A. The ecosystem of expertise: complementary knowledges for sustainable development. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 2007;3(1): 21–31. http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol3iss1/0601-004.brand.html. Brent A, Rogers D. Renewable rural electrification: sustainability assessment of minihybrid off-grid technological systems in the African context. Renew Energy 2010;35:257–65. Buchholz T, Volk T, Luzadis V. A participatory systems approach to modelling social, economic and ecological components of bioenergy. Energy Policy 2007;35: 6084–94. Dematteis G, Governa F. Territorio y Territorialidad en el Desarrollo Local. La Contribución del Modelo Slot. Boletín de la A.G.E. 39; 2005. p. 31–58. Del Río P, Burguillo M. Assessing the impact of renewable energy deployment on local sustainability: towards a theoretical framework. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2008;12:1325–44. Devine-Wright P. Local aspects of UK renewable energy development: exploring public beliefs and policy implications. Local Environment 2005;10:57–69. Devine-Wright P. Energy citizenship: psychological aspects of evolution in sustainable energy technologies. In: Murphy J, editor. Governing technology for sustainability. London: Earthscan; 2007. p. 63–86. Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J. Adaptive governance of social–ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 2005;30:441–73. Foxon TJ, Reed MS, Stringer LC. Governing long-term social–ecological change: what can the resilience and transitions approaches learn from each other? Environ Policy Gov 2009;19(1):3–20. Available online at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/ cgi-bin/fulltext/121659841/PDFSTART. Frame B, Brown J. Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability. Ecol Econ 2008;65:225–41. Geels FW, Schot J. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res Policy 2007;36: 399–417. García VG, Bartolomé MM. Rural electrification systems based on renewable energy: The social dimensions of an innovative technology. Technol Soc 2010;32(4): 303–11. Hobbs B, Horn G. Building public confidence in energy planning: a multimethod MCDM approach to demand-side planning at BC gas. Energy Policy 1997;25(3): 357–75. Hughes TP. The evolution of large technological systems. In: Bijiker WE, Hughes TP, Pinch TJ, editors. The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology; 1987. p. 51–82. Karger C, Henningsa W. Sustainability evaluation of decentralized electricity generation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13(3):583–93. April 2009. Kemp R. Sustainable technologies do not exist! Paper for DIME Conference on “Innovation, Sustainability and Policy”, Bordeaux, 11–13 September 2008; 2008. Kowalski K, Stagl S, Madlener R, Omann I. Sustainable energy futures: methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory multi-criteria analysis. Eur J Oper Res 2009;197:1063–74. Kumar S, Chambers R. Methods for community participation: a complete guide for practitioners practical action; 2002. Kunneke RW. Institutional reform and technological practice, the case of electricity. Ind Corp Change 2008;17:233–65.

323

Leach M, Ian Scoones I, Stirling A. Governing epidemics in an age of complexity: narratives, politics and pathways to sustainability. Glob Environ Change 2009; 20(3):369–77. August 2010. McCool S And, Stankey G. Indicators of sustainability: challenges and opportunities at the interface of science and policy. Environ Manag 2004;33(3):294–305. Michener V. The participatory approach: contradiction and co-option in Burkina Faso. World Dev 1998;26(12):2105–18. Norberg J, Cumming G, editors. Complexity theory for a sustainable future. New York, USA: Columbia University Press; 2008. Owens S, Driffill L. How to change attitudes and behaviours in the context of energy. Energy Policy 2008;36:4412–8. Pahl-Wostl C. A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Glob Environ Change-Human Policy Dimens 2009;19:354–65. Palma R, Estévez P, Jiménez G. Redes Inteligentes. In: Comisión de Energía del Colegio de Ingenieros de Chile, editor. Energía Sustentable para Chile. Ediciones Colegio de Ingenieros de Chile; 2010b. p. 155–67. Palma R, Benavides C, Aranda E, Llanos J, Sáez D. Energy management system for a renewable based microgrid with a demand side management mechanism. IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence Applications in Smartgrid; 2010a. Palma-Behnke, R., Ortiz, D., Reyes, L., Jiménez-Estévez, G., Garrido, N., 2011. A social SCADA approach for a renewable based microgrid—the Huatacondo Project (unpublished manuscript). Pepermans J, Driesen J, Haeseldonckx D, Belmans R, D'haeseleer W. Distributed generation: definition benefits, and issues. Energy Policy 2005;33:787–98. Peterson G, Cumming G, Carpenter S. Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conserv Biol 2003;17:358–66. Polatidis H, Haralambopoulos DA. Local renewable energy planning: a participatory multi-criteria approach. Energy Sources 2004;26:1253–64. Raven R, Mourik RM, Feenstra CFJ, Heiskanen E. Modulating societal acceptance in new energy projects: towards a toolkit methodology for project managers. Energy 2009;34:564–74. Reed MS, Evely AC, Cundill G, Fazey I, Glass J, Laing A, Newig J, Parrish B, Prell C, Raymond C, Stringer LC. What is social learning? Ecology and society; 2010. [online] URL: http://homepages.see.leeds.ac.uk/~lecmsr/whatissociallearning.htm. Reed MS. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 2008;141:2417–31. Rogers JC, Simmons EA, Convery I, Weatherall A. Public perceptions of opportunities for community-based renewable energy projects. Energy Policy 2008;36:4217–26. Sinclair P, Lofstedt R. The influence of trust in a biomass plant application: the case study of Sutton, UK. Biomass Bioenergy 2001;21:177–84. Scoones I, Leach M, Smith A, Stagl S, Stirling A, Thompson J. Dynamic systems and the challenge of sustainability. STEPS working paper 1. Brighton, UK: STEPS Centre; 2007. Siebenhüner B. Social learning and sustainability science: which role can stakeholder participation play? Int J Sustain Dev 2004;7(2):146–63. Smith A, Stirling A. The politics of social–ecological resilience and sustainable socio-technical transitions. Ecol Soc 2010;15(1):11. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/ vol15/iss1/art11/. Sosnowski. Lectura crítica de la Literatura Americana: Inventarios, invenciones y revisiones. Venezuela: Biblioteca Ayacucho; 1996. Stirling A. “Opening up” and “closing down”—power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci Technol Human Values 2008;33:262–94. Unruh GC. Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 2000;28:817–30. US Department of Energy 2010. The smart grid: an introduction. http://www.oe.energy. gov/DocumentsandMedia/DOE_SG_Book_Single_Pages(1).pdf. Villalobos C, Schweizer-Ries P. Rural solar energy supply and participation. The example of a small Hellenic community. In: Arcidiacono C, Legewie H, editors. Learning communities and sustainable social-economic city development. 5th European Conference for Community Psychology, Berlin; 2004. Walker BH, Gunderson LH, Kinzig AP, Folke C, Carpenter SR, Schultz L. A handful of heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 2006;11(1):13. Walker G, Devine-Wright P, Hunter S, High H, Evans B. Trust and community: exploring the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable energy. Energy Policy 2010;38:2655–63. Walker G, Cass N. Carbon reduction, ‘the public’ and renewable energy: engaging with socio-technical configurations. Area 2007;39:458–69. Warren CR, McFadyen M. Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland. Land Use Policy 2010;27:204–13. Wüstenhagen R, Wolsink M, Bürer MJ. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 2007;35:2683–91.