- Email: [email protected]
Transdisciplinary energy research – Reflecting the context
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
ERSS-8; No. of Pages 9
Energy Research & Social Science xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy Research & Social Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss
Transdisciplinary energy research – Reflecting the context Daniel Spreng ∗ ETH Zurich @ CEPE, Zürichbergstr. 18, 8032 Zürich, Switzerland
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 24 January 2014 Received in revised form 20 February 2014 Accepted 22 February 2014 Keywords: Transdisciplinarity Interdisciplinarity Context Implementation
a b s t r a c t Social science has a difficult position in energy research. In the past, social science was often misused to increase public acceptance of technological research achievements. The authentic role of social science, making contributions to how the energy system should be institutionalized, guided, and fitted in social and environmental contexts, has been dominated by one voice, that of mainstream economics. If social science wants to assume a broader more independent role, the many voices of social science have to position themselves such that governments, firms, social groups and individuals are able to profit from its various messages. This positioning requires a certain amount of self-reflection. In this paper, instead of theorizing, four research endeavors I have been involved in are set in their context. To this end I use a concept of transdisciplinarity proposed by Max-Neef. My hope is that authors of this new journal will join me in attempting to place their contributions in the context of a larger picture, so that their contributions can have an impact in guiding energy systems in constructive directions. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction I welcome the launch of this new journal and I wish it a long, productive life. As much as energy is a central aspect for biological life, energy is central to the development of humankind. The fact that technology is an important means of harvesting and using physical energy has often been misinterpreted to view problems surrounding energy supply and consumption as primarily technological problems and – as a consequence of this misunderstanding – has mistakenly led energy research to be overwhelmingly technological research. The new journal before you is launched to correct this unfortunate imbalance [1–5]. Although the tools for harvesting and using energy are technical devices, most problems we have with society’s physical energy metabolism are non-technological problems. Our energy problems have less to do with technical knowhow than the knowledge of why, where, how much and for whom the energy should and should not flow. In particular, we lack institutional, societal and political knowhow. Most of all we lack enough interest in and knowledge of the big picture including the interactions of manmade energy systems with the environment. The interface between natural/technical science and the rest of society is more straightforward than the interface between social
∗ Tel.: +41 44 867 36 82. E-mail address: [email protected]
science and society at large. In the technological sphere the direction of progress is usually obvious (faster is better, more efficient is better, etc.); in the social sphere, there is a multitude of factors to be considered, and social scientists have different priorities, schools of thought and opinions. The interface between social science and society is conflictual and seeing individual contributions as part of what science as a whole has to offer is, therefore, of particular importance. Academic journals tend to promote specialization. In view of the incentives at work in academia, it is perhaps unrealistic to expect that this new journal will be different. But at least we can make an attempt. This article offers a practical suggestion on how authors publishing in this journal could present their work in its context, as part of the bigger picture. 2. Transdisciplinary research One way of not losing sight of the big picture is to look at things from the point of view of more than one discipline. However, interdisciplinarity is no guarantee that the essential part of the problem – let alone of the overall picture – is addressed. The most crucial discipline may still be missing. In industry, including the user of the research, the one who has posed the questions that had concerned him or her all along, is standard and usually ensures a sufficiently complete research design. This approach is similar to the standard definition of transdisciplinary research, which involves interdisciplinarity plus actor participation. “The
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.005 2214-6296/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Spreng D. Transdisciplinary energy research – Reflecting the context. Energy Res Soc Sci (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.005
G Model ERSS-8; No. of Pages 9
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2
D. Spreng / Energy Research & Social Science xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
core idea of transdisciplinarity is different academic disciplines working jointly with practitioners to solve a real-world problem. It can be applied in a great variety of fields” [6]. Thinking about how social science research can contribute to “Tackling Long-Term Global Energy Problems”, we, the authors of the book with that title, Thomas Flüeler, David Goldblatt, Jürg Minsch and I, came across another definition of transdisciplinarity and found it to be useful for our purpose [7]. We termed it “Max-Neef transdisciplinarity” after the author who proposed it [8]. 2.1. Definition of Max-Neef transdisciplinarity Max-Neef orders academic disciplines not only one beside the other, but also on four distinctive levels, I through IV, forming the following matrix: Fig. 1 is an almost exact copy of the figure Max-Neef used in his paper. The list of academic disciplines arranged on the lowest level “empirical research,” which explores “what exists?”, is not complete. The entire field of life sciences (except for physiology), psychology, and the humanities are not, but undoubtedly could be, included. The disciplines comprise research fields which have a methodological component and are subject to empirical verification. Whether mathematics, which is pure method, fits this category is debatable. Similarly, economics1 may more appropriately be moved up a level, whereas the empirical economic research on the lowest level can be seen as the sum of various types of economic research (econometrics, GE-modeling, historical analysis of the development of institutions, etc.), which analyze economic data according to various disparate methods. The lines connecting the boxes in Fig. 1 are drawn to signify possible connections. They do not point to connections which are significant in any general way. If there is a line between Genetics and Commerce it is only meant as an example. This connection might be important in a study of the trade potential of some types of pharmaceutics but generally it will not be a relevant flow of information. Max-Neef, the Chilean non-mainstream economist, suggested that studies relevant to solving the pressing problems of our times (and the education of students of these problems) should be transdisciplinary, i.e. be based not only on all relevant empirical research, but also take into account all four levels of his matrix. In other words, research should naturally be based on “What exists” and on “What we are capable of doing” but not shy away from the normative and ethical questions “What is it we want to do?” and “How should we do what we want to do?”. In a world, where science is a slave of unchecked economic growth, science is limited to finding “What exists” and “What we are capable of doing”. MaxNeef transdisciplinarity implies a keen interest in all four levels of the Max-Neef matrix, also questioning and analyzing the normative systems at work and the ethics of how we implement our endeavors. 2.2. Opportunities and possible pitfalls The big advantage of the transdisciplinary approach is that its research results tend to make a difference. They are not only taken seriously but often suggest a new direction or new way of tackling problems. The newly acquired knowledge provides guidance. It is my experience that this quality, this aspect of the research, is also appreciated by students. Academic research groups attempting this approach will often easily acquire highly motivated, dedicated
1
The term in Max-Neef’s original drawing is “econom.”.
Table 1 Areas of energy research, which tend to be neglected without strong social science. Areas
Topics/facets
Institutions
Governance Institutions and regimes Markets (all kinds) Change, social learning and scientific communities Value systems, cultures and actors Social acceptability of energy technologies Risk and energy communication Reflexivity and futurity Social power associated with energy consumption and supply Systemic approaches to analysis The long term: policy strategies, forecasting and path dependencies Critical Infrastructure
Dynamic interaction of technology and society
Perspective and embedding
Methodology (for analysis and transformation) “Hardware”
and clever students; a second advantage. A third plus for transdisciplinary research applies to curiosity-driven research. True curiosity-driven research does not stop at the question “What exists?”; it will by its nature want to go on and assess the relevance of the empirical findings and follow up with normative and ethical questions. However, transdisciplinary research, or even interdisciplinary research for that matter, can have or may be seen to have the drawback of not being scientific enough. Disciplinary science is usually judged by its level of methodological sophistication. Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research are unable to compete with disciplinary research on that score. As a result, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research redouble their efforts to be methodologically correct and compensate for their lacking disciplinary sophistication with sophistication in assembling the disciplinary pieces into a whole. It is more difficult to remedy the fact that the incentives in academia are geared to honor disciplinary excellence. This is to some extent intrinsic: It is far easier for peers to judge methodological sophistication than to judge novelty of insight, relevance, and the like. 2.3. Social-science concerns in transdisciplinary research Social science is central to transdisciplinary energy research in several ways. Social science is not only at center stage if institutions and interactions of technology with society are analyzed, but also to assume an adequate perspective and embedding, to question state-of-the-art methodology and for pointing to important technical characteristics of critical infrastructure dictated by social phenomena such as terrorism. Table 1 lists areas, topics and facets, which tend to be neglected in energy research, when social science is not given enough weight (see also [9]). In the past, social science has often been misused to help force technological solutions onto “unreasonable” people and groups in society. The social science concerns described here often lead to curiosity-driven research and to answers that may be rather different from the “answers” the technologist had in mind. This type of social science stands on an equal footing with technological research and often proposes challenging new directions for technological development, better embedded in its social and ecological environment. In what follows I describe four research areas I was active in over the years. I choose examples, which have a public policy aspect; projects, where the question of how to present the results was of critical importance. I show how the MaxNeef matrix may help to assess to what degree the research was
Please cite this article in press as: Spreng D. Transdisciplinary energy research – Reflecting the context. Energy Res Soc Sci (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.005
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
ERSS-8; No. of Pages 9
D. Spreng / Energy Research & Social Science xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
3
IV: Values How should we do what we want to do?
III: Norms What is it we want to do?
II: Pragmatic studies What are we capable of doing?
I: Empirical research What exists?
Mathematics
Architecture
Physics
Planning
Engineering
Chemistry
Ethics
Values
Geology
Politics
Design
Agriculture
Soils
Philosophy
Forestry
Ecology
Law
Industry
Physio- Sociology logy
Commerce
Genetics
Economics
Fig. 1. Max-Neef matrix. Taken from Manfred A. Max-Neef [8].
transdisciplinary and what value the social science element added to the research.
• New hydropower resources will become available due to melted glaciers. The slopes that are currently under the glaciers will, in principle, represent a viable hydropower source.
3. Four examples 3.1. Example I: Climate change and hydropower Recently, I was involved in a rather large research undertaking, which had as its aim to elucidate the influence of climate change on hydropower production in Switzerland. The results were published (in German) in a special issue of Wasser Energie Luft, a journal well known to professionals in Swiss electric utilities and in relevant departments of government [10]. Collaborating scientists included climate scientists, hydrologists and glaciologists. In addition, data from modified run-off water regimes were analyzed by specialists in the utilities. The main results of the study were the following: • Changes in precipitation are highly uncertain. The Alps generally mark the division between European areas in which precipitation will diminish in winter and summer (southern Europe) and parts of Europe in which precipitation will increase in winter and decrease in summer or, further North, increase in both winter and summer. • The story of the meltwater from glaciers is different. Glaciers do not react to yearly temperature changes but rather to temperature changes averaged over several years. Climate researchers are much more familiar with these changes. Thus, the prediction of the run-off water from glaciers is rather solid: it will, depending on the altitude of the glacier, increase another 50 years or so and then decrease to zero within perhaps another 50 years, i.e. when the glaciers have melted away. These predictions can be made individually, glacier by glacier. Other information touched on in the report referred to the following items: • Besides average precipitation, the frequency of very high precipitation and longer periods of no precipitation will increase. Little quantitative information is known here and no new information was generated in the project, but the trend is undisputed.
What was the collaboration between the disciplines? An innovative translation took place from the results of the climate scientists to the world of the hydrologists. The climate scientists predicted changes in precipitation almost valley by valley, at the cost of very large error margins. The hydrologists had no use for the error margins; they were not part of their repertoire. However, they looked at the pattern the valley-by-valley predictions presented and translated this pattern into shifts of hydrological regimes. Grouping all alpine river systems into some half a dozen hydrological regimes is a method for extrapolating random sample measurements of river-flow timelines to all alpine river systems. As the definition of these regimes had been tested on data going back about a century, they presumably will remain relevant for some time. This translation from the world of the climate scientists to the repertoire of the hydrologists involved a welcome reduction of geographic detail, which resulted in a reduction of the margin of error. Other collaborations between the research groups may be more accurately characterized as multidisciplinary than interdisciplinary: Changed river flows determined by the hydrologists and the glaciologists were simply summed and fed into the operational systems models of the utilities. Thus, the model calculations of future electricity production were based only on the “main results” of the study. In this way, the main results were given special emphasis for the people interested in applying the generated knowledge to their business, while related, important effects were neglected. There was no time, interest or money to go further with this particular project. This was sensible from the point of view of the researchers. It was, however, questionable in terms of public communication to emphasize the main results of the study, which sent a comforting signal to industry and government that over the next 50 years climate change would have little negative impact on the hydropower business, but was potentially misleading in its neglect of the role of extreme weather events. Another aspect, a transdisciplinary one, was also not addressed. As glaciers disappear, new hydropower resources will become available. The bed of today’s glaciers will be small rivers with considerable height of drop as well as lakes. These resources will at
Please cite this article in press as: Spreng D. Transdisciplinary energy research – Reflecting the context. Energy Res Soc Sci (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.005
G Model ERSS-8; No. of Pages 9
ARTICLE IN PRESS
4
D. Spreng / Energy Research & Social Science xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
some stage become a hot political issue. Since these high elevation alpine areas are practically all in protected areas, the nature-loving glaciologists were reluctant to talk about this finding. Looking at this subject as both challenge and opportunity would entail a transdisciplinary approach that asked both “What is it we want to do?” and “How should we do what we want to do?”. It would require including social science early in this field of research. All in all this was a good multi-disciplinary research effort that answered questions of high sociopolitical relevance. The biggest effort, by far, concentrated on the change in availability of headwaters due to changed precipitation. It is very common for specialists to portray their findings in this manner as important contributions to answering the concerns of the stakeholders without spending much effort to assess the relative importance of the results compared to related issues. In addition, it is important to describe which questions were not addressed, particularly those in natural science. Addressing concerns over the role of hydropower in a world of climate change requires additional empirical research into extreme weather events as well as research on the other levels of the matrix, particularly in regard to what could and should be done, and in what way, when the glaciers are gone. 3.2. Example II: Energy efficiency versus energy conservation – the role of power electronics research Many years ago I was awarded a technology assessment project. We were to examine the energy effect of doing more research in power electronics. The funding was generous and we did good interdisciplinary research: energy analysis, industrial ecology, innovation theory and political science added their perspectives. We interacted much and learned from one another. The Swiss government had invested heavily in power electronics research. The question was what energy conservation benefit this investment would confer, if any. The finding was simple and solid: Although improved power electronics lead to many more highly energy-efficient devices, the same improvements caused high productivity gains and economic growth, with possibly higher energy consumption. It was unclear which effect would dominate on the macro-level [11]. Improved power electronics could have been used as a vehicle for marketing energy conservation systematically, in all phases of the innovation chain. Energy conservation could have been made an issue when industry partners of research groups were chosen (the energy conservation potential the collaboration could unleash could be taken into account), prototype and demonstration technologies could highlight the energy saving attributes and so forth. In each innovation step, energy saving could have been in the forefront. However, in the program we were evaluating, not many efforts in this direction were observed. The publication of our research generated heated controversy, involving slander, calls for my, the principal investigator’s dismissal, and ultimately a review process resulting in high praise for the technology assessment project [11]. In hindsight is seems to me that this controversy was not helpful and was perhaps unnecessary. If we had understood our research effort in a transdisciplinary manner and asked ourselves “What is it we want to do?”, we would have seen the importance of explaining the difference between improving energy efficiency (of equipment) on the micro-level and of conserving energy (of nations) on the macro-level. We would have seen that this job of explaining was actually the central task of our research endeavor. The preoccupation with being right prevented me from explaining to researchers, technical people from industry and government officials how important that difference was. Perhaps it would
have had an influence on the shortsighted over-emphasis of policy efforts on energy efficiency. Of course, that explaining would not have been easy. The focus of energy efficiency policy is a concentration on what is possible. Energy policy the world over is still lacking in this regard. It is a coalition of industries, which like to grow without much structural change; government, which tries to maintain a growing tax base; and of environmental organizations, which prefer to propagate popular measures. However, the concentration on energy efficiency rather than on energy conservation is somewhat schizophrenic. Nothing short of energy conservation will ease environmental pressure and improve energy security of energy importing countries. It would have been a true transdisciplinary effort to spend a big portion of our research effort on devising ways to clarify to various stakeholders, in ways they would understand, the challenges and opportunities for actually conserving energy. 3.3. Example III: 2000 W society In 1994 Paul Kesselring, a leading researcher at the Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland, noticed that similar numbers come into play with two major global challenges, poverty and climate change: • A decent living standard requires at least 1000 W per capita,2 according to the seminal work of Goldemberg and Johansson [12]. • At the time, IPCC recommended an upper limit for global fossil fuel consumption. Assuming that after 2100 one fourth of primary energy would still come from fossil fuels, the IPCC recommendation translated into an upper limit for average energy consumption per capita of 2000 W. • Assuming an eradication of extreme poverty by 2100 and allowing some variation of energy consumption within countries (from 1000 to a few thousand watts per capita, for instance) would leave no alternative to setting the target for the average power delivery per capita at the upper limit recommended by IPCC. This, Kesselring postulated, would only be a viable goal, if it also held separately for each country. Incidentally, this would not necessarily mean that each country would have the same GDP, as richer countries could afford to invest in higher efficiency and thus maintain a higher GDP than poorer countries. However, it would mean huge energy savings by rich countries and not much time for developing countries to see to it that the 2000 W target was not overrun (compare Fig. 2, based on data for 2000). The 2000 W target, which gave the fashionable notion of sustainable development some teeth, found some champions in Switzerland: • As noted, in 1994 Paul Kesselring pointed to the coincidence of the numbers referring to energy poverty and climate change. • In 1998, four members of the ETH Council traveling together on a train decided that ETH should subscribe as an institution to the 2000 W notion to show that ETH Zurich, ETH Lausanne and the four Swiss National Labs were taking sustainable development seriously. • In 2002, the Swiss Federal Council3 approved a strategy paper on sustainable development in which 2000 W was proposed as a strategic goal. With this approval, government decisions affecting the long term had to consider whether they were in line with the
2 3
1000 W [power] = 1 kW = 1 kWh/h [energy/time]. i.e. the Swiss Government.
Please cite this article in press as: Spreng D. Transdisciplinary energy research – Reflecting the context. Energy Res Soc Sci (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.005
G Model ERSS-8; No. of Pages 9
ARTICLE IN PRESS D. Spreng / Energy Research & Social Science xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
5
Fig. 2. Inequality of energy consumption within and between nations [13].
2000 W goal or not, at least during the four year planning period for which the strategy paper was written. • In 2008, the citizens of the City of Zurich were asked to approve or reject by popular vote a constitutional amendment to make the “2000 W society” a goal of the city. The amendment was adopted with 76% of the votes in favor. Throughout all these stages there was a lively debate over whether the 2000 W society was a non-binding vision, utopia, or a binding strategy and a basis for planning. Whichever, many understand that a systemic change seems to be necessary now, voluntarily, at relatively little cost or change will be forced on us later due to overstepping natural or societal boundaries at a much higher cost. In the city of Zurich, the constitutional amendment was translated into many practical steps. For instance, every building project costing more than three million Swiss francs is monitored and advised by an energy specialist from the city, from the planning phase to the first year of operation, to assure that its energy use is in line with the 2000 W society goal. The goal, however, is formulated on the energy efficiency level, allowing just a bit for quantitative growth.4 For the time being, as space in the city gets scarcer and dearer, this is acceptable. However, it is neither enough for future developments (such as a trend toward building high rises) nor for the country as a whole. The 2000 W society initiative is a national project with broad participation, even if it always aroused considerable opposition.5 It
4 Over the past 20 years, energy efficiency of buildings improved by 24%. This was the result of innumerable efforts by industry, trade organizations and government initiatives. However, during the same time period the total sum of heated floor space increased by 23.5%, practically nullifying efficiency improvements. The 2000 W goals are of course more ambitious, as the energy consumption has to decrease by about a factor of three. 5 One partially valid criticism refers to the choice of energy as the limiting factor, while the upper limit is actually based on CO2 emissions. Energy consumption is, however, often regarded as comprehensive proxy for many environmental impacts
Fig. 3. Indian proposal (2012) for climate negotiations (The heavy lines refer to the CO2 emissions caused by the consumption in industrialized (upper lines) and developing countries (lower lines); the fine line refers to the production in these countries. The left half of the graph is taken from [21] and [22]).
is transdisciplinary both in the traditional sense (interdisciplinary plus actor participation) and in some way also in the Max-Neef sense. From the onset, social scientists were interested in the idea and made their contributions. However, if we pose the relevant normative and ethical questions, we realize that although the 2000 W society initiative does address global issues, it has very much remained a national project, barely noticed outside Switzerland. Switzerland’s politics has been more self-centered in recent years than they might have been. Perhaps a Max-Neef transdisciplinary perspective on this project would show which elements of the 2000 W society concept could be used in international negotiations (see Fig. 3), which elements could be exported and which elements can only function in a cultural setting that has been
and is suitable as such. Also, it can easily be attributed to individual processes and actions.
Please cite this article in press as: Spreng D. Transdisciplinary energy research – Reflecting the context. Energy Res Soc Sci (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.005
G Model ERSS-8; No. of Pages 9
ARTICLE IN PRESS
6
D. Spreng / Energy Research & Social Science xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
shaped by centuries of self-reliance in isolated valleys and harsh winters.6 The 2000 W concept is perhaps less foreign to Swiss than to other cultures. However, the idea that global resources may most equitably be allocated on a per capita basis might make sense to many, if not to a majority of the global population. It is not astonishing that India started some years ago to argue in climate negotiations on a per capita basis. India proposed in 2012 that the developing countries should not have to limit their CO2 emissions before they are as high, per capita, as the emissions of the developed countries. A true transdisciplinary analysis must of course also analyze both the power plays and the relevance to sustainability associated with using such a metric. 3.4. Example IV: Energy poverty in Indian households – from statistics to economics . . . to linguistics The fourth example involves research which occupied my group from about 1998 to 2005. My interest had been to learn to what extent energy could be used as an indicator of sustainability. It seemed to me that in a developing country that aim could be pursued more straight-forward than in a developed country. In a developed country, the sustainability is mostly threatened by the environmental burden of affluence; this burden can be measured by the proxy indicator “energy consumption.” In developing countries, a sustainable path is more like a tightrope walk: If it is too fast, it will lead to catastrophic collapse of environmental services, and if it is too slow, economic and social problems, particularly inequity, will lead to unsustainable tensions, war and mass migration. The research question was whether some kind of energy indicator would be a feasible and useful indicator of sustainability also for developing countries. This, at the beginning, had been the general idea. As we got into the problem, we found that little was known regarding the relationship between energy and poverty: We were lucky to be the first team outside the Indian government to receive raw household survey data, and we spent years analyzing this data in order to illuminate the energy poverty-development nexus. In our first approach we attempted to capture this interrelationship by dividing the Indian population into clusters of similar lifestyles and degrees of development. We hoped we could describe development holding the characteristics of the clusters constant while looking at the number of households populating the clusters. After two years of unsuccessful cluster analysis, this idea had to be dropped: It turned out that the Indian population was too diverse to be boxed into a reasonable number (less than ∼100) of statistically significant clusters [14]. However, we had more success with an ad-hoc grouping based only on energy use. Having gotten a good feel for the data in the course of the unsuccessful cluster analysis, we knew that energy access was at least as important to the stage of development as the quantity of energy consumed [15]. The grouping shown in Fig. 4 proved useful. We were pleased with this grouping for the following reasons: • We felt it made theoretical sense. Sen [17] insists that poverty has two dimensions, capability and functioning. By distinguishing between access to energy and the amount of energy used, we were consistent with Sen’s insight. • The matrix allowed drawing a line in a two-dimensional space between energy-poor and non-energy-poor households. Note
6 Each household had to know what amount of firewood, hay and cheese had to be in stock in the fall in order to survive the winter, and what daily ration would last.
that 30 W of useful energy (the middle vertical in the matrix) is about equal to 300 W of end-use energy (direct, physical energy consumption), which translates into about twice this amount of total energy.7 An energy-poverty line would have to be drawn somewhere there. It would translate in terms of energy services to just about two cooked meals a day, a few kerosene lamps or one electric bulb in the house, some hot water and not much more. • As it turned out, the ad-hoc energy consumption groups stayed constant not only in the energy dimension (by definition), but also in other dimensions such as access to other infrastructure elements (drinking water, latrines and roads) as well as economic and social indicators (income and literacy).8 • The number of people changing over the years from the top-left groups to the bottom-right groups, therefore, turned out to be an excellent description of development consistent with several dimensions of development. By constructing this energy-use matrix, we made considerable progress in understanding the energy poverty development nexus. It allowed us to make some inroads in detailed economic analyses of the energy transitions. • We found that households’ economic situation did not explain their willingness to change their energy-use situation and behavior. • For technical and social reasons, neighborhood and geography is important. • The will and freedom to escape traditional ways cannot be taken for granted. Freedom, in this context, means both the possibility of the very poor to look beyond anything other than surviving and the freedom given by others.9 Looking into this latter issue, we came across some relevant history and linguistics texts. From history [18] we learned that in the Middle Ages, rich and poor often formed a pair. The poor “exercised the duty” of suffering for the rich. In turn the rich gave alimony to the poor. Thus, in some ways, both sides profited from the status quo. This unrecognized pair-formation, cementing poverty, might in some cases also be at work today. A quantitative linguistics study [19] of the German word Armut (poverty) came to the following conclusions: • The word Armut (poverty) is only used by well-off people. • The word Armut (poverty) is used to express two different things: a low state of well-being and a state that should be pitied. • Armut (poverty) calls for pity, understanding and compassion, but it is also something that has to be fought against. The word Armut (poverty) is often used in a string of expressions containing words like war, war against, epidemic, natural catastrophe, which have to be eradicated or forestalled. • Armut (poverty) is talked about with reference to the state of a group or a mass of people, whereas richness is usually attributed to (male) individuals.
7 Indian energy poverty (600 W) would therefore be below the South American energy poverty level (1000 W) of José Goldemberg (see above). 8 This ad-hoc grouping did not provide the clusters we had searched for in our cluster analysis. They characterize a stage of “development in the direction of Western ways of life,” but not the lifestyle in general. In some other dimensions, such as indirect food energy needs, they vary greatly within groups, e.g. the energy consumption-groups are quite inhomogeneous. 9 Many Indian villages have power just a few hours per day. It seems possible that the Electricity Supply Board, located in the city, is happy to supply the countryside with electricity to irrigate the fields and grow food (for all), but do not care as much about providing rural people with electricity for other purposes.
Please cite this article in press as: Spreng D. Transdisciplinary energy research – Reflecting the context. Energy Res Soc Sci (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.005
G Model ERSS-8; No. of Pages 9
ARTICLE IN PRESS D. Spreng / Energy Research & Social Science xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
7
Fig. 4. Indian population moving in the 3 × 4 energy use-matrix, defined according to energy access and according to consumption of useful energy [16].
This study reminded us of the old classic by Odum [20], pointing to the link between physical energy and societal energy, suggesting that powerful parts of society may sometimes also have an interest in keeping other parts of society energy poor. Looking back at our study of the energy poverty-development nexus from the distance of a few years, it seems to me it is fair to say that the study had a few transdisciplinary elements. From the start my personal core specialty “energy analysis” was supplemented by statistics and, later, by the use of econometric models. Energy analysis, statistics and econometrics afforded the study methodological rigor. This rigor did not support our initial ideas about a new way of describing development. But it made us suspicious of wishful thinking in regard to paternalistic Western initiatives such as the many millions in funds which were uselessly spent on clean cooking stoves. The historical and linguistic studies emphasized the necessity to question unwarranted assumptions about choices poor people can and want to make. Our own studies were embedded in the awareness of innumerable studies on end-use equipment, energy procurement, service quality, gender and community issues, planning, economic and policy issues in regard to energy transitions in developing countries. Fig. 5 is an exercise in drawing a Max-Neef matrix for the study. Energy analysis and statistics were at the core of the study. Energy analysis is placed here on level II; it takes energy statistics as well as other energy data as input and specializes in finding the most useful focus for the problems at hand. Here, its focus is energy procurement and use for residential cooking and housing at various stages of development. Statistics affords rigorous insights into what development quantitatively means for households in terms of energy access and use, infrastructure access and changes in economic and social indicators, such as literacy. The insights of energy analysis and statistics were tested with econometric models as well as by looking for analogies in history and linguistics (level I of the Max-Neef matrix). Here the connections between the boxes specifically refer to our study. The solid lines between the boxes indicate quantitative data flow, the dotted lines flow of general information and insight. On level II of the Max-Neef matrix, there emerged a rounded, detailed picture of the energy transformation process in Indian society from predominantly conventional biomass-powered
households to households powered by more modern energy carriers. Results of setting norms on level III were not spelled out in the study. This was a conscious choice. Our research was curiositydriven and it was our choice to do the research. We felt it would be presumptuous to spell out results on level III. Our study steered completely clear of asking the question “How should the Indians do what they want to do?” (level IV). We applied the question “How should we do the study we are about to do?” only to ourselves. We imposed on ourselves rigor on level I, a wide horizon on level II and the discipline to refrain from making recommendations in a context that could not possibly be familiar enough to us to permit. 4. Conclusion and a suggestion for the new journal In our recent book [7] we postulated that social science, by providing institutional, societal and political innovations, had as much to contribute to the development of a sustainable energy system as technology and natural science. We stressed and illustrated that both sides of science, the “Two Cultures”, were needed – wherever possible, working collaboratively. Of course, this is more easily said than done. Even in the project that led to writing the book we found this to be a tough challenge. In truth, all four of us were quite used to working across the “natural science/social science” interface. What was difficult was to find the representative voice of the social sciences. We were struck by our experience in regard to how difficult it seemed to be for various schools of social science to work together. Historically, energy research has been dominated by technological research. By its nature this research speaks in a uniform language. Differing preferences are based on aspects outside science. Industry is eager to implement technological innovations, while national governments are eager to make things easy for industry to innovate technically and compete internationally. The major social science innovations for the energy system that were politically adopted in recent decades were the introduction of energy markets and the privatization of energy companies. These innovations were probably politically favored for two reasons: the dominance of neoclassical economics and companies’ misinterpretation of these two innovations as facilitating a business environment that would grant them greater freedom.
Please cite this article in press as: Spreng D. Transdisciplinary energy research – Reflecting the context. Energy Res Soc Sci (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.005
G Model ERSS-8; No. of Pages 9
ARTICLE IN PRESS
8
D. Spreng / Energy Research & Social Science xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
IV: Values How should we do what we want to do? III: Norms What is it we want to do?
II: Pragmatic studies
Energy
What are we capable Analysis of doing?
I: Empirical research What exists?
Physics
Values
Ethics
Planning
Statistics
Politics
Design
Cooking
Housing
.…
Philosophy
Gender & community
History
Law
Economic development
Linguistics
Social development
.…
Econometrics
Fig. 5. The transdisciplinary matrix referring to our research is sparsely but perhaps adequately populated.
The success of these innovations is questionable. Markets were liberalized in the EU as they had previously been in the US. They have not become free markets, however, and it now looks as if they never will. The theory of how they could become better functioning markets has further developed, and the picture looks quite complicated; it seems that in the electricity market, a product market alone will never work. There must also be a capacity market. In this latter market, government, buying security of supply, plays a big role. Thus we have come full circle. Privatization has not worked very well either. There were big moves in that direction in some countries, but problems with monopolies and competition from huge state-owned companies in many energy-exporting countries brought these moves to a halt. The problem has not been looked at from enough sides. Science has failed, leaving the electric utilities in a difficult economic position and causing a dramatic decrease in the security of energy supply because social science advice has been one sided. One discipline, with its limited perspective, has been granted exclusive access to the policymakers’ ear. In the coming years, if social science is to play a bigger role in energy research and policy advice, other social sciences must have their say and must learn to speak, perhaps not as one voice, but in a concerted effort. Different schools of social science focus on different aspects of society. The various foci lead to different recommendations on what to do next, how to improve things, what to aim for. However, a cacophony of social science contributions would not have much impact. Technology and mainstream economics would continue to play their inordinate, uncontested role. It is only possible for actors and observers outside science to assess the relevance of a scientific finding or a recommendation if the scientists position their findings in the context of what is known and what is unknown around their own work. This is, in my opinion, particularly important for social science research in the energy field. In revisiting the four cases of research and analyzing what elements of transdisciplinarity could be found in them, I wanted to show that some measure of self-reflection is useful in shaping research efforts and reporting the results. Max-Neef’s transdisciplinarity concept revealed the following aspects of the four examples:
• The “Climate change and hydropower” project was large and multidisciplinary, with some interesting elements of interdisciplinary; however, transdisciplinarity as well as the inclusion of social science were lacking. Although there was much solid disciplinary work, the project did not position its findings in the entire spectrum of possible answers to the question of “How does climate change affect the future of hydropower?”. An opportunity was passed up to motivate the utilities to start making plans for longer periods of drought and heavy precipitation and to motivate public bodies to think about what to do with glacier beds after the glaciers disappear. • The project “Energy efficiency versus energy conservation – the role of power-electronics research” was an interdisciplinary project, including technically versed energy analysts, a sociologist (sociology of science), two political scientists (also competent in innovation theory) and an economist. The collaboration was close and everyone had a good understanding of what all the others were doing. Much effort was put into integrating all the elements. However, a shift of emphasis could have given the project a much more constructive role. What was needed was an extensive discussion on the interrelationship and distinction between energy conservation and energy efficiency. • The “2000 W society” is much more than a project; it is a national effort, with many people involved in various ways. The roles of involved actors are partially at odds with one another; some are actively working in a project that subscribes to the “2000 W society”-goal, some are actively opposed to it, and the majority of citizens think the “2000 W society” is a good idea but their actions are hardly influenced by it. It is a national effort with the aim of simultaneously tackling two global problems. Some research must go into answering the questions “What elements of the “2000 W society” effort can be exported?” and, subsequently, “How can these elements be strengthened nationally and made exportable?” • My group’s research effort in the area of “Energy poverty in Indian households” is an example of disciplinary research, doing rigorous energy analysis, statistics and econometrics, against the background of a transdisciplinary perspective. Paradoxically, this perspective also led us to explicitly refrain from making policy recommendations.
Please cite this article in press as: Spreng D. Transdisciplinary energy research – Reflecting the context. Energy Res Soc Sci (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.005
G Model ERSS-8; No. of Pages 9
ARTICLE IN PRESS D. Spreng / Energy Research & Social Science xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
My plea is that all research recognize its position in the context of the wide universe of research as well as in the context of its applicability. This is of particular importance for research with a direct relevance to public debate and action. For research that addresses energy questions and involves social science, it may be useful to explicitly locate itself on a matrix similar to the Max-Neef matrix. References [1] Moezzi M, Janda KB. Redirecting attention to reducing building energy use: from if only to social potential. Energy Research and Social Science 2014;1(1) (in press). [2] Sidortsov R. Reinventing rules for environmental risk governance in the energy sector. Energy Research and Social Science 2014;1(1) (in press). [3] Sovacool BK. What are we talking about? Analyzing fifteen years of energy scholarship and proposing a social science research agenda. Energy Research and Social Science 2014;1(1) (in press). [4] Stern PC. Individual and household interactions with energy systems: toward integrated understanding. Energy Research and Social Science 2014;1(1) (in press). [5] Yatchew A. Economics of energy big ideas for the non-economist. Energy Research and Social Science 2014;1(1) (in press). [6] Thompson-Klein J, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Häberli R, Bill A, Scholz RW, Welti M, editors. Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving among science technology, and society. Birkhäuser: Basle; 2001. [7] Spreng D, Flüeler Th, Goldblatt DL, Minsch J. Tackling long-term global energy problems – the contribution of social science. Dortrecht/Heidelberg/ London/New York: Springer; 2012. [8] Max-Neef MA. Foundations of Transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics 2005;5:5–16. [9] Minsch J, Füeler Th, Goldblatt DL, Spreng D. Lessons for problem-solving energy research in social science. In: Spreng D, Flüeler Th, Goldblatt DL, Minsch J, editors. Tackling long-term global energy problems – the contribution of social science. Dortrecht/Heidelberg/London/New York: Springer; 2012 [Chapter 14].
9
[10] Schädler B, Weingartner R, Zappa M. Auswirkungen der Klimaänderung auf die Wasserkraftnutzung –Einleitung und Überblick über das Projekt. Wasser Energie Luft 2011;103(4). Baden, Switzerland: Wasserwirtschaftsverband. [11] Spreng D, Technology Assessment. Impact of high-tech engineering research on energy consumption. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2002;69:819–31. [12] Goldemberg J, Johansson TB. Energy for a Sustainable World. New Delhi: WileyEastern Limited; 1987. [13] Spreng D. Distribution of Energy Consumption and the 2000W/capita Target. Energy Policy 2005;33:1905–11. [14] Muller A, Spreng D. Searching for and constructing groups in Indian household expenditure survey data. ETH Zurich: Centre for Energy Policy and Economics; 2006. https://edit.ethz.ch/pepe/people/admuelle/MullerSpreng JRSS-A [15] Pachauri S, Mueller A, Kemmler A, Spreng D. On measuring energy poverty in Indian households. World Development 2004;32:2083–104. [16] Pachauri S, Spreng D. Towards an integrative framework for energy transitions of households in developing countries. In: Spreng D, Flüeler Th, Goldblatt DL, Minsch J, editors. Tackling long-term global energy problems – the contribution of social science. Dortrecht/Heidelberg/London/New York: Springer; 2012 [Chapter 5]. [17] Sen A. Capability well-being. In: Nussbaum MC, Sen A, editors. The quality of life. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1993. [18] Tanner J. Der Kampf gegen die Armut. Erfahrungen und Deutungen aus historischer Sicht. In: Renz U, Barbara B, editors. Zu wenig Dimensionen der Armut. Zürich: Seismo Verlag; 2007. [19] Linke A. Wer ist arm? Soziale Kategorisierung im Medium Sprache. In: Renz U, Barbara B, editors. Zu wenig Dimensionen der Armut. Zürich: Seismo Verlag; 2007. [20] Odum H. Environment, power and society. New York: Wiley-Interscience; 1970. [21] Caldeira K, Davis SJ. Accounting for carbon dioxide emissions: a matter of time. PNAS 2011;108(May (21)):8533–4. [22] Peters GP, Marland G, Le Quéré C, Boden Th, Canadell JG, Raupach MR. Rapid growth in CO2 emissions after the 2008–2009 global financial crisis. Nature Climate Change 2012;2(January (2)):2–4.
Please cite this article in press as: Spreng D. Transdisciplinary energy research – Reflecting the context. Energy Res Soc Sci (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.005
ARTICLE IN PRESS
ERSS-8; No. of Pages 9
Energy Research & Social Science xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy Research & Social Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss
Transdisciplinary energy research – Reflecting the context Daniel Spreng ∗ ETH Zurich @ CEPE, Zürichbergstr. 18, 8032 Zürich, Switzerland
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 24 January 2014 Received in revised form 20 February 2014 Accepted 22 February 2014 Keywords: Transdisciplinarity Interdisciplinarity Context Implementation
a b s t r a c t Social science has a difficult position in energy research. In the past, social science was often misused to increase public acceptance of technological research achievements. The authentic role of social science, making contributions to how the energy system should be institutionalized, guided, and fitted in social and environmental contexts, has been dominated by one voice, that of mainstream economics. If social science wants to assume a broader more independent role, the many voices of social science have to position themselves such that governments, firms, social groups and individuals are able to profit from its various messages. This positioning requires a certain amount of self-reflection. In this paper, instead of theorizing, four research endeavors I have been involved in are set in their context. To this end I use a concept of transdisciplinarity proposed by Max-Neef. My hope is that authors of this new journal will join me in attempting to place their contributions in the context of a larger picture, so that their contributions can have an impact in guiding energy systems in constructive directions. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction I welcome the launch of this new journal and I wish it a long, productive life. As much as energy is a central aspect for biological life, energy is central to the development of humankind. The fact that technology is an important means of harvesting and using physical energy has often been misinterpreted to view problems surrounding energy supply and consumption as primarily technological problems and – as a consequence of this misunderstanding – has mistakenly led energy research to be overwhelmingly technological research. The new journal before you is launched to correct this unfortunate imbalance [1–5]. Although the tools for harvesting and using energy are technical devices, most problems we have with society’s physical energy metabolism are non-technological problems. Our energy problems have less to do with technical knowhow than the knowledge of why, where, how much and for whom the energy should and should not flow. In particular, we lack institutional, societal and political knowhow. Most of all we lack enough interest in and knowledge of the big picture including the interactions of manmade energy systems with the environment. The interface between natural/technical science and the rest of society is more straightforward than the interface between social
∗ Tel.: +41 44 867 36 82. E-mail address: [email protected]
science and society at large. In the technological sphere the direction of progress is usually obvious (faster is better, more efficient is better, etc.); in the social sphere, there is a multitude of factors to be considered, and social scientists have different priorities, schools of thought and opinions. The interface between social science and society is conflictual and seeing individual contributions as part of what science as a whole has to offer is, therefore, of particular importance. Academic journals tend to promote specialization. In view of the incentives at work in academia, it is perhaps unrealistic to expect that this new journal will be different. But at least we can make an attempt. This article offers a practical suggestion on how authors publishing in this journal could present their work in its context, as part of the bigger picture. 2. Transdisciplinary research One way of not losing sight of the big picture is to look at things from the point of view of more than one discipline. However, interdisciplinarity is no guarantee that the essential part of the problem – let alone of the overall picture – is addressed. The most crucial discipline may still be missing. In industry, including the user of the research, the one who has posed the questions that had concerned him or her all along, is standard and usually ensures a sufficiently complete research design. This approach is similar to the standard definition of transdisciplinary research, which involves interdisciplinarity plus actor participation. “The
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.005 2214-6296/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Spreng D. Transdisciplinary energy research – Reflecting the context. Energy Res Soc Sci (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.005
G Model ERSS-8; No. of Pages 9
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2
D. Spreng / Energy Research & Social Science xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
core idea of transdisciplinarity is different academic disciplines working jointly with practitioners to solve a real-world problem. It can be applied in a great variety of fields” [6]. Thinking about how social science research can contribute to “Tackling Long-Term Global Energy Problems”, we, the authors of the book with that title, Thomas Flüeler, David Goldblatt, Jürg Minsch and I, came across another definition of transdisciplinarity and found it to be useful for our purpose [7]. We termed it “Max-Neef transdisciplinarity” after the author who proposed it [8]. 2.1. Definition of Max-Neef transdisciplinarity Max-Neef orders academic disciplines not only one beside the other, but also on four distinctive levels, I through IV, forming the following matrix: Fig. 1 is an almost exact copy of the figure Max-Neef used in his paper. The list of academic disciplines arranged on the lowest level “empirical research,” which explores “what exists?”, is not complete. The entire field of life sciences (except for physiology), psychology, and the humanities are not, but undoubtedly could be, included. The disciplines comprise research fields which have a methodological component and are subject to empirical verification. Whether mathematics, which is pure method, fits this category is debatable. Similarly, economics1 may more appropriately be moved up a level, whereas the empirical economic research on the lowest level can be seen as the sum of various types of economic research (econometrics, GE-modeling, historical analysis of the development of institutions, etc.), which analyze economic data according to various disparate methods. The lines connecting the boxes in Fig. 1 are drawn to signify possible connections. They do not point to connections which are significant in any general way. If there is a line between Genetics and Commerce it is only meant as an example. This connection might be important in a study of the trade potential of some types of pharmaceutics but generally it will not be a relevant flow of information. Max-Neef, the Chilean non-mainstream economist, suggested that studies relevant to solving the pressing problems of our times (and the education of students of these problems) should be transdisciplinary, i.e. be based not only on all relevant empirical research, but also take into account all four levels of his matrix. In other words, research should naturally be based on “What exists” and on “What we are capable of doing” but not shy away from the normative and ethical questions “What is it we want to do?” and “How should we do what we want to do?”. In a world, where science is a slave of unchecked economic growth, science is limited to finding “What exists” and “What we are capable of doing”. MaxNeef transdisciplinarity implies a keen interest in all four levels of the Max-Neef matrix, also questioning and analyzing the normative systems at work and the ethics of how we implement our endeavors. 2.2. Opportunities and possible pitfalls The big advantage of the transdisciplinary approach is that its research results tend to make a difference. They are not only taken seriously but often suggest a new direction or new way of tackling problems. The newly acquired knowledge provides guidance. It is my experience that this quality, this aspect of the research, is also appreciated by students. Academic research groups attempting this approach will often easily acquire highly motivated, dedicated
1
The term in Max-Neef’s original drawing is “econom.”.
Table 1 Areas of energy research, which tend to be neglected without strong social science. Areas
Topics/facets
Institutions
Governance Institutions and regimes Markets (all kinds) Change, social learning and scientific communities Value systems, cultures and actors Social acceptability of energy technologies Risk and energy communication Reflexivity and futurity Social power associated with energy consumption and supply Systemic approaches to analysis The long term: policy strategies, forecasting and path dependencies Critical Infrastructure
Dynamic interaction of technology and society
Perspective and embedding
Methodology (for analysis and transformation) “Hardware”
and clever students; a second advantage. A third plus for transdisciplinary research applies to curiosity-driven research. True curiosity-driven research does not stop at the question “What exists?”; it will by its nature want to go on and assess the relevance of the empirical findings and follow up with normative and ethical questions. However, transdisciplinary research, or even interdisciplinary research for that matter, can have or may be seen to have the drawback of not being scientific enough. Disciplinary science is usually judged by its level of methodological sophistication. Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research are unable to compete with disciplinary research on that score. As a result, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research redouble their efforts to be methodologically correct and compensate for their lacking disciplinary sophistication with sophistication in assembling the disciplinary pieces into a whole. It is more difficult to remedy the fact that the incentives in academia are geared to honor disciplinary excellence. This is to some extent intrinsic: It is far easier for peers to judge methodological sophistication than to judge novelty of insight, relevance, and the like. 2.3. Social-science concerns in transdisciplinary research Social science is central to transdisciplinary energy research in several ways. Social science is not only at center stage if institutions and interactions of technology with society are analyzed, but also to assume an adequate perspective and embedding, to question state-of-the-art methodology and for pointing to important technical characteristics of critical infrastructure dictated by social phenomena such as terrorism. Table 1 lists areas, topics and facets, which tend to be neglected in energy research, when social science is not given enough weight (see also [9]). In the past, social science has often been misused to help force technological solutions onto “unreasonable” people and groups in society. The social science concerns described here often lead to curiosity-driven research and to answers that may be rather different from the “answers” the technologist had in mind. This type of social science stands on an equal footing with technological research and often proposes challenging new directions for technological development, better embedded in its social and ecological environment. In what follows I describe four research areas I was active in over the years. I choose examples, which have a public policy aspect; projects, where the question of how to present the results was of critical importance. I show how the MaxNeef matrix may help to assess to what degree the research was
Please cite this article in press as: Spreng D. Transdisciplinary energy research – Reflecting the context. Energy Res Soc Sci (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.005
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
ERSS-8; No. of Pages 9
D. Spreng / Energy Research & Social Science xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
3
IV: Values How should we do what we want to do?
III: Norms What is it we want to do?
II: Pragmatic studies What are we capable of doing?
I: Empirical research What exists?
Mathematics
Architecture
Physics
Planning
Engineering
Chemistry
Ethics
Values
Geology
Politics
Design
Agriculture
Soils
Philosophy
Forestry
Ecology
Law
Industry
Physio- Sociology logy
Commerce
Genetics
Economics
Fig. 1. Max-Neef matrix. Taken from Manfred A. Max-Neef [8].
transdisciplinary and what value the social science element added to the research.
• New hydropower resources will become available due to melted glaciers. The slopes that are currently under the glaciers will, in principle, represent a viable hydropower source.
3. Four examples 3.1. Example I: Climate change and hydropower Recently, I was involved in a rather large research undertaking, which had as its aim to elucidate the influence of climate change on hydropower production in Switzerland. The results were published (in German) in a special issue of Wasser Energie Luft, a journal well known to professionals in Swiss electric utilities and in relevant departments of government [10]. Collaborating scientists included climate scientists, hydrologists and glaciologists. In addition, data from modified run-off water regimes were analyzed by specialists in the utilities. The main results of the study were the following: • Changes in precipitation are highly uncertain. The Alps generally mark the division between European areas in which precipitation will diminish in winter and summer (southern Europe) and parts of Europe in which precipitation will increase in winter and decrease in summer or, further North, increase in both winter and summer. • The story of the meltwater from glaciers is different. Glaciers do not react to yearly temperature changes but rather to temperature changes averaged over several years. Climate researchers are much more familiar with these changes. Thus, the prediction of the run-off water from glaciers is rather solid: it will, depending on the altitude of the glacier, increase another 50 years or so and then decrease to zero within perhaps another 50 years, i.e. when the glaciers have melted away. These predictions can be made individually, glacier by glacier. Other information touched on in the report referred to the following items: • Besides average precipitation, the frequency of very high precipitation and longer periods of no precipitation will increase. Little quantitative information is known here and no new information was generated in the project, but the trend is undisputed.
What was the collaboration between the disciplines? An innovative translation took place from the results of the climate scientists to the world of the hydrologists. The climate scientists predicted changes in precipitation almost valley by valley, at the cost of very large error margins. The hydrologists had no use for the error margins; they were not part of their repertoire. However, they looked at the pattern the valley-by-valley predictions presented and translated this pattern into shifts of hydrological regimes. Grouping all alpine river systems into some half a dozen hydrological regimes is a method for extrapolating random sample measurements of river-flow timelines to all alpine river systems. As the definition of these regimes had been tested on data going back about a century, they presumably will remain relevant for some time. This translation from the world of the climate scientists to the repertoire of the hydrologists involved a welcome reduction of geographic detail, which resulted in a reduction of the margin of error. Other collaborations between the research groups may be more accurately characterized as multidisciplinary than interdisciplinary: Changed river flows determined by the hydrologists and the glaciologists were simply summed and fed into the operational systems models of the utilities. Thus, the model calculations of future electricity production were based only on the “main results” of the study. In this way, the main results were given special emphasis for the people interested in applying the generated knowledge to their business, while related, important effects were neglected. There was no time, interest or money to go further with this particular project. This was sensible from the point of view of the researchers. It was, however, questionable in terms of public communication to emphasize the main results of the study, which sent a comforting signal to industry and government that over the next 50 years climate change would have little negative impact on the hydropower business, but was potentially misleading in its neglect of the role of extreme weather events. Another aspect, a transdisciplinary one, was also not addressed. As glaciers disappear, new hydropower resources will become available. The bed of today’s glaciers will be small rivers with considerable height of drop as well as lakes. These resources will at
Please cite this article in press as: Spreng D. Transdisciplinary energy research – Reflecting the context. Energy Res Soc Sci (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.005
G Model ERSS-8; No. of Pages 9
ARTICLE IN PRESS
4
D. Spreng / Energy Research & Social Science xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
some stage become a hot political issue. Since these high elevation alpine areas are practically all in protected areas, the nature-loving glaciologists were reluctant to talk about this finding. Looking at this subject as both challenge and opportunity would entail a transdisciplinary approach that asked both “What is it we want to do?” and “How should we do what we want to do?”. It would require including social science early in this field of research. All in all this was a good multi-disciplinary research effort that answered questions of high sociopolitical relevance. The biggest effort, by far, concentrated on the change in availability of headwaters due to changed precipitation. It is very common for specialists to portray their findings in this manner as important contributions to answering the concerns of the stakeholders without spending much effort to assess the relative importance of the results compared to related issues. In addition, it is important to describe which questions were not addressed, particularly those in natural science. Addressing concerns over the role of hydropower in a world of climate change requires additional empirical research into extreme weather events as well as research on the other levels of the matrix, particularly in regard to what could and should be done, and in what way, when the glaciers are gone. 3.2. Example II: Energy efficiency versus energy conservation – the role of power electronics research Many years ago I was awarded a technology assessment project. We were to examine the energy effect of doing more research in power electronics. The funding was generous and we did good interdisciplinary research: energy analysis, industrial ecology, innovation theory and political science added their perspectives. We interacted much and learned from one another. The Swiss government had invested heavily in power electronics research. The question was what energy conservation benefit this investment would confer, if any. The finding was simple and solid: Although improved power electronics lead to many more highly energy-efficient devices, the same improvements caused high productivity gains and economic growth, with possibly higher energy consumption. It was unclear which effect would dominate on the macro-level [11]. Improved power electronics could have been used as a vehicle for marketing energy conservation systematically, in all phases of the innovation chain. Energy conservation could have been made an issue when industry partners of research groups were chosen (the energy conservation potential the collaboration could unleash could be taken into account), prototype and demonstration technologies could highlight the energy saving attributes and so forth. In each innovation step, energy saving could have been in the forefront. However, in the program we were evaluating, not many efforts in this direction were observed. The publication of our research generated heated controversy, involving slander, calls for my, the principal investigator’s dismissal, and ultimately a review process resulting in high praise for the technology assessment project [11]. In hindsight is seems to me that this controversy was not helpful and was perhaps unnecessary. If we had understood our research effort in a transdisciplinary manner and asked ourselves “What is it we want to do?”, we would have seen the importance of explaining the difference between improving energy efficiency (of equipment) on the micro-level and of conserving energy (of nations) on the macro-level. We would have seen that this job of explaining was actually the central task of our research endeavor. The preoccupation with being right prevented me from explaining to researchers, technical people from industry and government officials how important that difference was. Perhaps it would
have had an influence on the shortsighted over-emphasis of policy efforts on energy efficiency. Of course, that explaining would not have been easy. The focus of energy efficiency policy is a concentration on what is possible. Energy policy the world over is still lacking in this regard. It is a coalition of industries, which like to grow without much structural change; government, which tries to maintain a growing tax base; and of environmental organizations, which prefer to propagate popular measures. However, the concentration on energy efficiency rather than on energy conservation is somewhat schizophrenic. Nothing short of energy conservation will ease environmental pressure and improve energy security of energy importing countries. It would have been a true transdisciplinary effort to spend a big portion of our research effort on devising ways to clarify to various stakeholders, in ways they would understand, the challenges and opportunities for actually conserving energy. 3.3. Example III: 2000 W society In 1994 Paul Kesselring, a leading researcher at the Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland, noticed that similar numbers come into play with two major global challenges, poverty and climate change: • A decent living standard requires at least 1000 W per capita,2 according to the seminal work of Goldemberg and Johansson [12]. • At the time, IPCC recommended an upper limit for global fossil fuel consumption. Assuming that after 2100 one fourth of primary energy would still come from fossil fuels, the IPCC recommendation translated into an upper limit for average energy consumption per capita of 2000 W. • Assuming an eradication of extreme poverty by 2100 and allowing some variation of energy consumption within countries (from 1000 to a few thousand watts per capita, for instance) would leave no alternative to setting the target for the average power delivery per capita at the upper limit recommended by IPCC. This, Kesselring postulated, would only be a viable goal, if it also held separately for each country. Incidentally, this would not necessarily mean that each country would have the same GDP, as richer countries could afford to invest in higher efficiency and thus maintain a higher GDP than poorer countries. However, it would mean huge energy savings by rich countries and not much time for developing countries to see to it that the 2000 W target was not overrun (compare Fig. 2, based on data for 2000). The 2000 W target, which gave the fashionable notion of sustainable development some teeth, found some champions in Switzerland: • As noted, in 1994 Paul Kesselring pointed to the coincidence of the numbers referring to energy poverty and climate change. • In 1998, four members of the ETH Council traveling together on a train decided that ETH should subscribe as an institution to the 2000 W notion to show that ETH Zurich, ETH Lausanne and the four Swiss National Labs were taking sustainable development seriously. • In 2002, the Swiss Federal Council3 approved a strategy paper on sustainable development in which 2000 W was proposed as a strategic goal. With this approval, government decisions affecting the long term had to consider whether they were in line with the
2 3
1000 W [power] = 1 kW = 1 kWh/h [energy/time]. i.e. the Swiss Government.
Please cite this article in press as: Spreng D. Transdisciplinary energy research – Reflecting the context. Energy Res Soc Sci (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.005
G Model ERSS-8; No. of Pages 9
ARTICLE IN PRESS D. Spreng / Energy Research & Social Science xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
5
Fig. 2. Inequality of energy consumption within and between nations [13].
2000 W goal or not, at least during the four year planning period for which the strategy paper was written. • In 2008, the citizens of the City of Zurich were asked to approve or reject by popular vote a constitutional amendment to make the “2000 W society” a goal of the city. The amendment was adopted with 76% of the votes in favor. Throughout all these stages there was a lively debate over whether the 2000 W society was a non-binding vision, utopia, or a binding strategy and a basis for planning. Whichever, many understand that a systemic change seems to be necessary now, voluntarily, at relatively little cost or change will be forced on us later due to overstepping natural or societal boundaries at a much higher cost. In the city of Zurich, the constitutional amendment was translated into many practical steps. For instance, every building project costing more than three million Swiss francs is monitored and advised by an energy specialist from the city, from the planning phase to the first year of operation, to assure that its energy use is in line with the 2000 W society goal. The goal, however, is formulated on the energy efficiency level, allowing just a bit for quantitative growth.4 For the time being, as space in the city gets scarcer and dearer, this is acceptable. However, it is neither enough for future developments (such as a trend toward building high rises) nor for the country as a whole. The 2000 W society initiative is a national project with broad participation, even if it always aroused considerable opposition.5 It
4 Over the past 20 years, energy efficiency of buildings improved by 24%. This was the result of innumerable efforts by industry, trade organizations and government initiatives. However, during the same time period the total sum of heated floor space increased by 23.5%, practically nullifying efficiency improvements. The 2000 W goals are of course more ambitious, as the energy consumption has to decrease by about a factor of three. 5 One partially valid criticism refers to the choice of energy as the limiting factor, while the upper limit is actually based on CO2 emissions. Energy consumption is, however, often regarded as comprehensive proxy for many environmental impacts
Fig. 3. Indian proposal (2012) for climate negotiations (The heavy lines refer to the CO2 emissions caused by the consumption in industrialized (upper lines) and developing countries (lower lines); the fine line refers to the production in these countries. The left half of the graph is taken from [21] and [22]).
is transdisciplinary both in the traditional sense (interdisciplinary plus actor participation) and in some way also in the Max-Neef sense. From the onset, social scientists were interested in the idea and made their contributions. However, if we pose the relevant normative and ethical questions, we realize that although the 2000 W society initiative does address global issues, it has very much remained a national project, barely noticed outside Switzerland. Switzerland’s politics has been more self-centered in recent years than they might have been. Perhaps a Max-Neef transdisciplinary perspective on this project would show which elements of the 2000 W society concept could be used in international negotiations (see Fig. 3), which elements could be exported and which elements can only function in a cultural setting that has been
and is suitable as such. Also, it can easily be attributed to individual processes and actions.
Please cite this article in press as: Spreng D. Transdisciplinary energy research – Reflecting the context. Energy Res Soc Sci (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.005
G Model ERSS-8; No. of Pages 9
ARTICLE IN PRESS
6
D. Spreng / Energy Research & Social Science xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
shaped by centuries of self-reliance in isolated valleys and harsh winters.6 The 2000 W concept is perhaps less foreign to Swiss than to other cultures. However, the idea that global resources may most equitably be allocated on a per capita basis might make sense to many, if not to a majority of the global population. It is not astonishing that India started some years ago to argue in climate negotiations on a per capita basis. India proposed in 2012 that the developing countries should not have to limit their CO2 emissions before they are as high, per capita, as the emissions of the developed countries. A true transdisciplinary analysis must of course also analyze both the power plays and the relevance to sustainability associated with using such a metric. 3.4. Example IV: Energy poverty in Indian households – from statistics to economics . . . to linguistics The fourth example involves research which occupied my group from about 1998 to 2005. My interest had been to learn to what extent energy could be used as an indicator of sustainability. It seemed to me that in a developing country that aim could be pursued more straight-forward than in a developed country. In a developed country, the sustainability is mostly threatened by the environmental burden of affluence; this burden can be measured by the proxy indicator “energy consumption.” In developing countries, a sustainable path is more like a tightrope walk: If it is too fast, it will lead to catastrophic collapse of environmental services, and if it is too slow, economic and social problems, particularly inequity, will lead to unsustainable tensions, war and mass migration. The research question was whether some kind of energy indicator would be a feasible and useful indicator of sustainability also for developing countries. This, at the beginning, had been the general idea. As we got into the problem, we found that little was known regarding the relationship between energy and poverty: We were lucky to be the first team outside the Indian government to receive raw household survey data, and we spent years analyzing this data in order to illuminate the energy poverty-development nexus. In our first approach we attempted to capture this interrelationship by dividing the Indian population into clusters of similar lifestyles and degrees of development. We hoped we could describe development holding the characteristics of the clusters constant while looking at the number of households populating the clusters. After two years of unsuccessful cluster analysis, this idea had to be dropped: It turned out that the Indian population was too diverse to be boxed into a reasonable number (less than ∼100) of statistically significant clusters [14]. However, we had more success with an ad-hoc grouping based only on energy use. Having gotten a good feel for the data in the course of the unsuccessful cluster analysis, we knew that energy access was at least as important to the stage of development as the quantity of energy consumed [15]. The grouping shown in Fig. 4 proved useful. We were pleased with this grouping for the following reasons: • We felt it made theoretical sense. Sen [17] insists that poverty has two dimensions, capability and functioning. By distinguishing between access to energy and the amount of energy used, we were consistent with Sen’s insight. • The matrix allowed drawing a line in a two-dimensional space between energy-poor and non-energy-poor households. Note
6 Each household had to know what amount of firewood, hay and cheese had to be in stock in the fall in order to survive the winter, and what daily ration would last.
that 30 W of useful energy (the middle vertical in the matrix) is about equal to 300 W of end-use energy (direct, physical energy consumption), which translates into about twice this amount of total energy.7 An energy-poverty line would have to be drawn somewhere there. It would translate in terms of energy services to just about two cooked meals a day, a few kerosene lamps or one electric bulb in the house, some hot water and not much more. • As it turned out, the ad-hoc energy consumption groups stayed constant not only in the energy dimension (by definition), but also in other dimensions such as access to other infrastructure elements (drinking water, latrines and roads) as well as economic and social indicators (income and literacy).8 • The number of people changing over the years from the top-left groups to the bottom-right groups, therefore, turned out to be an excellent description of development consistent with several dimensions of development. By constructing this energy-use matrix, we made considerable progress in understanding the energy poverty development nexus. It allowed us to make some inroads in detailed economic analyses of the energy transitions. • We found that households’ economic situation did not explain their willingness to change their energy-use situation and behavior. • For technical and social reasons, neighborhood and geography is important. • The will and freedom to escape traditional ways cannot be taken for granted. Freedom, in this context, means both the possibility of the very poor to look beyond anything other than surviving and the freedom given by others.9 Looking into this latter issue, we came across some relevant history and linguistics texts. From history [18] we learned that in the Middle Ages, rich and poor often formed a pair. The poor “exercised the duty” of suffering for the rich. In turn the rich gave alimony to the poor. Thus, in some ways, both sides profited from the status quo. This unrecognized pair-formation, cementing poverty, might in some cases also be at work today. A quantitative linguistics study [19] of the German word Armut (poverty) came to the following conclusions: • The word Armut (poverty) is only used by well-off people. • The word Armut (poverty) is used to express two different things: a low state of well-being and a state that should be pitied. • Armut (poverty) calls for pity, understanding and compassion, but it is also something that has to be fought against. The word Armut (poverty) is often used in a string of expressions containing words like war, war against, epidemic, natural catastrophe, which have to be eradicated or forestalled. • Armut (poverty) is talked about with reference to the state of a group or a mass of people, whereas richness is usually attributed to (male) individuals.
7 Indian energy poverty (600 W) would therefore be below the South American energy poverty level (1000 W) of José Goldemberg (see above). 8 This ad-hoc grouping did not provide the clusters we had searched for in our cluster analysis. They characterize a stage of “development in the direction of Western ways of life,” but not the lifestyle in general. In some other dimensions, such as indirect food energy needs, they vary greatly within groups, e.g. the energy consumption-groups are quite inhomogeneous. 9 Many Indian villages have power just a few hours per day. It seems possible that the Electricity Supply Board, located in the city, is happy to supply the countryside with electricity to irrigate the fields and grow food (for all), but do not care as much about providing rural people with electricity for other purposes.
Please cite this article in press as: Spreng D. Transdisciplinary energy research – Reflecting the context. Energy Res Soc Sci (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.005
G Model ERSS-8; No. of Pages 9
ARTICLE IN PRESS D. Spreng / Energy Research & Social Science xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
7
Fig. 4. Indian population moving in the 3 × 4 energy use-matrix, defined according to energy access and according to consumption of useful energy [16].
This study reminded us of the old classic by Odum [20], pointing to the link between physical energy and societal energy, suggesting that powerful parts of society may sometimes also have an interest in keeping other parts of society energy poor. Looking back at our study of the energy poverty-development nexus from the distance of a few years, it seems to me it is fair to say that the study had a few transdisciplinary elements. From the start my personal core specialty “energy analysis” was supplemented by statistics and, later, by the use of econometric models. Energy analysis, statistics and econometrics afforded the study methodological rigor. This rigor did not support our initial ideas about a new way of describing development. But it made us suspicious of wishful thinking in regard to paternalistic Western initiatives such as the many millions in funds which were uselessly spent on clean cooking stoves. The historical and linguistic studies emphasized the necessity to question unwarranted assumptions about choices poor people can and want to make. Our own studies were embedded in the awareness of innumerable studies on end-use equipment, energy procurement, service quality, gender and community issues, planning, economic and policy issues in regard to energy transitions in developing countries. Fig. 5 is an exercise in drawing a Max-Neef matrix for the study. Energy analysis and statistics were at the core of the study. Energy analysis is placed here on level II; it takes energy statistics as well as other energy data as input and specializes in finding the most useful focus for the problems at hand. Here, its focus is energy procurement and use for residential cooking and housing at various stages of development. Statistics affords rigorous insights into what development quantitatively means for households in terms of energy access and use, infrastructure access and changes in economic and social indicators, such as literacy. The insights of energy analysis and statistics were tested with econometric models as well as by looking for analogies in history and linguistics (level I of the Max-Neef matrix). Here the connections between the boxes specifically refer to our study. The solid lines between the boxes indicate quantitative data flow, the dotted lines flow of general information and insight. On level II of the Max-Neef matrix, there emerged a rounded, detailed picture of the energy transformation process in Indian society from predominantly conventional biomass-powered
households to households powered by more modern energy carriers. Results of setting norms on level III were not spelled out in the study. This was a conscious choice. Our research was curiositydriven and it was our choice to do the research. We felt it would be presumptuous to spell out results on level III. Our study steered completely clear of asking the question “How should the Indians do what they want to do?” (level IV). We applied the question “How should we do the study we are about to do?” only to ourselves. We imposed on ourselves rigor on level I, a wide horizon on level II and the discipline to refrain from making recommendations in a context that could not possibly be familiar enough to us to permit. 4. Conclusion and a suggestion for the new journal In our recent book [7] we postulated that social science, by providing institutional, societal and political innovations, had as much to contribute to the development of a sustainable energy system as technology and natural science. We stressed and illustrated that both sides of science, the “Two Cultures”, were needed – wherever possible, working collaboratively. Of course, this is more easily said than done. Even in the project that led to writing the book we found this to be a tough challenge. In truth, all four of us were quite used to working across the “natural science/social science” interface. What was difficult was to find the representative voice of the social sciences. We were struck by our experience in regard to how difficult it seemed to be for various schools of social science to work together. Historically, energy research has been dominated by technological research. By its nature this research speaks in a uniform language. Differing preferences are based on aspects outside science. Industry is eager to implement technological innovations, while national governments are eager to make things easy for industry to innovate technically and compete internationally. The major social science innovations for the energy system that were politically adopted in recent decades were the introduction of energy markets and the privatization of energy companies. These innovations were probably politically favored for two reasons: the dominance of neoclassical economics and companies’ misinterpretation of these two innovations as facilitating a business environment that would grant them greater freedom.
Please cite this article in press as: Spreng D. Transdisciplinary energy research – Reflecting the context. Energy Res Soc Sci (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.005
G Model ERSS-8; No. of Pages 9
ARTICLE IN PRESS
8
D. Spreng / Energy Research & Social Science xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
IV: Values How should we do what we want to do? III: Norms What is it we want to do?
II: Pragmatic studies
Energy
What are we capable Analysis of doing?
I: Empirical research What exists?
Physics
Values
Ethics
Planning
Statistics
Politics
Design
Cooking
Housing
.…
Philosophy
Gender & community
History
Law
Economic development
Linguistics
Social development
.…
Econometrics
Fig. 5. The transdisciplinary matrix referring to our research is sparsely but perhaps adequately populated.
The success of these innovations is questionable. Markets were liberalized in the EU as they had previously been in the US. They have not become free markets, however, and it now looks as if they never will. The theory of how they could become better functioning markets has further developed, and the picture looks quite complicated; it seems that in the electricity market, a product market alone will never work. There must also be a capacity market. In this latter market, government, buying security of supply, plays a big role. Thus we have come full circle. Privatization has not worked very well either. There were big moves in that direction in some countries, but problems with monopolies and competition from huge state-owned companies in many energy-exporting countries brought these moves to a halt. The problem has not been looked at from enough sides. Science has failed, leaving the electric utilities in a difficult economic position and causing a dramatic decrease in the security of energy supply because social science advice has been one sided. One discipline, with its limited perspective, has been granted exclusive access to the policymakers’ ear. In the coming years, if social science is to play a bigger role in energy research and policy advice, other social sciences must have their say and must learn to speak, perhaps not as one voice, but in a concerted effort. Different schools of social science focus on different aspects of society. The various foci lead to different recommendations on what to do next, how to improve things, what to aim for. However, a cacophony of social science contributions would not have much impact. Technology and mainstream economics would continue to play their inordinate, uncontested role. It is only possible for actors and observers outside science to assess the relevance of a scientific finding or a recommendation if the scientists position their findings in the context of what is known and what is unknown around their own work. This is, in my opinion, particularly important for social science research in the energy field. In revisiting the four cases of research and analyzing what elements of transdisciplinarity could be found in them, I wanted to show that some measure of self-reflection is useful in shaping research efforts and reporting the results. Max-Neef’s transdisciplinarity concept revealed the following aspects of the four examples:
• The “Climate change and hydropower” project was large and multidisciplinary, with some interesting elements of interdisciplinary; however, transdisciplinarity as well as the inclusion of social science were lacking. Although there was much solid disciplinary work, the project did not position its findings in the entire spectrum of possible answers to the question of “How does climate change affect the future of hydropower?”. An opportunity was passed up to motivate the utilities to start making plans for longer periods of drought and heavy precipitation and to motivate public bodies to think about what to do with glacier beds after the glaciers disappear. • The project “Energy efficiency versus energy conservation – the role of power-electronics research” was an interdisciplinary project, including technically versed energy analysts, a sociologist (sociology of science), two political scientists (also competent in innovation theory) and an economist. The collaboration was close and everyone had a good understanding of what all the others were doing. Much effort was put into integrating all the elements. However, a shift of emphasis could have given the project a much more constructive role. What was needed was an extensive discussion on the interrelationship and distinction between energy conservation and energy efficiency. • The “2000 W society” is much more than a project; it is a national effort, with many people involved in various ways. The roles of involved actors are partially at odds with one another; some are actively working in a project that subscribes to the “2000 W society”-goal, some are actively opposed to it, and the majority of citizens think the “2000 W society” is a good idea but their actions are hardly influenced by it. It is a national effort with the aim of simultaneously tackling two global problems. Some research must go into answering the questions “What elements of the “2000 W society” effort can be exported?” and, subsequently, “How can these elements be strengthened nationally and made exportable?” • My group’s research effort in the area of “Energy poverty in Indian households” is an example of disciplinary research, doing rigorous energy analysis, statistics and econometrics, against the background of a transdisciplinary perspective. Paradoxically, this perspective also led us to explicitly refrain from making policy recommendations.
Please cite this article in press as: Spreng D. Transdisciplinary energy research – Reflecting the context. Energy Res Soc Sci (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.005
G Model ERSS-8; No. of Pages 9
ARTICLE IN PRESS D. Spreng / Energy Research & Social Science xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
My plea is that all research recognize its position in the context of the wide universe of research as well as in the context of its applicability. This is of particular importance for research with a direct relevance to public debate and action. For research that addresses energy questions and involves social science, it may be useful to explicitly locate itself on a matrix similar to the Max-Neef matrix. References [1] Moezzi M, Janda KB. Redirecting attention to reducing building energy use: from if only to social potential. Energy Research and Social Science 2014;1(1) (in press). [2] Sidortsov R. Reinventing rules for environmental risk governance in the energy sector. Energy Research and Social Science 2014;1(1) (in press). [3] Sovacool BK. What are we talking about? Analyzing fifteen years of energy scholarship and proposing a social science research agenda. Energy Research and Social Science 2014;1(1) (in press). [4] Stern PC. Individual and household interactions with energy systems: toward integrated understanding. Energy Research and Social Science 2014;1(1) (in press). [5] Yatchew A. Economics of energy big ideas for the non-economist. Energy Research and Social Science 2014;1(1) (in press). [6] Thompson-Klein J, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Häberli R, Bill A, Scholz RW, Welti M, editors. Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving among science technology, and society. Birkhäuser: Basle; 2001. [7] Spreng D, Flüeler Th, Goldblatt DL, Minsch J. Tackling long-term global energy problems – the contribution of social science. Dortrecht/Heidelberg/ London/New York: Springer; 2012. [8] Max-Neef MA. Foundations of Transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics 2005;5:5–16. [9] Minsch J, Füeler Th, Goldblatt DL, Spreng D. Lessons for problem-solving energy research in social science. In: Spreng D, Flüeler Th, Goldblatt DL, Minsch J, editors. Tackling long-term global energy problems – the contribution of social science. Dortrecht/Heidelberg/London/New York: Springer; 2012 [Chapter 14].
9
[10] Schädler B, Weingartner R, Zappa M. Auswirkungen der Klimaänderung auf die Wasserkraftnutzung –Einleitung und Überblick über das Projekt. Wasser Energie Luft 2011;103(4). Baden, Switzerland: Wasserwirtschaftsverband. [11] Spreng D, Technology Assessment. Impact of high-tech engineering research on energy consumption. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2002;69:819–31. [12] Goldemberg J, Johansson TB. Energy for a Sustainable World. New Delhi: WileyEastern Limited; 1987. [13] Spreng D. Distribution of Energy Consumption and the 2000W/capita Target. Energy Policy 2005;33:1905–11. [14] Muller A, Spreng D. Searching for and constructing groups in Indian household expenditure survey data. ETH Zurich: Centre for Energy Policy and Economics; 2006. https://edit.ethz.ch/pepe/people/admuelle/MullerSpreng JRSS-A [15] Pachauri S, Mueller A, Kemmler A, Spreng D. On measuring energy poverty in Indian households. World Development 2004;32:2083–104. [16] Pachauri S, Spreng D. Towards an integrative framework for energy transitions of households in developing countries. In: Spreng D, Flüeler Th, Goldblatt DL, Minsch J, editors. Tackling long-term global energy problems – the contribution of social science. Dortrecht/Heidelberg/London/New York: Springer; 2012 [Chapter 5]. [17] Sen A. Capability well-being. In: Nussbaum MC, Sen A, editors. The quality of life. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1993. [18] Tanner J. Der Kampf gegen die Armut. Erfahrungen und Deutungen aus historischer Sicht. In: Renz U, Barbara B, editors. Zu wenig Dimensionen der Armut. Zürich: Seismo Verlag; 2007. [19] Linke A. Wer ist arm? Soziale Kategorisierung im Medium Sprache. In: Renz U, Barbara B, editors. Zu wenig Dimensionen der Armut. Zürich: Seismo Verlag; 2007. [20] Odum H. Environment, power and society. New York: Wiley-Interscience; 1970. [21] Caldeira K, Davis SJ. Accounting for carbon dioxide emissions: a matter of time. PNAS 2011;108(May (21)):8533–4. [22] Peters GP, Marland G, Le Quéré C, Boden Th, Canadell JG, Raupach MR. Rapid growth in CO2 emissions after the 2008–2009 global financial crisis. Nature Climate Change 2012;2(January (2)):2–4.
Please cite this article in press as: Spreng D. Transdisciplinary energy research – Reflecting the context. Energy Res Soc Sci (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.005