Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

A systemic approach to mapping participation with low-carbon energy transitions

A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 12 March 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

Low-carbon transitions demand long-term systemic transformations and meaningful societal engagement. Most approaches to engaging society with energy and climate change fail to address the systemic nature of this challenge, focusing on discrete forms of participation in specific parts of wider systems. Our systemic approach combines comparative case mapping of diverse public engagements across energy systems with participatory distributed deliberative mapping of energy system futures. We show how UK public participation with energy is more diverse than dominant approaches posit. Attending to these more varied models of participation opens up citizen and specialist views, values and visions of sustainable energy transitions, revealing support for more distributed energy system futures that recognize the roles of society. Going beyond narrow, discrete understandings of communication and public engagement towards systemic approaches to mapping participation can provide plural and robust forms of social intelligence needed to govern low-carbon transitions in more socially responsive, just and responsible ways.

Your institute does not have access to this article

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: A heuristic framework for mapping diversities of public participation across wider systems.
Fig. 2: Distributed deliberative mapping appraisal maps of energy vision performance.

Data availability

Data and documentation for all 258 cases in the mapping participation comparative case analysis can be openly accessed at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13850975. Data and material that support the findings of the DDM study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request after two years from publication of this article.

Change history

References

  1. IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  2. Miller, C., Richter, J. & O’Leary, J. Socio-energy systems design: a policy framework for energy transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 6, 29–40 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bidwell, D. Thinking through participation in renewable energy decisions. Nat. Energy 1, 16051 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Shove, E. & Walker, G. What is energy for? Social practice and energy demand. Theory Cult. Soc. 31, 41–58 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Stirling, A. Transforming power: social science and the politics of energy choices. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 1, 83–95 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Delmas, M. A., Fischlein, M. & Asensio, O. I. Information strategies and energy conservation behavior: a meta-analysis of experimental studies from 1975 to 2012. Energy Policy 61, 729–739 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jasanoff, S. Just transitions: a humble approach to global energy futures. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 35, 11–14 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chilvers, J. & Longhurst, N. Participation in transition(s): reconceiving public engagements in energy transitions as co-produced, emergent and diverse. J. Environ. Pol. Plan 18, 585–607 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Parkinson, J. & Mansbridge, J. (eds) Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).

  10. Watson, M. How theories of practice can inform transition to a decarbonised transport system. J. Transp. Geogr. 24, 488–496 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hui, A., Schatzki, T. & Shove, E. The Nexus of Practices: Connections, Constellations, Practitioners (Routledge, 2016).

  12. Chilvers, J. & Kearnes, M. (eds) Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics (Routledge, 2016).

  13. Braun, K. & Könninger, S. From experiments to ecosystems? Reviewing public participation, scientific governance and the systemic turn. Public Understand. Sci. 27, 674–689 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Marres, N. Material Participation: Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).

  15. Chilvers, J. & Kearnes, M. Remaking participation in science and democracy. Sci., Technol., Hum. Values 45, 347–380 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bellamy, R., Lezaun, J. & Palmer, J. Public perceptions of geoengineering research governance: an experimental deliberative approach. Glob. Environ. Change 45, 194–202 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Skjølsvold, T. M., Throndsen, W., Ryghaug, M., Fjellså, I. F. & Koksvik, G. H. Orchestrating households as collectives of participation in the distributed energy transition: new empirical and conceptual insights. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 46, 252–261 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Stirling, A. ‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’—power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 33, 262–294 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Burgess, J. & Chilvers, J. Upping the ante: a conceptual framework for designing and evaluating participatory technology assessments. Sci. Public Policy 33, 713–728 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pidgeon, N., Demski, C., Butler, C., Parkhill, K. & Spence, A. Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 13606–13613 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Demski, C., Spence, A. & Pidgeon, N. Effects of exemplar scenarios on public preferences for energy futures using the my2050 scenario-building tool. Nat. Energy 2, 17027 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Demski, C., Butler, C., Parkhill, K., Spence, A. & Pidgeon, N. Public values for energy system change. Glob. Environ. Change 34, 59–69 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Marres, N. Digital Sociology: The Reinvention of Social Research (Polity Press, 2017).

  24. Sorrell, S. Improving the evidence base for energy policy: the role of systematic reviews. Energy Policy 35, 1858–1871 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Chilvers, J., Pallett, H. & Hargreaves, T. Ecologies of participation in socio-technical change: the case of energy system transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 42, 199–210 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pallett, H., Chilvers, J. & Hargreaves, T. Mapping participation: a systematic analysis of diverse public participation in the UK energy system. Environ. Plan. E. 23, 590–616 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wynne, B. Public participation in science and technology: performing and obscuring a political-conceptual category mistake. East Asian Sci., Technol. Soc.: Int. J. 1, 99–110 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Smith, A. & Stirling, A. Moving outside or inside? Objectification and reflexivity in the governance of socio-technical systems. J. Environ. Pol. Plan 9, 351–373 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jasanoff, S. (ed). States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order (Routledge, 2004).

  30. Pallett, H. & Chilvers, J. A decade of learning about publics, participation, and climate change: institutionalising reflexivity? Environ. Plan. A. 45, 1162–1183 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Williams, L., Macnaghten, P., Davies, R. & Curtis, S. Framing ‘fracking’: exploring public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom. Public Understand. Sci. 26, 89–104 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Stagl, S. Multicriteria evaluation and public participation: the case of UK energy policy. Land Use Policy 23, 53–62 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hendriks, C. M. Policy design without democracy? Making democratic sense of transition management. Policy Sci. 42, 341–368 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Krzywoszynska, A. et al. Opening up the participation laboratory: the cocreation of publics and futures in upstream participation. Sci. Technol., Hum. Values 43, 785–809 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Burgess, J. et al. Deliberative mapping: a novel analytic-deliberative methodology to support contested science-policy decisions. Public Understand. Sci. 16, 299–322 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Chilvers, J. & Burgess, J. Power relations: the politics of risk and procedure in nuclear waste governance. Environ. Plan. A. 40, 1881–1900 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J. & Vaughan, N. E. Deliberative mapping of options for tackling climate change: citizens and specialists ‘open up’ appraisal of geoengineering. Public Understand. Sci. 25, 269–286 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Davies, G. The sacred and the profane: biotechnology, rationality, and public debate. Environ. Plan. A 38, 423–443 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Stirling, A. & Mayer, S. A novel approach to the appraisal of technological risk: a multicriteria mapping study of a genetically modified crop. Environ. Plan. C. Gov. Policy 19, 529–555 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Leach, M., Scoones, I. & Stirling, A. Dynamic Sustainabilities: Technology, Environment, Social Justice (Earthscan, 2010).

  41. Stern, P. & Fineberg, H. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (National Academy Press, 1996).

  42. Chatterton, T. Public engagement: building energy futures. Nat. Energy 2, 17030 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Macnaghten, P. & Chilvers, J. The future of science governance: publics, policies, practices. Environ. Plan. C. Gov. Policy 32, 530–548 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Walker, G. & Cass, N. Carbon reduction, ‘the public’ and renewable energy: engaging with socio-technical configurations. Area 39, 458–469 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Chilvers, J. & Pallett, H. Energy democracies and publics in the making: a relational agenda for research and practice. Front. Commun. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2018.00014 (2018).

  46. Wynne, B. Public uptake of science: a case for institutional reflexivity. Public Understand. Sci. 2, 321–337 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Chilvers, J., Pallett, H. & Hargreaves, T. Public Engagement with Energy: Broadening Evidence, Policy and Practice (UK Energy Research Centre, 2017).

  48. Burall, S. Rethink public engagement for gene editing. Nature 555, 438–439 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Jasanoff, S. & Hurlbut, J. A global observatory for gene editing. Nature 555, 435–437 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Latour, B. & Weibel, P. Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy (MIT Press, 2005).

  51. Pallett, H., Chilvers, J. & Hargreaves, T. Mapping Energy Participation: A Systematic Review of Diverse Practices of Participation in UK Energy Transitions, 2010–2015 (UK Energy Research Centre, 2016).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research presented in this article was funded by the UK Research Councils as part of the UKERC Phase 3 research programme (EPSRC grant reference EP/L024756/1) and also benefited from UKERC Phase 4 funding (EPSRC grant reference EP/S029575/1). We are grateful to the citizens and specialists who participated in the DDM study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

J.C. led the research and its overall design as principal investigator. The comparative case mapping was led by J.C. with data collection and analysis being undertaken by H.P. with inputs from J.C. and T.H. All authors contributed to the design and data collection of the DDM, with analysis being led by J.C. and undertaken by R.B. Figure 1 was developed by J.C. and Fig. 2 was prepared by R.B. J.C. wrote the article with contributions from R.B., H.P. and T.H.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason Chilvers.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Energy thanks Andy Stirling and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2 and Tables 1–3.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chilvers, J., Bellamy, R., Pallett, H. et al. A systemic approach to mapping participation with low-carbon energy transitions. Nat Energy 6, 250–259 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-00762-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-00762-w

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing