Original research articleConceptualizing a social sustainability framework for energy infrastructure decisions
Introduction
This paper presents a conceptual framework for social sustainability; a framework and a form of sustainability that allows various stakeholder groups, through deliberation and community visioning [1], [2], [3], to agree priorities that contribute to energy decision making for strong and successful communities. Community visioning is a citizen-based planning process, whereby an issue is defined by diverse members of a community, community assets are identified, a desired future is determined, and an action plan to achieve this future is developed [3]. It is increasingly used as a community development technique; for example, to encourage more participatory democratic processes in community planning and development [4], to address urban deterioration in Northern Ireland [5], and in local area planning on the Gold Coast in Australia [2]. As Lachapelle, Emery and Hays [3: 178] note, the process “emphasizes community assets rather than needs”, and identifies future opportunities for communities.
The decisions made regarding the management of new and ageing energy infrastructure are of local, national and international importance. Improved dialogue between industry and stakeholders can significantly impact upon the quality of decision-making [6], demonstrating a more democratic decision-making process. The literature supports democracy, in governance and society, to be a key theme of social sustainability and our conceptual framework [7]. In this paper, we evidence the shift in the nature of the energy stakeholder-industry relationship through reference to our work at UK nuclear sites [8], [9], where there has been an increase in dialogue taking place but questions regarding the fairness of this dialogue for stakeholders.
The importance of and need for further research into understanding the perceptions, priorities, involvement and support of local residents regarding large scale energy infrastructure is evident, and Walker, Wiersma and Bailey [10] echo this in the following statement:
“How to ensure fair processes and just outcomes for local communities, and how to enhance the acceptability of energy generation facilities amongst local populations remain important areas of human-energy research.” [p. 46]
However, in democracies, obtaining public consent for development of any kind is challenging. We demonstrate this through reference to our work at US nuclear sites, where open competition for consent for energy related developments appears to improve the quality of the scientific choices made and the stability of these choices with a public faced by adverse events [11]. We embrace the move towards a participatory-based form of dialogue in decisions rather than a technocratic ‘top down’, expert-led, ‘one-way’ form of consultation as we discuss with reference to our work in Japan. In our framework, dialogue is not only ‘two-way’, but multi-directional and dimensional, incorporating multiple stakeholders [12]. Through the application of our framework, we aim to start to provide the tools required for communities to effectively engage and influence government and industry on decision-making that directly impacts upon them.
The need for a conceptual framework to improve understanding of what social sustainability involves and requires has been acknowledged for some time. Lake and Hanson [13] emphasize this, whilst promoting urban sustainability:
“Given the conceptual vacuity burdening much of the debate, the question is not whether sustainability can be resuscitated conceptually but what conceptual framework offers the greatest promise of constructive understanding. Given the term's co-optation by interests across the political spectrum, the question is not whether sustainability can be achieved but what must be achieved to assure sustainability” [p. 2]
Previous conceptual frameworks for social sustainability include those proposed by Yitfachel and Hedgcock [14] for urban social sustainability and Jones and Tonts [15] for rural social sustainability, the latter being an adaptation of the former. These present urban and rural sustainability as being influenced by social, environmental and economic components, in simple diagrams where these relationships are one-way, feeding into the urban or rural sustainability systems, without the self-reinforcing relationships proposed by Cuthill [2]. The factors contributing to the social component of both frameworks are identified as equity, community, and urbanality [14] or rurality [15]. This not only demonstrates how the understanding of key social sustainability components in the literature has progressed over the past two decades but also the lack of progression over the same period in developing an appropriate conceptual framework for social sustainability.
Cuthill [2] demonstrates a recent attempt to improve understanding of the social sustainability concept; employing an action research approach based on rapid urban growth in South Eastern Queensland, Australia. The author provides a framework employing theoretical, operational, ethical and methodological components deemed essential to regional social sustainability; social capital, social infrastructure, social justice and engaged governance respectively. This is similar to the conceptual framework presented here; similarly an action research approach, aiming to work with various social groups within a community to understand and acknowledge social issues that they prioritize rather than issues deemed by officials or other decision makers to be important.
In regard to sustainable decision-making for new energy projects, the work of Raven et al. [16], [17] has informed our work. Managing social acceptance for new energy projects has highlighted the value of incorporating the views and contributions of local stakeholders, in order to anticipate and avoid potential problems with societal acceptance. The authors’ ESTEEM model employs vision building techniques and identifies conflicting issues with stakeholders. The conceptual framework presented here is also based on generating an understanding of local stakeholder priorities and vision building to improve decision making. By doing so, later conflict may be avoided, as projects are able to develop more sustainably by incorporating a detailed understanding of stakeholder expectations and priorities, and formulating more socially acceptable options and solutions.
We theorize that the impact of a large infrastructure development on a community is more direct and tangible when compared to the regional and national scale. This is not to say that ecological and economic considerations are not of equal importance, but that social issues and potential social impacts at the community level should be given attention, understood in greater detail and incorporated further into local decision making processes. The result is more democratically informed and legitimate decision making, and potentially more sustainable at the community level. This does not generate a scenario to the extent of reflexive modernization [18], but it shares notions of this theory; working towards futures which are more desirable, to communities in this instance, rather than future scenarios that are pre-defined, to which people are forced to adjust to [19], and therefore, are likely more unsustainable.
Section snippets
Conceptual framework for social sustainability
When discussing social systems such as a community, we distinguish between systems thinking and systemic thinking [20]. Rather than assuming knowledge that identifies a social system to be objective and one that can be readily identified and improved; we understand reality as the creative construction of human beings [21]. We have used this definition as a basis to conceptualize social sustainability, seeking to understand reality as the construction of people's interpretation of their
Conceptual framework process
The conceptual framework proposed in this paper is based on the assumption that a diverse range of social priorities is held by various stakeholder and social groups and that this is representative of the wider community. We assert that considering ‘the public’ as a single, uniform entity is unhelpful in regards to effective engagement so we target pre-existing social groups for our sample. As Pidgeon [89] states, there are a wide range of views in ‘nuclear communities’ which represent a
Discussion
Any attempts towards the control of engagement process participants by a convening government or organization, or between participants themselves, would appear to work against those ideals of fairness and the discursive validity of the freedom to participate and influence decisions, proposed by Habermas. The author stresses the need for greater levels of participation in all areas of life where important public decisions are made, but White [101] highlights that Habermas provides us with little
Conclusions
Despite public engagement initiatives to discuss energy developments, there is currently an absence of process or appropriate dialogue to illicit a sustainable community response to the planned closure of many energy generation sites or the development of new energy infrastructure, such as shale gas in the UK. We propose a systemic, community led, asset based approach to societal dialogue; one that captures the views and concerns of the wider stakeholder community and is able to inform
References (118)
- et al.
Community benefits, framing and the social acceptance of offshore wind farms: an experimental study in England
Energy Res Soc Sci
(2014) - et al.
ESTEEM: managing societal acceptance in new energy projects. A toolbox method for project managers
Technol Forecast Soc Change
(2009) - et al.
Modulating societal acceptance in new energy projects: towards a toolkit methodology for project managers
Energy
(2009) - et al.
What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts
Geoforum
(2011) - et al.
Visible technologies, invisible organisations: an empirical study of public beliefs about electricity supply networks
Energy Policy
(2010) - et al.
Implementation of renewable energy in Scottish rural area: a social study
Renew Sustain Energy Rev
(2012) - et al.
Public beliefs about high-voltage powerlines in Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom: a comparative survey
Energy Res Soc Sci
(2014) Renewable energy and the public
Land Use Policy
(1995)- et al.
Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept
Energy Policy
(2007) - et al.
Stakeholder salience in global projects
Int J Proj Manag
(2008)
Science for the post-normal age
Futures
The post-normal science of precaution
Futures
Post-Normal Science and the complexity of transitions towards sustainability
Ecol Complex
Communication approaches for carbon capture and storage: underlying assumptions of limited versus extensive public engagement
Energy Res Soc Sci
Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review
Biol Conserv
Public participation in EIA of nuclear power plant decommissioning projects: a case study analysis
Environ Impact Assess Rev
Recent trends and developments in dialogue on radioactive waste management: experience from the UK
Environ Int
Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands
Ecol Econ
Making local futures tangible – synthesizing, downscaling, and visualizing climate change scenarios for participatory capacity building
Glob Environ Change
Future visioning of local climate change: a framework for community engagement and planning with scenarios and visualization
Futures
Community visioning
Strengthening the ‘social’ in sustainable development: developing a conceptual framework for social sustainability in a rapid urban growth region in Australia
Sustain Dev
The pedagogy and the practice of community visioning: evaluating effective community strategic planning in rural Montana
Commun Dev
The challenge of democratic participation in the community development process
Commun Dev J
City visioning and the turn to community: the case of Derry/Londonderry
Plan Pract Res
What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public
Environ Manag
Emergent themes of social sustainability
Stakeholder participation for the Legacy Ponds and Legacy Silos (LP&LS) facility at Sellafield, Cumbria, UK: the nature and effectiveness of the dialogue
Participant perceptions on the nature of stakeholder dialogue carried out by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) [Ph.D. thesis]
Public consent for the geological disposal of highly radioactive nuclear wastes and spent nuclear fuel
Int J Environ Stud
Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century
Plan Theory Pract
Needed: geography research on urban sustainability
Urban Geogr
Urban social sustainability: the planning of an Australian city
Cities
Rural restructuring and social sustainability: some reflections on the Western Australian wheatbelt
Aust Geogr
Reflexive modernization. Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order
Deliberative democracy and beyond: liberals, critics, contestations
The relationship of systems thinking to action research
Syst Pract Action Res
Systems methodology for the management sciences
Guest editorial to special edition
System
Never waste a good crisis: towards social sustainable development
Soc Indic Res
Social sustainability and whole development: exploring the dimensions of sustainable development
Social sustainability: a catchword between political pragmatism and social theory
Int J Sustain Dev
The social dimension of sustainable development: defining urban social sustainability
Sustain Dev
Functional-dynamic public participation in technological decision-making: site selection processes of nuclear waste repositories
J Risk Res
Putting pylons into place: a UK case study of public perspectives on the impacts of high voltage overhead transmission lines
J Environ Plan Manag
Making electricity networks “visible”: industry actor representations of “publics” and public engagement in infrastructure planning
Public Underst Sci
Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: the role of community benefits in wind energy development
J Environ Plan Manag
Public participation in development of small infrastructure projects
Sustain Dev
On the right track? Technology, geology and society in Swedish nuclear waste management
J Risk Res
Meeting the challenge of permanent nuclear waste disposal in an expanding Europe: transparency, trust democracy
Environ Polit
Cited by (50)
Analysing community-based initiatives for heating and cooling: A systematic and critical review
2022, Energy Research and Social ScienceSocial sustainability indicators: A comprehensive review with application in the energy sector
2022, Sustainable Production and ConsumptionTowards people-private-public partnerships: An integrated community engagement model for capturing energy access needs
2021, Energy Research and Social ScienceCitation Excerpt :This multi-actor setting requires close collaboration between the actors involved. While the need for community-centric electrification approaches is well-documented, there is a limited understanding in literature on how these collaborations between key actors in the context of needs-centric energy access can be fostered [21]. Indeed, the barriers for needs-centric community engagement we identify make it difficult to achieve meaningful community engagement in rural electrification in SSA.
Rethinking community empowerment in the energy transformation: A critical review of the definitions, drivers and outcomes
2021, Energy Research and Social Science
- 1
These authors contributed equally to this work.