Self Sufficient sustainable energy

Self Sufficient sustainable energy

reduction Interdisciplinary project 29-05-2019 Joris Holleman 11220538 Diederik Becker 11072865 Martijn Kuik 11324058

Word count: 6429

Abstract

This proposal is about finding a good strategy for balance to reduce the use of energy in an area called ‘the Nieuwe Kern’. From different perspectives, ways and arguments will be found to propose a strategy to Balance. Our theory is built upon three pillars: a fiscal pillar, a communicative pillar and a participative pillar. The research relies heavily on interviews which lead, combined with our theoretical framework, to a strategy which has the most optimal participative structure. The research shows that a participative cap and trade system is the most feasible way to include these three pillars. The fiscal side shows how such a system is practically working, the participative side shows how the

neighbourhood meetings should be arranged and the communicative side focusses on the social norm.

Introduction

Amsterdam is a city that experiences an ongoing process of increasing population size and urban areas. Therefore, new areas are designated for housing families and other activities. In this research proposal we will look at one of these areas, called the “Nieuwe Kern”. The Nieuwe Kern lies in the municipality of Ouder-Amstel and borders the municipality of Amsterdam. It is surrounded by the A2, the station of Duivendrecht, Amsterdamse Poort and the Amsterdam Arena. The area has an attractive position because of the good

infrastructural connection, nearby functions and activities (source: Case description). The downside of this good connectivity is that the area is isolated from the conventional services of the Amsterdam region. Therefore, this area requires a decentralised system of facilities to meet the needs of the Nieuwe Kern. About 4500 houses will be built in an area of 250.000 square meters. However, more than half of this is planned to be commercial real estate. So, this problem requires an innovative and creative way of meeting the needs in such limited space. To assist in meeting these needs possibilities lie not only at the energy production side, but also at the demand side. A lower energy demand means that relying only on green energy production becomes easier (Geels et al., 2018).The problem in this case lies in the fact that a green energy system is becoming more and more urgent with trends of ongoing climate change and the consequences reflected in national policies which is reflected in the current climate law (Klimaat Wet). This research proposal tries to show an interdisciplinary insight on how to facilitate a community focused approach to energy demand reduction. An interdisciplinary method allows the investigation and creation of a system which consists of different aspect. This shows a more complete image of a complex system.

This interdisciplinary approach consists out of three different pillars: The financial side, communicative side and the participative governance side. These pillars are chosen because the goal of this project is to create a system that is independent and self-sufficient. Etzioni (1967), Fischer (2012), Sweeney et al. (2014) Yam et al. (2017) en Lapinski et al. (2014) have shown that solutions found with the cooperation of stakeholders are more effective for a longer time, as the general needs are represented. The disciplines are chosen because they all contribute to a system where people collectively reduce energy. In this research proposal the described system will be called the community approach. This results in our research question: How can you create a participative structure for

community energy use reduction in the Nieuwe Kern in Amsterdam? This research will firstly elaborate on the three different pillars stated previously. This will be followed by a methods section, after which the results will be described. To combine the different pillars after they have been analysed in the results, an interdisciplinary section will highlight the different relations. This research will be concluded with a conclusion, recommendations and a discussion.

Theoretical framework

Overview of the Framework

Figure 1: The Theoretical Framework consists of the three pillars: financial tools, communicative tools and participative tools. These tools together will cover the theory behind the structure of the participation in the Nieuwe Kern. We will combine the theory and perform our research using a survey.

Financial Theory

Unfortunately, if not properly addressed, people and companies will not take ‘hidden costs’ (costs that are made by harming the environment) seriously (European Environment Agency, 2005). Fiscal tools can provide a good incentive to do so.

A fiscal tool that results in this cooperation, is an environmental taxation which can be used for energy (Environmental taxes - Eurostat, n.d.). Processes that require energy, can be taxed, resulting in a higher price for the households that use more energy.

Structure of Participation

Financial

Tools Communicative tools

Participative tools Interdisciplinary approach Universal Method

The tax is then incorporated in the energy use and is billed after. A nice measure

complementing to this, would be increasing the money spend on consuming more energy the more it is used by the household. These measures can be reinforced by an advice on how to use the energy efficiently. (Brears, 2018). The municipality can incentivize households to use cost-efficient use of energy by setting different prices for durable energy use and not-durable energy use. Two positive notes on this theory are: households will always want to continue to save energy-costs as they save more money by doing it and inhabitants are incentivized to find alternatives for cost-consuming energy uses (Brears, 2018).

A secondary tool for promoting cooperation is by subsidizing households, in other words, rewarding households for good energy-saving initiatives. (Brears, 2018). A good example for this would be subsidizing people that initiate energy-saving innovations. That way consumers gain by lower bills and by receiving a bonus for their energy-saving solutions.

Communicative theory

The communicative side will look at the influence of the social norm towards reducing energy use. The social norm is a theory where people adjust their behaviour to what they think other people feel, think and do (Van der Pligt & Vliek, 2017). In the case of this research it will be in the context of reducing energy use. This part of the research will investigate the sub-question: How do you create a social norm towards energy use reduction through communication? The effect of the social norm on behaviour is extensively studied and in this research the influence is based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) of Ajzen (1991). The social norm consists of two different aspects: The descriptive and the injunctive norm. The descriptive norm is what people think that others do, feel and think. The injunctive norm is what one thinks others think how one should behave (Van der Pligt & Vliek, 2017). It is important to notice that the norms are subjectively constructed and therefore not necessarily related to reality. This means that these norms are influenceable through communication. This part will focus on how to make people experience and comply to a social norm of energy use reduction.

Participative structures

How can communicative planning be applied to an energy reduction context?

There are different forms in which participative governance can be attained and one of these forms is communicative planning (CP). CP emerged in the 1980s and 1990s, with a focus on communication, interaction and dialogue (Innes & Booher, 2015). Healey (1996) describes CP as a form of planning to battle the conflicts and tensions in urban settings, where competition is high. CP was developed as a method of reflection for the many problems within spatial strategy formation, it consists out of five questions that can be applied to a strategy formation process and in this way achieve a correcting function: 1) Arenas for discussion. Where is discussion to take place, in what forums and arenas; how are community members to get access to it? This question applies to the problem that certain places for discussion privileges some stakeholder and at the same time impairs

others. While this question might not be directly applicable because most stakeholders and inhabitants live near each other, it might be beneficial to dedicate space where discussions can take place that are necessary for such a participative structure (Healey, 1996; Bryson & Crosby, 1993)

2) The scope and style of discussion. In what style will discussion take place? What styles will most likely be able to 'open out' discussion to enable the diversity of 'languages' among community members to find expression? This discussion consists of three aspects: Style, language and respect. The style is about the routines of policy discussion and the issue here lies within the fact that different groups have different expectations of these routines. To avoid different stakeholders talking past each other, it is important to

recognize this difference and make use of the multiple languages. Lastly, with respect it is important to acknowledge every participant in the discussion (Healey, 1996).

3) Sorting through the arguments. How can the jumble of issues, arguments, claims for attention, and ideas about what to do which arise in discussion be sorted out? As time goes on, the participants learn from each other and sort through the different arguments

together, finding facts, values, rights and drawing out common threads. With such a structure it is important for the experts or planners to facilitate an equal playing field and help the participants in thinking out their ideas.

4) Creating a new discourse. How can a strategy be created that becomes a new discourse about how spatial and environmental change in urban regions could be managed? Policy discourse is a system of meaning in a strategy for action, this contains the ideas, the ways the participants think about the issues that emerge in the discussion and therefore also what good and bad arguments are. The danger here is the creation of a discourse early in the discussion often constrict and limits the possible solutions. This means that there needs to be a push for exploring different storylines, creating discursive keys as points of interest and sustain a critical mindset of this discourse until there is a broad support among the participants (Healey, 1996).

5) Agreement and critique. How can a political community get to agree on a strategy, and maintain that agreement over time while continually subjecting it to critique? To ensure that the actors, who disagree with the direction the discussion is going are, dealt with in a fair way, it is necessary to have a duty to challenge the main discourse and to subject it to continuous reflective critique. It can be used as a monitoring tool, but also as a controlling tool. This way the policy or discussion can be reviewed whether the set goals are still relevant and still applicable to the current situation (Healey, 1996).

The characteristics of CP provide a foundation on which a just, effective and inclusive collaborative system can be built within a community. Possibilities for decreasing the energy demand in De Nieuwe Kern could have bigger potential when created within such a system, as the equal representation of different stakeholders and population groups produce tailor made solutions for the needs (Etzioni, 1967; Healey, 1996). Additionally, mediation can be mixed with the communicative approach, providing information about potential pitfalls and making sure the discussion process remains within the guidelines (Fisher et al., 2011; Scharpf, 1997; Bruijn & Ernst, 2004; Susskind & Ozawa, 1984; and Bazerman, 1983).

Interdisciplinarity

In this section the link between the three disciplines will be described. As stated before, the goal of this study is to build a structure where people themselves reduce their energy use. To achieve this self-control of energy it is necessary that people are

involved/participating with the energy system. These are the participative structures which are mentioned before. If there are more people involved with this participative structure the effects of the social norms are stronger (Lapinksi et al., 2014). This means that if people are involved in a participative structure where people reduce their energy use, they feel more obliged to also reduce their own energy use (line 3 in relations diagram). On the other hand, if there is a stronger social norm people will get involved with the

participative structures more easily because the perceived pressure from other inhabitants (line 2 in relations diagram) (Fehr & Fischenbacher, 2004). But, to initiate the

participative structure an incentive is needed. This incentive has to offer an advantage for the inhabitants which is why the financial side is investigated. Financial incentives offer people a reason to get involved in a participative structure because it is economically beneficial for them (line 1 in relations diagram) (Lapinski et al. 2017).

Figure 2: Interdisciplinary relations diagram: 1) The financial incentives gets people involved with the participative structures 2) The social norm gets people involved with the participatory structures because of the social pressure 3) If people are involved in a group, they perceive a stronger social norm

Methods

Research design & Methods

convey a more profound investigation into a certain subject and on the data that is collected. Additionally, it makes it possible to gather data via a perspective of the people that have experience with community approaches to sustainable energy systems (Bryman, 2013). The interviewees were chosen because certain perspectives were required on how to make an energy reduction system and how to make the the cap and trade system realistically possible.

This research paper is started deductively, as the research is done via a theoretical framework. This framework is necessary because certain definitions have to be contrived from scientific literature, these definitions have been used as guidelines for the data collection. However, this research subject also has an inductive side, as there is a data collection which might lead to new insights and thus lead to additions and changes to the theoretical framework.

The main problem of investigating the Nieuwe Kern is that there are no inhabitants because the district isn’t built yet, therefore an explorative study is needed. To investigate the effects of the social norm, a participative system and financial incentives an interview have been conducted. These are with actors who are specialised or closely related to the matter of reducing energy use of inhabitants.

Operationalisation

To investigate the social norm three interviews have been conducted. One with an actor which has experience in setting up new sustainable area’s and two with inhabitants who had some ideas and implications for the cap and trade system (interviewees). The first interview focussed on what ideas (related to the social norm) are already used and on what the experts think of methods described in scientific literature (Stroomversnelling). The interview with the inhabitants provided information on how they perceive the pressure of the social norm and what their perspective is on the cap and trade system. Besides that, it will ask on how they would react to several introduced ways of triggering the social norm towards energy use reduction. These ways are based on scientific papers. The ideas that have been discussed are:

- Providing information about the energy behaviour of other inhabitants. The sharing of data from other inhabitants with the energy bill, a monitoring device where people can compare their energy use with other inhabitants.

- The sharing of tips/bills between inhabitants to show how people are reducing energy use. Examples: an app for inhabitants, a meeting once in a while, a fixed column in the weekly paper.

- These ideas will all focus on setting up a structure where people themselves control this communication and so limiting the influence of a third party in their energy usage

To investigate the implications of a participative system, an interview has been held with an expert on energy transition systems and two homeowners. This way, information has been gathered about the problems and implications of a participative community structure from a user’s perspective. Furthermore, it proved beneficial to interview an expert on the community participatory approaches, again providing unique insights.

While the literature provides a great deal of information about the potential pitfalls in participative structures and mediation practices, the cases described are often too general or not applicable to a green energy context. Thus, the goals in the interviews were to:

- acquire information about experiences of the advantages and disadvantages of a participative community structure in a green energy context. This includes the gains for such a community or neighbourhood and also the losses.

- Factual information about these communities in relation to the five steps of CP, what does a user and an expert answer when asked how these steps were happening in their cases?

- What were problems in the set-up of such a participative structure?

To create different scenarios in which different potential economic measures can be taken in a system to reduce energy consumption, it was important to talk to

homeowners and experts. To see if certain measures are possible, they need to be viewed from different perspectives. Moreover, it is crucial to gain an insight whether these economic policies fit within the rest of the pillars and the system as a whole. So, the main questions in the interviews were:

- What do inhabitants and experts generally think of using tax and/or subsidizing energy-saving initiatives?

- Do fiscal policies contribute in a good participative structure?

- Are their downsides with the three pillars of the theory? In other words, do these theories always complement to the structure or can they counteract?

Results

The result section is split up in four different sections. At first there will be description about the financial theory behind the practical issues of the cap and trade system. Secondly, the participative side is explained. Third, he social norm and its requirements are discussed. The last section is where the three pillars are intertwined by explaining the relations which were introduced earlier in the theoretical framework (see interdisciplinary

relations diagram).

The cap and trade system

Cap and trade is a method used to protect the environment by reducing CO2-emission. A country has the right to pollute, which is written up via CO2 emissions. If a country pollutes more, it needs to buy more rights to pollute and if it pollutes less it can sell its rights. There is an agreement on how much CO2 can be given out, this is called the cap. This system generates a positive impact on reduction as countries are limited in their emissions (Chai, 2018).

Our proposition is to implement a comparable system in the Nieuwe Kern regarding energy usage. The goal is to imitate the cap and trade system, and to add features to make it more sustainable in a city-structured area. The cap The first problem that is faced by introducing the system is setting a proper cap. For this system to work optimally an incentive to reduce needs to be created as that is the main purpose. A good incentive is a financial incentive, where people gain when they reduce their energy use. In this system, we have chosen for modus where people who use less energy make a profit, the people who use more energy are punished. Continuity wise it would be best if inhabitants are constantly reminded of their behaviour and thereby continuously try to improve their energy-saving behaviour. A way to achieve this is by setting monthly re-evaluation times where people can either be rewarded or punished. The monthly energy bill is a good method to use where inhabitants directly see whether they performed well the month. A second problem arises when inhabitants perform so well, they never exceed the cap. The incentive to keep saving energy is then neglected which results in less contribution to the set goal. To counteract with this phenomenon, we propose the cap to be the average of the energy-usage in the area. This “winners and losers” idea makes use of proportionalities of both competition and personal gain. The energy market price

In the carbon emission market countries are free to set prices as they desire, making use of the underlying market forces. In the Nieuwe Kern a problem arises when this floating price principle is used. This is due to the fact that every inhabitant buys a certain bundle and either sells or buys goods. This leads to three scenarios in which the goods market can result:

The fixed price Scenario 1: Market price below the central distribution price

The price per unit energy is below the price that the central distribution centre employs. In this case the incentive to reduce energy opposes exactly the opposite as people who save can only sell their good for less than they bought it for. Inhabitants will likely use all the energy they could use in their bundle as there is a financial loss if energy is saved. On the other hand, people who exceed their bundle have a benefit as they can buy the energy used above the cap for a cheaper price than the original price in the bundle. This leads to the conclusion that setting a market price below the central distribution price does not only take away essential incentives to reduce energy, but in the end achieves the exact opposite.

Scenario 2: Market price at the central distribution price

Inhabitants can buy their unit of energy at the same price as they pay when they buy from the central distribution centre. When this scenario is applied, the foundation of the cap and trade system disappears. Households can now buy and sell their energy at the same price as they paid for in the bundle which results in no gain when an inhabitant is selling energy and no loss when the inhabitant needs to buy energy. This way everyone pays the same price as if the system was not implemented.

Scenario 3: The market price is above the central distribution price.

When the price of the market is above the central distribution price, people directly gain from saving energy. Every unit of energy from the bundle they did not use, can be sold at a higher price than they bought it for, resulting in a profit. If the energy bundle is

exceeded, a loss is generated as people need to pay more than the price of the distribution centre, resulting in an incentive to save energy in order to gain and make sure the cap is not reached rather than exceeding it. Prices are set by the inhabitants

In this scenario people are free to set prices as they desire. However, this elaboration of the system faces some difficulties. The market price will not be set below the price the distribution centre sets. The reasoning behind this is the fact that selling a good below the value that people bought it for results in a loss. Goods will also not be sold at a higher price than the distribution price as buyers are then obliged to buy the good for a price they have no voice in. If someone exceeds the cap and needs to buy energy, they cannot be forced to pay the price the seller sets. This would lead to unfair prices. Energy is such a fundamental good that it cannot be exploited in this way. These theories lead to an

equilibrium price which is the same price as the distribution centre charges. Then the same problem is faced as if the price is fixed at the same price as the distribution centre, the system wouldn’t work. Outcome practical system

Making use of the inhabitants’ prices does not seem a feasible option as they equilibrium price will reach the same price as the distribution centre uses, making the system useless. Using a fixed price below the market price runs past the idea of saving, stimulating more energy usage. As is concluded before, a fixed price that is the same as the price of the distributor does not work either. Leaving us with scenario three from the fixed prices, the market price is above the distribution price.

households that use up all of their energy. We propose a certain percentage on top of the price the distribution centre uses. This way the price is also adjusted to the change in energy prices.

An extra benefit of using this structure is that supply and demand always match as the cap always is the average of all the energy used. This will be calculated at the end of the month when the energy usage per household is known. It can be a fully automated process as people agree or disagree beforehand whether they want to participate in the system. However, an investigation is needed to see if the households are comparable with each other. For instance, a household that consists of two people make less use of energy than a household with five people. Comparing households with the same number of inhabitants can then be used, or an index can be made on the percentage energy used per person.

Figure 3: Cape and trade model. As seen in the figure the energy is distributed from the producer to the households. There are households who save and who waste in relation to the cap and this information is then forwarded to the monitoring system and creates a virtual pool of energy where the savers can sell and the wasters can buy.

Participative structures

As previously described in the theoretical framework Communicative planning can provide a foundation on which a just, effective and inclusive collaborative system can be built within a community (Etzioni, 1967; Healey, 1996). This chapter will explain the specific ways in which a participative structure can be beneficial for the cap and trade system via the data collected in interviews with an expert and homeowners.

Communicative planning provides borders in which a participative structure can grow and uphold certain values that make it representable and inclusive. This is done via the five guidelines as previously explained in the theoretical framework, where also the specific ways in which these guidelines should be interpreted are described. The main idea to increase the effectiveness of the system is to increase citizen and homeowner

involvement. The interviews show there is a willingness to get involved in a cap and trade Energy distributor Saving Household Wasting Household Monitoring System Interchange in Energy

Positive feedback to the monitoring system

Negative feedback to the Monitoring System

system that combines with participative structures: “Yes I would participate, because then it becomes much more something you do together instead of anonymous. Involvement is something you have to stimulate and I think you can achieve that by cooperating.” and “If the conditions are good, I would certainly consider it.”. This means that the willingness to get involved of homeowners can indeed be expanded upon.

As Healey (1996) and Bryson & Crosby (1993) describe, arena’s for discussion should be in places that are neutral for everyone and an example for such a place is a community centre. The interviewed expert explains a hypothetical situation in which an existing community centre is the perfect basis on which eventually discussions about energy saving can take place. Of course, there is no community centre yet in the Nieuwe Kern because the neighbourhood is not built yet but could be a potential starting point for a participative structure. Participants can choose to host monthly sessions in these

community centres in which is decided what to do with the money that is saved by the system for the neighbourhood or how the system can be expanded or improved.

The problem lies perhaps in the next guideline: the scope and style of discussion. The plans for the Nieuwe Kern display a great amount of homes that are going to be built, about 4500 and this means that there are many different households and people within the system. One of the respondents claimed: “The conversations will be very superficial if the group remains this large. This way you never really get down to the where the problem lies and how you are going to solve it, because there too many people giving their

opinion.”. The same respondent later suggested that it might be advantageous to divide the neighbourhood in smaller blocks. This idea could indeed solve potential further problems that come up when implementing Communicative Planning on a larger scale. For instance, the sorting trough of arguments can be difficult if you take in account the entire

neighbourhood, with the many different people and their different opinions. Downscaling these groups will certainly improve the productiveness of the sessions and the overall effectiveness of the system.

However, it is important to discuss only certain subjects in these smaller blocks, as it would be problematic if all these blocks will go through the fourth guideline: Creating a new discourse. The cap and trade system relies on the participation of the interviewees, this also means that in order to have good participation everybody needs to have the same idea of the system. This indicates that these discussions must take place on different levels. Discussions can be held, and new discourses can be created for every group on the use of the money saved, but there also needs to be place for discussion about the cap and trade system on a neighbourhood scale in order to implement the fifth

guideline: Agreement and critique. The idea behind Communicative planning is nullified if there is no opportunity to reflect and criticise on potential flaws or areas for

improvement (Healey, 1996). This must be done on a neighbourhood scale, otherwise there is a possibility that each block develops the cap and trade system slightly different over time and thus creating a collection of systems that do not fit together anymore. The power of the system in reducing energy is in the scale, the bigger the scale the better the system works as described in the economy pillar

The main problem is that communicative planning works best when it is guided by an independent expert who assures that the process remains within the guidelines and

everybody is equally represented (Healey, 1996; Fisher et al., 2011; Scharpf, 1997; Bruijn & Ernst, 2004; Susskind & Ozawa, 1984; and Bazerman, 1983). This is confirmed by one of the respondents: “I would prefer an independent person, because when you have someone from the neighbourhood itself they are not independent they live there. And say there is a fight or people dislike a certain person, I think it is better when you remain above the parties.” and “someone who enlarges the involvement, I think the guidance is very important.”. While Balance has indicated that a continued (probably) municipal support is not preferred, it would most likely be beneficial for the entire system.

The social norm

As introduced before the social norm might be a tool for reducing energy usage of

inhabitants. In this section of the results the interviews will be discussed. At first it will be discussed if the social norm can contribute to energy reduction. Secondly, there were three conditions which enforced or enabled the social norm in the cap and trade system. These conditions are: The need for group feeling, a real time device and anonymity.

The effect of the social norm was found in all the interviews. At first

Stroomversnelling and interviewee two stated the presence of it by making the following statements:

“I think the social norm could have an effect, in some places this social norm consists of neighbours, a close neighbourhood is a stimulus to alter behaviour” Stroomversnelling

“The social norm is present if it (behaviour) is clearly seen in the neighbourhood” interviewee

This shows that people do experience a certain role of social pressure. This complies with the research of Ajzen (1991). This is important because this means that the social norm can be used to influence behaviour towards energy usage reduction. In the following chapter some conditions on how to increase or enable the social norm.

The interviewees introduced one clear condition on how to increase a social norm in a neighbourhood. This is the need for a group feeling. If people feel related to a group, the social norm increases in strength Lapinski et al. (2014). The ideas varied on how to achieve this group feeling differed. But the most supported idea was to create smaller living groups (interviewee). This interviewee stated that a local (stated as smaller living groups) social norm was more persuasive which was also found by Ryoo, Hyun & Sung (2017). These smaller groups should increase the group feeling because this makes it possible to get to know a couple people better. If people are closer to each other the strength of the social norm increases (interviewee). This was also seen in the answers of the other interviewee who stated that how bigger a neighbourhood becomes, the more anonymous everyone is.

A second condition was that people needed more insight in their energy usage. The interviewees stated that it was best done via an app and/or device which showed the real time energy usage of themselves and the average use of their neighbours. These devices should create awareness on how much energy could be saved. This statement was supported by

Stroomversnelling who stated that it increased social pressure. Another function of these devices could be the sharing of energy reducing measures by interacting with neighbours on how to save energy (Sweeney et al., 2014; Yam et al., 2017) (interviewee). The last function could be the introduction of game on who saves the most energy. This could be done between neighbours (Stroomversnelling) or between parts of neighbourhoods (interviewee)

Another important condition is that people should be anonymous in their energy usage. This was important according to both interviewees. They stated that their energy usage data should be anonymous but could be shared. This means that an average energy usage of the neighbourhood is shared. If a situation occurs where people see that their neighbours are using less energy, they might be persuaded to also looking at immediate energy reduction (Ajzen, 1991). But the only condition is that people must be anonymous because otherwise they won’t want to participate (interviewee 1, 2 and Stroomversnelling).

Interdisciplinarity

In this section it will be explained how the three discussed pillars are put together to create the system we investigated. This will be done by explaining the links which were described in the research proposal. To describe these links, it is important if they were supported by the literature and interviews. Later, the conditions of these links will be discussed, and at last some implementing options will be introduced.

The first link which should be discussed is link number one (see figure 2: interdisciplinary relations diagram). This is the link from the financial perspective. The interviews showed that a cap and trade system was the only feasible system

(Stroomversnelling). The advantage of this system lies in the fact that people themselves can decide on when and how to get their money back. They will never lose money on the energy bill if they stay under the average. Another advantage is the profit money in the common pool where people can decide how to spend it. These advantages triggers people's interest and getting people involved in the system (interviews). This is the link with the participative structure. People are drawn into the system by these advantages. This link in the system is very important because the financial advantages are the most important according to Stroomversnelling.

The second link became clear in an interview with an interviewee. The interviewee stated that there is a certain pressure from the neighbourhood to participate in the system. This means that the social norm can persuade people into participating with the cap and trade system. This link is also based on the research done by Ajzen (1991) who states that a social norm can persuade people to alter their behaviour.

The third link was found in the research by the interviewee’s which represented the inhabitants. The participants and Stroomversnelling all stated that the social norm increased if people were part of the system or neighbourhood. This link was also supported by literature on this matter (Lapinski et al., 2017).

The described links have some conditions which need to be satisfied before this system can be functional. First, it is important that people perceive a group feeling, because this increases the involvement with the system. This can be done by creating smaller living groups (interviewees). The second condition is that the energy usage of people is shared anonymously. The third and last condition is that this system offers enough opportunities for the inhabitants to shape their own neighbourhood and system to create a higher degree of involvement.

To achieve this system there are also some practical implementations necessary. The first is that there needs to be a medium where people can trade their surplus energy. A good

option is to create an app for the inhabitants. The second implementation is a smart device in every household where people see the real time energy usage of their neighbours to create a social norm. The last implementation is the arrangement of a meeting, between the

inhabitants, once per amount of time.

If the conditions are met and the implementations are done, this system offers a way to reduce energy usage and creates a more coherent living area because the system stimulates people to get to know each other.

Conclusion/Recommendation

The purpose of this research was to come up with an advice for Balance to find a reliable energy source for the Nieuwe Kern. Instead of implementing commonly used ways to generate energy, a different approach is taken. Whereas investigating what energy source is most profitable is researching the supply side of energy, this investigation looked into the demand side. Namely, to meet an energy goal can be reached by increasing supply or decreasing demand. We chose for the latter.

Our proposal is an adjusted cap and trade system. The cap is set at the average of the previous month and is therefore adjusted with every new energy bill. The selling price is set at a higher price than the cost of energy, using a percentage. This way the price is adjusted to fluctuations in energy prices. Supply will always compensate demand as an average is used. The income generated by the difference in price will be used by the inhabitants to upgrade facilities in the neighbourhood.

Monthly meetings need to be facilitated by the inhabitants to discuss and form new ideas. The best timing for this would be right after the monthly billing period as the money is then collected. These meetings need to be performed in blocks of households increasing the influence an individual has. However, the system itself needs to be centrally organised. Holding the meetings in blocks also contributes to the social norm, which drives people into cooperation. The cooperation can be enforced with a monitor or app that indicates the energy usage per household in the area. That way people can compare, increasing the impact of the social norm. We propose the sharing of information anonymous to respect privacy.

Discussion

Although we carefully described how to run the meetings, the way to incentivize people to actually go, is not set. The condition we took is the intrinsic motivation to go to these meetings. More research is needed to find out how inhabitants can be motivated to go to these meetings. Digital meetings could be a solution to this problem. In addition, an investigation is needed to see if the households are comparable with each other. For instance, a household that consists of two people make less use of energy than a household with five people. Comparing households with the same number of inhabitants can then be used, or an index can be made on the percentage energy used per person.

Concept Short description Underlying assumptions and useful insights Key concepts Energy reduction behaviour Energy reducing behaviour is behaviour actually performed by people to reduce their KwH per a given period of time. This behaviour can include many things like isolating a house but also small things like paying attention on turning the lights off when you leave.

From this point of view behaviour is always rationally evaluated and performed which is not always the case. This means that the influence of behaviour is mainly focused on the rational part of behaviour which limits the effectiveness. Later on, this rational behaviour can become a routine and therefore be performed in a more subconscious way.

· KwH per given time

· Energy conservation

Social norm The social norm is the pressure exerted by the (perceived) thoughts, feelings and behaviour of people or groups around someone. This pressure subjective because the view of what others think, do and feel is constructed (sub) consciously and can therefore be biased.

The social norm is always constructed in the head of people and may therefore be biased. There do not have to be actual behaviour, thought or feeling to still perceive that there is. What is meant that people always create an image of the social context around them. This view can also be influenced with incorrect information which creates a fake social nom. This fake norm can have the same effect on behaviour as a norm which has more similarities with reality.

· Perceived · Biased · Social pressure · (sub) conscious Financial Tools to improve cooperation

Two ways of incentivizing people to behave in a more energy-saving way is by taxation and

subsidizing. This way people are awarded by savings from less tax and by gaining the subsidy.

Underlying assumptions would be that people are susceptible for the cooperation-methods and are willing to retrieve the rewards. - Improving contribution - Financial tools - Tax - Subsidy

Communicative planning CP has a focus on communication, interaction and dialogue. It was developed as a method of reflection for the many problems within spatial strategy formation, it consists out of five questions that can be applied to a strategy formation process and in this way achieve a correcting function

Via an inclusive and

communicative process, the most desirable solutions can be reached.

Focus on collaboration and consensus building does not necessarily mean that the most desirable solutions can be reached, as these concepts have inherent problems. Additionally, communicative planning indeed is about communicating, but also about rules and procedures.

1) Arenas for discussion, 2) The scope and style of discussion, 3) Sorting through the arguments, 4) Creating a new discourse, 5) Agreement and critique

Mediation Mediation is a method of negotiating where nobody loses. The whole idea behind mediating is that all actors leave the negotiation with nothing lost. It is about guiding the negotiation process to come to a good outcome.

Mediation provides a method of negotiating that should always have a positive outcome for every actor involved Zone of possible agreement (ZOPA) Best alternative to negotiated agreement (BATNA)

Time frame

Week Deadlines agreements To do:

15 (7-14 April) 14-4: hand in the research proposal

16 (15-21 April) Gathering relevant

actors and contacting them.

- contacting the actors for an interview - start to construct the interviews

- write an explanation why what actors have been contacted.

17 (22-28 April) Deliver the final

version of the interviews. - finishing interviews - conducting interviews if possible 18 (29-5 April/May) 1-05: rehearsing presentation Started working on transcribing and final report.

- maybe conducting interviews

- transcribing interviews

-start on the analysis of the interviews

- possibly start on the conclusion

- possibly start on presentation 19 (06-12 may) 07-5: first version

report deadline

Finalising first version of the report. starting on

presentation.

- writing the conclusion

- finetuning lay out - starting on

presentation and adjust it to the feedback on the report.

20 (13-19 may) 14-5: presentation Finalising presentation.

- finalising the

adjusting project to the feedback

it to feedback

- adjusting project to the feedback

21 (20- 26 may) Finalising the final

version of the report. The last adjustments to the feedback.

- adjusting project to the feedback

22 (27-02 may/June)

29-5: final report Finalising report on the last points like lay-out and grammar.

- check on grammar and lay-out.

- hand in final report

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision

processes, 50(2), 179-211.

Bazerman, M. H. (1983). Negotiator judgment: A critical look at the rationality assumption.

American Behavioral Scientist, 27(2), 211-228.

Brears, R. C. (2018). Circular Economy: Fiscal and Non-Fiscal Tools. In Natural Resource

Management and the Circular Economy (pp. 31-65). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Bryman, A. (2013). Social research methods. Oxford university press.

Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (1993). Policy planning and the design and use of forums, arenas, and courts. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 20(2), 175-194.

Chai, Q., Xiao, Z., Lai, K. H., & Zhou, G. (2018). Can carbon cap and trade mechanism be beneficial for remanufacturing?. International Journal of Production Economics, 203, 311-321.

de Bruijn, H., & Ernst, F. (2004). Process arrangements for variety, retention, and selection.

Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 16(4), 91-108.

Etzioni, A. (1967). Mixed scanning: A" third" approach to decision-making. Public administration review, 385-392.

European Environment Agency. (2005). Market-based instruments for environmental policy in Europe.

Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2004). Social norms and human cooperation. Trends in cognitive

sciences, 8(4), 185-190.

Fischer F. (2012). Participatory Governance: From Theory to Practice. S. S. Fainstein & J. Defilippis (Eds.), Readings in Planning Theory (4th ed.) (pp.348-362). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sonds, Ltd. Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin.

Geels, F. W., Schwanen, T., Sorrell, S., Jenkins, K., & Sovacool, B. K. (2018). Reducing energy demand through low carbon innovation: A sociotechnical transitions perspective and thirteen research debates. Energy research & social science, 40, 23-35.

Healey, P. (1996). The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy

formation

Innes, J.E., & Booher, D. E. (2015) A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming dividing discourse

Lapinski, M. K., Kerr, J. M., Zhao, J., & Shupp, R. S. (2017). Social norms, behavioral payment programs, and cooperative behaviors: toward a theory of financial incentives in normative systems. Human Communication Research, 43(1), 148-171.

Ryoo, Y., Hyun, N. K., & Sung, Y. (2017). The Effect of Descriptive Norms and Construal Level on Consumers' Sustainable Behaviors. Journal of Advertising, 46(4), 536-549.

Scharpf, F. W. (2018). Games real actors play: Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research. Routledge.

Susskind, L., & Ozawa, C. (1984). Mediated negotiation in the public sector: The planner as mediator.

Journal of Planning Education and Research, 4(1), 5-15.

Sweeney, J. C., Webb, D., Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. N. (2014). Self determination theory and word ‐ of mouth about energy saving behaviors: an online experiment.‐ Psychology & Marketing, 31(9), 698-716.

Van der Pligt, J., Vliek, M., (2017) The psychology of influence: Theory, research and practice. London, Routledge.

Technology Encourage Low Income Households To Perform Socially Responsible ‐ Behaviors?. Psychology & Marketing, 34(4), 394-409.