1
The Regional Energy Strategy (RES) in the
frame of energy justice
A study concerning the experiences of regional energy justice from the
perspectives of municipalities in the Cleantech region.
Master’s Thesis for the Spatial Planning (Planologie) programme
Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University
Gerard Verweij
July 2020
2
COLOPHON
Title:
Subtitle:
Author:
Student number:
Date:
Status:
The Regional Energy Strategy (RES) in the frame of energy justice
A study concerning the experiences of regional energy justice from the
perspectives of municipalities in the Cleantech region.
Gerard Verweij
S1047298
July 2020
Definitive
Number of words:
30.331
Supervisors:
Dr. L.J. Carton (Linda) | Radboud University
Ir. K. van de Meeberg – van Gorkum (Kirsten) | Over Morgen
3
ABSTRACT (NL)
Vanwege het Klimaatakkoord is Nederland verdeeld in 30 regio’s die afzonderlijk een Regionale Energy Strategie (RES) ontwikkelen en moeten komen tot een regionaal energie bod. De regio’s bestaan uit verschillende gemeenten die allemaal een bijdrage (in TWh) moeten leveren aan het regionale energie bod. Een duidelijke richtlijn voor de verdeling van de TWh over de gemeenten binnen een regio ontbreekt. Daarnaast zijn de ervaringen van de gemeenten over de rechtvaardigheid van deze verdeling, als de uitkomst van het RES-proces, nog niet geanalyseerd. Daarom is het doel van dit onderzoek om te ontdekken of de gemeenten, binnen de RES van de Cleantech regio, de verdeling van de gemeentelijke bijdrage aan het regionale energie bod als rechtvaardig ervaren.
Dit onderzoek gebruikt de theorie van energierechtvaardigheid omdat het op twee manieren inzicht geeft in het onderliggende mechanisme van rechtvaardigheid: verdelende rechtvaardigheid en procedurele rechtvaardigheid. Eerst wordt de discussie over rechtvaardigheid geanalyseerd in de startnotities van een aantal RES-regio’s. Vervolgens worden de ervaringen over zowel de uitkomst van de verdeling van de energiebronnen (in TWh) als het proces van de RES onderzocht vanuit het perspectief van de gemeenten in de Cleantech regio. Het onderzoek maakt gebruik van een content-analyse, enquête en diepte-interviews om een onderbouwd antwoord te geven op de onderzoeksvraag: welke feitelijke en subjectieve factoren vormen het regionale energie rechtvaardigheid perspectief, vanuit het perspectief van gemeenten in de Cleantech regio?
Uit het onderzoek komen vijf factoren naar voren die bijdragen aan een rechtvaardige verdeling: landschapspotentieel, gemeentelijke ambitie, morele verplichting, afweging tussen een gelijke verdeling en een kosten-efficiënte verdeling en de verdeling van lusten en lasten. De verdeling van de energieopgave in de Cleantech regio is gebaseerd op de het landschapspotentieel dat de meest effectieve en geschikte locaties kiest. Echter, de rechtvaardiging van de verdeling van de energiebronnen wordt niet zozeer bepaald door de zoektocht naar de optimale locatie, maar veelmeer door planning- en besluitvormingsprocessen. Het regionale energie rechtvaardigheid perspectief kan bepaald worden op basis van een berekening, maar dit onderzoek laat zien dat ook de gemeentelijke ambitie invloed heeft op de gemeentelijke bijdrage. Gemeenten zien het als hun morele verplichting om hun individuele en regionale verantwoordelijkheid te nemen. Daarnaast draagt de afweging tussen een kosten-efficiënte en een gelijke verdeling van energiebronnen over de regio, afhankelijk van de gemaakte afweging, bij aan een (on)eerlijke verdeling. De laatste factor die bijdraagt aan een rechtvaardige verdeling is het maken van afspraken over de verdeling van lusten en lasten op zowel de strategische, regionale schaal als op de uitvoerende schaal. Waar afspraken op de strategisch, regionale schaal bijdragen aan een rechtvaardige verdeling van het proces naar de RES 1.0 en RES 2.0 dragen afspraken op de uitvoerende schaal achteraf bij aan een rechtvaardiging van de verdeling. Naast de factoren die bijdragen aan een rechtvaardige verdeling, heeft dit onderzoek vijf factoren geïdentificeerd die bijdragen aan een rechtvaardig proces: transparantie, timing, ophalen van lokale informatie, toegang tot consultatie en democratische besluitvorming. Het transparant en tijdig delen van informatie en het ophalen van lokale informatie draagt bij aan de openheid van het proces en stelt stakeholders in staat om te participeren door bijeenkomsten bij te wonen. Een belangrijke keerzijde is dat, vanwege de korte doorlooptijd van de RES, de coördinatiegroep van de Cleantech regio genoodzaakt was om keuzes te maken die in conflict kunnen zijn met procedurele rechtvaardigheid. Vanwege de korte doorlooptijd was de organisatie van voldoende stakeholderbijeenkomsten en de mogelijkheid om bewoners te betrekken beperkt in deze fase van het proces. Het onderzoek laat zien dat democratische besluitvorming essentieel is voor de rechtvaardiging van het proces om het een bepaalde vorm van legitimiteit te geven. De discussies over rechtvaardigheid zullen een grotere rol gaan spelen in een latere fase van de RES als de zoekgebieden duidelijker worden en resulteren in concrete wind- en energieprojecten. In het proces van de RES 1.0 en de RES 2.0 zal een uitbreiding van de participatie leiden tot meer draagvlak, of ten minste acceptatie. Het is aan gemeenten, stakeholders en inwoners om samen het gezamenlijke doel te behalen en zowel de uitkomst als het proces van de RES te rechtvaardigen.
4
ABSTRACT (EN)
At this moment, the Netherlands is divided into 30 regions that all need to come up with a regional energy strategy (RES) and related regional energy bid. The regions exist out of several municipalities that all need to contribute with a certain amount of TWh to the regional energy bid. A clear guideline for the allocation of energy resources over the municipalities within a region is lacking and the experiences of municipalities about the justice of this allocation, as the result of the RES-process, is not analysed yet. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore if a just allocation of the municipal contribution, as the outcome of the RES-process, to the regional energy bid is experienced by the municipalities within the Regional Energy Strategy of the Clean-Tech region.
This research uses the concept of energy justice which provides an understanding of the underlying mechanisms of justice in two ways: distributive justice and procedural justice. The study first examines the current discourse about justice in the preliminary memoranda of selected RES-regions. Subsequently, the study examines the experience about the outcome of the allocation of energy resources and the process of the Regional Energy Strategy from the perspectives of municipalities in the case of the Clean-Tech region. This study uses a combination of content-analysis, survey and in-depth interviews to provide a substantiated answer to the research question: What fact-based and subjective factors constitute the regional energy justice perspective, from the perspectives of municipalities in the Clean-Tech region?
Based on the research five factors are identified that constitute to a just allocation: landscape potential, municipal ambition, moral obligation, trade-off between equality and cost-efficiency and allocation of costs and benefits. The allocation of the energy task in the Cleantech region is based on the landscape potential that selects the most effective and suitable locations. However, the justification of the allocation of energy resources is less determined by the search of the optimal location, but more by planning and decision-making processes. The regional energy justice perspective can be defined based on a calculation, but this research shows that the municipal ambition also has an influence on the municipal contribution as municipalities consider it as their moral obligation to take their individual and regional responsibility. Next to this, the trade-off between a cost-efficient and equal way of energy resource distribution constitutes, dependent on the actual consideration, to a (un)just allocation. The last factor that constitutes to a just allocation is the development of clear agreements about the allocation of costs and benefits on the strategic regional scale and the operational scale. Whereas the agreements on the strategic regional scale constitute to a just allocation in the process towards the RES 1.0 and RES 2.0, the agreements on the operational scale might also constitute to a justification of the allocation afterwards.
Next to the factors that constitute a just allocation, this research identified five important factors that constitute a just process: transparency, timing, mobilisation of local information, access to consultation and democratic decision-making. The transparent and timely way of information sharing and the mobilisation of local information constitute to openness in the process and enables stakeholders to participate an attend to stakeholder meetings. A main drawback is that due to the short throughput time of the RES the coordination group of the Cleantech region was forced to make choices that are in conflict with procedural justice. Because of that, the organization of sufficient stakeholder meetings and the inclusion of inhabitants in order to express opinions or concerns was limited in this phase of the process. The research shows that democratic decision-making is essential for the justification of the process to give it a form of legitimacy. The discussions about justice will play a major role in a later stage of the RES as the searching areas become clearer. In the process towards the RES 1.0 and RES 2.0 the extension of participation will lead to more support, or at least acceptation. By means of this, municipalities, stakeholders and inhabitants cooperate to achieve the common objective and justify both the allocation and the process of the RES.
Keywords: Energy justice, energy allocation, distributive justice, procedural justice, Regional Energy Strategy, Clean-Tech Region
5
PREFACE
Voor u ligt mijn onderzoek naar de percepties over de rechtvaardigheid van de Regionale Energie Strategieën (RES) die momenteel in Nederland worden uitgerold in het kader van het Klimaatakkoord. Deze masterthesis is de afsluiting van de master Spatial Planning aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. Binnen de master heb ik de specialisatie Cities, Water & Climate Change gevolgd om inzicht te krijgen in de energietransitie en de impact die het heeft op de ruimtelijke inrichting van Nederland. Voor het afstudeertraject heb ik stagegelopen bij adviesbureau Over Morgen in Amersfoort. Hier kreeg ik de mogelijkheid om van dichtbij het proces te volgen van de Regionale Energie Strategie in de Cleantech regio. Met het afronden van mijn masterscriptie komt er een einde aan mijn studie- en studententijd, maar tegelijkertijd breekt de tijd aan waarin ik mijn opgedane kennis en ervaring kan toepassen in de praktijk.
Met het schrijven van dit voorwaard wil ik van de gelegenheid gebruik maken om enkele mensen te bedanken voor hun bijdrage aan mijn onderzoek. Allereerst wil ik mijn scriptiebegeleidster Linda Carton bedanken voor de begeleiding, feedback en handige tips tijdens dit afstudeertraject. Daarnaast wil ik mijn stagebegeleidster Kirsten van de Meeberg bedanken voor de mogelijkheid om mee te kijken met het RES-proces in de Cleantech regio en voor alle feedback tijdens het onderzoek. Tot slot wil ik mijn vriendin, familie, vrienden en medestudenten bedanken voor hun steun en advies tijdens mijn afstudeerperiode.
Gerard Verweij, Kloetinge, 2020
6
LIST WITH IMAGES, FIGURES AND TABLES
Images
Image 1 Cover photo 1
Image 2 Logo Radboud University 2
Image 3 Logo Over Morgen 2
Figures
Figure 1 Multi-phase and multi-level models 12
Figure 2 Multi-level framework for transitions 13
Figure 3 The three main aspects of energy justice 17
Figure 4 Schematic overview of the Collaborative Governance Regime 22 Figure 5 Conceptual framework with the principal relations between the main concepts 24
Figure 6 Schematic overview of the research model 28
Figure 7 The 30 RES-regions with a magnified view of the Clean-Tech region 31 Figure 8 Selected RES-regions for the content-analysis 35 Figure 9 Survey question 5, survey question 7.1, survey question 7.2 and survey question 7.3 40
Figure 10 Survey question 7.4 and survey question 7.5 42
Figure 11 Survey question 10 and survey question 11.2 44
Figure 12 Map with the searching areas for wind energy and map with the promising 44 hectares for solar energy in the Clean-Tech region
Figure 13 Survey question 15.1 and survey question 17.1 47 Figure 14 Survey question 15.2 and survey question 17.2 48 Figure 15 Survey question 15.3 and survey question 17.3 48 Figure 16 Survey question 15.4 and survey question 17.4 49 Figure 17 Survey question 15.5 and survey question 18.2 50 Figure 18 Survey question 15.6 and survey question 18.3 50
Figure 19 Survey question 15.7 survey question 18.4 51
Figure 20 Survey question 15.8 and survey question 19.1 52 Figure 21 Survey question 15.9 and survey question 19.2 52 Figure 22 Indicators that shows to what extent the respondents agreed with the statements 53 Figure 23 Indicators that shows to what extent the indicators constitute to a just process 54
Tables
Table 1 Costs and benefits 18
Table 2 Distributive principles 19
Table 3 Allocation strategies 19
Table 4 Information sharing 20
Table 5 Consultation process 21
Table 6 Decision-making 22
Table 7 The three components of the collaborative dynamics with related characteristics 23
Table 8 Operationalisation 25
Table 9 Selected RES-regions for the content-analysis 29 Table 10 Distributive justice with the related indicators and Dutch translation 29 Table 11 Procedural justice with the related indicators and Dutch translation 29 Table 12 Frequency of the indicators of distributive justice 36 Table 13 Frequency of the indicators of distributive justice 36 Table 14 List with indicators that are important and indicators that are less or not important 39 Table 15 List with indicators that are important and indicators that are less or not important 46
for a just allocation
Table 16 List with indicators that are important, less important or least important for a just 54 process
Table 17 List with indicators that are important and indicators that are less or not important 56 Table 18 List with indicators that are important and indicators that are less or not important 56
for a just allocation
Table 19 List with indicators that are important and indicators that are less or not important 58 for a just process
7
CONTENT
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 9
1.1 Research problem statement 9
1.2 Research aim and research question 10
1.3 Relevance 11
1.4 Reading guide 12
CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 13
2.1 Energy Transition 13
2.2 Allocation of energy resources 15
2.3 Perspectives on justice 16
2.4 Energy justice as a theoretical framework 18
2.5 Collaborative governance 22
2.6 Conceptual framework 25
2.7 Operationalisation 25
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 27
3.1 Research philosophy 27
3.2 Research strategy and -model 27
3.3 Research methods, data collection and data analysis 29
3.4 Case study Clean-Tech Region 32
3.5 Validity and reliability 34
CHAPTER 4: DISCOURSE ABOUT JUSTICE 35
4.1 Introduction 35
4.2 Results key-word search 35
4.3 Qualitative section 36
4.4 Conclusion 39
CHAPTER 5: DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE 40
5.1 Introduction 40
5.2 Distributive principles 40
5.3 Costs and benefits 42
5.4 Allocation strategies 43
5.5 Regional justice 45
5.6 Local justice 45
5.7 Ambition 46
8
CHAPTER 6: PROCEDURAL JUSTICE 47
6.1 Introduction 47
6.2 Information sharing 47
6.3 Consultation 49
6.4 Decision-making process 51
6.5 Conclusion 53
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION AND REFLECTION 55
7.1 Conclusion 55
7.2 Reflection 60
7.3 New theory development 63
7.4 Recommendations 66
REFERENCES 67
9
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1
Research problem statement
The reason for this research is the process of the Regional Energy Strategy (RES) that currently is executed in the Netherlands. The Regional Energy Strategy (RES) is one of the executive programs of the national agreements in the Climate Agreement (Ministerie van Economische Zaken en Klimaat, 2019). Within the RES-regions governments, together with societal partners, grid operators, companies and citizens, decide upon regionally supported choices for the generation of sustainable electricity, the heat transition in the built environment (from fossil to sustainable energy resources) and the needed storage- and energy-infrastructure. To reach the goal of 35 TWh, also known as route 35, the 30 RES-regions need to come up with an energy-bid of the amount of TWh the region is aiming to generate. The 30 RES-regions exist out of several municipalities that all need to contribute with a certain amount of TWh to the regional bid.
A clear guideline from the national government for the distribution of the municipal contributions to the regional bid is lacking. Therefore, regions use several methods to allocate the amount of TWh over the region. One method for the allocation is the Energy Transition Model of Quintel that uses three allocation keys: energy use, number of citizens and land area. This is a first quick-scan of the spatial conditions of the municipalities. Within the RES-processes, the regions use integral consideration criteria for the allocation of energy resources within the region. These integral consideration criteria are described in the Afwegingskader RES 1.1 (Nationaal Programma RES, 2019) as: quantity of electricity, quantity of heat, optimal land use, administrative and societal support and energy system efficiency. In practice, the RES-regions are free to formulate their own consideration criteria that fit with the region-specific approach.
There is a mismatch between the energy use and energy generation of municipalities, resulting in a surplus and a shortage in the energy balance. This asks for collaboration and coordination of the municipal contributions to the regional energy bid of the regions (Stadszaken, 2019). The process is in essence an allocation issue of the regional energy bid over the municipalities in a RES-region. To prevent issues of injustice and a concentration of ‘burdens’ and energy resources (wind and solar) in a specific region, the costs en benefits need to be divided in a just manner. However, urban municipalities can contribute less to the regional energy bid than rural municipalities, due to a lack of space. Therefore, the urban municipalities are dependent on rural areas to meet their energy demand (Groenendaal, 2020). This means in general that in the final regional energy bid rural municipalities contribute with a larger share than urban municipalities. Besides that, this implies that rural municipalities generate energy for their neighbouring urban municipalities.
It is not clear how (rural) municipalities can be persuaded to generate more sustainable energy than required for their (urban) neighbouring municipalities. Therefore, the current practice lacks in conditions to operate in the interest of the region. Municipalities that contribute more energy (in TWh) in the interest of the region, should receive a (financial) compensation (Groenendaal, 2020). As already stated, a clear guideline for the allocation of energy resources over a region is lacking. Therefore, it is not clear how the municipal contributions to the regional energy bid are distributed and if it is allocated in an equal way. Besides that, the experience of municipalities about the justice of the allocation of the municipal contribution to the regional bid and the process of the Regional Energy Strategy has not been analysed yet. If an experienced just allocation of the energy resources over the region and insight into this allocation is lacking, the expectation is that this could lead to discontent between urban and rural municipalities and a hampering in the decision-making process.
10
1.2
Research aim and research question
1.2.1 Research aim
Because the experience of municipalities about the justice of the allocation of the municipal contribution to the regional bid has not been analysed yet, the objective of this research is as follows: ‘The overall aim of this research is to explore to what extent a just allocation of the municipal contribution, as the outcome of the RES-process, to the regional energy bid is experienced by the municipalities within the Regional Energy Strategy of the Clean-Tech region.
On base of this diagnosis, a possible bycatch of this research is the exploration of solutions that contribute to a just allocation of the municipal contribution to the regional bid. These solutions can possibly lead to an enhancement of the level of experienced justice in relation to the level of experienced justice as identified with the diagnosis of this research, which is the main objective of this research.
1.2.2 Research question
On base of the main research question and corresponding sub questions the attempt is to achieve the aim of this research. The main question is formulated as follows:
What fact-based and subjective factors constitute the regional energy justice perspective, from the perspectives of municipalities in the Clean-Tech region?
In this research, the regional energy justice perspective exists out of two aspects. The first aspect is a just allocation of the municipal contribution to the regional energy bid (resp. distributive justice). The second aspect is the experience of justice of the process (resp. procedural justice).
The sub questions that contribute to the answering of to the main question are formulated as follows: 1. What factors can be derived from scientific literature that constitute to energy justice? 2. How is justice described in the policy documents of the RES-regions?
3. What factors explain the experience of distributive justice, from the perspectives of municipalities in the Clean-Tech region?
4. What factors explain the experience of procedural justice, from the perspectives of municipalities in the Clean-Tech region?
11
1.3
Relevance
The examination of the experience of justice and the factors that constitute to a just allocation of the municipal contribution to the regional energy bid, is societally and scientifically relevant.
1.3.1 Societal relevance
This study is in three ways societally relevant. First, this research investigates the experience about the justice of the municipal contribution to the regional energy bid from the perspectives of municipalities in the Clean-Tech region. This is important, because insights in the experience of justice can avoid issues of dissatisfactions, frictions and spatial shifting between municipalities. Second, an equitable allocation of energy resources (TWh) between municipalities in an energy region is important for the feasibility of the RES-process. A higher justification of the outcome (regional bid) will eventually lead to a higher support and feasibility of the RES-process. This is explained by Sovacool & Dworkin (2015) that state that ‘consideration of the justice dimensions of energy policy decisions is a vital decision-making tool that can assist policy-makers, planners and regulators in decision-making fully informed and comprehensive choices’.
Second, this research provides insight in the justification of the municipal contribution to the regional energy bid. This is important for the process of the RES from the concept-versions towards the definitive versions (RES 1.0). This, because it is important to reflect on the appropriate spatial allocation and division of the municipal contributions in an early stage, because it is difficult to reallocate the energy resources once they are built (Sasse & Trutnevyte, 2019). Lastly, aldermen are expected to inform the municipal council and if the aldermen experience forms of injustice, in both process as distribution, they are not able to justify the outcome. The overall societal aim is to investigate the experience of justice within the RES-processes.
1.3.2 Scientific relevance
In recent years, energy justice became an emerging approach which seeks to apply aspects of justice to the field of energy policy and energy transition (Jenkins et al., 2015). In the literature, energy justice is mostly applied to themes as energy poverty, energy deprivation, fuel poverty and energy security access (Bouzarovski & Simcock, 2017; Jenkins et al. 2015; Walker & Day, 2012). The focus of those studies is on the operational scale (Loorbach et al., 2008) and focuses on households as the main actors. The innovative aspect of this study is the application of energy (in)justice on the tactical and strategic scale level (Loorbach et al., 2008) and the focus on different actors (municipalities) than usually is the case. Therefore, this research investigates the issue of experienced (in)justice between municipalities (local scale) in a RES-region (regional scale) and thereby contributes to the existing knowledge and meaning of energy justice.
A starting point for this study is the study of Sasse & Trutnevyte (2019) that investigates two allocation strategies of energy resources: cost-efficient and regionally equitable allocation. However, these strategies are investigated out of the distributive aspect of energy justice, while the procedural aspect of energy justice, as described by McCauley et al. (2013), is not taken into consideration. Besides that, the study is done out of a technological model approach and lacks the description of experiences of those allocation strategies. For a comprehensive assessment of the justice of the energy resource allocation, this study includes the procedural aspect of energy justice next to distributive justice. The importance of this is confirmed by Grunewald (2017) who states that in practice the allocation of energy resources is less determined by the search of the optimal location but more by planning and decision-making processes.
12 Besides that, this study inserts the spatial aspect of the energy transition, because most transition theories analyse transition out of an institutional perspective whereas the spatial context (e.g. space) and the social and economic relations between locations within a region is lacking, as stated by Coenen et al. (2012). The RES can be described as a ‘good example of taking into account the spatial context and implications within the (energy) transition. Furthermore, the Regional Energy Strategy (RES) can be considered as a new approach to deal with climate mitigation and CO2 reduction. The RES is a cross-municipal cooperation that aims to find solutions across the borders of the own cross-municipality. This study aims to add knowledge to the local-regional cooperation process in combination with spatial dimensions of the energy transition in scientific literature.
1.4
Reading guide
In chapter 1 the context and relevance of the research is introduced. In chapter 2 the theoretical framework is described resulting in a conceptual framework and a operationalisation of the indicators that are used in this research.
In chapter 3 the methodology of this research is explained. The research philosophy, research strategy and its associated research methods are described. This chapter also includes a short introduction of the case-study and the validity and reliability of the research is explained.
In chapter 4 the discourse of justice is examined based on a content-analysis of the preliminary memoranda of selected RES-regions in order to provide an answer to the second sub question. In chapter 5 the distributive aspect of energy justice is explained based on the results obtained from the survey and interviews. In chapter 6 the procedural aspect of energy justice is explained based on the results obtained from the survey and interviews.
Finally, the conclusions and reflection are described in chapter 7. In this chapter answers are provided to the sub questions and the main question. Subsequently a critical reflection is made, and recommendations are formulated.
13
CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1
Energy Transition
In the debate about climate change, a main distinction is made between two interrelated strategies: climate mitigation and adaptation. These strategies have a common goal, namely, to minimize the impact of climate change on both humans and on the natural and building environment. The strategy of climate adaptations aims to increase the adaptive capacity of both society and environment, while the strategy of climate mitigation aims to reduce the Greenhouse gas emissions (Duguma et al., 2014). One of the strategies to decrease the amount of GHG, is the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy resources, also known as the energy transition (Creutzig et al., 2014). There are two main perspectives to look at the energy transition: from an institutional perspective and from a transition management perspective.
First, the institutional perspective on energy transition is relevant because the energy transition is a political-driven change, energy is in the public interest and lots of actors and interests are involved in this change. The energy sector can be considered as a socio-technical regime that consist out of institutions that develop and use energy-related technologies (Andrews-Speed, 2015). The energy transition therefore can be observed as a form of socio-technical transition that has implications for the institutions involved. The process of transition is subject to unpredictable changes and an uncertain future. According to Andrews-Speed (2015), transitions can take over 50 years till 100 years to occur, because of the trail-and-error nature of transitions.
Hendriks (2008) analyses the inclusivity of network governance in the Dutch energy transition and concludes that most of the networks exist out of a relationship between government and industrial stakeholders. These partnerships are lacking responsiveness, accountability and lawfulness. In order to be more inclusive and democratic, networks should focus and invest in participation. Interests of the broader public can be taken in consideration in the decision-making process by the involvement of representatives of civil society. The networks can be more open by providing resources and opportunities for all the stakeholders involved and by an internal transformation of the networks to inclusive networks that invest in participation and listen to the interests of all involved actors.
Figure 1: Multi-phase and multi-level models. Source: Rotmans (2001)
The theory of multi-level governance can also be applied to the energy transition (figure 1, right). Changes in the energy sector arrive from the landscape level, technological niches and from within the regime (Rotmans, 2001; Geels, 2011). Pressure of the landscape level can come from all government levels and in the context of the energy transition, climate change is a pressure of the landscape level.
14 A change within the energy sector is the development and application of a new technology (Andrews-Speed, 2015). Rotmans (2001) also describes the four stages that characterizes a transition, namely the phase of pre-development, take-off, breakthrough and stabilization (figure 1, left).
Second, the transition management perspective looks at the energy transition from a management perspective. Loorbach is a key author in transition management regarding the energy transition (Loorbach et al., 2008). Five energy transition management principles are designed to stimulate societal innovation to make the energy sector more sustainable (Loorbach, 2010): approach the energy system as a complex adaptive system in its environment, deal with uncertainty, approach the transition as a multi-actor problem-solving process, stimulate new combinations and be reflexive in the management approach. Besides these principles, Loorbach (2010) also designed a multi-level framework for transition management existing out of three levels. The strategic level is the stage where visions are developed, and strategic discussions of long-term goal take place. The tactical level is characterised by negotiating, networking and goal setting. The operational level has an executive character existing out of setting up projects and implementing new ideas. A good example of the strategic level is ‘guiding visions’. Späth & Rohracher (2010) describes the existence of ‘energy regions’ operating on a regional level and acting as a podium where ‘guiding visions’ can be developed to steer the region to a sustainable and low carbon society. Guiding visions are an instrument for agenda building processes, an import medium for coordination and an opportunity to translate abstract (national) visions into concrete actions within the regional context. In addition to this, ‘guiding visions’ switch between levels and institutional spheres and are a way to mobilize actors.
Figure 2: Multi-level framework for transitions. Source: Loorbach et al. (2008)
However, Coenen en al. (2012) stated that transition theories mostly analyse transition out of an institutional perspective, whereas the spatial context and the social relations between places is lacking. Bridge et al. (2013) describe the energy transition as a geographical process with spatial patterns, social relations and economic activities. This concept of Bridge et al. (2013) is called ‘geographies of energy transition’ which refers to the distribution of energy-related activities over space, the relation between spaces and the systematics behind this spatial pattern. The concept shows the relation between the spatial context and the energy transition with six aspects: location (a), landscape (b), territoriality (c), spatial differentiation and uneven development (d), scale (e), spatial embeddedness and path dependency (f).
Location is a concept that can be considered in an absolute sense and a relative sense, whereby the first relates to a fixed place in space and the last relates to the relation and proximity between places. The energy system has a spatial element, because the elements of the system (e.g. consumption, production) occupy locations. Landscape in relation to the energy transition, is well-known with the term ‘energy landscape’. This is a landscape with spatial constructions (e.g. windmills, solar panels, energy centrals) and activities concerning the processes of energy (e.g. production, distribution and
15 consumption). The landscape is the spatial result of social processes and decision-making. Landscape relates to the material characteristics, but also to social and cultural values in terms of visual aesthetics and spatial quality.
The aspect of territoriality and spatial differentiation and uneven development is the most relevant to the research topic of justice and an equitable allocation of energy resources. The aspect of territoriality is about the social and political power related to the spatial environment. Energy systems are territorialized by political policies of several scales that make decisions about the construction and functioning of the energy system (Bridge et al., 2013). Based on the aspect of location, landscape and territoriality spatial variations may occur and together with the energy transition result in spatial differentiation and uneven development between locations (Bridge et al., 2013). In the energy transition the risk is present that, due to policy support to specific locations, some locations are more able to build energy resources, which can result in spatial differences between locations in a wider region. Concrete effects of this uneven development are the clustering of energy resources, investments and jobs. The energy transition towards a low-carbon economy is a process that changes the relations between places on economic, political and cultural level and could lead to spatial (unequal) differences (Coenen et al., 2012). Therefore, it is important to develop justice principles to tackle injustice and inequalities between locations in a wider energy region (Sasse & Trutnevyte, 2019). This relates to the theoretical framework of justice that will be discussed in paragraph 2.4.
Scale refers to the size and impact of renewable energy resources on local, regional and national scale. The local scale is the application of energy resources on the household level, while the regional scale entails projects of wind parks that occupy parts of the landscape. This refers not only to the scale of energy resources, but also to the scales of political structures, both local, regional and national governments. Embeddedness and path dependency are defined as ‘the sunk costs of capital investment and the place-based cultures of consumption that surround certain energy technologies’ (Bridge et al., 2013).
2.2
Allocation of energy resources
A further elaboration of the aspect of spatial differentiation and uneven development, as described by Bridge et al. (2013), is the theory about energy resource allocation that examines the underlying mechanisms for this spatial differentiation and uneven development. In the literature on energy resource allocation there is a distinction between two main strategies: cost-efficient allocation and regionally equitable allocation (Sasse & Trutnevyte, 2019). Both strategies have positive and negative impacts on society, finance and technical infrastructure. A cost-efficient allocation of energy resources increases the generation of electricity at the expense of a minimum of generation costs. A main negative result of this strategy is the concentration or clustering of energy resources on locations with the best weather conditions. Furthermore, it is proven that the focus on cost-efficient allocation of energy resources not always contributes to the efficiency of the whole system (Grunewald, 2017; Drechsler et al., 2017). A cost-efficient allocation can therefore be considered as a regionally uneven allocation of energy resources.
A regionally uneven allocation of energy resources, investments and policy support could raise societal resistance (Klagge & Brocke, 2012) or increase the hampering of policy implementation (Fell et al., 2019). A regionally equitable allocation of energy resources is a strategy that is desirable to decrease the risk of societal resistance and achieve an equal allocation and spreading of costs and benefits on the whole society. Besides that, a focus on regional equity is able to facilitate the attention to local needs (Fell et al., 2019). A regional equal allocation of energy resources also contains technological advantages. First, an equal allocation of energy resources results in a decrease of new transmission lines because supply and demand are close located to each other (Budischak et al., 2013). Second, an
16 equal allocation of energy resources makes the whole system less dependent on local weather conditions (Grams et al., 2017). However, in practice the allocation of energy resources is less determined by the search of the optimal location but more by planning and decision-making processes (Grunewald, 2017).
Sasse & Trutnevyte (2019) examined the consideration between regional equitable and cost-efficient allocation (least costs) of decentralized renewable electricity generation (DREG). DREG consists out of wind, solar PV, biomass and hydropower. Based on an electricity system model, a correlation is found between regional equity and the total amount of electricity generation costs. The regional equity of Swiss increases with 50% when the energy resources are allocated to the regions, based on population or electricity demand, with an increase of 18% of the total generation costs. Therefore, a more regional equal allocation of DREG resources can be achieved by accepting higher generation costs. Furthermore, the study of Sasse & Trutnevyte (2019) found that the allocation with least costs entails a clustering of energy resources to a limited number of productive locations. Lastly, the study concludes that a regional equitable allocation can be achieved by promoting solar PV, because of the small trade-offs in generation costs and the expected decrease in costs. Solar PV is less location-based and can be applied in diverse regions in contrast to other DREG sources as wind, biomass or hydropower.
The energy demand and supply of urban and rural areas follows a general pattern. In general, the energy demand is the highest in the urban areas and decreases towards the rural areas with lower population densities. The sustainable energy supply follows in general the opposite effect, namely the sustainable energy supply is the highest in rural areas and decreases towards the cities and more urban areas (Kroll et al., 2012). This can be explained by the fact that urban areas are less suitable for the generation of renewable energy (solar and wind energy), because of a lack of space. The urban environment with high building and population densities leaves less space available for wind turbines. The rural areas, characterised with low population densities and low building densities, are appropriate places for the generation of renewable energy on, or in combination with, farmland, nature and bodies of water. Next to this, the built environment has lower average wind speeds and is therefore less profitable for the generation of wind energy (Mertens, 2002). However, urban areas are highly suitable for photovoltaic panels on roofs (Freitas et al., 2015). In general, urban areas are more dependent on rural areas for the generation of renewable energy than vice versa.
2.3
Perspectives on justice
Because this research examines the factors that constitute to a just allocation of the municipal contribution the regional energy bid, literature about allocation strategies (as described in the previous section) and literature about justice is required to provide a substantiated answer to the research question. The scientific literature encompasses different perspectives and concepts of justice. In this section the main concepts on justice are described: urban justice, spatial justice, environmental justice and energy justice. The concept of energy justice is used as a theoretical framework for this research. Therefore, this concept is discussed in a separate section (2.4).
The first notions of justice came from Lefebvre (1967) who defined space as a social construction and stated that all inhabitants of a city have a ‘right to the city’. The discussion about ‘urban justice’ in terms of property development and community struggle emerged. Harvey (2010) stated that space, social justice and urbanism are no separate themes, but should be examined in close relation to each other. The concept of the right to the city, as described by Lefebvre, is followed by a group of scientists that realised that the just city is not only about the distribution of goods, but also about participation issues (Marcuse, 2009). In this respect, planners made concerns about the absence of low-income groups in the decision-making process (Arnstein, 1969).
17 John Rawls (1971), another key author in the frame of urban justice, describe the ‘difference principle’, stating that actions are only justified when the improvement of the situation of the wealthy people is not at the expense of the less wealthy people. This principle relates to the position of egalitarianism. After this first discussion about ‘urban justice’ the scientific discourse developed towards more concrete forms of justice, consisting out of three main approaches: communicative reality, recognition of diversity and the just city/spatial justice. The main differences between the communicative reality and spatial justice/just city is the contradiction between on the one hand, democracy and equity and on the other hand, process versus outcome (Fainstein, 2014). Furthermore, Fainstein (2014) argued that democracy, diversity and equity are the three basic elements for urban justice. Democracy is about the involvement of people in the decision-making process. The role of the planner is to listen to the several interests and to come up with a consensus, without preferring the interest of one particular group. Fainstein (2014) stated that policies should be in the benefit of low-income groups in order to raise the level of justice. Diversity entails the recognition of the different groups with different needs, resulting in a mix of land uses and building types. Lastly, equity is about developing policies to reduce injustice and therefore, this principle refers the most to the concept of justice. Fainstein (2014) points to the fact that there is a tension between these principles with favour to the principle of equity. The main statement of Fainstein (2014) is to change the focus of urban policy on competition towards justice by designing policies that also benefit disadvantaged social groups.
Next to urban justice, the concept of spatial justice focuses on the geographical aspects of inequality and aims to find spatial patterns (Soja, 2010; Yenneti et al., 2016). Within the concept of spatial justice, Harvey (2010) formulated the principle of territorial justice: resources should be distributed ‘such that the prospects of the least advantaged territory are as great as they can be’. This principle, that contributes to an increased level of justice, is nuanced by Bouzarovski & Simcock (2017) that state that a narrow focus on the improvement of justice on the local level can lead to injustice on the regional scale or even the national scale. This can result in spatial inequalities, uneven development between locations within a region or strained social relations. Therefore, it is important to be aware of the scale level during the analysis of distributive justice.
Lastly, environmental justice is a theoretical concept but also a focus of (political) activism. The core concern of environmental justice is about the distribution of industrial sites, which causes both pollution and waste, and the specific location next to local neighbourhoods. According to Walker (2009) environmental justice is mostly focused on the distributional aspect of justice but lacks a broader scope on procedural aspects that lead to environmental injustices. Therefore, Walker (2009) introduces an extended view on environmental justice beyond distributional aspects by including also the procedural and recognition aspect of justice. The combination of distributional justice, procedural justice and recognition justice is a generally accepted approach in the literature about energy justice (McCauley et al., 2013; Jenkins et al., 2016). Because of this, this research uses the literature on energy justice as the guiding theoretical framework to frame the further data-analysis.
18
2.4
Energy justice as a theoretical framework
The application of justice theories to energy systems and the associated energy transition is gaining more scientific attention. This can be explained by the increase of human-centred approaches towards challenges in the energy sector. The combination of justice theories to the broad scope of energy-related research fields is known with the concept of ‘energy justice’ (Jenkins et al., 2016). Energy justice can be considered as a conceptual tool to integrate distributive, recognition and procedural justice, but also as an analytical tool to understand values of energy systems and to solve specific energy problems. Lastly, energy justice can also be considered as a decision-making tool to make reasoned energy choices (Sovacool & Dworkin, 2015). Therefore, energy justice is defined as ‘a global energy system that fairly disseminates both the benefits and costs of energy services, and one that has representative and impartial energy decision-making’ (Sovacool & Dworkin, 2015).
The concept of energy justice, according to the conceptual tool, consists out of three main aspects: distributive justice, procedural justice and justice of recognition (McCauley et al., 2013; Finley-Brook & Holloman, 2016) (figure 3). Jenkins et al. (2016) state that if a society aims to tackle injustice it needs to follow a certain order. First, it needs to examine the distribution of the resources and benefits and burdens (resp. distributional justice), then the groups that are affected by this allocation (resp. recognition-based justice) and lastly to design strategies to solve the issue of injustice (resp. procedural justice).
Figure 3: The three main aspects of energy justice. Source: Finley-Brook & Holloman (2016)
Before the three aspect of energy justice are explained a definition of ‘experience’ is important because this research investigates the experiences of justice. Daher et al. (2017) define experience as a crucial concept to get a deeper understanding of the perspective of a participant. Furthermore, experience exists out of an inner experience (feeling and will) and an experience of the other participants and the surrounding world. In this research, justice is the object that is experienced by the respondents. Justice is a social construction that lives in the minds of the respondents and therefore is a non-physical reality (Tyler, 2000).
2.4.1 Distributive justice
Distributive justice relates to the fairness in the outcome of the decision-making process (Jenkins et al., 2016). Therefore, this aspect describes the experience about the allocation of energy resources, as the result of the decision-making process. The outcomes can be material (infrastructure), public goods (e.g. clean air) or negative consequences (e.g. visual pollution) (Mundaca et al., 2018). Therefore, it aims to achieve an even distribution of costs and benefits of both energy production and consumption on all groups of society without having a look to income or social-cultural groups (Schlosberg, 2003; Jenkins et al., 2016). The distributional aspect of justice examines the unequal distribution of resources and costs and benefits over space, but also the relation between the application of new technologies and specific conditions of locations.
19 An example of distributive justice is the location of wind turbines. Wind turbines are unevenly distributed over a territory due to the requirement for appropriate wind conditions. This implies that some regions have to deal with both burdens and also benefits of wind turbines, whereas other regions only profit from the benefits. Mundaca et al. (2018) stated that also the distribution of subsidies, investments costs, ownership profits, development opportunities and the energy bills are also examples of distributive (in)justice. Besides the focus of distributional justice on the specific location of energy infrastructure, the physical access to energy services is also an important aspect of distributional justice (e.g. heating, electricity) (McCauley et al., 2013; Jenkins et al., 2016). In the process of the information sharing, consultation and decision-making the stakeholders create an opinion about justice wherein the outcomes of the process are found to be more important than the process (Mundaca et al., 2018). This relates to the third aspect of justice: procedural justice. Lastly, Mundaca et al. (2018) address the fact that compensation measures or other mechanisms to reduce the impact (e.g. taxes, financial compensation) are useful to bridge the gap between winners and losers.
According to Mundaca et al. (2018) the costs of renewable energy sources (e.g. solar park and wind park) are divided into environmental, financial and social costs. Environmental costs are related to impact on the spatial quality and the ecosystem (Späth, 2018). Financial costs relate to the increases in the energy price that consumer have to pay (Jenkins et al., 2016). Social costs relate to the aesthetics and change in the direct living environment of citizens (Späth, 2018). The same classification can be applied to the benefits of renewable energy sources. Environmental benefits relate to the reduction in the emission of CO2. Financial benefits imply revenues of local ownership, use of subsidies and compensation for the burdens of the energy resources. Lastly, social benefits are improvements in the living comfort of homeowners due to the investment in the living environment as part of compensation measures (Mundaca et al., 2018). Agreements about costs and benefits are important aspects that constitute to a just allocation on both the strategic scale as the operational scale and therefore are selected as indicators for this research (see table 1).
Indicator Definition Sources
Allocation of costs The distribution of negative burdens on all groups of society,
existing out of:
▪ Environmental costs (impairment of spatial quality,
nature and ecosystem)
▪ Financial costs (societal (network) costs)
▪ Social costs (shadow disturbance, sound
disturbance, horizon pollution)
▪ Mundaca et al.
(2018)
▪ Schlosberg (2013)
▪ Jenkins et al. (2016)
▪ Späth (2018)
Allocation of benefits The distribution of positive profits on all groups of society,
existing out of:
▪ Environmental benefits (CO2-emission reduction)
▪ Financial benefits (financial participation: local
ownership, compensation, area fund)
▪ Social benefits (improvement living comfort,
employment)
▪ Mundaca et al.
(2018)
▪ Schlosberg (2013)
▪ Jenkins et al. (2016)
Table 1: Costs and benefits (source: own work)
Furthermore, Höhne et al. (2014) identified four equity aspects for distributional justice: equality, cost-efficiency, capability and responsibility. Equality is about an equal division of benefits and burdens over society, place and time (Dworkin, 2000). Sasse & Trutnevyte (2019) defined regional equality as ‘the spatially even distribution of DREG electricity generation’. The principle of cost-efficiency is the maximal energy resources for the least amount of costs. The capability principle is the ‘ability’ to pay for climate mitigation. Therefore, Sasse & Trutnevyte (2019) state that it is more equal if capable regions (with a large area and high number of citizens) contribute more to the realisation of the energy task. Lastly, the responsibility principle states that regions that use more energy, have to contribute to a larger part of energy resources than regions that use less energy. Capability and responsibility are
20 important principles for the distribution of the energy tasks and therefore are selected as indicators for this research (see table 2).
Indicator Definition Sources
Capability Capable municipalities, with higher number of citizens and
land area, contribute more to the realisation of the energy task due to a higher capacity
▪ Höhne et al. (2014); Sasse
& Trutnevyte (2019)
Responsibility Municipalities that use more energy take the responsibility
to contribute to a larger part of the energy task than municipalities that use less energy
▪ Höhne et al. (2014)
Table 2: Distributive principles (source: own work)
Next to these distributive principles, the aspect of equality and cost-efficiency are important to include in this research because it examines the spatial distribution or concentration of energy resources in a region (see table 3).
Indicator Definition Sources
Equality Spatially even distribution of electricity generation,
resulting in a spreading of energy resources (solar and wind) over a region.
▪ Sasse & Trutnevyte (2019)
Cost-efficiency Spatially uneven distribution of electricity generation,
resulting in a concentration of energy resources (solar and wind) in a region.
▪ Höhne et al. (2014); Sasse
& Trutnevyte (2019)
Table 3: Allocation strategies (source: own work)
2.4.2 Recognition justice
Recognition justice is about the degree of recognition socio-cultural groups receive (Schlosberg, 2003). The recognition entails the right for free choice, equal political rights and a fair representation in councils. Fraser (2015) identifies three clusters of misrecognitions: cultural domination, recognition and disrespect. Cultural domination is the dominant influence of groups whereas non-recognition entails the incompetence to recognize certain socio-cultural groups and their needs. Disrespect ignores the needs of these groups or regards the knowledge of local people as ‘insufficient’ or ‘incorrect’. Mostly elderly people, that demand certain facilities and need more heat, are affected by this form of injustice (Jenkins et al., 2016). Furthermore, Fainstein (2014) developed three principles that connect with the aspect of recognition justice: democracy, diversity and equity. Democracy is about the involvement of people in the decision-making process. Diversity entails the awareness of the different groups with different needs, resulting in a mix of land uses and building types. Lastly, equity is about developing policies to reduce injustice and therefore, this principle refers the most to the concept of justice. The principle of democracy also fits with the concept of procedural justice. As this research focuses on the perspectives of administrative municipalities on the justice of both the outcome (resp. distributive justice) and process (resp. procedural justice) of the Regional Energy Strategy the justice of recognition is less relevant for this research, because this mainly relates to the perspectives of local communities and citizens who are not included in the scope of this research. The focus on the distributive and procedural aspect of energy justice is in line with Sovacool & Dworkin (2015) who state that energy justice encompasses procedural and distributive aspects. This approach is also followed by several studies in the energy justice discourse (Mundaca et al., 2018; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Van den Bos & Vermunt, 1997; Gilliland, 1994).
21 2.4.3 Procedural justice
Procedural justice is about the fairness in the sharing of information, the consultation process and the decision-making processes (Schlosberg, 2003; Mundaca et al., 2018). These processes need to follow procedures that respect the opinions of stakeholders with an equitable approach. Fair decision-making is considered to be an essential condition for the legitimacy of the outcomes but is also a feeding ground for collaboration between stakeholders (Mundaca et al., 2018). Mundaca et al. (2018) made a categorisation of procedural justice existing out of the following aspects: information sharing, consultation process and decision-making. This categorisation is followed to structure the indicators of procedural justice. The aspect of decision-making is discussed in paragraph 2.5.
In the frame of information sharing, Jenkins et al. (2016) stated that a higher inclusion of stakeholders can be achieved by the disclosure of information and the mobilization of local knowledge. The disclosure of information points to the transparency and openness of information by governments in the process. This can be achieved by providing access to information through publication in letters, newspapers or online sources (websites). The mobilization of local knowledge needs a recognition of the value of local knowledge and an understanding how this knowledge can be used in a participatory way (Jenkins et al., 2016; Mundaca et al., 2018; Emerson et al., 2012). Besides that, the timeliness of information sharing is an important aspect of procedural justice. Information need to be shared in the beginning of the process, but also on regular moments during the process (Mundaca et al., 2018). The aspects disclosure of information, mobilization of local knowledge and timing are used as indicators to investigate information sharing, because these aspects together cover the process of information sharing. For the operationalisation and the understandability of these aspects the disclosure of information is formulated as transparency, timeliness of information sharing as timing and mobilization of local knowledge as local information (see table 4).
Indicator Definition Sources
Transparency The openness of information-sharing in the process ▪ Jenkins et al. (2016)
▪ Mundaca (2018)
Timing Timely informing stakeholders during the process in:
▪ an early stage of the process, and:
▪ on regular moments in the process
▪ Mundaca (2018)
Local information Mobilization of local information by a(n):
▪ recognition of the value of local information
▪ understanding how this information can be used
▪ Jenkins et al. (2016)
▪ Mundaca (2018)
▪ Emerson et al. (2012)
Table 4: Information sharing (source: own work)
In the frame of the consultation process, the access to consultation fosters democracy, but also encourages the mobilization of local knowledge (Mundaca et al., 2018). It is important that stakeholders have access in the processes about the allocation of energy resources. This includes that participants are invited to attend stakeholder meetings. Next to access to consultation it is important that stakeholders participate in the process and receive the ability to be heard. This means that stakeholders get the possibility to express opinions, interests, and concerns during the process (Mundaca et al., 2018). Next to access to consultation, the institutional representation is an essential aspect in the consultation process. Institutional representation refers to an equal representation and inclusion of stakeholders in the consultation- process, varying from business to governments and civil society (Jenkins et al., 2016; Leventhal, 1980). Lastly, shared motivation is the personal drive to achieve a common objective, as the result of mutual trust, mutual understanding, internal legitimacy and commitment (Emerson et al., 2012). This will be further explained in paragraph 2.5 because this aspect is part of the Collaborative Governance Regime of Emerson et al. (2012) as explained in that paragraph.
For the operationalisation, internal legitimacy (as part of shared motivation) is excluded from this research as trust and mutual understanding lead to internal legitimacy of the process. Access to
22 consultation, Institutional representation, the ability to be heard and shared motivation are selected as indicators for this research because these aspects are important for the achievement of social acceptance and support for the outcome of the consultation process (Mundaca et al., 2018; Sovacool & Dworkin, 2015; Jenkins et al., 2016). The ability to be heard is because of the understandability of this concept formulated as participation (see table 5).
Indicator Definition Sources
Access to consultation
Invitation to and attendance at stakeholder meetings ▪ Mundaca (2018)
Participation Possibility to express opinions, interests, and concerns
during the process
▪ Mundaca (2018)
Institutional representation
An equal representation and inclusion of stakeholders in the consultation process
▪ Jenkins et al. (2016)
▪ Leventhal (1980)
Shared motivation Personal drive to achieve a common objective, as the
result of:
▪ Mutual trust
▪ Mutual understanding
▪ Commitment
▪ Emerson et al. (2012)
Table 5: Consultation process (source: own work)
2.5
Collaborative governance
As procedural justice relates to inclusive and transparent decision-making processes a governance perspective is essential for a further understanding of cross-boundary governance processes with stakeholders from governments, markets and civil society. In the governance literature, collaborative governance is one of the theories that especially takes a look at the cross-boundary governance processes between governmental actors and non-governmental actors. Emerson et al. (2012) define collaborative governance as ‘the processes and structures of public policy decision making and management that engage people constructively across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or the public, private and civic spheres in order to carry out a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished’. The collaborative governance regime is chosen as a theoretical concept in this concept, because the Regional Energy Strategy (RES) is a cross-boundary governance process between governmental and non-governmental actors to achieve a common purpose (the regional energy bid) that could not be achieved if the actors did not collaborate.
The Collaborative Governance Regime (CGR) of Emerson et al. (2012) provides a conceptual framework of collaborative governance and is valuable in understanding regional collaboration with governmental actors, nongovernmental actors and public-private cooperation’s (figure 4). This framework is a valuable addition to the theory of energy justice (Jenkins et al., 2016: McCauley et al., 2013), because it includes both procedural elements (procedural justice) as outcome (distributional justice). The framework exists out of a system context and the Collaborative Governance Regime with the collaboration dynamics and actions (figure 4). The actions can lead to outcomes both within the CGR (impacts) as outside the CGR (adaptation). The system context are political, legal, socio-economic and environmental conditions that shape the context for the collaboration process. The system context results in drivers (leadership, consequential incentives, interdependence and uncertainty) that stimulate the CGR. In the energy transition, uncertainty and interdependence are two important drivers for a collaboration process, because the energy transition has to deal with uncertainty and can only be accomplished when several actors work together (Loorbach, 2008). The collaborative dynamics exist out of three components: principled engagement, shared motivation and capacity for joint action (table 7).
23 Figure 4: Schematic overview of the Collaborative Governance Regime (Source: Emerson et al., 2012)
Principled engagement is the basic principle that entails an open, inclusive and fair discourse wherein all relevant stakeholders and interests are represented (Innes & Booher, 1999). Principled engagement stimulates stakeholders to think across their own institutional boundaries in order to solve mutual problems or challenges. In this respect it is important to get the ‘right’ people to the table because multiple perspectives and several interests result in more informed choices (Beierle & Cayford, 2002). Daniels and Walker (2001) defined four basic process elements that take place in principled engagement: discovery, definition, deliberation and determinations. Discovery is the exploration of individual and shared interest resulting in shared interests, whereas the definition process defines common purposes. Deliberation is about a conversation that invites the share of challenges and disagreements in order to express the underlying thoughts. Lastly, the final stage of principled engagement is the determination by making procedural decisions (e.g. agenda-setting, planning for discussion) and substantive decisions (e.g. agreements on actions and objectives). Finally, in democratic decision-making plans are determined by the responsible (city) council and possibilities are provided to submit several perspectives (Morrell, 2005). Furthermore, it is important that decisions are based on technical knowledge, obtained from joint-fact finding and knowledge building (Karl et al., 2007; Emerson et al., 2012). This is also called data-driven decision-making (Emerson et al., 2012). As the consultation process is followed by the decision-making process this research uses the aspects of data-driven decision-making and democratic decision-making as indicators for this research (see table 6).
Indicator Definition Sources
Data-driven decision-making
Decisions are based on technical knowledge, obtained from joint-fact finding, shared knowledge and knowledge building
▪ Karl et al. (2007)
▪ Emerson et al. (2012)
Democratic decision-making
Determination of plans by the city council and possibility to submit several perspectives.
▪ Morrell (2005)
▪ Emerson et al. (2012)
