Modelling of Institutional Capacity within Study of Energy Transition Dynamics

Farenhorste-Mikane, Ieva; Bazbauers, Gatis; Blumberga, Andra; Blumberga, Dagnija; Ijabs, Ivars

doi:10.2478/rtuect-2021-0090

Abstract

Institutional capacity is enabling environment for interactions between individuals and organizations. Understanding the changes required regarding the institutional capacity is needed to remove barriers and stimulate transition to sustainable energy systems. The aim of this study was to identify those barriers to understand what type of changes of the institutional capacity is required. Review of publications was done with focus on the three critical domains for clean energy transition – social acceptance, climate and energy policy and critical materials. In result, the most important aspects of the institutional capacity that form the barriers as well as stimulus in the three domains were identified. Causal loop diagram providing a systemic viewpoint on the important elements and interactions within the mentioned three domains is presented. Results of the study can be used for system dynamics model of energy transition.

References

[1] Willems S., Baumert K. Institutional Capacity and Climate Actions. OECD Pap. 2003:1–50.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[2] Healey P. Building Institutional Capacity through Collaborative Approaches to Urban Planning. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Sp. 1998:30(9):1531–1546. https://doi.org/10.1068/a30153110.1068/a301531
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[3] Fukuda-Parr S., Lopes C., Malik K. Capacity for development: New solutions to old problems. 1st ed. Fukuda-Parr S., Lopes C. (Eds). Routledge, 2002. https://doi.org/10.4324/978184977065110.4324/9781849770651
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[4] European Commission. The European Green Deal. 2019.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[5] Ferri N. United nations general assembly. Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law. 2010:25(2):271–287. https://doi.org/10.1163/157180910X1266577663874010.1163/157180910X12665776638740
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[6] Erickson L. E., Brase G., Erickson L. E., Brase G. Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Reducing Greenh. Gas Emiss. Improv. Air Qual. 1st ed. 2019:11–22. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781351116589-210.1201/9781351116589-2
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[7] McKenna R. et al. High-resolution large-scale onshore wind energy assessments: A review of potential definitions, methodologies and future research needs. Renew. Energy 2022:182:659–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.10.02710.1016/j.renene.2021.10.027
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[8] Diógenes J. R. F., Claro J., Rodrigues J. C., Loureiro M. V. Barriers to onshore wind energy implementation: A systematic review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019:60:101337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.10133710.1016/j.erss.2019.101337
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[9] European Commission. Commission of European Communities. Communication on the 2017 list of Critical Raw Materials for the EU (COM no. 490). 2017:1–8.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[10] Bolwig S. et al. Review of modelling energy transitions pathways with application to energy system flexibility. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018:101:440–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.11.01910.1016/j.rser.2018.11.019
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[11] Cohen J. J., Reichl J., Schmidthaler M. Re-focussing research efforts on the public acceptance of energy infrastructure: A critical review. Energy 2017:76:4–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.12.05610.1016/j.energy.2013.12.056
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[12] Seidl R., von Wirth T., Krütli P. Social acceptance of distributed energy systems in Swiss, German, and Austrian energy transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019:54:117–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.04.00610.1016/j.erss.2019.04.006
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[13] Bolwig S. et al. Climate-friendly but socially rejected energy-transition pathways: The integration of techno-economic and socio-technical approaches in the Nordic-Baltic region. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020:67:101559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.10155910.1016/j.erss.2020.101559
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[14] Vuichard P., Stauch A., Wüstenhagen R. Keep it local and low-key: Social acceptance of alpine solar power projects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020:138:2020:110516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.11051610.1016/j.rser.2020.110516
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[15] Jami A. A., Walsh P. R. From consultation to collaboration: A participatory framework for positive community engagement with wind energy projects in Ontario, Canada. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017:27:14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.02.00710.1016/j.erss.2017.02.007
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[16] Firestone J., Hoen B., Rand J., Elliott D., Hübner G., Pohl J. Reconsidering barriers to wind power projects: community engagement, developer transparency and place. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2018:20(3):370–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2017.141865610.1080/1523908X.2017.1418656
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[17] Dwyer J., Bidwell D. Chains of trust: Energy justice, public engagement, and the first offshore wind farm in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019:47:166–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.08.01910.1016/j.erss.2018.08.019
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[18] Warren C. R., McFadyen M. Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland. Land Use Policy 2010:27(2):204–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.12.01010.1016/j.landusepol.2008.12.010
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[19] del C. Torres Sibille A., Cloquell-Ballester V. A., Cloquell-Ballester V. A., Darton R. Development and validation of a multicriteria indicator for the assessment of objective aesthetic impact of wind farms. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009:13(1):40–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2007.05.00210.1016/j.rser.2007.05.002
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[20] Sánchez-Pantoja N., Vidal R., Pastor M. C. Aesthetic impact of solar energy systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. Elsevier Ltd. 2018:98:227–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.09.02110.1016/j.rser.2018.09.021
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[21] Hille S. L., Curtius H. C., Wüstenhagen R. Red is the new blue – The role of color, building integration and country-of-origin in homeowners’ preferences for residential photovoltaics. Energy Build. 2018:162:21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.11.07010.1016/j.enbuild.2017.11.070
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[22] Jolissaint N., Hanbali R., Hadorn J. C., Schüler A. Colored solar façades for buildings. Energy Procedia 2017:122:175–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.07.34010.1016/j.egypro.2017.07.340
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[23] Bao Q., Sinitskaya E., Gomez K. J., MacDonald E. F., Yang M. C. A human-centered design approach to evaluating factors in residential solar PV adoption: A survey of homeowners in California and Massachusetts. Renew. Energy 2020:151:503–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.11.04710.1016/j.renene.2019.11.047
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[24] Nansai K., Wang P., Eggert R. G., Yellishetty M., Kleijn R. Critical Material Management for Sustainable Transition. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019:154:104499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.10449910.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104499
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[25] Watari T., Nansai K., Nakajima K. Review of critical metal dynamics to 2050 for 48 elements. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020:155:104669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.10466910.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104669
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[26] Graedel T. E., Harper E. M., Nassar N. T., Nuss P., Reck B. K., Turner B. L. Criticality of metals and metalloids. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 2015:112(14):4257–4262. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.150041511210.1073/pnas.1500415112439431525831527
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[27] Koskimaa V., Rapeli L., Hiedanpää J. Governing through strategies: How does Finland sustain a future-oriented environmental policy for the long term? Futures 2020:125:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2020.10266710.1016/j.futures.2020.102667
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[28] Jacobs A. M. Policy Making for the Long Term in Advanced Democracies. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2016:19:433–454. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-110813-03410310.1146/annurev-polisci-110813-034103
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[29] Jakob M., Flachsland C., Christoph Steckel J., Urpelainen J. Actors, objectives, context: A framework of the political economy of energy and climate policy applied to India, Indonesia, and Vietnam. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020:70:101775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.10177510.1016/j.erss.2020.101775
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[30] Leipprand A., Flachsland C., Pahle M. Starting low, reaching high? Sequencing in EU climate and energy policies. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions 2020:37:140–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.08.00610.1016/j.eist.2020.08.006
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[31] Dioha M. O., Abraham-Dukuma M. C., Bogado N., Okpaleke F. N. Supporting climate policy with effective energy modelling: A perspective on the varying technical capacity of South Africa, China, Germany and the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 2020:69:101759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.10175910.1016/j.erss.2020.101759
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[32] Sovacool B. K., Turnheim B., Hook A., Brock A., Martiskainen M. Dispossessed by decarbonisation: Reducing vulnerability, injustice, and inequality in the lived experience of low-carbon pathways. World Dev. 2021:137:105116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.10511610.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105116
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Modelling of Institutional Capacity within Study of Energy Transition Dynamics

Abstract

Paradigm

My account