Sareen, S; Smith, A; Gantioler, S; Balest, J; Brisbois, M C; Tomasi, S; Sovacool, B; Contreras, G A T; Dellavalle, N and Haarstad, H (2023) Social implications of energy infrastructure digitalisation and decarbonisation. Buildings & Cities, 4(1), pp. 612-628. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
Digitalisation provides opportunities to decarbonise energy and, simultaneously, address social exclusion and inequality—but it is unclear whether and how these opportunities are realised. Three case studies investigate whether ongoing energy infrastructure digitalisation processes are accommodating commoning or enclosure, using a continuum of commoning versus enclosure practices to examine this question. Multi-sited fieldwork throughout the period 2021-22 is used to compare sectoral transitions in three European mid-sized cities: mobility in Bergen (NO), solar generation in Brighton & Hove (UK) and smart electric meters in Trento (IT). Semi-structured and narrative expert interviews (N = 66), a mix of structured (N = 134) and semi-structured (N = 49) citizen interviews, citizen focus groups (N = 17), seminars (N = 2), participatory workshops (N = 4), and extended participant observation reveal multiple and contradictory processes of commoning and enclosure. Decarbonisation and digitalisation are proceeding unevenly, with tendencies of enclosure and missed opportunities to achieve commoning of energy infrastructure for public benefit. Opportunities are identified to enable commoning pathways in ongoing twin transitions.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cities; commoning; data politics; enclosure; energy; inclusion; infrastructure; smart energy; social impact; social justice; twin transition |
| Index terms: | social impact, smart energy, inequality, narrative, social justice, politics, enclosure, observation, interview, mobility, case study, focus group, workshop, digitalization |
| Subjects: | sociology, political science, infrastructure and transport systems, architectural elements, qualitative and interpretive research, digital technology, energy systems, construction type, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Governance, Sustainability, Construction Technology, Ethics, Digital Applications, Urban Studies, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here