A values-based approach to energy controversies: Value-sensitive design applied to the Groningen gas controversy in the Netherlands

Many energy cases suffer from social opposition. It is increasingly asserted that paying due attention to the moral values involved in controversial energy cases may increase social acceptance. Value-sensitive design (VSD) has been recommended as a promising approach for addressing moral values in controversial energy cases. This paper aims to empirically explore the applicability of VSD in controversial energy cases by investigating the extent to which it is possible to identify the relevant values, norms and design requirements in the Groningen gas controversy (the Netherlands) using values hierarchies. It was found in this case that the relevant values, norms and design requirements could be retrieved, but that two conditions need to be fulfilled to avoid underexposure of relevant values. Firstly, data should be collected using a variety of data sources. Secondly, these sources should be analyzed through both top-down approaches and bottom-up approaches. We find that ‘Safety’ is a critical value in the Groningen case, while other critical values are related to securing ‘Procedural Justice’. Strikingly, the important procedural values ‘Trust’ and ‘Honesty’ did not translate into concrete policies. Policy makers can use values hierarchies to address moral values in energy cases and to translate these values into concrete measures.

[1]  C. Okereke,et al.  Climate justice and the international regime: before, during, and after Paris , 2016 .

[2]  Eefje Cuppen,et al.  Normative diversity, conflict and transition: Shale gas in the Netherlands , 2016, Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

[3]  M. Saguan,et al.  Optimal wind power deployment in Europe-A portfolio approach , 2010 .

[4]  Gordon Walker,et al.  Beyond Distribution and Proximity: Exploring the Multiple Spatialities of Environmental Justice , 2009 .

[5]  Frans Berkhout,et al.  Technological regimes, path dependency and the environment , 2002 .

[6]  L. Steg,et al.  Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework , 2012 .

[7]  Rafaela Hillerbrand,et al.  Understanding values embedded in offshore wind energy systems: Toward a purposeful institutional and technological design , 2015 .

[8]  Darren McCauley,et al.  Advancing energy justice: The triumvirate of tenets , 2013 .

[9]  T. Metze.  Fracking the Debate: Frame Shifts and Boundary Work in Dutch Decision Making on Shale Gas , 2017 .

[10]  Maarten Franssen.  Design for Values and Operator Roles in Sociotechnical Systems , 2015 .

[11]  Neelke Doorn.  Governance Experiments in Water Management: From Interests to Building Blocks , 2016, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[12]  B. Wee,et al.  Policy implementation lessons from six road pricing cases , 2014 .

[13]  Michael Greenberg,et al.  Energy policy and research: The underappreciation of trust , 2014 .

[14]  B. Wee,et al.  Has the Dutch news media acted as a policy actor in the road pricing policy debate , 2013 .

[15]  Ilse Oosterlaken,et al.  Applying Value Sensitive Design (VSD) to Wind Turbines and Wind Parks: An Exploration , 2014, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[16]  A. Spence,et al.  Public values for energy system change , 2015 .

[17]  M. Hannis,et al.  Chapter 19 - Compensation or Bribery? Ethical Issues in Relation to Radwaste Host Communities , 2013 .

[18]  M. Flanagan,et al.  Embodying values in technology: Theory and practice , 2008 .

[19]  Gillian Irene Bristow,et al.  Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: the role of community benefits in wind energy development , 2011 .

[20]  Behnam Taebi,et al.  Contested Technologies and Design for Values: The Case of Shale Gas , 2015, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[21]  Maarten Wolsink,et al.  Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives’ , 2007 .

[22]  P. Devine‐Wright,et al.  Social acceptance of low carbon energy and associated infrastructures: A critical discussion , 2013 .

[23]  Alan Borning,et al.  Value Sensitive Design: Theory and Methods , 2002 .

[24]  Bert-Jaap Koops,et al.  Smart Metering and Privacy in Europe: Lessons from the Dutch Case , 2013, European Data Protection.

[25]  Richard E. Ladner,et al.  Enhancing independence and safety for blind and deaf-blind public transit riders , 2011, CHI.

[26]  F. Geels.  From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory , 2004 .

[27]  Alfonso H. Molina,et al.  Understanding the role of the technical in the build-up of sociotechnical constituencies , 1998 .

[28]  Benjamin Sovacool,et al.  Energy decisions reframed as justice and ethical concerns , 2016, Nature Energy.

[29]  Peter Kroes,et al.  Treating socio-technical systems as engineering systems: some conceptual problems , 2006 .

[30]  Wil Dijkstra,et al.  Retrospective questions: data quality, task difficulty, and the use of a checklist , 1995 .

[31]  Jeroen van den Hoven,et al.  Value Sensitive Design of Complex Product Systems , 2015 .

[32]  Udo Pesch,et al.  Engineers and Active Responsibility , 2015, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[33]  Robert E. Crossler,et al.  A Value Sensitive Design Investigation of Privacy Enhancing Tools in Web Browsers , 2012, Decis. Support Syst..

[34]  Ibo van de Poel,et al.  Translating Values into Design Requirements , 2013 .

[35]  André Krouwel,et al.  Combining strengths of methods of party positioning to counter their weaknesses: the development of a new methodology to calibrate parties on issues and ideological dimensions , 2014 .

[36]  Johannes M. Bauer,et al.  Designing Socio-Technical Systems , 2009 .

[37]  Noëmi Manders-Huits,et al.  What Values in Design? The Challenge of Incorporating Moral Values into Design , 2010, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[38]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches , 2010 .

[39]  O. Ardıç,et al.  Road pricing policy process: the interplay between policy actors, the media and public , 2015 .

[40]  F. Kern.  Using the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions to assess innovation policy , 2012 .

[41]  B. Wee,et al.  Attitudes towards the role of Cost–Benefit Analysis in the decision-making process for spatial-infrastructure projects: A Dutch case study , 2013 .

[42]  Joseph R. Herkert,et al.  Societal implications of the emerging smart grid , 2012, CACM.

[43]  H. Richardson.  Practical Reasoning about Final Ends , 1994 .

[44]  Alan Borning,et al.  Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems , 2020, The Ethics of Information Technologies.

[45]  Leland L. Glenna,et al.  Value-Laden Technocratic Management and Environmental Conflicts , 2010 .

[46]  H. Bulkeley,et al.  New approaches to energy: equity, justice and vulnerability. Introduction to the special issue , 2013 .

[47]  C. Gross,et al.  Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance , 2007 .

[48]  O. Williamson.  Transaction Cost Economics: How It Works; Where It is Headed , 1998 .

[49]  R. Weber.  Basic Content Analysis , 1986 .

[50]  A. Bryman.  Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? , 2006 .

[51]  Rolf Wüstenhagen,et al.  Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept , 2007 .

[52]  S. Brunsting,et al.  What happened in Barendrecht?! Case study on the planned onshore carbon dioxide storage in Barendrecht, the Netherlands , 2010 .

[53]  B. Wee,et al.  Ranking the substantive problems in the Dutch Cost–Benefit Analysis practice , 2013 .

[54]  Darren McCauley,et al.  Achieving sustainable supply chains through energy justice , 2014 .

[55]  Benjamin K. Sovacool,et al.  Examining the social acceptance of wind energy: Practical guidelines for onshore wind project development in France , 2016 .

[56]  F. Vanclay,et al.  Social impacts of earthquakes caused by gas extraction in the Province of Groningen, The Netherlands , 2015 .

[57]  Alain Nadaï,et al.  “Planning”, “siting” and the local acceptance of wind power: Some lessons from the French case , 2007 .

[58]  Mark A. Neerincx,et al.  Value Sensitive Design of Automated Workload Distribution Support for Traffic Control Teams , 2014, HCI.

[59]  F. Geels,et al.  Exploring sustainability transitions in the electricity sector with socio-technical pathways , 2010 .

[60]  David Bidwell,et al.  The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial wind energy , 2013 .

[61]  Kirsten E H Jenkins,et al.  Energy justice : a conceptual review , 2016 .

[62]  Benjamin K. Sovacool,et al.  Rejecting Renewables: The Socio-Technical Impediments to Renewable Electricity in the United States , 2008, Renewable Energy.