Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Jens Schippl
(ITAS at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT))
Michael Schmidt (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT))
Christine Milchram (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology)
Rafaela Hillerbrand (Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung und Systemanalyse (ITAS))
Send message to Convenors
- Chairs:
-
Christine Milchram
(Karlsruhe Institute of Technology)
Michael Schmidt (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT))
Rafaela Hillerbrand (Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung und Systemanalyse (ITAS))
- Format:
- Traditional Open Panel
Short Abstract:
In this session, we invite contributions that address the potentials and limitations of Nussbaum's capability approach (and related approaches) for improving normative orientation and clarity in the context of just and sustainable transitions/transformations
Long Abstract:
In sustainability transformations of sociotechnical systems such as the energy or mobility system, the last decade has brought some progress related to the implementation of low-carbon technologies like renewable electricity generation or electric mobility. However, more ambitious targets and related actions are called for to mitigate or solve grand challenges such as climate change, air pollution, or waste of space. At the same time, there has been a growing awareness in research and practice alike, that transformations to more sustainable societies can only be successful when they are inclusive and just, or at least, that perceived injustices will face controversies and rejection. In many cases, issues of social justice are implicitly or explicitly linked with low levels of support of or resistance against policy measures, which seem promising in terms of sustainable development. One reason for this is that change in complex sociotechnical systems is usually confronted with conflicting goals, at least in certain phases of the transformation processes. Against this backdrop, it is not astonishing that there is growing interest in aspects of social compatibility and justice.
Here over the past years, the capability approach (CA) was increasingly discussed as a normative framework to deal with such value conflicts and as a normative underpinning for sustainability considerations. In this session, we invite contributions that look at potentials and/or limits of Nussbaum’s Capability-Approach (and related approaches) to improve normative orientation and clarity in context of just and sustainable transformations. We would like to investigate in how far Nussbaum’s CA can help to deal adequately with competing values or foster transformations towards a more sustainable future in other ways. The organisers intend to include presentations on the applications of the CA in the mobility and in the energy sector. However, contributions from other fields of application are welcomed as well.
Accepted papers:
Session 1Christine Milchram (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology) Jens Schippl (ITAS at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)) Michael Schmidt (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT))
Long abstract:
In evaluations of mobility innovations and policies, technical and economic parameters have long been in the foreground. “Sustainability" is a goal for transport development, but is usually limited to the reduction of emissions, energy consumption and waste of space. In contrast, social and further ethical impacts of transport infrastructure have received less attention.
Accessibility is currently proposed as a concept to assess social and ethical impacts in transport planning. Currently, however, accessibility implies a rather narrow focus on a small range of social aspects, like access to job opportunities.
In this context, the Capabilities Approach (CA) has been suggested as a more comprehensive approach. It provides a normative framework for evaluating social arrangements based on the freedoms that people need to realize a good life. It puts emphasis on how infrastructures and related services contribute to people’s opportunities and wellbeing.
In this contribution, we show that Martha Nussbaum’s ‘central capabilities’ provide a normative guidance for developing more specific transport-related indicators. The CA widens impact assessment from people’s mobility and accessibility to include other direct and indirect impacts of transport measures on, e.g., health, safety, and the environment.
To apply the CA, we need a better understanding of the interrelations between mobility infrastructures and central capabilities and more clarity on the appropriate spatial and administrative level of application. Taking a specific example (urban traffic calming and reduction of parking spaces), we investigate how the CA can be used successfully for sustainable mobility planning.
Anna Cain (Australian National University)
Long abstract:
Sustainable energy transitions brings together two important normative goals: energy system decarbonisation and universal energy access, mobilizing significant policy and financial resources to deploy energy technologies and infrastructure. This technology-centric framing does not necessarily deliver on its intended well-being benefits and risks reproducing existing inequities. In this context, capabilities theory offers important tools to critically engage beyond technology deployment to focus on wider justices concerns e.g. the role of energy in securing Nussbaum’s core capabilities and to ensure all are included by focusing on individuals as a unit of evaluation. However, to date, there is limited analysis interrogating how capabilities theory might be explicitly embedded in energy interventions. Further, some scholar’s question capabilities theory’s individualistic and universal approach to well-being particularly in non-western or collectivist cultures. This paper responds to these critiques by presenting analysis of participatory energy planning in First Nations communities in remote, northern Australia. I draw on ethnographic data through the lens of capabilities theory to investigate how capabilities are deliberatively prioritized in energy system design and operation, in order to support Indigenous relational ways of being with community and land. By examining the capabilities theories in use, this paper expands existing energy-capabilities theoretical frameworks. While focusing on Indigenous and off-grid experiences of the energy transition, this paper offers insights into how low carbon energy programs can deliberatively engage with technical, financial and environment limits while centering well-being. It will be of interest to scholars of energy poverty in particular but also scholars of energy over-consumption.
Maarten Appelman (University of Twente) Jelena Popovic (University of Twente) Julia Hermann (University of Twente)
Long abstract:
We introduce the topic of Energy Access and the metrics that are currently used to measure household electrification, specifically the Multi-Tier Framework (MTF). Energy Access is concerned with ensuring universal access to affordable, reliable, and modern forms of energy, predominantly in the Global South, and aims to achieve energy justice. The MTF is used to measure energy access in terms as Watts, lumens, and air quality. We first argue that Energy Access should essentially be concerned with promoting human values and capabilities. These can range from promoting gender equality to supporting financial capabilities and extending life-time expectancies. Secondly, we argue that because the MTF measures the means to these ends instead of the ends themselves, it thereby renders them opaque. The core of our paper is concerned with the Capability Approach and especially Martha Nussbaum’s list of central capabilities, which we argue is more suitable to assess the non-material goals of energy access that are being supported (or undermined) through energy provision. Taking Nussbaum’s list of central capabilities, and moral values we distil from the MTF and case studies as a starting point, we specify and contextualise some capabilities from Nussbaum’s list for the context of energy access. Lastly, we point towards Capability Sensitive Design as a method to be used by engineers for designing for the relevant capabilities and making trade-offs in projects of energy access. Combined this provides new metrics that can be used to complement the MTF and support energy justice in the context of energy access.
Sadiq el Kahal (Athena Institute) Eduardo Muniz Pereira Urias (VU Amsterdam)
Long abstract:
This research seeks to delve into the nuanced challenges surrounding justice and inclusion within the energy transition context. By giving a voice to underrepresented groups, our research has the potential to unravel diverse perspectives and experiences which in turn can shape both science and policy practices and inform more inclusive and equitable strategies for the energy transition in Amsterdam Nieuw-West. This research explores the following question: How can the inclusion of residents with migration backgrounds in public participation contribute to a just energy transition in Amsterdam?
The active involvement of residents with migration backgrounds in public participation is vital for a truly just energy transition in Amsterdam New-West. While a distributive justice focus has prevailed, our findings highlight its insufficiency in addressing procedural and recognition injustices. The absence of justice in terms of recognition, coupled with the inadequacy of restorative justice, serves as significant barriers hindering people's capacity and willingness to engage in the energy transition. Instances of racism, Islamophobia, and public scandals, such as the childcare benefit scandal, further contribute to a pervasive lack of trust in public authorities and institutions. Historical encounters with tokenistic and extractive practices in participation within policy and scientific realms also result in participation fatigue and a fundamental erosion of trust. To achieve a genuinely just energy transition, enabling and capabilities approaches are needed to address procedural, recognition, and restorative aspects alongside distributive justice. This involves fostering community-led projects, adopting participatory approaches for capacity building, dismantling systemic barriers, acknowledging the political nature of challenges.
Hasse Hämäläinen
Long abstract:
Nussbaum's Capability Approach (CA) proposes that societal development should focus on realizing key human capabilities, from bodily health to imagination and thought, as necessary for human flourishing. This approach offers a more sustainable basis for societal development than the GDP-maximizing approach, which is neutral regarding whether growth is achieved at the expense of environmental destruction, which would inhibit many key human capabilities. However, this paper argues that also CA is inadequate for sustainability transformation without significant revisions. First, CA treats the environment instrumentally, encouraging us to prioritize our needs over those of other lifeforms. CA may motivate us to switch from fossil fuels to carbon-neutral sources, but does not prompt us to question the justification of our energy usage: that we use energy to improve our own lives. Second, sustainable development can only be achieved when humans cease to exploit other beings and engage in reciprocal exchange, contributing to mutual flourishing. If we use carbon-neutral energy to produce goods that may benefit us but harm other beings, we still destroy the environment. Third, to ensure the Earth remains livable in the future, we must be willing to expand our focus beyond only humans capacities, and be ready to compromise their realization if they impede the flourishing of other beings, from plants to animals. In conclusion, CA should be revised to be mindful of everyone’s capacities, not only ours, when thinking about how to produce energy sustainably, and most importantly, whether it is even justifiable to produce energy for certain purposes.