Call for Abstracts - Transitions to Sustainability

SESSION 15: SUSTAINABILITY IN HOUSING
Tania Berger, Anna Faustmann, Andrea Hötl, Danube University Krems, Austria

Societal aspects of housing are intrinsically interlinked with ecology and economic framework conditions. Even though this 3-collunar concept of sustainability has long been incorporated into common knowledge research bridging these interdisciplinary gaps remains exceptional and applicable practical findings are rare. Contributions to this proposed session are therefore requested to render concise answers to crucial questions of sustainability in housing construction, up keeping and management:

•  Which tools, measures and policies can substantially contribute to fostering social inclusion and prevent segregation in residential quarters?
• How can housing rendered feasible for low income and socially disadvantaged groups in the context of rising energy prices and emission reduction requirements?
• How can targets for reduction of CO2 emissions be reconciled with efforts to keep housing costs affordable?

KEYWORDS
Energy poverty, Segregation vs. inclusion, Energy efficiency and refurbishment – alternative approaches, affordability, Poverty, Climate change, Energy, Health, Housing cooperatives, Migration & Integration, New housing types, settlement pattern and structures

SESSION 16: LOCAL INNOVATION IMPULSES AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE ENERGY SYSTEM
Gerhard Fuchs, Institute of Social Sciences, Department of Information Engineering and Computer Sciences (DISI), University of Stuttgart, Germany

Processes of transformation or transition are often analyzed from a top down or policy perspective. Research over the last years, however, has shown that local or regional mobilization efforts and a spatial concentration of innovation activities is a defining feature of energy transitions.
The panel seeks to discuss how specific spatial contexts influence the development of technological artefacts in the energy sector.
Local and regional technology oriented initiatives might be interpreted as small experimental ‘niches’: constrained, but also enabled, by wider social and political structures. Niche innovations may lead nowhere – or even serve to reinforce the status quo. Equally, though, just occasionally, and when the time is right, they can have far wider implications for society. Radical proposals, conversely, may be unacceptable to policy makers and publics. Since strong leadership, looking beyond what is ‘acceptable’ in the short term, is not in evidence (and perhaps not desirable), it might be that the surface-level experimental process is the most effective way of bringing forward deeper structural change.

SESSION 17: DE-CONSTRUCTING THE SMART CITY, REASSEMBLING URBAN LIFE
Michela Cozza, Giusi Orabona, Giacomo Poderi, Maurizio Teli, Department of Information Engineering and Computer Sciences (DISI), University of Trento, Italy

Since nearly a decade, the idea of a “Smart City” strongly emerged and rapidly spread in urban planning, political discourse and academia in general. As any successful term, its widespread adoption has attributed it many meanings, almost overlapping with the idea of having digital technologies distributed in the urban environment. On the one hand, such distribution seems to favour the city management related to the transit, traffic and provision of localized services. On the other hand, it could be interpreted as a program of control of the population by the big corporations of the ICT domain (Greenfield 2013).

Nevertheless, we are already witnessing tentative appropriations and applications of the “Smart City” ideal into several specific domains which concern urban life: from transportation to welfare services, from active ageing to energy management. As already noted in one of the first and pivotal works on Smart Cities (Hollands, 2008), this concept is usually vaguely defined, biased towards the ICT dimension of urban developments, and often portrayed with enthusiastic, uncritical and entrepreneurial rhetoric. In summary, the concept of “Smart City” hides urban life behind the (often physical) screens of technological efficiency and monitoring social practices.

As described, the picture of the “Smart City” is signed by technological determinism, an ideological commitment privileging the private sector, social polarization as an inevitable by-product, missing concerns with class inequality, inclusion and social justice, and the almost clear neo-liberal attempt to incorporate local communities into the entrepreneurial discourse. Such discourse needs to be de-constructed and re-assembled in order to leave space for a more socially aware, distributed effort, that is actually empowering people more than the powerful actor at the political and economic level.

Therefore, we welcome contributions that critically examines the concept of a “Smart City” at one or both of the two following levels. At the theoretical level, where the different dimensions and elements of “Smart City” such as ICT, urban planning, societal challenges, are defined, analysed and discussed in relationship to state-of-the-art developments and their respective domains of application (e.g. energy, mobility). At the empirical and practical level, where the actual efforts of designing, implementing and deploying plans for smart cities are critically described, reviewed or assessed. In particular, we welcome contributions able to point at how the “Smart City” can be de-constructed and re-assembled in a more democratic way, supporting urban life instead of neo-liberal narratives.

Ultimately, we welcome contributions that look at the “Smart City” from the viewpoints both of the citizens and professionals: reflections that discuss how citizens’ identity and professional practices take part in the construction of the idea of “smartness” are appreciated.

SESSION 18: VISIBILITY AND INVISIBILITY IN ENERGY TRANSITIONS
Anna Schreuer, STS - Institute of Science, Technology and Society Studies at Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt|Vienna|Graz, Austria

The transition of energy systems towards more sustainable forms of energy provision involves a large-scale diffusion of renewable energy technologies, a reorganization of the grid infrastructure and a reduction of the overall amount of energy consumption. All of this also includes a transformation of the visual characteristics of energy systems. Setting up renewable energy plants is often criticized as an unwelcome intrusion to valued landscapes (e.g. wind farms in rural areas) or to historic townscapes (e.g. solar panels in town centres). The same technologies, however, can also be cherished as distinctive landmarks or status symbols (e.g. locally owned wind farm, solar panel on one’s house). On the side of energy consumption, it has been suggested that a central barrier to the development and diffusion of more energy aware lifestyles lies in the invisibility of energy that is consumed through the habitual operation of various household appliances. In this context the introduction of smart meters is being promoted as a way to make energy consumption more visible.

Particular forms of visibility thus has been characterized both as an asset and a burden in the shaping of more sustainable energy systems. This session intends to explore the role of (in)visibility in sustainable energy transitions. How are energy production and consumption deliberately made (in)visible? How do people relate to the visual characteristics of energy technologies in different places? What images are employed to promote, obstruct or shape energy transitions in particular ways? How are problem framings concerning energy transitions conveyed by particular visual representations?

SESSION 19: STS – DESIGN – SUSTAINABILITY
Stefanie Egger, DocSTS, Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt|Vienna|Graz, Austria

Engineers, designers and architects of all fashion conceive of and create the technical world we are surrounded by. From urban planning to devising everyday objects to creating a digital landscape – one of the most important challenges for designers today is to help create a more sustainable world. However, looking only at the world of artifacts – the technical world – has severe limitations for those who want to promote shifts towards sustainability. We design the things, but we design for humans. So we need concepts and thinking tools that don´t separate the technical from the social. Combining findings from Design Research activities and Science and Technology Studies may be vital both for STS research and for design for sustainability.
This special session wants to challenge technically focused approaches to design and at the same time strengthen connections between Design Research and research in Science and Technology Studies. The session especially welcomes papers addressing one of the following questions: What can designers do in order to encourage more sustainable behavior? Bearing in mind that users and objects configure each other, how can we take account of this processes of co-configuration for sustainable design? How can STS perspectives help designers to implement sustainable products and practices?
All types of research tackling sustainability design issues as well as challenging frameworks of meaning and contexts of practice are welcome in this session.

SESSION 20: FROM VICIOUS TO VIRTUOUS PRODUCTION CHAINS: TRANSFORMING EUROPEAN SMEs TOWARDS CIRCULAR ECONOMIC BUSINESS MODELS
Peter Anker, Cor van Leeuwen, Dea Knol-Veldhuizen, Rengenier C. Rittersma, Rotterdam Business School, Netherlands

KEYWORDS
Circular Business Models [CBM] – Economic Transition Processes – Knowledge Intensive SMEs – Higher Education Institutions – Role of Chambers of Trade and Commerce [CTC] & other stakeholders – Europe

RELEVANCE
Anno 2014 Europe seems to be ready for the new economic paradigm of circular economy, whose aim is to systematically optimise the use of resources in the entire production and consumption chain.[1] This can be concluded upon a recently published Eurobarometer.
On an institutional level, the European Commission (EC) and World Economic Forum have quite recently put the transition to CBM as a key priority onto their economic agenda. But there's many a slip between cup and lip! In other words, the transition to CBM has only just begun – and that offers a lot of appealing strategic opportunities and, consequently, numerous discussion themes!

DEMARCATION, AIMS, AND THEMATIC SUGGESTIONS
Thematically, we would like to focus on European SMEs since

• innovation-driven SMEs are expected to take a forerunner-role in transforming towards CBM
• the EC has defined SMEs (Horizon 2020) to be the key target group in transforming European economy towards CBM
• this prioritisation implies that the EC will financially and institutionally support European SMEs as well as Higher Education initiatives related to CBM

Our principal aim is to map ongoing research on CBM in Europe and to find partnerships for future cooperation in research and didactics. If Europe wants to successfully transform towards CBM based economies, we will primarily need to adapt existing teaching and research programmes in Economics accordingly in order to generate “CBM-competent“ young professionals. Besides Higher Education Institutions we would also like to address European SMEs as well as external partners that may take a role (NGO’s, CTC, investment societies etc.)
This results in the following issues to be possibly addressed (meant as suggestions and not as strict thematic parameters):

• How to finance transition processes in a period of global investment shortage?
• Which operational dilemma’s do companies face while transforming their organization and how can these be solved?
• To what extent can (semi-)governmental institutions and other external partners play a facilitating role in transforming European SMEs?
• How can a novel, CBM-based Economics swiftly and soundly be implemented into existing teaching and research curricula in order to generate CBM-minded young professionals?

[1] There are different working definitions of CB. The concept as it has been used here stems from the Ellen Mac Arthur Foundation , the leading think tank in this field. Ever since the introduction of the concept of CBM Rotterdam Business School maintains tight connections with this foundation, which may be involved in the panel.

SESSION 21: ENERGY, SOCIETY AND CULTURE – (SUSTAINABLE) ENERGY  TRANSFORMATIONS AS TRANSFORMATIONS OF SOCIAL ORDER 
Thomas Pfister, Sarah Glück, Martin Schweighofer, Mikro Suharu, The EnergyCultures Research Group, Zeppelin University, Friedrichshafen, Germany

Transforming energy systems into more sustainable ones is among the greatest challenges of today. The difficulty of this task is not only due to the sheer scale of technological energy infrastructures but even more to the sociotechnical nature of energy systems. For example, because these systems also consist of countless people and organisations involved in producing, selling, transmitting, regulating, accounting, and saving energy. Furthermore, much of today’s life-styles and everyday practices require large amounts of energy. Moreover, as for example, Sheila Jasanoff and Sang-Hyun Kim or Gabrielle Hecht have demonstrated, energy systems and energy technologies can play a central role for the imagination of collective values and identities. More generally, since energy and energy systems are the technological backbones of contemporary societies, all interventions are always partial, uncertain, and contested. 

Against this background, this panel invites papers that study social order and culture through a perspective on energy systems and their sociotechnical nature. Thereby, the papers should provide deeper understanding of established orders of energy and society. Alternatively papers could explore the implications of on-going transformations (for example, in the course of European integration or economic globalisation) as well as the limits and possibilities to govern sustainable energy transformations. Papers could, for example, explore the role of values, norms, and identities within energy controversies, the social implications of energy transformations (‘energy justice’), political struggles about specific pathways, strategies or visions as well as struggles for environmental or energy citizenship.

SESSION 22: ENERGY TRANSFORMATIONS, ENERGY EPISTEMICS AND GOVERNANCE – THE ROLE OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES 
Thomas Pfister, Sarah Glück, Martin Schweighofer, Mikro Suharu, The EnergyCultures Research Group, Zeppelin University, Friedrichshafen, Germany

This panel explores the role of the social sciences (including law) and the humanities in the context of (sustainable) energy transitions. In this context, three closely related trends seem to be most crucial: First, science-society relationships in general have been seeing several reorganisations and re-definitions. For example, in the European Union, there have been several moves from emphasising the need that science should engage in dialogue with citizens, to reimagining science as ‘science in society’ to the most recent call for ‘responsible research and innovation’ (Felt, Barben, Irwin, et.al. 2013). Secondly, in the context of large-scale, complex, and contested challenges such as responding to climate change or finding more sustainable energy systems, calls for alternative, more open (for example, Cornell, Berkhout, Tuinstra, et.al. 2013) or trans-disciplinary (for example, Jahn, Schneidewind & Zahrnt 2012) knowledge systems have been raised. Finally, in the context of the mentioned two developments, the social sciences and humanities find themselves in a particularly challenging situation. On the one hand, there is an increasing awareness about the value and the contribution of the social sciences and humanities. On the other hand, these disciplines are increasingly subject to principles and practices of research governance and evaluation initially developed for the natural sciences. Again, the EU provides a good example when it defined social sciences and humanities as crosscutting issues that should be integrated across all parts of its current research framework programme (Horizon 2020). Papers could, for example, explore the role of the social sciences and humanities in on-going policy or planning processes, how they are framed and addressed in public policy as well as differences and relationships between different approaches and perspectives (for example, participation versus nudging); papers could also investigate the specific instruments, concepts, and research practices that the social sciences could contribute to open public debate about energy transitions as well as the relationships between the social sciences and humanities and societies in more general ways.