Responsible innovation in energy projects: Values in the design of technologies, institutions and stakeholder interactions

Responsible Innovation 2: Concepts, Approaches, and Applications

Volumn , Issue , 2015, Pages 183-200

  Correljé, Aad ^a   Cuppen, Eefje ^a,b   Dignum, Marloes ^a,b   Pesch, Udo ^a,b   Taebi, Behnam ^a,c  

^a DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^b Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Kennedy School of Government Harvard University ^*

^c HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Energy projects; Institutional design; Stakeholder engagement; Value sensitive design; Values

Indexed keywords

EID: 84943649766     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-17308-5_10     Document Type: Chapter

References (40)

1. Beierle, T.C., and D.M. Konisky. 2000. Values, conflict, and trust in participatory environmental planning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 19: 587-602.
2. Bell, D., T. Gray, and C. Haggett. 2005. The ‘social gap’ in wind farm siting decisions: Explanations and policy responses. Environmental Politics 14: 460-477.
3. Broekhans, B., A. Correlje, and J. Van Ast. 2010. Allemaal op de bok. Kijk op waterveiligheid, 123.
4. Coase, R.H. 1960. The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics 3: 1.
5. Commons, J.R. 1936. Institutional economics. The American Economic Review 26: 237-249.
6. Correlje, A., and B. Broekhans. 2013. Floodrisk management in the Netherlands after the 1953 flood: A competition between the public value(s) of water. Journal of Flood Risk Management.
7. Correlje, A.F., and J.P. Groenewegen. 2009. Public values in the energy sector: Economic perspectives. International Journal of Public Policy 4: 395-413.
8. Devine-Wright, P. 2012. Renewable energy and the public: From NIMBY to Participation: London: Routledge.
9. Eden, C. 1996. The stakeholder/collaborator strategy workshop. In Creating collaborative advantage, 44-56. London: Sage.
10. Ellis, G., J. Barry, and C. Robinson. 2007. Many ways to say ‘no’, different ways to say ‘yes’: Applying Q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50: 517-551.
11. Feenstra, C., T. Mikunda, and Brunsting, S. 2012. What happened in Barendrecht?! Case study on the planned onshore carbon dioxide storage in Barendrecht, the Netherlands. Policy Studies, 2011, 2010.
12. Friedman, B. And P.H. Kahn Jr. 2000. New directions: A value-sensitive design approach to augmented reality. In Proceedings of DARE 2000 on designing augmented reality environments, 163-164. New York: ACM.
13. Friedman, B. And Peter H. Kahn Jr. 2000. New directions: A value-sensitive design approach to augmented reality. In Proceedings of DARE 2000 on designing augmented reality environments, 163-164. Elsinore, Denmark: ACM.
14. Friedman, B. And P.H. Kahn Jr. 2002. Human values, ethics, and designed. The human-computer interaction handbook, 1177-1201. New Jersey: L. Erlbaum Associates Inc.
15. Manders-Huits, N. 2011. What values in design? The challenge of incorporating moral values into design. Science and Engineering Ethics 17: 271-287.
16. Nissenbaum, H. 2005. Values in technical design. In Encyclopedia of science, technology and society, ed. C. Mitcham. Macmillan: New York.
17. Oudshoorn, N., A.R. Saetnan, and M. Lie. 2002. On gender and things: Reflections on an exhibition on gendered artifacts. Women’s Studies International Forum 25: 471-483.
18. Persson, M. 2012. Bodem-oorlog De Volkskrant, 7 January 2012.
19. Roeser, S. 2011. Nuclear energy, risk, and emotions. Philosophy and Technology 24: 197-201.
20. Taebi, B., and J.L. Kloosterman. 2014. Design for values in nuclear technology. In Handbook of ethics, values, and technological design: Sources, Theory, Values and Application Domains, ed. J. Van den Hoven, P. Vermaas and I. Van de Poel. Dordrecht: Springer.
21. Taebi, B., A. Correlje, E. Cuppen, M. Dignum, and U. Pesch. 2014. Responsible innovation as an endorsement of public values: The need for interdisciplinary research. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1: 118-124.
22. Van De Poel, I.R. 2009A. De Oosterscheldekering. Een voorbeeld van waardenbewust ontwerpen. In De politiek der dingen, ed. F. Bolkestein, J.M. Van Den Hoven, I.R. Van Den Poel, and I. Oosterlaken, 63-78. Budel: Damon.
23. Van De Poel, I.R. 2009B. Values in engineering design. In Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, ed. A. Meijer, 973-1006. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
24. Van De Poel, I. 2014. Translating values into design requirements. In Philosophy and Engineering: Reflections on practice, principles and process, ed. D. Mitchfelder, N. Mccarty and D.E. Goldberg, 253-266. Dordrecht: Springer.
25. Van Den Hoven, J. 2005. Design for values and values for design. Information Age 4: 4-7.
26. Van Den Hoven, J. 2007. Ict and value sensitive design. In The information society: Innovation, legitimacy, ethics and democracy in honor of Professor Jacques Berleur sj, ed. P. Goujon, S. Lavelle, P. Duquenoy, K. Kimppa and V. Laurent, 67-72. Boston: Springer.
27. Van Den Hoven, J. 2008. Moral methodology and information technology. In The handbook of information and computer ethics, ed. K.E. Himma and H.T. Tavani, 49-68. New York: Wiley.
28. Van Den Hoven, J., P. Vermaas, and I. Van de Poel. 2014. Handbook of ethics and values in technological design. Dordrecht: Springer.
29. Veenman, S., D. Liefferink, and B. Arts. 2009. A short history of Dutch forest policy: The ‘de-institutionalisation’of a policy arrangement. Forest Policy and Economics 11: 202-208.
30. Verbeek, P.P. 2006. Materializing morality design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology and Human Values 31: 361-380.
31. Walker, G., N. Cass, K. Burningham, and J. Barnett. 2010. Renewable energy and sociotechnical change: Imagined subjectivities of ‘the public’ and their implications. Environment and Planning A 42: 931-947.
32. Walker, G., Devine-Wright, P., Barnett, J., Burningham, K., Cass, N., Devine-Wright, H., Speller, G., Barton, J., Evans, B. And Heath, Y. 2011. Symmetries, expectations, dynamics, and contexts: A framework for understanding public engagement with renewable energy projects. Renewable Energy and the Public. From NIMBY to Participation, 1-14.
33. Winner, L. 1980. Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus 109: 121-136.
34. Wolsink, M. 2000. Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renewable Energy 21: 49-64.
35. Wolsink, M. 2006. Invalid theory impedes our understanding: A critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 31: 85-91.
36. Wustenhagen, R., M. Wolsink, and M.J. Burer. 2007. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 35: 2683-2691.
37. Wynne, B. 1992. Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science 1: 281-304.
38. Wynne, B. 1993. Public uptake of science: A case for institutional reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science 2: 321-337.
39. Wynne, B. 2001. Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture 10: 445-481.
40. Wynne, B. And Irwin, A. 1996. Misunderstanding science. The Public Reconstruction of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.