-
Public Understanding of Science 1 17
The Author(s) 2015Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI:
10.1177/0963662515580067
pus.sagepub.com
P U S
Italian parliamentary debates on energy sustainability: How
argumentative short-circuits affect public engagement
Sonia Brondi and Mauro SarricaSapienza University of Rome,
Italy
Alessandro CaramisItalian National Institute of Statistics
(ISTAT), Italy
Chiara PiccoloUniversity of Padua, Italy
Bruno M. MazzaraSapienza University of Rome, Italy
AbstractPublic engagement is considered a crucial process in the
transition towards sustainable energy systems. However, less space
has been devoted to understand how policy makers and stakeholders
view citizens and their relationship with energy issues.
Nonetheless, together with technological advancements, policies and
political debates on energy affect public engagement as well as
individual practices. This article aims at tackling this issue by
exploring how policy makers and stakeholders have socially
constructed sustainable energy in Italian parliamentary debates and
consultations during recent years (20092012). Results show that
societal discourses on sustainable energy are oriented in a manner
that precludes public engagement. The political debate is
characterised by argumentative short-circuits that constrain
individual and community actions to the acceptance or the refusal
of top-down decisions and that leave little room for community
empowerment and bottom-up innovation.
Keywordsdeficit-expertise themata, energy policy,
hierarchic-egalitarian themata, models of public, public
engagement, renewable energy technologies
Corresponding author:Sonia Brondi, Department of Communication
and Social Research, Sapienza University of Rome, via Salaria, 113,
00198 Rome, Italy. Email: [email protected]
580067 PUS0010.1177/0963662515580067Public Understanding of
ScienceBrondi et al.research-article2015
Theoretical/research paper
at East Carolina University on April 24,
2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
2 Public Understanding of Science
1. Introduction
Energy transitions such as the current one towards low-carbon,
distributed and smart systems require that technological and
industrial developments co-evolve with deep institutional and
cultural changes (Fouquet and Pearson, 2012). The success of
European, national and local energy plans can-not be expected only
on the basis of techno-scientific innovations; it must rather be
accompanied by careful strategies of public engagement that require
strong regulatory governance and substance (Sovacool, 2014). Public
engagement finds its roots in the principles of citizenship: it
creates the space for ethical value-laden issues to be explored,
while bringing inclusiveness, transparency, diver-sity and
creativity into the research and innovation process.1 In the field
of energy sustainability, an ideal example of public engagement is
shown in sustainable energy communities: local communities in which
politicians, planners, project developers, market actors and
citizens actively co-operate to develop high degrees of intelligent
energy supply, favouring RES, together with a conscientious
application of energy efficiency measures (Intelligent Energy
Executive Agency (IEEA), 2006: 4).
Although there is overall agreement as far as the underlying
democratic aims and the necessity of a participatory turn (Owens
and Driffill, 2008; Saurugger, 2010), public engagement continues
to be subject to criticism regarding its effectiveness, and several
challenges still need to be addressed (cf. Bauer, 2014).
On the one hand, empirical evidence in energy studies has shown
that participative approaches to public engagement help minimise
social conflicts; enhance public understanding, knowledge and
awareness; restore trust; and encourage public support
(Devine-Wright, 2007b, 2011).
On the other hand, public engagement does not guarantee
acceptance (Devine-Wright, 2007b). The legitimacy of power groups,
the exclusion of opponents, knowledge gap biases, the search for
consen-sus and asymmetry are among the limits attributed to
participatory processes (Irwin, 2014; Wynne, 2014). Therefore,
after over two decades of research in this field, the shift from
understanding to engagement and from deficit to dialogue still
seems far from being achieved (Stilgoe et al., 2014).
Critical analyses of both the process of engagement and the
notion of public have recently been performed, with the intent of
overcoming this dilemma (Barnett et al., 2012; Jasanoff, 2014).
In particular, concerning the public, many scholars have
critiqued the idea of laypeople as a homogeneous black box (Irwin
and Wynne, 1996) in favour of plural views of citizens (cf. Maranta
et al., 2003). This implies an examination of what constitutes the
public in the eyes of policy makers and stakeholders (Bauer, 2014).
This is a crucial issue: it has been suggested that implicit and
explicit models of public have an effect on the mechanisms of
engagement approved by authorities, the interaction between
laypeople and experts, and the motivation and ability of citi-zens
to get involved (Barnett et al., 2012; Batel and Devine-Wright,
2014; Burningham et al., 2007; Cotton and Devine-Wright, 2012).
In this article, we will therefore focus on the way Italian
policy makers and stakeholders view the public, with regard to
sustainable energy. We aim to understand how the public has been
socially constructed in parliamentary debate in recent years, and
whether and how it has been con-nected to representations of energy
and energy governance. Our overall purpose is to examine how Italy
is dealing with the current energy transition (Brondi et al., 2014;
Sarrica et al., 2014). Before presenting the study, we will briefly
summarise the main models of the public and the key features of the
energy situation in Italy.
Models of the public
The main models of the public recognised so far can be reduced
to a few themata, that is, funda-mental oppositional categories
that generate new situated interpretations as well as norms of
at East Carolina University on April 24,
2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Brondi et al. 3
individual choices and interactions among actors (Markov, 2000).
Probably the two most influen-tial themata are the
deficit-expertise and the hierarchic-egalitarian dichotomies.
The deficit-expertise thema refers to the issue of voice in
public decisions (Huijts et al., 2012). It reveals itself in the
opposition between different models of understanding and
communicating science- and technology-related topics (cf.
Lewenstein, 2003), as well as in the corresponding views of the
public. At one pole, consistent with the deficit model, the public
is a passive consumer or customer that lacks the time, interest or
ability to act (Barnett et al., 2012; Cotton and Devine-Wright,
2012). Therefore, either the public is naturally excluded from
participatory processes, or it must be carefully guided in order to
avoid unexpected problems. At the opposite pole, there is the
expertise model, which stresses the importance of recognising lay
knowledge and values or, at a minimum, the interest and ability of
the public to actively participate in decision-making processes and
mechanisms of engagement.
The hierarchic-egalitarian thema refers to the right to manage
environmental resources and public assets (Gray and Putnam, 2003).
It manifests in the opposition between technicians and laypeople
(cf. Bucchi, 1996). At one pole, there is the minimalist version of
participation, where experts have the task of informing laypeople
and the right to lead communication and decision processes. At the
opposite pole, there is the maximalist version of participation,
where experts and laypeople are involved in dialogical encounter,
each bringing his or her own knowledge and needs, both with the
right to participate and decide (Batel and Castro, 2009). The two
themata are implicitly or explicitly linked to different
environmental policies and planning strategies.
The Decide-Announce-Defend (DAD) planning strategy (Wolsink,
1996) and explanations like Not-In-My-BackYard (NIMBY syndrome)
(Burningham, 2000) can be brought back to the deficit and
hierarchic poles. According to these approaches, the public is
passive and igno-rant. Therefore, it should not be involved in
decision-making processes, and when it partici-pates, it is
motivated by selfishness and irrational beliefs (McClymont and
OHare, 2008; Roccato et al., 2008).
On the contrary, expertise and egalitarian poles are declared
with more and more emphasis on European statements and plans, which
aim to develop a veritable energy citizenship: a view of the public
that emphasizes awareness of responsibility for climate change []
and the potential for (collective) energy actions, including acts
of consumptions and the setting up of community renew-able energy
projects (Devine-Wright, 2007a: 72).
Background scenario on energy sustainability in Italy
Italy is one of the European Union (EU, 2014) Member States with
the highest percentages of energy imports (80.8% in 2012, that is,
133.81 Mtoe), with a strong dependence on fossil fuels
(particularly petroleum and its by-products decreasing and gases
increasing). However, over the past two decades, Italy has
increased production from renewable energy sources (RES)
consider-ably (particularly hydropower and solar/photovoltaic), and
these now represent almost half (18.06 Mtoe) of the nations total
energy production (31.95 Mtoe).
This technological change stems from three levels of governance:
first, the EU level, detailed in Directives and Communications;
second, the national level, detailed in National Action Plans (PAN
- Piano dAzione Nazionale) and National Energy Strategies (SEN -
Strategia Energetica Nazionale); third, the local level, detailed
in Regional Energy and Environment Plans (PEAR - Piano Energetico e
Ambientale Regionale).
The main EU strategy is ascribable to the Climate and Energy
Package, which, in 2009, set targets to be reached by Member States
in order to reduce gas emissions and to reduce the EUs dependence
on imported energy (53.4% in 2012).
at East Carolina University on April 24,
2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
4 Public Understanding of Science
These 20-20-20 targets provided the framework for energy
policies in Italy at the national and local levels. The national
level defines the paths that have to be followed in order to reach
the Italian targets, whereas the local level contributes to
reaching the national targets by allocating quotas among the 20
Italian regions.
In particular, at national level, the success of the incentive
policies for RES makes it realistic for Italy to achieve the EU
target in all the sectors involved (electric, thermal and
transport).
Specifically, until 2011, the attention of incentive policies
has mainly been paid to solar/photo-voltaic or wind technologies,
although this strategy has been criticised since their production
path-way is mainly based on the importation of their components. In
parallel, geothermal and hydropower showed positive advances too.
Bio-energy (biomass, biogas and bio-fuels) has received incentives
more recently for its potential crucial role in the thermal sector
(heating/cooling), still behind the goals. The energy policy
programmes of both the centre-right political coalition, in office
from 2008 to 2011, and the opposing centre-left coalition confirm a
general support for RES. In fact, although neither programme
discussed the details in depth, both parties had many ideas about
renewable energy policy in common: they promoted energy saving, RES
and cogeneration, and focused on energy security and supply by
means of regasification plants. Nuclear power was the only
controversial issue. Rejected in 1987 with a national referendum,
this technology was pro-moted by the centre-right coalition and was
only partially supported by the principal centre-left party, which
favoured investments in fourth-generation research. Nuclear energy
was strongly rejected by the left wing of the centre-left
coalition, which pushed another national referendum forward that
led to the rejection of nuclear power in 2011.
The considerable increase in energy production from RES in
recent years has also played a significant role in the reduction in
gas emissions. In 2012, Italy although this was also because of the
economic crisis was considerably closer to the average emissions
target for the first commit-ment period set by the Kyoto Protocol
(20082012) and went further by subscribing to the Doha Amendment, a
second commitment period with even more ambitious goals.
Moreover, Italian administrations have arranged a series of
actions to promote energy efficiency and to lower consumption.
Italian citizens receive incentives for energy-saving activities
(e.g. ren-ovating buildings) and products (e.g. energy-saving
bulbs, energy performance certificates) and a tax deduction of 55%
for home installation of RES.
The scenario illustrated shows that the 20-20-20 targets and the
Climate and Energy Package can already be put back into discussion
in order to orient policies towards more ambitious aims. At the EU
level, targets have been updated in 2011 both in the Communication
of the European Commission entitled A Roadmap for moving to a
competitive low carbon economy in 2050 and in the Energy Roadmap
2050 (COM 2011 885/2).
Nevertheless, within the Italian energy system, there are still
numerous technical and policy factors that hinder a complete
transition towards energy sustainability: the absence of a
medium-/long-term strategy that would give certainty to investments
in all the sectors involved (electric, thermal, transport, energy
saving and efficiency), the failure of investments in smart grids,
the incomplete liberalisation that does not facilitate the exchange
on-site of every typology of power plant and the lack of the
possibility of direct selling of energy and of creating private
networks. All these components are the object of intense public and
scientific debate.2 Furthermore, the involve-ment of citizens in
the energy decision-making processes that lead to elaborate
national and local energy programming paths (PAN, SEN, PEAR) is
lacking. Strategic impact assessment procedures (VAS - Valutazione
Ambientale Strategica), as well as environmental impact assessment
proce-dures (VIA - Valutazione di Impatto Ambientale), which are
implemented in the energy sector and involve public participation,
require long authorisation processes and are applied only to
large-scale RES plants (>1 MW). On the contrary, small-scale
plants (
-
Brondi et al. 5
authorisation procedures (PAS - Procedura Abilitativa
Semplificata) that do not require citizens involvement. Over the
last few years, as a consequence of these different procedures,
nearly all the new solar/photovoltaic systems, and over half of all
other RES plants, were slightly below the threshold of 1 MW
(Gestore Servizi Energetici (GSE), 2012). A positive element
although it is not mandatory is the frequent consultation with
stakeholders during the elaboration of planning documents. However,
this involvement has not been always translated into a process of
public debate that engages citizens and local communities.
Moreover, the progressive mandate to local authorities has led
to a considerable fragmentation of the regulatory framework. The
two tools available to local authorities in order to involve
citizens in the development of energy scenarios are the Local
Agenda 21 and the Covenant of Mayors. While the former, although
starting from excellent premises, has been much criticised in the
last decade, the second is an example of a success in achieving the
20-20-20 targets locally. At present, it represents a valuable tool
in the hands of local governments. This is particularly true for
Italy, the country with the highest number of signatories.
2. Aims
This article aims to explore how Italian policy makers and
stakeholders have socially constructed the public and its
relationship with sustainable energy policies in recent years.
In particular, we look at three elements of sustainable energy:
representations of energy, energy governance and the energy public.
These three elements (cf. Stern and Aronson, 1984) can be defined
separately; however, they cannot be understood independently from
each other. Mutual relations among these three elements were thus
examined in order to explore whether and how they were oriented by
expertise and egalitarian views or by deficit and hierarchic views,
which foster or hinder the development of a proper energy
citizenship, respectively.
Changes and stabilities in the representations were also
explored across time (Bauer and Gaskell, 1999, 2008), as well as
differences and similarities among the contents shared by different
social actors.
3. Method
The study envisaged the use of archival materials extracted from
Italian parliamentary debates. Materials were searched by means of
the public online archive of the Chamber of Deputies
(http://www.camera.it/), where verbatim reports of the sittings and
official documents are available. Texts of the parliamentary
debates were collected by selecting as search criteria the Italian
keywords energ* and sostenibil* [sustainab*]3 across the period
between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2012. The year 2009 was
chosen as the starting point because of the EU Climate and Energy
Package, with its 20-20-20 targets, and especially the Renewable
Energy Directive 2009/28/EC, signed by the European Parliament and
the Council, which defined the Italian framework with regard to
energy policies. The year 2012 was a crucial year for the Kyoto
Protocol, and, for this reason, it represents an important moment
of analysis and evaluation for Italy and for the entire world.4
Specifically, the study focused on the scrutiny function (i.e.
policy setting, scrutiny of the governments activities and
fact-finding investigation) whereby discussions and negotiations
take place; the legislative function, that is the formal
construction of laws, was excluded. Then, the research team
manually screened texts, selecting all the texts deemed relevant
for the topic under study. Specifically, texts in which the use of
energ* and sustainab* was not related to energy sus-tainability
(i.e. texts with sentences such as we will put all our energy into
this initiative or we have to think about the economic
sustainability of this intervention) were excluded from subse-quent
analysis. The definitive corpus includes n = 90 discussions among
policy makers (i.e. policy
at East Carolina University on April 24,
2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
6 Public Understanding of Science
setting and scrutiny reports) and n = 53 consultations with
stakeholders (i.e. fact-finding investiga-tion reports) (e.g.
private companies energy producers, electric utility companies,
electricity transmission system operators trade and industry
associations, regulatory authorities, environ-mental groups,
members of government consulted as key informants5).
Data were investigated adopting both qualitative and
quantitative content analyses with the aid of the software NVivo
(cf. http://www.qsrinternational.com/) and argumentation
analysis.
The sentence was chosen as a unit of analysis. Two independent
judges carried out the coding procedure, and its reliability and
heuristic capacity were enhanced discussing all the categories with
the research team until reaching consensus.
The coding process was mainly guided by the contribution of
Devine-Wright (2007a) on studying energy issues (cf. also Stern and
Aronson, 1984). Codes derived from the literature were as follows:
energy as commodity (i.e. an asset subjected to the laws of market,
supply and demand), ecological resource (i.e. a natural resource
extracted, used and/or to be saved), social necessity (i.e. a
response to universal needs in terms of justice, equity,
availability and rights) or strategic material (i.e. a tool for
economic stability and the geopolitical security of a nation);
centralised (i.e. a top-down and hierarchical management of energy
systems) or decentralised governance (i.e. a bottom-up and
collaborative management of energy systems); and public as consumer
(i.e. passive and only interested in the fulfilment of its own
consumption needs), hav-ing or not having access to energy (i.e.
described in terms of the ability to gain or not gain access to the
energy market and/or to energy supply), environmentally concerned
(i.e. concerned about environmental impact and exploitation of
resources, yet passive) or energy citizen (i.e. socially aware and
committed, engaged in the process of decision-making and active in
the everyday practice of energy production, saving or efficiency)
(see Brondi et al., 2014; Sarrica et al., 2014 for a detailed
description of codes).
Finally, an argumentation analysis (cf. Liakopoulos, 2000) was
conducted to identify by describing the relationships between codes
emerging from content analysis similarities and dif-ferences among
the argumentative patterns of the debates. According to Liakopoulos
(2000), argu-mentation analysis can
be conceptualized as a form of content analysis. Both analyses
try to reduce large amounts of material by capturing certain
important aspects of the texts [] [Argumentation analysis] is a
realistic depiction of an argumentation structure deriving from a
large amount of text. Such depiction allows for the description of
category relations. (pp. 167168)
Mutual relationships among the representations of energy,
governance and public were exam-ined for each text individually,
and the prevailing relationships were examined qualitatively.
Consistent or inconsistent relationships among representations, the
evolution of argumentations during the debates, their sequence and
their stability and change were thus examined.
Similarities and differences among the argumentative patterns
proposed by the actors involved in the parliamentary debates were
also explored. The political orientations of policy makers, as well
as stakeholders specificities, were taken into account, in order to
identify shared patterns based on internal memberships and
belongings. Surprisingly, these factors had only a weak effect on
the debates. Concerning policy makers, the centre-right (in office
until November 2011) and the centre-left (the opposition) political
coalitions actually share the same patterns. Some differences
emerged when considering the specific parties, and these will be
discussed in the Results section. Concerning stakeholders,
differences were noted between environmental groups and other
stake-holders (private companies, trade and industry associations,
regulatory authorities). For this rea-son, these two groups will be
presented separately in the Results section.
at East Carolina University on April 24,
2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Brondi et al. 7
4. Results
Sustainable energy: Representations of energy, governance and
public
In Italian parliamentary debates on energy sustainability,
energy is mostly represented as a strate-gic material for national
growth in times of global crisis and for independence from
geopolitical turbulence, or secondarily as an economic commodity
(Table 1). Both of these principal repre-sentations remain almost
stable over time, with a slight inversion during 2010. Although
less fre-quently, a focus on depletion of energy-related ecological
resources is also present, whereas very little attention is devoted
to energy as a social necessity.
Both centralised and decentralised governances are present;
however, the former is cited almost twice as often as the latter
(Table 1). Centralised governance is always prevalent in the years
analysed, although a significant increase in interest towards
decentralised governance is observed in 2012.
The public is mainly viewed in relation to access issues, or
secondarily as passive consumers (Table 1). The view of the public
as energy citizens is also present, although with lower
frequen-cies, whereas the acknowledgement of an environmentally
concerned public is almost absent. The trend of these views of the
public changes over time: if in 2009, 2010 and 2012 the prevalent
view is strongly associated with access issues, in 2011
concurrently with the national referendum against nuclear power the
focus temporarily moves towards a more active and engaged idea of
the public.
Figure 1 summarises the three main representations of energy,
governance and public, and shows the emerging differences among
various social actors.
Considering discussions among policy makers, the speeches on
sustainable energy are polar-ised: results show that politicians
mainly represent energy as a strategic material, cite a centralised
governance and view the public in relation to access issues. In
particular with the exception of the non-political members of the
Monti caretaker government, who mainly represent energy as a
commodity all parties propose a representation of energy as a
strategic material. Similarly, the Members of Parliament (MPs) of
all political orientations favour centralised governance. Moreover,
only the members of the party that promoted the national referendum
rejecting nuclear power differ from the prevalent view of the
public, favouring contents on energy citizenship. Looking at
the
Table 1. Representations of energy, governance and public by
social actors (number and percentage of coding references).
Policy makers
Stakeholders other
Stakeholders environmental groups
Total
Energy Commodity 317 (24.4%) 330 (49.2%) 10 (14.5%) 657 (32.2%)
Ecological resource 333 (25.6%) 73 (10.9%) 30 (43.5%) 436 (21.4%)
Social necessity 117 (9.0%) 53 (7.9%) 9 (13.0%) 179 (8.8%)
Strategic material 533 (41.0%) 215 (32.0%) 20 (29.0%) 768
(37.6%)Governance Centralised 556 (68.6%) 201 (52.9%) 98 (81.7%)
855 (65.3%) Decentralised 254 (31.4%) 179 (47.1%) 22 (18.3%) 455
(34.7%)Public Consumer 76 (13.9%) 162 (42.9%) 10 (27.0%) 248
(25.8%) Access 292 (53.6%) 166 (43.9%) 7 (18.9%) 465 (48.4%) Energy
citizen 164 (30.1%) 41 (10.8%) 17 (46.0%) 222 (23.1%)
Environmentally concerned 13 (2.4%) 9 (2.4%) 3 (8.1%) 25 (2.6%)
at East Carolina University on April 24,
2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
8 Public Understanding of Science
stakeholders, this general idea of sustainable energy is even
more unbalanced towards a representa-tion of energy as a commodity
and a view of the public as related to access issues, but with a
lower attention to a centralised governance. Nevertheless,
significant differences among various stake-holders should be
noted: environmental groups widely favour argumentations about
centralised governance, but they oppose to this scenario a
representation of energy as an ecological resource, and a view of
the public as energy citizens.
Sustainable energy: Argumentative short-circuits
The results emerging from argumentation analysis show some
recurring patterns in the analysed texts. The argumentations do not
develop along linear sequences; on the contrary, these patterns are
built around a circular structure, in which the use of some
argumentations acts as a pretext some-times even inconsistently to
justify the return of some key issues in the debate. In this
regard, we have chosen to define these circular relationships as
circuits or when they show inconsistent mutual relationships
short-circuits.
Stakeholders share two similar, consistent and traditional
patterns of argumentation on sustain-able energy and its management
(Figure 2, top). Specifically, the first pattern includes a public
viewed in relation to access issues, associated with a
representation of energy as a commodity and secondarily as a
strategic material and with a centralised governance. The second
pattern differs to the first one only in the view of the public,
described here as passive consumers. The differing view of the
public in these two patterns could be interpreted by considering
the spread of
Figure 1. Representations of energy, governance and public by
social actors.
at East Carolina University on April 24,
2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Brondi et al. 9
the economic crisis in recent years: from mere consumers, the
public becomes more and more an issue to be dealt with as the
economic crisis worsens.
Argumentations proposed by stakeholders are thus based on the
idea that energy is a matter of economic interest. They use a
largely techno-scientific language, but seem to interact with
policy makers by means of frequent references to energy represented
in terms of national and strategic interests.
Figure 2. Argumentative patterns (circuits and short-circuits)
according to different social actors.
at East Carolina University on April 24,
2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
10 Public Understanding of Science
Moreover, they find a meeting point with the politicians by
proposing a strongly centralised modality of energy governance as
well as a view of the public as lacking knowledge, capacities or
interest in such difficult issues. They refer particularly to
second-generation technologies, above all solar/photovoltaic:
We must establish all the decrees in good time to ensure
continuity and certain rules for the achievement of the PAN
objectives with incentives that will ensure the development of the
sector, but that are also economically viable for the bill of the
Italians [] The EU objectives will eventually have a cost for those
who consume electricity, and so for customers [] I believe that the
work you are doing right now goes in this direction, that is to
make sure that this cost is as low as possible, but we cant imagine
that these objectives can be achieved without impacting on Italians
pockets. (Enel Spa)
From a strictly economic point of view, the financing of
renewable energy sources is done by citizens, but produces a net
revenue for the State: the costs are charged to the energy bill,
while the benefits, which are of a fiscal nature, are on the State
budget. (Federutility)
The draft of the legislative decree in question in its present
formulation introduces exciting progress towards the realization in
Italy of energy, natural gas and electricity markets which are even
more competitive, more open to the benefit of consumers, more
transparent and non-discriminatory in their criteria such as access
to networks and transaction information and more integrated into
the European market framework, while respecting the needs of supply
security, operation of energy systems and protection of the users
of such systems, customers and, in particular, the so-called
vulnerable consumers. (Autorit per lEnergia Elettrica e il Gas
Authority for Electricity and Gas)
These patterns are coherent with hierarchic views, in which
authorities should regulate the exploitation of resources and
experts should control energy production. Both argumentative
pat-terns could also be ascribable to the approach of hard energy
paths (Lovins, 1977), characterised by centralised, top-down
governance and by the presence of large-scale production sites
distant from the places of energy consumption. Into this classical
approach stakeholders insert renewable sources in the place of
fossil fuels, implicitly showing a technological substitution and
not a radi-cal reconfiguration of the system (Geels and Schot,
2007).
Members of environmental groups share a different, but coherent
argumentative pattern (Figure 2, middle). They view the public as
energy citizens, associated with energy as an ecological resource
and secondarily as a strategic material and in contrast with
centralised governance.
Argumentations proposed by environmental groups are thus based
on the representation of energy as a precious resource that, on the
one hand, should be saved and preserved for the future of the
planet and, on the other hand, should be produced through
renewables in order to contribute to the reduction of CO2 emissions
and climate change. In this argumentation, the acknowledge-ment of
the strategic functions provided by sustainable energy is a
rhetoric introduced in order to dialogue with policy makers.
Wind and also solar/photovoltaic and biomass technologies fuel
the most controversial discus-sions: the first one for the impact
of the turbines on landscapes and the last two for their
competi-tion with agriculture:
We are against the vast football fields of accumulator
batteries, which would be used to store solar energy and then
return it at night [] With regard to wind power, Italy is a country
that has magnificent landscapes and I cant figure out which tourist
country would accept those turbines that disfigure the territory.
(Fare Ambiente Making Environment)
at East Carolina University on April 24,
2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Brondi et al. 11
Their argumentations show a strong opposition to a centralised
modality of energy governance. Moreover, they give value to lay
knowledge and propose a view of the public as active, fostering the
development of a proper energy citizenship:
I think that the cost-benefit analysis is also a participatory
and democratic view, which obviates the need to find an
accumulation of rules and constraints on our territory, on our
landscape [] in the cost-benefit analysis it is necessary to
recognize what the preferences of the citizens in economic terms on
environmental protection are. (Amici della Terra Friends of the
Earth)
This argumentative pattern is coherent with egalitarian views,
in which laypeople and experts are equally responsible for the
fragile equilibrium between human beings and nature and are asked
to act personally in order to avoid the depletion of resources.
This pattern could also be ascribable to soft energy paths (Lovins,
1977), which are characterised by efficient energy consumption,
large use of renewables and a more gentle impact on the environment
and communities. However, the pattern proposed by environmental
groups diverges from this classical approach in its numerous
references to centralised governance instead of small-scale
production sites close to users and decentralised, bottom-up
governance. It seems as if the soft path was defined in negative,
in opposition to the cur-rent reality, as a quest for a radical
re-alignment of the system (Geels and Schot, 2007).
Finally, the discussions among policy makers present more varied
and fragmented structures. However, it is possible to identify two
main argumentative patters, both inconsistent (Figure 2, bottom).
The first pattern defines energy as a strategic material and
secondarily as an ecological resource coupled with decentralised
governance, but the public is viewed in terms of (lack of)
capability of gaining access to the energy market or energy supply.
The second pattern also shares the idea that energy is a strategic
material and secondarily an ecological resource; however, this view
is coupled with centralised governance and with views of the public
as energy citizens. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that this view
of the public frequently has a more or less explicitly negative
connotation. Politicians describe energy citizenship more as an
obstacle to top-down policy-making processes on energy policies
than as a fruitful opportunity.
According to policy makers, energy is thus above all a matter of
national interest; however, their argumentations are also grounded
in rhetoric about energy as an ecological resource that should be
preserved, especially when they frame their discussions within the
broader European context.
Different modalities of governance assume a central role in
constructing the view of the public, which remains, however, always
deficient (in agency or in consciousness).
In the first pattern, the public lacks agency when even if it is
aware and sensitive it cannot gain complete access to energy supply
(because of prices being too high) or to the energy market (because
of constraints due to the inefficiency of the bureaucratic
machine). It is especially the case with second-generation
technologies above all solar/photovoltaic:
The continuing absence of decrees is penalizing all the
small-size renewable energy plants [] As a result of this delay
many small producers are not able to initiate new investment
programs that would develop the market and technological potential
of these sources, with negative consequences in industrial and
employment terms. (Interrogation Lib)
We thank the government because it has also agreed to provide
incentives for farmers who decide to use the energy produced from
biomass for their own consumption [] Moreover, the savings on
energy bills for imports of natural gas could amount to about 1.5-2
billion euro per year in current prices; by doing so, we could
maintain the levels of domestic supply of natural gas even in the
presence of the decline in the production of our deposits.
(Servodio et al. Motions)
at East Carolina University on April 24,
2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
12 Public Understanding of Science
In the second pattern, the public lacks consciousness in the
negative representation of the energy citizen, that is, when
individuals enact oppositional behaviours against centralised
decisions despite not being sufficiently informed. In this case,
the attention to the technologies does not focus exclusively on
(controversial) nuclear power, but also on all the renewable
sources, both new and traditional:
The mere announcement by the government has caused fear and
anxiety in the population [] We believe that this dialogue is
fundamental to preparing the country for and to sharing with it the
new energy challenges [] The information and a shared
decision-making process will broadly contribute to creating a
climate of collaboration, so that energy policies can be
implemented in territories and communities. The condition of energy
dependence of our country is so strong as to prevent any further
hesitation and requires beginning in a shared manner, because it
cant happen that while experts say that we are ready instead the
country is not. (Mosella Interpellation)
Both these argumentative patterns try to reconcile the two
alternative energy paths proposed by Lovins (1977) and end up as
unstable transformations of the representation of the system. These
argumentative inconsistencies, which we have called short-circuits,
serve, in any case, to re-affirm the centring of policy makers in
an up-to-date version of the hard path. Policy makers have
competence and agency and are thus entitled to ensure the provision
of strategic resources to Italy and to preserve the ecological
balance despite the lack of capability and consciousness of the
citi-zens faced, respectively, with opportunities for
decentralisation or with centralised decisions.
5. Conclusion
This article has examined the views of the public in relation to
energy sustainability issues pro-posed by Italian policy makers and
stakeholders during parliamentary debates in recent years
(20092012).
The publics views affect regulatory governance (Sovacool, 2014)
and are implemented in the models of engagement proposed by
authorities and stakeholders (Bauer, 2014). Furthermore, people can
internalise such views, which can then become veritable
self-representations that guide the way citizens perceive
themselves and their role in decision-making processes (Barnett et
al., 2012; Cotton and Devine-Wright, 2012). For these reasons, a
deficient view of the public along with a centralised modality of
governance based on questionable technological choices could
represent a significant obstacle affecting the construction of a
proper energy citizenship.
Results show that policy makers and stakeholders have socially
constructed the issue of sustain-able energy trying to accommodate
sustainability and the use of RES to the traditional approach to
energy management ascribable to the hard paths (Lovins, 1977). This
is characterised by a central-ised, top-down governance regulated
by authorities and by the presence of few, large-scale produc-tion
sites, distant from the sites of energy consumption, controlled by
experts. Energy is thus represented in terms of national and
economic interests and the public is viewed as lacking aware-ness
or capabilities for dealing with and interesting themselves in such
difficult issues.
The public is thus viewed as lacking consciousness and/or
agency, yielding four main models (Figure 3): first, as a consumer
and/or customer who is neither sufficiently informed and concerned
about energy sustainability nor involved in the first person in
such issues; second, as a person who even if aware of energy
sustainability cannot gain access to the energy market and/or
energy supply; third, as an environmentally concerned person who
does not, however, put such values into practice; and fourth, as a
person who even if poorly or wrongly informed and concerned
about
at East Carolina University on April 24,
2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Brondi et al. 13
energy sustainability acts by hindering and/or slowing down the
successful implementation of centralised energy policies.
The results are in line with the scientific literature on the
deficit model. However, different kinds of deficient views were
identified, which can also be interpreted by considering other
models of understanding and communicating science- and
technology-related topics (cf. Lewenstein, 2003), thus introducing
some glimmers of hope. Further studies are therefore needed to
better understand whether these various deficient views lead to
different policies.
Indeed, a form of understanding seems to be acknowledged in the
representation of the energy public, which is viewed as having
awareness and sensitivity, but lacking agency (i.e. access views).
This view of the public focuses on structural constraints (e.g.
bureaucracy and costs) and on the quality of the information
provided to citizens. This approach is coherent with the contextual
model, which recognises the presence of social forces together with
the ability of social systems and media representations to either
dampen or amplify public concern about specific issues (Brossard
and Lewenstein, 2010: 14). Nevertheless, this is an
individu-alistic approach that thrives on delivering information
more than it does on actual public engagement. In this regard,
Barnett et al. (2012) stated that a public that is socially
constructed in relation to matters of concern and thus limited in
its actions rather than as poor in knowl-edge invites interactions
framed in terms of expert reassurance rather than mutual exchange
and engagement [] (p. 47). Moreover, it cannot be excluded that the
acquisition of agency may also lead to a change in representation
towards an anti-scientific and obstructionist idea of the public
(Owens, 2000), which moves towards what we call a negative view of
the energy citizen.
It is also worth noting that all the social actors involved in
the parliamentary debates share this prevailing representation of
sustainable energy with only minimal differences among them.
Two notable exceptions emerge from our data. Environmental
groups, which strongly contest this model, and discussions held in
2011, at the same time as the national referendum rejecting nuclear
power, move the focus towards public participation/engagement
models (cf. Lewenstein, 2003). These exceptions signal the
political efficacy of models that thrive at actively engaging
citi-zens (Brossard and Lewenstein, 2010); however, these models
still challenge the deficit and hier-archical views, which prevail
in the political discourse in Italy.
Figure 3. Deficient views of the public in Italian parliamentary
debates.
at East Carolina University on April 24,
2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
14 Public Understanding of Science
In the attempt to force energy sustainability into the space
defined by deficit and hierarchical poles of the two themata
considered, the representations of energy, governance and public
pro-posed by policy makers are often in inconsistent mutual
relationships. Policy makers introduce veritable short-circuits in
their argumentations that preclude public engagement and hinder the
development of a proper energy citizenship. Short-circuits
constrain individual and community actions to accept or refuse
top-down decisions and leave little room for community empowerment
and bottom-up innovation. The argumentative short-circuits seem to
be aimed at preserving pol-icy makers power and control as against
more distributed and collaborative models of manage-ment of energy
issues. On the one hand, they might be interpreted as an attempt to
integrate conflicting models of sustainable energy in a new
emerging one. On the other hand, inconsistent relationships among
vertices might be considered a form of resistance to the on-going
changes required by other levels of governance (i.e. European and
local levels). In both cases, the views of the public proposed by
Italian policy makers are far from the ideal concept of energy
citizenship and map to the deficit and hierarchic poles of the two
fundamental themata considered.
The results also highlight the prevalence of a techno-centric
perspective with regard to the per-ceived relationships between
governance and the public. On the one hand, when a decentralised
modality of governance prevails in speeches, second-generation
technologies especially solar/photovoltaic panels are accused of
being difficult to access because they are overly expensive or
because of the constraints due to the inefficiency of the
bureaucratic machine in providing the economic incentives. On the
other hand, when a centralised modality of governance prevails,
renewable technologies (both first- and second-generation), as well
as nuclear power, are expected to elicit oppositional behaviours by
citizens.
To conclude, the picture drawn by this study shows a national
context taking its first steps along the pathway towards full
energy sustainability. We cannot exclude that transformations might
be observed in the future (Mulkay, 1994) but, at present, the study
suggests the necessity of fostering a change in the political
debate in order to construct policies that are substantially more
inclusive and participatory. In this regard, it should be noted
that we focused on official transcripts and docu-ments concerning
the scrutiny function: we cannot exclude that this focus favoured
hierarchic rhetoric based on facts, science and rationality,
whereas more informal and local contexts may favour the emergence
of participatory rhetoric and values.
In conclusion, our results suggest some preliminary
recommendations that will allow Italian sustainable energy pathways
to fully engage in participatory processes. Local initiatives such
as the Covenant of Mayors, which currently bypass the national
level in order to access the European one, could be brought to the
centre of the national debate. These initiatives acknowledge lay
expertise, and the public, although often involved through invited
engagement processes, is committed to developing community
empowerment and energy citizenship. These initiatives are based on
demo-cratic and participatory views of public, energy and energy
systems, and their inclusion in the national debate could foster
effectiveness and efficiency in energy strategies and action
plans.
At the same time, in order to overcome the deficit model,
engagement education for younger generations becomes crucial.
Projects and initiatives in schools have been proposed recently
(e.g. the Italian Ministry for the Environment has drafted
guidelines that would make environmental education a compulsory
school subject as soon as the 20152016 school year). We support
this choice; however, our data suggest that the mere raising of
awareness could lead again to the construction of conscious
citizens that lack agency. On the contrary, thinking about young
citizens should encourage both traditional and innovative forms of
(invited and uninvited) engagement (Wynne, 2007) and promote future
positive views of public.
In order to provide transnational recommendations, further
investigation is necessary to better understand whether this
general tendency of representing the public as deficient assumes
specific
at East Carolina University on April 24,
2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Brondi et al. 15
characteristics in Italy or can be reasonably extended to other
European and non-European coun-tries with comparable features. Some
examples could be countries that are implementing similar energy
pathways (e.g. other leaders in RES production such as Germany,
Sweden and Spain), countries that have similar energy profiles
(e.g. a similar energy palette, a similar fossil fuel dependency or
a similar quota of energy imports, such as Ireland, Luxembourg,
Cyprus and Malta) or countries that are geographically and
culturally near (e.g. countries in the Mediterranean region that
share similar histories of scientific culture with Italy; cf. Greco
(2004) for a preliminary pro-posal of a Mediterranean model of
science communication).
Declaration of conflicting interests
With regard to Alessandro Caramis, the contribution expresses
solely the point of view of the author and does not reflect the
official position of his institution (ISTAT).
Funding
This research was supported by the Basic Research Investment
Fund 2010 of the Italian Ministry for Education, University and
Research (Programma Futuro in Ricerca 2010) project ACCESI
(RBFR10886R).
Notes
1.
http://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/index.cfm?pg=policy&lib=engagement2.
http://www.encharter.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Energy_policies_and_legislation/Italy_2013_
National_Energy_Strategy_ENG.pdf3. Keywords were selected in
order to be as inclusive as possible. Taking the texts of the
relevant legislation
as a guideline and through subsequent attempts (e.g.
electricity, renewables), we chose the two keywords that produced
the broadest corpus of texts. In this regard, it should be noted
that in formal Italian, the word energy is mostly associated with
other words (e.g. energia elettrica for electricity and energie
rinnovabili for renewables). Nevertheless, we cannot exclude the
possibility that some debates address-ing energy issues more
peripherally were not considered, due to the selected search
criteria.
4. We did not extend the study to the years following 2012
because the end of that year (and most of the following year)
corresponded to a period of great political instability in Italy,
leading to the resignation of the Prime Minister, the collapse of
the Monti government, the dissolution of parliament, early
elections, the emergence of a new parliamentary arrangement based
on delicate balances and consequentially lead-ing to several months
of legislative inaction.
5. Since contents of consultations with members of government
can be assimilated to those of discussions among policy makers,
results will be presented and discussed together.
References
Barnett J, Burningham K, Walker G and Cass N (2012) Imagined
publics and engagement around renewable energy technologies in the
UK. Public Understanding of Science 21(1): 3650.
Batel S and Castro P (2009) A social representations approach to
the communication between differ-ent spheres: An analysis of the
impacts of two discursive formats. Journal for the Theory of Social
Behaviour 39(4): 415433.
Batel S and Devine-Wright P (2014) Towards a better
understanding of peoples responses to renewable energy
technologies: Insights from social representations theory. Public
Understanding of Science. Epub ahead of print 20 January 2014. DOI:
10.1177/0963662513514165.
Bauer MW (ed.) (2014) Public engagement in science (Special
Issue). Public Understanding of Science 23(1): 3120.
Bauer MW and Gaskell G (1999) Towards a paradigm for research on
social representations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour
29(2): 163186.
Bauer MW and Gaskell G (2008) Social representations theory: A
progressive research programme for social psychology. Journal for
the Theory of Social Behaviour 38(4): 335353.
at East Carolina University on April 24,
2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
16 Public Understanding of Science
Brondi S, Armenti A, Cottone P, Mazzara BM and Sarrica M (2014)
Parliamentary and press discourses on sustainable energy in Italy:
No more hard paths, not yet soft paths. Energy Research &
Social Science 2: 3848.
Brossard D and Lewenstein BV (2010) A critical appraisal of
models of public understanding of science: Using practice to inform
theory. In: Kahlor L and Stout PA (eds) Communicating Science: New
Agendas in Communication. New York, NY: Routledge, pp.1139.
Bucchi M (1996) When scientists turn to the public: Alternative
routes in science communication. Public Understanding of Science
5(4): 375394.
Burningham K (2000) Using the language of NIMBY: A topic for
research, not an activity for researchers. Local Environment 5(1):
5567.
Burningham K, Barnett J, Carr A, Clift R and Wehrmeyer W (2007)
Industrial constructions of publics and public knowledge: A
qualitative investigation of practice in the UK chemicals industry.
Public Understanding of Science 16(1): 2343.
Cotton M and Devine-Wright P (2012) Making electricity networks
visible: Industry actor representations of publics and public
engagement in infrastructure planning. Public Understanding of
Science 21(1): 1735.
Devine-Wright P (2007a) Energy citizenship: Psychological
aspects of evolution in sustainable energy tech-nologies. In:
Murphy J (ed.) Governing Technology for Sustainability. London:
Earthscan, pp. 6386.
Devine-Wright P (2007b) Reconsidering public attitudes and
public acceptance of renewable energy tech-nologies: A critical
review. Available at:
http://geography.exeter.ac.uk/beyond_nimbyism/deliverables/bn_wp1_4.pdf
Devine-Wright P (ed.) (2011) Renewable Energy and the Public:
From NIMBY to Participation. London: Eartscan.
European Union (EU) (2014) EU Energy in Figures: Statistical
Pocketbook 2014. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European
Union.
Fouquet R and Pearson PJG (2012) Past and prospective energy
transitions: Insights from history. Energy Policy 50: 17.
Geels FW and Schot J (2007) Typology of sociotechnical
transition pathways. Research Policy 36(3): 399417.
Gray B and Putnam LL (2003) Management frames. Environmental
Practice 5(3): 239246.Greco P (2004) Towards a Mediterranean model
of science communication. Journal of Science
Communication 3(3): 15.Gestore Servizi Energetici (GSE) (2012)
Rapporto Statistico 2012: Impianti a Fonti Rinnovabili [2012
Statistics
Report: Renewables Power Plants]. Available at:
http://www.gse.it/it/Statistiche/RapportiStatistici/Pagine/default.aspx
Huijts N, Molin E and Steg L (2012) Psychological factors
influencing sustainable energy technology accept-ance: A
review-based comprehensive framework. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 16(1): 525531.
Intelligent Energy Executive Agency (IEEA) (2006) Sustainable
Energy Communities: 8 Innovative Projects for an Energy-Intelligent
Europe. Available at: http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/sustainable-
energy-communities-pbEA7707143/downloads/EA-77-07-143-EN-C/EA7707143ENC_002.pdf?FileName=EA7707143ENC_002.pdf&SKU=EA7707143ENC_PDF&CatalogueNumber=EA-77-07-143-EN-C
Irwin A (2014) From deficit to democracy (re-visited). Public
Understanding of Science 23(1): 7176.Irwin A and Wynne B (1996)
Misunderstanding Science: The Public Reconstruction of Science
and
Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Jasanoff S
(2014) A mirror for science. Public Understanding of Science 23(1):
2126.Lewenstein BV (2003) Models of Public Communication of Science
& Technology. Ithaca, NY: Departments
of Communication and of Science & Technology Studies,
Cornell University.Liakopoulos M (2000) Argumentation analysis. In:
Bauer MW and Gaskell G (eds) Qualitative Researching
with Text, Image, and Sound: A Practical Handbook for Social
Research. London: SAGE, pp.152171.Lovins AB (1977) Soft Energy
Paths: Toward a Durable Peace. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
at East Carolina University on April 24,
2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Brondi et al. 17
McClymont K and OHare P (2008) Were not NIMBYs! Contrasting
local protest groups with idealised conceptions of sustainable
communities. Local Environment 13(4): 321335.
Maranta A, Guggenheim M, Gisler P and Pohl C (2003) The reality
of experts and the imagined lay person. Acta Sociologica 46(2):
150165.
Markov I (2000) Amde or how to get rid of it: Social
representations from a dialogical perspective. Culture &
Psychology 6(4): 419460.
Mulkay M (1994) Changing minds about embryo research. Public
Understanding of Science 3(2): 195213.Owens S (2000) Engaging the
public: Information and deliberation in environmental policy.
Environment
and Planning A 32(7): 11411148.Owens S and Driffill L (2008) How
to change attitudes and behaviours in the context of energy. Energy
Policy
36(12): 44124418.Roccato M, Rovere A and Bo G (2008) Interessi
generali e interessi particolari [General Interests and
Specific
Interests]. In: Fedi A and Mannarini T (eds) Oltre il Nimby: La
Dimensione Psicologico-Sociale della Protesta contro le Opere
Sgradite [Beyond NIMBY: The Psychosocial Dimension of the
Opposition against Unwanted Infrastructures]. Milano: Angeli, pp.
4366.
Sarrica M, Brondi S and Cottone P (2014) Italian views on
sustainable energy: Trends in the representations of energy, energy
system, and user, 20092011. Nature and Culture 9(2): 122145.
Saurugger S (2010) The social construction of the participatory
turn: The emergence of a norm in the European Union. European
Journal of Political Research 49(4): 471495.
Sovacool BK (2014) What are we doing here? Analyzing fifteen
years of energy scholarship and proposing a social science research
agenda. Energy Research & Social Science 1: 129.
Stern PC and Aronson E (eds) (1984) Energy Use: The Human
Dimension. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Stilgoe J, Lock SJ and Wilsdon J (2014) Why should we promote
public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science
23(1): 415.
Wolsink M (1996) Dutch wind power policy: Stagnating
implementation of renewables. Energy Policy 24(12): 10791088.
Wynne B (2007) Public participation in science and technology:
Performing and obscuring a politicalcon-ceptual category mistake.
East Asian Science, Technology and Society 1(1): 99110.
Wynne B (2014) Further disorientation in the hall of mirrors.
Public Understanding of Science 23(1): 6070.
Author biographies
Sonia Brondi, PhD in Social Sciences (University of Padua), is
postdoc and researcher within the ACCESI project. Her main
interests include environmental changes from a socio-constructivist
perspective, with a focus on identity processes and social
participation.
Mauro Sarrica, PhD, is adjunct professor of Social Psychology
and Communication Psychology. He is prin-cipal investigator of the
ACCESI project. His main interests are in the social construction
of knowledge, the stability and change of social beliefs, and peace
psychology.
Alessandro Caramis is an environmental and land use sociologist.
He carried out research on environmental conflicts and
environmental communication at Sapienza University of Rome, and
since 2013, he is a researcher for the National Institute of
Statistics.
Chiara Piccolo, graduated in Psychology, is PhD student in
Social Sciences: Interactions, Communication, and Cultural
Constructions. Her research interests include social
representations, welfare, social policy and social changes.
Bruno M. Mazzara is full professor of Social Psychology and
Consumer Psychology. His main interests are in cultural psychology,
social representations and mass media, environmental psychology and
consumer behaviour.
at East Carolina University on April 24,
2015pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from