Advertisement

Design features for social learning in transformative transdisciplinary research

  • Pauline Herrero
  • Tom DedeurwaerdereEmail author
  • Agathe Osinski
Original Article
  • 164 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Concepts, Methodology, and Knowledge Management for Sustainability Science

Abstract

This article analyses social learning in transdisciplinary research processes by a systematic comparative analysis of 20 completed or nearly completed projects in the field of sustainable development. This article considers the social learning generated by transdisciplinary processes in a broad way. It looks how social learning is embedded in the practical interaction processes between new scientific knowledge, practitioners’ life-world experiences and social experimentation. The analysis finds that three factors in particular play an important role in social learning: the clarification of the normative orientations, the co-construction of the research question and practical problem situation, and the balancing of power asymmetries. While a single criterion may not allow increasing social learning alone, the analysis supports the hypothesis that a combination of these three criteria systematically increases the strength of the social learning generated. Other factors, such as active facilitation modes and the presence of collective interest advocacy organizations, only play a strong role as a condition for generating social learning in some specific types of transdisciplinary research.

Keywords

Transdisciplinarity Transformative research Social learning Sustainability transitions Facilitation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to gratefully thanking the anonymous researchers whom we have interviewed for their time and for sharing details on projects that they have been involved in. We also would like to thank Charlotte Bréda, Dorothée Denayer, Francois Mélard and Pierre Stassart from the University of Liège for the discussions on the research protocol and their comments on the article. We further thank Marc Maesschalck and Jacques Lenoble for discussions at the Centre for Philosophy of Law (UCLouvain) on earlier versions of the theoretical framework on pragmatist reflexivity. We gratefully acknowledge co-funding from the Walloon Institute for Sustainable Development (WISD, Belgian National Science Foundation FNRS-FRS) in the context of the two projects “Science écocitoyenne-territoire durable” and “Formative scenarios for sustainability”, and co-funding from INNOVIRIS-Anticipate (Brussels Region, Belgium) in the context of the project “Collaborative cities for collaborative entrepreneurs (city4coEN)”. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.

Funding

This study was co-funded by INNOVIRIS-Anticipate (2016-PRFB-22a, project city4coEN) and two FNRS-FRS projects (WISD 2017 “Formative scenarios for sustainability” and WISD 2017 “Science écocitoyenne-territoire durable”).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Augenstein K, Haake H, Palzkill A, Schneidewind U, Singer-Brodowski M, Stelzer F, Wanner M (2016) Von der Stadt zum urbanen Reallabor—eine Einführung am Beispiel des Reallabors Wuppertal. In: Hahne U, Kegler H (ed) Resilienz: Stadt und Region—Reallabore der resilienzorientierten Transformation, Lang P Frankfurt 1:167–195Google Scholar
  2. Barnaud C (2013) La participation, une légitimité en question. Nat Sci Soc 21(1):24–34.  https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2013062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnaud C, Van Paassen A (2013) Equity, power games, and legitimacy: dilemmas of participatory natural resource management. Ecol Soc.  https://doi.org/10.5751/es-05459-180221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnaud C, Le Page C, Dumrongrojwatthana P, Trébuil G (2013) Spatial representations are not neutral: lessons from a participatory agent-based modelling process in a land-use conflict. Environ Model Softw 45:150–159.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.11.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnaud C, d’Aquino P, Daré WS, Mathevet R (2016) Dispositifs participatifs et asymétries de pouvoir: expliciter et interroger les positionnements. Participations 3:137–166.  https://doi.org/10.3917/parti.016.0137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergez JE, Audouin E (2017) Une boîte à outils pour concevoir une transition agroécologique des territoires agricoles avec les acteurs locaux. Poster presented at the 9ème édition des entretiens du Pradel, Mirabel, France.Google Scholar
  7. Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ Manag 90(5):1692–1702.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernert P, Haaser A, Kühl L, Schaal T (2016) Towards a real-world laboratory: a transdisciplinary case study from lüneburg. GAIA-Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 25(4):253–259.  https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.25.4.7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bieluch KH, Bell KP, Teisl MF, Lindenfeld LA, Leahy J, Silka L (2017) Transdisciplinary research partnerships in sustainability science: an examination of stakeholder participation preferences. Sustain Sci 12(1):87–104.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0360-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blackstock KL, Kelly GJ, Horsey BL (2007) Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecol Econ 60(4):726–742.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boudjellaba D, Dron J, Revenko G, Demelas C, Boudenne JL (2016) Chlorination by-product concentration levels in seawater and fish of an industrialised bay (Gulf of Fos, France) exposed to multiple chlorinated effluents. Sci Total Environ 541:391–399.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.09.046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brand F, Seidl R, Le Q, Brändle J, Scholz R (2013) Constructing consistent multiscale scenarios by transdisciplinary processes: the case of mountain regions facing global change. Ecol Soc.  https://doi.org/10.5751/es-04972-180243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Busse M, Siebert R (2018) The role of consumers in food innovation processes. Eur J Innov Manag 21(1):20–43.  https://doi.org/10.1108/ejim-03-2017-0023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carew AL, Wickson F (2010) The TD wheel: a heuristic to shape, support and evaluate transdisciplinary research. Futures 42(10):1146–1155.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ComMod C (2005) La modélisation comme outil d’accompagnement. Nat Sci Soc 13(2):165–168.  https://doi.org/10.1051/nss:2005023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Conrad CC, Hilchey KG (2011) A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environ Monit Assess 176(1):273–291.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1582-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cornell S, Berkhout F, Tuinstra W, Tàbara JD, Jäger J, Chabay I, Otto IM (2013) Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental change. Environ Sci Policy 28:60–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Daccache M, Massart C, Mélard F, Stassart PM (2016) Parlement citoyen climat en province du luxembourg—rapport final au comité de suivi. Equipe SEED. Université de Liège, Arlon, p 82Google Scholar
  19. De Vente J, Reed M, Stringer L, Valente S, Newig J (2016) How does the context and design of participatory decision making processes affect their outcomes? Evidence from sustainable land management in global drylands. Ecol Soc.  https://doi.org/10.5751/es-08053-210224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dedeurwaerdere T (2013) Transdisciplinary sustainability science at higher education institutions: science policy tools for incremental institutional change. Sustainability 5:3783–3801.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su5093783 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dedeurwaerdere T, Polard A, Melindi-Ghidi P (2015) The role of network bridging organisations in compensation payments for agri-environmental services under the EU common agricultural policy. Ecol Econ 119:24–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dron J, Revenko G, Chamaret P, Wafo E, Chaspoul F, Harmelin-Vivien M (2017) Qualifying the European conger as coastal bioindicator of organic and metallic contamination. Poster presented at the international symposium COAST Bordeaux 2017, Bordeaux, France.Google Scholar
  23. Fischer-Kowalski M, Xenidis L, Singh SJ, Pallua I (2011) Transforming the Greek island of Samothraki into a UNESCO biosphere reserve. An experience in transdisciplinarity. Gaia-Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 20(3):181–190.  https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.20.3.9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fisher R, Ury WL, Patton B (2011) Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (update, revised). Penguin Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Gressier E, Laurent P, Parenti T (2013) Hazard L (2013) Produire du fourrage avec des populations de pays: exemple de la luzerne et du sainfoin à faibles intrants dans le Sud-Aveyron. Fourrages 216:313–319Google Scholar
  26. Habermas J (1984) The theory of communicative action. Beacon press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  27. Hadorn GH, Bradley D, Pohl C, Rist S, Wiesmann U (2006) Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecol Econ 60(1):119–128.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.12.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hadorn GH, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Hoffmann-Riem H, Joye D, Pohl C, Wiesman U, Zemp E (eds) (2008) Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  29. Hazard L, Gauffreteau A, Borg J, Moirez-Charron MH, Deo M, Enjalbert J, Gressier E (2016) L’innovation à l’épreuve d’un climat et d’un monde changeant rapidement: intérêt de la co-conception dans le domaine des semences. Fourrages 225:39–47Google Scholar
  30. Hegger D, Lamers M, Van Zeijl-Rozema A, Dieperink C (2012) Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: success conditions and levers for action. Environ Sci Policy 18:52–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hilger A, Rose M, Wanner M (2017) Determinants of researchers? Roles in real-world laboratories: the case of wuppertal. Presented at the International Trans-Disciplinary conference ITD 2017, Luneburg, Germany.Google Scholar
  32. Hilger A, Rose M, Wanner M (under review) Changing faces—factors influencing the roles of researchers in real-world laboratories. GAIA-Ecol Perspect Sci SocGoogle Scholar
  33. Höchtl F, Lehringer S, Konold W (2006) Pure theory or useful tool?: experiences with transdisciplinarity in the Piedmont Alps. Environ Sci Policy 9(4):322–329.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2006.01.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Innes JE (2004) Consensus building: clarifications for the critics. Plan Theory 3(1):5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Innes JE, Booher DE (2003) Collaborative policymaking: governance through dialogue. Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Jahn T (2008) Transdisciplinarity in the practice of research. Transdisziplinäre forschung: integrative forschungsprozesse verstehen und bewerten. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt/Main, pp 21–37Google Scholar
  37. Jahn T, Bergmann M, Keil F (2012) Transdisciplinarity: between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecol Econ 79:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. König B, Lundie S, Kuntosch A, Wortmann L (2015) Anforderungen an Managementverantwortliche in der Planungsphase von inter- und transdisziplinären Verbundvorhaben—eine Reflexion. In: Schwerpunktheft “Managementverantwortliche inter- und transdisziplinärer Verbünde” (Guest ed.) Defila R, Di Giulio A, Scheuermann M, Forschung, Politik—Strategie—Management, Vol. 3 + 4/2015, UniversitätsVerlag, BielefeldGoogle Scholar
  39. König B, Nölting B, Schäfer M, Wortmann L (2017) Method for managing transdisciplinary research: using the situation analysis approach for a joint problem framing. Paper presented at the 8th International Sustainability Transition conference, Göteborg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  40. Lacombe C, Couix N, Hazard L (2016) Participatory design of agroecological farming systems needs to match the collective goal of transformation with farmers’ professional projects. In 12. European IFSA Symposium: Social and technological transformation of farming systems: Diverging and converging pathways (pp. 148).Google Scholar
  41. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(1):25–43.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Latour B (1996) On actor-network theory: a few clarifications. Soziale welt 47:369–381Google Scholar
  43. Lenoble J, Maesschalck M (2016) Democracy, law and governance. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lepetitcolin E, Bussiere J, Taurignan T, Combettes P, Reversat L, Patout O, Hazard L (2015) Des éleveurs bovin-lait conçoivent avec des acteurs locaux le mode d’accompagnement de leur propre transition agro-écologique, 22e Journées 3R—2015Google Scholar
  45. Macho G, Naya I, Freire J, Villasante S, Molares J (2013) The key role of the barefoot fisheries advisors in the co-managed TURF system of Galicia (NW Spain). Ambio 42(8):1057–1069.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0460-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mattes J, Huber A, Koehrsen J (2015) Energy transitions in small-scale regions–What we can learn from a regional innovation systems perspective. Energy Policy 78:255–264.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.12.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Meyer M (2010) The rise of the knowledge broker. Sci Commun 32(1):118–127.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547009359797 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Miller TR, Wiek A, Sarewitz D, Robinson J, Olsson L, Kriebel D, Loorbach D (2014) The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustain Sci 9(2):239–246.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0224-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Njoroge R, Birech R, Arusey C, Korir M, Mutisya C, Scholz RW (2015) Transdisciplinary processes of developing, applying, and evaluating a method for improving smallholder farmers’ access to (phosphorus) fertilizers: the SMAP method. Sustain Sci 10(4):601–619.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0333-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Noll D, Fetzel T, Petridis P, Fischer-Kowalski M (2017) Achieving sustainable small ruminant farming on Samothraki. Poster presented at the 6th symposium of research in protected areas, Salzburg, Austria.Google Scholar
  51. Norton BG (2005) Sustainability: a philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Norton BG (2015) Endangered species and the south platte water plan. In: Norton BG (ed) Sustainable values, sustainable change: a guide to environmental decision making. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 237–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ott C (2017) Enabling transformative research: lessons from the eastern and southern africa partnership programme (1999–2015). Chall Sustain 5(1):15–23.  https://doi.org/10.12924/cis2017.05010015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pahl-Wostl C, Tàbara D, Bouwen R, Craps M, Dewulf A, Mostert E, Taillieu T (2008) The importance of social learning and culture for sustainable water management. Ecol Econ 64(3):484–495.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pereverza K, Lazarevic D, Kordas O (2017a) Exploring the interplay between the individual and the organisation in participatory backcasting. Poster presented at the 8th International Sustainability Transition IST conference 2017, Göteborg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  56. Pereverza K, Pasichnyi O, Lazarevic D, Kordas O (2017b) Strategic planning for sustainable heating in cities: a morphological method for scenario development and selection. App Energy 186:115–125.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Petridis P (2012) Perceptions, attitudes and involvement of local residents in the establishment of a Samothraki biosphere reserve, Greece. Eco.mont-J Prot Mt Areas Res 4:59–63.  https://doi.org/10.1553/eco.mont-4-1s59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Petridis P (2016) Establishing a biosphere reserve on the island of Samothraki, Greece: a transdisciplinary journey. Sustain Mediterr 72:39–41Google Scholar
  59. Petridis P (2017) The role of scientific research in guiding an island’s sustainability transition. Presented at the International Trans-Disciplinary conference ITD 2017, Luneburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  60. Petridis P, Fischer-Kowalski M (2016) Island sustainability: the case of Samothraki. In: Fischer-Kowalski M, Krausmann F, Winiwarter V, Haberl H (eds) Social ecology. human-environment interactions. Springer, Cham.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33326-7_28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Petridis P, Huber J (2017) A socio-metabolic transition of diets on a greek island: evidence of “quiet sustainability”. Socio-metabolic perspectives on the sustainability of local food systems. Springer, Cham, pp 263–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Petridis P, Hickisch R, Klimek M, Fischer R, Fuchs N, Kostakiotis G, Fischer-Kowalski M (2013) Exploring local opportunities and barriers for a sustainability transition on a Greek island. Social Ecology Working Paper, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  63. Petridis P, Fischer-Kowalski M, Singh SJ, Noll D (2017) The role of science in sustainability transitions: citizen science, transformative research, and experiences from Samothraki island, Greece. Isl Stud J 12(1):115–134.  https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pohl C, Hadorn GH (2007) Principles for designing transdisciplinary research. oekom, MunichGoogle Scholar
  65. Popa F, Guillermin M, Dedeurwaerdere T (2015) A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: from complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures 65:45–56.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Portney KE (2013) Taking sustainable cities seriously: economic development, the environment, and quality of life in American cities. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  67. Reed, Evely AC, Cundill G, Fazey I, Glass J, Laing A, Newig J, Parrish B, Prell C, Raymond C, Stringer LC (2010) What is social learning? Ecol Soc.  https://doi.org/10.5751/es-03564-1504r01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Reichardt K, Rogge K (2016) How the policy mix impacts innovation: findings from company case studies on offshore wind in Germany. Environ Innov Soc Trans 18:62–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rogga S, Kempa D, Heitepriem N, Etterer F (2017) Jenseits von Bürgerwissenschaften—neue Wege der Nachhaltigkeitsforschung im integrierten Naturschutz und dem Kulturlandschaftsmanagement. ANLiegen Natur 39(1):60–68Google Scholar
  70. Rose M, Schleicher K, Maibaum K (2017) Transforming well-being in wuppertal—conditions and constraints. Sustainability 9(12):2375.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122375 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rosenberg L, Swilling M, Vermeulen WJ (2017) Integrated pest management to achieve on-farm quality improvement: a transdisciplinary approach, Presented at the International Trans-Disciplinary conference ITD 2017. Luneburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  72. Rosenberg L, Swilling M, Vermeulen WJ (2018) Practices of third wave coffee: a burundian producer’s perspective. Bus Strategy Environ 27(2):199–214.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rosendahl J, Zanella MA, Rist S, Weigelt J (2015) Scientists’ situated knowledge: strong objectivity in transdisciplinarity. Futures 65:17–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.10.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schmidt TS, Schneider M, Rogge KS, Schuetz MJ, Hoffmann VH (2012) The effects of climate policy on the rate and direction of innovation. Environ Innov Soc Trans 2:23–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schmieg G, Meyer E, Schrickel I, Herberg J, Caniglia G, Vilsmaier U, Laubichler M, Hörl E, Lang D (2018) Modeling normativity in sustainability: a comparison of the sustainable development goals, the Paris agreement, and the papal encyclical. Sustain Sci 13(3):785–796.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0504-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Scholz RW (2011) Environmental literacy in science and society: from knowledge to decisions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schön S, Kruse S, Meister M, Nölting B, Ohlhorst D (2007) Handbuch Konstellationsanalyse. Ein interdisziplinäres Brückenkonzept für die Nachhaltigkeits-, Innovations-und Technikforschung. Oekom, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  78. Simon C, Etienne M (2010) A companion modelling approach applied to forest management planning. Environ Model Softw 25(11):1371–1384.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2009.09.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Späth L, Ceglarz A (2017). When untold aims and perspectives between scientists and practitioners collide: experiences from a European project. Presented at the International Trans-Disciplinary conference ITD 2017, Luneburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  80. Späth L, Scolobig A (2017) Stakeholder empowerment through participatory planning practices: the case of electricity transmission lines in France and Norway. Energy Res Soc Sci 23:189–198.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.10.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wanner M, Best B (2017). A combination of constellation analysis and multi-level perspective as a means for collaborative urban development. Presented at the 8th International Sustainability Transition IST conference 2017, Göteborg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  82. Wanner M, Reinkenhoff FT (2017) Wer hat und wodurch wurde das Mirker Quartier entwickelt? Eine partizipative Konstellationsanalyse am Beispiel eines Wuppertaler Stadtquartiers. Wuppertal: TransZent—Zentrum für Transformationsforschung und Nachhaltigkeit. Online on http://quartier-mirke.de/download/170625_Konstellationsanalyse_MirkerQuartier_web.pdf
  83. Wanner M, Hilger A, Westerkowski J, Rose M, Stelzer F, Schäpke N (2018) Towards a cyclical concept of real-world laboratories: a transdisciplinary research practice for sustainability transitions. DisP-Plan Rev 54(2):94–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wickson F, Carew AL, Russell AW (2006) Transdisciplinary research: characteristics, quandaries and quality. Futures 38(9):1046–1059.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2006.02.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wittmayer JM, Schäpke N (2014) Action, research and participation: roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustain Sci 9(4):483–496.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0258-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wuelser G, Pohl C (2016) How researchers frame scientific contributions to sustainable development: a typology based on grounded theory. Sustain Sci 11(5):789–800.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0363-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zivkovic M, Pereverza K, Pasichnyi O, Madzarevic A, Ivezic D, Kordas O (2016) Exploring scenarios for more sustainable heating: the case of Niš, Serbia. Energy 115:1758–1770.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.06.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Collège Thomas MoreLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium

Personalised recommendations