Advertisement

World Café Method to Engage Smart Energy-District Project Partners in Assessing Urban Co-benefits

  • Adriano BiselloEmail author
  • Tatjana Boczy
  • Jessica Balest
Conference paper
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)

Abstract

Urban energy-district projects introduce outstanding technological innovation in buildings and energy systems increasing sustainability in city neighborhoods. Such projects generate additional co-benefits for the city beyond changes in physical elements and development of social and institutional relationships (e.g. local employment, environmental quality, public health, property values, innovation attitude, etc.). Since exceeding main declared goals or not always clearly foreseen in the early project phase, these co-benefits are often not properly understood and considered. However, only their explicit recognition will make possible their inclusion in the assessment of the whole project’s performance. From these considerations, this study faces the issue of engaging project partners in assessing co-benefits in order to consider a broad spectrum of relevant, positive effects in the evaluation process. Group knowledge and group thinking of this complex topic are investigated through the world café method, providing an atmosphere of trust and open discussions among participants. This empirical work lays the foundations to go beyond the mere economic measure as the sole criterion for assessing project effects, also including changes in end-user behavior and intangible assets.

Keywords

World café method Co-benefits Smart energy-district projects SINFONIA project Stakeholder engagement 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to acknowledge the colleagues and the SINFONIA project partners involved in the World Cafè. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement No. 609019. The European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained in this document, which is merely representing the author’s view.

References

  1. Bell ML, Davis DL, Cifuentes LA, Krupnick AJ, Morgenstern RD, Thurston GD (2008) Ancillary human health benefits of improved air quality resulting from climate change mitigation. Environ Health  Glob Access Sci Source 7:41Google Scholar
  2. Bisello A (2017) Smart and sustainable projects at the energy-district level. How to assess them based on the co-benefits paradigm. Ph.D. thesis, University of PaduaGoogle Scholar
  3. Bisello A, Grilli G, Balest J, Stellin G, Ciolli M (2017) Co-benefits of smart and sustainable energy district projects: an overview on economic assessment methodologies. Green Energy Technol 127–164Google Scholar
  4. Broom M, Brady B, Kecskes Z, Kildea S (2013) World Café Methodology engages stakeholders in designing a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. J Neonatal Nurs 19(5):253–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown J, Isaacs D (2007) Das World Cafe: Kreative Zukunftsgestaltung in Organisationen und Gesellschaft. Carl-Auer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown J, Isaacs D, World Cafe Community (2005) The World Café: shaping our futures through conversations that matter. Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc., San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang W-L, Chen S-T (2015) The impact of World Café on entrepreneurial strategic planning capability. J Bus Res JBR 68(6):1283–1290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Copenhagen Economics (2012) Multiple benefits of investing in energy efficient renovation of buildings. Impact on Public Finances, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  9. Di Nucci RM, Spitzbart C (2010) Concerto socio-economic impact assessment report. WienGoogle Scholar
  10. Häder M, Häder S (2000) Die Delphi-Methode als Gegenstand methodischer Forschungen. In: Häder M (ed) ZUMA-Publikationen. Die Delphi-Technik in den Sozialwissenschaften. Methodische Forschungen und innovative Anwendungen. Westdt. Verl, Wiesbaden, pp 11–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. IEA (2014) Capturing the multiple benefits of energy efficiency: a guide to quantifying the value added. IEA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  12. Krueger RA (1998) Analyzing & reporting focus group results. Focus group kit, vol 6. SAGE, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  13. Kühn T, Koschel K-V (2011) Gruppendiskussionen: Ein Praxis-Handbuch. SpringerLink: Bücher. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  14. Linstone HA, Turoff M (1975) Introduction. In: Linstone HA, Turoff M, Helmer O (eds) The Delphi method. Techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass, pp 3–12Google Scholar
  15. Mayrhofer JP, Gupta J (2016) The science and politics of co-benefits in climate policy. Environ Sci Policy 57:22–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Morgan DL, Bottorff JL (2010) Advancing our craft: focus group methods and practice. Qual Health Res 20(5):579–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Morgan DL, Scannell AU (1998) Planning focus groups. Focus group kit, vol 2. SAGE, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  18. Nicholls J, Lawlor E, Neitzert E, Goodspeed T (2012) A guide to social return on investment. The SROI networkGoogle Scholar
  19. Ritch EL, Brennan C (2010) Using World Café and drama to explore older people’s experience of financial products and services. Int J Consum Stud 34(4):405–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Seliger R (2008) Einführung in Grossgruppen-Methoden. Carl-Auer-Systeme-Verl, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  21. Ürge-Vorsatz D, Herrero ST, Dubash NK, Lecocq F (2014) Measuring the co-benefits of climate change mitigation. Annu Rev Environ Resour 39(1):549–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ürge-Vorsatz D, Kelemen A, Tirado-Herrero S, Thomas S, Thema J, Mzavanadze N, Hauptstock D, Suerkemper F, Teubler J, Gupta M, Chatterjee S (2016) Measuring multiple impacts of low-carbon energy options in a green economy context. Appl Energy 179:1409–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. US EPA (2011) Assessing the multiple benefits of clean energy. A resource for statesGoogle Scholar
  24. Takahashi M, Nemoto K, Hayashi N, Horita R (2014) The measurement of dialogue: from a case study of the workshop using world café as a collective dialogue method. J Inf Process 22(1):88–95Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adriano Bisello
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tatjana Boczy
    • 2
  • Jessica Balest
    • 1
  1. 1.Eurac ResearchInstitute for Renewable EnergyBolzanoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Sociology, Institute of Urban and Land PlanningUniversity of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations