Beyond the Ordinary: Innovative Spatial Energy Framework Offers Perspectives on Increased Energy and Carbon Objectives

Abstract

The way energy is supplied, converted and used is very inefficient (Stremke et al. 2010). The Sankey diagram illustrates that, on a global level, only 11.6 % of the energy sources is turned into useful energy (Cullen and Allwood 2010; Van den Dobbelsteen 2010) not only high prices of energy or the fact that burning fossil resources contributes to climate change motivate a transition towards sustainable energy supply. A structural change is also required because fossil resources (Including finite yet non-fossil nuclear energy) will be depleted in a period of less than 100 years (Hoogakker 2006). This is caused by the fact that running out of the first fossil resource subsequently leads to an accelerated depletion of the next. In the BP statistical review the R/P (Reserve to Production) ratio for coal, oil and natural gas is estimated 120, 45 and 60 years respectively (BP 2009), however, this does not take into account that when oil is finished, the depletion of gas and coal will be accelerated. Therefore, the longer term aim is to develop a society that functions without the use of fossil resources. Dril (2010) demonstrates that current policy will not enable to achieve this goal, because existing market powers object transition, implementation of change is too slow and policy cannot enforce a fundamental shift in energy supply. In addition, people seem not to be willing to pay for energy-efficient houses (Van Estrik 2009). The question that can be raised is if a transition towards non-fossil will occur through incremental steps or through discontinuous processes of subsequent breakthroughs. The incremental approach mainly focuses on achieving what is already possible. A certain agreed target, such as to reduce CO₂ emissions by 20 % by the year 2020 (European Parliament Council 2009) or the energy agreement for the Northern Netherlands (Samenwerkingsverband Noord-Nederland et al. 2007), determines the maximum achievable level. The transition model as described by De Roo illustrates this continuous process (De Roo 2008). There is no incentive to realise higher targets than the maximum aim; the aim even limits the realisation of a fundamental change towards a complete sustainable energy supply. Several studies (Van den Dobbelsteen et al. 2007a, b; Broersma et al. 2009) illustrate that an approach based on the available potentials of a certain area, enables realising much higher targets. However, these high ambitions are only attainable through the enforcement of breakthroughs, as illustrated by Perez (Perez 2002) or, as complexity theory explores, enforcing a jump to a higher level of complexity (Geldof 2001; Zuijderhoudt 2007; Peeters and Wetzels 1997). This process of subsequent and discontinuous phases and shifts, as described elsewhere (Roggema et al. 2010), places the local energy potentials in a central position.

This chapter has been published previously as peer reviewed book chapter: ‘Roggema, R., A. van den Dobbelsteen, S. Stremke and W. Mallon (2011) Spatial-energy Framework Aiming at Breakthroughs Brings Goals Beyond Policy Objectives within Reach’. In: A.J. Jenkins (Ed.) (2011) Climate Change Adaptation: Ecology, Mitigation and Management. Climate Change and its Causes, Effects and Prediction-series. New York: NOVA Publishers, pp. 127–150.

The Bridge: Eight–Nine

Chapters 5–8, focused on the application of the Swarm Planning Framework for climate adaptation and climate mitigation respectively. In Chap. 9 the theoretical basis of Chaps. 2–4 and the findings resulting from Chaps. 5–8 are brought together and deepened. This leads to the development of a comprehensive framework, in which aspects such as dual complexity (the whole and the components), the Five Layers and complexity concepts (such as emergent patterns, fitness landscape, self-organisation and tipping points) are merged with concrete spatial elements and with two step-by-step approaches to use the framework in practice.

As mentioned before, the Swarm Planning Framework builds on two pillars: (1) the layer approach and (2) complexity. Each layer in the layer approach represents a specific time dimension, which accommodate spatial elements in a suitable layer. Two of the five layers focus on identifying a strategic intervention capable of changing the entire system, while the other layers attribute adaptive properties to individual spatial components. The spatial system is supported to move from an unstable state, which for instance can be reached through external impacts of climate change, towards a state of higher adaptive capacity. The Swarm Planning Framework assists self-organisation of spatial systems in two ways: it assists change in spatial land-use over time and it catalyses the free emergence of autonomous and more resilient developments.

In this chapter the Swarm Planning Framework is used in two pilot designs, in which each are compared with the results of their accompanying regular planning processes, for the province of Groningen and the Peat Colonies respectively. The comparison illuminates a couple of elements. First, the Swarm Planning Framework offers serious advantages to deal with climate change in spatial planning. Second, the process analysis of both pilot designs shows that adjusted planning processes are required to achieve these results. In this respect, a iterative planning process, such as executed in design charrettes is preferable over linear planning processes.