Biological and Environmental Sciences, School of Natural Sciences, and Economics, Stirling Management School

a.m.winther@stir.ac.uk

Energy Justice in 2030 in Rural Communities in Scotland

Anne Winther

TRANSPORT, ENERGY AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC

TRANSFORMATION: SOLUTIONS FOR SUSTAINABILITY

Transport modelling in rural communities

• One of two papers• Second is in tomorrow morning’s session

“Unequal mobility and its social consequences”

The next 15 minutes…. Sustainability and transformation

• Multiple methods• Three rural Scottish communities• Baseline sustainability

– Overarching sustainability– Transport ecological footprint

• Visions of transport• Modelling options for the future

– Step changes in mobility– Potential of electric and hybrid cars

• Implications for creating sustainable transport

Methods

Focus groups Vision modelling Evaluate and engage

• Assess baseline against sustainable community design (e.g.: ecological footprint, well-being, environmental attitudes, community profiles)

• Create a vision of a thriving community in a resource constrained 2030

• Model the visions’ ecological footprints and community structures

• Identify options, overarching issues and opportunities to engage

• Make recommendations

• Report findings

Qualitative & quantitative Participatory Integrating

methodologies Critical

Act

ion

Out

put

App

roac

h

Questionnaire and secondary data analysis

ENVISION SUSTAINABILITY

UNDERSTAND VISION SUSTAINABILITY

CREATE MEANING

MEASURE SUSTAINABILITY

Evolving and holistic

Aim

Three rural communities

Google Earth, 2013.

Multiple methods

Focus groups Vision modelling Evaluate and engage

• Assess baseline against sustainable community design (e.g.: ecological footprint, well-being, environmental attitudes, community profiles)

• Create a vision of a thriving community in a resource constrained 2030

• Model the visions’ ecological footprints and community structures

• Identify options, overarching issues and opportunities to engage

• Make recommendations

• Report findings

Qualitative & quantitative Participatory Integrating

methodologies Critical

Act

ion

Out

put

App

roac

h

Questionnaire and secondary data analysis

ENVISION SUSTAINABILITY

UNDERSTAND VISION SUSTAINABILITY

CREATE MEANING

MEASURE SUSTAINABILITY

Evolving and holistic

Aim

Baseline ecological footprint calculation

Community Household

Questionnaire

Community average data (per capita), e.g.:• Car and air travel distances (PKMS)

• Electricity, LPG and Coal consumption (kWh)

• Tobacco, newspaper, clothing expenditure (£)

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

REAP v2.17 (SEI, 2011)

REAP

v2.17 Stockholm

Environment Institute

Baseline sustainability: the fairshare and Baker’s ‘ideal model’

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Stirling Fintry (wt) Killin (wt) Highland Kinlochleven(wt)

Ecol

ogic

al F

ootp

rint (

gha/

cap)

LA or weighted case study

Capital investment

Public Services

Private Services

Consumables

Housing

Food

Transport

4.96

6.305.97

5.015.64

World biocapacity = 1.8 gha/cap

Modelled in REAP v2.17, SEI, 2011, Baker, 2006, GFN, 2012.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Directemissions

Vehiclepurchases

Running avehicle

Train Bus Air Ferry Total

EF(g

ha/c

ap)

FDC

Stirling LAFintryKillinHighland LAKinlochleven

Breakdown of baseline transport ecological footprint

Modelled in REAP v2.17, SEI, 2011, GFN, 2012.

World biocapacity = 1.8 gha/cap

46%96%71%46%62%

Percentage of biocapacity

Methods

Focus groups Vision modelling Evaluate and engage

• Assess baseline against sustainable community design (e.g.: ecological footprint, well-being, environmental attitudes, community profiles)

• Create a vision of a thriving community in a resource constrained 2030

• Model the visions’ ecological footprints and community structures

• Identify options, overarching issues and opportunities to engage

• Make recommendations

• Report findings

Qualitative & quantitative Participatory Integrating

methodologies Critical

Act

ion

Out

put

App

roac

h

Questionnaire and secondary data analysis

ENVISION SUSTAINABILITY

UNDERSTAND VISION SUSTAINABILITY

CREATE MEANING

MEASURE SUSTAINABILITY

Evolving and holistic

Aim

A rural community view of 2030

Community focus group scenario

How can your community thrive and flourish in 2030?

Climate change

legislation

Rising oil prices and

peak oil

Killin vision statement

Killin is much more SELF-SUFFICIENT with a COMMUNITY RENEWABLE ENERGY supply funding enterprise and supplying energy. COMMUNITY OWNED ASSETS, which are CONTROLLED AND RUN BY LOCAL PEOPLE, generate income.

Everyone makes much FEWER TRIPS. LOCAL TRIPS are by BIKE, WALKING and in some cases by HORSE. COMMUNITY TRANSPORT links Killin with other villages and the regular buses / trains to Glasgow and Stirling. No one makes single car journeys to shop anymore – trips like that are done on the community bus or co-ordinated with others. Large areas of land have been turned over to LOCAL FOOD PRODUCTION (local farmers or growing your own) and this food is consumed locally. All houses have high insulation and renewables. Housing matches the need for it. SMALL BUSINESSES are flourishing and there is YEAR-ROUND EMPLOYMENT. HEALTH SERVICES are delivered LOCALLY. The most important thing is to KEEP THE COMMUNITY SPIRIT GOING.

Methods

Focus groups Vision modelling Evaluate and engage

• Assess baseline against sustainable community design (e.g.: ecological footprint, well-being, environmental attitudes, community profiles)

• Create a vision of a thriving community in a resource constrained 2030

• Model the visions’ ecological footprints and community structures

• Identify options, overarching issues and opportunities to engage

• Make recommendations

• Report findings

Qualitative & quantitative Participatory Integrating

methodologies Critical

Act

ion

Out

put

App

roac

h

Questionnaire and secondary data analysis

ENVISION SUSTAINABILITY

UNDERSTAND VISION SUSTAINABILITY

CREATE MEANING

MEASURE SUSTAINABILITY

Evolving and holistic

Aim

Modelling approach

1. Investigation of different levels of mobility and technology change– Step 1 – Small scale– Step 2 – Step change– Step 3 – Transformative

(Handmer and Dovers, 1996)

2. Impact of technological change– Hybrid and electric vehicles– Renewable electricity generation

Modelling sustainability:reduction in EF for steps 1-3

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Baseline Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Perc

enta

ge o

f fai

rsha

re

Scenario

Fintry

Kinlochleven

Killin

Impact of the electric car on the car EF (Fintry)

Modelled in REAP v2.17, SEI, 2011 with assumptions from Alderson et al., 2012, DEFRA, 2012, Helmer and Marx, 2012, Nissan, 2012.

Can technological innovation achieve sustainability?

Community / LA

Transport EF (gha/cap) % of fairshare

Baseline ECCE ECPR ECCE ECPR

Fintry 1.73 1.27 0.99 70% 55%

Kinlochleven 1.11 0.76 0.55 42% 30%

Killin 1.28 0.94 0.74 52% 41%

Stirling 0.83 0.67 0.53 37% 30%

Highland 0.82 0.65 0.51 36% 29%

Modelled in REAP v2.17, SEI, 2011 with assumptions from Alderson et al., 2012, GFN, 2012, Helmer and Marx, 2012, Nissan, 2012. Photograph from Fintry Development Trust © FDT 2009.

ECPR + Step scenarios

Community / LA

% of fairshare

BaselineECPR + Step 1

ECPR + Step 2

ECPR + Step 3

Fintry 96% 40% 27% 15%

Kinlochleven 62% 23% 15% 8%

Killin 71% 31% 26% 11%

Modelled in REAP v2.17, SEI, 2011 with assumptions from Alderson et al., 2012, GFN, 2012, Helmer and Marx, 2012, Nissan, 2012.

Impact of EVs on household energy

 Community

Percentage of household baseline electricity consumption for scenario

ECPR + baseline

ECPR + Step 1

ECPR + Step 2

ECPR + Step 3

Fintry 71% 57% 43% 0%

Kinlochleven 51% 42% 32% 0%

Killin 51% 41% 31% 0%

Modelled in REAP v2.17, SEI, 2011 with assumptions from Alderson et al., 2012, Helmer and Marx, 2012, Nissan, 2012.

Methods

Focus groups Vision modelling Evaluate and engage

• Assess baseline against sustainable community design (e.g.: ecological footprint, well-being, environmental attitudes, community profiles)

• Create a vision of a thriving community in a resource constrained 2030

• Model the visions’ ecological footprints and community structures

• Identify options, overarching issues and opportunities to engage

• Make recommendations

• Report findings

Qualitative & quantitative Participatory Integrating

methodologies Critical

Act

ion

Out

put

App

roac

h

Questionnaire and secondary data analysis

ENVISION SUSTAINABILITY

UNDERSTAND VISION SUSTAINABILITY

CREATE MEANING

MEASURE SUSTAINABILITY

Evolving and holistic

Aim

Implications for rural communities

Creating sustainable communities will mean:• Significant mobility changes will be necessary even with

technological innovation• Mobility changes will require transformation in lifestyles• New forms of community ownership, co-operation and

re-localisation will be required• Community capability, literacy, renewable energy assets

and property rights are key (energy justice)• Community-specific solutions• Community cars powered by renewable energy

TRANSPORT, ENERGY AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC TRANSFORMATION: SOLUTIONS FOR SUSTAINABILITY

AcknowledgementsESRC, NERC, Gordon Cowtan, Martin Turner, Bill Acton, Fintry Development Trust, Frost-Free

Ltd, Jill Mills, Jane Durney, Ian and Lyndsey McConnell, Kinlochleven Community Trust, Kinlochleven High School,

Killin and Ardeonaig Development Trust, Willie and Gina Angus, Bernard Mallett-Griffiths, Mairi Wilkie, Killin Library,

Stockholm Environment Institute, Annie Moses, Chris West, Alexa Spence, Bill Jamieson and Scott Jackson.

Supervisors (past & present): Robert McCulloch, Ian Moffatt & Nick Hanley