Content uploaded by Sven Stremke
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sven Stremke on Dec 21, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
368
26. Co-designing energy landscapes: application
of participatory mapping and Geographic
Information Systems in the exploration of
low carbon futures
Sven Stremke and Paolo Picchi
INTRODUCTION
Renewable energy initiatives face opposition by local citizens, nature managers and
others due to concerns over tradeoffs between two groups of ecosystem services: pro-
visioning (renewable energy supply) and cultural services (the right to the landscape)
(Nadaï and van der Horst, 2010). In order for any energy landscape to be considered sus-
tainable, interventions must not cause critical tradeoffs between the provision of renew-
able energy and the supply of other ecosystem services (Stremke, 2015). Participative
design processes are a promising strategy for facilitating a sustainable energy transition,
especially in communities seeking self-sufficiency (De Waal and Stremke, 2014; Picchi,
2015). In addition to conjoining quantitative research methods with qualitative design
inquiry, Von Haaren et al. (2014, p. 167) stress that a design approach to planning
has added values: ‘making invisible or hidden ecological processes “visible”; reconcil-
ing people with a “new” landscape, for instance with unaccustomed features such as
wind turbines; or raising consciousness about land degradation problems’. Despite the
increasing popularity of participatory approaches, only few inquiries include tradeoff
analysis between the provision of renewable energy (RE) and other ecosystem services
(ES).
Participatory mapping (PM) is a key technique to conduct tradeoff analysis while co-
designing sustainable energy landscapes (SELs) with local communities. Stakeholders,
among others, participate in the mapping of ES ‘hot spots’ (Raymond et al., 2009).
Geographic Information System (GIS) software can be used to analyse the existing land-
scape and renewable energy potentials as well as to process stakeholder values and prefer-
ences with regard to landscape quality/ES supply (Brown and Reed, 2012; Fagerholm et
al., 2012), and renewable energy technologies, respectively. In this chapter, a framework
for co-designing SELs is introduced, departing from prior research on energy potential
mapping (EPM) (Van Den Dobbelsteen et al., 2011) and strategic design at the regional
scale (Stremke et al., 2012a, 2012b).
The chapter is structured as following. The second section presents a literature
review of EPM, ES assessment and PM. The third section introduces a framework for
co-designing a SEL with special attention to the use of PM and ES, and discusses key
opportunities and challenges associated with the approach. The final section concludes
this chapter.Throughout, we will make use of the abbreviations and definitions shown
in Table 26.1.
M4386 - SOLOMON 9781785365614 PRINT (4-col).indd 368 26/09/2017 09:07
NOTE: THIS IS A PARTIAL COPY OF THE BOOK CHAPTER.
PLEASE CONTACT AUTHOR FOR THE COMPLETE VERSION.
373
information
landscape analysis
steps
present
conditions
near-future
developments
spatial
interventions
spatial
interventions
spatial
interventions
spatial
interventions
12 34 5
map illustrate
describe
& compare
compose
compose
compose
describe
& compare
describe
& compare
describe
& compare
long-term interventions
compose
expert
ES hot spots
Energy potential maps workshop with stakeholders
soils
geo-morphology
green/blue network
roads
historical landscape
settlements
expert
Regional
Community
scenario
energy vision 1
(large scale/
strong policies)
energy vision 2
(large scale/
few policies)
energy vision 3
(small scale/
few policies)
RET sites
tradeoffs ES/RE
present energy system
workshop with stakeholders
workshop with stakeholder
s
design principles
expert
expert
expert
expert
expert
expert
expert
energy vision 4
(small scale/
strong policies)
near-future interventionsimmediate interventions
Figure 26.1 Introducing ES assessment and stakeholder preferences (orange boxes) into the Five-Step Approach
M4386 - SOLOMON 9781785365614 PRINT (4-col).indd 373 26/09/2017 09:07
374 Handbook on the geographies of energy
Mapping Near-future Developments
The guiding question of the second step is ‘How will the region change in the near-future?’
In order to answer that question, one must analyse current trends and policies, identify
planned developments and consult key decision-makers in the study region. Near-future
developments can be illustrated by means of a so-called ‘near-future base-map’. Many of
the near-future developments shown on such a map may not have left any marks in the
physical environment, yet will influence the spatial development of the landscape. The
second step is not affected by the inclusion of ES assessment; see Stremke et al. (2012a)
for a more detailed description.
Illustrating Possible Far-future Developments
The guiding question of step three is ‘What kinds of possible long-term developments are
expected in the study region, and at which locations?’ A selection of possible far-futures
can be studied by means of existing scenario studies.
In order to conduct a detailed inquiry on the relationships between RE and ES in
situations with limited resources and time, it is recommended to select the most likely
long-term socioeconomic scenario. This way, the effects of exogenous forces on the energy
system as well as ES can be examined. In any event, potential changes in energy use, both
in quality and quantity, have to be studied. The selected scenario storyline(s) can be illus-
trated by means of a scenario base-map(s). Note that more explicit scenario studies are
easier to concretize and illustrate. The analysis of existing context scenarios and mapping
of possible far-future developments can be conducted by experts and should be verified
by stakeholders. This is especially crucial if the resolution of the existing context scenario
study is coarse.
Composing Energy Visions and Assessing ES Tradeoffs
The objective of step four is to compose a set of energy visions. Each vision should reveal
‘How to turn a possible future into a desired future?’ This question needs to be further
specified to meet the objective of the respective study, in our case, exploring possible
pathways for the development of a SEL with special consideration of ES. It is important
to stress that the goal of this ‘exercise’ is not to render the ideal future, but to reveal dif-
ferent pathways of reaching a desired future. In order to identify a wide range of possible
interventions, while maintaining a sense of realism, we suggest conducting this normative
step in a trans-disciplinary manner. Workshops and design charettes can facilitate the col-
laboration between experts, decision-makers and stakeholders (Figure 26.2). The use of
SMCA can facilitate the process of producing energy visions.
In order to select and locate RET considering ES, a second PM exercise is needed.
Participants are now asked where RET should be sited, in order to reach a desired future
via multiple pathways (i.e. set of energy visions). The RET are represented by stickers of
different colors, each one representing a certain amount of RE supply. Each team is sup-
plied with different stickers representing a different mix of RES and relevant RET. The
objective is to locate all the stickers on a map to satisfy the targeted total energy supply.
This activity can be facilitated through the use of digital map tables (Figure 26.2).
M4386 - SOLOMON 9781785365614 PRINT (4-col).indd 374 26/09/2017 09:07
Co-designing energy landscapes 375
The RET stickers located by each group of stakeholders are geo-referenced in GIS by
means of dots. Through a grid representing a land use base unit, it is possible to evaluate
the level of density of all the dots (Bryan et al., 2010; Fagerholm et al., 2012). Dots are
then grouped as vertices of polygons according to the following criteria: (a) dots should
be in adjacent cells of the grid, and (b) dots should represent 50 percent +1 of the pref-
erences. It is then possible to individuate the centroids of the polygons. The centroid is
used as the center of a circular buffer corresponding to the approximated area needed for
the spatial installation of RET per targeted amount of energy. The buffers represent the
preferred areas where RET should be located.
Then the tradeoff between the RE and the ES supplies are evaluated through an expert
panel (Figure 26.4). The spatial reference systems for the tradeoff assessment are LU/LC
classes and features of the landscape infrastructure. By overlaying the RET buffers and
the ES hot spots areas from step 1 (the matrix approach; see Burkhard et al., 2012) it is
possible to detect potential spatial tradeoff or synergies between RET and ES in coin-
cidence with specific LU/LC classes and features of the landscape infrastructure. The
matrix is built with LU/LC and landscape infrastructure elements on the y-axis and the
ES on the x-axis. Each cell of the matrix expresses the spatial tradeoff or synergy between
a particular ES and a RET on a specific LU/LC or in relation to a specific landscape
Source: Authors.
Figure 26.2 Photograph of a workshop session with a so-called map table, a large touch
screen that is used by the participants to select and site RET
M4386 - SOLOMON 9781785365614 PRINT (4-col).indd 375 26/09/2017 09:07
376 Handbook on the geographies of energy
infrastructure feature. Tradeoffs or synergies are expressed by a range of five values
(Jackson et al., 2013) (Figure 26.3).
Specifying Spatial Interventions
The final question that needs to be answered in the envisioning process is ‘Which possible
intervention should be implemented?’ Possible energy-conscious interventions should be
identified and illustrated in a comprehensive manner. Maps, tables and reference images
are helpful in the discussion with decision-makers.
In order to further examine stakeholder preferences regarding ES and RET, expressed
during the PM, landscape design principles must be sketched, visually represented
and discussed with stakeholders. One design principle for photovoltaic (PV) parks, for
example, can be that these should not be located along dikes in order to preserve the
cultural value of this landscape feature. Instead, PV parks should be located on arable
land with low soil quality where it does not afflict the cultural value and the landscape
connectivity. Design principles can afflict or enhance the ES supply, or convert a potential
tradeoff between RE and ES into a synergy.
It is important to stress that it might be necessary to limit the number of energy visions
examined on the basis of stakeholder preferences in step 5 in order to allow a thorough
study of ES/RE relations. Once stakeholder preferences with regards to landscape design
principles are known, additional visions can be assessed (Figure 26.4).
CONCLUSIONS
The argumentations made in this chapter show how the introduction of ES assessment
is beneficial to the co-designing of SELs. Mutual benefits emerge once the domains of
ES and RE are approached in a concerted manner. Our proposed modified Five-Step
Approach continues to allow for the inclusion of uncertain developments while accom-
modating stakeholder values and preferences in the envisioning process. The chapter
illustrates that co-designing energy landscapes together with the stakeholder can help to
better understand and manage tradeoffs between ES. Reciprocally, the adoption of an
ES approach in the design process enhances the formulation of stakeholder-supported
visions and identification of robust spatial interventions that, together, can foster the
transition to a low carbon future.
Recently conducted analysis shows how relevant cultural ES are for many stakeholders
Strong tracle-o light tracle-o neutral light synergy strong synergy
Figure 26.3 The range of five values representing possible relationship between RET and
ES (tradeoff or synergy)
M4386 - SOLOMON 9781785365614 PRINT (4-col).indd 376 26/09/2017 09:07
Co-designing energy landscapes 377
(e.g. Picchi, 2015). This is exactly why future research should examine whether PM and
valuation of landscape views by stakeholders can further advance co-design processes. A
second challenge that deserves attention is the potential use of SMCA software during the
envisioning process. Several existing tools make use of GIS (Resch et al., 2014) but appli-
cation is somewhat limited. Interactive and real-time tradeoff analysis, employed during
participatory workshops, might further advance the understanding and, ultimately, the
appreciation of ecosystem services by stakeholders. A third effort relates to the communi-
cation of potential landscape changes. Easy-to-use, intuitive and photorealistic visualiza-
tion tools that can illustrate the effects of alternative design principles in the landscape
are needed. Fortunately, we are witnessing great technological advancements and a much
needed paradigm shift from static 3D visualization to animated pictures accompanied
by sound. How else can we be sure that envisioned energy-conscious interventions in the
physical landscape do not cause critical tradeoffs between provisioning and cultural ES
or, to put it simply, that we are indeed developing the appreciated cultural landscapes of
the future?
energy vision
expert panel
LULC
Landscape
infrastructure
sustainable energy landscape
planning and design
RET buffers
participatory mapping
participatory design principles
spatial interventions
ES hot spots
Figure 26.4 In step 4, experts analyse the spatial tradeoff between RET and ES. In
step 5, the energy visions are further specified by means of spatially explicit
design principles and concrete spatial interventions.
M4386 - SOLOMON 9781785365614 PRINT (4-col).indd 377 26/09/2017 09:07
378 Handbook on the geographies of energy
REFERENCES
Angelis-Dimakis, A., M. Biberacher, J. Dominguez et al. (2011), ‘Methods and tools to evaluate the availability
of renewable energy sources’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15, 1182–200.
Bayrakci Boz, M., K. Calvert and J.R.S. Brownson (2015), ‘An automated model for rooftop PV systems assess-
ment in ArcGIS using LiDAR’, AIMS Energy Journal, 3, 401–20.
Belanger, P. (2009), ‘Landscape as infrastructure’, Landscape Journal, 28, 79–95.
Bennett, E.M., G.D. Peterson and L.J. Gordon (2009), ‘Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem
services’, Ecology Letters, 12, 1394–404.
Blaschke, T., M. Biberacher, S. Gadocha and I. Schardinger (2013), ‘“Energy landscapes”: meeting energy
demands and human aspirations’, Biomass and Bioenergy, 55, 3–16.
Brown, G.G. and P. Reed (2012), ‘Social landscape metrics: measures for understanding place values from Public
Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS)’, Landscape Research, 37, 73–90.
Bryan, B.A., C.M. Raymond, N.D. Crossman and D.H. Macdonald (2010), ‘Targeting the management of
ecosystem services based on social values: where, what, and how?’,Landscape and Urban Planning,97, 111–22.
Burkhard, B., F. Kroll, S. Nedkov and F. Müller (2012), ‘Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and
budgets’, Ecological Indicators, 21, 17–29.
Calvert, K. and W. Mabee (2015), ‘More solar farms or more bioenergy crops? Mapping and assessing potential
land-use conflicts among renewable energy technologies in eastern Ontario, Canada’, Applied Geography, 56,
209–21.
Calvert, K., J. Pearce and W. Mabee (2013), ‘Toward renewable energy geo-information infrastructures: applica-
tions of GIS and remote sensing that build institutional capacity’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
18, 416–29.
Coleby, A.M., D. van der Horst, K. Hubacek et al. (2012), ‘Environmental impact assessment, ecosystems
services and the case of energy crops in England’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55,
369–85.
De Groot, R.S., R. Alkemade, L. Braat, L. Hein and L. Willemen (2010), ‘Challenges in integrating the concept
of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making’,Ecological
Complexity, 7, 260–72.
De Waal, R.M. and S. Stremke (2014), ‘Energy transition: missed opportunities and emerging challenges for
landscape planning and designing’, Sustainability, 6, 4386–415.
Fagerholm, N., N. Käyhkö, F. Ndumbaro and M. Khamis (2012), ‘Community stakeholders’ knowledge in
landscape assessments – mapping indicators for landscape services’, Ecological Indicators, 18, 421–33.
Frank, S., C. Fürst, L. Koschke and F. Makeschin (2012), ‘A contribution towards a transfer of the ecosystem
service concept to landscape planning using landscape metrics’, Ecological Indicators, 21, 30–38.
Fürst, C., S. Frank, A. Witt, L. Koschke and F. Makeschin (2013), ‘Assessment of the effects of forest land use
strategies on the provision of ecosystem services at regional scale’, Journal of Environmental Management,
127, S96–S116.
García-Nieto, A.P., C. Quintas-Soriano, M. García-Llorente, I. Palomo, C. Montes and B. Martín-López
(2015), ‘Collaborative mapping of ecosystem services: the role of stakeholder’ profiles’, Ecosystem Services,
13, 141–52.
Geels, F.W. (2004), ‘From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: insights about dynamics
and change from sociology and institutional theory’, Research Policy, 33, 897–920.
Howard, D.C., P.J. Burgess, S.J. Butler et al. (2013), ‘Energyscapes: linking the energy system and ecosystem
services in real landscapes’, Biomass and Bioenergy, 55, 17–26.
Iverson, L., C. Echeverria, L. Nahuelhual and S. Luque (2014), ‘Ecosystem services in changing landscapes: an
introduction’, Landscape Ecology, 29, 181–6.
Jackson, B., T. Pagella, F. Sinclair et al. (2013), ‘Polyscape: a GIS mapping framework providing efficient and
spatially explicit landscape-scale valuation of multiple ecosystem services’, Landscape and Urban Planning,
112, 74–88.
Klain, S.C. and K.M.A. Chan (2012), ‘Navigating coastal values: participatory mapping of ecosystem services
for spatial planning’, Ecological Economics, 82, 104–13.
Koschke, L., C. Fürst, S. Frank and F. Makeschin (2012), ‘A multi-criteria approach for an integrated land-
cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to support landscape planning’, Ecological Indicators,
21, 54–66.
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005), Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis, Washington,
DC: Island Press.
Nadaï, A. and D. van der Horst (2010), ‘Introduction: landscapes of energies’, Landscape Research, 35, 143–55.
Pagella, T.F. and F.L. Sinclair (2014), ‘Development and use of a typology of mapping tools to assess their
fitness for supporting management of ecosystem service provision’, Landscape Ecology, 29, 383–99.
M4386 - SOLOMON 9781785365614 PRINT (4-col).indd 378 26/09/2017 09:07
Co-designing energy landscapes 379
Picchi, P. (2015), ‘Enhancing the relationship between the landscape of energy transition and the ecosystem
services’, Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Trento.
Plieninger, T., S. Dijks, E. Oteros-Rozas and C. Bieling (2013), ‘Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural
ecosystem services at community level’, Land Use Policy, 33, 118–29.
Raymond, C.M., B.A. Bryan, D.H. MacDonald et al. (2009), ‘Mapping community values for natural capital
and ecosystem services’, Ecological Economics, 68, 1301–15.
Resch, B., G. Sagl, T. Törnros et al. (2014), ‘GIS-based planning and modeling for renewable energy: challenges
and future research avenues’, ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 3, 662–92.
Rodríguez, J.P., T.D. Beard, E.M. Bennett et al. (2006), ‘Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services’,
Ecology and Society, 11 (1), 28, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art28/, accessed 17 July 2017.
Sacchelli, S., G. Garegnani, F. Geri et al. (2016), ‘Trade-off between photovoltaic systems installation and
agricultural practices on arable lands: an environmental and socio-economic impact analysis for Italy’, Land
Use Policy, 56, 90–99.
Sijmons, D. (2014), Landscape and Energy: Designing Transition, Rotterdam: nai010 Publishers.
Sliz-Szkliniarz, B. (2013), ‘Assessment of the renewable energy-mix and land use trade-off at a regional level: a
case study for the Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodship’, Land Use Policy, 35, 257–70.
Stremke, S. (2015), ‘Sustainable energy landscape: implementing energy transition in the physical realm’, in S.E.
Jorgensen (ed.), Encyclopedia of Environmental Management, New York: Taylor and Francis, pp. 1–9.
Stremke, S. (2017), ‘Energy transition at the regional scale: building sustainable energy landscapes’, in I. Ruby
and A. Ruby (eds), Infrastructure Space, Berlin: Ruby Press, pp. 217–28.
Stremke, S. and A. van den Dobbelsteen (2012), ‘Sustainable energy landscapes: an introduction’, in S. Stremke
and A. van den Dobbelsteen (eds), Sustainable Energy Landscapes: Designing, Planning, and Development,
Boca Raton, FL and London: CRC Press, pp. 3–10.
Stremke, S., F.M.G. van Kann and J. Koh (2012a), ‘Integrated visions (part I): methodological framework for
long-term regional design’, European Planning Studies, 20, 305–20.
Stremke, S., J. Koh, C.T. Neven and A. Boekel (2012b), ‘Integrated visions (part II): envisioning sustainable
energy landscapes’, European Planning Studies, 20, 609–26.
Termorshuizen, J.W., P. Opdam and A. van den Brink (2007), ‘Incorporating ecological sustainability into
landscape planning’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 79, 374–84.
Van den Dobbelsteen, A., S. Broersma and S. Stremke (2011), ‘Energy potential mapping for energy-producing
neighborhoods’, International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, 2, 170–76.
Verweij, P., M. Winograd, M. Perez-Soba, R. Knapen and Y. van Randen (2012), ‘QUICKScan: a pragmatic
approach to decision support’, in R. Seppelt, A.A. Voinov, S. Lange and D. Bankamp (eds), iEMSs 2012–
Managing Resources of a Limited Planet: Proceedings of the 6th Biennial Meeting of the International
Environmental Modelling and Software Society, Leipzig, pp. 1877–84.
Von Haaren, C., B. Warren-Kretzschmar, C. Milos and C. Werthmann (2014), ‘Opportunities for design
approaches in landscape planning’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 130, 159–70.
M4386 - SOLOMON 9781785365614 PRINT (4-col).indd 379 26/09/2017 09:07
