The energy transition requires the transformation of communities and neighbourhoods. It will have huge ramifications throughout society. Many cities, towns and villages have put together ambitious visions about how to achieve e.g. energy neutrality, zero-emission or zero-impact. What is happening at the local level towards realizing these ambitions? In a set of case study’s we investigate the following questions: How are self-organized local energy initiatives performing their self-set tasks? What obstacles are present in the current societal set-up that can hinder decentralized energy production? In our cases local leadership, vision, level of communication and type of organisation are important factors of the strength of the ‘local network’. (Inter)national energy policy and existing energy companies largely determine the ‘global’ or outside network. Stronger regional and national support structures, as well as an enabling environment for decentralized energy production, are needed to make decentralized sustainable energy production a success.
There is growing realisation amongst local communities that the organizations and societies within which they live and work need to become more sustainable in order to secure their social, environmental and economic futures (Coyle 2011, Müller et al. 2011). The underlying motivations vary but are often traceable to an increased need for certainty or security. The search for solutions is in part practically orientated towards resilience to different forces of decline. Whilst sometimes manifested in individuals it is more often evident within local initiatives seeking common ground and related to perceived needs for local independence or increased self-determination (Musall & Kuik 2011, Seyfang & Haxeltine 2012). In our project and in this paper, our focus is on local initiatives as opposed to developments at regional or strategic scales. In the Northern Netherlands such local initiatives are often comprised of village residents or more heterogeneous groups from the wider rural community, with local initiatives co-existent in urban areas and cities. Local initiatives may focus on different sustainability issues (or a combination of them), such as transportation, energy, water, natural environment, food production, solid waste or the local economy (Coyle, 2011). However, many of these local initiatives focus on energy issues and solutions, while they might expand their interests to other issues after a prolonged existence. Therefore, in this paper we refer to these local or communal activities as Local Energy Initiatives (LEI’s) that are at the grassroots of sustainable transitions.
To contribute positively to systemic transitions within local communities, architects need to be critical, reflective, far-sighted communicators. This paper presents educational practices developing adaptive, systemic and co-creative approaches within the training of architectural Masters students. It evaluates the first outcomes of a four-year research by design studio executed by the Academy of Architecture in Groningen, in which experiential learning helps development of heightened awareness, appropriate mindsets and critical thinking, enabling students to identify problems and challenges specific to their profession. Students, stakeholders, teachers and researchers involved in the studio form a learning community that critically monitors the educational program. By working on "live" projects, the studio produces insights concerning local scale energy transition in the North of The Netherlands.Global issues urge fundamental changes in the Dutch energy system and recent accumulations of earthquakes resulting from natural gas exploitation in the region of Groningen make the 'energy transition' inevitable. Whilst alternatives, proposed by the Dutch government, mainly consist of isolated, mono-functional interventions, the studio investigates integrative systemic scenarios that seek to enhance resilience on a human scale by embedding the energy transition within local communities. However, systemic transitions may be unpredictable, as they tend to play out within complex spatial, social and economic arenas, involving multiple, multi-level stakeholders. Shove and Walker (2007) caution professionals, involved in long-term transitions, to remain critical during the "[continuous] cycle of problem-definition, intervention and response".Ziegler and Bouma argue that analysing is designing in the reversed direction. The first year's outcomes consist of adaptic architectonic interventions within local communities, integrating flows of energy, food and waste. Using interviews with the learning community, the paper describes the educational processes leading to these outcomes, focusing on the formation and elaboration of the appropriate questions concerning stakeholders' interests; how these questions are kept central and deepened throughout projects; how they are represented at their closure and, above all, how they renew awareness concerning future regional needs. Initial findings stress the necessity of a circular research by design process, not necessarily to solve, but to accurately define those needs.
