As the world races the clock to meet climate targets, communities are proving to be vital players.
Utility master planning and climate action plans are guiding the way, and community engagement is emerging as a pivotal force in helping both deliver. UMP and CAP plans touch everywhere we work and live – from busy urban streets to rural settings.
The district energy sector is becoming better versed in the technicalities of the energy transition. However, technology is just one side of the coin. The other equally crucial side is community willpower.
In my opinion, there are no significant technology challenges to reaching our climate targets. The solutions exist today.
Much is yet to be done on the community engagement front, however, and this is not as easy as it sounds.
Communities that stand united and act on plans to achieve common goals will be the ones that adjust best and benefit most from the transition. A greenhouse gas reduction project might look perfect on paper. However, it may well face unforeseen challenges without community support. On the bright side, we’ve witnessed projects fast-tracked and costs reduced when the community is genuinely involved. This proves to us – the technical crowd – the value of community engagement.
“A sense of ownership among stakeholders is crucial to long-term success."
I see community engagement in sustainable energy planning facing three primary categories of challenges.
- First, social and cultural barriers. These include general resistance to change, especially where large infrastructure projects are required, and equity concerns, which can hinder progress and create skepticism;
- Second, technical and economic hurdles, such as the novelty and complexity of modern energy systems, financial constraints and the difficulty of communicating long-term benefits;
- Third, institutional and logistical obstacles, including regulatory barriers, coordination difficulties, and the need to attend to diverse and competing interests.
All of the above can slow effective engagement and delay sustainable energy initiatives. Overcoming these challenges requires a comprehensive approach that addresses social, technical and institutional factors simultaneously. That is an effective community engagement strategy.
Effective community engagements tap the combined power of several interconnected strategies. Tailored approaches – customized by site and place – recognize each community’s unique characteristics, ensuring that energy and climate action plans resonate within local and project specific contexts.
The concept of "co-creation" taps into local knowledge and fosters a sense of ownership among stakeholders, crucial for long-term success. This approach can be supported by using interactive platforms and technology that democratize the planning process, allowing for diverse participation.
Transparency and continuous communication build trust and maintain community interest, while establishing robust feedback mechanisms creates a dynamic dialogue between project developers, users, regulators, financiers and other stakeholders. Capacity building and education help communities make informed decisions, which in turn demystifies complex concepts and helps highlight long-term benefits.
We know of real-world examples that show the transformative power of effective community engagement. Projects such as Rethink Glasgow and the 3NE solar farm in Alberta showcase how inclusive approaches and active participation can lead to sustainable outcomes.
The Rethink Glasgow initiative exemplifies how using robust digital technology can succeed in community engagement aimed at creating a greener urban environment. The Glasgow project sought to gather input from residents on sustainable urban development post-pandemic. It utilized an interactive online map where residents could drop pins and offer suggestions about making various city areas more sustainable. And it allowed over 1,300 residents to actively contribute ideas to the city’s climate action plan, democratizing the planning process and ensuring that diverse voices and ideas were considered.