@article{SuesserMartinStavrakasetal.2022, author = {S{\"u}sser, Diana and Martin, Nick and Stavrakas, Vassilis and Gaschnig, Hannes and Talens-Peir{\´o}, Laura and Flamos, Alexandros and Madrid-L{\´o}pez, Cristina and Lilliestam, Johan}, title = {Why energy models should integrate social and environmental factors}, series = {Energy research \& social science}, volume = {92}, journal = {Energy research \& social science}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {2214-6296}, doi = {10.1016/j.erss.2022.102775}, pages = {102775 -- 102775}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Energy models are used to inform and support decisions within the transition to climate neutrality. In recent years, such models have been criticised for being overly techno-centred and ignoring environmental and social factors of the energy transition. Here, we explore and illustrate the impact of ignoring such factors by comparing model results to model user needs and real-world observations. We firstly identify concrete user needs for better representation of environmental and social factors in energy modelling via interviews, a survey and a workshop. Secondly, we explore and illustrate the effects of omitting non-techno-economic factors in modelling by contrasting policy-targeted scenarios with reality in four EU case study examples. We show that by neglecting environmental and social factors, models risk generating overly optimistic and potentially misleading results, for example by suggesting transition speeds far exceeding any speeds observed, or pathways facing hard-to-overcome resource constraints. As such, modelled energy transition pathways that ignore such factors may be neither desirable nor feasible from an environmental and social perspective, and scenarios may be irrelevant in practice. Finally, we discuss a sample of recent energy modelling innovations and call for continued and increased efforts for improved approaches that better represent environmental and social factors in energy modelling and increase the relevance of energy models for informing policymaking.}, language = {en} } @article{McKennaPfenningerHeinrichsetal.2022, author = {McKenna, Russell and Pfenninger, Stefan and Heinrichs, Heidi and Schmidt, Johannes and Staffell, Iain and Bauer, Christian and Gruber, Katharina and Hahmann, Andrea N. and Jansen, Malte and Klingler, Michael and Landwehr, Natascha and Lars{\´e}n, Xiaoli Guo and Lilliestam, Johan and Pickering, Bryn and Robinius, Martin and Tr{\"o}ndle, Tim and Turkovska, Olga and Wehrle, Sebastian and Weinand, Jann Michael and Wohland, Jan}, title = {High-resolution large-scale onshore wind energy assessments}, series = {Renewable energy}, volume = {182}, journal = {Renewable energy}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {0960-1481}, doi = {10.1016/j.renene.2021.10.027}, pages = {659 -- 684}, year = {2022}, abstract = {The rapid uptake of renewable energy technologies in recent decades has increased the demand of energy researchers, policymakers and energy planners for reliable data on the spatial distribution of their costs and potentials. For onshore wind energy this has resulted in an active research field devoted to analysing these resources for regions, countries or globally. A particular thread of this research attempts to go beyond purely technical or spatial restrictions and determine the realistic, feasible or actual potential for wind energy. Motivated by these developments, this paper reviews methods and assumptions for analysing geographical, technical, economic and, finally, feasible onshore wind potentials. We address each of these potentials in turn, including aspects related to land eligibility criteria, energy meteorology, and technical developments of wind turbine characteristics such as power density, specific rotor power and spacing aspects. Economic aspects of potential assessments are central to future deployment and are discussed on a turbine and system level covering levelized costs depending on locations, and the system integration costs which are often overlooked in such analyses. Non-technical approaches include scenicness assessments of the landscape, constraints due to regulation or public opposition, expert and stakeholder workshops, willingness to pay/accept elicitations and socioeconomic cost-benefit studies. For each of these different potential estimations, the state of the art is critically discussed, with an attempt to derive best practice recommendations and highlight avenues for future research.}, language = {en} } @article{SchwabHuberGebhardt2016, author = {Schwab, Susanne and Huber, Christian and Gebhardt, Markus}, title = {Social acceptance of students with Down syndrome and students without disability}, series = {Educational psychology}, volume = {36}, journal = {Educational psychology}, publisher = {Hindawi Publishing Corp.}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {0144-3410}, doi = {10.1080/01443410.2015.1059924}, pages = {1501 -- 1515}, year = {2016}, abstract = {We investigated the influence of teacher feedback on the social acceptance of peers with intellectual disabilities and peers without disabilities. A computer task was administered to 601 students in grades 3 and 4. Twenty-six per cent of the students attend an inclusive school; the others are in regular schools without students with special educational needs. Participants are introduced to 'new' virtual classmates, one student with Down syndrome (DS), and one control student with no obvious disability. Additionally, teacher feedback and feedback about fun playing with the new classmates is given. Social acceptance is evaluated by asking if one would like to sit next to him/her. Both feedbacks showed a strong effect. The child with DS was less socially accepted than the child without disability. No difference regarding the social acceptance of the students with DS was found between students from inclusive and regular classes. Students from regular classes rate the social acceptance of the student without disabilities significantly higher than students from inclusive classrooms.}, language = {en} }