Value sensitive design: the case of shale gas exploitation

1. Value sensitive design: the case of shale gas exploitation Sixth Annual Conference on Competition and Regulation in Network Industries (CRNI) 22 November 2013 Residence Palace in Brussels. http://newenergyandfuel.com Aad Correljé a.f.correlje@tudelft.nl Behnam Taebi b.taebi@tudelft.nl Eefje Cuppen e.h.w.j.cuppen@tudelft.nl Udo Pesch U.Pesch@tudelft.nl Marloes Dignum m.dignum@tudelft.nl

2. Zimmermann: A functional theory on resources (1933, 1951) • “Resources are not, they become; they are not static but expand and contract in response to human wants and human actions”

3. The creation of resources • Is driven by “the mother of all other resources”: Knowledge • Changes with civilization • Dynamic not only in response to increased knowledge, improved arts, expanding science, but also… • changing individual wants and social objectives • Reflecting every change in the purpose of the appraiser • Culture modifies natural environments and resources, and affects human attitudes and relations • Resources are also returned to “neutral stuff”

4. Shale gas: the creation of a resource?

5. Hypothesis • ‘Responsible’ shale gas innovation: • Appropriately reflect divergent stakeholders’ values. • Both technologies and institutions incorporate values • Contestation arises when not all values are incorporated To what extent do current shale gas technologies and institutions accommodate the variety of (conflicting) stakeholder values and (how) can technology and institutions be developed in such a way as to incorporate the variety of (conflicting) stakeholder values?

6. Institutional economic approach • Dominant mainstream economic framing of energy ignores relationships between energy production/use & society • Production and consumption of energy are linked to environmental, economic and social effects, • With local, regional and global impacts. • In our approach, environmental, safety and security of supply issues of energy markets are framed as public values • E.g. welfare is not considered to be a simple neutral aggregation of all individual interests aiming at maximization • We aim at internalizing labor relations, education, social security, external safety rules etc. into market behaviour as “public values”

7. Values from different perspectives • Ethics relates to: • Value upheld and value specification • Values embedded in technologies • Identifying value trade-offs and reflection on them • Economics relates to values that are (or have become) embedded in institutional contexts • The economic system as a realization of values • The market and political realm as formative contexts in which values are stabilized • STS look at dynamics of values • In relation to their emergence during innovation trajectories • In relation to their articulation in stakeholder interaction

8. Where are the values in design? • Value sensitive design aims at incorporating human values in technological design • First developed in ICT, and furthered in other engineering fields • Values at three levels Institutional context Stakeholders Participation Technology

9. Specifying values Values: Generally considered important to be upheld Norms: Formulated to realise values Design criteria: Very specific criteria for complying with norms Environmental friendliness Prevent pollution surface water Context dependent: e.g. standards for drinking water purification

10. Construction of value hierarchy • Building on (Van de Poel forthcoming) • A value hierarchy can be constructed top-down or bottom-up • Most arguments are voiced on the level of norms

11. Example of a value hierarchy Health and Safety Value The seismic risks as a result of shale gas exploitation need to be managed Norm There must be Compensation Fund for repairing any damage caused up to the level Z. There must be constant monitoring of micro-seismic activities for the period of X years The well need to be design such that it could withstand seismic effects up to Y Chemicals A, B and C may not reach the biosphere with a concentration higher than a, b and c. Design Criteria

12. Values conflicts in shale gas debate Source: Correlje, A., Cuppen, E., Dignum, M., Pesch, U. and B. Taebi, Forthcoming. Responsible Innovation in Energy Projects: Values in the Design of Technologies, Institutions and Stakeholder Interactions. In Responsible Innovation. Volume II, edited by J. Van den Hoven, E. J. Koops, H. A. Romijn, T. E. Swierstra and I. Oosterlaken: Springer:

13. Preliminary findings 1/2 • We have empirically analyzed the Dutch debate • Situation in the Netherlands • Both proponents and opponents are vociferous: rich data • As regards substantive values • Proponents and opponents often endorse the same values The controversy often happens at the level of norm, and how one value is being operationalized • Responsible innovation requires a better understanding of these controversies • To what extent can the controversy be helped using new technology: example of new exploitation methods

14. E.g. Health and Safety

15. Preliminary findings 2/2 • Procedural values are often neglected in policy-making • Questions of distributive justice • Questions of procedural justice: how to decide, who to decode, transparency of information and decision-making • Particularly opponents seem to emphasize and add these values into the debate • Responsible innovation of shale gas at least requires appropriate inclusion of these values into the design of • Institutions and public participation

16. Thank you • Comments are highly appreciated, now or later through email • The research team Aad Correljéa.f.correlje@tudelft.nl Eefje Cuppen e.h.w.j.cuppen@tudelft.nl Marloes Dignum m.dignum@tudelft.nl Udo Pesch U.Pesch@tudelft.nl BehnamTaebib.taebi@tudelft.nl