Source-linked AI summary
How to build a campfire? Participatory modelling with justice
Nynke van Uffelen, Sander ten Caat, Aarthi Sundaram, Annemiek de Looze, Marion Collewet, Eefje Cuppen, Igor Nikolic
TL;DR
Energy-transition models can illuminate techno-economic uncertainty but cannot settle justice questions, and existing participatory approaches do not necessarily address that gap. The paper proposes a five-phase participatory process that centers collaborative exploration of justice; its Utrecht application concludes that the campfire metaphor helped bridge technical and ethical reflection, while inclusion remained challenging.
Problem
Computational models help examine techno-economic uncertainty, but existing participatory modelling does not necessarily address normative uncertainty and justice questions.
Source: §1 · pp. 1–2Method
The paper proposes five participatory phases that identify justice questions, engage stakeholders and publics, use a computational model, and support contextual deliberation.
Source: §1 · p. 2, §3.1 · p. 5, §3.2 · p. 8Results
The authors conclude that the campfire metaphor effectively organized reflection on a heat-transition justice issue and bridged techno-economic and ethical realms.
Source: §6 · p. 19Takeaways & Limitations
Participatory modelling can support normative exploration when justice is deliberated contextually rather than treated as a model outcome to achieve.
Source: §6 · p. 19Only 49,6% of PVE starters completed both choice tasks, and stakeholders kept the survey focused on the neighbourhood rather than the whole city.
Source: §5.2 · p. 18
Abstract
from arXiv · showhide
Energy transition decision-making is pervaded by deep uncertainties. Computational models are helpful in addressing such uncertainties, as they can give insight into techno-economic complexity. However, models alone are insufficient, as part of the uncertainties involve justice dilemmas.
1. Introduction
Energy transitions pose intertwined techno-economic and ethical uncertainties, but computational models address only the former. The paper asks how participatory modelling can explore justice questions alongside deep uncertainties.
1. Introduction
- Models can examine techno-economic effects, but cannot by themselves resolve normative uncertainty about what is just.Justice dilemmas can involve weighing local inequalities against the benefits of a faster global transition.Source: §1 · pp. 1–2
- Participatory modelling combines stakeholder involvement with knowledge sharing, deliberation, collaboration, and learning.These processes may make models more representative, policy-relevant, and meaningful to stakeholders.Source: §1 · p. 2
- Stakeholder preferences do not automatically establish justice, because they may reflect interests or leave some voices unheard.Social acceptance is not equivalent to ethical acceptability.Source: §1 · p. 2
- The proposed approach has five phases, from prioritizing justice questions to a reflexive stakeholder workshop, and was applied in Utrecht.The case was conducted with the municipality and a local neighbourhood cooperative.Source: §1 · p. 2
2. Energy justice and participatory modelling
The section distinguishes contested conceptions of energy justice from the varied purposes of participatory modelling. It argues for an approach that makes normative uncertainty an explicit subject of collaborative exploration.
2.1 Energy justice
- Energy justice concerns the distribution of burdens and benefits, decision-making procedures, and recognition, while its conceptions can vary and conflict.Which conception is suitable in a context should be deliberated and argued for.Source: §2.1 · p. 3
2.2 Participatory modelling (PM)
- Participatory modelling brings stakeholders into model-building and supports knowledge sharing, collaboration, deliberation, and learning.Its motivations, participants, and modes of engagement vary.Source: §2.2 · pp. 3–4
- Participatory modelling is justified instrumentally, substantively, and normatively, including its potential to improve model relevance and foster shared understanding.Stakeholder participation is also presented as ethically important in its own right.Source: §2.2 · pp. 3–4
2.3 Participatory modelling with justice
- Existing approaches that connect modelling and justice either treat participation as justice or seek better outcomes, but neither adequately addresses normative uncertainty.Stakeholder preferences cannot simply be equated with justice, and local processes may leave affected voices unheard.Source: §2.3 · pp. 4–5
- Participatory modelling with justice uses models to support contextual exploration of justice questions, not to determine a definitive just option.The approach links descriptive model outcomes with normative deliberation about their implications for justice.Source: §2.3 · p. 5
3. Designing a participatory modelling process with justice
The design treats justice as contested and uncertain, so models support deliberation rather than dictate a just choice. Its campfire process gathers and interprets knowledge and perspectives while attending to affected voices beyond the local case.
3.1 Design rationale
- The approach treats justice as contested: stakeholders explore which option could be most just in context, without assuming a definite answer.Model choice should serve the justice questions while also reflecting practical constraints such as expertise, data, and institutional support.Source: §3.1 · pp. 5–6
- The process should include key stakeholders and account for affected actors beyond the local case, including other regions, generations, and species.Local actors may overlook impacts beyond their geographical and temporal boundaries.Source: §3.1 · p. 6
- Participants’ epistemic and normative assumptions require critical reflection; preferences should not be accepted as self-validating premises for justice.Model outcomes also require critical interpretation of the assumptions that produced them.Source: §3.1 · p. 6
3.2 A PM process that explores justice issues: building a campfire
- The campfire metaphor represents a social process in which stakeholders gather and interpret input from models, stakeholders, and affected actors.The gathered “woodblocks” represent epistemic and normative input, including values, perspectives, and knowledge.Source: §3.2 · pp. 6–7, Figure 1 · p. 7
- The first phase identifies justice issues, trade-offs, questions, and dilemmas, while researchers bring wider impacts onto the agenda.Stakeholder interaction may use interviews, focus groups, workshops, surveys, or document analysis.Source: §3.2 · p. 8
Phase 2. Envisioning the campfire: participatory modelling with key stakeholders
Key stakeholders co-create the focus of the participatory modelling process, including its justice priorities, modelling question, and model scope.
Phase 2. Envisioning the campfire: participatory modelling with key stakeholders
- Key stakeholders decide which justice issues to prioritize and co-shape the modelling question and model scope, typically through a focused brainstorming workshop.The group includes actors with decision-making agency, those shaping the decision space, and representatives of affected stakeholders.Source: Phase 2. Envisioning the campfire:… · p. 8
Phase 3. Gathering wood: involving the perspectives of the publics
Because local energy-justice dilemmas affect more people than the small group involved in participatory modelling, the process should also gather views and values from wider local publics.
Phase 3. Gathering wood: involving the perspectives of the publics
- Wider publics’ views and values can be gathered through surveys or discrete choice experiments, complementing the small group of key stakeholders in participatory modelling.The resulting inputs are treated as “woodblocks” for exploring the justice questions.Source: Phase 3. Gathering wood: involving the… · p. 8
Phase 4. Building the campfire: building a model
The model should be built to explore the justice issues and trade-offs identified earlier, with its scope and key choices traceable to stakeholder and public input.
Phase 4. Building the campfire: building a model
- Build a model to explore the identified justice issues, dilemmas, and trade-offs under different assumptions or uncertainties.Its conceptualisation draws on stakeholders’ modelling question, scope, and requirements, as well as public input.Source: Phase 4. Building the campfire:… · pp. 8–9
Phase 5. Interpreting the flames and letting it burn: collective critical reflection
Stakeholders should jointly scrutinize model outcomes, public views, and their own assumptions when responding to justice questions. The process should end with reflection, because models shape the views and priorities they seek to represent.
Phase 5. Interpreting the flames and letting it burn: collective critical reflection
- Stakeholders critically examine model outcomes, public views, and their own assumptions together, then use them to draft a response to the justice questions.Model outcomes should not be treated as objective truth or predictions: the process and its outcomes affect people’s views, actions, and priorities.Source: Phase 5. Interpreting the flames and… · p. 9
4. The energy transition in Utrecht Noordoost
In Utrecht Noordoost, the participatory modelling process combined stakeholder deliberation, a public value evaluation, and modelling to explore how to deploy heat technologies justly. The process surfaced trade-offs and shifted workshop participants toward steering a quicker transition, while treating model estimates and justice claims as open to scrutiny.
4. The energy transition in Utrecht Noordoost
- The Utrecht Noordoost case focused on building collaboration around the neighbourhood heat transition, with justice tensions across local, national, and global scales.The relatively privileged neighbourhood provided an opportunity to explore those geographical tensions.Source: §4 · pp. 9–10
4.1 Scoping a spot: justice issues in Utrecht Noordoost
- Interviews, policy documents, and brainstorming identified dilemmas around choice freedom, transition speed, distribution, inclusion, compensation, and ownership.Twelve semi-structured interviews involved neighbourhood stakeholders, local professionals, and Dutch energy-transition experts.Source: §4.1 · p. 10
4.2 Envisioning the fire: the PM workshop
- Stakeholders revised the initial technical policy question into a question about the most just way to deploy heat technologies, then prioritized justice issues and set model boundaries.They focused on local levers and impacts, with a timeframe to 2030 and, where possible, 2050.Source: §4.2 · pp. 10–11
4.3 Gathering wood: the participatory value evaluation
- The PVE engaged citizens through value rankings and constrained choices; its 635 respondents were not representative, and values sometimes outweighed cost concerns.Climate concern and heat-transition importance correlated with preferences for collective solutions, while valuing individual choice-freedom correlated with individual solutions.Source: §4.3 · pp. 11–12
4.4 Building the campfire: modelling extremes
- The model compared three extreme scenarios for individual freedom, collective heat grids, and all-electric heating, but stakeholder time limited exploration to one justice issue.Its outputs were rough estimates intended to compare scenarios; the starting Hestia model was extended with a microsimulation to represent dwelling-level heating choices.Source: §4.4 · pp. 12–13
- Collective heat grids were estimated to be cheapest but to have the greatest public-space impact, while individual freedom was the most expensive scenario.The estimates exposed a trade-off among costs, individual choice-freedom, and scarce public space.Source: §4.4 · p. 13
4.5 Interpreting the flames and letting it burn: the campfire workshop
- Participants questioned cost estimates as too unstable to support conclusions, while public-space impacts prompted a new trade-off; PVE results and wider global and environmental impacts also entered deliberation.The group’s arrow moved further toward steering after considering these inputs.Source: §4.5 · pp. 15–16
- Across the campfire workshop, stakeholders shifted toward steering a quicker transition, citing broader impacts and limits on individuals’ ability to oversee decision constraints.They found some steering justified given individuals’ narrower views and limited knowledge compared with local institutions.Source: §4.5 · p. 16
5. Discussion, evaluation and reflection
The discussion evaluates how the campfire process supported collective exploration of justice questions, while reflecting on inclusion limits and the model’s role in normative exploration.
5.1 PM with justice: starting from justice questions
- The campfire helped participants connect citizens’ values, model implications, and their own assumptions, while almost all still considered uncertain cost estimates highly relevant.The authors conclude that the metaphor gave stakeholders a clear structure for discussing complex justice questions and computational models.Source: §5.1 · pp. 16–17
- Participants did not fully connect the process with “justice”; the authors suggest more time and physical engagement with the campfire materials could improve deliberation.They note that explicitly emphasizing justice might clarify the link but could also confuse a process grounded in concrete choices and dilemmas.Source: §5.1 · p. 17
- The process did not produce a clear policy approach, but participants reported deeper insight, momentum for discussion, and a strengthened municipal mandate to act.The municipality felt strengthened in its mandate as the arrow shifted significantly toward steering for a quick transition.Source: §5.1 · p. 17
5.2 Inclusion
- The PVE was not representative: only 49.6% of starters completed both choice tasks, and participants found the questions difficult and lengthy.The authors recommend continuing to pursue representativeness, possibly through mixed methods, while reflecting on perspectives that remain hidden.Source: §5.2 · pp. 17–18
- Two “zoom-out woodblocks” brought global and non-anthropocentric perspectives into the local debate, but could not substitute for actors’ lived experiences.Both blocks were related back to the initial justice issue and further supported steering toward a quick transition.Source: §5.2 · p. 18
- Local stakeholders kept the PVE focused on the neighbourhood, preventing research on how confronting them with other neighbourhoods’ perspectives would affect them.The researchers considered it a moral responsibility to keep challenging local focus while still prioritizing the highest-ranked justice issues.Source: §5.2 · p. 18
5.3 The role of the computational model
- The authors propose “normative exploration” as a purpose of modelling: facilitating collective exploration of moral, ethical, or justice questions, dilemmas, and trade-offs.They present this as an additional modelling purpose alongside purposes such as social learning.Source: §5.3 · pp. 18–19
- Model outcomes made abstract justice dilemmas tangible, surfaced stakeholder values and possible moral blind spots, and revealed a trade-off between public space and costs or collective action.Contested cost estimates prompted reflection on their dominant role in heat-transition planning.Source: §5.3 · p. 19
6. Conclusions
The paper proposes “PM with justice,” using participatory modelling to explore justice questions rather than seek just model outcomes. Its Utrecht heat-transition case illustrates the approach and supports normative exploration as a purpose of participatory modelling.
6. Conclusions
- “PM with justice” has stakeholders collectively explore justice questions and dilemmas amid normative uncertainty, rather than strive for “just model outcomes.”The approach brings together computational models, stakeholders and publics, and reflection on epistemic and normative assumptions.Source: §6 · p. 19
- In Utrecht Noordoost’s heat transition, the campfire metaphor organized reflection across techno-economic and ethical realms, while the authors conclude that participatory modelling can support normative exploration.The paper also argues that researchers should challenge local focus through “zooming out” and critical reflection.Source: §6 · p. 19
- Stakeholder participation in modelling does not guarantee more just outcomes, and the authors suggest further developing the approach and exploring “design with justice.”They distinguish “design with justice,” which facilitates collective reflection on justice, from “design for justice,” which aims to design technologies for just outcomes.Source: §6 · p. 19
Funding
The paper was written as part of the JustETrans project, funded by the Dutch Research Council.
Funding
- The paper was written as part of the JustETrans project, funded by the Dutch Research Council under project number KICH1.ED03.20.002.Source: Funding · p. 20