Wake effects and temperature plumes: Coping with non-knowledge in the expansion of wind and geothermal energy.

Energy transitions are knowledge-intensive processes where a multitude of actors are trying to cope with inevitable knowledge gaps, surprises, and uncertainties. In this context, we focus on two techno-physical phenomena that are gaining practical relevance with the expansion of wind and geothermal energy extraction, and are surrounded by significant unknowns: wake effects and temperature plumes. Both phenomena can potentially affect the efficiency of energy production, but the extent of their impact is not yet known. Based on 28 semi-structured interviews with experts in the fields of wind and geothermal energy, we explore how different central actors perceive and interpret non-knowledge of wake effects and temperature plumes, and how they deal with it. We show that there are strategies for either using non-knowledge as a basis for action or simply ignoring it and sweeping knowledge gaps under the rug. Both strategies serve the function of protecting agency and keeping things going.

Emotional reactions to climate change: a comparison across France, Germany, Norway, and the United Kingdom.

We present a study of emotional reactions to climate change utilizing representative samples from France, Germany, Norway, and the United Kingdom (UK). Drawing on appraisal theories of emotion, we examine relations between appraisals, emotions, and behavioral intentions in the context of climate change. We compare the four countries concerning emotional differences and commonalities and relate our findings to pertinent models of cultural values. Five distinct emotions were measured: worry, hope, fear, outrage, and guilt. In addition, the survey asked respondents to appraise a set of climate-related statements, such as the causality of climate change, or the efficacy of mitigation efforts. Also, a set of climate-relevant actions, such as willingness to reduce energy consumption or support for climate policies, was assessed. Findings show that appraisals of human causation and moral concern were associated with worry and outrage, and appraisals of efficacy and technological solutions were associated with hope. Worry and outrage are associated with intentions to reduce one's energy consumption, whereas hope and guilt are related to support for policies such as tax and price increases. A country comparison shows that French respondents score high on outrage and worry and tend to engage in individual behaviors to mitigate climate change, whereas Norwegian respondents score high on hope and show a tendency to support policies of cost increase. Generally, worry is the most and guilt the least intense emotion. Moral concerns and perceived collective efficacy of one's country in addressing climate change are relatively strong in France, while beliefs in human causation and in negative impacts of climate change prevail in Germany, and confidence in technological solutions are prevalent in Norway. In sum, findings reveal typical patterns of emotional responses in the four countries and confirm systematic associations between emotions and appraisals as well as between emotions and behaviors. Relating these findings to models of cultural values reveals that Norway, endorsing secular and egalitarian values, is characterized by hope and confidence in technological solutions, whereas France and Germany, emphasizing relatively more hierarchical and traditional values, are rather characterized by fear, outrage, and support for behavioral restrictions imposed by climate change policies.

Reporting guidelines for Delphi techniques in health sciences: A methodological review.

BACKGROUND: Delphi techniques are conducted across different subfields in the health sciences. The reporting practices of studies using Delphi techniques vary, and current reporting guidelines for Delphi techniques focus on individual subfields of the health sciences or on different aspects of research and are therefore of limited applicability. The aim of this article was to identify similarities, differences, and possible shortcomings of existing Delphi reporting guidelines and to draft an initial proposal for a comprehensively applicable reporting guideline. METHODS: A systematic literature search for reporting guidelines on Delphi studies was performed in existing data resources based on databases in the health sciences (Scopus, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Epistemonikos) including publications from 2016 to 2021. In June 2021, we conducted an additional search in PubMed and included further studies by contacting experts of the scientific Delphi expert network (DeWiss). Title and abstract screening of articles was performed, followed by a full-text screening of the articles included. We qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated, compared and contrasted the reporting guidelines identified using content analysis and discussed the results among the members of the Delphi expert network. RESULTS: We retrieved ten health science articles with reporting guidelines for Delphi studies. In analyzing them, we identified nine main categories (Justification, Expert panel, Questionnaire, Survey design, Process regulation, Analyses, Results, Discussion, Methods reflection & Ethics). The current reporting guidelines vary significantly, with only the aspect of consensus appearing in all of them. Frequency distributions show that most of the subcategories are only addressed in individual articles (e.g., meeting of participants, proceeding with the survey method, transfer of the results, validation, prevention of bias) and that epistemological foundations of the Delphi technique are rarely mentioned or reflected on. We drafted an initial proposal for Delphi reporting guidelines for the health science sector. DISCUSSION: A well-justified position concerning epistemological foundations of Delphi studies is necessary to make the quality of the process assessable and, along with the reporting of the process, to classify and compare study results. This will increase the acceptance of both the method in the health science sector and the results in medical practice. A Delphi reporting guideline must, above all, take into account the diversity of variants, subfield-related objectives and application areas, and their modifications of the Delphi technique in order to be comprehensively applicable in the health sciences. CONCLUSION: The results of our methodological review do not provide a final reporting guideline. The newly developed proposal is intended to encourage discussion and agreement in further analyses.

Responsibility, rationality, and acceptance: How future users of autonomous driving are constructed in stakeholders' sociotechnical imaginaries.

Although autonomous driving is expected to provide a solution for various mobility-related issues, ideas on how the technology will actually unfold are vague. Nevertheless, stakeholders in the field hold expectations about the technology and the future users. With very few exceptions, so far research does not focus on these expectations as social constructions of individuals and publics. In addition, these perceptions play only a minor role in the technology-centered debate. Thus, to bring these perceptions to light and to analyze their implications, we draw on the sociotechnical imaginaries approach to reconstruct stakeholders' views of future users and publics. We perform a qualitative content analysis and show that imaginaries unfold along the themes of responsibility for the process of driving, rationality in decision-making, and acceptance for emerging technologies. We discuss how the themes relate to each other, what role science plays, and what implications follow from the respective stakeholders' views.