Next Article in Journal
Research on Underground Coal Mine Map Construction Method Based on LeGO-LOAM Improved Algorithm
Next Article in Special Issue
Sustainable Transition from Fossil Fuel to Geothermal Energy: A Multi-Level Perspective Approach
Previous Article in Journal
Techniques of Improving Infrastructure and Energy Resilience in Urban Setting
Previous Article in Special Issue
On the Organisation of Translation—An Inter- and Transdisciplinary Approach to Developing Design Options for CO2 Storage Monitoring Systems
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 15
Issue 17
10.3390/en15176252
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Bridging Social and Technical Sciences: Introduction of the Societal Embeddedness Level

by
Marit Sprenkeling
*,
Tara Geerdink
,
Adriaan Slob
and
Amber Geurts
Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research—TNO, 2595 DA The Hague, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2022, 15(17), 6252; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15176252
Submission received: 7 July 2022 / Revised: 21 August 2022 / Accepted: 22 August 2022 / Published: 27 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Challenges in the Utilization of Underground Energy and Space)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The successful and fast development and deployment of renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction technologies is a continuing and structural challenge. The deployment of these technologies is slowed down and sometimes even stalled due to societal challenges like public resistance, lack of appropriate policy and regulations, unsolid business cases and uncertainty concerning the impact on the environment. In this paper we elaborate on societal aspects that influence technology development and deployment and introduce the societal embeddedness level (SEL) framework. Building upon the technology readiness level (TRL), the SEL framework enables the assessment of the current level of societal embeddedness of energy technologies in order to identify the societal aspects which need to be taken into account to accelerate deployment of energy technologies. The SEL framework takes into account four societal dimensions (impact on the environment, stakeholder involvement, policy and regulations, and market and financial resources) and four stages of technology development (exploration, development, demonstration and deployment) that are linked to the TRL. The SEL framework has been elaborated for CCS technologies and is being applied to the monitoring of geological CO2 storage by the ACT II project DigiMon (Digital Monitoring of CO2 storage projects). DigiMon is an ACT second call project, funded by the national funding agencies in the period September 2019–August 2022.

1. Introduction

To reach the European climate objectives for 2030 and 2050, greenhouse gas emissions have to be reduced and energy systems need to be changed in a faster pace [1]. To achieve such acceleration, renewable energy technologies and greenhouse gas reduction technologies play a major role and should be deployed in an unprecedentedly fast way. For instance, carbon capture and storage (CCS) could play a role in realizing negative CO2 emissions, in case an overshoot of the Paris Climate objectives might occur.
However, technology readiness on its own does not guarantee a successful deployment of a technology in a societal context. To achieve acceleration, we argue that societal requirements in the development stages of a technological innovation also need to be addressed to ensure deployment of such (renewable) energy and greenhouse gas reduction technologies. That is, without proper dedication to societal requirements in the development stages of a technological innovation, the deployment of (renewable) energy technologies and greenhouse gas reduction technologies will be delayed or obstructed. In addition, many technologies never fulfil their promise, as not enough attention is paid to the process of implementation and to embedding the new technologies in society [2]. Successful development (and deployment) of technologies thus depends on our ability to identify and address not just the technical but also the societal challenges of developing, implementing and employing energy technologies and innovations [3]. We therefore argue that attention for the societal embeddedness of energy technologies is needed to accelerate deployment and improve the successful realization of technologies.
In this paper we therefore introduce the societal embeddedness level (SEL) framework. The SEL framework provides insight into the societal embeddedness level of a technology and identifies the societal aspects that need to be considered during the development stages of a technology, to support deployment of the technology in a societal context.
The SEL framework builds upon the technology readiness levels (TRLs), a well-known and commonly used measurement system to support the assessment of the readiness (maturity) of a technology or different types of technologies [4]. NASA started the concept of quantifying the maturity “stage” of a technology to assess the readiness for a technology or system for field deployment [4,5,6]. Through various mutations, the TRL scale eventually became a tool for innovation policy in the EU [7,8] where it is used to assess how far a technology is from being ready for use in its intended operational environment [8]. Additionally, the TRL is used for decision making [7,9], subsidy grants and overcoming the ‘valley of death’ by shifting funding of technology development towards commercialization [7].
Although the TRL scale is well-known and frequently used among many disciplines, it has its limitations. An important criticism of TRL is that it does not take societal aspects into consideration [7]. The focus is mostly on the technology itself, giving little attention to the impact the technology will have on society, and the impact the societal environment can have on the technology development and deployment [7]. Additionally, the TRL is based on a linear development process, whilst the development process is more circular, and faced with setbacks and back loops. The TRL scale does not consider the circular development and integration of R&D through the entire process [7].
As the TRL only addresses the technological aspect of innovation, there is thus a need for a more comprehensive readiness assessment framework that: (1) creates a taxonomy that bridges technical and social aspects in energy technology development; (2) assesses the extent to which a technological innovation is ready for deployment in a societal context; and (3) guides research and development processes and project development. The SEL framework presented in this paper is meant to present a measurement system that identifies the societal aspects that need to be considered during the development stages of a technology with impact on its physical environment to ensure the societal embeddedness of a technology in a societal context.
To assess the usability of our framework, the SEL framework has been applied to the European project ACT II DigiMon by an international and interdisciplinary consortium of social and technical scientists working on the development of a human-centered monitoring system for carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. Within DigiMon, the SEL of CO2 storage in Germany, Greece, Norway and the Netherlands has been assessed. This assessment provides insight not only into the societal challenges that need to be addressed during further development of CO2 storage projects in these countries [10], but also regarding the challenges of using the SEL framework for one technology in different countries.
In the next sections, we first elaborate on the methods we used to develop the SEL framework, and apply the developed framework using a case study of CCS technologies in Germany, Greece, Norway and The Netherlands. Next, we introduce societal aspects which can obstruct the development and deployment of energy technologies, which is followed by an assessment of existing (technology) readiness assessment frameworks. We conclude the results section by introducing and substantiating the SEL framework, and discussing the findings of applying the SEL framework to the DigiMon project. Finally, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our research and the steps for further research and development of the SEL framework.

2. Materials and Methods

To develop a tool to assess the societal embeddedness of energy technologies, we employed two methods. First, we conducted an in-depth literature review focused on generating insights regarding (a) important societal factors that hamper the deployment of energy technologies in society, and (b) available tools and methodologies for assessing technologies and guiding research and development processes. To arrive at a set of relevant articles, we conducted a web of Science article search with relevant search terms. We used several variations of these keywords to increase the number of potentially relevant search results. The main selection process involved two rounds. In the first round, we primarily judged the relevance of articles based on the title, abstract and keywords. We included papers that treated societal factor and/or societal readiness level methods as focal concepts. In the second round, we inspected the full texts of articles in order to check whether and how the main constructs we are interested in have been mentioned in the body of the text.
In the analysis of the literature, we divided the papers in two sections, namely (a) papers describing societal factors and (b) papers describing tool and methodologies for societal readiness. To analyze the papers on societal factors, we used a clustering approach to cluster the societal factors into four societal dimensions that we present in the Results section. To analyze the papers on tools and methodologies for societal readiness, we developed an inventory focused on the societal aspects taken into account and development steps considered. Based on these two analyses, we were able to define the SEL framework, which distinguishes four societal dimensions and four levels of societal embeddedness.
The societal dimensions and levels of societal embeddedness of the SEL framework was validated by an interdisciplinary research team with knowledge and experience in technology development in the sustainable energy sector and greenhouse gas reduction sector. To do this, we organized two co-creation sessions in which the concept of the societal dimensions and embeddedness levels were pictured and every level in every dimension was discussed. Finally, we adapted the dimensions and levels to the findings of the validation activities to develop the SEL assessment framework further.
Second, we conducted an in-depth case study [11] in which the SEL framework has been applied in practice. This case study has been conducted within ACT II DigiMon, an international and interdisciplinary consortium of social and technical scientists that aims to accelerate the implementation of carbon capture storage (CCS). ACT II DigiMon aims to do so by developing and demonstrating an affordable, flexible, societally embedded and smart digital monitoring early-warning system, for monitoring a CO2 storage reservoir and subsurface barrier system, receiving CO2 from fossil fuel power plants, oil refineries, process plants and other industries DigiMon is a project funded by the national funding agencies in the period of September 2019 until August 2022.
To test the SEL framework, we selected the case of CCS via purposeful sampling [12]. First, carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies can contribute substantially to climate change mitigation [1], and a global rollout of CCS was envisioned for 2025 [13]. However, until now CCS deployment has been slow. At the current pace of deployment, the CO2 storage capacity in 2050 will be about 700 million tons per year, which is 10% of what is required [14]. Second, several non-technical obstacles obstruct the deployment of CCS, such as costs, legislation and liabilities, public perception and acceptance and a lack of public awareness [14]. In 2009, six CCS demonstration projects were selected for funding under the EEPR; however, four of them have been cancelled—mainly due to regulatory issues which involve a lack of foreseeable permit-granting procedures and political impasse regarding the transport and storage of CO2 [15]. Examples of cancelled CCS projects as a result of societal resistance and lack of public support are Barendrecht [16], Groningen [17] and Beeskow [18,19]. A lack of political support stalled the realization of Barendrecht [16,19,20,21] and Beeskow [19]. Finally, a lack of appropriate financial instruments occurred for ROAD CCS in the Netherlands [22,23], Mongstad in Norway [23,24] and Beeskow in Germany [19]. Finally, we selected this case as it allowed us to apply and assess the SEL framework for CO2 storage projects in Germany, Greece, Norway and The Netherlands.
During the case study, we used desk research on former and current CCS projects and developments as well as expert interviews [10] to assess the SEL of CO2 storage technologies in the four countries within our case study. To evaluate the use of the SEL methodology, four interviews were conducted with seven respondents who were all researchers of one of the countries that performed the SEL assessments, all participating in the ACT Digimon project. The interviews were conducted between January and February 2021.

3. Results

In this section we first elaborate on societal factors that influence technology development and deployment (Section 3.1), then we provide an overview of tools and methodologies concerning the readiness of a technology for deployment (Section 3.2). Finally, we present the societal embeddedness level (SEL) framework (Section 3.3) and reflect on applying the SEL in a case study (Section 3.4).

3.1. Societal Factors That Influence Technology Development and Deployment

In this section, we use our literature review to elaborate on the societal factors that influence technology development and deployment with a specific focus on renewable energy technologies and carbon reduction technologies. Based on the literature research, we distinguish four key societal aspects crucial for the deployment of an (energy) technology in society, namely: (1) impact on the physical and social environment; (2) stakeholders and public involvement, (3) policy and regulations and 4) market and resources.
Public acceptance or opposition (i.e., social acceptance or resistance) [25] is an important factor for the deployment of a technology in society. Public opposition will cause delay or stagnation of the development and deployment of energy technologies [25,26,27,28]. Public acceptance is influenced by the impact of technological innovation on its environment, during the various stages of development as well as operation. Impacts on the environment are dependent of the siting of a technology or project [29]. A lack of social acceptance due to siting issues can be caused by the impact on the natural, social and built environment [26,30,31], for example, noise disturbance, esthetics, pollution or negative impact upon birds and wildlife [30,31,32]. Nevertheless, the technology can as well have a positive impact on the environment, like reclamation of degraded land, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and improvement of quality of water resources, improving the labor market and security of energy supply [33]. Furthermore, emotional or psychological factors of [local] communities, like place attachment [34], can have a negative influence on social acceptance when a project or plan is interpreted as a threat to a place [35,36,37,38]. On the other hand, public support can arise when a project or plan for the development and deployment of (renewable) energy technologies is interpreted as a positive change for the place [39,40]. Finally, energy justice [41] also relates to public acceptance. Energy justice relates to the equality of the distribution of cost and impact of the energy system and the fairness of the procedures around the (development of) the energy system, for example, the way relevant stakeholders are involved in processes.
Secondly, stakeholder engagement and public involvement in the development and introduction of a new technology or project has an important influence on the acceptance of the technology [29,42]. For example: knowledge and communication about the technology influences public acceptance [28,29,43] and communication with the public and public engagement helps to gain insight into stakeholder perspectives and to create a basis to move a project or technology forward in a collaborative way [44]. Additionally, having influence over decisions regarding energy projects leads to higher project acceptability [45]. Insufficient community knowledge about the development process and efficacy of the energy technology can cause distrust with stakeholders and public [29]. Another important issue for public conversation as well as trust is the range of available options of technologies, and public views of the relative benefits and risks of these options [46]. Trust in institutions, like the government, technology developers or science, influences the perception towards a technology or project, whereby increased trust, results in higher acceptance [29,45,47,48,49,50]. However, currently institutional trust, in governments as well as industries, is very low [51]. Therefore, public involvement is both more important and more complicated.
The policy and regulatory context also have an important role in the development and deployment of energy technologies and greenhouse gas reduction technologies. Alignment of governments (local, regional and national) with the development team, and support and coordination across all levels of government, is a success factor for implementing energy technologies [52]. The understanding of the political landscape and ensuring that basic regulatory frameworks are in place, are often success factors as well [52]. A lack of political support, on the other hand, can cause a shortage of funding possibilities [19,20,23,53]. That is, (local) public resistance can eventually cause governments to forbid the application of technologies or introduce extra rules [54], resulting in regulatory burdens or even a regulatory lock-in to deploy the technology [28,53,55,56,57].
Finally, market and financial aspects influence the deployment of technological innovations. A lack of financial resources [19,23,28,58] is often a reason for stagnation or failure of (renewable) energy projects. Billson and Pourkashanian (2017) state that the initially high costs and a lack of funding of CCS projects by governments was one of the reasons for stagnation on the European CCS industry. Market forces can have a positive influence on lowering the costs of technologies [23]. CCS, for example, lacked a strong market base, which left the industry depending on government funding [23].
While each of these aspects are important, we acknowledge that there are many possible interrelations between the identified societal dimensions. For example, a negative public perception of a renewable energy technology might be caused due to a lack of knowledge on the impact on the environment, or due to the negative impact of renewable energy technologies on the social environment (for example, due to noise or aesthetics). Still, we feel these four aspects are distinguishable aspects in the societal embedding of technology. Additionally, negative public perception can influence the policy and regulatory dimensions, as governments can decide to stop supporting the technology, which causes a reduction in funding opportunities in the dimension of ‘market and financial resources’.
Table 1 entails the topics included within each societal aspect.

3.2. Assessment of Frameworks and Tools for the Readiness of a Technology for Deployment

Multiple assessment frameworks and readiness-level methodologies have been developed to assess technology readiness in one or multiple societal and technological dimensions. These frameworks and tools support the comparison of multiple technologies, offer a shared understanding about technology maturity and risks during the various development stages [4,59] and support decision making [4].
As societal aspects have a progressively more important role in technology development and implementation, multiple readiness frameworks and tools that take into account various societal aspects have been developed. Some readiness frameworks and tools focus on one societal aspect, such as markets or regulations, whilst others integrate multiple frameworks in one methodology. We have focused on readiness level frameworks and tools that take into account at least one of the societal aspects that we think are important for the societal embeddedness of energy technologies.
Table 2 presents the frameworks and tools we assessed. We distinguish between methodologies that assess readiness on one societal aspect, methodologies that assess readiness on multiple societal aspects and methodologies that are related to societal readiness but do not offer an assessment framework.
For market readiness, considering the technology push and market pull approach, the demand readiness level (DRL) is proposed [60]. The DRL is linked to the TRL, but the order of the levels is reversed to express the market pull effect. The DRL illustrates the asymmetry between the technology push and market pull effect. However, the DRL only takes market aspects into account and does not include other societal aspects.
The scaling readiness methodology assesses and accelerates the scaling readiness at project, portfolio or organizational levels, applied to the agricultural sector [61]. It assesses the barriers for scaling of innovations and how to overcome these barriers, by a standardized process of five steps (characterize, diagnose, strategize, agree and navigate), each containing multiple activities. The methodology offers an indicator framework consisting of nine scaling readiness levels [61]. Although the methodology offers extensive background information and guidelines to do the assessment, the methodology is focused on the scaling of innovations, which is already a step ahead of the deployment of an innovation in a societal context which we focus on.
The impact readiness level [62] is a multi-disciplinary volarization concept, developed to assess the readiness of a project to deliver societal impact. It does not measure the actual impact of a project, but instead analyzes the conditions and activities that influence impact by analyzing the conditions and activities that influence such impact [62].
The TRM assessment, combining technology readiness (nine-level scale), market readiness (five-level scale) and regulatory readiness (five-level scale), is a technology transition framework for regulatory and market readiness levels and helps to identify factors and the rate at which technology development must be supported to meet desired technical and policy goals [63].
The innovation readiness level methodology [64], developed in the REEEM project (i.e., www.reeem.org, accessed on 5 July 2022), combines the technology readiness level (TRL: nine levels), intellectual property readiness level (IPRL: three levels), market readiness level (MRL: twelve levels), consumer readiness level (CRL: six levels) and society readiness level (SRL: three levels) into one methodology. The purpose of the innovation readiness level methodology is to assess the maturity level of an innovative project in emerging businesses. It is a qualitative methodology which analyses the technology or project on project level on the dimensions that are crucial for a new product.
Another more holistic readiness assessment methodology is proposed [65]. In this methodology, societal readiness levels, as proposed by innovation fund Denmark (2018), are combined with the TRL and conceptual organization readiness levels and legal readiness levels. The purpose of his methodology is to assess the potential of new and existing digital technologies. An advantage of this framework is that all aspects that are taken into account are measured on a nine level scale and therefore allow for parallel assessment. However, although the framework is proposed as technology neutral, impacts of the technology on the (physical) environment have not been taken into account. Additionally, the proposed organization and legal readiness levels do not contain further scientific substantiation.
The balanced readiness level assessment (BRLa) offers a methodology to describe and categorize new agricultural technologies [66]. It builds on and expands beyond materially oriented studies of technology development. The BRLa combines TRL with market readiness levels, regulatory readiness levels, acceptance readiness levels and organizational readiness levels. All aspects are assessed on a nine-level scale. An advantage of the BRLa is that it takes into account the social acceptance of new technologies and uses homogenous scales for all five aspects. However, it does not pay attention to interventions in the development process to accelerate the readiness on the five proposed aspects.
Finally, the “arrangement for societal embeddedness” approach [67] focuses on technology, stakeholders, policy and market aspects. This approach offers arrangements to adapt an innovation during the research and development phase to society. It offers a manner to broaden the research and development program with societal aspects [67]. Although this approach takes into account all aspects we find important for the societal embeddedness, it focuses on embedding societal aspects in the development process and does not offer an assessment framework.
We found that although all of the above-mentioned tools include societal aspects that are important for the societal embeddedness of an energy technology, such as market, legal and stakeholder and public related aspects, there are limitations in their use or they do not fully fit the purpose we are looking for. For some tools, multiple scales of measurement are used (varying from three to twelve), which makes it hard to compare the outcomes on the various dimensions and pay attention to interrelation between the dimensions and possible back loops in the development process. Most tools do not offer ways to improve the societal embeddedness during the technology development process. In addition, readiness levels are often based on a single technology instead of including the system, which is needed to deploy the technology. Finally, the way the assessed technologies impact their environment, and vice versa, is not taken into account.

3.3. Towards an Assessment Famework for Societal Embeddedness: The SEL Framework

Building upon the TRL, the clustered societal factors of importance, and the previously introduced assessment frameworks and readiness tools, we present the societal embeddedness level (SEL) framework. The SEL framework provides a structured and holistic approach to assess the extent to which a technological innovation is ready for deployment in society, using a homogeneous scale.
The SEL framework includes four societal dimensions that relate to technology development and deployment in a societal context and distinguishes four levels of technology development. In its four dimensions the SEL framework takes into account the impact of the technology on the environment, stakeholder involvement during development and deployment of the technology, relevant policies and the regulatory framework and market and financial resources.

3.3.1. Societal Embeddedness Levels

We propose four levels of societal embeddedness (Table 3): exploration, development, demonstration and deployment. To connect social and technical aspects in the development stages, the four societal embeddedness levels correspond to the nine technology readiness levels. To be able to differentiate between the levels and to offer an easy applicable assessment framework the nine TRLs are clustered to four main technology development stages. These four stages are derived from the Netherlands Enterprise Agency of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate and Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. For the SEL, phase 1 is modified from the discovery phase to the exploration phase to better fit societal embeddedness of an innovation.
Societal embeddedness level one and two focus on a single technology (for example a pv panel). From societal embeddedness level three and beyond, the assessment focuses on the technology and its system (for example a solar park).
Table 3 shows that a high TRL corresponds with a high SEL, while a low TRL corresponds with a low SEL, i.e., TRL 9 corresponds with SEL 4 and TRL 1-3 with SEL 1. We thus argue that when the technology is mature, the technology and its system should also be embedded in society in order to be successfully deployed. In reality we often find that technological innovations with a high TRL still face significant societal challenges, that ultimately delay and/or hamper successful deployment. Hence, a discrepancy often exists between the TRL and the SEL. To overcome this discrepancy, the SEL framework enables to identify what needs to be addressed to further develop the technology towards societal deployment.

3.3.2. Societal Dimensions

The SEL framework covers four dimensions, which take into account the societal aspects that are important for the development and deployment of a technology: (1) (impact on the) environment, (2) stakeholder involvement, (3) policy and regulations and (4) market and financial resources. There are multiple interdependencies between and within the four societal dimensions. An event in one of the dimensions can cause setbacks or feedback loops in other dimensions. This interconnections between the societal dimensions of the SEL framework prove the relevance of integrating the four dimensions in one assessment framework.
The dimension (impact on the) environment focuses on keeping harm to the (natural, built and social) environment as low as reasonably achievable by exploring and assessing the impact of the technology and its system on the environment. The technology can be adapted during the development stages to prevent damage to the environment and mitigation measures can be taken when necessary. This dimension includes the natural, built and social environment of the technological innovation. The natural environment [68] encompasses all living and non-living things which occur naturally. The built environment [69] refers to the human-made environment, which provides a setting for human activity, ranging in scale from buildings to cities and beyond. The social environment [70] refers to the social context in which the innovation will be applied. This includes culture and institutions.
This dimension is based on insights from the TRM framework [63] which relies on an underlying core factor that the technology should not do harm in terms of security and environment, and insights from the innovation readiness level [64], which pays attention to how the technology has impact on the social environment, are taken into account. The dimension impact on the environment includes, but is not limited to, the subjects in Table 4.
The dimension stakeholder involvement entails the support of relevant stakeholders for the technological innovation through stakeholder participation in the different stages of technology development. It includes exploring and assessing stakeholders’ needs and concerns regarding the technological innovation. The insights are translated and integrated into the further development of the technological innovation. This dimension is based on insights from the innovation readiness level [64], which identifies the level of knowledge about the stakeholders’ interests and concerns about the technologies and pays attention to the recognition of stakeholders towards the involvement of stakeholders. It defines whether stakeholders are identified, informed and involved. It also pays attention to the concerns of stakeholders and if and how these are explored and tackled. Aspects from the societal readiness level [65] are taken into account, including the identification of stakeholders, involvement of stakeholders and communication with stakeholders. Finally, insights from AvMI [67] are taken into account. That is, the technological innovation must work in a social sense as part of norms, values, views and routines of people and organizations, and attention is paid to ethical issues and social discussions. The dimension stakeholder involvement includes but is not limited to the subjects in Table 5.
The dimension policy and regulations entails the establishment of supporting policies and regulations for the technological innovation. It includes exploring and assessing policy and regulatory drivers and barriers for the different development stages of the innovation towards deployment. This dimension is based on insights from the TRM framework [63], and is inspired by the underlying core factors such as regulatory support of a technology and its effectiveness to provide useful legislation. The dimension policy and regulation is also based on the AvMI [67], which pays attention to legal and institutional readiness of the technological innovation. It states that the technology must work in a legal sense and fulfil conditions and rules from laws and regulations, standards, protocols and professional codes. Additionally, the dimension policy and regulation is inspired by the impact readiness level [62], which pays attention to international/EU/national regulatory policies and interaction with policy makers. Finally, the dimension policy and regulations is based on the legal readiness level [65], which relies on the assumption that (disruptive) innovations require legal compliance to become adopted and therefore pays attention to the need of an enhanced legal framework to reach legal compliance. The dimension policy and regulations includes, but is not limited to, the subjects in Table 6.
The dimension market and financial resources entails market readiness for adoption of the technological innovation and available financial resources for technology development towards deployment. This dimension includes funding for research and development, identifying market needs, assessing market dynamics and developing a solid business case. This dimension is based on the innovation readiness level [64] and demand readiness level [60], which both pay attention to the need for the technological innovation in the market. The TRM framework (Kobos et al., 2018) pays attention to the security of financial capital as one of the basic needs and the assessment of profitability. Finally, the dimension market and financial resources is based on AvMI [67], which states that the innovative solution must work in an economic or commercial sense as part of markets and production chains and pays attention to the need of public or private funding. The dimension market and financial resources includes, but is not limited to, the subjects in Table 7.

3.3.3. Assessing the Level of Societal Embeddedness

The four societal embeddedness levels and the four societal dimensions form the SEL framework which supports the assessment of the societal embeddedness of a technology (Table 8).
The SEL assessment contains three steps:
  • Determine the starting point of the assessment: the first step provides insight in the level of societal embeddedness (SEL) that would be expected based on the current TRL of the technology. Every SEL is linked to a cluster of TRLs (Table 3). The identified TRL determines at which SEL the technological innovation should be at that particular technology development stage; this is called the TRL/SEL reference point and should be the starting point of the assessment. If a technology is at TRL 4, the SEL assessment starts at SEL 2.
  • Assess the SEL for each societal dimension: the next step is to assess the SEL for each dimension. The SEL framework supports the assessment with milestones that need to be reached for each SEL dimension. If the level of the reference point is reached, the next level can be assessed. If the level of the reference point is not reached, the previous level can be assessed.
  • Identify the overall SEL and societal challenges on each dimension: the outcome of the SEL assessment gives an overview of the actual SELs of the technology per societal dimension. Not every dimension has to be at the same level. The overall SEL of a technology is equal to the lowest reached SEL in one of the four dimensions. The gap between the reference point and the actual SEL per dimension indicates the societal challenges. These aspects have to be taken into account in the further development and deployment of the technology.

3.4. Results of Applying the SEL Assessment in ACT II DigiMon

During the application of the SEL to ACT II DigiMon, the SEL framework offered a structured approach to study the societal embeddedness of CO2 storage projects. The results of the assessments show that the SEL framework offers an in-depth and detailed view on the national situation of CO2 storage. Furthermore, the SEL framework facilitated interdisciplinary discussions, as working with the SEL framework offered a shared understanding between social and technical scientists. However, the application of the SEL framework also caused some challenges as well.
First, we found that when doing a SEL assessment, it is important to consider at what level the assessment is performed. When the application of a technology is assessed on a national level, this provides interesting and useful insights, but the results are not as detailed as the outcomes of the assessment in a specific societal context. Additionally, we found that the connection between the TRL and the SEL is harder to make when an assessment is done on a national level. When the level of application is considered, we found that SEL framework is better suited to assess technology development and deployment in a specific societal context.
Second, the application of the SEL framework shows that the methods and materials to do a SEL assessment should be carefully selected. The SEL assessment can be performed with an extensive literature search. However, when dealing with the literature only, there is a luring risk of missing the most up-to-date information on the developments of the technology as well as the specific context in which the technology is developed and deployed. Another way to do the SEL assessment is by using qualitative and quantitative methodologies, such as interviews with technology or project developers, (local) governments and questionnaires among publics. These methodologies provide more up-to-date knowledge, but are more time consuming to implement. When project or technology developers perform a SEL assessment for their own technology or project, the information will be more easily available.
Third, the application of the SEL framework identified that the SEL framework is able to make the connection between the TRL and SEL and bridge between social and technical sciences. However, to really make this connection, in-depth knowledge on social as well as technical disciplines is required in a team. We therefore emphasize that doing a SEL assessment requires an interdisciplinary team with access to knowledge on the four societal dimensions as well as the technology development process.
Fourth, the role of language and culture in qualitative methodologies is important to consider when applying the SEL assessment and comparing its results in different societal contexts. Different perspectives and interpretations of the meaning of societal aspects exist between scientific disciplines and, cultures and languages. A core value of the outcome of the SEL assessment lies in its ability to build a basis to bridge social and technical sciences and enable the conversation about societal aspects and challenges of the development and deployment of energy technologies.
Finally, we emphasize that the outcomes of a SEL assessment picture a momentum. Over time, the technology as well as the societal context in which the technology is or will be deployed, is subject to change. Therefore, the SEL framework provides insight in societal challenges that should be taken into account during technology development and can be used as methodology to monitor the societal embeddedness, but does not offer an absolute (final) result.

4. Discussion

The societal embeddedness level (SEL) framework has been developed to: (1) create a taxonomy to bridge between technical and social sciences in energy technology development; (2) assess the extent to which a technological innovation with impact on its physical environment is ready for deployment in a societal context; and (3) guide research and development processes and project development. The SEL framework provides a structured methodology to assess the societal embeddedness level of energy technologies on four societal dimensions (impact on the environment; stakeholder involvement; policy and regulations; and market and financial resources) along four levels (exploration; development; demonstration; and deployment). Policymakers, technology developers and project developers can use the SEL framework to speed up successful deployment of energy technologies in a societal context, improve the technology development process by including societal considerations or decide to abort projects in an earlier stage when the SEL assessment indicates that societal challenges are unlikely to be resolved. Doing a SEL assessment provides information on societal challenges along the four levels of technology development. The SEL framework is linked to the nine TRL levels, enhancing communication between technical and social sciences. The development of the SEL framework was an iterative and interdisciplinary process. The framework is based on scientific evidence and practical experiences. The SEL levels and dimensions are based on experiences in research and development projects concerning renewable energy technologies and carbon reduction technologies, literature research and multiple validation sessions with multidisciplinary experts.

4.1. Contributions

The SEL assessments of CO2 storage in Germany, Greece, Norway and the Netherlands provide insight into the societal challenges that need to be addressed during further development of CO2 storage projects in these countries (i.e., Mendrinos et al., 2022). Based on the outcomes of the national SEL assessments, (1) societal challenges that are related to monitoring of CO2 storage and/or could be tackled by designing a human-centered monitoring system are identified and (2) design options for a human centered monitoring system for CO2 storage are developed [71].
Working with the SEL assessment framework broadens the interdisciplinary understanding of the research and development process of energy technologies and projects. It offers a shared language for social and technical sciences and therefore offers possibilities to include societal considerations in the technology development process. The core values of working with the SEL framework lie in gaining insight in societal challenges that play a part in the development of energy technologies and projects in different societal contexts and creating a shared language to bridge between social and technical sciences and therefore enabling the integration of social sciences in technological development processes.

4.2. Limitations and Future Research

Performing a SEL assessment also brings along some challenges, concerning the level of application, the selection of methods and materials, the connection between the SEL and TRL and the role of language when using qualitative methodologies across different scientific disciplines as well as cultures and languages.
As we have done assessments of the SEL of CO2 storage projects on national level in four countries, we have not been able to apply the SEL methodology on a specific technology in a specific societal context. Therefore, we have not been able to measure the effect of doing a SEL assessment on the actual development and deployment of a technology or project. The SEL methodology should be further refined by both scientific validation and validation in practice. To further validate and refine the SEL methodology and to further elaborate on the SEL levels and societal dimensions, future research should focus on the application of the SEL on other technologies and cases in the energy sector. Specific focus lies on strengthening the link between the TRL and the SEL through interdisciplinary collaboration between technical and social scientific disciplines.
The SEL framework offers a methodology to study the current societal embeddedness level of a technology, but it does not yet offer specific strategies to enhance the societal embeddedness level yet. Therefore, to further develop the SEL methodology, assets and strategies should be developed for each dimension to improve the societal embeddedness of the assessed technology. Strategies such as the community-based marketing method [72] might, for example, be useful to enhance the societal embeddedness level in the dimension stakeholder involvement.
During ACT II DigiMon, we have been able to confirm the relevance of the four societal dimensions and the fact that there are interconnections between the societal dimensions. However, we have not yet been able to specify which aspects are more important than others and to which extent the societal dimensions correlate and influence each other. Therefore, future research on the SEL framework should also focus on providing more insight in the meaning of the interconnections and overlap between the SEL dimensions.
Finally, future research can focus on how the SEL framework can form a common vocabulary between social and technical disciplines and how this enhances the societal uptake of energy technologies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.S and T.G.; Methodology, M.S. and T.G.; Validation, M.S., T.G., A.S. and A.G.; formal analysis, M.S. and T.G.; investigation, M.S. and T.G.;writing—original draft preparation, M.S. and T.G.; writing—review and editing, M.S., A.S. and A.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The DigiMon project is supported by the ACT international initiative, project no 299622, and funded by GASSNOVA (NO), RCN (NO), BEIS (UK), Forschungszentrum Jülich (DE), GSRI (GR), Ministry EZK (NL), UEFISCDI (RO), DoE (US), Repsol Norge (NO) and Equinor (NO).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Acknowledgments

We express our gratitude for input, support and comments during the development and validation of the SEL framework. Additionally, we highly appreciate the DigiMon consortium for doing the first application of the SEL framework with us.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  2. Verbong, G.; Mourik, R.; Raven, R. Towards integration of methodologies for assessing and promoting the societal embedding of energy innovations. In Proceedings of the de ASRELEO Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, 5–6 October 2016. [Google Scholar]
  3. Yun, S.; Lee, J. Advancing societal readiness toward renewable energy system adoption with a socio-technical perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2015, 95, 170–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mankins, J.C. Technology readiness assessments: A retrospective. Acta Astronaut. 2009, 65, 1216–1223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Colladay, R.S. NASA’s Technology Plans—Will Technology Be Ready When We Are, AIAA-87-1695. In Proceedings of the Second AIAA/NASA/USAF Symposium on Automation, Robotics and Advanced Computing for the National Space Program, Arlington, TX, USA, 9–11 March 1987. [Google Scholar]
  6. Mitchell, J.A. Measuring the Maturity of a Technology: Guidance on Assigning a TRL (No. SAND2007-6733); Sandia National Laboratories (SNL): Albuquerque, NM, USA; Livermore, CA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  7. ARTO The TRL Scale as a Research & Innovation Policy Tool, EARTO Recommendations. Earto, 1–17 April 2014. Available online: http://www.earto.eu/fileadmin/content/03_Publications/The_TRL_Scale_as_a_R_I_Policy_Tool_-_EARTO_Recommendations_-_Final.pdf (accessed on 5 July 2022).
  8. Héder, M. From NASA to EU: The evolution of the TRL scale in Public Sector Innovation. Innov. J. 2017, 22, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  9. Pleşanu, T.; Pînzariu, S. TRL Scale Limits for Policy for Research and Innovation in the Military Field. In Proceedings of the International conference KNOWLEDGE-BASED ORGANIZATION, Sibiu, Romania, 13–15 June 2019; Volume 25, pp. 156–163. [Google Scholar]
  10. Mendrinos, D.; Polyzou, O.; Karytsas, S.; Karytsas, C.; Nordø, A.; Midttømme, K.; Sprenkeling, M.; Peuchen, R.; Geerdink, T.; Puts, H.; et al. Understanding societal requirements of subsurface resources exploitation projects: Societal Embeddedness Level assessment methodology, its application in 4 CCS National case studies and implications for the geothermal industry. Clean Technol. 2022. submitted. [Google Scholar]
  11. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research Design and Methods: Applied Social Research and Methods Series, 2nd ed.; Sage Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  12. Palys, T. Purposive Sampling. In The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods; Given, L.M., Ed.; Sage: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2008; Volume 2, pp. 697–698. [Google Scholar]
  13. Gibbins, J.; Chalmers, H. Preparing for global rollout: A “developed country first” demonstration programme for rapid CCS deployment. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 501–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Martin-Roberts, E.; Scott, V.; Flude, S.; Johnson, G.; Haszeldine, R.S.; Gilfillan, S. Carbon capture and storage at the end of a lost decade. One Earth 2021, 4, 1569–1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hetland, J.; Barnett, J.; Read, A.; Zapatero, J.; Veltin, J. CO2 transport systems development: Status of three large European CCS demonstration projects with EEPR funding. Energy Procedia 2014, 63, 2458–2466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Feenstra, C.F.J.; Mikunda, T.; Brunsting, S. What happened in Barendrecht? Case Study on the Planned Onshore Carbon Dioxide Storage in Barendrecht, the Netherlands—Policy Studies; ECN and Global CCS Institute: Petten, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 1–44. [Google Scholar]
  17. Van Os, H.W.; Herber, R.; Scholtens, B. Not Under Our Back Yards? A case study of social acceptance of the Northern Netherlands CCS initiative. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 30, 923–942. [Google Scholar]
  18. Fischer, W.; Hake, J.-F.; Kuckshinrichs, W.; Schenk, O. Carbon capture and storage—Politische und gesellschaftliche Positionen in Deutschland. TATuP-Z. Für Tech. Theor. Und Prax. 2010, 19, 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dütschke, E. What drives local public acceptance—Comparing two cases from Germany. Energy Procedia 2011, 4, 6234–6240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Raven, R.; Kern, F.; Verhees, B.; Smith, A. Niche construction and empowerment through socio-political work. A meta-analysis of six low-carbon technology cases. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2016, 18, 164–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fischer, W. No CCS in Germany despite the CCS Act? In Carbon Capture, Storage and Use; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 255–286. [Google Scholar]
  22. Akerboom, S.; Waldmann, S.; Mukherjee, A.; Agaton, C.; Sanders, M.; Kramer, G.J. Different this time? The prospects of CCS in the Netherlands in the 2020s. Front. Energy Res. 2021, 9, 644796. [Google Scholar]
  23. Billson, M.; Pourkashanian, M. The Evolution of European CCS Policy. Energy Procedia 2017, 114, 5659–5662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Teir, S.; Hetland, J.; Lindeberg, E.; Torvanger, A.; Buhr, K.; Koljonen, T.; Gode, J.; Onarheim, K.; Tjernshaugen, A.; Arasto, A.; et al. Potential for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in the Nordic Region; VTT Research Notes 2556; VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland: Espoo, Finland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  25. Wüstenhagen, R.; Wolsink, M.; Bürer, M.J. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2683–2691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Devine-Wright, P. Beyond NIMBYism: Towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind. Energy 2005, 8, 125–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Petrova, M.A. From NIMBY to acceptance: Toward a novel framework—VESPA—For organizing and interpreting community concerns. Renew. Energy 2016, 86, 1280–1294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Moorthy, K.; Patwa, N.; Saravanan; Gupta, Y. Breaking barriers in deployment of renewable energy. Heliyon 2019, 5, e01166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Segreto, M.; Principe, L.; Desormeaux, A.; Torre, M.; Tomassetti, L.; Tratzi, P.; Paolini, V.; Petracchini, F. Trends in social acceptance of renewable energy across Europe—A literature review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Blom, M.; Klimbie, B.; Davidson, M. Decisions on Energy Projects. Bottlenecks in the Realization of Natural Gas Exploitation Projects and Wind Energy Projects; Besluiten over Energieprojecten. Knelpunten bij Realisatie van Gaswinnings-en Windprojecten; ECN: Petten, The Netherlands, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  31. Christoforidis, G.C.; Chatzisavvas, K.C.; Papadopoulos, T.A.; Papagiannis, G.K. Identifying non-technological barriers to wind power: Local communities. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM), Florence, Italy, 10–12 May 2012; Volume 12, pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jaber, S. Environmental impacts of wind energy. J. Clean Energy Technol. 2013, 1, 251–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tsoutsos, T.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Gekas, V. Environmental impacts from the solar energy technologies. Energy Policy 2005, 33, 289–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Low, S.M.; Altman, I. Place Attachment. In Place Attachment; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1992; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  35. Vorkinn, M.; Riese, H. Environmental concern in a local context: The significance of place attachment. Environ. Behav. 2001, 33, 249–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. McLachlan, C. ‘You don’t do a chemistry experiment in your best china’: Symbolic interpretations of place and technology in a wave energy case. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 5342–5350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Devine-Wright, P.; Howes, Y. Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: A wind energy case study. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Devine-Wright, P.; Batel, S. My neighbourhood, my country or my planet? The influence of multiple place attachments and climate change concern on social acceptance of energy infrastructure. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 47, 110–120. [Google Scholar]
  39. Devine-Wright, P. Place attachment and public acceptance of renewable energy: A tidal energy case study. J. Environ. Psychol. 2011, 31, 336–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Venables, D.; Pidgeon, N.F.; Parkhill, K.A.; Henwood, K.L.; Simmons, P. Living with nuclear power: Sense of place, proximity, and risk perceptions in local host communities. J. Environ. Psychol. 2012, 32, 371–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sovacool, B.K.; Dworkin, M.H. Energy justice: Conceptual insights and practical applications. Appl. Energy 2015, 142, 435–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Brunsting, S.; de Best-Waldhober, M.; Feenstra, C.Y.; Mikunda, T. Stakeholder participation practices and onshore CCS: Lessons from the Dutch CCS Case Barendrecht. Energy Procedia 2011, 4, 6376–6383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mors E ter Weenig, W.H.; Ellemers, N.; Daamen, D.D.L. Effective communication about complex environmental issues: Perceived quality of information about carbon dioxidecapture and storage (CCS) depends on stakeholder collaboration. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 347–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Devine-Wright, P. Reconsidering Public Acceptance of Renewable Energy Technologies: A Critical Review. In Delivering a Low Carbon Electricity System: Technologies, Economics and Policy; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2008; pp. 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  45. Liu, L.; Bouman, T.; Perlaviciute, G.; Steg, L. Effects of trust and public participation on acceptability of renewable energy projects in the Netherlands and China. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 53, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Dolter, B.; Arbuthnott, K. Any Risk is Acceptable: Cultural Identity, Ethics and the Support for the Nuclear Industry in Saskatchewan. Prairie Forum 2010, 35, 79–112. [Google Scholar]
  47. Terwel, B.W.; Ter Mors, E.; Daamen, D.D.L. It’s not only about safety: Beliefs and attitudes of 811 local residents regarding a CCS project in Barendrecht. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2012, 9, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Midden, C.J.; Huijts, N.M. The role of trust in the affective evaluation of novel risks: The case of CO2 storage. Risk Anal. Int. J. 2009, 29, 743–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Wolsink, M. Contested environmental policy infrastructure: Socio-political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste facilities. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2010, 30, 302–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ryu, Y.; Kim, S.; Kim, S. Does trust matter? Analyzing the impact of trust on the perceived risk and acceptance of nuclear power energy. Sustainability 2018, 10, 758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Twenge, J.M.; Campbell, W.K.; Carter, N.T. Declines in trust in others and confidence in institutions among American adults and late adolescents, 1972–2012. Psychol. Sci. 2014, 25, 1914–1923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Ashworth, P.; Bradbury, J.; Wade, S.; Feenstra, C.Y.; Greenberg, S.; Hund, G.; Mikunda, T. What’s in store: Lessons from implementing CCS. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2012, 9, 402–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Romasheva, N.; Ilinova, A. CCS projects: How regulatory framework influences their deployment. Resources 2019, 8, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Dignum, M.; Correljé, A.; Cuppen, E.; Pesch, U.; Taebi, B. Contested Technologies and Design for Values: The Case of Shale Gas. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2016, 22, 1171–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Burke, M.J.; Stephens, J.C. Political power and renewable energy futures: A critical review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 35, 78–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sheikh, N.J.; Kocaoglu, D.F.; Lutzenhiser, L. Social and political impacts of renewable energy: Literature review. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2016, 108, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. White, W.; Lunnan, A.; Nybakk, E.; Kulisic, B. The role of governments in renewable energy: The importance of policy consistency. Biomass Bioenergy 2013, 57, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Gross, M.; Bleicher, A. ‘It’s always dark in front of the pickaxe’: Organizing ignorance in the long-term remediation of contaminated land. Time Soc. 2013, 22, 316–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Olechowski, A.; Eppinger, S.D.; Joglekar, N. Technology Readiness Levels at 40: A Study of State-of-the-Art Use, Challenges, and Opportunities. In Proceedings of the 2015 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), Portland, OR, USA, 2–6 August 2015; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 2084–2094. [Google Scholar]
  60. Paun, F. The Demand Readiness Level Scale as New Proposed Tool to Hybridise Market Pull with Technology Push Approaches in Technology Transfer Practices. In Technology Transfer in a Global Economy; Audretsch, D.B., Lehmann, E.E., Link, A.N., Starnecker, A., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 353–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Schut, M.; Sartas, M. Scaling Readiness: An Approach to Assess and Accelerate Scaling of Agri-Food Systems Innovations. 2018. Available online: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10744.70409 (accessed on 7 July 2022).
  62. Delioglanis, I. DANDELION: Inclusive, Innovative and Reflective Societies-Sensitive Valorisation Concept. 2018. Available online: http://library1.nida.ac.th/termpaper6/sd/2554/19755.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2022).
  63. Kobos, P.H.; Malczynski, L.A.; Walker, L.T.N.; Borns, D.J.; Klise, G.T. Timing is everything: A technology transition framework for regulatory and market readiness levels. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 137, 211–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Darmani, A.; Jullien, C. Innovation Readiness Level Report—Energy Storage Technologies; EIT InnoEnergy: Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  65. Bruno, I.; Lobo, G.; Covino, B.V.; Donarelli, A.; Marchetti, V.; Panni, A.S.; Molinari, F. Technology readiness revisited: A proposal for extending the scope of impact assessment of European public services. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Athens, Greece, 23–25 September 2020; pp. 369–380. [Google Scholar]
  66. Vik, J.; Melås, A.M.; Stræte, E.P.; Søraa, R.A. Balanced readiness level assessment (BRLa): A tool for exploring new and emerging technologies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 169, 120854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sikma, T.; Verhoef, P.; Deuten, J. Voorbereid op de Praktijk: Anticiperen op de Maatschappelijke Inbedding van Innovatie bij Onderzoeks- & Ontwikkelprogramma’s; Rathenau Institute: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  68. Johnson, D.L.; Ambrose, S.H.; Bassett, T.J.; Bowen, M.L.; Crummey, D.E.; Isaacson, J.S.; Johnson, D.N.; Lamb, P.; Saul, M.; Winter-Nelson, A.E. Meanings of environmental terms. J. Environ. Qual. 1997, 26, 581–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Crawford, R. Life Cycle Assessment in the Built Environment; Routledge: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  70. Casper, M. A definition of “social environment”. Am. J. Public Health 2001, 91, 465–470. [Google Scholar]
  71. Otto, D.; Sprenkeling, M.; Peuchen, R.; Nordø, Å.; Mendrinos, D.; Karytsas, S.; Veland, S.; Polyzou, O.; Lien, M.; Heggelund, Y.; et al. On the organization of translation—An inter- and transdisciplinary approach to developing design options for CO2 storage monitoring systems. Energies 2022, 15, 5678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. McKenzie-Mohr, D.; Smith, W. Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-based Social Marketing; New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, BC, Canada, 2011. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Societal aspects divided in four dimensions.
Table 1. Societal aspects divided in four dimensions.
Aspects related to impact on the environmentSiting of the technology, physical characteristics, impact on the natural, built or social environment and risks concerning the technology and its deployment.
Aspects related to the public and stakeholdersPublic perception/social acceptance, stakeholder communication and engagement, justice, concerns and uncertainty about risks, place attachment and trust.
Aspects related to policy and regulationsInteraction with levels of government, alignment of governments, public funding, political support, the understanding of the political landscape and the regulatory framework.
Aspects related to (financial) resources and marketFunding (public and private), resources, costs and market base (strong or weak)
Table
Table 2. Readiness level methodologies.
Table 2. Readiness level methodologies.
Name of the ToolLevelsPurpose
Assessing one aspectDemand readiness level
[60]		Nine demand readiness levels. Assess the level of market pull.
Scaling readiness methodology
[61]		Nine scaling readiness levels.Assess and accelerate scaling readiness of agricultural projects on portfolio or organizational levels.
Impact readiness level
[62]		Five impact readiness levels.Volarization concept to assess the potential societal impact of a project by analyzing conditions that influence such impact.
Assessing multiple aspectsTRM framework
[63]		Nine technology readiness levels.Identify the factors and the rate at which technology development must be supported to meet technical and policy goals.
Five legal readiness levels.
Five market readiness levels.
Innovation readiness level
[64]		Nine technology readiness levels.Assess the maturity of innovations based on technological, legal, market, consumer and societal aspects.
Three intellectual property levels.
Twelve market readiness levels.
Six consumer readiness levels.
Three society readiness levels.
Extended TRL
[65] 		Nine technology readiness levels.Extension and generalization of TRL with societal, organizational and legal aspects to assess technologies to promote innovation in European public services.
Nine societal readiness levels.
Nine organizational readiness levels.
Nine legal readiness levels.
Balanced readiness level
assessment
[66]		Nine technology readiness levels.Methodology to describe and categorize new agricultural technologies on five dimensions with a nine-level scale.
Nine market readiness levels.
Nine regulatory readiness levels.
Nine acceptance readiness levels.
Nine organizational readiness levels.
Other toolsArrangement for societal embeddedness
[67]		No levels. Approach to offer arrangements to adapt an innovation to society.
Table
Table 3. Technology readiness Levels and SEL levels.
Table 3. Technology readiness Levels and SEL levels.
TRL 1Basic principles observed.SEL 1: Exploration
Societal aspects explored.
TRL 2Technology concept formulated.
TRL 3Experimental proof of concept.
TRL 4Technology validated in a lab.SEL 2: Development
Societal aspects assessed.
TRL 5Technology validated in relevant environment.
TRL 6Technology demonstrated in relevant environment.
TRL 7System prototype demonstration in an operational environment.SEL 3: Demonstration
Societal aspects included in system.
TRL 8System completed and qualified.
TRL 9Actual system proven in operational environment.SEL 4: Deployment
Innovation proven in societal environment.
Table
Table 4. Dimension 1: impact on the environment.
Table 4. Dimension 1: impact on the environment.
SEL 1The natural, built and social environment is identified, and the potential impact the innovation concept can have on this environment is explored.
SEL 2The impact the technology can have on the environment is assessed and the environment of the whole technological system is explored, whereafter the potential impact the whole technological system can have on the environment is explored.
SEL 3The impact of the technology and its system on the environment is assessed and negative impacts are mitigated.
SEL 4Negative impacts of the technology and its system that have emerged from the demonstration phase are mitigated, and harm to the environment is as low as possible within the limits of the project/technology.
Table
Table 5. Dimension 2: stakeholder involvement.
Table 5. Dimension 2: stakeholder involvement.
SEL 1Insight in societal attitude is gained and a basic inventory of all stakeholders in the field is made, which is extended in level two.
SEL 2The level of participation of the stakeholders in the development phase is made, as well as a design for stakeholder participation, tailored to the current phase of technology development. Additionally, the public opinion towards the technology is assessed and possible trust building measures are identified.
SEL 3A stakeholder inventory is done for the system as well, and a design for stakeholder participation is made for the demonstration of the technology and its system. Additionally, the current public perception is translated into the project design and trust-building measures are taken for the demonstration phase of the technology.
SEL 4The stakeholder participation is adapted to the deployment of the technology and its system and the deployment of the technology and its system is supported by sufficient relevant stakeholders and the public.
Table
Table 6. Dimension 3: policy and regulations.
Table 6. Dimension 3: policy and regulations.
SEL 1The current political climate and context is explored, as well as existing policies and regulatory frameworks concerning innovations.
SEL 2The existing policies and regulatory frameworks are assessed, and regulatory drivers and barriers are identified and assessed.
SEL 3The assessment of policies and the regulatory framework is repeated for the technologies’ system, and regulatory and policy frameworks support the demonstration of the technology and its system.
SEL 4Regulatory barriers are overcome and supporting policies, laws and regulations are in place for the technology and its system.
Table
Table 7. Dimension 4: market and financial resources.
Table 7. Dimension 4: market and financial resources.
SEL 1A market need/gap is identified.
SEL 2The market need/gap is analyzed and evaluated, and a first business case is made, in which a feasibility study is performed.
SEL 3The business case is adapted to findings for the demonstration phase and the technology, and its system are adapted to market and customer needs.
SEL 4The market is ready for adoption of the technology and its system, and the technology and its system meet market and customer needs.
Table
Table 8. The SEL assessment framework.
Table 8. The SEL assessment framework.
SEL 1: ExplorationSEL 2: DevelopmentSEL 3: DemonstrationSEL 4: Deployment
Dimension 1: impact on the environmentMilestonesMilestonesMilestonesMilestones
Dimension 2: stakeholder involvementMilestonesMilestonesMilestonesMilestones
Dimension 3: policy and regulationsMilestonesMilestonesMilestonesMilestones
Dimension 4: market and financial resourcesMilestonesMilestonesMilestonesMilestones
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sprenkeling, M.; Geerdink, T.; Slob, A.; Geurts, A. Bridging Social and Technical Sciences: Introduction of the Societal Embeddedness Level. Energies 2022, 15, 6252. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15176252

AMA Style

Sprenkeling M, Geerdink T, Slob A, Geurts A. Bridging Social and Technical Sciences: Introduction of the Societal Embeddedness Level. Energies. 2022; 15(17):6252. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15176252

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sprenkeling, Marit, Tara Geerdink, Adriaan Slob, and Amber Geurts. 2022. "Bridging Social and Technical Sciences: Introduction of the Societal Embeddedness Level" Energies 15, no. 17: 6252. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15176252

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop