Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “social license”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

3 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Emerging Energy Market Analysis Initiative, Methodological Framework

Planning and operations of the electric power sector are undergoing radical changes. Climate change mitigation efforts have forced rapid changes to the technology mix. Technologies like wind and solar have experienced rapid growth, while investment in fossil sources has peaked or is declining. These foundational changes are forcing changes to energy systems. Demand-side adoption of electrified technologies, including electric vehicles, is changing load profiles and opening up new avenues for consumer participation in the power systems. The implications of an evolving power system pertain to more than environmental and technical dimensions. Changes to the generation mix and its consequent upstream and downstream impacts such as fuel production have significant and highly concentrated consequences on economies and employment. Shifts towards distributed (or decentralized) generating assets offer the potential to reshape economic and employment opportunities associated with the energy sector across space and socioeconomic groups. The Emerging Energy Market Analysis (EMA) initiative aims to identify sustainable, regionally acceptable, and high-value energy solutions that are secure and equitable. Unlike short-term, least-cost choices that can narrowly account for traditional options, EMA’s focus on emerging energy markets recognizes that new or adapted practices and technologies can alter the frontier of solutions and advance a community’s social, economic, and natural pathways. Such change requires a more comprehensive analysis of societal input, resources, capabilities, and infrastructure. These considerations lay the foundation for community decision-making models that are responsive to community values as well as the history and drivers. The result is a community-based decision and engagement model that will be valuable to decisionmakers and developers of advanced and emerging energy solutions, seeking a social license to operate prior to project development.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Generating multiple benefits from forests by producing value-added products: Lessons from the Pacific Northwestern US

This paper asks what conditions are needed to counteract a declining forest industry. The mobilization of supply chains for new value-added forest products and services can be supported by programs designed to simultaneously achieve multiple goals related to health, climate, and rural economic development. But several challenges are identified that underscore the need to stack benefits and incentives to achieve muti-sectoral goals. Based on a case study in Washington state, we find opportunities and constraints for sourcing forest products are determined by the local and regional conditions such as availability of working forests and their residues, socioeconomic conditions, workforce availability, transportation options, and perceptions about social license of the new industry. Key recommendations are the need for (1) a consistent demand and resilient supply chain for the new product; (2) a stable, supportive policy and assessment framework; (3) timely, transparent, and trusted monitoring and reporting of benefits and costs; (4) fostering engagement and buy-in from stakeholders; (5) a context-specific evaluation of opportunities and constraints; and (6) agreement on the goals of sustainable forestry. A diversity of products and markets builds a more resilient forest-based economy by mitigating impacts of disruptions in any individual market, adding value to biomass, increasing employment, and reducing forest risks to fire, insects, and disease.

Bioenergy↗
DOE OSTI2021

Stakeholder Support for Wildlife Conservation Funding Policies

State wildlife management agencies in the United States have depended on a “user-pay” funding model for conservation efforts that relies on revenue from hunting license sales and a federal excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment. Declines in hunting participation, however, jeopardize sustainability of the current funding model. Ensuring support among stakeholders for wildlife management and conservation may require expanding sources of funding and incorporating the perspectives and values of a diversifying constituency into decision making processes. We used a web-based survey of wildlife-associated recreationists in Michigan, USA to evaluate support for a range of conservation funding policies. Respondents self-identified primarily as hunters (n = 2,558) or wildlife watchers (n = 942). We used binary logistic regression to evaluate support for four conservation funding policy options: state sales tax, lottery proceeds, extractive industry revenue, and a user-based tax on outdoor gear (i.e., “backpack tax”). Determinants of support varied by type of policy and stakeholder characteristics. We found no statistically significant differences between hunters and wildlife watchers in their support for conservation funding policies when accounting for other variables such as wildlife value orientations, engagement in stewardship behaviors, age, and gender. The industry-based policy achieved the greatest level of approval, while the backpack tax had the lowest. Respondents were mixed in their support of the sales tax and lottery proceeds options. Cluster analysis revealed three homogenous groups related to conservation funding policies: “strong support,” “mixed/opposed,” and “anti-backpack tax.” Clusters differed in their support for conservation funding policies and on psychological and demographic variables. The “strong support” and “anti-backpack tax” groups differed in their levels of stewardship engagement, knowledge of conservation funding mechanisms, and support for the backpack tax option. The “mixed-opposed” group tended to be older, less educated, and less likely to be a member of a conservation organization. Results suggest support for conservation funding differs by policy type and social and psychological characteristics of stakeholders. Based on differences in policy support revealed in this study, we suggest a multi-tiered approach to funding conservation and building on support among wildlife stakeholders to mitigate the looming funding crisis for state wildlife agencies.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗