見えないものを見える化する：エネルギー模型の開発者・利用者と共に正義に関わる設計選択を明らかにする省察手法
Making the invisible visible: a reflection method to uncover justice-related design choices in energy models with model developers and users (原題)
Aarthi Sundaram, Nynke van Uffelen, Yilin Huang, Igor Nikolić, Eefje H.W.J. Cuppen
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
エネルギー転換モデルは客観的・価値中立と見なされがちだが、実は正義に関わる前提を内包する。本研究はオランダの2つの政策用モデル（Energy Transition ModelとHestia）の開発者・利用者とのワークショップを通じ、省察手法を開発・検証した。モデルのスコープ設定、規範的仮定、政策誘導効果、誤り、複雑性、誤用という6類型の（不）正義の顕在化を提示し、設計者と利用者の間で責任が転嫁され続ける「責任ギャップ」を指摘する。
English
Energy models are often treated as objective, yet they embed justice-relevant assumptions. Through two workshops with developers and users of two Dutch policy models (Energy Transition Model, Hestia), the authors develop and test a reflection method. They propose a six-part typology of how (in)justice manifests in/via models—scoping, normative assumptions, policy steering, errors, complexity, misuse—and identify a persistent 'responsibility gap' between modellers and users.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本では第7次エネルギー基本計画やGX推進戦略など、モデル分析に基づく政策決定が進む。モデルの価値前提やステークホルダー認識を問う本稿の視点は、日本の政策モデルガバナンスや統合報告における意思決定プロセスの透明性議論に示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
As ISSB/TCFD disclosure pushes companies and governments toward transparent, defensible transition planning, this paper highlights that the models underpinning transition scenarios carry hidden normative choices. It adds a justice-and-reflexivity lens to global debates on scenario credibility and accountability in climate policy.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:エネルギー・気候モデリングにおける価値前提と正義の埋め込みを分析する枠組みとして参照できる。
🏢実務担当者:移行計画やシナリオ策定にモデルを用いる際、前提の透明性とステークホルダー認識を点検する実務的チェックリストとして活用可能。
🏛政策担当者:政策モデルの調達・利用において、責任の所在と正義的含意を明示するガバナンス設計の必要性を示す。
📄 Abstract（原文）
Energy models play a central role in energy transition decisions yet are often treated as objective and value-neutral tools. Increasingly, scholars and practitioners argue that energy justice should be more explicitly linked to energy modelling, both because of its intrinsic importance and in response to contestation of top-down, techno-economic decision-making. Existing efforts largely focus on incorporating justice within model logic, for example through equity metrics or participatory modelling. However, these approaches themselves embed often-implicit assumptions about justice, including who is recognized as a stakeholder, whose knowledge is represented, and which interests are prioritized. Because such choices carry justice implications, it is essential that model developers and users engage reflexively with the modelling process. Yet, few concrete tools exist to support such reflection. This paper asks: How, and to what extent, does a reflection method help model developers and users identify assumptions and choices with potential justice implications? We develop and test a reflection method in two workshops with developers and users of two policyrelevant energy models in the Netherlands: Energy Transition Model and Hestia. Our findings show how structured reflection can surface justice-relevant assumptions across the modelling process. We propose a typology of six ways in which (in)justice can manifest in/via energy models: model scoping, normative assumptions, policy steering effects, errors, complexity, and potential misuse. We identify a persistent "responsibility gap" between modellers and users, whereby responsibility for justice consequences is continually shifted between those who design models and those who apply them. We conclude with implications for integrating reflexivity and justice awareness into energy modelling practice.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-026-00638-4first seen 2026-11-03 04:40:05 · last seen 2026-11-06 04:34:22
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。