Community and Workforce Visual Presentation CW02: A narrative-based framework for energy-transition consultations: insights from Australia’s future gas strategy
Debashish Dev
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
オーストラリアの将来ガス戦略に関する244件のパブリックコメントを分析し、4つのステークホルダータイプを特定したナラティブベースの枠組みを提案。時間的正義の断層線がアライアンスを再編し、規制当局への信頼欠如が明らかになった。エネルギー政策策定におけるより意味のある協議プロセスを設計するための実践的ツールを提供。
English
Analyzes 244 submissions to Australia's Future Gas Strategy to develop a narrative-based framework identifying four stakeholder groups with competing assumptions. Reveals a temporal-justice fault line reshaping alliances and distrust in regulators due to opaque modelling. Provides a practical tool for designing meaningful consultations in energy transition policy.
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
オーストラリア対象だが、日本のLNG戦略や市民参加型協議でも示唆に富む。ナラティブ分析枠組みは日本の有報・統合報告書でのステークホルダーエンゲージメント向上に参考になる。
In the global GX context
Although focused on Australia, this framework offers a transferable tool for energy transition consultations globally, including in Japan, where stakeholder engagement and trust in regulators are increasingly critical. The temporal-justice concept is relevant for global debates on phasing out fossil fuels.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a novel narrative-based framework for analyzing stakeholder positions in energy transition consultations, useful for policy deliberation and justice scholars.
🏢実務担当者:Offers insights for designing consultation processes and anticipating stakeholder reactions, applicable to corporate engagement strategies.
🏛政策担当者:Highlights the importance of transparent modelling and trust-building; framework can guide procedural design for energy policy consultations.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Community and Workforce Visual Presentation CW02 Public consultations offer a unique window into the narrative logic shaping stakeholder expectations in policymaking. Analysing 244 consultation submissions to Australia’s Future Gas Strategy, this study develops a narrative-based framework that identifies four distinct stakeholder groups with competing assumptions about responsibility, timing, fairness, and legitimacy. These typologies reveal a temporal-justice fault line that reshapes alliances and conditions how energy policies might be interpreted. The analysis also identifies a lack of trust in the regulator, driven by perceptions of opaque modelling and procedural inconsistency. The resulting framework provides a practical tool for designing more meaningful consultation processes and anticipating narrative reactions in future energy transition policy settings. To access the Visual Presentation click on 'Supplementary data' below. To read the full paper click here
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1071/ep26550first seen 2026-07-09 04:56:24
🔔 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。