Search

This paper describes a four-year programme of “action research” (AR) undertaken with six communities in the UK, referred to as the Evaluating Low-Carbon Communities (EVALOC) project. The research combined a programme of research events with phased household-level monitoring of energy and carbon-reduction interventions. The carbon-reduction interventions were funded by the UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change prior to the onset of the research. AR has recently been adopted within the context of environmental behaviour change programmes in the UK, with a number of methodological challenges. The EVALOC project’s challenges included developing a collaborative research design; building reciprocity between the researchers and research participants; dealing with biases and burdens in the research process; ensuring analytical rigour in the interpretation of the primarily qualitative evidence and dealing with the long-term and process-driven outcomes that arise from such interactions. This paper explores and discusses the challenges of AR in relation to selected research outcomes from EVALOC. We conclude by suggesting that the AR approach has helped to build capacity in the participating low-carbon communities (LCCs), through supporting the design, delivery and evaluation of their energy and carbon-reduction activities. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In the UK, there now exist hundreds of low-carbon community groups (LCCGs) that aim to decrease collective resource consumption and/or generate renewable energy through diverse social and environmental interventions. These groups have in recent years become the subject of political attention and funding schemes, underpinned by beliefs that LCCGs are key to fostering resilience to climate change and meeting national-level greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. While previous research into LCCGs has focused on drivers, barriers and outcomes of LCCG action, there is now growing policy and academic interest in groups' capacities for, and uses of, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) processes and tools. However, little is known about the experiences, opportunities and potential challenges for LCCGs undertaking M&E. In response, this paper draws on a Knowledge Exchange project that explored M&E processes and tools with a sample of UK LCCGs. It outlines the benefits and drawbacks of groups' attempts to achieve change and to account for their outcomes and/or impacts, individually, and as part of a wider movement. It argues that, while M&E could be one way for groups to “scale up” their impact without losing their grounding in place and community, issues of capacity, resources and utility remain paramount. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The transition to a low-carbon society is imperative to climate change mitigation and requires cross-sectoral action at multiple levels. A growing literature emphasizes local action, but less is written about scaling up action at a county level. Combining three analytical perspectives – transition theory, strategic niche management and the middle-out – we examine the evolution and scaling up of local community-scale carbon action in Oxfordshire county. Our analysis is based on four local-level research projects. By identifying the roles and strategies of local actors in the development and scaling up of low carbon innovation and action, we conclude that local meso-level actors are crucial for catalyzing initial stages of county-level transitions, but limited in their capacity to scale up low-carbon innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In the UK ‘low carbon’ community groups and partnerships (LCCGPs) have flourished in recent years, with sectors such as community energy receiving increased national policy attention. Whilst such attention aligns LCCGPs with agendas such as ‘New Localism’ and climate change mitigation, other modes of local socio-environmental change are advocated and enacted under a broad rubric of ‘eco-localisation’. Across the political and ideological spectrum however, there is growing interest in how LCCGPs understand and evaluate their impacts, with questions arising about what indicators, processes and tools are most pertinent and rigorous. In response, this paper draws on a knowledge exchange project that explored and trialled monitoring and evaluation (M&E) tools amongst a sample of UK LCCGPs in conjunction with groups and networks operating in an eco-localisation vein. Project findings highlight the positive effects that flexible and relevant M&E has on groups and networks. It also draws attention to the need for on-going support and facilitation for those undertaking M&E: vital if the burgeoning ‘impact agenda’ – whether emerging from central funders or ‘eco-localist’ networks themselves – does not over-burden or dishearten groups, thus causing the opposite effects of tools and processes meant to facilitate sustained and shared thinking, learning and action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]