Abstract
With global greenhouse gas emissions on the rise, the higher education sector has recognised the part it must play in reducing its carbon footprint, setting an example for others to follow in the global fight against climate change. In 2019 University College Cork undertook the complex task of designing and developing a Climate Action Plan, beginning with the compilation of a detailed inventory of the university’s greenhouse gas emissions and followed by a period of engaged research during which potential climate action measures were identified by key stakeholders. In response to the start of the Covid-19 pandemic and introduction of public health restrictions, a structured dialogue – modified Delphi – approach was employed as part of the engaged research. This mixed-methods approach proved successful at identifying a number of potential opportunities for reducing the university’s carbon footprint, with the structured dialogue method in particular offering the researchers numerous advantages for conducting engaged research during the unique circumstances arising as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Keywords
The Delphi Method: Use and Evolution
The energy transitions debate is typified by discussions on the technological implications of the movement towards renewable and cleaner forms of energy. Heretofore, the dominant perspective on the energy transition considered technology as the sole solution to the achievement of ‘low-carbon systems’ and creation of a sustainable energy future. Recent years has seen growing realisation that shaping this future relies on a more complex process than simply substituting one technology for another (Geels et al., 2020; Hughes, 2013; Luque-Ayala & Silver, 2016). This statement is exemplified by the challenges often witnessed by projects during the implementation phase, many of which are linked to social acceptance deadlocks (Geels et al., 2020).
The Delphi method is one of the most popular approaches to foresight and forecasting activities (Bañuls & Turoff, 2011; Hussler et al., 2011; Landeta, 2006; Marchais-Roubelat & Roubelat, 2011; Ribeiro & Quintanilla, 2015), and has been used extensively within the energy technologies and transitions literature, featuring regularly within the context of emerging energy technologies and systems (Al-Saleh, 2009; Czaplicka-Kolarz et al., 2009; Devaney & Henchion, 2018; Hussler et al., 2011; Nowack et al., 2011; Ribeiro & Quintanilla, 2015; Rikkonen & Tapio, 2009). Drawing upon a diversity of expertise and various aspects of social learning, the approach has proven effective at forecasting energy transitions and envisioning future scenarios (Makkonen et al., 2016; Mathur et al., 2008). On occasion, Rowe & Wright (1999) posit that the Delphi panel approach may actually surpass statistical methods in terms of forecasting performance, typically in situations where there exists a lot of uncertainty or robust statistical analyses cannot be completed.
The Delphi method is a structured, anonymous and iterative survey of a panel of participants, ‘experts’ and/or non-experts who contribute towards participatory decision-making within the same intellectual space (Crabbe et al., 2009; Swor & Canter, 2011). It comprises two or more rounds of structured questionnaires, each of which is followed by an aggregation of responses and anonymous feedback to the panel participants (Mukherjee et al., 2015). The technique is considered particularly appropriate for enabling structured communication to take place about complex issues involving limited or conflicting information (Hasson et al., 2000; Martin et al., 2012; McBride et al., 2012; O'Faircheallaigh, 2010). It can be used to generate consensus on issues that are difficult to resolve in face-to-face scenarios (Lemieux & Scott, 2011), formulate or evaluate policies (MacMillan & Marshall, 2006; Orsi et al., 2011), and address multifaceted issues requiring the pooling of inputs from different disciplines. The first round questionnaires may be unstructured, with open-ended questions to gather information and opinions, or semi-structured through drawing on evidence from the published literature (Powell, 2003); either way, the flexible structure of the Delphi technique allows for a wide range of applications to suit the needs of the research question (Hasson & Keeney, 2011).
This article explores the benefits to applying a modified Delphi method to the design and development of an organisation’s Climate Action Plan, generally a technical procedure mostly clouded in uncertainty. The research advocates for the use of a modified Delphi approach to enhance the development process of Climate Action Plans, rising beyond its use as a forecasting instrument and towards its potential as an envisioning tool that allows for an examination of how a sustainable energy future ‘“could be,” or perhaps “should be”’ (Revez et al., 2020).
The Delphi approach has been applied to numerous and varied forecasting scenarios, many in relation to the use of technological solutions for achieving a low-carbon energy system (Al-Saleh, 2009; Devaney & Henchion, 2018; Ribeiro & Quintanilla, 2015; Varho et al., 2016). In recent years, challenges have emerged to this dominant narrative, and a growing realisation of the importance of democracy and other socio-political factors for stimulating change has resulted in a shift in focus towards strengthening these aspects of the energy transition. Democracy can be appreciated as a process of ruling in which the decisions made are linked to the interests and judgements of the people affected by them (Szuleki, 2018). The Delphi technique has also evolved substantially in response to the development of these trends and challenges, and now supports the dissemination of more democratic forms of research (Linstone & Turoff, 2002; Makkonen et al., 2016).
The benefits of integrating both quantitative and qualitative materials into the Delphi process are explored by Tapio et al. (2011) who envisions the process as an “analytical continuum” i.e. a process through which different approaches are used depending on the situation in order to generate new perceptions of the future which surpass the typical static forecasting of probable futures. They observe strong benefits to employing Delphi techniques beyond the traditional role of forecasting future scenarios, and advocate for the use of mixed methodologies to help identify alternative, preferred futures. This argument is supported by Rowe and Wright (2011) who argue the use of mixed methodologies within the Delphi arena has become a useful, more holistic approach adopted by academics and decision-makers in addressing complex, “real-world” issues (p.1488).
Despite the evolution of the Delphi technique as a promising tool for use beyond forecasting probable and possible futures, the vast majority of Delphi panel research remains in this area, particularly within the field of technology development and forecasting. While the technique is used widely for the purposes of measuring and supporting decision-making across a number of disciplines, researchers have argued that the technique’s potential and utility can still be strengthened (Rowe & Wright, 2011). Wittmayer et al. (2018) make the point that the use of the Delphi method within the emerging field of environmental transformations research has embraced a more factual-based and descriptive – rather than transformational – approach. The authors assert that methods are influenced by their underlying purpose, which will impact on the method’s potential and the way they are applied (Wittmayer et al., 2018). For this reason the potential of the Delphi approach as a communication technique which may lead to iterative and transformative dialogue should be appropriately acknowledged (Linstone & Turoff, 2011).
Applying the Delphi Approach Within the Context of Climate Action
The global environment is currently under immense pressure. Concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases continue to rise, bringing dramatic changes in climate and detrimental consequences for both humans and the environment including rising sea levels (Dickerson et al., 2019). Biodiversity loss is being experienced across all of the Earth’s major biomes with extensive research pointing towards an irreversible and on-going decline in genetic and species diversity and the degradation of ecosystems across both local and global scales (Stoett et al., 2019). Future demands for food, energy and timber, along with other ecosystem services, are unlikely to be met based on current trends in land-resource availability (Dronin et al., 2019) and the decreasing per capita availability of freshwater in the global water cycle as a result of population growth and agricultural, industrial and energy demands is leaving millions of people vulnerable to many ‘slow-onset disasters’ including water scarcity, famine and droughts (Gaddis et al., 2019). All of these issues are intimately tied to the issue of climate change driven by rising greenhouse gas emissions generated by human activity.
In May 2019 Ireland became the second country in the world to declare a climate emergency, acknowledging that swifter action must be taken in order to tackle the effects of climate change, recognised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as one of the most serious modern-day challenges to achieving a sustainable global society (IPCC, 2007). Intensified human pressure on the Irish environment as a result of strong economic growth during the Celtic Tiger has been documented, with the main contributions to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the burning of fossil fuels for transport and electricity generation (Lammers et al., 2008). Ireland and other nations are bound under the 2015 Paris Agreement (United Nations, 2015) to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in order to limit the global temperature rise to less than 2°C beyond pre-industrial levels, and strive to limit this temperature rise to 1.5°C.
For many years the literature on climate change has been mainly dominated by a focus on the global scale despite recent research demonstrating that the physical mechanisms behind, and the pace of, warming trends at the local to regional scales are quite different to those witnessed at the global scale (Stone et al., 2012). While climate change remains a global issue, the driving forces behind it may be considered local in that the greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change are generated by local activities (Aall et al., 2007; Bai, 2007; Willbanks & Kates, 1999). Climate management approaches undertaken at the global scale through international climate agreements are therefore unlikely to be as effective when applied to the local and regional scales. There is thus a need to identify those management strategies best suited to smaller-scale application (Stone et al., 2012). Local, as opposed to national or international, planning will enable many more aspects of a given planning process, as well as detailed knowledge of the local situation and area, to be considered, thus allowing for significant potential for optimal planning (Crossley & Sorensen, 1983 as read in Damsø et al., 2016). Many local communities and organisations looking to tackle the issue of climate change increasingly do so by developing Climate Action Plans (CAPs) which typically outline policies and propose actions for reducing the community or organisation’s greenhouse gas emissions. These CAPs are usually based on an inventory of GHG emissions (American Planning Association, 2008; Eagan et al., 2008; Natural Capitalism Solutions, 2007; United Nations, 1998). The increase in climate action planning at the more local level can be traced back to the Brundtland Commission report (World Commission on Environment, 1987) through which the concepts of “sustainable development” and thinking globally but acting locally emerged. At the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, (also referred to as the Earth Summit) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and following the signing to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (United Nations, 1992), climate change became recognised as a distinct issue, one deserving of increasing attention. The UNFCCC subsequently led to the development of the Local Agenda 21 Model Communities Programme (United Nations, 1992), President Bill Clinton’s Climate Change Action Plan, as well as the Kyoto Protocol (United Nations, 1998). These events inspired the development of stand-alone CAPs (also termed local action plans, GHG reduction plans, and CO2 reduction plans), as well as the incorporation of CAPs into existing sustainability efforts, across the globe (Boswell et al., 2010).
One area which is responsible for the production of a globally-significant volume of greenhouse gas emissions is the higher education sector (Robinson et al., 2015), with large organisations like universities playing vital roles in the efforts to address climate change. University College Cork – National University of Ireland, Cork (UCC) was established in 1845 as one of the four constituent universities of the federal National University of Ireland and today is regarded as one of the most sustainable universities in the world, ranking ninth in the 2018 UI GreenMetric World University Rankings and becoming the first institution outside of North America to achieve a Gold “Sustainability Tracking Assessment and Rating System” (STARS) for excellence in sustainability, along with Princeton, Cornell and UC Berkeley. In 2016 UCC launched its Sustainability Strategy with the aim of maintaining and improving the university’s position as one of the leading green universities in the world through the creation of a “living laboratory”, whereby the university campus itself becomes a testbed for students, academics and practitioners to investigate solutions to some of the major challenges facing society today. As part of the sustainability strategy, UCC aims to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated with its activities through continually monitoring and reducing its carbon footprint, thus minimising the local, regional and global environmental impacts of the university’s activities. As an initial step in 2019 UCC launched a plan to produce a detailed greenhouse gas inventory for the university which would become the foundation for the university’s first CAP which would guide the university on the path towards a low-carbon future. It has recently been acknowledged that inclusive democratic inputs can play an essential role in the processes of envisioning and implementing a low-carbon future (Agyeman et al., 2016; Healy & Barry, 2017), and that the participation of local stakeholders in planning for energy and climate could improve the quality of local Climate Action Plans – due to the integration of local knowledge – as well as their acceptance amongst the community and overall effectiveness (European Union, 2010). A key focus therefore of the research to develop the UCC CAP was the inclusion and acknowledgement of stakeholder perspectives. The structured dialogue process outlined below brings together a variety of stakeholders with differing opinions and perspectives on their preferred future for the organisation, giving each stakeholder a voice and allowing various greenhouse gas-reduction measures to be given appropriate consideration and sanctioning. Thus the process ensures that the identification of suitable climate action measures is facilitated in a manner that is both deliberative and inclusive.
The development of a Climate Action Plan should ideally follow the completion of a detailed inventory of an organisation’s greenhouse gas emissions, otherwise termed its ‘carbon footprint’. This primarily technical task provides the necessary foundation from which key sources of greenhouse gas emissions can be identified and appropriate, effective carbon-reduction measures may be chosen for implementation. Powered with this knowledge, the development of the university’s Climate Action Plan was designed as a two-step process whereby both quantitative and qualitative research methods were employed in order to identify potential measures that were feasible, provided significant greenhouse gas savings and received high levels of support from the UCC community. Energy transitions are complex processes that frequently encounter challenges linked to social acceptance of a particular technology (Geels et al., 2020) and increasingly it has been recognised that inclusive democratic inputs can play a significant role in the processes of both envisioning and implementing a sustainable energy future (Agyeman et al., 2016; Healy & Barry, 2017). A key focus, therefore, of the research to develop a Climate Action Plan for the university in order to guide the organisation on its path to a low-carbon future was the inclusion and acknowledgement of stakeholder perspectives.
The university’s GHG inventory included details of both the mandatory Scope 1 and 2 emissions (direct greenhouse gas emissions stemming from operations owned or controlled by UCC; indirect greenhouse gas emissions produced from the generation of purchased electricity used by UCC), as well as Scope 3 emissions (other indirect greenhouse gas emissions resulting from UCC activities). The GHG inventory was completed in late 2019 and the initial phase of desk-based research commenced in January 2020. This initial phase of desk-based research proceeded uninterrupted and a number of unique ideas for reduction measures were gathered based on the experiences of other universities. The second phase of qualitative research was originally planned as a series of workshops which were in the process of being organised when public health restrictions around group gatherings were introduced at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic in Ireland. Plans for these workshops were halted along with the closure of the university in March 2020. Following a revision of the initial project plan, a ‘structured dialogue’ - modified Delphi panel - approach was employed as part of the qualitative stage of this research. This approach was aimed at gathering ideas and exploring support for a range of potential climate-action measures, and proved an effective means of achieving the research goals in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic. Both conventional and modified Delphi methods offer a number of advantages for researchers, including cost-effectiveness, flexibility and simplicity, providing opportunities for knowledge sharing and relatively easy communication through the elimination of a geographical limitation (Avella, 2016). The fact that Delphi methods draw on expertise from diverse groups and enhance social learning means they have also proven beneficial in the creation of various scenarios and forecasting as it relates to energy transitions (Makkonen et al., 2016; Mathur et al., 2008).
This article explores the benefits of applying a mixed-methods – a ‘structured dialogue’ or modified Delphi - approach for aiding in the design and development of an organisation’s Climate Action Plan through communicating with stakeholders on the preferred future they would like to see for the organisation in question. It also emphasises the advantages the structured dialogue method provides as a means of conducting engaged research when the ability to conduct in-person research is no longer an option. The foundation for this research study consisted of a consumption-based approach to determining the organisation’s carbon footprint - based upon the work of Ozawa-Meida et al. (2013) – which was advanced by the application of a ‘structured dialogue’, or modified Delphi panel, approach to identifying greenhouse gas reduction measures, adopted in response to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. We propose that this mixed-methods approach provided an opportunity to explore a variety of different perspectives surrounding potential climate actions and that the development of a Climate Action Plan may be significantly enhanced by the use of such a qualitative research method. The following sections give a detailed description of the methodology employed in this study, as well as exploring the benefits to the use of this approach observed from this study.
Description of Methods
The carbon footprint study provided a detailed image of the university’s greenhouse gas emissions which was viewed as an important tool for identifying feasible, effective and well-supported opportunities for reducing the university’s environmental impact. The initial phase of desk-based research began with an exploration of the measures implemented at other universities across the globe as part of their Climate Action or similar plans. These plans provided numerous unique ideas for which the researchers could gauge support for implementation as part of University College Cork’s Climate Action Plan.
The second phase of research consisted of the ‘structured dialogue’ exercise aimed at identifying and exploring support for a variety of potential climate action measures. The ‘structured dialogue’ approach used in the research differed from the conventional Delphi method in a number of ways (Avella, 2016). A key difference between the structured dialogue approach and the more conventional Delphi method was the lack of anonymity in the process design (Avella, 2016), which mainly occurred as a result of both time constraints and the unpredictable challenges brought about by the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. Some difficulty was experienced when it came to recruiting panel respondents and as such a snowballing sampling technique was applied in which individuals invited to participate in the structured dialogue exercise recruited more willing participants for the panels. Some participants were thus aware of the identity of other panel respondents, despite the fact that interaction between respondents and the facilitator took place on an individual and, thus, anonymised basis. The approach was further modified from the conventional Delphi technique in that many of the initial materials – various climate action measures, key sources of GHG emissions – had already been identified by the GHG inventory study and review of the relevant literature. These findings were presented to the panel for discussion throughout the various stages of the exercise, forming the basis of the survey structure for the modified Delphi panel survey (Avella, 2016; Revez et al., 2020). The structured dialogue panel membership was limited to UCC staff and students actively involved in areas of environmental science and sustainability through either work or study. The rationale behind inviting a variety of different academic levels – students of all degree level, as well as academic and research staff – rather than decision makers was based on the desire to explore stability of opinion across various levels of expertise. A recruiting strategy was developed through which staff and students from a variety of areas of the university, including but not limited to the Buildings and Estates Office, Green Campus Forum, UCC Environmental Society and Environmental Research Institute (ERI), were selected and invited to participate in the modified Delphi panel. As the final stage of the structured dialogue process involved the delivery of four different surveys, each consisting of a number of survey rounds conducted via email and exploring different themes, some participants were recruited to participate in more than one Delphi panel, while others were recruited for the sole purpose of contributing towards a specific survey topic. The four structured dialogues generally investigated (i) Scope 1 and 2 emissions; (ii) Scope 3 emissions; (iii) staff business and student academic travel; and (iv) procurement.
The initial round for each group of surveys was used to establish the context of the questions being asked, as well as to provide basic information on the university’s GHG inventory. It invited panel respondents to offer their perspectives on a number of matters surrounding climate action and sustainability within the university. First round questions tended to be non-specific, in order to encourage participants to open up a dialogue on a topic from which subsequent survey rounds could be informed. Subsequent rounds acted as feedback loops, providing a summary of the previous round’s results, including outlining areas of consensus and disagreement. Questions tended to be more specific, having been informed by the previous rounds, and could be open-ended or provide a choice of predetermined answers (agree, disagree, not sure, etc.). The surveys ultimately aimed to assess stability of opinion amongst panel participants and examine levels of consensus for various climate action measures. Consensus in this instance does not refer to 100% agreement amongst panel respondents but instead refers to the generally preestablished agreement rate of between 50% and 70% (Avella, 2016). The feedback loop generated by the surveys allowed for a gradual narrowing down of the agreed upon measures, as well as the noting of those on which agreement was less.
Results
Overview of the structured dialogue exercises carried out as part of the design of UCC’s Climate Action Plan.
Some of the more interesting results generated through the structured dialogue exercises, including the statement made and the agreement expressed by UCC staff and students to these statements (communicated as ‘level of convergence’ or stability of opinion).
Scope 1 and 2 Emissions
In total, 21 potential reduction measures were identified for addressing Scope 1 and 2 emission sources. These potential measures included, but were not limited to, investments in HVAC/BMS systems; introducing intelligent lighting and changes to the IT system to increase energy savings; information and communication campaigns; compulsory annual training for university staff in energy efficiency; blended teaching and learning; and investment in sources of ‘green’ energy. Responses from the structured dialogue exercises on scope 1 and 2 emissions highlighted a number of issues which key stakeholders encounter on a regular basis and could not be identified from the carbon footprint alone, namely issues with the management of some of the university’s most energy-efficient buildings, as well as an inefficient use of space. Respondents also communicated about a culture of individualism in research and lack of responsibility for equipment resulting in high levels of inefficiency associated with laboratory environments, leading to proposals for actions aimed at optimising space utilisation and encouraging more efficient use of fume cupboards in laboratories. While stability of opinion was achieved for a number of points (e.g. Table 2), consensus was not reached on others, such as whether giving university staff more localised control over heating would result in greater energy losses and more frequent disputes over temperature settings within multi-occupancy offices.
Scope 3 Emissions
A total of 48 potential reduction measures were suggested as a means of tackling Scope 3 emissions, addressing a variety of sources including campus life, procurement of goods and services and capital projects, business travel, commuting, waste and water. A number of key actions that respondents suggested included: the introduction of low-carbon food options in canteens and a carbon budget/credits programme for business travel; a life cycle analysis study of suspected high-emissions goods and services; cycle-safety and waste reduction workshops; the establishment of a working-from-home policy; the introduction of energy-smart purchasing; changes to research budgets to promote flexibility; requirements for goods and services suppliers to provide details of their carbon footprint; the introduction of a land and air travel policy for energy efficiency; the development of a carpooling app for university staff and students; the establishment of a reuse and deposit scheme; and a movement to online/digital advertising. Again, stability of opinion was not reached on certain topics, such as whether the introduction of measures that forced student clubs and societies to travel less would significantly impact upon the ‘student experience’ of partaking in a club or society. Similar to the structured dialogue responses relating to Scope 1 and 2 emission sources, participants were able to contribute valuable insight into specific and significant issues within the university which contribute towards the university’s carbon footprint and which cannot be identified based on the GHG inventory alone. Participants communicated the issue of research budget constraints forcing Principal Investigators to prioritise lower prices over the sustainability of a product/service, for example, and were able to provide valuable suggestions as to how these inconspicuous issues may be tackled.
Discussion
Designing a successful CAP involves a complex decision-making process of identifying and choosing the best actions for practical implementation, among a plethora of possible actions. Various conflicting and incommensurable aspects – environmental, social, economic and technical – as well as differing stakeholder interests may result in the creation of multi-criteria and intricate processes for decision-makers (Balouktsi, 2019). SDG 13 of the UN Agenda 2030 – take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts – is inextricably linked with the achievement of many other SDGs, yet despite this knowledge alluding to the fact that climate action should not be considered in isolation, the development of local CAPs and prioritisation and selection of specific actions most often results from analyses based, wholly or at least in part, on economic metrics (Balouktsi, 2019). The global fight against climate change and rising GHG emissions has resulted in the development of a variety of tools and approaches designed to help policymakers and planners direct their efforts. Much of the information provided by these tools and approaches remains quantitative, exploring how emissions at the global, national and subnational levels may evolve in the future depending on a variety of projections from the current context in response to the implementation of various mitigation policies and measures. Given its role in this scenario and the possibility it offers for engaging decision- and policymakers on a common basis, quantitative information can play a significant part in the prioritisation of actions to mitigate GHG emissions (Cohen, 2021). Qualitative approaches, on the other hand, include a variety of methodologies and approaches that can be used to gather, analyse and present information necessary to support decision-making and planning in a manner which quantitative models cannot always explicitly reveal. They represent an important complementary resource for providing information to support the development of long-term strategies to address climate change, which largely remains untapped.
The qualitative approach employed as part of a research study should be chosen based upon the level of participation or input required by the specific situation (Mukherjee et al., 2015). Questionnaires, for example, may be suitable for scenarios where group discussions or decisions are not required; methods like the Delphi technique or statistical aggregation, which do not require participants to be brought physically together, may prove more efficient in terms of time and cost. Where face-to-face interactions are desired for generating opinions through group interactions and discussion approaches like focus groups, workshops and nominal group technique may be most appropriate (Mukherjee et al., 2015). The disruption brought about by the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic led to changes in the original project plan for the development of the university’s Climate Action Plan. Where a series of workshops were initially planned for, the researchers were forced to adopt an approach more cognizant of the public health restrictions introduced. The “structured dialogue” approach used in this research could be described as a modified Delphi technique.
The Structured Dialogue: A Modified Delphi Panel
Linstone and Turoff (2002) described the Delphi technique as an approach especially suitable for cases where a particular problem proves extensive, complex and/or interdisciplinary and would be better solved collectively through contributions of subjective judgements (Wilenius & Tirkkonen, 1997). In recent years there has been a movement away from the use of conventional Delphi methods towards more modified approaches, as well as a diversification of the scenarios where Delphi is typically seen. Tapio et al. (2011), for example, observed the benefits of orienting Delphi techniques towards aiding in the establishment of alternative preferred futures, a scenario supported by research carried out by Rowe and Wright (2011) who highlighted the evolution of the Delphi technique towards mixed-method orientations that provide stakeholders with a more holistic approach to addressing complex issues. Revez et al. (2020) further observed the benefits to using a modified Delphi technique beyond the typical scenario of forecasting technological diffusion pathways, instead examining its use as a means of exploring visions of energy transitions. Hasson and Keeney (2011) classify the Delphi technique into a number of different designs, each of which is adopted depending on the situation and research problem in question. Argument Delphi, for example, is useful for encouraging debate about existing theories by challenging current patterns of thought and progressing our contemporary understandings (Mukherjee et al., 2015). Scenario Delphi, as described by Mukherjee et al. (2015), can be applied when the purpose of the research is to explore alternate scenarios during which participants are invited to envision probable and preferable futures. Some Delphi techniques remain specific, whilst others incorporate aspects of other designs either wholly or in part. Also, the term “modified” is often applied to the Delphi technique, though it masks the complexity and diversity of the particular design; for example, a modified Delphi may employ a focus group, interview or the results of a systemic review as part of the development of the first round (Hasson & Keeney, 2011). The approach embraced as part of this research into developing a Climate Action Plan for the university included aspects of both the modified and scenario Delphi techniques. The approach was modified in that the results of the carbon footprint study, as well as the systemic review of the literature on Climate Action Plans across the globe, were used in the development of first-round surveys. It also incorporated aspects of the explorative scenario Delphi in its central aim to elicit preferred futures based on the participant’s background and experience and envision creative solutions to a complex problem (Mukherjee et al., 2015).
It is important to outline the key differences between the structured dialogue method employed as part of this research and the more conventional Delphi approach. Defining the criteria for participation, for example, was a source of divergence from the approach taken using a more conventional Delphi method. The structured dialogue exercise differed from the conventional approach in its definition of who was adequately qualified to participate in the panel. Defining this aspect is of critical importance to conventional Delphi methods – some studies may use particular criteria, such as publication in scholarly journals, number of years in a specific practice, holding certain credentials, etc., as a minimum qualification threshold for defining what an “expert” in a particular area looks like (Avella, 2016). According to Avella (2016) the criteria for invitation to participate in a Delphi panel should include, generally speaking, ‘those measurable characteristics that each participant group would acknowledge as those defining expertise, while still attempting to recruit a broad range of individual perspectives within those criteria’. In the case of the structured dialogue, through asking the question “which groups have a professional interest in achieving the study purpose?” (Avella, 2016) the researchers came to the conclusion that stakeholders for the study would likely be those with a certain level of involvement in environmental advocacy and sustainability - the areas of investigation for the UCC Climate Action Plan were so broad that a general involvement in these areas was deemed an appropriate measure of expertise for this investigation. Furthermore, Hussler et al. (2011) in their exploration of the future of nuclear energy in France using expert and non-expert Delphi forecasting concluded that non-expert judgements could prove productive and offer insights beyond those experienced in expert-only panels. The researchers in this instance called for a greater emphasis to be placed on participatory democracy within the Delphi process after noticing that expert groups proved to be more homogenous in the opinions offered, as well as favouring positions that were more deeply ingrained and within which it was more difficult to inspire change (Hussler et al., 2011). When it came to the structured dialogue exercise, therefore, participation was not confined to academics generally considered “experts” in their field. Instead the process was opened up to include both staff and students of all levels involved in environmental advocacy and sustainability through work and/or study, as a means of encouraging discussion around a greater variety of opinions. Furthermore, where the classical Delphi aims to elicit opinions and gain consensus (Hasson & Keeney, 2011), this focus on achieving consensus may generate a diluted version of the best opinion if disinterested participants start to unintentionally conform to the majority view (Mukherjee et al., 2015; Rowe et al., 2005). For this research, there was less of a focus on achieving consensus amongst participants and a greater focus placed on gathering as many ideas as possible and observing the general level of support for each idea proposed. All ideas generated as part of the structured dialogue exercise were therefore included in the discussion document presented as part of the draft CAP. Lastly, and as previously mentioned, the approach was altered from the conventional Delphi technique in that the panellists were first provided with material drawn from various sources within which they were asked to consider their responses (Hasson & Keeney, 2011).
Like both conventional and modified Delphi methods, the structured dialogue approach offered a number of key advantages for the researchers (Avella, 2016) as part of this study. The approach proved relatively straightforward to design and was also cost-effective and relatively simple as a means of communicating. The methodology also offered panel participants a level of flexibility in that the number of panel members participating in each round did not have to remain constant i.e. members could drop in and out of participating as it suited them (Rivera, 2013; Wynaden et al., 2014). The modified Delphi approach proved useful for generating novel ideas (Orsi et al., 2011), developing new concepts and solutions (Moore et al., 2009; Wallington & Moore, 2005), encouraging debate and integrating dissenting views (MacMillan & Marshall, 2006). The iterative nature of the structured dialogue approach was useful in refining the process of gathering ideas for potential actions for the draft Climate Action Plan by providing respondents with feedback and the possibility to reconsider or revise their initial responses in light of this, bringing more credibility to the final outcome of the process (Eycott et al., 2011). In contrast to workshops or focus group discussions, the technique was also relatively free from social pressures due to the anonymity it offered. Though the recruitment process for the structured dialogue exercise could not be considered anonymous, in that a snowballing sampling technique was employed, interactions between the facilitator and participants were anonymous, and pooled participant responses were never attributed to any particular individual. This allowed for true opinion to emerge due to decreased pressure to conform (de Lange et al., 2010). As observed by Ayton et al. (1999) anonymity can motivate respondents to think deeply about the issue in question in a dispassionate manner and also minimizes the halo effect, freeing respondents from the fear of ‘losing face’ or repercussion as a result of expressing controversial opinions (McBride et al., 2012; Powell, 2003). The modified Delphi approach therefore offered the CAP development process more neutrality and objectivity than another group facilitation technique – like workshops or focus group discussions – would have, an important feature of any decision-making process involving stakeholders who are each contributing different backgrounds, experiences and opinions. One disadvantage witnessed throughout the research study is that the iterative nature of the Delphi technique demands considerable effort from both the respondents and facilitators (Mukherjee et al., 2015). Often the process can prove time-consuming and result in high attrition rates between rounds (Benitez-Capistros et al., 2014), which was sometimes observed throughout the structured dialogue process. Mukherjee et al. (2015) make the suggestion to limit the amount of time that lapses between rounds in order to reduce the time needed for respondents to re-acquaint themselves with the Delphi process and questions; this action may have potentially helped in raising the rate of engagement with the structured dialogues, though leniency had to be given during the study due to the novel challenges brought about by everyone having to work from home at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Advantages of the Structured Dialogue Technique
The most significant advantage awarded by this approach was that it proved a useful means for generating ideas of potential measures for the university’s Climate Action Plan, as well as conveying the levels of support offered to these measures by the UCC community. As has been observed in Table 2, the structured dialogue provided precious insights into the views and perspectives of university staff and students, which will ultimately impact upon the implementation of certain measures as part of the CAP in future. For example, the researchers observed how important the continuation of in-person teaching at the university during the COVID-19 pandemic was to staff and students, regardless of the effects this may have on energy consumption; this result alone conveyed that energy savings ‘came second’ to the university community at this time when compared to the value placed on in-person learning and maintaining social connections. Measures which on paper appeared to be relatively simple and straightforward, like introducing compostable materials to university food centres, were considered and communicated by staff as being more difficult to implement on their own without solving other issues, like improper use of bins on campus. Stakeholders are generally supportive of implementing measures that will provide long-term savings in GHG emissions, even if these result in short-term increases. A somewhat surprising result showed that staff and students considered persuasive and voluntary engagement with energy-efficiency measures to be more impactful than forced, mandatory engagement, though if the latter scenario had to be implemented, this was regarded as worthwhile in terms of energy savings compared to the pushback it would receive. Furthermore, the responses highlighted that the public are generally aware that measures which are typically demanded by them as solutions to GHG emissions (e.g. sustainable transport opportunities to/from the university) require significant collaboration between multiple stakeholders before such complex challenges can be undertaken, and cannot be expected to be solved by one stakeholder alone. The structured dialogue exercise – along with all the other advantages it offered – was successful at revealing the intricacy of implementing measures which will impact not only the environmental aspects of daily life at the university, but also the social aspects. These insights, which would not have been observable had the draft CAP been designed solely based upon the results of the GHG inventory or desktop literature search, will help to identify what measures ‘should be’, as opposed to ‘could be’, implemented in the eyes of the UCC community.
Despite the challenges introduced by Covid-19, the mixed-methods approach adopted in response to it proved a successful means of carrying out engaged research on the potential climate action measures which the university could adopt in order to address the university’s GHG emissions. The structed dialogue approach offered the researchers opportunities for engagement which, at one point in the project process, did not seem feasible. In an ideal scenario, the structured dialogue method, as well as a number of other quantitative and qualitative methods, would be applied to the development of a CAP in order to maximise the benefits offered by each individual approach and refine the process. While this was not feasible given the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, the structured dialogue approach proved sufficient at providing unique opportunities for scenario planning and visioning exercises particularly useful for identifying more flexible options adaptable in the face of – as made clear by the pandemic – rather uncertain futures.
Conclusion
Public participation in environmental decision-making has, over the past few decades, come to form a significant part of environmental regulatory systems around the world as decision-makers recognise the importance of understanding who is affected by, and who has the power to influence the outcome of, the decisions and actions they take (Reed et al., 2009). This paper sought to illustrate the potential use of a structured dialogue – modified Delphi – methodology for conducting engaged research on climate action as part of a mixed-methods approach to developing a Climate Action Plan. The creation of a GHG inventory is primarily a technical task which can aid in determining an organisation’s baseline emissions and help in identifying the key emission sources and potential reduction opportunities (United Nations Human Settlement Programme, 2015). However in this scenario local stakeholders remain involved only as information providers, rather than as decision-makers, and the process relies solely on quantitative approaches and information. The Delphi technique is an approach suited to processes involving the interpretation of complex and conflicting information on uncertain topics, where decisions cannot solely be based upon established facts and quantitative information (Mukherjee et al., 2015). The structured dialogue technique thus provided the opportunity for a richer, more creative and aspirational development process for the UCC Climate Action Plan. The experience outlined in this paper illustrates the value of employing such techniques beyond forecasting scenarios and orienting them towards more ambitious and coproduced visions of the green transition (Revez et al., 2020).
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
Special thanks must be given to Pat Mehigan, Energy and Utilities Manager, and Dr Maria Kirrane, Sustainability Officer, who contributed advice and vast amounts of data for this research. The efforts of participants who took part in the structured dialogue exercises were greatly appreciated, as were the contributions in terms of data received from various university offices, departments, student clubs and societies.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was conducted as part of the Campus Climate Action project funded by the Buildings and Estates Office, University College Cork.
