How community drives environmental change

The Danish Island of Samso is a well-known environmental case study. The island has achieved energy self-sufficiency from renewable energy sources over a period of 10 years. It is a case study not only in terms of the success in moving from being fossil fuels dependent to wind and bio-mass based energy independent, but also in how important it is to leverage community, to build a common vision and purpose, and to promote ownership when it comes to tackling the global challenge of climate change at the local level. For those with an interest in the island's progression to energy independence, a report published in 2007 provides ample data and analysis. An article in the New Yorker captures the transformation well:

"Most Samsingers heated their houses with oil, which was brought in on tankers. They used electricity imported from the mainland via cable, much of which was generated by burning coal. As a result, each Samsinger put into the atmosphere, on average, nearly eleven tons of carbon dioxide annually. Then, quite deliberately, the residents of the island set about changing this. They formed energy coöperatives and organized seminars on wind power. They removed their furnaces and replaced them with heat pumps. By 2001, fossil-fuel use on Samsø had been cut in half. By 2003, instead of importing electricity, the island was exporting it, and by 2005 it was producing from renewable sources more energy than it was using."

What is most interesting is the community dimension and how a small, relatively conservative farming based community embraced and enabled the island's transformation.

In a piece in the Guardian newspaper, author Robin McKie interviews Soren Harmensen, the individual who spearheaded the effort. He recognizes that what has been achieved in Samso may not be easily replicated elsewhere (the island benefits from sustained winds, lower per-capita energy consumption and higher per-capita available bio-mass (vis-a-vis the Danish population)): "This is a pilot project to show the world what can be done. We are not suggesting everyone makes the sweeping changes that we have. People should cherry pick from what we have done in order to make modest, but still meaningful carbon emission cuts. (See prior blog post for more on cherry-picking and low hanging fruit to affect environmental change.) Harmensen goes on to note, however, that what really made the project a success was community engagement: "The crucial point is that we have shown that if you want to change how we generate energy, you have to start at the community level and not impose technology on people."

The article highlights another key element in the community's engagement - buy-in and not just at the conceptual level, but also at the financial level. Everyone has a share (whether through individual or cooperative ownership): "'No one minds wind turbines on Samso for the simple reason that we all own a share of one,' says electrician Brian Kjar... And that is the real lesson from Samso. What has happened here is a social not a technological revolution. Indeed, it was a specific requirement of the scheme, when established, that only existing, off-the-shelf renewable technology be used. The real changes have been those in attitude... 'Everyone knows someone who is interested in renewable energy today,' (Kjar) adds. 'Something like this starts with a few people. It just needs time to spread. That is the real lesson of Samso.'" The role of the municipality (local government) is also important - on Samso five of the 10 offshore wind turbines are owned by the Samso municipality, providing important local government support and commitment.

While Samso is a unique experiment, many of the lessons learned can be applied in other environments. There is no reason that other communities cannot adopt similar approaches to implementing change at the local level that will have a positive impact on the environment. Lasting global change will be brought about by local action - but it does not have to be as comprehensive as the Samso example. Local projects to increase renewable energy usage are essential to environmental progress, no matter their ambition. And as important as the technologies are, the real determinants of success are a community wide purpose and vision and a very real sense of ownership, as the island's experience shows.

Regroup, Rethink, Redesign

Welcome to 2009 - a year that will, according to pundits, prove a challenging and lean one. One that will test us on many fronts - financially, socially, economically... Some commentators in the design space are already looking for new buzzwords that will light our way forward in these dark times. For certain, innovation (the term du jour in recent years) has been sullied. Paul Krugman in the International Herald Tribune put it succinctly: "How did things get so opaque? The answer is 'financial innovation' - two words that should, from now on, strike fear into investor's hearts." Of course innovation is not dead - to innovate is one of humankind's greatest capabilities - but perhaps it has been talked to death.

So let's agree that for 2009 there will be no more buzzwords. Instead lets use our communal energies and time to regroup, rethink and redesign community, services, products, etc., that are essential to our future welfare and wellbeing. Of course innovation is a key ingredient, in the way we redesign products and services to be more efficient, more environmentally friendly, more user centric, more community oriented. Innovation has an incredibly important role to play in ensuring that products and services are better suited to this age of scarcity (whether scarcity of credit, natural resources, food and shelter, etc.) that we have stumbled into. While innovation is no panacea, it is an essential element to moving beyond short-term band aid mentality approaches that typify public and private sector responses in hard times. As individuals, communities or businesses, we thrive when we change, innovate, transform, etc., and in 2009 and beyond we will need to do so more than ever.

Design and social services

Over at Participle, Hillary Cottam and colleagues are pondering the re-design of social services. The UK's Design Council is also looking at the public sector as a part of a major initiative of their entitled "Public Services by Design". (Also worth a look is the product of the Design Council's RED "do tank".) This public sector-focussed work is important, and relevant to any developed nation where the structure and delivery of social/public services tend to be a generation or two behind the other organizational design and services provision thinking. The Participle effort looks at re-humanizing and decentralizing social services - in other words getting the services back to those who truly need them and giving them a sense of ownership; a no-brainer you might say, but not where public authorities are concerned. The big challenge is that public services are not really for the public anymore. They usually suffer from the "check the box" syndrome which results in poorly structured and inadequately provisioned services that do little to enhance the well-being of the public (which is what public services were supposed to be all about in the first place). Public services are a foundational component of community, and one of the reasons that service provision is so abysmal is that we have lost any real notion of physical and human community, and our responsibility for and to them. Whether the discussion revolves around social or public services, the bigger challenge is how we re-architect community to encourage a renewed sense of ownership and empowerment - people are not going to take ownership for services that are poorly designed and delivered, and if the requirements of the individual and community (user-centricity) are not guiding service design then any new efforts are stymied from the start.