Aad Correljé

Dr. Aad Correljé

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

24Years (2003-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 March 2006 in Energy Policy
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ACAad Correljé
Aad Correljé
CLCoby van der Linde
Coby van der Linde

2 January 2014 in Journal of Responsible Innovation
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
Behnam TaebiBehnam Taebi
Behnam Taebi
ACAad Correljé
Aad Correljé
ECE. Cuppen
E. Cuppen
MDM. Dignum
M. Dignum
Udo PeschUdo Pesch
Udo Pesch
This article has a theoretical and a practical objective. The theoretical objective is to conceptualize responsible innovation as the adequate and timely inclusion of public values relevant to technological development. Technological innovations always occur in a specific institutional context, closely connected to stakeholder dynamics. Hence, an ideal approach to responsible innovation requires interdisciplinary research that incorporates: (i) the ethics of technology, to investigate the role of values in design; (ii) institutional theory, to understand the parts played by institutions in realizing values; and (iii) policy, planning and science, technology and society literature, to focus on stakeholder engagement. The practical objective is to explain how this approach can be operationalized. Since values emerge and evolve during the development and implementation of technologies, we take public debate to be the empirical source for extracting public values. Several salient questions need to be addressed such as: which and whose opinion should count, and how should value trade-offs be facilitated?

1 October 2017 in Energy Policy
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
Udo PeschUdo Pesch
Udo Pesch
ACAad Correljé
Aad Correljé
ECEefje Cuppen
Eefje Cuppen
BTBehnam Taebi
Behnam Taebi
In this paper we develop a framework for understanding how justice-related claims play a role in the dynamics of controversy in energy projects. We do so by distinguishing two interacting trajectories of assessment: a formal trajectory that is embedded in the legal system and an informal trajectory that is mainly embedded in public discourse. The emergence of an informal assessment trajectory can be seen as a response to a (perceived) lack of attention to particular concerns or values in the formal trajectory, i.e. '. overflowing'. The emerging informal assessment may subsequently lead to adaptations in the formal trajectory, which we refer to as '. backflowing'. Based on insights from case studies on Dutch energy projects and literature on energy justice we identify three justice-related attributes that facilitate understanding of the emergence of controversies. These attributes are based on differences between the two trajectories in terms of 1) the way in which values are expressed, 2) the dimension of energy justice that is taken as a starting point, and 3) the democratic legitimization of assessment trajectories. In order to allow for legitimate and effective energy policy, overflowing and backflowing need to be addressed as interrelated rather than as separate processes.

25 July 2015 in Science and Engineering Ethics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MDMarloes Dignum
Marloes Dignum
ACAad Correljé
Aad Correljé
ECEefje Cuppen
Eefje Cuppen
Udo PeschUdo Pesch
Udo Pesch
Behnam TaebiBehnam Taebi
Behnam Taebi
The introduction of new energy technologies may lead to public resistance and contestation. It is often argued that this phenomenon is caused by an inadequate inclusion of relevant public values in the design of technology. In this paper we examine the applicability of the value sensitive design (VSD) approach. While VSD was primarily introduced for incorporating values in technological design, our focus in this paper is expanded towards the design of the institutions surrounding these technologies, as well as the design of stakeholder participation. One important methodological challenge of VSD is to identify the relevant values related to new technological developments. In this paper, we argue that the public debate can form a rich source from which to retrieve the values at stake. To demonstrate this, we have examined the arguments used in the public debate regarding the exploration and exploitation of shale gas in the Netherlands. We identified two important sets of the underlying values, namely substantive and procedural values. This paper concludes with two key findings. Firstly, contrary to what is often suggested in the literature, both proponents and opponents seem to endorse the same values. Secondly, contestation seems to arise in the precise operationalization of these values among the different stakeholders. In other words, contestation in the Dutch shale gas debate does not arise from inter-value conflict but rather from intra-value conflicts. This multi-interpretability should be incorporated in VSD processes.

1 October 2020 in Energy Research & Social Science
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
ECEefje Cuppen
Eefje Cuppen
OEOlivier Ejderyan
Olivier Ejderyan
Udo PeschUdo Pesch
Udo Pesch
SSShannon Spruit
Shannon Spruit
EGElisabeth van de Grift
Elisabeth van de Grift
BTBehnam Taebi
Behnam Taebi

1 January 2009 in Energy Policy
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ICIgnacio Contín-Pilart
Ignacio Contín-Pilart
ACAad Correljé
Aad Correljé
MPM. Blanca Palacios
M. Blanca Palacios