Check out the episode:

You can find the shownotes through this link.

---

Are you interested in the energy transformation and its effects on cities?

---

Our summary today works with the article titled A framework for exploring futures of complex urban energy systems from 2023, by Sumedha Basu and Catherine S. E. Bale, published in the Frontiers in Climate journal.

This is a great preparation to our next interview with Jon Mills in episode 336 talking about energy transitions as one of the driving forces behind urban change.

Since we are investigating the future of cities, I thought it would be interesting to see how we could rethink our energy systems for better urban futures. This article recognises current urban energy systems as intricate and interconnected entities with many potential futures, which are investigated in theory and practice.

[intro music]

---

Welcome to today’s What is The Future For Cities podcast and its Research episode; my name is Fanni, and today we will introduce a research by summarising it. The episode really is just a short summary of the original investigation, and, in case it is interesting enough, I would encourage everyone to check out the whole documentation. This conversation was produced and generated with Notebook LM as two hosts dissecting the whole research.

---

[music]

Speaker 1: Okay? Imagine this for a second. Your city, maybe 50 years from now, let’s say 2074. What’s actually powering everything, you know? How are people getting around?

Speaker 2: It sounds really futuristic, like sci-fi stuff.

Speaker 1: Exactly. But these aren’t just thought experiments. They’re really naughty problems that urban planners are trying to figure out, like right now.

Speaker 2: And that’s why if we’re getting into a really interesting academic paper, it’s called a framework for exploring Futures of complex Urban energy systems by basu and bale.

Speaker 1: Seems super relevant if you want to understand how we make well smart long-term decisions. About something so basic, so vital as our city’s energy.

Speaker 2: That’s the core of it. And this isn’t just some abstract academic thing, is it?

Speaker 1: No, not at all. The choice is being made today about energy, infrastructure, power, plants, grids, heating systems, transport. They’re gonna directly shape your life, the economy, the environment. For decades. Yeah, for a long time. So getting a handle on just how complicated this all is, it can actually help you become a more informed citizen, maybe even have some influence on these really big choices.

Speaker 2: So our mission today, if you will, is to unpack why these urban energy systems are just so complex. We’ll look at maybe where the current ways of planning are falling a bit short, and then introduce you to a different way of thinking about the future of energy in our cities. Think of it like a toolkit for understanding the uncertainty, but also the possibilities.

Speaker 1: The paper really stresses that urban energy isn’t just power plants and wires.

Speaker 2: No, definitely not.

Speaker 1: They call ’em complex systems. They’re deeply tangled up with local society, with different levels of government,

Speaker 2: and the interconnectedness is key, isn’t it? And they talk about lots of independent parts, all interacting over time. And that interaction leads to something greater than the sum of its parts. It’s that dynamic buzz that creates the complexity.

Speaker 1: And crucially, these systems have placed specific characteristics as the paper puts it, meaning your city’s unique history, its social makeup. It all really matters for its energy future. It’s definitely not a one size fits all kind of deal.

Speaker 2: And they build on that with this idea of complex adaptive

Speaker 1: systems. Okay. What does that involve?

Speaker 2: Well think nested subsystems like systems within systems. Then there’s self-organization things happening without a central director emergence. Those surprising results we mentioned.

Speaker 1: Ah, yeah.

Speaker 2: Co-evolution where different parts change in response to each other. Nonlinear dynamics, small changes, having big unpredictable effects and feedback loops, of course.

Speaker 1: Wow, okay. So that’s a lot.

Speaker 2: It is. And all this stuff makes the future inherently uncertain. Hard to predict, really, like trying to guess exactly where every single car in a traffic jam will be in an hour.

Speaker 1: So this is where the traditional planning methods might struggle.

Speaker 2: That’s what the paper argues. Yeah, that typical top-down planning setting, simple targets, it often isn’t quite enough in these super complex situations. And there are risks. Yeah, they mentioned the risk of policy paralysis just getting stuck because it’s all so complicated. I could see that happening. And also maybe overlooking really important things like. Who benefits and who loses out in the energy transition.

Speaker 1: So the key takeaway here for someone listening is predicting the energy future isn’t like hitting a bullseye on a dark board.

Speaker 2: It’s much more like navigating a constantly shifting landscape, adapting as you go.

Speaker 1: Okay. Let’s pivot slightly then. Let’s talk about why some of the current planning methods might be limited. The paper points out, many plans are driven by emission targets like net zero,

Speaker 2: which are incredibly important goals,

Speaker 1: obviously, of course. But the focus can sometimes be a bit narrow, maybe. Right? Too focused on just the technical stuff, the economics.

Speaker 2: That’s a criticism. Yes. And they also look at methodologies like seep, sustainable energy action planning.

Speaker 1: I’ve heard of those.

Speaker 2: They’re good for getting cities thinking longer term, but often the goals are still quite short term, maybe 10 years or so.

Speaker 1: And they might miss connections.

Speaker 2: Yeah, they don’t always fully capture the interdependencies between say, how we heat buildings and how we power transport and the electricity grid itself, it’s often siloed.

Speaker 1: And what about the actual models they use? The computer simulation.

Speaker 2: Ah, yeah. The paper critiques. Those two often they don’t properly link up the different energy sub-sectors

Speaker 1: like electricity and heating again.

Speaker 2: Exactly. Or they struggle to really factor in uncertainty. Sometimes they rely on this thing called the perfect market assumption.

Speaker 1: You

Speaker 2: do basically, assuming everyone acts perfectly rationally with perfect information, which you know,

Speaker 1: doesn’t sound much like the real world.

Speaker 2: Not always, no. And other things get missed too, like embody energy, all the energy that goes into making the materials and building the infrastructure in the first place.

Speaker 1: That seems like a big omission.

Speaker 2: Crucially, many models lack strong participatory elements, meaning the voices of citizens, the people actually living in the city and using the energy aren’t always fully included in the planning.

Speaker 1: So you’re basically saying the picture we get from these current methods can be incomplete.

Speaker 2: That’s a fair way to put it. There’s a lot of complexity that might be getting smoothed over or missed entirely.

Speaker 1: Okay. So if the current methods have limitations, what’s the alternative? This brings us to futures thinking, right?

Speaker 2: The paper positions, this as a field, a kind of scholarship that tries to systematically look at different futures. What’s possible, what’s probable, what we might actually want. Especially when things are uncertain,

Speaker 1: and the key is futures plural.

Speaker 2: Exactly. Not the future, but many possible futures. The authors talk about different types, possible plausible, probable preferable or desirable and projected futures.

Speaker 1: And the further out you look,

Speaker 2: the more uncertain it gets, like weather forecasting. But tomorrow’s forecast is usually pretty good. Next month’s, much fuzzier

Speaker 1: and unexpected things can happen along the way. You mentioned different types of events.

Speaker 2: Yeah, briefly. Things like black swans, totally unexpected, massive impact events, or grey rhinos. Big obvious threats that we often ignore until they charge.

Speaker 1: Okay. So how does foresight fit in? Is that different from futures thinking?

Speaker 2: Foresight is more the practical application. It’s about using that future assessment to actually inform policy. Now, understanding our current choices. Their potential long-term consequences.

Speaker 1: And it’s not about predicting the one true future.

Speaker 2: No, definitely not. The emphasis is on generating multiple potential futures, often through collaboration, through talking to lots of different people,

Speaker 1: which seems much more realistic. Honestly, it aligns with wanting a thorough picture, seeing different angles. It does,

Speaker 2: and complexity science really underpins this whole approach. Remember how we said complex systems generate surprise and novelty? Things you couldn’t predict beforehand. That’s emergence and that fundamentally challenges simple linear models. If we do A, then B will happen. It’s often not that straightforward.

Speaker 1: So policies can have unintended consequences.

Speaker 2: Absolutely. Even well-meaning ones, the system can react in unexpected ways.

Speaker 1: The paper mentioned future regimes, different ways of thinking about the future.

Speaker 2: Yeah, it’s an interesting typology from just reacting to emergencies, to trying to anticipate problems. Attempting prediction, exploring possibilities, perspective making, rapid adjustments, high frequency, or just optimizing what we have now.

Speaker 1: And where does complexity science fit?

Speaker 2: It’s often ambivalent about strict prediction. The paper says because the system is inherently unpredictable to a degree,

Speaker 1: but that doesn’t mean we can’t do anything. Not

Speaker 2: at all. Despite the unpredictability the author suggests, there can be critical intervention points. Places where smart actions can influence the system’s direction,

Speaker 1: but there’s a catch.

Speaker 2: There can be that same unpredictability can sometimes lead policy makers to feel overwhelmed, maybe even paralysed.

Speaker 1: The policy paralysis again,

Speaker 2: which can ironically lead to focusing only on the short term because the long term feels too messy to handle. We see that with big issues like climate change sometimes.

Speaker 1: Okay, so pulling all these threads together, the paper proposes a new framework. How does it work?

Speaker 2: It’s built in a few key pillars. First is futures itself. Really embracing that spectrum of possibilities we talked about. Desired probable possible, even undesired futures and generating these inclusively,

Speaker 1: okay, involving people.

Speaker 2: Yes. Second is contextualization. Really digging deep into the specific urban energy system.

Speaker 1: What does that mean in practice?

Speaker 2: Mapping out who the actors are, how they’re linked, the history, current trends, short term changes. Getting a really rich picture of this specific city’s energy situation. Got it.

Speaker 1: What’s

Speaker 2: next? Mapping uncertainty. Identifying the key unknowns that could swing things one way or another for different scenarios,

Speaker 1: like technological breakthroughs or policy changes.

Speaker 2: Could be those, yeah, yeah. Or low probability, high impact events. Those black swans again, or potential tipping points where the system could shift rapidly.

Speaker 1: And you mentioned participation

Speaker 2: Absolutely crucial. The fourth pillar is participatory processes. Actively involving a really wide range of people, not just the usual experts throughout the whole process.

Speaker 1: Why is that so important

Speaker 2: to gather diverse knowledge? Different perspectives. Make sure the future is being considered, are actually seen as desirable and fair by the community.

Speaker 1: Makes sense. And the last piece,

Speaker 2: futures Governance. This is about developing strategies that are flexible, that can adapt, having regular views, setting up signposts to see which future might be unfolding. Thinking about how to manage potential negative side effects.

Speaker 1: So it’s not a one-off plan?

Speaker 2: No, it’s an ongoing process. The paper acknowledges its resource intensive and needs tailoring to each city. And importantly, they stress thinking long-term, 50 even a hundred years, for this to be really meaningful in these complex systems.

Speaker 1: Wow. So the big aha moment here. Is that this framework gives us a way to handle the complexity and uncertainty rather than ignoring it.

Speaker 2: That’s the idea. It moves beyond those simpler models and embraces the reality of these dynamic urban energy systems.

Speaker 1: Okay, so wrapping up, thinking about our city’s energy future, it’s really this blend, isn’t it? Understanding complexity, getting comfortable with uncertainty. Making sure lots of voices are heard.

Speaker 2: Yeah. It’s less about predicting that single path forward

Speaker 1: and more about preparing for a range of possibilities. Yeah. And trying to actively steer towards a future we actually want

Speaker 2: Precisely. And the paper ends with a really thought provoking point for this kind of foresight to really take hold in energy planning. It says we need political appetite for long-term thinking. Policy acknowledgement for uncertain futures. Scientific humility for incomplete knowledge,

Speaker 1: political appetite, acknowledging uncertainty, scientific humility. That’s quite a list.

Speaker 2: It is. And it raises a question, doesn’t it? What role can citizens, like the people listening, play in actually fostering those conditions?

Speaker 1: That is a really good question to leave people with. We’ve really only scratched the surface today.

Speaker 2: It’s a rich paper,

Speaker 1: and maybe it’s worth thinking too, how these ideas, complexity, uncertainty, participation, apply elsewhere, not just energy.

---

[music]

What is the future for cities podcast?

---