Taming the Renewables: Actors’ Innovation in Improving the Utilisation of Biogas for Everyday Use in Agricultural Setting

*Meredian Alam -  University of Newcastle, Australia
Published: 15 Feb 2016.
Open Access
Citation Format:
Article Info
Section: Original Research Article
Language: EN
Full Text:
Statistics: 865 1036
Abstract

Biogas development in Indonesia has reached a large number of users since 2009 and the technology has had a successful adoption rate at the local level. However, the ways that users develop and adopt innovation with regards to this useful technology has been under-researched. This study aims to address the innovations being undertaken by biogas users; these innovations are a decentralising process of technical knowledge that is based on users’ interpretations of pre-existing social and cultural values they experience in everyday life. Through innovation, users can demonstrate a greater sense of ownership, which leads to them feeling more able to integrate the biogas into their lives, including its incorporation into agricultural activities at home. The main recommendation drawn from this research is that users’ ideas and knowledge, as well as the social-cultural values underlying their everyday lives, should be taken into account in order to ensure successful construction processes and that they be understood as co-shaping elements that will enable a smooth immersion of the users and the technology.

Article History: Received November 26th 2015; Received in revised form January 15th 2016; Accepted January 26th 2016; Available online

How to Cite This Article: Alam, M. (2016) Taming the Renewables: Actors’ Innovation in Improving the Utilisation of Biogas for Daily Use in Agricultural Setting. Int. Journal of Renewable Energy Development, 5(1),57-64 .

http://dx.doi.org/10.14710/ijred.5.1.57-64

 

Keywords
biogas, technological innovation, knowledge, everyday lives.

Article Metrics:

  1. Akinbami, J.F, Ilori, M. ., Oyebisi, T, Akinwumi, I. ., & Adeoti, O. (2001). Biogas energy use in Nigeria: current status, future prospects and policy implications, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 5(1), 97-112.
  2. Akrich, M. (1992). “Beyond Social Construction of Technology: the Shaping of People and Things in the Innovation Process”, in Dierkes M., Hoffmann U., (ed.), New Technology at the Outset, Frankfurt/New-York, Campus/Westview, p.173-190.
  3. Bakardjieva, M. (2006). “Domestication running wild: From the moral economy of the household to the mores of a culture” in Berker, T., Hartmann, M., Punie, Y., & Ward, Katie (ed.): Domestication of Media and Technology. London: Open University Press.
  4. Berker, T., Hartmann, M., Punie, Y., & Ward, Katie (ed.) (2005). Domestication of Media and Technology. London: Open University Press.
  5. Bijker, W.B (1996). Of Bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge. Massachussets: MIT Press.
  6. Brockington, D & Sullivan, S. (2003. “Qualitative Research” in Development Fieldwork: A Practical Guide. London: Sage Publication.
  7. CAREPI. (2009). Regional Energy Outlook Special Region of Yogyakarta Province Year 2005-2025. Yogyakarta: PUSPER UMY and Dinas Pekerjaan Umu, Perumahan dan Energi Sumber Daya Mineral Provinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta.
  8. Carrier, J. & D. Miller.(1999). Chapter 2, “From Private Virture to Public Vice”, pp. 24-47. In H. Moore (Ed.), Anthropological Theory of Today. Cambridge and Oxford: Polity Press.
  9. Crewe, Emma (1997) “The silent traditions of developing cooks”, ch 3 in Grillo, R.D. and Stirrat, R.L. Discourses of development: Anthropological perspectives. Oxford, UK: Berg 1997.
  10. Driesen, D. M., & Popp, D. (2010). Meaningful technology transfer for climate disruption. Journal of International Affairs, 64(1), 1.
  11. Escobar, A. (1999). After nature: steps to an antiessentialist political ecology 1, Current anthropology, 40(1), 1-30.
  12. Flichy, P. (2008). Understanding Technological Innovation: A Socio-Technical Approach. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  13. Fugslang, W, L. (2001). “Where Technological Culture through a Constructivist View of science, Technology, and Society” in Cutcliffe, S.H and Mitcham: Vision of STS: Counterpoints in Science, Technology, and Society Studies. New York: State University of New York Press.
  14. Geels, F.W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory, Research Energy Policy, vol. 33 (6), pp. 897-920.
  15. Hobart, M (1993). “Introduction: The Growth of Ignorance?”, in An Anthropological Critique of Development, pp. 1-30. New York: Routledge.
  16. Lie M & Sørensen, K.H (eds). (1996) Making technology our own? Domesticating technology into everyday life, Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
  17. Livingstone, S. (2003). Children’s use of the internet: reflections on the emerging research agenda. New media & society, 5 (2). pp. 147-166.
  18. MacKenzie, D and Wajcman, J (2002). The Social Shaping of Technology. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.
  19. Mautz, R. (2015). The role of local bottom-up initiative as “change agents” of energy transition. Proceeding IAS-STS Conference Graz 2015. Session 16: Local Innovation Impulses and the Transformation of the Energy System. Accessed at http://www.ifz.aau.at/ias/IAS-STS/Publications/Proceedings-STS-Conference-Graz-2015/Session-16 (May 2015).
  20. McCarthy, J & Wright, P (2004). Technology as Experience, Massachusets: The MIT Press.
  21. Pathak, H., Jain, N., Bhatia, a, Mohanty, S., & Gupta, N. (2009). Global warming mitigation potential of biogas plants in India, Environmental monitoring and assessment, 157(1-4), 407-418.
  22. Rogers, E.M (2003) Diffusion of Innovation (5th Edition). London: Free Press.
  23. Rohracher, H (2003). The role of users in the social shaping of environmental technologies innovation. The European Journal of Social Science Research, 16(2) pp.177-192.
  24. Rohracher, H (2009). Intermediaries and the Governance of Choice: The Case of Green Electricity Labelling. Environmental Planning, 41(8), pp. 2014-2028.
  25. Rohracher, H. (2010). “Biofuels and their publics: the need for differentiated analyses and strategies.”. An Editorial in Future Science Vol. 1.
  26. Shove, E., L. Lutzenhiser, S. Guy, B. Hackett, H. Wilhite: (1998): Chapter 5 “Energy and social systems” pp 291-­325 in Steve Rayner and Elizabeth L. Malone (eds): Human Choice and Climate Change. Ohio: Battelle Press. 1998.
  27. Volti, R. (2001) “A STS Perspective on Technology and Work. ” in Cutcliffe, S.H and Mitcham: Vision of STS: Counterpoints in Science, Technology, and Society Studies. New York: State University of New York Press.
  28. Wajcman, J. (2004). Techno Feminism. Cambridge: Polity.
  29. Winther, T (2008). The impact of electricity: Development, desires and dilemmas. London: Berghahn
  30. Winther, T and Wilhite, H: (2015). “Tentacles of Modernity: Why Electricity Needs”. Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 30, Issue 4, pp. 569-577.
  31. Wilhite, H.L (2008). Consumption and the Transformation of Everyday Life: A View From South India. Palgrave Macmillan.