How Place-Based Learning is Changing the Way We Teach the Energy Transition

Tony Heynen explains how social frameworks are helping students develop appropriate energy solutions in remote Indigenous communities in Queensland, Australia

PICTURE THIS: a group of postgraduate energy students at The University of Queensland sit in a classroom, maps of remote Queensland Indigenous communities spread across their desks. Their challenge? Propose a transition plan from diesel to renewable energy. But not just any plan – one that considers social impacts, cultural values, livelihoods, governance, and long-term viability.

The technologies are familiar – solar, batteries, microgrids – but the context is not. There are no tidy equations to tell them what “success” looks like. There is no blueprint for trust, equity or cultural fit. In short, it’s engineering, but not as they know it.

The global energy transition isn’t just a technical problem to be solved. It’s a social, economic and cultural one – one that will unfold differently in every place. From crowded cities to remote communities, the questions we must ask are not just “What should we build?” but “Who is this for?” and “What do they need?”

At The University of Queensland we’ve been grappling with how to prepare engineering students for this reality. Our answer? Combine place-based learning with social analysis tools that force students to zoom out from the wires and watts and think like sustainability leaders.

Reframing sustainability leadership

Sustainability leadership in engineering is not about technical mastery alone. It’s about helping graduates develop the ability to lead in settings where climate, equity, economics and community intersect. It asks engineers to listen as well as to solve.

This kind of leadership is increasingly recognised as essential. Engineers in the energy sector are no longer working behind the scenes; they’re now shaping conversations in boardrooms, councils and community halls. They must understand policy as well as process flow diagrams and navigate stakeholder dynamics as deftly as they size PV arrays.

To meet these demands, engineering education is shifting. Programmes like The University of Queensland’s Master of Sustainable Energy are moving beyond traditional lectures to incorporate experiential, reflective and interdisciplinary learning.

But to teach leadership in sustainability, we first need to create learning environments that are themselves sustainable, inclusive and authentic.

This is where place-based learning comes in.

Why ‘place’ matters in learning

Place-based learning focuses on embedding education within the social and ecological realities of specific locations. Instead of studying abstract case studies, students engage with real communities (or representations of them) to understand how technological solutions unfold in context.

For engineers, this is transformational. It challenges the idea that problems can be solved in isolation. It reminds students that communities are not blank slates onto which technologies can be stamped. Every place has its own history, culture, vulnerabilities and opportunities.

At the University of Queensland, we introduced a place-based assessment into a postgraduate course on energy and development. Students were asked to design a community energy proposal for a remote Indigenous community in Queensland. They were required to use real data, navigate cultural nuances and propose solutions that respected both technical feasibility and social acceptability.

What made this assignment different? We gave them tools to analyse the community context, not just the technology.

Tools for thinking: The social frameworks

1. The Energy Services Cascade (ESC)
The ESC helps students trace how energy inputs translate into human outcomes. Rather than stopping at kilowatt-hours delivered, the ESC asks questions like:

• What energy services does this system enable (eg lighting, refrigeration, connectivity)?
• How do these services contribute to local development, education or health?
• What societal or infrastructure barriers might prevent their use?

By thinking in terms of services rather than supply, students learn that energy isn’t inherently valuable – it only becomes so when it meets people’s needs in context.

Example: A team proposing solar refrigeration for vaccine storage needed to consider not just generation and storage, but local capacity to maintain cold chains, existing health services and training needs for system upkeep.

2. The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF)
The SLF maps out five forms of capital – natural, social, human, physical and financial – and examines how they interact with vulnerability, institutions and external shocks.

For engineering students, this framework offers a systematic way to assess how energy interventions affect (and are affected by) community assets and risks.

Example: A student group evaluating a micro-hydro system noted that while water was abundant (natural capital), social capital was fragile due to land tenure issues. The project’s success would depend less on the turbine’s efficiency and more on effective mediation and community consensus.

3. The Business MODEL Canvas (BMC)
Too often, engineering students see business models as someone else’s problem. The BMC forces them to confront the realities of value creation and capture.

Who are the stakeholders? What’s the value proposition? What resources and partnerships are needed? How will the system sustain itself over time?

Example: A student team suggested a hybrid solar-diesel solution, proposing that the local council partner with a social enterprise to operate and maintain the system. The BMC helped them sketch a revenue-sharing arrangement that could support reinvestment in community services.

Why engineers struggle with social contexts

This approach revealed something important: many engineering students feel underprepared to work with social variables. It’s not because they’re unwilling, but because their training has historically prioritised control and predictability.

Social systems don’t behave like process plants. They resist optimisation, they evolve and they are shaped by values, identity and history.

One student commented: “There was no right answer. That was hard at first. But it forced us to think harder, and deeper, about what really matters in energy projects.”

By confronting this uncertainty head-on, students began to see complexity not as a problem to eliminate, but as a reality to embrace.

Student reflections and self-assessment

We surveyed students after the assignment and found overwhelmingly positive feedback. Respondents agreed that the course broadened their multidisciplinary perspectives and helped them analyse energy proposals through social, environmental and business lenses. Self-efficacy scores were high, with students rating their confidence between 70 and 81 (out of 100) across key skills like:

• working in interdisciplinary teams
• engaging with communities
• analysing social, environmental and stakeholder impacts
• applying frameworks to develop community energy solutions

However, the setting of remote Indigenous communities received a slightly lower rating. Some students felt it was too unfamiliar or difficult to relate to. One wrote: “Many renewables projects in Australia are delayed due to social licence issues – but not always in remote Indigenous settings. I’d like to see more metro or rural contexts.”

We agree. In future versions, we plan to offer a portfolio of place-based scenarios across rural, suburban and remote contexts, to show students that these skills are universally applicable.

A tutor’s view: Structure supports insight

Tutors saw a distinct improvement in the quality of student analysis with the framework approach. As one put it: “The frameworks helped students distil information about an unfamiliar context and link this information to energy service provision.”

Another observed: “The inter-connectedness of the frameworks allowed students to consider social needs of the community and the consequences of changing the status quo. It enabled deeper systems thinking.”

This supports a key principle in sustainability pedagogy: complexity requires scaffolding. With the right tools, students can step into unfamiliar terrain with confidence.

From the classroom to industry

While this project began in the classroom, its relevance to industry is clear.

The energy transition is rife with challenges that are more social than technical. Large-scale renewable projects are being delayed not by grid integration issues, but by community resistance, unclear governance and lack of trust.

Skills in stakeholder engagement, social licence and impact analysis are now in high demand. Reports show Australia faces workforce shortages in precisely these areas. Training engineers in these competencies – early and often – will be key to a just and effective transition.

Moreover, industry leaders are recognising the value of frameworks like ESC and SLF in planning and evaluating energy projects. By equipping students with these tools, we’re preparing them not just to enter the workforce – but to shape it.

Pedagogical reflections and recommendations

We’ve learned a few lessons that may help others:

• Context matters: Students benefit from a mix of familiar and unfamiliar place-based scenarios. This allows them to transfer learning and see relevance across diverse settings
• Support is crucial: Without guest speakers, detailed briefs and framework training, students may flounder. Investing in scaffolding pays dividends
• Authenticity motivates: Students were energised by knowing their assignment mirrored real-world challenges. They took it seriously because it felt serious
• Social learning is technical learning: These aren’t “soft” skills, they’re central to solving hard problems in a way that sticks

The future of engineering education

What might engineering education look like in five, ten or 20 years?

We hope it looks more relational, more interdisciplinary and more responsive to the places where engineering happens. We hope classrooms are filled with stories of real people, real communities and real consequences.

The next generation of engineers will need to be fluent not just in systems, but in relationships. Not just in innovation, but in inclusion. They’ll need to recognise that engineering is a social act. Every design is a decision about who benefits, who is at risk, and what future we build.

By embedding place, frameworks and social engagement into our curriculum, we are moving in that direction. And we’re not alone. Across the globe, engineering programmes are beginning to reimagine what it means to educate for sustainability.

Outlook: Building a better transition

The energy transition will fail if it’s only thought of as a technical transition. It must consider the human and community transitions too. We believe place-based, relational learning is a critical ingredient in education for this transition. It equips students with the mindset, tools and confidence to step into complex, contested and dynamic environments, and do more than install technology. It prepares them to lead with empathy, insight and respect.

As educators, our role goes beyond teaching engineering – we’re shaping engineers who can build a cleaner, fairer and more resilient world. That world begins in the places we ask our students to imagine.

Further reading

1. G Kalt et al (2019): Conceptualizing energy services: A review of energy and well-being along the Energy Service Cascade. Energy Research & Social Science
2. I Scoones (2015): Sustainable Livelihoods and Rural Development, Practical Action Publishing
3. A Osterwalder & Y Pigneur (2010): Business Model Generation, Wiley