The role of dialogue in fostering acceptance of transmission lines: The case of a France-Spain interconnection project

Energy Policy

Volumn 60, Issue , 2013, Pages 224-233

  Ciupuliga, A R ^a   Cuppen, E ^b  

^a DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^b DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Dialogue; Societal acceptance; Transmission lines

Indexed keywords

DIALOGUE; INTERCONNECTION PROJECTS; PARTICIPATORY PROCESS; RAPID GENERATIONS; SOCIETAL ACCEPTANCE; STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT; TRANSMISSION GRIDS; TRANSMISSION PLANNING;

ELECTRIC LINES;

TRANSMISSION LINE THEORY;

DEVELOPMENT PROJECT; ENERGY PLANNING; INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; STAKEHOLDER;

FRANCE; SPAIN;

EID: 84880332124     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.028     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Abelson J., Forest P., Eyles J., Smith P., Martin E., Gauvin F. Deliberations about deliberative methods. issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science and Medicine 2003, 57:239-251.
2. Arnstein S. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 1969, 35:216-224.
3. Beierle T., Konisky D. Values, conflict, and trust in participatory environmental planning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2000, 19:587-602.
4. Bell D., Gray T., Haggett C. The "social gap" in wind farm siting decisions. explanations and policy responses. Environmental Politics 2005, 14:460-477.
5. Besley J.C. Imagining public engagement. Public Understanding of Science 2012, 21:590-605.
6. Bohman J. Public Deliberation. Pluralism, Complexity and Democracy 1996, MIT Press, Cambridge.
7. Breukers S. Changing Institutional Landscapes for Implementing Wind Power. A Geographical Comparison of Institutional Capacity Building 2006, Amsterdam University Press, The Netherlands, England and North Rhine-Westphalia.
8. Breukers, S., 2009. Local social acceptance through local involvement: the case of wind power implementation North Rhine-Westphalia. Wind power and power politics: International Perspectives 9, 37-35.
9. Bronfman N., Jiménez R., Arévalo P., Cifuentes L. Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources. Energy Policy 2012, 46:246-252.
10. Buijs P., Bekaert D., Cole S., Van Hertem D., Belmans R. Transmission investment problems in Europe. going beyond standard solutions. Energy Policy 2011, 39:1794-1801.
11. Bull R., Petts J., Evans J. The importance of context for effective public engagement. learning from the governance of waste. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2010, 53:991-1009.
12. Burningham, K., Barnett, J., Thrush, D., 2006. The Limitations of the Nimby Concept for Understanding Public Engagement with Renewable Energy Technologies: A Literature Review. School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, Manchester.
13. Chess C., Purcell K. Public participation and the environment. Do we know what works?. Environmental Science and Technology 1999, 33:2685-2692.
14. Ciupuliga, A., Gibescu, M., 2010. REALISEGRID D3.7.1. Review of Existing Transmission Planning and Approval Procedures and Coordination of Infrastructure Developments between TSOs.
15. Ciupuliga, A., Gibescu, M., Kling, W., Migliavacca, G., L'Abbate, A., Jansen, K., De-Saint-Martin, G., Vergine, C., Reich, K., 2011. Approval procedures and consensus for building transmission lines: obstacles and solutions. In: Energy Market (EEM), 2011 8th International Conference on the European, IEEE, pp. 426-431.
16. CNDP, 2010. Le compte-rendu de la CNDP sur la concertation du projet de liaison en courant continu entre la France et l'Espagne.
17. Cotton M., Devine-Wright P. Discourses of energy infrastructure development. a Q-method study of electricity transmission line siting in the UK. Environment and Planning-Part A 2011, 43:942.
18. Cuppen E. Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue. considerations for design and methods. Policy Sciences 2012, 1-24.
19. Cuppen, E.H.W.J., 2010. Putting Perspectives into Participation: Constructive Conflict Methodology for Problem Structuring in Stakeholder Dialogues.
20. De Marchi B., Funtowicz S., Lo Cascio S., Munda G. Combining participative and institutional approaches with multicriteria evaluation. An empirical study for water issues in Troina, Sicily. Ecological Economics 2000, 34:267-282.
21. Depris, D., 2003. Press Communicate from 27 October 2003.
22. Devine-Wright, P., 2011. Renewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY to Participation. Earthscan.
23. Devine-Wright P., Devine-Wright H., Sherry-Brennan F. Visible technologies, invisible organisations. an empirical study of public beliefs about electricity supply networks. Energy Policy 2010, 38:4127-4134.
24. Edelenbos J., Klijn E. Managing stakeholder involvement in decision making. a comparative analysis of six interactive processes in the Netherlands. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2006, 16:417-446.
25. Eden S. Public participation in environmental policy. considering scientific, counter-scientific and non-scientific contributions. Public Understanding of Science 1996, 5:183-204.
26. Ellis G., Barry J., Robinson C. Many ways to say "no", different ways to say "yes". applying q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2007, 50:517-551.
27. ENTSO-E, 2010. Ten-Year Network Development Plan (TYNDP) 2010-2020.
28. European Commission, 2008. COM (2008) 782 Final: Green Paper "Towards a Secure, Sustainable and Competitive European Energy Network".
29. European Commission, 2010a. COM (2010) 639 Final: Energy 2020: A Strategy for Competitive, Sustainable and Secure Energy.
30. European Commission, 2010b. COM (2010) 677/4: Energy Infrastructure Priorities for 2020 and Beyond-A Blueprint for an Integrated European Energy Network.
31. Evans B., Parks J., Theobald K. Urban wind power and the private sector. community benefits, social acceptance and public engagement. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2011, 54:227-244.
32. Fiorino D. Citizen participation and environmental risk. a survey of institutional mechanisms. Science Technology and Human Values 1990, 15:226-243.
33. Fischer F. Citizens, Experts, and the Environment 2000, Duke University Press.
34. Fischer F., Forester J. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning 1993, UCL Press Limited.
35. Francos, P.L., Verdugo, S.S., Alvarez, H.F., Guyomarch, S., Loncle, J., 2012. Inelfe-Europe's first integrated onshore HVDC interconnection, In: 2012 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, pp. 1-8.
36. Funtowicz S., Ravetz J. Risk management as a postnormal science. Risk Analysis 1992, 12:95-97.
37. Gallagher L., Ferreira S., Convery F. Host community attitudes towards solid waste landfill infrastructure. comprehension before compensation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2008, 51:233-257.
38. Gibbons M., Limoges C., Nowotny H., Schwartzman S., Scott P., Trow M. The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies 1994, Sage Publications Inc.
39. Gough C., Darier E., De Marchi B., Funtowicz S., Grove-White R., Kitchener D., Guimaraes Pereira A., Shackley S., Wynne B. Contexts of Citizen Participation. Public Participation in Sustainability Science. A Handbook 2003, 37-61. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
40. Gregory R., McDaniels T., Fields D. Decision aiding, not dispute resolution. creating insights through structured environmental decisions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2001, 20:415-432.
41. Grin J., Van de Graaf H. Technology assessment as learning. Science, Technology and Human Values 1996, 21:72-99.
42. Guston D. Evaluating the first us consensus conference. the impact of the citizens' panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy. Science, Technology and Human Values 1999, 24:451-482.
43. Haggett C. Understanding public responses to offshore wind power. Energy Policy 2011, 39:503-510.
44. Hisschemöller, M., Hoppe, R., 2001. Coping with intractable controversies: the case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis. Knowledge, Power and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis, Policy Studies Review Annual, 12, 47-72.
45. Hisschemöller, M., Hoppe, R., Dunn, W., Ravetz, J., 2001a. Knowledge, power and participation in environmental policy analysis: an introduction. Knowledge, Power and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis, Policy Studies Review Annual, 12, 1-26.
46. Hisschemöller, M., Midden, C., 1989. Technological Risk, Policy Theories and Public Perception in Connection with the Siting of Hazardous Facilities. Social Decision Methodology for Technological Projects, 173-194.
47. Hisschemöller M., Tol R., Vellinga P. The relevance of participatory approaches in integrated environmental assessment. Integrated Assessment 2001, 2:57-72.
48. Huijts N., Midden C., Meijnders A. Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage. Energy Policy 2007, 35:2780-2789.
49. Irwin A., Wynne B. Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology 1996, Cambridge University Press.
50. Kasemir, B., Jaeger, C., Jäger, J., 2003. Citizen Participation in Sustainability Assessments. Public Participation in Sustainability Science. A Handbook, pp. 3-36.
51. van de Kerkhof M. Making a difference. on the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues. Policy Sciences 2006, 39:279-299.
52. Laird F. Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision making. Science, Technology and Human Values 1993, 18:341-361.
53. Lawrence R., Daniels S., Stankey G. Procedural Justice and Public Involvement in Natural Resource Decision Making 1997, Taylor & Francis.
54. Quist J., Vergragt P. Past and future of backcasting. the shift to stakeholder participation and a proposal for a methodological framework. Futures 2006, 38:1027-1045.
55. Rist S., Chidambaranathan M., Escobar C., Wiesmann U., Zimmermann A. Moving from sustainable management to sustainable governance of natural resources. the role of social learning processes in rural India bolivia and Mali. Journal of Rural Studies 2007, 23:23-37.
56. Rowe G., Frewer L. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values 2005, 30:251-290.
57. RTE, 2010. Le billan dresse par RTE sur la concertation du projet de liaison en courant continu entre la France et l'Espagne.
58. Ruud, A., Knudsen, J.K., Lafferty, W.M., 2011. "Case Hardanger": En analyse av den formelle konsesjonsprosessen og mediedekningen knyttet til den omsøkte luftledningen sima-samnanger.
59. Schön D.A., Rein M. Frame Reflection. Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies 1995, Basic Books.
60. Siegrist M., Cousin M., Kastenholz H., Wiek A. Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging. the influence of affect and trust. Appetite 2007, 49:459-466.
61. Stirling A., Mayer S. A novel approach to the appraisal of technological risk. a multicriteria mapping study of a genetically modified crop. Environment and Planning C. Government and Policy 2001, 19:529-555.
62. Stringer L., Dougill A., Fraser E., Hubacek K., Prell C., Reed M. Unpacking "participation" in the adaptive management of social-ecological systems. a critical review. Ecology and Society 2006, 11:39.
63. Terwel B., Harinck F., Ellemers N., Daamen D. Competence-based and integrity-based trust as predictors of acceptance of carbon dioxide capture and storage (ccs). Risk Analysis 2009, 29:1129-1140.
64. Van Alphen K., Van Voorst Tot Voorst Q., Hekkert M., Smits R. Societal acceptance of carbon capture and storage technologies. Energy Policy 2007, 35:4368-4380.
65. Walker, G., Devine-Wright, P., Barnett, J., Burningham, K., Cass, N., Devine-Wright, H., Speller, G., Barton, J., Evans, B., Heath, Y., et al., 2011. Symmetries, expectations, dynamics, and contexts: a framework for understanding public engagement with renewable energy projects. In: Renewable Energy and the Public. From NIMBY to Participation, pp. 1-14.
66. Webler, T., 1995. "Right" discourse in citizen participation: an evaluative yardstick. Fairness and competence in citizen participation, 35-86.
67. Wolsink M. Wind power and the NIMBY-myth. institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renewable Energy 2000, 21:49-64.
68. Wolsink M. Invalid theory impedes our understanding. a critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 2006, 31:85-91.
69. Wolsink M. Planning of renewables schemes. deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation. Energy Policy 2007, 35:2692-2704.
70. Wolsink M., Devilee J. The motives for accepting or rejecting waste infrastructure facilities. Shifting the focus from the planners' perspective to fairness and community commitment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2009, 52:217-236.
71. Wüstenhagen R., Wolsink M., Bürer M. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation. an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 2007, 35:2683-2691.
72. www.liaison-France-espagne.org. Website of the public engagement process on the French side of the Baixas-Santa Llogaia project.
73. www.terna.it. Website of the Italian TSO Terna.
74. Wynne B. Public uptake of science. a case for institutional reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science 1993, 2:321-337.
75. Wynne B. Creating public alienation. expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture 2001, 10:445-481.
76. Zoellner J., Schweizer-Ries P., Wemheuer C. Public acceptance of renewable energies. results from case studies in Germany. Energy Policy 2008, 36:4136-4141.