Can the BESTGRID process improve stakeholder involvement in electricity transmission projects?

Energies

Volumn 8, Issue 9, 2015, Pages 9407-9433

  Komendantova, Nadejda ^a,b   Vocciante, Marco ^c   Battaglini, Antonella ^d  

^a INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED SYSTEMS ANALYSIS   (Austria)

^b ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GENOA   (Italy)

^d POTSDAM INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE IMPACT RESEARCH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Electricity grids; Energy infrastructure projects; Energy transition; Public acceptance and protests; Renewables; Transport infrastructure projects

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; ENERGY POLICY; ENERGY SECURITY; RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES;

ELECTRICITY GRIDS; ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURES; ENERGY TRANSITIONS; PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE; RENEWABLES; TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE;

ELECTRIC POWER TRANSMISSION NETWORKS;

EID: 84945302790     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19961073     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/en8099407     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Kunreuther, H.; Gupta, S.; Bosetti, V.; Cooke, R.; Dutt V.; Ha-Duong, M.; Held, H.; Llanes-Regueiro, J.; Patt, A.; Shittu, E.; et al. Integrated Risk and Uncertainty Assessment of Climate Change Response Policies. In Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014.
2. IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2014, Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014.
3. Riahi, K.F.; Dentener, D.; Gielen, A.; Grubler, J.; Jewell, Z.; Klimont, V.; Krey, D.; McCollum, S.; Pachauri, S.; Rao, B.; et al. Energy Pathways for Sustainable Development. In GEA (2012): Global Energy Assessment-Toward a Sustainable Future; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2012; The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis: Laxenburg, Austria, 2012.
4. European Commission. A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
5. Battaglini, A.; Lilliestam, J.; Haas, A.; Patt, A.G. Development of SuperSmart Grids for a more efficient utilization of electricity from renewable resources. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 911-918.
6. German Aerospace Center. Trans-Mediterranean Interconnection for Concentrating Solar Power; German Aerospace Center (DLR) Institute of Technical Thermodynamics, Section Systems Analysis and Technology Assessment: Stuttgart, Germany, 2006.
7. Yergin, D. Ensuring Energy Security. Foreign Aff. 2006, 85, 69-82.
8. Ocaña C.; Hariton A. Security of Supply in Electricity Markets. Evidence and Policy Issues; International Energy Agency, OECD/IEA: Paris, France 2002.
9. Ölz, S.; Sims, R.; Kirchner, N. Contribution of Renewables to Energy Security; IEA Information Paper; OECD/IEA: Paris, France, 2007.
10. Kruyt, B.; van Vuuren, D.; de Vries, H.J.M.; Groenenberg, H. Indicators for energy security. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 2166-2181
11. Sovacool, B.; Brown, M. Competing Dimensions of Energy Security: An International Perspective. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2010, 35, 77-108.
12. TYNDP. 10-Year Network Development Plan 2012; European Network of Transmission Systems Operators for Electricity: Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
13. ENTSO-E. Ten-Year Network Development Plan; European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E): Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
14. Ackermann, T.; Göran, A.; Söder, L. Distributed generation: A definition. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2001, 57, 195-204.
15. European Transmission System Operators (ETSO). Overview of the Administrative Procedures for Constructing 110 kV to 400 kV Overhead Lines; ETSO: Brussels, Belgium, 2006.
16. Battaglini, A.; Komendantova, N.; Brtnik, P.; Patt, A. Perception of barriers for expansion of electricity grids in the European Union. Energy Policy 2012, 47, 254-259.
17. Sander, A. From "Decide, Announce, Defend" to "Announce, Discuss, Decide? Suggestions on how to Improve Public Acceptance and Legitimacy for Germany's 380 kV Grid Extension. Master's Thesis, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, September 2011.
18. Schneider, T.; Battaglini, A. Efficiency and Public Acceptance of European Grid Expansion Projects: Lessons Learned across Europe. Renew. Energy Law Policy Rev. 2013, 1/2013, 42-51.
19. Schweizer-Ries, P. Umweltpsychologische Untersuchung der Akzeptanz von Maβnahmen zur Netzintegration Erneuerbarer Energien in der Region Wahle-Mecklar (Niedersachsen und Hessen); Forschungsgruppe Umwelt Psychologie: Magdeburg, Germany, 2010.
20. Kunreuther, H.; Linnerooth-Bayer, J.; Fitzgerald, K. Siting Hazardous Facilities: Lessons from Europe and America; Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Center: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1994.
21. Renewable Grid Initiative. Beyond Public Opposition to Grid Expansion: Achieving Public Acceptance: Transparency, Participation, Benefit Sharing; Renewable Grid Initiative: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
22. Cowell, R., Owens, S. Governing space: planning reform and the politics of sustainability. Government Policy 2006, 24, 403-421.
23. Devine-Wright, P. Explaining "NIMBY" Objections to a Power Line: The Role of Personal, Place Attachment and Project-Related Factors. Environ. Behav. 2012, 45, 761-781.
24. Beierle, T.; Cayford, J. Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions; RFF Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
25. Inglehart, R. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1997.
26. Cohen, J.J.; Reichl, J.; Schmidthaler, M. Re-focusing research efforts on the public acceptance of energy infrastructure: A critical review. Energy 2014, 76, 4-9.
27. Burningham, K.; Barnett, J.; Thrush, D. The Limitations of the NIMBY Concept for Understanding Public Engagement with Renewable Energy Technologies: A Literature Review, Beyond Nimbyism research project Working Paper 1.3. Available online: http://geography. exeter.ac.uk/beyond_nimbyism/deliverables/bn_wp1_3.pdf (accessed on 27 November 2006).
28. Kaldellis, J., Kapsali, M., Kaldelli, E., Katsanou, E. Comparing recent views of public attitude on wind energy, photovoltaic and small hydro applications. Renewable Energy 2013, 52, 197-208.
29. Wolfsink, M. The research agenda on social acceptance of distributed generation in smart grids: Renewable as common pool resources. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 822-835.
30. Bell, D.; Gray, T.; Haggett, C. The "Social Gap" in Widn Farm Policy Siting Decisions: Explanations and Policy Responses. Environ. Politics 2005, 14, 460-477.
31. Krohn, S.; Damborg, S. On public attitudes towards wind power. Renewable Energy 1999, 16, 954-960.
32. Ek, C. Public acceptance and private attitudes towards "green" electricity: the case of Swedish wind power. Energy Policy 2005, 33, 1677-1689.
33. Devine-Wright, P. Beyond NIMBYism: Towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 2005, 8, 125-139.
34. Wüstenhagen, R.; Wolsink, M.; Bürer, M.J. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2683-2691.
35. Barthes, Y.; Mays, C. High Profile and Deep Strategy: Communication and Information Practices in France's Underground Laboratory Siting Process; Technical Note SEGR/98, 18; Institute De Protection Et De Surete Nucleaire: Paris, France, 1998.
36. Batel, S.; Devine-Wright, P. A critical and empirical analysis of the national-local "gap" in public responses to large-scale energy infrastructures. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2015, 58, 2015.
37. Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, 2nd; Bryant, J., Zillmann, D., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2002.
38. Perhac, R. Comparative Risk Assessment: Where Does the Public Fit In? Sci. Technol. Hum. Value 1998, 23, 221-241.
39. Rowe, G.; Frewer, L. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values Winter 2000, 25, 3-29.
40. Jasanoff, S. The political science of risk perception. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 1998, 59, 91-99.
41. Batel, S.; Devine-Wright, P.; Tangeland, T. Social acceptance of low carbon energy and associated infrastructures: A critical discussion. Energy Policy 2013, 58, 1-5.
42. Aitken, M. Why we still don't understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 1834-1841.
43. Smith, P.; McDonough, M. Beyond Public Participation: Fairness in Natural Resource Decision Making. Soci. Nat. Resour. Int. J. 2001, 14, 239-249.
44. Middendorf, G.; Busch, L. Inquiry for the public good: Democratic participation in agriculture research. Agric. Hum. Values 1997, 14, 45-57.
45. Arnstein, S.R. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1969, 35, 216-224.
46. Rau, I.; Schweizer-Ries, P.; Hildebrandt, J. The Silver Bullet for the Acceptance of Renewable Energies? In Vulnerability, Risks, and Complexity: Impact of Global Change on Human Habitats; Kabisch, S., Kunath, A., Schweizer-Ries, P., Steinführer, A., Eds.; Gottingen: Hogrefe, Germany, 2012; pp. 177-191.
47. McCallum, David B. and Santos, Susan L. Comparative Risk Analysis for Priority Setting. Human Ecological Risk Assessment J. 1997, 3, 1215-1234.
48. Renewable Grid Initiative. European Grid Declaration on Electricity Network Development and Nature Conservation in Europe; Renewable Grid Initiative: Berlin, Germany, 2011.
49. Rottmann, K. Recommendations on Transparency and Public Participation in the Context of Electricity Transmission Lines; Position Paper; Germanwatch: Bonn, Germany, 2014.
50. Hänlein, R. Public Participation and Transparency in Power Grid Planning. Recommendations from the BESTGRID Project; Germanwatch: Bonn, Germany, 2015.
51. Schneider, T.; Sander, A. European Grid Report: Beyond Public Opposition, Lessons Learned Across Europe; Renewable Grid Initiative: Berlin, Germany, 2012.
52. Shaw, S., Elston, J., Abbott, S. Comparative analysis of health policy implementation: The use of documentary analysis. Policy Studies 2004, 25, 259-266.
53. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2003.
54. Thomas, G. A typology for the case study in social science following a review of definition, discourse and structure. Qual. Inq. 2011, 17, 511-521.
55. Flyvberg, B.; Holm, M.; Buhl, S. How common and how large are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects? Transp. Rev. 2003, 23, 71-88.
56. Flyvberg, B. Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research. Qual. Inq. 2006, 12, 219.
57. Komendantova, N.; Linnerooth-Bayer, J.; Patt, A. Methodological and theoretical framework mapping commonalities and differences of separate pilot study action plans onto a common framework of actions and guiding principles. Deliverable 2.2, BESTGRID Project, Brussels, 2014. Available online: http://www.bestgrid.eu/uploads/media/D2.2_Common_Methodology_Framework.pdf (accessed on 31 March 2015).
58. Komendantova, N.; Linnerooth-Bayer, J.; Patt, A. Common Protocol for Data Collection and Recording to Ensure Comparability across Pilot Projects of the Quantified Indicators. Deliverable 2.3, BESTGRID Project, Brussels, 2014. Available online: http://www.bestgrid.eu/uploads/media/D2.3_Data_Collection_Protocol.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2013).
59. Xavier, R.; Komendantova, N.; Jarbandhan, V.; Nell, D. Participatory Governance in the Transformation of the South African Energy Sector: Critical Success Factors for Environmental Leadership. Clean. Prod. J. 2014, to be submitted.
60. Porsius, J.; Claassen, L.; Smid, T.; Woudebberg, F.; Timmermans, D. Health responses to a new high-voltage power line route: Design of a quasi-experimental prospective field study in the Netherlands. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 237.
61. Tempesta, T.; Vecchiato, D.; Girardi, P. The landscape benefits of the burial of high voltage power lines: A study in rural areas of Italy. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 126, 53-64.
62. Elliott, P.; Wadley, D. Coming in Terms with Power Lines. Int. Plan. Stud. 2012, 17, 197-210.
63. Cotton, M.; Divine-Wright, P. Discourses of energy infrastructure development: A Q-method study of electricity transmission line siting in the UK. Environ. Plan. 2011, 43, 942-960.
64. Aas, O.; Devine-Wright, P.; Tangeland, T.; Batel, S. Public beliefs about high-voltage powerlines in Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom: A comparative survey. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2014, 2, 30-37.
65. Lowndes, V.; Pratchett, L.; Stoker, G. Trends in Public Participation: Part 1-Local Government Perspectives. Public Adm. 2001, 79, 205-222.
66. Webler, T. "Right" Discourse on Citizen Participation. An Evaluative Yardstick. In Competence and Fairness in Citizen Participation. Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse; Renn, O., Webler, T., Wiedermann, P., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands; Boston, MA, USA, 1995.
67. Swyngedouw, E. Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus Face of Governance-beyondthe-State. Urban Studies 2005, 42, 1991-2006.