Local Acceptance of Biogas Plants: A Comparative Study in the Trinational Upper Rhine Region

Original Paper

Abstract

In the three countries bordering the Upper Rhine (Germany, France, Switzerland), the biogas sector has received strong political support as part of national strategies to increase the share of renewable energies. Because of the decentralized nature of biogas production and its potential positive and negative impacts on local communities, acceptance by local residents is a necessary precondition for the successful construction and operation of biogas plants. The present paper investigates local acceptance based on a cross-national questionnaire study of 667 residents living near 11 biogas plants in the 3 national sub-regions of the Upper Rhine. Using descriptive methods in combination with multiple regression analysis, factors influencing local acceptance of biogas plants are investigated. Results show significant differences regarding both acceptance levels and influencing factors across the sub-regions. It is concluded that the political and cultural context in which renewable energy projects are embedded are important determinants for local acceptance. Based on the empirical results, recommendations are derived with respect to suitable strategies to positively influence local acceptance.

Keywords

Biogas Cross-national survey Local acceptance Participation 

References

  1. 1.
    Hauff, J., Heider, C., Arms, H., Gerber, J., Schilling, M.: Gesellschaftliche Akzeptanz als Säule der energiepolitischen Zielsetzung. Energiewirtschaftliche Tagesfragen 61(10), 85–87 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., Bürer, M.J.: Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy. 35(5), 2683–2691 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zoellner, J., Schweizer-Ries, P., Wemheuer, C.: Public acceptance of renewable energies. Results from case studies in Germany. Energy Policy. 36(11), 4136–4141 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Upreti, B.R.: Conflict over biomass energy development in the United Kingdom: some observations and lessons from England and Wales. Energy Policy. 32(6), 785–800 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Griesen, M.: Akzeptanz von Biogasanlagen. Bonner Studien zur Wirtschaftssoziologie, Bd. 34. Shaker, Aachen (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rau, I., Schweizer-Ries, P., Hildebrand, J.: Participation: The Silver Bullet for the Acceptance of Renewable Energies? In: Sigrun Kabisch, Anna Kunath, Petra Schweizer-Ries, Annett Steinführer (eds.) Vulnerability, Risks, and Complexity. Impacts of Global Change. Advances in people-environment studies, vol. 3. Hogrefe (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Soland, M., Steimer, N., Walter, G.: Local acceptance of existing biogas plants in Switzerland. Energy Policy. 61, 802–810 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kortsch, T., Hildebrand, J., Schweizer-Ries, P.: Acceptance of biomass plants—results of a longitudinal study in the bioenergy-region Altmark. Renew. Energy 83, 690–697 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wüste, A., Schmuck, P.: Bioenergy villages and regions in Germany: an interview study with initiators of communal bioenergy projects on the success factors for restructuring the energy supply of the community. Sustainability 4(12), 244–256 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jenssen, T., König, A., Eltrop, L.: Bioenergy villages in Germany: bringing a low carbon energy supply for rural areas into practice. Renew. Energy 61, 74–80 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hildebrand, J., Rau, I., Schweizer-Ries, P.: Die Bedeutung dezentraler Beteiligungsprozesse für die Akzeptanz des Ausbaus erneuerbarer Energien. Eine umweltpsychologische Betrachtung. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung 9, 491–501 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Upham, P., Oltra, C., Boso, À.: Towards a cross-paradigmatic framework of the social acceptance of energy systems. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 8, 100–112 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Deutsch-Französische-Schweizerische Oberrheinkonferenz: Oberrhein/Rhin Supérieur 2014. Zahlen und Fakten/Faits et chiffres, Kehl (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Konsortium OUI Biomasse: Roadmap für eine nachhaltige Biomassenutzung in der Oberrheinregion, Karlsruhe. http://www.oui-biomasse.info/fileadmin/pdf/Publikationen/Roadmap_OUI_DE.pdf (2015). Accessed 29 June 2016
  15. 15.
    Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz: Gesetz für den Vorrang Erneuerbarer Energien (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz-EEG) sowie zur Änderung des Energiewirtschaftsgesetzes und des Mineralölsteuergesetzes. EEG (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Markard, J., Stadelmann, M., Truffer, B.: Prospective analysis of technological innovation systems: Identifying technological and organizational development options for biogas in Switzerland. Res. Pol. 38(4), 655–667 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz: Gesetz zur grundlegenden Reform des Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetzes und zur Änderung weiterer Bestimmungen des Energiewirtschaftsrechts. EEG (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Daniel F.-J., Bailly V.: Socio-technical structuring of biogas in France. RA6.2 Intermediary report. UMR GESTE ENGEES-IRSTEA. http://www.oui-biomasse.info/fileadmin/pdf/Publikationen/RA62_Biogas_France_EN.pdf (2015). Accessed 29 June 2016
  19. 19.
    German Biogas Association: Biogas Segment Statistics 2014. Development of the number of biogas plants and the total installed electric output in megawatt [MW] in Germany (as of 11/2015) (2014). Accessed 29 June 2016Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wolff, V., Muller, J.: Etat des lieux des gisements et de la gestion de la matière organique en Alsace, perspectives de développement des installations de production de biogaz. Rapport final. http://www.energivie.info/sites/default/files/documents/rapport-final-biogaz.pdf (2013). Accessed 29 June 2016
  21. 21.
    Bundesamt für Energie BFE: Liste aller KEV-Bezügler im Jahr 2013. http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00612/02073/index.html?dossier_id=02166&lang=de (2014). Accessed 29 June 2016
  22. 22.
    Endruweit, G., Trommsdorff, G.: Wörterbuch der Soziologie, 2nd edn. UTB, vol. 2232. Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schweizer-Ries, P.: Energy sustainable communities. Environmental psychological investigations. Energy Policy 36(11), 4126–4135 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lucke, D.: Akzeptanz. Legitimität in der ‘Abstimmungsgesellschaft’. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften; Imprint, Wiesbaden (1995)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sovacool, B.K., Lakshmi Ratan, P.: Conceptualizing the acceptance of wind and solar electricity. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16(7), 5268–5279 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jobert, A., Laborgne, P., Mimler, S.: Local acceptance of wind energy. Factors of success identified in French and German case studies. Energy Policy 35(5), 2751–2760 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    van der Horst, D.: NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy 35(5), 2705–2714 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Devine-Wright, P.: Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energ. 8(2), 125–139 (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hübner, G.: Die Akzeptanz von erneuerbaren Energien. Einstellungen und Wirkungen. In: Ekardt, Felix, Hennig, Bettina, Unnerstall, Herwig (eds.) Erneuerbare Energien. Ambivalenzen, Governance, Rechtsfragen. Metropolis-Verlag, Marburg (2012)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Adams, S.: Inequity in social exchange. Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press, New York (1965)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gross, C.: Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia. The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance. Energy Policy 35(5), 2727–2736 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Goedkoop, F., Devine-Wright, P.: Partnership or placation? The role of trust and justice in the shared ownership of renewable energy projects. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 17, 135–146 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Devine-Wright, P.: Reconsidering public attitudes and public acceptance of renewable energy technologies: a critical review. School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, Manchester. http://geography.exeter.ac.uk/beyond_nimbyism/deliverables/bn_wp1_4.pdf (2007). Accessed March 2014
  34. 34.
    Upham, P., Shackley, S.: Local public opinion of a proposed 21.5 MW(e) biomass gasifier in Devon. Questionnaire survey results. Biomass Bioenergy 31(6), 433–441 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bertsch, V., Hall, M., Weinhardt, C., Fichtner, W.: Public acceptance and preferences related to renewable energy and grid expansion policy: empirical insights for Germany. Energy 114, 465–477 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wüste, A., Schmuck, P.: Social acceptance of bioenergy use and the success factors of communal bioenergy projects. In: Ruppert, H., Kappas, M., Ibendorf, J. (eds.) Sustainable bioenergy production—an integrated approach, pp. 293–318. Springer, Dordrecht (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wüste, A.: Akzeptanz verschiedener Bioenergienutzungskonzepte und Erfolgsfaktoren beim Ausbau dezentraler Bioenergieprojekte in Deutschland, 1st edn. Cuvillier, Göttingen (2013)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Upreti, B.R., van der Horst, D.: National renewable energy policy and local opposition in the UK: the failed development of a biomass electricity plant. Biomass Bioenergy 26(1), 61–69 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Upham, P., Shackley, S.: The case of a proposed 21.5MWe biomass gasifier in Winkleigh, Devon. Implications for governance of renewable energy planning. Energy Policy 34(15), 2161–2172 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Upham, P.: Applying environmental-behaviour concepts to renewable energy siting controversy. Reflections on a longitudinal bioenergy case study. Energy Policy 37(11), 4273–4283 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Arnstein, S.R.: A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 35(4), 216–224 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Walker, G., Devine-Wright, P., Hunter, S., High, H., Evans, B.: Trust and community. Exploring the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable energy. Energy Policy 38(6), 2655–2663 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hübner, G., Hahn, C.: Akzeptanz des Stromnetzausbaus in Schleswig–Holstein. Abschlussbericht zum Forschungsprojekt, Halle. http://www.buergerdialog-stromnetz.de/sites/default/files/mediathek/hubner_hahn_bericht_2013.pdf (2013). Accessed 29 June 2016
  44. 44.
    Statistisches Landesamt Baden-Württemberg: Bevölkerungsfortschreibung, Basis Zensus 2011. http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de (2016). Accessed 29 June 2016
  45. 45.
    Bundesamt für Statistik: Statistik der Bevölkerung und der Haushalte, STATPOP 2014. http://www.statistik.admin.ch (2016). Accessed 29 June 2016
  46. 46.
    Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (INSEE): Résultats statistiques du recensement: POP1B—population par sexe et âge. http://www.insee.fr (2015). Accessed 29 June 2016
  47. 47.
    Eurostat: Wohneigentumsquoten in ausgewählten europäischen Ländern im Jahr 2014. http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/155734/umfrage/wohneigentumsquoten-in-europa/ (2016). Accessed 29 June 2016
  48. 48.
    Harkness, J.A., Villar, A., Edwards, B.: Part III translation. Adaptation and assessment. Translation, adaptation, and design. In: Harkness, J.A., Braun, M., Edwards, B., Johnson, T.P., Lyberg, L.E., Mohler, P.P., Pennell, B.-E., Smith, T.W. (eds.) Survey methods in multinational, multiregional, and multicultural contexts. Wiley series in survey methodology. Wiley, Hoboken (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Harkness, J.A., Pennell, B.-E., Schoua-Glusberg, A.: Survey questionnaire translation and assessment. In: Presser, S., Rothgeb, J. M., Couper, M. P., Lessler, J. T., Martin, E., Martin, J., Singer, E. (eds.) Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires, pp. 453–473. Wiley, Hoboken (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Schweizer-Ries, P., Rau, I., Nolting, K., Rupp, J., Keppler, D.: Aktivität und Teilhabe—Akzeptanz Erneuerbarer Energien durch Beteiligung steigern. Projektabschlussbericht. https://www.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/f27/PDFs/Forschung/Abschlussbericht_Aktivitaet_Teilhabe_format.pdf (2010) Accessed 29 June 2016
  51. 51.
    Rau, I., Zoellner, J.: Akzeptanz erneuerbarer Energien und sozialwissenschaftliche Fragen. Final Project Report, Otto-von-Guericke-Universität, Inst. für Psychologie I, Forschungsgruppe Umweltpsychologie (2008)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kontogianni, A., Tourkolias, C., Skourtos, M., Damigos, D.: Planning globally, protesting locally: patterns in community perceptions towards the installation of wind farms. Renew. Energy 66, 170–177 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Musall, F.D., Kuik, O.: Local acceptance of renewable energy—a case study from southeast Germany. Energy Policy 39(6), 3252–3260 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Homburg, C., Müller, M., Klarmann, M.: When should the customer really be king? On the optimum level of salesperson customer orientation in sales encounters. J. Mark. 75(2), 55–74 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Little, T. D., Lindenberger, U., Nesselroade, J. R.: On selecting indicators for multivariate measurement and modeling with latent variables: when ‘good’ indicators are bad and ‘bad’ indicators are good. Psychol. Methods 4(2), 192–211 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Myers, T.A.: HOTDECK: an SPSS tool for handling missing data. Goodbye, listwise deletion: presenting hot deck imputation as an easy and effective tool for handling missing data. Commun. Methods Meas. 5(4), 297–310 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Eswarlal, V.K., Vasudevan, G., Dey, P.K., Vasudevan, P.: Role of community acceptance in sustainable bioenergy projects in India. Energy Policy 73, 333–343 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hitzeroth, M., Megerle, A.: Renewable energy projects: acceptance risks and their management. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 27, 576–584 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Batel, S., Devine-Wright, P., Tangeland, T.: Social acceptance of low carbon energy and associated infrastructures. A critical discussion. Energy Policy 58, 1–5 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Business Administration, Production and Operations ManagementKarlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), French-German Institute for Environmental Research (DFIU)KarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations