3.1 Introduction

In the context of hydropower development and modernisation, including the adoption of mitigation measures, public perceptions may play an important role. Critical issues in the planning stage may cause local resistance to a project and delay its completion. Hence, hydropower operators, planners and policy-makers should understand how the study of local public perceptions about hydropower may improve the planning of new projects, modernisation of existing ones and the implementation of mitigation measures as well as that criticism may be reduced by stimulating participation in the planning process. As there are a variety of methods for studying public acceptance, this chapter reviews public acceptance factors from previous hydropower studies, presents the Q-methodology and demonstrates how it can be a means for studying public acceptance and exploring subjective views on hydropower among local residents.

Using methods from the social sciences, this section on public acceptance of hydropower illustrates how public perceptions may affect the planning of hydropower plants and how hydropower operators, planners and policy-makers can improve their understanding of these perceptions to the benefit of more socially acceptable hydropower. Examples are given from the application of the Q-methodology in a study of four European towns in hydropower-intensive regions, which revealed that different perspectives on hydropower exist among the respective local populations. For example, one perspective is that hydropower as a climate-friendly energy source is a crucial component for an energy transition. Another perspective is that hydropower potentially harms the river ecosystem. Hydropower managers should be aware of concerns and can assess public views using the Q-methodology when planning new or modernizing hydropower plants and planning mitigation measures.

3.2 Factors for Public Acceptance of Hydropower

Given growing support for the renewable energy transition, researchers have studied the public acceptance of hydropower technologies (Tabi and Wüstenhagen 2017; Venus et al. 2020). Such studies may inform decision-makers about public perceptions and help them facilitate the improved planning and implementation of policies, address resistance to renewable projects and stimulate public participation during key planning stages (Botelho et al. 2016; Ribeiro et al. 2014; Volken et al. 2019; Wüstenhagen et al. 2007).

A review of literature associated with hydropower found that there are several factors which are relevant to the acceptance of hydropower including (i) economic costs and benefits, (ii) quality of life, (iii) ecological effects, (iv) public participation and (v) energy policy and (vi) energy preferences (Venus et al. 2020). Table 3.1 provides an overview of relevant factors.

Table 3.1 Public acceptance factors for hydropower
Full size table

The category, “economic costs and benefits”, encompasses the perceived benefits to the development of hydropower including job creation, tax revenue, stable and low-cost electricity in remote areas and energy security (Tabi and Wüstenhagen 2017; Saha and Idsø 2016). On the other hand, this also includes perceived costs such as increased energy prices and negative effects on other industries (Malesios and Arabatzis 2010; Gullberg et al. 2014).

As hydropower can affect the local population’s quality of life, it is important to consider factors such as recreational opportunities, disruptions to natural scenery and habitats as well as threats to the cultural heritage of the region (Bakken et al. 2012; Botelho et al. 2016; Klinglmair et al. 2015; Saha and Idsø 2016). Acceptance can be affected by concerns about drinking water quality (Saha and Idsø 2016), noise from hydropower plants (Botelho et al. 2016) and accidents (Öhman et al. 2016). However, in a Swiss study, citizens believed the risk of accidents related to hydropower to be low (Volken et al. 2019). As some regions have a long history of hydropower, the technology has been viewed as key for the “national building process” (Lindström and Ruud 2017). As the development of hydropower has catalyzed industrialisation, the technology can be a source of pride (Lindström and Ruud 2017).

Views about the negative ecological effects (e.g. habitats, fish abundance and migration, etc.) of hydropower are also crucial for public acceptance (Malesios and Arabatzis 2010; Ribeiro et al. 2014; Tabi and Wüstenhagen 2017). On the other hand, hydropower can also contribute positively to climate change mitigation as it is viewed as a clean way of producing electricity (Gullberg et al. 2014; Karlstrøm and Ryghaug 2014; Klinglmair et al. 2015; Mattmann et al. 2016). It is important to note that acceptance decreases when people perceive negative ecological impacts to be greater than the benefits derived from greenhouse gas reductions (Mattmann et al. 2016). Further, environmental monitoring can also affect public views on hydropower mitigation (Venus and Sauer 2022).

The extent of public participation in the decision-making and planning process can also increase public acceptance of hydropower (Díaz et al. 2017). When stakeholders were not able to participate in discussions about new hydropower developments in Norway, for example, acceptance decreased (Saha and Idsø 2016). Thus, it is important that project managers not only involve stakeholders, but also address their concerns (Tabi and Wüstenhagen 2017).

Energy policy, related to state subsidy and ownership of hydropower, also affects public acceptance. For example, a Greek study found that public acceptance increased when the state promoted and subsidised hydropower (Ntanos et al. 2018). Regarding ownership, studies from Switzerland found that locals preferred local or state ownership, then a private domestic company to a foreign investor (Tabi and Wüstenhagen 2017). The acceptance of hydropower may also be determined by views about other types of energy sources. Many studies of public acceptance compare public attitudes about different renewable energies (Ribeiro et al. 2014; Schumacher et al. 2019) and found, for example, that solar and wind were preferred to hydropower and biomass (Botelho et al. 2016).

3.3 Methods of Measuring Public Acceptance

There are different methods of assessing public acceptance of hydropower and its related technologies. In this sub-section, possible methods are discussed, including the Q-methodology. The Q-methodology combines the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative methods. It can identify points of controversy and consensus among different stakeholders as well as compare public perceptions toward hydropower (or other renewable sources) across regions. Beyond its potential for comparative analysis, the Q-methodology relies on a small, pre-selected sample of respondents, which can simplify the survey process. However, preparation of the survey and in-depth interviews can be laborious.

3.3.1 Comparing Quantitative and Qualitative Methods

Empirical research on public acceptance of renewable energy technologies primarily employs two types of methodologies: (i) quantitative research methodologies or (ii) qualitative case studies (Devine-Wright 2009). Figure 3.1 compares types of methods for studying public acceptance.

Fig. 3.1
figure 1

Comparison of methods for studying public perceptions of renewable energy technologies

Full size image

Quantitative research methods seek to answer questions like “how much” and “how many”. They include large-scale closed surveys, often employing Likert scales or discrete choice experiments, which elicit an individual’s preferences for hypothetical scenarios or goods (Baxter et al. 2013; Jacquet 2012; Johansson and Laike 2007; Ladenburg and Dubgaard 2007; Swofford and Slattery 2010). The study of quantitative data primarily relies on regression analysis. For example, probit and logit models have been used to understand how support for renewable facilities (i.e., large-scale solar, wind) is correlated to demographic variables (gender, age, race, education), socio-psychological measures (i.e., party identification, belief in climate change, annoyance) and geographical variables (postal code, region, size of the city, proximity) (Carlisle et al. 2016; Ladenburg 2008). However, it can be difficult to collect large sample sizes. Further, quantitative studies mainly describe public views at a single point in time (unless panel data is available) rather than explaining the underlying causes of support of or opposition to renewable sources (Devine-Wright 2009).

On the other hand, qualitative research includes analytical induction or grounded theory, often using expert interviews, focus groups or case studies to delve into the unique issues. In such studies, the researcher focuses on studying the complexity of natural human interactions. While qualitative studies allow for the study of contextual issues, they can be time-consuming and labour intensive (Burnard et al. 2008).

3.3.2 Using the Q-Methodology to Study Public Acceptance of Hydropower

There are a growing number of applications of the Q-method to study public views on renewable energy topics, especially for hydropower (Díaz et al. 2017; Pagnussatt et al. 2018; Venus et al. 2020). As the Q-methodology is rooted in both qualitative and quantitative research methods, it enables the systematic study of subjectivity or opinions (Brown 1993). Within the context of the public acceptance of hydropower and related mitigation measures, it studies discourse among different kinds of stakeholders and can be useful for policy-makers (Barry and Proops 1999). The method is carried out in the following steps:

  1. i.

    identification of the concourse/research question,

  2. ii.

    development of the list of opinion statements (Q-set),

  3. iii.

    selection of the stakeholder respondents (P-set),

  4. iv.

    survey and sorting of statements by respondents,

  5. v.

    factor analysis and interpretation.

The following sub-section is a hands-on description of how to apply the Q-method to questions of public acceptance.

Identification of the Concourse/Research Question

First, the researcher identifies the research question, setting and the concourse, which refers to all views related to the topic (Cuppen et al. 2010). The research question can be phrased as an open question (e.g., “what do locals think about run-of-river hydropower in hydropower-rich regions across Europe?”). The setting should help to define the kind of stakeholders of interest (e.g., within a certain geographic area).

Development of the List of Opinion Statements (Q-Set)

In the second step, the researcher collects a list of opinion statements (Q-set). Statements can be collected directly from stakeholders in interviews or indirectly from the scientific literature or media sources (Brown 1993). In many Q-studies, researchers compile a large set of statements and organize them by similar topics. Then, they iteratively reduce the number of statements. As much as possible, statements should use the original phrasing (inductive). It is also crucial that each statement covers only one topic and reflects an opinion, rather than a fact (Watts and Stenner 2005). Recent applications have also used pictures, rather than written statements (Naspetti et al. 2016).

Researchers should include a sufficient number of statements to cover all opinions on the topic, but also a manageable amount so as not to lead to respondent fatigue. Further, the number of statements (Q-set) should not exceed the number of respondents (P-set). Before implementation, the Q-set should be piloted by testing the Q-sort with experts on the topic or through a validation questionnaire with stakeholder workshops as conducted in Venus et al. (2020).

Selection of the Stakeholder Respondents (P-Set)

As the Q-methodology relies on a small sample size, thoughtful selection of the respondents (P-set) is key. Researchers can make a stakeholder matrix with a minimum and maximum desirable number of respondents per type to guide their selection of respondents. Example types of stakeholders include local authorities, environmental partners, regulators, investors, operators, and local residents. It may also be possible to focus on one type of stakeholder group, provided that differences are made between that type of stakeholder (e.g., operators with different sizes of plants or local residents of different ages). It is also possible to select a geographic area using spatial suitability analysis and survey stakeholders within its borders (Venus et al. 2021).

Survey and Sorting of Statements by Respondents (Q-Sort)

Many Q-studies are carried out in three phases: (i) entry interview, (ii) Q-sort and (iii) exit interview. In the entry interview, the researcher collects information about the respondent. During the Q-sort, the respondent reviews all statements and sorts them into a matrix according to their view on the statement. The matrix reflects a relative ranking with a prompt (Fig. 3.2). For example, the respondent ranks according to how much they agree or disagree with each statement. To prevent cognitive overload, the sorting exercise can have two phases. The respondent could first read all statements and allocate them to three categories: agree, disagree, neutral and then in a second step, distribute them to the grid.

Fig. 3.2
figure 2

Example Q-sort matrix

Full size image

The survey can be conducted on the computer, phone, face-to-face or using a combination. In comparisons of Q-studies by mail, computer-based alternatives and in-person, results were consistent (Exel and Graaf 2005). If using a combination, researchers might use phone entry and exit interviews and an online platform to conduct the Q-sort.

Factor Analysis and Interpretation

Primarily (centroid) factor analysis or principal component analysis were used to analyse the ranking of the statements. This analysis reduces the number of variables (Webler et al. 2009). Researchers should use the eigenvalues, explained variance, number of Q-sorts loading significantly on a component (factor) and theory to determine how many components (factors) to extract (Dziopa and Ahern 2011). The analysis is useful for identifying consensus and controversy across perspectives and stakeholders.

3.4 Example Q Studies of Hydropower Across Europe

3.4.1 Case Studies

To understand how hydropower is perceived by locals across hydropower regions in Europe, Q-studies were conducted in and around Toulouse (France), Landshut (Germany), Vila Real (Portugal) and Örnsköldsvik (Sweden). The locations were selected based on their location in a hydropower-rich region with a nearby hydropower plant and within a 15 km radius of an urban area. To identify similar hydropower contexts, we focused on run-of-river hydropower plants that were less than 20 MW in capacity and had a mitigation measure in place (e.g. fish ladder). The interview sites were selected based on the size of the town (population less than 100,000 people) and proximity to interview teams. Interviews were conducted face-to-face with an interactive poster Q-board.

3.4.2 Results and Discussion

Using principal component analysis, components were extracted. Each component represents a similar opinion pattern or perspective. The components were interpreted based on the rankings of the Q-sets and qualitative data. A more detailed overview of these individual results can be found in Hinzmann et al. (2019) and the combined analysis in Venus et al. (2020). In Toulouse, France (n = 46), three components (perspectives) accounted for 49% of total variance: (i) fight climate change, (ii) promote local well-being and (iii) promote fishfriendly and locally owned hydropower. In Landshut, Germany (n = 59), three components accounted for 52% of the total variance: (i) promote sustainable energy policy, (ii) preserve rivers, fight climate change and keep it local, (iii) fish protection first. In Örnsköldsvik, Sweden (n = 65), three components accounted for 46% of the total variance: (i) fight climate change and create local well-being, (ii) promote regional ownership and (iii) protect habitats and ecosystems. In Vila Real, Portugal (n = 87), three components accounted for 40% of the variance: (i) fight climate change and create local well-being, (ii) promote regional ownership and modernization and (iii) protect habitats and ecosystems.

The results demonstrate that there are diverse views among locals. Several important themes emerged: climate protection, ecological effects, local benefits and ownership. In all regions, there was a perspective that supported hydropower because it helps fight climate change. For this group, hydropower was seen as key due to its flexibility and energy storage potential. Further, there was a group in all regions concerned with the negative ecological impacts of hydropower including its effects on fish, habitats and the river ecosystem. The view that hydropower has negative ecological effects was the main reason for opposition to hydropower. Another common pattern across regions was the view that hydropower should benefit locals in the form of job creation, low electricity prices and flood protection. This view was linked to concerns about ownership, which was found in all regions. Respondents who took this view believed that hydropower plants should be owned by companies based in the country, often preferring the state to private owners. They expressed concern that the state may lose its influence over water resources and that foreign/transnational companies may be too focused on profits, leading them to neglect local well-being.

In the context of hydropower mitigation, the results illustrate that a variety of factors are relevant for public support. While many respondents indicated that ecological considerations were key, there was low awareness of mitigation and some expressed doubt regarding its efficacy. While structural measures are likely to be accepted by the public, it is important to provide information about how they function. Morphological measures are most easily observed, thus they are likely to be received positively given that they make rivers appear more “natural”. In comparison, operational strategies that support energy storage and increase system flexibility are often unobservable. Nevertheless, they are likely to be perceived positively as long as changes in the river are unobservable (e.g., water levels remain relatively constant). Thus, it is important to improve communication with the public about the spectrum of mitigation measures and their effects on river ecosystems. Operators may also garner public support by highlighting local ownership or green electricity tariffs (Venus et al. 2020).

3.5 Conclusion

Public perceptions can play a decisive role in future hydropower development and modernisation. Particularly during the planning stages of new construction, modernisation or implementation of mitigation measures, it can be valuable to understand and address public and stakeholder views. With this understanding, hydropower managers can better address concerns among the public and various stakeholders. This sub-chapter discussed important factors for public acceptance of hydropower and illustrated how the Q-methodology can be useful for comparing public views about renewable technologies. Compared to purely quantitative surveys, the mixed-method approach of the Q-methodology allows the researcher to identify underlying reasons for public acceptance. In terms of sample size, it requires a comparatively small, pre-selected sample. It is important to note that the method can work with a much smaller sample than demonstrated here. For these reasons, we recommend that practitioners apply the Q-methodology for public acceptances studies.