Multi-method Approach to Identify Acceptance-Relevant Characteristics of Renewable Energy Infrastructure

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10272)

Abstract

Despite the general positive attitude towards renewables, protests against renewable energy infrastructure continues in Germany. The study aims to explore acceptance-relevant aspects of renewable energy sources and their infrastructure to gain a better understanding for argumentation lines of protesters and supports of renewables. The research followed a two-step procedure, beginning with an extensive focus group study. In the focus groups, participants discussed which aspects of renewables they perceived as problematic or advantageous. Based on the results, an ACA (adaptive conjoint analysis) study was designed as an online study, which 109 people fully completed. The most important attributes which resulted from the study were those that represented direct impact on nature and humans. The studies confirmed current research on energy-related infrastructure, which stress the importance of communicating about possible local impacts on the environment and residents. Methodologically, the study exemplified a user-centered research design based on bottom-up principles, in which qualitative analyses were used to determine attributes relevant to laypersons.

Keywords

Social acceptance Renewables Mixed-method approach Focus group Conjoint study 

References

  1. 1.
    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
  2. 2.
    Cohen, J.J., Reichl, J., Schmidthaler, M.: Re-focussing research efforts on the public acceptance of energy infrastructure: a critical review. Energy 76, 4–9 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Venkatesh, V., Bala, H.: Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 9(2), 273–315 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Friedl, C., Reichl, J.: Realizing energy infrastructure projects-a qualitative empirical analysis of local practices to address social acceptance. Energy Policy 89, 184–193 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Futák-Campbell, B., Haggett, C.: Tilting at windmills? Using discourse analysis to understand the attitude-behaviour gap in renewable energy conflicts. Mekhanizm Rehuluvannya Economiky 1(51), 207–220 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Devine-Wright, P.: Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 8(2), 125–139 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haggett, C., Benson, J.F.: The attitude-behaviour gap in renewable energy conflicts: a theoretical and methodological review. In: 2nd Workshop of the Economic and Social Research Council’s Environment and Human Behaviour Programme, London (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Germany’s Power Generation Mix 2016 - Market share of Germany’s gross power generation (2016). http://strom-report.de/renewable-energy/
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    Hirsh, R.F., Sovacool, B.K.: Wind turbines and invisible technology: unarticulated reasons for local opposition to wind energy. Technol. Cult. 54(4), 705–734 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johansson, M., Laike, T.: Intention to respond to local wind turbines: the role of attitudes and visual perception. Wind Energy 10(5), 435–451 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bishop, I.D., Stock, C.: Using collaborative virtual environments to plan wind energy installations. Renew. Energy 35(10), 2348–2355 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoen, B., Wiser, R., Cappers, P., Thayer, M., Sethi, G.: Wind energy facilities and residential properties: the effect of proximity and view on sales prices. J. Real Estate Res. 33(3), 279–316 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    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
  15. 15.
    Wolsink, M.: The research agenda on social acceptance of distributed generation in smart grids: Renewable as common pool resources. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16(1), 822–835 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chiabrando, R., Fabrizio, E., Garnero, G.: On the applicability of the visual impact assessment OAI SPP tool to photovoltaic plants. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15(1), 845–850 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Warren, C.R., Lumsden, C., O’Dowd, S., Birnie, R.V.: ‘Green on green’: public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 48(6), 853–875 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krewitt, W., Nitsch, J.: The potential for electricity generation from on-shore wind energy under the constraints of nature conservation: a case study for two regions in Germany. Renew. Energy 28(10), 1645–1655 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wolsink, M.: Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renew. Energy 21(1), 49–64 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rösch, C., Kaltschmitt, M.: Energy from biomass–do non-technical barriers prevent an increased use? Biomass Bioenergy 16(5), 347–356 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Magnani, N.: Exploring the local sustainability of a green economy in alpine communities: a case study of a conflict over a biogas plant. Mt. Res. Dev. 32(2), 109–116 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Soland, M., Steimer, N., Walter, G.: Local acceptance of existing biogas plants in Switzerland. Energy Policy 61, 802–810 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bakhiyi, B., Labrèche, F., Zayed, J.: The photovoltaic industry on the path to a sustainable future-environmental and occupational health issues. Environ. Int. 73, 224–234 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Safigianni, A.S., Tsimtsios, A.M.: Electric and magnetic fields due to rooftop photovoltaic units. J. Basic Appl. Phys. 3(2), 76–80 (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pedersen, E., van den Berg, F., Bakker, R., Bouma, J.: Response to noise from modern wind farms in The Netherlands. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 126(2), 634–643 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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
  27. 27.
    Crichton, F., Dodd, G., Schmid, G., Gamble, G., Petrie, K.J.: Can expectations produce symptoms from infrasound associated with wind turbines? Health Psych. 33(4), 360–364 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Songsore, E., Buzzelli, M.: Social responses to wind energy development in Ontario: the influence of health risk perceptions and associated concerns. Energy Policy 69, 285–296 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Devine-Wright, P.: Rethinking NIMBYism: the role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. J. Community Appl. Soc. 19(6), 426–441 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Aitken, M.: Wind power and community benefits: challenges and opportunities. Energy Policy 38(10), 6066–6075 (2010)CrossRefGoogle 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.
    Wolsink, M.: Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes: equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives’. Renew. Sus. Energy Rev. 11(6), 1188–1207 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pasqualetti, M.J.: Opposing wind energy landscapes: a search for common cause. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 101(4), 907–917 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Warren, C.R., McFadyen, M.: Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland. Land Use Policy 27(2), 204–213 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Walker, G., Hunter, S., Devine-Wright, P., Evans, B., Fay, H.: Harnessing community energies: explaining and evaluating community-based localism in renewable energy policy in the UK. Global Environ. Polit. 7(2), 64–82 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Visschers, V.H., Siegrist, M.: Find the differences and the similarities: relating perceived benefits, perceived costs and protected values to acceptance of five energy technologies. J. Environ. Psychol. 40, 117–130 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mayring, P.: Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution, Klagenfurt (2014)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Luce, R.D., Tukey, J.W.: Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. J. Math. Psychol. 1(1), 1–27 (1964)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Software, S.: The ACA/Web v6.0 Technical Paper. Sawtooth Software Technical Paper Series (2007). https://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/support/technical-papers/aca-related-papers/aca-technical-paper-2007
  40. 40.
    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
  41. 41.
    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
  42. 42.
    Arning, K., Kowalewski, S., Ziefle, M.: Health concerns versus mobile data needs: conjoint measurement of preferences for mobile communication network scenarios. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 20(5), 1359–1384 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zaunbrecher, B.S., Linzenich, A., Ziefle, M.: A mast is a mast is a mast..? Comparison of preferences for location-scenarios of electricity pylons and wind power plants using conjoint analysis. Energy Policy 105, 429–439 (2017). doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.02.043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Álvarez-Farizo, B., Hanley, N.: Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain. Energy Policy 30(2), 107–116 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Communication Science, Human-Computer Interaction Center (HCIC)RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations