Formal and Informal Assessment of Energy Technologies

  • Udo PeschEmail author
  • Aad Correljé
  • Eefje Cuppen
  • Behnam Taebi
  • Elisabeth van de Grift


Societal controversies on the implementation of new energy technologies relate to public values that are affected by these new technologies. The process of specifying and articulating these values and assessing technologies based on those values follows both a formal and an informal trajectory. This chapter studies the interplay between such formal and informal assessment in the case of two plans for the implementation of energy technologies in the Netherlands, the project to develop carbon capture and storage in the municipality of Barendrecht and the project to have explorative drilling for shale gas in the municipality of Boxtel. What these studies reveal is that values that are specified by actors emerge from different discourses. These discourses do not emerge independently, but develop in mutual interaction, at times contributing to a progressive entrenchment of positions. To avoid such a situation, the symmetry between different claims for the public interest needs to be attended by policy makers.


  1. Bauman, Zygmunt. 2000. Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  2. Breukers, Sylvia, and Maarten Wolsink. 2007. Wind power implementation in changing institutional landscapes: An international comparison. Energy Policy 35 (5): 2737–2750. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Commissie Milieueffectrapportage. 2013. Brede afweging schaliegas mist nog. Accessed 18 Aug 2016.
  4. Cuppen, Eefje. 2009. Putting perspectives into participation: Constructive conflict methodology for problem structuring in stakeholder dialogues. Oisterwijk: Boxpress.Google Scholar
  5. Cuppen, Eefje, Suzanne Brunsting, Udo Pesch, and Ynke Feenstra. 2015. How stakeholder interactions can reduce space for moral considerations in decision making: A contested CCS project in the Netherlands. Environment and Planning A 47 (9): 1963–1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cuppen, Eefje, Udo Pesch, Sanne Remmerswaal and Mattijs Taanman. Forthcoming. Normative diversity, conflict and transition: shale gas in the Netherlands. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. doi:
  7. Devine-Wright, Patrick. 2005. Beyond NIMBYism: Towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 8 (2): 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Di Ruggero, Olga. 2014. Anticipating public acceptance: The hydrogen case. Delft: Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
  9. Dignum, Marloes, Aad Correljé, Eefje Cuppen, Udo Pesch, and Behnam Taebi. 2015. Contested technologies and design for values: The case of shale gas. Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (4): 1171–1191. doi: 10.1007/s11948-015-9685-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dignum, Marloes, Udo Pesch, and Aad Correljé. Forthcoming. Frames of reference and the interpretation of values in the Dutch shale gas debate. In New perspectives on responsible innovation, ed. Roland Orrt, Martijn Blaauw and Jeroen van den Hoven. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Feenstra, C.F.J., T. Mikunda, and S. Brunsting. 2012. What happened in Barendrecht?! Case study on the planned onshore carbon dioxide storage in Barendrecht, the Netherlands. Accessed 18 Aug 2016.
  12. Huijts, Nicole M.A., Eric J.E. Molin, and Bert van Wee. 2014. Hydrogen fuel station acceptance: A structural equation model based on the technology acceptance framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology 38: 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huitema, Dave, Marleen Van de Kerkhof, and Udo Pesch. 2007. The nature of the beast: Are citizens’ juries deliberative or pluralist? Policy Sciences 40 (4): 287–311. doi: 10.1007/s11077-007-9046-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kingdon, John W. 1984. Agendas, alternatives and public policies. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  16. Ligtvoet, Andreas, Eefje Cuppen, Kas Hemmes, Donna Mehos, Udo Pesch, Jaco N. Quist, and Olga Di Ruggero. 2015. De komende 50 jaar gas in Nederland–perspectieven en robuuste strategieën.Google Scholar
  17. Ligtvoet, Andreas, Eefje Cuppen, Olga Di Ruggero, Kas Hemmes, Udo Pesch, Jaco Quist, and Donna Mehos. 2016. New future perspectives through constructive conflict: Exploring the future of gas in the Netherlands. Futures 78: 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Metze, Tamara. 2013. What the frack? Development of the controversy about hydraulic fracking for shale gas in the Netherlands. (June 27, 2013). doi:  10.2139/ssrn.2285995
  19. ———. 2014. Fracking the debate: Frame shifts and boundary work in Dutch decision making on shale gas. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning ahead-of-print: 1–18.Google Scholar
  20. Milieudefensie. 2013. Factsheet schaliegasvrije gemeenten. Accessed 11 Aug 2016.
  21. Ministerie van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie 2013. Brief aan de Tweede Kamer – Vervolgstap schaliegas. Accessed 11 Aug 2016.
  22. Noordegraaf-Eelens, Liesbeth H.J., Michel van Eeten, Marjolein Februari, and Jony Ferket. 2012. Waarom Burgers risico’s accepteren en waarom bestuurders dat niet zien. . Accessed 11 Aug 2016.
  23. Owen, Richard, Jack Stilgoe, Phil Macnaghten, Mike Gorman, Erik Fisher, and David H. Guston. 2013. A framework for responsible innovation. In Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society, 27–50. Somerset: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pesch, Udo. 2005. The predicaments of publicness: An inquiry into the conceptual ambiguity of public administration. Delft: Eburon.Google Scholar
  25. ———. 2008. The publicness of public administration. Administration and Society 40 (2): 170–193. doi: 10.1177/0095399707312828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ———. 2014. Sustainable development and institutional boundaries. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 11 (1): 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. ———. 2015. Publicness, privateness, and the management of pollution. Ethics, Policy & Environment 18 (1): 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pidgeon, Nick F., Irene Lorenzoni, and Wouter Poortinga. 2008. Climate change or nuclear power—No thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Global Environmental Change 18 (1): 69–85. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.09.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Remmerswaal, Sanne. 2013. The dynamics in the societal debate on shale gas in The Netherlands. Master thesis Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
  30. Rip, A. 1986. Controversies as Informal Technology A ssessment. Science Communication 8: 349–371Google Scholar
  31. Roeser, Sabine, and Udo Pesch. 2015. An emotional deliberation approach to risk. Science, Technology & Human Values, On-line first.Google Scholar
  32. Schubert, Glendon. 1960. The public interest: A critique of the theory of a political concept. Glencoe: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  33. Staatscourant. 2009. Besluit opsporingsvergunning Noord-Brabant. Accessed 11 Aug 2016.
  34. ———. 2010. Opsporingsvergunning koolwaterstoffen Noordoostpolder. Accessed 11 Aug 2016.
  35. Star, Susan Leigh, and James R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional ecology, translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science 19 (3): 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stilgoe, Jack, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42 (9): 1568–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stirling, Andy. 2008. “Opening up” and “Closing down” power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology & Human Values 33 (2): 262–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. ———. 2010. Keep it complex. Nature 468 (7327): 1029–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Taebi, Behnam, Aad Correljé, Eefje Cuppen, Marloes Dignum, and Udo Pesch. 2014. Responsible innovation as an endorsement of public values: The need for interdisciplinary research. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (1): 118–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Taebi, Behnam and Sabine Roeser, eds. 2015. The Ethics of Nuclear Energy: Risk, Justice and Democracy in the post-Fukushima Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Taebi, Behnam, Aad Correljé, Eefje Cuppen, Elisabeth Van de Grift, and Udo Pesch. 2016. Ethics and the impact assessment of large energy projects. 2016 IEEE International symposium on ethics in engineering, science and technology conference, Vancouver, 13–14 May 2016.Google Scholar
  42. Taebi, Behnam, Sabine Roeser, and Ibo Van de Poel. Forthcoming. Responsible innovation of nuclear energy technologies: Social experiments, intergenerational justice, and emotions. In New perspectives on responsible innovation, ed. Roland Ortt, Martijn Blaauw and Jeroen van den Hoven. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Taebi, Behnam. Forthcoming. Bridging the gap between social acceptance and ethical acceptability. Risk Analysis.
  44. Terwel, Bart W., Emma ter Mors, and Dancker D.L. Daamen. 2012. It’s not only about safety: Beliefs and attitudes of 811 local residents regarding a CCS project in Barendrecht. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 9: 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Visser, Jelle, and Anton Hemerijck. 1997. A Dutch miracle: Job growth, welfare reform and corporatism in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Udo Pesch
    • 1
    Email author
  • Aad Correljé
    • 1
  • Eefje Cuppen
    • 1
  • Behnam Taebi
    • 1
  • Elisabeth van de Grift
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Values and InnovationsDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations