IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v109y2017icp825-834.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Energy justice and controversies: Formal and informal assessment in energy projects

Author

Listed:
  • Pesch, Udo
  • Correljé, Aad
  • Cuppen, Eefje
  • Taebi, Behnam

Abstract

In this paper we develop a framework for understanding how justice-related claims play a role in the dynamics of controversy in energy projects. We do so by distinguishing two interacting trajectories of assessment: a formal trajectory that is embedded in the legal system and an informal trajectory that is mainly embedded in public discourse. The emergence of an informal assessment trajectory can be seen as a response to a (perceived) lack of attention to particular concerns or values in the formal trajectory, i.e. ‘overflowing’. The emerging informal assessment may subsequently lead to adaptations in the formal trajectory, which we refer to as ‘backflowing'. Based on insights from case studies on Dutch energy projects and literature on energy justice we identify three justice-related attributes that facilitate understanding of the emergence of controversies. These attributes are based on differences between the two trajectories in terms of 1) the way in which values are expressed, 2) the dimension of energy justice that is taken as a starting point, and 3) the democratic legitimization of assessment trajectories. In order to allow for legitimate and effective energy policy, overflowing and backflowing need to be addressed as interrelated rather than as separate processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Pesch, Udo & Correljé, Aad & Cuppen, Eefje & Taebi, Behnam, 2017. "Energy justice and controversies: Formal and informal assessment in energy projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 825-834.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:109:y:2017:i:c:p:825-834
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.040
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517303956
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.040?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dave Huitema & Marleen Kerkhof & Udo Pesch, 2007. "The nature of the beast: are citizens’ juries deliberative or pluralist?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 40(4), pages 287-311, December.
    2. van der Horst, Dan, 2007. "NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2705-2714, May.
    3. Devine-Wright, Patrick & Batel, Susana & Aas, Oystein & Sovacool, Benjamin & Labelle, Michael Carnegie & Ruud, Audun, 2017. "A conceptual framework for understanding the social acceptance of energy infrastructure: Insights from energy storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 27-31.
    4. Andrew H. Van de Ven & Marshall Scott Poole, 1990. "Methods for Studying Innovation Development in the Minnesota Innovation Research Program," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 313-335, August.
    5. Eefje Cuppen & Suzanne Brunsting & Udo Pesch & 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, , vol. 47(9), pages 1963-1978, September.
    6. Andy Stirling, 2014. "Transforming Power: social science and the politics of energy choices," SPRU Working Paper Series 2014-03, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    7. Toke, David & Breukers, Sylvia & Wolsink, Maarten, 2008. "Wind power deployment outcomes: How can we account for the differences?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1129-1147, May.
    8. Gross, Catherine, 2007. "Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2727-2736, May.
    9. Rahm, Dianne, 2011. "Regulating hydraulic fracturing in shale gas plays: The case of Texas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2974-2981, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Niek Mouter & Paul Koster & Thijs Dekker, 2019. "Participatory Value Evaluation versus Cost-Benefit Analysis: comparing recommendations in the context of urban mobility investments," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-046/VIII, Tinbergen Institute, revised 27 Jan 2020.
    2. Upham, Dr Paul & Sovacool, Prof Benjamin & Ghosh, Dr Bipashyee, 2022. "Just transitions for industrial decarbonisation: A framework for innovation, participation, and justice," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    3. Mouter, Niek & Koster, Paul & Dekker, Thijs, 2021. "Contrasting the recommendations of participatory value evaluation and cost-benefit analysis in the context of urban mobility investments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 54-73.
    4. de Boer, Jessica & Zuidema, Christian & van Hoorn, Anton & de Roo, Gert, 2018. "The adaptation of Dutch energy policy to emerging area-based energy practices," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 142-150.
    5. van Helden, Jan & Caperchione, Eugenio & Pattaro, Anna Francesca, 2023. "Use and non-use of accounting information: The case of controversial projects in public and non-profit settings," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    6. Iskandarova, Marfuga & Vernay, Anne-Lorène & Musiolik, Jörg & Müller, Leticia & Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2022. "Tangled transitions: Exploring the emergence of local electricity exchange in France, Switzerland and Great Britain," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    7. Jayapalan, C. & Ganesh, L.S., 2019. "Environmentalists and their conflicts with Energy Justice – Concept of “Power-Environ” in the Athirappilly HEPP in Kerala," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 215-229.
    8. Carbajo, Ruth & Cabeza, Luisa F., 2019. "Sustainability and social justice dimension indicators for applied renewable energy research: A responsible approach proposal," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 252(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Na Li & Rudi Hakvoort & Zofia Lukszo, 2021. "Cost Allocation in Integrated Community Energy Systems—Social Acceptance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-24, September.
    10. Goda Perlaviciute & Linda Steg & Nadja Contzen & Sabine Roeser & Nicole Huijts, 2018. "Emotional Responses to Energy Projects: Insights for Responsible Decision Making in a Sustainable Energy Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-12, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pepermans, Yves & Loots, Ilse, 2013. "Wind farm struggles in Flanders fields: A sociological perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 321-328.
    2. Yenneti, Komali & Day, Rosie, 2015. "Procedural (in)justice in the implementation of solar energy: The case of Charanaka solar park, Gujarat, India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 664-673.
    3. Jones, Christopher R. & Richard Eiser, J., 2010. "Understanding 'local' opposition to wind development in the UK: How big is a backyard?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 3106-3117, June.
    4. Jones, Christopher R. & Eiser, J. Richard, 2009. "Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local onshore wind development with reference to an English case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 4604-4614, November.
    5. Sigurd Hilmo Lundheim & Giuseppe Pellegrini-Masini & Christian A. Klöckner & Stefan Geiss, 2022. "Developing a Theoretical Framework to Explain the Social Acceptability of Wind Energy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-24, July.
    6. Slattery, Michael C. & Johnson, Becky L. & Swofford, Jeffrey A. & Pasqualetti, Martin J., 2012. "The predominance of economic development in the support for large-scale wind farms in the U.S. Great Plains," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 3690-3701.
    7. Schumacher, K. & Krones, F. & McKenna, R. & Schultmann, F., 2019. "Public acceptance of renewable energies and energy autonomy: A comparative study in the French, German and Swiss Upper Rhine region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 315-332.
    8. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    9. Hyland, Marie & Bertsch, Valentin, 2018. "The Role of Community Involvement Mechanisms in Reducing Resistance to Energy Infrastructure Development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 447-474.
    10. Aitken, Mhairi, 2010. "Why we still don't understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 1834-1841, April.
    11. Langer, Katharina & Decker, Thomas & Roosen, Jutta & Menrad, Klaus, 2016. "A qualitative analysis to understand the acceptance of wind energy in Bavaria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 248-259.
    12. Landeta-Manzano, Beñat & Arana-Landín, Germán & Calvo, Pilar M. & Heras-Saizarbitoria, Iñaki, 2018. "Wind energy and local communities: A manufacturer’s efforts to gain acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 314-324.
    13. Zilliox, Skylar & Smith, Jessica M., 2017. "Memorandums of understanding and public trust in local government for Colorado's unconventional energy industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 72-81.
    14. Baxter, Jamie & Morzaria, Rakhee & Hirsch, Rachel, 2013. "A case-control study of support/opposition to wind turbines: Perceptions of health risk, economic benefits, and community conflict," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 931-943.
    15. Sebastian Schär & Jutta Geldermann, 2021. "Adopting Multiactor Multicriteria Analysis for the Evaluation of Energy Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, March.
    16. Copena, Damián & Simón, Xavier, 2018. "Wind farms and payments to landowners: Opportunities for rural development for the case of Galicia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 38-47.
    17. Haggett, Claire, 2011. "Understanding public responses to offshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 503-510, February.
    18. Gorsevski, Pece V. & Cathcart, Steven C. & Mirzaei, Golrokh & Jamali, Mohsin M. & Ye, Xinyue & Gomezdelcampo, Enrique, 2013. "A group-based spatial decision support system for wind farm site selection in Northwest Ohio," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 374-385.
    19. Kontogianni, A. & Tourkolias, Ch. & Skourtos, M. & Damigos, D., 2014. "Planning globally, protesting locally: Patterns in community perceptions towards the installation of wind farms," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 170-177.
    20. Rogers, J.C. & Simmons, E.A. & Convery, I. & Weatherall, A., 2008. "Public perceptions of opportunities for community-based renewable energy projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 4217-4226, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:109:y:2017:i:c:p:825-834. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.