IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/juipol/v65y2020ics0957178720300576.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How (not) to solve local conflicts around alternative energy production: Six cases of siting decisions of Austrian wind power parks

Author

Listed:
  • Kapeller, Sandro
  • Biegelbauer, Peter

Abstract

Discussions on the energy transition preceded the question of how to solve conflicts on the construction of the corresponding infrastructure. These conflicts regularly turn into wicked problems. To see how such conflicts might be solved in a participatory, democratic and sustainable fashion, we analysed six cases on wind power projects in the region of Lower Austria for their participatory qualities. Most of them turned out not to have met criteria of contemporary democratic theory. Our conclusion is that in order to live up to these demands, discussion processes have to be much more open, inclusive and discursive than they are.

Suggested Citation

  • Kapeller, Sandro & Biegelbauer, Peter, 2020. "How (not) to solve local conflicts around alternative energy production: Six cases of siting decisions of Austrian wind power parks," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:juipol:v:65:y:2020:i:c:s0957178720300576
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jup.2020.101062
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957178720300576
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jup.2020.101062?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. Peter Biegelbauer & Janus Hansen, 2011. "Democratic theory and citizen participation: democracy models in the evaluation of public participation in science and technology," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(8), pages 589-597, October.
    2. Scherhaufer, Patrick & Höltinger, Stefan & Salak, Boris & Schauppenlehner, Thomas & Schmidt, Johannes, 2017. "Patterns of acceptance and non-acceptance within energy landscapes: A case study on wind energy expansion in Austria," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 863-870.
    3. Madlener, Reinhard & Kowalski, Katharina & Stagl, Sigrid, 2007. "New ways for the integrated appraisal of national energy scenarios: The case of renewable energy use in Austria," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 6060-6074, December.
    4. Dermont, Clau & Ingold, Karin & Kammermann, Lorenz & Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle, 2017. "Bringing the policy making perspective in: A political science approach to social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 359-368.
    5. Reusswig, Fritz & Braun, Florian & Heger, Ines & Ludewig, Thomas & Eichenauer, Eva & Lass, Wiebke, 2016. "Against the wind: Local opposition to the German Energiewende," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 214-227.
    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. Radtke, Jörg & Scherhaufer, Patrick, 2022. "A social science perspective on conflicts in the energy transition: An introduction to the special issue," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).

    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. Rohe, Sebastian & Chlebna, Camilla, 2021. "A spatial perspective on the legitimacy of a technological innovation system: Regional differences in onshore wind energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    2. Radtke, Jörg & Scherhaufer, Patrick, 2022. "A social science perspective on conflicts in the energy transition: An introduction to the special issue," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    3. Scherhaufer, Patrick & Klittich, Philipp & Buzogány, Aron, 2021. "Between illegal protests and legitimate resistance. Civil disobedience against energy infrastructures," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    4. Busse, Maria & Siebert, Rosemarie, 2018. "Acceptance studies in the field of land use—A critical and systematic review to advance the conceptualization of acceptance and acceptability," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 235-245.
    5. Hübner, Gundula & Leschinger, Valentin & Müller, Florian J.Y. & Pohl, Johannes, 2023. "Broadening the social acceptance of wind energy – An Integrated Acceptance Model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    6. Karakislak, Irmak & Schneider, Nina, 2023. "The mayor said so? The impact of local political figures and social norms on local responses to wind energy projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    7. Ioannidis, Romanos & Koutsoyiannis, Demetris, 2020. "A review of land use, visibility and public perception of renewable energy in the context of landscape impact," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    8. Giovanni Matteo & Pierfrancesco Nardi & Stefano Grego & Caterina Guidi, 2018. "Bibliometric analysis of Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment research," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 508-516, December.
    9. Borch, Kristian & Munk, Anders K. & Dahlgaard, Vibeke, 2020. "Mapping wind-power controversies on social media: Facebook as a powerful mobilizer of local resistance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    10. Mitsch, Frieder & McNeil, Andrew, 2022. "Political implications of ‘green’ infrastructure in one’s ‘backyard’: the Green Party’s Catch 22?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 115269, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Kriechbaum, Michael & Posch, Alfred & Hauswiesner, Angelika, 2021. "Hype cycles during socio-technical transitions: The dynamics of collective expectations about renewable energy in Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    12. Hafezi, Reza & Akhavan, AmirNaser & Pakseresht, Saeed & Wood, David A., 2019. "A Layered Uncertainties Scenario Synthesizing (LUSS) model applied to evaluate multiple potential long-run outcomes for Iran's natural gas exports," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 646-659.
    13. Attour, Amel & Baudino, Marco & Krafft, Jackie & Lazaric, Nathalie, 2020. "Determinants of energy tracking application use at the city level: Evidence from France," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    14. Frate, Cláudio Albuquerque & Brannstrom, Christian & de Morais, Marcus Vinícius Girão & Caldeira-Pires, Armando de Azevedo, 2019. "Procedural and distributive justice inform subjectivity regarding wind power: A case from Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 185-195.
    15. Hindmarsh, Richard & Alidoust, Sara, 2019. "Rethinking Australian CSG transitions in participatory contexts of local social conflict, community engagement, and shifts towards cleaner energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 272-282.
    16. Xexakis, Georgios & Hansmann, Ralph & Volken, Sandra P. & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2020. "Models on the wrong track: Model-based electricity supply scenarios in Switzerland are not aligned with the perspectives of energy experts and the public," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    17. Aikaterini Papapostolou & Charikleia Karakosta & Kalliopi-Anastasia Kourti & Haris Doukas & John Psarras, 2019. "Supporting Europe’s Energy Policy Towards a Decarbonised Energy System: A Comparative Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-26, July.
    18. Lorenz Kammermann & Karin Ingold, 2019. "Going beyond technocratic and democratic principles: stakeholder acceptance of instruments in Swiss energy policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 43-65, March.
    19. Knoblauch, Theresa A.K. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael, 2019. "Siting deep geothermal energy: Acceptance of various risk and benefit scenarios in a Swiss-German cross-national study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 807-816.
    20. Bartholdsen, Hans-Karl & Eidens, Anna & Löffler, Konstantin & Seehaus, Frederik & Wejda, Felix & Burandt, Thorsten & Oei, Pao-Yu & Kemfert, Claudia & Hirschhausen, Christian von, 2019. "Pathways for Germany's Low-Carbon Energy Transformation Towards 2050," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 12(15), pages 1-33.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:juipol:v:65:y:2020:i:c:s0957178720300576. 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: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/utilities-policy .

    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.