IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v8y2015i9p9407-9433d55051.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can the BestGrid Process Improve Stakeholder Involvement in Electricity Transmission Projects?

Author

Listed:
  • Nadejda Komendantova

    (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Schlossplatz 1, Laxenburg A-2361, Austria
    Climate Policy Group, Institute for Environmental Decisions (ETH), Zurich 8092, Switzerland)

  • Marco Vocciante

    (Department of Civil, Chemical and Environmental Engineering, University of Genoa, Genoa 16145, Italy)

  • Antonella Battaglini

    (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam 14473, Germany)

Abstract

The European Union has set ambitious targets for deployment of renewable energy sources to reach goals of climate change mitigation and energy security policies. However, the current state of electricity transmission infrastructure is a major bottleneck for further scaling up of renewable energy in the EU. Several thousands of kilometers of new lines have to be constructed and upgraded to accommodate growing volumes of intermittent renewable electricity. In many countries, construction of electricity transmission projects has been delayed for several years due to concerns of local stakeholders. The innovative BESTGRID approach, reported here, brings together transmission system operators (TSOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to discuss and understand the nature of stakeholder concerns. This paper has three objectives: (1) to understand stakeholder concerns about the deployment of electricity transmission grids in four pilot projects according to five guiding principles: need, transparency, engagement, environment, and impacts on human health as well as benefits; (2) to understand how these principles can be addressed to provide a basis for better decision-making outcomes; and (3) to evaluate the BESTGRID process based on feedback received from stakeholders and the level of participation achieved according to the ladder of Arnstein. This paper goes beyond a discussion of “measures to mitigate opposition” to understand how dialogue between TSOs and the public—represented mainly by NGOs and policy-makers—might lead to a better decision-making process and more sustainable electricity transmission infrastructure deployment.

Suggested Citation

  • Nadejda Komendantova & Marco Vocciante & Antonella Battaglini, 2015. "Can the BestGrid Process Improve Stakeholder Involvement in Electricity Transmission Projects?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-27, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:8:y:2015:i:9:p:9407-9433:d:55051
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/8/9/9407/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/8/9/9407/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    2. Susana Batel & Patrick Devine-Wright, 2015. "A critical and empirical analysis of the national-local 'gap' in public responses to large-scale energy infrastructures," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(6), pages 1076-1095, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Gerad Middendorf & Lawrence Busch, 1997. "Inquiry for the public good: Democratic participation in agricultural research," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 14(1), pages 45-57, March.
    5. Kruyt, Bert & van Vuuren, D.P. & de Vries, H.J.M. & Groenenberg, H., 2009. "Indicators for energy security," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2166-2181, June.
    6. Cohen, Jed J. & Reichl, Johannes & Schmidthaler, Michael, 2014. "Re-focussing research efforts on the public acceptance of energy infrastructure: A critical review," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 4-9.
    7. Battaglini, Antonella & Komendantova, Nadejda & Brtnik, Patricia & Patt, Anthony, 2012. "Perception of barriers for expansion of electricity grids in the European Union," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 254-259.
    8. Krohn, Søren & Damborg, Steffen, 1999. "On public attitudes towards wind power," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 954-960.
    9. Kaldellis, J.K. & Kapsali, M. & Kaldelli, El. & Katsanou, Ev., 2013. "Comparing recent views of public attitude on wind energy, photovoltaic and small hydro applications," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 197-208.
    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. Jan Witajewski-Baltvilks & Marek Antosiewicz & Andrzej Ceglarz & Haris Doukas & Alexandros Nikas & Jakub Sawulski & Aleksander Szpor & Baiba Witajewska-Baltvilka, 2018. "Risks associated with the decarbonisation of the Polish power sector," IBS Research Reports 05/2018, Instytut Badan Strukturalnych.
    2. Ceglarz, Andrzej & Beneking, Andreas & Ellenbeck, Saskia & Battaglini, Antonella, 2017. "Understanding the role of trust in power line development projects: Evidence from two case studies in Norway," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 570-580.
    3. Corsini, Filippo & Certomà, Chiara & Dyer, Mark & Frey, Marco, 2019. "Participatory energy: Research, imaginaries and practices on people' contribute to energy systems in the smart city," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 322-332.
    4. Shuang Zhang & Jamie Mackee & Michael Sing & Liyaning Maggie Tang, 2022. "Mapping the Knowledge Domain of Affected Local Community Participation Research in Megaproject-Induced Displacement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-17, November.

    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. 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.
    2. Bertsch, Valentin & Hyland, Marie & Mahony, Michael, 2017. "What drives people's opinions of electricity infrastructure? Empirical evidence from Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 472-497.
    3. Langer, Katharina & Decker, Thomas & Menrad, Klaus, 2017. "Public participation in wind energy projects located in Germany: Which form of participation is the key to acceptance?," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 63-73.
    4. Caporale, Diana & Sangiorgio, Valentino & Amodio, Alessandro & De Lucia, Caterina, 2020. "Multi-criteria and focus group analysis for social acceptance of wind energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    5. Ceglarz, Andrzej & Beneking, Andreas & Ellenbeck, Saskia & Battaglini, Antonella, 2017. "Understanding the role of trust in power line development projects: Evidence from two case studies in Norway," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 570-580.
    6. Cousse, Julia, 2021. "Still in love with solar energy? Installation size, affect, and the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    7. Yazdanpanah, Masoud & Komendantova, Nadejda & Ardestani, Roshanak Shafiei, 2015. "Governance of energy transition in Iran: Investigating public acceptance and willingness to use renewable energy sources through socio-psychological model," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 565-573.
    8. Samiha Mjahed Hammami & Sahar Chtourou & Heyam Al Moosa, 2018. "A holistic approach to understanding the acceptance of a community‐based renewable energy project: A pathway to sustainability for Tunisia's rural region," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(8), pages 1535-1545, December.
    9. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    10. Yu, H. & Reiner, D. & Chen, H. & Mi, Z., 2018. "A comparison of public preferences for different low-carbon energy technologies: Support for CCS, nuclear and wind energy in the United Kingdom," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1826, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    11. Agnieszka Rochmińska, 2023. "Wind Energy Infrastructure and Socio-Spatial Conflicts," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-19, January.
    12. Seungkook Roh & Jin Won Lee & Qingchang Li, 2019. "Effects of Rank-Ordered Feature Perceptions of Energy Sources on the Choice of the Most Acceptable Power Plant for a Neighborhood: An Investigation Using a South Korean Nationwide Sample," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-21, March.
    13. Aaen, Sara Bjørn & Kerndrup, Søren & Lyhne, Ivar, 2016. "Beyond public acceptance of energy infrastructure: How citizens make sense and form reactions by enacting networks of entities in infrastructure development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 576-586.
    14. Bidwell, David, 2013. "The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial wind energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 189-199.
    15. Brennan, Noreen & van Rensburg, Thomas M., 2020. "Public preferences for wind farms involving electricity trade and citizen engagement in Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Eduardo Martínez-Mendoza & Luis Arturo Rivas-Tovar & Luis Enrique García-Santamaría, 2021. "Wind energy in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec: conflicts and social implications," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(8), pages 11706-11731, August.
    19. Woo, JongRoul & Chung, Sungsam & Lee, Chul-Yong & Huh, Sung-Yoon, 2019. "Willingness to participate in community-based renewable energy projects: A contingent valuation study in South Korea," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 643-652.
    20. Salak, B. & Lindberg, K. & Kienast, F. & Hunziker, M., 2021. "How landscape-technology fit affects public evaluations of renewable energy infrastructure scenarios. A hybrid choice model," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).

    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:gam:jeners:v:8:y:2015:i:9:p:9407-9433:d:55051. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.