IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jenvss/v12y2022i2d10.1007_s13412-021-00726-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A review of stakeholder participation studies in renewable electricity and water: does the resource context matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Valerie Rountree

    (University of Redlands)

  • Elizabeth Baldwin

    (University of Arizona)

  • Jeffrey Hanlon

    (Whittier College)

Abstract

The growing scholarship explaining stakeholder engagement in natural resources policy and decision-making has produced theories about how participation does and should occur. Along with yielding more informed decisions that better meet stakeholder needs, numerous other benefits have been attributed to effective engagement practices. Some natural resource contexts, water governance for example, are very well researched, while other emerging decision settings, such as renewable electricity generation, are just gaining attention. Can lessons about stakeholder engagement in one context generalize to another? Understanding whether and how context affects stakeholder engagement could lead to more informed and equitable practices. In this pilot study, we show how the grounded theory literature review method can be used to systematically explore differences in the literatures on stakeholder participation in water governance and renewable energy governance. We find that researchers focus on different phenomena within these two contexts, specifically the kinds of decisions made and who makes them; the type, length, and intensity of stakeholder participation; and the extent to which non-expert stakeholders influence decisions. We suggest two possible reasons for these differences: first, researchers in these two natural resource domains may conceive of and examine stakeholder participation in different ways, asking different kinds of questions; and second, there are real-world differences between these two resource contexts, including different types of stakeholder and institutional capacity, physical differences in the resources and their technical complexity, and scale of the problem. Our research suggests that scholars of stakeholder engagement should pay greater attention to these contextual factors. Given these findings but also the small number of papers analyzed, examination of a larger sample using this method is warranted to generate grounded hypotheses.

Suggested Citation

  • Valerie Rountree & Elizabeth Baldwin & Jeffrey Hanlon, 2022. "A review of stakeholder participation studies in renewable electricity and water: does the resource context matter?," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 12(2), pages 232-247, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:12:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s13412-021-00726-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s13412-021-00726-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13412-021-00726-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13412-021-00726-w?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. Thomas C. Beierle & David M. Konisky, 2000. "Values, conflict, and trust in participatory environmental planning," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(4), pages 587-602.
    2. Kowalski, Katharina & Stagl, Sigrid & Madlener, Reinhard & Omann, Ines, 2009. "Sustainable energy futures: Methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory multi-criteria analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(3), pages 1063-1074, September.
    3. Thomas, Kathryn A. & Jarchow, Christopher J. & Arundel, Terence R. & Jamwal, Pankaj & Borens, Amanda & Drost, Charles A., 2018. "Landscape-scale wildlife species richness metrics to inform wind and solar energy facility siting: An Arizona case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 145-152.
    4. Adams, Michelle & Wheeler, David & Woolston, Genna, 2011. "A participatory approach to sustainable energy strategy development in a carbon-intensive jurisdiction: The case of Nova Scotia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2550-2559, May.
    5. Bob Evans & Judith Parks & Kate Theobald, 2011. "Urban wind power and the private sector: community benefits, social acceptance and public engagement," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(2), pages 227-244.
    6. Dinar, Ariel & Kemper, Karin & Blomquist, William & Kurukulasuriya, Pradeep, 2007. "Whitewater: Decentralization of river basin water resource management," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 851-867.
    7. Lennox, James & Proctor, Wendy & Russell, Shona, 2011. "Structuring stakeholder participation in New Zealand's water resource governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1381-1394, May.
    8. Uta Wehn & Kevin Collins & Kim Anema & Laura Basco-Carrera & Alix Lerebours, 2018. "Stakeholder engagement in water governance as social learning: lessons from practice," Water International, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(1), pages 34-59, January.
    9. Helen Ingram, 2013. "No universal remedies: design for contexts," Water International, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(1), pages 6-11, January.
    10. Edella Schlager & William Blomquist & Shui Yan Tang, 1994. "Mobile Flows, Storage, and Self-Organized Institutions for Governing Common-Pool Resources," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(3), pages 294-317.
    11. Painuly, J.P, 2001. "Barriers to renewable energy penetration; a framework for analysis," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 73-89.
    12. Wolsink, Maarten, 2000. "Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 49-64.
    13. Yildiz, Özgür, 2014. "Financing renewable energy infrastructures via financial citizen participation – The case of Germany," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 677-685.
    14. Tyler Scott, 2015. "Does Collaboration Make Any Difference? Linking Collaborative Governance to Environmental Outcomes," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(3), pages 537-566, June.
    15. Abelson, Julia & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier & Eyles, John & Casebeer, Ann & Martin, Elisabeth & Mackean, Gail, 2007. "Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: Results from a Canadian comparative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(10), pages 2115-2128, May.
    16. Paneque Salgado, P. & Corral Quintana, S. & Guimarães Pereira, Â. & del Moral Ituarte, L. & Pedregal Mateos, B., 2009. "Participative multi-criteria analysis for the evaluation of water governance alternatives. A case in the Costa del Sol (Málaga)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 990-1005, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Sebastian Schär & Jutta Geldermann, 2021. "Adopting Multiactor Multicriteria Analysis for the Evaluation of Energy Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, March.
    2. Shahriyar Nasirov & Carlos Silva & Claudio A. Agostini, 2015. "Investors’ Perspectives on Barriers to the Deployment of Renewable Energy Sources in Chile," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-21, April.
    3. Calvert, K. & Pearce, J.M. & Mabee, W.E., 2013. "Toward renewable energy geo-information infrastructures: Applications of GIScience and remote sensing that build institutional capacity," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 416-429.
    4. 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.
    5. Ertör-Akyazı, Pınar & Adaman, Fikret & Özkaynak, Begüm & Zenginobuz, Ünal, 2012. "Citizens’ preferences on nuclear and renewable energy sources: Evidence from Turkey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 309-320.
    6. John Colton & Kenneth Corscadden & Stewart Fast & Monica Gattinger & Joel Gehman & Martha Hall Findlay & Dylan Morgan & Judith Sayers & Jennifer Winter & Adonis Yatchew, 2016. "Energy Projects, Social Licence, Public Acceptance and Regulatory Systems in Canada: A White Paper," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 9(20), May.
    7. Simón, Xavier & Copena, Damián & Montero, María, 2019. "Strong wind development with no community participation. The case of Galicia (1995–2009)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    8. Fabien Martinez, 2015. "A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Framework of Corporate Water Responsibility," Post-Print hal-02887624, HAL.
    9. Hall, N. & Ashworth, P. & Devine-Wright, P., 2013. "Societal acceptance of wind farms: Analysis of four common themes across Australian case studies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 200-208.
    10. 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.
    11. Ribeiro, Fernando & Ferreira, Paula & Araújo, Madalena, 2011. "The inclusion of social aspects in power planning," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4361-4369.
    12. Curtin, Joseph & McInerney, Celine & Ó Gallachóir, Brian, 2017. "Financial incentives to mobilise local citizens as investors in low-carbon technologies: A systematic literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 534-547.
    13. Pascaris1, Alexis S. & Schelly, Chelsea & Rouleau, Mark & Pearce, Joshua M., 2021. "Do Agrivoltaics Improve Public Support for Solar Photovoltaic Development? Survey Says: Yes!," SocArXiv efasx, Center for Open Science.
    14. Ciupuliga, A.R. & Cuppen, E., 2013. "The role of dialogue in fostering acceptance of transmission lines: the case of a France–Spain interconnection project," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 224-233.
    15. Mateusz Piwowarski & Mariusz Borawski & Kesra Nermend, 2021. "The Problem of Non-Typical Objects in the Multidimensional Comparative Analysis of the Level of Renewable Energy Development," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-24, September.
    16. Jinjin Guan & Harald Zepp, 2020. "Factors Affecting the Community Acceptance of Onshore Wind Farms: A Case Study of the Zhongying Wind Farm in Eastern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-19, August.
    17. Mignon, Ingrid & Rüdinger, Andreas, 2016. "The impact of systemic factors on the deployment of cooperative projects within renewable electricity production – An international comparison," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 478-488.
    18. Stephan Bosch, 2019. "Technologie- und Standortwahl beim Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien – Eine empirische Analyse zum unternehmerischen Verhalten von Anlagenbetreibern [Choices of technology and site for the development o," NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum | Sustainability Management Forum, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 31-52, March.
    19. Ribeiro, Fernando & Ferreira, Paula & Araújo, Madalena, 2013. "Sustainability assessment of electricity production using a logic models approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 215-223.
    20. Wenche Tobiasson & Tooraj Jamasb, 2014. "Sustainable Electricity Grid Development and the Public: An Economic Approach," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1432, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.

    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:spr:jenvss:v:12:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s13412-021-00726-w. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.