IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sumafo/v27y2019i1d10.1007_s00550-018-0477-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technologie- und Standortwahl beim Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien – Eine empirische Analyse zum unternehmerischen Verhalten von Anlagenbetreibern
[Choices of technology and site for the development of renewable energies—an empirical analysis of entrepreneurial behaviour of plant operators]

Author

Listed:
  • Stephan Bosch

    (Universität Augsburg)

Abstract

Zusammenfassung Im Zuge der Energiewende wird der Rückbau leistungsstarker Großkraftwerke durch den Ausbau zahlreicher Kleinkraftwerke, wie Windkraft‑, Solar und Biomasseanlagen, kompensiert. Aufgrund der geringen Energiedichte sowie der starken Volatilität erneuerbarer Energien wird dies sehr flächenintensiv ausfallen und zwangsläufig die Fragen aufwerfen, auf welchen Standorten sich dieser Ausbau vollziehen soll. Aus wissenschaftlicher Perspektive ist dabei vor allem unklar, wie hierzu die Entscheidungsprozesse ablaufen, welche Akteure bei diesen Entscheidungen involviert sind und welche ökonomischen, ökologischen und sozialen Folgewirkungen damit einhergehen. Um hierüber mehr Klarheit zu bekommen, ist es erforderlich, nicht nur die Verhaltensweisen der Anwohner erneuerbarer Energien zu analysieren, wie das in zahlreichen Studien bereits der Fall ist. Vielmehr erscheint es angebracht, die Handlungen der Anlagenbetreiber selbst in den Fokus der Forschung zu rücken, da deren Verhaltensweisen eine wesentliche Determinante lokaler Akzeptanz sind. Dabei stellt sich im Besonderen die Frage, welche Rolle diesen zentralen Akteuren der Energiewende im Hinblick auf eine nachhaltige Energieversorgung zukommt, welche Vorstellungen, Motive, Werte, Denkmuster, Praktiken und Wissensbestände ihr Verhalten bestimmen und welche Konflikte damit einhergehen. Aus diesem Grund wurde erstmalig eine technologieübergreifende quantitative Befragung von Betreibern erneuerbarer Energien in den Planungsregionen Augsburg und Lausitz-Spreewald durchgeführt. Im Fokus der Erhebung standen dabei die unternehmerischen Zielsetzungen und technologischen Ausrichtungen, das standortplanerische Verhalten, die Fähigkeiten der Informationsbeschaffung und -verarbeitung, die Einbettung der Unternehmer in sozio-institutionelle und soziokulturelle Kontexte, die daraus hervorgehenden Wirkungen sowie die regionalen Besonderheiten.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sumafo:v:27:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s00550-018-0477-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s00550-018-0477-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00550-018-0477-8
    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/s00550-018-0477-8?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. Jobert, Arthur & Laborgne, Pia & Mimler, Solveig, 2007. "Local acceptance of wind energy: Factors of success identified in French and German case studies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2751-2760, May.
    2. Olaf Kühne & Florian Weber, 2016. "Zur sozialen Akzeptanz der Energiewende," NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum | Sustainability Management Forum, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 207-213, November.
    3. 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.
    4. Grassi, Stefano & Chokani, Ndaona & Abhari, Reza S., 2012. "Large scale technical and economical assessment of wind energy potential with a GIS tool: Case study Iowa," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 73-85.
    5. Gailing, Ludger & Röhring, Andreas, 2016. "Is it all about collaborative governance? Alternative ways of understanding the success of energy regions," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 237-245.
    6. Charles Warren & Carolyn Lumsden & Simone O'Dowd & Richard Birnie, 2005. "'Green On Green': Public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(6), pages 853-875.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Yildiz, Özgür, 2014. "Financing renewable energy infrastructures via financial citizen participation – The case of Germany," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 677-685.
    10. Höfer, Tim & Sunak, Yasin & Siddique, Hafiz & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Wind farm siting using a spatial Analytic Hierarchy Process approach: A case study of the Städteregion Aachen," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 222-243.
    11. Zoellner, Jan & Schweizer-Ries, Petra & Wemheuer, Christin, 2008. "Public acceptance of renewable energies: Results from case studies in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 4136-4141, November.
    12. Pehnt, Martin, 2006. "Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy technologies," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 55-71.
    13. Bridge, Gavin & Bouzarovski, Stefan & Bradshaw, Michael & Eyre, Nick, 2013. "Geographies of energy transition: Space, place and the low-carbon economy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 331-340.
    14. Brewer, Justin & Ames, Daniel P. & Solan, David & Lee, Randy & Carlisle, Juliet, 2015. "Using GIS analytics and social preference data to evaluate utility-scale solar power site suitability," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 825-836.
    15. John Barry & Geraint Ellis & Clive Robinson, 2008. "Cool Rationalities and Hot Air: A Rhetorical Approach to Understanding Debates on Renewable Energy," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 8(2), pages 67-98, May.
    16. 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.
    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. Stephan Bosch & Lucas Schwarz, 2019. "The Energy Transition from Plant Operators’ Perspective—A Behaviorist Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-28, March.
    2. Carlisle, Juliet E. & Kane, Stephanie L. & Solan, David & Bowman, Madelaine & Joe, Jeffrey C., 2015. "Public attitudes regarding large-scale solar energy development in the U.S," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 835-847.
    3. 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.
    4. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    5. Windemer, Rebecca, 2023. "Acceptance should not be assumed. How the dynamics of social acceptance changes over time, impacting onshore wind repowering," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    6. Soland, Martin & Steimer, Nora & Walter, Götz, 2013. "Local acceptance of existing biogas plants in Switzerland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 802-810.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mura, Marina & Contu, Davide, 2012. "Combining choice experiments with psychometric scales to assess the social acceptability of wind energy projects: A latent class approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 334-347.
    11. Grashof, Katherina, 2019. "Are auctions likely to deter community wind projects? And would this be problematic?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 20-32.
    12. 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.
    13. Chad Walker & Jamie Baxter & Danielle Ouellette, 2014. "Beyond Rhetoric to Understanding Determinants of Wind Turbine Support and Conflict in Two Ontario, Canada Communities," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(3), pages 730-745, March.
    14. Heras-Saizarbitoria, Iñaki & Zamanillo, Ibon & Laskurain, Iker, 2013. "Social acceptance of ocean wave energy: A case study of an OWC shoreline plant," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 515-524.
    15. Friedl, Christina & Reichl, Johannes, 2016. "Realizing energy infrastructure projects – A qualitative empirical analysis of local practices to address social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 184-193.
    16. Waldo, Åsa, 2012. "Offshore wind power in Sweden—A qualitative analysis of attitudes with particular focus on opponents," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 692-702.
    17. Fast, Stewart & Mabee, Warren, 2015. "Place-making and trust-building: The influence of policy on host community responses to wind farms," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 27-37.
    18. 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).
    19. Gardt Manuel & Broekel Tom & Gareis Philipp & Litmeyer Marie-Louise, 2018. "Einfluss von Windenergieanlagen auf die Entwicklung des Tourismus in Hessen," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 62(1), pages 46-64, March.
    20. Sebastian Schär & Jutta Geldermann, 2021. "Adopting Multiactor Multicriteria Analysis for the Evaluation of Energy Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, March.

    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:sumafo:v:27:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s00550-018-0477-8. 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.