IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v167y2022ics0301421522002750.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Flexibility & structure: Community engagement on climate action & large infrastructure delivery

Author

Listed:
  • Boyle, Evan
  • Galvin, Martin
  • Revez, Alexandra
  • Deane, Aoife
  • Ó Gallachóir, Brian
  • Mullally, Gerard

Abstract

This research paper explores the role of citizen and community engagement in climate mitigation projects, particularly related to climate infrastructure development in the Irish context. A change is needed with relation to the way in which institutions interact with community groups and citizens in order to effectively go about implementing the necessary measures to expedite the transition to a low-carbon energy system. Within this research we implement a co-production approach to the investigation of community engagement practices within public bodies, moving from framings centred on social acceptance towards social acceptability. The 2020 OECD report stressed the importance of co-production in transdisciplinary approaches to sustainable development, climate action and the Sustainable Development Goals. We develop a range of good practice guidelines for community engagement that seek to connect, build and improve current mitigation measures and on from this suggest policy measures for their implementation. The paper sets the foundations for developing a co-production framework for climate related infrastructure developments between citizens, communities and public bodies.

Suggested Citation

  • Boyle, Evan & Galvin, Martin & Revez, Alexandra & Deane, Aoife & Ó Gallachóir, Brian & Mullally, Gerard, 2022. "Flexibility & structure: Community engagement on climate action & large infrastructure delivery," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:167:y:2022:i:c:s0301421522002750
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113050
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421522002750
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113050?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. Kemp, Deanna & Owen, John R., 2013. "Community relations and mining: Core to business but not “core business”," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 523-531.
    2. 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.
    3. Nathan James Bennett & Alin Kadfak & Philip Dearden, 2016. "Community-based scenario planning: a process for vulnerability analysis and adaptation planning to social–ecological change in coastal communities," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 1771-1799, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Natasha Odou & Dianne Vella-Brodrick, 2013. "The Efficacy of Positive Psychology Interventions to Increase Well-Being and the Role of Mental Imagery Ability," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 110(1), pages 111-129, January.
    6. Lenore Newman & Ann Dale, 2007. "Homophily and Agency: Creating Effective Sustainable Development Networks," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 79-90, February.
    7. Pohlmann, Angela & Colell, Arwen, 2020. "Distributing power: Community energy movements claiming the grid in Berlin and Hamburg," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Thomas, Gareth & Demski, Christina & Pidgeon, Nick, 2019. "Deliberating the social acceptability of energy storage in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Richard Cowell & Gill Bristow & Max Munday, 2011. "Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: the role of community benefits in wind energy development," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(4), pages 539-557.
    12. Jolly, Suyash & Raven, R.P.J.M., 2015. "Collective institutional entrepreneurship and contestations in wind energy in India," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 999-1011.
    13. Toke, Dave, 2005. "Explaining wind power planning outcomes:: some findings from a study in England and Wales," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(12), pages 1527-1539, August.
    14. Maarten Wolsink, 2018. "Co-production in distributed generation: renewable energy and creating space for fitting infrastructure within landscapes," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(4), pages 542-561, May.
    15. Margareta Hult & Sven‐Åke Lennung, 1980. "Towards A Definition Of Action Research: A Note And Bibliography," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(2), pages 241-250, May.
    16. 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.
    17. Bronfman, Nicolás C. & Jiménez, Raquel B. & Arévalo, Pilar C. & Cifuentes, Luis A., 2012. "Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 246-252.
    18. Susanne C. Moser, 2010. "Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and future directions," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 31-53, January.
    19. Scheer, Dirk & Konrad, Wilfried & Wassermann, Sandra, 2017. "The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: A qualitative study of public perceptions towards energy technologies and portfolios in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 89-100.
    20. 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.
    21. Albert V. Norström & Christopher Cvitanovic & Marie F. Löf & Simon West & Carina Wyborn & Patricia Balvanera & Angela T. Bednarek & Elena M. Bennett & Reinette Biggs & Ariane Bremond & Bruce M. Campbe, 2020. "Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 3(3), pages 182-190, March.
    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. LaPatin, Michaela & Spearing, Lauryn A. & Tiedmann, Helena R. & Hacker, Miriam & Kavvada, Olga & Daniélou, Jean & Faust, Kasey M., 2023. "Controversy in wind energy construction projects: How social systems impact project performance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    2. Ruiten, Kyra & Pesch, Udo & Rodhouse, Toyah & Correljé, Aad & Spruit, Shannon & Tenhaaf, Antje & Dijkshoorn, Jochem & van den Berg, Susan, 2023. "Drawing the line: Opening up and closing down the siting of a high voltage transmission route in the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(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. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. Walsh, Bríd & van der Plank, Sien & Behrens, Paul, 2017. "The effect of community consultation on perceptions of a proposed mine: A case study from southeast Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 163-171.
    4. Lindvall, Daniel, 2023. "Why municipalities reject wind power: A study on municipal acceptance and rejection of wind power instalments in Sweden," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    5. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Beyond the triangle of renewable energy acceptance: The five dimensions of domestic hydrogen acceptance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    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. 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).
    8. Sonnberger, Marco & Ruddat, Michael, 2017. "Local and socio-political acceptance of wind farms in Germany," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 56-65.
    9. 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.
    10. Hogan, Jessica L. & Warren, Charles R. & Simpson, Michael & McCauley, Darren, 2022. "What makes local energy projects acceptable? Probing the connection between ownership structures and community acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    11. 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.
    12. Martin, Nigel & Rice, John, 2015. "Improving Australia's renewable energy project policy and planning: A multiple stakeholder analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 128-141.
    13. 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.
    14. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Liljenfeldt, Johanna & Pettersson, Örjan, 2017. "Distributional justice in Swedish wind power development – An odds ratio analysis of windmill localization and local residents’ socio-economic characteristics," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 648-657.
    18. 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.
    19. Jed Cohen, Klaus Moeltner, Johannes Reichl and Michael Schmidthaler, 2016. "An Empirical Analysis of Local Opposition to New Transmission Lines Across the EU-27," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3).
    20. 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).

    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:167:y:2022:i:c:s0301421522002750. 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.