IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aue/wpaper/2019.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Stakeholder involvement in technological design: Lessons learned from the MERMAID and TROPOS projects

Author

Listed:
  • Marian Stuiver
  • Sander van den Burg
  • Wenting Chen
  • Claire Haggett
  • David Rudolph
  • Phoebe Koundouri

Abstract

Shared multi-use of ocean space is associated to overcoming several complex technical, regulatory, financial, environmental and socio-economic problems. In achieving this goal several stakeholders of relevance need to participate in the design and implementation of multi-use platforms. This chapter reviews and discuss the participatory approaches employed in the MERMAID and TROPOS projects. The discussion draws on the methods employed in each case, the objectives and obstacles encountered resulting in useful conclusions for participatory design.

Suggested Citation

  • Marian Stuiver & Sander van den Burg & Wenting Chen & Claire Haggett & David Rudolph & Phoebe Koundouri, 2020. "Stakeholder involvement in technological design: Lessons learned from the MERMAID and TROPOS projects," DEOS Working Papers 2019, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    • Handle: RePEc:aue:wpaper:2019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wpa.deos.aueb.gr/docs/Stakeholder.involvement.in.technological.design.pdf
    File Function: First version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Pomeroy, Robert & Douvere, Fanny, 2008. "The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 816-822, September.
    3. Mhairi Aitken & Claire Haggett & David Rudolph, 2016. "Practices and rationales of community engagement with wind farms: awareness raising, consultation, empowerment," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 557-576, October.
    4. Berghöfer, Augustin & Wittmer, Heidi & Rauschmayer, Felix, 2008. "Stakeholder participation in ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management: A synthesis from European research projects," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 243-253, March.
    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. Leer Jørgensen, Marie & Anker, Helle Tegner & Lassen, Jesper, 2020. "Distributive fairness and local acceptance of wind turbines: The role of compensation schemes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    2. Sander Van den Burg & Marian Stuiver & Jenny Norrman & Rita Garção & Tore Söderqvist & Christine Röckmann & Jan-Joost Schouten & Ole Petersen & Raul Guanche García & Pedro Diaz-Simal & Mark De Bel & L, 2016. "Participatory Design of Multi-Use Platforms at Sea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-17, January.
    3. 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).
    4. Marilena Papageorgiou & Georgia Pozoukidou & Theodora Istoriou & Theoni Kostopoulou, 2024. "Inclusive Maritime Spatial Planning: Stakes at the Regional Level," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-16, November.
    5. Copena, Damián & Simón, Xavier, 2018. "Wind farms and payments to landowners: Opportunities for rural development for the case of Galicia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 38-47.
    6. David Rudolph & Claire Haggett & Mhairi Aitken, 2018. "Community benefits from offshore renewables: The relationship between different understandings of impact, community, and benefit," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(1), pages 92-117, February.
    7. Zerrahn, Alexander & Krekel, Christian, 2015. "Sowing the Wind and Reaping the Whirlwind? The Effect of Wind Turbines on Residential Well-Being," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 112956, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    8. 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.
    9. Milchram, Christine & Hillerbrand, Rafaela & van de Kaa, Geerten & Doorn, Neelke & Künneke, Rolf, 2018. "Energy Justice and Smart Grid Systems: Evidence from the Netherlands and the United Kingdom," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 229(C), pages 1244-1259.
    10. Ralph V Tafon, 2018. "Taking power to sea: Towards a post-structuralist discourse theoretical critique of marine spatial planning," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(2), pages 258-273, March.
    11. Hitzeroth, Marion & Megerle, Andreas, 2013. "Renewable Energy Projects: Acceptance Risks and Their Management," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 576-584.
    12. Francisco Haces-Fernandez, 2022. "Assessment of the Financial Benefits from Wind Farms in US Rural Locations," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-23, September.
    13. Ki, Jaehong & Yun, Sun-Jin & Kim, Woo-Chang & Oh, Subin & Ha, Jihun & Hwangbo, Eunyoung & Lee, Hyoeun & Shin, Sumin & Yoon, Seulki & Youn, Hyewon, 2022. "Local residents’ attitudes about wind farms and associated noise annoyance in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    14. Suéskeviécs, Monika, 2010. "Legitimacy analysis of multi-level governance of biodiversity: Evidence from 12 case studies across the EU," UFZ Discussion Papers 10/2010, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    15. 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.
    16. Sigurd Hilmo Lundheim & Giuseppe Pellegrini-Masini & Christian A. Klöckner & Stefan Geiss, 2022. "Developing a Theoretical Framework to Explain the Social Acceptability of Wind Energy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-24, July.
    17. Ólafsdóttir, Rannveig & Sæþórsdóttir, Anna Dóra, 2019. "Wind farms in the Icelandic highlands: Attitudes of local residents and tourism service providers," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    18. 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).
    19. Kim, Ju-Hee & Kim, Hee-Hoon & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2022. "Social acceptance toward constructing a combined heat and power plant near people's dwellings in South Korea," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 244(PB).
    20. Moffat, Kieren & Zhang, Airong, 2014. "The paths to social licence to operate: An integrative model explaining community acceptance of mining," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 61-70.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:aue:wpaper:2019. 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: Ekaterini Glynou (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diauegr.html .

    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.