IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v122y2018icp639-648.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A values-based approach to energy controversies: Value-sensitive design applied to the Groningen gas controversy in the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Mouter, Niek
  • de Geest, Auke
  • Doorn, Neelke

Abstract

Many energy cases suffer from social opposition. It is increasingly asserted that paying due attention to the moral values involved in controversial energy cases may increase social acceptance. Value-sensitive design (VSD) has been recommended as a promising approach for addressing moral values in controversial energy cases. This paper aims to empirically explore the applicability of VSD in controversial energy cases by investigating the extent to which it is possible to identify the relevant values, norms and design requirements in the Groningen gas controversy (the Netherlands) using values hierarchies. It was found in this case that the relevant values, norms and design requirements could be retrieved, but that two conditions need to be fulfilled to avoid underexposure of relevant values. Firstly, data should be collected using a variety of data sources. Secondly, these sources should be analyzed through both top-down approaches and bottom-up approaches. We find that ‘Safety’ is a critical value in the Groningen case, while other critical values are related to securing ‘Procedural Justice’. Strikingly, the important procedural values ‘Trust’ and ‘Honesty’ did not translate into concrete policies. Policy makers can use values hierarchies to address moral values in energy cases and to translate these values into concrete measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Mouter, Niek & de Geest, Auke & Doorn, Neelke, 2018. "A values-based approach to energy controversies: Value-sensitive design applied to the Groningen gas controversy in the Netherlands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 639-648.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:122:y:2018:i:c:p:639-648
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.08.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518305275
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.08.020?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. 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.
    2. André Krouwel & Annemarie Elfrinkhof, 2014. "Combining strengths of methods of party positioning to counter their weaknesses: the development of a new methodology to calibrate parties on issues and ideological dimensions," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 1455-1472, May.
    3. Enevoldsen, Peter & Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2016. "Examining the social acceptance of wind energy: Practical guidelines for onshore wind project development in France," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 178-184.
    4. Kern, Florian, 2012. "Using the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions to assess innovation policy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 298-310.
    5. Vonk Noordegraaf, Diana & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2014. "Policy implementation lessons from six road pricing cases," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 172-191.
    6. 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.
    7. Mouter, Niek & Annema, Jan Anne & Wee, Bert van, 2013. "Attitudes towards the role of Cost–Benefit Analysis in the decision-making process for spatial-infrastructure projects: A Dutch case study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 1-14.
    8. Ardıç, Özgül & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2013. "Has the Dutch news media acted as a policy actor in the road pricing policy debate?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 47-63.
    9. Nadai, Alain, 2007. ""Planning", "siting" and the local acceptance of wind power: Some lessons from the French case," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2715-2726, May.
    10. Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2009. "Rejecting renewables: The socio-technical impediments to renewable electricity in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 4500-4513, November.
    11. Mouter, Niek & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2013. "Ranking the substantive problems in the Dutch Cost–Benefit Analysis practice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 241-255.
    12. 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.
    13. Geels, Frank W., 2004. "From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 897-920, September.
    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. Wander Vaart & Johannes Zouwen & Wil Dijkstra, 1995. "Retrospective questions: data quality, task difficulty, and the use of a checklist," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 299-315, August.
    16. Heffron, Raphael J. & McCauley, Darren, 2014. "Achieving sustainable supply chains through energy justice," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 435-437.
    17. Benjamin K. Sovacool & Raphael J. Heffron & Darren McCauley & Andreas Goldthau, 2016. "Energy decisions reframed as justice and ethical concerns," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 1(5), pages 1-6, May.
    18. Andreas Ligtvoet & Geerten de Kaa & Theo Fens & Cees Beers & Paulier Herder & Jeroen den Hoven, 2015. "Value Sensitive Design of Complex Product Systems," Public Administration and Information Technology, in: Marijn Janssen & Maria A. Wimmer & Ameneh Deljoo (ed.), Policy Practice and Digital Science, edition 127, chapter 8, pages 157-176, Springer.
    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. Esther C. van der Waal & Henny J. van der Windt & Rixt Botma & Ellen C. J. van Oost, 2020. "Being a Better Neighbor: A Value-Based Perspective on Negotiating Acceptability of Locally-Owned Wind Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-18, October.
    2. Katharine McGowan & Nino Antadze, 2023. "Recognizing the dark side of sustainability transitions," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 13(2), pages 344-349, June.

    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. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    2. Esther C. van der Waal & Henny J. van der Windt & Rixt Botma & Ellen C. J. van Oost, 2020. "Being a Better Neighbor: A Value-Based Perspective on Negotiating Acceptability of Locally-Owned Wind Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-18, October.
    3. Walker, Chad & Stephenson, Laura & Baxter, Jamie, 2018. "“His main platform is ‘stop the turbines’ ”: Political discourse, partisanship and local responses to wind energy in Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 670-681.
    4. Roddis, Philippa & Carver, Stephen & Dallimer, Martin & Norman, Paul & Ziv, Guy, 2018. "The role of community acceptance in planning outcomes for onshore wind and solar farms: An energy justice analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 226(C), pages 353-364.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    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. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. 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.
    11. Jenkins, Lekelia Danielle & Dreyer, Stacia Jeanne & Polis, Hilary Jacqueline & Beaver, Ezra & Kowalski, Adam A. & Linder, Hannah L. & McMillin, Thomas Neal & McTiernan, Kaylie Laura & Rogier, Thea The, 2018. "Human dimensions of tidal energy: A review of theories and frameworks," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 323-337.
    12. Maria De Salvo & Sandra Notaro & Giuseppe Cucuzza & Laura Giuffrida & Giovanni Signorello, 2021. "Protecting the Local Landscape or Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions? A Study on Social Acceptance and Preferences towards the Installation of a Wind Farm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-19, November.
    13. 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.
    14. Scherhaufer, Patrick & Höltinger, Stefan & Salak, Boris & Schauppenlehner, Thomas & Schmidt, Johannes, 2017. "Patterns of acceptance and non-acceptance within energy landscapes: A case study on wind energy expansion in Austria," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 863-870.
    15. Paul Lehmann & Felix Creutzig & Melf-Hinrich Ehlers & Nele Friedrichsen & Clemens Heuson & Lion Hirth & Robert Pietzcker, 2012. "Carbon Lock-Out: Advancing Renewable Energy Policy in Europe," Energies, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-32, February.
    16. Songsore, Emmanuel & Buzzelli, Michael, 2014. "Social responses to wind energy development in Ontario: The influence of health risk perceptions and associated concerns," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 285-296.
    17. Hübner, Gundula & Leschinger, Valentin & Müller, Florian J.Y. & Pohl, Johannes, 2023. "Broadening the social acceptance of wind energy – An Integrated Acceptance Model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    18. Russell, Aaron & Bingaman, Samantha & Garcia, Hannah-Marie, 2021. "Threading a moving needle: The spatial dimensions characterizing US offshore wind policy drivers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    19. 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.
    20. Maarten Wolsink, 2020. "Framing in Renewable Energy Policies: A Glossary," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-31, June.

    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:122:y:2018:i:c:p:639-648. 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.