IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v145y2020ics0301421520304092.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public participation in the German energy transformation: Examining empirically relevant factors of participation decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Ernst, Anna
  • Shamon, Hawal

Abstract

Public participation is often part of planning and decision-making processes relating to the German energy transformation (Energiewende). Factors influencing the active involvement of individuals have not been fully investigated, although these factors may impact the outcome of participatory decision making. However, a few concepts are discussed relating to what kind of people participate in governance processes: political efficacy, place attachment, value orientation, and sociodemographic characteristics. We further assumed that the aspects of attitudes toward renewable energy technologies, general knowledge about environment and energy, specific knowledge about electricity-generating technologies, personality strength, and living situation might influence people's participation in planning and decision making related to energy issues. In this study, we examine the relevance of these concepts based on a survey for which (n=) 2400 respondents were recruited from an access panel to build up a quota sample on the three crossed characteristics: gender, age, and school education. Many of the respondents are aware of participation options but very few become actively engaged in participation processes. The multivariate analyses conducted showed that attitudes towards renewable energy technologies, value orientation towards nature, political efficacy, personality strength, and individuals' specific knowledge have a strong influence on whether someone becomes actively involved or not.

Suggested Citation

  • Ernst, Anna & Shamon, Hawal, 2020. "Public participation in the German energy transformation: Examining empirically relevant factors of participation decisions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:145:y:2020:i:c:s0301421520304092
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111680
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421520304092
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111680?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. John R Parkins & A John Sinclair, 2014. "Patterns of Elitism within Participatory Environmental Governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(4), pages 746-761, August.
    3. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, Kris & de Groot, Rudolf S. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2006. "Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 209-228, May.
    4. Kahla, Franziska & Holstenkamp, Lars & Müller, Jakob R. & Degenhart, Heinrich, 2017. "Entwicklung und Stand von Bürgerenergiegesellschaften und Energiegenossenschaften in Deutschland [Development and State of Community Energy Companies and Energy Cooperatives in Germany]," MPRA Paper 81261, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. David Bidwell, 2016. "Thinking through participation in renewable energy decisions," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 1(5), pages 1-4, May.
    6. Tomas M. Koontz, 2014. "Social learning in collaborative watershed planning: the importance of process control and efficacy," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(10), pages 1572-1593, October.
    7. Tomas M. Koontz & Elizabeth Moore Johnson, 2004. "One size does not fit all: Matching breadth of stakeholder participation to watershed group accomplishments," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 37(2), pages 185-204, June.
    8. Anna Ernst, 2018. "Does Participation Foster Transformation Processes towards Sustainable Energy Systems? A Case Study of the German Energy Transformation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-27, November.
    9. Vanda Carreira & João Reis Machado & Lia Vasconcelos, 2016. "Engaging Citizen Participation—A Result of Trusting Governmental Institutions and Politicians in the Portuguese Democracy," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-11, August.
    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. Schallehn, Frauke & Valogianni, Konstantina, 2022. "Sustainability awareness and smart meter privacy concerns: The cases of US and Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 161(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. Joshua Otieno WANGA & Patrick Odhiambo HAYOMBE & Pius Ongoro ODUNGA & Fredrick Z.A. ODEDE, 2013. "The Nexus between environmental knowledge and ecotourism attitude among the local youths in Co-educational Secondary Schools in Bondo Sub-County, Siaya County, Kenya," International Journal of Business and Social Research, LAR Center Press, vol. 3(7), pages 103-116, July.
    2. Rodríguez-Ortega, T. & Olaizola, A.M. & Bernués, A., 2018. "A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 74-84.
    3. Brendan Fisher & Stephen Polasky & Thomas Sterner, 2011. "Conservation and Human Welfare: Economic Analysis of Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 151-159, February.
    4. Bhatta, Arun & Bigsby, Hugh R. & Cullen, Ross, 2011. "Alternative to Comprehensive Ecosystem Services Markets: The Contribution of Forest-Related Programs in New Zealand," 2011 Conference, August 25-26, 2011, Nelson, New Zealand 115350, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    5. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Tobias D. Ketterer, 2012. "Do Local Amenities Affect The Appeal Of Regions In Europe For Migrants?," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(4), pages 535-561, October.
    6. Buchecker, Matthias & Hunziker, Marcel, 2006. "The effect of consensus building processes on regional collaboration," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 1-12, January.
    7. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    8. Matzek, Virginia & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Kragt, Marit, 2019. "Mainstreaming of ecosystem services as a rationale for ecological restoration in Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 79-86.
    9. McVittie, Alistair & Norton, Lisa & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Siameti, Ioanna & Glenk, Klaus & Aalders, Inge, 2015. "Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach using Bayesian Belief Networks: An application to riparian buffer strips," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 15-27.
    10. Healy, Hali, 2023. "Pulp and participation: Assessing the legitimacy of participatory environmental governance in Umkomaas, South Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    11. de Groot, Rudolf & Brander, Luke & van der Ploeg, Sander & Costanza, Robert & Bernard, Florence & Braat, Leon & Christie, Mike & Crossman, Neville & Ghermandi, Andrea & Hein, Lars & Hussain, Salman & , 2012. "Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 50-61.
    12. Florian Wagener, 2013. "Shallow lake economics run deep: nonlinear aspects of an economic-ecological interest conflict," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 423-450, December.
    13. Makovníková Jarmila & Pálka Boris & Kološta Stanislav & Flaška Filip & Orságová Katarína & Spišiaková Mária, 2020. "Non-Monetary Assessment and Mapping of the Potential of Agroecosystem Services in Rural Slovakia," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(2), pages 257-276, June.
    14. Jiayi Zhou & Kangning Xiong & Qi Wang & Jiuhan Tang & Li Lin, 2022. "A Review of Ecological Assets and Ecological Products Supply: Implications for the Karst Rocky Desertification Control," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-20, August.
    15. Clare Bayley & Simon French, 2008. "Designing a Participatory Process for Stakeholder Involvement in a Societal Decision," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 195-210, May.
    16. Larson, Silva & Stoeckl, Natalie & Neil, Barbara & Welters, Riccardo, 2013. "Using resident perceptions of values associated with the Australian Tropical Rivers to identify policy and management priorities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 9-18.
    17. Susana Toboso‐Chavero & Gara Villalba & Xavier Gabarrell Durany & Cristina Madrid‐López, 2021. "More than the sum of the parts: System analysis of the usability of roofs in housing estates," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 25(5), pages 1284-1299, October.
    18. Carlos Quiroz Dahik & Patricio Crespo & Bernd Stimm & Felipe Murtinho & Michael Weber & Patrick Hildebrandt, 2018. "Contrasting Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Pine Plantations in the Páramo Ecosystem of Ecuador," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-23, May.
    19. Heink, Ulrich & Jax, Kurt, 2019. "Going Upstream — How the Purpose of a Conceptual Framework for Ecosystem Services Determines Its Structure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 264-271.
    20. Pattison-Williams, John K. & Pomeroy, John W. & Badiou, Pascal & Gabor, Shane, 2018. "Wetlands, Flood Control and Ecosystem Services in the Smith Creek Drainage Basin: A Case Study in Saskatchewan, Canada," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 36-47.

    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:145:y:2020:i:c:s0301421520304092. 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.