IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/juipol/v64y2020ics0957178720300175.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fighting fruitfully? Participation and conflict in the context of electricity grid extension in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Kamlage, Jan-Hendrik
  • Drewing, Emily
  • Reinermann, Julia Lena
  • de Vries, Nicole
  • Flores, Marissa

Abstract

The transition towards renewable energy production is widely supported by the German population. However, resistance against its tangible manifestations grows. The electricity grid expansion is a highly contested field: seen as crucial to the Energiewende's success, associated projects encounter protest and fierce opposition all over the country, irrespective of public participation allowed for at several stages of planning. Informed by theoretical elaborations on conflict and dialogue-oriented participation, we analyze a selection of 19 studies on participation and protest in the context of grid expansion. Our contribution confirms the significance of communication and public participation for dealing with conflicts and protest.

Suggested Citation

  • Kamlage, Jan-Hendrik & Drewing, Emily & Reinermann, Julia Lena & de Vries, Nicole & Flores, Marissa, 2020. "Fighting fruitfully? Participation and conflict in the context of electricity grid extension in Germany," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:juipol:v:64:y:2020:i:c:s0957178720300175
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jup.2020.101022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957178720300175
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jup.2020.101022?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. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    2. Schweizer, Pia-Johanna & Bovet, Jana, 2016. "The potential of public participation to facilitate infrastructure decision-making: Lessons from the German and European legal planning system for electricity grid expansion," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 64-73.
    3. Lienert, Pascal & Suetterlin, Bernadette & Siegrist, Michael, 2015. "Public acceptance of the expansion and modification of high-voltage power lines in the context of the energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 573-583.
    4. Weber Florian & Jenal Corinna & Rossmeier Albert & Kühne Olaf, 2017. "Conflicts around Germany’s Energiewende: Discourse patterns of citizens’ initiatives," Quaestiones Geographicae, Sciendo, vol. 36(4), pages 117-130, December.
    5. Bertsch, Valentin & Hall, Margeret & Weinhardt, Christof & Fichtner, Wolf, 2016. "Public acceptance and preferences related to renewable energy and grid expansion policy: Empirical insights for Germany," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 465-477.
    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. Rodrigo A. Estévez & Valeria Espinoza & Roberto D. Ponce Oliva & Felipe Vásquez-Lavín & Stefan Gelcich, 2021. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Renewable Energies: Research Trends, Gaps and the Challenge of Improving Participation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-13, March.
    2. Xiong, Bobby & Predel, Johannes & Crespo del Granado, Pedro & Egging-Bratseth, Ruud, 2021. "Spatial flexibility in redispatch: Supporting low carbon energy systems with Power-to-Gas," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 283(C).
    3. Karsten Berr & Petra Lohmann & Olaf Kühne, 2023. "The Contributions of Philosophy and the Social Sciences to Landscape Conflict Research—A Critical Comparison," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-23, December.
    4. Olaf Kühne & Lara Koegst & Marie-Luise Zimmer & Greta Schäffauer, 2021. "“... Inconceivable, Unrealistic and Inhumane”. Internet Communication on the Flood Disaster in West Germany of July 2021 between Conspiracy Theories and Moralization—A Neopragmatic Explorative Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-22, October.
    5. Radtke, Jörg & Scherhaufer, Patrick, 2022. "A social science perspective on conflicts in the energy transition: An introduction to the special issue," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    6. Corinna Jenal & Sven Endreß & Olaf Kühne & Caroline Zylka, 2021. "Technological Transformation Processes and Resistance—On the Conflict Potential of 5G Using the Example of 5G Network Expansion in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-20, December.
    7. Norman Hendrik Riedel & Miroslav Špaček, 2022. "Challenges of Renewable Energy Sourcing in the Process Industries: The Example of the German Chemical Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-19, October.

    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. Arcia-Garibaldi, Guadalupe & Cruz-Romero, Pedro & Gómez-Expósito, Antonio, 2018. "Future power transmission: Visions, technologies and challenges," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 285-301.
    2. Mueller, Christoph Emanuel, 2020. "Why do residents participate in high-voltage transmission line planning procedures? Findings from two power grid expansion regions in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    3. Fink, Simon & Ruffing, Eva, 2020. "Learning in iterated consultation procedures – The example of the German electricity grid demand planning," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    4. Emmerich, Philip & Hülemeier, Anna-Gesina & Jendryczko, David & Baumann, Manuel Johann & Weil, Marcel & Baur, Dorothee, 2020. "Public acceptance of emerging energy technologies in context of the German energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    5. Sharpton, Tara & Lawrence, Thomas & Hall, Margeret, 2020. "Drivers and barriers to public acceptance of future energy sources and grid expansion in the United States," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    6. Escribano, Gonzalo & González-Enríquez, Carmen & Lázaro-Touza, Lara & Paredes-Gázquez, Juandiego, 2023. "An energy union without interconnections? Public acceptance of cross-border interconnectors in four European countries," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    7. Mueller, Christoph Emanuel & Keil, Silke Inga & Bauer, Christian, 2019. "Underground cables vs. overhead lines: Quasi-experimental evidence for the effects on public risk expectations, attitudes, and protest behavior," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 456-466.
    8. Kim, Hyunggeun & Park, Sangkyu & Lee, Jongsu, 2021. "Is renewable energy acceptable with power grid expansion? A quantitative study of South Korea's renewable energy acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    9. Linzenich, Anika & Arning, Katrin & Ziefle, Martina, 2021. "Acceptance of energy technologies in context: Comparing laypeople's risk perceptions across eight infrastructure technologies in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    10. David Huckebrink & Valentin Bertsch, 2021. "Integrating Behavioural Aspects in Energy System Modelling—A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-26, July.
    11. Koecklin, Manuel Tong & Longoria, Genaro & Fitiwi, Desta Z. & DeCarolis, Joseph F. & Curtis, John, 2021. "Public acceptance of renewable electricity generation and transmission network developments: Insights from Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    12. Raman Kachurka & Michał W. Krawczyk & Joanna Rachubik, 2021. "Persuasive messages will not raise COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Evidence from a nation-wide online experiment," Working Papers 2021-07, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    13. James K. Hammitt, 2020. "Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 129-154, October.
    14. Huaiyuan Zhai & Mengjie Li & Shengyue Hao & Mingli Chen & Lingchen Kong, 2021. "How Does Metro Maintenance Staff’s Risk Perception Influence Safety Citizenship Behavior—The Mediating Role of Safety Attitude," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-20, May.
    15. Scorgie, Fiona & Khoza, Nomhle & Delany-Moretlwe, Sinead & Velloza, Jennifer & Mangxilana, Nomvuyo & Atujuna, Millicent & Chitukuta, Miria & Matambanadzo, Kudzai V. & Hosek, Sybil & Makhale, Lerato & , 2021. "Narrative sexual histories and perceptions of HIV risk among young women taking PrEP in southern Africa: Findings from a novel participatory method," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 270(C).
    16. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    17. Branden B. Johnson, 2017. "Explaining Americans’ responses to dread epidemics: an illustration with Ebola in late 2014," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(10), pages 1338-1357, October.
    18. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    19. Robinson, Angela & Covey, Judith & Spencer, Anne & Loomes, Graham, 2010. "Are some deaths worse than others? The effect of 'labelling' on people's perceptions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 444-455, June.
    20. Kai Greenlees & Randolph Cornelius, 2021. "The promise of panarchy in managed retreat: converging psychological perspectives and complex adaptive systems theory," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(3), pages 503-510, September.

    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:juipol:v:64:y:2020:i:c:s0957178720300175. 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: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/utilities-policy .

    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.