IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v66y2021ics0160791x21001287.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The meaning of participative implementation processes for local energy balancing in a systemic approach

Author

Listed:
  • Knemeyer, Ann-Katrin
  • Ehrenstein, Ulrike
  • Becker, Daniela
  • Hildebrand, Jan
  • Schweizer-Ries, Petra

Abstract

Within an interdisciplinary, participatory and transformative research approach, a multi-method research design was used to examine acceptance criteria of energy balancing technologies. Energy balancing is important to integrate the increasing amount of renewable energies efficiently into the energy supply system: due to the fluctuating power production from wind and solar power plants flexibilities are needed. The study applied a holistic, systemic perspective, not only focused on the technologies, but also on consumers, producers and the interwining of both. Within the study, a mixture of balancing technologies, suitable for decentralized energy systems on a regional or local level, took center stage. The most relevant stakeholders to define acceptable pathways for planning and realization processes for decentralized energy balancing concepts are in the focus of interest. They are identified as decision holders to foster the implementation of energy balancing. For environmental planning, regional participation and related governance processes results state a lack of awareness for the necessity of energy balancing. A shared understanding of future energy balancing needs and possibilities within respective regarded areas is crucial besides administrative boundaries of e.g. municipalities. Furthermore, different levels to integrate municipal stakeholders and citizens in an adapted planning process for energy balancing concepts have been identified and a prototype of a strategic planning tool was developed and tested.

Suggested Citation

  • Knemeyer, Ann-Katrin & Ehrenstein, Ulrike & Becker, Daniela & Hildebrand, Jan & Schweizer-Ries, Petra, 2021. "The meaning of participative implementation processes for local energy balancing in a systemic approach," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:66:y:2021:i:c:s0160791x21001287
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101653
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X21001287
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101653?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. Zoellner, Jan & Schweizer-Ries, Petra & Wemheuer, Christin, 2008. "Public acceptance of renewable energies: Results from case studies in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 4136-4141, November.
    2. Schweizer-Ries, Petra, 2008. "Energy sustainable communities: Environmental psychological investigations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 4126-4135, November.
    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. Dessi, F. & Ariccio, S. & Albers, T. & Alves, S. & Ludovico, N. & Bonaiuto, M., 2022. "Sustainable technology acceptability: Mapping technological, contextual, and social-psychological determinants of EU stakeholders’ biofuel acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    2. Yuan, Xueliang & Zuo, Jian & Ma, Chunyuan, 2011. "Social acceptance of solar energy technologies in China--End users' perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1031-1036, March.
    3. Lisiak-Zielińska, Marta & Jałoszyńska, Sylwia & Borowiak, Klaudia & Budka, Anna & Dach, Jacek, 2023. "Perception of biogas plants: A public awareness and preference - A case study for the agricultural landscape," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    4. Kortsch, Timo & Hildebrand, Jan & Schweizer-Ries, Petra, 2015. "Acceptance of biomass plants – Results of a longitudinal study in the bioenergy-region Altmark," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 690-697.
    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. 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. Sarrica, Mauro & Biddau, Fulvio & Brondi, Sonia & Cottone, Paolo & Mazzara, Bruno M., 2018. "A multi-scale examination of public discourse on energy sustainability in Italy: Empirical evidence and policy implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 444-454.
    8. Sherry-Brennan, Fionnguala & Devine-Wright, Hannah & Devine-Wright, Patrick, 2010. "Public understanding of hydrogen energy: A theoretical approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 5311-5319, October.
    9. Karakislak, Irmak & Schneider, Nina, 2023. "The mayor said so? The impact of local political figures and social norms on local responses to wind energy projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    10. Bauwens, Thomas & Devine-Wright, Patrick, 2018. "Positive energies? An empirical study of community energy participation and attitudes to renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 612-625.
    11. Schumacher, K. & Krones, F. & McKenna, R. & Schultmann, F., 2019. "Public acceptance of renewable energies and energy autonomy: A comparative study in the French, German and Swiss Upper Rhine region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 315-332.
    12. Ali Arababadi & Stephan Leyer & Joachim Hansen & Reza Arababadi & Gloria Pignatta, 2021. "Characterizing the Theory of Energy Transition in Luxembourg, Part Two—On Energy Enthusiasts’ Viewpoints," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-18, November.
    13. van der Schoor, Tineke & Scholtens, Bert, 2015. "Power to the people: Local community initiatives and the transition to sustainable energy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 666-675.
    14. Friedl, Christina & Reichl, Johannes, 2016. "Realizing energy infrastructure projects – A qualitative empirical analysis of local practices to address social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 184-193.
    15. 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.
    16. Klein, Sharon J.W. & Coffey, Stephanie, 2016. "Building a sustainable energy future, one community at a time," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 867-880.
    17. L. Mundaca & H. Moncreiff, 2021. "New Perspectives on Green Energy Defaults," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 357-383, September.
    18. Niken Prilandita & Benjamin McLellan & Tetsuo Tezuka, 2017. "Evaluation Method for Autonomous Decision-Making Performance in Energy and Environmental Innovations: A Case Study of an Indonesian Community," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-22, January.
    19. Olivia Muza & Ramit Debnath, 2020. "Socially inclusive renewable energy transition in sub-Saharan Africa: A social shaping of technology analysis of appliance uptake in Rwanda," Working Papers EPRG2017, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    20. Frate, Claudio Albuquerque & Brannstrom, Christian, 2017. "Stakeholder subjectivities regarding barriers and drivers to the introduction of utility-scale solar photovoltaic power in Brazil," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 346-352.

    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:teinso:v:66:y:2021:i:c:s0160791x21001287. 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.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    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.