IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i10p2840-d232334.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Co-Existence Options of Marine Renewable Energy Projects in Japan

Author

Listed:
  • A.H.T. Shyam Kularathna

    (Graduate Program in Sustainability Science-Global Leadership Initiative, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Room 334, Building of environmental studies, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8563, Japan)

  • Sayaka Suda

    (Department of Environment Systems, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8563, Japan)

  • Ken Takagi

    (Department of Ocean Technology, Policy, and Environment, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8563, Japan)

  • Shigeru Tabeta

    (Department of Environment Systems, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8563, Japan)

Abstract

Consensus building among local stakeholders is vital for the success of the proposed initial commercial marine renewable energy (MRE) projects in Japan. Even though the literature on stakeholder acceptance highlights the importance of creating local benefits and co-creation options, very few studies and almost no empirical data have been published on the application of non-monetary benefit creation schemes in the context of MRE. Hence, the purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the possible co-existence options available for Japan’s MRE projects through data collected from interviews and questionnaire surveys in two development sites in Nagasaki and Kitakyushu in Southern Japan. To overcome the limitations of data unavailability and uncertainty, the Dempster Shafer Analytic Hierarchy Process (DS-AHP) was used for evaluating the best co-existence strategy out of five potential options. The results indicate that local fisheries prefer the oceanographic information sharing option whereas most of the other stakeholders prefer using local resources to construct and operate the power plant, creating business involvement opportunities for the local community. Analysis of stakeholders’ decision behaviors suggests that perceived impacts, knowledge, and values influence the preference decision. In addition to the validation of stakeholder preference of the previously proposed co-existence options with empirical data, this study provides a robust method to further evaluate the potential options with the availability of new data.

Suggested Citation

  • A.H.T. Shyam Kularathna & Sayaka Suda & Ken Takagi & Shigeru Tabeta, 2019. "Evaluation of Co-Existence Options of Marine Renewable Energy Projects in Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-26, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:10:p:2840-:d:232334
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/10/2840/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/10/2840/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sathishkumar Nachimuthu & Ming J. Zuo & Yi Ding, 2019. "A Decision-making Model for Corrective Maintenance of Offshore Wind Turbines Considering Uncertainties," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-13, April.
    2. Allan, Grant & Gilmartin, Michelle & McGregor, Peter & Swales, Kim, 2011. "Levelised costs of Wave and Tidal energy in the UK: Cost competitiveness and the importance of "banded" Renewables Obligation Certificates," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 23-39, January.
    3. Firestone, Jeremy & Kempton, Willett, 2007. "Public opinion about large offshore wind power: Underlying factors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1584-1598, March.
    4. Westerberg, Vanja & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Lifran, Robert, 2013. "The case for offshore wind farms, artificial reefs and sustainable tourism in the French mediterranean," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 172-183.
    5. Raúl Cascajo & Emilio García & Eduardo Quiles & Antonio Correcher & Francisco Morant, 2019. "Integration of Marine Wave Energy Converters into Seaports: A Case Study in the Port of Valencia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-24, February.
    6. Aitken, Mhairi, 2010. "Wind power and community benefits: Challenges and opportunities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 6066-6075, October.
    7. Beynon, Malcolm, 2002. "DS/AHP method: A mathematical analysis, including an understanding of uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 148-164, July.
    8. Gimpel, Antje & Stelzenmüller, Vanessa & Grote, Britta & Buck, Bela H. & Floeter, Jens & Núñez-Riboni, Ismael & Pogoda, Bernadette & Temming, Axel, 2015. "A GIS modelling framework to evaluate marine spatial planning scenarios: Co-location of offshore wind farms and aquaculture in the German EEZ," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 102-115.
    9. Myhr, Anders & Bjerkseter, Catho & Ågotnes, Anders & Nygaard, Tor A., 2014. "Levelised cost of energy for offshore floating wind turbines in a life cycle perspective," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 714-728.
    10. Nunes, Paulo A.L.D. & Chiabai, Aline, 2006. "Economic Valuation of Oceanographic Forecasting Services: A Cost-Benefit Exercise," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12219, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    11. Reilly, Kieran & O’Hagan, Anne Marie & Dalton, Gordon, 2016. "Developing benefit schemes and financial compensation measures for fishermen impacted by marine renewable energy projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 161-170.
    12. Aline Chiabai & Paulo A.L.D. Nunes, 2006. "Economic Valuation of Oceanographic Forecasting Services: A Cost-Benefit Exercise," Working Papers 2006.104, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    13. Hooper, Tara & Austen, Melanie, 2014. "The co-location of offshore windfarms and decapod fisheries in the UK: Constraints and opportunities," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 295-300.
    14. Xiaoxia Gao & Lu Xia & Lin Lu & Yonghua Li, 2019. "Analysis of Hong Kong’s Wind Energy: Power Potential, Development Constraints, and Experiences from Other Countries for Local Wind Energy Promotion Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, February.
    15. Takvor H. Soukissian & Dimitra Denaxa & Flora Karathanasi & Aristides Prospathopoulos & Konstantinos Sarantakos & Athanasia Iona & Konstantinos Georgantas & Spyridon Mavrakos, 2017. "Marine Renewable Energy in the Mediterranean Sea: Status and Perspectives," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-56, September.
    16. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    17. Hooper, Tara & Ashley, Matthew & Austen, Melanie, 2015. "Perceptions of fishers and developers on the co-location of offshore wind farms and decapod fisheries in the UK," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 16-22.
    18. Mary E. Clayton & Ashlynn S. Stillwell & Michael E. Webber, 2014. "Implementation of Brackish Groundwater Desalination Using Wind-Generated Electricity: A Case Study of the Energy-Water Nexus in Texas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-21, February.
    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. Vanegas-Cantarero, María M. & Pennock, Shona & Bloise-Thomaz, Tianna & Jeffrey, Henry & Dickson, Matthew J., 2022. "Beyond LCOE: A multi-criteria evaluation framework for offshore renewable energy projects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    2. Joannes Olondriz & Josu Jugo & Iker Elorza & Santiago Alonso-Quesada and Aron Pujana-Arrese, 2019. "A Feedback Control Loop Optimisation Methodology for Floating Offshore Wind Turbines," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-12, September.

    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. Takvor H. Soukissian & Dimitra Denaxa & Flora Karathanasi & Aristides Prospathopoulos & Konstantinos Sarantakos & Athanasia Iona & Konstantinos Georgantas & Spyridon Mavrakos, 2017. "Marine Renewable Energy in the Mediterranean Sea: Status and Perspectives," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-56, September.
    2. Ho, Lip-Wah & Lie, Tek-Tjing & Leong, Paul TM & Clear, Tony, 2018. "Developing offshore wind farm siting criteria by using an international Delphi method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 53-67.
    3. Qu, Yang & Swales, J. Kim & Hooper, Tara & Austen, Melanie C. & Wang, Xinhao & Papathanasopoulou, Eleni & Huang, Junling & Yan, Xiaoyu, 2023. "Economic trade-offs in marine resource use between offshore wind farms and fisheries in Scottish waters," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    4. Danovaro, Roberto & Bianchelli, Silvia & Brambilla, Paola & Brussa, Gaia & Corinaldesi, Cinzia & Del Borghi, Adriana & Dell’Anno, Antonio & Fraschetti, Simonetta & Greco, Silvestro & Grosso, Mario & N, 2024. "Making eco-sustainable floating offshore wind farms: Siting, mitigations, and compensations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    5. Qu, Yang & Hooper, Tara & Austen, Melanie C. & Papathanasopoulou, Eleni & Huang, Junling & Yan, Xiaoyu, 2023. "Development of a computable general equilibrium model based on integrated macroeconomic framework for ocean multi-use between offshore wind farms and fishing activities in Scotland," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 332(C).
    6. Chenglong Guo & Wanan Sheng & Dakshina G. De Silva & George Aggidis, 2023. "A Review of the Levelized Cost of Wave Energy Based on a Techno-Economic Model," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-30, February.
    7. 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.
    8. Marianna Cavallo & Alicia Bugeja Said & José A Pérez Agúndez, 2023. "Who Is in and Who Is out in Ocean Economies Development?," Post-Print hal-04044150, HAL.
    9. Francesco Ferri & Simon Ambühl & Boris Fischer & Jens Peter Kofoed, 2014. "Balancing Power Output and Structural Fatigue of Wave Energy Converters by Means of Control Strategies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-28, April.
    10. Virtanen, E.A. & Lappalainen, J. & Nurmi, M. & Viitasalo, M. & Tikanmäki, M. & Heinonen, J. & Atlaskin, E. & Kallasvuo, M. & Tikkanen, H. & Moilanen, A., 2022. "Balancing profitability of energy production, societal impacts and biodiversity in offshore wind farm design," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    11. 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).
    12. Petrova, Maria A., 2016. "From NIMBY to acceptance: Toward a novel framework — VESPA — For organizing and interpreting community concerns," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1280-1294.
    13. Gebreslassie, Mulualem G., 2020. "Public perception and policy implications towards the development of new wind farms in Ethiopia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Lee, Min-Kyu & Nam, Jungho & Kim, Miju, 2023. "Valuing the public preference for offshore wind energy: The case study in South Korea," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(PB).
    16. Tomasz Laskowicz, 2021. "The Perception of Polish Business Stakeholders of the Local Economic Impact of Maritime Spatial Planning Promoting the Development of Offshore Wind Energy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    17. Dalton, Gordon & Allan, Grant & Beaumont, Nicola & Georgakaki, Aliki & Hacking, Nick & Hooper, Tara & Kerr, Sandy & O’Hagan, Anne Marie & Reilly, Kieran & Ricci, Pierpaolo & Sheng, Wanan & Stallard, T, 2015. "Economic and socio-economic assessment methods for ocean renewable energy: Public and private perspectives," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 850-878.
    18. Justin Moskolaï Ngossaha & Raymond Houé Ngouna & Bernard Archimède & Mihaela-Hermina Negulescu & Alexandru-Ionut Petrişor, 2024. "Toward Sustainable Urban Mobility: A Multidimensional Ontology-Based Framework for Assessment and Consensus Decision-Making Using DS-AHP," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-22, May.
    19. Quero García, Pablo & Chica Ruiz, Juan Adolfo & García Sanabria, Javier, 2020. "Blue energy and marine spatial planning in Southern Europe," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    20. Lande-Sudall, D. & Stallard, T. & Stansby, P., 2019. "Co-located deployment of offshore wind turbines with tidal stream turbine arrays for improved cost of electricity generation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 492-503.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:10:p:2840-:d:232334. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.