Social Acceptance and Its Role for Planning Technology Infrastructure - A Position Paper, Taking Wind Power Plants as an Example

Barbara S. Zaunbrecher, Martina Ziefle

2015

Abstract

It will be argued that there are major social gaps in the planning of complex energy infrastructure for public spaces: the first "gap" concerns the question if social acceptance can be reliably measured. The second “gap” refers to the lack of an integration of results from acceptance research into current planning procedures. Taking wind farm planning as an example, both social gaps are discussed and an integrative planning procedure is advocated. Finally, requirements for a user-centered planning process are formulated.

References

  1. Álvarez-Farizo, B., Hanley, N., 2002. Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain. Energy Policy 30, 107-116.
  2. Arning, K., Kowalewski, S., Ziefle, M., 2014. Health Concerns vs. Mobile Data Needs: Conjoint Measurement of Preferences for Mobile Communication Network Scenarios. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J. 20, 1359-1384.
  3. Atkinson, G., Day, B., Mourato, S., Palmer, C., 2004. “Amenity” or “eyesore”? Negative willingness to pay for options to replace electricity transmission towers. Appl. Econ. Lett. 11, 203-208.
  4. Baxter, J., Morzaria, R., Hirsch, R., 2013. A case-control study of support/opposition to wind turbines: Perceptions of health risk, economic benefits, and community conflict. Energy Policy 61, 931-943.
  5. Bishop, I.D., Miller, D.R., 2007. Visual assessment of offshore wind turbines: The influence of distance, contrast, movement and social variables. Renew. Energy 32, 814-831.
  6. Cavallaro, F., Ciraolo, L., 2005. A multicriteria approach to evaluate wind energy plants on an Italian island. Energy Policy 33, 235-244.
  7. Cowell, R., Bristow, G., Munday, M., 2011. Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: the role of community benefits in wind energy development. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 54, 539-557.
  8. Decree on Windpower from 11th July 2011. [Erlass für die Planung und Genehmigung von Windenergieanlagen und Hinweise für die Zielsetzung und Anwendung (Windenergie-Erlass) Gem. Az. VIII2 - Winderlass, Az. X A 1 - 901.3/202 und Az. III B 4 - 30.55.03.01]
  9. Davis, F.D., 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13, 319-340.
  10. Devine-Wright, P., 2005. Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 8, 125-139.
  11. Devine-Wright, P., Batel, S., 2013. Explaining public preferences for high voltage pylon designs: An empirical study of perceived fit in a rural landscape. Land Use Policy 31, 640-649.
  12. Dimitropoulos, A., Kontoleon, A., 2009. Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of wind-farm investment: A choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands. Energy Policy 37, 1842-1854.
  13. Dowd, A.-M., Boughen, N., Ashworth, P., Carr-Cornish, S., 2011. Geothermal technology in Australia: Investigating social acceptance. Energy Policy 39, 6301-6307.
  14. Ek, K., 2005. Public and private attitudes towards “green” electricity: the case of Swedish wind power. Energy Policy 33, 1677-1689.
  15. Graham, J.B., Stephenson, J.R., Smith, I.J., 2009. Public perceptions of wind energy developments: Case studies from New Zealand. Energy Policy 37, 3348- 3357.
  16. Gross, C., 2007. Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance. Energy Policy 35, 2727-2736.
  17. Jobert, A., Laborgne, P., Mimler, S., 2007. Local acceptance of wind energy: Factors of success identified in French and German case studies. Energy Policy 35, 2751-2760.
  18. Johansson, M., Laike, T., 2007. Intention to respond to local wind turbines: the role of attitudes and visual perception. Wind Energy 10, 435-451.
  19. Kowalewski, S., Arning, K., Minwegen, A., Ziefle, M., Ascheid, G., 2013. Extending the Engineering TradeOff Analysis by Integrating User Preferences in Conjoint Analysis. Expert Syst. Appl. 40, 2947-2955.
  20. Kowalewski, S., Borg, A., Kluge, J., Himmel, S., Trevisan, B., Eraßme, D., Ziefle, M., Jakobs, E.-M., 2014. Modeling the Influence of Human Factors on the Perception of Renewable Energies. Taking Geothermics as Example. In: Advances in Human Factors, Software and System Engineering, 155-162.
  21. Krohn, S., Damborg, S., 1999. On public attitudes towards wind power. Renew. Energy 16, 954-960.
  22. McLaren Loring, J., 2007. Wind energy planning in England, Wales and Denmark: Factors influencing project success. Energy Policy 35, 2648-2660.
  23. Pasqualetti, M.J., 2000. Morality, Space, and the Power of Wind-Energy Landscapes. Geogr. Rev. 90, 381-394.
  24. Pedersen, E., van den Berg, F., Bakker, R., Bouma, J., 2009. Response to noise from modern wind farms in The Netherlands. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 126, 634-643.
  25. Renn, O., 1998. Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and new challenges. J. Risk Res. 1, 49-71.
  26. Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Cousin, M.-E., 2006. Implicit Attitudes Toward Nuclear Power and Mobile Phone Base Stations: Support for the Affect Heuristic. Risk Anal. 26, 1021-1029.
  27. Soini, K., Pouta, E., Salmiovirta, M., Uusitalo, M., Kivinen, T., 2011. Local residents' perceptions of energy landscape: the case of transmission lines. Land Use Policy 28, 294-305.
  28. Songsore, E., Buzzelli, M., 2014. Social responses to wind energy development in Ontario: The influence of health risk perceptions and associated concerns. Energy Policy 69, 285-296.
  29. Sustainable Energy Ireland, 2003. Attitudes towards the Development of wind farms in Ireland. URL: http://www.sei.ie/uploadedfiles/RenewableEnergy/Atti tudestowardswind.pdf
  30. Swofford, J., Slattery, M., 2010. Public attitudes of wind energy in Texas: Local communities in close proximity to wind farms and their effect on decisionmaking. Energy Policy 38, 2508-2519.
  31. Vorkinn, M., Riese, H., 2001. Environmental Concern in a Local Context The Significance of Place Attachment. Environ. Behav. 33, 249-263.
  32. Wimmler, C., Hejazi, G., de Oliveira Fernandes, E., Moreira, C., Connors, S., 2015. Multi-Criteria Decision Support Methods for Renewable Energy Systems on Islands. J. Clean Energy Technol. 3, 185- 195.
  33. Wolsink, M., 2000. Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renew. Energy 21, 49-64.
  34. Zaunbrecher, B.S., Kowalewski, S., Ziefle, M., 2014. The Willingness to Adopt Technologies: A Cross-Sectional Study on the Influence of Technical Self-efficacy on Acceptance, in: Human-Computer Interaction. Applications and Services. SPRINGER, 764-775.
  35. Ziefle, M., Schaar, A.K., 2011. Gender differences in acceptance and attitudes towards an invasive medical stent. Electron. J. Health Inform. 6, e13.
  36. Dimitropoulos and Kontoleon (2009)
  37. Bishop and Miller (2007)
  38. Lee (1989)
  39. Sustainable Energy Ireland (2003)
  40. Ek (2005)
  41. Bishop and Miller (2007), Swofford and Slattery
  42. (2010), Sustainable Energy Ireland (2003)
  43. Graham et al. (2009)
  44. Graham et al. (2009)
  45. Jobert et al. (2007)
  46. Jobert et al. (2007), Johansson and Laike (2007)
  47. Jobert et al. (2007)
  48. Krohn and Damborg (1999)
  49. Álvarez-Farizo and Hanley (2002)
  50. Álvarez-Farizo and Hanley (2002)
  51. Dimitropoulos and Kontoleon (2009)
  52. Graham et al. (2009)
  53. Álvarez-Farizo and Hanley (2002)
  54. Baxter et al. (2013), Dimitropoulos and Kontoleon
  55. (2009), Graham et al. (2009), Jobert et al. (2007)
  56. Baxter et al. (2013)
  57. Graham et al. (2009)
  58. Jobert et al. (2007)
  59. Jobert et al. (2007), Sustainable Energy Ireland
  60. Baxter et al. (2013), Songsore and Buzzelli (2014)
  61. Pedersen et al. (2009)
  62. Baxter et al. (2013), Graham et al. (2009)
  63. Cowell et al. (2011)
  64. Johansson and Laike (2007)
  65. Vorkinn and Riese (2001)
  66. Dimitropoulos and Kontoleon (2009)
  67. Gross (2007), Songsore and Buzzelli (2014)
  68. Jobert et al. (2007), McLaren Loring (2007)
  69. Wolsink (2000)
  70. Jobert et al. (2007)
  71. Graham et al. (2009)
  72. Ek (2005)
  73. Ek (2005)
  74. Graham et al. (2009)
  75. Graham et al. (2009)
  76. Pasqualetti (2000)
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

S. Zaunbrecher B. and Ziefle M. (2015). Social Acceptance and Its Role for Planning Technology Infrastructure - A Position Paper, Taking Wind Power Plants as an Example . In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems - Volume 1: SMARTGREENS, ISBN 978-989-758-105-2, pages 60-65. DOI: 10.5220/0005480600600065


in Bibtex Style

@conference{smartgreens15,
author={Barbara S. Zaunbrecher and Martina Ziefle},
title={Social Acceptance and Its Role for Planning Technology Infrastructure - A Position Paper, Taking Wind Power Plants as an Example},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems - Volume 1: SMARTGREENS,},
year={2015},
pages={60-65},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0005480600600065},
isbn={978-989-758-105-2},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems - Volume 1: SMARTGREENS,
TI - Social Acceptance and Its Role for Planning Technology Infrastructure - A Position Paper, Taking Wind Power Plants as an Example
SN - 978-989-758-105-2
AU - S. Zaunbrecher B.
AU - Ziefle M.
PY - 2015
SP - 60
EP - 65
DO - 10.5220/0005480600600065