Using Scenarios for Interdisciplinary Energy Research

A Process Model

Barbara S. Zaunbrecher

, Thomas Bexten

, Jan Martin Specht

, Manfred Wirsum

, Reinhard

Madlener

and Martina Zieﬂe

Chair of Communication Science, Human-Computer Interaction Center, RWTH Aachen University,

Campus Boulevard 57, 52074 Aachen, Germany

Chair and Institute of Power Plant Technology, Steam and Gas Turbines, RWTH Aachen University,

Templergraben 55, 52062 Aachen, Germany

Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN), E.ON Energy Research Center, RWTH Aachen University,

Mathieustr. 10, 52074 Aachen, Germany

Keywords:

Renewable Energy, Social Acceptance, Economics, Technology, Interdisciplinarity, Electricity Storage.

Abstract:

The transition towards renewable energies is not only a technical, but also an economic and social challenge.

Without an economic perspective that takes into account risk and uncertainty, a technically feasible scenario

can easily lead to ﬁnancial losses. Likewise, a technically and economically feasible scenario which is not in

line with public acceptance is difﬁcult to implement and the diffusion of new technologies is hindered. It is

therefore apparent that, for a holistic evaluation, new energy scenarios need to be considered from more than

one perspective. The challenge in an interdisciplinary approach is to ﬁnd a common analytical framework,

which is a prerequisite to be able to integrate data and combine approaches from different disciplines into

one holistic model. This paper suggests a process model for interdisciplinary collaboration and argues how

within these, scenarios can be used as common frames of reference by taking a current interdisciplinary energy

project as example. Finally, challenges and opportunities of the process model are discussed.

1 INTRODUCTION

Sustainable energy production is a global challenge.

While the necessity of turning away from fossil fuels

towards renewables is widely acknowledged and sup-

ported by the general public (Zoellner et al., 2008),

speciﬁc energy projects have raised protests by (lo-

cal) residents, especially large scale technologies and

associated infrastructures (e.g., wind farms, transmis-

sion lines) (W

ustenhagen et al., 2007). While in the

past, hindered diffusion and a lack of social accep-

tance also occurred, the scope, pace and organiza-

tion of protest has dramatically changed (Marg et al.,

2013), delaying projects and leaving residents unsa-

tisﬁed with the development process (Gross, 2007).

Among other reasons, this might be due to the fact

that technology development predominantly consi-

ders technical, structural, or economic criteria, while

social factors are often only integrated (if at all) at

the very end of the research process (Zaunbrecher and

Zieﬂe, 2016). A human-centered technology deve-

lopment process, also for energy technologies, thus

needs to include social factors already in early pha-

ses. To achieve this, the interdisciplinary alignment of

the adopted approaches is necessary. With interdisci-

plinarity, “a coordinated collaboration between rese-

archers from at least two different disciplines, which

can manifest itself in a simple exchange of ideas to

the point of integration of methods, concepts and the-

ories” is referred to (Hamann et al., 2016). It has

been understood that a unidisciplinary perspective is

not sufﬁcient to understand global challenges like cli-

mate change or energy supply (Wilson, 2009), be-

cause these complex topics contain questions which

cannot be answered by one discipline alone, but need

the knowledge, methods and approaches of different

disciplines. Nevertheless, up until now, no process

model exists with speciﬁc guidelines how disciplines

can collaborate to successfully achieve interdiscipli-

narity.

While the fact that interdisciplinarity as a key

for understanding complex problems is increasingly

acknowledged, and evolving into a general core aca-

demic competence (Boddington et al., 2016), the edu-

Zaunbrecher, B., Bexten, T., Specht, J., Wirsum, M., Madlener, R. and Zieﬂe, M.

Using Scenarios for Interdisciplinary Energy Research - A Process Model.

DOI: 10.5220/0006355702930298

In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems (SMARTGREENS 2017), pages 293-298

ISBN: 978-989-758-241-7

293

cation at universities does not systematically incorpo-

rate interdisciplinarity as an inherent component of

content-related questions across disciplines and it is

rather treated as a stand-alone competence. Thus, spe-

ciﬁc research questions are mostly handled within the

narrow limits of disciplines, and, if at all, possibly

opened up for other disciplinary perspectives after the

disciplinary approach is already ﬁnalized.

We argue that this shortcoming of academic edu-

cation is due to the lack of a balanced methodolo-

gical procedure, such as a process model, which al-

lows to integrate the essential perspectives from the

beginning of the problem-solving approach. In this

paper, a conceptualization of interdisciplinary rese-

arch is presented, in which scenarios play a key role

for interdisciplinary collaboration. The model is de-

signed to overcome barriers of interdisciplinary work

such as diverse disciplinary perspectives, formed by

different knowledge, socio-cultural upbringing, a dif-

ferent cognitive thinking, languages, methodologies,

and code of practices (Lattuca, 2002; Hamann et al.,

2016). The approach presented can be transferred to

other interdisciplinary projects.

2 INTERDISCIPLINARY

PROCESS MODEL

The process model (Figure 1) described in this chap-

ter is exemplarily applied to the interdisciplinary

energy project “KESS”, in which researchers of the

disciplines communication science and linguistics

(=social perspective), mechanical and electrical engi-

neering (=technical perspective), and economics are

involved, exploring future energy supply for muni-

cipalities. In order to illustrate the interdisciplinary

procedure, we ﬁrst describe the process model in an

abstract way and then elaborate on the speciﬁc energy

scenarios used. The process model describes a conti-

nuum, from an “informal communication of ideas” to

“formal collaboration” (Lattuca, 2002).

In stage one, the three perspectives (technical,

economic, social) are marginally connected by the

common research object “energy supply for munici-

palities”. Each member approaches the topic from its

own perspective, with its own methods. This also me-

ans that there are mostly unidisciplinary research que-

stions, such as the interconnectivity between different

technical parameters in the system from a technical

perspective (Bexten et al., 2016b), or the perception

of single components of the system from a social per-

spective (Zaunbrecher et al., 2017). For these studies,

the research object (scenario) is loosely deﬁned as a

framework for the different perspectives. It is speci-

ﬁed, e.g., which components the energy supply sy-

stem contains, how many inhabitants the municipa-

lity has, and also how large the annual electricity con-

sumption is and how large the share of renewables in

the electricity supply of the municipality is.

This ﬁrst stage cannot be referred to as truly in-

terdisciplinary, as the perspectives and their methods

or parameters are not interlinked yet. Rather, it pre-

sents a case of multidisciplinarity, in the sense that

“every component of [the] research problem calls for

a different science” (Krohn, 2010). This initial stage

is, however, no less valuable, because each discipline

ﬁrst needs to acquire an understanding of relevant is-

sues from its own perspective as a solid basis for later

cooperation, as disciplinarity is “considered [one of]

the most important factors for successful interdisci-

plinary collaboration” (Hamann et al., 2016).

The second stage, the “multidisciplinary approach

with exchange”, is similar to the ﬁrst stage: all dis-

ciplines still approach the topic from their own per-

spective and with their own methods. Additionally,

however, exchange between the three perspectives has

started. At this time, requirements of the different per-

spectives regarding information or speciﬁcations from

other disciplines should also be shared. Methods, ap-

proaches and terminology are communicated to create

a mutual understanding for the disciplinary approa-

ches (Armstrong and Jackson-Smith, 2013). This is

necessary to prevent misunderstandings between dis-

ciplinary perspectives and a lack of understanding for

possible contributions from other disciplines as well

as for intersections between the disciplines (Hamann

et al., 2016). The communicative basis which is foun-

ded in this stage is essential for the deﬁnition of sce-

narios in the subsequent steps.

Stage three is the ﬁrst one in which interdiscipli-

narity is visible in the working process, and in pu-

blications arising from the collaboration in this stage.

Bilateral teams are formed which approach a common

topic, align their scientiﬁc approaches, combine met-

hods and work on research questions which cannot

be answered by one perspective alone, but need the

knowledge and the methods of several perspectives.

In the project at hand, these were questions of socio-

economic, socio-technical and techno-economic na-

ture (Zaunbrecher et al., 2016). During this phase,

central beneﬁts of interdisciplinary collaboration be-

come visible, such as the widening of the horizon of

the researchers involved, the combination of know-

ledge, and the innovative potential (Hamann et al.,

2016). This is also the stage in which common scena-

rios start to play a key role. They deﬁne the bounda-

ries and application ﬁelds as well as obligatory and

optional components and form the basis for stages

SMARTGREENS 2017 - 6th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems

294

B C

- perspective

- scenario

- exchange

- research focus

Figure 1: Process Model for Interdisciplinary Collaboration.

four and ﬁve (speciﬁc scenarios used in the exemplary

project are presented in Section 3). The scenarios be-

come necessary in this stage because the data acqui-

red through the different methods applied need to be

integrable. For this, a common basis is needed, which

refers, e.g., to the level of detail in which a technology

is analyzed.

In stage four, elaborated communication across

the three perspectives and mature interdisciplinarity

is achieved. The research topic is approached with

a multi-method methodology, combining viewpoints,

methods and approaches from all perspectives. Stage

four is thus an advancement to stage three by com-

bining not only two, but all perspectives involved. It

is furthermore the prerequisite to stage ﬁve, in which

an integrated, interdisciplinary index is created for the

holistic assessment of energy supply scenarios. This

requires the data of all perspectives to be compara-

ble and integrable, for which the basis was formed in

stage three by deﬁning speciﬁc scenarios.

3 DEFINITION AND

INTEGRATION OF ENERGY

SCENARIOS

From stage three onwards, speciﬁc scenarios were

used to coordinate interdisciplinary research and to

facilitate the integration of results from different per-

spectives. In the stages before, the scenario was loo-

sely deﬁned to provide a framework for research.

In our exemplary case, this referred to the fol-

lowing conditions: The municipality to be supplied

with energy has 10,000 inhabitants, thus the annual

power consumption is expected to be 20 GWh. The

annual power consumption should be covered inte-

grally by locally produced electricity from renewable

energy sources (wind power, photovoltaics (PV)), i.e.

20 GWh of “green” electricity should be produced in

one year. The municipality should be connected to

the grid (no isolated, autarkic solution), so it can rely

on electricity supply from the grid at all times, and

“black-outs” are avoided when no electricity can be

produced from renewables and no stored electricity is

available. Also, this means that at times when there is

more locally produced electricity than could be used

or stored, it can be fed into the grid. Additionally, bat-

tery and hydrogen storage are speciﬁed as electricity

storage possibilities.

For the renewable sources, a reference year in the

region of Aachen, a mid-sized city in Western Ger-

many, is chosen to provide data for solar radiation and

wind speeds. For solar power, installation on rooftops

was assumed rather than a solar park. Furthermore,

the types of components used (wind turbines, solar

panels, battery storage, hydrogen storage) are techni-

cally speciﬁed (Bexten et al., 2016a).

3.1 Disciplinary Parameters and

Scenario Requirements

Apart from the reference framework described above,

each perspective had speciﬁc requirements for the de-

ﬁnition of the scenarios.

Technical: From a technical point of view, the sce-

narios are used to quantify the impact of the speci-

ﬁed dispatchable energy conversion and storage com-

ponents on the electrical self-sufﬁciency of the mu-

nicipal energy supply system. In addition, the re-

sulting operational demands on the dispatchable com-

ponents are analyzed. These investigations require

information on the time-dependent dispatch and per-

formance of the individual system components within

the scenarios. To be able to provide this data, detailed

technical component models, incorporating part-load

characteristics and operational ﬂexibility parameters,

have to be integrated into an overall model of a muni-

cipal energy supply system and a corresponding ope-

rational strategy has to be deﬁned. This approach sub-

sequently enables the simulation of the energy supply

system operation within a predeﬁned scenario.

In addition to the evaluation from a technical per-

spective, selected simulation results also function as

basic input parameters for the scenario analysis from

an economic and social perspective.

Economic: Scenarios are required for the econo-

mic assessment to estimate costs and risk of different

asset portfolios. Besides the pure amount of costs,

this also helps to decide between a framework in ab-

solute or in relative values. It turns out that a fra-

mework based on levelized costs of electricity supply

and storage would be favorable since it makes a com-

parison of assets with different life expectancies as

Using Scenarios for Interdisciplinary Energy Research - A Process Model

295

well as different operational strategies easier. The se-

cond aspect is the investment risk, which should also

be considered in an economic evaluation. Scenarios

based on different asset portfolios were used to illus-

trate the trade-off between proﬁtability and risk (Mad-

lener, 2012). They can help to estimate how much

stronger the impact of a bias in the estimates is (such

as for the amount of wind or the electricity exchange

prices) in scenarios which focus on only one techno-

logy in comparison to those which are more versatile.

The results can later also be analyzed from a social

perspective.

Social: From a social perspective, research ques-

tions for which the scenarios were required included

social acceptance and attitude towards the combina-

tion of components and possible trade-offs. For this, it

was necessary to have speciﬁc technical information,

most importantly with regard the number and size

of the components as well as technical consequen-

ces for speciﬁc combinations (e.g., the degree of self-

sufﬁciency, deﬁned as periods where the municipa-

lity used their own, locally produced electricity from

renewables), as it was hypothesized that these para-

meters were relevant for acceptance. Additionally,

the scenarios should be deﬁned in a social context

in order to be understandable for laypeople. At the

same time, they should provide a level of complexity

which allowed to vary certain parameters (e.g., elec-

tricity mix and types of energy storage). Finally, the

total number of ﬁnal scenarios should be manageable

within a single survey, so that a comparison between

all scenarios by a participant would be possible.

3.2 Final Scenarios

The ﬁnal scenarios (Table 1) were based on the “lo-

west common denominator” of the requirements from

the three perspectives: the deﬁnition of the electricity

mix (based on PV and wind power) and the type of

storage technologies. The electricity mix was deﬁned

in shares, which were mostly inﬂuenced by technical

and social considerations: The shares should corre-

spond to an integer number of the same type of wind

turbines to make the scenario feasible (e.g., not 3.5

wind turbines), but at the same time, they should be

substantially different between the scenarios (e.g., not

33% vs. 35%), so that the differences are relevant to

laypersons. According to these requirements, shares

of around 30/70 and 50/50 were chosen. The elec-

tricity storage type was operationalized by the diffe-

rentiation between different storage strategies. It was

refrained from including, e.g., different types of bat-

teries or hydrogen storage options, as there were con-

sidered too detailed information for laypersons. The

combination of these two factors resulted in 12 scena-

rios (Table 1) which are used in subsequent stages for

interdisciplinary research approaches.

3.3 Integration of Scenarios in

Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary

Research

The scenarios deﬁned in Table 1 were used in disci-

plinary and interdisciplinary research approaches.

Technical: In a ﬁrst step, the described scenarios

were used as input parameters for the simulation of

the municipal energy supply system operation. The

subsequent analysis of the simulation results mainly

focused on the impact of the different dispatchable

components on the system self-sufﬁciency utilizing

various technical evaluation parameters. The results

were, in turn, used in the studies on the social accep-

tability of scenarios. In addition, the ﬂexibility de-

mand on the individual dispatchable components (e.g.

no. of start-ups, load gradients) was evaluated (Bex-

ten et al., 2017). In a next step, the scope of the sce-

narios and the associated simulations will be extended

to the municipal heat demand and the potential to pro-

vide the required heat with the dispatchable system

components. The inﬂuence of different energy supply

system operational strategies, incorporating economic

parameters, will be in the focus of further research.

Economic: To enable potential decision makers to

evaluate the trade-off between risk and value, a pre-

simulator was programmed. As input to this simula-

tor, the parameters and limitations from the techni-

cal perspective had be taken into account. While

less precise than the technical simulation, this pre-

simulator allows for a quick overview about the eco-

nomic viability and risks of different technical port-

folios, which can subsequently be addressed from a

social perspective. The outcomes can help to keep

risk at a socially acceptable level without losing too

much of the economic value.

Social: In the initial, exploratory socio-technical

analyses (cf. Step three, Section 2) the scenarios

were used in discussions with laypersons by integra-

ting them in an interactive scenario builder (Figure 2).

It was used by participants to create their own, favored

scenarios and served as an anchor in the discussion to

remind participants of the different components and

help them imagine the situation in the municipality.

Using the speciﬁc scenarios, acceptance-relevant fac-

tors for single components (e.g, hydrogen storage) as

well as combinations of components were identiﬁed,

and also factors deﬁning trade-offs between scena-

rios. Further research will include quantitative analy-

ses of the scenarios with regard to social acceptance.

SMARTGREENS 2017 - 6th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems

296

Table 1: Energy supply scenarios.

Scenario Electricity mix No. of wind turbines No. of PV modules Storage

A1 73% wind, 27% PV 3 1025 no storage

A2 73% wind, 27% PV 3 1025 battery storage

A3 73% wind, 27% PV 3 1025 hydrogen storage

A4 73% wind, 27% PV 3 1025 hydrogen + battery storage

B1 49% wind, 51% PV 2 1960 no storage

B2 49% wind, 51% PV 2 1960 battery storage

B3 49% wind, 51% PV 2 1960 hydrogen storage

B4 49% wind, 51% PV 2 1960 hydrogen + battery storage

C1 24% wind, 76% PV 1 2695 no storage

C2 24% wind, 76% PV 1 2695 battery storage

C3 24% wind, 76% PV 1 2695 hydrogen storage

C4 24% wind, 76% PV 1 2695 hydrogen + battery storage

The results can then be re-integrated into the techni-

cal as well as economic modeling, approaching the

last step of the research model.

Figure 2: Scenario builder for social acceptance studies.

4 DISCUSSION

The process model presented requires the different

perspectives to settle on compromises, often at the

expense of detail, to be able to integrate the diffe-

rent perspectives (for example when negotiating the

scenarios). It could thus be argued that the model re-

sults in a lack of depth of the analyses (Hamann et al.,

2016). To avoid this, a continued disciplinary appro-

ach next to the interdisciplinary analyses is necessary.

This means that while input parameters for the inter-

disciplinary analyses might not cover in depth the re-

search question of a single discipline, this can well be

achieved by taking the interdisciplinarily agreed upon

scenarios as starting point for more detailed discipli-

nary analyses - next to analyses on a level which can

be integrated with other disciplines.

While the process model was successfully applied

to the KESS research project, there might be projects

and constellations of perspectives for which the appli-

cation is more challenging. The KESS project, e.g.,

involved researchers of the same university, which

means that the frequently reported organizational bar-

riers in interdisciplinary projects were possibly lower

than in projects with researchers of different organi-

zations (Cummings and Kiesler, 2005). Despite the

great value of the process model for the project work,

it remains an open question what exactly inﬂuences

the success of interdisciplinary research, whether it is

the project itself (content), the perspectives involved

(disciplines) or the speciﬁc researchers involved (per-

sonalities). Success or failure of an interdisciplinary

project should thus not be attributed to a process mo-

del (or lack thereof) alone. However, independent of

other factors enabling interdisciplinary success (Ca-

lero Valdez et al., 2012), a process model such as the

one described is a decisive enabler of interdisciplinary

work. Still, future research should address the appli-

cability of the model to other interdisciplinary pro-

jects and the personality of team members to be able

to steer team communication.

For responsible university education, it could be

promising to form novel modules in different facul-

ties, in which interdisciplinary methods are interlin-

ked with content related questions to teach multiper-

spective problem solving.

5 CONCLUSIONS

For complex problems of worldwide relevance, such

as energy supply, integrated, interdisciplinary ap-

proaches are inevitable. The step-wise model pre-

sented in this paper answers the need for speciﬁc,

content-driven guidelines for interdisciplinary rese-

arch and exempliﬁes how speciﬁc scenarios can be

used as key elements, from which socio-technical,

Using Scenarios for Interdisciplinary Energy Research - A Process Model

297

socio-economic and techno-economic approaches can

be developed. While the model is generally applica-

ble to other research projects, it should not be taken as

a guarantee for successful interdisciplinary research,

as this is dependent on multiple factors.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special thanks go to the KESS project members for

the fruitful discussions which have contributed to this

paper. Thanks also to Dr. Klaus Baier, Julian Halbey,

Iana Gorokhova and Saskia Ziegler for research sup-

port. The project KESS at RWTH Aachen University

is funded by the strategic funds of the Excellence Ini-

tiative of the German federal and state governments.

REFERENCES

Armstrong, A. and Jackson-Smith, D. (2013). Forms and le-

vels of integration: Evaluation of an interdisciplinary

team-building project. Journal of Research Practice,

9(1):1–20.

Bexten, T., Roscher, B., Weintraub, D., Bachmann, R.,

Schelenz, R., Jacobs, G., Jeschke, P., De Doncker,

R. W., and Wirsum, M. C. (2016a). Modellbasierte

Analyse der Auslegung und des Betriebs kommunaler

Energieversorgungssysteme [Model-based analysis of

the design and operation of municipal energy supply

systems]. In 14. Symposion f

ur Energieinnovation,

EnInnov2016, 10.2.2016-12.02.2016, Graz, Austria.

Bexten, T., Weintraub, D. P., Wirsum, M. C., Roscher, B.,

Bachmann Schiavo, R., Jeschke, P., Jacobs, G., Sche-

lenz, R., and De Doncker, R. W. (2016b). Einﬂuss be-

trieblicher Flexibilittsparameter einer Gasturbine auf

Auslegung und Betrieb eines dezentralen Energiever-

sorgungssystems [Inﬂuence of ﬂexibility parameters

of a gasturbine on design and operation fo a municipal

energy supply system]. In Kraftwerkstechnik 2016:

Strategien, Anlagentechnik und Betrieb, pages 541–

552. Saxonia.

Bexten, T., Wirsum, M., Roscher, B., Schelenz, R., Jacobs,

G., Weintraub, D., Jeschke, P., Bachmann, R., and

De Doncker, R. (2017). Impact of dispatchable energy

conversion and storage units on the electrical autarky

of future municipal energy supply systems. In Procee-

dings of the International Renewable Energy Storage

Conference (IRES) 2017, Dusseldorf, Germany.

Boddington, A., Kermik, J., and Ainsworth, T. (2016). In-

terdisciplinary design in the college of arts and huma-

nities at the university of brighton. In Creating Inno-

vation Leaders, pages 239–254. Springer.

Calero Valdez, A., Schaar, A. K., Zieﬂe, M., Holzinger, A.,

Jeschke, S., and Brecher, C. (2012). Using mixed node

publication network graphs for analyzing success in

interdisciplinary teams. In International Conference

on Active Media Technology, pages 606–617. Sprin-

ger.

Cummings, J. N. and Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative re-

search across disciplinary and organizational bounda-

ries. Social studies of science, 35(5):703–722.

Gross, C. (2007). Community perspectives of wind energy

in Australia: The application of a justice and commu-

nity fairness framework to increase social acceptance.

Energy Policy, 35(5):2727–2736.

Hamann, T., Schaar, A. K., Calero Valdez, A., and Zieﬂe,

M. (2016). Strategic knowledge management for in-

terdisciplinary teams-overcoming barriers of interdis-

ciplinary work via an online portal approach. In Pro-

ceedings of the International Conference on Human

Interface and the Management of Information, pages

402–413. Springer.

Krohn, W. (2010). Interdisciplinary cases and disciplinary

knowledge. In The Oxford handbook of interdiscipli-

narity, pages 31–49. Oxford University Press.

Lattuca, L. R. (2002). Learning interdisciplinarity: Socio-

cultural perspectives on academic work. The Journal

of Higher Education, 73(6):711–739.

Madlener, R. (2012). Portfolio optimization of power gene-

ration assets. In Handbook of CO in Power Systems,

pages 275–296. Springer.

Marg, S., Hermann, C., Hambauer, V., and Becke, A. B.

(2013). Wenn man was f

ur die Natur machen will,

stellt man da keine Masten hin [If you want to help na-

ture, you don’t build pylons in it]. In Die neue Macht

der B

urger: Was motiviert die Protestbewegungen?

BP-Gesellschaftsstudie, pages 94–138. Rowohlt.

Wilson, G. (2009). The world has problems while univer-

sities have disciplines: Universities meeting the chal-

lenge of environment through interdisciplinary part-

nerships. Journal of the World Universities Forum,

2(2):57–62.

ustenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., and B

urer, M. J. (2007).

Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation:

An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy,

35(5):2683–2691.

Zaunbrecher, B. S., Bexten, T., Wirsum, M., and Zieﬂe, M.

(2016). What is stored, why, and how? Mental mo-

dels, knowledge, and public acceptance of hydrogen

storage. Energy Procedia, 99:108–119.

Zaunbrecher, B. S., Linzenich, A., and Zieﬂe, M. (2017).

Experts and laypeople’s evaluation of electricity

storage facilities: Implications for communication

strategies. In Proceedings of the International Re-

newable Energy Storage Conference (IRES) 2017,

usseldorf, Germany.

Zaunbrecher, B. S. and Zieﬂe, M. (2016). Integrating

acceptance-relevant factors into wind power planning:

A discussion. Sustainable Cities and Society, 27:307–

314.

Zoellner, J., Schweizer-Ries, P., and Wemheuer, C. (2008).

Public acceptance of renewable energies: Results

from case studies in Germany. Energy Policy,

36(11):4136–4141.

SMARTGREENS 2017 - 6th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems

298