Background paper - POLIMP Policy Brief/POLIMP_1st... · Batel, et al. (2013) define ‘acceptance’ as a top-down concept that involves a reaction to something which is proposed

Background paper

BACKGROUND PAPER to the 1ST POLICY BRIEF June 2014

Acceleration of clean technology deployment within the EU:

The role of social acceptance

Table of contents

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 2

Background ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Defining acceptance ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

Role of social acceptance in clean technology deployment ......................................................................... 3

Elements of social acceptance of clean technologies .......................................................................... 4

Awareness ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4

Procedural fairness ...................................................................................................................................................... 5

Costs, risks and benefits ............................................................................................................................................. 6

Local context ................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Trust ................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Case studies ........................................................................................................................................................ 8

District heating in England and Wales ................................................................................................................. 8

Waste-to-energy plants in Greece .......................................................................................................................... 9

Tidal stream generator in Northern Ireland ................................................................................................... 10

Wind farms in the Netherlands ............................................................................................................................ 10

Carbon capture and storage in the Netherlands ........................................................................................... 11

References ....................................................................................................................................................... 12

This background paper provides additional information, case studies and

references on the elements of public acceptance of clean technology, as

described in the 1st POLIMP Policy Brief, published June 2014 (www.polimp.eu).

http://www.polimp.eu/

Background paper to the 1st POLIMP Policy Brief Elements of social acceptance of clean technologies

2

INTRODUCTION

Background In its Roadmap for Moving to a Competitive Low Carbon Economy in 2050, the European Commission

has outlined how the EU can become a competitive low emission economy by 2050 with possible actions

leading to a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of 80 to 95 per cent by 2050 compared to 1990 levels

(EC, 2011). The roadmap is based on an extensive modelling exercise with several possible scenarios for

different sectors, which show what existing and planned policies would lead to and what additional

efforts are needed. The Roadmap underlines the importance of technology innovation for achieving the

targets: “R&D, demonstration and early deployment of technologies, such as various forms of low

carbon energy sources, carbon capture and storage, smart grids and hybrid and electric vehicle

technology, are of paramount importance to ensure their cost-effective and large scale penetration later

on” (p. 5).

From the scenarios described in the Roadmap it can be concluded that a GHG emission reduction of 80

to 95 per cent is technically feasible. From an economic or financial perspective, the Roadmap estimates

that while the costs of realising such a transition within the EU could amount to € 270 billion per year

up to 2050, economic benefits in the form of fuel costs saving could be reaped in the range of € 175 to

320 billion per year up to 2050. Therefore, although these amounts are very high and the scenarios may

imply considerable distribution impacts between sectors, the roadmap indicates that overall economic

benefits could possibly outweigh the costs, especially when new job opportunities in innovative

industries and enhanced competitiveness in low emission growth are considered. The extent to which

economic benefits may outweigh the costs depend on a number of factors. These include the ambition

level with regard to GHG emission reduction in the rest of the world, and whether the emission

reduction goal will be closer to 80 or 95 per cent (assuming that with a more ambitious climate goal, the

marginal costs will be higher).

However, in addition to these technical and economic aspects, it is essential to include an analysis of

the social aspects that influence the acceptance of clean technologies and measures (Batel, et al., 2013;

Musall & Kuik, 2011). Technologies that are technically and economically feasible in a given context

may not be successfully implemented due to social resistance, lack of awareness of the technology, etc.

Public opposition could then delay or obstruct the implementation of sustainable technologies and

measures, which could lead to difficulties in the attainment of environmental and societal goals, such

as greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. Against this background, it is vital to improve public

acceptance in order for technologies to live up to their technical and economic potential. The role of

improving public acceptance will not be limited to local regulators and project developers. EU and

member states policymakers should design policies that increase the public willingness to pay for the

costs of low-carbon technologies, and therewith enhance the predictability of clean technology

investments.

In order to better understand the impact of social acceptance on successful technology implementation,

this paper first focuses on a definition of what (social) acceptance means. Then, the paper describes,

based on a literature review, different aspects of social acceptance in order to obtain a clearer

understanding of what determines acceptance of clean technologies within different contexts. These

aspects of social acceptance are then illustrated with the help of a number of case studies.


3

Defining acceptance Batel, et al. (2013) define ‘acceptance’ as a top-down concept that involves a reaction to something which

is proposed externally, whereby acceptance is ‘the act of accepting’ and thus ‘to give an affirmative

reply to’ something. In principle, acceptance can either be an ‘active’ or a more passive response.

According to Batel, et al. (2013, p. 2),“it is often assumed that as far as people do not actively oppose

(…) they are accepting”. However, this definition of acceptance is contested because such a passive

reaction may change in the long term into non-acceptance, for instance when people get more actively

engaged. The word ‘support’ refers to a more active positive attitude, rather than just non-resistance.

The above definition also implies that acceptance can be a dynamic concept which may change over

time when, for instance, more information becomes available or when someone becomes more closely

involved with a topic.

Similarly, Hitzeroth and Megerle (2013) discuss if the term ‘acceptance’ refers to an attitude or

behaviour. They conclude that acceptance denotes ‘a range of positive attitude parameters’ which lead

to collaboration in an initiative to promote a project. In this view, acceptance refers to both attitude and

behaviour, whereby attitude (e.g. a positive attitude towards clean technologies) determines someone’s

behaviour (e.g. support of clean technology projects). Similarly, ‘rejection’ refers to a negative attitude

which leads to anti-project behaviour. More neutral attitudes, such as disinterest and tolerance (passive

acceptance) usually do not lead to active behaviour.

Huijts, et al. (2012) define acceptance as behaviour towards or support of a project or technology, while

they introduce the term ‘acceptability’ to refer to an attitude or judgement. Acceptance or support can

be expressed through proclaiming the technology, or by buying and using it.

Considering these viewpoints, it is clear that there are several definitions of acceptance. The definitions

have in common that they first describe how people need to form an opinion about a suggested change,

such as introduction of a clean technology (e.g. whether the topic is acceptable for them) and then decide

whether or not to (actively) support the change. Therefore, in this paper ‘acceptance’ is defined as a

positive attitude towards a technology or measure, which leads to supporting behaviour if needed or

requested, and the counteracting of resistance by others. Acceptance which only covers an attitude

without supportive behaviour may be described as ‘tolerance’.

Role of social acceptance in clean technology deployment The purpose of this paper is to categorise a range of aspects that play a role in societal acceptance of a

technology and about which people need knowledge for a balanced opinion on whether a technology

is acceptable for them, within their own context. As mentioned, there are several examples of clean

technologies which from a broader perspective could deliver several (net) benefits, but which are not

yet deployed to their full potential. This is because people are, for example, insufficiently aware of the

benefits and costs of a technology within their own context, are insufficiently involved in the decision

making process, have limited trust in the reliability of a technology, and are concerned about negative

local impacts that a technology may have. For example, Huijts et al (2012) explain that opposition to the

deployment of clean technologies may be the result of several underlying arguments or perceptions

about hindrance or safety risks, or because the public thinks that resources could be spent in a better

way (Huijts, et al., 2012). Opposition of the public could then delay or obstruct the implementation of

the sustainable technology or measure, which would lead to difficulties in the attainment of

environmental and societal goals, such as the EU greenhouse gas emission goals.


4

In a similar vein, Sovacool and Ratan (2012) describe a range of barriers to the success of sustainable

technologies, which are related to societal acceptance. These include: distorted price signals that fail to

account for the additional benefits of sustainable technologies, political regulations that favour

incumbent firms and old technologies, cultural challenges relating to aesthetic objections, a lack of

quality information and knowledge about sustainable technologies and their performance, and

misunderstandings about how these technologies work.

ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF CLEAN TECHNOLOGIES

With a view to the above, this paper focusses (based on, among others, Sovacool and Ratan (2012),

Strazzera, et al. (2012) and Wüstenhagen, et al. (2007)) on the following categories of elements of societal

acceptance of clean technologies:

Awareness of climate change and knowledge of clean technologies;

Fairness and inclusiveness of the decision-makingprocess: the extent to which stakeholders are

involved in the decision-making process;

Overall evaluation of costs, risks and benefits of a technology;

Local context: suitability of a proposed technology in a local situation;

Trust in the decision-makers and other relevant stakeholders.

These aspects are described in further detail in the following sections.

Awareness People’s knowledge, experience, environmental awareness and social responsibility are main factors

that affect their acceptance of clean technologies and measures (Zhang, et al., 2011). In other words, the

social acceptance is influenced by both the awareness regarding climate change, and the knowledge of

the technology or measure in question. Strazzera, et al. (2012) and Thøgersen and Noblet (2012) assume

that the better informed the public is (with balanced information), the more favourable their position is

towards green technologies.

Awareness of climate change Awareness of the greenhouse gas effect and global climate change is generally high. 98.5 per cent of

respondents in a survey in the Netherlands stated to know at least something about the greenhouse gas

effect (De Best-Waldhober, et al., 2009). A similar study in China revealed that 93 per cent of respondents

are aware of climate change (China 4C, 2013). A study in 2007 and 2008 by Pelham (2009) revealed that

awareness of global warming in the European Union varies from 75 per cent in Malta to 98 per cent in

Finland. Awareness of climate change however does not necessarily lead to a high level of concern.

Conversely, Spence, et al. (2012) state that an increase of awareness in the US and the UK has been

simultaneous with increasing scepticism and uncertainty. This may be partly induced by the reluctance

of people to accept the reality of climate change, as this would lead to a need to change their behaviour.

Despite high awareness and relatively high levels of concern, many people do not behave sustainably

and also may not support the implementation of clean technologies and measures. It has been suggested

that this mismatch is caused by the ‘psychological distance’ that people experience with regard to

climate change, in terms of time (‘when will climate change affect me?’) and geography (‘will climate

change also affect my country?’). However, a study in the UK indicated that a majority of the people

thinks that the geographic and temporal distance to climate change are relatively small: “greater effects

are likely to be experienced by developing countries, but (…) people similar to themselves would also


5

be impacted” (Spence, et al., 2012, p. 963). An important aspect that makes the issue of climate change

indeed psychologically distant is its uncertainty: a majority of 70 per cent of the respondents agreed that

there is uncertainty over the effects of climate change, and 40 per cent agreed that the effects of climate

change are exaggerated (p. 964).

In contrast, based on their analysis, Spence, et al. (2012) conclude there is an evident positive relation

between people’s awareness and concern about climate change and their preparedness to act. Increased

awareness and concern will thus increase the willingness to act against climate change, and potentially

also increase the acceptance of climate-friendly technologies. Several reservations can be made however.

For example, a well-informed opinion based on knowledge and awareness may be altered based on

societal peer pressure. In other words, awareness-raising alone is not a panacea for creating social

acceptance.

Awareness of and familiarity with technologies and measures In order to be able to form a balanced opinion of a clean technology within a specific context it is

important that people are sufficiently familiar with the technology and aware of its benefits and costs,

market potential, operational requirements, etc. For example, in a survey by De Best-Waldhober, et al.

(2009) in the Netherlands, only 3.7 per cent of the respondents indicated to be aware of carbon capture

and storage (CCS), with 20.2 per cent stating to know just a bit about it. However, half of the respondents

who admitted to have never heard of such a modern technology still gave an opinion. In other words,

there is a substantial amount of pseudo-opinions, or ‘uninformed public opinions’. These kinds of

opinions are usually considered unstable and therefore relatively unreliable to build societal acceptance

upon.

The general public is generally said to deserve sufficient and balanced information about projects and

measures (Hitzeroth & Megerle, 2013; Sijmons & Van Dorst, 2012). In cases where information is given

too late, or in an incomplete or unbalanced manner (i.e. too positive about the technology by overstating

benefits), this may lead to a lower trust in the project and related stakeholders. In general this also makes

the public more resistant towards the new technology (Dütschke, 2011), but this is not necessarily so, as

unbalanced information or propaganda may also lead to ill-informed acceptance. For new technologies,

with which people do not have experience yet, timely, complete and balanced knowledge needs to be

provided in order to raise awareness about the technology or measure and its costs, risks and benefits.

“Experience (…) shows that unfamiliar technologies will not be considered, so that many new and

existing technologies/measures are not commonly used” (UNDP, 2010), even though these technologies

are potentially useful.

Procedural fairness The perceived fairness of the preparatory and decision processes influences how the public will evaluate

a technology or measure. Procedures are considered to be fair when they are open and transparent, the

public and stakeholders have a voice in decisions, and these inputs are given consideration by the

decision makers (Korsgaard, et al., 1995). A fair process may increase the level of trust in decision-

makers, and in return trust in decision-makers may increase the perceived fairness of the process

(Huijts, et al., 2012).

Procedural fairness entails that the concerns and interests of all stakeholders and the general public are

taken into account in the decision-making process and during the implementation of a project or

measure (Terwel, et al., 2011). In other words, there should be a sufficient level of public participation

and the possibility to voice opinions. “Real public participation takes the form of a dialogue. Such a

dialogue cannot start without clearly articulating goals, considerations, and motives while noting the


6

project’s limitations” (Sijmons & Van Dorst, 2012, p. 62). In order to enable procedural fairness,

awareness-raising is important to give all stakeholders the opportunity to be knowledgeable and form

a well-informed opinion.

In addition to public participation in the planning and decision-making process, also economic

participation may increase the social acceptance of technologies. Several studies have found that joint

ownership or community co-ownership of projects leads to higher social acceptance (Musall & Kuik,

2011; Strazzera, et al., 2012). The study by Musall and Kuik (2011) for example shows that nearby

installed wind turbines were faced with much higher levels of local acceptance when they are co-owned

by the community, than when a commercial company has full ownership.

Costs, risks and benefits Social acceptance of a clean technology or measure will depend on an assessment of its costs and benefits

as well as potential risks. This assessment is inherently subjective, as the public usually does not have

complete knowledge and information. The assessment made by the public is therefore either a result of

their level of awareness, or based on an assessment made by someone else, such as the project developer,

the government, or an interest group.

Costs and benefits of a project may be either public or private. Public benefits include additional public

investment in a local community, such as training for local residents or microcredit services for small

enterprises. Private costs and benefits are mainly found in the energy bill, which may increase or

decrease as a result of the introduction of a technology or measure (Strazzera, et al., 2012). In order for

renewable energy technologies to be accepted, they need to be able to produce electricity at a

competitive rate, compared to for example fossil energy (Sovacool & Ratan, 2012). The competitive rate

may also be driven by government incentives.

An important factor determining the acceptance of technologies and measures is the level of distributive

fairness, or the fairness of the way that costs, risks and benefits are shared (Huijts, et al., 2012).

Acceptance is not only based on the overall evaluation, but also on the equality of the outcomes for each

of the stakeholders. If a stakeholder or group of people is significantly worse off, compensation can take

place in order to rebalance the sum of costs, risks and benefits (Kamas & Preston, 2012). However, this

has to be carefully approached, and a local characterisation has to be made before thinking about

compensation. An offer of compensation may be considered a bribe by some, as they are not looking for

money but just want their opinion to be taken seriously.

While this aspect of social acceptance, the overall evaluation of costs, risks and benefits, assumes full

rationality, in reality people are not expected to evaluate on a pure rational basis. As Sijmons and Van

Dorst (2012, p. 52) state, the ‘homo economicus’ or ‘economic man’ – “an individual ideally acting in a

certain setting making rational, economic choices” – does not primarily behave rationally. The

evaluation of a technology, measure or project also depends on emotions, ethical questions and social

needs. The overall evaluation of costs, risks and benefits should therefore be regarded in relation to

specific fears or emotions, trust levels and other non-rational aspects.

Local context A study in the United Kingdom shows that citizens are highly positive about the use of renewable

energy sources. 77% of the UK adults support the use of renewable energy sources (UK DECC, 2014).

Kaldellis, et al. (2013) however argue that these high support levels are deceiving. While the public has

a positive attitude towards renewable energy, and other climate-friendly technologies, in general,

individual projects or policies regularly face resistance from the local community. The difference


7

between the positive attitudes on the abstract level and more negative views in the local context are

often explained as in the framework of the NIMBY concept.

The NIMBY concept (‘Not In My Back Yard’) describes the local opposition against specific projects due

to selfish reasons. As such, NIMBY is often used as a derogatory label for all kinds of local resistance

against the construction of infrastructures. By labelling opposition as NIMBY, genuine local concerns

and critiques have often been slated irrelevant, ignorant or selfish, and therefore ignored. Even though

local resistance may follow from ignorance or selfishness, it is vital that local critical attitudes are not

ignored, considering that local acceptance is of great importance for the success of a project (Musall &

Kuik, 2011; Kaldellis, et al., 2013). There is much evidence that NIMBY behaviour for pure selfish

reasons is actually very rare; usually opposition is based on “detailed knowledge of their area, the

development, and the issue more generally” (Haggett, 2011, p. 504).

Acceptance of projects can therefore not only be attributed to the NIMBY concept, as it is a result of “a

net of factors affecting social acceptance which are related to the specific context and to personal

attitudes” (Strazzera, et al., 2012, p. 346). It is thus important to recognise that the level of acceptance of

clean technologies is not merely driven by defence of individualistic self-interest, but by a range of

aspects that define the well-being of individuals and communities. According to Sijmons and Van Dorst

(2012), people tend to resist change in their environment out of personal fears for a loss of quality of life,

more than that they fear the content of the proposed change itself – the new technology in this case.

“People have a healthy scepticism and want to be sure the new ideas are sound” (Sijmons & Van Dorst,

2012, p. 51). The spatial impact of renewable energy makes the involvement of local stakeholders,

citizens and companies important, in order to prevent widespread scepticism. A particular reason for

scepticism towards new technologies is that renewables typically demand more space than fossil energy

generation, and renewable energy tends to be highly visible, specifically in the case of wind farms and

hydropower (De Boer & Zuidema, 2013).

Instead of disregarding local views on new technologies and measures as NIMBY behaviour, rational

and emotional parts of the local debate should be taken seriously. In order for a project to succeed,

rational local objectives should be taken into account, but specific fears and emotions should also be

identified, discussed and dealt with (Sijmons & Van Dorst, 2012; De Boer & Zuidema, 2013). The spatial

impact of technologies makes that the implementation of renewables is a locally embedded issue.

Therefore it is important to discern how the local needs and the interests of other stakeholders match.

Trust Public trust influences the acceptance of technologies and measures. Hereby the public acceptance

depends on the trust in the properties of the technology, as well as the trust in the related stakeholders

(Terwel, et al., 2011; Einsiedel, et al., 2013; Huijts, et al., 2012). The element of trust can be considered a

crosscutting issue, as it influences the other four elements, and is in turn also influenced by them. For

example, a fair and inclusive decision-making process will increase the public trust in decision makers.

On the other hand is the public more inclined to be involved in a decision-making process if they trust

the decision-makers.

Obviously, trust in a technology will be higher if awareness-raising is conducted by trusted

stakeholders. “The considerations by which technologies (…) are judged are clearly reflective of wider

socio-technical system dimensions”, including institutional trust (Einsiedel, et al., 2013, p. 157).


8

Trust in stakeholders Public trust in stakeholders depends on the perception of their organisational competence and integrity.

The perceived competence of a stakeholder affects whether or not the public will tend to rely on the

positions taken by this actor. The integrity of the stakeholder has an opposite effect: if the perceived

integrity of a stakeholder is low, there is a tendency for the public to take the opposite opinion of the

stakeholder (Terwel, et al., 2011).

Public trust in environmental NGOs is generally higher than trust in for-profit companies, as the public

expects the latter group to act mainly out of self-interest (Terwel, et al., 2011). However, “congruence

between inferred motives and stakeholder communications facilitates trust” (Terwel, et al., 2011, p. 187).

In other words, for-profit corporations are generally expected to seek economic gains, and therefore

they are more trusted when communicating economic benefits of a technology rather than the

technology’s environmental benefits.

Case studies by Dütschke (2011) show the importance of public trust in stakeholders for the acceptance

of a technology. Two similar carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects in Germany show different

levels of acceptance, which can be explained by different trust levels. The first project was developed

by the German Research Centre for Geosciences GFZ, which organised local presentations, site tours

and press conferences. The researchers were trusted by the public and therefore there was general trust

in the project. The second project was being developed by a major power company. Local residents

argue that information provided by the company was generally too positive, downplaying safety issues,

and they were afraid that risks are not openly discussed. Even though the characteristics of the projects

may have been more or less the same, acceptance levels were highly different.

CASE STUDIES

In this section, the five elements of social acceptance of technologies described above are illustrated with

the help of a number of case studies. Each case study is concluded with a table that gives an overview

of the effect of each element on the social acceptance of the particular technology or project.

District heating in England and Wales Upham and Jones (2012) aimed to find empirical evidence on the social acceptance of the use of waste

process heat for district heating in the United Kingdom. Two case studies were used, being a

hypothetical installation in the English city of Newcastle, and a more concrete option in the county of

Neath Port Talbot in Wales.

The focus groups in Newcastle were in principle highly supportive of district heating by waste process

heat. However, this supportive attitude cannot be entirely seen as acceptance, but rather as conditional

acceptance. Technical, contractual and operational concerns need to be addressed: district heating

should be as comfortable and reliable as the current heating and hot water systems, at similar or lower

costs, and more friendly for the environment.

Specific issues that need attention include energy security and contract lock-in. Respondents feared that

once connected to a district heating system, they would be bound by a contract and the energy price

may rise in the future. A high level of trust in the operator of the system is therefore highly important:

“The majority of participants stated a preference for a well-known company to act as the supplier. There

were, however, reservations about whether private companies could be trusted” (Upham & Jones, 2012,

p. 24). Community ownership of the district heating is therefore suggested as possible solution, “for


9

reasons of knowing who owned and controlled the scheme”. However, also this solution would require

trust in other community members. The second case study, in Wales, was conducted through a

questionnaire. Only 9 per cent of the respondents had prior awareness of district heating. However,

following a short description of the technology, 87 per cent stated to agree with the idea of district

heating. Most of the respondents tended to accept some level of disruption and inconvenience, if this

would lead to 10 to 20 per cent reduction in their heat costs. Contractual inflexibility however is seen as

a problem, as more than half of the respondents react negatively to the possibility to being tied in a

multiple-year contract. As a result, for 87 per cent of the respondents the reputation of the supplier of

the district heating is important. As indicated before, the public is more likely to be willing to enter a

long-term contract if a trusted company is the counterpart.

An important remark made by Upham and Jones (2012) regarding district heating is that it needs ‘active

acceptance’ in order to be implemented. In addition to a positive attitude, also action by residents is

needed in order to facilitate the implementation of the technology. It is concluded that the most

important barriers to the acceptance of district heating are a lack of awareness, and the issue of contract

lock-in. Awareness-raising and building of trust in operators may resolve these issues.

Table 1. Overview of elements of social acceptance of district heating in England and Wales.

Element Score Description

Awareness - - Only 9 per cent had prior awareness of district heating

Fairness o Project not yet implemented

Evaluation + + 87 per cent agrees with the idea of district heating

Local context o Community members should have common agreement

Trust o The reputation of supplier and operator of district heating is important

Waste-to-energy plants in Greece Achillas, et al. (2011) studied the acceptance of waste-to-energy options in the Greater Thessaloniki Area

in northern Greece. They found that local responses to the possible introduction of two waste-to-power

plants reflect a considerable lack of information to the public: More than 85 per cent of the population

does not have a clear view on advantages and disadvantages of the new technology.

Even though the study shows that most of the people have a positive attitude towards waste-to-energy,

a majority of the residents reacted negatively to the idea of such a plant near their residential area. While

this might be explained through the NIMBY concept, Achillas, et al. (2011) state that there is a significant

mistrust in the future operators of the plant, and therefore there are concerns with regard to health and

safety issues.

The researchers also asked these respondents why they think that waste-to-energy has not been

promoted nationally in Greece. The main reason identified is a lack of public information about the

issue, signifying a need for awareness-raising. In addition, a lack of technological know-how was seen

as a major reason.

In summary, the attitude towards waste-to-energy is relatively positive in Greece. However, because

residents have a lack of awareness and information and a lack of trust in future plant operators, local

opposition arises when a plant is planned near a residential area.

Table 2. Overview of elements of social acceptance of waste-to-energy plants in Greece.


Awareness - - Lack of information about waste-to-energy


10

Fairness - Insufficient participation

Evaluation + Relatively positive attitude towards waste-to-energy

Local context - Negative reaction to a plant near people’s residential area

Trust - - Mistrust in future operators of the plant

Tidal stream generator in Northern Ireland Devine-Wright (2011a; 2011b) has studied the implementation of the ‘SeaGen’ tidal energy converter in

Northern Ireland, UK. The SeaGen project is a good example of a new innovative technology, as it is the

first large scale commercial tidal stream generator in the world. The study has used empirical methods

to analyse the public acceptance of the tidal energy, with a special focus on the concept of ‘place

attachment’, i.e. the “behavioural, affective and cognitive ties between individuals and/or groups and

their sociophysical environment” (Devine-Wright, 2011a, p. 337).

The SeaGen tidal energy converter is placed in a narrow strait between two villages, Portaferry and

Strangford. Both of these villages are non-industrial and derive their income mainly from tourism and

agriculture. The study found public support for tidal energy in the two villages, and a general absence

of local opposition against the project. Devine-Wright (2011a, p. 342) suggests that the tidal energy

project has enhanced the place attachment of the local residents, who see it as “exciting novelty that

posed a minimal threat to the natural environment.” This reaffirms the notion that the NIMBY concept

is too narrow, as local residents will make a wider assessment of pros and cons of a new technology

project.

Transcripts of focus group discussions in the two villages reveal that residents do an overall evaluation

of the perceived benefits, costs and risks of the project. Discussions touched on issues such as

environmental risks (“baby seals might be found without their heads on the beaches”) and employment

(“will there be local people employed at the generator?”). These discussions reveal knowledge gaps

about the possible impacts of the generator for the local community, which shows the importance of

awareness-raising.

Devine-Wright (2011b) found discontent with planning and consultation procedures, as these were

subject to a perceived lack of fairness. Even though local consultation events were organised, many

residents did not bother attending since they felt their views were not taken into account. Part of the

problem was that the community had been used to low levels of involvement during earlier projects.

Therefore the residents have no confidence that the participation process of this project would be more

inclusive.

Table 3. Overview of elements of social acceptance of tidal stream generator in Northern Ireland.


Awareness - Some knowledge gaps are existing

Fairness + Participation organised, but not everyone attended

Evaluation + Mostly positive, but some environmental and economic issues discussed

Local context + + Tidal power seen as exciting novelty posing minimal threat

Trust - - Low levels of involvement in earlier projects led to lack of confidence

Wind farms in the Netherlands Several wind farms are planned to be developed in the Veenkoloniën area of Groningen and Drenthe

provinces, the Netherlands. As part of the national government’s ambition to have a capacity of 6000


11

MW of on-shore wind power by the year 2020, wind farms with a total capacity of around 700 MW will

be installed. The planning and preparation of the project is carried out in a top-down manner by the

Ministry of Economic Affairs. Direct agreements are made with local land owners, mostly farmers, on

the placement of the wind turbines.

The local population is informed on the spatial designs of the wind farms, but needs of the citizens, local

initiatives, stakeholder interests and other local economic functions were overlooked in the planning.

As a result, the local population has no direct revenues or benefits from the wind farms and are merely

faced with negative effects related to “visibility, noise and the intermittent shade of the wind turbines”

(De Boer & Zuidema, 2013, p. 5). Because initially only land owners were involved in the planning

process, resistance to the plans evolved from the wider local community during public hearings.

The survey by De Boer and Zuidema (2013, p. 6) shows that the local population does not resist wind

energy per se, but “they found it unfair that such an unequal share of the (…) wind power capacity was

designated for installation in their region.” In other words, a low level of distributive fairness is

experienced by the public. This is reinforced by long-standing feelings of local residents that their region

is being disadvantaged. The trust level in the national government was therefore already low.

Table 4. Overview of elements of social acceptance of wind farms in the Netherlands.


Awareness + High awareness levels and organisation of interest groups

Fairness - - Lack of procedural fairness, top-down, initially only land owners involved

Evaluation - No resistance towards wind energy, but lack of distributive fairness

Local context - - Needs of local citizens and local economy are overlooked

Trust - Low trust levels in decision makers

Carbon capture and storage in the Netherlands Since 2007 there were advanced plans for the establishment of a carbon capture and storage (CCS)

demonstration project in the Dutch town of Barendrecht in South Holland province. The aim of the

project was to store CO2 from Shell’s oil refinery in the Port of Rotterdam in depleted gas fields, two to

three kilometres under Barendrecht. In November 2010, the project was cancelled as the national

government decided to suspend all licensing procedures. A main reason for halting the project was the

“complete lack of local support” (Rijksoverheid, 2010).

Feenstra, et al. (2010) state that the first two public meetings about the project were held in the first half

of 2008. Questions and concerns were raised, and there was a general feeling that no satisfying answers

were provided by the project developers. Only limited attention was given to related national policies

and the role of the project in the national context. “This created the feeling that the project was Shell’s

idea (…) and an atmosphere was created of Shell versus the public” (Feenstra, et al., 2010, p. 15). The

local council and board followed the citizens and decided that all questions related to safety, risks,

geology, legal issues, monitoring, etc. should be answered before an official decision could be taken.

In the beginning of 2009, the CCS project had attracted much attention and information meetings for

the local community were attended by more than 1,000 people. During the meeting, Shell claimed that

the project was not profitable for them. The public did not believe this remark, which indicated the low

level of trust in the project developers.

Feenstra, et al. (2010) point out that local citizens literally checked whether their house was located

directly above a gas field to be used for CCS or not: “If it was not, they were less concerned.” This shows


12

the importance of the local context with regard to acceptance, and also deficiencies in the awareness

about the characteristics of CCS.

In the second half of 2009, citizens established a local activist association which demonstrated against

the CCS project independently from the local government. The association organised demonstrations,

set up petitions and informed other residents about why to oppose the project. Despite this resistance

by the public, the local government and the provincial government, the national government officially

approved the project in November 2009. Also after the decision opposition continued, and due to

widespread media coverage the opposition broadened to a national level. This complete lack of support

for the project eventually led to its cancellation.

Feenstra, et al. (2010) and Van Buuren (2009) conclude that there are several main reasons for the failure

of the projects, which are mainly shortcomings in the communication between the stakeholders and the

community. In the initial phase of project preparation, no dialogue took place between the project

developers and the community. Later, when opposition became clear, discussion forums were

established, but these did not include all stakeholders. As a result, information provided by the

(national) government and project developers is distrusted.

Table 5. Overview of elements of social acceptance of carbon capture and storage in the Netherlands.


Awareness - Initially no clear information on CCS and the location choice

Fairness - Community involved too late, when there was already a final plan

Evaluation - Positive effects of CCS not clear for community (partly because of lack of trust in the project operators)

Local context - Global positive effects, local drawbacks (residents feared safety issues)

Trust - - Low level of trust in the project developers

REFERENCES

Achillas, C., Vlachokostas, C., Moussiopoulos, N., Banias, G., Kafetzopoulos, G., & Karagiannidis, A.

(2011). Social acceptance for the development of a waste-to-energy plant in an urban area. Resources,

Conservation and Recycling(55), 857-863.

Batel, S., Devine-Wright, P., & Tangeland, T. (2013). Social acceptance of low carbon energy and

associated infrastructures: A critical discussion. Energy Policy(58), 1-5.

China 4C. (2013). Public climate change awareness and climate change communication in China. China Center

for Climate Change Communication.

De Best-Waldhober, M., Daamen, D., & Faaij, A. (2009). Informed and uninformed public opinions on

CO2 capture and storage technologies in the Netherlands. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas

Control(3), 322-332.

De Boer, J., & Zuidema, C. (2013). Towards an integrated energy landscape. Dublin: AESOP-ACSP Joint

Congress.

Devine-Wright, P. (2011a). Place attachment and public acceptance of renewable energy: A tidal energy

case study. Journal of Environmental Psychology(31), 336-343.


13

Devine-Wright, P. (2011b). Enhancing local distinctiveness fosters public acceptance of tidal energy: A

UK case study. Energy Policy(39), 83-93.

Dütschke, E. (2011). What drives local public acceptance - comparing two cases from Germany. Energy

Procedia(4), 6234-6240.

EC. (2011). A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050. Brussels: European

Commission.

Einsiedel, E., Boyd, A., Medlock, J., & Ashworth, P. (2013). Assessing socio-technical mindsets: Public

deliberations on carbon capture and storage in the context of energy sources and climate change. Energy

Policy(53), 149-158.

Feenstra, C., Mikunda, T., & Brunsting, S. (2010). What happened in Barendrecht? - Case study on the planned

onshore carbon dioxide storage in Barendrecht, the Netherlands. Amsterdam: ECN.

Haggett, C. (2011). Understanding public responses to offshore wind power. Energy Policy(39), 503-510.

Hitzeroth, M., & Megerle, A. (2013). Renewable Energy Projects: Acceptance Risks and Their

Management. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews(27), 576-584.

Huijts, N., Molin, E., & Steg, L. (2012). Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology

acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews(16),

525-531.

Kaldellis, J., Kapsali, M., Kaldelli, E., & Katsanou, E. (2013). Comparing recent views of public attitude

on wind energy, photovoltaic and small hydro applications. Renewable Energy(52), 197-208.

Kamas, L., & Preston, A. (2012). Distributive and reciprocal fairness: What can we learn from the

heterogeneity of social preferences? Journal of Economic Psychology, 33, 538-553.

Korsgaard, M., Schweiger, D., & Sapienza, H. (1995). Building Commitment, Attachment, and Trust in

Strategic Decision-Making Teams: The Role of Procedural Justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1),

60-84.

Musall, F., & Kuik, O. (2011). Local acceptance of renewable energy - A case study from southeast

Germany. Energy Policy(39), 3252-3260.

Pelham, B. (2009). Awareness, Opinions About Global Warming Vary Worldwide. Washington: Gallup.

Rijksoverheid. (2010). CO2-opslagproject Barendrecht van de baan. Opgeroepen op March 7, 2014, van

http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/nieuws/2010/11/04/co2-opslagproject-barendrecht-van-de-baan.html

Sijmons, D., & Van Dorst, M. (2012). Strong Feelings: Emotional Landscape of Wind Turbines. In S.

Stremke, & A. Van den Dobbelsteen (Red.), Sustainable Energy Landscapes: Designing, Planning, and

Development (pp. 45-67). Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.

Sovacool, B., & Ratan, P. (2012). Conceptualizing the acceptance of wind and solar electricity. Renewable

and Sustainable Energy Reviews(16), 5268-5279.

Spence, A., Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. (2012). The Psychological Distance of Climate Change. Risk

Analysis, 32(6), 957-972.


14

Strazzera, E., Mura, M., & Contu, D. (2012). Combining choice experiments with psychometric scales to

assess the social acceptability of wind energy projects: A latent class approach. Energy Policy(48), 334-

347.

Terwel, B., Harinck, F., Ellemers, N., & Daamen, D. (2011). Going beyond the properties of CO2 capture

and storage (CCS) technology: How trust in stakeholders affects public acceptance of CCS. International

Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control(5), 181-188.

Thøgersen, J., & Noblet, C. (2012). Does green consumerism increase the acceptance of wind power?

Energy Policy, 51, 854-862.

UK DECC. (2014). DECC Public Attitudes Tracker - Wave 8. London: United Kingdom Department of

Energy & Climate Change.

UNDP. (2010). Handbook for Conducting Technlogy Needs Assessment for Climate Change. New York: United

Nations Development Programme.

Upham, P., & Jones, C. (2012). Don't lock me in: Public opinion on the prospective use of waste process

heat for district heating. Applied Energy, 89, 21-29.

Van Buuren, J. (2009). Er kunnen wel honderdduizend doden vallen... CO2-opslag in Barendrecht. Amsterdam:

VU University .

Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., & Burer, M. (2007). Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation:

An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy, 35(5), 2683-2691.

Zhang, Y., Yu, Y., & Zou, B. (2011). Analyzing public awareness and acceptance of alternative fuel

vehicles in China: The case of EV. Energy Policy, 39, 7015-7024.

Background paper

BACKGROUND PAPER to the 1ST POLICY BRIEF June 2014

Acceleration of clean technology deployment within the EU:

The role of social acceptance

Authors

Erwin Hofman ([email protected])

Wytze van der Gaast ([email protected])

JIN Climate and Sustainability

Project Coordinator

Vlasios Oikonomou

JIN Climate and Sustainability

www.jiqweb.org

Editor

Noriko Fujiwara

Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)

Project Dissemination

Alexandros Flamos

Charikleia Karakosta

University of Piraeus Research Centre (UPRC)

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for

Research, Technological Development and Demonstration under Grant Agreement No 603847

Documents

Background paper - POLIMP Policy Brief/POLIMP_1st... · Batel, et al. (2013) define ‘acceptance’ as a top-down concept that involves a reaction to something which is proposed