4.7 Article

Realizing energy infrastructure projects - A qualitative empirical analysis of local practices to address social acceptance

Journal

ENERGY POLICY
Volume 89, Issue -, Pages 184-193

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.11.027

Keywords

Energy infrastructure; Qualitative analysis; Social acceptance; High voltage power lines; Wind power

Funding

  1. EU
  2. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
  3. Federal Budget of Upper Austria

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The federal state of Upper Austria, at a crossing point for European energy grids, provides large-scale resources for storage of natural gas and is among the top infrastructures in this regard in Europe. Considering the ambitious plans for enhancements of energy infrastructures in this region, the issue of social acceptance of energy infrastructure is crucial. To foster an understanding of the challenges inherent in this issue we present an analysis concentrating on the social acceptance of energy infrastructure projects in Upper Austria. This paper addresses the issues with realizing energy infrastructure projects and analyzes the problems and benefits based on an empirical-qualitative study comprising expert interviews, discussions with stakeholders, and a round table workshop integrating the disparate viewpoints. The aim of the process was to integrate different attitudes, perspectives and positions of relevant stakeholders, members of citizens' initiatives, environmental organizations and of the national government and local authorities. The results presented are based on both the analysis of the empirical-qualitative data and the existing studies and literature on social acceptance. The qualitative research compares experiences and current practices with social acceptance issues (like frameworks, participation, communication strategies) in a set of considered energy infrastructure projects. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available