Barriers and Drivers of Renewable Energy Penetration in Rural Areas
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods and Data
3. Transition to Renewable Energy in Rural Areas
4. Renewable Energy Ownership and Prosumption in Rural Areas
5. Barriers and Motives for RES Initiatives in Rural Areas
6. Policies to Overcome Barriers of Renewable Energy Initiatives in Rural Areas
7. Conclusions and Policy Implications
Authors Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ryghaug, M.; Skjølsvold, T.M.; Heidenreich, S. Creating energy citizenship through material participation. Soc. Stud. Sci. 2018, 48, 283–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Devine-Wright, P. Energy citizenship: Psychological aspects of evolution in sustainable energy technologies. In Governing Technology for Sustainability; Routledge: Milton Park, UK, 2007; pp. 74–97. [Google Scholar]
- Radtke, J.; Holstenkamp, L.; Barnes, J.; Renn, O. Concepts, formats, and methods of participation: Theory and practice. In Handbuch Energiewende und Partizipation; Springer VS: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2018; pp. 21–42. [Google Scholar]
- Lowitzsch, J.; Hoicka, C.E.; van Tulder, F.J. Renewable Energy Communities under the 2019 European Clean Energy Package—Governance Model for the Energy Clusters of the Future? Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 122, 109489. [Google Scholar]
- Wagemans, D.; Scholl, C.; Vasseur, V. Facilitating the Energy Transition—The Governance Role of Local Renewable Energy Cooperatives. Energies 2019, 12, 4171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haf, S.; Robison, R. How Local Authorities Can Encourage Citizen Participation in Energy Transitions; Energy Research Centre: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Mickey Lauria, M.; Slotterback, S.C. (Eds). Learning from Arnstein’s Ladder. From Citizen Participation to Public Engagement; Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: Milton Park, UK, 2021; 362p. [Google Scholar]
- Collins, K.; Raymond, I. Dare we jump off Arnstein’s ladder? Social Learning as a New Policy Paradigm. In Proceedings of the PATH (Participatory Approaches in Science & Technology) Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland, 4–7 June 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Cardullo, P.; Kitchin, R. Being a ‘citizen’ in the smart city: Up and down the scaffold of smart citizen participation in Dublin, Ireland. GeoJournal 2019, 84, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dóci, G.; Vasileiadou, E.; Petersen, A.C. Exploring the transition potential of renewable energy communities. Futures 2015, 66, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jenkins, K.; McCauley, D.; Heffron, R.; Stephan, H.; Rehner, R. Energy justice: A conceptual review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 11, 174–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sovacool, B.K.; Burke, M.; Baker, L.; Kotikalapudi, C.K.; Wlokas, H. New frontiers and conceptual frameworks for energy justice. Energy Policy 2017, 105, 677–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Delina, L.L.; Sovacool, B.K. Of temporality and plurality: An epistemic and governance agenda for accelerating just transitions for energy access and sustainable development. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2018, 34, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blue, G.; Rosol, M.; Fast, V. Justice as Parity of Participation: Enhancing Arnstein’s Ladder Through Fraser’s Justice Framework. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2019, 85, 363–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lennon, B.; Dunphy, N.P.; Sanvicente, E. Community acceptability and the energy transition: A citizens’ perspective. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2019, 9, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McCauley, D.; Ramasar, V.; Heffron, R.J.; Sovacool, B.K.; Mebratu, D.; Mundaca, L. Energy justice in the transition to low carbon energy systems: Exploring key themes in interdisciplinary research. Appl. Energy 2019, 233, 916–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouzarovski, S.; Simcock, N. Spatializing energy justice. Energy Policy 2017, 107, 640–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sovacool, B.K.; Hook, A.; Martiskainen, M.; Baker, L. The whole systems energy injustice of four European low-carbon transitions. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2019, 58, 101958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sareen, S.; Haarstad, H. Bridging socio-technical and justice aspects of sustainable energy transitions. Appl. Energy 2018, 228, 624–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suboticki, I.; Świątkiewicz-Mośny, M.; Ryghaug, M.; Skjølsvold, T.M. Inclusive Engagement in Energy. 2019. Available online: https://energy-shifts.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/04_Inclusive-Engagement-in-Energy.pdf (accessed on 23 August 2021).
- Lu, J.; Ren, L.; Yao, S.; Rong, D.; Skare, M.; Streimikis, J. Renewable energy barriers and coping strategies: Evidence from the Baltic States. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 28, 352–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karakaya, E.; Sriwannawit, P. Barriers to the adoption of photovoltaic systems: The state of the art. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 49, 60–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nasirov, S.; Silva, C.; Agostini, C.A. Investors’ perspectives on barriers to the deployment of renewable energy sources in Chile. Energies 2015, 8, 3794–3814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Painuly, J.P. Barriers to renewable energy penetration; A framework for analysis. Renew. Energy 2001, 24, 73–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hicks, J.; Ison, N. An exploration of the boundaries of ‘community’ in community renewable energy projects: Navigating between motivations and context. Energy Policy 2018, 113, 523–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piwowar, A.; Dziku´c, M. Development of Renewable Energy Sources in the Context of Threats Resulting from Low-Altitude Emissions in Rural Areas in Poland: A Review. Energies 2019, 12, 3558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leenheer, J.; de Nooij, M.; Sheikh, O. Own power: Motives of having electricity without the energy company. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 5621–5629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campos, I.; Pontes, L.G.; Marín-González, E.; Gährs, S.; Hall, S.; Holstenkamp, L. Regulatory challenges and opportunities for collective renewable energy prosumers in the EU. Energy Policy 2020, 138, 111212. [Google Scholar]
- Balcombe, R.; Rigby, D.; Azapagic, A. Motivations and barriers associated with adopting microgeneration energy technologies in the UK. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 22, 655–666. [Google Scholar]
- Brummer, V. Community energy-benefits and barriers: A comparative literature review of Community Energy in the UK, Germany and the USA, the benefits it provides for society and the barriers it faces. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 94, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauwens, T. Explaining the diversity of motivation behind community renewable energy. Energy Policy 2016, 93, 278–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raza, W.; Saula, H.; Islam, S.U.; Ayub, M.; Saleem, M.; Raza, N. Renewable energy resources: Current status and barriers in their adaptation for Pakistan. J. Bioprocess. Chem. Eng. 2015, 3, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Bardi, U.; El Asmar, T.; Lavacchi, A. Turning electricity into food: The role of renewable energy in the future of agriculture. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 53, 224–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geels, F.W. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2011, 1, 24–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaaf, T.; Grünig, J.; Schuster, M.R.; Rothenfluh, T.; Orth, A. Methanation of CO2—Storage of renewable energy in a gas distribution system. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2014, 4, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mousazadeh, H.; Keyhani, A.; Mobli, H.; Bardi, U.; Lombardi, G.; El Asmar, T. Environmental assessment of RAMseS multipurpose electric vehicle compared to a conventional combustion engine vehicle. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 781–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El Asmar, T.; Bardi, U.M.; Karlowski, J.M. Renewable energy multipurpose system for farmers (RAMseS)—An environmental, technical and economic assessment with a comparison with a conventional thermodynamic vehicle. Pol. J. Agron. 2009, 1, 15–18. [Google Scholar]
- Cordell, D.; Drangert, J.O.; White, J.M. The story of phosphorus: Global food security and food for thought. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2009, 19, 292–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howden, N.J.K.; Burt, T.P.; Worrall, R.; Mathias, S.M.; Whelan, M.J.V. Nitrate pollution in intensively farmed regions: What are the prospects for sustaining high-quality groundwater? Water Resour. Res. 2011, 47, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ramankutty, N.; Seufert, V.M.; Foley, A.J. Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 2012, 485, 229–232. [Google Scholar]
- Woods, J.; Williams, A.; Hughes, J.K.; Black, M.; Murphy, R. The future of the global food system. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. 2010, 365, 2991–3006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ramankutty, N.; Amato, T.E.; Monfreda, C.; Foley, J.A. Farming the planet: Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 2008, 22, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mousazadeh, H.; Keyhani, A.; Mobli, H.; Bardi, U.; El Asmar, T. Sustainability in agricultural mechanization: Assessment of a combined photovoltaic and electric multipurpose system for farmers. Sustainability 2009, 1, 1042–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kotilainen, K.; Saari, U.A. Policy Influence on Consumers’ Evolution into Prosumers—Empirical Findings from an Exploratory Survey in Europe. Sustainability 2018, 10, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jasiński, J.; Kozakiewicz, M.; Sołtysik, M. Determinants of Energy Cooperatives’ Development in Rural Areas—Evidence from Poland. Energies 2021, 14, 319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Z.; Chang, R.; Chen, Y. What hinder the further development of wind power in China? A socio-technical barrier study. Energy Policy 2016, 88, 465–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burningham, K.; Barnett, J.; Walker, G. An array of deficits: Unpacking NIMBY discourses in wind energy developers’ conceptualizations of their local opponents. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2015, 28, 246–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wirth, S. Communities matter: Institutional preconditions for community renewable energy. Energy Policy 2014, 70, 236–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parag, Y.; Sovacool, B.K. Electricity market design for the prosumer era. Nat. Energy 2016, 1, 16032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bleicher, A.; Gross, M. User motivation, energy prosumers, and regional diversity: Sociological notes on using shallow geothermal energy. Geotherm. Energy 2015, 3, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shove, E. Converging conventions of comfort, cleanliness and convenience. J. Consum. Policy 2003, 26, 395–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kotler, P. Prosumers: A New Type of Consumer. Futurist 1986, 20, 24–28. [Google Scholar]
- Olkkonen, L.; Korjonen-Kuusipuro, K.; Gronberg, I. Redefining a stakeholder relation: Finnish energy “prosumers,” as co-producers. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2016, 24, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellsworth-Krebs, K.; Reid, L. Conceptualising energy prosumption: Exploring energy production, consumption and microgeneration in Scotland, UK. Environ. Plan. A 2016, 48, 1988–2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cadoret, I.; Padovano, F. The political drivers of renewable energies policies. Energy Econ. 2016, 56, 261–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soeiro, S.; Dias, M.F. Renewable energy community and the European energy market: Main motivations. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hargreaves, T.; Hielscher, S.; Seyfang, G.; Smith, A. Grassroots innovations in community energy: The role of intermediaries in niche development. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 23, 868–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Seyfang, G.; Hielscher, S.; Hargreaves, T.; Martiskainen, M.; Smith, A. A grassroots sustainable energy niche? Reflections on community energy in the UK. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2014, 13, 21–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yildiz, Ö.; Rommel, J.; Debor, S.; Holstenkamp, L.; Mey, F.; Müller, J.R.; Radtke, J.; Rognli, J. Renewable energy cooperatives as gatekeepers or facilitators? Recent developments in Germany and a multidisciplinary research agenda. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2015, 6, 59–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moroni, S.; Alberti, V.; Antoniucci, V.; Bisello, A. Energy communities in the transition to a low-carbon future: A taxonomical approach and some policy dilemmas. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 236, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heiskanen, E.; Johnson, M.; Robinson, S.; Vadovics, E.; Saastamoinen, M. Low- carbon communities as a context for individual behavioural change. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 7586–7595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoffman, S.M.; High-Pippert, A. Community energy: A social architecture for an alternative energy future. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 2005, 25, 387–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, V.C.A.; Hall, S. Community energy and equity: The distributional implications of a transition to a decentralised electricity system. People Place Policy 2014, 8, 149–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hain, J.J.; Ault, G.W.; Galloway, S.J.; Cruden, A.; McDonald, J.R. Additional renewable energy growth through small-scale community orientated energy policies. Energy Policy 2005, 33, 1199–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, S.; Foxon, T.J.; Bolton, R. Financing the civic energy sector: How financial institutions affect ownership models in Germany and the United Kingdom. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 12, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Heaslip, E.; Costello, G.J.; Lohan, J. Assessing good-practice frameworks for the development of sustainable energy communities in Europe: Lessons from Denmark and Ireland. J. Sustain. Dev. Energy Water Environ. Syst. 2016, 4, 307–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bristow, G.; Cowell, R.; Munday, M. Windfalls for whom? The evolving notion of ‘community’ in community benefit provisions from wind farms. Geoforum 2012, 43, 1108–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burke, M.J.; Stephens, J.C. Political power and renewable energy futures: A critical review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 35, 78–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, B.; Cloke, J.; Brown, E. Communities of energy. Econ. Anthropol. 2016, 3, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Curtin, J.; Mclnerney, C.; Johannsdottir, L. How can financial incentives promote local ownership of onshore wind and solar projects? Local Econ. 2018, 33, 40–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kellett, J. Community-based energy policy: A practical approach to carbon re- duction. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 2007, 50, 381–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koirala, B.P.; Koliou, E.; Friege, J.; Hakvoort, R.A.; Herder, P.M. Energetic communities for community energy: A review of key issues and trends shaping integrated community energy systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 56, 722–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Koirala, B.P.; Araghi, Y.; Kroesen, M.; Ghorbani, A.; Hakvoort, R.A.; Herder, P.M. Trust, awareness, and independence: Insights from a socio-psychological factor analysis of citizen knowledge and participation in community energy systems. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 38, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kunze, C.; Becker, S. Collective ownership in renewable energy and opportunities for sustainable degrowth. Sustain. Sci. 2015, 10, 425–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKenna, R. The double-edged sword of decentralized energy autonomy. Energy Policy 2018, 113, 747–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romero-Rubio, C.; de Andres Diaz, J.R. Sustainable energy communities: A study contrasting Spain and Germany. Energy Policy 2015, 85, 397–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanguinetti, A. The design of intentional communities: A recycled perspective on sustainable neighborhoods. Behav. Soc. Issues 2012, 21, 5–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schafer, M.; Hielscher, S.; Haas, W.; Hausknost, D.; Leitner, M.; Kunze, L.; Mandl, S. Facilitating low-carbon living? A comparison of intervention measures in different community-based initiatives. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Seyfang, G.; Park, J.J.; Smith, A. A thousand flowers blooming? An examination of community energy in the UK. Energy Policy 2013, 61, 977–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sperling, K. How does a pioneer community energy project succeed in practice? The case of the Sams0 Renewable Energy Island. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 71, 884–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, G.; Devine-Wright, P. Community renewable energy: What should it mean? Energy Policy 2008, 36, 497–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, G.; Devine-Wright, P.; Hunter, S.; High, H.; Evans, B. Trust ad community: Exploring the meanings, context and dynamics of community renewable energy. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 2655–2663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van der Schoor, T.; Scholtens, B. Power to the people: Local community initiatives and the transition to sustainable energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 43, 666–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wiseman, H.J.; Bronin, S.C. Community-scale renewable energy. San Diego J. Clim. Energy Law 2013, 14, 1–29. [Google Scholar]
- Bomberg, E.; McEwan, N. Mobilizing community energy. Energy Policy 2012, 51, 435–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boon, F.P.; Dieperink, C. Local civil society based renewable energy organisations in The Netherlands: Exploring the factors that stimulate their emergence and development. Energy Policy 2014, 69, 297–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petersen, J.P. Energy concepts for self-supplying communities based on local and renewable energy sources: A case study from northern Germany. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 26, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Susser, D.; Doring, M.; Ratter, B.M.W. Harvesting energy: Place and local en- trepreneurship in community-based renewable energy transition. Energy Policy 2017, 101, 332–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moroni, S.; Alberti, V.; Antoniucci, V.; Bisello, A. Energy communities in a dis- tributed energy scenario. In Green Energy and Technology; Bisello, A., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 429–437. [Google Scholar]
- Salkin, P.E. The key to unlocking the power of small scale renewable energy: Local land use regulation. J. Land Use 2012, 27, 339–367. [Google Scholar]
- Moorthy, K.; Patwa, N.; Gupta, Y. Breaking barriers in deployment of renewable energy. Heliyon 2019, 5, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Papież, M.; Śmiech, S.; Frodyma, K. Determinants of renewable energy development in the EU countries. A 20-Year Perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 91, 918–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gorroño-Albizu, L.; Sperling, K.; Djørup, S. The past, present and uncertain future of community energy in Denmark: Critically reviewing and conceptualising citizen ownership. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 57, 101231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sovacool, B.K. Rejecting renewables: The socio-technical impediments to renewable electricity in the United States. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 4500–4513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reddy, S.; Painuly, J.P. Diffusion of renewable energy technologies-barriers and stakeholders7 perspectives. Renew. Energy 2004, 29, 1431–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michaels, L.; Parag, Y. Motivations and barriers to integrating “presuming” services into the future decentralized electricity grid: Findings from Israel. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 21, 70–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sovacool, B.K. Renewable Energy: Economically Sound, Politically Difficult. Electr. J. 2008, 21, 18–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Couture, T.; Gagnon, Y. An analysis of feed-in tariff remuneration models: Implications for renewable energy investment. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 955–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, G. What are the barriers and incentives for community-owned means of energy production and use? Energy Policy 2008, 36, 4401–4405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Middlemiss, L.; Parrish, B. Building capacity for low-carbon communities: The role of grassroots initiatives. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 7559–7566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kotilainen, K.; Makinen, S.; Jarventausta, P.; Rautiainen, A.; Markkula, J. The Role of Residential Prosumers Initiating the Energy Innovation Ecosystem to Future Flexible Energy System. In Proceedings of the 2016 13th International Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM), Porto, Portugal, 6–9 June 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Laroche, M.; Bergeron, J.; Barbaro-Forleo, G. Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. J. Consum. Mark 2001, 189, 503–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Walker, G.P.; Hunter, S.; Devine-Wright, P.; Evans, B.; Fay, H. Harnessing community energies: Explaining and evaluating community-based localism in renewable energy policy in the UK. Glob. Environ. Politics 2007, 7, 64–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, M.; Fudge, S.; Sinclair, P. Mobilizing community action towards a low-carbon future: Opportunities and challenges for local government in the UK. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 7596–7603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, J.; Simmons, E.; Convery, I.; Weatherall, A. Public perceptions of opportunities for community-based renewable energy projects. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 4217–4226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Oteman, M.; Wiering, M.; Helderman, J.K. The institutional space of community initiatives for renewable energy: A comparative case study of the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2014, 4, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Toke, D. Wind power in UK and Denmark: Can rational choice help explain different outcomes? Environ. Politics 2002, 11, 83–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rotmans, J.; Loorbach, D. Complexity and transition management. J. Ind. Ecol. 2009, 13, 184–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agterbosch, S.; Vermeulen, W.; Glasbergen, G. Implementation of wind energyin the Netherlands: The importance of the social–institutional setting. Energy Policy 2004, 32, 2049–2066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jarventausta, P. Smart Grids with Large Scale Implementation of Automatic Meter Reading—Experiences from Finland. In The Handbook of Clean Energy Systems; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Burgess, J.; Nye, M. Re-materializing energy use through transparent monitoring systems. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 4454–4459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hargreaves, T. Practiceing behaviour change: Applying social practice theory to pro-environmental behaviour change. J. Consum. Cult. 2011, 11, 79–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IEA-RETD. Residential Prosumers—Drivers and Policy Options (RE-Prosumers). 2014. Available online: http://iea-retd.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/RE-PROSUMERS_IEA-RETD_2014.pdf (accessed on 23 August 2021).
- Lazo, J.; McClain, K.T. Community perceptions, environmental impacts, and energy policy: Rail shipment of coal. Energy Policy 1996, 24, 531–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauwens, T.; Gotchev, B.; Holstenkamp, L. What drives the development of community energy in Europe? The case of wind power cooperatives. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 13, 136–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bulkeley, H.; Betsill, M. Rethinking sustainable cities: Multilevel governance and the ‘urban’ politics of climate change. Environ. Polit. 2005, 14, 42–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaw, S.; Mazzucchelli, P. Evaluating the perspectives for hydrogen energy uptake in communities: Success criteria and their application. Energy Policy 2008, 38, 5359–5371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alam, S.S.; Nik Hashim, N.H.; Rashid, M.; Omar, N.A.; Ahsan, N.; Ismail, M.D. Small-scale households renewable energy usage intention: Theoretical development and empirical settings. Renew. Energy 2014, 68, 255–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaffe, A.B.; Stavins, R.N. Dynamic Incentives of Environmental Regulations: The Effects of Alternative Policy Instruments on Technology Diffusion. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1995, 29, S43–S63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paravantis, J.A.; Stigka, E.K.; Mihalakakou, G.K. An analysis of public attitudes towards renewable energy in Western Greece. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 32, 100–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaffe, A.B.; Newell, R.G.; Stavins, R.N. A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 54, 164–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lipp, J. Lessons for effective renewable electricity policy from Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 5481–5495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nolden, C. Governing community energy—Feed-in tariffs and the development of community wind energy schemes in the United Kingdom and Germany. Energy Policy 2013, 63, 543–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Golubchikov, O.; Deda, P. Governance, technology, and equity: An integrated policy framework for energy efficient housing. Energy Policy 2012, 41, 733–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kristensson, P.; Matthing, J.; Johansson, N. Key strategies for the successful involvement of customers in the co-creation of new technology-based services. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 1991, 2, 49–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wirth, S.; Markard, J.; Truffer, B.; Rohracher, H. Informal institutions matter: Professional culture and the development of biogas technology. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 2013, 8, 20–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Streeck, W.; Schmitter, P. Community, market, state, and associations? The prospective contribution of interest governance to social order. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 1985, 1, 119–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baccaro, L. Civil society meets the state: Towards associational democracy? Soc. Econ. Rev. 2005, 4, 185–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jobert, A.; Laborgne, P.; Mimler, S. Local acceptance of wind energy: Factors of success identified in French and German case studies. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2751–2760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Musall, F.D.; Kuik, O. Local acceptance of renewable energy—A case study from southeast Germany. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 3252–3260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huybrechts, B.; Mertens, T.S. he relevance of the cooperative model in the field of renewable energy. Ann. Public Coop. Econ. 2014, 85, 193–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hvelplund, F. Innovative democracy, political economy, and the transition to renewable energy. A full-scale experiment in Denmark 1976–2013. Environ. Res. Eng. Manag. 2014, 66, 5–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, 1st ed.; Free Press of Glencoe: New York, NY, USA, 1962. [Google Scholar]
- McDaniel, P.; McLaughlin, S. Security and privacy challenges in the Smart Grid. IEEE Secur. Priv. 2009, 3, 75–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mirza, U.K.; Ahmad, N.; Harijan, K.; Majeed, T. Identifying and addressing barriers to renewable energy development in Pakistan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 927–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burgess, J. Sustainable consumption: Is it really achievable? Consumer Policy Review 2003, 13, 78–84. [Google Scholar]
- Benders, R.M.J.; Kok, R.; Moll, H.; Wiersma, G.; Noorman, K.J. New approaches for household energy conservation—In search of personal household energy budgets and energy reduction options. Energy Policy 2006, 34, 3612–3622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, E.E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed.; Simon & Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Simon, H.A. A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. Q. J. Econ. 2011, 69, 99–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, R.; Deci, E. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation. Am. Psychol. 2000, 55, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C.; Abel, T.D.; Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Abel, T.; Guagnano, G.A.; Kalof, L. A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 1999, 6, 81–97. [Google Scholar]
- Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research; Addision-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Ajzen, I. From intentions to actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. In Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior; Beckman, J., Kuhl, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1985; pp. 11–39. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, F.D. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2017, 27, 425–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mazzucato, M.; Semieniuk, G. Financing renewable energy: Who is financing what and why it matters. Technol. Soc. Chang. 2018, 127, 8–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moroni, S.; Antoniucci, V.; Bisello, A. Energy sprawl, land taking and distributed generation. Energy Policy 2016, 98, 266–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moroni, S. Towards a General Theory of Contractual Communities. In Cities and Private Planning; Andersson, D., Moroni, S., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2014; pp. 38–65. [Google Scholar]
Type of Barrier or Motive | Motives | Barriers |
---|---|---|
Financial or economic cluster | Money savings or additional incomes from lower fuel bills and governmental support measures. | The investment costs are becoming a minor barrier, as currently RES, especially photovoltaic as well as small hydroelectricity projects and small-scale wind generators, are becoming increasingly competitive in most European countries, and indeed, in most of the world. |
An increase in the value of the farm and home. | Earning and money savings are limited. | |
Additional income for prosumers from the energy sales. | Loss of all investments when moving out. | |
Additional income from land leasing for the installation of large solar or wind parks, etc. | Quite high costs of renewable energy technology maintenance; however, these costs are dramatically diminishing with the rise of solar and wind power generation as viable commercial options. | |
Switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources lowers the costs of agricultural production due to the high prices of fossil fuels. | Unknown operational costs. | |
The use of organic waste from agricultural production and animal waste for energy generation allows obtaining economic benefits. | Lengthy investment payback, which is as well constantly diminishing with the decreasing costs of RES projects. | |
High energy dependency of the country. | There are still many regulations that protect big fossil energy producers from free competition due to their high lobbying power, and currently, this is one of the most important barriers to the fast penetration of RES. | |
Socio-political, regulatory, and environmental cluster | Low poverty level, high income of households, and low energy prices. | Lack of attention from local authorities and no resources are allocated for the engagement in RES promotion programs or community RES initiatives. |
Long-term stable state policies that are supporting the low-carbon transition in all sectors. | Low income and high electricity prices; high poverty and inequality in the country. | |
Active involvement and participation of community members in the planning and implementation of low-carbon energy transition policies. | Unstable political support and changing policies to promote the use of renewables and low-carbon transition of the energy sector, unsure subsidies and changing policies. | |
Energy activism traditions and collaborative political cultures. | Insufficient local community engagement and participation. | |
High independence of regional governments. | Low capabilities of community leaders to preserve the interest and participation of community members in daily work that is related to the RES technologies licensing, financing, and management. | |
Strong political support of renewable energy transition. | Regional government is dependent. | |
Strong energy citizenship movement among the community members. | Lack of incentives and unclear, underdeveloped business models to support prosumption. | |
Historically well-established cooperative movement in rural communities is having an impact on evolving the community RES initiatives and clustering as well as collective prosumption. | Lack of openness from the vendors of technologies, which has a negative impact on the participation of the end users in RES technology testing and the provision of feedback | |
Renewable energy projects help to reduce pollution and improve the environment and health of the rural communities | Prevalence of Not In My Back Yard (NYMBY) phenomenon in local communities when communities are resisting RES projects that are implemented in the nearby area, regardless its positive or negative impacts. | |
RES projects allow protecting rural communities from higher energy costs in the future. | The environmental benefits are not big enough to encourage the usage of RES technologies. | |
RES projects can make farms more energy self-sufficient. | RES projects are not always making farms much more energy self-sufficient or energy independent. | |
RES projects allow protecting farms from possible power cuts and energy supply disruptions. | Potentially high requirements for planning permissions of RES technologies. | |
Lack of renewable energy optimization in the planning possibilities. | ||
Ineffectiveness of regional governance due to their high dependence on the national level. | ||
Mandatory regime actors apply various forms of resistance (discursive, material, and institutional) for the RES penetration. | ||
Behavioral and psychological cluster | RES projects allow using innovative and high-tech systems that have an impact on the know-how and capacity development of the rural communities. | High uncertainty and lack of trust in renewable energy technologies. |
Continuous training, which is necessary for the use of RES technologies, would increase human capital in rural communities. | Farm or location is not suitable for “smart solutions”, and this creates numerous problems for farmers and community members. | |
Positive attitudes of the rural community members and farmers towards the cooperative models. | Renewable energy system performance or reliability of these systems is not good enough and causes additional worries for farmers and community members. | |
Shows environmental commitment of farmers and community members to others. | In the case of RES technologies, the energy is not available when it is needed due to the high intermittency of energy supply and provides a lot of risks. | |
For rural communities and farmers, it is hard to find trustworthy information about RES technologies. | ||
For farmers and rural communities, it is hard to find any information, and in the case of disruption or hassle of installation or operations, there are many problems. | ||
Complicated use and maintenance of RES technologies. | ||
Lack of experience and knowledge in rural communities and among the farmers. | ||
The complexity of regional, national, and international funding and subsidy schemes with their various conditions, maturities, exemptions, etc. | ||
Lack of trustworthy information on renewable energy benefits for rural communities. | ||
Farmers and community members have a lot of privacy and security concerns with the data usage in the smart grids. | ||
Takes up too much space on the farm and is too noisy. | ||
The installation might damage a home. | ||
RES installations may not look good and can damage the landscape of the farm and community land. | ||
RES installation might cause the neighbor’s disapproval. |
Barrier of Renewable Energy Community Initiatives | TAM | IDT | Policies | Policies and Measures |
---|---|---|---|---|
Investment costs and long payback period of investments are becoming less important due to the reduction in RES installation costs | Perceived usefulness | Relative advantage | Economic | State’s financial support in the form of subsidies, grants, loan guarantees, low-interest loans, tax rebates and exemptions, GHG and other pollution taxes, GHG emission trading, etc., the establishment of financial support institutions |
Unknown operational costs | Perceived usefulness | Relative advantage | Economic and non-economic | Tax rebates and exemptions, GHG emission taxes and GHG emission trading, feed-in-tariffs and quotas, incentive schemes, green tradable certificate schemes, information dissemination campaigns |
Ease of use and complexity of new RES technologies | Perceived ease of use | Complexity | Non-economic | Information dissemination campaigns, training, capacity building, straightforward permissions and licensing |
Renewable energy benefits are not fully comprehended | Perceived usefulness | Relative advantage | Non-economic | Information dissemination campaigns, education, training, and capacity building |
No interest in new RES technologies | Perceived usefulness | Compatibility | Non-economic | Information dissemination and environmental awareness-raising campaigns, education, capacity building and training |
Concerns about the data security and privacy | Perceived usefulness | Relative advantage | Non-economic and economic | Information dissemination and education campaigns, training, capacity building, the establishment of data privacy and protection laws and regulations, secure management of all sensitive data |
Lack of turnkey solutions | Perceived ease of use | Complexity | Non-economic | Support of commercialization, information dissemination campaigns, education and capacity building |
The vested interests and lobbying power of big fossil fuel utilities are becoming more important barriers to RES | Perceive usefulness | Relative advantage | Non-economic and economic | The abolishment of regulations that shelter big fossil fuel producers and the establishment of a competitive position of RES technologies in the energy markets |
High regulatory barriers | Perceive usefulness | Complexity | Non-economic | Improvement of legislation, creation of favorable conditions to prosumers, including collective prosumers, such as energy cooperatives and regulation quality, eradicating bureaucracy, the establishment of supporting institutions and middle players in the RES markets |
Low cooperation culture, low community participation and engagement | Perceive usefulness | Complexity | Non-economic and economic | Decentralization of governance structure and strategic planning, state support of community engagement and participation, promotion of social coherence, advancement of energy citizenship and other democratic forms of community involvement |
Dimension | Capacities | Success Factors |
---|---|---|
Strategical conditions | Cultural capacities | The legitimacy of sustainable development goals, environmental awareness and attitudes, willingness to act in implementing sustainable development goals that are available in rural communities |
Organizational capacities | Support of state and local authorities and encouragement of local community renewable energy actions | |
Personal capacities | Entrepreneurship, visionary leadership, enthusiasm, knowledge and expertise, access to technology, adaptive capacity, resilience, management, technical and engineering skills of individual rural community members | |
Institutional conditions | Political capacities | Availability and continuity of state and local authorities’ incentives, subsidies, soft loans, tax rebates, etc., priority for sustainable development goals, state and local authorities’ support in terms of advice and finances for RES projects that are initiated by rural communities, networking of various stakeholders |
Legal and regulatory capacities | Quality of regulations and legislation, sound decision-making processes, low bureaucratic burden, high degree of discretionary space, effective control mechanisms | |
Economic capacities | Proper division of material resources in rural communities, availability of investors and funds, predictable economic efficiency, and profitability of RES initiatives | |
Socio-cultural capacities | Availability of high capacity for institutional learning and problem perception, positive attitudes on the experimentation in rural communities | |
Physical conditions | Potentially high average wind speed, high solar irradiation level, availability of tidal waves, high hydropower resources, high biomass potential, availability of vast land areas, which can be used for RES projects, presence of fossil fuels, urbanization level of territory, technological development level of RES technologies that are available |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Streimikiene, D.; Baležentis, T.; Volkov, A.; Morkūnas, M.; Žičkienė, A.; Streimikis, J. Barriers and Drivers of Renewable Energy Penetration in Rural Areas. Energies 2021, 14, 6452. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14206452
Streimikiene D, Baležentis T, Volkov A, Morkūnas M, Žičkienė A, Streimikis J. Barriers and Drivers of Renewable Energy Penetration in Rural Areas. Energies. 2021; 14(20):6452. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14206452
Chicago/Turabian StyleStreimikiene, Dalia, Tomas Baležentis, Artiom Volkov, Mangirdas Morkūnas, Agnė Žičkienė, and Justas Streimikis. 2021. "Barriers and Drivers of Renewable Energy Penetration in Rural Areas" Energies 14, no. 20: 6452. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14206452