The following provides a literature review on evaluation for assessing the impact of energy technologies. It was written to provide context for evaluators or project proponents of neighbourhood battery projects to help them understand the importance and history of evaluating such technologies.
Introduction
Large-scale energy infrastructure has been subject to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for decades, since EIA was first institutionalised in the National Environmental Protection Act in the US in 1970. To a lesser extent, energy impact assessment has also drawn on Social Impact Assessment4. Most early EIA on energy projects focused on centralised infrastructure (power plants, transmission and pipelines, dams) and the potential negative impacts on local communities and environments. More recently, attention has focused on renewable energy infrastructure in the context of energy transition, including consideration of distributed energy resources. This has given rise to new contexts and practices of impact assessment.
Social dimensions have historically been neglected in impact assessment, including of energy projects3,4. However, recent work on renewable energy technologies has focused attention on ‘social acceptance’, given opposition from local communities to renewable energy projects5,6. This opposition has arisen despite general public support for renewables, leading to discussions of NIMBYism (Not in my backyard). Work on social acceptance, particularly in relation to wind turbines, has led to critiques of NIMBY accounts and has provided broader and more empirically-based accounts of social responses to new technologies28,29. These more nuanced understandings have led to new approaches to impact assessment, particularly ones that involve participation of stakeholders and affected communities9–11 and consider uncertainty30. Assessments have become more pro-active and have begun to happen earlier in projects.
Thus, impact assessment is acknowledged to have a role at different stages in the development of energy technologies/infrastructure, with different approaches suited to different stages:
- Planning – choosing which technologies and system changes are appropriate in a given setting
- Design – tailoring technologies and system changes to suit the needs and constraints of the setting
- Evaluation – assessing the success of projects after implementation for learning and reporting
Planning/technology choice
Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is still a widely used method of choosing technologies, system changes and, especially, policies13. Historically based on economic measures, CBA has been broadened to consider environmental and social dimensions by using methods of valuation of these dimensions (putting dollar costs on environmental and social values14). These methods are not without their problems and CBA can fail to present trade-offs and contestations based on different values. However, as a powerful tool, especially in informing policy, CBA can serve to put social and environmental values on the agenda in decision-making.
Multi-criteria Decision Aid (MCDA) involves a suite of methodologies that enable a range of values to be taken into account in decisions, and has been used extensively in assessing energy technology and system investments15,31 . MCDA generally involves the identification of indicators associated with a particular context and set of objectives and the weighting of these indicators. Weighted indicators are then used to assess different options, often presented in the form of scenarios. MCDA generally takes account of environmental and social dimensions in addition to economic and technical values. Weighting is a key step in taking account of the importance of different dimensions, and this is often done by experts. More recently, there have been developments in involving stakeholders, communities and end-users in these weighting exercises9,15. MCDA, particularly when combined with broader participation, has more capacity to deal with multi-dimensional issues and to enable and visualise contestation and compromise between different values and stakeholders (Chopin et al., 2019).
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is used in the context of energy transition to assess new technologies and developments, not just in terms of efficiency and performance, but also in terms of the energy and broader resource and environmental costs over the whole lifecycle, including manufacture, use and disposal15. LCA is particularly used when the emphasis is on environmental impacts. Social dimensions are rarely considered in detail in LCA studies.
Designing technology
Design is a broad field/practice that focuses on the interaction between ‘users’ and the human-made environment (International Council of Design). As such, design is as old as technology. Historically focused on physical and aesthetic dimensions of technologies, in the context of industrialisation and commercial production, design has increasingly taken a human-centred turn, particularly with the development of digital technologies. Extending a focus on ‘users’ and their experiences, co-design has developed as a set of methods to increase the participation of users and citizens in all stages of design, from the earliest problem framing, for both technologies and policies.
Value-sensitive design
Co-design and value-sensitive design approaches are distinct from technology choice methodologies in working with the ongoing development of technologies in local contexts. There is recognition that design is not simply about a singular problem solution, but that technologies, users, practices and context are constantly evolving during the design process, and that a systemic approach is needed (sometimes referred to as ‘infrastructuring’ or ‘metadesign’32. An excellent example is provided by Alvial-Palavicino and co-authors33, who worked with a rural community in Chile to develop a micro-grid, treating the site and community as a socio-ecological system.
Technology assessment
Assessment of energy technologies can also be conducted at higher, sector-wide levels using approaches from Technology Assessment. Technology Assessment originally developed in the US to assess emerging areas of technology, particularly to inform policy34. Initially a process based on expert evaluation, technology assessment, particularly in Europe, has developed approaches to engage stakeholders, users and citizens in assessments35. Such high-level assessments, particularly at early stages, can identify new classes of impact as well as relevant issues, opportunities & options specific to the technology, including from the perspectives of users and communities. These can then inform the work of designers, developers and policy makers. Such broad assessments are also important in considering how particular technologies fit in relation to alternative pathways and options for transition16.
Social indicators
As above, social dimensions are often neglected or treated narrowly in energy assessments and evaluations. They are sometimes framed as ‘externalities’36 or in terms of barriers to innovation and implementation of energy technologies, reflected in the focus on social acceptance. Many studies focus on a few key criteria, such as job creation, social acceptance and visual impact while others wrap social dimensions up in broad categories such as ‘social benefits’ and ‘local development15’. In response, there have been efforts to extend social impact assessment beyond traditional social concerns such as basic needs, jobs, equity, poverty to emerging themes such as demographic change, social cohesion, identity, sense of place, empowerment, participation and wellbeing3. These developments, which include assessment of distributed energy storage17, mirror progress in related areas such as urban planning37–39.
There are also attempts to shift from instrumental understandings of social acceptability and benefits as necessary for implementation of new technologies and systems, to evaluating benefits in the context of environmental justice and the sustainability of technology development and transition40. These shifts recognise that social and environmental considerations are interwoven for local communities41 and that ‘acceptability’ is based not only on technologies and their direct effects/benefits, but also on the institutional context, including governance and markets.
There are also attempts to shift from instrumental understandings of social acceptability and benefits as necessary for implementation of new technologies and systems, to evaluating benefits in the context of environmental justice and the sustainability of technology development and transition40. These shifts recognise that social and environmental considerations are interwoven for local communities41 and that ‘acceptability’ is based not only on technologies and their direct effects/benefits, but also on the institutional context, including governance and markets5. They also highlight the importance of engagement with local context and communities, and assessment of technologies in relation to local needs and requirements18.
References
1. Ransan-Cooper, H. Stakeholder views on the potential role of community scale storage in Australia. https://arena.gov.au/assets/2020/08/stakeholder-views-on-community-scale-storage-in-australia.pdf (2020).
2. Bice, S. & Moffat, K. Social licence to operate and impact assessment. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 32, 257–262 (2014).
3. Ribeiro, F., Ferreira, P. & Araújo, M. The inclusion of social aspects in power planning. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 4361–4369 (2011).
4. Larsen, S. V., Hansen, A. M. & Nielsen, H. N. The role of EIA and weak assessments of social impacts in conflicts over implementation of renewable energy policies. Energy Policy 115, 43–53 (2018).
5. Devine-Wright, P. et al. A conceptual framework for understanding the social acceptance of energy infrastructure: Insights from energy storage. Energy Policy 107, 27–31 (2017).
6. Assefa, G. & Frostell, B. Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: A case study of energy technologies. Technol. Soc. 29, 63–78 (2007).
7. Batel, S. & Devine-Wright, P. Towards a better understanding of people’s responses to renewable energy technologies: Insights from Social Representations Theory. Public Underst Sci 24, 311–25 (2015).
8. Devine-Wright, P. Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 19, 426–441 (2009).
9. Chopin, P., Guindé, L., Causeret, F., Bergkvist, G. & Blazy, J.-M. Integrating stakeholder preferences into assessment of scenarios for electricity production from locally produced biomass on a small island. Renew. Energy 131, 128–136 (2019).
10. Zelt, O., Krüger, C., Blohm, M., Bohm, S. & Far, S. Long-Term Electricity Scenarios for the MENA Region: Assessing the Preferences of Local Stakeholders Using Multi-Criteria Analyses. Energies 12, 3046 (2019).
11. Quitoras, M. R., Cabrera, P., Campana, P. E., Rowley, P. & Crawford, C. Towards robust investment decisions and policies in integrated energy systems planning: Evaluating trade-offs and risk hedging strategies for remote communities. Energy Convers. Manag. 229, 113748 (2021).
12. Esteves, A. M., Franks, D. & Vanclay, F. Social impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 30, 34–42 (2012).
13. OECD. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment. (2018). doi:https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264085169-en.
14. Stigka, E. K., Paravantis, J. A. & Mihalakakou, G. K. Social acceptance of renewable energy sources: A review of contingent valuation applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 32, 100–106 (2014).
15. Strantzali, E. & Aravossis, K. Decision making in renewable energy investments: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 55, 885–898 (2016).
16. van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Alternative pathways to the 1.5 °C target reduce the need for negative emission technologies. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 391–397 (2018).
17. Ambrosio-Albala, P., Upham, P., Bale, C. S. E. & Taylor, P. G. Exploring acceptance of decentralised energy storage at household and neighbourhood scales: A UK survey. Energy Policy 138, 111194 (2020).
18. Lizana, J., Barrios-Padura, ÿngela, Molina-Huelva, M. & Chacartegui, R. Multi-criteria assessment for the effective decision management in residential energy retrofitting. Energy Build. 129, 284–307 (2016).
19. Boudet, H. S. Public perceptions of and responses to new energy technologies. Nat. Energy 4, 446–455 (2019).
20. Nicholls, L., Arcari, P., Glover, A., Martin, R. & Strengers, Y. Engaging households towards the future grid: experiences, expectations and emerging trends. www.energyconsumersaustralia.com.au (2019).
21. Temby, H. & Ransan-Cooper, H. ‘We want it to work’: understanding household experiences with new energy technologies in Australia. https://www.ewov.com.au/reports/voices (2021).
22. Ransan-Cooper, H., Lovell, H., Watson, P., Harwood, A. & Hann, V. Frustration, confusion and excitement: Mixed emotional responses to new household solar-battery systems in Australia. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 70, 101656 (2020).
23. Milchram, C., Künneke, R., Doorn, N., van de Kaa, G. & Hillerbrand, R. Designing for justice in electricity systems: A comparison of smart grid experiments in the Netherlands. Energy Policy 147, 111720 (2020).
24. Chapman, A. J., McLellan, B. & Tezuka, T. Proposing an evaluation framework for energy policy making incorporating equity: Applications in Australia. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 21, 54–69 (2016).
25. Adams, S. et al. Social license to automate: A critical review of emerging approaches to electricity demand management. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 80, 102210 (2021).
26. Next generation engagement: Setting a research agenda for community engagement in Australia’s infrastructure sector – Bice – 2019 – Australian Journal of Public Administration – Wiley Online Library. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.virtual.anu.edu.au/doi/full/10.1111/1467-8500.12381.
27. Dahlgren, K., Strengers, Y., Pink, S., Nicholls, L. & Sadowski, J. Digital energy futures: review of industry trends, visions and scenarios for the home. 101 (2020).
28. Devine-Wright, P. Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 8, 125–139 (2005).
29. Strazzera, E., Mura, M. & Contu, D. Combining choice experiments with psychometric scales to assess the social acceptability of wind energy projects: A latent class approach. Energy Policy 48, 334–347 (2012).
30. Elghali, L., Clift, R., Sinclair, P., Panoutsou, C. & Bauen, A. Developing a sustainability framework for the assessment of bioenergy systems. Energy Policy 35, 6075–6083 (2007).
31. Anderson, K. et al. Quantifying and Monetizing Renewable Energy Resiliency. Sustainability 10, 933 (2018).
32. Britton, G. Co-Design and Social Innovation : Connections, Tensions and Opportunities. (Routledge, 2017).
33. Alvial-Palavicino, C., Garrido-Echeverría, N., Jiménez-Estévez, G., Reyes, L. & Palma-Behnke, R. A methodology for community engagement in the introduction of renewable based smart microgrid. Energy Sustain. Dev. 15, 314–323 (2011).
34. Bimber, Bruce & Guston, David H. Introduction: The end of OTA and the future of technology assessment. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 54, 125–130 (1997).
35. Bridges between science, society and policy: Technologyassessment—methods and impacts. (Springer, 2004).
36. Gallego Carrera, D. & Mack, A. Sustainability assessment of energy technologies via social indicators: Results of a survey among European energy experts. Energy Policy 38, 1030–1039 (2010).
37. Bottero, M., Dell’Anna, F. & Morgese, V. Evaluating the Transition Towards Post-Carbon Cities: A Literature Review. Sustainability 13, 567 (2021).
38. Kaur, H. & Garg, P. Urban sustainability assessment tools: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 210, 146–158 (2019).
39. Awadh, O. Sustainability and green building rating systems: LEED, BREEAM, GSAS and Estidama critical analysis. J. Build. Eng. 11, 25–29 (2017).
40. Cowell, R., Bristow, G. & Munday, M. Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: the role of community benefits in wind energy development. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 54, 539–557 (2011).
41. Getor, R. Y., Ramudhin, A. & Keivanpour, S. Social acceptability of a wind turbine blade facility in Kingston upon hull. J. Clean. Prod. 379, 134859 (2022).