Stakeholders' appraisal of biomass-based energy development at local scale

Nikodinoska, Natasha; Mattivi, M.; Notaro, Sandra; Paletto, Alessandro

doi:10.1063/1.4916654

Cited by 18 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Accordingly, to launch successful REs projects at the local scale requires a sound understanding of the larger European and national political frameworks. Indeed, bioenergy has a key role in the European Union (EU) policy and its implementation at national, regional and local levels calls for the inclusion of stakeholders' opinions to increase social acceptance and to reduce conflicts (Nikodinoska et al 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovation in the use of wood energy in the Ukrainian Carpathians: Opportunities and threats for rural communities

Soloviy

Melnykovych

Gurung

et al. 2019

Forest Policy and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ukraine is traditionally deeply dependent on fossil and nuclear energy. However, in response to global climate and energy policies, a major shift towards renewable energy (RE) is presently underway. Apart from ample wind and solar capacities, the country has abundant bioenergy resources, mainly from agriculture and forestry. Particularly in the densely-forested Ukrainian Carpathians, wood is the most prominent bioenergy source used to meet the heat demands of households and public buildings. However, despite increasing forest area and timber volume in this region during the last 50 years, affordable bioenergy from forests remains scarce in many areas. At the same time, local communities suffer from energy scarcity, energy insecurity and high energy costs.In an effort to understand how better use might be made of Ukraine's bioenergy resource, addressing sustainability goals as well as the needs of local communities, this study assesses the significance and future potential of wood energy for regional economies and households from an environmental, economic and social perspective. The study employs a mixed-method approach combining literature review, a Best Practice contest and semi-structured interviews with forestry sector stakeholders in rural areas of Transcarpathia and Lviv. Several reasons were identified for the scarcity of affordable bioenergy, including the export-oriented wood processing industry, the lack of forest road networks and machinery, the short-term character of national forest strategies in relation to bioenergy, and other institutional settings that limit access to forest resources. Illegal logging, corruption, and laxck of transparency in and corrupt and non-transparent timber markets add further difficulties. To address these problems and to meet the challenges defined by international climate agreements, two key innovative instruments were identified; 1) certification schemes for forest products and; 2) community-driven bioenergy initiatives (e.g. local cooperatives.). These approaches, ideally embedded in a local energy strategy developed by the communities themselves, have the potential to transform energy and benefit communities and the local economy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovation in the use of wood energy in the Ukrainian Carpathians: Opportunities and threats for rural communities

Soloviy

Melnykovych

Gurung

et al. 2019

Forest Policy and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some studies identify how demonstrable socioeconomic benefits are key to successful deployment of AR (Schirmer & Bull, 2014) and bioenergy‐based policies more broadly (Nikodinoska, Mattivi, Notaro, & Paletto, 2015). Where private landowners are the decision‐makers, afforestation is most likely to be practiced on marginal land, and where there are environmental co‐benefits (Schirmer & Bull, 2014).…”

Section: What Are the Socio‐political Dimensions Of Beccs And Ar?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Contested framings of greenhouse gas removal and its feasibility: Social and political dimensions

Waller

Rayner

Chilvers

et al. 2020

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prospective approaches for large‐scale greenhouse gas removal (GGR) are now central to the post‐2020 international commitment to pursue efforts to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5°C. However, the feasibility of large‐scale GGR has been repeatedly questioned. Most systematic analyses focus only on the physical, technical, and economic challenges of deploying it at scale. However, social and political dimensions will be just as important, if not more so, to how possible futures play out. We conduct one of the first reviews of the international peer‐reviewed literature pertaining to the social and political dimensions of large‐scale GGR, with a specific focus on two predominant approaches: Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and afforestation/reforestation (AR). Our analysis of 78 studies proposes two important insights. First, it shows how six key social and political dimensions of GGR feasibility–namely economics and incentives; innovation; societal engagement; governance; complexity and uncertainty; and ethics, equity, and justice–are identifiable and are emphasized to varying degrees in the literature. Second, there are three contested ways in which BECCS and AR and their feasibility are being framed in the literature: (a) a techno‐economic framing; (b) a social and political acceptability framing; and (c) a responsible development framing. We suggest this third frame will, and indeed should, become increasingly pertinent to the assessment, innovation, and governance of climate futures. This article is categorized under: The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Policies, Instruments, Lifestyles, Behavior.

show abstract

“…The identification and participation of stakeholders is a vital part of SWOT (Nikodinoska et al, 2015).…”

Section: Cognitive Maps Group Maps and Mcdamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In most SWOT-MCDA cases, stakeholders were actively engaged through questionnaires (e.g. Nikodinoska et al, 2015), interviews (e.g. Kajanus et al, 2004), focus groups (e.g.…”

Section: Cognitive Maps Group Maps and Mcdamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…SWOT can benefit MCDA in several ways. Firstly, SWOT can bring added-value to stakeholder involvement, supporting the development of a common language and providing a simple method to improve communication and learning (Kurttila et al, 2000, Kajanus et al, 2004, Margles et al, 2010, Bottero, 2015, Nikodinoska et al, 2015. Secondly, SWOT helps to better understand the decision situation and its underlying structure.…”

Section: Cognitive Maps Group Maps and Mcdamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Structuring problems for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in practice: A literature review of method combinations

Marttunen

Lienert

Belton³

2017

European Journal of Operational Research

305

176

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structuring problems for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) has attracted increasing attention over the past 20 years from both a conceptual and a practical perspective. This is reflected in a significant growth in the number of published applications which use a formal approach to problem structuring in combination with an analytic method for multi-criteria analysis. The problem structuring approaches (PSMs) include general methodologies such as Checkland's Soft Systems Method (SSM), Eden and Ackermann's Strategic Options Design and Analysis (SODA) and other methods that focus on a particular aspect. We carried out a literature review that covers eight PSMs (Cognitive and Causal Maps, DPSIR, Scenario Planning, SSM, Stakeholder Analysis, Strategic Choice Approach, SODA and SWOT) and seven MCDA methods (AHP, ANP, ELECTRE, MAUT, MAVT, PROMETHEE and TOPSIS). We first identified and analysed 333 articles published during 2000-2015, then selected 68 articles covering all PSM-MCDA combinations, which were studied in detail to understand the associated processes, benefits and challenges. The three PSMs most commonly combined with MCDA are SWOT, Scenario Planning and DPSIR. AHP was by far the most commonly applied MCDA method. Combining PSMs with MCDA produces a richer view of the decision situation and enables more effective support for different phases of the decision-making process. Some limitations and challenges in combining PSMs and MCDA are also identified, most importantly relating to building a value tree and assigning criteria weights.

show abstract

Stakeholders' appraisal of biomass-based energy development at local scale

Cited by 18 publications

References 31 publications

Innovation in the use of wood energy in the Ukrainian Carpathians: Opportunities and threats for rural communities

Innovation in the use of wood energy in the Ukrainian Carpathians: Opportunities and threats for rural communities

Contested framings of greenhouse gas removal and its feasibility: Social and political dimensions

Structuring problems for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in practice: A literature review of method combinations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About