Energy Policy 45 (2012) 201–216

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy Policy

0301-42

doi:10.1

n Corr

Greece.

E-m

j.hills@c1 Te

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Renewable energy issues and implementation of European energy policy:The missing generation?

Evanthie Michalena a,n, Jeremy M. Hills b,1

a ENeC Laboratory (Environment, Nature and Culture), UMR8185 – CNRS, Sorbonne and Paris 8 Universities, 191 Rue St Jacques, 75005, Paris, Franceb CTL Consult Ltd, 9 Stephenson House, Horsley Business Centre, Northumberland, NE15 0NY, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 14 October 2011

Accepted 8 February 2012Available online 3 March 2012

Keywords:

European Directive

Renewable energy technologies

Issues

15/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. A

016/j.enpol.2012.02.021

esponding author. Postal address: 186-188, A

Tel.: þ30 6977348015.

ail addresses: michalena@hotmail.com (E. Mi

tl-consult.com (J.M. Hills).

l.: þ40 1661 854 255.

a b s t r a c t

The European Commission has set renewable energy (RE) targets at the Member State (MS) level,

however, at the local scale there are many issues related to renewable energy implementation. In this

work, a meta-analysis of European RE generation issues from international scientific literature was

carried out. Fifty-four local RE implementation issues were identified. Five main clusters of issues were

determined, some were aligned along sectoral lines (e.g., governance and technology) but others were

inherently multi-sectoral (e.g., complexity and multiplicity of factors), challenging the traditional

sectorial view. Results show that RE issues are not just a finite list of independent issues but are

hierarchical, multi-scale and cross-linked. As a further step, these issues clusters were linked to the

European RE policy and subsidiarity through the National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAP) in

selected MS. EU policy and NREAP subsidiarity proved limited in their scope in dealing with local RE

issues. With this scope, the way that EU policy partially fails to facilitate delivery of RE targets,

promotes weak subsidiarity through NREAPs and does not address local issues of RE, is discussed.

& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Energy demand is rapidly growing in many countries, andenergy is widely recognised as a cross-cutting theme contributingto the achievement of all Millennium Development Goals.The energy decisions made today will have long-ranging con-sequences, in terms of investments, the impact on society and onglobal climate.

This framework of worldwide conditions presents a significantchallenge for Europe. Since 2004 the European Union (EU) isconfronted with an increasing dependence on energy sourceslocated outside the EU combined with volatile and high energyprices (Capros et al., 2010). To deal with this problem and to be inline with Kyoto targets, the European Commission (Commission,hereafter) proposed the Directive 2009/28/EC (European Parlia-ment and the Council (EP and Council), 2009) which entered intoforce in 25 of June 2009. This Directive (called ‘‘Directive20-20-20’’ hereafter), for the first time sets mandatory nationaltargets for integrating energy from renewable sources into the

ll rights reserved.

lkiviadou St., 18536, Piraeus,

chalena),

gross final consumption of energy. The main purpose of mandatorynational targets is to provide certainty for investors and toencourage technological development, allowing for energy produc-tion from all types of renewable sources. The Directive encouragesenergy efficiency, energy consumption from renewable sources,the improvement of energy supply and the economic stimulationof a dynamic sector in which Europe is setting an example.

Setting up these targets aims to further penetrate renewableenergy into systems. In the EU, renewable energy accounted for62% (17 GW) of the new electricity generation capacity installedin 2009 and produced 20% of Europe’s electricity consumption.If current growth rates are maintained, in 2020 up to 1400 TW hof electricity will be generated. This would account for approxi-mately 35–40% of overall electricity consumption in the EU, andwould contribute significantly to the fulfilment of the 20% targetfor energy generation from renewables (European Commission,DG Joint Research Centre (EC – JRC), 2010). The contribution ofrenewable energy sources to energy sustainability is even higherfor remote and insular areas, where their potential is particularlyhigh (Giatrakos et al., 2009).

Meeting targets on renewable energy is expected to havemany economic, social and environmental consequences (Singalet al., 2007, Zografakis et al., 2010). As renewable energy sourcesare considered to form a complex and dynamic socio-economicsystem (Kalogirou, 2001, Carrera and Mack, 2010), impacts areexpected to be significant within local infrastructure as well as

E. Michalena, J.M. Hills / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 201–216202

social and institutional architecture (Kaldellis et al., 2004, Weisserand Garcia, 2005).

Such observations are not new, indeed back in 1997, it wasargued that renewables may have adverse environmental impactswhich should be taken into consideration (Abbasi and Abbasi,2000, Bergmann et al., 2006). Furthermore, it has been arguedthat the installation and use of REP at a large scale presupposesbehavioural changes of all sectors of energy use, legislative andorganisational modifications and in most cases significant invest-ments (Georgopoulou et al., 1997).

Undertaking this analysis of the complexity of renewableenergy issues, allows the efficiency and the realistic nature ofEU policy to be reviewed. For some countries (Van Rooijen andVan Wees, 2006, Wang, 2006) both the uncertainty and disconti-nuity of energy policies are the main causes of limited develop-ment of renewable energy and this is met by Europe throughcreating a framework of continuity with objectives for themedium and long term (targets set in Directive 2009/28/EC)(Marques and Fuinhas, 2011). However, it is timely to considerto what extent this Directive reflects the local reality and needs.

This is because, in the analysis of the Directive 20-20-20’srequirements for extending the EU sustainability scheme ofelectricity, heating and cooling, the Commission has consideredthree principles: (a) effectiveness in dealing with problems ofsustainable electricity use; (b) cost–efficiency in meeting theobjectives; and (c) consistency with existing policies. In fact, theCommission makes recommendations related to sustainabilityand strongly encourages Member States (MS) to take them intoaccount in order to ensure consistency between existing andfuture national sustainability schemes.

At a local level there is increased complexity. For investmentsin renewable energy projects (REP) funds may be available, butthe legal and administrative frameworks must become consistent,processes must be streamlined and barriers have to be reduced.National barriers towards sustainability goals are already cited inscientific literature, for example in the domain of bioclimaticarchitecture (Karkanias et al., 2010). So what about the efficiencyof the Directive on its approach regarding the local implementa-tion of REP? Is the Directive in-line with renewable energystakeholders needs?

It is with this backdrop of precisely defined renewable energytargets in EU policy, and the extent of associated achievementsthat this research was carried out. The aspiration of this researchis to offer insight into the extent to which EU Directive offerscohesive support in REP implementation, as well as the extent towhich the process of subsidiarity forms the ‘‘missing link’’between EU renewable energy policy and local renewable energyissues. In this paper the term ‘‘local’’ is used, to represent thespatial scale of the lower level of government administrationwhich has a functional remit for Renewable Energy, for example aLocal Authority or a Municipality.

This cohesion has already been doubted by authors working onethanol in that although they have considered new laws after2010 as ‘‘positive developments’’, they have also argued that theymight create greater difficulties for the development of aninternational ethanol market (Souza et al., 2011). It has also beenargued that it is necessary to make serious efforts in order toharmonise the European legislation and to simplify the proce-dures of establishing and implementing European policies forboosting the use of ‘‘heavy’’ renewable energy technologies (suchas geothermal energy) (Sustersic et al., 2010). Finally, scientistshave already questioned fiscal mechanisms suggested by the20-20-20 Directive, mainly in the area of biofuel and bio-liquids(Toscano et al., 2011).

The plethora of renewable energy literature identifies a prolificnumber of issues associated with REP, however, to date few studies

have tried to encompass this diversity of issues in analysis of therenewable energy multi-sectoral nexus and derive results thatconcern efficient implementation of EU Directives. The reasons forthis are not clear but they may be related to the complexity andpiecemeal nature of such information, the lack of systematic analy-tical techniques to cope with such complexity, or even the belief thatsome clear trends will emerge through more commentary and casestudies. However, the work presented here attempts to directlyconfront the complexity of the renewable energy system derivedfrom such literature and present links with the European policy.

The work presented below has three main aims:

1.

To identify and summarise the range of issues associated withlocal renewable energy implementation in Europe and to try toexplain combinations of issues.

2.

To identify the main groups or associations of issues and assessto what extent they align to the traditional sectoral approachto energy.

3.

To assess to what degree EU energy policy facilitates orprovides support to overcoming issues related to renewableenergy projects.

2. Methodology

2.1. The overall approach

Meta-analysis is an approach for combining data from a suiteof independent studies. It is commonly used, for example, inmedicine to review a certain drug which may have been tested ina wide number of trials which may have been in differentcountries, with different age subjects etc. Adequate sampling ofsuch studies is important to exclude bias and a systematic andobjective approach is required to analyse such data to offer anunbiased synthesis of the multitude of data.

The data which has been collected here represents a unique,structured and comprehensive assembly of issues associated withlocal aspects of REP implementation in the EU drawn fromrefereed international publications. In this respect, this work isparticularly timely in light of recent EU energy policy advances,MS reactions and a multitude of renewable energy initiatives inmany stages of implementation across the EU.

2.2. The studied population and sampling of papers

This work used the bibliographic database ‘‘Scopus’’ as a reposi-tory of scientifically refereed publications. Scopus is the world’slargest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literaturecovering more than 45 million records and 19,500 titles. Academicpapers published in Scopus were used as they had full availability asopposed to ‘‘grey’’ policy/ report literature and have been through apeer-review for correctness and quality. Using the Scopus database,publications with both the search terms ‘‘renewable energy’’ and‘‘local’’ published from January 2009 to March 2011 were identified.The selected cohort of papers commenced in January 2009 because itwas concomitant with the birth of the Directive 2009/28/EC andcovers the period of publication of the renewable energy action plansby MS as demanded by this Directive (June 2010) but also theexpected date of its transportation into national frameworks(December 2010).

Of these identified papers, only the ones that concerned EUMembers States or the EU as a whole were retained. From thesepapers further rejections were made so that all retained papersdealt with some aspect of renewable electricity production;papers on transport, heating etc. were excluded. The total number

Fig. 1. The relationship between the number of randomly selected papers

sampled and the cumulative number of issues identified showing a progressively

asymptotic relationship with larger sample sizes.

E. Michalena, J.M. Hills / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 201–216 203

of remaining papers which dealt with renewable electricityproduction within the European Union which were publishedbetween January 2009 and March 2011 was 196: these papersrepresent the statistical population of the work presented here.

Each sampled paper was read through by the lead author andall issues relevant to REP implementation were noted. The orderby which papers were selected from the population of 196 papersfor analysis was randomised using Excel. Reading 196 papers wasa rather onerous task, but this provided the highest degree ofconsistency possible for issue identification.

A sectoral grouping was used to categorise each identifiedissue: governance (G), social (S), economic (E), technological (T),and environmental (V). Within these categories issues weresequentially number coded (G1, G2 etc.); if a particular paperhad the same identified issue as a previously sampled paper thenthe same issue code was used to record that issue. In this way adataset was developed in which each sampled paper was linkedto the issues contained therein.

While information on issues was collected from each paper,supplementary contextual information was also collected:

1.

The geographical scale of the paper: if the paper considered oneMS, or three or more MS up to all of Europe.

2.

The location of the MS: if a paper considered just one MemberState then it was recorded if it was from North Europe(Scandinavia to France) or South Europe (Spain southwards).

3.

The dominant methodology of the paper: the main approachused by the paper was determined based on four categories.These categories were: empirical (data created by observationor experimentally), conceptual (based on ideas and developedconcepts), descriptive (based on observation and experiencewith negligible systematic data collection or analysis) andmodelling (in which linkages and interactions between ele-ments of the systems were numerated and linked together).

2.3. Rationalising the issues

After approximately one third of the papers were analysed (69sampled papers out of a population of 196; 35% of the population –Appendix A) the analysis process was halted as identified issues werebecoming largely repetitive. From this sample of 69 papers a total of145 issues were identified. However, as these issues were largelytranscribed semi-verbatim from the papers, some of them overlappedor were sub-issues of other issues; this situation confounds coherenceas well as statistical analysis and as such a rationalisation process wascarried out. Within each sector group (G, S, E, T, V) issues whichoverlapped or were part of another issue were grouped together anda new issue was formed. This iterative process led to the 145 issuesbeing reduced to 54 issues which were negligible in terms of overlapand largely independent. These 54 rationalised issues were from thesame sector categories but the coding prefix was amended to GG, SS,

EE, TT and VV. The way that the original issues linked to therationalised issues is presented in the Annex of Tables (Appendix B)and the final set of issues on which the subsequent analysis wascarried out is shown in the Annex of Tables (Appendix C).

2.4. Validating the sample size

As stated above, the sampling of papers was halted after 35% ofthe population was sampled. However, as the work presentedhere is trying to capture the multitude and diversity of issuesassociated with REP implementation, and appropriate sampling isan important component of effective meta-analysis, a furthercheck on sample size was carried out. Consequently, a graphshowing the running total of identified rationalised issues with

increasing sample size was constructed. If this graph shows apositive upward trajectory between sample and total number ofissues, then the population has been inadequately sampled andthe un-sampled population can be expected to contain moreissues. If however, the graph shows an asymptotic curve (flattensout) after a certain degree of sampling then it means thatnegligible new information is being collected by further sampling.

This number of issues with sample size graph (Fig. 1) showedthat the number of issues identified by papers was becomingasymptotic at around 30 papers sampled and in the samplesbetween about 40 and 69 the line was progressively asymptotic;this suggests that the 69 papers form an adequate sample of thetotal population of 196 papers.

2.5. Statistical analysis techniques

A number of univariate and multivariate statistical and math-ematical analysis techniques were used in this work to aidinterpretation and to probe the complexity inherent within thesedata. All of the techniques used represent standard publishedroutine techniques; they were carried out using the protocols inMinitab version 15.

Univariate statistical tests permit relatively simple hypothesesto be tested. To determine statistical differences between two ormore identified populations, ANOVA was used. If differencesbetween two or more groups were required in a pairwise waysubsequent to an ANOVA analysis, then Tukey’s test was used.To assess the strength and probability of an association betweentwo parameters a Pearson’s correlation analysis was used.

Multivariate mathematical routines consider a number ormany parameters simultaneously. In the data presented herethere are a number of samples (69 papers) which are describedby a number of parameters (presence or absence of 54 issues)which in total constitute over 3700 pieces of data and as suchmultivariate analysis is appropriate. The following analysis usestwo techniques based on this data structure; an ordination and adiscriminant technique.

The first technique reduces the dimensionality of the datafrom the 54 sample descriptor variables to a few new pseudo-axes which describe the main axes of variation in these data andprovide a relatively simple visual summary plot; this is termedordination. In this case, an ordination technique called PrincipalComponents Analysis (PCA) was used because it is a robust andwell-tried method. A number of samples, each with the samemultiple descriptors, is entered into a PCA. The PCA then forms anew axis which best describes the variation in the sample. Further

E. Michalena, J.M. Hills / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 201–216204

axes can be produced which are constrained to be orthogonal tothe previous axis. The success of each of the axes in describing theremaining variation in these data is elucidated by an eigenvalue.

The second technique uses a similar data structure, but thesamples are divided into two or more a priori defined groups andthe technique is used to investigate how variables (issues in thiscase) contribute to group separation. This approach is termedDiscriminant Analysis and it provides both a ‘‘success’’ score relatedto what percentage of samples can be successfully placed in eachgroup using the discriminant function as well as a weighting for thevariables which permit strong discrimination between the groups.

3. Results

The final list of 69 sampled papers (Appendix A) was used for themeta-analysis. The analyses described below follow a logical path-way towards meeting the stated aims of this paper. First, summariesin the form of graphs are presented of all the issues identified.Second, ordination is used to try to identify the main trends in thepapers from which these issues came. Whilst some of these maintrends can be explained, further contextual detail (geographicalscope, scale of study and methodology) is then used to try to explainfurther variation in the issues in these papers. The next sectionfocuses on the issues themselves and interrelationships throughidentification of main groupings of issues. These groups are thenlinked with the main actors and main stages of REP implementationto explore which issues are important to whom and at what stage inREP implementation. In the Discussion the conclusions from theseanalyses are drawn so a link is created between EU policy and itsimplementation in Members States.

3.1. The diversity and distribution of issues by sector, study

methodology and geographical scale.

3.1.1. The differences in issues by study methodology

The dominant methodology used in the surveyed scientificpapers was classified into four categories: modelling, conceptual,descriptive and empirical. To determine if there was a difference

Fig. 2. The number (a) and frequency (b) of issues identified in each of the five sector

categories, recorded from the sample of 69 papers, total number of issues is 54.

(GG¼governance, SS¼social, EE¼economic, TT¼technology and VV¼environment).

Fig. 3. The frequency each issue was mentioned in the 69 sampled papers (i

in the number of issues identified in the surveyed papers inrelation to the four categories of methodology used, a one-wayunbalanced ANOVA was performed which showed a weak sig-nificant difference (df¼68, F¼3.55, Po0.05). To determine whichpairwise methodological comparisons were significantly differ-ent, Tukey tests were used; they showed that only the number ofissues for modelling and empirical methodologies were signifi-cantly different.

The conceptual and the empirical approaches tended to havemore issues per paper (mean 49 issues) compared to themodelling (o5) and descriptive (o7). This suggests that a moreholistic approach has been used on average in the conceptual andempirical papers, possibly because of the nature of theseapproaches. Modelling papers tend to consider the least numberof issues which suggests that the frame in which these papers areset is more limited, maybe as a result of the rigorous approachrequired for modelling which tends to be reductionist and doesnot tend to deal with many parameters consecutively.

3.1.2. The number and frequency of issues

The largest proportion of the total number of issues (total¼54)was from the governance category (30% of total issues,) theenvironmental issues being least frequently identified (17%)(Fig. 2(a)). A plot was made of the number of times that issuesfrom each sector were cited in the papers sampled (Fig. 2(b)). Thefrequency of issues from the different sectors plot was similar tothe number of issues identified in each sector.

Focusing on particular issues, rather than sectors, allowsidentification of the frequency of inclusion of each individualissue from the sampled papers (Fig. 3).

The most commonly cited issue was SS5 (‘‘local strategies arerequired to meet with REP industry but need to be based onknowledge, training on renewable energy and academic monitor-ing of transition dynamics towards sustainable electricity future’’;Appendix C) which was mentioned in 30 of the 69 paperssampled. Still, issues from all the categories (social, governance,economic, technology and environment) were represented in thetop 10 most frequently cited issues. This suggests that the mostsignificant issues for REP implementation do range across manysectors.

3.1.3. Analysis of the combination of issues

Viewing these data in terms of single issues helped providesome degree of insight in the relative importance of differentissues associated with REP in the scientific literature. However, inorder to analyse the complexity of the issues, it was necessary toconsider multiple issues simultaneously. In this way trends orgroupings of issues could be identified. Principal ComponentsAnalysis (PCA) provides a method whereby multivariate data canbe analysed in order to find a small number of axes which best

ssue codes in Appendix 3) ranked from most frequent to least frequent.

Fig. 4. The 69 sampled papers, described by issues, plotted on the first and second

Principal Components Axes; points are labelled in terms of code number for each

paper except for the very tight grouping on left side of graph plot.

Fig. 5. The association between the Principal Component Axes scores of the

papers and the number of issues (r¼0.91, Po0.001).

E. Michalena, J.M. Hills / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 201–216 205

explain these data. Each sample (in this case each ‘‘paper’’), isdescribed by a number of descriptors (in this case ‘‘issues’’).The papers which have a similar suite of descriptors were plottedclose together in a PCA plot, whereas those that have a verydifferent suite of descriptors were plotted further away.

A PCA was carried out on the 69 papers described by theirissues. The PCA was moderately successful in that the first threePCA axes explained over 25% of the variation in these data(eigenvalues axes 1 to 3: 5.6, 4.3 and 3.7, respectively). Thepapers were plotted on the first and second PCA axes (Fig. 4).

The PCA plot shows a relatively tight group of papers on the lefthand side of the diagram with less dense set of points arranged upthe x-axis diagonally upwards and a more extensive cluster down-wards. This suggests that there is a central core of papers (around theorigin) which cover many similar issues but there are two mainextensions from this core which contain papers which have differ-ences from the central core. The point on the top right corner (paper51; Appendix A) and to some extent point 48, are outliers to thesegeneral trends across the PCA space and thus have relativelydissimilar issues combinations than other papers in this plot.

In order to try to explain the main trend or axes of variation inthese data, the score of the first PCA axis was plotted against thenumber of issues identified in each paper. A strong positiveassociation was found between the PCA axis 1 score and thenumber of issues (Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient, r¼0.91,Po0.001) (Fig. 5). This suggests that the number of issues is themain factor of variation in the issues identified in these papers.

3.1.4. Geographical differences in issues3.1.4.1. One country/ EU papers. Each paper was recorded as if itwas a study of one EU country, or of three or more MembersStates (one country n¼40, three or more EU countries n¼29);there were no papers which just covered two MS. An unbalancedone-way ANOVA was carried out to determine if there weredifferences in the number of issues between the one-country

and the more-than-three countries papers as a whole. TheANOVA showed that there was no significance difference in thenumber of issues identified (df¼68, F¼0.28, P¼0.60); the one-

country papers, and the more-than-three countries papers hadmeans of 7.1 and 6.5 issues per paper, respectively.

A Linear Discriminate Analysis (LDA) was carried out to deter-mine if differences in the identified issues themselves could bedistinguished between these two groups. As expected, the resultsshowed a successful classification rate of 90% (62 out of 69 papers)

suggesting that the one-country and the more-than-three countries

were distinguishable on the basis of their constituent issues. Theindividual issues which had particular strength in distinguishingbetween the two groups were GG16 (technological focus of policy),VV6 (importance of ecological services), VV8 (ecological fragility), SS7(range of company experimentation) and TT4 (value of demonstra-tion projects) which were more associated with one-country papers,whereas VV4 (ecological connectivity) was more associated withpapers dealing with more than three EU countries.

3.1.4.2. Papers from south/north of Europe. Within the paperswhich considered one country, a comparison was made betweenissues identified by countries from the North (Scandinavia down tothe southern border of France) and from the South (northern borderof Spain and southwards) of the EU using LDA. Due to the smallersample size of one-country papers (n¼40), only 15 of the mostfrequent identified issues were used in this analysis due to statisticalco-correlation (Fig. 3). Of these, two further issues had to be removed(TT4 and SS7) due to co-correlation to permit the analysis to becomputed. The results showed that classification success of the Northand South countries based on the 13 issues used in the analysis was78% (31 out of 40 papers correctly classified), or put in another way,based on the issues identified in the papers a classification of the datausing the LDA function permitted 78% of papers to be placed intotheir correct a priori groups. The issues which were more readilyidentified from Northern countries were SS4 and SS3 (issues on localparticipation and local opposition respectively; see Appendix C fordetails), whereas Southern countries were more associated with SS5and GG6 (local needs for training on RE and monitoring of RE). Thispreliminary analysis suggests that North and South Europe perceivethe importance of issues differently, with issues related to local socialnetworks being of higher importance in the North whereas the needfor local tools (training & monitoring) is of a higher importance forthe Southern countries. It is possible of course that these conclusionsreflect differences in the approaches to academic research betweencountries of North and South.

This section of analysis concludes that issues associated with RETimplementation are related to the spatial scale under consideration(EU wide or one country) and also related to the geographicalposition of the country in the North or the South of the EU; theseresults strongly concur with the perception that issues associatedwith RET implementation across the EU are diverse and varied.

3.2. The interplay between RET issues

The analysis so far has looked at the diversity and distributionof issues identified in papers across sectors and the tendency fordifferent numbers of issues to be considered by different

Fig. 6. The REP implementation issues plotted on the first and second Principal

Components Axes points are labelled in terms of code number for each issues as

defined in Appendix 3. Points are divided into five labelled groups (1–5).

E. Michalena, J.M. Hills / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 201–216206

methodologies or by different scales of geographical coverage. Inthis section we consider which, and how, issues are linked orassociated together to form clusters of issues; such emergentclusters may provide an effective target for policy interventionsfor REP implementation. The exploratory PCA (Fig. 4) plottedindividual papers based on the issues those papers identified.Here below the same PCA analysis is used but the issues (ratherthan the papers) are plotted on the same PCA axes (Fig. 6). To aidexploration and interpretation of the positioning of points on thehyper-dimensional PCA space, a small number of clusters wereidentified based on the areas of relative discontinuity of points toform relatively separate and parsimonious clusters.

The issues associated with each group were identified (fromAppendix C) and then the overall character of that cluster wasexplored. The clusters were described as follows:

1.

Local specificity and governance – issues in this cluster werelargely drawn from the governance (G) and social (S) issuesand associated with local issues, such as local strategies andknowledge (SS5) and social systems and partnerships (SS4).

2.

Complexity and multiplicity of factors – issues were drawnfrom most of the main issue categories and were cross cutting.They strongly reflected complexity of the many issues asso-ciated with REP implementation, such as local opposition toREP installation (SS3), complexity of processes affecting REPimplementation (GG11) and unbalanced linkage between eco-nomic and environmental goals (GG5).

3.

Table 1The key actors involved in, and the main phases of, RET implementation; shown

Technological challenges – these issues were dominated bytechnological concerns in terms of meeting energy demandwith innovative but mature sustainable energy technologiesand improved grid (TT1-3, TT 6-7).

with associated coding.

4.

RET implementation

Key actors Main phases

Environmental concerns – this cluster was dominated byenvironmental category issues (VV) associated with environ-mental concerns and environmental uncertainty, but alsoincluded the positive relationship between entrepreneurshipand sustainable energy (EE4).

� Research Institutions (RI) � Research (R)

5. � International Energy Actors (IEA)

� National governmental

Authorities (NGA)

� Private Financial Institutions (PFI)

� Local Authorities (LA)

� Developer (D)

� Local Stakeholder (LS)

� End User (EU)

� Political and Governance

context (PGC)

� Authorization for RET

implementation (ARE)

� Construction of RET plant (CRE)

� Operation of RE plant (ORE)

� Final Energy Consumption (FEC)

Economic opportunities and competitiveness – these issueswere mainly associated with economic aspects, such as eco-nomic opportunities (EE9), subsidies (EE6), local renewableenergy markets and niches (EE3 and TT10, respectively).

The exploratory analysis of issues produced a clustering ofpoints. Moreover, this clustering of issues was not simply alongthe lines of the sector categories (economic, governance, social,

technical and environmental: Appendix B). If this was the casethen a suite of simple clusters of the sector-specific issues wouldhave been observed. However, issues clustering together from amix of sectors were observed. Some identified clusters tend to bedominated by specific sectors (cluster 3 – technology; cluster 4 –environment), but others have a multiplicity of sectors included:as such, this analysis challenges the traditional sector apprecia-tion of REP issues.

Cluster 1 can be attributed to predominantly governance andsocial sector categories. However, cluster 5 has contributionsfrom all of the issue categories and suggests that economicaspects of REP cannot be simply considered in terms of therelatively simplistic economic issues frequently cited associatedwith investment on REP, subsidies/ incentives and competitive-ness with conventional fuel (EE2, EE6 and EE8; see Fig. 6) butinvolve specific contributory technological, governance, environ-mental and social issues.

Maybe the most striking cluster is the cluster 2 which is related tocomplexity and multiplicity of factors. This cluster is cross cutting inthat the emergent issue is dealing with the complexity and multi-plicity of the renewable energy system irrespective of sector (cluster2 involves issues from all sector categories). The cohesiveness of thiscluster suggests that one of the emergent issues for REP implementa-tion is dealing with complexity per se. This cluster is positioned onthe positive side of the PCA axis 1 which is associated with papersidentifying a high number of issues (Fig. 5). These results suggest thatwhen the multiplicity of issues applicable to REP is considered in a holistic

analysis, the inability to deal with this multiplicity becomes an emergent

issue in itself. This suggests that holistic analysis of renewable energyissues is a long way off and it is only through trying to piece togetherthe issue-panorama that such insights can be identified.

3.3. Issue clusters, actors and stages of REP implementation

The analysis to date has focused on issues identified in papersand various associations with methodology and geography andhas also identified emergent clusters of issues: all this was fromdata analysed from the survey of papers. In an exploratory way, alink between the emergent issues clusters and the realities of REPimplementation is conceived to demonstrate the benefit of theprior analysis in the understanding of the renewable energynexus. To this end, a link is made between the emergent issuesgroups and the actors involved in REP implementation, and thephases of REP implementation: the basis for this is that differentissue portfolios are relevant to different actors and to differentimplementation stages.

First, a list was drawn up of the main actors and phases of REPimplementation (Table 1); this was done based on the experienceand expert judgement of the main author.

E. Michalena, J.M. Hills / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 201–216 207

Second, each issue was linked to an actor or phase if it wasdeemed significant, based on the main author’s experience. Dataon issues relevant to actors and phases were compiled followingthe five clusters identified in the PCA analysis which emerged asthe main clusters of issues from the analysed papers i.e., localspecificity and governance, complexity and multiplicity of factors,technological challenges, environmental concerns and economicopportunities and competitiveness.

The frequency of specific actors and implementation phasesassociated with the issues which make up the five emergentgroups was plotted (Fig. 7).

This exploratory analysis indicates a number of aspects andchallenges some doctrines. For example, as shown in Fig. 7(a),Local Authorities are not only interested in issues related to localgovernance, but also in ones related to economic opportunities.Also, not only do international energy institutions care forenvironmental protection, private funding institutions also sharea big interest in the environment. Complexity of issues related toRE, is, therefore, more of a problem for developers, than for localstakeholders, financing institutions and end-users, whereas finan-cing institutions show little care for the type of RE technologies tobe implemented. Equally, technology is of little concern to localauthorities who mainly care for environmental protection. On thecontrary, local stakeholders in general care more for the technol-ogy implemented than for the environmental protection per se.

The linkages between REP implementation phases and theemergent clusters show that; whereas the operation of a renew-able energy plant should be linked predominantly to economicopportunities, in reality it is also linked to local governance issuesand environmental concerns. On the other hand, research shouldbe linked with technological challenges; yet, economic opportu-nities are equally relevant in the research phase. The phase ofauthorisation procedure (ARE) which is traditionally linked toenvironmental concerns, seems to be linked to local governanceand economic opportunities. The construction phase on the otherhand (CRE) which, in the EU and National Policies, relates toenvironmental concerns and technological challenges, should inreality be related to local governance and economic opportunities.

Whilst the authors would condone a view that such analysis isexploratory, and based on expert but subjective judgement, aquestion can be posed as to whether validity of such a view ofthe complexity or REP actors and phases is appropriate. Dotraditional approaches and attitudes follow more sectoral linesand grasp solely the dominant issues for actors and phases ratherthan appreciating the complexity of issues? It is outside the scopeof this paper to answer this, and one of the roles of meta-analysiswas acknowledged to derive further hypotheses. However, in theDiscussion which follows, after a consideration of issues them-selves, a link is made between the complexities of issues identified

Fig. 7. The percentage of issues in the five emergent clusters of issues associated with t

(a) Key actors and (b) Phases of implementation.

in this meta-analysis (Sections 4.1–4.3) and driving forces for REPimplementation with respect to EU energy policy (4.4, 4.5).

4. Discussion

4.1. The ‘‘multi-scale’’ character of REP

Many internationally refereed papers on renewable energyhave identified issues linked to the implementation of REP. In factthe analysis laid out in this paper is only possible because of theplethora of such papers. However, what appears to be lacking is acomparative insight into the issues of REP implementation indifferent situations, and the relative importance of issues and theclustering of these issues. Such questions are not just of a researchinterest, but form an analytical platform from which to identifypolicy-led benefits, as well as policy vacuums and failures.

Initially, in the work presented here, 145 issues were identifiedfrom the sample of papers (Appendix B) and, as such, this suggeststhat there are at least, and statistically probably a few more, issuesassociated with REP implementation. This number is partly relatedto different semantics and nomenclature used by authors fromdifferent geographies or sectors. However, it is also related to themulti-layered and multi-sectoral nature of the issue. For example,the issue GG3 is linked to the importance of landscape manage-ment which involves many sectors (planning, agriculture, con-servation, etc.). GG3 is derived from G31 (importance of landscapefunctions and services) and G32 (decision making requires cross-sectoral co-ordination); both G31 and G32 are valid issues, but canbe combined to form a ‘‘larger’’ issue GG3. This multi-scalecharacteristic of issues confounds comparative analysis and thisis why the rationalisation of the 145 issues into 54 issues wascarried out, to attempt to fix the issues at an appropriate ‘‘scale’’and to permit probing mathematical and statistical analysis.

With the reductionist drive being the dominant scientificapproach of nowadays, it is likely that more and more ‘‘issues’’will be identified by commentators over time. However, to whatextent they are ‘‘new’’ issues, as opposed to a further sub-divisionof already known issues, needs consideration through the type ofcomparative analysis presented in this paper.

Notwithstanding that, the key point to take away from thisanalysis is that there are many issues associated with renewable

energy, however, they are scale dependent and rely on other

confounding factors as well; this means that there is no ‘‘correct’’or ‘‘absolute’’ number of issues related to REP; their number is, to agreater degree, an artifact under conscious, or often unconscious,influence by the observer; and as such this might create questionsfor policy setting institutions such as the Commission.

he key actors and main phases of REP implementation (codings as used in Table 1).

E. Michalena, J.M. Hills / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 201–216208

4.2. The diversity of REP issues

Although the previous section concluded that the number ofissues is observer-defined, there are also trends in the issuesselected by different groups of authors; the most striking trendidentified in this paper was associated with geography. Papers ofa wide geographical coverage (here, defined as paper coveringthree or more MS up to the whole of the EU) in comparison withpapers focusing on one MS did not show any difference in thenumber of issues, but did show a difference in the type of issuesidentified. One-MS papers focus mainly on areas such as nationalpolicy gaps, experimentation and demonstration and ecologicalservices and fragility. Three or more MS papers focus mainly onissues of more general interest such as issues related to ecologicalconnectivity. Being able to differentiate issues between the twocases/groups, suggests that spatial scale is another factor whichaffects issue portfolios.

Moreover, if the spatial scale of the study is controlled at theMS level, then it is possible to distinguish between the Northernand Southern MS on the basis of their issues portfolios; suggest-ing there are real differences between the N and S MS (issuesrelated to local social governance of more consequence in theN, whereas local tools such as training and monitoring is ofhigher importance for Southern countries). If it is widely appre-ciated that REP issues are different in varying geographic local-ities and MS (Michalena et al., 2009), this analysis helps toidentify these differences within a more rigorous scientificframework.

The results presented in this paper are of interest to bothEuropean and National energy decision makers. The EU 20-20-20Directive at European level, does not take into account differencesbetween the N and S EU, although it is apparent that broadregional European groupings exist. The potential policy value ofthis research complements the argument that not only coordina-tion between MS is necessary (as the 20-20-20 Directive repeti-tively states), but also that EU subsidiarity requirements should be

tailored to the regional situation.

4.3. Combinations of REP issues

Often, REP issues are presented as a list of five, ten oroccasionally more. This represents a linear presentation of theissues which are entirely absolved of non-independence andinteractions between issues. So, in this work an attempt has beenmade to identify aspects of the fundamental and underlyingstructure of issues associated with REP implementation. Issuesare thus considered, not as a list of items, but an array ofsomewhat associated and interlinked items.

The main axis of variation of the papers was related to thenumber of issues included in those papers (Fig. 5). However, whatwas apparent also, was that the number of issues does not explain allof the variation (see groups of papers in top-right and bottom-rightareas of Fig. 4) illustrating that issues do not cumulate in a simpleadditive way but have some inherent structure themselves.The same ordination analysis, plotted by issues rather than papers(Fig. 6) displays an array of issues which can be disassociated intosmaller number of groupings/clusters related to: (1) local specifi-city and governance, (2) complexity and multiplicity of issues,(3) technological challenges, (4) environmental concerns, and(5) economic opportunities and competitiveness. These clusters helpexplain the divergence of papers away from the main axes ofvariation, with the cluster of papers in the top-right area increasinglylinked to local specificity and complexity and the bottom-left regionincreasingly linked with technological issues.

Maybe the most intransient aspect of this analysis is theinterlinkage of these emergent clusters with the a priori defined

issue sectors (economic, governance, social, technical, environ-mental). Certainly, for example, cluster 1 (local specificity) islinked to GG and SS issues and cluster 3 (technological) is linkedto technological (TT) issues. However, other clusters are not sosimplistically sectoral. For example cluster 4 (environmentalconcerns) includes economic aspects related to trade-offsbetween energy production and the environment, and cluster 5(economic opportunities) is not just simply economic issuesfrequently cited with respect to investment on renewable energy(such as subsidies/ incentives), but involves specific issues fromother sectors such as decision making procedures (GG4), tradi-tional fuel uncertainty (TT1) and landscape availability for RETisntallation (VV1).

If the issues would have plotted out in the a priori sectorgroupings, then these results would further support the need forincreased multi-sectoral/ integrated approaches, and furtherendorsement to the classical ministerial architecture based alongsectoral lines. However, with the apparent inter-linkages betweenissues and the ensuing multi-sectoral clusters, there is support forleaving these frequented and a priori determined sectors behind.But also updating conceptually with these new emergent clusterswhich best represent the multiplicity of recognised issues basedon empirically determined data coupled to a more refinedmathematically-derived model.

4.4. RET issues and EU policy

Whilst EU policy is set at a European level with an onus onsubsidiarity for MS to implement such policy, the issues consid-ered in the work presented here are from ‘‘local’’ and ‘‘renewableenergy’’ search terms; the focus has been on these local issuesbecause actual implementation of REP on the ground and gen-eration of electricity from RET, happens at the local scale. To thatend, the analytical study of these issues permits us to assess thedegree to which EU policy is directed to facilitate REP implemen-tation at a local level. Or, to put it another way, to what extent EUpolicy is directed at identified issues when it comes to local REPimplementation.

To examine this question, the main concerns for the Europeanpolicy have been identified in the more recent European Directive(Directive 2009/28/EC). These are (in decreasing order of appearance):

a)

Coordination between MS & Third Countries (in paragraphs 4,15, 16, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 64, 79 and articles 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11, 15, 17, 18, 9, 23, 24 of the Directive).

b)

Cost of REP and guidelines for the protection of Investors (inparagraphs 14, 20, 25, 26, 48, 59, 60, 62, 88 and articles 3, 11,13, 14, 16, 19, 21, 23 of the Directive).

c)

Monitoring of national energy policies, results assessment andreporting to the Commission (in paragraphs 72, 78, 81, 88 andarticles 4, 8, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23).

d)

National and sectoral targets for shared/ increased renewableenergy in total energy consumption and issues related tosubsidiarity (in paragraphs 8, 9, 13, 19, 47, 96 and articles 3,4, 9, 11, 13, 16, 21, 23).

e)

Grids and Electricity transmission (in paragraphs 6, 57, 59, 60,61, 88 and articles 13, 16, 21).

f)

Climate Change and greenhouse emissions (in paragraphs 1,70, 71 and articles 17, 18, 19, 22, 23).

g)

Introduction of less ‘‘famous’’ systems (intelligent grids, heatpump systems) (in paragraphs 30, 31, 46, 51 and articles 5, 13,16, 21).

h)

Transparency (in articles 13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24). i) Local issues (including public participation, local information

and training) (in paragraphs 42, 49, 90 and articles 12, 13, 14,18, 21).

Fig. 8. Diagrammatic representation between main elements of EU 20-20-20

policy and emergent local REP issue clusters (solid lines represent a clear linkage

between EU policy elements and the issues clusters whereas dashed lines show a

weak relationship).

Table 2The policies and measures relevant to RET implementation

as stated by (a) Greece and (b) UK, as stated in their

National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAP) under-

taken under the EU 20-20-20 Energy Directive linked to

the issues which these actions address.

Measure Issue

GreeceRegulatory

1 GG4

2 GG4

6 VV1

9 GG4

12 GG4

Financial

3 EE6

4 EE6

7 EE6

17 EE6

19 GG1

22 EE6

23 EE6

Information

15 SS5

Technical

18 TT6

29 GG12

33 TT7

34 TT6

Innovation

32 TT4

UKFinancial

2 EE6

10 SS6

22 GG4

23 GG1

38 TT12

Soft

33 SS5

37 SS6

Innovation

32 TT4

E. Michalena, J.M. Hills / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 201–216 209

The five main concerns of the EU 20-20-20 policy were linkedto the five clusters of local REP issues derived from the ordinationanalysis (Fig. 8). Overall, this diagram shows that there are inter-linkages between EU policy and the issues clusters in relation tolocal specificity (cluster 1) and technological challenges (cluster3) However, it is also apparent that the majority of the issueclusters identified are not among the principal concerns of EUrenewable energy policy. For example, multiplicity of issues(cluster 2) and environmental concerns (cluster 4) are not treatedas core elements within EU renewable energy policy, even ifscientific commentators consider them as two key groups ofissues related to local REP implementation.

Maybe of greater concern is the lack of appreciation and policysupport for dealing with the complexity and multiplicity of issuesassociated with REP implementation (cluster 2). This finding isimportant since the concept ‘‘Complexity & Multiplicity of issues’’can be directly related to the end-users’ satisfaction or non-satisfaction (as it is related to the complexity of the renewableenergy system). Additionally, the application of renewable energysources might modify not only the background system, but alsodownstream aspects, such as consumer behaviour (Pehnt, 2006).Therefore, it is questionable, to what extent policy, which does not

strive for integrated and cohesive support for decision making at the

implementation scale, motivates and secures ambitious RE targets.

However, even if EU policy remains largely divorced from localREP implementation issues, through its divestment to subsidiarity inMS, it might be the case that EU policy provides a promoting avenuefor dealing more systematically with local REP issues at the MS level.

4.5. Subsidiarity of renewable energy policy

The previous section suggests limited linkage between on-the-ground issues identified by commentators and EU 20-20-20 RETpolicy. In this section we assess the extent to which the process ofsubsidiarity forms the ‘‘missing link’’ between EU 20-20-20 policyand local REP issues.

Subsidiarity provides the flexibility for MS to implement EUDirectives in a form that is appropriate to the national context.Conceptually, it thus provides a link between EU policy-settingand national implementation as it is widely argued that institu-tionalisation is important for renewable energy promotion anddevelopment (Wolsink, 2000). Many EU Directives require MSlevel reporting of progress back to the Commission. For example,article 4 of the EU20-20-20 Directive required MS to submitNational Renewable Energy Acton Plans (NREAP) by June 2010.These NREAP plans were produced in a pre-determined templatepublished by the EU in order to provide a roadmap of ‘‘how each

MS expects to reach its legally binding 2020 target for the share of

renewable energy sources’’. However, in terms of subsidiarity thisrelates mainly to ensuring the MS have ‘‘national rules concerning

the authorisation, certification and licensing proceduresy.are pro-

portionate and necessary’’ (Article 13).It is observed that there is a type of ‘‘discontinuity’’ between the

roles of the NREAP as a route map to deliver 20-20-20 targets andthe associated subsidiarity which focuses on authorisation proce-dures. The NREAP contains useful aspirations for enhanced author-isation processes, for example, the UK NREAP states that it isputting in place a ‘‘one-in-one-out’’ rule for managing regulationand ‘‘sunset clauses’’ for reviews by regulators (UK NREAP, 43). TheGreek NREAP accepts that previous administrative and planningprocedures ‘‘were overly complicated and extremely bureaucratic’’

E. Michalena, J.M. Hills / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 201–216210

and has released a new law to ‘‘simplify regulations governing RET’’(L3851/2010) (Ministry of Environment, Energy & Climate Change(MEECC), 2010). However, to what extent this permitting-focus ofsubsidiarity through the NREAP deals with the multiple issuesidentified in the work presented here that hinder REP implementa-tion is unclear.

To ascertain the REP implementation issues which are beingaddressed by the NREAP’s, two illustrative ‘‘example MS’’ (Greeceand UK, the birth countries of the authors) were selected for furtherconsideration. Each of the relevant policies and measures concerningthe promotion of the use of energy from renewable resources(NREAP format, Section 4.2, Table 2) was linked to an issue identified.

Presenting these data in this fashion shows a small number ofissues identified in this work being addressed by both exampleMS. To visualise the depth and penetration of EU policy down tothe local level, the addressed issues were plotted against abackdrop of all issues from the ordination (Fig. 9). It can againbe seen that only a limited number of issues are currently beingaddressed in NREAPs of Greece and the UK. However, maybe ofgreater significance, is the position of these addressed issues inrelation to the issue clusters.

Generally speaking, the most frequently addressed issues byNREAPs are from the economic opportunities cluster (cluster 5)which are implemented through financial and regulatorymechanisms. The next most frequent cluster addressed by both

Fig. 9. Diagrammatic representation between main elements of EU 20-202-20

policy relevant to REP implementation as determined from the National Renew-

able Energy Action Plans (NREAP) for Greece (a) and UK (b) (represented as black

diamonds) plotted on a backdrop of individual issues (grey circles) and the five

main issues clusters identified from ordination analysis.

Greece and the UK is technical challenges (cluster 3), followed bylocal specificity and governance (cluster 1). With the exception ofGG4 (fair decision-making), no issues were addressed in theenvironmental acceptability (4) or complexity of issues (2) clus-ters. It may be the case that the environmental acceptabilityaspects of REP development are covered elsewhere in the EUAcquis Communautaire (e.g., Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC andthe Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008/56/Commission)and national legislation and are then mainstreamed into theenergy sector.

Notwithstanding that, the main conclusion from this inter-pretation is that national implementation of the EU policy addresses

few of the identified REP issues and not all of the identified issues

clusters. This weakness of EU policy leaves significant responsi-bility to MS to deal with the majority of issues at a national leveland as such creates a risk of single or multiple failures to reachthe 20% RET energy target by 2020 at the MS-level and conse-quently in a cumulative manner at the EU level.

5. Conclusions

In this research work, the following question has beenaddressed: To what extent EU policy can motivate and secure

ambitious REP implementation to meet the 20-20-20 targets? Todo this a population of published papers from the EU zone framedin an appropriate time envelope and using relevant search terms(‘‘renewable energy’’ and ‘‘local’’), has been analysed in a rigorousway to try to probe and understand the inherent complexity ofissues and their link to EU energy policy implementation. Meta-analysis has been used to refine and target the question, and assuch following this analysis, a refined question can be posed: towhat extent EU policy which does not strive for integrated andcohesive support for decision making at the scale at whichimplementation takes place, can motivate and secure ambitiousREP implementation to meet the 20-20-20 targets?

This work includes evidence that the EU energy Directive2009/28/EC, which is responsible for implementation of theoverarching policy for MS to reach renewable energy targets,does not provide the structure or content by which MS canimplement REP and reach the imposed targets. In particular, theanalytical review of the example NREAPs has suggested thatreality is far from stereotypical policies in terms of the architec-ture of the sectors involved in renewable energy process and thecomplexity of the REP development itself. Indicatively:

�

REP issues are partial artefacts of methodology and geogra-phical scope and there are geographical differences across theEU in relation to issue perception. This means that REP issuesare perceived differently among stakeholders that come fromdifferent geographic localities because needs and aspirationsrelated to renewable energy systems are different in Southernand Northern EU MS. � There are complexities from dealing with the multi-actors

involved in REP implementation and maybe this is why realneeds and interests of different groups of actors working on REissues differ, and are not fully covered by measures suggested inEU policy documents and national strategies. Furthermore, inreality, different phases of REP implementation include morediverse issues than the ones suggested by traditional frameworks.

� The majority of issues for REP implementation range across

many sectors and these issues can be grouped into clusterswhich deal with the following concerns: (a) local specificityand governance, (b) complexity and multiplicity of factors, (c)technological challenges, (d) environmental concerns and (e)economic opportunities and competitiveness.

E. Michalena, J.M. Hills / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 201–216 211

This complexity of renewable energy systems is rarely expli-citly addressed in EU renewable energy planning and policy. In

fact, this work has revealed that:

�

Tab

PN

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

The EU Directive is target based, but predominantly fails toaddress issues associated with local REP implementation andthus the meeting of such target themselves.

� The issues themselves do not cluster around traditional sec-

toral boundaries. Yet, EU policy follows these sectors substan-tively and is conceptually impoverished and fails to match thereal-world.

� The EU puts forward the principle of subsidiarity through

National Plans; yet still, these Plans support the EU Directiveand not local REP implementation issues. This is probablydue to the fact that the EU assumes subsidiarity in thatMS will do actions to implement RE but does not whollyfacilitate MS. This is because the Directive does not supportthe wider requirement for subsidiarity in MS to meetthe targets requested. As such, any failures in REP implementa-tion and thus meeting the RE 20-20-20 targets, can possibly belinked to the weak interface between EU and MS subsidiarity.

� Local issues dominate REP implementation; however, the EU

policy provides minimal support for such localism.

In summary, there are many challenges for REP implementa-tion across the EU and the world as a whole forming a vital aspectof our sustainable future. Cohesive and integrated policy is onepart of this system which provides a platform to enable atrajectory to a sustainable and prosperous future. However, policygaps, vacuums and lackadaisical stereotypical conceptual

le A1

aperr

Names of Authors and Work

Tsoutsos, Th., Drandaki, M., Frantzeskaki, N., Iosifidis, El., Kiosses, I. (2009),

island of Crete’’, Energy Policy 37 (2009) 1587–1600

Hojer, M., Dreborg, K.H., Engstrom, R., Gunnarsson-Ostling, U., Svenfelt, A. 2

national environmental objectives. In: Futures (2010), doi:10.1016/j.future

Bertzky, M., Stoll-Kleemann, S.2009. Multi-level discrepancies with sharing

In: Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 8–24

Martınez-Alier, J.,Pascual U., Vivien, F., Zaccai, E. 2010. Sustainable de-grow

paradigm. In: Ecological Economics 69 (2010) 1741–1747

De Groot R.S., Alkemade, R. Braat, L.Hein, L. Willemen, L., 2010. Challenges in

management and decision making. In: Ecological Complexity 7 (2010) 260

Beers, P.J., Veldkamp, A., Hermans, F., Apeldoorn, D., Vervoort, J.M., Kok, K.

Biesbroek, G.R., Swart, R.J., Van der Knaap, W.G.M., 2009. The mitigation–ad

(2009) 230–237

Gasol, C.M., Brun, F., Mosso, A., Rieradevall, J., Gabarrell, X., 2009. Economic a

Southern Europe. In: Energy Policy 38 (2010)592–597

D’Ovidio, A., Pagano, M. 2009. Probabilistic multicriteria analyses for optim

645–652

0 Vermeylen, S., 2009. Resource rights and the evolution of renewable energ

1 Harborne, P., Hendry, Ch. 2009. Pathways to commercial wind power in th

innovation process. In: Energy Policy 37 (2009) pp. 3580–3595

2 Boezeman, D., Leroy, P., Maas, R., Kruitwagen,S. 2010. The (limited) political

In: Ecological Economics 69 (2010) pp. 1756–1764

3 Brown, G., Patterson, T., Cain, N., 2010. The devil in the details: Non-conve

doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2010.05.002

4 Charlesworth, M., Okereke, C. 2010. Policy responses to rapid climate chang

Change 20 (2010) pp. 121–129

5 Tolis, A.I., Rentizelas, A.A., Tatsiopoulos, I.P., 2010. Time-dependent opportu

conventional fuels. In: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (201

6 Michalena, E., Angeon, V., 2009. Local challenges in the promotion of renewa

7 Crivits, m., Paredis, E. 2010. Scenarios based on sustainability discourses: co

doi:10.1016/j.futures.2010.07.002

8 Dahan, A. 2010. Putting the Earth System in a numerical box? The evolutio

Philosophy of Modern Physics 41 (2010) pp. 282–292

9 Lund, H. 2010. The implementation of renewable energy systems. Lessons

0 Karagiannis, I.C., Soldatos, P., 2010. Estimation of critical CO2 values when

islands. In: Energy Policy 38 (2010) pp. 3891–3897

frameworks endanger the necessary actions and achievementof targets. As such, rigorous policy appraisal forms a valuablerole in order to incentivise policy revision to meet the real worldneeds, in addition to achieving targets set by internationalinstitutions.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Mrs Victoria Rutherford for her kindcontribution in the proof-reading the manuscript.

Appendix A

References of the papers and year of publication for the 69

sampled papers (See Table A1).

Appendix B

The 145 issues identified from the sample of papers divided into

categories of technical, economic, governance, environmental and

social. Summary codes for these issues are provided in the left column

(e.g., E1). After rationalisation of these issues the code to where the

original issue was placed in is shown in the right hand column

(e.g., EE2) (See Table B1).

’’Sustainable energy planning by using multi-criteria analysis application in the

010. Experiences of the development and use of scenarios for evaluating Swedish

s.2010.02.005

data on protected areas: What we have and what we need for the global village.

th: Mapping the context, criticisms and future prospects of an emergent

integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning,

–272

2010. Future sustainability and images. In: Futures 42 (2010) 723–732

aptation dichotomy and the role of spatial planning. In: Habitat International 33

ssessment and comparison of acacia energy crop with annual traditional crops in

al biomass power plant design. In: Electric Power Systems Research 79 (2009)

y technologies. In: Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2399–2405

e US, Europe and Japan: Therole of demonstration ojects and field trials in the

influence of ecological economics: A case study on Dutch environmental policies.

xities in ecosystem service provision. In: Resource Energy Econ.(2010),

e: An epistemological critique of dominant approaches. In: Global Environmental

nities in energy business: A comparative study of locally available renewable and

0) pp. 384–393

ble energy sources: The case of Crete. In: Energy Policy 37 (2009) pp. 2018–2026

nstructing alternative consumption and consumer perspectives., Futures (2010),

n from climate modelling toward global change. In: Studies in History and

learned from the Danish case. In: Energy 35 (2010) pp. 4003–4009

planning the power source in water desalination: The case of the small Aegean

Table A1 (continued )

PaperNr

Names of Authors and Work

21 Agterbosch, S., Meertens, R.M., Vermeulen, W.J.V., 2009. The relative importance of social and institutional conditions in the planning of wind power projects.

In: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13 (2009) pp. 393–405

22 Aitken, M. 2010. Wind power and community benefits: Challenges and opportunities. In: Energy Policy 38 (2010) pp. 6066–6075

23 Avril, S., Arnaud, G., Florentin, A., Vinard, M. 2010. Multi-objective optimisation of batteries and hydrogen storage technologies for remote photovoltaic

systems. In: Energy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.energy.2010.07.033

24 Barton, J., Gammon, R. 2010. The production of hydrogen fuel from renewable sources and its role in grid operations. In: Journal of Power Sources 195 (2010)

pp. 8222–8235

25 Bergek, A. 2010. Levelling the playing field? The influence of national wind power planning instruments on conflicts of interests in a Swedish county. In:

Energy Policy 38 (2010) pp. 2357–2369

26 Chiabrando, C., Fabrizio, E., Garnero, G. 2010. The territorial and landscape impacts of photovoltaic systems: Definition of impacts and assessment of the

glare risk. In: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13 (2009) pp. 2441–2451

27 Hrovatin, N., Pittman, R., Zoric, J. 2009. Organisation and reforms of the electricity sector in Slovenia. In: Utilities Policy 17 (2009) pp. 134–143

28 Hirschl, B. 2009. International renewable energy policy—between marginalisation and initial approaches. In: Energy Policy 37 (2009) pp. 4407–4416

29 Del Rıo, P., Burguillo, M. 2010. An empirical analysis of the impact of renewable energy deployment on local sustainability. In: Renewable and Sustainable

Energy Reviews 13 (2009) pp. 1314–1325

30 Devine-Wright, P., Howes, Y. 2010. Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: A wind energy case study. In: Journal of

Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) pp. 271–280

31 Kruyt, B., Van Vuuren, D.P., De Vries, H.J.M., Groenenberg, H., 2010. Indicators for energy security. In: Energy Policy 37 (2009) pp. 2166–2181

32 Haehnlein, S., Bayer, P., Blum, P. 2010. International legal status of the use of shallow geothermal energy. In: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14

(2010) pp. 2611–2625

33 Garmendia, E., Gamboa, G., Franco, J., Garmendia, J.M., Liria, P., Olazabal, M. 2010. Social multi-criteria evaluation as a decision support tool for integrated

coastal zone management. In: Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 385e403

34 Hockerts, K., Wustenhagen, R. 2010. Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids - Theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable

entrepreneurship

35 Hueting, R. 2010. Why environmental sustainability can most probably not be attained with growing productionq. In: Journal of Cleaner Production 18

(2010) pp. 525–530

36 Kallis, G., Norgaard, R.B., 2010. Co-evolutionary ecological economics. In: Ecological Economics 69 (2010) pp. 690–699

37 Keenleyside, C., Baldock, D., Hjerp, P., Swales, V. 2009. International perspectives on future land use. In: Land Use Policy 26S (2009) pp. S14–S29

38 Adamides, E.D., Mouzakitis, Y., 2009. Industrial ecosystems as technological niches. In: Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (2009) pp. 172–180

39 Jones, C.R., Eiser, J.R., 2009. Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local onshore wind development with reference to an English case study. In: Energy

Policy 37 (2009) pp. 4604–4614

40 Kalz, D.E., Pfafferott, J., Herkel, S. 2010. Building signatures: A holistic approach to the evaluation of heating and cooling concepts. In: Building and

Environment 45 (2010) pp. 632–646

41 Kessides, I.N. 2010. Nuclear power: Understanding the economic risks and uncertainties. In: Energy Policy 38 (2010) pp. 3849–3864

42 Klugman, S., Karlsson, M., Moshfegh, B. 2009. A Swedish integrated pulp and paper mill—Energy optimisation and local heat co-operation. I: Energy Policy 37

(2009) pp. 2514–2524

43 Chicco, G., Mancarella, P. 2009. Distributed multi-generation: A comprehensive view. In: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13 (2009) pp. 535–551

44 Koundouri, P., Kountouris, Y., Remoundou, K. 2009. Valuing a wind farm construction: A contingent valuation study in Greece. In: Energy Policy 37 (2009)

pp. 1939–1944

45 Clark, J.R.A., Clarke, R. 2011. Local sustainability initiatives in English National Parks: What role for adaptive governance? In: Land Use Policy 28 (2011)

pp. 314–324

46 Prodromidis, G.N., Coutelieris, F.A., 2010. Simulation and optimisation of a stand-alone power plant based on renewable energy sources, International Journal

of Hydrogen Energy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.07.065

47 Gee, K. 2010. Offshore wind power development as affected by seascape values on the German North Sea coast. In: Land Use Policy 27 (2010) pp. 185–194

48 Gibson, E., Howsam, P. 2010. The legal framework for offshore wind farms: A critical analysis of the consents process. In: Energy Policy 38 (2010) pp. 4692–

4702

49 Economou, A., 2010. Renewable energy resources and sustainable development in Mykonos (Greece). In: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14

(2010) pp.1496–1501

50 Kaldellis, J.K., Kapsali, M., Kavadias, K.A., 2010. Energy balance analysis of wind-based pumped hydro storage systems in remote island electrical networks.

In: Applied Energy 87 (2010) pp. 2427–2437

51 Verbong, G.P.J., Geels, F.W., 2010. Exploring sustainability transitions in the electricity sector with socio-technical pathways. In: Technological Forecasting &

Social Change 77 (2010) pp. 1214–1221

52 Sastresa, E.L., Uson, A.A., Bribia, I.Z., Scarpellini, S. 2010. Local impact of renewables on employment: Assessment methodology and case study. In: Renewable

and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (2010) pp. 679–690

53 Rounsevell, M.D.A., Reay, D.S., 2009. Land use and climate change in the UK. In: Land Use Policy 26S (2009) pp. S160–S169

54 Wells, P., Bristow, G., Nieuwenhuis, P., Christensen, T.B. 2009. The role of academia in regional sustainability initiatives: Wales. In: Journal of Cleaner

Production 17 (2009) pp. 1116–1122

55 Uthes, S., Fricke, K., Konig, H., Zander, P., Van Ittersum, M., Sieber, S., Helming, K., Piorra, A., Muller, K. 2010. Policy relevance of three integrated assessment

tools—A comparison with specific reference to agricultural policies. In: Ecological Modelling 221 (2010) pp. 2136–2152

56 Pulselli, R.M., 2010. Integrating energy evaluation and geographic information systems for monitoring resource use in the Abruzzo region (Italy). In: Journal

of Environmental Management 91 (2010) pp. 2349–2357

57 Ramos, T.B. 2010. Development of regional sustainability indicators and the role of academia in this process: the Portuguese practice. In: Journal of Cleaner

Production 17 (2009) pp. 1101–1115

58 Rosch, Ch., Skarka, J., Raab, K., Stelzer, V., 2010. Energy production from grassland – Assessing the sustainability of different process chains under German

conditions. In: Biomass and bioenergy 33 (2009 ) pp. 689–700

59 Skouloudis, A., Evangelinos, K., Kourmousis, F. 2010. Assessing non-financial reports according to the Global Reporting Initiative guidelines: evidence from

Greece. In: Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) pp. 426–438

60 Solino, M., Vazquez, M.X., Prada, A., 2009. Social demand for electricity from forest biomass in Spain: Does payment periodicity affect the willingness to pay?

In: Energy Policy 37 (2009) pp. 531–540

61 Wille-Haussmann,B., Erge, T., Wittwer, Ch. 2010. Decentralised optimisation of cogeneration in virtual power plants. In: Solar Energy 84 (2010) pp. 604–611

62 Nadaı, A., Labussi�ere, O., 2009. Wind power planning in France (Aveyron), from state regulation to local planning. In: Land Use Policy 26 (2009) pp. 744–754

63 Ohl, C., Eichhorn, M. 2010. The mismatch between regional spatial planning for wind power development in Germany and national eligibility criteria for

feed-in tariffs—A case study in West Saxony. In: Land Use Policy 27 (2010) pp. 243–254

64 Kapsali, M., Kaldellis, J.K., 2010. Combining hydro and variable wind power generation by means of pumped-storage under economically viable terms.

In: Applied Energy 87 (2010) pp. 3475–3485

E. Michalena, J.M. Hills / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 201–216212

Table A1 (continued )

PaperNr

Names of Authors and Work

65 Klevas, V., Streimikiene, D., Kleviene, A. 2009. Sustainability assessment of the energy projects implementation in regional scale. In: Renewable and

Sustainable Energy Reviews 13 (2009) pp. 155–166

66 Kowalski, K., Stagl, s., Madlener, R., Omann I., 2009. Sustainable energy futures: Methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory multi-

criteria analysis. In: European Journal of Operational Research 197 (2009) pp. 1063–1074

67 Zografakis, N., Sifaki, E., Pagalou, M., Nikitaki, G., Psarakis, V., Tsagarakis, K.P. 2010. Assessment of public acceptance and willingness to pay for renewable

energy sources in Crete In: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (2010) pp. 1088–1095

68 Marques, A.C. – Fuinhas, J.A., 2011. Drivers promoting renewable energy: A dynamic panel approach. In: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15

(2011) pp. 1601–1608

69 Szymanska, D., Chodkowska-Miszczuk, J. 2011. Endogenous resources utilisation of rural areas in shaping sustainable development in Poland. In: Renewable

and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (2011) pp. 1497–1501

Table B1

E¼Economic/ Market

E1 Investing in RET is of high cost for both developers and end-users EE2

E2 Conventional fuel/ electricity price is volatile and expensive EE8

E3 Competitiveness of RET in relation to other fuels should be increased EE8

E4 Proper funding instruments should/are in place to meet RE targets EE6

E5 It is likely that market incentives for RET have disappointing effects EE6

E6 Subsidising electricity of small islands makes wind electricity less financially attractive EE6

E7 In the deregulated global electricity marketplace we are currently in, the role of energy economics is increased EE5

E8 RE offer a chance for profitable business opportunities and economic benefits EE9

E9 There is a stagnation of job posts in the conventional fuel industry because of the RE development EE9

E10 Considerable investment will be needed for an unconstrained grid that can cope with all possible flows of RE from region to region within a country EE2

E11 Specificity of industrial processes and micro-scale production reduces the impact of economies of scale EE7

E12 Willingness to pay (WTP) is essential for the penetration of RE technologies and the more familiar people are with RE the more the WTP increases EE3

E13 Business’ current concerns are environment and society EE4

E14 Sustainable development requires innovation EE4

E15 It is up to the market forces to deal with resource management EE5

E16 There is a necessity to internalise environmental cost EE8

E17 There is a necessity for market liquidity EE4

E18 Several types of entrepreneurs deal with RE and all of those should work together EE1

E19 There is a restricted number of manufacturers in the production and supply of wind turbines worldwide EE7

E20 Rising of CO2 prices does not work as an investment incentive for RE EE6

E21 The diffusion of RETs can be organised at a central, national level [often by leading countries], but is mainly related to the local societal context EE3

E22 There is a need for consuming networks and market segmentation in markets without market niches for the ‘‘take off’’ of a new technology EE5

E23 The emergence of a new market, dominated by managers EE5

E24 Job posts depend on conditions of RET development EE9

E25 The choice of investing on RET or energy saving depends on the type of organisation and the cost allocated to the investment EE1

G¼Governance

G1 Economic growth, social cohesion and environmental protection are marrying goals and form the concept of ‘‘sustainable development’’ GG5

G2 Sustainable development’s targets can only be achieved through a wise energy policy by the Government GG10

G3 A governmental policy that concern energy passes through several stages, and should be sustainable during different political periods GG4

G4 Setting of national goals under EU legislation has resulted in RE increase GG2

G5 National targets seem to have resulted in the general opinion that any wind power expansion above the county-level target was a matter of private rather

than public interest

GG7

G6 Our current choices are led by a more internationally directed lifestyle GG9

G7 The future cannot be easily predicted when it comes to ecosystems GG13

G8 Risk management is important to meet environmental and social uncertainties GG13

G9 RET hampering is due to many reasons GG11

G10 Regional energy policy is necessary, but can be complicated and requires a set of critical parameters to be taken under consideration GG1

G11 All radical technological changes imply organisational and institutional changes. Hence, institutional support is a determining factor for the development

of RE in a region

GG12

G12 RE implementation and energy security should be monitored (including the authorisation trajectory) GG6

G13 The monitoring procedure should be based on a long-term frame: Any method for evaluation of the work with the environmental quality objectives must

have a long time frame

GG6

G14 Environmental performance indicators are not often discussed GG5

G15 Procedures characterised by dispersed decision making powers are difficult to manage GG7

G16 Future sustainability transitions are mainly determined by economic, institutional and cultural dynamics of multiple scale levels and involve several social

groups and institutions

GG11

G17 A failure of the sustainable development concept is noted down GG15

G18 The support on information for European and national funding possibilities for the research and the installation of RETs is necessary GG14

G19 The influence of EU legislation has been crucial in defining institutional conditions for RE and becomes more and more dominant GG2

G20 There is lack of clarity in European energy legislation when it comes to RE penetration GG2

G21 National and European policies focus on market-based instruments GG12

G22 A delay in the greening of the electricity system is noted GG15

G23 For a successful RET implementation, the enhanced role of local authorities is required GG1

G24 For a successful RET implementation, there is a need for local tools GG1

G25 RE projects should be integrated in the productive structure of the local community GG1

G26 The inclusion of local planning in governmental policy to favour sustainable development practices is important and local authorities should work

together with government

GG1

G27 Knowledge should be clearly communicated (especially when it comes to radical technological changes and available alternatives) GG14

E. Michalena, J.M. Hills / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 201–216 213

Table B1 (continued )

G28 It is difficult for a company to experiment on their own on energy innovation GG10

G29 There is the need for quality of the scientific knowledge behind the concept of sustainable development, and novel combinations of methods, which, first,

support the exploration of complexities and uncertainties and, second, organise the information and aid decision-making

GG14

G30 The increasing attention being paid to RE processes has directed attention away from the justice, equity and sustainability of the material outcomes of

planning interventions

GG4

G31 Landscape functions (and services) have become an important concept in policy making, especially when related to RET GG3

G32 Land-use decision-making involves co-ordination of the whole range of sectors GG3

G33 Technological solutions differ from one place to another and RE (including law that concerns it) should be set in specific territories and tailored to suit

local contexts

GG1

G34 Both internal and external factors are important to reduce the economic and environmental vulnerability GG11

G35 There is a need for both mitigation and adaptation strategies in sectors related to climate change GG8

G36 Adaptation and mitigation strategies are dynamic processes GG8

G37 There are a wide variety of options available to mitigate or adapt to climate change GG8

G38 Top-down mitigation strategies are easier to implement in comparison to bottom-up adaptive strategies GG8

G39 There are at least five distinct types or pathways through which maladaptation arises GG8

G40 The transportation sector should be included in the RE strategies GG8

G41 There is a lack of ability for organisations and institutions linked to existing technologies, to produce and promote proposals and alternatives based on

radical changes in technology

GG10

G42 Some technological changes challenge the political decision-making process more than others GG16

G43 Privatisation, deregulation, and liberalisation have led to major institutional changes. Effects are rather positive GG4

G44 Electricity market liberalisation has not increased European competitiveness, due to regulatory inconsistency and patchwork of policies GG2

G45 In energy policy is mainly the technological aspect which is taken under consideration GG16

S¼Social

S1 Social acceptance of RET supports RET implementation SS2

S2 One important criterion for the assessment of RE implementation is social benefits SS6

S3 Public participation, hence the awareness of choices, and a partnership process between different groups has been an important factor in successful

decision making process

SS4

S4 The conditions under which public and stakeholder engagement is most effective, and quality criteria for the implementation of participatory exercises,

are still under development

SS4

S5 The structuring of local, social (including business and technological) networks is required, for example for the diffusion of information SS4

S6 There are many reasons for local opposition against RE development SS3

S7 Different actors see things differently and there are often conflicts of interest and their reasons should be discovered SS3

S8 Trust (i.e., between the local communities and the commercial developers) is an important element during the RE implementation SS4

S9 Fairness (i.e., a RE outcome is beneficial to all parties) is important for the successful RET implementation SS4

S10 Commitment from all actors (developers, local society, government) towards sustainable electricity production is needed a broad implementation of

renewable energies

SS2

S11 Mature status of a RE project help its acceptance SS2

S12 There is a growing understanding on the vulnerability of societies SS1

S13 Mitigation and adaptation to sustainable schemes involves different types of stakeholders SS4

S14 Boosting local industry has been/is seen as an opportunity for local development SS6

S15 The micro-level niches hold the highest potential for change SS5

S16 Local culture is strong (when it comes to RE implementation) and its protection is needed SS1

S17 Whilst the commercial viability of onshore turbines is surely attractive to developers, the threat of costly delays resulting from opposition within potential

host communities is certainly less appealing

SS3

S18 Initial interest for local interest for wind generators as ‘‘innovative’’, has being now transformed into ‘‘administrative’’ burden SS8

S19 Skills required for RE implementation are high and, for this reason, training on RET is important SS5

S20 Difficulty of actors to come to terms with new configurations SS2

S21 The adoption of innovative systems by local municipalities should follow a strategy, include a specific action plan with priorities and follow some

principles

SS2

S22 Companies experiment in a range of ways when RET implementation is concerned SS7

S23 Social systems are interdependent with complex interactions SS4

S24 Local decision makers may have limited knowledge of the needs of the industry SS5

S25 Voluntary groups, such as charities and NGOs often fail to engage in community interests and views SS3

S26 Academics show increasing interest in the dynamics of transitions and system innovation and governance aspects. Their main role in respect of

sustainable development appears to be in providing pertinent monitoring and evaluation expertise

SS5

T¼Technical

T1 Technical feasibility and maturity/ efficiency of RE technology (¼efficiency improvements in the energy production side) is important TT3

T2 Energy demand is increasing TT2

T3 Security (and diversification) of electricity supply is needed, mainly because of energy dependence of many regions and high cost of conventional fuels TT1

T4 The goal should be the most efficient possible use of energy resources TT3

T5 Conventional fuel savings are necessary TT1

T6 RE can meet energy supply needs in isolated areas (i.e., islands) TT5

T7 Wind energy limits are restricted due to technical reasons, usually referring to the Grid TT8

T8 Existing fossil fuel fleet should be replaced after 50 years TT1

T9 Grid connection must be planned well in advance TT6

T10 In many insulated situations (like islands), the grid is more sensitive to electric load variations and therefore RET can provoke vulnerability of the Grid TT6

T11 Successful protection of the Grid through local energy sources (The local resources connected to the electrical grid may provide benefits on the electrical

network reliability (e.g., by reducing the total energy not supplied after a service interruption) and power quality (by including power conditioning

options based on updated power electronics within the grid interface systems))

TT7

T12 The premier global strategy is mentioned to be the interconnection of electric power networks between regions and continents into a global energy grid,

with an emphasis on tapping abundant renewable energy resources

TT6

T13 There is a need for precautionary principles for some heavy RE technologies (like geothermal energy applications) TT3

T14 Existing dominance of conventional energy system technologies TT1

T15 Onshore wind turbines are the most wanted RE option but create oppositions TT9

T16 RE remain in small niches TT10

T17 Demand response solutions are needed but will restrict the need for investing on RET TT2

T18 Distributed generation (DMG) and microgrids are helping local electricity production and are ideal especially for islands TT5

E. Michalena, J.M. Hills / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 201–216214

Table B1 (continued )

T19 Distributed generation (DMG) might encounter barriers TT5

T20 Increasing interest is being gained by applications of solar technologies for multi-generation TT5

T21 The coupling of cogeneration plants with RE systems can offer stability to the energy system and Grid TT7

T22 There is some leeway for positive changes in the feasibility and market situation of RETs, but not for the development of new technologies TT12

T23 RE systems would be especially efficient, if coupled with a storage solutions TT7

T24 There will be a future need for repowering Wind generators TT8

T25 The role of information and communication technology (ICT) is important TT11

T26 Demonstration projects experience a faster consenting process and much shorter project duration TT4

T27 The role of demonstration projects needs endorsement TT4

T28 It should be assured that supply chain is able to support the huge growth in demand for high specification offshore turbines and, therefore, should be run

by big businesses

TT8

T29 Demonstration projects and field trials (DT) often appear to have been funded by governments in an irregular and haphazard way TT4

T30 Demonstration projects are likely to progress from a focus on technical to economic to commercial issues as the technology develops TT4

T31 Advances in offshore turbine technology should gradually alleviate some of the pressure on onshore locations TT2

T32 R&D needs to avoid premature committing to a particular technology or approach TT12

T33 Triggering transitions toward more sustainable futures requires active experimentation with a wide range of innovations TT12

T34 Radical innovations emerge in niches TT10

V¼environmental

V1 There is a growing interest in the sustainable development concept, the science of ecosystem and landscape functions and services VV1

V2 Climate and climate related systems are already rapidly changing VV2

V3 We now face continuous environmental crisis mainly related to carbon emissions and climate change VV3

V4 The importance (‘‘value’’) of ecosystems and their services can be expressed in different ways VV3

V5 Ecological systems (as well as responses to climate change) are interdependent with complex interactions and more and more links across time and space VV4

V6 It is difficult to quantify environmental impacts VV5

V7 Ecosystem services such as air filtration or carbon sequestration are public goods and not commonly considered in decision making by managers of

ecosystem providing the service

VV6

V8 Amongst the important criteria for the assessment of RE implementation are environmental criteria and CO2 emissions avoided VV7

V9 While operation of renewable-based systems is virtually energy-and emission-free, the major environmental burden is due to plant building and

decommissioning

VV5

V10 Abundance of RET is a determining factor in the development of renewables in a region VV1

V11 A supplementary attention should be drawn in case of territories with ecological fragility and the existence of protected areas VV8

V12 There is uncertainty regarding future development of factors influencing ecosystems and society VV2

V13 The environmental engagement is strongest for local and regional environmental issues VV9

V14 Electricity output is often competitive with food production VV1

V15 Scenic value of landscapes give place to human perceptiveness of landscapes VV5

Table C1

E¼Economic/Market

EE1 Diversity of interests leads REP implementation, but all of them should work together towards the optimal result

EE2 Investment in renewable energy and relevant infrastructures is costly

EE3 Economic and market processes that concern renewable energy (such as Willingness To Pay and renewable energy diffusion) are better organised at a local level

EE4 There is a positive new relationship between business entrepreneurship and sustainable development

EE5 Renewable energy market and renewable energy market management require facilitating characteristics such as segmentation and liquidity

EE6 Subsidies, incentives and funding must be appropriate and carefully designed to support REP implementation

EE7 There are concerns with regard to the micro-scale process of REP production

EE8 Renewable energy competitiveness is an important indicator for REP implementation and depends on conventional fuels prices volatility and internalisation of

externalities

EE9 The interchange between renewable energy and conventional fuels can lead to economic opportunities and benefits

G¼Governance

GG1 Regional/local energy policy is necessary for REP implementation and requires a set of critical parameters to be taken under consideration, such as the enhanced

role of local authorities, the implementation of local tools, the special local characteristics, local needs, etc.

GG2 EU policy drives national-level renewable energy penetration and European competiveness, but lacks clarity

GG3 Landscape management is important for REP implementation and requires coordination of many sectors

GG4 Political and policy processes that concern renewable energy must lead to technological, sustainable and fair decision-making

GG5 Although economic performance and environmental protection are co-joined goals, environmental performance lacking in discussions (unbalanced linkage

between economic and environmental performance)

GG6 Long-term renewable energy system monitoring is necessary

GG7 Dispersed decision making at multiple levels is difficult to manage

GG8 Mitigation and adaptation strategies need flexibility and inclusion of all sectors to cope with climate change

GG9 Our current choices are led by a more internationally directed lifestyles

GG10 Lack of ability for radical changes in energy innovation at technological and institutional level

GG11 There are many complex factors impacting REP implementation and sustainable transition.

GG12 Institutional changes and market-based mechanisms lead to sustainable energy systems

GG13 Risk management is needed to meet uncertainties related to ecosystems and environmental factors

GG14 The diffusion of qualitative knowledge is important for achieving sustainable development

GG15 A delay in the achievement of sustainable development is noted down

GG16 In energy policy technology only is considered but some technological changes challenge the political decision-making process more than others

S¼Social process

SS1 Societies and local culture are vulnerable and their protection is needed

SS2 Social acceptance of new approaches is difficult but becomes easier through commitment to sustainable electricity production and when RE projects are in a

mature phase

SS3 Local opposition and conflict against REP implementation varies across actors due to many reasons

E. Michalena, J.M. Hills / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 201–216 215

Table C1 (continued )

SS4 Social systems, networks and partnerships are important for renewable energy diffusion and REP implementation, encompassing a wide range of actors. Quality

criteria for the implementation of participatory exercises are still under development

SS5 Local strategies are required to meet with renewable energy industry but need to be based on knowledge, training on REP development and academic

monitoring of transition dynamics towards sustainable electricity future

SS6 Renewable energy can provide local development with associated social benefits

SS7 Companies experiment in a range of ways where REP implementation is concerned

SS8 Initial local interest for wind generators once seen as ‘‘innovative’’, is now being seen as an ‘‘administrative’’ burden

T¼Technical

TT1 Conventional fuels create conditions of uncertainty and other problems, i.e., need for replacement of conventional fuel technologies

TT2 Energy demand is increasing and energy saving is needed but will restrict the need for investing in renewable energy

TT3 Maturity and efficiency of renewable energy technologies and the adoption of precautionary principles when it comes to ‘‘heavy REP’’ are important both for the

acceptance of these technologies, as well as for the most efficient possible use of energy resources

TT4 There is a need for wide range of demonstration projects which need strategic management

TT5 Distributed generation can potentially support local energy production and energy needs in isolated areas

TT6 Multi-scale grid connections must be well planned especially when it comes to REP if the Grid man become vulnerable

TT7 Local electricity production can help stabilise the grid and efficiency can be increased when coupled with storage solutions and cogeneration plants

TT8 The increasing demand of onshore and offshore wind generators does not mean that those are not ‘‘demanding’’ technologies in terms of supply chain, technical

difficulties, etc

TT9 Opposition to onshore wind turbines can be relieved by advances in offshore technology

TT10 Renewable energy technologies (as innovative ones) often emerge in local, small niches

TT11 The role of information and communication technology (ICT) is important

TT12 R&D needs to avoid premature committing to a particular technology or approach because triggering transitions toward more sustainable futures requires

active experimentation with a wide range of innovations

V¼environmental

VV1 Renewable energy potential can be abundant at a landscape scale, but might compete with other ecosystem and landscape services

VV2 Climate related systems are rapidly changing which creates uncertainty for society and environmental resources

VV3 The environment exhibits ongoing crises but there is no uniformity in the importance or ‘‘value’’ of ecosystem services

VV4 Ecological systems (as well as responses to climate change) are interdependent with complex interactions and more and more links across time and space

VV5 Quantification of environmental impacts is difficult, both in terms of operational impacts but also during RET building and decommissioning

VV6 Ecosystem services such as air filtration or carbon sequestration are public goods and not commonly considered in decision making by managers of the

ecosystem providing a service

VV7 Among the important criteria for the assessment of REP implementation are environmental criteria along with the reduction of CO2 emissions

VV8 Supplementary attention should be drawn in the case of territories with ecological fragility and the existence of protected areas

VV9 Environmental engagement is strongest for local and regional environmental issues

E. Michalena, J.M. Hills / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 201–216216

Appendix C

The final 54 issues from the sample of papers divided into

categories of technical, economic, governance, environmental and

social. Summary codes for these issues are provided in the left column

(e.g., EE1). (See Table C1).

References

Abbasi, S.A., Abbasi, N., 2000. The likely adverse environmental impacts ofrenewable energy sources. Applied Energy 65 (1–4), 121–144.

Bergmann, A., Hanley, N., Wright, R., 2006. Valuing the attributes of renewableenergy investments. Energy Policy 34 (9), 1004–1014.

Capros, P., Mantzos, L., Parousos, L., Tasios, N., Klaassen, G., Van Ierland, T., 2010.Analysis of the EU policy package on climate change and renewables. EnergyPolicy (2011). doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.12.020.

Carrera, D.G., Mack, A., 2010. Sustainability assessment of energy technologies viasocial indicators: Results of a survey among European energy experts. EnergyPolicy 38 (2), 1030–1039.

European Commission, DG Joint Research Centre (EC – JRC), 2010. RenewableEnergy Snapshots 2010, June 2010. In: /http://re.jrc.Commission.europa.eu/refsys/pdf/FINAL_SNAPSHOTS_EUR_2010.pdfS.

European Parliament and the Council (EP and Council), 2009. Directive 2009/28/ECof 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewablesources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and2003/30/EC.

Georgopoulou, E., Lalas, D., Papagiannakis, L.A., 1997. Multicriteria decision aidapproach for energy planning problems: The case of renewable energy option.European Journal of Operational Research 103 (1), 38–54.

Giatrakos, G.P., Tsoutsos, T.D., Zografakis, N., 2009. Sustainable power planning forthe island of Crete. Energy Policy 37 (4), 1222–1238.

Kaldellis, J.K., Kavadias, K.A., Kondili, E., 2004. Renewable Energy DesalinationPlants for the Greek Islands, Technical and Economic Considerations. Desali-nation 170 (2), 187–203.

Kalogirou, S.A., 2001. Artificial neural networks in renewable energy systemsapplications: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 5 (4),373–401.

Karkanias, C., Boemi, X.N., Papadopoulos, A.M., Tsoutsos, T.D., Karagiannidis., A.,

2010. Energy efficiency in the Hellenic building sector: An assessment ofthe restrictions and perspectives of the market. Energy Policy 38 (6),2776–2784.

Marques, A.C., Fuinhas, J.A., 2011. Drivers promoting renewable energy: A dynamicpanel approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (2011),

1601–1608.Ministry of Environment, Energy & Climate Change (MEECC), 2010. National

Renewable energy Action Plan in the scope of Directive 2009/28/Commission,page 36.

Michalena, E., Hills, J., Amat, J.P., 2009. Developing sustainable tourism, using amulticriteria analysis on renewable energy in Mediterranean islands. Energyfor Sustainable Development 13 (2009), 129–136.

Pehnt, M., 2006. Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energytechnologies. Renewable Energy 31 (1), 55–71.

Singal, S.K., Varun, Singh, R.P., 2007. Rural electrification of a remote island byrenewable energy sources. Renewable Energy 32, 2491–2501.

Souza, R.R., Schaeffer, R., Meira, I., 2011. Can new legislation in importingcountries represent new barriers to the development of an international

ethanol market? Energy Policy 39 (6), 3154–3162.Sustersic, V.M., Babic, M.J., Gordic, D.R., Despotovic, M.Z., Milovanovic, M., 2010.

An overview of the regulatory framework for the geothermal energy in Europeand Serbia. Thermal Science 14 (Suppl.), S115–S123.

Toscano, G., Riva, G., Foppa Pedretti, E., Duca, D., 2011. Determination of therenewable energy content of chemically modified biofuels. Biomass andBioenergy 35 (7), 3139–3146.

Van Rooijen, S., Van Wees, M., 2006. Green electricity policies in the Netherlands:an analysis of policy decisions. Energy Policy 34, 60–71.

Wang, Y., 2006. Renewable electricity in Sweden: an analysis of policy andregulations. Energy Policy (34), 1209–1220.

Weisser, D., Garcia, R.S., 2005. Instantaneous wind energy penetration inisolated electricity grids: concepts and review. Renewable Energy 30 (8),

1299–1308.Wolsink, M., 2000. Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and

the limited significance of public support. Renewable Energy 21 (1), 49–64.Zografakis, N., Sifaki, E., Pagalou, M., Nikitaki, G., Psarakis, V., Tsagarakis, K.P., 2010.

Assessment of public acceptance and willingness to pay for renewable energy

sources in Crete. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14, 1088–1095.