inspire-grid wp7 d71 0 31 - empoweringpeople · inspire-grid_wp7_d71_0_31.docx page 9 2 background...

Inspire-grid_wp7_d71_0_31.docx

Project no. 608472

INSPIRE-Grid

IMPROVED AND ENHANCED STAKEHOLDERS PARTICIPATION IN REINFORCEMENT OF ELECTRICITY GRID

Instrument: Collaborative project Thematic priority: ENERGY.2013.7.2.4 – Ensuring stakeholder support for future grid

infrastructures

Start date of project: 01 October 2013

Duration: 40 months

D7.1

LOCALLY SPECIFIC PLANS

Revision: 0.31

Submission date: 2016-08-21

Eidgenoessische Technische Hochschule Zürich (ETH) (3)


Dissemination Level PU Public PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO Confidential , only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)

Submitted

Author(s) Name Organisation E-mail Leonhard Späth ETH Zürich [email protected] Anna Scolobig ETH Zürich [email protected] Jan Hildebrand IZES [email protected] Elisa Amodeo Poliedra [email protected] Alessandra Cappiello Poliedra [email protected] Alessandro Luè Poliedra [email protected] Simona Muratori Poliedra [email protected] Silvia Beretta RSE [email protected] Stefano Maran RSE [email protected]

Abstract The purpose of this work-package (WP7 - Synthesis and recommendations) is to use and translate methodologies and insights gained during the INSPIRE-Grid project into plans for improved and enhanced stakeholder communication and engagement in the reinforcement of electricity grid. The starting point are the INSPIRE-Grid project results concerning stakeholder wants and needs (WP2), practices and guidelines to address public opposition in decision-making about grid planning (WP3 and 5), methodologies for the assessment and comparison of grid infrastructures (WP4), and fieldwork in the case studies (WP6). More precisely, work-package 7 validates the results gained in other WPs by designing innovative planning procedures and testing them in a series of workshops. This deliverable (Del. 7.1.) presents the hypotheses, design and methodology for the validation. The key hypotheses are: the use of innovative methods, such as participatory Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) or web geographic information systems (Web GIS) has a positive influence on i) procedural justice of the planning process, ii) stakeholder agreement on process outcome and iii) quality of engagement. These hypotheses have been tested by designing and developing role-play games in a virtual environment (‘Utopia’ Region) or by adapting the innovative methods to past cases of power line projects such as the Hinkley Point C Connection (HPCC) in the UK. Additionally, the workshops aimed at: i) valuating if an enhanced participation improves the quality of the planning process and its outcome; ii) scoping the forthcoming challenges for stakeholder participation in the reinforcement of electricity grid. The results and synthesis of this validation will be described in the forthcoming deliverables D7.2 (Report on validation exercises) and 7.3 (Synthesis and recommendations).

Status of deliverable Action By Date Verified Anna Scolobig / Anthony Patt - ETHZ 01-08-2016 Approved (GC) Stefano Maran - RSE 01-08-2016


“Version history” that will become “Revision history” when the final “version” is converted into .pdf format and submitted to the European Commission.

Date Version Author(s) Comments 01-06-2015 v0.02 Scolobig, Späth Report outline 28-08-2015 v0.07 Späth Update of the validation aims 23-03-2016 v0.08 Späth Content on the workshops in Italy and UK

02-06-2016 v0.10 Späth, Scolobig Outline review, Content of the workshops in Germany

22-06-2016 v0.15 Beretta, Hildebrand, Muratori, Luè Feedback round, WP7-partners

12-07-2016 v0.28 Scolobig, Späth Integration of the feedback of the WP7-partners

01-08-2016 v0.29 Ceglarz, Luè, Molinengo Final feedback round, all INSPIRE-Grid partners

21-08-2016 v0.31 Scolobig, Späth Document finalization


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. 6

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 8 2 Background .......................................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Principles and guidelines to specific plans ....................................................................................... 9 2.2 Locally specific plans: a framework for the power line projects ............................................ 10 2.3 Methods and tools to be validated: MCA and Web GIS ................................................................ 12

3 Research questions and hypotheses to be tested ................................................................. 15 3.1 Justice aspects in planning processes ............................................................................................... 15 3.2 Agreement on outcome ......................................................................................................................... 17 3.3 Quality of stakeholder interactions .................................................................................................. 17

4 Validation design ............................................................................................................................. 18 4.1 Validation workshop in Milan, Italy .................................................................................................. 19 4.2 Validation workshop in Birmingham, UK ....................................................................................... 21 4.3 Validation workshop in Schwäbisch Gmünd, Germany .............................................................. 24 4.4 Additional testing and research work .............................................................................................. 28

References ................................................................................................................................................ 29

Annex 1: Validation Workshop in Milan, Italy .............................................................................. 32

Annex 2: Validation Workshop in Birmingham, UK ................................................................... 44 Annex 3: Validation Workshop in Schwäbisch Gmünd, Germany .......................................... 58


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this work-package (WP7) is to use methodologies and translate insights gained during the INSPIRE-Grid project into plans for improved and enhanced stakeholder communication and engagement in the reinforcement of electricity grid. This first WP7 deliverable presents the research design to validate the innovative methods used for stakeholder involvement plans.

Chapter 1 provides an overview of the current situation of participation for power lines processes. Today grid extension is required because of an aging grid, increased electricity consumption and the integration of renewable electricity sources at a European scale. However, stakeholder opposition causes substantial delays in many projects, thus postponing the transition toward decarbonized electricity sources.

Chapter 2 provides the framing to design stakeholder engagement in planning processes for power lines which grounds on five general principles and ten standard steps developed in the INSPIRE-Grid preliminary guidelines (WP5), as well as on the project results concerning stakeholder wants and needs (WP2), practices to address public opposition in decision making about grid planning (WP3), methodologies for the assessment and comparison of grid infrastructures such as Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) or web geographic information systems (Web GIS), (WP4), and fieldwork in the case studies (WP6). Chapter 3 presents a set of hypotheses to be tested in the context of three validation workshops. The key hypotheses are: the use of innovative methods, such as participatory MCA and Web GIS, has a positive influence on i) justice (procedural, distributional and interactional) of the planning process, ii) stakeholder agreement on the process outcome and iii) quality of engagement. Additionally, the validation workshops aimed at: i) valuating if an enhanced participation improves the quality of the planning process and its outcome; ii) scoping the forthcoming challenges for stakeholder participation in the reinforcement of electricity grid.

Chapter 4 describes three workshops carried out for a validation of the locally specific stakeholder engagement plans described in this report. A detailed description of the workshops’ designs and methods is provided, including a description of three testing/simulation exercises that we used to test the format of the validation workshop. The following table summarizes the key characteristics of the workshop design:


Workshop in Milano Workshop in Birmingham Workshop in Schwäbisch Gmünd

Hypotheses Agreement on outcome Quality of interaction

Quality of interaction Evaluation of stakeholder engagement and future

challenges

Agreement on outcome Quality of interaction

Justice

Tools MCA MCA

Web GIS Functional model

MCA Web GIS

Data Quantitative Quantitative + Qualitative Quantitative

Methods used for validation

Role-play game in fictional case

Survey

Focus groups on a real case SWOT (Strengths

Weaknesses Threats Opportunities) analysis Envisioning exercise

Survey

Fictional case Survey

Date May 19th and 20th 2015 March 17th 2016 July 5th 2016

The results of the research design described in this deliverable will be presented in D 7.2 (Report on validation exercises) and synthesized in D7.3 (Synthesis and recommendations).


1 INTRODUCTION

Grid extension is a topic that gained in importance among the public in the last decade, mainly due to citizen opposition to power lines extension projects (EC, 2011b; RGI, 2012b; UNECE, 2006). In Europe, the European Commission has set a goal for an almost complete decarbonization of the European electricity sector (EC, 2011a). Therefore, beside the necessary renewable energy installation, new power lines are also needed to balance intermittent renewable energy sources (Battaglini et al., 2012; ENTSO-E, 2014; Patt et al., 2011).

The construction of new power lines is not a new phenomenon and at the beginning of the 20th century electrification was considered as a mark of progress. On the one side, grid extension is seen as necessary to adapt an aging grid to new constraints, as well as a key element for a decarbonization of the electricity sector (ENTSO-E, 2014). On the other side, power lines are seen as a disruptive element in the landscape (Cain & Nelson, 2013). Nowadays, opposition against power lines is mainly driven by negative effects on property values, visual disruptions, health concerns related to electro-magnetic fields and distrust in institutions (ibid.). This opposition to power lines considerably slows down the grid extension process, undermining the energy transition and the development of electricity transport infrastructures (RGI, 2012; Roland Berger, 2011a; 2011b; Schmidt, 2014). Therefore, in order to accelerate grid extension processes, stakeholder participation is seen as a way to alleviate the conflict between proponents and opponents of new grids (EC, 2011b; RGI, 2012b). However, although a better participation in planning processes may improve the quality of the process, it is still unclear which practices are effective and which not.

There is a vast literature on the evaluation of the effectiveness of stakeholder participation practices (see Rowe & Frewer, 2004). For example the core values of consistency, transparency, timeliness, proportionality and inclusiveness are considered crucial to reach good outcomes (see IAP2, 2006). However, it is still unclear how these values apply to planning processes for power lines. Therefore, the main question addressed in this deliverable is: how to operationalize these principles and how to improve power line planning processes?

With respect to these questions, we identified several research gaps in the other work packages of the INSPIRE-Grid project. They cover three main issues: i. justice aspects, mainly in form of procedural, distributive and interactional justice, as perceived by the stakeholders engaged in the process, ii. acceptance of the planning process outcome and iii. quality of stakeholder interactions during the process. In this deliverable, we describe a validation design to address these issues through the main innovative methods developed in the INSPIRE-Grid project: participatory Multi-Criteria Analysis and Web GIS. We validate the effectiveness of these methods in terms of justice, outcome acceptance and improved stakeholders’ interaction in three validation workshops organized in 2015 and 2016 in Italy, United Kingdom and Germany. In this report, we describe the research design for the validation workshops. The results will be described in D7.2 (Report on validation exercises) and synthesized in D7.3 (Synthesis and recommendations).


2 BACKGROUND

Planning processes for high-voltage power lines already entail many forms of stakeholder participation (ENTSO-E, 2014; RGI, 2012a). However, current planning processes show several limitations and stakeholder participation can be enhanced to reach better outcomes (Roland Berger, 2011a; 2011b; 2014). TSOs and regulators constantly improve current planning processes and it is assumed that a better quality of stakeholder engagement in existing planning processes may improve planning outcomes for power lines (RGI, 2012a). Starting from theoretical concepts and core values to be operationalized in today’s processes may as well lead to substantial improvements.

In this deliverable, we sketch a possible implementation of core-values and standard guidelines for stakeholder engagement methods for power lines planning processes (see previous work in WP5 and D5.2). In the following section, we describe a set of five core values. Additionally, we describe a standardized guideline for stakeholder involvement and its application for power line planning. Finally, we situate the main engagement methods that are tested in the INSPIRE-Grid project - Multi-Criteria Analysis and Web GIS - in an engagement plan: the locally specific plans for engaging stakeholder in planning processes for power lines. We will then validate these plans in the three workshops described in this report.

2.1 Principles and guidelines to specific plans

Stakeholder participation in planning processes for infrastructure in general rests on a common set of principles (AccountAbility, 2011; IAP2, 2006; Shift, 2013). In a simplified fashion, general principles can be summarized in the following 5 main points (see D5.2 for more details):

• Consistency – engagement should be consistent across multiple projects. This does not necessarily mean that each project will follow the exact same process but rather that the overall approach to engaging stakeholders should be consistent. Moreover it is critical that the stakeholders perceive the process as just and fair. In this respect, procedural, distributional and interactional justice are key aspects to take into account (see section 3.1)

• Transparency – the entire engagement process needs to be open and transparent. The scope and objectives of the process should be made clear from the outset along with a timeline and details of how stakeholders will be consulted and how their inputs will be considered. In this respect the quality of stakeholders’ interactions is a key to guarantee the success of the process. Opening up conflicts in a clear and transparent way and addressing stakeholders’ needs are key steps to guarantee a transparent decision-making process (see section 3.3.).

• Timeliness – involving stakeholders as early in the process as possible is vital to the success of the engagement activities. Early involvement of stakeholders is beneficial not only for the stakeholders themselves but also for the leader/facilitator of the engagement process.

• Proportionality – in addition to being clear about the scope of the process, it is important for stakeholder engagement to be adequate for the planning process phase (roughly, definition of the need of a new power line, spatial planning and permitting phase). By this it is meant that, if stakeholders are asked to provide inputs to a particular issue then there must be a mechanism for including these inputs in the decision-making process. Moreover stakeholders may agree on the decision made during a phase of the project but not necessary


on the final outcome. The agreement on the final outcome is critical to reduce conflict potential and avoid opposition and local protest (see also section 3.2.).

• Inclusiveness – the engagement process should include as broad a range of stakeholders as possible so that the process accurately reflects the views and opinions of those who will be affected by the project. Particular attention should be paid to including underrepresented stakeholders who might not otherwise have a voice in the process.

These principles provide a general guidance for stakeholder engagement. However in order to put these principles into practice for infrastructure-related projects and especially for power lines, the project owner has to undertake tangible steps, most often the TSO. There is a wide literature on how to operationalize these principles (see D5.2, also AccontAbility, 2011; IAP2, 2006; Krütli et al., 2010; Stauffacher et al., 2008). In the preliminary INSPIRE-Grid guidelines a ten-step approach has been foreseen:

1. Identify stakeholders 2. Map stakeholders 3. Define key issues 4. Understand stakeholder values 5. Determine the engagement level 6. Select assessment methods and engagement tools 7. Draft engagement plan 8. Prepare for engagement 9. Implement the engagement plan 10. Review the engagement process

A complete stakeholder engagement procedure for a power lines would imply going through all the points mentioned above. However, in this work package we focus on two main elements, respectively point 5. Determine the engagement level and 6. Select assessment methods and engagement tools. Nevertheless, these two considered elements connect with the previous and subsequent points.

2.2 Locally specific plans: a framework for the power line projects

The ten points mentioned above in section 2.1 have been partly operationalized in other work packages of the INSPIRE-Grid project:

• WP2 ‘Stakeholder concerns and needs’ dealt with the identification of stakeholders (1), its mapping (2), the definition of key issues (3) and understanding of the stakeholder values (4).

• WP3 ‘State of the art and critical review’ evaluated current participatory practices and their level (5).

• WP5 ‘Processes for public engagement’ addressed the topic of selection of the assessment methods (6) through a decision tree. Additionally, WP4 ‘Methodologies for the assessment and comparison of grid infrastructures’ designed methods and WP6 ‘Case studies’ applied these methods.

• WP5 ‘Processes for public engagement’ drafted the engagement plans (7), including five core-principles and ten steps for stakeholder engagement.


The aim of the validation in this work package, WP7, is to explore the four last points of the ten-steps engagement plan. Therefore, the general scope of the validation exercises is oriented toward the following process elements:

7. Draft engagement plan 8. Prepare for engagement 9. Implement the engagement plan 10. Review the engagement process

In this deliverable, we focus on two main methods applied with a focus on stakeholder engagement: MCA and Web GIS. From these selected methods, we drafted an engagement plan for three power lines projects (step 7). Additionally the preparation (step 8) and the implementation (9) have been carried out for in three validation workshops (see chapter 4).

Beside the evaluation of methods in a stakeholder engagement context, we also evaluate the interplay of the principles/core values and the ten steps for stakeholder engagement (see section 2.1). A way to structure the interplay between the methods tested and the 10-steps for engagement is the use of the functional dynamic model for stakeholder engagement (see Krütli et al., 2010). This model makes it possible to structure four different stakeholder engagement levels, i. information, ii. consultation, iii. co-decision and iv. empowerment. These levels are then spread over the time in a way that fits planning processes for power lines. Six phases describe the planning process (see also Roland Berger, 2014): i. determination of need, ii. project preparation, iii. spatial planning, iv. permitting, v. construction and vi. operation (see Figure 1; D5.2). We did not directly work with all the phases in the validation workshops. However, we used the functional dynamic model as the background to test our research design and hypotheses.


Figure 1: Functional dynamic model for stakeholder engagement, tailored to standard steps of procedures for power line planning (source: D5.2).

2.3 Methods and tools to be validated: MCA and Web GIS

Beside the validation of the guidelines described in D5.2, the five core-values and the ten steps for stakeholder engagement, two engagement methods will be more thoroughly investigated: MCA and Web GIS. These methods have been already used and explored in the case studies of WP6. However, their validation in a more general structure for stakeholder engagement will be carried out through the WP7 validation workshops (see Figure 2). The first aspect to be addressed through the validation workshops is the use of structured decision-making methods. Today, current planning processes lack of structured decision-making mechanisms to treat the input generated through the interactions between the process owner (TSO or regulator) and the stakeholders (see D3.2). In INSPIRE-Grid, the Multi-Criteria Analysis has shown to have a high potential and to be appropriate to structure decision-making issues for power lines (MCA, see deliverables D4.1 and D4.3). MCA has the advantage to aggregate and to solve decisional issues with conflicting criteria coming from


actors advocating from different viewpoints (Diakoulaki et al., 2005) regarding if, where, and how power lines should be built. Additionally, MCA makes it possible to highlight for the affected stakeholders the different trade-offs among criteria (Belton & Stewart, 2002; Roy, 1996), making salient the different advantages and disadvantages of the proposed power line alternatives.

Figure 2: Methods tested through the validation workshops of WP7, MCA and Web GIS, and their situation in a functional diagram of stakeholder engagement

The second aspect tested through these validation workshops is the spatial nature of power line projects. In INSPIRE-Grid, we considered a web platform to elaborate Geographic Information System (GIS) by stakeholders an appropriated tool to address this issue (see D4.1). Therefore, we test the possibility for stakeholder to feed spatial information concerning grid extension projects through a web GIS-platform: Web GIS. From a spatial perspective, power lines have a large spatial impact on affected territories. During the planning phase, it is hard for affected stakeholders to evaluate the impact of the planned projects and this may drive opposition through fears of electro-magnetic fields (EMS), landscape disruption or real-estate value loss due to decrease of surrounding


land desirability (see Cain & Nelson, 2013). Moreover, some of such effects may be perceived differently by the public, according to their perceptions and concerns (Furby et al., 1988). Involving stakeholders through a Web-GIS platform makes it possible to firstly communicate clearly spatial-related information on several possible routes considered in a power line project. Secondly, such a platform makes it possible to gather information from affected stakeholders concerning the local specificities of the territory. Although Web GIS does not directly enable a two-way communication between the project owner(s) and the stakeholders (see Figure 2), we consider it as a useful tool to complete other stakeholder engagement methods.


3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES TO BE TESTED

The INSPIRE-grid research results provided the background for our research design, as described in chapter 2. However, from this broad background, we narrowed down our focus on specific research questions to be tested in the validation workshops.

The key questions are:

Do innovative planning procedures - using methods/tools like MCA or Web GIS in a participatory manner - have a positive influence on:

• perceived procedural justice • agreement on outcome • improve the quality of stakeholder interactions

…compared to standard tools for power line planning?

Does enhanced participation improve the quality of the planning process?

What are the future challenges related to power line planning?

In the following sections we describe the research hypotheses that will be validated through the WP7 workshops.

3.1 Justice aspects in planning processes

Several studies showed that a lack on acceptance of new power lines is partly due to the perceived injustice in the planning processes for energy-related infrastructure (Gross, 2007; Wolsink, 2007). Therefore, it is assumed that if justice aspects are improved in a planning process for power lines, the acceptance may increase as well. In the case of the WP7 validation workshops, the hypotheses are based on the Leventhal criteria and justice theories (see deliverable D2.3; Leventhal, 1980), where:

• All sub-constructs correlate significantly with the corresponding main constructs. • All main constructs are substantial quality criteria of a participation process. • The main constructs correlate significantly with the acceptance of:

o the procedure, o the planning outcome, o the involved keypersons / process facilitators

The following table describes the hypotheses to be validated:


Table 1: Hypotheses to evaluate the justice aspects of the methods used in INSPIRE-Grid.

Main constructs Sub-constructs Hypotheses

Procedural justice

Transparency (which has a positive effect on perceived control)

- Early information about a planned project increases perceived transparency which has a positive effect of the perceived procedural justice

- Comprehensive information about a planned project increases perceived transparency which has a positive effect of the perceived procedural justice

- Accurate information about a planned project increases perceived transparency which has a positive effect of the perceived procedural justice

- Reasonable information about a planned project increases perceived transparency which has a positive effect of the perceived procedural justice

Influence / Correctability

- Concrete options to influence on the outcome of a planned project increase perceived control which has a positive effect on the perceived procedural justice

- Possibilities to change/ correct project parameters increase perceived influence which has a positive effect on the perceived procedural justice

Representativeness

- A balanced involvement of different stakeholder groups within a planning procedure of a new project increases perceived representativeness which has a positive effect on the perceived procedural justice

Distributional justice

(general) distribution ratio

- Using all possible instruments (planning, compensation, etc.) for reducing negative impacts and sharing in balanced way among stakeholders positive and negative impacts of a planned project increases perceived cost-benefit-balance

Considering existing infrastructure (regional cost-benefit-ratio)

- The detailed consideration of existing regional infrastructure increases perceived cost-benefit-balance which has a positive effect on the perceived distributional justice

Interactional justice

Trust

- Trustworthy actions and communication within the planning procedure for a planned project increases perceived trust in key-persons which has a positive effect on the perceived interactional justice

Respect

- Respectful communication within the planning procedure for a planned project increases perceived respect which improves relationships among the parties

- An improved relationship has a positive effect on the perceived interactional justice

These hypotheses will be tested by using a questionnaire survey in one of the validation workshops (see chapter 4).


3.2 Agreement on outcome

Past research highlighted that disagreement among affected stakeholders is a reason causing delays in the planning of power lines (see Ciupuliga & Cuppen, 2013). Therefore, considering the new methods (or established ones) developed in the INSPIRE-Grid project, it is relevant to ask if they foster more acceptance of the process outcome. Therefore, we test the following set of hypotheses through the validation workshops:

Stakeholders’ agreement in the different steps of the stakeholder engagement process is a predictor of agreement on the final outcome.

Stakeholders agree on the decision support tools’ results, e.g. the best alternative identified by Multi-Criteria Analysis or on the spatial results of the Web GIS.

These hypotheses will be tested through mixed (qualitative and quantitative) methods, i.e. questionnaires and focus groups carried out at the validation workshops (see chapter 4).

3.3 Quality of stakeholder interactions

While stakeholder participation may be seen as a way to reduce stakeholder opposition, better quality of stakeholder interactions in current planning processes can also contribute to acceptance for power lines. For this, we aim to test following set of hypotheses:

Discussion quality is a predictor of acceptance of the outcome.

Enhanced stakeholder participation improves the quality of the process.

These hypotheses will be tested through mixed (qualitative and quantitative) methods. More precisely the first hypothesis will be tested through questionnaires and the second one through focus groups (see chapter 4).


4 VALIDATION DESIGN

The set of hypotheses stated in the previous chapter will be tested in three validation workshops. Moreover three simulations will be developed to test the workshop format. In this chapter, we describe the design and the methods used for the three validation workshops and the simulation exercises. Table 2 and Table 3 summarize their key characteristics.

Table 2: Key characteristics of the workshops

Workshop in Milano Workshop in Birmingham Workshop in Schwäbisch Gmünd


Quality of interaction Evaluation of stakeholder engagement and future

challenges


Justice

Tools MCA MCA

Web GIS Functional model

MCA WebGIS

Data Quantitative Quantitative + Qualitative Quantitative

Methods used for validation

Role-play game in fictional case

Survey

Focus groups on a real case SWOT (Strengths

Weaknesses Threats Opportunities) analysis Envisioning exercise

Survey

Fictional case Survey

Date May 19th and 20th 2015 March 17th 2016 July 5th 2016

Table 3: Key characteristics of the simulation exercises

Simulation at Scuola Mattei (Milano) 2 Simulations at ETHZ (Zurich)



Tools MCA Direct rating Approach Quantitative Quantitative

Methods Fictional case with real roles Survey

Role-play game in fictional case Survey

Date March 14th 2016 May, 26th 2016 June, 2nd 2016


4.1 Validation workshop in Milan, Italy

The first workshop held in Milano has been carried out at the conference of another project funded by the European Commission: BESTGRID “Innovative approaches to grid development”. The conference was entitled ‘Grid Aesthetics conference’ and it took place on May 19th, 2015. Thirty-five participants attended the workshop, which took the format of a role-play game in a fictional case, the Utopia region (see Figure 4). Four INSPIRE-Grid members carried out the role-play game. Each of the thirty-five participants had a given role to play as one of the stakeholders involved in the spatial planning process for a new power line in the Region (see Annex 1). We divided participants in four groups and in each one of them we used Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) to support the choice of a power line alternative. MCA is a method to reach conclusions regarding the choice among alternatives, considering conflicting criteria measured in different units: in each group eight alternatives have been evaluated though a set of twelve criteria (see Annex 1). More precisely, in session 1 the participants ranked a set of technical, economic, social, environmental and landscape-related criteria related to power lines. In session 2, this input made it possible to identify which alternatives cannot be considered because they are certainly a “bad” choice - from the participants´ perspective - and which ones are acceptable and do not represent a conflictual choice (see Fig. 3). After both sessions, participants had to fill in a questionnaire, which was the main tool to test our hypotheses. Indeed the main aim of the workshop was to validate the hypotheses related to agreement on outcome and the quality of stakeholder interactions (see section 3.2 and 3.3.):

Hyp. 4.1.1: Stakeholders’ agreement in the different phases of the stakeholder engagement process (in this case in the process of criteria ranking) is a predictor of agreement on the final outcome.

Hyp. 4.1.2: Stakeholders agree on the decision support tools’ results, e.g. the alternative/s identified as the best one/s by means of Multi-Criteria Analysis.

Hyp. 4.1.3: Discussion quality is a predictor of acceptance of the outcome.


Figure 3: Design of the Milano workshop

Figure 4: Map of the setting ‘Utopia’ of the Milano workshop. Stakeholders were asked to rank a set of criteria in order to support the choice among different power lines alternatives (see Annex 1).

In the first questionnaire - submitted after session 1 - we evaluated the quality of the discussion and the difficulty of the stakeholders to rank the set of criteria. We mainly used the following batteries of questions to evaluate these elements:

• General levels of satisfaction/quality of interactions during the exercise

Session'1: Group'work'to'rank'criteria

Questionnaire+1+

Session'2:'Researchers''presenta7on'

'of'MCA'results

Questionnaire+2

MCA$


• Understanding of the elements of the role-play game • Difficulty to rank the set of criteria • Questions on the quality of the discussions in the working session • Question on the role and the working group to track the participant

At the end of the workshop, the participants filled in a second questionnaire. They could indicate their levels of acceptance and ownership of the results generated through the MCA. Both questionnaires were used to test the hypotheses 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.3. The second questionnaire evaluated mainly the following elements:

• General levels of satisfaction/quality of interaction during the exercise • Questions on acceptance and ownership of the outcome • Questions on the relevance of the method • Question on the role and the working group to track the participant

The details on the workshop, including the two questionnaire protocols, can be found in Annex 1. The results of this workshop will be published in deliverable D7.2.

4.2 Validation workshop in Birmingham, UK

On the basis of the experience of the first validation workshop carried out in in Milano, we validated our findings through an expert-workshop at National Grid in Birmingham on March 17th, 2016. We carried out this one-day workshop with eleven participants from National-Grid and seven participants from the INSPIRE-Grid team. In this workshop, we used the power line project Hinkley Point C Connection (HPCC), to carry out several evaluations related to the following hypotheses:

Hyp. 4.2.1: Stakeholders agree on the decision support tools’ results, e.g. the alternative/s identified as the best one/s by means of Multi-Criteria Analysis.

Hyp. 4.2.2: Enhanced stakeholder participation improves the quality of the process.

In this workshop, instead of a role-play game like in the workshop in Milano, we carried out several rounds of focus group discussions with experts. Instead of a fictional case, we used a real project to illustrate our methods and to validate some of our hypotheses. The selected project was the section F (Portbury-Portishead) of the Hinkley Point C Connection. This section of the line had a specific characteristic: it has been difficult for the TSO and the involved planning organizations to state a clear preference for one of the two path alternatives that have been evaluated (see Annex 2). During the first session focused on MCA (session 1 and 4 on Figure 6), the participants discussed the two alternatives and compared them with a specific focus on some critical issues such as the different evaluation of the effects of a power line (in terms of well-being, lifetime cost, biodiversity, landscape and visual, heritage and historic environment). Finally, the participants filled a questionnaire to validate hypothesis 4.2.1.


Figure 5: Map of the two power lines alternatives (highlighted in yellow) analyzed in the second validation workshop in Birmingham, UK.

During the second session focused on Web-GIS (session 2 on Figure 6), the discussion focused on the relevance of Web GIS for power line planning in the UK. We presented the Web-GIS setting of one of the case studies in the INSPIRE-Grid project, Aurland-Sogndal (see D6.2) as an example. At the end of the session, the participants filled a questionnaire to validate hypothesis 4.2.1 (see Annex 2 for the questionnaire protocol).

In the third session, the participants addressed general aspects of stakeholder engagement in electricity grid planning. They firstly carried out a SWOT-analysis (alternatively SWOT matrix, acronym for Strengths, Weaknesses, Threats, Opportunities) on the HPPC-project and other projects, with a specific focus on stakeholder participation and engagement. Then, they performed an evaluation of UK planning processes for power lines. Grounding on the INSPIRE-Grid previous research results (see D3.2.), participants had to evaluate the degree of stakeholder engagement in three levels (low, medium and high, i.e. information, consultation and cooperation) in the three main phases of grid planning (need definition, spatial planning and permitting). For both exercises, we collected the data through participants drawing and pinning issues on pin-boards to validate the hypothesis 4.2.2.

In the final session entitled “Envisioning the future” (see Figure 6), the participants pinned on a board the future challenges in one, five and ten years time. The details of sessions one to five can be found in the Annex 2.


Figure 6: General design of the workshops to test the hypotheses for the workshop in Birmingham

The details on the workshop, including the questionnaire protocol, can be found in Annex 2 and the results of this workshop will be published in deliverable D7.2.

Session'1: Genera-on'of'a'ranking'to'

'feed'in'the'MCA

Questionnaire+

Session'2:'Web'GIS'presenta-on

Questionnaire

Session'3:'General'aspects'of'par-cipa-on

Session'4:'Presenta-on'of'MCA'key'results

Session'5:'Envisioning'the'future

Questionnaire


4.3 Validation workshop in Schwäbisch Gmünd, Germany

The last validation workshop, held in Schwäbisch Gmünd on the 5th of July 2016 aimed to test most of the validation-hypotheses in this work package. Through this validation workshop, we tested the hypotheses related to procedural, interactional and distributional justice (see point 3.1). We aimed to divide the participants in an experimental and a control group (see Figure 8), but carried out only the experimental group, as the amount of participants was not sufficient to reach reliable results.1 The background was the fictitious project ‘Utopia 2’, where stakeholders compared seven power line alternatives to connect different renewable energy production sources in order to choose the most suitable path. At the beginning of the workshop, we gave information about the project to the participants. Afterwards they could ask further questions in a “market place” setting (session 1). The first session simulated a real setting to share information about power line projects. After the market place, we aimed to randomly divide the participants in two groups1, an experimental group (session 2a) and a control group (session 2b) (see Figure 7). The task of the two groups was to identify the most suitable alternative for the power grid by using different support tools: i) MCA in the experimental group; ii) a comparative table with the impacts of the different alternatives in the control group (see Figure 8).

In session 2a (experimental), the participants ranked a set of eleven technical, economic, social and environmental effects in an order of increasing priority (see Annex 3). We used this ranking as an input to the MCA. In session 2b1, the participants would have discussed the seven alternative power line paths in a moderated discussion in order to find out if some alternatives were more suitable than others (see Figure 8). As material, we would give them only a table with rough levels of anticipated conflicts of the different alternatives in a qualitative way: ‘high’, ‘middle’, ‘low’ or ‘none’ (see Annex 3). After this two-paths setting (experimental and control group), the two groups would come together again to participate to the Web-GIS session (session 3) where they provide spatial inputs through the INSPIRE-Grid Web-GIS platform.

In the fourth and final session, the participants discussed the results of session 2.

This validation workshop aimed to test the following hypotheses:

Hyp. 4.3.1: All justice sub-constructs (procedural, interactional and distributional) correlate significantly with the corresponding main constructs.

Hyp. 4.3.2: All main constructs are substantial quality criteria of a participatory process.

1 As we had not enough participants to provide reliable results with two groups, we only carried out the workshop with he experimental group. In this report, we describe the process as we aimed to carry out. Nevertheless, in order to obtain more reliable data, we will hold an additional workshop aiming to have two groups in fall of 2016 in Berlin.


Hyp: 4.3.3: The main constructs correlate significantly with the acceptance of:

• the procedure,

• the planning outcome,

• the involved keypersons / process facilitators

Additionally, we tested the main hypotheses already tested in the previous workshops in Milano and Birmingham:

Hyp. 4.3.4: Stakeholders’ agreement in the different steps of the stakeholder engagement process is a predictor of agreement on the final outcome.

Hyp. 4.3.5: Stakeholders agree on the decision support tools’ results, e.g. the best alternative identified by Multi-Criteria Analysis or on the spatial results of the WebGIS.

Hyp. 4.3.6: Discussion quality is a predictor of acceptance of the outcome.

We selected the area around Schwäbisch Gmünd because the region was previously affected by a power line project that has been withdrawn by the TSO TransnetBW in 2014 (Line project: Bünzwangen-Goldshöfe). Therefore, the region has already stakeholders that are informed about power line issues. However, in order to avoid any precedent affective influences and biases related to the previous power line project, we designed a fictitious game using other topographical areas (see the case ‘Utopia 2’, Figure 7).


Figure 7: The case ‘Utopia 2’ and its seven alternative routes used for the third validation workshop in Germany. The area considered is in Italy with an imaginary set of new alternatives, in order to avoid biases related to the old power line project among the participants of the workshop.


Figure 8: General design of the workshop in Schwäbisch Gmünd, Germany

To validate the hypotheses, we distributed several questionnaires at different points of the workshop (see Figure 8). The experimental group responded on the following aspects to validate the hypotheses 4.3.1 to 4.3.6:

• General opinions and feelings on the workshop • Evaluation of the common session Market place • Evaluation of the exercise aiming to select the most suitable alternative through a MCA • Evaluation of the agreement, acceptance and ownership for the results of the MCA exercise • Evaluation of the WebGIS-session • Evaluation of justice aspects (procedural, interactional and distributional)

The control group also took part in the Market place (see Figure 8). After their participation to the control session where they directly rated the most suitable alternatives, the control group members re-integrate in the normal workshop agenda (see Figure 8). Therefore, these participants filled in a different survey with the following elements:

Session'2a'Experimental'group:

Selec5ng'the'most'suitable'alterna5ve'using'MCA'

Session'2b'Control'group:''

Selec5ng'the'most'suitable'alterna5ve'using''direct'ra5ng'

Questionnaire+1

Questionnaire+2.1

Session'4'Presenta5on'of'the'MCA@results

Session'1'Market'place:'Informa5on's'session'for'the'par5cipants'(all'par5cipants)

Session'3'WebGIS:'Providing'spa5al'input'to'the'power'line'path'alterna5ves

Questionnaire+2.2


• General opinions and feelings about the workshop • Evaluation of the common session Market place • Evaluation of the exercise aiming to select the most suitable alternative through direct rating

of the most suitable alternative • Evaluation of the Web-GIS session • Evaluation of justice aspects (procedural, interactional and distributional)

The details on the workshop, including the questionnaire protocol, can be found in Annex 3 and the results of this workshop will be published in deliverable D7.2.

4.4 Additional testing and research work

Beside the validation workshops for WP7, we carried out additional simulation exercises-tests to improve the workshops’ format and design. Three simulation exercises haven been carried out:

1. Simulation exercise at Scuola Mattei, Milano: a simulation exercise with twelve students at the Scuola Mattei in Milano on April 14th 2016. The aim of this workshop was to test: i. the role-play game (MCA) as carried out in the first validation workshop, but without attributing roles and ii. the use of the Web-GIS tool. This workshop made it possible to refine the design of the subsequent validation workshops.

2. Two simulation exercises at ETH in Zurich: a simulation exercise with thirty ETH Zurich students carried out on May 26th and June 2nd 2016. The aim was to test the role of the control group in the third validation workshop.

These workshops made it possible to better design the different sessions we held in the validation workshops. All these simulation exercises generated a set of data that we mainly gathered through questionnaires in a similar way as for the validation workshops. Additionally we carried out further research on the basis of the preliminary results of the validation workshops. We found out that there is very little evidence on the evaluation of the costs for stakeholders´ participation in power line planning. This limited evidence is a barrier for decisions concerning enhanced stakeholder participation in grid planning. Therefore we developed a methodology to evaluate the costs through a comparison of the participation costs related to different layout alternatives of one past project (Decramer, 2016). We tested the methodology on the Swiss power line project Pradella-La Punt. We will use this methodology to evaluate the proportion of the costs of stakeholder participation compared to the overall costs of other power line projects. The results will be published in deliverable D7.2.


REFERENCES

AccountAbility. (2011). AA1000 stakeholder engagement standard 2011: Final exposure draft (pp. 52).

Battaglini, A., Komendantova, N., Brtnik, P., & Patt, A. (2012). Perception of barriers for

expansion of electricity grids in the European Union. Energy Policy, 47, 254–259. Belton, V., & Stewart, T. (2002). Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach.

Boston: Kluwer Academic Publications. Cain, N. L. & Nelson, H. T. (2013). What drives opposition to high-voltage transmission lines?

Land Use Policy, 33, 204-213. Ciupuliga, a. R., & Cuppen, E. (2013). The role of dialogue in fostering acceptance of transmission

lines: the case of a France–Spain interconnection project. Energy Policy, 60, 224–233. Decramer, H. (2016). Public involvement in permitting procedures of transmission lines. Internal

report, ETH Zürich. Diakoulaki, D., Antunes, C. H., & Martins, A. G. (2005). MCDA and energy planning. In J.

Figueira, S. Greco & M. Ehrgott (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys (pp. 859-890). Boston: Springer.

European Commission (EC). (2011a). Energy Roadmap 2050. COM(2011) 885 final. European Commission (EC). (2011b). Regulation of the European parliament ans of the council on

guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and repealing. Decision No1364/2006/EC.

ENTSO-E. (2014). 10-Year Network Development Plan 2014. European Network of Transmission

System Operators for Electricity. ENTSO-E. (2013). ENTSO-E Guideline for Cost Benefit Analysis of Grid Development Projects.

European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity Retrieved from https://www.entsoe.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/_library/events/Workshops/CBA/131114_ENTSO-E_CBA_Methodology.pdf.

Furby, L., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Gregory, R. (1988). Public perceptions of electric power

transmission lines. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 8, 19-43. Gross, C. (2007). Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice

and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance. Energy Policy, 35, 2727-2736


IAP2. (2006). IAP2's Public Participation Toolbox. International Association for Public Participation.

Krütli, P., Stauffacher, M., Flüeler, T., & Scholz, R. W. (2010). Functional‐dynamic public

participation in technological decision‐making: site selection processes of nuclear waste repositories. Journal of Risk Research, 13, 861–875.

Leventhal, G. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of

fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research: 27–55. New York: Press Plenum.

Lüttringhaus, M. (2003). Voraussetzungen für Aktivierung und Partizipation. In Lütringhaus, M. and Richers, H. (2003). Handbuch Aktivierende Befragung: Konzepte, Erfahrungen, Tipps für die Praxis. Stiftung Mitarbeit.

Patt, A., Komendantova, N., Battaglini, A., & Lilliestam, J. (2011). Regional integration to support full renewable power deployment for Europe by 2050. Environmental Politics, 20, 727– 742.

RGI (Renewables Grid Initiative). (2012a). Beyond Public Opposition: Lessons Learned Across Europe. Germany.

RGI (Renewables Grid Initiative). (2012b). European Grid Declaration on Transparency and Public Participation. 5 December 2012.

Roland Berger. (2011a). Permitting procedures for energy infrastructure projects in the EU: evaluation and legal recommendations. Tender No. ENER/B1/452-2010.

Roland Berger. (2011b). Permitting procedures for energy infrastructure projects in the EU: evaluation and legal recommendations – FINAL REPORT –. Tender No. ENER/B1/452-2010.

Roland Berger. (2014). Study regarding grid infrastructure development: European strategy for raising public acceptance. European Commission Tender No. ENER/B1/2013/371.

Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. J. (2004). Evaluating Public-Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda. Science Technology Human Values, 29, 512-556.

Roy, B. (1996). Multicriteria methodology for decision aiding (Vol. 12). Dordrecht: Springer.

Schmidt, T. S. (2014). Low-carbon investment risks and de-risking. Nature Climate Change, 4, 237-239.

Schmidt, P., Lilliestam, J. (2015). Reducing or fostering acceptance? A critical reflection on the neutrality of cost-benefit analysis in European transmission planning, Energy Research & Social Science, 10, 114-122.


Shift. (2013). Stakeholder engagement and the extractive industry under the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises (pp. 30). New York, NY.

Stauffacher, M., Flüeler, T., Krütli, P., & Scholz, R. W. (2008). Analytic and Dynamic Approach to Collaboration: A Transdisciplinary Case Study on Sustainable Landscape Development in a Swiss Prealpine Region. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 21, 409–422.

UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). (2006). Your right to a healthy environment: A simplified guide to the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. UNEP/DEC/Information Unit for Conventions, Geneva, Switzerland.

Wolsink, M. (2007). Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation. Energy Policy, 35, 2692–2704.


ANNEX 1: VALIDATION WORKSHOP IN MILAN, ITALY

Game setting

Due to the recent development of renewable energy production in Utopia Region, the TSO Transelec identified the need of a more powerful connection between East and West of Utopia. Therefore, the TSO organizes a consultative process with local stakeholders to identify suitable alternatives for a new power line. Several groups of stakeholders are invited and compromises will be needed to reconcile different concerns and needs around this new power line project and the general development of the Utopia region grid.

Description

Need definition phase

The TSO identified the need to reinforce the connection between East and West in the Utopia region.

The connection already exists by means of an old 132 kV power line, 85 km long, no more sufficient to support the production by Renewable Energy Sources (RES) (wind and hydroelectric) in the East. Furthermore, the 132 kV power line passes through the populous and touristic city of Duckburg, with some damage for the citizens in terms of quality of life, visibility of the line, losses in tourism income.

The proposal of the TSO consists in demolishing the existing 132 kV power line and in building a new 380 kV power line in order to satisfy these main purposes:

• Support to RES integration, increasing the ability of the power system to allow the connection of the RES plants (hydropower and wind power), that yet exist but are under-exploited.

• Improve the security of supply, increasing the ability of the power system to provide an adequate and secure supply of electricity under ordinary conditions.

• Remove the impacts on Duckburg. • Reduce the CO2 emissions thanks to the RES integration (and the network losses reduction).

Spatial planning phase

TSO has identified 9 alternatives (see table below), including the zero option, to submit to the public consultation. The connection by East and West of Utopia region should be realized connecting A-B, A-D or C-D. The last two alternatives of the nine include a project for a compensation of the impact on the cultural heritage.


Alternatives Main features Length

(km)

Null No new lines. The existing 132 kV line from A to B, 85 km long, is not demolished. Along the line there is an high density town (Duckburg) with some precious cultural elements, important for tourism. 85

AB New 380 kV line from A to B. Along the line there is a precious habitat for biodiversity (birds vulnerable species). The realization of the line allows to link a 6 MW hydroelectric power plant. The 132 kV line between A and B will be demolished.

80

AD

New line of 380 kV from A to D. Along the line there is a very valuable historical site. The line will be visible from a mountain highly frequented by excursionists. There is also a huge recreational area, that would be heavily impacted by the line. The line will therefore have a negative impact on tourism. The realization of the line allows to link 27 MW of wind power. The 132 kV line between A and B will be demolished.

100

CD New line of 380 kV from C to D. Very close to the line there is a medium population town (Mouseton). There is also a huge recreational area, that would be impacted by the line. The realization of the line allows to link 27 MW of wind power. The 132 kV line between A and B will be demolished.

85

ABD New line of 380 kV from A to B and from B to D. Same characteristics of the AB alternative with another stretch between B and D. The connection between B and D does not have particular problems, but the length and the cost will be more, so as the technical advantages and the amount of RES linked to the line. The 132 kV line between A and B will be demolished.

120

ADB New line of 380 kV from A to D and from D to B. Same characteristics of the AD alternative with another stretch between B and D. The connection between B and D does not have particular problems, but the length and the cost will be more, so as the technical advantages and the amount of RES linked to the line. The 132 kV line between A and B will be demolished.

140

CDB

New line of 380 kV from C to D and from D to B. Same characteristics of the CB alternative with another stretch between B and D. The connection between B and D does not have particular problems, but the length and the cost will be more, so as the technical advantages and the amount of RES connected by the line. The 132 kV line between A and B will be demolished.

125

AD-c New line of 380 kV from A to D. Same characteristics of the AD alternative with a compensation project regarding elements of cultural heritage. The cost increases.

100

ADB-c New line of 380 kV from A to D and from D to B. Same characteristics of the ADB alternative with a compensation project regarding elements of cultural heritage. The cost increases.

140


The spatial setting of the workshop “Utopia”:


Criteria tree

The following tree represents the criteria, grouped in sectors that we will use to assess and compare the alternatives.

UTOPIA GRID REINFORCEMENT

TECHNICAL ASPECTS

SECURITY AND CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY AND SERVICE

C1 -‐ RISK OF NETWORK DISRUPTION

RES INTEGRATION C2 -‐ RES ADDITIONAL PRODUCTION

INVESTMENT COST

ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY C3 -‐ PROJECT COST

SOCIO-‐ECONOMIC ASPECTS

HEALTH, SAFETY AND QUALITY OF

LIFE C4 -‐ POPULATION NEAR THE POWER LINES

TOURISM C5 -‐ TOURISTIC INCOME

ENVIRONMENT

LAND USE C9 -‐ LAND NOT YET INFRASTRUCTURED

BIODIVERSITY

C6 -‐ VALUABLE AREA FOR BIODIVERSITY

C7-‐ VULNERABLE BIRD SPECIES

GHG EMISSIONS C8 -‐ AVOIDED GHG EMISSIONS

LANDSCAPE

LANDSCAPE AND CULTURAL HERITAGE

C10 -‐ CULTURAL AND LANDSCAPE VALUABLE

AREA

C11-‐ CULTURAL HERITAGE AND

LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS

VISUAL INTERFERENCE

C12 -‐ PROJECT VISIBILITY


Indicators and effects

The following table presents the indicators chosen to evaluate the alternatives (leaves of the criteria tree), a short description, and the range of variation of the indicators from the maximum to the minimum value amongst the alternatives. The same explanation is reported on the cards you will handle during Activity 2.

SECTOR INDICATORS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF THE EFFECT RANGE

TECH

NICA

L AS

PECT

S C1 - Risk of network disruption

Tangible reductions in the risk of disruption of the network.

Significant reduction of the risk of network disruption in the West-East connection

C2 - RES additional production [GWh/year]

Additional RES generation thanks due to the new line.

Increase of the RES potential of 52 GWh/year, approximately corresponding to the energy consumption of 4000 European citizens per year

INVE

STME

NT

COST

C3 - Project cost [M€] The cost includes: construction cost of the new line, demolition cost of the old line, and compensation cost (when appropriate).

Cost of 228 M€

SOCI

O -

ECON

OMIC

AS

PECT

S

C4 - Population near the power lines [inhabitants]

Population living in the project area within a corridor of 500 m from the median line.

Decrease of the population near the power lines of 9.000 inhabitants

C5 - Touristic income [%/year]

Estimated income variation for regional tourism due to the new line and the demolition of the old line.

Variation of the touristic income of Utopia Region of 2,4% per year, corresponding to 120 jobs

ENVI

RONM

ENT

C6 - Valuable area for biodiversity [km2]

Project area occupied by valuable areas for biodiversity (Sites of Community Importance, ecological network, etc.).

Increase of the affected biodiversity valuable area of 1 km2, corresponding to 137 soccer fields

C7 - Vulnerable bird species [-]

Qualitative impact on vulnerable bird species living or nesting in the project area. Vulnerable bird species are defined in the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List.

Having a significant negative impact on a vulnerable bird species

C8 - GHG emissions avoided [tonCO2eq/year]

Estimated Green House Gas (GHG) emissions avoided thanks to the project, principally to the new connection of renewables.

Avoid the emission of 18000 tonCO2eq/year, corresponding to the annual GHG emissions of 2050 citizens of Lombardy Region


C9 – Land not yet infrastructured [km]

Length of the line located in areas not already affected from the environmental point of view (i.e. not occupied by infrastructures such as motorways and power lines)

Construction of 34 km of lines through areas not yet infrastructured

LAND

SCAP

E

C10 - Cultural and landscape valuable areas [km2]

Areas of cultural value and landscape (archaeological or historic-monumental or landscape value) affected by the project

Increase of cultural and landscape valuable area affected by the lines from 0,17 km2 (corresponding to 23 soccer fields) to 2 km2 (corresponding to 274 soccer fields)

C11 - Cultural heritage and landscape elements [-]

Number of cultural heritage and landscape elements, taken as point features within the area of project, such as churches, villages, monuments, villas, gardens, etc. The indicator considers both the elements negatively affected by the project and those recovered or valorized, in the same area, by the compensation projects.

Increase of the overall number of cultural heritage and landscape elements of 6 elements

C12 - Visibility of the line [-]

The distribution of the pylons is simulated and rendered with a Geographical Information System and a Digital Elevation Model of the area. On this base, experts attribute a quality synthetic index for each alternative.

Going from an overall low visual impact of the lines to a very high one

Roles’ descriptions

TSO: You are the representative of the TSO, Transelec. From a general perspective, the mission of the TSO is to connect and balance electricity production and consumption in the Utopia-area. As the old 85 km-long 132-kV-line has been on duty since more than 50 years, the development of the area requires the grid to be expanded. Calculations showed that the recently planned hydro-plant Stauriver would put the existing 132kV-line under stress with an additional installed capacity of 6 MW. Additionally, aiming to reach the 2020-targets of the European Union, a wind park of 27 MW will be built in the region of D. These new production sites have to be connected to the grid. However, knowing that the population of the main concerned areas, Duckburg and Mouseton, could raise opposition to the new line, your company started a participatory process to increase the change of the project to succeed. Conscious of the worries of the potentially affected population, Transelec developed a great expertise in measuring electro-magnetic fields (EMF) to insure that any new built line respect the legal requirements. Additionally, from a landscape perspective, Transelec knows that power lines degrade the landscape and thus is ready to find compromises on the most sensitive environmental areas, but not at any cost.

Tourism operator: Although not being known as a top-touristic destination, the Utopia region promotes since two decades a soft way of tourism. The medieval historical heritage of the region and the city of Duckburg are very appreciated destinations for tourists in quest of culture and


nature-related holidays. Tourist operators are afraid that the line will degrade the bucolic nature that makes Utopia so particular. Although they would wish the old 132kV line being removed, freeing Ducktown of an ‘ugly’ old line, the new 380kV degrades the land around the castle of Duckstein. As the industrial activity of Utopia is continuously decreasing, tourism operators plan further extension of tourism in the area. Therefore, tourist operators want a transparent process that considers their requirements at best.

Environmentalist: Environmentalists agree with the decision of the Great Council of Utopia to develop a wind park, South-East from Duckburg. Environmentalists are skeptical on grid extension, they prefer saving energy and turn to locally-produced renewable energy sources like wind or photovoltaics, instead of exporting it through power lines. And as the windpark would also require a grid extension, they fear that biodiversity would be too much under pressure from the new line. Particularly, an area between A and B where nesting areas of some bird species that are under threat, especially the eagle-owl, which is an endemic species of Utopia. Environmentalists are also worried on a threatened area that is very valuable from a biodiversity perspective, in the South of Duckburg. Although this region has not been enough valuable to be included in the Natura 2000 areas, local environmentalists want to avoid a new power line crossing these particular biotopes.

Landscape associations: Landscape associations defend the typical landscape of Utopia. Local inhabitants, particularly in the city of Duckburg, identify themselves with the long cultural heritage and typical landscape of the region. Additionally the mountains in the south-west of Utopia are also a part of the identity of the inhabitants of Mouseton. According to the landscape associations, inhabitants are attached to the typical natural and cultural scenery of Utopia. These associations fear that the landscape of Utopia will be denatured by new power lines projects. They specially fear a disruption in the cultural heritages in the west and in the mountains in the south of Utopia. Although favorable to the development of renewable energy sources to preserve the environment, they are skeptical toward unrestrained renewable energy development and would rather promote a softer development of the region through energy saving measures and energy sufficiency.

Citizens of Duckburg: Citizens of Duckburg stand for their region. They support the local industry and the tourist industry as it provides working places. They support the development of renewable energies. However, the indirect consequence of it, grid extension, poses several threats on them. Citizens are afraid of EMF, especially those who live the closest to the planned corridors. Although they have been used to the existing 132kV-line crossing their neighborhoods, they also wish it would be removed. South of Duckburg, there is a recreational area that is much appreciated. On the weekends, many citizens of Duckburg go there to forget a bit their all-day routine. However, they are not happy to see this recreational area being threatened by a power line as they think it is ugly in the landscape of their favorite nearby recreational area.

Citizens of Mouseton: While Duckburg enjoys the status of a mid-sized city, Mouseton is a smaller city that may be affected by the power line project of Tranelec. No high-voltage power lines have been built in the surroundings of Mouseton, the horizon is free of pylons and lines. Citizens of Mouseton are afraid of the line. EMF are seen as a threat for citizens and they do not know what are the limits in distance for a power line, the farer the better. As Mouseton lays next mountains that are very appreciated for hiking and for some prospering touristic activities as well, citizens have the feeling that a new potential power line in their vicinity may destroy the environment they like.


A representative of public bodies (Region Utopia): The representatives of the Region Utopia are politicians. They decided that renewable energies are the key for a more sustainable future. They supported the construction of the hydro-power plant Stauriver that is meant to slightly increase the share or renewable energies in the energy mix of the Utopia region. They also pushed the construction of the wind-park at the south-east of Duckburg, making a small contribution toward the 20-20-20 objectives planned by the European Union. Politicians are helped by the landscape planning offices of the region that just finished a difficult planning process for the wind-park in the south-east. Their main lesson learnt from that process is that dealing with stakeholders requires a lot of communication and sensitivity for the concerns and needs of affected citizens. Therefore, although the population appreciates renewable energy development, power lines are an uncomfortable corollary because stakeholders and the general public are likely to make opposition to new lines in their region. Aimed to be liked by the population, politicians address the issue of power lines in a prudent way, to avoid turning a large part of the population against them -it would be bad for the next elections.

Local electricity company: The small local energy company, Utopia Electricity has identified the potential of renewable energy source in the region of Utopia. They want renewable electricity at competitive costs, and a way to reach this goal is to scale up generation plants. The Stauriver plant is meant to balance the electricity production peaks of wind power built in the South-East of Utopia. Therefore a new line is useful to connect these power plants. The current 132kV line between A and B is obsolete. Moreover, connecting the power plants to the national grid through Transelec offers significant opportunities for RES development in a near future and consequently economic development related to renewable energy production in the region.

Rules

The roles are attributed by chance: a TSO could become, for instance, a tourism operator or an affected citizen, and vice versa. 5 heterogeneous table-groups of discussion are prepared (A to E): at each table, all the main stakeholders’ categories are represented by at least 1 person (see role descriptions).

…for the workshop:

• Wear your HAT! • You ARE one of the key stakeholders of the case study • Play your role given background information • Take it easy! Don’t worry about details. No need to stifle into role or exaggerate it • Be “creative” • Observe critically while acting • Remember that you may create coalitions/alliances with the other stakeholders


Schedule

Day one, May 19th:

• 16:00 - Participants find their table and sit there • 16:05 - Activity 1: discussion within groups – evaluation criteria – 40’

o Each participant presents very briefly her-himself to the other participants – 15’ o Selection of a representative for the table group, responsible to keep times, take

notes of the main points discussed and conclusions drawn and to report them to the assembly – 5’

o Each participant presents their views to the other participants emphasizing, from her-his point of view, which criteria are most important and why. While presenting, the participants put the criteria on the pin board, according to their own order of preference – 20’

o The stakeholders' criteria preferences are then documented – 5’

• 16:45 - Activity 2: discussion within groups – weights priorities – 60’ o Participants discuss in order to reach an agreement on grouping criteria according to

at least three importance levels (criteria with high, average and low importance), generating a partial ranking of the criteria (three levels) – 25’

o If the group easily reaches an agreement on this first level, the table is invited to refine the ranking, adding more importance levels and eventually arriving to a complete ranking of the criteria according to their importance. At this stage, if it is impossible to find an agreement from the whole table, the group can eventually split in 2-3 sub-groups expressing the same ranking - 25’

o Each participant individually fills the survey for Activity 2 – 10’

• 17:45 - Presentation of the main results of the tables – 15’ o Each group’s representative presents the main aspects of the discussion (e.g. reached

an agreement, what criteria were the most difficult)

• 18:00 - End of the first part of the workshop

Day two, May 20th:

• 09:00 - Short recall of the results of Activity 1 and 2 - 5’ • 09:05 - Presentation of the results of the MCAs according to the ranking generated the day

before – 40’ • 09:45 - The participants fill out the surveys on the results – 15’ • 10:00 - End of the workshop


Questionnaires

After session 1 (ranking of the criteria)

Please indicate to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements:

strongly disagree

strongly

agree

1 2 3 4 5

1. My feeling about the general discussion is positive.

2. My working group could agree on a prioritization of criteria.

3. My points of view have been considered in the final result of the activity 2.

4. I am satisfied with the result of activity 2.

5. The prioritization of the criteria was a difficult task.

6. I understood the description of the case provided by the role play game organizers.

7. I understood the power lines alternatives proposed in the case description.

8. I understood the description of the roles.

9. I understood the principle of the Multi Criteria Analysis.

10. I understood the criteria.

! Please indicate how difficult it was to agree on the prioritization the following criteria during your group discussion:

not difficult

very

difficult

1 2 3 4 5

11. C1: Risk of network disruption

12. C2: RES additional production

13. C3: Project cost

14. C4: Population near the power lines

15. C5: Touristic income

16. C6: Valuable area for biodiversity

17. C7: Vulnerable bird species

18. C8: GHG emissions avoided

19. C9: Areas not yet infrastructured

20. C10: Cultural and landscape valuable areas

21. C11: Cultural heritage and landscape elements

22. C12: Visibility of the line

!



strongly disagree

strongly

agree

1 2 3 4 5

23. In Activity 2, I could actively participate to the discussion.

24. The participants gave justifications to their arguments about the ranking of the criteria.

25. The participants were arguing only for their own interests.

26. The participants respected each other.

27. The participants argued in consideration of a common good.

28. The participants constructively included my arguments in the discussion.

29. I adapted my position to reach a compromise on the ranking of criteria

30. The participants adapted their positions to reach a compromise

31. The group agreed on the ranking of the criteria in Activity 2

32. The participants interrupted each others during the talks in the activity.

!


After session 2 (presentation of the results)


strongly disagree

strongly

agree

1 2 3 4 5

35. I am satisfied with the proposed outcome for my working group.

36. I am satisfied with the whole role play game.

37. I would accept the outcome proposed for my working group.

38. I feel ownership on the outcome proposed for my working group.

39. Multi-criteria analysis is a useful tool to identify the most suitable trace of the power line.

40. Focusing the group discussion on the ranking of the criteria is useful.

41. Focusing the group discussion on the ranking of the criteria reduces conflicts among stakeholders.

42. Focusing the group discussion on the ranking of the criteria fosters acceptance of the final solution among stakeholders.

43. I accept the solution proposed for my role group (e.g. TSO, citizen, etc.)

44. The group discussions in Activity 1 yesterday were useful to make a better choice of the trace.

45. The group discussions in Activity 2 yesterday were useful to make a better choice of the trace.

!


ANNEX 2: VALIDATION WORKSHOP IN BIRMINGHAM, UK

General aims and research questions of the workshop

The overall aim of the workshop is a validation of the findings of the INSPIRE-Grid project in terms of:

• Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) • Web GIS • General aspects of stakeholder participation

Therefore, the main research questions are:

• Can Multi-Criteria analysis be used to enhance stakeholder engagement in the decision making process?

• Can Web GIS contribute to the improvement of public engagement in the decision process about grid expansion projects?

• What are the reasons to enhance stakeholder participation for planning processes?

Agenda of the workshop:

Start% End% Topic% Speaker%

09:00$ 09:10$ Welcome$+$presentation$National$Grid$staff$ National$Grid$

09:10$ 09:25$ Overview$INSPIREBGrid$project$+$presentation$INSPIREBGrid$staff$ RSE$

09:25$ 09:30$ Aim$of$the$workshop$$ ETHZ$

09:30$ 09:40$ Overview$Hinkley$Point$C$connection$project$$$ National$Grid$

09:40$ 12:15$ MultiBCriteria$Analysis$(MCA)$B$assessment$of$HPCC/section$F$PortburyBPortishead$ Poliedra$

12:15$ 13:05$ Lunch$ $

13:05$ 13:35$ WebBGIS$presentation$ RSE$

13:35$ 15:05$ Stakeholder$participation$for$power$line$planning$ ETHZ$

15:05$ 15:35$ Presentation$of$MCA$key$results$and$discussion$ Poliedra$

15:35$ 15:50$ Break$ $

15:50$ 16:30$ Envisioning$the$future$$ ETHZ$

16:30$ 16:45$ Conclusion$ National$Grid$

$


Session on MCA

Objective of this session is to test if the MCA approach proposed in Inspire-Grid can be useful for

• A better understanding of the problems implied by the construction/requalification of a power line, of the stakeholders needs and preferences, of the conflicts generated

• Enhancing public participation in ongoing cases • Supporting facing conflicts and arriving to a "good result" • Reducing times and costs to reach a satisfying decision

We will focus on two aspects of MCA:

A. Structuring the problem: 1. Discussing the effects to be taken into consideration (what they do represent?),

organization in a complete and non-redundant way 2. Discussing the preferences associated to each effect

B. Using a formalized method to support the decision: 1. assigning ordinal weights to the effects

The session is based on the HPCC case, section F Portbury-Portishead. The case is used as reference starting point for discussion.

Limitation of the exercise: we are condensing a process of years in two hours:

• in our idea, every step should be decided in participated way, while you will discuss only some steps

• even for the steps you will discuss, you will have very limited time to reach conclusions • we won’t present all the possibilities to use an MCA method, and all the possible different

MCA methods; we have selected what seemed us most appropriate in this context to give the flavor of MCA in conjunction with participation

Structure of the MCA morning working session

Introduction: use of MCA for the assessment of HPCC/section F Portbury-Portishead – indicative time 40'

• Frontal lesson - 35’ • Individual reading of distributed material - 5’

Break

Task A.1: Effects to be taken into consideration (what they do represent?) – indicative time 10'

• Frontal lesson

Task A.2: Discussing the preferences associated to each effect – indicative time 30'


• Group work (two groups)

Task B.1: Assigning ordinal weights to the effects – indicative time 40'

• Group work (two groups)

Introduction: use of MCA for the assessment of HPCC/section F Portbury-Portishead – indicative time 40'

1. Introduction on MCA and how we are going to use it in the workshop

2. Short description of section F (elements not already introduced by John).

Comparison of the elements to be considered for the decision according to:

• NG’s Bridgwater to Seabank Connection Options Report, Oct.2012 • the Planning Inspectorate’s Report, Oct.2015


A small dossier (e.g. about Socio-economic matters), containing excerpts of the NG and Inspectors reports and our synthesis, is distributed to the participants and they are invited to look at this material before the break.


Task A.1: Effects to be taken into consideration (what do they represent?) – indicative time 10'

According to the MCA structuring of the problem, evaluation criteria have to be obtained from the elements to be considered for the decision. Evaluation criteria have to be as much as possible understandable by the stakeholders and close to their concerns and needs, and they must follow two rules:

1. Completeness (all the meaningful effects are represented)

2. Non-redundance (avoid double counting: each effect is counted once)

1. Completeness:

• In 2012 less elements were highlighted for the choice – are some of the elements introduced in 2015 necessary? Which ones?

2. Non-redundance:

• Are there redundant elements?

Some examples of what we did:

− We eliminated length of the line because we consider it a double counting with respect to other criteria (Cost, Visual impact …)

− We put together Landscape and Visual effect because in the Inspectors report it is difficult to distinguish between the two

− We did not consider Construction effects as autonomous criteria, because they seem to represent moderate impacts and for a very short period, compared to the life span of the project, therefore not meaningful.

− We considered Well-being effect to be a meaningful effect, which should be considered − Furthermore, we excluded all the criteria (Flood risk, Water quality …) which are not useful

to choose among the alternatives because impacts are the same

Task A.2: Discussing the preferences associated to each effect – indicative time 30'

Short explanation of the task:

Focusing on one criterion at a time and starting from the description of the effects of Option A and Option B, determining: if Option A is better than/worse than/indifferent to Option B from the


specific point of view. For the moment we ask not to discuss how much one alternative is preferred to the other, but just which of the two behaves better from each point of view. In two groups.

In order to allow participants to perform this task, we will distribute a table containing our synthesis of the impacts of the two alternatives on each criterion (see draft at the end of this document).

In practice, participants are asked to fill the three rows highlighted in yellow of the following table with green, white and grey colors.


Task B.1: Assigning ordinal weights to the effects – indicative time 40'

Short explanation of the task (indicative time 5':

The task consists of sorting the criteria according to three categories of importance. This allows, as we will see in the afternoon, to derive information about the preferences regarding the alternatives. In two groups.

Ranking exercise in two groups (indicative time 30')

Each group presents its result and a short comment about the process (indicative time 5')


MCA afternoon working session

Presentation of the results, i.e. preferences on the alternatives, obtained given the criteria rankings.

Participants are asked to fill the following questionnaire.


Session on Web GIS

General question to be addressed


Web GIS is a widespread tool for disseminating and explaining the spatial dimension of grid projects; moreover other advanced functionalities could be added.

Can Web GIS contribute to the improvement of public engagement in the decision process about grid expansion projects? Which functionalities are more useful in this respect?

Intro to Web GIS functionalities – 15 min.

The description is based on a presentation where the different functionalities that Web GIS makes available to the user are presented. The different functionalities will be described referring to the Aurland-Sognald case study. For each functionality we will try also to make an example of its possible use in the Hinckley Point project, referring to the comments and representations that were submitted and that are available through the project documents and the inspectorate website

Discussion – 15 min.

In the discussion, the participants will be solicited to give their opinions about the following points:

• Web GIS can give an alternative entry point to the project documentation: instead of using a thematic criteria, information can be accessed by means of geographical criteria; is this functionality effective?

• Web GIS can give to user to possibility to make simple elaboration and to extract data that are customised; is this possibility of any interest?

• Web GIS can be used to submit comments and suggestions, specifying very precisely the location to which they refer; can this functionality improve the consultation process? If not, why?

• Web GIS can be used to elicit public preferences about some aspects (i.e. landscape values) and use them directly in the assessment of the alternatives; are there barriers to use this kind of participation?


Session on participation

Part 1 (20’):

Development

• Participants write their experiences (5’) and then nail them experiences on the chart (15’). • The participants discuss the SWOT-clustered areas (25’).

Main points to address

HPCC-line-related:

• Consultation on route vs. technology: how have they been differentiated in the process? • Role of stakeholders to frame the scope of the public inquiry? • Would increased interactions with stakeholder improve the process?

HPCC-plant-related:

• Strategic planning, HP-plant vs. power lines: could have it been done together?

General to power lines:

• What are current stresses related to stakeholder involvement? • What new topics will come in the future? Well-being?

exp.%1%

exp.%2%

etc.%

exp.%4%

exp.%5%

Weaknesses'Strengths'

Opportuni2es' Threats'

large'medium'small'exp.%3%

small'

medium'

large'


Part 2 (25’):

Development

• Presentation of some INSPIRE-Grid findings (5’) • Participants stick new and future stakeholder involvement ways (20’) • Participants discuss the limits of participation according to the results of the previous chart.


• What are the reasons to enhance (or not) stakeholder participation? • Should participation be enhanced in the UK grid planning regulation? If yes how, if not

why?

Envisioning the future (60’):

Development

• Participants (NG+IG) pin their ideas for the future of power line planning and explain why (40’).

• Open discussion (rest of the time if previously <40’).

Coll.%

Inform.%

Cons.%

Need$defini(on$ Spa(al$planning$ Permi2ng$

Rte:%Lonny*Vesles%

Statne0:%Stor%Oslo%

Rte:%Avelin*Gavrelle%

Inelfe:%Baixas*Sta.%llogaia%

NG:%Plan%1%

NG:%Plan%2%NG:%etc.%

NG:%Project%X%



• What will be the future challenges of stakeholder participation in the UK? • What tools and methodologies will be used? • What should be changed in the regulatory scheme? • What new thematic(s) will appear in the future? What about well-being? • What about strategic planning (plants) and power lines?

Idea%4%

1"year"

5"years"

10"years"

Idea%3%

Idea%3%

Idea%1%

Idea%n%


ANNEX 3: VALIDATION WORKSHOP IN SCHWÄBISCH GMÜND, GERMANY

A quasi-experimental workshop design is used to test the hypothesis that the subjective perception and the assessment of procedural, distributive and interpersonal justice essentially depends on the design of the participation procedure, especially on the degree of the usage of appropriate components within the methods employed. By comparing two workshop-groups, a “standard-participation” procedure is contrasted with an “innovative-participation” procedure.

Methods

The participants will be randomly assigned to one of the two groups. Subjects in either group will be told that the workshop deals with the topic “Learning about good public participation” - Initial position for both groups is the planning of a fictitious power line project. As a controlled and constant condition for both groups, the need (if-question) of this line is presented as unquestioned and impartially verified, so the open questions are only about its spatial and technological definition (how-question).

In preparation of the group-specific stage of the procedure, there’s a methodic challenge in relation to a kind of expectance-management; despite the following different procedures, participants in both groups should equally have the expectation that the decisions on the project are open, (and both groups should experience the same goal of the procedure). A further factor that should be kept constant between the groups is the moderator (at least for the first activity/element of the workshop-sessions, the basic information about the power line project).

Standard vs. innovative participation

Within the framework of a traditional participation procedure relating to the planning and implementation of infrastructure projects, the focus usually is on the aspects information and consultation (cf. pyramid of participation, Lüttringhaus 2003). Participating persons get informed about the project in question and have the chance to get into a conversation with responsible stakeholders (planning institutions/ TSO / administration/ public authorities etc.), they can compare data, ask questions, and tell about their concerns. In the study, this kind of participation procedure is simulated by employing the following design components: information brokerage verbally (mainly in frontal presentations) and supported by written material, posters and maps, discussions, group discussions and discussion tables focusing different topics (e.g. legal aspects, technological questions, EIA; health issues).

The second workshop group will simulate an innovative participation procedure. Compared to the traditional procedure, the differences are on three levels:

• Firstly, the methods used will improve the quality of the process in terms of better fulfilling criteria like for example transparency and traceability by applying MCA and /or Web GIS.

• Secondly, participation in this group is not restricted to the aspects information and consultation, but includes higher stages of the pyramid, namely cooperation and decision making / responsibility.


• Furthermore, there’s a focus on the factor relation between the stakeholders and the project management (linked to the perceived interpersonal justice), which is especially considered by using several methods that should promote trust-building processes.

In detail the innovative participation procedure is consisting of the following elements: exercises on relation-ships/trust, round tables, group discussions, “interactive topic collecting rounds”, collective formulation and application of decision making tools (incl. MCA and/or Web GIS).

Contrasting and matching the groups

Comparing the design of the two participation procedure groups, it becomes apparent that besides the importance of the factors relation and trust, there are particularly differences concerning the degree of participation in decision-making and transparency of the procedure. The employed methods in the innovative group should guarantee a high degree of transparency regarding the openness/accessibility of information and also the process of decision-making and the question how the assessment criteria are weighted.

The first workshop-element/activity in either group is a kind of framing. One of its functions is to work as a substitute for the longer process in real cases, in the course of which relationships between the different stakeholders (involved in the participation procedure) gets formed by repeated interactions. These relationships are the basis for the emergence of trust or distrust, which for their part are important factors regarding the sense of justice.

Analogue to the beginning of the workshop-sessions (expectance-management) it is also required to hold one further factor constant between the two groups at the end of the workshop, namely the design of the session closure. Participants in both groups should have the same/similar perceptions and expectations regarding the usage of the workshop results; how will they be incorporated in the ongoing process, will they be respected by the project management and have an influence on future decision making etc. Therefore, between the control and the experimental group, the participants will be asked to solve the same issue, but with different methods.

Measuring instrument

At the end of the workshop sessions, all subjects will be asked to fill out a questionnaire that measures their assessment of the participation procedure concerning procedural (main focus), distributive and personal justice.

Questionnaire 1 (experimental group, see Figure 8):


A) The workshop The following questions are general statements in order to rate today’s workshop. Please rate accordingly.

General Ratings Strongly disagree Strongly

agree Don’t know

I found the workshop was interesting.

By participating in the workshop, I was able to gain new and interesting insights.

Overall, I think that the planning and execution of the workshop was a success.

Location, time and structure Strongly disagree Strongly

agree Don’t know

The room, in which the workshop took place, had an appropriate size.

The room was equipped so that it contained all necessary materials and tools for a successful collaboration.

I think that the workshop was unreasonably prolonging.

The Workshop should have taken place at a different time of day.

Moderation Strongly disagree Strongly

agree Don’t know

The way of moderation had a huge influence on the tonight's participation process.

In general, the moderation is the most important factor for a successful participation process.

A) The market place The following questions are statements regarding the market place. Please rate accordingly.

Strongly disagree Strongly

agree Don’t know

The market place was helpful to understand the particularities of the different line alternatives.

The personal present at the market place could answer my questions on the different line alternatives.

In the market place, I could provide inputs on my preferences concerning the path of the line.

I understood the power lines alternatives proposed at the market place.


A) Evaluating the paths through a Multi-Criteria Analysis The following questions are statements regarding The Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA). Please rate accordingly.

General ratings on the discussion to rank the criteria


agree Don’t know

In the discussion for ranking the criteria, I could actively participate.

The participants gave justifications to their arguments about the ranking of the criteria.

The participants were arguing only for their own interests.

The participants respected each other.

The participants argued in consideration of a common good.

The participants constructively included my arguments in the discussion.

I adapted my position to reach a compromise on the ranking of criteria.

The participants adapted their positions to reach a compromise.

The group agreed on the ranking of the criteria.

The participants interrupted each other during the talks in the activity.

General ratings on the discussion to rank the criteria


agree Don’t know

I understood the principle of the Multi Criteria Analysis.

I found the computerized tool too complex to use.

I found it difficult to understand how to use the explained tool with all its possibilities.


Difficulty to rank the criteria Not difficult Very

difficult Don’t know

C1: SECURITY AND CONTINUITY OF SERVICE

C2: RES INTEGRATION

C3: ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY

C4: HEALTH, SAFETY AND QUALITY OF LIFE

C5: TOURISM

C6: BIODIVERSITY, VALUABLE AREA FOR BIODIVERSITY

C7: BIODIVERSITY, VULNERABLE FAUNA SPECIES

C8: GHG EMISSIONS

C9: LAND USE

C10: LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL

C11: CULTURAL HERITAGE

After the discussion of the results of the MCA Strongly disagree Strongly

agree Don’t know

I am satisfied with the MCA sessions

I am satisfied with the proposed outcome for my working group.

The MCA process as a whole was useful to understand the case and the underlying conflicts.

The way used to structure the problem is effective.


After the discussion of the results of the MCA Strongly disagree Strongly

agree Don’t know

I would accept the outcome proposed for my working group.

The prioritization of the effects (ranking exercise) was useful.

Multi-criteria analysis is a useful tool to identify the most suitable trace of the power line.

I feel ownership on the outcome proposed for my working group.

Focusing the group discussion on the ranking of the criteria is useful.

Focusing the group discussion on the ranking of the criteria reduces conflicts among stakeholders.

Focusing the group discussion on the ranking of the criteria fosters acceptance of the solution among stakeholders.

The way used to structure the problem could be usefully adapted and used to enhance public participation in ongoing cases.

The ranking exercise is useful to foster participation.

The ranking exercise is useful to dialogue with specific stakeholders.

The group discussions were useful to deepen my understanding of the case and its implications.

The method used could be useful in order to reduce times and costs necessary to reach a satisfying decision.

Distributive Fairness MCA Strongly disagree Strongly

agree Don’t know

Do you think that MCA as a tool serves to gain a fair distributed outcome?

The ratio of costs and benefits of an outcome obtained through the usage of MCA is fair.


Questionnaire 2.1 and 2.2 (control group, see Figure 8)

The questionnaire for the control group had the same content as for the experimental group, except the absence of the part on the MCA-session. Finally, Questionnaire 2.2 (only for the session on Web GIS) has the same content as Questionnaire 1 related to Web GIS.

A) Evaluating the paths through the moderated discussion The following questions are statements regarding moderated discussion. Please rate accordingly.


agree Don’t know

I am satisfied with the moderated discussion.

I am satisfied with the proposed outcome for my working group.

I could actively participate to the discussion.

Using a table to display the different characteristics of the power line alternatives was useful.

The participants gave justifications to their arguments.

The participants were arguing only for their own interests.

The participants respected each other.

The participants argued in consideration of a common good.

The participants constructively included my arguments in the discussion.

I adapted my position to reach a compromise.

The participants adapted their positions to reach a compromise.

General ratings on the discussion Strongly disagree Strongly

agree Don’t know

The group agreed on a line-path alternative.

The participants interrupted each other during the talks in the activity.

I would accept the outcome proposed for my working group.

The group discussions were useful to deepen my understanding of the case and its implications.

I feel ownership on the outcome proposed for my working group.

Having a moderated group discussion reduces conflicts among stakeholders.


Alternatives’ set

Need definition phase

The TSO identified the need to reinforce the connection in the Utopia-Parma Region, in order to connect the new power generated by the new wind farm in the South-East (Wind Farm SE) of the Region.

A wind farm on the South-West (Wind Farm SW), connected to the network by means of an old 132 kV line, and a hydropower plant on the West of the Region, well connected to the network through a high voltage line, already exist in the Region.

The new Wind Farm SE could be connected to one of the two power stations, one near Parma city and one in Collecchio town; or alternatively to the hydropower plant through Wind Farm SW.

The 132 kV power line connecting Wind Farm SW and Collecchio Power Station, 33 km long, is slightly undersized for the actual needs, and, furthermore, it passes through one the most valuable area for biodiversity, the Taro River area. This area has valuable landscape and utmost importance, in particular, for the presence of several fauna and flora species among which birds’ species that live and nest here. The area is important also for touristic and recreational purposes.

Eletrix has several alternatives; some of them provide for demolishing and replacing of the old power line (putting it underground in the Taro River area). TSO’s main purposes are:

• Support to RES integration, increasing the ability of the power system to allow the connection of the new RES plants (Wind Farm SE).

• Improve the security of supply, reducing the network disruption. • Remove the impacts on biodiversity, landscape, etc., in Taro River area. • Reduce the CO2 emissions thanks to the RES integration (and the network losses reduction).


Spatial planning phase

The TSO has identified 8 alternatives (see table below) to submit to the public consultation. Some hypothesis:

- Zero alternative is considered as reference but not responding to the obligation to connect the new wind farm (Wind Farm SE), so it will be not feasible and not submitted to the public consultation.

- All the alternatives connect the new Wind Farm SE to Collecchio Power Station or Parma Power Station or Wind farm SW with a new line of 380 (on plain or hills areas) or 275 kV (on mountain areas).

- All alternatives, that connect the wind farm SW to the high voltage line to which is connected hydropower plant in the North-West or to the Collecchio Power Station with a new 380 kV line, will provide for the decommissioning of the existing 132 kV line from Wind Farm SW to Collecchio Power Station.

- The new wind farm (Wind Farm SE - 75 m above s.l.) will have 5 towers of 2 MW (tot. 10 MW, average producibility 2.500 MWh/MW)

- The old wind farm (Wind Farm SW - 75 m above s.l.) has 4 towers of 2 MW (tot. 8 MW, average capacity 2.500 MWh/MW).


Alternatives Main features Length (km)

ZERO

Do nothing: the 132 kV line from Wind Farm SW to Collecchio Power Station remains. Along the line there is a high density of Natura 2000 sites and fauna oasis (over all in the Taro River area), very valuable from biodiversity point of view, and some little urban areas.

33

A1

New line of 380 kV from Wind Farm SE to Parma Power Station. The line runs on plain and meets some small towns. It passes to the right of the outskirts of the city of Parma. It intersects, in the south, one ecological corridor. No archeological or cultural valuable areas are impacted by the new line. From touristic point of view there will be some impacts in Monticello Terme, Quattro Castella e Montechiarugolo towns. No decommissioning of the old 132 kV line from Wind Farm SW to Collecchio Power Station.

52

A2

New line of 380 kV from Wind Farm SE to Collecchio Power Station. It runs mostly on plain and only for a little south section on hills. Along the line there are some valuable historical castles (two nearer the line, one more distant). Along the line there are two huge areas classified as a valuable landscape area (l. 1497). On the northern section of the line, there is also a Natura 2000 site. No decommissioning of the old 132 kV line from Wind Farm SW to Collecchio Power Station.

24

A3

New line of 275 kV from Wind Farm SE to Wind Farm SW and to Hydropower Plant. The line runs mostly on hill/mountain. At a certain distance from the line (S-W) there are some Natura 2000 sites and a fauna oasis. The line intersects 5 ecological corridors and will be viewed from 3 panoramic routes. It's provided the decommissioning of the old 132 kV line from Wind Farm SW to Collecchio Power Station.

53

A4

New line composed by 2 discontinuous sections: 275 kV line on the West side from Hydropower Plant to Wind Farm SW (20 km long), and 380 kV on the East side from Collecchio Power Station SE to the Wind Farm SE (24 km long). It runs, in the East side, on plain and in the West side on hills. The line will be viewed from 3 panoramic routes. It intersects 2 ecological corridors. At a certain distance from the line (S-W) there is one big Natura 2000 site and some minor archeological areas; on the South-East the line passes through one Natura 2000 site. As for alt. 2 along the line there are two huge areas classified as valuable landscape areas (l. 1497). It's provided the decommissioning of the old 132 kV line from Wind Farm SW to Collecchio Power Station.

44


A5

The new line is composed by two discontinuous sections: 275 kV on the West side from Hydropower Plant to Wind Farm SW (20 km long), and 380 kV line on the East side from the Wind Farm SE to the Parma Power Station (52 km long). It runs, in the East side, on plain and in the West side on hills. The West part of the line intersects one ecological corridor, one panoramic route and it's near to a big Natura 2000 site and some minor archeological area. The east part of the line intersects 1 ecological corridor and on the North it passes near to several little urban areas among which there are Monticello Terme, Quattro Castella and Montechiarugolo tows, quite important from touristic point of view. In the South, it's very near to a valuable landscape area. It's provided the decommissioning of the old 132 kV line from Wind Farm SW to Collecchio Power Station.

72

A6

New line of 380 kV from Wind Farm SW to Collecchio Power Station (33 km long) and from Collecchio Power Station to the Wind Farm SE (24 km long). It develops in part on plain and in part on hills; a part of the line (8 km starting from Collecchio power station) near the Taro River area will be built underground. The line passes through several urban areas and it can be viewed from 4 historical castles and 3 archeological areas. Two ecological corridors lean near the line and 3 panoramic routes intersect it. Several Natura 2000 sites and two fauna oasis can be impacted from the line, especially in the West part. Furthermore, the lines passes through 4 valuable landscape areas. It's provided the decommissioning of the old 132 kV line from Wind Farm SW to Collecchio Power Station (33 km).

57

A7

The new line of 380 kV is composed by two discontinuous sections: on the West side from to Wind Farm SW (33 km long) to Collecchio Power Station, and on the East side from the Wind Farm SE to the Parma Power Station (50 km long); a part of the line (8 km starting from Collecchio power station) near the Taro River area will be built underground. It develops, in the East side, on plain and in the West side on plain and, for a little part, on hills. The line passes through several urban areas (especially on the East side), among which there are Monticello Terme, Quattro Castella e Montechiarugolo tows, quite important from touristic point of view; it can be viewed from 1 historical Castel. Two ecological corridors are marginally impacted from the West side of the line. One panoramic route intersects the east side of the line; on the same side several Natura 2000 sites and two fauna oasis can be impacted from the line. Furthermore, the line passes through 1 valuable landscape area and near another one valuable area. It's provided also the decommissioning of the old 132 kV line from Wind Farm SW to Collecchio Power Station (33 km).

85


11 Effects to be ranked

SECTORS' CRITERIA' INDICATORS' DESCRIPTION' RANGE'OF'EFFECTS'

TECH

NIC'

Security'and'continuity'of'service'

C1'8'Lower'risk'of'network'disruption'(qualitative)'

Tangible'reductions'in'the'risk'of'disruption'of'the'network'

Significant'additional'reduction'of'the'risk'of'network'disruption'in'the'study8area,'from'low8medium'to'very'high'reduction''

RES'integration''

C2'8'RES'additional'production'[GWh/years]'

Additional'RES'generation'thanks'to'the'project'

Increase'of'the'RES'potential'of'4'additional'GWh/year'(starting'from'a'basis'of'20'GWh/year),'approximately'corresponding'to'the'energy'consumption'of'720'European'citizens'per'year'

INVE

STMEN

T'CO

ST'

Economic'sustainability'

C3'8'Costs'[M€]''

The'cost'includes:'construction'cost'of'the'new'line'and'demolition'cost'of'the'old'line'(when'appropriate).'It'depends'also'on'the'ground'conditions'(plain,'hill,'mountain)'and'on'the'type'of'power'line'(air'or'underground)'

Increase'the'cost'of'211'M€'(from'51'M€'to'262'M€)'

SOCIO'8'EC

ONIM

IC'

Health,'safety'and'quality'of'life'

C4'8'Settlements'near'the'line'[N]'

Number'of'settlements'(little'towns'with'average'density'of'1008400'ab/kmq)'in'the'proximity'of'lines'(distance'lower'than'approximately'500'm)'

Varying'the'overall'number'of'settlements'(1008400'ab/kmq)'in'the'proximity'of'lines'(distance'lower'than'approximately'500'm)'from'J4'(benefit'for'4'settlements)'to'6'units''

Tourism'

C5'8'Touristic'expected'income'reduction'[M€]'

Decreased'income'(82.5'M€/y)'for'regional'tourism'(food8and8wine'tourism'mainly'along'the'scenic'routes,'castles'and'adventure'parks'in'the'forest)'due'to'the'project'

Generating'high'negative'impact'(82.5'M€/y)'on'the'local'touristic'income'(food8and8wine'tourism'mainly'along'the'scenic'routes,'castles'and'adventure'parks'in'the'forest)'

'


ENVIRONMENT)

Biodiversity)

C6)6Valuable)

area)for)

biodiversity)

[qualitative])

Valuable)areas)for)biodiversity)

(Rete)Natura)2000)sites,)

ecological)network,)fauna)oasis,)

etc.))affected)by)the)project.!The)indicator)considers)both)negative)

or)positive)effects)(due)to)the)

decommissioning)of)the)old)132)

kV)line).!

Varying)the)impact)on)valuable)

areas)for)biodiversity)(Rete)

Natura)sites,)ecological)corridors))

from!low(medium!positive!to!high!negative.)

C7)6)

Vulnerable)

fauna)species)

[qualitative])

Qualitative)impact)on)vulnerable)

fauna)species)living)or)

reproducing)in)the)project)area.)

The)indicator)considers)both)

negative)or)positive)effects)(due)

to)the)decommissioning)of)the)old)

132)kV)line))

Varying)the)impact)on)vulnerable)

fauna)species)(lot)of)birds)nesting,)

migratory)and)endangered)

species,)bat,)deer,)fox,)rabbit,)

etc.))from!medium!positive!to!high!negative)

GHG)

emissions)

C8)6)GHG)

emissions)

avoided)

[tonCO2eq/ye

ar])

Estimated)Green)House)Gas)

(GHG))emissions)avoided)thanks)

to)the)project,)principally)to)the)

connection)of)new)renewable)

power)

Additional)avoidance)of)the)emission)of)1.600!tonCO2eq/year!(from)7.900)to)9.500)

tonCO2eq/year)avoided),)

corresponding)approximately)to)

the)annual)GHG)emissions)of)300)

Italian)citizens)

Land)use)

C9)6)Reduction)

of)wooded)

area)[kmq]))

!Estimated)wooded)area)to)be))

cut)off)to)build)the)new)line)

Additional)reduction)of)wooded)area)of!2.7!km2))(from)0.6)to)3.3)

km2),)corresponding)to)378)

soccer)fields)

LANDSCAPE)

Landscape)

and)visual)

C10)6)

Landscape)

valuable)

areas[qualitati

ve])

Valuable) landscape) area)

(panoramic) routes) and) area)

bound)by)l.)1497))affected)by)the)

project.) The) indicator) considers)

both) negative) or) positive) effects)

(due) to) the) decommissioning) of)

the)old)132)kV)line))

Varying)the)impact)on)landscape)

valuable)areas)(panoramic)routes)

and)area)bound)by)l.)1497))from)

medium!positive!to!high!negative)

Cultural)

heritage)

C11)6)Cultural)

heritage)

elements)

(castels)and)

archeological)

area),)affected)

[number])

Number) of) cultural) heritage) and)

landscape) elements,) taken) as)

point) features)within) the) area) of)

project,) such) as) ancient) castles)

and) archaeological) areas.) The)

indicator) considers) both)negative)

or) positive) effects) (due) to) the)

decommissioning) of) the) old) 132)

kV)line).)

Affecting)5)cultural)heritage)elements)(ancient)castles)and)archaeological)areas)))

)


Ranking exercise (individual)

Please write your individual answers

1) From your point of view, is there one effect (eventually 2) definitely more important than the others, i.e. of outstanding relevance? If yes, which one(s)? __________________________________________________________________________

2) From your point of view, are there effects definitely less relevant than the others, i.e. almost negligible with respect to the others? If yes, which ones?

__________________________________________________________________________

3) Group the remaining effects (not outstanding and not negligible), in 3 categories:

- Category A: most important effects _______________________________________________________________________

- Category B: average importance _______________________________________________________________________

- Category C: lowest importance _______________________________________________________________________

4) If you have time, can you eventually rank the effects within each category, or at least within Category A, according to their importance, from the most important to the least important?

Category A Category B Category C

I _________ _________ _________

II _________ _________ _________

III _________ _________ _________

IV _________ _________ _________

V _________ _________ _________

VI _________ _________ _________


Levels of anticipated conflicts (control group)

Issue/Alterna,ve. A1. A2. A3. A4. A5. A6. A7.

Security.of.supply. high. high. high. medium. medium. low. low.

Investment.costs. medium. low. medium. medium. medium. high. high.

SocioBeconomic. high. high. none. low. medium. medium. medium.

Environmental.impact. high. medium. low. none. low. none. medium.

Landscape.impact. low. high. low. medium. none. medium. none.

inspire-grid wp7 d71 0 31 - empoweringpeople · inspire-grid_wp7_d71_0_31.docx page 9 2 background...

Documents