Elsevier

Energy Research & Social Science

Volume 6, March 2015, Pages 128-135
Energy Research & Social Science

Original research article
Bioenergy as a socio-technical system: The nexus of rules, social capital and cooperation in the development of bioenergy villages in Germany

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.02.003Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The effect of social capital can be detrimental to community renewable energy.

  • A balance between leadership and collective action enhances positive effects.

  • Access to information and trust based on transparency facilitates community energy.

  • Social involvement, bonding and bridging ties may contribute to community energy.

Abstract

Social resources are assumed to play an important role in the implementation of community renewable energy as a socio-technical system in Germany. The impact of social resources on the dynamics of community renewable energy has not been well understood until now. Given the importance of adapting to current and upcoming changes in the regulatory framework for renewable energy production, there is a need for a better understanding of the role of social resources in the process of sustaining community renewable energy production. Based on two case studies of bioenergy villages in the German Federal State of Brandenburg, we elucidate the nexus and impact of social capital, rules and cooperation in the development of community renewable energy. Promoting social capital that results in a balance between leadership and collective action, trust among all actors based on transparency, almost complete access to relevant information, involvement in social activities, and a consistent network of bonding and bridging ties, may contribute to the sustained development of community renewable energy.

Introduction

The substantial change in energy policy in Germany in 2010 was part of a political and social process that began in the year 2000 with the implementation of Renewable Energy Act (EEG). The act aims to foster the replacement of non-renewable and fossil-based energy sources with renewables. The “energy transition” (Energiewende) has facilitated the development of innovative business models: e.g. decentralised biomass-based energy systems in the countryside. Different terms like “energy self-sufficient village” or “bioenergy villages” have become popular labels. Bioenergy villages in Germany are a model for international initiatives [1]. In this study, we focus on biomass-based bioenergy as one branch of renewable energy and its particular form of bioenergy villages in Germany. By definition, a bioenergy-village can satisfy all of its electricity demand and at least half of its heating demand with locally produced biomass [2]. Furthermore, at least 50% of the production facilities should be owned by the farmers supplying the biomass and the household consumers connected to the heating grid [2].

Renewable energy based on decentralised energy supply is generally acknowledged to create new employment opportunities, increase the capacity for and acceptance of further economic and social activities [3], generate added value [4] and thereby have a significant influence on rural economies [5]. Due to the possibility of creating added value for rural areas [4], [6], [7], the local supply and consumption of renewable energy is of great interest to local authorities. On the other hand, problems may arise, such as rural residents’ acceptance of externalities (e.g. odour and noise emissions, etc.); uncertainty caused by frequent changes in the legal framework, particularly with regard to changing subsidies; unequal profit sharing; the transformation of landscapes [5]; and other socially, politically, economically and institutionally critical factors [8].

There has been a strong impetus for the development of community energy in Germany, which is reflected in the growing number of bioenergy villages registered for governmental support [9], [10], [11]. Empirical evidence shows that community energy initiatives may develop differently in terms of the achievement of objectives as well as cooperation and cost- and benefit-sharing between the numerous public and private actors involved. Previous assessments of bioenergy villages have focused mainly on techno-economic efficiencies or institutional aspects [12], [13], [14], [15]. But although current governmental publications underline the importance of network structures and social capital [9], [10], the impact of social resources on the dynamics of bioenergy villages is not yet well understood. We consider even small bioenergy villages to be deeply enmeshed in larger socio-technical systems [16]. In light of the decrease in support for biomass-based energy production announced by the current German federal government [17] and the consequential necessity of adapting to a new institutional framework, there is growing need for a better understanding and management of social resources in the process of sustaining bioenergy villages.

This empirical study of two cases in Brandenburg (Germany) aims to contribute to a better understanding of why, in certain cases, bioenergy village initiatives do or do not succeed. The results can support scientists and practitioners in the assessment of whether a social environment is favourable for the implementation of bioenergy village related projects, be it e.g. a biogas plant or a local heating grid. Furthermore we seek to contribute to the understanding of social processes by contrasting the analysis of singular elements of social systems such as social capital, institutions and cooperation with the analysis of nexuses of these elements.

As [18] previously stated, the governance of the commons is of great importance. To enhance social capital and trust among involved actors, institutions need to be adjusted to the characteristics of resources and actor groups [18]. We assume that the construction of a sustainable local heating grid is the most critical factor for the success of a bioenergy village. We further assume that because it usually involves a large number of households and economic stakeholders, a heating grid can be considered a collective resource. It can provide all stakeholders with added value when a collective solution is reached. As social capital is generally known to support the likelihood of cooperation [19], [20], we explore the impact of social capital for sets of rules [21] that coordinate the decision-making process or interactions of several actors. In addition, we concentrate on the social dimension of technology, and thereby aim to contribute to a more comprehensive socio-economic assessment [22]. We examine the hypothesis that social capital drives the techno-economic development of bioenergy villages through shared rules and cooperation. The findings lead us to assert that there are no “panaceas” for the institutional settings [23] of bioenergy villages, but that priority should be given to the mobilisation and accumulation of social capital as a common resource.

We wish to contribute to the understanding of the development of bioenergy villages and the implications thereof, which differ despite being subject to the same legal framework, and ask how institutional mechanisms matter in regard to particular social interactions. In this context, we assess whether sketches or concepts of energy-autonomous communities are meaningful for the development of decentralised energy supplies. Therefore our research focuses on the following more specific questions: (1) which actors, positions and roles are of importance; (2) which formal and informal rules are involved; (3) how social relations are coordinated; (4) what the dynamics of mutual interaction are and what their origins are; and (5) what social and institutional drivers and obstacles there are in establishing a sustainable bioenergy village.

First, we will present the theoretical concept of social capital. Then we briefly describe the case studies and the methodology before we begin the analysis and discussion of the results.

Section snippets

Nexus of rules, social capital and cooperation

There are relatively few studies that scrutinise how rules and social relations influence the performance of technical systems (see e.g. [7], [24], [25], [26], [27]). Although some authors [28] refer to institutional capacity and the need for cooperation, they do not reveal the influence of social capital, e.g. trust and cooperation, on formal and informal rules. Whereas other authors [7] clearly indicate that social capital can have both negative and positive effects on the decision

The villages of Kerkow and Feldheim

The analysis was conducted for one successful and one failed bioenergy village initiative, each located in the federal state of Brandenburg (Germany). The village of Feldheim has the label “energy autarkic village” (which is similar to the meaning of “bioenergy village”) and is situated in the remote countryside of southwest Brandenburg. With a population of 128, it is quite small. It claims to be the first German village to achieve what it calls “energy self-sufficiency”, wherein 100% of the

Results

To structure the data, we use the three main categories that subdivide the description of the case studies of Kerkow and Feldheim.

Discussion

In the previous sections, we examined the nexus of social capital, rules and cooperation in two bioenergy villages in Germany. Our findings reflect how even small bioenergy villages are enmeshed in larger socio-technical systems, i.e., in broad patterns of social, economic and political life [16]. The case study indicates that institutional challenges may be a major barrier also in small, complex socio-technical systems [56]. The cases also shed light on different approaches taken by actors to

Conclusion

The present study describes the dynamics of bioenergy villages with a focus on actors’ constellations, cooperation and specific sets of rules. It became evident that social capital and trust can be an important factor for the development of bioenergy villages, and that trust may easily change, i.e., increase or decrease, because of incidents and greater salience either of positive or negative information [61]. Trust and cooperation were shown to be strong in Feldheim, while the leadership

References (61)

  • E. Brousseau et al.

    Climbing the hierarchical ladders of rules: a life-cycle theory of institutional evolution

    J Econ Behav Organ

    (2011)
  • G. Spinardi

    Up in the air: barriers to greener air traffic control and infrastructure lock-in in a complex socio-technical system

    Energy Res Soc Sci

    (2015)
  • Y. Parag et al.

    More than filler: middle actors and socio-technical change in the energy system from the middle-out

    Energy Res Soc Sci

    (2014)
  • A. Beer

    Leadership and the governance of rural communities

    J Rural Stud

    (2014)
  • M.R. Greenberg

    Energy policy and research: the under appreciation of trust

    Energy Res Soc Sci

    (2014)
  • T. Jenssen et al.

    Bioenergy villages – a blueprint for rural energy supply

    J Environ Manag Tour

    (2010)
  • H. Ruppert et al.

    Wege zum Bioenergiedorf. Leitfaden

    (2008)
  • B. Klagge et al.

    Decentralized electricity generation from renewable sources as a chance of local economic development: a qualitative study of two pioneer regions in Germany

    Sustain Soc

    (2012)
  • C. Kimmich et al.

    Regional governance and economic impacts of decentral bioenergy value chains – the case of the bioenergy village Mauenheim

  • C. Kunze et al.

    The social complexity of renewable energy production in the countryside

    Electron Green J

    (2011)
  • H. Busch et al.

    Local power: exploring the motivations of mayors and key success factors for local municipalities to go 100% renewable energy

    Energy Sustain Soc

    (2014)
  • Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe

    Bioenergiedörfer. Gülzower Fachgespräche

    (2014)
  • Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe

    Netzwerke in Bioenergie-Regionen. Politisch-gesellschaftliche Begleitforschung zum Bundeswettbewerb. Schriftenreihe Nachwachsende Rohstoffe

    (2014)
  • Bundesministerium für Ernährung et al.

    Bioenergie in Regionen. Ein Ratgeber – basierend auf den Ergebnissen des Wettbewerbs Bioenergie-Regionen

    (2012)
  • M. Oteman et al.

    The institutional space of community initiatives for renewable energy: a comparative case study of the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark

    Energy Sustain Soc

    (2014)
  • M. Karpenstein-Marchan et al.

    Erfolgreiche Umsetzung von Bioenergiedörfern in Deutschland – Was sind die Erfolgsfaktoren?

  • P. Schmuck et al.

    Initiating and analysing renewable energy transitions in Germany: the district, village, and farm scale

  • M. Karpenstein-Machan et al.

    The bioenergy village: ecological and social aspects in implementation of a sustainability project

    J Biobased Mater Bioenergy

    (2007)
  • Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie: Eckpunkte für die Reform des EEG

    (2014)
  • T. Dietz et al.

    The struggle to govern the commons

    Science

    (2013)
  • Cited by (41)

    • Dealing with heterogeneity and complexity in the analysis of the willingness to invest in community renewable energy in rural areas

      2021, Technological Forecasting and Social Change
      Citation Excerpt :

      Social capital is related to the necessary trust and cooperative capacity to promote collective action to create collective benefits (von Bock und Polach et al., 2015). Studies have focused on trust (Dóci and Vasileiadou, 2015; von Bock und Polach et al., 2015; Bauwens, 2016; Kalkbrenner and Roosen, 2016; Koirala et al., 2018) and cooperation (von Bock und Polach et al., 2015) as facilitators of the decision to invest in CRE. Other associated concepts such as place attachment (Kalkbrenner and Roosen, 2016; van Veelen and Haggett, 2017) and community identity (Conradie et al., 2021) relate WTI in CRE to the willingness to protect and improve a set of place-related factors (culture, landscape, history, etc.) which matter to people (Süsser et al., 2017).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text