A conceptual framework for understanding the social acceptance of energy infrastructure: insights from energy storage

Although social acceptance research has blossomed over the last decade, interdisciplinary studies combining market, socio-political and community aspects are scarce. We propose a novel integration of social science theory in which the belief systems or social representations held by key actors play a crucial role in fostering acceptance of novel technologies, and where a polycentric perspective places particular emphasis on ways that middle actors mediate processes of change between scales. We advance a methodological approach that combines qualitative and quantitative research methods and exemplify the framework by focusing on acceptance of renewable energy storage solutions to accommodate high levels of renewable energy deployment. A research agenda for the social acceptance of energy storage is proposed that sets out key research questions relating international, national and local levels. The outcome of such studies would not only lead to enhanced understanding of processes of social acceptance, but deliver important insights for policy and practice

Local perceptions of opportunities for engagement and procedural justice in electricity transmission grid projects in Norway and the UK

ArticleCopyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Transmission lines are critical infrastructures, but frequently contested especially at the local level, by local communities. The role of public engagement in processes pertaining to specific transmission line projects is an under-researched, yet important topic that this paper seeks to discuss by investigating how inhabitants perceive these processes and to what extent they find the processes just and fair. This paper addresses the participatory aspects of the planning process, as perceived by the local inhabitants in four Norway and UK cases, by using a qualitative comparative case study design. We further analyse this issue through frameworks of public engagement and procedural justice. In both countries public engagement is largely characterized by perceptions of insufficient information, and insufficient influence on the process. In sum, the findings indicate that the informants generally perceive the opportunities for involvement as insufficient and unjust. The findings are quite similar across all cases and both countries. Local inhabitants represent diverse groups who often have different levels of knowledge, time and engagement to bring to the planning process. Their requests for improved processes thus underline the serious public engagement challenges that applicants and decision-makers face.Research Council of Norwa

What matters to patients? A systematic review of preferences for medication-associated outcomes in mental disorders

Objective: To investigate patients\u27 preferences for outcomes associated with psychoactive medications. Setting/design: Systematic review of stated preference studies. No settings restrictions were applied. Participants/eligibility criteria: We included studies containing quantitative data regarding the relative value adults with mental disorders place on treatment outcomes. Studies with high risk of bias were excluded. Primary and secondary outcome measures: We restricted the scope of our review to preferences for outcomes, including the consequences from, attributes of, and health states associated with particular medications or medication classes, and process outcomes. Results: After reviewing 11 215 citations, 16 studies were included in the systematic review. These studies reported the stated preferences from patients with schizophrenia (n=9), depression (n=4), bipolar disorder (n=2) and attention deficit hyperactive disorder (n=1). The median sample size was 81. Side effects and symptom outcomes outnumbered functioning and process outcomes. Severe disease and hospitalisation were reported to be least desirable. Patients with schizophrenia tended to value disease states as higher and side effects as lower, compared to other stakeholder groups. In depression, the ability to cope with activities was found to be more important than a depressed mood, per se. Patient preferences could not consistently be predicted from demographic or disease variables. Only a limited number of potentially important outcomes had been investigated. Benefits to patients were not part of the purpose in 9 of the 16 studies, and in 10 studies patients were not involved when the outcomes to present were selected. Conclusions: Insufficient evidence exists on the relative value patients with mental disorders place on medication-associated outcomes. To increase patient-centredness in decisions involving psychoactive drugs, further research-with outcomes elicited from patients, and for a larger number of conditions-should be undertaken