Beyond public acceptance of energy infrastructure:How citizens make sense and form reactions by enacting networks of entities in infrastructure development

AbstractThis article adds to the growing insight into public acceptance by presenting a novel approach to how citizens make sense of new energy infrastructure. We claim that to understand public acceptance, we need to go beyond the current thinking of citizens framed as passive respondents to proposed projects, and instead view infrastructure projects as enacted by citizens in their local settings. We propose a combination of sensemaking theory and actor–network theory that allows insight into how citizens enact entities from experiences and surroundings in order to create meaning and form a reaction to new infrastructure projects. Empirically, we analyze how four citizens make sense of an electricity cable project through a conversation process with a representative from the infrastructure developer. Interestingly, the formal participation process and the materiality of the cable play minor roles in citizens' sensemaking process. We conclude that insight into the way citizens are making sense of energy infrastructure processes can improve and help to overcome shortcomings in the current thinking about public acceptance and public participation

Social Impact Assessment in Europe:A Study of Social Impacts in Three Danish Cases

Social impact assessment (SIA) is applied worldwide to assess social impacts of plans and projects. In Europe, directives on environmental assessment (EA) require attention to social impacts, however, there is a need to investigate the implementation in practise. To this end, we study three Danish cases, which are characterised by debates and conflicts on social issues. Analysis of the EA statements shows inclusion of a broad range of social impacts. However, the EAs do not fully match the concerns of the public, and social impacts are not always analysed in depth, mitigation measures are not suggested or are postponed and the geographical distribution of impacts assessed is biased towards including negative local impacts. We discuss the scope and handling of social impacts, and possible implications. Based on this, we conclude with the view that EA might do the job of handling social impacts in Europe, if practise is improved. </jats:p