Click here to download

Identification of good practices aimed at favouring acceptance of solid biomass plants by the local community
Author/s: Emilio De Meo, Antonio Lopolito, Maurizio Prosperi, Giacomo Giannoccaro, Rosa Anna Ciccone 
Year:  2013 Issue: Language: Italian 
Pages:  20 Pg. 43-62 FullText PDF:  703 KB
DOI:  10.3280/REA2013-002003
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 

The siting of solid biomass energy plants can be conceived as a transaction process taking place between two specific economic agents, the investor and local community. The investor is interested in obtaining the use right for local resources (e.g. area for setting; natural resources to feed the process, release of pollutants in the environment) while the community expects an increase of net benefits (es. job opportunities, induced industrial development, revitalization of the local economy). This transaction process has been analyzed according to the typical transaction costs theory, where the economic activities are conceived as the result of transactions among economic agents, which are hindered by three main obstacles: a) bounded rationality, b) opportunism, c) asset specificity. By applying the New Institutional theory approach, we treat the issue of social acceptance as a transaction cost problem. The aim is to identify the best practices adopted by biomass firms managers in order to enhance the social acceptance of solid biomass plants at local community level. In this paper we conduct a positive analysis where the methodological approach is based on the comparison of five case successful study cases. This allowed us to identify thirteen measures, capable to foster the social acceptance, and consequently to reduce the costs related to the investment.
Keywords: Best practices, social acceptance, biomass plants, transaction costs
Jel Code: Q42, Q52

  1. Breukers S., Wolsink M. (2007). Wind power implementation in changing institutional landscapes: an international comparison. Energy Policy, XXXV, 5: 2.737-2.750,, DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.004
  2. Direttiva 2009/28/CE del Parlamento Europeo e del Consiglio del 23 aprile 2009 sulla promozione dell’uso dell’energia da fonti rinnovabili, recante modifica e successiva abrogazione delle direttive 2001/77/CE e 2003/30/CE.
  3. Devine-Wright P. (2005). Beyond NIMBYism: towards an Integrated Framework for Understanding Public Perceptions of Wind Energy. Wind Energy, VIII, 2: 125-139,, DOI: 10.1002/we.124
  4. Dudek D.J., Wiener J.B. (1996). Joint implementation, Transaction Costs, and Climate Change. Parigi: OCSE.
  5. EU Commission (2007). Energy Technologies: Knowledge, Perception, Measures, Special Eurobarometer n. 262, retrieved from
  6. EU Commission (2011). Public Awareness and Acceptance of CO2 capture and storage, Special Eurobarometer, n. 364, retrieved from
  7. Gipe P. (1995). Wind Energy Comes of Age. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  8. 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, XXXV, 5: 2.727-2.736,, DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.005
  9. Jobert A., Laborgne P., Mimler S. (2007). Local acceptance of wind energy: factors of success identified in French and German case studies. Energy Policy, XXXV, 5: 2.751-2.760,, DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.12.005
  10. Lopolito A., Prosperi M., Maruotti G., De Meo E. (2012). Valutazione dell’accettabilità sociale dei progetti di impianti a biomassa solida tramite l’impiego di Fuzzy Cognitive Maps. Economia & Diritto Agroalimentare, XVII, 2: 271-289.
  11. Mela G., Canali G. (2013). How Distorting Policies can Affect Energy Efficiency and Sustainability: the Case of Biogas Production in the Po Valley (Italy). Proceeding of 17th ICABR Conference, 18-21 giugno, Ravello.
  12. Polanyi M. (1962). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. New York: Harper & Row.
  13. Quah E., Tan K.C. (2002). Siting Environmentally Unwanted Facilities. USA: Edward Elgar.
  14. Rakos C. (1998). Lessons Learned from the introduction of Biomass District Heating in Austria. Lecture held at the meeting OPET Bothnia (Norrland)/Opet Austria on 18th November.
  15. Upreti B.R., van der Horst D. (2004). National renewable energy policy and local opposition in the UK: the failed development of a biomass electricity plant. Biomass & Bioenergy, XXVI: 61-69.
  16. Williamson O.E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York and London: Collier Macmillan.
  17. Wolsink M. (2006). Invalid theory impedes our understanding: a critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, XXXI, 1: 85-91,, DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-5661.2006.00191.x
  18. Wolsink M. (2007). Planning of renewable schemes. Deliberative and fair decisionmaking on landscape instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation. Energy Policy, XXXV, 5: 2.692-2.704,, DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.002
  19. Wüstenhagen R., Wolsink M., Burer M.J. (2007). Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy, XXXV, 5: 2.683-2.691,, DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.001

Emilio De Meo, Antonio Lopolito, Maurizio Prosperi, Giacomo Giannoccaro, Rosa Anna Ciccone, Identification of good practices aimed at favouring acceptance of solid biomass plants by the local community in "RIVISTA DI ECONOMIA AGRARIA" 2/2013, pp. 43-62, DOI:10.3280/REA2013-002003


FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content