B A L A N C I N G
A L P I N E
E N E R G Y
A N D
N A T U R E
2 0 1 5
Renewable Energy and
Ecosystem Services in the Alps
Status quo and trade-off
between renewable energy
expansion and ecosystem
services valorization
1
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
IMPRINT
Publisher: recharge.green project
Editorial responsibility: EURAC research (WP4 coordinator)
Authors: Jessica Balest, Giorgio Curetti, Giulia Garegnani, Gianluca Grilli, Julie Gros, Simon
Pezzutto, Daniele Vettorato, Pietro Zambelli (EURAC research, Bozen); Alessandro Paletto
(CRA-MPF, Trento); Isabella De Meo (CRA-ABP); Clemens Geitner, Richard Hastik (University
of Innsbruk); Sylvain Leduc (IIASA, Vienna); Simone Bertin, Francesca Miotello, Erica Zangrando (Veneto Region, Venice); Davide Pettenella, Alessia Portaccio (University of Padua);
Alenka Petrinjak (Triglav National Park); Rok Pisek, Aleš Poljanec (Slovenia Forest Service);
Nina Kuenzer, Marianne Badura (blue!, Munich); Chris Walzer (University of Vienna)
Copy editing: Valentina D’Alonzo (EURAC research)
Layout: Pluristamp
Photo credits: Julie Gros, Alessandro Gambaro
Project partners: Research Institute of Wildlife Ecology (FIWI) of the University of Veterinary
Medicine Vienna, lead partner; Agricultural Institute of Slovenia; Agroscope – Swiss research
into agriculture, nutrition and the environment; Bavarian electric power company (BEW);
Department for forestry and renewable forest resources, University of Ljubljana; Environment
Agency Austria; Institute for Geography, University of Innsbruck; European Academy of Bozen/
Bolzano (EURAC); International Commission for the Protection of the Alps; International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA); Mountain Institute; Regional Development Vorarlberg; Slovenia Forest Service; Triglav National Park; Veneto Region/Office for Economics and
the Development of Mountain Areas
Observers: Alpine Town of the Year Association, Austrian Institute of Economic Research,
ARPAV/Veneto Regional Agency for Prevention and Environmental Protection, Austrian Biomass Association, Canton St. Gallen/Office for Environment and Energy, Consorzio Bim Piave,
Eawag/Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Institute for Ecological
Energy at the Bavarian Environment Agency, Office of the Lower Austrian Government/Department of Rural Development, Permanent Secretariat of the Alpine Convention, Platform Ecological Network of the Alpine Convention, Province of Bolzano, Regional Governmental Office of
the Land Salzburg/Department of Spatial Planning, Regional Governmental Office of the Land
Vorarlberg, Veneto Region/Office for Energy
With support of: Italian Economic Development Ministry
June 2015
Order information/download: www.recharge-green.eu
2
C O N T E N T
TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S
CHAPTER 01 – p.07
Ecosystem Services in the Alpine Area and in the Pilot Areas
The Ecosystem Services
1.2
Renewable Energy sources and Ecosystem Services
in the Alpine Area
1.2.1
......................................................................
........................................................................................
8
Ecosystem Services in the Alpine Area and in
Analysis of different RE sources and their
impacts on Ecosystem Services
01
8
1.1
...................................................
10
the Pilot Areas
1.2.2 Systematic overview on ESS impacts and
RE constrains
...................................................................................................
12
1.2.3
Hotspot maps
...................................................................................................
14
1.3
Ecosystem Services evaluation in the Pilot Areas
1.3.1
The economic evaluation
1.4
ESS maps
1.5 Conclusion
.....
14
.....................................................................
19
............................................................................................................
21
.............................................................................................................................
25
02
CHAPTER 02 – p.27
Energy Potential from Renewable Sources
Energy Potential from Renewable Sources
2.1
Forest Biomass
...............................................................................................
28
2.2
Hydropower
........................................................................................................
32
2.3
Windpower
.........................................................................................................
34
2.4
Photovoltaic
.......................................................................................................
37
CHAPTER 03 – p.4 5
Trade-off and perceived impacts
3.1
03
Analysis of the questionnaires and recommendations for possible future policy pathway
..........................
50
...........................................................................................................
50
3.1.1
Leiblachtal
3.1.2
Triglav National Park
3.1.3
Gesso and Vermenagna Valleys
3.1.4
Mis and Maè Valleys
3.2
Conclusion
3.3
Layout questionnaire
.................................................................................
51
...................................................
57
.................................................................................
62
..........................................................................................................
................................................................................
Trade-off and perceived impacts
75
76
CHAPTER 04 – p.87
Bibliography
3
R E C H A R G E
4
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
E D I T O R I A L
Editorial
The Alpine Space is a strategic territory both
(ESS). Often, management practices do not
for renewable energy exploitation and for the
consider the environment in the proper man-
importance of its ecosystems. Concerning
ner; this is one of the main reason of the wide
energy production, the Alps have different op-
adoption of non-sustainable actions. This
portunities to develop Renewable sources of
trend is particularly visible in mountainous are-
Energy (RE), due to their vast availability of
as, especially in the Alps. Fragile ecosystems,
resources, from wood for district heating, to
such as mountain ecosystems, face extreme
water for hydropower, to sun and wind to de-
temperatures and a high level of anthropic
velop photovoltaic or wind power. The devel-
pressure that lower the resilience and deplete
opment of RE is important in order to meet the
their capability to regenerate. In particular,
20-20-20 target and the 2030 framework for
the renewable energy (RE) sector can play a
climate and energy policies established by the
negative role in environment degradation, be-
European Union, through which each Europe-
cause many conflicts may rise between nat-
an nation should reduce by 40% greenhouse
ural resources conservation and energy use.
gas emissions, increase by 27% the share of
The utilization of RE cause an impact on the
RE, increase by 27% energy efficiency.
environment, with negative consequences on
On the other hand, developing RE interferes
the quality of the ESS provision.
with the surrounding environment, so policy
In order to conciliate the needs of the local
makers have to be aware of these interactions.
communities of producing RE and the need for
Exploitation of natural resources creates an
conserving nature, the partners of the project
impact on the ecosystems that identified and
recharge.green investigated in this report not
quantified, in order to contribute to sustaina-
only the RE potential and ESS in the Alps but
ble development. The impacts can be positive
possible conflicts that can arise in a complex
or negative for the local Ecosystem Services
territory as the Alpine Region.
G. Grilli and G. Garegnani
5
R E C H A R G E
6
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN THE ALPINE AREA AND IN THE PILOT AREAS
Ecosystem Services in
the Alpine Area and in
the Pilot Areas
01
The ecosystem services concept is very important for understanding the
entirety of benefits nature provides to humans. We need to recognize that
nature and biodiversity protection is also crucial to ensure the wellbeing and
welfare of ourselves. The ecosystem services concept is one way to express
this idea.
Authors: G. Grilli, R. Hastik, A. Paletto, G. Curetti, C. Geitner, G. Garegnani, F. Miotello,
A. Portaccio, D. Pettenella, E. Zangrando, S. Bertin, D. Vettorato, N. Kuenzer,
M. Badura, C. Walzer
7
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
1.1 The Ecosystem Services
Ecosystem services (ESS) are defined by
both the scientific community and political
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment as the
decision makers. Preserving ESS means pre-
“benefits people obtain from ecosystems”
serving life. Often management practices lead
(MEA 2005). Human well-being depends on
to a depletion of ecosystem functioning. This
ESS, because most of them are not repro-
trend is particularly visible in mountain are-
ducible artificially, so their preservation and
as, especially in the Alps. A high level of an-
maintenance is a crucial challenge for the
thropogenic pressure could compromise the
future. (Costanza et al. 1998) divided ecosys-
functionality and the ability to regenerate of
tem services into 17 major categories of ESS
the fragile ecosystems as mountain areas. In
such as gas, climate, disturbance and water
particular, the renewable energy (RE) sector
regulation, water supply, erosion control and
could have negative effects on environment,
sediment retention, soil formation, nutrient cy-
because many conflicts may arise between
cling, waste treatment, pollination, biological
nature conservation and RE development.
control, refugia, food production, raw materi-
The development of different RE (solar, wind,
als, genetic resources, recreation and cultur-
hydropower and wood biomass) could cause
al. Successively, (Rudolf S de Groot, Wilson,
an effect on the environment, with negative
and Boumans 2002) provided more detailed
consequences on the quality of the ESS pro-
information, identifying 23 different ESS, im-
vision. RE development may cause soil con-
portant for natural cycles and human daily life
sumption and a loss of biodiversity. Besides,
maintenance. Specially, these authors intro-
some RE may have a negative effect in terms
duced new ecosystem functions such as nurs-
of the landscape aesthetic beauty. Notwith-
ery function, medicinal resources, ornamental
standing, effects of RE on the environment are
resources, aesthetic information, spiritual and
not always negative. For example, the remov-
historic information, science and education.
al of forest residues have positive impacts on
Over the years, this list was modified and, in
tourist attractiveness and ecosystem health
particular, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
reducing fire risk. In other words, if on one
(MEA, 2005) listed a classification of ESS,
hand it is important to reduce the dependence
based on their functions: provisioning servic-
on fossil fuels using RE sources, on the other
es (e.g. food, timber, fodder, water provision),
hand people have to be aware that RE and na-
regulating services (e.g. water and climate
ture conservation are in a trade-off situation.
regulation), cultural services and supporting
Fossil fuels should be reduced as quickly as
services (e.g. recreational opportunities, cul-
possible, but it should also be noted that RE
tural and spiritual values). Subsequently, (De
has the potential to damage the environment;
Groot et al. 2010) reclassify ESS replacing
therefore, smart utilization is ideal to reduce
supporting services with habitat services (e.g.
environmental degradation. It is not always
nursery habitat, gene pool protection).
possible to enhance the quality of ecosystem
Despite several classifications, the importance
with a sustainable use of renewable sources
of ESS for human life is widely recognized by
of energy.
1.2 Renewable Energy sources and Ecosystem
Services in the Alpine Area
8
The Alps are strategically important for RE
Protocol of the Alpine Convention “the Alpine
in Europe due to their high energy potentials
Region will make a long-term contribution to
and connotation as a “green battery” by en-
(Hoppichler 2013) meeting Europe’s energy
ergy companies. According to the Energy
needs” (EC 2005) but at the same time, it is
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN THE ALPINE AREA AND IN THE PILOT AREAS
essential “limit the negative effects of power
(bio-energy), tourism and recreation (hiking,
plants on the environment and the landscape”
biking, hunting, etc..), freshwater and biodiver-
(EC 2005, p. 38). Alpine ecosystem is particu-
sity (Grêt-Regamey et al. 2008). The number
larly threatened by expanding RE due to their
of existing classification regimes highlights the
high levels of biodiversity, fragile ecosystems,
difficulties regarding the exact definition and
recreational value and the diversity of cultural
categorisation of these ESS (Fu et al. 2011,
identities (Hoppichler 2013). The Alpine eco-
Fisher et a. 2007). Therefore, it is recommend-
system provides several goods and services
ed to develop an individual set of most affected
such as protection against natural hazards
ecosystems reflecting both the particular eco-
(i.e. landslides, avalanches and rockfalls),
systems characteristics (Alpine ecosystems)
carbon dioxide sequestration, fodder, timber,
and the decision context (expanding RE).
renewable raw material for energy production
TA B L E 1 : A L P I N E E C O S Y S T E M S E R V I C E S C O N S I D E R E D I N T H E
RECHARGE.GREEN PROJECT
ECOSYSTEM GOODS
AND SERVICES
DEFINITION ADOPTED
Provisioning services
Provision of forest and
agricultural production
Products obtained directly from ecosystems such as agricultural
products, forest products and aquaculture products. If relevant,
could also include extractable products (e.g. mushrooms,
natural medicines, peat, etc.).
Provision of fresh or
potable water
Provided fresh or potable water including water filter function of
soils.
Regulating and maintenance services
Protection against
natural hazards
Mediation/Buffering of flows (mass, liquid, gaseous) for avoiding
extreme events (such as floods, soil erosions, landslides,
avalanches, storms, rock falls, etc.).
Air quality regulation
Mediation of toxics and other nuisances in the air (e.g. dust) by
the ecosystem (this category could also include micro climate
regulation and/or abatement of noise pollution).
Carbon sequestration in
vegetation and soil
Amount of carbon sequestrated by the ecosystem for regulating
the global atmospheric composition.
Ecological habitat
quality
This can be regarded as the overall habitat quality for wild
plant and animal species and is necessary for the function
of ecosystem services mentioned above. Habitat quality is
(mutually) dependent on nutrient cycling, seed dispersal and
pollination. Also, the long term ecosystem stability (=resilience)
and resistance against pests affecting human health and forest
or agricultural production are an expression of high ecological
habitat quality.
Cultural services
Aesthetical values
Viewing experience of the natural world (through different
media), landscapes as source of inspiration or cultural values
and the “sense of place” in general associated with recognized
environmental features.
Recreational values
Value for recreation (such as walking, hiking, skiing, climbing,
boating, leisure fishing and leisure hunting), possibility for
relaxation and silence in general.
Intrinsic values
Value of ensuring the particular character of an ecosystem for
future generations.
Source: elaborated from MEA (2005), Sukhdev et al. 2010, European Environment Agency 2013.
9
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
Within recharge.green project a list of nine fi-
classification regimes, CICES regards “bio-
nal ecosystem services was developed (Table
diversity” as total sum of life and a basis for
1) using the international literature concerning
all (biotic) Ecosystem Services and not as an
the environmental impacts of renewable en-
Ecosystem Service itself. Thereby, in the pres-
ergies development (IPCC 2011, Kaltschmitt
ent study the ESS are categorized into three
et al. 2007, Boyle 2012) and the European
main groups: provisioning, regulating, mainte-
classification regime of CICES (European En-
nance and cultural services.
vironment Agency, 2013). In contrast to other
1.2.1 Analysis of different RE sources and their impacts on
Ecosystem Services
Based on a literature review concerning the
use of residuals (branches, needles and tops).
environmental impacts of the renewable ener-
These residues make up a varying proportion
gies, forest biomass, hydropower, wind power
of the aboveground woody biomass ranging
and solar photovoltaic were scrutinized. From
approximately from 15% (Norway spruce) to
a thematic point of view, we focus on direct im-
20% (European beech) depending on tree
pacts at the site of energy production but also
species and age (M Kaltschmitt and Hartmann
on indirect impacts on regional scale such as
2001). Currently, also in mountainous areas
required infrastructure constructions. Off-site
difficult to access, the residue use is increas-
impacts caused by the production, disposal or
ingly simplified by full-tree harvester vehicles
recycling of power plant elements and lifecycle
(Hofer and Altwegg 2007). However, residue
analyses are not regarded as main part of re-
use impacts various ESS particularly such
charge.green project. It is planned to publish
as soil productivity, water filtering and habitat
these results in a peer-reviewed scientific jour-
quality.
nal (Richard Hastik et al. 2014).
ESS impacts related to forest biomass need
to be differentiated between an increased use
FOREST BIOMASS
of residues, forest management changes (e.g.
Forest management strategies traditionally fo-
shorter rotation periods, changed tree compo-
cus on balancing various economic, ecological
sitions) and increased pressures on formerly
and social functions (Führer 2000; Stupak et
unmanaged areas. Emphasis must be put on
al. 2007). Impacts caused by an increased use
scrutinizing soil characteristics due to their
of biomass for energy purpose can be regard-
key role for maintaining various provisioning
ed in the context of forest-related activities, but
and regulation services. It is yet unclear, if the
also in context of road infrastructure, transport
increased revenues for fuel wood might also
activities and combustion. The extraction of
favour shifts from monocultures (e.g. Norway
wood biomass from forest is strongly linked to
spruce forests) focussed on the specific de-
various forest management strategies (Röhrig
mands of the wood industry to more diverse
et al., 2006; Häusler and Scherer-Lorenzen,
forests. Some ESS impacts are strongly linked
2001) and its impacts on ESS (i.e. provision of
generating co-benefits, such as habitat and
fresh water and water filtering, habitat, recrea-
carbon sequestration or natural hazards pro-
tion and natural hazards protection) should be
tection and water regulation. Trade-offs could
carefully analyzed (Avocat et al. 2011; Bürgi
be revealed regarding forest production and
2011; Führer 6; Quadt, Maaten-Theunissen,
carbon sequestration, but also partly regard-
and Frank). The increased demand of forest
ing material competitions (wood demand by
biomass needs to be scrutinized from two as-
industry). Other trade-offs and co-benefits are
pects which are strongly intertwined, but they
not linear but depend on management intensi-
differently impact ESS. First, the increased
ty, such as for natural hazards protection.
demand might promote “traditional” timber ex-
10
traction on former unmanaged or extensively
HYDROPOWER
used forests impacting a wide range of ESS.
Assessing impacts caused by hydropow-
The second aspect is related to an increased
er is a complex task, due to the wide range
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN THE ALPINE AREA AND IN THE PILOT AREAS
of different technologies involved ranging
WINDPOWER
from run-of-river, reservoir, pumped-stor-
Guidelines for assessing wind mills encom-
age, cross-watershed diversion, in-stream
pass impacts on birds and bats, alternated
diversion, to combinations or multipurpose
landscape aesthetics, health risks caused by
projects (Egré and Milewski 2002). Assess-
noise, flickering and safety risks (Balaguer
ing downstream impacts without referring to
et al. 2004; Gilgen et al. 2010; Ministère de
specific projects is difficult due to the high
l’Ecologie; de l’Energie; du Développement
influence of operational management, river
Durable et de la Mer 2010). These impacts can
derivations, cross-watershed diversions and/
be differentiated from off-site impacts such as
or in-stream diversions.
construction of road and power line infrastruc-
Impacts caused
by hydropower are mostly regarded in the
ture.
context of river ecosystems, landscape val-
High wind energy potentials are particularly
ues and recreational values (International
correlated to exposed terrain, higher altitudes
Energy Agency 2000; Platform Water Man-
and mountain ridges. However, these high Al-
agement in the Alps 2011). Hydropower res-
pine landscapes are strongly associated as
ervoirs are an additional source of socioec-
untouched nature, cultural identification and
onomic issues such as displacements, but
space for recreational activities. Particularly
also creating benefits such as irrigation or
landscapes not containing any anthropogenic
flood control.
constructions are worth of conservation due
The ecological viability or supporting ESS of
to their scarcity. Many parts of the Alpine area
a river ecosystem can be scrutinized by dif-
are characterised by their historical cultural
ferent aspects including hydrological charac-
landscapes, a factor which is additionally re-
ter, river connectivity, solid material budget
garded critically considering wind park devel-
and morphology, landscape and biotopes
opments (Peters and Uwe 2006). Evaluating
and biocoenosis (Bratrich and Truffer 2001;
visual impacts caused by wind power stations
Bratrich et al. 2004; Truffer 2010). Any dete-
is thus regarded as a key task for Alpine Re-
riorations regarding these ecological charac-
gions (CIPRA 2002).
teristics have to be considered carefully in
The impacts of windmills on wildlife are de-
respect to the EU Water Framework Directive
scribed in the context of rotor collisions, dis-
(European Commission 2000). Thereby, loss
placements due to disturbance, migration bar-
of biological diversity, barriers for fish migra-
riers and habitat alternations. A huge number
tion, impacts on downstream river ecosys-
of studies and reviews originating particularly
tems (e.g. alternation of hydrological cycles,
from the United States and Canada address
loss of areas exposed to regular inundation),
these impacts on birds (e.g. Drewitt and Lang-
reservoir impoundments, alternated sedi-
ston 2008) and bats (e.g. Arnett et al. 2008)
mentation and water quality modifications
with the general conclusion that the impacts
play a major role (International Energy Agen-
strongly depending on site-specific factors
cy 2000). Further impacts might result out
(position of power station towards topography,
of related infrastructure requirements (e.g.
winds and movement routes), species-specif-
roads, power lines).
ic factors and seasonal factors (yearly migra-
Energy potentials related to drinking water
tion movements). However, these site-specific
power plants are particularly high in the Alps
factors are difficult to evaluate systematically
(Blanc and Cherix 2014; Möderl et al.) with
besides basic assumptions such as the im-
little additional environmental impacts and
portance of Alpine passes for migratory birds
therefore not addressed further in the pre-
(Gilgen et al. 2010) or the proximity to wooded
sented work. As most hydropower potentials
landscape features having an influence on bat
in the Alps are already exploited, the eco-
mortality (Dürr and Bach 2004).
logical compatibility of remaining potentials
Consequently, wind power projects should
should be considered in detail. Thereby, a
particularly scrutinize impacts on endangered
focus could be put on watersheds already
bird and bat species, but also impacts in case
strongly alternated while prioritising nature
of valuable biotopes. Migration models or em-
conservation in remaining pristine rivers. Fur-
piric data might serve as basic information to
ther emphasis must be put on evaluating the
discuss energy potential constraints. The com-
added value of small hydropower potentials.
patibility of windmills and Alpine landscapes is
11
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
controversially discussed especially regarding
Schneider 2012) (Chiabrando 2008; Herden
the social acceptance of windmill projects.
et al. 2009). No avoidances by wildlife or bird
collisions were revealed yet but fences re-
P H O T O V O LTA I C
quired around facilities are a barrier for var-
Photovoltaic facilities mounted on buildings
ious species (Herden et al. 2009). Concerns
and ground-mounted photovoltaic have to be
regarding the loss of productive land can be
differentiated regarding their ESS impacts.
raised. However, this argument contradicts
Only minor impacts on the regional environ-
European targets on reducing agricultural pro-
ment are reported for building-mounted pho-
duction (Wirth & Schneider, 2012). Besides,
tovoltaic (and building mounted solar thermal)
modern fundaments reduce soil sealing to less
panels except for aesthetic issues. In contrast,
than 5% of an area (Herden et al. 2009) and
impacts caused by ground-mounted photovol-
remaining areas can be used for grazing. Soil
taic (=GM-PV, often realised as “solar parks”)
impacts (e.g. compaction) might occur during
are manifold including visual landscape alter-
installation phase.
ations, microclimatic changes, reflections and
The expansion of building-mounted photovol-
competing land uses (Chiabrando R. 2008;
taic (and solar thermal) panels is little limited
Herden et al. 2009; Torasso 2011; Tsoutsos
by specific ESS impacts. In contrast, GM-PV
et al. 2009). Although most GM-PV can be
strongly depends on assumptions made re-
found in low lands bigger facilities were also
garding their impacts on the provision of ag-
constructed in the Alps such as in Les Mées
ricultural products, alteration of habitats and
(FR) in the valley Großes Walsertal (AT) or
recreational and aesthetic landscape values in
Bolzano/Bozen (IT).
Alpine areas. However, these issues are yet
Concerns of GM-PV on ecologic impacts are
less pronounced as technical and economic
generally low focussing on habitat alternations
issues strongly limit GM-PV (e.g. costs, issue
and plant community changes due to shading
of energy storage).
effects and microclimatic changes (Wirth and
1.2.2 Systematic overview on ESS impacts and RE constrains
Based on the presented findings it is possi-
thematic point of view, several main conflict-
ble to synthesise the potential environmental
ing priorities regarding RE and ESS of were
impacts caused by various RE upon thematic
revealed (Figure 1).
fields or spatial dimensions involved. From a
12
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN THE ALPINE AREA AND IN THE PILOT AREAS
Figure 1:
Main dimensions of
affected ESS (dark
grey = main issues;
light grey= further
issues; white = side
aspects)
*) Impacts related to land use and management shifts, lifetime carbon emission savings not included
**) Impacts on ecosystem properties (air composition) assumed as main issue
Source: Richard Hastik et al. (2015), Renewable energies and ecosystem service impacts.
It is nowadays acknowledged that conserva-
Global climate change mitigating goals need
tion strategies do not necessarily imply trade-
to be particularly balanced with local nature
offs between ESS and economic interests (De
protection requirements, which are particu-
Groot et al. 2010). Therefore, both negative
larly important in biodiversity-hot spots such
impacts and positive co-benefits need to be
as the Alps. Furthermore, industrialised land-
balanced and scrutinized regarding endoge-
scapes serving for energy production need to
nous development strategies which are par-
be balanced with the need for “pristine” moun-
ticularly important to Alpine Regions (Dax
tain environments. However, tourism and en-
2001). However, most of these impacts de-
ergy generation can also create co-benefits
pends on particular management regimes and
depending on the individual project and tour-
side-measurements. Thus, it is not possible to
ism strategies. Also natural hazards protec-
valuate these impacts a priori as positive or
tion, crucial for areas characterised by their
negative. Nevertheless, it is possible to high-
extreme topography, can be impacted both
light main conflict dimensions, which require
positively and negatively by expanding RE.
trade-off decisions as highlighted in Figure 1.
RE used in the context of settlement areas
13
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
(roof-mounted photovoltaic, near surface geothermal energy) are generally of less concern
from an environmental point of view.
1.2.3 Hotspot maps
WEB
The assessment of the ESS provisions is not
In the Alpine area, protected areas of the
an easy task, many authors pointed out that
Alps were provided by E-connect project. The
such analyses should be carried out at a very
maps considered are with high biodiversity
small scale. For these reasons, it was not pos-
value, namely:
sible to make a detailed description of the pro-
• National Parks,
vision of ESS for the entire Alpine bow, which
• Regional Nature Reserve,
is too wide for accurate computations, so the
• Biosphere Reserve,
partners focused their attention on a qual-
• Areas subject to special protection,
itative approach. The purpose of the current
• Natura 2000 sites.
project was to identify some useful variables
Together with the hot spot maps of biodiversi-
Jecami
to take into consideration, while investigating
ty, other important areas were considered as
(Joint Ecological
ESS in the Alpine area. The data collected al-
being highly valuable, such as the UNESCO
Continuum Analysing
lows the inclusion of environmental considera-
network of cultural heritage sites. These hot
and Mapping Initiative),
tion when it comes to estimate the quantity of
spot maps can be considered as constrains to
www.jecami.eu
the natural resources exploitation for energy
renewable energy production, where the with-
purposes. Following the Norman Myers’ con-
drawal of the energy potential should be lower
cept of hotspot (Myers 1988), which includes
than other areas in order to preserve biodiver-
areas of high species richness and endemism,
sity and the related provision of ESS. From
we mapped the most valuable site within the
maps in Jecami can be observed that area
Alpine bow.
with high biodiversity value are often area with
high energy potential.
1.3 Ecosystem Services evaluation in the Pilot Areas
14
It is a matter of fact that ESS are extremely val-
age. This negative externality occurs because
uable for human beings, since their functions
natural resources are public goods, which are
guarantee the prosecution of life on Earth. On
non-rival and non-excludable, and so their
the other hand, it is a matter of fact that eco-
value is not as clear as private and marketa-
system are facing continuous and increasing
ble goods. Due to these characteristics, each
depletion of their quality and their capabili-
form of natural resources consumption pro-
ty to fulfil to their functions. Non sustainable
duces an unbalanced situation between ben-
practices are always lead by market logics,
eficiaries (the private person or company) and
because people need to use natural resources
the damaged ones (the whole society).
to producing goods. The consumption of natu-
In order to better understand the costs and
ral resources allows a “marketable” benefit, in
benefits of natural resources exploitation, an
the sense that the economic advantage for the
economic approach to ESS valuation appears
exploiter is clearly visible and reflected in the
to be effective, because it allows a profitability
market price and his related income. Moreo-
analysis where costs and benefits are valued
ver, air pollution and damages of ecosystems
with the same unit of measure. In the ener-
produce an economic loss for the entire so-
gy production context, considering the social
ciety that is not compensated, as long as the
costs of exploiting natural resources could
exploiter is not compelled to pay for his dam-
highlight the existing trade-offs between RE
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN THE ALPINE AREA AND IN THE PILOT AREAS
and ESS. With such information, decision
cuses on four areas: Leiblachtal (AT), Triglav
makers may formulate effective strategies
National Park (SL), Mis and Maè Valleys (IT),
about optimal RE location, capable to pre-
Gesso and Vermenagna river basin (IT). The
serve the environment and efficiently produce
first step was the economic evaluation of the
RE at the same time.
ESS by exploiting several methods. Secondly,
A working group for the Pilot Areas identified
the ESS are mapped in a geographically ex-
conflicting priorities, in order to create ESS
plicitly way and possible conflicts between RE
maps for the Pilot Areas. Firstly, a description
expansion and ESS preservation highlighted.
of each Region is provided. The analysis fo-
15
R E CI HNAFR OG E
R E E N
B OG X
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PILOT AREAS
Leiblachtal
The Pilot Area Leiblachtal lies in the most
cover 1,880 ha, pure conifer forests cover 429
northwestern part of Vorarlberg (Austria) on
ha, while pure broadleaves forests cover the
the border to Germany. With a number of
remaining 188 ha which can be found in the
five municipalities (Lochau, Hörbranz, Ho-
lower valley area. The Leiblachtal is socioeco-
henweiler, Möggers and Eichenberg), ap-
nomically characterized by moderate tourism,
proximately 15.000 inhabitants and a size of
work migration to the nearby urbanized area
50 km2, the Leiblachtal is the smallest Pilot
of Rheintal and forestry and agricultural activ-
Area scrutinized in this study. The main land
ities in smaller villages. As in many parts for
uses are as follows: 48.9% forests (2,497 ha),
the Alps, hydropower and biomass are also in
39.5% grasslands (2,017), 4.1% agricultur-
Vorarlberg the most important renewable en-
al crops (208 ha) and 7.5% urban area (381
ergies. However, in the Region of Leiblachtal
ha). About forests, the main forest types are
only limited hydropower potential is availa-
Norway spruce, silver fir and European beech
ble. Therefore, alternative renewable energy
mixed forests (75.3%), followed by pure Nor-
sources such as wind power and forest bio-
way spruce forests (13.6%) and the mixed
mass are under intensive discussion to meet
broadleaves coppices (4.5%). Considering
regional energy demands (Seidel et al 2013).
the tree species composition, mixed forests
Triglav National Park
The Pilot Area in Slovenia is the Triglav Na-
peratures range between 0.7 °C and -8.8 °C.
tional Park located in the North-East of coun-
The annual average of precipitation is about
try close to the Austrian and Italian borders.
1,500 mm.
Triglav National Park (TNP) is the only na-
In reference to the year 2010, TNP incorpo-
tional park in Slovenia and the current bound-
rates 25 settlements with a population of
aries are established by a National Law of the
2,444 people (1,018 households) for a popu-
1981. The TNP covers 3% of the territory of
lation density of 0.029 inhabitant/ha (average
Slovenia (83,807 ha: 55.332 ha of central
national density = 98.7 inhabitant/km 2). Be-
area and 28.475 ha of peripheral area) and
sides, TNP is important touristic area with a
the main land uses are forests (62%) and
number of tourist presences more than 580
managed grasslands (10%). The main for-
thousand tourists per year and an average
est types are the European beech forests
tourists’ permanence of 2.5 nights. The park
with about 30,000 ha, the dwarf mountain
provides a variety of ecosystem services. On
pine forests with more than 11,000 ha, and
the one hand nature conservation, environ-
the Norway spruce and silver fir forests with
ment and cultural heritage protection as well
4,185 ha.
as recreation and tourism are the most impor-
The climate of the area is continental, the
tant ecosystem services in TNP; on the other
average temperature in the warmest month
hand agriculture and forestry are important for
range from 20 °C in the valley and 5.6 °C in the
the people living in the park.
mountains, and in the coldest month the tem-
16
Gesso and Vermenagna River Basin
The Pilot Area Gesso and Vermenagna Riv-
sity of 0,194 inhabitant/ha. About 32.000 ha
er Basin is located in the South-West of Italy,
are situated in protected areas (parks or Na-
in Piedmont Region, close to the Italian and
ture 2000 sites). Maritime Alps Natural Park
French border. The area is considered in the
and Nature 2000 site Maritime Alps are the
recharge.green project because it is partially
most important protected areas of the Pilot
in the regional park “Parco Naturale Alpi Mar-
Area. The main land uses are forests (42%)
ittime” (PNAM)
and pastures (33%). The main forest types are
The Gesso-Vermenagna valley includes seven
the European beech forests (11.500 ha) and
municipalities (Valdieri, Entracque, Roaschia,
the chestnut forests (2.700 ha). The principal
Roccavione, Robilante, Vernante and Limone
renewable energy actually used is hydropow-
Piemonte). The land surface is approximately
er. The local economy is based mainly on tour-
51.500 ha. In reference to the year 2010 the
ism (about 121,000 tourists per year) and sec-
population was 10.022 inhabitants with a den-
ondarily on agriculture and forestry.
Veneto Region, Mis and Maè Valleys
The Pilot Areas in Veneto Region are located
Maè Valley is an area of 23,300 hectares
in the Belluno Province, and they correspond
around the Maè stream (33 km long). The mu-
to Mis and Maè Valleys. Mis Valley is in the
nicipalities of Longarone, Forno di Zoldo, Zol-
central part of Dolomiti National Park; it covers
do Alto and Zoppè di Cadore, account for 7,974
an area of 11,800 hectares and it is crossed by
inhabitants in total (year 2009), and there are
the 22 km long Mis stream. It includes Sospiro-
several collective ownerships as territory man-
lo and Gosaldo Municipalities (3,237 and 762
agement boards. Forest area covers 18,928 ha
inhabitants respectively, in 2009), which are
and the main forest types are: European beech
characterised by small villages in the north-
forests (3,963 ha), dwarf mountain pine forests
ern and southern parts. Forest area covers
(2,532 ha), mixed forests of Norway spruce
about 8,347 ha and the main forest categories
and European beech (2,167 ha). Maè valley is
are hornbeam and manna ash forests (2,420
largely affected by the presence of protected
ha), European beech forests (2,133 ha), dwarf
areas such as Natura 2000 Network and Dol-
mountain pine forests (1,442 ha) and Norway
omiti UNESCO sites. The area is important for
spruce forests (533 ha). The central part of
winter and summer tourism. By the time, the
valley has been abandoned partly for the cre-
area was also characterised by traditional use
ation of the artificial Mis Lake in 1962, partly
of wood for rural building structures, a habit
for the great flood event in in 1966, and now
now strongly declined. Nowadays, there are
it is not fed by electricity. The very few infra-
high consumption’s rates of woody biomass for
structures of the site use fuel generator to get
heating related to the households’ traditional
energy. Mis Valley has recently been affected
activities. Maè Valley shows a traditional use
by a judgment on a hydroelectric power plant
in hydropower and a recent increase in small
within the Park’s boundaries. In fact, both the
hydropower derivation requests. The forest bi-
National Law for natural protected areas (L.
omass is used only in few known power plants,
394/1991) and the Plan of the Park do not al-
but it can represent a possible alternative
low nor to change the hydrological system of
source of energy. Its utilization can also guar-
streams, nor to build any new construction in-
antee the conservation of grasslands (pastures
side the park area. The artificial lake (110 hec-
and meadows), that in last decades have been
tares wide) is used for hydropower production
covered by spontaneous afforestation, causing
and as a useful reservoir for irrigation of plane
problems of loss in landscape variety, occur-
areas during the summer season.
rence of fires, presence of ticks and so on.
17
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
Figure 2:
The Pilot Areas of the
project.
18
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN THE ALPINE AREA AND IN THE PILOT AREAS
1.3.1 The economic evaluation
In order to estimate the ESS’ benefits, several
Table 2 summarizes the approach used.
economic valuation methods were exploited.
TA B L E 2 : A L P I N E E C O S Y S T E M S E R V I C E S D E F I N E D F O R T H E
RECHARGE.GREEN PROJECT
ECOSYSTEM GOOD AND SERVICE
DEFINITION ADOPTED
Provisioning services
Timber
Market price
Hay production
Market price
Wood for energy
Market price
Livestock
Market price
NWFP (hunting
products, berries
and mushrooms)
Market price
Water provision
Market price
Regulating services
Protection against
natural risks
(direct and indirect
protection)
Replacement cost
method
Protection against
natural risks
(indirect protection)
Replacement cost
method
Carbon storage
(living and nonliving forest
biomass)
Voluntary market
price
Carbon storage in
living biomass
Voluntary market
price
Benefit transfer
method
Outdoor recreation
(hiking, walking,
pic-nicking, etc..)
Benefit transfer
method
Cultural services
Outdoor recreation
(hiking, walking,
pic-nicking, etc..)
Three categories of ecosystem services were
the different portions of the territory. In the re-
evaluated from the economic point of view
charge.green project, the spatial distribution
(provisioning, regulating and cultural servic-
of ESS’ benefits will be used to forecast the
es), while supporting services were not in-
future positive and negative impacts of renew-
cluded in order to avoid double counting of
able energies (i.e. solar, wind and forest bio-
value (Hein et al. 2006). The main benefits
mass) development on the ecosystem servic-
provided by forest and grassland ES were
es in the study areas.
evaluated using different economic valuation
methods (such as market price, replacement
PROVISIONING SERVICES
cost method and benefit transfer method) and
The estimated provisioning goods and servic-
the estimated benefits were made spatially ex-
es supplied by forests were:
plicit. The economic valuations of all benefits
1. Timber for construction,
derived from ES have been made in reference
2. Wood for energy (fuelwood and wood chips),
to the 2012 year. The spatial distribution of the
3. Non-wood forest products (NWFP),
market and non-marketed benefits supplied
4. Water provision.
by ecosystems provides useful information
The timber and fuelwood production were es-
to support the decision makers (i.e. planners
timated considering the local market price and
and managers) in the definition and implemen-
the annual harvested volume subdivided by
tation of the landscape planning strategies in
forest types.
19
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
The NWFP were estimated considering the
of water flow, while direct protection involves
main products supplied by the Alpine forests:
safeguarding human life and activities from
hunting products (meat, trophy and skin), ber-
natural risks (Motta and Haudemand 2000;
ries (bilberries and raspberries), mushrooms
Notaro and Paletto 2012). From the economic
and truffles. The value of hunting products
point of view, the total costs of carrying out
was calculated from the data of annual ani-
and maintaining the different artificial substi-
mals hunted (ungulates, other mammals and
tutes - distinguishing for land use (forest and
birds). Three components of animal were con-
grassland) and type of protection (direct and
sidered, especially meat for all comestible ani-
indirect protection) - were taken into account
mals, skin for all ungulates, and trophy only for
to calculate an annual cost per unit area (hec-
the male of ungulates (e.g. red deer, roe deer
tare). In each Pilot Area different artificial sub-
and chamois). The quantity of berries and
stitutes were chosen based on the site char-
mushrooms collected were accounted taking
acteristics and level of protection (e.g. seeding
into account the local household.
for the grasslands, hydro-seeding for the indi-
Instead, the water provision was evaluated
rect protection forests, simple palisade for the
considering the average annual consume of
direct protection forests).
water pro capita taking into account all water
For the annual cost calculation, a conservative
uses (agricultural, domestic, energetic and in-
interest rate was chosen and fixed at 2%, ac-
dustrial uses) and the average price of water
cording to Freeman’s (2003) ranges.
(OECD 2009).
The procedure used to estimate the quantity
The estimated provisioning services supplied
of carbon stored in forests follows the For-Est
by grasslands were hay production and live-
approach (Federici et al. 2008), based on the
stock in managed grasslands. The economic
IPCC “Good Practice Guidance for Land use,
value of hay production was evaluated con-
land-use Change and Forestry” (IPCC 2003).
sidering the annual hay production and local
The annual forest’s capacity to transform at-
prices of hay. Instead, the value of annual live-
mospheric carbon into biomass was estimat-
stock grazing in the pasture areas was esti-
ed considering three carbon pools: above-
mated taking into account the Livestock Units
ground biomass, below-ground biomass and
(LUs) per hectare and an average price for
deadwood. The other two carbon pools (litter
each unit.
and organic soil) were not considered, as the
changes in the annual increment of carbon
R E G U L AT I N G S E R V I C E S
stock are negligible. The formula used to es-
The regulating services estimated for both nat-
timate the value of carbon sequestration in
ural ecosystems were the protection against
living forest biomass (above-ground and be-
hydrogeological risks and the carbon storage
low-ground biomass) is the following:
in forest living and non-living biomass.
The protection against hydrogeological risks -
20
such as soil erosion, landslides, rockfalls and
where V_c is the value of carbon sequestra-
avalanches (Notaro and Paletto 2012; Dorren
tion in above-ground and below-ground bi-
et al. 2004) - was evaluated through the re-
omass (€), I is the annual volume increment
placement cost approach (Freeman 2003).
(m3/year), BEF is the biomass expansion fac-
This approach assesses the cost incurred by
tor (usually forest volume is referred to stem
replacing ecosystem services with artificial
volume, and the expansion factor accounts for
substitutes (Dixon et al. 2013). Generally, the
components such as branches, and leaves),
artificial substitutes are choice considering
WBD is the wood basal density (kg/m3), R is
type and degree of protection (Notaro and Pal-
the ratio of roots to shoot, C_c is the coeffi-
etto, 2012). In this study, the costs for replac-
cient of carbon content equal to 0.5 and p_c is
ing hydrogeological protection with artificial
the carbon price of the voluntary carbon mar-
substitutes were considered distinguishing
ket (€/tC).
between direct and indirect protection. Ac-
The capacity of grasslands to act as net car-
cording to the third Ministerial Conference for
bon sinks may result from the continuous turn-
the Protection of Forests in Europe (Lisbon,
over of biomass and stable storage of this or-
1998), indirect protection can be defined as
ganic matter in soil (Schulze et al. 2000). The
the prevention of soil erosion and regulation
amount of carbon stored in grasslands de-
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN THE ALPINE AREA AND IN THE PILOT AREAS
pends on climatic condition, site features and
etary units (value transfers) or as a function
management strategies. The value of carbon
(function transfers) that defines the attributes
storage for both natural ecosystems was es-
of an ecological and economic choice setting
timated using mean voluntary carbon market
(Rosenberger and Loomis 2001). The aver-
price related to 2012, which is 4.59 €/tC (Pe-
age value transfer method uses a measure
ters-Stanley, M. and Yin, D. 2013).
of central tendency of all subsets of relevant
studies as the transfer measure for the policy
C U LT U R A L S E R V I C E S
site issue. In this study, we used the method
Cultural services were estimated considering
of average value transfer choosing study sites
the outdoor recreation (e.g. hiking, walking,
as much similar as possible to the policy site
picnicking, jogging and landscape viewing),
(i.e. mountain forests in Europe). The aver-
through the Benefit Transfer (BT) (Wilson
age value of mountain forest studies was col-
and Hoehn 2006). BT method consists in ex-
lected through a meta-analysis, the detailed
amining the results of surveys undertaken in
methodology is available in Grilli et al. (2014).
specific contexts (study site) and transferring
Outdoor recreational values were estimat-
them to similar unstudied situations of inter-
ed and transferred according to forest types
est for policy making defined policy site. The
(mixed forests, pure conifer forests and pure
economic value estimated in the study site can
broadleaves forests) and altitude (above and
be transferred to the policy site either as mon-
below 1,000 m a.s.l.).
1.4 ESS maps
The benefits provided by ESS were expressed
the values of the ecosystem services supply.
in a 3-point, 5-point or 7-point rating scale and
The spatial distribution of the provisioning
mapped taking into account the ecological
services accounted the values of timber and
characteristics of each ecosystem service us-
wood energy production, and water provi-
ing a Geographical Information System soft-
sion for all the forest areas. Regarding to the
grass.osgeo.org
ware (GRASS GIS and Quantum-GIS). A set
NWFP (non-wood forest products) we consid-
www.qgis.org
of thematic layers representing a key variable
ered all forest area for the hunting products,
was used. The layers were overlapped in order
mushrooms and truffles, while the bilberries
to analyze the spatial distribution of ecosys-
and raspberries values were attributed only to
tem services’ values.
the forest types with Vaccinium myrtillus (L.)
The used key variables were:
and Rubus idaeus (L.) in the shrub layer.
1. land uses;
The regulating services value of forests was
2. forest types (forest tree species composi-
mapped assigning a value per forest type. The
tion);
3. altitude (distinguishing between areas
WEB:
value of indirect protection against natural
risks was assigned taking into account type
above and below 1000 m a.s.l.);
and level of protection. Regarding the grass-
4. forest tracks and paths network;
lands, the value of protection against natural
5. river and stream network.
risks was assigned to the whole area. While
The land use was employed to distinguish the
the value of carbon storage in living biomass
areas to be evaluated (forests and grasslands)
was assigned distinguishing between pasture,
by others (urban areas and agricultural crops).
managed meadow and unmanaged meadows.
Also according with the categorization of eco-
Regarding the cultural services, the value of
system services shown in Table 1 (provision-
outdoor recreation is assigned taking in to ac-
ing, regulating and cultural services), themat-
count both differences among the forest types
ic layers were combined by using an overlay
and the altitude of forest area. The results
procedure. The resulting map is character-
were mapped for each Pilot Area (see www.
ized by a number of polygons which express
jecami.eu).
21
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
ECOSYSTEM
SERVICE
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
L E I B L A C H TA L
are concentrated in specific areas of the val-
The spatial analysis of the ecosystem service
ley. Forests is a good source of biomass for
shows higher values for the provisioning ser-
energy purposes, in particular firewood and
See the paper
vices. Especially, the productive forests and
woodchips, while the timber production is less
“Mapping the value of
the managed meadows close to the urban ar-
important, due to the high share of coppices
ecosystem services:
eas have the highest values, while the lowest
and the small number of local sawmills. The
A case study from
values are found in the high mountain areas.
highest valuable areas are the chestnut tree
the Austrian Alps”
Besides, meadows have a higher value than
forests, thanks to the intense withdrawals of
www.afrjournal.org/
pasture and mixed protection forests have the
their edible fruits. Grasslands are also very
index.php/afr/article/
highest value among forests.
important for the provision of natural goods,
especially for pasture products. Two munici-
view/335
T R I G L AV N AT I O N A L P A R K
palities, i.e. Limone Piemonte and Vernante,
Triglav National Park have a different situation
seem to be particularly suitable for cow graz-
of the weight of the groups of ESS within its
ing thanks to their accessibility and their mor-
territory. This difference is mainly given by the
phology.
fact that the land is completely protected, so
Concerning regulating services, a common
the contribution of provisioning services to the
feature to all the Pilot Areas is the great con-
TEV (Total Economic Value) is considerably
tribution of the forests protection against nat-
lower, because of the legal limitation to the ex-
ural hazards. Even in this case, this particular
ploitation of natural resources. In addition, the
service is the most valuable among the set
local prices used for the calculations are lower
of considered services. Forests contribute
in Slovenia than in Austria. On the other hand,
considerably also for what concerns carbon
cultural services are slightly higher, due to the
sequestration, which is also an important
fact that the TNP is a more touristic area than
function for the managed meadows in the low
Leiblachtal.
lands. Meadows and pastures is focused only
Provisioning services in forests vary consider-
on tackling superficial soil erosion phenome-
ably from very low values to very high values.
na.
This range is due to the differences among tree
Finally, data about the number of tourists, due
species and quality of wood in different parts
to the presence of infrastructures and sky re-
of the Triglav National Park. Regulating ser-
sorts close to Limone Piemonte, affect the val-
vices and cultural services, on the other hand,
ue of recreational service.
seem to show less differences in the quantification. Concerning the regulating services, we
M I S A N D M A È VA L L E Y S
observed three classes of values. In this cir-
The University of Padua carried out the spatial
cumstance, the higher differences in the value
analysis of ESS in the valleys of Veneto Re-
are given by the forest dedicated to protection
gion, in the north east of Italy. Thanks to the
against natural hazards. Of course, protective
three maps described in the box “ESS evalu-
forests show considerable greater values than
ation in Mis and Mae valleys”, we can have a
non-protective forests. Finally, cultural ser-
general idea of which seems to be the function
vices have a distribution of the value based
having a major weight in the analysed areas,
on the tree species composition, which is the
therefore obtaining an estimation of the val-
variable used to map the recreational activi-
ue of the ecosystem services supplied by the
ties. As well as the findings in the regulating
environment. If we overlay the results for the
services, three classes of values are found
Mis Valley, we can appreciate a prevalence of
for the cultural services. Grassland ESS have
the landscape-touristic value, which almost
just one class for each typology of service, be-
homogeneously covers a large area within the
cause it was impossible to find differences in
boundaries. While the ecologic and protective
the land management, so the whole portion of
services are less but comparably distributed.
grassland was treated as meadow.
This could be due to the important presence
of the Dolomites National Park, which covers
22
G E S S O A N D V E R M E N A G N A VA L L E Y S
a huge part of the watershed. The Maè Val-
The results of the economic analysis highlight
ley seems to be more fragmented: the func-
medium-high values, on average, for provi-
tions are heterogeneously distributed even
sioning services, although the highest values
if there is a slight predominance of the land-
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN THE ALPINE AREA AND IN THE PILOT AREAS
I N F O B O X
E S S E VA L U AT I O N I N T H E M I S
A N D M A È VA L L E Y S
The Land, Agro & Forestry System Department of the University of Padova together
with Veneto Region analysed the ESS in relation to power generation based on the
use of hydroelectric resources and woody biomass, within the Pilot Areas of the Belluno Province.
In general, the approach of the University of
• Protection from hazards,
Padova follows the steps:
• Habitat conservation,
1. Literature review,
• Landscape services,
2. ESS identification, analysis and mapping,
• Recreation services,
3. Identification and implementation of the
• Intrinsic value.
suitable economic evaluation method.
23
Each category has been analyzed, in order to
A deepened bibliographic research has been
find out the relevant ESS for the Mis and Maè
carried out. The ESS represent currently a hot
areas. For example, in the first category of the
topic, therefore, the various sources of infor-
“Provisioning” ecosystem services we could
mation retrieved, were selected in accordance
point out that, relating to forest biomass, we
with the principle of reliability. Mainly through
have to consider timberwood, fuelwood pro-
the online research, we gathered scientific
duction as well as non-wood forest products.
articles, ad hoc studies and different types of
According to the different levels from which we
publications related to the broad theme of the
can address the ESS’ analysis, both monothe-
ESS. Guidelines and handbooks for the iden-
matic and multi-thematic maps are produced.
tification and analysis of the ESS were exam-
The first ones describe one of the components
ined and online tools relating to the Evaluation
of the analyzed ES (i.e. the potential chromatic
and Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES)
value of the different forest types contributes
have been consulted. Where a merchantable
to the global landscape value of the valley).
value could be attributed, the databases of the
For example, considering mushrooms pro-
official related organizations where consulted
visioning, the methodology proposed by the
(i.e.: timber prices for the different essences
Italian Institute for Environment Protection (IS-
→ National Institute of Statistics ISTAT online
PRA) was adopted, i.e. some specific Corine
database; forest dry biomass carbon content
categories were considered, a certain value of
→ Forests and Carbon National Inventory
land slope and distance from roads, combined
INFC). Unfortunately, the ESS to which an ef-
together to obtain the accessibility for mush-
fective economic value can be given are few,
rooms.
therefore a lot of similar case studies where
Another example can be represented by fish-
investigated in order to get a proxy value at-
ing as a recreational ecosystem service. The
tributable to our situation.
basis is the fish map provided by the Province
Starting from the list of the ESS edited by the
of Belluno, where the streams are classified
recharge.green project partners, and thanks
considering their usability in fishing activities.
to the survey conducted with the local experts,
A numeric value was given to each of these
10 categories of ESS emerged for having a
classes and then translated into a qualitative
major importance for the Pilot Areas of the
index of “sporty value”, from “null” to “very
Veneto Region:
high”.
• Provisioning services,
Multi-thematic maps aim to the description
• Water related services,
and mapping of the whole service’s catego-
• Carbon sequestration,
ry and they have been produced through the
• Air quality,
model elaborated in the C3Alps project (Al-
• Water quality,
pine Space Programme 2007-2013) by the
23
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
Land, Agro & Forestry System Department
distance from streets and paths, distances
itself. The maps represent Landscape-Touris-
from rivers and lakes, presence of National
tic, Ecologic and Protection ESS: landscape
Parks and Natura 2000 areas, distance and
and touristic services are displayed together
visibility from mountain lodges, presence of
in one map, since common indicators were
UNESCO sites, etc. Maps are related both to
employed for both the categories and there
biomass and hydropower sources, therefore,
was the necessity of avoiding the repetition of
indicators concerning forests, soil and water
items in the Decision Support System (DSS).
are considered. The model has been used for
In order to obtain the maps, several indicators
forest typologies as unit of reference, cover-
were combined together. For instance, some
ing entirely forest area and also for grasslands
of the indicators for the landscape value are:
and meadows.
24
24
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN THE ALPINE AREA AND IN THE PILOT AREAS
scape-touristic value, the ecologic and protec-
example, the map localizing the areas ded-
tion services are widely present and equally
icated to the game fishing activities – which
distributed, as in the Mis Valley.
is part of the landscape-recreational value of
Some of the previously described maps will
the valley – will be separately submitted to the
be employed during the discussions with the
stakeholders, in order to calibrate the values
local stakeholders, with the aim of weighting
given to the different fishing sites.
the values and the location given in the maps
thanks to the stakeholders’ point of view. For
1.5 Conclusion
The Renewable Energy expansion is symbol-
value of the ecosystems. Typically, the protec-
ic of a positive paradigm shift, since it allows
tion against natural hazards provided by for-
a considerable reduction in GHG emissions
ests is the most influential and valuable ESS,
and contribute to a cleaner environment. Poli-
since without it damages to humans, roads
cy makers have to be aware that REs produce
and infrastructure may be very substantial.
also several impacts on the environment. The
The results of the project are in line with the
project partners analyzed the current situation
literature, highlighting very high value for the
and the expected trade-offs between RE and
protective function. This information is very
ESS, identifying the main sources of conflicts
important and should be considered during
for each RE. The recharge.green project aims
policy making, meaning that, protective for-
at considering all the possible conflicts that may
est should be left as much natural as possi-
occur while planning development trajectories
ble, in order to avoid the risk of avalanches,
for a territory, testing a methodology to analyze
landslides or other natural hazards. Except for
the problem with an approach that is most com-
protection, the other ESS have different im-
prehensive. The project foresees two-scale lev-
portance, based on the specific local context.
els. The broader project territory coincide with
In particular, great differences are highlighted
the Alpine bow, while a smaller one correspond
between protected and non-protected areas.
with the width of the five Pilot Areas. Different
Protected areas have several restriction to
approaches to the ESS assessment were un-
land and resources use, so the provisioning
dertaken, considering the scale of analysis.
services do not have much importance for the
The existing characteristics of the ESS at
territory, but they have a big influence on the
the Alpine level were analyzed to identify the
cultural services. On the other hand, non-pro-
spatial and quantitative distribution of natural
tected areas are allowed to exploit more natu-
areas and the land-use of the Alpine Region.
ral resources, so the provisioning services are
Moreover, natural reserves, Natura 2000, bio-
more valuable. Despite several differences
topes and the UNESCO Network were consid-
among the Pilot Areas, the provision of goods
ered, in order to understand the quality of such
such as timber and non-wood products are im-
natural areas and the status quo of biodiversi-
portant, so the development strategies should
ty. These variables provide a useful indicator
also aim at maintaining the current level of
about the constrains that should be included
good provisioning in order not to affect nega-
in the estimation of the energy potential of the
tively the income of local inhabitants.
Alps, in order not to affect the provision of ESs
Quantifying the monetary amounts of each
for human being in a negative way.
ESS is important in order to understand the
The Pilot Areas were surveyed in detail, with
costs and benefits of RE expansion with the
an economic approach and thematic mapping
same unit of measure. Furthermore, an eco-
of the ESS was undertaken, based on a series
nomic evaluation allows the ranking of the
of spatial data provided by the Pilot Areas. The
ESS based on their value. The joint adoption
Pilot Areas showed different contribution of
of the economic approach and the spatial
each ecosystem service to the total economic
analysis provided by GIS tools is particularly
25
R E C H A R G E
26
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
effective. The spatial location of the econom-
is possible to highlight the portions of the eco-
ic values of the ESS allows an effective sit-
system with less value, exploitable for energy
ing strategy. GIS modeling make possible the
purposes. Anyway, a final evaluation of the
computation of the most important sites from
sites should take into consideration not only
the ecological point of view, which should be
economical and energy aspects but also qual-
kept uncontaminated in order not to lose val-
itative information and social acceptance, as
ue. At the same time, through GIS analysis it
highlighted in the Chapter 3.
E N E R G Y
P O T E N T I A L
F R O M
R E N E WA B L E
Energy Potential from
Renewable Sources in the Alpine
Area and in the Pilot Areas
S O U R C E S
02
Identifying the “real” potentials for renewable energy in the Alpine Space is
a matter of finding an optimal compromise between the right technology/renewable energy type applied to the right place, and at the same time protecting the environment and ecosystem services.
Authors: G. Garegnani, S. Leduc
27
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
IIASA
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
In this chapter, the theoretical potential maps
are presented. The map showing the potential
International Institute
GRASS
of forest biomass for energy has been devel-
for Applied Systems
oped by IIASA (Vienne, AT), while the hydro-
Analysis: www.iiasa.
power, solar (photovoltaic) and wind potential
GRASS is a free and open source Geo-
ac.at
maps were developed by EURAC research
graphic Information System (GIS) software
centre (Bolzano, IT). The maps developed by
suite. The Geographic Resources Analysis
EURAC research were derived by using an ex-
Support System (GRASS) supports the
EURAC
tension of GRASS GIS.
creation, modification and processing of 2D
EURAC research - In-
In order to use a common terminology, we
a topological vector model and true three
stitute for Renewable
adopted the following definitions (Resch, et
dimensional coordinates for vector fea-
Energy: www.eurac.
al., 2008):
tures. GRASS is characterized by stability,
edu/en/research/tech-
• Theoretical potential: is the upper limit
an efficient application programming inter-
and 3D raster and vector layers. It provides
of what can be produced from a certain
face (API) written in C, and a large number
ergy/researchfields/
source, based on scientific knowledge;
of GIS functions and modules. GRASS pro-
Pages/Energy-strat-
• Technical potential: takes into account
vides many models and algorithms that, af-
nologies/renewableen-
egies-and-planning.
technical, structural, legal and ecological
ter substantial testing and trouble shooting,
aspx
restriction. The technical potential must
have proven to be very reliable. Its capa-
be seen in a dynamic constant, it would
bilities to process geographical information
increase if, for example conversion technol-
have been testified by many research and
ogies improve.
technical papers.
In this report, we calculated the theoretical
potential for wind, solar, forest biomass and
hydropower. For each RE, we computed a theoretical-physical potential based on the physi-
Source: Neteler, M., Bowman, M. H., Landa,
M., & Metz, M. (2012). GRASS GIS: A multipurpose open source GIS. Environmental
Modelling & Software, 31, 124–130. doi:10.1016/j.
envsoft.2011.11.014
cal limits of energy conversion and a theoretical-technical potential based on the theoretical
limits of the existing technology.
WEB:
In addition, to assess the energy potential, we
and, especially, more economical for a given
introduce the concept of capacity factor. For
technology. You cannot compare different re-
each RE, we compute a theoretical-physical
newable energies only depending on the ca-
potential based on physical limits of energy
pacity factor. Usually, wind capacity factor are
conversion and a theoretical-technical potential
20-40% (Wind Energy Center, University of
based on existing technology theoretical limits.
Massachusetts Amherst). Compared to wind
For each RE, the capacity factor is defined
and hydro, solar energy has an additional lim-
www.alpconv.org/en/
as the ratio of the annual energy production
itation: there is absolutely no energy produc-
AlpineKnowledge/
to the hypothetical maximum possible, i.e.
tion during night-time.
database/default.
running full time at rated power. It can be ex-
For all the maps, the Alpine perimeter refers to
html?AspxAutoDetect-
pressed in percentage or hour/year. Notice
the Alpine Convention database (Alpine Con-
CookieSupport=1
that a higher capacity factor is generally better
vention – SOIA DATABASE, 2014).
2.1 Forest Biomass
28
D ATA C O L L E C T I O N
irrigation, land and water share, temperature
The Global Forest Model (G4M) estimates the
and precipitation, primary forest share, slope,
impact of forestry activities on carbon seques-
soil and current stock. The maps showing
tration and supply of biomass in the Alps. It
country, ecoregion, elevation, irrigation, land
uses maps showing countries, ecoregions,
and water share, temperature and precipita-
elevation, forest cover, forest type, gridsize,
tion and soil are used as they provided free
𝐴𝐴! = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 0, 𝑐𝑐!
−𝑐𝑐! −
on the web. The slope was calculated by using
the information of the global 3” digital elevation map. The grid size for the 30” grids was
calculated using some GRASS GIS functions.
The forest cover map is a combination of the
2010. The regions covered by the forest map
from JRC for the years 2000 and 2006 are
used from those maps. The primary forest
share was estimated by using numbers given
in FRA 2010 and downscaling them by using
the forest cover map and a human activity
−
1+
𝐸𝐸 =
Temperate, Tropical, Subtropical was estimat-
was estimated on a 30” resolution using the
method described in Kindermann et al. 2008.
𝑒𝑒 !!!!! !!
2
+𝑐𝑐!" 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 cos(𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙)
𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 =
𝑐𝑐!" +
𝑐𝑐!"
1
1 + 𝑒𝑒 !!"!!!" !"!
Equazioni
pag 27ofa the
dx:system of equaThe
input variables
tions are m number of the month of the year,
𝑥𝑥 =
either forest increment or maximize stock.
t m monthly average temperature [°C], pm preFor 𝑙𝑙 = 𝑚𝑚
− 5into
− 1: nn altitude [m], lat
cipitation
[mm
30𝑚𝑚
days],
latitude [°], wl is Walter and Lieth relation (6),
𝑥𝑥 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑐𝑐, 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 0, 𝑥𝑥 + 𝑝𝑝
swd soil water decay rate equal !to 0.8 and CO2
is−𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
the CO0,
2 concentration
𝑡𝑡! 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 [ppm] equal to 0.038.
The most important point in modelling forest
as
growth is a method to estimate the yield lev-
x=
el of a site. For a specific stand, this is done
For
l = m-5 to m-1:
Equazione
pag
ME THODOLOGY
The
forest
growth
model
can
estimate
site-specific increments for different rotation
times. Typical rotation times beside the current rotation time are those that will maximize
typical by either using the ground vegetation
or using dominant tree height, age and a yield
table. In the global forest model temperature,
precipitation, soil, latitude and altitude are
𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 value
= 𝑥𝑥 +
sw m is estimated+
for𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 each month
The
of 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
31:
x = min {whc,max [0,x+pi
𝑃𝑃 = 𝑔𝑔 𝜂𝜂 𝑄𝑄 (𝐻𝐻
-max(0,t
!"#$ − 𝐻𝐻!"#$ ) l ) wl]swd}
sw = x+groundwater+irrigation
𝑃𝑃!,!" =
!∈!"
𝑔𝑔 𝜂𝜂 𝑄𝑄!,!"#$ (𝐻𝐻!,!"#$ − 𝐻𝐻!,!"#$ ) used to estimate site productivity as the net
By using forest specific coefficients, the NPP
primary productivity (NPP) with the following
for different forest types can be estimated.
equations:
Equazioni
The coefficients c 0, c1 … c15 are estimated by
1-6 pag 27:
using the global NPP map from Modis (Run-
Equazioni!"1-6 pag 27:
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 = 𝐹𝐹
!"
!!!
where
where
𝐴𝐴! = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 0, 𝑐𝑐!
𝐴𝐴!
ning et al. 2004) and selecting only grids that
𝐷𝐷! 𝐴𝐴! 𝐵𝐵! 𝐸𝐸
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 = 𝐹𝐹
𝐷𝐷! 𝐴𝐴! 𝐵𝐵! 𝐸𝐸
where !!!
1
are covered by forests. The soil type is taken
from FAO (2012). Also the water holding capacity is estimated by using the given available water storage capacity per meter and mak-
+
1 + 𝑒𝑒 !!!!! !!
1
= 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 0, 𝑐𝑐! 1 ! !! ! +
1 + 𝑒𝑒 ! ! !
−𝑐𝑐! −
1 + 𝑒𝑒 !!!!! !!
1
−𝑐𝑐! −
!
1 + 𝑒𝑒 !!!! !!
𝐵𝐵! = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚0, 1+
2
𝐵𝐵! = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚0, 1+
−
!"! !!! !!"#(!,!! !")
!"#(!,!
2 ! !!)
1 + 𝑒𝑒
−
!"! !!! !!"#(!,!! !")
!"#(!,!! !! )
1 + 𝑒𝑒
𝑐𝑐
S O U R C E S
𝐹𝐹 = 𝑐𝑐!" + 𝑐𝑐!! 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 + 𝑐𝑐!" cos 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 +
ed by using land classifications form Modis
and ecoregions from FAO. The forest stock
R E N E WA B L E
𝑐𝑐!
+ 𝑐𝑐!
1 + 𝑒𝑒 !!!!!!"!
needle-leaved, evergreen broadleaved, decidin combination with the four regions Boreal,
1+
1
F R O M
!"! !!! !!"#(!,!! !")
!"#(!,!! !! )
𝑒𝑒
map from CIESIN. The forest types evergreen
uous needle-leaved, deciduous broadleaved
+
𝐵𝐵! = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚0, 1+
Modis continuous field forest cover maps for
the years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and
1
! !! !
E N E 1R +
G Y𝑒𝑒 !P O !T !
E N T I A L
ing the assumption that the usable soil depth
is 1.5 meters. Areas with irrigation were taken
from Siebert et al. (2010). Monthly precipitation and temperature was taken from Hijmans
et al. (2005). Altitude was used from USGS
(2008) and the Ecological Zones are taken
from FAO (2000).
29
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
Figure 3 shows how temperature and precipi-
of interest, nothing else is needed as the MAI
tation determine NPP.
is already the potential stem wood increment,
which can be reached. Many factors will reduce this potential like disasters, disease or
Figure 3: NPP [tC/
losses during harvest. To describe the way
ha/year] described
from the current situation to this potential,
by temperature
the current forests need to be described. The
and precipitation.
forest type (species), stand density and age
For coefficients of
distribution need to be known. For the simu-
forest, no soil water,
lation, a management system (thinning, final
soil factor cs=0.07,
harvests) has to be defined and some as-
altitude=0, latitude=0,
sumptions on environment changes need to
CO2=0.038 ppm.
be made. These environment changes will in-
Temperature and
fluence e.g. the type of forest, which will be
precipitation is kept
reforested after final harvest.
constant for all 12
For the current increments, the current forest
month.
situation needs to be estimated. This is done
by using information about forest area, species share and age-class distribution or stock-
Figure 4:
ing biomass. In addition, the stand density
NPP [tC/ha/year]
also determines the current forest situation.
described by CO2.
For this investigation, the starting stand densi-
For coefficients of
ty is set to a yield table stocking degree of one.
forest, no soil water,
soil factor cs=0.07,
R E S U LT S
altitude=0, latitude=0,
Two scenarios were created by variations in
temperature=20°C
the rotation time and forest management: the
and precipitation=70
maximization of carbon stock in the forest sce-
mm/30 days is kept
nario (S1) and maximization of biomass pro-
constant for all 12
duction scenario (S2). In the carbon seques-
month.
tration scenario (S1), the forest rotation period
is increased (on average about 200 years instead of 100 years in S2) such that a maximal
amount of carbon is being stored in the forest,
30
An increasing temperature and an increasing
considering that damage to forest increases
precipitation result in higher NPP. Tempera-
with the age of the trees. In the biomass pro-
ture shows a peak where higher temperatures
duction scenario (S2), the forest rotation pe-
result in lower NPP. This peak can either be
riod is decreased such that the forest growth
determined by precipitation, or if precipitation
is maximized, leading to a high availability of
is high, than by respiration. An increasing CO2
biomass for energy purposes. About the dou-
concentration results in a non-linear increas-
ble amount of harvesting potential is available
ing productivity rate (Figure 4). The estimated
under this scenario (S2, 23 Mt C/y) compared
NPP will be used to describe the yield level.
to S1 (11 Mt C/y). On the other hand, the car-
For the g4-Model described in Kindermann
bon stock is almost twice as much under sce-
et. al (2013) this npp needs to be converted
nario S1 than under scenario S2 (see Table 3).
to a maximum mean annual increment of stem
Note that both scenarios lead to sustainable
wood (MAI). This is done by assuming that
forest management and no forest degrada-
35% of the NPP is stored in stem wood un-
tion, deforestation, nor afforestation. Figure 3
til the age when MAI is reached. As long as
presents a geographic explicit overview of the
only the potentials at the current situation are
results from the G4M model.
E N E R G Y
P O T E N T I A L
F R O M
R E N E WA B L E
S O U R C E S
TA B L E 3 : H A R V E S T P O T E N T I A L A N D C A R B O N S T O C K F O R T H E
SCENARIOS S1 AND S2
S1: Carbon
sequestration
S2: Biomass
production
Harvest potential (MtC/year)
900
44
Carbon stock (MtC)
800
48
Notice that the stock difference of 480 MtC
tion) of about 11.5 MtC per year will be gained
between the scenarios will be leveled out with
compared to the scenario S1. So, if carbon is
increment in approximately 40 Years (e.g. the
“stored” (in furniture etc.) instead of burned
harvested increment is stored in furniture and
for bioenergy, the “intensive management”
buildings instead of storing the increment in
scenario (S2) outperforms the “low intensive
the forest). After this 40 years a “win” in the
management” scenario (S1) after 40 years.
scenario S2 (Maximization of biomass produc-
MAPS
31
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 =
R E P O R T
𝑐𝑐!" +
𝑐𝑐!"
1
1 + 𝑒𝑒 !!"!!!" !"!
Equazioni pag 27 a dx:
Equazioni 1-6 pag 27:
2.2 Hydropower
!"
𝑥𝑥 =
D ATA C O!!!
LLECTION
The maximum potential is the energy that can
where
𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑐𝑐,et
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 0, 𝑥𝑥 +we
𝑝𝑝! do not consid𝑥𝑥
= 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Mari
Following
al. (2011)
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 = 𝐹𝐹
𝐷𝐷! 𝐴𝐴! 𝐵𝐵! 𝐸𝐸
be produced under the assumption that all the
1
In order to compute the hydropower potential
Equazione
pag 31:
related to the base unit
data about precipitation and elevation are colThe rainfall dataset (Isotta et al., 2014) has
2
been provided by the federal office of mete−
!"! !!! !!"#(!,!! !")
orology
!"#(!,!! !! ) MeteoSwiss and was
1 + 𝑒𝑒 and climatology
be used to produce energy in the lower ba-
sin. This can be done by means of a system of
weirs and reservoirs. In this case the potential
and due to the upper
discharge
is equal to:
𝑃𝑃
= 𝑔𝑔 𝜂𝜂 𝑄𝑄 (𝐻𝐻
!"#$ − 𝐻𝐻!"#$ ) 𝑃𝑃!,!" =
𝑔𝑔 𝜂𝜂 𝑄𝑄!,!"#$ (𝐻𝐻!,!"#$ − 𝐻𝐻!,!"#$ ) !∈!"
developed as part of EU project EURO4M. The
where UP is the set of the upper basin and i is
daily precipitation is derived from a pan-Alpine
the reference basin.
high resolution
rain-gauge dataset of More
𝑐𝑐!
The energy effeciency η is assumed to be a
theoretical limit, because conversion tech-
5500 measurements each data. The precipi-
nologies cannot go beyond it and the current
tation [mm] considers rainfall plus snow water
technology already reached its upper value.
equivalent.
is January-De𝐹𝐹
= 𝑐𝑐 + 𝑐𝑐The
𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛cover
+ 𝑐𝑐 period
cos 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
+
The limit of this approach are:
𝐸𝐸
=
+ 𝑐𝑐!in total, approximately
than 18500
series
! !!! !"
!
+ 𝑒𝑒 !time
!"
!!
!"
cember, 1971-2008. The resolution is grid
𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 cos(𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙)
+𝑐𝑐!"km,
spacing 5x5
but the effective resolution is
𝑃𝑃 = 𝑔𝑔 𝜂𝜂 𝑄𝑄 (𝐻𝐻!"#$ − 𝐻𝐻!"#$%&' )
(7)
• We consider mean value for the gross head
approximately 10-20 km, depending on local
and especially for the discharge we do not
station density. The rainfall data have been
take into account the flow-duration curve,
𝑐𝑐!"
used
𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤
= together with discharge data were meas1
urements
were available.
𝑐𝑐!" +
1 + 𝑒𝑒 !!"!!!" !"!
For the digital elevation model, we use a data-
• The environmental flow, irrigation and domestic water use are not considered.
𝑃𝑃!,!" =
!∈!"
𝑔𝑔 𝜂𝜂 𝑄𝑄!,!"#$%&' (𝐻𝐻!,!"#$%&' − 𝐻𝐻!,!"#$%&' )
set derived from the USGS/NASA SRTM data.
R E S U LT S
CIAT (Jarvis, Reuter, Nelson and Guevara,
In order to compute the annual discharge in
data to provide
each river basin from EURO4M dataset, we
Equazioni
pag 27 a dx:
2008) has processed
this
seamless continuous topography surfaces.
𝑥𝑥 =
For
M E T𝑙𝑙 H=O𝑚𝑚
D O−L 5O GtoY 𝑚𝑚 − 1:
Firstly, rivers and watershed basins in the Al-
𝑥𝑥 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑐𝑐, 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 0, 𝑥𝑥 + 𝑝𝑝!
pine area are computed by processing eleva-
assume apply the following equation:
𝑄𝑄!""#!$ =
!
!!!
𝐴𝐴! ×𝑝𝑝! ×𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
(8)
where
Ai is the cell area, pi is the rain precip-
tion data0,(Ehlschlaeger,
𝑡𝑡! 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 1989). The algorithm
−𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
cell in the each basin.
to 10,000.
In the EURO4M (Isotta et al., 2014), the daily
Then, the exploitable potential is computed in
precipitation is derived from a pan-Alpine high
each basin as:pag 31:
Equazione
resolution rain-gauge dataset of More than
𝑃𝑃 = 𝑔𝑔 𝜂𝜂 𝑄𝑄 (𝐻𝐻!"#$ − 𝐻𝐻!"#$ ) measurements each data. The precipitation
is available as a GRASS extension r.water-
𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
= We
𝑥𝑥 +set
𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 shed.
the threshold +
parameter
equal
𝑃𝑃
= is the𝑔𝑔 𝜂𝜂 𝑄𝑄
(𝐻𝐻!,!"#$
− 𝐻𝐻!,!"#$
) !,!" P
!,!"#$
with
mean
annual
power,
g gravity
!∈!"
acceleration,
η energy efficiency equal to 0.8,
itation in the i -th cell and N is the number of
8500 time series in total, approximately 5500
considers rainfall plus snow water equivalent.
The cover period is January-December, 19712008. The resolution is grid spacing 5km/px,
(Hmean-Hclosure) gross head equal to the differ-
but the effective resolution is approximately
ence between the average elevation of the ba-
10-20 km, depending on local station density.
sin Hmean and the elevation at the river basin
Since we do not know the runoff coefficients
closure Hmean, conv conversion factor.
32
also the interaction we upper basins as shown.
The =
discharge
coming from upper
basins can
𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
𝑥𝑥 + 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
+ 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 lected.
𝐵𝐵
! = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚0, 1+
www.euro4m.eu
er only the own power of the catchment but
−𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 0, 𝑡𝑡! 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
water
resource is used. The theoretical
poten𝐴𝐴
+
! = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 0, 𝑐𝑐!
1 + 𝑒𝑒 !!!!! !!
tial does not consider the environmental flow
and alternative uses1of water (aqueducts, irri−𝑐𝑐! −
gation, etc.).
1 + 𝑒𝑒 !!!!! !!
WEB:
For 𝑙𝑙 = 𝑚𝑚 − 5 to 𝑚𝑚 − 1:
cd of each basin in the Alps, we set them equal
(9)
E N E R G Y
P O T E N T I A L
F R O M
to 0.5.We report the potential maps obtained
Maps should be considered as an indication of
by considering the whole potential energy.
the energy potential.
R E N E WA B L E
S O U R C E S
MAPS
33
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
2.3 Windpower
D ATA C O L L E C T I O N
±1.5ms^(-1). The computed values can under-
Data of wind velocity at different elevation
estimate the wind speed but big overestima-
(50m, 70 m, 100m) are provided by the Al-
tions, which might be of concern, do not occur.
pine Space project Alpine Windharvest. In the
The resolution is 250m x 250m.
windharvest.
project, they use a statistical modeling meth-
In the Alpine area, diffi culties to access limit
meteotest.ch
odology to compile wind map based on clima-
the size of turbines. We consider two different
tological data collected by 592 permanent el-
elevation 50m and 70m.
evations or temporary meteorological stations
We choose two sample wind turbines with
in the area of interest (Schaffner and J., 2005).
about 800-900 kW rated wind generator (EN-
Regarding the accuracy of the data, they test
ERCON, 2014). The power curves of wind
the interpolation for 14 randomly chosen sta-
energy converters and the technical specifi ca-
tion and the standard deviation of this test is
tion are reported in Table 4.
1000
0,60
WEB:
Figure 5:
Computed power
E53 wind energy
converters.
800
E48
600
400
Figure 6:
Power coeffi cient c p
E44
0,40
E44
E48
0,20
E53
200
0
0
of ENERCON for E44,
5
E48 and E53 wind
10
15
v [m/s]
20
E53
cp [-]
for E44, E48 and
Power [kW]
curve of ENERCON
0,00
25
0
5
10
15
v [m/s]
20
25
energy converters.
TA B L E 4 : T E C H N I C A L S P E C I F I C AT I O N S O F W I N D E N E R G Y C O N V E R T E R
Rated power
[kW]
Rotor diameter
[m]
Hub height
[m]
Swept area
[m 2]
Cut-out wind
speed [m/s]
E44
900
E48
800
44
45, 55, 65
1521
28-34
48
50, 60, 75, 76
1810
28-34
E53
800
52.9
60, 73, 75
2198
28-34
In Figure 6, we report the power coeffi cient of
the three turbines. The power coeffi cient c p
is the ratio of power extracted by the turbine
(9)
(9)
𝐸𝐸 =
= 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 𝜑𝜑𝜑𝜑 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝐸𝐸
The shape of the velocity distribution it is very
!
!
important
in order to compute the energy pro-
duction. We assume a Weibull distribution
to the total available in the air in the absence
with shape parameter k equal to 1.5 (Casale,
of actuator disc (Burton, Sharpe, Jenkins and
2009):
Bossanyi, 2001).
(10)
𝑘𝑘 !!! ! !! !! (10)
𝑘𝑘
= ! 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣!!! 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒! !!
𝜑𝜑𝜑𝜑 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 =
𝜆𝜆𝜆𝜆!
ME THODOLOGY
The mean power production for a wind turbine
assuming 100 percent availability is equal to:
𝐸𝐸 =
!
!
𝑃𝑃 𝑣𝑣 𝜑𝜑 𝑣𝑣 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
(9)
where P(v) is the power curve of a wind tur-
34
!
!
while the scale parameter λ can be calculated
from the following equation:
1
= 𝜆𝜆Γ
𝜆𝜆Γ 11 +
+1
𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 =
𝑘𝑘
𝑘𝑘
(11)
(11)
bines and φ (v) is the statistical distribution of
with Γ gamma function and v̄ mean yearly ve-
the wind velocity v.
locity.
𝑘𝑘
!
𝜑𝜑 𝑣𝑣 = ! 𝑣𝑣 !!! 𝑒𝑒
𝜆𝜆
! !
!
(10)
11
𝑣𝑣 = 𝜆𝜆Γ 1 +
1
𝑘𝑘
E N E R G Y
(11)
The power P(v) of a wind turbine is equal to:
1
𝑣𝑣 = 𝑐𝑐! 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝑣𝑣 !
2
P O T E N T I A L
F R O M
R E N E WA B L E
S O U R C E S
equivalent operating hours or capacity factor
as the rate of the power production to the nominal power of the wind turbine.
(12)
R E S U LT S
where cp is the power coefficient, ρ the air
The fi nal map refers to the mean value ob-
density, A the swept area and v the wind ve-
tained for the three different turbine at dif-
locity. The power coeffi cient has a theoretical
ferent elevation 50m and 70m. In the Attach-
maximum value of 0.593 (the Betz limit). The
ments, mean potential maps are reported. We
wind turbine converts 70% of the Betz limit
obtain three different maps depending on:
into electricity. Consequently, the wind turbine
• the wind maximum theoretical potential
converts the 41% of the available wind ener-
(Betz limit);
gy into electricity. In Figure 7, we compare the
• the current potential;
theoretical potential at various speed with the
• the turbine equivalent operating hours or
capacity factor [hours/year].
actual power of E44 wind turbine.
The theoretical potential map only considers
the Betz limit in agreement with the defi ni-
Figure 7:
E44
tion herein reported of theoretical potential
Theoretical vs real
Theoretical
(a physical limit), while the second map is
power of ENERCON
obtained by considering the actual power (a
E44
10000
8000
Power [kW]
6000
4000
technical constrain).
Notice that the higher potential the higher the
altitude above the sea level, as shown in Fig-
2000
ure 8.
The capacity factor indicates the real effi cien-
0
0
5
10
15
v [m/s]
20
25
cy of the wind plant. If we consider only sites
with more than 1750 of full load/year (20% of
effi ciency), we will obtain only the 5.5% of the
The spacing between turbines is at least 7-8
Alpine territory.
times the rotor diameter. The resolution of the
fi nal map is 350m x 350m (about 7 times the
Figure 8:
1,E-03
12
rotor diameter). Such resolution, although be-
Wind velocity
to give a tool to compute a detailed analysis,
as for example the calculation of the optimum
distance among turbines. For this reason, the
choice of this map resolution seems to be justifi ed. Available area and logistic questions
should be considered in the technical potential.
Notice that it is important to know the operating hours of the wind turbine. We calculate the
Velocity (m/s)
the study. In fact, the aim of this map is not
10
distribution versus
8,E-04
altitude distribution.
8
6,E-04
6
pdf (-)
ing rather low, is suitable for the purposes of
4,E-04
4
2,E-04
2
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
0,E+00
5000
altitude (m)
35
R E C H A R G E
MAPS
36
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
E N E R G Y
P O T E N T I A L
F R O M
R E N E WA B L E
S O U R C E S
2.4 Photovoltaic
D ATA C O L L E C T I O N
where f tilt is the tilt and orientation conversion
The data of solar irradiation are provided by
factor.
the Photovoltaic Geographical Information
Most solar cells on the market are based on
http://re.jrc.ec.europa.
System (PVGIS). They develop a database for
silicon wafers with typical efficiency of 10-15%
eu/pvgis
the Europe that allows to compute the solar
(P pk=100-150 Wp/m ). Conversion efficiency
potential for the Alpine area.
needs to be increased in the future. According
WEB
2
to the aim of the article, the upper theoreti-
ME THODOLOGY
cal limit has to be considered. The Shockley
According to European norm EN 15316-4-6
and Queisser (1961) studies this limit for or a
for the solar photovoltaic, the electricity pro-
standard solar cell. An optimal cell with a band
duced by the photovoltaic system is
gap of 1.3 eV is limited by transmission losses
𝑃𝑃!"
𝐸𝐸 = 𝐸𝐸!"#
𝑓𝑓
𝐼𝐼!"# !"#$
of photons to 31% (310 Wp/m2).
According to thermodynamic law, by considering the sun as a black body at 5760 K and a
(13)
solar cell as another black body at 300 K the
where Esol is the annual solar irradiation on
conversion efficiency is related to the Carnot
the photovoltaic system, P pk, the peak power,
efficiency limit, which is nearly 95 % (Green
represents the electrical power of a photovol-
2002). Notice that the Carnot limit is only a
taic system with a given surface and for a solar
theoretical limit and cannot be built in practice.
irradiance of 1 kW/m2 on this surface (at 25°C);
The large difference between the Shock-
f perf is the system performance factor; Iref is
ley-Queisser and thermodynamic (Carnot) lim-
𝐸𝐸!"# = 𝐸𝐸!"#,!!" 𝑓𝑓!"#!
(14)
the reference solar irradiance equal to 1 kW/
𝑃𝑃
!"#
!"#$
𝐼𝐼
factor f perf !"#
can reach (13)
value of 0.80 (European
!"
2
m
. With
𝐸𝐸 =
𝐸𝐸 actual𝑓𝑓 technologies, the performance
its arises from the fact that a single material is
characterized by a single energy gap, whereas the solar spectrum contains photons with a
norm EN 15316-4-6).
wide range of energies. Several methods have
The annual solar irradiation on the photovolta-
been studied to increase the power conversion
ic module can be calculated as:
efficiency of solar cells and Razykov reviews
the future prospect of photovoltaic devices.
𝐸𝐸!"# = 𝐸𝐸!"#,!!" 𝑓𝑓!"#!
In the Table below, we try summarize the theo-
(14)
retical and technical limits and possible future
scenarios.
TA B L E 5 : VA L U E S O F P E A K P O W E R C O E F F I C I E N T B Y N O R M AT I V E ,
THEORE TICAL AND FUTURE FORECAST
Type of photovoltaic
module
P pk
[–]
Iref
f perf [–]
Mono crystalline silicon
0.12 to 0.18
0.8
Multi crystalline silicon
0.10 to 0.16
0.8
Shockley and Queisser limit
0.31
1
Carnot limit
0.95
1
R E S U LT S
the case of optimally-inclined surface. Finally,
The maps are calculated for both horizontal
the two limits are considered in order to devel-
and optimally-inclined surface. We report the
op future scenarios. The mean capacity factor
actual potential under the assumption of an ef-
of the Alpine area is 14%.
ficiency equal to 0.15 and f_perf equal to 0.8 in
37
R E C H A R G E
MAPS
38
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
E N E R G Y
P O T E N T I A L
F R O M
R E N E WA B L E
S O U R C E S
I N F O B O X
S TAT U S Q U O O F T H E A L P I N E P R O D U C T I O N F R O M
R E N E WA B L E E N E R G Y
Authors: G. Garegnani, S. Pezzutto, R.Hastik, S. Biscaini, F. Miotello, G. Curetti, D. Vettorato
A right planning of RE exploitation has to start
diffi cult to gather due to missing spatial ex-
from data collection about the existing produc-
plicit data. Data, on other energy sources and
tion. The recharge.green project aims to study
energy demand, are easily available only on
the trade-off between energy exploitation and
national scale including non-Alpine areas. For
ecosystem services for the whole Alpine Re-
this reason, we collect data based on NUTS3
gion and for 4 Pilot Areas. The analysis and
and NUTS2 units starting from several nation-
the data collection consider both the Alpine
al and local sources. We mainly consider data
area and the Pilot Areas. Obviously, the de-
from 2009 to 2014 in order to have an estima-
tails reached by the analysis are different.
tion of the current situation of the Alpine area.
The actual RE production and consumption
In the following Table, we summarize the main
in the Alpine area (8 countries) is extremely
sources for each country and RES.
39
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
TA B L E 6 : S O U R C E S F O R R E S P R O D U C T I O N
COUNTRY
NUTS3
YEAR
NUTS2
YEAR
Hydro power
Austria
G. Stanzer et al.,
REGIO Energy
Regionale Szenarien
erneuerbarer Energiepotenziale in den
Jahren 2012/2020
2010
Statistik Austria,
Energiebilanzen
2012
Switzerland
Schweizerische
Eidgenossenschaft,
Statistisches Lexikon
2014
Schweizerische
Eidgenossenschaft,
Statistisches Lexikon
2014
Germany
Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Sonnenenergie,
EnergyMap.info
2014
Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Sonnen-energie,
EnergyMap.info
2014
2012
Réseau de transport
d’électricité, Bilan
électrique 2013
et perspectives,
Provence-Alpes Côted’Azur
Observatoire de
l’énergie et des gaz
à effet de serre de
Rhône-Alpes, 20% de
production d’énergie
renouvelable dans
la consommation
d’énergie, 2014
GSE, Quota regionale settore regionale, 2014
France
Ministre de l’écologie
du développement
durable et de l’énergie,
observation et
statistique
2013-2014
40
Italy
GSE, Impianti a fonti
rinnovabili, 2013
2012
Liechtenstein
Liechtenstein, Aus
nationaler Sicht, 2011
Universität
Liechtenstein,
Erneuerbares
Liechtenstein, 2013
S. D’Elia et a.,
Energiestrategie
Liechtenstein 2020,
2012
2010
Slovenia
Statistical office of the
Republic of Slovenia,
Renewables and
wastes, 2014
National Renewable
Energy Action Plan
2010-2020 (Nreap)
Slovenia, 2010
ECN, Renewable
Energy Projections
as Published in the
National Renewable
Energy Action Plans of
the European Member
States, 2011
2010
2011
2009
E N E R G Y P O T E N T I A L F R O M R E N E WA B L E S O U R C E S I N T H E A L P I N E A R E A A N D I N T H E P I L O T A R E A S
PV Ground mounted
Austria
EPIA, Global market
outlook, 2014
2014
EPIA, Global market
outlook, 2014
2014
Switzerland
EPIA, Global market
outlook, 2014
2014
EPIA, Global market
outlook, 2014
2014
Germany
Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Sonnenenergie,
EnergyMap.info, 2014
2014
Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Sonnen-energie,
EnergyMap.info
2014
France
Ministre de l’écologie
du développement
durable et de l’énergie,
observation et
statistique
2012
Réseau de transport
d’électricité, Bilan
électrique 2013
et perspectives,
Provence-Alpes Côted’Azur
Observatoire de
l’énergie et des gaz
à effet de serre de
Rhône-Alpes, 20% de
production d’énergie
renouvelable dans
la consommation
d’énergie, 2014
2013
2014
Italy
GSE, Rapporto
Statistico 2012 Solare
Fotovoltaico, 2012
2011
GSE, Quota regionale settore regionale, 2014
2009
Liechtenstein
-
2010
Slovenia
EPIA, Global market
outlook, 2014
20102011
Wind power
Austria
G. Stanzer et al.,
REGIO Energy
Regionale Szenarien
erneuerbarer Energiepotenziale in den
Jahren 2012/2020,
2010
2010
Source:
Statistik Austria,
Energiebilanzen, 2012
2012
Switzerland
Bundesamt für Energie,
Schweiz, Windkraftanalagen,2014
2014
Bundesamt für Energie, Schweiz, Windkraftanalagen,2014
2013
Germany
Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Sonnenenergie,
EnergyMap.info, 2014
2014
Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Sonnen-energie,
EnergyMap.info
2014
2012
Réseau de transport
d’électricité, Bilan
électrique 2013
et perspectives,
Provence-Alpes Côted’Azur
Observatoire de
l’énergie et des gaz
à effet de serre de
Rhône-Alpes, 20% de
production d’énergie
renouvelable dans
la consommation
d’énergie, 2014
2011
France
Ministre de l’écologie
du développement
durable et de l’énergie,
observation et
statistique
41
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
Italy
GSE, Impianti a fonti
rinnovabili, 2013
2012
GSE, Quota regionale settore regionale, 2014
2009
Liechtenstein
Liechtenstein, Aus
nationaler Sicht, 2011
Universität
Liechtenstein,
Erneuerbares
Liechtenstein, 2013
S. D’Elia et a.,
Energiestrategie
Liechtenstein 2020,
2012
2010
Slovenia
Statistical office of the
Republic of Slovenia,
Renewables and
wastes, 2014
National Renewable
Energy Action Plan
2010-2020 (Nreap)
Slovenia, 2010
ECN, Renewable
Energy Projections
as Published in the
National Renewable
Energy Action Plans of
the European Member
States, 2011
2010
2011
-
Statistik Austria,
Energiebilanzen, 2012
http
2010
2002
2014
BAK Basel Economics,
MARS Report 2005,
2005
2004
2014
Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Sonnen-energie,
EnergyMap.info
2014
Wood Biomass
Austria
Switzerland
Germany
42
Amt für Verkehr und
Energie, Sachplan
Energie, 2002
St. Gallen, Biomasse,
2014
Appenzell Ausserhorn,
Energiestrategie 20082015, 2008
Kanton Bern,
Energiestrategie 2006,
2006
GEO Partner AG,
Energieholzpotentialstudie AR + AI, 2012
Züricher Hochschule
für angewandte
Wissenschaften,
Energieverbrauch der
Schweizer Kantone,
2014
Kanton Glarus,
Energierichtplan
Kanton Glarus, 2012
Amt für Energie und
Verkehr Graubünden,
Stromproduktion aus
erneuerbaren Energien
ohne Grosswasserkraft,
2011
Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Sonnenenergie,
EnergyMap.info, 2014
E N E R G Y P O T E N T I A L F R O M R E N E WA B L E S O U R C E S I N T H E A L P I N E A R E A A N D I N T H E P I L O T A R E A S
France
Ministre de l’écologie
du développement
durable et de l’énergie,
observation et
statistique
2012
Réseau de transport
d’électricité, Bilan
électrique 2013
et perspectives,
Provence-Alpes Côted’Azur
Observatoire de
l’énergie et des gaz
à effet de serre de
Rhône-Alpes, 20% de
production d’énergie
renouvelable dans
la consommation
d’énergie, 2014
Italy
GSE, Impianti a fonti
rinnovabili, 2013
2012
GSE, Quota regionale settore regionale, 2014
Liechtenstein
Liechtenstein, Aus
nationaler Sicht, 2011
Universität
Liechtenstein,
Erneuerbares
Liechtenstein, 2013
S. D’Elia et a.,
Energiestrategie
Liechtenstein 2020,
2012
2010
Slovenia
Statistical office of the
Republic of Slovenia,
Renewables and
wastes, 2014
National Renewable
Energy Action Plan
2010-2020 (Nreap)
Slovenia, 2010
ECN, Renewable
Energy Projections
as Published in the
National Renewable
Energy Action Plans of
the European Member
States, 2011
2010
2011
2011
2009
We consider the percentage of ground in-
available at NUTS2 and NUTS3 levels only for
stalled PV in loco (EPIA, Global market out-
thermal biomass energy; the electrical one is
look 2013), if no data for ground mounted
estimated starting from national data. Slovenia
PV were available. French data for solar and
only has national data about RES production.
hydropower regards the installed power; we
Due the inhomogeneity of data sources in
compute the production by assuming a value
time and space, data are considered as an in-
of equivalent working hours from PVGIS ©
dication about the current Alpine production to
European Union, 2001-2012 for PV and a ca-
compare with the estimated potential. In Fig-
pacity factor equal to 33.7% for hydropower
ure 9 we report data about the RES produc-
(Digest of United Kingdom energy statistics
tion at different units, in Table 6 data refers to
(DUKES) 2007-2012).
NUT3 units.
Data refers to wood biomass, except for Ger-
Noticed that biomass and hydropower are
many where we consider the solid biomass. In
the most exploited RES in Alpine countries
Switzerland, several data sources were con-
by considering thermal and electrical energy
sidered due to the absence of a national data-
productions. Biomass and hydropower are
base. In Italy and France, data of biomass are
predominant at both NUTS1 and NUTS3 level.
WEB
http://www.epia.org
43
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
Figure 9:
NUTS3
RES production in
the Alpine countries
(NUTS1) and in the
NUTS2
NUTS1
Ground Mounted
PV
total NUTS2 and
NUTS3 unit.
Total PV
Electrical Biomass
Wind Power
Hydro Power
Thermal Biomass
0
50
100
150
200
TWh/year
44
250
300
350
T R A D E- O F F
Trade-off and perceived
impacts
A N D
P E R C E I V E D
I M P A C T S
03
Where land use is the issue, conflicts result from diverging demands on
landscape and nature. Moderated governance processes are very important
to deal with these conflicts. Stakeholders should be able to expect transparent processes and access to all relevant information, right from the start and
throughout a project.
Autors: G. Grilli, A. Paletto, R. Hastik, C. Geitner, G. Curetti, G. Garegnani, A. Portaccio, F. Miotello,
E. Zangrando, S. Bertin, N. Kuenzer, D. Vettorato, C. Walzer, J. Balest, V. D’Alonzo
45
R E C H A R G E
46
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
An important issue in decision-making is pub-
der to highlight the relevant indicators for the
lic participation of the local communities while
RE development and for identifying the impor-
making the decisions, so that each form of de-
tant group of stakeholders in each Pilot Area;
velopment will gain much consensus as pos-
(5) Pilot Areas received the results and derive
sible. The participatory approach, also called
recommendations for the development of RE
bottom-up approach, is opposed to the tra-
in their territory.
ditional top-down approach (Fraser, Dougill,
The questionnaire survey allowed the collec-
Mabee, Reed, McAlpine, 2006) through which
tion of important data on the current situation
the power of choosing is concentrated in the
of RE production, on the possible RE to be de-
hands of few decision-makers. A participatory
veloped in the Pilot Areas and the most plau-
approach reduces conflicts that may occur
sible sites for harvesting RE. Furthermore,
when adopting a top-down approach, because
experts were asked to identify local stakehold-
the local communities are involved in the deci-
ers, to be involved in the decision making pro-
sions and they can voice their need and pref-
cess. Once the scenarios of RE are produces
erences for the development of their territory.
by the DSS, the stakeholders identified by the
The recharge.green project aims at involving
experts will be invited to a public session in
a large number of stakeholders in the whole
which the scenarios of RE will be presented
process, so that each interested stakeholder
and critically analyzed. The public discussion
(or group of stakeholders) may express his
should lead to the identification of a scenario
opinion regarding RE development.
shared by the majority of the stakeholders, so
The activities were organized as follows:
that the decision makers have the information
(1) EURAC Research and CRA (EURAC’s
about the desired direction of development of
sub-contractor for the project) created the
the stakeholders.
questionnaire; (2) Representatives of the Pi-
The present chapter introduces the main find-
lot Areas identified the local experts. The ex-
ings of the questionnaire survey, highlighting
perts were identified considering their proven
the responses of the experts of each Pilot Area
experience in various sectors of RE and/or
in order to provide recommendations for the
ESS. In order to obtain responses unbiased
future development of RE. The chapter shows
by personal considerations, pilot areas veri-
the responses of the experts concerning the
fied the lack of political bindings and the lack
sources of RE that should be developed in the
of a personal interest in the RE strategy; (3)
territory, the expected impact of each form of
Questionnaire was administrated to the iden-
RE on the environment and in the society and,
tified experts by the Pilot Areas; (4) EURAC
finally, the list of stakeholders that should be
Research elaborated the questionnaires in or-
involved in the final public session.
T R A D E- O F F
A N D
P E R C E I V E D
I M P A C T S
I N F O B O X
S TA K E H O L D E R A N A LY S I S :
I N D I C AT O R S D E E M E D R E L E VA N T
The experts’ perception of the negative and
green project (Alpine Space): Triglav National
positive impacts of renewable energies de-
Park (Slovenia), Mis valley, Maè valley, Mari-
velopment in Alpine Region was analyzed
time Alps Nature Park (Italy), and Leiblachtal
through a questionnaire survey. The question-
(Austria). The experts were selected in each
naire was created and elaborated by EURAC
Pilot Area taking into account the following
Research, together with its sub-contractor
criteria: balancing of expertise between two
CRA (Agricultural Research Council of Italy).
main fields (renewable energies and ecosys-
A semi-structured questionnaire - subdivided
tem services), local knowledge and expertise,
in 6 thematic sections and composed of 20
indirect stake in the recharge.green project.
questions – was administered to a sample of
The semi-structured questionnaire was ad-
experts of Alpine Region. The latter was identi-
ministered through face-to-face interviews to
fied in the Pilot Areas involved in the recharge.
the experts previously identified.
TA B L E 7: E X P E R T S S U B D I V I D E D P E R P I L O T A R E A S
Country
Pilot Region
Number of experts
Austria
Leiblachtal (Vorarlberg Region)
10
Italy
Mis valley (Veneto Region)
Maè valley (Veneto Region)
Maritime Alps Nature Park (Piedmont
Region)
5
6
8
Slovenia
Triglav National Park (…)
13
Total
42
Here are shown and discussed the main find-
questions, in which experts had to list the rele-
ings on five main relevant indicators useful for
vant group of stakeholders to be involved into
the RE development:
the decision-making and the intensity of the
• The sources of RE that can be still harvest-
involvement. The stakeholders network was
ed in the Pilot Areas;
then derived with UCINET 6.504 (Borgatti et
• The expected impacts of RE use on ESS;
al. 2002), a software for the Social Network
• The expected impacts of RE use on the
Analysis.
social sphere and the local economy;
• Perceived risk on the environment and on
the society;
The results of the aforementioned indicators
will be shown separately for each Pilot Area.
With regard of the first indicator, experts were
• The stakeholder analysis.
asked to express their opinion on the sources
The ecological and socio-economic impacts of
of energy that can be developed in the terri-
renewable energies development were evalu-
tory, considering the current harvesting typol-
ated using a 5-point Likert scale (0=very posi-
ogy and the characteristics of the area. Fur-
tive impact, 1= positive impact, 2 = no impact,
thermore, the experts also had to indicate the
3 = negative impact, 4 = very negative im-
most likely location within the Regions. Based
pact). The perceived risk was evaluated with
on the interviewer preferences, information on
a 5-point-Likert scale as well, but from 0 (no
the best location was collected either spatial-
risk) to 4 (very high risk). Finally, the stake-
ly-explicit (pointing the most suitable sites on
holder analysis was elaborated through open
a map) or simply indicating the toponyms.
47
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
Concerning the impact on ESS, CRA and
cators must go beyond conventional financial
EURAC developed a list of nine ecosystem
reporting to describe the creation of wealth
services (Table 1) derived from the literature
and its distribution and reinvestment for future
on environmental impacts of renewable ener-
growth (Marteel et al. 2003). The term cultur-
gies (IPCC, 2011, Boyle, 2012, Kaltschmitt et
al indicator is a term developed by Gerbner
al., 2007, Hastik et al., 2014). The ESS were
(1969) and refers to the elements that reflect
based on the proposal for a common interna-
our culture.
tional classification of ecosystem goods and
The local culture can influence the rational
services (CICES) for integrated environmental
choices of the people (i.e. political decision
and economic accounting (Busch et al., 2012).
makers, managers, members of community)
The impacts on ESS were collected separate-
but, conversely, the economic investments
ly for each form of RE: forest biomass, wind,
and the land use changes can influence in
solar and hydropower.
a long-term period the local culture. Conse-
A similar approach was implemented in or-
quently, the cultural indicators have the pur-
der to capture the impacts of RE production
pose to quantify the potential impacts of an
on the local development. These positive
investment on cultural aspects in a specific
and negative impacts were analyzed through
territory. The authors selected 11 indicators
three groups of indicators: social, econom-
(4 economic indicators, 6 social indicators and
ic and cultural indicators. Nowadays, social
1 cultural indicator) in order to evaluate the
indicators are employed to assess both the
impacts of renewable energies production on
technological impacts, and the effects of po-
local development in selected Pilot Areas. The
litical strategies, interventions or plans. There
11 indicators have been described evidencing
are various models for the measurement of
their impact dimension and the specific ambit
social impact, which can be employed for the
of the impact. The ambit of impact of the re-
research of social indicators (Wildavsky et
newable energies production concerns: i) the
al.,1990; Bourdieu, 1987; Hradil, 2005) and the
impact and the efficiency for the local econo-
discipline of social indicator research provides
my, ii) the impact on the quality of life and on
a vast list of works on which to base the choice
the social stability, involvement and legitima-
and selection of appropriate indicators (Galle-
cy, iii) the impact tied to the social risk, iv) the
go Carrera and Mack, 2010). Economic indi-
impact on local traditions and values. Table 8
cators track the costs and business aspects
includes a description of each indicator, which
of a process; when considering sectors such
differs from the general definition to the specif-
as renewable energies production, these indi-
ic issues related to renewable energies.
TA B L E 8: S O C I O - ECO N O M I C I M PAC T S O N LO C A L D E V E LO PM E N T
I N D I C AT O R
AMBIT
D E S C R I P T I O N A N D R E L AT E D I S S U E S
Economic indicators
Local market
diversification
Local
entrepreneurship
Resource
efficiency
48
Local economy
Allocation of resources over a large number
of markets in an attempt to reduce risks of
concentrating resources and to exploit the
economies of flexibility.
Willingness to invest in renewable energies to
diversify the market.
System flexibility to react to market changes and to
renewable energies price fluctuations.
Local economy
Propensity of the local population to initiate business
enterprises’.
Effects on business opportunities and productive
diversification of the area.
Local economy
Use of natural resources, with the main purpose of
minimising their input when producing a product or
delivering a service.
Amount of energy production with a less amount of
non-renewable resource input.
T R A D E- O F F
A N D
P E R C E I V E D
I M P A C T S
Social indicators
Quality of life
Improving the economic development of local
community.
The installation, operation and maintenance of
renewable energy technologies are generally of
modest scales, so they create more employment, for
the local workforce.
Building the technical capacity of the local
workforce.
Quality of life
Income per capita is a positive variable of social
welfare, and is often an effect of technical progress.
Payments to local farmers for hiring their land and
‘‘compensations’’ to the local community made by
the owner of the renewable energy plant.
Quality of life
Renewable energies development creates changes
in the area and effects on tourism development.
Attractiveness of the area for visitors is an indicator
of social development.
Social and
community
aggregation
Social stability,
involvement
and legitimacy
Effects on the capacity to improve local people
participation (i.e social and political empowerment,
participative decision-making, participatory
integrated assessment)
Effect on social capital and on community capacitybuilding
Political stability
Social stability,
involvement
and legitimacy
Citizens’ acceptance of the system or, in other
words, the potential of conflicts induced by energy
systems, and the citizens participation in the
decision making process.
Human health
Health and
safety
Health hazards for the local population linked
to the renewable energies production (potential
health impact due to severe accidents; health
consequences of normal operations).
Local traditions
and values
Land and resource tenure, dependencies on foreign
sources (e.g. financial investments, knowledge),
customary rights.
Employment of
local workforce
Increasing
income per
capita
Tourism
Cultural indicators
Property rights
and rights of use
Source: Adams et al. (2011), Björklund (2000), Brukmajster et al. (2007), Buchholz et al. (2009), Coffey and
Polese (1984), Del Río and Burguillo (2008), Eppink et al. (2004), Hampel et al. (2005), Jiang Jiang et al. (2009),
Gallego Carrera and Mack (2010), Nguyen (2007), Olusoga (1993), Richards (2008), Sala and Castellani (2011),
Wilkens and Schmuck (2012)
The data of impacts renewable energies pro-
structure of the social network were collected
duction on the local development were collect-
in the last part of the questionnaire through
ed in three of four Pilot Areas. The experts of
open-ended questions. There were 2 ques-
Leiblachtal area in Austria have not answered
tions for this purpose. The former asked the
to this section of the questionnaire.
respondents to list the stakeholders or group
Collecting information on the perceived risk
of stakeholders to be involved in the process
in the Pilot Areas is important in order to un-
of RE development, together with their per-
derstand how interested people perceive the
ceived importance of each stakeholder. The
implementation of development strategies.
latter aimed at identifying the intensity of the
Typically, low risk levels are connected with a
stakeholders’ involvement (active involvement
higher social acceptance.
in the decision process or passive, i.e. stake-
Finally, information on the stakeholders to be
holder to be just informed of the project).
involved in the participatory process and the
49
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
3.1 Analysis of the questionnaires and recommendations for possible future policy pathway
This part shows the results of the question-
ture of the questionnaire is reported at the end
naire in each Pilot Area that are an analysis
of the Chapter. The data about the impacts of
of the experts’ opinions (in particular prefer-
renewable energies on the ESS were collect-
ences and perceptions) on the development of
ed on a 5-point Likert scale (from very nega-
renewable energies technologies (solar, wind,
tive impact to very positive impact).
hydropower and forest biomass). The struc-
3.1.1 Leiblachtal
In the results of the questionnaire survey,
power would have a positive impact on carbon
forest biomass is supposed to increase the
sequestration and air quality, but would have
provision of forest and agricultural products,
negative impacts on aesthetic value. A better
but decrease the air and habitat quality. For-
representation of the impacts is available in
est biomass has perceived neutral impacts in
Figures 10 a and b.
the majority of the considered ESS. The solar
ue
va
l
sic
tio
na
tr
in
In
va
ic
As
Re
cr
ea
th
et
ta
t's
Ha
bi
lv
al
ue
e
lu
ity
qu
fr
al
ity
al
Positive
Neutral
Negative
ue
va
l
sic
tr
in
In
Re
c
re
a
tio
na
lv
al
ue
e
tic
he
As
t
t's
ta
bi
Ha
va
al
qu
fr
io
n
ct
lu
ity
om
y
lit
ua
te
se
bo
n
Ca
r
Pr
o
n
sio
sq
w
of
t's
Pr
ov
i
Ai
r'
at
go
od
io
n
er
Very Negative
re
s
fo
on
isi
Pr
ot
Very Positive
s
Frequencies
ec
tio
n
qu
r's
Ca
rb
on
se
Ai
qu
n
sio
Pr
ov
i
Pr
ov
io
n
of
tr
w
at
at
st
re
fo
on
i si
Solar - Impacts on ESS
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Pr
ov
50
om
Very Negative
's
interviewed experts).
Negative
at
not considered by the
Neutral
es
and hydropower were
Positive
tr
in Leiblachtal (wind
Very Positive
es
experts’ perceptions
Frequencies
on ESS according to
Biomass - Impacts on ESS
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
qu
Expected impacts
er
Fi gures 10 a and b:
The state of Vorarlberg (Austria), partner of
line for the development of its territory (see the
the project, has developed a personal guide-
INFOBOX below), including Leiblachtal.
T R A D E- O F F
T H E P A R T I C I P AT O R Y
APPROACH OF
VORARLBERG
A N D
P E R C E I V E D
I M P A C T S
approaches and d) the possibility to present themselves as best-practice Region.
This is true for wind and biomass, but not
ground-mounted photovoltaic where most
Together with the spatial-economic ap-
stakeholders prefer to use photovoltaic only
proach, the state of Vorarlberg pursuits an
on buildings only.
innovative, participatory approach to reconcile strategies on renewable energies
Figure 11:
(Vorarlberger Landesregierung 2010). This
Results of Ecosystem
strategy includes the definition of specific
Service ranking from
goals on how to reach energy autonomy by
++ (“very positive
2050. Within various stakeholder meetings,
change”) to – – (“very
the partners UIBK and region-V are cur-
negative change”) by
rently developing a method called “sample
stakeholders (n=19)
hectares” to reveal most urgent conflicts
in the Leiblachtal
and priorities for expanding renewable en-
based on the sample
ergies. As this method is strongly linked to
hectares approach
WP6 a detailed documentation will be giv-
and three scenarios
en at the end of that work package but a
(wind, forest biomass
summary of the results is reported in Fig-
and ground mounted
ure 11. An already conducted workshop
photovoltaic).
and various interviews hold in the Pilot
Area of Leiblachtal revealed that stakeholders are aware of the negative impacts on
Ecosystem Services caused by expanding
renewable energies. Nevertheless, most of
the stakeholders interviewed are willing to
accept these impacts particularly because
of: a) a secure and autonomous provision
of energy, b) support of the local economy, c) possibilities for new governance
3.1.2 Triglav National Park
Triglav National Park (TNP) interviewed 13
building facilities for use of energy from wind,
experts belonging to different branches as en-
solar and hydro have legal constrains (Triglav
vironmental protection, agriculture, forestry,
National Park Act). It is prohibited to build new
tourism and energy. They provided us different
facilities or put up the device for the produc-
views about the important themes of renew-
tion of energy outside the villages, except from
able energy potential and impacts. The inter-
renewable sources for the subsistence needs,
views are not enough to claim a good repre-
where there is no possibility to connect to the
sentativeness of the population, but they give
public power grid. The use of renewable energy
us an insight on possible influences of RE use
that are environmentally and nature acceptable
on ESS according experts’ perception.
and accessible locally (wood biomass, solar,
The qualitative analyses of the impacts on eco-
geothermal and wind energy) is in TNP limited
system services, society and economy were
and intended only for the supply of individual
carried out both in case of “high”/“very high” and
objects. There are 39 small hydro power plants
“low”/“very low” potential renewable energies,
with a concession in TNP area that produce en-
so to collect more feedback on the perception
ergy for commercial use (NUTNP, 2014). Nev-
of people (experts in this specific case). In TNP
ertheless, experts identified also the potential
51
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
Figure 12:
Current forest biomass
cut in TNP (SFS data
2012).
Figure 13:
Current cut of wood
in TNP for technical
wood and biomass
together (SFS data
2012).
52
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
development of hydro, solar and wind renewa-
for private households (Figure 13). The de-
ble energy sources in TNP.
mands for forest biomass as energy source
The most important RE source in TNP is forest
is growing. The potential is high (high pro-
biomass (Figure 12). Almost 60% of the park is
ductive forests, increasing forest stock) and
covered by forest and most of the forests are
it represents opportunities for income for the
highly productive. It was used in the past as
forest owners. On the other hand, oversized
technical wood and source for the ironworks.
exploitation might represent a threat for biodi-
Today wood cutting is mostly for technical
versity and sustainable use of forests (Poljan-
wood and source of energy (forest biomass)
ec & Pisek, 2013).
T R A D E- O F F
A N D
For qualitative analyses of the impacts on cho-
as negative above all for habitat quality. The
sen categories of ESS, experts gave a scale of
experts stressed out that removing the wood
evaluation ranges from “very positive” impact
residues from TNP forests has the negative
to “very negative” impact (Figures 14 a, b, and
effects on saproxylic insects and other dead-
c). Concerning ESS, solar energy is mostly
wood-dependent organisms. Forest biomass
perceived as a source with negative impacts
harvesting can have positive effects on biodi-
on habitat quality, recreational and aesthetic
versity, but harvesting effects and deadwood
value. Hydropower has negative impact on
removal can also produce negative effects on
habitat quality; instead has a positive impact
habitat (Grilli et al, 2014).
on protection from hazards and recreation-
TNP focuses mostly on biomass, because
al value. The impacts of forest biomass use
of
are positive for provisioning of goods, carbon
the other sources of RE (most of them re-
sequestration and protection from hazards,
lated to the legal constrains that make their
since agricultural areas have been overgrow-
development a very hard task). For that rea-
ing with forest and forest biomass use is a tool
son expected impacts of wind power on ESS
for preserving cultural landscape. On the oth-
was not evaluated according by experts.
several
diffi culties
of
P E R C E I V E D
I M P A C T S
implementing
Solar - Impacts on ESS
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Very Positive
Positive
Neutral
Negative
Very Negative
Figures 14 a, b and c:
Expected impacts
on ESS according to
experts’ perceptions in
TNP. Wind power was
not considered due to
lv
al
ue
e
tio
na
et
re
a
th
As
Re
c
Pr
o
Ha
te
bi
ct
ta
io
n
t's
ic
qu
va
al
lu
ity
s
rd
za
ha
qu
Ai
Biomass - Impacts on ESS
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Very Positive
Positive
Neutral
Negative
lv
al
ue
e
lu
y
va
tio
na
ic
et
re
a
th
Re
c
Ha
As
bi
ta
ec
t's
tio
n
qu
a
fr
lit
y
Hydro - Impacts on ESS
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Very Positive
Positive
Neutral
Negative
lv
al
ue
e
lu
tio
na
ic
Re
c
re
a
et
th
As
t's
bi
ta
Ha
va
qu
al
fr
Pr
o
te
ct
io
n
qu
r's
Ai
ity
om
ity
al
io
n
at
tr
qu
es
se
rb
on
Ca
Pr
o
vi
sio
n
n
of
fo
w
re
at
st
er
's
Very Negative
sio
vi
Pr
o
Frequencies
Ca
rb
Pr
o
on
Pr
ot
se
Ai
r's
qu
es
qu
a
at
tr
w
of
n
sio
vi
lit
io
n
er
at
re
s
fo
on
vi
si
Pr
o
om
Very Negative
t's
Frequencies
Ca
rb
Pr
o
on
vi
se
sio
n
qu
r's
es
of
tr
w
at
al
io
n
er
at
st
re
fo
n
sio
vi
Pr
o
ity
legal constrains.
's
Frequencies
er hand, the use of forest biomass is perceived
53
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
The experts were also asked to evaluate the
gave a negative value for human health since
impact of RE on different socio-economic fac-
injuries at work in forest are possible and on
tors. The ranked impact from very positive to
waste management due to ash residue. Some
very negative. In Figure 15 we present only
negative comments were also registered for
impact of forest biomass on socio-econom-
tourism, system’s acceptance and citizen’s
ic factors as percept by experts. In average,
participation, but almost all the answers were
forest biomass use has positive or neutral im-
positive.
pacts on socio-economic factors. Two experts
Forest biomass - Socioeconomic impacts
Figure 15:
12
biomass use on the
10
society according to
experts’ perceptions
in TNP.
Frequencies
Expected impacts of
Very Positive
Positive
8
Neutral
6
Negative
4
Very Negative
2
pt
n
ip
tic
Pa
r
ce
Ac
at
an
io
ce
m
ris
To
u
th
al
ie
fic
Ef
He
y
nc
y
rt
pe
ity
Co
m
m
un
co
m
In
Pr
o
e
e
ris
rp
te
En
lm
Lo
ca
Em
pl
ar
ke
t
oy
0
Experts were required to identify organiza-
holders belonging to governments, associa-
tions and associations to be involved during
tions, municipalities, scientifi c/environmental
the defi nition of the renewable energies sys-
organisations, NGO’s, forest companies, etc.
tems development (scenario defi nition) of the
(Table 9).
Pilot Areas. The experts identifi ed 31 stake-
TA B L E 9 : S TA K E H O L D E R S I D E N T I F I E D B Y T H E E X P E R T S I N T N P
54
Name of stakeholder
Category
Public institution of Triglav National Park (TNP)
Public body
Slovenia Forest Service
Public body
University of Ljubljana
Public body
Association of forest owners
Private organization
Municipality of Bohinj
Public body
Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation
Public body
Agrarian community Dovje Mojstrana
Private organization
Company EL-TEC Mulej (Society for Energy and Environmental
Solutions)
Private organization
Agricultural/Forest Cooperative
Association-NGO
Ministry of agriculture and the environment
Public body
Forest company GG Bled
Private organization
DOPPS - Birdlife Slovenia
Association-NGO
Slovenian Environment Agency
Public body
CIPRA Slovenia
Association-NGO
T R A D E- O F F
Name of stakeholder
Category
Slovenian Forestry Institute
Public body
Bled-Tourist Association
Private organization
Alpine Association of Slovenia
Association-NGO
Institute for the protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia
Public body
LEAG - Local Energy Agency of Gorenjska
Public body
Fisheries Research Institute of Slovenia
Public body
Municipality of Gorje
Public body
Municipality of Kranjska Gora
Public body
Municipality of Bled
Public body
GOLEA - Goriška Local Energy Agency
Public body
Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia
Association
RAGOR - Upper Gorenjska development Agency
Private organization
Regional Development Agency of Gorenjska
Public body
Association of hoteliers
Private organization
Archdiocese of Ljubljana
Church association
Company Lip Bohinj d.o.o.
Private organization
Machine club Bled
Private organization
A N D
Experts also identify the level of involvement
(9 experts), the Slovenia Forest Service (8 ex-
of the stakeholders (department, association,
perts) and Biotechnical Faculty at University of
institution, etc.). Most often identifi ed stake-
Ljubljana (7 experts) (Figure 16). Most of the
holders were: the public institution of the TNP
experts identifi ed only few stakeholders.
P E R C E I V E D
I M P A C T S
Figure 16:
Alpine Association of Slovenia
Association of hoteliers
Regional Development Agency of Gorenjska
RAGOR - Upper Gorenjska development Agency
GOLEA - Goriška Local Energy Agency
Local Energy Agency of Gorenjska
Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia
Tourism organizations
Slovenian small hydropower association
Fisheries Research Institute of Slovenia
Institute "Jozef Stefan"
University of Ljubljana
Company EL-TEC Mulej (Society for Energy and Environmental)
Municipality of Bled
Municipality of Kranjska Gora
Municipality of Gorje
CIPRA Slovenia
DOPPS - Birdlife Slovenia
Institute for the protection of Cultural Heritage
Slovenian environment Agency
Agrarian communities
Municipality of Bohinj
Energy advisors
Fund for efficient use of energy
Ministry of agriculture and the environment
Agricultural/Forest Cooperative
Slovenian Forest Service
Slovenian Forestry Institute
Public institution of Triglav national park
Forest company GG Bled
Archdiocese of Ljubljana
Association of forest owners
The Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation
Support Services (Energy Services)
Frequency for
stakeholders by
experts in TNP.
0
2
4
6
8
10
Frequencies
55
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
The Social Network Analysis (SNA) shows
stakeholder is a “bridge” between the rest of
which are the key stakeholders from those in-
the network. The classification of stakeholders
dicated by experts. Two ego-network features
on the basis of the index of importance gives
were used; i.e. ego degree centrality and ego
8 key stakeholders: Institute of the Republic of
network betweenness to classify the stake-
Slovenia for Nature Conservation, Bled-Tour-
holders in the TNP into three categories: key
ist Association, Forest company GG Bled,
stakeholders, primary stakeholders and sec-
Slovenia Forest Service, Company EL-TEC
ondary stakeholders (Grilli et al in press). The
Mulej, Agricultural/Forest Cooperative, Public
stakeholder with the highest value is the In-
institution of Triglav National Park (TNP) and
stitute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature
Slovenian Environment Agency (Grilli et al. in
Conservation. Observing the sociogram of
press).
stakeholders (Figure 17) we can see that this
Figure 17:
Social network of
TNP’s stakeholders.
56
T R A D E- O F F
A N D
P E R C E I V E D
I M P A C T S
3.1.3 Gesso and Vermenagna Valleys
Concerning the Pilot Area Gesso and Verme-
so to collect more feedback on the perception
nagna basins, EURAC interviewed 8 experts.
of people (experts in this specific case). Start-
Experts belonging to different branches as hy-
ing from the evaluation of the current use of
draulics, forest management, environmental
renewable energy in the basin, experts identi-
protection and have assured different point of
fied the potential development of each source.
views about the important theme of renewa-
The questionnaire survey highlights that only
ble energy potential and impacts. The quali-
hydropower (> 1 MW) has been widely devel-
tative analyses of the impacts on ecosystem
oped in the study area. The reason of this re-
services, society and economy were carried
sult is represented by the presence of ENEL
out both in case of “high”/“very high” and
power plants in Entracque and Andonno, as
“low”/“very low” potential renewable energies,
showed in Figure 18.
Figure 18:
Scheme of NEL Power
Plants (in red).
Several hydropower plants of medium size
Solar and wind energy were excluded as suit-
(up to 1 MW) are already installed in the study
able sources in the area, mainly for the follow-
area. Other exploitable sites fall into the Alpi
ing reasons. Related to wind energy, it was
Marittime Natural Park (PNAM), so according
remarked the complexity of this kind of instal-
to the experts additional hydro plants are not
lation in the area, due to the morphology and
likely to be installed. The realization of these
the visual impact. As regard solar energy, the
systems would lead to an impact on natural
main reasons that were stressed as an obsta-
ecosystems that is not acceptable within a
cle to these typologies of power plants are the
protected area.
soil consumption joined to the visual impacts
Experts underlined that a possible solution to
they would have on landscape.
have further use of water to produce energy
The final analysis showed that the renewable
could be represented by hydropower in aq-
energy source that could have a potential de-
ueducts or existing check dams, to minimize
velopment in the area is forest biomass only, a
impacts and take advantage of existing struc-
source that is abundant and available, as un-
tures.
derlined by the most of the experts. In Gesso
57
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
and Vermenagna Valleys, the utilization of for-
resent an opportunity to combine the recov-
est biomass was abandoned during the years
ery of open areas – that is important also in
’70-’80 and ’90. The use of fossil fuels and the
a landscape point of view – with the manage-
depopulation of the valleys has led to a con-
ment of growing forest. This should be done
siderable increase in the forested surface.
giving attention to save some typologies, as
Many agricultural lands are now invaded by
maple-ashes (priority habitat for Nature 2000
the forest. However, the situation has changed
Network, code 9180), to preserve biodiversity.
during the last 10 years. The energetic use of
The qualitative analysis of impacts on ecosys-
forest biomass was again re-evaluated and
tem services and social and economic aspects
forest management is resumed. Currently, the
can be summarised as follows. Concerning
cuts affect mainly public forests and the main
ecosystem services, the overall evaluation re-
assortment is fuel wood. The beech forests
veals how experts do not agree about the im-
are the most used for the production of fuel
pacts of the forest biomass use on ESS. The
wood. Public-owned forest has recently been
scale of evaluation ranges always from “very
subjected to forest planning (Forest Assess-
positive” to “very negative” impacts.
ment Plan of Natural Park of Maritime Alps
As it is possible to note from Figure 19, bio-
and Forest Assessment Plan of Maritime Alps
mass is considered to have neutral effects
Mountain Community). Today forest biomass
for the provision of water and water quality;
for energy purposes is mainly used by resi-
but it can have a negative impact on touristic
dents as a source of energy to power small
and recreational services. The photovoltaic
household systems (working mainly with fuel
appears to be the renewable energy source
wood). Currently there are no power plants of
with the most negative impacts on ecosystem
medium size (100-200 kW) for the heat pro-
services. This type of power plant seems to
duction and electricity using wood chips. In
impact on almost all ecosystem services, with
the next future some public-private initiatives
the exception of air quality and availability of
are planned for the construction of some facil-
water. The wind energy is considered hav-
ities of this type.
ing neutral impacts on ecosystem services,
A key point that was stressed during inter-
unless producing negative effects on habitat
views was that is important to manage forests,
quality, aesthetic and intrinsic values.
and the use of wood for biomass could rep-
Figure 19:
Forest Biomass - Impacts on ESS
Negative
ue
va
l
va
lu
e
In
tr
in
sic
e
Re
c
re
a
et
tio
na
l
ic
va
ua
l
th
As
t's
q
bi
ta
Ha
lu
ity
m
fr
o
ity
ct
io
n
te
qu
a
lit
io
n
qu
al
Pr
o
on
Ca
rb
W
at
er
w
of
Ai
r's
er
at
st
on
on
fo
re
isi
Pr
ov
isi
Pr
ov
58
y
Very Negative
's
Vermenagna Valleys.
Neutral
ra
t
in Gesso and
Positive
st
experts’ perceptions
Very Positive
qu
e
on ESS according to
Frequencies
forest biomass use
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
se
Expected impacts of
T R A D E- O F F
A N D
on the plants power (from > 1 MW to < 100
tive impact on the ESS, decreasing depending
kW), as showed in the Figures below.
Hydro > 1 MW - Impacts on ESS
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Figures 20 a, b and c:
Expected impacts
Positive
of different kind
Neutral
of hydropower on
va
lu
e
sic
lv
al
ue
Re
c
In
re
a
As
t
Vermenagna Valleys.
tr
in
he
tio
na
t ic
qu
t's
ita
Ha
b
te
va
lu
e
al
ity
om
n
io
ct
er
W
at
on
ESS in Gesso and
Hydro < 1 MW - Impacts on ESS
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Very Positive
Positive
Neutral
Negative
ue
va
l
sic
In
re
a
tr
in
tio
na
lv
al
ue
e
lu
ic
Re
c
Ha
As
bi
th
et
t's
ta
ct
te
Pr
o
va
al
qu
fr
io
n
qu
er
ity
om
ity
al
ity
al
qu
W
at
r's
Ai
Hydro < 100 kW - Impacts on ESS
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Very Positive
Positive
Neutral
Negative
e
va
lu
sic
tr
in
lv
al
ue
tio
na
re
a
In
e
va
ic
th
et
Re
c
As
t's
ta
Ha
bi
lu
qu
al
ity
m
fr
o
n
tio
ec
qu
al
ity
Pr
ot
er
qu
al
ity
W
at
se
Ca
rb
on
r's
tr
qu
es
of
on
Ai
er
w
at
re
s
fo
Pr
ov
isi
sio
n
vi
Pr
o
at
io
n
Very Negative
t's
Frequencies
Ca
rb
Pr
o
on
vi
se
sio
n
qu
es
of
tr
w
at
at
st
re
fo
n
sio
vi
Pr
o
io
n
er
Very Negative
's
Frequencies
Ca
rb
Pr
o
fr
al
ity
qu
ua
at
es
qu
se
Ai
r's
q
tr
w
of
on
vi
si
Pr
o
io
n
er
at
st
re
fo
on
vi
si
lit
y
Very Negative
Pr
o
I M P A C T S
Very Positive
Negative
's
Frequencies
Hydropower appears to have an overall nega-
P E R C E I V E D
The hydropower plants with low power (< 100
resources. These plants have always a pos-
kW) have neutral and positive impacts on the
itive impact on society and appear to be the
social development, especially on local enter-
most viable source to be developed within the
prise, local income and effi ciency in the use of
study area (Figure 21).
59
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
Figure 21:
Expected impacts
Hydro < 100kW - Socioeconomic impacts
Negative
io
tic
ip
at
nc
e
Pa
r
ris
m
Ac
ce
pt
a
To
u
He
al
th
y
ie
nc
ty
ic
Ef
f
Pr
o
un
pe
r
ity
e
m
Co
m
co
m
In
Em
ise
Very Negative
pl
oy
perceptions.
Neutral
pr
according to experts’
Positive
er
(< 100 kW)
Very Positive
En
t
hydroelectric plants
Frequencies
economic aspects of
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Lo
ca
l
on local socio-
At the end, experts were required to identify
Department of protection and management of
organizations and associations to be involved
wildlife and aquatic, Department of forest etc.
during the defi nition of the renewable energies
– as more involved and interested in hydro-
systems development (scenario defi nition) of
power and forest biomass.
the Pilot Areas. They proposed a list of peo-
In Table 10 it is possible to compare the com-
ple, local governments, associations etc.; EU-
plete list of stakeholders identifi ed by experts
RAC updated it in a detailed way, specifying
(fi rst column) with the details by EURAC (sec-
the single unit to be involved in future steps.
ond column). Experts had also to identify the
The aim was to better characterize who can
level of involvement, i.e. if stakeholders should
have real interest in the project’s discussion
actively take part of scenario defi nition or they
and results. As an example, experts indicat-
should only be informed of the results, with-
ed the Piedmont Region as general institution;
out consultation. The Figure 22 shows the
EURAC focused the attention on three main
frequency of identifi cation of the department,
departments – Department of protected areas,
association, institution as a stakeholder.
TA B L E 1 0 : S TA K E H O L D E R S I D E N T I F I E D B Y T H E E X P E R T S I N G E S S O
A N D V E R M E N A G N A VA L L E Y S
Stakeholders
Further details
Protected Areas Department
Protection and management of
wildlife and aquatic Department
Piedmont Region
Forests Department
Mountain Department
Sustainable energy development
Department
Management of territory resources
department
Cuneo Province
Terrotory protection department
Agriculture, Parks and Forests
department
Mountain Community of Maritime Alps
60
Technical offi ce
Technical-agrarian offi ce
T R A D E- O F F
A N D
P E R C E I V E D
I M P A C T S
Further details
Stakeholders
Limone Piemonte
Vernante
Robilante
Roccavione
Municipalities
Roaschia
Entracque
Valdieri
Maritime Alps Natural Park (PNAM)
Regional Environmental Agency (ARPA)
Institute for timber plants and environment (IPLA)
Fishing associations
Local Government Association associations
Military Forest Service (CFS)
Scientifi c associations
Collective interests associations
ASBUC (“Usi Civici” Association)
WWF Piemonte
Environmental associations
Legambiente Cuneo
Coldiretti
CIA
Unions and Associations
Unione Agricoltori
Federpern
AREB Piemonte
Figure 22:
Scientific associations
Frequency for
Military Forest Service
stakeholders, by
Regional Environmental Agency
experts in Gesso and
Local Government Association associations
Vermenagna Valleys.
Fishing associations
Institute for timber plants and environment
Mountain Community of Maritime Alps
Environmental associations
Professional unions and associations
Collective interests associations
Maritime Alps Natural Park
Municipalities
Cuneo Province
Piedmont Region
0
1
2
3
Frequencies
4
5
6
7
61
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
The social network analysis shows which are
and the Piedmont Region. Also important is
the key stakeholders from those indicated by
the role of the Cooperative Alpiforest (Associ-
experts. As can be seen in Figure 23, the key
ation of woodcutters).
stakeholders are the Mountain Community
Figure 23:
Social Network
Analysis.
3.1.4 Mis and Maè Valleys
The Veneto Region interviewed 11 experts: 5
tation of forest biomass energy plants and
for Mis Valley and 6 for Maè Valley. Experts
for that of mini/micro hydropower plants. In
belonging to different branches as hydraulics,
the willingness to represent the more realis-
law, forest management, botany, urban plan-
tic scenarios and aiming at a simplification
ning and have assured different point of views
of the analysis, the economic evaluation of
about the important theme of renewable ener-
the ESS relevant for the Mis and Maè Pilot
gy potential and impacts. The qualitative anal-
Areas will be carried on mainly relating to
yses of the impacts on ecosystem services,
the zones which could most-likely accom-
society and economy were carried out both in
modate any plants for the production of re-
case of “high”/“very high” and “low”/“very low”
newable energy.
potential renewable energies, so to collect
Most of the benefits provided by ecosys-
more feedback on the perception of people
tems are indirect and result from complex
(experts in this specific case). Starting from
ecological processes that often involve long
the evaluation of the actual use of renewable
time frames and nonlinear changes. The
energy in the two basins, experts identified the
economic evaluation starts from the under-
potential development of each source.
standing which are the biophysical variables
entailed and which the preferences of the in-
62
Besides, during the questionnaire, the po-
dividuals with regard to the benefits arising
tential and suitable areas for the develop-
from ecosystem processes (EC, 2008). It is
ment of any renewable energy plant have
possible to develop an assessment for only
been mapped. In particular, for both Pilot
those ESS whose functions are quantitative-
Areas, distinct localized zones have been
ly describable with an adequate number of
identified respectively for the implemen-
data. Evaluation through monetary values,
T R A D E- O F F
A N D
always conditioned by the quality of the data
and the existence value (even if you do not
and the uncertainty of the estimate, has
practice any use or intended use of it).
to be necessarily combined to qualitative
In the following text, Mis and Maè Valleys are
analysis. There are several methodologies
considered as two different case studies, un-
for evaluating the ESS and their common
like Gesso and Vermenagna Valleys.
P E R C E I V E D
I M P A C T S
characteristic is that they are based on the
principles of welfare economics (Marino and
M I S VA L L E Y
Piotto, 2010). We, therefore, referred to the
In the Mis Valley, there is the common opinion
basic concept of Total Economic Value (To-
about hydropower, stated by all the experts,
tal Economic Value - TEV) that represents
as a source that has already been overexploit-
the overall objective for the assessment of
ed and that could not have further develop-
environmental economics (MATTM, 2011).
ment, except for some cases in the northern
It is based on the distinction between two
part of the basin, near Gosaldo. The area was
major categories of values associated with
touched by a severe judgement (19389/2012),
natural resources: the value of the use and
concerning the authorization – already re-
non-use.
leased – of a power plant inside the Park area,
The first one comprehends: the direct use
in the central part of the Valley. Coherently
values - when the benefits derive from the
to the National Law on Protected Areas (L.
direct use of the ESS (among the methods
394/1991) and the Plan of the Park, the judge-
for the evaluation we have the Travel cost
ment establishes that within the “reserved
method and the Contingent evaluation meth-
oriented areas” it is forbidden to modify the
od); the indirect use values – when benefits
hydrological regime and to build any new con-
are obtained thanks to the accomplishment
struction. Experts underlined that a possible
of the ecosystem functions (for their evalua-
solution to have further use of water to produce
tion we can refer to the existent market pric-
energy could be represented by hydropower in
es of the hedonic prices, consisting in the
aqueducts or existing check dams, to minimize
observation of existing markets considered
impacts and take advantage of existing struc-
as surrogates of the environmental goods).
tures. Solar and wind energy were excluded
Finally, the option values - reveals the possi-
as suitable sources in the area, mainly for the
bility of maintaining constant the availability
following reasons. In general, it was remarked
of the good, highlighting the values attrib-
the complexity of this kind of installation in the
uted to the conservation of resources for a
area, due to the morphology and, in the spe-
possible future use. The option value can
cific case, to the scarcity of wind blows to be
also be considered a form of insurance and it
exploited. However, the main reason that was
is further defined by the contingent valuation
stressed as an obstacle to these typologies of
method. The value of non-use derives from
power plants is the visual impacts they would
the awareness that the natural environment
have on landscape. The final analysis showed
is maintained over time. This value is rela-
that the renewable energy source that could
tively difficult to estimate because it is often
have a potential development in the area is
difficult to put a price on goods which are
forest biomass only, a source that is abundant
not usually defined through market instru-
and available, as underlined by the most of the
ments. The method most commonly used is
experts. All following data and considerations
the contingent valuation. The non-use value
are related to this topic. Experts identified in a
is distinguishable in the bequest value (de-
map the areas suitable for biomass production
pending on the transferability to future gen-
and utilization, as it is possible to see in Figure
erations), the altruistic value (depending on
24. Different colours identify different experts’
the availability of the resource for other indi-
marks. This information were geographically
viduals belonging to the present generation)
stored in a shapefile.
63
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
Figure 24:
Suitable areas for
forest biomass supply
in Mis Valley, as
marked by experts
(different colors
identify different
experts’ marks).
It should be noted that the central part of
typologies, as maple-ashes (priority habitat
the Valley, covered by the Dolomiti National
for Nature 2000 Network, code 9180) and to
Park, was excluded, as subjected to restric-
preserve biodiversity. Finally, near Sospirolo
tions and particular rules. The use of forest
a wood chip platform has recently been built,
biomass is analysed in relation to the exist-
and it was considered as helpful for a potential
ing rules of forest management plans. A key
future development of biomass plants in the
point that was stressed during interviews was
area. The qualitative analysis of impacts on
that forest is growing and covering grassland
ecosystem services and social and economic
and pastures, with a consequent loss in biodi-
aspects can be summarised as follows. Con-
versity and problems related to the presence
cerning ecosystem services, the overall evalu-
of trees closer and closer to villages. It is im-
ation reveals how forest biomass is perceived
portant to manage it, and the use of wood for
as a source with positive impacts, in contrast
biomass could represent an opportunity to
with the other energies. As it is possible to
combine the recovery of open areas – that is
note from Figure 25, biomass is considered to
important also in a landscape point of view –
have positive effects in the majority of servic-
with the management of growing forest. This
es (lightly negative for carbon sequestration
should be done giving attention to save some
and neutral for provision and quality of water).
Figure 25: Expected
Neutral
Negative
ue
va
l
tr
in
sic
lv
al
ue
In
e
lu
tio
na
Re
cr
ea
th
et
ic
va
qu
al
As
t's
bi
ta
Ha
ct
io
n
fr
al
te
qu
Pr
o
er
ity
om
ity
y
lit
W
at
qu
a
r's
st
rb
on
Ca
Ai
er
at
of
w
sio
n
sio
n
fo
re
Pr
ov
i
Pr
ov
i
64
ra
tio
n
Very Negative
st
's
Valley.
Very Positive
Positive
qu
e
perceptions in Mis
Frequencies
according to experts’
Forest Biomass - Impacts on ESS
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
se
impacts on ESS
T R A D E- O F F
A N D
In Figures 26 a, b and c qualitative impacts on
reported; the scale of evaluation ranges always
others ecosystem services for Mis Valley are
from “very positive” to “very negative” impacts.
P E R C E I V E D
I M P A C T S
Figures 26 a, b and
Solar - Impacts on ESS
c: Expected impacts
Very Positive
on ESS according to
Positive
experts’ perceptions in
Neutral
Mis Valley.
Negative
ue
va
l
sic
Re
c
In
re
a
tr
in
tio
na
t ic
As
t
he
t's
ita
Ha
b
lv
al
ue
ue
al
qu
za
ha
n
io
ct
te
Pr
o
va
l
ity
s
rd
ity
al
er
Ca
rb
Pr
o
on
W
at
se
qu
ua
at
qu
es
Ai
r's
q
tr
w
of
on
vi
si
lit
io
n
er
at
st
re
fo
on
vi
si
Pr
o
y
Very Negative
's
Frequencies
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Hydro > 1 MW - Impacts on ESS
Very Positive
Positive
Neutral
Negative
Pr
o
ue
va
l
sic
Re
c
In
re
a
th
As
tr
in
et
tio
na
ic
lv
al
ue
e
lu
va
al
Ha
Pr
o
bi
te
ta
ct
t's
io
n
qu
fr
al
qu
er
W
at
ity
om
ity
ity
al
qu
r's
Ca
rb
Pr
o
on
se
sio
vi
Ai
n
qu
es
of
tr
w
at
at
od
go
's
st
re
fo
n
vi
sio
io
n
er
Very Negative
s
Frequencies
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Very Positive
Positive
Neutral
Negative
ue
va
l
lv
al
ue
tio
na
In
tr
in
sic
e
ic
et
Re
cr
ea
th
As
t's
bi
ta
va
qu
al
lu
ity
ds
za
r
ha
n
Ha
io
ct
Pr
ot
e
W
at
er
qu
al
it
y
y
lit
qu
a
Ai
tr
a
qu
es
se
r's
tio
n
er
at
of
w
rb
on
Ca
Pr
ov
i
sio
n
fo
r
es
t's
Very Negative
sio
n
vi
Pr
o
Frequencies
Hydro < 1 MW - Impacts on ESS
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
65
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
As it was stressed by experts, a correctly-man-
is revealed as a potential source that can have
aged forest is important to provide forest and
good infl uence on them, especially for job op-
agriculture products, protect from hazards,
portunities and local economy, related to the
maintain habitat quality, aesthetic, recrea-
traditional woodcutting. In general, renewable
tional and intrinsic values. Concerning so-
energies can represent a fi eld of employment.
cio-economic features, again forest biomass
Figure 27:
Forest Biomass - Socioeconomic impacts
Expected impacts
6
Valley.
5
Frequencies
on the society in Mis
Very Positive
Positive
Neutral
4
Negative
3
Very Negative
2
1
66
io
ip
at
ce
tic
an
pt
ce
Pa
r
m
ris
Ac
To
u
th
He
ie
fic
al
y
nc
y
rt
Ef
pe
Pr
o
ity
un
m
Co
m
In
co
m
e
e
rp
ris
l
te
En
Lo
ca
Em
pl
oy
0
Forest biomass could be better accepted by
pies a certain amount of land, optically con-
local people, as it can have positive effects on
siderable, especially in uncontaminated na-
environment as mentioned above. It is a real
ture. A hydropower plant, in the specifi c case
and good alternative to the main source of re-
a run-of-the-river system, subtracts water and
newable energy in the Belluno Province: water
change shapes. Qualitative impacts are sum-
as a resource has been over-exploited in re-
marized in Figure 27. Perceived benefi ts and
cent years, and many problems have raised
risks are plotted in a graph, in a scale from
between the local communities and policy
“very benefi cial” to “very risky”; impressions
makers. Tourism is mainly linked to the beauty
given by experts can be summarised as in Fig-
of the place, so to landscape and how it can be
ures 28 a and b. This is the confi rmation that
changed by the presence of a power plant and
forest biomass is the only source perceived in
the related activities and structures. A wind
a positive way, both environmentally and so-
turbine can change view; a solar plant occu-
cially and economically.
T R A D E- O F F
A N D
P E R C E I V E D
I M P A C T S
Figures 28 a and b:
Perceived
Environmental effects 6 Very Beneficial Beneficial 5 Frequencies Neutral 4 environmental, social
and individual risks of
RE in Mis Valley.
Risky Very Risky 3 2 1 0 Solar Wind Biomass Hydro<1MW Social and individual effects 6 Very Beneficial 5 Beneficial 4 Risky Frequencies Neutral Very Risky 3 2 1 0 Solar Wind Biomass Hydro<1MW At the end, experts were required to identify
ed in hydropower and forest biomass. Some
organizations and associations to be involved
stakeholders are the same for both the Pilot
during the defi nition of the renewable energies
Areas, some are more specifi c – for example
systems development (scenario defi nition) of
the municipalities involved and the collective
the Pilot Areas. They proposed a list of people,
ownerships. In Table 11 it is possible to com-
local governments, associations etc.; Veneto
pare the complete list of stakeholders identi-
Region updated it in a detailed way, specifying
fi ed by experts (fi rst column) with the details
the single unit to be involved in future steps;
by Veneto Region (second column). Experts
the aim was to better characterize who can
had also to identify the level of involvement,
have real interest in the project’s discussion
i.e. if stakeholders should actively take part of
and results. As an example, experts indicat-
scenario defi nition or they should only be in-
ed the Belluno Province as general institu-
formed of the results, without consultation. In
tion; Veneto Region focused the attention on
Figure 29, the blue colour identify the passive
three main departments – Department of en-
involvement – just one of them. This picture
ergy planning and management, Department
shows also the frequency of identifi cation of
of hunting and fi shing, Department of soil
the department/association/institution as a
protection – as more involved and interest-
stakeholder.
67
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
TA B L E 1 1 : S TA K E H O L D E R S I D E N T I F I E D B Y T H E E X P E R T S I N M I S
VA L L E Y
Stakeholders
Further details
Dolomiti Unesco Foundation
Department of energy planning
and management
Belluno Province
Department of hunting and fishing
Department of soil protecion
project Moreco - Alpine Space
Agricoltural and trade associations
Professional Association for agronomist and forestry
Mountain Communities
to be added: Engineers,
Architects, Lawyers, Agricultural
and Mining Experts
Agordina
Val Belluna
High School for agronomists
Consorzio Legno Veneto
Forest enterprises/Confederation of Italian Industries
CoGeFor (Forest management
consortium)
small industry associations
Belluno
chamber of commerce Belluno
Social Cooperatives
Municipalities
Gosaldo
Sospirolo
Mountain Wilderness
Acqua Bene Comune
Environmental associations
Confini Comuni
WWF Belluno
Legambiente Belluno
Private forest owners
Forest Service Department
Civil Engineering Department
Veneto Region (i.e. Forest Service, Hunting and
Fishing Service)
Hunting and Fishing Department
Environmental Impact Assessment
Department
Energy Department
Superintendance for Cultural Heritage and Landscape
Committee of Tiser community
Dolomiti National Park
Regional Environmental Agency
Archaeological site association
Italian Association for agricultural and forest energies
BIM Consortium
ENEL
Civil Engineering Department
Fishing basin institutions
Shooting ground (hunting) institutions
68
(see. Veneto Region)
Fishing basin n. 5 - Agordino
Fishing basin n. 5 - Sospirolo
T R A D E- O F F
A N D
P E R C E I V E D
I M P A C T S
Figure 29:
Shooting ground (hunting) institutions
Frequency for
Fishing basin institutions
stakeholders, by
Civil engineering department
experts in Mis Valley
ENEL
BIM Consortium
(the blue colour
Italian Association for agricultural and forest energies
identifi es the passive
Archaeological site association
involvement).
Regional Environmental Agency
Dolomiti National Park
Committee of Tiser community
Superintendance for cultural heritage
Veneto Region (i.e. Forest Service, Hunting and Fishing
Private forest owners
Environmental associations
Municipalities
Social Cooperatives
Forest enterprises/Confederation of Italian Industries
High School for agronomists
Mountain Communities
Professional Association for agronomist and forestry
Agricoltural and trade associations
Belluno Province
Dolomiti Unesco Foundation
0
1
2
3
Frequencies
4
5
6
Other possible interlocutors for scenario defi -
controversial type of energy in the area. Ex-
nition have been identifi ed:
perts underlined how small hydropower has
• Italian Alpine Club (CAI);
less impact with respect to bigger one – less
• Military Forest Service (CFS);
discharge involved, smaller structures and so
• Basin Institution;
on. Water is almost always present, a constant
• Angelini Foundation for studies on moun-
resource. However, some suggestions and lim-
tains;
• Veneto Agricoltura - the Veneto Region
its were given. In particular, one of the interviewed people stated that the optimal distance
Agency that promote and carries out inter-
between derivation and restitution in small hy-
ventions for the modernisation of farms and
dropower is a maximum of 100 metres (length),
agro-forestry soil conservation.
to make the plant (including also all the connected structures) as punctual as possible and
M A È VA L L E Y
to limit the segment of the stream subjected to
In the Maè valley case study, all the experts un-
impacts. He also underlined the importance of
derlined the importance of forest biomass, and
the rethinking about the Minimum Environmen-
4 of the 6 experts considered that hydropow-
tal Flow concept, to better take into account
er < 1 MW could have a further development,
all the environmental features of a stream. Hy-
in many cases giving some limitations and
dropower in aqueducts or existing check dams
conditions. A curious note: wind (2/6 experts)
could represent an alternative to be studied.
and solar (only 1 interviewed person) energy
Forest biomass, on the contrary, is perceived
were also put into attention. In particular, it is
as a good alternative to increment renewable
stressed that the industrial area of Longarone
energy in the area. Forest has grown in a con-
could be suitable for a plant, not only because
siderable way in recent years, and manage-
considered as a windy area, but also from the
ment is desirable, for maintenance of open
aesthetic point of view – it could not be ruined
areas and preservation of villages. It could be
by the presence of the plant. However, the
better to use mainly spruce, as pure stands or
general opinion is in line with what has already
mixed with beech; also stands growing along
been reported for Mis Valley: morphology and
riverbed should be taken into considerations.
visual impact prevent the potentiality of these
In Figures 30 a, b, c and d qualitative impacts
two sources. For Maè Valley, experts identifi ed
on ecosystem services for Maè Valley are re-
hydropower (< 1 MW) and forest biomass as
ported; the scale of evaluation ranges from
potential sources for energy. Hydropower is a
“very positive” to “very negative” impacts.
69
70
et
ic
rin
sic
In
t
lu
e
ue
va
l
lv
al
ue
va
y
lit
om
fr
qu
a
tio
na
Re
cr
ea
th
As
n
io
t's
bi
ta
Ha
ct
ity
Pr
ot
et
ic
sic
In
tr
in
lu
e
ue
va
l
lv
al
ue
va
y
qu
al
it
tio
na
Re
cr
ea
th
As
t's
ds
za
r
ity
ity
al
qu
al
ha
er
om
fr
bi
ta
Ha
n
ec
tio
qu
tio
n
tr
a
er
ic
lu
e
ue
va
l
lv
al
ue
va
ity
al
om
fr
qu
sic
tr
in
In
et
t's
n
io
ity
ity
al
al
qu
qu
tio
na
re
a
Re
c
th
As
ct
ta
bi
Ha
te
er
W
at
r's
Ai
er
io
n
at
at
w
tr
es
qu
se
Pr
o
on
rb
Ca
As
t
In
t ic
tr
in
om
sic
va
lu
e
lv
al
ue
va
lu
e
al
ity
fr
lit
y
ua
lit
y
tio
n
ua
n
's
er
st
at
ra
qu
io
na
he
t's
io
re
w
er
q
ct
ita
te
W
at
Ha
b
es
t
of
fo
Ai
r's
q
se
qu
Pr
o
on
on
Re
cr
ea
t
rb
Ca
vi
si
on
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
qu
al
W
at
Ai
r's
ue
s
se
q
at
of
w
of
's
Pr
o
vi
si
Figures 30 a, b, c
Pr
ot
e
ity
al
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
er
qu
rb
on
Ca
n
st
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
W
at
r's
Ai
er
io
n
at
tr
qu
es
at
on
's
sio
re
fo
4
se
of
w
st
vi
Pr
o
n
sio
Frequencies
Expected impacts
isi
fo
re
vi
Pr
o
Pr
o
and d:
Pr
ov
n
si o
Frequencies
experts’ perceptions in
P A C K A G E
rb
on
Ca
t's
re
s
fo
Pr
ov
i
Frequencies
on ESS according to
W O R K
sio
n
n
sio
Frequencies
Maè Valley.
G R E E N
Pr
ov
i
Pr
ov
i
R E C H A R G E
R E P O R T
Solar - Impacts on ESS
Positive
Very Positive
Neutral
Negative
Very Negative
Forest Biomass - Impacts on ESS
Very Positive
Positive
Neutral
Negative
Very Negative
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Hydro > 1 MW - Impacts on ESS
Positive
Very Positive
Neutral
Negative
Very Negative
Hydro < 1 MW - Impacts on ESS
Very Positive
Positive
Neutral
Negative
Very Negative
T R A D E- O F F
In addition, areas for a possible plant and a
A N D
P E R C E I V E D
I M P A C T S
31, 32 and 33).
possible storage area were identified (Figures
Figure 31:
Example of suitable
streams for small
hydropower in Maè
Valley, as marked by
one expert (in purple).
Figure 32:
Suitable areas for
forest biomass supply
in Maè Valley, as
marked by experts
(different colors
identify different
experts’ marks).
71
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
Figure 33:
Example of a suitable
area for storage of
biomass and power
plant in Maè Valley, as
identified by an expert
(in brown).
Forest biomass can have also positive effects
several decades. Small plants could be bet-
for economy. Maè Valley had a traditional
ter accepted by people. They could also give
use of wood for rural building structures, now
some kind of income to the area, although it
strongly declined, while nowadays the use of
was stressed by experts the need to have a
wood for heating remains high for households’
greater participations of local communities in
traditional activity. An increment in the use
the projects as a sort of “shareholding”. Com-
of wood, under the condition of proper forest
pensations should be greater for the territory
management, can be an opportunity for local
where natural resources exists and are used.
economy and local chain to increase. On the
If perceived benefits and risks are considered,
other side, hydropower is not always well ac-
only forest biomass can be “beneficial” (Fig-
cepted by local people, as it is an energy that
ures 34 a and b).
has already been exploited in the Valley for
72
T R A D E- O F F
P E R C E I V E D
I M P A C T S
Figures 34 a and b:
Hydro < 1MW - Socioeconomic impacts
8
7
6
Frequencies
A N D
Very Positive
Expected impacts on
Positive
the society in Maè
Neutral
5
Negative
4
Valley.
Very Negative
3
2
1
io
n
e
ip
at
nc
ta
Pa
r
Ac
c
tic
ep
th
He
fi c
To
ur
ism
nc
ie
al
y
y
rt
Ef
Pr
op
e
un
ity
e
m
Co
m
In
co
m
ris
e
l
En
te
rp
Lo
ca
Em
pl
oy
0
Forest Biomass - Socioeconomic impacts
6
Very Positive
Positive
Frequencies
5
Neutral
4
Negative
3
Very Negative
2
1
Despite indications given by interviewed peo-
io
ip
tic
Pa
r
an
pt
ce
at
ce
m
ris
Ac
To
u
th
Ef
fic
He
ie
al
y
nc
y
rt
pe
Pr
o
ity
un
m
Co
m
In
co
m
e
e
te
rp
ris
l
Lo
ca
En
Em
pl
oy
0
in a whole contest (Figures below).
ple, hydropower is seen a bit more negatively
Social Risk 6 Figures 35 a and b:
Frequencies 5 4 Very Beneficial Social and
Beneficial environmental risks in
Neutral Maè Valley.
Risky Very Risky 3 2 1 0 Solar Wind Biomass Hydro<1MW Environmental Risk 6 Very Beneficial Beneficial 5 Frequencies Neutral 4 Risky Very Risky 3 2 1 0 Solar Wind Biomass Hydro<1MW 73
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
As for the Mis Valley case study, the stake-
with the same procedure. The following Table
holder analysis was carried out in Maè Valley,
and Figure show the results.
TA B L E 12: S TA K E H O L D E R S I D E N T I F I E D BY T H E E X P E R T S I N
M A È VA L L E Y
Stakeholders
Further information
Department of energy planning and management
Belluno Province
Department of hunting and fishing
Department of soil protecion
project Moreco - Alpine Space
Longarone
Municipalities
Forno di Zoldo
Zoldo Alto
Zoppè di Cadore
Dolomiti Unesco Foundation
Acqua Bene Comune
Mountain Wildness
Confini Comuni
Environmental associations
Legambiente
WWF
Italian Alpine Club
Angelini Foundation
Collective ownerships
"regole"
"usi civici"
Agricoltural and trade associations
Dolomiti National Park
BIM Consortium
Chamber of Commerce
Forest enterprises/Confederation of
Italian Industries
Civil Engineering Department
Consorzio Legno Veneto
CoGeFor (Forest management consortium)
small industry associations Belluno
(see Veneto Region)
Forest Service Department
Veneto Region (Forest Service, Hunting
and Fishering Service)
Civile Engineering Department
Hunting and Fishing Department
Environmental Impact Assessment Department
Energy Department
Fishing basin institutions
Shooting ground (hunting) institutions
Mountain Communities
Cadore-Longaronese-Zoldo
Veneto Agricoltura
Military Forest Service (CFS)
Guard of the local municipality
Professional association for agronomist
and forestry
ENEL
University of Padua - Hydraulics
74
to be added: Engineers, Architects, Lawyers,
Agricultural and Mining Experts
T R A D E- O F F
A N D
P E R C E I V E D
I M P A C T S
Figure 36:
University of Padua
Frequency for
Shooting ground (hunting) institutions
stakeholders, by
Fishing basin institutions
expert in Maè Valley
Forest guard of the local municipality
Angelini Foundation
(the blue colour
WWF
identifi es the passive
Legambiente
involvement).
Confini comuni
Mountain Wildness
Acqua Bene Comune
Dolomiti Unesco Foundation
Italian Alpine Club (CAI)
Collective Ownerships
Professional Association for agronomist and forestry
Veneto Agricoltura
Chamber of Commerce
Forest enterprises/Confederation of Italian Industries
Agricoltural and trade associations
ENEL
BIM Consortium
Dolomiti National Park
Municipalities
Mountain Communities
Belluno Province
Veneto Region
Military Forest Service (CFS)
0
1
2
3
Frequencies
4
5
6
7
Other possible interlocutors for scenario defi -
For both the Pilot Areas, a more inclusive
nition have been identifi ed:
stakeholder analysis has been considered, so
• Regional Environmental Agency (ARPAV);
all the identifi ed stakeholders will be involved
• Superintendance for cultural heritage and
in scenario defi nition, independently from the
landscape;
frequency they have been indicated more than
• Basin Institution;
once. All these stakeholders were invited to
• Italian Association for agricultural and for-
informative meetings in Pilot Areas, in June
est energies (AIEL).
2014.
3.2 Conclusion
The Renewable Energy production may create
ly varies from source to source and from Pilot
several benefi ts for the social and economic
Area to Pilot Area. In such a situation, the mul-
sphere of the sustainability, since it allows
ti-functionality of the ecosystems may be under
the growth of the local economy and stimu-
threat if the RE development is not faced in a
lates entrepreneurship. Almost all the experts
holistic and personalized manner. The differ-
evidenced a positive impact on the social,
ences in the experts’ answers from Region to
economic and cultural indicators, except few
Region highlights the fact that a standardized
negative responses concerning tourism devel-
approach is not effective in conciliating ecolo-
opment and participation.
gy, economy and social acceptance. Each Pilot
On the other hand, the ecological effects of
Area has its own need and have to be treat-
RE on the Ecosystem Services are not always
ed separately. A participatory approach in the
positive, since there are many trade-off condi-
decision-making allows the inclusion of many
tions that have to be considered. The indicator
contributions from the stakeholders that in a
assessing the impact on ESS of RE use high-
top-down management may be excluded or
75
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
taken for granted. Bottom-up policies that in-
in the direction of participatory management
tegrate public opinions and preferences in the
and which Regions still pursue a top-down
decision making process are useful in bridging
approach. The joint analysis of the mentioned
different sectors (Kraxner et al., 2009). Incor-
indicators allows the identification of the
porating perceptions of experts and stakehold-
trade-offs between RE and ESS and let deci-
ers is fundamental for ensuring successful for-
sion-makers understand several aspects of the
mulation and implementation of energy policy
management problem that are usually exclud-
in order to reduce conflicts and improving coop-
ed in a standard decision planning process.
eration among the different groups of interest
Such an analysis gives also the possibility to
(Dwivedi and Alavalapati, 2009).
formulate several recommendations about the
In addition, the review of the local experts is
path in development of each Pilot Region. It is
a good strategy to have a first glance of the
important to note that the analysis that similar
importance and the potentiality of the target
tools provide is still preliminary and has to be
Pilot Areas, providing information very useful
tested and validated through the DSS. The ex-
in the Decision Support System construction.
perts’ input may turn out to be not valid after
The stakeholders’ needs in the Alpine region
the DSS implementation. This may occur be-
are different given the socio-economic, cultur-
cause of other considerations that the experts
al and political diversity. Their context is fur-
did not consider, due to lack of knowledge of
ther dissimilar, because of different national
some issues not strictly related to their sphere
and local legislation that in some cases facil-
of expertise. This part of the project is the first
itates participation and in other does not. The
step before the DSS implementation and the
stakeholder analysis tool is very useful in such
sharing of the RE scenarios with the stake-
in this case, in order to capture the local dif-
holders. Notwithstanding the limit of this pre-
ferences in the people’s interests and needs.
liminary analysis, it is a fundamental step for
Finally, the social network analysis highlights
identifying all the variables to be considered
the real power in taking the decisions, so that
in the RE management in compliance with the
it is easily visible how much a Region goes
stakeholders to be involved in the process.
3.3 Layout questionnaire
“Social Perception of Renewable Energies in Pilot Areas”
Context and purpose of the questionnaire:
face to face interview. The results of the ques-
The purpose of the questionnaire is to analyse
tionnaire will be treated and presented in an
the experts’ opinions (in particular preferenc-
aggregate way and will be used to support the
es and perceptions) on the development of
definition of development scenarios of renew-
renewable energies technologies (solar, wind,
able energies in the Pilot Areas. Information
hydropower and forest biomass) in the Pilot
from questionnaire will be also used for the
Areas. The questionnaire will be administered
identification of local key-stakeholders.
to 5-6 experts in each Pilot Area, through a
1 . P E R S O N A L I N F O R M AT I O N
Name and surname:
76
Gender:
 Male
 Female
Education:
 High school
 Master’s degree
 Associate degree
 Doctorate degree
 Bachelor’s degree
Age:
 less than 30 years old
 51-60 years old
 31-40 years old
 more than 60 years old
 41-50 years old
T R A D E- O F F
A N D
P E R C E I V E D
I M P A C T S
Specific field of activity:
Organization/association:
Role in the organization/association:
2 . B A S E D O N Y O U R K N O W L E D G E , D O Y O U K N O W, O R C A N Y O U E S T I M AT E
H O W M U C H R E N E WA B L E E N E R G Y I S A L R E A D Y I N P L A C E I N T H E P I L O T
AREAS?
Very high
High
Low
Very low
Legislative
constraints
absolutely
inhibiting
development
Solar





____
Wind





____
Forest biomass





____
Hydropower





____
Share (%)
(sum = 100%)
3 . O P I N I O N S C O N C E R N I N G R E N E WA B L E E N E R G I E S D E V E L O P M E N T I N T H E
PILOT ARE A
3.1 In your opinion which renewable energy technology can be potentially developed
in the Pilot Area?
Very high
High
Low
Very low
Legislative constraints
absolutely inhibiting
development
Solar





Wind





Forest biomass





Hydropower





3.2 In the case of renewable energies with “very high” and “high” potential development
(Question 2.1) please indicate which are - in your opinion - the most suitable areas
for the development. Please state the main reasons why you consider these areas
suitable.
Please insert the map of case study
77
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
Please mark with a different colour or symbol the different renewable energies (locations, numbers to better identify/refer to in the text).
3.3 In the case of renewable energies with a “very low” and “low” potential development
(Question 2.1) please indicate which are - in your opinion - the main reasons (possible
multiple-choice):
Solar energy systems
Technical-logistic reasons

Remarks:
Economic reasons

Remarks:
Social reasons

Remarks:
Geographical reasons

Remarks:
Environmental reasons

Remarks:
Other

Remarks:
Technical-logistic reasons

Remarks:
Economic reasons

Remarks:
Social reasons

Remarks:
Geographical reasons

Remarks:
Environmental reasons

Remarks:
Other

Remarks:
Wind energy systems
78
T R A D E- O F F
A N D
P E R C E I V E D
I M P A C T S
Hydropower energy systems
Technical-logistic reasons

Remarks:
Economic reasons

Remarks:
Social reasons

Remarks:
Geographical reasons

Remarks:
Environmental reasons

Remarks:
Other

Remarks:
Forest biomass energy systems
Technical-logistic reasons

Remarks:
Economic reasons

Remarks:
Social reasons

Remarks:
Geographical reasons

Remarks:
Environmental reasons

Remarks:
Other

Remarks:
3.4 To your knowledge, has there been a target increase of renewable energy production
and energy savings for 2020/2050 been identified in the Pilot Area?
Yes
Not
I don’t know
Solar



Wind



Forest biomass



Hydropower



79
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
4 . I M P A C T S O F T H E R E N E WA B L E E N E R G Y T E C H N O L O G I E S O N E C O S Y S T E M S E R V I C E S I N T H E P I L O T A R E A ( P L E A S E C O N S I D E R O N LY
T H E R E N E WA B L E E N E R G I E S M A R K E D A S “ V E R Y H I G H ” O R “ H I G H ”
IN QUE S TION 2 .1)
4.1 In your opinion which are the impacts of solar energy systems on the following
ecosystem services? Please, indicate the degree of the impact.
++
+
0
-
--
No
answer
Provision of forest- and agricultural
production






Provision of fresh/potable water






Carbon sequestration in vegetation
and soil






Air quality and microclimate






Protection against natural hazards






Ecological habitat quality






Aesthetical value






Recreational value






Intrinsic value






Other / further






++ very positive impacts, + positive, 0 neutral, - negative, - - very negative
4.2 In your opinion which are the impacts of wind energy systems on the following
ecosystem services? Please, indicate the degree of the impact.
++
+
0
-
--
No
answer
Provision of forest- and agricultural
production






Provision of fresh/potable water






Carbon sequestration in vegetation
and soil






Air quality and microclimate






Protection against natural hazards






Ecological habitat quality






Aesthetical value






Recreational value






Intrinsic value






Other / further






++ very positive impacts, + positive, 0 neutral, - negative, - - very negative
80
T R A D E- O F F
A N D
P E R C E I V E D
I M P A C T S
4.3 In your opinion which are the impacts of hydropower energy systems on the following
ecosystem services? Please, indicate the degree of the impact.
++
+
0
-
--
No
answer
Provision of forest- and agricultural
production






Provision of fresh/potable water






Carbon sequestration in vegetation
and soil






Air quality and microclimate






Protection against natural hazards






Ecological habitat quality






Aesthetical value






Recreational value






Intrinsic value






Other / further






++ very positive impacts, + positive, 0 neutral, - negative, - - very negative
4.4 In your opinion which are the impacts of forest biomass energy systems on the
following ecosystem services? Please, indicate the degree of the impact.
++
+
0
-
--
No
answer
Provision of forest- and agricultural
production






Provision of fresh/potable water






Carbon sequestration in vegetation
and soil






Air quality and microclimate






Protection against natural hazards






Ecological habitat quality






Aesthetical value






Recreational value






Intrinsic value






Other / further






++ very positive impacts, + positive, 0 neutral, - negative, - - very negative
81
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
5 . I M P A C T S O F T H E R E N E WA B L E E N E R G I E S T E C H N O L O G I E S O N
T H E S O C I O - E C O N O M I C F E AT U R E S O F T H E P I L O T A R E A S ( P L E A S E
C O N S I D E R O N LY T H E R E N E WA B L E E N E R G I E S M A R K E D A S “ V E R Y
HIGH” OR “HIGH” IN QUE S TION 2 .1)
a. In your opinion which are the impacts of solar energy systems on the following
economic and social aspects? Please indicate the degree of the impact.
++
+
0
-
--
No
answer
Employment of local workforce






Local market diversification






Local entrepreneurship






Increasing income pro capita






Social and community aggregation






Property rights






Resource efficiency






Waste management system






Human health






Tourism






Political stability (citizens acceptance of
the system)






Political stability (citizens participation)






Other / further






++ very positive impacts, + positive, 0 neutral, - negative, - - very negative
b. In your opinion which are the impacts of wind energy systems on the following
economic and social aspects? Please indicate the degree of the impact.
82
++
+
0
-
--
No
answer
Employment of local workforce






Local market diversification






Local entrepreneurship






Increasing income pro capita






Social and community aggregation






Property rights






Resource efficiency






Waste management system






Human health






Tourism






T R A D E- O F F
++
+
0
-
--
No
answer
Political stability (citizens acceptance of
the system)






Political stability (citizens participation)






Other / further






A N D
P E R C E I V E D
I M P A C T S
++ very positive impacts, + positive, 0 neutral, - negative, - - very negative
c. In your opinion which are the impacts of hydropower energy systems on the following
economic and social aspects? Please indicate the degree of the impact.
++
+
0
-
--
No
answer
Employment of local workforce






Local market diversification






Local entrepreneurship






Increasing income pro capita






Social and community aggregation






Property rights






Resource efficiency






Waste management system






Human health






Tourism






Political stability (citizens acceptance of
the system)






Political stability (citizens participation)






Other / further






++ very positive impacts, + positive, 0 neutral, - negative, - - very negative
d. In your opinion which are the impacts of forest biomass energy systems on the
following economic and social aspects? Please indicate the degree of the impact.
++
+
0
-
--
No
answer
Employment of local workforce






Local market diversification






Local entrepreneurship






Increasing income pro capita






Social and community aggregation






Property rights






Resource efficiency






83
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
++
+
0
-
--
No
answer
Waste management system






Human health






Tourism






Political stability (citizens acceptance of
the system)






Political stability (citizens participation)






Other / further






++ very positive impacts, + positive, 0 neutral, - negative, - - very negative
6. PERCEIVED RISK AND BENEFIT
a. In general, how do you consider the effects of the following energy systems to be for
the environment of the Pilot Area?
Very risky
Risky
Neutral
Beneficial
Very beneficial
Solar





Wind





Forest biomass





Hydropower





b. In general, how do you consider the effects of the following energy systems to be for
the Pilot Area society as a whole?
Very risky
Risky
Neutral
Beneficial
Very beneficial
Solar





Wind





Forest biomass





Hydropower





c. In general, how do you consider the effects of the following energy systems to be for
a single individual in the Pilot Area?
84
Very risky
Risky
Neutral
Beneficial
Very beneficial
Solar





Wind





Forest biomass





Hydropower





T R A D E- O F F
A N D
P E R C E I V E D
I M P A C T S
7. S TA K E H O L D E R S A N D N E T W O R K A N A LY S I S
7.1 Does your organization/association collaborate with other organizations and
associations in the field of renewable energies in the Pilot Area? Can you list the
name, the issue and the intensity of these collaborations?
Name of
organization or association
Level






International
Intensity
 Permanent
(*/week)
National
State/Province
 Regularly
Trans-regional
(*/month)
Region
Issue
 Coordination
 Technical/
scientific
support
 Occasionally  Economic
(*/year)
Municipality
support
How much influence does this actor have on actual decision making regarding
renewable energy?
 Very high
 High
 Medium
 Low
Name of
organization or association
 Very low
Level






International
Intensity
 Permanent
(*/week)
National
State/Province
 Regularly
(*/month)
Trans-regional
Region
Issue
 Coordination
 Technical/
scientific
support
 Occasionally  Economic
(*/year)
Municipality
support
How much influence does this actor have on actual decision making regarding
renewable energy?
 Very high
 High
 Medium
 Low
Name of
organization or association
 Very low
Level






International
Intensity
 Permanent
(*/week)
National
State/Province
 Regularly
Trans-regional
(*/month)
Region
Issue
 Coordination
 Technical/
scientific
support
 Occasionally  Economic
Municipality
(*/year)
support
How much influence does this actor have on actual decision making regarding
renewable energy?
 Very high
 High
 Medium
 Low
 Very low
85
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
Name of
organization or association
Level






International
Intensity
 Permanent
(*/week)
National
State/Province
 Regularly
(*/month)
Trans-regional
Region
Issue
 Coordination
 Technical/
scientific
support
 Occasionally  Economic
Municipality
(*/year)
support
How much influence does this actor have on actual decision making regarding
renewable energy?
 Very high
 High
 Medium
 Low
 Very low
7.2 In your opinion which organization and association must be involved during the
definition of the renewable energies systems development (scenario definition) of
the Pilot Area? For each organization, please indicate which is the more suitable level
of involvement.
Name of organization or
association
Specific field of activity
Level of involvement
 Active involvement in
the scenarios’ definition
(consultation)
 Passive involvement in
the scenarios’ definition
(information)
 Active involvement in
the scenarios’ definition
(consultation)
 Passive involvement in
the scenarios’ definition
(information)
 Active involvement in
the scenarios’ definition
(consultation)
 Passive involvement in
the scenarios’ definition
(information)
 Active involvement in
the scenarios’ definition
(consultation)
 Passive involvement in
the scenarios’ definition
(information)
 Active involvement in
the scenarios’ definition
(consultation)
 Passive involvement in
the scenarios’ definition
(information)
 Active involvement in
the scenarios’ definition
(consultation)
 Passive involvement in
the scenarios’ definition
(information)
86
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
Bibliography
04
87
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
ESS
Amt der Vorarlberger Landesregierung. 2010.
Chiabrando R., Fabrizio E., Garnero G. 2008.
Energiezukunft Vorarlberg – Ergebnisse Aus
“L’impatto Territoriale E Paesaggistico Degli
Impianti Fotovoltaici: Stato Dell’Arte E Appli-
Dem Visionsprozess
cazioni.” http://hdl.handle.net/2318/57979
Arnett, Edward B., W. Kent Brown, Wallace
P. Erickson, Jenny K. Fiedler, Brenda L.
CIPRA, ed. 2002. Der Wind Der Veränderung.
Hamilton, Travis H. Henry, Aaftab Jain, et al.
Ein Hintergrundbericht. Schaan. http://www.
2008. “Patterns of Bat Fatalities at Wind En-
cipra.org/pdfs/62_de/
ergy Facilities in North America.” The Journal of Wildlife Management 72 (1): 61–78.
Costanza, Robert, Ralph D’Arge, Rudolf de
doi:10.2193/2007-221
Groot, Stephen Farber, Monica Grasso, Bruce
Hannon, Karin Limburg, et al. 1998. “The Val-
Avocat, Hélène, Antoine Tabourdeau, Chris-
ue of the World’s Ecosystem Services and
tophe Chauvin, and Marie-Hélène De Sede
Natural Capital.” http://inis.iaea.org/Search/
Marceau. 2011. “Energy and Wood in the
search.aspx?orig_q=RN:29045320
French Alps: Strategies for an Uncertain Resource.” Revue de Geographie Alpine-Journal
Dax, Thomas. 2001. “Endogenous Develop-
of Alpine Research 99 (1): 316–31
ment in Austria’s Mountain Regions: From a
Source of Irritation to a Mainstream Move-
Balaguer, Isabelle, Jean-Pierre Harinck, Frey-
ment.” Mountain Research and Development
dier Christophe, Criscuolo Philippe, and Bor-
21 (3): 231–35
des Michel. 2004. “Guide Régional Éolien
- Provence Alpes Côte d’Azur.” http://www.
De Groot, R. S., R. Alkemade, L. Braat, L.
ademe.fr/paca/Pdf/32-guide-eolien.pdf
Hein, and L. Willemen. 9. “Challenges in Integrating the Concept of Ecosystem Servic-
Blanc, Grégoire, and Gaëtan Cherix. 2014.
es and Values in Landscape Planning, Man-
“Drinking Water Networks Interconnections
agement and Decision Making.” Ecological
and Green Electricity Production: Case Study
Complexity 7 (3): 260–72 doi:10.1016/j.eco-
in a Swiss Alps Pilot Region.” Management of
com.2009.10.006
Environmental Quality 25 (1): 52–62
De Groot, Rudolf S, Matthew A Wilson, and
Boyle, Godfrey. 2012. Renewable Energy - En-
Roelof M. J Boumans. 2002. “A Typology for
ergy Power for a Sustainable Future. Oxford
the Classification, Description and Valuation
University Press
of Ecosystem Functions, Goods and Services.” Ecological Economics 41 (3): 393–408.
Bratrich, Christine, and Berhard Truffer. 2001.
doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7
Green Electricity Certification for Hydropower
Dixon, John, Louise Scura, Richard Carpen-
Plants. Green Power Publications, Issue 7
ter, and Paul Sherman. 2013. Economic AnalBratrich, Christine, Bernhard Truffer, Klaus
ysis of Environmental Impacts. Routledge
Jorde, Jochen Markard, Werner Meier, Armin
Peter, Matthias Schneider, and Bernhard
Dorren, Luuk K. A, Frédéric Berger, Anton
Wehrli. 2004. “Green Hydropower: A New As-
C Imeson, Bernhard Maier, and Freddy Rey.
sessment Procedure for River Management.”
2004. “Integrity, Stability and Management
River Research and Applications 20 (7): 865–
of Protection Forests in the European Alps.”
82
Forest Ecology and Management 195 (1–2):
165–76. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2004.02.057
Bürgi,
Anton.
2011.
“Holzproduktion
Im
Schweizer Wald: Potenzial Und Nutzungskonflikte.” Forum Für Wissen 2011: 15–21
88
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
Drewitt, Allan L., and Rowena H. W. Langston.
Fu, Bo-Jie, Chang-Hong Su, Yong-Ping Wei,
2008. “Collision Effects of Wind-Power Gener-
IanR Willett, Yi-He Lü, and Guo-Hua Liu.
ators and Other Obstacles on Birds.” Annals of
2011. “Double Counting in Ecosystem Servic-
the New York Academy of Sciences 1134 (1):
es Valuation: Causes and Countermeasures.”
233–66. doi:10.1196/annals.1439.015
Ecological Research 26 (1): 1–14. doi:10.1007/
s11284-010-0766-3
Dürr, T, and L Bach. 2004. “Bat Deaths and
Wind Turbines–a Review of Current Knowl-
Führer, Erwin. 6. “Forest Functions, Eco-
edge, and of the Information Available in the
system Stability and Management.” Forest
Database for Germany.” Bremer Beiträge Für
Ecology and Management 132 (1): 29–38.
Naturkunde Und Naturschutz 7: 253–64
doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00377-7
E.D. Schulze, C. Wirth, and M. Heimann.
Gilgen, Kurt, Alma Sartoris, Yves Leuzinger,
2000. “Climate Change – Managing Forests
and Emmanuel Contesse. 2010. Empfehlung
after Kyoto” 289: 2058–59
Zur Planung von Windenergieanlagen. Bern
Egré, Dominique, and Joseph C Milewski.
Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne, Ariane Walz, and
2002. “The Diversity of Hydropower Projects.”
Peter Bebi. 2008. “Valuing Ecosystem Ser-
Energy Policy 30 (14): 1225–30
vices for Sustainable Landscape Planning in
Alpine Regions.” Mountain Research and De-
European
Commission.
2000.
“Directive
velopment 28 (2): 156–65
2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council Establishing a Framework for
Grilli, Gianluca, Isabella de Meo, and Ales-
the Community Action in the Field of Water
sandro Paletto. 2014. “Economic Valuation of
Policy.” Official Journal of the European Union
Forest Recreation in an Alpine Valley” 20 (1):
167–75
European Environment Agency. 2013. “Common International Classification of Ecosystem
Hastik R., Basso S., Geitner C., Haida C., Pol-
Services Version 4.3.” http://cices.eu/
janec A., Portaccio A., Vrščaj B., Walzer C..
2015. “Renewable energies and ecosystem
Federici, S, M Vitullo, S Tulipano, R De Laure-
service impacts”. Renewable and Sustainable
tis, and G Seufert. 2008. “An Approach to Esti-
Energy Reviews 48: 608-623
mate Carbon Stocks Change in Forest Carbon
Pools under the UNFCCC: The Italian Case.”
Hein, Lars, Kris van Koppen, Rudolf S.
iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry 1 (1):
de Groot, and Ekko C. van Ierland. 2006.
86–95. doi:10.3832/ifor0457-0010086
“Spatial Scales, Stakeholders and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services.” Ecological
Fisher, Brendan, R. Kerry Turner, and Paul
Economics 57 (2): 209–28. doi:10.1016/j.
Morling. 1. “Defining and Classifying Ecosys-
ecolecon.2005.04.005
tem Services for Decision Making.” Ecological Economics 68 (3): 643–53 doi:10.1016/j.
Herden, C., J. Rassmus, and B. Gharadjed-
ecolecon.2008.09.014
aghi. 2009. “Naturschutzfachliche Bewertungsmethoden von Freilandphotovoltaikanlagen.”
Freeman, A. Myrick. 2003. The Measurement
BfN-Skripte 247: 1–195
of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Resources for the Future
Hofer, P, and J Altwegg. 2007. “Holz-Nutzungspotenziale Im Schweizer Wald Auf Basis
LFI3.” Bericht Erstellt Im Auftrag Des Bundesamtes Für Umwelt BAFU
89
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
Hoppichler, J. 2013. Vom Wert Der Biodi-
Myers, Norman. 1988. “Threatened Biotas:
versität. Wirtschaftliche Bewertungen Und
‘Hot Spots’ in Tropical Forests.” Environmen-
Konzepte Für Das Berggebiet. Forschungs-
talist 8 (3): 187–208. doi:10.1007/BF02240252
bericht 67. Wien: Bundesanstalt für BergbauNotaro, Sandra, and Alessandro Paletto. 2012.
ernfragen
“The Economic Valuation of Natural Hazards
International Energy Agency. 2000. Imple-
in Mountain Forests: An Approach Based on
menting Agreement for Hydropower Technol-
the Replacement Cost Method.” Journal of
ogies and Programmes Annex III: Hydropower
Forest Economics, Non-market valuation, 18
and the Environment. Paris
(4): 318–28. doi:10.1016/j.jfe.2012.06.002
IPCC. 2003. Good Practice Guidance for Land
Peters, Jürgen, and Graumann Uwe. 2006.
Use, Land Use Changes and Forestry
“Regenerative Energien Und Kulturlandschaft
- Chancen Für Schutz Und Entwicklung von
IPCC. 2011. Special Report on Renewable
Kulturlandschaften Durch Den Ausbau Er-
Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitiga-
neuerbarer Energien.” Stadt+Grün 12/2006:
tion. United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA:
48–53
Cambridge University Press
Peters-Stanley, M., and Yin, D. 2013. ManeuKaltschmitt, Martin, Wolfgang Streicher, and
vering the Mosaic. State of the Voluntary Car-
Andreas Wiese. 2007. Renewable Energy:
bon Markets 2013. A Report by Forest Trends’
Technology, Economics and Environment.
Ecosystem.
Springer
Bloomberg
Kaltschmitt, M, and H Hartmann. 2001. “En-
Platform Water Management in the Alps. 2011.
ergie Aus Biomasse: Grundlagen, Techniken
Common Guidelines for the Use of Small Hy-
Und Verfahren, Eds.” Berlin, Heidelberg, New
dropower in the Alpine Region. Innsbruck,
York
Bozen: Permanent Secretariat of the Alpine
Washington:
Marketplace&-
Convention
MEA. 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Bi-
Poljanec, A., Pisek, R., 2013. Balancing bio-
odiversity Synthesis. Washington: World Re-
mass and biodiversity in protected areas; the
sources institute
Triglav National Park case study. Brig, International conference on balancing renewable
Ministère de l’Ecologie; de l’Energie; du Dével-
energy and nature in the Alps
oppement Durable et de la Mer, ed. 2010.
Handbuch Für Die Umweltverträglichkeitsprü-
Publishing, Oecd. 2009. Managing Water for
fung von Windparks
All: An OECD Perspective on Pricing and Financing. Organisation for Economic Co-oper-
Möderl,
M.,
R.
Sitzenfrei,
M.
Mair,
H.
ation and Development
Jarosch, and W. Rauch. “Identifying HyDistribution
Quadt, Verena, van der Marieke Maaten-The-
Systems of Alpine Regions.” In World Envi-
unissen, and Georg Frank. Integration of Na-
ronmental and Water Resources Congress
ture Protection in Forest Policy in Austria
dropower
2012,
Potential
3137–46
in
Water
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/
Richard hastik, Stefano Basso, Clemens Geit-
abs/10.1061/9780784412312.314
ner, Christin Haida, Ales Poljanek, Alessia
Motta,
Renzo,
mand.
2000.
Silvicultural
and
Jean-Claude
“Protective
Stability.”
Haude-
Forests
Mountain
Submitted. “Renewable Energies and Ecosys-
Re-
tem Service Impacts - A Review Focused on
search and Development 20 (2): 180–87.
doi:10.1659/0276 - 4741(20 0 0) 020 [018 0:PFASS]2.0.CO;2
90
Portaccio, Borut Vrscaj, and Chris Walzer.
and
the Alpine Area”
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
Rosenberger, R. S., and J. B. Loomis. 2001.
Truffer, Bernhard. 2010. “Integrated Environ-
“Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Use
mental Management of Hydropower Operation
Values: A Technical Document Supporting
Under Conditions of Market Liberalization.” In
the Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000 Re-
Alpine Waters, edited by Ulrich Bundi, 227–
vision).” General Technical Report - Rocky
34. The Handbook of Environmental Chemis-
Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest
try. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. http://dx.doi.
Service, no. RMRS-GTR-72: ii + 59 pp
org/10.1007/978-3-540-88275-6_11
Stupak, I., A. Asikainen, M. Jonsell, E. Karl-
Tsoutsos, Theocharis, Niki Frantzeskaki, and
tun, A. Lunnan, D. Mizaraitė, K. Pasanen, et
Vassilis Gekas. 2. “Environmental Impacts
al. 2007. “Sustainable Utilisation of Forest Bio-
from the Solar Energy Technologies.” Energy
mass for energy—Possibilities and Problems:
Policy 33 (3): 289–96. doi:10.1016/S0301-
Policy, Legislation, Certification, and Recom-
4215(03)00241-6
mendations and Guidelines in the Nordic, Baltic, and Other European Countries.” Biomass
Wilson, Matthew A., and John P. Hoehn.
and Bioenergy, Sustainable use of Forest Bi-
2006. “Valuing Environmental Goods and Ser-
omass for Energy Proceedings of the WOOD-
vices Using Benefit Transfer: The State-of-
EN-MAN session at the conference Nordic Bi-
the Art and Science.” Ecological Economics,
oenergy 2005 Trondheim, Norway, 27 Octboer
Environmental Benefits Transfer: Methods,
2005, 31 (10): 666–84. doi:10.1016/j.biombi-
Applications and New Directions Benefits
oe.2007.06.012
Transfer S.I., 60 (2): 335–42. doi:10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2006.08.015
Sukhdev, Pavan, H Wittmer, C SchröterSchlaack, C Nesshöver, J Bishop, P ten Brink,
Wirth, Harry, and Karin Schneider. 2012. Akt-
H Gundimeda, P Kumar, and B Simmons.
uelle Fakten Zur Photovoltaik in Deutschland.
2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Bi-
Fraunhofer Institut Für Solare Energiesys-
odiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of
teme. Freiburg
Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB
Torasso, Roberto. 2011. “Fotovoltaico E Paesaggio: Applicazione Dei Criteri ERA a Livello
Locale.” Politecnico di Torino
Potential production
Alpine Covention - SOIA DATABASE. (2014).
Ehlschlaeger, C. (1989). Using the AT Search
Tratto da Alpine Convention Perimeter: http://
Algorithm to Develop Hydrologic Models from
intranet.alpconv.eu/Alpine/searchThesauru-
Digital Elevation Data. Proceedings of Interna-
sAccessDetail.do?hddDocumentId=193&hd-
tional Geographic Information Systems (IGIS)
dLanguageId=2
Symposium ‘89, (p. 275-281). Baltimore, MD.
Burton, T., Sharpe, D., Jenkins, N., & Bossanyi,
ENERCON. (2014). ENERCON Wind energy
E. (2001). Wind Energy Handbook. West Sus-
converters. Tratto da www.enercon.de: http://
sex, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
www.enercon.de/p/downloads/EN_Productoverview_0710.pdf
Casale, C. (2009). Guida per l’utilizzo dell’Atlante eolico. ENEA – Ricerca sul Sistema Elettrico S.p.A.
91
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
Garegnani, G., Zambelli, P., Grilli, G., Vetto-
tem for planning wind farms in Tuscany (It-
rato, D. (2015). Evaluation of wind, solar and
aly). Renewable Energy, 36(2), 754–763.
hydro energy potential using GRASS, FOS-
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2010.07.005
S4G-Europe Conference, July 14th - 17th
2015, Como, Italy. Green M. A. (2002). Third
Resch, G., Held, A., Faber, T., Panzer, C.,
generation photovoltaics: solar cells for 2020
Toro, F., & Haas, R. (2008). Potentials and
and beyond. Physica E: Low-Dimensional
prospects for renewable energies at global
Systems and Nanostructures, 14(1–2), 65–70.
scale. Energy Policy, 36, 4048-4056.
doi:10.1016/S1386-9477(02)00361-2
Schaffner, B., & J., R. (2005). Alpine Space
Isotta, F. A., Frei, C., Weilguni, V., Perčec Ta-
Wind Map - Modeling Approach. Bern, Swit-
dić, M., Lassègues, P., Rudolf, B., Vertačnik,
zerland: Alpine Windharvest Partnership Net-
G. (2014). The climate of daily precipitation
work.
in the Alps: development and analysis of a
high-resolution grid dataset from pan-Alpine
Šúri M., Huld T.A., Dunlop E.D. Ossenbrink
rain-gauge data. Int. J. Climatol., 34, 1657–
H.A., 2007. Potential of solar electricity gen-
1675.
eration in the European Union member states
and candidate countries. Solar Energy (in
Jarvis, A., Reuter, H., Nelson, A., & Guevara,
press)
E. (2008). Hole-filled seamless SRTM data
V4. Washington: International Centre for Trop-
Wind Energy Center, University of Massachu-
ical Agriculture (CIAT). Tratto da http://srtm.
setts Amherst. (s.d.). Tratto da Wind Power:
csi.cgiar.org
Capacity factor, Intermittency, and what happens when the wind doesn’t blow?: http://
Mari, R., Bottai, L., Busillo, C., Calastrini, F.,
w w w.umass.edu/windenergy/publications/
Gozzini, B., & Gualtieri, G. (2011). A GIS-
published/communityWindFactSheets/RERL_
based interactive web decision support sys-
Fact_Sheet_2a_Capacity_Factor.pdf
Stakeholders analysis and recommendations
Adams, P. W., Hammond, G. P., McManus,
Borgatti S.P., Everett M.G., Freeman L.C.
M. C., & Mezzullo, W. G. (2011). Barriers to
(2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for
and drivers for UK bioenergy development.
Social Network Analysis. Harvard: Analytic
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
Technologies
15(2), 1217-1227
Boyle, G. (2012). Renewable Energy - energy
Ansink, E., Hein, L. and K.P. Hasund. 2008.
power for a sustainable future, Oxford Univer-
To value functions or services? An analysis
sity Press
of ecosystem valuation approaches. Environmental Values 17: 489-503
Brukmajster, D., Hampel, J., & Renn,O. (2007).
Energy technology road map and stakehold-
Arrow K.J. (1951). Social Choice and Individu-
ers’ perspective: establishment of social cri-
al Values, Yale University Press
teria for energy systems. Stuttgarter Beiträge
Zur
Risiko-
und
Institut Fürn SozialwissenschaftenAbt. Für
Press, Cambridge, London
Technik- und Umweltsoziologie, Universität
Stuttgart. July 2007
Björklund, A. (2000). Environmental System
Analysis of Waste Management: Experiences
from Applications of the ORWARE Model
92
Nachhaltigkeitsforschung
Bauer R.A., 1966. Social Indicators. The MIT
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
Buchholz, T., Luzadis, V. Volk,T.A. (2009).
Gallego Carrera D., Mack A., 2010. Sustaina-
Sustainability criteria for bioenergy systems:
bility assessment of energy technologies via
results from an expert survey. Journal of
social indicators: Results of a survey among
Cleaner Production, 17, S86-S98
European energy experts. Energy Policy 38:
1030-1039
Busch, M., La Notte, A., Laporte, V. & Erhard,
M. (2012). Potentials of quantitative and qual-
Gerbner, G. (1969). Towards ‘Cultural Indica-
itative approaches to assessing ecosystem
tors’: The analysis of mass mediated message
services. Ecological Indicators, 21, 89-103
systems. AV Communication Review, 17, 137148
Coffey, W., Polese, M., (1984). The concept of
local development: a stages model of endoge-
Grêt-Regamey A., Walz A., Bebi P. 2008. Val-
nous regional growth. Papers in the Regional
uing ecosystem services for sustainable land-
Science Association 55, 1–12
scape planning in Alpine Regions. Mountain
Research and Development 28(2): 156-165
De Groot, R.S. 1992. Functions of nature:
evaluation of nature in environmental plan-
Grilli G., Curetti G., de Meo I., Garegnani G.,
ning, management and decision-making, Gro-
Miotello F., Poljanec A., Vettorato D., Paletto
ningen: Wolters-Noordhoff
A., 2015. Experts’ Perceptions of the Effects
of Forest Biomass Harvesting on Sustainabili-
Del Río, P., Burguillo, M. (2008). Assessing
ty in the Alpine Region. South-east European
the impact of renewable energy deployment
forestry 6 (1)
on local sustainability: Towards a theoretical
framework. Renewable and Sustainable Ener-
Grilli G., Garegnani G., Poljanec A., Ficko
gy Reviews , 12, 1325-1344
A., Vettorato D., De Meo I., Paletto A., 2015.
Stakeholder analysis in the biomass energy
Dwivedi P., Alavalapati J.R.R. 2009. Stake-
development based on the experts’ opinions.
holders’ perceptions on forest biomass-based
In press
bioenergy development in the southern US.
Energy Policy 37: 1999-2007
Hastik. R., Geitner, Cl. et al. Expanding Renewable Energies and impacts on Ecosystem
Eppink, F. V., van den Bergh, J. C., Rietveld,
Services. Submitted
P. (2004). Modelling biodiversity and land use:
urban growth, agriculture and nature in a wet-
Hampel, J., Weimer-Jehle W., Brukmajster, D.
land area. Ecological Economics, 51(3), 201-
(2005). Identification and measurement of so-
216
cial indicators for the sustainability of selected
Swiss electric power systems
European Environment Agency. (2013). Common International Classification of Ecosystem
IPCC (2011). Special Report on Renewable
Services Version 4.3. from http://cices.eu/
Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA,
Fisher, B., R.K. Turner & P. Morling 2009. De-
Cambridge University Press
fining and classifying ecosystem services for
decision making. Ecological Economics 68(3):
Jiang Jiang, W., You Yin, J., Chun Fa, Z., Jun
643-653
Hong, Z. (2009). Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy de-
Fraser E.D.G., Dougill A.J., Mabee W.E.,
cision making. Renewable and Sustainable
Reed M., McAlpine P. (2006). Bottom up and
Energy Reviews, 13 (9), 2263-2278
top down: analysis of participatory processes
for sustainability indicator identification as a
Kaltschmitt, M., W. Streicher & A. Wiese
pathway to community empowerment and sus-
(2007). Renewable energy: technology, eco-
tainable environmental management, Journal
nomics and environment, Springer
of Environmental Management 78: 114–127
93
R E C H A R G E
G R E E N
W O R K
P A C K A G E
4
R E P O R T
Kraxner F., Yang J., Yamagata Y. 2009. Atti-
Sukhdev, P., H. Wittmer, et al. (2010). The
tudes towards forest, biomass and certifica-
economics of ecosystems and biodiversity:
tion – A case study approach to integrate pub-
mainstreaming the economics of nature: a
lic opinion in Japan. Bioresource Technology
synthesis of the approach, conclusions and
100: 4058-4061
recommendations of TEEB
Mantau, U., Saal, U., Prins, K., Steierer, F.,
Svadlenak-Gomez K., Badura M., Kraxner F.,
Lindner, M., Verkerk, H., Eggers, J., Leek,
Fuss S., Vettorato D., Walzer C., 2013. Valu-
N., Oldenburg, J., Asikainen, A., Anttila, P.
ing Alpine ecosystems: the recharge.green
2010. EUwood – Real potential for changes
project will help decision-makers to reconcile
in growth and use of EU forests. Final report.
renewable energy production and biodiversity
Hamburg, 160 p.
conservation in the Alps. Management & Policy Issues 5(1)
Marteel, A. E., Davies, J. A., Olson, W. W., &
Abraham, M. A. (2003). Green chemistry and
Wilkens, I., Schmuck, P. (2012). Transdisci-
engineering: drivers, metrics, and reduction to
plinary Evaluation of Energy Scenarios For a
practice. Annual Review of Environment and
German Village Using Multi-Criteria Decision
Resources, 28(1), 401-428
Analysis. Sustainability , 4, 604-629
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005).
Zurc J., (2008). Opportunities for Tourism in
Ecosystems and human well-being, Island
and around Protected Area in Slovenia. Pa-
Press Washington, DC
per presented at the International Conference
“Participating in Nature: Communities and
Nguyen, K.Q. (2007). Alternatives to grid ex-
Protected Areas in Central and Eastern Eu-
tension for rural electrification: Decentralized
rope”
renewable energy technologies in Vietnam.
Energy Policy, 35(4), 2579-2589
Olusoga, S.A. (1993). Market concentration
versus market diversification and internationalization: implications for MNE performance.
International Marketing Review, 10(2)
Richards, M. (2008). Issues and challenges
for social evaluation or impact assessment of
‘Multiple-Benefit’ payment for environmental
services (PES) Projects. Forest Trends
Sala S., Castellani V., (2011). Technology sustainability assessment to support decision
making on energy production at local scale.
International Journal of Sustainable Development Planning, 3, 251-267
Sacchelli S., De Meo I., Paletto A., (2013). Bioenergy production and forest multifunctionality: a trade-off analysis using multiscale GIS
in a case study in Italy. Applied Energy 104:
10-20
Seidel, W., Schedler, B. and Bertel A. 2013.
Umsetzungskonzept der Energieregion Leiblachtal. Energieinstitut Vorarlberg und Energieregion Leiblachtal. Dornbirn
94
recharge.green – balancing Alpine energy and nature
The Alps have great potential for the use of renewable energy.
was a key component in this process. The project ran from Oc-
Thereby they can make a valuable contribution to mitigating cli-
tober 2012 to June 2015 and was co-financed by the European
mate change. This, however, means increasing pressures on
Regional Development Fund in the frame of the European Ter-
nature. What could be the impact of such changes on the hab-
ritorial Cooperation Programme Alpine Space.
itats of animals and plants? How do they affect land use and
96
soil quality? How much renewable energy can reasonably be
This publication gives an overview on renewable energy poten-
used? The project recharge.green brought together 16 partners
tial and ESS in the Alps and on the possible conflicts that can
to develop strategies and tools for decision-making on such is-
arise in a complex territory as the Alpine Region.
sues. The analysis and comparison of the costs and benefits of
Together with other project publications, it can be downloaded
renewable energy, ecosystem services, and potential trade-offs
from www.recharge-green.eu