Refine
Document Type
- Article (17) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- no (17)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (17)
Keywords
- Evaluation (1)
- Informationsfreiheit (1)
- Open Data (1)
Governments and energy operators are often confronted with local residents’ protest against the construction of new high-voltage overhead transmission lines, negative risk expectations, and a lack of public support. A frequently discussed strategy for dealing with these issues is to build underground cables instead of overhead lines. So far, however, there is not much empirical evidence of whether substituting overhead lines by underground cables actually reduces protest or affects public risk expectations and attitudes. This study contributes to filling this gap by comparing residents’ risk expectations, attitudes, and protest behavior observed at two grid expansion sites in Germany by means of a quasi-experiment. At the time when the data were collected, both grid expansion projects–an overhead line project in Lower Saxony and an underground cable project in Hesse–were at the same stage of the legally defined planning and approval procedure. After controlling for various potential confounders, we obtained results revealing that there are no differences in the risk expectations, attitudes, and protest behavior of residents interviewed at the two project sites, or only marginal ones. Hence, our findings do not support the assumption that building underground cables necessarily improves the situation with regard to risk expectations, attitudes, and protest behavior.
Purpose – Governments and energy operators are often confronted with opposition to the construction of new high-voltage transmission lines. Besides other factors, a potential determinant of public opposition and acceptance that has gained increasing attention is the fairness of the planning and approval procedure as perceived by the citizens. The purpose of this study is to develop and validate a scale for measuring perceived procedural fairness (PPF).
Design/methodology/approach – The authors developed the ten-item “perceived procedural fairness scale (PPFS)” and assessed its quality by means of item response theory. By using a Rasch rating scale model, the authors tested whether the instrument met the requirements of this kind of measurement model. For conducting their research, the authors used data from two telephone surveys in Germany that were collected in areas that are affected by grid expansion.
Findings – The findings suggest that the scale can be considered a reliable and internal valid instrument for measuring citizens’ PPF.
Originality/value – At the moment, there is no psychometrically rigorously evaluated scale available for measuring PPF in the context of power grid expansion. Therefore, the study contributes to filling this gap and provides a valuable tool for researchers and practitioners concerned with further investigating citizens’ PPF and its relationships with other relevant constructs in the field.
Keywords - Policy, Procedural fairness, Procedural justice, Energy infrastructure, Power grid expansion, Item response theory, Rasch modelling
Freedom of information acts (FOIA) aim to improve the public’s opportunities to access official information from public authorities and hence to increase the level of transparency. Thus, it is important to know whether and to what degree the effects intended by establishing FOIAs are achieved and how their implementation could be improved. Hence, this article presents the evaluation of the Hamburg Transparency Law (HmbTG)– Germany’s first FOIA that binds authorities to disclose government information proactively. The purpose of the paper is to provide a valuable example of how evaluating FOIA might produce useful information for policymakers and public authorities. The analysis results, based on a mixed set of methods (i.e. standardised surveys, statistical secondary data, qualitative expert interviews, and criteria-driven document analysis), lead to the conclusion that the HmbTG was very effective in providing the direct access. On the other hand, it was found that strategies for implementing the law varied considerably between authorities, yet proactive disclosure was overall implemented effectively. Moreover, this law shows some weaknesses to be improved in the future. Besides providing practitioners with valuable insights into how a transparency law may be implemented, the evaluation of the HmbTG also provides researchers with ideas how FOIA evaluation might be conducted comprehensively.
Measuring societal impacts of research is a challenging task in research evaluation. In this article, we describe several of these challenges with regard to causal inference, time lag, side-effects, operationalization, comparability between disciplines, and availability of required data. We show how different approaches deal with these challenges in evaluation practice and focus on a particular approach named “practice impact” in more detail. This approach includes an improved documentation and is sought to have positive effects on innovation processes and synergies with research and research funding. Moreover, dialogue with different user groups is fostered and serves to make evaluation beyond scientific impact desired, feasible, and efficient.
Freedom of information (FOI) laws aim to improve the public’s opportunities to access official information from public authorities and hence to increase the level of transparency. Thus, it is important to know whether and to what degree the effects intended by establishing FOI laws are achieved and how their implementation could be improved. In order to answer these questions, FOI laws have to be evaluated. Unfortunately, attempts to evaluate FOI laws are still in their infancy. To promote sound evaluation, this article aims to provide guidance on how comprehensive FOI law evaluations might be designed and conducted.