Land use conflicts between biomass and power production – citizens’ participation in the technology development of Agrophotovoltaics

Figures & data

Figure 1. Map of the region ‘Bodensee-Oberschwaben’. The star indicates the location of the pilot plant. Source: Modified after RVBO (2017).

Table 1. Overview of categorized results from the group discussions.

Thematic clusters	Arguments from the participants	Points
APV and the Energiewende	Pros and cons of APV, comparison with other renewable energies, open questions, concerns	14
APV and the landscape	What is desirable concerning size, height, removal, visual cover, accessibility?	14
APV and the profiteers	Who wins, who loses? Participation schemes Effects on employment Cost-benefit ratio	12
APV and the politics	Information policy Subsidies policy (e.g. EEG) Legal framework	11
APV and the potentials	Which areas and where to install it? Arable land, grassland, speciality crops Distance to settlements Questions and concerns: Which criteria must be considered technically, economically, and socially? Why APV and not PV on sealed areas? Site criteria How to evaluate high and low quality soils? How can APV be designed in order to make it acceptable? How can undesirable development be avoided? Chances for agriculture, assessment of experiences	7
APV and the technical requirements	Which criteria must be fulfilled? Made in Germany, worth the money; safe; recyclable; aesthetics Questions and concerns: Stability, snow, machine size, mounting height, dust and hail, irrigation and water management, power storage, PV only useful with power storage, producing power vs. changing behavior	5
APV and ‘Zeitgeist’ and sustainability	How do I view APV? How do I feel about it? Is APV sustainable? Questions and concerns: Improved environmental sustainability Disposal and recycling Impacts on nature (e.g. flight of birds, dazzling effects) Electro smog, a risk for plants and animals? Electric radiation, how do plants and animals react? Impacts on food quality?	4
APV in Germany	Potential for Germany Export hit?	1

Note: The four topics with the highest rankings were chosen for the World Café discussions. The arguments were not structured or formatted, but taken as noted by the participants.

Table 2. Overview of key findings and recommendations of the citizens' workshop.

	Comparison to other renewable energies	APV and the landscape	Agricultural cultivation	Environmental Sustainability	Planning framework for APV	APV and the politics	Who are the profiteers and losers
Main arguments	Use roofs and industrial sites for PV first, then APV	Fear of uncontrolled growth	Agricultural cultivation must be mandatory	Production of the mounting system, recycling and disposal of PV must be considered.	Limitations in size and density for a municipality/ region.	EU-regulations to be further specified into regional/ local specifications.	Local recreation and tourism might be disturbed by APV
	Decentralized production: bring product and consumption together at one site with power storage.	Integration in the landscape scenery important to avoid industrial artefacts.	Quality and quantity of yields must be analysed for a holistic assessment.	Standardized modules allowing for replacement and repowering.	Good governance and well-defined permission procedure required.	German Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) as good example of a foresighted policy.	Operation mode by cooperatives or municipalities as best option.
	Avoid un-planned developments (cf. biogas).	Better integration expected for flat areas than for hilly areas	Reduced heat stress in summer expected.	Unspecific possible impact on flora and fauna mentioned.	Involvement of citizens and municipal councils required.	Certain share of self-supply with energy for a region.	Farmers can be winners (if APV is economically viable) or losers (if farming land leases would increase)
	Higher acceptance for APV than for ground-mounted PV, biogas, and wind power.	No ‘roofed Allgäu’, avoid large sprawls over several square kilometers.	Shade tolerance and eventually altered/ reduced water supply below panels must be investigated.	Include life cycle assessment in the assessment of the technology.	No APV on the best and most productive soils, minimum distance to settlements.	Criteria for locations should be taken by municipal councils as they have the best knowledge.	Risk of overtaking of arable land by industrial investors.

RVBO . 2017. Region Bodensee-Oberschwaben [online], Regionalverband Bodensee-Oberschwaben (RVBO). Accessed November 6, 2017. http://www.rvbo.de/Region .

 Google Scholar