Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Deep decarbonization and renewable energy in the Appalachian Mountains (DDREAM): a socio-ecological systems approach to evaluating ecological governance

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Socio-Ecological Practice Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Through the lens of ecologically based planning and design decisions for a renewable energy infrastructure, our project investigates a pilot method that assesses ecological, geographic, and sociopolitical opportunities and constraints. This method couples an application of the University of Pennsylvania Suitability Analysis Method, more commonly known as the McHarg Method, and a statistical analysis of the Appalachian Mountain Region of Pennsylvania in the United States. Despite the region’s high-quality natural resources, persistent reliance on coal industries has resulted in disadvantaged socioeconomic distress and risk. By unraveling linkages between socio-ecological systems and governance actions, the results of our pilot described challenges for the Appalachian Mountain Region in transitioning to a renewable energy infrastructure, while also formulating the basis for county-level strategies that may encourage the pro-environmental governance necessary to promote renewable energy initiatives. We find that Appalachian counties’ relatively low levels of infrastructure density, solar irradiation, population growth, limited access to education centers, and high-quality forests present challenges to allocating suitable areas for solar infrastructure. However, clusters of moderately suitable areas are identifiable throughout the region. Yet such opportunities may struggle to support solar energy initiatives as the region suffers from limited pro-environmental governance, particularly in areas with low-density infrastructure and historically higher levels of dependence on natural resource industries. Above all, our findings identify that the relationship between socio-ecological conditions and pro-environmental governance is complex and often in conflict in key areas of the region.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process. 50:179–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albright TA, McWilliams RH, Widmann RH et al (2014) Pennsylvania forests 2014. U.S. Forest Service, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act. (2004). Pub. November 30, 2004, P.L. 1672, No. 213

  • Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) (2019). Counties in Appalachia. Retrieved from https://www.arc.gov/appalachian_region/CountiesinAppalachia.asp. January 2019

  • Asakereh A, Soleymani M, Sheikhdavoodi MJ (2017) A GIS-based fuzzy-AHP method for the evaluation of solar farms locations: Case study in Khuzestan province, Iran. Sol Energy 155:342–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.05.075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baban Serwan MJ, Parry T (2001) Developing and applying a GIS-assisted approach to locating wind farms in the UK. Renewable Energy 24:59–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balint P, Stewart R, Desai A, Walters LC (2011) Wicked environmental problems: Managing uncertainty and conflict. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barriutia JM, Echebarria C (2019) Comparing three theories of participation in pro-environmental collaborative governance networks. J Environ Manage 240:108–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer J, Ames DP, Solan D, Lee R, Carlisle J (2015) Using GIS analytics and social preference data to evaluate utility-scale solar power site suitability. Renewable Energy 81:825–836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.04.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carley S, Evans TP, Konisky DM (2018) Adaptation, culture, and the energy transition in American coal country. Energy Research & Social Science 37:133–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castillo CP, e Silva FB, Lavalle C (2016) An assessment of the regional potential for solar power generation in EU-28. Energy Policy 88:86–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charabi Y, Gastli A (2011) PV site suitability analysis using GIS-based spatial fuzzy multi-criteria evaluation. Renewable Energy 36(9):2554–2561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2010.10.037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gergely, K. J., Boykin, K. G., McKerrow, A. J., Rubino, M. J., Tarr, N. M., & Williams, S. G. (2019). Gap analysis project (GAP) terrestrial vertebrate species richness maps for the conterminous U.S. U.S. geological survey scientific investigations report 20195034. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20195034

  • Jacquet JB (2012) Landowner attitudes toward natural gas and wind farm development in northern Pennsylvania. Energy Policy 50:677–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res 8(3):239–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin K (1935) A dynamic theory of personality. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Mainzer S, Luloff AE (2017) Informing environmental problems through field analysis: Toward a community landscape theory of pro-environmental behavior. Community Development. 48(4):1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McHarg IL (1969) Design with nature. Published for the American Museum of Natural History [by] the Natural History Press, Garden City, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • McHarg IL, Steiner F (eds) (1998) To heal the earth: Selected writings of Ian L. McHarg. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • McHarg IL, Steiner F (eds) (2006) The essential Ian Mcharg: Writing on design and nature. Island Press, Island, WA

    Google Scholar 

  • Park J, Ha S (2012) Understanding pro-environmental behavior. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 40(5):388–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennsylvania Department of State. (2018). Reporting center. https://www.electionreturns.pa.gov/ReportCenter/Reports. Accessed December 17th, 2018

  • Pennsylvania’s Solar Future Plan. (2018). Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. November 2018

  • Steiner F (2008) The living landscape: An ecological approach to landscape planning, 2nd edn. Island Press, Island Press, WA

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern PC (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues. 56(3):407–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoms DM, Dashiell SL, Davis FW (2013) Siting solar energy development to minimize biological impacts. Renewable Energy 57:289–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.01.055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2018). Pennsylvania State Energy Profile. July 19, 2018

  • Watson Joss JW, Hudson MD (2015) Regional scale wind farm and solar farm suitability assessment using GIS-assisted multi-criteria evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning 138:20–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson KP (1991) The community in rural America. First Social Ecology Press, Middleton, WI

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was made possible in part by a Faculty Research Grant from the Penn State College of Arts and Architecture and the support of E + D: Ecology plus Design, a Penn State research center-in-development.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen P. Mainzer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mainzer, S.P., Cole, C.A. & Flohr, T. Deep decarbonization and renewable energy in the Appalachian Mountains (DDREAM): a socio-ecological systems approach to evaluating ecological governance. Socio Ecol Pract Res 1, 249–263 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-019-00030-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-019-00030-6

Keywords

Navigation