This document summarizes the findings of a Q study on stakeholder perspectives regarding renewable energy decision processes and policy implementation in Switzerland. Four main viewpoints were identified: 1) local production and empowerment, 2) national savings and nature protection, 3) balancing interests, and 4) liberal production. While stakeholders agreed on involving all in decisions, they differed in priorities around economic rationale, energy saving, nature protection and technologies. The perspectives correlated with administrative levels of local, cantonal and national, showing the canton's role in enacting strategy but not prioritizing national interests like efficiency and environment.

1. Taking stock of
stakeholder’s perspec0ves on
renewable decision processes in
Switzerland
A Q study on facilita0ng the
Swiss energy transi0on strategy
Paula Díaz
PhD Climate Policy – ETHZ
Q Method Conference – New Orleans, Sept. 8th 2016

2. o Perspec0ves on decision process
o Energy policy for high levels of renewables
Are stakeholders’ perspec0ves
posing risks to
energy policy implementa0on?

3. Governments have deeply reviewed their energy
policy frameworks and targeted a system with high
penetra0on of renewable energy
§ Swiss Energy Strategy enacted in 2012 to phase out nuclear by 2050
§ EU’s new energy market design enacted in 2015
§ German Renewable Energy Act last revised on 2014
§ the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
§ the Indian Na0onal Renewable Energy Act of 2015...
Context
Governments face
situa0ons where
new risks to the
implementa0on of the
energy policy may emerge

4. “Many respondents complain the
lack of acceptance of hydropower
in society and miss the political
will to their expansion.
A broad debate on the role of
hydropower for energy supply has
not been previously performed.
The existing fronts between
conservation and use interests have
so far prevented an objective
discussion. From different sides a
transparent, fact-based debate is
required instead of lobbying and
emotional discussions.”
(page: 6/22)
Hydropower potential in Switzerland

5. Case study
Decision process of small hydropower project
Electricity produc0on for 2500 Households (3.1MW)
Hydropower
Poten;al

6. Case study
Project site: valley & river
Hydropower measurements

7. Decision process: stakeholders involved
Canton
St. Gallen
10 Stakeholder
groups
30 people involved
Municipality
Electricity
companies
Environmental
Assessment
NGOs
Ortsgemeinde
Farmer
Ranger
Valley commune
Fishing associa;on

8. Q method
• Operant subjec0vity
– Behavior is best understood rela0ve to its impact
upon the immediate environment
• Par0cipants viewpoints can really make a
difference
• They do not express a par0cular preconceived
meaning
• They impress their own meanings

9. Concourse of opinion
• Interviews to 12 stakeholders
• Media & literature
• Complain & court decision

10. Final set of statements (Q-set)
Project
Decision
Process
Energy
Policy
Economy
Technology
Environment
Admin. Levels
2 3 3
2 2 4
1 1 4
4 4 4
N = 34

11. Impression of preferences: Q sor;ng
In person: 5 (19%)
Condi;on of instruc;on: “Verteilen Sie die Aussagen gemäss Ihrer
persönlichen Auffassung in einer Skala von – 4 bis + 4 auf. BiEe beachten Sie, dass -
4 überhaupt nicht Ihrer Auffassung und + 4 ganz Ihrer Auffassung entspricht.”
(Distribute the statements according to your personal opinion on a
scale from -4 to +4. Please note that -4 is most unlike your opinion
and +4 most like your opinion).
www.qsortware.net
Dr. Alessio Pruneddu
N=26
Online: 21 (81%)

12. Factor analysis
PQMethod
Centroid analysis:
Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Eigenvalues 7.77 3.49 1.58 1.41 0.37 1.04 0.76
Variance (%) 29.90 13.42 6.08 5.43 1.44 4.01 2.92
Humphrey’s
(p <0.01 = 0.442)
4 3 3 3 0 1 1
Humphrey’s
(SE*2 = 0.17*2=0.34)
0.65 0.48 0.22 0.22 0.05 0.10 0.10

13. Factor analysis
Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Eigenvalues 7.77 3.49 1.58 1.41 0.37 1.04 0.76
Variance (%) 29.90 13.42 6.08 5.43 1.44 4.01 2.92
Humphrey’s
(p <0.01 = 0.442)
4 3 3 3 0 1 1
Humphrey’s
(SE*2 = 0.17*2=0.34)
0.65 0.48 0.22 0.22 0.05 0.10 0.10
PQMethod
Centroid analysis:

14. Factor analysis
Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Eigenvalues 7.77 3.49 1.58 1.41 0.37 1.04 0.76
Variance (%) 29.90 13.42 6.08 5.43 1.44 4.01 2.92
Humphrey’s
(p <0.01 = 0.442)
4 3 3 3 0 1 1
Humphrey’s
(SE*2 = 0.17*2=0.34)
0.65 0.48 0.22 0.22 0.05 0.10 0.10
PQMethod
Centroid analysis:

15. Factor analysis
Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Eigenvalues 7.77 3.49 1.58 1.41 0.37 1.04 0.76
Variance (%) 29.90 13.42 6.08 5.43 1.44 4.01 2.92
Humphrey’s
(p <0.01 = 0.442)
4 3 3 3 0 1 1
Humphrey’s
(SE*2 = 0.17*2=0.34)
0.65 0.48 0.22 0.22 0.05 0.10 0.10
PQMethod
Centroid analysis:

16. Factor analysis
Varimax factor rota0on:
4 Factors
22 Q sorts (4 confounded)
Rotated Factors 1 2 3 4 Total
Eigenvalues 5.00 3.90 3.82 1.54
Variance (%) 19.23 15.01 14.69 5.91 54.8
Bipolar

17. Consensus statements across factors
All stakeholders should be involved in the
decisions-making. 1.2 0.76 0.92 0.03
In Switzerland the environment impacts are
not a problem as long as the economy moves -1.2 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9
The many admin. bodies in Switzerland made
the decision-making process complex. 0.87 0.39 0.17 0.46
The phase out of nuclear in Switzerland is, in
my opinion, wrong. -1.7 -2.1 -1.5 -1.1
1 2 3 4
Loadings per factor

18. Factor 1
“Super green local produc;on empowerment”
Par0cipants Q sort Loadings
1 Ortsgemeinde 2 0.64
2 Electricity na0onal company 6 0.53
3 Canton Councilor Chris0an People's Party 8 0.49
4 Valley community 9 0.63
5 Environmental Assessment 12 0.70
6 Ortsgemeinde 14 0.70
7 Electricity local company 16 0.65
8 Farmer 19 0.70
9 Water Cantonal Admin. 22 0.45
10 Electricity local company 24 0.45

19. Factor 1
“Super green local produc;on empowerment”
Decision process and project
Energy Strategy
Local residents have the best knowledge
about community needs.
The lack of experience of canton St. Gallen
facilitated the decision-making process.
I could not influence the results of the
decision process.
We have to produce as much energy as
possible to meet our needs.
We should enhance the energy efficiency
(efficient appliances, roof isola0on).
The Swiss energy strategy should focus on
how to protect our nature.
0.96
-1.17
-1.26
Loading
1.05
0.78
-0.57
Loading

20. Par0cipants Q sort Loadings
1 NGO 1 0.79
2 NGO 3 0.44
3 NGO 5 0.66
4 NGO 10 0.79
5 NGO 15 0.76
6 Environmental Assessment 17 0.69
Factor 2
“Super green: na;onal savings”

21. In projects planned at na0onal level, local
interests are enough taken into account.
Decision process and project
Energy Strategy
The decision process brought a huge
disadvantage for the project.
I have the feeling that the ecologic cons and
the power produc0on are well balanced.
We should enhance the energy efficiency
(efficient appliances, roof isola0on).
In Switzerland we should not build any more
small hydropower plant.
We have to produce as much energy as
possible to meet our needs.
0.51
-0.56
-0.7
Loading
2.28
1.68
-1.17
Loading
Factor 2
“Super green: na;onal savings”

22. Par0cipants Q sort Loadings
1 Canton Councilor Swiss People's Party 7 0.55
2 Water Cantonal Admin. 11 0.73
3 Water Cantonal Admin. 18 0.72
4 Fishing associa0on 25 0.45
Factor 3
“The solu;on is always in the middle”

23. We have to produce much more renewable
energy. 1.22
Decision process and project
Energy Strategy
The hydropower plant Berschnerbach is a
decisive project for the canton St. Gallen.
Decisions are logically always taken by those
who pay.
In projects planned at na0onal level, local
interests are enough taken into account.
The Swiss energy strategy should focus on
how to protect our nature.
In Switzerland, we have to produce as much
energy as possible to meet our needs.
1.42
-1.17
-1.3
Loading
0.23
-0.99
Loading
Factor 3
“The solu;on is always in the middle”

24. Factor 4
“Liberal energy produc;on for all”
Par0cipants Q sort Loadings
1 Farmer 23 0.51
2 Electricity na0onal company 26 0.64
3 Electricity naRonal company 13 -0.56
Bipolar

25. Decision process and project
Energy Strategy
If we had invested the money somewhere
else, we could have produced more energy.
In decision process personal interests are
given preference over project interests.
In the en0re economy of Switzerland, this
project is important.
We should not limit the conven0onal energy
sources (non-renewable).
We have to produce much more renewable
energy.
The Swiss energy strategy should focus on
how to protect our nature.
1.79
1.12
-2.05
Loading
0.99
-0.53
-1.35
Loading
Factor 4
“Liberal energy produc;on for all”

26. Findings
• Q reveals four major stakeholders’ perspec0ves regarding the
Swiss Energy Strategy 2050.
• Although having some consensus on general statements, each
perspec0ve supports substan0ally different policy priori0es.
• Each perspec0ve differ:
– Means to implement the energy strategy
– Emphasis given
• Economic ra0onale
• Energy saving
• Nature protec0on
• Technologies, etc.

27. Findings
• Each perspec0ve correspond to different levels of federal
administra0on.
– Local
– Cantonal
– Na0onal perspec0ve
• The Canton plays a relevant role for the energy strategy
implementa0on.
– It enacts requirements for insula0on, ra0onal use of energy and use of
renewable sources of energy, among others
– However, our results show that the Canton does not priori0ze na0onal
interest, such as, nature protec0on and energy efficiency

28. Policy Implica0ons
• No extreme opposi0on to energy policy
implementa0on has been highlighted.
• Renewable development may be delayed of
implementa0on process.
• Nego0a0on with stakeholders involved is necessary
to arrive to a compromise.
• Energy policy
implementa0on will be
poten0ally lengthy and
costly.

29. Thank you
Paula Díaz
Paula.diaz@usys.ethz.ch
This research project is part of the Na0onal Research Programme "Energy Turnaround" (NRP 70) of the Swiss Na0onal Science
Founda0on (SNSF). Further informa0on on the Na0onal Research Programme can be found at www.nrp70.ch.

31. BERSCH.UNR
7 26 34 Berschnerbach
-4 4 0 0 2 3 4 5 6 5 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 h2 (communality)*
1 0.376 -0.709 -0.110 0.134 0.185 0.157 0.156 0.76
2 0.511 0.230 0.310 -0.161 0.078 -0.113 -0.320 0.56
3 0.614 -0.172 0.142 0.213 0.007 0.323 -0.044 0.58
4 0.796 0.221 -0.125 0.036 0.036 -0.020 0.168 0.73
5 0.152 -0.622 0.152 0.113 0.130 0.073 -0.070 0.47
6 0.526 0.443 0.207 0.100 0.100 -0.047 0.229 0.59
7 0.296 0.651 -0.181 0.178 0.224 0.199 -0.056 0.67
8 0.503 -0.052 -0.095 -0.375 0.094 -0.317 0.028 0.52
9 0.493 0.437 0.114 -0.212 0.131 -0.011 0.149 0.53
10 0.356 -0.678 0.070 0.223 0.161 -0.119 -0.158 0.71
11 0.821 0.049 -0.432 0.073 0.092 0.011 -0.128 0.89
12 0.613 0.037 0.274 -0.284 0.075 0.051 0.265 0.61
13 0.456 0.296 -0.510 -0.279 0.240 0.299 0.073 0.79
14 0.532 0.072 0.252 -0.402 0.118 -0.055 -0.144 0.55
15 0.358 -0.614 0.306 0.192 0.152 -0.069 -0.036 0.66
16 0.682 0.351 0.053 -0.095 0.072 0.379 0.112 0.76
17 0.501 -0.535 0.264 -0.170 0.137 -0.240 0.183 0.75
18 0.673 0.057 -0.286 0.293 0.058 -0.270 -0.287 0.78
19 0.712 0.347 0.218 -0.023 0.073 -0.078 0.064 0.69
20 0.695 0.262 -0.064 -0.007 0.042 0.138 -0.115 0.59
21 0.736 -0.185 -0.077 0.202 0.011 0.107 0.112 0.65
22 0.626 -0.140 -0.048 -0.141 0.024 0.249 -0.073 0.50
23 0.386 0.010 0.292 0.537 0.092 0.188 -0.225 0.62
24 0.619 0.074 0.099 0.089 0.000 -0.242 -0.087 0.47
25 0.235 0.207 -0.173 0.293 0.054 -0.283 0.367 0.43
26 -0.023 0.133 0.542 0.320 -0.220 0.303 0.152 0.58
Eigenvalue** 7.77 3.49 1.58 1.41 0.37 1.04 0.76
Variance (%) 29.90 13.42 6.08 5.43 1.44 4.01 2.92 63.20

32. VARIMAX
4 26 34 Berschnerbach
-4 4 0 0 2 3 4 5 6 5 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F1 F2 F3 F4 (bipolar) h2 (communality)*
1 -0.051 0.788 0.151 -0.169 0.67
2 0.635 0.011 0.125 0.129 0.44
3 0.336 0.445 0.377 0.142 0.47
Confounded 4 0.554 0.098 0.607 -0.122 0.70
5 -0.065 0.656 -0.087 0.061 0.45
6 0.534 -0.151 0.400 0.241 0.53
7 0.230 -0.469 0.548 0.049 0.58
8 0.487 0.173 0.094 -0.361 0.41
9 0.626 -0.217 0.231 -0.015 0.49
10 -0.026 0.790 0.121 0.032 0.64
11 0.376 0.224 0.735 -0.370 0.87
12 0.699 0.200 0.072 -0.016 0.53
13 0.332 -0.203 0.412 -0.559 0.63
14 0.701 0.117 -0.028 -0.089 0.51
15 0.108 0.762 0.014 0.206 0.63
16 0.650 -0.058 0.416 -0.027 0.60
17 0.395 0.687 -0.081 -0.044 0.64
18 0.225 0.213 0.719 -0.108 0.62
19 0.703 -0.009 0.402 0.140 0.68
Confounded 20 0.541 0.024 0.506 -0.082 0.56
Confounded 21 0.333 0.471 0.537 -0.050 0.62
22 0.451 0.341 0.262 -0.213 0.43
23 0.129 0.261 0.424 0.508 0.52
24 0.454 0.201 0.393 0.077 0.41
25 0.006 -0.076 0.453 0.052 0.21
26 0.089 -0.005 -0.027 0.637 0.41
Eigenvalue** 5.00 3.90 3.82 1.54
Variance (%) 19.23 15.01 14.69 5.91 54.83

33. VARIMAX
7 26 34 Berschnerbach
-4 4 0 0 2 3 4 5 6 5 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 h2 (communality)*
1 a
2 a
3 a
Confounded 4 a a
5 a
6 a
7 a
8 a
9 a
10 a
Confounded 11 a a
12 a
13 a
14 a
15 a
Confounded 16 a a
Confounded 17 a a
18 a
19 a
20 a
Confounded 21 a a
22 a
23 a
24 a
25 a
26 a
Eigenvalue** 7.774 3.4894 1.5815 1.412 0.3741 1.0424 0.759
Variance (%) 30 13 6 5 1 4 3 62
In factor 6, 4
Q sorts were
confounded
with other
factors

34. F1 F2 F3 F4
ID Wording Load. Arr Load. Arr Load. Arr Load. Arr
1 Technicallywise I am very happy with what the project represents 0.76 1 0.25 1 2.14 4 0.53 1
2 In the entire economy of Switzerland, the hydropower plant Berschnerbach is important. 0.01 0 -1.9 -4 0.47 2 -2.05 -4
3 Of course I (or my employer) take profit from the hydropower plant Berschnerbach 0.57 1 -0.65 -2 -2.14 -4 -0.24 0
4 Comparing the planed electricity price of the hydropowerplant Berschnerbach with the price that we have today in the market, the Energy Policy
seems senseless. -1.07 -2 0.55 2 0.02 0 2.09 4
5 If we had invested the money somewhere else insted of in the hydropower plant Berschnerbach, we could have increased more the energy efficiency. -0.81 -1 1.55 3 -0.62 -1 1.79 4
6 The hydropower plant Berschnerbach is a decisive project for St. Gallen. 0.12 0 -1.15 -3 1.42 3 -1.32 -3
7 The results of the decision process about the hydropower Berschnerbach are something I could not influence. -1.26 -3 -0.61 -2 -0.75 -2 -0.37 -1
8 The community has gained much significance with the hydropower Berschnerbach. 0.35 0 -0.38 -1 0.13 0 -1.72 -4
9 Regarding the hydropower Berschnebach, the result is a "win win" situation for everyone. 1.21 3 0.23 0 1.29 3 -0.86 -2
10 Regarding the hydropower Berschnerbach, I have the feeling that the ecologic cons and the power production are well balanced.
0.74 1 -0.7 -2 1.67 4 -0.29 -1
11 In Switzerland the environment impacts are not a problem as long as the economy moves ahead.
-1.22 -3 -0.94 -2 -0.9 -2 -0.93 -2
12 In the decision process my main motivation was to be able to use renewable energy.
1.2 3 0.08 0 1.17 2 0.44 1
13 In Switzerland conflicts limit e sustainable energy development.
0.9 2 -0.44 -1 0.44 1 0.23 1
14 The Swiss energy strategy should focus on how to protect our nature.
-0.57 -1 1.26 3 0.23 1 -1.35 -3
15 In Switzerland, we should enhance the energy efficiency (efficient appliances, proper roof isolation).
0.78 1 2.28 4 0.84 2 -0.03 0
16 In Switzerland, we have to produce as much energy as possible to meet our needs.
1.05 2 -1.17 -3 -0.99 -2 0.43 1
17 In Switzerland, we have to produce much more renewable energy.
1.52 4 1.09 2 1.22 3 -0.53 -1
18 In Switzerland, we should improve the efficiency of the large hydropower plants.
1.57 4 1.49 3 0.08 0 1.12 3
19 In Switzerland we should not build any small hydropower plant more.
-1.61 -3 1.68 4 0.15 0 -1.35 -3
20 The phase out of nuclear in Switzerland is, in my opinion, wrong.
-1.72 -4 -2.14 -4 -1.56 -4 1.11 2
21 In Switzerland, we should not limit the conventional energy sources (non-renewable). -1.68 -4 -1.19 -3 -0.6 -1 0.99 2
22 The electricity for the municipality Walenstadt is secured with the hydropowerplant Berschnerbach.
0.3 0 -0.48 -1 0.44 1 -0.92 -2
23 The lack of experience with hydropower projects in the canton of St. Gallen facilitated the decision-making process. -1.17 -2 -0.09 0 -1.35 -3 -0.29 -1
24 I wonder whether the green lobby has a strong influence on the government departments.
0.37 0 -0.39 -1 -0.32 -1 1.42 3
25 The whole political apparatus could work faster.
0.4 1 0.46 1 0.15 0 -0.21 0
26 In decision process personal interests are given preference over project interests.
-0.64 -1 -0.03 0 -1.3 -3 1.12 3
27 Local residents have the best knowledge about community needs.
0.96 2 -0.23 0 -0.22 -1 0.07 0
28 The low agreement is in large part due to the fact that the initiators underestimated the complexity of the decision process.
-0.43 -1 0.26 1 0.4 1 0.67 2
29 In Switzerland, it is easy to call everyone to hold a roundtable to make decisions. -0.89 -2 0.52 2 0.2 1 -0.36 -1
30 In projects planned at national level, local interests are enough taken into account.
-0.76 -1 0.51 1 -1.05 -2 -0.1 0
31 Decisions are logically always taken by those who pay.
-0.88 -2 -0.32 0 -1.17 -3 -0.56 -2
32 The decision process brought a huge disadvantage for the hydropower plant Berschnerbach.
-0.17 0 -0.56 -1 -0.57 -1 1.06 2
33 The many instances in Switzerland made the decision-making process rather complex.
0.87 2 0.39 1 0.17 0 0.46 1
34 All stakeholders should be involved in the decisions-making. 1.2 3 0.76 2 0.92 2 -0.03 0