Transcript Understanding Public Reactions to Wind Farm Developments

Understanding Public Reactions
to Wind Farm Developments
through Communication and
Integration
Mhairi Aitken
Introduction
UK government targets in response to climate change
and the ‘energy crisis’
- 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050
- 20% of electricity produced from renewable sources by 2020
Enormous potential of wind power in the UK
Public hostility and opposition creates significant
obstacle to meeting targets
“yes-sayers” and “nay-sayers”
(Krohn & Damborg 1999)
•
•
•
•
•
“yes-sayers”
Renewable energy as viable
alternative to traditional
energy
Climate change is a real and
serious threat
Wind energy is unlimited
Wind energy is clean
Wind energy is safe
“nay-sayers”
• Renewable energy is not the
answer
• Wind energy is unreliable
• Wind energy is expensive
• Visual Impact
• Wind turbines are noisy
Conventional Explanation
NIMBY-ism
(not-in-my-back-yard)
Widespread support for renewable
energy and wind power
Strong local opposition to particular
wind farm developments
NIMBY discredited
• Recently come to be viewed as outdated and oversimplistic
• Multiple motivations and factors influence individual
reactions to wind farms
• Allows opposition to be discredited despite real
concerns
It is now widely acknowledged that communication with and
integration of local communities in planning and decisionmaking processes is vital.
Examples
Orkney Community Wind Turbine
North Wiltshire Biomass Energy
Plant
(Orkney Renewable Energy Ltd. 2005)
(Upreti & Horst 2004)






Biomass plants refused planning
permission due to public anxieties over
impacts and risk
Strong opposition – BLOT (Biomass
Lumbered on Our Town) – 439 letters of
opposition
Lack of communication between
developers and community
Communication came too late –
opposition already too strong
Developers’ approach perceived to be
top-down
Initial negative perception creates
suspicion





Single 850kW turbine
Funded by consortium of Orkney
residents
Scottish machine, local expertise and
business utilised wherever possible
Local investment = local enthusiasm
Developers are perceived to have
credibility and local interests at heart
But it’s not just for small “local”
projects!
Large and/or external companies can also create positive
community relations through effective and proactive
stakeholder management.
Example: Albany, Western Australia
(Ebert 1999)
15km outside Albany city – ‘magnificent coastal environment’, significant
tourism, scenic area, environmentally sensitive and highly visible location
Public engaged with from earliest stages – including flexibility over certain
elements of design.
Benefits highlighted, but down-sides not hidden – meaningful debate
Developers perceived to be honest and trustworthy
Vocalising the Silent Majority
• Staunch opposition groups may not respond
• Majority of people (apparently) support/do not
oppose wind farms
• Community engagement and consultation should
focus on the ‘silent majority’
Democracy requires all views to be heard
dominant opposition groups should not be able to hijack decisionmaking processes
Privileged/Latent groups
(Olson 1965, discussed in Toke 2002)
Privileged Groups: small, minority groups with strong
interests and motivation to organise
Latent Groups: Typically larger groups but without strong
interests or motivation to organise
• Privileged groups will be better organised and hence
minority interests may ‘defeat’ those of latent groups despite
being unrepresentative
• Large groups require incentives – or the group must already
exist for some other function
The necessity/appropriateness of
Participatory Techniques
Appropriate policies/developments best achieved
through consultation with affected communities
Participation of local communities in decision-making
and/or planning will lead to more appropriate and
desirable outcomes – therefore the public will be more
accepting and positive
It appears almost common-sense that participation is a
desirable thing
Criticisms of Participatory Techniques
• Simplistic view of communities
• If participation is ‘good’, non-participation must be
‘bad’
• Power remains at the ‘top’
• Participatory techniques are cosmetic
Essential Conditions for Good
Participation
• Power to the communities
• Trust
• Transparency
Conclusions and Implications
• It is essential that developers engage with local communities, in order to
understand and address their concerns
• Local communities will react negatively where they do not trust or know the
developer
• Trust requires a meaningful process of public consultation and participation
• Meaningful participation requires the empowerment of local communities
including real input into certain key decisions (i.e. number of turbines, size,
location, design)
• Where this is not possible, an open discussion of the reasons and
justifications for decisions which have already been made must take place
Local communities must be empowered rather than dominated
Understanding Public Reactions
to Wind Farm Developments
through Communication and
Integration
Mhairi Aitken