The social acceptance of wind energy: Current thinking and implications for the future

1. ESRC Seminar Series ‘Where next for wind?’ Seminar 1: Explaining national variations in wind power deployment Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen 21st February 2008 The social acceptance of wind energy: Current thinking and implications for the future Dr Claire Haggett Landscape Research Group University of Newcastle

2. Overview • Who protests against wind? • Why they do protest? • How they do protest?

3. Who protests? • Individual gap between attitudes and behaviour • Social gap between the high support expressed and the low success rate • Self Interest: rational ‘free-riders’ • Difference between hypothetical collective rationality and individual rationality • Does not explain opposition from organisations • General principle of ‘Qualified Support’: impact on landscape, environment, humans • Democratic Deficit: the minority who oppose are effective • Key question not about individuals but about how the minority are able to dominate • Decide-announce-defend rationale

4. 1) Free riders • ‘Nimby’ generally disregarded • Largely incorrect • Actual causes of opposition obscured, not explained • People do not often in the rationale way it suggests • Objections from non-proximate residents • Label likely to breed resentment • Devalues concerns • Broadly used as a descriptor for all protest

5. 2) Qualified support • Change people’s minds • Public deficit model • Environmentally aware • Take concerns seriously and address thoroughly through research; provide relevant and situated information that people can trust • Change key features of particular developments

6. i) Landscape • Landscape may be particularly valuable • Support dependant on the plans • Conflicting environmental aims Auchencorth Moss, Midlothian • Valuable because of its beauty • Sir Walter Scott: "I think I never saw anything so beautiful" • Site would be visible from Pentland Hills, a designated area of great landscape beauty and containing an SSSI • Valuable because of its rarity • Site is visible from the one of the few areas in the UK considered totally unspoilt • Site contains one of Scotland's few remaining raised peat bogs • Value as national/international assets, not just on a local scale

7. ii) The Importance of Place Local social and historical context • Particular siting and local relations crucial • Place attachment • Meaning attached to the social landscape • Who is protesting? • Which ‘locals’? What conceptions of the locality? • Offshore windfarm off coast of Redcar • Opposition group ‘IMPACT: for people living near hazardous industry’ • Local environments are valuable locally • What facilities are provided/problems experienced dependant on local situation

8. iii) Local and Global • Local issues not global warming • Local concerns and understandings • National benefits, local disadvantages • Noise: regulations and limits in place (PPS22; BS 4142; ETSU-R-1997) • But: 1) difficulties of measurement 2) rules of measurement 3) the experience of noise varies – crucial to understand the local impact on peoples’ lives

9. iv) Control and ownership • Locals v outsiders • Imposition of (inter)national interests • Environmental values or profits? • Opposition not to a development but the developer • Fishers and developers: different views • Ownership • Developers: a national resource for national benefit • Fishers: livelihoods, generational rights • Direct or indirect compensation; necessity or extortion • Control • Developers: ‘bending over backwards’ to consult • Fishers: very little consultation, inappropriate means, and ineffective

10. 3) Democratic deficit • Power of the minority • Impact on qualified supporters if concerns are not given a voice • Protest shaped by the planning process • Forced to act in this way • Issues not responded to within the planning process • Decide-announce-defend rationale • Lack of communication perfect catalyst for creating opposition • Nature of consultation • ‘Real’ involvement or going through the motions? • Conclusions taken into account? • Trust, social acceptance, and influence • Fairness of outcomes and process

11. Processes • Shift from competitive interest bargaining to consensus building • Recognising all stakeholders and diverse interests Premises • Under what auspices is engagement carried out? • Democracy; Expertise; Pragmatism?

12. Processes Procedures • How does the character of the decision-making process affect who participates? • Eg fishing communities • What kind of process would draw people in who reflect the initial balance of public opinion? • Does everyone have the same influence in these processes? • Should some have more influence? Eg shipping • Who counts as ‘local’? • Not homogenous • Decisions can divide communities • How can a balance be achieved between flexibility and a necessary framework?

13. How do they protest? • Discourse: how protesters “present their position as credible, robust and convincing may have practical implications for the outcome of the debate” (Burningham, 2000:55) • Avoiding issues of stake • Invoking the global crisis: planet, not profit • People’s champions • Balancing environmental issues • Redefining the nature of the issue: wind ‘farm’ • Everyone is a ‘David’

14. Implications for the future • Different ways of understanding opposition • (Support and) opposition is motivated by: • Landscape value • Issues pertinent to the local context • Issues of immediate concern • Relationships with ‘outsiders’ • Opportunities for discussion and real involvement available

15. Questions to ask • Is there local support for the siting of any development, and the specifics of it? • Has the application demonstrated an understanding of the local area and the local people? • Is the renewable energy development relevant for the community in which it is sited? Are the local advantages? Are there local disadvantages? • Is the renewable energy site being developed with a community, rather than being imposing on it? • Has full and open consultation and engagement been allowed? • What form has that engagement taken? • Who has been consulted? • Meaningful action?

16. References • Haggett, C. (forthcoming) ‘Over the sea and far away? A consideration of the planning, politics, and public perceptions of offshore wind farms’, in press at the Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning • Haggett, C. (forthcoming) ‘Public engagement in planning for renewable energy’ in S. Davoudi and J. Crawford (eds.) Planning for Climate Change: Strategies for mitigation and adaptation for spatial planners, London: Earthscan. • Haggett, C., and Toke, D. (2005) ‘Crossing the Great Divide – Using Multi-Method Analysis to Understand Opposition to Windfarms’ Public Administration 84, 1, 103-120 • Bell, D., Gray, T., and Haggett, C. (2005) ‘Policy, Participation and the ‘Social Gap’ in Windfarm Siting Decisions’. Environmental Politics 14, 4, 460-477 • Gray, T., Haggett, C., and Bell, D. (2005) ‘Windfarm Siting – the Case of Offshore Windfarms’ Ethics, Place and Environment 8, 2, 127-140 • Haggett, C., and. Vigar, G. (2004) ‘Tilting at windmills? Understanding opposition to windfarm applications’ Town and Country Planning73 (10) pp288-291 • Haggett, C. (2004) ‘Tilting at Windmills? Understanding the Attitude-Behaviour Gap in Renewable Energy Conflicts’, British Sociological Association Conference, York, 22-25th March 2004 • ESRC ‘Tilting at Windmills? The Attitude-Behaviour Gap in Renewable Energy Conflicts’ (Environment and Human Behaviour Programme: award number RES-221-25-001) http://www.psi.org.uk/ehb/projectsbenson.html