socio-political acceptance of wind power implementation - beyond the focus on ‘public...
Post on 11-Jan-2016
223 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Socio-political acceptance of wind power implementation -
Beyond the focus on ‘public acceptance’
Seminar Wind Power and ‘The Planning Problem’4 November 2008
Queens UniversityBelfast
Maarten Wolsink Geography, Planning & International Development Studies
University of Amsterdam
Research on the ‘acceptance’ of windpower implementation
• Since 1982 “Non-technical factors”• First researcher Inga Carlman (Sweden): fast turn to
questions focused upon acceptance among decision makers and policy makers: … the issue is (a lack of) “political and regulatory acceptance”. (Carlman 1984, EWEC p.339)
• From 1983 onwards: research in NL and US• Thayer: identification of landscape as the primary public
concern (Thayer and Freeman 1987; Landsc Urban Plan)
• First conclusion about NIMBY as flawed concept: “.. case studies have shown that it is dangerous to use the acronym , as it tends to offend the public and will generate stronger opposition” (Wolsink 1989, Wind Eng p.205)
From the late 90-ies onwards: rapidly increasing numbers of acceptance studies
• “Although proponents of the project often label opponents NIMBY, we feel that use of this term does not explain the opposition…. (VS: Kempton, Firestone ea 2005, Coastal Man p.124)
• “Where this issue has been explicitly addressed, empirical results have not supported the presumed prevalence of NIMBY views” (England: Devine-Wright, 2005, Wind Ener p.133)
• On the relation distance-WTP for ‘green power’ “Results do not provide support for the NIMBY-hypothesis” (Sweden: Ek 2005 Energy Pol p.1687)
• “The results are in accordance with the conclusions regarding the insignificance of the proximity hypothesis and the NIMBY inclination” (Denmark: Johansson, Laike, 2007, Wind Ener p116)
The relevance of studying acceptance in times of real decision making (Wolsink 1990, 1994 Urban Stud p.861).
Planning phase: structurally different attitudes
• Public acceptance of wind power is NOT the issue• The big issue is: institutional incompetence to utilize
the potential high acceptance of wind power projects• E.g. misunderstanding what social acceptance actually
is• Misunderstanding the relevance of involvement of
communities
• Attitude of people (residents, administrators, politicians, members of stakeholder organizations etc.) towards wind power is SOMETHING DIFFERENT from attitudes towards a wind power scheme
Social Acceptance Renewable Energy Innovation Wüstenhagen e.a., 2007. Energ Pol 35, 2386
Community acceptance: As usual in environmental conflict: TRUST is key
• Distribution of benefits an costs:- between community ‘outsiders’ and ‘insiders’- among members of the community - who is the investor? What are options for participation in the scheme?
• Equity and Fairness of Process (‘procedural fairness’; Wolsink 2007 Ren Sust En Rev)- who is deciding?- who is involved?- who is informed?- weight of the arguments in decision making as perceived by the members of the community
• All these factors highly determined by socio-political and market acceptance
Involvement and commitment communities (Walker en Devine-Wright 2008 Energy Pol)
Local Decision Making: Siting and Investment
Financial Procurement
System
Type / Stability
Landscape (LS)
Values
Grassroots LS / Anti-Wind
Groups
Social & Political Culture
National “Wind Policy”
Grassroots Initiative Pro Wind
Correspon-dence Policy & Planning
Local & Non-Power Comp
ownership
Stimulated / Impeded
Collaborative Approach
Stimulated or Impeded: Planning regime
Implementation rates: Installed capacity / Share of wind in power supply
Population Density
Geographical Potential
Toke et al 2008 Ren Sust En Rev; Wolsink 2007 Energy Pol
Example of dominance of landscape in attitude formation
Research noise, Sweden (n=1004, residents living near wind turbines) (Pedersen, Persson-Waye 2008; Env Rev Letters)
Factors affecting noise annoyance (beta)
(A) Weighted Sound Pressure 0.11Visual - landscape 0.40General wind power attitude 0.04 (n.s.)
Process: key is fairness in the eyes of the community
• Dutch systeem of consulting (“inspraak”) is a trap (too late, DAD, structurally generating a negative agenda only)
• Opennes right from the start • Inviting, but not coercive (many do not want to
participate, as long as they are no excluded)• Open with regards project participation• Open with regards decision making process• Open with regards result (open ended)• Flexible with regards most important aspects:
LANDSCAPE
Outcome of the project:Fit to local identity in the eyes of the community
• Landscape AND social identity (cognitive/cultural)• Fit to the landscape, determined mainly by the
choice of the site (turbines and wind farm design minor factors)
• Identity as experienced by local community• ‘Objective landscape characteristics’ are affecting
identity only after a process of PERCEPTION. • Embedding wind development in local economy• Socio-economic benefits for community• Again: fair, exclusion will mostly cause troubles • Local options for investments, from ownership or
shareholdership to symbolic ‘sense of ownership’
Commitment and involvement certainly not yet accepted as essential by stakeholders in the realm of socio-political and market acceptance
• Q-sort study among key stakeholders in 3 countriesrevealed 4 different ‘discourses’) (Wolsink, Breukers forthc.)
• Most distinguishing statement:National and regional governments should be able to issue directives when local authorities do not cooperate with the construction of a wind farm
• Persisting NIMBY-thoughts mainly among representatives in unsuccessful developers (E-companies as well as independent dev.)
• Such patterns are institutional, reinforced by existing structures (energy, planning, government)
• Extreme example of frustration, triggered by counter-productive patterns of thinking (website BWEA)
Support for wind power development; explained
by landscape type factors and wind farm design
factors Wolsink 2007 Energ Pol p.2698
• Standardized regression coefficients Landscape I Economic appl. .45 +Landscape II Nature .28 +Landscape III Residential use .06 Landscape IV North Sea .03 Design I Large farms .01Design II Tall turbines .01Design III Small numbers .04
N=535; R=.66; R2 =.44.
Acceptability locations: as perceived by members ‘Wadden Union’
% rejecting siting in landscape
94
89
89
86
71
63
62
62
60
Island dunes
Nature ar
NorthS dunes
in WaddenS
Recr area
island polders
Lauwersmeer
Dikes WS
mounds
Acceptability locations: as perceived by members ‘Wadden Union’
% not rejecting siting in landscape
59
43
41
33
26
22
19
19
16
2
Towns/vill
IJsselmeer
Marine clay p
NorthS dikes
NorthSea
Agricul area
Along tracks
Along Afsluitdijk
Military ar
Ind & harb
Example Water and Energy: Wadden Sea Occasion foundation Wadden Union: diking in 1964
Highly Protected area
Internationally: Wadden treaty DK, D, NL EU: Habitat and bird directives;
Natura2000 network NL: several nature protection zones Part of Ecological Main Structure PKB: Planning Core Decision (national planning
instrument) Main protection factor: Wadden Union; national
environmental organization
‘Afsluitdijk’ near-shore Wind Power development IPWA
1998-2001 278 MW 2 provinces 4 municipalities Nuon (E-company) National government: ministries of
* Economic Affairs* Housing, Spatial Planning & Environment* Agriculture and Nature
No further societal stakeholders,only an external advisory committee
This time: decion process focused on EIA Location study
In scoping phase several zones excluded Among those: - zones alongside the Afsluitdijk
- zones for fisheries (shellfish)- wide zones at both ends of the dike
Hence, development of only three EIA alternatives with only slight differences
Environmental Assessment: small differences on several aspects
Project group did not make a choice Minister asked for advise National Architect Advise based on an assessment of ‘design’ and
‘image’
‘most environmentally sound’ alternative
‘Image-quality’ alternative 2
Conclusions on IPWA No participation in project of the most significant civil
society group Technocratic planning, only involving several tiers of
government and principal investor Development of alternatives:
most alternatives excluded in scoping phase Selection made on basis landscape-architecture’s
consideration: technocratic focus on design, image
In societal debate (always about landscape at location)‘Seascape’ the determining factor
Excluded actors effectively lobbying against The IPWA project failed
top related