The social acceptance of wind The social acceptance of wind energy: energy:

Current thinking and implications Current thinking and implications for the futurefor the future

Dr Claire HaggettDr Claire HaggettLandscape Research GroupLandscape Research Group

University of NewcastleUniversity of Newcastle

ESRC Seminar Series ‘Where next for wind?’Seminar 1: Explaining national variations in wind power deployment

Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen 21st February 2008

Overview

Who protests against wind? Why they do protest? How they do protest?

Who protests?

Individual gap between attitudes and behaviour Social gap between the high support expressed and the

low success rate

1. Self Interest: rational ‘free-riders’ Difference between hypothetical collective rationality and individual

rationality Does not explain opposition from organisations

2. General principle of ‘Qualified Support’: impact on landscape, environment, humans

3. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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?

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’

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 concernRelationships with ‘outsiders’Opportunities for discussion and real

involvement available

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?

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 Planning 73 (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