10
Land Use Policy 27 (2010) 204–213 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland Charles R. Warren , Malcolm McFadyen School of Geography & Geosciences, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9AL, Scotland, United Kingdom article info Article history: Received 7 February 2008 Received in revised form 5 December 2008 Accepted 31 December 2008 Keywords: Windfarms Scotland Attitudes Community ownership Gigha abstract This paper presents the results of a study of public attitudes to onshore windfarm development in south- west Scotland. Specifically, it explores the influences of different development models on attitudes to windfarms by comparing public attitudes towards a community-owned windfarm on the Isle of Gigha with attitudes towards several developer-owned windfarms on the adjacent Kintyre peninsula. The study, conducted in 2006, used a questionnaire-based survey (n =106) to test the hypothesis that community ownership would lead to greater public acceptance of windfarms. It also examined the attitudes of both residents and tourists towards the impacts of onshore windfarms on landscapes and seascapes, including cumulative impacts. The data show that the Gigha respondents were consistently more positive about wind power than were the Kintyre residents. However, the differences were differences of degree rather than diametrically opposing viewpoints. The most significant concerns about windfarms were intermit- tent production and visual impact, but majorities in both areas nevertheless regarded their visual impact as positive. The data also indicate that local attitudes could become even more positive if future windfarms were owned by local communities. The fact that the residents of Gigha have affectionately dubbed their turbines ‘the Three Dancing Ladies’ is indicative of the positive psychological effects of community own- ership. These results support the contention that a change of development model towards community ownership could have a positive effect on public attitudes towards windfarm developments in Scotland. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction: windfarm controversies in Scotland This study explores public attitudes to, and perceptions of, onshore windfarm development in south-west Scotland. Specifi- cally, it examines the socio-psychological effects which different development models have on attitudes to windfarms by compar- ing public perceptions of a community-owned windfarm on the Isle of Gigha with attitudes on the adjacent Kintyre peninsula where several large (>15 MW) developer-owned windfarms exist. In addi- tion, it investigates the perceptions of both residents and tourists concerning the impacts of onshore windfarms on landscapes and seascapes, including the cumulative effects of multiple windfarms. Since the turn of the century, debates about the merits and impacts of onshore windfarms in the UK have rapidly intensified, becoming one of the highest profile environmental controversies. These arguments are particularly intense in Scotland for two rea- sons. Firstly, Scotland has a greater extent of wild land than other parts of the UK and is internationally renowned for its scenic beauty. Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1334 463693; fax: +44 1334 463949. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.R. Warren), [email protected] (M. McFadyen). There is therefore strong resistance to any development which is perceived as a threat to the ‘naturalness’ of its landscapes, not least because the reputation of the Scottish uplands as wild and beautiful is believed to be a prime reason why tourists visit the country. Secondly, Scotland has the best onshore and offshore wind resources in Europe, with almost a quarter of the total resource (Troen and Petersen, 1989), and there are numerous potential sites for onshore windfarms. This, together with positive governmen- tal support (Scottish Government, 2008a), has inevitably led to large numbers of planning applications by private companies keen to capitalise on the potential. In turn, this has created fears that Scotland’s scenery, and the landscape settings of many rural com- munities, will be compromised. The problem is that the most favourable locations for windfarm development are, very often, precisely those exposed upland areas which are valued for their scenic qualities and which are frequently ecologically sensitive. Public concerns have been exacerbated by the rapidity with which the onshore wind power sector is expanding in Scotland, with expansion outstripping the rate across Europe as a whole. In 2006 the overall growth rate was 23% whereas Scotland achieved 67% (EWEA, 2007). In part, such above average growth is possible because wind power started later and developed more slowly in Scotland than in many other European countries (Szarka, 2007), 0264-8377/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.12.010

Does community ownership affect public attitudes to …-+Does... · Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland ... C.R

  • Upload
    lekiet

  • View
    228

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Does community ownership affect public attitudes to …-+Does... · Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland ... C.R

DA

CS

a

ARRA

KWSACG

I

ocdiostcs

ibTsp

m

0d

Land Use Policy 27 (2010) 204–213

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / landusepol

oes community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy?case study from south-west Scotland

harles R. Warren ∗, Malcolm McFadyenchool of Geography & Geosciences, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9AL, Scotland, United Kingdom

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 7 February 2008eceived in revised form 5 December 2008ccepted 31 December 2008

eywords:indfarms

cotlandttitudesommunity ownership

a b s t r a c t

This paper presents the results of a study of public attitudes to onshore windfarm development in south-west Scotland. Specifically, it explores the influences of different development models on attitudes towindfarms by comparing public attitudes towards a community-owned windfarm on the Isle of Gighawith attitudes towards several developer-owned windfarms on the adjacent Kintyre peninsula. The study,conducted in 2006, used a questionnaire-based survey (n = 106) to test the hypothesis that communityownership would lead to greater public acceptance of windfarms. It also examined the attitudes of bothresidents and tourists towards the impacts of onshore windfarms on landscapes and seascapes, includingcumulative impacts. The data show that the Gigha respondents were consistently more positive aboutwind power than were the Kintyre residents. However, the differences were differences of degree rather

igha than diametrically opposing viewpoints. The most significant concerns about windfarms were intermit-tent production and visual impact, but majorities in both areas nevertheless regarded their visual impactas positive. The data also indicate that local attitudes could become even more positive if future windfarmswere owned by local communities. The fact that the residents of Gigha have affectionately dubbed theirturbines ‘the Three Dancing Ladies’ is indicative of the positive psychological effects of community own-ership. These results support the contention that a change of development model towards community

ositiv

Tplbcr(ftltSmf

ownership could have a p

ntroduction: windfarm controversies in Scotland

This study explores public attitudes to, and perceptions of,nshore windfarm development in south-west Scotland. Specifi-ally, it examines the socio-psychological effects which differentevelopment models have on attitudes to windfarms by compar-

ng public perceptions of a community-owned windfarm on the Islef Gigha with attitudes on the adjacent Kintyre peninsula whereeveral large (>15 MW) developer-owned windfarms exist. In addi-ion, it investigates the perceptions of both residents and touristsoncerning the impacts of onshore windfarms on landscapes andeascapes, including the cumulative effects of multiple windfarms.

Since the turn of the century, debates about the merits andmpacts of onshore windfarms in the UK have rapidly intensified,

ecoming one of the highest profile environmental controversies.hese arguments are particularly intense in Scotland for two rea-ons. Firstly, Scotland has a greater extent of wild land than otherarts of the UK and is internationally renowned for its scenic beauty.

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1334 463693; fax: +44 1334 463949.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.R. Warren),

[email protected] (M. McFadyen).

ps

ww26bS

264-8377/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.12.010

e effect on public attitudes towards windfarm developments in Scotland.© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

here is therefore strong resistance to any development which iserceived as a threat to the ‘naturalness’ of its landscapes, not

east because the reputation of the Scottish uplands as wild andeautiful is believed to be a prime reason why tourists visit theountry. Secondly, Scotland has the best onshore and offshore windesources in Europe, with almost a quarter of the total resourceTroen and Petersen, 1989), and there are numerous potential sitesor onshore windfarms. This, together with positive governmen-al support (Scottish Government, 2008a), has inevitably led toarge numbers of planning applications by private companies keeno capitalise on the potential. In turn, this has created fears thatcotland’s scenery, and the landscape settings of many rural com-unities, will be compromised. The problem is that the most

avourable locations for windfarm development are, very often,recisely those exposed upland areas which are valued for theircenic qualities and which are frequently ecologically sensitive.

Public concerns have been exacerbated by the rapidity withhich the onshore wind power sector is expanding in Scotland,

ith expansion outstripping the rate across Europe as a whole. In

006 the overall growth rate was 23% whereas Scotland achieved7% (EWEA, 2007). In part, such above average growth is possibleecause wind power started later and developed more slowly incotland than in many other European countries (Szarka, 2007),

Page 2: Does community ownership affect public attitudes to …-+Does... · Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland ... C.R

and U

sdatWctrpagTisaS(t(gisBbria

dGR2shap2rWsitw5bbrpnasicc

oefiHoewcb(

Uti

tce2W28eIwho(adctspputttpooswfl

NrWodatsic22iweasroswaoWt

C.R. Warren, M. McFadyen / L

o despite having excellent wind resources it has seen far lowereployment rates than countries with inferior resources (Toke etl., 2008). Cumulative capacity only passed 1 GW in 2007 (althoughhis represented a six-fold increase in four years (SNH, 2007)).

ith 59 onshore windfarms operational, 68 consented or underonstruction and 103 in the planning process (BWEA, 2008), con-inued rapid development is assured. This pattern is not simply theesult of market forces but is also being driven by strong policy sup-ort at European, UK and Scottish levels. Increasing concerns aboutnthropogenic climate change and energy security have catalysed arowing public debate about Scotland’s energy options (RSE, 2006).hey have also led governments to adopt ambitious targets for

ncreasing the proportion of electricity generated from renewableources (DTI, 2006a, 2007; Scottish Government, 2008a): for the UKs a whole these targets are 10% by 2010 and 20% by 2020, whereascotland, with almost 60 GW of renewable generating potentialFCS/SE, 2007), is aiming far higher. Its targets for renewable elec-ricity are 31% by 2011 and 50% by 2020. The Scottish 2020 targetwhich is not a cap) translates into a requirement for some 8.4 GW ofenerating capacity; for comparison, in 2008 the installed capac-ty was 2.8 GW (Scottish Government, 2008a). More ambitiouslytill, in 2008 the Scottish Government launched a Climate Changeill incorporating a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissionsy 80% by 2050 (Scottish Government, 2008b). This actively pro-enewables policy framework strongly favours wind energy whichs the most advanced and competitive of the so-called ‘new renew-bles’ technologies.

There has also been a rapid development of interest inistributed, community-based power generation (DTI, 2006a;reenpeace, 2007; Patterson, 2007; Scottish Executive, 2007;ogers et al., 2008), both in rural and urban settings (Kellett,007), a trend which is part of a broader concern to promoteustainable communities (ODPM, 2003). This growth in interestas stemmed partly from practical, instrumental considerationsnd partly from neo-communitarian discourses of local partici-ation and empowerment (Walker and Cass, 2007; Walker et al.,007). One result has been the emergence of the term ‘communityenewables’ within mainstream energy policy (Walker and Devine-

right, 2008). In common with most developed countries, Scottishociety has grown used to a highly centralised energy infrastructuren which power stations are often remote from centres of popula-ion. Conventionally, the thinking was that ‘a better power stationas always a bigger power station farther away’ (Patterson, 2007:

7). This spatial remoteness has created a psychological distanceetween people and energy generation (Devine-Wright, 2005b),ut the conventional approach is now being challenged by theise of renewable energy which is bringing power close to theeople. Having been ‘end-of-wire captive consumers’, increasingumbers of individuals and communities are now forming new,ctive and participatory connections with energy generation andupply (Walker and Cass, 2007: 464) as they take on ‘energy cit-zenship’ (Devine-Wright, 2007). This is a new departure in a UKontext in which energy policy and planning has long been centrallyontrolled.

The concept of harnessing renewable energy to meet the needsf remote rural communities has been actively explored in sev-ral locations around Scotland (e.g. Hanley and Nevin, 1999), butnancial and planning hurdles have usually proved insuperable.owever, the recent success of the community-owned windfarmn the Isle of Gigha (see below) has triggered an upsurge of inter-

st across rural Scotland since 2005. For small, rural communities,ind power opens up a potential escape route from a dependency

ulture (Mackenzie, 2006), and there are now 28 community-ased groups exploring the feasibility of replicating Gigha’s successGubbins, 2008), especially in the western Highlands and Islands.

isceo

se Policy 27 (2010) 204–213 205

nderstanding the social acceptability of such developments andheir wider impacts on public attitudes is therefore a timely andmportant challenge.

Public reaction to windfarms has always been mixed. Fromhe earliest days of wind power, surveys in many countries haveonsistently revealed strong overall public support for renewablenergy generally and for wind power specifically (Elliott, 1994,003; Krohn and Damborg, 1999; SEI, 2003; Devine-Wright, 2005a;olsink, 2007a). A recent national survey in the UK, with almost

000 respondents, revealed 85% support for renewable energy and1% support for wind power, with the Scottish Highlands & Islandsmerging as one of the regions most strongly in favour (DTI, 2006b).ndeed, in this region, 73% said that they would be happy to live

ithin 5 km of a windfarm. Perhaps counter-intuitively, surveysave also found that the most strongly supportive attitudes towardsnshore windfarms are held by those who live closest to themKrohn and Damborg, 1999; Dudleston, 2000; Braunholtz, 2003),kind of ‘inverse-NIMBY’ attitude (Warren et al., 2005). However,espite this consistent overall support, windfarms have, equallyonsistently, always proved controversial in some quarters. In prac-ice, they are not as socially acceptable as survey results woulduggest (Wüstenhagen et al., 2007). The speed and scale of windower expansion has triggered significant opposition motivatedrimarily (though not exclusively) by the perceived impact on ‘nat-ral’ landscapes. Opponents not only highlight the scenic impact ofhe turbines themselves, but also emphasise the visual impacts ofhe associated construction and tracks, and the required upgradeso the electricity transmission grid, necessitating new (or enlarged)ower lines in rural areas. As Pasqualetti et al. (2002: 3) put it, criticsbject to the transformation of natural landscapes into ‘landscapesf power’. Furthermore, objectors frequently assert that the land-cape impacts of windfarms will damage tourism, and that theyill also cause noise pollution, affect property prices and damageora and fauna.

While elements of NIMBY-ism exist in such arguments, theIMBY idea is too simplistic a concept to explain the multi-faceted

easons for oppositional behaviour (Krohn and Damborg, 1999;olsink, 2006, 2007a, b; van der Horst, 2007). A multiplicity of

ther factors shape and influence public attitudes to wind energyevelopments (Ellis et al., 2007). These interacting factors, whichre context-sensitive and time-dependent, include local percep-ions of economic impacts, the national political environment,ocial influences, and institutional factors such as the perceivednclusiveness and fairness of the planning and development pro-ess (Birnie et al., 1999; Khan, 2003; Ek, 2005; Devine-Wright,005a; Toke, 2005a; Loring, 2007; Wolsink, 2007a; Zoellner et al.,008). However, the factor which dominates all others in explain-

ng people’s attitudes is their evaluation of the visual impact ofindfarms on landscape quality (Pasqualetti et al., 2002; Warren

t al., 2005; Wolsink, 2007b; Toke et al., 2008). The subjectivend unquantifiable nature of landscape evaluation is one rea-on why consensus is so elusive in windfarm debates. Another,elated reason is that the core matters of contention involve clashesf values (Ellis et al., 2007). While all these factors have beenhown to be significant in determining the social acceptance ofind power, many unknowns remain. For example, Rogers et

l. (2008) note that there has been little empirical investigationf public attitudes towards community renewables, while bothüstenhagen et al. (2007) and Cowell and Strachan (2007) iden-

ify the link between community acceptance and ownership as an

mportant question which needs to be investigated. The presenttudy focuses on these specific issues, exploring the influence ofommunity ownership not only in its narrow sense of legal own-rship but also in its broader, more subjective meaning of ‘sense ofwnership’.
Page 3: Does community ownership affect public attitudes to …-+Does... · Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland ... C.R

2 and U

toamRipptoett2tcwNa(

a

capsWs‘ImnK2rouifio

06 C.R. Warren, M. McFadyen / L

The development approach adopted throughout Scotland forhe promotion of renewable energy has been the private devel-per/public subsidy model, whereby public money is used to createfavourable economic framework for renewable energy develop-ents. The policy instrument created to achieve this (under the

enewables Obligation (Scotland) 2002) is technology-blind, in thatt simply obliges electricity suppliers to supply an increasing pro-ortion of electricity from renewable sources. Nevertheless, windower has so far been the primary beneficiary because it is amongsthe least costly of the ‘new renewable’ technologies. In the contextf the UK’s liberalised electricity market, this gives it a decisivedge. While this development approach has certainly facilitatedhe delivery of public policy goals (including the attainment, somehree years early, of the Scottish Government’s 2010 target (SEDD,007)), it is an approach which has been widely criticised as one ofhe key factors which provokes public opposition. Critics have longontrasted it unfavourably with the community ownership modelidely practised in some EU states, notably Denmark, Germany, the

etherlands and Sweden, where many renewable energy projectsre funded and controlled by farmers and local wind cooperativesBolinger, 2001; Redlinger et al., 2002; Khan, 2003; Toke, 2005b,c).

In Britain, the complexity of the state support system for renew-bles makes it effectively inaccessible for local communities. In

S

l

Fig. 1. Map of the Kintyre peninsula and the Isle of Gigha, show

se Policy 27 (2010) 204–213

ontrast, in countries such as Denmark and Germany which havesimple, low risk, fixed tariff, ownership by local residents has

roved attractive (Toke, 2005b, 2007). In turn, this has built a con-tituency of support which eases the planning process (Edge, 2006).

hereas private sector developments are often perceived as inva-ion by ‘big business’, community-led developments are usuallyowned’ (in both a legal and psychological sense) by local people.t has often been argued that local ownership not only produces

ore active patterns of local support and higher levels of plan-ing acceptance but is also more equitable (Birnie et al., 1999;rohn and Damborg, 1999; Strachan and Lal, 2004; Devine-Wright,005a,b; Toke, 2005a,b,c; Walker and Devine-Wright, 2008). Untilecently, this hypothesis could not be tested in Scotland becausef the absence of community-owned windfarms. However, in Jan-ary 2005 the first grid-connected, community-owned windfarm

n Scotland was commissioned on the Isle of Gigha, and for therst time it became possible to examine the relationships betweenwnership and public attitudes.

tudy area, methodology and research questions

The study focuses on the Kintyre peninsula of south-west Scot-and (Fig. 1), part of the Argyll & Bute Council area. Because of its

ing the locations of the windfarms and the survey sites.

Page 4: Does community ownership affect public attitudes to …-+Does... · Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland ... C.R

C.R. Warren, M. McFadyen / Land Use Policy 27 (2010) 204–213 207

Table 1Operational and consented windfarms on the Kintyre peninsula and the Isle of Gigha.

Name Date commissioned Number of turbines Turbine height (m) Capacity (MW) Developer

Deucheran Hill 2001 9 93 15.8 PowergenBeinn an Tuirc 2001 46 63 30.0 Scottish PowerB 10T 6T 7G 3

udispapwttse(watp

awpvthcnrI2rrtb

Ff

m2tetwGtttoeosa

sivto greater public acceptance. In the light of the issues highlightedabove, an additional aim was to explore the perceptions of both resi-dents and tourists concerning the impacts of onshore windfarms onlandscapes and seascapes, including the cumulative effects of mul-

einn an Tuirc 2 Under construction 19angy 2002 15angy extension Under construction 7igha 2005 3

pland topography, exposure to the Atlantic and low populationensity, Kintyre is ideally suited to wind energy development, and

t was therefore one of the first parts of Scotland to see the con-truction of large windfarms. Three now operate on the Kintyreeninsula and a further two are under construction (Table 1). Allre owned and operated by private companies (Figs. 1 and 2). A pro-osal for a large windfarm at Largie (6 km north of Deucheran Hill)as rejected in March 2007 due to its potential impact on migra-

ory populations of Greenland White Fronted Geese. Cumulatively,he existing windfarms have a notable visual presence in the land-cape, being visible from many places on the peninsula itself, fromxtended sections of the main public road down the west coastthe A83), and also from the ferry routes which connect Kintyreith nearby islands (Fig. 1). A wind turbine manufacturer operatesfactory at Campbeltown (Fig. 1) and is a significant employer in

he region. For these reasons, wind energy has an even higher publicrofile in this area than in rural Scotland as a whole.

Raising this profile still further has been the significant mediattention given to the community-led project to develop a smallindfarm on Gigha, an island which lies 4 km west of the Kintyre

eninsula (Fig. 1). Being so close, the island is visible from manyantage points on the mainland and from the ferries. Equally, allhe mainland windfarms can be seen from the island. Gigha alreadyad an unusually high public profile because it was the object of aommunity buy-out in 2002 (Satsangi, 2007), one of an increasingumber of community purchases during the current phase of landeform in Scotland (Warren, 2002, 2009; Bryden and Geisler, 2007).n common with many coastal communities in Scotland (Barker,005), Gigha has had a socio-economically troubled recent history,

esulting in job losses, out-migration and a falling primary schoololl. The decision to pursue a community purchase was a bold ini-iative by the community to take charge of their own destiny. It haseen vindicated, inter alia, by the subsequent reversal of the long-

ig. 2. Aerial photograph of Tangy Windfarm from the west, with young commercialorest plantations beyond, March 2007.

Ftg

0 38.0 Scottish Power2 12.8 Scottish & Southern Energy5 6.0 Scottish & Southern Energy0 0.7 Gigha Renewable Energy Ltd.

aintained trend of population decline; from a total of 110 in the001 census, the population has now risen to about 150. Followinghe success of the buy-out campaign, the Gigha community startedxploring the feasibility of utilising wind power to meet their elec-ricity needs, and in January 2005, the 3-turbine, 0.7 MW windfarmas commissioned and connected to the national grid (Fig. 3). Theigha and Kintyre communities are closely integrated. For example,

hey are both served by a single secondary school and they sharehe same local newspaper. Given their close ties, both communi-ies have had similar experiences of wind power development. Thenly significant divergence has come recently through the experi-nce of community ownership of turbines on Gigha. Because mostther factors are closely similar, the Gigha development provides apecific opportunity to test whether the ownership of a windfarmffects public attitudes towards it.

In the autumn of 2006 we carried out a questionnaire-basedurvey (n = 106) supplemented with semi-structured, face-to-facenterviews with five key stakeholders. The primary aim of the sur-ey was to test the hypothesis that community ownership leads

ig. 3. An aerial photograph of the Isle of Gigha from the south, March 2007, withhe 3-turbine windfarm visible lower centre and the Kintyre peninsula in the back-round.

Page 5: Does community ownership affect public attitudes to …-+Does... · Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland ... C.R

2 and Use Policy 27 (2010) 204–213

tbtiitt

2

3

Km6tscttowa(rtpphtw6Stt

R

A

pioSispwvbvaioeod

F1

ca2Gtwea7

bfBiodnsaaSN

wom

A similar comment was that ‘another couple would be the satu-ration point’. By contrast, comments from Kintyre residents madeit clear that part of their reason for supporting further windfarmdevelopment was that the scale and topography of the peninsula’s

08 C.R. Warren, M. McFadyen / L

iple windfarms. As in many parts of rural Scotland, the relationshipetween wind power developments and tourism is important inhis region because tourism is significant for the local economy andt is of critical importance on Gigha. Few data exist concerning thempact of windfarms on tourism, but it is frequently asserted thathey have a negative impact. Consequently the three hypothesesested in this study were as follows:

1. Community-owned windfarms are associated with more posi-tive local attitudes than are windfarms owned by commercialcompanies.

. Support for wind power is low in areas of extensive windfarmdevelopment, specifically as a consequence of visual impacts andcumulative effects.

. Extensive windfarm development makes a region less attractiveto tourists.

The questionnaires evaluating the attitudes of residents inintyre and Gigha were structured similarly but with minor adjust-ents to suit the relevant contexts. Responses were obtained from

8 local residents, 24 on Gigha and 44 on Kintyre. For Gigha,he sample represents 16% of the population whereas the Kintyreample represents 0.4% of the peninsula’s population, so greateronfidence can be attached to the Gigha results. A separate ques-ionnaire was used to explore the perceptions of 38 tourists. Allhe questionnaires utilised the standard psychometric techniquef a 5-point Likert scale. On the mainland, face-to-face surveysere carried out in the town centre of Campbeltown, the only size-

ble settlement (population: 5500), and on the beach at WestportFig. 1), locations selected because they are focal points for bothesidents and visitors from all parts of the peninsula. On Gigha,he survey was carried out door-to-door around the island and atublic gatherings. In order to reach a broader cross-section of peo-le than was possible through face-to-face survey during workingours, the questionnaires were also made available on-line, andheir existence was advertised in the local press and via a regionaleb-based discussion forum. Of the 106 completed questionnaires,

1% were conducted in person and 39% were completed on-line.tatistical checks revealed no consistent differences resulting fromhis contrast in survey technique. The sample was well balanced inerms of the gender, age and occupation of respondents.

esults

ttitudes of local residents

The results show that Gigha residents were consistently moreositive about wind power generally and local windfarms specif-

cally than were the Kintyre residents. Amongst the former, 96%f respondents supported increasing utilisation of wind energy incotland with none opposed, whereas the latter were less pos-tive with 68% in favour and 7% against (Fig. 4). Moreover, thetrength of positive feeling was far greater on Gigha. A similarattern emerged with respect to attitudes towards an increase inindfarms in the local area, with greater support on Gigha (75%

s. 64%) and marginally greater opposition on Kintyre (12% vs. 8%),ut with higher proportions in both locations expressing neutraliews (24% on Kintyre and 17% on Gigha). When respondents weresked to identify their two greatest concerns about wind power,

n both areas the largest response category was ‘no concerns’ (48%n Kintyre and 32% on Gigha). Worries voiced by more than 10% ofither group were, in order of decreasing importance, intermittencyf production, visual impact, bird strikes on turbines and habitatisruption. In all categories, Gigha residents expressed less con-

Fs

ig. 4. Attitudes towards increasing development of wind power in Scotland.= Very opposed, 2 = opposed, 3 = neutral, 4 = supportive, 5 = very supportive.

ern than inhabitants of Kintyre. The issue of bird strikes, so oftenmotivation for opposition (Marris and Fairless, 2007; Bright et al.,008), was raised by 11% of respondents on Kintyre and by 7% onigha. Turbine noise was mentioned by very few. Interestingly, even

hough aesthetic issues were identified as one of the main concerns,hen questioned specifically about their opinion of the landscape

ffects of local windfarms, those who perceived the visual impactss positive outnumbered those who saw them as negative by over:1 on Gigha and by almost 3:1 on Kintyre (Fig. 5).

These results show that differences in public attitudes do existetween the two areas. However, many of the dissimilarities are dif-

erences of degree rather than diametrically opposing viewpoints.oth communities appear broadly positive about wind energy even

f there is somewhat greater enthusiasm for it on Gigha. Indeed,n Kintyre where the cumulative impact of existing and proposedevelopments might be expected to generate negative attitudes toew windfarms, and where a quarter of respondents are able toee turbines from their homes, 65% support more windfarms in therea and only 13% are against. This pattern is similar to the percent-ges of those who support and oppose windfarm development incotland as a whole (Fig. 4), a result which does not support theIMBY thesis.

From comments made by Gigha residents, it appears that manyould have expressed even stronger support for increased devel-

pment of wind power if the island were larger and able to absorbore turbines. For example, one respondent said:

“I think that three sit nicely on the landscape. I wouldn’t minda few more, but not too many.”

ig. 5. Respondents’ evaluation of the visual impact of windfarms on the local land-cape. 1 = Very negative, 5 = very positive.

Page 6: Does community ownership affect public attitudes to …-+Does... · Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland ... C.R

and U

utitaitd

srf4itabsaeefiasaeiTlbG(iKt

A

sKAaatscreti(ombmsercw

aiwd

D

nofttsofidipwibtBTSolo

spnphmamnDwwt(oatacKrcd

sdmrgE

C.R. Warren, M. McFadyen / L

pland landscape enabled windfarms to be sited unobtrusively, andhat this would allow for further development without compromis-ng scenic values. For example, one commented that ‘many of theurbines are away in the hills and are doing no harm to views’, andnother that ‘there is probably room for several more windfarmsn Kintyre yet’. Equally, however, there were those who felt thathe region had already contributed its ‘fair share’ and that futureevelopments should be elsewhere:

“We have enough windfarms on Kintyre. We have done our bit.It is time that others did theirs.”

Overall, then, perceptions of windfarms in the region aretrongly (albeit differentially) positive. Nevertheless, a strikingesult is that local attitudes could become even more positive ifuture windfarms were owned by local communities. In Kintyre,5% of residents would be more supportive of a new windfarm

f it was community-owned, and none expressed a negative atti-ude. The reasons given for support included economic benefit,nd a perception of greater fairness (equitable sharing of costs andenefits). In a mirror-image finding on Gigha, 65% said that theirupport for a new windfarm would decrease if it was owned bycommercial company. Their reasons for being in favour of their

xisting windfarm included income generation for the community,nhancement of the island’s ‘green’ image, and symbolic reasons;or example, the turbines were described by one as ‘a sign of thesland’s success’, and by another as being beneficial for ‘our images a progressive community with a sustainable future’. A strongense of pride in what their small community had achieved waspparent. Perhaps most tellingly of all, the positive psychologicalffect of community ownership is revealed in the fact that the Gighaslanders have given their turbines an affectionate nickname: ‘thehree Dancing Ladies’. The positive connotations of such an appel-

ation are unmistakable (graceful, aesthetically pleasing, a sense ofelonging). Equally positive is the fact that the islanders have givenaelic names to each turbine: Creideas, Dòchas and Carthannas

Faith, Hope and Charity). Such affirmative labelling contrasts rad-cally with the language used by those who oppose windfarms onintyre who brand their installation as ‘rape’ or ‘desecration’ of

he landscape.

ttitudes of tourists

The responses of tourists to the two areas are analysed here as aingle group because most who visit Gigha have travelled throughintyre, while many visitors to the peninsula also visit the island.lso, too few tourists (7) were surveyed on Gigha to make separatenalysis meaningful. Tourists expressed a wide range of concernsbout windfarms; only 20% had no worries about them at all. Vir-ually all had seen them during their visit, and almost a quarteraid that they found them noticeable or very noticeable. The threeoncerns registered by 10% or more of respondents were habitat dis-uption (23%), visual impact (22%) and intermittent/insignificantnergy production (10%). However, notwithstanding these nega-ive perceptions, large majorities were supportive of wind energyn Scotland as a whole (79%) and in the study area specifically64%). Moreover, nine out of ten people said that the presencef windfarms would have no bearing on the likelihood of theiraking a return visit. The remainder were split exactly 50:50

etween those who said that the windfarms would make themore likely to return and those who said that it might make them

tay away. At the two ends of the spectrum, strong views werexpressed. At the negative end, some spoke of the area being ‘cor-upted by windfarm development’ and of windfarms ‘ruining theountryside’ and ‘desecrating the landscape’, but such sentimentsere counterbalanced by strongly positive descriptions of turbines

Sirmo

se Policy 27 (2010) 204–213 209

s ‘peaceful, not unsightly’ and ‘visually appealing . . . as a vis-tor attraction’. To reiterate, though, the presence of windfarms

as not a significant factor for most tourists in their choice ofestination.

iscussion

The results support our first hypothesis but provide little oro support for the second and third. In other words, communitywnership is indeed associated with positive attitudes to wind-arms, but support for wind power is not low in Kintyre, despitehe extensive windfarm development, and windfarms do not seemo make the region less attractive to tourists. Arguably the mostignificant finding concerns the positive influence of ownershipn the attitudes of communities towards wind energy projects, anding which supports the long-held supposition that a change ofevelopment model could increase public support for windfarms

n Scotland and other parts of the UK. This suggestion was basedartly on extrapolations from the experience of community-ownedind power developments in other European countries, Denmark

n particular, where resistance to windfarms has (until recently)een minimal, and partly on UK studies which investigated atti-udes to hypothetical or proposed developments (Birnie et al., 1999;olinger, 2001; Strachan and Lal, 2004; Devine-Wright, 2005a,b;oke, 2005a). It was a reasonable but untested supposition.cotland’s first experience of a community-developed, community-wned windfarm suggests that this development model is indeedikely to be associated with enhanced public support and reducedpposition.

The survey of residents on the Isle of Gigha revealed a strongense of pride in and connection with ‘their’ windfarm project,erceptions which contrast markedly with the apparent discon-ection and (for some) alienation engendered amongst Kintyreeople by the development of commercial windfarms in theirinterland. On Gigha, the sense of ownership felt by the com-unity is evocatively revealed in the naming of the turbines, an

ct which implies that they are perceived as a physical embodi-ent of community cohesion and confidence. Such naming, though

ovel in contemporary Scotland, was historically traditional forutch windmills, and it was commonplace in the early days ofind power development in Sweden when a name and a genderas given to each new turbine (Hammerlund, 2009). The atti-

udes held by the Gigha community reinforce Devine-Wright’s2005a) contention that perceptions of windfarms are shaped notnly by their physical attributes but also by symbolic, affectivend socially constructed aspects. Further, these findings suggesthat, as Toke (2005c) has argued, bottom-up projects can deliver

range of benefits which do not materialise from top–down,orporate developments. More generally, they also supportellett’s (2007) conclusion that bottom-up approaches to carboneduction, with benefits flowing directly and obviously to theommunity, may be more effective than conventional top–down,emand–supply logic.

The Gigha windfarm is noteworthy as the first Scottish demon-tration that a workable alternative to the large-scale, commercialevelopment model exists, and that this is feasible for small com-unities. The financial model which enabled the community to

aise the capital cost of £440,000 comprised a three-way mix ofrant funding (from the National Lottery and Highlands & Islandsnterprise (HIE)), commercial loan finance (from Social Investment

cotland) and equity finance (from HIE and the Isle of Gigha Her-tage Trust). This apparently robust model has the potential to beeplicated across Scotland. It is currently being pursued by com-

unities on the islands of Tiree, Lismore, Mull and Islay, whilen the community-owned Isle of Eigg a ‘renewables grid’ pow-

Page 7: Does community ownership affect public attitudes to …-+Does... · Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland ... C.R

2 and U

e2tt£tc£fipactirb2

sHi2vTtcotaiGliSvfitittmCtcft

poisc(nosb2aoiatem

eehdn2e2we2naaeT

ptgbtmiibtcgbeaoattU2nmtgstIdWoGlooof(t

wsf

10 C.R. Warren, M. McFadyen / L

red by wind, hydro and photovoltaics was switched on in February008 (Gubbins, 2007, 2008). This model is also demonstrably ableo generate significant cash flows. The gross annual income fromhe Gigha windfarm is £180,000, yielding a net profit of about85,000 (Gubbins, 2008). While wind power companies in Kin-yre disburse some of their profits to local people in the form ofommunity payments, in 2005 these payments totalled less than26,000 throughout Kintyre (Campbeltown Courier, 2006). Thisgure equates to £369 per turbine, compared to over £28,000er turbine generated for the Isle of Gigha Heritage Trust. Suchstark contrast highlights the potential economic benefits which

an flow to locals from community ownership. On Gigha it has ledo a renaissance involving job creation, in-migration and grow-ng numbers in the local school. Wind power can thus equalenewal as well as renewable. It can be part of the capacityuilding which is needed in many coastal communities (Barker,005).

For these and other reasons community energy is being activelyupported by the Scottish Government and HIE through HICEC – theighlands & Islands Community Energy Company – which is aim-

ng ‘to build a nation of enthusiasts from the bottom-up’ (Gubbins,008). Government grants are also available throughout Scotlandia the Scottish Renewable and Household Renewables Initiative.he Gigha approach, in which the windfarm is wholly owned byhe community, represents one end of a spectrum of models ofommunity participation which involve different degrees of mixedwnership, different development processes and different objec-ives (Gubbins, 2008; Walker and Devine-Wright, 2008). Anotherpproach is the energy cooperative model, and this is being pursuedn various parts of the UK under the umbrella of the Energy4Allroup (Toke, 2005c), including six projects in the Scottish High-

ands; the first of these, a 7-turbine development at Boyndie airfieldn Aberdeenshire, was commissioned in 2006 (Energy4All, 2007).till another permutation – one which builds a bridge between twoery different models of ownership and development – is exempli-ed by the community of Fintry west of Stirling which owns one

urbine of a nearby commercial windfarm. Attitudes to wind powern Fintry echo those on Gigha, with one villager describing theirurbine as ‘totemic’ for the community (Scotsman, 2008). Althoughhe term ‘community renewables’ can be interpreted and imple-

ented in varied (and sometimes contested) ways (Walker andass, 2007; Walker and Devine-Wright, 2008), and the schemeshemselves may exhibit great diversity in their purpose and pro-ess (Walker et al., 2007), all such projects are wholly distinctrom the private developer model which remains dominant inhe UK.

Needless to say, community involvement is not a ‘magic bullet’,roviding a complete and easy solution to wind energy devel-pment problems. For one thing, the development process is,

n practice, ‘an obstacle race, requiring gritty determination toucceed’ (Gubbins, 2007: 82). Moreover, the clear advantages ofommunity initiatives are balanced by some notable disadvantagesBolinger, 2001). The potential advantages are numerous and sig-ificant, including fewer planning refusals, access to new sourcesf investment capital (sometimes at lower cost), electricity pricetability and increased public support, as well as harnessing theenefits of distributed generation (Greenpeace, 2007; Patterson,007; Scottish Renewables, 2007). However, these have to be setgainst some major drawbacks which, as Bolinger (2001) pointsut, are fewer in number but perhaps just as large or larger in

mpact. Chief amongst these are the reduced economies of scalend the greater administrative burden relative to large, private sec-or windfarms. These financial and practical realities mean that,ven though the concept of community renewables is appealing, itay not be a realistic option for many rural communities (Rogers

sfipsn

se Policy 27 (2010) 204–213

t al., 2008). Nevertheless, existing evidence suggests that the hith-rto exclusive policy focus on private sector development couldelpfully be broadened to include and support community-ledevelopments more actively. There is evidence that this is begin-ing to happen, both in policy and in practice (DTI, 2006a; Gubbins,007; Scottish Executive, 2007). It is also apparent that local own-rship can help to smooth the path towards planning consent (Toke,005c). In part, this is because countries where local ownership isidespread typically have active networks of wind power support-

rs but these are notable by their absence in the UK (Toke et al.,008). The promotion of a community-orientated approach mayot only facilitate the attainment of government targets but maylso help to engender a more informed, involved public debatebout energy futures, not least by dispelling the popular notion thatlectricity simply comes from plug sockets (Devine-Wright, 2005b;oke et al., 2008).

While Kintyre residents emerged as less enthusiastic about windower than those on Gigha, it is striking that such large majori-ies are nevertheless supportive, both of wind power in Scotlandenerally and also of local windfarms. Given that this region haseen (and remains) a focus of wind energy development, and thathere have been vociferous anti-windfarm campaigns, the surveys

ight have been expected to reveal significant opposition, whereasn fact only small percentages of people expressed negative opin-ons. Indeed, many would be happy to see further developments,elieving that new, well sited windfarms could be situated withinhe landscape without undue impact on landscape aesthetics. Thisoncurs with the conclusions of earlier studies which have sug-ested that familiarity with windfarms in the landscape seems toreed contentment (Dudleston, 2000; Braunholtz, 2003; Warrent al., 2005; DTI, 2006b; Warren and Lumsden, 2008). Time andgain, surveys have found that people’s fears about the prospectf windfarm development have proved to be largely unfounded,nd that the reality is less visually intrusive, noisy and despoilinghan they had expected. Indeed, it has been shown that attitudeso windfarms have a longitudinal dimension, typically following a-shaped progression through time (Gipe, 1995; Devine-Wright,005a; Wolsink, 2007a,b): initially positive responses (when noearby schemes are planned) are replaced by more negative assess-ents (when a local windfarm is proposed) and then these in

urn are followed by a return to positive attitudes once locals haveained personal experience of the windfarm in operation. Thisurvey also found this pattern emerging, exemplified by the Kin-yre resident who commented: ‘Initially I was very sceptical, buthave found the sites in Kintyre to be unobtrusive’. The crucialeterminant is sensitive siting within the landscape, as stressed byolsink (2007b). Respondents who criticised the visual impacts

f windfarms identified those close to sea level at Tangy and onigha as the worst offenders because of their effects on much-

oved coastal vistas, whereas the windfarms in the upland ‘spine’f Kintyre which are, to a considerable extent, ‘out of sight, outf mind’ were not mentioned. In fact, the greatest visual impactf the Kintyre windfarms is not from the peninsula itself butrom the sea and from the nearby islands of Islay, Jura and ArranFig. 1), affecting views from the ferries and from the islandshemselves.

Critics of windfarms often assert that their landscape impactsill damage Scottish tourism, but the results reported here lend no

upport to such claims. For most tourists, the existence of wind-arms was not a factor in their decision-making, and while 5% did

ay that turbines in the landscape might make them stay away, thisgure was exactly balanced by those who found the windfarms aositive draw. Although the number of tourists interviewed wasmall, the results indicate that windfarms are, at present, havingo net impact on tourism in this region. The fact that visitor num-
Page 8: Does community ownership affect public attitudes to …-+Does... · Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland ... C.R

and U

btcSsibmlcfnimewtebm

otacpCc2rnpintEosipctoiceaSotanwuaa

nktlrpab

mttWte

C

fthShlHsibpTweida

SeiotitfotptiaTi(tiprtns

A

tTst

C.R. Warren, M. McFadyen / L

ers to Kintyre have been increasing since 2004, and that someourists choose to visit the windfarms (TIC, 2006), supports theonclusions of other studies that windfarms are unlikely to damagecottish tourism (Scottish Government, 2008c). For example, a largetudy by NFO System Three (2002) of the potential tourist impactsn Scotland found that some visitors do find windfarms off-putting,ut that this is counterbalanced by positive reactions, and that farore visitors associated windfarms with clean energy than with

andscape damage. This implies that sensitively sited windfarmsould help to promote Scotland’s reputation as an environmentallyriendly country. Projections suggest that, even in a worst case sce-ario, windfarm development is likely to have minimal economic

mpacts on tourism, reducing both revenue growth and employ-ent by less than 0.2% by 2015 (Scottish Government, 2008c). An

arlier study by Hanley and Nevin (1999) indicated that touristsould have more positive attitudes to a windfarm if they knew

hat it was owned by the local community. This effect was notxamined in the study reported here, but, if confirmed, it woulde a further factor in favour of community wind power develop-ents.

A number of criticisms can be levelled at this study. The mostbvious is that it does not compare like with like in terms ofhe scale of the windfarms concerned. The Kintyre windfarmsll have a far greater capacity than the Gigha development, andonsist of taller, more numerous turbines (Table 1). Part of theositive reaction to the latter may simply reflect this contrast.ertainly it has been suggested that the typically smaller scale ofommunity-owned windfarms is part of their attraction (Bolinger,001). Unfortunately, however, it is currently impossible to sepa-ate the influence of scale from the influence of ownership becauseo community-owned windfarms exist in Scotland which are com-arable in scale with the private sector ones. The only overlap

s at Fintry where the community owns one turbine of a largeearby windfarm, and where – perhaps significantly – public atti-udes towards wind power are strongly positive (Scotsman, 2008).qually, this study did not attempt to apportion the componentsf Gigha residents’ positive attitudes to likely contributory factorsuch as tangible benefits (e.g. cash flow from windfarm prof-ts) and intangible benefits (e.g. green symbolism, communityride). Nevertheless, the answers to the questions which specifi-ally probed attitudes concerning community ownership indicatehat giving local communities a stake in wind power development,f whatever scale, is likely to augment public support and min-

mise opposition. The experience on Gigha is thus significant inonfirming the predicted potential of community ownership tongender positive local attitudes. Because of the plethora of neg-tive media stories about windfarms in Kintyre specifically andcotland generally, this study adopted the commonly-used ‘barrierrientated’ approach to research; that is, it was primarily designedo investigate the reasons for the negative attitudes that werenticipated. In practice, however, positive perceptions predomi-ated. Although some explanations for these were found, futureork could usefully explore the detailed reasons further, in partic-lar the weightings attached to tangible and intangible benefits,nd the scales (both spatial and temporal) at which those benefitspply.

This raises a final and more general methodological issue,amely the question of the appropriateness of employing thisind of survey-based research for investigating public attitudeso renewable energy developments. To date, most studies of pub-

ic attitudes have utilised ‘hard’, empirical survey data, but someecent work has employed a qualitative, hermeneutic approach torovide revealing insights into the social construction of publicttitudes (Devine-Wright, 2005b, 2007; Ellis et al., 2007). Clearlyoth approaches have strengths and weaknesses, with the for-

R

B

se Policy 27 (2010) 204–213 211

er, for example, offering greater breadth and repeatability, andhe latter greater depth of insight into ‘the dynamic subjec-ivities that frame windfarm disputes’ (Ellis et al., 2007: 521).

hen research resources allow, it would clearly be advantageouso adopt a multi-method approach to harness the strengths ofach.

onclusion

The research reported here provides the first empirical evidencerom a Scottish context that public attitudes are more positiveowards windfarm developments in areas where local communitiesave a direct involvement in them than in areas where they do not.uch a pattern, commonly observed in other European countries,as not previously been observed in Scotland simply because of a

ack of comparable grid-connected, community-owned windfarms.owever, the results of this study show that community owner-

hip does not transform an overall negative view of wind powernto a positive one; attitudes in the wider population are alreadyroadly positive. What it appears to have done is to amplify thesere-existing positive attitudes and suppress the negative ones.herefore, the promotion of a more locally embedded approach toind energy projects (whether through community ownership or

nergy cooperatives) could help to reduce the incidence of damag-ng and divisive controversies which currently afflict wind powerevelopment in Scotland. In turn, this could help to facilitate thechievement of renewable energy targets.

However, it is unlikely that community-scale wind power incotland will ever make as significant a contribution to nationallectricity needs as it has in some other European countries, notablyn Denmark where most wind power capacity has been locallywned (Toke, 2005c). There, the deployment of wind power fromhe late 1970s grew in tandem with the development of the windndustry itself. The small size of the early turbines nicely matchedhe small-scale, community-led character of most projects, and thisacilitated the popular adoption of wind turbines as an integral partf the cultural landscape (Nielsen, 2002). Most recently, however,he nature of the Danish wind power sector has been changing,artly as a consequence of the rapidly increasing size and cost ofurbines; large multinational companies have begun to displacendividual farmers and small local cooperatives as the main players,nd, for the first time, significant public opposition has emerged.he wind industry has outgrown community involvement, imply-

ng that the temporally specific Danish model cannot be exportedMöller, 2008). Since Scotland – and the rest of the UK – missedhe window of opportunity in the early days of the modern windndustry, it may be that the potential for community-scale windower is now rather limited. On the other hand, even if its nicheemains small in terms of megawatts, its contribution to the sus-ainable development of local communities across Scotland couldevertheless be significant, as the experience of the Gigha islandershows.

cknowledgements

Detailed comments by Dick Birnie, Maarten Wolsink andwo anonymous referees substantially improved the manuscript.hanks are due to the participants in the 2007 Paris workshop fortimulating discussion, to Graeme Sandeman for drafting Fig. 1, ando all those who participated in the survey.

eferences

arker, A., 2005. Capacity building for sustainability: towards community develop-ment in coastal Scotland. Journal of Environmental Management 75 (1), 11–19.

Page 9: Does community ownership affect public attitudes to …-+Does... · Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland ... C.R

2 and U

B

B

B

B

B

B

CC

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

E

E

E

E

E

EE

F

GG

GG

HH

K

K

K

L

M

M

M

N

N

O

P

P

R

R

R

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

TT

T

T

T

T

T

v

W

W

W

W

W

W

12 C.R. Warren, M. McFadyen / L

irnie, R.V., Osman, C.H., Leadbeater, S., Smith, M., 1999. A review of the currentstatus of wind energy developments in Scotland. Scottish Geographical Journal115 (4), 283–295.

olinger, M., 2001. Community wind power ownership schemes in Europe and theirrelevance to the United States. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory ReportLBNL-48357. Available at: http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/reports/48357.pdf.

raunholtz, S., 2003. Public attitudes to windfarms: a survey of local residents inScotland. MORI Scotland, for Scottish Executive Social Research, Edinburgh.

right, J., Langston, R., Bullman, R., Evans, R., Gardner, S., Pearce-Higgins, J., 2008.Map of bird sensitivities to wind farms in Scotland: a tool to aid planning andconservation. Biological Conservation 141 (9), 2342–2356.

ryden, J., Geisler, C., 2007. Community-based land reform: lessons from Scotland.Land Use Policy 24 (1), 24–34.

WEA, 2008. British Wind Energy Association statistics. Available at:http://www.bwea.com/statistics/.

ampbeltown Courier, 2006. West Kintyre wind farm trust. 10-11-2006.owell, R., Strachan, P.A., 2007. Editorial: managing wind power deployment in

Europe. European Environment 17 (5), 285–290.evine-Wright, P., 2005a. Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework

for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 8 (2),125–140.

evine-Wright, P., 2005b. Local aspects of UK renewable energy development:exploring public beliefs and policy implications. Local Environment 10 (1),57–69.

evine-Wright, P., 2007. Energy citizenship: psychological aspects of evaluationin sustainable energy technologies. In: Murphy, J. (Ed.), Framing the Present,Shaping the Future: Contemporary Governance of Sustainable Technologies.Earthscan, London, pp. 63–86.

TI, 2006a. Our Energy Challenge: Securing Clean Affordable Energy for the LongTerm. UK Department of Trade and Industry, London.

TI, 2006b. Renewable Energy Awareness and Attitudes Research: ManagementSummary. GfK NOP Social Research, UK Department of Trade and Industry,London.

TI, 2007. Meeting the Energy Challenge: A White Paper on Energy. UK Departmentof Trade and Industry, London, CM 7124.

udleston, A., 2000. Public attitudes towards wind farms in Scotland. Scottish Exec-utive, Edinburgh.

dge, G., 2006. A harsh environment: the non-fossil fuel obligation and the UKrenewables industry. In: Mallon, K. (Ed.), Renewable Energy Policy and Politics:A Handbook for Decision-Making. Earthscan, London, pp. 163–184.

k, K., 2005. Public and private attitudes towards ‘green’ electricity: the case ofSwedish wind power. Energy Policy 32 (17), 1677–1689.

lliott, D., 1994. Public reactions to windfarms: the dynamics of opinion formation.Energy and Environment 5, 343–362.

lliott, D., 2003. Energy, Society and Environment: Technology for a SustainableFuture. Routledge, London.

llis, G., Barry, J., Robinson, C., 2007. Many ways to say ‘no’, different ways to say‘yes’: applying Q-Methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farmproposals. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50 (4), 517–551.

nergy4All, 2007. http://www.energy4all.co.uk/.WEA, 2007. 2007: A turning point for energy. European Wind Energy Association.

Available at: http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea documents/documents/publications/WD/2007 january/0701-WD26-viewpoint.pdf.

CS/SE, 2007. Biomass Action Plan for Scotland. Forestry Commission Scotland andScottish Executive, Edinburgh, 80 pp.

ipe, P., 1995. Wind Energy Comes of Age. John Wiley, New York.reenpeace, 2007. Decentralising Scottish Energy: Cleaner, Cheaper More Secure

Energy for the 21st Century. Greenpeace, London.ubbins, N., 2007. Community energy in practice. Local Economy 22 (1), 80–84.ubbins, N., 2008. Community ownership models for renewable energy projects.

In: Conference presentation, ‘Practical Solutions to Scotland’s Renewable EnergyChallenges’, Edinburgh, 29-1-2008.

ammerlund, K., 2009. Landscape analysis for wind developments (This volume).anley, N., Nevin, C., 1999. Appraising renewable energy developments in remote

communities: the case of the North Assynt Estate, Scotland. Energy Policy 27(9), 527–547.

ellett, J., 2007. Community-based energy policy: a practical approach to car-bon reduction. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50 (3),381–396.

han, J., 2003. Wind Power Planning in three Swedish Municipalities. Journal ofEnvironmental Planning and Management 46 (4), 563–582.

rohn, S., Damborg, S., 1999. On public attitudes towards wind power. RenewableEnergy 16 (1–4), 954–960.

oring, J.M., 2007. Wind energy planning in England, Wales and Denmark: factorsinfluencing project success. Energy Policy 35 (4), 2648–2660.

ackenzie, A.F.D., 2006. A working land: crofting communities, place and the politicsof the possible in post-Land Reform Scotland. Transactions of the Institute ofBritish Geographers 31 (3), 383–398.

arris, E., Fairless, D., 2007. Wind farms’ deadly reputation hard to shift. Nature 447

(7141), 126.

öller, B., 2008. Emerging and fading wind energy landscapes in Denmark. In: Con-ference Paper, Special Session on ‘Emerging Energies, Emerging Landscapes’,PECSRL 23rd Conference, Lisbon, 2-9-2008.

FO System Three, 2002. Investigation into the Potential Impact of Windfarms onTourism in Scotland. VisitScotland, Edinburgh.

W

W

se Policy 27 (2010) 204–213

ielsen, F.B., 2002. A formula for success in Denmark. In: Pasqualetti, M.J., Gipe,P., Righter, R.W. (Eds.), Wind Power in View: Energy Landscapes in a CrowdedWorld. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 115–132.

DPM, 2003. Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future. Office of the DeputyPrime Minister Publications, London.

asqualetti, M.J., Gipe, P., Righter, R.W., 2002. A landscape of power. In: Pasqualetti,M.J., Gipe, P., Righter, R.W. (Eds.), Wind Power in View: Energy Landscapes in aCrowded World. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 3–16.

atterson, W., 2007. Keeping the Lights on: Towards Sustainable Electricity. Earth-scan, London.

edlinger, R.Y., Andersen, P.D., Morthorst, P.E., 2002. Wind Energy in the 21stCentury: Economics, Policy, Technology and the Changing Electricity Industry.Palgrave Publishers, Basingstoke.

ogers, J.C., Simmons, E.A., Convery, I., Weatherall, A., 2008. Public perceptions ofopportunities for community-based renewable energy projects. Energy Policy36 (11), 4217–4226.

SE, 2006. Inquiry into Energy Issues for Scotland: Final Report. Royal Society ofEdinburgh, Edinburgh.

atsangi, M., 2007. Land tenure change and rural housing in Scotland. Scottish Geo-graphical Journal 123 (1), 33–47.

cotsman, 2008. Fintry’s green revolution means power to the people. The Scotsman9-2-2008.

cottish Executive, 2007. Energy Efficiency and Microgeneration: Achieving a LowCarbon Future—A Strategy for Scotland. Draft for Consultation. Stationery Office,Edinburgh.

cottish Government, 2008a. Framework for the Development and Deployment ofRenewables in Scotland. Scottish Government, Edinburgh.

cottish Government, 2008b. Climate change: Consultation on Proposals for a Scot-tish Climate Change Bill. Scottish Government, Edinburgh.

cottish Government, 2008c. The Economic Impacts of Wind Farms on ScottishTourism: A Report for the Scottish Government. Scottish Government, Edin-burgh.

cottish Renewables, 2007. Making Connections: Connecting Scotland’s RenewableEnergy Potential. Scottish Renewables, Glasgow.

EDD, 2007. Scottish Planning Policy SPP 6: Renewable Energy. Scottish ExecutiveDevelopment Department, Edinburgh.

EI, 2003. Attitudes Towards the Development of Windfarms in Ireland. SustainableEnergy Ireland, Bandon.

NH, 2007. Renewables trends in Scotland: statistics and analysis. Scottish Nat-ural Heritage, Inverness. Available at: http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/strategy/renewable/sr-rt07.pdf.

trachan, P.A., Lal, D., 2004. Wind energy policy, planning and management practicein the UK: hot air or a gathering storm? Regional Studies 38 (5), 551–571.

zarka, J., 2007. Wind Power in Europe: Politics, Business and Society. PalgraveMacmillan, Basingstoke.

IC, 2006. Tourist Information Office, Campbeltown, personal communication.oke, D., 2005a. Explaining wind power planning outcomes: some findings from a

study in England and Wales. Energy Policy 33 (12), 1527–1539.oke, D., 2005b. Are green electricity certificates the way forward for renewable

energy? An evaluation of the United Kingdom’s Renewables Obligation in thecontext of international comparisons. Environment and Planning C: Governmentand Policy 23 (3), 361–374.

oke, D., 2005c. Community wind power in Europe and in the UK. Wind Engineering29, 301–308.

oke, D., 2007. Supporting renewables: local ownership, wind power and sustainablefinance. In: Elliott, D. (Ed.), Sustainable Energy: Opportunities and Limitations.Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 155–173.

oke, D., Breukers, S., Wolsink, M., 2008. Wind power deployment outcomes: howcan we account for the differences? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews12 (4), 1129–1147.

roen, I., Petersen, E.L., 1989. European Wind Atlas. Risø National Laboratory,Roskilde, 656 pp.

an der Horst, D., 2007. NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location andthe politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. EnergyPolicy 35 (5), 2705–2714.

alker, G., Cass, N., 2007. Carbon reduction ‘the public’ and renewable energy:engaging with socio-technical configurations. Area 39 (4), 458–469.

alker, G., Devine-Wright, P., 2008. Community renewable energy: what should itmean? Energy Policy 36 (2), 497–500.

alker, G., Hunter, S., Devine-Wright, P., Evans, B., Fay, H., 2007. Harnessingcommunity energies: explaining and evaluating community-based localism inrenewable energy policy in the UK. Global Environmental Politics 7, 64–82.

arren, C.R., 2002. Occupying the middle ground: the future of social ownership inScotland. ECOS 23 (1), 2–10.

arren, C.R., 2009. Managing Scotland’s Environment, Second Edition. EdinburghUniversity Press, Edinburgh.

arren, C.R., Lumsden, C., 2008. Familiarity breeds content? Public perceptions ofwind power in the Scottish Borders. In: Galbraith, C.A., Baxter, J.M. (Eds.), Energyand the Natural Heritage. TSO Scotland, Edinburgh, pp. 259–264.

arren, C.R., Lumsden, C., O’Dowd, S., Birnie, R.V., 2005. ‘Green on green’: publicperceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland. Journal of EnvironmentalPlanning and Management 48 (6), 851–873.

olsink, M., 2006. Invalid theory impedes our understanding: a critique on thepersistence of the language of NIMBY. Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers 31 (1), 85–91.

Page 10: Does community ownership affect public attitudes to …-+Does... · Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland ... C.R

and U

W

W

C.R. Warren, M. McFadyen / L

olsink, M., 2007a. Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes:equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives’. Renewable and SustainableEnergy Reviews 11 (6), 1188–1207.

olsink, M., 2007b. Planning of renewables schemes: deliberative and fairdecision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation. Energy Policy 35 (5), 2692–2704.

W

Z

se Policy 27 (2010) 204–213 213

üstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., Bürer, M.J., 2007. Social acceptance of renew-able energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 35 (5),2683–2691.

oellner, J., Schweizer-Ries, P., Wemheuer, C., 2008. Public acceptance of renew-able energies: results from case studies in Germany. Energy Policy 36 (11),4136–4141.