Understanding Public Reactions to Wind Farm Developments through

Communication and Integration

Mhairi Aitken

IntroductionUK government targets in response to climate change and the ‘energy crisis’

- 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050

- 20% of electricity produced from renewable sources by 2020

Enormous potential of wind power in the UK

Public hostility and opposition creates significant obstacle to meeting targets

“yes-sayers” and “nay-sayers”(Krohn & Damborg 1999)

“yes-sayers”• Renewable energy as viable

alternative to traditional energy

• Climate change is a real and serious threat

• Wind energy is unlimited• Wind energy is clean• Wind energy is safe

“nay-sayers”

• Renewable energy is not the answer

• Wind energy is unreliable• Wind energy is expensive• Visual Impact• Wind turbines are noisy

Conventional Explanation

NIMBY-ism

(not-in-my-back-yard)

Widespread support for renewable energy and wind power

Strong local opposition to particular wind farm developments

NIMBY discredited

• Recently come to be viewed as outdated and over-simplistic

• Multiple motivations and factors influence individual reactions to wind farms

• Allows opposition to be discredited despite real concerns

It is now widely acknowledged that communication with and integration of local communities in planning and decision-making processes is vital.

ExamplesNorth Wiltshire Biomass Energy

Plant(Upreti & Horst 2004)

Biomass plants refused planning permission due to public anxieties over impacts and risk

Strong opposition – BLOT (Biomass Lumbered on Our Town) – 439 letters of opposition

Lack of communication between developers and community

Communication came too late – opposition already too strong

Developers’ approach perceived to be top-down

Initial negative perception creates suspicion

Orkney Community Wind Turbine(Orkney Renewable Energy Ltd. 2005)

Single 850kW turbine Funded by consortium of Orkney

residents Scottish machine, local expertise and

business utilised wherever possible Local investment = local enthusiasm Developers are perceived to have

credibility and local interests at heart

But it’s not just for small “local” projects!

Large and/or external companies can also create positive community relations through effective and proactive stakeholder management.

Example: Albany, Western Australia(Ebert 1999)

15km outside Albany city – ‘magnificent coastal environment’, significant tourism, scenic area, environmentally sensitive and highly visible location

Public engaged with from earliest stages – including flexibility over certain elements of design.

Benefits highlighted, but down-sides not hidden – meaningful debateDevelopers perceived to be honest and trustworthy

Vocalising the Silent Majority• Staunch opposition groups may not respond

• Majority of people (apparently) support/do not oppose wind farms

• Community engagement and consultation should focus on the ‘silent majority’

Democracy requires all views to be hearddominant opposition groups should not be able to hijack decision-making processes

Privileged/Latent groups(Olson 1965, discussed in Toke 2002)

Privileged Groups: small, minority groups with strong interests and motivation to organise

Latent Groups: Typically larger groups but without strong interests or motivation to organise

• Privileged groups will be better organised and hence minority interests may ‘defeat’ those of latent groups despite

being unrepresentative

• Large groups require incentives – or the group must already exist for some other function

The necessity/appropriateness of Participatory Techniques

Appropriate policies/developments best achieved through consultation with affected communities

Participation of local communities in decision-making and/or planning will lead to more appropriate and desirable outcomes – therefore the public will be more accepting and positive

It appears almost common-sense that participation is a desirable thing

Criticisms of Participatory Techniques

• Simplistic view of communities

• If participation is ‘good’, non-participation must be ‘bad’

• Power remains at the ‘top’

• Participatory techniques are cosmetic

Essential Conditions for Good Participation

• Power to the communities

• Trust

• Transparency

Conclusions and Implications• It is essential that developers engage with local communities, in order to understand and address their concerns

• Local communities will react negatively where they do not trust or know the developer

• Trust requires a meaningful process of public consultation and participation

• Meaningful participation requires the empowerment of local communities including real input into certain key decisions (i.e. number of turbines, size, location, design)

• Where this is not possible, an open discussion of the reasons and justifications for decisions which have already been made must take place

Local communities must be empowered rather than dominated

Understanding Public Reactions to Wind Farm Developments through

Communication and Integration

Mhairi Aitken