Understanding Public Reactions to Wind Farm Developments through Communication and Integration Mhairi Aitken

Introduction UK government targets in response to climate change and the ‘energy crisis’ - 60% reduction in carbon emissions by % 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NIMBY discredited Recently come to be viewed as outdated and over- simplistic Multiple motivations and factors influence individual reactions to wind farms Allows opposition to be discredited despite real concerns It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.

Examples North 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 debate Developers 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 heard dominant 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