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