summary_ acceptance of rural wind farms in australia a snapshot_csiro2012
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/3/2019 Summary_ Acceptance of Rural Wind Farms in Australia a Snapshot_CSIRO2012
1/8
Summary
Acceptance
ofruralwind farmsin Australia:
a snapshot
Nina Hall, Peta Ashworth and Hylton ShawCSIRO Science into Society Group 2012
-
8/3/2019 Summary_ Acceptance of Rural Wind Farms in Australia a Snapshot_CSIRO2012
2/8
> KEY FINDINGS: SUMMARISED
The study produced our high level ndings, which are briefy outlined below:
There is stronger community support or the development o wind
arms than might be otherwise assumed rom media coverage.
This includes support rom rural residents who do not seek media
attention or political engagement to express their views.
The actual and perceived local costs and benets o wind arms are
strongly infuenced by the design, implementation, and community
engagement processes.
Many o the benets can be shared or communicated in ways that would
enhance community support or the development o wind arms in a
region.
Existing regulatory approaches provide an appropriate ramework or
negotiating wind arm developments, but there is scope or improving
outcomes.This study o nine wind developments ound that while community
concerns were sometimes overstated, limiting opportunity or community
input risks undermining potential local support. The alternative o
more prescriptive rules and processes to protect perceived community
interests can risk orgoing developments that could deliver local benets
and achieve local support.
The emerging notion o a Social Licence to Operate provides a useul
ramework or wind arm developers to engage local communities
in ways that could enhance transparency and local support, and
complement ormal regulatory processes.
This approach could provide a structured and cooperative ramework
or exploring strategies or reducing potential adverse impacts, sharing
nancial benets equitably, and building local trust and understanding
through a clear communication process.
Despite the prevalence o popular media articles, there is minimal academic
examination o this situation. This repor t provides new research that analyses
community acceptance o Australian wind arms rom a variety o stakeholderperspectives.
Ongoing CSIRO research that engages with the wind industry will contribute
urther understanding and knowledge to the possibilities and workability o an
SLO or wind arms in Australia.
4.
3.
2.
1.2
-
8/3/2019 Summary_ Acceptance of Rural Wind Farms in Australia a Snapshot_CSIRO2012
3/8
3Exploring community acceptance o wind arms: the imperative
The CSIRO Energy Transormed Flagship aims to lower greenhouse gas
emissions by providing sustainable, ecient, cost eective energy solutions or
electricity supply and transport.
Community acceptance:
the methodology
The research employed a range o
methods, including a literature and
inormation review, a media analysis o
newspaper articles, case studies, and
semi-structured qualitative interviews
with a range o stakeholders associated
with wind arms.
The media analysis o 49 articles rom
19 newspapers in the second half of
2010 found more reasons for wind farm
opposition were reported than reasons
or support. The most cited reasons or
rejecting wind arms were:
landscape change and visual amenity
impacts
noise impacts
poor consultation
The most cited reasons orsupporting
rural wind arms were:
as a means to take action against
human-induced climate change,
reduce greenhouse gas emissions
support job creation
SummaryAcceptance o rural wind arms in Australia: a snapshot
The current policy context in which the
Flagship works includes the Australian
Governments amended RenewableEnergy Target (RET). This Target seeks
to provide 20% of Australias electricity
generation rom renewable energy
sources by 2020.
Wind-generated electricity is a proven
renewable energy technology with
excellent resources in Australia. It is
anticipated that wind could contribute
the early majority o renewable energy
generated or the large-scale RET.
The uptake and installation o wind
arms, however, is currently slow owing
to the low cost and volatility o the
Renewable Energy Certicate price,
regulatory actors as well as community
resistance. This resistance presents a
social gap between the documented
high levels o support or wind arm
development and the lower success
rate and cited opposition in the mediato wind arm development proposals. I
popular media articles were to provide
the only evidence or or against wind
arms, opposition in the media would
dominatehence the need or a more
academic study o community acceptance
o rural wind arms in Australia.
Public consent is central to achieving cuts
in Australias greenhouse gas emissions
through a combination o technological
innovation, economic reorm, and societal
change, according to CSIRO research
(Ashworth, 2011). This report provides a
snapshot o community acceptance level
regarding Australian wind arms rom a
variety o stakeholder perspectives.
-
8/3/2019 Summary_ Acceptance of Rural Wind Farms in Australia a Snapshot_CSIRO2012
4/8
44
Wind-generated electricity is a proven renewable
energy technology with excellent resources in Australia.
Nine wind arms were selected as case
studies. Each case was intentionally
selected to represent the states
with greatest wind resources (New
South Wales (NSW), Victoria (Vic)
and South Australia (SA)), various
stages o development (operational,
under construction, proposed and
rejected) and a range o sizes (belowand above 30MW). When compared,
common themes arose despite the
dierent geographical, historical and
developmental characteristics o each
wind project. There were no obvious
dierences observed between the
communitys experiences o wind arms
in each state, even though there are a
variety o state-based renewable energy
policies. There were, however, dierences
depending on the size o the wind arm,
when comparing community-scale (otenless than 30MW) and industrial scale
wind arms.
For each case study, in-depth, qualitative
interviews were undertaken with
stakeholders who represented the
wind company, the local government,
local opposition, local support and the
turbine host. Extensive methodological
procedures can be ound in Section 4 o
the main Wind Farms Report.
Stakeholder views o wind arms
As noted above, this research consulted a range o stakeholders on their perceptions
o wind arms, and identied both a diversity and similarity o views:
Wind company representativeswere supportive o wind power, but many
businesses were vulnerable to community acceptance issues.
Local government representativesheld mixed views on wind arms. Some
welcomed the resulting regional development, while others observed the signicant
angst caused by wind arm proposals.
Turbine hosts, all armers in this sample, supported wind arms and generally did not
hold concerns about visual, noise or other negative impacts.
Community members publiclyopposing local wind arms spoke as sel-appointed
representatives or others nursing grievances with wind arms. Most were hobby
armers with small acreages, ormer proessionals, and/or members o Landscape
Guardian groups.
Community members publiclysupporting their local wind arm were motivated
by the climate riendly nature o wind arms, as opposed to that generated rom
ossil uels. They appreciated regional development, increased local identity, potential
employment and nancial opportunities arising rom wind arm developments.
Section 6 in the main report gives an in-depth narrative and depiction o each windarm involved as case studies.
-
8/3/2019 Summary_ Acceptance of Rural Wind Farms in Australia a Snapshot_CSIRO2012
5/8
5
Consultation: key game-changers
Inadequate consultation and engagement
with the community is described as a key
process contributing to social confict
around wind arm development in
Australia.
As outlined in the technical report, the
sense o acceptance and ownership o
a local wind arm can dier according
to both the scale but, perhaps more
importantly, the depth and agency
involvement allowed in the consultation
process. For example, a wind arm
approved using the Ministerial consent
enabled by the legislative critical
inrastructure clause, where appeal wasprohibited caused signicant community
distrust o the process and developers
themselves.
This issue alone sets the main stage
or encouraging methods by which
all stakeholders eel empowered and
accepting o wind arm energy.
Towards wind arm
acceptance: vital issues
The ollowing ndings are arranged in
Table 1 (page 6) using the trafc lights
system to indicate key issues that aect
community acceptance o wind arms in
Australia. The ndings are ranked using
the ollowing colour codes:
RED
An issue that is an acknowledged cost or unavoidable
problem.
AMBER
An issue that is a game-changeri it is managed careully, it
has the potential to enhance acceptance; i poorly managed,
it has the possibility to increase opposition.
GREEN
A benet that is already being received and/or an issue that
is already being managed.
The issues noted in amber colour are
those that, with sucient attention,
stand to signicantly increase wind arm
acceptance.
5
-
8/3/2019 Summary_ Acceptance of Rural Wind Farms in Australia a Snapshot_CSIRO2012
6/8
6
ASPECT FINDING
Contextual For some, the planning system does not adequately consider contribution rom individuals and communities,
especially the experience o court appeals and critical inrastructure legislation.
Physical Environmental gains include low carbon electricity, supporting arming, and improving access or re ghting.
While electricity generation intermittency does exist, it can be managed, predicted, and mitigated to provide a
reliable source o electricity.
Shadow ficker occurs or short periods during sunrise and sunset; blade glint is prevented through low refectivity
surace treatment.
Small, community-scale wind arms oer local sustainability solutions to cut greenhouse gas emissions and support
local development.
The layout and number o turbines in each cluster can minimise perceived negative visual impact.
Noise rom wind turbines is reported more requently than transportation noise with equivalent noise
characteristics.
Bird and bat deaths have occurred and require careul planning, mitigation and/or monitoring.
Economic Communities benet rom a local wind arm through increased local business, community unds and local
government revenue.
Direct jobs are higher during wind arm construction; less or long-term operation.
Turbine hosts can use rental income to remain on the arm post-retirement, conserve biodiversity, and prevent
subdividing.
Property prices have not been ound to increase or decrease, although the potential market o buyers may bedecreased.
Wind arms can attract tourism, but may confict with other tourism eatures.
For some individuals, sucient nancial compensation will make a wind arm acceptable. This could include
compensation/rental payments to all residents in a specied radius, payment o electricity bills and local
government contributions.
The expense o oshore turbines to avoid local visual impact is dicult to justiy in Australia.
Social Developers acting beyond required compliance, including willingly engaging outside the ormal planning process,
contribute to more accepted energy projects.
Consultation principles o honesty and transparency, ull and unbiased inormation, and not interpreting und
donations as buying support may increase community engagement and acceptance.
A Social Licence to Operate provides a useul ramework or wind arm developers to engage local communities
in ways that could enhance transparency and local support, and complement ormal regulatory processes.
There is currently no evidence linking noise impacts with adverse health eects. However, proposed wind arms
can create stress, leading to negative health outcomes.
The vocal minority are more oten prominent in the media, and secure political attention. A group rom the
Landscape Guardian movement o wind opposition contests hal o all wind arm proposals. These groups oten
contact local residents early in the project and share concerns about wind arms.
The reasons or opposition by some participants suggest that wind arms proposals are triggering a range o
underlying cultural or ideological concerns which are unlikely to be addressed or resolved or a specic wind
arm development. These underlying issues include pre-existing concerns that rural communities are politically
neglected by urban centres, commitment to an anti-development stance , and opposition to a green or climateaction political agenda.
Table 1: Key ndings presented as a benet, a game-changer or a cost
A concise but detailed table o the considerations that may aect community acceptance can be ound in the
Discussion Section (8) o the main Wind Farm Report.
-
8/3/2019 Summary_ Acceptance of Rural Wind Farms in Australia a Snapshot_CSIRO2012
7/8
7
Moving orward: a Social Licence to Operate wind arms
As one commentator stated, wind energy
relies on a Social Licence to Operate ... Its simply not enough to be clean and green, the
industry needs to be adept at engaging the local community
Parkinson, 2011.
The discussion regarding community
responses to wind arms can be
considered under the umbrella concept
o a Social Licence to Operate (SLO).
This proposed term describes the
ongoing acceptance or approval or
a development granted by the local
community and other stakeholders
(Corvellec, 2007; Thomson & Boutilier,
2011; Parsons & Moffat, 2011).
An SLO is reerred to as ongoing to
refect that it is a dynamic approval
process that must be continually
renegotiated as belies, opinions and
perceptions can change when new
information is acquired (Thomson &
Boutil ier, 2011). It is likely to consist of
community expectations regarding the
type o impact a new development willhave and the behaviour o the developer
(Parsons & Moffat, 2011). An SLO will
be aected by the degree o match
between these expectations and the
developers delivery on commitments
(Parsons & Moffat, 2011).
While industries are subject to legal
and other regulatory requirements,
an SLO incorporates the additional
aspects to which the industry meets the
expectations o local communities, wider
society, and various constituent groups.
At times, the demands and expectations
or a development will result in an
SLO with conditions expected by
the community that may be tougher
than those imposed by regulation
(Gunningham et al., 2004).
By denition, there is no legal
requirement or a Social Licence to
Operate in the wind or other industries.
However, Corvellec (2007) notes that
an inormal SLO can develop as wind
developers seek acceptance o their
proposals through open communication
at local meetings, local government
engagement, applications and various
required assessments. In instances where
wind developers have gone beyond
ormal compliance to engage with the
community, the developers credibilityhas been raised with authorities and
the community, and has been noted
to positively infuence the political and
regulatory processes underpinning the
granting o ormal licences (Mason et al.,
2010).
To contribute to the growing discussion
on SLO, this research oers some
oundations or an SLO relevant to wind
arm development in Australia. Mason
et al., (2010) described an acceptable
development as one where the potential
positive impacts represent an acceptable
trade-o to the negative impacts, and
where there is sucient trust building
and trustworthiness surrounding the
industry and its development.
These potential positive impacts and
trust-building criteria align well with
the ndings that emerged rom this
research around acceptable wind arm
development. Indeed, the addition o
positive impacts- or lack thereo- was
commonly cited in the inormation and
interviews as central to the acceptability
o a wind arm.
The study ndings suggest that
community acceptance o wind arms
could be increased by developers
intentionally adopting a Social Licence to
Operate approach, or similar rameworksor transparent and well structured
community engagement.
There is evidence that increased
community acceptance rom such
approaches would result in increased
approval and installation o wind arms,
and would thus increase the possibility o
achieving Australias Renewable Energy
Target in a cost eective way. For more
in-depth discussion o SLOs, see Section
3.1 in the full Wind Farms Report.
7
-
8/3/2019 Summary_ Acceptance of Rural Wind Farms in Australia a Snapshot_CSIRO2012
8/8
Reerences and urther reading
Full details can be ound in the technical
report:
Hall, N., Ashworth, P., and Shaw, H.
(2012) Exploring Community Acceptance
of Rural Wind Farms in Australia. Canberra:
CSIRO. (www.csiro.au)
Ashworth, P. (2011). Reducing energy
demand: The imperative or behavioural
change,. In H.Cleugh, M. Staord
Smith, M. Battaglia & P. Graham (Eds.)
Climate Change: Science And Solutions For
Australia, (pp.127-134). Canberra: CSIRO
Publishing.
Corvellec, H. (2007) Arguing for a
licence to operate: the case o the
Swedish wind power industry,Corporate
Communications: An International Journal.
12(2): 129-144.
Gunningham, N., Kagan, R. and
Thornton, D. (2004) Social Licence
and Environmental Protection: Why
Businesses Go Beyond Compliance, Law
& Social Inquiry29 (2): 307341.
Mason, C., Paxton, G., Parr, J., and
Boughen, N. (2010) Charting the
territory: Exploring stakeholder reactions
to the prospect o seafoor exploration
and mining in Australia,Marine Policy34:
13741380.
Parkinson, G. (2011) Can wind beat
the noise?, Climate Spectator, June 24.
URL (consulted 24 June): http://www.
climatespectator.com.au/commentary/
can-wind-beat-noise?utm_source=C
limate%2BSpectator%2Bdaily&utm_
medium=email&utm_campaign=Climate
%2BSpectator%2Bdaily
Parsons, R., and Moffat, K. (2011)
Constructing the meaning o social
licence, Canberra: CSIRO (orthcoming).
Thomson, I., and Boutilier, R. (2011)
Social Licence to Operate, SME Mining
Engineering Handbook, Colorado: Society
or Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration. pp.
1779-1796.
For urther inormation:
Dr Nina Hall
Social ScientistScience into Society Group
CSIRO Energy Transormed Flagship
Phone: (07) 3327 4589
Email: [email protected]