Transcript Milieu-geografie en

Socio-political acceptance of wind power
implementation Beyond the focus on ‘public acceptance’
Seminar Wind Power and ‘The Planning Problem’
4 November 2008
Queens University
Belfast
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 NIMBYhypothesis” (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
Socio-political acceptance
•
•
•
•
Of technologies and policies
By the public
By key stakeholders
By policy makers
Community acceptance
Market acceptance
• Procedural justice
• Distributional justice
• Trust
• Consumers
• Investors
• Intra-firm
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 sociopolitical and market acceptance
Involvement and commitment communities
(Walker en Devine-Wright 2008 Energy Pol)
Social & Political Culture
National
“Wind
Policy”
Grassroots
Initiative
Pro Wind
Grassroots LS
/ Anti-Wind
Groups
Landscape
(LS)
Values
Financial
Procurement
System
Local & NonPower Comp
ownership
Type /
Stability
Stimulated /
Impeded
Correspondence Policy
& Planning
Collaborative
Approach
Stimulated or
Impeded:
Planning
regime
Local Decision Making:
Siting and Investment
Population Density
Geographical
Potential
Implementation rates:
Installed capacity / Share
of wind in power supply
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
Visual - landscape
General wind power attitude
0.11
0.40
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 countries
revealed 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 (Ecompanies as well as independent dev.)
Such patterns are institutional, reinforced by existing
structures (energy, planning, government)
Extreme example of frustration, triggered by counterproductive 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
.01
Design II Tall turbines
.01
Design III Small numbers
.04
N=535; R=.66; R2 =.44.
Acceptability locations:
as perceived by members ‘Wadden Union’
% rejecting siting in landscape
mounds
60
Dikes WS
62
Lauwersmeer
62
island polders
Recr area
in WaddenS
63
71
86
NorthS dunes
89
Nature ar
89
Island dunes
94
Acceptability locations:
as perceived by members ‘Wadden Union’
% not rejecting siting in landscape
Ind & harb
Military ar
2
16
Along Afsluitdijk
19
Along tracks
19
Agricul area
NorthSea
NorthS dikes
Marine clay p
IJsselmeer
Towns/vill
22
26
33
41
43
59
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