Public participation in decision support for regional biomass energy planning

Over the last decade, the UK government has encouraged the development of biomass fuelled electricity plants. However, obtaining local planning permission has proved to be an important obstacle for the developers who won a government contract. On a number of occasions, local public opposition forced elected councillors to reject the proposal. These were examples of the typical siting controversy; local people were not involved in the original decision making (which took place at the national level), and rose to protest when they realised they may be exposed to the local disbenefits of the proposed plants. One of the most important questions which they felt was insufficiently answered was; why here? In response to these problems, the UK government is now trying out a regional approach to renewable energy. This approach combines target setting based on physical resource assessments with public consultations to develop a consensus on how and where within the region these targets should be met. Academics have developed Spatial Decision Support Systems (SDSS) to select the best fuel, technology, size and location for biomass power plants within a geographical area. This paper argues that such a system can be used to resolve siting controversies in the real world, but only if it is developed openly and interactively, in dialogue with the various stakeholders, rather than technology driven and top-down which has often been the case. Drawing on the considerable literature on risk communication and siting controversies, a number of best practice guidelines are proposed.

[1]  R. Kasperson,et al.  Social Distrust as a Factor in Siting Hazardous Facilities and Communicating Risks , 1992 .

[2]  Piotr Jankowski,et al.  Spatial Group Choice: A SDSS Tool for Collaborative Spatial Decision-Making , 1997, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[3]  Neil Ericksen,et al.  Human Adjustment to Floods in New Zealand , 1971 .

[4]  W. Leiss.  Three Phases in the Evolution of Risk Communication Practice , 1996 .

[5]  Joanne Linnerooth-Bayer,et al.  Fairness and Siting: Introduction to a Symposium , 1996 .

[6]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Perceived risk, trust, and democracy , 1993 .

[7]  R. Keeney,et al.  Improving risk communication. , 1986, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[8]  P. Slovic,et al.  Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. , 1995, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[9]  Judith Petts,et al.  Effective Waste Management: Understanding and Dealing With Public Concerns , 1994 .

[10]  Luis A. Bojórquez-Tapia,et al.  GIS-based approach for participatory decision making and land suitability assessment , 2001, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[11]  Judith Petts,et al.  The public—expert interface in local waste management decisions: expertise, credibility and process , 1997 .

[12]  Howard Kunreuther,et al.  Risk perception and trust: Challenges for facility siting , 1996 .

[13]  Anticipating conflicts : public participation in managing the solid waste crisis , 1992 .

[14]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits , 1978 .

[15]  Brian Wynne,et al.  May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. , 2004 .

[16]  R. Lofstedt.  Evaluation of Siting Strategies: The Case of Two UK Waste Tire Incinerators , 1997 .

[17]  Howard Kunreuther,et al.  Siting noxious facilities: A test of the Facility Siting Credo , 1993 .

[18]  R. Kasperson,et al.  The Social Amplification of Risk , 2003 .

[19]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Credibility and trust in risk communication , 1991 .

[20]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework , 1988 .

[21]  Judith Petts,et al.  Waste Management Strategy Development: A Case Study of Community Involvement and Consensus-Building in Hampshire , 1995 .

[22]  C. Marris,et al.  Integrating sociological and psychological approaches to public perceptions of environmental risks: detailed results from a questionnaire survey , 1996 .

[23]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Procedural and Substantive Fairness in Landfill Siting: A Swiss Case Study , 1996 .

[24]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Risk communication and the social amplification of risk , 1991 .

[25]  Joanne Linnerooth-Bayer,et al.  Conflicting Views on Fair Siting Processes: Evidence from Austria and the U.S. , 1996 .

[26]  The Role of Trust in the North Blackforest: An Evaluation of a Citizen Panel Project , 1999 .

[27]  A. Giddens.  The consequences of modernity , 1990 .

[28]  B Fischhoff,et al.  Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. , 1995, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.