Practices and rationales of community engagement with wind farms: awareness raising, consultation, empowerment

Abstract In light of the growing emphasis on community engagement in the literature on renewable energy planning, and given the acknowledgement of the complexity of community engagement as a concept, we conducted an empirical review of practice relating to community engagement with onshore wind farms in the UK, exploring what is actually happening in terms of community engagement relating to onshore wind farms, and examining the rationales underpinning approaches to community engagement. We found that a wide range of engagement methods are being used in relation to onshore wind farms across the UK, but that these are predominantly focused at consultation and awareness raising. Developers typically retain considerable – or total – control within such engagement processes. However, the case studies presented in this paper also evidence some innovation in engagement methods. Through this research we develop and test a non-hierarchical classification of community engagement approaches: awareness raising; consultation and empowerment. This provides a useful tool for reflecting on practices and rationales of community engagement. By considering the three approaches non-hierarchically, this model allows for an examination of how such rationales are acted on in practice.

[1]  D. Rudolph.  The Resurgent Conflict Between Offshore Wind Farms and Tourism: Underlying Storylines , 2014 .

[2]  Vc Broto,et al.  Planning for Climate Change: Strategies for Mitigation and Adaptation for Spatial Planners , 2011 .

[3]  Patrick Devine-Wright,et al.  Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy , 2005 .

[4]  Peta Ashworth,et al.  Societal acceptance of wind farms: Analysis of four common themes across Australian case studies , 2013 .

[5]  D. Bell,et al.  The ‘Social Gap’ in Wind Farm Siting Decisions: Explanations and Policy Responses , 2005 .

[6]  E. Creamer.  The double-edged sword of grant funding: a study of community-led climate change initiatives in remote rural Scotland , 2015 .

[7]  G. Rowe,et al.  A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms , 2005 .

[8]  Kate Burningham,et al.  Imagined publics and engagement around renewable energy technologies in the UK , 2012 .

[9]  Alan March,et al.  Democratic dilemmas, planning and Ebenezer Howard's garden city , 2004 .

[10]  Maarten Wolsink,et al.  Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support , 2000 .

[11]  Maarten Wolsink,et al.  Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation , 2007 .

[12]  Ian Scoones,et al.  Participatory Environmental Policy Processes: Experiences from North and South , 2000 .

[13]  Oliver Escobar,et al.  Dialogue and science: Innovation in policy-making and the discourse of public engagement in the UK , 2013 .

[14]  A. Agrawal,et al.  Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation , 1999 .

[15]  M. Aitken.  E-Planning and Public Participation: Addressing or Aggravating the Challenges of Public Participation in Planning? , 2014 .

[16]  Ivan Koprić,et al.  Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making , 2006 .

[17]  Herbert Kubicek.  The Potential of E-Participation in Urban Planning: A European Perspective , 2010 .

[18]  T. Kepe,et al.  The problem of defining ‘community’: Challenges for the land reform programme in rural South Africa , 1999 .

[19]  Sue Brownill,et al.  Why Bother with Good Works? The Relevance of Public Participation(s) in Planning in a Post-collaborative Era , 2010 .

[20]  Jason Chilvers,et al.  Deliberating Competence , 2008 .

[21]  D. Bell,et al.  Re-visiting the ‘social gap’: public opinion and relations of power in the local politics of wind energy , 2013 .

[22]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science – Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music? , 2006, Public Health Genomics.

[23]  N. Kaza.  Tyranny of the Median and Costly Consent: A Reflection on the Justification for Participatory Urban Planning Processes , 2006 .

[24]  Geraint Ellis,et al.  Wind Power - Is there a planning problem? (editorial) , 2009 .

[25]  Yvonne Rydin,et al.  Re-Examining the Role of Knowledge Within Planning Theory , 2007 .

[26]  S. Arnstein,et al.  Ladder of Citizen Participation , 2020 .

[27]  C. Anderson.  The networked minority: How a small group prevailed in a local windfarm conflict , 2013 .

[28]  Daren C. Brabham.  Motivations for Participation in a Crowdsourcing Application to Improve Public Engagement in Transit Planning , 2012 .

[29]  Mhairi Aitken,et al.  Wind Power Planning Controversies and the Construction of ‘Expert’ and ‘Lay’ Knowledges , 2009 .

[30]  Claire Haggett,et al.  Crossing the Great Divide ¿ Using Multi-method Analysis to Understand Opposition to Windfarms , 2006 .

[31]  Y. Rydin,et al.  Public Participation and Local Environmental Planning: The collective action problem and the potential of social capital , 2000 .

[32]  Yves Pepermans,et al.  Wind farm struggles in Flanders fields: A sociological perspective , 2013 .

[33]  P. Devine‐Wright,et al.  Social acceptance of low carbon energy and associated infrastructures: A critical discussion , 2013 .

[34]  S. Coleman,et al.  Bowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation , 2001 .

[35]  P. Healey.  Collaborative Planning in Perspective , 2003 .

[36]  Jean Hillier,et al.  Going round the Back? Complex Networks and Informal Action in Local Planning Processes , 2000 .

[37]  Mhairi Aitken,et al.  Public Acceptability of Data Sharing Between the Public, Private and Third Sectors for Research Purposes , 2013 .

[38]  Sandy Oliver,et al.  Involving the public in NHS public health, and social care research: briefing notes for researchers , 2004 .

[39]  Claire Haggett,et al.  Community benefits from offshore renewables: good practice review , 2015 .

[40]  C. Gross,et al.  Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance , 2007 .

[41]  Mhairi Aitken,et al.  Why we still don't understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature , 2010 .

[42]  M. Buchy,et al.  Understanding public participation in forest planning: a review. , 2000 .

[43]  Claire Haggett,et al.  A Call for Clarity and a Review of the Empirical Evidence: Comment on Felman and Turner's ‘Why Not NIMBY?’ , 2010 .

[44]  Claire Haggett,et al.  Public Engagement in Planning for Renewable Energy , 2009 .

[45]  Planning Act 2008 , 2012 .

[46]  S. Baum,et al.  Making space for social inclusion in conceptualising climate change vulnerability , 2015 .

[47]  James Wilsdon,et al.  See-Through Science : Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream , 2004 .

[48]  M. Aitken,et al.  Getting low-carbon governance right: learning from actors involved in Community Benefits , 2016 .

[49]  Å. Waldo.  Offshore wind power in Sweden—A qualitative analysis of attitudes with particular focus on opponents , 2012 .

[50]  Claire Haggett.  Over the Sea and Far Away? A Consideration of the Planning, Politics and Public Perception of Offshore Wind Farms , 2008 .

[51]  Maarten Wolsink,et al.  Wind power deployment outcomes: How can we account for the differences? , 2008 .

[52]  Claire Haggett,et al.  Wind Farms Community Engagement Good Practice Review , 2014 .

[53]  Mhairi Aitken,et al.  Grassroots Energy Innovations: the Role of Community Ownership and Investment , 2015 .

[54]  Mhairi Aitken,et al.  Wind power and community benefits: Challenges and opportunities , 2010 .

[55]  Gordon Walker,et al.  The role for ‘community’ in carbon governance , 2011 .

[56]  D. Wilcox.  The guide to effective participation , 1994 .