Contrasting the core beliefs regarding the effective implementation of wind power. An international study of stakeholder perspectives

This paper analyses patterns in beliefs about the implementation of wind power as part of a geographical comparison of onshore wind power developments in the Netherlands, North-Rhine Westphalia and England. Q methodology is applied, in order to systematically compare the patterns in stakeholder views on the institutional conditions and changes in the domains of energy policy, spatial planning and environmental policy. Three factors represent support for wind power implementation from fundamentally different perspectives. The fourth perspective is critical opposed to wind power developments as well as critical to the manner in which wind projects are proposed, planned and implemented. These four perspectives exist across the geographical cases; however, some perspectives are prominent in one case and marginal in another. This relates to different legacies and varying implementation achievements in the three cases. The analysis shows that an approach that focuses on implementing as much wind power as possible, relying on technocratic reasoning and hierarchical policies is in practice the least successful, whereas collaborative perspectives with more emphasis on local issues and less on the interests of the conventional energy sector were particularly dominant in the most successful case, North-Rhine Westphalia.

[1]  John Barry,et al.  Evaluation of the Q-method as a method of public participation in the selection of sustainable development indicators , 2009 .

[2]  P. Devine‐Wright.  Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place‐protective action , 2009 .

[3]  Sofia Frantzi,et al.  Exploring discourses on international environmental regime effectiveness with Q methodology: a case study of the Mediterranean Action Plan. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[4]  John S. Dryzek,et al.  Reconstructive Democratic Theory , 1993, American Political Science Review.

[5]  Volkmar Lauber,et al.  REFIT and RPS: options for a harmonised Community framework , 2004 .

[6]  David Toke,et al.  The EU Renewables Directive—What is the fuss about trading? , 2008 .

[7]  Peter A. Strachan,et al.  Wind Energy Policy, Planning and Management Practice in the UK: Hot Air or a Gathering Storm? , 2004 .

[8]  Jennifer Rogers,et al.  Public perceptions of opportunities for community-based renewable energy projects , 2008 .

[9]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  The politics and policy of energy system transformation—explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology , 2006 .

[10]  N. C. Van de Giesen,et al.  Identification of stakeholder perspectives on future flood management in the Rhine basin using Q methodology , 2008 .

[11]  Maarten Wolsink,et al.  Policy Beliefs in Spatial Decisions: Contrasting Core Beliefs Concerning Space-making for Waste Infrastructure , 2004 .

[12]  John Barry,et al.  Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology , 1999 .

[13]  Antony S. Cheng,et al.  Why Won’t They Come? Stakeholder Perspectives on Collaborative National Forest Planning by Participation Level , 2006, Environmental management.

[14]  G. Ellis,et al.  Many ways to say ‘no’, different ways to say ‘yes’: Applying Q-Methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals , 2007 .

[15]  Wolfram Krewitt,et al.  The German Renewable Energy Sources Act—an investment into the future pays off already today , 2003 .

[16]  Maria Madalena Teixeira de Araújo,et al.  The inclusion of social aspects in power planning , 2011 .

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

[18]  M. Wolsink,et al.  Wind power implementation in changing institutional landscapes: An international comparison. , 2007 .

[19]  Steven R. Brown.  A Match Made in Heaven: A Marginalized Methodology for Studying the Marginalized , 2006 .

[20]  Adrian Smith,et al.  Emerging in between: The multi-level governance of renewable energy in the English regions , 2007 .

[21]  P. Swedeen,et al.  Post-normal science in practice: A Q study of the potential for sustainable forestry in Washington State, USA , 2006 .

[22]  Maarten Wolsink,et al.  Wind energy policies in the Netherlands: Institutional capacity-building for ecological modernisation , 2007 .

[23]  B. Johnson,et al.  From the Inside Out: Environmental Agency Views about Communications with the Public , 2006, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[24]  C Hall,et al.  Identifying farmer attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) crops in Scotland: Are they pro - or anti-GM? , 2008 .

[25]  Rolf Wüstenhagen,et al.  Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept , 2007 .

[26]  Barbara Pini,et al.  Q Methodology and Rural Research , 2007 .

[27]  Virginie Mamadouh,et al.  Grid-group cultural theory: an introduction , 1999 .

[28]  Dan Durning,et al.  The transition from traditional to postpositivist policy analysis: A role for Q‐methodology , 1999 .

[29]  Charles R. Warren,et al.  Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland , 2010 .

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

[31]  M. Wolsink,et al.  The motives for accepting or rejecting waste infrastructure facilities. Shifting the focus from the planners' perspective to fairness and community commitment , 2009 .

[32]  Maria Johansson,et al.  Intention to respond to local wind turbines: the role of attitudes and visual perception , 2007 .

[33]  Rob Krueger,et al.  Beyond Bias? The Promise and Limits of Q Method in Human Geography , 2000 .

[34]  Mhairi Aitken,et al.  Locating ‘power’ in wind power planning processes: the (not so) influential role of local objectors , 2008 .

[35]  Marcus Eichhorn,et al.  The mismatch between regional spatial planning for wind power development in Germany and national eligibility criteria for feed-in tariffs—A case study in West Saxony , 2010 .

[36]  Gordon Walker,et al.  Structuring subjectivities? Using Q methodology in human geography , 2005 .

[37]  Valborg Kvakkestad,et al.  Scientists’ Perspectives on the Deliberate Release of GM Crops , 2007, Environmental Values.

[38]  Rolf Wüstenhagen,et al.  Green Energy Market Development in Germany: Effective Public Policy and Emerging Customer Demand , 2006 .

[39]  J. Kellett.  Renewable Energy and the UK Planning System , 2003 .

[40]  C. Zografos.  Rurality discourses and the role of the social enterprise in regenerating rural Scotland , 2007 .

[41]  A. Madanipour,et al.  Place, identity and local politics: analysing initiatives in deliberative governance , 2003 .

[42]  P. Stern,et al.  Participation by Local Governmental Officials in Watershed Management Planning , 2003 .

[43]  Richard Alan Hindmarsh,et al.  Deliberative Speak at the Turbine Face: Community Engagement, Wind Farms, and Renewable Energy Transitions, in Australia , 2008 .

[44]  Maarten Wolsink,et al.  Invalid theory impedes our understanding: A critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY , 2006 .

[45]  J. David Tàbara,et al.  Harmonization of renewable electricity feed-in laws in the European Union , 2007 .

[46]  Maarten Wolsink,et al.  Near-shore Wind Power - Protected Seascapes, Environmentalists' Attitudes, and the Technocratic Planning Perspective , 2010 .

[47]  Karin Hammarlund.  Society and Wind Power in Sweden , 2002 .

[48]  Maarten Wolsink,et al.  River basin approach and integrated water management: Governance pitfalls for the Dutch Space-Water-Adjustment Management Principle , 2006 .

[49]  L. Cordingley,et al.  Q methodology. , 1997, Nurse Researcher.

[50]  Susanne Agterbosch,et al.  Socio-political embedding of onshore wind power in the Netherlands and North Rhine–Westphalia , 2008, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[51]  Andreas Kontoleon,et al.  Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of wind-farm investment: A choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands , 2009 .

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

[53]  F. Rajé,et al.  Using Q methodology to develop more perceptive insights on transport and social inclusion , 2007 .

[54]  Å. Ode,et al.  Public evaluation of landscape content and change: several examples from Europe. , 2009 .

[55]  Paul A. Sabatier,et al.  The advocacy coalition framework: revisions and relevance for Europe , 1998 .

[56]  J. Dryzek.  The Politics of the Earth , 2021 .

[57]  Joyce McLaren Loring,et al.  Wind energy planning in England, Wales and Denmark: Factors influencing project success , 2007 .

[58]  T. Webler,et al.  What Is a Good Public Participation Process? Five Perspectives from the Public , 2001, Environmental management.

[59]  Antony S. Cheng,et al.  Framing the Need for Active Management for Wildfire Mitigation and Forest Restoration , 2007 .

[60]  The Conflicting Discourses of Restoration , 2000 .

[61]  Ann Hooker Clarke,et al.  Understanding sustainable development in the context of other emergent environmental perspectives , 2002 .

[62]  Joseph Szarka,et al.  Wind power, policy learning and paradigm change , 2006 .