Claire Haggett

Re-visiting the 'Social Gap': Public Opinion and Relations of Power in the Local Politics of Wind Energy

Our widely cited 2005 explanatory framework for considering public responses to wind farm developments distinguished two gaps: a ‘social gap’ between the high support for wind energy reported in surveys and the low success rate for wind farm applications; and an ‘individual gap’ whereby an individual supports wind energy in general but opposes a local wind farm (NIMBYism). The popular assumption that NIMBYism was the only explanation for the ‘social gap’ was contested. Instead, three explanations of the social gap were provided – democratic deficit, qualified support, and NIMBYism – and a range of different policy responses was suggested. This analysis is re-visited in order to take account of the theoretical and empirical developments since its publication. The original explanatory framework is expanded and revised and new conclusions are drawn about the likely causes of the ‘social gap’.

The Social Experience of Noise from Wind Farms

Research on wind power from around the world has demonstrated the importance of a disjuncture between the global benefits of renewable energy production and the direct and tangible disbenefits felt by host communities. One such potential impact is explored here — noise from wind turbines. It is commonly assumed that noise can be simply and accurately ‘measured’, and that account can be taken of the level of disturbance. However, noise measurement and annoyance are much more complicated issues. Whilst developers state that noise levels are within industry standards, and that it is possible to have a conversation standing underneath a turbine, this fails to: (1) appreciate that the industry guidelines are problematic and controversial in themselves; and (2) understand that noise is something that is ‘experienced’ rather than just ‘heard’.

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.

A Call for Clarity and a Review of the Empirical Evidence: Comment on Felman and Turner's ‘Why Not NIMBY?’

This response contributes to Feldman and Turner’s interesting discussion in two ways: firstly, it provides some clarity on the definition of the term ‘NIMBY’; and, secondly, it incorporates some of the actual empirical evidence of why people support and oppose renewable energy. Feldman and Turner’s paper is a welcome and valuable addition to the discussions on this topic. Support and opposition to renewable energy developments— particularly wind farms—has received extensive attention from across the social sciences. From the mid-1990s onwards, protests accompanying the development of wind farms attracted increasing interest. This early work tended to problematise opposition and sought ways to explain and overcome it. Since then—and particularly following the illuminating work of Maarten Wolsink in the Netherlands—academics have moved to more fully explore the reasons for support and protest. Rather than trying to remove opposition, the focus has been on the broader context in which people form their values and behaviors. Rather than decide whether protesters are NIMBYs or not, the focus has moved to how categorisations and accusations of NIMBYism are used in wind energy debates, and the effect of such accusations. This leads into the first point about the paper. While it is a useful discussion, it lacks clarity about the definition of the NIMBY claims and the claimants being considered. Feldman and Turner use the term NIMBY very loosely—at times to mean local people, at other times to include all forms of protest. This is not a merely pedantic point about language use. NIMBY is such a notorious and contested term that it cannot simply be used interchangeably for ‘opposition’ or ‘protest’ or any other phrase. Regardless of whether opposing a local development is ethical or not, the term NIMBY is not a neutral descriptor. Indeed, in her seminal and widely cited paper, Burningham (2000) argues that protesters being called ‘NIMBYs’ is a topic for academics to observe, not engage in themselves.

Recentralisation through regionalisation in the implementation of Rural Development Policy in Scotland

In environmental policy, good governance is pertinent when inclusive decision making is recurrently associated with effective outcomes. This paper explores the European Unions good governance principles and the extent to which these have been adopted in the Rural Development Policy in Scotland. For the programme period 2007–2013 Scotlands Rural Priorities scheme has moved towards decentralisation by introducing regional decision-making committees. This study assesses the impact of this scheme on multi-level stakeholder relationships and the implications on policy outcomes. To do so, the study adopts a mixed method approach, applying a stakeholder mapping technique, to quantify perceptions of influence and interest and triangulate with data from in-depth semi-structured interviews. Results indicate that the attempts to widen decision making has resulted in a number of stakeholders perceiving themselves as less empowered. This analytical approach can provide the baseline against which governance improvements can be measured in the formulation of future policies.

The Use of Spatial Econometrics, Stakeholder Analysis and Qualitative Methodologies in The Evaluation of Rural Development Policy

The analysis and evaluation of European Rural Development Policy (RDP) is challenging because of its delivery at multiple scales by multiple actors. To address this challenge the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) indicators were introduced. However, these quantitative indicators are limited by data gaps and their inability to address the less tangible aspects of policy performance. In this paper we explore, how to address these limitations through complimentary policy evaluation approaches using evidence from empirical studies. We discuss the strengths and weakness of applying three different quantitative and qualitative evaluation approaches: (1) spatial econometrics; (2) stakeholder analysis; and, (3) qualitative interviews. The findings from the three methods are then triangulated proposing the potential of an integrated methodological approach to inform policy and management. A mixed method approach provides a broader understanding of how policy design, stakeholders roles, and spatial characteristics impact on implementation and environmental targeting capacity, highlighting the multifaceted nature of the determinants of policy performance.

Community benefits from offshore renewables: The relationship between different understandings of impact, community, and benefit:

This paper presents the findings of a research project evaluating community benefit models for offshore renewables. We identify and analyse UK and international case studies of different forms of community benefit, and provide evidence of how such benefits are delivered. In particular we consider the key relationship between the identification of communities, perception of impact, and the apportionment of benefits. In doing so, we develop a range of different definitions of ‘community’, ‘benefit’, and ‘impact’ when considering community benefits. We propose that the way in which community, benefit, and impact are understood is crucial in determining whether or how benefits should be apportioned and delivered; and that these definitions are closely connected to each other. We develop a new series of typologies as a way to understand this. Finally, we assess different mechanisms and schemes of community benefits to identify good practice and key points of learning for policy and planning.