Against the backdrop of the imperatives for actors within the institutional framework of energy socio-technical systems to engage with the public, the aim of this paper is to consider interdependencies between the principles and practice of engagement and the nature of the imagined publics with whom engagement is being undertaken. Based on an analysis of 19 interviews with actors in the renewable energy industry, the paper explores how publics are imagined in the construction of the rationales, functions and mechanisms for public engagement. Three main themes are identified. First, the perceived necessity of engagement – which is not contingent on public responsiveness. Second, engagement is primarily conceptualised in terms of instrumental motives of providing information and addressing public concern. Third, preferences for engagement mechanisms were often a function of the specific characteristics attributed to imagined publics. Implications of this analysis for future engagement around siting renewable energy technologies are considered.
BlokA.JensenM.KaltoftP. (2008) “Social Identities and Risk: Expert and Lay Imaginations on Pesticide Use,”Public Understanding of Science17(2): 189–209.
5.
BlunkettD. (2003) Building Civil Renewal. London: Civil Renewal Unit, Home Office.
6.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006) “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology,”Qualitative Research in Psychology3: 77–101.
7.
British Wind Energy Association (1994) “Best Practice Guidelines for Wind Energy Development.” London: British Wind Energy Association.
8.
BurchellK. (2007) “Empiricist Selves and Contingent ‘Others’: The Performative Function of the Discourse of Scientists Working in Conditions of Controversy,”Public Understanding of Science16(2): 145–62.
9.
BurninghamK. (2000) “Using the Language of NIMBY: A Topic for Research, Not an Activity for Researchers,”Local Environment5(1): 55–67.
10.
BurninghamK.BarnettJ.ThrushD. (2006) “The Limitations of the NIMBY Concept for Understanding Public Engagement with Renewable Energy Technologies: A Literature Review,” School of Environment and Development, Manchester University, Manchester. URL (consulted 26 October 2009): http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/beyond_nimbyism/
11.
BurninghamK.BarnettJ.CarrA.CliftR.WehrmeyerW. (2007) “Industrial Constructions of Publics and Public Knowledge: A Qualitative Investigation of Practice in the UK Chemicals Industry,”Public Understanding of Science16(1): 23–43.
12.
BurninghamK.BarnettJ.WalkerG. (2008) “Beyond Nimbyism? Conceptions of the Public within the Institutional Network of Renewable Energy Technologies in the UK,”Paper presented at the Royal Geographical Society Annual Conference, London.
13.
Cabinet Office (1999) Modernising Government. London: The Stationery Office.
14.
CassN.WalkerG. (2009) “Emotion and Rationality: The Characterisation and Evaluation of Opposition to Renewable Energy Projects,”Emotion, Space and Society2(1): 62–9.
15.
Civil Renewal Unit (2003) Active Citizens, Strong Communities – Progressing Civil Renewal. London: Home Office.
16.
DaviesS. R. (2008a) “Constructing Communication: Talking to Scientists about Talking to the Public,”Science Communication29(4): 413–34.
17.
DaviesS. R. (2008b) “‘A Bit More Cautious, a Bit More Critical’: Science and the Public in Scientists’ Talk,” in BellA.DaviesS. R.MellorF. (eds) Science and its Publics: Following Scientists into Popular Culture, pp. 15–36. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
18.
DECC (2009) The UK Renewable Energy Strategy. London: The Stationery Office.
19.
Devine-WrightP. (2005) “Beyond NIMBYism: Towards an Integrated Framework for Understanding Public Perceptions of Wind Energy,”Wind Energy8: 125–39.
20.
DTI (2003) Energy White Paper: Our Energy Future – Creating a Low Carbon Economy. London: The Stationery Office.
21.
DTI (2007a) Energy White Paper: Meeting the Energy Challenge. London: The Stationery Office.
22.
DTI (2007b) “The Protocol for Public Engagement with Proposed Wind Energy Developments in England: A Report for the Renewables Advisory Board and DTI.”Centre for Sustainable Energy with BDOR and Peter Capener.
23.
DTI (2007c) “Delivering Community Benefits from Wind Energy Development: A Toolkit. A Report for the Renewables Advisory Board and DTI.”Centre for Sustainable Energy with Garrad Hassan & Partners Ltd, Peter Capener & Bond Pearce LLP. URL: http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file38710.pdf
24.
FiorinoD. (1989) “Environmental Risk and Democratic Process: A Critical Review,”Columbia Journal of Environmental Law14: 501–47.
25.
GregoryJ.AgarJ.LockS.HarrisS. (2007) “Public Engagement with Science in the Private Sector: A New Form of PR?,” in BauerM. W.BucchiM. (eds) Journalism, Science and Society: Science Communication between News and Public Relations, pp. 203–14. London: Routledge.
26.
GrossC. (2007) “Community Perspectives of Wind Energy in Australia: The Application of a Justice and Fairness Framework to Increase Social Acceptance,”Energy Policy35: 2727–36.
27.
HaggettC. (2008) “Over the Sea and Far Away? A Consideration of the Planning, Politics and Public Perception of Offshore Wind Farms,”Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning10(3): 289–306.
28.
HibbingJ. R.Theiss-MorseE. (2002) Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work. New York: Cambridge University Press.
29.
HM Government (2007) White Paper: Planning for a Sustainable Future. London: The Stationery Office.
30.
HoffmanS. N.High-PippertA. (2005) “Community Energy: A Social Architecture for an Alternative Energy Future,”Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society25(5): 387–401.
31.
Horlick-JonesT.WallsJ.RoweG.PidgeonN.PoortingaW.MurdockG.O’RiordanT. (2007) The GM Debate: Risk, Politics and Public Engagement. London: Routledge.
32.
House of Lords (2000) Science and Society. London: The Stationery Office.
33.
IrwinA. (2007) “Public Dialogue and the Scientific Citizen,” in FlynnR.BellabyP. (eds) Risk and the Public Acceptance of New Technologies, pp. 24–40. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
34.
KnightT.BarnettJ. (in press) “Perceived Efficacy and Attitudes towards Genetic Science and Science Governance,”Public Understanding of Science doi: 10.1177/096366250935295210.1177/0963662509352952.
35.
LezaunJ.SonerydL. (2007) “Consulting Citizens: Technologies of Elicitation and the Mobility of Publics,”Public Understanding of Science16: 279–97.
36.
LoringJ. (2007) “Wind Energy Planning in England, Wales and Denmark: Factors Influencing Project Success,”Energy Policy35: 2648–60.
37.
McClymontK.O’HareP. (2008) “‘We’re Not NIMBYs!’ Contrasting Local Protest Groups with Idealised Conceptions of Sustainable Communities,”Local Environment13(4): 321–35.
38.
McComasK. A. (2001) “Theory and Practice of Public Meetings,”Communication Theory11(1): 36–55.
39.
MarantaA.GuggenheimM.GislerP.PohlC. (2003) “The Reality of Experts and the Imagined Lay Person,”Acta Sociologica46(2): 150–65.
40.
MichaelM.BrownN. (2005) “Scientific Citizenships: Self-representation of Xenotransplantation’s Publics,”Science as Culture14(1): 39–57.
41.
National Research Council (NRC) (2008) Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Panel on Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
42.
ODPM (2004) “Planning Policy Statement 22: Planning for Renewables.”London: The Stationery Office.
43.
OwensS. (2000) “Commentary. ‘Engaging the Public’: Information and Deliberation in Environmental Policy,”Environment and Planning A32(7): 1141–8.
44.
OwensS. (2004) “Siting, Sustainable Development and Social Priorities,”Journal of Risk Research7(2): 101–14.
45.
PettsJ. (2008) “Public Engagement to Build Trust: False Hopes?,”Journal of Risk Research11(6): 821–35.
46.
REGENSW (2004) South West Public Engagement Protocol and Guidance for Wind Energy. Exeter: South West Renewable Energy Agency.
47.
RennO. (2006) “Risk Communication: Consumers between Information and Irritation,”Journal of Risk Research9(8): 833–49.
48.
RoweG.FrewerL. J. (2005) “A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms,”Science, Technology, & Human Values30(2): 251–90.
49.
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1998) Setting Environmental Standards. RCEP 21st report. London: HMSO.
50.
SchivelyC. (2007) “Understanding the NIMBY and LULU Phenomena: Reassessing our Knowledge Base and Informing Future Research,”Journal of Planning Literature21(3): 255–66.
51.
SchultzS.BraunK.GriesslerE. (2007) “A Non-Antagonistic Setting, ‘Authentic Publics’ and Moments of Unease.” Participatory Governance and Institutional Innovation [PAGANINI] Contract No. CIT2-CT-2004–505791.
52.
ShellerM. (2004) “Mobile Publics: Beyond the Network Perspective,”Environment and Planning D32: 39–52.
53.
StaeheliL. A.MitchellD. (2007) “Locating the Public in Research and Practice,”Progress in Human Geography31(6): 792–811.
54.
StilgoeJ. (2007) “The (Co-) Production of Public Uncertainty: UK Scientific Advice on Mobile Phone Health Risks,”Public Understanding of Science16(1): 45–61.
55.
StirlingA. (2005) “Opening Up or Closing Down? Analysis, Participation and Power in the Social Appraisal of Technology,” in LeachM.ScoonesI.WynneB. (eds) Science and Citizen: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, pp. 218–31. London: Zed.
56.
United Nations (1998) “Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters,”United Nations ECE/CEP/43, agreed in Aarhus, Denmark, 23–25June.
57.
WalkerG.CassN.BurninghamK.BarnettJ. (2010) “Renewable Energy and Sociotechnical Change: Imagined Subjectivities of ‘the Public’ and their Implications,”Environment and Planning A42(4): 931–47.
58.
WilliamsM. (2004) “Discursive Democracy and New Labour: Five Ways in Which Decision-Makers Manage Citizen Agendas in Public Participation Initiatives,”Sociological Research Online9(3), URL (consulted 26 October 2009): http://www.socresonline.org.uk/9/3/williams.html
WolsinkM. (2006) “Invalid Theory Impedes our Understanding: A Critique on the Persistence of the Language of NIMBY,”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers31(1): 85–91.
61.
WolsinkM. (2007) “Planning of Renewable Schemes: Deliberate and Fair Decision-Making on Landscape Issues Instead of Reproachful Accusations of Non-Cooperation,”Energy Policy35: 2692–704.
62.
WynneB. (2006) “Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science: Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music?,”Community Genetics9(3): 211–20.
63.
WynneB. (2008) “Dazzled by the Mirage of Influence? STS-SSK in Multivalent Registers of Relevance,”Science, Technology, & Human Values32(4): 491–503.
