Public engagement with information on renewable energy developments: The case of single,semi-urban wind turbines

Abstract

This paper explores perceptions of public engagement with information on renewable energy developments. It draws on a case study of proposals by a major supermarket chain to construct single wind turbines in two semi-urban locations in the UK, analysing data from interviews with key actors in the planning process and focus groups with local residents. The paper concludes that key actors often had high expectations of how local people should engage with information, and sometimes implied that members of the public who were incapable of filtering or processing information in an organised or targeted fashion had no productive role to play in the planning process. It shows how the specific nature of the proposals (single wind turbines in semi-urban locations proposed by a commercial private sector developer) shaped local residents’ information needs and concerns in a way that challenged key actors’ expectations of how the public should engage with information.

Keywords

commercial semi-urban wind information key actors’ expectations local residents’ perceptions public engagement

1. Introduction

The Climate Change Act 2008 set a target for the UK government to achieve an 80% reduction in CO₂ emissions by 2050, as against 1990 levels (Office of Public Sector Information, 2008). As a step towards meeting this target, the UK contribution to the December 2008 European Union agreement will require the UK to generate 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. Despite the likely dominance of offshore wind energy in meeting such commitments, other sources will inevitably feature in the UK’s overall renewable energy “portfolio,” particularly onshore wind in rural areas and biomass, but increasingly also urban or semi-urban renewable energy generation, including wind.

There clearly exists commercial interest in the generation of urban or semi-urban wind power in the UK, and as this paper explores, this includes supermarkets. In 2007, ASDA, a major supermarket chain, announced its intention for its entire estate of over 345 stores and distribution depots to be supplied by 100% renewable energy, with a medium-term goal of reducing the energy requirements of its existing stores and distribution centres across the UK by 20% by 2012 as compared to 2005 (ASDA, 2009). The proximity of buildings and geographical constraints presented by urban or semi-urban sites selected for wind energy developments means that a greater number of people – residents as well as workers, pedestrians and road users – are likely to be affected. Peel and Lloyd (2007) note the relative novelty of planning for wind energy in the urban context:

The parameters of the urban context differ from the rural counterpart, in terms of landscape, the relative concentration of population, and the mix of uses, and the cumulative impacts of existing developments. (2007: 344)

Furthermore, local people may require a more complex set of information than in the case of rural wind farms. The specificity of the information required may be further compounded where the developer is a known supermarket chain (Evans et al., 2011).

This paper will draw on the findings of a case study carried out in 2008 as part of an ESRC-funded research project¹ to explore the specificity of the information required by local residents and whether key actors in the process recognised this. The case study involved proposals by ASDA to erect single, 125 metre high, two megawatt wind turbines at two of its distribution centres as part of a pilot phase in which ASDA planned to install wind turbines at six of its distribution centres. The process, including community engagement, was longer and more complex than ASDA had predicted.

Before turning to the case study findings from the interviews with key actors and focus groups with local residents to explore and compare their perceptions and expectations of the information delivery process, the paper will review the literature on public engagement with climate change generally, and with renewable energy in particular. This will provide a context in which to explore public engagement with information on a relatively new type of Renewable Energy Technology (RET) – semi-urban, single wind turbines, as opposed to wind farms – proposed by a specific type of developer – private sector (supermarket chain) company.

2. Public engagement with information

Information on climate change

The last decade has seen a government emphasis on engaging the public in scientific developments, including increasingly issues relating to energy use and supply, chiefly through the provision of information. Lorenzoni et al. (2007) demonstrate how efforts by the UK government, including the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000), have tended to concentrate on the provision of scientifically sound information as a way of educating the public, changing behaviour and gaining support for policy. This approach is referred to as the “deficit model,” and has been criticised as being inadequate due to other contextual factors that influence how this information is treated (Irwin and Wynne, 1996; Sturgis and Allum, 2004; Lorenzoni et al., 2007). Also, Lorenzoni and Pidgeon (2006) emphasise the need for climate change debate “to be situated in people’s locality, as a means of increasing its saliency” (2006: 75).

Research has also emphasised the importance of trust in the source of information. Sundblad et al. (2009) see the source from which knowledge is acquired, and the effort used to acquire correct knowledge, as central elements of individuals’ levels of confidence in their own knowledge about climate change issues. Other research has shown that university scientists and social networks are the sources most trusted by laypersons for providing information on climate change (Poortinga and Pidgeon, 2003; MORI, 2005; Lorenzoni et al., 2007: 452).

A further complexity as to how the public deal with information on climate change is suggested by Lorenzoni and Hulme (2009), who argue that people will question the research behind climate change if the results clash with their own beliefs. They thus emphasise the need for information on climate change to be “tailored to publics according to their segmentation of beliefs and attitudes” (2009: 396).

Other work has focused on the need to present the benefits of responding to climate change in terms which the public are most likely to relate to. For example, the Institute for Public Policy Research (2009) highlights the need for campaigns for public behaviour change to be presented principally in money-saving terms, rather than in terms of their benefit to the environment. MacKay (2008) argues that in order to be meaningful to the public, information on climate change issues, and particularly energy consumption, should be expressed in quantitative terms, using personal units to illustrate quantities, for example quantities per person in kilowatt-hours to express the energy consumption of domestic appliances (2008: 24).

Research on scientific literacy has found that understanding of the impact of science and technology on individuals and society is rarely addressed (Miller, 1998). Leggett and Finlay (2001: 159) argue that most surveys fail to explore “the complex processes whereby such knowledge is interpreted in context and applied to daily living,” thus “underestimat[ing] the understanding of those who are excluded by the language.” Indeed, Lorenzoni et al. (2007) see public engagement not solely as a process of public participation in policymaking, but rather as “an individual state of involvement in climate change at cognitive, affective and behavioural levels” (2007: 456). They identify, in addition to perceived social barriers to individual engagement with climate change, individual barriers, all of which centre on information, for example lack of knowledge about where to find information, and confusion about conflicting information or partial evidence (2007: 451).

The literature on trust identifies an “asymmetry principle” whereby trust in scientific information is easier to destroy than to build (Slovic, 1993). This is most commonly explained by the fact that negative information is more informative than positive information (Poortinga and Pidgeon, 2004). Siegrist and Cvetkovich (2001) demonstrate that people have more confidence in negative information than positive information, which they label the “negativity bias” (see also White et al., 2003). This section will now move on to review understanding of public engagement with information on renewable energy.

Information on renewable energy

A report by the Department of Trade and Industry et al. (2003: 1) found that, despite “some concerns, particularly regarding the visual impact and noise from wind, hydropower and wave schemes, as well as emissions from biomass plants,” there is widespread acceptance by the UK public of the need to develop renewable energy in the UK. Nonetheless, opposition to specific renewable energy developments is common.

The concept of “Nimbyism” (“not in my back yard” attitudes) has been used to explain public opposition to local land-use developments, including renewable energy schemes. “Nimbyism” follows the deficit model of public understanding and sees the public as having insufficient or incorrect knowledge, leading to a perceived ignorant or irrational response (usually opposition) to a development in their locality. However, the Nimby label, as applied to opposition to renewable energy developments, has been increasingly rejected in the literature (Dear, 1992; Petts, 1997; Burningham et al., 2006). Devine-Wright (2008: 446) suggests that there is “limited evidence that more informed individuals are more accepting of renewable energy technologies,” but comments that nevertheless, many organisations assume that more favourable public attitudes to RETs can be achieved through awareness raising, “as evidenced by attempts to make the technologies more familiar to individuals through site visits, information provision and photomontages.”

Information on wind energy

Despite the carbon neutral and generally positive nature of wind power relative to other energy technologies (Warren et al., 2005; Cherryman et al., 2008), many commentators note that the development of wind power remains controversial in many countries. Toke and Strachan (2006: 155) state that: “Wind power has emerged as both a solution to environmental problems and an environmental problem in itself in the UK.” The primary arguments used to oppose wind farm developments include concerns about visual impact and noise (DTI et al., 2003), as well as impacts on flora and fauna, and intermittent electricity generation (Devine-Wright and Devine-Wright, 2006).

Haggett and Toke (2006) cite a number of issues around public acceptance of and concerns about the siting of wind turbines. These include the local context, the attitudes of landscape protection groups, and the recommendations of local authority planning officers. For Warren et al. (2005: 859), a key policy problem is the lack of consistency of national government policy on wind energy that creates uncertainty for planners, developers and local communities. This uncertainty can fuel distrust among local people in the developer and their motives, and thus in the information that they provide. Warren et al. (2005) further suggest that opposition by local residents arises in part from exaggerated perceptions of likely impact, thus highlighting the need for the acquisition and dissemination of “reliable information.”

Ellis et al. (2009: 525) note that, in the context of wind energy planning, “the use of knowledge is set within a context of social relations which in any given situation may confer priority on any particular type of knowledge or knowledge-holder,” including the public. This echoes Rydin’s (2007: 55) view of planning as a medium of handling “multiple knowledges,” recognising the potential for different, and sometimes competing, interpretations of information by different actors in the planning process – developers, planners, local groups and the public.

Information provision in context

Despite the wealth of research on public engagement with science and with information on climate change and renewable energy, social science research has increasingly come to recognise that scientific information on its own offers only a weak motivation for people to change their behaviour (Lorenzoni and Hulme, 2009). This disparity between public awareness about climate change and limited behavioural response to it has become known as the “value-action” or “attitude-behaviour” gap (Blake, 1999; Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). Studies have also explored the “attitude-behaviour” gap in relation to specific environmental behaviours such as consumer buying (Hargreaves et al., 2008).

Developing the notion of the “attitude-behaviour” gap, Bell et al. (2005) use the term “individual gap” to describe instances where an individual supports wind energy generally, but opposes a particular wind energy development, opposition which has commonly been attributed to “Nimbyist” responses. Likewise, Wolsink (2007) comments that public attitudes towards wind power generally are fundamentally different from attitudes towards specific wind farms, and this gap causes misunderstandings about the nature of public support for RETs (also see Eltham et al., 2008). He further argues that lack of success in the implementation of wind turbine schemes may be in part due to poor communication. In contrast, Ellis et al. (2009: 528) note that “ignorance is rarely a source of opposition” to wind power proposals. They comment on the distinction between specific wind farm debates that may be fuelled by “disagreements over empirical ‘facts,’” and the “social acceptability of wind farms [which] is inextricably linked to values, world views and the way localities are related to the wider global environment.”

While the “attitude-behaviour” gap symbolises a significant new approach to public engagement in scientific and environmental issues, information delivery is still a key element of engaging local residents in planning proposals for renewable energy developments, as gaining public acceptance of renewable energy developments in people’s locality does not require people to change their behaviour in the way that other environmental campaigns, such as recycling, require. Nor does it depend on raising people’s awareness of the need for, or benefits of, renewable energy per se, given generally positive public attitudes to this. Rather, it depends on equipping people with sufficient and trustworthy information on the potential implications of the specific proposal for their locality, to enable them to make an informed judgement on the proposal. Only then can they legitimately take action appropriate to their judgement, including joining an opposition or support group, to register their judgement and have their views represented.

The paper will now outline the research questions which it aims to answer, and the method employed, before analysing the case study findings.

3. Research questions and method

This paper aims to explore the factors surrounding public engagement with information on a relatively new type of RET – semi-urban wind – proposed by a specific type of developer – a supermarket chain. In the light of the literature review above, this exploration includes consideration of the following research questions:

What do local government officers and the developer see as the purpose of informing the public?

How is information treated by local residents, and does this treatment fit with the expectations of key actors?

The method used to answer the research questions is a case study of proposals by ASDA to erect single, large-scale wind turbines at two of its distribution centres at Falkirk and Northampton. The case study involved a range of methods: interviews were conducted with key actors involved in the process, representing local government, the developer and the opposition group in the case of Northampton; focus groups were held with local residents; and a questionnaire survey was conducted among larger numbers of people in the local areas. This paper draws on the data from the interviews with key actors and the focus groups with local residents.

The interview data come from interviews conducted with two planning officers and the Property Communications Managers for ASDA in each location. These six respondents were selected as they were responsible for providing local people with information on the proposals and guiding local politicians towards an outcome.

The focus group data come from two focus groups conducted with local residents in each location. Each of the four focus groups was facilitated by the authors, lasted two hours and involved up to ten participants. The participants were recruited using an expert in focus group recruitment, external to the project. This recruiter was provided with details of the area from which to recruit (a number of specific streets in Falkirk nearest to the proposed site, mainly social housing, and the three affluent villages closest to the site in the Northampton case), and was asked to recruit an equal number of men and women, and people from different age brackets. Thus the focus group participants represent the general public rather than specific groups.

The facilitators led the focus group discussions to gain insight into participants’ perceptions of ASDA’s proposals. The focus group data serve to shed light on what type of questions local people were asking, how they acquired information, how they interpreted information they had acquired, and how they felt about seeking information from and presenting concerns to key actors – the developer and planners in particular. In the presentation of the case study findings, focus group participants are given pseudonyms for the purposes of ensuring anonymity. The location of the focus groups is indicated (Falkirk or Northampton), and in the case of Northampton, “GH” is added for the focus group held in the closest village to the proposed site, Great Houghton, as proximity clearly affected the strength of feeling of many participants.

The selected empirical data will allow us to consider two distinct perspectives – respondents responsible for the production of knowledge about the proposal on the one hand, and local residents who were receiving and interpreting the information on the other. Local elected members in Falkirk and the local opposition group in Northampton were also interviewed for the research, but their perspectives are not included in this paper as our prime focus is the perspectives of those providing the “knowledge,” and of the public.

The next section gives a brief overview of the planning process in each case to provide a context for considering the data, before moving on to analyse the case study findings.

4. Background to the case study

The Falkirk proposal

In January 2007, ASDA submitted a planning application to Falkirk Council to erect a single, two megawatt wind turbine, 125 metres high from base to blade tip, at their chilled distribution depot in Falkirk, which would supply up to 75% of the depot’s energy needs. After submitting the application, the company undertook public engagement, including two public exhibitions to which local residents were invited by letter. Leaflets with feedback forms were available at the exhibitions. The local newspaper, the Falkirk Herald, ran an online poll on its website to which 83% of respondents replied in support of the proposal (interview data).

However, despite only two written objections from local residents and support from planning officers, the planning application was rejected in December 2007 on the grounds of visual impact, failure to demonstrate alternative options with less impact, and lack of tangible benefits to the community. ASDA appealed the decision, but following discussions with planning officers and elected members, resubmitted the application in June 2008, this time including provision for community benefits² and addressing the concern that alternative technologies had not been fully researched. Following resubmission, the developer undertook enhanced public engagement, including local media coverage, an additional press release, and an information leaflet sent to local residents. The resubmitted application was approved in October 2008.³

The Northampton proposal

ASDA began pre-application discussions with West Northampton Development Corporation (WNDC) in 2007 on a proposal to construct a wind turbine, identical to the one proposed in Falkirk, at their distribution depot in Brackmills industrial estate outside Northampton. According to ASDA, the turbine would generate 100% of the depot’s energy. ASDA engaged the local community by sending letters to residents in the nearby village of Great Houghton, which overlooks the proposed site, inviting them to a public exhibition. However, a communications error occurred which resulted in the letters failing to reach certain sections of the local population (interview and focus group data).

There were some objections to the proposal from residents in the nearby village of Great Houghton, supported by Great Houghton Parish Council (GHPC) which acted as the local opposition group to the project. GHPC succeeded in delaying submission of the application by referring to Northampton Borough Council’s Local Plan, in which the recommended maximum height for construction was 25 metres. When the planning application, which included details of proposed community benefits,⁴ was submitted, planning officers recommended approval. However, a number of issues were raised at the first planning meeting, including visual impact and safety. GHPC pointed out that the application had overlooked the existence of a public footpath within ten metres of the proposed site, which was contrary to the guidelines in the relevant Planning Policy Statement (PPS 22).

The planning authority delayed its decision in order to consider this point, and subsequently approved the proposal, on the grounds that there was a precedent for urban wind turbine developments being approved elsewhere in the UK (interview data). However, the planning committee ultimately refused the application on the grounds that the risk assessment did not cover bird kill or fire. ASDA has not appealed this decision, partly due to a nearby wind turbine incident two months later, which further fuelled concern over safety (BBC News Cambridgeshire, 2008).

5. Evidence from the case study

Key actors’ perceptions of local residents’ engagement with information

Data from interviews with the developer and planning officers in the two locations suggest that members of the public were sometimes expected to be able to categorise questions or concerns, to target questions to different actors or fora, and to be factually accurate in how they presented their concerns or objections. For example, a planning officer in Falkirk commented that the concern raised by local people in written objections about the impact of the proposed turbine on property values “unfortunately isn’t a planning issue.” He referred to a concern raised by local councillors on behalf of local residents at a planning meeting about the possibility of ASDA over-generating electricity and selling this back to the National Grid, and dismissed this concern in the same way, categorising it as “a commercial issue,” apparently implying that this matter was not of public concern. He further suggested that public concern raised in a written objection about insufficient wind in the area was inaccurate. He concluded that “the knowledge that has been indicated to us . . . may be at best anecdotal – it was just wrong.” A planning officer in Northampton held a similar perception of the public as capable of steering the planning process in the wrong direction by raising “peripheral” issues that detract from the central, more “straightforward” issues:

Planning is very good at dealing with visual impact of, impact on amenities or, you know, the kind of technical issues associated with facilities like this. And they’re central to the kind of consideration process. And I think what then happens . . . is a kind of a secondary round of all sorts of peripheral matters are raised which are more in the line of trying to pick away or undermine the planning decision. (interview data)

He saw this tendency as true of the planning process generally, rather than just for renewable energy.

ASDA’s Property Communications Manager in Northampton commented on local people’s lack of awareness of the planning process, and particularly of the role of the WNDC (interview data), while a planning officer there commented on local people’s inability to understand “the weighting of policy”:

. . . people are alleging bias in the planning officer’s report and so on, because of the way that they feel that we’ve responded to the concerns around visual impact and so on. And I think fundamentally, too, one of the difficulties that people tend to misunderstand, which is the relationship and the weighting of policy and the definition of the public interest, which is a consistent problem. (interview data)

This implies that local residents should be able to identify the correct forum for raising each specific issue, and to distinguish central issues from peripheral ones, and that by not succeeding in doing so, local residents are hampering decision-making processes. The implication is that anyone who is not sufficiently “au fait” with the planning process and capable of processing information and targeting concerns has no productive role to play in the planning process.

ASDA’s Property Communications Manager in Falkirk felt that the wider benefits of the proposal in terms of tackling climate change were “not an obvious benefit, people don’t see the benefits of that.” Her counterpart in Northampton echoed this view, and further felt that people’s interpretation of information about a proposal was likely to be affected by their proximity to the proposed site, with those living closest to the site interpreting it most negatively. He also felt that the timing of information delivery to the public about the nature of the proposed development, the reasons for and benefits of it, and the likely visual impact, was crucial. He used the Northampton proposal as an example of bad timing of information delivery:

Once again, at Brackmills we should have done the photo montages early, we should have gone into the parish council very early on and we should have said, “look, this is what we’re proposing to do” . . . you know, and to try and build a sort of partnership and make changes if necessary. I think as a result of people not knowing at the beginning, you are in danger of losing trust. (interview data)

This respondent recognised the importance of building trust and “partnerships” with local residents, and his own capacity to do so, and was reflective about his role in framing and presenting information. His counterpart in Falkirk recognised the different “knowledges” that exist among different actors in the planning process when she spoke of sharing knowledge of wind turbine planning “with other retailers and other people dealing with similar large buildings.” She also referred to ASDA having to use planning consultants with “technical knowledge about how the wind turbine works, and exactly what would happen . . .”

ASDA’s Property Communications Manager in Falkirk saw the ultimate purpose of informing the public as providing them with the opportunity to contribute to the proposal, as well as ensuring trust by local people in the developer. The planning officers in Northampton felt that the key point of involving the public was to inform them:

The role of the pre-application consultation is firstly to highlight the ambition and to raise awareness of the scale or implications in order that people can be informed. It isn’t actually to seek their permission, essentially, for proceeding with the project.

You know, these [wind turbines] do evoke quite strong opinions in people and inherently . . . some people are always going to be opposed to it. So there’s only so much you can do to kind of inform them and try and win them over in terms of putting your opinion forward. (interview data)

The latter respondent saw a more ambitious potential end goal of informing the public than the former.

ASDA’s Property Communications Manager in Falkirk saw two key purposes of providing information about the proposal to the public. The first was to avoid “rumours,” which she felt could happen easily with wind turbines, given their controversial nature. A planning officer in Northampton also emphasised the need to provide sufficient information to avoid “scaremongering”:

. . . to try and clarify and be clear about what weight they’re assigning to this level of risk or this . . . At the moment all we have is scaremongering and implied risk. What I wanted . . . is to demonstrate how the planning process . . . gives proper and appropriate consideration to that matter rather than just says, which in my experience just winds people up further, well that’s not very important, we’re happy with it. (interview data)

He demonstrated an openness to consider all questions raised by local people to this end.

The second purpose of providing information about the proposal to the public put forward by ASDA’s Property Communications Manager in Falkirk was to engender support for the project: “We want to have a positive influence on the area, and we want to have local people who support what we’re doing” (interview data). Her counterpart in Northampton saw the outcome of the Northampton proposal as a direct result of the information delivered to local residents: “You could regard the level of opposition to it as a good measure of how diligently we promoted the scheme – but maybe went the wrong way of explaining it” (interview data). While the former respondent saw information delivery as engendering support, the latter saw it as potentially engendering opposition if not delivered in the right way.⁵

Local residents’ concerns about wind power and the proposed developments

Focus group participants expressed their need or desire for information in a variety of ways. Some asked specific questions, for example about the technical aspects of wind energy, or about specific implications of the proposed scheme for their local area. Others put forward assumptions that they had made or pieces of information that they had gathered, grasping the opportunity to clarify or confirm this “knowledge.” Some focus group participants were critical of the clarity of information coming from the developer, while others questioned the credibility of the information being imparted from developers and local government about the proposed developments.

The question of how they could make judgements as to whether information was factually correct and impartial was discussed at length at the focus group held in Great Houghton, particularly in relation to information distributed by the developer about the proposal at public meetings and exhibitions. Some participants emphasised the need for “balanced” and “objective” information from reliable sources:

If there was some research done that everyone could point at that was kind of neutral, and everybody knew that that was the definitive results for wind energy, or something like that, and that could then be used whenever there was a planning application, but it feels like anyone can just pull any information from a different source. (Eric, Northampton GH)

This participant emphasised the need for objective information that can be used in any wind energy planning application. However, this interest in statistical information was not shared by all participants. Some felt that the statistics that they were given at public meetings were of a very general nature:

When I came to the meeting that they had here, and one of the things I found, and they had a lot of statistics about wind and throughput and noise and all the rest of it, but they didn’t have any information about what it was going to be like here. It was very much kind of, that’s what it’s like in general . . . (David, Northampton GH)

This participant felt that no research had been done about the local people or local area in this case, emphasising the need for information that is specific to the locality in each individual case.

There was some discussion in the focus groups about the difficulties for the public in accessing sufficient information to make an informed decision about the proposed developments, and particularly in finding objective information when conducting personal research on the Internet for example. One participant in Great Houghton had attended the public exhibition, but still felt insufficiently informed to be able to support the proposal, resulting in him deciding “to take the risk-averse view, which is best to block it, because I really don’t know whether it’s going to be better for me or not” (David, Northampton GH).

Much of the knowledge or assumptions expressed about wind power generally had been acquired from television, from the press, and from visual experiences such as driving past wind farms or seeing wind turbines being transported on lorries. Focus group participants raised a number of questions about the safety of wind turbines, particularly given the scale of the ones proposed in their localities, and wanted to know how the height compared to familiar structures such as the Falkirk Wheel. Participants felt that such questions could have been easily addressed by the developer using scale models of the proposed turbines. Some questions were raised about the viability of the schemes in those particular locations, for example would a single turbine be effective, would the turbine work all the time, would there be enough wind in those locations, and was wind power the best renewable energy option for those sites.

Another point which generated discussion in Falkirk was the proportion of carbon savings which would result from the proposed turbine. One participant expressed a need for statistical information about carbon savings, so that she could understand the projected carbon savings from the proposed turbine as a proportion of the distribution centre’s current carbon emissions (Julie, Falkirk). This supports MacKay’s (2008) contention that information needs to be presented in quantitative terms. However, another participant felt that statistical information about projected carbon savings would not be of interest “because you’re not benefiting out of it” (Helen, Falkirk). The implication here is that she does not perceive carbon savings as a benefit to the public, supporting Lorenzoni and Pidgeon’s (2006: 77) finding that climate change tends to be of secondary importance to the public vis-à-vis other environmental, personal and social issues.

Indeed, focus group participants were keen to have answers from the developer to a range of non-technical questions about the “ethics” of the proposals. The issue of who would benefit from the proposed turbines generated much discussion in both locations, demonstrating that local residents needed, along with factual and technical information, to know exactly who would benefit from the proposed turbines. Some participants had been hitherto unaware that the electricity generated by the turbines would be used only to power the distribution centres and would not benefit local residents.

Of even greater concern was who would benefit from the financial savings from the energy produced by the turbines (Bob, Eric, Frank, Northampton), with some cynicism expressed about government grants to assist ASDA in financing the schemes (Eric, Northampton). Some participants in Great Houghton questioned the ethics of ASDA being the sole financial beneficiary and extolling the environmental virtues of the proposal:

Anne:

Isn’t there something morally and ethically wrong with something that says we’re doing this because we can enhance the future of the world, but we’re actually only doing it because we want to make a buck out of it.

Eric:

Absolutely.

Doris:

We have to protest on those grounds as well. (Northampton GH)

These participants felt that it was necessary for them as local residents to communicate their ethical concerns about the proposals to the planning committee, but were certain that this concern would not affect the committee’s decision.

Participants were particularly interested in ASDA’s motives for proposing the schemes. One motive suggested by participants was the financial gain to be made by ASDA from selling excess electricity to the National Grid. Another was the advantage of marketing itself as “green” (Craig, Northampton GH). Some sought evidence that the proposals were part of a genuine environmental effort on the part of the developer, rather than simply a “green exercise” or a “publicity stunt,” and wanted to know more about the developer’s strategy in relation to environmental issues and renewable energy in particular: “It’s where it fits into . . . ASDA’s overall strategy of what they’re doing?” (Donald, Northampton). Such scepticism about whether ASDA was genuinely concerned with tackling climate change was sometimes bolstered by suggestions that wind turbines may have some environmental disadvantages: “I’ve heard arguments about windmills being actually, or wind turbines not being that kind of green” (Ian, Falkirk). Such non-technical information would appear to be available directly from the developer itself, but due to the sensitive nature of these issues, may have been more credible if delivered by a third party. One participant (Andrew, Northampton GH) also wanted more information on the government’s agenda in relation to climate change, and in relation to renewable energy in particular.

Many focus group participants asked specific questions about the cost-effectiveness of the proposed developments, as they felt that if they were to have a wind turbine in their area, they needed to know that it was cost-effective, even if the financial savings would not benefit them. However, others felt that whether or not the schemes were financially beneficial to the developer was irrelevant to them as individuals.

Questions were also asked about the community engagement strategy employed by the developer, particularly which geographical area or which households were included in this, and where the proposed projects had been advertised. One participant in Falkirk pinpointed the key barrier to acceptance of the proposal as being the uncertainty: “I’m happy for it to go ahead, but it’s just obviously it’s something new, something that’s going to change and it’s like everything else, it’s just the uncertainty . . .” (Hilda, Falkirk). This uncertainty was undoubtedly all the greater due to the “newness” of the type of proposal – the semi-urban context and the developer being a supermarket chain.

6. Conclusions

The paper will now return to the research questions put forward earlier from the literature review, and consider these in relation to the case study analysis.

The first research question was how key actors see the purpose of informing the public. Informing the public was seen by all interview respondents as the key purpose of public engagement. However, while some saw informing the public as an end in itself, others hoped that information delivery would help to engender support among local people for the proposals. Further anticipated outcomes of informing the public were avoiding “rumours” and building trust in the developer. ASDA’s Property Communications Manager in Northampton went further in aiming to provide local people with the opportunity to contribute to the proposal.

While one planning officer in Northampton demonstrated openness to considering all questions or concerns put forward by local people, others were critical of residents’ engagement with information, chiefly their inability to filter or process information in an organised or targeted fashion. It appears that local residents were comfortable making comments and asking questions in the company of other local people and university researchers in the focus groups. However, in other fora, such as public meetings or exhibitions, they may have feared appearing ignorant, or being told that it was not the appropriate forum for certain questions to be asked, a notion supported by interview responses from some actors. Such perceptions or fears among local people may deter them from participating in consultation, and thus hinder two-way communication between actors (planners and the developer) and local people. It is clear that some respondents were not prepared to handle “multiple knowledges” in the planning process, when it came to knowledge held by local residents which they perceived as inaccurate or irrelevant, although the two Communications Managers for the developer were clearly aware that “multiple knowledges” did exist.

The second research question was how local residents interpret information (Lorenzoni et al., 2007) and whether this treatment fits with key actors’ expectations. Focus group discussions were largely shaped by the fact that the developer was a private sector company: participants were curious to know exactly who would benefit from the proposed schemes, both in terms of the energy produced and the financial savings, and what the developer’s motives for proposing the schemes were. Some participants were also interested in how cost-effective the schemes were likely to be, even when they saw ASDA as the sole beneficiary. These concerns among local residents, and particularly the “ethical” concerns expressed by some focus group participants in Great Houghton, support Wolsink’s (2007) contention that feelings about equity and fairness are the key determinants of opposition, rather than selfishness, or indeed ignorance (Ellis et al., 2009), or exaggerated perceptions of likely impact (Warren et al., 2005). Most key actors did not appear to be aware of local residents’ need for reassurance or clarity on this specific issue, despite the fact that the developer was a private sector company.

The evidence suggests that focus group participants, while they had concerns for example about the safety of the proposed turbines given their height and the semi-urban locations, were open to new information which would enable them to put such concerns in a more positive light. The research in Northampton suggests that concerns and negativity were greater among residents living in the village closest to the proposed site. This was mainly expressed in discussion about the need for trustworthy and “objective” information in the Great Houghton focus group, suggesting that provision of information was more crucial to those residents than to residents living further away from the proposed site. It is clear that different “publics” may have different levels of knowledge about renewable energy and specific renewable energy proposals.

Osborne Clarke’s (2005) suggestion that securing planning permission for green energy in industrial brownfield sites “is significantly easier than in the usual favoured [rural] locations” is disputed not only by the planning processes in the cases presented here, but also by the concerns expressed by focus group participants. The case of ASDA as a major supermarket, well established in both areas, appears to add a further dynamic to the picture, in terms of both expectations about how the company should be acting (having regard to local people, its customers), and scepticism about its corporate environmental credentials.

While it is widely recognised in the literature that the provision of scientific information is not the only prerequisite for behaviour change, it is worth asking what behaviour change means to those involved in renewable energy developments. Does it mean becoming more accepting of proposals for developments wherever they may be, or does it simply mean engaging in the planning process in a way which will ensure that one’s judgement on the proposal will be fully informed? The discussions among focus group participants suggest that local people, particularly in Great Houghton, were keen to be able to make “fully informed” decisions, and some felt that only if they were fully informed could they feel equipped to support the proposal. While there is no guarantee that the provision of “complete,” “balanced” and “objective” information to local residents in Great Houghton would have led more people there to support the proposal, it is clear that, particularly where there were such strong concerns about equity and fairness given that the developer was a major supermarket, it was crucial that local people did not feel that they were in any way being deceived or misled by the developer not keeping them fully informed.

This research suggests that local people tended to trust information coming from informal sources, perhaps because they felt that such sources were more likely to provide “objective” and “balanced” information. Aspects of the case study support some of the literature on knowledge about climate change generally, for example the importance of “trust in other societal actors” (Lorenzoni and Pidgeon, 2006: 77). Perhaps more “neutral” information could be provided by “expert” and “trustworthy” sources such as researchers. It is also likely that local people saw the researchers as objective “experts” about renewable and wind energy generally, and also about the likely implications of a development of this kind. However, there was clearly a need for a similarly-perceived objective “expert” on the specific proposal and its implications for the specific area, during the public engagement phase. There may be a role for government in providing such an independent “expert” on specific proposals, preferably someone familiar with the local area.

The research findings reported here thus support the evidence in the literature of a shift towards recognition for the planning process to be more “human.” That is, not only does it need to involve the public, and to be aware of the specifics of each local context, but it also needs to take account of how local residents react to the way the information is delivered and by whom, as well as how pre-existing knowledge among local residents may affect their interpretation of the new information being delivered.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The research reported in this paper was carried out for a project entitled “Beyond Nimbyism: A multidisciplinary investigation of public engagement with renewable energy technologies,” funded by the ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council), grant reference RES-152-25-1008. The project began in January 2006 and ended in May 2009, with the case studies conducted between April and November 2008. The project was part of the “Towards a Sustainable Energy Economy” (TSEC) programme, a cross-disciplinary fund administered by the ESRC. The authors also wish to thank all those who participated in the case study in Falkirk and Northampton.

Notes

Author biographies

J. M. Parks is Research Associate at the Sustainable Cities Research Institute, Northumbria University. Her research interests lie in the field of identity, place, and community engagement, particularly in relation to renewable energy developments and environmental behaviours.

K. S. Theobald is Reader at the Sustainable Cities Research Institute, Northumbria University. Her research interests are: local governance in relation to sustainable development in both the UK and Europe; local government responses to the climate change agenda; public engagement with renewable energy technologies; and the role of social housing in delivering low/zero carbon housing.

References

ASDA (2009) URL (consulted October 2009): http://your.asda.com/sustainability-policies

BBC News Cambridgeshire (2008) Ice shards rain down from turbine. 3 December. URL (consulted December 2008): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/7763816.stm

Bell

Gray

Haggett

(2005) The “social gap” in wind farm siting decisions: Explanations and policy responses. Environmental Politics 14(4): 460–477.

Blake

(1999) Overcoming the “value-action gap” in environmental policy: Tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environment 4: 257–278.

Burningham

Barnett

Thrush

(2006) The limitations of the NIMBY concept for understanding public engagement with renewable energy technologies: A literature review. Manchester: School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester. URL (consulted October 2009): http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/beyond_nimbyism/

Cherryman

King

Hawkes

Dinsdale

Hawkes

(2008) An exploratory study of public opinions on the use of hydrogen energy in Wales. Public Understanding of Science 17(3): 397–410.

Dear

(1992) Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association 58(3): 288–300.

Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Scottish Executive et al. (2003) Attitudes and Knowledge of Renewable Energy amongst the General Public: Report of Findings. London: TNS. URL (consulted July 2006): http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/policy_pdfs/nationalreport.pdf

Devine-Wright

(2008) Reconsidering public acceptance of renewable energy technologies: A critical review. In: Grubb

Jamasb

Pollitt

(eds) Delivering a Low Carbon Electricity System: Technologies, Economics and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 443–461.

10.

Devine-Wright

(2006) Social representations of intermittency and the shaping of public support for wind energy in the UK. Global Energy Issues 25(3/4): 243–256.

11.

Ellis

Cowell

Warren

Strachan

Szarka

(2009) Expanding wind power: A problem of planning, or of perception? (Interface). Planning Theory and Practice 10(4): 521–547.

12.

Eltham

Harrison

Allen

(2008) Change in public attitudes towards a Cornish wind farm. Energy Policy 36(1): 23–33.

13.

Evans

Parks

Theobald

(2011) Urban wind power and the private sector: Community benefits, social acceptance and public engagement. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 54(2): 227–244.

14.

Haggett

Toke

(2006) Crossing the great divide: Using multi-method analysis to understand opposition to windfarms. Public Administration 84(1): 103–120.

15.

Hargreaves

Nye

Burgess

(2008) Social experiments in sustainable consumption: An evidence-based approach with potential for engaging low-income communities. Local Environment 13(8): 743–758.

16.

House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000) Science and Society: Third Report of the Session 1999–2000. London: HMSO.

17.

Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) (2009) Consumer Power: How the Public Thinks Lower-carbon Behaviour Could Be Made Mainstream. London: IPPR.

18.

Irwin

Wynne

, eds (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

19.

Kollmuss

Agyeman

(2002) Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour? Environmental Education Research 8: 239–260.

20.

Leggett

Finlay

(2001) Science, story and image: A new approach to crossing the communication barrier posed by scientific jargon. Public Understanding of Science 10(2): 151–171.

21.

Lorenzoni

Hulme

(2009) Believing is seeing: Laypeople’s views of future socio-economic and climate change in England and Italy. Public Understanding of Science 18(4): 383–400.

22.

Lorenzoni

Pidgeon

(2006) Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Climatic Change 77(1–2): 73–95.

23.

Lorenzoni

Nicholson-Cole

Whitmarsh

(2007) Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change 17: 445–459.

24.

MacKay

(2008) Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air. Cambridge: UIT.

25.

Miller

(1998) The measure of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science 7(3): 203–223.

26.

MORI (2005) Science in Society: Findings from Qualitative and Quantitative Research. London: MORI.

27.

Office of Public Sector Information (2008) The Climate Change Act (2008). URL (consulted July 2010): http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=climate+change&Year=2008

28.

Osborne Clarke (2005) Wind-Power: Green Energy from Brown Land. London: Osborne Clarke. URL: http://www.energy-online.net/stories/articles/-/energy_procurement/purchasing_gas_electricity/green_energy_from_brown_land/

29.

Peel

Lloyd

(2007) Positive planning for wind-turbines in an urban context. Local Environment 12(4): 343–354.

30.

Petts

(1997) The public-expert interface in local waste management decisions: Expertise, credibility and process. Public Understanding of Science 6(4): 359–381.

31.

Poortinga

Pidgeon

(2003) Public Perceptions of Risk, Science and Governance: Main Findings of a British Survey of Five Risk Cases. Norwich: University of East Anglia and MORI.

32.

Poortinga

Pidgeon

(2004) Trust, the asymmetry principle, and the role of prior beliefs. Risk Analysis 24(6): 1475–1486.

33.

Rydin

(2007) Re-examining the role of knowledge within planning theory. Planning Theory 6(1): 52–68.

34.

Siegrist

Cvetkovich

(2001) Better negative than positive? Evidence of a bias for negative information about possible health dangers. Risk Analysis 21(1): 199–206.

35.

Slovic

(1993) Perceived risk, trust and democracy. Risk Analysis 13(6): 675–682.

36.

Sturgis

Allum

(2004) Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science 13(1): 55–74.

37.

Sundblad

E-L

Biel

Garling

(2009) Knowledge and confidence in knowledge about climate change among experts, journalists, politicians and laypersons. Environment and Behaviour 41(2): 281–302.

38.

Toke

Strachan

(2006) Ecological modernisation and wind power in the UK. European Environment 16: 155–166.

39.

Warren

Lumsden

O’Dowd

Birnie

(2005) “Green on green”: Public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 48(6): 853–875.

40.

White

Pahl

Beuhner

Haye

(2003) Trust in risky messages: The role of prior beliefs. Risk Analysis 23(4): 717–726.

41.

Wolsink

(2007) Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes. Equity and fairness instead of “backyard motives”. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 11(6): 1188–1207.