Beyond Nimbyism:
Public engagement with
renewable energy
Dr. Patrick Devine-Wright
St. Andrews University
May 6th 2009
Summary
• The ‘Beyond Nimbyism’ research project
• Key findings
– Looking across the case studies
– Gwynt y Mor offshore wind farm
• Conclusions
Beyond Nimbyism project
• Six UK Universities (Lancaster, Loughborough, Manchester,
Northumbria, Strathclyde and Surrey)
• Multidisciplinary team drawn from Psychology, Geography,
Political Science, Sociology and Engineering
• Aim to deepen understanding of public responses to
renewable energy technologies
• Focus upon public engagement, since many experts have
claimed that more or better engagement is key to
increasing public acceptance
• ‘Beyond Nimbyism’ title reflects the fact that many social
scientists have been critical of the use of this term to
describe or explain public opposition
Work streams
1. Literature review
2. Conceptions of publics and public engagement
•
•
Interview study: technology trajectories and
conceptions of public engagement
Media analysis: Representations of RETs
3. Development of a new conceptual framework
4. 8 case studies of specific projects
Our approach to researching
‘public engagement’
•
The outcome of the interaction between
two processes:
1. How industry and policy actors conceive and
engage with diverse publics
2. How local residents conceive and respond to
a) specific projects and b) the engagement
activities undertaken during those projects by
developers and other organisations
engagement
strategies and
approaches
engagement
actions
media reports
leaflets
petitions
RE actors in
networks
interactions
exhibitions
letters
expectations of
the public
public actors
in places
meetings
protests
expectations
of projects
and process
Our 8 case study locations
Project
name
Gwynt y
Mor
Lincs
Tech
scale
750MW
Location
Baxterley
Tech
sector
Offshore
wind
Offshore
wind
Bioenergy
Port Talbot
Ladymoor
Falkirk
+
Northa nts
Sea Gen
Wave
Dragon +
Lunar
Decision
maker
DECC
Planning
Wales
Local
opposition
Yes
250MW
England
No
DBERR
Consent ed
2.1MW
England
Yes
Local
authority
Bioenergy
350MW
Wales
Yes
DBERR
Onshore
wind (plus
hydrogen)
Onshore
wind
(urban)
Marine
(tidal)
Marine
(wave an d
tidal)
48MW
Scotland
Yes
Local
authority
Both
2MW
Scotland
and
England
Norther n
Ireland
Wales
No
Yes
No
Local
Authority/
Local Corp
FEPA
Refused/
appeale d/
revised
Consent ed/
under EA
assessment
Wind farm
refuse d/H2
consented
Consent ed
Refused
Consent ed
No
No
DECC
2MW
7MW
and 1620MW
Consent ed
Applied for/
Not yet
applied for
In each case …..
• Standardised methodological approach
– In-depth interviews with key stakeholders
– Focus group discussions with local residents
– Questionnaire survey of local residents
• Bespoke tools designed by the project team
• Developed standard coding frame for
analysis of qualitative data using MaxQDA
• This allows us to make comparisons across
case studies and sectors
Summary of participants
• 71 stakeholders were interviewed
• 249 residents took part in focus group
discussions
• 2911 residents completed our
questionnaire survey
• 3251 people participated in the project
Analysis across the case
studies
• Putting the NIMBY concept to the test
• That those who oppose:
– believe ‘renewable energy is a good idea, just
not in their back yard’
– incomers to the area
– those living closest to the site
– older people
Results
• Only 2% of our sample (61 people out of 2674)
strongly supported renewable energy generally
but strongly opposed the project in their local
area
• Our analyses found no relation between
people’s support for a project and their
– length of residence in the area
– perceived proximity of home to the project site
– age
– gender
– education level
• Lack of support for the ‘NIMBY’ idea
Gwynt y Mor
• Offshore wind farm
• 750 MW: 200+ turbines, 13km distant from
the shore
• npower Renewables - third project in the
area, after North Hoyle (2004, 60MW, 30
turbines) and Rhyl Flats (in construction,
90mw, 25 turbines)
Project trajectory
• From late 2004, developer began public engagement across the
North Wales coast using a variety of consultation methods, repeated
in late 2005 at time of submission of application
• November 2005: planning application submitted by developer
• February 2006: objections by statutory consultees, including local
authority
• ‘Save our Scenery’ action group set up to oppose the project;
‘Sustainable Energy Alliance’ set up to support the project
• August 2007: revisions to planning application submitted by the
developer
• November 2007: developer announced a community benefit offer
• March 2008: SOS submits request for public inquiry to Welsh
Assembly
• December 2008: project consented by DECC in London
Research methodology
• Mixed methods: qualitative and quantitative
• Six in-depth interviews with developer, two local
councillors, opposition group, support group, CCW
• Six focus group discussions with local residents, two each
in the towns of Rhyl, Colwyn Bay and Llandudno (n = 44)
• Questionnaire surveys distributed to local residents using a
drop and collect method
– Llandudno
– Colwyn Bay
(n = 220)
(n = 237)
• Data collected between March-July 2008, pre-consent
Results
•
•
•
•
Levels of support for the project
Local impacts: benefits and drawbacks
Place: meanings and attachments
Perceptions of the community benefit
offer
• Trust
• Fairness and planning procedures
What kind of place is
Llandudno / Colwyn Bay?
• beautiful, beautiful view of the
bay, beautiful scenery, pretty,
heaven, elegant, picturesque,
stunning location
dying, in decline, scummy,
horrible, grim, sad, unloved,
depressing, dump, shabby,
bypassed, forgotten, tired,
faded, dirty, untidy
Impacts: financial and symbolic
1. 49.5% of Llandudno respondents agreed with the statement:
‘The offer is a bribe to silence local opposition’
• The rather late timing (2007) of its announcement in the
planning process may have contributed to this view
2. The opposition group played upon shared beliefs that
Llandudno is a distinctively beautiful, historic natural place an escape from urban life
• These beliefs constitute place-related identity processes
• They argued that the project would threaten the place by
‘industrialising’ the area, ‘fencing in the bay’ and ‘damaging
tourism’
• Significant relation between a sense of attachment to
Llandudno and negative emotions (threat), negative
attitudes to the project and willingness to oppose the project
Trust in developer
Average levels of trust
(on a scale of 1-5)
Llandudno
Colwyn Bay
Opposition
group*
Local council
3.39
3.05
2.55
2.69
Welsh Assembly
2.32
2.39
Developer
1.94
2.17
BERR
1.82
1.98
*Statistical analyses showed that residents in each of the two places were not
statistically significant, except for their trust in the opposition group
Unfair, secretive, distant?
1. In Llandudno, 31.6% of respondents ‘strongly disagreed’
with the statement ‘I think the planning process for Gwynt y
Mor has been fair’
• There were a large number of ‘neutral’ responses,
particularly in Colwyn Bay (52.5%)
2. 48.6% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that
the planning process was secretive, and these did not
differ significantly across the two places
3. Only 6.9% agreed that the final decision on Gwynt y Mor
should be made in London
• 74.8% disagreed or strongly disagreed
Conclusions
• Varying patterns of local public support across the case
studies provide evidence of substantial social consent as
well as opposition to projects
• The NIMBY concept is a ‘limitation’ in terms of how we think
about and practice public engagement
• We need to nurture and protect existing social consent by
– Reconceiving ‘siting’ as ‘emplacing’ technologies
(physical and symbolic/affective aspects)
– Drawing on local knowledge and enhancing local benefit
– Implementing meaningful and full engagement practices
– Devising fair and transparent decision processes
• But this is not a ‘formula’ for public acceptance - one size
does not fit all …..
Thank you
• To my colleagues Yuko Howes and Hannah
Devine-Wright; to the project team, survey
distributors and all participants; and to the
funding agency: Research Councils’ Energy
Programme/Economic and Social Research
Council (Grant Ref: RES-125-25).
What were the key factors?
Support linked most strongly with whether local residents
Correlation
- felt positive emotions about the project
.72
- thought the project would benefit them and local area
.71
- supported the technology sector generally
.60
- trusted the project developer
.54
- thought that planning procedures were fair
.51
-thought the developer had engaged fully, fairly and
openly with local people (e.g. provided a lot of info)
.50
- supported renewable energy generally
.45
- were concerned about climate change
.14
Caution required since these are simply correlations - may be shared variance
Was conflict inevitable?
• Values and the Victorians
1. The opposition group
• “There’s so much history and heritage attached to it
[Llandudno]; it’s a very special area and people have a deep
love for it and we don’t want to see it spoiled …. We want to
preserve that for future generations …. we want to keep it that
way”
2. One focus group participant
• “Llandudno was built and set out by the Victorians, and it’s my
opinion that had they had the technology at that time [i.e. wind
turbines], they would have proceeded with this scheme, along
with the pier and the electric trams and we’d have all been very
pleased with the achievement, to be quite honest, and we would
have accepted it”.
Gwynt y Mor Conclusions
• Location: is it the wrong place for a wind farm?
– Physically (bay) and symbolically (restorative)
– Crown Estate/Llandudno
• Benefits: developer’s community benefit offer too
late (mistrust) to shape support?
• Planning:
– No dialogue between the parties
– DECC: a ‘black hole’ in a different country