Conflict over biomass energy development in the United Kingdom: Some observations and lessons from England and Wales

Energy Policy

Volumn 32, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 785-800

  Upreti, Bishnu Rai ^a  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biomass; Conflict; Energy and public

Indexed keywords

BIOMASS; ECOLOGY; ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

BIOMASS ENERGY DEVELOPMENT;

ENERGY POLICY;

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY; BIOMASS POWER; PLANNING SYSTEM; PUBLIC ATTITUDE;

ENGLAND; UNITED KINGDOM; WALES;

EID: 0142230472     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00342-7     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Birmingham K. Using the language of NIMBY: a topic for research, not an activity for researchers Local Environment 5 1 2000 55-68
2. Boholm, A., Ferreira, C., Hansson, S.O., Lofstedt, R., Persson, J., 2000. Risks and Rationalities: New Directions for Research. Gothenburg University, Centre for Public Sector Research, Gothenburg.
3. Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), 1998. The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues. Sage Publications, London.
4. Devine-Wright, P., McAlpine, G., Batley-White, S., 2001. Wind turbines in the landscape: an evaluation of local community involvement and other considerations in UK wind farm development. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association, Edinburgh, Scotland, July 3-6, 2001, pp. 133-137.
5. DTI, 2000. New and Renewable Energy: Prospects for the 21st Century. The Renewable Obligation Preliminary Consultation. Department of Trade and Industries, London.
6. DTLR, 2001. New Parliamentary Procedures for Processing Major Infrastructure Projects. Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, London.
7. Edelstein, M.R., 2001. Innovation and the Siting Dilemma: Thoughts on the Stigmatisation of Projects, Good and Bad. Paper presented in New Perspectives on Siting Controversy, 12-14 May 2001, Glumslov, Sweden.
8. European Commission, 2000. The TRUSTNET Framework: A New Perspective in Risk Governance. European Commission, Brussels.
9. ETSU/DTI, 2001. Summary, Final Report. Renewable Energy Assessment and Targets for the Southwest. Terence O'Roacke Plc and ETSU, London.
10. Hargreaves D. An Investigation into Risk Communication Issues Surrounding A Proposal to Site a 20 MW Straw-Burning Electricity Generating Plat at Calne, Wiltshire in 1994 1996 University of Surrey Guildford
11. Healey P. The communicative work of development plans Environment and Planning: Planning and Design 20 1993 83-104
12. Howes P.S. Howlett L. Energy from Waste and Biomass Residues: the Decision-Making Process UK National Report 2000 AEA Technology London
13. Hull A. Local strategies for renewable energy Land Use Policy 12 1995 7-16
14. Hull, A.D., Marvin, S., de Cani, R., 1994. Renewable Energy Policies and Development Plans: A Review of 457 Local Planning Authorities in England and Wales. ETSU/DTI (K/GE/00014/05/REP), Harwell.
15. ICCL, 2000. Valuing renewable energy portfolios. Paper presented in CWC Renewables 2000 Summit, 9-11 October 2000, London.
16. Ingersoll, E., Dimatteo, R., Vysatova, R.A., 1998. Expanding markets for photovoltaics: what to do next. A Special Report on the Renewable Energy Policy Project. Washington, DC. http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articles/pv/5/5.html
17. Jackson T. Löfstedt R. Renewable Energy Sources: A Background Paper for the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 1998 Centre for Environmental Strategy Guildford
18. Jane-Gray, A., Delbridge, P., Trevorrow, E., Pile, C., 2001. Development and Delivery of a Workshop Methodology: Planning for Biomass Power Plant Projects: ETSU/DTI. Pat Delbridge Associate International and Barton Willmore Partnership, London.
19. Karger, C.R., Wiedemann, P.M., 2001. Experts and other stakeholders in the risk decision-making process. Paper presented in New Perspectives on Siting Controversy, 12-14 May 2001, Glumslov, Sweden.
20. Kasperson R.E. Renn O. Solvic P. Bram J.E. Goble R. Kasperson J. Ratick S. Social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework Löfstedt R. Frewer L. Risk and Modern Society 1998 149-162 Earthscan London
21. Khan, J., 2001. Siting conflict in renewable energy projects in Sweden: experiences from the siting of a biogas plant. Paper presented to New Perspectives on Siting Controversy Conference, 17-20 May 2001, Glumslöv, Sweden.
22. Lidskog, R., 2001. Siting conflicts: democratic perspectives and political implications. Paper presented in New Perspectives on Siting Controversy, 12-14 May 2001, Glumslov, Sweden.
23. Linnerooth-Bayer, J., Lögstedt, R., Sjödtedt, G. (Eds.), 2001. Transboundary Risk Management. Earhtscan Publications Ltd., London.
24. Löfstedt R. Risk communication: the Barsebäck nuclear plant case Energy Policy 24 8 1996 689-696
25. Löfstedt R. Evaluation of siting strategy: the case of two UK waste tire incinerators Risk: Health, Safety and Environment 8 63 1997 63-77
26. Löfstedt R. The role of trust in the North Blackforest: an evaluation of a citizen panel project Risk: Health, Safety and Environment 10 7 1999 7-30
27. Löfstedt, R., 2002. Siting of biomass to energy plants: a review and analysis of literature. Draft Background Paper for the Biomass Project Steering Committee Meeting. Kings' Centre for Risk Management, London.
28. Marvin S. Hull A. Deliverability of Renewable Energy: An Assessment of the 197 NFFO Renewable Schemes 1993 Department of Trade and Industries Harwell
29. McDaniels, T., 2001. Reference points and framing in siting controversies. Paper presented in New Perspectives on Siting Controversy, 12-14 May 2001, Glumslov, Sweden.
30. Newton D. Consensus Decision Making 2002 The Accord Group Sydney
31. Owens S. Siting, Sustainable Development and Social Priorities 2001 Department of Geography, University of Cambridge Cambridge
32. Owens S. Cowell R. Land and Limits: Interpreting Sustainability in the Planning Process 2002 Routledge London
33. Petts J. Barriers to Participation and Deliberation in Risk Decision: Evidences from West Management 2001 Centre for Environmental Research and Training Birmingham
34. PIU, 2001. Renewable Energy in the UK-Building for the Future of Environment. Performance Innovation Unit, Cabinet Office, the Government of the UK.
35. Rakos, C., 1998. Lessons learned from the introduction of biomass district heating in Austria. Lecture note. The Austrian Energy Agency, Opet, Austria.
36. Renn O. Swaton E. Psychological and sociological approaches to study risk perception Environment International 10 1984 557-575
37. Renn O. Webler T. Anticipating conflict: public participation in managing the solid waste crisis Gaia, Ecological Perspectives in Science, Humanities and Economics 2 1992 84-94
38. Shirley, L., Fitzpatrick, S., Larsen, C., 1998. A Special Report on the Renewable Energy Policy Project. Washington, DC. http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articles/pv/6/6.html
39. Sinclair P. Social Capital and Trust in Planning a Biomass Plant 1998 University of Surrey Guildford
40. Stanton T. Biomass Energy: It's Not Just for Breakfast Anymore 1995 Michigan Public Service Commission Michigan
41. Stern P.C. Learning through conflict: a realistic strategy for risk communication Policy Science 24 1991 99-119
42. Stoffle, R.W., 2001. Shifting risks: Hoover Dam Bridge Impacts on American Indian Sacred Landscapes. Paper Presented in New Perspectives on Siting Controversy, 12-14 May 2001, Glumslov, Sweden.
43. Upreti, B.R., 2002. Public Perception on Biomass Energy in the UK: Results from Five Case Studies in England and Wales. A CES Working Paper (Draft). Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, Guildford.
44. Williams N.C. Limbrick A.J. A Scoping Study to Review Obstacles to the Growth of UK Renewable Energy Industry 1995 Association of Electricity Producers London
45. Wolsink M. Entanglement of interests and motives: assumptions behind the NIMBY-theory of facility siting Urban Studies 31 6 1994 851-866
46. Wolsink M. Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support Renewable Energy 21 2000 49-64