Enhancing local distinctiveness fosters public acceptance of tidal energy: A UK case study

Energy Policy

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 83-93

  Devine Wright, Patrick ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Local distinctiveness; Public acceptance; Tidal energy

Indexed keywords

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS; ELECTRICITY SECTOR; EMPIRICAL STUDIES; GRID-CONNECTED; LOCAL DISTINCTIVENESS; LOW CARBON; LOW LEVEL; MARINE ENERGY; MIXED METHOD; NORTHERN IRELAND; PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE; RENEWABLE ENERGIES; SOCIAL POTENTIALS; TECHNICAL POTENTIAL; TIDAL ENERGY;

CLIMATE CHANGE; ECOLOGY; ENERGY POLICY; RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES;

TIDAL POWER;

CLIMATE CHANGE; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; RENEWABLE RESOURCE; TIDAL POWER;

NORTHERN IRELAND; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 78549263337     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.09.012     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Bell D., Gray T., Haggett C. The 'Social Gap' in wind farm policy siting decisions: explanations and policy responses. Environmental Politics 2005, 14:460-477.
2. Braun V., Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2006, 3:77-101.
3. Brittan G. Wind, energy, landscape: reconciling nature and technology. Philosophy and Geography 2001, 4:171-178.
4. Burningham K., Barnett J., Thrush D. The Limitations of the NIMBY Concept for Understanding Public Engagement with Renewable Energy Technologies: A Literature Review 2007, Manchester Architecture Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester.
5. Burningham K. Using the language of NIMBY: a topic for research not an activity for researchers. Local Environment 2000, 5:55-67.
6. Cass N., Walker G., Devine-Wright P. Good neighbours, public relations and bribes: the politics and perceptions of community benefit provision in renewable energy development. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 2010, 12:255-275.
7. Cresswell T. Place: A short introduction 2003, Routledge, London.
8. Dear M. Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association 1992, 58:288-300.
9. Department for Energy and Climate Change, 2009. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy. Available at: (accessed May 3 2010). http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/energy_mix/renewable/res/res.aspx.
10. Devine-Wright P. Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 2005, 8:125-139.
11. Devine-Wright P. Rethinking NIMBYism. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 2009, 19:426-441.
12. Devine-Wright P. Introduction. Public Engagement with Renewable Energy: From NIMBY to Participation 2010, Earthscan, London. P. Devine-Wright (Ed.).
13. Devine-Wright P., Howes Y. Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: a wind energy case study. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2010, 30:271-280.
14. Ellis G., Barry J., Robinson C. Many ways to say no, different ways of saying yes: applying Q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2007, 50:517-551.
15. Firestone J. Perceptions and preferences regarding offshore wind power in the United States: the leading edge of a new energy source for the Americas. Public Engagement with Renewable Energy: From NIMBY to Participation 2010, Earthscan, London. P. Devine-Wright (Ed.).
16. Firestone J., Kempton W. Public opinion about large offshore wind power: underlying factor. Energy Policy 2007, 35:1584-1598.
17. Gray T., Haggett C., Bell D. Wind farm siting-the case of offshore wind farms. Ethics, Place and Environment 2005, 8:127-140.
18. Gross C. Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: the application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance. Energy Policy 2007, 35:2727-2736.
19. Haggett C. Over the sea and far away? A consideration of the planning, politics and public perception of offshore wind farms. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2008, 10:289-306.
20. Hindmarsh R., Matthews C. Deliberative speak at the turbine face: community engagement, wind farms, and renewable energy transitions, in Australia. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 2008, 1:217-232.
21. Joffe H., Yardley L. Content and thematic analysis. Research Methods for Clinical Health Psychology 2004, 56-68. Sage, London.
22. Jones C., Eiser R. Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local onshore wind development with reference to an English case study. Energy Policy 2009, 37:4604-4614.
23. Kempton W., Firestone J., Lilley J., Rouleau T., Whitaker P. The offshore wind power debate: views from Cape Cod. Coastal Management 2005, 33:119-149.
24. Lean, G., 2008. The rise of British Sea Power. The Independent, 23 March 2008 (available at the following web address:). http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-rise-of-british-sea-power-799630.html.
25. Loring J. Wind energy planning in England, Wales and Denmark: factors influencing project success. Energy Policy 2007, 35:2648-2660.
26. Michaud K., Carlisle J.E., Smith E. NIMBYism vs. environmentalism in attitudes towards energy development. Environmental Politics 2008, 17:20-39.
27. McGowan F., Sauter R. Public Opinion on Energy Research: A Desk Study for the Research Councils 2005, Sussex Energy Group, SPRU, University of Sussex.
28. McLachlan C. 'You don't do a chemistry experiment in your best china': symbolic interpretations of place and technology in a wave energy case. Energy Policy 2009, 37:5342-5350.
29. McLachlan C. Symbolic interpretations of wave energy in the UK: surfers' perspectives. Public Engagement with Renewable Energy: From NIMBY to Participation 2010, Earthscan, London. P. Devine-Wright (Ed.).
30. Sustainable Development Commission, 2007. Turning the tide: tidal energy in the UK. Available at: (accessed June 26, 2010). http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/tidal-power.html.
31. Toke D. Explaining wind power planning outcomes: some findings from a study in England and Wales. Energy Policy 2005, 33:1527-1539.
32. Toke D., Haggett C. Crossing the great divide: using multi-method analysis to understand opposition to windfarms. Public Administration 2006, 84:103-120.
33. Twigger-Ross C., Bonaiuto M., Breakwell G. Identity theories and environmental psychology. Psychological Theories for Environmental Issues 2003, 203-233. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK. M. Bonnes, T. Lee, M. Bonaiuto (Eds.).
34. Upham P. Applying environmental-behaviour concepts to renewable energy siting controversy: reflections on a longitudinal bioenergy case study. Energy Policy 2009, 37:4273-4283.
35. Van der Horst D. NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy 2007, 35:2705-2714.
36. Vorkinn M., Riese H. Environmental concern in a local context: the significance of place attachment. Environment and Behaviour 2001, 33:249-263.
37. Walker G., Devine-Wright P. Community renewable energy: what does it mean?. Energy Policy 2008, 36:497-500.
38. Walker G., Devine-Wright P., Hunter S., High H., Evans B. Trust and community: exploring the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable energy. Energy Policy 2010, 38:2633-2655.
39. Walker G., Cass N., Burningham K., Barnett J. Renewable energy and sociotechnical change: imagined subjectivities of 'the public' and their implications. Environment and Planning A 2010, 42:931-947.
40. Wester-Huber M. Underlying concerns in land-use conflicts: the role of place identity in risk perception. Environmental Science and Policy 2004, 7:109-116.
41. Wolsink M. Invalid theory impedes our understanding: a critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 2006, NS31:85-91.
42. Wolsink M. Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes: equity and fairness instead of 'backyard motives'. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2007, 11:1188-1207.
43. Zoellner, J., Ittner, H., Schweizer-Ries, P., 2005. Perceived procedural justice as a conflict factor in wind energy plants planning processes. Paper presented to the British Institute of Environmental Economics Annual Conference, Oxford University.