Public engagement with offshore renewable energy: A critical review

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 493-507

  Wiersma, Bouke ^a   Devine Wright, Patrick ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; WAVE ENERGY CONVERSION; WIND POWER; WIND TURBINES;

CONTROVERSIAL TECHNOLOGIES; CROSS-DISCIPLINARY; ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURES; LITERATURE REVIEWS; OFF-SHORE WIND ENERGY; OFFSHORE RENEWABLE ENERGIES; ONSHORE WIND TURBINE; PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT;

TIDAL POWER;

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY; OFFSHORE APPLICATION; RENEWABLE RESOURCE; TIDAL POWER; WAVE ENERGY; WIND POWER; WIND TURBINE;

EID: 84903137642     PISSN: 17577780     EISSN: 17577799     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/wcc.282     Document Type: Review

References (104)

1. McLachlan C. A stakeholder assessment of the barriers and opportunities for tidal stream energy in the UK. Tyndall Working Paper 144, 2010, eScholarID:95328.
2. O'Keeffe A, Haggett C. An investigation into the potential barriers facing the development of offshore wind energy in Scotland: case study-firth of forth offshore wind farm. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2012, 16:3711-3721. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.018.
3. Department of Energy and Climate Change. Public attitudes tracking survey. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/public-attitudes-tracking-survey. (Accessed November 14, 2013).
4. YouGov. YouGov/Sunday Times Survey Results. Available at: http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/pr49w5c8xg/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-230813.pdf. (Accessed November 14, 2013).
5. Devine-Wright P, Howes Y. Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: a wind energy case study. J Environ Psychol 2010, 30:271-280. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.008.
6. Kempton W, Firestone J, Lilley J, Rouleau T, Whitaker P. The offshore wind power debate: views from Cape Cod. Coast Manag 2005, 33:119-149. doi: 10.1080/08920750590917530.
7. Wolsink M. Near-shore wind power-protected seascapes, environmentalists' attitudes, and the technocratic planning perspective. Land Use Policy 2010, 27:195-203. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.04.004.
8. Bell D, Gray T, Haggett C. The 'social gap' in wind farm siting decisions: explanations and policy responses. Environ Polit 2005, 14:460-477. doi: 10.1080/09644010500175833.
9. Bell D, Gray T, Haggett C, Swaffield J. Re-visiting the 'social gap': public opinion and relations of power in the local politics of wind energy. Environ Polit 2013, 22:115-135. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2013.755793.
10. Burningham K. Using the language of NIMBY: a topic for research, not an activity for researchers. Local Environ 2000, 5:55-67. doi: 10.1080/135498300113264.
11. Wolsink M. Invalid theory impedes our understanding: a critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY. Trans Inst Br Geogr 2006, 31:85-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-5661.2006.00191.x.
12. Devine-Wright P, ed. Renewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY to Participation. London: Earthscan; 2011.
13. Petrova MA. NIMBYism revisited: public acceptance of wind energy in the United States. WIREs Clim Change 2013, 4:575-601. doi: 10.1002/wcc.250.
14. Fast S. Social acceptance of renewable energy: trends, concepts, and geographies. Geog Compass 2013, 7:853-866. doi: 10.1111/gec3.12086.
15. Walker G, Cass N. Carbon reduction, 'the public' and renewable energy: engaging with socio-technical configurations. Area 2007, 39:458-469. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00772.x.
16. Department of Energy and Climate Change. UK Renewable Energy Roadmap Update 2012. London: DECC; 2012.
17. Wüstenhagen R, Wolsink M, Bürer MJ. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 2007, 35:2683-2691. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.001.
18. Walker G, Devine-Wright P, Barnett J, Burningham K, Speller G, Barton J, Evans B, Heath Y, Infield D, Parks J, et al. Symmetries, expectations, dynamics and contexts: a framework for understanding public engagement with renewable energy projects. In: Devine-Wright P, ed. Renewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY to Participation. London: Earthscan; 2011.
19. Batel S, Devine-Wright P, Tangeland T. Social acceptance of low carbon energy and associated infrastructures: a critical discussion. Energy Policy 2013, 58:1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.018.
20. Devine-Wright P. Reconsidering public acceptance of renewable energy technologies: a critical review. In: Grubb M, Jamasb T, Pollitt M, eds. Delivering a Low Carbon Electricity System: Technologies, Economics and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.
21. Lilley J, Firestone J. The effect of the 2010 Gulf oil spill on public attitudes toward offshore oil drilling and wind development. Energy Policy 2013, 62:90-98. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.139.
22. Ellis G, Barry J, Robinson C. Many ways to say 'no', different ways to say 'yes': applying Q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. J Environ Plan Manag 2007, 50:517-551. doi: 10.1080/09640560701402075.
23. Heras-Saizarbitoria I, Zamanillo I, Laskurain I. Social acceptance of ocean wave energy: a case study of an OWC shoreline plant. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2013, 27:515-524. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2013.07.032.
24. Waldo Å. Offshore wind power in Sweden-a qualitative analysis of attitudes with particular focus on opponents. Energy Policy 2012, 41:692-702. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.033.
25. Conway F, Stevenson J, Hunter D, Stefanovich M, Campbell H, Covell Z, Yin Y. Ocean space, ocean place: the human dimensions of wave energy in Oregon. Oceanography 2010, 23:82-91. doi: 10.5670/oceanog.2010.47#sthash.TP5kJ5Cw.dpuf.
26. Firestone J, Kempton W, Lilley MB, Samoteskul K. Public acceptance of offshore wind power across regions and through time. J Environ Plan Manag 2012, 55:1369-1386. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2012.682782.
27. McKeown B, Thomas D. Q Methodology. London: Sage Publications; 1988.
28. Haggett C. Over the sea and far away? A consideration of the planning, politics and public perception of offshore wind farms. J Environ Policy Plan 2008, 10:289-306. doi: 10.1080/15239080802242787.
29. Kollmuss A, Agyeman J. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res 2002, 8:239-260. doi: 10.1080/13504620220145401.
30. Ladenburg J. Attitudes towards offshore wind farms-the role of beach visits on attitude and demographic and attitude relations. Energy Policy 2010, 38:1297-1304. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.005.
31. Stefanovich M. Wave energy and public opinion in the state of Oregon, USA. OCEANS 2009, MTS/IEEE Biloxi-Marine Technology for Our Future: Global and Local Challenges. IEEE, 2009.
32. Lim X, Lam W. Public acceptance of marine renewable energy in Malaysia. Energy Policy 2014, 65:16-26. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.053.
33. Acheson J. Attitudes toward offshore wind power in the midcoast region of Maine. Maine Policy Rev 2012, 21:42-55.
34. Alexander KA, Wilding TA, Heymans JJ. Attitudes of Scottish fishers towards marine renewable energy. Mar Policy 2013, 37:239-244. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.005.
35. Mackinson S, Curtis H, Brown R, McTaggart K, Taylor N, Neville S, Rogers S. A report on the perceptions of the fishing industry into the potential socio-economic impacts of offshore wind energy developments on their work patterns and income. Sci Ser Techn Rep 2006.
36. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.013.
37. Wolsink M. Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes: equity and fairness instead of 'backyard motives'. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2007, 11:1188-1207. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2005.10.005.
38. Firestone J, Kempton W, Lilley MB, Samoteskul K. Public acceptance of offshore wind power: does perceived fairness of process matter? J Environ Plan Manag 2012, 55:1387-1402. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2012.688658.
39. Devine-Wright P. Enhancing local distinctiveness fosters public acceptance of tidal energy: a UK case study. Energy Policy 2011, 39:83-93. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.09.012.
40. Krohn S, Damborg S. On public attitudes towards wind power. Renew Energy 1999, 16:954-960. doi: 10.1016/S0960-1481(98)00339-5.
41. Ladenburg J. Visual impact assessment of offshore wind farms and prior experience. Appl Energy 2009, 86:380-387. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.05.005.
42. Ladenburg J, Möller B. Attitude and acceptance of offshore wind farms-the influence of travel time and wind farm attributes. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2011, 15:4223-4235. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.130.
43. Firestone J, Kempton W. Public opinion about large offshore wind power: underlying factors. Energy Policy 2007, 35:1584-1598. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.04.010.
44. Bailey I, West J, Whitehead I. Out of sight but not out of mind? Public perceptions of wave energy. J Environ Policy Plan 2011, 13:139-157. doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2011.573632.
45. Fernandes Chozas J, Stefanovich MA, Sørensen HC. Toward best practices for public acceptability in wave energy: Whom, when and how to address. 3rd International Conference on Ocean Energy, 6 October, Bilbao, 2010.
46. Alexander KA, Potts T, Wilding TA. Marine renewable energy and Scottish west coast fishers: exploring impacts, opportunities and potential mitigation. Ocean Coast Manage 2013, 75:1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.01.005.
47. Butler C, Parkhill K, Pidgeon N. From the material to the imagined: public engagement with low carbon technologies in a nuclear community. In: Devine-Wright P, ed. Renewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY to Participation. London: Earthscan; 2011.
48. Sustainable Development Commission. Tidal Power in the UK Engagement report-public and stakeholder engagement programme. SDC, 2007.
49. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.057.
50. McLachlan C. Symbolic interpretations of wave energy in the UK: Surfers' Perspectives. In: Devine-Wright P, ed. Renewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY to Participation. London: Earthscan; 2011.
51. Devine-Wright P. Place attachment and public acceptance of renewable energy: a tidal energy case study. J Environ Psychol 2011, 31:336-343. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.07.001.
52. Gee K. Offshore wind power development as affected by seascape values on the German North Sea coast. Land Use Policy 2010, 27:185-194. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.05.003.
53. Devine-Wright P. Rethinking NIMBYism: the role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. J Commun Appl Soc Psychol 2009, 19:426-441. doi: 10.1002/casp.1004.
54. Altman I, Low S. Place Attachment. New York: Plenum; 1992.
55. Ladenburg J. Stated public preferences for on-land and offshore wind power generation-a review. Wind Energy 2009, 12:171-181. doi: 10.1002/we.308.
56. Aravena C, Martinsson P, Scarpa R. Does money talk? The effect of a monetary attribute on the marginal values in a choice experiment. Workshop Empirical Methods in Energy Economics, Zürich, 2008.
57. Ek K. Quantifying the environmental impacts of renewable energy: the case of Swedish wind power. In: Pearce D, ed. Environmental Valuation in Developed Countries: Case Studies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2006.
58. McCartney A. The social value of seascapes in the Jurien Bay Marine Park: an assessment of positive and negative preferences for change. J Agric Econ 2006, 57:577-594. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2006.00074.x.
59. Ladenburg J. Attitudes towards on-land and offshore wind power development in Denmark; choice of development strategy. Renew Energy 2008, 33:111-118.
60. Dalton GJ, Lockington DA, Baldock TE. A survey of tourist attitudes to renewable energy supply in Australian hotel accommodation. Renew Energy 2008, 33:2174-2185. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2007.12.016.
61. Krueger AD, Parsons GR, Firestone J. Valuing the visual disamenity of offshore wind projects at varying distances from the shore. Land Econ 2011, 87:268-283.
62. Ladenburg J, Dubgaard A. Willingness to pay for reduced visual disamenities from offshore wind farms in Denmark. Energy Policy 2007, 35:4059-4071. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.01.023.
63. Ladenburg J, Dubgaard A. Preferences of coastal zone user groups regarding the siting of offshore wind farms. Ocean Coast Manage 2009, 52:233-242. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2009.02.002.
64. Westerberg V, Jacobsen JB, Lifran R. The case for offshore wind farms, artificial reefs and sustainable tourism in the French Mediterranean. Tour Manage 2013, 34:172-183. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2012.04.008.
65. Landry CE, Allen T, Cherry T, Whitehead JC. Wind turbines and coastal recreation demand. Resour Energy Econ 2012, 34:93-111. doi: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.10.001.
66. Lilley MB, Firestone J, Kempton W. The effect of wind power installations on coastal tourism. Energies 2010, 3:1-22. doi: 10.3390/en3010001.
67. Ladenburg J, Lutzeyer S. The economics of visual disamenity reductions of offshore wind farms-review and suggestions from an emerging field. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2012, 16:6793-6802. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.08.017.
68. Voke M, Fairley I, Willis M, Masters I. Economic evaluation of the recreational value of the coastal environment in a marine renewables deployment area. Ocean Coast Manage 2013, 78:77-87. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.03.013.
69. Gray T, Haggett C, Bell D. Offshore wind farms and commercial fisheries in the UK: a study in stakeholder consultation. Ethics Place Environ 2005, 8:127-140. doi: 10.1080/13668790500237013.
70. Cass N, Walker G. Emotion and rationality: the characterisation and evaluation of opposition to renewable energy projects. Emot Space Soc 2009, 2:62-69. doi: 10.1016/j.emospa.2009.05.006.
71. Barnett J, Burningham K, Walker G, Cass N. Imagined publics and engagement around renewable energy technologies in the UK. Public Underst Sci 2012, 21:36-50. doi: 10.1177/0963662510365663.
72. Walker G, Cass N, Burningham K, Barnett J. Renewable energy and sociotechnical change: imagined subjectivities of 'the public' and their implications. Environ Plan A 2010, 42:931-947. doi: 10.1068/a41400.
73. Sørensen HC, Hansen LK, Hansen R, Hammarlund K. European Thematic Network on Wave Energy, Public Acceptability, Final Report, 2003. Available at: http://www.oceanrenewable.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/eurthemnetworkpubacceptwave03.pdf. (Accessed November 14, 2013).
74. Simas T, Muñoz-Arjona E, Huertas-Olivares C, De Groot J, Stokes C, Bailey I, Magagna D, Conley D, Greaves D, Marina D, Torre-Enciso Y, Sundberg J, O'Hagan AM, Holmes B. Understanding the role of stakeholders in the wave energy consenting process: engagement and sensitivities. 4th International Conference on Ocean Energy, October 17, 2012, Dublin.
75. Renewable UK. Wave and Tidal Energy in the UK: Conquering Challenges, Generating Growth, 2013. Available at: http://www.renewableuk.com/en/publications/reports.cfm/wave-and-tidal-energy-in-the-uk-2013. (Accessed March 17, 2014).
76. Ehler C. Conclusions: benefits, lessons learned, and future challenges of marine spatial planning. Mar Policy 2008, 32:840-843. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.014.
77. Portman M. Involving the public in the impact assessment of offshore renewable energy facilities. Mar Policy 2009, 33:332-338. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2008.07.014.
78. Johnson K, Kerr S, Side J. Accommodating wave and tidal energy-control and decision in Scotland. Ocean Coast Manage 2012, 65:26-33. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.04.018.
79. Woolley O. Trouble on the horizon? Addressing place-based values in planning for offshore wind energy. J Environ Law 2010, 22:223-250. doi: 10.1093/jel/eqq009.
80. Château PA, Chang YC, Chen H, Ko TT. Building a stakeholder's vision of an offshore wind-farm project: a group modeling approach. Sci Total Environ 2012, 420:43-53. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.01.031.
81. Alexander KA, Janssen R, Arciniegas G, O'Higgins TG, Eikelboom T, Wilding TA. Interactive marine spatial planning: siting tidal energy arrays around the mull of Kintyre. PloS One 2012, 7:e30031. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030031.
82. Johnson K, Kerr S, Side J. Marine renewables and coastal communities-experiences from the offshore oil industry in the 1970s and their relevance to marine renewables in the 2010s. Mar Policy 2012, 38:491-499.
83. Setiawan AD, Cuppen E. Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia. Energy Policy 2013, 61:1188-1199. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.057.
84. Woods M. Conflicting environmental visions of the rural: windfarm development in mid Wales. Sociol Rur, 43: 271-288. doi: 10.1111/1467-9523.00245.
85. Jay S, Ellis G, Kidd S. Marine spatial planning: a new frontier? J Environ Policy Plan 2012, 14:1-5. doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2012.664327.
86. Wolsink M. Planning of renewables schemes: deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation. Energy Policy 2007, 35:2692-2704. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.002.
87. Haggett C. Understanding public responses to offshore wind power. Energy Policy 2011, 39:503-510. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.10.014.
88. Cresswell T. In Place, Out of Place: Geography, Ideology and Transgression. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1996.
89. Pasqualetti MJ, Gipe P, Righter RW, eds. Wind Power in View: Energy Landscapes in a Crowded World. San Diego: Academic Press; 2002.
90. Patterson ME, Williams DR. Maintaining research traditions on place: diversity of thought and scientific progress. J Environ Psychol 2005, 25:361-380. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.10.001.
91. Mabon LJ. Values, places and bodies: opportunities for forging a deeper understanding of public perceptions of CCS? Energy Environ 2012, 23:329-344. doi: 10.1260/0958-305X.23.2-3.329.
92. Poumadère M, Bertoldo R, Samadi J. Public perceptions and governance of controversial technologies to tackle climate change: nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, wind, and geoengineering. WIREs Clim Change 2011, 2:712-727. doi: 10.1002/wcc.134.
93. Mabon L, Shackley S, Bower-Bir N. Perceptions of sub-seabed carbon dioxide storage in Scotland and implications for policy: a qualitative study. Mar Policy 2014, 45:9-15. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2013.11.011.
94. Fletcher S, Potts JS, Heeps C, Pike K. Public awareness of marine environmental issues in the UK. Mar Policy 2009, 33:370-375. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2008.08.004.
95. McKinley E, Fletcher S. Individual responsibility for the oceans? An evaluation of marine citizenship by UK marine practitioners. Ocean Coast Manage 2010, 53:379-384. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.04.012.
96. Huijts NMA, Molina EJE, Steg L. Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: a review-based comprehensive framework. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2012, 16:525-531.
97. Batel S, Devine-Wright P. Towards a better understanding of people's responses to renewable energy technologies: insights from Social Representations Theory. Paper presented at the 10th Bianniel Conference on Environmental Psychology, Magdeburg, 2013.
98. Shove E. Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change. Environ Plan A 2010, 42:1273-1285. doi: 10.1068/a42282.
99. Pedersen E, Johansson M. Wind power or uranium mine: appraisal of two energy-related environmental changes in a local context. Energy Policy 2012, 44:312-319. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.058.
100. Ashworth P, Littleboy A, Graham A, Niemeyer SJ. Turning the heat on: public engagement in Australia's energy future. In: Devine-Wright P, ed. Renewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY to Participation. London: Earthscan; 2011.
101. Flynn R, Bellaby P, Ricci M. The limits of upstream engagement in an emergent technology: Lay perceptions of hydrogen energy technologies. In: Devine-Wright P, ed. Renewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY to Participation. London: Earthscan; 2011.
102. Butler C, Parkhill K, Pidgeon N. Transforming the UK energy system: public values, attitudes and acceptability-deliberating energy system transitions in the UK. London: UKERC; 2013.
103. Corner A, Parkhill K, Pidgeon N. Perceptions of geoengineering: public attitudes, stakeholder perspectives, and the challenge of 'upstream' engagement. WIREs Clim Change 2012, 5:451-466. doi: 10.1002/wcc.176.
104. Devine-Wright P. Explaining "NIMBY" objections to a power line: the role of personal, place attachment and project-related factors. Environ Behav 2013, 45:761-781. doi: 10.1177/0013916512440435.