IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v169y2022ics1364032122008309.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public dialogue as a collaborative planning process for offshore wind energy projects: Implications from a text analysis of a South Korean case

Author

Listed:
  • Park, Seona
  • Yun, Sun-Jin
  • Cho, Kongjang

Abstract

Local opposition to renewable energy projects reflects the competition among various ideas and values in the energy transition process. Offshore wind farms (OWFs), which are one of the most promising renewable energy generation facilities, are still not free from conflict. This study aimed to enrich the knowledge of the use of public dialogue for collaborative planning in OWF conflict situations. The spatial context on the case was Tongyeong-si, South Korea, where we hosted public dialogue programs. The main purpose of the program was to gather local opinion leaders and enable them to participate in a voluntary discussion on the most important issues related to the OWF project. The post-text and factor analyses could allow the identification of the three most important factors for residents regarding the siting of an OWF: resident participation in the siting process, consideration of damage to fisheries, and sufficient information for judgment. The degree to which the three factors were considered important was different for stakeholders: fishers emphasized the consideration of damage to fisheries, while environmental groups stressed sufficient judgment evidence, but all actors regarded citizen participation in the siting process as necessary. The findings of public dialogue can be interpreted within the local context to indicate that many aspects of the sociotechnical system should be changed to solve renewable energy conflicts. Furthermore, public dialogue can serve as an effective transition strategy to overcome confrontations through the co-production of knowledge and constructing an agenda together with the public.

Suggested Citation

  • Park, Seona & Yun, Sun-Jin & Cho, Kongjang, 2022. "Public dialogue as a collaborative planning process for offshore wind energy projects: Implications from a text analysis of a South Korean case," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:169:y:2022:i:c:s1364032122008309
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112949
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122008309
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112949?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Haggett, Claire, 2011. "Understanding public responses to offshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 503-510, February.
    2. Grimmer, Justin & Stewart, Brandon M., 2013. "Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 267-297, July.
    3. Fedor A. Dokshin, 2021. "Variation of public discourse about the impacts of fracking with geographic scale and proximity to proposed development," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 6(10), pages 961-969, October.
    4. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    5. McGookin, Connor & Ó Gallachóir, Brian & Byrne, Edmond, 2021. "Participatory methods in energy system modelling and planning – A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    6. Merryn Thomas & Tristan Partridge & Barbara Herr Harthorn & Nick Pidgeon, 2017. "Deliberating the perceived risks, benefits, and societal implications of shale gas and oil extraction by hydraulic fracturing in the US and UK," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 2(5), pages 1-7, May.
    7. Park, Jaehee & Kim, Bumsuk, 2019. "An analysis of South Korea's energy transition policy with regards to offshore wind power development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 71-84.
    8. McGookin, Connor & Ó Gallachóir, Brian & Byrne, Edmond, 2021. "An innovative approach for estimating energy demand and supply to inform local energy transitions," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    9. Jason Chilvers & Rob Bellamy & Helen Pallett & Tom Hargreaves, 2021. "A systemic approach to mapping participation with low-carbon energy transitions," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 6(3), pages 250-259, March.
    10. Hooper, Tara & Ashley, Matthew & Austen, Melanie, 2015. "Perceptions of fishers and developers on the co-location of offshore wind farms and decapod fisheries in the UK," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 16-22.
    11. Hall, N. & Ashworth, P. & Devine-Wright, P., 2013. "Societal acceptance of wind farms: Analysis of four common themes across Australian case studies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 200-208.
    12. Prno, Jason & Scott Slocombe, D., 2012. "Exploring the origins of ‘social license to operate’ in the mining sector: Perspectives from governance and sustainability theories," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 346-357.
    13. Hall, Damon M. & Lazarus, Eli D., 2015. "Deep waters: Lessons from community meetings about offshore wind resource development in the U.S," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 9-17.
    14. Wever, Lara & Krause, Gesche & Buck, Bela H., 2015. "Lessons from stakeholder dialogues on marine aquaculture in offshore wind farms: Perceived potentials, constraints and research gaps," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 251-259.
    15. Chung, Ji-Bum, 2020. "Public deliberation on the national nuclear energy policy in Korea – Small successes but bigger challenges," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    16. Kayser, Victoria & Blind, Knut, 2017. "Extending the knowledge base of foresight: The contribution of text mining," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 208-215.
    17. Jason Chilvers & Rob Bellamy & Helen Pallett & Tom Hargreaves, 2021. "Publisher Correction: A systemic approach to mapping participation with low-carbon energy transitions," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 6(7), pages 764-764, July.
    18. Yvette Taminiau & Julie Ferguson & Christine Moser, 2016. "Instrumental client relationship development among top-ranking service professionals," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(15-16), pages 789-808, December.
    19. Stephens, Siân & Robinson, Bryan Michael Kenneth, 2021. "The social license to operate in the onshore wind energy industry: A comparative case study of Scotland and South Africa," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 148(PB).
    20. Ladenburg, Jacob, 2008. "Attitudes towards on-land and offshore wind power development in Denmark; choice of development strategy," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 111-118.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Park, Seona & Yun, Sun-Jin & Cho, Kongjang, 2024. "Energy justice: Lessons from offshore wind farm siting conflicts in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    2. Wiegner, J.F. & Andreasson, L.M. & Kusters, J.E.H. & Nienhuis, R.M., 2024. "Interdisciplinary perspectives on offshore energy system integration in the North Sea: A systematic literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 189(PA).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Park, Seona & Yun, Sun-Jin & Cho, Kongjang, 2024. "Energy justice: Lessons from offshore wind farm siting conflicts in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    2. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Beyond the triangle of renewable energy acceptance: The five dimensions of domestic hydrogen acceptance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    3. Leer Jørgensen, Marie & Anker, Helle Tegner & Lassen, Jesper, 2020. "Distributive fairness and local acceptance of wind turbines: The role of compensation schemes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    4. Wenting Chen & Phoebe Koundouri & Osiel Gonzalez Davila & Claire Haggett & David Rudolph & Shiau-Yun Lu & Chia-Fa Chi & Jason Yu & Lars Golmen & Yung-Hsiang Ying, 2020. "Social acceptance and socioeconomic effects of Multi-Use Offshore Developments:Theory and Applications in MERMAID and TROPOS projects," DEOS Working Papers 2021, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    5. Busse, Maria & Siebert, Rosemarie, 2018. "Acceptance studies in the field of land use—A critical and systematic review to advance the conceptualization of acceptance and acceptability," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 235-245.
    6. Mattmann, Matteo & Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy, 2016. "Wind power externalities: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 23-36.
    7. Altsitsiadis, E. & Kaiser, M. & Tsakas, A. & Kyriakidis, A. & Stamos, A., 2024. "Investigating the Regional and Individual Drivers of the Support for Renewable Energy Transition: The Role of Severe Material Deprivation," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2419, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    8. Carlisle, Juliet E. & Kane, Stephanie L. & Solan, David & Bowman, Madelaine & Joe, Jeffrey C., 2015. "Public attitudes regarding large-scale solar energy development in the U.S," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 835-847.
    9. Sonnberger, Marco & Ruddat, Michael, 2017. "Local and socio-political acceptance of wind farms in Germany," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 56-65.
    10. Gegg, Per & Wells, Victoria, 2019. "The development of seaweed-derived fuels in the UK: An analysis of stakeholder issues and public perceptions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    11. Janhunen, Sari & Hujala, Maija & Pätäri, Satu, 2014. "Owners of second homes, locals and their attitudes towards future rural wind farm," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 450-460.
    12. Nuortimo, Kalle & Härkönen, Janne, 2018. "Opinion mining approach to study media-image of energy production. Implications to public acceptance and market deployment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 210-217.
    13. Langer, Katharina & Decker, Thomas & Roosen, Jutta & Menrad, Klaus, 2016. "A qualitative analysis to understand the acceptance of wind energy in Bavaria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 248-259.
    14. Takvor H. Soukissian & Dimitra Denaxa & Flora Karathanasi & Aristides Prospathopoulos & Konstantinos Sarantakos & Athanasia Iona & Konstantinos Georgantas & Spyridon Mavrakos, 2017. "Marine Renewable Energy in the Mediterranean Sea: Status and Perspectives," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-56, September.
    15. Qu, Yang & Hooper, Tara & Austen, Melanie C. & Papathanasopoulou, Eleni & Huang, Junling & Yan, Xiaoyu, 2023. "Development of a computable general equilibrium model based on integrated macroeconomic framework for ocean multi-use between offshore wind farms and fishing activities in Scotland," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 332(C).
    16. Ho, Lip-Wah & Lie, Tek-Tjing & Leong, Paul TM & Clear, Tony, 2018. "Developing offshore wind farm siting criteria by using an international Delphi method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 53-67.
    17. Haggett, Claire, 2011. "Understanding public responses to offshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 503-510, February.
    18. Copena, Damián & Simón, Xavier, 2018. "Wind farms and payments to landowners: Opportunities for rural development for the case of Galicia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 38-47.
    19. Kılkış, Şiir & Ulpiani, Giulia & Vetters, Nadja, 2024. "Visions for climate neutrality and opportunities for co-learning in European cities," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    20. Cousse, Julia, 2021. "Still in love with solar energy? Installation size, affect, and the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:169:y:2022:i:c:s1364032122008309. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.