IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rptpxx/v17y2016i4p557-576.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Practices and rationales of community engagement with wind farms: awareness raising, consultation, empowerment

Author

Listed:
  • Mhairi Aitken
  • Claire Haggett
  • David Rudolph

Abstract

In light of the growing emphasis on community engagement in the literature on renewable energy planning, and given the acknowledgement of the complexity of community engagement as a concept, we conducted an empirical review of practice relating to community engagement with onshore wind farms in the UK, exploring what is actually happening in terms of community engagement relating to onshore wind farms, and examining the rationales underpinning approaches to community engagement. We found that a wide range of engagement methods are being used in relation to onshore wind farms across the UK, but that these are predominantly focused at consultation and awareness raising. Developers typically retain considerable – or total – control within such engagement processes. However, the case studies presented in this paper also evidence some innovation in engagement methods. Through this research we develop and test a non-hierarchical classification of community engagement approaches: awareness raising; consultation and empowerment. This provides a useful tool for reflecting on practices and rationales of community engagement. By considering the three approaches non-hierarchically, this model allows for an examination of how such rationales are acted on in practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Mhairi Aitken & Claire Haggett & David Rudolph, 2016. "Practices and rationales of community engagement with wind farms: awareness raising, consultation, empowerment," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 557-576, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rptpxx:v:17:y:2016:i:4:p:557-576
    DOI: 10.1080/14649357.2016.1218919
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14649357.2016.1218919
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/14649357.2016.1218919?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ela Romov & Na’ama Teschner, 2022. "A Place under the Sun: Planning, Landscape and Participation in a Case of a Solar Powerplant in the Israeli Desert," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-15, June.
    2. Hoen, Ben & Firestone, Jeremy & Rand, Joseph & Elliot, Debi & Hübner, Gundula & Pohl, Johannes & Wiser, Ryan & Lantz, Eric & Haac, T. Ryan & Kaliski, Ken, 2019. "Attitudes of U.S. Wind Turbine Neighbors: Analysis of a Nationwide Survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    3. Hunggul Yudono Setio Hadi Nugroho & Markus Kudeng Sallata & Merryana Kiding Allo & Nining Wahyuningrum & Agung Budi Supangat & Ogi Setiawan & Gerson Ndawa Njurumana & Wahyudi Isnan & Diah Auliyani & F, 2023. "Incorporating Traditional Knowledge into Science-Based Sociotechnical Measures in Upper Watershed Management: Theoretical Framework, Existing Practices and the Way Forward," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-27, February.
    4. Borch, Kristian & Munk, Anders K. & Dahlgaard, Vibeke, 2020. "Mapping wind-power controversies on social media: Facebook as a powerful mobilizer of local resistance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    5. Hübner, Gundula & Leschinger, Valentin & Müller, Florian J.Y. & Pohl, Johannes, 2023. "Broadening the social acceptance of wind energy – An Integrated Acceptance Model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    6. Johansen, K. & Emborg, J., 2018. "Wind farm acceptance for sale? Evidence from the Danish wind farm co-ownership scheme," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 413-422.
    7. Suškevičs, M. & Eiter, S. & Martinat, S. & Stober, D. & Vollmer, E. & de Boer, C.L. & Buchecker, M., 2019. "Regional variation in public acceptance of wind energy development in Europe: What are the roles of planning procedures and participation?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 311-323.
    8. Marian Stuiver & Sander van den Burg & Wenting Chen & Claire Haggett & David Rudolph & Phoebe Koundouri, 2020. "Stakeholder involvement in technological design: Lessons learned from the MERMAID and TROPOS projects," DEOS Working Papers 2019, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    9. David Rudolph & Claire Haggett & Mhairi Aitken, 2018. "Community benefits from offshore renewables: The relationship between different understandings of impact, community, and benefit," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(1), pages 92-117, February.
    10. 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).
    11. Gonyo, Sarah Ball & Fleming, Chloe S. & Freitag, Amy & Goedeke, Theresa L., 2021. "Resident perceptions of local offshore wind energy development: Modeling efforts to improve participatory processes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    12. Anna Codemo & Ambra Barbini & Ahi Mantouza & Anastasios Bitziadis & Rossano Albatici, 2023. "Integration of Public Perception in the Assessment of Licensed Solar Farms: A Case Study in Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-25, June.
    13. 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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:rptpxx:v:17:y:2016:i:4:p:557-576. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rptp20 .

    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.