IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v98y2016icp483-494.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How wind became a four-letter word: Lessons for community engagement from a wind energy conflict in King Island, Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Colvin, R.M.
  • Witt, G.Bradd
  • Lacey, Justine

Abstract

Wind is recognised as a key source of renewable energy. Despite broad public support for the sector, wind energy proposals have routinely triggered social conflict and localised opposition. To promote social acceptance and avoid conflict, the wind energy sector undertakes community engagement. This paper interrogates the community engagement undertaken in King Island (Tasmania, Australia) for a large scale wind energy development proposal which did not proceed to implementation due to external economic factors. Despite the proponent's adoption of what was described as a ‘best practice’ community engagement strategy, the proposal caused significant social conflict for the community. In-depth interviews (n=30) were conducted with members of the King Island community and were qualitatively analysed through the social identity lens. Five key drivers of the local conflict were identified: problematic pre-feasibility engagement; the lack of a third-party facilitator of the community consultative committee; holding a vote which polarised the community; the lack of a clear place in the engagement process for local opposition, and; the significance of local context. These findings are instructive for improving community engagement practice for wind energy and other energy generation and land use change sectors.

Suggested Citation

  • Colvin, R.M. & Witt, G.Bradd & Lacey, Justine, 2016. "How wind became a four-letter word: Lessons for community engagement from a wind energy conflict in King Island, Australia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 483-494.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:98:y:2016:i:c:p:483-494
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.09.022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516304888
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.09.022?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. Suárez Sánchez, Ana & Krzemień, Alicja & Riesgo Fernández, Pedro & Iglesias Rodríguez, Francisco J. & Sánchez Lasheras, Fernando & de Cos Juez, F. Javier, 2015. "Investment in new tungsten mining projects," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(P2), pages 177-190.
    2. Groth, Theresa M. & Vogt, Christine, 2014. "Residents' perceptions of wind turbines: An analysis of two townships in Michigan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 251-260.
    3. Howard, Tanya, 2015. "Olivebranches and idiot's guides: Frameworks for community engagement in Australian wind farm development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 137-147.
    4. Alberts, Daniel J., 2007. "Stakeholders or subject matter experts, who should be consulted?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 2336-2346, April.
    5. 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.
    6. Jami, Anahita A.N. & Walsh, Philip R., 2014. "The role of public participation in identifying stakeholder synergies in wind power project development: The case study of Ontario, Canada," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 194-202.
    7. Corscadden, Kenny & Wile, Adam & Yiridoe, Emmanuel, 2012. "Social license and consultation criteria for community wind projects," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 392-397.
    8. Hobman, Elizabeth V. & Ashworth, Peta, 2013. "Public support for energy sources and related technologies: The impact of simple information provision," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 862-869.
    9. Ana-Maria Bliuc & Craig McGarty & Emma F. Thomas & Girish Lala & Mariette Berndsen & RoseAnne Misajon, 2015. "Public division about climate change rooted in conflicting socio-political identities," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(3), pages 226-229, March.
    10. McLaren Loring, Joyce, 2007. "Wind energy planning in England, Wales and Denmark: Factors influencing project success," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 2648-2660, April.
    11. Andrew Crane & Trish Ruebottom, 2011. "Stakeholder Theory and Social Identity: Rethinking Stakeholder Identification," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 77-87, March.
    12. Groth, Theresa M. & Vogt, Christine A., 2014. "Rural wind farm development: Social, environmental and economic features important to local residents," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1-8.
    13. Stewart Fast & Warren Mabee & Jamie Baxter & Tanya Christidis & Liz Driver & Stephen Hill & J. J. McMurtry & Melody Tomkow, 2016. "Lessons learned from Ontario wind energy disputes," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 1(2), pages 1-7, February.
    14. Gross, Catherine, 2007. "Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2727-2736, May.
    15. Anderson, Carmel, 2013. "The networked minority: How a small group prevailed in a local windfarm conflict," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 97-108.
    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. Walton, Andrea & McCrea, Rod, 2020. "Understanding social licence to operate for onshore gas development: How the underlying drivers fit together," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    2. Colvin, R.M. & Przybyszewski, E., 2022. "Local residents' policy preferences in an energy contested region – The Upper Hunter, Australia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    3. Zárate-Toledo, Ezequiel & Wood, Paul & Patiño, Rodrigo, 2021. "In search of wind farm sustainability on the Yucatan coast: Deficiencies and public perception of Environmental Impact Assessment in Mexico," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    4. Larsen, Sanne Vammen & Hansen, Anne Merrild & Nielsen, Helle Nedergaard, 2018. "The role of EIA and weak assessments of social impacts in conflicts over implementation of renewable energy policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 43-53.
    5. Eduardo Martínez-Mendoza & Luis Arturo Rivas-Tovar & Luis Enrique García-Santamaría, 2021. "Wind energy in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec: conflicts and social implications," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(8), pages 11706-11731, August.
    6. Köktürk, G. & Tokuç, A., 2017. "Vision for wind energy with a smart grid in Izmir," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 332-345.
    7. Luke, Hanabeth, 2017. "Social resistance to coal seam gas development in the Northern Rivers region of Eastern Australia: Proposing a diamond model of social license to operate," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 266-280.
    8. Erik Aschenbrand & Thomas Michler, 2021. "Why Do UNESCO Biosphere Reserves Get Less Recognition than National Parks? A Landscape Research Perspective on Protected Area Narratives in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-18, December.
    9. McCrea, Dr Rod & Walton, Dr Andrea & Jeanneret, Ms Talia, 2020. "An opportunity to say no: Comparing local community attitudes toward onshore unconventional gas development in pre-approval and operational phases," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    10. Goda Perlaviciute & Linda Steg & Nadja Contzen & Sabine Roeser & Nicole Huijts, 2018. "Emotional Responses to Energy Projects: Insights for Responsible Decision Making in a Sustainable Energy Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-12, July.
    11. Hindmarsh, Richard & Alidoust, Sara, 2019. "Rethinking Australian CSG transitions in participatory contexts of local social conflict, community engagement, and shifts towards cleaner energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 272-282.
    12. Eduardo Janser de Azevedo Dantas & Luiz Pinguelli Rosa & Neilton Fidelis da Silva & Marcio Giannini Pereira, 2019. "Wind Power on the Brazilian Northeast Coast, from the Whiff of Hope to Turbulent Convergence: The Case of the Galinhos Wind Farms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-24, July.
    13. Mercer-Mapstone, Lucy & Rifkin, Will & Moffat, Kieren & Louis, Winnifred, 2017. "Conceptualising the role of dialogue in social licence to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 137-146.

    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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    4. Yvonne Rydin & Lucy Natarajan & Maria Lee & Simon Lock, 2018. "Do local economic interests matter when regulating nationally significant infrastructure? The case of renewable energy infrastructure projects," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 33(3), pages 269-286, May.
    5. Frate, Cláudio Albuquerque & Brannstrom, Christian & de Morais, Marcus Vinícius Girão & Caldeira-Pires, Armando de Azevedo, 2019. "Procedural and distributive justice inform subjectivity regarding wind power: A case from Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 185-195.
    6. Ki, Jaehong & Yun, Sun-Jin & Kim, Woo-Chang & Oh, Subin & Ha, Jihun & Hwangbo, Eunyoung & Lee, Hyoeun & Shin, Sumin & Yoon, Seulki & Youn, Hyewon, 2022. "Local residents’ attitudes about wind farms and associated noise annoyance in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    7. Walsh, Bríd & van der Plank, Sien & Behrens, Paul, 2017. "The effect of community consultation on perceptions of a proposed mine: A case study from southeast Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 163-171.
    8. Emmanuel Songsore & Michael Buzzelli & Jamie Baxter, 2018. "Understanding developer perspectives and experiences of wind energy development in Ontario," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(4), pages 649-668, June.
    9. Grashof, Katherina, 2019. "Are auctions likely to deter community wind projects? And would this be problematic?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 20-32.
    10. Christidis, Tanya & Lewis, Geoffrey & Bigelow, Philip, 2017. "Understanding support and opposition to wind turbine development in Ontario, Canada and assessing possible steps for future development," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 93-103.
    11. Langer, Katharina & Decker, Thomas & Menrad, Klaus, 2017. "Public participation in wind energy projects located in Germany: Which form of participation is the key to acceptance?," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 63-73.
    12. Feurtey, Évariste & Ilinca, Adrian & Sakout, Anas & Saucier, Carol, 2016. "Institutional factors influencing strategic decision-making in energy policy; a case study of wind energy in France and Quebec (Canada)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1455-1470.
    13. Brennan, Noreen & van Rensburg, Thomas M., 2020. "Public preferences for wind farms involving electricity trade and citizen engagement in Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    14. Brennan, Noreen & Van Rensburg, Thomas M, 2016. "Wind farm externalities and public preferences for community consultation in Ireland: A discrete choice experiments approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 355-365.
    15. Caporale, Diana & Sangiorgio, Valentino & Amodio, Alessandro & De Lucia, Caterina, 2020. "Multi-criteria and focus group analysis for social acceptance of wind energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    16. Mills, Sarah Banas & Bessette, Douglas & Smith, Hannah, 2019. "Exploring landowners’ post-construction changes in perceptions of wind energy in Michigan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 754-762.
    17. 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.
    18. 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).
    19. J. R. Lovering & S. H. Baker & T. R. Allen, 2021. "Social License in the Deployment of Advanced Nuclear Technology," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-13, July.
    20. Landeta-Manzano, Beñat & Arana-Landín, Germán & Calvo, Pilar M. & Heras-Saizarbitoria, Iñaki, 2018. "Wind energy and local communities: A manufacturer’s efforts to gain acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 314-324.

    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:enepol:v:98:y:2016:i:c:p:483-494. 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/locate/enpol .

    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.