IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v65y2014icp662-669.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Procedural justice in wind facility siting: Recommendations for state-led siting processes

Author

Listed:
  • Ottinger, Gwen
  • Hargrave, Timothy J.
  • Hopson, Eric

Abstract

Evidence suggests that state control of wind facility siting decisions fosters new project development more effectively than local control, yet the literature suggests that affected citizens tend to be more fairly represented in local siting processes. We argue that successful renewable energy policy must satisfy both the need for new project development and the obligation to procedural justice. To suggest how it can do so, we analyze existing state- and county-level siting processes in Washington state, finding that both fall short on measures of procedural justice. To overcome this limitation and address the tension between procedural justice and project development, we then propose a collaborative governance approach to wind facility siting, in which state governments retain ultimate authority over permitting decisions but encourage and support local-level deliberations as the primary means of making those decisions. Such an approach, we argue, would be more just, facilitate wind development by addressing community concerns constructively and result in better projects through the input of diverse stakeholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Ottinger, Gwen & Hargrave, Timothy J. & Hopson, Eric, 2014. "Procedural justice in wind facility siting: Recommendations for state-led siting processes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 662-669.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:65:y:2014:i:c:p:662-669
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.066
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513009907
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Wolsink, Maarten, 2007. "Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of 'backyard motives'," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 11(6), pages 1188-1207, August.
    2. Wolsink, Maarten, 2000. "Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 49-64.
    3. Bird, Lori & Bolinger, Mark & Gagliano, Troy & Wiser, Ryan & Brown, Matthew & Parsons, Brian, 2005. "Policies and market factors driving wind power development in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(11), pages 1397-1407, July.
    4. Mhairi Aitken & Seonaidh McDonald & Peter Strachan, 2008. "Locating 'power' in wind power planning processes: the (not so) influential role of local objectors," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(6), pages 777-799.
    5. Saidur, R. & Rahim, N.A. & Islam, M.R. & Solangi, K.H., 2011. "Environmental impact of wind energy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 2423-2430, June.
    6. 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.
    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. Simpson, Genevieve & Clifton, Julian, 2016. "Subsidies for residential solar photovoltaic energy systems in Western Australia: Distributional, procedural and outcome justice," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 262-273.
    2. Neuteleers, Stijn & Mulder, Machiel & Hindriks, Frank, 2017. "Assessing fairness of dynamic grid tariffs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 111-120.
    3. repec:eee:enepol:v:109:y:2017:i:c:p:863-870 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. repec:eee:ecolec:v:141:y:2017:i:c:p:245-260 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:65:y:2014:i:c:p:662-669. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.