2010_Ellis et al._Planning Theory & Practice Wind Power Is There A “ Planning Problem ” Expanding Wind Power A Problem of Planning , or of Perception The Problems Of Planning — A Developer ' s Perspective Wind Farm.pdf

This article was downloaded by: [USP University of Sao Paulo]
On: 01 August 2011, At: 12:35

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Planning Theory & Practice

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://tandfprod.literatumonline.com/loi/rptp20
Wind Power: Is There A Planning

Problem? Expanding Wind Power: A
Problem of Planning, or of Perception?
The Problems Of PlanningA
Developer's Perspective Wind Farms:
More Respectful and Open Debate
Needed, Not Less Planning: Problem
Carrier or Problem Source?
Innovative Wind Power Planning
a
Geraint Ellis , Richard Cowell , Charles Warren , Peter

d
Strachan , Joseph Szarka , Richard Hadwin , Paul Miner ,

h
Maarten Wolsink & Alain Nada
School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering, Queen's

University, Belfast
b
Department of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University, UK
School of Geography and Geosciences, University of St Andrews,

UK
d
Alberdeen Business School, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen,

UK
e
Department of European Studies and Modern Languages, Bath

University, UK
f
Renewable Energy Partnerships Ltd, Overmoor, Neston, Corsham,

Swindon, UK
g
Campaign to Protect Rural England, London
Department of Geography, Planning and International

Development Studies, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
i
Centre International de Recherche sur l'Environnement et le

Dveloppement, Campus du Jardin Tropical, Nogent-sur-Marne,
France
Available online: 07 Jan 2010
To cite this article: Geraint Ellis, Richard Cowell, Charles Warren, Peter Strachan, Joseph Szarka,
Richard Hadwin, Paul Miner, Maarten Wolsink & Alain Nada (2009): Wind Power: Is There A
Planning Problem? Expanding Wind Power: A Problem of Planning, or of Perception? The Problems
Of PlanningA Developer's Perspective Wind Farms: More Respectful and Open Debate Needed, Not
Less Planning: Problem Carrier or Problem Source? Innovative Wind Power Planning, Planning
Theory & Practice, 10:4, 521-547
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649350903441555
Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://tandfprod.literatumonline.com/page/terms-andconditions
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Planning Theory & Practice, Vol. 10, No. 4, 521547, December 2009
INTERFACE
Wind Power: Is There A Planning

Problem?
The last ten years have seen academic interest in wind power multiply as quickly as
turbines on a Scottish mountain range. This has engaged scholars from a wide range of
disciplinary backgrounds, including not only engineering, energy analysts, economics
and psychology but also, of course, planning. In terms of planning research at least, one
can question how influential this work has been in altering the terms of the policy
debates surrounding wind power. For this reason, between February 2008 and May 2009
a small multi-disciplinary group of academics ran a series of five ESRC-funded
seminars,1 at which more than fifty papers were presented and which brought together
researchers, developers, policy-makers and non-government organisation (NGO)
representatives from the UK and internationally to discuss the varied perspectives on
wind power deployment and, in particular, the future direction of the wind energy
sector. The topics discussed at these events did not just focus on planning issues but
included the financial mechanisms for supporting wind power, engagement with local
communities and structural constraints facing the wind power sector. However, in all
these seminars, time and time again the discussions came back to perceived problems
with planning systems, with different stakeholders clearly having very different
perceptions of what planning should be delivering in terms of wind power. Indeed, this
seems to have been conflated into a multi-faceted planning problem that is played out
in government policy and the popular media through a discourse of planning barriers.
Yet, as often expressed at the seminars, this discourse is somewhat at odds with the
emerging understanding of social acceptance and the role of planning systems being
projected by researchers and some elements of the professional community. This
therefore seems an ideal topic for an Interface exchange in the pages of this journal, for
not only is wind power seen as critical for addressing climate change, it is also one in
which there clearly has not been enough interaction between research and practitioner
communities.
In many ways, the issues facing wind power are shared by other forms of contested
development and bring into focus the varied normative assumptions attached to
planning by the myriad of actors involved. Nevertheless, the lead paper in this Interface
argues that the issue of planning for wind energy is worthy of special consideration
by those concerned with academic practitioner relations for two key reasons. Firstly, it
is immensely revealing of wider conceptions of how government and other
stakeholders view the function of spatial planning in regulating major infrastructure
and dealing with dissent. Secondly, the experience of wind power development
raises wider questions of the legitimate role of planning in negotiating transitions
towards sustainable energy, with lessons of likely relevance to other renewable
technologies.
To frame this debate within a broader context the lead paper is followed by four
responses, each offering a very different perspective on how the relationship between
1464-9357 Print/1470-000X On-line/09/040521-27 q 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14649350903441555
522
Interface
planning and wind power should be conceptualised. The lead paper aims to provide an
overview, from an academic point of view, of the planning problem and how the
growing body of research in this field contributes a range of useful findings that
cumulatively suggest that alternative policy approaches could more effectively deliver
wind power in the UK.
The first response is provided by Richard Hadwin, a wind developer with extensive
experience of guiding wind farm schemes through the planning system. For him,
researchers and those involved in the policy and practice communities have failed to
understand the real problems that arise when schemes are locally disputed and where
councillors are expected to act in a quasi-judicial role. In a response that articulates a great
sense of frustration with the current planning process he confronts the myths and
contradictions faced in the local planning of such nationally important infrastructure and
identifies specific failures with the current process. The second response comes from Paul
Miner, from the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE), often on the other
side of local disputes over wind farm proposals. In his response, Miner highlights some of
the power relationships involved in wind power planning and questions how we balance
the costs and benefits of such development and indeed, asks how these are distributed
through society. Like the previous contribution, Miner questions the effectiveness of
current planning processes and calls for a more open political debate on the impacts of
wind farm proposals.
The last two responses are provided by academic commentators, offering significantly
different intellectual and geographic perspectives from those found among UK
practitioners. The first of these is from Maarten Wolsink from the University of
Amsterdam, who draws on an unrivalled experience of researching social acceptability of
wind power schemes. From this, and his research on public attitudes to a range of facility
siting problems across Europe, he agrees with the main line of argument set out in the lead
paper, but suggests a particular way of understanding the role of planning in such cases.
For him, planning should not be seen as the key problem facing wind power deployment,
but as a process which channels a broader range of institutional and ideological factors
that frustrate the delivery of wind power. Finally, Alain Nadai from the International
Research Centre on Environment and Development in France contrasts the French
experience with that of the UK, drawing on insights from science and technology studies,
to suggest the need for more innovative relationships between planning, technologies,
society and landscape.
All these responses provide fresh ways of looking at the planning problem and
while they do not agree about the specific nature of this, they do share some
perspectives, including identifying the need for a more overt political engagement with
wind farm siting decisions, and suggesting that the planning system is not living up to
the professionally promoted role as the mediator of spatial conflicts. These problems
do, however, appear deep-seated, with the academic commentators pointing to the
need for a more radical appreciation of how societies move to a low-carbon economy.
Above all, the papers highlight the fact that for the most part, academics and
practitioners do live in very different worlds, defined not just by their day-to-day
activities and the resulting variation in problem-framing, but in the very basic ways in
which they appreciate evidence, knowledge and the normative purpose of planning.
This rehearses the long-standing debate on the tensions between research and practice,
but given that we are now dealing with strategies that could guide us out of
the potentially tumultuous consequences of climate change, isnt it time we all took
notice?
Interface
523
Geraint Ellis, Queens University Belfast

Richard Cowell, Cardiff University
Charles Warren, University of St Andrews
Peter Strachan, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen
Joseph Szarka, Bath University
Note
1. This seminar series has been coordinated by the editors of this Interface and the authors of the lead paper,
representing researchers from planning, geography, business management and international studies. The
seminar series, Where Next for Wind? was primarily funded by the Economic and Social Research Council
(ESRC) (RES-451-26-0386), with contributions from other organisations, including Scottish and Southern
Energy and the authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided.
Expanding Wind Power: A Problem

of Planning, or of Perception?
GERAINT ELLIS*, RICHARD COWELL**, CHARLES WARREN,
PETER STRACHAN & JOSEPH SZARKA{
*
School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering, Queens University, Belfast; **Department of City and
Regional Planning, Cardiff University, UK; School of Geography and Geosciences, University of St Andrews, UK;
Alberdeen Business School, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK; {Department of European Studies and
Modern Languages, Bath University, UK
Introduction
Readers of this journal will need no introduction to the enormity of the challenges posed
by the entwined phenomena of energy security and climate change, and the role of spatial
planning in adapting to future conditions and mitigating their most extreme effects.
To date, government efforts have been primarily focused on supply-side solutions to
reduce the reliance on fossil fuels as the main source of electricity, translated into
ambitious targets for renewable energy. These have given rise to reformed systems of
market support for renewable energy, leading to dramatic increases in wind energy
developments across the EU. Although the UK witnessed a substantial rise in wind
deployment, by 2008 only 4% of electricity came from renewable sources, which remained
far short of what is required for a sustainable electricity generation system.
A persistent line of explanation for this implementation deficit is that planning is a
barrier to the expansion of wind energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA,
2008) notes that although the average rate of gaining permission for wind projects is 72%,1
for those taken through the town and country planning system the success rate is only 66%
(12% at appeal), and it is as low as 51% (11% at appeal) in England. In contrast, the BWEA
(2008) highlights the fact that all major development has an approval rate of 75%,
significantly above that of wind farms. There are clearly many factors governing approval
Correspondence Address: Geraint Ellis, School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering, Queens University,
Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, Email: g.ellis@qub.ac.uk
524
Interface
rates, including the quality of applications, the sites chosen, the clarity of policy, the nature
and strength of opposition, the novelty of this type of application for many planning
departments and the competence of the decision makers. Nevertheless, these statistics
have strengthened a discourse around wind power that projects the planning system as a
bottleneck to a more sustainable future. Thus, the UK Governments 2007 Energy White
Paper reiterated earlier statements that identified the planning system as a key obstacle to
the expansion of wind energy, noting how it can take too long, causes uncertainty, is costly
and deters investment (DTI, 2007). In essence this has constructed planning as a
problem in a way virtually unrecognisable compared to the vision of an inclusive,
integrative and value-laden process for mediating space and creating place projected by
the main professional institute (RTPI, 2003).
In this short paper we question this portrayal of the planning system and suggest that it
is based on a superficial understanding of the social and policy dynamics surrounding
wind developments, so that a greater integration of academic and practitioner
perspectives on this issue will help manage the transition to a sustainable energy system
upon which all our futures depend.
The Dimensions of the Planning Problem
The exact natureand, indeed, the existenceof this planning problem (Cowell, 2007)
is strongly contingent on ones viewpoint, and has a number of contributing strands.
A dominant concern from the wind energy sector itself is with the efficiency of planning
(BWEA, 2004; 2008), suggesting it is too slow in reaching decisions and too unreliable
in awarding consent, thus frustrating not only developers but also nationally and
internationally important climate change objectives. Significantly, in articulating its
dissatisfaction with the process, the wind sector has found a sympathetic hearing in
government, as this view aligns itself with broader attempts to reduce the burden of
planning bureaucracy on the development industry. Many of these issues have been
confronted in the broader modernising planning agenda (Cowell & Owens, 2006), the
Barker Review (Barker, 2006) and recent legislation on speeding up the consent decisions
for major facilities, including the establishment of the Infrastructure Planning
Commission.
Although these difficulties are predominantly framed as a procedural performance
problem for the consenting process, it should be acknowledged that a range of other issues
can be seen to act as a limiting factor on wind power deployment and thus be constitutive
of a broader, societal planning problem. There have been the perennial problems of
designing an effective and affordable system of market support for renewable energy
(Szarka, 2007). Then there are wider infrastructure issues of a strategic investment nature
arising from the difficulties of coordinating wind power expansion with increased grid
capacity in the kind of remote locations with the greatest wind resource, especially in
Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Indeed, developers are in some cases facing severe
connection delays in securing grid connection which make the impediments of the local
planning system relatively insignificant (Macaskill, 2006). In addition to this there are
hardware supply issues, as developers jostle to secure an adequate supply of wind
turbines.
A further dimension of the planning problem is the way in which the participative
and discursive opportunities in the planning system, often championed as its raison detre
can provide an arena for local interests to challenge specific development proposals.
The openness of the planning process has exposed wind energy proposals to wider
Interface
525
scrutiny, forcing them to confront a range of political, policy and technical debates and
face up to local opposition (Cowell, 2007). The fact that wind developments are prone to
such discourses of objection (Ellis, 2004) is often highlighted as perhaps the key element
of the planning problem and calls into question the rhetoric of participation in planning,
the meaning of procedural efficiency and what is seen as the ultimate function of the
planning process. In so doing it raises deeper questions about knowledge, accountability
and problem-framing which influence the way in which stakeholders such as local
campaign groups, politicians and developers engage in the regulatory and policy process.
The final perspective of the planning problem concerns substantive issues of location
and environmental trade-offs. Here, the physics of wind energy resources and the
economics of their exploitation is seen as creating problems in that high energy sites tend
to be in the landscapes society values the most, often with high cultural significance,
important ecological niches and rare wildness qualities. This geography clearly requires
a range of adjustments in attitudes to issues such as rurality and energy, and in the skills
and procedures employed by planners and designers. As Hull (1995) noted, it is innately
challenging for British planning, institutionally predicated on keeping urbanising
development separate from the countryside, to manage developments like wind power
which challenge these presumptions. There are also fundamental questions about
societys willingness to trade off the exploitation of the UKs most productive wind
resources against other environmental and aesthetic impacts. Such trade-offs are implicit
and rarely considered in the determination of strategic energy policy, but they frequently
emerge disruptively in the planning process.
We do not wish to deny the fact that all these issues may be symptomatic of difficulties
related to the skills, resources, procedures and governance that influence (positively and
negatively) the planning of wind power. However, we would like to take a step back from
the hard facts of wind power disputes, to consider why certain conceptions of the
planning problem have come to the fore and to establish the broader context in which
the knowledge generated in universities and the day-to-day activities of policy makers
and planners interact. Following Rydin (2007) and Sandercock (1998), we should recognise
that there are multiple ways of knowing and claiming reality, which shape the way in
which problems are understood. Furthermore, the use of knowledge is set within a context
of social relations which in any given situation may confer priority on any particular type
of knowledge or knowledge-holder. This therefore suggests that the way that wind power
planning is viewed by various stakeholders is likely to give preference to certain forms of
knowledge and particular perspectives of the planning problem. Some types of
knowledge, such as the costs that developers attribute to regulatory delays, or the
megawatts of capacity held up in the planning systems, are expressed in tangible
quantities that are used in traditional cost/benefit calculation. These in turn are
assimilated readily into well rehearsed storylines and normative frames of policy
(Fischer, 2003) for which there seem to be natural responses; which chime with readily
understood ideas of bureaucratic obstruction which governments appear to feel a
compelling duty to resolve.
This gives rise to an understanding of the problem that downplays the quality of the
final decision or the need for adequate stakeholder input, but emphasises streamlining
planning decisions to make a decision in the fastest possible time. In terms of the
categories of planning knowledge suggested by Rydin (2007, p. 60), this therefore sees the
problem almost entirely as a process issue, rather than in terms of social interaction with
the planning system. Thus, in various ways, planning across the UK has been restructured
both to tighten the presumption in favour of development of on-shore wind and to
526
Interface
identify zones where large wind farms may be acceptable. Conversely, the issues of
limited manufacturing capacity for turbines, or how to incentivise grid investment,
require responses that might lie beyond the accepted realm of government activity: a
realm that favours interventions consistent with competitive markets and private sector
providers.
For this reason we suggest that certain aspects of the planning problem have attracted
more government attention than others, while those that may offer a greater challenge to
the knowledge currency of government policy making, or would demand a more complex
response, have tended to be neglected. In examining this issue a little further, we would
like to review in more detail the different ways in which social acceptance of wind farms
has been understood. Ironically, although this has attracted a burgeoning academic debate
in recent years, it appears to be poorly understood in the practitioner world, exercising a
marked lack of purchase on dominant constructions of the planning problem.
Understanding Social Acceptance of Wind Farms
The nature of local opposition to facility siting decisions has long preoccupied planning
researchers. With the emergence of wind power as a viable technology within supportive
policy frameworks, and the appearance of turbines as a contemporary feature of the
landscape, the nature of local reaction has also become a major focus of research. In many
ways the nature of opposition to wind farms can be interpreted using the same conceptual
categories as other locally unwanted land uses (LULUs), being branded, for example, as
disruptive elements to a stable domestic environment (Lake, 1993). Yet the wider context
of climate change and energy security has provided a significantly different tone and
urgency to this debate. Thus, while opposition to landfill sites or road building can be
characterised as a straight fight between unsustainable and sustainable visions of the
future, or technical versus social/political approaches to problem solving, disputes over
wind farms are more difficult to interpret, appearing to be heavily contextualised and
arising from a wide range of concerns. Indeed, some aspects of the conflict over wind
farms have been described as being green on green (Warren et al., 2005), representing
debates over what sort of sustainable future we want, rather than the economy versus the
environment dichotomy previously typical of development controversies.
Despite these differences, much of the research aimed at understanding the nature of
social acceptance of wind farms has adopted methodologies that have been unable to
adequately capture the way in which the public perceive this issue. Such research has,
nevertheless, been fed into the policy process. For example, many studies, often
commissioned by government agencies (e.g. Braunholtz, 2003; SEI, 2003) have tried to
capture the depth and extent of public attitudes to wind farms through a conventional
opinion survey approach. These have offered some limited insights into social acceptance
in a form easily disseminated through a variety of media, with apparently conclusive
resultsa typical contribution is specifying that x % of respondents agree with the need to
expand wind power capacity. However, as Devine-Wright (2005) has highlighted, such
research implies a rather static, deterministic causality of objectors motives (e.g. proximity
to a proposal) that underplays the depth and subtleties of the process of opinion formation
at work. Such research approaches are open to the general criticisms aimed at
conventional planning research that include issues of elitism and researcher bias
(e.g. Fischer, 2003; Rydin, 2007; Sandercock, 1998). Specifically in relation to social
acceptance of wind farms, such research has tended to highlight apparent contradictions
in public opinion, which are then explained in terms of the irrationality of the research
Interface
527
subjects. The oft-quoted example here is the so-called attitude-behaviour gap (Haggett,
2004) where surveys show a high level of support amongst the public for wind power, but
also a reluctance to accept actual wind farms in their local area. In the absence of greater
understanding of motivational drivers, such behaviour has typically been explained away
as being symptomatic of NIMBYism. This concept has been comprehensively unpicked
in academic circles (e.g. Wolsink, 2000; 2006), notably because of its oversimplification of
strongly held environmental, political and moral views of deceptively fecund breadth and
depth (Kemp, 1990, p. 1247) Despite this, it retains an uncritical presence in some
academic work and is particularly alive in policy debates around wind farms and the
planning process in general.2 This tends to have a very real impact on policy, with
governments keen to be seen to act against what is presented as selfishness, leading to
some predictable policy responses. In the case of the UK, it has resulted in the use of
planning policy to assert the national interest over recalcitrant local opposition, rather
than attempts at building local activism in support of wind power (Toke & Strachan, 2006).
Academic research may not be blameless in this situation, producing a rich array of
descriptions of patterns of social acceptance, but providing little in terms of substantive
explanation to inform new policy approaches in this area (Devine-Wright, 2005, p.136).
This touches on the very role of academics in the wider arena of planning, and indeed,
their broader contribution to the society that pays their wages. While we acknowledge the
increasing limitations placed on academic research (Thomas, 2005), what should
distinguish academic research from, for example, contracts undertaken by market
research companies or planning consultancies, is an ability to theorise, experiment with
different research approaches and even to speak truth to power, in order to produce
quality peer-reviewed knowledge from a research culture that is not ivory-tower, but is
still a step removed from the short-term pressure and bias of client-led research.
We believe that in the last five years a sophisticated body of knowledge has developed
in respect to social acceptance of wind farms, becoming more theoretically informed and
adopting a rich methodological diversity. In what follows, we highlight some of the key
approaches adopted and then summarise what they are beginning to tell us about social
acceptance of wind power.
Analysts have conducted quantitative research to analyse the influence of different
factors on planning outcomes, including the relative influence of different stakeholders
and of the actions undertaken (or not) by the developers (Toke, 2005). There is also a
growing number of interesting local case studies of wind farm proposals (e.g. Aitken et al.,
2008) and the impacts of planning policies (e.g. Cowell, 2007; Kerr, 2006), that are
beginning to facilitate longitudinal perspectives. Cross-national comparative research
(e.g. Toke et al., 2008, Jobert et al., 2007; Meyer, 2007) contributes to an understanding of the
role of institutional and cultural factors in social acceptance issues. Different aspects of
social acceptance have also been subject to study, including the influence of institutional
context on opposition (Wolsink, 2000), the effectiveness of participative processes and
comparison between onshore and offshore schemes (Haggett, 2008).
Similarly, a number of theoretical and methodological perspectives have been explored,
including regulation theory (Parkhill, 2007), power (Aitken et al., 2008), choice-modelling
(Alvarez-Farizo & Hanley, 2002), q-methodology (Ellis et al., 2007), place attachment
(Manzo & Perkins, 2006), and how social context constrains the ability of developers to
implement wind power schemes (Agterbosch, 2009). One particularly productive line of
research has been the application of discourse analysis in understanding how conflicts are
played out in formal decision-making arenas and the popular media (Devine-Wright &
Devine-Wright, 2006; Barry et al., 2008).
528
Interface
Cumulatively, this research offers a wealth of insights into the social acceptance of wind
farms, with a number of points of relevance to the policy and planning communities, as
highlighted below.
Local opposition is just one of several aspects of the planning obstacle course faced by
developers. Thus it appears that:
The vast majority of wind developments do successfully gain planning consent and
those that do not are rarely refused on the grounds of public opposition alone.
. While local opposition may create delays, it is not as influential on ultimate outcomes as
is often portrayed. Indeed, some research has suggested that in fact wider institutional
constraints and administrative frameworks (e.g. conservation designations) are more
important than the gaining of social acceptance.
. Objectors have differential resources at different stages of the decision-making
processthey exert influence unevenly.
Social acceptance is an issue that faces wind power deployment in a wide range of
geographic contexts, irrespective of the detailed decision-making processes, but one can
learn cross-nationally about the impact of different decision-making processes, both in
narrow regulatory processes and in wider political contexts. This suggests that:
.
.
.
.
.
.
Local discontent can be accentuated by poor project management and insensitive

decision-making processes.
Core concerns of objectors relate to fears over visual impact, which tends to be given low
priority in making planning decisions.
Issues over perceived or actual ownership of wind power schemes and the distribution
of benefits are influential in shaping the level and nature of local opposition or
acceptance.
Conventional wisdom, media reports and developer promotions tend to portray local
opposition as wrong, thus establishing an adversarial climate from the beginning of
the decision-making process.
Regulators are rarely perceived as neutral arbiters, but often as implicit supporters of
wind power schemes.
Developers face endemic difficulties in understanding the power geometries of local
communities and tend not to make efforts in nurturing local pro-development alliances.
Positive local support can compensate for a restrictive policy environment.
Disparities in knowledge may be less important in explaining antagonism between

the parties to wind farm disputes than is commonly claimed, and providing
better information may rarely generate greater consensus. Research has found that:
Those objecting to wind power proposals do not have any less understanding of issues,
such as climate change or the viability of wind power technology. Ignorance is rarely a
source of opposition.
. Although wind farm debates may hinge on disagreements over empirical facts, at a
deeper level the social acceptability of wind farms is inextricably linked to values, world
views and the way localities are related to the wider global environment.
. Local opposition to wind farms appears to be dynamic, with objection peaking
when projects are proposed and declining once they have been implemented.
However, one must be careful in reading ex-post acceptance as evidence of ex-ante
acceptability.
.
Interface
529
The wealth of cumulative research highlights the value of multi-method and

interdisciplinary approaches to research. Thus:
Disputes are best understood, not just in terms of the actions and inadequacies of
objectors, but in terms of the dynamics of debates, including the actions and arguments
of the supporters of the scheme.
. Research is needed that does not just capture a snap-shot of opinions, but should
access the complex issues of value, perception and subjectivity in understanding local
disputes, including how these are projected through a variety of media.
While it is recognised that this research is constantly evolving, its existence does
demonstrate that a nuanced understanding of the issues of social acceptance has been
developed which provides a critical perspective on current policy approaches. However,
this raises questions about the ways in which the academy influences policy agendas,
since they are rarely direct and immediate (Owens, 2005). This is not just because of the
messages it conveys but also due to the currency of knowledge in which it trades
essentially, qualitative insights on values and perception. Furthermore, much research is
based on local case studies from which it can be difficult to draw general conclusions.
The evidence base thus sits awkwardly with the more conventional approaches to
policy research and highlights the failure to embrace the required policy learning in
relation to wind power. Szarka (2006) notes that such learning needs to take place across
three dimensions: first are measures to increase production capacity, including financial
mechanisms such as the Renewables Obligation; the second relates to increasing
institutional capacity such as technological innovation, ownership structures or
regulatory processes; finally is the need to increase social capacity to accept modern
wind power as a new form of energy production, without which the sector will continue to
face deficits in implementation capacity (Agterbosch et al., 2009). It is clear that in the
UK, government action has been almost entirely aimed at policy learning in the first two
dimensions, which are more open to standard regulatory policy approaches and centred
on delivering targets. Meanwhile, the research on social acceptance makes a strong case
for merging this expert-led form of knowledge production with more deliberative
processes to bring about the social learning that may ameliorate what the government see
as the core of the planning problem.
Final Reflections
In this paper we have endeavoured to show that, although wind power development
is arguably critical to the future sustainable development of the UK, it faces a number
of challenges that have come to be encapsulated as the planning problem, with
government action focusing on specific definitions of what this entails. This has tended to
overlook the evolving research on social acceptance and has sought to streamline the
decision-making process, rather than encouraging deliberative processes that might better
support social learning around this technology. In reflecting on this situation we suggest
that if the UK is to achieve its aspirational targets for wind power, then the palpable
urgency needs to be combined with rapid policy learning in a number of dimensions,
including that of increasing social acceptance. In addressing this particular issue, we point
to the need for action in three discrete areas.
First, as academics, we cannot resist a call for further research into the factors that
influence social acceptance of wind power. In this respect there is a need to bring together
the existing multi-disciplinary research to produce longitudinal analyses that synthesise
530
Interface
and collate the insights from the numerous robust case studies of local wind farm
disputes. There are also a number of issues that require a stronger evidence base upon
which new policy approaches could be developed. These include the likely impact of
community payments by wind farm developers and whether the proposed streamlined
planning processes will affect permission rates and decision times or whether, as a result,
those interests denied an effective voice in the process then resort to alternative tactics (e.g.
direct action) and further frustrate the deployment process. There is also a need to
understand the values and processes that would allow a greater convergence of local and
national concerns, and to explore how planning can better function as the medium of
handling multiple knowledges (Rydin, 2007, p. 55), by bringing together expert and lay
knowledges surrounding renewable energy.
The second area that needs consideration is the broader mechanisms for academic
practitioner interaction and cross-learning. This paper and the responses that follow it
have emerged from a welcome, but rather isolated, series of ESRC-funded seminars that
have brought together a range of researchers and other stakeholders to debate the
challenges and future direction of wind power. Practitioners at these seminars have
expressed surprise about the level of academic activity in the field, while
academics have had to refine their ideas in the light of experience of regulators and
developers. This is, however, rather a small-scale initiative, and while the RTPI have
made some attempt to connect researchers with proactive local communities
(e.g. through the establishment of its Planning Education and Research Network
(PERN),1 there is clearly a deficit in the way publicly funded research is on the one
hand disseminated and on the other, received and assimilated by the practitioner and
policy communities.
Finally, we add our voices to the existing concerns over the way that the concept of
sustainability has been used over the last decade to justify pro-market solutions through
the planning system (Cowell & Owens, 2006; Raco, 2005). This appears to be as true of
wind power, as a totem of sustainable development, as of other forms of development,
where such debates tend to over-emphasise planning as an obstacle to the investment-led
deployment of renewable energy, and fail to appreciate its potential role as practically the
only mechanism for mediating environmental disputes in a democratic arena. Seen in this
context, and drawing on the emerging understanding of local disputes, planning for wind
energy could then become a critical arena of policy learning for wider debates on social
acceptance, through which democratic legitimacy and public understanding are nurtured
as part of a more sustainable future.
Notes
1. This includes larger schemes consented through the Electricity Acts of the UK.
2. For example, NIMBYs are blamed for delays in the planning process by Scottish Power in their response to the
Barker review (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/scottish_power.pdf), while the Final Report of the review
(Barker, 2006, Table 3), reproduces evidence from the annual NIMBY survey carried out by Saints Consulting
(see http://tscg.co.uk/survey/summary.html).
3. See http://www.rtpi.org.uk/item/1931/23/5/3
Interface
531
References
Agterbosch, S., Meertens, R.M. & Vermeulen, W.J.V. (2009) The relative importance of social and
institutional conditions in the planning of wind power projects, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13,
pp. 393405.
Aitken, M., McDonald, S. & Strachan, P. (2008) Locating power in wind power planning processes: the
(not so) influential role of local objectors, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(6), pp. 777799.
lvarez-Farizo, B. & Hanley, N. (2002) Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the
A
environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain, Energy Policy, 30, pp. 107 116.
Barker, K. (2006) Barker Review of Land Use Planning (London, HM Treasury).
Barry, J., Ellis, G. & Robinson, C. (2008) Cool rationalities and hot air: a rhetorical approach to understanding
debates on renewable energy, Global Environmental Politics, 8(2), pp. 67 98.
Braunholtz, S. (2003) Public attitudes to wind farms: A survey of local residents in Scotland (Edinburgh, MORI Scotland
for Scottish Executive Social Research).
BWEA (British Wind Energy Association) (2004) Wind Energy and Planning: An Overview. Available from http://
www.bwea.com/pdf/planning/planningdelays.pdf (accessed 7 January 2009).
BWEA (2008) Wind Energy in the UK: A BWEA State of the Industry Report (London, BWEA).
Cowell, R. (2007) Wind power and the planning problem: the experience of Wales, European Environment, 17(5),
pp. 291306.
Cowell, R. & Owens, S. (2006) Governing space: planning reform and the politics of sustainability, Environment
and Planning C, Government and Policy, 24(3), pp. 403421.
DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) (2007) Meeting the Energy Challenge: A White Paper on Energy (London,
The Stationery Office).
Devine-Wright, P. (2005) Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public
perceptions of wind energy, Wind Energy, 8, pp. 125139.
Devine-Wright, P. & Devine-Wright, H. (2006) Social representations of intermittency and the shaping of public
support for wind energy in the UK, International Journal of Global Energy Issues, 25(3/4), pp. 243256.
Ellis, G. (2004) Discourses of objection: towards an understanding of third party rights in planning, Environment
and Planning A, 36, pp. 15491570.
Ellis, G., Barry, J. & Robinson, C. (2007) Many ways to say no, different ways to say yes: Applying
Q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals, Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, 50(4), pp. 517 551.
Fischer, F. (2003) Reframing Public Policy; Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices (Oxford, Oxford University
Press).
Haggett, C. (2004) Tilting at Windmills? The Attitude-Behaviour Gap in Renewable Energy Conflicts. Final Report.
Award No. RES221250015 (London, ESRC).
Haggett, C. (2008) Over the sea and far away? A consideration of the planning, politics and public perception of
offshore wind farms, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 10(3), pp. 289 306.
Hull, A. (1995) New models for implementation theory; striking a consensus on wind farms, Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 38(3), pp. 285306.
Jobert, A., Laborgne, P. & Mimler, S. (2007) Local acceptance of wind energy: factors of success identified in
French and German case studies, Energy Policy, 35, pp. 27512760.
Kemp, R. (1990) Why not in my backyard? A radical interpretation of public opposition to the deep disposal of
radioactive waste in the UK, Environment and Planning A, 22, pp. 12391258.
Kerr, S. (2006) Winds of change: the planning response to renewable energy in Scotland, Town Planning Review,
77(4), pp. 375 401.
Lake, R. (1993) Rethinking NIMBY, Journal of the American Planning Association, 59, pp. 8793.
Macaskill, M. (2006) Wind farms face 10-year delay for grid connection, Sunday Times, 5 February. Available at
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article727243.ece (accessed 12 January 2009).
Manzo, L.C. & Perkins, D.D. (2006) Planning finding common ground: the importance of place attachment to
community participation and planning, Journal of Planning Literature, 20, pp. 335 350.
Meyer, N.I. (2007) Learning from wind energy policy in the EU: lessons from Denmark, Sweden and Spain,
European Environment, 17(5), pp. 347 362.
Owens, S. (2005) Making a difference? Some perspectives on environmental research and policy, Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers, 30(3), pp. 287 292.
Parkhill, K. (2007) Tensions between Scottish national policies for onshore wind energy and local dissatisfaction
insights from regulation theory, European Environment, 17, pp. 307320.
Raco, M. (2005) Sustainable development, rolled-out neoliberalism and sustainable communities, Antipode, 37(2),
pp. 324347.
532
Interface
RTPI (Royal Town Planning Institute) (2003) A New Vision for Planning (London, RTPI).
Rydin, Y. (2007) Re-examining the role of knowledge within planning theory, Planning Theory, 6(1), pp. 52 68.
Sandercock, L. (1998) Towards Cosmopolis (London, Wiley).
SEI (Sustainable Energy Ireland) (2003) Attitudes Towards the Development of Wind Farms in Ireland (Bandon,
Sustainable Energy Ireland).
Szarka, J. (2006) Wind power, policy learning and paradigm change, Energy Policy, 34, pp. 3041 3048.
Szarka, J. (2007) Wind Power in Europe: Politics, Business and Society (Basingstoke, Macmillan Palgrave).
Thomas, H. (2005) Pressures, purpose and collegiality in UK planning education, Planning Theory and Practice,
6(2), pp. 238 247.
Toke, D., Breukers, S. & Wolsink, M. (2008) Wind power deployment outcomes: how can we account for the
differences?, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12(4), pp. 1124 1147.
Toke, D. (2005) Explaining wind power planning outcomes: some findings from a study in England and Wales,
Energy Policy, 33, pp. 15271539.
Toke, D. & Strachan, P. (2006) Ecological modernisation and wind power in the UK, European Environment, 16,
pp. 155166.
Warren, C.R., Lumsden, C., ODowd, S. & Birnie, R.V. (2005) Green on green: public perceptions of wind power
in Scotland and Ireland, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48(6), pp. 853 872.
Wolsink, M. (2000) Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significant of public
support, Renewable Energy, 21, pp. 4964.
Wolsink, M. (2006) Invalid theory impedes our understanding; a critique on the persistence of the language of
NIMBY, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers (New Series), 31, pp. 8591.
The Problems Of PlanningA

Developers Perspective
RICHARD HADWIN
Renewable Energy Partnerships Ltd, Overmoor, Neston, Corsham, Swindon, UK
Academics and Government have totally misunderstood the wind farm planning
problem in the UK. Years of research have gone into analyzing the social acceptability of
wind farms, as the list of references in the lead paper testifies. But the problem is not
about understanding or even changing the level of social acceptance. The fundamental
problem is ensuring that social acceptance of wind farms is properly reflected through the
planning process.
The experience of my company suggests that the planning process fails to mediate
between the developer and the public to evolve a project that accommodates both
interests. Most critically, planning applications are determined with a prejudicial and
inaccurate representation of the social acceptance of a scheme. Indeed, there is no
provision within the planning system for effectively incorporating the views of the public
into the development of a wind farm. This is left entirely up to the developer of the
scheme; some developers may do this well, some will do it badly, or not at all. There is no
requirement of public consultation, standards, or any oversight by the planning system in
this process, leaving poor-quality developers to continue to operate.
Correspondence Address: Richard Hadwin, Director, Renewable Energy Partnerships Ltd, Overmoor, Neston, Corsham
SN13 9TZ. Email: Richard.hadwin@r-e-p.com
Interface
533
Furthermore, the process actually discourages public representation in the

development of wind farms, as councils fear that an engagement process may expose
them to legal challenge on the basis of bias when the project finally makes it to a planning
committee. As a result, planning authorities advise their councillors not to get involved in
the public consultation phase of any wind energy scheme, so that councils refuse to put
public consultation materials in their libraries, they decline invitations to attend public
meetings and councillors are instructed not to correspond with, meet with or take part in
any events organized by the developer. Similarly, councillors are not allowed to represent
the views of local opposition groups, as this would also exclude them from the planning
committee. The opportunity for the council or any councillor to act as an interface or
mediator between public and the developer to address community concerns about a wind
farm is actively discouraged by the planning system.
As a consequence, both the developer and objectors are left without formal
representation, so the debate takes place outside the planning system.
The planning system deals with the environmental, technical and policy acceptability of
a wind farm proposal in a structured and thorough manner, but the social acceptance of a
particular scheme is left to a random, uncontrolled and chaotic external process. The lack
of any formal process for dealing with social acceptance is not only a huge gap in the
proper development of a scheme, it creates a void from which a biased and
misrepresentative view of public opinion emergesoften shaped by those people who
express their view the strongest. This causes many schemes that do have popular support
to be refused permission because the planning committee only gets to hear a distorted
view of what the community thinks of a scheme.
It is the motivated who get their views heard, not the unmotivated. If you are against a
wind farm proposal then you are motivated to represent your views; a proposal is being
made to which you disagree and no one else is representing your position, so you do.
However, if you support a wind farm, the case for the wind farm is already being made by
the developer, so there is no motivation to engage. This is why all public campaigns are
against wind farms, despite repeated surveys showing general support amongst the
public. There is real distortion of the views of the thousands of people who are ambivalent
and do not hold any strong view, either for or against a project; this is the position held by
the vast majority of the public. Why should they express an opinion? Who is going to write
into their local authority to express that they can see both the pros and the cons, but dont
really hold a strong view either way? This fact is absolutely fundamental in appreciating
the social acceptance of a wind farm, but this is not recognized in the planning process and
therefore ignored in the planning decision.
In two recent public consultations for wind farms being developed by our company, we
wrote to 10,000 and 14,000 households; in the first case we had just 27 replies and in the
other, only 50. The replies received were split equally in favour and against, but the biggest
and most important conclusion was that 99.5% of people contacted were not sufficiently
motivated to even express a view. Even when companies try to engage like this, such
exercises are inevitably tarred by the accusation of self-interest, no matter how thoroughly
or fairly conducted, and hence given very little credence within the planning system. Yet
planning authorities tend not to conduct independent consultation to establish such
important statistics on social acceptance and planning officers reports often have one or
two paragraphs dealing with this issue, amongst reams of analysis of the environmental
qualities of a project. This may report the total number of public representations received
and summarizes the nature of these. Inevitably these are overwhelmingly opposed for the
reasons of motivation of expression explained above and there is no attempt by planning
534
Interface
officers to explain the materiality of the number of responses in the context of the large
public awareness of the wind farm project. We think councillors are left entirely without
direction to interpret public opinion.
Substantial effort and resources go into assessing the environmental impact of a wind
farm and how well it relates to a range of policies, but at the planning committee this is
often ignored as the overriding concern of public opinion comes into play. This is the
primary concern of the councillors (understandably sothey are elected representatives)
who want to express the views of their constituents. In the absence of any professional
assessment or advice on the degree of social acceptance of a scheme, councillors must use
their own judgement. In the committee meeting, four or five core members of an anticampaign may have taken time off work to speak, while the views of thousands of people
who are not motivated to attend are ignored. The strength of feeling of a handful of people
dominates the committee meeting. For months the councillors may have read letters in the
local newspaper by the same small, but industrious group of objectorsfor the local paper
the wind farm proposal is heaven sent, as such controversies help sell local newspapers.
The local anti-campaign is overt, with posters, websites and adverts in the local press.
There is not a single campaign message from the public in favour of the wind farm, a point
the anti-group often capitalize on. This means that there is an impression that everyone is
against the project even though this is only held by a tiny minority of the local population.
This is clearly a distorted circumstantial view. Lacking any systematic analysis of the
distribution and quantity of public opinion, councillors are completely misled on the
social acceptance of a proposal.
This happens time and time again, often resulting in a refusal as the environmental
merits of the scheme are overlooked in favour of the unsubstantiated views of public
opinion. This usually gets rectified a year later at a planning enquiry when technical
arguments dominate, but even then the true social acceptance picture is not truly
researched or presented.
The solution is not to bypass the local democratic process, but to shine a light on the
facts of public opinion. This requires a proper, thorough, pro-active assessment of social
acceptability to be included in every planning report. Bring public debate out of the
underground where vitriol and falsehood dominate, out from the letters page of the local
rag and let it be thoroughly and fairly evaluated within the planning process. Bring the
objectors into the system, let councillors represent them, give them access to proper
resources so the valuable arguments can be filtered from the nonsense and let them be
heard. This will bring parties together toward understanding and consensus, rather than
pushing them apart. It will also give confidence to councillors that opposition views have
been properly addressed through the planning process and free them to make a decision
on the officers recommendation before them, rather than ignore it.
The lead paper concludes by saying that the current policy debate fails to appreciate
the planning systems potential role as practically the only mechanism for mediating
environmental disputes in a democratic arena. It is tempting to abandon an obviously
failing system. However, the alternative is to fix the current system and this is what is
really needed. The solution is simple: incorporate assessment of social acceptance of every
wind farm project properly into the decision-making process. This addresses the root
cause of the problem: the misrepresentation of social acceptance in planning decisions.
Central government does not need to take power away from local decision makers to
achieve its international objectives. It just needs to repair the system, so the local decision
makers can execute their responsibilities unhindered by the lack of a crucial piece of
information.
Interface
535
Wind Farms: More Respectful and Open

Debate Needed, Not Less
PAUL MINER
Campaign to Protect Rural England, London
Introduction
At the time of writing, the first national carbon budgets under the Climate Change Act
2008 have been published whilst National Policy Statements (NPSs) to guide renewable
energy development through the planning process are expected imminently.
The consideration of wind energy development is therefore one of the most prominent
in current debates on planning policy and practice.
The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) has been deeply involved in
the planning process at all levels since its formation in 1926. The CPRE has sought to
defend the intrinsic beauty and tranquillity of the countryside in the face of threats from
ill-considered proposals for change, such as ribbon development or advertising billboards.
We agree strongly with the central contention of the lead paper that the planning system
should be seen as a critical arena of policy learning on the development of wind energy
schemes and as a means of mediating surrounding environmental disputes, rather than
purely as a barrier or an obstacle to getting such schemes approved. As this response will
show, this is because:
Wind energy developments often raise key issues of conflict between increasing
renewable energy generation to help mitigate climate change on the one hand, and
protecting nationally important landscapes from intrusive development on the other;
. Reforms to the planning process for wind energy development are based on
questionable evidence as to delays caused by planning processes; and
. The issue of community goodwill payments shows a need for more planning, not less,
in order to secure proper public involvement in wind energy development and
maximise progress towards meeting renewable energy generation targets.
.
CPREs Interest in Wind Energy

CPRE is deeply concerned about the major threat that climate change caused by greenhouse
gas emissions poses to both the global environment and to the character and quality of
Englands countryside. We therefore recognise the need to obtain more of our electricity
from renewable sources and the important contribution that wind energy can play in this.
We have publicly supported government policy for 15% of all electricity generation to come
from renewable sources by 2020, as well as calls for 4.7 billion of new investment in the
capacity of the National Grid to connect new offshore wind farms. We will also seek to
support new onshore wind energy development where it is appropriately sited.
Wind farms, particularly when located onshore, have a significant impact on the
appearance of the landscape. Despite current government planning policy stating that
issues relating to the technical merits of a proposed wind farm should not be debated
Correspondence Address: Paul Miner, Campaign to Protect Rural England, 128 Southwark Street, London, SE1 0SW.
Email: Paulm@cpre.org.uk
536
Interface
through the planning system, there is growing public concern about the actual output of
wind farms in comparison to their advertised capacity (Norris & Bucknall, 2009).
As a result, wind farms attract vigorous public debate, and often opposition. Research
suggests that often wind energy developers enter the planning process with a dismissive
mindset towards public concerns, seeking to disparage arguments against new
development as emotional rather than well-reasoned.1 It is perhaps not surprising
therefore that approval rates for new wind farms have been lower than other forms of
major development.2
CPREs position has always been that we are likely to oppose proposals for wind
turbines that have an unacceptable impact on nationally designated areas of landscape
value such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty or National Parks.
A Mistaken View?
The Planning Act 2008 will lead to fundamental changes in procedures by which wind
energy schemes with a generating capacity greater than 50 megawatts (MW) are
approved, with the aim of making decision making quicker. CPRE has had grave concerns
about how these new procedures will work, in particular how they will facilitate the
democratic debate that is such an important feature of the planning process.
Decisions on the need for new wind farms are expected to be taken in a suite of new
National Policy Statements (NPSs). In principle, CPRE welcomes NPSs as a means to
guide major infrastructure development such as large wind farms. However, greater
clarity is needed regarding how the public will be able to meaningfully debate different
policy options in the NPS process. The new Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) set
up as the body to take decisions on major applications is untried, expensive and its
decision-making processes will not be democratically accountable. There is also provision
for the Secretary of State to direct schemes below 50 MW to this new procedure.
The Governments own estimates state that the IPC will cost ten times more than current
planning procedures (DCLG, 2007a). The IPC will also be able to prevent the most
meaningful forms of public involvement in the development of major infrastructure
schemes, namely the abilities to cross-examine the developer at a public inquiry and to
debate the need for a particular scheme in a particular location. But key recent court cases,
from the Greenpeace challenge over nuclear policy to St Albans District Councils recent
High Court action against the East of England Regional Spatial Strategy, have shown that
an attempt to stifle public debate on different policy options before making a decision can
in fact lead to longer delays.
Conversely, when the planning process is used to facilitate thorough debate, it can lead
to developers fostering public support and politicians making decisions more quickly.
Evidence provided by the Planning Inspectorate of several recent major infrastructure
cases, including a number of large wind energy developments, has shown that the average
inquiry period is now only 13 weeks rather than the 19 claimed by the Government in the
2007 Planning White Paper.3 Pre-application discussions are made mandatory in the Act
for nationally significant infrastructure projects. Such discussions can play an important
role, provided they are coupled with rights for local communities to bring wind energy
developers to account at inquiries if necessary. This is a clear incentive for developers to
get their applications right.
Interface
537
A Lack of Planning Rather than too Much?

CPRE has also compiled a large body of evidence that suggests a cavalier approach by
wind energy developers to the planning system (CPRE, 2008), which is challenging the
integrity of planning and suggests that policy opportunities are being missed. We could
use planning policies to better promote a variety of low carbon technologies that could be
less damaging to our landscapes than wind and more effective in meeting renewable
generation targets.
A growing number of rural communities are being offered goodwill payments by
wind energy developers, particularly the large multinationals such as E.ON and npower.
These payments could easily be seen as akin to buying planning permission.
The practice threatens to bring the planning system into disrepute.
The companies involved are making large sums of money from wind energy
development. Much of this is from renewables obligation certificates (ROC), subsidies
provided by the public as electricity consumers. Government and the industry have,
however, rejected calls to make wind energy development liable for the proposed
community infrastructure levy (CIL).
CPRE believes that, if community funds from wind energy development are channelled
through CIL (another part of the Planning Act 2008 which we support) and the
development plan process, developers are likely to offer local communities significantly
more than the current average offer of 1,000 per MW of generating capacity. Goodwill
payments are usually offered to community stakeholders selected by the developer
rather than to the relevant local authority. Local authorities that use more formal processes
of negotiation with developers, such as Argyll & Bute and Highland Councils in Scotland,
are typically securing at least 2,000 per MW of installed capacity in their respective areas.
Government policy calls on local planning authorities to promote and encourage
renewable energy generation (DCLG, 2007b). Most encouragingly, this has been reinforced
by a further statement in the final UK Renewable Energy Strategy. This explicitly echoes
CPREs calls for community benefits from wind energy developments to be consistent
with national, regional and local planning policies (DECC, 2009).
In CPREs view this shift in government policy, if used locally to its full potential, should
result in contributions from wind energy developers being greater than they currently are,
benefits being more closely related to the development in question, and directly assisting
local authority efforts to increase renewable energy development. Currently payments are
often used for purposes unrelated to wind energy development or tackling climate
change, such as senior citizens lunches and youth clubs. Contributions should ideally be
used to promote energy efficiency and/or a range of low carbon technologies, such as
community combined heat and power. By taking these actions, developers could address
public concerns about the effectiveness of wind power developments in meeting
renewable energy targets.
Greater use of s.106 agreements (i.e. planning gain) supporting renewable energy
policies in development plans could be the solution, as it would have the advantage of
ensuring that community funds were tested against established criteria such as relevance
to planning and a proven direct relationship to the proposed development (ODPM, 2005).
If this happens then it will be particularly important to ensure that the proceeds of such
agreements are re-invested in a timely fashion by local planning authorities, in order to
address recently reported concerns about s.106 revenue being under-spent (Daubney,
2009).
538
Interface
Conclusion
As the lead paper notes, problems concerning the expansion of wind power are widely
presented as a problem of planning, due to comparatively low approval rates for wind
energy development and delays in decision makingyet such proposals will often arouse
controversy, particularly if proposals are poorly located. The available evidence does not
support the claim that planning causes undue delays in relation to major wind energy
schemes. Rather, planning should be seen as an essential part of the democratic process
which needs time if it is to work effectively. Indeed, as Susan Owens argues, it is
democratic debate rather than quasi-technical methods that has allowed planning to
make a real difference in policy learning and policy change.4
Where developers are required to work with communities and local planning
authorities, they could improve relations by approaching them in a respectful and
open-minded manner. Pre-application discussions provide an important opportunity for
this. But CPRE believes that it will be no less important to offer community benefits in
accordance with established procedures and policy tests. Planners can also do more to
address the issue of who benefits from wind energy developments and, in so doing, take
bold steps towards fulfilling their new priorities of tackling climate change.
Notes
1. See the Beyond Nimbyism study of ten renewable energy projects by Manchester University (May 2009).
This found that When opposition [to a proposed development] occurred this was characterised in particular
by developers as emotionally based and outside of what they saw as rational planning concerns. Accessed
from www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/beyond_nimbyism/deliverables/reports_Project_summary_
Final.pdf on 16 June 2009.
2. See the British Wind Energy Association figures quoted on Planning Portal News, Major wind farms win
go-ahead, 6 March 2008, accessed from www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/professionals/
en/1115315518905.html on 29 June 2009.
3. The figure on the time taken by Ministers to make decisions after an inspectors report is taken from analysis
of information presented by the Planning Inspectorate to the CBI Major Infrastructure Projects Conference,
London 30 October 2007, relating to 74 inquiries since 1999 into nationally significant infrastructure projects.
4. Based on the authors notes of Susan Owens speech to the plenary session Planning: a Changing
Environmental Climate, RTPI Planning Convention Thursday 18 June 2009.
References
CPRE (2008) Goodwill PaymentsDo they benefit local communities or bring planning into disrepute? Available from
www.cpre.org.uk/filegrab/1goodwill-payments.pdf?ref3660 (accessed 30 August 2009).
Daubney, K. (2009) Call to free up Section 106 cash, Planning Resource, 4 March. Available at www.
planningresource.co.uk/bulletins/Planning-Resource-Daily-Bulletin/News/887589/Call-free-Section-106cash/?DCMP=EMC-DailyBulletin (accessed 3 Septemper 2009).
DCLG (Department of Communities and Local Government) (2007a) Planning BillImpact Assessment, p. 8
(London, The Stationary Office).
DCLG (2007b) Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate ChangeSupplement to Planning Policy Statement 1,
December 2007, paragraph 19 (London, The Stationary Office).
DECC (Department for Energy and Climate Change) (2009) The UK Renewable Energy Strategy 2009, paragraph 6.9
Norris, W. & Bucknall, S. (2009) Capacity versus output (and other energy policy issues) in UK wind farm
planning, Journal of Planning & Environmental Law, 7, pp. 831841.
ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (2005) Circular 05/2005 Planning Obligations, paragraph B5
Interface
539
Planning: Problem Carrier or Problem

Source?
MAARTEN WOLSINK
Department of Geography, Planning and International Development Studies, University of Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
Introduction
In 2006, the UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and Jan Peter Balkenende, his counterpart in the
Netherlands, made a remarkable address to their colleagues in the EU, stating that it was
time to seriously address climate change, noting that there was a once in a generation
opportunity for Europe to mobilise the political will and resources to transform and
modernise our energy system (Balkenende & Blair, 2006). This was not remarkable for the
timing, as Blair desperately needed issues that could deflect attention from the unpopular
UK involvement in Iraq and the prime minister of the Netherlands was soon facing
election on the back of a poor record of action on climate change. The remarkable thing
about this address was the irony around their suggestion that it was time that the
stragglers in renewable deployment caught up with the front runners. In terms of
implementation of renewables and innovating energy systems, the British have a serious
problem and to a slightly lesser degree, so do the Dutch.
Indeed, both had largely failed in deploying wind energy compared to other European
countries such as Denmark, Germany and Spain. This was not due to limited wind
resources, particularly not in the UK, but to the failure to deal with the institutional change
needed for energy innovation (Toke et al., 2008). So why has the UK such low
implementation rates? As in many countries, from the early 1970s onwards any delays
faced by wind energy developers have been blamed on local resistance, ignorance and
selfishness. But are these delays really due to public attitudes or are they because of the
planning process itself? Lets start with a short elaboration on attitudes.
The Components of Attitudes
The clear pattern in most countries is that there is generally high acceptance of wind
power, but there are very strong contrasts in attitudes. A firm majority favours wind
power, but although most people do not dislike wind turbines, those who do, actually hate
them.
In attitude theory, a conceptual distinction is made between cognitions on the one hand,
and on the other, evaluations, both of which inform intentions and behaviour (Ajzen,
1991). Attitudes are based on perceptions of so-called attributes of the attitude object.
As Ellis et al. (2007) noted, the discourses of objection are strikingly influential in decision
making on wind power schemes. Why is that? In the development of attitudes to wind
power schemes, cognitions are not prominent, but the emotional and value components
are exceptionally strong, relative to other local issues. In fact, all the conclusions made in
the lead paper by Ellis et al. derive from this phenomenon and the patterns they recognise
Correspondence Address: Maarten Wolsink, Department of Geography, Planning and International Development Studies,
University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, 1018 VZ Amsterdam. Email: M.P.Wolsink@uva.nl
540
Interface
in the UK are seen in many other countries. For example, the lead paper notes that
disparities in knowledge may be not so relevant in explaining the strong antagonism
which is very much an understatement, as the cognitive element in peoples attitudes to
wind farms is rather small compared to the emotional and value-based elements. This is
why international research suggests that there is no positive relation between knowledge
and attitudes: more in-depth knowledge does not necessarily mean more positive
attitudes to wind schemes. There is no doubt that informing the public by providing
better information does not help to settle local conflict on wind farm siting (as noted in
the lead paper).
The evaluative element in negative attitudes towards wind farms dominates the
cognitive element for three reasons:
1. The inescapable visibility of wind turbines means that the question of whether turbines
fit into the landscape at the proposed site is always a key issue in any wind power
scheme. The first social acceptance studies in the 1980s recognised the dominance of
landscape issues in decisions on wind turbine siting. Research that has applied the
conceptual distinctions in attitude theory described above has shown that the
attributes with the highest influence on attitude formation are the evaluative elements
related to the visual impact of turbines on landscapes (Wolsink, 1989).
2. As landscape impact is the main factor in evaluation of wind turbines, it is primarily
influenced by the qualities of the landscape in which the turbines are proposed.
The consequence of this is that the most relevant attitudes are not those related to
wind power in general, but those related to a specific wind scheme, as these are
shaped by attributes concerning the landscape quality of the site instead of attributes
related to the energy system.
3. The perception and the valuation of all aspects of landscape quality are strongly
connected to historically and culturally rooted factors, which vary widely in
significance amongst individuals. Attitudes to wind power are therefore very
subjective and complex, but nevertheless contain strong elements of identity: cultural
identity and identity of place.
Planning and the Evaluative Component

These factors should be taken into account in the planning process for wind power
schemes, yet while planning regimes differ in every country, they all seem to ignore
such factors and tend to be designed to fail in relation to wind power. The provision of
better information could be a positive way to address social acceptance if attitudes were
shaped by cognitions and if such information were provided by trusted actors. Neither
condition tends to apply in practice. Thus, mostly, it is the developers, authorities or hired
experts who present the information to the local population through the planning system.
Furthermore, it is often the opposite that is needed: developers and their associates
urgently need to be informed about the strong influence of landscape factors because they
appear to have limited understanding of how to address the subjective nature of
landscape perception.
In most cases, planners or developers try to address problems of social acceptance in a
rather counterproductive way, often by developing objective data on visual and
landscape impacts or providing supporting testimonies from landscape experts. Such
strategies are more likely to contribute to the failure of planning than facilitating
successful proposals. Two significant examples of this include attempts to develop
Interface
541
a viewshed analysis in the Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound (Massachusetts, US;
Phadke, forthcoming) and the expert choice by the National Architect of the final
alternative of the Inter-Provinciale Windenergiecentrale Afsluitdijk, which is a large wind
farm in the Wadden Sea in the Netherlands (Wolsink, 2010). In both cases the main
opposition issue was the iconic nature of the landscape/seascape surrounding the wind
farm proposals. The nature of how civil society values these landscapes/seascapes and the
strength of the sentiments attached to them were both misinterpreted and underestimated
in the planning process. The planning process has problems incorporating landscape
values because of their subjectivity and the variations in such subjectivity. Viewshed
analysis and other objective visual impact assessments do not help, as the value
experienced by objectors is based on landscape identity, including community and
cultural identity. The knowledge about landscape valuation is in the eye of the
beholder (Lothian, 1999), so it can only be those communities who identify with such
landscapes that can truly understand their cultural value.
Planning processes are seldom designed to handle knowledge in this form. In fact, they
are often designed to avoid it. As a result, the attempts by governments to adapt planning
systems to address the obstacles faced by developers, as described in the lead paper, tend to
reinforce this core problem. Several political science theories offer an explanation for this.
The Advocacy Coalition Framework perspective (Sabatier, 1998) suggests that planning
regimes tend to assist dominant advocacy coalitions in furthering their core policy beliefs
within the relevant policy domain. In the case of wind power, these domains are energy
policy, spatial planning and environmental policy (Breukers & Wolsink, 2007). From this
point of view it can even be questioned whether delays to the deployment of wind power
can really be seen as a planning problem. Indeed, it may be more appropriate to ask
whether wind power fits with the core beliefs of dominant advocacy coalitions, thus raising
questions over what is meant by broad social acceptance. To put it bluntly, the planning
process may expend too much effort in trying to determine how and where communities
should accept wind power schemes in their surroundings, leading to the Dutch concept of
bestuurlijke druktewhich can be literally translated as crowded governance; a situation
in which all agencies, authorities and stakeholders contribute to the debate over who needs
to do what, how they do it, where they must do it, and even why they should do it.
Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Innovation

When one looks at the outcome of the British planning approach to wind power, combined
with the overview provided in the lead paper, one would conclude that it is a fairly
ineffective process. A key reason for this is the ideologically driven policy choices that
heavily impede similar progressive deployment of wind power as has been achieved in,
for example, Germany, Denmark and Spain. Analysis of factors that explain national
differences (see Toke et al., 2008) suggests that a number of institutional factors
help explain the performance differences in this area, including:
.
The choice of a financial procurement system that is rooted in an ineffective concept of

market thinking. The creation of markets for green certificates (such as the UKs
renewable obligation certificates) has proved less successful than systems that
guarantee payments to all renewable energy producers, because the latter offers full
grid access to a wider range of producers (Jacobsson & Lauber, 2006; Krewitt & Nitsch,
2003). Thus, despite the strong market ideology behind ROCs (representing core
beliefs in terms of the ACF), feed-in systems create better market incentives.
542
Interface
The focus on resistance rather than support within society. The lead paper notes that
certain aspects of the planning problem have attracted more government attention
than others. Indeed, it is not necessarily the right aspects that have had the attention,
reflecting a tragic misunderstanding amongst policy makers and practitioners, at least
the kind of practitioners that are prominent in the UK.
Because of the institutional and policy frames, there is much national variation in the
actors involved in investing and planning wind development. The mix of actors in
Germany is very different from in the UK as they have evolved to take advantage of
almost two decades of full access to the grid for anyone interested in investing in wind
power (including many community initiatives). Similarly, those proposing wind power
developments in Germany tend not to focus on issues of local resistance, but more on
matters of local involvement and identity (Wolsink & Breukers, 2009).
The focus on resistance to a scheme often means the factors concerning why a scheme
should go ahead in the first place are not questioned. Yet a critical appreciation of social
acceptance should include an examination of the arguments both for and against a
scheme. Indeed, both supporters and objectors to wind power schemes are located at all
levels of governance and all may have what they believe is a sound argument. This can be
better understood in terms of three dimensions of social acceptance (Wustenhagen et al.,
2007):
Socio-political acceptance (of technologies and of supporting policies) by key
stakeholders, the public and policy makers;
. Community acceptance (of facilities, of the investors, owners, and managers) by local
residents, local authorities and local stakeholders;
. Market acceptance (of investments in facilities, of prices or tariffs) by consumers,
investors and firms.
.
Hence, the discourses of objection are not isolated to specific siting decisions. In the
countries that are less successful in wind power deployment, major problems with social
acceptance lie not with local communities but also amongst, for example, the policy
makers who refuse to invest in effective support systems, or even potential investors such
as energy companies. This does not mean that there are no planning issues in wind power
developments, but it does suggest that planning is not the real problem. In other words, in
using an appropriate energy metaphor, planning is not the energy source; it is only an
energy carrier.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991) The theory of planned behaviour, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50,
pp. 179211.
Balkenende, J.P. & Blair, T. (2006) Dear Matti letter to the chair of the EU summit, Lahti (Fi), 20 October 2006.
Available from http://www.scienceguide.nl/article.asp?articleid102097 (accessed 5 September 2009).
Breukers, S. & Wolsink, M. (2007) Wind power in changing institutional landscapes: An international comparison,
Energy Policy, 35, pp. 27372750.
Ellis, G., Barry, J. & Robinson, C. (2007) Many ways to say No, different ways to say Yes: Applying
q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals, Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, 50, pp. 517551.
Jacobsson, S. & Lauber, V. (2006) The politics and policy of energy system transformation. Explaining the German
diffusion of renewable energy technology, Energy Policy, 34, pp. 256276.
Krewitt, W. & Nitsch, J. (2003) The German Renewable Energy Sources Act. An investment into the future pays off
already today, Renewable Energy, 28, pp. 533542.
Interface
543
Lothian, A. (1999) Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or
in the eye of the beholder?, Landscape and Urban Planning, 44(4), pp. 177 198.
Phadke, R. (forthcoming) Steel forests or smoke stacks: the politics of visualisation in the cape wind controversy,
Environmental Politics, 19.
Sabatier, P.A. (1998) The advocacy coalition framework: revisions and relevance for Europe, Journal of European
Public Policy, 5, pp. 98130.
Toke, D., Breukers, S. & Wolsink, M. (2008) Wind power deployment outcomes: How can we account for the
differences?, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12(4), pp. 1129 1147.
Wolsink, M. (1989) Attitudes and expectancies about wind turbines and windfarms, Wind Engineering, 13(4),
pp. 196206.
Wolsink, M. (2010) Near-shore wind powerprotected seascapes, environmentalists attitudes and the
technocratic planning perspective, Land Use Policy, 27(2), pp. 195 203.
Wolsink, M. & Breukers, S. (2009) Contrasting the core beliefs regarding the effective implementation of wind
power. An international study of stakeholders perspectives, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,
52 (in press).
Wustenhagen, R., Wolsink, M. & Burer, M.J. (2007) Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An
introduction to the concept, Energy Policy, 35, pp. 26832691.
Innovative Wind Power Planning

ALAIN NADAI
CIRED - Centre International de Recherche sur lEnvironnement et le Developpement, Campus du Jardin
Tropical, Nogent-sur-Marne, France
Most of the conclusions reached by the authors of the lead paper are applicable to the
situation in France, where there is also a down-playing of the qualitative understanding of
wind power planning processes, coupled with an emphasis on procedural efficiency and
overcoming the barriers arising from the planning process. Planning is thus seen as a
problem in France too, rather than as a positive force in realizing the potential of wind
power. As the authors of the lead paper suggest, the underlying issue is considered to be
social interaction with the planning system, and this is largely constructed by discourse
coalitions. Wind power lobbies have played a particular role in structuring this
perspective by attributing delays in project development exclusively to permitting
procedures, even when there were other important tensions, such as bottlenecks in the
turbine supply chain.
However, in this response I would like to suggest that there is value in reversing the
perspective suggested in the lead paper. Thus, while the planning problem does result
from a widely shared perspective of procedural efficiency, the way in which the latter is
often framed is through the perspective of technological potential. This is defined as the
potential that could be achieved in the absence of social obstacles to the deployment of
wind power. It therefore indicates the potential of an asocial technology, in the sense of a
technology, which when deployed, leaves the social unchanged since it produces no
friction or social re-composition whatsoever. In short, it represents a technological
Correspondence Address: Alain Nada, CIRED - Centre International de Recherche sur lEnvironnement et le
Developpement, Campus du Jardin Tropical, 45 bis, avenue de la Belle Gabrielle, 94736 Nogent-sur-Marne Cedex, France.
Email: nadai@centre-cired.fr
544
Interface
nirvana. But the problem is that we now know from the developments in science and
technology studies (STS) that technologies only exist by being embedded into the social
(e.g., Callon & Law, 1992), so no technology could exist in such a technological nirvana.
Reversing the planning problem by looking at the innovative dimension of planning
processes is a way of using the concept of technological potential to acknowledge that
social processes are at work during the planning process, and more generally during the
implementation of wind power policies. These processes create the effective wind power
potential.
In the rest of the paper I will elaborate this argument and contextualize it by drawing on
recent academic research on wind power policies. I will then turn to the French case in
order to illustrate the value of focusing on the innovative dimension of planning.
Reading the Problem Upside Down
A change in the technological regime is often seen as necessary to enable radically new
technologies to flourish. The technological regime has been defined as the social,
institutional and economic arrangements and infrastructures that support existing
patterns of technological use. The process of changing a technological regime has been
described as a transition (or transformation). How this transition should, or could occur,
forms a recent and distinct academic discipline. Transition management (e.g. Geels &
Schot, 2007) is about transformative change in societal systems through a process of
searching, learning and experimenting that relies on modern types of governance. This
suggests that national government should play an important role in inducing necessary
changes, but also recognizes that individuals and communities have an important role, as
state activity is embedded within the wider networks of civil society and relies on nonstate actors in the formulation and implementation of public policy. Based on what is
learned from the transition experiments, the vision, agenda, and pathways are adjusted, if
needed. Successful experiments are continued and can be scaled up; failed experiments
can be abandoned.
The academic research on wind power has highlighted important dimensions of this
process, such as the role of institutional capacity in policy development (Breukers &
Wolsink, 2007), or the role of civil society and social networks during the implementation
phase (Szarka, 2006). The implementation capacity has been defined as the capacity of
private actors to deal with the prevailing institutional structures through social conditions
and networks so as to implement wind turbines (Agterbosch et al., 2009). Yet, what this
terminology and these analyses do not make clear enough is that implementation goes
beyond (merely) applying a pre-given and stable framework. Implementation implies
making sense of a given framework. As Waterton (2003) has shown, even implementing a
mere botanical classification entails performance and innovation. In other words,
implementation leads to social innovation in the sense of a transformation of existing
norms and institutions (see for example Klein & Harrisson, 2006). Social innovations are
part of technology development because technologies are part of distributed agencies and
heterogeneous networks (e.g. Akrich et al., 1988; Callon & Law, 1992). This is one
important reason why the change in technological regime is not a linear process, why there
are surprises until the very last stages of technology deployment, and why institutional
reflexivity is required along the way (Shove, 1998).
One consequence of this is that the authoritative notion of technological potential,
defined as the potential associated with a generic technology, has limitations. For the
sake of clarity, I distinguish between a generic technology (such as wind power
Interface
545
or solar energy, i.e. in abstract terms) and the situated technology, as embedded within
heterogeneous networks (e.g. a wind farm or a solar farm).
An example of where the technological potential has been applied is the approach to
climate change mitigation and energy policy effectiveness at the international level
(e.g. IPCC, 2001). Within these international arenas, assessment of the technological
potential makes it possible to quantify targets and negotiate commitments. It thus
contributes to the emergence of visions of the future, which are necessary to steer and
manage the transition (e.g. Geels & Schot, 2007; Smith et al., 2005). However, when
translated into national policy objectives, this approach considers only the intrinsic
attributes of the generic technology, rather than the attributes of situated technologies
(namely, embedded within heterogeneous networks) which could emerge from successful
forms of social innovation. In other words, the intrinsic attribute approach overlooks the
challenge of social innovation and the need to construct the effective potential.
It naturalizes it (in the anthropological sense) and treats social processes as if they were
barriers to its (natural) achievement. Planning processes are treated as one of these
processes and they are stigmatized for their lack of fluidity and poor efficiency. In contrast,
the heterogeneous network approach acknowledges the hybrid nature of this potential
and affirms the need for constructing it. Planning becomes part of this construction as a
socialand potentially innovativeprocess. It is part of the challenge that one could
expect on the way to innovation.
One of the most convincing examples of this approach comes from the analyses of the
German process of wind power development (e.g. Bolinger, 2005; Breukers & Wolsink
2007), where official development targets have been repeatedly surpassed. This success
has been based on a number of factors which include financial incentives, planning
measures and research and development policy. Such an approach was facilitated by the
capacity of German institutions to learn in time from a heterogeneous community
(e.g. industry, environmental movements, planning authorities, energy policy community), because the policy process was opened to these stakeholders and contributed to
bringing them into the network. In consequence, the perception of the social as a stable
entity and of planning as the problem for wind power expansion constitutes a
misrepresentation of the issue. Social re-composition is inherent to wind power
deployment. While we should recognize that there is certainly room for improving
planning processes, academic research should also develop its methodologies in order to
identify more effectively the social innovation (or re-composition) which is at the core of
these processes.
Innovative Planning and the Development of French Wind Power
The relatively late take-off of French wind power has been blamed on factors that include
the complexity of the planning procedures and the techno-institutional commitment to
nuclear energy (Szarka, 2007). The adoption of fixed tariffs in 2000 marked the emergence
of a French wind power policy and while the official national targets have been regularly
revised upwards from 7 GW in 20101 to 23 GW (onshore) in 2020,2 the policy framework
has not effectively supported the translation of these objectives into the local arena.
In essence, responsibility for achieving the targets has been passed on to the local level
without genuinely delegating it.
The first genuine planning framework, based on the concept of wind power
development zones (WPDZ), was formulated in 2005 and implemented in 2007 seven
years after the adoption of feed-in tariffs. These zones are better understood as offering
546
Interface
energy supply contracts rather than as planning instruments, since wind farms are eligible
for feed-in tariffs if located inside a WPDZ. Zones have to be proposed by local authorities
and approved by the Prefect of the Department. Wind power zones constitute a political
compromise which mirrors the centralization of French energy policy in that they delegate
policy implementation to the administrative level of the department, whilst not taking it
completely out of the hands of the central state (Nada, 2007).
As of June 2009, installed wind power capacity in France was 3.5 GW, only one seventh
of the 2020 objective. Complex administrative procedures and complications arising from
problems of local acceptance have been blamed for this performanceparticularly by the
wind power lobby and the EU Commissionin much the same way and with the same
shortcomings as outlined in the lead paper. Almost every planning application is
challenged in the administrative courts, either by opponents (if accepted) or by developers
(if refused), but the majority of applications reaching final submission are accepted.
Developers work closely with the regulatory authorities from an early stage, but
permitting procedures still tend to follow the DAD approach (Decide, Announce, Defend),
rather than involving opposition groups and wider civil society in the decision-making
process.3
Such a situation can easily be portrayed as a result of the planning problem, with the
planning system being blamed for failure to reach the national target of 23 GW.
An important shortcoming is notably the lack of public involvement at the early stages of
both planning and project development. However, current experience invites us to read
developments upside down, namely to emphasize the innovative role of local planning
processes in such a difficult context. Between 2000 and 2007 local authorities were faced
with applications from private wind power developers in the absence of any planning
framework. Often departments and regions reacted by devising their own local planning
schemes, many of which took the form of standard sieve mapping exercises, although a
significant proportion took more innovative approaches. The most common approach was
to use standard zoning instruments which have the narrow aim of reducing the visual
impact of turbines on existing landscapes (a major issue with wind power in France). This
approach seems to fail because the visual impact is unprecedentedly far-reaching
(turbines are visible up to tens of kilometers away). Recent research has explored case
studies of such measures from the perspective of landscape impact (Nada & Labussie`re,
2008, 2009; forthcoming). They have highlighted how some authorities have succeeded in
overcoming the problems of regulatory zoning or landscape classifications by addressing
landscape issues in a more radical way and by tackling the question of how to integrate
turbines into the landscape. A key finding is that successful processes involve social
innovation in the sense that they create new social networks, establish devices and social
processes for the production of new aesthetic codes (e.g. a photographic observatory), and
generate new landscape classifications or representations (e.g. new landscape categories
and new graphic codes in planning documents). These processes also encourage direct
links with community networks, as they try to go beyond existing institutions or norms in
order to explore the local realm and invent new compatibilities. This allows them to
establish a new and unexpected potential for wind power deployment.
A survey by the author of the 22 regional environmental administrations conducted
during the autumn of 2006 revealed that the few gigawatts in the pipeline4 were already
starting to saturate non-protected landscapes. This proves, if proof be needed, that if
France is to achieve its official 23 GW target, effective implementation of existing norms
is not enough. Innovative planning has to be adopted in order to support the emergence of
new representations of landscape.
Interface
547
Notes
1. Ministe`re de lEconomie, des Finances et de lIndustrie (2002). Programmation pluriannuelle des

investissements de production electrique. Periode 2000-2010, 8 p.
2. Ministe`re de lEcologie, de lEnergie, du Developpement Durable et de lAmenagement du Territoire (2007).
Lutter contre le changement climatique et maitriser lenergie : rapport de synthe`se du Groupe 1.
3. A survey undertaken by the author of the 22 regional environmental administrations (in late 2006), showed
that only one of them willingly agreed to meetings with anti-wind groups during the process of project
development. One major argument for this distance was administrative objectivity. For a detailed analysis of
permitting procedures and the construction of administrative objectivity in relation to wind power, see
Nada & Labussie`re, 2008.
4. About 8 mGW according to RTE, 2007.
References
Agterbosch, S., Meertens, R.M. & Vermeulen, W.J.V. (2009) The relative importance of social and institutional
conditions in the planning of wind power projects, Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, pp. 393 405.
Akrich, M., Callon, M. & Latour, B. (1988) A quoi tient le succe`s des innovations? 1: Lart de linteressement, Gerer
et comprendre [The key to success in innovation? The art of interessement and understanding], Annales des
Mines, 11, pp. 417.
Bolinger, M.A. (2005) Making European-style community wind power development work in the US, Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 9, pp. 556575.
Breukers, S. & Wolsink, M. (2007) Wind power implementation in changing institutional landscapes: An
international comparison, Energy Policy, 35, pp. 27372750.
Callon, M. & Law, J. (1992) After the individual in society: lessons on collectivity from science, technology and
society, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 22(2), pp. 165 182.
Geels, F.W. & Schot, J. (2007) Typology of socio-tehcnical transition pathways, Research Policy, 36, pp. 399417.
IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: MitigationTechnical Summary, pp. 71.
Klein, J. & Harrisson, D. (2006) Linnovation sociale (Quebec, Presses de lUniversite du Quebec).
Nada, A. (2007) Planning, siting and the local acceptance of wind power: some lessons from the French case,
Energy Policy, 35(5), pp. 27152726.
Nada, A. & Labussie`re, O. (2008) Re-inventing a visual landscape, planning wind power in the Eure-et-Loir
(France), Working Paper, CIREDNogent-sur-Marne.
Nada, A. & Labussie`re, O. (2009) Wind power planning in France (Aveyron): from state regulation to local
experimentation, Land Use Policy, 26, pp. 744754.
Nada, A. & Labussie`re, O. (forthcoming) Birds, turbines and the making of wind power landscape in south
France (Aude), Landscape Research.
RTE (2007) Bilan previsionnel de lequilibre de loffre et de la demande delectricite en France [Supply and Demand
Forecast for the French Elcetricity Market] (Paris, Gestionnaire du Reseau de Transport dElectricite).
Shove, E. (1998) Gaps, barriers and conceptual chasms: theories of technology transfer and energy in buildings,
Energy Policy, 26(15), pp. 1105 1112.
Smith, A., Stirling, A. & Berkhout, F. (2005) The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions,
Research Policy, 34, pp. 14911510.
Szarka, J. (2007) Why is there no wind rush in France?, European Environment, 17, pp. 321333.
Szarka, J. (2006) Wind power, policy learning and paradigm change, Energy Policy, 34(14), pp. 30413048.
Waterton, C. (2003) Performing the classification of nature, Sociological Review, 52, pp. 111129.

2010_Ellis et al._Planning Theory &amp; Practice Wind Power Is There A “ Planning Problem ” Expanding Wind Power A Problem of Planning , or of Perception The Problems Of Planning — A Developer &#39; s Perspective Wind Farm.pdf

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2010_Ellis et al._Planning Theory &amp; Practice Wind Power Is There A “ Planning Problem ” Expanding Wind Power A Problem of Planning , or of Perception The Problems Of Planning — A Developer &#39; s Perspective Wind Farm.pdf

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

This article was downloaded by: [USP University of Sao Paulo]

On: 01 August 2011, At: 12:35

Planning Theory & Practice

Wind Power: Is There A Planning

Geraint Ellis , Richard Cowell , Charles Warren , Peter

Strachan , Joseph Szarka , Richard Hadwin , Paul Miner ,

Maarten Wolsink & Alain Nada

School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering, Queen's

Department of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University, UK

School of Geography and Geosciences, University of St Andrews,

Alberdeen Business School, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen,

Department of European Studies and Modern Languages, Bath

Renewable Energy Partnerships Ltd, Overmoor, Neston, Corsham,

Campaign to Protect Rural England, London

Department of Geography, Planning and International

Centre International de Recherche sur l'Environnement et le

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

Wind Power: Is There A Planning

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

Geraint Ellis, Queens University Belfast

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

Expanding Wind Power: A Problem

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

Local discontent can be accentuated by poor project management and insensitive

Disparities in knowledge may be less important in explaining antagonism between

The wealth of cumulative research highlights the value of multi-method and

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

The Problems Of PlanningA

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

Furthermore, the process actually discourages public representation in the

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

Wind Farms: More Respectful and Open

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

CPREs Interest in Wind Energy

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

A Lack of Planning Rather than too Much?

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

Planning: Problem Carrier or Problem

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

Planning and the Evaluative Component

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Innovation

The choice of a financial procurement system that is rooted in an ineffective concept of

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

Innovative Wind Power Planning

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

Downloaded by [USP University of Sao Paulo] at 12:35 01 August 2011

1. Ministe`re de lEconomie, des Finances et de lIndustrie (2002). Programmation pluriannuelle des

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen

2010_Ellis et al._Planning Theory & Practice Wind Power Is There A “ Planning Problem ” Expanding Wind Power A Problem of Planning , or of Perception The Problems Of Planning — A Developer ' s Perspective Wind Farm.pdf

2010_Ellis et al._Planning Theory & Practice Wind Power Is There A “ Planning Problem ” Expanding Wind Power A Problem of Planning , or of Perception The Problems Of Planning — A Developer ' s Perspective Wind Farm.pdf