ARTICLE IN PRESS

Energy Policy 35 (2007) 26482660

www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Wind energy planning in England, Wales and Denmark:

Factors inuencing project success
Joyce McLaren Loring
SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research), University of Sussex, Freeman Centre, Falmer, Brighton, East Sussex BN1 9QE, UK
Received 17 August 2006; accepted 5 October 2006
Available online 16 November 2006

Abstract

Land-use planning poses a signicant barrier to the further development of on-shore wind energy in many countries. There has been
increasing discussion regarding the use of public participation in the planning process in order to address concerns of local residents and
ease conicts. This research explores the dynamics of the planning process for wind energy in England, Wales and Denmark in order to
better understand the factors inuencing project success. Through 18 in-depth case studies, it investigates the degree of local community
participation in the planning process and the stability of the network of individuals and organisations involved in the project to
determine their relationship to the publics acceptance of the project and the planning outcome. The study draws on the frameworks of
public participation in planning and actor-network theories in order to develop indicators of the level of community involvement and
network formation for each case. The analysis discusses predictions made by the theoretical approaches as to the importance of these
variables to the success of new projects. The results indicate that projects with high levels of participatory planning are more likely to be
publicly accepted and successful. In addition, stable supporting networks are more likely to form. The presence of a stable network of
supporters is not found to be related to project acceptance and success; however, the absence of a stable network of opponents is found to
be necessary for project acceptance and success in receiving planning permission.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Wind energy planning; Public participation; Network theory

1. Introduction Of the renewable energy technologies, wind turbines on

As a result of concerns about climate change and
international agreements to reduce carbon dioxide emis-
sions, governments worldwide are beginning to establish
national goals for the provision of electricity from renew-
able energy. In 2001, the European Unions Renewables
Directive set a goal of providing 20% of the European
Communitys electricity consumption from renewable
energy by the year 2010. Member states are required to
encourage renewable energy development and publish
national targets, which are updated every 5 years (Eur-
opean Parliament and Council Directive, 2001).
Tel.: +44 1273 686758; fax: +44 1273 685865.
E-mail address: joyce.loring@gmail.com.
favourable sites are one of the most technologically viable
and cost-effective options (Our energy future, 2003;
Morthorst and Chandler, 2004). However, land-use plan-
ning challenges pose a signicant barrier to the further
development of on-shore wind energy in many countries.
When making determinations on new wind energy project
applications, local planning authorities must balance the
needs and views of the local public with the broader
national targets and guidance for renewable energy
development. Although national surveys throughout Eur-
ope show high levels of support for renewable energy
amongst the general public (A Survey of Opinion Surveys
on Wind Power, 2003; Public Attitudes to Wind Energy in
the UK, 2005; Damborg, 2003), support at a local level is
often seriously reduced when specic projects are pro-
posed. Members of the local communities often object to

0301-4215/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.10.008
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. McLaren Loring / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 26482660
proposed wind turbines on the grounds of visual intrusion,
noise pollution or local environmental disturbance. In
many cases, well-organised local opposition groups form.1
2. Problem statement and research variables
The current research investigates the relationships
among four variables involved in wind energy project
planning: public participation, network stability, public
acceptance and planning success. The goal is to better
understand how the local communitys involvement in the
planning of new wind energy projects and the stability of
the networks of individuals and organisations involved in
the project planning are related to the publics acceptance
of the project and the outcome of the planning process.
3. Related research
Other studies have also investigated variables involved in
UK wind energy planning decisions, and the local publics
involvement, in particular. A 2001 study by Devine-Wright
et al. considered the quality of local community involve-
ment in the planning of three wind energy projects in
England and Wales. It was concluded that there was little
opportunity for the local public to have genuine involve-
ment in the planning process (Devine-Wright et al., 2001).
Devine-Wright suggested that more attention should be
paid to the social and psychological dynamics of the
development process to improve the success level of wind
energy planning outcomes, a view that is supported by the
research presented in this paper.
In another UK study that employed the use of statistical
methods, Toke (2005) found associations between local
authority planning decisions and the opinions of local
ofcers, parish councils and landscape protection groups.
It was concluded that the attitude of the local population
was a signicant variable inuencing the decision of the
planning authority, and discussed how attention to local
politics might be a means to reduce the scale of opposition
to new wind turbines (Toke, 2005).
One method of involving the local population and
addressing economic concerns is for the local population to
have nancial ownership of the project. The results of a
pre- and post-participation study of a locally initiated
renewable energy project in south Wales suggested that
public support for local development and local ownership
of renewable energy is indeed high (Devine-Wright, 2005).
This is also supported by evidence from successful
cooperatively owned projects in the northwest of England,
as well as the early development of wind power in
Denmark through local cooperatives.
The research presented in this paper follows from and
augments these previous studies. This analysis of wind
energy project planning systematically explores the sub-
1
In England and Wales these local groups are often assisted by the
national opposition group, Country Guardian.
2649
jective, contending positions as they are played out in a
series of specic cases and mediated by the values and
interests of real social actors. The in-depth case study
methodology and the chosen variables allow for the
identication of important individuals, interest groups,
documents and circumstances whose signicance could not
have been anticipated or thoroughly investigated using
narrow, pre-dened variables. The research is designed to
be a study of what can be called the politics behind
decision making. This pluralistic socio-political side of the
decision process would be very difcult to capture in a
more quantitative study.
3.1. Countries included in the study
The countries included in this study are England, Wales
and Denmark. England and Wales provide good examples
of the wind energy planning conict described above.
Although the UK has a vast wind resource (The UK Wind
Resourse Fact Sheet 8, 2001; Electricity Supply and
Consumption (Statistics), 2004), national and regional
targets for increased use of renewable energy (New and
Renewable Energy: Prospects for the 21st Century,
Conclusions, 2000; PPS 22, 2004), a government support
programme for new renewable energy projects (Renew-
ables Obligation Order, 2002) and general public support
for wind energy (Attitudes and Knowledge of Renewable
Energy, 2003; Public Attitudes to Wind Energy in the UK,
2005), new wind energy projects continue to suffer lengthy
delays in the planning process (Wind Energy 2006, 2006;
Devine-Wright, 2005; Toke, 2005; Tomlinson, 2004).
British Wind Energy Association research has shown
that, since 1999, the time taken to reach a nal decision on
wind energy applications has steadily increased, taking an
average of a year in England and longer in Wales,
compared to 13 weeks for other types of major develop-
ments (Tomlinson, 2004). Planning delays continue to be a
barrier to wind energy development in Scotland as well
(Wind Energy 2006, 2006).
In addition to the long decision times, planning
application failure rates at the local level are high. Between
19992003, only 50% of the proposed wind turbine
capacity (in terms of megawatts) was approved in England,
and only 40% in Wales (BWEA Brieng Sheet: PPS 22,
2003). If the UK target to supply 10% of electricity by
renewable energy by the year 2010 is to be met, substantial
additional developments will be needed; and planning
applications for most projects will have to be approved by
2007 to allow time for construction.
In contrast to the UK, Denmark has a history of public
support for and successful development of renewable
energy, particularly wind power. The energy crisis during
the 1970s spurred the agricultural manufacturing sectors
involvement in the construction of wind turbines. Local
initiatives and cooperative ownership of wind turbines was
the norm throughout the 1970s and 80s. In fact, as much as
80% of the installed wind energy capacity is owned by local
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2650 J. McLaren Loring / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 26482660

individuals and cooperatives (Gipe, 1995; Krohn, 2003). Table 1

These bottomup efforts were supported and encouraged Case studies
by the government, which introduced subsidies, tax credits England
and ownership criteria that encouraged cooperative own- Wharrels Hill Bothel, Cumbria
ership of wind turbines (Christensen and Lund, 1998). Lowick Common Pennington, Cumbria
This approach was highly successful and Denmark became Harlock Hill Ulverston, Cumbria
an early leader in wind energy manufacturing and Lambrigg Kendal, Cumbria
Barkin House Kirkby Lonsdale, Cumbria
development. Stockton/Brundish South Norfolk
The historically bottomup development trend of wind Ecotech Centre Swaffham, Norfolk
energy in Denmark provides a contrast to the situation in
Wales
the United Kingdom, where most projects are proposed by Mynydd Llanelian Colwyn Bay, Conwy
large wind energy developers. However, since the late 1990s Moel Maelogen Llanrwst, Conwy
the situation in Denmark has changed. New government Blaen Bowi Capel Iwan, Carmarthenshire
targets to increase wind energy use lead to relaxed Parc Cynog Pendine, Carmathenshire
ownership criteria, and this resulted in a move away from Denmark
cooperatively owned projects toward more single-owner Rolshj Mllelaugene Thisted, Thisted Kommune
projects. By 1998, less than half of the operating turbines Fuglhgard Mllelaug Koldby, Thisted Kommune
were owned by cooperative partnerships (Christensen and Sydthy Kabellaug Hurup, Sydthy Kommune
Hjertebjerg Mllelaug Hanstholm, Hanstholm Kommune
Lund, 1998). Concurrently, there has been more local Honstrup Mark Mllelaug Kallerup, Sydthy Kommune
public opposition to new wind energy projects and Vildbjerg Trehje Kommune
planning permission has become harder to obtain (Kruse, Kratgard Vall Kommune
2001; Pinholt, 2001). Uncertainty about changing nancial
support mechanisms also slowed wind energy development
categories under each indicator. Taking the indicators
(Jensen, 2002). Therefore, the situation for wind energy in
together, this allowed a more aggregated categorisation
Denmark in recent years has become more like that
of the cases and the subsequent identication of trends in
experienced in the UK. All of these factors make Denmark
the data.
a historical contrast as well as a current comparison to
the UK, and an interesting country to include in the
current study. 6. Indicators of community participation

4. Case studies
For this study, 18 case studies of wind energy projects
were conducted: seven cases in England; four in Wales and
seven in Denmark. A list of the cases and their locations is
provided in Table 1. The in-depth, case study method
allowed for the exploration of the variables within the
broader context. Cases were selected to represent a variety
of geographic regions, various levels of public participation
and various degrees of success in planning. The cases were
limited to projects that had been given nal determinations
at the local level, and that were between one and eight
turbines. The majority of the case study data were collected
in 2001 and 2002.
5. Indicators of the variables
In order to be as specic, systematic and transparent as
possible in the characterisation of the research variables,
and to help focus data collection in the eld, indicators
were developed for each variable. The indicators are more
readily characterisable attributes of the variables. Interview
questions and other data collection were based on the
indicators. The indicators also served to standardise the
data analysis in two ways. The information collected for
each case study was formatted according to the indicators,
and the case studies were assigned to a series of ordinal
The indicators for the level of public participation in the
planning process were developed directly from the theore-
tical concepts put forward in the literature regarding public
participation in decision making, particularly land-use
planning. This theory is briey summarised and followed
by a presentation of the indicators, below.
A series of theoretical perspectives regarding public
participation in decision-making processes have been put
forward, including normative, instrumental and substan-
tive views. Respectively, these general standpoints hold
that public participation in decision making: (1) is desirable
and necessary in its own right as an essential attribute of
democracy; (2) reduces conict, fosters trust and facilitates
justication in decision making and (3) results in more
robust, higher-quality decisions (Fiorino, 1990).
In line with the arguments in favour of including public
participation in planning, procedures have been developed
that are designed to consult, involve and inform the public
to allow those affected by a decision to have an input into
that decision (Rowe, 2000). Methods such as public
hearings, focus groups and consensus conferences have
received particular attention in the planning literature.
These techniques seek to establish more constructive and
pro-active decision-making mechanisms in order to identify
publicly acceptable solutions (Fiorino, 1990; Todt, 1999).
The methods recruit participants, elicit their perspectives,
set rules and structure discussions in a variety of ways, and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. McLaren Loring / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 26482660
are appropriate to various contexts within project planning
and implementation.
Several schemes have been developed to evaluate the
effectiveness of these participatory methods. Thomas
Weblers (1995) discursive standard criteria are cate-
gorised according to the two elements of fairness and
competence. Fairness refers to the ability of the public to
gain equal access to the discourse, and the ability of the
participants to equally shape the agenda, rules and
moderation of the discourse. Competence refers to the
facility of the process to provide information, denitions
and explanations to participants, to resolve disputes about
these information, denitions and explanations, and to
ensure the authenticity of claims (Webler, 1995). Petts
combined Weblers discursive standard criteria with
principles of publicity2 and accountability and has simpli-
ed them into 10 evaluative criteria. They address the
representativeness of participants, the approach to delib-
eration and issues of equality (Petts, 2000).
The present study draws extensively upon Petts criteria
in order to develop the indicators for the variable of public
participation, as discussed in detail below. Given the
specic context of wind power developments, however, the
indicators needed to be supplemented with some designed
to address issues such as the initiation of a project by local
individuals (bottomup developments) and the cooperative
ownership of projects.
For the current research, the level of community
participation in the project is deemed to be higher when:
1. The participants (the members of the local public who
were involved in the project planning process) are
representative of the views of the full range of potentially
affected people: This indicator looks at whether steps
were taken to include the viewpoints of all individuals
who may be affected by the project. If individuals
beyond those who are legally required to be consulted
were included in the decision-making process, or if
special efforts were made in order to encourage these
individuals to participate, then this indicates higher level
of public participation.
2. Barriers to involvement of local communities in the
planning process have been minimised: Examples of
barriers to participation are if public meetings are: not
widely advertised; inconveniently located; held in loca-
tions that are intimidating for some individuals; or
scheduled for times when some interested individuals
cannot attend. This indicator looks at whether measures
beyond those required by the planning process were
taken to reduce barriers to participation.
3. Community members impact decisions about the project:
This indicator considers who is involved in making
decisions about the project. If decisions regarding the
2
Publicity is the duty to act based on ethical standards that are known
and recognised by all who are involved. See: Birsch (1999) Ethical insights:
A brief introduction. Mayeld Publishing.
2651
project are made by the developers and planners only,
with no solicitation for public comments, then this
indicates a lower level of participation. If decisions are
made by a large group of local community members in
collaboration with planners and, if relevant, the devel-
oper, then a higher level of participation has been
realised.
4. Community members have financial ownership in the
project: If community members have nancial owner-
ship in the project, they have a more vested interest in
the project. Land rental paid to a landowner is a very
limited form of nancial benet and indicates little
community participation. If the project revenues are
paid to local individuals, then many more local
individuals have interest in the project. If revenues go
toward community funds, such as schools or parks, then
the project is even more participatory, in the ownership
sense.
5. The project was initiated by a local individual or group:
The extent of involvement of local individuals in the
initiation of the project is an indication of the level of
community participation. The project may be started by
an outside developer alone or in cooperation with a
landowner. Or the project concept may have come from
a local organisation. Certainly, the more local indivi-
duals that were involved in the project from the
conceptual stages, the more participatory it is.
6. The community will have continued involvement in the
project after construction: Aside from regular mainte-
nance, wind energy projects require very little attention
after construction. However, there are ways in which a
community can have post-construction involvement in
the project. A few members of the community may be
involved in turbine maintenance, or a local group may
manage the revenue funds and make decisions regarding
project management. Perhaps a visitor centre is set up to
draw tourists to the area and educate school children.
The more involvement of the community in the daily
management and operation of the project, the more
participatory it is said to be.
7. Indicators of network stability
Beyond the variable of public participation, the current
research requires a framework that allows for the explora-
tion of the relationships among various actors and between
actors and wind energy technology. The eld of the social
shaping of technology (SST) provides an integrated
treatment of institutions, networks and technologies that
allows for the development of a useful framework for the
current research. SST stresses that technological develop-
ment is shaped by complex socioeconomic processes within
society, and that the two are integrated through economic,
political and cultural factors. The social construction of
technology (SCOT) is a related concept within the eld of
the sociology of technology that examines why certain
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2652 J. McLaren Loring / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 26482660
technological developments are successful and others are
not. SCOT focuses on how actors interact with technology
and investigates what guides them in making decisions
regarding technological change.
Actor-network theory (Callon et al., 1986; Law, 1999),
techno-economic network theory (Law, 1991) and socio-
technical network theory (Elzen, Enserink et al., 1996) are
notions set within the framework of SST that deal with
dynamic systems of actors and intermediaries that combine
to form networks, such as those involved in the develop-
ment or production of goods or services. Traditionally,
these network theories, as well as the broader eld of SST
in which they are set, are applied to technological
innovation. However, the current research applies this
body of theory in a rather novel way, i.e., to the eld of
technological deployment. The concepts regarding the
formation and boundaries of networks, the relationships
between actors within a network and the various elements
of a network that create stability can just as easily be
applied to networks surrounding the planning of a wind
energy project as they can the innovation of, for instance,
an electric vehicle.
Therefore, the indicators for the variable of network
stability are based in the notions and denitions developed
in these various network theories, including concepts such
as the alignment of actors, the inclusion of an actor, the
normalisation, durability and robustness of relationships,
the presence of immutable mobiles, and the existence of
multiplicity and critical actors in a particular network. The
specic indicators that are used to characterise network
stability in this research are given below, with brief
explanations of each.
The level of network stability (for both the supports and
opponents) is indicated by the presence of four main
indicators:3
1. Strong relationships among actors within the network:
This indicator takes into consideration the alignment
and inclusion of actors within the network, as well as the
normalisation and durability/robustness of their rela-
tionships. Strong relationships are evident when actors
agree on their roles and goals and when they actively
participate and interact with others in the network.
Strong relationships are also indicated when actors have
known each other a long time, worked together before
or were good friends prior to their involvement in the
project. Strong relationships are important to the
stability of the network, and the more strong relation-
ships the network displays, the more stable the network
can be said to be.
2. Immutable mobiles (significant texts or documents): The
presence of texts and documents within a network
indicates a degree of organisation within that network.
3
In addition, the characteristic of marginality was found to be
explanatory in several cases. Marginality is the extent to which an actor
is excluded from a network.
Texts take effort, coordination and time to produce.
Texts, such as the charter statements and agendas for
meetings, indicate that the network produces clear goals
and is able to broadcast those goals throughout
the network. A substantial number of letters to the
planning authorities, including the development of a
form letter, indicate good organisation and motivation
within the network. Flyers, brochures and posters
require effort and organisation to produce and dis-
tribute. All of these things indicate a higher level of
stability of the network.
3. Multiplicity: Multiplicity is the degree to which a
network has actors that have a range of identities (i.e.,
belong to more than one network). Actors may be able
to draw upon the resources from one network to help
their efforts in another. For example, an actor who is a
lawyer can bring those skills to the network of
supporters of a wind energy project. Or actors may
seek to enrol members of a network they have belonged
to for some time (e.g., a church) to become members of
a new network (e.g., a wind energy opposition group).
They may also be able to use resources from other
networks (such as meeting rooms, ofces and paper
goods) in order to assist them in their effort for another
network. In these ways, multiplicity adds stability to a
network.
4. Critical actors: Critical actors are individuals who play a
major role within a network. They are generally seen as
people without whom a network could not have formed
or survived. These actors may dedicate a lot of time to
the effort at hand. They may bring special skills or
knowledge or a particular conviction about the project
that motivates others. Often, critical actors introduce
multiplicity into the network, which makes them
particularly valuable to the stability of the network.
8. Indicators of public acceptance
The indicators of public acceptance and project success
were not based in a particular body of theory, but
developed through knowledge of the planning consent
process. These indicators are discussed below.
Higher levels of public acceptance are indicated by:
1. Positive results in public opinion surveys about the project
during the planning phase: Assuming that the opinion
surveys were conducted in a manner to be fairly
representative of the local community, they can serve
as a useful indicator of public acceptance when results
are available.
2. Significant interest groups generally in favour (or not
opposed) to the project: The stated opinions of local
interest groups, such as parish councils, local sporting
clubs or chapters of national organisations can provide
a useful insight into the general opinion of the local
population. Local individuals make up the membership
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. McLaren Loring / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 26482660
of these organisations, and while not all members will
fully agree with the stated position of the interest group,
the publicly stated position is a convenient and useful
indicator of acceptance when combined with other
indicators.
3. Attendees to public meetings generally in favour (or not
opposed) to the project: The general atmosphere at
public meetings, as well as the positions of those who
made comments at these meetings, can serve as a gauge
of public opinion. Of course, the value of this indicator
is dependent on the representativeness of the attendees
at the meeting and the degree to which all attendees felt
comfortable making their true opinion known. These
are all factors that are considered when using this as one
indicator of public opinion.
4. Few letters of objection sent to planning authorities and
newspapers: Generally, strong feelings against a develop-
ment project spur letters of objection to planning
authorities and newspapers. If a project is considered
favourable, or if there is general ambivalence to the
project, few letters of objection would be expected.
Therefore, the presence or absence of letters of opposition
can serve as a useful indicator of general public opinion.
5. Letters of support sent to planning authorities and
newspapers: The presence of letters of support sent to
planning authorities and newspapers is included, in
addition to the indicator above, because it is more likely
for project opponents to write letters of objection
than for project supporters to write letters of support.
If few letters of objection to a project were received, this
may indicate either general public ambivalence or
general public support for the project. If there are
letters stating clear support for the project, this
represents an additional degree of public acceptance
above ambivalence and should be noted as potentially
signicant.
6. Positive media coverage: It is often the case that
newspapers have a slant or bias toward one particular
viewpoint. This presents a difculty in implementing this
indicator since the number of positive or negative
articles will depend on the slant of the media itself.
However, positive media coverage is still thought to be a
useful indicator of public opinion. Historically, there
has been more negative media coverage regarding wind
turbines than positive. Therefore, any positive coverage
is likely to be a real indication of positive feelings
surrounding a particular project. It is related to the
comment made above regarding letters of support; it is
more likely to nd an article exhibiting negative feelings
than positive ones. Furthermore, as many of the projects
studied were located in rural areas, local papers were
perhaps more likely to represent a prevailing view
amongst the small population.
While there are complexities and difculties with these
indicators when they are viewed individually, taken as a
whole they provide a fairly robust view of public
2653
acceptance of the project. It can be seen as a case in which
the whole is more meaningful than the sum of the parts.
9. Indicators of project success
The following are indicators of higher levels of project
success:
1. planning consent obtained;
2. reasonable (average) time taken for decision;
3. appeal on planning decision not necessary;
4. planning process did not involve costly requests from
the planning authorities for additional information from
the developer;
5. planning conditions placed on project did not introduce
extensive costs or delays to the project construction.
The above indicators of project success are fairly self-
explanatory. The main indicator of success is, of course,
whether the project received planning permission. How-
ever, other issues are of importance and add to the
understanding of project success. These include the time
taken for a decision to be made, whether there was an
appeal process, how many requests for special information
were made by planners during the process, and any
conditions placed on a project that is approved. Therefore,
the variable of project success is broken into three ordinal
levels, as dened below, rather than simply success and
no success.
10. Data collection
Semi-structured interviews were held with a variety of
individuals involved with each wind energy project. For the
projects in England and Wales, interviews with the
planning ofcer were conducted in all cases. In addition,
the developer or landowner and the leader of the project
supporters and/or opponents were also interviewed for
most cases. For the Danish projects, the project developer
or landowner was interviewed for all cases, as well as the
relevant planning authority for most cases.
The planning documents on le with the local planning
authorities, particularly the planning ofcer reports in
England and Wales, were used to identify issues of
importance to individual case studies, focus interview
questions, obtain information unavailable from interviews,
and triangulate data from interviews. In addition, the
letters of support and opposition from the public and
statutory consultees, which are kept on le in the UK
planning ofces, were used to clarify and verify informa-
tion regarding public opinion obtained from interviews.
11. Data analysis
The overall goal of the data analysis is to identify broad
commonalities and trends regarding the relationship
between participation, network stability, public acceptance
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2654 J. McLaren Loring / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 26482660
and planning success of wind energy projects. The variables
of interest and associated data are too subjective in nature,
and the number of case studies too low, to lend themselves
to formal statistical analysis. As a result, it is particularly
important to clearly dene the variables, be as consistent as
possible in the interpretation of the data and take a
conservative stance in drawing conclusions.
The rst step in the analysis of the data was to determine
the level of participation, network stability, project
acceptance and project success for each case study. Ordinal
categories for the variables were dened for this purpose.
All variables other than project success were broken into
four categories (high, medium, low, very low) while the
project success variable was broken into three categories
(high, medium, low).
Due to the complexity of the indicators used for the
community participation variable, individual indicators
were also given ordinal categories. Then the case studies
were assigned a level for each indicator and these were
combined. For the remaining three variables, all indicators
were considered together to result in a single level
assignment. Table 2 shows the denitions that were used
in assigning the projects to the levels of each of the
variables.
Once each project was assigned to an ordinal category
under each variable, the data for all projects were
assembled in graphical form. Tables were constructed by
which the relationship between pairs of individual variables
could be investigated. The levels of the variables that are
used to categorise the projects fall along the two axes.
Within the body of each table are boxes that represent the
intersection of the two variables.
For example, the relationship between community
participation and public acceptance is examined by
indicating how many projects fall into the category of high
participation and high acceptance, how many projects are
in the high participation and medium acceptance category,
and so on. The results for the case studies are shown in this
table format by indicating the number of cases that fall into
each box. For example, if three projects had high levels of
network stability and high levels of success, then the
corresponding box shows the number three. In addition,
shading was used so that the results can be more easily
interpreted and because this better represents the intrinsic
imprecision due to the inherently subjective nature of the
data analysis and the research topic itself. Darker shades
indicate more cases fell into the category, while lighter
shades indicate fewer cases. Anomalous cases were
examined in detail in order to determine why they may
have been outliers, whether there is a clear explanation for
their differences and how they affect the results. This
provides additional assurance of the conclusions made.
Conclusions were drawn only at the most coarse level of
resolution; in other words, conclusions are based only on
obvious trends that would not be greatly affected by slight
alterations in the categorisations of the few volatile cases
revealed in sensitivity analysis.
12. Results and conclusions
Due to their length and complexity, the details of the
case studies cannot be given here, but are published
elsewhere (Loring, 2005). A discussion of the relationships
between the pairs of research variables as indicated by the
data from the 18 case studies is given below, along with the
overall conclusions drawn.
12.1. Participationsupporting network relationship
Fig. 1 shows the relationship observed between the level
of public participation and the stability of the network of
project supporters. The patterns represented in the table
indicate some relationship between these variables. In cases
where the use of participatory methods was high, the
stability of the network of project supporters was very
often high, and vice versa. This is discussed more below.
Although there was some clustering in the lowhigh and
highvery low corners of Fig. 2, no such clear-cut
relationship between the level of participation in the
project and the stability of the opponents network could
be identied. There were several cases that had low levels of
engagement and low levels of opposing networks. This
means that the strength of opposition networks does not
seem to associate closely with low levels of participation. In
cases of higher levels of participation, there is some
suggestion of less prominent opposing networks; however,
this relationship is also far from clear.
It is interesting that the use of participatory methods
corresponded with higher stability in supporting networks
but not in opposing networks. On the one hand, in theory,
the use of effective participatory methods should ensure the
inclusion of both supporters and opponents to projects.
This is reected, for instance, in the nature of the indicators
for this variable, such as participants are representative of
the whole range of potentially affected people. If
individuals with various perspectives are engaged in the
project, thenon the face of itit seems reasonable that
both supporting and opposing networks would be just as
likely to form. This is because both those who support the
project and those who are against it would have the benet
of engaging with other people with similar views, interests
and aims through the participatory process. If either the
supporting or opposing networks become more stable,
then, from a network theory perspective, this should
primarily depend not on the degree to which a wider
public participated in project design or implementation but
on factors that are more specic to the network in a
narrower sense, such as the presence of a critical actor or
other resources important to network stability (Callon
et al., 1986; Elzen et al., 1996; Law, 1991, 1999).
On the other hand, it is also possible that a higher level
of participation would result in fewer numbers of
opponents and a lower likelihood that a stable opposing
network would form. This in fact is often the basic premise
for using participatory methods. Whether participation
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. McLaren Loring / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 26482660 2655

Table 2
Denitions of the variables

Community participation

The participants Barriers to Community members Community Local initiation of Community will have
are representative participation have impact decisions about members have the project continued involvement
of the views of the minimized the project nancial ownership in the project
full range of in the project
potentially affected
people
High Extensive measures Extensive measures Decision regarding the Individuals other Community group Community group will
were taken to were taken to project made by a large than the landowner initiated and continue to be involved
include all view reduce barriers to group of local receive all revenue submitted with the project through
points in the participation community members in OR all revenue application receipt of revenues (or
decision-making collaboration with goes to a decision-making
process planners and, if relevant, community fund responsibility regarding
the developer the use of revenues) and
decision-making
responsibilities
regarding the
management of the
project
Medium Reasonable Reasonable Decision regarding the Landowners receive Landowner(s) Community group will
measures were measures were project made between revenue from initiated and continue to be involved
taken to include all taken to reduce the planners, the turbines submitted with the project through
possible view barriers, including developer (or application alone signicant or high-
points, including some beyond those landowner), and a small or had a signicant prole local activities
some beyond those legally required by group of interested local role in the that are directly
legally required by the planning individuals application connected to the project,
the planning process submitted by the such as a visitor centre
process developer
Low Minimal measures No special Decision regarding the No community Landowner and Minimal continued
were taken to measures were project made largely by nancial ownership developer initiated community involvement
include all possible taken to reduce developer and the in community other and submitted through low-prole
view points planners. Local
barriers other than than land rental application activities related to the
those legally comments such as those and small together, or the project, such as funding
required by the made in letters or during community funds landowner asked of computers for local
planning processopen days were developer to schools
considered consider that site
Very low Some view points Obviously barriers Decision regarding the No community Developer initiated No continued
of potentially existed in planning project are made by the nancial ownership and submitted community involvement
affected people process. For developers and the in community other application with no other than the owner or
were obviously not example, some planners only with no than land rental involvement from developer
represented in the affected people may regard for public landowner
course of the not have been comments
planning process invited to meetings
or meetings were
intimidating for
some individuals

Network stability Public acceptance Planning success

High Network is well developed, Little or no evidence of public opposition. Presence of Project obtained planning
displaying several indicators of indicators of public support, including letters or rapid permission
stability sale of shares in the turbines
Medium Network is present but not fully Evidence of a mixture of public opinion regarding the Project obtained planning
stable; only one or two network project, indicated by similar numbers of letters of permission, but only after appeal or
indicators may be present support as opposition, or different results for various lengthy delays or expensive requests
indicators for additional information
Low Network is very limited, as indicated Evidence of general public opposition, including more Project did not receive planning
by few relationships between actors letters of opposition than support permission
and few or no other indicators of
network stability
Very low No network is identied Clear evidence of active opposition, usually including N/A
the existence of an organized local opposition group.
More letters of opposition than support, as well as
other indicators of opposition
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2656 J. McLaren Loring / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 26482660

Stability of Network of Project Supporters Public Acceptance of Project during Planning Phase
High Medium Low Very Low High Medium Low Very Low

High 4 1 High 5

Level of public participation in planning

Level of public participation in planning

Medium 1 1 2 Medium 3 1

Low 2 5 Low 2 1 4

Very Very
Low 1 1 Low 1 1

Fig. 1. Participationsupporting network relationship. Fig. 3. Participationacceptance relationship.

Stability of Network of Project Opponents

High Medium Low Very Low level of public acceptance of the wind energy projects
during the planning phase. Although the data are clustered
around the highhigh and lowlow corners of the graph,
High 1 1 3
Level of public participation in planning

the pattern is disturbed by the three cases falling into the

low participationhigh acceptance corner. These outliers
are delineated by the heavy boxes on the graphic.
Medium 1 1 2 A re-examination of the outlying cases conrmed the
assignments.4 Although the majority of the case study
results are clustered at the highhigh and lowlow end of
the graphic, the relatively high number of cases with low
Low 5 1 1
use of participatory methods and high acceptance indicate
inconsistency with the research hypothesis. Therefore, it is
concluded that high levels of participatory planning are
Very
Low 1 1 contributory but not necessary for high levels of public
acceptance in the project.

Fig. 2. Participationopposing network relationship.

High use of participatory methods during the planning
process is contributory but not necessary for high levels
of public acceptance in the project.
does indeed lead to higher levels of acceptance by the
public is explored below.
This nding lends support to the perspectives of
Higher levels of participation tend to be associated with participatory planning theory, which argues that if people
higher stability in supporting networks, but not higher are informed very early in the projects development, do
stability of opposing networks. not feel threatened and anticipate beneting from the
project, then they are more likely to react positively to the
12.2. Participationacceptance relationship project. However, it does not support the view that a lack
of participatory methods is necessarily detrimental to the
It might be predicted that if the degree and quality of project.
public participation in wind energy projects is high, then
the public acceptance of the project will also be high.
4
Conversely, if the degree and quality of the public The outlying cases were the Blaen Bowi, Cwmni Gwynt Teg and
participation is low, then it might be anticipated that Rolshj Mllelaugene projects. The local support for the rst two cases
was largely a result of solidarity amongst Welsh farmers. The third,
public acceptance of the public will also be low. Danish project was well received by the public since it offered public
Fig. 3 summarises the ndings from the case studies shares during a time when wind energy was seen as a particularly attractive
regarding the level of participation of the public and the investment opportunity.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. McLaren Loring / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 26482660 2657

Success in Obtaining Planning Permission Success in Obtaining Planning Permission

High Medium Low High Medium Low

High High
8 1 1 4 1
Public Acceptance of Project during Planning Phase

Stability of Network of Project Supporters

Medium 1 1 Medium 3 1

Low 1 Low 2 2 4

Very 2 3 Very 1
Low Low

Fig. 4. Acceptancesuccess relationship. Fig. 5. Supporting networksuccess relationship.

12.3. Acceptancesuccess relationship Projects with high levels of public acceptance are more
likely to succeed in receiving planning permission, while
It might be predicted that, if public acceptance of projects with low levels of public acceptance are more
projects is high, then the project will more likely be likely to fail.
successful in obtaining planning consent; and that if public
acceptance is low, the chance of project success in 12.4. Networksuccess relationship
obtaining planning permission will also be low.
Fig. 4 shows the case studies in terms of the levels of The relationship between the variables of network
public acceptance and project success in obtaining planning stability and project success must be examined in two
permission. The results are noticeably clustered in the parts since the stability of the networks of project
highhigh and very lowvery low corners of the graph. The supporters is dened separately from the stability of the
results of only one case set it clearly apart from the others. networks of project opponents.
A closer examination of this outlier provided a signicant One might anticipate that if there is a stable network of
illumination for why a project with such high levels of actors supporting a project, then the project is more likely to
public acceptance was not successful in obtaining planning be successful. Conversely, if network stability of supporters
permission.5 is low, then project success might be expected to be low.
The majority of the case study results was consistent with However, Fig. 5 shows that although there is some
the anticipation that higher levels of acceptance correspond grouping at the corners of the gure the case study results
to higher levels of success and vice versa. The relatively do not display clear consistency with this hypothesis. In
clear trend shown in the gure suggests that there is a particular, there is a relatively high number of projects
relationship between the level of public acceptance in a falling into the low supporting network stabilityhigh
project and the level of success in that project obtaining success category. Therefore, it cannot be condently
planning permission. concluded that there is an association between the stability
of the network of project supporters and the success of the
project in obtaining planning permission.
5
The outlying case is the Barkin House project in northwest England. This result implies that a stable network of project
During the summer of 1998, three wind energy projects were proposed in supporters is not a necessary condition for the project to
the same vicinity on the eastern side of the South Lakeland District. It was succeed during the planning process. There are several
generally felt within the council that three projects in the area would be
too many, but that all of them could not be refused. One project was heard projects that were successful, despite the absence of a stable
by the planners, but due to a political controversy in the voting process the supporting network.6 Therefore, it might be concluded that
decision was delayed for many months. In the mean time, the two other
6
projects, including the Barkin House project, were refused by the Council. One was the Trehje Kommune project in Denmark, which offered
The project that had initially been heard was nally approved. public nancial ownership. This project had many individuals nancially
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2658 J. McLaren Loring / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 26482660

other factors may be more important in the success of a Success in Obtaining Planning Permission
project than the stability of the network of supporters. High Medium Low
A stable network of project supporters is not a necessary
condition for project success in the planning process. High
2 4

Stability of Network of Project Opponents

12.5. Networksuccess relationship (opposing network)

Next, the relationship between the stability of the

network of project opponents and the success of the Medium 2
project in obtaining planning permission is explored. It
might be hypothesised that if there is a stable network of
actors opposing the project, then project success is likely to
be low. If network stability of opponents is low, however,
Low 2 1
then project success is expected to be high.
Looking at Fig. 6, one sees clustering of cases at the very
low opposing network stabilityhigh project success (at one
end of the graph) and high stabilitylow success (at the
opposite end) corners of the graph. This pattern is quite Very 7
Low
clear and is only broken by the presence of one project in
the lowlow category, which is marked with a bold
outline.7
The remainder of the projects studied closely t the Fig. 6. Opposing networksuccess relationship.
pattern anticipated. This implies that there is an important
relationship between the stability of the network of project public opposition is likely to be a major factor in the
opponents to a project and the level of success of the success or failure of a project.
project in obtaining planning permission. In other words, if
there is an organised group of opponents to a project, there 13. Patterns across the UK and Denmark
is relatively little chance of project success. Conversely, in
cases with no organised opposition group, the likelihood of In addition to analysing the data for the UK and
project success is high. Denmark together, the data were analysed separately to
determine whether there were any patterns evident across
If there is an organised group of opponents to a project,
the two countries. No distinct difference in the results was
there is a signicantly reduced chance of project success.
found across the two countries. This could be either
In cases with no organised opposition group, the
because there are few differences in patterns between the
likelihood of project success is high.
countries, or because the number of case studies, particu-
However, based on the research, it cannot be concluded larly in Denmark, was too small to indicate the differences.
that the relationship between the stability of the opposing One not surprising difference highlighted by the analysis is
network and project success is deterministic (that few that, overall, the cases in Denmark have higher levels of
opponents necessarily leads to project success, and vice participation, acceptance and success.
versa). Other factors may have as much, or more, inuence
on project success. For example, it may be that a well- 14. Overview of results
designed project both results in few opponents and is also
more likely to receive planning permission in its own terms. The research ndings discussed above can be sum-
However, it is highly likely that little or no opposition to a marised as follows. Projects with high levels of participa-
project does signicantly aid in planning success (and that tory planning are more likely to be publicly accepted and
a project with much opposition is likely to fail), since successful. In addition, stable supporting networks are
planning authorities carefully consider public comments more likely to form. Although the presence of a stable
regarding the projects. The presence or lack of organised network of supporters is not related to project acceptance
and success, the absence of a stable network of opponents
(footnote continued) is necessary for project acceptance and success in receiving
interested in its success, but these individuals did not display indicators of planning permission.
a strong network. The Swaffham project in East Anglia also had low
stability of the supporting network yet high success. This is perhaps due to 15. Policy relevance
its unique association with, and placement at, the Ecotech Centre, an
environmental and sustainable energy centre.
7
This outlier represents the Barkin House project, which was discussed Wind energy is the most available and inexpensive
in a footnote above. renewable resource in Europe, and if government targets
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. McLaren Loring / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 26482660
for renewable energy development are to be met, more
wind energy projects will need to be built. Some individuals
suggest that future wind energy projects should be based at
sea, which this solves some of the land use controversies
currently being experienced. However, there are additional
expenses and difculties related to off-shore wind energy
developments; and these project are not immune to public
opposition.
This research has made clear that if governments want to
promote the further development of on-shore wind
turbines they will not only need to encourage public
participation in the early stages of wind energy projects,
but also (and perhaps more importantly) nd ways to
address or counter the strong networks of opponents to
these projects.
By looking at the case studies conducted for this
research, some clues can be had as to how stable opposition
groups formed. In many cases, opponent groups were
started due to anger that an outside company or single
individual proposed a project that locals would not benet
from. By encouraging local, cooperative ownership of
projects, such as was done in the 1970s and 80s in Denmark
and with some more recent examples in the UK8
governments may help promote further wind energy
development.
In some cases, texts and documents put out by
opposition groups proved very important in strengthening
their networks and halting the project. However, the
accuracy of these documents was sometimes questionable.
Perhaps clear and accurate information provided by a
widely trusted authority could help to clarify some of the
misinformation regarding wind energy.
The lack of clarity regarding priorities (local needs
versus national goals) was also a clear problem for many
projects studied. Although efforts are being made to
address this through regional studies and development
plans, continuing to provide updated, clear guidance to
local authorities and developers about how much wind
energy should be built and where it should be located will
be helpful.
16. Future research
Several topics for further research are suggested by the
results of this work. Recognising that stable networks of
opponents inhibit the success of proposed projects, it
would be helpful to understand what factors spur network
formation, the ways that networks grow, and under what
circumstances they strengthen and become more stable.
Further work into the effect of participation in cases where
there is already strong opposition to a project may also be
constructive. While participatory planning theory would
advocate using participatory methods in all cases, it may
8
An example of a successful, cooperatively owned wind energy project
in England is the Harlock Hill project in Cumbria, developed by The Wind
Company, a Danish-based company.
2659
prove fruitful to understand the effects of applying such
methods given varying degrees of pre-existing opposition
and support. Implementing participatory methods involves
signicant time and expense to those involved, therefore
further determining the most effective execution would be
benecial.
While this research has provided insight into some of the
factors relevant to the success or failure of wind energy
projects, work is still needed in order to understand the
importance of other variables as well. It is hoped that this
research will serve as a springboard to other related efforts.
References
A Survey of Opinion Surveys on Wind Power, 2003. Wind Directions
SeptemberOctober, 1633.
Attitudes and Knowledge of Renewable Energy amongst the General
Public, 2003. Central Ofce of Information, JN9419 and JN9385,
August.
BWEA Brieng Sheet: PPS 22, 2003. Renewable Energy. British Wind
Energy Association, 5 November.
Callon, M., Law, J., et al. (Eds.), 1986. Mapping the Dynamics of Science
and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World. MacMillan
Press Ltd, New York.
Christensen, P., Lund, H., 1998. Conicting view of sustainability: the case
of wind power and nature conservation in Denmark. European
Environment 1, 16.
Damborg, S., 2003. Public Attitudes towards Wind Power. Danish Wind
Industry Association.
Devine-Wright, P., McAlpine, G., et al., 2001. Wind turbines in the
landscape: an evaluation of local community involvement and other
considerations in UK wind farm development. In: 32nd Annual
Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association,
Edinburgh, Scotland.
Devine-Wright, P., 2005. Local aspects of UK renewable energy
development: exploring public beliefs and policy implications. Local
Economy 10 (1), 5769.
Electricity Supply and Consumption (Statistics), 2004. Department of
Trade and Industry.
Electricity, England and Wales, 2002. The Renewables Obligation Order.
Elzen, B., Enserink, B., et al., 1996. Socio-technical networks: how a
technology studies approach may help to solve problems related to
technical change. Social Studies of Science 26, 95141.
European Parliament and Council Directive, 2001/77/EC (Promotion of
electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity
market), OJ L283 (27.10.01), 2001.
Fiorino, D., 1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey
of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, and Human Values
15 (2), 226243.
Gipe, P., 1995. Wind Energy Comes of Age. Wiley, New York.
Jensen, L., 2002. Interview: January, 2002. Vall, Denmark.
Krohn, S., 2003. The Wind Turbine Market in Denmark. Danish Wind
Industry Association.
Kruse, J., 2001. Interview: November, 2001. Ydby, Denmark.
Law, J. (Ed.), 1991. A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power,
Technology and Domination. Routledge, London.
Law, J., 1999. Actor-network theory and after. Blackwell Publishers,
Oxford.
Loring, J., 2005. Wind energy development in England, Wales and
Denmark: the role of community participation and network stability in
project acceptance and planning success. Ph.D. Thesis, Science and
Technology Policy, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
Morthorst, P.E., Chandler, H., 2004. The cost of wind power. Renewable
Energy World (JulyAugust), 126137.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2660 J. McLaren Loring / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 26482660
New and Renewable Energy: Prospects for the 21st Century, Conclusions
in Response to the Public Consultation, 2000. Department of Trade
and Industry.
Our Energy Future creating a Low Carbon Economy, 2003. Department
of Trade and Industry, February.
Petts, J., 2000. Evaluating the effectiveness of deliberative processes: waste
management case studies. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management.
Pinholt, L., 2001. Interview: November. Hurup, Denmark.
Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 22, 2004. Ofce of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Public Attitudes to Wind Energy in the UK, 2005. British Wind Energy
Association, Brieng Sheet.
Rowe, 2000. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation.
Science, Technology, and Human Values 2 (1), 329.
The UK Wind Resource: Wind Energy Fact Sheet 8, 2001. Department of
Trade and Industry, June.
Todt, O., 1999. Social decision making on technology and the environ-
ment in Spain. Technology in Society 21, 201216.
Toke, D., 2005. Explaining wind power planning outcomes: some
ndings from a study in England and Wales. Energy Policy 33 (12),
15271539.
Tomlinson, C., 2004. Wind Energy & Planning: An overview. British
Wind Energy Association.
Webler, T., 1995. Right discourse in citizen participation. In: Renn, O.,
Webler, T., Wiedemann, P. (Eds.), Fairness and Competence in Citizen
Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, vol.
10. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, pp. 3586.
Wind Energy 2006, 2006. Scottish Renewables Forum, January.