WIND ENERGY

Wind Energ. 2011; 14:699–706

Published online 14 December 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/we.446

BROADER PERSPECTIVES

Conflict in the Sea of Trafalgar: offshore wind energy

and its context
O. Todt1, M. I. González2 and B. Estévez2
1 University of the Balearic Islands, department of Philosophy, Palma, Spain
2 CSIC, Instituto de Filosofía Centro de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales, Madrid, Spain

ABSTRACT
This paper analyses a participatory process related to the plan to construct an offshore wind farm in the Sea of Trafalgar,
off the coast of Cádiz, in Andalucía (southern Spain). This case study shows the complexities of public participation in
energy development, indicating the vital importance of context. The stakeholders’ values and attitudes in the controversy
are highly dependent on the specific situation, including the concrete characteristics of the project proposal. In fact, they
may diverge sharply from the stakeholders’ core beliefs. It is important for decision making to take account of this con-
textual and dynamic element in stakeholder behavior, contrary to suppositions of static and predetermined behavior.
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEYWORDS
public participation; offshore wind power; context dependency

Correspondence
O. Todt, University of the Balearic Islands, Department of Philosophy, Crta. de Valldemossa km 7.5, Palma, 07122, Spain.
E-mail: oliver.todt@uib.es

Received 23 March 2010; Revised 2 November 2010; Accepted 2 November 2010

1. INTRODUCTION
The development of the wind energy sector, currently driven by a favorable environment, is not without conflict. Many
governments, as well as the big environmental organizations, are lending support to this new industry, which moreover
enjoys a very positive public perception. In fact, acceptance has been recognized as one of the key prerequisites for the
successful development of wind energy.1 Public acceptance is, however, a complex phenomenon: while in most countries,
citizens generally show positive to very positive attitudes towards wind energy,2 when it comes to specific projects,
opposition can grow rapidly because of feared local impacts.3–5 In a number of places, directly affected citizens, local
environmentalists and civic groups, as well as municipal governments are opposing what they perceive as the sometimes
indiscriminate and unplanned construction of wind power plants. They are calling attention to possible impacts on local
wildlife, landscape, archaeological sites or traditional economic activities (like farming or fishing).
This paper analyses a participatory exercise in Andalucía (Spain) that was put into place when a project to construct
an offshore wind farm led to controversy. Spain is currently one of the most important producers of electricity generated
from wind energy. In terms of installed power, this country, in 2009, occupied the third place in the world, after Germany
and the USA.6 This is the result of a determined policy of public promotion and support for the development of renewable
energies. Also, overall, Spanish (like wider European) society has a very positive image of this technology and acceptance
remains high.7,8
The vast majority of wind farms in Spain have been built without significant conflict. Generally, public planning
authorities and power companies try from the outset to take into account local socioeconomic and environmental concerns.
They are well received by the population, because wind farms contribute to the local economy and power self-sufficiency.
On the other hand, all over Spain there can also be found rare but nonetheless significant cases of conflict related to wind
energy. In most of these instances, controversy is attributed to unsustainable regional planning and inadequate siting

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 699

Conflict in the Sea of Trafalgar O. Todt, M. I. González and B. Estévez

(stirring concerns about impacts on cultural or environmental values).9 Sometimes, these conflicts result in the involve-
ment of citizens, non-governmental organizations and local or regional authorities. Even so, public participation in most
environmental and technology-related conflicts in Spain has remained, for the most part, reactive.10,11
However, the plan to construct a large offshore wind farm in the Sea of Trafalgar, off the coast of Cádiz, in Andalucía
(southern Spain), sparked a rare proactive participatory process: one of the public administrations concerned (albeit
indirectly), conscious of the breadth of the controversy, put into place a participatory exercise, the Forum for Off-Shore
Wind Power and Sustainable Development (Foro de la Energía Eólica Marina y del Desarrollo Sostenible). This delib-
erative mechanism was designed to facilitate information and conflict management through the participation of a wide
variety of stakeholders. The forum was successful in joining all relevant stakeholders in constructive debate but did not
hold any decision authority.
Even so, this participatory process shows the diversification of stakeholders, as well as the context dependency and
dynamics of their values and attitudes. In fact, resistance to the project cannot be classified as a simple NIMBY (Not In
My BackYard) reaction, given that overall the stakeholders were favorable to the technology as well as its application in
the local area, and resistance centered on the specific characteristics of this particular offshore project. Research into
participatory decision making and policy processes12–15 has already indicated the multiple character of the networks of
which stakeholders form part, as well as the diversity of resources and interpretive frames they are making use of; the
role of dynamic changes in the composition of these networks as well as of the stakeholders’ beliefs and attitudes; and,
finally, the complexity of such beliefs (in which the stakeholders in specific decision-making situations may adopt beliefs
and decisions different from their more deeply held core beliefs).
This paper aims at analysing the role of contextual factors in shaping the Trafalgar controversy, including the stake-
holders’ attitudes and beliefs. Context here refers to the specific environment and the concrete conditions under which a
project is undertaken as well as the particular constellation of the stakeholders involved. Our analysis points to the crucial
importance of context, demonstrates the complexity and dynamics of the stances adopted by the various stakeholders and
indicates lessons for policy making.

2. METHODOLOGY

The case study made use of semi-structured research interviews (i.e. interviews based on a list of previously prepared
questions but permitting the digression from those in light of the topics that emerge during the interview) with 12 selected
key participants in the controversy. In addition, relevant documents, including media reports, as well as pertinent pieces
of legislation and regulation, were subjected to analysis. The research interviews included 39 questions, related not only
to the participatory process under study but also to policy making, public participation in decision making and wind
energy in general. The interviewees were selected because of their direct involvement with, and profound knowledge of,
the case of the Trafalgar offshore wind farm project. They covered a diversity of civic groups and non-governmental
organizations, scientific experts, local politicians, representatives of the public administration, trade and fishermen’s
unions, local businesses and power companies. The majority of the research interviews were conducted in 2005.

3. THE PROJECT AND ITS OPPOSITION

In terms of installed wind power, Andalucía in 2009 occupied fourth place among the Spanish regions,6 of which it is
one of the largest. The first proposal for the construction of an offshore installation, opposite to the Cape of Trafalgar, at
the coast of the fishing and tourism towns of Conil de la Frontera and Barbate, was made in the year 2000. By 2005,
already four companies were requesting permission. In total, the wind farm would have comprised up to 500 turbines,
distributed over 20 km2, potentially making this one of the largest installations of its kind in the world.
When the power companies first started proposing construction of an offshore wind farm, neither the Spanish, nor any
regional energy plans, nor any legislation made specific reference to this kind of installations. The big environmentalist
groups (Greenpeace, Ecologístas en Acción, etc.), as well as the Andalusian Green Party, showed their immediate support.
The opposition came mostly from the directly affected city councils, local conservationist groups, fishermen’s unions and
the tourism industry because of its feared impact on landscape, maritime ecosystems, fishing and navigation. Only the
proposal for this specific offshore project generated strong resistance. Other, onshore wind power projects in the very
same region were being developed at the same time with an overall social consensus.
In 2003, the stakeholders who opposed the project formed a group. It included the city councils of the affected
municipalities of Conil, Véjer and Barbate, the professional fishermen’s unions of Conil and Barbate as well as four local
fishermen’s unions (from Tarifa, Zahara de los Atunes, Conil and Barbate), the four political parties represented on the
city councils (PP, center-right; PSOE, center-left; IU, left; PA, regionalistic), trade unions (CCOO and UGT) and the local
environmentalist group AGADEN (Asociación Gaditana en Defensa de la Naturaleza).

Wind Energ. 2011; 14:699–706 © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
700
DOI: 10.1002/we
O. Todt, M. I. González and B. Estévez Conflict in the Sea of Trafalgar

4. THE CONTROVERSY

The stakeholders interviewed in the course of the research project gave the following reasons for opposing the offshore
wind farm:
• The project would interfere with local economic and cultural traditions, leading to the loss of related employment
(1000 direct, 5000 indirect jobs). Possible vibrations from the wind turbines that could change migratory routes of
tuna fish while impeding fishing boats to work in the area were considered especially problematic. As a consequence,
centuries-old traditions, like local tuna (almadraba) fishing, could be lost, threatening local identity (future genera-
tions would not share the same traditions and customs). A typical point of view was expressed by a member of a
local fishermen’s union: ‘(the power companies) have offered us fishermen a retirement scheme, (...) but we don’t
want money, we want to work because the money runs out quickly. In this town we have fishing boats that have
lasted for generations.’
• The employment opportunities from the offshore wind farm would, for the most part, be temporary, compared with
stable, quality employment provided by traditional fishing.
• Impact on navigation: fishing and recreational vessels would have to change their routes to avoid the wind
turbines.
• There are a number of protected maritime species in the area.
• The (mostly visual) impact from the wind turbines could affect tourism (the turbines were going to be visible from
the beaches).
• Lack of studies about dismantling and recycling the installation at the end of its life cycle.
• The Cape of Trafalgar is an area of great historic and archaeological significance, with many of the Phoenician,
Roman and Arab underwater archaeological sites, principally from shipwrecks, still unexplored.
• A number of other reasons are related to the stakeholders’ lack of trust in the various public administrations (stem-
ming from previous negative experience in relation with environmental and technology-related controversies), as
well as lack of dialogue with local stakeholders in the case of some previous projects. One interviewee referred to
such previous experience: ‘Many of the (on-shore) wind parks in the Tarifa region were put up next to poor housing
districts (...) that did not have a connection to the electric grid. So, (the residents of those districts) had the wind
turbines right next to them, but neither did they get any benefit nor compensation whatsoever.’ Another interviewee
pointed out that in previous projects ‘there has been no attempt whatsoever to (...) make the local population partici-
pate in the business.’
• In the same region, there still are unexploited sites for the installation of (onshore) wind farms whose characteristics
and impacts are well known (contrary to the perceived uncertainties relative to the offshore installation).
Even though all the interviewees considered wind energy overall positive and worthy of state support and further
promotion, some of them also mentioned possible (generic) disadvantages: visual impact, noise and vibrations, impact
on natural sites, uncertainty relative to long-term impacts, loss of territory, doubts deriving from previous chaotic manage-
ment of wind farm development in the region, lack of research on possible long-term and large-scale impacts (like systemic
effects on the local climate by large concentrations of wind turbines). The interviewees’ perceptions of the reasons that
speak in favor of the development of wind power are, in turn, mostly of global, not local, nature.

5. THE PARTICIPATORY PROCESS

The Environmental Department of the Diputación de Cádiz, one of the regional administrations affected (albeit indirectly)
by the controversy, took the decision to organize the aforementioned Wind Power Forum, because of the public and media
impact of the conflict. The Diputación interpreted the forum thus as a proposal to improve information interchange among
stakeholders and facilitate conflict resolution. Representatives of the administration justified this decision in the research
interviews by pointing out that ‘(i)t is often supposed that everything depends on the public administration, but that simply
isn’t true, civil society has a key role to play’ and that ‘during the planning phase and when it comes to deciding on
priorities, that’s where people should participate more’. One participant summarized the forum’s aims in this way: ‘The
idea is (...) to clear up any doubts, but not to convince anybody of anything.’ While the organizers hoped that the forum
could eventually lead to public participation in decision making, this was not a primary aim of the forum, because the
Diputación did not have decision authority over the wind farm’s installation. This decision would be responsibility of the
Spanish Central Government, after consultation with the Andalusian Regional Government, because of the installation’s
offshore location.
The forum’s declared aims were thus limited to the following: identifying all affected and interested stakeholders
to the conflict; defining a set of rules for its own operation; raising the consciousness of all the participants, the media
and the general public about the importance of such activities in conflict resolution; facilitating communication and

Wind Energ. 2011; 14:699–706 © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
701
DOI: 10.1002/we
Conflict in the Sea of Trafalgar O. Todt, M. I. González and B. Estévez

understanding among participants; systematizing all the relevant documentation and information; and, finally, channeling
this information to improve evaluation prior to decision making.
The forum was active from November of 2004 to June of 2005. In the first phase, the forum’s organizers tried to
identify all the relevant stakeholders: local, regional and state administrations, companies, experts, as well as directly
affected local stakeholders (see section 3). Subsequent meetings between the forum’s participants (up to a total of 53
participants), all led by a facilitator, were held every 14 days. Each participant had about 15–20 min to present their point
of view, after which questions could be asked. The media were invited at the end of each session. The forum maintained
a web site with all the relevant information, as well as all the news published in the media. For over half a year,
this process attracted significant public and media attention, especially locally and regionally, but also nationally and
internationally.
At the end of an 8 month period, the forum scheduled a 2 day closing workshop (9–10 of June of 2005). Its aim was
to facilitate an even wider and simultaneous participation of all relevant stakeholders, allowing for a more direct inter-
change of opinions. This workshop attracted considerable media attention.
After the workshop, in July of 2005, the forum made public its conclusions. However, shortly before that date, the
public repercussion of the entire process had already led to a decision: the Spanish Central Government (after consulting
with the Andalusian Government) had come to the conclusion that this kind of project was not viable at the moment and
decided to refuse the construction permits. The government gave as principal reasons the lack of relevant legislation, the
lack of detailed impact assessments and the existence of local opposition.

6. DISCUSSION: THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT

6.1. Overall assessment

A general assessment of the Wind Energy Forum, based on the research interviews, shows that it succeeded in creating
a space for the presentation of the different points of view, interchange of information, as well as debate and evaluation
of the project, with the participation of all the relevant stakeholders. The process allowed not only to identify but also to
make explicit the diversity of perceptions and attitudes, including those within the various local and regional levels of
the public administration. A forum participant from one of the administrations stated that ‘the citizens are capable of
receiving (technical) information and to establish their own priorities’, while another one, referring to the experts’ role
in the process, pointed out that ‘the times of the king’s counselor are gone and the inclusion of new stakeholders is (nec-
essary) (...) in a society in which knowledge is shared ever more widely’. A representative from a civic group concurred
that ‘for the citizens (scientific–technical) education is ever more important, because if not they will end up being
manipulated by others’.
On the other hand, the entire process’s relevance is far from evident. The forum’s constitution was not mandated by
any piece of legislation, but rather it was an ad hoc creation of the Diputación de Cádiz. Its decisions were not binding
and no political compromise was linked to the conclusions it would eventually reach. But most of all, still according to
the research interviews, the predominant perception among the forum’s participant was that the key factor that influenced
the final decision not to build the installation was not the effectiveness of the participatory process but the public contro-
versy and its media impact (as attested even by a civil servant: ‘We live in a democratic society, so that any fear, even if
utterly unwarranted, will translate into votes’). For the same reasons, the process’s ultimate legitimacy remains unclear,
too. In fact, the decision taken by the central government not to authorize the installation even before the forum had come
to a conclusion could be interpreted as a denial of legitimacy with respect to the entire process (even if the arguments
used by the government were precisely the ones that had dominated the forum, like lack of specific legislation, lack of
impact studies or social resistance).
In sum, the assessment of the forum reveals its ambivalence: it joined all relevant stakeholders in discussion, with
relatively high levels of representativity, equality, active participation, transparency and access to resources, but did not
have clear attributions nor could it come to binding decisions, nor overcome some of the stakeholders’ lack of confidence
in the entire process (see section 6.3). The forum lacked a wider framework (or a joint strategy designed by the various
public administrations) that could have clarified its responsibilities, specifically those relative to decision making.

6.2. The specific context

Beyond this general assessment, the analysis of the controversy points to the key relevance of context. It shows, in fact,
the context dependency and diversity of the stakeholders’ attitudes and decisions. The identities of the stakeholders, as
expressed in this controversy, are neither unitary nor clearly delimited. Contrary to their more deeply held core beliefs,
the attitudes that many of the stakeholders adopted during the controversy were mostly or entirely framed by context.

Wind Energ. 2011; 14:699–706 © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
702
DOI: 10.1002/we
O. Todt, M. I. González and B. Estévez Conflict in the Sea of Trafalgar

This led to a context-driven fragmentation among groups of stakeholders who in principle shared the same deep core
beliefs (as in the case of the environmentalists).
In our case, there is a fragmentation of the environmental movement, between, on the one hand, groups that (as ‘global’
stakeholders) are defending wind energy because of its general positive effects and, on the other hand, groups that (as
‘local’ or ‘affected’ stakeholders) voice critique of this particular project because of its specific local environmental impact.
On the political level, the Andalusian Green Party defended a ‘global’ stance in favor of the off-shore wind power plant,
which, in the end, is none other than a large industrial installation whose construction and operation necessarily entails
certain environmental effects. The Socialist Party, at least in the affected municipalities, took up a ‘local’ stance, oppos-
ing the construction of such an industrial installation despite its local economic effects (including the creation of jobs),
even in those municipalities where it held power. In other words, the political parties did not line up according to their
deep core beliefs, but rather developed a context-dependent fragmentation.
In sum, conflict or collaboration often do not take place between stakeholders with clear-cut, unitary core beliefs.
Rather, controversy involves complex groups of stakeholders each of which may embody a variety of identities, and
whose expressed attitudes are dependent on the particular context and may evolve with it. In other words, attitudes cannot
be considered static and predetermined. This is consistent with stakeholders’ contextual definition and use of key concepts
(like ‘uncertainty’ or ‘precaution’) in discourse related to science and technology governance, as well as regulatory deci-
sion making:16 on the one hand, stakeholders may hold well-defined core beliefs (like a positive perception of techno-
logical progress or wind energy) that shape their positions. On the other hand, in a specific context, their stance may
change radically.
The split between general deep core beliefs and specific, local attitudes also allows for another, complementary reading
of the complexities involved: depending on context, stakeholders may adopt one of two clearly differentiated postures
when faced with issues related to science and technology: the stance of the consumer or user (of a specific product or
technology) or the one of the citizen. As consumers–users, people will tend to take decisions about buying or using a
product or technology based on its specific advantages or disadvantages. As citizens, however, they may be concerned
about wider issues related to the social, environmental, ethical or policy implications of a product, technology or scientific
field. Their perceptions and attitudes (for instance, with respect to acceptance) will tend to derive from these more general
questions of societal relevance.17,18 Our case clearly shows how during the controversy stakeholders may, in fact, adopt
a ‘local’ user stance different from their ‘global’ citizen stance.
This user stance itself may be highly complex. In fact, the analysis shows that opposition to the Trafalgar wind farm
project is entirely context-dependent: instead of presenting a typical NIMBY reaction (general acceptance of a technology
but rejection of its siting in the local area), here, we are faced with a rather different type of resistance. In our case, not
only do we find that stakeholders are in favor of wind energy in general. They are also favorable to its siting in the same
local region (but onshore) and—under certain conditions—even to its local offshore siting. Many of the interviewed
stakeholders opposed to the project indicated that they might consider the offshore location acceptable if (a) there existed
a clear regulatory framework (which may contribute to minimizing the impacts), (b) there was an environmental impact
assessment and (c) the various projects presented by the power companies took into account local knowledge, i.e. the
specific preoccupations voiced by stakeholders for this particular project and its proposed site (see section 4). In this
sense, we can conclude that resistance is entirely contextual. This is clearly illustrated by the following statement of a
representative of one of the civic groups in the forum: ‘Wind energy as a new energy source and when compared to other
forms of energy is very good for everybody. However, we are against the construction of this wind farm because of the
site where they want to put it.’
This finding is consistent with results from studies in other countries. Opposition to wind farms, though not frequent,
has been documented in a number of places. Generally, however, the NIMBY factor is considered too simplistic an
explanation for such public opposition to wind power installations.19,20 Rejection may weaken once the controversial
installation is operational.21,22 NIMBY seems to grow weaker with more information and knowledge, too.3 However, not
all studies agree on this conclusion.4 At the same time, the NIMBY concept itself remains ambiguous. In fact, Wolsink23
and Ek5 found that opposition to wind farms is directly related to their concrete specifications and characteristics and is
unrelated to the overall attitude to this technology. Our case confirms the latter, given the lack of opposition towards local
onshore wind energy development, the specificity of the arguments relative to the characteristics of the project proposals
presented by the power companies, as well as the arguments based on the lack of legislation and impact assessment for
this specific kind of offshore installation.
The limited state of public knowledge about offshore wind power during the time of the controversy can, however,
not be considered an important factor, at least in the present case. That is shown by another conflict that erupted 4 years
after the forum’s conclusion in the very same region in relation to a different offshore wind power project. This
controversy developed even though in 2009 far more knowledge was available to the public. Both a general legislative
framework for such installations as well as environmental impact statements existed (which they did not during the
Trafalgar controversy). And, of course, there was all the knowledge accumulated by the forum in relation to the Trafalgar
project (see section 7). In fact, this more recent conflict confirms the need for analysing the specific context of each

Wind Energ. 2011; 14:699–706 © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
703
DOI: 10.1002/we
Conflict in the Sea of Trafalgar O. Todt, M. I. González and B. Estévez

case because in the 2009 controversy some of the affected city councils came out in favor of the installation, while others
rejected it.

6.3. The wider context

Context is relevant not only on the level of the particular, project-related controversy. It can also be important on a dif-
ferent level, in form of a ‘wider context’. In our case, this wider context pertains to participatory exercises in Spain in a
more general sense.
The forum’s experience indicates that civil society is not necessarily willing to ‘participate’, for a variety of reasons.
In our case, a key difficulty for the administration (the Diputación de Cádiz) in trying to set up the forum was the skep-
ticism of most of the stakeholders integrated in the opposition platform. Many of them were unwilling to participate and
only at the last minute decided to do so, doubtful of their capacity to change an administrative decision they were con-
vinced had already been taken. Simply the fact that the forum had been organized by a public administration, even though
one that was not to be directly involved in decision making, created distrust. The following remarks made by representa-
tives of two civic groups before the forum’s start can be considered characteristic: ‘(We are skeptical) because of the
errors made in the past, because of the bad implementation of wind energy and the lack of consultation. Because they
(the public administrations) have never taken into account the citizens and have operated behind their backs’; ‘I don’t
believe (the forum) will be good for anything, even though it was created as a result of public pressure. The Diputación
won’t make any difference.’ This initial skepticism is due to the long-standing negative experience that many Spanish
non-governmental organizations share with respect to public participation in administrative decision making, especially
in infrastructure planning and environmental issues. In many cases, public administrations have tried to instrumentalize
stakeholder participation, by setting up ‘participative procedures’ under their control after the key decisions had already
been taken, in order to publicly legitimize those decisions (see, for instance, López Cerezo and González10,11 and Todt24).
In other words, there is yet another context dependency, this time related to the specific characteristics of local (Spanish)
society: stakeholders may be reticent to enter into participatory processes even when offered the chance. This creates
situations, as the one analyzed here, in which policy makers or public administrators may be more conscious of the concept
of participation or more open to implementing it than civil society to take advantage of such participatory procedures. In
contrast, civil society, because of its ‘learned disenfranchisement’, may respond with confrontational attitudes and gen-
eralized opposition to any such governmental or administrative initiatives.25 This interplay between public administrators
and civil society may end up strengthening mistrust, especially if participatory exercises show a demonstrated lack of
influence on administrative decisions.
In fact, the outcome of this particular participatory process reinforces, among civil society, the idea that the value of
participation is doubtful. Given that the central government’s decision to cancel the project was taken even before the
forum’s final conclusions had been published, the majority of the interviewed stakeholders, at least among those who
opposed the project, concluded that ‘public protest pays’, as compared with organized and planned collaboration and
participation. Their perception was that they seemed to achieve more by protesting and involving the media than by
debating or negotiating, in a formal setting and by way of a structured process, with the power companies or the public
administrations. Even more, after the fact these stakeholders pointed out that the creation of the participatory process
itself was a product of previous protest actions, and later served to channel these protests: the social conflict led to the
creation of the forum, which then maintained the controversy in the public arena. In this way, the public and media impact
of the controversy and the formal participatory process mutually reinforced themselves in leading to the government’s
final decision.

7. CONCLUSIONS

The forum, if interpreted as a participatory tool for conflict resolution or preparing decision making, cannot be considered
a success. The Spanish Central Government’s decision not to authorize construction of the wind farm was not influenced
by the forum’s final conclusions. The government did not even wait for the forum’s findings to be published nor did any
of its representatives attend the closing workshop. Even more, it is far from clear that the forum’s process or deliberations
played any significant role in this final decision (even though the overall controversy clearly did).
However, alternatively, the forum could be interpreted as a process of knowledge generation by an ‘extended peer
community’.26 The deliberations among all the relevant stakeholders did produce a stock of knowledge relative to the
possible impacts, perceived benefits and disadvantages or risks of an offshore wind farm in the chosen location. Informa-
tion from all the local stakeholders was gathered on possible local socioeconomic or environmental impacts as well as
crucial policy issues, like, for instance, the conditions under which such an installation would be acceptable to the various
stakeholders. This information, even though it did not influence the final decision making process, still is vastly more

Wind Energ. 2011; 14:699–706 © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
704
DOI: 10.1002/we
O. Todt, M. I. González and B. Estévez Conflict in the Sea of Trafalgar

detailed and relevant to any such project than the information generated by the power companies or the various public
administrations. In fact, it is unlikely that this knowledge could have been generated in any other way. It can be consid-
ered entirely local and specific to this case, because it is the product of input from all the local stakeholders. And it is
available for any future planning process (as the more recent controversy referred to in section 6.2).
In this sense, it is possible to interpret the forum as a mechanism, based on social practice involving a diversity of
stakeholders, for the generation of knowledge that the individuals and groups in some way affected by the wind farm
would consider valid and legitimized.27,28 In fact, the forum created an environment in which this kind of knowledge could
be generated, whereas under different circumstances, this may not have been possible.29 The forum is thus an example of
how to generate local knowledge that is acceptable to stakeholders and may provide crucial information for planning,
siting, policy making and, ultimately, acceptance. As the case demonstrates, taking into account local and lay knowledge
may be relevant not only for planning, but also for acceptance (even more so if no ‘expert’ assessments of local conditions
exist, or if they are considered incomplete or suspect by the local stakeholders).
But our analysis provides further important hints for policy and decision making in relation to the development of wind
energy and other, similar technologies. It emphasizes the relevance of context. From the research interviews and the
forum’s deliberations, we can conclude that stakeholders’ attitudes and decisions are often entirely context-dependent and
dynamic, rather than static and predetermined. The wider context can be relevant, too. Our case study shows that stake-
holders may not necessarily be willing to ‘participate’ even if given the opportunity by public administrators.
Context is crucial for stakeholders’ beliefs, values and attitudes. This leads to the conclusion that each case has to be
assessed strictly on its own terms. Recent analysis of regulatory decision making in science and technology governance30–32
confirms, in fact, the crucial importance of case-by-case assessment. Given that stakeholders’ attitudes may be entirely
framed by context and change according to circumstances, decision making for planning and siting has to pay close
attention to the specific context and its dynamics, responding to the concrete circumstances on a case-by-case basis, instead
of trying to pursue general solutions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors like to thank the Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT), as well as the Spanish Ministry
for Innovation (project ‘El principio de precaución en la evaluación de riesgos’) for financial support.

REFERENCES
1. Kolanas T. The Research on Public Perceptions toward Wind Power Schemes: An Analysis through the ‘Eyes’ of
Sustainability. Lund University: Lund, 2007.
2. Krohn S, Damborg S. On public attitudes towards wind power. Renewable Energy 1999; 16: 954–960.
3. Devine-Wright P. Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind
energy. Wind Energy 2005; 8: 125–139.
4. Kaldellis JK. Social attitude- towards wind energy application in Greece. Energy Policy 2005; 33: 595–602.
5. Ek K. Public and private attitudes towards ‘green’ electricity: the case of Swedish wind power. Energy Policy 2005;
33: 1677–1689.
6. AEE (Asociación Empresarial Eólica—Spanish Association of Wind Power Companies). La potencia eólica instalada
en España alcanza los 16740 MW con 1609 MW nuevos en 2008. AEE: Madrid, 2009.
7. European Commission. Eurobarometer 224: Europeans, science and technology. Luxembourg, 2005.
8. European Commission. Eurobarometer 62.1, special no. 217: the attitudes of European citizens towards the environ-
ment. Luxembourg, 2005.
9. González MI, Estévez B. Participación, comunicación y negociación en conflictos ambientales: energía eólica en el
Mar de Trafalgar. Arbor 2005; 181: 377–392.
10. López Cerezo JA, González MI. Lay knowledge and public participation in technological and environmental policy.
In Research in Philosophy and Technology: Technology and Social Action. Vol. 16. Mitcham C (ed.). JAI Press:
Greenwich, 1997. 33–48.
11. López Cerezo JA, González MI. Políticas del bosque. Cambridge University Press: Madrid, 2002.
12. Sabatier P, Jenkins-Smith H. The advocacy coalition framework. In Theories of the Policy Process. Sabatier P (ed.).
Westview: Boulder, 1999.
13. Fischer F. Citizens, Experts and the Environment: the Politics of Local Knowledge. Duke University Press: Durham,
2000.

Wind Energ. 2011; 14:699–706 © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
705
DOI: 10.1002/we
Conflict in the Sea of Trafalgar O. Todt, M. I. González and B. Estévez

14. Fischer F. Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. Oxford University Press:
New York, 2003.
15. Rein M, Schön D. Frame Reflection. Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. Basic Books: New
York, 1994.
16. Sandin P. Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 1999; 5: 889–907.
17. Jasanoff S. Science and citizenship: a new synergy. Science and Public Policy 2004; 31: 90–94.
18. Todt O, Muñoz E, González M, Ponce G, Estévez B. Consumer attitudes and the governance of food safety. Public
Understanding of Science 2009; 18: 103–114.
19. Wolsink M. Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support.
Renewable Energy 2000; 21: 49–64.
20. Erp F. Siting Processes for Wind Energy Projects in Germany. Eindhoven University of Technology: Eindhoven, 1997.
21. Gipe P. Wind Energy Comes of Age. Wiley: New York, 1995.
22. Bishop K, Proctor A. Love Them or Loathe Them? Public Attitudes towards Wind Farms in Wales. University of
Wales: Cardiff, 1994.
23. Wolsink M. Dutch wind power policy. Energy Policy 1996; 24: 1079–1088.
24. Todt O. Social decision making on technology and the environment in Spain. Technology in Society 1999; 21:
201–216.
25. Todt O, Muñoz E, Plaza M. Food safety governance and social learning. Food Control 2007; 18: 834–841.
26. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR. Science for the Post-Normal Age. Futures 1993; 739–755.
27. Irwin A, Wynne B. (eds). Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cam-
bridge Univ. Press: Cambridge, 1996.
28. Arksey H. RSI and the Experts, the Construction of Medical Knowledge. University College of London: London,
1998.
29. Nowotny H. The place of people in our knowledge: towards local objectivity and socially robust knowledge. European
Review 1999; 7: 247–262.
30. European Commission. Taking European knowledge society seriously—report of the expert group on science and
governance to the science, economy and society directorate, Luxembourg, 2007.
31. Luján JL, Todt O. Precaution in public. Public Understanding of Science 2007; 16: 97–109.
32. Todt O, Luján JL. A new social contract for technology?—on the policy dynamics of uncertainty. Journal of Risk
Research 2008; 11: 509–523.

Wind Energ. 2011; 14:699–706 © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
706
DOI: 10.1002/we