Will communities “open-up” to offshore wind? Lessons learned from New England islands in the United States
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 13064367 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Sarah C Klain (0000-0002-3798-9436, Oregon State University, corresponding author), Terre Satterfield (0000-0001-9807-6836, University of British Columbia), Suzanne Macdonald (Island Institute), Nicholas Battista (0000-0003-2437-0383, Island Institute), Kai M A Chan (0000-0002-7804-3276, University of British Columbia) |
| Year | 2017 |
| Volume | 34 |
| Pages | 13-26 |
| Publication date | 2017-06-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Energy Research & Social Science (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2214-6296 • E-ISSN: 2214-6326 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.009 |
| OpenAlex | W2620853226 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 29 |
| References cited | 43 |
National-scale polls demonstrate high levels of public support for developing renewable energy while local opposition has led to delays and cancelations of renewable energy projects around the world. What makes for robust public engagement processes to reject or site renewable energy projects? A literature review reveals numerous considerations, with complexity that impedes their application by practitioners. In this study, we conducted interviews and document analysis to assess the extent to which design principles from the analytic-deliberative process literature arose during public engagement on three New England islands adjacent to proposed offshore wind farms. In our study sites—amongst the array of criteria in the literature—good public engagement boiled down to two key themes: enabling bidirectional deliberative learning and providing community benefit. Decision processes perceived as effective occurred when (1) participants, including experts and local stakeholders, learned from each other while reconciling technical expertise with citizen values; and (2) outcomes included the provision of collaboratively negotiated community benefits. Our findings highlight that community benefits are not the same as benefits to groups of individuals. Attending to these key themes may improve the quality of interactions among communities, government authorities and developers when deciding if and where to site renewable energy infrastructure
Business · Citizen science · Civil engineering · Community engagement · Economics · Environmental planning · Environmental resource management · Geography · Government (linguistics · NIMBY · Offshore wind power · Opposition (politics · Political science · Public consultation · Public engagement · Public participation · Public relations · Renewable energy · Wind power · Climate Change Communication and Perception · Engineering · Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy · Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
The challenges of engaging island communities
It's not you, it's my (context)
Participatory Methodologies and the Production of Data on Artisanal Fishing in Areas with Offshore Wind Farm Projects in Ceará, Brazil
Understanding public preferences towards Ireland's offshore wind sector
Public perception of offshore wind farms in Ireland
Gatekeeping and Communities in Energy Transition
Ocean health in the Northeast United States from 2005 to 2017
The power of place
Communication silos
The social dynamics of turbine tourism and recreation
Identities, innovation, and governance
Cultural Differences and Interdependencies in Climate Change Mitigation Efforts and Their Psychological Antecedents Across 63 Countries
Public Participation in Climate Policy Making
Who’s fighting for justice
Penny wise or pound foolish? Compensation schemes and the attainment of community acceptance in renewable energy
All's fair in love and WAR
Watered down justice
Energy consumption boomtowns in the United States
Burdened by renewable energy? A multi-scalar analysis of distributional justice and wind energy in the United States
Community benefit agreements for solar energy
Wind in the sails or choppy seas
Beyond stakeholder consultations
Faring well in offshore wind power siting? Trust, engagement and process fairness in the United States
Chains of trust
Perceived misinformation in offshore wind
Beyond dark money
Between grassroots and treetops
Diving into a just transition
Riding the wave of acceptance
Structured Decision Making
Wind power and community benefits
Fixing the communications failure
Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy
Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I
A Widening Gap
Knowledge systems for sustainable development
Social Influence
Deliberative mapping
Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk
The theory of communicative action
Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice
The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks
Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments
Energy justice
Public engagement with offshore renewable energy
Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability
Participation and evaluation for sustainable river basin governance
Community benefits from offshore renewables
Community benefits, framing and the social acceptance of offshore wind farms
Public values for energy system change
Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management
The ‘Social Gap’ in Wind Farm Siting Decisions
Re-visiting the ‘social gap
Citizen Participation in Decision Making
Solution aversion
Does Deliberative Democracy Work
Opening Up" and "Closing Down
Deliberations about deliberative methods
The Politics of Landscape Value
Improving Environmental Decision-making Through Collaborative Methods
The Politicization of Climate Change and Polarization in the American Public's Views of Global Warming, 2001-2010
| Unique citing works | 29 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 3,22 |
| Citation span | 2017 - 2026 (10) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 28 |