A ‘delivery-democracy dilemma’? Mapping and explaining policy change for public engagement with energy infrastructure

Abstract

There is a need to understand the changing provisions that governments make for public engagement in energy infrastructure decisions, but the existing literature is deficient in focusing mainly on single case studies. In response, we conduct a multi-sectoral, comparative analysis for the first time to assess how UK governments have engaged publics, applying a novel mapping methodology that is systematic, longitudinal and cross-technology.Moreover, our focus embraces mechanisms of consultation and support measures (e.g. community benefits) and seeks to explain patterns of change using a pragmatic sociology framework. Findings indicatetrendstowards a reduced scope for public engagementalongside expanded encouragement of community benefits, butalso important sectoral differences. Onshore wind movedtowards giving local decision-makers significant control over decisions. Gas-fired power stations experienced continuity, with central government controlling consents and limited interest in community benefits. Fracking facilities received intense promotion ofcommunity benefits, alongside incremental moves to restrict local decision-making. We argue that the patterns observedreflect government beliefs about the scope for depoliticisation in concrete situations, in which the conjunction of technologies, sites and publics affecthow and whether arrangements for public engagement change. These results raise challenges for how researchers seek to connect energy transitions and democracy. 'We need a system that always says 'yes' to the right sorts of development ... which delivers the infrastructure, transport and energy we need to thrive in this new century of ours ... We also need a system that is much more democratic' (Pickles 2011)

Next generation engagement: Setting a research agenda for community engagement in Australia's infrastructure sector

“…Before discussing the research agenda, it is helpful to understand what CE is and is not, and how an improved understanding of CE theory and scope offers insights for practitioners. This article, therefore, also contributes to a growing body of literature on the practice, regulation, and relevance of CE to successful project planning and delivery (Cowell and Devine-Wright, 2018;Innes & Booher, 2004). This includes emergent thinking on coproduction (Alford & Yates, 2016) and PPPs (El-Gohary, Osman, & El-Diraby, 2006;Hodge et al, 2017), as well as the professionalization of CE and growing concerns about a "social license to operate" (Bice, 2014).…”

“…Although this research did not focus on defining “community” per se , we understand the term as socially constructed, regularly used as a political football and defined differently depending upon stakeholder perspective (Head, ). Disparate approaches to how community is defined and deployed are borne out in recent research that looks into national and international efforts to integrate CE into policy concerning infrastructure planning or project delivery (Cowell and Devine‐Wright, ; Nabatchi & Jo, ). Transport, urban planning, and housing scholars contribute to an entire subgenre of research concerning community responses to particular projects (De Martin and Moyan, ), planning politicization (Legacy, Cook, Rogers, & Ruming, ), and the role of new planning paradigms in what certain scholars argue is a “post‐political” era (Legacy, ).…”

“…Through these studies, we know that CE is more successful when it prioritizes two‐way consultation, rather than unidirectional information campaigns (Gutmann and Thompson, ). Such studies demonstrate the importance of community empowerment to influencing decisions in project design and implementation processes (Cowell and Devine‐Wright, ) and highlight the contributions of CE guidelines to support greater community involvement in decision‐making processes (IAP2, ). Related literature distills the roles of environmental and social impact assessments in delivering an evidence base for community decision making and outlines how various agreement types may reduce negative project impacts or secure community benefits (Harvey & Bice, ; Nish & Bice, ).…”

“…Critical literature also questions the effectiveness of various engagement efforts (Abelson et al., ; Cowell and Devine‐Wright, ), the equal participation of vulnerable or Indigenous communities (Nish & Bice, ), and the extent to which deliberative engagement is meaningful, influential, or in the worst cases, tokenistic (Dryzek, ). This literature illustrates that policy and regulation to guide best practice CE remains wanting.…”

Silences, categories and black-boxes: Towards an analytics of the relations of power in planning regulation

“…The first relates to the framing of project impacts in relation to the need for RE infrastructure. The National Policy Statements (NPSs) begin from an assertion that it is in the national interest for infrastructure to be built, and it was clear from the outset that the NSIPs regime was established to facilitate the consenting and hence the construction of such infrastructure (Lee et al, 2013; Cowell and Devine-Wright, 2018). The policy framework stresses the national need for the grant of development consent.…”