Contrasting the core beliefs regarding the effective implementation of wind power. An international study of stakeholder perspectives

Abstract

This paper analyses patterns in beliefs about the implementation of wind power as part of a geographical comparison of onshore wind power developments in the Netherlands, North-Rhine Westphalia and England. Q methodology is applied, in order to systematically compare the patterns in stakeholder views on the institutional conditions and changes in the domains of energy policy, spatial planning and environmental policy. Three factors represent support for wind power implementation from fundamentally different perspectives. The fourth perspective is critical opposed to wind power developments as well as critical to the manner in which wind projects are proposed, planned and implemented. These four perspectives exist across the geographical cases; however, some perspectives are prominent in one case and marginal in another. This relates to different legacies and varying implementation achievements in the three cases. The analysis shows that an approach that focuses on implementing as much wind power as possible, relying on technocratic reasoning and hierarchical policies is in practice the least successful, whereas collaborative perspectives with more emphasis on local issues and less on the interests of the conventional energy sector were particularly dominant in the most successful case, North-Rhine Westphalia.wind energy implementation, core beliefs, institutional capacity, stakeholder perspectives,

Contested environmental policy infrastructure: Socio-political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste facilities

“…In such investment and siting decisions, Dutch wind power policy has not been successful compared to other European countries like Germany, Spain and Denmark (Toke et al 2007). The policy beliefs on wind power, as presented in table 2, have been revealed in an internationally comparative study (Wolsink and Breukers, 2010). In general, the most contrasting and extreme perspectives ('technocratic' and 'contested wind') dominated the discourse in the least successful country studied (England).…”

“…The major shifts in the objectives and perspectives are assessed following the description in the previous sections. The existence of competing and contrasting, potentially conflicting policy beliefs held by key actors within the policy domains (Sabatier, 1998) is indicated based three Q-method studies specially designed to trace such fundamental differences in perspectives (Breukers and Wolsink, 2010;Raadgever et al 2008;Wolsink, 2004). Environmental conflict about infrastructure decisions is eventually the stage of implementation of policies.…”

“…

Link to publicationCitation for published version (APA): Wolsink, M. (2010). Contested environmental policy infrastructure: socio-political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste facilities.

…”

An Array of Deficits: Unpacking NIMBY Discourses in Wind Energy Developers' Conceptualizations of Their Local Opponents

“…Some recent work has emphasized the importance of considering discourses employed by local project supporters as well as opponents (e.g., McLachlan, 2010). Relatively little attention has been paid so 248 K. Burningham et al far to the perspectives of developers and technology promoters (but see Barry et al 2008;Wolsink and Breukers 2010). This is significant, as public responses in particular sites are not developed in a vacuum but emerge through interaction with others who have an interest in RET development, particularly those advocating and promoting it.…”

Co-production in distributed generation: renewable energy and creating space for fitting infrastructure within landscapes

“…This strategy has reduced the potential for securing community acceptance, and centralisation also increases the number of landscape and other environmentally motivated protests (Anshelm & Simon, 2016). The differences between CGRS and DGRS approaches reflect irreconcilable differences in normative aims (Lilliestam & Hanger, 2016;Wolsink & Breukers, 2010). The growing body of literature on RES, covering many national contexts, demonstrates that participation is pivotal-both for inclusion of landscape values and for establishing high rates of DGRS within the socio-technical system (STS) of power supply.…”