Wind Farms and Community Engagement in Australia: A Critical Analysis for Policy Learning

Abstract

In late 2007, after signing the Kyoto Protocol, a new Australian federal government committed to generating 20% of Australia's electricity from renewable energy by 2020, for a transition to a low-carbon economy. With wind energy the most viable technology for such expansion, little recognition, however, was paid to intense social conflict surrounding wind farm location. By 2006, inadequate community engagement had emerged as the primary governance issue underpinning a host of issues that local communities faced with the prospect of hosting wind farms. Acknowledged by all Australian governments as an issue to address for effective renewable energy transitions, current policy responses addressing community engagement are analysed for their adequacy to ensure such transitions in a context of democratic legitimacy and fairness and the issues of place-based local communities. Analysis is informed by comparative cross-jurisdictional policy learning analysis featuring European participatory developments; policy analysis of current Australian governmental policy responses; and prior narrative analysis of the behavioural rationalities (the underlying beliefs, attitudes and perceptions) that inform the qualifications and place-protective actions about wind farm location of local stakeholders at the forefront of wind farm contestation: landscape guardian groups. The conclusion is that current policy responses with regard to community engagement, which encourage a largely inform-consult participatory engagement approach, are inadequate. A more promising approach is the collaborative approach, which can also facilitate social mapping of local community qualifications and boundaries about wind farm location alongside technical mapping of wind resources. This is needed to identify the most socially, economically and technically viable locations to locate wind farms to ensure effective renewable energy transitions.

Wind Farming and the Not-in-My-Backyard Syndrome: A Literature Review Regarding Australia’s Challenge in Relation to Climate Change and CO2 Emissions

“…While wind farming has been accepted increasingly in European countries (Damborg, 1997(Damborg, /2003Damborg & Krohn, 1998;Johnson & Jacobsson, 2000;Krohn et al, 2009), in Canada and in the United States (Brown, 2000;Firestone et al, 2005), many residents in rural and regional Australia are suspicious (see Diesendorf, 2003Diesendorf, /2004Macintosh & Downie, 2006;, questioning the advantages of wind energy and legitimacy of government and developers' proposals (Davis, 2008;Barr, 2009;Hindmarsh, 2010;Strong, 2010;Ryder, 2011). However, several scientists, environmentalists and (some) governments find that Australia needs wind power (Diesendorf, 2003(Diesendorf, /2004Combet, 2010;Gillard, 2011), and that it could produce all of its electricity from wind energy .…”

“…All articles on NIMBYism state that improved communication between governments, developers and the public is vital. Hindmarsh (2010) provides some directives how this could be achieved, namely greater empowerment of residents in areas where wind turbines are to be installed. If instigated, will it work?…”

“…This is an important point because every community exists of leaders and followers. Hindmarsh's (2010) plan regarding facilitating social mapping of local community qualifications and limits, about wind farm location in conjunction with technical mapping of wind resources, seems appropriate. However, the concern here is will such a rational approach work?…”

Network management and renewable energy development: An analytical framework with empirical illustrations

“…Here the state government encouraged wind developers to consult with affected communities throughout the development process, an example of indirectly affecting collaboration among actors and the network structure [36]. The regional government also established committees involving cross-sectorial actors to provide communities with additional means of communication and coordination regarding wind power development, an example of the institutionalized activating of actors.…”

“…In the case of Australia, a collaborative approach to wind power development between the federal government, developers and communities led to staffed committees being established to facilitate the interaction of actors with diverging interests and to mediate and mitigate disputes regarding wind power development [36]. By taking a collaborative approach and establishing committees, interaction guiding was facilitated through creating organizational arrangements.…”