Summary_ Acceptance of Rural Wind Farms in Australia a Snapshot_CSIRO2012

8/3/2019 Summary_ Acceptance of Rural Wind Farms in Australia a Snapshot_CSIRO2012

1/8

Summary

Acceptance

ofruralwind farmsin Australia:

a snapshot

Nina Hall, Peta Ashworth and Hylton ShawCSIRO Science into Society Group 2012


2/8

> KEY FINDINGS: SUMMARISED

The study produced our high level ndings, which are briefy outlined below:

There is stronger community support or the development o wind

arms than might be otherwise assumed rom media coverage.

This includes support rom rural residents who do not seek media

attention or political engagement to express their views.

The actual and perceived local costs and benets o wind arms are

strongly infuenced by the design, implementation, and community

engagement processes.

Many o the benets can be shared or communicated in ways that would

enhance community support or the development o wind arms in a

region.

Existing regulatory approaches provide an appropriate ramework or

negotiating wind arm developments, but there is scope or improving

outcomes.This study o nine wind developments ound that while community

concerns were sometimes overstated, limiting opportunity or community

input risks undermining potential local support. The alternative o

more prescriptive rules and processes to protect perceived community

interests can risk orgoing developments that could deliver local benets

and achieve local support.

The emerging notion o a Social Licence to Operate provides a useul

ramework or wind arm developers to engage local communities

in ways that could enhance transparency and local support, and

complement ormal regulatory processes.

This approach could provide a structured and cooperative ramework

or exploring strategies or reducing potential adverse impacts, sharing

nancial benets equitably, and building local trust and understanding

through a clear communication process.

Despite the prevalence o popular media articles, there is minimal academic

examination o this situation. This repor t provides new research that analyses

community acceptance o Australian wind arms rom a variety o stakeholderperspectives.

Ongoing CSIRO research that engages with the wind industry will contribute

urther understanding and knowledge to the possibilities and workability o an

SLO or wind arms in Australia.

4.

3.

2.

1.2


3/8

3Exploring community acceptance o wind arms: the imperative

The CSIRO Energy Transormed Flagship aims to lower greenhouse gas

emissions by providing sustainable, ecient, cost eective energy solutions or

electricity supply and transport.

Community acceptance:

the methodology

The research employed a range o

methods, including a literature and

inormation review, a media analysis o

newspaper articles, case studies, and

semi-structured qualitative interviews

with a range o stakeholders associated

with wind arms.

The media analysis o 49 articles rom

19 newspapers in the second half of

2010 found more reasons for wind farm

opposition were reported than reasons

or support. The most cited reasons or

rejecting wind arms were:

landscape change and visual amenity

impacts

noise impacts

poor consultation

The most cited reasons orsupporting

rural wind arms were:

as a means to take action against

human-induced climate change,

reduce greenhouse gas emissions

support job creation

SummaryAcceptance o rural wind arms in Australia: a snapshot

The current policy context in which the

Flagship works includes the Australian

Governments amended RenewableEnergy Target (RET). This Target seeks

to provide 20% of Australias electricity

generation rom renewable energy

sources by 2020.

Wind-generated electricity is a proven

renewable energy technology with

excellent resources in Australia. It is

anticipated that wind could contribute

the early majority o renewable energy

generated or the large-scale RET.

The uptake and installation o wind

arms, however, is currently slow owing

to the low cost and volatility o the

Renewable Energy Certicate price,

regulatory actors as well as community

resistance. This resistance presents a

social gap between the documented

high levels o support or wind arm

development and the lower success

rate and cited opposition in the mediato wind arm development proposals. I

popular media articles were to provide

the only evidence or or against wind

arms, opposition in the media would

dominatehence the need or a more

academic study o community acceptance

o rural wind arms in Australia.

Public consent is central to achieving cuts

in Australias greenhouse gas emissions

through a combination o technological

innovation, economic reorm, and societal

change, according to CSIRO research

(Ashworth, 2011). This report provides a

snapshot o community acceptance level

regarding Australian wind arms rom a

variety o stakeholder perspectives.


4/8

44

Wind-generated electricity is a proven renewable

energy technology with excellent resources in Australia.

Nine wind arms were selected as case

studies. Each case was intentionally

selected to represent the states

with greatest wind resources (New

South Wales (NSW), Victoria (Vic)

and South Australia (SA)), various

stages o development (operational,

under construction, proposed and

rejected) and a range o sizes (belowand above 30MW). When compared,

common themes arose despite the

dierent geographical, historical and

developmental characteristics o each

wind project. There were no obvious

dierences observed between the

communitys experiences o wind arms

in each state, even though there are a

variety o state-based renewable energy

policies. There were, however, dierences

depending on the size o the wind arm,

when comparing community-scale (otenless than 30MW) and industrial scale

wind arms.

For each case study, in-depth, qualitative

interviews were undertaken with

stakeholders who represented the

wind company, the local government,

local opposition, local support and the

turbine host. Extensive methodological

procedures can be ound in Section 4 o

the main Wind Farms Report.

Stakeholder views o wind arms

As noted above, this research consulted a range o stakeholders on their perceptions

o wind arms, and identied both a diversity and similarity o views:

Wind company representativeswere supportive o wind power, but many

businesses were vulnerable to community acceptance issues.

Local government representativesheld mixed views on wind arms. Some

welcomed the resulting regional development, while others observed the signicant

angst caused by wind arm proposals.

Turbine hosts, all armers in this sample, supported wind arms and generally did not

hold concerns about visual, noise or other negative impacts.

Community members publiclyopposing local wind arms spoke as sel-appointed

representatives or others nursing grievances with wind arms. Most were hobby

armers with small acreages, ormer proessionals, and/or members o Landscape

Guardian groups.

Community members publiclysupporting their local wind arm were motivated

by the climate riendly nature o wind arms, as opposed to that generated rom

ossil uels. They appreciated regional development, increased local identity, potential

employment and nancial opportunities arising rom wind arm developments.

Section 6 in the main report gives an in-depth narrative and depiction o each windarm involved as case studies.


5/8

5

Consultation: key game-changers

Inadequate consultation and engagement

with the community is described as a key

process contributing to social confict

around wind arm development in

Australia.

As outlined in the technical report, the

sense o acceptance and ownership o

a local wind arm can dier according

to both the scale but, perhaps more

importantly, the depth and agency

involvement allowed in the consultation

process. For example, a wind arm

approved using the Ministerial consent

enabled by the legislative critical

inrastructure clause, where appeal wasprohibited caused signicant community

distrust o the process and developers

themselves.

This issue alone sets the main stage

or encouraging methods by which

all stakeholders eel empowered and

accepting o wind arm energy.

Towards wind arm

acceptance: vital issues

The ollowing ndings are arranged in

Table 1 (page 6) using the trafc lights

system to indicate key issues that aect

community acceptance o wind arms in

Australia. The ndings are ranked using

the ollowing colour codes:

RED

An issue that is an acknowledged cost or unavoidable

problem.

AMBER

An issue that is a game-changeri it is managed careully, it

has the potential to enhance acceptance; i poorly managed,

it has the possibility to increase opposition.

GREEN

A benet that is already being received and/or an issue that

is already being managed.

The issues noted in amber colour are

those that, with sucient attention,

stand to signicantly increase wind arm

acceptance.

5


6/8

6

ASPECT FINDING

Contextual For some, the planning system does not adequately consider contribution rom individuals and communities,

especially the experience o court appeals and critical inrastructure legislation.

Physical Environmental gains include low carbon electricity, supporting arming, and improving access or re ghting.

While electricity generation intermittency does exist, it can be managed, predicted, and mitigated to provide a

reliable source o electricity.

Shadow ficker occurs or short periods during sunrise and sunset; blade glint is prevented through low refectivity

surace treatment.

Small, community-scale wind arms oer local sustainability solutions to cut greenhouse gas emissions and support

local development.

The layout and number o turbines in each cluster can minimise perceived negative visual impact.

Noise rom wind turbines is reported more requently than transportation noise with equivalent noise

characteristics.

Bird and bat deaths have occurred and require careul planning, mitigation and/or monitoring.

Economic Communities benet rom a local wind arm through increased local business, community unds and local

government revenue.

Direct jobs are higher during wind arm construction; less or long-term operation.

Turbine hosts can use rental income to remain on the arm post-retirement, conserve biodiversity, and prevent

subdividing.

Property prices have not been ound to increase or decrease, although the potential market o buyers may bedecreased.

Wind arms can attract tourism, but may confict with other tourism eatures.

For some individuals, sucient nancial compensation will make a wind arm acceptable. This could include

compensation/rental payments to all residents in a specied radius, payment o electricity bills and local

government contributions.

The expense o oshore turbines to avoid local visual impact is dicult to justiy in Australia.

Social Developers acting beyond required compliance, including willingly engaging outside the ormal planning process,

contribute to more accepted energy projects.

Consultation principles o honesty and transparency, ull and unbiased inormation, and not interpreting und

donations as buying support may increase community engagement and acceptance.

A Social Licence to Operate provides a useul ramework or wind arm developers to engage local communities

in ways that could enhance transparency and local support, and complement ormal regulatory processes.

There is currently no evidence linking noise impacts with adverse health eects. However, proposed wind arms

can create stress, leading to negative health outcomes.

The vocal minority are more oten prominent in the media, and secure political attention. A group rom the

Landscape Guardian movement o wind opposition contests hal o all wind arm proposals. These groups oten

contact local residents early in the project and share concerns about wind arms.

The reasons or opposition by some participants suggest that wind arms proposals are triggering a range o

underlying cultural or ideological concerns which are unlikely to be addressed or resolved or a specic wind

arm development. These underlying issues include pre-existing concerns that rural communities are politically

neglected by urban centres, commitment to an anti-development stance , and opposition to a green or climateaction political agenda.

Table 1: Key ndings presented as a benet, a game-changer or a cost

A concise but detailed table o the considerations that may aect community acceptance can be ound in the

Discussion Section (8) o the main Wind Farm Report.


7/8

7

Moving orward: a Social Licence to Operate wind arms

As one commentator stated, wind energy

relies on a Social Licence to Operate ... Its simply not enough to be clean and green, the

industry needs to be adept at engaging the local community

Parkinson, 2011.

The discussion regarding community

responses to wind arms can be

considered under the umbrella concept

o a Social Licence to Operate (SLO).

This proposed term describes the

ongoing acceptance or approval or

a development granted by the local

community and other stakeholders

(Corvellec, 2007; Thomson & Boutilier,

2011; Parsons & Moffat, 2011).

An SLO is reerred to as ongoing to

refect that it is a dynamic approval

process that must be continually

renegotiated as belies, opinions and

perceptions can change when new

information is acquired (Thomson &

Boutil ier, 2011). It is likely to consist of

community expectations regarding the

type o impact a new development willhave and the behaviour o the developer

(Parsons & Moffat, 2011). An SLO will

be aected by the degree o match

between these expectations and the

developers delivery on commitments

(Parsons & Moffat, 2011).

While industries are subject to legal

and other regulatory requirements,

an SLO incorporates the additional

aspects to which the industry meets the

expectations o local communities, wider

society, and various constituent groups.

At times, the demands and expectations

or a development will result in an

SLO with conditions expected by

the community that may be tougher

than those imposed by regulation

(Gunningham et al., 2004).

By denition, there is no legal

requirement or a Social Licence to

Operate in the wind or other industries.

However, Corvellec (2007) notes that

an inormal SLO can develop as wind

developers seek acceptance o their

proposals through open communication

at local meetings, local government

engagement, applications and various

required assessments. In instances where

wind developers have gone beyond

ormal compliance to engage with the

community, the developers credibilityhas been raised with authorities and

the community, and has been noted

to positively infuence the political and

regulatory processes underpinning the

granting o ormal licences (Mason et al.,

2010).

To contribute to the growing discussion

on SLO, this research oers some

oundations or an SLO relevant to wind

arm development in Australia. Mason

et al., (2010) described an acceptable

development as one where the potential

positive impacts represent an acceptable

trade-o to the negative impacts, and

where there is sucient trust building

and trustworthiness surrounding the

industry and its development.

These potential positive impacts and

trust-building criteria align well with

the ndings that emerged rom this

research around acceptable wind arm

development. Indeed, the addition o

positive impacts- or lack thereo- was

commonly cited in the inormation and

interviews as central to the acceptability

o a wind arm.

The study ndings suggest that

community acceptance o wind arms

could be increased by developers

intentionally adopting a Social Licence to

Operate approach, or similar rameworksor transparent and well structured

community engagement.

There is evidence that increased

community acceptance rom such

approaches would result in increased

approval and installation o wind arms,

and would thus increase the possibility o

achieving Australias Renewable Energy

Target in a cost eective way. For more

in-depth discussion o SLOs, see Section

3.1 in the full Wind Farms Report.

7


8/8

Reerences and urther reading

Full details can be ound in the technical

report:

Hall, N., Ashworth, P., and Shaw, H.

(2012) Exploring Community Acceptance

of Rural Wind Farms in Australia. Canberra:

CSIRO. (www.csiro.au)

Ashworth, P. (2011). Reducing energy

demand: The imperative or behavioural

change,. In H.Cleugh, M. Staord

Smith, M. Battaglia & P. Graham (Eds.)

Climate Change: Science And Solutions For

Australia, (pp.127-134). Canberra: CSIRO

Publishing.

Corvellec, H. (2007) Arguing for a

licence to operate: the case o the

Swedish wind power industry,Corporate

Communications: An International Journal.

12(2): 129-144.

Gunningham, N., Kagan, R. and

Thornton, D. (2004) Social Licence

and Environmental Protection: Why

Businesses Go Beyond Compliance, Law

& Social Inquiry29 (2): 307341.

Mason, C., Paxton, G., Parr, J., and

Boughen, N. (2010) Charting the

territory: Exploring stakeholder reactions

to the prospect o seafoor exploration

and mining in Australia,Marine Policy34:

13741380.

Parkinson, G. (2011) Can wind beat

the noise?, Climate Spectator, June 24.

URL (consulted 24 June): http://www.

climatespectator.com.au/commentary/

can-wind-beat-noise?utm_source=C

limate%2BSpectator%2Bdaily&utm_

medium=email&utm_campaign=Climate

%2BSpectator%2Bdaily

Parsons, R., and Moffat, K. (2011)

Constructing the meaning o social

licence, Canberra: CSIRO (orthcoming).

Thomson, I., and Boutilier, R. (2011)

Social Licence to Operate, SME Mining

Engineering Handbook, Colorado: Society

or Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration. pp.

1779-1796.

For urther inormation:

Dr Nina Hall

Social ScientistScience into Society Group

CSIRO Energy Transormed Flagship

Phone: (07) 3327 4589

Email: [email protected]

Summary_ Acceptance of Rural Wind Farms in Australia a Snapshot_CSIRO2012

Documents

Transcript of Summary_ Acceptance of Rural Wind Farms in Australia a Snapshot_CSIRO2012