Discourses on the implementation of wind power: stakeholder views on public engagement Wolsink, M.P.

Transcription

1 UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Discourses on the implementation of wind power: stakeholder views on public engagement Wolsink, M.P. Published in: Renewable energy and the public: from NIMBY to participation Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Wolsink, M. (2011). Discourses on the implementation of wind power: stakeholder views on public engagement. In P. Devine-Wright (Ed.), Renewable energy and the public: from NIMBY to participation (pp ). London: Earthscan. General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam ( Download date: 14 Apr 2019

2 Discourses on the implementation of wind power: Stakeholder views on public engagement. Maarten Wolsink Final text Chapter 6 Renewable Energy and the Public Patrick Devine-Wright (Ed) Earthscan, 2009

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 However, the independent developers discourse also exists in England, and even in the technical unconditional support discourse, the effectiveness of full access to the grid and guaranteed prices is recognised. Therefore, a policy shift may be possible because the ideas underpinning such a shift exist in the relevant domains. This shift does not seem to be very likely for the time being, as the policy preferences for tradeable certificates seem to be strongly determined by ideological preferences. References Aitken, M., McDonald, S., Strachan, P. (2008) Locating power in wind power planning processes: the (not so) influential role of local objectors. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51, Breukers, S. (2007) Institutional capacity building for wind power, a geographical comparison. Amsterdam University Press. PhD Thesis. Breukers, S., Wolsink M. (2007) Wind power in changing institutional landscapes: An international comparison. Energy Policy 35, Doody, D.G., Kearney, P., Barry, J., Moles, R., O'Regan, B. (2009) Evaluation of the Q- method as a method of public participation in the selection of sustainable development indicators. Ecological Indicators 9, Dryzek, J. (2005) The Politics of the Earth. Environmental Discourses. (2 nd ed) Oxford University Press, Oxford. Eden, S., Donaldson, A., Walker, G. (2005) Structuring subjectivities? Using Q methodology in human geography. Area 37, Ellis, G., Cowell, R., Warren, C., Strachan, P., Szarka, J. (2010) Expanding Wind Power: a Problem of Planning or of Perception? Planning Theory and Practice, in press. Ellis, G., Barry, J., Robinson, C. (2007) Many ways to say No, different ways to say Yes : Applying q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50, Haggett, C. (2009) Public engagement in planning for renewable energy. In: S. Davoudi, J. Crawford, A. Mehmood (Eds.) Planning for Climate change. Strategies for Mitigation and Adaptation for spatial Planners. Earthscan, London. pp Johansson, M., Laike, T. (2007) Intention to respond to local wind turbines: the role of attitudes and visual perception. Wind Energy 10, Jones, C.R, Eiser J.R. (2009) Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local onshore wind development with reference to an English case study. Energy Policy 37, Lothian, A. (1999). Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landscape and Urban Planning 44, McKeown B., Thomas D. (1988) Q methodology. Thousand Oaks CA, Sage. Robbins, P., Krueger, R. (2000) Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Q method in human geography. Professional Geographer 52, Stenner, P., Watts, S., Morell, M. (2008). Q methodology. In: C. Willig, W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology. Sage, Los Angeles, pp Stenzel T., Frenzel A. (2008) Regulating technological change - The strategic reactions of utility companies towards subsidy policies in the German, Spanish and UK electricity markets. Energy Policy 36, Warren, C.R., McFadyen, M., Does Community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland. Land Use Policy 27,

14 Webler, T., Tuler, S., Krueger, R. (2001) What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management 27, Walker, G., Devine-Wright, P. (2008) Community renewable energy: What should it mean? Energy Policy 36, Wolsink, M. (1988) The social impact of a large wind turbine. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 8 (4) Wolsink, M. (2007) Planning of renewables schemes. Deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation. Energy Policy 35, Wolsink, M. (2010) Near-shore wind power - Protected seascapes, environmentalists attitudes and the technocratic planning perspective. Land Use Policy 27, Wolsink, M. (2009) Planning: problem carrier or problem Source. Planning Theory and Practice 10(4) Wolsink, M., Breukers, S. (2010). Contrasting the core beliefs regarding the effective implementation of wind power. An international study of stakeholder perspectives. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 53, Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., Bürer, M.J. (2007) Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 35,