Local Communities Public
Acceptance of Wind Parks
Installations: The role of
Consultation and Perceived
Procedural Fairness.
Martin McArdle
In collaboration with Muhamad Irfan Agia
Master Thesis Proposal Psychology, Specialization Economic and Consumer Psychology
Institute of Psychology
Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences – Leiden University Date: 11.07.2018
Student number: s1734938
First examiner of the university: Emma ter Mors
Second examiner of the university: Dr. Esther van Leeuwen
Local Communities Public Acceptance of Wind Parks Installations: The role of Consultation and Perceived Procedural Fairness.
Martin McArdle Leiden University
Abstract
Prior consultation with host communities where wind-parks are being considered for installation has demonstrated an increase in their acceptance. However, unanswered questions and uncertainties may remain concerning potential negative impacts, which could result in adverse reactions to eventual implementation. It has therefore been suggested that fairness in the consultation process can increase public acceptance of wind-parks projects. The present experimental study (N = 62) using a scenario examined the impact of consultation and non-consultation and perceived procedural fairness in the decision-making process among residents’ willingness to accept the introduction of wind-parks. As predicted our results found that consultation increased public acceptance and that consultation was perceived as procedurally fair. Furthermore, we investigated the mediating influence of procedural fairness of consultation on public acceptance. Our results show that the positive effect of consultation on public acceptance is driven by procedural fairness. The paper discusses theoretical and practical implications of the findings, limitations of the research and provides directions for future studies.
Keywords: consultation, uncertainty, procedural fairness, public acceptance of wind-
Local Communities Public Acceptance of Wind Parks Installations: The role of Consultation and Perceived Procedural Fairness.
The threat posed by climate change, in particular the increase of Green House Gas (GHG) emissions through the use of fossil fuels, has placed governments worldwide and specifically in Europe under increasing pressure to find ways to meet electricity demand through low-carbon sources (Jones & Eiser, 2009). The majority of the world’s emissions result from electricity generation, transportation including aviation and shipping (passenger and freight), agriculture and other forms of energy production and use. Figures from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (2016) show that net emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities increased worldwide by 35 percent from 1990 to 2010. Emissions of carbon dioxide, which account for around three-fourths of total
emissions, increased by 42 percent over this period (Intergovernamental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2013).
Governments across Europe have proposed numerous approaches to meet the
challenges presented by climate change. In 2007 European leaders committed themselves to the “20-20-20” targets for the reduction of GHG emissions by 20%, the reduction in overall energy use by 20% and a for a 20% contribution to energy from renewable resources by 2020 (Bakker, Pedersen, van den Berg, Lok, & Bouma 2012; European Union, 2009). The move towards more renewable forms of energy production is seen as critical for tackling climate change (Jacobson et al., 2015) . Renewable energy production can be defined as energy that is produced from sources which are continually replenished by natural sources, such a sunlight, tidal, wave, wind and geothermal heat (Ellabban, Abu-Rub, & Blaabjerg, 2014). One of the most effective ways to achieve energy production through renewable sources is through the use of wind powered energy generation, which can be achieved through the use
of onshore and offshore wind farms (Bakker et al., 2012). Countries across the globe are now beginning to recognise the value and importance of renewable energy. China is currently the world’s largest investor in renewable energy and is due to invest €84 billion in wind power projects by 2020 (Yuanyuan, 2017). Furthermore it is expected that other countries will increase their own investment as the cost of producing energy from wind decreases further due to innovations and scale advantages (Agora Energiewende, 2017; McCrone et al., 2015). Interestingly, in 2015 for the first-time onshore wind energy production became the cheapest form of energy production within the UK and Germany. Not only can onshore wind produce cheaper energy than its fossil fuel equivalents it also provides cheaper energy than its
comparison/companion, offshore wind production (Zindler, 2015).
Within the Netherlands, a Dutch court in a landmark ruling has recently ordered the Dutch Government to cut GHG by at least 25% by 2020, which is an increase from the government’s previous commitment to reduce emissions by 14-17% by 2020 (BBC, 2015; Neslen, 2015). Currently 95% of the Netherlands energy needs are still provided through the use of gas and coal sources (Ministry of Economic Affairs Agriculture and Innovation
Netherlands, 2016). Although the Dutch Government disagrees with the court ruling (Neslen, 2018) it has agreed to significantly increase its commitment to the use of renewable energy production and has set a target to reduce its CO2 levels by 49% by 2030. As of 2015, the Netherlands had 139 offshore and more than 2,000 onshore wind turbines. These wind turbines according to Statistics Netherlands (CBS, 2016), collectively generated 7.6 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity in 2015. This represented an increase by more than 30 percent comparative to 2014.
However, despite these improvements and the Netherlands historic connection to the use of wind power the Dutch Government still has some way to go to match the progress
electricity generated through the use of wind turbines from 4.1% to 6% in 2015 (CBS, 2016). As a way of comparison in 2010 Germany produced 9.4% and Portugal produced 14% (European Wind Energy Association, 2012). Only Malta and Luxembourg at the time generated a lower percentage of energy from renewable sources (Pieters, 2016). As of 2015 there were at least 2,525 onshore wind turbines, generating a total of 3,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity, accounting for 5% of the Netherlands’ total requirement (Ministry of Economic Affairs Agriculture and Innovation Netherlands, 2016)
The Dutch government is acutely aware that the transition to renewable energy represents a significant challenge to achieving their renewable energy targets. In particular they acknowledge that the transition will undeniably lead to significant changes in the
appearance of housing, business parks and rural landscapes as, for example, turbines, become taller and more efficient (Ministry of Economic Affairs Agriculture and Innovation
Netherlands, 2016).
Onshore wind is seen as an important tool for reaching renewable energy targets and therefore public acceptance of wind-parks is considered vital for successful implementation (Devine-Wright, 2007). In addition, Agora Energiewende, (2017) has suggested that in the future the limits to onshore wind-parks will more likely not be due to the technological restrictions but rather difficulties of gaining local political consent (Agora Energiewende, 2017). The current research examines whether some of these difficulties can be overcome through the use of public consultations with communities where wind-park planning consent is being sought i.e., can consultation facilitate and increase public acceptance of wind-park projects?
Public Acceptance of Wind Power
On a national scale, surveys of public attitudes across Europe consistently
(Wolsink, 2007) with over 70% of EU citizens in agreement about the beneficial contribution renewables make to protecting the environment from GHG emissions (Ellis & Ferraro, 2017). However, although there is evidence for public support for renewables, the picture becomes somewhat complicated when wind-parks (and other intrusive facilities e.g., power and waste-disposal plants) are being considered for installation within particular established
communities. In particular, Kunreuther and colleagues (1993), state that one of the main reasons such facilities face opposition is that host communities tend to perceive benefits as relatively low compared to perceived risks and disadvantages of living within their proximity. Some of the most frequently cited objections raised by host communities with regards to wind-parks are to do with human, visual and environmental concerns e.g., electromagnetic interference, turbine shadow flicker, land occupation, negative impacts on wildlife
(Katsaprakakis, 2012), unsightly visual impact and turbine noise emissions (Devine-Wright, 2007) and, as Katsaprakakis (2012) notes, it is host communities who will primarily be the recipients of negative outcomes.
According to Wolsink (2007), there is a fundamental misunderstanding between planners’ assumptions about public support for renewables and how the public actually assess their support. Wolsink, (2007) comments: “if we examine the role of public acceptance, [of renewables] the key question is not whether individual renewable energy schemes themselves are accepted but rather whether individual renewable energy investments themselves are accepted” (page 1191). The author continues that it is not people, per se, who are reluctant to have wind-parks in their communities (the ‘not in back yard’ trope) but that they question whether or not all the claims made by governments, planners, developers etc are justified with respect to local environmental conditions i.e., are host communities genuine concerns addressed with equity and fairness?
Therefore, failure by commissioners e.g., national and local government agencies, planners, designers, to adequately address host communities’ environmental and human concerns through discussion and communication can elicit significant negative public reaction (Lubbers, 1988; Wolsink, 2007); (Gross, 2007; Lubbers, 1988b; Michigan State University Land Policy Institute and The Great Lakes Commission, 2011; O’Hare, Bacow, & Sanderson, 1983; Schively, 2007).
In addition to the concerns outlined above, ‘setback’ proximity (i.e., the distance wind-parks are sited from communities) can negatively influence public acceptance of a proposed project (Devine-Wright, 2007). Currently there is no worldwide agreement on the appropriate distance to site turbines from residential property or why a particular distance has been chosen (Haugen, 2011). For example, England has no separation distance, although noise limits suggest a minimum separation distance of 350 meters for a typical wind turbine. Scotland on the other hand, has guidance suggesting 2km and Wales suggests 500m between a wind turbine and housing (Barclay, 2010). The Netherlands also have do not have set separation distances but follow the Nederlandse Windenergie Associate (NWEA) guidelines along with other environmental regulations relating to, for example, shadow flicker and noise impacts (Smallenbroek, M, Directeur Energie & Omgeving bij Ministerie van Economische Zaken en Klimaat, personal communication, June 11, 2018).
Furthermore, research has suggested that noise generated from wind turbines and feelings of annoyance are higher amongst residents when compared to traffic noise at similar level when measured in decidable (dB) (Janssen, Vos, Eisses, & Pedersen, 2011). While the sound is not loud (38 dB at 500m, equivalent to the noise emitted by an electrical
refrigerator), under some circumstances it can be heard at distances as great as 2.5km, which does have the potential for individuals to perceive the noise generated as ‘annoying’, and at smaller distances (perhaps 1km or less) has been linked to symptoms such as dizziness,
nausea, hearing loss and sleep problems (Merlin, Newton, Ellery, Milverton, & Farah, 2013) which, due to anxiety and stress, can be hazardous to health (Schmidt & Klokker, 2014).
Bakker et al., (2012) note that it is unclear what contribution turbine-generated wind-sound has on sleep disturbance and psychological distress. The authors found, for example, that the level of annoyance depended on the level of exposure to the sound; a higher exposure led to a higher level of annoyance. Additionally, sound exposure and psychological distress showed a positive correlation, indicating that high exposure might lead to more distress. Moreover, recent research by Münzel et al., (2018) demonstrated links between noise
pollution from railways, airports and roads with cardiovascular conditions such as high blood pressure, stroke and heart failure because, as the authors claim, noise pollution over time can damage heart function due to the spiking of stress hormones particularly during disturbed sleep.
As there is no worldwide agreement or definitive scientific studies to advise planners about appropriate setback distances (Haugen, 2011), it remains unclear what proximal distances may or may not be detrimental to health. Moreover, anecdotally, it could be argued that perception of hazardous noise is ‘subjective’ and therefore ‘objective expert’ information on ‘safe’ noise levels may not be sufficient to convince a sceptical public of its veracity; leading to further obfuscation and negativity on the part of host communities (Babrow et al., 1998; Babrow, Hines, & Kasch, 2000; Brashers, 2001). Therefore, it’s imperative that agencies involved in wind-park projects constructively address these issues with host communities in order to reassure them that their concerns are being taken seriously. An important question, therefore is how can host communities be involved in informed decision making? It is proposed that one way to achieve this is through involving communities in active consultation about on-shore wind-park projects.
Consultation and Procedural Fairness
It can take many years of complex planning before energy projects such as wind-parks become operational as the planning process will be subject to strict laws, regulations, guidelines and codes of best practice required by the majority of governments in the
developed world (Visschers & Siegrist, 2012; Shipley & Utz, 2012); how this process is conducted can have a considerable impact on public support and acceptance of project development (Firestone, Kempton, Lilley, & Samoteskul, 2012) because without public support projects can succumb to delays, disruptions and even cancelations (Fast et al., 2016; Visschers & Siegrist, 2012).
A number of research studies have sought to scrutinize and explain the reasons behind the public’s acceptance of various energy projects (Greenberg, 2009; McComas, Besley, & Yang, 2008; Scheufele & Lewenstein, 2005; Slovic et al., 1991). As we noted earlier (Wolsink, 2007) despite strong public support of renewables, particular wind sourced, there remains a fundamental misunderstanding between planners’ assumptions about public support and how the public actually form and assess their support i.e., planners may assume that because the public have major concerns about irreparable damage to the environment caused by GHG emissions they therefore have the public’s overall support to proceed with planning without engaging in any meaningful dialogue with affected communities. However, as Wolsink (2007) states, that belief is misplaced and contrary to research findings.
An additional issue for planners is that they may be motivated to implement
governments’ green energy targets and thus feel justified in overriding local communities’ concerns. However, as Phadke (2013) notes when local residents have been completely removed from planning and decisions are imposed unilaterally in ‘decide-announce-defend’ model they engender not only feelings of ‘injustice’ but being disenfranchised and deprived of the right to have a legitimate and meaningful voice in the discourse resulting in united
protest to such projects. It is therefore vital that all agencies responsible for wind-park
developments strive to mitigate feelings amongst local stakeholders of disenfranchisement or perceived mistreatment.
In 2014 the Dutch Ministry for Infrastructure and Environment submitted a bill for the Environmental Planning Act to the Dutch parliament (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en
Milieu, 2017). It aims to integrate EU obligations regarding public participation in project development by ensuring the public have access to relevant information through a variety of means such as digitally accessible material and are engaged in decision-making at the earliest stages of the process.
In addition to the act authorising public participation, participation has become progressively recognised and encouraged within codes of ethical and best practice contained in many planning bodies and trade groups (Shipley & Utz, 2012) along with the Gedragscode Acceptatie & Participatie Windenergie op Land developed by Nederlandse WindEnergie Associatie (NWEA) (Nederlandse WindEnergie Associatie, 2016). The NWEA code of conduct aims to regulate the wind industry and assist planners and environmental
organisations to actively involve the public throughout the various stages of wind project developments.
Because no two wind-park projects will be the same as they are subject to unique challenges for planners to consider and overcome some degree of flexibility is required to allow planners to work within the codes of conduct and yet produce bespoke solutions. However, although conduct guidelines, of necessity, are open to interpretation public opinion must be sought, in a two way active process through consultation (OECD, 2006) using, for example, public meetings, focus groups, web-based and or citizen juries (Shipley & Utz, 2012).
However, consultations can be costly and time consuming for planners who may be reluctant to pursue them if they view public participation as unnecessary to project
development (Wright, 2012). As Wright points out, when profit is the ‘bottom line’ for planners, they may be unwilling to invest in costly public participation exercises.
Arnstein's (1969), “A Ladder of Citizen Participation” (Figure 1), illustrates the potential mismatch that can occur between the needs of planners and the wants and needs of members of the public. Wright (2012), highlights that in a wind energy context, all of the stakeholders may agree that public participation is ideal; however, where on the rung of the ladder each of them believes where the participation should occur can vary quite
considerably.
Figure 1. Ladder of Citizen Participation, Arnstein (1969).
Yet various research studies have consistently demonstrated that public involvement during the on-going development and implantation stages of energy projects leads to an increase in acceptance and more favourable public attitudes to eventual project completion (e.g., McLaren Loring, 2007; Visschers & Siegrist, 2012); and studies have also suggested that collegiate participation in the consultation process can be a very effective for some of the following reasons: it increases stakeholders’ confidence in the development (Soerensen,
to developments (Haggett (2008); and failure by developers to adequately consult with communities leads to significant local opposition (Bohn & Lant, 2009; Devine-Wright, 2011; Huesca-Pérez, Sheinbaum-Pardo, & Köppel, 2016; Phadke, 2011; Wolsink, 1996).
In addition to the above supportive arguments for consultation, Visschers and Siegrist (2012) propose that a crucial mediating factor in decision-making is underpinned by
‘perceived procedural fairness’. Perceived procedural fairness is the extent to which individuals judge they have a legitimate ‘voice’ in the decision-making (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997; Folger & Cropanzano, 1998; McComas et al., 2008; Tyler & Blader, 2000).
The concept of fairness appears to be a universal ‘hardwired’ human trait subject to cultural and societal variation (Brosnan & De Waal, 2003; Fehr & Rockenbach, 2003; Hen, 2000; Henrich et al., 2001; Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 2016; Zizzo & Oswald, 2001). The extent that people consider something fair has been found to relate to their willingness to cooperate with (De Cremer, Brebels, & Sedikides, 2008; Earle & Siegrist, 2008) or to accept a decision-making outcome (Skitka, Winquist, & Hutchinson, 2003) and, interestingly, there would appear to be some evidence to suggest that a ‘sense of fairness’ can be observed even in primates (Brosnan & De Waal, 2003).
Because perceived procedural fairness is concerned with judgement, it is considered independent from actual outcomes. In other words, people can be opposed to an actual outcome but if the decision-making process is considered fair it is more likely to be accepted even if it is considered to be contrary to some people’s wishes or expectations (Skitka et al., 2003; Tyler, 2000). When people consider the merits or the intrinsic value of outcome-decision making they consider not only whether it was just or unjust but also the merits of how the outcome process was formulated and determined (e.g., Brockner & Wiesenfeld,
For example, in a study by Terwel, Koudenburg, & Ter Mors, (2014), while not focused on the eventual public acceptance of the project, found that a consultation process that involves the local community was considered fairer and therefore reinforced the notion that the project developer was actually concerned with the interests of the community. This is important because the perceived fairness played an important role in how support was gained from the host community.
In addition, ‘Uncertainty Management Theory’ proposes that one of the primary reasons people value fairness in decision-making consultations is because it helps them deal with and manage uncertainty, making the possibility of loss associated with innovative projects lessons less anxiety provoking (Van den Bos & Lind, 2002); it helps stakeholders cope with worries about potential troubling aspects of projects, which although designed for communities’ long-term benefit, nevertheless contain many ‘unknowns’ (Lind, Greenberg, Scott, & Welchans, 2000; Van den Bos, Wilke, & Lind, 1998; Wolsink, 2012); it augments psychological well-being by reducing negative affect and increasing positive affect (Van den Bos, 2001); it enhances communities’ confidence if it is felt that the project is not being imposed on them and their concerns are not being by-passed by distant bodies. Therefore, collegiate type partnerships underpin good decision-making and foster cooperation towards agreed outcomes (Van den Bos & Lind, 2002).
Research therefore suggests that perceived procedural fairness matters and is a major determining factor in communities’ willingness to accept the introduction of wind parks (Gross, 2007; Wolsink, 2007). It could be argued that trying to find fair solutions for complex infrastructural developments which will satisfy every concerned and involved person will never be truly attainable; instead, it may be sufficient to come to decisions that most people consider to be fair (Besley, 2010; Skitka et al., 2003).
The Present Research
The aim of the present experimental study is to examine the impact of consultation/no consultation of a wind-park project and perceived procedural fairness on residents’
willingness to accept the introduction of wind-parks when uncertainty about adverse negative impacts may exist.
We predict that public acceptance of the wind-park project will be higher when the project developer consults local residents and government authorities about the
characteristics of the project (i.e., appropriate distance setback and noise levels) compared to the situation in which no consultation takes place (Hypothesis 1). We further predict that perceived procedural fairness would be greater when a project developer consults local residents and government authorities about the characteristics of the project compared to the situation in which no consultation takes place (Hypothesis 2). Finally, we predict that the positive effect of consultation on project acceptance will be mediated by perceived procedural fairness (Hypothesis 3).
Method
Participants and Design
62 Dutch National University of Leiden students (36 males, 25 females, 1 other non-specified gender) with a mean age of 23.69 years (SD = 3.55) participated in the study. Participants were randomly assigned to the Consultation (N = 30) or the No Consultation (N = 32) condition. Over half of the participants were involved in Master’s Degrees (51.6%), with the remaining participants involved in Bachelor Degrees (43.5%), other types of study (3.6%) and PhD (1.6%) level. Participants were asked to complete a short questionnaire that took approximately 10 minutes. The study used a 2 (consultation vs., no consultation) x1 (uncertain negative consequences) between subject design to investigate the effect of the
project). This study formed part of a larger study that used a 2x2 (consultation x no
consultation x certain x uncertain negative outcomes) between subject design consisting of 122 participants.
Procedure
The participants were recruited at Leiden University to take part in a research project about wind-parks in the Netherlands. Participants were asked if they were Dutch speaking before being asked to take part in the study as the materials used were written in Dutch. Upon acceptance, participants were asked to read and complete an informed consent form which reminded them of the voluntary nature of the study and that they had the ability to withdraw from the study at any time. Participants were then given a set of instructions on how to complete the questionnaire and were then asked to read a vignette that described a wind-park project in the Netherlands. Participants were asked to imagine living in a fictitious village called Houtendal in the Netherlands. The scenario detailed an onshore wind-park project that would be developed by an energy company called ‘Syntex’, who intends to install wind turbines in the residential area of Houtendal. The scenario is included in Appendix A.
In both of the experimental conditions participants learnt that the wind turbines would be placed at a 500-metre distance from their house. In the consultation condition participants learn that Syntex has contacted a number of local residents and the municipality of the village to discuss a suitable distance for the construction of the wind turbines before deciding on the 500-metre distance. In the no consultation condition participants learn that Syntex has unilaterally decided that the 500-metre distance will be the suitable distance.
Participants then read that Syntex has informed the residents that there will be a minimal noise emission produced by the wind turbines within the 500-metre distance. Syntex has informed the residents that they are uncertain what the exact minimal noise level will be but Syntex has told the residents that the noise level should not exceed that of 40 decibels
(dB), which is comparable to the noise generated by an average refrigerator, but the noise could be higher.
Upon completing the scenario, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire containing the dependent measures. Once the questionnaire had been completed, participants were thanked for their participation and debriefed. Participants were then given the
opportunity to participate in a lottery to win one of three VVV vouchers worth €10 to reward participants for their time and participation. Participants were additionally offered the
opportunity to receive a summary of the research once it is completed. Measures
Manipulation check for consultation.
To check the effectiveness of the consultation manipulation a manipulation check was used to determine whether or not the manipulation of the independent variable (consultation) had its intended effect on the participants. This consisted of the following question, “In the description of the situation that you read earlier you read, among other things, how Syntex has come to the decision to place the wind-park at a 500 meters distance from the village of Houtendal. Which of the following statements is true?” Participants will be asked to select the correct answer from two options, “Syntex made this decision unilaterally (so without consultation of local residents and the mayor and aldermen of the municipality of Houtendal )” or “Syntex made this decision after consultation with local residents and the mayor and aldermen of the municipality of Houtendal”.
Public Acceptance
Public acceptance of the wind-park project was measured through four items adapted from an existing public acceptance scale (Aas, Devine-Wright, Tangeland, Batel, & Ruud, 2014): “I think the plan of Syntex to build a wind-park in Houtendal is a good idea”, “As a
Syntex”(recoded), “As a resident of Houtendal, I would accept the plan of Syntex to build a wind-park in Houtendal”, “I would demonstrate against the planned wind-park of Syntex” (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). α = .87.
Procedural fairness of the decision-making process.
Procedural fairness of the decision-making process was measured through four items adapted from an existing procedural farness scale (Visschers & Siegrest, 2012): “I think that the decision-making process about the wind-park is fair”, “I think that the decision-making process about the wind-park is righteous”, “I think that the decision-making process about the wind park is good” and “The involvement of the residents of Houtendal in the decision-making process is sufficient” (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). α = .94.
Results
Manipulation Check
A cross tabulation was carried out to determine the success rate of the manipulation itself. Responses to the manipulation check from the participants indicated that the
manipulation was successful. 29 out of 30 (96.6%) participants in the Consultation condition answered the manipulation check correctly and 31 out of 32 (96.7%) participants in the No Consultation condition answered the manipulation check correctly. To ensure the most reliable results it was decided to exclude the 1 participant from each condition (N = 2) that answered the manipulation check incorrectly from further analysis. The final sample (N = 60) consisted of 35 males, 24 females, 1 other non-specified gender, with a mean age of 23.68 years (SD = 3.61).
Public Acceptance
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to test the effect of the independent variable, consultation/no consultation on individuals’ public acceptance of wind-parks. It was predicted that the public acceptance of the wind-park would be higher in the
consultation scenario then the no-consultation scenario (Hypothesis 1). To begin with, we investigated if the assumptions of conducting a one-way ANOVA were met. Because of the research design we believe that the errors are independent. Due to the group sizes (N > 25), the result distribution should not affect the F ratio, therefore the normality assumption is robust. The homogeneity of variance was examined through Levene’s test of equality of error variances. The test did not reveal a significant result (p > .05), which shows that the
homogeneity assumption was satisfied. Further examination of the data did not reveal any outliers.
The main analysis revealed a significant difference in the public acceptance of wind-parks between the participants who had been placed in the consultation scenario condition compared to the participants who had not been no-consultation condition F(1,58) = 6.97 p < .011; η2 = .11). The results showed that the participants in the consultation scenario condition
accepted the wind-parks more (M = 4.55, SD = 1.29) than those participants that were in the no-consultation condition (M = 3.61, SD = 1.47). The results provide support for Hypothesis 1, that public acceptance of the wind-park would be higher amongst individuals that had been consulted about the characteristics of the wind-park project prior to its development
compared to those where no consultation has taken place.
Procedural Fairness
A one-way ANOVA was performed to test our prediction that perceived procedural fairness will be greater when the project developer consults local residents and government
authorities about the characteristics of the project compared to the scenario in which no consultation takes place. The main effect of consultation on procedural fairness was found to be significant, F(1,58) = 32.82 p < .001 η2p =.36. Participants who had been consulted rated
participants who received consultation found the process fairer than those who had not been consulted. The results provide support for the Hypothesis 2, that individuals perceive the procedural fairness of the consultation scenario to be greater when the project developer consults them about the characteristics of the wind-park project before development compared to the scenario in which no consultation takes place.
Procedural fairness as a mediator
We predicted that the positive effect of consultation would be mediated by perceived procedural fairness. To test whether the relationship between consultation and public
acceptance was mediated by perceived procedural fairness, a bootstrapping mediation analysis using the SPSS PROCESS macro addition (Hayes, 2013) was performed. In the present study, the 95% confidence interval of the indirect effects was obtained with 5000 bootstrap re-samples (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Results of the mediation analysis confirmed the mediating role of procedural fairness in the relation between consultation and public acceptance (b = .93; CI = 1.6 to 0.45). In addition, results indicated that the direct effect of consultation on public acceptance became non-significant (b = 0.06, t(57) = .04, p = 97) when controlling for procedural fairness, thus suggesting mediation. Because zero was not in the 95% confidence interval, the indirect effect is significantly different from zero at p < .05 (two tailed). Participants who were in the consultation scenario condition were more likely to perceive the process as procedurally fair, and through perceived procedural fairness, more likely to accept the wind-park. Figure 2 displays the results.
Discussion
This paper has been concerned with examining a possible intervention to promote public acceptance of wind-parks as one factor in the drive to reduce the harmful effects of GHG emissions. Although there is wide spread agreement between the public, policy makers, planers and government agencies for such measures, major differences, misconceptions, priorities, exist between planners and public (Wolsink, 2007): in their desire to promote and establish renewable energy projects, policy makers, and interlinked agencies, may engage their enthusiasm by overriding public concerns; while the public may engage their own concerns and fret about negative outcomes such as turbine noise levels, visual aesthetics, damage to wild life. As Wolsink (2007, page 1203) comments: “At central government there is a growing top-down, technocratic, hierarchical thinking about how the planning system must be shaped” which is at odds with public concerns. However, if planners’ concerns focus primarily on time, resources and money, this type of consultation may appear too onerous to
1.96 **
Figure 2. Indirect effect of Consultation on Public Acceptancethrough Procedural Fairness. Note: *p < .05, **p < .001 Consultation vs No consultation Procedural Fairness Public Acceptance 0.47** 0.06(0.95*)
As previous research has demonstrated, early engagement and consultation between
planners and affected communities plays an important role in fostering productive
relationships (Haggett, 2008; Soerensen, Hansen, Hammarlund & Larsen, 2001); when this fails or is never implemented communities can harbour feelings of injustice and
disenfranchisement at having their right to a legitimate and meaningful voice subverted (Phadke, 2013); which in turn increases the likelihood of significant community opposition to renewable developments (Bohn & Lant, 2009; Devine-Wright, 2011; Huesca-Pérez,
Sheinbaum-Pardo, & Köppel, 2016; Phadke, 2011; Wolsink, 1996).
In our experimental study we used vignettes to examine an intervention, which we predicted would facilitate a solution for both planners and public in a proposed fictional on-shore wind-park. Specifically, would a consultation process between residents and project developers enhance residents’ willingness to accept a wind-park in their locale (as opposed no consultation between those parties); and would perceived procedural fairness of the consultation process be integral to acceptance?
We predicted and found that public acceptance of the wind-park would be higher when the project developer consulted local residents about the characteristics of the project
compared to the vignette where no consultation occurred. We further predicted that perceived procedural fairness would be greater when the project developer consulted local residents compared to no consultation. Again, our results supported our hypothesis. Finally, we predicted and found that the positive effect of consultation on project acceptance would be mediated by perceived procedural fairness leading to overall wind-park acceptance. The results of our study highlight the importance of consulting local stakeholders on their acceptance or otherwise of wind-parks and our findings are consistent with the those of Haggett (2008) and Terwel et al., (2014) that effective early engagement with the planning process can greatly reduce opposition to the development wind energy developments and that
a process that includes public consultation with stakeholders is considered fairer, compared to decision making done unilaterally. Terwel et al., (2014), suggest that local residents probably attach more rather than less importance to consultation than planners tend to believe. This is of particular relevance to planners, as being ‘outsiders’ they may not appreciate the true importance of public participation. As Shipley and Utz (2012) note, some public officials have traditionally opposed citizen participation because they view it as time-consuming, expensive, complicated and emotionally draining. Our research as highlighted that this should not be the case. The risk is that if planners follow guidelines in name only offering little more than ‘window dressing’ (Arnstein, 1969) then the ‘minimum becomes the maximum’ i.e., minimum mandated standards of public consultation becomes the only type of consultation adhered to.
However, as Wright (2012) points out, although objections tend to coalesce around noise, shadow flicker, wildlife impacts or set back distance in-depth consultations may be able identify other basic concerns not previously attended to by planners but ones which might trigger major opposition to wind-park projects. It could be argued that consultation that allows reciprocal participation in the decision-making process may facilitate access to higher rungs of Arnstein’s ‘ladder of citizen participation’.
Although the type of consultation used in our study involved a dialogue between residents, municipality and the organisation building the wind-park it may be a too narrow approach to unearth the many concerns communities face when presented with decisions about wind-park projects. Other consultation techniques are available for planners to utilise such as, for example, public meetings, focus groups, web-based techniques, visioning and citizen juries (Shipley & Utz, 2012). Therefore, it is vitally important that planners strive to engage local stakeholders in meaningful ways that allow their ‘voice’ to be heard. Further
recommended. For example, what elements persuade people to sacrifice personal discomforts e.g., visual aesthetics, disruptions to daily life, for the overall benefit of society? Would different types of consultations suit different types of urban and rural areas, different socio-economic demographics and people in different age brackets? In particular, would there be age differences in how people view online consultations, would a younger generation be more likely to view that process as fair as opposed to older individuals who may be not as used to using digital services?
As society moves more towards utilising digital technology, web-based consultations offer planners potentially more cost-effective way to reach stakeholders and listen to their concerns. However, while using web-based consultation could be cheaper and have the potential to reach more people there could be a risk that this type of consultation may appear too impersonal and removed from stakeholders, which could in turn increase feelings of uncertainty as face- to-face feedback may be difficult to achieve compromising procedural fairness.
Although the present study has provided some insight into the area of consultation, perceived procedural fairness and public acceptance of wind-parks the research and conclusions were based on an experimental design, which relied on a restricted sample of undergraduate and postgraduate students placing a necessary caution around generalisation. As Wright (2012) points out, in the case of wind turbines, residents often have a symbolic and emotional attachment with the project site based on elements such as the scenic beauty of the landscape. It is therefore unlikely a student sample, unlikely to be homeowners
themselves or reside near a proposed wind-park, would be unable to factor in such feelings of attachment from the vignette that provided. However, as the results were positive and in line with previous studies highlighting consultation, perceived procedural fairness and public
acceptance, it could be argued that the study has the potential to form the basis for further research incorporating on a more representative sample of actual stakeholders.
Conclusion
Our results add support to the growing body of research demonstrating the value of consultation on the public’s acceptance of energy projects. As far we are aware this is the first study to highlight the importance of procedurally fair consultations and the positive effect fairness has on public acceptance of energy projects when stakeholders are faced with uncertainties. We hope that this study can provide a foundation for a more comprehensive examination of public acceptance in particular how different consultation styles might influence public acceptance.
References
Aas, Ø., Devine-Wright, P., Tangeland, T., Batel, S., & Ruud, A. (2014). Public beliefs about high-voltage powerlines in Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom: A comparative survey. Energy Research & Social Science, 2, 30–37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.04.012
Agora Energiewende. (2017). Future Cost of Onshore Wind. Retrieved from
https://www.agora- energiewende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2017/Future_Cost_of_Wind/Agora_Future-Cost-of-Wind_WEB.pdf
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
Babrow, A. S., Hines, S. C., & Kasch, C. R. (2000). Managing uncertainty in illness explanation: An application of problematic integration theory. Explaining Illness:
Research, Theory, and Strategies, 41–67.
Babrow, A. S., Kasch, C. R., Ford, L. A., Babrow, A. S., Kasch, C. R., Ford, L. A., … Ford, L. A. (1998). The Many Meanings of Uncertainty in Illness : Toward a Systematic Accounting The Many Meanings of Uncertainty in Illness : Toward a Systematic Accounting, 236(November). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc1001
Bakker, R. H., Pedersen, E., van den Berg, G. P., Stewart, R. E., Lok, W., & Bouma, J. (2012). Impact of wind turbine sound on annoyance, self-reported sleep disturbance and psychological distress. Science of the Total Environment, 425, 42–51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.03.005
Barclay, C. (2010). Wind Farms - Distance from housing. Retrieved from
http://nottingham.ac.uk/renewableenergyproject/documents/houseofcommonsbriefingpa per18nov2010.pdf
BBC. (2015). Netherlands ordered to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Retrieved November 3, 2016, from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33253772
Besley, J. C. (2010). Public Engagement and the Impact of Fairness Perceptions on Decision Favorability and Acceptance. Science Communication, 32(2), 256–280.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547009358624
Bohn, C., & Lant, C. (2009). Welcoming the Wind? Determinants of Wind Power Development Among U.S. States. The Professional Geographer, 61(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330120802580271
Brashers, B. D. E. (2001). Communication and Uncertainty Management, 477–497.
Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin,
120(2), 189–208.
Brosnan, S., & De Waal, F. (2003). Monkeys reject unequeal pay. Nature, 425(6955), 297– 299. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01987.1.
CBS. (2016). Onshore wind turbines taller and more efficient. Retrieved October 23, 2017, from https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2016/39/onshore-wind-turbines-taller-and-more-efficient
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2958
Cowherd, D. M., & Levine, D. I. (1992). Product Quality and Pay Equity Between Lower-Level Employees and Top Management: An Investigation of Distributive Justice Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(2), 302–320.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2393226
Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in Organizational Justice: Tunneling
Through the Maze. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology
(Vol. 12).
De Cremer, D., Brebels, L., & Sedikides, C. (2008). Being uncertain about what? Procedural fairness effects as a function of general uncertainty and belongingness uncertainty.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(6), 1520–1525.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.07.010
Devine-Wright, P. (2007). Reconsidering public attitudes and public acceptance of renewable energy technologies : a critical review. Architecture, Working Pa(February), 1–15. Retrieved from
http://geography.exeter.ac.uk/beyond_nimbyism/deliverables/bn_wp1_4.pdf Devine-Wright, P. (2011). Public engagement with large-scale renewable energy
technologies : breaking the cycle of NIMBYism. WIRE’s Climate Change, 2, 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.89
Earle, T. C., & Siegrist, M. (2008). On the Relation Between Trust and Fairness in Environmental Risk Management. Risk Analysis, 28(5), 1395–1413.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01091.x
Ellabban, O., Abu-Rub, H., & Blaabjerg, F. (2014). Renewable energy resources: Current status, future prospects and their enabling technology. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 39, 748–764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.113
Ellis, G., & Ferraro, G. (2017). The social acceptance of wind energy: Where we stand and
the path ahead. European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2789/696070
European Union. (2009). DIRECTIVE 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Official Journal of the European Union, 5(1), L 140/16-L 140/62. Retrieved from
http://www.nezeh.eu/assets/media/fckuploads/file/Legislation/RED_23April2009.pdf%0 Ahttp://www.nezeh.eu/assets/media/fckuploads/file/Legislation/RED_23April2009.pdf
%0Ahttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32009L0028&from=en
European Wind Energy Association. (2012). Wind in power: 2011, European Statistics. 2011
European Statistics., 2012(February 13), The European Wind Energy Association.
https://doi.org/https://windeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/files/about-wind/statistics/Wind_in_power_2011_European_statistics.pdf
Fast, S., Mabee, W., Baxter, J., Christidis, T., Driver, L., Hill, S., … Tomkow, M. (2016). Lessons learned from Ontario wind energy disputes. Nature Energy, 1, 15028. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2015.28
Fehr, E., & Rockenbach, B. (2003). Detrimental effects of sanctions on human altruism.
Nature, 422(6928), 137–140. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01474
Firestone, J., Kempton, W., Lilley, M. B., & Samoteskul, K. (2012). Journal of
Environmental Planning and Public acceptance of offshore wind power across regions and through time, (June 2013), 37–41.
Folger, R. (Robert G. ., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human
resource management. Sage Publications.
Greenberg, M. R. (2009). NIMBY, CLAMP, and the location of new nuclear-related facilities: U.S. national and 11 site-specific surveys. Risk Analysis : An Official
Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 29(9), 1242–1254.
35(5), 2727–2736. Retrieved from
http://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:enepol:v:35:y:2007:i:5:p:2727-2736
Haggett, C. (2008). Over the Sea and Far Away? A Consideration of the Planning, Politics and Public Perception of Offshore Wind Farms. Journal of Environmental Policy and
Planning, 10(3), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/15239080802242787
Haugen, K. M. B. (2011). International Review of Policies and Recommendations for Wind
Turbine Setbacks from Residences: Setbacks, Noise, Shadow Flicker, and Other Concerns. Retrieved from
https://mn.gov/commerce/energyfacilities/documents/International_Review_of_Wind_P olicies_and_Recommendations.pdf
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Hen, J. (2000). American Economic Association Does Culture Matter in Economic Behavior ? Ultimatum Game Bargaining among the Machiguenga of the Peruvian Amazon Author ( s ): Joseph Henrich Published by : American Economic Association Stable URL : http://www.jstor.org/sta. The American Economic Review, 90(4), 973–979. Henrich, B. J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., & Mcelreath, R.
(2001). American Economic Association In Search of Homo Economicus : Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies Author ( s ): Joseph Henrich , Robert Boyd , Samuel Bowles , Colin Camerer , Ernst Fehr , Herbert Gintis and Richard McElreath Source : The Ame, 91(2).
Huesca-Pérez, M. E., Sheinbaum-Pardo, C., & Köppel, J. (2016). Social implications of siting wind energy in a disadvantaged region – The case of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Mexico. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 58(C), 952–965. Retrieved from https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:rensus:v:58:y:2016:i:c:p:952-965
Intergovernamental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. (2013). Climate change 2013: The
physical science basis. Working Group. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernamental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Cambridge, United
Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
Jacobson, M. Z., Delucchi, M. A., Bazouin, G., Bauer, Z. A. F., Heavey, C. C., Fisher, E., … Yeskoo, T. W. (2015). 100% clean and renewable wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) all-sector energy roadmaps for the 50 United States. Energy Environ. Sci., 8.
https://doi.org/10.1039/C5EE01283J
Janssen, S. a., Vos, H., Eisses, A. R., & Pedersen, E. (2011). A comparison between
exposure-response relationships for wind turbine annoyance and annoyance due to other noise sources. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(6), 3746–53. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3653984
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(11), 4604–4614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.06.015
Kahneman, B. D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (2016). American Economic Association Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking : Entitlements in the Market Author ( s ): Daniel Kahneman , Jack L . Knetsch and Richard Thaler Source : The American
Economic Review , Vol . 76 , No . 4 ( Sep ., 1986 ), pp . 728-7. The American Economic
Review, 76(4), 728–741. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1806070
Katsaprakakis, D. Al. (2012). A review of the environmental and human impacts from wind parks . A case study for the Prefecture of Lasithi , Crete. Renewable and Sustainable
Kunreuther, H., Fitzgerald, K., & Aarts, T. D. (1993). Siting Noxious Facilities: A Test of the Facility Siting Credo. Risk Analysis, 13(3), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01082.x
Lind, E. A., Greenberg, J., Scott, K. S., & Welchans, T. D. (2000). The winding road from employee to complainant: Situational and psychological determinants of wrongful-termination claims. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 557–590.
Lubbers, F. (1988a). Research program concerning the social and environmental aspects related to the windfarm project of SEP. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, 27(1), 439–453.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(88)90057-8
Lubbers, F. (1988b). Research program concerning the social and environmental aspects related to the windfarm project of SEP. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, 27(1–3), 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(88)90057-8
McComas, K. A., Besley, J. C., & Yang, Z. (2008). Risky business: perceived behavior of local scientists and community support for their research. Risk Analysis : An Official
Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 28(6), 1539–1552.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01129.x
McCrone, A., Moslener, U., Usher, E., Grüning, C., Sonntag-O’Brien, V., Cuming, V., … Becker, L. (2015). Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2015. Frankfurt
School of Finance & Mangement. Retrieved from
http://fs-unep-centre.org/sites/default/files/attachments/key_findings.pdf
McLaren Loring, J. (2007). Wind energy planning in England, Wales and Denmark: Factors influencing project success. Energy Policy, 35(4), 2648–2660.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.10.008
Merlin, T., Newton, S., Ellery, B., Milverton, J., & Farah, C. (2013). Systematic review of the
human health effects of wind farms.
Michigan State University Land Policy Institute and The Great Lakes Commission. (2011).
Perceptions of the impact of wind energy generation in coastal communities: Imapct Perceptions. Retrieved from
http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/downloads/research/projects/wind/Policy-Priorities.pdf
Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu. LEGISLATIVE BILL Rules on the protection and utilisation of the physical environment (Environment and Planning Act) CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS (2017). Retrieved from
https://www.omgevingsweb.nl/cms/files/2017-01/english-translation-environment-act.pdf
Ministry of Economic Affairs Agriculture and Innovation Netherlands. (2016). Energy
Report: Transition to sustainable energy.
Münzel, T., Schmidt, F. P., Steven, S., Herzog, J., Daiber, A., & Sørensen, M. (2018). Environmental Noise and the Cardiovascular System. Journal of the American College
of Cardiology, 71(6), 688–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.12.015
Nederlandse WindEnergie Associatie. (2016). Gedragscode Acceptatie & Participatie
Windenergie op Land.
Neslen, A. (2015). Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling. Retrieved November 3, 2016, from
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/24/dutch-government-ordered-cut-carbon-emissions-landmark-ruling
against-court-ruling-over-emissions-cuts
O’Hare, M., Bacow, L., & Sanderson, D. (1983). Facility Siting and Public Opposition.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (Vol. 4). https://doi.org/10.2307/3323813
OECD. (2006). Background Document on Public Consultation. Public Governance and
Territorial Development Directorate.
Phadke, R. (2011). Resisting and Reconciling Big Wind: Middle Landscape Politics in the New American West. Antipode, 43(3), 754–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2011.00881.x
Phadke, R. (2013). Public Deliberation and the Geographies of Wind Justice. Science as
Culture, 22(2), 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2013.786997
Pieters, J. (2016). Netherlands lagging behind most EU countries on renewable energy. NL
Times.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research
Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research,
7(6), 659–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2
Schively, C. (2007). Understanding the NIMBY and LULU Phenomena: Reassessing Our Knowledge Base and Informing Future Research. CPL Bibliography, 21(3), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412206295845
Schmidt, J. H., & Klokker, M. (2014). Health Effects Related to Wind Turbine Noise Exposure: A Systematic Review. PLOS ONE, 9(12), e114183. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114183
Shipley, R., & Utz, S. (2012). Making it Count: A Review of the Value and Techniques for Public Consultation. Journal of Planning Literature, 27(1), 22–42.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412211413133
Skitka, L. J., Winquist, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2003). Are Outcome Fairness and Outcome Favorability Distinguishable Psychological Constructs? A Meta-Analytic Review.
Social Justice Research, 16(4), 309–341. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026336131206
Slovic, P., Layman, M., Kraus, N., Flynn, J., Chalmers, J., & Gesell, G. (1991). Perceived risk, stigma, and potential economic impacts of a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Analysis : An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 11(4), 683–696.
Soerensen, H. C., Hansen, L. K. & Hammarlund, K. (2001). Social Acceptance ,
Environmental Impact and Politics. Copenhagen: EMU/SPOK Consult, and
Hammarlund Consulting. Retrieved from http://www.offshorewindenergy.org/CA-OWEE/downloads/CA-OWEE_Social_Environmental.pdf
Terwel, B. W., Koudenburg, F. A., & Ter Mors, E. (2014). Public Responses to Community Compensation: The Importance of Prior Consultations with Local Residents. Journal of
Community & Applied Social Psychology, 24(6), 479–490.
https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2186
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social
identity, and behavioral engagement. Psychology Press.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, E. (2016). Climate change indicators in the
United States 2016 Fourth Edition. Evaluation.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.08.016
Van den Bos, K. (2001). Uncertainty management: the influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social
Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 1–60.
Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., & Lind, E. A. (1998). When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
75(6), 1449.
Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2012). Fair play in energy policy decisions : Procedural fairness , outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants. Energy Policy, 46, 292–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.062 Wolsink, M. (1996). Dutch wind power policy . Stagnating implementation of renewables.
Energy Policy, 24(12), 1097–1088.
Wolsink, M. (2007). Wind power implementation : The nature of public attitudes : Equity and fairness instead of “ backyard motives .” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
11, 1188–1207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2005.10.005
Wolsink, M. (2012). Undesired reinforcement of harmful “self-evident truths” concerning the implementation of wind power. Energy Policy, 48, 83–87.
Wright, Z. M. (2012). A Voice for the Community: Public Participation in Wind Energy Development. Dalhousie Journal of Interdisciplinary Management, 8(September 2010). https://doi.org/10.5931/djim.v8i1.283
Yuanyuan, L. (2017). China to Invest $100 billion in Wind Power Projects by 2020. Retrieved from http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2017/01/china-to-invest-100-billion-in-wind-power-projects-by-2020.html
Zindler, E. (2015). Wind and solar boost cost-competitiveness versus fossil fuels. Retrieved November 25, 2016, from
https://about.bnef.com/blog/wind-solar-boost-cost-competitiveness-versus-fossil-fuels/
Zizzo, D. J., & Oswald, A. J. (2001). Are people willing to pay to reduce others’ incomes?
Annals of Economics and Statistics / Annales d’Économie et de Statistique, 63/64, 39–
Appendix A
Consultation Condition Scenario (In English)
Imagine, you are living in the Houtendal small village in the Netherlands and an energy company called Syntex plans to build five wind turbines next to your village. This location is ideal for wind turbines, partly because of the strong, steady wind flow in this area. There are 1000 households near the area of the wind turbines, including your household.
The company Syntex has contacted a number of local residents and the mayor and aldermen of the municipality of Houtendal to discuss what would be a suitable distance for the
installation of wind turbines. Subsequently, Syntex has decided to place the turbines at a 400 meters distance from the village of Houtendal.
Regarding the local impact of the installation of the wind park, Syntex says the following in an information letter to the residents of Houtendal: “Placing the wind turbines at a 400-meter distance means that the turbines will be visible from the village. Placing the wind turbines at a 400-meter distance also means that there will be some noise from the windmills; they can be heard outside of houses in the village. We know from our previous wind park projects (and from scientific research) that at a 400-meter distance there will be minimal noise. At this distance we are not certain, however, what the exact maximum noise levels will be. It could be that maximum noise levels will not exceed that of 40 decibels, which is comparable to the sound that an average fridge produces. The maximum noise levels could also be slightly higher, though, up to 50 decibels, which is comparable to the sound that an air conditioner produces.
Appendix B
No Consultation Condition Scenario (In English)
Imagine, you are living in the Houtendal small village in the Netherlands and an energy company called Syntex plans to build five wind turbines next to your village. This location is ideal for wind turbines, partly because of the strong, steady wind flow in this area. There are 1000 households near the area of the wind turbines, including your household.
The company Syntex has unilaterally decided to place the turbines at a 400 meters distance from the village of Houtendal.
Regarding the local impact of the installation of the wind park, Syntex says the following in an information letter to the residents of Houtendal: “Placing the wind turbines at a 400-meter distance means that the turbines will be visible from the village. Placing the wind turbines at a 400-meter distance also means that there will be some noise from the windmills; they can be heard outside of houses in the village. We know from our previous wind park projects (and from scientific research) that at a 400-meter distance there will be minimal noise. At this distance we are not certain, however, what the exact maximum noise levels will be. It could be that maximum noise levels will not exceed that of 40 decibels, which is comparable to the sound that an average fridge produces. The maximum noise levels could also be slightly higher, though, up to 50 decibels, which is comparable to the sound that an air conditioner produces.
