Docstoc

Appendix A_ Development Strategy Matrix

Document Sample
Appendix A_ Development Strategy Matrix Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                                 Development Strategy Matrix: "M
                                                                 Conflict Issue Library Reference
1. Site Selection:
                                                                                Tag

a. Visual Impact

i. Local opinions on the visual impact of the proposed wind
                                                                              SS a.i
farm

ii. Size of proposed wind farm                                                SS a.ii

b. Other localized Physical Impacts
i. Noise and shadow flicker are concerns for nearby residents                 SS b.i



c. Landscape Attachment (cultural/historic value)
i. Distance to/ familiarity with, existing wind farms effects
                                                                              SS c.i
likely personal attitudes towards new farms
ii. "Prior attachment to land" is major issue for acceptance                  SS c.ii


d. Environmental Impact
i. Interference with natural areas/bird endangerment                          SS d.i

e. General Site Selection Issues
i. Economic condition of target community                                     SS e.i


ii. Disparate approval processes in different communities                     SS e.ii




                                                                 Conflict Issue Library Reference
2. Local Dynamics:
                                                                                Tag

a. Actor Relationships


i. Local actor relationships are crucial (resident, developer,
                                                                              LD a.i
authorities, etc…)
ii. Specific opposition by neighbors of proposed turbines
                                                                               LD a.ii
(often called NIMBY)
iii. The "going with the crowd" mentality                                      LD a.iii


b. Identifying Opposition and Support Prior to Development
i. Predetermined "Nay-Sayers" and "Yeah-Sayers" can be
                                                                               LD b.i
identified based on certain opinion criteria
ii. Politically active stakeholders are more vocal and usually
                                                                               LD b.ii
more influential for local project acceptance.

c. Dedicated Opposition


i. Dedicated opposition can arise from a single person or from
                                                                               LD c.i
established Anti-wind groups.



d. Negative General Public Opinion
i. Early public support or opposition can greatly influence the
                                                                               LD d.i
remaining project discourse.
ii. Fear of the unknown                                                        LD d.ii
iii. Lack of "actionable intelligence" among common US
                                                                               LD d.iii
citizens




3. Participatory Planning:                                        Conflict Issue Library Reference

a. Exclusion of Stakeholders
i. Exclusive, top-down style decision making incites local
                                                                               PP a.i
opposition

b. Disrespecting/Misinterpreting Local Stakeholders
i. Respecting the existence, validity, and influence of
stakeholder concerns during project design and not taking                      PP b.i
resident reactions for granted

ii. Poor communication between Developers and
                                                                               PP b.ii
Stakeholders


c. Perceived Equity and Fairness in Planning Process
i. Local Stakeholders perception of fairness and transparency
                                                                               PP c.i
in the planning process
i. Local Stakeholders perception of fairness and transparency
                                                                              PP c.i
in the planning process

ii. Perception of "winners and losers" in the community                       PP c.ii




4. Ownership Structures:                                         Conflict Issue Library Reference

a. Design of Ownership Structure
i. Those who own shares are much more likely to approve of
                                                                              OS a.i
wind projects

ii. Complexity of many ownership structures and the difficulty
                                                                              OS a.ii
replicating structures in other locations



iii. Opposition to external owners/ developers                                OS a.iii



b. Types of Ownership Structure; Associated Issues
i. Community owned projects                                                   OS b.i


ii. Co-operative ownership structures                                         OS b.ii



iii. LLC structures                                                           OS b.iii

iv. Non-community ownership structures                                        OS b.iv




5. Financial/Economic Issues:                                    Conflict Issue Library Reference

a. Competitive Market Ability of Wind Power
i. Perceived inability to compete with corporate wind and
                                                                              FE a.i
traditional power sources including the belief that energy

b. Ability to Acquire Initial Investment
i. Difficulty utilizing national and state incentives                         FE b.i



ii. Inability to raise sufficient capital                                     FE b.ii
ii. Inability to raise sufficient capital                                  FE b.ii



iii. Types of Project Financing                                            FE b.iii


c. Other Economic Effects on the Community
i. Residents believe the community will lose revenue
(particularly tourism revenue) and that housing values could                FE c.i
fall




General Notes

Policy makers and developers commonly assume that any
opposition to wind turbines is based on NIMBY attitudes and
is therefore invalid and obstructionist (Wolsink, 2000).
However, Wolsink posits that most opposition should not be
considered NIMBY outright, and instead arises frequently
from poor developer planning steps, inappropriate project
siting proposals, and exclusion of the local populace. (me)

"characteristics of the selected site are crucial for the
attitudes that people develop. Obviously, concerns about
interference (mainly noise) are dependent on the location.
Hence, any intention to resist is explained either by         Once a project is announced the
characteristics of the selected location, or by an overall   opinions are formed based on "local
aversion to large numbers of wind turbines in the                      variables". (me)
countryside. The personal assessment of the benefits of wind
power hardly enters the argument in the trade-off." -
(Wolsink, 2000)
See Onenote: Comparitive Analysis: Wolsink, 2000: Figure at
                                                                   Also, see same Onenote sections
the bottom about defining the factors that affect a person's
                                                                     about "Types of Resistance"
opinions towards wind power
"Collectively, these studies suggest that local involvement, in
either economic or political terms, tends to have positive
affects upon public perceptions of wind farms and reflects
growing interest in a ‘soft energy path’ emphasizing
‘community’ aspects of renewable energy development." -
(Devine-Wright, 2005)
Load management: Smaller scale projects are believed to
reduce some of the issues of large scale variable RE
installations by minimizing the strain on local
transmission/distribution networks. Local RE also provides
potential security to the community in the case of larger grid
failures. -(Walker, 2008)
                                                                   Research in this area suggests that
                                                                    "one of the key ways in which a
One of the greatest challenges facing developers is that local     climate of trust can be fostered is
residents generally do not trust "outsiders" imposing their           through responsive and fair
wills upon them. Thus, developing a level of trust with a         engagement with host communities
community is of the utmost importance. -(Jones, 2009)              and through encouraging local, co-
                                                                  operative ownership of projects." -
                                                                             (Jones, 2009)

Research shows that opposition is often rooted in specific          "To be most effective, arguments
objections to wind turbines while support often comes from        aimed at tackling opposition to local
a consideration of the greater benefits of wind energy. Thus,      development should be tailored to
the ability for developers to selectively deal with LOCAL          suit the local context" (i.e. made as
concerns when proposing a project is very important. -            locally relevant as possible). -(Jones,
(Jones, 2009)                                                                      2009)

                                                               Could include tourist attractions at
The entire project on ghiga was quite novel. The idea of      the wind mills: tours around the base
community empowerment here is impressive and has              and even up into the towers (provide
apparently worked brilliantly. The town has reversed its out-   local guide jobs, could be opened
migration and realizes significant extra income that has         when the wind is not enough to
benefited the community. This should def be considered as a     produce power...), use the land to
potential strategy when approaching small rural                   build parks, advertise that the
communities, particularly those in need of a boost              community is 100% green/carbon
economically… -(Warren, 2009)                                   netural because of the wind park.
                                                                          (Warren, 2009)
                                                                 The institutional conditions facing
                                                                     this development were quite
The findings from (Maruyama, 2007) suggest that the type of
                                                                 constrictive. This could be good to
community based RE development promoted by the HGF
                                                                     compare to the US conditions
encompasses a range of diverse benefits thus encouraging
                                                               because Japan has low mandates for
participation from a varied group of actors. This point is
                                                                 RE and a powerful nuclear energy
important because it implies that the RE project encourages
                                                                base. Furthermore, no government
participation and support from alternately motivated
                                                                   incentives were utilized for this
stakeholders. By promoting the concepts of environmental
                                                               project!! This should be a sign that it
benefits and "green electricity" the support of morally guided
                                                                    is possible with favorable local
actors is increased. Similarly, by providing a project example
                                                                support and an innovative investor
in which the economic returns to investors and the
                                                               program to build profitable windmills
community are secure and profitable in the medium to long
                                                                  without the help of government
term, the participation of financially motivated actors is
                                                                   incentives (though the price for
assured as well. And finally, through the promotion of social
                                                               power in Japan may be higher than in
community involvement techniques such as ownership
                                                                the US). Like Ghiga, the community
certificates, turbine nicknaming, and investor name
                                                               was intricately involved via a trust to
inscriptions, the support of the local community is also
                                                                plan and design the farm. With the
enhanced. The strategies shown in this example should be
                                                                 help of a consulting development
considered viable for replication in alternative institutional
                                                                  firm, the community was able to
settings due to their emphasis on local and social
                                                                 proceed as they desired and local
characteristics. -(Maruyama, 2007)
                                                               objection was minimal. -(Maruyama,
                                                                                 2007)



"Implementation level increases when planning regimes
invoke or support collaborative practices of decision-
making… Collaborative approaches are helpful to avoid
oppostion from qualitative supporters, because project
characteristics that may provoke resistance can be discussed
and adapted. Moreover, such approaches are likely to create
more local trust, particularly towards investors and
authorities from outside the community." -(Toke, 2008)


"Our hypothesis is that two categories of factors are decisive
for the successful development of wind energy: institutional
conditions, such as economic incentives and regulations; and
site-specific conditions, such as the local economy, the local
geography, local actors, and the actual on-site planning
process." -(Jobert, 2009)
Education of the local populace about what the project will
entail and transparency in the planning and negotiating
process are two critical components for developers to
consider. This is particularly true of "outside" developers who
need to gain the trust of local residents before a project will
be supported. -(Jobert, 2007); (Crocker, 2010)
pment Strategy Matrix: "Master List" Index Page
            Solution Strategy Library
                                                        Collaborative Solution Options
                 Reference Tag


                     SS a.i.1               SS c.ii.1     SS e.i.1     FE c.i.3        0
                     SS a.i.2               SS a.ii.1     SS c.ii.1    LD a.ii.1    PP a.i.2
                     SS a.i.3               LD d.ii.1     FE c.i.3        0
                     SS a.i.4               FE c.i.1      FE c.i.2     FE c.i.3     FE c.i.4
                     SS a.ii.1              SS a.i.3         0



                     SS b.i.1               SS a.i.1          0            0




                     SS c.i.1               SS a.i.3       SS a.i.4    LD a.iii.1   SS c.ii.1

                     SS c.ii.1              SS a.i.1      SS e.i.1     LD a.i.2     LD b.i.1



                     SS d.i.1               SS a.i.1      SS c.ii.1    LD d.iii.1      0


                     SS e.i.1               SS c.ii.1     PP b.ii.1    OS b.i.1     FE c.i.1
                     SS e.ii.1              SS a.i.3       SS c.i.1    SS d.i.1     LD d.ii.1
                     SS e.ii.2              SS c.i.1      LD a.i.3     FE b.ii.5       0
                     SS e.ii.3              SS a.i.4      LD a.i.1     LD b.ii.1    LD d.ii.1




            Solution Strategy Library
                                                        Collaborative Solution Options
                 Reference Tag




                     LD a.i.1               SS e.ii.3     LD a.iii.1   LD b.ii.1    PP c.i.2


                     LD a.i.2               SS c.ii.1     LD b.i.1     LD d.iii.1      0
                     LD a.i.3               SS e.ii.3     SS e.ii.2    OS a.ii.2    FE b.ii.5
         LD a.ii.1          SS c.i.1      SS c.ii.1    LD a.i.2    LD a.iii.1
        LD a.iii.1          SS c.i.1      LD a.i.1    LD d.iii.1       0




         LD b.i.1           SS c.ii.1     LD b.ii.1       0

         LD b.ii.1          SS e.ii.3     LD a.i.1    LD b.i.1     LD d.iii.1




         LD c.i.1           SS a.i.2      SS c.ii.1    SS d.i.1    LD b.ii.1
         LD c.i.2           SS e.i.1      LD b.ii.1   PP c.ii.1       0
         LD c.i.3           LD a.i.2      LD b.ii.1   LD d.iii.1   PP c.i.2
         LD c.i.4           SS e.i.1      LD a.ii.1      0



         LD d.i.1           SS a.i.4       SS c.i.1   SS e.ii.3    LD a.i.1
         LD d.ii.1          SS a.i.3       SS c.i.1   SS c.ii.1    LD c.i.3
        LD d.iii.1          SS d.i.1      LD a.i.3    LD d.ii.1    FE c.i.1




Solution Strategy Library
                                        Collaborative Solution Options
       References


         PP a.i.1           SS a.i.2      LD a.ii.1   LD b.i.1     LD b.ii.1
         PP a.i.2           SS a.i.2       LD c.i.1   PP.b.i.2     PP b.ii.1



         PP b.i.1           LD a.i.1      LD a.ii.1   LD b.ii.1    LD c.i.3
         PP.b.i.2           LD c.i.1      LD c.i.3    LD d.iii.1   PP a.i.2
         PP b.ii.1          SS e.i.1       SS d.i.1    LD a.i.1    LD b.i.1
         PP b.ii.2          SS a.i.4      SS e.ii.1   SS e.ii.2    SS e.ii.3
         PP b.ii.3          SS a.i.3      SS a.i.4    SS e.ii.3    LD a.i.3



         PP c.i.1           SS a.i.2       SS d.i.1   LD a.ii.1    LD c.i.1
         PP c.i.2                 SS a.i.4            SS e.ii.3    LD a.i.2     LD b.ii.1
         PP c.ii.1                SS e.ii.1           LD a.ii.1    LD c.i.3     LD d.ii.1




Solution Strategy Library
                                                    Collaborative Solution Options
       References


         OS a.i.1                 SS e.i.1            PP a.i.2     PP c.ii.1       0
         OS a.i.2                 SS c.ii.1           LD a.i.2     OS a.ii.2    OS b.i.2

         OS a.ii.1                PP c.i.1            PP c.ii.1    OS a.iii.1       0

         OS a.ii.2                SS e.ii.2           LD a.i.3         0
                             Basically all of the
        OS a.iii.1          PP solutions will be      SS c.ii.1    LD a.i.1     LD a.i.2
                              applicable here



        OS b.i.1                 SS c.ii.1             SS e.i.1    PP a.i.2     PP c.ii.1
        OS b.i.2                 SS c.ii.1             LD a.i.2    PP c.ii.1    OS a.i.2
        OS b.ii.1                 PP c.i.1            PP c.ii.1    OS b.iii.2   OS b.iii.3
        OS b.ii.2                SS a.ii.1            LD a.ii.1    PP c.i.1     PP c.ii.1
        OS b.ii.3                SS e.ii.1            SS e.ii.2    SS e.ii.3    LD a.i.2
        OS b.ii.4                SS e.ii.1            SS e.ii.2    SS e.ii.3    LD a.i.2
        OS b.iii.1               LD a.ii.1             PP c.i.1    PP c.ii.1       0
        OS b.iii.2               LD a.ii.1             PP c.i.1    PP c.ii.1       0
        OS b.iii.3               LD a.ii.1             PP c.i.1    PP c.ii.1       0
        OS b.iv.1                SS a.ii.1            LD a.ii.1    PP a.i.2     PP c.i.1




Solution Strategy Library
                                                    Collaborative Solution Options
       References


         FE a.i.1                    0
         FE a.i.2                 OS a.i.2            OS a.ii.1    OS a.ii.2        0


         FE b.i.1                 SS e.i.1            SS c.ii.1       0
         FE b.i.2                 OS b.i.1            OS b.iii.1   OS b.iii.2   OS b.iii.3
         FE b.ii.1                OS a.ii.2           OS b.i.1     OS b.i.2     OS b.ii.3
               FE b.ii.2                  SS c.i.1     PP c.ii.1    OS a.i.1    OS b.i.2
               FE b.ii.3                  OS a.ii.2    OS b.i.1     OS b.ii.1   OS b.ii.3
               FE b.ii.4                  OS a.i.1     OS a.i.2     OS a.ii.2   OS b.i.2
               FE b.ii.5                  SS e.ii.2    LD a.i.3        0
               FE b.iii.1                    0
               FE b.iii.2                    0


                FE c.i.1                  LD d.iii.1   PP b.ii.2    PP b.ii.3   PP c.ii.1
                FE c.i.2                  LD d.iii.1   PP b.ii.2    PP b.ii.3   PP c.ii.1
                FE c.i.3                   SS c.ii.1   LD d.iii.1   PP b.ii.3   OS a.i.2
                FE c.i.4                  PP b.ii.3       0




This is the basis of why we need a
flexible FDA approach. Because each
project will face local opposition in a
unique setting. (me)
"Above all, however, we suggest that
it is important that developers and
policy-makers focus on clearly
establishing the specific reasons why
specific members of specific
communities are opposed to specific
developments" -(Jones, 2009)
ons




      FE c.i.3     0

          0




      SS e.ii.3    0

      OS a.i.1     0




          0
      PP b.ii.1    0


      LD d.iii.1   0




ons




      OS a.iii.1   0



          0
      LD c.i.4     PP a.i.1    OS a.i.1     OS b.i.2        0




          0




      LD d.iii.1   PP b.i.1        0


          0




      LD a.iii.1   LD b.ii.1   LD d.ii.1    LD d.iii.1   FE c.i.1    FE c.i.2    FE c.i.3     0
      LD d.iii.1   PP b.ii.2   PP.b.i.2     OS a.ii.1    FE c.i.1    FE c.i.2    FE c.i.3     0
      FE c.i.2     FE c.i.3    FE c.i.4         0




ons



      LD c.i.3     PP.b.i.2    PP c.i.1        0
      OS a.i.1     OS a.i.2    OS b.i.1     OS b.i.2     OS b.ii.3   OS b.ii.4       0



      PP a.i.1        0
          0
      LD c.i.3        0
      LD a.i.3     LD d.ii.1   OS a.iii.1       0
      LD b.ii.1       0



      LD d.i.1     LD d.ii.1   LD d.iii.1   PP b.ii.2    PP c.ii.1   OS a.ii.1   OS a.iii.1   0
      LD c.i.3    PP b.ii.2        0
      PP a.i.1    PP b.ii.2    PP c.i.2     OS a.ii.1   OS a.iii.1   OS b.i.1   0




ons




         0




      LD d.ii.1   LD d.iii.1   FE b.ii.1       0




      OS a.i.2    OS a.ii.2    FE b.ii.3       0
      FE b.ii.1   FE b.ii.4       0
         0
         0
      LD b.ii.1   LD d.ii.1        0
      LD b.ii.1   LD d.ii.1        0




      PP c.ii.1       0




ons




      OS b.iv.1      0
      OS b.ii.4   OS b.iii.1   OS b.iii.3      0
OS b.ii.2   OS b.iii.1   OS b.iii.3   0
OS b.ii.4      0
OS b.ii.2      0




OS b.i.1        0
FE b.i.1        0
   0
Site Selection Issues
KeyWords

a. Visual Impact


i. Local opinions on the visual impact of the proposed
wind farm




ii. Size of proposed wind farm




b. Other localized Physical Impacts


i. Noise and shadow flicker are concerns for nearby
residents




c. Landscape Attachment (cultural/historic value)


i. Distance to/ familiarity with, existing wind farms
effects likely personal attitudes towards new farms




ii. "Prior attachment to land" is major issue for
acceptance




d. Environmental Impact
i. Interference with natural areas/bird endangerment




e. General Site Selection Issues



i. Economic condition of target community




ii. Disparate approval processes in different
communities




OVERVIEW
                      Paraphrase Description                                    Sources              CCI Tag


                                                                           (Wolsink, 2000);
The perceived visual impact of a proposed wind project is the
                                                                       (Wolsink, 2005); (Krohn,
most important consideration for most local residents, and is
                                                                        1998); (Devine-Wright,
entirely site-specific. This can create both positive and negative                                    SS a.i
                                                                         2005); (Jones, 2009);
reactions, but negative reactions appear to incite much stronger
                                                                         (Agterbosch, 2009);
opposition than positive does support.
                                                                             (Toke, 2008)

The size of the proposed wind farm is a significant factor affecting
                                                                        (Devine-Wright, 2005);
most local stakeholders' opinions of its impact, both aesthetically
                                                                       (Jobert, 2007); (Crocker,     SS a.ii
and environmentally. This should be carefully considered in order
                                                                                 2010)
to appropriately fit the local setting.




                                                                       (Wolsink, 2000); (Krohn,
Noise is a concern for nearby residents. The shadow flicker
                                                                         1998); (Agterbosch,
produced by the spinning blades can be a problem in certain                                           SS b.i
                                                                        2009); (Beddoe, 2003);
circumstances also.
                                                                           (Karlsson, 2009)




Those living closer to or having experience with existing wind
                                                                        (Krohn, 1998); (Van der
farms are more likely to be favorable towards new farms. Issue
                                                                         Horst, 2007); (Warren,       SS c.i
Caveat: This may not include those living close to massive wind
                                                                                 2009)
farms as is common in the US.

Each site carries a distinct personal connection with each
individual resident. This can include utilitarian attachment
(farming, logging, commerical uses…). Or recreational attachment
                                                                         (Wolsink, 2000); (Van der
(camping, hiking, bird watching, scenic appreciation, etc...). Those
                                                                           Horst, 2007); (Jones,
with utilitarian attachment are generally more willing to accept                                     SS c.ii
                                                                           2009); (Toke, 2008);
wind farms than those with recreational attachment. Areas of high
                                                                              (Jobert, 2007)
vacation/ tourist value will usually encounter much stronger
resistance (see Conflict Issue: FE c.i). It will be virtually impossible
to appease everyone.
Wildlife and nature conservationists may end up opposing
projects for avian or ecological impact reasons. This is particularly   (Wolsink, 2000); (Jones,
                                                                                                   SS d.i
true in protected species areas (such as the Bald Eagle in the            2009); (Toke, 2008)
Pacific NW) or in sensitive wetland areas.




Affluent communities will be more averse to "spoiling" their
landscape as it is probably seen as a natural luxury rather than a
                                                                         (Toke, 2008); (Jobert,
physical commodity (see Conflict Issue SS c.ii). Poorer                                            SS e.i
                                                                                 2007)
communities will generally be more willing to accept some visual/
ownership sacrifices in order to improve the local economy.


There are few national guidelines regarding approval processes of
wind farm developments. This means that each state and even                 (Beddoe, 2003);
each municipality can conduct the process differently. This                (Karlsson, 2009);       SS e.ii
increases complexity, decreases process transferability across              (Bolinger, 2006)
regions, and generally adds to legal costs.




 The notion that public acceptance is crucial to wind project
 success has been well documented, and also that visual
 impact/site conditions greatly affect public acceptance. The
 expectation then that central planning authorities (or outside
 developers for that matter) should be the ones to "determine
 the exact dimensions of individual wind power schemes... is a
 tragic mistake to make" (Wolsink, 2005). (me)
Frequency
                             Description by Reference Source
 Ranking



            "If the perceived visual quality of a project is positive, people will
            probably support it. If the perceived visual quality is negative,
    7
            people may become opponents, even though they remain in
            support of wind power in general." -(Wolsink, 2000)



            This has been shown in a number of international surveys. There
            has even been a "favourability gradient" proposed that suggests
    3
            a "negative linear relationship between wind farm size and
            public support." -(Devine-Wright, 2005)




    5




            Attitudes may be more favorable in places that have prior
            experience with wind energy than those that don't. This means
    3
            that opposition may be strongest for areas with no or little
            actual experience/ knowledge about wind farms. -(me)




            The discussion in a community is nearly always concerning SITE
            SPECIFIC FEATURES. This is crucial to understand from a
    5       developers perspective because each site carries a distinct
            personal connection with each individual resident. It will be
            virtually impossible to appease everyone! (me)
    It is not assured that environmental groups will support wind
    proposals. Wildlife and nature conservationists often end up
3
    opposing these for avian or ecological impact reasons… -
    (Wolsink, 2000)




2




    This includes dealing with siting issues, environmental permits,
    local objections, transmission interconnections, who should bear
3
    infrastructure costs, telecommunications interference issues
    etc…




    "Although siting is recognized as the most important factor in
    the development of wind energy, those active in the electricity
    sector tend to view this as merely a `market imperfection' or a
    `bureaucratic obstacle' [20]. Such a narrow view is hardly
    conducive to effective planning." -(Wolsink, 2000)
"The strongest impact on the attitudes concerned the aesthetic value
of wind turbines." This factor was far more influential in the surveys
than the perceived environmental benefits of wind power over
conventional energy (GHG, carbon, etc…) -(Wolsink, 2000)

These findings run contrary to the current mode of US thinking which
has promoted very large scale wind farms as the most effective means
of utilizing wind power. This idea is born out of the old technology
point of view using centralized large power plants in out-of-sight
locations, not considering the personal and landscape impacts that
wind energy entails… -(me)




"use-value" is used to describe the value of a landscape in terms of
direct access (physical or visual access/use) and distance to a
population center or undesirable land use. This implies that as
distance increases away from these areas, the recreational value of
land increases. -(Van der Horst, 2007)


 people who value rural landscapes for both use and non-use are often
in-migrants. Or people who move to rural areas for the fact that they
are not developed. They therefore value both use (visual and direct
access), and non-use (place identity) in the landscape. These could
present the most stringent objectors. they have been called
"aspirational ruralists". -(Van der Horst, 2007)
"Three process issues unnecessarily complicate decision making in
relation to wind energy developments; not all are unique to the wind
industry. They are outlined below: • uncertainty in the Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) process within some local authorities. •
varying approaches to decision making and responses to political
pressure. • achievement of an accurate representation of local views
for decision-making purposes." -(Beddoe, 2003)




Traditional mistake by large developers is to see siting issues as a
result of the planning system, rather than an embedded issue for any
local resident… (me)
"visual evaluation of the impact of wind power on the values of the landscape is by far the
dominant factor in explaining why some are opposed to wind power implementation and
why others support it. Moreover, on the basis of other research on how people judge scenic
value, we know that it is the type of landscape in which the turbine is sited that is the most
significant factor." -(Wolsink, 2005)
NOTE: Interestingly, "recreational areas" were deemed NOT acceptable by 70% of
respondents. What do they mean by recreational? This could hinder my wind "parks" idea…? -
(Wolsink, 2000)




Essentially, the idea of use and non-use value for land has to do with either direct access/use
or intellectual attachment/importance of existence. Those who are attached via non-use
concerns such as identity, religion, ideology may be much harder to convince that an
objectionable land use is ultimately acceptable. At the same time, those geographically
based objectors (usually use-value based), while possibly less rigid in their objections, have
more functional ability to group up and present an organized opposition. -(Van der Horst,
2007)
Site Selection Solutions
Conflict

a. Visual Impact




i. Local opinions on the visual impact of
the proposed wind farm




ii. Size of proposed wind farm




b. Other localized Physical Impacts
i. Noise and shadow flicker are
concerns for nearby residents




c. Landscape Attachment
(cultural/historic value)



i. Distance to/ familiarity with, existing
wind farms effects likely personal
attitudes towards new farms




ii. "Prior attachment to land" is major
issue for acceptance




d. Environmental Impact




i. Interference with natural areas/bird
endangerment




e. General Site Selection Issues
i. Economic condition of target
community




ii. Disparate approval processes in
different communities
                                Primary Solutions                                        Primary Sources



Industrial and military areas deemed already environmentally damaged were
seen as acceptable locations by an overwhelming majority for wind expansion…
(Wolsink, 2000). Seeking sites near existing electricity plants, particularly large
                                                                                      (Wolsink, 2000); (Van
ones (coal, NG, Nuclear) could be a very good option for reducing local
                                                                                         der Horst, 2007);
opposition (Van der Horst, 2007). Similarly, proposing isolated sites may be
                                                                                      (Jones, 2009); (Jobert,
good, though if they are used for wildlife recreation then this may backfire.
                                                                                               2007)
Current agricultural land also presents a promising geography for wind because
turbines do not prevent cultivation and the land is already being used in a
utilitarian way.

Several sites should be proposed with development plans before the public is
asked to weigh in on a final choice, but this is almost never done. Therefore,
consultation concerning a finished plan "is more of a trigger for opposition than
an incentive for the proper design of acceptable projects." -(Wolsink, 2005)...          (Wolsink, 2005);
Another option could be to illicit possible site options from the local residents     (Jones, 2009); (Jobert,
directly prior to any formal planning in order to give residents direct input on site          2007)
selection. Solution Caveat: The second suggestion here would require clear
criteria of what site type is physically possible, and may also end up causing inter-
neighbor strife anyway if they happen to disagree.

Visual Impact assessments are recommended that produce photo mock-ups of
                                                                                      (Devine-Wright, 2005);
what turbines would look like in a concrete location in the specific area. It is also
                                                                                       (Jones, 2009); (Jobert,
a good idea to provide several different views of one area and mock-ups of
                                                                                                2007)
multiple different areas if asking the public to pick a preferred location.

Using positive language to assess a wind farms impact on the landscape may
carry psychological benefits. e.x. "concepts focusing upon a ‘zone of visual
                                                                                      (Devine-Wright, 2005);
interest’, ‘visual improvement’ or ‘visual enhancement’ caused by wind farms."
                                                                                        (Maruyama, 2007)
Can lend a positive notion to the "visual impact" issue which is usually seen as a
negative. -(Devine-Wright, 2005)

Smaller farms (less than 8 turbines) have been shown to be perceived more
positively than both large-scale developments and single turbines. Therefore, the
                                                                                  (Devine-Wright, 2005)
size of the proposed farm should be carefully considered with respect to the
surrounding landscape and its visual distance from residents.
Modern turbine technology has greatly reduced both of these problems.
However, it will be necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of this
technology to concerned citizens prior to construction. Designing an appropriate
setback distance from neighbors and utilizing state of the art shadow flicker      (Olive, 2010); (Beddoe,
reduction devices should be sufficient. It may also be helpful to measure the pre- 2003); (Karlsson, 2009)
existing sound levels to show how a turbine would impact the already present
noise. These should all be presented prior to final consideration to allay fears
and they should NOT be presented in a condescending manner.




Areas that are not close to any existing wind farms may present more difficult
development options because of unfamiliarity with the technology. Therefore, it
could be a good idea to expand radially from existing farms in order to
                                                                                 (Olive, 2010); (Warren,
"piggyback" on the (assumed) goodwill of wind familiar communities. This may
                                                                                          2009)
also foster a cultural identity relating to wind power in the region which could
possibly improve local opinion and increase interest in wind power elsewhere
with a demonstration of success.

Selecting sites using physical criteria as well as "social suitability criteria" could
greatly enhance project acceptance. One example is to select communities that
have more experience with heavy industries (especially mining or electricity
production). These communities should be more accustomed to the concept of
                                                                                       (Van der Horst, 2007);
electricity production and may also view turbines as an improvement to the local
                                                                                          (Crocker, 2010)
impact from existing industry, both visually and morally (This is closely related to
the Local Dynamics issues as well). Additionally, avoiding sites that are primarily
vacation destinations or that have particularly unique scenic characteristcs may
help to avoid many siting issues.




It has been shown in multiple cases that global environmental benefits (i.e.
global warming reduction) do NOT overide local environmental concerns.
Therefore, it will be important to show (truthfully) that the proposed
development will not pose a significant hazard to wildlife (particularly birds/ (Walker, 2008); (Olive,
bats) or any sensitive landscape (wetlands mostly). It is suggested that you go  2010); (Jones, 2009);
beyond the minimum impact assessment required by local authorities in order to     (Beddoe, 2003)
satisfy concerned citizens. Once this has been done, the emphasis of wind's
global environmental benefits can then be brought to the discussion. But don't
think that global concerns will ever outweigh local issues!!
"It is possible to view landscape value as an economic resource… Regions which
are perceived as being in economic decline or which are not highly valued as
living spaces are therefore less likely to resist wind power development" (Toke,
2008). This indicates that poorer communities may be more open to wind             (Toke, 2008); (Jobert,
development if it brings economic benefits to the community. The opposite may              2007)
also be true in which affluent communities will be less swayed by the potential
economic benefits, and may be more driven by aesthetic motivations which
could lead to greater opposition.

One way to reduce this issue could be to compile examples of how this process
has been done in other communities to present to local permitting authorities
with or even before plans are submitted. A professional report with several
                                                                                       (Olive, 2010)
distinct examples from neighboring or prominent communities is advised. This
could be particularly helpful in areas which have not previously dealt with wind
power projects.
If attempting a development that straddles county or state borders, Then the
developer should make an organized effort to help each municipal body                (Beddoe, 2003);
coordinate their efforts with their counterparts. This will help to reduce           (Crocker, 2010)
confusion, beuracratic duplicity, and wasted time.

Engaging local planning authorities early can greatly enhance the relationship
with these representatives and improve the process and likelihood of ultimate
                                                                                     (Beddoe, 2003);
approval. Terms can be agreed upon regarding the content of impact studies to
                                                                                     (Crocker, 2010)
be presented. The authorities will feel included, important, and more open than
if they are "blind-sided" with a formal proposal in which they had little input.
Solution Strategy ID   Frequency
                                                      Collaborative Solutions
        Tag             Ranking




      SS a.i.1            4        SS c.ii.1   SS e.i.1      FE c.i.3




      SS a.i.2            3        SS a.ii.1   SS c.ii.1     LD a.ii.1     PP a.i.2   FE c.i.3




      SS a.i.3            3        LD d.ii.1   FE c.i.3




      SS a.i.4            2        FE c.i.1    FE c.i.2      FE c.i.3      FE c.i.4




      SS a.ii.1           1        SS a.i.3
SS b.i.1    2   SS a.i.1




SS c.i.1    1   SS a.i.3   SS a.i.4    LD a.iii.1   SS c.ii.1   SS e.ii.3




SS c.ii.1   2   SS a.i.1   SS e.i.1    LD a.i.2     LD b.i.1    OS a.i.1




SS d.i.1    3   SS a.i.1   SS c.ii.1   LD d.iii.1
SS e.i.1       1       SS c.ii.1   PP b.ii.1   OS b.i.1    FE c.i.1




SS e.ii.1   Unproven   SS a.i.3    SS c.i.1    SS d.i.1    LD d.ii.1   PP b.ii.1




SS e.ii.2      2       SS c.i.1    LD a.i.3    FE b.ii.5




SS e.ii.3      2       SS a.i.4    LD a.i.1    LD b.ii.1   LD d.ii.1   LD d.iii.1
Local Dynamics Conflict Issues

KeyWords                                                       Paraphrase Description

a. Actor Relationships


                                            It is often the local actor relations that determine a person's
                                            willingness to accept wind installations. Local perception of
i. Local actor relationships are crucial
                                            the developer, investors, permitting authorities,
(resident, developer, authorities, etc…)
                                            landowners, and opposition representatives can greatly
                                            influence a project's outcome.


                                            Local opposition by neighbors of proposed turbines is a
                                            serious roadblock for many projects. This type of opposition
ii. Specific opposition by neighbors of     is commonly written off as NIMBY, though much recent
proposed turbines (often called NIMBY)      research suggests that there are many valid reasons why a
                                            neighbor would oppose a project that go beyond the simple
                                            not in my back yard theory.


                                            Community members generally don't want to be seen as
                                            going against the majority. Research suggests that residents
iii. The "going with the crowd" mentality
                                            without strong opinions will often adopt what they perceive
                                            as the community's majority opinion.


b. Identifying Opposition and Support
Prior to Development


                                           Predetermined opinions of local stakeholders can cause
i. Predetermined "Nay-Sayers" and "Yeah- early and sustained opposition. Alternatively positive
Sayers" can be identified based on certain opinions can lead to support with proper community
opinion criteria                           interaction and planning. Identifying these opinions can be
                                           important.



                                             Politically active residents (specifically those that believe
                                             they have the ability to affect municipal decisions) can
ii. Politically active stakeholders are more
                                             disproportionately affect the tone and direction of discourse
vocal and usually more influential for local
                                             concerning a specific project. Additionally, opponents are
project acceptance.
                                             more likely to actively participate in a public forum than
                                             supporters, as support is often a "passive" position.
c. Dedicated Opposition


                                            Dedicated opposition can lead to lengthy legal and public
                                            battles. Anti-wind power groups organize opposition to
i. Dedicated opposition can arise from a    wind power based largely on idealogy. This could include
single person or from established Anti-     site-specific reasons (i.e. land use, visual impact, wildlife
wind groups.                                impact, political motivations). This is a challenge because it
                                            is impossible to please everyone, but a developer does not
                                            want to come across as condescending either.



d. Negative General Public Opinion

                                            Ensuring early public support and avoiding early significant
i. Early public support or opposition can
                                            opposition is critical. Additionally, resident opinions were
greatly influence the remaining project
                                            shown to drop during the planning and construction phases,
discourse.
                                            enforcing the need for early positive public opinion.

                                            Residents' fear of the unknown is a significant issue during
                                            project planning. This fear causes an inherent distrust of
ii. Fear of the unknown
                                            unknown actors and leads to a "default" position of
                                            opposition for many people.
                                             There is a distinct lack of understanding on the part of
                                             "laymen" citizens about energy dynamics. This includes
iii. Lack of "actionable intelligence" among
                                             enconomic aspects as well as technical. The result is that
common US citizens
                                             residents often have no idea of what their options are or
                                             what a "good deal" is in energy projects.
                                       Frequency
        Sources             CCI Tag
                                        Ranking



 (Krohn, 1998); (Gross,
 2007); (Devine-Wright,
  2005); (Agterbosch,       LD a.i         6
  2009); (Toke, 2008);
     (Jobert, 2007)


 (Krohn, 1998); (Gross,
  2007); (Jobert, 2007);
(Wolsink, 2005); (Devine-
                            LD a.ii        8
 Wright, 2005); (Van der
  Horst, 2007); (Jones,
  2009); (Aitken, 2009)




     (Jones, 2009)          LD a.iii       1




     (Krohn, 1998)          LD b.i         1




(Wolsink, 2000); (Devine-
 Wright, 2005); (Walker,
                            LD b.ii        5
  2008); (Jones, 2009);
    (Beddoe, 2003)
 (Krohn, 1998); (Van der
   Horst, 2007); (Gross,
                           LD c.i     5
   2007); (Toke, 2008);
     (Beddoe, 2003)




(Krohn, 1998); (Wolsink,
 2005): (Van der Horst,    LD d.i     4
  2007); (Jones, 2009)



(Van der Horst, 2007);
                           LD d.ii    2
(Jones, 2009)




(Crocker, 2010)            LD d.iii   1
                    Description by Reference Source




"attitudes towards the developer, local decision makers, and the
decision process have significant influence on the public attitude
towards the project." -(Krohn, 1998)




"Regarding the general attitude towards wind turbines, the picture is
clear. People who own shares in a turbine are significantly more
positive about wind power than people having no economic interest in
the subject. Members of wind cooperatives are more willing to accept
that their neighbour erect a turbine." (from a survey of a Danish town
with a huge amount of wind turbines/ person) -(Krohn, 1998)

A perception of other community members' opinions of the proposals
was shown to have a high correlation with a person's own opinions.
This means that if they do not have a distinct personal opinion, then
they will often mirror that which they assume the majority of their
peers share. -(Jones, 2009)




The Profile of the Nay-sayer
• renewable energy cannot solve our energy problems
• wind turbines are unreliable and dependent on the wind
• wind energy is expensive
• wind turbines spoil the scenery
• wind turbines are noisy




"it is known that the degree of [local political] participation is
dependent of feelings of self-efficacy. Citizens that doubt their ability to
influence decisions are less likely to take any political action than
persons that are more self-confident." -(Wolsink, 2000)
"It takes only one devoted opponent to start for instance a legal
procedure against a planning permit. This is one of the reasons why
public conflicts over wind power plants have become the rule rather
than the exception (Wolsink, 1996)." -(Krohn, 1998)




The early tenor of a wind project debate can set the tone for future
discourse, it is essential to start on a good foot to curb early
opposition. During construction opinions significantly dip, due mostly
to the physical disturbances. -(Krohn, 1998)


A significant percentage of one study's respondents claimed that their
opinions changed positively after expected risks never materialized. -
(Van der Horst, 2007)

George Crocker claims that a lack of knowledge is by far the number
one issue holding back the growth of community owned wind power in
the US. This is because a populace has no incentive to fight for
ownership when they don't comprehend the cost/benefit trade off of
utility power vs. locally produced and owned power. -(Crocker, 2010)
"people in areas with significant public resistance to wind projects
are not against the turbines themselves, they are primarily against
the people who want to build the turbines. Often the local people
are kept out of the decision making process. Some have hostile
attitudes against the developers, the bureaucracy or the politicians
beforehand." -(Krohn, 1998)


Policy makers and developers commonly assume that any opposition
to wind turbines is based on NIMBY attitudes and is therefore invalid
and obstructionist. However, Wolsink posits that most opposition
should not be considered NIMBY outright, and instead arises
frequently from poor developer planning steps, inappropriate project
siting proposals, and exclusion of the local populace. (me)




The Profile of the Yes-sayer
• renewable energy is very much an alternative to other energy
sources
• the climate change theory must be taken seriously
• wind energy is limitless unlike fossil fuels
• wind energy is non polluting
• wind energy is safe



While general opinion is fairly established, public perception of
specific developments is a socially constructed phenomenon. As
such, it is crucial to engage the local populace in a positive manner in
order to most effectively garner support which can then spread
through the community. -(Devine-Wright, 2005)
There are many examples of proponents and opposition using scare-
tactics and secondary concerns as their primary argument in public
debate. This suggests that the developer will have to plan for all
contingencies in a disputed planning situation, not just the rational
ones. -(Van der Horst, 2007)




Prior to introducing a planned project, general opinion is very
positive, during the planning and debate stage of a concrete project,
opinions on whole turn less positive, while after completion opinion
has been observed to rebound significantly once the local populace
becomes accustomed to the facility. -(Wolsink, 2005)
"Attitudes towards concrete projects are site specific. They are
primarily formed by the interaction with central actors and the
extent of involvement of local interests are a major explanatory
factor." -(Krohn, 1998)




The notion of "qualified support" has been used to better explain
previously blamed NIMBY attitudes. It states that while a person
may hold general support for wind power, there may be qualifying
caveats to this support that are not met or are abused in a specific
development setting. -(Jones, 2009)




The Democratic Deficit hypothesis suggests that local opponents
are more likely to act in a public forum than supporters and
therefore can influence disproportionately planning decisions. This
is based on the notion that supporters are often passive actors, as
opposed to active participants and thus a minority opposition can
out-influence a majority (but inactive) support. -(Jones, 2009)
An oppositional campaign tends to be a zero-sum game, its
success and political efficacy measured in terms of all or nothing,
either the project is stopped or it goes ahead. Opponents and
proponents are intractably opposed, each casting the other as an
enemy with no middle ground for negotiation. The success of a
campaign to promote an alternative, in contrast, can be judged in
a much more relative manner, as its effectiveness and progress is
not determined by extrinsic factors such as the construction of a
power plant. -(Maruyama, 2007)
Understanding how a community works and adapts to
changing circumstances is considered essential to
predicting potential impacts from changes, such as
wind development. communities who have healthy
dynamics and are able to work together will almost
certainly present more favorable wind opportunities. -
(Gross, 2007)
Anti-wind groups are probably more of a problem in
areas which have experienced significant wind
development and therefore have a local/ regional
element that has arisen in opposition to the
technology as a whole. (probably for visual or
landscape value reasons) -(me)
Understanding the community dynamics in a targeted setting is a
difficult and complex task. Due to the variation of social,
demographic, and value-based opinions in any community, it is
essential to comprise a more detailed understanding of the
opinions within an area. Particularly, the support/opposition
impact of outside developers should be considered as it affects
local opinion. -(Devine-Wright, 2005)
Local Dynamics Solution
Strategies
Conflict

a. Actor Relationships




i. Local actor relationships are crucial
(resident, developer, authorities, etc…)




ii. Specific opposition by neighbors of
proposed turbines (often called NIMBY)




iii. The "going with the crowd" mentality
b. Identifying Opposition and Support
Prior to Development



i. Predetermined "Nay-Sayers" and "Yeah-
Sayers" can be identified based on certain
opinion criteria




ii. Politically active stakeholders are more
vocal and usually more influential for local
project acceptance.




c. Dedicated Opposition




i. Dedicated opposition can arise from a
single person or from established Anti-wind
groups.
d. Negative General Public Opinion


i. Early public support or opposition can
greatly influence the remaining project
discourse.




ii. Fear of the unknown




iii. Lack of "actionable intelligence" among
common US citizens
                                   Primary Solutions                                         Primary Sources



What connections does the developer have to the target community? Is he/she from
inside the community? Do they have direct ties to the community? The closer the ties,
presumably, the better the reception will be among local residents. This means that
working in communities that you already have ties in is great. But, for unknown        (Olive, 2010); (Gross,
communities, it is a very good idea to develop connections prior to presenting any        2007); (Jobert,
formal proposals to the residents. This can greatly improve the level of trust between    2007); (Crocker
developer and community. Building a network with a variety of local actors can greatly          2010)
improve a project's chances of success. Incorporating potential opposition into this
network via project design mechanisms or shared ownership can swap this potential
opposition into qualified support.

communities who have healthy dynamics and are able to work together will almost
certainly present more favorable wind opportunities (Gross, 2007). Communities in
                                                                                          (Olive, 2010); (Gross,
which residents commonly conflict with each other will present more difficult
                                                                                             2007; (Warren,
challenges when trying to get people to agree and compromise on sensitive issues.
                                                                                                   2009)
Therefore it will be helpful to identify these "healthy dynamics" as they exist in
potential target communities.
If attempting to promote several developments in the same area, then it may be a
good idea to coordinate with other owners/ developers in order to create an
                                                                                       (Agterbosch, 2009);
association with the purpose of positively promoting locally based wind power. This
                                                                                          (Olive, 2010);
organization could also engage with local authorities to promote a coordinated "action
                                                                                         (Beddoe, 2003)
plan" in the area that would improve the perception and process of wind
development.

Neighboring landowners are particularly important to address due to the fact that they
are directly impacted by an adjacent proposed development and their subsequent
likelihood to present strong opposition if they feel wronged. They should be contacted
                                                                                              (Gross, 2007);
early on in the process, should be given an opportunity to participate in the planning
                                                                                              (Jobert, 2007);
process, and if possible, be presented with the opportunity to share ownership by
                                                                                             (Karlsson, 2009)
investing in the project (or through "neighbor land leases"). These steps all help to
ensure the perceived "process fairness". If negotiations are held "behind the back" of
the landowner's neighbors then serious resentment and opposition can arise.


Friends and family tend to hold similar opinions about specific wind farm proposals.
Therefore, it is crucial to start the planning process on favorable public footing in order
                                                                                              (Devine-Wright,
to begin a cascade effect of public support among relations and friends. Furthermore,
                                                                                            2005); (Jones, 2009)
when experiencing a majority of support in the local community it may be good to
advertise this in order to try to sway any uncommitted residents to "join the crowd".
Identify potential opposition and support through short surveys about pre-held beliefs
of wind power to determine general support/ opposition in the area and identify allies/
opponents early. How/Who: (via mail or phone survey perhaps) Try to determine                (Olive, 2010);
individual opinions of local stakeholders, particularly those within a certain radius of    (Devine-Wright,
the proposed turbines (1-5 miles). These should be short and easy to fill out in order to 2005); (Jones, 2009)
increase response rates. Door-to-door questioning may also be possible depending on
population density.

Identify, engage, and "recruit" local leaders to support the wind project within the
community. Look beyond official leaders for local residents that are self confident in
their ability to participate in and influence political debates as these are often the ones (Olive, 2010); (Toke,
who are most active when debate begins. This should be done as early as possible in             2008); (Jobert,
order to guide the tenor of debate and to minimize boisterous opposition when early            2007); (Crocker,
opinions are being formed in the community. Solution Caveat: This could potentially                 2010)
backfire if politically active residents insight conflict rather than rally support within the
community.




When dealing with a dedicated minority it is important to first of all accept their
position as a valid argument in order to present an open and compromising
appearance to the community. Project design changes should then be considered that
would allay these objections. If compromise is not possible, then you can use ethical,         (Olive, 2010);
environmental, and economic rationales to convince the majority of the remaining               (Aitken, 2009)
public that the concerns of the minority in question do not outweigh the greater good
of the community. If the concerns are held by a majority rather than minority, then
you might need to consider major project alterations.

Alternatively, the developer can choose to isolate a minority opposition and discredit
their arguments. This can be done by developing allies within the community that will
help invalidate the opposition argument and help raise support among a majority of             (Jobert, 2007)
residents. Solution Caveat: This is a dangerous tactic though as it can incite heated
resistance. It should only be used when deemed absolutely appropriate.

Public meetings should be civil and organized. Attendance could be limited to only
include local community residents and directly involved stakeholders (transmission
operators, financiers, regulators, construction contractors). This may minimize the
                                                                                               (Gross, 2007)
influence of external groups (such as organized anti/pro-wind groups). Solution
Caveat: This may be seen as actor exclusion if an excluded group can claim a perceived
legimitate reason for its presence.
Jones's findings suggest that local financial incentives are attractive in stimulating
active pro-wind groups in the area, which have been shown to increase the chances of
wind project success. These types of incentives could be directed at local non-profits,
                                                                                                 (Jones, 2009)
schools, community center, or special municipal projects. Solution Caveat: financial
motivations, while often effective, have also been shown to backfire do to accusations
of "bribery" and "pay-offs".



Early public opinion can significantly influence the reception a particular project
receives within the community. Therefore, transparent planning practices and effective
early stage communication with the local community is essential... Because public
                                                                                                 (Olive, 2010);
opinion of wind power is generally favorable before a concrete plan is introduced, this
                                                                                                (Beddoe, 2003)
initial goodwill can and should be encouraged in order to minimize the dip in
favorability commonly seen during planning/pre-operation stages.


A useful tactic is to very clearly explain what the final product will look like, sound like,
and what affects it will have on the environment/wildlife. This can be done using visual
                                                                                              (Olive, 2010); (Jones,
approximations of the final product as well as by conducting appropriate impact
                                                                                                2009); (Beddoe,
studies. Additionally, all impact assessments should be conducted by or under
                                                                                                2003); (Crocker,
supervision of independent firms and should be made available in full to the entire
                                                                                                      2010)
community as well as to the permit regulators. These steps should be done as early as
possible, before any negative press is circulated.


The developer must make an early and dedicated effort to educate the target
community about energy matters. This includes basic technical concepts such as how it
is produced and transmitted and economic aspects that determine who benefits based
on the different types of energy consumed. Particularly, what happens to the wealth
created by the community from energy use (electric payments)? who benefits from
this wealth? how does the community benefit or suffer from this arrangement? In this            (Crocker, 2010)
manner the local populace will be far better prepared to make informed decisions
regarding the type of development they wish to support in their area. While there are
still trade offs and risks associated with a community oriented scheme, this knowledge
will help level the debating field vs. the traditionally accepted and unquestioned
centralized utility power model.
Solution Strategy   Frequency
                                                         Collaborative Solutions
      ID Tag         Ranking




    LD a.i.1           3        SS e.ii.3   LD a.iii.1   LD b.ii.1     PP c.i.2     OS a.iii.1




    LD a.i.2           2        SS c.ii.1   LD b.i.1     LD d.iii.1




    LD a.i.3           2        SS e.ii.3   SS e.ii.2    OS a.ii.2     FE b.ii.5




    LD a.ii.1          3        SS c.i.1    SS c.ii.1    LD a.i.2      LD a.iii.1   LD c.i.4




    LD a.iii.1         2        SS c.i.1    LD a.i.1     LD d.iii.1
LD b.i.1    2   SS c.ii.1   LD b.ii.1




LD b.ii.1   3   SS e.ii.3   LD a.i.1    LD b.i.1     LD d.iii.1




LD c.i.1    1   SS a.i.2    SS c.ii.1   SS d.i.1     LD b.ii.1    LD d.iii.1




LD c.i.2    1   SS e.i.1    LD b.ii.1   PP c.ii.1




LD c.i.3    1   LD a.i.2    LD b.ii.1   LD d.iii.1   PP c.i.2
LD c.i.4     1   SS e.i.1   LD a.ii.1




LD d.i.1     1   SS a.i.4   SS c.i.1    SS e.ii.3   LD a.i.1   LD a.iii.1




LD d.ii.1    3   SS a.i.3   SS c.i.1    SS c.ii.1   LD c.i.3   LD d.iii.1




LD d.iii.1   1   SS d.i.1   LD a.i.3    LD d.ii.1   FE c.i.1    FE c.i.2
PP a.i.1   OS a.i.1   OS b.i.2
PP b.i.1
LD b.ii.1   LD d.ii.1   LD d.iii.1   FE c.i.1   FE c.i.2   FE c.i.3




PP b.ii.2   PP.b.i.2    OS a.ii.1    FE c.i.1   FE c.i.2   FE c.i.3




FE c.i.3    FE c.i.4
Participatory Planning Conflict Issues

KeyWords

a. Exclusion of Stakeholders



i. Exclusive, top-down style decision making incites
local opposition




b. Disrespecting/Misinterpreting Local
Stakeholders



i. Respecting the existence, validity, and influence
of stakeholder concerns during project design and
not taking resident reactions for granted




ii. Poor communication between Developers and
Stakeholders




c. Perceived Equity and Fairness in Planning
Process




i. Local Stakeholders perception of fairness and
transparency in the planning process
ii. Perception of "winners and losers" in the
community




Notes




Perceived secrecy, insufficient community
discussion, and inequitable distribution of benefits
were cited as the three main reasons that residents
found the process unfair and thus the outcome
unacceptable. -(Gross, 2007)
                   Paraphrase Description                                   Sources                 CCI Tag



Top-down decision making regarding wind installations is a        (Krohn, 1998); (Gross, 2007);
sure-fire way to stir up opposition. The decide-announce-       (Devine-Wright, 2005); (Walker,
                                                                                                    PP a.i
defend model is a classic example of exclusive planning, and       2008); (Agterbosch, 2009);
usually leads to opposition.                                     (Wolsink, 2000); (Jobert, 2007)




Developers must embrace the fact that people and local
opinions have a strong influence on individual projects. Taking
                                                                (Wolsink, 2000); (Wolsink, 2005);
a position of superiority or righteousness will inevitably
                                                                   (Toke, 2008); (Agterbosch,
alienate many local residents. "It is one of the most common                                        PP b.i
                                                                 2009); (Aitken, 2009); (Crocker
mistakes in facility siting to take general support for granted
                                                                              2010)
and to expect people to welcome developments they claim to
support." -(Wolsink, 2000)

"Communication always misses its targets when it does not
address the real concerns of the people to whom the message
                                                              (Krohn, 1998); (Wolsink, 2005);
is directed." -(Wolsink, 2005) This poor communication can
                                                                (Gross, 2007); (ReFocus, Jan        PP b.ii
lead to misunderstandings, bad information circulating in the
                                                                   2004); (Crocker, 2010)
community, and ultimately decrease the chances of project
success.




Perceived equity and fairness are extremely influential factors.
                                                                 (Wolsink, 2005); (Gross, 2007);
Transparency in the planning process, particularly regarding
                                                                    (Devine-Wright, 2005);
local actor negotiations, is also very important. Most residents
                                                                  (Agterbosch, 2009); (Aitken,       PP c.i
are more concerned with process fairness than with the
                                                                 2009); (Sovacool, 2008); (Toke,
ultimate outcome as a fair process should ensure a fair
                                                                     2008); (Crocker, 2010)
outcome for the community. -(Gross, 2007)
Local stakeholders often feel that the process and outcome    (Gross, 2007); (Karlsson, 2009);
favors one person or group over another, leading to perceived   (Agterbosch, 2009); (Jobert,     PP c.ii
unfairness                                                                2007)




 "The success of wind power depends on how well the wind
 industry learns to include the public in decisions, both for the
 opportunities this allows for broader dissemination of
 information about wind power and for the suggestions the
 public can contribute to the discussion of their concerns and
 how to accommodate them" -(Wolsink, 2005)
Frequency
                                Description by Reference Source
 Ranking



            "If the opposition is to be minimised all involved parties have to be
            offered real opportunities for influence on a project (Wolsink, 1996).
   7
            Decision making over the heads of the local people is the direct way to
            protests." -(Krohn, 1998)




            "Policy actors and wind-power developers should direct themselves
            towards building up institutional capital for wind power and other
            renewable resources, instead of complaining about public attitudes.
   6
            This implies that more open planning practises are needed. These can
            only emerge from reducing the arrogance of utilities, wind power
            developers, and public bodies involved." -(Wolsink 2000)


            Poor communication concerning the process of planning decisions can
            lead to some stakeholders feeling excluded, tricked, or mislead. They
            may also feel un-confident about whether they've had the
   5
            opportunities to participate if the process is unclear to the public. This
            often creates opposition among stakeholders who might otherwise
            support the project-(Gross, 2007)




            "negative perceptions of wind farms may be motivated not only by
            negative evaluations of visual impact but also by a sense of lack of
            control over development or land use planning processes, and
   8        dissatisfaction with these procedures." Finally, he contends that
            development attempts that emphasize "high and authentic levels of
            public participation" are more likely to encourage greater planning
            success and lower levels of public opposition. -(Devine-Wright, 2005)
    The lack of information and the perceived subversiveness of early
    landholder negotiations caused a boisterous opposition to arise. This
    opposition in turn was seen as drowning out the pro-view point and the
4   result was a divided community in which clear winners and losers were
    identified. Winners being those landowners receiving income and
    losers being those situated near but not receiving income. -(Gross,
    2007)




     "Bad communication can always lead to problems, but the key
     question is always why there is bad communication. It is mostly
     caused by the way decision making is framed, e.g. by limiting the
     options for public participation to only consultation after the design
     and announcement of a project [45,46,59]. As regards wind power
     implementation, neither specific nor ‘top–down’ imposed decision
     making is likely to be as effective as a collaborative approach. It is a
     perfect example of the need for open-ness in the process and the
     avoidance of technocratic and corporatist based elite decision
     making." -(Wolsink, 2005)
The lack of perception of being "heard" by residents within the
decision process was felt by all respondents. Furthermore, as a result
of this lack of input ability an opposition group formed and became
dominant in the discourse, possibly presenting an inaccurate picture of
the community's actual feelings towards the proposal. -(Gross, 2007)




Developers and planners consistently assume that their proposal
should be accepted simply because it is "Clean" wind energy. Thus any
objections are the result of NIMBY attitudes or poor communication. -
(Wolsink, 2005)



National Media coverage often drives general public opinion. The
media's thirst for headline stories often leads them to stir up
controversy. This was true in the town of Helmsdale in Scotland where
a media frenzy gave an anti-wind farm group overwhelming coverage.
"As a consequence most of the constructive information about the
proposals was lost." -(Refocus, Jan/Feb 2004)




Trust issues, relating to a resident's ability to trust their city council to
equitably, transparently and fairly handle the wind development
process were significant for the target group. They showed that as
trust increased, positive attitudes towards the specific proposals
increased and vice versa. -(Jones, 2009)
People develop perceptions of who in the community are winners and
losers before an official outcome is even produced. This shows that the
notion of process fairness greatly affects a person's view of outcome
fairness, without even an official outcome to judge by. -(Gross, 2007)
A majority of European responders did not think that their opinion
would affect decision makers' judgements on RE development. This
indicates that a planning strategy that actually does allow local input
in actual design decisions may surprise residents, thus improving local
opinion. -(Devine-Wright, 2005)




"Attitudes towards wind power are fundamentally different from
attitudes towards wind farms, and this distinction is at the heart of
most public attitude misunderstandings." (Wolsink, 2005)




"Lack of communication between the people who, shall live with the
turbines, and the developers, the local bureaucracy, and the
politicians seems to be the perfect catalyst for converting local
skepticism, and negative attitudes into actual actions against specific
projects. Conversely, information and dialogue is the road to
acceptance." -(Krohn, 1998)




These are often tied to bad communication between developer and
local stakeholders, particularly concerning the planning and decision
process. Stakeholders have claimed that insufficient information
regarding the process caused them to object, this is a "process
fairness" issue-(Gross, 2007)
"Mostly projects are planned first and third party
acceptance is requested later, according to the decide-
announce-defend model. This practise tends to offend
other parties and turns out to be destructive for achieving
wind-power capacity." -(Wolsink, 2000)




Assumptions that public support will lead to public
acceptance have blinded some developers to the
challenges associated with wind power. The economics and
technological barriers are often considered the greatest
obstacles, while in reality the local opposition/support can
prove far more facilitating, or restrictive. (Wolsink, 2005;
me)
This is a fundamental mistake often made. Developers tout
the importance of clean energy for global reasons while local
concerns are often not addressed or considered important.
This leads to direct conflict with a local populace who is in
nearly every case principally concerned with local issues
(sighting, fairness, annoyance). (multiple sources; me)
Participatory Planning
Solution Strategies
Conflict

a. Exclusion of Stakeholders




i. Exclusive, top-down style decision
making incites local opposition




b. Disrespecting/Misinterpreting Local
Stakeholders




i. Respecting the existence, validity, and
influence of stakeholder concerns
during project design and not taking
resident reactions for granted




ii. Poor communication between
Developers and Stakeholders
ii. Poor communication between
Developers and Stakeholders




c. Perceived Equity and Fairness in
Planning Process




i. Local Stakeholders perception of
fairness and transparency in the
planning process




ii. Perception of "winners and losers" in
the community
                                  Primary Solutions                                        Primary Sources


                                                                                            (Wolsink, 2000);
It is absolutely essential that local stakeholders be included in the project design        (Wolsink, 2005);
stages by the developer. This should be done as early as possible and should include     (Warren, 2009); (Toke,
as many stakeholders as possible. Top-down enforcement is a "direct way to                2008); (Jones, 2009);
protests". The "decide" (of Decide-Announce-Defend) MUST include local                  (Beddoe, 2003); (Gross,
stakeholder input and should be subject to prior review by the community.                 2007); (Agterbosch,
                                                                                                  2009)

Including greater "local control" will allow the community to influence such
important factors as siting, size, and investment opportunities. This has been shown (Krohn, 1998); (Walker,
to enhance local acceptance for wind projects. "A participative approach in the         2008); (Warren, 2009);
siting procedure has a positive effect on the public attitude towards the project, and   (Agterbosch, 2009);
thus leads to a decrease in public resistance. What matters is involvement of the      (Aitken, 2009); (Crocker,
local population in the siting procedure, transparent planning processes, and a high             2010)
information level. People want to be Involved." -(Krohn, 1998)




Developers must respect the opinions of and engage in a dialogue with local
stakeholders during project design. If possible, utility representatives, regulators,
                                                                                        (Olive, 2010); (Devine-
and local politicians should also be encouraged to engage local residents seriously
                                                                                        Wright, 2005); (Beddoe,
and professionally. Additionally, developers should never assume they know what
                                                                                         2003); (Aitken, 2009)
and why a stakeholder's reaction is going to be. These reactions should be asked in
order to avoid developer arrogance and actor misunderstandings.

 Every issue raised by the community should be responded to with rational
argument explaining why the issue should not pose a negative impact to the
                                                                                        (Gross, 2007); (Jones,
community. Similarly, It is important to understand the underlying motivations
                                                                                        2009); (Beddoe, 2003)
behind each actor's objectives in order to address these causes at the root, rather
than symptomatically.

Developers must investigate the specific concerns of the local residents in order to     (Olive, 2010); (Jones,
highlight the aspects of the wind project that specifically deal with these concerns…   2009); (Beddoe, 2003);
Rather than giving a generic, "this is why wind is good" presentation.                      (Crocker, 2010)
The developer should take responsibility for setting up clear channels of
communication with stakeholders, and not rely on the municipality to engage               (Olive, 2010); (Gross,
residents concerning project information and soliciting comments from these               2007); (Jones, 2009);
stakeholders. By initiating the communications process the developer can set the        (Beddoe, 2003); (Crocker,
tone in which residents are engaged and present their case directly to the                         2010)
community.

The media must be engaged early on in a positive manner so as to minimize the           (Olive, 2010); (ReFocus,
possibility of sensationalist negative coverage. This type of negative coverage,          Jan 2004); (Beddoe,
particularly in the US, can be rapid and devastating, even if it is born out of lies.    2003); (Jobert, 2007)




Objectors may ultimately accept a decision to proceed as long as they feel they were
treated fairly during the decision process, this is called the "fair process effect".
                                                                                          (Gross, 2007); (Jones,
Research also suggests that "one of the key ways in which a climate of trust can be
                                                                                           2009); (Agterbosch,
fostered is through responsive and fair engagement with host communities and
                                                                                           2009); (Toke, 2008);
through encouraging local, co-operative ownership of projects." -(Jones, 2009).
                                                                                             (Crocker, 2010)
Engaging community members using understandable terms and a transparent
negotiating process can help improve the projects image greatly.


The tone and timing of community meetings should be carefully considered in order
to promote meaningful stakeholder participation while minimizing obstructionist
demonstrations. (The ESTEEM workshop seems like a good way of doing this, but
that is recommended fairly late in the planning process and I believe this should be
                                                                                     (Olive, 2010); (Beddoe,
done early and more than once). Beddoe recommends that "exhibitions" be
                                                                                              2003)
conducted in which project ideas are presented and citizens are allowed to engage in
"one-to-one" conversations with developer representatives. This is beleived to
minimize the mob mentality often present in open meetings and cultivate a more
positive interaction between residents and developer.


Transparency is the number one requirement here. However, if benefits are not
distributed equitably in line with the community's perception of who is going to bear
the costs (visual, auditory, loss of income, etc...) then more is needed. It will be
                                                                                         (Olive, 2010); (Beddoe,
important to include some form of shared ownership or royalty payments,
                                                                                         2009); (Crocker, 2010);
particularly with these perceived "losers". Including project conditions that benefit
                                                                                              (Jobert, 2007)
the entire community can also reduce this issue (Though the bribery caveat comes
into play here as well). Some examples could include revenue dedicated to the
municipality, or specific recipients such as schools, hospitals or community centers.
Solution Strategy   Frequency
                                                Collaborative Solutions
      ID Tag         Ranking




    PP a.i.1           8        SS a.i.2   LD a.ii.1     LD b.i.1     LD b.ii.1   LD c.i.3




    PP a.i.2           6        SS a.i.2   LD c.i.1      PP.b.i.2     PP b.ii.1   OS a.i.1




    PP b.i.1           4        LD a.i.1   LD a.ii.1    LD b.ii.1     LD c.i.3    PP a.i.1




    PP.b.i.2           3        LD c.i.1   LD c.i.3     LD d.iii.1    PP a.i.2




    PP b.ii.1          3        SS e.i.1   SS d.i.1      LD a.i.1     LD b.i.1    LD c.i.3
PP b.ii.2   4   SS a.i.4    SS e.ii.1   SS e.ii.2   SS e.ii.3   LD a.i.3




PP b.ii.3   3   SS a.i.3    SS a.i.4    SS e.ii.3   LD a.i.3    LD b.ii.1




PP c.i.1    5   SS a.i.2    SS d.i.1    LD a.ii.1   LD c.i.1    LD d.i.1




PP c.i.2    1   SS a.i.4    SS e.ii.3   LD a.i.2    LD b.ii.1   LD c.i.3




PP c.ii.1   3   SS e.ii.1   LD a.ii.1   LD c.i.3    LD d.ii.1   PP a.i.1
PP.b.i.2   PP c.i.1




OS a.i.2   OS b.i.1   OS b.i.2   OS b.ii.3   OS b.ii.4




                                                         Although local attitudes are rooted
                                                             in personal preferences, the
                                                            decision/planning process can
                                                            influence public opinion both
                                                         positively and negatively. This is a
                                                              critical area to consider for
                                                              developers… (Krohn, 1998)
LD d.ii.1   OS a.iii.1




LD d.ii.1   LD d.iii.1   PP b.ii.2   PP c.ii.1    OS a.ii.1   OS a.iii.1




PP b.ii.2




PP b.ii.2   PP c.i.2     OS a.ii.1   OS a.iii.1   OS b.i.1
Ownership Structure Conflict
Issues
KeyWords                                                   Paraphrase Description

a. Design of Ownership Structure

                                            People who own shares in a turbine exhibit
                                            significantly more positive opinions about wind
i. Those who own shares are much more
                                            power than people having no economic interest in a
likely to approve of wind projects
                                            project. This is a key area to consider when designing
                                            community inclusive projects.



                                            The complexity of some ownership structures makes
                                            them extremely confusing legally intensive.
ii. Complexity of many ownership
                                            Combined with different regulatory situations across
structures and the difficulty replicating
                                            the US, this complexity also makes it difficult to
structures in other locations
                                            replicate certain ownership structures in some
                                            situations.


                                            When investors or developers come from outside
                                            the community there is often an inate sense of
iii. Opposition to external owners/         distrust within the community. People feel that they
developers                                  are being set up to be taken advantage of. If they
                                            don't trust the developer they will undoubtedly
                                            resist the development.


b. Types of Ownership Structure;
Associated Issues
                                            Community owned projects are often the most
                                            accepted within the target community, but also
                                            encounter some of the most difficult financial
i. Community owned projects                 hurdles. A single landowner developing a wind
                                            project is owned within the community, but does not
                                            spread ownership out, as such this is seen as more of
                                            a privately owned project.


                                            These structures can include aspects of community
                                            owned proejcts, but will also include some outside
ii. Co-operative ownership structures       investment as well. These are often necessary to
                                            access enough capital and incentives to make a
                                            project economically feasible.
                                         These structures involve the creation of a "limited
                                         liability company" (LLC) in order to harness the
                                         benefits of corporate regulation while preventing
                                         personal property liability due to part-project
iii. LLC structures
                                         ownership. These structures could also go under the
                                         "ii. Co-operative ownership structures" heading.
                                         They have become common in the US for involving
                                         some level of community ownership.



                                         This is the most common form of wind farm
                                         ownership in the US by far. The traditional style
                                         includes a private/ corporate developer that pays for
                                         and owns a wind farm on a local landowners
iv. Non-community ownership structures   property. The landowner is then paid a "leasing" fee
                                         for the duration of the project which may be tied to
                                         production or set at a standard rate. All other
                                         revenue is earned by the owner, while all visual and
                                         other impacts are born by the affected community.
                                     Frequency
       Sources            CCI Tag
                                      Ranking




(Krohn, 1998); (Devine-
    Wright, 2005);        OS a.i        3
  (Maruyama, 2007)




(Devine-Wright, 2005);
   (Crocker, 2010);
                          OS a.ii       4
   (Bolinger, 2006);
    (Walker, 2008)




(Toke, 2008); (Jobert,
                          OS a.iii      3
2007); (Crocker, 2010)




   (Warren, 2009);
  (Maruyama, 2007);       OS b.i        3
    (Crocker, 2010)




    (Toke, 2008);
                          OS b.ii       2
  (Maruyama, 2007)
(Bolinger, 2006)    OS b.iii   1




(Bolinger, 2006);
                    OS b.iv    2
 (Crocker, 2010)
                 Description by Reference Source


"Regarding the general attitude towards wind turbines, the picture
is clear. People who own shares in a turbine are significantly more
positive about wind power than people having no economic
interest in the subject. Members of wind cooperatives are more
willing to accept that their neighbour erect a turbine." (from a
survey of a Danish town with a huge amount of wind
turbines/person) -(Krohn, 1998)




The targeted community must be understood, socially, politically,
and in a regulatory sense in order to employ ownership structures
from other examples




This is tied to the Participatory Planning issues and the Local
Dynamics described in DSM sections 2 and 3. Local opinion of a
developer is critical to creating a smooth discourse and ultimately
with winning public support.




Some major drawbacks related to community developed/ owned
wind farms: Reduced economies of scale and a greater
administrative burden compared to large, private sector windfarms.
This financial and administrative burden means that the community
route is not realistic for all rural communities. -(Warren, 2009)




"Co-operatives involve large numbers of people investing in wind
power, hence enlarging the pro-wind power lobby at a both local
and national level. It seems that the public-participative style of
ownership that has been typical of much German wind
developments (including the corporate sector) has improved the
political profile of wind power" -(Toke, 2008)
"An LLC, combines the single taxation of a partnership... with the
limited liability of a corporation, and is also sufficiently flexible to
serve as an investment vehicle organized according to cooperative
principles. In this way, an LLC can offer many of the benefits of a
[true] cooperative (e.g., open membership, democratic control),
without the associated financial restrictions (e.g., benefits tied to
patronage rather than investment, difficulty using tax-based
incentives)."




This type of ownership structure typically raises the most objection
from local residents because they are usually given the least
amount of influence in project design. They also are excluded from
project ownership and thus, generally, will not receive any
economic compensation outside of the landowner leases. However,
the incentive system as its written in the US today makes this the
most economically and legally feasible option for utility scale
development.
Danish studies show that economic involvement in
cooperative wind farm ownership is associated with
"significantly more positive" attitudes towards wind energy
and greater willingness to accept further turbine
development in the area than those not involved in an
ownership scheme. -(Devine-Wright, 2005)


Irish responders had a very low rate of interest in investing in
wind farms. This could be explained by a lack of knowledge
about investment opportunities and advantages, as well as a
general difference in "the socio-cultural approach to wind
farm development" in Ireland, which is similar to that of the
US in terms of large scale, more centralized expectations
than those of Denmark. -(Devine-Wright, 2005)




The traditional "cooperative" format in which users own the
service and extract benefit through their own use of it is a
common practice among farmers with regard to agricultural
ventures. However, because this structure would require the
cooperation of the distributing utility (in order to distribute
and balance this power), this is very unlikely in most parts of
the country.

Examples from England indicate… "However, it has been
argued that these exceptions [local ownership examples in
England] demonstrate that there are financial possibilities for
local ownership and that it is lack of effort that is the reason
for the relative scarcity of local ownership of wind power in
the UK" -(Toke, 2008)
These examples are specifically designed for operation in the
US. They draw on aspects of the "co-operative ownership
structures" suggested in OS b.ii…, but are highly detailed and
include regulatory restraints as they exist today.




"While hosting wind turbines can provide a much needed
boost in income to farmers struggling to maintain their
livelihood, the lease payments made to farmers by
commercial wind project developers typically pale in
comparison to the amount of income the farmer could earn
if he instead owned the turbine himself, or in conjunction
with other members of his local community... For each utility-
scale wind turbine they host on their land, farmers may
receive income in the range of $2000–$10,000/year in lease
or royalty payments." -(Bolinger, 2006)
Ownership Structure
Solution Strategies
Conflict

a. Design of Ownership Structure




i. Those who own shares are
much more likely to approve of
wind projects




ii. Complexity of many ownership
    structures and the difficulty
   replicating structures in other
              locations




iii. Opposition to external
owners/ developers




b. Types of Ownership Structure;
Associated Issues
i. Community owned projects




ii. Co-operative ownership
structures
ii. Co-operative ownership
structures
iii. LLC structures
iv. Non-community ownership
structures
                                              Primary Solutions



It is essential to establish economic opportunities for local stakeholders, particularly those owning land near
any proposed development. These could be in the form of royalty/ lease payments that go beyond the
individual landowner's property in which the turbines are to be placed ("visual infringement leases"). Or,
more effectively and community empowering would be to offer opportunities to invest as part owners to all
local residents owning homes within a certain radius of the project or all residents that reside in that
community.

Beyond economic ties, it has been shown that establishing a psychological ownership connection with the
project in the community can have a powerful positive effect on people's opinions of the development.
Example in Japan: Hokkaido Green Fund (HGF; non profit org) works with communities to develop wind and
other RE sources. HGF promoted the concepts of emotional community ownership in order to personalize
the proposed projects: □ Investors were issued certificates of ownership □ Investors were invited to
inscribe their name on the actual windmill □ Turbines were given nicknames by the community □
Ceremonial events were held at the completion of turbine for investors and local community members. -
(Maruyama, 2007)

Any ownership structure developed must be very clearly described to all possible investors. Using
complicated legal arrangements may be helpful financially, but it could also alienate hesitant or confused
residents. Unfortunately this complexity is often necessary to capture federal incentives, but any
arrangement made should be very clearly defined to the local community including all changes to the
arrangement that will come into play in the future.

Several examples of successful community owned projects include a partnership between the community
and a trust/ organization that had expertise in wind development, particularly in how to set up innovative
ownership and investment mechanisms. This partnership is intended to increase a local developer/ owner's
ability to navigate the complexity involved. It can also increase the level of trust between the community and
the developer if they see that the project is being supervised by an established organization that they are
familiar with. This does not have to be an ownership partnership, but more of a consulting endeavor.

Building trust with local residents is the key here. This can be done through direct engagement with key local
leaders and by conducting transparent negotiations with residents and corporate stakeholders. Additionally,
education is absolutely necessary for communities that do not know much about energy production. The
more a community is knowledgable, the more they can make informed choices based on rational and factual
information. The issues discussed in the Local Dynamics and Participatory Planning sections are essential to
consider when approaching a community as an "outsider".
The ownership structure used on the island of Ghiga (Scotland) is very intriguing. The community has formed
a trust that is dedicated to revitalizing the entire community via investment in infrastructure, schools, etc…
This trust, owned entirely by the local residents, is the sole owner of a wind farm on the island (after a short
5 year equity period by a commercial partner was paid off). This has meant that all residents benefit from the
extra income via improvements to the community. -(Warren, 2009) This is not exactly a for-profit structure
that could be utilized by single or small groups of owners, but the idea is very interesting, particularly for
smaller communities in the midwest that have suffered greatly from unemployment, out-migration, and
other economic troubles. The management of the farm could provide a few part-time jobs and the income
generated could be used to revitalize the community via schools, transport, civic centers, etc... (Olive, 2010)
This project has proven to be very profitable, and the revenue has been reinvested into the Gihga
community, improving infrastructure and reversing a long trend of out-migration. More investigation would
have to be done to determine the legal requirements and tax liability in this case, but it could prove to be
very valuable for eligible communities.


HGF funded community wind project in Japan used an innovative method of ownership "shares". It setup a
local investment pool which was dedicated to local residents as first option owners. It then expanded the
offering to a "Japan Fund" which allowed any Japanese citizen to buy up remaining shares in the project.
Each share owner was issued ownership certificates, allowed to inscribe their name on the actual turbine,
invited to submit nickname options, and invited to the commissioning ceremony. -(Maruyama, 2007)
This, like Gihga, has also proven profitable and has been replicated many times in Japan. The concepts of
personal ownership demonstrated by the "certificates", participation in the commissioning ceremony, and
nicknaming are excellent means of promoting local attachment to the wind turbines which has been shown
to greatly improve public sentiment. By offering shares to local residents first they have improved the
concepts of local ownership. expanding offers nationally improves the ability to raise capital and spreads
knowledge and participation in wind power across the country.

There are examples of developers sharing ownership with local residents or with the local municipality
directly. This has multiple benefits. First off, if a larger developer is involved they will bring more financial
weight and flexibility to the project. They will in turn, presumably, receive a warmer welcome from the
community which is now acting as a partner to the project. And the community will realize significant
economic returns with the production revenue while also maintaining a personal connection to the project
via actual part-ownership. Specific examples of this structure which have been designed for the US can be
seen in the "OS iii. LLC Structures" following this subsection.
Similarly to the HGF fund, the concept of selling "shares" in the project has been shown to be an effective
strategy for both promoting local ownership and associated acceptance as well as for raising the significant
capital from otherwise uncapable individuals. The concept of 1000 part shares has been used by (Karlsson,
2009) to significant success in Sweden. He offers first investment opportunities to the leasing landowner
followed by immediate neighbors and then expanding radially through the community. I believe this is an
excellent strategy, but would add a caveat that the immediate neighbors be guaranteed an opportunity to
invest a minimum percent of the total project (perhaps 10% or more depending on neighbor density). This
should be combined with early and open communication between all local landowners in order to minimize
the "winners and losers" mentality. Solution Option Caveat: As shown in the LLC structures section, share
offerings in the US are subject to registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which can
incur significant costs and complicated legal proceedings.


Sharing ownership and revenues with the municipality would be an effective method of garnering political
support among municipal officials. The revenue could be shared based on the county providing land for the
project, backing it using municipal bonds, or helping with transmission system upgrades/PPA agreements.
The extra revenue for the municipality, either in the form of tax or a direct project municipality sharing
agreement would presumably strengthen the image of the project's benefit on the community. Solution
Caveat: This type of strategy has been called "bribery" in some case studies and has been shown to backfire
at times. People may not like the idea of being "bought" and could develop very strong negative opinions as
a result.


An adaptation on OS b.ii.3: (Olive, 2010), is to create a revenue sharing partnership with a specific entity in
the community. Pairing up with a school, hospital, firehouse, community center, homeless shelter, local non-
profit, university etc… may help improve the image of a project, particularly if the developer is an "outsider".
There could also be a sliding scale of ownership transfer over time as the developer/owners earn their
anticipated return on investment, then an increasing portion of ownership could be transferred to the local
entity. This is similar in operation to the "flip structures" described below, but instead of a corporate partner
there would be a local organization/ institution partner. Solution Caveat: see OS b.ii.3: (Olive, 2010)


The "simple" multiple local owner structure is set up as a share issuing LLC company. In this case, the
developer group will issue shares (approx $1,000 - $5,000 minimum) to interested investors as a means of
raising equity. These investors will then be owners proportionally to the amount they've invested and will
share the revenue accordingly. This is similar to the Japanese HGF case as well as many northern European
examples. Unfortunately, in the US, a company raising equity through share offerings is required to register
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This usually requires tens of thousands of dollars in legal
fees, even if an exemption is ultimately granted. This can be prohibitive for smaller shared projects.
Additionally, the difficulty accessing the PTC may still be present. Each individual investor is eligible to claim
their proportional amount of the PTC, but if they don't have a sufficient passive income tax burden to offset
this smaller fraction of the credit they're entitled to claim, then they will still not be able to benefit from the
PTC . However, as many farmers do collect some rental income through field, pasture, or machinery rentals,
then the smaller PTC amounts eligible to each part-owner may make this a viable structure in certain
circumstances.
"Minnesota Flip Structure": entails a partnership between a single landowner and a larger corporate entity.
The corporate partner typically contributes 99% of financing as equity and then receives the proportional
revenue, RECs, and importantly the PTC and accelerated depreciation benefits for the duration of these
incentives. After the PTC expires (10 years), or a minimum payback threshold is reached, the corporate
partner "flips" its 99% stake over to the landowner in exchange for his/her 1% stake. The landowner is then
able to receive the bulk of the production revenue without any debt obligation for the remainder of the
turbines' lifespan. This is an effective means of promoting local ownership while also creating competitive
economic terms within the current incentive structure. The major drawback is the need to find a willing
corporate partner to put up the 99% equity stake. Additionally, the agreement with only one local landowner
could raise NIMBY style resistance, particularly among neighbors who may not see any benefit from this
development. -(Bolinger, 2006)



The Wisconsin-Style Flip structure differs from its Minnesota model in three main ways. First, instead of a
single landowner, an LLC comprised of local investors buying relatively small shares (as described in the
"multiple owner structure") is joined by a corporate investor in order to fully utilize the PTC and depreciation
incentives. Second, the local LLC raises approximately 20% of the project costs through share offerings (as
opposed to 1%), but then loans this amount to the corporate partner so it is now structured as debt financing
instead of equity. The corporate partner will put up 30% of its own resources as an equity stake and then
borrows the remaining 50% from a commercial lender. This leaves a 70/30 debt to equity ratio and the
corporate partner operates as sole owner of the project. Third, at the end of the 10 year PTC period (or when
minimum payback is reached), and after the corporate partner has repaid the entire 50% commercial lender
debt, they then drop out of the project. Full ownership is transferred over to the local LLC in exchange for the
corporate partner retaining the original 20% stake it was loaned by the LLC at the beginning (but also having
paid interest to the local LLC on the debt throughout the 10 year period). This essentially leaves the local LLC
with 100% ownership of a debt free project. The initial stake paid in by locals is much higher (20% as
opposed to 1%), but the LLC does receive interest payments throughout the first 10 years. There are major
questions, however, regarding tax issues because this structure (as of Bolinger's publishing) had not actually
been employed in the US yet. Because a multitude of local investors can be included in this structure, it has
the potential to greatly improve acceptance levels within the community. However, the SEC regulatory issues
described in the "multiple owner structure" due to the offering of shares may still be present, and thus could
raise costs and complexity considerably.
Because single landowners developing or leasing their land on their own often incites neighbor controversy,
then if the economics allow it to remain profitable, I would propose adding a neighbor "land lease"
agreement to the traditional land owner leases used when developing on private land. These neighbor leases
would be smaller than the primary land owner, but could be used as a means of engaging the neighbors
economically to compensate for their visual "sacrifice". (Karlsson, 2009) typically offers a 4% production
payment to the primary landowner. I would propose reducing that to 3%, and splitting an extra 2% among
the landowners situated within 1-2 km of the turbines. This would be dependent on the number of affected
neighbors and the revenue stream predicted for the project of course... Solution Caveat: This type of
strategy has been called "bribery" in some case studies and has been shown to backfire at times. People may
not like the idea of being "bought" and could develop very strong negative opinions as a result. This also does
not spread true ownership in the community, thus leaving the status quo of private "outside" ownership in
place.
                    Solution Strategy   Frequency
Primary Sources                                                                 Collaborative Solutions
                          ID Tag         Ranking



 (Devine-Wright,
 2005); (Walker,
 2008); (Warren,
                        OS a.i.1           5          SS e.i.1      PP a.i.2    PP c.ii.1
2009); (Sovacool,
2008); (Karlsson,
      2009)




(Maruyama, 2007)        OS a.i.2           1          SS c.ii.1     LD a.i.2    OS a.ii.2    OS b.i.2




  (Olive, 2010);
                        OS a.ii.1          1          PP c.i.1      PP c.ii.1   OS a.iii.1
 (Crocker, 2010)




 (Warren, 2009);
                        OS a.ii.2          2          SS e.ii.2     LD a.i.3
(Maruyama, 2007)




                                                    Basically all
                                                     of the PP
 (Crocker, 2010);                                    solutions
                        OS a.iii.1         2                        SS c.ii.1   LD a.i.1     LD a.i.2
  (Jobert, 2007)                                      will be
                                                    applicable
                                                       here
   (Warren, 2009)         OS b.i.1    1   SS c.ii.1      SS e.i.1    PP a.i.2      PP c.ii.1




 (Maruyama, 2007)         OS b.i.2    1   SS c.ii.1    LD a.i.2       PP c.ii.1    OS a.i.2




(Jobert, 2007); (Olive,
                          OS b.ii.1   1     PP c.i.1     PP c.ii.1    OS b.iii.2   OS b.iii.3
         2010)
 (Olive, 2010);
                   OS b.ii.2       1       SS a.ii.1   LD a.ii.1   PP c.i.1      PP c.ii.1
(Karlsson, 2009)




 (Olive, 2010)     OS b.ii.3    Unproven   SS e.ii.1   SS e.ii.2   SS e.ii.3   LD a.i.2




 (Olive, 2010)     OS b.ii.4    Unproven   SS e.ii.1   SS e.ii.2   SS e.ii.3   LD a.i.2




(Bolinger, 2006)   OS b.iii.1      1       LD a.ii.1   PP c.i.1    PP c.ii.1
(Bolinger, 2006)   OS b.iii.2   1   LD a.ii.1   PP c.i.1   PP c.ii.1




(Bolinger, 2006)   OS b.iii.3   1   LD a.ii.1   PP c.i.1   PP c.ii.1
(Olive, 2010)   OS b.iv.1   Unproven   SS a.ii.1   LD a.ii.1   PP a.i.2   PP c.i.1
ive Solutions




                LD d.ii.1   LD d.iii.1   FE b.ii.1
OS a.i.2    OS a.ii.2   FE b.ii.3




FE b.ii.1   FE b.ii.4
LD b.ii.1   LD d.ii.1




LD b.ii.1   LD d.ii.1
PP c.ii.1
Notes: Could include tourist attractions at the wind mills: tours around the base and even up into the
towers (provide local guide jobs, could be opened when the wind is not enough to produce power...), use
the land to build parks, advertise that the community is 100% green/carbon netural because of the wind
park. -(Warren, 2009)




The findings from (Maruyama, 2007) suggest that the type of community based RE development promoted
by the HGF encompasses a range of diverse benefits thus encouraging participation from a varied group of
actors. This point is important because it implies that the RE project encourages participation and support
from alternately motivated stakeholders. By promoting the concepts of environmental benefits and "green
electricity" the support of morally guided actors is increased. Similarly, by providing a project example in
which the economic returns to investors and the community are secure and profitable in the medium to
long term, the participation of financially motivated actors is assured as well. And finally, through the
promotion of social community involvement techniques such as ownership certificates, turbine nicknaming,
and investor name inscriptions, the support of the local community is also enhanced. The strategies shown
in this example should be considered viable for replication in alternative institutional settings due to their
emphasis on local and social characteristics.
Hokkaido Green Fund (non profit
org) that works with communities
to develop wind and other RE
sources. -(Maruyama, 2007)
Financial and Economic Conflict
Issues
KeyWords                                                             Paraphrase Description

a. Competitive Market Ability of Wind Power
i. Perceived inability to compete with corporate        There are significant questions in the US as to
wind and traditional power sources including the        whether locally owned wind power can
belief that energy prices will rise with wind power     compete economically with corporate wind
use.                                                    farms, or with traditional energy technologies.


b. Ability to Acquire Initial Investment




                                                        Unfortunately this is largely a result of the
i. Difficulty utilizing national and state incentives
                                                        current legislation in place politically.




                                                        High upfront costs of wind power require
                                                        significant capital to be raised initially. This is a
ii. Inability to raise sufficient capital
                                                        problem for many smaller/ private potential
                                                        owners


                                                        There are multiple types of project financing
                                                        used throughout the world. Debt/Equity is
iii. Types of Project Financing
                                                        probably the most common… Some of these
                                                        are listed in the solutions section




c. Other Economic Effects on the Community
                                                        Some residents believe their community will
i. Residents believe the community will lose            suffer from diminished tourism revenue due to
revenue (particularly tourism revenue) and that         the presence of wind farms in the area. Surveys
housing values could fall                               have also shown a fear that housing values will
                                                        fall in the area.
                                       Frequency
        Sources             CCI Tag
                                        Ranking



(Wolsink, 2000); (Walker,
                             FE a.i       3
  2008); (Bohn, 2009)




 (Walker, 2008); (Toke,
2008); (Bolinger, 2005);    FE b.i        4
   (Crocker, 2010)




(Walker, 2008); (Warren,
  2009); (Kann, 2009);
                            FE b.ii       4
   (Bolinger, 2006);
    (Karlsson, 2009)




(Kann, 2009); (Bolinger,
                            FE b.iii      2
         2006)




 (Devine-Wright, 2005);
  (Jobert, 2007); (Jones,    FE c.i       3
           2009)
               Description by Reference Source



                                                                  The institutional barriers in place make it very
Income generating potential is a serious obstacle due to
                                                                  difficult for small-scale developers to compete
technology competition, market barriers, interconnection and
                                                                  in the centralized production dominated energy
market complexities, infrastructure needs. -(Walker, 2008)
                                                                  market.




The unsteady nature of US incentives for wind power has
greatly affected the overall implementation of this technology.   "What is clear is that wind power capacity will
Additionally, the design of legislation heavily favors large      proliferate only where incentive regimes are
developments owned by institutions with very large incomes        stable and deliver a substantial level of subsidy"
who can take advantage of the "passive" tax breaks -(multiple     -(Toke, 2008)
sources)




                                                                  Corporate Financing is a common practice in
                                                                  the US. This is when a large entity puts up
                                                                  collateral based on its entire portfolio of assets
Debt Financing; Merchant Project Financing                        in order to attain debt finanicng. This produces
                                                                  much more favorable interest rates because the
                                                                  lender is assured of something in case of
                                                                  project default.
"the US has, at least historically, lacked virtually
all of the drivers of community wind power
development in Europe described above.
Moreover, the primary forms of federal support
for wind power in the US—namely the federal PTC
and accelerated depreciation—are targeted at
commercial, rather than community, investors." -
(Bolinger, 2005)
"In summary, wind power in the US is primarily supported at the federal
level through tax-based incentives that are not very accessible to average
citizens or farmers, and furthermore are reduced by certain state-level
incentives… Most wind projects, and especially farmer-owned wind projects
that are too small to capture economies of scale, will not be economically
viable without [the PTC], yet its structure greatly restricts the types of
entities that can profitably invest in wind power... This reality can have a
major impact on the choice and profitability of ownership structure
employed in farmer-owned wind development." -(Bolinger, 2006)
Financial & Economic Solution
Strategies
Conflict

a. Competitive Market Ability of Wind
Power




i. Perceived inability to compete with
corporate wind and traditional power
sources including the belief that energy
prices will rise with wind power use.




b. Ability to Acquire Initial Investment




i. Difficulty utilizing national and state
incentives
ii. Inability to raise sufficient capital
iii. Types of Project Financing




c. Other Economic Effects on the
Community




i. Residents believe the community will
lose revenue (particularly tourism
revenue) and that housing values could
fall
i. Residents believe the community will
lose revenue (particularly tourism
revenue) and that housing values could
fall
                                       Primary Solutions




One option is for a small developer to specialize his activities in specific areas of the
development process. This is a niche market strategy that basically concedes that a small
scale developer will not be able to compete financially with the larger corporations and will
not be able to close appropriate financing for whole projects. Instead, you could focus on the
site selection, wind measurement, impact assessment, or PR aspects and contract yourself
out to the larger developers operating in the US today.

In order to demonstrate the cost competitiveness of wind power it is important to emphasize
the long-term benefits of cost savings versus traditional energy sources (which are more than
likely going to continue a steady rate increase over time). A concise and site-specific
knowledge program would be helpful in this regard to show a comparison between wind
energy costs and traditional costs over time. It can also be shown that revenue streams from
community owned wind projects can be very profitable if properly setup.




It would be wise, if possible, to focus development on states that do have favorable and
stable incentives in place. This is obviously not feasible for those living and wishing to develop
in a particular area.

The major roadblock here is the structure of the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) which
only allows passive income to be counted as a means of collecting this incentive for investors
who don't actively take a role in the project's operation. The most effective way to get around
this is to establish an ownership structure that allows a partner to access the incentive (see
OS: LLC Structures). Alternatively, investors with large passive incomes could possibly utilize
the PTC, or investors with large active incomes could become active partners in the project
(through planning or maintenance contracts) and in that way claim at least a portion of the
PTC.

Innovative co-ownership models (discussed in the Ownership Structure Solutions section)
may entice larger developers to work with communities as a proactive means of improving
their public image and allow them to prepare for potential future government requirements
on Greenhouse Gas issues… "if co-ownership proves productive in helping to secure planning
permission, particularly for wind farms, it could become more widespread as standard
industry practice" (Walker, 2008). This could open up more equity from larger partners and
provide better lending terms from banks who feel more secure due to increased developer
collateral for the project.
Expanding the calls for investment to include non-local residents may be necessary to raise
funds. In this case, it may be a good idea to expand to nearby urban areas with a "green" style
investment promotion. This could raise much needed capital and help spread knowledge and
participation in wind power. This is similar to the Japanese HGF examples. Solution Caveat:
Initial investment opportunities should be given to immediate neighbors of any development

The case of Gihga, while unique to scotland, provides a good example of how multiple
financing mechanisms can help a project succeed. They used state grants, commercial loans
(Debt), and local and institutional capital (equity), to raise the total amount needed. After five
years, the equity portion was paid back to the partner, leaving the Gihga community as sole
owners of the project.

The Japanese HGF project utilized a combination of local investment shares sold to nearby
residents, debt loans, and HGF trust equity (similarly to Gihga). In subsequent projects, a
certain percentage of the investment costs were reserved for local option investors. Another
percentage was offered as a "Japan Fund" which any citizen could buy shares through. The
rest is filled using standard debt loans from commercial banks. Importantly, no government
incentives were used. In this manner it was ensured that the local citizens would be ensured a
minimum percentage of ownership while also increasing the level of public awareness and
participation nationwide in wind energy development. It has proven very successful in Japan
so far. Solution Caveat: The issues of SEC registration come into play when raising equity
through share sales, as described in the Ownership Structures section.


The use of collective bargaining techniques can greatly improve the ability for smaller
investors to bring down the initial costs. This is particularly true when purchasing turbines
from the manufacturer through better economies of scale, which is possible if multiple
project developers band together. Additionally, it may be possible to improve the economics
of infrastructure and transmission upgrades required in this manner. Karlsson says that as a
developer, it is far more profitable to recruit several neighboring landowners to work
together so that a multi-turbine farm can be built as opposed to a single turbine. This
improves the economics of construction and allows the developer to offer a larger gross
amount to locals for investment while also keeping a larger percentage for themselves. This
suggestion has the bonus effect of reducing the NIMBY opposition through ownership
opportunity. Solution Caveat: Working in groups is not always a good idea, if you can't trust
your partner, then conflict can arise or you may end up being left with the bill.
Debt Financing: "All other things held equal, wind developers will seek as much debt as
possible. A typical project finance structure will include 70-80% debt. However, project costs
are highly sensitive to financing variables, so the feasibility of projects rests with the
availability of affordable capital" (Kann, 2009: describing the Australian situation). In order to
access this much debt financing, a bank will require the developer/ owner to acquire a PPA
(power purchase agreement) which provides a guaranteed price on power production over a
set period of time. This PPA allows lenders to feel secure that as long as the turbines work,
they will produce sufficient income to payback the large debt load. Crocker says in the US the
debt to equity ratio is usually closer to a 60/40 split.


"Merchant Project" financing is done without a PPA. Instead, the developer obtains financing
based on the assumption that selling wind energy on spot market prices will produce enough
revenue to pay back the debt burden. This method brings increased risk to both developer
and lender as volatility in the "spot market" could drastically reduce the project's revenue and
possibly cause it to default on loans. This type of financing has become more popular in the
US recently. However, the credit crisis in 2008 makes this extremely difficult at the moment. -
(Kann, 2009) This is not necessarily recommended for community owned projects as they will
not be guaranteed a purchaser without a PPA in most cases. Therefore this may only be
feasible if the utility is brought on as a partner in the project.




Increased tax revenues for the community will be realized based on income tax and possibly
property taxes as well (depending on the state). Increased revenues for local owners will
presumably be recirculated into the local economy thus helping secondary incomes in the
community.

A developer should emphasize the possibility for job creation from wind development.
Helping communities to set up a training program for local residents so that any
maintenance/ monitoring jobs created by the operation of a wind farm could be filled by local
people. Developers should attempt to use local contractors whenever possible during
construction and during environmental impact studies. This potential boon to local businesses
should be highlighted during community discussions. Solution Caveat: impact studies must
first be seen as independent and reliable. This is more important than paying locally for these
services so make sure the contractors and firms are reliable and respected.
Promote the wind park as a tourist attraction. It could be shown in tandem with other local
attractions. Tours around the park, and possibly up into turbines (perhaps if they are out of
operation or there is no wind at the time, you don't want to lose too much production) could
help produce a positive perception of the turbines in this area and beyond. Some examples
from europe: "In Germany, the wind park was integrated into an ‘‘energy landscape’’ with bio-
energy, solar panels, a small information centre, and tours guided by local inhabitants. In
France, visits to the parks were combined with wine and bird-watching tours." -(Jobert, 2007).
A Danish study showed that wind turbines did not diminish the tourist economic potential of
an area, and in fact, 80% of surveyed tourists expressed "an interest in visiting wind farm
visitor centers." (Devine-Wright, 2005)... A similar English study showed that 91% of
tourists did not feel that the presence of wind turbines would negatively affect their opinion
of the area. -(Beddoe, 2003)... This information can be used as evidence to refute this
conflict's premise, though that may not be particularly effective for many opposers in the US.



Finding data that disputes the claim of falling housing prices (if it exists) would be helpful to
reduce this concern. Alternative aspects that might minimize this issue include: emphasizing
the increased local income generated by the project (thus offsetting potential housing value
losses), including some type of community ownership bond that would be tied to the actual
home instead of the current owner (this would presumably increase the houses value with
the attached wind ownership bond, if this is even possible), or emphasizing the moral benefits
associated with sustainable community living to encourage "green" residents to move in and
potentially offset the perceived "costs" of the visual impact.
                   Solution Strategy   Frequency
Primary Sources                                                                Collaborative Solutions
                         ID Tag         Ranking




 (Kann, 2009)           FE a.i.1          1




(Walker, 2008)          FE a.i.2          1           OS a.i.2    OS a.ii.1       OS a.ii.2




 (Olive, 2010)          FE b.i.1       Unproven       SS e.i.1    SS c.ii.1




 (Olive, 2010);
                        FE b.i.2          1        OS b.i.1       OS b.iii.1      OS b.iii.2
(Bolinger, 2005)




(Walker, 2008);
 (Kann, 2009);         FE b.ii.1          3           OS a.ii.2   OS b.i.1        OS b.i.2
 (Jobert, 2009)
   (Olive, 2010)      FE b.ii.2   Unproven   SS c.i.1       PP c.ii.1     OS a.i.1




  (Warren, 2009)      FE b.ii.3      1          OS a.ii.2      OS b.i.1   OS b.ii.1




(Maruyama, 2007)      FE b.ii.4      1          OS a.i.1       OS a.i.2   OS a.ii.2




(Agterbosch, 2009);
  (Crocker, 2010);    FE b.ii.5      3          SS e.ii.2      LD a.i.3
  (Karlsson, 2009)
 (Kann, 2009);
                  FE b.iii.1      2
(Crocker, 2010)




 (Kann, 2009)     FE b.iii.2      1




(Walker, 2008)    FE c.i.1        1       LD d.iii.1   PP b.ii.2   PP b.ii.3




 (Olive, 2010)    FE c.i.2     Unproven   LD d.iii.1   PP b.ii.2   PP b.ii.3
  (Olive, 2010);
 (Jobert, 2007);
(Devine-Wright,    FE c.i.3      3       SS c.ii.1   LD d.iii.1   PP b.ii.3
2005); (Beddoe,
      2003)




 (Olive, 2010)     FE c.i.4   Unproven   PP b.ii.3
laborative Solutions




              OS b.iii.3    OS b.iv.1




              OS b.ii.3    OS b.ii.4    OS b.iii.1   OS b.iii.3
OS b.i.2     OS b.ii.2   OS b.iii.1 OS b.iii.3




OS b.ii.3   OS b.ii.4




OS b.i.2    OS b.ii.2
PP c.ii.1   OS b.i.1




PP c.ii.1   FE b.i.1
OS a.i.2
Tagline in DSM             Authors
                           Agterbosch;
 (Agterbosch, 2009)         Meertens;
                           Vermeulen
   (Aitken, 2009)             Aitken

                            Beddoe;
   (Beddoe, 2003)
                           Chamberlin

    (Bohn, 2009)           Bohn; Lant

  (Bolinger, 2005)       Bolinger; Wiser

  (Bolinger, 2006)       Bolinger; Wiser
   (Crocker, 2010)           Crocker
(Devine-Wright, 2005)     Devine-Wright


    (Gross, 2007)             Gross


                        Jobert; Laborgne;
   (Jobert, 2007)
                             Mimler

    (Jones, 2009)          Jones; Eiser
    (Kann, 2009)              Kann
  (Karlsson, 2009)           Karlsson
   (Krohn, 1998)              Krohn
                           Maruyama;
 (Maruyama, 2007)
                          Nishikido; Iida
                        Sovacool; Lindboe;
  (Sovacool, 2008)
                            Odgaard
                         Toke; Breukers;
    (Toke, 2008)
                            Wolsink

(Van der Horst, 2007)     Van der Horst


   (Walker, 2008)            Walker

   (Warren, 2009)       Warren; McFadyen

   (Wolsink, 2000)           Wolsink
(Wolsink, 2005)   Wolsink
Title                                                                         Year

The Relative Importance of Social and Institutional conditions in the
                                                                              2009
planning of wind power projects

Why we still don’t understand the social aspects of wind power : A critique
                                                                              2009
of key assumptions within the literature
Avoiding Confrontation: Securing planning permission of on-shore wind
energy developments in England: Comments from a wind energy                   2003
developer
Welcoming the Wind? Determinants of Wind Power Development Among
                                                                              2009
U.S. States
Making European-style community wind power development work in the
                                                                              2005
US
A comparative analysis of business structures suitable for farmer-owned
                                                                              2006
wind power projects in the United States
Interview with American community wind power activist                         2010
Beyond NIMBYism: towards an Integrated Framework for Understanding
                                                                              2005
Public Perceptions of Wind Energy
Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a
                                                                              2007
justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance

Local acceptance of wind energy: Factors of success identified in French
                                                                              2007
and German case studies
Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local on shore wind
                                                                              2009
development with reference to an English case study
Overcoming barriers to wind project finance in Australia                      2009
Interview with Swedish wind power developer                                   2009
On Public Attitudes Towards Windpower                                         1999
The rise of community wind power in Japan: Enhanced acceptance
                                                                              2007
through social innovation

Is the Danish Wind Energy Model Replicable for Other Countries?               2008

Wind power deployment outcomes: How can we account for the
                                                                              2008
differences?
NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of
                                                                              2007
voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies
What are the Barriers and incentives for community-owned means of
                                                                              2008
energy production and use?
Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case
                                                                              2009
study from south-west Scotland
Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited
                                                                              2000
significance of public support
Wind power implementation, The nature of public attitudes, Equity and
                                                                        2005
fairness instead of backyard motives
                                                    Page Numbers/
                Journal                    Volume
                                                         Issue

Renewable and Sustainable energy Reviews     13         393-405


              Energy Policy                  38        1834-1841


     Planning Practice and Research          18           1


      The Professional Geographer            61         87-100

Renewable and Sustainable energy Reviews     9          556-575

              Energy Policy                  34        1750-1761
 Personal Interview: via phone and email
              Wind Energy                    8          125-139


              Energy Policy                  35        2727-2736


              Energy Policy                  35        2751-2760


              Energy Policy
              Energy Policy                  37        3139-3148
     Personal Interview: face-to-face
           Renewable Energy                  16         954-960
              Energy Policy                  35        2761-2769


          The Electricity Journal            21         Issue 2


Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews     12        1129-1147


              Energy Policy                  35        2705-2714


              Energy Policy                  36        4401-4405

             Land Use Policy

        Renewable Energy Policy              21          49-64
Renewable and Sustainable energy Reviews   11   1188-1207
Conflict Issues
                  Paraphrase   Description by Reference Source
Solution Strategies
Conflict
Solution

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:7/28/2012
language:
pages:169