Wind Energy Projects and Not-in-My-Backyard Syndrome - Term Paper Example

Paper Number: ESS2015-StudentNumber Wind Energy Projects and Not-in-My-Backyard Syndrome 1* Surname1 Name1, 2 Surname2 Name2, 3 Surname3 Name3, 1 Affiliation University, Faculty, Department, Institute Address, City, Postal Code, Country 2 Affiliation University, Faculty, Department, Institute Address, City, Postal Code, Country 3 Affiliation University, Faculty, Department, Institute Address, City, Postal Code, Country Keywords: Community acceptance, NIMYB, wind energy, ethics, attitudes“ Abstract Offshore wind energy Systems have for some years made a considerable contribution in the energy transition. Evidently, offshore wind can become an extension of the current infrastructure and changing the current configurations of the energy system. Implementing these large-scale institutional arrangements as well as technical modification has resulted in a heated debate concerning the potential social acceptability brought about by the new systems. The Not-In-My-Back-Yard (NIMBY) defines the opposition to positioning of a certain projects near a residence area, but still exhibit acceptance to those projects in another place. In view of this, community acceptance may be described as the local population acceptance of certain projects that directly affects them such as wind energy farms installation. Currently, wind energy is recognised globally as an effective technology that matches the targets of renewable energy as well as reducing emissions of carbon dioxide. However, the siting of wind turbines has become more challenging for wind developers, facility planners and policy makers. Motivations for opposition as well as acceptance on wind energy projects are reviewed in this paper. The paper also provides a critical analysis of community acceptance of wind energy projects with the focus on Not-in-My-Backyard Syndrome. I. Introduction Engineers are normally considered as problem solvers, tasked with finding solutions to local as well as national issues that negatively affect the public. Scores of such issues are not just technically challenging but need an approach that is ethically appropriate as outlined in the codes of ethics. Reputable engineers are expected not just to follow the code of ethics but also to use it as a framework for deriving ethical standards based on their field of engineering. Presently, a number of developed countries in Europe are looking for ways to promote renewable energy source, a transition from fossil-based sources. For instance, German Energiewende provides evidence of high political and social determinations toward supply as well as use of renewable energy. According to Kunneke et al. (2015, p.118), the national regulations and policy intend by 2050 to generate 80 per cent of the energy used from renewable resources as well as by 2040 to reduce 70 per cent of the CO2 emissions. Still, as evidenced by figure one, the use of wind energy is on the increase. Fig 1; Wind Power Worldwide June 2010 (Muenstermann, 2012, p.452) This may be realised only through value-added renewable energy technologies sustained as well as motivated by institutional change. Even though some countries have sustainable technologies that have been accepted widely by their populations, offshore wind parks which are part of the large-scale renewable energy technologies have been received with cynicism as well as disapproval (Kunneke et al., 2015, p.119). These conflicting reactions are considered by scholars as a social acceptance issue brought about by different stakeholder groups’ contradictory interests after development and deployment of the technologies. Until now, community acceptance for wind energy projects is still challenging, and people opposition to such projects is attributed to the NIMBY effect. According to Oosterlaken (2015, p.360), the introductions of large-scale offshore and onshore wind turbines are still a social challenge, in spite of its ability to offer sustainable energy. The challenge of social acceptance in many countries across the globe proves that offshore wind energy has progressively become an option, in spite of the bigger economic and technical challenges in contrast to onshore wind. Even though, offshore wind farms in countries such as UK as well as across the globe are still facing opposition from the community, it is projected that installed wind will continue growing as shown in figure two below. For this reason, Oosterlaken (2015, p.366) suggests that using Value Sensitive Design to wind turbines and parks may bring about more acceptable solutions if perceived in terms of their sustainability. Fig 2: Projected growth in wind power projects (Roen, 2013) II. Literature Review II.1. Not-In-My-Back-Yard Syndrome While wind energy projects are turning out to be more crucial from a policy point of overview for realising reduction targets of greenhouse gas emission, reducing imports of foreign oil as well as using renewable energy sources to replace the conventional ones, implementing wind energy projects successfully across the globe has become more reliant on comprehending the local stakeholders views, their reasons for opposition or support, as well as public participation discourses (Petrova, 2013, p.576). Comprehending concerns of the community with regard to projects as well as implementation processes is crucial since siting projects that are opposed by the community is very hard. According to Oosterlaken (2015, p.362), comprehending the motives and perceptions for opposition or support to siting facilities of wind energy is a crucial step for reducing community resistance. Normally, the NIMBY is considered as the main obstruction to wind energy projects. Even though objectors of wind energy are depicted by a number of regulatory and industrial bodies as ‘NIMBYs’, Petrova (2013, p.576) cite a number of scholars who believe that this is a flawed concept, utilised to further discourage the development of wind energy. In the past, community opposition stemmed from siting of public infrastructure facilities in lands set aside for landfills, waste incinerators, disabled, poor, or conventional as well as nuclear power plants, but nowadays opposition stems from siting of renewable energy facilities such as wind farms. At the outset, those arguing against the proposed wind energy facilities claimed that these facilities were not needed, that the operating procedures or siting of such facilities were inadequate, and that they had harmful effect. According to Oosterlaken (2015, p.361), these arguments have resulted in suppositions that NIMBYs, are self-centred and are not prepared to make a sacrifice for social good. Proponents of wind energy projects view NIMBYs as parochial who care only about their ‘turf’, that is say, individuals who are only interested on siting impacts on their community as well as immediate surroundings, but not the whole society as a whole. The NIMBYs are described as ill-informed or deceived since they do not understand how wind energy facilities are safe as well as how they operate; they are unreasonable or deviant since they are against what other people are supporting and view as beneficial (Oosterlaken, 2015, p.361; Petrova, 2013, p.577). However, as shown in Figure three below many people strongly support new wind power station rather than new nuclear power station or new coal power station. Fig 3: opposition to onshore windfarm (Carrington, 2012) II.2. Social Acceptance Regrettably, almost 80 per cent of people in the UK are supporting wind energy, but the commissioning of contracted wind energy capacity stands only at 25 per cent (Bell et al., 2005, p.460). This is attributed mainly by the NIMBY syndrome, whereby people believe wind energy is a good idea provided that it is sited far beyond their backyard. In view of this, Bell et al. (2005, p.464) posit that the existing gap between the behaviour driven by self-interest and an attitude driven by concern for the societal good is very big since individuals generally supporting wind energy are also opposing certain developments suggested in this area. In most countries, wind energy projects have become a challenging issue, especially in making decisions about the siting of the wind turbines. Besides that, the public attitudes towards siting of such projects are essentially distinct from those directed towards wind farms. Such gap in attitude is attributed to lack of knowledge concerning the nature of societal acceptance for renewable energy sources. Many governments presume that social acceptance can be generated through information campaigns about renewable energy sources, while opposition to such sources may be described as selfish NIMBY attitude (Wolsink, 2007, p.1188). Such justifications according to Wolsink (2007, p.1204) are commonly utilised by scholars, authorities and planners, and should not be considered as factual. Visual assessment of wind energy impact on values of the landscape is beyond a doubt the main factor that explains why a number of community members are opposed to wind energy while others are supporting it. Other causes of opposition as exhibited in figure five include environmental consequences, failure to involve the community, land leasing among others. Fig 5; Causes of social opposition (Juárez-Hernández & León, 2014) Besides, Wolsink (2007, p.1202) argues that fairness and equity feelings seem to be the driving force behind NIMBY attitude, rather than selfishness. Opposition to onshore wind development continues to increase, especially because the public perceive the wind development as a contentious per se as well as due to the top-down planning strategies normally used by the developers. The level of support (80 per cent) as compared to opposition (70 per cent) for wind development is very puzzling (Jones & Eiser, 2010, p.2). Bell et al. (2005, p.461) offer three possible explanations for such discrepancy: first, is attributed to democratic deficit, whereby decisions concerning wind power planning are inclined to be influenced extremely by the minority individuals opposing the wind energy project. Essentially, opponents of these projects are always motivated to partake in and offer contribution to discussions concerning planning of wind power developments, and are inclined to influence the planning decisions leading to less likelihood of success. Another explanation to this discrepancy is the qualified support explanation, whereby people technically support wind power, but with qualifications; for instance, they will argue that wind energy is acceptable provided that it does not negatively affect the environment or the humans. The last explanation is derived NIMBY, whereby people support wind power development as long as it is not close to their backyard (Bell et al., 2005, p.465). III. NIMBYism against Wind Farming One reason why people do not support wind power developments is because of biodiversity. According to Muenstermann (2012, p.453), wind power facilities threat to biodiversity appears to be an insignificant factor for land owners to oppose development of wind farm close or within their land; however, there is need for endangered species and environment to be protected. Many people are opposed to wind farms because the pose danger to bats as well as birds, bearing in mind that on average, every wind turbine kills 4.27 birds annually (Muenstermann, 2012, p.460). However, Muenstermann (2012, p.460) states that as long as the wind farms are positioned in suitable areas, the threats to biodiversity are minimal. In Australia, wind turbine collisions results in deaths of 2,550 birds annually (Muenstermann, 2012, p.460). Another reason why community acceptance of wind energy projects is low is because of the health issues associated with them. Malia (2013, p.2) argues that wind farms have health issues to people living around the facilities. Even though proponents of Wind energy rally against this evidence terming it as a symbol of NIMBYism, the existing studies have not decisively associated such health issues with wind turbines. People living close to wind energy facilities have continually mentioned that the facilities bring about a number of several health issues, such as tinnitus, migraines, nausea, and sleep disturbance in addition to high blood pressure as shown in figure six. The most prevalent issue is sleep deprivation caused by the noise of turbines. Muenstermann (2012, p.462) cite a number of studies that have noted significant health effects related to living close to wind turbines, especially, sleep disruption caused by the wind turbine noise. Petrova (2013, p.578) argues that comprehending the relationship between landscape context, visual features of wind turbines, as well as symbolic views is crucial in understanding people opposition to siting of wind turbines. When making wind facilities siting proposal, most residents are normally worried about the impact of the facilities’ landscape and visual as well as about the physical characteristics of the turbines. A number of scholars as cited by Petrova (2013, p.579) posits that when wind turbines are in operation, they draw more attention from the public as compared to those that are stationary. But when they are stationary, people see them as unreliable and managerial or technological incompetence. Fig 6; Health impact of wind turbine (Shepherd et al., 2011) IV. Personal perspective I believe community acceptance can only be realised through engagement considering that a number of studies such as Petrova (2013) and Muenstermann (2012) have found out that when developers engage residents from first stage of the project, normally get less opposition and the implementation of the project is always successful. For this reason, I think consultation must be initiated earlier and the residents should be permitted to voice their opinions. Besides, decisions on where to site the projects must be made holistically by following the criteria of coherent energy policy as well as good spatial planning. I agree that wind turbines may pose a particular level of threat to the life of birds, mainly because of the likelihood of mid-air collisions with the turbine’s large rotating blades, or the non-rotating blades as well as the tower. As a professional engineer, I must adhere to the ethical standards, and I think addressing this issue should be a high priority since it poses danger to the wildlife. As specified by the NSPE code of ethics, it is the duty of the engineer to care for public welfare, health and safety; therefore, conservation of property and life is a necessity. Even though, the NSPE code of ethics has not stated directly the ethical necessity for wildlife preservation, I think the term ‘life’ may be generalised so as to embrace every life form, not just human. As an engineer, it is my responsibility to consider sustainable development as well as environmental impact. Being an engineer who is environmentally conscious, I recognize the process of generating alternative energy at the expense of negative and direct effect on the environment is in no way reflecting the expected moral standards of an engineer. The development of offshore wind farm, which is an engineering endeavor, presents a number of ethical concerns that must be addressed appropriately as well as objectively as specified by the codes of ethics that an engineer should adhere to. Opposition to siting of wind turbines and the deaths of avian species as a result of mid-air collisions may be avoided if the developers apply ethical standards to find a suitable solution. In this case, I think the solution that is more ethically suitable is constructing the wind far from areas identified migration paths of the avian species so as to reduce possibilities of mid-air collisions. Besides that, increasing distance between the shore and wind farm and identifying renewable as well as clean nature of wind power to replace the conventional fossil fuels are some of the techniques that engineers may utilize to reduce the dilemmas brought about by wind energy projects. Furthermore, I agree that the life and property wellbeing must at all times be addressed with the intention of informing the public about the possible threats, heedless of their magnitude. Even though it will initially stir opposition, it would consequently facilitate in maintaining engineering profession integrity. Precaution can be taken by reducing the infrasound generated by turbines and improving the turbines’ visibility. Engineers should develop offshore wind turbines that can produce renewable and clean energy that can meet the expectations of the public. Engineers who take part in installation of the turbines should always adhere to the engineering codes of ethics. In my view, the wind farm projects must be carried out ethically with the intention of reducing the moral conflicts attributed to offshore wind energy development. V. Conclusion In conclusion, the paper has provided a critical analysis of community acceptance of wind energy projects with the focus on Not-in-My-Backyard Syndrome. As argued in the above, the safety and health of any form of life must be a priority to all professional engineers heedless of their field. With regard to offshore wind farms, it has been argued that opposition can be reduced by ethically addressing the possible threats of such farms to both humans and the environment. Basically, moving wind farms offshore as argued above is a feasible solution that can help reduce the negative aesthetic as well as visual perceptions, which are main factors that have contributed to community opposition to wind energy projects. Even though, the majority of people view wind energy projects positively based on their societal benefits, others are of contrary opinion and always object these projects to be sited near their homes or lands. NIMBY syndrome with respect to wind energy projects is alive and flourishing, and this continues to threaten plans intended to improve transition from fossil fuels to renewable fuels across the globe. Acknowledgements This research was supported by my Tutor and the school library management. References Bell, D., Gray, T. & Haggett, C., 2005. The ‘Social Gap’ in Wind Farm Siting Decisions: Explanations and Policy Responses. Environmental Politics, vol. 14, no. 4, pp.460 – 477. Carrington, D., 2012. Local opposition to onshore windfarms has tripled, poll shows. [Online] Available at: HYPERLINK "http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/01/local-opposition-onshore-windfarms-tripled" http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/01/local-opposition-onshore-windfarms-tripled [Accessed 11 November 2015]. Jones, C.R. & Eiser, J.R., 2010. Understanding ‘local’ opposition to wind development in the UK: How big is a backyard? Energy Policy, vol. 1, no. 1, pp.1-12. Juárez-Hernández, S. & León, G., 2014. Wind Energy in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec: Development, Actors and Social Opposition. Prob. Des, vol. 45, no. 178, pp.139-62. Kunneke, R., Mehos, D.C., Hillerbrand, R. & Hemmes, K., 2015. Understanding values embedded in offshore wind energy systems: Toward a purposeful institutional and technological design. Envi ronmental Science & Po licy, vol. 53, pp.118 – 129. Malia, A., 2013. Discrediting Wind Turbines’ Effect On Health: The Ethical Decision Making Process. Research Paper. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Swanson. Muenstermann, I., 2012. Wind Farming and the Not-in-My-Backyard Syndrome: A Literature Review Regarding Australia’s Challenge in Relation to Climate Change and CO2 Emissions. In Young, D.S. International Perspectives on Global Environmental Change. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech. pp.451-76. Oosterlaken, I., 2015. Applying Value Sensitive Design (VSD) to Wind Turbines and Wind Parks: An Exploration. Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 21, pp.359–79. Petrova, M.A., 2013. NIMBYism revisited: public acceptance of wind energy in the United State. WIREs Climate Change, vol. 4, pp.575–601. Roen, H., 2013. Alternative Energy Investing for 2013. [Online] Available at: HYPERLINK "http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2013/01/" http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2013/01/ [Accessed 30 November 2015]. Shepherd, D. et al., 2011. Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health-related quality of life. Noise Health, vol. 13, no. 54, pp. 333-339. Wolsink, M., 2007. Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 11, pp.1188–207. Read More