Community Benefits or Community Bribes? An Experimental Analysis of Strategies for Managing Community Perceptions of Bribery Surrounding the Siting of Renewable Energy Projects
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online January, 2017
Community Benefits or Community Bribes? An Experimental Analysis of Strategies for Managing Community Perceptions of Bribery Surrounding the Siting of Renewable Energy Projects
The provision of financial incentives to local communities by energy developers has attracted cynicism across many localities, with some suggesting such community benefits are akin to “bribery.” The current study used an experimental design embedded within a community postal survey to explore whether potentially damaging effects of bribery rhetoric upon local support for a wind farm can be overcome through (a) portraying community benefits as a policy requirement (rather than a discretionary gesture by developers), and/or (b) the deployment of different discursive strategies by developers to manage their stake in the outcome of the project. Participants told about community benefits as being a policy requirement showed significantly higher support for the wind farm, an effect that was mediated by heightened perceptions of individually and collectively favorable outcomes from the development. We discuss our results in relation to their implications for government policy approaches to promoting renewable energy supply.
AitkenM. (2010a). Why we still don’t understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature. Energy Policy, 38, 1834-1841. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.060
2.
AitkenM. (2010b). Wind power and community benefits: Challenges and opportunities. Energy Policy, 38, 6066-6075. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.062
3.
AklinM.UrpelainenJ. (2013). Debating clean energy: Frames, counter frames and audiences. Global Environment Change, 23, 1225-1232. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.007
4.
AllenM. (1998). Comparing the persuasive effectiveness of one and two sided messages. In AllenM.PreissR. W. (Eds.), Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 87-98). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
5.
AnseelF.LievensF.SchollaertE.ChoragwickaB. (2010). Response rates in organizational science, 1995-2008: A meta-analytic review and guidelines for survey researchers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 335-349. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9157-6
6.
AntakiC.WetherellM. (1999). Show concessions. Discourse Studies, 1, 7-27. doi:10.1177/1461445699001001002
BellD.GrayT.HaggettC.SwaffieldJ. (2013). Re-visiting the “social gap”: Public opinion and relations of power in the local politics of wind energy. Environmental Politics, 22, 115-135. doi:10.1080/09644016.2013.755793
10.
BoxG. E. P.HunterJ. S.HunterW. G. (2005). Statistics for experiments. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
11.
CassN.WalkerG.Devine-WrightP. (2010). Good neighbours, public relations and bribes: Politics and perceptions of community benefit provision in renewable energy development in the UK. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 12, 255-275. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2010.509558
ChongD. (1993). How people think, reason, and feel about rights and liberties. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 867-899. doi:10.2307/2111577
15.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101, 637-655. doi:10.1017/S0003055407070554
16.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2013). Counterframing effects. The Journal of Politics, 75, 1-16. doi:10.1017/S0022381612000837
17.
Clean Energy Council. (2012). Wind farm investment, employment and carbon abatement in Australia. Melbourne, Australia: Clean Energy Council.
18.
CowellR.BristowG.MundayM. (2011). Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: The role of community benefits in wind energy development. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54, 539-557. doi:10.1080/09640568.2010.521047
19.
CowellR.BristowG.MundayM. (2012). Wind energy and justice for disadvantaged communities. York, UK: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
20.
Department for Energy and Climate Change. (2010). 2050 pathways analysis. London, England: Author.
Devine-WrightP. (2007). Energy citizenship: Psychological aspects of evolution in sustainable energy technologies. In MurphyJ. (Ed.), Governing technology for sustainability (pp. 63-88). London, England: Earthscan.
24.
Devine-WrightP. (2009). Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19, 426-441. doi:10.1002/casp.1004
25.
Devine-WrightP. (2011). Public engagement with renewable energy: Introduction. In Devine-WrightP. (Ed.), Renewable energy and the public: From NIMBY to participation (pp. xxi-xxx). London, England: Earthscan.
26.
DillmanD. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York, NY: Wiley.
27.
DruckmanJ. N. (2001). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behaviour, 23, 225-256. doi:10.1023/A:1015006907312
28.
DruckmanJ. N. (2011). What’s it all about? Framing in political science. In GideonK. (Ed.), Perspectives on framing (pp. 279-302). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
29.
The European Wind Energy Association. (2011). EU energy policy to 2050: Achieving 80-95% emissions reductions. Brussels, Belgium: Author.
GrossC. (2007). Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance. Energy Policy, 35, 2727-2736. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.013
33.
HairJ. F.Jr.AndersonR. E.TathamR. L.BlackW. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.
34.
HallN.AshworthP.Devine-WrightP. (2013). Societal acceptance of wind farms: Analysis of four common themes across Australian case studies. Energy Policy, 58, 200-208. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.009
35.
HayesA. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modelling. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
36.
HayesA. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
37.
IdemudiaU.IteU. E. (2006). Corporate-community relations in Nigeria’s oil industry: Challenges and imperatives. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 13, 194-206. doi:10.1002/csr.101
38.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2011). Renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation: Special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
39.
International Energy Agency. (2014). World energy investment outlook. Paris, France: Author.
40.
JonesC. R.EiserJ. R. (2010). Understanding “local” opposition to wind farm development in the UK: How big is a backyard?Energy Policy, 38, 3106-3117.
41.
KotlerP.LeeN. (2005). Corporate social responsibility. Doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
42.
LevanthalG. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In GergenK. G.GreenbergM. S.WillisR. H. (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
43.
LindE. A.TylerT. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
44.
LindgreenA.SwaenV. (2010). Corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 1-7. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00277.x
45.
MakridisC. (2013). Offshore wind power resource availability and prospects: A global approach. Environmental Science & Policy, 33, 28-40. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2013.05.001
46.
McGuireW. J. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 191-230.
47.
MorsingM.SchultzM.NielsenK. U. (2008). The “Catch 22” of communicating CSR: Findings from a Danish study. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14, 97-111. doi:10.1080/13527260701856608
48.
NelsonT. E.ClawsonR. A.OxleyZ. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. The American Political Science Review, 91, 567-583.
O’KeeffeA.HaggettC. (2012). An investigation into the potential barriers facing the development of offshore wind energy in Scotland: Case study of the Firth of Forth wind farm. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16, 3711-3721. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.018
52.
ParkA.BrysonC.CleryE.CurticeJ.PhillipsM. (2013). British social attitudes survey 30. London, England: NatCen Social Research.
53.
PeelD.LloydM. G. (2007). Positive planning for wind-turbines in an urban context. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 12, 343-354. doi:0.1080/13549830701412463
54.
PetrovaM. A. (2013). NIMBYism revisited: Public acceptance of wind energy in the United States. WIREs Climate Change, 4, 575-601. doi:10.1002/wcc.250
55.
PotterJ. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London, England: Sage.
56.
RenewableUK. (2013). Onshore wind: Our community commitment. London, England: Author.
SchlegelmilchB. B.PollachI. (2005). The perils and opportunities of communicating corporate ethics. Journal of Marketing Management, 21, 267-290. doi:10.1362/0267257053779154
59.
StrachanP. A.LalD.MalmborgF. V. (2006). The evolving UK wind energy industry: Critical policy and management aspects of the emerging research agenda. Energy Policy and Governance, 16, 1-18. doi:10.1002/eet.400
60.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
TokeD.BreukersmS.WolsinkM. (2008). Wind power deployment outcomes: How can we account for the differences?Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12, 1129-1147. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2006.10.021
63.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.
64.
WalkerB. J. A.WiersmaB.BaileyE. (2014). Community benefits, framing and the social acceptance of offshore wind farms: An experimental study in England. Energy Research & Social Science, 3, 46-54. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2014.07.003
65.
WalkerG.CassN.BurninghamK.BarnettJ. (2010). Renewable energy and sociotechnological change: Imagined subjectivities of “the public” and their implications. Environment and Planning A, 42, 931-947. doi:10.1068/a41400
66.
WhittleA.MuellerF. (2011). The language of interests: The contribution of discursive psychology. Human Relations, 64, 415-435. doi:10.1177/0018726710386395
67.
WolsinkM. (2007). Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of “backyard motives.”Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11, 1188-1207. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2005.10.005
