Report - Exploring Community Acceptance of Rural Wind Farms in Australia A Snapshot - CSIRO2012

Exploring community acceptance of rural wind farms in Australia
Exploring community acceptance of
rural wind farms in Australia:

a snapshot
Nina Hall, Peta Ashworth and Hylton Shaw

CSIRO Science into Society Group 2012
Energy Transformed Flagship
This page left deliberately blank.
Exploring community acceptance of rural wind farms in Australia: a snapshot

Nina Hall, Peta Ashworth and Hylton Shaw CSIRO Science into Society Group 2012
Enquiries should be addressed to: Dr Nina Hall Social Scientist, Science into Society Group, CSIRO Nina.Hall@csiro.au Copyright and Disclaimer 2012 CSIRO To the extent permitted by law, all rights are reserved and no part of this publication covered by copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means except with the written permission of CSIRO. Important Disclaimer CSIRO advises that the information contained in this publication comprises general statements based on scientific research. The reader is advised and needs to be aware that such information may be incomplete or unable to be used in any specific situation. No reliance or actions must therefore be made on that information without seeking prior expert professional, scientific and technical advice. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO (including its employees and consultants) excludes all liability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this publication (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Kieren Moffat, Richard Parsons, Steve Hatfield-Dodds and Simon Holmes Court for their helpful feedback on earlier drafts. The authors would also like to thank the wind farm stakeholders who generously provided their time and views for this research.
Table of Contents
Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Key findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1 Australian greenhouse emissions and renewable energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.2 Wind energy in Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3. Community Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1 Towards a Social Licence to Operate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.1 Media analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.2 Case study selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.3 Desktop review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.4 Qualitative interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5. Findings: Media analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6. Findings: Australian wind farm case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

6.1 Capital Wind Farm, New South Wales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.2 Crookwell, NSW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.3 Silverton, NSW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.4 Taralga, NSW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.5 Hallett 1-5, SA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6.6 Waitpinga (Victor Harbor), SA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6.7 Community-scale wind farms: Hepburn, VIC and Castlemaine, VIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6.8 Bald Hills, VIC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6.9 Toora, VIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7. Findings from interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

7.1 Visual aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7.2 Noise impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 7.3 Environmental impacts and benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 7.4 Economic aspects of wind farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 7.5 Planning processes and policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 7.6 Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 7.7 Non-specific community opposition and NIMBYism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 7.8 Health impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
7.9 Technological issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 7.10 Community-scale wind farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
8. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
8.1 Consultation processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 8.2 Building a Social Licence to Operate wind farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
9. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Appendix A: Media analysis of mentions of wind farm and community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Appendix B: Interview question schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
List of Figures
Figure 1: Size and operational status of case study wind farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...9 Figure 2: Levels of Social Licence to Operate, featuring boundary criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...17 Figure 3: Personal and ideological reasons behind NIMBY opposition, offered by interview participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...53 Figure 4: Consultation stages processes recommended by interview participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...64 Figure 5: Proposed features for inclusion in a Social Licence to Operate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...65
List of Tables
Table 1: Key findings presented as a benefit, a game-changer or a cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...11 Table 2: Case study wind farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...20 Table 3: Details of interview participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...23 Table 4: Reasons for opposing wind farms (from media analysis, June-Dec, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...25 Table 5: Reasons to support wind farms (from media analysis, June-December 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...25 Table 6: Considerations that may affect community acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...61 Table 7: Reasons to support wind farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...78 Table 8: Reasons to oppose wind farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...79
Acronyms
ABS CAQDAS CEC DAC dbA DECCW DCPs EDO EPHC GHG GRP GWEC MASG MWh NHMRC NIMBY NMS NSW OECD RET SA EPA SLO Australian Bureau of Statistics Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software Clean Energy Council Development Assessment Commission decibel A-weighting (an environmental noise measurement) Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water Development Control Plans Environmental Defenders Office Environment Protection and Heritage Council Greenhouse Gas(es) Gross Regional Product Global Wind Energy Council Mount Alexander Sustainability Group Megawatt Hour National Health and Medical Research Council Not-In-My-Back-Yard Noise Measurement Services New South Wales Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Renewable Energy Target South Australian Environment Protection Authority Social Licence to Operate
Executive summary
The CSIRO Energy Transformed Flagship aims to lower greenhouse gas emissions by providing sustainable, efficient, cost effective energy solutions for electricity supply and transport.
The current policy context in which the Flagship works includes the Australian Governments amended Renewable Energy Target (RET). This Target seeks to provide 20% of Australias electricity generation from renewable energy sources by 2020. Wind-generated electricity is a proven renewable energy technology with excellent resources in Australia. It is anticipated that wind could contribute the early majority of renewable energy generated for the large-scale RET. The uptake and installation of wind farms, however, appears to be slowing. Potential reasons for this include the relatively low and volatile prices of the Renewable Energy Certificates, regulatory factors, and apparently high levels of community resistance to some new wind developments. This resistance presents a social gap between the documented high levels of support for wind farm development and the lower success rate and cited opposition in the media to wind farm development proposals. Despite the prevalence of popular 8 media articles, there is minimal academic examination of this situation. This research provides a snapshot of community acceptance levels regarding Australian wind farms from a variety of stakeholder perspectives. The research employed a range of methods, including a literature and information review, a media analysis of newspaper articles, case studies, and semi-structured qualitative interviews with a range of stakeholders associated with wind farms. The media analysis of 49 articles from 19 newspapers in the second half of 2010 found more reasons for wind farm opposition were reported than reasons for support. The most cited reasons for rejecting wind farms were landscape change and visual amenity impacts, noise impacts, and poor consultation. The most cited reasons for supporting rural wind farms were as a means to take action against human-induced climate change, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support job creation.
Nine wind farms were selected as case studies, as illustrated in Figure 1. Each case was intentionally selected to represent the states with greatest wind resources (New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia), various stages of development (operational, under construction, proposed and rejected) and a range of sizes (below and above 30MW). When compared, common themes arose despite the different geographical, historical and developmental characteristics of each wind project. There were no obvious differences observed between the communitys experiences of wind farms in each state, even though there are a variety of state-based renewable energy policies. There were, however, differences depending on the size of the wind farm, when comparing community-scale (often less than 30MW) and industrial-scale wind farms. The study produced four high-level findings: 1. There is strong community support for the development of wind farms, including support from rural residents who do not seek media attention or political engagement to express their views. 2. The actual and perceived local costs and benefits of wind farms are strongly influenced by the design, implementation, and community engagement processes. Figure 1: Size and operational status of case study wind farms
Many of the benefits can be shared or communicated in ways that would enhance community support for the development of wind farms in a region. Many of the potential costs can be reduced by appropriate design, siting, and project implementation. 3. Existing regulatory approaches provide an appropriate framework for negotiating wind farm developments, but there is scope for improving outcomes. 4. The emerging notion of a Social Licence to Operate provides a useful framework for wind farm developers to engage local communities in ways that could enhance transparency and local support, and complement formal regulatory processes. Overall, the study findings suggest that community acceptance of wind farms could be increased by developers intentionally adopting a Social Licence to Operate approach, or similar frameworks for transparent and well structured community engagement. There is evidence that increased community acceptance from such approaches would result in increased approval and installation of wind farms, and would thus increase the possibility of achieving Australias Renewable Energy Target in a cost effective way.
Year of rst operation (proposed above dotted line)
2011 2009 2009 2006 State: NSW SA 2001 1998 VIC
rejected
1995 1 10 100
Number of turbines
9
Key findings
The following findings are arranged in Table 1 using the traffic lights system to indicate key issues that affect community acceptance of wind farms in Australia.
The findings are ranked using the following colour codes:
RED An issue that is an acknowledged cost or unavoidable problem. AMBER An issue that is a game-changerif it is managed carefully, it has the potential to enhance acceptance; if poorly managed, it has the possibility to increase opposition. GREEN A benefit that is already being received and/or an issue that is already being managed.
The issues noted in amber colour are those that, with sufficient attention, stand to significantly increase wind farm acceptance.
10
Table 1: Key findings presented as a benefit, a game-changer or a cost ASPECT Contextual Physical FINDING For some, the planning system does not adequately consider contribution from individuals and communities, especially the experience of court appeals and critical infrastructure legislation. Environmental gains include low carbon electricity, supporting farming, and improving access for fire fighting. While electricity generation intermittency does exist, it can be managed, predicted, and mitigated to provide a reliable source of electricity. Shadow flicker occurs for short periods during sunrise and sunset; blade glint is prevented through low reflectivity surface treatment. Small, community-scale wind farms offer local sustainability solutions to cut greenhouse gas emissions and support local development. The layout and number of turbines in each cluster can minimise perceived negative visual impact. Noise from wind turbines is reported more frequently than transportation noise with equivalent noise characteristics. Bird and bat deaths have occurred and require careful planning, mitigation and/or monitoring. Economic Communities benefit from a local wind farm through increased local business, community funds and local government revenue. Direct jobs are higher during wind farm construction; less for long-term operation. Turbine hosts can use rental income to remain on the farm post-retirement, conserve biodiversity, and prevent subdividing. Property prices have not been found to increase or decrease, although the potential market of buyers may be decreased. Wind farms can attract tourism, but may conflict with other tourism features. For some individuals, sufficient financial compensation will make a wind farm acceptable. This could include compensation/rental payments to all residents in a specified radius, payment of electricity bills and local government contributions. The expense of offshore turbines to avoid local visual impact is difficult to justify in Australia. Social Developers acting beyond required compliance, including willingly engaging outside the formal planning process, contribute to more accepted energy projects. Consultation principles of honesty and transparency, full and unbiased information, and not interpreting fund donations as buying support may increase community engagement and acceptance. A Social Licence to Operate provides a useful framework for wind farm developers to engage local communities in ways that could enhance transparency and local support, and complement formal regulatory processes. There is currently no evidence linking noise impacts with adverse health effects. However, proposed wind farms can create stress, leading to negative health outcomes. The vocal minority are more often prominent in the media, and secure political attention. A group from the Landscape Guardian movement of wind opposition contests half of all wind farm proposals. These groups often contact local residents early in the project and share concerns about wind farms. The reasons for opposition by some participants suggest that wind farms proposals are triggering a range of underlying cultural or ideological concerns which are unlikely to be addressed or resolved for a specific wind farm development. These underlying issues include pre-existing concerns that rural communities are politically neglected by urban centres, commitment to an anti-development stance, and opposition to a green or climate action political agenda. 11
1. Introduction
Public consent is central to achieving deep cuts in Australias greenhouse gas emissions through a combination of technological innovation, economic reform, and societal change, according to CSIRO research (Ashworth, 2011).
Broad public understanding is required around climate change itself, but more particularly the range of low-emission energy technologies that exist now, but also in the future as public preference, consumer choice, and community sanction will play a critical role in determining the eventual mix of technologies adopted (Ashworth, 2011, p.127). In the context of wind farm development, wider literature suggests that public opposition directly affects the approval rate of proposals (Evans, 2011). Despite the prevalence of articles in the popular media regarding community acceptance of rural wind farms, there is minimal academic examination of this position (Devine-Wright, 2005a). CSIROs Energy Transformed Flagship research is interested in understanding public perceptions to the range of low emission energy generation and technology options that will help Australia transition to a low carbon energy future. This report analyses community acceptance of wind farms from a variety of stakeholder perspectives, from wind developer and local government representatives to individual community members. This spectrum of community views of wind farms was sought to explore the complex, multidimensional nature of forces shaping public perception (Devine-Wright, 2005a, p.134), which include physical, contextual, political, socio-economic, social, local and personal aspects. The term community is noted to be a multi-dimensional, heterogeneous concept to which the term is specifically applied (Cowell etal., 2011). This term is used with the understanding that a community responding to a wind farm development is more accurately a network of stakeholders (Thomson & Boutilier, 2011a, p. 1781), which has the participation of groups and individuals with a vested interest and are either affected by the operation or could affect the operation. The research is part of a wider study by CSIRO to map Australias existing and potential wind energy sources, overlaid with additional criteria, including the social and economic aspects that may affect community acceptance of rural wind farms. This next section outlines the current situation with Australias greenhouse gas emissions and support for renewable energy, and the current and forecasted market penetration of wind-generated electricity. This is followed by a summary of literature regarding community acceptance and the emerging concept of a Social Licence to Operate (SLO).
12
2. Background
2.1 Australian greenhouse emissions and renewable energy
Compared to other countries, Australia has the highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the world (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2009). A significant source of those emissions is from fossil fuel-derived electricity, which is responsible for over one third of Australias emissions (Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water [DECCW], 2010a). This reliance on fossil fuel-derived electricity is linked to the comparatively low prices for this resource. In 200405, Australia had among the lowest electricity prices for large business and industrial users in the developed world, one of the lowest residential electricity prices in Asia, and one of the lowest gas prices in the world (Graham, 2006). Increasing community awareness and scientific knowledge in relation to climate change causes is placing pressure on governments to undertake actions to reduce greenhouse gas emission from electricity generation (Environment Protection and Heritage Council [EPHC], 2008). Renewable energy generation is one way to reduce dependency on non-renewable sources of electricity while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Deployment of various renewable energy technologies has increased at a global scale in recent years, led by grid-connected photovoltaic cells (53% increase since 2009) and wind (32% increase since 2009) (Edenhofer et al., 2011). Overall, however, the major contribution of renewable energy generation currently remains low, although the majority of projections by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show contributions from renewable energy to primary energy supply increasing by more than 17% by 2030 (Edenhofer etal., 2011). The main Australian incentive program for renewable energy generation is the Australian Governments amended Renewable Energy Target (RET), which seeks to provide 20% of Australias electricity generation from renewable energy sources by 2020. The RET was originally established under the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 to encourage the additional generation of electricity from renewable sources, to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in the electricity sector and ensure that renewable energy sources are ecologically sustainable. This Act was amended in 2010 to establish two types of renewable energy certificates: one for large-scale generation of electricity by accredited power stations, and one for small-scale technology, such as household solar water heaters and small generation units.
13
The amended RET is intended to provide demand for the construction of new renewable electricity generation, including wind farms, over the next decade (EPHC, 2010). By the early 2020s, the Government anticipates the amount of electricity coming from sources such as solar, wind and geothermal will be equivalent to Australias current household electricity use (Australian Government, 2011a). Currently, renewable energy contributes nearly nine percent of all electricity generated in Australia (Clean Energy Council [CEC], 2010). Although an additional 7,000 gigawatt hours (GWh) of renewable energy capacity has been proposed, this is considered by the renewable energy industry body, the Clean Energy Council, to be insufficient to meet the total RET goal of 18,000 GWh per year in 2020 (CEC, 2009).
Over the past two decades, wind power has shifted from a fringe energy source in the electricity market to become a core feature of the European and US electricity mix, with a similar trend occurring in Australia (Hepburn Wind, 2011). During this period, wind energy technology has increased in its power rating, efficiency and reliability, while generation costs have fallen (NSW DECCW, 2010b). Compared with other renewable energy technologies, wind energy is well established and less expensive than most (EPHC, 2010). It is also the only renewable energy technology ready for large-scale deployment (NSW DECCW 2010a). Currently, 52 wind farms operate across Australia (CEC, 2010). These Australian wind farms generate around 5,000 GWh of electricity annually, accounting for approximately 1.5% of electricity generation (NSW DECCW 2010a; CEC, 2011a). Wind energy is the fastest growing large-scale renewable energy source in Australia, with generation capacity increasing from around 100 MW in 2001 to over 2000 MW this year (Australian Government, 2011a). In South Australia, wind power has increased over the past seven years from zero to 17% of total electricity supplied in that state (NSW DECCW 2010a). As a proven technology with excellent resources in Australia, it is anticipated that wind power could contribute the majority of renewable energy generated for the large-scale RET (Kann, 2009; ROAM Consulting, 2010). If wind does indeed provide this contribution, modelling predicts that this electricity and other large-scale renewable energy generation will displace new and existing gas-fired plants (ROAM, 2010). However, the uptake and installation of wind farms are currently slow owing to the low cost and volatility of the Renewable Energy Certificate price, as well as regulatory factors and a high level of societal resistance to rural wind farms (CEC, 2009; Devine-Wright, 2005a; Kann, 2009). Devine-Wright has been researching factors that shape public perception and acceptance of wind farms for many years. He identified that these may include: physical, contextual, political, regulatory, socio-economic (defined in this research as economic), social, local and personal aspects (Devine-Wright, 2005a). These tangible and perceived impacts have resulted in growing political interest given the pressure to transition to low carbon energy supplies around the world.
2.2 Wind energy in Australia

Wind power is one form of renewable energy that does not generate any greenhouse gas emissions during electricity production, although the construction of turbines does involve embodied energy (NSW Legislative Council, 2009). For every additional unit of wind power entered into the electricity grid it replaces one unit of power almost exclusively from a gas or coal-fired power station (McLennan, Maganasik & Associates [MMA], 2009). Globally, wind represents less than 2% of electricity generation but in some countries provides significantly more, including 10% of electricity needs in Spain and Portugal, and 20% in Denmark (NSW DECCW, 2010a). China is currently the worlds largest wind energy market, closely followed by Germany (Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), 2009). Germanys large wind market has been analysed to include four crucial features: 1. research and development policy to support institutional change; 2. the formation of markets in protected niches; 3. the entry of companies to embrace the opportunity, and 4. the establishment of a supportive advocacy coalition (Jacobsson & Lauber, 2006).
14
3. Community Acceptance
The Australian Governments Environment Protection and Heritage Council consider that building community acceptance of [wind] technology is vital to the continued development of the wind industry in Australia (EPHC, 2008, p.2).
There is a documented evidence of strong public support for a range of renewable energy technologies, especially wind. A CSIRO survey in 2006 found that the majority of participants demonstrated positive support towards wind power, with 65% of the survey participants agreeing with the growth of large-scale connected wind farms in Australia. Supportive comments stated that wind energy was environmentally friendly, and a small number considered it a tourist attraction (Ashworth et al., 2006). More recently, the New South Wales government commissioned a survey of over 2000 people and 300 businesses in regional areas of New South Wales about their attitudes to wind farms and renewable energy. They found that 85% of residents support wind farms in NSW, and 60% support wind farms at one to two kilometres from their residence (AMR Interactive, 2010). Respondents outlined the perceived benefits of wind farms as reducing greenhouse pollution and increasing employment opportunities in the community (AMR Interactive, 2010). There appears, however, to be a gap between the stated high levels of support for wind farm development and the actual lower success rate and documented opposition to wind farm development proposals, resulting in misunderstandings about the nature of public support for wind energy (Evans, 2011). The same CSIRO survey (2006) received negative comments about wind farms, including that it has a negative impact on bird life and agriculture, is expensive and noisy, creates visual pollution and needs a large number of turbines to generate adequate power. Other negative comments focused on the unreliability of wind energy and also the need to find suitable land mass to accommodate wind farms (Ashworth et al., 2006). The NSW Government survey found 30-40%of participants were concerned about noise,
15
negative visual impact, negative impact on property values and heritage values (AMR Interactive, 2010). Gross (2007, p.27) found that development decisions perceived to be unfair can damage a communitys social well-being, as can the creation of winners and losers from the ensuing wind development. Local governments have documented their observations, including that wind turbine developments have the potential to ignite significant, long-running social conflict and division within rural communities (Upper Lachlan Shire Council, 2008). Like many energy generation technologies, the gap between general public support and specific local opposition can, in part, be explained by the environmental trade-off between global gains and local bearing of the external costs (Huber & Horbaty, 2010, p.16). The positive gains through lower greenhouse emissions from electricity production occur on a national and international scale, while the negative impacts, including noise and aesthetic changes, are obvious to the local community (Huber & Horbaty, 2010). Such trade-offs are noted in the decision-making literature where stakeholders can end up feeling as though they are asked ... to subvert some morally significant values in favour of others and this, understandably, creates a conflict (Arvai, 2007, p.184). In many jurisdictions there is limited scope for veto by the community, and as such communities can find it difficult to reject or amend a proposed wind farm development. For example, in New South Wales, the critical infrastructure excludes all merit appeals, and in South Australia, state policy overrides local government consent (Hope, 2011; Cowell, et al., 2011; Environmental Defenders Office [EDO], 2011). However, legal actions by community members can act to delay, and sometimes have even prevented wind developments (Gunningham, et al., 2004). Cowell et al. (2011, p.553) notes that following a wind development, communities find ways to accept it as people accept all sorts of unwanted outcomes, even though they may not be indifferent to the wind farm, they also have not supported or legitimised it as a community.
3.1 Towards a Social Licence to Operate

The discussion regarding community responses to wind farms can be considered under the umbrella concept of a Social Licence to Operate (SLO). While this has been applied previously to the mining industry, it is a relatively new term through which to consider wind farm developments (for example, see Thomson & Boutilier, 2011a; Gunningham et al., 2004). The SLO discourse has been proposed in response to community concerns and opposition (Corvellec, 2007). Social Licence to Operate is the proposed term to describe the ongoing acceptance or approval for a development granted by the local community and other stakeholders (Corvellec, 2007; Thomson & Boutilier, 2011a; Parsons & Moffat, 2011). An SLO is referred to as ongoing to reflect that it is a dynamic approval that must be continually renegotiated as beliefs, opinions and perceptions can change when new information is acquired (Thomson & Boutilier, 2011a). It is likely to consist of community expectations regarding the type of impacts a new development will have and the behaviour of the developer (Parsons & Moffat, 2011). An SLO will be affected by the degree of match between those community expectations and the developers delivery on commitments (Parsons & Moffat, 2011).
3.1.1 Features of an SLO

The definition and key aspects of an SLO are still under formation as various industries reflect on the community acceptance of their operations through the lens of an SLO. However, both researchers and practitioners have noted core aspects, and these include: Starting point = no SLO: Ideally, developers begin from the assumption that they do not currently hold a social licence, and that they must engage in ongoing, dialogic negotiation of community and societal expectations and perceptions (Parsons & Moffat, 2011, p.22). SLO is dynamic: An SLO is a dynamic licence that must be earned and then maintained (Thomson & Boutilier, 2011a).
16
Values: An SLO will reflect transparency, credibility and trust, will address power inequalities, and will develop meaningful partnerships (Harvey & Brereton, 2005; Parsons & Moffat, 2011; Thomson & Boutilier, 2011a).
communities, wider society, and various constituent groups (Gunningham, et al., 2004). At times, the demands and expectations for a development will result in an SLO with conditions expected by the community that may be tougher than those imposed by regulation (Gunningham, et al., 2004).
Dialogue: Community members and other stakeholders will engage in dialogue around the terms of acceptability for new or continuing operations (Parsons & Moffat, 2011).
Figure 2: Levels of Social Licence to Operate, featuring boundary criteria (Thomson & Boutilier, 2011b)
Information: Sufficient information from a range of perspectives will be provided for purposes of public education to assist affected communities and the broader public to make informed decisions, develop realistic expectations and consider the trade-offs (Banks, et al., 2010).
psychological identi cation approval
Thomson and Boutilier (2011), suggest that the initial level of an SLO at the acceptance level acknowledges that the community has the disposition to tolerate, agree or consent to a development. A higher level of approval reflects positively that the community has favourable regard for, agree to, or is pleased with the developmenta situation that can result in more beneficial outcomes. Proposed attributes of an SLO are community perceptions of legitimacy and credibility in the development and the presence of trust (Thomson & Boutilier, 2011a). The focus on trust is critical and supported by the first known systematic testing of social licence principles in datathat is around the Coal Seam Gas issue. This test examined stakeholder views around Coal Seam Gas developments in Queensland. Results showed that trust is a critical mediating variable and the only consistent predictor that influenced both acceptance and approval of the technology and development (Moffat et al., 2011). Figure 2 suggests there are four levels of social licence, from withholding to acceptance, approval and then psychological identification, separated by the three boundary criteria. The width of the level on the diagram reflects how commonly it is experienced (Thomson & Boutilier, 2011b). While industries are subject to legal and other regulatory requirements, an SLO incorporates the additional aspects to which the industry meets the expectations of local
trust boundary credibility boundary
acceptance withheld/ withdrawn

legitimacy boundary
3.1.2 An SLO for wind developments

The concept of an SLO as applied to renewable energy projects, particularly wind, is starting to emerge in the discourse. As one commentator stated, wind relies on a Social Licence to Operate ... Its simply not enough to be clean and green, the industry needs to be adept at engaging the local community (Parkinson, 2011a). Of particular note, community-scale wind developments offer the current potential to transcend the higher level of approval (shown at the top level of Figure 2), towards the community becoming advocates of the development and financial co-owners. This effectively dissolves the us/them boundary (Thomson & Boutilier, 2011a).
17
By definition, there is no legal requirement for a Social Licence to Operate in the wind or other industries. However, Corvellec (2007) notes that an informal SLO can develop as wind developers seek acceptance of their proposals through open communication at local meetings, local government engagement, formal legal applications and various required assessments. In instances where wind developers go beyond formal compliance to engage with the community, this raises the developers credibility with authorities and the community and positively influences the political and regulatory processes underpinning the granting of formal licences (Mason etal., 2010). Other researchers have identified the positive impact on acceptance by developers acting beyond required compliance. Desbarats et al. (2010), for example, identified successful energy projects as those that were willingly engaged outside of the formal planning process.
18
4. Methodology
This research employed a desktop review of both relevant literature and information, a media analysis of recent newspaper articles that mentioned community responses to wind farms, nine case studies and 27 semi-structured qualitative interviews.
The overarching methodology of this research has close parallels with an ethnographic inquiry. Such inquiry seeks to uncover meanings and perceptions held by the interview participants and to view these understandings against the backdrop of the participants overall world view or culture (Crotty, 1998, p.7). In keeping with ethnographic inquiry, semi-structured interviews ensured that the researcher viewed the data from the perspective of the participants (Crotty, 1998). This approach was preferred to quantitative approaches in order to explore the reasons behind certain views and positions by stakeholders directly involved in wind farm projects, which cannot be gained through a numerical approach as easily.
4.1 Media analysis

To elucidate the variety of community responses, both positive and negative, regarding rural wind farms, a short media analysis was undertaken (Altheide, 1996). The ProQuest Asia Pacific database was searched for all articles and letters to the editor featuring the phrases wind farm and the word community, and published in newspapers covering the areas of each wind farm case study in the latter six months of 2010. The media search found 49 articles and letters in 19 available newspapers from national, state (NSW, ACT, South Australia and Victoria) and local jurisdictions in this selected timeframe. The analysis procedure identified cited reasons as support or opposition to a wind farm development or proposal, and collated these reasons into theme areas. The findings are provided under each relevant sub section in Section 5.3, and these subsections are listed according to the emphasis identified in the media analysis. Detailed findings are provided in Appendix 1. 19
4.2 Case study selection

Nine wind farms were selected as case studies for in-depth examination and analysis of the community and other stakeholder perspectives, and of other dynamics that have influenced the farms development. A variety of wind farms were selected to represent wind farms in the three states of greatest wind resources (NSW, Victoria and South Table 2: Case study wind farms
Australia), in a variety of stages of development (operational, under construction, proposed and rejected), and a range of sizes (below and above 30MW). Table 2 below outlines the features of the selected case studies. Initially, a desktop review was undertaken to gather information about these selected wind farms. Later, in-depth interviews, using the methods outlined above, were undertaken with a range of stakeholders, where available, for each case study.
Name of wind farm and locality

Capital, near Bungendore, NSW Crookwell, near Goulburn, NSW
Megawatts (no. turbines)

140.7MW (67) 4.8MW (8)
Operator
Infigen Energy Eraring Energy
Status (year of first operation)

Operational (2009) Operational (1998)
Level and Reasons for opposition (and by whom)

Low: Noise, flora and fauna and visual impacts (local residents) High: Landscape, traffic and land value impacts, bird flight paths, radiation, television reception and loss of privacy and security (local residents; council).
Silverton, near Broken Hill, NSW Taralga, near Marulan, NSW Hallett 1- 5, near Hallett, SA
1000MW (500)
Epuron & Macquarie
Under construction (expected 2011) Under construction H1 and H2: operational (2006; 2009); H4 under construction; H3: approved; H5: under construction
Moderate: Visual, flora/fauna, operational and construction noise (local residents) High: Noise pollution; land value; wildlife impacts (local residents) High: (H3): Flora/Fauna. Specifically: eucalyptus bicostata; wedge tailed eagle; silver daisy, pygmy blue-tongued lizards (Hallett 3) High: Visual impact; endangered vegetation; visibility of 66kV transmission line through the developing area
124-186MW (62) H1: 95MW (45); H2: 71.4MW (34); H3: 80MW (30); H4: 132MW (63); H5: 52.5MW (25)
RES Southern Highlands AGL
Waitpinga, near Victor Harbor, SA
50MW (20)
Wind farm developments
Rejected
Hepburn and Castlemaine, VIC Bald Hills, in Gippsland, VIC
H: 4MW (2); C: 6MW (3) 109MW (52)
Future Energy Mitsui & Co
H: Operational (2011); C: Proposed Under construction
Low: Minimal opposition Low: Threat to the orange bellied endangered parrot (Politicians, Coastal Guardians, local residents)
Toora, in Gippsland, VIC
21MW (12)
Transfield Services Infrastructure Fund
Operational (2002)
Low: Noise, land value, health impacts (local community members)
20
Figure 1: Size and operational status of case study wind farms
Year of rst operation (proposed above dotted line)
2011 2009 2009 2006 State: NSW SA 2001 1998 VIC
rejected
1995 1 10 100
Number of turbines
Location of case study wind farms
SA
Hallett 1-5 Waitpinga Silverton
NSW
Crookwell Taralga
Capital Hepburn & VIC Castlemaine Bald Hills Toora
21
4.3 Desktop review

The research comprised a broad literature, document and web-based information review of wind energy in Australia. The review examined: community responses to rural wind farms; policy and legislative outcomes regarding the siting of wind farms; and specific information about the selected case study wind farms. For case studies in which interview participants were unavailable, media transcripts and other publicly available documents representing various stakeholder views were accessed.
For each case study, participants were sought who represented the wind company, the local government, local opposition, local support and the turbine host. This range of participants was sought to partly address Devine-Wrights (2005a, p.135) recommendation that community responses consider the role [that] social identities, social representations and social networks can play in creating heterogeneous attitudes to renewable energy developments. Interviews were undertaken between February and April 2011, with the majority undertaken by telephone. The interviews were recorded and transcribed to enable thorough analysis and quotation. In total, 27 interviews were undertaken. These included: Roles: companies (9); local government (4); community members publicly stating their opposition (local opposition) (4); community members publicly known for their support (local support) (3); turbine hosts (4); other (3) States: New South Wales (16); Victoria (4); South Australia (7) Wind farms: Capital (4); Crookwell (5); Silverton (4); Taralga (3); Hallett (4); Waitpinga (3); Hepburn and Castlemaine (4) Further details of the interview participants are provided in Table 3. The identities of all informants were withheld to guarantee anonymity and to allow greater sharing of perspectives, especially in small rural communities. Where stakeholders were unavailable for interview, documents were sourced that provided perspectives on the research questions. These are reported in the findings as doc source (sourced from a document).
4.4 Qualitative interviews

Qualitative interviews were employed as the primary data-gathering method to gain new perspectives on things about which much is already known, [and] to gain more in-depth information that may be difficult to convey quantitatively (Hoepfl, 1997, p.49). An interviewing approach with emphasis on a non-prompted, open-ended, semi-structured conversation between interviewer and interviewee was undertaken to enable the maximum number of issues to be captured. While the interview participants perspectives and insights were not necessarily representative of their sector, this approach allowed a rich and in-depth experiential account of an issue to be obtained, with greater breadth than more structured and representative forms of interviewing (Fontana & Frey, 2000,). It also enabled a variety of community perspectives to be understood in order to provide the broadest possible picture of community acceptance of wind farms (Lewis, 2003). Purposive sampling was used to select interview participants to ensure that the most relevant participants were interviewed.
22
Table 3: Details of interview participants
Interview respondent, source / Wind farm

Capital, near Bungendore, NSW Crookwell, near Goulburn, NSW Silverton, near Broken Hill, NSW Taralga, near Marulan, NSW Hallett 1- 5, near Hallett, SA Waitpinga, near Victor Harbor, SA Castlemaine and Hepburn, VIC Total interviews
Company
1 1 1 1 1 2 2 9
Local government
Local opposition
Local support
1
Turbine host
2 1
Other
Total
4 5
1 1 Y (same as Crookwell) 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1
4 3 4 3
1 4 4 3 4
1 3
4 27
Interview questions covered the participants perceptions of wind energy, and specific thoughts about their local wind farm relating to physical, societal and human, financial and planning aspects. The complete schedule of interview questions is provided in Appendix 2. The transcripts of the interviews were analysed using descriptive analysis and methods informed by grounded theory. Grounded theory, used in its pure form, draws themes from transcripts or other data and seeks to generate a theory from such themes rather than merely testing an existing theory (Hoepfl, 1997). NVivo 9, a form of Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS), was used to extract the recurring themes, and assisted the
researcher to remain attuned to our subjects views of their realities, rather than assume that we share the same views and worlds (Charmaz, 2000, p.515). CAQDAS provided distance from the detailed transcript to code the themes, sort and link data segments, and allow comparison of case studies (van Hoven & Poelman, 2003). To ensure validation of the emerging themes, external coding by colleagues was involved, and the emerging interpretations were checked against the data from which they were being formed (Fleming & Vanclay 2009). The results are presented in Section 5.3, linked with the findings from the literature and media analysis.
23
5. Findings: Media analysis

An analysis of newspaper articles identified more reasons for wind farm opposition than support were reported.
Societal resistance and acceptance of Australian wind farms was highlighted in a short media analysis of articles published in popular national and state-based newspapers in the latter six months of 2010. This analysis found more citations rejecting wind farms (32 reasons) than supporting wind farms (19 reasons). These findings do not appear to correlate with the general publics views. Further research may reveal the reasons behind story selection and portrayal by the media. As Table 4 details, the reasons for rejecting wind farms most often cited were landscape change and visual amenity (10counts), followed by noise impacts from the turbines (8counts), and poor consultationincluding a perceived lack of consideration given to issues raised during consultation (6 counts). When categorised into themes of reasons, external change to locality (including visual impact, noise impact, distance of turbines from dwellings, damage to birds, reduction in property values) was cited most often (31counts). This was followed by the themes regarding planning process (17 counts), social impacts (15 counts), health impacts (15 counts), and questions regarding wind technology (10 counts). The reasons associated with each of these themes are listed in Appendix 1.
24
Table 4: Reasons for opposing wind farms (from media analysis, June-Dec, 2010)
Reasons against supporting wind farms

External changes to locality (visual impact, noise, distance from dwelling, wildlife impacts, perceived impact on property prices) Planning process (poor consultation, jurisdictional conflict over planning control; restrictive planning policies) Social impacts (ideological rejection; political opportunism; climate change denial; inequitable financial benefits) Health impacts (wind turbine syndrome, low frequency sounds; stress from opposing farm pre-installation; sleep disturbance; reflective flicker) Questions about technology (reliability, efficiency, high cost per MWh) TOTAL
Counts
31 17 15 15 10 88
The most commonly cited reason for supporting rural wind farms, as detailed in Table 5, was as a means to take action against human-induced climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (9 counts). This was followed by the benefits of job creation, significantly during the construction phase, but also through indirect job creation in both construction and operation (7 counts), and subsequently the benefits of community-scale or managed wind farms (6 counts). When the reasons were categorised
into themes, the theme most cited was local benefits (29 counts), including job creation, community management, community financial gain, additional income for turbine hosts, as a tourist attraction, and for increasing local profits. This was followed by themes of global action (including reducing emissions) (11 counts), having access to relevant information (9 counts), and effective planning and consultation processes (6 counts).
Table 5: Reasons to support wind farms (from media analysis, June-December 2010)
Reasons to support wind farms

Local benefits (job creation, community ownership, financial gain, additional income, tourism) Global action (action responding to climate change; support for clean/renewable energy) Information and knowledge (no demonstrated health impacts; strong noise regulations) Planning processes (good consultation; wildlife conservation plan) TOTAL
Counts
29 11 9 6 54
25
6. Findings: Australian wind farm case studies

Nine wind farms were selected as case studies for in-depth examination and analysis of the community and other stakeholder perspectives.
The analysis also included examination of other dynamics that may have influenced the development of specific farms. This group of wind farms was intentionally selected to represent the three states with greatest wind resources (NSW, Victoria and South Australia), as well as various stages of development (operational, under construction, proposed and rejected), and a range of sizes (below and above 30MW). Specific aspects regarding each case study are outlined below, drawn from available information and relevant input from interview participants involved in the case studies. This section highlights specific features or differences of each wind farm, while the following section draws thematic findings from the collated responses. The interviewee codes have been removed in this section to prevent attribution of comments to specific individuals in the community and thus maintain the anonymity of participants.
6.1 Capital Wind Farm, NSW

140.7 MW; 67 turbines; operational Summary: Capital Wind Farm is considered successful, with strong community support. The Capital Wind Farm is located near Bungendore in New South Wales (NSW) and has been operational since October 2009. There are approximately 50 residences within 4 km of the proposed wind farm. The NSW Government considered the Capital Wind Farm to have passed successfully through a smooth consultation and approval process (NSW Planning, 2006). A project application was lodged in December 2005 and received 85 public submissions, 49 of which were objections and 36 were supportive (NSW Planning, 2006). The three core objections raised were noise (including operational), flora and fauna effects (including waterbirds),
26
and visual impacts. Although these were the most commonly voiced concerns, soil and water management, traffic and transport management were also articulated. The proponents submitted a report that addressed all objections, and approval was given subject to recommended conditions to mitigate several of the identified impacts. These included ongoing compliance mechanisms, independent reviews, community consultation, complaints management and performance audits (Infigen Energy, 2011). Of interest, the same company that owns and operate Capital Wind Farm has recently secured approval for a 50MW solar power farm in the area (NSW Planning, 2010). The interview participants predominantly conveyed positive messages about their experience of the Capital Wind Farm. Some specific benefits included: a new fire truck purchased for the rural fire service; turbine hosts funded and guided in their land transfer from crown lease to freehold, and general economic gains for the local town. It was noted that the Bungendore Chamber of Commerce adopted a new logo featuring wind turbines as a reflection of the positive impact and presence of this wind farm on community businesses. Several participants referred to feeling comfortable with the reality of the wind farm post-construction, and that this has resulted in minimal opposition to a new, adjacent wind farm currently under construction. This has implications for a possible SLO, where prior and positive experience with a wind developer and development has influenced the acceptance of an additional wind farm.
reception and loss of privacy and security. The council considered these concerns and imposed eighteen conditions on the development to cover visual aspects and noise (Gregory, 1998). The Crookwell wind farm appears to have been accepted by the majority of the local community, as reflected in a local government referendum in 2008. This 2008 referendum found 70 percent of ratepayers supported further wind farm development in the Upper Lachlan Shire area (Electoral Commission NSW, 2008). Interview participants noted that this early wind farm experienced significant community opposition, but that the post construction reality has been positive, particularly with associated gains from tourism.
6.3 Silverton, NSW

1000MW; 500 turbines; under construction Summary: Will be the largest wind farm in Southern Hemisphere; was approved by Minister and merit appeals are prohibited. When built, this wind farm will be the largest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere, with 1000MW capacity installed (Silverton Wind Farm, 2010). It is under construction in Silverton, NSW, lying 25km north-west of the tiny town of Broken Hill and is populated by 89 residents (ABS, 2007b). Besides tourism, the local landscape provides an economic contribution as a vista for landscape artists and on-site film locations (NGH Environmental, 2010). One interviewee noted that the wind turbine presence did not conflict with the film industry as the turbines could be blended into the background through camouflaged finishing material, or airbrushed out of the film. Community consultation took place with stakeholders, including community members and local councils. Three major concerns were raised and these included visual impacts, flora and fauna, and construction and operational noise (NGH Environmental, 2008). The social impact study noted a range of distrust issues in the community regarding wind farms, planning approval processes, and of corporate wind farm developers (NGH Environmental 2010). In addition, a rare spinifex grass and a rock dragon were identified, which
6.2 Crookwell, NSW

4.8MW; 8 turbines; operational Summary: Despite early opposition, Crookwell is accepted and the community has benefitted. Crookwell wind farm is located north of Goulburn and was the first wind farm in Australia to be connected to the grid (Eraring Energy, 2010). At the time of approval, Crookwells Director of Environment and Planning for the council stated that the development was supported by the community, however, issues that were raised included landscape, traffic and land value impacts, bird flight paths, radiation, television
27
led to the rerouting of 153 turbines planned for the windiest ridge (Jopson, 2009b). Approval was secured by considering the wind farm as a critical infrastructure project under Part 3A of the NSW planning legislation, enabling the Minister for Planning to override council approval (Schultz-Byard, 2011). This clause prevents any merit or judicial appeals from occurring (Environmental Defenders Office, 2011). This government approval was viewed negatively by interview participants, as they considered their ability to influence had been removed. Such approval processes reduce the possibility for an SLO to be developed, as trust-building and early engagement are key features of an SLO and were largely not included in this development. Despite the opposition, however, strong support has also been identified. Respondents noted that a vote by community and local businesses were in favour of the development. The reasons for this support were both personal and communal, including local employment for the communitys youth, and to provide a renewable energy profile, as a large solar farm will also be developed in the area. One unusual feature of this wind farm is that the land is leased under the Western Lands Act, whereas most other wind farms are built on freehold (private) land. The leasehold has been adjusted to enable the pastoral lease and energy generation to operate simultaneously on the same land parcel. One interview respondent noted the benefits of this lease change are that it has paved the way for the solar farm and other large renewable energy developments. Another respondent noted this has been a concern for the leaseholders that now anticipate receiving a smaller amount of rental revenue than their counterparts on freehold land.
has taken over six years, with Renewable Energy Systems (Southern Highlands) lodging a development application in 2004. Although 165 written objections were received at the time of lodging, the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning approved the application (Jones, 2007). An appeal was lodged against the approval of the wind farm in the Land and Environment Court by an alliance of local residents linked with the international landscape guardian movement, the Taralga Landscape Guardians. This group was formed by disenchanted locals who felt the need to give voice to an opposing point of view as they considered the consultation process had been insufficient and that neighbouring landholders had been disadvantaged by not receiving early notice of the proposed development (Gross, 2007, pp. 2731-2). Among their concerns were the number and size of turbines, the companys development process, and the unpredictability of electricity output. However, the appeal was ultimately argued on three central issues: visual impact on both the village and individual properties; noise impact; and impact on flora and fauna (specifically the Wedge-tailed eagle and Yellow Bellied Sheathtail Bat) (Miskelly, 2009; Middletons, 2007; Preston, 2007). The Taralga Landscape Guardians believed the turbines would alter the setting of the town, were alien industrial structures, and presented an unacceptable aesthetic alteration to the experience of living in the village (Jones, 2007, p.268). The Land and Environment Court judge considered the legal challenge in the context of climate change, the energy industry and sustainable development, and described the court case as seeking to resolve the conflict between the geographically narrower concerns of the Guardians and the broader public good of increasing the supply of renewable energy, where global environmental concerns had come into conflict with local environmental concerns (in Jones, 2007, p.269; Preston, 2007). In his judgement, Justice Preston stated that the overall public benefits outweigh any private disbenefits (Preston, 2007, s352). This was noted to be the first time an appellate body had given priority to renewable energy over local interests (Jones, 2007). Justice Preston not only upheld the decision to approve, but also expanded the original wind farm to include additional turbines requested by the developer (Jones, 2007). The approval required the
6.4 Taralga, NSW

Up to 186MW; 62 turbines; under construction Summary: Proposal opposed in two courts; approval granted including expansion with required land acquisition. The Taralga wind farm is located 140 kilometres south west from Sydney in a town with a population of 312 people (ABS, 2007a). The process of approval for the wind farm
28
developer, RES Southern Highland, to acquire land holdings most affected by visual impact, noise and shadow flicker at market value (Jopson, 2009a). The resulting consent approved 62 turbines to be constructed approximately 3km and 7km to the east of the town of Taralga and comprises nine private landholdings plus a parcel of vacant Crown land (RES Southern Highlands, 2007). The interview participants referred to concerns raised with visual and noise impacts, and poor consultation processes that resulted in community tensions, feelings of secrecy during the negotiations, and a court case initiated by community members.
noise. A respondent detailed that an eight-month period of reconciliation occurred, but the appellants chose to proceed with the court case. All witnesses outlined the annoying nature of the noise, which differs according to weather conditions. The witness stated that the noise had resulted in sleep disturbance, headaches, stress, and ear problems (Environment Resources and Development Court [ERDC], 2010, s97). Two turbine hosts appeared in support of the company, and neither reported annoyance with the turbine noise (ERDC, 2010, s98). The appeal was denied by the Environment, Resources and Development Court, but is now lodged with the Supreme Court (ERDC, 2010).
6.5 Hallett 1-5, SA

430.9MW; 197 turbines (over 5 wind farms); operational (H1, H2), under construction (H4, H5), proposed (H3) Summary: One of the five Hallett wind farms is contested in court; other Hallett wind farms contributed 80 job years1 per annum. The Hallett wind farm in South Australia consists of five stages with Hallett 1 and 2 (Brown Hill and Hallett Hill) being operational, Hallett 3 (Mount Bryan) proposed, and Hallett 4 and 5 (North Brown Hill and Bluff Range) under construction (The Australian Gas Light Company [AGL], 2010). The company, the Australian Gas Light Company (AGL), established a Wind Farm Community Fund to support local communities through public building maintenance and sponsorship of local events initiatives or activities, and by 2010 had allocated $110, 000 (SKM, 2010). Beyond this fund, the economic gains to the local communities from the Hallett wind farms are estimated to be an average of 80 job years per annum and additional indirect employment estimated at between 2,000 and 2,400 job years (SKM, 2010). It was noted that local farmers had been experiencing financial difficulties, and could now gain financially from turbine rental. Local residents near Hallett 3 (Mt. Bryan) appealed the approval by the Regional Council of Goyders Development Assessment Panel on the grounds of visual impact and
6.6 Waitpinga (Victor Harbor), SA

50MW; 20 turbines; rejected Summary: Wind farm proposal rejected owing to non-compliance with surrounding area regulations. In 2002, on-site wind tests began in the vicinity of grazing land near Newland Conservation Park in the Victor Harbor region of South Australia (Pippos, 2004). The Victor Harbor council stated that the proposed wind farm would affect scenic views from the nearby bluff and would also interrupt the flight path of the White Bellied Sea Eagle (Pippos, 2005). Owing to being a non-compliant development within the Mount Lofty Ranges Primary Production Area, the project was referred to South Australias Development Assessment Commission (DAC), rather than the local government and then the Environment, Resources and Development Court (DAC, 2011). As the Minister for Urban Development and Planning is the decision maker for DAC approval, there are no appeal rights against its judgements (Renewables SA, 2011). The DAC received a total of 210 submissions in regards to the development with 162 opposed, 47 in support and one neutral (DAC, 2004). One respondent noted the visual impact on the Heysen walking trail and the coast as key aspects of the oppositions submissions. In its final assessment, the DAC noted that the wind farm site had an excellent wind resource, close proximity to grid connection and sufficient distances from dwellings. However, the DAC
A job year represents one full-time equivalent job for one year. For example, 80 job years represents the equivalent of a full-time position for 80 years.
29
rejected the proposal on the grounds that it did not comply with the Mount Lofty Ranges Primary Production Area, and also would have had a visual impact in a coastal area of high scenic values (DAC, 2005).
Other concerns noted in the submissions were in relation to noise, distance to dwellings, flora and fauna impacts, and effects on spring water and aviation safety (VCAT, 2007). In approving the proposal, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal referred to the greenhouse gas abatement benefits, compliance with noise regulations, and mitigation of visual impacts through existing vegetation and the potential for more tree-planting (VCAT, 2007). A respondent in support of the wind farm stated that, despite the positive outcome for the development, the court case involved an outlay of approximately $30,000 for the company. In response to the other objections noted, VCAT determined that these were not found, on our scrutiny, to be ones that are fairly or properly based and/or justify refusal of the permit application (VCAT, 2007, p.7).
6.7 Community-scale wind farms: Hepburn,VIC and Castlemaine,VIC

Hepburn wind farm
4MW; 2 turbines; operational Summary: First community-owned wind farm in Australia. The Hepburn wind farm is the first community-owned wind farm in Australia, developed on the basis of successful models in Denmark, Britain, Canada and the United States (Mount Alexander Sustainability Group [MASG], 2010). The wind farm was initiated to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions and to ensure returns to local shareholders (Hepburn Wind, 2011). The farm, which recently became operational, includes two turbines. It is anticipated to generate enough power for up to 2,300 homes in an average year, which is more than the 2,000 homes in nearby Daylesford. A respondent noted that this farm is appropriately sized for the community. It is owned and operated by a community co-operative of 1,900 members, who have contributed $9.6m (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal [VCAT], 2007). One respondent noted that the Victorian state government provided seed funding to cover initial approvals and assessments. The co-operative intends to invest $1,000,000 in grants to local community sustainability initiatives throughout the life of the project (Hepburn Wind, 2011). A respondent noted that this community fund contribution is up to ten times larger than voluntary community funds from large-scale wind farms. Despite the small size and community focus of the project, objector comments were still received. One respondent noted that over 300 letters of support to the council were received for the project, and 18 in opposition. Some of the submissions in opposition emphasised the visually obtrusive nature of the development, and noted that an earlier proposal for mobile phone towers had been rejected on Leonards Hill for visual and landscape reasons (VCAT, 2007).
Castlemaine wind farm

6MW; 3 turbines; proposed Summary: 3-turbine proposal initiated by community. The Castlemaine wind farm is a proposal for three turbines located 120 kilometres northwest of Melbourne (Future Energy, 2010). This community-scale wind farm is proposed by the Mount Alexander Sustainability Group, a not-forprofit community-based group, to enable local people to be responsible for ownership and control of their electricity source (MASG, 2010). The Castlemaine project has drawn on the experiences of the Hepburn wind farm to inform its process of deployment (MASG, 2010). One respondent noted that a large proportion of the community represented in the MASG (1,200 of a total 17,000 residents) are predominantly supportive of the local, community-scale wind farm. However, at this stage approval has not been granted.
6.8 Bald Hills,VIC

109MW; 52 turbines; under construction Summary: Initially rejected owing to risk to Orange-bellied Parrot, but later approved with conditions and re-design. This 52-turbine Bald Hills wind farm is under construction in South Gippsland, Victoria, and has been in development since
30
2003. The project will produce a total output of 109MW. The social impact assessment identified the potential for friction between landholders who have turbines on their properties and their neighbours (Offor, Sharp & Assoc., 2003). Submissions opposing the wind farm were received during the planning process and raised concerns regarding the following local impacts: trade-offs to greenhouse benefits, impacts relating to aesthetics, flora and fauna (including the Orange-bellied Parrot), and noise (Smith, 2004). Respondents outlined the visual impacts to the many small hobby farms, and the perceived noise impacts that would affect the life of peace and quiet and beauty. One respondent also noted the significant number of residences within 1000 metres of the turbinesthis due to the subdivision of the surrounding land. The project was assessed on its potential wildlife impact but no significant likelihood of harm to the Orange-bellied Parrot was found (Prest, 2007). This finding was based partly on evidence from a Victorian Parks and Wildlife ranger involved in the cross-border Orange-bellied Parrot recovery team, who stated, the Bald Hills proposed wind farm is about 30km from the nearest place where the parrots are likely to be in Gippsland. It is highly unlikely that any of them go up there. There are just about no OBPs in the area (in Prest, 2007, p.237). The Federal Minister for Plannings departmental staff advised that, subject to both 29 detailed recommendations and an additional evaluation of bird impacts, the project should proceed (Smith, 2004).,The Minister for Planning, however, overruled this advice and rejected the wind farm proposal, stating the Parrot is threatened and is in a precarious situation as a species, cant really stand any further potential impacts. The wind farm proposed could have such an impact and hasten the extinction of that species (in Prest, 2007 p.232; Hannan, 2009a). Media commentators opined that this was a politically driven move to win votes with opposing community members in the marginal seat of McMillan (Sellars, 2010). Eight months later, the wind company lodged an appeal with a revised layout of turbines and proposed funding for parrot conservation and recovery. The Minister then approved the project (Hannan, 2008b).
6.9 Toora,VIC
21MW; 12 turbines; operational Summary: Continuing complaints regarding noise impacts. The Toora wind farm consists of 12 turbines in a dairy farming area, 180 kilometres south west of Melbourne in South Gippsland. Toora village is described as picturesque and includes a migratory bird breeding ground (Jones, 2007). Dairy farming still occurs on the land upon which the 12 turbines reside (Transfield Services Infrastructure [TSI], 2010). Since operation began around 2003, the Toora wind farm has had community members complain about the noise impacts, triggering the local council to commission an assessment of the noise (Fowler, 2005).
31
7. Findings from interviews

This section provides the findings from the interviews regarding factors that affect community acceptance of rural wind farms.
These findings are supported by information identified in the desktop review of available literature and information. The reasons for wind farm objection or support are listed in the order in which they were prioritised in the media analysis findings, with the most often-cited reason presented first. The literature and information findings are presented at the start of each section, with the interview findings presented at the end of each section. In Australia, most wind farms are situated in coastal vicinities and along highly visible ridgelines to take advantage of strong wind resources along high terrain and coastal cliffs (Nadai & van der Horst, 2009). Their visible nature can trigger concerns around cultural, aesthetic, heritage or environmental issues (Lothian, 2002). The local community can interpret the introduction of wind turbines into a non-industrial area as an intrusion on the surrounding landscapes (Preston, 2007). Indeed, Wolsink (2009) considered community acceptance as significantly influenced by the landscape in which the wind turbines are located. Added to the installation of wind turbines are the associated transmission lines, which are required to connect rural wind farms to sub-stations that feed population centres. Research has noted that wind turbine location and transmission line installation often elicit similar responses regarding community acceptance for both visibility impacts and planning processes (Huber & Horbaty, 2010). The movement of the turbine blades adds to the
7.1 Visual aspects

In the media analysis, landscape change and visual amenity were most often cited as reasons for rejecting wind farms. This section describes the visual and aesthetic aspects of wind farms, the effect of scale of turbines and wind farm design on acceptance, the difficulty in assessing visual impacts owing to the subjectivity of the issue, and existing regulation intended to manage visual impacts.
32
visual impact of wind turbines (Pedersen, 2007). As this is most often raised when discussing health impacts, turbine movement will be discussed in the section on health impacts.
Its a much more honest form of electricity generation you see what you get. XB, NSW, 10/2/11. Conversely, there were participants with a clear dislike for viewing wind turbines in their area, calling them: Large industrial structures that will change the landscape and change the lives of those living near them. YF, doc source, 2008.
7.1.1 Subjectivity of landscape impacts

Finding: Visual impact is highly subjective and is influenced by the history of the landscape, place attachment, competing land uses, and length of time since installation. Although research has found that visual impact is one of the most important factors in community acceptance, levels of concern amongst the public are highly subjective and can differ depending on location, local context and place attachment (Devine-Wright, 2008; VCAT, 2007). The Environmental Protection and Heritage Council (2010) takes the approach that there are a wide variety of opinions regarding how a landscape is valued and these perceptions are influenced by visual, cultural, spiritual, environmental, and other factors (EPHC, 2010). The following selection of interview responses illustrates the diverse and subjective nature of how a wind farm is perceived: It depends a bit on individual taste. XF, SA, 15/2/11. The ugly backyards and the local town where some of the complainers live, their back yards are a pigsty. So they talk about aesthetics you know? XT, SA, 2/3/11. Others argued that the landscape has already been changed significantly by European settlement, stating:
Some of these statements of dislike may be linked with place attachment (see Devine-Wright, 2005a). All participants were asked to describe the landscape into which the turbines were, or would be, installed. For most participants, the positive descriptions of their local landscape were linked to their dislike of the turbines. Statements reflecting this link to the area and the sense of attachment that conflicts with the wind farm development included: [Its a] beautiful, pretty set of hills and the last thing you want is it to be torn to shreds sticking wind mills all over it. XI, SA, 17/2/11. It destroys the reason that people have either chosen to live where they live, or chosen to remain in the area. XY, NSW, 11/2/11. A lot of the locals said well we sit on a veranda in the evening and look at the hills and they said well, well provide you with trees to block them out. But then ... youre not getting the view that you really intended in the first place. XS, NSW, 2/3/11. Other negative statements were linked with concerns that
You cant really use the argument that the landscape youre looking at is very different than what it was 200 years ago ... you know, all these cleared, bald, windy hills at some point were full of trees. XB, NSW, 10/2/11. Some participants appreciated the aesthetics of the wind turbines. Words such as majestic, impressive, quite beautiful were used by a number of participants. One household was reported to have changed the design of their house in order to view the turbines directly. Another stated:
the visual impact would be unacceptable to local income, including tourism and film locations. On tourism, there was a concern stated about return visitors: People go there to ... go hiking, bushwalking, look at the hills, go camping, whatever. They are concerned that if we put wind farms everywhere there will be a percentage of people will say Im not going there again. XF, SA, 15/2/11.
33
With an areas use for outdoor film sets, a concern was that it would be damaged: Weve got spectacular views out here of the hills ... its used a lot for movie making. Its actually overlooking where they want to film. XQ, NSW, 1/2/11. The subjectivity of the visual aspect of turbines seemed to alter post-installation. One respondent considered that the reality of the wind farm was worse than anticipated, because: The size of them was a bit of a surprise. But it wasnt because they hadnt been told how big they were, its just [the locals] didnt have a mental picture of how high 150 metres is XN, NSW, 23/2/11. For the remainder of participants, the installation of the wind farm was more acceptable. Statements included: Now that those wind farms have been established in the area for a while, theres ample opportunity for people to see them for themselves, hear them for themselves, and most people are happily living amongst them. XZ, SA, 11/2/11. I suppose you get used to them in the end but I mean when you first see them, it does sort of strike your eyes. XS, NSW, 2/3/11.
early engagement with community and interest groups to identify important landscape values (EPHC, 2010). The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal clarified that visibility does not equate to an unreasonable visual impact [and] visual impact can be mitigated by landscaping and landform (VCAT, 2007, p.12). On distance from residences, in New South Wales, the Government responded to the recommendation from a 2009 inquiry, re-stating its support for the current approach, whereby setbacks of wind turbines are derived on a site specific assessment that considers surrounding land use, topography and potential noise, and visual impacts (NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2010). Most recently, the federal Senate recommended in its report on social and health impacts of wind farms that further consideration be given to the development of policy on separation criteria between residences and wind farm facilities, but noted that a set distance may not be appropriate to alleviate impacts (Australian Senate, 2011). As noted earlier, the renewable energy industry is concerned that policies proposing setback distances between turbines and dwellings in Victoria will prevent the development of many proposed wind farm (CEC, 2011b). On the scale of turbines and wind farms, Australian wind farms tend to be large scale and recent wind farm installations have indeed involved larger turbines (Huber and & Horbaty, 2010). This preference is related to the economic costs of wind farm development and the structure of the market, reflected in the policy, which favours larger scale farms (Parkinson, 2011b). This acts against research findings that smaller scale wind farms are more readily accepted and positively perceived than larger wind farms (Devine-Wright 2005a). In Ireland, splitting a larger wind farm development into smaller clusters was found, in a survey of attitudes, to be more acceptable for preserving visual amenity than a single development of 25 turbines (Sustainable Energy Ireland [SEI], 2003). To ensure design discussions and siting options during planning stages, visualisation techniques, such as visual montages, are becoming increasingly employed (Huber & Horbaty, 2010).
7.1.2 Size and scale of wind farms

Finding: The layout and number of turbines in each cluster can minimise perceived negative visual impact. The distance from homes and the size and number of turbines can affect responses and acceptance related to visual impacts (EPHC, 208). The National Assessment Framework, developed by the Australian Council of National Trusts and the then Australian Wind Energy Association, recommends a series of landscape assessments with thorough community involvement at each step to influence the siting and design of wind farms in relation to landscape values (Australian Council of National Trusts [ACNT] and Auswind, 2007). The Environmental Protection and Heritage Council recommend
34
Interview participants raised the above issues, unprompted, and followed these with recommendations on designing wind farms that minimise negative visual impact. Use of photo montages in consultation: Despite the possibility to visually present a proposed wind farm in photo montages during consultation, several participants found these could be misleading if the height and bulk were not representative, if the turbines were presented smaller than in reality, and if shadow flicker could not be represented in photos. Ensure vegetation screens: We planted well over 1,000 trees in different locations. So they had a chance to get going before the wind farm was constructed. XH, NSW, 16/2/11. Build wind farms in small clusters, spread out Maximise underground cabling Prohibit lights, where possible Build on large, single-owner/company-purchased properties: There are 30 on a ridge in the middle of a 14,000 acre property. So theres no one really close to it. I think thats a perfect situation. XM, NSW, 16/2/11. Restrict numbers of wind farms in each region: I think the angst has come with the new bigger turbines and in bigger numbers. XM, NSW, 16/2/11. Consider setback from residences: One community respondent stated that, There should be an absolute minimum distance of two kilometres between non host residences and wind turbines and certain areas out of each state shouldnt be subjected to this kind of development. XY, NSW, 11/2/11.
However, a developer noted that, in smaller and more populated states such as Victoria, such a setback would significantly constrict further wind farm development, especially community-scale wind farms: The new planning regulations requiring very large setbacks from nearest turbine to nearest house ... will make it extremely difficult [for community-scale wind farms] to get up with those new regulations.... So they react by effectively making it harder and harder to get any project permitted at all. And of course, that is yet another layer of complexity for a community group to try and deal with. XC, Victoria, 10/2/11.
7.1.3 Offshore wind turbines

Finding: The expense of offshore turbines to avoid local visual impact is difficult to justify in Australia. A planning alternative for managing land-based turbine installation is offshore wind turbines. However, siting of turbines in the sea, which has occurred in Denmark, the United Kingdom and Belgium, also elicits concerns regarding visual impacts, as well as concerns from the fishing industry and raises difficulties for weather conditions and maintenance (Wolsink, 2009; Ladenburg, 2008). In Australia, the Western Australian coast has been noted as providing the most suitable location for potential offshore wind energy, based on wind speed, water depth, environmental impact and development costs. The costs to build and maintain offshore farms, however, are much higher than land-based alternatives and, unlike in Australia, the European farms have been justified due to the lack of large available expanses of land (Rice, 2008).
35
7.2 Noise impacts

The media analysis found that perceived and actual noise impacts were the second most frequently cited reason for opposing a wind farm (after visual impacts). When discussing noise from wind turbines, both audible noise and infrasound are mentioned. Research has defined three categories that can be identified when discussing the types of effects of both audible and infrasound noise on humans: Subjective (annoyance, nuisance and dissatisfaction); Interference (with everyday activities such as speech, learning and sleep); and Physiological (e.g. tinnitus, anxiety and hearing loss (Rogers et al., 2006). This section discusses subjective perceptions of noise impacts. The perceived health impacts from interference and physiological impacts are discussed in the later section under health impacts.
effects, although guidance on its assessment in response to complaints is provided (EPHC, 2010, p.9). More recently, two of the Senate inquirys seven recommendations addressed infrasound. These recommended that firstly, noise standards consider low frequency noise and vibrations indoors at impacted dwellings, and secondly, that further assessment of noise impacts (including infrasound) be undertaken by the National Acoustics Laboratories (Australian Senate, 2011).
7.2.2 Audible noise

Findings: Weather conditions and geography affect the level of noise impacts; noise from wind turbines is reported more than the equivalent transportation noise; those who gain financially from wind turbines are less likely to lodge a complaint. When processing audible noise, there are three inputs: the local ambient noise, the turbines, and distant noise sources. As it is not possible to separate out the contribution of each noise source, it is recorded as a single-value in decibels at a specific location, such as a residence (NMS, 2010). The audible noise contribution of wind turbines is broadband noise (not, as claimed elsewhere, material low frequency noise), modulated at low frequencies and creating the swishing sound (Renewable UK, 2010). There is a range of criteria whereby the level of audible noise is affected, including: meteorological conditions, wind turbine spacing, turbine synchronicity, tower height, blade length, and power settings (NMS, 2010). A comparison by the National Health and Medical Research Council (2010b) found the noise contribution from a ten-turbine wind farm measured at a distance of 350m (35-45 dbA) placed it between the noise level of a quiet bedroom (35 dbA) and a car travelling at 64km/h (55 dbA). It has been noted that background noise, especially wind passing through vegetation close to the residence, can act to mask turbine noise (Diesendorf, 2011). An additional input is the recently-termed van den Berg
7.2.1 Infrasound
Finding: Wind turbines create a pulsing sound below human hearing. Infrasound is sound usually beneath the threshold of human hearing and is emitted from a range of natural sources (e.g. wind and sea) and artificial sources (e.g. traffic and air conditioners) (NSW DECCW, 2010a; British Wind Energy Association [BWEA], 2005). The infrasound of natural wind is laminar (smooth) with a low-frequency flow pattern, while wind turbines have been found to have a pulsing infrasound and low-frequency pattern (Noise Measurement Services [NMS], 2010, p.5). Changes to the design of wind turbines have attempted to reduce the level of infrasound by locating the blades upwind of the wind tower instead of downwind (BWEA, 2005). Regarding infrasound, the South Australian Environment Protection Authority (SA EPA) recommends that annoying characteristics that are not fundamental to a typical wind farm should be rectified (SA EPA 2003, p.13). The draft National Wind Farm Development Guidelines for wind do not provide specific assessment of infrasound as it is considered well below the uppermost levels required to cause any health
effect that attempts to describe sound emissions at night-time which appear to have been underestimated in previous extrapolations of daytime measurement data (van den Berg, 2004). This effect is described as a thumping noise which occurs on some cold, still, winter nights, owing to a temperature inversion between the extremes of rotor tip extension (Preston, 2007). The van den Berg effect
36
has been raised as a concern for Australian wind farms, and even though it is not clear whether it is specific to the locality in Germany where it was recorded (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal [VCAT], 2007, p.22), one NSW judgement accepted that it was reasonably possible it may also occur in the Australian context (Preston, 2007). To manage audible sound, the South Australian Environment Protection Authoritys (SA EPA) Wind Farms: Environmental Noise Guidelines (2003) are described as the most stringent in the world, and have been adopted in NSW and other states (NSW Government, 2011, p.5). These SA Guidelines recommend that the noise level from a wind farm should not exceed an equivalent continuous noise level of 35dB(A), or the background noise level by more than 5dB(A), whichever is the greater (SA EPA, 2003)). In NSW and Victoria, conditions of planning approvals require that noise monitoring be routinely carried out on wind farms (NSW DECCW 2010a; VCAT, 2007). The draft National Wind Farm Development Guidelines (EPHC, 2010, p.9) clarify that specific noise limits are the responsibility of state and territory authorities, but do recommend that any assessment should refer to the Australian Standard 4959-2010 Acoustics Measurement, prediction and assessment of noise from wind turbine generators, and provide guidance and technical methodologies for assessing issues as well as guidance on community consultation. Interview participants outlined that the main audible noise from wind turbines is:
reported hearing turbine noise when there was no background noise and minimal airflow in the valley.. One respondent described the noise from turbines on a ridge as: flowing just like water. It flows down the gullies. Between each ridge is a gully and those gullies all run straight down through the middle of town. XI, SA, 17/2/11. Another respondent, living in a desert region, stated that: When you have still mornings or evenings the sound just travels unbelievably out here. XQ, NSW, 1/2/11. International research has found there is a higher proportion of reported noise annoyance from wind turbines than from the equivalent amount of transportation noise. It was proposed that the participants attitude to the visual impact of wind turbines on the landscape scenery was found to influence noise annoyance (Pedersen & Persson Waye, 2004, p.3460). This finding supported earlier research from Gipe (1991), which found the perceived tranquillity of the local landscape for the local population is often highly valued. The introduction of a new sound, from which the surrounding residents receive no direct benefit, heavily impacts on their acceptance and support of the technology (Gipe, 1991). These research findings are supported by comments from the participants. One noted that some residents preconceptions were so high that: There were people who complained about the noise of the
The chooff, chooff, chooff of the blades passing the tower [but it is] the grinding in the gears whining, grinding. ... this buzzing of the older, smaller turbines that is hard to accept. XI, SA, 17/2/11. Newer turbines do not have a gear box, removing this source of noise:
wind farm before it was even constructed. XW, NSW, 24/3/11. Respondents suggested that this heightened sensitivity to noise, which can start before the turbines are installed, could lead to people listening out specifically: They hear the tree noise. They probably never noticed
The newer turbines are - true, they might be twice the sizebut theyre less than half as noisy as those original turbines. XP, NSW, 24/2/11. Respondents noted that weather conditions and geography affected the level of noise. Residences situated in valleys
it before. But they have been sensitised to it by all the propaganda....Theyre listening out now and then they hear a noise and they think thats definitely the wind farm causing all that. XW, NSW, 24/3/11.
37
Despite acknowledging the noise impacts, many participants identified noise barriers that were effective. For example, few people heard the turbines when they were inside their homes because: As soon as you go inside and youve got the radio or the television on theyre not an issue. XJ, NSW, 24/3/11. Vegetation barriers were effective as both visual and noise screens: As soon as the wind gets to a certain level not terribly strong the noise of the wind in the trees and the noise of the wind generally is much louder than the noise the turbines make. XP, NSW, 24/2/11. The participants also identified other noises surrounding their homes that were more constant or louder than the turbines: Ive got a road 450 metres from the house and its heaps noisier than [the turbines] I hear it every day of the week. XM, NSW, 16/2/11. Some farmers even had older windmills still operating very closely beside their homes for power: Weve all got our windmills running away ... [farmers] dont seem to object to them [even though] they are noisier XT, SA, 2/3/11. Several participants noted, with irony, that those locals not financially gaining from the turbines often made noise complaints: Its amazing how if youre getting money off something it doesnt actually worry you. XM, NSW, 16/2/11.
7.3 Environmental impacts and benefits

Wildlife impacts were one aspect of the theme external changes to locality, the main theme in the media analysis cited as grounds for rejecting a wind farm proposal. There were a number of environmental concerns and benefits raised in the desktop review and the interviews. Concerns were raised regarding the impact on birds and bats as well as physical landscape damage. To try to limit or amend these impacts, specific risks to birds and bats are considered during wind farm development assessment in Victoria and NSW (NSW DECCW, 2010a). In Victoria, this includes assessments of the size, location and spacing of wind turbines, and their proximity to native flora and fauna, while in NSW wind farm developers anticipate impacts of turbines on birds and bats through the Environmental Assessment process and the conditions of consent applied to development approvals (New South Wales Parliament Legislative Council, 2009).
7.3.1 Bird impacts

Finding: Bird deaths from turbines are much lower than deaths by domestic cats, but mitigation measures exist. There is evidence that birds may become endangered through collisions with turbines, especially when migrating. Hppop et al. (2006) examined year round bird migration over the North Sea and identified that birds flying at low levels or under poor visibility are attracted to the illuminated turbines and this results in collisions. Cohn (2008) proposed that the rotation speed of the turbines is too fast for birds to see, and this causes collisions. To put this in context, however, 40,000 birds die per year as a result of wind turbines, while domestic cats kill hundreds of millions (Marris & Fairless, 2007). Some installed measures to prevent bird fatalities include prohibiting wind farms in heavy density migration areas, switching off the turbines during hazardous weather events and migration seasons, modifying turbine lights to be blinking rather than continual (Hppop et al., 2006). To prevent turbine collision with larger birds, including Wedge-tailed eagles, mitigation measures include removing stock carcasses and control programs for rabbits and other vermin (VCAT, 2007).
38
7.3.2 Bat impacts

Finding: Dead sonar bats have been found at turbines, but the reasons are unknown. Deaths of microbats (bats that navigate using sonar) have occurred at wind farms in Australia and overseas (ABS, 2008). Theories for the causes of death include the high frequency noise disrupting the echolocation systems of the bats, or a drop in pressure in the bats (barotraumas) (Brahic, 2008). It is unknown whether the bats killed by wind turbines are actively migrating, mating, or attracted to turbines (Cryan, 2009). The Australasian Bat Society recommends consulting with bat specialists during the prospecting and impact assessment stages, and ensuring post-construction monitoring (ABS, 2008).
Low carbon electricity: This is a project being driven under the auspices of [the local] sustainability group the number one focus of the group is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so it just fits automatically into the priorities of the group. ...its more about greenhouse action than financial gain. XG, Victoria, 15/2/11. Ideally, what wed like to achieve is for the city itself it could be self-sustaining on renewable energy. XR, NSW, 4/3/11.
Synergies with grazing: Grazing livestock appear unaffected by wind turbines, since they graze beneath the turbines, and use the posts for rubbing and for shade (NSW DECCW, 2010a). One turbine host stated: The stock absolutely love it ... beside each turbine there is an area of hardened, compacted gravel... This is where the sheep and cattle like to sit too ... its warm in the winter. XW, NSW, 24/3/11.
7.3.3 Environmental impacts

Finding: Construction can cause erosion and change to hilltops, but environmental gains include low carbon electricity, supporting farming, and improving access for fire fighting. Several participants noted the damage and associated erosion in constructing level areas on high ridges and linkage roads: The sheer steepness of the terrain and the difficulty that it would be to get these roads networked ... theyd have to completely take the tops off the hills and fill up all the gullies to do what they want to. Theyll completely destroy the whole area. XI, SA, 17/2/11. However, wind farms were noted by participants as benefitting the environment through providing low carbon electricity, through supporting (and not displacing) farming, and through increasing access for bushfire responses:
Fire management gains: The new roads to turbines provide access during fire fighting: Weve got the roads now for the fire fighters to get round.... Now they have put these roads in and the fire truck can be there almost in seconds now from that fire shed... Theyve actually got a water tank on top too. XW- Turbine host, NSW, 24/3/11.
39
7.4 Economic aspects of wind farms

The media articles noted a range of economic gains of rural wind farm development, including direct financial inputs into the local town, tourism potential, and employment opportunities, as well as concerns about negative property price impacts and adequate compensation. Job creation in wind farm construction and, to a lesser extent, in operation of the wind farm, was the second-highest aspect cited in support of wind farm development in the media analysis. Financial benefits through indirect opportunities were also cited, including tourism potential. Perceived losses to property value were only cited twice in the 49 articles.
Provides drought-proof , complementary income: The main interest I have is ... a drought-proofing income stream for my property.... few farmers in this region could survive without off-farm income. YD, 2008, doc source.
Provides pension fund: Prior to the wind farm, selling up was our only option because ... I havent had the opportunity for superannuation or any other assets ... Now were looking at the option of keeping the land for ever and a day, and the money that comes off the wind farm will be my retirement pension. XJ, NSW, 24/3/11.
7.4.1 Direct financial gain

Finding: Turbine hosts can use rental income to remain on the farm post-retirement, conserve biodiversity, and prevent subdividing; communities benefit from a local wind farm through increased local business, community funds and local government revenue. Communities can benefit from the injection of new investment [in] wind farm development in their locality, especially when the agricultural sector is under pressure, such as the recent eleven-year drought (Upper Lachlan Shire Council, 2008). During construction and later maintenance, local economies can gain from workforce expenditure on local goods. In the area around the Hallett wind farms in South Australia, the construction phase added 3.3% to the Mid North Gross Regional Product (GRP) in 2009, and the ongoing maintenance and operation is expected to increase the Mid North GRP by up to 1.4% (SKM Consulting, 2010). At an individual level, hosting wind turbines can provide a supplementary income stream for farmers (Hope, 2011). The interview analysis highlighted both the turbine host and the community as recipients of the financial opportunities, as described in their words, below: For the turbine host, the turbine rental payments enable a range of benefits.
Funds land protection: [With] a bit of money to put turbines on my property that wont devalue my property well be able to run less animals and put less pressure on the land and look after it a whole lot better, get the biodiversity happening as it should thats a good outcome for me. YD, 2008, doc source.
Enables maintenance of larger land parcels: It is quite hard land to earn a living off ... Really his other option was to subdivide it. XL, SA, 16/2/11.
Community-wide benefits from a local wind farm were noted by participants as including an increase in local business turnover, the provision of funds for community initiatives, a focus for regional development and renewal, and local government revenue: Increase local business: The day-to-day impact that it has in terms of demand for all sorts or virtually every business in [town] from the newsagents to haircuts to pies to hardware to concrete and other supplies. It just goes on and on, grass seed, everything. Theres a constant flow of business into the local community. XH, NSW, 16/2/11.
40
Provisions of community funds, local sponsorship: From the first day that we start construction works, the clock starts ticking on this community fund. Every year, we allocate $15,000 [which] escalates every year with CPI [it] goes to local community associations and clubs and worthy groups. XZ, SA, 11/2/11.
7.4.3 Tourism potential

Finding: Wind farms can attract tourism, but may conflict with other tourism features. Wind turbines can add a tourism feature to the landscape. Indeed, the Victorian Civil and Administrative ruled in the approval of the Cape Bridgewater wind farm that it would add a positive element to the landscape interest, and could become a significant tourist attraction in the South Gippsland area (Jones, 2007, p.267). One respondent noted: [The wind farm] has increased tourism; its put them on the map a bit. You know, they sell T-shirts and bumper stickers of our wind farm. XB, NSW, 10/2/11. However, interview participants also noted that the presence of turbines negatively affected, or they anticipated it to negatively affect, their other tourism features, including: Country accommodation: It defeated the purpose of having a B&B in a picturesque rural landscape. XV, SA, 8/3/11. Increased traffic on rural roads during construction, with the risk of: Blocking our road ... and hinder our tourist traffic XQ, NSW, 1/3/11. Changed landscape: The wind turbines damaged the view that attracted landscape tourists who came to paint and view the large expanses of scenery; and Scenic local businesses: Some local galleries and cafes have direct views straight across the village at the hills on the opposite side... When you point out [the proposed wind farm site] to visitors to the town, theyre absolutely horrified. XQ, NSW, 1/3/11.
Community development: [With] community renewable energy project ... its about regional development. ... a way of providing a long-term revenue stream for that community to be able to then bring back new enterprise and thus new people and jobs into the community. XO, Victoria, 24/2/11.
Local government revenue: Were giving [money to council] to seal a key road ... The funding that we provided has enabled their civil works teams to ... generate cash flow for council. XH, NSW, 16/2/11.
7.4.2 Employment opportunities

Finding: Direct jobs are higher during wind farm construction; less for long-term operation. Renewable energy infrastructure manufacture, construction and maintenance create more jobs per invested dollar than conventional power generation (UNEP, 2008). Additional local benefits are gained when construction and maintenance are undertaken by local businesses (Huber and Horbaty, 2010). It was lamented by a number of participants that the employment opportunities acted like a boom and bust cycle (XI, SA, 17/2/11). In the Hallett wind farms development by 2010, direct employment of 450 full time equivalent construction job years had been created, plus 15 job years in operations (SKM Consulting, 2010). This development has also generated manufacturing and support jobs in other parts of South Australia, nationally and overseas, with flowon expenditure from the wages and salaries of construction workers into the region (SKM Consulting, 2010). The Hallett wind farms development also appeared to increase the local rental market and encouraged new accommodation developments (SKM, 2010).
41
7.4.4 Changes to property values

Finding: Prices of neighbouring properties have not been found to increase or decrease, although the potential market of buyers may be decreased. To date, it does not appear that wind farms necessarily lead to negative impacts on neighbouring property prices. An assessment of 78 property sales around the Crookwell wind farm over the period 1990-2006 found no reductions in property values (Henderson and Horning, 2006). A more recent assessment prepared for the NSW Valuer General (NSW Department of Lands, 2009) analysed property sales transaction data for 45 properties near six wind farms in Australia. No reductions in sale price were evident for properties located in townships with views of the wind farm. Of the 45 sales examined, 40 property sales did not show any reductions in value. Of the five properties that received lower than expected sale prices, further work was recommended to confirm the extent to which these were caused by the wind farm (NSW Department of Lands, 2009). The interview participants held differing views and experiences of neighbouring property prices following wind turbine installation. Several objectors to a particular wind farm proposal cited an anecdotal devaluation of up to 40 percent (YB, 2006, source doc). Conversely, two NSW participants cited actual price increases on local properties, all of which occurred after the installation of the wind farm. A respondent who had purchased a property less than one kilometre from an established wind farm noted the impact on market depth and/or on perceived options. While the wind farm might not reduce the actual value of a particular property, it could limit the market of buyers, such as those seeking to subdivide. He stated: [It would] limit the market you can sell to.... Id possibly halve my inspections.... it depends always on how quickly you need to get [sell]. XM, NSW, 16/2/11. Currently, the value of properties is not assessed during wind farm development (or for other developments). The evidence may be difficult to establish for wind farm impact on market depth and perceived options. Similarly, it may
be difficult to establish the value of contrary benefits, such as improved road maintenance, due to uncertain causation. The draft National Wind Farm Development Guidelines consider it would be a dangerous precedent to introduce this requirement to compensate aggrieved individuals (EPHC, 2008, p.45).
7.4.5 Adequate compensation

Finding: For some individuals, sufficient financial compensation will make a wind farm acceptable; this could include compensation/rental payments to all residents in a specified radius, payment of electricity bills and local government contributions. The provision of benefits (financial and otherwise) to communities can sometimes improve the social acceptability of wind farm developments. A compensation price ideally reflects the community or individual expectations of something they were expecting to keep, and planning policies may not meet these expectations (Cowell et al., 2011). A NSW Legislative Council Inquiry identified some circumstances that would be appropriate for adversely affected community members to receive some form of compensation, such as the purchasing of affected properties or the provision of financial compensation (NSW Legislative Council, 2009, p.xv). A former local government councillor recommended that neighbouring properties that experienced visual intrusion could be included in turbine rental payments (Prell, 2009). More recently, the new Victorian government was elected on a platform of election policies that included the establishment of a shared compensation for properties within one kilometre of a wind turbine (EcoGeneration, 2010). Many interview participants proposed several models of compensation that, in their actual or anticipated experience of wind farm developments, would be acceptable. These proposals are explained in the participants words, below: Payment in specified radius: Some sort of graded scale of compensation for non-host residents. If youre a kilometre away from a turbine and youve been engaged through the whole process of building the wind farm, it can be as simple as a dollar a metre. XB, NSW, 10/2/11.
42
Maximising affected properties: One respondent cited an approach from Europe that sought to site the wind farm on the maximum number of properties in order to share the financial returns (XO, Victoria, 24/2/11).
Other interview participants stated that no compensation of any amount could match their loss: If someones getting woken up at three oclock in the morning, night after night, no amount of money is going to make you happier. XI, SA, 17/2/11. Ive owned this property for 40 odd years. Ive invested a lot of time and money in it, but more importantly, the area is of enormous importance to me and the last thing I want to see is it desecrated in the way that when turbines would do this. In my case, no compensation is adequate. XY, NSW, 11/2/11. This position suggests the deeply-seated nature of place
Ensuring community ownership: A further European example provided was for a legislated percentage of the wind farm to be offered for purchase by neighbouring residents, to ensure that any impacts were balanced, somewhat, by a financial return (XO, Victoria, 24/2/11).
Payment to community: Perhaps something [legislated] on developments to support community infrastructure. XN, NSW, 23/2/11.
Payment of electricity bill: If I couldnt get an income stream from it, they could just pay my power bill and Id be happy. XM, NSW, 16/2/11.
attachment, whereby a new development conflicts with the identity and meaning that residents draw from their location (Devine-Wright, 2005a, p,136).
Payment to local government: Local government participants noted their hope for a revenue stream to their organisation or for maintenance funds, which does not currently occur. They cited their organisations are often being required to maintain rural roadways damaged by heavy construction traffic associated with the wind farm. One respondent noted that: Lots of heavy equipment over, in effect, unmade roads and its no different to what happens when mining moves into a region [but] its even more a disadvantage to the local council in that theyre doing it for an industry where there is no revenue. XF, SA, 15/2/11.
7.5 Planning processes and policies

In the media analysis, the theme of planning processes, including jurisdictional conflict over planning control, was the second most frequently cited theme for opposing a wind farm. Conversely, the fourth most-cited reason favouring wind farms was to introduce effective planning processes. Finding: For some, the planning system does not adequately consider contribution from individuals and communities, especially the experience of court appeals and critical infrastructure legislation. The Environmental Protection and Heritage Council stated that a significant impediment to wind farm development was a lack of consistency between jurisdictions on frameworks and methods for assessing proposed wind farm developments (EPHC, 2008). Currently, the Federal Commonwealths jurisdiction over wind farm developments is limited to matters of national environmental significance as listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, while state governments have the major responsibility for legislative frameworks for the approval, and local government is required to implement
Some wind farm developers had previously provided individual compensation to non-host residents, but this was rejected by several participants, including a company representative and a turbine host for opening a can of worms and initiating additional claims (XZ, SA, 11/2/11), for favouring small acreage holders and for resulting in further uneven financial gains throughout the community (XJ, NSW, 24/3/11).
43
a variety of legislation (EPHC, 2008). This section outlines several issues of concern experienced in the three Australian states with the most installed wind farms NSW, Victoria and South Australia. NSW: A Legislative Council Inquiry into wind farms in 2009 recommended that existing Local Government Development Control Plans (DCPs) for wind power generation be considered by wind farm developers during application (NSW Legislative Council 2009). The Government responded that DCPs are considered in relation to Part 3A projects where they are relevant and reasonable in the context of the merit-based assessment, but are not binding (NSW DPC, 2010, p.3). The NSW Government elected in 2011 intends to amend the Part 3A planning legislation given the controversy it has previously caused bypassing council approval (SchultzByard, 2011). Victoria: An earlier policy decision in Victoria and NSW was to shift planning approval responsibilities from local council to the State Minister for Planning for projects over 30MW. This process was introduced to prevent local councils being swayed in their decision by local influences. Additionally, these larger development applications require the Minister to give serious consideration to both renewable energy generation as well as community impacts (Prest, 2007). With the election of a new Victoria government in early 2011, the planning process was amended to restore decisionmaking powers to councils for wind farms with a capacity of 30MW or greater (ESAA, 2011). South Australia: Currently, the SA Government has a one-page policy for renewable energy facilities. This includes guidelines for location, siting, impacts on flora and fauna, aviation and fire risks, and noise and flicker issues (SA Planning, 2010). Currently, councils are required to use these planning policy guidelines when dealing with wind farm proposals, but consider the limited text too open to interpretation and subjective judgement ... to determine an acceptable planning outcome or to prevent the rural landscape [being] converted into
an industrial-scale one (Hope, 2011). Local councils have criticised the state plan as not going far enough in protecting residents and the environment from perceived adverse impacts (Crowley, 2010). For some interview participants, the planning system is not developed to adequately consider contributions from individuals and communities. This included participants experience of the court appeal system and the role of critical infrastructure clauses, as explained in their own words, below: Individuals disempowered in the court system: Having been through the court process, we know how much its stacked against you by the State Government. The whole planning process really is stacked against the individual. XK, NSW, 17/2/11. This perception is reinforced, as the only grounds for objections are technical flaws, rather than personal or place-based objections: The planning scheme gives power to objectors only when projects are technically flawed ... proponents are unlikely to put up technically flawed projects. XX, Victoria, 6/4/11. Critical infrastructure/state significance clause: The critical infrastructure legal option held by some state governments allows a proposal to be approved by the Minister and prohibits any merit appeal. As described more fully in section 4.3.6, this policy initiates many grievances for community members as it removes their ability to contribute to the design and approval of the development. One respondent described their experience: If it is declared as critical infrastructure, it is given the green light by the Department of Planning and there is absolutely no way we can contest their decision on the grounds of merit. So they can destroy anything they wish, they can destroy peoples amenity, peoples livelihood, the environment, the landscape, they can destroy all this and theres absolutely no appeal. XY, NSW, 11/2/11.
44
Beyond the individual experience, participants also raised concerns with policy limitations regarding the approval authority, the one size fits all wind policies, and the need for updated renewable energy policies, as described in the quotes, below: Call for local government to be approval authority: The approval authority bypasses local government if triggered by the size of the development or an appeal. Local government representatives and some community members sought restoration of this approval authority to ensure adequate consideration of local issues: Having that power [as an approving authority] ... does hold a certain amount of responsibility ... [local government can] balance the interests of green power and concerns of the local communities. XU, NSW, 4/3/11. Need for differentiated wind policy for community and industrial-scale: As described in section 4.3.10, community-scale wind farms are considered under the same policies as industrial-scale wind farms. This imposes significant hurdles and costs on the smaller proposals. One respondent noted: The planning processes are the same, whether youve got a two turbine wind farm or a 100 turbine wind farm ... theres not the policy environment that supports the uptake of communities to get projects off the ground. XO, Victoria, 24/2/11. Renewable energy policy requires appropriate scope and detail: In South Australia, participants noted that the state-based renewable energy policy is too short, not specific to wind farms, limits local government involvement, and is out of date: The SA state governments policies on wind farms are a number of years old and havent been updated ... it would be more consistent if the state government adopted some sort of formal policy about development control for wind farms. XF, SA, 15/2/11.
7.6 Consultation
The media analysis found that consultation (within the theme of planning processes) was within the second most frequently cited theme for opposing a wind farm. Finding: Respondents recommended consultation principles of honesty and transparency, full and unbiased information, and not interpreting fund donations as buying support Consultation is required in wind farm planning legislation, but there are many experiences of consultation documented as negative. Hindmarsh (2010, p.542) posited that inadequate consultation and engagement with the community is the primary governance problem contributing to social conflict around wind farm location in Australia. This section outlines the legislative requirements, the perceptions and some documented alternative approaches to achieve more positive consultation during wind farm development. Consultation regarding wind farm development is a delicate area. The experience, either positive or negative, confirms or alters a feeling of underlying trust. As Eltham et al. (2008, p.32) outlined, many community objections are actually underpinned by institutional factors, such as a disbelief in the planning system, distrust of the developer or the persuasive opinion of a local opposition group. Gross (2007, p.2733) found that stakeholders who supported the wind farm assessed the planning and consultation process as fair and the outcome as legitimate, whereas those who were opposed or neutral expressed dissatisfaction with the process and did not regard the outcome as acceptable or legitimate. A NSW Legislative Council Inquiry cautioned that the current legislative requirements for consultation currently in place have the potential to leave local communities disenfranchised and effectively erodes community support for the environmental imperatives central to renewable energy targets (NSW Legislative Council, 2009, p.xi). Considering this risk as well as the benefits to be gained from robust consultation, the draft National Wind Farm Development Guidelines recommend that consultation commence as early as possible during a new wind farm proposal and that industry ensure that consultation is an authentic two-way process between the developer and the community (EPHC,
45
2010). The Guidelines cite the International Association of Public Participations Spectrum of Public Participation that spans from informing to empowering outcomes, with a range of approaches from providing the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problems, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions, to placing decision-making in the hands of the public (International Association of Public Participation [IAP2], 2007). Despite this mention, Hindmarshs analysis of the Guidelines notes that no guarantee is given to affected communities of any decision-making power concerning wind farm location, which increasingly appears their preference (Hindmarsh, 2010, p.543). The following sub-sections consider consultation experiences and processes from the literature and from interview participants, from different periods during wind farm developments from both logistical and emotional dimensions. Relevant quotes from the participant interviews illustrate the perspective, and the key findings are highlighted in bold. Three principles were recommended by the participants for the company to maintain during its involvement with the local community. These included honesty and transparency, full and unbiased information, and ensuring that donations of funds to community infrastructure or programs are not perceived as tacit support. In support of the first principle, Smith and McDonough (2001) recommend open decision-making can prevent perceptions of secrecy or selective dealings, which have been attributed to further eroding both trust of the process and developer, as well as the acceptance of the final decision. Evidence of the need for the final principle is best reflected in a respondents comment on the effects of compensation in their local community: They gave a heap of funds, money to the Football Club.... If youre opposed to wind turbines, youre opposed to the football club. The way theyve divided the community is bloody terrible. XI, SA, 17/2/11.
7.6.1 Pre-proposal engagement with the community

Start conversation long before the proposal: Wolsink (2007, p.1205) criticised planning processes where the location is decided prior to consultation through top-down planning that triggers public hostility reactions. He found that consultation after a plan has been announced is more of a trigger for opposition than an incentive for the proper design of acceptable projects (Wolsink, 2007, p.1205). In support, Arvai (2007) questions the ethics of directing or structuring the process to lead to a desired decision outcome. One response to avoid this situation is to engage with the community about the concept, long before a proposal is developed. This avoids the development being received as a top-down decision, and replaces it with a locally embedded, collaborative approach, which can help to reduce controversy around the specific project (Outhred etal., 2002; Devine-Wright, 2005b). Starting the conversation at this early stage enables concerns to be addressed through dialogue between stakeholders (Eltham et al., 2008). The inclusion of likely affected people in this process can acknowledge their concerns by allowing their voice to be heard, and can result in a greater chance of acceptance because the consultation is seen as legitimate and fair (Gross, 2007, 2736; Huber and Horbaty, 2010p p.50). Such an approach was seen to be successful in community-based wind farm developments, where participants recommended: Engaging while [the community] can still feel like they have a power to have their say. XO, Victoria, 24/2/11. By engaging with community groups and by community groups pushing these initiatives, you ... create a broad wave of support. XC, Victoria, 10/2/11.
46
Seek locations with the least number of people potentially affected: The larger the farming activity that occurs where the wind farm is to be sited the more chance there is of positive acceptance, particularly when there is financial compensation associated with the wind farm. Broad acre farmers ... generally they welcome the opportunity to contemplate the extra income that the wind farm will provide. They recognise it really impinges minimally on their farming activity and generally most of them are quite receptive. As you move more into the small acreage blocks, the going gets tougher because these people have, in a lot of cases, moved there for a nice view or something like that and so that can be an issue. XC, Victoria, 10/2/11.
We started having comments coming out like, oh well, we knew about this 18 months ago. Its just some people were in the know, most of us werent. XQ, NSW 1/3/11. We all just picked up the newspaper one day and here it was - full front page, [Local] Wind Farm and we just my God, what is this? Yep, we had no previous warning, no contact, no nothing from anyone. XQ, NSW 1/3/11. An alternative approach is to undertake personal and direct communication with the households to be affected, to enable time for questions to be asked and the information to be considered. Several companies outlined the process that they undertake with an early door-knocking campaign to introduce themselves and the proposal to local residents.
Enable local determination: Allowing communities to make the decision to accept a wind farm, rather than being delivered what is perceived to be a fait accompli, can increase the likelihood of acceptance. Having an open, robust debate about the technology, its location and the community benefits can result in a range of positive outcomes, including social learning and providing imaginative solutions to problems... result in unexpected and unforeseen collectively created solutions (Barry and Ellis 2010). The need for this determination and debate to create local ownership of the project was described by one respondent: You know, its our town, we should decide what happens. We dont want city slickers coming down and telling us whats what. XB, NSW, 10/2/11.
7.6.3 Considering community views to the proposal

Respondents outlined several recommended approaches to the consultation process around the development proposal. These are listed below and illustrated with participants quotes. Build one-on-one relationships with those affected: The chap organising it all ... he went around all those people and got to know them all very well. XJ, NSW, 24/3/11. Use local champions: The credibility of a proposal can be built in part by identifying trusted community members, and then providing them with sufficient information to consider supporting the development and explaining it to the local community (Huber and Horbaty, 2010). This may include site visits to operating wind farms and their respective communities by these local champions (Eltham et al., 2008, p.32). The involvement of a local leader was effective in a NSW project: Everybody likes him, hes from a well-respected family ... and what he says is heard, respected. When he says well wind power is very economical and clean and just the standard facts no emotional opinion people listen. XB, NSW, 10/2/11.
7.6.2 Announcement to community

The process by which community members hear about the wind development can set the scene for entrenched opposition, as grievances build regarding the secrecy perceived around the proposal, and how respectfully the development was announced. These impersonal and divisive approaches are described by participants:
47
Ensure flexibility to provide the opportunity for plans to change: Considering public input can increase the understanding of opposing positions and the legitimacy and ultimate acceptability of the proposed solution (Clayton, 2000, p.472). However, in NSW a number of wind farms have secured approval through the Minister declaring it a critical infrastructure project under Part 3A of the planning legislation. If this clause is exercised, an application can be lodged without the consent of landowners and all merit appeals or other opportunities for individual or local government input are excluded (Environmental Defenders Office, 2011). A number of participants held grievances about their inability to make an appeal under this clause, with one stating: It all seemed to be rather sort of behind closed doors and obviously the government ...was keen to see the sort of project all go ahead ... sort of ask your questions but were not going to change really what were going to do anyway. XS, NSW, 2/3/11.
7.6.4 Ongoing dialogue and information for community

A number of participants from local communities identified that they had sought additional information from elsewhere about wind farms and the specific proposal in order to validate the information they were receiving. This included: Internet: Everyones got access to the internet ... They learn all sorts of crazy things about wind energy on the internet but theyre also much more involved, engaged and informed when they come to council meetings. XB, NSW, 10/2/11. Wind farm visits: Before the wind farm construction was started, we went down to Victoria to look at an [operational] wind farm ... about the time we were signing [contracts] ... we just went on our own accord. XJ, 24/3/11. Support group: Every month we got the seven landowners and the project manager ... and all the different construction managers together and we could air any grievances. XJ, NSW, 24/3/11. Once the development is under construction, regular information through one-on-one briefings, public meetings, open days, a newsletter and a regularly-updated website were all actions that community members appreciated. This ongoing dialogue is recognised in many technology developments as vital in managing the social risk of community rejection or opposition, and that the attitude of the developers initiating the dialogue have a big influence on outcomes (Ashworth & Cormick, 2011).
In other situations where public input was allowed, communities appreciated being able to influence the wind farm design: As a result of [community engagement] we actually abandoned two large areas of the wind farm to the east ... So we directly responded to that. That greatly reduced the number of houses [impacted] within that three kilometre envelope. XH, NSW, 16/2/11. Ensure sufficient time for feedback: I actually got my notice of the application on 22 December. The closing date was 5 January... all the council people were on holidays and a lot of people were away and people were flat out with harvest. XI, SA, 17/2/11. Involve local government: There should be some local council involvement so that the community get to hear the stand of individual local councillors on not only wind farms but any other developments in the area. XP, NSW, 24/2/11.
48
7.6.5 Risks of poor consultation

Rural communities tend to have small populations and long social histories. Without effective and meaningful consultation and broad community acceptance, pre-existing tensions are at risk of exacerbation, as described by one respondent: What bubbles to the surface is thats an excuse to bring up all these other ... Its just a catalyst you know. XB, NSW, 10/2/11.
7.7 Non-specific community opposition and NIMBYism

The third most cited theme for opposing a wind farm in the media analysis was social impacts. This included ideological rejection, political opportunism, climate change denialism and inequitable financial benefits. This section addresses the motivations behind non-specific community opposition, often described as a Not In My Backyard reaction (NIMBYism). This section outlines the likely or actual existence of a
The impacts of these unresolved and exacerbated tensions have been noted to be very broad: People stop talking to each other ... They stop volunteering on community groups ... They say nasty things about the other people. XV, SA, 8/3/11. Several participants commented that the divisions being created or exacerbated by wind farms were more significant than other impacts they had experienced: You get two extremes: the host people wanting them to come, and the other adjoining properties that have to put up with the impacts of them ... That has impacted on the social fabric of a number of smaller villages, it really has ... I just havent experienced the social impact in local communities that wind turbines have caused. XU, NSW, 4/3/11. To anticipate and respond effectively to the community resistance described above, Walker et al. (2010) recommend a more participatory and empowering role for the community to build trust between community members and the wind developer, as well as with the technology and also local capacity for understanding and contributing to wind farm development. Wolsink (2000) adds that policymakers and wind farm developers also need to build up their institutional capital resources that contribute knowledge and engagement to the community. Further information regarding effective and adequate consultation is described regarding community-scale wind farms in Section 7.10.
silent majority that support a wind farm, then discusses the opposition views and tactics employed by Landscape Guardian groups that represent non-specific opposition. Later, this section considers the limitations of NIMBYism and introduces the typologies of personal and ideological opposition presented by some interview participants.
7.7.1 Silent majority exists

Finding: Vocal minority are more often prominent in the media and secure political attention. Many wind farms enjoy community support, although this may not be explicitly demonstrated. One community polled the support by undertaking a local government referendum and found 70 percent of ratepayer support for further wind farm development (Electoral Commission NSW, 2008). This was communicated repeatedly by interview participants as proof of majority support for wind farms in that community. Support can be difficult to highlight without such processes as a referendum, unless the supporters are motivated to counteract the louder oppositional approaches, as described by one respondent: they are a silent majority in support of the project ... hey arent going to go out there and march the streets with banners saying we want the wind-farm. Theyll sit at home and theyll say well you know, its not my fight and I dont really want to get shouted at by these people and so you know, so leave it to them XC, Victoria, 10/2/11.
49
Respondents noted the media interest in actions of stories of those opposing the wind farm, despite this position not necessarily representing the communitys majority position. One respondent identified the political impact of negative media coverage: the vocal minority comes to dominate the argument ... their loud and aggressive [nature] tends to filter its way into the media ... That makes great news and that sort of filters through to the politicians who dont like seeing that sort of thing, dont like receiving hundreds of abusive letters from people. So that translates its way through into tougher regulations XC, Victoria, 10/2/11
This research undertook interviews with four community stakeholders who opposed their local wind farm. Three of these participants identified as members of Landscape Guardian groups. These participants all described their position as being founded on the divisive experience of the wind development in their community. This was described by comments that included: This whole project has divided this community, totally divided it. It just created a great rift between people. XQ, NSW, 1/3/11. In Australia, the lack of voice [for an] an opposing point of view was cited as a motivation behind the formation of one such group, although supporters of wind farms have become concerned that local support has become more muted as the Landscape Guardians gain media attention and that decision-making authorities [might] get a distorted representation of the communitys views (Gross, 2007, p.2732). Hindmarsh (2010, p.557) proposed the motivation of such groups was to defend their way of life against outsiders, who constitute wind farm developers, distant government bureaucrats and overseas businesses. By 2007, it was calculated that one in every two wind farm proposals were contested by such a group (Hindmarsh, 2010). The objections raised by Landscape Guardian groups to wind farms are varied. One interview respondent who had dealt with objections from such groups stated: The list of objections is a grab bag of everything that they could Google ... apart from the usual (noise, flicker and visual amenity), the objections included electronic magnetic interference ... distraction to passing drivers ... impact on social fabric ... groundwater contamination from underground power cables ... concerns for soil stability ... confidentiality of lease arrangements ... violation of human rights. XX, Victoria, 6/4/11. Beyond these specific concerns, there can also be more personal reasons for opposition. For some, they consider they have nothing to gain from the development, but significant amounts to lose, as illustrated by a respondent identifying with a Landscape Guardian group:
7.7.2 Landscape Guardian groups

Finding: Half of all wind proposals are contested by a Landscape Guardian group; these groups often contact local residents early in the project and share concerns about wind farms. Landscape Guardian groups often form to represent opposing views to the wind farm proposal. Such groups also operate at a regional and national scale to contest renewable energy policy, and wind energy-related policy in particular (Devine-Wright & Devine-Wright, 2006). The Landscape Guardian groups also exist in other countries around the world. There are a number of Landscape Guardian groups active in Australia. When the community-scale Hepburn wind farm opened in Victoria, several dozen Landscape Guardian protestors brought anti-wind placards with insults and asserted that jobs would be lost and that either climate change was not occurring or nuclear was the only answer (Parkinson, 2010). In NSW, the Taralga Landscape Guardians undertook legal action against the NSW Minister for Planning and the wind company, seeking for the wind farm consent to be refused or at least significantly altered as the proposed development represented a blight on the local landscape and conflicted with their enjoyment of their rural setting (Preston, 2007, s1). The interview participants who were members of such groups, noted that funding was received from individuals outside their community who had faced the same threat from wind farms, and also from high profile, high net-worth individuals with properties in their area. 50
People didnt come here to live in an enormous industrial estate. They came here for the opposite reasons and that was enjoy the rural amenity that this area offers. ... Everybody has the right to defend their own backyard and we have a pretty spectacular backyard here. XY, NSW, 11/2/11.
Aggressive tactics: Weve had abuse, stones thrown at our staff, Worksafe calls for nuisance complaints, vexatious litigation. All of this stuff from people who actually wont engage. They wont talk to us. XX, Victoria, 6/4/11.
It was identified by one respondent that Landscape Guardian For others, they saw their opposition as representing ordinary people, with another respondent explaining the motivation for a legal challenge as: What situation are ordinary people left with? ... You dont just sort of say, oh well go to court ... we had to find over a $130,000 [to cover court costs], and that doesnt include, you know, the costs of attending court, the costs of putting up people and all of those kinds of things. XK, NSW, 17/2/11. Landscape Guardian groups employ a range of techniques, including websites, protests, submissions on development applications, engagement with the media, and legal actions. Two interview participants described three main approaches that they had experienced: Early contact from outside groups: The moment a wind farm project becomes public ... the local residents will start to get contacted by members of various groups, one of the most prominent called the Landscape Guardians ... What that starts to do is that those people in the immediate area of the project ... are suddenly faced with these quite strident people telling them all these horror stories. XC, Victoria, 10/2/11. Non-locals disrupt community meetings: At the thought of even a project discussion on a number of turbines, the Landscape Guardians had organised and created a meeting of 200 people ... theyve created a toxic environment where engagement cant occur. XX, Victoria, 6/4/11. groups are not active where the wind farm has involved the community through ownership and sufficient financial gain or compensation: You wont find Landscape Guardians in communities that have mature wind projects. Because theyre already built and people can see the benefits. XX, Victoria, 6/4/11.
7.7.3 Limitations and alternatives to the term NIMBY

Finding: NIMBY term does not reflect the social complexities behind non-specific wind farm opposition; interview findings suggest opposition is based on personal and/or ideological reasons. The Not-In-My-Backyard or NIMBY term communicates general support for a development but specific resistance to that development in the local community (Outhread et al., 2002, p.3). The term NIMBY has previously been used to address the confusing social gap between high levels of public support for renewable en energy and local opposition towards specific local projects (Devine-Wright, 2010). Researchers have more recently outlined the lack of validity and accuracy of this term, with its use clouding the complexity of public responses (Wolsink, 2000; DevineWright, 2010). Rejecting the term NIMBY, Wolsink (2000) proposed four types of resistance for blanket (non-specific) opposition wind farms: Resistance Type A: Opposes the building of the wind farms in their own neighbourhood, however holds a positive attitude towards wind power.
51
Resistance Type B: Total rejection of wind power energy. This is mainly motivated by the fact that the turbines will be detrimental to the landscape. This is sometimes referred to as NIABY (Not-In-Any-Backyard).
Nothing to gain but much to lose: Were dealing with small acreage holders; people who have generally moved in from the city and feel that they have some God-given right for everything to remain the same as when they came. They dont stop and think that there had to be pretty severe changes made just to even let them come here, and now they dont want any changes XJ, NSW, 24/3/11. people didnt come here to live in an enormous industrial estate. They came here ... to enjoy the rural amenity that this area offers XY, NSW, 11/2/11.
Resistance Type C: A positive attitude toward wind power exists however once discussion around the proposed construction begins, the attitude changes to oppose the project based on perceived risks.
Resistance Type D: This attitude is based around the fact that certain sites for wind projects are considered not suitable owing to impacts on the scenery, but no opposition exists to wind power technology itself, just at a particular proposed site.
The NIMBY term was not found to be useful in explaining the interview participants opposition to wind farms. Instead, oppositional interview responses presented through personal reasons and ideological reasons. The personal reasons have parallels with Wolsinks (2000) Resistance Type A, where individuals oppose wind farms in their own neighbourhood, but hold a positive attitude towards wind power. The personal reasons for opposition are listed below: Fear of unknown: I think it would be harder to sell a place that has a proposed view of one as opposed to once theyre up, people know what it looks like, their fears are either set aside or they know what theyre dealing with ... Until something is actually done its very hard to know even how it will affect you as a neighbour. XM, NSW, 16/2/11. Jealousy: If you suddenly put a whole heap of wind turbines on your property that affect all your neighbours; and you get lots of money and they get none, its going to affect the relationship. XB, NSW, 10/2/11.
It was noted that many participants holding personal feelings of opposition were open to changing their positions with the passing of time, the adjustment to a new feature in the landscape, and sufficient financial gain as well. On adjusting over time, another respondent stated: A lot of people have now just realised that they are not as noisy as they once were perceived to be. They dont kill the cattle. They dont knock the birds out of the sky and, in general, I think common sense is starting to prevail in a lot of ways. It may be because I think its basically accepted, because when we put them in originally they were new and as you know, a lot of people do not like change. XA, NSW, 9/2/11. With the fear of the unknown dissipated, it also provided an opportunity for other local residents to financially gain from the project: Theres a second proposed 70 turbine wind farm ... [the landholders] had objections with the first one but not the second one ... because the first one they werent having any gain from but the second one they will be. XM, NSW, 16/2/11. The ideological reasons for opposition held by some
Self interest: He had a plan to subdivide his land and turn it into a housing development. He believed that if the project went ahead he would be less able to do that XC, Victoria, 10/2/11.
participants match with Wolsinks (2000) Resistance Type B, where there is a total rejection of wind power energy. This opposition has several origins, including a symbolic response of rural communities to political neglect from the cities, an anti-development stance, and also opposition to a green or
52
climate action political agenda, as described by interview participants, below: Rural response to citys neglect: There is this resentment of people in the city and this resentment of government: were always left out, you never consult us, we just get pushed around, we get told what to do ... the wind farm is becoming kind of the symbol of the rallying point for all of those sentiments. XC, Victoria, 10/2/11. Anti-development: [One neighbour in opposition] is very anti any development ... he was anti the bitumen roads going through the area ... anti mains water ... So its sort of an anti-anything new. XT, SA, 2/3/11. Anti-greens/anti-climate action: Ive been to a few Landscape Guardians meetings and I reckon if you asked everyone who was a climate sceptic to leave, I think youd be left with a handful. XX, Victoria, 6/4/11.
For some participants as well as others they described in their communities, it appeared that the personal and ideological reasons for opposition were not exclusive, and both causes for opposition could be held by the individual, as well as the individual moving from one typology to the other with further experience, exposure or the support of a group of like-minded individuals. The personal and ideological reasons for opposition are described by Figure 3, below. Understanding these two positions and fluidity from one to other can assist to segment community into those with specific, mitigable concerns, those with personal reasons (which may also be mitigable) and those with entrenched, ideological concerns (which are harder to shift).
Figure 3: Personal and ideological reasons behind NIMBY opposition, offered by interview participants
PERSONAL
Nothing to gain but much to lose Fear of unknown Jealousy Self interest
IDEOLOGICAL
Rural response to citys neglect Anti-development Anti-greens/ anti-climate action
53
7.8 Health impacts

In the media analysis, health issues ranked as the fourth highest reason for opposing a wind farm. The health impacts perceived to be associated with wind farm turbines in the media articles included stress from opposing farm pre-installation, sleep disturbance from noise, irritation from low frequency sounds and reflective shadow flicker from the turbines. However, it should be noted that none of the case study literature articles directly referred to perceived and actual health impacts as a basis for community opposition. The draft National Wind Farm Development Guidelines do not currently include health issues, but have clarified that if evidence of direct health impacts does come to light, these Guidelines would be modified as required (EPHC, 2010, p.3). They note that amenity and annoyance can cause health impacts if not properly addressed (EPHC, 2010). This statement appears to support the recognition that stress can arise from preconceptions of potential impacts from a wind farm development (NHMRC, 2010a). More recently, the federal Senate Inquiry focused three of the seven recommendations on health, calling for epidemiological and laboratory studies of the possible effects of wind farms on human health, and that the Guidelines be redrafted to include discussion of any adverse health effects and relevant medical research (Australian Senate, 2011). The health impacts mentioned in the literature and by interview participants referred to so-called wind turbine syndrome, health impacts from noise, shadow flicker and blade glint, and stress from responding to a proposed development, as detailed in the sections below.
syndrome were listed as including visual blurring, tinnitus, and loss of balance (Pierpont, 2010; Bond, 2009). Some interview participants referred to a range of health effects experienced by some in communities with wind farms: We did a questionnaire. When we got them all in, ... you would have thought all of those people, with the symptoms that they had, the level of disturbance that they were having, you would have thought theyd all sat in the same room and wrote them together ... one man] lives right underneath them and he looked like he had aged 10 years.... Absolutely wrecked.... Well, he was getting headaches and getting woken up with his - getting about two hours sleep a night. XI, SA, 17/2/11. The UK renewable energy industry body, Renewable UK, sought an alternative analysis of the research findings by Pierpont (2010), and concluded that the highly selective case study series was too small for statistical analysis and the results were selectively reported, the definition of the Syndrome had vague clinical symptoms and lacked an a priori case, and the study lacked the diversity of expert involvement expected in epidemiological research (Renewable UK, 2010). A review by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC, 2010a) noted that renewable energy generation is associated with fewer adverse health effects compared with the documented health impacts from fossil-fuel sources of electricity. The review also found no evidence that infrasound, electromagnetic interference, and turbine flicker/glint were harmful to health, citing the World Health Organisation, an expert panel review in North America and a study of three wind farms in Britain (NHMRC, 2010a). This supported the earlier view from the NSW Legislative Council (2009) that there was insufficient evidence to justify further examination into the so-called Syndrome, despite there being a degree of fear within some local communities about this syndrome (NSW Legislative Council, 2009, p.xvii). An Australian professor of public health observed that few health complaints are lodged by turbine hosts, concluding money, it seems, is an astonishingly effective preventive agent in warding off Wind Turbine Syndrome (Chapman, 2011).
7.8.1 Wind turbine syndrome

Finding: The proposed Wind Turbine Syndrome has been criticised as having vague clinical symptoms, lacking an a priori case, and lacking expert involvement to be termed a new health syndrome. A small, non-peer-reviewed study from North America coined the term wind turbine syndrome to describe the perceived health impacts of wind turbines located within 1.5km of the homes of ten families. The symptoms of the
54
7.8.2 Noise and health impacts

Finding: There is currently no evidence linking noise impacts with adverse health effects As described in Section 7.2 regarding noise impacts, wind turbines create noise modulated at low frequencies rather than infrasound or low frequency noise, and Renewable UK concluded that the argument that wind turbine noise causes physiological symptoms in humans through low frequency noise therefore fails (Renewable UK, 2010, p.8). Earlier research by the British wind industry body stated that there was no scientific evidence linking wind turbine noise to impacts on human health, despite 68,000 wind turbines in operation for over 20 years in the UK at the time of research (BWEA, 2005, p.2). This was more recently supported by the NHMRCs statement (2010b) that there is still currently no evidence positively linking noise impacts with adverse health effects. Instead, Renewable UK suggests that the reported symptoms may be a psychological reaction, with effects mediated by stress and anxiety (RenewableUK, 2010, p.8).
sun is at the angle causing flicker (NSW Legislative Council, 2009, p.xviii; EPHC, 2010, p.12). Shadow flicker occurs for a limited time each day, as described by a respondent: I have witnessed it a lot when Im over in the paddock working ... That is really only at a maybe 15 minutes of the day, of the evening, that the suns in that position to direct that.... Id say an hour either side of sunrise and sunset is the only time youd ever experience it. XJ, NSW, 24/3/11. Blade glint was previously reported as high reflectivity of light off wind turbine blades. Low reflectivity surface treatment is now standard practice for wind turbine generator manufacturers and is considered to have resolved concerns regarding blade glint (EPHC, 2008, p.14).
7.8.4 Stress from opposing a proposed development

Finding: Proposed wind farms can create stress, leading to negative health outcomes. A number of participants described how the stress of imagining (and/or opposing) a proposed development, as well as stress from disempowering consultation and the fear of the unknown contributed to negative health outcomes for some individuals: I met some of the people who are sick. Theyre not making it up. These people are sick. Some of them are very, very ill. Its unfortunate they blame the wind turbines for it. ... I think some of that illness may be attributable to stresses and strains and psycho-social aspects of the wind industry. XX, Victoria, 6/4/11. Gipe (1991) noted that the context in which people consider the development and how they benefit directly affects their health and other responses to it. Complaints about noise can be greater for the local community for whom the quiet rural area is a central feature, such as people recently moved from urban areas and those for whom the tranquillity of their surrounds is important (Gipe, 1991).
7.8.3 Shadow flicker and blade glint

Finding: Shadow flicker occurs for short periods during sunrise and sunset; blade glint is prevented through low reflectivity surface treatment. Shadow flicker is the strobing effect created by wind turbine blades rotating and blocking the sun for short periods of the day when the sun is low in the sky (EPHC, 2010). The known impact of shadow flicker is visual annoyance to people nearby. Other perceived impacts, such as epilepsy, have been declared invalid as the movement is predictable and slow (EPHC, 2010, p.12; Epilepsy Foundation of America, 2005). Shadow flicker impacts are considered in the NSW development assessment process, with both NSW and Victorian regulations requiring that during the times shadow flicker must not exceed 30 hours per year at any nearby dwelling (EPHC, 2008, p.12; NSW DECCW 2010a p.12). To prevent the majority of shadow flicker, modelling during planning projects the exposure limit. In addition or alternatively, the affecting wind turbine can be turned off for the minutes during which the
55
7.9 Technological issues

Finding: While intermittency does exist, it can be managed, predicted, and mitigated to provide a reliable source of electricity. The media analysis found that concerns around the technologys ability and environmental credentials were the last-ranked theme of reasons for opposing a wind farm. These concerns about the wind technology included reliability, efficiency and high cost to produce each megawatt hour of electricity. A concern cited in public responses to wind energy is the use of wind as base load power, the reliability (or intermittency) of wind power and the possibility that wind power may depend on back-up electricity (NSW Legislative Council, 2009; Devine-Wright & Devine-Wright, 2006). This concern was raised by a number of participants: We cant predict when its going to be there and when its not. We cant predict when it is there how much of it will be there, how long it will stay there, et cetera, et cetera. Its totally unpredictable. If one is using it as a power source, the most essential feature of a power source is that that its predictable and controllable. Now wind is neither predictable nor controllable. XY, NSW, 11/2/11. There is absolutely no way that wind can ever supply base-load power. YC, 2008, doc source. Other technological concerns that were raised by interview participants included the embodied energy in creating materials, including steel and aluminium, to build the turbines, the emissions associated with gas back-up generators for times of low wind, and television reception interference. Assessments have found that while intermittency does exist, it can be managed and successfully integrated into the electricity network and managed in the National Energy Market to provide a reliable source of electricity (Outhred & MacGill, 2006; NSW Legislative Council, 2009). One assessment added that conventional power systems combusting fossil fuel sources are also subject to variability related to supply and demand imbalances and fluctuations,
volatility in the price of fuels, and unplanned outages (Sovacool, 2009). This is reflected in the design of electricity grids to handle variability in demand and supply. Wind power provides a third source of variability into such an already variable system. When combined into a distributed wind carpet, total wind power generally varies smoothly and is no longer characterised as intermittent (Diesendorf, 2011). Effective future management of wind intermittency can be managed through forecasting of source inputs and associated costs (NSW DECCW 2010a; Oswald et al., 2008). One assessment stated that the issue, therefore, is not one of variability or intermittency per se, but how such variability and intermittency can best be managed, predicted, and mitigated (Sovacool, 2009, p.295).
7.10 Community-scale wind farms

Finding: Small, community-scale wind farms offer local sustainability solutions to cut greenhouse gas emissions and support local development; however, opposition can still exist. The media analysis found that local benefits, including job creation, community ownership, financial gain, additional income, and tourism formed the second most-cited theme for supporting a wind farm, after reasons for global climate action. This section specifically explores the experience, potential and opportunities provided by community-scale wind farms. In Australia, the only operational, community-scale wind farm is Hepburn, located in Victoria, and operating two turbines. Community-scale wind farms often have the features of being instigated by the local community, scaled to the communitys energy needs, and funded by, owned by, and accountable to the community (Embark, 2011). Such developments bring a range of economic benefits to local communities that can increase self-sufficiency, local determination and empowerment (Ison, 2009, p.14). Community-scale wind farms can engender greater local acceptance of wind farms through providing local input in development and management as well as financial gain (Hepburn Wind, 2011). Such a model mitigates common barriers to acceptance: it avoids small groups profiting from a project that acts as a nuisance to those not gaining, and
56
it avoids the perception of an outsider exploiting a local resource and selling it to people in the city without providing benefits for the local community (Huber & Horbaty, 2010 p.46). A range of benefits and motivations for pursuing and establishing a community-scale wind farm were cited by interview participants, and these include: Reducing greenhouse gases: [We have] roughly matched the size of the development to the town ... there is a sense of pride: see theres our power station, were powering our own house. XC, Victoria, 10/2/11.
These costs pose a hurdle for community groups: There are costs that you cannot avoid that you have to outlay ... you need to spend initially at least $50,000 to do preliminary desktop studies of wind, of birds, of vegetation, of Aboriginal heritage ... you cant ask a few dozen willing individuals in the community to put $50,000 at risk. You cant ask a bank to lend it to you because youve got no basis of getting it back. You cant really ask a Council to provide it because theyre not in the business of risk capital, its ratepayers money ... This is where a lot of these projects come unstuck. XC, Victoria, 10/2/11. Some community projects had secured initial grants from the
Local economic gains: Its about bringing jobs to the region, its about bringing income both in terms of the opportunity for people to invest and get a return on that investment, but also in terms of creating a community fund that can then finance community projects in an ongoing way for up to 20 years. XO, Victoria, 24/2/11.
state government to undertake these initial costs, while other proposed projects were on hold until such seed funding became available. Ineligible for feed-in tariff: The current state-based feed-in tariffs in Australia are developed for householdscale renewable energy technologies, making communityscale (and larger) wind farms ineligible. Some participants lamented the lack of this tariff owing to the benefits it has provided for European and Canadian projects: A feed-in tariff is fabulous for industry development because youre guaranteeing a rate of return. ... you change the price for different scales to suit it to different scale projects to incentivise the development. XO, Victoria, 24/2/11. Power Purchase Agreements difficult to secure for small projects: [community-scale wind farms have] great difficulty coming to a commercial arrangement with the power distribution companies because... theyve got administrative overheads involved in setting up power purchase agreements. So they are not as enthusiastic about dealing with a site that has two or three turbines as they are with a site that has 30 or 80 or 100 turbines. XG, Victoria, 15/2/11.
However, community-scale wind farms are not without challenges. The current Australian policy setting favours large-scale wind farms owing to high costs in initial development stages, capital costs, and long-term maintenance costs. Additionally, Power Purchase Agreements prefer to purchase larger quantities of power from each wind farm, and communities often lack the technical and organisational capacity and knowledge to complete a community energy project (Ison, 2009, p.11). These contextual challenges were described by the interview participants: High cost of wind farm development: Respondents referred to the economies of scale, where the development costs are so high that tens of turbines are required in each development to make it financially worthwhile to invest: A 20 turbine development will have to jump through the same hoops so hence nobody will do a 20 turbine development. So instead of having a geographic spread of six lots of 20 youre going to get 120 in one place. (XL, SA, 16/2/11).
57
A number of social challenges from community-scale developments were also identified by interview participants, and included: High turnover of volunteer steering committee: Its very hard for [the voluntary local steering committee] to provide the level of drive and focus and commitment that significant infrastructure projects like these require ... its a real challenge for any community group, however well-meaning, to get it all together and keep it all together for the period of time that it takes. XC, Victoria, 10/2/11. Opposition still exists: Opposition can still exist and affect the progress of a development: There is a small but perhaps quite vocal minority in the region who, for various reasons, dont support wind farms of any size, scale, ownership structure. The fact is, it only takes one or two people to force a project to go through ... an appeals tribunal. XC, Victoria, 10/2/11. However, the engagement processes and community ownership in the process and development can mitigate and reduce some of this opposition: If community groups are developing these kinds of [advocacy] skills ... when theyre engaging or developing a community wind farm, and could be a way that we mitigate the organised opposition ... and also allay peoples valid fears. XO, Victoria, 24/2/11.
In response to the above challenges, a non-profit organisation, Embark Australia, was established by those involved with the only Australian community wind farm, Hepburn Wind (Embark, 2011). Embark seeks to eliminate the barriers holding back the growth of a powerful, community renewable energy sector in Australia through providing knowledge transfer and expert advice, combining services to respond to smaller economies of scale, sourcing feasibility and investment funding, and advocating for policy changes (Embark, 2011). The interview participants referred to Hepburn wind farm as setting an important precedent for future community-scale wind farms: If its been done once or twice before and you start to therefore establish a bit of a template, it gets easier ... the very existence of [at least one community-scale wind farm in Australia], gives encouragement and also leadership to others. XC, Victoria, 10/2/11. The communitys positive experience was also seen as a way to increase support for wind and other low-emission technologies. One respondent considered that the seed grant provided by the state government for Hepburn wind farm had resulted not only in the social and economic benefits within the community, but also: It creates new advocates for community energy and wind farms in general XX, Victoria, 6/4/11.
58
8. Discussion
This research consulted a range of stakeholders on their perceptions of wind farms, and identified both a diversity and similarity of views:
Wind company representatives were supportive of wind power, but many businesses were vulnerable to community acceptance issues. Representatives of community-scale wind farms were frustrated by policies that were not appropriate, affordable or amendable to their developments. Local government representatives held mixed views on wind farms. Some welcomed the resulting regional development, while others observed the significant angst caused by wind farm proposals. Several representatives sought a greater role for local government to manage and approve wind farm development approvals. Turbine hosts, all of whom were farmers in this sample, supported wind farms and generally did not hold concerns about visual, noise or other negative impacts. Many hosts felt that wind turbines assisted to droughtproof their farming income and viewed their installation as a form of progress. Community members publicly opposing their local wind farm spoke as self-appointed representatives for others nursing grievances with wind farms. Most were hobby farmers with small acreages, former professionals, and/or members of Landscape Guardian groups. Community members publicly supporting their local wind farm were motivated by the climate friendly nature of wind farms, which produce significantly lower volumes of greenhouse gases than electricity generated from fossil fuels. They appreciated the regional development it offered, as well as the increased local identity, employment and financial opportunities arising from wind farm developments. Perhaps more revealing than the perceptions held from different stakeholders is the complexity of features behind these perceptions. Community acceptance of rural wind farms was earlier described as being shaped by a complexity of contextual, physical, socio-economic, social, and other
59
aspects (Devine-Wright, 2005a). This division of aspects is applied here to discuss the factors that emerged as unresolved and that contribute to limited acceptance, or even rejection, of wind developments. Analysing the findings through this division allows specific aspects to be identified: The contextual aspects provide a critical understanding of policy and governance structures and how these encourage or limit wind farm developments. This also includes social considerations of context, such as prior experience of wind farms, which can reduce the perception of risk and thus increase acceptance. The physical aspects of the findings, including bird and noise impacts, can be identified through mapping. This contributes to the larger research study, which seeks to develop social and economic criteria to overlay on an Australian wind resource map. The economic aspects consider the financial value that is added or removed from a locality or individuals through the presence of a wind farm. The social aspects are diverse and often psychologically embedded, making it difficult to shift perceptions, once developed. However, opposition to wind farms is often an outcome of poor consultation and insufficient information. In response, this section presents two processes that may contribute to improved societal acceptance: consultation and a Social Licence to Operate. Table 6 provides these considerations and specific findings in a matrix.
60
Table 6: Considerations that may affect community acceptance Considerations Current experience of stakeholders, and their suggestions CONTEXTUAL ASPECTS Does the state or project stage influence community acceptance? The benefit of examining nine case study wind farms was to draw out personal experiences and, when compared, to find the common themes that arose despite different settings and stages; in effect, these common themes acted to verify the findings. There were no obvious differences between experiences of wind farms in each state, despite the variety of state-based renewable energy policies. Are the policies appropriate for the scale of wind farm? The current Australian wind policies, incorporating economic costs and market structure, favour large, industrial-scale wind farms. In this policy environment, community-scale wind farms face the same costs as larger scale farms with lower rates of return, low market price for selling electricity generated, and greater difficulty in securing a Power Purchase Agreement owing to the small amount generated. Furthermore, interview participants from communities into which additional and large wind farm development proposals were being introduced called for a restriction on the number of wind farms and turbines per region. Does the planning approval process allow for community wind farms? Many participants reacted negatively to the use of critical infrastructure or state significance clauses that allow Ministerial approval for wind farm development while block community contributions and override local decision-making, resulting in long-term grievances and lack of acceptance of the resulting wind farm. Does regulated setback distance of turbines from dwellings address concerns? The setback distance between wind turbines and dwellings is a commonly cited regulatory response to manage noise and visual impacts. However, many participants noted that a blanket distance, such as 2km, did not reflect the geographic differences and in more densely populated states, such as Victoria, may act to prohibit a significant amount of proposed developments. Are the renewable energy policies current and appropriate? Local government representatives recommended that renewable energy, incorporating wind energy, should provide the appropriate scope and detail for clear decision-making, including local government as the approval authority, and reflect current technology and knowledge.
input/participation in developing excluding all merit appeals. The use of this clause appears to have previously acted to
61
Table 6: Considerations that may affect community acceptance (cont.) Considerations Current experience of stakeholders, and their suggestions PHYSICAL ASPECTS Does the wind farm support parallel tourism activity? Wind farms can attract tourism, but participants called for development that minimises or avoids conflict with other tourism features, such as landscape tourists and views offered by local accommodation, or by increased traffic. Has visual impact been minimised? Small clusters of turbines that are spread out, ideally on large, single-owner/ company-purchased properties were recommended by participants to reduce or manage negative visual impact. Respondents recommended wind farm designs and initiatives to minimise negative visual impact that included vegetation screens, underground cabling, prohibition of lights, and appropriate setback from residences. However, the visual impact of wind farms is highly subjective regarding what and how a landscape is valued, and is influenced by the history of the landscape, place attachment, competing land uses, and length of time since installation. Have noise impacts been minimised? Many initiatives already contribute to reduce noise impacts, including gearless turbines. Noise barriers were noted to be effective, including vegetation around residences, and indoor noises, such as radios and televisions. However, participants still noted that certain weather conditions and geography affected the level of noise impacts, such as still mornings and evenings in a valley surrounded by ridge-top turbines. The introduction of a new sound, however, from which the surrounding residents receive no direct benefit, can impact on their acceptance and support of wind farms. Interview participants suggested that the heightened sensitivity to noise impacts, which can start before the turbines are installed if a wind farm proposal is controversial, could lead to people listening out specifically. Interview participants and other information noted that those not financially gaining from the turbines less frequently report noise impacts from wind turbines. Have bird impacts been minimised? Measures to prevent bird fatalities suggested in the information include prohibiting wind farms in high density bird migration areas, switching off the turbines during hazardous weather events, removing stock carcasses and introducing control programs for rabbits and other vermin. Have bat impacts been minimised? The cause of dead sonar bats at turbines is still unknown, but available information recommends consulting with bat specialists during the prospecting and impact assessment stages, and ensuring post-construction monitoring.
62
Considerations
Current experience of stakeholders, and their suggestions ECONOMIC ASPECTS
Will the wind farm contribute
Community-scale wind farms can be scaled to the community's energy needs, can stations.
positively to local development? contribute to regional development, and can reduce the reliance on centralised power
Are there economic benefits and local government?
Turbine hosts can use rental income to remain on the farm post-retirement, conserve through increased local business, community funds, and local government revenue, resulting in regional development.
for the turbine host, community biodiversity, and prevent subdividing. Communities can benefit from a local wind farm
Are there employment opportunities?
Direct jobs are high during wind farm construction but low for long-term operation, although additional local benefits are gained when construction and maintenance are undertaken by local businesses.
Is compensation fair and sufficient?
For some individuals, sufficient financial compensation will make a wind farm acceptable; this could include payments to all residents in a specified radius, payment of electricity bills and local community or local government contributions.
Will property prices decline?
Property prices have not been in general found to increase or decrease, although the potential market of buyers may be decreased. Despite this current evidence, it is an often-cited concern. SOCIAL ASPECTS
Has sufficient and appropriate information been provided? Can stakeholders influence the wind farm proposal? Has meaningful and ongoing consultation commenced? Will the health of local
Concerns and misunderstandings around the technological limitations of wind energy can be lessened through public information. Many interview participants emphasised their hopes to influence the design of a wind farm development. Interview participants outlined their preferences and experiences of positive consultation processes. These are outlined in Figure 4. Participants noted that amenity and annoyance can cause health impacts if not properly opposing a proposed development and from unsatisfactory consultation processes. However, the proposed Wind Turbine Syndrome was noted to lack validity in the literature.
residents be negatively affected? addressed; this was also noted in the literature. Such health impacts include stress from
63
8.1 Consultation processes

Inadequate consultation and engagement with the community was described as a key process that has contributed to social conflict around wind farm development in Australia. As outlined in the case studies, the sense of acceptance and ownership of a local wind farm can differ according to both the scale but, perhaps more importantly, the depth and agency involvement allowed in the consultation process. For example, the Silverton wind farm was approved using the Ministerial consent enabled by the legislative critical infrastructure clause, where appeal was prohibitedcausing significant community distrust of the process and developers themselves. Beyond this extreme example, consultation processes formed a key theme that consistently emerged in all interviews. Respondents recommended consultation values of trust, honesty and transparency, and presentation of full and unbiased information. This has strong parallels with the cited benefits of early and meaningful stakeholder engagement
on other energy technologies. For example, effective consultation stages for Carbon Capture and Storage projects include seeking community consultation through public engagement and communication activities, working with key stakeholders and providing regular updates on the project (Ashworth et al., 2011). Figure 4 presents consultation processes and stages specific to wind farm development, drawn from the literature and from interview participants. The four stages proposed from the research findings are pre-proposal, announcement, community input, and ongoing dialogue with regular information. For many participants, their acceptance of the local wind farm was influenced more by the engagement process than by concerns about the technology. This aspect has been found in earlier literature, including Bradbury et al. (2009), who identified that concerns about the technology itself can be overshadowed by factors such as past experience, desire for compensation, or perceived benefit to the community.
Figure 4: Consultation stages processes recommended by interview participants
PRE-PROPOSAL Start conversation before proposal Seek locations with least affected Enable local determination
ANNOUNCEMENT Personal and direct communication
COMMUNITY INPUT One-on-one relationships with affected Use local champions Opportunity to change plan Suf cient time for feedback Involve local government
ONGOING DIALOGUE, REGULAR INFORMATION One-on-one brie ngs Public meetings, open days Wind farm tours Newsletter, website
64
8.2 Building a Social Licence to Operate wind farms

Robust consultation processes, as outlined above, are one element of the more comprehensive Social Licence to Operate (SLO). The premise of an SLO is to give greater decision-making power and influence to the local community and stakeholders. This repositions power, counter to traditional organisational practice, by increasing the agency of a community. SLOs still lack a common and strong definition, and the term risks becoming greenwash or jargon. In the absence of a clear and commonly agreed definition of an SLO, it will remain very difficult to develop clear criteria from which to develop an SLO specific to the industry and operation to which it is applied. To contribute to the growing discussion on SLO, this research offers some foundations for an SLO relevant to wind farm development in Australia. Mason et al. (2010) described an acceptable development as one where the potential positive impacts represent an acceptable trade-off to the negative impacts, and where there is sufficient trust building and trustworthiness surrounding the industry and its development.
Mason et al.s (2010) potential positive impacts and trust-building criteria align well with the findings that emerged from this research around acceptable wind farm development. Indeed, the addition of positive impacts or lack thereof was commonly cited in the information and interviews as central to the acceptability of a wind farm. Physical and economic aspects can be considered under the positive impacts criterion. Trust was a common foundation behind the communitys opinion of the wind developer and perception of the wind farm proposal. In this way, trust is the mechanism by which perceptions of impacts, as compared to expectations regarding these impacts, influence acceptance and approval (Moffat et al., 2011). The trust-building criterion is proposed as influencing the boundaries of legitimacy, credibility and trust that need to be crossed in order to reach a new level. If trust were eroded, the dynamic nature of an SLO would cause the community acceptance to drop down through a boundary to a lower level. Figure 5 proposes features of an emerging model for an informal wind farm SLO that attempts to incorporate the above features. Grounded theory methods were applied to the interview transcript analysis and the themes that emerged were then filtered through the decision criteria
Figure 5: Proposed features for inclusion in a Social Licence to Operate
CONTEXT
Social Licence to Operate
Potential positive impacts
Trust-building
Direct
Flow on
Synergy with farming Tourism
Compensatory
Integrity
Process
Understanding
For host
Compensation
Local decisions
Engagement
Support
For community For local government
Manage risk Maintenance (e.g. roads)
Local agency
Feedback
Opposition
Property price
Listening
Communication
65
of potential positive impacts and trust-building for SLOs (Hoepfl, 1997). These criteria are situated within the larger context setting in recognition that positive impacts and trust-building are influenced by the context in which they occur. Context includes prior experience of wind farms, support for wind farms as a means to reduce greenhouse gases, planning approval authority and processes, and regulation. Further research on the SLO concept is still required to finalise and then operationalise a working model for the wind industry. Research questions that arise in developing such a model include: Who participates in the development of the licence, and how transparent is its current status? Who grants/controls the licence, and who decides when the licence has been secured or breached? What are the conditions of the licence? What data can articulate and evaluate the success of an SLO? How does an SLO differ between industrial-scale and community-scale wind farms? To what extent does material gain or financial dependency influence the terms of an SLO? To what extent is it possible and/or desirable to legislate for an SLO? Ongoing CSIRO research that engages with the wind industry will contribute further understanding and knowledge to the possibilities and workability of an SLO for wind farms in Australia.
66
9. Conclusions
New wind farms are expected to contribute the majority of the new renewable electricity generation required to achieve the Australian Governments enhanced Renewable Energy Target.
However, the development of wind farms face a number of barriers, including required economies of scale, market and regulatory factors, and apparent community resistance. Together these factors could threaten the contribution of wind power to the Renewable Energy Target. This report sought to contribute to the development of sustainable and cost effective renewable energy supply by improving our understanding of community resistance and acceptance of rural wind farms in Australia. The study involved interviews and media analysis across nine wind farms of different sizes and operational status across New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. The study produced four high level findings: 1. There is strong community support for the development of wind farms, including support from rural residents who do not seek media attention or political engagement to express their views. This finding contrasts with the level of opposition that may be assumed from the typically conflict-oriented portrayal of wind farm proposals in the popular media. This media coverage frequently gives significant attention to legal challenges, political protests, and vocal opponents including Landscape Guardian and high profile individuals, but fails to balance this with coverage of middle ground views, or with equivalent attention to the potential benefits of with wind farms.
67
2. The actual and perceived local costs and benefits of wind farms are strongly influenced by the design, implementation, and community engagement processes. Many of the benefits can be shared or communicated in ways that would enhance community support for the development of wind farms in a region. Many of the potential costs can be reduced by appropriate design, siting, and project implementation. In some cases, more transparent communication of available factual information could result in significantly higher levels of support or the identification of alternative development strategies that would address key local objections. For example, legal costs could be mitigated through early and transparent community engagement to design a wind farm that considers and responds to stakeholder concerns. The benefits of turbine rental payments could be enhanced or shared by designing a compensation model with stakeholders that distributes rental payments more equally across neighbouring properties or other affected parties. 3. Existing regulatory approaches provide an appropriate framework for negotiating wind farm developments, but there is scope for improving outcomes. This study of nine wind developments found that while community concerns were sometimes overstated, limiting opportunity for community input risks undermining potential local support. The alternative of more prescriptive rules and processes to protect perceived community interests can risk forgoing developments that could deliver local benefits and achieve local support.
4. The emerging notion of a Social Licence to Operate provides a useful framework for wind farm developers to engage local communities in ways that could enhance transparency and local support, and complement formal regulatory processes. This approach could provide a structured and cooperative framework for exploring strategies for reducing potential adverse impacts, sharing financial benefits equitably, and building local trust and understanding through a clear communication process. The framework could also support more transparent communication and assessment of competing claims by proponents and opponents of specific developments, supporting a smoother and less acrimonious resolution of development applications. Elements of a Social Licence to Operate, notably transparent and open engagement processes, have been implemented at the small, community-scale Hepburn Wind Farm. This farm has 1,900 co-operative members and experienced minimal opposition. The Social Licence to Operate would not conflict with existing regulations, but would act to enhance the current required social and environmental impact assessment. Research has noted that developers acting beyond required regulatory compliance, including willingly engaging outside the formal planning process, contributed to more accepted energy projects. Overall, the study findings suggest that community acceptance of wind farms could be increased by developers intentionally adopting a Social Licence to Operate approach, or similar frameworks for transparent and well structured community engagement. There is evidence that increased community acceptance from such approaches would result in increased approval and installation of wind farms, and would thus increase the possibility of achieving Australias Renewable Energy Target in a cost effective way.
68
References
ABS (Australasian Bat Society) (2008) Bats and wind farms. URL (consulted August 2011): http://www.batcall.csu. edu.au/abs/issues/windfarms.pdf ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2007b) Silverton 2006 Census QuickStats. URL (consulted January 2011): http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2007a) Taralga (Urban Centre/Locality), 2006 Census QuickStats. URL (consulted January 2011): http://www.censusdata.abs. gov.au ACNT (Australian Council of National Trusts) and Auswind (2007) Wind Farms and Landscape Values: National Assessment Framework. Sydney: Australian Wind Energy Association. AGL (The Australian Gas Light Company) (2010) Hallett wind farms. URL (consulted November 2010): http://www. agk.com.au Altheide, D. (1996) Qualitative Media Analysis: Qualitative Research Methods Series 38, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. AMR Interactive (2010) Community Attitudes to Wind farms in NSW. NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water. URL (consulted December 2010): http://www.environment.nsw.gov .au/resources/ climatechange/ 10947WindFarms_Final.pdf APH (Australian Parliament House) (2011) Senate Inquiry into Social and economic impact of rural wind farms. Canberra: Australia. URL (consulted January 2011): http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/ impact_rural_wind_farms/info.htm Arvai, J. (2007). Rethinking of risk communication: lessons from the decision sciences, Tree genetics & genomes 3(2): 173-185. Ashworth, P. (2011) Reducing energy demand: the imperative for behavioural change, in H.Cleugh, M. Stafford Smith, M. Battaglia and P. Graham (Ed.s) Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia, pp.127-134. Canberra: CSIRO Publishing.
Ashworth, P. and Cormick, C. (2011) Enabling the social shaping of CCS technology in I. Havercroft, R. Macrory and R. Stewart (ed.s), Carbon Capture and Storage: Emerging Legal and Regulatory Issues, London: University College of London: pp. 252-263. Ashworth, P., Bradbury, J., Feenstra, L., Greenberg, S., Hund, G., Mikunda, T., Wade, S. and Shaw, H. (2011), Communication/Engagement Toolkit for CCS Projects, Canberra: CSIRO. Ashworth, P., Pisarski, A., & Littleboy, A. (2006). Understanding and Incorporating Stakeholder Perspectives to Low Emission Technologies in Queensland. Canberra: CSIRO. Ashworth P, Quezada G, van Kasteren Y, Boughen N, Paxton G, Carr-Cornish S, and Booth C. (2009) Perceptions of low emission energy technologies: Results from a Perth large group workshop, Canberra: CSIRO. Australian Government (2011a) Renewable Energy Target (RET) URL (consulted January 2011): http://www. aph.gov.au/library/pubs/ClimateChange/governance/ domestic/national/mandatory.htm Australian Government (2011b) Securing a clean energy future: The Australian Governments Climate Change Plan. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Australian Senate (2011) Inquiry report: The Social and Economic Impact of Rural Wind Farms. S. C. A. R. Committee, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Banks, B., Kroon, C., Klawitter, J., Oldham, J., Moffat, K., Jarvis, M. and Vaanchig, P. (2010) Research Report: Stakeholder Perceptions and Suggestions- Responsible Mineral Development Initiative, Geneva: World Economic Forum. Barry, J. and Ellis, G. (2010) Beyond consensus? Agonism, republicanism and a low carbon future. Renewable Energy and the Public: from NIMBY to Participation, in P. Devine-Wright (ed) Renewable Energy and the Public, pp.29-42. London: Earthscan. Berg van den G P (2004) Effects of the wind profile at night on wind turbine sound, Journal of Sound and Vibration 277: 955-970. Bond, S. (2009) The Tale of Two Windy Cities: Public Attitudes Towards Wind farm Development Discussion paper 09.03. Perth: Curtin University.
69
Bradbury, J., Ray, I., Peterson, T., Wade,S., Wong-Parodi, G. and Feldpausch, A. (2009), The Role of Social Factors in Shaping Public Perceptions of CCS: Results of Multi-State Focus Group Interviews in the U.S, Energy Procedia (Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies 9) 1 (1): 4665-4672. Brahic, C. (2008) Wind turbines make bats lungs explode. URL (consulted November 2010): http://www. newscientist.com/article/dn14593-wind-turbinesmake-bat-lungs-explode.html?full=true&print=true BWEA (British Wind Energy Association) (2005) Low Frequency Noise and Wind Turbines: Technical Annex. London: British Wind Energy Association. CEC (Clean Energy Council) (2011a) Technologies: Wind. Melbourne: Clean Energy Council. URL (consulted January 2011): http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/ cec/technologies/wind.html CEC (Clean Energy Council) (2011b) Submission from Clean Energy Council to Senate Inquiry into Social and Economic Impact of Rural Wind Farms. Canberra: Australian Federal Parliament. CEC (Clean Energy Council) (2010) Clean Energy Australia 2010. Melbourne: Clean Energy Council. CEC (Clean Energy Council) (2009) Renewable Energy Certificate Market Discussion Paper. Melbourne: Clean Energy Council. Chapman , S. (2011) Wind turbine sickness prevented by money drug. The Drum- Opinion (ABC media). URL (consulted May 2011): http://www.abc.net.au/ unleashed/45730.html Charmaz, K. (2000) Grounded Theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods, in N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Ed.s.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp.509-535. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Clayton, S. (2000) Models of Justice in the Environmental Debate, Journal of Social Issues 56(3): 459-474. Cohn, P. (2008) How Ecofriendly are wind farms? BioScience 58(7): 576-578. Corvellec, H. (2007) Arguing for a licence to operate: the case of the Swedish wind power industry, Corporate Communications: An International Journal 12(2): 129-144.
Cowell, R., Bristow, G. and Munday, M. (2011) Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: the role of community benefits in wind energy development, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 54 (4) 539-557. Crotty, M. (1998) The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Crowley, R. (2010) Letter To Hon. Paul Holloway, MLC, SA Minister For Urban Development And Planning, from Acting Chief Executive Officer, Northern Areas Council, SA, December 20. Cryan, P. (2009) Bat Fatalities at Wind Turbines: Investigating the Causes and Consequences. Washington DC: United States Geological Survey. URL (consulted April 2011): http://www.fort.usgs.gov/batswindmills/ DAC (Development Assessment Commission) (2011) Role of the DAC. Adelaide: Development Assessment Commission. URL (consulted April 2011): http://www. dac.sa.gov.au/index.cfm?objectid=E9352240-F2030D46-A098A75AE6209C2B DAC (Development Assessment Commission) (2005) Waitpinga Wind Farm: Application No: 453/0716/03 (Non-complying), June 9 Adelaide: Development Assessment Commission. DAC (Development Assessment Commission) (2004) Agenda item 10.1, January 22, Application No: 453/0716/03 Adelaide: Development Assessment Commission. Desbarats, J., Upham, P., Riesch, H., Reiner, D., Brunsting, S., de Best-Waldhober, M., Duetschke, E., Oltra, C., Sala, R. and McLachlan, C (2010), Review of the public participation practices for CCS and non-CCS projects in Europe, Brussels: Institute for European Environmental Policy. Devine-Wright, P. (2010) Renewable Energy and the Public: from NIMBY to Participation. London: Earthscan. Devine-Wright, P. and Howes, Y (2010) Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: A wind energy case study, Journal of Environmental Psychology 30: 271280.
70
Devine-Wright, P. And Devine-Wright, H. (2006) Social representations of intermittency and the shaping of public support for wind energy in the UK, International Journal of Global Energy Issues 25 (34):243256. Devine-Wright, P. (2005a) Beyond NIMBYism: towards an Integrated Framework for Understanding Public perception of Wind Energy, Wind Energy 8: 125-139. Devine-Wright, P. (2005b) Local Aspects of UK Renewable Energy Development: Exploring Public Beliefs and Policy Implications, Local Economy 10(1): 57-69. Diesendorf, M. (2011) Submission from Associate Professor and Deputy Director, Institute of Environmental Studies, University of NSW, to Senate Inquiry into Social and Economic Impact of Rural Wind Farms. Canberra: Federal Parliament. EcoGeneration (2011) Wind Farms A No-Go In Victoria: Pacific Hydro. EcoGeneration March 24. URL (consulted February 2011): http://www. ecogeneration.com.au/news/pacific_hydro_liberals_ make_wind_farms_a_no-go_in_victoria/055295/ EcoGeneration (2010) Baillieu unveils wind farm policy, Ecogeneration, May 19. URL (consulted May 2011): http://www.ecogeneration.com.au/news/baillieu_ unveils_wind_farm_policy/040843/ Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Seyboth K, Arvizu D, Bruckner T, and Stechow (ed.s) (2011), IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation- Summary for Policy Makers, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. EDO (Environmental Defenders Office) (2011) Fact Sheet: Part 3A Major project approvals. Sydney: NSW Environmental Defenders Office. URL (consulted February 2011): http://www.edo.org.au/edonsw/site/ factsh/fs02_3_3.php Electoral Commission NSW (2008) Declaration of the Poll, Returning Officer for Goulburn Mulwaree & NSW. NSW: Electoral Commission. Eltham, D., Harrison, G., and Allen, S. (2008) Change in public attitudes towards a Cornish wind farm: Implications for planning, Energy Policy 36: 2333.
Embark (2011) Who is Embark? Melbourne: Embark. URL (consulted April 2011): http://www.embark.com.au/ pages/viewpage.action?pageId=2885608 Energy Matters (2010) Clean Energy Council Backs Brumby, Energy Matters, November 17. URL (consulted February 2011) http://www.energymatters.com.au/ index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=1178 EPHC (Environment Protection and Heritage Council) (2010) National Wind Farm Development Guidelines Draft, Canberra: Environment Protection and Heritage Council. EPHC (Environment Protection and Heritage Council) (2008) Report on Impediments to Environmentally and Socially Responsible Wind Farm Development, Canberra: Environment Protection and Heritage Council. Epilepsy Foundation of America (2005) Photosensitivity and Epilepsy. Epilepsy Foundation of America. URL: (consulted February 2011) http://www. epilepsyfoundation.org/about/photosensitivity/ Eraring Energy (2010) Crookwell Wind Farm, Eraring Energy website. URL (consulted June 2010): http://www. eraring-energy.com.au/Default.aspx?aCateId=858 ERDC (Environment Resources and Development Court) (2010) Quinn & Ors v Regional Council of Goyder & Anor: [2010] 63 Environment Resources and Development Court. URL (consulted February 2011): http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/courts/environment/ judgments/index.html ESAA (Energy Supply Association of Australia) (2011) Victorian Government returns wind farm decisionmaking to councils, ESAA News, March 7. URL (consulted March 20110): http://esaa.com.au Evans, B. (2011) Urban wind power and the private sector: Community benefits, social acceptance and public engagement, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 54 (2): 227-244. Fleming, A. and Vanclay, F. (2009) Using discourse analysis to improve extension practice, Extension Farming Systems Journal 5(1): 1-11. Fontana, A. and Frey, J. (2000) The Interview: From structured questions to negotiated text, in N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Ed.s) Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 645-672. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
71
Fowler, J. (2005) Toora wind farm- Review of the environmental noise monitoring program. Melbourne: Graeme E Harding and Associates, Report 045-177/1. Frew, W. (2006) Its an ill wind, Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney: May 19. URL: (consulted March 2011): http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/its-an-illwind-133/2006/05/18/1147545460802.html# Future Energy (2010) Wind Projects- Castlemaine. Future Energy website. URL (consulted October 2010): http:// www.futureenergy.com.au/proj_cas.html Gipe, P. (1991) Wind energy comes of age - California and Denmark, Energy Policy (19) 8:756-767. Graham, P. (2006) The Heat is On. Canberra: CSIRO Publishing. Gregory, D. (1998) Earth, wind and buyer, Sun Herald, March 1. Gross, C. (2007) Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance, Energy Policy 35: 27272736. Gunningham, N., Kagan, R. and Thornton, D. (2004) Social Licence and Environmental Protection: Why Businesses Go Beyond Compliance, Law & Social Inquiry 29 (2): 307341. GWEC (Global Wind Energy Council) (2009) Global Wind 2009 Report. Brussels: Global Wind Energy Council. Hannan, E. (2008a) Japanese firm buys up wind project, The Australian: June 9. Hannan, E. (2008b) Legal threat to wind project, The Australian: June 10. Harvey, B. and Brereton, D. (2005) Emerging models of community engagement in the Australian minerals industry, UN Conference on Engaging Communities, Brisbane: August 14-17. Henderson and Horning (2006) Land Value Impact of Wind Farm Development: Crookwell NSW. Sydney: Henderson & Horning Property Consultants. Hepburn Wind (2011) About Hepburn wind, Hepburn Wind website. URL: (consulted January 2011): http://www. hepburnwind.com.au
Hindmarsh, R. (2010) Wind farms and Community Engagement in Australia: A Critical Analysis for Policy Learning, East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal 4 (4) 541-563. Hoepfl, M. (1997) Choosing Qualitative Research: A primer for technology education researchers, Journal of Technology Education. 9(1):47- 63. Hope, K. (2011) Submission from Northern Areas Council Senate Inquiry into Social and Economic Impact of Rural Wind Farms. Canberra: Federal Parliament. Huber, S. And Horbaty, R. (2010) Social Acceptance of Wind Energy: Results of IEA Wind Task 28 (Technical Report). Paris: International Energy Agency. Hppop, O., Dierschke, J., Exo, K-M., Fredrich, E., and Hill, R. (2006) Bird Migration studies and potential collision risk with offshore wind turbines, Ibis 148: 90-109. IAP2 (International Association of Public Participation) (2007) URL: (consulted March 2011): http://www.iap2.org. au/sitebuilder/resources/knowledge/asset/files/36/ iap2spectrum.pdf IEA (International Energy Agency) (2009) 2009 IEA Wind Annual Report. Paris: International Energy Agency. Infigen Energy (2010) Capital Wind Farm, Infigen Energy website. URL: (consulted December 2010): http:// infigenenergy.com/assets/australia/capital-wind-farm. aspx Jacobsson, S. and Lauber, V. (2006) The politics and policy of energy system transformation explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology, Energy Policy 34: 256276. Jones, J. (2007) Global or local interests? The significance of the Taralga wind farm case, In T. Bonyhady and P. Christoff (Ed.s), Climate Law in Australia. Sydney: The Federation Press, pp.262-276. Jopson, D. (2009a), George in a spin over noisy wind power, Sydney Morning Herald, September 21. Jopson, D. (2009b), Gone with the wind: rare flora and fauna force change of plan, Sydney Morning Herald, November 7. Kann, S. (2009) Overcoming barriers to wind project finance in Australia, Energy Policy 37:31393148.
72
Ladenburg, J. (2008) Attitudes towards on-land and offshore wind power development in Denmark; choice of development in Denmark; choice of development strategy, Renewable Energy 33 (1): 111-118. Lewis, J., (2003) Design issues, in J. Ritchie and J. Lewis (Ed.s) Qualitative Research Practice, pp. 47-76. London: Sage Publications. Lothian, A. (2008) Scenic Perceptions of the Visual Effects of Wind Farms on South Australian Landscapes, Geographical Research 46(2):196-207. Marris, E. and Fairless, D. (2007) Wind farms deadly reputation hard to shift. Nature 447 URL (consulted March 2011): http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/ v447/n7141/full/447126a.html MASG (Mount Alexander Sustainability Group) (2010) Community Owned Wind Park in Mt Alexander Shire, Mount Alexander Sustainability Group website. URL (consulted October 2010): http://masg.org.au/ projects/renewables/community-owned-wind-park-inthe-mount-alexander-shire/ Mason, C., Paxton, G., Parr, J. and Boughen, N. (2010) Charting the territory: Exploring stakeholder reactions to the prospect of seafloor exploration and mining in Australia, Marine Policy 34: 13741380. Middletons (2007) Court approves development of NSW largest wind farm, Middletons Legal Practice, URL (consulted January 2011): http://www.middletons. com.au/news/news.asp?id=63 Miskelly, P. (2009) Inquiry into Rural Wind Farms: Submission no. 84, Taralga: Taralga Landscape Guardians. MMA (McLennan Maganasik and Associates) (2009) Regional Employment and Income Opportunities Provided by Renewable Energy Generation. Sydney: The Climate Institute. URL (consulted January 2011): http://www. climateinstitute.org.au/images/MMAreport.pdf Moffat, K., Parsons, R. and Lacey, J. (2011), How does a social licence operate?, Sustainable Development Indicators in the Mining Industry Conference, Aachen, Germany, June 14-17. Nada, A., and van der Horst, D. (2010) Wind power planning, landscapes and publics. Land Use Policy 27(2): 181-184.
NGH Environmental (2010) Silverton Wind Farm, Community Consultation Plan, Melbourne: NGH Environmental. NGH Environmental (2008) Environmental Assessment: Silverton Wind Farm. Melbourne: NGH Environmental. URL (consulted January 2011): http://www. silvertonwindfarm.com.au NHMRC (National Health and Medical Research Council) (2010a) Wind Turbines and Health: A Rapid Review of the Evidence. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council. URL (consulted January 2011): http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/ publications/synopses/evidence_review__wind_ turbines_and_health.pdf NHMRC (National Health and Medical Research Council) (2010b) Wind Turbines and Health Public Statement. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council URL (consulted January 2011): http://www. nhmrc.gov.au NMS (Noise Measurement Services) (2010) Noise Impact Assessment Report: Waubra Wind Farm, for Mr & Mrs N Dean, Report No 1537, Brisbane: Noise Measurement Services. URL (consulted March 2011): http:// windconcernsontario.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/ the-dean-waubra-wind-farm-report-july-20101.pdf NSW Department of Lands (2009), Preliminary Assessment of the Impact of Wind Farms on Surrounding Land Values in Australia, Sydney: Report for NSW Valuer General by PRP Valuers and Consultants (Ref M.6777). www. lpma.nsw.gov.au (accessed 24/11/10). NSW DECCW (Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water) (2010a), The wind energy fact sheet. Sydney: NSW Department of Climate Change and Water. NSW DECCW (Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water) (2010b) Community Attitudes to Wind Farms in NSW, Sydney: NSW Department of Climate Change and Water. NSW DPC (Department of Premier and Cabinet) (2010) NSW Government response: Rural wind farms Inquiry Report (no. 31), General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5, Sydney: NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet.
73
NSW Government (2011), Submission from NSW Government to Senate Inquiry into Social and Economic Impact of Rural Wind Farms. Canberra: Australian Federal Parliament. NSW Legislative Council (2009) Rural wind farms Inquiry Report (no. 31) General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5, Sydney: NSW Legislative Council. NSW Planning (2010), Capital Solar Farm- Project Application, NSW Department of Planning website, Sydney: NSW Department of Planning. URL (consulted March 2011): http://majorprojects.planning. nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=4074. NSW Planning (2006) Major Project Assessment: Capital Wind Farm, Director-Generals Environmental Assessment Report, Sydney: NSW Department of Planning. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2009) OECD Factbook: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Offor, Sharp and Associates (2003) Social, Economic and Tourism Impact Assessment for the Proposed Wind Farm Project at Bald Hills, Sydney: Wind Power Pty Ltd. Outhred, H. and MacGill, I. (2006) Integrating wind energy in the Australian National Electricity Market, World Renewable Energy Congress, Florence, August 19-25. Outhred, H., Mallon, K., Passey, R., Watt, M. and MacGill, I. (2002) The Sustainability of Renewable Energy Projects, Wind Energy Proceedings of Solar 2002 - Australian and New Zealand Solar Energy Society Conference, Newcastle, Nov 25 - 2 Dec 2. Parkinson, G. (2011a) Can wind beat the noise, Climate Spectator, June 24. URL (consulted 24 June): http:// www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/can-windbeat-noise?utm_source=Climate%2BSpectator%2Bdai ly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Climate%2B Spectator%2Bdaily Parkinson, G. (2011b) RET: Hail fellow, not well met, Climate Spectator, April 4. URL (consulted April 2011): http:// www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/ret-hailfellow-not-well-met
Parkinson, G. (2010) Green Deals: Different strokes, Climate Spectator, October 10. URL (consulted March 2011): http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/ green-deals-different-strokes Parsons, R., and Moffat, K. (2011) Constructing the meaning of social licence, Canberra: CSIRO (forthcoming). Pedersen, E. and Persson Waye, K., (2004) Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise a doseresponse relationship, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116 (4): 3460-3470. Pierpont, N. (2010) Wind Turbine Syndrome & the Brain, First International Symposium on the Global Wind Industry and Adverse Health Effects: Loss of Social Justice? Ontario, Canada: October 29-31. Pippos, C. (2005) Red alert for Victor wind farm, The Sunday Mail: 23. Pippos, C. (2004) Wind farm turbines visible, The Sunday Mail: 13. Planning NSW (2010) Capital Solar Farm- Project Application, Planning and Infrastructure, NSW Government, URL (consulted April 2011): http://Majorprojects.Planning. Nsw.Gov.Au/Index.Pl?Action=View_Job&Job_ Id=4074 Prell, C. (2009) Presentation to Upper Lachlan Shire Council, June 18. Prest, J. (2007) The Bald Hills wind farm debacle, in T. Bonyhady and P. Christoff (Ed.s) Climate Law in Australia, pp. 230-261. Sydney: The Federation Press. Preston C., (2007) Judgment: Taralga Landscape Guardians Inc V Minister For Planning And Res Southern Cross Pty Ltd (NSWLEC 59), NSW Land and Environment Court, URL (consulted March 2011): http://www.lawlink.nsw. gov.au/lecjudgments/2007nswlec.nsf/2007nswlec.nsf/ WebView2/8C85A53A35F34D11CA25728E000CD 322?OpenDocument RDC Scotland (2004) The Case for Renewable Energy: Submission from RDC Scotland/Falck, Renewable Energy in Scotland inquiry, Edinburgh: RDC Scotland. Renewable UK (2010) Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS): An independent review of the state of knowledge about the alleged health condition- Health and Safety Briefing, London: Renewable UK.
74
Renewables SA (2011) Guide to Development Approval, Adelaide: Renewables SA. URL (consulted April 2011): http://www.renewablessa.sa.gov.au/proponents-guide/ guide-to-development-approval. RES Southern Highlands (2007) Taralga Wind Farm Project: Application for Modification of Development Consent DA 241/04 granted by NSW Land and Environment Court 23rd February 2007 pursuant to Section 96(8) of EP&A Act, Taralga: RES Southern Highlands. Rice, D. (2008) WA has best offshore wind site, Science Alert, May 16. URL (consulted April 2011): http://www. sciencealert.com.au/news/20081605-17335-2.html ROAM Consulting (2010) The true costs and benefits of the enhanced RET, Report CEC00003, Melbourne: Clean Energy Council. Rogers A, Manwell J and Wright S. (2006) Wind Turbine Acoustic Noise, Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, Amherst: University of Massachusetts. SA EPA (South Australia Environmental Protection Authority) (2003) Wind Farms: Environmental Noise Guidelines, South Australia Environmental Protection Authority, Adelaide: South Australian Environmental Protection Authority. SA Planning (South Australian Department of Planning ) (2010) Northern Areas Council Development Plan, South Australian Department of Planning, Adelaide: South Australian Department of Planning. URL (consulted April 2011): http://www.planning.sa.gov.au/ edp/pdf/NTA.PDF Schultz-Byard, N. (2011) Broken Hill Council welcomes OFarrells changes, Local ABC, April 5, URL (consulted April 2011): http://www.abc.net.au/local/ stories/2011/04/05/3182629 SEI (Sustainable Energy Ireland) (2003) Attitudes Toward the Development of Wind Farms in Ireland, Dublin: Sustainable Energy Ireland. URL (consulted November 2010): http://www.seai.ie/uploadedfiles/ RenewableEnergy/Attitudestowardswind.pdf Sellars, P. (2010), Gippsland wind farm fight, Weekly Times, June 21. URL (consulted June 2011): http://www. weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2010/06/21/199371_ national-news.html
Silverton Wind Farm (2010) Overview,Silverton Wind Farm website. URL (consulted December 2010): http:// www.silvertonwindfarm.com.au SKM Consulting (2010) Economic Impact Assessment of the Hallett Wind Farms, Sydney: AGL Ltd. Smith, P. and McDonough, M. (2001), Beyond Public Participation: Fairness in Natural Resource Decision Making, Society and Natural Resources, 14: 239-249. Smith, R. (2004) Panel report: Bald Hills Wind Farm Project: EES, EES Supplement and Called-In Planning Permits, Panel: Melbourne. Sovacool, B. (2009), The intermittency of wind, solar, and renewable electricity generators: Technical barrier or rhetorical excuse?, Utilities Policy 17 (3-4): 288-296. SustainabilityVictoria (2007) Wind energy: Myths and Facts, Melbourne: Sustainability Victoria. Thomson, I. and Boutilier, R. (2011a) Social Licence to Operate, SME Mining Engineering Handbook, Colorado: Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, pp. 1779-1796. Thomson, I., Boutilier, R., and Black, L. (2011b), The Social Licence to Operate: Normative elements and metrics, First International Seminar on Social Responsibility in Mining, Santiago, Chile, October 19-21. TSI (Transfield Services Infrastructure) (2010) Toora Wind Farm, Transfield Services Infrastructure website. URL (consulted November 2010): http://www. tsinfrastructurefund.com/page/Infrastructure_Assets/ Toora_wind_farm UK Parliament (2010) Wind Turbines (Minimum Distances from Residential Premises) Bill [HL] 2010-11, URL (consulted November 2010): http://services. parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/windturbinesminimumdist ancesfromresidentialpremiseshl.html UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (2008) Green Jobs: Towards Decent Work in a Sustainable, LowCarbon World, New York: United Nations Environment Programme. URL (consulted December 2010): http:// www.unep.org/civil_society/Publications/index.asp
75
Upper Lachlan Shire Council (2008) Wind farm generation poll: Do you support the continuing development and construction of wind farm turbines in the Upper Lachlan Council area?, Crookwell: Upper Lachlan Shire Council. van der Horst, D., and Toke, D. (2009) Exploring the landscape of wind farm developments; local area characteristics and planning process outcomes in rural England, Land Use Policy 27(2): 214-221. van Hoven, B. and Poelman, A. (2003) Using Computers for Qualitative Data Analysis: An example using NUD.IST, Journal of Geography in Higher Education 27(1):113-120. VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) (2007) Merits Hearing: Permit Application No. 2006/9231, Melbourne: Reference No. P549/2007. Walker, G., Devine-Wright, P., Hunter, S., High, H. and Evans, B. (2010) Trust and community: Exploring the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable energy, Energy Policy 38: 26552663. Warren, C., Lumsden, C., ODowd, S., and Birnie, R. (2005). Green on Green: Public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48 (6): 853-875. Wolsink, M. (2009) Near-shore wind power - Protected seascapes, environmentalists attitudes, and the technocratic planning perspective, Land Use Policy 27(2): 195-203. Wolsink, M. (2007) Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes- Equity and fairness instead of backyard motives, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 11: 11881207. Wolsink, M. (2000) Wind power and the NIMBY- myth: Institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support, Renewable Energy, 21(1): 49-64.
76
Appendices
Appendix A: Media analysis of mentions of wind farm and community
A media analysis was undertaken for articles and letters to editor published in national, NSW, ACT, South Australian and Victorian newspapers for the six-month period between July 15 and December 15, 2010. The ProQuest ANZ newsstand database was used. In total, 49 articles and letters to the editor that featured both the phrases wind farm and the word community were drawn from 19 publications meeting these criteria during this period. These are listed below. Publications from which the articles and letters were drawn: National: The Australian, The Weekend Australian NSW: Sydney Morning Herald Daily Examiner, Grafton Illawarra Mercury, Wollongong Herald, Newcastle ACT: The Canberra Times VIC: The Age, The Sunday Age Herald Sun The Weekly Times, Melbourne Sunbury Macedon Ranges Leader, Sunbury Northcote Leader, Northcote Moorabool Leader, Melbourne Geelong Advertiser, Geelong Echo, Geelong Geelong News, Geelong SA: The Advertiser, Adelaide Leader Messenger, Port Adelaide An issue/topic was only counted once per article. Each issue/ topic was identified as a reason to either support or reject a wind farm proposal. These were summarised into themes of reasons. The results of the media analysis are also provided in Table 7 and Table 8.
77
Table 7: Reasons to support wind farms REASONS/PERCEPTIONS IN SUPPORT OF WIND FARMS GLOBAL ACTION Action responding to climate change/global warming/ reductions of GHGs Support for clean/renewable energy Low cost/cost effective renewable energy option Total mentions LOCAL BENEFITS Job creation (mainly in construction; others indirectly after construction) Community management/ ownership (shares, membership; neighbours share in revenue) Community financial compensation/gain (incl. fund for local groups; contribution to council rates) Additional/alternative income for hosts Tourist attraction Profits (locally) Sustainable option (energy security, clean energy) Diversity of local economy Risk management/ drought proofing Total mentions INFORMATION PROVISION, KNOWLEDGE No demonstrated health impacts (NHMRC report 2010) Guidelines for noise control; limited noise impacts Strong, clear and available information Awareness of greater electricity gain (than by house by house approach) Total mentions PLANNING PROCESSES Good consultation Location for turbines that meets positive criteria /manages negative criteria Guidelines for flora and fauna protection Total mentions 4 1 1 6 5 2 1 1 9 7 6 5 3 3 2 1 1 1 29 9 3 2 11 Count (1/article)
78
Table 8: Reasons to oppose wind farms REASONS/ PERCEPTIONS CONTRIBUTING TO WIND FARM OPPOSITION EXTERNAL CHANGES TO LOCALITY Visual landscape impact/change to bucolic nature of countryside Noise Distance from dwelling Bird life damaged Reduction in property values (note: unproven) Use of boundary land (prevents future house sites) Airfield safety Lack of monitoring (e.g. noise levels) Total mentions PLANNING PROCESS Poor/lack of consultation/lack of adoption of concerns in planning process Conflict over planning laws between local/state/federal jurisdictions) Restrictive planning policies (ie VIC state govt in Dec 2010 2km buffer, not in national parks) Requires additional infrastructure (strengthening of grid) Speed of deployment to meet RET/matched against oversupply of RECs Right of appeal (1 case in Vic) Total mentions SOCIAL IMPACTS, SITUATION Ideological oppositions/NIMBY or NIABY Profits (favouring developers) Political opportunism/Approval provided to gain city votes Climate scepticism, denial Inequitable community financial benefits Aggression within community and/or community infrastructure towards wind farm supporters Manipulation of vulnerable community/Disempowered during contract negotiations Gag/Host legally prohibited from discussing development Total mentions HEALTH IMPACTS Cumulative health impacts from turbine operation (wind turbine syndrome) (note: unproven) Low frequency sounds (affect human balance/nausea; headaches; sore ears) Stress-related health issues from opposing project (before installation) Sleep deprivation/disturbance Shadow flicker Vibration Total mentions QUESTIONS ABOUT TECHNOLOGY Unreliability and/or efficiency of turbines questioned Expensive electricity option (compared to coal, gas) Poor GHG reduction (ie emissions from steel, concrete) Support for nuclear energy, fossil fuels Total mentions 4 3 2 1 10 4 4 3 2 1 1 15 5 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 15 6 3 3 2 2 1 17 10 8 3 5 2 1 1 1 31 Count (1/article)
79
Appendix B: Interview question schedule

Community acceptance of wind farms in rural Australia 1. Broad responses to wind energy How do you feel about wind energy? Have you ever been to a wind farm? What did you think? How do you feel about the wind farm in your area? What kinds of benefits do you feel your area can gain from the wind farm? What concerns do you have about the wind farm in your area? 2. Place-related meanings and place attachment What are words or phrases that come to mind when you think about your local landscape? 3. Physical aspects about acceptability of wind power What are your thoughts about the physical aspects of your local wind farm (both positive and negative)? 4. Societal and human aspects of wind power What are your thoughts about the social or human aspects of your local wind farm (both positive and negative)? 5. Financial aspects of wind farms What are your thoughts about the financial aspects of your local wind farm (both positive and negative)? Are there other models of compensation you would like to propose? 6. About the planning processes How was your experience of the planning and consultation process from the wind farm developer? What has been your experience or knowledge about the planning laws and processes of local and state government? 7. About the participant How long have you lived in this area?
80
This page left deliberately blank.
81
82

Report - Exploring Community Acceptance of Rural Wind Farms in Australia A Snapshot - CSIRO2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report - Exploring Community Acceptance of Rural Wind Farms in Australia A Snapshot - CSIRO2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exploring community acceptance of rural wind farms in Australia

Exploring community acceptance of

rural wind farms in Australia:

Nina Hall, Peta Ashworth and Hylton Shaw

Energy Transformed Flagship

This page left deliberately blank.

Exploring community acceptance of rural wind farms in Australia

Exploring community acceptance of rural wind farms in Australia: a snapshot

Energy Transformed Flagship

Exploring community acceptance of rural wind farms in Australia

7. Findings from interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Energy Transformed Flagship

Exploring community acceptance of rural wind farms in Australia

Energy Transformed Flagship

Exploring community acceptance of rural wind farms in Australia

Year of rst operation (proposed above dotted line)

2011 2009 2009 2006 State: NSW SA 2001 1998 VIC

Energy Transformed Flagship

Exploring community acceptance of rural wind farms in Australia

Energy Transformed Flagship

Exploring community acceptance of rural wind farms in Australia

Energy Transformed Flagship

2.2 Wind energy in Australia

Exploring community acceptance of rural wind farms in Australia

Energy Transformed Flagship

3.1 Towards a Social Licence to Operate

3.1.1 Features of an SLO

Exploring community acceptance of rural wind farms in Australia

psychological identi cation approval

trust boundary credibility boundary

acceptance withheld/ withdrawn

3.1.2 An SLO for wind developments

Energy Transformed Flagship

Exploring community acceptance of rural wind farms in Australia

4.1 Media analysis

Energy Transformed Flagship

4.2 Case study selection

Name of wind farm and locality

Megawatts (no. turbines)

Status (year of first operation)

Level and Reasons for opposition (and by whom)

Epuron & Macquarie

RES Southern Highlands AGL

Waitpinga, near Victor Harbor, SA

Wind farm developments

Hepburn and Castlemaine, VIC Bald Hills, in Gippsland, VIC

H: 4MW (2); C: 6MW (3) 109MW (52)

Future Energy Mitsui & Co

H: Operational (2011); C: Proposed Under construction

Toora, in Gippsland, VIC

Transfield Services Infrastructure Fund

Low: Noise, land value, health impacts (local community members)

Exploring community acceptance of rural wind farms in Australia

Figure 1: Size and operational status of case study wind farms

Year of rst operation (proposed above dotted line)

2011 2009 2009 2006 State: NSW SA 2001 1998 VIC

Capital Hepburn & VIC Castlemaine Bald Hills Toora

Energy Transformed Flagship

4.3 Desktop review

4.4 Qualitative interviews

Exploring community acceptance of rural wind farms in Australia

Table 3: Details of interview participants