Good Neighbours, Public Relations and Bribes: The Politics and Perceptions of Community Benefit Provision in Renewable Energy Development in the UK
Good Neighbours, Public Relations and Bribes: The Politics and Perceptions of Community Benefit Provision in Renewable Energy Development in the UK
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/1523908x.2010.509558
复制
发表时间：
2010-01-01
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Devine-Wright, Patrick
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cass, Noel;Walker, Gordon;Devine-Wright, Patrick
在英国，提供社区福利已成为可再生能源项目提案中较为常见的组成部分。这就提出了一些问题，即这些好处的目的是什么，以及参与项目开发和批准过程的许多不同利益攸关方如何看待这些好处。它们是否被视为围绕规划同意进行谈判的有效战略要素;是否被视为资源被开采或正在经历技术实施不利影响的社区的权利;是否被视为贿赂或收买抗议者或关键决策者的一种方式？在本文中，我们借鉴的证据，从一系列的采访，参与可再生能源政策和发展的主要利益相关者，并从一组混合的方法，不同的案例研究的可再生能源项目在英国各地，研究不同的利益相关者（包括开发商，当地公众，政治家，活动家和顾问）的观点。我们发现，基于一些理由，所提供的好处在程度和类型上存在差异，反映了不同技术的成熟度。我们还发现，公众对所提供的好处（当这些好处被知道或承认时）和提供这些好处的原因持高度矛盾的态度。提供社区福利的规范性案例似乎得到所有参与者的接受，但这样做的确切机制仍然存在问题。
The provision of community benefits has become a more common component of renewable energy project proposals in the UK. This raises questions as to the purposes these benefits are fulfilling and the ways in which they are perceived by the many different stakeholders involved in the processes of project development and approval. Are they seen as an effective strategic element in negotiations around planning consent; as a right for communities whose resource is being exploited, or who are experiencing the dis-benefits of technology implementation; or as a way of bribing or buying off protestors or key decision-makers? In this paper, we draw on evidence from a series of interviews with key stakeholders involved in renewable energy policy and development and from a set of mixed method, diverse case studies of renewable energy projects around the UK to examine the viewpoints of different stakeholders (including developers, local publics, politicians, activists and consultants). We discovered variation in the extent and type of benefits on offer, reflecting the maturity of different technologies, based on a number of rationales. We also found in the public's views a high degree of ambivalence towards both the benefits on offer (when they were known or acknowledged) and the reasons for providing them. The normative case for providing community benefits appears to be accepted by all involved, but the exact mechanisms for doing so remain problematic.