This framework has emerged from a multidisciplinary project examining public engagement with renewable energy technologies (RETs) in the UK. The project has addressed many aspects of the engagement between the technologies, actors and publics involved with the deployment of RETs, and started from the position that engagement happens in two directions: publics engage with technologies in various ways and to varying degrees; and developers and technology promoters engage with publics in various ways and to varying degrees. The empirical research therefore involved both interviews with key industry, policy and political actors at national and regional levels and case studies of engagement processes and public responses to specific RET development proposals. Table 1.1 lists ten case studies that were undertaken, covering onshore and offshore wind developments, biomass and marine (wave and tidal stream) RET projects in different parts of the UK.
The methodology for each case study involved semi-structured interviews with developers and local stakeholders, focus groups and questionnaire surveys with local people. Although the design of the study was not longitudinal, by using these methods and tracking the project process in each case, we were able to reveal and observe at least some of the dynamics involved. Over the course of the 3.5-year research programme, we were also able to situate the case studies in relation to wider currents of change in UK policy and industry practice.
The framework discussed in this chapter emerged from looking repeatedly across this substantial body of comparative, multidimensional and multidisciplinary research. A first version of the framework was proposed early on in the
|
Table 1.1 Summary information on case studies (as of early 2009)
|
research process, drawing at that stage largely on a review of the literature. It was then repeatedly and iteratively revisited during the project, at meetings of the project team and in interactions with a project advisory group including academics and representatives from industry and policy organizations. The focus and form of the framework evolved considerably, with different versions being tried out, worked on and then reformulated to better capture the insights being developed through the different elements of empirical work.
Throughout this process we debated the purpose and function of the framework at some length. In seeking to go beyond the kinds of models, concepts or frameworks already mentioned (e. g. Wustenhagen et al, 2007), many options were available, and achieving clarity and agreement was difficult. It is therefore important in presenting the framework in this chapter to be clear both about what the framework is intended to be and what it is not.
First, it is primarily a framework for conceptualizing the elements and processes involved in shaping the interactions that take place between technology promoters and local publics in relation to proposed RET developments. It is aiming to be descriptive and explanatory rather than prescriptive or normative – it is not intended to act as a toolkit or a guide to action. It does not suggest how interactions should take place or how engagement should be practised. It also does not attempt to be simplistically predictive, either about how responses will develop in any given situation or about how final decisions about project approval may turn out.
Second, it does not attempt to be fully inclusive, encompassing every element, process or causal interconnection that might be relevant to an RET project development. As a framework, it is inevitably abstracted to some degree, and selective in what it highlights and what it downplays. In this respect, its formulation and geometry reflects what has emerged from our programme of research and from the discussions we have engaged in as a multidisciplinary team.
Third, and given the preceding point, there is much detail that lies behind or within the framework that cannot be conveyed in the space of this chapter. In what follows, some glimpses of the cases and data that we have examined are provided, but readers are encouraged to follow references to related papers and outputs from the project to find out more.
Over the following sections of the chapter we gradually build the framework, part by part, organizing this construction through the four distinctive features highlighted in the title of this chapter. We begin with the core elements, before gradually drawing out their interconnection and relation to others.
