**5. Characteristics of the Not-in-my-Backyard syndrome (NIMBYism)**

NIMBYism is defined by Wolsink (2006) as "an attitude ascribed to persons who object to the siting of something they regard as detrimental or hazardous in their own neighbourhood, while by implication raising no such objections to similar developments elsewhere" (p. 86). NIMBYism can refer to the establishment of nuclear power plants, nuclear waste or general waste disposal, housing the underprivileged, or to racism. Here NIMBYism is related to wind farming in Australia, referring to public opposition to unwanted local developments. NIMBYism "is not new, but it has never been as pervasive and so quickly ignited as today", it is "a triumph of self-interest over principle" (Offor, 2002, p. 2). Offor contemplates on "how quickly one disgruntled landowner appears to become a major campaign with a ground swell of support that could derail an entire project" (p. 2). An insight into the development of NIMBYism may provide an understanding why it is such a powerful tool in opposing something that has potentially very positive effects.

Futrell (cited in Glickel, 2011) argues that true NIMBYism reactions include a "shift in awareness based on a sense of injustice and obligation to act". Freudenberg and Pastor (also cited in Glickel, 2011) find that three theories can explain NIMBYism in response to perceived or actual risks:


The characteristics of NIMBYism often overlap (Glickel, 2011). Some further explanation and support of the syndrome is provided by Esaiasson (2010). He finds that in the 1980s the concept of NIMBYism gained importance among frustrated politicians and developers who argued that "narrow-minded citizens were a hindrance for societal development" (p. 27). At that time, the "simplistic NIMBYism did not take into account the needs and values of local communities" (p. 27). Esaiasson finds that "self-interest and local concerns are important in relation to individuals' responses to planned facility sitings" and that "the basic idea of NIMBYism should be part of our understanding of the complexities of public facility sitings" (p. 1). The author concludes that "without informed consent of affected individuals, the decision to site a public facility is an expression of contested legitimate power" (Mansbridge cited in Esaiasson, 2010, p. 28). This may be so, but somehow the civic good has to be fitted into the equation. Gibson (2005) raises the issue of the civic good and is critical of NIMBYism. The traditional view of NIMBYism is an "opposition between the

Wind Farming and the Not-in-My-Backyard Syndrome: A Literature Review

Electoral Council of Australia, 7.6.2010).

power,. …wind power has 'capacity credit'**7**" (p. 2):

**6.3 The economic costs of wind farming** 

the cost profiles associated with wind developments.

8 Australia's contribution was 1.3% in 2007 (International Energy Agency (2009).

7 Fuel saving with a need for back-up.

increase this substantially (Diesendorf, 2003/2004, p. 3).

Regarding Australia's Challenge in Relation to Climate Change and CO2 Emissions 461

This critique captures the sentiments of many residents in rural areas. An article by Leaske (March 25, 2010) points out that "the production figures of individual wind farms have to be treated with caution as output can vary sharply because of breakdowns. The revelation that so many wind farms are performing well below par … will reinforce the view of objectors who believe that many turbines generate too little power to justify their visual impact." Macintosh and Downie (2006) look at the issue from a more pragmatic point of view, suggesting that wind energy is efficient because "the variability associated with wind energy is managed by the measures that are … in place to address fluctuations in the supply of, and demand for, electricity" (p. 12). Diesendorf (2003/2004) confirms this: he was able to refute the arguments that wind power can only be used as an intermittent source of power more than thirty years ago: "… wind power, like coal power, is a partially reliable source of

lie. Weather systems often extend over 1,000 km and no wind means no power (Citizens

… large blocks of wind power, with rapid-response back-up either from hydro or gas turbines and slow-response from intermediate load stations, can provide reliable baseload power and substitute for some coal power. This is not just theory, but is actually happening in countries that have made a major commitment to wind generation. Last year Denmark generated 18%**8** of its electricity from wind power and still plans to

Arguments that wind power is not cost effective often strengthen NIMBYism, "wind farms are expensive and require government subsidies" (Government Victoria, 2007, p. 8). Government Victoria (2007) finds that wind farms are becoming increasingly cost effective, however, since the renewable energy industry is only just developing, "government assistance is necessary to allow the industry to improve new technologies and become commercially competitive" (p. 8). Clarke (2010/2011, pp. 18-19) calculates the cost of wind power, based on official data available from Australian wind farms: to produce electricity by wind power costs between A\$53 and A\$76 per MWh. Clarke then compares this to earlier data from a US congressional report: "costs of electricity in the USA (per MWh) generated by wind is A\$67, and generated by pulverised coal A\$64" (p. 19). Macintosh and Downie (2006) find that comparison between wind and other sources of energy is difficult because of

The most important costs are upfront capital costs, the operating costs are relatively low. … Most of the data indicate that wind energy is one of the most cost efficient sources of renewable energy and that, when the costs associated with pollution are factored in, it is competitive with coal- and gas-fired power stations (Macintosh & Downie, 2006, p. 3) Bond (2009) argues that wind energy is "an economically viable form of renewable energy that effectively displaces fossil-fuel electricity generation" (p. 28). This position and an agreement that wind energy can help lower CO2 emissions is supported by various scientists, economists, governments and concerned individuals (i.e. Diesendorf, 2003/2004, 2006; Macintosh and Downie, 2006; Government of Victoria, 2007; Krohn et al., 2009; Bond,

rational/civic interest, embodied by public authorities, and the irrational/self-interest, embodied by local opponents", it "reduces land-use disputes to a moral struggle between the two groups" (Gibson, 2005, p. 385). As a consequence:

… more and more local opponents to much needed but controversial facilities… are successful in killing … important projects. What you face as a state or industrial planner, then, is not just an isolated case of NIMBY opposition, but rather an accelerating NIMBY syndrome – that is, an emotional, irrational, and systematic distrust of public and corporate expertise that threatens to undermine the state's ability to solve important environmental and social problems (Gibson, 2005, p. 381).

Trust or social distrust will be discussed later in this chapter. Here are, at first, the most cited arguments against wind farming in relation to NIMBYism.

#### **6. Most common disputes against wind farming associated with NIMBYism**

#### **6.1 Biodiversity**

The threat to biodiversity may not be a significant factor for land owners to object to the establishment of a wind farm on or near their property, however, strong movements exist protecting the environment and endangered species (Clarke, 2008; Macintosh & Downie, 2006). Danger to birds and bats are often the cause of protest against wind power. An article by Maris and Fairless (2007) states that each wind turbine kills an average of 4.27 birds per year. But Macintosh and Downie (2006) find that "all available evidence indicates that, provided wind farms are located in appropriate areas, the risks to biodiversity are likely to be small" (p.22). Taking the overseas figures as benchmark they determine that approximately 2,550 birds and 2,550 bats are being killed each year in Australia as a consequence of wind turbine collisions6, "however, these risks should be put into perspective as there are numerous other issues that pose a far greater threat to birds and bats than wind farms" (p. 22).

#### **6.2 Reliability of wind power**

Reliability of wind energy is another strong argument against the development of wind turbines. This issue, like the previous one, may not be of direct concern to property owners, but in the bigger scheme of things, i.e. promoting fossil-fuel electricity, as well as manipulating public opinion, it is an important issue. The Citizens Electoral Council of Australia (7.6.2010) claims that wind 'power' is a fraud: The article finds that "while the average high-income, inner-city Green voter voluntarily pays a premium for their 'green' electricity", current data from the Australian Energy Market Operator shows that "the fabulous windmills that are conveniently well out of their urban eyesight and earshot are usually producing only a fraction of their installed capacity". Here is their argument:

Wind farms across New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, have a theoretical 1,609MW capacity but electricity generation data shows that the wind power generated from 13th to 20th May [2010] for much of the time was next to zero. Why? Simply, the power won't flow if the wind doesn't blow. Wind power proponents claim that this doesn't matter because if the wind is not blowing in one location, it will be blowing elsewhere. However, the actual power generation data shows this to be one big

<sup>6</sup> Macintosh and Downie (2006) provide a comparison: an estimated 8.5 million birds died each year in Queensland alone in the late 1990s as a result of land clearing.

lie. Weather systems often extend over 1,000 km and no wind means no power (Citizens Electoral Council of Australia, 7.6.2010).

This critique captures the sentiments of many residents in rural areas. An article by Leaske (March 25, 2010) points out that "the production figures of individual wind farms have to be treated with caution as output can vary sharply because of breakdowns. The revelation that so many wind farms are performing well below par … will reinforce the view of objectors who believe that many turbines generate too little power to justify their visual impact." Macintosh and Downie (2006) look at the issue from a more pragmatic point of view, suggesting that wind energy is efficient because "the variability associated with wind energy is managed by the measures that are … in place to address fluctuations in the supply of, and demand for, electricity" (p. 12). Diesendorf (2003/2004) confirms this: he was able to refute the arguments that wind power can only be used as an intermittent source of power more than thirty years ago: "… wind power, like coal power, is a partially reliable source of power,. …wind power has 'capacity credit'**7**" (p. 2):

… large blocks of wind power, with rapid-response back-up either from hydro or gas turbines and slow-response from intermediate load stations, can provide reliable baseload power and substitute for some coal power. This is not just theory, but is actually happening in countries that have made a major commitment to wind generation. Last year Denmark generated 18%**8** of its electricity from wind power and still plans to increase this substantially (Diesendorf, 2003/2004, p. 3).

#### **6.3 The economic costs of wind farming**

460 International Perspectives on Global Environmental Change

rational/civic interest, embodied by public authorities, and the irrational/self-interest, embodied by local opponents", it "reduces land-use disputes to a moral struggle between

Trust or social distrust will be discussed later in this chapter. Here are, at first, the most cited

**6. Most common disputes against wind farming associated with NIMBYism** 

The threat to biodiversity may not be a significant factor for land owners to object to the establishment of a wind farm on or near their property, however, strong movements exist protecting the environment and endangered species (Clarke, 2008; Macintosh & Downie, 2006). Danger to birds and bats are often the cause of protest against wind power. An article by Maris and Fairless (2007) states that each wind turbine kills an average of 4.27 birds per year. But Macintosh and Downie (2006) find that "all available evidence indicates that, provided wind farms are located in appropriate areas, the risks to biodiversity are likely to be small" (p.22). Taking the overseas figures as benchmark they determine that approximately 2,550 birds and 2,550 bats are being killed each year in Australia as a consequence of wind turbine collisions6, "however, these risks should be put into perspective as there are numerous other issues that pose a far greater threat to birds and

Reliability of wind energy is another strong argument against the development of wind turbines. This issue, like the previous one, may not be of direct concern to property owners, but in the bigger scheme of things, i.e. promoting fossil-fuel electricity, as well as manipulating public opinion, it is an important issue. The Citizens Electoral Council of Australia (7.6.2010) claims that wind 'power' is a fraud: The article finds that "while the average high-income, inner-city Green voter voluntarily pays a premium for their 'green' electricity", current data from the Australian Energy Market Operator shows that "the fabulous windmills that are conveniently well out of their urban eyesight and earshot are

usually producing only a fraction of their installed capacity". Here is their argument:

Wind farms across New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, have a theoretical 1,609MW capacity but electricity generation data shows that the wind power generated from 13th to 20th May [2010] for much of the time was next to zero. Why? Simply, the power won't flow if the wind doesn't blow. Wind power proponents claim that this doesn't matter because if the wind is not blowing in one location, it will be blowing elsewhere. However, the actual power generation data shows this to be one big

6 Macintosh and Downie (2006) provide a comparison: an estimated 8.5 million birds died each year in

Queensland alone in the late 1990s as a result of land clearing.

important environmental and social problems (Gibson, 2005, p. 381).

… more and more local opponents to much needed but controversial facilities… are successful in killing … important projects. What you face as a state or industrial planner, then, is not just an isolated case of NIMBY opposition, but rather an accelerating NIMBY syndrome – that is, an emotional, irrational, and systematic distrust of public and corporate expertise that threatens to undermine the state's ability to solve

the two groups" (Gibson, 2005, p. 385). As a consequence:

arguments against wind farming in relation to NIMBYism.

**6.1 Biodiversity** 

bats than wind farms" (p. 22).

**6.2 Reliability of wind power** 

Arguments that wind power is not cost effective often strengthen NIMBYism, "wind farms are expensive and require government subsidies" (Government Victoria, 2007, p. 8). Government Victoria (2007) finds that wind farms are becoming increasingly cost effective, however, since the renewable energy industry is only just developing, "government assistance is necessary to allow the industry to improve new technologies and become commercially competitive" (p. 8). Clarke (2010/2011, pp. 18-19) calculates the cost of wind power, based on official data available from Australian wind farms: to produce electricity by wind power costs between A\$53 and A\$76 per MWh. Clarke then compares this to earlier data from a US congressional report: "costs of electricity in the USA (per MWh) generated by wind is A\$67, and generated by pulverised coal A\$64" (p. 19). Macintosh and Downie (2006) find that comparison between wind and other sources of energy is difficult because of the cost profiles associated with wind developments.

The most important costs are upfront capital costs, the operating costs are relatively low. … Most of the data indicate that wind energy is one of the most cost efficient sources of renewable energy and that, when the costs associated with pollution are factored in, it is competitive with coal- and gas-fired power stations (Macintosh & Downie, 2006, p. 3)

Bond (2009) argues that wind energy is "an economically viable form of renewable energy that effectively displaces fossil-fuel electricity generation" (p. 28). This position and an agreement that wind energy can help lower CO2 emissions is supported by various scientists, economists, governments and concerned individuals (i.e. Diesendorf, 2003/2004, 2006; Macintosh and Downie, 2006; Government of Victoria, 2007; Krohn et al., 2009; Bond,

<sup>7</sup> Fuel saving with a need for back-up.

<sup>8</sup> Australia's contribution was 1.3% in 2007 (International Energy Agency (2009).

Wind Farming and the Not-in-My-Backyard Syndrome: A Literature Review

impact on price. Macintosh and Downie (2006) find:

a wind farm did not decrease with distance (p. 196).

enhance and protect the landscapes from major developments.

quickly (p. 27).

participants and found that

landscapes" (p. 449).

local land use for wind power" (p. 1).

Regarding Australia's Challenge in Relation to Climate Change and CO2 Emissions 463

the view is destroyed (Sims and Dent, 2007)**.** But the visual amenity, the aesthetics of the environment, "is a subjective matter, dependent upon the experience and beliefs of the individual" (Gipe cited in Finlay-Jones & Kouzmin, 2004, p. 3). Can this bias be counterargued by a rational point of view? Bond (2009) claims that overseas studies show no statistical evidence that wind turbines within an 8 to 12 km radius of a home have a negative

…the available evidence indicates that wind farm developments are unlikely to have a significant negative impact on property price. Initial concerns about visual … impacts could temporarily reduce prices, but these affects are likely to be small and dissipate

Arguments regarding the visual impact are closely linked to NIMBYism. Wind farms face public opposition during the planning process (Johansson & Laike, 2007; Danish Wind Industry, 2007; Macintosh & Downie, 2006; Bond, 2009; Clarke, 2010/11; Government Victoria, 2007) and here are some examples of NIMBYism, starting with a case in point from South Australia. Lothian (2008) conducted a survey of three hundred and eleven

…. wind farms generally have a negative effect on landscapes of higher scenic quality but a positive effect on landscapes of lower scenic quality. The negative visual effects of

Apart from having conducted his own research, Lothian (2008, pp. 197-207) also cites surveys regarding proposed wind farms in different countries: (1) Residents in North Carolina and Scotland found that spoiling the view or scenery was of greatest concern. (2) In Denmark, Germany and Sweden, local residents are generally supportive of wind farms, but there are some publications which describe the destruction of scenic beauty as a 'catastrophe'. (3) On the Isle of Wight opponents argued that the cause of the problem is based on conflicting national policies: renewable energy targets advocating wind farms contradict policies to preserve,

Johansson and Laike (2007, pp. 435-451) surveyed eighty people in Sweden regarding the "intention to respond to [to oppose] local wind turbines" and "the role of attitudes and visual perception" (p. 435). These researchers found that the intention to oppose was based on people's attitude regarding *perceived* (emphasis added) effects of wind turbines on landscape aesthetics. Interestingly, opinions regarding "the effects of wind turbines on people's daily quality of life were of minor importance" (p. 435). The authors conclude that it is important for "developers to convince the public that turbines can be integrated into the landscape without threatening the beauty and the recreational value of natural and cultural

Coleby, Miller and Aspinall (2009) undertook research in the UK to establish the relationship between public opinion on wind power and public participation in turbine site planning. Most of the critiques related to the proximity of wind turbines to respondents' homes, and it was suggested that "the turbines should remain out of sight". Two interesting issues emerged in the study: (1) younger participants are more accepting of wind turbines than older respondents, and (2) city dwellers are more accepting of wind power than people living in rural areas. But all participants wanted "more public input and participation in

Bond's (2009) comparative Western Australian study regarding the visual impact of planned wind farms determined that people would "not want to live near a wind farm" and that

2009; Clarke, 2010/2011; Combet, 2010; Gillard, 2011). Interestingly, a study by Bond (2009) of residents in two townships in Western Australia determined that both groups agreed that wind farms would be a "boost to tourism / local economy" (p. 23).

#### **6.4 Health issues**

There is rapidly growing world-wide professional realisation that reported health issues in people living close to established wind farms have commonality and substance. Wind energy proponents dismiss this evidence as being symptomatic of 'NIMBYism' and claim that peer reviewed studies have not conclusively linked these health issues to wind turbines, while medical professionals call for urgent scientific research to establish the facts. The concern is that development approvals are being fast tracked ahead of the outcomes of research (Birrell, n.d. p. 1).

Residents living close or relatively close to wind turbines have raised several health issues, including "headaches, tinnitus, dizziness, nausea and sleep disturbance", and "elevated blood pressure" (Clarke, 2010/2011, p. 5). The most prevalent issue is sleep deprivation caused by the noise of turbines (Government Victoria, 2007; Kamperman & James, 2008 a, b; NHMRC, 2010; Clarke, 2010/2011). Studies undertaken by Kamperman and James (2008a) show "significant health effects associated with living in the vicinity of industrial grade wind turbines" (p. 1). Their findings are based on data from industrial wind turbine developments and their findings show "that some residents living as far as 3 km from a wind farm complain of sleep disturbance from the noise", and "that many residents living only 300 m from the wind farm are experiencing major sleep disruption and some serious medical problems from night-time wind turbine noise" (p. 4). Kamperman and James (2008b) propose sound limits that are "standardised and available on all sound level meters", i.e. the "C-weighting or dBC" (pp. 8-10).

Macintosh and Downie (2006, pp. 19-20) find that modern wind turbines create very little noise. At around 40 m the noise created by a single turbine is the equivalent of conversational speech, which is around 50 to 60 decibels (adjusted using an A filter or the A scale) (dBA). "A wind farm comprising of 10 turbines would create a sound pressure of 35 to 45 dBA at 350 m if the wind was flowing from the turbine to the observer" (p. 20). The authors conclude that wind turbines are not a significant cause of noise pollution.

The NHMRC (2010) made the following statement: "Based on current evidence, it can be concluded that wind turbines do not pose a threat to health if planning guidelines are followed" (p. 6). But the Senate (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011) conducted an inquiry into *The Social and Economic Impact of Rural Wind Farms*, and it was recommended that "any adverse health effects for people living in close proximity to wind farms" as well as "concerns over the excessive noise and vibrations emitted by wind farms" (p. 1) should be determined because "the Commonwealth has responsibility for certain aspects of the development of wind farms" (p. 3).

Overall the literature shows that, at this point in time, there is no scientific evidence "indicating a direct link between wind turbines and ill health", and that "there is no known mechanism by which turbines could make people ill" (Clarke, 2010/2011, p. 2).

#### **6.5 Aesthetics of the environment**

The destruction of the aesthetic view of the environment is the most cited complaint against wind farming, it interlinks with people's concern that their property value will decrease if

2009; Clarke, 2010/2011; Combet, 2010; Gillard, 2011). Interestingly, a study by Bond (2009) of residents in two townships in Western Australia determined that both groups agreed that

There is rapidly growing world-wide professional realisation that reported health issues in people living close to established wind farms have commonality and substance. Wind energy proponents dismiss this evidence as being symptomatic of 'NIMBYism' and claim that peer reviewed studies have not conclusively linked these health issues to wind turbines, while medical professionals call for urgent scientific research to establish the facts. The concern is that development approvals are being fast tracked ahead of the

Residents living close or relatively close to wind turbines have raised several health issues, including "headaches, tinnitus, dizziness, nausea and sleep disturbance", and "elevated blood pressure" (Clarke, 2010/2011, p. 5). The most prevalent issue is sleep deprivation caused by the noise of turbines (Government Victoria, 2007; Kamperman & James, 2008 a, b; NHMRC, 2010; Clarke, 2010/2011). Studies undertaken by Kamperman and James (2008a) show "significant health effects associated with living in the vicinity of industrial grade wind turbines" (p. 1). Their findings are based on data from industrial wind turbine developments and their findings show "that some residents living as far as 3 km from a wind farm complain of sleep disturbance from the noise", and "that many residents living only 300 m from the wind farm are experiencing major sleep disruption and some serious medical problems from night-time wind turbine noise" (p. 4). Kamperman and James (2008b) propose sound limits that are "standardised and available on all sound level

Macintosh and Downie (2006, pp. 19-20) find that modern wind turbines create very little noise. At around 40 m the noise created by a single turbine is the equivalent of conversational speech, which is around 50 to 60 decibels (adjusted using an A filter or the A scale) (dBA). "A wind farm comprising of 10 turbines would create a sound pressure of 35 to 45 dBA at 350 m if the wind was flowing from the turbine to the observer" (p. 20). The

The NHMRC (2010) made the following statement: "Based on current evidence, it can be concluded that wind turbines do not pose a threat to health if planning guidelines are followed" (p. 6). But the Senate (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011) conducted an inquiry into *The Social and Economic Impact of Rural Wind Farms*, and it was recommended that "any adverse health effects for people living in close proximity to wind farms" as well as "concerns over the excessive noise and vibrations emitted by wind farms" (p. 1) should be determined because "the Commonwealth has responsibility for certain aspects of the

Overall the literature shows that, at this point in time, there is no scientific evidence "indicating a direct link between wind turbines and ill health", and that "there is no known

The destruction of the aesthetic view of the environment is the most cited complaint against wind farming, it interlinks with people's concern that their property value will decrease if

authors conclude that wind turbines are not a significant cause of noise pollution.

mechanism by which turbines could make people ill" (Clarke, 2010/2011, p. 2).

wind farms would be a "boost to tourism / local economy" (p. 23).

outcomes of research (Birrell, n.d. p. 1).

meters", i.e. the "C-weighting or dBC" (pp. 8-10).

development of wind farms" (p. 3).

**6.5 Aesthetics of the environment** 

**6.4 Health issues** 

the view is destroyed (Sims and Dent, 2007)**.** But the visual amenity, the aesthetics of the environment, "is a subjective matter, dependent upon the experience and beliefs of the individual" (Gipe cited in Finlay-Jones & Kouzmin, 2004, p. 3). Can this bias be counterargued by a rational point of view? Bond (2009) claims that overseas studies show no statistical evidence that wind turbines within an 8 to 12 km radius of a home have a negative impact on price. Macintosh and Downie (2006) find:

…the available evidence indicates that wind farm developments are unlikely to have a significant negative impact on property price. Initial concerns about visual … impacts could temporarily reduce prices, but these affects are likely to be small and dissipate quickly (p. 27).

Arguments regarding the visual impact are closely linked to NIMBYism. Wind farms face public opposition during the planning process (Johansson & Laike, 2007; Danish Wind Industry, 2007; Macintosh & Downie, 2006; Bond, 2009; Clarke, 2010/11; Government Victoria, 2007) and here are some examples of NIMBYism, starting with a case in point from South Australia. Lothian (2008) conducted a survey of three hundred and eleven participants and found that

…. wind farms generally have a negative effect on landscapes of higher scenic quality but a positive effect on landscapes of lower scenic quality. The negative visual effects of a wind farm did not decrease with distance (p. 196).

Apart from having conducted his own research, Lothian (2008, pp. 197-207) also cites surveys regarding proposed wind farms in different countries: (1) Residents in North Carolina and Scotland found that spoiling the view or scenery was of greatest concern. (2) In Denmark, Germany and Sweden, local residents are generally supportive of wind farms, but there are some publications which describe the destruction of scenic beauty as a 'catastrophe'. (3) On the Isle of Wight opponents argued that the cause of the problem is based on conflicting national policies: renewable energy targets advocating wind farms contradict policies to preserve, enhance and protect the landscapes from major developments.

Johansson and Laike (2007, pp. 435-451) surveyed eighty people in Sweden regarding the "intention to respond to [to oppose] local wind turbines" and "the role of attitudes and visual perception" (p. 435). These researchers found that the intention to oppose was based on people's attitude regarding *perceived* (emphasis added) effects of wind turbines on landscape aesthetics. Interestingly, opinions regarding "the effects of wind turbines on people's daily quality of life were of minor importance" (p. 435). The authors conclude that it is important for "developers to convince the public that turbines can be integrated into the landscape without threatening the beauty and the recreational value of natural and cultural landscapes" (p. 449).

Coleby, Miller and Aspinall (2009) undertook research in the UK to establish the relationship between public opinion on wind power and public participation in turbine site planning. Most of the critiques related to the proximity of wind turbines to respondents' homes, and it was suggested that "the turbines should remain out of sight". Two interesting issues emerged in the study: (1) younger participants are more accepting of wind turbines than older respondents, and (2) city dwellers are more accepting of wind power than people living in rural areas. But all participants wanted "more public input and participation in local land use for wind power" (p. 1).

Bond's (2009) comparative Western Australian study regarding the visual impact of planned wind farms determined that people would "not want to live near a wind farm" and that

Wind Farming and the Not-in-My-Backyard Syndrome: A Literature Review

assessment, risk debate, monitoring and evaluation.

international agreement" (Garnaut, 2011a, p. 63).

merited a priori … (Kasperson et al., 1992, p. 184).

greenhouse gas emissions? The next section will try and explain.

**8. Australia's greenhouse gas emissions – Isn't it time to act?** 

Australia, Canada and the United States (Garnaut, 2011b, p. 2).

gas emissions will further increase, what role could wind energy play?

CO2 released each year is reduced by about 3,000 tonnes (Clarke, 2009, p. 4).

Regarding Australia's Challenge in Relation to Climate Change and CO2 Emissions 465

act in ways that are incompetent, unpredictable, uncaring, and thus probably inimical" (p. 169). Kasperson et al.'s (1992) research demonstrates that siting of hazardous facilities "have often led to an impasse" because of the public perceptions of risk and overall uncertainty (p. 163). They recommend "risk communication" (p. 162) which should include a needs

Initiatives based upon the explicit recognition of high social distrust may, through empowerment, risk clarification, and negotiation, ultimately prove to be more effective in the long-term recovery of social trust than approaches that assert that such trust is

How can we make sense of these arguments and relate them to the rational issue of

The three countries which have been the largest drags on the global carbon reduction effort are the three highest per capita emitters amongst the developed countries –

"Scientific evidence points to increasing risks of serious, irreversible impacts from climate change associated with the business-as-usual attitudes regarding greenhouse gas emissions" (Stern Review, 2006, p. 3). Looking at Australia's CO2 emissions, earlier in this chapter it was established that Australia is in sixteenth position when the percentage of global total CO2 emission is considered (United Nations Statistics Division, 2008 a), emitting 399,219.00 tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2008 (United Nation Statistics Division, 2008a). Also in 2008, Australians emitted 18.94 tonnes of CO2 per capita annually (United Nations Statistics Division, 2008b, p. 1). Australians are "the worst per capita greenhouse gas emitter" (Taylor & Grubel, 9.7.2011, p. 1) of the developed world. And it is projected that the country's CO2 emissions will further rise (CSIRO, 2009; Garnaut, 2011b; Nolan, 2011; Knott, 2011; Chubby, 2011), which is "due mainly to growth in the resources sector" (Garnaut, 2011b, p. 2). Australia is one of the countries most at risk from climate change, partially because of the size of its agricultural sector and long coastline. Garnaut (2011a) urges Australia to follow the recommendations of global communities addressing climate change. Because of the risk factors, the country should "offer to reduce 2020 emissions by 25% in the context of strong

Bond (2009) looks at the present 83% of electricity which is produced by coal and contemplates "the growing domestic demand which forces investments into clean renewable energy" (p. 2). Looking at the numerous predictions that Australia's greenhouse

One typical 2MW wind turbine can be expected to produce over 6,000MW hours of electricity each year. If this replaces coal-fired power, the CO2 released into the atmosphere will be reduced by 6,000 tonnes each year; if it replaces oil or gas-fired power,

Changing progressively from coal- or gas-fired power to wind power would be a positive step when we look at CO2 emissions. And, as mentioned earlier, the present Australian government promotes the reduction of CO2 emissions and has set its sight on 20% of renewable energy by 2020. In practical terms, there should be no difficulty to achieve an even higher goal. Clarke (2010/2011) calculates that "if the best wind resources of Australia were developed at least 90GW of power is possible" (p. 2). Looking at different coastal

they anticipate "to pay 1% to 9% less for their property due to the presence of a wind farm nearby" (p. 1).

The next section will explain reasons for the objections.
