Wind Power Deployment: The Role of Public Participation in the Decision-Making Process in Ontario, Canada
2.1. Weaknesses of the Current Regulatory Governance
2.1.1. Environmental Assessment
2.1.2. Renewable Energy Approval
2.2. Collaborative Decision-Making
2.3. The Role of a Trusted Third Party in Collaborative Decision-Making
3. Recommended Conceptual Framework: Climbing the Ladder of Participation
4. Application of Framework
4.2. Case Descriptions
4.2.1. Ernestown Wind Park by Horizon Legacy (Project Began in 2010, Intended Start-up in Late 2013, Commercial Operation Began in the Summer of 2014)
4.2.2. Summerhaven Project by NextEra Energy (Project Started in 2006, Intended Start-up in 2011, Commercial Operations Began August 2013)
4.2.3. Bluewater Project by NextEra Energy (Project Started in 2006, Intended Start-up in 2013, Commercial Operations Still Pending as at 15 April 2016)
4.2.4. Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park by Gilead Power (Project Started in 2008, Intended Start-up in 2012, Commencement of Commercial Operations Still Pending as at 15 April 2016)
4.2.5. Grand Renewable Wind Project (GRW) by Samsung (with its Local Partner, Pattern Energy)—(Project Started in 2010, Commenced Commercial Operation in 2014)
7. Limitations and Future Work
Conflicts of Interest
- Ariza-Montobbio, P.; Farrell, K.N. Wind farm siting and protected areas in Catalonia: Planning alternatives or reproducing one-dimensional thinking? Sustainability 2012, 4, 3180–3205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaffine, D.T.; McBee, B.J.; Lieskovsky, J. Emissions savings from wind power generation in Texas. Energy J. 2013, 34, 155–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pasqualetti, M.J.; Gipe, P.; Righte, R.W. Wind Power in View: Energy LANDSCAPEs in a Crowded World; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2002; pp. 3–30. [Google Scholar]
- Wright, Z. A voice for the community: Public participation in wind energy development. Dalhous. J. Interdiscip. Manag. 2012, 8, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McLaren Loring, J. Wind energy planning in England, Wales and Denmark: Factors influencing project success. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2648–2660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolsink, M. Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of backyard motives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2007, 11, 1188–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eltham, D.; Harrison, G.; Allen, S. Change in public attitudes towards a Cornish wind farm: Implications for planning. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jami, A.; Walsh, P. The role of public participation in identifying stakeholder synergies in wind power project development: The case study of Ontario, Canada. Renew. Energy J. 2014, 68, 194–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Renewable Energy Facilitation Office. Renewable Energy Development: A Guide for Municipalities. Available online: http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/en/renewable-energy-development-in-ontario-a-guide-for-municipalities/ (accessed on 20 August 2014).
- Government of Ontario. O. Reg. 116/01: Electricity Projects. Available online: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/010116 (accessed on 15 August 2014).
- Sinclair, A.J.; Diduck, A.P. Public involvement in EA in Canada: A transformative learning perspective. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2001, 21, 113–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibson, H.; Hunsberger, C.A.; Wismer, S. Citizen involvement in sustainability centred environmental assessment follow-up. Environ. Impact Assess. 2005, 25, 609–627. [Google Scholar]
- Government of Ontario. Consultation in Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Process: Code of Practice. Available online: https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/consultation-ontarios-environmental-assessment-process (accessed on 15 August 2014).
- Doelle, M.; Sinclair, A.J. Time for a new approach to public participation in EA: Promoting cooperation and consensus for sustainability. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2006, 26, 185–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hersh, M.A. Sustainable decision-making: The role of decision support systems. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part. C Appl. Rev. 1999, 29, 395–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Government of Ontario. Renewable Energy Approvals under Part V.0.1 of the Act. Available online: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/090359 (accessed on 15 August 2014).
- Environmental Review Tribunal. Environmental and Land Tribunal Ontario. Available online: http://elto.gov.on.ca/ (accessed on 20 July 2015).
- Holburn, G.; Lui, K.; Morand, C. Policy risk and private investment in Ontario’s wind power sector. Can. Public Policy 2010, 36, 465–486. [Google Scholar]
- Fisher, R.; Ury, W.; Patton, B. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving in, 3rd ed.; Penguin Books: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 3–41. [Google Scholar]
- Healey, P. Collaborative planning in a stakeholder society. Town Plan. Rev. 1998, 69, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, A.; Paddison, R. Trust and collaborative planning theory: The case of the Scottish planning system. Int. Plan. Stud. 2000, 5, 205–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Day, J.C.; Gunton, T.I. The theory and practice of collaborative planning in resource and environmental management. Environments 2003, 31, 5–19. [Google Scholar]
- Zartman, I.W. Negotiations theory and reality. J. Int. Aff. 1975, 29, 69–77. [Google Scholar]
- Lewicki, R.J.; Weiss, S.E.; Lewin, D. Models of conflict, negotiation and third party intervention: A review and synthesis. J. Organ. Behav. 1992, 13, 209–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wall, J.A.; Blum, M.W. Negotiations. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 273–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finnigan, D.S. An Evaluation of Civil Society Participation in Collaborative Land Use Planning in British Columbia. Master’s Thesis, Simon Fraser University, Vancuuver, BC, Canada, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Innes, J.E.; Booher, D.E. Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st centry. Plan. Theory Pract. 2004, 5, 419–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed.; the Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995; pp. 335–369. [Google Scholar]
- Partidario, M.R.; Sheate, W.R. Knowledge brokerage—Potential for increased capacities and shared power in impact assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2013, 39, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, A. Knowledge-Brokers—A Promising Knowledge Mobilization Strategy to Increase Research Use and Its Impact in Education; Ontario Institute for Studies in Education: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Choi, B.C.K.; Pang, T.; Lin, V.; Puska, P.; Sherman, G.; Goddard, M.; Ackland, M.J.; Sainsbury, P.; Stachenko, S.; Morrison, H.; et al. Can scientists and policy makers work together? J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2005, 5, 632–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fullan, M.G. Change Forces: The Sequel; Falmer Press: London, UK, 1999; pp. 2–3. [Google Scholar]
- Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1986; pp. 142–181. [Google Scholar]
- Nishimura, K. Grassroots action for renewable energy: How did Ontario succeed in the implementation of a feed-in tariff system? Energy Sustain. Soc. 2011, 2, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnstein, S. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 1969, 35, 216–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Schutter, J.; Riemer, M. Participatory decision-making models in the context of environmental justice: Are they working? In Proceedings of the 2009 Amsterdam Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2–4 December 2009.
- Matos, S.; Silvestre, B.S. Managing stakeholder relations when developing sustainable business models: The case of the Brazilian energy sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 45, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Devine-Wright, P. Beyond NIMBYism: Towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 2005, 8, 125–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bijlsma, J.; Eijndhoven, J.V.; Turkenburg, W. Experiences with public participation in decision-making concerning energy policy in the Netherlands. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 1988, 8, 397–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, R. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th ed.; Sage Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2009; pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Ontario Wind Turbines. Project Area. Available online: http://ontario-wind-turbines.org/owt-maps-c18.html (accessed on 15 August 2015).
- Government of Ontario. Renewable Energy Approval. Available online: https://www.ontario.ca/page/renewable-energy-approvals (accessed on 15 August 2014).
- Sager, K.L.; Gastil, J. The origins and consequences of consensus decision-making: A test of the social consensus model. South. Commun. J. 2006, 71, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|Reducing conflicts: Collaborative planning is more likely to result in a decision because stakeholders are constructively incorporated into a collaborative process to reach a consensus, instead of remaining as critics outside the process.||Motivation and skills: All stakeholders (both proponents and opponents) should be motivated to participate. However, the asymmetrical distribution of negotiating skills and technical knowledge can result in inequitable outcomes.|
|Creative solutions: Integration of local and expert knowledge may result in more creative alternatives.||Representativeness: Stakeholder groups willing and able to participate in collaborative planning may represent a narrow spectrum of special interests that exclude broader public interests and can therefore result in biased decisions.|
|Reaching efficient decisions: The broad and diverse group of stakeholders improves the quality of decisions by incorporating interests of all parties in the final plan. Therefore, solutions to problems are better supported for implementation.||Logistical challenges: Organizing a process around a large group of potentially resistant stakeholders requires substantial resources and time.|
|Creation of social capital: The development of improved skills, knowledge, and stakeholder relationships that benefit the community in ways beyond preparation of the specific project.||Compromise: Stakeholders may agree on the second-best solution in order to achieve consensus. In some cases, even important expert knowledge can be underemphasized or overlooked.|
|Increased equity, building trust, improving officials’ credibility within the community, and improved public understanding of the agency’s responsibilities and limitations are among advantages.||A collaborative approach may not be appropriate in many situations that involve fundamental value and belief differences.|
|Project||Duration||Capacity (MW)||Significant Feature||The Presence of a Third Party||Participation Level|
|Ernestown Win Park||2010–2014 (Intended start-up: 2013)||10||Early involvement; hiring facilitator from the community||✓||✓||−||✓||✓||−||−||−|
|Summerhaven||2006–2013 (Intended start-up: 2011)||124.4||Eagle nest dispute||✓||✓||−||✓||✓||-||−||−|
|Bluewater||2006–Still in progress (Intended start-up: 2013)||60||Municipality bylaws||✓||✓||−||✓||✓||−||−||−|
|Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park||2008–Still in progress (Intended start-up: 2012)||22.5||Legal actions||✓||✓||−||✓||✓||−||−||−|
|Grand Renewable Wind (GRW)||2010–2014||150||Financial partnership with Six First Nations||✓||✓||−||✓||✓||✓||−||−|
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Jami, A.A.; Walsh, P.R. Wind Power Deployment: The Role of Public Participation in the Decision-Making Process in Ontario, Canada. Sustainability 2016, 8, 713. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8080713
Jami AA, Walsh PR. Wind Power Deployment: The Role of Public Participation in the Decision-Making Process in Ontario, Canada. Sustainability. 2016; 8(8):713. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8080713Chicago/Turabian Style
Jami, Anahita A., and Philip R. Walsh. 2016. "Wind Power Deployment: The Role of Public Participation in the Decision-Making Process in Ontario, Canada" Sustainability 8, no. 8: 713. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8080713