ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Land Use Policy
jou rn al h om ep a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / l a n d u s e p o l
Local perceptions of opportunities for engagement and procedural justice in electricity transmission grid projects in Norway and the UK
Jørgen K. Knudsen
a,∗, Line Camilla Wold
b, Øystein Aas
b, Jens Jacob Kielland Haug
a, Susana Batel
c, Patrick Devine-Wright
c, Marte Qvenild
a, Gerd B. Jacobsen
aaSINTEFEnergyResearch,Norway
bNorwegianInstituteforNatureResearch,Norway
cUniversityofExeter,CollegeofLifeandEnvironmentalSciences,Norway
a r t i c l e i n f o
Articlehistory:
Received19December2014
Receivedinrevisedform11March2015 Accepted6April2015
Keywords:
Sustainablegriddevelopment Involvement
Publicengagement Communication Consultation Participation Proceduraljustice
a b s t r a c t
Transmissionlinesarecriticalinfrastructures,butfrequentlycontestedespeciallyatthelocallevel,by localcommunities.Theroleofpublicengagementinprocessespertainingtospecifictransmissionline projectsisanunder-researched,yetimportanttopicthatthispaperseekstodiscussbyinvestigatinghow inhabitantsperceivetheseprocessesandtowhatextenttheyfindtheprocessesjustandfair.Thispaper addressestheparticipatoryaspectsoftheplanningprocess,asperceivedbythelocalinhabitantsinfour NorwayandUKcases,byusingaqualitativecomparativecasestudydesign.Wefurtheranalysethisissue throughframeworksofpublicengagementandproceduraljustice.Inbothcountriespublicengagementis largelycharacterizedbyperceptionsofinsufficientinformation,andinsufficientinfluenceontheprocess.
Insum,thefindingsindicatethattheinformantsgenerallyperceivetheopportunitiesforinvolvement asinsufficientandunjust.Thefindingsarequitesimilaracrossallcasesandbothcountries.Localinhab- itantsrepresentdiversegroupswhooftenhavedifferentlevelsofknowledge,timeandengagementto bringtotheplanningprocess.Theirrequestsforimprovedprocessesthusunderlinetheseriouspublic engagementchallengesthatapplicantsanddecision-makersface.
©2015ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.
1. Introduction
Apoliticallyinducedstrategytowardsalow-carbonenergysys- temhasgainedforceduringrecentyearsinEurope,inwhichmore renewableenergyproductionisconsideredtobeakeymeasure.A prominentexampleistheEUDirectiveonthepromotionofrenew- ableenergy(EuropeanUnion,2009).Studiesofpublicacceptance suggestthatthepublicinmostcountriesacceptandevensupport themovetowardsmorerenewableenergy,suchaswind,hydroand solarenergyandassociatedgridconnections(Aasetal.2014;Bell etal.,2005,2013).Simultaneously,concreteprojectsareoftenmet withsignificantpublicoppositionwhenproposed(Belletal.,2013).
This“gap”betweenthegeneralsupportofrenewablesandstrong oppositionagainstspecificprojectshasgainedmuchattentionfrom researchersaswellasfromdecision-makersandtheenergyindus- try(ibid.).Thegapcanbeunderstoodasadilemma.Thegeneral acceptanceandsupportinthepublicisrootedinperceptionsof renewableenergyasakeytomitigateharmfulandcostlyclimate
∗Correspondingauthor.
change.Localoppositionarisewhenconcreteproposalsarepre- sentedduetoconcernsforbiodiversity,landscapequality,health andqualityoflife,amongothers,inaffectedcommunities(Batel andDevine-Wright,2014).Fordecision-makersthedevelopment ofenergyinfrastructureprojectscreatesrathercomplexsituations wherevarious,oftenconflictinginterestsandactorshavelegiti- matepoliticalpositions,atthenationalaswellasatthelocallevels (GeezeliusandRefsgaard,2007).Theweighingofdifferentinterests andvaluesislikelytoraisechallengestoconcreteprioritizations.
Theactualparticipationandinvolvementofdifferentstakeholders becomescrucialinthisregard.
Socialscienceliteraturehasinvestigatedchallengesrelatedto localopposition toenergyprojects includingtheimportanceof theplanningandsitingprocess(SovacoolandRatan,2012;Cain and Nelson, 2013).Long-lasting local conflicts suggest that the traditionaltop-downapproachtogriddevelopmentisbecoming increasinglyinsufficient,andcallforincreasedandimprovedpub- licinvolvement.Controversiesovertheconstructionoflowcarbon technologiessuchaswindfarms–aswellasovertheconstruction oftransmissionlines(e.g.,Cowell,2010;PidgeonandDemski,2012;
Ruudetal.,2011)suggestthatbetterunderstandingandimprove- ments in theseprocesses arecrucial. Unlike energy generating http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.04.031
0264-8377/©2015ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.
facilities,transmissionlinescanrepresentaspecialchallengefor localacceptanceandsupport,sincetheyprovidemodestlocalben- efitssuchasnewjobs,incomeopportunitiesandlocalandregional taxincome.
Someresearchliteraturehasconsideredthedeploymentand conflictsoverenergyinfrastructureinrelationtogeneralvaluesand attitudesamongthelocalinhabitants,otherhaveinvestigatedinsti- tutionaldifferences,suchasnationaltraditions;planningsystems;
financialsupportmechanismsandownershipstructures;andland- scapeprotectionorganizations(Tokeetal.,2008).Wewouldargue thatcomplimentaryresearchaddressingabetterunderstandingof thelocalplanningprocesses,andhowtheseareperceivedbyvar- iousstakeholders,iscrucialinordertobetterunderstandrecent conflictsoverenergyinfrastructure.
There is, however, a relatively limited body of research on acceptanceandoppositionrelatedtogriddevelopment(c.f.Devine- Wright and Batel, 2013; Aas et al., 2014). Some studies have indicatedthatmeasuresforearlyinvolvementandengagementare highlyappreciatedbythepublic(CottonandDevine-Wright,2011;
Schweizer-Ries,2010).Moreover,inarecentcomparativesurvey fromNorway,SwedenandtheUK,ageneralfindingwasthatthe publicperceivedgridplanningprocessestobeheavilydominated byexpertsanddecision-makersatthenationallevel,withonlylim- itedinfluencefromlocalinhabitantsandNGOs(Aasetal.,2014).
Inasimilarvein,anationallyrepresentativesurveyofUKadults demonstratedthat localresidentswere perceivedtohave little influenceondecision-making,incontrasttotheinfluenceexerted byelectricitysupply companies,theTSO,thenationalregulator andgovernmentministries(Devine-Wrightetal.,2010).Further- more,casestudiesofgriddevelopmentprojectshavealsorevealed hownationalauthoritiescanbecurtailinginputsfromlocalciti- zenswithregardtothedecision-makingprocess(c.f.Cottonand Devine-Wright,2013).
However, in sum, few studies to date have provided more detailedanalysesoflocalinhabitants’perceptionsofplanningand consultationforgriddevelopmentproject.Hence,theaimofthe presentpaperistostudyhowrepresentativesofthelocalpublic experienceandengageinprocessespertaining tospecifictrans- missionlineprojects.Thepaperinvestigateshowlocalinhabitants perceivetheparticipatoryaspectsoftheplanningprocessinfour concretecasesinNorwayandtheUK.
Thefollowingresearchquestionsareaddressed:
1.Howdolocalinhabitantsassesstheopportunitiesforengage- ment in the concrete hV transmission grid development projects?
2.Towhatextentaretheplanningprocessesofgriddevelopment projectsconsideredjustandfair?
Aqualitativeresearchapproachhasbeenemployed,gathering datafromfourtransmissionlineplanningprocesses–twoineach country.NorwayandtheUKhaveorganizedtheprocessesofplan- ningand licensingofelectricity gridssomewhatdifferently,yet therearesimilarities(BrekkeandSataøen,2012),whichisfurther explainedbelow.Thisbackgroundprovidesapossibilitytoinves- tigatethenatureandimpactofcomparablemechanismsforpublic engagementacrossdifferentcases,aswellasacrossnationaland institutionalcontexts(c.f.Tokeetal.,2008).
2. Theoreticalperspectivesonpublicparticipationand justice
For some time there has been a trend of increased pub- lic involvement in the affairs and decisions of policy-setting bodies across sectors and policy domains (Rowe and Frewer,
2005; O’Faircheallaigh, 2010). Increased public engagement is perceivedtocorrespondwitha democraticapproach toscience andtechnologygovernancethatenhancetransparencyandtrust in policy-making processes (UNECE, 2014). Still, objectives for involvingthepublicinpolicyprocesses maybeseveralandare not necessarily rooted in democratic principles. Fiorino(1990) distinguishesbetweenthreerationalesforparticipationorinvolve- ment ofthe localpublic, namelyinstrumental, substantive and normative/democraticrationales.Intheinstrumentalrational,par- ticipationisameanstoreachaspecificaim,forinstancethemost cost-effectivesolution.Forthetwolatterrationalesparticipation perseisthegoal,respectivelytogainnewknowledgeorinsights (substantive)oras anecessitytosecuredemocracyorasbeing a political rightofthecitizens (normative/democratic)(Fiorino, 1990).Torecogniseandconsiderthesedifferentrationalesforpub- licparticipation isimportant,since participatorymeasuresmay beinitiated byorganisations holdingdifferent rationales.Ifleft implicit,thiscancreatetensions(Höppner,2009).
Previous research have found that planning and decision- making overlyfocused on formal decisionalcompetencies, and withoutopportunitiesformeaningfuldeliberationoftenfuelcon- flicts (Wolsink, 2013). Moreover, participation has often been limitedtothefinalstagesoftechnicalprojects,withfewoppor- tunitiesforearlystagedialogueandinvolvementofstakeholders (Lengwiler, 2008).Such limitations to traditional expert-driven planningprocessesarebeingrecognizedamongdecisionmakers andreflectedinrecentpolicydocumentsfortransmissiongridplan- ning(e.g.,Statnett,2013).
Wüstenhagen et al. (2007) relate community acceptance of renewableenergytechnologiesto‘proceduraljustice’,‘distributive justice’and‘trust’.Thisapproachtojusticeandtrustdescribeswell theidentifiedpublicparticipationchallengesandlocalperspectives onenergydevelopmentprojects(Kingetal.,1998;Gross,2007;
CainandNelson,2013).‘Distributivejustice’concernsfairnessin theoutcome,thatisthedistributionofcostsandbenefits(formore detailsaboutdistributivejusticeseeforinstanceSkitkaetal.,2003;
Gross,2007),whereas‘proceduraljustice’referstogeneralprinci- plesofcitizencontrol,democracyandfairnessintheprocesswithin whichdecisionsarereached(SmithandMcDonough,2001).Ina justprocess,participantsshouldbeinformedwhileparticipation shouldbebroad,anddecision-makingpowershared(Laird,1993;
Leventhaletal.,1980,citedinSmithandMcDonough,2001).More- over,Gross(2007)haspointedtotheinterdependenciesbetween processandoutcome.Herfindingssuggeststhatfairnessareinflu- encedbybothperceptionsofprocessandoutcomeandthatafair processcanenhanceacceptanceoftheoutcome(Gross,2007).
Theperceptionoffairnesswillultimatelybearesultoftheper- ceivedinvolvementofthepublic,andhence,thepublicengagement mechanismsconductedin theprocess.Methods ofengagement aremultipleandvaried.1Thesemethodswillalsovaryaccording todifferentjurisdictions,andmustalsobalancedifferentprinci- pleslikejusticeandexpedience–whichcanalsobetheobjectof politicaldebates(Diamond,2011).Hence,complexpolitical and decision-makingstructuresinducechallengesfortheactualdesign ofengagementmechanisms.However,animportantaspecttobe moreprominentlystressedinthis regard istheneedfor better understandingpublicbeliefsand acceptance,and more actively usethis knowledgetoinformpolicymaking andplanning(Aas etal.,2014).Moreparticularly, KeeganandTorres (2014)point totheneed for more researchonthe design and management ofcommunitybenefitarrangementsamonghostcommunitiesfor transmissionlines.
1RoweandFrewer(2005)listsmorethan100intheirreviewofpublicengage- mentmechanisms,butunderlinesthatthereareundoubtedlymore.
Inanattempttosystematizeandclarifythedifferentcharac- teristicsofinvolvingthepublic,RoweandFrewer(2005)classify the various mechanisms according to the flow of information betweenexercisesponsorsandpublicparticipants.Theydistin- guishbetween ‘communication’,‘consultation’ and ‘participation’.
‘Communication’referstoone-waydisseminationofinformation fromthedeveloperordecision-makertothepublic,wherefeedback isneitherrequired,norsought.Consultationdescribesaone-way informationflowmovingtheoppositewayfromthepublictothe developer/sponsor.Thelastcategory,‘Participation’,impliesinfor- mationbeingexchangedbetweenthepublicandthedeveloperand thereisdialogueandnegotiationsthatservestotransformopinions amongtheinvolvedparties.
Theultimateissue,accordingtoRoweandFrewer (2005),is whetherthelocalpublicinvolvedin theengagementprocesses perceivetheexercise as beingconducted witha serious intent to collect the views of the affected population and to act on thoseviews(RoweandFrewer,2005:262).Thiswouldalsoecho theintentions of theArhusConventionwhich commit national authoritiestoensurepublicrightsregardingaccesstoinformation, publicparticipationandaccesstojustice,ingovernmentaldecision- makingprocessesonmatters concerningthelocal,nationaland trans-boundaryenvironment(UNECE,2014).Acorefocusofthe conventionismeasuresprovidingstrongerinteractionbetweenthe publicandpublicauthoritiesincasesaffectingtheenvironment (ibid.).
In the following we define “procedural justice” as thelocal community’spossibilitytoparticipateas“equals”inthedecision- makingprocess(Schlosberg,2004).Weemployproceduraljustice theoryasdescribedbyFiorino(1990),Gross(2007);andSmithand McDonough(2001)asafundamenttounderstandmorethoroughly whichmechanismsandprocedurescontributeornottopercep- tionsof justice.Key aspects suchas information (Gross, 2007), representation(SmithandMcDonough,2001)consideration(ibid.), voice(ibid.;Gross2007),logicandinfluenceoroutcome(Smithand McDonough,2001)are frequentlymentioned. Information deals withwhattypeofinformation,how,whenandtowhomthisisdis- tributedbythedeveloperand/ordecision-maker.Thisalsoincludes judgmentofwhethertheinformationistimedrightly(forinstance earlyenoughand atseveralstages in theprocess),is sufficient andobjective/impartialenough.Representationaddresseseffortsto ensurebroadinvolvementofrelevantactorsinlocalcommunities, andfacilitating transparency.Voice concernstowhat extentthe localpublicaswellassinglepeopleareable(forinstanceatmeeting orinletters)toexpresstheiropinions.Considerationdealswithhow thedeveloperordecision-makerrespondstocomments,objections orsuggestionsfromthepublic.Dotheyanswerquestionsorsug- gestions?How,andwithwhatlevelofdetail?Aresuggestionsfrom thepublicvaluedornot?Logicconcernshowthelocalstakeholders feelthattheproposedprojectand/orchosenalternativeareratio- nalandreasonable,independentofagreeingwithitornot.Influence istheultimateoutcomeoftheprocess,asseenfromthepublic:Are theirsuggestionsandconcernsreflectedinthefinalresult?
Inadditiontothediscussionofthesekeyaspects,anemerging concepthasbeenthebroadernotionof‘energyjustice’(Sovacool andDworkin,2014).‘Energyjustice’canbeunderstoodasequi- tabledistributionofbenefitsand burdensofenergy production andconsumption, aswellasfair treatmentofand communica- tionwithpeopleinenergydecision-making (ibid:5).Relatedto this,theresearchliteraturehasengagedwithbroadernotionslike
‘equity’and ‘vulnerability’ (Hall etal., 2013: 415), buildingfur- theronthenotionsof‘social’and‘environmentaljustice’,witha majoranchoringwithintheenvironmentaljusticeliterature(ibid.).
McCauleyetal.(2013):(107)pointtothebroadscopeofenergyjus- tice,givenanormativephilosophicalbasis,aimingatprovidingall individuals,acrossallareas,withsafe,affordableandsustainable
energy.HeffronandMcCauley(2014)emphasizefurtherthatthere arethreemajortenetsof‘energyjustice’;distributional,procedural andrecognitionjustice(ibid.).Althoughthenotionof‘recognition justice’hasnotbeentreatedinanexplicitmannerinourdata,there arefindingsrelatedtoperceptionsofbeingtreatedfairlyduringthe processthatcanbeassociatedwiththisconcept.
Theaboveconceptsandnotionsconcernvariousmechanisms forpublicengagementandtheperceptionofthesebylocalcitizens.
Thiscorrespondswiththetwofoldaimthisarticleisstrivingtofulfil withrespecttolocalcitizens:Thatis;(1)providinganassessment ofhowthelocalinhabitantsperceivetheprocessandthemeasures forpublicengagement;and(2)howtheprocessisperceivedin termsofproceduraljustice.
Since construction of hV-transmission electricity networks often providefewer localbenefits compared tofor instancean energyplantoranewroadusefulforthecommunity,procedu- raljusticeiscrucialtogainacceptance.Onecanarguethatnational griddecisionsshouldentailproceduraljusticetobelegitimateor effective,andthatcommunityoppositionalsocanbeanexpres- sionofademandforprocedurallymorejustprocesses(c.f.Ottinger etal.,2014).
Basedontheliteraturediscussedabove,wewillanalyseourdata accordingtothefollowing analyticalcategories (seeSection5):
‘Information’, ‘representation’,‘voice’,‘consideration’, ‘logic’and
‘influence’.Weemploythesecategoriesinordertoanalysethedif- ferentaspectsofproceduraljustice.Wewillalso,inSection6,seek toassesstowhatextentandhowthesecategoriesareintercon- nected.
3. GridandhVtransmissionlinedevelopmentinNorway andUK
NorwayandtheUnitedKingdombothhavesignificantplansfor transmissiongriddevelopmentandexpansion.Inbothcountries, theseencompassrenewalandincreasedcapacityofexistinggrids aswellasconstructionofnewlines.Theneedargumentsareoften relatedtoconnectinglow-carbonenergy(wind,water,aswellas nuclearintheUK)tothegrid,butalsototheneedforsafetyofdeliv- eryandforagenerallymorerobustnetworkandenergyprovision.
New,cross-regional-andnationalgridsalsoopenupfortradeand exchangethatbothcansparkmorebusinessaswellascreatea morerobustsystemoverallattheEuropeanlevel(Ruud,2014).
TherearebothsimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenNorway’s andtheUK’s‘nationalgridregimes’(BrekkeandSataøen,2012).
Thispertainstoplanningaswellaslicensing,andtheexecutionof thetransmissionlineprojects(ibid.).Adifferencebetweenthetwo systemsisthegeneraldecision-makingprocesses,andtheactors andlevelsbeingcentraltotheprocess.IntheUK,inordertoensure thatthegriddevelopmentisinlinewithnationalandstrategic priorities,theGovernmentformulatesNationalPolicyStatements (NPS)(ibid.).NPS’aremadeforallmajorprojectsspecifyingpriori- tiesandtargetsforfuturedevelopment(ibid.).InNorway,however, one observes a lack of involvement from the political level at thisstage.Gridcompaniesareconductingtheneedsassessment, throughregionalandnationwidepowersystemreportsandassess- ments(ibid.).
Whenitcomestotheformalfeaturesoftheplanningandcon- cessionprocessthereare,ontheotherhand,severalsimilarities betweenNorwayandtheUnitedKingdom.Thedivisionofphases, includingconsultationsbeforeapplication,withimpactassessment studies,andapplicationprocedureshandledbyadedicatedlicens- ingauthorityarequitecomparable (ibid.).Moreover,theformal consultationbodiesandstakeholdersarepartlysimilarlydefinedin thetwocountries,althoughorganizationalstructuresdiffersome- what.Theimportanceofimprovedearlypoliticalinvolvementhas
beenrecognizedasanimportantandpreviouslyneglectedaspect oftheNorwegiangriddevelopmentregime,andareformofthe systemwasapprovedbytheParliamentin2012(WhitePaperon griddevelopment/MinistryofPetroleumandEnergy,2012).Fol- lowingthis decision,inlargetransmissionlineprojectsthere is nowapre-assessmentphasewheretheMinistryofPetroleumand Energyconductsaconceptevaluation(ibid.).Hence,therehasbeen arecentmodificationimplyinganinitial,politicalassessmentof transmissiongridprojectsinNorway.However,boththeNorwe- giancasesincludedinouranalysiswereconductedinadvanceof thisreform.
BoththeNorwegianandUKgriddevelopmentregimesdemon- strateasimilarvariationofmechanismsemployedinordertooffer waystoconsultwithordiscusswithconcernedparties.Basedon thevariation observedempiricallyweidentify:(1) formal,law- anchoredproceduresthattheactorsareobligedtofollowforthe processtobelegal,forinstancepublichearings;(2)institutional- izedguidelinesformeasuressupposedtoenhanceparticipation, thatarefoundinprotocols,bestpracticetemplates,forinstance
“openofficedays”arrangedbythegridcompanyand;(3)Adhoc measures:Thiscanbedefinedasspecificmeasuresimplementedin eachprojectorlocality,forinstanceextraon-siteinspectionsand meetings.
Inadditiontosuchquitewell-establishedmechanisms,social scientificliteraturehasalsoidentifiedand discussedalternative waysofensuringpublicengagementingridprojects.Inthecaseofa French–Spanishinterconnectionprojectanindependentandneu- tralbody(NationalPublicDebateCommission)wasemployedfor governingthepublicengagementexercises(CiupuligaandCuppen, 2013).
Generally,forbothNorwayandtheUK,however,inputsfrom stakeholdersandlocalcommunities canbecommunicateddur- ingtheprocessaccordingtotheabove-mentionedmaincategories of public engagement procedures, albeit with no guarantee of substantiallyconditioningthefinaldecisionandoutcomeofthe process.Hence,althoughtheneedfortheconcreteprojectshave beenconsideredinadvance–frequentlybynationalexperts,the furtherspecificationanddetailingofprojectsinbothcountrieswill takeplace insomekindofexchange ofviews ordialoguewith stakeholdersduringtheprocess.
Previous nation-wide surveys conducted in both countries demonstrateageneralacceptanceofneedforhVtransmissionlines, albeitdatafrombothcountriesindicatethatthegeneralpublichave limitedknowledgeaboutelectricitysupplyandgrids(Aasetal., 2014).TheUKpublicholdssignificantlylesspositivebeliefsabout hVgridsthantheNorwegianpublic.Independentofthis,bothcoun- trieshaveexperiencedrecentconflictsovernewhVtransmission linessuchasinHardangerinWestNorwayandtheBeauly–Denny inScotland(Ruudetal.,2011;Richieetal.,2013).
4. Methodology,studyareasandanalysis 4.1. Selectedcasesandstudyareas
A qualitative, comparative case study design wasused. We selectedfourtransmissionlineprojectsascases,twofromNorway andtwofromtheUK.Thefourcaseswereselectedtoensureahigh degreeofvariationacrossnationalcontextsandthefollowingcri- teriawereimportantinordertobeabletocomparethefindings acrossthecasesandsecureadiversityofresponses:
•Atthetimeofinterviewsthetransmissionlineswereatdifferent temporalstagesintheplanningprocess.
•Thecasesweredifferentin termsof major“need-arguments”
usedtolegitimizethem.
•Theyincludedcaseswithbordercrossingissues(betweencoun- triesand/orregions).
•Theywerelocated indifferent geographicregions in thetwo countrieswithdifferentinterestsandstakeholders.
Havingselectedthemaincases,weidentifiedlocalcommuni- tiesforin-depthqualitativestudiesFig.1.Here,weaimedtoselect locationswheretheprojectcouldorshouldsparkengagement,for instanceduetosignificantconflictinginterests,withdifferentrout- ingalternativesand/orpotentialforspecificmitigatingactions.Key characteristicsofthefourcasesaswellastheselectedcommuni- tiesforin-depthqualitativefocusgroupsinterviewsispresented inTable1.
4.2. Focusgroupinterviewsandanalyses
Weconducted fifteenfocusgroupinterviewswithrepresen- tativesfor localresidentsoftheselectedcommunities nearthe proposedtransmissionlines,seveninNorwayandeightintheUK.
Focusgroupinterviewsareespeciallyusefultogaininsightinto thewayparticularissuesarediscussedinrelativelyhomogenous groups,bybeingofasocialnature(Krueger,1994).Focusgroupsare usefulforinvestigatinggroupfeelings,perceptionsandopinions, aswellascomparingandcontrastingperceptionsacrossgroups (Conradson,2005).Allinterviewswereconductedduringthespring of2013.Potentialparticipantsfromthelocalcommunitiesselected forthefocusgroupswererecruitedthroughdiscussionswithrepre- sentativesfromthemunicipalities,thepowerlineprojectandkey stakeholder representatives.Theywereall representativesfrom thecommunitywherethefocusgroupswereheld,notnecessarily representingtypicalinterest- or activist groups. Bothlandown- ersandnon-landownerswereincluded.Theinterviewsfollowed asemi-structuredinterviewguidewhichworkedasachecklist thatwassimilaracrossallgroupsandbothcountries.TheNorwe- gianinterviewswereconductedinNorwegianandlatertranslated intoEnglish,whileUKinterviewswereconductedinEnglish.
Allinterviewswereaudiotapedandtranscribedinfull.Acom- prehensivecodingsystemwasdevelopedjointlyforNorwayand theUK,basedonthethemesfromtheinterviewguideandinformed by existing researchon localconflicts on energy infrastructure developmentFinally,basedonthequalitativedataanalysispro- gramATLAS.ti(ATLAS/ti,1999)weassignedcodesandidentified citationstoallofthefocusgroupinterviewsforNorwayandthe UK,preparingthemforcontentanalysis.Thecodedtranscriptsthen formedthebasisfororganizing,selectingandcomparingthedata acrossthetwocountriesandfourcases.Theanalyticalframework employedinthisstudyinformedtheselectionofperceptiondata thatweretobecomparedacrosscasesandthenationalcontexts.
Quotationshavebeenselectedinordertohighlightsignificantper- ceptions,andeventualdifferencesbetweenthecases.
5. Resultsandanalysis
Inordertofurtherlookintohowthedifferentmechanismsare perceived,thissectionpresentsfindingsfromthefocusgroupsand theissuesemerginginthematerial–accordingtothesixanalytical categoriesof‘information’,‘representation’,‘voice’,‘consideration’,
‘logic’and‘influence’–aspresentedinSection2.Thecategorized findingswillberelatedtoouroverallresearchquestionsonthe localinhabitants’perceptionofthepublicengagementmeasures intheprocesses,andtheperceiveddegreeofjusticeandfairness.
5.1. Information
Participantsperceivedthatprovidingsufficientinformationis a basicfundament for engagement, and consequentlytheleast
Fig.1.Amapshowingthefourcases;Sogndal-ØrskogandSydvestlinkeninNorway;andMidWalesandHinkleyPointCintheUK.
theTSOshoulddo.Suchone-wayflowofinformationisseenas democraticallyimportantin ordertoprovide anopportunityof beingcorrectlyinformedandupdated.Inadequateorpoorlytimed informationprovisionwasmentionedassomethingthatdeprived peopleofthepossibilitytogetinvolvedbybeingkeptinthedark:
“it’s like we said earlier that wefeel that the information, for themostpart,hasbeennon-existent(...)andit’slikeXXsays:you cangoontheinternetandfindit,butwhattheheck...ifyoudon’t knowwhatyouarelooking...amIsupposedtosearchintheevening, finding outif something ishappeningaround me? Itcan’t belike that...”(Sydvestlinken3,6:92).
Therearealsoindicationsofrespondentsconsideringpositively theTSO’sinformationefforts,regardlessofwhethertheirinputs havebeentakenintoaccount.ThiscanbeillustratedbysomeUK informants;
Informant1:WellonthesurfaceIdon’tseehowtheycouldhave donemuchmore...we’vehadlotsofstuffthroughtheposthaven’twe?
Informant2:Yeahloads.
Informant1:We’vehadtheshopinthething.
Informant3:Theshoppingprecinct.
Informant1:Hadmeetings.Theycouldn’thavedonemuchmoreI don’tthink.WhetheryouagreewiththeresultisanotherthingbutI thinkthey’vemadeeveryeffort.(Nailsea/HinkleyPointC2a,6:111)
Nevertheless,dissatisfactionwithinformationisdominatingin allfourcases.Threemain‘problems’wereunderlinedintheway thatprovisionofinformationwasperformedbytheTSOsorregu- latoryauthorities:thequantity/amount,thequalityandthetypeof communicationchannelsused.
Dissatisfactionwithquantity/amountofinformationisuttered indifferentmannersspanningfromtheinformationbeingtotally absenttobeingtooheavyandcomplicated.Thefollowingextract isanexampleofthefirst:
Moderator:Ifyouwerenotalandowner,whatkindofinformation didyoureceive?
R1:Nothing.
R2:Zero.Zeroinformation.(Ørskog-Sogndal,1:69).
Asevidentintheabovecitationthisseemstobethecasemostly for non-landowners.This wasan issueemerging in Norwegian focusgroups,butnotpresentintheUK.Onthecontrary;oneinfor- mantexpressedfrustrationoverreceivingtoomuchinformation:
Table1
KeycharacteristicsofthefourcasesandthefocusgroupsinterviewsconductedforeachcasehVtransmissionlineprojectinNorwayandUK.
Norway UnitedKingdom
Case Ørskog-Sogndal(ØF) Sydvestlinken(SVL) HinckleyPointC Mid-Wales
Projectowner StatnettSF StatnettSF NationalGridPlc. NationalGridPlc.
Location WestNorway South–EastNorway South–WestofEngland MidWales
Totallengthandtype 300km,OHcableson regularmetalpylons
60–110km(dependingon alternatives),OHcableson land,sub-seacablefor fjordcrossing
46.6kmoverheadline, usingthenewTpylon design,plus8kmof undergroundlinethrough andeithersideofthe MendipHills’Areaof OutstandingNatural Beauty’
Approx.39–51km, including13kmofline undergroundanduseof newTpylondesign.
Voltagelevel 420kV 420kV 400kV 400and132kV
Landscapetype Large-scale,elevated fjord-mountain landscape0–1500m a.s.l.Roads,farmsand smallsettlements alongthefjordsmostly
Lowlandlandscapeswith mixoffarmland,boreal forestsandvillages/towns 0–100ma.s.l.
Limestonehills,heatland, levelsandmoors.Sparsely populatedtothesouthof theline,thatdepends mainlyontourismand agriculture,morehighly populatedtothenorthof theline,closertoBristol
Mountainareawithvalleys androundedgreenhills.
Sparselypopulated, economydependent mainlyonfarming,tourism andsmallbusinesses
Startdate 2005/2006 2010 2007 2007
Projectstatusasofendof year2014
Approvedfinal concession31.12.2011.
Constructions postponedbecauseof lawsuits
ProjectabandonedJune 2013becauseof“lackof socioeconomic profitability”
Applicationsubmittedto planninginspectorate
Stageofconsultationand assessmentstodevelop finaldraftdesignforthe connectionandsubstation beforesubmitting applicationtoPlanning Inspectorate Keyneedarguments Improvesecurityof
supplytoMid-Norway.
Improvepowerflows betweenNorwayand Sweden
Connecttonewnuclear powerstation;improve securityofsupply
Connecttonewwind farms;improvesecurityof supply
Connectionfornew small-scaleHPplants.
Communitiesandforfocus groupinterviews
Sykkylven(x2) Tønsberg Nailsea(x2) Welshpool
Ålfoten(x2) Råde Yatton Llanymynech(x2)
Moss Portbury Shrewsbury
Numberofinhabitantsin themunicipalitiesofthe studiedlocations
Sykkylven=approx.7,500 Tønsberg=approx.42,000 Nailsea=approx.15,630 Welshpool=approx.6700
Bremanger=approx.4,000 (Ålfotenapprox.200)
Råde=approx.7,000 Yatton=7,550 Llanymynech=approx.890 Mossapprox.=31,000 Portbury=827 Shrewsbury=approx.
102,330
Numberoffocusgroups 4 3 4 4
Numberofparticipantsin focusgroups
03-Aug 03-Jul 04-Aug 04-Aug
“Ithinkthat’spartlymyapathyatthemomentbecauseI’msofull ofinformationthatIdon’tbelieveandtrust,whatwasthelatestbitof informationandhasitchangedagain?”(Nailsea2/HinkleyPointC2b, 7:118)
Anissueassociatedwitha(too)heavyinformation loadwas expressedintheUK,namelythefactthatinformationseemstobe inconsistentandchangingacrosstime,andthereforeisperceived asactivemisinformation:
“it’sjustchanged,everycoupleofmonthsyoujusthearsomething different(Nailsea2/HinkleyPointC2b,7:100);
“Iamdefinitelyagainstbeingpushedtomakeadecisiononmis- informationorwronginformation,Iwanttherightinformationthat’s myonlyfear”(Yatton/HinkleyPointC1,5:170)
Thecitationsindicatedissatisfactionwiththequalityofinfor- mationintermsofbeinginconsistent,biasedand/orfavouringof whatinformantsfelttobetheTSO’spreferredoutcome:
“Theyhavefixedtheirminds on[whattheythinkare]the best solutionsbeforeanyoneelsehasasaying.Andthentheyfinddocumen- tationandargumentationsthatfitsthemthebest.”(Ørskog-Sogndal, 1:216).
Perceptionsofthequalitydiffersomewhat.Somefelttheinfor- mationgivenwassufficientandgood:
“So, I felt, during these years the process went on, that we received...we received very good information”(Ørskog-Sogndal 3, 3:243)
Maps presented onthe internet and receivedby mail were particularlyhighlightedashighlyusefulbysomeoftheNorwe- gianinformants.However,byotherscriticizedthelevelofdetail provided.Somethoughtthattheinformationwastoogeneralor vagueorfailinginansweringtospecificquestions.Onelandowner thoughtthatthemapsintheinitiallandownernotificationlacked clearroutingandwastoocoarseandunspecific.Asaconsequence this landowner didnot realizethat he would in fact behighly affectedandunderstoodthisaccidentallywhenreadingthelocal newspaper.
Topicsperceivednotbeingpresentedthoroughlywereproject impactssuchasnoise(N)andhealthriskrelatedtoelectromag- neticfields(N),theneedforthegrid(N),subseacable/underground routingalternatives–costandtechnicalconstraints(N,UK).Itwas oftenhighlightedthatitwouldhavebeenimportanttohavemore
informationabouthowmuchitwouldcostpeoplenamelytounder- groundtheHVPL’ssothattheycouldbetterpositionthemselves regardingitsveryconstruction.Giventhesedata,informationabout theprojectanditstechnicalitiesareimportant,aswellasreceiving adequatecontextualinformationaboutwhythegridisbeingbuilt andwhetherthereexistotheralternativesandoptions.
A final qualityissue addressedwas thatthe presentationof information,andlanguageusedinthedocumentswastootechni- calanddifficulttocomprehend.Itwasclaimedthatitwashardor evenimpossibletograspwhattheprojectwouldmeanforaffected individuals.
Therewerealsonegativeperceptionsaboutthecommunication channelsemployed.IntheSydvestlinkencaseinNorway,meet- ingsonlybeingannouncedthroughtheprintedpresswerebysome seenasinsufficient,whenpeoplerarelyhavethelocalnewspaper andarepredominatelyinternet-users.Someclaimedthatinforma- tionshouldbeprovidedthroughpersonalletterstoallinorderto ensurethattheinformationactuallyarereceivedandreadbyall citizenmembergroups.However,bothNorwegianandUKexperi- encesindicatethatinformationsentbyordinarymailwasnotread bysomeoftheaddressees.
IntheUK,oneinformantclaimedthatmostpeoplethoughtthe informationpackagethatwasdeliveredtoallaffectedcommunity memberswas‘junkmail’,sinceitwasperceivedtobejustapiece offoldedpaper.Moreover,thisinformantclaimedthatsomeofthe mostadverselyaffectedpeopledidnotgettheinformationpackage.
Thiswasseenasunfortunateinitselfbutalsoduetowhatwasper- ceivedasaveryshortperiodoftimetoprovideinputandobjections (Portbury/HinkleyPointC3).OtherUKinformantsunderlinethe extensiveeffortsmadebytheTSOtoprovideinformationthrough various channels– suchas local shops –where thepossibility torequest and attain more information wasviewedpositively.
Norwegianinformants,particularlynon-landowners,claimedthat announcementofpublicmeetingsthroughthenewspaperweretoo anonymous(intheformofasmallnotification)andtoocloseupon thepublicmeeting(Sydvestlinken).
5.2. Representation
In the Norwegian focus groups concerns about whomwere informed,andthushadthechancetoparticipatewereexpressed quitestrongly.
«Moderator:Doesthatmeanthattheresidentsinthisarea...except fromyou–theyweren’treallyparticipatingattheinitialpublicmeet- ing,becausetheyweren’t...?
R1:No,wehadn’tbeennotifiedatthattime.
R2:No,wellitcouldpossiblybesome thatsawthe newspaper notificationthesameday.Andhadthepossibility.(Sydvestlinken1, 4:46)
AlsoinNorway,anopinionthatemergedquiteoftenwasthat landownersgot“specialtreatment”,suggestingthatifyouwerenot alandowneryoudidnothaveapossibility(oratleastnotasgood possibilityasalandowner)toparticipate,asshowninthisexample:
«Forthe...mostpartwearenotlandowners.Butwehave...we haven’t got the chance to say anything at all almost, or like...influencedtheprocessatall.”(Ørskog-Sogndal,1:234)
Viewsspecificallyconcernedabouttheimportanceofcarefully tryingtoavoidtoleavingpeople(unintentionally)outandgiveall achancetohaveasaywasmostexplicitlyexpressedinonegroup inØrskog-Sogndal:
“It’s asmall community. Andwe are...I’d nearly saywe’re all family.Andweshouldhaveallreceived thesameinformationand attendedthewholeprocessandattendedmeetingsandeverything, andreceived...Ithinkitisimportant.”(Ørskog-Sogndal,1:176)
Membersofthisfocusgroupcontendedthatalllocalinhabi- tantsshouldhaveanequalrighttobeinformedandhaveasayin
thematter–asshowninthecitationabove–butsomeutterances showconcernsforspecificgroupsaswell.Onespecificexample wasinrelationtotheHVPLroutingbeingputupclosetothelocal school/kindergarten,oneinformantthenfeltatleastthatallparents shouldhavearighttogetinformation/beproperlyinvolved.
5.3. Voice
Someinformants hadvoiced theirconcernsthrough hearing appeals,eitheraslandownersorthroughcommunitygroups/NGOs.
Otherpointed toinformal meetingsinearlyphases andformal appealsatlaterstagesbeingtheopportunitytheyhadtovoicetheir concern.Attendanceinpublicmeetingsvariedstronglyamongthe Norwegian informants. For themost partlandownersattended (thisagainlikelyrelatestoinformationprovision),andevenfewer haveattendedon-siteinspections(whichinmostcasesareopen onlyforinvited).
Forbothmechanisms,someinformantsdidn’tknowtherehad beensucharrangements,andhadnotreceivedinformationabout it.Assuchtheydidnothaveachancetoexpresstheirviews.One landowner expressedcontentionand good dialogueon theon- siteinspectionheattended.Someinformantsadmittedthatfew questionswereraisedatpublicmeetings.OneNorwegianinfor- mantexpresseddifficultieswithabsorbinginformationandraising questions.UKinformantsalsoexpressedanuancetothis:
P3:Yougottheimpressionthatyoucouldsaywhatyouwantedto, butwhethertheywereanswered...ImeantheoneIwenttotheywere –peoplehadahugestoreandtherewereplentyofopportunitiesto say,butIcan’tremember...(laughs)gettingthemout.
P2:Yourwordswerebeingcarriedawaybythewind.
P1:Exactly,exactly.
P2: Because it sounded so ineffectual standing there.
(Llanymynech2/MidWales5b,4:127)
5.4. Consideration
Considerationmeanswhetheronesinputs arebeing noticed and seriously considered. There are particularly two factors relating to how inputs are being processed that are evaluated by the local inhabitants; namely whether issues/questions are answered/processed properly andwhether inputsare acknowl- edgedin onewayor another.Somesaid theyexperiencedthat questionsaskedinmeetingswerenotthoroughlyanswered(Syd- vestlinken).Anotherinformantsaidthattheyweretoldthatwhat theywantedassessedwouldbeassessed,onlytoexperiencethat thiswasnotdone–atleastnotthoroughlyenoughaccordingtothe informant.
Asfortheacknowledgementofinputs,perceptionsof thisis somewhatdivided.Somefelttheyhadagooddialoguewiththepro- ponent,andthattheirinputshadbeentakenseriously,eventothe extentthatroutingshadbeenadjusted.Incontrast,severalexam- plesarebroughtforward–especiallyfromtheUK–ofinformants notfindingtheirinputs/viewspresentinthesubsequentauthori- ties’officialprojectdocuments.Moreover,thereasonsforrejecting inputsarebysomeperceivedtobeunsatisfactory.OneNorwegian informantperceivedhisinputtobeoverlookedastherejectiondid nottargettheactualissueatstake:
“Theworkinggroup[ateamworkprobablysetupatameeting]
hadmuchcommonsense,andactuallysomecompetence.Andweused somehourstogetfamiliarwithit.SoIbelieveitwasacertainqualityon whatwedelivered[theinputsgiven].Andwhenyouseethattheydon’t careaboutargumentsorevenreasonwithsomethingelse...orjust ignore,thenIthinkit’sprettyarrogant.Becausetheycouldhavespent sometimetoexplainhowwehavecountedwrongorwhatwehad consideredwrongly,orthatitwasamateurishorwhatever...ButIdon’t
thinksimplyneglectingitwasanespeciallyoksignal.(Sydvestlinken 2,5:126)
Toreceiveanadequate,politeresponse,irrespectiveofwhether theinputhasagenuineinfluenceontheprojectdecision,isthere- foreseenasimportantandavalueinitself,alsobecauseitisan indicationwhetherlocalinhabitantsandstakeholdersaretreated as‘equals’.Moreover,someUKinformantsexpresseddissatisfac- tionwithonlyreceivingaconfirmationthattheletterwasreceived, althoughnoanswerstotheinputweregiven.Hence,theinputs wereseenasnotbeingtakennoticeofandsomethingdonemerely tocomply withconcessionary legislation, as illustrated by this informant;
“Idon’tthinkanybody’shadareplyandIdon’tthinkthey’retaking anynoticetheywerejustgoingthroughthemotionsjusttobeseentobe ....Doingwhatthey’resupposed-andtheycansay“We’veconsulted withthepeopleofPortbury[nameofplace–HinkleyPointC3]”I’m sorrybutinyourbookwhatdoesconsultationmean?Isn’titatwo-way thing?”(Portbury/HinkleyPointC3,8:102).
5.5. Logic
Theimportanceoflogicalandjustifiablereasonsforwhatispro- posed(forinstancethatthereisactuallya“need”)isalsoevidentin ourmaterial.Eventhoughmanyacceptandunderstandtheneedfor therespectiveprojects,somerespondentssaidthatitwouldhave beeneasiertoacceptoutcomesiftheyhadknownmoreaboutwhy specificdecisionsforinstanceonroutingweretakenorwhythe projectisimportant.Thisobviouslyrelatestoinformation.When itcomestologicitisalsoquestionedwhetherthereactuallyisa needfortheline.Somethoughttheneedismorerootedinthegrid company’sandtheelectricityproducers’needforprofitratherthan aneedfortheelectricityitself.Forinstance,intheSydvestlinken caseitwasutteredthattheexportofelectricitytoSwedenwould resultina“doublewhammy”–higherelectricitypricesinNorway aswellasvisualdamagesstemmingfromtheconstructionofthe grid.
Another issue brought forward in various ways relates to TSO/authorities’argumentsforspecificdecisions.Argumentalter- nationisoneaspectpointedout.Informantsexperiencedthatwhen theyhadconfrontedaperceivedweaknessinanargumentation, thiscriticismwasnotaccountedfor,buttothecontrary,replaced byanotherstatement.Oneexampleisinformants–afterinquiring thecontractor–refutingaTSOargumentaboutsubseacabledelay- ingtheprocessonlytofindtheTSOchangingtheirargumentation tothepoliticalprocessbeingslow.
Anotherexampleiswhenanargumentisusedtolegitimatea specificpartoftheroute,whilethesameargumentisignoredor invalidforotherpartsoftheroute.Thiswasperceivedtobethe casewhenconcernforanoldconiferousforestwassaidtobethe reasonforavoidingthelinegoingthroughanarea(desiredand suggestedbytheinformants).Informantsquestionedthislogicas atransformerstationwouldbeplacedinthesamearea:
“Whentheyaregivingastatement,andtheythensayitcan’tgo throughthecombinationroute[localnameofoneofthesuggested routingalternatives]becauseitrunsthrougholdconiferousforest.And wethenpointoutthattheyhaveplacedatransformerstationinthe samearea.Right?Youstarttowonder...”(Ørskog-Sogndal,2:268)
AdditionallyitisalsoperceivedunfairinthecaseweretheHVPL willgothroughanaturereserve,whichisthestrictestareaprotec- tioncategoryinNorway.Respondentsfoundlittlelogicinthis,and alsopointstoexampleswerelandownershaverestrictionsontheir landuse(e.g.,prohibitedtocuttrees),whilesuchrestrictionsobvi- ouslynotapplytotheTSO/governmentastheycangoaboutand decidedthattheHVPLshouldgothroughthesamearea.Inthiscase itwasalsoquestionedwhatkindofsignalplacingthelineinapro-
tectedareaactuallygivestothepublic–namelythatenvironmental issuesarenotthatimportant.
5.6. Influence
Anoverarchingconcernamongtheinformantswastheaspectof influence.Thiswasarecurringsubjectexpressedindifferentways throughoutallfocusgroups,withclearlinkagestootherthemes presentedanddiscussed.Akeyfindingfrombothcountriesisa significantperceptionoftheoutcomealreadybeingdecidedprior tothepublicbeingengaged.Thepublicengagementexercisesare oftenperceivedaspublicrelationsexercisestocomplywithconces- sionarylegislation.Severalexpressionsandmetaphorsareusedto describethis,suchasa‘play’,a‘theatre’,a‘publicrelationsexercise’, a‘faitaccompli’,‘lipservice’,ora‘paperexercise’.OneNorwegian informantdescribeshisexperiencesasa‘trainride’toapredestined destination:
“Andyou...you’reinvitedtomeetings,andtheytellyouthatnoth- ingis decided,it’sonlyat theplanning stage. It’s amachine!The locomotivehasstarted,anditfollowsthetracks.Woof!Andthenthere’s afewstationsalongtheroad,andyou...theyrunpast,but...theyare obligedtodothingsalongtheroute.SoI...yes,youcouldsayIfeltvery helpless.”(Sydvestlinken2,5:90)
AcommonperceptioninboththeNorwegianandUKcasesis thattheinputsarebeingregisteredandprocessedbythespon- sors,andthusjustfollowingproceduralrules.However,theinputs areseen tohave very limitedeffect. OneNorwegian informant explainedthisfeelingofpowerlessnessinthisway;
«Wereceivesomeinformation,wegetthechancetogiveaninput, andthenit’llbetreatedintheMinistryandAgencyandallthisthat hasaddressOslo.Andwhenitistreatedthere,thenithasleftus,then itisover.Andthenextthingtodoistoputchainson[civilobedience]if you’reespeciallyinterested.Idon’ttrustStatnettorothersthathavean outcomeresponsibilitythinkingaboutwhat’simportantforme.You getmuchtoodistanced.(Sydvestlinken3,6:86)
Athirdaspectiswhatsomeinformantsinbothcountriesseeas a‘divideandconquer’strategyemployedbytheTSO,forinstance whenproposingdifferentroutealternatives.TheTSOisperceived ashavingdecidedbeforehandwhatroutetofavour,butpresent otheralternativessothattheaffectedcommunities–insteadof fightingoverallagainsttheproposedproject–dividethemselves andfightagainsttheroutethatisaffectingthemthemost;
“...it’stheoldtacticofdivideandconquer,asyousay,ifyousay there’srouteAorthere’srouteB,peopleonrouteAaresayingwell goforrouteBandpeopleonrouteBaresayinggoforrouteAand developerwillsaywellthere’snooverallobjection,nobodiesobjecting totheactualprojectsowe’llcarryon”(Nailsea2/HinkleyPointC2b, 7:108)
Thispracticeisseenasdividinglocalcommunitiesandatthe sametimemakingsurethattheTSOspreferredsolutionisimple- mented.
Seeninthelightoftheseexperiences,somestakeholdersfelt otherways ofinfluencingtheprojectoutcome,suchasworking towardsjournalists and themedia, aswell aslobbying against politicians,couldbemoreeffectivewayofachievingtheirobjec- tives.ThiswasaviewpointfoundinboththeUKcasestudies,and expressedbylandownersand otherparticipantsalike.Thisis a strategythatalsowasusedbyseveralkeystakeholdersinNorway intheHardangerpowerlineconflict(seeRuudetal.,2011).
6. Discussion
Seenfromtheviewofthelocalinhabitants,thedataanalysed inthisarticlerevealanumberofchallengesandshortcomingsin termsofachievingajustandfairplanningprocessforhVtrans-
missionpower-linesinNorway andtheUK.Interestingly,there ismuchcoherenceinopinionsacrossbothcountriesandamong thefourcases.ItisalsoworthnotingthattheoneNorwegiangrid projectthatwasdropped(afternotification),receivedresponses similartotheothercases,whereasonecouldexpectthisprocessto besomewhatmorepositivelyassessed(c.f.Gross2007).Moreover, thepresentfindingsareinaccordancewiththeperceptionsofthe generalpublicsinthetwocountries:Gridplanningprocessesare consideredtobeexpert-,top-downdrivenprocesseswithlimited opportunitiesforlocalinhabitantstoinfluencetheoutcome(Aas etal.,2014;Devine-Wrightetal.,2010).
Former research has suggested that people’s willingness to acceptoutcomesincreasesaslongastheyperceivethedecision- makingprocessasfair(Tyler,2000;Gross,2007;LindandTyler, 1988).Giventhismajorfindingacrossdifferentcases,thereisa clearriskthatunfairprocessescanleadtodamagedrelationships anddividedcommunities(Gross2007).Theratherunisoncallfor improvedandmorejustprocessesarealsoinlinewithprevious findingsinproceduraljusticeresearchonotherhVtransmission networks (Ciupuliga and Cuppen, 2013); othertypes of energy infrastructure. i.e.,wind farms, seeGross (2007), as wellas on otherplanningprocessesregardinglandusepolicies(Smithand McDonough,2001).Allstudiesreportinsufficienciesintermsof providinginformationandgoodrepresentationfromallaffected stakeholdersandinhabitantinlocalcommunities.
Employingdifferentanalytical categoriesrelatedtoprocedu- raljusticestandoutasafruitfulwayofanalysingthedatafrom the Norwegian and UK cases. In addition to capture different aspects or dimensions of procedural justice, important inter- dependenciesbetween thesedimensions can also beobserved.
Prominentconnectionscanbefoundbetween‘information’and
‘representativeness’,‘voice’and‘influence’.Onecouldclaimthat information forms the basis on which local inhabitants act in relationtotheprocess,andthatthelackofdifferentiated infor- mationclearlyaffectsthewaysdifferentinhabitantscanperceive thattheyarefairlyrepresented,haveafairchanceofbeingheard (‘voice’),and–thereby–actuallyinfluenceontheprocessandits outcome.
Given the essential role of information, it is important to acknowledgethat theviews and perceptions of theinformants mightalsobebasedonmisconceptions,orlackofknowledgeof legal demands and formal procedures. Some think information is too short and simple, while others find it too complex and dominatedbytechnical‘jargon’.Suchcommunicativechallenges implytheimportanceofaimingatadaptedinformation,tailoredto thepresumptionsofthelocalinhabitantsandstakeholders,when designingpublicengagementefforts.Localinhabitantsoftenhave differentqualificationstointerpretorunderstandtheinformation provided, and thereby alsodifferent prerequisites for demand- ingmoreinformationinordertoparticipatemoreactivelyinthe process.Thewaytheinhabitants’opinionsarebeingheardand processedcanalsobeseenascloselyconnectedtothenotionof
‘recognitionjustice’(c.f.HeffronandMcCauley,2014).
Insum,thedatafromthecasestudiesalsobringforwardarange ofsuggestionswhich canserveas inputsforimprovedinvolve- mentoflocalinhabitantsingriddevelopmentprojects,andthereby improvedprocesses.Properinformationisthefundamentonwhich muchoftheprocessisbased.Althoughmuchofthepositiveeval- uationsobservedinthematerialwasrelatedtoinformation,one candiscernsuggestionsforimprovementsfromthesecasestudies.
Oneistheneedtomakemoreeffortsinordertoactuallyensurethat appropriateinformationisreceivedandunderstoodatkeystages intheprocess.Second,itisimportanttoprovideinformationwith differentlevelsofcomplexitytailoredtodifferentneedsofdifferent groupsandindividuals,withdifferentqualificationsandpremises toengage.
Intermsof‘representation’,itispertinentthatthedeveloper and/orthedecision-makerfacilitateprocesseswhereallinterests are‘seen’andtreatedasequallyaspossible.Incaseswheresome stakeholdersarereceivingmoreinformationandgivenmore(‘bet- ter’)opportunitiestoconsultordiscuss withthedeveloperdue tolegaldemands(forinstancelandownersofareaswheregrids andpylonsmightbeplaced),thiscouldbebetterexplained,since
‘unequal’treatmentmighttriggerdivisionsinlocalcommunities (Gross,2007).Useofmoderndigitalmediacouldalsoeasereach- ingouttoasmanyaspossible,aswellasprovisionofinformation ofdifferentcharacterandtargetingspecificgroups.Howthedevel- operorthedecision-makerconsiderinputsandsuggestionsfrom thepublic–includinghowsuchconsiderationsaremadevisible – is another critical area. Thereare many examplesacross the caseswhereinformantsreportofstandardizedmass-responsesor negligence,oftenleavinglocalpublicswithafeelingofinferior- ity.Criticalcommentsregardinglackoflogicintermsofhowthe developerreasonandlegitimateitsproposalsunderlinestheneed for planningprocessesthat arecoherent,especially in termsof needs,andtechnicalandeconomicpremises(forinstancenational andregionalgridsystemplans,differentdevelopmentprojectsand sectionsofaspecificprocess).
Overall,theultimateissueiswhetherthelocalpublicinvolved intheengagementprocessesperceivetheexerciseasbeingcon- ductedwithaseriousintenttocollecttheviewsoftheaffected populationandtoactonthoseviews(RoweandFrewer,2005;262).
Ourfindingsherecanbereadasquiteharshforthegriddevelop- ersanddecision-makingauthorities:Themajorfeatureofthelocal inhabitants’perceptionsinthepresentdata,istheunderstanding oftheprocessesascompulsoryexercises,undertakenmoreofduty andlesswithagoaltoinvolveandlistentolocalpublics.Therefore, thepresentdatarevealagapbetweenofficialgoalsoftransmission lineplanningprocessesthattakestheaimoflocalengagementseri- ously(c.f.e.g.Statnett,2013),andwhatisactuallyexperiencedand perceivedinconcretecases.
Clearly,beingafairprojectleader(developer)isahugechal- lenge(Smithand McDonough,2001).A moredifferentiatedand thoroughpublicengagementexercisedwithmoreadaptedinfor- mationmightdemandlargerbudgetsandmorepersonnel,atleast intheearlystages.Ontheotherhand,allocationofmorepersonnel intheplanningprocessmightresultinalessconflictingprocess whichtakeslesstime,leadingtononetincreaseinthecosts.The critiqueemergingfromthelocalinhabitantsthroughthedatain thisstudymightalsobemetwithacarefulconsiderationofwhat attitudesandexpectationsthedeveloper(fromleaderstoemploy- ees)arebringingforwardtoaplanningprocess.Thiscanalsobe seenasaquestionoftrustfromthelocalinhabitants’perspective towardsthedeveloper,andtherebyawayofapproachingalocal perceptionofmorejustprocesses.
An interesting example from theresearch literature, briefly mentioned above,is thecase of a French–Spanishinterconnec- tion transmission line. Here an independent and neutral body (NationalPublicDebateCommission)wasemployedasafacilita- tor(CiupuligaandCuppen,2013).Suchanalternativeapproachto publicengagementprocessesishighlyrelevantinthepresentper- spective.AsimilarapproachhasbeenemployedintheUK,where localcommunityrepresentativeshaveparticipatedinadeliberative workshopleadbyanacademicinstitution,asawayoffacilitat- ingtheprocess(CottonandDevine-Wright2013).Inaddition,the structureoftheseworkshops–withafocusondeliberationanddia- logue,canbeconducivetofairerprocesses,seeninthelightofthe findingsinthisstudy.Moreknowledgeandpracticalexperiences fromalternativeprocesses,isthereforealsoneeded–inaddition tomoreresearchonwhatmechanismsandeffortscontributeto betterparticipatoryprocess,whereandwhen.Thisknowledgewill contributetoabroaderunderstandingofproceduraljusticeasan
