Elsevier

Energy Policy

Volume 39, Issue 11, November 2011, Pages 7439-7447
Energy Policy

Advocacy coalitions and wind power development: Insights from Quebec

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.012Get rights and content

Abstract

This article addresses the issue of wind energy acceptance in the Canadian province of Quebec and, in particular, the impact of different models of wind power development on the degree of social acceptance. We show that the dominant advocacy coalition, which favors a hard path energy development in general, enforces a large-scale development of wind energy. Two other coalitions – a soft path coalition and a nationalist coalition – oppose this development, but not wind energy per se. We argue that difference in belief systems explains their opposition rather than planning issues or NIMBY concerns. We also contend that, despite its predominance over (wind) energy policy, the hard path coalition is willing to learn and make concessions towards the soft path coalition, but not towards the nationalist coalition.

Highlights

► We address social acceptance of wind energy. ► We illustrate the interaction of advocacy coalitions. ► Different advocacy coalitions support different models of wind energy development. ► Models of wind energy development influence the degree of social acceptance. ► Opposition is not aimed at wind energy per se, but at the hard path model.

Introduction

Interest in renewable energies is increasing with the threat of climate change and unstable oil and gas prices. Getting more and more competitive, the wind power industry is expanding worldwide. Fierce debates in local communities reveal however that this “green” energy is not universally accepted. Yet, until the 1990s, the actors involved – promoters, political authorities and investors – have disregarded potentials for conflict. Even though opinion polls suggest a high level of wind energy acceptance (e.g., CBS, 2007), consent cannot be taken for granted when one moves from the general level of supporting a renewable technology to the tangible level of investment and site planning. The Canadian province of Quebec, where the media broadly covered the opposition against several wind farm projects, is a good illustration of this tension between overall acceptance and local reluctance.

Wind energy, like other renewable energies, displays specific features that may cause conflicts. First, renewable energy facilities are smaller and more fragmented than conventional power plants, so siting requires that a greater number of decisions be made. Second, because they are generally more decentralized and situated closely to residential areas, the esthetic and environmental impact of these facilities is more direct for residents. Third, renewable energies often face “unfair competition” from well-established technologies because external costs are rarely internalized in the energy sector; acceptance is therefore based on a choice between short-term costs and long-term benefits (Wüstenhagen et al., 2007).

In the Quebec context, there is a fourth issue, namely the question of wind energy nationalization. Hydro-Quebec, the province-owned public utility, showed no interest in developing its own wind power expertise – thus being obliged to buy it from private promoters (Turcotte, 2006) – and is legally required to submit wind power projects to calls for tenders (Quebec, 2001). These circumstances stirred up controversy right from the outset because for some it meant a departure from an electricity nationalization policy that had been in place since the 1960s, while for others, the call for tenders emphasized the sole criterion of profitability.

Scholars from different disciplines have analyzed the issue of wind power acceptance along three main dimensions: environmental concerns, planning processes and territorial development, and public opinion and attitudes. For Wolsink (2007), environmental concerns are the most important issues with regard to wind energy development. British and Irish studies suggest that these concerns are subjective and partly defined by sociological factors such as personal technological knowledge (Sustainable Energy Ireland, 2003), being exposed to specific media coverage (Boyle, 2004), and the opinions of friends and the next of kin (Devine-Wright, 2005). Environmental concerns may also be related to issues of stroboscopic effects, solar reflection on wind blades, and noise. Again, subjectivity seems to influence even noise perception: Pederson and Persson Waye (2004) find that the extent of noise perception is related to people's opinion of the visual impact of wind towers.

The processes of planning and territorial development raise other acceptance issues. Decision processes frequently lack coherence and vary greatly from one region to another (Birnie et al., 1999, Price, 2004). Moreover, developers often look for non-industrialized land with a high esthetic value, which alters the use of land and leads to a reshaping of landscapes (Fortin, 2006). Regarding public attitudes and opinion, several studies looked at the “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) phenomenon, trying to explain the difference between universally favorable public opinion and opposition at the local level. These different studies' conclusions, however, do not converge: for some, NIMBY is characteristic of local populations, whereas others warn against the oversimplification of a matter that is much more complex (Bell et al., 2005, Wolsink, 2006). Moreover, public perception can change over time: some studies show that social acceptance of wind energy increases from the stage of planning to the beginning of operation (e.g. Dudleston, 2000, Wolsink, 2007). Simon and Wüstenhagen (2006) find that direct participation of the local population in the decision-making process lowers opposition.

These examples point out that various factors have been analyzed to explain the lack of wind power acceptance. However, one factor has not been studied empirically: the impact of socio-economic models of development on wind power acceptance. This is a potentially important factor because patterns of wind power development changed over time: there is a worldwide trend from small-scale to large-scale wind power facilities as the size of towers and wind farms, the power of wind turbines, and the presence of financially strong actors capable of large capital investments indicate (Szarka, 2007).

Using the example of Quebec, this article addresses the choice among development models as a decisive factor of wind energy acceptance. Borrowing from Lovins' (1977) distinction between soft path and hard path energy development, we distinguish three advocacy coalitions that support different development models: a hard path coalition (HPC), a soft path coalition (SPC), and a nationalist coalition (NC); this latter is built around the Quebec-specific issue of electricity nationalization. This political configuration is a key to understanding social acceptance of wind energy projects. We argue that the ruling HPC, in line with its general hard path energy policy, enforces a large-scale development of wind power. The other two coalitions oppose this development, favoring either a soft path development or a national wind energy policy, but both are marginalized in the decision-making process. We argue that the opposition of these advocacy coalitions can be explained by their belief systems, which differ from the dominant advocacy coalition, rather than by issues of planning, environmental or NIMBY concerns. The belief system of the opposing advocacy coalitions makes clear that the lack of social acceptance for wind farms does not reflect a radical challenge to wind energy per se, but expresses their opposition against the specific model of wind development defended by the dominant coalition.

The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), in association with Baumgartner and Jones' (1993) notion of policy monopoly, contributes to understanding why the HPC is able to enforce the apparently least favored model of wind energy development in Quebec. It also helps to explain why, despite its predominance over (wind) energy policy, the HPC is willing to learn and make concessions towards the soft path coalition, but not towards the nationalist coalition.

Section snippets

Models of development and belief systems: hard path vs. soft path

Despite its important potential for wind energy development, it is only after the turn of the millennium that the Quebec government became seriously interested in this renewable resource. In 2004, after public mobilization torpedoed a planned gas-fired power plant, the Liberal government announced that it would launch major wind energy projects across the province as part of its strategy to increase domestic electricity production. But opposition to wind farms also picked up gradually,

Wind energy expansion in Quebec

Wind power is expanding worldwide: while the total wind power installed across the world was 2900 MW in 1993, it amounted to 157,932 MW in 2009 (EurObserv'ER, 2010). With a promising wind energy potential, the Canadian province of Quebec follows this global trend: the currently installed capacity amounts to 659 MW2 and the government of Quebec aims to develop a total of 4000 MW by 2015.3

Wind energy and advocacy coalitions

Even though the public utility signed the first wind power contract by mutual agreement with private developers in 1993, an actual wind energy sector emerged only around 1997. As mentioned earlier, at that time, the government asked the regulator for its advice on a wind energy quota to be included in Hydro-Quebec's action plan (Régie de l'énergie, 1997). This induced state and non-state actors of the energy sector to position themselves with regard to this new policy issue. In other words,

The predominance of the hard path coalition

The Quebec government strategically realigned its energy policy in the 1990s, focusing on four main objectives: promoting economic development by new means; ensuring energy supplies for Quebeckers at low cost; protecting or restoring the environment; guaranteeing equity and transparency. The 1996 Energy Strategy aimed at “favoring a sustainable economic development within a context where playing rules undergo profound transformations” (Quebec, 1996).4

The strategy responded to

Policy-oriented learning across hard path and soft path coalitions

Our second research proposition holds that the dominant coalition is more inclined to make concessions to other coalitions when there is a level of intermediate conflict and as long as its policy core beliefs are not challenged. To be sure, wind energy development caused public dispute, but it never led to strong social mobilization reaching the provincial level, like in the case of other development projects in Quebec. As the quotes above show, some members of the HPC were aware of the

Conclusion

This wind energy case study focused on a determinant of social acceptance that is rarely explored, namely the impact of the model of development on social acceptance, and brought out the importance of analyzing the political configurations that shape up around wind energy projects. The dominant coalition and its most prominent members – the Quebec government and the public utility – encourage large-scale development, which is in line with the hard path energy policy that they have followed over

Acknowledgment

This research was supported by Natural Resources Canada. The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

References (41)

  • G. Boyle

    Renewable Energy: Power for a Sustainable Future

    (2004)
  • CanWEA, 2009. CanWEA Applauds New Processes to Procure Wind Energy in Quebec and Revised Pricing for Community and...
  • CBS, 2007. CBS News/New York Times Poll. 〈http://www.pollingreport.com/energy.htm〉 (accessed May 15,...
  • L. Desjardins et al.

    Le poids du réseau dans ou contre le projet urbain? L'exemple de deux projets majeurs dans la région de Montréal

    Flux

    (2005)
  • P. Devine-Wright

    Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy

    Wind Energy

    (2005)
  • Dudleston, A., 2000. Public Attitudes towards Wind Farms in Scotland: Results of a Residents Survey....
  • EurObserv'ER, 2010. Wind Power Barometer 195. 〈http://www.energies-renouvelables.org/barometre.asp〉 (accessed June 4,...
  • M. Fortin

    Développement durable, justice environnementale et paysage: La qualité du territoire comme enjeu d'équité sociospatiale

  • FQM, 2009. Un prix plafond haussé pour l'énergie éolienne communautaire....
  • M. Jegen

    L'acceptation sociale des projets éoliens au Québec. Report commissioned by Natural Resources Canada

    (2008)
  • Cited by (21)

    • Exploring advocacy coalitions for energy efficiency: Policy change through internal shock and learning in the European Union

      2021, Energy Research and Social Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      In total, more than 1000 studies had been conducted in various policy subsystems, i.e. policy areas and geographical regions [38]. As for energy policy research, there are, as mentioned in Section 1.1, a handful studies applying the ACF-model as a theoretical framework for the analysis [18–22]. Szarka [19] stresses in his analysis of EU wind power policy that the ACF theory underestimates the importance of interest groups in policy making and that policy change in new policy subsystems can take place in shorter time than a decade or two, as proposed by the ACF theory.

    • Implementing wind power policy – Institutional frameworks and the beliefs of sovereigns

      2018, Land Use Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      Historical institutionalist approaches (c.f. Breukers and Wolsink, 2007; Toke et al., 2008; Agterbosch and Breukers, 2008; Ferguson-Martin and Hill, 2011) have illuminated how national level institutions that affect local level policymaking are the result of decisions made at critical junctures, as well as subsequent path dependencies. Policy subsystem approaches (Szarka 2004, 2006, 2010; Wiener and Koontz, 2010; Jegen and Audet, 2011) have shed light on the process by which wind power policy has developed as the result of coalition behavior, or the actions of groups of actors bound together by similar beliefs. In such analyses, the local level is considered to a degree, but only as a part of larger national or regional policy subsystems.

    • Smart grid development in Quebec: A review and policy approach

      2018, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
      Citation Excerpt :

      Since the 1980s, the politics of electricity in Quebec have remained largely dominated by the question of big dam projects [49]. In recent years, there was a significant debate about wind energy development and social acceptance [50]. But, as mentioned above, changes of government have not affected the policy monopoly in the electricity sector.

    • Institutional factors influencing strategic decision-making in energy policy; A case study of wind energy in France and Quebec (Canada)

      2016, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
      Citation Excerpt :

      In Quebec (Canada), researchers primarily focused on social acceptance, trying to understand why citizens were opposed to wind energy projects during 2005. They underlined the limited outcomes of local projects, the local decision making process, but also national parameters such as the regulatory framework and the development model (financial mechanisms and type of ownership) [14–17]. They concluded that the SA of wind energy projects would be better if: 1) there was a better evaluation and planning of wind energy development by ex-ante policy evaluation, such as strategic environmental assessment [18]; 2) all types of developer can participate in a hybrid development model; this has now been the case since 2010 with the introduction of new financial and regulatory instruments [16,19].

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text