Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local onshore wind development with reference to an English case study

The threats posed by climate change are placing governments under increasing pressure to meet electricity demand from low-carbon sources. In many countries, including the UK, legislation is in place to ensure the continued expansion of renewable energy capacity. Onshore wind turbines are expected to play a key role in achieving these aims. However, despite high levels of public support for onshore wind development in principle, specific projects often experience local opposition. Traditionally this difference in general and specific attitudes has been attributed to NIMBYism (not in my back yard), but evidence is increasingly calling this assumption into question. This study used multiple regression analysis to identify what factors might predict attitudes towards mooted wind development in Sheffield, England. We report on the attitudes of two groups; one group (target) living close to four sites earmarked for development and an unaffected comparison group (comparison). We found little evidence of NIMBYism amongst members of the target group; instead, differences between general and specific attitudes appeared attributable to uncertainty regarding the proposals. The results are discussed with respect to literature highlighting the importance of early, continued and responsive community involvement in combating local opposition and facilitating the deployment of onshore wind turbines. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Building a Social Mandate for Climate Action: Lessons from COVID-19

The COVID-19 imposed lockdown has led to a number of temporary environmental side effects (reduced global emissions, cleaner air, less noise), that the climate community has aspired to achieve over a number of decades. However, these benefits have been achieved at a massive cost to welfare and the economy. This commentary draws lessons from the COVID-19 crisis for climate change. It discusses whether there are more sustainable ways of achieving these benefits, as part of a more desirable, low carbon resilient future, in a more planned, inclusive and less disruptive way. In order to achieve this, we argue for a clearer social contract between citizens and the state. We discuss how COVID-19 has demonstrated that behaviours can change abruptly, that these changes come at a cost, that we need a ‘social mandate’ to ensure these changes remain in the long-term, and that science plays an important role in informing this process. We suggest that deliberative engagement mechanisms, such as citizens’ assemblies and juries, could be a powerful way to build a social mandate for climate action post-COVID-19. This would enable behaviour changes to become more accepted, embedded and bearable in the long-term and provide the basis for future climate action

Position statement on the role of healthcare professionals, patient organizations and industry in European Reference Networks

A call from the EU for the set-up of European Reference Networks (ERNs) is expected to be launched in the first quarter of 2016. ERNs are intended to improve the care for patients with low prevalent or rare diseases throughout the EU by, among other things, facilitating the pooling and exchange of experience and knowledge and the development of protocols and guidelines. In the past, for example where costly orphan drugs have been concerned, industry has played an important role in facilitating consensus meetings and publication of guidelines. The ERNs should provide a unique opportunity for healthcare professionals and patients to lead these activities in an independent way. However, currently costs for networking activities are not to be covered by EU funds and alternative sources of funding are being explored. There is growing concern that any involvement of the industry in the funding of ERNs and their core activities may create a risk of undue influence. To date, the European Commission has not been explicit in how industry will be engaged in ERNs. We believe that public funding and a conflict of interest policy are needed at the level of the ERNs, Centers of Expertise (CEs), healthcare professionals and patient organizations with the aim of maintaining scientific integrity and independence. Specific attention is needed where it concerns the development of clinical practice guidelines. A proposal for a conflict of interest policy is presented, which may support the development of a framework to facilitate collaboration, safeguard professional integrity and to establish and maintain public acceptability and trust among patients, their organizations and the general public

Scenario planning as communicative action: lessons from participatory exercises conducted for the Scottish livestock industry

AbstractBased on Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action, this paper critiques the transparency and legitimacy of participatory scenario planning, considering a case study of scenario development for the livestock industry within Scotland. The paper considers the extent to which the case study approximates the conditions for ‘ideal speech situations’ and how these conditions could be applied more widely in participatory scenario planning. The authors explore the rationale for participatory scenario planning within the science–policy interface with critical reference to the corporate context in which scenario planning has evolved. The aim is to optimise the potential for its use in the context of socio-technical and environmental governance. Researcher co-reflections on the case study are mapped within a matrix of indices representing conditions for ideal speech situations. Further analytical categories highlight the extent to which ideal speech was approximated. Although many of the constraints on achieving ideal speech situations reflect intransigent, practical logistics of organising participatory exercises, our novel approach enables the systematic identification of some important issues and provides a conceptual framework for understanding how they interrelate that may prove useful to practitioners and theorists alike

Virology Experts in the Boundary Zone Between Science, Policy and the Public: A Biographical Analysis

This article aims to open up the biographical black box of three experts working in the boundary zone between science, policy and public debate. A biographical-narrative approach is used to analyse the roles played by the virologists Albert Osterhaus, Roel Coutinho and Jaap Goudsmit in policy and public debate. These figures were among the few leading virologists visibly active in the Netherlands during the revival of infectious diseases in the 1980s. Osterhaus and Coutinho in particular are still the key figures today, as demonstrated during the outbreak of novel influenza A (H1N1). This article studies the various political and communicative challenges and dilemmas encountered by these three virologists, and discusses the way in which, strategically or not, they handled those challenges and dilemmas during the various stages of the field’s recent history. Important in this respect is their pursuit of a public role that is both effective and credible. We will conclude with a reflection on the H1N1 pandemic, and the historical and biographical ties between emerging governance arrangements and the experts involved in the development of such arrangements

When is enough, enough? Identifying predictors of capacity estimates for onshore wind-power development in a region of the UK

The level of ‘wind-prospecting’ presently occurring in the UK is increasing the likelihood that new wind-power developments will conflict with other existing and/or proposed schemes. This study reports multiple-regression analyses performed on survey data obtained in a region of the UK (i.e. Humberhead Levels, near Doncaster) simultaneously subject to nine wind-farm proposals (September 2008). The aim of the analysis was to identify which survey-items were predictors of respondents' estimates of the number of wind turbines they believed the region could reasonably support (i.e. capacity estimates). The results revealed that the majority of respondents would endorse some local development; however, there was substantial variability in the upper level that was considered acceptable. Prominent predictors included general attitude, perceived knowledge of wind power, community attachment, environmental values, visual attractiveness of wind turbines, and issues relating to perceived fairness and equity. The results have implications for Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) – and in particular the assessment of Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impacts (CLVI) – and support calls for greater community involvement in decisions regarding proposed schemes