The Social Amplification of Benefit: Risk, Identity and Renewable Energy By Andrew James Roberts i Summary Climate change and its impacts present an urgent need for transitions towards more low-carbon systems. Part of this transition entails changes in how we generate energy for our consumption, with renewable sources offering a potential solution. Within Wales and the UK, Government targets for the amount consumed and produced from low-carbon sources inevitably means the further deployment of renewables infrastructure. However, the deployment of this technology is not without controversy. Opposition to renewable energy projects have been characterised as deviant and an obstacle to overcome (Aitken, 2010); with theorisations producing narrow understandings such as the Not-In- My-Backyard (NIMBY) paradigm (Burningham, 2000; Wolsink, 2007). However, more nuanced understandings are required of local opposition which account for how individuals attribute value and meaningfully connect with the world around them (Bell et al, 2013). There is a need to pay particular attention to the ‘hidden losses’ (Witter and Satterfield, 2014) which are difficult to articulate, yet remain important to the individual. A promising lens through which to analyse these contestations is the concepts of risk and identity, particularly relational perspectives which give due consideration to social context (Boholm and Corvallec, 2011; Andersen and Chen, 2002). Similarly, the Social Amplification of Risk Framework (Kasperson et al, 1988; Pidgeon et al, 2003) presents a useful frame through which to understand this social context and how highly unique and personalised “discussion-scapes” surrounding individual projects can be built by individuals as active agents (Horlick-Jones et al, 2003) and how proposed ‘benefit packages’ (Walker et al, 2010) are understood. A ‘risk to identity’ perspective (Henwood and Pidgeon, 2013) pays attention to the “unsayable threats” which individuals are faced with when dealing with these issues, shining new light on the ethical dilemmas with which individuals are faced. The study explores the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon, a proposed marine tidal project based off the coast of the city of Swansea in South Wales. Tidal lagoons present a promising new form of renewable energy infrastructure that can offer the production of a reliable source of clean energy, simply by harnessing the power of the tides. With some of the highest tidal ranges in the world the UK is well positioned to benefit from this technology. Utilising an interpretivist and relational approach, the study looked at the accounts of stakeholders, publics and local opposition groups. The study also used a number of cultural probes as means of engaging participants in meaningful discussion on a yet to exist technology. The research found that as the lagoon project became to be perceived as for the ‘public good’, a process of social amplification of benefit saw this narrative reproduced and perpetuated through the exploiting of pre-existing risk issues and narratives within Swansea surrounding unemployment and the economy. ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank the Sustainable Places Research Institute at Cardiff University for funding this study and my studentship. I would like to thank my supervisors, Professor Karen Henwood and Professor Nicholas Pidgeon, for their patience, support and guidance throughout the undertaking of this PhD. Their dedication to nurturing and developing my capability as a researcher and as a person is one that I am profoundly grateful for. I would also like to thank my colleagues at the Understanding Risk Research Group and the Sustainable Places Research Institute, whose wisdom is greatly appreciated. I would also like to thank my fellow PLACE PhD students who shared this journey with me. To Justyna, Kate, Ella and Alistair, it has been a long and difficult road - but I consider myself fortunate to have travelled it with you. Thank you to the participants who participated in this study, for dedicating their time and allowing me to tell their stories. To my parents, Stephen and Ann-Marie, your support and encouragement have been the foundation of everything that I have achieved – thank you. And finally to the person who has been beside me throughout it all. Thank you Gillian for being everything that I have needed and more. Words cannot describe how thankful I am for you. iii List of Tables Table 3.1 – Data collection phases and methods used Table 3.2 – Phase 1 participants Table 3.3 – Phase 2 participants Table 3.4 – Phase 3 participants Table 3.5 – Methods used per participant Table 3.6 – Walk along interviews Table 5.1 – Tripartite analysis of risk and benefit Table 5.2 – Risk and benefit in improving a Swansea regional identity Table 5.3 – How Tim constructed benefit from the lagoon Table 6.1 – The developer’s conduct as identity risk Table 6.2 – Communicative risks Table 6.3 – Threat to “voice” Table 6.4 – Identity risk from communicating risk Table 6.5 – Lagoon risks Table 6.6 – Identity risks from developer’s actions List of Figures Figure 1.1 – Proposed site of Swansea tidal lagoon Figure 1.2 – Developer’s promotional material Figure 2.1 – UK consumption from renewables Figure 2.2 – UK electricity generation sources Figure 2.3 – UK electricity generation sources 2006 – 2018 Figure 2.4 – The Grid-Group approach Figure 2.5 – Relational Theory Figure 2.6 - Relational theory of Risk with modified terminology Figure 2.7 – Conceptual elements of a discussion-scape Figure 3.1 – Outline of primary data collection Figure 3.2 – Jane’s photo of Swansea Bay Figure 3.3 - Tim’s photo of Swansea Bay Figure 3.4 – Diego’s drawing of the lagoon Figure 3.5 – Max’s drawings of Swansea Bay iv Figure 3.6 – Picture taken during Jane’s walk along interview Figure 4.1 – The Devastation caused by the Swansea Blitz Figure 4.2 – Architectural design used to rebuild Swansea Figure 4.3 – Proposed location of Swansea Lagoon Figure 4.4 – Cross section of lagoon wall Figure 4.5 – Swansea Lagoon 24 hour generation profile Figure 4.6 – Contemporary Swansea city centre Figure 4.7 – Artists impression of the lagoon wall Figure 4.8 – Swansea University’s Bay Campus Figure 4.9 – Promotional material created by Tidal Lagoon Power Figure 5.1 –Developer CEO on the community share offer Figure 5.2 – Developer promotion of the lagoon Figure 5.3 - The Swansea landscape Figure 5.4 - Cardiff Bay Figure 5.5 – A place “no one wants to go and no one ever leaves” Figure 5.6 - The regeneration of Swansea Figure 5.7 – Ideals promoted by the developer Figure 5.8 – The location of Port Talbot in Swansea Bay Figure 5.9 – Aberavon Beach Figure 6.1 – Tidal schemes in the Severn Estuary Figure 6.2 – Early lagoon proposal Figure 6.3 – Proposed lagoon site Figure 6.4 – Cross-section of the proposed hydro turbines Figure 6.5 – Proposed location of tidal lagoon site Figure 6.6 – Location of the village of St. Keverne on the Lizard Peninsula Figure 6.7 – Location of Dean Quarry Figure 6.8 – The Manacles Marine Conservation Zone Figure 6.9 – New breakwater and loading jetties at Dean Quarry Figure 6.10 – Coverack Harbour Figure 6.11 – Daily Telegraph on village hall meeting Figure 6.12 – Local media headlines v Figure 6.13 – Participants drawing Figure 6.14 – Participant drawing with wind turbines Figure 7.1 – Point 21 of decision letter on planning consent Figure 7.2 – Locations of Marine Protected Areas Figure 7.3 – Developer risk communication Figure 7.4 – Developer’s website Figure 7.5 – Suzy Davies AM Facebook post Figure 7.6 – Comment section from Facebook post Figure 7.7 – Lagoon headlines and images Figure 7.8 – Media headlines, stories and images Figure 7.9 – Further examples of media headlines, stories and images Figure 8.1 – Participant’s Valued Objects that were threatened Figure 8.2 – Participants’ Valued Objects that were benefitted Figure 8.3 – Risk attenuation and benefit amplification in Swansea Figure 8.4 – The Social Amplification of Risk Framework Model List of Abbreviations UK – United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland NRW – Natural Resources Wales TLP – Tidal Lagoon Power SARF – Social Amplification of Risk Framework MCZ – Marine Conservation Zone DECC – Department of Energy and Climate Change BEIS – Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy RET – Renewable Energy Technology CGI – Computer Generated Image DECC – Department of Energy and Climate Change vi Summary .................................................................................................................................................. i Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. ii List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... iii List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... v 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Deployment and Controversy ........................................................................................................ 6 2. Literature and Rationale ................................................................................................................