`The interaction between formal and informal assessment of public values in strategically complex decision-making processes on renewable energy projects ‘A case study on the ‘community’ wind farm Lage Weide’ Pedram Soltani - 4252144 In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Engineering and Policy Analysis ` The interaction between formal and informal assessment of public values in strategically complex decision-making processes on renewable energy projects ‘A case study on the ‘community’ wind farm Lage Weide’ Master thesis submitted to Delft University of Technology in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE In Engineering and Policy Analysis Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management by Pedram Soltani Student number: 4252144 To be defended in public on the 19 th of July 2018 Graduation committee Chairperson : Prof. Dr., S., Roeser Section EPT First Supervisor : Dr. Ir., B., Taebi Section EPT Second Supervisor : Dr. Ir., E.H.W.J., Cuppen Section POLG Third Supervisor : MSc., E.M.H.R., van de Grift Section POLG ` Acknowledgements The report in front of you is the outcome of a research project that has been conducted in the scope of the NWO funded RESPONSE project, and in partial fulfillment of the Master Engineering and Policy Analysis at Delft University of Technology. Different people have contributed to its successful completion. First, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my first supervisor, Behnam Taebi. From the moment that I contacted you to express my interest in conducting a thesis project under your supervision, you were enthusiastic and brainstormed with me to define a suitable and interesting topic. Throughout the project you helped me to keep motivated and focused, had understanding for my personal situation, and expressed your trust that I could do a good job. Your valuable input during our meetings helped me to structure the thesis, take the normative perspective into account, adjust my ‘bureaucratic’ writing style, and bring the work to a higher level. Second, I would like to thank my second supervisor, Eefje Cuppen. Although I have not approached you often outside the meetings with the committee, you have helped me considerably with the development of the conceptual framework and operationalizations, applying the framework on the empirical data, and structuring the thesis. You also had a lot of understanding for me during the project, and after we spoke with each other I always felt more comfortable and confident. Third, I would like to thank my third supervisor, Elisabeth van de Grift. I really value your support during the design and implementation of the interviews, your input during our meetings, the feedback you have provided on the different versions of my thesis, and the fact you always offered me to help in the case that I would need it. Fourth, I would like to thank the chair of the committee, Sabine Roeser. During the meetings with the committee you always challenged me to take a helicopter view of the project, and think about what can be learned from my case, the contribution of my research to existing literature, its implications for ethics, decision-making procedures, and responsible innovation, and recommendations for practitioners. Besides the aforementioned members of the committee, I am indebted to several other persons. Special thanks to all the interviewees, since without their input I would miss an important part of the opinions, perspectives, and insights. Thanks to Amir, Sina, Farhad, and Mehrad for their company, support, Fifa, kabab, and sarcasm, without which I would take life too seriously. The same goes for my co-students Anil, Georgios, Juan, Maurizio, Siva, and Matthijs, and my friends of ‘Cuhhism’, Han, Sean, Erik, Omaid, and Djahed. Finally, I would like to thank the most important persons in my life: my parents and brother. You have supported me throughout all my hardships, serve as an inspiration to me, and have made it possible for me to follow my dreams and goals. ` Executive summary Introduction The siting and implementation of specific renewable energy projects at the local level can face difficulties. Throughout the literature and news media, different cases have been reported in which the introduction of different renewable energy technologies has been confronted with public resistance and controversy. One of the most common explanations for these controversies is the ‘not- in-my-backyard’ (NIMBY) argument, which suggests that people support renewable energy developments in general, but oppose developments in their proximity due to self-interested reasons. This label is considered to be faulty and too simplistic, because it is generally used as a pejorative, it incorrectly describes most local opposition, and the actual causes of controversy are not explained. Some academic studies have suggested that ‘community renewable energy projects’ result in lower levels of controversy and public resistance, in comparison to developments that are led by private parties, which typically follow a Decide-Announce-Defend strategy. Contrariwise, other studies have demonstrated that ‘community renewable energy projects’ can encounter significant controversy and public resistance. In this context, a community-based renewable energy project refers to one which is entirely driven and carried through by a group of local people (process dimension) and which brings collective benefits to the local community (outcome dimension). This thesis takes an alternative approach to studying controversy and public resistance in relation to renewable energy projects, compared to the usual studies of ‘social acceptance’, ‘local acceptance’, and ‘public perceptions’. In doing so, it distinguishes two trajectories of assessment in the decision-making processes on renewable energy projects: a formal and an informal one. The ‘formal assessment trajectory’ includes procedures, guidelines, tools (e.g., Environmental Impact Assessment, Cost Benefit Analysis, Risk Assessment), and policy arrangements to evaluate the desirability of a renewable energy project, and to make a final decision about its implementation. This trajectory mainly focuses on formally established public values, such as safety, sustainability, and economy. Moreover, it consists of rule-sets that are part of dominant institutional practices, which function as frames, and shape the interaction between a heterogeneous set of stakeholders and the courses of action open to them. Due to the exclusionary character of frames, specific societal concerns can emerge that are not covered in the formal assessment trajectory (i.e. overflowing), which gives rise to the ‘informal assessment trajectory’. In this trajectory, groups of stakeholders mobilize themselves to articulate the concerns and public values they consider to be underrepresented, and to challenge the dominant frame that is reproduced (in the formal assessment trajectory). It can materialise in the formation of new advocacy groups and media debates, but could also be represented by existing interest groups. The informal assessment may lead to changes in the formal assessment trajectory, which is referred to as ‘backflowing’. The aforementioned framework of formal and informal assessment, and their interaction, has been introduced by the research team of the RESPONSE project. The aim of this thesis was to complement this framework with three new elements: (i) the types of overflowing, (ii) the types of backflowing, and (iii) a strategic behaviour perspective. Moreover, it was identified that more research has to be conducted on the factors that shape stakeholders’ perceptions of ‘community renewable energy projects’, and in particular regarding the process and outcome dimensions of these developments. ` Based on this research problem and objectives, the following main research question was formulated: Main research question What are the types of overflowing and backflowing between the formal and informal assessment trajectories of the strategically complex decision-making processes on community renewable energy projects? Case study To achieve the research objectives and answer the main research question, a case study was conducted on the controversial ‘community’ wind farm at Lage Weide (Utrecht, the Netherlands). Based on a request for tenders (RFT) initiated by the municipality of Utrecht in December 2010, the energy association ‘Energie-U’ developed and submitted a plan to construct a wind farm at the industrial park Lage Weide. The project plan included two alternatives: (i) two rows of four turbines (with a separation of 400-500 meters between the turbines and the rows), and (ii) fourteen turbines in a free configuration (i.e. dispersed over the industrial park). The wind farm was supposed to have a minimum total capacity of 10 MW, and a maximum of 25 MW. From the beginning, the project was labelled as a bottom-up community initiative, as members of Energie-U were residents of Utrecht, and could participate financially. At one of the information meetings of Energie-U in November 2011, after the project plan was selected in the tender process, it became clear that a group of residents was against the plan. This group mobilized itself as the platform ‘Buren van Lage Weide’, and was a project opponent throughout the decision-making process. After an extensive and controversial spatial planning process, during which Energie-U’s plan was assessed by amongst others an Environmental Impact Assessment,