Out of Sight but Not out of Mind? Public Perceptions of Wave Energy

Abstract

Public concern about the visual and environmental impacts of renewable-energy projects has been a major factor behind the stalling or rejection of many planning applications for on-shore renewables developments. Siting renewables facilities in off-shore locations would appear to reduce this tension but, as yet, limited research has been conducted on public attitudes to marine renewables—particularly tidal and wave power—to establish how genuinely ‘out of sight and out of mind’ such developments are in the public mind. This paper presents a quantitative study of public opinions on a test site for wave energy currently under construction near the coast of the Southwest UK. The findings suggest general public support for wave energy as an economically beneficial method of power generation with few adverse side-effects. The merits of quantitative and qualitative research on public attitudes towards renewable-energy technologies are then discussed and concepts of risk and reward perception are used to explore the possible future dynamics of public attitudes towards ‘future’ renewables technologies like wave energy. We conclude with reflections on risk and reward perceptions as a heuristic device for defining future directions for research on public attitudes towards different renewable-energy technologies.

Keywords:

• public perceptions
• wave energy
• quantitative and qualitative research
• risk and reward perceptions

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Peninsula Research Institute for Marine Renewable Energies (PRIMaRE) and Streamlining of Ocean Wave Farm Impacts Assessment project (SOWFIA) for providing financial support for this research. All views expressed and any errors or misinterpretations are the authors' own.

Notes

Defined by McLachlan (2009) as any group with an interest in, or affected by, the Wave Hub. In this study, stakeholders included commercial fishing, non-government organizations, government institutions and local residents.

+2 = strong support, +1= support, 0= neutral, −1= oppose, −2= strong opposition.

1 = very positive, 2= positive, 3= neither, 4= negative, 5= very negative. A ‘do not know’ option was also included.

Although McLachlan's (2009) definition of ‘stakeholder’ included ‘the public’, the research was based on 15 interviews supported by media, internet forums and other secondary sources. It is unclear how many of the ‘general public’ were interviewed, but the sample size suggests it was insufficient to gain a reliable picture of their logics for supporting and opposing the Wave Hub, and again reinforces the case for quantitative analysis to precede qualitative assessment.