How aesthetics of place shape public perceptions

Over the last decade, the literature, examining relationships between people and places has grown and has been published in a wide range of journals including environmental psychology, community psychology, anthropology, urban studies, planning, economics, and others. ^{Reference Lewicka33} People's connections with and attachments to the places where they live are critical factors influencing how individuals and communities perceive and engage with LCETs. Wolsink summarized research about opposition to LCETs, as “It's the landscape, stupid!” ^{Reference Wolsink34} (p. 2695). Individuals and communities that attribute strong value to land preservation and the aesthetic qualities of their landscape often find the visual impacts of energy projects on the scenery unacceptable. This has sometimes resulted in conflicts among environmentalists, pitting environmental groups focused on habitat conservation and land preservation against other environmental groups promoting renewable energy. ^{Reference Warren, Lumsden, O’Dowd and Birnie35,Reference Lovich and Ennen36} Energy projects that impact the shared aesthetic sensibilities of a community are likely to encounter opposition from the host community and others who empathize with potential host communities.

The debate surrounding the visual impact of the controversial Cape Wind project ^{Reference Williams and Whitcomb37,Reference Kemtpon, Firestone, Lilley, Rouleau and Whitaker38} exemplifies how shared community esthetic sensibilities influence LCET deployment. In this case, which is explored in more detail in section “Perceptions and engagement in siting wind energy in the United States”, place-based public perceptions became a critical component of the regulatory process and played a major role in the deliberative democratic process. ^{Reference Phadke39} The negative community perceptions in this case are linked to multiple concerns associated with esthetics, wildlife, economic losses, and politics. ^{Reference Williams and Whitcomb37} But a community's response and ability to mobilize effective opposition is also based upon political opportunities, civic capacity, previous experience with the technology or other development, and prior history of opposition and economic hardship, discussed further in the engagement section below. ^{Reference McAdam and Boudet40}

Within the literature on public perceptions of LCETs, the concept of NIMBY has been popular but also subject to critique. ^{Reference Ellis, Barry and Robinson41–Reference Bidwell48} The NIMBY acronym as well as another related concept and acronym, LULU, are frequent ways to describe negative community responses to siting many facilities, from prisons to libraries, not just energy projects. ^{Reference Schively49} Critics argue, however, that simplifying community perceptions with these terms masks multiple complicated factors that contribute to community opposition to proposed projects including local impacts, the type of facility proposed, and the political, economic, and environmental land-use history of the community. Some researchers claim that the NIMBY label is pejorative, simplistic, and frames those opposed to an energy project as parochial and short sighted. When used in this way, NIMBY casts any local opposition as selfish and hypocritical, and it glosses over the fact that while project benefits may be global, impacts are locally concentrated. ^{Reference Devine-Wright42–Reference Wolsink44,Reference Wolsink50–Reference Devine-Wright and Howes52} The NIMBY concept often assumes that there is general agreement on the usefulness of the proposed facilities and that the local people are opposed simply because they would prefer not to have the project sited nearby.

Wind energy is the LCET that has been deployed at the largest scale so far, so much of the research on complexities of negative public perceptions and local opposition focus on wind. Public perceptions of wind power are related to both wind farms where energy is produced and transmission lines that move energy from where it is produced to where it is consumed. ^{Reference Fischlein, Wilson, Stephens and Peterson53–Reference Klass and Wilson55} With multiple proposed wind farms, perceptions of noise, visual impacts, and other negative aesthetic effects on the landscape and proximity to homes and subsequent impact on property values have emerged as major community concerns. ^{Reference Phadke39} These concerns often become critical during public engagement in the siting process during which public perceptions about the technology can change. If and when project siting becomes controversial public perceptions of LCETs sometimes become increasingly polarized. For example, a Scottish study conducted in a region with a controversial proposed wind farm found that roughly 20% of survey respondents strongly opposed wind power and 28% were strongly in favor. ^{Reference Devine-Wright56}

Some studies indicate that direct experience with wind farms increases public acceptance, ^{Reference Devine-Wright42,Reference Firestone, Kempton and Krueger57–Reference Slattery, Johnson, Swofford and Pasqualetti60} but others report that direct exposure to specific wind projects results in only a marginal increase in public support, and sometimes an increase in negative attitudes. ^{Reference Kontogianni, Tourkolias, Skourtos and Damigos22} For example, Eltham et al. found a Cornwall community's worries about visual and noise intrusion have diminished with project exposure, ^{Reference Eltham, Harrison and Allen59} however negative experiences with on-shore wind turbines in Falmouth Cape Cod have strengthened opposition to the proposed Cape Wind off-shore project. ^{Reference Chesto61}

While much of the research on place-based aesthetic concerns relates to wind power, aesthetic concerns influencing public perceptions of other LCETs have also been explored. Public perceptions of solar power are generally favorable although large-scale solar farms are often perceived negatively. ^{Reference Adaramola62} A recent study on perceptions of solar energy found limited understanding of how solar energy works among high-school students in California. ^{Reference Kishore and Kisiel63} For other LCETs that are more underground than wind and solar, the aesthetic considerations are less influential in public perception. For example, enhanced geothermal systems have received minimal opposition in part because much of the infrastructure is underground and therefore not esthetically apparent. ^{Reference Stephens and Jiusto64} Research on public perceptions of CCS, a nonrenewable LCET that is not well known among the public, demonstrates that perceptions are influenced by multiple social factors and aesthetic concerns are not dominant. ^{Reference Bradbury, Ray, Peterson, Wade, Wong-Parodi and Feldpausch65,Reference Tokushgie, Akimoto and Tomoda66}

How proximity shapes perceptions

Results from studies of how proximity to an energy installation influences community perceptions are mixed. Some have found that proximity to projects increases positive perceptions of wind energy, ^{Reference Swofford and Slattery58,Reference Slattery, Johnson, Swofford and Pasqualetti60} while others found that proximity brought more negative perceptions. ^{Reference Swofford and Slattery58,Reference Krohn and Damborg67} For example, Jones examined public perceptions toward wind projects, comparing residents living close to the proposed sites with a control group living farther away. ^{Reference Jones and Eiser68} The general attitude was similar in both groups, as was their fear of reduced real estate values and the concern that the wind project would “spoil the landscape” ^{Reference Jones and Eiser68} (p. 4609). Research on communities living in close proximity to wind farms in Texas highlights a diversity of perceptions. ^{Reference Swofford and Slattery58}

Perceptions of the potential benefits and risks of a project also are related to the level of trust among those close by and their perceptions of the ability of institutions to manage those risks. ^{Reference Bronfman, Jiminez, Arevalo and Cifuentes69} This is relevant to proximity because concerns about local impact and local-level trust are intricately linked to a community's confidence in those responsible for maintaining their health and safety. ^{Reference Dupuy, Torre, Pitelis, Sugden and Wilson70} More generally it is increasingly acknowledged that local initiatives and spatial proximity has a critical influence on perceptions of energy innovations. ^{Reference Coenen, Raven and Verbong71} Research on CCS has demonstrated that public perceptions are connected to spatial proximity to proposed facilities, ^{Reference Krause, Carley, Warren, Rupp and Graham72} although other factors, including perceptions of the need to take action on climate change, ^{Reference Shackley, McLachlan and Gough73} are also influential.

How demographics of place shape public perceptions

Another dimension connecting place and public perceptions of LCETs relates to demographics; analysis of public perceptions across demographic groups that share individual attributes reveals that demographics also influence perceptions of LCETs. ^{Reference Poortinga, Pidgeon and Lorenzoni12,Reference Devine-Wright56,Reference Moula, Munjur, Maula, Hamdy, Fang, Jung and Lahdelma74,Reference Huijts, Molin and Steg75} Different groups tend to have different attitudes toward risk, and, therefore, different perceptions of LCETs. Reasons for beliefs about energy technologies have been analyzed by personal, socio-psychological and contextual factors. ^{Reference Devine-Wright56,Reference Arvai and Robbins76} Research on personal factors includes evaluation of how age, gender, education, and income influence perceptions of LCETs. Socio-psychological variables like environmental or political beliefs (e.g., is the person a member of the League of Conservation Voters or member of the Conservative Party), knowledge level and factors like place attachment and direct experience with technologies can all shape respondent's perceptions. ^{Reference Lewicka33} Additionally, researchers have examined how contextual or institutional factors like the size or location of projects, institutional structure, and geographic context of the project influence perceptions.

These results often highlight a complex interplay of factors shaping attitudes. For example, in a study on public attitudes on wind energy in Texas, Swofford and Slattery found that while over 93% of respondents indicated that both protection of the environment and conservation of water were important factors influencing their attitudes about wind, only 58% expressed concern about climate change and only 33% believed that the use of fossil fuels was detrimental to the environment. ^{Reference Swofford and Slattery58} While 51% of men were concerned about climate change and 68% of women reported concern, respondents strongly favored more renewable energy use (84%) and the use of more wind energy (70%), highlighting that for many, addressing climate change is not the main driver supporting renewable energy development and that this can vary by gender. ^{Reference Swofford and Slattery58}

Research on risk and risk communication has found differences in how white and nonwhite populations and women and men perceive risks. These studies find that nonwhite males and all females have more similar risk perceptions than white males and that white males' risk attitudes differ from those of every other group. ^{Reference Finucane77} For example, from a summary of UK studies on public perceptions of energy technologies, Devine-Wright summarizes that while women report high levels of support for renewable technologies, they also are more likely to oppose specific projects and have a lower level of technology awareness. ^{Reference Devine-Wright56} Additionally, a larger percentage of women oppose nuclear power than do men. ^{Reference Devine-Wright56} However, gender differences are not consistent across studies. For example, Groth and Vogt found no gender difference in perceptions toward wind power in their Michigan based analysis. ^{Reference Groth and Vogt78}

An additional demographic consideration linked to place is an individual's position and perspective within a community. A study of wind in the Netherlands found varying perceptions of wind deployment among different involved key actors; entrepreneurs tended to be concerned about the political implications of the project and streamlining the procedure, while civil servants perceptions of wind deployment were focused more on strategic initiatives including providing information and engaging with the public. ^{Reference Agterbosch, Glasbergen and Vermeulen79}

How the heritage of place influences perceptions

An additional component of understanding public perceptions relates to the history of the place, including prior land-use as well as historical events that may have influenced public trust and risk perceptions. Land-use regulations and codes have evolved differently in different places reflecting local priorities and regional power dynamics among different actors. These different land-use regulations sometimes reflect public perceptions and priorities, but they also influence public perceptions by defining the types of processes that frame public engagement in the development of LCETs. Beyond historical land-use and regulations, a community's level of trust in an innovative new energy technology may also be related to historical experiences of that place and the cultural landscape. ^{Reference Phadke39,Reference Phadke80,Reference Pasqualetti, Gipe and Righter81} Research on public perceptions has found that levels of trust in government, industry, and the messengers (i.e., individuals and organizations who provide information to the public) are important in shaping perceptions. ^{Reference Bronfman, Jiminez, Arevalo and Cifuentes69,Reference Huijts, Molin and Steg75}

The history of place also relates to environmental attitudes of individuals and communities, and how those attitudes influence perceptions of LCETs. Heberlein's book on environmental attitudes explains why environmental problems cannot be solved simply by changing people's attitudes. ^{Reference Heberlein82} This message extends to energy technology change too; attitudes toward energy technologies include both cognitive (where more of the research has focused) and emotional dimensions. Although research into emotional dimensions of environmental attitudes is less common than research focusing on cognition, it is clear that people's emotional connections to a place are based on their historical experiences in that place. Cultural perceptions of landscape are difficult to assess and are connected to people's emotional connections to the place where they live which is based on their historical experiences in that place and their cultural perceptions of the landscape.

A critical point in the research on attitudes is that emotion can make individuals' attitudes impervious to change, and an emotional shift can also result in drastic shifts in attitudes. ^{Reference Heberlein82} In considering the role of emotion in risk perception, there are two dominant theories: (i) people are generally irrational and their emotional apprehensions are erroneous, and (ii) emotional apprehensions are meaningful and valuable. ^{Reference Kahan and Roeser83} The first perspective dismisses lay people's fear and calls for a greater role in expert risk evaluation to counteract the public's irrationality. The second perspective places value in emotional reactions and offers space for people's perceptions (whether perceived as rational or irrational to others) to be integrated into decision-making. ^{Reference Kahan and Roeser83} The relative influence of these two perspectives on public perceptions of LCETs connects with the historical experiences of individuals, communities, and energy technology developers.

How models of public participation influence process

As social demands on the electricity system have expanded beyond ensuring access, reliability, and affordability to now also including a suite of environmental and economic benefits, the challenges of designing and managing appropriate public processes have become a central concern for many government agencies, industries, and interest groups. This shift places the electricity system at the center of a type of policy problem Meadowcroft ^{Reference Meadowcroft and Lafferty85} identified as being marked by high complexity and the potential for intense conflict. Public engagement processes for LCETs, especially those focused on deployment and siting, have the potential to influence acceptance, indifference, or opposition to specific technologies, and even entire systems.

Public participation (PP) generally refers to communication between an organization responsible for a decision and members of the public who may be impacted by that decision. The most common approaches are written public comment periods and public hearings. Other frequently used approaches include listening sessions, workshops, and various consensus-based processes. ^{Reference Peterson, Feldpausch-Parker, Oetzel and Ting-Toomey86} Although Arnstein ^{Reference Arnstein87} described PP as a redistribution of power from government to individual citizen, that redistribution may be minimal and is not necessarily an essential component of PP. The degree of involvement may range from being allowed to read material produced by project advocates to participating in forums that provide opportunities for individual actors engage with others to explore mutual values and interests, even influencing systemic change. ^{Reference Cox Callister88} Essentially, public involvement still spans a broad range, from the right to know what information was used to arrive at a decision, to direct participation in decisions that may change entire systems. ^{Reference Peterson, Feldpausch-Parker, Oetzel and Ting-Toomey86}

Policy frameworks in many countries require implementation of some sort of public involvement process as part of gaining approval for projects that have the potential to raise significant environmental issues, and energy development falls within this purview. A second reason that research on public engagement processes tends to be project specific is that as noted in the previous section, the lay public tends to ignore energy until a particular project is proposed for local siting. At that point, public interest in the specific technologies associated with the project develops rapidly, and the associated perceptions may be positive or negative, as well as accurate or inaccurate.

Although a thorough discussion of the policies that shape public engagement processes for LCET development and deployment is beyond the scope of this review, a few examples illustrate the point. The U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is historically probably the most significant national law currently mandating PP. Although legal jurisdiction is limited to the United States, “NEPA's influence has been far-reaching, with its progeny in the statute books of 19 states and over 130 of the world's nations” ^{Reference Salzman and Thompson89} (p. 275). Within the United States, NEPA establishes minimum requirements for PP, including scoping of citizen preferences, notification through the Federal Registry, response to all public comments submitted during a specific time period, and argumentation for selection of the final option. NEPA influences energy project siting as well as many other types of developments. The Aarhus Convention (formally UNECE Convention on Access to Information, PP in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters), which entered into force in 2001, moved beyond NEPA to mandate that governments incorporate PP into all decisions regarding environmental matters in over 40 European and Central Asian countries, the European Union, and the European Community. ^{Reference Hunter and Zaelke90} Most of these laws, however, do not specify when, and in what ways the public will participate.

Connections between process and LCETs tend to emerge at the project level because as community members actively engage with LCET siting, engagement becomes a salient issue for project success. At this point, the process of engagement becomes as important as individual perceptions, and firms contemplating million or billion dollar investments have attempted to design processes that encourage public support. People may participate in both formal and informal processes, ranging from public hearings through community meetings, to public rallies. Although project proponents may be tempted to design PP processes to allow only the minimum amount of legally mandated public involvement so that a project can move forward quickly, this approach may backfire and result in stronger public opposition later. ^{Reference Barnett, Burningham, Walker and Cass91}

Participation in formal decision-making processes happens through multiple different mechanisms and venues. Citizens testify before county zoning boards, city councils, state Public Utility Commissions, and at state legislative hearings. The public may formally participate in legislative, regulatory, and administrative hearings, court cases, and administrative appeals. Public receptivity to these engagement processes has not been universally positive. Members of the public often complain that the information they receive is too technical or irrelevant, that agencies have determined the outcome of the situation before involving the public, and that agencies do not make sufficient effort to identify and involve affected stakeholders. Citizens can also protest energy projects outside of traditional administrative channels through marches and demonstrations and increasingly, using electronic and multimedia tools to reach broader audiences and shape the debate, as discussed in section “How process relates to public engagement with energy projects”.

How process relates to perceptions (attitudes, risks, and values)

Both acceptance of and opposition to LCET projects are associated with process in addition to place. In their rhetorical analysis of opposition to wind farm siting, Barry et al. ^{Reference Barry, Ellis and Robinson92} found that those whose opposition had been vilified as NIMBYism were displaying cultural (rather than technical) rationality, which places a premium on value-based decision making and the credibility of decision makers. Their opposition was largely based on personal, familial, and community relationships and the belief that these long-standing relationships had not been considered in decisions to introduce wind turbines into the landscape. Hall et al. provide another example of this process-related problem in an Australian context. ^{Reference Hall, Ashworth and Devine-Wright93} Devine-Wright and Howes ^{Reference Devine-Wright and Howes52} argue that strong place attachment can lead to “negative attitudes and oppositional behavior” regarding wind farm projects, and that “levels of trust in key actors moderated the relation between place attachment and negative attitudes” (p. 271). Their findings indicate that, in situations where residents feel a strong place attachment, designing and facilitating an acceptable public involvement process is crucial to project success. This suggests that NIMBYism is far more complex than a simple desire to have projects sited elsewhere but is a deeply situated personal and social response to the siting process. The right process can help LCET project supporters understand and then respond to emotive dimensions of decision making. Indeed, strong place attachment does not always equate to opposition toward landscape change. Rather, Devine-Wright and Howes ^{Reference Devine-Wright and Howes52} suggest that decision makers can influence public acceptance by designing and implementing processes that moderate how individuals interpret change and how well they accommodate disruption to place attachment.

Planners and decision-makers sometimes reduce problems with LCET siting to a simplistic view of communication failure. ^{Reference Wolsink94} Often these planners and decision-makers assume that if only opponents had the same information that they had, they would be supportive; this common assumption has been termed the “deficit model.” This view presumes that the primary purpose of communication is to remediate the deficit in public understanding of science and technology. From this perspective, public processes should make the public become more aware, better informed, or less ignorant of the potential benefits of LCETs, thus opening the path for acceptance. Wolsink ^{Reference Wolsink34,Reference Wolsink94} contends that processes grounded in this perspective are unlikely to contribute substantially to public support, because public concerns about local plans are determined largely by local perceptions of local conditions, and these perceptions may differ from, without being inferior to, perceptions of project developers, or scientists and engineers.

Much of the research on public perceptions has also been based on a deficit model, assuming that lack of acceptance for new technologies results from the lay public's deficit of knowledge. This research often presumes that if the perceived gaps in technical knowledge were filled, stakeholders would become supportive of implementing the technology. ^{Reference Sturgis and Allum84} When this perspective is applied, process developers and facilitators assume responsibility for ameliorating the public deficit in knowledge. Firestone and Kempton ^{Reference Firestone and Kempton95} illustrate the deficit model when they argue that, “support (for off-shore wind power) would be enhanced by a more complete understanding of both the negative and positive environmental impacts” (p. 1597). In an article that otherwise offers rich suggestions for engaging with publics from their own perspectives, the authors ultimately return to the deficit model, claiming that if only publics more fully understood the science behind a project they would be more likely to accept it. Further, they offer project proponents an excuse that may be comforting but is unlikely to contribute to increased mutual understanding: “Sometimes, public perceptions are so different from those of scientists and analysts that they are difficult to understand” (p. 1597). Our point here is not that the deficit model is wrong, but that it is inadequate. Certainly, “a more complete understanding” of any technological system is desirable, but the idea that public processes should facilitate increased understanding only by remediation of the public deficit leaves out at least two important components. First, residents may have local knowledge that would be valuable to the professionals who have proposed a project. And, second, the professionals who design, develop, and advocate for LCET projects are also citizens.

Public relations research has taken up crises to draw out best (and worst) practices for energy development, particularly in terms of legitimation that largely goes unnoticed as an image management issue until a crisis hits. ^{Reference Breeze96} Such research emphasizes the importance of an anticipatory model for crisis communication so that energy companies' communications in times of crises are interpreted more favorably. ^{Reference Olaniran and Williams97} Case studies show how strategies for communicating with the public should differ at varied stages of crisis, ^{Reference Williams and Olaniran98,Reference Williams and Treadaway99} and how strategies useful in one instance may be less successful in another. For example, Cotton et al. ^{Reference Cotton, Veil and Iannarino100} demonstrated how TEPCO, the Japanese power company held responsible for the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, failed in their attempts to refurbish their organizational image due to inappropriate framing strategies before and after the crisis. Research on best practices for the coal industry notes its relatively widespread success in marketing “clean coal” as a LCET by emphasizing CCS. ^{Reference Miller and Lellis101,Reference Miller102}

How process relates to shifting media environments

Recognizing the growing importance of engaging the public via electronic media, Chewning ^{Reference Chewning103} also recommended the creation of intermedia dialogs so that the same narrative circulates across media platforms. Interactive media are produced by both amateurs and professionals and distributed via multiple platforms. This makes content widely accessible by anyone interested, even those not in the immediate region of a LCET project. ^{Reference Webster104} These shifts in media and technology have changed how the public engages in energy related decisions. In the past, public involvement processes were limited to face-to-face meetings and paper-based campaigns. These techniques have been supplanted by chat rooms, blogs, Facebook pages, Instagram, and Twitter-feeds. ^{Reference Utz, Schultz and Glocka105} The main point is that people interested in LCET siting decisions have new tools that can be combined with more traditional approaches. Publics have access to information through multiple networks that can easily distribute policy briefings, viral videos, and other materials. These tools can be used to support and to oppose LCET projects and initiatives. ^{Reference Stephens, Wilson and Peterson31}

More traditional media continue to play an important role in public processes. ^{Reference Wakefield and Elliott106} Media coverage is shaped by and shapes policy and public opinion in many ways. ^{Reference Graber107–Reference Feldpausch-Parker, Chaudhry, Stephens, Fischlein, Hall, Melnick, Peterson, Ragland and Wilson112} Newspapers, television, and radio continue to influence, inform, and shape public perceptions and conversations about LCETs. News outlets report on technological and social developments, policy issues, and energy-relevant financial ventures, as well as providing opinion pieces aimed at shaping public perceptions. ^{Reference McCombs113,Reference Feldpausch-Parker, Chaudry, Stephens, Fischlein, Hall, Melnick, Peterson, Ragland and Wilson114} Media coverage influences the likelihood of PP in processes designed to engage people in LCET projects by contributing to a project's salience. ^{Reference Culbertson and Stempel115,Reference Dunwoody, Neuwirth, Wilkins and Patterson116} With issues such as LCETs, media often bridge between technical and sociopolitical assessments. ^{Reference Dunwoody, Neuwirth, Wilkins and Patterson116–Reference Singer and Endreny119} Topic choice and framing can influence how publics understand particular technologies and projects, because most people experience new technologies through media coverage rather than directly. ^{Reference Nelson, Oxley and Clawson120} Because media have large potential to influence public perceptions and beliefs, processes for engaging publics should consciously assess mediated conversation as part of project development. ^{Reference Crawley121} For example, recent analysis of fracking in Germany traces two conflicting narratives that represent pro (the golden age of gas) and con (water pollution) sides of the fracking controversy. ^{Reference Schirrmeister122} Research on media coverage of LCETs ^{Reference Gamson and Modigliani110,Reference Crawley121–Reference Langheim, Skubel, Chen, Maxwell, Peterson, Wilson and Stephens126} demonstrates that potential participants in public processes enter any process within a context largely constructed by the media. This context includes interactions between cultural, economic, environmental, political, and technological dimensions of society. ^{Reference Feldpausch-Parker and Peterson111,Reference Feldpausch-Parker, Chaudhry, Stephens, Fischlein, Hall, Melnick, Peterson, Ragland and Wilson112,Reference Fischlein, Peterson, Stephens and Wilson127,Reference Stephens, Peterson and Wilson128}

How process relates to public engagement with energy projects

Several researchers have expanded the study of public processes involved in siting decisions beyond notions of ameliorating public deficits and top-down marketing as means of persuasion. Some research on PP in energy futures argues for models that go beyond simplistic expectations of producing public acquiescence as a result of remediating a deficit or marketing new products. This research suggests publics should be brought into conversation much earlier in the decision making process, ^{Reference Davies and Selin129–Reference Kinsella, Kelly and Kittle Autry131} and that local publics may even bring important knowledge to the table. ^{Reference Klassen and Feldpausch-Parker132} For example, Davies and Selin ^{Reference Davies and Selin129} point out common tensions that emerge in energy deliberation and argue for the value of an anticipatory governance framework across multiple energy technologies. Some research indicates that public processes will be more effective if they include overt attempts to understand the mental models of the multiple publics that see themselves as impacted by a technology or a project. ^{Reference Sterman133} This provides a first step toward harmonizing mental models held primarily by technical experts with models held by members of the lay public. Processes that consider the mental models of all those involved in a process have strong potential for bridging gaps between different groups. ^{Reference Fischhoff134}

Engagement with energy projects at the community level links project developers with local community members. One of the most important factors to emerge from the literature on engagement is the concept of procedural justice. For example, Zoellner et al. found that an engagement process was more likely to be successful if it could demonstrate ^{Reference Zoellner, Schweizer-Ries and Wemheuer135} :

1. (i) Consistent or equal treatment across individual people and situations,

2. (ii) Absence of self-interest on the part of those coordinating the process, and

3. (iii) Adherence to basic moral and ethical values.

The process should also provide:

1. (iv) Accurate information,

2. (v) Opportunities for representation for all interested parties, and

3. (vi) The possibility for participants to change their minds.

They also found that people were more likely to accept projects from companies that had previously demonstrated their commitment to the locale. Procedural justice is not as easy to demonstrate as it may seem. For example, in southern Evia in Greece, while respondents' support of wind energy was strong, people were disappointed by the limited opportunities of engaging with public and private institutions, and they believed the information they received was too limited. ^{Reference Kaldellis and Kavadias136,Reference Kaldellis137} Maille' and Saint-Charles ^{Reference Maillé and Saint-Charles138} studied information diffusion in Quebec, and concluded that citizen hostility to a wind farm stemmed largely from the belief that project promoters had strategically excluded them from the process. Fenton et al., ^{Reference Fenton, Gustafsson, Ivner and Palm139} who studied stakeholder engagement processes in energy development and climate change strategies in 60 municipalities throughout Sweden concluded that the most generalizable principles for effective public process were to engage with stakeholders early, frequently, and completely.

Sometimes projects encounter opposition for economic reasons. Zoellner et al. ^{Reference Zoellner, Schweizer-Ries and Wemheuer135} also found that individual cost-benefit calculations were one of the strongest predictors of project acceptance, indicating that immediate self-interest remains important to acceptance of LCETs. One of the main arguments for local development of energy projects is the generation of local economic benefits, including jobs, ^{Reference Bidwell48,Reference Slattery, Johnson, Swofford and Pasqualetti60,Reference Munday, Bristow and Cowell140} but how local communities perceive their own potential to reap these benefits can shape a community's perception of the project. For example, in an analysis of wind development in Wales, Munday et al. found that most of the economic benefits of wind development have not gone to local communities and this can shift public perceptions of projects. ^{Reference Munday, Bristow and Cowell140} Warren and McFadyen ^{Reference Warren and McFadyen141} surveyed Scottish residents to test whether community owned wind-farms positively influenced local attitudes toward wind farms and found that local ownership did increase positive attitudes toward wind power. Community co-ownership was found to positively affect perceptions in Southern Germany, ^{Reference Musall and Kuik142} but different financial mechanism dominates in different locations. For example, in Spain, over 95% of projects are owned by public–private partnerships and this mechanism has been identified as critical for wind development there. ^{Reference Dinica143}

Successful processes work together with culture, economics, and politics at local, national, and even international levels. For example Toke et al. ^{Reference Toke, Breukers and Wolsink144} studied the relationships of planning systems, financial support, landscape protection groups, and patterns of ownership to compare the development of wind energy in England, Denmark, Spain, the Netherlands, and Germany. These researchers highlight the importance of the national context in shaping local siting decisions and the relative power/ability of local communities to change energy technology development patterns. Engagement opportunities and preferences vary widely. In most North American and European contexts, members of the lay public expect opportunities to engage within the planning and siting process. The value of widespread public involvement in energy development also has been noted in other regions. For example, in 2000, Peru became a medium-range gas exporting country. Its energy policy, which had previously been highly centralized, now relies on consensus processes that ensure citizens are integrated in and engaged with increased horizontal and decentralized decision making. Fontaine ^{Reference Fontaine145} found that this shift contributed to environmental and economic sustainability, as well as to positive working relationships between the State, energy companies, NGOs, and indigenous communities.

In all of these situations, the ideals of deliberative democracy and the importance of public engagement in local decisions have become important to energy governance and siting. ^{Reference Phadke80} For example, in Denmark, renewable energy development and the creation of a low-carbon smart grid aligns with national energy policy and social consciousness and contributes to the Danish goal of replacing fossil fuels with local, renewable energy, as well as the global need to mitigate anthropogenic climate change. The deployment of EcoGrid EU on the Danish island of Bornholm illustrates the importance of integrating culture, economics, and politics at multiple jurisdictional levels into LCET deployment. ^{Reference Stephens, Wilson and Peterson31} EcoGrid EU aligned with both national goals to minimize dependence on imported fossil fuels and local goals to ensure continued access to electricity when links to the sub-sea cable connecting the island to the larger grid are inadvertently cut. Educational materials noted this alignment and “appealed more to good citizenship rather than narrow financial gains” ^{Reference EcoGrid146} (p. 32). Dieter Gantenbein, a smart grid researcher with IBM-Zurich explained, for Danes “preservation of the environment, It's like a sport. They use different technologies, and by being engaged, they are very enthusiastic to participate in such an ambitious pilot” ^{Reference Kumagai147} (p. 6). Building on this idea, volunteer recruitment focused on social and environmental values, emphasizing that participants would be helping develop an eco-friendly electrical system. This orientation also shaped project claims, volunteers were promised that they would not pay more to participate, but they were not promised that they would save money.

Why process matters to LCET futures and innovative ways forward

One reason that process matters so much to the future of LCETs is that the form of engagement can either encourage or discourage deployment. This is especially the case with technologies that are associated with politically controversial topics. LCETs are especially vulnerable to political ideology, because much of the justification for their deployment comes from the argument that anthropogenic climate change is real and problematic. Within the United States, for example, this remains a controversial claim and is subject to political manipulation. ^{Reference Leiserowitz148,Reference Boykoff and Boykoff149} For example, Fletcher noted that the frame of scientific skepticism has been used to justify U.S. inaction on climate change, while the frame of security threat has challenged the validity of inaction. She argued that a frame of economic opportunity could offer a way out of the stalemate, largely due to its strong positive link to technological optimism, or the assumption that new technology will enable industrial transformation to remedy past mistakes. ^{Reference Fletcher150} Indeed, framing of wind projects in states like Texas has largely emphasized economic development. ^{Reference Wilson and Stephens151}

Building from the same logic, some researchers advocate meeting publics where they are, rather than waiting until they change their political ideologies or become more technically educated. For example, in the United States, those who oppose investment and development of LCETs have successfully framed climate change as a struggle between good and evil, rather than as a practical problem that needs to be confronted. While scientists and engineers can be uncomfortable with such dramatic framing, Feldpausch-Parker et al. ^{Reference Feldpausch-Parker, O’Byrne, Endres and Peterson152} suggested that since drama resonates with the public, one way of engaging the lay public is to tap into people's tendency to conceptualize issues in terms of a struggle between heroes and villains. They developed and tested an educational video game that frames anthropogenic CO₂ emissions as the villain and humans as heroes who use science and technology to mitigate anthropogenic climate change. Students who played the game experienced a knowledge increase that suggests options for productively reframing climate change toward an emphasis on technological mitigation through LCETs.

Public engagement can take many nontraditional forms. For example, Perreault and Valdivia ^{Reference Perreault and Valdivia153} found that struggles over hydrocarbon governance and resource development in Ecuador and Bolivia both relied on and contributed to evolving meanings for human development and national identity. Although more traditional discussions such as competition for scarce resources remained important, theatrical performances by popular movement activists helped people to re-imagine the nation-state and the benefits and costs of hydrocarbon development.