Identifying the determinants of community acceptance of renewable energy technologies: The case study of a wind energy project from Tunisia

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 151–160

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Identifying the determinants of community acceptance of renewable energy technologies: The case study of a wind energy project from Tunisia Samiha Mjahed Hammami b,1, Sahar chtourou a,n,2, Abdelfattah Triki c,3 a

Department Marketing-Institut Superieur de Gestion of Tunis (ISG), Tunisia Marketing at the College of Business Administration, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia c Marketing at Al-Kamel-Jeddah University, Saudi Arabia b

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 20 January 2015 Received in revised form 10 June 2015 Accepted 18 September 2015

By adopting an abductive logic where we iteratively synthesize existing theory and field work, and by apprehending the Sidi Daoud wind park case from a social perspective, a comprehensive model is proposed in terms of input, process and output and hinging around the pivotal role of community acceptance construct which is believed to enrich our understanding of how local residents form their responses to the implantation of a renewable energy project and to account for differences in its outcome, i.e, in terms of success or failure. & 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Nimby Community acceptance Wind energy Benefit-sharing Participation Case study

Contents 1. 2.

3. 4.

n

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Social acceptance of renewable energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Public acceptance and public opinion polls: identification of a problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. How to explain opposition to siting proposals?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4. Public understanding of science: key theoretical themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1. Rationales for public engagement in decision-making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2. Public understanding of science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3. Public and public opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.4. “Paradigms” for comprehending PUS: from the deficit-model to more participatory approaches of public engagement . . . . . 2.4.5. Public understanding of renewable energy (PURE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5. Wind energy capacity in Tunisia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Level 1: macro-level attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1. Socio-political acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2. Market acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Level 2: micro-level attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S.M. Hammami), [email protected] (S. chtourou), [email protected] (A. Triki). 1 Mobile: þ 216 23239920. 2 Address : Rue de Tunis KM 4, markez bouacida 3031, Sfax Tunisie. Mobile: þ 216 99246443/ þ 216 53787970. 3 Mobile: þ 216 98352095.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.037 1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

152 152 152 152 153 153 153 154 154 154 155 155 155 156 156 156 156 156

152

S.M. Hammami et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 151–160

4.2.1. Community acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2. Internal characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3. External characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Introduction

2. Literature review

The need to shift from the current fossil-fuel based energy system towards a more environmentally friendly option has become a prerequisite for many countries aiming at fulfilling the global energy demand and addressing the perils of environmental degradation [1]. In essence, the initial surveys on public opinion showed high levels of advocacy for the deployment of renewables, among them is the particular case of wind energy power [2]. However, the implantation of these innovative technologies has been met with significant public resistance creating much uncertainty for their future development [2]: as wind farm facilities are being erected or installed, the lack of social acceptance poses a major barrier to the attainment of our objectives in terms of ensuring a greener electricity production and increased security supply. Additionally, the dissension between the general public support and actual results, for long time explained by and referred to as “Not in my Backyard” oppositional tactic [3], has been criticized from several perspectives. Hence, more emphasis should be placed on the understanding of “what the public thinks”, by overcoming the mere comprehension of public opinion and by setting for a deeper knowledge of the way in which attitudes are formed and shaped [4,5]. An alternative framework is then needed instead of limiting reflection to the negative effect of spatial closeness. In this article, we combine existing literature and field based work to set for a comprehensive model that advances our understanding of how local residents form their responses to the implantation of a wind energy project when located in the vicinity of their homes. By consolidating multiple stockholder viewpoints, we tried to identify and analyze factors that are more likely to lead to a favorable outcome of project successfulness. Understanding how locals form their own perceptions, and what factors are likely to shape these latter, may then enable development companies to more accurately launch renewable energy projects and to match affected community members' perceptions. Just like any work addressing the theme of social acceptance, the first section will draw attention to its central facets. From section two onwards, more specificity will be provided and light will be shed on public opinion polls as means for evaluating general public support and reflecting a rough picture of public understanding. Then, we will give critical thoughts to the NIMBY syndrome while enumerating the different individual explanations for opposition to siting proposals. Section number four will underline the key conceptual insights from public understanding of science (PUS) literature: in the first subsection, all possible justifications for public engagement in the process of decision making will be outlined, followed by defining and stressing the importance of PUS, public, and public opinion notions; after that the logic of evolution of PUS will be clarified by moving from a deficit model of public understanding to more participatory approaches of public engagement. Finally, emphasis will be placed on public understanding of renewable energy (PURE) and ways for achieving it.

2.1. Social acceptance of renewable energy

156 157 158 159 159 159

[2] were among the pioneers to claim that social acceptance (SA) has to be conceptualized as a multidimensional concept. So, comprehending the term necessitates its decomposition into 3 levels: the most general one is referred to as socio political acceptance and concerns the capability of formulating efficient policies (of course by all interested parties like policy makers, regulators..) in a way that promotes the two remaining dimensions of market and community acceptance drawn in the bottom of the following triangle: At the intermediate level, just between policies that were nationally crafted and local communities, social acceptance gives evidence of its second dimension named market acceptance and involves the double role of consumers and investors who are respectively responsible for boosting the adoption, use and production or manufacturing of the new expanding forms of energy. As opposed to the general level, community acceptance represents the most detailed one, involving the magnitude to which siting decisions are accepted by local residents and authorities, the way in which policymaking is carried out and the manner in which charges and gains are shared. A community encloses a number of people living in the same space, sharing common ties and socially interacting with each other [6]. The latter conceptualization falls into the category of “territorybased” communities that considers geographical boundaries to be a crucial element of a community. However, with the technological revolution and industrialization, a second kind of “territory-free” communities has emerged [7]. These communities are defined as social entities with no geographic frontiers. In fact, [8] identified 2 compatible, yet different characterizations of community members: first, individuals belonging to the same community share both encouraging and reinforcing interrelationships. Second, they must feel committed to the shared set of rules or standards, values, and meanings they have in common. In this approach, social scientists become inclined to focus on “communities of interest” as a form of gathering which embraces people by the time they become part of the same mutual identity, start to share the same interests and responsibilities (with or without) belonging to the same geographical scope. 2.2. Public acceptance and public opinion polls: identification of a problem In an attempt to draw a representative image of the public responses to the REs exploitation, public opinion polls were nationally conducted but unfortunately via questions inspired from unreal contexts, and about projects that are specific to certain locations. So instead of reflecting the attitudes of a population as a whole, the polls only reflect broad image of a precise point in time. In spite of their limitations, public opinion polls are essential to obtaining an idea about what the public thinks and feels

S.M. Hammami et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 151–160

Nomenclature BSM LBS NIMBY

PUS

Benefit Sharing Mechanisms Local Benefit Sharing Not In My Backyard Public Understanding of Science

concerning a well defined issue and aiding all interested parties (pressure groups, politicians…) in the process of decision making. In what concerns the case of renewable energy, [9] conducted a very interesting and comprehensive review of the energy situation (its seriousness or severity, its security in terms of future supplies, its salience as a national issue and finally its policies) during 15 years that is between 1979 and 1993. For that, 23 questions were asked but for reasons of simplification; we are going to explain only the first six: responses to the first and the second one revealed high levels of concern among more than 75% of respondents although coupled at first by a feeling of denial as a lot of people did not deem the energy situation as risky or in crisis. Responses to the third and fourth questions indicated a decreased level of confidence in energy supplies. As a feedback to the fifth question, appreciation of the amount of money spent on energy supply changed from “too little” to “about right” pointing out two possible explanations: either energy is not perceived as a huge national problem the way it was before or that the fact of rising energy supply is no longer perceived as a remedy, like it used to be, by the public. The final and sixth question underlined the importance of setting an energy policy and considering that as one of the congress responsibilities and priorities. Generally speaking, the above-mentioned observations led to high levels of public support as regards to the utilization and expansion of REs in the USA. Likewise, most people are in favor of wind power in many countries: ever since scholars started investigating wind power attitudes in 1980, studies had demonstrated general public advocacy in the United States [10], in the Netherlands [11] and the United Kingdom [5]. Even among countries that have only recently chosen to implement wind energy, surveys generated the same results of strong support in Greece [12] and Sweden [13]. Even though the results summarized above are highly supportive of the adoption of renewable forms of energy, projects of the type indicated, often end up being confronted to local opposition. 2.3. How to explain opposition to siting proposals? “NIMBY” is a widely used term to describe communities' reluctance to unwanted developments located in close proximity to their homes and enclosing several forms of projects amongst them are projects deriving from energy infrastructure technologies [14]. Conducting successful renewable technology projects assume considerable importance in achieving European policy aims (generating 20% of electricity from clean energy sources by 2020 and diminishing greenhouse carbon emissions by 60% by 2050) appearing in the energy white paper for the year 2003 [15]. Even though, various opinion polls have shown favorable attitudes towards expanding clean energy sources [16], proposed energy schemes will be immediately confronted to local opposition and end up being either postponed or even cancelled [5]. Explaining this dissension between general public support and local resistance holds then a predominant place in both practice and research and further explorations are needed to be done in these areas.

PURE RE RETs RES SA

153

Public Understanding of Renewable Energy Renewable Energy Renewable energy technologies Renewable Energy Sources Social Acceptance

NIMBY has the dual role of description and explanation of local resistance. NIMBY refers to the protectionist attitudes of and oppositional tactics adopted by community groups facing an unwelcome development in their neighborhood. Residents usually concede that these ‘‘noxious’’ facilities are necessary, but not near their homes, hence the term ‘‘not in my back yard’’ ([17], p. 288). NIMBY has given clarifications for reasons, motives, beliefs or values held by the opponents of renewable energy technologies. [18] identified 3 perspectives presenting the NIMBY as a response to technological risks but according to each one of them the public is qualified by being at first, ignorant, second, selfish and third prudent. In view of an irrational public, a public that over estimate the risks associated to the new developments or a public simply characterized as being “wrong” due to a lack of disposable information, planners will be confronted to 2 choices: educating and enlarging the targeted population's knowledge or simply overruling those decisions. This first standpoint makes use of the “deficit model of public understanding” that pictures members of the public as not having sufficient or not disposing of correct knowledge. Such a viewpoint has been decried by several sociological scientists who made proof that members of the public play an active role in acquiring scientific information even in learning the most complicated details. In addition, individuals showed high levels of interest in acquiring information, depending on how they perceive its usefulness. The second perspective was founded on the assumption that each member of the general public is looking for its well being. In this way, the NIMBY is judged to be equal to selfishness and might be underestimated or considered as less important than other kinds of protest merely based on environmental and social reasons [19]. On the other side, those sorts of actions could not be easily condemned when taken inside a free market systems' framework. Beyond irrationality and selfishness, the third strand of thoughts introduces the concept of “prudent” public: more precisely, members of the public act in a reasonable way in distrusting scientists, and compared to the planning experts, they are capable to assess the siting problems in broader terms. Linked to this, [20] found other kinds of explanations for the “no” decision to the land uses by investigating citizens’ attitudes towards a hazardous waste incinerator. Those explanations are mainly linked to “lack of trust in government, fear of health consequences, and other ideological or demographic factors”. 2.4. Public understanding of science: key theoretical themes 2.4.1. Rationales for public engagement in decision-making In fact, there are many reasons for letting the public be a part of the decision making process about the use of energy technology. The socio-technological approach, as it was presented by [21], proposed three of the most commonly used rationales and these also present a summary of the existing documentation on PUS research in general:  Normative rationale/democratic ideal: as its name suggests, this rationale indicates that members of the public have the right to participate in decision-making in order to achieve maximum of

154

S.M. Hammami et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 151–160

democracy. So we talk here about democratic involvement that gives the opportunity for all individuals who will be affected by the decision to intervene. And it could take several forms from “opinion polls” to “participatory practices”.  Substantive rationale: according to this rationale, public involvement serves to enhance the decisions' quality by coupling both expert and non expert knowledge. This case is quite obvious when the decision-making requires a local knowledge.  Instrumental rationale: here the degree of public support for the decision will be influenced by the level of public involvement in the process. Indeed, decision makers have interest in including members of the general public because trust between all interested parties will be boosted. The above mentioned arguments yield advantages for this participatory procedure. First, involving non stage actors in making policy decisions is in favor of the legitimacy and public acceptance of governance arrangements. Second, it substantively improves plans by exploiting local knowledge and it serves to resolve political and societal conflicts. Third, it allows empowering marginalized groups that were excluded from environmental governance [22]. 2.4.2. Public understanding of science The concept of public understanding of science has been widely recognized as a well-established concept. In fact, in 1992 an academic journal was founded under the same heading. [23] have adopted a 3-fold conceptual definition of public understanding of science PUS: (1) “Debunking of superstitions, half-knowledge, complete and utter ignorance, misunderstanding and mumbo-jumbo, and virulent memes that give rise to antiscience.” (2) PUS is to “improve science literacy, to mobilize favorable attitudes in support of science and new technology, to increase interest in science among young people and other segments of society, and to intensify public's engagement with science in general and for the greater good of society.” (3) “PUS considers common sense as an asset” and PUS research should “chart out the public controversies arising from new developments and in different regions of the world” illustrated by “the impact of the climate of opinion on knowledge production.” Why does it matter? Promoting public understanding of science should be viewed as an investment rather than a luxury to be saved for some future date for several reasons. It helps improve national prosperity: Even though converting the link between PUS and national prosperity into numbers is as hard as that between a company's profitability and its efforts in research and development, there is strong evidence that economies which had continuously invested in science and technology succeed in constructing a well-built manufacturing industry then in achieving long-term economic growth and national prosperity. It helps to improve the quality of decisions either privately or publicly made: disposing of a degree of knowledge about the technological and scientific aspects of an issue, helps individuals embracing various positions in the decision making spheres, to decide what is adequate for the well being of their companies and that of the society in general and helps them making better or more rational decisions instead of making the “right” decision as compared to their performance when misinformed. The same reason could be duplicated on the personal level and as we saw the nation's economy getting better, private lives could also be improved through a better understanding of science.

2.4.3. Public and public opinion In their article, [24] have always tied the two words of public and issue together and have presented some specificities relative to the public in an attempt to make a difference between what we call a crowd and a mass: while being a part of a crowd is only based on shared emotions, being part of a public requires the capability of thinking, defending an idea, exchanging thoughts and trying to find rational solutions with regard to a specific issue. On the other hand, a mass is an assembly of heterogeneous individuals who do not frequently communicate together and are usually receiving information and opinions via television, for example, without expressing their own. To sum up, joining a public necessitates the dimensions of communication, criticizing and interchanging ideas in order to find suitable resolutions called also communal interaction. This is from where public opinion has taken its legitimacy (we do not talk about mass opinion or crowd opinion). The authors advanced 5 distinct definitions of public opinion; all of them assembled together serve to answer the following questions: who is supposed to hold these opinions? Does public opinion mean the simple summation of what each citizen thinks? Or are there certain intellectual abilities that qualify a person to reach socially helpful and practical beliefs and to make them publicly known? Moreover should we put particular emphasis on who is speaking out the opinion or on what the issue will be about? 2.4.4. “Paradigms” for comprehending PUS: from the deficit-model to more participatory approaches of public engagement The public understanding of science literature was developed to gain more insights into the relationships between science and public. Thus, trying to figure out which kind of problems does science confront with members of the public and which are the most suitable solutions to resolve them. Public understanding of science (PUS) researchers carried out a series of large-scale surveys of public responses in favor of some parties like scientific institutions and governments. Their work revealed a public lack in “knowledge, attitude and trust”. Indeed [23] made a review over 25 years of the academic discussions on PUS research and they were able to identify 3 consecutive paradigms that show a degree of progress when moving from one to another. In spite of some differences between them, these paradigms should not be viewed as contrasting sides but help conduct and illuminate research. Table 1 gives a résumé of the evolution of public understanding of science by presenting three phases: each period is characterized by an attribution of a precise deficit either among the public in the first and second phases (literacy and PUS) or among the experts in the third phase of science-in-society. Starting with the scientific literacy, this paradigm stresses the importance of knowledge in general and scientific research or inquiry in particular giving rise to the development of a deficit Table 1 Paradigms, problems and proposals (adapted from [23]). Period

Attribution problems

Proposals research

Science literacy 1960s onwards Public understanding After 1985

Public deficit Knowledge Public deficit Attitudes Education

Literacy measures Education Knowledge-attitude Attitude change Image marketing

Trust deficit Expert deficit Notion of public Crisis of confidence

Participation Deliberation “Angels” mediators Impact evaluation

Science and society 1990s-present

S.M. Hammami et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 151–160

model of PUS which specifies that members of the public need to be informed and well educated so they can make rational choices. These thoughts are consistent with Bauer et al. [23] postulation “The more you know, the more you love it” (p. 83) and the whole model form an integral part of the “rationalist approach of decision-making”. However, the deficit model lacks certain elementary variables that exert impacts on public opinion such as social values, norms, emotions and beliefs. In addition, [23] state: “(…) empirical investigations of the knowledge/attitude relationship have remained inconclusive until recently. Surveys do show a small positive correlation between knowledge and positive attitudes, but they also show larger variance among the knowledgeable: with controversial issues, the correlation tends to be lower or zero.” (p. 84). Relating to renewable energy, this correlation between knowledge and acceptance needs further investigation as findings vary from favorable (a significant correlation was found for several forms of RETs, [25] to unfavorable (no correlation found; [26]. The latter case might be restricted to Biomass because; unlike other kinds of RES (wind, solar energy…), its correspondent awareness is still low. In most cases, we can deduce that a certain level of knowledge, even a minimum, is required for acceptability to raise but it will not directly result in high standards of acceptability. Moreover, [23] further clarify: “In attitude theory, it is well known that knowledge is not a lever of positive attitudes, but of the quality of attitudes. Attitudesboth positive or negative-that are based on knowledge are more likely to resist change; knowledge makes the difference between attitudes and non-attitudes, and not between positive or negative attitudes”. (p. 84). It’s also worth mentioning that scholars should be so careful when evoking the deficit model as it can categorize opinions as meaningless when they should be classified as deviating but meaningful. Since 1985, a second paradigm has emerged and instead of dealing with knowledge and scientific inquiry, the light was shed on negative attitudes towards technology and science in general [23]. The idea of attitude’s change, originating either from persuasion or education, was then supported. Furthermore, showing non positive attitudes was misunderstood and considered as an irrational response in accordance with the not in my backyard syndrome that advances local opposition to the wind farm siting proposals as an egoistic response arising from unjustifiable reasons. Similarly to the aforementioned paradigms, a new deficit relative to the technical experts and scientific institutions was detected. The reason why the deficit has shifted to the other side of the relationship is that private actors often form false ideas about the public and view individuals as disqualified to participate in the science policy life which creates a crisis of trust among the public. Deliberative measures need to be applied so as to gain public trust a second time [23]. Actually public engagement was proceeded through several ways such as deliberative workshops, consensus conferencing, citizen juries etc [27]. However, public consultation received criticism the same way knowledge did: Neither knowledge nor public participation necessarily enhances acceptability. 2.4.5. Public understanding of renewable energy (PURE) 2.4.5.1. Importance of PURE. Since our attention is directed towards renewable energy, we have to put the finger on a sub-concept of PUS that is public understanding of renewable energy: PURE is an issue of great importance for many reasons. One of them is that we live on the earth the only habitable planet since Venus and Mars are inadequate places for life (the first one is too hot, the second is too cold). So if we destroy our planet, we won’t be able to replace

155

it. Perverse effects human beings exert on earth and particularly global warming are caused by greenhouse gas releases (carbon dioxide CO2) and methane (CH4) and those gasses are mainly caused by the combustion of fossil fuels. This is why the replacement of conventional energy sources by renewable ones and the public understanding of these unharmful energy alternatives is primal. 2.4.5.2. How to achieve PUS and PURE?. Promoting the spirit of learning among members of society begins with a first step of formal education. This educational system should provide young people with adequate base of skills and knowledge enabling them to integrate into society, and to enter and maintain participation in the job market throughout their lives. However, the formal education can neither achieve high and immediate standards of understanding among citizens nor remain sufficient throughout their life courses. Then comes the role of both scientific community and mass media (newspapers, magazines, radio and television in particular) to resolve the problem of scientific illiteracy as citizens are, up to the present time, unable to comprehend how science really works, to think critically and profoundly, to come out with conclusions by using evidential reasoning or whose beliefs and opinions to follow. Unfortunately, media provide pathetically little serve to (if not strongly against) the objective of public understanding of science since it is unlikely that screen writers, newspaper editors… have basic knowledge of science in the expectation that the knowledge derived may benefit the general public. 2.5. Wind energy capacity in Tunisia The dissemination of the use of environmentally friendly technologies (and the particular case of wind energy) has been accompanied by intensive work on meteorological data. These studies were directed toward identifying the windiest zones and guaranteeing an efficient functioning of any installed wind system. [28] provided a comprehensive study of the wind power levels at 17 different zones from the Tunisian territory and at different high levels over the soil. As indicated in (Fig. 2), another study indicated that some of the regions located in the north-east of Tunisia show substantial potentials of wind energy generation and high wind speed levels of 10–15 m/s. These regions have been evaluated to be the most adequate for the production of sustainable electricity. The currently used wind power capacity is about 114 MW but may attain 1000 MW and when clean energy potentials are fully exploited, this will cover up to 4% of the NE (National Energy) production exceeding those in North America and Europe [29]. Located around 10 km from El Houaria, the first wind facility was constructed in three stages. The park was initially launched with 32 aerogenerators in 2000; extended a first time by 12 turbines and for the second time by 26 turbines. In sum, and with the conduct of the state of the art, the development of a valuable, coordinated and comprehensive model across the diversity of scattered factors and interpretations that might induce a successful implantation of a RE project has proved to be a major challenge. For that, we cycled between theoretical and practical aspects and tried to order them referring to social acceptance.

3. Methodology This research is an exploratory investigation based on abductive logic. Going to and fro from literature to fieldwork, we mixed existing theory and reality based insights to deepen our

156

S.M. Hammami et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 151–160

Fig. 1. The triangle of social acceptance of renewable energy innovation (adapted from [2]).

the siting of wind turbines is also a matter of political and regulatory acceptance. The socio-political acceptance conveys the institutional engagement in terms of planning systems, financial support mechanisms, presence and roles of landscape protection organisations and patterns of local ownership. The more policymakers allow such ways of engagement, the more they facilitate local ownership and support collaborative participation in project decision-making. One interviewee assumes that: “The government has accepted to provide us with free electricity after resistance of community members toward the wind energy project. Such incentive has changed our attitudes and we have finally accepted the project.” Proposition 1a: The success/failure of RE is associated to sociopolitical acceptance. Proposition 1b: Community acceptance of RE is associated to socio-political acceptance. 4.1.2. Market acceptance Market acceptance is the process of adaptation and diffusion of an innovation by market parties. It encompasses consumers (that must adopt a technology), investors (that want to support its manufacturing and use) and intra-firm acceptance (how social acceptance is constructed within firms) (e.g, [32]). When asked about factors that might increase the successfulness of a RE project, a project developer declared:

Fig. 2. The map of wind levels distribution over the country (adapted from [12]).

understanding of acceptance as a crucial determinant of RE project success/failure. An exploratory case study of community perceptions of one wind energy project was conducted: the Sidi Daoud Wind Park. Empirical data was collected both from primary and secondary sources: documents, archival records, in depthinterviews and direct observation. Reports on public consultation, internal and external STEG (Société Tunisienne d’Electricité et du Gaz) documents were assessed. Twelve semi-structured interviews were also carried out until theoretical saturation was achieved. Informants were STEG project planners, regional authorities and citizens of the Sidi Daoud Wind Park. Questions hinge around the determinants of success and failure of wind energy projects and the importance of community acceptance in such processes. All interviews were recorded, re-transcribed and coded to content analysis. We compared the patterns in the data, discussed differences in coding outcomes, revised as necessary the substantiated themes and developed categories, refined by rechecking the raw data and confirming interpretation.

4. Analysis Documentary and interviews corpus analysis provided deep insights into the determinants of the success or the failure of RE projects. These factors fall into two levels: macro level attributes and micro level attributes. Two categories appear at a high-level formed by market and socio-political acceptance. Another category, related to the local community, appears at a less higher-level including community acceptance, internal and external characteristics. 4.1. Level 1: macro-level attributes

“Despite the capability of producing green energy by renewables, the Tunisian market is immature. This is due to the lack of national manufacturing and financing basis. So we cannot benefit from low cost. Such factors influence the RE project technologically, financially and socially. In fact, community members are deprived of different incentives”. Yet in order to achieve successful outcomes, project managers need to consider other aspects of the project: technological, operational, market and financial issues. Proposition 2a: The success/failure of RE is associated to market acceptance. Proposition 2b: Community acceptance of RE is associated to market acceptance. 4.2. Level 2: micro-level attributes These cover attributes related to the local community: community acceptance, internal and external characteristics. 4.2.1. Community acceptance Emanating from all the data collected, meanings attributed to RE developments' community acceptance revolve around two key dimensions of benefit-sharing with indigenous people and active participation of communities in management processes. Respectively, the first dimension is an outcome element concerned with the provision of affected locals with new economic and social opportunities in response to the perverse outcomes of project impacts; while the second is a process dimension mainly related to the active involvement of citizens in the planning, installation and development of the project in general. Community acceptance stems from these two dimensions which will eventually lead to enhancing community members' common ties, social interaction and spatial consciousness of their lived experience.

These cover socio-political acceptance and market acceptance. 4.1.1. Socio-political acceptance Bottom–up developments have proved to be necessary for the successful implementation of wind energy [30,31] underlines that

4.2.1.1. Local benefit sharing. In terms of outcomes, participants made it clear that when deriving neither private nor collective gain will boost the scope of resentment and protestation. Despite the fact that the major beneficiaries from divisive developments

S.M. Hammami et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 151–160

can live far away from the site areas, others who live nearby often believe they are being asked to endure the burden of adverse impacts [33], manifested in the form of losing fertile lands for cultivation, social resettlement issues, changes in livelihood activities and lifestyles and so forth. The countering of these impacts might seem difficult, but recourse to a more equitable benefit-sharing approach will allow for a balance between project-related opportunities and risks and therefore help gain support among hosted communities. Additionally, the exposure of both investors and operators to risk is likely to be diminished because the existence of an explicit policy framework with a guarantee that local populations take advantage from the erection and operation of projects both in monetary and nonmonetary terms is an indicator they will show more cooperation on the various stages of project implementation. From the government standpoint, taking action to share benefits is also a practical tool to promote political support for sustained land-use development. Among the frequently used benefit sharing mechanisms (BSM), are revenue sharing, job creation, preferential electricity tariffs, investments in local road networks, and associated public service investments. Such benefits are an important reason for joining and then sustaining participation. Higher levels of economic and social benefits lead to higher levels of involvement in the project. Conversely, creating opportunities for community participation enhance opportunities outcome favorability and outcome fairness. The former is where a person receives a positive, rather than negative outcome, and the latter is where the outcome is judged to be fair against a societal standard or common value judgment [34]. In addition, our data illustrate that the benefit-sharing with indigenous people can be assimilated to an enabling condition for the creation of a basis of community acceptance along three mechanisms: sense of common ties, sense of social interaction and sense of spatial consciousness. 1. Sense of common ties: as community members share common heritage, interests, beliefs and acquired experiences; they will tend to support projects that are more likely to further develop their common sharing sense which is evident here: “Being members from the local community of Sidi Daoud -the very first village producing sustainable energy creates something more in common between us … that is sharing the experience of sustainable energy production but unfortunately the project fails in shaping and guiding the experience of sustainable energy consumption" 2. Sense of social interaction: it refers to the degree to which RE developments embetter the quality of life in Sidi Daoud as a relational tool by making easier the communicative interaction between locals. All interviewees acknowledged that such an enhancement was made possible through the upgrading of the access routes which in turn facilitates the internal displacement of local residents. “The traffic is more fluid now…buses become available.. I’m very happy to visit my grandparents daily”. The internet connection was also among the tools facilitating the social interaction. For example one interviewee stated the following: “Such technological advents could have been postponed for later times without the choice of Sidi Daoud as a building site for the first wind energy station in Tunisia.” 3. Sense of spatial consciousness: it refers to the way by which RE developments are likely to improve one’s perception of a place. People develop a unique and distinct image of home throughout their lives. This special vision should not be blurred so that residents no longer recognize themselves around places they used to be familiar with; instead changes introduced from the implementation of RE projects should be advantageous in a manner to fortify one’s connection to his living locality and congrue with his self and expectations.

157

4.2.1.2. Participation in management processes. When considering the process dimension, questions related to who is responsible for the development and running of the project, who is involved and has influence on it, is deemed imperative in understanding community RE [35]. Local residents suggested that substantial levels of community involvement in consultation and decision-making processes will contribute to greater project acceptance through reinforcing local peoples' recognition and understanding of the positive value of renewable energy. “During the first wage of consultation process, I became more scientifically informed about wind energy sources and the wind farms”. Another interviewee reported the following: "luckily the project is conceived, set up and managed by (STEG) national institution and not by a foreign company but I will be more than happy if the project will be driven and carried out by a group of our region." Conversely, the lack of voice, participation, dealing with issues and decision-making is likely to lessen the likelihood of local communities to become proponents of RE projects [34]. Moreover, our data show that material and social benefits are strong motivator regarding continued participation of local people. Members report that their involvement in the consultation process is a part of a larger effort towards building community well being in terms of economic and social gratification. Finally, in line with [36], other testimonies reflect that participation in community renewable energy projects tends to raise a sense of social interaction, cohesion and place attachment thus creating suitable conditions for community acceptance. One farmer acknowledges "when we have an opportunity to voice and to choose, we feel that we have little control over the project, such feeling nurture our sense of community, our common concerns." In another example, a member of community reveals "the project developer has to know that involving us in making decisions create more social cohesion in everyday routines of Sidi Daoued." In sum, based on our analysis we theorize community acceptance as an outcome of benefit-sharing with indigenous people and their active participation in management processes shaping and guiding community's lived experience of RE project in which common ties, social interaction, and spatial consciousness are mutually reinforced. Proposition 3: The more an implantation of a project is likely to lead to an enhancement of local common ties, social interaction and spatial consciousness through the embodiment of both benefit sharing and active participation in management processes, the more likely is that project to be accepted by community members. 4.2.2. Internal characteristics Sidi Daoud Wind Farm Project is situated on the vicinity of the Sidi Daoud rural commune where most residents are dairy farmers. The community is characterized by the level of familiarity with the technology, economic security, education, environmental beliefs and concern, and the characteristics of the site. 4.2.2.1. Familiarity with the technology. The degree of awareness and understanding is widely acknowledged in the literature as one of the key barriers to the successful implementation of renewable energy technologies for the host community. [37] pointed out that the lack of knowledge was especially obvious in rural areas. Interviews in the case of wind energy show that there is little evidence that public acceptance have been driven by assumed negative implications of deficits in public understanding for less familiar low carbon sources or technologies. Opinions about wind energy technology were heterogeneous. Some interviewees ignore the wind energy technology; others are aware of this technology but did not understand it at all. Still others understand the basic principles,.

158

S.M. Hammami et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 151–160

There are those who perceive wind energy as an efficient and sustainable energy and those who claim they are uninformed. The wind energy case shows clearly that levels of support were dependent on levels of awareness and that more informed individuals are more receptive of wind energy technologies. Hence a lack of awareness of energy issues and sources or technologies and of understanding regarding applicability of RE alternatives can be a potential barrier to the attitudes towards the developer, local decision makers, and the decision process, which in turn affect the project acceptance. Proposition 4a: Community acceptance is associated to the familiarity with the technology. Proposition 4b: The success/failure of RE is associated to the familiarity with the technology. 4.2.2.2. Financial situation. A high level of poverty and poor financial situation characterize the community of Sidi Daoud. It has been suggested that the key to ensuring community acceptance of proposed wind power developments is in generating community benefits (particularly financial benefits) and providing financial incentives for locals to support such developments [38]. Proposition 5a: Community acceptance is associated to the financial situation. Proposition 5b: The success/failure of RE is associated to the financial situation. 4.2.2.3. Education. Education is an important contributing factor to a person's human capital [39]. The majority of the residents in this region were farmers, who left school during or at the end of primary school. Education clearly plays a big role in community acceptance and the success of RE project. Proposition 6a: Community acceptance of RE is associated to education. Proposition 6b: The success/failure of RE is associated to education. 4.2.2.4. Environmental beliefs and concern. Public attitudes towards wind energy is related to the visual impacts and noise levels [39]. [39] noted that social conflict over proposed RE technology developments such as wind farms can be characterised by action motivated by environmental controversy. Individuals who advocate wind farms may be principally concerned with the impacts of climate change at the global scale, while individuals who oppose them may be concerned with the environmental impacts of technologies in valued localities, a debate characterised as ‘green’ on ‘green’. For instance, according to one interviewed farmer: “It is necessary to take the climate change issue seriously. Wind energy is reliable, safe, green and non polluting”. Another participant recognizes: “Wind energy is harmful for our local community.” Proposition 7a: Community acceptance of RE is associated to the environmental beliefs and concern. Proposition 7b: The success/failure of RE is associated to the environmental beliefs and concern. 4.2.2.5. Characteristics of the site. All interviewees made it clear that they understood the vital importance of the characteristics of the wind farm in moulding their support or resistance toward the RE project. One of the respondents stated that: “Personally, I find that wind energy takes up lots of land that is why it should be placed out of sight and away from people (e.g. in very remote areas or far out at sea). My support to wind farms would depend on the size and design of the wind farm (e.g. the number of turbines and their dispersion in the area).” Participants view the geophysical aspects of the specific installation site as a crucial factor of project success or failure.

“This geographic location, seasons and local weather patterns aid the wind to produce energy. My support to wind farms would depend on the type of place it was set up.” He elaborates on that a bit and adds: “I would not like to see them in places of natural or cultural importance”. Proposition 8a: Community acceptance of RE is associated to characteristics of the site. Proposition 8b: The success/failure of RE is associated to characteristics of the site. 4.2.3. External characteristics Communication and trust on the developer are perceived and evaluated after interacting with the project developer: 4.2.3.1. Communication. Communication involves providing information about the project, but basically, gaining information about the local context and stakeholders concerns. Besides, information need to be presented in a way that is easy to understand and accessible [40]. Some communication issues were raised in the Sidi Daoued project case: the incoherence between the vision and intentions of the project manager and the stakeholder's interests and concerns, lack of contact and coordination between the developers of the project and local authorities and other local partners such as landowners, farmers and local residents. Communication involved the key stakeholders only (local authorities, two meetings with some landowners). This is easy but not good enough to collect information related to the host community in order to facilitate the implementation and to gain acceptance. Accordingly, poor communication between the local population and the developer leads to more opposition of the public to the project. Proposition 9a: Community acceptance of RE is associated to communication. Proposition 9b: The success/failure of RE is associated to communication. 4.2.3.2. Trust. Because local people are not familiar with the technology, acceptance may mostly depend on trust in actors that are responsible for the technology [41]. The more the trust in responsible actors, the higher the acceptance of RE technology. [42] argue that people in areas with significant public resistance to wind projects are not against wind turbines per se, but they are against the people who want to build them. “We do not trust the project developer, because he was not sensitive to our concerns. He promised to provide our homes with electricity but he has not kept the promise.” Proposition 10a: The success/failure of RE is associated to trust in the project developer. Proposition 10b: Community acceptance of RE is associated to trust in the project developer. By apprehending renewable energy project from a social perspective with the attempt to understand the success or failure of the project, the analysis resulted in a conceptual framework with a set of theoretical propositions. The model “Fig. 1” is constructed in terms of input, process and output (IPO). The IPO model has been widely adopted as an approach in understanding and explaining consumer behaviour [43] and continues to have a substantial influence on group research today [44]. The proposed model hinging around the pivotal community acceptance construct is believed to enrich our understanding of RE project’s implementation and to account for differences in its outcomes. Input consists of community and developer project characteristics as enablers for community acceptance and for the RE project success/failure.

S.M. Hammami et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 151–160

Fig. 3. The determinant factors of community acceptance as related to the success/ failure of renewable energy projects.

5. Conclusion By focusing on community acceptance and integrating both consumer behavior and social acceptance literatures, the present research proposes a conceptual model “Fig. 3” integrating a set of factors believed to foster the success of a RE project implantation. RE project experiences could form social bonds with and within a physical place. Community links made possible through collective and repetitive experiences and eventually through consumption practices are accompanied by spatial relations reinforcing the ability of community members to accept the project. On the basis of previous literature, in-depth interviews, and documentary research, a comprehensive model is constructed in terms of inputs, process, and outputs. To begin with, inputs consist of the specific combination of internal characteristics and external ones. (1) While the internal determinants to the community encompass environmental beliefs and concern, familiarity with the technology, financial situation, education, and characteristics of the site; (2) the external determinants to the community are those perceived and evaluated after interacting with the project, and made up of factors related to the developer such as trust and communication. The process, on the other hand, covers the integrity of sociopolitical, market and community acceptance. The latter component finds its roots in two distinct categories of participation and benefit-sharing, that although separated for coding process purposes, work dynamically together to enhance local common ties, social interaction and spatial consciousness and evidently boost the community acceptance. The combination of both outcome and

159

process dimensions is then deemed necessary to providing support to community RE projects. A number of implications can be drawn from these results. Policy makers need to capture the full significance of community acceptance in order to ensure a smooth implementation for the wind-energy investment. Furthermore, project managers should not only consider how a project can change its context, but also how it can adapt to its context and how communities can rely on their ability to adapt to changes which are all indicators of the successfulness of the project. The case study should also serve to alert project managers to view projects from different stakeholders' perspectives and not only from theirs. Additionally, the study argues that a community approach to renewable energy initiatives can contribute to the support for RE farm developments and help alter the oppositional results of implementation. One major consideration to be made for the realization of a successful local level planning process is the involvement of locals, from the offset, in decision making. Local people could go so far so as to take the initiative in developing their own “green” solutions. The idea has been refined into a community-owned wind turbine, for the first time in the United Kingdom, in the course of the Dulas Valley Community Wind Partnership's (DVCWP) activities. The community RE project has witnessed a great success on several fronts notably in addressing some of the internal issues, providing jobs for local inhabitants, local control, reliable supply and generating social capital in the local region so as to provide liquidity for potential RE cooperatives if needed. This community involvement and decisive power given to citizens will create high levels of interpersonal trust among participant actors whose aim is to ensure a more inclusive local approval of RE developments. Moreover, government authorities have a substantial role to play in filling the need of providing communities with faculty and impetus they might lack in driving renewable energy plans. A new vision of muli-level governance cutting with the conventional centralized energy policy becomes an obvious requirement for a successful implementation of RE schemes that have to base on partnership between nongovernmental actors and policy makers working at both national and regional levels. This need for better execution of sustainable energy plans entails a deeper intervention on the part of regional regulation bodies if suitable institutional frameworks are to be established. Regional governing is called to show greater authority over some phases of the project development instead of limiting its function into “an exercise in overload reduction by the centre” [45]. The amplification of the role of regional governance actors is resumed in conveying the experiences they gathered at the ground level to the centre or national authorities and tailoring the general policy aims into locally-adapted strategies. Ultimately, the research presented a set of theoretical propositions that need to be replicated across a larger set of cases covering a larger variety of RE and tested through quantitative surveys.

Acknowledgements Sincere thanks are given to the STEG project planners, regional authorities and citizens in Sidi Daoud, El Haouria for their collaboration and for the time they devoted towards the development and enhancement of this research paper. References [1] Saidur R, Islam MR, Rahim NA, Solangi KH. A review on global wind energy policy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:1744–62.

160

S.M. Hammami et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016) 151–160

[2] Wüstenhagen R, Wolsink M, Bürer MJ. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 2007;35(5): 2683–2691. [3] Toke D. Explaining wind power planning outcomes: some findings from a study in England and Wales. Energy Policy 2005;33:1527–39. [4] Heras-Saizarbitoria I, Cilleruelo E, Zamanillo I. Public acceptance of renewables and the media: an analysis of the Spanish PV solar experience. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:4685–96. [5] Walker G. Renewable energy and the public. Land Use Policy 1995;12:49–59. [6] Hillery, George A, Jr. Definitions of community: areas of agreement. Rural Sociol 1955;20:111–23. [7] Wellman B, Gulia M. Net-surfers don’t ride alone: virtual communities as communities. In: Wellman B, editor. Networks in the global village: life in contemporary communities. Boulder, CO7 Westview Press; 1999. p. 331–66. [8] Etzioni A. The Spirit of Community. Rights, responsibilities and the communitarian agenda. London: Fontana Press; 1995. [9] Farhar BC, Unseld CT, Vories R, Crews R. Public opinion about energy. Public Opin Q 1980;58:603–32. [10] Thayer RL, Freeman C. Public perceptions of a wind energy landscape. Landsc Urban Plan 1987;14:379–98. [11] Wolsink M. The social impact of a large wind turbine. Environ Impact Assess Rev 1988;8(4):323–34. [12] Kaldellis JK, Kavadias KA. Evaluation of Greek wind parks visual impact: the public attitude. Fresenius Environ Bull 2004;13:413–23. [13] Soderholm P, Ek K, Petterson M. Wind power development in Sweden: global policies and local obstacles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2007;11:365–400. [14] Burningham, K, Barnett, J, Thrush, D. The limitations of the NIMBY concept for understanding public engagement with renewable energy technologies: a literature review, working paper; 2006. [15] Department of Trade and Industry, Scottish Executive et al. (2003), Attitudes and knowledge of renewable energy amongst the general public: report findings.〈http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/policy_pdfs/nationalreport.pdf〉 (March 17th 2013). [16] McGowan F, Sauter R. Public opinion on energy research: a desk study for the research councils. Brighton, United Kingdom: Sussex Energy Group, SPRU, University of Sussex; 2005. [17] Dear M. Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. J Am Plan Assoc 1998;58:288–300. [18] Freudenberg W, Pastor S. NIMBY's and LULU's, stalking the syndromes. J Soc Issues 1992;48(4):39–61. [19] Keeney RL, von Winterfeldt D. Improving risk communication. Risk Anal 1986;6:417–24. [20] Hunter S, Leyden K. Beyond NIMBY: explaining opposition to hazardous waste facilities. Policy Stud J 1995;23(4):601–19. [21] Stirling A. “Opening up” and “Closing Down”: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci Technol Human Values 2008; 33(2):262–94. [22] Adger WN, Brown K, Fairbrass J, Jordan A, Paavola J, Rosendo S, Seyfang G. Governance for sustainability: Towards a "thick" analysis of environmental decisionmaking. Environ Plan 2003;35:1095–110. [23] Bauer MW, Allum N, Miller S. What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda Public Underst Sci 2007; 16(1):79–95. [24] Glynn CJ, Jeong I. Public opinion and the media. Encycl Int Media Commun 2003;3:631–40.

[25] TNS. Attitudes and knowledge of renewable energy amongst the general public (No. JN9419/JN9385). London: Department of Trade and Industry; 2003. [26] London Renewables. Attitudes to renewable energy in London: public and stakeholder opinion and the scope for progress. London: Greater London Authority; 2003. [27] Haggett C. Public engagement in planning for renewable energy. In: Davoudi S, Crawford J, editors. Planning for climate change: strategies for mitigation and adaptation for spatial planners. London: Earthscan; 2009. [28] Elamouri M, Ben Amar F. Wind energy potential in Tunisia. Renew Energy 2008;33:758–68. [29] Saidi L, Fnaiech F. Experiences in renewable energy and energy efficiency in Tunisia: case study of a developing country. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;32:729–38. [30] Toke D, Breukers S, Wolsink M. Wind power deployment outcomes: how can we account for the differences? Renew Sustain energy Rev 2008;12(4): 1129–1147. [31] Carlman, I. The views of politicians and decision-makers on planning for the use of wind power in Sweden. In: Proceedings of the European wind energy conference, 22–36 October 1984, Hamburg, p. 339–343. [32] Sovacool. K, Ratan. PL. Conceptualizing the acceptance of wind and solar electricity. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:5268–79. [33] Egre, Dominique. UNEP dams and development project, compendium on relevant practices-2nd stage, revised final report-benefit sharing issue. UNEP. [34] Gross C. Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia. The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance. Energy Policy 2007;35(5):2727–36. [35] Walker G, Devine-Wright P. Community renewable energy: what should it mean? Energy Policy 2008;36:497–500. [36] Hoffman SM, High-Pippert A. From private lives to collective action: recruitment and participation incentives for a community energy program. Energy Policy 2010;38:7567–74. [37] Devine-Wright P. Energy citizenship: psychological aspects of evolution in sustainable energy technologies. In: Murphy J, editor. Framing the Present, Shaping The Future: Contemporary Governance of Sustainable Technologies. London: Earthscan; 2007. p. 63–86. [38] Stern PC, Aronson E. Energy use: the human dimension. New York: W.H Freeman, 0716716216; 1984. [39] Coleman JS. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol 1988;94:95–120. [40] Krohn S, Damborg S. On public attitudes towards wind power. Renew Energy 1999;16:954–60. [41] Midden CJH, Huijts NM. The role of trust in the affective evaluation of novel risks: The case of CO2 storage. Risk Analysis 2009;29(5):743–51. [42] Krohn S, Damborg S. On public attitudes towards wind power. Renew Energy 1999;16:954–60. [43] Engel, JF, Blackwell, RD, Miniard, PW, Consumer behavior, 5th edition, CBS College Publishing. In: Schifman, LG and Kanuk, LL, Consumer behavior, 3rd edition, Prentice Hall, 1987. [44] Mohammed Susan, Katherine Hamilton. Input–process–output model of team effectiveness. In: Rogelberg SG, Reeve C, editors. Encyclopedia of industrial/ organizational psychology. Sage Publications; 2007. p. 354–6. [45] Smith A. Emerging in between: the multi-level governance of renewable energy in the English regions. Energy Policy 2007;35:6266–80.