The perceived visual impacts and attitudes of the Grahamstown community towards the Waainek Wind-Farm

Renewable energy has become an important feature of most modern economies with clean and non-exhaustible sources of power being given a greater significance. Wind energy is one of the favoured renewable, as it is (2013) generally the cheapest and most mature technology available for commercial use. The South African government, as outlined by the Department of Energy's Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), aims to install 5 GW (Gigawatts) of wind energy by 2020. However, South Africa has had little experience in the wind energy industry which is limited to two projects, Klipheuwel (2002) and Darling (2008). Much effort has been dedicated to calculating balance sheet costs, which carries uncertainty due to the high reliance on country specific and site specific variables. An aspect which deserves more attention, and is often ignored, is the public‟s attitudes towards local wind farm developments, which have been known to "make or break" a project during the planning stages. Public backlashes have mostly been concerned with the visual "intrusiveness" of wind farms in the landscape. Detrimental effects on scenery, while seemingly innocuous, are acknowledged as being the single largest barrier to successful wind farm development. Individuals within an area become sentimentally attached to their surroundings, where significant rapid changes in the landscape are viewed as "damage". Economics recognises such declines in scenic resources as market failures, where an externalised cost is passed on to the public and is often not accounted for by private parties responsible for the liability. The primary objective therefore was to measure the magnitude of the visual impact, caused by the Waainek Wind Farm, on the Grahamstown community. Conventional NIMBY¹ (not in my back yard) reasoning, which seeks to explain local wind farm resistance, has attracted criticism with regard to its simplistic approach to wind farm problem identification. Contemporary arguments propose that NIMBY is a poor explanation for the trouble experienced on the local level because it groups problems into one all-encompassing term, leaving much of the discontent unexplained. Instead, the NIMBY explanation is really a broad set of unattended problems, largely resulting from the unsound practices present in the public participation process. Insufficient community involvement and disparities in the negotiation power structures have become the recent focus in wind farm literature. Essentially, these disparities force opposition groups to select factors which may seem more serious to developers, leading to ineffective remedial measures because the core underlying problems are not being remedied. Thus these considerations formed an additional area of investigation. No NIMBY effect was found for the Grahamstown community, as support for both the local and general level was roughly 80%. The public participation process on the other hand revealed that while many found the practices of the developer to be unfair, attitudes towards the wind farm were not adversely affected, especially for the lower income Grahamstown East areas. While the public participation process in this instance did not have any effect on people’s attitudes, careful inspection of the circumstances need to be given. Wind farms are new to South Africa, where the novelty and benefits are the focus of enthusiasm. Job opportunities as well as clean energy are positive drivers for attitudes; however given time, once the anticipation for wind farms dulls, real problems may be revealed. Thus it is crucial to implement good practice procedures during the public participation process, especially when national adoption rates of wind energy are low. Early implementation of an effective public participation process system will ensure that when major problems do arise in future projects, experience and institutional processes would have had ample opportunity to evolve appropriately over a period of time. The double bounded Contingent Valuation Method was used to value the impact of the wind farm on the Waainek scenery through a hypothetical scenario based procedure which presented pictures of the landscape before and after the wind farm had been installed. Based on the perceived impact of the wind farm, respondents were asked their Willingness to Pay to relocate the development, based solely on visual impacts. Learning design Contingent Valuation (Bateman et al., 2008) is a novel technique employed to familiarize respondents with the hypothetical market institution as well as the scenic goods being valued. Average Willingness to Pay was found to be R67 per month, with a final total monthly negative visual impact of R104,000 to R121,000 per month for the entire Grahamstown community. Grahamstown Central (middle-high income) residents were more likely to pay than Grahamstown East (low-middle income) East residents because of socio-economic differences present in each area. A ranking exercise determined that while negative visual impacts are present, the overall benefits derived from the wind farm are potentially much higher. Additionally, positive scenic improvements were found, but were not measured due to time constraints, and would have worked to reduce the net visual impact of the Waainek Wind Farm. ¹Problem where individuals support the general concept of wind power, but when it comes to local implementation, opposition to the development arises within the same group