Proactive engagement with communities should be a priority for planners not only to aid collaborative and sympathetic design and build trust, but in order to tackle fear and the perception of risk arising from new development.

Risk perceptions and fear ought to be treated in the same way as any tangible concern, but while planning applications may successfully address all likely significant effects and meet the requirements of the regulatory planning process, they can fail to deal with unsubstantiated risk perceptions leading to community anxiety and stress. If left unaddressed, this can often fester, spread and tends to result in becoming the main focus of opposition.

Adverse risk perceptions often go hand-in-hand with large and complex infrastructure projects, occurring where hazards are confused with risk, even when unsupported or contrary to available information.

Clearly communicating how hazards are addressed through the complex regulatory planning and permitting process, such that they do not present any tangible risk to health is therefore paramount. 

A hazard is something with the potential for harm, while a risk is the likelihood that any hazard will actually cause harm. It is only when there is a hazard source, a sensitive receptor and a pathway of exposure between the two that there is credible risk to human health.

Where all three of these elements exist, it is then the nature of the specific hazard source, the mode and magnitude of exposure and the sensitivity of the receptor that will determine what level of health risk is predicted, if any.

Even where there is no credible risk to human health, risk perceptions, if left unaddressed, can result in needless stress and anxiety which in turn can lead to varying adverse health and wellbeing impacts. The causal mechanism is complex, with overlapping emotional, psychological, social and physiological factors, and is broadly termed the ‘nocebo effect’.

The opposite of the more commonly known placebo effect, the nocebo effect describes the negative outcomes resulting from negative attitudes or beliefs. Disturbingly, the nocebo effect is communicable, where perceived hazards and fears can be propagated, and can quickly spread through social networks and communities. The more frequently the concern is raised within these social settings, the greater it resonates and becomes entrenched.  

While risk perceptions are raised on almost every project, the nocebo effect has been frequently linked to onshore wind turbines. The term “wind turbine syndrome” describes health effects which appeared to arise from proximity to wind turbines. Research into the subject is significant, where hundreds of different symptoms have been suggested and associated in this regard, ranging from tinnitus and heart irregularities through to cold sores. While such observations have been made, scientific literature has not found any credible causal mechanism for wind turbines to be damaging to health. The wide-ranging health issues reported are likely symptoms of hypervigilance and anxiety associated with the imposition of change and risk perceptions surrounding the wind turbines, rather than any perceptible impact from the turbines themselves.

While unsupported risk perception is not a credible reason for refusal, there are instances where planning permission on essential community infrastructure has been delayed, and the weight of unaddressed community concerns has contributed to refusal.

Such issues are, and remain, best addressed through proactive engagement with communities and stakeholders to catalogue, investigate and respond to such concerns; while further aiding collaborative and sympathetic design to maximise health benefits and build trust.

Further information

Contact Maria Monkal or Tara Barratt