What legitimises local nature encroachment? comparing planning processes for second homes and wind power in Norway

The topic of land-use pressures from wind power and second homes is crucial due to the significant challenges they pose to land use, biodiversity and wilderness areas. But the local legitimacy each kind of development enjoys, stemming to a large degree from the respective planning processes they go through,can be starkly different. This article investigates legitimacy and planning outcomes by comparing top-down and bottom-up planning processes for wind power and second homes development in a Norwegian municipality. The study employs energy justice theory, focusing on recognition, procedural, and distributive justice, and uses a comparative case study approach to analyse the planning processes and outcomes. The findings reveal that, compared to wind power development, second homes development is perceived as fairer and more beneficial for the local community. Second homes are perceived to provide local income, employment, and have positive economic ripple effects, while wind power projects are considered to mainly benefit national energy needs and owners of the plants. The top-down planning process for wind power leads to increasedr esistance and perceptions of unfairness, whereas the bottom-up approach for second homes is seen as more inclusive and legitimate. These differences, combined with local benefits of second homes development, helps to explain the widespread opposition to wind power development and the strong support for second homes in many municipalities, even though second homes development has resulted in the greatest loss of wilderness areas in Norway.