ALTERNATIVE FUTURES and POPULAR PROTEST, 14th International ConferenceManchester Metropolitan University, 15-17 April 2009

Working Paper - please do not cite or quote without permission

NIMBY, Network or New Social Movement? – Community Reactions to Wind farms

ABSTRACT

Climate change is now a major global issue. In 2008 MORI reported that some77% of people surveyed by them were “Fairly” or “Very” concerned aboutclimate change and that 59% agreed with the idea of investment inrenewables – even if this led to an increase in energy prices. Nineteenpercent agreed strongly with investment now, despite the pain of recentprice hikes from energy suppliers.1 Despite this there is still significantopposition to the development of renewable energy generating facilities.

Across the UK and many other western industrialised countries there arenumerous opposition campaigns where on shore wind farms in particular areproposed. However, our knowledge of these opposition campaigns and groupsis limited. Are they NIMBY responses from locals who only want to “protecttheir turf” and stop their view from being spoiled? Or are they part of anorganised social movement with clear aims, strategies and involving themobilization of resources. Or are they a mixture of differentindividualized concerns coalescing around a particular issue?

This paper briefly outlines the scale of wind energy developmentinternationally and more locally in the UK using data from Wales. Itpresents an overview of the literature on wind farms and begins to theorisesome of the possible explanations for wind farm opposition. Network mappingtools are used to illustrate the linkages between individual campaigns andfinally the issue of language is explored in the context of the NIMBY labelwhich is commonly used to describe such protest.

Keywords: Wind farm, Protest; Network; Social Movement,

1

? MORI (2008) – Public Attitudes to Climate Change – available online athttp://www.ipsos-mori.com/_assets/pdfs/public%20attitudes%20to%20climate%20change%20-%20for%20website%20-%20final.pdf

Ian GardnerPhD Sociology & Social PolicyUniversity of BangorTel: 01745 550255E-Mail:ian_gardner@btconnect.com

2

Introduction

1.1 Electricity Production via Wind – A Brief History

The first use of a windmill to generate electricity dates to 1887 whenProfessor James Blyth of Anderson's College, Glasgow, experimented withthree different turbine designs, the last of which is said to have operatedin his home for 25 years2.

Shortly thereafter, in late 1887 / early 1888 in the USA, Charles F. Brushbuilt a multiple-bladed post mill with a rotor 17 meters in diameter and alarge tail designed to turn the mill. The Brush Machine had a power outputof 12 kW and operated for around 20 years3

From the end of the 19th Century wind turbines were deployed across Europe,and by the end of the First World War 25 kW output machines had becomequite common, notably in Denmark.

In the 1920’s and 1930’s small scale (1-3 kW) wind turbines were installedin farms and homesteads across the USA and Canada – mainly to providelighting and energy for radio equipment.4 In 1931 George Darrieus patentedthe unusual design for the “Darrieus Machine” which is often referred to asthe "eggbeater windmill". Large scale energy production also began inRussia in 1931 with a 100kW wind turbine in Balaclava. This operated forabout two years on the shore of the Caspian Sea, generating some 200,000kWh of electricity.5

In Germany during the late 1930’s and 1940’s, the National Socialistgovernment explored the use of wind power for reasons of “security ofsupply”. This interest in wind technology resulted in the development of asignificant research programme drawing on the expertise of some of thecountry’s leading engineers – including Ferdinand Porsche.

After the Second World War wind turbine deployment slowed, due in part tothe fall in oil prices and the consequent availability of cheapelectricity. However the technological development path continued to focuson larger machines. In 1941, in America a 1.25 MW turbine was developed inVermont and is commonly cited as the first really large machine – having anoutput measured in Megawatts and a rotor diameter in excess of 50m.

In the late 1940’s in Denmark, wind turbine development was taken forwardby the Danish technician Johannes Juul. In 1948, Juul constructed a twoblade 15kW turbine based on the design principles of Ulrich Hutter, an

2 Price, T.J (2005) - James Blyth – Britain's first modern wind power pioneer. WindEngineering, Volume 29, Number 3, May pp. 191-200 3 De Carolis, F (2004) - The Economics and Environmental Impacts of Large-ScaleWind Power in a Carbon Constrained World. PhD Thesis. Carnegie Mellon University.Online athttp://wpweb2.tepper.cmu.edu/ceic/theses/Joseph_DeCarolis_PhD_Thesis_2004.pdf 4 Canadian Centre for Energy. http://www.centreforenergy.com/silos/wind/windEnvironment/windEnvironmentHistory.asp 5 Dodge, D.M (2001) - An Illustrated History of Wind Power Development. Availableonline at http://www.telosnet.com/wind/20th.html

3

engineer who had been influential in the German wind energy programme. In1952 Juul built a larger 40 kW turbine and in 1956 he constructed a 200 kWmachine with three blades and a rotor diameter of 24 metres6. This machine,the Gedser turbine, operated for 10 years until 1967.

The oil price shocks of the early 1970’s stimulated a renewed interest inwind technology (Haymann 1998). The US government, through NASA, commencedresearch into large commercial wind turbines and thirteen experimentalturbines were constructed in Ohio. By December 1980 this research hadblossomed and U.S. Windpower had installed the world's first wind farm,consisting of 20 wind turbines rated at 30 kW each, on the shoulder ofCrotched Mountain in southern New Hampshire.

Subsequently development of further wind farms in California and Denmarkmarked the start of more widespread commercial production of electricityfrom wind power. By 1992 there were nearly 16,000 wind turbines inCalifornia, and by 1994 the state was producing 47% of world wind energygenerated electricity with Denmark and Germany together accounting for afurther 34% (Woods 2003). Despite this international expansion of windenergy during the 1980’s, the technology was not adopted in the UK. From1990 onwards however, the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) frameworkprovided a significant incentive and the UK wind industry was born.

1 Wind Energy Deployment

2.1 Wind Turbine Deployment Internationally

According to the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), in 1996 the potentialworldwide electricity generating capacity from wind turbines stood at 6100MW. By the end of 2008 this had increased to more than 120,791 MW (or 120.8GW) of installed capacity worldwide.

Growth of installed wind power has been steady since 1996 and apart from in2004, the rate of growth has increased year on year – with the singlelargest increase in installed capacity taking place in 2008, an increase ofjust under 29%.7.

The varying levels of Wind turbine deployment internationally can be seenbelow:

Global Installed Wind Power Capacity in MW - Dec 2008

CountryInstalle

dCapacity

Area insquareKm

InstalledCapacity inMW per Km

Or One 1 MW turbineevery Km

Denmark 3180 43094 0.073792 13.55Germany 23903 357021 0.066951 14.94Netherlands 2225 41526 0.053581 18.66Spain 16754 504782 0.033191 30.13

6 Heymann, M (1998) - Signs of Hubris: The Shaping of Wind Technology Styles inGermany, Denmark, and the United States, 1940-1990. Technology and Culture 39.4 pp641-6707 Global Wind Energy Council Press Release 15 February 2007. US and China in raceto top of global wind industry. www.gwec.net

4

Portugal 2862 92391 0.030977 32.28Ireland 1002 70280 0.014257 70.14UK 3241 244820 0.013238 75.54Italy 3736 301230 0.012402 80.63Austria 995 83870 0.011864 84.29Taiwan 358 35980 0.009950 100.50Greece 985 131940 0.007466 133.95France 3404 643427 0.005290 189.02Japan 1880 377835 0.004976 200.98India 9645 3287590 0.002934 340.86USA 25170 9826630 0.002561 390.41South Korea 236 98480 0.002396 417.29Sweden 1021 449964 0.002269 440.71Poland 472 312685 0.001510 662.47Costa Rica 70 51100 0.001370 730.00Norway 428 323802 0.001322 756.55China 12210 9596960 0.001272 785.99New Zealand 326 268680 0.001213 824.17Turkey 433 780580 0.000555 1802.73Egypt 365 1001450 0.000364 2743.70Tunisia 54 163610 0.000330 3029.81Morocco 134 446550 0.000300 3332.46Canada 2369 9984670 0.000237 4214.72Australia 1306 7686850 0.000170 5885.80Philippines 33 300000 0.000110 9090.91Iran 85 1648000 0.000052 19388.24Mexico 85 1972550 0.000043 23206.47Brazil 341 8511965 0.000040 24961.77Argentina 29 2766890 0.000010 95410.00Other 1454 N/A N/A N/A

Total 120,791 - - - Sources: GWEC and www.geohive.com (author’s own analysis)

2.2 Wind Turbine Deployment in the UK

Onshore Wind

The first onshore wind farm on the UK was constructed in Delabole, NorthCornwall in 1991. This development comprised ten 400 kW turbines with atotal generating capacity of 4MW and is still operational.

By October 2008 there were 179 onshore wind farms in the UK and accordingto the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs8, a further 424are in development.

The first onshore wind farm in Wales was built at Cemmaes in Powys andbecame operational in October 1992. Comprising twenty four two bladed 300kW turbines this was swiftly followed in November 1992 with a similar sizeddevelopment at Rhyd-y-Groes on Anglesey and then in January 1993 by thesignificantly larger Llandinam wind farm in Powys, which, consisting of one

5

hundred and three 300 kW turbines was, at the time of its development, thelargest in Europe9.

Wales now has 26 operational onshore wind farms comprising over 480turbines across the Country10.

Offshore Wind

The first offshore wind farm in the UK was developed at North Hoyle, offthe North Wales coast coast between Prestatyn and Rhyl in 2003 and consistsof thirty 2 MW turbines. A further seven offshore wind farms are located inUK coastal waters – currently generating around 0.6 GW of capacity.

Offshore wind is seen as a major source of growth of renewable energy andthe Government has awarded leases to developers for projects that couldgenerate up to 8.2 GW of power. Permission to allow the development of afurther 25 GW of capacity in offshore waters has also been grantedrecently.

In light of this rapid growth (actual and proposed) the House of LordsSelect Committee on Economic Affairs11 has recently reported that windpower will soon become Britain’s largest source of renewable electricitygeneration.

2.3 Wind Turbine Size & Output

The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) database of operational windfarms12 records details of some 200 wind energy developments and extensionsin the UK – both onshore and offshore. An analysis of these developmentssuggests that the trend in wind farm development in the UK is towardslarger wind turbines and greater generating output for each wind farm).This is illustrated:

W indfarm Turbine Size 1991-2009

00.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.55

Nov-91

Nov-92

Nov-93

Nov-94

Nov-95

Nov-96

Nov-97

Nov-98

Nov-99

Nov-00

Nov-01

Nov-02

Nov-03

Nov-04

Nov-05

Nov-06

Nov-07

Nov-08

Year W indfarm Operational

Turbine Ou

tput in

MW

Source: BWEA

6

W indfarm Output 1991-2009

050100150200250

Nov-91

Nov-92

Nov-93

Nov-94

Nov-95

Nov-96

Nov-97

Nov-98

Nov-99

Nov-00

Nov-01

Nov-02

Nov-03

Nov-04

Nov-05

Nov-06

Nov-07

Nov-08

Year Operational

Win

dfar

m

Outp

ut in

MW

Source: BWEA

Growth in turbine height and rotor diameter is illustrated in the diagrambelow, recently used in a report to the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange. A 2MW turbine has a turbine diameter equivalent to the wingspan ofan A380 Airbus and much current onshore wind development is based onturbines with a 2.5 - 3 MW output.

Source: Zervos (2008)13

2.4 Wind farm Expansion in Wales

Although Wales saw its first wind farm in 1992 – a year after the firstdevelopment in the UK, and despite Welsh upland areas having more than 40%of operational wind turbines in the UK by the late 1990’s - for much of theperiod 1999 to date, the country has been seen by wind farm developers asbeing “closed for business”14. Planning approval rates for wind farms inWales declined sharply between 1999 and 2003 and the period since 1999 hasbeen marked by significant local and national protest against what isperceived by opponents to be inappropriate industrial scale wind farmdevelopment.

The planning system in Wales has been seen as the principal impediment toproduction of a greater proportion of renewable energy. This “planningproblem” (Cowell 2007; 296) was ultimately addressed when in 2004 “AssemblyMinisters exercised the long called for political leadership” (Cowell 2007; 295) setting arenewable energy target for the Country and publishing the draft TechnicalAdvice Note 8 - Planning for Renewable Energy. (TAN 8).

7

The effect of these two interventions has been to re-stimulate therenewable energy sector and encourage wind farm developments in particularin seven Strategic Search Areas across Wales. In addition to encouragingwind farms on private land, the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) has alsomade public sector land available within forestry managed by the ForestryCommission Wales (FCW) and has awarded Options to Develop wind farms inWelsh forests.

According to the draft WAG Renewable Energy Routemap15, around 2500 MW ofonshore wind farm projects are now within the planning system, consented orhave become operational in Wales since the adoption of TAN 8 in 2005. Thisequates to three times more onshore wind power than was initially envisagedin 2004 and if all applications become operational; Wales will have a windturbine density greater than Denmark.

Potentially, there are several interconnected explanations for the “rushfor wind” in Wales. These include the impact of political devolution from1999 providing the opportunity for the country to establish itself as asustainable nation (Identity); a vigorously advanced Economic Developmentargument (Instrumentality) and the anti nuclear stance (Ideology) adoptedby the National Assembly from its inception16.

This paper does not attempt to explore these reasons however the potentialfor Identity, Instrumentality and Ideology to act as both “push” and “pull”factors in relation to wind farm development and protest is an idea thatwill be explored in relation to opposition at section 4.3.2 of this paper.

3.0 Wind Energy Discourses

3.1 Literature & Discourses

The literature on wind energy is both extensive and well established.Relevant journals include Energy Policy, Wind Energy, and Renewable Energy. Thewind industry associations produce their own “in house” publications in theUK, Europe, Australia and the USA, the content of which are frequentlycited by policymakers and academics. Several distinct discourses can be identified within the wind energyliterature. These include a Technical Discourse, a Protest Discourse and an Attitudinal/ Public Opinion Discourse.

The Technical Discourse is perhaps easiest to appreciate but not particularlyaccessible. Wind turbines turn the kinetic energy of the wind intoelectrical energy without the need for significant amounts of fossil fuelinputs and there is a large and growing body of knowledge devoted to theengineering challenges associated with turbine design & performance17. TheTechnical Discourse also focuses on the measurement of efficiency /inefficiency on the environmental benefits / consequences of this form ofenergy generation. There are several threads to each including energyoutput, noise, CO2 “savings” (when compared with fossil fuel generation);technical problems associated with intermittency and grid connectiontogether with the ecological, hydrological and economic impact of windturbines etc. A further thread relates to procedural aspects of windturbine deployment – particularly focussing on the Planning system.

8

The Protest Discourse is a distinct literature on its own. One section detailsthe impact of wind farm development on individuals and communities – fromtheir perspective. In Wales for example, Kay Little has written about theloss of the “Battle for Cefn Croes”, while in the North East of England, ElizabethMann has written about the campaign to prevent wind farm development atBarningham High Moor. A further section could be termed “counterpropaganda” and comprises technical critiques of arguments made bydevelopers and wind farm supporters – again from an objector perspective.Additionally, there is a small body of literature which attempts to locateopposition to wind energy within a broader framework.

Finally, the Public Opinion / Attitudinal Discourse seeks to explain attitudes andin particular, opposition to wind energy deployment. This is aninternational discourse and again a number of specific threads can beidentified. There is a considerable amount of Public Attitude surveymaterial – both in the UK and abroad, with surveys conducted nationally andlocally. A body of literature exists on the misuse of the NIMBY label andthere is an emerging literature on Place Attachment and Identity in thecontext of wind energy. Barry, Ellis & Robinson (2006 b p4) suggest thatthis is “the dominant topic of social science research”.

A selection from this literature is referenced below

Discourse Citation

Community Social/ ProtestDiscourse -ParticipantExperience

Kelly (2000)18;Little (2003)19; Mann (2004)20; Mann(2005)21; Mason (2005)22; Etherington (2006)23; Winkler(2007)24; Martin (2009)25; Pierpont (forthcoming)26

Community Social/ ProtestDiscourse -Observer

Woods (2003a)27; Woods (2003b)28; Upreti & Van derHorst (2004)29; Toke & Strachan (2006)30; Walker,Hunter, Devine-Wright, Evans & Fay (2007)31

Technical /ScientificDiscourse –Noise

Van den Berg (2004)32; Bolin (2006)33; Alves-Pereira &Castelo Branco (2007a)34; Alves-Pereira & CasteloBranco (2007b) 35 BERR (2007)36

Technical /ScientificDiscourse –Output / CO2displacement

Milligan (2002)37; Liik, Oidram & Keel (2003)38;Zervos (2003)39; White (2004)40; Vorspools &D’haeseleer (2006)41; Rosenbloom (2006)42; MacKay(2008)43; Zervos (2008)44

Technical /ScientificDiscourse -Economics

Schleede (2004)45; RICS (2004)46; Grubb, Butler &Sinden (2005)47; DTI (2005)48; Strachan (2006)49;Moran & Sherrington (2007)50; Hoen (2007)51; Hansen &Hansen (2007)52; RICS (2007)53; Sims, Dent & Oskrochi(2008)54; Williams et al (2008)55

TechnicalProfessional /Managerial /Administrative /

SNH (2000)56; Gray, Bell & Haggett (2005)57; Toke(2005)58; Cass (2006)59; Loring (2007)60; Gamboa &Munda (2007)61; Cowell (2007)62; Gross (2007)63;Stevenson (2007)64; Parks (2007)65; Breukers & Wolsink

9

Procedural (2007)66; Corvellc & Boholm (2008)67; Rosenberg(2008)68;

Attitudinal /PsychologicalDiscourse

DTI (2000)69; Wolsink (2000)70; DTI (2001)71; Damborg(2003)72; Glickel (2004)73; Smith, Michaud & Carlisle(2004)74; Haggett & Vigar (2004)75; Szarka (2004)76;Devine – Wright (2005)77; Bell, Gray & Haggett(2005)78; Warren et al (2005)79; Hubbard (2006)80;Barry, Ellis & Robinson (2006 a)81; Barry, Ellis &Robinson (2006 b)82; Burningham, Barnett & Thrush(2006)83; Haggett & Toke (2006)84; Pederson et al(2007)85; Van der Horst (2007)86; Johansson & Laike(2007)87; Wustenhagen, Wolsink & Burer (2007)88;Devine-Wright (2007)89; Haggett (2008)90; Ladenburg(2009)91; Firestone et al (2009)92 Devine-Wright(Forthcoming)93

3.2 Commentary

The brief overview above highlights a number of areas for comment.

Firstly, and rather unsurprisingly if one considers its technicalcontent, at an epistemological level, much of the literature has beenwritten from an implicitly Objectivist perspective. As Szarka (2004)observed

“To date [2004], analysis of the sector has largely been undertaken by technologists andeconomists” (2004 p2) [brackets added]

There is very little material written from a Constructivist or Subjectiviststandpoint and much of the literature has been “thin” as far asepistemology is concerned. Barry, Ellis & Robinson (2006 b) suggest that inconnection with the Attitudinal / Psychological discourse:

“..most research into public acceptance of wind farms has been undertaken without referenceto a deeper theoretical framework and as such is devoid of conceptual foundation” (2006 b p6)

However, Szarka (2004) suggests that as wind power has gained publicattention and greater political salience

“..increased numbers of social scientists are seeking to move beyond partial analyses and lookfor more comprehensive explanations of its dynamics”.(2004 p2)

Along these lines, some relatively recent attempts have been made to movebeyond the limitations of Positivism and there is a small body ofliterature which seeks to locate opposition to wind energy within a broadertheoretical framework (Woods 2003; Devine-Wright 2005; Pederson et al(2007) and Devine-Wright (Forthcoming) are some examples). These haveadopted Constructivist ideas of Identity or have deployed Subjectivistinspired Discourse Analysis, in trying to develop a more integratedconceptual framework. However despite this shift, this area is still underdeveloped.

10

Secondly, the Technical Discourse dominates the decision making processwhere wind energy applications come before Ministers, Planning Committeesand communities. The debate regarding the appropriateness or otherwise ofspecific wind energy generating facilities is a technical one, there is asignificant reliance on the use of “experts” and there is a formalisedtechnical / professional framework which acts to structure and delimit theterms of debate. Thirdly, the nature of the Technical Discourse is complex and can serve asa barrier to widespread understanding and community engagement.Environmental Statements which must accompany wind energy planningapplications often run to hundreds of pages of quite detailed analysis.While these documents are made publicly available and summarised, the timecost associated with gaining an independent understanding of content issignificant and not all members of the community are able to understand thecomplex content of such documents.

Fourthly, on the basis of the above, it might be seen to be attractive todivide the literature between “Expert” and “Lay” discourses, with much ofthe Protest Discourse falling under the Lay category. This would however,understate the extent to which contributors to the Protest Discoursesuccessfully engage on “expert terrain”. Many protestors have acquired moreexpertise than the Officers and Elected Members responsible for localdecision making, yet the technical and professional framework within whichdecisions are taken fails to account for this. 4.0 Wind Energy Opposition

4.1 Opposition Extent

At the time of writing this paper there are at least 205 anti wind farmgroups in the UK94. Many of these groups, while operating locally are alsoconnected to one another via a central clearing house known as CountryGuardian. This organisation, formed in 1991 by the now deceased JosephLythgoe, provides

“..information and advice, servicing the action groups which spring up every time a winddevelopment is mooted. It helps the groups to pool information and experience and avoids eachnew group having to re-invent the wheel. It has three hundred members..”95

Country Guardian has attracted the patronage of several influential publicfigures including Neil Kinnock MP, Nigel Evans MP, Sir Bernard Ingham andThe Rt. Rev John Oliver, the former Bishop of Hereford. Price (2007)96

provides a biography of some of the leading members of the organisationincluding that of the current Chair, Angela Kelly.

In the United States and Canada there are at least 120 anti wind farmgroups (96 in the USA and 24 in Canada) 97. Again there is a nationalcoordinating body – National Wind Watch which exists

“.. to save rural and wild places from heedless industrial wind energy development”98

Arising out of an anti wind farm conference attended by representativesfrom ten US states, National Wind Watch was formed in 2005

11

“..with the goal of providing a central resource of information and helping to increasecommunication among "wind warriors”

In Europe, the anti wind farm “movement” has recently coalesced and theEuropean Platform Against Wind farms (EPAW) was formed in Paris in October 2008.This organisation now represents 291 anti wind farm organisations across 15European countries99. EPAW brings together national anti wind farmfederations in France, Germany and Belgium and exists to

defend the interests of the many groups which are either:

opposing individual wind farm proposals; or questioning the effectiveness of wind farms as a tool for solving our energy

problems; or protecting flora, fauna and landscapes from the damage wind farms cause directly

or through environmental degradation such as erosion, water contamination and bush fires;

or fighting generally against the damaging effects of wind farms on tourism, the economy, people’s quality of life, their health and the value of their property;

or concerned with some or all of the above. 100 

A total of 57 anti wind farm groups from the UK are currently signatories to EPAW.

4.2 Opposition Networks

Social Network Analysis (SNA) presents either a holistic form ofsociological enquiry (as advocated by Wellman (1988))101 or a usefulresearch method through which relationships between individuals and groupscan be analysed. As a method, network analysis involves mapping therelationships between groups, individuals and organisations and using theresultant “network” to understand more about the way in which socialrelations operate.

Crossley (2007) suggests that

“The first key question that this type of research is uniquely placed to answer is the question ofwhether the groups identified constitute, collectively, a movement and whether individualgroups in the sample belong to the movement”102

To begin to answer the question “is there an ant-wind farm movement?” the SNAmethod has been applied to two current anti wind farm protestorganisations. The resultant network diagrams map the extent of the tiesbetween the selected organisations and other protest organisations. Bluelines represent non reciprocal links and red lines represent reciprocallinks between “nodes” (anti wind farm groups / organisations in thisexample)Figure 1 – Acton Bridge Anti Wind farm Group Network

12

The above maps the network of the Acton Bridge Anti Wind farm Group inCheshire with reference to the URL links on the group’s website103. A second(Welsh) anti wind farm group has also been analysed in the same way and theresults are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 – Save Our Common Mountain Environment (SOCME) Network

This second example illustrates a more extensive network and links todifferent types of organisations (e.g. CPRW & Artists against Wind farms)as well as links to Coordinating organisations (Country Guardian) and

13

protest organisations in other countries (Scotland & the USA). It alsoindicates that some protest organisations are more important than others(the Cefn Croes group for example attracts a large number of reciprocalties)

The interconnected nature of these anti wind farm protest groups togetherwith the existence of national federations and both national andinternational coordinating bodies suggests that there is some rationale forbelieving that opposition is more than a localised and independentphenomenon.

4.3 Theorising Opposition

4.3.1 Wind farms and The Externalities of Economic Growth

The introduction to this paper outlined how the pace of wind turbinedevelopment slowed after the Second World War due in part to the fall inoil prices and the consequent availability of cheap electricity. It alsoindicated that arising out of concerns regarding the price of oil in the1970’s, the US government began to develop large scale wind technology as ameans of producing energy on a commercial scale.

In this context, the development and exploitation of wind technology can beseen as part of the process of Production within the dominant economicsystem, a process which Castells (1996) defines as

“The action of humankind on matter (nature) to appropriate it and transform it for itsbenefit”104

In fact, here there are two sub-processes at work – the first involving theexploitation of natural resources (coal, oil, wind etc) to generate energy.The second being the production of other goods and services. In this secondproduction process, within an industrialised economic system, energy isrequired by the technology which serves to maintain and improveproductivity – i.e. it affects the ratio of inputs to outputs within theproduction process. Castells (1996) suggests that

“In the Industrial mode of development, the main source of productivity lies in the introductionof new energy sources, and in the ability to dececentralise the use of energy in the productionand circulation processes” (1996 p16/17)

Whether Castells is correct or not in asserting that the main source ofproductivity lies in the introduction of new energy sources, Energy isundoubtedly a key component for production and hence for economic growthwithin an industrialised economy; however both the exploitation of energysources and economic growth have by-products. In the period following theIndustrial Revolution, these have included environmental effects – to thephysical landscape and rural infrastructure. The development of towns andcities, coal mines, quarries, slate tips, railway lines, roads and powerplants have all changed the landscape and have impacted on differentcommunities over time, resulting in protest.

It is therefore suggested that to begin to understand why there can beopposition to wind farms it is necessary to locate the question of

14

opposition within a broader conceptual framework. In particular we perhapsneed to consider the question of opposition in the context of the impact ofexternalities arising from economic growth – i.e. cause rather than simplyeffect.

Why is this useful to the analysis? Essentially because it allows us toconsider the question of opposition to wind farms within a theoreticalframework which can, following a Subjectivist epistemology, also accountfor power and class interests. This is not to say that we can only theoriseopposition in this way, but rather that by locating the issue within awider conceptual framework we can at least explore alternative explanationsmore fully.

4.3.2 Instrumentality, Identity and Ideology

Bert Klandermans applies a threefold typology to the study of participationin social movements. (Klandermans 2007)105 however, a broader application ofthis typology, could well be useful for theorising both demand for andopposition to wind energy. People are motivated by multiple factors and itseems restrictive to try to locate opposition in only one dimension. To beclear however, this paper does not simply adopt the model Klandermansproposes, but rather it borrows the typology of the model and then uses itto explore wind farm opposition under the headings of Instrumentality,Identity and Ideology.

4.3.3 Wind farms and Instrumentality

Klandermans (2007) defines Instrumentality as

“..movement participation as an attempt to influence the social and political environment(2007 p361)

Without delving into the theoretical origins of this definition – whichlink to Resource Mobilisation and Political Process theories and areultimately underpinned by Rational Choice, it seems entirely logical thatInstrumental motives may act as a stimulus for opposition and participationin anti wind farm activity.

Take turbine noise for an example. Within the wind energy literature thereis a body of material concerned with the measurement of noise emitted fromwind turbines and its effects - both actual and perceived (Van den Berg(2004); Bolin (2006); Alves-Pereira & Castelo Branco (2007a); Alves-Pereira& Castelo Branco (2007b); BERR (2007); Pierpont (forthcoming)). Opponentsto wind energy projects frequently cite examples of families driven fromtheir homes due to turbine noise106 and there is an ongoing and unsettleddebate concerning the effects of low frequency noise (Alves-Pereira &Castelo Branco (2007a), (2007b); Pierpont (forthcoming))

While there are national standards for noise generated from wind farms andplanning guidance regarding minimum separation distances from dwellings,the Technical and Protest Discourses frequently join battle during PlanningInquiries107

15

Also consider the issue of the actual or perceived impact of large windfarms on house prices or saleability. This is also hotly contestedterritory with opponents to wind energy projects citing their own localexperience and supportive studies into adverse house price impacts (RICS2004). Meanwhile developers and pro wind supporters also selectively citealternative research (RICS (2007)108; Sims, Dent & Oskrochi (2008)) tosuggest less, if any, adverse impacts.

The possible threat to peace and quiet and private property can be highlyeffective motivators for personal action; however an analysis of reasonsfor opposition has to go deeper and has also to ask “who benefits fromobjections?” not just why they might be made.

Enzesberger (1974) in his Critique of Political Ecology offers the followinginsight:

“Industrialisation made whole towns and areas of the countryside uninhabitable as long as ahundred and fifty years ago. The environmental conditions at places of work, that is to say inthe English factories and pits, were — as innumerable documents demonstrate — dangerousto life. There was an infernal noise; the air people breathed was polluted with explosive andpoisonous gases as well as with carcinogenous matter and particles which were highlycontaminated with bacteria. The smell was unimaginable. In the labour process contagiouspoisons of all kinds were used. The diet was bad. Food was adulterated. Safety measures werenon-existent or were ignored. The overcrowding in the working-class quarters was notorious.The situation over drinking water and drainage was terrifying. There was in general noorganized method for disposing of refuse...

These conditions, which are substantiated by innumerable other sources from the 19thcentury, would undoubtedly have presented a ‘neutral observer’ with food for ecologicalreflection. But there were no such observers. It occurred to no one to draw pessimisticconclusions about the future of industrialization from these facts. The ecological movementhas only come into being since the districts which the bourgeoisie inhabit and their livingconditions have been exposed to those environmental burdens that industrialization bringswith it.

What fills their prophets with terror is not so much ecological decline, which has been presentsince time immemorial, as its universalization. To isolate oneself from this process becomesincreasingly difficult...

..The real capitalist class, which is decreasing in numbers, can admittedly still avoid theseconsequences. It can buy its own private beaches and employ lackeys of all kinds. But for boththe old and the new petty bourgeoisie such expenditure is unthinkable. The cost of a ‘private‘environment’ which makes it possible to escape to some extent from the consequences ofindustrialization is already astronomical and will rise more sharply in future”109.

While this critique is levelled at the Environmental Movement the analysisthat underpins it appears relevant for our own problem. Could it be thatanti wind farm activity is evidence of the encroachment of industrialcapital into the private space of the middle class or petty bourgeoisie?

Eder (1985)110 takes a similar line in arguing New Social Movements (whichcould include the Anti Wind farm “Movement”) are populated by the pettybourgeoisie whose’ reasons for participation in protest activity include adefence against intrusions into the middle class life–world or habitus. Heidentifies one such defence as being against the intrusions caused by

16

crises in the welfare state (extension of the state, increase in taxationetc), but it is equally possible to consider intrusions of a more directkind, such as those arising out of the search for new sources of energy.

It is therefore possible to envisage that instrumental motives underpinindividual and class based responses to industrial encroachment. Howeverthere are also alternative and complimentary explanations as discussedbelow. 4.3.4 Wind farms and Identity

Klandermans uses the term Identity to mean movement participation as “amanifestation of identification with a group”, however from a Symbolic Interactionistperspective; Identity has a much broader significance. It is concerned withthe idea of “self” and proposes that individual sense of personal identityis heavily shaped by conscious and unconscious perceptions of the world.

Although early “self” theorists paid little attention to the physical worldin this process, Proshansky, Fabian & Kaminoff (1983)111 have argued thatthe idea of “Place” is an important part of socialisation and identitycreation. In using the word “Place” we should be clear as to its meaning.Place and Space are different. “Space” is amorphous, undefined andunbounded, whereas “Places” have been transformed through humaninteraction, have meaning and generate emotional responses. “Space” istransformed into “Place” through the interaction of several elements – thephysical setting, a person’s internal social and psychological processesand through rituals practiced at the place.112

Altman & Low (1992) use the phrase “Place Attachment” to describe:

“.. the symbolic relationship formed by people giving culturally shared emotional / affectivemeanings to a particular space or piece of land that provides the basis for the individuals andgroups understanding of and relation to the environment..”113

Place attachment can be understood as the bond that develops between anindividual and a particular space. Its dimensions include emotional andcultural / symbolic aspects associated with the creation of meaning and itsproperties include strength (strong / weak bond). Place Identity can beconsidered as a subset of Place Attachment and as a concept, originated inwork by Proshansky (1978114; 1982115) and Proshansky, Fabian & Kaminoff(1983).

Place Identity in broad terms is that set of memories, feelings, attitudes,values, preferences and ideas which are associated with a geographicallylocatable place, through which a person acquires a sense of belonging andpurpose which in turn give meaning to existence. The home is considered tobe the most important “place” in this context – it is the “centralreference point of human existence” 116

Other authors – such as Relph (1976) and Tuan (1980)117 approach identitycreation in a similar way, - Tuan focussing on “rootedness” as a corecomponent of historic societies.

Place Identity is a largely implicit and unspoken phenomenon however it cansurface when “place” is threatened. Wester-Herber (2004) highlights the

17

relevance of Place Identity in the context of hazardous waste facilitysiting debates.118 Personal safety does not have to be at risk forindividuals to feel compromised – in fact threats can be more esoteric – achange to the landscape for example or proposed development which on nonemotional grounds could be considered “beneficial” can have the sameeffect.

Threats to “place” therefore can be perceived as threats to self identityand conversely security and satisfaction with “place” serve to create andreinforce a sense of self. For objectors to wind energy projects theimmediate rationale for objection would include potential damage tolandscapes and countryside but the underlying rationale would be the threatto “place” defined self. These ideas have now entered academic discourse(Devine-Wright (2005); Haggett (2008) and Devine-Wright (forthcoming)).

4.3.5 Wind farms and Ideology

Klandermans describes Ideology as “movement participation as a search for meaning or asan expression of one’s views”, however, again, a wider interpretation such as thatused by Oliver & Johnston (2000)119 which succinctly describes Ideology as a“System of Ideas” is perhaps more helpful in this context. Following thisgeneral definition it is also necessary to note that Ideologies arenormative – they are as Putnam (1973) put it,

“..a life guiding set of beliefs, values and goals..”120

Klandermans proposes a model of participation wherein the combination ofInstrumentality, Identity and Ideology is additive – i.e. if all threemotives apply then social movement participation is more likely than ifonly one or two are present (2007 p362). However, from the interpretationthat has been ascribed to Ideology above, it is initially difficult to seehow opposition to wind energy could emerge from the starting point of alife guiding set of beliefs, values and goals – in fact the opposite iseasier to appreciate. Beliefs such as environmental stewardship, are nowfinding currency within the Christian faith121, deeply held anti nuclearstances are influential in the development of energy policy122 and it is nowthe case that the charge of “Climate Change Denial” occupies the linguistic samespace as “Holocaust Denial” in the public debate about environmental issues.

It is therefore entirely possible that the significance of Ideology is as alimiting factor rather than an enabling factor as far as opposition to windenergy is concerned.

Opposition to wind farms can therefore possibly be theorised as anInstrumental and Identity related response to the externalities arisingfrom economic growth. This opposition may be limited by Ideologies whichcontain conflicting beliefs, values and goals and can lead to what Warrenet al (2005) describe as “Green on Green” conflict. It is the authors’intention to explore this thesis empirically as part of ongoing PhDresearch. 5.0 Wind Energy Language

18

Alain Touraine has argued that

“..each social scientist must make clear the meaning of the words he or she uses, situating them ina more general intellectual frame of reference”123

If we are to use words like “Wind farm”; “NIMBY”; and “Social Movement”then following Touraine we should at least spend some time consideringtheir meaning. This last section of the paper presents some thoughts onthis issue.

5.1 “Wind farm”

It is difficult to establish exactly when the phrase “wind farm” came intoexistence. One early usage was in 1978 when Jennifer Kerr of the AssociatedPress reported that the California State Energy Commission had predictedthat by 1995 “wind farms”, groupings of small turbines could provide up toten percent of the electricity required for homes and businesses124. Thispredates the first actual operational wind farm at Crotched Mountain butthe phrase is likely to have been in use at the time.

Wind “farm” evokes a particular and positive image when it is used - incontrast to the image that is created by phrases such as “wind factory” or“power station” – which are often used by anti wind farm groups. Barry,Ellis, & Robinson (2006 b) highlight the contested nature of the phrasewind “farm” in their rhetorical analysis of wind energy discoursessuggesting that wind energy opposition groups seek to challenge the use ofthe “..the notion of ‘farm’ which has rural, pastoral, ‘safe’ and ‘unthreatening’ connotations” byalternatively describing wind energy projects as “industrial factories”.

Barry, Ellis, & Robinson (2006 b) also cite Haggett and Toke’s (2006)discussion of the association of wind energy production with rural valuesand symbols and their observation that

“A “farm” is an obvious and fitting part of the countryside. The term has connotation ofworking with nature, and of productivity. “Farms” will be a part of the rural landscape, not analien imposition upon it”. (2006 p117)

In the analyses above, the authors have tended to locate the debate aroundlanguage in terms of the problemetization of the word wind farm byopposition groups; however a parallel critique could equally focus on theinitial appropriation of language by supporters of wind power. In eithercase the phrase “wind farm” is non neutral and occupies disputed linguisticterritory.

5.2 “NIMBY”

The acronym “NIMBY” stands for “Not in My Back Yard”. It is said tocharacterise expressions of localised opposition to new development asbeing motivated by residents who want to “protect their turf”. As Dear(1992) put it

“.. NIMBY refers to the protectionist attitudes of and oppositional tactics adopted bycommunity groups facing unwelcome development in their neighbourhood”125

19

“NIMBY” appears to have originated in the late 1970’s / early 1980’s,Grelet (2007) suggesting that

“The origin of the term is clear. It came, as might be expected, from the United States. Itactually originated in a very specific context, coming into use in the late 1970s among townplanning professionals, including architects, builders, civil engineers, town planners, andconsultants, whose projects met with unexpected local resistance.”126

The term was reportedly used in print for the first time in the ChristianScience Monitor in November 1980 in connection with Hazardous Waste

“People are now thoroughly alert to the dangers of hazardous chemical wastes. The verythought of having even a secure landfill anywhere near them is anathema to most Americanstoday. It's an attitude referred to in the trade as NIMBY — "not in my backyard."127

Burningham, Barnett & Thrush (2006) also report that the term originated in1980 and suggest that it was coined by Walter Rogers of the AmericanNuclear Society, a pro nuclear lobby group. Their comprehensive literaturereview on the use of the term NIMBY concludes that:

“As researchers we should avoid attributing NIMBYism – We have three reasons for not usingthe term.. it is generally used as a pejorative... it may not be accurate... this label leaves thecause of the opposition unexplained”128

McClymont & O’Hare (2008) have even more recently contrasted thecharacterisation of local protest groups with the idealised conception oflocal communities and conclude that:

“..labels such as “NIMBY” and “sustainable community” are highly subjective and politicallycharged. The former label is often utilised in an attempt to dismiss the arguments of a groupas purely self interested or to discredit the activities of those who mobilise”129

An example of how language – in this case the word NIMBY can de legitimiseprotest can be seen by reference to a debates in the Welsh Assembly. On 10December 2002 during a debate on Sustainable Energy policy Cynog Dafis AMreferred to opposition AM Peter Black as a “Classic NIMBY”. This statement wassubsequently questioned by Rhodri Glyn Davies AM who suggested that theword “hypocrite” might be a more appropriate term – to which Cynog Dafisreplied:

“That is a terribly strong word. I prefer the word ‘NIMBY’, which is somewhat more insultingthan ‘hypocrite’. It has less dignity than the word ‘hypocrite’”130

NIMBY is clearly a pejorative term effectively used as a rhetorical device.While it may be the case that people seek to “protect their turf”, the NIMBY labelde-legitimises this without providing any real understanding for suchbehaviour. In this context it is worth recalling that its origins appear tobe linked to pro nuclear lobbying, a dimension conveniently overlooked bysome participants in the renewable energy debate.

5.3 “Social Movement”

At the beginning of his historical review of Social Movements Tilly (2004)makes the following observation

20

“No one owns the term “social movement”; analysts, activists, and critics are free to use thephrase as they want.”131

Conventionally, the term “social movement” has been used to describe groupsof actors engaged in contentious struggles, sharing a sense of solidarityand unity of purpose. This use of the term implies that social movementshave legitimacy, not necessarily in relation to their goals, but becausethey have power and command recognition. The title of Sidney Tarrows’ book“Power in Movement”132 succinctly encapsulates this perspective.

The act of simply referring to a particular “struggle”, “protest”, or “collectiveeffervescence” as a “Movement” or “Social Movement” confers a specific powerrelationship on collective action. It is therefore important to be clearwhat effect our labels have when seeking to describe popular collectiveaction and those who participate in it. Touraine and Melucci both writing in 1985 separately acknowledge thesymbolism embedded in the term “Social Movement”. Touraine opens his Introductionto the Study of Social Movements by stating that

“The notion of social movement, like most notions in the social sciences, does not describe partof “reality” but is an element of a specific mode of constructing social reality”133

while Melucci (1985) also contends that

“The concept of movement belongs to the same semantic and conceptual framework in whichother notions, such as progress or revolution, were formed”134

Social movement therefore is also a label, but one which is a great dealmore attractive than NIMBY.

6.0 Conclusions

This paper has attempted to map some of the terrain in which the debate onwind energy takes place. It has outlined the technical development of thewind turbine as a means of electrical energy production, shown how the windenergy sector has grown over time and in particular has described the UKexperience with particular reference to Wales.

Some of the principal Discourses present within the wind energy literaturehave been summarised and national and international opposition to windenergy projects has been described and analysed at a micro level using asocial network analysis tool. Opposition to wind energy projects has beententatively theorised in a way that is as Devine-Wright (2005) puts it,“more grounded in established social science conceptual and methodological approaches”. Finallyand as an aide memoire for further research, the linguistic dimensions ofthe debate regarding wind energy have been explored.

21

References

22

23

24

25

26

27

28