Gardner

ALTERNATIVE FUTURES and POPULAR PROTEST, 14th International Conference Manchester Metropolitan University, 15-17 April 2009 Working Paper - please do not cite or quote without permission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 some 77% of people surveyed by them were “Fairly” or “Very” concerned about climate change and that 59% agreed with the idea of investment in renewables – even if this led to an increase in energy prices. Nineteen percent agreed strongly with investment now, despite the pain of recent price hikes from energy suppliers.1 Despite this there is still significant opposition to the development of renewable energy generating facilities. Across the UK and many other western industrialised countries there are numerous opposition campaigns where on shore wind farms in particular are proposed. However, our knowledge of these opposition campaigns and groups is limited. Are they NIMBY responses from locals who only want to “protect their turf” and stop their view from being spoiled? Or are they part of an organised social movement with clear aims, strategies and involving the mobilization of resources. Or are they a mixture of different individualized concerns coalescing around a particular issue? This paper briefly outlines the scale of wind energy development internationally and more locally in the UK using data from Wales. It presents an overview of the literature on wind farms and begins to theorise some of the possible explanations for wind farm opposition. Network mapping tools are used to illustrate the linkages between individual campaigns and finally the issue of language is explored in the context of the NIMBY label which is commonly used to describe such protest.

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

Ian Gardner PhD Sociology & Social Policy University of Bangor Tel: 01745 550255 E-Mail:[email protected]

1.0

Introduction

1.1

Electricity Production via Wind – A Brief History

The first use of a windmill to generate electricity dates to 1887 when Professor James Blyth of Anderson's College, Glasgow, experimented with three different turbine designs, the last of which is said to have operated in his home for 25 years2. Shortly thereafter, in late 1887 / early 1888 in the USA, Charles F. Brush built a multiplebladed post mill with a rotor 17 meters in diameter and a large tail designed to turn the mill. The Brush Machine had a power output of 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 become quite common, notably in Denmark. In the 1920’s and 1930’s small scale (1-3 kW) wind turbines were installed in farms and homesteads across the USA and Canada – mainly to provide lighting and energy for radio equipment.4 In 1931 George Darrieus patented the unusual design for the “Darrieus Machine” which is often referred to as the "eggbeater windmill". Large scale energy production also began in Russia in 1931 with a 100kW wind turbine in Balaclava. This operated for about two years on the shore of the Caspian Sea, generating some 200,000 kWh of electricity.5 In Germany during the late 1930’s and 1940’s, the National Socialist government explored the use of wind power for reasons of “security of supply”. This interest in wind technology resulted in the development of a significant research programme drawing on the expertise of some of the country’s leading engineers – including Ferdinand Porsche. After the Second World War wind turbine deployment slowed, due in part to the fall in oil prices and the consequent availability of cheap electricity. However the technological development path continued to focus on larger machines. In 1941, in America a 1.25 MW turbine was developed in Vermont and is commonly cited as the first really large machine – having an output measured in Megawatts and a rotor diameter in excess of 50m. In the late 1940’s in Denmark, wind turbine development was taken forward by the Danish technician Johannes Juul. In 1948, Juul constructed a two blade 15kW turbine based on the design principles of Ulrich Hutter, an engineer who had been influential in the German wind energy programme. In 1952 Juul built a larger 40 kW turbine and in 1956 he constructed a 200 kW machine 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 in wind technology (Haymann 1998). The US government, through NASA, commenced research into large commercial wind turbines and thirteen experimental turbines were constructed in Ohio. By December 1980 this research had blossomed 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 of Crotched Mountain in southern New Hampshire. Subsequently development of further wind farms in California and Denmark marked the start of more widespread commercial production of electricity from wind power. By 1992 there were nearly 16,000 wind turbines in California, and by 1994 the state was producing 47% of world wind energy generated electricity with Denmark and Germany together accounting for a further 34% (Woods 2003). Despite this international expansion of wind energy during the 1980’s, the technology was not adopted in the UK. From 1990 onwards however, the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) framework provided a significant incentive and the UK wind industry was born.

2

Wind Energy Deployment 2

2.1

Wind Turbine Deployment Internationally

According to the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), in 1996 the potential worldwide electricity generating capacity from wind turbines stood at 6100 MW. By the end of 2008 this had increased to more than 120,791 MW (or 120.8 GW) of installed capacity worldwide. Growth of installed wind power has been steady since 1996 and apart from in 2004, the rate of growth has increased year on year – with the single largest increase in installed capacity taking place in 2008, an increase of just under 29%.7. The varying levels of Wind turbine deployment internationally can be seen below: Global Installed Wind Power Capacity in MW - Dec 2008 Country Denmark Germany Netherlands Spain Portugal Ireland UK Italy Austria Taiwan Greece France Japan India USA South Korea Sweden Poland Costa Rica Norway China New Zealand Turkey Egypt Tunisia Morocco Canada Australia Philippines Iran Mexico Brazil Argentina Other Total

Installed Capacity

Area in square Km

Installed Capacity in MW per Km

Or One 1 MW turbine every Km

3180 23903 2225 16754 2862 1002 3241 3736 995 358 985 3404 1880 9645 25170 236 1021 472 70 428 12210 326 433 365 54 134 2369 1306 33 85 85 341 29 1454

43094 357021 41526 504782 92391 70280 244820 301230 83870 35980 131940 643427 377835 3287590 9826630 98480 449964 312685 51100 323802 9596960 268680 780580 1001450 163610 446550 9984670 7686850 300000 1648000 1972550 8511965 2766890 N/A

0.073792 0.066951 0.053581 0.033191 0.030977 0.014257 0.013238 0.012402 0.011864 0.009950 0.007466 0.005290 0.004976 0.002934 0.002561 0.002396 0.002269 0.001510 0.001370 0.001322 0.001272 0.001213 0.000555 0.000364 0.000330 0.000300 0.000237 0.000170 0.000110 0.000052 0.000043 0.000040 0.000010 N/A

13.55 14.94 18.66 30.13 32.28 70.14 75.54 80.63 84.29 100.50 133.95 189.02 200.98 340.86 390.41 417.29 440.71 662.47 730.00 756.55 785.99 824.17 1802.73 2743.70 3029.81 3332.46 4214.72 5885.80 9090.91 19388.24 23206.47 24961.77 95410.00 N/A

120,791

-

-

-

Sources: GWEC and www.geohive.com (author’s own analysis)

2.2

Wind Turbine Deployment in the UK 3

Onshore Wind The first onshore wind farm on the UK was constructed in Delabole, North Cornwall in 1991. This development comprised ten 400 kW turbines with a total generating capacity of 4MW and is still operational. By October 2008 there were 179 onshore wind farms in the UK and according to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs8, a further 424 are in development. The first onshore wind farm in Wales was built at Cemmaes in Powys and became operational in October 1992. Comprising twenty four two bladed 300 kW turbines this was swiftly followed in November 1992 with a similar sized development at Rhyd-yGroes on Anglesey and then in January 1993 by the significantly larger Llandinam wind farm in Powys, which, consisting of one hundred and three 300 kW turbines was, at the time of its development, the largest in Europe9. Wales now has 26 operational onshore wind farms comprising over 480 turbines across the Country10.

Offshore Wind The first offshore wind farm in the UK was developed at North Hoyle, off the North Wales coast coast between Prestatyn and Rhyl in 2003 and consists of thirty 2 MW turbines. A further seven offshore wind farms are located in UK coastal waters – currently generating around 0.6 GW of capacity. Offshore wind is seen as a major source of growth of renewable energy and the Government has awarded leases to developers for projects that could generate up to 8.2 GW of power. Permission to allow the development of a further 25 GW of capacity in offshore waters has also been granted recently. In light of this rapid growth (actual and proposed) the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs11 has recently reported that wind power will soon become Britain’s largest source of renewable electricity generation.

2.3

Wind Turbine Size & Output

The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) database of operational wind farms12 records details of some 200 wind energy developments and extensions in the UK – both onshore and offshore. An analysis of these developments suggests that the trend in wind farm development in the UK is towards larger wind turbines and greater generating output for each wind farm). This is illustrated:

Turbine Output in MW

Windfarm Turbine Size 1991-2009

Year Windfarm Operational

Source: BWEA

4

Output in MW

Windfarm

Windfarm Output 1991-2009

Year Operational

Source: BWEA

Growth in turbine height and rotor diameter is illustrated in the diagram below, recently used in a report to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A 2MW turbine has a turbine diameter equivalent to the wingspan of an A380 Airbus and much current onshore wind development is based on turbines 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 first development 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 the period 1999 to date, the country has been seen by wind farm developers as being “closed for business” 14. Planning approval rates for wind farms in Wales declined sharply between 1999 and 2003 and the period since 1999 has been marked by significant local and national protest against what is perceived by opponents to be inappropriate industrial scale wind farm development. The planning system in Wales has been seen as the principal impediment to production of a greater proportion of renewable energy. This “planning problem” (Cowell 2007; 296) was ultimately addressed when in 2004 “Assembly Ministers exercised the long called for political leadership” (Cowell 2007; 295) setting a renewable energy target for the Country and publishing the draft Technical Advice Note 8 - Planning for Renewable Energy. (TAN 8). The effect of these two interventions has been to re-stimulate the renewable energy sector and encourage wind farm developments in particular in seven Strategic Search Areas across Wales. In addition to encouraging wind farms on private land, the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) has also made public sector land available within forestry managed by the Forestry Commission Wales (FCW) and has awarded Options to Develop wind farms in Welsh forests. 5

According to the draft WAG Renewable Energy Routemap15, around 2500 MW of onshore wind farm projects are now within the planning system, consented or have become operational in Wales since the adoption of TAN 8 in 2005. This equates to three times more onshore wind power than was initially envisaged in 2004 and if all applications become operational; Wales will have a wind turbine density greater than Denmark. Potentially, there are several interconnected explanations for the “rush for wind” in Wales. These include the impact of political devolution from 1999 providing the opportunity for the country to establish itself as a sustainable nation (Identity); a vigorously advanced Economic Development argument (Instrumentality) and the anti nuclear stance (Ideology) adopted by the National Assembly from its inception16. This paper does not attempt to explore these reasons however the potential for Identity, Instrumentality and Ideology to act as both “push” and “pull” factors in relation to wind farm development and protest is an idea that will 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. The wind industry associations produce their own “in house” publications in the UK, Europe, Australia and the USA, the content of which are frequently cited by policymakers and academics. Several distinct discourses can be identified within the wind energy literature. These include a Technical Discourse, a Protest Discourse and an Attitudinal / Public Opinion Discourse. The Technical Discourse is perhaps easiest to appreciate but not particularly accessible. Wind turbines turn the kinetic energy of the wind into electrical energy without the need for significant amounts of fossil fuel inputs and there is a large and growing body of knowledge devoted to the engineering challenges associated with turbine design & performance17. The Technical Discourse also focuses on the measurement of efficiency / inefficiency on the environmental benefits / consequences of this form of energy generation. There are several threads to each including energy output, noise, CO2 “savings” (when compared with fossil fuel generation); technical problems associated with intermittency and grid connection together with the ecological, hydrological and economic impact of wind turbines etc. A further thread relates to procedural aspects of wind turbine deployment – particularly focussing on the Planning system. The Protest Discourse is a distinct literature on its own. One section details the impact of wind farm development on individuals and communities – from their perspective. In Wales for example, Kay Little has written about the loss of the “Battle for Cefn Croes”, while in the North East of England, Elizabeth Mann has written about the campaign to prevent wind farm development at Barningham High Moor. A further section could be termed “counter propaganda” and comprises technical critiques of arguments made by developers and wind farm supporters – again from an objector perspective. Additionally, there is a small body of literature which attempts to locate opposition to wind energy within a broader framework. Finally, the Public Opinion / Attitudinal Discourse seeks to explain attitudes and in particular, opposition to wind energy deployment. This is an international discourse and again a number of specific threads can be identified. There is a considerable amount of Public Attitude survey material – both in the UK and abroad, with surveys conducted nationally and locally. A body of literature exists on the misuse of the NIMBY label and there is an emerging literature on Place Attachment and Identity in the context of wind energy. Barry, Ellis & Robinson (2006 b p4) suggest that this is “the dominant topic of social science research”. 6

A selection from this literature is referenced below Discourse

Citation

Community Social / Protest Discourse Participant Experience Community Social / Protest Discourse - Observer

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

Technical / Scientific Discourse – Noise

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

Technical / Scientific Discourse – Output / CO2 displacement Technical / Scientific Discourse Economics

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 Professional Managerial Administrative Procedural

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

Attitudinal Psychological Discourse

3.2

/ / / /

Woods (2003a)27; Woods (2003b)28; Upreti & Van der Horst (2004)29; Toke & Strachan (2006)30; Walker, Hunter, DevineWright, Evans & Fay (2007)31

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

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

Commentary

The brief overview above highlights a number of areas for comment. Firstly, and rather unsurprisingly if one considers its technical content, at an epistemological level, much of the literature has been written from an implicitly Objectivist perspective. As Szarka (2004) observed “To date [2004], analysis of the sector has largely been undertaken by technologists and economists” (2004 p2) [brackets added] There is very little material written from a Constructivist or Subjectivist standpoint and much of the literature has been “thin” as far as epistemology is concerned. Barry, Ellis & Robinson (2006 b) suggest that in connection with the Attitudinal / Psychological discourse: 7

“..most research into public acceptance of wind farms has been undertaken without reference to a deeper theoretical framework and as such is devoid of conceptual foundation” (2006 b p 6) However, Szarka (2004) suggests that as wind power has gained public attention and greater political salience “..increased numbers of social scientists are seeking to move beyond partial analyses and look for more comprehensive explanations of its dynamics” .(2004 p2) Along these lines, some relatively recent attempts have been made to move beyond the limitations of Positivism and there is a small body of literature which seeks to locate opposition to wind energy within a broader theoretical framework (Woods 2003; DevineWright 2005; Pederson et al (2007) and Devine-Wright (Forthcoming) are some examples). These have adopted Constructivist ideas of Identity or have deployed Subjectivist inspired Discourse Analysis, in trying to develop a more integrated conceptual framework. However despite this shift, this area is still under developed. Secondly, the Technical Discourse dominates the decision making process where wind energy applications come before Ministers, Planning Committees and communities. The debate regarding the appropriateness or otherwise of specific wind energy generating facilities is a technical one, there is a significant reliance on the use of “experts” and there is a formalised technical / professional framework which acts to structure and delimit the terms of debate. Thirdly, the nature of the Technical Discourse is complex and can serve as a barrier to widespread understanding and community engagement. Environmental Statements which must accompany wind energy planning applications often run to hundreds of pages of quite detailed analysis. While these documents are made publicly available and summarised, the time cost associated with gaining an independent understanding of content is significant and not all members of the community are able to understand the complex content of such documents. Fourthly, on the basis of the above, it might be seen to be attractive to divide the literature between “Expert” and “Lay” discourses, with much of the Protest Discourse falling under the Lay category. This would however, understate the extent to which contributors to the Protest Discourse successfully engage on “expert terrain”. Many protestors have acquired more expertise than the Officers and Elected Members responsible for local decision making, yet the technical and professional framework within which decisions 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 farm groups in the UK94. Many of these groups, while operating locally are also connected to one another via a central clearing house known as Country Guardian. This organisation, formed in 1991 by the now deceased Joseph Lythgoe, provides “..information and advice, servicing the action groups which spring up every time a wind development is mooted. It helps the groups to pool information and experience and avoids each new group having to re-invent the wheel. It has three hundred members..”95 Country Guardian has attracted the patronage of several influential public figures including Neil Kinnock MP, Nigel Evans MP, Sir Bernard Ingham and The Rt. Rev John Oliver, the former Bishop of Hereford. Price (2007) 96 provides a biography of some of the leading members of the organisation including that of the current Chair, Angela Kelly. 8

In the United States and Canada there are at least 120 anti wind farm groups (96 in the USA and 24 in Canada) 97. Again there is a national coordinating 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 representatives from ten US states, National Wind Watch was formed in 2005 “..with the goal of providing a central resource of information and helping to increase communication among "wind warriors” In Europe, the anti wind farm “movement” has recently coalesced and the European Platform Against Wind farms (EPAW) was formed in Paris in October 2008. This organisation now represents 291 anti wind farm organisations across 15 European countries99. EPAW brings together national anti wind farm federations 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 of sociological enquiry (as advocated by Wellman (1988))101 or a useful research method through which relationships between individuals and groups can be analysed. As a method, network analysis involves mapping the relationships between groups, individuals and organisations and using the resultant “network” to understand more about the way in which social relations operate. Crossley (2007) suggests that “The first key question that this type of research is uniquely placed to answer is the question of whether the groups identified constitute, collectively, a movement and whether individual groups in the sample belong to the movement”102 To begin to answer the question “is there an ant-wind farm movement?” the SNA method has been applied to two current anti wind farm protest organisations. The resultant network diagrams map the extent of the ties between the selected organisations and other protest organisations. Blue lines represent non reciprocal links and red lines represent reciprocal links between “nodes” (anti wind farm groups / organisations in this example)

Figure 1 – Acton Bridge Anti Wind farm Group Network 9

The above maps the network of the Acton Bridge Anti Wind farm Group in Cheshire 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 the results are shown in Figure 2.

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

This second example illustrates a more extensive network and links to different types of organisations (e.g. CPRW & Artists against Wind farms) as well as links to Coordinating organisations (Country Guardian) and protest organisations in other countries (Scotland & the USA). It also indicates that some protest organisations are more important than others (the Cefn Croes group for example attracts a large number of reciprocal ties) 10

The interconnected nature of these anti wind farm protest groups together with the existence of national federations and both national and international coordinating bodies suggests that there is some rationale for believing that opposition is more than a localised and independent phenomenon.

4.3 4.3.1

Theorising Opposition Wind farms and The Externalities of Economic Growth

The introduction to this paper outlined how the pace of wind turbine development slowed after the Second World War due in part to the fall in oil prices and the consequent availability of cheap electricity. It also indicated that arising out of concerns regarding the price of oil in the 1970’s, the US government began to develop large scale wind technology as a means of producing energy on a commercial scale. In this context, the development and exploitation of wind technology can be seen as part of the process of Production within the dominant economic system, a process which Castells (1996) defines as “The action of humankind on matter (nature) to appropriate it and transform it for its benefit”104 In fact, here there are two sub-processes at work – the first involving the exploitation of natural resources (coal, oil, wind etc) to generate energy. The second being the production of other goods and services. In this second production process, within an industrialised economic system, energy is required by the technology which serves to maintain and improve productivity – i.e. it affects the ratio of inputs to outputs within the production process. Castells (1996) suggests that “In the Industrial mode of development, the main source of productivity lies in the introduction of new energy sources, and in the ability to dececentralise the use of energy in the production and circulation processes” (1996 p16/17) Whether Castells is correct or not in asserting that the main source of productivity lies in the introduction of new energy sources, Energy is undoubtedly a key component for production and hence for economic growth within an industrialised economy; however both the exploitation of energy sources and economic growth have by-products. In the period following the Industrial Revolution, these have included environmental effects – to the physical landscape and rural infrastructure. The development of towns and cities, coal mines, quarries, slate tips, railway lines, roads and power plants have all changed the landscape and have impacted on different communities over time, resulting in protest. It is therefore suggested that to begin to understand why there can be opposition to wind farms it is necessary to locate the question of opposition within a broader conceptual framework. In particular we perhaps need to consider the question of opposition in the context of the impact of externalities arising from economic growth – i.e. cause rather than simply effect. Why is this useful to the analysis? Essentially because it allows us to consider the question of opposition to wind farms within a theoretical framework which can, following a Subjectivist epistemology, also account for power and class interests. This is not to say that we can only theorise opposition in this way, but rather that by locating the issue within a wider conceptual framework we can at least explore alternative explanations more fully.

4.3.2

Instrumentality, Identity and Ideology

Bert Klandermans applies a threefold typology to the study of participation in social movements. (Klandermans 2007)105 however, a broader application of this typology, 11

could well be useful for theorising both demand for and opposition to wind energy. People are motivated by multiple factors and it seems restrictive to try to locate opposition in only one dimension. To be clear however, this paper does not simply adopt the model Klandermans proposes, but rather it borrows the typology of the model and then uses it to 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 – which link to Resource Mobilisation and Political Process theories and are ultimately underpinned by Rational Choice, it seems entirely logical that Instrumental motives may act as a stimulus for opposition and participation in anti wind farm activity. Take turbine noise for an example. Within the wind energy literature there is a body of material concerned with the measurement of noise emitted from wind 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)). Opponents to wind energy projects frequently cite examples of families driven from their homes due to turbine noise106 and there is an ongoing and unsettled debate 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 and planning guidance regarding minimum separation distances from dwellings, the Technical and Protest Discourses frequently join battle during Planning Inquiries107 Also consider the issue of the actual or perceived impact of large wind farms on house prices or saleability. This is also hotly contested territory with opponents to wind energy projects citing their own local experience and supportive studies into adverse house price impacts (RICS 2004). Meanwhile developers and pro wind supporters also selectively cite alternative research (RICS (2007)108; Sims, Dent & Oskrochi (2008)) to suggest less, if any, adverse impacts. The possible threat to peace and quiet and private property can be highly effective motivators for personal action; however an analysis of reasons for opposition has to go deeper and has also to ask “who benefits from objections?” not just why they might be made. Enzesberger (1974) in his Critique of Political Ecology offers the following insight: “Industrialisation made whole towns and areas of the countryside uninhabitable as long as a hundred and fifty years ago. The environmental conditions at places of work, that is to say in the English factories and pits, were — as innumerable documents demonstrate — dangerous to life. There was an infernal noise; the air people breathed was polluted with explosive and poisonous gases as well as with carcinogenous matter and particles which were highly contaminated with bacteria. The smell was unimaginable. In the labour process contagious poisons of all kinds were used. The diet was bad. Food was adulterated. Safety measures were nonexistent 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 no organized method for disposing of refuse... These conditions, which are substantiated by innumerable other sources from the 19th century, would undoubtedly have presented a ‘neutral observer’ with food for ecological reflection. But there were no such observers. It occurred to no one to 12

draw pessimistic conclusions about the future of industrialization from these facts. The ecological movement has only come into being since the districts which the bourgeoisie inhabit and their living conditions have been exposed to those environmental burdens that industrialization brings with it. What fills their prophets with terror is not so much ecological decline, which has been present since time immemorial, as its universalization. To isolate oneself from this process becomes increasingly difficult... ..The real capitalist class, which is decreasing in numbers, can admittedly still avoid these consequences. It can buy its own private beaches and employ lackeys of all kinds. But for both the 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 of industrialization is already astronomical and will rise more sharply in future”109. While this critique is levelled at the Environmental Movement the analysis that underpins it appears relevant for our own problem. Could it be that anti wind farm activity is evidence of the encroachment of industrial capital into the private space of the middle class or petty bourgeoisie? Eder (1985)110 takes a similar line in arguing New Social Movements (which could include the Anti Wind farm “Movement”) are populated by the petty bourgeoisie whose’ reasons for participation in protest activity include a defence against intrusions into the middle class life–world or habitus. He identifies one such defence as being against the intrusions caused by crises in the welfare state (extension of the state, increase in taxation etc), but it is equally possible to consider intrusions of a more direct kind, such as those arising out of the search for new sources of energy. It is therefore possible to envisage that instrumental motives underpin individual and class based responses to industrial encroachment. However there are also alternative and complimentary explanations as discussed below.

4.3.4

Wind farms and Identity

Klandermans uses the term Identity to mean movement participation as “a manifestation of identification with a group”, however from a Symbolic Interactionist perspective; Identity has a much broader significance. It is concerned with the idea of “self” and proposes that individual sense of personal identity is heavily shaped by conscious and unconscious perceptions of the world. Although early “self” theorists paid little attention to the physical world in this process, Proshansky, Fabian & Kaminoff (1983)111 have argued that the idea of “Place” is an important part of socialisation and identity creation. In using the word “Place” we should be clear as to its meaning. Place and Space are different. “Space” is amorphous, undefined and unbounded, whereas “Places” have been transformed through human interaction, have meaning and generate emotional responses. “Space” is transformed into “Place” through the interaction of several elements – the physical setting, a person’s internal social and psychological processes and 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 / affective meanings to a particular space or piece of land that provides the basis for the individuals and groups understanding of and relation to the environment..”113 Place attachment can be understood as the bond that develops between an individual and a particular space. Its dimensions include emotional and cultural / symbolic aspects associated with the creation of meaning and its properties include strength (strong / weak bond). Place Identity can be considered as a subset of Place Attachment and as a 13

concept, originated in work by Proshansky (1978 114; 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 geographically locatable place, through which a person acquires a sense of belonging and purpose which in turn give meaning to existence. The home is considered to be the most important “place” in this context – it is the “central reference point of human existence” 116 Other authors – such as Relph (1976) and Tuan (1980)117 approach identity creation in a similar way, - Tuan focussing on “rootedness” as a core component of historic societies. Place Identity is a largely implicit and unspoken phenomenon however it can surface when “place” is threatened. Wester-Herber (2004) highlights the relevance of Place Identity in the context of hazardous waste facility siting debates.118 Personal safety does not have to be at risk for individuals to feel compromised – in fact threats can be more esoteric – a change to the landscape for example or proposed development which on non emotional grounds could be considered “beneficial” can have the same effect. Threats to “place” therefore can be perceived as threats to self identity and conversely security and satisfaction with “place” serve to create and reinforce a sense of self. For objectors to wind energy projects the immediate rationale for objection would include potential damage to landscapes and countryside but the underlying rationale would be the threat to “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 as an expression of one’s views”, however, again, a wider interpretation such as that used by Oliver & Johnston (2000)119 which succinctly describes Ideology as a “System of Ideas” is perhaps more helpful in this context. Following this general definition it is also necessary to note that Ideologies are normative – 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 of Instrumentality, Identity and Ideology is additive – i.e. if all three motives apply then social movement participation is more likely than if only one or two are present (2007 p362). However, from the interpretation that has been ascribed to Ideology above, it is initially difficult to see how opposition to wind energy could emerge from the starting point of a life guiding set of beliefs, values and goals – in fact the opposite is easier to appreciate. Beliefs such as environmental stewardship, are now finding currency within the Christian faith121, deeply held anti nuclear stances are influential in the development of energy policy122 and it is now the case that the charge of “Climate Change Denial” occupies the linguistic same space as “Holocaust Denial” in the public debate about environmental issues. It is therefore entirely possible that the significance of Ideology is as a limiting factor rather than an enabling factor as far as opposition to wind energy is concerned.

Opposition to wind farms can therefore possibly be theorised as an Instrumental and Identity related response to the externalities arising from economic growth. This opposition may be limited by Ideologies which contain conflicting beliefs, values and goals and can lead to what Warren et al (2005) describe as “Green on Green” conflict. It is the authors’ intention to explore this thesis empirically as part of ongoing PhD research.

5.0

Wind Energy Language 14

Alain Touraine has argued that “..each social scientist must make clear the meaning of the words he or she uses, situating them in a 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 considering their meaning. This last section of the paper presents some thoughts on this issue.

5.1 “Wind farm” It is difficult to establish exactly when the phrase “wind farm” came into existence. One early usage was in 1978 when Jennifer Kerr of the Associated Press reported that the California State Energy Commission had predicted that by 1995 “wind farms”, groupings of small turbines could provide up to ten percent of the electricity required for homes and businesses124. This predates the first actual operational wind farm at Crotched Mountain but the phrase is likely to have been in use at the time. Wind “farm” evokes a particular and positive image when it is used - in contrast 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 phrase wind “farm” in their rhetorical analysis of wind energy discourses suggesting that wind energy opposition groups seek to challenge the use of the “..the notion of ‘farm’ which has rural, pastoral, ‘safe’ and ‘unthreatening’ connotations” by alternatively 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 values and symbols and their observation that “A “farm” is an obvious and fitting part of the countryside. The term has connotation of working with nature, and of productivity. “Farms” will be a part of the rural landscape, not an alien imposition upon it”. (2006 p117) In the analyses above, the authors have tended to locate the debate around language in terms of the problemetization of the word wind farm by opposition groups; however a parallel critique could equally focus on the initial appropriation of language by supporters of wind power. In either case the phrase “wind farm” is non neutral and occupies disputed linguistic territory.

5.2

“NIMBY”

The acronym “NIMBY” stands for “Not in My Back Yard”. It is said to characterise expressions of localised opposition to new development as being 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 by community groups facing unwelcome development in their neighbourhood”125 “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. It actually originated in a very specific context, coming into use in the late 1970s among town planning professionals, including architects, builders, civil engineers, town planners, and consultants, whose projects met with unexpected local resistance.”126 The term was reportedly used in print for the first time in the Christian Science Monitor in November 1980 in connection with Hazardous Waste 15

“People are now thoroughly alert to the dangers of hazardous chemical wastes. The very thought of having even a secure landfill anywhere near them is anathema to most Americans today. 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 in 1980 and suggest that it was coined by Walter Rogers of the American Nuclear Society, a pro nuclear lobby group. Their comprehensive literature review on the use of the term NIMBY concludes that: “As researchers we should avoid attributing NIMBYism – We have three reasons for not using the term.. it is generally used as a pejorative... it may not be accurate... this label leaves the cause of the opposition unexplained”128 McClymont & O’Hare (2008) have even more recently contrasted the characterisation of local protest groups with the idealised conception of local communities and conclude that: “..labels such as “NIMBY” and “sustainable community” are highly subjective and politically charged. The former label is often utilised in an attempt to dismiss the arguments of a group as 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 legitimise protest can be seen by reference to a debates in the Welsh Assembly. On 10 December 2002 during a debate on Sustainable Energy policy Cynog Dafis AM referred to opposition AM Peter Black as a “Classic NIMBY”. This statement was subsequently questioned by Rhodri Glyn Davies AM who suggested that the word “hypocrite” might be a more appropriate term – to which Cynog Dafis replied: “That is a terribly strong word. I prefer the word ‘NIMBY’, which is somewhat more insulting than ‘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 label de-legitimises this without providing any real understanding for such behaviour. In this context it is worth recalling that its origins appear to be linked to pro nuclear lobbying, a dimension conveniently overlooked by some 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 “No one owns the term “social movement”; analysts, activists, and critics are free to use the phrase as they want.”131 Conventionally, the term “social movement” has been used to describe groups of actors engaged in contentious struggles, sharing a sense of solidarity and unity of purpose. This use of the term implies that social movements have legitimacy, not necessarily in relation to their goals, but because they 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 “collective effervescence” as a “Movement” or “Social Movement” confers a specific power relationship on collective action. It is therefore important to be clear what effect our labels have when seeking to describe popular collective action and those who participate in it.

16

Touraine and Melucci both writing in 1985 separately acknowledge the symbolism embedded in the term “Social Movement”. Touraine opens his Introduction to the Study of Social Movements by stating that “The notion of social movement, like most notions in the social sciences, does not describe part of “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 which other notions, such as progress or revolution, were formed”134 Social movement therefore is also a label, but one which is a great deal more attractive than NIMBY.

6.0

Conclusions

This paper has attempted to map some of the terrain in which the debate on wind energy takes place. It has outlined the technical development of the wind turbine as a means of electrical energy production, shown how the wind energy sector has grown over time and in particular has described the UK experience with particular reference to Wales. Some of the principal Discourses present within the wind energy literature have been summarised and national and international opposition to wind energy projects has been described and analysed at a micro level using a social network analysis tool. Opposition to wind energy projects has been tentatively theorised in a way that is as Devine-Wright (2005) puts it, “more grounded in established social science conceptual and methodological approaches”. Finally and as an aide memoire for further research, the linguistic dimensions of the debate regarding wind energy have been explored.

References

17

1

MORI (2008) – Public Attitudes to Climate Change – available online at http://www.ipsosmori.com/_assets/pdfs/public%20attitudes%20to%20climate%20change%20-%20for%20website%20%20final.pdf 2 Price, T.J (2005) - James Blyth – Britain's first modern wind power pioneer. Wind Engineering, Volume 29, Number 3, May pp. 191-200 3 De Carolis, F (2004) - The Economics and Environmental Impacts of Large-Scale Wind Power in a Carbon Constrained World. PhD Thesis. Carnegie Mellon University. Online at http://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. Available online at http://www.telosnet.com/wind/20th.html 6 Heymann, M (1998) - Signs of Hubris: The Shaping of Wind Technology Styles in Germany, Denmark, and the United States, 1940-1990. Technology and Culture 39.4 pp 641-670 7 Global Wind Energy Council Press Release 15 February 2007. US and China in race to top of global wind industry. www.gwec.net 8 House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs 4th Report of Session 2007–08 The Economics of Renewable Energy Volume I: Report. HMSO. paras 27/28 9 Scottish Power Press Release (2008) - http://www.scottishpower.com/PressReleases_1676.htm 10 Source: Planning, Monitoring & Review of Renewable Energy Projects. Wales Quarterly Review March – May 2008; BERR Figure 2.7 p8 11 House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs 4th Report of Session 2007–08 The Economics of Renewable Energy Volume I: Report. HMSO. paras 27/28 12 See http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/operational.asp 13 Zervos, A (2008) - Status and Perspectives of Wind Energy. Paper given to IPCC Scoping Meeting on Renewable Energy Sources. Lübeck, Germany, 20 – 25 January, 2008 14 Welsh Development Agency perspective as cited in TAN 8 Steering Group Meeting Minutes 27 September 2002 15 Renewable Energy Route Map for Wales. Welsh Assembly Government. February 2008. Annex E 16 E.g. Statement by Minister responsible for Energy to National Assembly of Wales on 26th February 2003 17 See for example Henricksen, L.C (2009) “Wind Energy Literature Survey No. 11”. Wind Energy. 2009; 12:pp 99–101 18 Kelly, A (2000) – When the Wind Blows. Faculty of Building Journal. October 2000 19 Little, K (Ed) (2003) – The Battle for Cefn Croes. Available online at: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/book/indexpdf.htm 20 Mann, E (2004) – Force 10: Political Will v Landscape Protection http://www.wind-farm.co.uk/force10.pdf 21

Mann, E (2005) – Force 10 – Companion Guide. http://www.wind-farm.co.uk/force10comp.pdf

22

Mason, V.C (2005) - Wind power in West Denmark. Lessons for the UK. http://www.windwatch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/mason-2005-10.rtf 23 Etherington, J (2006) The Case Against Win farms http://www.countryguardian.net/The%20Case%20Against%20Wind%20%27Farms%27.pdf 24 Winkler, M (2007) – Wind Power – It Blows. Winkler Publishing, Wisconsin USA 25

Martin, C.L (2009) – How to Fight the Big Wind Onslaught http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wpcontent/uploads/how-to-fight-big-wind.pdf 26 Pierpont (forthcoming) – Wind Turbine Syndrome: A report on a natural experiment. Pre Publication Draft available online at http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/ms-ready-forposting-on-wtscom-3-7-09.pdf 27 Woods, M (2003a) - Deconstructing rural protest: the emergence of a new social movement. Journal of Rural Studies 19 pp 309–325 28 Woods, M (2003 b) Conflicting environmental visions of the rural: wind farm development in mid-Wales Sociologia Ruralis 43 271–88 29 Upreti, B.R & van der Horst, D (2004) - National renewable energy policy and local opposition in the UK: the failed development of a biomass electricity plant. Biomass and Bioenergy 26 pp 61 – 69 30 Toke, D & Strachan, P.A (2006) - Ecological Modernization and Wind Power in the UK European Environment. 16, 155–166

31

Walker, G; Hunter, S; Devine-Wright, P; Evans, B & Fay, H (2007) - Harnessing Community Energies: Explaining and Evaluating Community - Based Localism in Renewable Energy Policy in the UK. Global Environmental Politics 7:2 May. pp 64-82 32 Van den Berg, G.P. (2004) - Effects of the wind profile at night on wind turbine sound Journal of Sound and Vibration 277 pp 955–970 33 Bolin, K (2006) - Masking of Wind Turbine Sound by Ambient Noise. School of Engineering Sciences. Department of Aeronautical and Vehicle Engineering. The Marcus Wallenberg Laboratory for Sound and Vibration Research. Stockholm. 34 Alves-Pereira, M & Castelo Branco, N.A. A (2007) – Public Health & Noise Exposure: the importance of low frequency noise. Paper given to Inter Noise Conference. August 28-31. Istanbul. Turkey 35 Alves-Pereira, M & Castelo Branco, N.A. A (2007) – In Home Wind Turbine Noise is Conducive to VibroAcoustic disease. Paper given to Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise. September 20-21. Lyon, France. 36 BERR (2007) - Research into Aerodynamic Modulation of Wind Turbine Noise: Final report. Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform / University of Salford. 37 Milligan , R (2002) Modelling Utility-Scale Wind Power Plants Part 2: Capacity Credit National Renewable Energy Laboratory 38 Liik, O; Oidram, R & Keel, M (2003) – Estimation of real emissions reduction caused by wind generators. Paper given to International Energy Workshop. 24-26 June. IIASA. Laxenburg. Austria 39 Zervos, A (2003) - Developing Wind Energy to meet the Kyoto Targets in the European Union. Wind Energy 6:309–319 40 White, D.W (2004) – Reduction in Carbon Dioxide Emissions. Estimating the Potential Contribution from Wind Power. Renewable Energy Foundation. Available online at http://www.ref.org.uk/Files/david.white.wind.co2.saving.12.04.pdf 41 Vorspools, K.R & D’haeseleer , W D (2006) An Analytical Formula for the Capacity Credit of Wind Power; Renewable Energy 31 pp 45-54 42 Rosenbloom, E (2006) – A Problem with Wind Power http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wpcontent/uploads/ProblemWithWind.pdf 43 MacKay, D (2008) – Sustainable Energy – Without Hot Air http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html 44

Zervos, A (2008) - Status and Perspectives of Wind Energy. Paper given to IPCC Scoping Meeting on Renewable Energy Sources. Lübeck, Germany, 20 – 25 January, 2008 45 Schleede, G (2004) - Errors and Excesses in the NREL’s JEDI-WIM Model that Provides Estimates of the State or Local Economic Impact of “Wind Farms”. Published online at http://johnrsweet.com/personal/Wind/PDF/Schleede-economicimpact20040428.pdf 46 RICS (2004) – Impact of Wind Farms on the value of Residential Property and Agricultural Land. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. London 47 Grubb, M; Butler, L & Sinden, N (2005) - Diversity and Security in UK Electricity Generation: The Influence of Low Carbon Objectives. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics. Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge. Available online at http://ideas.repec.org/p/cam/camdae/0511.html 48 Department for Trade & Industry (2005) – Community Benefits from Wind Power. A Study of UK practice and comparison with leading European Countries. Report to Renewables Advisory Board and DTI. DTI 49 Strachan, P.A (2006) - The Evolving UK Wind Energy Industry: Critical Policy and Management Aspects of the Emerging Research Agenda European Environment 16, 1–18 50 Moran, D & Sherrington, C (2007) - An economic assessment of wind farm power generation in Scotland including externalities. Energy Policy 35 (2007) 2811–2825 51 Hoen, B. (2006) Impacts of Windmill Visibility on Property Values in Madison County, New York. Project Report Submitted to the Faculty of the Bard Center for Environmental Policy. P.O. Box 5000. Annandale on Hudson, N.Y. 12504- 5000. April 30, 52 Hansen, A.D & Hansen, L (2007) - Wind Turbine Concept Market Penetration over 10 Years (1995–2004) Wind Energy; 10:81–97 53 RICS (2007) – What is the impact of wind farms on house prices? FIBRE Research Paper, March 2007. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. London 54 Sims, S; Dent, P & Oskrochi, G.R (2008) – Modelling the Impact of Wind farms on House Prices in the UK. International Journal of Strategic Property Management 12, pp 251–269

55

Williams, S. K; Acker, T; Goldberg, M & Grieve, M (2008) - Estimating the Economic Benefits of Wind Energy Projects Using Monte Carlo Simulation with Economic Input/Output Analysis. Wind Energy; 11:397– 414 56 Scottish Natural Heritage (2000) – Technical Guidance Note. Wind farms and Carbon Savings 57

Gray, T; Haggett, C & Bell, D (2005) - Offshore Wind Farms and Commercial Fisheries in the UK: A Study in Stakeholder Consultation. Ethics Place and Environment, Vol. 8, No. 2, 127–140, June 58 Toke, D (2005) – Explaining Wind power planning outcomes: Some findings from a study in England & Wales. Energy Policy 33 pp 1527-1539 59 Cass N (2006) Participatory-Deliberative Engagement: a literature review, published by the School of Environment and Development, Manchester University, Manchester M13 9PL, UK, at http://www..manchester.ac.uk/sed/research/beyond_nimbyism 60 Loring , J.M (2007) - Wind energy planning in England, Wales and Denmark: Factors influencing project success Energy Policy 35 pp 2648–2660 61 Gamboa, G & Munda, G (2007) - The problem of wind farm location: A social multi-criteria evaluation framework. Energy Policy 35 pp 1564–1583 62 Cowell, R (2007) - Wind Power and ‘The Planning Problem’: the Experience of Wales. European Environment 17, 291–306 63 Gross, C (2007) - Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance. Energy Policy 35 pp 2727–2736 64 Stevenson, R (2007) – Discourse, Power and Energy Conflicts: Analysing Renewable Energy Policymaking in Post Devolution Wales. PhD Thesis. University of Aberystwyth. 65 Parks, J (2007) - Planning and regulating mechanisms for renewable energy technologies: a literature review. published by the School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK, and available at the following web address: http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/beyond_nimbyism/ 66 Breukers, S & Wolsink, M (2007) - Wind power implementation in changing institutional landscapes: An international comparison. Energy Policy 35 pp 2737–2750 67 Corvellc, H & Bohlm, A (2008) – The Risk Rhetoric of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA): The case of offshore wind farms in Sweden. Gothenberg Research Institute. Gothenberg University. 68 Rosenberg, R.H (2008) – Making Renewable Energy A Reality — Finding Ways To Site Wind Power Facilities. William & Mary Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-11. William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, Vol. 32. Available online at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1152404 69 Department for Trade & Industry (2000) – Cumulative Effects of Wind Turbines. Volume 2: Report on Quantitative Public Attitude Research in Mid Wales. DTI. 70 Wolsink, M (2000) - Wind power and the NIMBY myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support Renewable Energy 21 49–64 71 Department for Trade & Industry (2001) – Examining Approaches to Renewables Consultation. Lessons from the Awel Aman Tawe Community Wind farm Project. DTI. 72 Damborg, S (2003) – Public Attitudes towards Wind farms. Danish Wind Energy Association. Available online at http://www.windpower.org/en/articles/surveys.htm 73 Glickel, J (2004) – Siting Wind Turbines: Collaborative Processes and Joint Fact Finding to Resolve NIMBY disputes. Paper given as part of Course in the Use of Joint Fact Finding in Science Intensive Policy Disputes, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Available online at http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Urban-Studiesand-Planning/11-942Spring2004/A0D1A558-D357-4102-8797-14AAD0BD105A/0/glickel_final.pdf 74 Smith, E; Michaud, K & Carlisle, J (2004) - Public Opinion about Energy Development: Nimbyism vs. Environmentalism. Paper given to Annual Meeting of the American Association of Public Opinion Research. Phoenix, Arizona, May 13-16 75 Haggett, C & Vigar, G (2004) – Tilting at Windmills. Town and Country Planning. October pp288-290 76

Szarka, J (2004) - Extending the policy integration concept: the case of wind power. Paper submitted to Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, Berlin, 3-4 December 2004 77 Devine-Wright, P (2005) - Beyond NIMBYism: towards an Integrated Framework for Understanding Public Perceptions of Wind Energy Wind Energy. 8:125–139 78 Bell, D; Gray, T & Haggett, C (2005) - The ‘Social Gap’ in Wind Farm Siting Decisions: Explanations and Policy Responses Environmental Politics, Vol. 14, No. 4, August pp 460 – 477,

79

Warren, C.R; Lumsden, C; O’Dowd, S & Birnie, R (2005) - ‘Green On Green’: Public Perceptions of Wind Power in Scotland and Ireland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 48, No. 6, 853 – 875, November 2005 80 Hubbard, P (2006) - NIMBY by another name? A reply to Wolsink. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers NS 31 pp 92–94 81 Barry, J; Ellis, G & Robinson, C (2006) – Many ways to Say No, Different ways to say Yes. Applying QMethodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. Output from Renewable Energy and Discourses of Objection - Towards Deliberative Policy Making Project. Queens University of Belfast. Available online at http://www.qub.ac.uk/research-centres/REDOWelcome/filestore/Filetoupload,40560,en.pdf 82 Barry, J; Ellis, G & Robinson, C (2006) - Cool Rationalities and Hot Air: A Rhetorical Approach to Understanding Debates on Renewable Energy. Output from Renewable Energy and Discourses of Objection - Towards Deliberative Policy Making Project. Queens University of Belfast. Available at http://www.qub.ac.uk/research-centres/REDOWelcome/filestore/Filetoupload,40559,en.pdf 83 Burningham, K ., Barnett, J. & Thrush,D. (2006) The limitations of the NIMBY concept for understanding public engagement with renewable energy technologies: a literature review, published by the School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK, and available at the following web address: http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/beyond_nimbyism/deliverables/bn_wp1_3.pdf 84 Haggett, C & Toke, D (2006) – Crossing the Great Divide. Using Multi Method Analysis to understand opposition to wind farms. Public Administration Vol 84 No 1 p103-120 85 Pederson, E; Hallberg, LR-M; & Waye, K.P (2007) - Living in the Vicinity of Wind Turbines — A Grounded Theory Study. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 4:pp 49–63, 86 Van der Horst, D (2007) – NIMBY or Not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy 35 pp 2705–2714 87 Johansson, M & Laike, T (2007) - Intention to Respond to Local Wind Turbines: The Role of Attitudes and Visual Perception. Wind Energy 10:pp 435–451 88 Wustenhagen, R; Wolsink, M & Burer, M.J (2007) - Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 35 pp 2683–2691 89 Devine-Wright, P, (2007) Reconsidering public attitudes and public acceptance of renewable energy technologies: a critical review, published by the School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK, and available at the following web address: http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/beyond_nimbyism 90 Haggett, C (2008) 'Over the Sea and Far Away? A Consideration of the Planning, Politics and Public Perception of Offshore Wind Farms', Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning,10:3,289—306 91 Ladenburg, J (2009) - Stated Public Preferences for On-land and Offshore Wind Power Generation — A Review. Wind Energy 12:171–181 92 Firestone, J; Kempton, W & Kreuger, A (2009) - Public Acceptance of Offshore Wind Power Projects in the USA. Wind Energy. 12:183–202 93 Devine-Wright, P. (forthcoming) Rethinking Nimbyism: the role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology. 94 Source: http://www.countryguardian.net/Campaign%20Wind farm%20Action%20Groups.htm NB Not all campaigns are affiliated to Country Guardian hence the minimum number quoted 95 http://www.countryguardian.net/Campaign%20Country%20Guardian.htm 96 Price, T.J (2007) - UK Wind Power: Sustaining Sympathy, Avoiding Apathy and Negotiating Negativity. Paper given to the European Wind Energy Association Conference in Milan, 2007. http://www.ewec2007proceedings.info/allfiles2/4_Ewec2007fullpaper.pdf 97 Source: www.windwatch.org February 2009 98 Source: http://www.wind-watch.org/about.php 99 Source: http://epaw.org/about_us.php?lang=en 100 Source: http://epaw.org/index.php?lang=en#United_Kingdom 101 Wellman, B in Wellman, B & Berkowitz, S.D (Eds) – Social Structures, A Network Approach (1988) Chapter 2 p20 102 Crossley, N (2007) – Social Networks & Extra parliamentary Politics. Sociology Compass p225 103 http://www.pardoes.com/abo/wind farm.htm 104 Castells, M (1996) – The Rise of the Network Society. Vol 1; Blackwell, Oxford p 14 105 Klandermans, B (2007) Demand and Supply of Participation: Social Psychological Correlates of Participation in Social Movements. Ch 16 in The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements (Eds) Snow, DA;

Soule, SA & Kriesi, H. Blackwell, Oxford 2007 106 E.g. Interview with Mike & Cheri Eden in Ohio http://www.katu.com/news/34469989.html?video=YHI&t=a ; letter from Wendy Todd in Maine circulated by National Wind Watch on 26/2/09; e-mail from Porter family in Missouri circulated by Country Guardian on 9/3/09; etc 107 E.g. Appeal Ref: APP/X2220/A/08/2071880 Land west of Enifer Downs Farm and east of Archers Court Road and Little Pineham Farm, Langdon 108 RICS (2007) – What is the impact of wind farms on house prices? FIBRE Research Paper, March 2007. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. London 109 Enzensberger, H.M (1974) – A Critique of Political Ecology. New Left Review 1/84 March-April 1974 110 Eder, K (1985) – The New Social Movements: Moral Crusades, Political Pressure Groups or Social Movements? Social Research, Vol 52, No 4 (Winter) 111 Proshansky, H; Fabian, A & Kaminoff, R.D (1983) Place Identity: Physical World Socialisation of the Self. Journal of Environmental Psychology No 3 pp57-83 112 Smaldone, D; Harris, C & Sanyal, N (2005) – An exploration of place as a process: The case of Jackson Hole, NY. Journal of Environmental Psychology Vol 25 p397-414 113 Low, S & Altman, I (Eds) - Place Attachment (1992) “Introduction” p 1-12 Plenum Press New York. 114 Proshansky, H. M (1978) – The City and Self Identity. Environment & Behaviour No 10 pp147-169 115 Proshansky, H, M & Kaminoff, R.D (1982) - The Built Environment of the Young Adult in S Messick (Ed) Development in Young Adulthood: Characteristics and Competencies in Education, Work & Social Life. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass Press 116 Relph, E (1976) – Place and Placelessness. London. Pion Press Ltd 117 Tuan, Yi-Fu (1980) Rootlessness versus Sense of Place. Landscape Vol 24 p3-8 118 Wester-Herber (2004) Underlying Concerns in land-use conflicts – the role of place –identity in risk perception. Environmental Science & Policy Vol 7 p109-116 119 Oliver, P.E & Johnston, H (2000) - "What a Good Idea: Frames and Ideologies in Social Movements Research." Johnston) Mobilization: An International Journal 5 (1 April) pp. 37-54. 120 Putnam, R.D (1973) – The Beliefs of Politicians. Yale University Press. Yale. 121 See Sharing God’s Planet (2005). Church of England. Church House Publishing at http://www.parishresources.org.uk/issues/sharinggodsplanet.pdf 122 See section 2.4 and endnote 16 123 Touraine (1985) - An Introduction to the Study of Social Movements. Social Research Vol 52, No 4 (Winter) p749 124 Source: www.worsdpy.com 125 Dear, M – Understanding and Overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association (1992) Vol 58 Part 3 p288-300 126 Grelet, S - What NIMBYs have to teach us about hospitality? Vacarme Vol 36 No 6 19 May 2007 127 Emilie Livezey, "Hazardous waste," The Christian Science Monitor, November 6, 1980 128 Burningham, K., Barnett, J. & Thrush, D (2006) p16 129 McClymont, C & O’Hare, P (2008) – “We’re not NIMBY’s!” Contrasting local protest groups with idealised conceptions of sustainable communities. Local Environment Vol 13 No 4 p332 130 National Assembly for Wales, Minority Party Debate on Sustainable Energy Policy 10 December 2002, Record of Proceedings p75 131 Tilly, C (2004) – Social Movements 1768-2004. Paradigm Publishers. Boulder. p7 132 Tarrow, S (1998) – Power in Movement. Cambridge University Press. New York (2nd Edition) 133 Touraine, A (1985) p749 134 Melucci, A (1985) – The Symbolic Challenge of Contemporary Movements. Social Research Vol 52, No 4 (Winter) p789-816