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Working Paper - please do not cite or quote without permission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:ian_gardner@btconnect.com
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 multiple-
bladed 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

Area in Installed Or One
Installed
Country square Capacity in 1 MW turbine
Capacity
Km MW per Km every Km

Denmark 3180 43094 0.073792 13.55

Germany 23903 357021 0.066951 14.94
Netherlands 2225 41526 0.053581 18.66
Spain 16754 504782 0.033191 30.13
Portugal 2862 92391 0.030977 32.28
Ireland 1002 70280 0.014257 70.14
UK 3241 244820 0.013238 75.54
Italy 3736 301230 0.012402 80.63
Austria 995 83870 0.011864 84.29
Taiwan 358 35980 0.009950 100.50
Greece 985 131940 0.007466 133.95
France 3404 643427 0.005290 189.02
Japan 1880 377835 0.004976 200.98
India 9645 3287590 0.002934 340.86
USA 25170 9826630 0.002561 390.41
South Korea 236 98480 0.002396 417.29
Sweden 1021 449964 0.002269 440.71
Poland 472 312685 0.001510 662.47
Costa Rica 70 51100 0.001370 730.00
Norway 428 323802 0.001322 756.55
China 12210 9596960 0.001272 785.99
New Zealand 326 268680 0.001213 824.17
Turkey 433 780580 0.000555 1802.73
Egypt 365 1001450 0.000364 2743.70
Tunisia 54 163610 0.000330 3029.81
Morocco 134 446550 0.000300 3332.46
Canada 2369 9984670 0.000237 4214.72
Australia 1306 7686850 0.000170 5885.80
Philippines 33 300000 0.000110 9090.91
Iran 85 1648000 0.000052 19388.24
Mexico 85 1972550 0.000043 23206.47
Brazil 341 8511965 0.000040 24961.77
Argentina 29 2766890 0.000010 95410.00
Other 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

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-y-
Groes 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:

Windfarm Turbine Size 1991-2009

Turbine Output in MW

Year Windfarm Operational

Source: BWEA

4
 Windfarm Output 1991-2009

Output in MW
Windfarm

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 Kelly (2000)18;Little (2003)19; Mann (2004)20; Mann (2005)21;

/ Protest Discourse Mason (2005)22; Etherington (2006)23; Winkler (2007)24; Martin
- Participant (2009)25; Pierpont (forthcoming)26
Experience
Community Social Woods (2003a)27; Woods (2003b)28; Upreti & Van der Horst
/ Protest Discourse (2004)29; Toke & Strachan (2006)30; Walker, Hunter, Devine-
- Observer Wright, Evans & Fay (2007)31

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

Technical / Milligan (2002)37; Liik, Oidram & Keel (2003)38; Zervos

Scientific (2003)39; White (2004)40; Vorspools & D’haeseleer (2006)41;
Discourse – Output Rosenbloom (2006)42; MacKay (2008)43; Zervos (2008)44
/ CO2
displacement
Technical / Schleede (2004)45; RICS (2004)46; Grubb, Butler & Sinden
Scientific (2005)47; DTI (2005)48; Strachan (2006)49; Moran &
Discourse - Sherrington (2007)50; Hoen (2007)51; Hansen & Hansen
Economics (2007)52; RICS (2007)53; Sims, Dent & Oskrochi (2008)54;
Williams et al (2008)55

Technical SNH (2000)56; Gray, Bell & Haggett (2005)57; Toke (2005)58;
Professional / Cass (2006)59; Loring (2007)60; Gamboa & Munda (2007)61;
Managerial / Cowell (2007)62; Gross (2007)63; Stevenson (2007)64; Parks
Administrative / (2007)65; Breukers & Wolsink (2007)66; Corvellc & Boholm
Procedural (2008)67; Rosenberg (2008)68;

Attitudinal / DTI (2000)69; Wolsink (2000)70; DTI (2001)71; Damborg

Psychological (2003)72; Glickel (2004)73; Smith, Michaud & Carlisle (2004)74;
Discourse 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 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; Devine-
Wright 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;

100
 or concerned with some or all of the above.

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 Theorising Opposition

4.3.1 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 non-
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 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.ipsos-

mori.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.wind-
watch.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/wp-
content/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-for-
posting-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 Vibro-
Acoustic 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/wp-
content/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-Studies-
and-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 Q-
Methodology 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