Many ways to say ‘no’, different ways to say ‘yes’: Applying Q-Methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals

Abstract

This paper explores the nature of public acceptance of wind farms by investigating the discourses of support and objection to a proposed offshore scheme. It reviews research into opposition to wind farms, noting previous criticisms that this has tended to provide descriptive rather than explanatory insights and as a result, has not effectively informed the policy debate. One explanation is that much of this research has been conceived within an unreflective positivist research frame, which is inadequate in dealing with the subjectivity and value-basis of public acceptance of wind farm development. The paper takes a case study of an offshore wind farm proposal in Northern Ireland and applies Q-Methodology to identify the dominant discourses of support and objection. It is argued that this provides new insights into the nature of wind farm conflicts, points to a number of recommendations for policy, and functions as an example of how this methodology can act as a potential bridge between positivist and post-positivist approaches to policy analysis.

Notes

1 These are: (i) a problem of democracy as the planning process is dominated by an unrepresentative minority; (ii) that support for wind power is qualified and specific proposals engage such qualifications; and (iii) individuals are in favour of wind power but not prepared to sacrifice their self-interest in the case of a specific proposal.

2 The idea of oppositional ‘deviancy’ is based on the notion that their views and action do not immediately appear to be consistent, rational or objective—key assumptions that underlie most empirical studies.

3 For example, Lake, 1993; Burningham, 2000; Ellis, 2004; Wolsink, 1994; 2000, 2006a. Kemp (1990) goes so far as to suggest that NIMBYism is “an oversimplification of strongly held environmental, political, and moral views of deceptively fecund breadth and depth” (p. 1247).

4 Wolsink (2000) identifies these as being Resistance Type A (a positive attitude to wind power but resistance to more local facilities; Resistance Type B (rejection of local turbines because of a general rejection of turbine technology); Resistance Type C (a positive attitude to wind power, which turns negative during local debates); Resistance Type D (resistance created by project specific faults).

5 This encompasses a broad range of intellectual traditions that includes, Freire, Foucault and the Frankfurt School. Space does not permit a full account of this perspective here, but see Fischer (2003) and Lejano (2006).

6 This is sometimes referred to as the ‘Tunnes’ Plateau.

7 See http://www.colerainebc.gov.uk/stopthewindfarm/

8 See also the more extensive research report of the research available at http://www.qub.ac.uk/research-centres/REDOWelcome/

9 Only three individual sorts, out of 53, did not fit this pattern—two individuals self-ascribed as objectors were identified by Q-Method as sharing broad characteristics with most supporters, while one individual self-ascribed as a supporter was identified as sharing characteristics with objectors.

10 Numbers shown in parenthesis in all sections below refer to statement numbers, as shown in Appendix 1 and 2.

11 Those statements which showed most disagreement among objectors, in descending order of difference are: Statement 26 (−4 to +2); Statement 35 (−1 to +4); Statement 33 (0 to +4); Statement 40 (−2 to +3); Statement 48 (−4 to +1); Statement 20 (−1 to +3); Statement 21 (−2 to +2); Statement 41 (−2 to +3); Statement 13 (−3 to +1); Statement 15 (0 to +4).

12 Those statements which showed most agreement among objectors, in descending order of consensus are: **Statement 1 (all −4); **Statement 42 (+1 to +2); *Statement 14 (−2 to −1); *Statement 44 (−3 to −1); *Statement 46 (0 to +1); *Statement 32 (0 to +2); *Statement 28 (0 to +1); *Statement 43 (−2 to 0); Statement 31 (+1 to +3); *Statement 29 (0 to +2); *Statement 9 (−2 to −3). Those flagged here and in other footnotes with *are non-significant at p > 0.01, and those flagged with a **are also non-significant at p > 0.05.

13 However, later papers by Wolsink have disputed the use of the terms as a valid concept, for example 2006a.

14 Those statements which showed most disagreement among supporters, in descending order of difference are: Statement 9 (−3 to +4); Statement 5 (−2 to +3); Statement 37 (−3 to +3); Statement 8 (−2 to +4); Statement 46 (−3 to +2); Statement 50 (−4 to +1); Statement 23 (−2 to +3); Statement 45 (−4 to +1); Statement 33 (−2 to +2); Statement 31 (−1 to +3).

15 Those statements which showed most agreement among supporters, in descending order of consensus are: **Statement 25 (−1); **Statement 47 (0 to +1); **Statement 29 (−1 to 0); **Statement 2 (+2 to +3); *Statement 6 (+3 to +4); **Statement 20 (−1 to 0); Statement 42 (0 to +1); *Statement 28 (+1 to +2); *Statement 26 (−3 to −4); *Statement 40 (0 to +2); *Statement 48 (−1 to +1).

16 This includes cross-border issues, the fact that the North Antrim coast attracts a high number of tourists and the symbolic significance of the wind farms being visible form the Giant's Causeway, a UNESCO World Heritage site.

17 It is worth noting that the Sustainable Development Commission's report into Wind Energy in the UK is perhaps unique amongst ‘official/sate’ pro-wind documents in explicitly recognising that: “Out of all the issues surrounding wind power development, landscape and visual impact concerns are the only ones that are primarily subjective. As the effect cannot be measured or calculated and mitigation options are limited, it is unlikely that these issues can ever be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. It therefore seems inevitable that some people will always be objectors to wind farms in rural locations, and as UK wind resources correlate strongly with remote and rural areas, disagreement is unavoidable” (SDC, 2005, p. 63; emphasis added).

18 Space precludes the further elaboration of this point which it is suggested moves the authors in the direction of exploring the literature, experiences and practices of ‘conflict resolution’ for innovative and new ways of addressing the issue of public objection to wind farms. This point is owed to Dr. Peter Doran.