Re-visiting the ‘social gap’: public opinion and relations of power in the local politics of wind energy

Abstract

Our widely cited 2005 explanatory framework for considering public responses to wind farm developments distinguished two gaps: a ‘social gap’ between the high support for wind energy reported in surveys and the low success rate for wind farm applications; and an ‘individual gap’ whereby an individual supports wind energy in general but opposes a local wind farm (NIMBYism). The popular assumption that NIMBYism was the only explanation for the ‘social gap’ was contested. Instead, three explanations of the social gap were provided – democratic deficit, qualified support, and NIMBYism – and a range of different policy responses was suggested. This analysis is re-visited in order to take account of the theoretical and empirical developments since its publication. The original explanatory framework is expanded and revised and new conclusions are drawn about the likely causes of the ‘social gap’.

Keywords:

• wind energy
• NIMBY
• place attachment
• fairness
• social gap

Notes

1. At the end of 2011, installed capacity for large scale hydro, plant biomass and solar energy in the United Kingdom was 1471MW, 1159MW and 976MW, respectively (DECC 2012, p. 47).

2. Aitken (2010a) also raises questions about survey methods, epistemology and funder bias (see also Ellis et al. 2007 for a discussion of the limitations of survey-based research). These are important questions that may lead us to question the significance of survey results – and, derivatively, the significance of the social gap – but they do not challenge the claim that opinion surveys show high levels of public support for wind energy.

3. Phadke (2010) makes a valuable point about the importance of visualisation technologies and techniques as opportunities for articulating and deliberating landscape value and place identity, which would be useful in distinguishing between qualified supporters, NIMBYs and place-protectors.

4. Warren and Birnie are quoting data from Toke (2005c).

5. They report that two further appeals were still outstanding at the time of data collection.