Under a new nationalist leadership, the Scottish Government has recently increased its renewable energy targets but rejected a controversial large windfarm proposal on the Isle of Lewis. This paper explores the nature of support and opposition to windfarm developments on Lewis. In doing so, we build on recent literature which has promoted a discursive approach to wind energy debates, to enable a more explanatory, rather than descriptive, analysis. A novel combination of Q methodology and more conventional qualitative work is deployed to identify and elaborate five distinct discourses on the Lewis Wind proposal. Each displays a different rationality and set of priorities on the economy, landscape, and environment, and ultimately represents a different vision of development in the Western Isles. The paper explores the challenges that such a clash of values presents to the planning process and reflects upon what can be learnt about deliberative planning from this case.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdgerW NBrownKFairbrassJJordanAPaavolaJRosendoSSeyfangG, 2003, “Governance for sustainability: Towards a ‘thick’ analysis of environmental decisionmaking”Environment and Planning A351095–1110.
2.
BarryJProopsJ, 2000Citizenship, Sustainability and Environmental Research: Q Methodology and Local Exchange Trading Systems (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos).
3.
BarryJEllisGRobinsonC, 2008, “Cool rationalities and hot air: A rhetorical approach to understanding debates on renewable energy”Global Environmental Politics867–98.
BellDGrayTHaggettC, 2005, “The ‘social gap’ in wind farm siting decisions: Explanations and policy responses”Environmental Politics14460–477.
8.
BraunholtzS, 2003Public Attitudes to Wind/arms: A Survey of Local Residents in Scotland. A Social Research Report by MORI for the Scottish Executive (The Stationery Office, Edinburgh).
9.
BurgessJStirlingAClarkJDaviesGEamesMStaleyK.WilliamsonS, 2007, “Deliberative mapping: A novel analytic-deliberative methodology to support contested science-policy decisions”Public Understanding of Science16299–322.
10.
BurninghamK, 2000, “Using the language of NIMBY: A topic for research, not an activity for researchers”Local Environment555–67.
11.
ChilversJ, 2008a, “Environmental risk, uncertainty, and participation: Mapping an emergent epistemic community”Environment and Planning A402990–3008.
12.
ChilversJ, 2008b, “Deliberating competence: Theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal”Science, Technology, and Human Values33421–451.
13.
DasguptaPViraB, 2005, “‘Q methodology’ for mapping stakeholder perceptions in participatory forest management”, WP E/264/2005, Institute of Economic Growth, New Delhi.
14.
DaviesGBurgessJ, 2004, “Challenging the ‘view from nowhere’: Citizen reflections on specialist expertise in a deliberative process”Health and Place10349–361.
15.
Devine-WrightP, 2005, “Beyond NIMBYism: Towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy”Wind Energy8125–139.
16.
DryzekJ SBerejikianJ, 1993, “Reconstructive democratic theory”The American Political Science Review8748–60.
EdenSDonaldsonAWalkerG, 2005, “Structuring subjectivities? Using Q methodology in human geography”Area37413–422.
19.
EllisGBarryJRobinsonC, 2007, “Many ways to say ‘no’—different ways to say ‘yes’: Applying q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management50517–551.
20.
GrossC, 2007, “Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance”Energy Policy352727–2736.
21.
HaggettCSmithJ, 2004, “Tilting at windmills? Using discourse analysis to understand the attitude–behaviour gap in renewable energy conflicts”, British Sociological Association Conference, University of York.
22.
HaggettCTokeD, 2006, “Crossing the great divide—using multi-method analysis to understand opposition to windfarms”Public Administration84103–120.
23.
HillierJ, 2000, “Going around the back? Complex networks and informal action in local planning processes”Environment and Planning A3233–54.
24.
HM Government, 2007Planning for a Sustainable Future: White Paper The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, The Secretary of State for Transport, http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/669/PlanningforaSustainableFutureWhitePaper_id1510669.pdf.
25.
JonesPJSBurgessJ, 2005, “Building partnership capacity for the collaborative management of marine protected areas in the UK: A preliminary analysis”Journal of Environmental Management77227–243.
26.
McClymontKO'HareP, 2008, “‘We're not NIMBYs!’ Contrasting local protest groups with idealised conceptions of sustainable communities”Local Environment13321–335.
StirlingA, 2005, “Opening up or closing down? Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology”, in Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement Eds LeachMScoonesIWynneB (Zed Press, London) pp 218–231.
41.
WarrenCLumsdenCO'DowdSBirnieR, 2005, “‘Green on green’: Public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management48853–875.
WoodGRodriguez-BachillerABeckerJ, 2007, “Fuzzy sets and simulated environmental change: Evaluating and communicating impact significance in environmental impact assessment”Environment and Planning A39810–829.
44.
WoodsM, 2003, “Conflicting environmental visions of the rural: Windfarm development in mid Wales”Sociologia Ruralis43271–288.
45.
WynneB, 1991, “Knowledges in context”Science, Technology and Human Values16111–121.
