Wind Power Technology: Perception in Flanders and its Portrayal in a Newspaper, with a Particular Focus on Opposition - Ghent University Library
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Ghent University
Faculty of Arts and Philosophy
Wind Power Technology:
Perception in Flanders and its Portrayal in a
Newspaper, with a Particular Focus on Opposition
Dissertation submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of “Master na
Supervisor: Master Meertalige
Astrid Vandendaele August 2012 Bedrijfscommunicatie” by Jens
Lioen
1
2 Acknowledgements There are several people who supported me during the research and writing of this dissertation in a number of ways. I especially want to thank: My supervisor Astrid Vandendaele, for helping me on my way, and providing creative ideas which helped form the outset of this project. Marleen Vanhecke, for providing useful source material. My mother, for her limitless support and advice in times of need. My fellow students, for their invaluable feedback. And finally, my two-year-old nephew, for making my writing sessions much more pleasant with his cheerful antics, despite forcing me to rewrite certain passages after a stumble over a power cord. In his defense, it was probably for the better.
3
Table of contents
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................... 4
2. History of wind energy use in Flanders....................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 From windmill to turbine ...................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Turbine development ........................................................................................................... 8
3. Opposition and siting issues: NIMBY and beyond ..................................................................................................10
3.1 The origins of NIMBY .......................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Rise of other acronyms and the reevaluation of NIMBY .................................................... 13
3.3 The future of opposition research ...................................................................................... 14
3.4 Research on opposition against wind turbines and wind farms ........................................ 16
3.4.1. Wind turbines: the environmentalists’ dilemma ............................................................. 17
3.4.2 An opposite opposition theory ......................................................................................... 20
3.4.3 Often overlooked issues: equity, “environmental racism”, and silent opposition ............ 21
4. Research on social perception of wind turbines and wind farms in Flanders .....................................................23
4.1 HOWEST study .................................................................................................................... 23
4.2 VEA study ............................................................................................................................ 26
5. Perception of wind power technology and wind farms in written media ..........................................................29
5.1 The depiction of wind power, and its evolution, in the newspaper De Standaard ............ 29
5.1.1 Reports on wind power throughout the years ................................................................. 30
5.1.2 A close-up look at articles on opposition.......................................................................... 36
6. Conclusion and discussion..........................................................................................................................................44
7. Works Cited..................................................................................................................................................................47
8. APPENDIX: Comprehensive List of “De Standaard” Articles Sample..................................................................53
4
1. Introduction
Twenty percent. That is the European Union’s goal for the amount of energy derived from
renewable sources by the year 2020.1 This overarching goal has been scaled accordingly for
each member state, taking into account their respective capacities. Belgium’s national
binding target for the 2020 deadline is to have thirteen percent of its total energy
production generated by means of renewable sources, such as biomass, wind, solar power,
and hydro power.2
Throughout the years, several prognoses have been published which paint an ever
shifting picture. In early 2010, newspapers reported the warning message of the European
Commission, saying that Belgium would be one of a handful of countries that would not
meet the set goal.3 Meanwhile, EDORA, a federation of renewable energy companies,
conducted its own study and claimed much more optimistically that a share of up to 18
percent was possible for Belgium.4 In 2011, the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA)
predicted a much more cautious 13 percent share, just enough to meet the target.5
However, the European Renewable Energy Council’s “Roadmap” published in March 2011,
indicated that it could be as high as 26 percent.6 In sum, due to changes in legislation and
funding, and differing energy consumption predictions, it is hard to forecast whether
Belgium’s efforts will suffice in the long run. Therefore, further investment is likely to be
made to ensure that the target is reached.
1
“What is the EU doing on climate change?” European Commission. October 18, 2010. Web. June 25, 2012
2
Sennekamp, Peter. ”EU will exceed renewable energy goal of 20 percent by 2020.” EWEA. n.d. Web. June 25,
2012
3
“België haalt doel hernieuwbare energie niet.” De Standaard. March 12, 2010. Web. June 26, 2012.
4
“Hernieuwbare energie in België: 16 à 18% haalbaar in 2020!” Edora. February 11, 2010. Web. June 25, 2012
5
Sennekamp, Peter. ”EU will exceed renewable energy goal of 20 percent by 2020”.
6
Zervos, Arthouros et al. “Mapping Renewable Energy Pathways Towards 2020.” EREC. March, 2011. Web.
June 25, 2012.
5
Nevertheless, even if Belgium were to easily reach the 13 percent share, that would
not obviate the need to keep investing in renewable energy sources. Energy policies have to
take into account the realization that fossil fuels such as petroleum, gas and coal are finite,
and that adequate alternatives should be established long before depletion. From an ethical
point of view, it is imperative that future generations are not burdened with even more
consequences of fossil fuel use. Economically speaking, it also makes sense to reduce energy
dependency by focusing more on sources that are readily available within the nation’s
confines.
Moreover, there is a more imminent gap to be filled in the nation’s energy supply,
with the planned closure of several nuclear power plants in the upcoming years, originally
determined by a 2003 law.7 In the past months, this topic has been fiercely debated in the
political arena, and was prominently discussed in the media and public opinion. The trigger
for this discussion was an unpublished report by, among others, the directorate-general for
Energy, which claimed that the risk for power blackouts as early as 2014 was real.8 The
argument was settled through compromise. The nuclear reactors Doel I and Doel II will still
be shut down in 2015, but Tihange, originally also put up for closure in 2015, will remain
operational for an additional decade.9 Since the government is still holding onto its decision
of dismantling existing nuclear facilities, albeit more cautiously and on a longer term, further
investments into renewable energy sources will be necessary to cope with the energy
demand.
7
“Kernuitstap.” FOD Economie, K.M.O., Middenstand en Energie. N.d. Web. June 25, 2012
8
“Rapport over de middelen voor elektriciteitsproductie 2012-2017.” FOD Economie, K.M.O., Middenstand en
Energie. DG Energie Energieobservatorium. June, 2012. Web. June 25, 2012
9
Winckelmans, Wim. “Wathelet haalt slag thuis in regering.” De Standaard. July 05, 2012. Web. July, 12, 2012.
6
The focus of this study will be on one particular source of renewable energy, i.e. wind
power. The goal is to discuss the sector’s overall perception in Flanders in the context of a
newspaper, using a broad basis of international research on opposition against renewable
energy facilities, as well as local studies. Siting issues will be analyzed and compared in order
to determine in what manner they are reported. The specific choice for this branch is due to
it being the most visible component of renewable energy in the region. Biomass plants are
not as widespread and seem less “alien” in the environment, because they can often be
found near industrial zones. Photovoltaic panels can also be incorporated much more
smoothly into the landscape by installing them on rooftops. Wind turbines, on the other
hand, are by design most likely to stand out. They are preferably constructed in relatively flat
landscapes. In a region as densely populated and with as much ribbon development as
Flanders, a wind turbine’s introduction to a landscape hardly goes unnoticed, which ensures
that most people will have an outspoken opinion on it.
The limitation to Flanders serves several purposes. Firstly, the legislation for the
construction of wind turbines and wind farms differs between the regions of Flanders and
Wallonia.10 Different institutional frameworks can affect social attitudes towards wind
power. This is further complicated by the lack of any national newspapers. Secondly, the
research done on perception in Flanders is more expansive than in Wallonia. Thirdly and
finally, Flanders has a higher population density and a faster population growth.11 Therefore,
the likelihood of perception issues, both in the present and the future, is much higher.
10
”Belgium: Overview of Legal Framework.”RES LEGAL. N.d. Web. June 27, 2012.
11
Telen, Stef. “Vlaamse bevolking groeit dubbel zo hard als Waalse.” De Standaard. March 27, 2011. Web. June
27, 2012.
7
2. History of wind energy use in Flanders
2.1 From windmill to turbine
In order to better understand a country or a region’s social attitudes concerning a particular
technology, it is important to be aware of that technology’s history and development within
the area. Harnessing the kinetic power of the wind is a well established phenomenon in
Western Europe, as is evident by the many remains of wind mills dotted throughout the
landscape. Wind mills are often inextricably linked with the (stereo)typical postcard view
which many people have of the region, particularly the Netherlands. Post mills date back to
at least the 12th century in this area.12 These were used to grind not only grain but also an
assortment of other harvested goods, and to assist in the production of paper and clothing.13
Throughout the centuries, the technology to exploit this renewable energy source was fine-
tuned through the introduction of new mill types, as well as smaller modifications which
expanded the mill’s range of uses. However, the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th
century marked the decline of traditional wind mill use, as the steam engine proved to excel
in versatility as well as reliability.14
That is not to say that research was discontinued. In fact, it was Denmark that played
a pivotal part in the genesis of the modern wind turbine, as we know it today. La Cour, a
Dane, was the first person to combine a generator with a turbine in 1891, although the
design was still very much reminiscent of a traditional mill.15 This accomplishment was the
foundation for many years of experimentation, but very few of the ideas on the drawing
12
Boussauw, Koenraad. “De Windturbine: een nieuw element in het Vlaamse cultuurlandschap”. Universiteit
Gent. 2001. 2. Print.
13 “Wind powered factories: history (and future) of industrial windmills.” Low Tech Magazine. October 8, 2009.
Web. June 28, 2012.
14
Andersen, Per Dannemand. “Review of Historical and Modern Utilization of Wind Power.” Risø. July 1, 2007.
Web. June 28, 2012.
15
Boussauw. “De Windturbine: een nieuw element in het Vlaamse cultuurlandschap.” 3. Print.
8
board were realized into actual projects, let alone on a large scale. The technology was still
in its infancy and lacked the necessary efficiency. This changed when the oil crises of the
1970s provided a major incentive to explore and invest in alternative resources such as wind
energy.16 Denmark and the United States acted as proving grounds for contemporary wind
farms, and the technology reached maturity in the 1980s.17
2.2 Turbine development
Soon after, the technology would see its large-scale introduction in Belgium, with the
construction of a wind farm in the coastal village of Zeebrugge in 1983.18 The farm,
consisting of 24 turbines, was not only a first for Belgium, it was also one of the first true
wind farms in Europe.19 Early development focused on the province of West-Flanders,
because this area has the highest wind speeds, and therefore energy potential. Construction
started off slow, but has been increasing exponentially in the last few years thanks to the
amassing of the necessary knowhow and support. In 2005, 93 onshore wind turbines had
been erected in Flanders, which possessed an energy yield of about 100 MW.20 At the
beginning of 2012, that number had increased up to 191 onshore turbines, capable of
generating 341,7 MW.21 In addition, there are currently 61 offshore installations in Belgian
16
Andersen, Per Dannemand. “Review of Historical and Modern Utilization of Wind Power”. Risø. July 1, 2007.
Web. June 28, 2012.
17
Boussauw. “De Windturbine: een nieuw element in het Vlaamse cultuurlandschap”. 7. Print.
18
Ibid.
19
“Oud windmolenpark Zeebrugge volledig afgebroken.” De Gazet van Antwerpen. December 9, 2008. Web.
June 28, 2012.
20
“Windenergie in Vlaanderen.” Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap. 2004. 13. Print.
21
“Marktgegevens.” Vlaamse Windenergie Associatie, N.d. Web. June 28, 2012.
9
territorial waters of the North Sea, and many more are on the way.22 In total, there are close
to 500 turbines on Belgian territory as of 2012.23
The wind turbine branch has been relatively accident-free in Flanders. There have
only been a handful of noteworthy incidents, the most serious one being the fracture of
three blades in Zeebrugge.24 A leakage of hydraulic fluid had damaged the failsafe braking
mechanic. This meant that the blades reached speeds for which they were not designed, and
subsequently they came apart. Fortunately, no one was harmed in the incident. The other
instances are more related to the safety measures to keep unwanted visitors out. In 2009, a
base jumper managed to gain access to the inside of a turbine in Ruisbroek, and successfully
jumped off the hub.25 The perpetrator was never caught. A year later, two people repeated
this stunt by jumping from an operational turbine in, once again, Ruisbroek.26 As in the
previous case, these daredevils also managed to elude the authorities.
In conclusion, wind power has a well-established tradition in Flanders’ history.
Modern wind turbines were introduced into the landscape in its pioneering days. Since then,
there has been a steady growth, with a peak in the last few years. In its almost thirty-year
span in Flanders, the technology has a decent safety record.
22
Ibid.
23
“België telt bijna 500 windmolens.” De Morgen. January 11, 2012. Web. June 28, 2012.
24
“Brugge wil kapotte molen weg.” De Standaard. October 27, 2004. Web. June 29, 2012.
25
Derkinderen, Theo. “Basejumper zet leven op spel met sprong van windturbine.” De Standaard. April 8, 2009.
Web. June 29, 2012.
26
“Basejumpers springen van windturbine”. De Standaard. April 8, 2010. Web. June 29, 2012.10
3. Opposition and siting issues: NIMBY and beyond
There is no denying that the construction of a wind turbine, let alone a wind farm, has a
distinctive impact on its surroundings. Inevitably, there are bound to be people for whom
the disadvantages outweigh the benefits, and who actively strive to have it altered to a
varying degree, or oppose a project altogether. Obviously, this phenomenon is not restricted
to one specific technology, time period or place. The issue is most likely as old as society
itself, as evident by reports from as early as the antiquity, which indicate that mining was
preferably done in occupied territory, and not in the vicinity of Romans.27 Moreover, as
global urbanization increases, its occurrence will become more and more frequent. Not
surprisingly, it has been the source of an extensive body of research in academic circles,
where it quickly gained notoriety as NIMBY, or “Not In My Backyard” syndrome.28 The
concept of NIMBY has been applied to a multitude of subjects. Whereas in the early years
the focus was predominantly on nuclear power2930 and waste treatment facilities31 or
incinerators3233, it was later on expanded to a broader array of topics, including armaments
complexes34, social service facilities35, and renewable energy facilities.36 Like its subject
27
Lawrence, Drew J.et al. “Environmentalism and Natural Aggregate Mining.” Natural Resources Research. 11.1
(2002): 22. Print.
28
Kraft, Michael E. & Clary, Bruce B. “Citizen Participation and the NIMBY syndrome: Public Response to
Radioactive Waste Disposal.” The Western Political Quarterly. 44.2 (1991): 299. Print.
29
Ibid.
30
Sjöberg, Lennart & Drottz-Sjöberg, Britt-Marie. “Fairness, Risk and Risk Tolerance in the Siting of a Nuclear
Waste Repository.” Journal of Risk Research. 4.1 (2001): 75. Print.
31
Minehart, Deborah & Neeman, Zvika. “Effective Siting of Waste Treatment Facilities.” Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management. 43 (2002): 303. Print.
32
Kraft, Michael E. & Clary, Bruce, B. “Citizen Participation and the NIMBY syndrome”. 299. Print.
33
Furuseth, Owen J. & O’Callaghan, Janet . “Community Response to a Municipal Waste Incinerator: NIMBY or
Neighbour?” Landscape and Urban Planning. 21. (1991): 163. Print.
34
Hampton, Greg. “Attitudes to the Social, Environmental and Economic Impacts of the Construction of an
Armaments Complex.” Journal of Environmental Management. 48 (1996): 155. Print.
35
Cowan, Sue. “NIMBY Syndrome and Public Consultation Policy: the Implications of a Discourse Analysis of
Local Responses to the Establishment of a Community Mental Health Facility.” Health and Social Care in the
Community. 11.5 (2003): 379. Print.11
matter, the concept itself has undergone several changes in terms of usage. It even spawned
a whole slew of other acronyms related to siting opposition. In order to better identify and
analyze actual cases of opposition to wind power technology, it is important to have a
thorough understanding of the broader theoretical framework surrounding it.
3.1 The origins of NIMBY
Although the sentiments of site opposition that are described by the NIMBY concept have
been, as previously mentioned, discussed in writing since a long time, the actual acronym
itself only recently saw the light of day. For a term as widely proliferated as this, however, its
origin is not clear-cut. One thing that sources do agree on, is the time period in which it was
introduced in research, i.e. the 1980s.37 On the other hand, consensus is lacking for its
originator. While most academic articles steer clear of attributing it to a specific person,
online sources have differing opinions. The Online Etymology Dictionary claims that Walter
Rodgers, a member of the American Nuclear Society, was behind it.38 This source is widely
used on the Internet, but it lacks concrete evidence. Others point to the British writer, Emilie
Travel Livezey, who published an article on hazardous waste management in 1980. 3940. This
is the context in which it is mentioned:
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
36
Kahn, Robert D. “Siting Struggles: The Unique Challenge of Permitting Renewable Energy Power Plants.” The
Electricity Journal.13.2 (2000): 21. Print.
37
“NIMBY”. Oxford Dictionary of English Second Edition. Ed. Catherine Soanes & Angus Stevenson. (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2006). 1190. Print.
38
Harper, Douglas. ”nimby.” Online Etymology Dictionary. N.d. Web. June 29, 2012.
39 Li, Ronald. ”The rise of the NIMBY: roots of 'not in my back yard' generation.” Real Estate Weekly. March 2,
2011. Web. June 30, 2012.
40
Sunil, Preeti. “Social Impact of Nimbyism”. Buzzle. January 25, 2012. Web. June 30, 2012.12
anathema to most Americans today. It's an attitude referred to in the trade as
NIMBY -- "not in my backyard”.41
Her acknowledgment of its use in “the trade” signals that the term’s true originator is hard
to pinpoint. However, Livezey is one of the first to refer to it in an article.
Yet, Livezey does not provide a thorough definition of what exactly constitutes as
“not in my backyard”. Kraft and Clary, in their analysis of social attitudes towards radioactive
waste disposal, give the following explanation:
NIMBY refers to an intense, sometimes emotional, and often adamant local
opposition to siting proposals that residents believe will result in adverse
impacts. Project costs and risks, such as effects on human health,
environmental quality, or property values, are geographically concentrated
while the benefits accrue to a larger, more dispersed population.42
Basically, the idea is that of free-riding, or as Sjöberg and Drottz-Sjöberg refer to it “a will to
let others suffer from a risk and oneself benefitting, at the same time, from [something’s]
utility”.43 Those who exhibit this type of behavior are essentially labeled as largely irrational
with the implication of being uninformed, hence the emphasis on aspects such as “intense,
sometimes emotional, and often adamant”.44
41
Livezey, Emilie Travel. “Hazardous Waste.” The Christian Science Monitor. November 6, 1980. Web. June 30,
2012.
42
Kraft, Michael E. &Clary, Bruce B. “Citizen Participation and the Nimby Syndrome: Public Response to
Radioactive Waste Disposal.” 3. Print.
43
Sjöberg, Lennart & Drottz-Sjöberg, Britt-Marie. “Fairness, Risk and Risk Tolerance in the Siting of a Nuclear
Waste Repository.” 9. Print.
44
Kraft, Michael E. & Clary, Bruce B. “Citizen Participation and the Nimby Syndrome: Public Response to
Radioactive Waste Disposal.” 3. Print.13
3.2 Rise of other acronyms and the reevaluation of NIMBY
The frequent usage of NIMBY resulted in the coining of various related acronyms, some more serious
than others. LULU, which stands for “Local Unwanted Land Uses”, has a different implication than
NIMBY, i.e. the focus is on the facility instead of the people protesting its implementation.45 The
concept failed to garner the same amount of attention. Increasing amounts of opposition (and puns)
were expressed by such terms as NIABY (“Not In Anyone’s Backyard)46, BANANA (“Build Absolutely
Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone”)47, CAVE (“Citizens Against Virtually Everything”)48, and NOPE (“Not
On Planet Earth”)49. Many of these are mere novelty terms, but that is not the case with NIABY. Its
acceptance was necessary to reevaluate the NIMBY concept and to make the important distinction
between two different sentiments.
NIMBY came to be misappropriated as a label for any type of protest against specific projects
or facilities.50 This had two far-reaching implications. The first one being that it depicts the project as
an absolute social necessity, giving developers a moral high ground. The second is that protesters are
vilified as unreasonable people halting progress and development. NIMBY then becomes a tool to
denounce and quell any form of opposition, or as Gibson calls it: “a powerful rhetorical weapon in
the quiver of project proponents, a discursive barb specially designed to depict local opponents as
thoughtless, destructive naysayers”.51 Used in this fashion, it negates the existence of any valid or
rational criticism among locals. The hollowing out of the term was met with criticism in the academic
world. Propositions were made to delineate the concept more strictly. One of the most prominent
proponents of this view is Maarten Wolsink, who suggested a new classification for protest against
45
Burningham, Kate et al. “The limitations of the NIMBY concept for understanding public engagement with
renewable energy technologies: a literature review.” University of Surrey. 2006. 5. Print.
46
Lober, Douglas J. & Green, Donald Philip. “NIMBY or NIABY: a Logit Model of Opposition to Solid-Waste
Disposal Facility Siting.” Journal of Environmental Management. 40 (1994): 33-50. Print.
47
Williams, David. "Nowhere, no time." The Sydney Morning Herald. January 31, 1991. Web. June 31, 2012.
48
Poertner, Bo. "Is latest criticism worthwhile talk or just worthless?" Orlando Sentinel Tribune. September 30,
1990. Web. June 31, 2012.
49
Scherer, James. "Remarkable Remarks." Public Utilities Fortnightly. March 15, 1990. Web. June 31, 2012.
50
Kahn, Robert D. “Siting Struggles: The Unique Challenge of Permitting Renewable Energy Power Plants”. 6.
Print.
51
Gibson, Timothy A. “NIMBY and the Civic Good”. City and Community. 4.4 (2005): 393. Print.14
wind turbines and wind farms in 2000.52 Because this is one of the most comprehensive models of
siting opposition to date, it validates a closer look.
Wolsink identifies four different types of resistance against a facility. Type A is the classic
NIMBY attitude, before it came to indicate every form of protest. It signifies an acceptance of the
technology as a whole, but not the presence of a wind turbine or farm in their vicinity or
“backyard”.53 Type B is the equivalent of the previously discussed NIABY attitude. It is the complete
disapproval of the wind power technology as a whole.54 Up to this point, Wolsink’s model is in line
with the traditional views perpetuated in academic circles. This changes with his types C and D. Type
C represents the shift from an optimistic outlook on the technology, to a pessimistic one due to
debate concerning the concrete construction of a turbine or farm.55 While the theoretical aspect of
harnessing wind power as a renewable energy source is acceptable to a person of this opinion, the
practical side of things makes them reconsider their stance on the subject. Finally, type D
acknowledges that protestors may in fact have substantiated, valid complaints about a particular
construction.56 What distinguishes Wolsink’s model from the distorted NIMBY view is a more
nuanced picture, which provides a platform for debate. Instead of silencing each and every protestor
through the stigma of irrationality, which NIMBY had evolved into, the four-type model recognizes
the potential for two-way conversation.
3.3 The future of opposition research
Thanks to researchers such as Wolsink, the term NIMBY has, to a large extent, been narrowed down
to mostly its original meaning in the world of academia. However, does the term still posses validity
or is it as Jones and Eiser describe it “infused […] with derogatory connotation and left […] outdated
52
Wolsink, Maarten. “Wind Power and the NIMBY-myth: Institutional Capacity and the Limited Significance of
Public Support”. Renewable Energy. 21 (2000): 57. Print.
53
Ibid.
54
Ibid.
55
Ibid.
56
Ibid.15
and lacking explanatory value”?57 The first part of their statement is a valid point. Due to the
generalizations of the past, the term has been tainted, and it appears to be quite hard for the
concept to shake its negative connotation, particularly in the public opinion. The active use of the
term by both parties in a siting debate has the potential to act as a catalyst for vehement
antagonism, thus resulting in a stalemate. Rose and Suffling point out that once proponents of the
construction of a particular facility felt that they were dealing with NIMBY-attitudes, they “felt less
inclined to collaborate with their opponents over what the former regarded as petty concerns”.58
However, are we then supposed to completely abandon the concept, given the immense outpouring
of criticism in the past decade? Is it truly “outdated and lacking explanatory value” in an academic
context?59
The answer is no, given a few conditions. When properly defined and delineated, it describes
a sentiment which, although a lot rarer than expected in the early days of research, can be identified
and should be taken into account. Omitting it from the academic glossary would be a draconic
measure. In a nuanced model, such as Wolsink’s where it is accompanied by various other
explanations for opposition, it still serves its purpose when analyzing a particular case.
57
Jones, Christopher R & Eiser, Richard J. “Identifying Predictors of Attitudes towards Local Onshore Wind
development with Reference to an English Case Study.” Energy Policy. 37 (2009): 4605. Print.
58
Rose, Marc & Suffling, Roger. “Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Protection of Natural Areas in Ontario,
Canada.” Landscape and Urban Planning. 56 (2001): 1-9. Print.
59
Jones, Christopher R & Eiser, Richard J. “Identifying Predictors of Attitudes towards Local Onshore Wind
development with Reference to an English Case Study.” 4605. Print.16
3.4 Research on opposition against wind turbines and wind farms
As the renewable energy sector has been booming in the past two decades, site opposition
research and literature has increasingly shifted its focus. Wind turbines and wind farms in
particular have become a popular subject within this domain. In the technology’s early days,
the level of conformity in design between different turbine constructors was nowhere near
that of today, so researchers would often investigate technical features such as the optimal
design to reduce the inconveniences perceived by the surrounding population, which gave
rise to protest. For instance, Coles and Taylor, in their 1993 study on wind farms’
environmental impact in the UK, compared lattice work type masts versus tubular ones,
discussed what type of surface the blades should have in order to diminish shadow flicker,
and what color scheme should be used on a turbine to ensure that it blends in as much as
possible with its surroundings.60
Robert Kahn analyzed the particularities of renewable energy facilities compared to
traditional fossil fuel ones.61 He recognized the difficulties for the renewable industry of
being limited to specific sites with favorable conditions, and also questioned the sincerity of
some environmental protestors. Arguments which emphasize the protection of wildlife can
be easily appropriated by those with other motives, as a veneer to camouflage NIMBY or
NIABY attitudes which are less likely to gain widespread public support. His conclusion is that
renewable energy developers have the obligation to meticulously plan, communicate, and
particularly budget the various stages of construction. The amount of funding that goes into
60
Coles, Richard W. & Taylor, Jane. “Wind Power and Planning the Environmental Impact of Windfarms in the
UK.” Land Use Policy. 1993.205-226. Print.
61
Kahn, Robert D. “Siting Struggles: The Unique Challenge of Permitting Renewable Energy Power Plants.” 21.
Print.17
the supportive activities is vital for a project’s success and to obtain the locals’ trust and
support.
Wolsink’s paper in which he proposed his alternate model, discussed in the previous
section, also emphasizes the need for developers to build more “institutional capital”.62 In
his opinion, wind farm developers were almost solely focusing on amassing public support,
even though this is but one facet of the siting process. This is indeed an aspect which had
often been overlooked in both research and in practice up to that point.
3.4.1. Wind turbines: the environmentalists’ dilemma
Michael Woods’ 2003 study of wind farm development in Wales analyzed protestors’
perception of natural and rural landscapes, and their discourse based upon those ideas.63 He
distinguished two broad categories of views on nature: the “natura-ruralist” and a utilitarian
one. While this is a generalization -which Woods admits-, the natura-ruralist view offers an
interesting explanation as to why protestors see wind turbines as a threat to a natural
environment, but for the most part do not oppose agriculture, which also has a significant
impact on the landscape:
Human artefacts are acceptable if they are essentially biological […] or employ
local natural resources in small-scale developments which conform to the
prevailing natural aesthetic of the landscape […]. Modifications which
introduce large quantities of alien materials (e.g. tarmac, metal), or modern
62
Wolsink, Maarten. “Wind Power and the NIMBY-myth: Institutional Capacity and the Limited Significance of
Public Support.” 63. Print.
63
Woods, Michael. “Conflicting Environmental Visions of the Rural: Windfarm Development in Mid Wales.”
Sociologa Ruralis. 43.3 (2003): 273. Print.18
technology, or which appear disproportionate in scale to the morphology of
the landscape are considered unnatural and ‘out of place’.64
People who adhere to such a view simply cannot accept wind turbine technology in what
they consider as unspoiled territory, as it is too incongruous with their idealized view of
nature. Woods also provides an interesting insight into the type of vocabulary employed by
protestors against Welsh projects:
[T]he fragility of this landscape is emphasized by the violence of the verbs and
metaphors employed to describe the effect of the windfarm development.
Letters and statements from anti-windfarm campaigners speak of the
landscape being disfigured, ruined, cruelly desecrated, abused, raped and
sacrificed. The sense of a great natural power being destroyed by willful
human action is almost religious.65
There is almost a hint of Freudian imagery to this type of communication. Phallic-shaped
turbines are implanted, and therefore “raping”, Mother Earth. While it is easy to dismiss
such explanations, this imagery is a not uncommon literary device, particularly in American
literature, and may well resonate with these opponents.66
The “natura-ruralist” perspective is one of many elements which can contribute to the rather
curious position of wind turbines within environmentalists’ ideology, sometimes referred to
64
Ibid.
65
Woods, Michael. “Conflicting Environmental Visions of the Rural: Windfarm Development in Mid Wales”.
281. Print.
66
Joan Hedrick. ”Mother Earth and Earth Mother: The Recasting of Myth”. Twentieth Century Interpretations:
The Grapes of Wrath. ed. Robert Con Davis (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1982). 134. Print.19
as the green versus green debate.67 While they generally acknowledge that harnessing the
kinetic power of the wind is a step towards generating electricity without emitting pollutants
or creating hazardous waste, the potential effects of turbines on avian or marine wildlife can
make some environmentalists oppose the current technology. Haggett and Toke explain how
such opponents can “justify their ostensibly ‘anti-environmental’ stance by reasserting their
fundamental concern for the environment; and […] by arguing that turbines will harm, rather
than protect, the environment.”68
Devine-Wright and Howes compared the narratives of developers and protestors in
the Welsh town Llandudno, and noticed a mismatch: whereas opponents “drew on place-
related symbolic meanings to construct a narrative of threat [not only to nature, as
previously discussed, but in general] and propagated this narrative to local residents”,
developers “chiefly focused upon addressing national energy policies and climate change”.69
The implication is that developers are too focused on the bigger picture, which will enhance
the sentiment among locals that this is a top-down forced project, which they are obliged to
support for the greater good. Translating benefits into a more regional context could
resonate better with opponents. This is in line with Firestone et al.’s study on offshore wind
turbines which showed that the local residents were much more appreciative of concrete
and substantial advantages such as reduced electricity prices.70
67
Groothuis, Peter A. et al. “Green vs. Green: Measuring the Compensation required to site Electrical
Generation Windmills in a Viewshed.” Energy Policy. 36 (2008): 1545. Print.
68
Haggett, Claire & Toke, David. “Crossing The Great Divide – Using Multi-Method Analysis to Understand
Opposition to Windfarms.” Public Administration. 84.1 (2006): 103. Print.
69
Devine-Wright, Patrick & Howes, Yuko. “Disruption to Place Attachment and the Protection of Restorative
Environments: A Wind Energy Case Study.” Journal of Environmental Psychology. 30 (2010): 271-280. Print.
70
Firestone, J. & Kempton, W. “Public opinion about large offshore wind power: underlying factors.”Energy
Policy. 35 (2007): 1584–1598. Print.20
3.4.2 An opposite opposition theory
Over the years, there has been an interesting debate over what used to be seen as common
sense logic in the discussion on wind farms, namely that those who live nearby turbines are
most likely to experience negative side-effects such as noise and shadow flicker, and
therefore have a less positive attitude towards the technology. The idea is that of a ripple
effect: as distance increases, the annoyances noticed by residents dissipate, resulting in a
rising level of support. However, several studies seemed to contradict this traditional view.
Johansson and Laike found no significant differences in opposition against further
construction of turbines among those living at various distances from an existing project.71
Moreover, several reports even discovered the opposite of the original claim. 727374 Those
who resided nearby wind farms were actually the most supportive of the wind power sector.
These seemingly anomalous findings are known as the ‘inverse NIMBY syndrome’.75 While
the majority of research studies undertaken to map levels of opposition confirm the
traditional ripple effect hypothesis, these cases show that various unexpected elements can
defy developers’ usual assumptions.
Perhaps these are extreme examples of locals who readjust their view on wind
turbines after construction to a much more positive one than those farther away, because
they consider the side-effects to be (significantly) less than expected. This evolution of
appreciation would then be somewhat similar to the parabolic curve which Wolsink
71
Johansson, M. & Laike, T. “Intention to respond to local wind turbines: the role of attitudes and visual
perception.” Wind Energy 10 (2007):, 435. Print.
72
Braunholtz, S. “Public Attitudes to Windfarms: A Survey of Local Residents in Scotland.” Scottish Executive,
Social Research. 2003. Web. June 14, 2012.
73
Krohn, S. & Damborg, S. “On public attitudes towards wind power.”Renewable Energy 16 (1999): 954.
74
Warren, C.R et al. “‘Green On Green’: public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland.” Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management. 48.6 (2005) 853. Print.
75
Warren, C.R. et al. “‘Green On Green’: public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland.” 866. Print.21
proposed in the early days of research on wind turbine opposition.76 Kristina Ek’s analysis of
attitudes towards wind power in Sweden found such a discrepancy between those who
expressed fears of being subjected to any inconveniences of wind turbines before their
construction, and those who actually felt that their fears had become true after the
construction (40 versus 9 percent).77 Even the fear for loss of visual amenity was also highly
variable, as the level of respondents who mentioned this dropped from 27 to 5 percent after
construction.78 This is especially noteworthy since this is seen as the biggest issue in wind
turbine opposition.79
3.4.3 Often overlooked issues: equity, “environmental racism”, and silent
opposition
Wolsink returned in 2005 by making another plea for building institutional capital, but he
also examined how opposition is driven more by attitudes on perceived fairness and equity
with regards to wind turbine implementation, than actual NIMBY sentiments.80 His
suggestion is to research and develop several possible projects simultaneously, but this is
hard due to budget constraints. The current method used by developers, however, is in his
opinion counterproductive: “A location is selected beforehand and top-down planning is
then started. Consultation after a plan has been announced is more of a trigger for
opposition than an incentive for the proper design of acceptable projects”.81
76
Wolsink, M.”Entanglement of interests and motives: assumptions behind the NIMBY-theory on facility
siting.” Urban Studies 31.6 (1994) 851–866. Print.
77
Ek, Kristina “Public and Private Attitudes Towards ‘Green’ Electricity: the Case of Swedish Wind Power”.
Energy Policy. 33.13 (2005): 1680 Print.
78
Ibid.
79
Wolsink, Maarten. “Wind Power Implementation: The Nature of Public Attitudes: Equity and Fairness instead
of ‘Backyard’ Motives’.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 11 (2007): 1188. Print.
80
Ibid.
81
Wolsink, Maarten. “Wind Power Implementation: The Nature of Public Attitudes: Equity and Fairness instead
of ‘Backyard’ Motives’.” 1205. Print.22
Special care has to be taken to ensure that developers do not solely target regions
with lower socio-economic status or a very heterogeneous population (e.g. various
minorities), where there is less chance of highly organized protest or where economic
compensations will be more frequently accepted. This dubious practice is known as
“environmental racism”.82 Unfortunately, Van der Horst and Toke’s 2010 study found that
wind farm projects which specifically targeted such areas in the English countryside had a
higher probability of receiving permits and being executed. While this results in more
successful constructions, the questionable ethics handled by such developers are
detrimental to the sector as a whole in the long run. It is understandable that prognoses are
carried out to determine expectations of resistance, but when deliberate efforts are made to
pick out those lacking economic or communal capital, the image of wind power technology is
tarnished, thus resulting in bigger barriers to be bridged for other developers.
An additional reason as to why such prognoses are problematic, can be found in Åsa
Waldo’s recent study on offshore wind farms in Sweden. 83 It acts as a cautionary note
against the regularly made assumption that the silent or passive part of the local population
is in favor of wind turbines. All too often, these people are considered to be supportive since
they do not speak out against a proposed project, when they are in fact skeptical. If they are
taken for granted and left out of the target demographic for communication, developers risk
alienating them and provide an incentive for them to actively oppose plans.
82
Minehart, Deborah & Neeman, Zvika. “Effective Siting of Waste Treatment Facilities”. 315. Print.
83
Waldo, Åsa. “Offshore Wind Power in Sweden – A Qualitative Analysis of Attitudes with Particular Focus on
Opponents.” Energy Policy. 41 (2012): 699. Print.23
4. Research on social perception of wind turbines and wind farms in
Flanders
In the previous section, an extensive body of research on international subjects has been
analyzed and discussed. In order to determine whether there are specific cultural or regional
factors at work in Flanders, or whether the situation is generally speaking in line with those
abroad, two studies on the perception of wind power technology in a Flemish context will
now be discussed separately.
4.1 HOWEST study
In 2010, ten HOWEST students carried out a baseline measurement of attitudes on
renewable energy as a whole, and wind farms in particular in the province of West-
Flanders.84 While it is of course limiting that this study focuses on one province as opposed
to the entire region, West-Flanders is nonetheless a very interesting case to study in great
detail. As mentioned before, this is the area with the highest amount of turbines and the
highest wind potential in Flanders, given its proximity to the North Sea. 85 This makes it
valuable territory in the eyes of wind technology developers, especially now that the Flemish
government passed a law in 2009 which made construction of turbines possible in
agricultural zones86 (about two thirds of the land is used for agriculture in West-Flanders87).
Their outset was to target key areas in the province by analyzing attitudes in four
different cities: Bruges (north), Ypres (west), Izegem (east to south-east) and Kortrijk (south).
The students applied the method of door-to-door interviews, accompanied by a
questionnaire. In total, they accumulated 811 respondents in an area of up to one kilometer
84
HOWEST. “Houding tegenover groene energie en windmolenparken in West-Vlaanderen: Nulmeting 2010.”
Hogeschool West-Vlaanderen. 2010. 1.-1. Print.
85
“Belgium.” TheWindPower. July, 2012. Web. July 7, 2012.
86
“Marktgegevens.” Vlaamse Windenergie Associatie, N.d. Web. June 30, 2012
87
“Agriculture.” Invest in West-Flanders. 2011. Web. July 7, 2012.24
from the respective wind farms.88 The first set of questions was aimed at measuring support
for renewable energy and wind power technology in general. Wind energy turned out to be
the most well-known renewable energy source (68 percent), and almost 88 percent was
willing to do an effort to preserve the environment. A bit more than half of the respondents
was prepared to invest in renewable energy projects with a 6 percent yearly interest rate.
About 60 percent did not agree with the statement “too many turbines are built in
Flanders”. All these findings suggest a population that is in favor of renewable energy
sources, particularly wind energy.
When their attitudes regarding the specific projects were questioned, the locals were
mostly positive. Prior to construction, an average of 60 percent had a positive attitude
towards the implementation of a wind farm. Region had a much more significant impact on
attitude than proximity to the project. There was no sign of the “inverse NIMBY” effect,
Warren et al.’s term for the curious phenomenon of those living nearer to a project having a
more positive opinion.89 Moreover, the respondents considered themselves to be rather
constant, since 92 percent indicated that their opinion had not changed during construction.
This appears to contradict Wolsink’s parabolic curve-model of attitude evolution.90 Given the
nature of the face-to-face interview technique, it is possible that people gave a socially
desirable answer. Respondents might have wanted to avoid appearing fickle in front of the
interviewer, hence this high result.
88
HOWEST. “Houding tegenover groene energie en windmolenparken in West-Vlaanderen: Nulmeting 2010.”
1-4. Print.
89
Warren, C.R et al. “‘Green On Green’: public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland.” Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management. 866.Print.
90
Wolsink, M. 1994. “Entanglement of interests and motives: assumptions behind the NIMBY-theory on facility
siting.” 851. Print.25
After construction had been completed, 68 percent claimed to have a positive
attitude towards wind turbines. All regions showed a positive evolution, and once again,
distance from the turbines had relatively little effect on attitude. Respondents still displayed
a broad social support for wind farm development throughout Flanders, as 84 percent
agreed that more wind farms should be built. This number was remarkably stable
throughout the different regions and distance zones. However, when asked how they felt
about an expansion of the wind farm in their vicinity, the respondents were a bit less
enthusiastic; 55 percent was in favor.
One particular set of questions polled the level of knowledge of and communication
with the wind turbine developer, and the results proved to be surprising. Only one fourth of
respondents claimed to know the developer of the wind farm in their neighborhood.91
Moreover, this does not even guarantee that they have the right developer in mind. Either
communication is handled poorly, or there is a high level of indifference. About 80 percent
stated that knowledge on the developer was not that important. It is not quite clear from
the results if this indifference was influenced by how communication was handled, or if it
had been present from the very start. Almost 9 out of 10 respondents said that they had not
experienced any of the typical annoyances associated with wind turbines.92 Again, this is an
extremely high number, which could perhaps be influenced by socially desirable answers.
About half of those who did list shadow flicker, noise and loss of visual amenity, felt that
they had been severely affected. This leads us to another telling sign about a lack of
communication. Only one in eight people who experience discomfort, took the effort to
91
HOWEST. “Houding tegenover groene energie en windmolenparken in West-Vlaanderen: Nulmeting 2010.”
3-42. Print.
92
HOWEST. “Houding tegenover groene energie en windmolenparken in West-Vlaanderen: Nulmeting 2010.”
3-57. Print.26
contact the developer. Finally, more than half of the respondents would agree to a visit to
the wind farm site, indicating that this had not been undertaken by the developer, or if it
had been, that it was not clearly communicated to locals.
In sum, the study by HOWEST students uncovers several interesting differences with
the international ones previously discussed. Attitudes towards wind farms do evolve over
the course of construction, but an overwhelming majority claims to stick to their original
outlook. So while this does not completely contradict Wolsink’s parabolic curve of the
evolution of support, it shows that residents consider themselves to be constant. 93
Communication and interaction with developers appears to be lacking or absent.
Surprisingly, only a small amount of respondents claimed to be inconvenienced by negative
side-effects of wind turbines. However, there are elements which were to be expected and
are in line with international findings. The overall support for renewable energy and wind
power as a whole is relatively high. NIABY attitudes appear to be marginal. It is worth noting
that socially desirable answers may have played a part, due to the interview technique.
4.2 VEA study
In February 2011, Van Hamme and Loix carried out a study on the social basis for wind
energy in Flanders, commissioned by the VEA (Vlaams Energie Agentschap or Flemish Energy
Agency).94 Using a GfK online panel and a questionnaire, they managed to get 1008
respondents. The target area was Flanders in its entirety.
93
Wolsink, M., 1994. “Entanglement of interests and motives: assumptions behind the NIMBY-theory on facility
siting.” 851. Print.
94
Van Hamme, Elke & Loix, Ellen “VEA - Draagvlak windenergie”. Vlaams Energieagentschap. 1-31. April 12,
2011. Web. July 16, 2012.27
Similar to the HOWEST study, the first subject was knowledge and support of
renewable energy sources in general, and wind power in particular. Respondents showed
comparable levels of support. 84 percent was in favor of wind turbines in Flanders, whereas
14 percent was neutral, and only 2 percent was against such projects. 95 Wind energy was
also the most spontaneously named renewable energy source (68 percent), followed closely
by solar power.96 Furthermore, wind energy had the highest approval rate for governmental
financial support.
When asked about turbines’ inconveniences, loss of visual amenity was voted the
most important downside (51 percent), followed by noise (37 percent), which is in line with
Wolsink’s study.97 Age had a different effect on the readiness to accept a turbine in the
vicinity: generally speaking, the older the respondent, the higher his or her level of support.
This differs from the HOWEST study where older respondents tended to have a more
negative outlook on wind farm development.98 Finally, the hierarchy for areas deemed
suitable for the construction of a wind farm was somewhat predictable, with the top three
consisting of “at sea”, “industrial zone” and “along highways, expressways etc.”. Natural and
residential areas were considered to be least suitable.99
The most surprising result of the entire study was the respondents’ enormous
willingness to be kept up to date of a project. 51 percent wished to be involved and
informed, 46 percent just involved and only 3 percent had no interest whatsoever.100 This is
95
Van Hamme, Elke & Loix, Ellen “Draagvlak windenergie.” 5-6. Web.
96
Van Hamme, Elke & Loix, Ellen “Draagvlak windenergie.” 8. Web.
97
Wolsink, Maarten. “Wind Power Implementation: The Nature of Public Attitudes: Equity and Fairness instead
of ‘Backyard’ Motives’.” 1188. Print.
98
HOWEST. 3-61. Print.
99
Van Hamme, Elke & Loix, Ellen “Draagvlak windenergie.” 14. Web.
100
Van Hamme, Elke & Loix, Ellen “Draagvlak windenergie.” 16. Web.28
a stark contrast with the HOWEST finding that 80 percent did not consider knowing the
name of a wind farm developer to be important. This level of indifference is completely
absent here. It needs to be stressed however, that this must happen within a specific
timeframe in order to be effective, and not just result in a botched public relations affair.
Time is of the essence, hence why respondents firmly indicated that they wished to be
informed and involved within a project during the scouting procedure, i.e. when different
locations are being studied to determine the optimal location for a turbine or wind farm.
Levels of interest drop significantly if communication only starts during the construction, let
alone afterwards. Developers should aim for a steady flow of information and participation
with the local population and administration from the get-go in order to gain public support
and ultimately strengthen their case.
As with the HOWEST study though, one has to be wary of possible influences in the
used sample. Two elements could explain some of the discrepancies between both studies.
Only 6 percent of the 1008 respondents stated that they had at least one wind turbine in
their view. For 55 percent of the respondents, the nearest turbine was more than 5
kilometers away from their homes, as opposed to 4 percent in a one kilometer radius. The
HOWEST study focused only on locals in the direct vicinity of a wind farm, while the VEA
study was clearly open to a broader audience.
Essentially, these studies offer a different but complementary perspective on both
sides of the spectrum: those who experience the presence of a turbine on a daily basis in a
province with the most installations, and those that might experience it only sporadically in
the entirety of Flanders.You can also read
