IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v139y2020ics030142152030046x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technological intrusion and communicative renewal: The case of two rural solar farm developments in the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Nicholls, Jack

Abstract

In this paper I present findings and insights from an empirical study of two case study solar farm developments from rural areas of the South West, UK. Drawing on a Habermasian theoretical frame, I examine local resident narratives that emerged through the local public sphere and how these formed discursive meanings that provided shared background social norms for residents towards the solar farm developments. The paper begins by operationalising Habermas's theoretical ideas for empirical research and situating the research within existing literature. The theoretical and methodological sections are followed by the examination of three local narratives that emerged: idealised rural land use, farming and income generation, and money making and the pursuit of profit. Such narratives are considered in view of public opportunities for robust dialogue and debate to judge the normative democratic character of the solar farm developments. The paper concludes that the community development offered significantly more discursive space for debate than the commercial development and increased the developments' overall democratic legitimacy. It is maintained that such a Habermasian theoretical frame adapted for empirical analysis is valuable for normatively assessing democratic processes which are needed in view of conceptually weak accounts of ‘energy democracy’.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholls, Jack, 2020. "Technological intrusion and communicative renewal: The case of two rural solar farm developments in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:139:y:2020:i:c:s030142152030046x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111287
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142152030046X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111287?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smith, Adrian & Stirling, Andy & Berkhout, Frans, 2005. "The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1491-1510, December.
    2. Geels, Frank W. & Kern, Florian & Fuchs, Gerhard & Hinderer, Nele & Kungl, Gregor & Mylan, Josephine & Neukirch, Mario & Wassermann, Sandra, 2016. "The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: A reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (1990–2014)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 896-913.
    3. Wolsink, Maarten, 2012. "Undesired reinforcement of harmful ‘self-evident truths’ concerning the implementation of wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 83-87.
    4. Świątkiewicz-Mośny, Maria & Wagner, Aleksandra, 2012. "How much energy in energy policy? The media on energy problems in developing countries (with the example of Poland)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 383-390.
    5. Wolsink, Maarten, 2000. "Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 49-64.
    6. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Burke, Matthew & Baker, Lucy & Kotikalapudi, Chaitanya Kumar & Wlokas, Holle, 2017. "New frontiers and conceptual frameworks for energy justice," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 677-691.
    7. Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda, 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 361-381.
    8. Bauwens, Thomas & Devine-Wright, Patrick, 2018. "Positive energies? An empirical study of community energy participation and attitudes to renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 612-625.
    9. James Meadowcroft, 2009. "What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(4), pages 323-340, November.
    10. Yenneti, Komali & Day, Rosie, 2015. "Procedural (in)justice in the implementation of solar energy: The case of Charanaka solar park, Gujarat, India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 664-673.
    11. Devine-Wright, Patrick, 2011. "Enhancing local distinctiveness fosters public acceptance of tidal energy: A UK case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 83-93, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eduardo Martínez-Mendoza & Luis Arturo Rivas-Tovar & Luis Enrique García-Santamaría, 2021. "Wind energy in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec: conflicts and social implications," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(8), pages 11706-11731, August.
    2. Svensson, Oscar & Nikoleris, Alexandra, 2018. "Structure reconsidered: Towards new foundations of explanatory transitions theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 462-473.
    3. Jasminka Young & Aleksandar Macura, 2023. "Forging Local Energy Transition in the Most Carbon-Intensive European Region of the Western Balkans," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-29, February.
    4. Contesse, Maria & Duncan, Jessica & Legun, Katharine & Klerkx, Laurens, 2021. "Unravelling non-human agency in sustainability transitions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    5. Astrid Buchmayr & Luc Van Ootegem & Jo Dewulf & Elsy Verhofstadt, 2021. "Understanding Attitudes towards Renewable Energy Technologies and the Effect of Local Experiences," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-23, November.
    6. Rogge, Karoline S. & Pfluger, Benjamin & Geels, Frank, 2017. "Transformative policy mixes in socio-technical scenarios: The case of the low-carbon transition of the German electricity system (2010-2050)," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S11/2017, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    7. Turnheim, Bruno & Nykvist, Björn, 2019. "Opening up the feasibility of sustainability transitions pathways (STPs): Representations, potentials, and conditions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 775-788.
    8. Ashford, Nicholas A. & Hall, Ralph P., 2018. "Achieving Global Climate and Environmental Goals by Governmental Regulatory Targeting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 246-259.
    9. Capellán-Pérez, Iñigo & Campos-Celador, Álvaro & Terés-Zubiaga, Jon, 2018. "Renewable Energy Cooperatives as an instrument towards the energy transition in Spain," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 215-229.
    10. Eleftheriadis, Iordanis M. & Anagnostopoulou, Evgenia G., 2015. "Identifying barriers in the diffusion of renewable energy sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 153-164.
    11. André Sorensen & Anna-Katharina Brenner, 2021. "Cities, Urban Property Systems, and Sustainability Transitions: Contested Processes of Institutional Change and the Regulation of Urban Property Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-19, July.
    12. Sebastian Schär & Jutta Geldermann, 2021. "Adopting Multiactor Multicriteria Analysis for the Evaluation of Energy Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, March.
    13. Maria Luisa Lode & Geert te Boveldt & Cathy Macharis & Thierry Coosemans, 2021. "Application of Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis for Transition Management in Energy Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-18, February.
    14. McMeekin, Andrew & Geels, Frank W. & Hodson, Mike, 2019. "Mapping the winds of whole system reconfiguration: Analysing low-carbon transformations across production, distribution and consumption in the UK electricity system (1990–2016)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1216-1231.
    15. Frate, Cláudio Albuquerque & Brannstrom, Christian & de Morais, Marcus Vinícius Girão & Caldeira-Pires, Armando de Azevedo, 2019. "Procedural and distributive justice inform subjectivity regarding wind power: A case from Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 185-195.
    16. Maarten Wolsink, 2020. "Framing in Renewable Energy Policies: A Glossary," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-31, June.
    17. Konstantinos Karanasios & Paul Parker, 2018. "Explaining the Diffusion of Renewable Electricity Technologies in Canadian Remote Indigenous Communities through the Technological Innovation System Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-28, October.
    18. Fjalar J. De Haan & Briony C. Rogers, 2019. "The Multi-Pattern Approach for Systematic Analysis of Transition Pathways," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-30, January.
    19. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & K. Matthias Weber, 2022. "Innovation Studies, Social Innovation, and Sustainability Transitions Research: From mutual ignorance towards an integrative perspective?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2227, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    20. Ronan Bolton & Timothy J Foxon & Stephen Hall, 2016. "Energy transitions and uncertainty: Creating low carbon investment opportunities in the UK electricity sector," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(8), pages 1387-1403, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:139:y:2020:i:c:s030142152030046x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.