IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v58y2013icp97-108.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The networked minority: How a small group prevailed in a local windfarm conflict

Author

Listed:
  • Anderson, Carmel

Abstract

This paper aims to explain through a qualitative case study how a small protest group prevailed during a local windfarm conflict in south-eastern Australia. A social capital analytical framework was developed to analyse the data. The analysis found that two communities inhabited the area for which the windfarm development was proposed. The public participation process failed to address the concerns of both communities and led to the emergence of a social network of resistance. The network had high stocks of bridging social capital, which enabled an effective protest that led to the abandonment of the development. Their effectiveness was inadvertently aided by the windfarm supporters who were unable to act collectively to defend their interests because socio-economic changes in the community among other factors had led to a depletion of their social capital. In this context, different democratic participatory processes were needed to address the concerns of the two communities. Guidance and tools for researching and developing the types of participatory processes needed for vulnerable communities with low social capital and those similar to the social network with high social capital are provided. These will inform community-appropriate public participation processes and participatory planning policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Anderson, Carmel, 2013. "The networked minority: How a small group prevailed in a local windfarm conflict," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 97-108.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:58:y:2013:i:c:p:97-108
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.02.048
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513001547
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.02.048?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. Wolsink, Maarten, 2007. "Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2692-2704, May.
    2. Carmel Anderson & Jacki Schirmer & Norman Abjorensen, 2012. "Exploring CCS community acceptance and public participation from a human and social capital perspective," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 687-706, August.
    3. Walker, Gordon & Devine-Wright, Patrick & Hunter, Sue & High, Helen & Evans, Bob, 2010. "Trust and community: Exploring the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 2655-2663, June.
    4. Gross, Catherine, 2007. "Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2727-2736, May.
    5. Joyce Mandell, 2010. "Picnics, participation and power: linking community building to social change," Community Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(2), pages 269-282, April.
    6. van der Horst, Dan, 2007. "NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2705-2714, May.
    7. Maarten Wolsink & Jeroen Devilee, 2009. "The motives for accepting or rejecting waste infrastructure facilities. Shifting the focus from the planners' perspective to fairness and community commitment," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(2), pages 217-236.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yvonne Rydin & Lucy Natarajan & Maria Lee & Simon Lock, 2018. "Do local economic interests matter when regulating nationally significant infrastructure? The case of renewable energy infrastructure projects," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 33(3), pages 269-286, May.
    2. Colvin, R.M. & Witt, G.Bradd & Lacey, Justine, 2016. "How wind became a four-letter word: Lessons for community engagement from a wind energy conflict in King Island, Australia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 483-494.
    3. Mauerhofer, Volker, 2016. "Public participation in environmental matters: Compendium, challenges and chances globally," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 481-491.
    4. Liljenfeldt, Johanna & Pettersson, Örjan, 2017. "Distributional justice in Swedish wind power development – An odds ratio analysis of windmill localization and local residents’ socio-economic characteristics," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 648-657.
    5. Suškevičs, M. & Eiter, S. & Martinat, S. & Stober, D. & Vollmer, E. & de Boer, C.L. & Buchecker, M., 2019. "Regional variation in public acceptance of wind energy development in Europe: What are the roles of planning procedures and participation?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 311-323.
    6. Asah, Stanley T. & Baral, Nabin, 2018. "Technicalizing non-technical participatory social impact assessment of prospective cellulosic biorefineries: Psychometric quantification and implications," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 462-472.
    7. Roddis, Philippa & Carver, Stephen & Dallimer, Martin & Norman, Paul & Ziv, Guy, 2018. "The role of community acceptance in planning outcomes for onshore wind and solar farms: An energy justice analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 226(C), pages 353-364.

    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. Pepermans, Yves & Loots, Ilse, 2013. "Wind farm struggles in Flanders fields: A sociological perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 321-328.
    2. Landeta-Manzano, Beñat & Arana-Landín, Germán & Calvo, Pilar M. & Heras-Saizarbitoria, Iñaki, 2018. "Wind energy and local communities: A manufacturer’s efforts to gain acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 314-324.
    3. Haggett, Claire, 2011. "Understanding public responses to offshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 503-510, February.
    4. Dessi, F. & Ariccio, S. & Albers, T. & Alves, S. & Ludovico, N. & Bonaiuto, M., 2022. "Sustainable technology acceptability: Mapping technological, contextual, and social-psychological determinants of EU stakeholders’ biofuel acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Dimitropoulos, Alexandros & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2009. "Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of wind-farm investment: A choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1842-1854, May.
    7. Karakislak, Irmak & Schneider, Nina, 2023. "The mayor said so? The impact of local political figures and social norms on local responses to wind energy projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    8. O'Sullivan, Kate & Golubchikov, Oleg & Mehmood, Abid, 2020. "Uneven energy transitions: Understanding continued energy peripheralization in rural communities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    9. Berka, Anna L. & Creamer, Emily, 2018. "Taking stock of the local impacts of community owned renewable energy: A review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 3400-3419.
    10. Groth, Theresa M. & Vogt, Christine, 2014. "Residents' perceptions of wind turbines: An analysis of two townships in Michigan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 251-260.
    11. Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mura, Marina & Contu, Davide, 2012. "Combining choice experiments with psychometric scales to assess the social acceptability of wind energy projects: A latent class approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 334-347.
    12. Sigurd Hilmo Lundheim & Giuseppe Pellegrini-Masini & Christian A. Klöckner & Stefan Geiss, 2022. "Developing a Theoretical Framework to Explain the Social Acceptability of Wind Energy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-24, July.
    13. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Beyond the triangle of renewable energy acceptance: The five dimensions of domestic hydrogen acceptance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Eltham, Douglas C. & Harrison, Gareth P. & Allen, Simon J., 2008. "Change in public attitudes towards a Cornish wind farm: Implications for planning," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 23-33, January.
    16. Leer Jørgensen, Marie & Anker, Helle Tegner & Lassen, Jesper, 2020. "Distributive fairness and local acceptance of wind turbines: The role of compensation schemes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    17. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    18. Windemer, Rebecca, 2019. "Considering time in land use planning: An assessment of end-of-life decision making for commercially managed onshore wind schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    19. Kalkbrenner, Bernhard J. & Yonezawa, Koichi & Roosen, Jutta, 2017. "Consumer preferences for electricity tariffs: Does proximity matter?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 413-424.
    20. Cohen, Jed J. & Reichl, Johannes & Schmidthaler, Michael, 2014. "Re-focussing research efforts on the public acceptance of energy infrastructure: A critical review," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 4-9.

    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:58:y:2013:i:c:p:97-108. 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.