Many ways to say ‘no’, different ways to say ‘yes’: Applying Q-Methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals

Abstract

This paper explores the nature of public acceptance of wind farms by investigating the discourses of support and objection to a proposed offshore scheme. It reviews research into opposition to wind farms, noting previous criticisms that this has tended to provide descriptive rather than explanatory insights and as a result, has not effectively informed the policy debate. One explanation is that much of this research has been conceived within a positivist research frame, which is inadequate in dealing with the subjectivity and value-basis of public acceptance of wind farm development. The paper then takes a case study of an offshore wind farm proposal in Northern Ireland and applies Q-Methodology to identify the dominant discourse of support and objection. It is argued that this provides new insights into the nature of wind farm conflicts, points to a number or recommendatiosn for policy functions of an example of how this methodology can act as a potential bridge between positivist and post-positivist approaches to policy analysis.

Thirty years of North American wind energy acceptance research: What have we learned?

“…European researchers such as Aitken (2010), Ellis (2007), and Taebi (2016) have criticized researchers who portray wind energy opponents as "deviant" and seek to understand opposition merely to "overcome" it, but this criticism of positivist research has not been highlighted or examined to the same degree by North American researchers. It has been suggested that instead of focusing on the reasons for negativity toward wind energy, some researchers have sought methods to ensure approval (Taebi, 2016).…”

“…Another problem with the literature is positivist language toward wind energy, which some researchers have argued may reduce the quality and reliability of research and may prevent meaningful understandings of public acceptance (Aitken, 2010;Ellis et al, 2007). European researchers such as Aitken (2010), Ellis (2007), and Taebi (2016) have criticized researchers who portray wind energy opponents as "deviant" and seek to understand opposition merely to "overcome" it, but this criticism of positivist research has not been highlighted or examined to the same degree by North American researchers.…”

Near-shore wind power—Protected seascapes, environmentalists’ attitudes, and the technocratic planning perspective

“…This is the experience onshore, but as long as wind power is nearshore and still visible from the shore, it can be expected that landscape is still essential (Bishop and Miller, 2007;Ladenburg, 2008). The possibility to achieve a positive fit between local landscapes and wind turbines may be very subjective indeed (Lothian, 1999), but nevertheless the issue of the perceived fit of turbines to the landscape at the site is by far the most important factor in the contrasts between views on wind power implementation (Ellis et al, 2007;Breukers and Wolsink, 2007b). The idea that acceptability offshore will be greater and easier also includes the assumption that offshore wind power schemes would avoid the issue of destroying the landscape (Danielson, 1995).…”

Stakeholder perceptions of recreational and management impacts on protected coastal dune systems: A comparison of three European countries

“…Q-Method was first devised in 1935 by William Stephenson, a British psychologist (Brown, 1996). It was originally developed for the scientific study of subjectivity (McKeown and Thomas, 1988), as a means of revealing the subjectivity involved in any given situation (Brown, 1996;Ellis et al, 2007). Its advantages over other methods are that it combines the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative research methods by providing insights into attitudes while providing statistical rigour (Addams and Proops, 2000;Brown, 1996;Webler et al, 2009).…”

“…Its advantages over other methods are that it combines the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative research methods by providing insights into attitudes while providing statistical rigour (Addams and Proops, 2000;Brown, 1996;Webler et al, 2009). Q-Methodology benefits are that it is replicable and provides empirical rigour while being participant driven (Ellis et al, 2007;Frantzi et al, 2009;Guimaraes, 2009), in addition to which it 'involves a statistical multivariate analysis of opinions with minimal researcher's bias' (Visser et al, 2007). Yet, despite being a very valued tool in the analysis of stakeholder opinion, Q-methodology has its limitations.…”