Crossing the Great Divide – Using Multi‐method Analysis to Understand Opposition to Windfarms

Abstract

This paper demonstrates the possibilities for the complementary use of regression analysis and discourse analysis to further understand issues in public administration. To do so, an empirical study of opposition to wind energy planning applications is used. The application of logistical regression to analyse the factors which may influence windfarm planning applications is discussed, factors including the attitudes of local people. Discourse analytical techniques are then used to consider how anti-windfarm campaigners manage accusations of 'Not In My Back Yard' (NIMBYism). This is done partly by linking their cause with wider environmental objectives. Although discourses and logistical regression models have very different ontologies, the paper demonstrates that there is no inevitable conflict between the epistemologies used in these two different methods, despite differences in the type of data being analysed. INTRODUCTION: THE USE OF MULTI-METHODSThis paper demonstrates the possibilities for the complementary use of two methodologies -logistical regression analysis and discourse analysis -to tackle the same issue. The empirical example chosen to demonstrate this is opposition to windfarm planning applications in England and Wales. Logistical regression analysis is used to understand both the factors which influence the outcome of applications and the emergence of opposition. A particular variant of discourse analysis is used to understand how anti-windfarm campaigners justify their stance. These two techniques, one quantitative and one qualitative, are very different. However, we believe an epistemology can be deployed which allows their complementary use. As part of this process we therefore discuss what truth claims may be appropriate for such usage.In deploying such an epistemology, we place this research within existing debates on both methods and theory in public administration. In terms of method, there are ongoing discussions about the suitability of certain methods and of combining different methods. Lan and Anders (2000), for example, discuss the extent to which public administration research is inherently multi-disciplinary. They note that:

Carbon Lock-Out: Advancing Renewable Energy Policy in Europe

“…Local opponents, residents who thwart such projects, are often accused of NIMBYism and being emotive [64]. The "Not In My Back Yard" syndromes and Locally Unwanted Land Uses (or LULUs) have mainly been associated with wind farms [65][66][67][68], but also with biomass power plants [69][70][71], and even off-shore wind energy [72][73][74].…”

Cool Rationalities and Hot Air: A Rhetorical Approach to Understanding Debates on Renewable Energy

“…Emphasis added. 41 Haggett and Toke 2006. 42 Wolsink 1994. There are also a number of themes we can identify within the support discourses from the selected texts:…”

Wind Farming and the Not-in-My-Backyard Syndrome: A Literature Review Regarding Australia’s Challenge in Relation to Climate Change and CO2 Emissions

“…take into account the residents' sense of place. In order to counteract NIMBYism, scholars point out that environmental aims must be balanced (Haggett & Toke, 2006), and that residents must be empowered and be given a decisive voice (Hindmarsh, 2009). Both these concerns can be related to re-thinking NIMBYism (Devine-Wright, 2009), where place attachment and place identity play the most important part.…”