Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

A critical approach to the social acceptance of renewable energy infrastructures pp 105–121Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

ANT Perspective on Wind Power Planning and Social Acceptance—A Call for Interdisciplinarity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to use the actor-network theory (ANT) lens to examine how socio-material conditions shape the deployment of, and controversies around, renewable energy technologies (RET). We use the ANT lens to unpack the construction of otherwise black-boxed concepts within the social acceptance (SA) literature. We do so through three empirical snapshots, inquiring into the black-boxed constructs of ‘landscapes’, ‘resources’ and ‘stakeholders’. By tracing the socio-material work required to assemble the three concepts, we reveal the underlying and often overlooked politics of black-boxed concepts. Illuminating the merits of utilising the relational and symmetrical socio-material ANT lens, we call for cross-fertilisation between the SA literature and ANT in order to address a much wider set of critical research questions in the SA literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Processes of site-making have also been examined from the viewpoint of the political and rhetorical dimensions of certain discourses, but combined with a socio-material lens of ANT (see, e.g., Rudolph & Kirkegaard, 2019).

  2. 2.

    Earlier versions of this research have been presented in Nyborg et al. (2016).

  3. 3.

    Based on a discursive, socio-constructionist approach, the SA literature has also been important for highlighting the strategic use of RET-related discourses and the performative/political/strategic dimension of place (Batel et al., 2015; Haggett & Futák-Campbell, 2011; Usher, 2013; van der Horst & Vermeylen, 2011).

References

  • Aitken, M. (2010). Why we still don’t understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature. Energy Policy, 38(4), 1834–1841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aaen, S. B., Kerndrup, S., & Lyhne, I. (2016). Beyond public acceptance of energy infrastructure: How citizens make sense and form reactions by enacting networks of entities in infrastructure development. Energy Policy, 96, 576–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batel, S., Devine-Wright, P., Wold, L., Egeland, H., Jacobsen, G., & Aas, O. (2015). The role of (de-)essentialisation within siting conflicts: An interdisciplinary approach. The Journal of Environmental Psychology, 44, 149–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batel, S. (2018). A critical discussion of research on the social acceptance of RET generation and associated infrastructures and an agenda for the future. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 20(3), 356–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birch, K. & Nadaï, A. (2020). Turning Sunlit Rooftops and Windy Sites into Energy Assets. Chapter 6 in Birch, K. and Muniesa, F. (eds.) Assetization: Turning Things into Assets in Technoscientific Capitalism, MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12075.003.0009

  • Brighenti, A. M. (2018). The Social Life of Measures: Conceptualizing Measure–Value Environments. Theory, Culture & Society, 35(1), 23–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bristow, G. I., Cowell, R. J. W., & Munday, M. C. R. (2012). Windfalls for whom? The evolving notion of ‘community’in community benefit provisions from wind farms. Geoforum, 43(6), 1108–1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caliskan, K., & Callon, M. (2010). Economization, Part 2: A research programme for the study of markets. Economy and Society, 39(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (Ed.). (1998). Laws of the Markets. Blackwell Publishers/The Sociological Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (1991): ‘Techno-economic networks and irreversibility’. In Law, J. (ed.): A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. London: Routledge: 132–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (2007). An Essay on the Growing Contribution of Economic Markets to the Proliferation of the Social. Theory, Culture & Society, 24(7–8), 139–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M., & Muniesa, F. (2005). Peripheral Vision: Economic Markets as Calculative Collective Devices. Organization Studies, 26(8), 1229–1250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cass, N., Walker, G., & Devine-Wright, P. (2010). Good neighbours, public relations and bribes: The politics and perceptions of community benefit provision in RET development in the UK. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 12(3), 255–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chilvers, J., & Longhurst, N. (2016). Participation in transition(s): Reconceiving public engagements in energy transitions as co-produced, emergent and diverse. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 18(5), 585–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chilvers, J., Palletta, H., & Hargreaves, T. (2018). Ecologies of participation in socio-technical change: The case of energy system transitions. Energy Research and Social Science, 42, 199–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clausen, L. T., Nyborg, S., Rudolph, D. P. (2021). The good process or the great illusion? A spatial perspective on public participation in Danish municipal wind turbine planning. Submitted to Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cointe, N., & Nadaï, A. (2018). The Politics of Some Policy Instruments. In O. Labussiere & A. Nadaï (Eds.), Energy Transitions. A Socio-Technical Inquiry (1st ed., pp. 143–190). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cordula Kropp, (2017) Controversies around energy landscapes in third modernity. Landscape Research 43(4):562–573

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotton, M. D., & Devine-Wright, P. (2012). Making electricity networks ‘visible’: industry actor representations of ‘publics’ and public engagement in infrastructure planning. Public understanding of science, 21(1), 17–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowell, R. (2010). Wind power, landscape and strategic, spatial planning—The construction of ‘acceptable locations’ in Wales. Land Use Policy, 27(2), 222–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danish Wind Turbine Owners’ Association, Local Government Denmark, and The Danish Society for Nature Conservation. (n.d.). Den gode proces, https://ipaper.ipapercms.dk/Windpower/Dengodeproces/#/.

  • Devine-Wright, P. (2011). From Backyards to Places: Public Engagement and the Emplacement of Renewable Energy Technologies. In P. Devine-Wright (Ed.), Renewable Energy and the Public. From NIMBY to participation. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devine-Wright, P., & Howes, Y. (2010). Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: A wind energy case study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 271–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dussauge, I., Helgesson, C. F., & Lee, F. (2015). Valuography. Studying the making of values. In C. F. Helgesson, I. Dussauge, & F. Lee (Eds.), Value Practices in the Life Sciences and Medicine (pp. 265–283). Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, G., & Ferraro, G. (2016). The social acceptance of wind energy: Where we stand and the path ahead. JRC Science for Policy Report, European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finch, J., Geiger, S., & Reid, E. (2017). Captured by technology? How material agency sustains interaction between regulators and industry actors. Research Policy, 46(1), 160–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, S., & Gross, N. (2018). Market Failures and Market Framings: Can a market be transformed from the inside? Organization Studies, 39(10), 1357–1376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, S., Harrison, D., Kjellberg, H., & Mallard, A. (Eds.). (2014). Concerned Markets: Economic Ordering for Multiple Values. Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haggett, C., & Futák-Campbell, B. (2011). Tilting at windmills? Using discourse analysis to understand the attitude-behaviour gap in renewable energy conflicts, Механізм регулювання економіки, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, D. J., & Sovacool, B. K. (2020). Sociotechnical matters: Reviewing and integrating science and technology studies with energy social science. Energy Research & Social Science, 65, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolivet, E., & Heiskanen, E. (2010). Blowing against the wind—An exploratory application of actor network theory to the analysis of local controversies and participation processes in wind energy. Energy Policy, 38, 6746–6754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkegaard, J. K. (2019). Wind Power in China—Ambiguous Winds of Change in China’s Energy Market. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkegaard, J. K., Cronin, T., Nyborg, S., & Karnøe, P. (2020). Paradigm shift in Danish wind power—the (un)sustainable transformation of a sector. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkegaard, J. K., & Nyborg, S. (2020). The (re)birth of a social movement—the Frankenstein story of Danish wind power development. Paper presented at the 36th EGOS Colloquium, Organizing for a Sustainable Future: Responsibility, Renewal & Resistance, University of Hamburg, July 2-4, 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornberger, M., Justesen, L., Madsen, A. K., & Mouritsen, J. (Eds.). (2015). Making Things Valuable. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krauss, W. (2010). The “Dingpolitik” of wind energy in Northern German landscapes: An ethnographic case study. Landscape Research, 35(2), 195–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labussiere, O., & Nadai, A. (2018a). Spatialities of the energy transition: Intensive sites making earth matter? Energy Research & Social Science, 36, 120–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labussiere, O., & Nadai, A. (Eds.). (2018b). Energy Transitions. A Socio-Technical Inquiry. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labussière, O., Banos, V., Fontaine, A., Verdeil, E., & Nadaï, A. (2018). The Spatialities of Energy Transition Processes. In O. Labussiere & A. Nadaï (Eds.), Energy Transitions. A Socio-Technical Inquiry (1st ed., pp. 239–275). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2004). Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern. Critical Inquiry, 30, 225–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2005a). From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik or how to Make Things Public. In B. Latour & P. Wiebel (Eds.), Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2005b). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2017). Facing Gaia. Eight Lectures on the New Climatic Regime. Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space. Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lennon, M., & Scott, M. (2015). Contending expertise: An interpretive approach to (re)conceiving wind power’s ‘planning problem’. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 17(5), 593–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metzger, J. (2013). Placing the stakes: the enactment of territorial stakeholders in planning processes. Environment and Planning A, 45, 781–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadaï, A., & Labussiere, O. (2010). Introduction: Landscapes of Energies. Landscape Research, 35(2), 143–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadaï, A., & Labussiere, O. (2018). New energy resources in the making. In O. Labussiere & A. Nadaï (Eds.), Energy transitions: A socio-technical inquiry (pp. 49–100). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nadaï, A., & van der Horst, D. (2010). Introduction: Landscapes of Energies. Landscape Research, 35(2), 143–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyborg, S., Kirkegaard, J. K., Clausen, L. T., Jørgensen, M. S., & Rudolph, D. P. (2016) Social contention in Denmark over alternative wind power development paths. Paper presented at the 4S/EASST Conference 2016: Science and Technology by Other Means, Barcelona, August 31—September 3, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, Elinor (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-40599-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roscoe, P., & Townley, B. (2016). Unsettling issues: valuing public goods and the production of matters of concern. Journal of Cultural Economy, 9(2), 121–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, D. P., & Kirkegaard, J. K. (2019). Making space for wind farms: Practices of territorial stigmatisation in rural Denmark. Antipode, 51(2), 642–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tania Murray Li, (2014) What is land? Assembling a resource for global investment. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 39(4):589–602

    Google Scholar 

  • Usher, M. (2013). Defending and transcending local identity through environmental discourse. Environmental Politics, 22(5), 811–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Horst, D., & Vermeylen, S. (2010). Wind Theft, Spatial Planning and International Relations. Renewable Energy Law and Policy Review, 1(1), 67–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Horst, D., & Vermeylen, S. (2011). Local Rights to Landscape in the Global Moral Economy of Carbon. Landscape Research, 36(4), 455–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Horst, D., & Vermeylen, S. (2012). Ownership claims, valuation practices, and the unpacking of energy-landscape conflicts. International Review of Sociology, 22(3), 429–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Hoyweghen, I. (2013). On the Politics of Calculative Devices: Performing life insurance markets. Journal of Cultural Economy, 7(3), 334–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, C., & Baxter, J. (2017). It’s easy to throw rocks at a corporation’: Wind energy development and distributive justice in Canada. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 19(6), 754–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, G., Burningham, K., & Barnett, J. (2010). Renewable energy and sociotechnical change: Imagined subjectivities of ‘the public’ and their implications. Environment and Planning A, 4, 931–947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wind2050, http://www.wind2050.dk/

  • Wolsink, M. (2007). Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes; Equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives’. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 116, 1188–1207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods, M. (2003). Conflicting Environmental Visions of the Rural: Windfarm Development in Mid Wales. Sociologia Ruralis, 43(3), 271–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., & Bürer, M. J. (2007). Social acceptance of RET innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy, 35, 2683–2691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technical University of Denmark, Roskilde, Denmark

    Julia Kirch Kirkegaard & Sophie Nyborg

Authors
  1. Julia Kirch Kirkegaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sophie Nyborg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia Kirch Kirkegaard .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), Cis-IUL, Lisboa, Portugal

    Susana Batel

  2. Department of Wind Energy, Technical University of Denmark, Roskilde, Denmark

    David Rudolph

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kirkegaard, J.K., Nyborg, S. (2021). ANT Perspective on Wind Power Planning and Social Acceptance—A Call for Interdisciplinarity. In: Batel, S., Rudolph, D. (eds) A critical approach to the social acceptance of renewable energy infrastructures. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73699-6_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73699-6_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-73698-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-73699-6

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation