Where the eagles dare? Enacting resistance to wind farms through hybrid collectives

Environmental Politics

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 45-60

  Solli, Jøran ^a  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

Author keywords

Environmental politics; Hybrid collectives; Politics of nature; Science and technology studies; Social acceptance of wind power

Indexed keywords

COLLECTIVE ACTION; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; STRATEGIC APPROACH; WIND FARM; WIND POWER;

NORWAY;

ACCIPITRIDAE; SUIDAE;

EID: 77950989084     PISSN: 09644016     EISSN: 17438934     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09644010903396077     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Bjørgen, T., 2005. Vindkraftutbyggingen på Smøla. Mellom himmel og jord. Masters Thesis. Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture, NTNU.
2. Breukers, S. and Wolsink, M., 2007. Wind energy policies in the Netherlands: institutional capacity-building for ecological modernisation. Environmental Politics, 16 (1),92-112.
3. Bucchi, M. and Neserini, F., 2008. Science and public participation. In: E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman, eds. The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 449-472.
4. Bye, R. and Solli, J., 2007. Vindkraft i Norge: Fra ulønnsom til miljøfiendtlig teknologi. In: M. Aune and K.H. Sørensen, eds. Mellom klima og komfort. Trondheim: Tapir akademisk forlag, 105-123.
5. Callon, M. and Law, J., 1995. Agency and the hybrid collectif. South Atlantic Quarterly, 94 (2),481-507.
6. Christensen, P. and Lund, H., 1998. Conflicting views of sustainability: the case of wind power and nature conservation in Denmark. European Environment, 8, 1-6.
7. Corvellec, H. and Risberg, A., 2007. Sensegiving as mise-en-sens - the case of wind power development. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 23, 306-326.
8. Devine-Wright, P., 2005. Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy, 8, 125-139.
9. Douglas, M., 1966. Purity and danger: an analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
10. Gross, C., 2007. Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: the application of justice and community fairness to increase social acceptance. Energy Policy, 35 (5), 2727-2736.
11. Irwin, A. and Wynne, B., 1996. Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Irwin, A. and Michael, M., 2003. Science, social theory and public knowledge. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
13. Latour, B., 2004. Politics of nature - how to bring the sciences into democracy. London: Harvard University Press.
14. Macnaghten, P. and Urry, J., 1998. Contested natures. London: Sage.
15. Morton, T., 2007. Ecology without nature - rethinking environmental aesthetics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16. Nelkin, D., 1987. Controversies and the authority of science. In: T. Engelhart Jr. and A.L. Caplan, eds. Scientific controversies: case studies in the resolution and closure of dispute in science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Nelkin, D., ed., 1992. Controversy, 3rd ed. Newsbury Park: Sage.
18. Nelkin, D., 1995. Selling science: how the press covers science and technology. New York: Freeman.
19. Pasqualetti, M.J., 2000. Morality, space and the power of wind-energy landscapes. Geographical Review, 90 (3), 381-394.
20. Sarewitz, D., 2004. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science and Policy, 7, 385-403.
21. Stewart, et al., 2007. Poor evidence-base for assessment of windfarm impacts on birds. Environmental Conservation, 34 (1), 1-11.
22. Sørensen, K.H., 2005. Domestication: the enactment of technology. In: T. Berker, et al., eds. Domestication of media and technology. Maidenhead: Open University Press, 40-61.
23. Sørensen, K.H. and Williams, R., eds. 2002. Shaping technology, guiding policy: concepts, spaces and tools. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
24. Sørensen, K.H., Aune, M., and Hatling, M., 2000. Against linearity: on the cultural appropriation of science and technology. In: M. Dierkes and C. Von Groete, eds. Between Understanding and Trust. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 237-257.
25. Toke, D., 2005. Explaining wind power planning outcomes: some findings from a study in England and Wales. Energy Policy, 33, 1527-1539.
26. Upreti, B.R., 2004. Conflict over biomass energy development in the United Kingdom: some observations and lessons from England and Wales. Energy Policy, 32 (6),785-800.
27. Van der Horst, D., 2007. NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy, 35 (5),2705-2714.
28. Wolsink, M., 2000. Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renewable Energy, 21 (1), 49-64.
29. Wolsink, M., 2007. Planning of renewable schemes. Deliberative and fair decision- making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation. Energy Policy, 35 (5), 2692-2704.
30. Wustenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., and Burer, M.J., 2007. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy, 35 (5), 2683-2691.