Ecologiesofdifference:opportunitiesfromencounterswithwindturbines
inrurallandscapes
GregDash
2
Thereisadesert.Again,itwouldn'tmakeanysensetosaythatIaminthedesert.It'sa
panoramicvisionofthedesert,andit'snotatragicoruninhabiteddesert.It'sonlya
desertbecauseofitsochercolouranditsblazing,shadowlesssun.Thereisateeming
crowdinit,aswarmofbees,arumbleofsoccerplayers,oragroupofTuareg.Iamon
theedgeofthecrowd,attheperiphery;butIbelongtoit,Iamattachedtoitbyoneofmy
extremities,ahandorfoot.IknowthattheperipheryistheonlyplaceIcanbe,thatI
woulddieifIletmyselfbedrawnintothecenterofthefray,butjustascertainlyifIlet
goofthecrowd.Thisisnotaneasypositiontostayin,itisevenverydifficulttohold,for
thesebeingsareinconstantmotionandtheirmovementsareunpredictableandfollow
norhythm.Theyswirl,gonorth,thensuddenlyeast;noneoftheindividualsinthe
crowdremainsinthesameplaceinrelationtotheothers.SoItooaminperpetual
motion;allthisdemandsahighleveloftension,butitgivesmeafeelingofviolent,
almostvertiginous,happiness.
AnimagineddreamofFrannyGlassfromJDSalinger’s“FrannyandZooey”,
inDeleuzeandGuattari,“1914:OneorSeveralWolves?”
FromAThousandPlateaus,1988,pg.32(DeleuzeandGuattari,2004b)
3
Acknowledgements
Thanksforthecontinuedsupportfrommyfamily,friendsandcolleagues
withoutwhichthisworkwouldnotbepossible.Iwouldparticularlyliketo
acknowledgeNeilDash,RhianDash,AlixDashandNatashaCrookfortheir
support.
IwouldliketothankCarlCater,BrianGarrodandTiffanyCaterfortheir
continuedadviceandguidance;andEtienneBalibar,LaurieRodriegez,Vincenzo
Salvatore,andAlexanderGritfortakingtimetodiscusswithmetheideasthat
haveshapedthiswork.
IgreatlyappreciatethefundingIreceivedfromtheEuropeanSocialFundand
TourismPartnershipMidWalesthatallowedmetoundertakethisproject.With
thefutureoftheUK’srelationshipwithEuropeuncertain,Iworryforfuture
generationsofworking-classyoungpeoplethatwillnotbeabletoaccessthis
support.
4
Acknowledgements__________________________________________________________________3Glossaryofterms_____________________________________________________________________6ListofFigures/Tables _______________________________________________________________8ListofAcronyms______________________________________________________________________9Introduction__________________________________________________________________________10ThesisDesign_______________________________________________________________________________12AimsandObjectives_______________________________________________________________________16
Chapter1:LiteratureReview______________________________________________________18Section1:Environmentalpolicyandpublicopposition____________________________18EconomicsandSustainableEnergyPolicy____________________________________________18ConflictandPublicopposition_________________________________________________________24CeredigionandRenewableEnergy____________________________________________________28
Section2:TourismandRenewableEnergy __________________________________________31ThestudyofTourism___________________________________________________________________31VisitorExperience ______________________________________________________________________34TourisminMidWales__________________________________________________________________38Renewablesasunusualattractions____________________________________________________44AnalysingtheimpactsofWindEnergyonTourism__________________________________49WindFarmsandMidWales____________________________________________________________55
Section3:Tourismandthe(in)visible________________________________________________62GazeandLandscapes___________________________________________________________________62TouristGaze_____________________________________________________________________________65FromGazetobodies____________________________________________________________________67GazingbeyondtheEye__________________________________________________________________69Lacan,SightseeingandtheGaze_______________________________________________________71Relatingtheseideastothecurrentliterature_________________________________________74Limitationswithinthisapproachforthecurrentproject____________________________77Thelimitedpotentialofpsychoanalyticalbasedmethodologies____________________80Schizoanalysisandbecoming__________________________________________________________84
Section4:LandscapeandMore-than-RepresentationalTheory__________________87More-than-representationalTheories_________________________________________________87Landscapesofmore-than-representation ____________________________________________89Methodologiesofbecoming____________________________________________________________91
ResearchQuestions_________________________________________________________________97Chapter2:Methodology____________________________________________________________99Introduction_______________________________________________________________________________99ResearchthroughCrystalisation_____________________________________________________100Usingmultiplegenresofresearchinonestudy_____________________________________101Principlesofcrystallisation___________________________________________________________105Integratedcrystallisation______________________________________________________________107
Appliedmethodologiesinthiswork________________________________________________111Genre1:Surveyandsemi-structuredinterview(representativedimension)____111Developingthesurvey_________________________________________________________________114Genre3:Exploratoryresearchapproaches(dimensionsofbecoming)___________130Outlineofmethodology:Conversationswithvisitors_______________________________145Sampling________________________________________________________________________________147
Post-interviewprocess________________________________________________________________147Datastorageandmanagement________________________________________________________147Aframeworkofdifference ____________________________________________________________157
5
Chapter3:PreliminaryandExploratoryResearch__________________________162WalkingAroundtheTurbines________________________________________________________162CaseStudy:Developingawindfarmintoatouristattraction___________________167Facilitiesandfeaturesofthesite _____________________________________________________169Developmentofthevisitorcentre____________________________________________________174Engagingwiththepoliticalnatureofwindenergy__________________________________176PotentialwithintheencountersatWhitelee_________________________________________178Concludingremarks ___________________________________________________________________180
Chapter4:Results–ParticipantSurvey_______________________________________182Introduction_____________________________________________________________________________182Sample ___________________________________________________________________________________182Participantresponses–section1____________________________________________________183Participantresponses–section2____________________________________________________193Results__________________________________________________________________________________194Concludingremarksforthissection__________________________________________________201
Chapter5:Results-BecomingsandIntensities______________________________205Introduction_____________________________________________________________________________205Analysis__________________________________________________________________________________2071.Becomingatourist__________________________________________________________________2072.Becomingadisinterestedtourist __________________________________________________2243.Becomingnomadic(Other)_________________________________________________________2344.BecomingdisinterestedOther______________________________________________________242
Reflectionsofthecurrentanalysis__________________________________________________252PlannedHabitualAnalysis(aTouristanalysis)______________________________________252ConceptionsofVirtualities(aNomadicanalysis) ___________________________________255
Chapter6:EngaginginCrystalisation__________________________________________258Theme1:Creativity,theUnexpectedandtheTurbineasX-thing_____________________260Theme2:Opportunitiesforpersonalreflectiononecologicalissues_________________265Theme3:Thefascisminusall___________________________________________________________270
Chapter7:Evaluatingandmovingforward___________________________________273ProjectOverview__________________________________________________________________________273Contributiontotheliterature____________________________________________________________275Addressingtheresearchquestions______________________________________________________277Recommendationsforfutureresearch__________________________________________________280Policyrecommendations_________________________________________________________________281
References__________________________________________________________________________283
6
Glossaryofterms
Actual AtermusedbyDeleuzetorefertothestateofbecomingindivergent
actualisation.Astatewhere'virtual'bodiesaregivenidentity.
Affect Apre-personalmomentforbodiesthatimpliesanincreaseor
decreaseinthecapacityforthemtoact
Assemblage Atemporalandspatialformationofbodiesthathasamultiplicityof
orientationsbothinandoutsideofitself.Anassemblagecanboth
drawnewbodiesintoitsformation,andexpelotherstoformnew
orientations.
Attraction Aplacevisitedbytouristsforit'sinherentorexhibitednaturalor
culturalvalue,historicalsignificance,naturalorbuiltbeauty,leisure
facilities,adventureandamusement.
Becoming Aprocessofchange,flight,ormovementwithinanassemblage.
Becomingisnotastart,interimorendpoint-butisratherthe
processtoaccountforthechangesinvalueasbodieswithinan
assemblageformnewrelationshipswithnoendgoalorendstate.
Body Arelationofparts,actionsandreactionstootherbodies.Abody
existswhenanumberofparts,actionsorreactionsenterintoa
characteristicrelationshipthatdefinesit.
Crystallisation Aresearchmethodologythatdrawstogetherdifferent
epistemologiesandresearchapproacheswithinatextoracross
multipletexts,buildingarichaccountofaphenomenathat
problematisesitsownconstruction
Deleuze GillesDeleuzewasaFrenchphilosopherwho,fromtheearly1960s
untilhisdeath,wroteonphilosophy,literature,film,andfineart.He
collaboratedonanumberofkeytextswithpsychoanalysistFelix
Guattari.
Desiring-machine Thesiteofproduction
Destination Aconceptusedtorefertoadefinedspacewithinwhichamenities
areavailabletofacilitateandaccommodatethevisitofTourists.
Detterritorialisation Anyprocessthatdecontextualisesasetofrelationsorbodies,
renderingthemvirtualandpreparingthemformoredistant
actualisations
Difference DeleuzeproposesthatDifference(andrepetition)ismetaphysically
andlogicallypriortoanyformofrepresentation.Differenceis
understoodeitheras‘differencefromthesame’ordifferenceofthe
sameovertime.
Discourse Waysofconstitutingknowledge,alongwithsocialpracticesand
powerrelationsthatarepresentwithininsuchknowledges.
Gaze ThisthesisutilisesanumberofdefinitionsofGaze.Seetouristgaze
fortheuseofthetermasperthetourismliterature.Gazeisalso
utilisesmorebroadlytorefertothepowerdynamicbetweenthe
Touristandthespaceswithinwhichheorshetravelsthrough.Ialso
brieflyadoptthetermGazefollowingLacan,torefertothestate
whereonebecomes'viewed'orrealisestheirownlimitations.
Genre Groupsofresearchdiscourseswhichsharesubstantive,stylistic,and
situationalcharacteristics.Eachgenreformsabodyofdatathatcan
7
becomparedandcontrastedwithamethodofcrystalisation.
Lacan JacquesLacan,wasa20thCenturyFrenchpsychoanalystand
psychiatrist,whodevelopedanewsystemofthoughtthroughare-
readingofFreud
Lineofflight Themomentwherechangeoccurs,whereatrajectoryisinitiated
betweentwodistinctparadigms
More-than-representationalTheory
Anapproachthatmovesawayfromunderstandingmerelyoutcomes
ofphenomena-tounderstandingtheprocesses,performancesand
embodiedexperiencesinvolvedinsocialpractice.Alsoknownas
'non-representationaltheory'.
NIMBYism Adescriptionforsomeobjectionstorenewableenergy
developmentsbasedontheproximitytoanindividual'shome(Not-
in-my-back-yard-ism)
Post-Structuralism 20thcenturymovementwithinphilosophythatsoughttodestabilise
meaningandconceptswithinstructuralism.
Post-Tourist ThepostmoderntouristeschewingauthenticityandGazingwithan
ironicdistance.
Reflecivity Ananalysisofhowaperson'svalues,beliefs,andinterestsinfluence
theresearchorworkthattheydo
Reterritorialisation Therestructuringofasetofrelationsorbodiesthathavepreviously
undergonedeterritorialisation
Revolutionarybecomings
Becomingsthatresultintransformativechangeasinglebodyor
system
Rhizome Alsocalledamultiplicity.Thisisaconceptusedtorefertothe
capacityformultiplepotentials
Serendipity Theactoffindinginterestingorvaluablethingsbychance
Space Thethreedimensionalextentwithinwhichbodiesmoveandact
TAN8 TechnicalAdviceNotice8,akeydocumentprovidingguidanceon
landuseplanninginrelationtorenewableenergyinWales.
TheSecondGaze ProposedbyMacCannell,2001;thisisaconceptionoftheTourist
Gazethatisunsatisfiedwithwhatitseesandsearchesforamore
authenticscenetoGazeon.
TouristGaze Anunderstandingofhowthetouristbehavesduetotheregulationof
theculture
Tourists Apersonwhotravels,adesiring-machine
Virtual Virtualisnotopposedto'real'(asinvirtualreality);butratheris
opposedtoactual.Virtualisnotpre-actual,butisthedifferentialthat
allowfortheformationoftheActual.
X-thing Undefinedbodiesorideasthatofferthepossibilityforalineofflight
8
ListofFigures/Tables
Table1 VisitorperceptionsofdevelopmentsfromNFO(2003).
Table2 AselectionfromEllingson’squalitativecontinuum(2009p.8)
Table3 Thethreegenreexploredwithinthecurrentstudy
Table4 Standarddeviationofresponsesamongsteachactivity
Table5 Interestinattendingawindfarmattractionandvisitortype
Table6 Participantinterestinaholidaythatoffsettheircarbonfootprintwithin
thesamecost(a)andforanadditionalcost(b).
Figure1 CefnCroesWindFarmCampaignLogo
Figure2 Pullfactorsintourism(fromCrouchetal,2000)
Figure3 TourismPartnershipMidWaleskeystakeholders
Figure4 PromotionalmaterialforHy-LineFerries
Figure5 Stillfrom‘GreenCopenhagen’video
Figure6 ChartofpotentialbecomingsfromGrit(2012)
Figure7 Exampleofphotomontageusedinsurvey
Figure8 Walkingamongsttheturbinesduringpreliminaryfieldwork
Figure9 Posterofwalkamongsttheturbines
Figure10 Viewfromthevisitorcentre
Figure11 Naturediaryfromthevisitorcentre
Figure12 Tiledwallfromtheexhibitionareaofthesite
Figure13 TurbineTaiChiposter
Figure14 Participantperceptionofeachlandscapefeature
Figure15 Comparablepercentagesofperceptionsofwindenergyforparticipants
thatareinterestedineachtypeofactivity.
Figure16 (a)Demonstratesthedifferenceinresponsesfromvisitorswhoplanned
hadattendedorwasinterested(said‘yes’inresponsetothequestion)in
walkingagainstthosethatwerenotinterested(‘no’).(b)Demonstrates
theresponsesfromvisitorswithregardtocycling.Thedatainthecharts
belowareconfiguredtoaccountforthesizeofthesampleinthe‘yes’and
‘no’categoriesandarethuspresentedaspercentages.
Figure17 Responsesfromparticipantswhenaskedabouttheirvisitingbehavior(a)
andduration(b)
Figure18 Responsesfromparticipantswhenaskedoftheirinterestinaholidaythat
wouldreducetheircarbonfootprint
Figure19 ExampleofMidWalesmarketingmaterialfrom2014.
9
ListofAcronyms
BWEA BritishWindEnergyAssociation
CCW CountrysideCouncilforWales
CV ContingentValuation
DTI DepartmentofTradeandIndustry
EC EuropeanCommission
ESRC EconomicandSocialResearchCouncil
FRE FrameworkforResearchEthics
FTE Full-timeequivalent
GIS Geographicalinformationsystem
GPS GlobalPositioningSystem
IEA InternationalEnergyAgency
KESS KnowledgeExchangeSkillsScholarship
MORI MarketandOpinionResearchinternational
NFFO NonFossilFuelObligation
NGO Non-governmentalorganisation
NIMBY Notinmybackyard
SSA StrategicSearchAreas
TAN8 TechnicalAdviceNotice8
TIC TouristInformationCentre
TPMW TourismPartnershipMidWales
UNESCO UnitedNationsEducationalScientificandCulturalOrganisation
WAG WelshAssemblyGovernment
WCED WorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopment
WG WelshGovernment
WTP WillingnesstoPay
10
Introduction
Thisprojectattemptstoprovoketouristinteractionswithwindenergyinan
attempttotrytorevealnewpossibilitiesintheseencounters.Justasinthe
descriptionof‘Franny'sdream’inthequoteonthepreviouspage(fromDeleuze
andGuattari,1988),Ihopetoexplorethetensionsthatemergefromprovoking
theseinteractions.Thisprojectattemptstotake‘snapshots’asbodiesmoveand
formnewconnections,andintheseinstancesexploretheopportunitiesthatmay
emergefordynamicperceptionsoftheselfandthewiderworld.Inconsidering
thisrelationship,Ihopetobegintorethinkecologyoutsideofthedominant
academicdiscourseswithintourismtheoryandsciencecommunication.
TodothisIexaminethepotentialthatmayemergeasaresultofshared
competenciesbetweenthetourismandrenewableenergysector.Withinthe
regionofMidWales,thesiteofthecurrentstudy,tourismrepresentsan
economicallyimportantandwell-establishedsector,andthereisagrowing
interestinthepotentialforlarge-scalerenewablesdevelopmentsunder
proposedgovernmentplans.Inresponsetothis,therehasbeenanincreased
interestinexploringboththeimpactsoftheseproposeddevelopments,andthe
opportunitiesthatmayemergetodevelopavisitorattractionbasedonthe
technology.Withintheremitofthecurrentproject,fundingpartnersrequired
thattheseareasbeaddressedandsothisisconsideredwithinthewiderproject
thatseekstoexploreoutcomesassociatedwithanemancipatorypolitical
project.
Tobeginwithitisusefultoprovideadefinitionofwhatisintendedbytheterm
‘renewableenergy’.Thisisprovidedwithinakeygovernmentdocumentonthe
issue,TechnicalAdviceNotice8(TAN8),asthetermusedtocover“energyflows
thatoccurnaturallyandrepeatedlyintheenvironment”and“includesallenergy
derivedfromthesun(solar,wind,tidal,wave,hydroandbiomass)and
geothermalsources”(WAG,2005,pg.66).Walescurrentlyhostsanumberof
renewableenergyprojectsandsomeruralareashaveahistoryofsmall-scale
generationundercommunity-operatedorownedprojects.However,despitethe
11
longindustrialtraditionofWales,proposedwindenergydevelopmentshave
beenconsistentlymetwithpublicprotest.In2005,thisdocument(TAN8)
attemptedtoaddressconcernsaboutwindfarmdevelopmentsinWales,but
insteadplayedakeyroleinthelaunchingofprotestgroupsthathave
campaignedovertheproceedingdecade.Thedocumentattemptedtoreducethe
proliferationofwindturbinesthroughoutWales,bycommissioningconsultancy
service,ARUP,toidentifyspecificareas(StrategicSearchAreasorSSA’s)that
wouldbebestsuitedforconcentratedwindfarmdevelopment.Sevenareaswere
identifiedandcodedA-Gwitheachareagivenatargetcapacityofthesite,
suggestingatotalcapacityof1.12GWwithinWales.Afairamountofthis
capacitywouldbeprovidedthroughproposeddevelopmentsatthethreeSSAs
withinMidWales,SSAsiteB:290MW,C:70MW,andD:140MW.Ratherthan
alleviatingconcerns,localresidentsrespondedwithconcernthatprojectswillbe
ofgreatersizethanthecapacitysuggestedthroughTAN8,andworriesthatMid
WaleswouldbelefttobeartheburdenforenergyneedsintheSouthernareasof
theCountryandforneighboringcountries.Asanareahighlydependenton
tourism,concernshavealsobeenraisedonthepotentialimpactsthese
developmentsmayhaveonthedestinationimageoftheregion,whichis
consideredtobehighlydependentonthevisualqualitiesofitslandscapes.
ThemostrecentresearchpublishedbytheWelshGovernmenthassuggested
thatwindturbinesmayhavea‘limited’impactonthenationstourismindustry.
UndertakenbyplanningconsultancyRegenerisandTheTourismCompany
(2014),thestudydrewonbothsecondaryandprimarydata,findingthat;
"althoughtherewassomeanecdotalevidenceofvisitorsstayingawaydueto
windfarms,thevastmajorityofconsulteesbelievedtherehadbeennoimpacton
totalvisitornumbersandhenceonthevisitoreconomiesasawhole."(p.2)This
findingissupportedwidelyintheliterature(Riddingtonetal.,2008;Riddington
etal.,2010;Campeyetal.,2003;Lilleyetal.,2010;Kuehn,2005;Daltonetal.,
2008,etc.)withtheevidencebasethatopposethisfindinglimitedtoa2002
surveyinScotland(NFOSystemThree,2002),aWesternIslesTouristBoard
survey(TMS,2005)andasmall‘survey’conductedbyatourismbusiness,
reportedinStrachanandLal(2004).Despitethebodyofliteraturesupporting
12
thisrecentfinding,theresultswerebothpublicallyrejected(asanunreliable
pieceofresearch)andsupported(asevidenceagainstturbinedevelopments)by
theanti-turbineagenda,andturbinedevelopmentsremainacontentiousissue.
Ofgreaterinteresttothecurrentprojectisthepotentialimpactofwindenergy
developmentsontouriststhemselves,exploringboththepotentialpositiveand
negativeimpactsandopportunitiesthatmayoccurwithinthisinteraction.
ThesisDesign
Iwillnowoutlinehowthisprojectattemptstoanswerthisquestionthrough
eachoftheprojectchapters.Therationalebehindthisdesignliesinthemain
concerntocommunicatetheworktothereaderinawaythatiscoherent,andto
aggregateaspectsoftheworkintosectionsthatcoverthemorethetheoretical
andempiricalsectionsoftheproject.Assuch,thetextdoesnotreflectthe
chronologicalorderoftheresearch.Throughouttheproject,datacollection,
literaturereviewandanalysiswereanongoingprocess.Thissectionwillnow
proceedtodiscussthestructureofthesis,explainingthecontentandaimofeach
chapterwithinthetext.
Theworkbeginsbydiscussingtheresearchthathasalreadybeenconductedon
thistopicintheliteratureinchapter1,alongsideadiscussiononthebackground
tomyownworkintermsoftherelevanttouristliteratureandlocalandnational
politicalbackgroundtotheproposedwindprojectunderinvestigation.Ialsoaim
tocriticallyexaminethewayotherresearchershaveattemptedtoresearchthis
topic,andsoIemployamethodologythatattemptstoopenupnewcreative
opportunitieswithintheacademicliterature,drawingoncontemporary
philosophicalapproachesandcreativemethodologiestoencourageinclusivity.
TheseconceptsarealsodiscussedinChapter1,whereamethodologyof
differenceisproposed.Byusingtheterm,‘difference’thisthesisseekstoalludeto
theprojectofGillesDeleuzeintroducedinhispublisheddoctoralthesis
DifferenceandRepetition(Deleuze,1994).InthisworkDeleuzearguesthe
importanceoftheforcesofdifferenceandrepetitionoverrepresentationand
13
identity.Thetextoutlinesthefundamentalphilosophicalconceptsthatcameto
defineDeleuze’sworkofdisruptingandrethinkingthewaythatweseethe
world,toopenupnewopportunitiesforcreativity.Theseideasreturnaspartof
apractical(aswellasaphilosophical)projectinhiscollaborativeprojectswith
FelixGuattarithataredrawnonspecificallyinChapter2.
The‘methodologyofDifference’thatisdiscussedinChapter2drawson
Ellingson’smethodologyofcrystalisation.Throughthisapproach,theboundaries
betweendatagenresareabletobedistortedandthedistinctionsbetweenart
andsciencebegintoblur.Thisapproachalsoseekstopreventthecurrentwork
fromprivilegingcertainformsofknowledgethatmayexcludekeystakeholders
inthiscontroversialtopic.Asrequiredbythismethodology,threephasesof
workareadopted(surveyapproach;conversationswithwalkers;anda
theoreticalstudy)inordertocollectdatafromawiderangeofapproachesonthe
topic.TheseapproachesarediscussedindetailwithinChapter2.
Earlyfieldworkidentifiedthesignificanceoffeelingsofdistrustand
disillusionmenttowardsbothpoliticsandrenewableenergysciencein
influencingthepublicdiscourse.Inadditiontoproducinganewpieceof
research,thecurrentthesisrepresentsmyownjourneyinattemptingtoadopta
methodologythatdoesnotreproducetheseconditionsofdistrustand
disillusionmentbyadoptingparticipantledapproaches.Thiswasattimesa
difficultprocessasIneededtosimultaneouslyproduceacoherentprojectthat
meetstherequirementsofmyfundingpartners.Inanattempttodothis,the
projectdrawswidelyonvariousapproachesincludingwalkingmethodologies,
feministmethodologies,andcontemporaryDeleuzianmethodologiesthathave
beenrecentlyintroducedbyresearcherswithinsociology,mediaand
performancedepartments(Colmanetal.,2013).Thegoalsofsuchanapproach
areoutlinedinColman'sstatement:
“Aproductivetaskforcontemporarysociology[…]istoexaminethe
actualisationofthevirtual,thatistoexaminethewaysinwhichintensive
potentialisactualisedintoconcretewaysofliving.”(Colman,2012,pg.46)
14
Herethemaintaskissuggestedtobediscoveringwaysthatopenupnew
opportunitiesor'potentials',ratherthanunpackingtheworkingsofaworld
externaltotheresearcher.The'productive'natureofsuchatask,isassuchto
openupnewpossibilitiesforemancipatorypotentialwithsociology.The
applicationofDeleuziantheorytosociologyisexploredanddevelopedin
Sections3and4ofChapter1.
Preliminaryresearch,includingasitevisittoanestablishedwindturbine
attractioninScotland,ispresentedinChapter3.Initiallytheprojectdrewon
ethnographicresearch,attendingcommunitymeetingsandusingthesesessions
toinformasurveyandsemi-structuredinterview.Heredatacollectedduring
communitymeetingsispresented,sitingthecurrentprojectwithinthelocal
politicaldiscourseinMidWales.Thisdatafedintoasurveyandsemi-structured
interviewwithvisitorstothreekeysitesinMidWales(amethodologydiscussed
inChapter2).TheresultsofthisfirststudyarepresentedinChapter4.Despite
thisapproachofferingusefuldatatothefundingpartner,itwasdeemedthat
throughalessstructuredapproach,greaterinputwouldbepossiblefromthe
participantsinthestudy.Anumberofwaysofapproachingtheresearch
questionwerepiloted,beforeIadoptedamethodologythatrequiredmetobe
stationedinfrontofawindturbinedevelopmentoveraperiodofaround2-3
monthsthroughthesummerof2013.HereImetandobservedsomeofthe
walkersthatwerevisitingthearea,andaskedthemtotakepartina
conversationaswelookedoverthewindturbineandexploredsomeoftheir
reactionstothedevelopment.
ThedatathatIcollectedfromthisexercisewascollectedwasdiverse,complex
andrich.WithinChapter5,throughananalysisgroundedinDeleuziantheory,I
seektodeveloptheseresponseswithinaframeworkthatexploredthereactions
tothedevelopmentwithinthetermsofwhatthey‘do’.Thus,ratherthan
analyzingthemessageswithintheresponsesoftheparticipantandinferring
meaning,Ianalysetheresponsesastheystand,exploringtheemotionsand
expressionsofparticipantsastheyarestated.Theseresponsesarenotanalysed
15
intermsofwhattheymaymeanorrepresent;butratherwhattheydo-what
emotionsandresponsestheyevoke.Althoughthecurrentstudymapsthese
expressionsontoanumberof‘becomings’theaimofthissectionisnot
exclusivelytoprovideadefinitivelistofresponsesthatoccurinthesetting,but
rathertobegintoexplorethepotentialfordifferenceintheinteractionwiththe
turbinedevelopmentsinMidWales–andsomeoftheformsthatthisdifference
takesinthecontextofthecurrentstudy.Thestudytookparticularinterestinthe
moreunusualresponses,exploringthepotentialfortheturbinetodisruptthe
usualandencouragethinking,feelingsandactionsthatarenotguidedbythe
conventionsofthetouristspace.WithinthesedisruptionsIwishtoexplore
opportunitiesforthinkingaboutnewwaysofecology,climatechangeand
landscape,exploringthepotentialforaspacetobeopenedfortouriststobegin
toconsiderglobalwarminginnewways.Drawingonatheoreticalapproach
fromcriticaltheory,Iwishtoexplorethepotentialnewcritiquesandapproaches
tocurrentecologicalchallengesthatlayoutsideofideologicaldrivendiscourses.
Chapter6seekstobringtogetherthestrandsofdatacollectedthroughoutthis
projecttodiscussanumberofthemesthatemerge.AsexplainedwithinChapter
2oncrystalisation,thesethemesemergeasaresultofvariousorientationsofthe
assemblagesthatformedthroughoutthestudy.Thesethemesarenotnecessarily
conclusions,butareratherideasthatemergefromaconsiderationofdata
collected.Indeed,thereadermaydisagreeorfindthesethemesunableto
representallofthethemesthattheyconsiderrepresentativeofthetextbelow.
Theproposalthatthisthesismakesisnotintendedtobedefinitive,butrather
functionsasanadditionalstrandwithintheprocessofcrystalisationthat
constructsthework.Indeed,ratherthanprovidinganswersandsolutions,this
thesisseekstoprovokenewquestionsandtoexplorethepotentialfornewways
ofconductingandthinkingaboutresearch.
16
AimsandObjectives
Theaimofthisprojectistoanalysetheinteractionbetweenvisitorsandwind
energyintourismspaces.Itdoesthistobetterunderstandtheseinteractionsand
toconsidertheasofyetunknownpotentialthatmaybepresentwithinthis
interaction.Thispotentialisunderstoodasbothintermsofdevelopingatourist
attractionaroundwindenergy,andmoreimportantlyasapotentialforthis
interactiontofunctionasastrategytoaddressthegrowingthreatofglobal
warming.Inadditiontothis,thejustificationforthisworkisinitsattemptto
expandonthetheoreticalliteraturewithintourismstudiesintermsofbothnew
methodologicalandphilosophicalapproaches.
Inordertodothisthethesiswillassesstheliteraturerelatingtorenewable
energyandthepolitical/publicdiscoursessurroundingthetechnology,thestudy
oftourismandvisitorexperienceincludingaspecificfocusontourismandwind
energy.Iwillalsoconsiderhowtheinteractionsbetweenwindenergyand
tourismcanbemeasured,analysedandexploreddrawingontheliteratureon
touristGaze,embodimentandmore-than-representationaltheoriesof
Landscape.Finally,drawingonbothofthesestrandsofenquiryIwillexplorethe
politicalpotentialwithinthetourismexperience,drawingonideasfrom
contemporarycriticalandspecificallyideasdevelopedwithintheproject
initiatedbyDeleuzeandGuattari.Thisthesisdoesnotattempttocreate
generalisableresultsthatcanbeappliedtootherlocationsandtimesinorderto
offerrecommendationsontheplacementofwindenergydevelopments.Itdoes
notattempttoprovideadvicetotourismplannerswhenconsideringthelocation
oftheirwindenergyattractions.Itdoesnotevenofferconcrete
recommendationsforplannersattemptingtobuildawindenergyattractionthat
isabletooffersomeofthecreativepossibilitiesthatIattempttouncoverwithin
thetext.
Thisthesisdoesnotattempttoproscribedefinitivesolutionstotheproblems
thatitidentifies,ratherithopestobeginaconversationbyproposinganumber
ofusefulconceptsthatcanbeadoptedbyfutureresearchers,creatingfurther
17
questionsandproblemsthatinturncreatenewconceptsforenquiry.Itrecords
interactionsinthelandscapewithwindenergydevelopmentsandscruitinises
themtoexploreopportunitiesforencouragingnewwaysofthinkingaboutwind
energytechnology,andwheretheseprogressiveopportunitiesareannulled.It
attemptstobegintobuildatoolkitforresearchers,acabinetofcuriosities,upon
whichfutureresearcherscandraw.
Thisaimofthestudyissummarisedwithinthefollowingkeyobjectives:
- Toreviewtheliteraturethatmayhelptoaddressthisaim,drawingon
casestudiesthatutilisethisinteractionandontheoreticalconceptsthat
havebeenusedtounderstandtourism.
- Toprovidebothatheoreticalandempiricalaccountonhowthispotential
withintheinteractioncanbeexplored.
- Toconsiderthemostappropriatemethodologythatcanbeusedto
understandandexplorethepotentialwithinthisinteraction.
- Toexhibitandevaluatetheimplicationsofthesefindings.
18
Chapter1:LiteratureReview
ThroughoutEuropewindturbinedevelopmentsaresettoplayakeyrolein
helpingtoachieverenewableenergytargetssetbytheKyotoProtocol.In
additiontomeetingtheneedtomeetgovernmentrenewabletargets;sustainable
energycanoffereconomicbenefitsforbothcommunitiesanddevelopersandso
continuestoplayanever-increasingroleinpoliticaldiscourse.Windturbine
developmentsareoftenlocatedinruralareasthatmaybeimportanttourism
destinations,butasofyet,littleresearchhasstudiedtheimpactthese
developmentsmayhaveontheseareas.Thisinitialchapterseekstoprovide
somebackgroundtotheseemergingissuesthroughadiscussionofthepolicy
andpoliticaldiscourse,beforediscussingthewaysinwhichprevious
researchershaveattemptedtoaddressquestionsontheimpactofwindenergy
ontourism.Thechaptercloseswithadiscussiononthetheoreticalapproaches
thatareusedtoinformtheapproachtakeninthisproject.
Section1:Environmentalpolicyandpublicopposition
EconomicsandSustainableEnergyPolicy
Tobeginwith,Iwishtoexplorethediscoursesinenvironmentalpolicythathave
ledtorelianceonwindenergy-andwhichhavebeenarguedtohaveplayeda
keyroleinthefosteringofpublicdistrust.Despiterenewableenergy
developmentoftenappearingtobedrivenbyaconscienceneedtoaddressthe
globalthreatofclimatechange,analysisofthehistoricalconstructionof
renewablepolicysuggeststhateconomicideologyhasfeaturedprominentlyin
thepoliticaldiscourse-andcontinuestoplayakeyroleintheproductionof
renewableenergyandsustainabledevelopmentpolicy.Thus,forMidWales,an
analysisoftheimpactonaneconomicallyimportantsectorsuchastourismis
seenasadditionallysignificantasitmayhaveimplicationsforfuturepolitical
considerations.
19
Renewableenergydevelopmentsfirstemergedinthepolicynarrativein1987.
AccordingtotheInternationalEnergyAgency,renewableenergiesaredefined
as:“energyderivedfromnaturalprocesses(e.g.sunlightandwind)thatare
replenishedatafasterratethantheyareconsumed.Solar,wind,geothermal,
hydro,andsomeformsofbiomassarecommonsourcesofrenewableenergy”
(IEA,2014).ThepublicationofOurCommonFuturebytheBruntdland
Commissionsawthefirstrecognitionthatenergysourcesthatfitthisdefinition
shouldbe“givenahigherpriorityinnationalenergyprogrammes”asameansof
“reducingdamagingcarbon-basedemissionsfromlargecombustionplants”
(WCED,1987:195).Thereportalsofeaturedthefirstrealdefinitionof
sustainabledevelopmentas‘developmentthatmeetstheneedsofthepresent
withoutcompromisingtheabilityoffuturegenerationstomeettheirownneeds’
(WCED,1987:54).Hereenvironmentalsustainabilityispresentedasbeing
simultaneouslypossiblealongsideeconomicgrowth,withsustainable
developmentofferinganopportunityforeverycountrytosecureitsresource
basewhilstprotectingthepotentialfor“furtheraccumulationbutwithinagreen
framework”(McMannus,1996,p.52).Renewableenergythusemergesasboth
aneconomicallyvaluableandsociallyresponsibleopportunity.Thiswas
reiteratedatthe1992UNEarthSummit,andhascontinuedtoremainafeature
inmorerecentpolicy(DEFRA,1998;EC,2001).Followingthefuelcrisisofthe
1970s,scarcityemergedasamajorfeatureofenergypolicy,andthepotentialfor
renewableenergytohelpalleviateconcernshelpedtomaintaininterestinthe
technology.Theimportanceofeconomicsustainabilityremainedcentraltothe
policydiscourseduringthe80’sandearly90’sdespiteaglobalmovement
towardsenvironmentallysustainabledevelopmentandglobalequity,with
governmentpolicycontinuingtoencourageandfocusondevelopmentthatcould
providesecureanddiverseenergysuppliesatcompetitiveprices(DTI,1998,
1994).
Inordertoestablishacompetitivemarketforsustainableenergytechnology,the
NonFossilFuelObligation(NFFO)wasestablishedundertheElectricityAct
1989/1990intheUK,financiallysupportingprojectsthroughalevyplacedon
electricitybills.Originally,theobligationwasestablishedtosubsidisethe
20
developmentofnucleartechnologies(Mitchell,1995;Surrey,1996)butalso
encompassedotherformsoftechnologicallyadvancedrenewabletechnologies.
Theactestablishedathree-folddivisionofresponsibilitytoachieveitsaims:
i) Thesecretaryofstate(Thepresidentoftheboardoftrade)was
responsibleformakingorderssettingaNonFossilFuelObligation
(NFFO),andhasastatutorydutytoconsultwiththeRegional
ElectricityCompaniesandtheDirectorGeneralofElectricitySupply.
ii) TheRegionalElectricityCompanieshadalegalresponsibilitytomake
arrangementstocomplywithsuchorders.
iii) TheRegionalElectricityCompaniesareobligedtoforwarddetailsof
thesearrangementstotheDirectorGeneral,whoischargedwiththe
dutyofconsideringifthesecompanieshavecompliedwiththeorders.
Themarket-ledapproachoftheNFFOresultedininterestandinvestmentthat
focusedontechnologiesthatwere‘closesttobecomingcommercially
competitive’(DTI,1994);andassuchledtoafocusonmaturerenewable
technologyincludingwindandsolar.Inadditiontothis,theuncertainty
associatedwithsecuringaNFFOcontractmeantthatdevelopmentbecame
dominatedbylargebusinessesthatcouldcompetebetterthansmaller
businessesorcommunityownedprojects.Thisproblemwasexacerbatedafter
pressurefromtheconservativelobbycreatedfurtherdistancebetweenthe
planningandNFFOapplicationprocessunderthethirdprogramme(NFFO3).It
hasbeensuggestedthatthesecircumstancescontributedtothehostilityoften
shownbyhostcommunitiestowardsnewdevelopments(Mallon,2006).
TheapproachintheUKdiffersfromthatseenelsewhereinEurope.InDenmark
forexample,localownershipisanimportantaspectofdevelopmentandis
encouragedwithtaxrelief.Thevalueinencouragingcommunitysupportiswell
known–andhasbeenshowntooftenmeanthedifferencebetweenacceptance
orrejectionofaplanningapplication(Toke,2002).IntheUK,thelackof
21
communityinvolvementofferslittletocommunitiesthatmaybepotentially
affectedormayperceivethemselvestobepotentiallyaffectedbywindturbines.
Byrequiringcompaniestotakeamacroeconomicview,andconsidersocialor
environmentfactorsoflessimportancewhenselectingasitefordevelopment,it
hasbeenarguedthattheNFFOensuredthatlocalandregionalconcernswere
excludedfromdecision-makingandhelpingtofueltheconflictsurrounding
developments(McKenzie-Hedger,1995).Theseconflictsareoftenbasedonan
apparenttensionbetweentheglobalpositiveimpact(reductionofgreenhouse
gasemissions),againstthenegativelocalimpact(eitheraestheticoreconomic);
oftenleadingtoalossinthepoliticaldiscourseoftheholisticpotentialfor
sustainabledevelopment.
InresponsetothegreaterfocusonclimatechangeinEUpolicy(EC,1998,2001,
2002);morefocuswasplacedoneconomicandsocialissuesofenvironmental
developmentinthepolicynarrativetowardstheendofthe1990sandearly
2000s.Duringtheseyears,threereportswerepublishedbytheUKauthorities
identifyingthepotentialforrenewablesourcestoprovideenergygeneration
alongsideacarbonmitigationstrategy(DTI,1994,1999,2000).Incontrastto
previousefforts,sustainabledevelopmentispresentedwithinthesereports
alongsidewithsocial,environmentalandeconomicissuesatitscore.Mitchell
andConner(2004)identifiedarenewedoptimismforrenewablesin1997when
MinisterofEnergy,JohnBattlesetacommitmenttosupply5%ofRenewable
Energygenerationby2003,and10%by2010(DTI,1999).However,despitethis
optimismforamoreholisticapproach,economicsremainedcentraltoguiding
policydevelopment.In1999,Battlesaid:“sustainabilityshouldnotbeseenasa
barrierorburdentobusiness.Ratheritiseconomiccommonsense.Renewable
sourcesofenergyareanessentialelementofacost-effectiveclimatechange
programme”.‘Cost-effective’climatechangemitigationstillprevailedasa
dominantnarrative,andsustainabledevelopmentcontinuedtoremainsteeped
ineconomicdiscourse.
Sincetheearly90s,windenergydevelopmentshavebeenconsideredtobeakey
featureinenablingtheUKtomeetitsrenewableenergytargets.Windenergyis
22
seenas‘themostprovengreensourceofelectricitygeneration’(DTI,1999).The
firstorderNFFOwasmadein1990withatargetof238MW,ofwhich28MWwas
fromwindenergy(11.8%).Thesecondin1991,targetedatotalof473MWof
which84MW(17.8%)wasfromwind.Thethirdin1994indicatedatargetfora
totalcapacityof626.92MWofwhich164MW(26.4%).Despitethesetargetsand
reportedlyhavingthebestwindresourceinEurope,renewablesources
accountedforlessthan1%ofallUKprimaryenergyproductionandaroundonly
2%ofelectricitysupplyin1992.Thisfigurestillremainedsubstantiallylowat
3%by2000,comparedtotheaverageof16%inotherEUnations(National
Statistics,2003).Lackofplanningorganisationhasbeenblamedforthislow
uptake,alongwithcommunityoppositiontodevelopmentsthatemergeasa
productofhierarchicaltopdownplanningpolicy(Warrenetal.,2005).
Oppositionwasfelttobe“emergingasaresultofthe‘lackofpositivebenefitsof
projectsforlocalcommunities”andalackofconcernfor“environmentaland
socialimpactsofprojectdesign”(Walker,1995:57).
Duringtheearly1990’sareluctantfromthegovernmentcreatedplanning
battlesoverindividualschemes.Oftentheseappearedtoobserverstobecomea
“mediafuelledshowdownbetweendevelopersandoppositiongroups”(Warren
etal.,2005:859)andalackofclearpolicyguidanceledmanylocalauthorities
unabletomakedecisionsonlargersites.TheSecretaryofState,followingpublic
inquiry,eventuallywasforcedtoruleontheselargersites.Thisprocessfurther
distancedlocalcommunitiesfromthedecisionmakingprocessleavingmanyto
feelthatthesedevelopmentswereoutoftheirhandsandinthehandsofmulti-
nationaldevelopersandgovernmentdepartments.BrutonandNicholson(1987)
criticisethisapproachtoplanning,addingthatwhilstregionalguidanceshould
containdetailedinterpretationsofpolicy,theyshouldbedevelopedbyregional
authoritieswhoarebestplacedtounderstandregionalcircumstances.Bythe
endof2000,only25%ofprojectswithNFFOcontractsinEnglandandWaleshad
becomelive(DTI,2001).Renewableswereestimatedtohaveachieved
productionof3%ofenergysuppliedatthistimebutonlyaroundhalfofthis
targetwasreachedwithWindonlyrepresenting0.25%ofUKelectricityin2001
(Toke,2002).Ofallrenewabletechnologies,onlywindpowerexperienced
23
significantrejectionattheplanningstage–ofthe18schemesthatwere
consideredatlocalinquiries,onlytwoweresuccessfulduringthe1994-98
period(RCEP,2000).Reasonsforthisrejectionwereconsistent:landscape
issues,requirementsoftheMinistryofDefense,andhighprofile(althoughoften
madeupofaminorityofresidents)localopposition.Therenewablesobligation
in2001(DTI,2000a)attemptedtoaddresstheseissues.Itreversedtherulesof
theNFFO,puttingtheobligationonthesupplierstosourceanincreasing
proportionoftheirelectricityfromrenewablesourcestoachievethetargetof
10%ofrenewablesgenerationby2010(MitchellandConner,2004).Payments
weremadeforachievingsupplytargets,incontrasttothepaymentsmadefor
specificprojectsintheNFFO.Thisapproachdidnotappeartothesolvethe
problem,anddatahasshownadecreasingnumberofMWprovidedtothe
nationalgrideachyearfromnewrenewableenergyschemes(LandUse
Consultants,2004).Despitethis,andtheprominenceplacedoncarbon
reductioninmorerecentyears,marketledapproachesandfinancialconcerns
havecontinuedtotoptheagenda:
“Aswehavesetout,ouraimforrenewablesisthattheyshouldsupply
10%ofUKelectricityin2010,aslongasthecosttocustomersis
acceptable”(DTI,2003Section4.11)
Arguably,itisthesestrategiesthathavecontinuedtoalienatecommunitiesand
smallbusinessesfromthepotentialofferedfromdevelopingrenewableenergy
solutions.The£10millionfundforcommunitydevelopmentisovershadowedby
the£6billionattributedtothemeetingoftargetsbymultinationalcompanies
throughtheRenewablesObligation(Toke,2005).
Despitethisominousoutlook,in2004,therewasanemergenceofsupport
campaignsforthesustainableenergyopportunitiesofwindpowerfrom
grassrootscampaignsandlobbyingbodies.TheSustainableDevelopment
Commission’s,‘WindpowerintheUK’(2004)aimedtodispelsomeofthemyths
andputforwardacaseforwindpowerasatemporarysolutiontocarbon
emissionsreduction(SustainableDevelopmentCommission,2004).Other
24
campaignswerealsoestablishedsuchasGreenpeace’sYestoWind,andEmbrace
theRevolutionfromBWEA.Althoughtherehasbeenagreaterfocusonthe
environmentalbenefitsratherthanmerelytheeconomicbenefitsofthese
developments,issuesatalocallevelarestillemerging.Therearestillstruggles
implementinggovernmentpolicyandpublicdistrustisstillhigh.
ConflictandPublicopposition
Thepoliticaldiscourseofrenewableenergydevelopmenthasbeenconsideredto
beacontributingfactortotheemergenceofpublicoppositiontowardswind
energy.Lackinclearplanningpolicyhasresultedinaprocessthatoftenexcludes
communitiesfromplanningapplications(Warrenetal2005),andamarketled
approachhasmadeitdifficultforsmallerbusinessesandcommunityprojectsto
competewithlargemultinationalcompanies.Inresponsetotheoppositionthat
hasoftenemerged,developersappointcommunityliaisonofficersbutthesetoo
arelimitedintheirapplicationofadeficitmodeltotheirapproachof
engagementandthusruntheriskoffurtheralienatinglocalresidents.This
approachisbasedonastrategywherebyanassumed‘deficit’inpublic
knowledgeandunderstandingisblamedforlackofpublicsupport(Dickson
2005).Inadditiontohelpingtocontributetowardspublicdistrustinits
rearticulationofsomeoftheconditionsthatinitiallycreatedtheproblems,this
approachfailstotakeadvantageofthelocalexpertisemembersofthepubliccan
offerdevelopment.
Inadditiontotheaforementionedpolicyvacuumofthe1990s,problemswere
alsopresentwithinthelimitedguidelinesthatwereprovided.Despiteinitial
planningguidelinesfocusingonwindfarmdevelopments(apointthatitselfhas
beensubjecttocriticismfromCooper,1998;andHull,1995),disapprovalhas
beenexpressedfortheguidelinesavoiding“thecontroversialissuesofthe
reconciliationofdevelopmentinterestswiththeimportanceofconservingthe
environmenttoensurethatenvironmentaldamageisminimised”(Hull,1995:9).
WeaknationalplanningguidanceopenedupapolicyvacuumthatallowedNGO’s
25
andquangossuchastheCountrysideCouncilforWales(CCW)andtheWelsh
touristboardtodeveloppolicydocumentsreflectingtheirownagenda.CCW
consideredwindfarmstobenew,largelyinappropriateindustrialdevelopments
inthecountryside,exemplifiedinthetitleoftheirpolicydocument'Wind
TurbinePowerStations'(CountrysideCouncilforWales,1992).Ina1998policy
documentCCWstate,“itisclearthatcommercialwindturbinedevelopments
havethepotentialtobehighlyintrusiveinthelandscape”.Woods(2003)has
describedCCW’sviewasrepresenting“araresurvivingexampleofnatureas
wilderness”(Woods,2003:280),aviewalsoseenbytheCouncilforthe
ProtectionofRuralWales(CPRW)whohavenotedthatturbinespresenta
“pervasivethreattoheartlandlandscapes”(CPRW,2000).Atanational
conferenceonwindenergyoneCPRWofficerasked:‘isthemodestincreasein
energysupplyfromuplandwindturbinesworththe“tamingofwildBritain”?’
(Williams,1999viaStevenson,2009).
Thisfocusonlandscapeconservationhashadnegativeimpactondiscussionsof
thetechnology,astheholisticpotentialofferedbythedevelopmentisoftennot
explored.Landscapeconservationbecomesforcedintotheforeground,whilst
globalissuesgenerallyprovideonlyemergeasanafterthoughtinlocalbattles
(Hull,1995).Woods(2003)highlightstheCefnCroesWindFarmCampaign
wherelandscapeandlocaleconomicdiscoursesidelinedtheglobalclimate
changeissueandtheneedforresponsiblecarbonmitigationaction.Ereauntand
Segnit(2006)arguethatduringtheearlyyearsoftheAssembly,alackof
sustainableenergypolicyfromtheUKgovernmentandtheinabilityofthepublic
toacceptthe‘doomandgloom’messageofclimatechangeresultedinasituation
wherebydevelopersandwindenergysupporterswereunabletoeffectivelyuse
thethreatofglobalclimatechangeinWalestoarguetheneedforalternative
energyapproaches.Thissuggestionthatthepublichadan‘inability’toacceptthe
fullmessageofclimatechangeisinitselfproblematic.Ithasbeennotedthatfar
frombeingpassivevesselstobefilledwithmoreorbetterinformation,members
ofthepublicareactiveinweighinguptheusefulnessandrelevanceofscientific
information.Theyareabletoassimilateevenverycomplexscientificinformation
iftheycanseepracticalgainsindoingso,andconverselymaychoosetoignore
26
informationiftheydonottrustthosewhoaregivingitorseenoadvantagein
understandingit(Burningham,2000).Thustheresponsibilityisnotonthe
abilityofthememberofthepublic,butonthecommunicatortopresent
importantinformationinawaythatisaccessibleandwillbeconsidered
trustworthy.NotinmybackyardorNIMBYismhasoftensurroundeddebates
overwind-farmsplacement.TheNIMBYtheory(Marks&VonWinterfeld,1984;
Thayer&Hansen,1988)assumespeopledonotwantwindturbinesconstructed
intheirplaceoftheirresidencebutdonotmindthembeingplacedanywhere
else.Wolsink(2000),declaresNIMBYismamyth,suggestingthosewiththese
feelingswerenotinfavourofwindpoweratall.Lake(1993)alsooffersan
interestingcritiquefromaneo-Marxistperspective,inwhichtheideaof‘public
goods’isarguedtobeproblematic.ToLake,thisconceptcomesintodisputeas
theprojectsthemselvesappearasstructurallyconstrainedpoliticalsolutionsto
economicproblemsthatprivilegetheneedsofcapital.Thisargumentappears
evermorevalidconsideringthepreviousnoteonmarketledapproachtakenby
theUKGovernment,andthesubservientrolesustainabledevelopmentappears
tohavetoeconomicgrowthingovernmentenergypolicy.
InWales,theroleofnationalisminpublicdiscourseaddsafurtherdimensionto
anti-windfarmcampaigns.FollowingtheGovernmentofWalesAct,1998;post
devolutionpolicyandpromotiontriedtofocusontheuniquenessofWalesand
the‘backtothelandtendency’ofWelshculture(Gruffudd,1994).Theformer
hasstronglinkstoWelshidentity;MosesGruffydd,PlaidCymru’schief
agriculturaladviserquotedinGruffudd(1994),said:“Placingthepeoplebackon
thelandisnotonlyappropriate,butisessentialiftheWelshnationistolive.The
Welshnationisanationwithitsrootsinthecountryandthesoil.”Weseethe
strengthofnationalisminwindfarmcampaignsdemonstratedinthelogoofthe
CefnCroesWindFarmCampaign-hereadragonisseentosawawindturbinein
half.TheremaybeafearthatWelshruralcommunitieswillhavetosufferforthe
benefitofthoseinthecitiestotheSouthofthecountryorthelargecitiesin
England.Thishasbeenthecasehistorically;in1960thevillageofCapelCelyn
wasfloodedtobuildtheLlynCelynreservoirinGwynedd,NorthWalesinorder
tosupplyLiverpoolandpartsoftheWirralwithwater.
27
Figure1,CefnCroesWindFarmCampaignLogo
ThecontroversialmovesawanincreaseinsupportforPlaidCymruinfollowing
yearsandpublicprotestattheopeningceremonywherepeopleheldplacards
reading‘hand’soffWales’(BBC,2005).Itwasonlyin2005thatLiverpoolCouncil
issuedanapology:
“TheCouncilacknowledgesitsdebttothemanythousandsofWelshpeoplewho
havemadetheirhomesintheCity.Theyhave,insomanyways,enrichedthelife
oftheCity.WeknowthatLiverpool,especiallyinthefieldsofmedicineand
education,hasbeenofrealservicetothepeopleofWales.Werealisethehurtof
fortyyearsagowhentheTrywerynValleywastransformedintoareservoirto
helpmeetthewaterneedsofLiverpool.Foranyinsensitivitybyourpredecessor
Councilatthattime,weapologiseandhopethatthehistoricandsound
relationshipbetweenLiverpoolandWalescanbecompletelyrestored.”
Despitethisbleakoutlookforsupportforfuturedevelopments,therehasbeen
growingevidencetosuggestthatthethreatofglobalwarmingisbecomingmore
widelyaccepted(Szarka,2004:326),particularlysincethe2003whitepaper.
Thisdoescreatethepotentialforgreaterpublicacceptanceforwindenergy,but
greatereffortisneededtorealisetheholisticpotentialforsustainable
developmentprojectsthroughgreatercommunitydialogueratherthan
engagement,andcommunityownershipprogrammes(Dash,2012).
28
CeredigionandRenewableEnergy
Theresearchundertakeninthecurrentprojectisbasedintheconvergencearea
ofCeredigioninordertocomplywiththerequirementsofthefundingofthe
project.FundedbyaKnowledgeExchangeSkillsScholarship(KESS),thework
wasrequiredtoworkalongsideapartner(inthiscaseTouristPartnershipMid-
Wales)toexploreissuesthatarerelevanttotheiroperations.Assuch,the
followingsectionwillexplainsomeofthekeyfeaturesofthesiteofresearch.
CeredigionismadeupoftheprincipaltownsofAberystwyth,Aberaeron,
CardiganandLampeter;whichaccountfor39%ofthetotalpopulation.The
countyneighboursGwyneddtotheNorth,PowystotheeastandCamarthenshire
andPembrokeshiretothesouth.Landscapecovers1,795sq.km,stretchingfrom
thesouthernbanksoftheDyfiinthenorthtotheTeifiestuaryintheSouth.
CeredigionisenclosedbythehighhillsofthePlynlimonmountainrange,which
extendstoover610metresabovesealevel.Totheeast,theCambrianMountains
separatethecountyfromitsborderingcounties.In1965,aprocesswasstarted
todesignateaCambrianMountainsNationalPark.Thisultimatelyfailedin1973,
butrecenteffortfromtheCambrianMountainsSocietyhascontinuedtoapply
forAreaofOutstandingNationalBeautyprotection.Ceredigion’stopological
landscapeoffersasuitablelocationforthedevelopmentofwindfarmprojects.
Thevalleystendtocanalisesurfacewindsandaccentuatetheirspeeddueto
funneleffects.Asavailabilityofenergyisrelatedtowindspeedbyafactorof
three,a10%increaseinwindspeedcanyield30%moreenergyprovidinga
greaterincentivetoconsiderenvironmentalconditionswhenchoosingsite
locations.Waleshasalonghistoryofresearchintherenewableenergypotential
ofthecountry.TheformercountyofDyfed(thecountywithinwhichthepresent
dayCeredigionissituated)wasconsideredtohavethepotentialtoalone
produceatleasttentimesit’sownrequirements(TaylorandRand,1991).This
figuremustbeconsideredwithinthecontextofthepoliticalandpublicattitudes
ofitstimeandpresentdayresearchhassuggestedthatfurtherissuesand
impactsmayarisefromdevelopmentssoestimateswouldlikelybeconsiderably
less.Nevertheless,researchbyTaylorandLarke(1991),hasidentifiedthe
29
potentialwithinCeredigionforrenewableenergygenerationfromallnatural
sourcesexcludinggeothermalenergy,withwind,bio-fuelsandsmallscalehydro
poweridentifiedasthemosteconomicaloptions.However,theyemphasisethat
suchdevelopmentsshouldonlybeadoptedwhensuitableforthelocaleconomy,
environmentandthecommunity.
EarlyrenewabledevelopmentssuchastheMynyddYCemmaeswindfarm
(1992)andLlandinumPandL(1992)weresetupbysmallwelshcompanies
(theformerisnowpartofnationalwindpower),howeverthemarketled
approachoftheNFFOresultedinlaterdominationbylargercompanies.When
combinedwithalackofstrategicplanningguidance,acultureofconflictand
distrustemergedasthepublicfaceduncertaintyonwhototruston
environmentaldevelopments.Thenowcontroversialdocument,TAN8was
initiallyintendedtoaddresstheseconcernsthroughclearerplanningpolicy.The
documentwasrewriteofaninitial1999draftwithagroupofstakeholders
withintherenewableenergysector(includinglocalgovernments,public
agencies,NGO’sandtheprivatesector).Followingathree-monthconsultation
period,thefinaldocumentwasreleasedin2005,alongwithanupdatedPlanning
PolicyWalesthatshiftsemphasiswhererenewableenergyprojectswere
promoted–“renewableenergyprojectsshouldgenerallybesupportedbylocal
planningauthorisesprovidedenvironmentalimpactsareavoidedorminimised,
andnationallyandinternationallydesignatedareasarenotcompromised”
(WAG,2005:2).Thedocumentalsorepresentsashiftinapproachto
developments,highlightingtheneedforafewlarge-scalewindfarmsinorderto
meetnationaltargets.StrategicSearchAreasweredesignatedforthistask,with
newemphasisontheneedtoassessenvironmentalimpact.TAN8attemptedto
resolveconflictatastrategiclevel,engagingwithanumberofstakeholdersand
reducingtheneedforcostlypublicengagementexercisesthroughacombination
ofscientific(rational)andHabermasian(consensual)methodsofpolicymaking.
Yet,problemsthathaveencouragedthedevelopmentofpublicconflictcontinue
tobereproduced.Withinthedocument,littleinformationispresentedtolocal
plannersthatcouldallowthemtoweighuptheglobalimpactagainstthelocal
impactandinsteadtheyarejusttoldto:“considerthelocalavailabilityof
30
renewableenergyresourcesanddevelopsuitablepoliciesthatpromotetheir
implementation”(WAG,2005,p.12).TAN8hasbeenmetwithmajorcriticism
fromboththepublicandinvestedprivatestakeholders,whofeeltheywerenot
appropriatelyconsultedduringtheconstructionofthedocument.These
concernshaveledtocontinuingpublicprotestanddebateoverproposed
projects,andincreasingdelaysandpostponementsforsomeoftheprojectsthat
wereduetobeconstructedinkeyStrategicSearchAreas.
Thecurrentstudyseekstospecificallyexploreemergingissuesthatsurround
theproposed(albeitnowpostponed)developmentatNantYMoch.In2011
whenthisresearchprojectbegan,alarge-scalewindturbinedevelopment
containingover60turbineswassettobedevelopedbySSERenewableswithin
SSAD,betweenTalybontandtheNantYMochreservoir.Thedevelopment
wouldhavebeenbuiltonbothprivatelyownedagriculturalgrazinglandand
landundermanagementbytheForestryCommissionWales(nowNatural
ResourcesWales,whichalsoincludestheformerCCW).Theprojectwasmet
withpublicprotestsbackedbyCCW,whoalsoheldanexhibitionheldwithinthe
towncentreofAberystwyth.Majorobjectionstothedevelopmentemergedfrom
theperceivedimpactonthelandscapeandthepotentialimpactscausedduring
theconstructionphaseontheweaktransportnetworksinMidWales.Similar
objectionswereraisedtotheproposedwindfarmatSSAsiteCinPowys.In
2013,theprojectwaspostponedfollowingeventsinPowys,wherethePlanning
Authorityrefusedapplicationsforfivewindfarmsandanew132kvpowerline.
AstheproposeddevelopmentinNantYMochalsoreliedonthispowerline,SSE
announcedthattheywererefusingtomakefurthersignificantinvestmentuntil
theprojectsinPowysweremetwithgreatersupport.Thesefivewindfarmsin
Powyswereobjectedbythecouncilduetoperceivedlandscapeandvisual
impacts,thepotentialimpactsontourismandthelackoftransport
infrastructuretosupportthedevelopmentandarecurrentlypartofalong-
standingon-goingpublicconsultation.
31
Section2:TourismandRenewableEnergy
Asrenewableenergytakesonagreaterprominenceinthepoliticaldiscourse
andasthethreatofglobalclimatechangegrowsevercloser;theneedto
considertherelationshipbetweenrenewabletechnologyandthetourismsector
gainsgreaterimportance.ThisisofparticularsignificancewithinCeredigion,
wherethetourismsectoristhesecondlargestcontributortotheeconomy,
supportingover4500FTEjobs(calculatedviatheScarboroughTourism
EconomicActivityModel).AlreadyIhavedemonstratedthatrelianceonthe
marketledapproachestodriverenewableenergytechnologyproduction,
suggestingthatanypotentialnegativeimpactonthetourismeconomyforthe
regionmaymakedevelopingarenewableenergyprojectlessviable.
Additionally,ifsuchaprojectweretogoaheadanynegativeimpactonthe
tourismsectorcouldhaveadverseconsequencesforthesectorasawhole.
Exploringthisimpactontourismthusemergesofkeyimportanceandinterest
ledbytheneedforaconsiderationofsustainability–botheconomicallyand
environmentally.
ThestudyofTourism
Tourismrepresentsbothaneconomicallyandsociallyimportantphenomenon.
In2013,travelandtourism’stotalcontributionstoodat9.5%ofglobalGDP,not
onlyshowinggreatergrowththanthewidereconomy,butalsogrowingfaster
thanothersignificantsectorssuchasfinancialandbusinessservices,transport
andmanufacturing(WTTC,2014).Thisrepresentsalmost266millionjobs-one
inelevenofalljobsintheworld.Morethaneveritisclearthat‘tourismisnota
peripheralaspectoflocal,nationalorglobaleconomyandsociety’(Shawand
Williams,1994,p.9),andinsteadisofcriticalimportancetotheoperationofall
ofthesefeatureswithinasustainableeconomy.Thereisoftenafailureofstate
institutionstorecognisethisimportance,andthusthesectoroftenfacesthreats
duringperiodsoffinancialuncertainty.Indeed,ithasalsobeennotedthatthis
sameinsecurityismirroredintheworkoftourismacademicsthemselves,who
32
oftenfeelthattheirworkisoflessimportancethantheircolleaguesinbusiness
andgeographydepartments.Despitethis,tourismrepresentsanimportantarea
ofstudyasasiteofsocialexplorationandexperimentation–whererolesand
normsareperformedandpotentiallytransgressed.
“Tourismisnolongeraspecialistconsumerproductormodeofconsumption:
tourismhasbrokenawayfromitsbeginningsasarelativelyminorand
ephemeralritualofmodernnationallifetobecomeasignificantmodality
throughwhichtransitionalmodernlifeisorganised.”(FranklinandCrang,2001,
p.7)
Intheirreaffirmationofthesiteofvacationasa‘culturallaboratory’(Lofgren,
1999),FranklinandCrangsuggestthattourismresearchersneedtomove
beyondjustificationsthatrelyontheeconomicimportanceoftheindustryand
insteadfocusonthepotentialwithintourismtoexplorenewaspectsofidentity,
socialrelationsandinteractionswithnatureandtheenvironment.Asamain
featureofthecurrentresearchthepotentialofnewpossibilitiesforperceptions
ofnatureandtheenvironmentisofkeyinterest,especiallyconsideringthe
increasingurgencywithwhichweneedtorespondtothegrowingthreatof
globalwarming.
Currentstudywithintourismonthesekeyissueshasinpartemergedin
responsetothegrowinginterestofconsumersin‘ecotourism’.Thisaformof
tourismsuggestedbyBlamey(1997,2001)thatismadeupofthreekeyfeatures:
attractionsthatarepredominantlynature-based,visitorinteractionsfocusedon
learningandeducationandexperience;andproductmanagementfollowing
principlesassociatedwithecological,socio-culturalandeconomicsustainability.
AcontemporarydefinitionisprovidedbyTheInternationalEcotourismSociety
as"responsibletraveltonaturalareasthatconservestheenvironment,sustains
thewell-beingofthelocalpeople,andinvolvesinterpretationandeducation"
(TIES,2015).ThedegreeofinterpretationthatcanbeappliedtoBlamey’s
criterialedWeaver(2005)tosuggestbotha‘minimalist’and‘comprehensive’
formofecotourism.Minimalistapproachesfavourmoresuperficiallearning
33
activities,whilstcomprehensiveapproachesaimtofosterdeeperunderstanding
andengagement.Otherworkhaschallengedthesedefinitions,arguingforthe
ecotourismpotentialinactivitiesthatwouldotherwisebeconsideredun-
sustainableorat-timesexploitativeoftheenvironment(e.g.,recreationalangling
asecotourism:Holland,DittonandGraefe(1998)andZwirn,PinskyandRahr
(2005);trophyhuntingasecotourism:Novelli,BarnesandHumavindu(2006);
andzoosasecotourism:RyanandSaward(2004)).Oneofthemostextensively
studiedareasoftheeffectsofecotourismhassoughttoanalysetheimpactsof
touristsonwildlife.Workhasincludedstudyonarangeofspeciesincluding
yellow-eyedpenguins(McClungetal.,2004),hoatzins(Mullner,Linsenmair&
Wikelski,2004),bottlenosedolphins(Constantine,Brunton&Dennis,2004),and
woodlandcaribou(Duchesne,Cote&Barrette,2000).
Despitetheimportanceofresearchonimpactsandrelationshipsbetween
tourismandtheenvironment,WeaverandLawton(2007)notethatverylittle
workhasbeenundertakenbytourismspecialistsorappearswithinthetourism
literature.RodgerandMoore(2004)addressthisdiscrepancyinexplainingthe
differencebetweenthegoalsofscientistsandecotourismsitemangers(the
latterfocusedonmorebusinessorientatedoutcomes)andhowresearchis
traditionallyfundedwithinthesedisciplines.Respondingtothis,Weaverand
Lawton(2007)highlightthebodyofworkthathasfocusedonproviding
guidelinesforimprovingservice-orientedbusinessstrategiesand
evaluating/developingperformanceoutcomes,suchasthatundertakenon
marketsegmentation(e.g.Eagles&Cascagnette,1995;Wight,1996,2001;
Eubanks,etal.,2004)andmanagement(e.g.DickeyandHigham,2005;Parker
andKhare,2005;SilvaandMcDill,2004).
Withinthefocusofthecurrentproject,asimilarobservationcanbemadeonthe
currentresearchonwindenergyandtourism.Asthemajorityofthisworkhas
beenconductedbyindependentresearchorganisations(outsideofacademia)
andhasbeenundertakeninpartnershipwithgovernmentbodiesorNGO’s;there
isagreaterfocusonproducingclearguidelinesandrecommendationsthatare
34
applicablewithinthecurrentpoliticalandeconomicdiscourse,ratherthanmore
exploratoryandinterpretativeresearch.
VisitorExperience
Inthecurrentproject,Iexamineanddiscusssomeofthemotivationsand
reflectionsfromvisitorstoMidWalesinthepresenceofwindturbines.Itisthus
worthexploringsomeofthecurrentliteratureonvisitorexperience.AsInoteon
thepreviouspage,muchtourismresearchhasbeenfocusedonproviding
guidancefortourismmanagersandthusfailstomovebeyondexploring
frameworksforeffectivelymanagingvisitorexperience.Suchworkislikelytobe
categorisedasDestinationManagement.Thisviewof‘visitorexperience’could
belikenedtothatexploredwithin‘productdevelopment’withinother
industries,wheretheproductisaunique,enrichingandmemorableexperience.
Oneimportantaspectofthis‘productdevelopment’involvesthecreationand
managementofdestinationimage.Indeed,wedefinethedestinationas“a
geographicalregion,politicaljurisdiction,ormajorattraction,whichseeksto
providevisitorswitharangeofsatisfyingtomemorablevisitationexperiences.”
(Bornhorst,RitchieandSheehan,2009,page572).Astheseregionsor
jurisdictionsdonotoftenconformtothesameboundariesthatseparateregions
onamap,itisoftenbettertoclassifytheplacesthataredestinationsasthose
whichprovidetheexperiencesthattouristsarelookingfor-collectedtogether
underasingleumbrelladestinationimage.Largemetropolitancitiesofferinga
broadrangeofexcitingvisitationexperienceswithintheirboundaries,canbeas
competitiveintheirappealasmanydestinationsthataremuchlargerin
geographicterms.Somemajorattractions(suchasDisneyWorldintheUSA,the
PalaceofVersaillesinFrance,theIncaruinsofMachuPicchuinPeru,the
HermitageWinterPalaceinSt.Petersburg,Russia—andanumberofother
attractionsofrenown),maybythemselvesprovidesuchsubstantial,unique,or
significantvisitationexperiencesthattheycanbeconsideredtobea
“destination”intheirownright.
Unlikeproductdevelopmentinotherindustries,tourismreliesonthe
participationofnumerousstakeholdersinordertofunction-namelyindigenous
35
people,businessesandinvestors,tourists,touroperatorsandintermediaries,
andinterestgroups.Managingstakeholders’interestswhichareoftenconflicting
makescontrollingandmarketingdestinationsasawholeextremelychallenging.
Onekeyproblemisensuringtherationaluseofzero-pricedpublicgoods,suchas
landscapes,mountains,andtheseaforthebenefitofallstakeholderswhilstat
thesametimepreservingtheresourcesforfuturegenerations.Thestudyof
conservationandtourismisawellresearchedandrobustfield.Conflictscan
easilydevelopbetweenstakeholders,especiallywhensomemayseegreater
advantagesinemphasisingshort-termbenefits.Acompromiseencompassingall
theseinterestsisextremelydifficultifnotimpossible,butisthekeytolongterm
success.
Andyettouristsperceivethedestinationasa‘brand’comprisingofacollection
ofsuppliersandservices,ratherthanasingleproduct.Beforevisitingthey
developanimageaboutdestinationsaswellasasetofexpectationsbasedon
previousexperience,wordofmouth,pressreports,advertising,andcommon
beliefs(Chon,1991and1992;BalogluandBrinberg,1997).Duringtheirholiday,
they“consume”destinationsasacomprehensiveexperience,withoutoften
realisingthateachelementoftheproductareproducedandmanagedby
individualplayers.Mostserviceprovidersaresmallandmedium-sisedtourism
enterpriseswithawiderangeofstrengthsandweaknesses,characterisedby
theirindependentnature(BuhalisandCooper,1998,CooperandBuhalis,1992).
Theoriesofmotivation
Thereareanumberofstudiesonvisitormotivation:Gray’sSunlustand
Wanderlust(1970)typologyoftourists,OptimalArousalTheory(Iso-Aloha,
1980),andPearce(1988),Dann’s(1977)PullandPushTheory,amongothers.
PushandPulltheoryisregularlyusedwhenconsideringboththeexpectations
anddemandsoftourists(pushfactors)aswellasthefeaturesthatcanattract
touriststoaregion(pullfactors).Thetheoryhasbeenappliedinanumberof
studiestoexploreboththedemandandsupplysideoftheindustry:Correiaetal.,
36
(2004)andMoney&Crotts,(2003),explainindividualmotivationstotravelto
exoticlocations,Sangpikul(2007)usesthemodeltoexploremotivationsfor
elderlytravellerstovisitThailand,andKassean&Gassita(2013)analyse
touristsmotivationstovisitMauritius.Withinthistheory,pushfactorsarethose
thingsthatmotivetheindividualtowanttovisit.Psychologicaldesires,needs,
requiresforrest,learning,socialstatus.Thesetellyouwhattypeofthingsyou
needatthedestination,whatkindofexperiencetheindividualislookingfor.
YoonandUysal,2005,addthatthesemotivationsareemotional;buildingon
Dann,1977’sconceptionofpushfactorsaseitheranomie(oftranscendence,or
escapefromeverydaylife)orego-enhancement(ofrecognitionandvalidationof
identity).
Pullfactorsarethosethatattracttouriststotheregion.Thethingsthatmake
touristswanttocometoadestinationthatincludeattractions,theculture,the
costsoftheplace,theenvironment,theabilitytorestandtheeaseofaccess.
Dann,1981,suggeststhatpullattributesofadestinationcanreinforceand
respondtopushfactormotivations.Youetal.,emphasisetheneedtoinclude
environmentalqualityandinfrastructureaskeyattributesofasuccessful
destination.ThisisfurtherexpandedbyCrouchetal.,2000,exploringhowthe
environmentandinfrastructurearefurtherbrokendown(Figure2).Herethe
pullfactorswithinthedestinationenvironmentareshowntoincludeboththe
‘naturalenvironment’whilstemphasisingtheimportanceofthesocial,cultural
andeconomicfactorswithinthesite.Alongsidethis,thenecessityofservices
availableforthevisitortoutilisearenoted.Sitesmaydrawuponeachofthese
twobranchestovaryingdegrees,withsomefactorsmoreessentialthanothers
dependingontheindividualtouristspushfactorsandtheirrequirements(e.g.a
destinationthatprovidesan‘intotothewild’mayrequirelessaccommodation
servicesandtransportinfrastructuretoappearauthentic,butwouldrequirea
greaterdegreeofnationalenvironmentandsocial/culturalfactors).
Beyondthemanagementmodelsofvisitormotivationanddestinationbranding
–istheconceptisPlace.Fundamentaltoallthesemodels,andallwaysof
imaginingtourism,thisisdefinedas‘thementalconstructofthetemporal-
37
spatialexperiencethatoccursastheindividualascribesmeaningtosettings,
throughenvironmentalperceptionandcognition’.Itisthecombinationofboth
thegeographicfeaturesoftheland,thehistory,thepeople,communities,and
socialinteractionsthatconstructthedestination,thevisit,andtheTourist.All
touristsmusthaveaPlacetogo.
Figure2,Pullfactorsintourism(fromCrouchetal,2000)
Fortourismandtravelerstheenvironmentisencounteredinawayinwhichself
andplaceappearrelated.Studyingtourismisexplicablyaboutthisrelationship,
therelationshipwithplacesandtherolepeoplehavehadinconstructinghowwe
thinkofPlacebothactivelyintheformofmarketing,brandingetc.butalso
passively.Agoodexamplecanbeexploredthroughourconceptofthe
picturesque.Priortotheconceptionofpicturesquelandscape,noideaof
‘scenery’existedandtheforestswerethoughtobefilledwithdemons.Painters
andwritersofthenineteenthcenturythenbegantoromanticisethecountryside,
describingvistasandthewholeideaofhowweviewnaturechanged.
AknowledgeofPlaceandthenecessityofplaceinthetourismsystemmeans
thatwealsoneedtolookatthesocialaspectsofinteractionswithlandscapes
andhowtheyarecreated(orhavebeencreated)whenresearchingdestinations
38
andvisitorinteractions.Forthedestinationmarketer,thismeanshavinga
sufficientunderstandingofplaceinboththephysicalandsocialdimensionsto
createsomethingthat’sbothcompatibletotheareaandtotourismdemands–
andtotheresearcherthiscreatesnewavenuesofexploration,highlightinga
potentialtostudythesocialandculturalreasonswhyadestination
appears/behaves/existsasitdoes,andhowthishasanimpactonhowpeople
interactwithit.
TourisminMidWales
Beforediscussingtheresearchfromtheliteraturethathassoughttostudythe
relationshipbetweenrenewableenergyandtourism,thischapterwillprovide
backgroundinformationontheresearchsetting,andwiderdetailsonthe
tourismindustryinWales.TourisminWalesissupportedbyVisitWales,the
WelshGovernment’stourismteamwithintheDepartmentofHeritageto
promotetourismandassistindelivery.TheindustryinWalesisworthatotalof
£4.5billionayearandwasestimatedtosupportover100,000FTEjobs(just
under10%ofthetotalforWales)in2012(viaAitchison,2012).Tourismpolicy
aimstoachieve:“acustomerresponsive,innovative,sustainableandprofitable
industrywhichmakesanincreasingcontributiontotheeconomic,social,cultural
andenvironmentalwellbeingofWales”.(p.7).Thismissionstatementis
achievedthroughfivemainareasoffocus,identifiedwithinTheWelsh
GovernmentStrategyforTourism2013-2020nationaltourismstrategy.Taken
fromthestrategicframework,thesefiveareasoffocusidentifystrategicaims
thatmustbeaddressedinordertosecurelong-termsustainabledevelopment
withinaregion.
ThecurrentstudyisbasedinMidWales.Thisregioncomprisesofthecountiesof
Ceredigion,PowysandpartsofGwynedd.Theregionhasbeenrecordedtobe
responsiblefor18%oftourismspendinginWales,20%ofholidayvisitornights
and25%ofbusinessnights(WG,2010).Despitethisandalthougharguably
containingsomeofthemorediversenaturalproductsofthecountry;the
transportandtourisminfrastructureisgenerallylessdevelopedthaninthe
39
morepopularnationalparksofNorthandSouthWales.Thetourismproductof
theregionisnothomogenousandavarietyofattractionsareonofferforvisitors
rangingfromgalleriesandmuseumstooutdooradventureactivities.TheWelsh
Government(2012)report,‘VisitstoTouristAttractionsinWales:Reportfor
VisitWales’notes214attractionsinWaleswith44(20.5%)locatedinthearea
thatwassupportedbytheformerTourismPartnershipMidWalesthat
supportedtheregion.Ofthe117visitorattractionsthatchargeanentryfee,31
(26%)areinMidWalesandaslightlylowerproportionof13(13.4%)ofthe97
freeattractionsarelocatedintheregion.Attractionscanbebroadlycategorised
asheritagetourism,naturetourismandoutdoorrecreationalactivities.Nature
tourismbuildsonthelandscapesandcountrysideoftheregion,including
opportunitiesforbirdwatchingviewpointslikethatseenatBlwchNantYrArian
whichhasmarkedviewpointsthatlookoverMelindwrvalleyandCardiganBay.
Heritagetourismbuildsontheindustrialheritageoftheregionincluding
attractionssuchastheRheilfforddTalyllynRailwayandopportunitiestoexplore
formerindustrialsitessuchastheCorrisMinesandDyfiFurnace.Theregionalso
offersopportunitiesforadventuretourismincludingwatersports,coasteering,
mountainbikingandclimbing.Walkingandhorseridingarealsopopular
activitiesandareoneofthekeyactivitiesfeaturedinpromotionalmaterialfor
Ceredigion.
Forthisreason,walkingandexploringtheinteractionsthattakeplacewhen
walkingthroughthecountrysideinthepresenceofwindenergydevelopments
playsakeypartinthecurrentstudy.Sevenfactorshavebeenidentifiedto
constraineconomicdevelopmentwithinMid-Wales(GreavesandMorgan,2011)
1.Highlevelsofself-employment
2.Smallsizesofbusinesses(themajorityoftourismbusinessesemployfewer
than10staff)
3.Slowbroadbandspeed(tourismisincreasinglyreliantondigitaltechnology
formarketingandsales)
4.Fewerhoursworkedperweek
5.Lowerwages
40
Inanefforttoaddresssomeofthesekeyfactors,tourismintheregionwas
supportedandcoordinatedthroughTourismPartnershipMidWalesduringthe
timeoftheproject.ThisbodywasfundedbyVisitWalesasapartnershipof
publicandprivatesectorstakeholders.Thedevelopmentofthesepublic-private
partnershipshasbeenidentifiedasarecenttrendwithingovernance(Hall,
1999),linkedtothedevelopmentoftheongoingneoliberalprojectwithinthe
westernworld.Incontrasttogovernancepre-1970,morerecentlyagreater
reliancehasbeenplacedonthemarket,leavingthestatetofunctionasmoreof
anintermediarybetweenprivateindustries,assistinginenablingthefunctioning
ofthemarket.Hall(1990)identifiesdevelopmentsinmanagementtheorythat
haveencouragedthistrend,specificallytheoriesofcollaboration(e.g.Gray,
1985,1989;WoodandGray,1991)andnetworkdevelopment(e.g.Powell,1990;
Freeman,1991;Cooke&Morgan,1993)thathavehighlightedtheimportanceof
engagingwithstakeholdersduringprocessesofregionaldevelopment.Although
highlightingthepotentialwithintheseapproaches,HallnotesMandell’s(1998)
warningtoacademicsandhighlightsthepossibilityofproblemsthatcanoccuras
managementapproachestoattemptto'latchon'thesetheoriesasaone-sizefits
allsolutiontoregionalissues.
InMidWales,thepartnershipwasestablishedasaregionalpublicandprivate
sectororganisationwithrepresentativesfromCeredigion,PowysandGwynedd
CountyCouncils,BreconBeaconsandSnowdoniaNationalParkAuthorities,
WalesTourismAlliance,MidWalesTourismandprivatetourismbusinesses.
AsTPMWrepresentedoneofthekeystakeholdersinthecurrentstudy,Iwill
brieflyspendsometimediscussingtheroletheyplayedinMidWales.Iwillthen
concludethissectionbydiscussingthestatusofTPMWin2015.Working
towardsthefiveobjectivesnotedbelow,theiraimwastoachievesustainable
growthintourismfortheregion:
41
.
TPMWworkedwithanumberofstakeholderstodevelopastrategyfor
promotingtourismtotheRegion.Figure3illustratessomeofthesekey
stakeholdersandhowtheirworkfedintothedevelopmentoftheregional
tourismstrategy.Eachofthesestakeholderscontributedtheirindividual
prioritiesfortheregion.Onanationallevel,theWelshGovernmentprovided
wideraimsforthestrategicframe,throughtheprovisionofcrosscutting
policies,andVisitWalesprovideproductstrategies,businessobjectivesand
tourismspecificframeworkswithinwhichthestrategymustoperate.Onamore
locallevelthetourismindustryoftheregionandlocalauthoritiesprovided
guidanceandtargetsthatsynchronisewithregenerationstrategiesandnational
fundingprogrammes
PartnershipforGrowth:fiveareasoffocus1.PromotingBranding.Astrongbrandidentitymustbereinforcedatalllevelsoftheindustry.Theprioritiesaretotargettheexistingandnew
marketsthatshowthegreatestpotentialanddrivinga‘product-ledapproach
thatshowspeoplewhyWalesisauniqueandcompellingplacetovisit.
2.ProductDevelopment.Waleswillbeahighqualitydestinationthatoffersadistinctiveexperiencethroughouttheyear.Theprioritiesaretoincrease
investment,workingwithpartnersthathaveasuccessfultrackrecordand
prioritisinginvestmentintoprojectsthatshowthegreatestpotential.
3.PeopleDevelopment.Tourismwillofferanopportunityforpeopletobuildarewardingcareer.Theprioritiesaretrainingthatmeetsindustry
needs,usingtrainingtoimprovecustomersatisfactionandchanging
perceptionsoftourismasaqualitycareerchoice.
4.ProfitablePerformanceDrawingonthelatestdevelopmentsintechnologytoreachandinfluencepotentialcustomers,andallowtourism
businessestobettermanagetheiroffering.
5.StrongerPartnership.Encouragebettertransportlinksandtodevelopdestinationsthatpeoplewillwanttovisitandrecommendtotheirfriendsand
family.Localcommunitieswillbesupportedandencouragedtogetinvolved
inhelpdeliveratourismofferingthatismemorable.
42
Figure3,TourismPartnershipMidWaleskeystakeholders
.
ThegoalsthatTPMWaimedtoachieve,aresummarisedintheirmission
statement:
“tofocusandcoordinatethecombinedresourcesofstakeholdersataregional
level,tosupportandhelpimplementtheaimsofnationalandlocaltourism
priorities,toincreasethevalueoftourismandtherebycontributetothebroader,
sustainableregenerationofMidWales.”
Theyworkedtoachievethisthroughfivekeyactivities,withthecorethemesof
‘productdevelopment’;‘promotionandmarketing’;and‘skillsdevelopment’.
1.ProductDevelopment–TPMWhelpedtosupporttheindustryinimproving
visitorsatisfaction,withaprioritytoincreaseinvestmenttoreducetheamount
oflowqualityaccommodationandtoencouragemorehighendaccommodation
providers.
43
2.Brandingandmarketing–Helpingtodevelopbrandingfordistinctiveregional
destinationsthroughtheuseoficoniclandmarksanddistinctiveimagery.TPMW
alsohelpedtodevelopnichetourismbranding;helpingtosupporttoregionally
basedproductpackaginginitiativesthatarelinkedtotheproductprioritiesfor
MidWalese.g.,Eco/Greentourism,heritageandculturaltourismandadventure
tourism.
3.DevelopingSkills–Toprovideopportunitiesandsupportforbusinesses
lookingtoundertaketraining.Theseinitiativeswerelinkedtonationaland
regionalprioritiestodevelopICTtraining,e-commerceskillsandtoencourage
localknowledgeandSenseofPlace.
4.Researchandintelligence–Tocoordinatetourismresearchdata,workingwith
thePanWalesResearchGrouptoconductvisitorandtradesurveysthroughout
theregion.
5.Partnership–Toactasalinkbetweennationalandregionaldevelopment
projectsandtomaintainandbuildnewrelationshipsbetweenstakeholders
withintheregion.
Inattemptingtoaddressthesepriorities,TPMWcontributedtoorledona
numberofprojectssuchastheCambrianMountainInitiative(whichsoughtto
promotetheCambrianMountainsasatouristdestination),andtheMidWales
FoodTalksproject(whichsoughttoformlinksbetweenhospitalityandfood
producers,whilstpromotingWelshfoodthroughanumberofeventsandan
IPhoneApp).
Inlate2014,arestructuringexerciseresultedinthedisbandingofTPMWand
otherregionaltourismpartnerships.Theresponsibilitiesoftheseorganisations
arenoworganisedcentrallybyVisitWalesandaregionalrepresentativehas
beenappointedtohelpmanageeachregion.Thisnewapproachseekstoproduce
a‘simplifiedstructure’formanagingtourisminWalesandhopestofoster
44
greaterlinksbetweenthepublicandprivatesector.Despitetheapparentvalue
intheformerapproach,itisworthnotingHall’s(1999)critiqueoftheroleof
partnershipandcollaborationintourismgovernance.QuotingDeutsch(1970,
p.56),henotesthatcooperationbetweengroupsmayexcludethoseoutsideof
thegroup,andthustheaimsofinclusion,collaborationandpartnershipare
limitedtothosethatareinvitedearlytothetable.Thislackofdirectengagement
andcollaborationraisesquestionsonthepotentialforpartnershipstoencourage
sustainabletourism(botheconomicallyandenvironmentally)askey
stakeholdersmayfindthemselvesoutofdiscussionsthatinvolvethem.The
successofthenewcentrallyorganisedapproachisyettoberevealed,anditis
hardtoseehowthisnewapproachcanimproveononeorganisedregionally,and
thusabletobetterunderstandregionalissuesandopportunities.
Renewablesasunusualattractions
WithinMidWales,recentproposedrenewableenergydevelopmentshavebeen
metwithcontroversy,particularlyfromresidentswhooftenexpressfearofthe
impactonthetourismindustry.Thisisparticularlyconcerningwhenweare
interestedindevelopingrenewableenergydevelopmentsasattractions,asthe
supportoflocalresidentscanbeanimportantfactorindevelopingasuccessful
tourismproduct.Despitethenegativeperceptionofthesedevelopmentsby
locals,touristsmaystillbeinterestedinvisiting.Peopleinenvironmentsthatare
outoftheeverydayforthemperceiveandexperiencethesurroundingworld
withdifferenteyes,andtheywant‘‘togazeondifferentlandscapesand
townscapesthatareunusualforthem’’(Urry,2011,p.1).Therefore,itispossible
thatobjectsandlandscapesthatresidentsmightoftenfindirritatingcouldhave
anattractiontotourists.Thisattractioncanbebasedonanyunfamiliarelement,
dependingonlyonthetourists’interestsandpreferencesforwhichobjectsthey
perceiveandexperienceastempting(Leiper,1990viaLoytynoja,2008).
Thereareanumberofcasesthatcanbedrawnupontoprovideexamplesof
wheretechnicalobjectsandlandscapeshavebeenpresentedasattractions.
Here,originallyfunctionalandindustrialobjectshavebeenrevitalisedinorder
45
tosupportnewformsoftourism(Edwards&Llurde,1996)andformer
industrialcomplexes(e.g.,copperminesinRøros,Norway;theIronbridgeGorge
areaintheUK;theZollvereincoalmineindustrialcomplexinEssen,Germany,
etc.)havebeenplacedontheUNESCOheritagelistandenjoytheinterestof
visitors.Aspublicperceptionsofsolarpowerplantshavebecomemore
accommodatinginrecentyears,therehasbeenanincreasedpotentialtodevelop
themintoafeatureofanattraction.However,incontrasttothewindturbines
underinvestigationinthecurrentwork,theseobjectsarenotasexpandedand
potentiallyintrusiveastheyarelocatedmostlyonplainfields(oftenin
agriculturalorindustrialzones,etc.),arenotvisiblefarandwide,andhavea
lesserimpactonthecharacterofthelandscape.Michalenaand
Tripanagnostopoulos(2010)demonstratethepositiveeffectofsolar
technologies,functioningasadriverforsustainabletourismdevelopmentand
thewiderbenefitsforthelocaleconomy.
Inotherdevelopments,successhasbeenfoundbylinkingthesenewprojects
withtheindustrialheritageoftheregion.FrantálandKunc(2011)describea
small-scalehydroelectricgeneratingstationinanEnglishnationalparkthathas
beenperceivedverypositivelyduetotheassociationwithhistoricwatermillsin
theareathatarealsopreservedinseveralplacesaroundthepark.Asimilar
exampleispresentinNorthWaleswithinthemuchlarger'electricmountain'
hydrostoragepowerstation.Thesitehasbeenbuilttofeatureacafébistro;
children’splayareaandoffersguidedtoursofthefacility.Hereinnovationin
technologyisperceivedpositivelybyrepresentingitascontinuitybetweenthe
pastandthemodern-withtheareahavingalongstandingconnectiontoslate
mining.Similarly,therecentrepurposingofclosedslateminesinBethesdafor
thepopularZipworldandBounceBelowattractionsdrawsimilarlinksbetween
thepastandmodern.Inthetouristmaterialatelectricmountainthetechnology
atthesiteisdescribedaspartofthelandscapethatcanbeenjoyed,andisstill
oneofthemainfeaturesforvisiting.TheSnowdoniatouristwebsite(star-
attractions.co.uk)states:
46
“BothElectricMountain,andDinorwigPowerStationblendmystically
intothisbeautifulareaofWales.Additionally,therearemanyareas
aroundElectricMountainandLlynPadarnwherefamiliescanpicnic,
strollorjustmarvelatthemagnificentviews.”(StarAttractions,2011).
Thetechnologicaldevelopmentthusbecomesasitefromwhichthetouristcan
enjoythesurroundingwildlife.Thetechnologicalobjectdepartsfrombeingan
alienobjectintrudingintothenaturalsurroundings;tosomethingthatoffersthe
benefitoffacilitiesthatareneededtoenjoythenaturalsurroundings,whilst
providinganunusualand‘mystical’sightforthemtogazeupon.
Animportantevaluativecriterionforperceivingthevisualeffectsofdifferent
objectsonthelandscapearethesymbolicassociations(positiveornegative)
attachedtothem.Windenergymaybeassociatedwith‘higherconcepts’suchas
globalclimatechange(Devine-Wright,2005,p.129).Justasthesmall
hydroelectricstationsdescribedbyFrantálandKunc(2011)areshownto
representacontinuitybetweenthepastandthemodern,windturbinescouldbe
marketedtosymbolicallyemphasiseacontinuitywithhistoricwindmillsor
symboliseamaterialreconnectiontotheenergyweuse(Pasqualetti,2000).
Historicwindmillsaretodayregardedassymbolsofanature-considerate
approachofthepastandserveasobvioustouristattractions,whereasmodern
windturbinescanappearasalienstructures–astheembodimentofthe
industrialisationofthecountryside.ForUrry,touristsarelikenedto
semioticians:‘readingthelandscapeforsignifiersofcertainpre-established
notionsofsignsderivedfromvariousdiscoursesoftravelandtourism’(Urry,
2011,p.13).Toconsiderthesesignsasnothingmorethanacombinationof
conceptandsignifieristoremoveitfromthesystemfromwhichitbelongs.The
startingpointisnotthesignbutthesystemitselffromwhichitoriginates.Thus,
iftouristperceptionsneedtobeaddressed,itisnotenoughtobuildthefacilities
andcreatetheattractionbychangingthesymbolicassociationofthesignitself.
Instead,thereneedstobeareframingofthesign,placingitwithinasystemthat
isattractiveandmeaningfultothetourist.Thisstrategyisseenintheabove
exampleofElectricMountain,butexamplesthathavesoughttoinvolvewind
47
energyprojectsarealsoavailable.America’sfirstoffshorewindfarmissettobe
builtonNantucketSand,Massachusetts.Likemanywindturbineprojects,the
developmenthasbeenmetwithobjectionsfromlobbygroupsandhasbeen
surroundedbycontroversy.
Figure4,PromotionalmaterialforHy-LineFerries
ManyopponentsdisagreeontheplacementoftheprojectatNantucketSanddue
tofearsovertheimpactofthewildlifeoftheareaandthe‘natural’beauty.In
ordertoencouragesupportfortheproject,itishasbeenproposedthatthrough
aprogrammewithHy-Lineferries,tourswillbegiventhroughoutthefollowing
theconstructionoftheprojectonlowcarbonemissionvessels,developingthe
siteintoaneco-tourismdestination.Thishasledtoaccusationsof
‘greenwashing’directedtowardsthedevelopersoftheproject(i.e.aPRstrategy
thatoffersa‘green’mitigationstrategythatmayormaynotcontributetowards
reducingtheenvironmentaldamageofaproposeddevelopment)(Rapo,2011).
Despitetheintentionsofthedevelopers,theemergenceofsuchareactionwill
continuetoemergeifwindfarmscontinuetobeframedinthepublicdiscourse
astheutilisationofapublicresourceasasourceofprivatecapital,proppedup
throughgovernmentsubsidies.Thisoppositionisrepresentedthroughthe
coverageoftheeventinthemedia,andthroughtheopinionsofinvestors,
48
residentsandlocalauthorities.Thesestakeholderscanhaveasmuchan
influenceonperceivedstrengthsandweaknessofanareaonwhichplace
brandingisestablished,astheperceptionsandassessmentsbytourists(Anholt,
2006;Freire,2006).Theextenttowhichstakeholderscandirectlyhaveaneffect
ontourists,andthewayinbothtouriststhestakeholderseffectperceptionsof
placebrandingrequiresfurtherinvestigation.
Figure5,stillfrom‘GreenCopenhagen’video
Denmarkalsorepresentsanimportantcasestudyasturbineshavebeen
installedsince1980andhavebeenwellacceptedwithintourismsites.Nysted
OffshoreWindFarmhavenotedthewindfarmhashadlittleeffectonvisitor
numbersandboattripstotheseetheprojecthavebeenarrangedwithgreat
successsince2003.Astheconstructionofthewindfarmisnowcomplete,itis
possibletosailbetweentheturbines,allowingtouristsonthepopulartriptoget
anup-closeviewofthedevelopment.Windenergyfeaturesprominentlyinthe
promotionalmaterialforDenmark(Figure5),especiallytoGermanmarketsthat
areseentohaveaninterestinenvironmentalissuesandnewtechnology
(AUSWEA,2004).Asthesiteoftheworldsfirstoffshorewindfarm,the
promotionalmaterialforCopenhagenfeatureswindfarmsprominently;
however,herewindturbinesarenottheattractionsinthemselvesbutsupport
andfunctionwithinanenvironmentallyconsciousframework.Touristsvisiting
49
thecitycanborrowabikeforfree,eatatanorganicrestaurantandenjoy
sustainableaccomodationpoweredbygreenenergy.Twentypercentofall
energycomesfromwindpowerandaguarenteeisprovidedtothecustomerthat
aspecificpartoftheirpaymentwillgotowardsnewinvestmentsinwindmills
(Ladenburgetal.,2005),helpingtomeetDenmark’stargetof50%ofenergy
fromsustainablesourcesby2030.Despitethefocusonwindenergythroughout
thegreentourismpromotionalmaterial,turbinetourismisnotsolddirectlybut
emergesorganicallyfromtheuseofrenewableenergyinthedestination.
Theseturbinesdonotappearasalienandobtrusivebutcoexistwiththeplace
brandingofCopenhagenandtheexpectationsoftourists.Theturbinesare
presentedasatechnologicalcontinuationofwindmills(andareinfactreferred
toas‘windmills’inthepromotionalmaterial),representingamodern
intrepretationofahistoricallyandnationallysignificantimagethatislikelytobe
deemedvaluableandinterestingtothetourist.
AnalysingtheimpactsofWindEnergyonTourism
Asanemergingfieldofstudy,theliteraturethathasanalysedtherelationship
betweentourismandon-shorewindenergyislimited.Themajorityofstudies
haveeitherbeenundertakenaspartofplanninganddevelopmentalprocessor
as‘independentresearch’byconsultanciesonbehalfofnon-governmental
organisations.Riddingtonetal.,(2008);notesthedifficultyinpreparinga
literaturereviewofstudiesoftheimpactofwindfarmsontourism,as
informationthatmaybepresentedasnewduringSelectCommitteesorPlanning
Enquiries,isoftenmaterialfromapreviousstudyreworkedtosuittheagendaof
thestakeholder.Typically,developersortheiragentsreportpositiveorno
impactanddisregardanystudies,whichsuggestanimpact;whilstopponents
invariablyselectthelimitednumberofstudiesthatsuggestanegativeimpacton
tourism.Theevidencebasethatsupportsobjectionstowindfarmdevelopments
duetotourismimpactsappeartobelimitedtothefindingsofasurvey
conductedin2002forVisitScotland(NFOSystemThree,2002),aWesternIsles
TouristBoardsurvey(TMS,2005)andasmall‘survey’conductedbyatourism
50
business,reportedinStrachanandLal(2004).Adiscussionofthesestudieswill
follow.
ThelimitednumberofstudiesavailableonWalesintheacademictextsuggestsa
clearneedformoreresearch.Despiteanumberofstudiesundertakenin
ScotlandandthroughoutEurope,Riddingtonetal.,(2010)notesthatnoresearch
hasyetattemptedtoquantifytheimpactofwindenergyontourisminWales.
Despitethis,theavailableliteraturecanhighlightareasofinterestandproduce
someinsightsthatmaybetransferabletothecurrentstudy.Themostextensive
literaturereviewavailableinthetextispresentinRiddingtonetal.,(2008),as
partofareportfortheScottishGovernmentontheImpactofWindFarmson
ScottishTourism.ThereportproducesawidereviewoftheliteratureontheUK,
Denmark,Norway,andsomesmallerinternationalstudiesbutfailstodraw
parallelsbetweenthefindingsineachofthesecountries.Thereisaclearneedto
identifytheapplicabilityofeachofthesestudiestotheWelshtourismproductin
thecurrentresearchandgeneralrevelationstheyprovideontouristperceptions
ofwindfarms,environmentandnature.Theapplicabilityofstudiesinlocations
otherthanthecurrentareaofstudyisquestionable.Indeed,surveyingoftourist
opinionsatvaryingsiteshelptopaintapictureoftheoverallviewoftourist
opiniononwindenergy,buttheeffectivenessofusingthisdatatodrawgeneric
conclusionsislimited.ThetourismproductinMid-Walesandthefactorsthat
leadtouriststoselectthistourismproductmaybeverydifferentthanelsewhere,
openingupthepotentialforimpactsinasofyetunseenways(forexample,
DimitropoulosandKontoleon[2009]identifythattheconservationstatusofthe
areaandgovernancecharacteristicshaveagreaterimpactonwillingnessto
acceptwindenergyprojectsthanthephysicalattributesofthedevelopment).
Consideringthis,theliteratureiscriticallyaccessed,havingacknowledgedthese
limitations
Inrecentresearch,inWales69%and58%ofrespondentsnotedthatthe
landscapeandsightseeing(respectively)weretheirmotivationsforvisiting
(VisitWales,2013).AsinWales,Scottishtourismhasbeenfoundtodepend
heavilyontheperceivednaturalnessofthelandscape,with92%ofvisitors
51
statingthatthescenerywasanimportantfactorwhendecidingtochoose
Scotlandasaholidaydestination(Riddingtonetal.,2010).Thishasledtoa
numberofprojectsinvestigatingtheinteractionbetweentourismandwind
energythatmayemergefromScotland’scommitmenttorenewableenergy
productionthathasbeenspearheadedbytheScottishNationalParty.Anumber
ofstrategieshavebeenemployedtoresearchthepotentialimpactusingGIS,
questionnairesandaloosersemi-structuredinterviewmethodology.Riddington
etal.,(2010)useathree-tierapproach–usingGIStoanalysethepotential
numberoftouriststhatmaybeaffectedbywindfarms,reactionsofthose
touriststhatareaffectedandtheeconomicimpactofthesereactions.Thepaper
employsaContingentValuation(CV)basedmethodologythatisnotwithoutits
limitations.Theworkacknowledgesthatitattemptstofollowthe
recommendationsoftheArrowCommittee(Arrowetal.,1993)byrelatingthe
questiontoarealsituation,inthiscasetheextraanindividualwouldbewilling
topaycomparedtoaviewofacarpark;however,areferendummodelis
rejectedasthelossofinformationwasdeemedtobe‘toosevere’.Ratherthan
writeinvalues,thepaperusesamethodthatallowsparticipantstoselectfroma
dropdownmenuofoptionsoverafeasiblerange.Theauthorsacknowledgethis
mayindeedhavehadanegativeaffectofleadingtherespondentsandresulting
inamorecasual,unthinkingresponse.Althoughamoredetailedthoughtful
responsecanleadtolowerresponserates,ahighquantityoflowqualityresults
shouldnotbeconsideredmorevaluablethanhighqualitydata–howeveritis
likelytheauthorsofthepaperwereundertimeconstraintsthatneedtobetaken
intoaccount.TheuseofaWillingnesstoPay(WTP)surveyinaninternetbased
questionnaireisalsoproblematic,andmaysufferfromalackoffullparticipant
understanding(thisledtothedesignofatabletbasedquestionnaireinthe
currentstudy,thatutilisesthestrengthsofbothinternetbasedsurveysandface-
to-facesurveys-thesemethodologicalconcernsarediscussedingreaterdetailin
Chapter2).Thefindingsofthisresearchsuggestimpactmaybekepttoa
minimumthroughtheconstructionof‘fewer,butlarger’developments;and
notesthatoverheadcablesreducelandscapevaluefarmoresignificantlythat
windturbines.Alargemajorityoftourists(93%)notedthatnochangeintheir
planswouldcomefromtheconstructionofawindfarmdevelopment.
52
ThisresultissupportedbyworkperformedbyMarketandOpinionResearch
International(MORI),commissionedbyBWEAandScottishRenewablesForum.
Withinthisstudy307facetofaceinterviewswereconductedwithtouristsin
ArgyllandButetoaccesstheirperceptionsofthearea,reasonsforvisiting,
previousexperienceandperceptionsofturbinesandthelikelihoodofthishaving
animpactontheirbehavior.Eightpercentofrespondentsfeltthatthewind
turbinedevelopmentshadanegativeimpact,whereas43%felttheyhada
positiveeffectand43%felttheymadenodifference.Themajorityalsonoted
thattheywouldbeinterestedinvisitingawindfarmvisitorcentre,and91%
notedthepresenceofwindfarmsmadenodifferenceonthelikelihoodofthem
revisitingthearea.However,thisstudytooisnotwithoutit’slimitations.Some
questionsonthesurveyappearfairlyabstractforaquantitativestudyandmay
havebeendifficultforparticipantstorespondto;touristswereaskedbroadlyif
therewasanything‘unattractive’inthearea,themajorityreportedtherewas
nothing(71%).Anopenendedquestionofthismannermayhavewelcomed
responsesthatwerenotasclearlythoughtoutasotherquestionswhichengage
theparticipantinamorespecificandthoughtfulway.Inaddition,thestudy
recruitedparticipantsinanareathathadthehighestconcentrationofwind
turbinesinScotland.Itisuncleariftheverypresenceoftheseturbineswould
havehadaneffectonthedecisionoftouristschoosingtovisitthearea,
potentiallyexcludingthosevisitorsfromthestudywhowouldchoosetoavoid
theareabecauseofthewindturbines.Thisstudythereforedoesnotpresentan
indicationoftheimpactofwindenergydevelopments,butrather,representsan
enquiryintoattitudestowardswindfarmsofasubsectionofpotentialtouriststo
Scotland(potentiallythosetouriststhatareawareofwindturbinesanddonot
mindthem,indeed49%statedtheyhadseenawindturbine).Thisisalsoan
issueinCampeyetal.,(2003),asurveycommissionedbyFriendsoftheLake
District.143responseswerecollectedneartowindfarmsatthebordersofthe
LakeDistrictNationalPark,LambriggnearKendal,KirkbyMoornearUlverston
andtheproposeddevelopmentatWharrelsHillnearBothel.Seventyfiveper
centoftouristsnotedthatanincreaseinwindturbineswouldhavenoimpacton
theirvisitingbehavior,however22%notedtheywouldlikelychoosenotto
returnifthenumberofturbinesincreasedconsiderablyoverthenextfewyears.
53
InHanleyandNelvin,(1999),perceptionsareaccessedthroughtheuseof
photomontageimagesofwindturbines.Visitorswerepresentedwithimagesof
photomontagesandtherelatedenvironmentalimpactsrelatingtotheirexact
location.Theywerethenaskedtoratetheirapprovalofbiomass,windand
hydropowerdevelopment,andhowthedevelopmentofeachofthesewould
impacttheirbehavior(andthustheirspending).Thislatterresultwascalculated
fromdatacollectedonconsumptioncosts-consideredtoincludetravelcosts,in
termsofpetrolpurchased,accommodationcharges,touristattractionentryfees,
andotheron-siteexpendituresincludingfoodanddrink.Acontingentvaluation
strategywasalsousedtoaccessresidentattitudes.Inthisstudy,windenergy
wasshowntobetherenewableenergyschemewiththelowestimpact,despite
beinglessacceptedwithresidentsthanhydroenergy.Aworst-casescenarioin
thisareaputthepotentialnegativeimpactonincometotheareaat-£2590for
everytouristdaylost(comparedto-£17,208and-£26,829tohydroand
biomass,respectively).Howeverheretheuseofphotomontagesconstructsthe
windenergydevelopmentsinsideahypotheticalscenariooutsideofthe
influencingeffectsofmediaandpublicdiscourseduringtheconstructionphase
oftheprojects.Theresultspresentedcanthusfunctionasasnapshotofpublic
opinion,butthisconclusionmaybemaskedwithintheanalysisoftheresearch
andobjectiveappearanceofaquantitativeresult.
Asnotedonpage49,thelimitedevidencethatsuggestsanegativeimpactof
windfarmdevelopmentemergefromasmallnumberofkeypiecesofwork.Ina
discussionofwindfarmsandtourism,aspartoftheirworkmorebroadlyon
windenergyintheUK;Strachan,StrachanandLal,(2004)noteofthelimited
empiricalbasisonwhichtheevidenceinsupportofwindenergyiscontested.
ThepreviouslydiscussedMORIfindingsarenotedtohavebeenrespondedtoby
arepresentativefromtheanti-turbinegroupViewsofScotlandinstating:
“Theproblemwithmanysurveys,includingsomeproducedfortheScottish
Executive,isthattheydonotproperlymeasuretheevidenceinanunbiasedway
…WeareconfidentthatMORIdidacompetentjobwithintheremitgivento
54
them,butwenotethatthesponsorsoftheresearch,whospecifytheremit,were
theScottishRenewablesForumandtheBritishWindEnergyAssociation.Both
haveavestedinterestinpersuadingpeopletoacceptwindpowerstationsand
yetitwillbetheordinarypeopleofScotlandwhowillbeaffectedwhentourism
suffers…Wehavetoquestionthesoundnessoftheassumptionsuponwhichthis
researchwasbasedwhenitconflictswiththerealexperiencesofordinary
people.”(TheScotsman,2002).
Thesecommentsemphasisethebattlebeingfoughtoutinpublicdiscourse
ratherthanintheacademicliterature.Similarly,in2002,TheAberdeenPressand
Journalnotedofasurveyof100touristsconductedbytwoholidaycottage
ownerswhereitwasfoundthat70%notedtheywouldnotreturnifthewind
farmwasbuiltandover68%expressedasimilarintentiontoavoidScotland
shouldwindfarmsbepresentthroughoutthelandscape(viaStrachanandLal,
2004).Unfortunatelyforthepreviousstudyitisnotpossibletodeterminethe
accuracyandreliabilityofthisresultduetothelackofinformationonthe
methodologyused.
BeyondthislimitedworkfromresearchersinsidetheUK,therehavebeena
numberofstudiesundertakenatsiteselsewhereintheworld.Lilleyetal.,
(2010)exploretheeffectsofwindturbinesoncoastaltourisminDelaware,USA.
Hereinterviewswereconductedwithover1000respondentsusingphoto-
simulationsoftheproposedwindenergyprojectatseveraldistances.The
projectfoundthattheimpactoftheturbineswaslessthanofafossilfuelplant,
andthenumberoftouristswhowerelesslikelytovisit,waslessthanthe
percentageofvisitorswhostatedtheywouldhaveaboattourofthefacility.
ResearchinDenmark’sHornsRev,oneoftheworldslargestoffshorewindfarms,
situatedintheNorthSea,hasalsonotednoimpactontourism(Kuehn,2005).
However,othershavearguedthatthetransferabilityofthisresulttotheUK
tourismproductislimitedasvisitorstoDenmarkdonotvisitforthe‘wilderness
experienceandunspoiltnatureofthecountry’(Cook,2004).Aresearchpollof
visitorsatahotelinAustralia,alsoemployingphotomontagetechniquesfounda
highlevelofacceptanceofonshorewindenergydevelopments(andalowerlevel
55
ofacceptanceofoffshoredevelopments)(Daltonetal.,2008),howeverthestudy
hasbeencriticisedforalackofrealisticsimulations(Lilleyetal.,2010).Similar
studieslookingatbothonshoreandoffshorewindhaveidentifiedlittletono
impactinNorthCarolina(Landreyetal.,2012),Delaware(Kruegaretal.,2011),
Washington(Davidson,2010)andGreece(Dimitropoulos,Alexandrosand
Kontoleon,2009).FrantálandKunc(2011)undertooksurveysandsemi-
structuredinterviewswithtouristsandlocalbusinessestheyassessthesubject
perceptionofwindturbinesandthesocio-economicfactorsthatshapeattitudes
towindenergydevelopmentsintheCzechRepublic.Thestudyidentifiesasmall
effectontourismfromthetechnology,notingthattwogroupsof6%and4%of
individualswouldbeputofffromfuturevisitsfromwindfarmdevelopments.
Theresearchersalsonotethedifficultyinassessingtheimpactofwindturbine
developmentsontourism.Thepro’sandcon’sassociatedwiththedevelopments
willalwaysresultinaninfluencefromsubjectivepreferenceinresults.
WindFarmsandMidWales
Asaregionhighlydependentontourism,therehasbeenconsiderableinterestin
thepotentialimpactofwindenergydevelopmentsonthetourismindustryofthe
region.ThecurrentworkwasfundedbytheTourismPartnershipMidWalesin
ordertoaddressthelackofresearchcurrentlyundertaken.Throughoutthe
threeyearsthatthecurrentprojecthasbeeninoperation,anumberofstudies
haveemergedlookingspecificallyattourismandwindenergyinWales,however
thesestudiesfailtoanalyseandaccesstheprobleminthesamedetailfound
withinthecurrentwork.ThemostrecentstudywasreleasedinApril2014
undertakenbyTheTourismCompanyandRegenerisConsultingonbehalfofthe
WelshGovernment.Thestudystatesthatitaimstotakeabottomupapproach
andseekstoexplorethepotentialfortourismwithintheproposedwindenergy
developments(muchlikethecurrentresearch)howevertheapproachittakes
doesnotsucceedinreachingtheseaims.Thepaperreliesheavilyonashallow
literaturereviewoftheextantresearchwhichfailstocriticallyanalysethe
currentliteratureandprimaryresearchislimitedtoanumberofsmallcase
56
studiesthatdrawsonfeedbackfromtourismandbusinessoperators.Theextent
towhichsuchanapproachcanbeconsidered‘bottom-up’isproblematicin
excludingthoseconsumersthatthebusinessoperatorsaredescribing.Acritique
ofthistypeofapproachingeneratingusefuldataisalsopresentwithinAitchison
(2012),whereitisnotedthatmethodologicalissuesraiseconcernsover
reliability.
OfparticularinteresttothecurrentstudyisthecasestudyonNewtown,Powys,
asanareaclosetoresearchsiteandonealsohighlydependentontourismforits
employment(24%oflocalemploymentisbasedwithinthetourismsector).
Similarly,theareaishighlydependentonits‘natural’environmenttodraw
visitorstothearea.Thereportidentifieskeyobjectionstotheproposedwind
energydevelopmentthathavebeenwitnessedelsewhere,i.e.communities
‘shouldering’theburdenwithoutseeingbenefit,fearofthescaleofthe
development,andafearofalossof‘natural’environmenttothemanmade
turbinestructures.Interestingly,thereportconcludesthatwhereturbineshave
resultedinaperceivedreductioninlandscapequality,duetotherelianceon
remotenessandnaturalnessthetourismeconomyisatgreaterthreatthanother
partsofWales.Howeveragainitmustbereiteratedthattheseconclusions
emergefromconsultationswithtourismoperatorsratherthantourists.
Interestingly,theApril2014reportwhichconcludedthatwindenergy
developmentscausedanegligibleimpactontourismwasheraldedbyRussell
GeorgeAMasevidenceforanimpactontourismfrompylonsandonshore
turbines(BBC,2014).Despiteshowingsomeshiftinpositiononthis,inalater
blogposthethenproceededtorejectthefindingsofthereport,referringto
alternativestudiesthatsupportedhishypothesis(George,2014),notablyastudy
bytheMountaineeringCouncilofScotlandwhichfoundthat67%ofrespondents
thoughtthatwindfarmsmadethearealessattractive.Headdsthat,when
looking‘objectively’attheevidencetherearestrongfeelingson‘bothsidesofthe
debate’butoveralltheevidencesuggeststhatwindenergyandtheassociated
infrastructurewould‘devastateavibrantlocaleconomy’.Thesecomments
57
supportwhatwaspreviousnotedfromRiddingtonetal.(2010)ontheuseof
sourcesbytheanti-turbinelobby.
TheuseofsecondaryanalysissuchasthatseenintheApril2014reportisa
trendthatappearsoftenwithinthenon-academicliterature.Asimilarreport
waspreparedbyTheTourismCompanyinFebruary2012,againseekingto
considertheevidencebasetoaccessanimpactofwindenergyontourism.The
reportwaspreparedfortheIsleofAngleseyCouncilandoutlinessomeofthekey
researchthathasbeenundertakenontourismandwindenergy.However,in
failingtoanalysethequalityoftheresearchandsomeofthemethodological
issueswithintheresearchthatitdescribes,poorworkisrepresentedequally
alongsidesomeofthebetterqualitypiecesofwork.Incontrast,amorerobust
analysisisconductedbyAitchison(2012)aspartoftheGarregLwydHillWind
FarmproposalinPowysonbehalfofRESUKandIreland.HereAitchison
providesacriticalanalysisthatisoftenlackinginotherreports,providingan
analysisthatprivilegesstudieswithintheliteraturethathavebeenundertaken
withamorerobustandreliablemethodologicalapproach.Alongsidethis,the
reportoutlinesthedifficultyinconductingresearchontheimpactofaproposed
windenergyproject,andsheprovidesananalysisthatoutlinesmethodological
errorsanddifficultiesinpreviousresearch.Thesecritiquesthatareraisedby
Aitchisonareexpandedoninthecurrentstudy,andaneffortismadetogo
beyondtheselimitations.InassessingtheimpactofGarregLwydHillWindFarm,
thestudyconcludesthatthereisnoevidencetosupporttheassertionthatthe
developmentwillnegativelyeffecttourisminPowysduetoalackofevidenceof
theimpactsontourismingeneralandduetothetourismofferingintheregionin
relationtotheproposedwindfarm.Inconcluding,shecommentsonthisoften-
quotedimpactontourisminnoting:
“Theoppositiontowindfarmsontourismgroundsappearstobeinformed
morebyfearthanfact.TheresearchconductedbyGCUstatedthat
‘Importantly,respondentsthathadseenawindfarmwerelesshostilethan
thosewhohadnot’(GlasgowCaledonianUniversity,2008a:3).Starling’sand
GlasgowCaledonianUniversity’sfindingsthereforelendsupporttoYoung’s
58
(2003)research;namely,thatoppositiontowindfarmstendstofallafter
construction.”(2012,pg.45)
Aitchisonalsoreiteratesakeyconcernonthelimitedamountofprimary
researchundertakenonwindenergyinWales.AmajorNFOstudywas
undertakenin2003forVisitWales,wherebothtourists,‘keyplayers’(including
CCW,theenvironmentagency,theWelshAssembly,andtheWalesTourism
Alliance)andtourismbusinesseswereinterviewedatlocationsthroughout
Wales.Similartopreviousworkthekeyplayersandbusinessesthatwere
consultedoftenexpressedafearofapotentialimpactfromwindenergy
developmentsintermsofareductioninlandscapequality.Ofparticularinterest
tothecurrentstudyistheresearchthatwasundertakenwithtouristsat8sites
(Aberystwyth,Machynlleth,Knighton,Rhyl/ColwynBay,Porthcawl,Rhayader,
WelshpoolandHay-on-Wye)chosenfortheirproximitytoexistingandplanned
developments.Quotesweresettoensurethatdifferentgroupsofvisitorswere
interviewedsuchasday-trippers,overseasvisitorsandbothactiveandpassive
countrysideusers.Atotalof266interviewswereconductedusingahalltest
method,wherebypotentialparticipantswereapproachedinthestreetandtaken
toahiredvenuetoconducttheinterview.Withinonesectionoftheinterview,
participantswereaskedtoselectitemsthatenhancedordetractedfromtheir
visitingexperience;theresultsarepresentedinTable1onpage60.
Inthispaper,97%oftouristssurveyedidentifiedthe‘unspoiltviewsofthe
landscape’aseitherveryimportant,orimportant.Seventeenpercentofvisitors
notedthatwindfarmsenhancedtheexperience,and23%consideredthatthey
detractedfromtheirexperience–anumbercomparabletothatfoundfor
hydroelectricandotherpowerstations.Over70%ofrespondentsthatwere
interviewednotedthattheyhadseenawindturbineeitheronthistripora
previoustrip,andthemajorityofrespondentswerepositivetowardsturbinesas
presentinganecologicallyfriendlysourceofpower(30%).Themostquoted
negativeimpactwastheeffectonthesceneryandlandscape(33%)however
otherrespondentsnotedtheirviewswereconditionalonotherfactorsincluding
thesize,positionandnumberoftheturbines.Eightpercentofrespondents
59
notedthatitwouldnotbeafactor,astheydidn’thaveto‘livewithit’andcould
leavetheturbinesbehindaftertheirholiday.77%ofrespondentsnoteda
minimalornoimpactontheirchancesofrevisitingWalesshouldthenumberof
turbinesincrease.Alsointerestinglyduringanattitudestatementsectionofthe
study,whenaskedifthey‘wouldbeinterestedinvisitingawindfarm
developmentiftherewasavisitorcentre’,68%notedaninterestinvisiting.
Althoughofinterest,thereliabilityofthisstudyhascomeundercriticism
throughtheuseofHallTeststogenerateasample(Aitchison,2012).Indeed,
suchanapproachislikelytoencouragethosethatfeelstrongesttoagreetotake
part.AsimilarcritiqueisraisedbyRiddingtonetal.,(2008)towardstheNFO
(2002)reportwherea‘hallapproach’isalsoapplied,howeverhereonlythose
thatstatedthatthenaturalscenerywasanimportantpartoftheirstaywere
invitedtotakepartinthestudy,thusexcludingbusinesstravellers,thosevisiting
friends,adventuretourists,etc.
Riddingtonetal.,(2008)alsonotetwootherstudiesundertakeninWalesinthe
early1990sbyconsultancygroups,howeveritwasnotpossibletolocatethe
originalcopiesofthesestudiesundertakenbyRobertsonBellAssociates(1997)
andBlandford,etal.(1994).ThelatterstudywasundertakenforCCWwhowere
unabletoprovideacopyofthestudy.Boththesestudiesarewidelyquoted
withintheliterature,howevertheseaccountsoftenappeartobereproductions
oftheinformationprovidedwithinRiddingtonetal.,(2008).Thecurrentstudy
unfortunatelyhastodothesame,butastheworkwasundertakenover20years
agotheirfullinclusionmaybeoflimitedvalue.
“ChrisBlandfordAssociates(Blandford,etal.1994)providesfurther
evidencethatlocalpeoplefeelwindfarmsareatouristattraction.For
Llandinam,Rhyd-y-GroesandLlangwyryfonWindFarms,65%,59%and
49%respectively,oflocalpeoplebelievethewindfarmswouldattract
tourists.”(Riddingtonetal.,2008,p.57).
60
Table1,visitorperceptionsofdevelopments(reproducedfromNFO,2003).
VISITORCOUNT(DETRACTED%)
ELECTRICITYPYLONSANDWIRES 48
MOBILETELEPHONEMASTS 37
ARMYFIRINGRANGES 31
QUARRIES 30
PLANTED,GEOMETRICFORESTRY 28
TELEPHONEWIRESANDPOLES 25
HYDRO-ELECTRICANDOTHERPOWERSTATIONS 24
WINDFARMSANDTURBINES 23HYDRO-ELECTRICDAMS/RESERVOIRS 6
FISHFARMS 6
FENCES,WALLS,HEDGES 4
WAYMARKINGSIGNS-ONHIGHGROUND 4
FUNICULARRAILWAYSONMOUNTAINSIDES 4
TRAILSANDTRACKSACROSSOPENUPLANDAREAS 4
WAYMARKINGSIGNS-ONLOWGROUND 3
PLANTEDFORESTRY-MIXEDSPECIES,NON-GEOMETRIC 3
VISITORCOUNT(ENHANCED%)
PLANTEDFORESTRY-MIXEDSPECIES,NON-GEOMETRIC 65
TRAILSANDTRACKSACROSSOPENUPLANDAREAS 55
FUNICULARRAILWAYSONMOUNTAINSIDES 44
HYDRO-ELECTRICDAMS/RESERVOIRS 40
WAYMARKINGSIGNS-ONLOWGROUND 40
WAYMARKINGSIGNS-ONHIGHGROUND 38
FENCES,WALLS,HEDGES 35
PLANTED,GEOMETRICFORESTRY 29
FISHFARMS 18
WINDFARMSANDTURBINES 17QUARRIES 15
HYDRO-ELECTRICANDOTHERPOWERSTATIONS 9
ARMYFIRINGRANGES 4
TELEPHONEWIRESANDPOLES 3
MOBILETELEPHONEMASTS 2
ELECTRICITYPYLONSANDWIRES 1
61
“RobertsonBellAssociates(1997)surveyedresidentsclosetotheTaffEly
developmentandfoundthatthemajorityofresidents(68%)feltthatthe
numberofpeoplevisitingtheareahasnotbeenaffected,butofthosewho
thoughttherehadbeensomeeffect,manymoresaythatvisitornumbers
haveincreased(15%)thanhavedecreased(1%).”(Riddingtonetal.,2008,p.
57).
Onefinalpieceofresearchisoftenrepeatedwithintheliteraturehowever,little
isknownoftheoriginalresearchmethodologyoroffurtherdetailsbeyondthat
reportedbyDavidStewartAssociates(BWEA,2006).Theyreportathesis
undertakenin2001fortheWalesTouristBoard,howevernofurther
informationontheauthorortheinstitutionwithinwhichthestudywascarried
out.Despitethis,theresultsofthisstudyareoftenquotedwithinliterature
reviewsandsummariesoftheimpactofwindenergydevelopmentsontourism.
Thesekeyconclusionsarethat96%ofvisitorswouldnotbeputofffromthe
developmentofwindfarms,almost70%wouldvisitawindfarmifan
informationcentrewouldbebuiltandthatmostpeoplethinkthatthe
contributionofwindfarmstorenewableenergytargetsoutweighstheirimpact
onthelandscape.Furthermore,itwasfoundthatthereisnotalargedifferencein
theopinionsofthosethatsawawindfarmontheirstay,andthosethatdidnot.
Unfortunately,informationisnotprovidedonthebackgroundtothis‘thesis’,and
itisnotpossibletoknowifitwasundertakenbyanundergraduateor
postgraduatestudentandthemethodologicalandsamplingapproachesthat
weretaken.
62
Section3:Tourismandthe(in)visible
Inowwishtomovetowardsframingandaddressingthecurrentresearch
objectives.Tobegindoingthis,Ifirstwishtoexploresomeofthetheoretical
ideasthatleadthecurrentproject.Duetothedominanceofthevisualwithinthe
researchdiscussedinSection2,whereInotethatvisualimpacthasbeenakey
lineofenquiry,Ibeginwithaconsiderationofvisualityandperceptionsof
landscape.Inanattempttoconsidertheimpactofwindenergydevelopmentson
conceptionsofnaturallandscapesinMidWalesduringtouristencounters,andto
considerthepotentialthatmayexistwithintheseencounters,Ithenturn
towardsthetourismspecificliteratureonGazeintheworkofUrry(e.g.2011,
1998)andMacCannell(e.g.1976,2011).Inanattempttomovebeyondtheir
ideaswhilstpreservingtheconceptofGaze,IutiliseanapplicationofLacanand
thenDeleuze,movingbeyondtheGazeoftheeyeandtowardsanotionofGazing
thatisjarring,embodiedandproductive.
GazeandLandscapes
Itisclearthatconceptionsofrurallandscapeandthevisualqualityofthespace
playsakeyroleindiscussionsontheroleofwindenergywithintourism.As
showninSection2,previousstudieshavesoughttodeterminetheimpactsof
developmentsbystudyingtheimpactonperceptionsoflandscape.Ithuswishto
beginthismoretheoreticalsectionwithadiscussiononthefocusofvisualityin
landscapeandtourism,exploringthedevelopmentoflandscapeaesthetics
historicallybeforeconsideringwhatitmaymeanto'Gaze'atalandscapewithin
thetourismliteratureandbeyond.
Landscapehasbeentalkedaboutasawayofseeingthesocialworld(Cosgrove,
1985),atheatreonwhichsocietyactsoutitscontemporaryvalues(Cosgrove
andDaniels,1993)andatextthatcanberead(Duncan,1995).Forthetourist,
picturesquelandscapesencouragingfeelingsofcalmandsolace,offeringrelief
fromtherushofurbanexistence.Theyappeartotouristsassomethingboth
63
familiarandexteriortothem,providing-whathasbeenreferredtoas-a
facilitatingrolebetweentheSubjectandtheOther(McCannell,2011).
ParaphrasingDerrida,MacCannellwritesitis‘anexterioritywhichwebelieve
weknowasthemostfamiliarthingintheworld’(ibid.,p.119).
Thoselandscapesthatwerefertoas'picturesque'areoftenfoundwithinrural
areas,wheretheimpactofhumanactivityisperceivedtobeminimalandthe
landscapecanbeenjoyedasuntouchednature.Theidentificationofrural
countrysidewithnaturehasbeenarguedtoemergeasaresultofanapparent
binaryoppositionfoundinwesternculturebetween‘natureandcivilisation’and
‘natureandsociety’thathavehistoricallyinformedtheseparationoftownand
countryinliterature,artandgovernmentpolicy(Woods,2005).Thispairinghas
alsoproducedmoralgeographiesinwhichthecountrysideisheldtobeapurer,
noblerandamoretreasuredplacethanthecity(MacNaghtenandUrry,1998;
Short,1991).Woods(2005)notesthatthis‘romanticisedassociation’isbuilton
threecorecomponents,thefirstofwhichisthatthelandscapefoundinrural
areasisperceivedasnatural.Thislandscapeisdistinguishedfromurban
landscapeduetothepresenceofecologicalfeatures.Despitetheobvious
contradiction-thetermlandscapeitselfimpliesanthropogenicpresence-itis
notedthatthesepresencescanbetoleratediftheycouldbeconsideredbiological
artifactsofhumaninteractionwithnature(crops,forest,pasture,etc.)orare
small-scaleconstructionsthatcomplywiththeprevailingaestheticsofthe
landscape(drystonewalls,stonecottages,etc.)(Woods,2003).Thesecondand
thirdcomponentsrelatetotheactivitiesinthelandscape(ruralactivitiesare
thosethatareseentouseandworkwithnature)andthepeopleofthelandscape
(ruralpeoplearethoseare‘intune’withnatureandhaveagreater
understandingoflocalfaunaandwildlife).Indeed,anthropogenicactionshave
helpedtoconstructthephysicalaspectsoflandscape,butahistoricallookwill
helptorevealhowsocialvalues,especiallythoseoftherulingclasses,have
helpedtodeterminehowlandscapelooksandisrepresented,andwhatis
considered‘natural’isaparticularsocialandculturaltraditiontiedupinideasof
class,genderandrace.
64
Duringthelateeighteenthandearlynineteenthcenturyaveryspecificmeaning
wasattributedtotheterm‘picturesque’.Thedevelopmentofthislandscape
aestheticwaslinkedtothenewimportanceofimagesoflandscapeinart.The
traditionallandedclassesbecomemoreinvolvedinthedevelopmentoftheir
estates,andthegrowingmiddleclassthatemergedfromthecommercialand
industrialsectorresultedintheemergenceofnewwaysofunderstandingclass
positioninganddemonstratingaffluence.Landownerscommissionedpaintings
ofthelandthattheyownedandagrowingmiddle-classmarketemergedfor
landscapepainting.Thisledtotheproductionoftravelguideswithadviceon
where,whatandhowtosee‘properly’-asanappreciationforpicturesque
landscapesbecameameasureofgoodtasteandstatus.Landscapesconsidered
attractiveinbothpaintingsandtravelguideswerepanoramicbutusuallyframed
bylargetrees;guidingtheeyeoftheviewerdownandoutoveravistaalonga
meanderingpathtoadistanthorizon.Thiswayofseeingemphasisedanelevated
viewpointthatallowstheviewertogazeovertheland,unobstructedbytreesor
physicalfeatures.Writtenmaterialalsoemphasisedthisideaofexteriorityand
sovereignty:
Myeye,descendingfromtheHill,surveys
WhereThamesamongthewantonvalleysstrays.
Thames!ThemostlovedofalltheOcean'ssons,
Byhisoldsire,tohisembracesruns,
Hastingtopayhistributetothesea,
Likemortallifetomeeteternity;
-ExtractfromCoopersHill,JohnDenham.
Theprinciplethata‘correctway’toappreciatelandscapeexistedemergedasa
mechanismthroughwhichpoliticalauthoritycouldbelegitimated.Upperclass
thinkersarguedthatobjectivedetachmentwasarequirementforpolitical
authority(justlikethatrequiredbytheviewertolookthroughthedetailofa
scenetoconsidertheabstractgeneralpicture)(Barrell,1980).Lowerclasses,
includingthosethatworkedtheland,weresuggestedtobeunabletoseethe
landwiththeobjectivityanddistancerequiredtogovern,theirclosenesstothe
65
landmakingthemunabletounderstandabstractconcepts‘properly’.These
peoplewereseenaspartofthelandscapeandnotasviewersofit.Asthethreat
ofruralunrestincreasedinresponsetoeverdecreasinglabourconditions,
imagesbegantoemphasisethenecessityofhardworkinmaintainingtheidyllic
conditionsfoundintherurallandscape.Thesedepictionscelebratedworking
landscapesanddepictionsofagriculture,givingjustificationtolandownerswho
soughttoexploittheworkingpoortoincreaseprofitabilityandproductivity.
Hardworkbecamedepictedasanaturalexploit,andaproductivelandscape
becameadoptedintoidealsofpicturesque.Theruralpoorbecamesymbolsof
this‘natural’relationshipwiththeland,ratherthanasindividualstoresist
oppressionandcreatesocialchange.
YeReapers,castyourEyesaroundtheField,
AndviewtheSceneitsdifferentBeautiesyield:
ThenlookagainwithamoretenderEye,
TothinkhowsoonitmustinRuinlie.
Foroncesetin,where-e’erourBlowswedeal,
There’snoresistingofthewell-whetSteel.(lines224-29)
-ExtractfromStephenDuck,TheThreshersLabour
Intheexampleabove,Duckemphasisesthepleasureofwork,glorifyingthevalue
theworkerplacesintothelandscape.However,thispleasureisaccompanied
withasenseofpainforboththelandscapeandtheworker(‘Tothinkhowsoonit
mustinRuinlie’).Suchpoetryandimagerymayatfirstpresentitselfasan
empoweringforcefortheworkingpoor,butwhilstglorifyingtheirposition,it
continuestoreaffirmthestratificationofclassstructure.
TouristGaze
Thevisualhasplayedakeyrolewithintourismresearchsincethelatetwentieth
century,whereresearchersbeganstudyingvisualimagesderivedfromtourists
(especiallywesterntourists).Thefirststudytousevisualimagesinthecontext
66
oftourismresearchcanbefoundinOrtonandPollock’sworkonGauguinand
Bernard'spaintingsofBrittanyinthe1880s(OrtonandPollock,1980).Their
paperarguesthatthepaintingspresenttheregionasprimitiveandexotic,
removedfromthehorrorsofmodernity–andthatthisframinghadanimpacton
theimaginingoftheareaasatouristdestination.Duringthe1990sanumberof
articlesfollowedthatdevelopedtheideasofthepaper,linkingartandaesthetics
withtheperformancesoftourism(e.g.Green,1990;Lenman,1990;J.D.Herbert,
1990;ChardandLangdon,1996;CrawshawandUrry,1997).Lubbrenand
Crouch(2003);however,notethatthemainfocusgiventothevisualfieldin
tourismstudiesemergedfromthekeyworkofMacCannell'sTheTourist(1976)
andUrry’sTheTouristGaze(1990).Inbothofthesepublications,theauthors
argueonthecentralityofthevisualspectacletothetourismexperience,with
Urrypresentingacaseforthestructuringfunctionofthe‘touristgaze’in
touristicexperiencesandexpectations.AstwoimportantprojectsthatIwill
continuallyreturnto,Iwillnowprovideasummaryofeachofthesetwoworks
andsomeofthekeyideas.
MacCannell’sseminalworkTheTouristisoftenregardedasthebirthoftourism
studies,whereforthefirsttimetheTouristisanalysedassociologicalsubject.
DrawingonMacCannell’sbackgroundinanthropology,theworkconsidersthe
moderntouristasasubjectinsearchofauthenticityinawesternworldof
commodificationandculturalalienation.Hedescribesthisprojectasexamining
‘thebehaviorofsightseersandthethingstheygotoseeforcluesaboutthe
hiddenstructuresandmeaningsoflifeattheendofthemodernepoch.’
(MacCannell,1999,pg.xi).Hisideadrawsonastructuralistanalysisbasedonthe
workofLevi-StraussandBarthesthatallowshimtoexplorethetourism
experienceastherelationshipbetweenthetourist,asightandamarker(suchas
aguidebook).WithinTheTouristhealsointroducestheconceptof‘staged
authenticity’drawingontheworkofGoffman,toproposethefalsefrontsthat
facetouristsdespitetheirdemandsforauthenticity,inhisefforttoreclaimand
celebratethetouristfrombourgeoisdisdain.
67
UrrycontinuesthissociologicalanalysisoftheTouristinhisworkTheTourist
Gaze,nowinit’sthirdedition(3.0).IncontrasttoMacCannell,Urryisnot
concernedwithauthenticitybutratherpositionstourismasaquestforpleasure:
“Thisisabookaboutpleasure,aboutholidays,tourismandtravel,…yetpartof
thatexperienceistogazeuponorviewasetofdifferentscenes,oflandscapesor
townscapeswhichareoutoftheordinary.Inotherwords,wegazeatwhatwe
encounter”(Urry,1990.P.1)
Throughadiscourseanalysis,theworkchartstheculturalproductionofaform
ofTouristGazingthathelikenstothatofFoucault’smedicalgazeinBirthofthe
Clinic,wherebythetouristfindsthemselveswithintheroleofFoucault’sdoctor,
butheredissectingthescenewiththeireyesintositesreadytobeconsumed(as
inFoucault,1973,p.162).Thebooknoteshowindifferentsocietiesandsocial
groupsthroughdifferenthistoricalperiodsthetouristgazehasdeveloped.
UnlikeMacCannellswork,Urrydoesnotattempttomovebeyondadescriptive
accountoftheGazeinhiswork–althoughitislikelythatanefforttomove
beyondisinherenttohisprojectofdescribingthestatusquo.
FromGazetobodies
Thisvisualcentricapproachthatemergedfollowingtheseworkshoweverhas
comeundercriticismfromsomeresearcherswhohavearguedthatatrue
experiencecanonlyberecordedandanalysedifitisconsideredasmultisensual.
Indeed,thelackofresearchonembodiedexperiencesintourismisnotedin
VeijolaandJokinensprovocativepaper,wheretheydeclarethatthe‘thebodyis
absent’fromtourismstudies(1994,p.149).Thislineofthoughtisexploredin
Cater,(2001)inadiscussionofUrry’sexampleoftheTouristGazeinoperation
atNiagraFalls.InresponsetoUrry’sconceptionofthepopularattractionas
“anotherplacetobecollectedbytheimmenselymobilevisitorforwhomthe
gazeatthefallsstandsforspectacle,sexandcommercialdevelopment”(1990,p.
62),henotesofaccountswithintheliteratureofexperiencesatthefallswhich
evokemore:“’apleasantshudder’,‘aquiveringrapture’,orafeeling‘asifmy
68
senseshadbeengivenfearreigns’”(Lofgren,1999,p.28viaCater,2001).He
evidencesthisthroughmarketingcopythatdescribestheexperiencethat
touristscanexpectonthewhirlpooljetboatsatthesite:
“Touristswillfeeltheanticipation,thesplashofthewater,thepowerofthe
boatandofthemightyfallsinthisbreathtakingexperience.Assuch,tourists
areencouragedtobecomeactivelyinvolvedwithexperiencingthefallsup
closeandpersonal.”(Cater,2001,p.8).
Researcherswhohavearguedforgreaterconsiderationoftheroleofthebodyin
tourism,recognisethatlikemanysocialsciencefields,tourismstudyhastoo
takenona‘characteristically,visualappropriationoftheworld’(Gregory,1994,
p.16).Caterhoweveraddsthatthevisualnotonlydominatestheareasofstudy
butalsotheresearchapproacheswithinwhichthesesubjectsarestudied.In
responsetothis,Denzincallsfornewapproachestoresearch:
“Iattempttoexposethelimitsofthegazeandthenewtechnologiesthat
havebeendeployedtobettercaptureandrevealrealityinitsfullest.Iassess
thepartthesocialscienceshaveplayedinthisproject,critiquingthe
investigative,ethnographic,qualitativegazethatthesocialscienceshave
usedthroughoutthetwentiethcentury.Icall,afterMartinJay(1993),fora
newepistemologyoftruth.Thisisanepistemologythatgoesbeyondthe
ocular-basedsystemsofknowing,emphasisingtheothersenses”(1998,p.
xix)
Itisarguedthatinordertounderstandexperienceafullyembodiedconceptof
thetouristisneeded-onethatincludesallaspectsofexperience(movement,
sound,touch,etc.)asthesearejustasimportantasthevisual(Desmond,1999,p.
xxi).AsVeijolaandJokinen(1994)note:‘isthegazereallydetachablefromthe
eye,theeyefromthebody,thebodyformthesituation?’(p.136).
Urryhasrespondedtothesecritiquesmorerecentlythroughareformulationof
hisoriginalconceptionoftheTouristGaze,positioningitassomethingbetweena
69
pleasure/desireforceforanobjecttoanobjectifyingvisualperceptiveeffect.Ina
2001interviewhenoted:‘thereisnotasingulartouristgaze…Ithinkthereisa
multiplicity,andthewaytoapproachtheanalysisofthesemultiplicitiesof
touristgazesis,amongotherthings,tothinkaboutthetaste-scapes,smell-
scapes,sound-scapes,touch-scapes.’(Franklin,2001).Healsoalignshimself
withresearchersthatfindproductivepotentialinexploringthebodyand
opportunitiesitoffersforresistingtheTouristGaze.Inadiscussionofwalking
androckclimbing,henotesthepotentialfor‘resistantbodies’togobeyondthe
dominanceofvisualitywhichforUrryisadominantandobjectifyingforce(p.
121).
GazingbeyondtheEye
Inanalternativeresponsetotheconcernsofresearchers,MacCannellhowever
soughttoexplorearesistancetotheGazewithinvisualityitself.Inhismore
recentpublicationshebeginstoturntowardsmorecontemporarythought
withincriticaltheorywhilstworkingwithsomeofthewaysinwhichtheconcept
ofGazehasbeenappliedwithinotherdisciplines(e.g.Mulvey,1989.).
BuildingonUrry’sideas,MacCannellsoughttosynthesisehisprojectwiththe
contemporaryliteraturewithhisintroductionofa‘secondgaze’.Througha
discussionoftheGazewithinLacanianPsychoanalysisheoffersagazewithinthe
touristthatstrivesforsomethingthatcannotbefoundwithintheTouristGaze–
andthisstrivingforbeyondopensupopportunitieswithinTourism.This
analysisisnotpresentedwiththesamerigorasUrry’swork,andisrather
presentedasanextensionofhisformerworkonauthenticity,presentingitina
waythatallowsittofunctionalongsideUrry’sTouristGaze.Problematically,this
secondgazeisstilldependentonasearchforauthenticitythatMacCannellstill
believesisaccessible.Thisbothleadstohisrejectionoftheemancipatory
potentialwithintheTouristGazewhichheclaims‘inaimingatsubjective
freedomfortouristsandothers,itstrajectorygoesinpreciselytheopposite
direction.Bydefinition,articulationsamongfixedpositionscannotbefree’
70
(MacCannell2001,p.30)andtoanapplicationofLacanianPsychoanalysisthat
failstoacknowledgetheinaccessibilityoftheReal:‘Ontour,thesecondgazemay
bemoreinterestedinthewaysattractionsarepresentedthanintheattractions
themselves.Itlooksforopeningsandgapsintheculturalunconscious.Itlooks
fortheunexpected,nottheextraordinary,objectsandeventsthatmayopena
windowinstructure,achancetoglimpsethereal’(MacCannell2001,p.36).In
doingthisMacCannellfailstoproposeatruealternativeGazethatopensupfor
thepossibilityofdifference,andrathercreatesthepossibilityforahierarchyof
touristexperiencesandgazestoemerge.Thisisbestexemplifiedinhisderision
oftheLonelyPlanetJapanguide,wherethewritersexpressdispleasurewithan
attractionthatfailto‘seethemselves’astheywouldbeseenbytouristsand
arrangetheirappearancessoastobeattractivetotourists.’(MacCannell,2001,
p.29).
TheseideasarealsodevelopedmorethoroughlyinMacCannell’sEthicsof
sightseeing(2011).Herehefurtherdevelopssomeoftheideasexploredwithin
thetourist,butappearstodrawonpsychoanalysistoagreaterextent.Henotes
thathumansliveinandthroughsymbolswithoutbeingawareofthe‘symbolic
order’(atermborrowedfromLacan)andthatthisSymbolicistheprimary
mechanismtoshieldusfromtheRealofexistence.Humanshowever,are
‘touched’bytherealintheformofintensesexualpleasure,birth,unbearable
pain,organfailureanddeath.DrawingonLacanheproposesanumberof
frameworkstosuggestthepossibleencountersthetouristmayhavewiththe
attractionObjectandhowtheseencountersmaypotentiallyleadtoanencounter
withtheRealOther.HerehesituatestheattractionastheObjecta(drawingon
Lacan’sconceptoftheobjeta–theunsymbolisablecomponenttotheReal),as
thesymbolicrepresentationofthetouristsdesirefortheOtherwhichcanalso
functiontoblockthedesireofthetouristtoreachthegoalofreachingtheOther.
HereMacCannell’squestforauthenticityremains,albeithiddenamongstan
inappropriateapplicationofLacanianjargon.
Despitesomeproblematicassertions,whatMacCannellisproposingdoeshavea
productivepotential.Withinthisideaheassertsthatthereexistsapossibilityor
71
aspacewithinwhichdesireisnotmet–wheretheGazefailsandinsteadof
seeingtheworldasdocile,friendlyandaccommodatingasexpected–ablot
appearsonthelandscape.Hereheisintroducingafundamentalideawithin
LacanianPsychoanalysis,theconceptof‘Lack’.Thisideabroadlyistobe
consideredtobeanunfulfilled(andunfillable)spacethatdrivesdesire.Itisthis
desiringdrivethatcanneverbefulfilledwhichconstitutestheLacanianSubject.
However,withinMacCannellsworktheSubjectsawarenessofLackcomestoo
easily,andwithoutjustificationheproposesthatthisoccursautomatically
withinthetouristencounterasthetouristgoesinsearchofauthenticity.
Additionally,byremainingfixedwithinthevisual,hefailstoseethepotential
trajectorythatmayemerge–onethatbuildsontheideaofGazetoconsideritas
adescriptivetermtoaddressasanobjectifyingforce-ratherthanthemovement
ofphotons.
ThisisthetrajectorythatIwishtotakeupinthecurrentwork.InitiallyIseekto
continuethelineofthought(orlineofflight)introducedwithinMacCannells
recentworkthroughanexplorationofthepotentialwithinsightseeingthrougha
correctconceptionofGazeasexploredwithinLacanianPsychoanalysisbefore
seekingtomovebeyondthisagain,synthesisingbothGazeandEmbodiment
throughanapplicationofDeleuzianphilosophy.
Lacan,SightseeingandtheGaze
ItisfirstworthexploringtheconceptofGazefrompsychoanalysisand
identifyinghowitdiffersfromthesimilartermcurrentlyunderuseintourism
studies.Urry’sconceptofTouristGazeemergesfromanapplicationofFoucault’s
medicalGazetothestudyoftourism.ForFoucaultthismodernway(orGaze)of
approachingmedicineisnotanaturalpractice,butalearnedoneandtheway
thatweseethebodyhaschangedthroughouthistory.AsMacCannell(2011)
notes,thisistheGazeoftouristdesireandonethatseestheinvisibleasthe
futurevisible–thetouristassubjectseeswhat(s)heexpects.ALacaniangaze
howeverisbetterdescribedastheresultofwheretheTouristGazefails.Thisis
theGazethatappearstobedirectedatthesubjectfromtheobjectoftheirdesire,
72
foreveroutofreachandforeverelusive,resultinginaconstitutiverealisationin
thesubjectoftheirownLack.ThisconceptionoftheGazeemergesfromLacan’s
teachinginSeminarXIonSartre’sGaze,whereheidentifiestheGazeas‘nota
seengaze,butagazeimaginedbymeinthefieldoftheOther’.HoweverLacan
extendsSartre’sconceptionfurther,assertingtheagencyoftheGazeasnotinthe
presenceoftheOther,butratherwithintheSubjectherself,suggestingthatthe
actoflookingitselfresultsinGazeasthescene‘looks’backandidentifiesthe
visibilityoftheSubject,makingthemawareoftheirownshortcomings(orLack).
Throughthiswepositwithinthetouristspacetoareflectivepotential,asareas
ofdiscordancewithinthespacegazebackandtheUrryianGazerbecomesGazed
upon.
Fromhisearliestwritings,Lacanshowedaninterestintotheconceptof‘gaze’
throughhisconceptionofthemirrorstageininfantdevelopment.HereLacan
describesthemomentthatachildexperiencesherselfforthefirsttimeinthe
mirror(Lacan,2006,p.75).Here,amirrordoesnotnecessarilyhavetobea
‘mirror’(intheliteralsense),andmayberepresentedastheresponsefroma
parentorsibling(orindeedavisitingtouristasinMoufakkirandReisinger,
2013).Lacansuggeststhathumanbeingsareborn‘premature’(Lacanetal.,
2006)andassuchwearedependentonothersatbirthandforyearsafterward.
Onexperiencingherselfinthemirror,thechildrealisesthatshedoesnot
correspondtotheimageonthemirror,thisimagebeingfarmorecoherentthan
herownlivedexperience.Thisimagethusfunctionsasatargettobeattained,an
idealthatalthoughunreachablehelpstoconstructtheidentityandrealityofthe
subject.Howeverwhenreferringtothe‘gaze’,Lacanmovesbeyondthevisual
andexpandsthegazetofunctioninseparationfromtheeye.Thisgazeisnot
directedfromtheeyesofthebeholder,butrather,theeyesofthebeholderare
beholdentothegaze.Bysplittingvisionandgaze(Lacan,1978,p.78),Lacanis
indicatingthatthelimitsofconsciousnessrefertowhatescapesthesubjector
theself.Gaze,by“eludingvision”(Lacan,1978,p.73),limitsthegraspofthe
(viewing)selfandthusunravelsthemasteryoftheself.Andyetwhenreferring
tothegaze,aquestionremains–howcanthisgazebebothoftheRealand
disruptiveandvisibletothesubject,whilstavoidingdomesticationbythe
73
symbolic?Andalso,asthingsthatareapprehensibleareobjectsandtheRealisa
no-thingness–howcanitbedisruptive?Lacanaddressesthesequestionsby
suggestingthattheGazeispartiallyseenorispresentwhilstavoidingbeingfully
integrated,functioninginasimilarwaytoa‘stain’(Lacan,1978,p.74).ThisGaze
ispresentinallart,especiallypaintings(Lacan,1978,p.110),aslongasitframes
theOther,itdealswiththegazeaslackandthelackofwholenessinthe
symbolic.Initsverynatureasbeinganobjectthatstandsoutamongstothers,art
exemplifiesthislack.Inthiscurrentproject,itisinterestingtoconsiderthe
parallelsbetweenthisconceptofthe‘stain’andoften-useddescriptionaswind
turbinesas‘blotsonthelandscape’.
Thesightseercanequallybesubjecttothisgaze.LikeSartre’svoyeurwetoo
wishtowatchfromasafedistanceandfindsecurityinour‘look’fromthe
securityofourownfantasy;howeverthepresenceoftheGazeannouncesthat
therewillbenosuchsatisfaction–theselfisnolongerseeingitselfseeingbut
nowseesitselfbeingseenanditsownweaknessesandmisunderstandings(or
Lack)arebroughttotheforefront.ForLacan,phenomenologicaldescriptionsof
Gazefailtoseethatinbringingmeaningtotheworld,consciousnesshasalready
beenshapedbythesymbolicandsosufferfromthefinitudeofsymbolically
generatedmeaning.TheRealhauntsthesymbolicandthatwhichfailstobe
symbolisedappearsasadisruptive‘stain’ontheimagethatfirstappearedtobe
completeandcoherenttothesubject.InSeminarXI,LacanreferstoHans
Holbeinspainting,‘theambassadors’inwhichtwomenstandself-assured
surroundedbyobjectsandtokensthatrepresentbothwealthandknowledge.
Yetasortofstainappearsinthemiddleofthepainting.Byadjustingtheangleof
view(bylookingawry)thestainappearstobehumanskull,which“nearlyseems
tofleetheentirescene”(Aydemir,2007,p.63).Inthiscase,theskullmay
metaphoricallyrepresenttheever-presentRealofdeath.Astheun-
representable,theever-presentRealofmortalityisdisruptivetothepeaceful,
self-assuredrealityoftheambassadors.Butlikewise,astheeyeofthevieweris
movedintopositionbytheimposing‘stain’,theskullgazesbackattheviewerof
thepainting,underminingthegazersunderstandingofthepaintingitself–the
viewernolongerfindssecuritywithintheimage,butisinsteadlefttroubledto
74
findthepaintingcontainswithinititselftheseedsofitsowndissolution.On
seeingtheworkmaybetheirownunderstandingofinterpretingartwillbe
broughtintoquestionnevertobeabsolved?Inthecaseofthesightseer,the
presenceofthestainrefusestoallowonetofullycomprehendwhatispresented,
aportionoftheinvisibleremainsforeverinvisibleandunknowable–orifwe
returntoourinitialexample,thestain(asturbine)refusestobeaccommodated
intoaconceptionofnaturethatrefusestobeabsolved,asittakestheplaceofthe
LackofthesubjectasObjectpetita.Inbeingbroughtface-to-facewiththisstain,
thepotentialiscreatedforthefailureofthisobjecttoaccountforthisLackand
forittoopenuptheSubjecttothevoid.
Relatingtheseideastothecurrentliterature
MacCannell(2001)hasalludedtothisGazeinhispropositionofthe‘second
gaze’.HiscritiqueofthepowerstructuresestablishedbyUrry’sGazeechoes
Foucault’sowncritiqueofthemedicalGaze,thatwhilstinitiallyappearingto
placepatientsatthecentreoftheestablishment,onlyseekstofurtherobjectify
them:
“Urryhasextendedthisnotiontotherelationsbetweentouristsandthe
localswhoservethemandwhoappeartothepowerfultouristgazeasa
varietyofexoticfauna”.(MacCannell,2001)
ForMacCannell,touristsknowthatlookscandeceiveandheproposesthata
SecondGazeoperatesincreatingapointofcritiqueandfreeingupthesubject,
allowingthemtosearchfortheexperiencetheytrulydesire.However,this
conceptofa‘secondgaze’suggeststhatanadditionalandcriticalgazeisdirected
fromthesubjectstowardstheobject,whereasthe‘Gaze’alludedtoabove
drawingfromLacanmaybebettersuggestedtocomefromthesubjecttowards
itselfinthepresenceoftheobject.ThisismoreinlinewithKingsbury’s(2011)
applicationoftheLacaniangazetotheworkersatSandalsresorts,which
emphasisethesubjectviewingthemselvesinthepresenceoftheobject,drawing
75
ontheregistersdiscussedearlier(howeverthecurrentworkseekstomove
beyondtheconceptoftouristasSubject):
“TherearetwotypesofgazesthatresultfromagapbetweentheImaginary
placefromwherepeopleseethemselvesaslikeableandtheSymbolicplace
fromwheretheyarebeinggazedatsoastoappearlikeabletothemselves”
(Kingsbury,2011,p.660).
However,adegreeofontologicalconfusionliesatthecoreofMacCannell’s
(2011)critique,mistakingtheaimoftheTouristGazeasoneofprescription
ratherthandescriptionandanalysis.MacCannellsconcernforatrueradical
freedomgoesbeyondtheremitoftheUrryianproject.Thegazeheoffersfits
betweenthegapsoftheTouristGaze,wheretheobjectoftheGazeofthetourist
failstomeetthedemandsplaceduponit–orwherethehabitualperformances
oftheindividualaredisruptedorbecometooidentifiableandthussubjectto
critique(Edensor,2007).ForMacCannell,thisiswherethereflectivepotential
lies,inthissecondGaze,thisGazinganddesiringformore.Howeveratthecore
ofthisargumentliesasubjectplaguedbyfalse-consciousnessinsearchfor
authenticity,apotentiallycontroversialconceptinthefaceofcontemporary
theoreticaldevelopmentsthathaveemphasisedtheroleofthepost-touristand
theperformativeroleofthebody.Indeed,MacCannellalsomakesabreakwith
LacanpositingtheaccessibilityoftheReal.Thisisaconceptexploredfurtherin
EthicsofSightseeing(2011),whereMacCannellchartsthepossibilityof
accessingtheOther(asLacanianReal)throughtheAttraction(referredtoas
Objeta,borrowedfromLacan).Howeverratherthanfunctioningasan
unsymbolisable‘left-over’fromtheReal,itfunctionsasagatewaythroughwhich
theSubjectcanpassthroughtoaccesstoaccesstheReal(‘producingterroror
evenmorefrightening,anactualorgasm’alludingtoLacan’stermjouissance).
HereapplyingthesetermsfromLacanianPsychoanalysisonlyresultsin
confusingtheargument,andalthoughprovocativeisincorrectinitsapplication
ofthetheory.ForLacan,ratherthanidentifyingaLack(i.e.ofauthenticity)inthe
Other(inthiscasethetouristattraction),theGazepointstothelackinthevery
illusionthatstructurestherealityoftheUrryiangazer;andalthoughthismay
76
beginasearchforauthenticity-thesearchisfutileasthehauntingstainofthe
Gazewillbeeverpresent.Andso,justasinthefinalstagesofpsychoanalytic
therapy,theaimforthetouristmustbetotraversethefantasy–forthesubject
towalk(maybeliterallyinthecurrentcase)throughaprocesswherebythe
unattainabilityofdesireisrevealed.Itisarguedthattheactoftraversingthe
fantasypushesthesubjectintoastateofdrive,andwithinthispositionof
destitutionnewspacesareopenedupforafundamentalreconstructionof
individualandcollectivevalues,allowingforchallengestobemadetothe
ideologicalstructuresthatgovernbothsubjectiveandobjectivereality(Z� izek,
1999).
Withinthecurrentcontext,onecouldquestiontheopportunitiespresented
withinsitesinruralareasthatarebecomingincreasinglyfavorableforwind
energydevelopmentandwhereresearchisunderwaytoaccommodate(or
possiblymitigatetheperceivednegativeeffectsof)suchdevelopmentswithin
thetourismdevelopmentofthearea.ToconsidertheLacanianGazeabove,isto
suggestthatapotentialexistsforthesedevelopmentstobecomekeystrategies
forecologicalengagementandre-politicisationofNatureastouristsaregiven
thepossibilitytocomefacetofacewiththe‘blots’onthelandscape,thestainson
theotherwise‘natural’countrysidethatwarnofimpendingdisasterorthatforce
thetouristtoquestiontheexistenceofthesacredlandscapeitseekstoprotect.
LikeHolbeinsskullthesestructuresonthelandscapemaynotfitintothepicture
thatthetouristfantasisesabout,andmayresultinasearchforauthenticitythat
isforeverconsideredtolayelsewhere.Indeeditishereweseeparallelswith
MacCannellsconceptoftheeveroutofreachauthentic‘backstage’(1976)but
wheretheinteractionoccurswithinthetouristherselfratherthanthewitha
hostcommunity.Thusasearchforauthenticityisnotproposedasoneoftourist
desirebutofnecessity,werethesearchingandfailuretoreachthispointis
necessaryfortheformationofthefreeSubject.
Ofgreaterconcernhoweverarethenewethicalconsiderationsfortourismthis
theoreticalargumentraises.TheGazeasdiscussedabove,hasthepotentialto
revealandexposeLack,allowingforthepossibilityofrevealingthelimitationsin
77
ideologicalfantasy-butitisonlyapotential.AsMacCannellnotes:“everywhere
theinstitutionsoftourismandsightseeingenticethesubjecttoshutdownits
secondgaze.Theinstitutionsoftourismprovideattractiveenticementsto
embraceasone’sowntheversionsofimaginationprofferedbycommercial
entertainment”(2001).Here,MacCannellechoesLacan’scommentsinSeminar
XIwhendiscussinglandscapepainting.Henotesthatwhenartiststrytoportray
somethingobjectivelikelandscape,thereis‘somethingsospecifictoeachofthe
paintersthatyouwillfeelthepresenceofthegaze.’However,inorderto
maintainthisstanceofobjectivity,Lacansuggeststhattheartistinvitesthe
viewerstoforgothegaze:‘Youwanttosee?Welltakealookatthis!Hegives
somethingfortheeyetofeedon,butheinvitesthepersontowhomthispicture
ispresentedtolaydownhisgazethereasonelaysdownonesweapons.’This
detailsaprocessthatisnotsomuchofthegaze,asthatoftheeye;an
abandonmentandpacificationofthegazethatcanbelikenedtoMacCannell’s
descriptionofego-mimetictourism(MacCannell,2002)orthosedescribedby
Urry’sTouristGaze.Edensor(2000a)providesacatalogueofhowtouristspaces
arestructuredtoguidethegazeofthetouristawayfromconfrontational
encounters.JuddandFainstain(1999)promotetheconstructionsofsuch
structures,referringtothemastouristbubbles:“thetouristbubbleislikea
themepark,inthatitprovidesentertainmentandexcitement,withreassuringly
cleanandattractivesurroundings”(JuddandFainstein,1999,p.39).Likewisein
theroleofthepost-tourist(Feifer,1985),thefantasyofabsolutionismaintained
throughironicdistance,asthetourist,althoughbeingawareoftheGazeactsasif
sheisnot,andthusdespitethesubversionataconsciouslevelthefantasymay
beallowedtobemaintainedthroughtheperformanceofthetourist–anditis
here,atthelevelofperformance(andtheexplorationofspacesfornewwaysof
performanceavailablethroughtourism)thatwemustplaceagency.
Limitationswithinthisapproachforthecurrentproject
Theoreticalapproachesthatdrawfrompsychoanalyticaltheoryhavealong-
standinghistoryofbeingusedtoinformsocialresearchprojects.Abranchof
78
socialactionknownaspsychosocialresearchdrawsfrompsychoanalytical
practicetoinformamethodologythatseekstobeparticipant-ledandabletoask
newquestionsofparticipantsandoftheinformationtheyprovideinthestudy
beyondthatconventionallyallowedwithinothermethodologies.Withintourism
thisapproachwasappliedrecentlyinaworkbyCrossley(2012)aspartofher
doctoralthesisonvolunteertourism.Usingapsychosocialmethodologyshe
interviewedvolunteertouristsasshetravelledwiththeminruralKenya.
ThroughanapproachthatdrawsonLacanianliterature,sheproposesthatthe
povertythatthetouristsexperienceduringtheirstaybecomesconceptualisesas
athreatening‘object’,inducingunconsciousanxietybychallengingthe
materialisticWesternlifestyleandidentityofthetravellers.Notably,sheisable
toidentifythroughherinterviewsthatthetouristsdealwiththisanxietyand
thusneutralisetheconstructivepotentialoftheencounterstheyhavewithrural
peopleandtheirdifficultlives.Sheidentifiesthreewaysthatbarrierscanbe
created:throughthetransformationofpovertyinasourceofselfredemption,by
allowingpovertytobecomeanexoticproductthatcanbeadmiredand
consumed,andthroughtheconstructionofthecommunitiesthatsufferfrom
povertyas“poorbuthappy”.Heretheuseofpsychosocialmethodologyallows
Crossleytoraisenewcritiqueswithinthetourismexperiencethatwould
otherwisebeoverlooked,andpositnewcritiquesforvolunteertourism(justasI
havesoughttodoabovewithinnaturetourism)withanempiricalbasis.
However,withinthecurrentstudytherearelimitationsintheabilitytoapplya
similarapproach.WherethismethodologyhasbeenappliedbyCrossleyand
others,alongitudinalapproachhasbeenrequiredtoallowforanappropriate
amountoftimetointerviewtheparticipantsandtoallowfortheconfrontations
andcopingmechanismsthatmayatfirstbehiddentoberevealedinthe
experienceoftheparticipants.ThisapproachhasitsrootsinHollwayand
Jefferson’s(2000)seminaltextDoingQualitativeResearchDifferentlywherean
outlineforconductingpsychosocialresearchisprovided.Here,the
psychoanalyticalconceptsof‘freeassociation’andthe‘unconscious’are
transplantedintoaqualitativeresearchapproachtoopenupnewwaysof
collectingandanalyzingresearchdata.Withinthebriefencountersofthecurrent
79
study,itisbothdifficulttoimplementsuchamethodologyfromapractical
standpoint,butalsoifastrategywastotakealongitudinalapproach,theresults
thatwouldbegeneratedmaynotbeanaccuraterepresentationofthereflective
potentialduringabriefvisit.Additionally,thecurrentstudyattemptstobe
participantled,oratleastattemptstoavoidreproducingthecurrenttopdown
approachesthathaveledtopublicdistrust,andsotherearequestionsastohow
appropriateapsychoanalyticalapproachmaybe.IndeedFroshandEmerson
(2005)explainthisconcerninresponsetotheworkofHollwayandJefferson:
“Despitetheassertionsthatpsychoanalysisis‘bottomup’becauseitisrootedin,
andcontinuouslytestedagainst,thediscourseofindividualparticipantsinthe
analyticencounter,therecanbelittledoubtthatitsprimarythrustis‘topdown’.
…Atitssimplest,theunconsciousisalways‘found’inthediscourseofa
psychoanalyticsubject;whenappliedtoresearch,notionssuchasthe‘defended’
subjectariseoutoftheoryandareappliedtomaterialtomakesenseofit,rather
thanbeinggenuinelyemergent.“(p.310)
Inordertorespondtothiscritique,inanewereditionHollwayandJefferson
(2010),suggestthattheapplicationofpsychoanalyticaltheoryis‘discovered’
throughexperimentationandthatthesetheoriesemergefrom“ahistoryof
criticalsocialtheoryinwhichrationalunitarynotionsoftheindividualare
subjectedtodetailedandextendedcritique”(p.153).Heretheyseektodraw
parallelstootherfieldsoftheorybasedqualitativeresearch,butindoingso
furtheralignpsychosocialmethodologieswithmoretop-downapproaches.
Additionally,theformsofcriticalsocialenquirythathavehistoricallybeenfound
withinthepsychoanalyticaldiscourseareempiricallylacking(asappropriate
empiricalmethodsarenotavailabletoconsidersomepsychoanalyticalconcepts)
andhavebeencloselyguardedbyacultureofexclusivenessasbothtrainingand
therapyisprohibitivelyexpensive.Inordertoexpandontheselimitations,and
todevelopastrategythatcanbeutilisedwithinthecurrentstudy,thediscussion
ofthischapterwillnowturntothecritiquesraisedbyDeleuzeandGuattari
towardsthepsychoanalyticalmethod.Usingtheireffortstoworkbeyondthese
limitationsIwillseektobuildamethodologyandanalyticalapproachthat
80
preservestheproductivepotentialoftheHollwayandJefferson’swork,whilst
openingupthemethodologytoagreaterdegreeofexpression,ratherthanthe
limitedexpression(andthusrepression)offeredbypsychoanalyticalbased
approaches.
Thelimitedpotentialofpsychoanalyticalbasedmethodologies
“Wewillneveraskwhatabookmeans,assignifiedorsignifier;wewillnotlook
foranythingtounderstandinit.Wewillaskwhatitfunctionswith,inconnection
withwhatotherthingsitdoesordoesnottransmitintensities,inwhichother
multiplicitiesitsownareinsertedandmetamorphosed,andwithwhatbodies
withoutorgansitmakesitsownconverge.”(DeleuzeandGuattari,2004b,p.4)
Inordertomovebeyondthepsychoanalyticalmethodologiesandthetheoretical
approachescurrentlyexplored,Ifirstwishtoarguethelimitedpotentialwithin
theseapproaches(orhowtheymayconstructanineffectiveandlimiting
researchapproach)bydrawingonthecritiquedevelopedbyGilesDeleuzeand
FelixGuattariintheircollectiveworks.InAnti-OedipusandAThousandPlateaus
(DeleuzeandGuattari,2004aand2004b,respectively)theydeveloparesponse
topsychoanalysisthattheyrefertoasschizoanalysis,challengingtheuseof
interpretationwithinthepsychoanalyticaltherapysession,andarguingthat
ratherthanofferinganopportunityforemancipationforthesubject,
psychoanalysisonlyreproducedthecurrentconditionsofdominationseen
withinlatecapitalism.Thiscritiqueonpsychoanalysisdevelopsfromalimitation
theyseewithintheOedipaltheorythatrunsthroughoutpsychoanalysisata
fundamentallevel.Theythusdevelopatwoprongedcritiqueonthissystemboth
fromwithinthesystemitself,arguingthatthisoedipalsystemgoesagainstthe
truenatureoftheunconscious,andfromoutsideofthesystem,showingthe
historicalconditionsthatproducedthissystem.
Whenreferringofschizoanalysis,DeleuzeandGuattaridonotseekto
romanticisethementallyill.Thetermarisesfromitsuseinpsychiatryand
81
representsoneoftwowaysthatcapitalismwasdeemedtooperatebyDeleuze
andGuattari(theotherbeingparanoia).Withineverydaylife,thestabilityof
Capitaldependedonthebalancethatremainedwithinthesetwopolaropposites,
andthusforDeleuzeandGuattaritherevolutionaryprojectsoughttounbalance
andexploretheopportunitieswithintheprinciplesanddynamicsofcapitalist
society.AswithallofDeleuze’sprojects,hisworkseekstopushthecurrent
structureswithinsocietytotheirlimits,andtoexplorethepotentialthatmaybe
exposed.InwritingAnti-Oedipus,DeleuzeandGuattariadoptaschizophrenic
styleintheirwritingitself.Thetextseekstonotonlyinformandtoreformulate
anunderstandingofdesire,buttofunctionasakindof‘desiring-machine’itself,
toproduceschizophrenicformsofdesireinthereader.Broadlytheyseekto
applythisconceptofamachinethroughouttheirwork,askingwhatsomething
candoandhowitworksratherthanseekingtounderstandwhatsomethingmay
meanthroughinterpretation.Thecritiquetowardspsychoanalysisishighly
complexandextendsthroughoutthetwoworkspublishedbytheauthorswithin
thetwovolumesoftheircapitalismandschizophreniawork.Iwillnowhowever
attempttosummarisethekeyargumentsrelevanttothecurrentwork.
Theinternalcritiqueoftheoedipalsystemdevelopsfromapproacheswithin
Deleuze’spreviouswork.Deleuze(1994)buildsonFreud’smodelofrepetition,
presentingitasamaterialistontologywheredifferenceisshowntooccurprior
totheformationofanyconcept.Differenceandmultiplicityarethusthe
fundamentalprimarycategories,andidentityemergessecondary,ratherthan
theotherwayaround.Thusratherthanastaticsubject,‘outthere’,theyposit
thattheindividualisaproductoftwopreexistingcategories–theproductive
synthesis(orwhatwemaycalldesire)andthebody-without-organs(thewide
rangingmapofthisdesire).Thisconceptofthebodywithoutorgansiskeyfor
DeleuzeandGuattari,andiswhatweshouldbeworkingtowardstobetrulyfree:
“Theproportionsofattractionandrepulsionsonthebody-without-organs
produce,startingfromzero,aseriesofstates…andthesubjectisbornofeach
stateintheseries,iscontinuallyrebornofthefollowingstatethatdetermines
himatagivenmoment,consuming-consummatingallthesestatesthatcausehim
82
tobebornandreborn(thelivedstatecomingfirst,inrelationtothesubjectthat
livesit).”(p.20)
ThusaccordingtoDeleuzeandGuattari,unlikethepsychoanalyticalsystem,they
seeanimportanceinconfrontingandtearingapartsocialstructuresratherthan
conformingtothem.InpositingtheBwO,theyrejecta‘dictatorial’conceptionof
theunconscious,andthus(accordingtoDeleuzeandGuattari)areableto
achievewhatwasnotpossiblewithinLacanianPsychoanalysis,allowingforthe
formationofasubjectwhois:“afreeman,irresponsible,solitary,joyous,finally
abletosayanddosomethingsimpleinhisownname,withoutasking
permission;adesirelackingnothing,afluxthatovercomesbarriersandcodes,a
namethatnolongerdesignatesanyegowhatsoever”(2004a,p.131).TheBwO,
asiteofpureintensityandfluxiswhatisaspiredfor.
TheillegitimateuseoftheconnectiveanddisjunctivesynthesisinPsychoanalysis
WithinthecontextofthisparticularworkIwishtodrawDeleuzeandGuattari’s
critiqueoftheconnectiveanddisjunctivesynthesiswithinPsychoanalysis.These
critiquesaretwooffiveparalogismsidentifiedbyDeleuzeandGuattariwithin
theirinternalcritiqueofthetheory.The‘illegitimateuse’thatDeleuzeand
Guattarirefertoisthewaythatpsychoanalysisseeksto‘tamedesire’through
theprocessofinterpretation.AsHolland(2002)writes:
“Theproblemwithfree-associationinconventionalpsychoanalysisisthatit
becomessubjecttointerpretation,towhatDeleuzeandGuattaricallaprocessof
‘forcing’wherebythepolyvocalconnectionsoftrulyfreefree-associationgetsbi-
univocalised,reducingtothefamiliarlitanyofsubjects,topics,andsymbols:
everywomanisthemother,everyaggressionaparricide,anythingconcaveor
hollowasymboloffeminine‘lack’,anythinglongerthanitiswideaphallic
symbol.”(p.45)
83
Heredespitenotingthepotentialvaluewithinthefree-associationtechnique,
DeleuzeandGuattaritakeissuewiththeinterpretationthatfollowsthatcanonly
beunderstoodwithinfixedpredeterminedcriteriathatemergefromtheOedipal
theory.Withintraditionalpsychoanalysisthisrelatestotherelationshipwiththe
MotherorFather,orwithinLacanianPsychoanalysisthistakestheformofthe
relationshiptodesireandtheSymbolic.Inthecaseofthelatter,despitethe
advancesmadebyLacan,DeleuzeandGuattariarguethatthefamilialand
symbolicversionsoftheOedipusareindistinguishable.Withinthecurrent
context,usingapsychoanalyticalledapproachparticipantresponsesare
reducedtointerpretationsthatrelateto‘lack’andtheirdesireinrelationtoa
theoreticalframeworkbasedupontheOedipusmodel.Althoughthismodelno
longerreferstopseudoscientificanalysisoftherelationshipbetweenthefather
andmotherandisbasedmorebroadlyonarelationshiptocontrollingpower
structures,allinterpretationsbytheresearchercanonlyrelatetothis
relationshipandparticipantautonomyisreduced.Additionalproblemsarealso
presentduringtheinterpretation.Here,onlyaseriesofpredeterminedandfixed
positionsareavailabletotheparticipant,insteadofofferingaseriesofopen-
endedunfixedpossibilitieswithinwhichtheparticipantmayidentifyand
respond,thusillegitimatelyrepresentingtheBwOforDeleuzeandGuattari.
Again,thisisbestrepresentedbyHolland:
“…ThenuclearfamilyfirstofallrestrictsthepossibilitiestoMommyandDaddy,
andthenimposesanexclusivechoicebetweenthem:youmusteitherlike
MommyorDaddy:notlikeanybodyelse(yourunclefromAmerica,your
unemployedcousin,yourgrandmotherinthehospital…)andnotevenlikeeach
ofMommyandDaddyinsomerespectyetdifferentinothers.”(p.72)
Adegreeoftranslationisneededtoconsidertheapplicationofthiswithinthe
currentcontext.Hereitwouldmeanthatarticulationsbyparticipantsareeither
directedtorepressordirectlyaddress‘lack’withinpredeterminedterms(with
thelattercontaininganarrowcategoryofpossibleoutcomesthatcouldbe
considered‘successful’).Allpossibilitiesthatfailtoaddresslackwithinrulesthat
aredeterminedbytheinterviewerorresearcherareconsideredtobe
84
unsuccessfulwithinthetermsofpsychoanalysisandidentifybarriersthatneed
tobeovercomeinordertoprogressinaproductiveway.
Herethereareclearlimitationswithinthisapproachalongsideaparticipant-led
methodology.Despiteworkingwithparticipantsandtakingamoreopen-ended
approachtointerviewtechniqueandanalysis,theanalysiscontinuestobe
structuredthroughatheoreticalapproachthatislimitingandpredeterminedby
categoriesandtermsinterpretedfromthetextbytheresearcher.Despitethis,
thepreviousexplorationthroughpsychoanalysishasidentifiedastructural
descriptionoftherelationshipwithnaturethatsuggestsaprogressivepotential.
ByagainturningtoDeleuzeandGuattariandtheirworkthatsoughttowork
beyondtheseissueswithpsychoanalysisIwishtocontinuetoexplorethis
potentialinawaythatcanbebetterexploredwithinthecurrentstudy.
Schizoanalysisandbecoming
IhavealreadynotedthatDeleuzeandGuattarifoundthepotentialwithin
psychoanalysistoofferatrulyrevolutionarypotentialtoitspatientslimiting.
Theyarguethatratherthanopeningupadoorforemancipation,psychoanalysis
onlyseekstoprovideanew‘ruling’systemthatisbothunavoidablyforcedon
participantsandisarguedtobeapartofthecapitalistsystemitmayseekto
undermine.Toworkbeyondthesecriticisms,DeleuzeandGuattariproposea
newfocuson‘becoming’andtheirownapproachofschizoanalysis.Throughout
theircollaborativeproject,DeleuzeandGuattarimakeseveralreferencestothe
processesof‘becoming’.Inordertoavoidstagnation(andtocontinuetheirown
processesof’becoming’)theycontinuallyreinventedandredefinedtermsthat
madereferencetothisprocessincludingrhizomatics,nomadology,micropolitics
andschizoanalysis.Thelatterislikelytobetheirbestknownanddiscussed
terminology,appearingintheir‘CapitalismandSchizophrenia’seriesthathas
beendiscussedonpage80.DespiteaconstantthemethroughoutAnti-Oedipus,
DeleuzeandGuattaridonotprovideaframeworkforconductingschizoanalysis.
Howeverwearegivenanindicationofhowthisprocesswouldappear:
85
“Destroy,destroy.Thetasksofschizoanalysisgoesbywayofdestruction–a
wholescouringoftheunconscious,acompletecurettage.DestroyOedipus,the
illusionoftheego,thepuppetofthesuperego,guilt,thelaw,castration.Itisnota
matterofpiousdestruction,suchasthoseperformedbypsychoanalysisunder
thebenevolentneutraleyeoftheanalyst.FortheseareHegel-styledestruction,
waysofconserving.Howisitthatthecelebratedneutrality,andwhat
psychoanalysiscalls–darestocall–thedisappearanceordissolutionofthe
Oedipuscomplex,doesnotmakeusburstintolaughter?”(2004a,pg.311)
Fundamentaltothisprocessisoneofthedestructionoftraditionalnormsand
practices,allowingfortheSubjecttoconsidernewwaysofthinkingandbeingin
theworld.Howeverunlikethetraditionalpsychoanalyticalapproach,
Schiznoanalysisseekstoavoid‘re-territorialising’thesemovementsoutsideof
thenorm,oratleastseekstocontinuetomaintainthepossibilityfornew
opportunitiestobecreatedthroughfurthermovementsinnewdirections.This
processofdestructionisreferredtobyDeleuzeandGuattarias
‘deterritorialisation’.Outsideofthenormandinthissiteofplay,theSubjectis
abletotakeonsomeofthecharacteristicsoftheBwO(playingwithidentities,
sexualities,becomings).ItishowevernecessarytonotethattheBwOisnota
goaltobeattained,butratherahorizonofidentity,orelsethefearthatthe
Subjectwilldisappearforeverwithinthissiteofpureintensitywhere
reterritorialisationisimpossible.DeleuzeandGuattarithusseektopushforthe
formationofhighintensitybecomingswhereopportunitiesforfluxand
movementareavailable,butwheredeterritorialisationisnotcompletethrowing
theSubjectintoablackholeofzerointensitybecomings.
Itisnownecessarytoreturntothecurrentstudytoconsiderhowthisapproach
maybeappliedtoamethodologicalframeworkforanalysisandhowitmaydiffer
frommethodologiesthatdrawonpsychoanalyticaltheory(e.g.Psycho-social
research).AsIinitiallynoted,DeleuzeandGuattariseetheimportancein
proposingtheSubjectastheresultofa‘desiring-machine’andthusaskwhat
somethingcandoandhowitworks,ratherthanwhatsomethingmaymean.
Thustheproblemsidentifiedwithinterpretationareremoved,andinstead
86
interactionsareformulatedandrecordedaswhattheycanormaybeabletodo.
Asnotedabove,thispotentialtodoisofkeyimportancetoDeleuzeandGuattari,
andthroughautilisationoftheiruseofintensitiesthedifferentformsofpossible
do-ing(orbecoming)areabletoberecorded.Theprivilegingofcertainformsof
becomingareremoved,andnolongeristraversingthefantasyofinterest–asthe
fantasyoftheresearchermaybedifferentfromthatoftheparticipant.Instead,
themethodologyseekstocollectthepotentialmovementswithinthe
interactions,exploringthepossibilitiesthatmayemergefortheactorsinvolved.
Themethodologybecomesoneofexploringthepossibilitiesfordifferencein
waysthatdonotseektoprivilegetheformswithinwhichthisdifferencemay
emerge.Thusitbecomespossibletoexaminethewaysthatindividualsmayopen
uppossibilitiesforthinkandactoutsideofthe‘norms,technologies,institutional
arrangementsandmythologies’thatarereproduced(Adler,1989,p.1371)and
howtheinherentdisruptivenatureoftourismtoconfrontthesenorms(Edensor,
2000a,2007)canbeexplored.
WithinthecurrentworkIborrowanumberoftermsfromtheworkofDeleuze
andofthecollaborativeprojectsofDeleuzeandGuattari.Iconsiderthe
‘becomings’offeredinthesightseeingspaceandhowthesebecomingsrelateto
eachotherdrawingonDeleuzeandGuattari’suseofintensities.Before
discussinghowtheseideasfromDeleuzecanbeappliedtoanempiricalresearch
project,Iwillbrieflydiscussrelatedideasofnon-representational/more-than-
representationaltheory,positioningthecurrentworkwithinarelatedacademic
discoursethatalsoseekstomovebeyondmeaningandrepresentationand
towardsanexplorationof‘becoming’anditspotential.
87
Section4:LandscapeandMore-than-RepresentationalTheory
Inthisfinalsection,Iwishtomovebeyondthediscussionsofvisualityandtie
togetherconceptionsofbecomingandlandscapethroughadiscussionofwork
thatexploreslandscapeandnon-representationaltheories.Landscaperesearch
hasrecentlyseenagrowingofinterestaroundnotionssuchas‘affect’,
‘embodiment’,‘performance’and‘becoming’,workthathasbeensituatedwithin
thestilldevelopingbodyofworkdealingwithnon-representationalor,the
bettersuitedtitleof‘more-than-representationaltheories’,recognisingthe
variedtheoriesandapproachescollectedunderthiscategory.Lorimer,2005,
describesthisworkasthatwhichexplores,“howlifetakesshapeandgains
expressioninsharedexperiences,everydayroutines,fleetingencounters,
embodiedmovements,precognitivetriggers,practicalskills,affectiveintensities,
enduringurges,unexceptionalinteractionsandsensuousdispositions...which
escapefromtheestablishedacademichabitofstrivingtouncovermeaningsand
valuesthatapparentlyawaitourdiscovery,interpretation,judgmentand
ultimaterepresentation”(p.84).Thisapproacharguesfortheneedtoadoptan
approachesthat“drainthelifeoutofthings”(Wylie,2007,p.163)tomove
beyondvisualityandexplorethecreativepotentialthatexistsinuncertainty.
More-than-representationalTheories
Inthemid-1990s,non-representationaltheoryemergedasastyleofthinking–
movingbeyondrepresentativedescriptionsoflandscapetoengagewith
embodimentandpractice.Themultiplicityoftheoriescontainedwithinthisterm
hasledtothetitleof‘more-than-representational’theoriesbeingintroducedby
Lorimer(2005,p.83)asacategoryunderwhichwemaycollectresearchthat
attemptsto‘copewithourself-evidentlymore-than-human,more-than-textual,
multisensualworlds’.The‘more-than’titlewassuggestedbyLorimertoavoid
thenegativeconnotationsofthepreviousterm,andavoidsuggestingan
antagonismtowardsprevious‘representational’basedtheories.Othershave
rejectedthisnomenclature,arguingthatacleanbreakisrequiredfrom
representationalistformsoftheory(James,2006),andtoemphasisetheshiftin
88
focus(Simpson,2010).The‘more-than’prefixisadoptedinthecurrentstudyto
acknowledgethatthesetheoriesdonotrejectrepresentation,butratherseekto
movebeyond‘representationalism’,toescapethemonotonyandconformity
withinthewaysocialscienceisconducted.Ratherthanprovidingacritique,it
asksusasresearcherstoalsoexperiment,exploreandbecreative;
acknowledgingthatwemaynotalwayshavetheanswerstotheproblemswe
face.
More-than-representationalworkhasbeenconductedwithinthefieldsof
geography,performancestudies,feministstudies,anthropology,scienceand
technologystudies,aswellasofcourse,sociologyandtourism.Whatunitesthe
workofacademicsacrossthisdiverseselectionofresearchfields,istheir
dissatisfactionwiththeprivilegingofthevisualandinsteadaplacingof
emphasisoneverydaylife,themultiplicityofexperience,andthedrawingto
attentionofthecorporealityofourbodiesandwaythattheyrelatetotheworld
withinwhichtheyexist.Onthevisual,Thrift,1996,sawthatitcanoften“take
precedenceoverlivedexperience,usuallyasaseriesofimagesortextswhicha
theoristcontemplativelydeconstructs,thusimplicitlydegradingpractices”(p.4).
Thisdegradingpracticeof‘representationalism’hasbeenarguedtobe
fundamentallyconservativeinitsanalysis,reducingthepotentialwithinthe
analyticalprocessitselftosupportanemancipatorypolitics(Lorimer2005,p.83-
85).
Inthinkingbeyondtheindividual,andtowardstheprocessesthatconstructthe
individual(orSubject),thistypeoftheoryresultsinnewethicalconsiderations.
Giventhatmore-than-representationaltheorystrictlygoesagainstthe“classical
humansubjectwhichistransparent,rationalandcontinuous”(Thrift,2007,
p.14),questionsofethicsmovebeyondaskingconcretequestionsaboutwhat
‘should’bedone,toaconceptionofethicsasseenintheworksofDeleuzeor
Spinoza,whereanethicalactisconsideredasonewhichexpandsthepossibility
forfurtheractionsandcreativity.Wenolongerconsidertheindividualas
separatefromtheworldwithinwhichitmoves/becomes,butratherthehuman
bodyitselfisaproductofit’s“unparalleledabilitytoco-evolvewiththings,
89
takingtheminandaddingthemtodifferentpartsofthebiologicalbodyto
producesomethingwhich...resemble[s]aconstantlyevolvingdistributionof
differenthybridswithdifferentreaches”(Thrift,2007,p.10).
Itisthisconceptionofthebodythathasleadtotheworkbytheoristsonaffect
andsensation.DrawingonworkbySpinozaandDeleuze,researchexploring
theseconceptshasbeenconductedwidelybothingeographyandthesocial
sciences(e.g.Anderson2006;AndersonandHarrison2006;Bissell2008;Clough
2007;Dewsbury2000;Gumbrecht2004;Massumi2002;McCormack2003;
Stewart2007;Thrift2004).Hereaffectisunderstoodnotasanemotionor
feeling,butcontinuingonfromtheinterestinexploringbeyondtheindividual,it
isunderstoodasapre-personalmomentforbodiesthatimpliesanincreaseor
decreaseinthecapacityforthemtoact,do,become,be,etc.Affectsarenotdone
byordonetosinglebodies(beitthehumanbody,theanimal,thelandscapeor
thepost-human)butemergeasaresultofactivitybetweenbodies:“theyare
relationsthatinspiretheworld”(Dewsbury,etal.2002,p.439).
Landscapesofmore-than-representation
Thisthesishasalreadydiscussedpreviousresearchinterestsintolandscapethat
havefocussedaroundunpackinglandscapeinterpretation,exploringhowsites
canbegazeduponand‘captured’.Recent,more-than-representational
approachesacknowledgethelimitationofrepresentationinrendering
landscapesthatarethemselvesbodiesandassemblagesofbodies:capableof
affecting,stimulating,doing,andbecoming.More-than-representational
approachesthusattempttorenderalandscapethatisassociatedwithembodied
practices,emphasisingalandscapeofsensoryexperiencesbeyondthevisual,of
touch,smell,taste,andatmosphere(Lorimer,2005;Wylie,2007;Larsen,2008).
Acknowledgingthesemultiplefacetsofbeinginthelandscapemeansthatwe
needtonotonlyunderstandhowwethinkaboutthelandscape–buthowinturn
thelandscapehasanimpactonhowwethink(Waterton,2012).
90
Withinthisframing,landscapesarenotstaticlifelessscenesbutareactive
processesinacontinuousstateofbecoming.Asbodiesinteractwiththe
landscapenewbecomingsemergeasneworientationsofassemblagesare
formed.ThisconcepthasbeenexploredbyCrouch(2003,2010)andWylie
(2007)whoadopttheword‘landscaping’or‘spacing’toemphasisetheon-going
processesandmobilitywithinlandscape.Inthisconception,bodyandlandscape
aredeeplyintertwined,“bothconstitutiveandconstitutingandalwaysina
process(re)formation”(Waterton,2012,p.70).Thishasledtothedevelopment
ofresearchmethodologies/approachesthatareabletocapturethison-going
processofbecoming–leadingtoapproachesthatthemselvesincludemovement
(i.e.walking;discussedonpage140).
Theideaofknowingthesurroundings‘through’thebodyanditsactionshas
clearapplicationswithintourism,wheremovement,play,andperformancecan
bekeyaspectsoftouristicbehaviour.Contemporaryunderstandingsthatanalyse
tourismfromthisperspectiveunderstandthepracticeassituatedandlived
practice,mediatedlessbyrepresentationsanddiscoursesthanbyactionand
sensoryengagement(Crouch,2002).Theseapproachesdonotrejecttheroleof
representationsincreatingandmaintainingthetourismspaceandtheir
importancewithinit,butratherintroduce‘newfiguressuchasthebody,
emotions,spatialpractice,interaction,performance,“things”,technology
(Soderstrom,2005,p.14)asnecessarycomponentsifwearetofullyunderstand
touristencountersandbehaviors.Despitetourismappearingtobeaneasy
bedfellowwith‘post-representational’approaches,thepowerofstructural
contexthascontinuedtopersistmorestronglywithinTourismStudiesthanin
otherrelatedfields,suchasculturalgeography.Thecriticalturnintourism
studies(notedbyBianchi,2009)didleadtoanexplorationontheformsof
powerspecificallywithrelationtothevisual(andnon-visualrepresentation)of
theTouristGaze.Arguingtheneedforanapproachtotourismthatgoesbeyond
thevisualtoconsiderthemultisensoryexperienceoftourism;Edensor(2006)
proposesthattheimagedominantcultureoftourismexperiencebegroundedin
anaccountofembodiedandperformedpractice.InCrouchandDesforges(2003)
thesensoryisdiscussedwithintourismasaanopportunitytoseewheretourists
91
areableto‘work’constrainingframeworks,re-arrangingthemandre-
configuringthemtomeettheirdesires.Theyarguethattofullyunderstand
various‘dimensionsandperspectives’oftourists;itisessentialtoconsidera
multisensoryandembodiedapproachtostudyingtourism.Theywrite:“theidea
oftheembodieddoesnotturnawayfromtheimportanceofcontexts,of
representationsofevents,activitiesorplaces,andtheroleofmediatorsintheir
construction.Insteaditdeliverstheseinnewdimensionsandperspectives’(p.
11).
Muchworkhasattemptedtotakeupthedemandto‘gobeyondthevisual’andto
considerthemultisensoryperspectivesoftourism.Howeveroftenindoingthis,
thenotionofGazereturnsdisembodiedfromtheeyetothenose,ear,hand,etc.
andthelimitsofrepresentationarestillpresent.Rosetto(2012)alsooffersa
critiqueofattemptsto‘gobeyondthevisual’throughanemphasisonthe
performativityoftourism–thevisualagainreturnsasthevisualasperformance
–allowingitonceagaintoassertitsdominance.More-than-representational
approachesattempttoaddressthisbyestablishingthenotionoftourismasitself
inastateofbecoming–rejectingthereductionoftouriststomererecipientsof
stimuli.
Methodologiesofbecoming
Deleuzianthinkingishavingasignificantimpactrecentlyonresearchinsocial
science.Suchapproachesseektobreakdownbinaryoppositionssuchasthose
betweenresearchandpractice,andscienceandartisticrepresentation.Within
theoreticaldomains,Deleuzianideashavebeenexploredinsocial,culturaland
feministtheory(e.g.Colman,2011;Munster,2006;O’Sullivan,2006),aswellas
inempiricalresearchpractice(Hickey-MoodyandMalins,2007;MasnyandCole,
2011;Ollson,2009;McCormack,2007;LathamandMcCormack,2009;
Tamboukou,2008;JensenandRödje,2009).ColmanandRingrose(2013),link
theemergenceofthesemethodologiestoawidergrowinginterestinsocial
sciencethatiscapableofconceptualisingtheworldasmobile,creative,and
92
affective(e.g.Busher,UrryandWitchger,2010;Massumi,2002;Orr,2004,
2006),involvednotonlyinprovidingadescriptionoftheworldbuttakingan
activeroleincreatingnewconceptsandposingnewquestions(LawandUrry,
2004;Barad,2007).
AccordingtoLuryandWakeford,thepossibilityforamethodologytodothislies
initspotentialtobebothspecificand‘beyond’itssituation.Theyarguethatan
‘inventivemethod’isonethatisadaptedtofunctionwithinitsspecificuse,but
moreimportantly“orientedtomakingadifference”(2012,p.11).Theaimisthus
nottoconformtoapreexistingtheoreticalframeworkormodel,butinthe
creationofconceptsthatprovideuswithanewwayofunderstanding(Deleuze
andParnet,2002,p.2)–to“bringmoretotheworld”(Massumi,2002,p.17).
Thisprojectseekstotakethisapproachthroughtheadaptationoftheapproach
takeninGrit(2013,2014).Inbothworks,GritadoptsaDeleuzianapproachin
consideringthecreativepotentialwithinahospitalityspace.Animaginary
chartingoftheemergenceofhismethodappearsinGrit(2014),duringahyper-
realvisittoamuseum.Asheentersthemuseum,andbeginstowalkthroughthe
exhibits,hebemoanstheterritorialisedandstratified,space-fixedinmeaning
andthusdevoidofinspirationandinterest.Hismindwandersandhebegins
imagininghischildhoodbutasthesethoughtsbecometooextreme,hefinds
himselfsurroundedbyshockedmuseumstaffandisforcedoutofthebuilding.
Heconcludesthatthemuseumspacewastoostratifiedfordeterritorilisations.
Throughanarrativeofhisexperiencewithinthehospitalitysettingand
interactionswithhisfriendsatthesitehestartstounpackthetheoretical
conceptsthatheseekstoaddtothestudyoftourism.DrawingonLofgren’s
(1999)conceptofvacationingasa‘culturallaboratory’,Gritseekstoexplorethe
potentialforthehospitalityspacetogobeyondpre-givenoutcomes.Lofgren
suggeststhatthesewillbespaceswhere:
“Reciprocalknowledgebetweentouristsandlocalsmightbecreated,
stereotypedcategoriesmightbereinforced,orchallengedandsocialnetworks
mightbeunmade,remade,invertedortransformed.”(p.7).
93
Grithoweverconsidersthisapproachtooutopianandpotentiallyrestrictingas
“themanualtoreachthisspaceismissing”(p.128).Toaddressthisheproposes
theconceptofthe‘serendipity’initsplace,whereitisnotonlyimportantforthe
occurrencesofthesebecomingsbutfortheneedofa“keeneyeandaresponsive
attitude”(p.133)allowingtheseideastounexpectedevents(orfeelings,
thoughts,etc.)toleadtonewideas(orwaysofthinking,being,doing,etc.)By
beingopentothepossibilityofexperiencingtheserendipitous‘eureka’moment,
Gritsuggeststhatanuntappedpotentiallieswithinhospitality–butthis
potentialmayonlybeexposedifwearelookingforitandifthehospitalityspace
welcomesit.Theobjectthatopensupthis‘lineofflight’(atermGritborrows
fromDeleuzeandGuattari)isreferredtobyGritastheX-thing.Inhisaccount
withinthemuseum,theX-thingappearsasasignannouncingauditionsatthe
museumforroleplayers.Onseeingthis,Gritenterstheauditionsandbegins
talkingtonewpeople.TherolesofGuestandHostaredisrupted,andGrit
temporarilybecomesoneoftheperformersatthesite.Thisdisrupted,‘untidy’
spaceisreferredtobyGritinhisconceptof‘Hospity’.AtermimaginedbyGritto
allowhimtocreateconceptstoexplorehisthoughts.Hereheseekstofollowa
Deleuzianapproachthatprivilegescreativity,creatingwords,ideasandconcepts
toexplainhisthoughtandprovideaplatformfromwhichthesethoughtscanbe
builtupon.
TheseideasareexpandedasGrit(2012)analysesthehomeexchange
programme.Hereheexploresthepotentialforcreativebecomingsandidentifies
fourpossibledirectionsforbecomingthatareplottedintermsoftheirintensity
andtheirpotentialsforcreativity.Thehorizontalaxisoftheframework
representstheintensityofthebecoming,andheresignifiestheforceofthe
productiveenergythatflowsbetweenthebodieswithintheassemblages.Grit
notesthatconnectionsbetweenbodiesalwaysdisplayacertainintensity,which
helocatesinconnectionwiththevitalforcethatdefinelifeforDeleuze.Herehigh
intensitycreativebecomingsallowthenewassemblagestocontinuallyformand
propagate,whereaslowintensitycreativebecomingsfallintoa‘blackhole’and
areshutofffromtheirabilitytocontinuetoformnewassemblages.
94
Figure6,Chartofpotentialbecomings(fromGrit,2012)
Withinquadrants1and2thebecomingsareplannedanddonotallowfor
creativity.Highintensitybecomingswithinthesequadrantsareexemplifiedby
Gritwithinaskiingtrip,wheredespitebeingenjoyable,theexperiencewas
predictableandthebecomingsfailedtomovebeyondthosethatwereboth
expectedandpreplanned.
Thesearecontrastedtothelowintensitybecomingsofquadrant2wherethe
experienceleadstoadefinedandmundanebecoming.Thereislittleexcitement
andlittleopportunityandencouragementtomovebeyondtheboring.Inboth
thesequadrantsthebecomingsarealmostpassiveincontrasttothose
experiencedinquadrants3and4whichrepresent,followingDeleuze,anethical
becoming.Inboththesequadrantsthebecomingisemphasisedinitsdifference
fromquadrants1and2foritsqualityof‘becomingother’.Becomingsidentified
inquadrant3arethosethatopenupthepossibilityofa‘lineofflight’,a
becomingthatopensupnewcreativepossibilitiesandformationsof
assemblages.Here,GritexpandsonhisconceptoftheX-thingastherequired
bodyneededforthenewinteractionstobeformed.HeexplainsthattheX-thing
functionsasakeythatallowsnewformationsandassemblagestobeunlocked,
95
astheemergenceofthisX-thingbeginsaquestformeaning.Herehighintensity
assemblagesprovokethenewformationofassemblages,constantlychanging
andrepeatedlyrearrangingthebodieswithinanassemblage,allowingfornew
creativepossibilities.Incontrast,theformationsofquadrant4representthe
emergenceofa‘blackhole’.Acreativeformationwhere,despiteopeningupthe
potentialforfurtherpossibilities,weareleadtoadeadend.Theformationisan
escape,butoneofdestruction–acreativebecomingthatdespiteofferingthe
opportunityforcreativeformationscanleadtothedestitutionoftheassemblage
itself.
Inthiscase,Grituseshisencounterwithamountainlionduringahome
exchangeinBouldertoexemplifytheX-thing:
“Assoonasweenteredthebeautifulhousewesawanoteonthetablewhich
indicatedthatwehadtostartwithwatchingavideotape.Afterfindingouthow
thevideoworkedwesawthehostappearinginalocalnewsshow.Hetoldawhole
storyabouthumanenteringthenaturalhabitatofthemountainlionandthat
mountainlionswereroamingthroughthecreekontheproperty.Hetoldthepolice
thattheysetupamountainlionwatchintheneighbourhoodandthatmountain
lionsweredangerous,especiallyforyoungchildren.Thehostalsoleftaletterin
whichhedescribedallprocedureshowtohandleamountainlion.Don’truninthe
garden;don’tusetheoutsideterra;takecarewhencominghomebycarsincethere
mightbeamountainlionaroundthehouse.Myfirstreactionwasfearforthe
familyandanger”.(p.220)
Theenteringofthemountainlionintothehospitalityassemblagereorganises
therolesofthebodiespresent.Gritexperiencesbecomingother,ashe‘becomes
alocalresident’indiscussionofthelionwithpeopleinthetown,‘becominga
lionspotter’ashegazesfromthewindowofhisaccommodationinsearchforthe
escapedcreatureand‘becomesahero’indiscussionwithhisdaughterontheir
planshouldoneofthembecaptured.
96
ThecurrentworknowseekstoadaptthisconceptoftheX-thingandofthe
Deleuzianconceptoftheassemblagetoexplorethepossibilitiesofbecoming
otherintheMid-Waleslandscapeinthepresenceofthewindturbine.In
discussingtheresultsofthequalitativeportionofthework,thepotentialforthe
windturbinetofunctionastheX-thingwillbeexplored,bysortingandarranging
thestudydataontotheframeworkbasedontheoneprovidedbyGrit.This
allowsforananalysistobeundertakenontheinteractionsobservedduringthe
fieldstudy,butalsotakesintoconsiderationanethicsofresearch–asthe
researchseekstolookoutsideofitself,andinarejectionofthestatusquolooks
todiscovercracksandopportunitiesforcreativitythatmayemergewithinthe
touristspace.
97
ResearchQuestions
Drawingonthisexplorationoftheliterature,thecurrentstudywillnowattempt
toexplorethefollowingresearchquestions:
1. Whatarethepotentialimpactsonvisitorbehaviorfromwindenergy
developmentsinMidWales?
2. Howdopeoplerespondtowindenergydevelopmentsinrural
landscapes?
3. Istherepotentialwithintheseencountersandthroughtourismto
developaresponsetothegrowingthreatofclimatechange?
4. Howcananapproachforanalysingimpacts/responsesbedeveloped?
Whataretheissueswithcurrentmethodologiesandhowcantheseissues
beovercome?
Question1specificallyaddressesthegoalshighlightedbythepartner
institutionsthatfundthecurrentproject.Withthewelshgovernment
highlightingtheneedforgreaterwindenergydevelopment,partnersofthe
currentprojecthaveastakeinthepotentialimpactsofsuchdevelopmentsfor
theMidWalesregion.Asanareahighlydependentontourism,anyadverse
impactonthesectorcouldhaveadverseimpactsontheregionasawhole.This
questionslinkwithQuestion2,howeverthediscussionbecomesfurtheropened
upmovingbeyond‘impacts’toawiderconsiderationofthetypesandformsof
responsesthatpeoplemayhavetowindenergydevelopments–whether
positive,negativeorindifferent.Movingbeyondexploringthepotentialimpacts,
thisquestionseekstogreaterunderstandhowandwhypeoplerespondtowind
turbinesinthewaythattheydo.
Withinquestion3,thestudyseekstomovebeyondtheseresponsestobeginto
considertheproductivepotentialoftheseencounters.Morewidelythestudy
seekstocontributetomorecriticaldevelopmentswithintourismthatseekto
98
explorepoliticalemancipatorypotentialwithintourism–takingthisnotionof
tourismwiderthanthe‘tourismindustry’,includingthepotentialwithinthe
‘sightseeing’withineverydaylife.
Althoughquestions1-3arehighlylinked,question4seekstotakeadifferent
directionandinsteadcriticallyaccessandreflectonthemethodologythatare
usedtoobtainthedatawithinthisandotherprojects.Herethestudyseeksto
buildontheliteraturethathasconsideredthecurrentalienationthatemerges
fromenergypolicyandcurrent‘engagementexercises’andattempttobuilda
methodologythatistrulyengaging,participatoryandinclusive–whilststill
providingopportunitiesforcollectionofusefuldata.
99
Chapter2:Methodology
Introduction
Thefollowingchapterdetailsandanalysestheresearchmethodemployedinthe
currentstudy.Itwilloutlinehowthesemethodologicalapproacheswerearrived
at,informedthroughphilosophicalconsiderations,andinresponsetothe
requirementsoftheresearchquestions.Theresearchprocessinvolveda
personalphilosophicaljourneyformyself,asbothmyknowledgeand
perspectiveschangedthroughouttheproject.Indeed,thesechangesoccurredin
responsetoconductingtheresearchitselfandthroughreflectiveanalysisonthe
motivesthatexistedbehindtheresearchquestions.Astimewentonthe
methodologicalconsiderationsIdeemedappropriatebecamelessconcreteand
explorativeresearchbecomeofgreaterinterest.Inadditiontothischapter
outliningtheapproachesandmethodologicalconsiderationsappliedtoanswer
theresearchquestions,Iwishthischaptertofunctionasacritiqueofapproaches
thatdominatethecurrentliterature,providinganempiricalbasisforthe
rejectionofpositivist/post-positivistresearchapproachesandtheneedfor
exploratory,interpretivistandcriticalresearch.Throughreflectivepractice,
researchersareabletomakesenseoftheuncertaintyoftheirwork–providing
themwiththe‘courage’toworkethicallypracticeasanactivityinwhichwe
engagetoexploreourexperiencesandcompetentlyatthe‘edgeofchaos’(Ghaye,
2000,p.7).Thiswidelyusedtermisunderstoodinthecurrentworktorepresent
thepotentialthatreflectionofferstodevelopnewunderstandingsand
conceptualisationsofbothusandourpractice(Boudetal.1985;BoudandFales,
1983;Mezirow,1981,Jarvis,1992).Todothistheresearcherisrequiredtobe
selfawareandcriticallyevaluatingoftheirwork,highlightingthelimitations
withintheirapproachthatemergefrommethodologicalandphilosophical
assumptions.Throughcriticalreflection,unexaminedjudgments,
interpretations,assumptions,andexpectationscanbeacknowledgeand
incorporatedintoananalysis.
100
Theworkfollowsamultiphaseapproach,beginningwithaquantitativestudy
thatemergesfromaliteraturereviewandinresponsetotheresearchquestions,
andlaterphasethatfollowsalessstructuredapproachinresponsetotheinitial
phaseandasanattempttoexploretheresearchtopicinawaypreviouslynot
exploredintheliterature.Thesephasesarethenpresentedandexploredina
processofcrystalisationthatseekstounitethesedifferentapproachesthat
wouldtraditionallybeconsideredincompatible.
ResearchthroughCrystalisation
Itisnotpossibletowriteofastaticepistemologywithinthecurrentwork.To
adoptsuchanapproachmovesbeyondCrotty’s(1998)ideathatpriorto
developingaresearchdesignepistemologicalandtheoreticalperspectivesneed
tobedetailedandestablished.Indeedtoadoptsuchstrictdistinctionsiscounter
productivetoamethodologythatseekstodevelop(or‘become’)alongsidethe
researchproject.Thatisnottosaythatsuchconceptsaretobeignored–but
rathershouldbeconsideredpragmaticallyinresponsetotheformofenquiry.
IndeedatdifferentpointsinthejourneyofwritingthisthesisIhaveadopted
differentframeworksandmigratedtoandadapteddifferentapproachesto
thought.Thesemigrationshaveemergedinresponsetotherequirementsofthe
project,asIstruggledtoengagewithandattempttoanswertheresearch
questions(andastheseresearchquestionsthemselveschangedinresponseto
myownresearchobjectives).Toanalysetheresultsobtainedfromthisnomadic
approachtoepistemology,Iwishtoadoptastrategyofcrystallisation(Ellingson,
2009).InEllingsonsapproach,eachepistemologyanditsrelatedresearch
methodologiesareconsideredforboththeirmeritsandlimitationsandworkin
partnershipwithoneanothertooffercomplexexplorationsofthesocialworld.
Thisapproachcanfitwithinsocialconstructionistandcriticalparadigms
althoughattemptingtogiveafixedepistemologygroundingiscounter
productivetotheaimsofcrystalisationwhichseekstoopenupthepossibilityto
gobeyondfixedframeworksofknowledge.Ellingson(2009)indicatesthat
101
“Crystallisationcombinesmultipleformsofanalysesandmultiplegenresof
representationintoacoherenttextorseriesofrelatedtexts,buildingarichand
openlypartialaccountofaphenomenonthatproblematisesitsown
construction,highlightsresearchers‘vulnerabilitiesandpositionality,makes
claimsaboutsociallyconstructedmeanings,andrevealstheindeterminacyof
knowledgeclaimsevenasitmakesthem”(2009,p.4).
Usingmultiplegenresofresearchinonestudy
Throughcrystalisation,Ellingsonaimstoprovideapathtowardsbreakingthe
genericboundariesamongepistemologies.Thismoveisseenasthenextstagein
developmentbeyondtheinterpretiveturninsocialsciencewherecreativeforms
ofrepresentationofqualitativefindingsemergedwithinsocialscienceresearch
alongsidetheincreasingpositioningoftraditionallypositivistapproacheswith
criticalandsocialconstructivistframeworks(Charmaz,2005).Thisconceptof
crystalisationemergesfromtheworkofsociologistLaurelRichardsonwho
introducedtheterminheressay,‘WritingasaMethodofInquiry”.Richardson
articulatedthetermasacapacityforwriterstobreakoutoftraditionalgeneric
constraintsinwhatshereferstoasa“postmoderndeconstructionof
triangulation”(Richardson,2000,p.934).Throughapartialunderstandingofthe
textunderanalysisagreaterknowledgecanbeobtainedwithagreatersenseof
doubtinthisunderstandingwhichmayprovokefurtherthought–asthereis
alwaysmoretoknow.Sheachievesthisreadingthroughanapplicationof
Deleuzianthought,claimingthattheknowledgeproducingindividualisbotha
siteofdiscursivestrugglesforidentityandremakingmemorybutalsoissubject
tomultipleandcompetingdiscoursesthatremaininstableandunfixed.
Richardsonsuggeststhat“knowingtheselfandknowingaboutthesubjectare
intertwined”(p.962)andthusfittinginwithpoststructuralthinkingthatinvites
reflectiononmethodologiesandontherejectionofobjectivetruths–and
moreoverleadstotheargumentthataphenomenoncanbestudiedthrough
morethanonediscourse.
102
Whiletheconceptofcrystalisationisoutlinedanddiscussedwithexamplesby
Richardson(2000),itisnotuntilEllingson’sworkthatweseeacoherent
frameworkthatcanbeappliedinsocialscienceresearch.Crystalisationisan
approachavailabletoscholarsthatareopentoawiderangeofmethodologies,
practicesandperspectivesastheyseektomeetthedemandsoftheirresearch
project.Itbuildsonrecentdevelopmentsinqualitativeresearchthinking
throughlinksbetweengroundedtheoryandcreativegenresofresearch.Itis
howevernotedthatthestrategyisnotcompatiblewithstrictpositivism,
althoughveryfewresearcherswouldsubscribetothisperspective,considering
theimpossibilityofnegatingsubjectiveinfluence(Atkinson,2006).Inthis
approachepistemologiesarenotseenasdistinctpositionsbutratheras
momentsonacontinuumthatrunsfrompositivism(i.e.scientificrealism)to
radicalinterpretivism(i.e.representationasart).Theoppositionbetween
scienceandartisthusremovedandtheyareinsteadpresentedas‘anchorends’
ofacontinuumofresearchapproaches.Scienceandartarethusnotseento
negateoneanotherasincompatibleresearchstrategies,butrathermerelydiffer
insomedimensions(Krieger,1991).
Thisapproachthusseekstomovebeyondadualisticconceptionofresearch
approaches,torevealaproductivepotentialthatvaluestheproductivequalities
ofbothscientificandartisticapproaches.IndeedMiller(2000),warnsthat
categorisationofresearchersandresearchhasthepotentialtoconstrain
thinking,asresearchersseektoonlyregardquestionsthatfitwithintheir
researchcategory.Ellingson(2009)seekstoaddressthisconcernbypositinga
continuumapproachtomappingqualitativeresearchandthusmovingbeyond
thestatusquoofdichotomousthinking.Thiscontinuumapproachisadapted
fromEllis’s(2004)representationofthetwoendsofthequalitativecontinuum
andfeaturesthreemainareasthathavethepotentialforoverlapping,blending
andcoexistence.Thesethreeareashoweverdonotrepresentexactpositionson
thecontinuum,butratherreflectidealtypesonlyandthusdonotreplacethe
art/sciencedichotomywithanequallyrigidthree-tierapproach.Indeed
Ellingson(2009)herereiteratesPotter(1996)insuggestingthatthetermsthat
describeandclassifyqualitativeresearcharethemselvesofteninconsistentand
103
showvariationthemselvesbetweendisciplines,paradigms,andacademic
communities.Theseclassificationsthusrepresentpossiblepositionsthatmaybe
occupiedbytheresearcherastheydriftthroughthecontinuumduringthe
researchprocess.Itisimportanttonotehoweverthatthesepositionsdonot
existwithinaspatialframework,butcanrunalongside,andinoppositiontoone
anotherbothconcurrentlyandinsuccessiontooneanother,andmaybelikened
tothenotionofbecomingdiscussedinthesection‘methodologiesofbecoming’
(page91).
Withincrystallisationrepresentationsaregroupedwithinwhatisreferredtoby
Ellingsonasgenres.HereshebuildsonadefinitionprovidedbyCampbelland
Jamieson(1995)whodefinearesearchgenreas:
“Groupsofdiscourseswhichsharesubstantive,stylistic,andsituational
characteristics.Or,putdifferently,inthediscoursesthatformagenre,similar
substantiveandstylisticstrategiesareusedtoencompasssituationsperceived
assimilarbytherespondingrhetors.Agenreisagroupofactsunifiedbya
constellationofformsthatrecursineachofitsmembers.Theseforms,in
isolation,appearinotherdiscourses.Whatisdistinctiveabouttheactsinagenre
istherecurrenceoftheformstogetherinaconstellation.”(p.403).
Throughthisapplicationofgenre,differentresearchapproachesthatmay
previouslyhavebeenconsideredincompatibleareabletofunctionalongsideand
withinoneanother.Thisapproachemergesfromaconsiderationofthe
unnaturalnessofresearchcategoriesthatemergefrominductivelyderived
knowledgefromanexistingdiscourse,andthusareonlyilluminatingtothe
researchertotheextentpermittedwithinthediscourse(andindeedareonly
consideredusefultotheextenttheyareabletofulfillthisduty)(Fisher,1980).A
multipleapplicationofresearchgenresallowsfortheresearchertothinkbeyond
preexistingboundarieswithinresearchapproaches,throughacollectionofdata
thatbothexceedsthepotentialsofasinglegenreapproachandproblematises
theboundariesofthegenresthemselvesastheybegintobleedandtransition
intooneanother.
104
Howevertheapplicationofmultiplemethodologiesdoesraiseanumberof
issuesthatneedtobeconsidered.AsCugnoandThomas(2009),notethe
strengthandweaknessesofcrystalisationareasfollows:
Table1,Strengthsandweaknessesofcrystalisation
Advantages Disadvantages
1.Providesdeep,rich,thick
descriptionsNoteveryoneisfluentinmultiplegenres
2.Givesthereadermultiplewaysof
understanding
Itinvolvesatrade-offbetweenbreadth
anddepth
3.Reinforcesthesameexperiencein
differentforms
Lackofpeerrecognitionasaviable
methodologicalframework
4.Pushestheenvelope
Researchersmustbeopenmindedand
willingtoappreciateawide-rangeof
representation
5.Givestheresearcheradeeperlevelof
understanding(pp.15-16)
Thusanapproachthatutilisesoneofcrystalisationrequiresaresearcherwithan
abilitytoengagewithamultitudeofresearchapproachesandthismayrequire
greatertimeandresearchadaptingone’sresearchtrainingtoabreadthof
differentapproaches.Thelackofpeerrecognitionisalsoproblematic,asthe
currentstudyinvestigatesanareaofknowledgethatislackingwithinthe
literatureandtheneedforgreaterresearchisapressingconcernwithinboth
academiaandforthegovernmentbodiesthathavefundedthecurrentproject.
Asapieceofresearchthatisgreatlyneeded,itmaybeproblematicthatthe
resultsachievedfromthecurrentstudywillbeincompatibletotheprevailing
discourseofresearchinthisarea(bothwithinthediscoursesoftourism
researchandawiderdiscoursethatencompassesresearchonpublic
engagementofscience).Thiswillbeaddressedthroughclearsignposting
throughoutandacleardiscussionoftheideasthatwillbepresented.
105
Principlesofcrystallisation
Followingthisdiscussionoftheoriginsofcrystalisation,itisnowworthturning
toadiscussionoftheprinciplesofthemethodologyandtheadvantagessuchan
approachcanbringtoaresearchproject.Theseprinciplesaredevelopedfrom
thoseoutlinedinEllingson(2009,p.10),whichstatesthat,theapproach:
- Offersdeepdescriptionsandcomplexinterpretationsofmeaningsabout
thesubjectoftheresearch
- Representstheproductionofknowledgeacrossmultiplepointsofthe
qualitativecontinuumthathasbeendescribedabove,generallyincluding
onemiddlegroundapproach(e.g.post-positivist)andoneinterpretative
(artistic,performativeorcreativelyanalytic).
- Includesoneormoregenreofwriting
- Considerstheresearcher’sroleintheproductionofknowledgethrough
researchdesign,datacollectionandrepresentation.
- Rejectsclaimsofobjectivityandembraceandcelebratethepartialtruths
ofknowledgeasconstructed,multiple,embodiedandenmeshedinpower
relations.
Thedifferentwaysofknowingabovearelikenedtothestructureofacrystal.
DrawingonRichardson’s(2000)text,Ellingsonwrites:“Crystalsareprismsthat
reflectexternalitiesandrefractwithinthemselves,creatingdifferentcolours,
patterns,andarrays,castingoffindifferentdirections”(viaRichardson,2000,p.
934).Withoutlosingstructure,crystalisationdeconstructstheideaofvalidity,
andproposesthattextsvalidatethemselvesratherthanasingletruth.This
crystalisationeffectcanonlybeachievedthroughthecombinationofmultiple
genresallowingfortherefractiontotakeplace.Throughthisweareableto
achieveacomplex,deepalbeitthoroughlypartialunderstandingofatopic.By
definitioncrystalisationimpliesastateofsolidity,clarityandlucidity(“tomake
orbecomedefiniteorclear”,OxfordEnglishDictionary,2015).Atfirstthismay
appearincontrasttothewaythetermisusedwithinthecurrentwork,however,
inrejectingtheaccessibilityofasingletruth–crystalisationbringsclaritytothe
106
limitationsinonesknowledge(ratherthanprovidingclarityinasingleand
partialtruth).AsRichardsonnotes:“paradoxically,weknowmoreanddoubt
whatweknow”(1998,p.358).Wemustthenaskthequestionofwhatis
consideredagenre.Indeed,EllisandBochner(2000),notethatgeneric
boundariesbetweengenrescanoftenblur.Ellingsonprovidestheexampleofa
groundedtheoryapproachthatmaydiscussthemesthatcouldbeconsideredto
beinthesamegenreastextbasedonanideologicalcritiquethatdrawson
feministtheory.Bothapproachescouldbeconsideredwithinthe‘report’genre
ofacademicwritinghowevershenotesthesignificantdifferencesbetweenthe
two,asoneborrowshighlyfromphilosophicalconceptstodeconstruct,whereas
theothermayleadmoredirectlyfromthevoicesofitsparticipantsandreflecta
greaterempiricalbasis.Asimilargreyareacanbeseenwithinautoethnographic
andethnographicwriting,wheretheboundariesbetweenthetwomayattimes
appearnarrow.Thuswhenidentifyinggenresofresearch,itislefttothe
preferencesoftheresearchertoassigntheboundariesofgenres,withaclear
emphasisthatthegoalistoemphasisethemultiplewaysofknowingwith
maximumpotentialforreflectionwithinandamongstthesegenres.
Asanemergingapproachtostudy,thepresentliteratureislimitedbutthe
potentialwithinthemethodologyhasbeennotedforthoseconducting
provocativeandevocativeresearchwithinorganisationalsettings(Tallbergand
Boyle,2011),sociology(EllisandBochner,2000)andcommunications
(RichardsonandSt.Pierre,2005).Ithasalsobeensuggestedthattheapproach
maybeespeciallyrelevanttotourismasit“isamultifacetedand
multidisciplinaryphenomenon”(Decrop,2004,p.166).TobinandBegley
(2003),respondtoRichardson’srejectionoftriangulation,notingthatthis
techniquemayoftenincludemorethanthethreerequiredmethodologiesto
'triangulate'.However,inthisviewthemainpotentialwithincrystallisationis
lost,asfocusisplacedonthenumberandtypesofmethodsratherthantheway
dataandtheresultistreated-notasafixedpointtobemadeclearerthrough
greaterapproaches,butaresultthatcanmoveandappeardifferentlyfrom
varyingapproaches.
107
Integratedcrystallisation
Ellingsonpositstwomaintypesofcrystalisation,integratedanddendritic.The
currentstudyutilisestheformer,butIwishtobrieflyexplainthelatertomake
clearthedistinctionbetweenthetwoapproaches.Ellingsonborrowstheword
dendriticfromtheGreekwordfortree-liketoconceptualiseaprojectthat
continuallybranchesoutinpatternedbutunpredictableformsofrepresentation
thatreflectthemultipleepistemologiesthatmaybeapplied.Thisformer
approachhasgreatersimilaritytoRichardson’s(2000)originalconceptof
crystallisation.Dendriticcrystallisationseekstocreateaprojectwithresearch
outputthatreflectsmultiplicitythroughthedevelopmentofanongoingcreative
process.Heretheresearchprojectcouldinspiretheformationofnewprojects
(dendriticbranches),whichsplitoffasymmetricallyintonewtheoretical
territory,andinturninspirethegenerationofnewprojects.Nevertheless,a
degreeofseparationremainswithintheseprojectsastheyareadaptedtoreach
theirindividualtargetaudiencesandfortheirspecificpublicationoutlets.In
futureworkitmaybeinterestingtopursueadendriticcourseinresearch,
howeverfortheaimsofthecurrentstudyanintegratedapproachallowsa
multiplicityofresearchstrategiestofunctionalongsideoneanotherwithinthe
samethesis.Ofcoursesomedendriticelementswillberequiredinthe
presentationoftheresearchoutcomesaspresentationtoavarietyofaudiences
dictatesthelimittothetheoreticalandempiricalfindingsofthecurrentwork
foundwithinthistext.
WithinthisthesisIseektoemployanapproachthatEllingsonreferstoas
integratedcrystalisation,whichshefurtherdividesintowovenandpatched
approaches.Withinawovenapproach,researchmaterialisjuxtaposedwithin
thesametext,presentedalongsideeachotherasacoherentsingleworkof
multiplicity.Thiscreatesanumberofdifficultiesthatarerequiredtobe
overcomeinordertoachieveacoherenttext.Toillustratethisapproach,she
referstoThorpe(2006),whowritesofaparticipatoryprojectsheundertook
caringforagardenwithchildrenfromanunderresourcedprimaryschool.Inher
researchsheallowedtheparticipantsoftheprojectto“havetheirwaywith”her
108
(p.117)rejectingalinearandclearaccountofherexperiencesallowingherto
betterrepresenttheresearchprocessitselfandtheexperiencesthatthe
Participantsintheprojectwishedtoconvey:
“IwishIcouldwriteahappily-ever-afterstory–a“comforttext”–fortheseare
childrenwithbasicneedsgoingunmet.Thesearechildrenwithlittleornoaccess
tofresh,nutritiousfood.Nottomentionloveandattention,literacyandhealth
care,cleanwater,securityandsafety.Itisaprofusionofneeds.Overwhelming,
everpresent.Thereislittlecomforttobefound…AndsoIdealwiththis
excessiveothernessthatdefiesallanalysisandrepresentationswithmessytexts,
polyvocality,poetry,andperformanceethnography.”(p.125).
Table2,AselectionfromEllingson’squalitativecontinuum(2009p.8)
Paradigm Inductive Postpositivistic Positivist
Focus Art/impressionistMiddleground
approachesScience/realist
GoalsTounravelaccepted
truth
Togenerate
descriptionand
understanding
Togeneraliseto
largerpopulation
Questions
Howcanwecopewith
life?Whatotherways
canweimagine?
Howdoparticipants
understandtheir
world?
Whatisthe
relationshipamong
factors?
Methods
Autoethnography
interactiveinterviewing,
visualarts,performance
Groundedtheory,
focusgroups,semi
structured
interviewing
Surveys,
structured
interviews
Researcher
Researcherasmuchthe
focusofresearchas
otherparticipants
Researchers
positionalityiskeyto
formingfindings
Researcheris
presentedas
irrelevanttoresults
Vocabularies
Inductive,personal,
improvisation,
experience,creativity
Socialconstructivist,
themes,thick
description
Measurements,
control,validityand
theorydriven
109
Withinthetextphotographs,fieldnotes,poemsandsectionsoftextswrittenby
theresearcherarejumbledtogether.Theinterruptionstheycreatepresentatext
thatallowsthereadertobettergraspthejourneyoftheresearcherandthestudy
participants,butalsoemphasisestheinaccessibilityofeasyanswerstothe
problemsthatthetextseekstoattempttoexplore.
IseektoadoptanapproachidentifiedbyEllingsonas‘patchedcrystalisation’.
Unlikethepreviouslyexplainedwovencrystallisation,thisapproachproduces
textthatofferasuccessionofjuxtaposedgenresthatcombinetoformaone
largertext.Thisapproachiscomparedtotheprocessofcreatingasamplerquilt,
whereeachblockofvaryingsisedispiecedtogethertocreatealargerdistinct
pattern.Eachblockhasitsowndistinctness,it’sownfeaturesthatmakeit
interestingbutitstillneedstofitinarounditssurroundingblocksinorderto
createaquiltthatisattractive.Totranslatethismetaphor,Ellingsonsuggests
thateachofthegenresdiscussedshouldbestylisticallydistinctand‘havea
flavorofitsownthatdominatesdespitethecommonalitiesamonggenresinthe
text’(Ellingson,p.112).Thecurrenttextadoptsthreegenresinanapproachthat
canberootedinEllingson’spatchedcrystalisation.Thesethreegenrescanbe
placedatvaryingpointsonEllingson’sQualitativeContinuum.Thesethreeways
ofknowingtheresearchtopicaredescribedbelow,separatedintothethree
genrethatmakeupthecurrentwork.Genre1relatestotheinitialphaseofthe
experimentalstudy,whererespondentswereconsultedontheirperceptionof
theproposedwindenergydevelopmentatNantYrMoch.Thisapproachisvery
muchledbytheinitialrequirementsfromtheprojectfromfundingpartners.
Genre2relatestothemoretheoreticalapproachesexploredwithintheworkand
includestheanalysisofthecurrentliteraturerelatingtotheproject.Genre3
relatestothesecondexperimentalphasewheredatagainedfrominterviewsare
discussedtoexplorethepossibilitiesfornewsensationsandwaysofthinkingfor
boththetouristsIspoketo,andmyselfasaresearcher.
Thischapterwillnowcontinueinadiscussionofthetwomainresearch
strategiesemployedwithinthecurrentwork-surveyandsemistructured
interview,andparticipantledconversations.
110
Table3,Thethreegenreexploredwithinthecurrentstudy
Genre
Genre1
Representative
dimension
Genre2Theoretical
dimensionGenre3Dimensionofbecomings
Focus
Perceptionsand
responsestophoto
elicitationandsurvey
questions.
Relatestothetheoretical
basisofthework,
exploringand
overcomingthelimitsof
thecurrentliterature
Focusesonthepotentialitiesof
becoming,whichprocesses
underliecreativebecomings
andhowtheseleadtonew
connectionsandsensations.
Linkto
relevant
sectionsof
the
literature
review
Section1,2and5 Sections2,3and4 Section3and4
Research
goalsfor
thegenre
Togeneratedescription
andunderstandingina
meaningfulform
Togenerateatheoretical
basisforthecurrent
work
Identifyprocessesofbecoming
insightseeing
Research
questionfor
thegenre
Howdotourists
respondtowindenergy
technologyandwhat
aretheperceived
impactsonvisiting?
Isthereatheoretical
potentialfortourismto
playapartinaclimate
changemitigation
strategy?
Whichprocessesunderliethe
sightseeingevent?
Research
strategy
Surveyandsemi-
structuredinterview
Theoreticalstudy/desk
workUnstructuredconversations
Data
collectionSurveyandfieldnotes N/a Recordingofinteractions
AnalysisQuantitativeanalysis
withinterviewsN/a Interpretiveanalyticalanalysis
Writing
stylePersonalanalysis
Literaturereviewand
analysis
Useofparticipant‘sand
author‘swords
111
Appliedmethodologiesinthiswork
Genre1:Surveyandsemi-structuredinterview(representativedimension)
AquestionnairewasdistributedtoparticipantsatthreesitesinMidWales
duringJulyandAugust2012.Intotal,152surveyswereconductedwithvisitors
withanadditional15.1hoursofinterviewmaterialalsorecorded.The
questionnairesoughttocollectdataontheparticipant’sinitialresponsesto
informationontheplanneddevelopmentatNantYrArian,aswellasexploring
potentialforsharedcompetencesbetweenthetourismandrenewableenergy
sectors.Thequestionswithinthesurveysoughttobuilduponpreviousresearch
thathasbeenundertakenintheliterature.Thisinitialsectionwillseekto
explorethedevelopmentofthesurveyledapproachinitiallythroughthe
rejectionofalternativeprocessesappliedelsewhereintheliterature.Through
theuseofasurvey,thisapproachsoughttocollectdatatoaddressresearch
question1,thepotentialimpactonvisitorbehavior(throughquestionsthat
explicitlysoughttounderstandifthedevelopmentwouldmakevisitorsreturn
moreorlessoften)andresearchquestion2,thegeneralresponsesofindividuals
towindturbinesandcomparedtootherrenewableandnonrenewable
developments.
RejectedApproaches
Initialtechniquessoughttostudyimpactsofrenewableenergydevelopmentsin
economicterms,i.e.impactsofwindenergydevelopmentsonthetourism
economiesofMid-Wales.Anumberofapproacheswereconsideredandtested
beforebeingrenderedeitherunreliableorlackinganappropriaterobust-ness.In
ordertodeveloparesearchmethodologywithgreaterreliability,impactwas
assessedinthetermsofthevisitorexperience–andthusaquestionnairewas
designedtotargetthisratherthanvisitorexpenditure.Anumberofprevious
studieshaveadoptedthelattereconomicvaluationmethodandsobefore
112
consideringthecurrentmethodologyitisusefultodiscusspreviouslyapplied
methodologiesandtheirreasonsforrejectioninthecurrentwork.
a.Contingentvaluationtechniques
Asthewindenergyprojectsthatareunderanalysisinthecurrentstudyhaveyet
tobeginconstruction,marketpriceanalysiswasfoundtonotprovidean
adequatemethodologicalsolution.
Likewise,throughtheuseofthehedonicpricingmethod,analysiswouldneedto
bebasedoneitherdatafromacurrentwindfarmprojectinWales,ordata
obtainedfromaprojectelsewheresuchasNavarra,Spain.Inboththese
situations,criticismsmayberaisedrespectivelyonboththeapplicabilityofthe
researchonthetourismeconomyinWalesduetotheuniquenatureofthe
proposeddevelopments(intermsofbothsizeandimpactontransport
infrastructure)andtheuniquenessoftheWelshtourismproduct.
Studiesthathaveimplementedthistechniquehaveusedknowncoststoassess
publiccompliance.Inthisstudy,suchcosts(oreconomicsimpacts)arenot
knownandsoestimateswouldhavetobegeneratedandusedforreferendum
questions.Thereallifeapplicabilityofsuchestimatesisquestionable.This
techniquealsoisnotwithoutitscritics.Anumberofstudieshavecomparedboth
open-endedandreferendumCVresponses(Bishopetal.,1983;Sellaretal.,1985;
KealyandTurner,1993;etc.),withmostfindingWTPestimatesbasedona
referendummethod1.5to4timesgreaterthanthosebasedonopen-endedCV
research.Neilletal.,(1994)comparedWTPestimatesinhypotheticalopen-
endedCVstudieswithreallifetransactionsandfoundthatestimateswere
significantlygreaterthantheirreallifecounterparts.Consideringboththese
findingssuggeststhatreferendumCVdoesnotofferamorereliablealternative.
113
b.choice-modeltechniques
Toaddresstheseconcernsachoicemethoddesignwasinitiallyconsidered.This
approachcombinesthecharacteristicstheoryofvalue(Lancaster,1966)andthe
randomutilitytheory(McFadden,1974)andhasatrackrecordofuseinan
environmentalcapacity(Adamowiczetal.,1995;Boxalletal.,1995;Hanleyetal.,
1998;etc.).Thismethodologyisbasedontheassumptionthatconsumersderive
utilityfromthedifferentpropertiesthatthegoodpossessesratherthanavalue
inthegoodintrinsically.Thesepropertiesorcharacteristicsareassumedto
provideaservicetotheindividual(Lancaster,1966)eithersinglyorin
combination.
However,anumberofcomplicatedfacetstothismethodologyresultedinthis
approachbeingrejectedinfavourofalesscomplexandmoreusefulapproach.
Thechoice-modeltechniquerequiresthedevelopmentofhypotheticalscenarios
presentedasimagestotheparticipantsandseekstoevaluatetheimpactofeach
ofthefeaturesinthesescenarios(e.g.numberofturbinespresent,proximity,
etc.).Theneedtopresentmultipleimageswouldhavenecessitatedanonline
questionnaire,inthiscase,thatrandomisedthepresentationofimages.
Inadditiontothis,furthercomplicationswouldariseinobtainingadatabaseof
individualstocontactfortheonlinequestionnairetoensureadequateresponse
rate.Althoughinteresting,itwasdeemedthatthisapproachwouldhavelittle
practicalusetothecurrentstudywhichseekstoanalysetheimpactofproposed
developments(ofanalreadyfixedsizeandproximity)ratherthaninfluencing
futuredecisionsandsoamoreexploratorystudywasconstructed,speakingto
touristsin-situtoaccesstheirresponsestophotomontageimagesofthe
proposeddevelopmentsandtoexplorethepotentialforsharedcompetencies
betweenthetourismandrenewablesectors.
114
Developingthesurvey
a.introduction
ThesurveywasdesignedtogainanunderstandingofCeredigionvisitor’sviews
onwindenergytechnologyandhowtheyperceivethattheproposed
developmentsinMidWaleswillimpactontheirvisitinghabits.Thesurvey
functionedasaninitialattempttoaddresstheprimaryresearchquestion,
buildingonthepreexistingresearchwithintheliterature.Thesurveyapproach
utilisedanelectronicsurveythatwasdeliveredinpersonusingtablet
computers.Bydoingthis,thebenefitsofusinganInternetsurveycouldbetaken
advantageof,whilstthenegativefeaturesofsuchasurvey(suchasreliability
concernsandresponserates)wereminimised.Iwillnowdiscussthe
developmentofthisapproach,firstexploringthebackgroundliteratureofthis
researchtechniquebeforediscussingitspreviousapplicationandtheapplication
withinthecurrentstudy.
b.Computerbasedsurveys
Theuseofwebbasedsurveyshasbeenagrowingtrendintheprevioustwo
decades,andhasbeenshowntobehighlysuccessfulinconductingresearch,
especiallyincaseswherethetargetpopulationregularlyusetheInternetintheir
dailylife(Couper,Traugott,&Lamias,2001;Sills&Song,2002;VanSelm&
Jankowski,2006;Veal,2006).Inthesecases,ithasbeenfoundtoproducebetter
resultsandhigherresponseratesthanusingtraditionalformsofresearch
(Schaefer&Dillman,1998;Sills&Song,2002).However,theuseofweb-based
surveyshasanumberofissues.Firstly,theopennatureofthesurveymeansthat
oftenanyonewhohasaccesstotheInternethastheabilitytotakepartinthe
study,regardlessofhisorhersuitabilityfortheresearchsample(Kayeand
Johnson,1999).Theremoteresearcherisnotabletofilteroutineligible
participantspriortodatacollection,andtheseineligibleparticipantsmay
becomehiddenwithintheresearchdataormaynotbedetectable.Bertotand
115
McClure,(1996)suggestthatapasswordbeusedtoensurethatonlythosethat
thesurveyisintendedforhaveaccesstothequestionnaire,howeverthisonly
allowspreexistingcontactstobeaskedtotakepartinthestudyandprevents
newparticipants,whomayhaveastakeintheresearch,beingrecruited.Indeed,
thisapproachfavorsanapproachthatdoesnotaspireforanyreflexivityandis
thusnotcompatiblewiththecurrentprojectthataspiresforaparticipantled
approach.Otherresearchershavealsonotedproblemswiththeconsistencyof
themediumofdeliveryoftheresearchsurvey,problemswithmailsystems
detectingthesurveysasjunkmailandissueswithrespondentanonymity
(SheehanandMcMillan,1999;SillsandSong,2002;Veal,2006).Thelackof
researcherpresenceduringtheinterviewcanbeseenasbothastrengthand
weaknessofwebbasedsurveys.Inthecurrentstudywheredetailsofthework
canbeprovidedbytheresearcher,thiswasconsideredtobeaweakness.
Someoftheseweaknessescanbeaddressedbyutilisingaface-to-faceapproach
ratherthananonlinesurvey.Indeed,researchhasidentifiedthatface-to-face
surveysproduceresultsthataremorerepresentativeandlessaffectedby
samplingbiasthanbothonlinesurveysandtelephonebasedsurveys(Szolnoki
andHoffmann,2013).Samplingbiasinonlinesurveyswasalsonotedby
Terhanian,2003,wheretheirusewasfoundtohaveasignificantimpactonthe
genderproportionsrepresentedinthestudy.Onlinesurveyshavealsobeen
notedtohaveanincreasednonresponserate(andagreaterselectionof‘don’t
know’responses)(HeerweghandLoosveldt,2008)howeverthishasalsobeen
disputed(H.LindhjemandNavrud,2011)andattributedtothesamplesizesof
theformerstudy(SzolnokiandHoffmann,2013).Althoughpotentiallyan
advantage,thepresenceoftheresearcherinface-to-faceinterviewshasalso
beennotedasadisadvantagewhencomparedtoonlineresearchwhere
participantshavebeennotedtobeeffectedtoagreaterdegreeofsocial
desirabilitybias(Duffyetal.,2005)especiallywherequestionshaveaddressed
sensitivesubjectmatter.
Asynthesisofbothface-to-faceinterviewsandonlinesurveyscannowbe
attemptedthroughtheutilisationofmoderntabletdevices(AppleIPads).The
116
devicehasbeenwellreceivedbytheresearchcommunitywithNewMedia
Consortium’sDirectorofResearch,KeeneHaywoodnotingthattheIPadwasthe
perfectmobilefielddevice(2010)andDukeUniversityrecentlysetupplansto
equipstudentswiththedevicetoallowforgreaterefficiencyindatacollection
(Schaffhauser,2010).However,asafairlyrecenttechnologicaldevelopment
thereislittlematerialwithintheacademicliteratureontheuseoftablet
computersinresearch.JonesandSinclair(2011),andBhaskaran(2010),
howevernotetheeffectivenessofthedevicewithinaresearchsetting(referring
specificallytoIPads).Thispreliminaryresearchidentifiesanincreaseininterest
inthestudyduetothenovelfactorthedeviceprovides,howeversome
participantswereunfamiliarwiththeworkingsofthedeviceandsoassistance
wasrequired.Thecurrentstudyseekstobuildontheseinitialfindingsand
developanewcasestudyontheuseoftabletcomputerswithinresearch.
Throughtheuseofawebbasedplatformadegreeofinteractivitywillbe
present,withtheresearchsurveyandresultsabletobeupdatedinrealtime
allowingforrealtimeanalysisofresultstobeundertakenautomatically.Within
thisstudyIwishtoaddresstheweaknessesfoundinbothface-to-facemethods
andonlinesurveysthroughasynthesisthatfindsitsresolutionintheuseof
tabletcomputerstoconductface-to-faceinterviews.Thisapproachdoesnot
addressallweaknessesofeitherapproach,butcreatesastrategythatcombines
thestrengthsofbothonlineandface-to-faceinterviews.Reliabilityconcerns
withface-to-faceapproacheswillalsobeconsideredandaccountedfor.
Iattemptedtomitigatefortheweaknessesofwebbasedsurveytechniques
whilstpreservingtheirstrengthsthroughthedevelopmentofanhtmlappbased
questionnairedesign.UsingthewebbasedBristolOnlineSurveys(BOS)toolI
developedaquestionnaire.Thisquestionnairewasthenaccessedduringthe
studythroughtwoAppleIPadsandgiventoparticipants(asinaconventional
paperbasedsurvey).Theresponsesprovidedbytheparticipantswere
automaticallyaddedtoanonlinedatabasethatrecordedtheresultsofthestudy
andproducedrealtimeanalysisoffindings.Thismeantthatwhenconducting
thepilotsectionofthestudy,itwasnotedthatsomequestionswerecontinually
skippedbyparticipants(thoseaskingthemtoquantifytheirchangeinbehavior
117
inresponsetotheturbine).Bybeingawareofthis,duringthesamesessionIwas
abletoaskwhythissectionwasrepeatedlyskippedanddiscoveredthat
participantsfounditdifficulttoprovideananswer.Thisrevelationledto
alternativeideasbeingtestedin-situandeventuallyresultedinthisquestion
beingremovedfromthefinalsurvey.Throughthisapproachthebenefitsoffered
byrealtimeanalysisfoundinwebbasedinterviewsandtimesavingasdata
entryisgreatlyreducedwaspreserved,whilstthebenefitsofone-to-one
attentionofferedbyface-to-facesurveying.
Thequestionnairewasmadeupoffoursectionsandsoughttoaddressresearch
questions1and2.Theinitialsectioninformedtheparticipantsofthestudy,the
backgroundtotheprojectandhowthedatawouldbeused.Fullcontactdetails
wereprovidedandparticipantswereinformedthattheycouldremove
themselvesfromthestudyatanypoint.Onagreeingtothesetermsbypressinga
button,participantswerepresentedwiththesecondsection(andfirstsectionof
thesurvey).Heremultiple-choicequestionswerepresentedtotheparticipant,
collectingdemographicdataontheparticipant’sage,professionandplaceof
residence.
Thenextsectionpresentsparticipantswithquestionsontheirvisitingbehavior.
Theyarefirstaskeddetailsontheircurrentvisit(e.g.whotheyarevisitingwith
andforhowlongetc.)allowingthedatatobesegmentedduringanalysisandfor
ananalysistoconsiderthepotentialimpactsondifferentvisitorgroups.The
participantswerethenaskedquestionsonthevisitorexperience,somebuilding
onquestionsaskedinpreviousresearchfromtheliterature.Firstparticipants
notedtheirmainreasonforvisitingWales,allowingcomparisonstobemadeon
pullfactorsthatattracttouriststotheregion(p.34)andattitudestowardswind
energy.Theythenratedtheattractivenessofcurrentvisitorattractionsinthe
regionandtheirlikelihoodofvisiting(anadaptedversionofthequestionasked
inHanleyandNevin,1999);andassedthepotentialimpactsofanumberof
potentialindustrialdevelopmentsandiftheyenhance,detract,orhavenoimpact
ontheirvisit(anadaptedversionofthequestionusedwithinRiddingtonetal).
Thisprovidedanindicationofthesortsofattractionsinterestingtothevisitor
118
andallowsustoconsiderhowtouristdesirecomparestothedestination
environment(p.35)pullfactorsthatmaybeonofferthroughawindenergy
visitorattraction.Thisapproachalsoallowscomparisonstobeundertaken
betweentheimpactsofwindenergydevelopmentsandotherformsoflanduse.
Thislatterresultwasdeemedtobeparticularlyinterestingtothefunding
partnersinthecurrentstudy.
Thefinalsectionofthequestionnairedisplayedanimagetotheparticipant
relevanttothelocationwherethesurveywasconducted(e.g.atthesurveysite
inAberystwythaphotomontageoftheproposedturbinedevelopmentasviewed
fromthetown),andparticipantswereaskedtoevaluatetheconsequentimpact
ontheirvisitingbehavior(Figure7).Theywerealsoaskedtoratetheirinterest
invisitinganattractionbuiltaroundawindturbinefacility.Theimagesthat
werepresentedtoparticipantswereprovidedbythedevelopersoftheproposed
turbinedevelopmentinNantYrArian.
Figure7,Exampleofphotomontageusedinsurvey,showingbeforeandafter
imagesofthedevelopment.
119
Theeffectivenessofthisapproachisdiscussedonpage136wherethepotential
problemsthatmayarise,intermsofreliabilityandcommunityalienation,from
usingthissourcearediscussed.Theuseoftabletcomputershoweverallowed
participantstozoominandinteractwiththeimagethatwaspresentedwhich
provedparticularlyuseful,astheturbinesoftenappearedverysmallinthe
images.Thisfinalsectionwasthenfollowedbyasemi-structuredinterviewthat
helpedtoprovidecontextfortheanswersobtainedinthesurvey.
Inqualitativeresearch,thelocationwhereinterviewsareconductedcanhave
implicationsonthesortsofdatathatcanbecollected.ElwoodandMartinnote
‘microgeographiesofinterviewlocationssituateaparticipantwithrespectto
otheractorsandtohisorherownmultipleidentitiesandroles,affecting
informationthatiscommunicatedintheinterviewaswellaspowerdynamicsof
theinterviewitself’(2000).Forexample,inaworkenvironmenttheinterviewee
maytakeontheroleofthe'official',whereasinanothersetting,forexampleat
hometheymaybecomethe'parent'.Ineachinstancedifferenttopicsmaybemet
withguardedresponses,whilstothersmaybemetwithmoreenthusiasm.
Locationcanalsoplayapartintherelationshipbetweeninterviewerand
participant,withsitesinfluencinghowtheinterviewerandtheresearchmaybe
perceived(forexample,interviewsconductedintheresearcher’slabmayadd
legitimacytothestudybutmaymakeparticipantsbecomemoreguarded).The
currentstudysoughttointerviewvisitorstoMidWalesinsituinorderensure
participantsthatwererecruitedtothestudyweregenuinevisitorstothespecific
areasofinterestandtoallowparticipantstoconsidertheimpactoftheproposed
developmentsinawaythatislessabstract.Thatisnottosaythatthisnullifies
anyenvironmentalimpacts,andindeedtheperceptionthattheintervieweehas
ofmeasaresearchermayimpactontheinformationthattheyconsidertobe
valuableorsafetoprovide.
Threesamplesiteswerechosenaslocationsforconductingthesurvey.These
siteswereselectedontheirsuitabilityforthesurvey:asuitablenumberof
visitorspassedthroughthesite,availabilityofmobilephonesignaltoconnectto
theinternet,andacorrespondingphotomontagebeingavailable.Multiplesites
wereselectedinordertoavoidsamplingbiasthatmayresultasaproductof
120
usingasinglesite(i.e.samplingvisitorsonlyatAberystwythTownCentremay
meanthatsomevisitors,suchasthoseonlyvisitingforadaytotakepartinan
activityandwhodonotvisitthattown,wouldbemissedfromthesurvey).The
useofasinglesitecouldfavourcertain‘types’ofvisitorsoverothersandso
potentiallyfailingtoincludekeyvisitor‘types’frombeingincludedinthestudy.
Forexample,visitorstoAberystwythmaybemoreinterestedinsightseeingand
spendingtimeatthebeach–butvisitorsmoreinterestedinwalking,andnatural
landscapesmaybeunder-representedorentirelymisseddue.Duetothis,the
threesiteswereselectedtorepresentthreekeyattractionsinthearea–
representingahotelandvisitorattractionpopularwithtourists,apopularsite
forwalking,cyclinganddayvisits,andatouristinformationcentre:
BwlchNantyrArianVisitorCentre
BwlchNantyrArianisfoundwithintheCambrianMountains,approximately10
mileseastofAberystywth.Thevisitorcentrecontainsacaféandseatingareafor
visitors,aswellasashopthatsellscraftsouvenirsandmemorabiliafeaturing
faunafoundinthesurroundingarea.Visitorsaredrawntothesiteforthe
availabilityofcyclingroutesandwalkingpathsthatweavethroughthe
countryside.EveryafternoontheRedKitesarefedandpeoplegathertowatch
thebirdscirclethelake.Onenteringthecentreandinviewofthelake,
mountainspartiallyobscureacurrentwindturbinedevelopment.Interviews
wereconductedwithvisitorsinsidethecaféandonthebenchesoutsideofthe
visitorcentre.Thedistancetothenearestturbineintheplanneddevelopmentat
NantyrMochis4.782km.
HafodHotel,DevilsBridge
TheHafodHotelislocatedapproximatelytwentyminutesdrivefrom
Aberystwythandcanbefoundinthecentreofthepopulartouristattractionof
DevilsBridge,overlookingawaterfallthathasattractedvisitorsforseveral
hundredyears.Originallybuiltasahuntinglodgeinthe1700s,thehotelfeatures
16bedrooms,atearoomandarestaurantandisattachedtoapub.Touristsvisit
thehoteltoenjoyabreakaftertakingthe45minutewalkthatleadsaroundthe
famouswaterfalls.Thesurveywasconductedinsidethehotel,inaroom
121
positionednexttothetearooms.Visitorswereapproachedinsideandoutside
thehotelandaskedtotakepartinthestudyifavailable.Thedistancetothe
nearestturbineintheplanneddevelopmentatNantyrMochis7.962km.
AberystwythTouristInformationCentre
TheTICisfoundwithinthecentreofAberystwythtownclosetotheseafront.
Thecentreisattachedtoamuseumthathasanexhibitonthehistoryofthe
town.VisitorswereapproachedonenteringtheTICandaskedtoparticipatein
thestudy.Theywerethentakentoaseatingareawheretheinterviewswere
conducted.Thedistancetothenearestturbineintheplanneddevelopmentat
NantyrMochis13.429km.
ResponseratewasfairlyhighatboththeTouristInformationCentreandHafod
Hotel,withalowerresponserateatNantYrArianVisitorCentre.Thisislikely
duetoaresultofthewayrespondentswereapproachedwhilstinthecafé,where
somemaynotconsiderthatenoughtimewasavailabletoparticipateinthestudy
whilstwaitingforfoodorpurchasingacoffeebeforeleavingthearea.The
researchmayhavehadgreaterimpactherethanrealisedasdespiteprevious
supportfortheprojectfrommanagementatthevisitorcentre,towardstheend
oftheprojecttheyexpressedgreaterconcernfortheimpactonvisitorsofthe
siteandaconcernthattheresearchwasdisturbingthemwhilsttheyenjoyedthe
facilitiesinthecafé.Despitethisconcerntherewasnoindicationthatthiswas
thecasewhenconductingtheresearchanddespitesomeangerexpressed
towardsthesubjectmatterofthestudybysomeparticipantsandsuspicions
raisedontheagendaofthestudy,themajorityappearedtobesupportive.
Pilotingthestudy
Followingthedevelopmentofthequestionnaire,athreeweekpilotstudywas
undertakenatthethreesamplesites.Tenpilotsurveys/interviewswere
conductedateachsamplesite.Visitorswereapproachedandwereaskedtotake
partinthestudy.Thefullprocedurewasfollowed.
122
Duringthispilot,itwasfoundthatmoreparticipantsmightfinddifficultyin
usingthetabletcomputerthanexpectedandsorequiredsupervisionwhenusing
thedevice.Thisdidmeanthatmoretimewasrequiredwitheachparticipantand
wasestimatedtoimpactonthetimerequiredtoconductthestudy.Anumberof
copiesofthequestionnairewerealsoprintedoffinthestudytoallowany
participantswhopreferrednottousethetabletcomputerstotakepartinthe
study.Noparticipantsendedupusingpapersurveysoverthetabletcomputers
inthefinalsurvey.Internetconnectivityissuesalsoemerged,aspublicWi-Fi
hotspotsprovedtobeunreliableinthefield.AportableWi-Fihotspotdevicewas
purchasedtoaddressthis.
Thequestionutilisingaphotomontageoftheproposedwindenergy
developmentswasalsomodified,andasectionaskingparticipantstoquantify
theimpactofthedevelopmentontheirvisitinghabitswasremoved.Duringthe
pilotitwasfoundthatthissectionwastoodifficultforparticipants,andthey
founditdifficulttoproduceameaningfulquantifiedresponsetotheimpactof
thedevelopmentonhowoftenorforhowlongtheywouldvisitthearea.Amore
meaningfulresponsewasfoundwhenparticipantswereaskediftheywouldvisit
‘lessoften’,‘moreoften’,or‘thesame’.Nofurtherchangesweremadeandthe
questionnaireotherwiseoperatedasintended.
ReliabilityandValidity
Thisapproachidentifiedanumberofissueswiththeuseoftabletcomputers
duringinterviews.Thesearediscussedinanevaluationfollowingtheresults
portionoftherelativesectionofthethesis.Inaddition,someissueswere
identifiedpriortotheworkinthefieldthatpromptedthecreationofstrategies
tomitigatetheirimpactontheeffectivenessoftheresearchmethod.Itwas
understoodthatsomeparticipantsmayfinditdifficulttousethetechnologyand
soitwasessentialthathelpandsupportwasavailablethroughouttheinterview.
Toallowforthisthenumberofparticipantsinterviewedatanyonetimewas
123
kepttoamaximumof2.Priortoundertakingtheresearch,itwasconsideredifit
wouldbebeneficialtohiresupportresearcherstoassistincollectingdataforthe
questionnaire,howeverthiswasrejectedduetobudgetconstraintsandto
ensurehomogeneityintheresearchapproach.However,asaresultofthisthe
potentialsamplesizeofthestudywasreduced.
Asaconveniencesamplingstrategywasapplied,samplesizewaslimitedtothe
amountofpeoplethatcouldbeapproachwithinthetimeframeofthestudy.
Withinthisapproachanon-probabilitysamplingstrategyisused,where
participantsareselectedontheirbasisofaccessibilitytotheresearcher.Itwas
acknowledgedthatitmightbedifficulttosamplealargeenoughnumberof
participantsinordertogenerateasamplethatproportionatelyrepresentedall
visitortypes(dayvisitors,thosewithholidayhomes,etc.)aswellasover
demographiccategorisation.Thisformofsamplingalsoallowedforareduction
inthecostandtimeforthestudy,andallowedmetotakeadvantageofallthose
thatexpressedaninterestintakingpartinthestudy(duringwhatisforthem,a
holiday).Thistypeofsamplingprovedtobethemostresourcefulwaytogather
usefuldataandinformationwithoutpreexistinginformationonallthosedueto
visitthearea(orpreviousvisitorswithcontactinformationandtransport
facilitiestoconductfacetofaceinterviews).Duetotheuseofthissampling
approach,therearelimitedapplicationsforgeneralisationoftheresults,and
potentialreliabilityissuesneedtobeconsideredduringanalysis.
Intermsofvalidityofthestudy,conveniencesamplingcanleadtooverorunder
representationofsomeofthegroupswithinthesample.Thismayemergeasa
productofthesamplingprocedureitself,aspreferenceintakingpartinthe
surveymayvaryacrossgroups.Thisisespeciallytrueonapolarisingtopiclike
windenergy.Inanefforttoavoidthis,participantswereapproachedandfirstly
askediftheywouldliketotakepartinastudyontheirvisittoMidWales.After
agreeinginprinciple,andwhenpositionedinfrontofthequestionnaire,Ithen
disclosedthatthestudywouldbeparticularlyinterestedinrenewableenergies
andtheirvisitingbehavior.Theywereinformedthattheycouldrefusetotake
partatanytimeandwithdrawfromthestudy.Innocasesdidaparticipantat
124
thispointnotproceed.Otherbiasesmaybeexpressedinthechoiceofthe
locationthemselves,withsomelocationsbeingmorewelcomingtoparticular
subgroupswithinthesample(e.g.someareasmaybelessfemalefriendly,
certainvisitorswithaparticularvisitingpreference,etc.).Itisnecessaryto
considerthesedetailsonanalysisifnotabledifferencesemergebetweenvisitor
preferencesandtheirvisitingintention,andhowbiaswithinthesamplemay
skewanoverallevaluation.
Initiallyaquestionnairewasdesignedtotargetvisitorstotheregion,howeverit
soonbecameapparentthatdefiningavisitorwouldbedifficultduetothe
prevalenceofholidayhomesandtemporaryresidents.Additionally,thetourist
economy’srelianceonthesegroupsfurthersuggestedthearbitrarinessofthis
distinctioninpublic.Thequestionnairewasredesignedtoremovethebinary
oppositionbetweenresidentandtourist,andinsteadofrejectingsomeofthose
approachedtotakepartinthestudy,itcollecteddataontheparticipant’s
relationshiptotheregionthroughtheirlengthofstayandrelativebehaviourin
supportingthetouristeconomy.Despitethisfluidityinsampling,carewastaken
toensureawidedemographicwassampledthatwasbothrepresentativeofthe
visitorpopulationstypicallyexpressedintheliteratureandwouldprovide
resultsthatarerepresentativeofawidedemographicofpotentialvisitorstothe
region.
Therewerealsolimitationspresentwithintheuseofthetechnologyonthe
tabletcomputers.Asafairlynewapproachtoresearch,therewerefewresources
availablethatarededicatedtothedevelopmentofIPadbasedquestionnaires.
PreviousstudieshaveutilisedGoogleDocsoriPadspecificapps(Jonesand
Sinclair,2011).GoogleDocsisanopensourceplatformthatallowsforthe
developmentofformsthatallowsforuservaluestobeentered.However,
althoughfreethesoftwareislimitedinitscapabilityanddoesnothavenative
supportfortabletcomputeruse.TheuseofIPadspecificappsallowforgreater
interactivitybutcanonlybeutilisedviathetabletcomputers(ifthereisanissue
withthetabletcomputeralaptopbackupcannotbeusedtocontinuethesurvey
work)andmayhaveissuesexportingdata,compatibilityissuesandmaybe
unabletohandlerobustanalysis.Toaddresstheseissuesapurposebuiltweb
125
basedsurveyprogrammewasusedtocreatethequestionnaire.Duetoa
preexistingagreementbetweenAberystwythUniversityandBristolOnline
Surveysthisprogrammewaschosen.Itoffersadegreeofcreativequestionnaire
designbutisnotasrobustasmoreexpensivepackages(e.g.Qualtrics).The
surveywasdesignedviatheBOSwebsiteandthenthequestionnaireswere
accessedusingthewebexplorerontheIPads.Thewebsiteautomaticallyscaled
thequestionnaireforthesmallerIPadscreenandwascompatiblewithgestures
andtouchcontrolallowingparticipantstozoominontheimagesandtotickthe
boxesonthescreen.Thequestionnaireentrieswerethenautomaticallyincluded
inanonlinedatabase.Thisonlinerequirementforthequestionnairewas
addressedthroughtheuseofawireless3Grouterthatconnectedtothetablet
computersviaWi-Fi.Despitethisthesiteselectionforthestudyremained
limitedbythestrengthofthenetworkcoverageatthestudysite.Forfuturework
itmaybebeneficialtopursuecontemporarycodingstrategiesthatallowforiOS
basedappstobedevelopedfromhtmlcode–thusallowingforthecreationofan
offlineversionofthequestionnairethatcoulduploadthedataafterasecure
Internetconnectionisachieved.
Contextualisingthedata
Inordertoprovidecontexttothedataobtainedduringthequestionnairesabrief
semistructuredinterviewwasconductedwithparticipantsaftertheycompleted
thesurvey.Theseinterviewswererecordedwiththeconsentoftheparticipants
andprovidearichsourceofdatathatcanallowforagreaterunderstandingof
theresultsobtainedinthefirstsectionofthesurvey.Indeed,asBryman(2008),
notes,semi-structuredinterviewsproviderich,detailedanswersandallowthe
intervieweesperspectiveonthetopicsdiscussedtocomethroughclearly.The
useofsemi-structuredinterviewscontrastedwiththeapproachofGenre1
whereinsteadofspecificquestionsondefinedandnarrowtopics,moregeneral
questionswereasked,highlightingthetopicstobediscussedintheinterview.
Participantswerefreetotakeuptheleadofferedtothemandbringupissues
thatarerelevanttotheminresponsetotheinitialsurveysection.
126
Thisapproachcanbelikenedmorecloselytotraditionaltriangulationandmixed
methodapproachesthantheconceptofcrystalisationemployedintheoverall
study(onpage100).Mixedmethodsaredistinctfrommultimethodapproaches
astheyrequiretheutilisationofbothqualitativeandquantitativeapproachesto
generatereliableresults,withthelaterusingmultiplemethodsofasingle
researchepistemology(e.g.multiplequantitativemethodologies)(Creswell&
PlanoClark,2007).Despitethegreaterdegreeofopennesswithinmixedmethod
approaches,interpretationofresultsisstillconfinedtoanepistemologyof
positivism(supportedthroughqualitativeevidencethatmayrequireadegreeof
interpretation).Adefinitionofmixedmethodshasbeenprovidedby
OnwuegbuzieandTurner(2007):
“mixedmethodsresearchisthetypeofresearchinwhicharesearcherorteamof
researcherscombineselementsofqualitativeandquantitativeresearch
approaches(e.g.,useofqualitativeandquantitativeviewpoints,datacollection,
analysis,inferencetechniques)forthebroadpurposeofbreadthanddepthof
understandingandcorroboration”.(p.118)
Despitethepotentialsuggestedwithinmixedmethodstobreakdownbarriers
betweenthedifferentwaysofconductingresearch,somehavearguedthatit
merelyreinforcesdifference.Giddings(2006)arguesthat“theuseoftheterms
‘qualitative’and‘quantitative’asnormativedescriptorsreinforcestheirbinary
positioning,effectivelymarginalisingthemethodologicaldiversitywithinthem”
(p.165)andreinforcingthedominanceofthepositivistdiscourse.Sheadds:
“Mixingmethodsiswrong,notbecausemethodsshouldbekeptseparatebut
becausetheyshouldnothavebeendividedattheoutset”(p.1)
Inordertobegintobreakdownthesebarriers,andthefurtherbarriersbetween
positivist/interpretativistandresearchofcreation/discoverythemethodology
ofcrystalisationisutilisedthroughoutthecurrentwork.
127
Withinthecurrentgenre,participantsinthesemi-structuredinterviewswere
askedfourmainquestions:
1.Whatmakesyouconsideralandscapetobeaestheticallypleasing?What
featuresdoyoufindattractive?Howdoesthiseffectyour'use'ofthelandscape
asavisitor?
2.Howawareareyouofcurrentclimatechangescienceandrenewableenergy?
Areyouinterested?Howdoyoufindoutyourinformation?Doesthiseffectyour
actions?
3.Howdoyouthinktheconstructionofawindfarmprojectsuchastheinthe
imagescouldimpacttheexperiencefortourists?Bothpositiveandnegative
impacts?
4.HowdoyouconsideryouroverallexperienceinMidWalesasadestination?
Whatwillyourememberfromyourvisitandtellothers?
Thequestionssoughttofurtherexploretheimpactsofwindenergyonthe
experienceofthelandscapeforthevisitorandfunctionedasapreliminary
investigationintothepotentialbenefitsofferedintheexperience.Thislatter
enquiryisthesubjectoffurtherstudyinSections3and4oftheliterature
review.Thissemi-structuredinterviewsectionaspiredtobeonewherethe
participantwouldbeabletofeedbacktotheresearcherontheresearchprocess,
andpotentiallyofferinsightsthatcoulddriveresearchthatwouldcomeatalater
pointintheresearchproject.Indeed,thiswasfoundtobethecase,andthe
resultsobtainedduringthissectionwerebothilluminatinginrespectto
providingcontextforthefindingsofthesurvey,butalsoinofferinganinsight
thatshapedtheworkthatfollowed.Theresultsofthesurveywereexportedand
tabled,andareanalyseddescriptivelyinchapter4.
128
ResearchEthics
Inordertoensurethesurveywasconductedethicallyanumberofprocedures
wereconductedandguidelinesfollowed.Thesearenotedbelow.
• Thesurveysoughttoavoidunnecessaryintrusionandwasdevelopedto
collectdatathatcouldnotbeaccessedthroughaliteraturereview.
Participationinthestudywasvoluntaryandparticipantswere
approachedinawaythatwouldnotcauseembarrassmentorpressureto
takepart.
• Inordertotakepartinthestudy,participantswererequiredtoreadan
outlineoftheaimsofthesurveyandtherolethatwouldbeexpectedof
themandaskedtoagree.Theywerealsoinformedthattheywereableto
stopthesurveyatanypointandthatallpersonaldatawouldbe
anonymisedonreporting.
• Fullcontactdetailswereprovidedtoparticipantsifrequested,forany
followupquestionsthattheymayhave.
• Permissionwasgivenpriortousinganyrecordingequipmentduringthe
semi-structuredinterviewsection.
ThestudythusmeetsthefourmainethicalrequirementsoutlinedbyDienerand
Crandall(1978).Inordertomeettargetsforthestudyonconfidentialityand
dataprotection,guidelinesoutlinedbyHolmes(2004)werefollowed.
• Participantnames,addressesoridentifyinginformationwasnotstored
onharddrives.
• Identifiercodeswereusedondatafiles.
• Wherenecessary,participantdetailsandtheircorrespondingidentifier
codewerestoredseparatelyandsecurely.
• Transcriptsandnoteswerealsostoredsecurely.
TheESRCprovideaFrameworkforResearchEthics(FRE),establishingkey
principlesandminimumrequirementsforgoodpractice.Theguidelinesarealso
129
requiredtobeadheredtowhenseekingfundingfromtheESRC.Sixkey
principlesofethicalresearcharerequiredtobeaddressed(ESRC,2015,p.4):
1. “Researchparticipantsshouldtakepartvoluntarily,freefromany
coercionorundueinfluence,andtheirrights,dignityand(whenpossible)
autonomyshouldberespectedandappropriatelyprotected.
2. Researchshouldbeworthwhileandprovidevaluethatoutweighsany
riskorharm.Researchersshouldaimtomaximisethebenefitofthe
researchandminimisepotentialriskofharmtoparticipantsand
researchers.Allpotentialriskandharmshouldbemitigatedbyrobust
precautions.
3. Researchstaffandparticipantsshouldbegivenappropriateinformation
aboutthepurpose,methodsandintendedusesoftheresearch,whattheir
participationintheresearchentailsandwhatrisksandbenefits,ifany,
areinvolved.
4. Individualresearchparticipantandgrouppreferencesregarding
anonymityshouldberespectedandparticipantrequirementsconcerning
theconfidentialnatureofinformationandpersonaldatashouldbe
respected.
5. Researchshouldbedesigned,reviewedandundertakentoensure
recognisedstandardsofintegrityaremet,andqualityandtransparency
areassured.
6. Theindependenceofresearchshouldbeclear,andanyconflictsof
interestorpartialityshouldbeexplicit.”
Asnotedonthepreviouspage,stepsweretakentoavoidintrudingor
embarrassingparticipantsasperprinciple1,thepotentialforharmwithinthis
studywasnotsignificantbutstepsweretakentoensuresafetyofparticipantsas
per2,fullinformationwasprovidedtoallparticipantspriortotakingpartinthe
researchasper3,alldatacollectedwasanonymisedandsecurelystoredasper
principle4,aliteraturereviewandpilotstudywasundertakentoensurethatthe
researchmethodologiesusedwereappropriate,transparentandofahigh
integrityasper5,noconflictsofinterestwerepresentasper6.
130
AspertheESRCguidelines,thecurrentstudydoesnotentailmorethanminimal
riskandsodoesnotrequirea‘fullethicsreview’(p.8).
Genre3:Exploratoryresearchapproaches(dimensionsofbecoming)
Inlinewiththeprinciplesofcrystalisation,thisinitialphasewascontrastedwith
amoreexperimentalandexploratoryphase.Thisexploratoryphaseallowsthe
researchapproachtomeettheguidelinessetbyEllingson(2009,p.10),andas
alreadystatedrepresentstheproductionofknowledgeacrossmultiplepointsof
thequalitativecontinuumthathasbeendescribedabove,generallyincludingone
middlegroundapproach(e.g.post-positivist)andoneinterpretative(artistic,
performativeorcreativelyanalytic).Thissecondempiricalgenreofresearch
utilisesaninterpretativemethodologythataspirestobecreativelyanalytical
drawingfromtheworkofGillesDeleuze(andborrowingfromhisterminology)
exploring‘becoming’withinthesightseeingassemblageandthecreative
potentialofferedinthisevent.Throughthisanalysistheworkseekstoexplore
whatIhaverefertoasthe‘radicalpotential’withinsightseeing,andcanbe
consideredtobeananthropologicalstudythatemergesfromeco-critiqueand
criticaltheory.Theemergenceofthismethodologyisexploredtheoretically
withinthecurrentworkonpage91.
Temporalcontextforthethirdgenre
Itwouldbeinaccuratetosuggestthatthismultigenreapproachwasoneofthe
initialintentionsoftheproject,butrathertheapproachemergedorganicallyin
responsetotheacademictrajectoryIfoundmyselfwithin.Beforeproceedingto
discussthemethodologythatwasutilisedandtheliteraturethathaspreviously
exploredasimilarapproach,Iwishtodiscussthetemporalandsubjective
processesthatledtotheemergenceofthisapproach.AsIevokeDeleuzeinthe
currentsectioninanefforttointroducenewtheoreticalstructurestothe
literatureandinresponsetothelimitationsofthecurrenttheoreticaldiscourse,
131
aconsiderationoftheoreticalexplorationandcreativityisneeded,asitiscentral
toDeleuze’sapproachtophilosophy.ForDeleuzetheprocessesthatallowfor
creativity(whichforDeleuzeemergesonlywhenonetruly‘does’philosophy)
emergesfroma‘planeofimmanence’.Thisdistinctionisnecessarytomake
senseofDeleuze’sontologythatrefusestoclaimatranscendentalsubject(or
substancealaSpinoza),butratherpositsthatimmanenceissubstance.Thusall
distinctionsbetweenmindandbody,interiorityandexteriority,orsubjectand
discourseareflattened.InWhatisPhilosophy?(Deleuzeetal.,1998)Deleuzeand
Guattariwritethattheplaneofimmanenceis“theabsolutegroundof
philosophy,itsearthordeterritorialisation,thefoundationonwhichitcreatesits
concepts”(p.41).
Toconceiveofanontologyofimmanenceistoconsiderthemolecularmakeupof
theassemblages,conceptsandaffectsthatconstructtheworldaroundus.Each
oftheseformsarethemselvesmadeupofeverincreasingmolecularconnections
thatareconstantlychangingandreorganisingthemselves.ForDeleuze,an
ethicalexistencewasfoundwithinanappreciationandconsiderationofthese
molecularforms–rejectinggood/bad,right/wrong,lawful/unlawful–and
insteadembracinganethicsofimmanencewhereproductivepotentialfor
greatercreativityissoughttobemaximisedaspartofaconstantstrivingfor
pureimmanence.
Thecurrentapproachisonethatemergesfromaconsiderationofthisethicsof
immanence.Thisistruebothintermsoftheresearchstrategiesthatemergedin
responsetothechangingconditionsoftheresearchproject,andfortheresearch
approachesthemselveswhichstrivetocreatebothnewunderstandingsaswell
asnewquestions.Thisformerpointhadimplicationsfortheanalysisundertaken
intheChapter4,requiringacriticalconsiderationofcoding,anapproachfor
interviewmethodologythatopensitselftodifferenceandamechanismto
analysedatathatwouldpreviouslybebasedwithinfieldsofstudyseparatedand
incomparabletoeachother(referredtoasgenres).Thislatterconsiderationis
exploredthroughananalysisthatutilisescrystalisationasalreadydiscussed.
132
However,itmustbeacknowledgedthatthisontologyofimmanenceitselfdidnot
preexistbeforetheresearchproject.Ratheritemergedinresponsetothe
changingenvironmentwithinwhichtheresearchprojectwasundertaken;in
responsetochanginginternalandexternalconditionsoftheresearchproject.
Theseideasarediscussedbelow.Indeed,ratherthanbeingseenasaformof
epistemologyitselfthatIwouldsubscribeto,thisontologyandepistemologyof
differenceisonlythecurrentframeworkthatIseektoemploytoaddressmy
majorresearchobjectiveofcriticalengagementwiththecurrentliteratureand
withthetourismparadigmthatemergesfromanemancipatorypoliticalproject.
Thedevelopmentofthissecondapproachemergesasaresponsetothreekey
changesthatshiftedthefocus,developmentandobjectivesoftheproject:
1.thecancellingoftheNantYrMochdevelopment
InApril2013,apostontheCambrianMountainSocietyFacebookpage
announcedthattheNantYrMochdevelopmenthadbeenpostponed.
Immediately,afterconsultingthecommunityengagementrepresentativesIwas
informedthatitwasnolongerdeemedfinanciallyviabletocontinuewiththe
developmentduetopublicprotest.Despitetheprojectbeingputonastateof
hiatus,Iwasinformedthatitwasunlikelythatthisprojectwouldgoaheadata
laterdate.Thisannouncementwasgreetedasasuccessbymembersoftheanti-
turbinelobbyinMidWalesincludingtheCambrianMountainSocietybut
requiredachangeofdirectioninthecurrentproject,andarelocationofthe
focusbeyondthespecificsiteatNantYMochtoamoregeneralconsiderationof
theimpactofwindenergyontourism,beyondthecurrentlimitationsofthe
literature.
2.Distrustandengagement
Priortodiscussingparticipant-ledapproachesinthecurrentstudy,Iwishto
providesomecontextforthisapproachdemonstratingwhyitwasdecidedthis
wasneededandprovidingsomehistoricalcontext.Itwasfoundthatdespite
133
effortintheinitialapproachtoovercomewhatwasconsideredreactionary
responsesorresponsesthatarecloudedbypublicdiscourse,responsesfrom
participantsremainedhighlyinfluencedbyfeelingsofdistrust.Furthermore,
whenconductingtheinitialstudy,itbecomeclearthatasaresearcherItoowas
attimesmetwithdistrustandsuspicionastotheaimsofmyproject–andwhoI
was‘working’for.Thisdistrusthasbeenwidelyexploredintheliteratureand
hasdevelopedintoaresearchparadigmofitsownregularlypublishedin
journalssuchasPublicunderstandingofScience,ScienceCommunicationand
ScienceasCulture.Thisresearchparadigmdevelopedfollowingakeypublication
in2000,whentheHouseofLordsSelectCommitteeonSciencepublisheda
reportcalled'ScienceandSociety'inwhicha'crisisofconfidence'wasidentified
(HouseofLords,2000).
Toaddressthiscrisis,itwasconcludedthatpublicdialogueandconsultationhad
tobeincreasedtofurtherengagecitizensindecisionmaking.Thiswasnotanew
idea,aspoliticalandscientificinstitutionswerealreadyattemptingtoaddressa
lackoftrustthroughincreasedinteractionwiththepublictoaidin'supporting
democracy'.Theaimsoftheseinteractionsincludedestablishinggreatersupport
fromthepublicandencouraginghigherlevelsofengagement,viathe“public
understandingofsciencemodel”(SturgisandAllum,2004).Thismodelisbased
ontheassumptionthatpublicacceptanceofnewresearchanddevelopment
wouldincreaseasthepublicbecamemoreawareofandbetterunderstoodthe
techniquesandprinciplesinvolvedinconductingtheresearch.Thismodel(also
knownasthedeficitmodel)isincomplete,asitfailstotakeintoaccountpublic
attitude,theneedsofpublic,theleveloftrustthepublichaveintheinstitutions
behindthedevelopment,andtheirperceptionoftheriskinvolvedindeveloping
thetechnology.InScienceandSociety,theHouseofLordsSelectCommittee
agreedanalternative“democraticengagement”modelwasrequired,formalising
theparadigmshiftinpublicengagement.Thismodelisbasedonopen
communicationwiththepublicinregardtosettingresearchprioritiesand
decision-making.Throughthisapproachitwashopedthatpoliciesgroundedin
citizenparticipationwillbebetterreceivedandalignedmorecloselywiththe
issuesthatwereofconcerntothepublic.
134
Withinsocialscienceresearch,publicinvolvementinsettingtheresearch
objectivescanprovideagreaterbenefitasitmayallowlimitationsinthe
knowledgeofexpertstobeaddressed(Kraus,Malmfors,andSlovic1992;Pollak
1996;Jasanoff1997).ApertinentexampleisseenintheAidsactivistsofthe
1980s(Epstein,1995).Activistsinitiallycalledforarethinkingofthetrial
procedureforexperimentalaidstreatments.Thetraditionalscientifictrial
proceduresawsubjectsselectedtoensure'cleanresults'andsubjectstaking
otherformsofmedicationwereoftenrefusedparticipationorwerefearfulof
prematureremovalfromtheprogramme.Activistssupportedthegoalsofthe
study,buthighlightedthattheprimaryaimofsubjectsenrolledinthetrialswas
togainaccesstopreviouslyunavailabletreatment.Activistsarguedforareform
oftrialprocedure,toensurestudiesremainclean,aswellasethicalandinthe
bestinterestofboththeparties.Theseactivistsbroughtimportantinformation
fromwithinthecommunityofaidssufferers.Thesepeopleinteractedwith,and
representedagroupimpactedbythestudyandprovidedinformationtoensure
clinicaltrialscouldbepreformedinascientificallyaccuratewayandfairlyfor
thoseparticipating.AfurtherexampleisseeninWynne'ssheepfarmers(Wynne,
1989).Thesheepfarmerswerehighlyknowledgeableoninformationrelevantto
discussionofhowagroupofsheepshouldbetreatedtominimisetheimpactof
contaminationfollowingtheChernobyldisaster.Sincethebuildingofthe
Windscale-Sellafieldplant,manyhadexperiencehandlingsheepexposedto
radioactivewasteandsocouldcontributesignificantlytodiscussionontheissue.
Inordertoinformmywork,Iwishtodrawaparallelbetweenthisliteratureon
scientificpolicyanddistrustandmethodologiesthatseektodrawfromgreater
participantengagement(whichinthiscaseisequivalentto‘public’engagement)
intheresearchprocess.Participant-ledmethodologieshaveemergedfrom
feministsocialresearchwhereworkhassoughttogiveanempoweringvoiceto
oppressedgroupsthroughtheresearchprocess.Feministresearchhasdriven
importantmethodologicalshiftsinthefieldofsocialscienceresearch(Stanley
andWise,1993),andthepotentialofthesevariousnewmethodologieshave
particularlybeenexploredwithinqualitativeresearch(e.g.Burman,1994).Such
135
amethodologyhasbeenappliedinresearchlikethecurrentprojectthatseeksto
beawareofpowerstructureswithintheresearchenvironmentandtryto
circumventorminimisetheserelations.Assuch,thisapproachisoftenused
whenworkingwithoppressedordisadvantagedgroupswhomayfinditdifficult
tofindavoicetocommunicatewithineverydaysociety,ormayfinditdifficultto
presenttheirtruefeelingswithintheresearchenvironment(suchaschildren
withinaschoolorminorityimmigrantgroups).
InthecurrentworkIseektodrawfromthebodyofliteratureonparticipantled
methodologiestoinformanapproachthataspirestocreateadialoguewithmy
participants.Ashasalreadybeennoted,currentstudiesonwindenergyandthe
publichasoftenbeendiscreditedbythepublicastheyaresuspiciousofthegoals
andfundingoftheresearch.Itismyintentionthatthroughincreaseddialogue
throughouttheresearchprocesswiththeparticipantsinvolvedinmystudyIwill
beabletopreventasimilarcrisisinconfidenceinmywork–orpossiblybeginto
makeamovementforwardtoaddressit.Additionally,thisapproachopensup
thepossibilityofengagingwiththematerialinunexpectedwaysthathave
previouslybeenoverlookedintopdownapproaches.Ofcourselimitations
remainintheextenttowhichafullyparticipantledprocesscanfunction,asthe
currentprojecthasanumberofpredeterminedobjectives,thusthispotentialfor
participantinfluenceisachievedthroughanunstructuredandopen
methodologyforthisthirdgenrethatIrefertoas‘unstructuredconversations’.
3.methodologicaldevelopmentinresponsetothepreviousstudy(or‘genre’)
Aftercompletingwhatwasinitiallytobereferredtoasthe‘firstphase’ofthe
researchprojectanumberoflimitationswiththisapproachbecameapparent
andmyeffortstoovercomethesebeganatrajectorythatledtoanapproachthat
takesagreaterconsiderationofcriticaltheoryandexploratorymethodologies.
Thedevelopmentofthesemethodologiescoincidedwithmyowndevelopment
asaresearcher,asIstudiedtheliteratureandfoundamethodologicalapproach
thatlinedtheoreticallywiththestudythatIundertookalongsidethe
136
developmentofwhatwasinitiallygoingtobethe‘secondphase’.Thisphased
approachwaseventuallyphased-outandcrystalisationwasadoptedasa
methodology.
Althoughthelimitationsoftheformergenreareconsideredduringananalysis
onpage77,itisworthwhiletoconsiderthelimitationsofthisapproach
methodologicallyandhowthesemethodologicallimitationsareaddressed.
Despiteprovidingadatasourcethatcouldbedeemeduseful,thestudy
highlightedtheneedtoconsideralternativeapproaches.Theresultsfromthe
studywerefoundtosupportthosestatedintheliteraturewithaminorityof
respondentsnotingthattheirvisitingbehaviorwouldbeimpactedfromturbine
developments-basedontheinformationthattheywerepresentedwithand
theirpreconceivedideasaboutwindenergydevelopments.Itisthislatterpoint
andtheinabilitytoisolateitfromthecurrentdevelopmentsthatsuggestedthe
needforgreaterexploration.Indeed,whendiscussingthephotomontageimages
oftheplanneddevelopmentinNant-Yr-Mochorotheraestheticqualitiesofthe
turbinedevelopmentsanumberofcommentsonwindturbinesappeared,that
oftenincludedcriticismsofinefficiency,lackoftrustinthetechnologyorgeneral
climateskepticism.Despitebeinganimportantfactorwhenconsideringthe
visitorperceptionsofrenewableenergytechnology,whenpressedfurtheritwas
revealedthatthisinformationprovidedlittleinthewayofimpactsonthevisitor
experienceorvisitoreconomy-indeedoneparticipantwhenpressednotedthat
despiteverystrong(andangry)opinionsagainstwindturbinedevelopment–
theirpresencewouldnotpreventhimfromenjoyingacoffeeattheNantYrArian
visitorcentre.Additionally,anumberofparticipantswerenotawareofthe
turbinesthatsurroundedusasweconductedtheinterviews,ofteninsightofthe
turbinebladesonthehillthatoverlooksthevisitorcentre.Therhetoricand
discourseofconflictthatsurroundswindenergybecameinseparablefromthe
responsesofvisitorstoturbinedevelopmentusingaquestionnairebased
approachthatdealtwithabstractprojectionsofafuturedevelopmentand
scenariosthatrequiredpredictedresponses.Toaddressthisamoreappropriate
methodologywasdevelopedthatplacedparticipantsdirectlyinfrontofawind
turbinedevelopmentinMidWalesandaskedthemtodirectlyconsiderand
137
exploretheirresponsetotheturbines.Thisapproachsoughttodrawmore
greatlyfromtheaestheticsofwindenergydevelopmentsandresponsestothe
technologythatemergesfromemotionalandcognitivereactions.
Initiallythepotentialtoexplorethisapproachthroughphotographywas
considered.ThisapproachhasbeenutilisedbyGarrod(2008)toexplore
perceptionsofplaceatAberystwythwhereparticipantswereaskedtotake
photographsoffeaturestheyconsideredimportanttotheirexperienceinan
efforttoexploretheperceptionsofthetownasbothadestinationtovisitanda
placetolive.Throughthephotographscollectedbytheparticipants,Garrodis
abletoseedirectlythroughtheeyesofthoseinvolvedinthestudywhilstthe
participantisempoweredtodrivetheresearchprocessbybringingtoattention
thosethatsheconsiders‘important’.Thislineofthinkingledtoconsiderationfor
asimilarprojectinthecurrentwork,albeitutilisingalessstructuredanalysis
wherethephotographswouldfeatureaspromptsduringaparticipant
structuredinterview.Photoelicitationtechniqueshavealsobeenadoptedwidely
byotherresearchers(e.g.Cederholm,2004;MacKayandCouldwell,2004;
Scarles,2010;etc.).However,apilotprojectwasundertakenforthisapproach
anditwassoonapparentthatthephotographicelementaddedlittletothe
methodology,andthemainsourceofmaterialarrivedfromthewalkitself,where
immediateinteractionstothesurroundinglandscapecouldberecorded.
Inrecentyears,theinclusionofmovementintoresearchhasbecomeofgreater
interesttothesocialscienceswithShellerandUrry(2006),suggestingthata
newparadigmisbeingformedthatinvolvesnewmethodologiesandresearch
topicsthatconsider‘mobilities’.Inturn,anumberofprojectshavebeguntoseek
tobringmobilityintotheresearchprocessparticularlywheninvestigation
‘everyday’lifepractices–evidentbytheinclusionoftwosessionsspecifically
addressingthistopicatthe2007RGS-IBG(RoyalGeographicalSocietywiththe
InstituteofBritishGeographers)annualconference(Hein,EvansandJones,
2008).Inaddition,methodologiesthatcapturethewaysinwhichpeopleandthe
communitieswithinwhichtheyoperatevalueplacearebecomingincreasingly
138
desirabletopolicymakersandplannersandthusoffersastrategicusefulnessto
thecurrentstudy,aswellasauniqueangletoapproachtheresearchquestion.
Overthelastfewyearsasmallbutgrowingnumberofsocialscientistsand
geographershavebeenusingtechniqueswhereresearcherswalkwith
participants(forexample,Anderson,2004;Carpiano,2009;Kusenbach,2003;
Reed,2002).Studiesrangefromworkwhereresearchershavesimplywandered
throughlandscapestalkingtoparticipants,tohighlystructuredstudieswhere
researchersfollowandobservetheirparticipantsastheyundertaketheirdaily
activities.Itisarguedthatwalkinginterviewsallowforthecollectionofricher
dataasparticipantsarepromptedbymeaningsandconnectionstotheir
surroundingenvironmentandarelesslikelytotrytogivea‘correct’answer
(EvansandJones,2010).However,thelimitationsofsuchastrategyarealso
requiredtobeconsidered:notablythattheuseofwalkinginamethodologymay
excludesomesectionsofthepublicthatareunabletowalkorunwillingto
participate;framingofplaceisimportantfortheinterviewtoberelevantandso
isdependentonuncontrollablefactors(weather,permissions,etc.);andtheuse
ofwalkingduringaninterviewlimitstheamountofinterviewtechniquesthat
canbeapplied.However,bywalking,boththeresearcherandparticipant
becomemoreexposedtothemulti-sensorystimulationofthesurrounding
environmentduringtheresearchprocess(AdamsandGuy,2007)ratherthan
beingexcludedfromtherealworld,allowingforadifferentexperiencethan
alternativeresearchmethods,thatdespitebeingperformedinmotion(asfor
examplebeingdrivenaroundinacare.g.,LaurierandPhilo,2003),are
essentiallysedentaryfromtheperspectiveofboththeparticipantandthe
researcher.Thisgivesasenseofimmediacytotheprocessaswellasa
kinaesethicrhythm(Middleton,2009).
Anumberofstudieshaveusedwalkingasamethodology,enablingthecollection
ofrichqualitativedata.Aparticularlyinnovativeapproachhasbeenusedby
Wylie(i.e.Lorimer&Wylie,2010),wheretheperformanceofwalkingfunctions
asthemethodologythatfunctionsasapromptforreflectionsonembodiment,
affectandtheengagementofthebodywithlandscape.
139
“Forfourhours,aboutsevenmiles,you'recaught–captivated–bytheDoethie
valley.Youhardlyseeanotherlivingcreature,letaloneanotherhumanbeing.
Yourclothearsanddigitaleyeswouldhardlynoticeanyway;youwouldn't
recognisearedkiteifonesatperchedonarockrightinfrontofyou.Andwho
knowsnowwhatmightbehappeningtoyou,elsewhere–yourmobilesignal's
flickedoutlikeasnuffedcandle.Thevalley'sbig;it'sreallybig,itsflanksand
foldsrisingtothesky,thesizeandshapeofthembarelytobeconceived.Andit
breathesoutasilence.It'snotsoundlessofcourse,notwithoutsound,orempty
ofsound.It'sthesortofquietorhushyoumightsense,likeamistrising,invast,
openspaces.”(LorimerandWylie,2010,p.9)
Theextractaboveistakenfromaworkthatdetailsthetripofthetwo
researcherstravellingtoAberystwythforaconference.Autobiographicalin
context,thepaperoutlinesthetrip,reportingontheperceivedexperiencesof
thewalkers–eachsectionoftextheadlinedbycoordinatesgiveninLongitude
andLatitude.Thewalkfunctionsforthereportersasameansthroughwhich
consciousnessisallowedtoevolvealongsidethemeaningofplace.Ideasof
landscapeintheoryareconsideredalongsidelandscapeinpracticeaseachofthe
researchersembracestheirsubjectivityduringthewalk.Inotherwork,Wylie
exploresawalkingholidayalongpartoftheSouthWestCoastPath,whichruns
alongthecoastlinesofSomeret,DevonandCornwall(2005).Thecurrentproject
acknowledgestheseapproachesbutaimsforamoreappliedmethodologythat
combinestalkingwithparticipantswithwalkingorwithinawalking
environment.NotunlikeWylie'swalk,studyoftheseaforementioned
approacheshasencouragedthedevelopmentorevolutionofconsciousnessthat
hasledtomeapplyingthecurrentresearchstrategy.Thisapproachhasbeen
appliedinanumberofstudiesbutisarelativelynewwayofundertaking
research.Matthewsetal.,(2000)andPaulosandGoodman(2004),applya
walkingmethodologyalongsidequantitativeresearch,howeverneitherofthese
studiesfullyaccountfortheimpactofwalkingonthemethodologicalframework
andquantitativedataanalysis.Qualitativeresearchhasbeenundertakenby
HitchingsandJones(2004)whoreportjointlyonstudiesundertaken
140
individually,wheretheyjoinedparticipantsinwalkingaroundgardensto
analysethehuman-nonhumaninteractionduringtheseexplorations.Byjoining
theirparticipantsinwalkingthroughthegarden,bothresearchersnotethat
informationwasmoreeasilyobtainedandrespondentsfounditeasierto
verbalisetheirattitudesandfeelingswhenactuallylivingtheexperiencesthat
theyweretryingtodiscuss.Theresponsesgivenwerealsonotedtobemore
mundane,andthereforemoreinteresting;therespondentstriedlesstogive
answersthattheyfeltwere‘right’forthestudy,butinsteadduetotheinformal
settingrelaxedandamore‘real’experiencewasrecorded.Bothstudiesfound
strengthinusingmaterialprobes;inthiscasephotographswereusedto
encouragetheintervieweetoprovidefurtherinformation.‘Walkingprobes’,in
theformoflandmarksandlocationspecificencountershavealsobeenfoundto
beeffective(DeLeonandCohen,2005).
Walkinginterviewshavealsobeenarguedtofacilitateamoreparticipantled
researchprocess,andthusaswellasenablingforbetterdatacollection,may
haveanadditionalempoweringfacilitytothosethataretakingpartinthe
project,particularlywhentheparticipantisallowedtoselecttheplacesthatare
walkedin(DeLeonandCohen,2005).Hall,LashuaandCoffey’sproject,‘Locality,
BiographyandYouthinaTransformingCommunity’interviewedyoungpeople
inSouthWalesaboutlocalregenerationstrategiesandtheirlivesthrough
walkinginterviews.Byincludingthismovementintotheresearch,itwasfeltthat
thepowerrelationshipbetweenresearcherandparticipantwasaddressed
through“moreordinaryconversation”(Halletal.2006).Otherresearchershave
soughttoaddresspowerthroughthedevelopmentofthe‘go-along’ethnographic
technique,whereresearchersaccompanytheirrespondentsontheireveryday
activitieswhilstconductinganinterview,providingbothobservationaldataand
accesstotheirparticipant’sexperiencesandinterpretations(Kusenbach,2003).
Kusenbachnotesthatthistechniqueaddressesfivekeyresearchissues
particularlyeffectively:environmentalperception;spatialpractices;biographies;
socialarchitecture;andsocialrealms.These‘goalongs’aremosteffectivewhen
undertakenonnaturaljourneysmadebytheparticipant,asalthoughinteresting,
141
contrivedgo-alongsmayprovidelittleinformationontheparticipants“authentic
practicesandinterpretations”(p464).
However,thedegreetowhichthis‘authenticpractice’caneverbeobservedin
thepresenceoftheresearcherisquestionable,leadingIngoldandLeeto
embracethe‘inauthentic’throughtheuseofboth‘everyday’and‘unusual’walks
(Ingold2006;IngoldandLee2008).Heretheirworkfocusesonthesociability,
placemakingandrelationshipwiththeenvironmentthatwalkingallows(Lee
andIngold,2006).Indeed,theseprojectscanstillbeconsideredcontrived(as
notedbyKusenbach,2003)and,whereasenseof‘reality’issoughttobe
capturedbytheresearch,alternativestrategieshavedeveloped.Anderson
(2004)employsatechniqueof‘bimbling’or“aimlesslywalkingthroughaco-
ingredientenvironment”(Anderson2004,p.257)inhisresearchon
environmentalactivists.Thistypeofmethodologyseekstolinkwith
collaborativedrivenresearchthroughtheuseofafielddiaryofengagements
withresearchparticipantsratherthanverbatimtranscriptsthatlinktospecific
places.Andersontakesapositioninthefieldwithina‘thirdspace’(Heinetal.,
2008),neitheractingasanacademicoraresearcher,butsomewhereelse.This
‘thirdspace’conceptrelatestotheworkofSoja(1996);rejectingthebinary
oppositionbetweenanunderstandingofplaceaseithermaterialisticoridealistic
andinsteadsupportsastancethatcanincludeboth,withafocusonlived
experience.Butherewalkingisemployedlessasameanstoresearchwithina
setspace,andmoreasameanstoescapeaspace(theprotestcamps)thatwould
inhibittheresearch.Evenherehowever,discussionsonspecificlocations
emergedthroughtheinterview(participantsnotedthatdeveloperswouldsoon
wantthis‘bitofmeadow’p.256)andindeedtechniquesthatprovided
informationonwherethesestatementsoccurredcouldhaveprovidedafurther
layerofanalysis.Edensor(2000b)questionstheemancipatorypotentialof
walkingitself,suggestingthatratherthanbeingliberating,walkingisitself
boundwithindiscoursesofpower,classandideologiesaroundnature.Here
throughanarcheologicalanalysis,thereasonsforandhowwewalkarebound
byconvention,andratherthanbeingaliberatingexperience,continueto
reproduceinstitutionalisedconventions(aroundsensualdeprivation,
142
oversocialisation,externandinternalsurveillance,anxietyaboutstatusand
inauthenticperformance).Nevertheless,Edensornotesthepossibilityfor
serendipitouseventstodisruptthewalkersgazeastheterrainandclimate
“imposethemselvesuponthebody”(p.101)causingpainorpleasure.He
considersthatthesemomentsofconfrontationandanacceptanceofimpurity
andheterogeneityarepartoftheexperienceoflibertyandwherethereflective
potentialislocated.
Oneinitialexperimentalmethodologysoughttoutilisethisreflectivepotential
alongsideGIStechnology.Suchanapproachwouldaimtoexplorethepotential
forcreatingmapsthatacknowledgesthe“multiplicityofgeographicrealities”
(Dunn,2007,p.616),thusofferingthepotentialtoempowercommunitiesby
providingthemwitharesourcetomaptheirownnarratives.Criticalapproaches
toGISarecontextandissuedrivenandarenotledbythetechnology.Rather
theyseektoempowercommunitiesbyengagingthemduringtheproductionof
geographicdata,providingatoolthatallowscommunitiestofreeupspacefrom
objectiveanddisembodied(ortechnocraticintermsofgovernance)meanings,
openingupthepossibilityforademocratisationoflandscapethatfreesitupfor
anumberofpolysymbolicpluralities(MacCannell,2012).Theemancipatory
successoftheseprojectsisquestionable,butGISandGPSdisplayaproven
potentialasaninstrumentofpower(inbothasadisciplinaryandemancipatory
mechanism)shouldtheapplicationbeappropriate(seePropen’s,2006
contrastingaccountsoftheRealTimeAmsterdamProjectandAcme’sRent-A-
Car).However,theincreasinguseofGISandGPSalsoopenanumberofethical
andsafetyissues(Heinetal.,2008)regardingtheinclusionofconsentingand
non-consentingparticipantsinthestudy.Pilotprojectsthatutilisedwalkingand
locationdevicesweresuccessfulbuttheinformationcollectedwasdiverseand
analysisthatsoughttofocusontheperceptionofwindturbineswasdifficult.
Withinthecurrentproject,whereresearchfundinghasbeenallocatedbythe
WelshAssemblytospecificallystudywindenergydevelopmentsandtheir
‘impacts’onvisitors,itwasnecessarytoreininthemethodology,howevera
moreexploratoryapproachutilisingwalkingandphotographyhasbeenpiloted
forafutureresearchproject.Buildingonthis,theproductiveaspectsofthe
143
walkingandlocationdevicesofthemethodologywerepreservedandfocused,
andamethodologywasdevelopedwherebyparticipantswouldbeapproached
ataspecificsectionofasetwalkattheNantYrAriansitethatoverlooksan
adjacentwindenergydevelopment.Althoughbeingparticipantled,itwas
intendedthattheconversationbeguidedtowardsthewindturbinesshouldthey
notarisenaturally–howeverinpracticeitwasnotfoundthatthiswasneeded.
4.myowndevelopmentandresearcherpositionality
Alongsidethedevelopmentoftheresearchthesis,Ihaveexperienceda
developingofmyoutlooktoresearchandhowIwishtobeperceivedasa
researcher.Justasexternalconditionsimpactedonthewaytheresearchproject
wasconceived,resultinginachangeofdirection,internalconditions(thatis,
personal,subjectiveconditions)resultedinanevolutionoftheapproachI
wishedtofollowintheprojectinresponsetotheresearchthatIundertookfor
theproject,aconsiderationofmyresponsibilityasaresearcherandinresponse
toacademicresearchIundertookincriticaltheoryandphilosophy.Indeed,it
wouldnotbepossibletotalkofthedevelopmentofthisthirdgenrewithouta
considerationofthesefactors.
IinitiallycametothisprojectwithabackgroundinMarxism,especiallyEco-
Marxisminresponsetothe(whatIwouldnowconsiderlimited)studythatcame
withmypoliticalaffiliations.Myearlytheoreticalworksoughttoaligneco-
Marxistthoughtwithaconceptionofecology,aestheticsandthecurrent
literatureavailable.ThisleadtometotheworkofMacCannell,whoseprojectof
lookingforpoliticalpotentialswithinthetouristspaceresonatedwithmyown
aspirations.IspecificallyaddressMacCannellsworkinasection4ofthe
literaturereviewandhisprojectthatseekstolookbeyondaconceptionof
tourismthatopensupapossibilityfornewwaysofthinkingandbeingthatwe
donotseeintheworkofUrrythatheseekstocritique(howeverindeedwedo
seeasimilarapproachalbeitonethatisnotdrawnfromaMarxistbackgroundin
feministandembodimentwork[e.g.VeijolaandJokinen1994]).Theutilisation
144
ofLacanianpsychoanalysisinhisrecentworkisinlinewithabranchof
contemporarycriticaltheory,whoseektouseaHegelian-Lacanianapproachto
informapoliticalprojectthatfallsintothehistoricaltraditionalofMarxism.A
notabletheoristwhoutilisesthisapproachisSlavojZ� izek,aformercolleagueof
MacCannell.IhadsomefamiliaritywithZ� izek’sworkandhispoliticalprojectbut
mybackgroundinpsychoanalysiswaslimited.Toaddressthis,Ibeganstudying
psychoanalysiswithanadvisorfromtheSevernsideInstituteinBristolwhereI
undertookmyownanalysisandbeganthefirststageoftrainingasrequired
whentrainingtobecomeaLacanianpsychoanalyst.Ialsoattendedacritical
theorysummerschoolwhereIattendedclassesbySlavojZ� izekaswellasother
prominentacademicswithincriticaltheory.AsIbecamemorefamiliarwiththe
literatureIbecameawareoflimitationswithMacCannellsapproachinpartfrom
amisreadingoftheoriginalsourcetext.InresponsetothisIwroteapaperfor
theDecember2015issueofTouristStudies,whereIseektoapplyamorestrictly
Z� izekianapproachtoaddressthegapsinMacCannellsunderstandingofLacanian
Psychoanalysis(DashandCater,2015)
Inmid2013,IwasintroducedtoanewgraduateschoolinMichiganwhere
studentswouldhavetheopportunitytostudyalongsideleadingacademics.
Launchedinlate2013,theschoolpromisedlowcosttuitionwithagradualshift
tofreeeducationbutsufferedfromearlymanagementissues.Ibecamethefirst
studenttobeofficiallyenrolledattheschoolandthroughlate2013-2014,I
undertookstudyincriticaltheory,psychoanalysisandphilosophyalongsidekey
theoristsinthefield.ThroughthisstudyIwasintroducedtonewideasthat
mademequestionmyapplicationofpsychoanalysisforitsemancipatory
potentialandledtomyreadingofGillesDeleuze.Additionally,throughthework
ofAlexanderGrit,IsawthetheoreticalconceptsofDeleuzeappliedwithin
tourism,offeringgreaterpotentialforaradicalpoliticsfortourismthanthe
limitedemancipatorypoliticsthatcanbeappliedthroughpsychoanalysis.Grit’s
workwasparticularlyinfluentialandintroducedconceptssuchasbecomingand
assemblagethatareutilisedinthecurrentwork.Myacademicjourneyand
developmentisindebtedtothefollowingpeoplewhoplayedsomepartin
providingaguidinginfluenceatsomepoint:CarlCater,BrianGarrod,Alexander
145
Grit,DeanMacCannell,LaurieRodriguez,VincenzoSalvatore,IanLamond,
EtienneBalibar.
Positioningthisapproachonthequalitativecontinuum
IwishtomakeexplicitthepositionalityofthisapproachonEllingson’s
qualitativecontinuum(2009;p.8and9).Inordertoengageincrystalisation,itis
requiredthatatleastoneimpressionistorartistmethodologyisutilised,
additionallyitisalsoimportanttonotethatinresistingtheart/science
dichotomy,anewthreetiersystemisnotcreatedandratherthesedescriptions
arelaidoutspatiallyonlyforthereadertobettercomprehendthesemovements
betweengenres.Indeed,theapproachutilisedinthecurrentgenredrawsfrom
bothartisticandinterpretivistapproachesinadditiontoqualitiesfoundwithin
empirical‘middle-ground’approaches.
Thisapproachseekstocombinethegoalsofartistic/impressionistapproachesin
unravelingacceptedtruthsandtoexplorethespecificaspectsoftheexperience
withtheturbineassemblagewhilstalsoremainingtoexploreandgenerate
pragmaticimplicationsforpractitionerswhichmaybeconsideredaqualityofa
moremiddlegroundapproach.Theanalysisthatisundertakenseekstodrawon
moreimpressionistapproachesandresonateswithEllingson’scriteriaforthis
category:‘Dostoriesringtrue,resonate,engage,move?’,butdespitethe
impressionistnatureofthisanalysis,theworkcontinuestodrawonafoundation
thatcontinuestobebasedwithinthedatacollectedduringconversationswith
participants.
Outlineofmethodology:Conversationswithvisitors
ThroughoutJune,JulyandAugust2013,interviewswereundertakenwith
participantsatNantYrArian,MidWales.Drawingonwalkingmethodologies,an
approachwasfavoredthatwouldplaceparticipantsface-to-facewiththeobjects
ofdiscussion.Apathwaschosenattheforestrycommissionsitethatoverlooked
thewindturbinesofanadjacentdevelopment.Throughoutthesethreemonths,I
146
walkedalongthepathandaskedwalkerstoengageinaconversationwithme
aboutthelandscapeandviewsthatsurroundedus.Ifthewalkeragreed,we
wouldmovetoabenchthatoverlookedawindturbineandbegintheinterview.
Theconversationwasverylooselystructuredandallowedtotraversetopicsand
beledbytheparticipantsinthestudy.Theloosestructurewasguidedbythe
followinginterviewschedule:
1.Backgroundandmotivations(Researchquestion1)
a.Reasonsforvisitingthearea?Previousexperiencesinthearea?
b.Whereistheparticipantfrom?Whoaretheytravellingwith?
c.WhatpartoftheirvisitdoesthevisittoNantYrArianplay?
2.SightsandAesthetics(Researchquestion1,2)
a.Whatisthebestviewandtheworstview?
b.Howdoesitcomparetowhatwasexpected?
c.Whichpartsdoyouthinkarenatural?
d.Howdotheturbinesfitinthispicture?
3.ReflectionsandThoughts(Researchquestion1,2,3)
a.Whatdotheturbinesmakeyouthinkabout?
b.Howdotheyaffectyourexperience?
c.Inwhatwaydotheymakeyouthinkaboutenvironmentalissues?
d.Howdotheturbineshaveanimpactonhowyouperceivewindenergy?
4.Reflectionsonthemethodology(Researchquestion4)
a.WhatdoyouthinkIshouldbeaskingpeopleaboutwindturbinesandtheir
experience?
b.Whatwouldyouranswerbetothis?
c.Isthereanythingyouwanttoadd?
Attimesthisinterviewschedulewasfollowedclosely,atothertimesitwasnot
referencedastheconversationflowedfreelyandnewtopicsofdiscussionthat
wereimportanttotheparticipantemerged.Toanextentthecapacityforthis
147
sortofdatacollectionwaspotentiallylimitedbythesetobjectivesofthe
researchprojectandthesetresearchquestion–thatofoneofinvestigationthe
impactsofwindenergy–howevertheimpactofthislimitingpresencewas
minimisedandworkedthroughbyusingananalyticalapproachthatwasopento
‘difference’.ThisanalyticalapproachdrawsontheGritsapproach,applyinga
Deleuzianinspiredanalyticalframeworkthatisabletoaccommodateresults
thatmaybedisregarded,overlookedorunabletobeincludedinamore
conventionalapproach.Thischartingofbecomingsisdiscussedshortly,but
initiallyIwishtodiscussthepostinterviewstagesoftranscriptionandcoding
beforebrieflydiscussingissuesofreliabilityandethics.
Sampling
Aconveniencesamplingtechniquewasusedtoselectparticipantsforthestudy.
Theweaknessesandstrengthsofthisapproacharediscussedwithinthe
methodologyofGenre1,wherethesametechniquewasapplied(page147)and
soarenotreproducedhere.
Post-interviewprocess
Datastorageandmanagement
1.Transcription
Bazeley(2013)notesthatavarietyofdatacollectiontechniquesarepossiblefor
interviewbasedmethodologiesanddespiteanabundanceoftechnology
availabletotheresearcherthemethodofrecordingneedstodrawuponthe
researchquestionsandobjectives.Asthecurrentapproachseekstodrawupon
phenomenologicalapproachesandexaminethephrasingandnuancesof
expressions,themethodologysoughttoemployafullrecordingofeach
interviewfollowedbyadetailedtranscription.
Fulltranscriptionwasperformedontherecordedtextbyaprofessional.This
transcriptionincludedrepetitionsandfullrecordingofnon-linguistic
148
communications(e.g.ums,ers,etc).Followingthisthetranscriptionwasread
throughandcheckedwiththesourcematerialtoconfirmtheplacementof
punctuationandnotesweremadealongsidethewrittentextontheintended
meaningthatiscommunicatedinthespokenpassagesthatmaybemissingfrom
thewrittentext(forexample,repeateddenialsinthetextmayinfactindicatean
oppositemeaningofwhattherespondentwasatfirstappearingtostate).
Alongsidetranscriptionsoftherecordedmaterial,noteswereaddedbasedon
observationsofthesettingsoftheinterviews,indeedasBecker(1998)notes:
‘the“backgrounddetails”weincludeareinfactmuchmoreimportantthanmere
background,notjustlocalcolourthrownintogiveoffalittleverisimilitude.They
aretheenvironingconditionsunderwhichthethingswestudied…exist’(p.54).
Inthepresentstudythesedetailsincludeddatasuchasbackgroundinformation
ontheparticipantsintheinterview,participantages,motivesforvisitingandthe
durationandoftheirstayandfamiliaritywiththeWelshcountryside.This
contexttothedataallowsformeaningfulinterpretationtobeundertakenonthe
observations,allowingforanunderstandingtobegainedontherelationship
betweenstructureandprocess.Inaddition,thisknowledgeofcontextisa
requirementforcase-to-casetransferoftheknowledgegained,allowingforthe
applicationofinsightsfromthepresentstudytobeappliedtofutureworkoras
abasistotheoreticaldevelopments(Firestone,1993;Mishler,1979,Yin,2003).
InitiallytheworkexploredthepossibilityofemployingGISapproachesalongside
walking/interviewbasedmethodologythatwouldallowtheinterviewdatatobe
plottedalongsidelocationdata,allowingfordiagramsorwordmapstobe
createdthatconstructedaversionofplacebaseduponreflectionsandresponses
tothelandscape,ratherthanitsgeographicfeatures.Asthefinalapproachto
studywasmostlystationarythisapproachseemedlessvaluableandsowasnot
continuedinthefinalmethodologyand‘locating’theresponsesofparticipants
wasdonelessformallyduringtheinterview,byrecognitionandrecordingofthe
locationorsubjectoftheparticipant’sgaze.
Itishoweverworthnotingthelimitationstotranscriptions.AsKvale(1996)
notes,“[t]ranscriptsarenotcopiesorrepresentationsofsomeoriginalreality,
theyareinterpretativeconstructionsthatareusefultoolsforgivenpurposes.
149
Transcriptsaredecontextualisedconversations,theyareabstractions,as
topographicalmapsareabstractionsfromtheoriginallandscapefromwhich
theyarederived"(p.165).Itisthusnecessarytoconsidertranscriptionsnotasa
reproductionoftheconversationrecordedinthefield,butratherasa
constructedversionofthistext.Wordsmayappeartochangemeaningasthe
textistranscribed,wordsmaybebroughttoattentionthatmayhavenotbeen
intendedinitiallybytheparticipant,ormaybetranscribedincorrectly.
Additionally,inthecurrentstudywhereoneortwoparticipantsmayhave
spokentogetherorontopofoneanother,thelinearnatureoftranscription
requiresthatthisparallelspeechbetranslatedintoalinearnarrative.
Furthermore,theactoftranscribing,ofturningwordsimbuedwithtone,volume
andotherfeaturesdifficulttoreproduceinthewrittenword,changesthe
featuresofthecontentrecorded,strippingawaythesequalitiesandreplacingit
withothers.Althoughitisnecessaryfortranscriptiontooccurwithinthecurrent
study,thesetranslationalissueswillbeconsideredduringanevaluationofthe
methodologyfollowinganalysis.
2.Participantconsent,ethicalconsiderationsanddatastorage
Participantswereinstructedthattheiridentitieswouldbeanonymised,
includinganyindividualdetailsraisedduringtheinterviewthatcouldbeusedto
identifyasingleparticipant.
Holmes(2004)suggeststhattomaintainconfidentiality,andsustainethical
researchpracticeoneshould:
1)avoidstoringparticipantnamesandaddressesorlettercorrespondenceon
harddrives
2)useidentifiercodesondatafilesand
3)storethelistofparticipantsandtheiridentifiercodesseparatelyinalocked
cabinet
150
4)ensurethattranscriberssignalettersayingtheywillconformtotheData
ProtectionAct
5)ensuretranscriptsdonotincludeparticipants’names
6)keepcopiesoftranscriptsinalockedcabinet
Asinterviewswererecorded,furtherconsiderationsweretakentoensurefiles
werepasswordprotectedandstoredinasafesecurelocation.Also,toensure
informedconsent,detailswereprovidedoutliningthepurposeoftheresearch
andnotifyingintervieweesthattheirparticipationisvoluntary,thattheycan
refusetoansweranyquestions,canwithdrawfromtheinterviewatanytime
andareabletowithdrawtheirinformationwithintwoweeks–thisconsentwas
recordedpriortobeginningoftheinterview.
Inthepresentstudy,theuseofinformedconsentrequiredcarefulconsideration
asitwasimportanttonotrevealspecificdetailsofthestudy(thespecificinterest
inwindenergydevelopmentsthatwereinviewofthesettingoftheinterview)to
analyseifthesethemeswoulddevelopontheirownthroughthecourseofthe
interview.Inalmostallcasesparticipantsquicklybegantospeakofthenearby
turbineswithoutprompts,sometimesasoneofthefirstthingsdiscussedand
thusthiswasoflittleconcern.Aftertheinitialquestionsoftheconservationhad
beendiscussed,thefocusonperceptionsofindustrialobjectsandlandscapewas
mademoreexplicit(thusplacingrecognitionoftherolenotjustoftheturbines
butoftheotherobjectsthatsurroundthem–theenergygenerationequipment,
theagriculturalequipment,theroad,etc–andthecomparisonsand
relationshipsbetweentheseincontrasttotheagrarianvistastobegazedat
elsewhere).
3.Coding
Codingprovidesameansofmanagingthecollecteddataandidentifying,sorting
andqueryingspecificsectionsofthetexttofacilitateanalysis.However,as
Bazeley(2013,p.125)notescodingisnotanendinitself,butratherfunctionsas
151
asteptoanalysis–notastheanalysisitself.Codesareinsteadseenasorganising
principlesthatarethecreationsoftheresearcher,‘theyaretoolstothinkwith.
Theycanbeexpanded,changed,orscrappedaltogetherasourideasdevelop
throughrepeatedinteractionswiththedata’(CoffeyandAtkinson,1996,p.32).
Passagesarelabeledwithcodesinordertomakethemaccessiblebutalsoto
representthepassageduringanalysis.However,thisfocusneedstobe
maintainedondataretention,ratherthanondatareductionthroughsummary
(Richards,2009).Codingseekstoprovidetheresearcherameanstobreakoutof
an‘imprisonmentinthestory’,allowingthemtoseenewconnections,allows
accesstonewinterpretationsandprovideananalysisofthedatawithinits
propercontext(MaxwellandMiller,2008,p.469).
AssuggestedinSaldana(2009),codingconsistsoftwomajorstages;aninitial
stageofidentificationandlabelingfollowingasecondstageofcodesthatseekto
furtherrefineanddevelopmoreanalyticalclustersduringaprocessoffocused
coding.Followingthisandduringinitialanalysiscodingmaycontinuetobe
revisedandevolveasworkproceedsinformingnewnetworksofinter-relations
betweenthethemesrevealedthroughthiscoding.
Someauthorshavelikenedcodingtowritinganindexofabook,justasanitem
intheindexprovidesareferencepointtoalocationintheoriginalsource
material.(Kelle,2004;Patton,2002).Bazeley(2013)howevernotesthatcoding
seekstotakethisastepfurther–servingasameanstobothsortandorderdata
inadditiontoreferencing,providingawayofgroupingsimilarmaterialstobe
accessedduringanalysis.Thishasbeenofparticularfocustootherauthors,who
havesoughttoemphasisethepotentialthroughcodingtoconnectdatatoideas,
andtheseideastothedatathatsupportsthem(MorseandRichards,2002,
p.115).Thisoffersthepotentialtorecontextualisedatawithincategories
allowingfordatatoobservedinnewcontextsoutsideoftheresearchevent
(Bazeley,2013,p.129).
Codinginthecurrentstudywasfacilitatedthroughtheuseofqualitative
softwareNVIVO.Beforeexploringthecodingstrategyemployed,itisworth
discussingtheadvantagesandlimitationsofthisapproachthatledtothe
152
formulationofthecodingstrategy.NVIVOallowsforanumberofsourcestypes
(suchasvideo,text,andaudio)tobeinputtedintotheresearch.Italsoallows
transcriptionstobedirectlyreferencedtoaudiofiles,allowingthetexttobe
partiallytranscribedandsupportedbyaudiorecordingstoprovidecontext
(howevertimeallowancespermittedthecurrentstudytoutilisefull
transcriptionssupportedbyaudiorecordingstoprovidecontext).Inaddition,
unliketheuseofpenandpapermethodologies,theprocessofcodingis
nondestructiveandtheoriginalsourcematerialremainsinitsoriginalform
attachedtothecodeappliedtoit.Thusanychangestoeitherthecodeororiginal
sourcematerialarereflectedthroughoutthework.Thisnon-destructivequality
allowsgreatercomplexityofcodingtobedeveloped,allowingmultiplecodesto
beappliedtothesamepassage,describingcontextualfactorsalongsidethematic
coding.However,thisadvantageneedstobetreatedcarefullyasitholdsthe
potentiallytomaketheprocessofanalysismoredifficult,shouldtoomuch
detaileddatabecollected.Itisessentialthatthesoftwareisusedtofacilitatethe
processofcoding,ratherthanbecomingthesubjectofresearchitself,withthe
finaloutcomeoftheprocessbeingtheanalysisofthedataratherthanthe
completeindexofthesourcematerial.Thisissuehasbeenreferredtoas‘the
codingtrap’byJohnston(2006)wheretheprocessofcodingitselftakes
precedentovertheprocessofimaginativeandreflectivethinking.Straussnotes
that:
“Theaimofcodingistoopenuptheinquiry.Everyinterpretationatthispoint
istentative.Inagenuinesense,theanalystisnotprimarilyconcernedwith
thisparticulardocument,butforwhatitcandotofurtherthenextstepsofthe
inquiry.Whateveriswrongininterpretingthoselinesandwordswill
eventuallybecancelledoutthroughlaterstepsoftheinquiry.Conceptswill
thenworkornotwork,distinctionswillbeusefulornotuseful–ormodified,
andsoforth.”(1987,p.29).
153
Codingandpoststructuralism
Maclure(2014)developsacritiqueofcodingdrawingfromtheworkofDeleuze.
Inowwishtoexplorethiscritiqueandconsiderhowthiswouldinfluencean
approachthatseekstobeparticipantled.MacluredrawsonDeleuze’sTheLogic
ofSense(Deleuze,1990)andDeleuze’scritiqueofrepresentation(e.g.Deleuze,
1994)todevelopacritiqueofcodingthatseekstomovebeyondthinkingthat
establisheshierarchicalrelationshipsandtooneofassemblages–onethatseeks
toconsideraworldnotheldstillanddefined,butforeverseparatefromthe
categoriesthatrepresentit.Inconsideringpost-structuralism,Macluredrawson
itscritiquesofreason,universaltruthandthecrisisofrepresentation–i.e.in
whichlanguagenolongerisheldtoberepresentativeofreality,butratheris
implicatedinitsconstruction–toconsiderthelimitationsofcoding.Shenotes
thatcodingplacestheanalystinapositionof‘panopticimmunity’allowingthe
researchertoassumeapositionofprivilegeoverthesubjectsofhisresearch
whilstpreservingtheintactnessandautonomyofhisownself(asintheaccount
ofMiller,1988,p.162onthenineteenthcenturynovel).FollowingDeleuze’s
privilegingofdifferenceinresearchandphilosophy,Maclurefindsproblemsin
theconstraintsplacedbycodingonthepotentialsofresearch.
“-thefactthatthe‘grammar’alwayspre-existsthephenomenaunder
investigation.Thingsarecondemnedalwaystocontractthesamesortsof
relationshipstooneanother–genustospecies,categorytoinstance,generalto
particular,disposedaccordingtorelationsofidentity,similarity,analogyor
opposition.”(p.168).
Thuscodingnullifiesthepotentialforuncoveringdifferencebysubsumingthose
thatdeviatewhilstrepresentingformsofmovementintermsofstaticrelations
amongstalreadyformedentities(eitheraspre-existingtermsthatarecodedfor,
orasaninherentstaticrelationamongstwordswithinalanguageitself).
Additionally,stagnatingistheneedforcompleteness,forthedatatoberendered
explicabletothepointofsaturation.However,Macluredoesnotseekto
disregardcodingasaproductivestrategy,andinsteadsuggeststhatcoding
154
shouldseektoconsiderthatwhichcodingmayusuallymiss.Shenotesthat
followingSmith(1995),thesearereferredtoas“RebelBecomings”thoseevents
withintheresearchprocessthatavoidsymbolisation,thatavoidbeingcodedand
includedinaconventionalresearchprocess.Itisintheseinterruptionsthatthe
potentialforreflectionandproductiveanalysisliesandthecreativepotentials
withintheresearchmayflourish.
“Iwouldsuggestthattheactofdwellinginsuchmomentsandwatching–
makingthemgrowlikecrystals,outwardsfromtheedgesispartofanethical
obligationtorelieveoursubjectsfromthebanalityandtheburdenofthe
ethnographicandothercodesthatholdtheminplace”(Maclureetal.2011,p.
173).
Insteadshepositspotentialwithincodingtocreatea“cabinetofcuriosities”,
assemblingtheproductsofapieceofresearchlikeasixteenthandseventeenth
centurydisplayofthefruitsofexploration.Herethecontentsoftheinquiryare
notlaidoutforcontemplationatadistance,butinvolvehandlingandanalysisby
thevisitorthemselvesasobjectsarehiddenindrawsandcompartments.This
explorationofthecontentsofthecabinetinvokesasenseofaffectinthevisitor
astheyrediscoverthecontentsthemselves.Addingtothisshesuggeststhat
codinginsteadofbeingaprocessthatseeksconformation,becomesan
experimentwithdisorder‘inwhichprovisionalandpartialtaxonomiesare
formedbutarealwayssubjecttochangeandmetamorphosis,asnew
connectionssparkamongwords,bodies,objectsandideas”(p.181).Withinsuch
anapproachcodingbecomesnotaboutcreatingastaticrepresentationofthe
datathathasbeencollectedbutemergesasanongoingexperiment,wherethe
revealingofgapsandinconsistencyisasimportantasrevealingoverarching
themes.Indoingthis,shearguesthattheresearcherisabletobemoreopento
thepossibilityof“wonder”bylookingforoccasionswhere‘subjects’maybe
unwillingtodisciplinethemselvestothetermswithinthecodingstructure.Here
wecanlikenthisrelationshipbetweentheresearcherandthecodetothatofthe
philosopherandtheconceptinDeleuze’sWhatisPhilosophy?(Deleuzeetal.,
155
1994)Thuspromotingarelationshipofcooperationratherthandominationand
subordination.
Thecodingprocess
Despitetheaboveconsiderations,adegreeof“completion”wasutilisedand
determinedafterasufficientamountofregularitieswithinthecategoriescould
beidentifiedandanadequateamountofdatawaspresentwithineachtosupport
theanalysis(asinMilesandHuberman,1994).CobinandStrauss(2008),argue
thatcodingiscompletedatthepointwhereeachcategoryisfullydevelopedand
described,withthevariationsineachofthesecategoriesbeingfullydescribed
andinterrelatednessbetweencategoriesidentified.Inanalysingthedata,itwas
necessarytoweighuptheapplicableuseofconclusionsoftheworkwithinthe
contextofthecurrentstudy(i.e.consideringtheaimsofmyfundingpartnersin
thecurrentwork).Indeed,althoughthecurrentworkseekstopushanagendaof
difference,therequiredprojectoutcomesofmyfundingpartnersneededtobe
considered,wherethesuchapproachesmayhaverenderedtheworkless
applicabletotheirprojects.
Thecritiqueabovehowevershouldbenotedandconsideredduringthereading
ofthefollowinganalysis.Inachievingsaturation,Ihaveprivilegedmyown
positionasresearcherasnotedabove,thiswillbeanalysedaspartoftheresults
chapterandemergesnotasaweakness,butratherasalimitationofthebreadth
ofresearchwithinthecurrentstudy.Additionally,however,asMacluresuggests
Idowishmycodesandtheirexpositiontoappearlikeacabinetofcuriosities.I
wishforthemtonotremainstaticbuttoopenupaspaceforreflectionand
response,IwishthereadertodiveintothematerialIamgoingtopresentandto
considertheexpositionofthismaterialalongsidetheirownreflections.
Unfortunately,thereaderwillnotbeabletoremainsafeinapositionof
privilege.
156
Initiallyamultilevelcodingstructuredwasproposedbutthiswaslaterreplaced
byalooserandmoreinterpretiveapproach.Theapproachthatwasusedcanbe
likenedtobothdescriptivecodingandvaluescoding,asitsoughttoboth
documentandcategorisethebreadthofthedatacollectedwhilstalsoensuring
tocapturesubjectiveperspectives.Thecodesthatwereusedtolabelthedata
werecapturedfromparticipantstatements,andtheoriginalwordsof
participantswerepreservedasmuchaspossibleduringanalysis.
Asthestrategythatwasemployeddrewfrombothdescriptiveandstructural
coding,Iwillnowoutlinetheapproachofeachofthesestrategiesinturn.
Descriptivecodingseekstoidentifythetopicswithinthepassagesofqualitative
data,butitisimportanttonotethatitdoesnotabbreviatethedatathatis
present,ratherthecodebecomeslikeabookmarkthatpointstotherelevant
contentwithinthedata(Tesch,1990,p.119).Throughdescriptivecodingan
overviewofthedatacanbeachieved,allowingtheresearchertobeginto
understandtherangeofthedataandthekeythemes.Thisisreferredtoby
Turner(1994),asthe‘basicvocabulary’ofdata,allowingforaninitialnumberof
categoriestobecollectedbeforefurtheranalysisistakenplace.Inaddition,
codingdrewuponavaluescodingmethodology(GableandWolf,1993;
LeCompteandPreissle,1993).Heretheparticipantssubjectivevalues,attitudes
andbeliefsarecodedfor,seekingtonotethereflections,opinions,ideas,and
perceptionsoftheparticipantsthatwereinterviewedinthestudy.Although
valuecodescanbeconstructedaprioritothestudy,codeswereconstructedin
situofthecodingprocessandthevocabularyoftheparticipantswerepreserved
asmuchaspossiblewithinthecodingterms.Afterthematerialhadbeencoded
usingastrategythatderivesfromboththeseformalcodingapproaches,a
directory(orcabinetofcuriosities)wasavailableforaccess.UsingNVIVO,a
varietyofanalyticalprocesseswereappliedtofurtherexplorethedataandthe
relationshipsbetweenthecodesandthematerialwasreadthroughagainas
notesweremadeinordertolinktogethersomeoftheconceptsthathadbeen
revealedthroughtheprocessofanalyzingthematerial.Indeed,someofthe
codesthatwerenotedcannotbelinkedtoeitherofthetwostrategiesdescribed,
157
butratheridentifiedarecurringthemethatIwishedtoexplorefurtherduringa
writtenanalysis.
Validityandreliability
Itisnecessarytoconsiderandcommentonthevalidityandreliabilityofthe
aforementionedprocedure.Theframeworkseekstoembracetheinterpretive
natureofanalysis–recognisingthattheinterpretationbetweentheresearcher
andthetextisunavoidableandthustheproblemisnotoneofbecoming
objectivebutrathermakingtheprocessofanalysisthoroughlydocumentedand
explicit,allowingscrutinytobemadeofthedecisionsthatledtoresearch
conclusions.Thuseffectivecodingseeksnottodevelopatrueunderstandingof
thedata,butratherdevelopaninterpretationthatmakessensegiventhe
conceptualframeworkthatisprovided(Kvale,1996).Effectivelypresented
codingandreliabledataisthusachievedthroughaclearaudittrailofcoding
decisions,linkedtoastrongevidentiarydatabase(Yin,2003)–ratherthanthe
throughtheapplicationofasecondcoderasundertakeninmorequantitative
basedresearch.Indeed,inqualitativeresearch‘thereisnosinglesetof
categorieswaitingtobediscovered’(Dey,1993,p.11)andthusitisnotexpected
thattwoindividualsmayapproachthesameworkinacomparableway(asin
Bauer,2000),orthatthisshouldhaveanimpactonhowreliablethestudyis
perceivedtobe.Workingaloneonthisprojectmeantthatinter-coding
agreements(aswouldbeundertakenbymembersworkingasateam)wasnot
necessary,howevervaluewasnotedintheroleofdiscussingcodingandthe
samplewithcolleaguesattheUniversity.
Aframeworkofdifference
Inordertoanalysethedataobtainedduringconversationswithparticipants,a
DeleuzianinspiredmethodologyofBecomingwasadopted.Thisframework
drawsontheapproachadoptedbyGritalongsideotheranalyticalframeworksto
158
explore“theopeningupofhospitalityspacestodifference”aspartofhisPhD
thesisatStrathclydeUniversity(Grit,2010).InGrit’sworkthisapproachispart
ofamultilevelstrategythatexploresbecoming,affect,theorganisationof
hospitalityspacepredominantlythroughauto-ethnographicwork.UnlikeGrits
workmyapproachseekstoexploreaffect,andtheorganisationofspacethrough
becoming(exploringaffectivebecomingsandbecomingsunwelcomedbythe
organisationofspace)throughasingularframework.However,futureworkmay
seektoexploreaffectandspatialorganisationingreaterdetailandfocusthan
currentlyexplored.Inordertoexplaintheframeworkinthecurrentproject,I
willfirstprovideabackgroundtosomeoftheconceptsusedbeforeexploringthe
basiswithintheliteratureofthecurrentapproach.
Deleuzeandbecoming
WithinthetheoreticalcomponentofthisworkIhavealreadyexploredsome
Deleuzianconceptsinanefforttogobeyondthelimitationsofthecurrent
literatureinatrajectorythathasemergedfrommyownexperienceofthe
literature.Iwillnowexploretheobjectivesoftheanalyticalframeworkadopted
byexploringtheseconceptsofbecomingwithinaspecificcontextandhowthis
opensuppossibilitiesfornewwaysofengagingwithdata.
Muchthathasbeenwrittenoftheconceptofbecominghasemergedfroma
considerationofDeleuze’scollaborativeprojectwithGuattari,particularly
withinfeministscholarship.May(2003),identifiesthattheearliestreference
DeleuzemakestobecomingisinhisworkonNeitzscheandPhilosophy(2006),
whereinadiscussionofHeraclitus(andfollowingNietzsche’stext‘Philosophyin
theTragicAgeoftheGreeks’)hewrites:
“Heraclitushastwothoughtswhicharelikeciphers:accordingtoonethereisno
being,everythingisabecoming;accordingtotheother,beingisthebeingof
becoming.…Thereisnobeingbeyondbecoming,nothingbeyondmultiplicity;
neithermultiplicitynorbecomingareappearancesorillusions.Butneitherare
159
theremultipleoreternalrealitieswhichwouldbe,inturn,likeessencesbe-yond
appearance.Multiplicityistheinseparablemanifestation,essential
transformationandconstantsymptomofunity.Multiplicityistheaffirmationof
unity;becomingistheaffirmationofbeing.”(p.22)
Withinthispassageweseethefundamentalideaswhichremainattheheartof
Deleuze’sconceptofbecoming,andattheheartofhisphilosophicalproject.May
(2003),identifiestheseasfourideasthatremainwithinhiswork–that
becomingisthefinalreality(“thereisnobecomingbeyondbecoming”);that
becomingisalignedwithmultiplicity;thatbecomingisnotatranscendentreality
andthatthroughbecominganaffirmationofbeingisachieved.NotablyinMay’s
workheexploresaconnectionbetweentheconceptofDifferenceindiscussion
withDeleuze(1994).HereinanexpositionofDeleuze’sontologicalposition(one
thatprivilegesdifferenceoverstabilityasbothanempiricalphenomenonthat
governsreality,butalsoasaphilosophicalconceptwithinDeleuze’sown
definitiontoallowfornewperspectivestobedeveloped)Maylinksdifference
withbecomingasitisequatedwiththeunfoldingofmultiplicityordifference.
Becomingisthebeingofbeing,unlikeintraditionalphilosophieswherebeingis
foundinthestableandthesame(i.e.Hegel’sAbsoluteorKant’stranscendental
unityofapperception).ThisisnotedinDifferenceandRepetitionwhereina
discussionofthePlatonicmodel,henotes:
“AmongthemostextraordinarypagesinPlato,demonstratingtheanti-
PlatonismattheheartofPlatonism,arethosewhichsuggestthatthedifferent,
thedissimilar,theunequal–inshort,becoming–maywellbenotmerelydefects
whichaffectcopieslikearansompaidfortheirsecondarycharacterora
counterparttotheirresemblance,butrathermodelsthemselves,terrifying
modelsofthepseudosinwhichunfoldsthepowerofthefalse.”(Deleuze,1994,
p.128).
Thispowerofthefalseisthelocationofthebecoming-thefailureofthe
resemblancethatopensupthepossibilityfordifference.Indeed,asMaynotes
thequestionthatneedstobeaskedisnot‘whatisabecoming?’,butrather‘when
160
isabecoming?’Bydoingthis,Deleuzeavoidsansweringthequestionof‘what’
andsuggestingthatabecomingisa‘thing’,andinsteadseekstoidentify
becomingasthepreludingchaosthatleadstotheproductionofthings.This
conceptisfurtherdevelopedinthecollaborativeworkswithGuattari,wherethe
conceptofminorityandmajorityareusedtoidentifyformsofbecoming.Hereall
becomingsarebecoming-minoridentifyingamovementfromawayfromthe
majority(“referringnottoagreaterrelativequantitybuttothedeterminationof
astateorstandardinrelationtowhichlargerquantities,aswellasthesmallest,
canbesaidtobeminoritarian…Majorityimpliesastateofdomination,notthe
reverse”,DeleuzeandGuattari,2004b,p.291).Thismajorityculturecanbe
likenedtothatoftheframeworkofdominationfoundwithinconceptionsof
Ideologyfoundelsewhereinthecurrentwork.
WhatisimportanttoDeleuzeisnotthecontentofthesebecomingsthemselves
butratherthedestabilisingprocessofbecomingitselfandtheseidentitiesthat
areformedaremereby-productsofamoreimportantprocess.Thusmovements
arepreferredthatfavorthecontinuationofdestablisation,astrajectoriesare
openedthatfavournewwaysofthinkingandbeingintheworld.Itisthroughthe
conceptof‘intensity’thatthesetrajectoriesareidentifiedinthecurrentwork.
FollowingSpinoza,Deleuzeproposesthatbodiesnotonlyhaveanindividuality
inextension,butalsohaveanintensiveindividualityofgreaterimportance,one
thatrepresentsanactiveandpassivepowertobeaffectedandtoaffect.
DrawingonthermodynamicsDeleuzeclassifiesbothextensive(e.g.length,area,
volume,etc)andintensiveproperties(temperature,speed,weight,pressure,etc)
–withthelatterbeingdifferentfromtheformerforitsabilitytodriveprocesses
throughdifferentialgradients(justaswhenahighpressurewhenplacednextto
alowpressurewillleadtomovement–orthunderstormsandhurricanes).High
intensivedifferencesarethusthosethatencouragespontaneousflow,movement
andfurtherprocessesthatdrivethebodywithoutorgans(BwO).
161
ConcludingremarksforChapter2
WithinthischapterIhaveattemptedtooutlinethevariedanddiverse
methodologyappliedwithinthecurrentworkandthetrajectoriesthatledtothe
utilisationofthesemethodologies.WithinthenextchapterIwillnowbeginto
examinesomeoftheresultsobtainedthroughthesemethods,firstprovidinga
discussionofsomeoftheexploratoryresearchundertaken,beforethen
examiningtheresultsofbothGenre1andGenre3.
162
Chapter3:PreliminaryandExploratoryResearch
WalkingAroundtheTurbines
Preliminaryethnographicandexploratoryresearchwasundertakenthroughout
theproject.Ratherthanasconventionalpreliminaryresearchundertaking
beforetheresearchphaseoftheprojectbegan(althoughthisindeedwasthe
case)someexploratoryresearchwasundertakenthroughouttheproject
alongsidedataanalysiscontinuallyseekingtoengagewiththegroupsthatare
botheffectedbyanddeeplyinvolvedinthepoliticalprocessessurroundingthe
developmentofwindenergyinmid-Wales.Theexpertise(bothlayand
technical)onthesubjectdisplayedbythesegroupsprovideavaluablesourceof
informationinaccessibleelsewhereand,asthecurrentresearchonthistopicis
oftenmetwithdistrust,itwasimportanttobeastransparentandinclusiveas
possible.
Inordertoachieveanunderstandingofthemajorconcernsfeltbymembersof
thepublictowardstheimpactsontourismfromproposeddevelopments,itwas
importantduringtheearlystagesofresearchtoattendanumberofthepublic
andprivatemeetingsheldwithdevelopmentpartnerssuchasNationalGridheld
throughoutMid-Walesonthisissue.Duringthesemeetingsitbecameclearthat,
asamajorcontributortotheeconomyofMid-Wales,tourismpresentedakey
concernforthosethatfelttheywouldbeeffectedbyplannedwindenergy
developmentsunderTAN8.
Publicmeetingswerepopularwithmanycontainingmorethan200people
presentandengagingindebateontheissue.Commonpointsofconcernwere
addressedatallmeetingssuchas:thesuggestedimpactonhousepricesinthe
region;transportissuesthatmayemergeduringdevelopment(particularlyan
issueinNewtownduringthedevelopmentofthewindfarminthesurrounding
areas);andimpactsontourism.Oftenthesemeetingstooktheformofapolitical
debatewherefourspeakerswerepresent,eachrepresentingapointona
spectrumrangingfromconservatismtopro-industryandgreenactivists.This
163
falsebinarypositioningthosewithconcernsfortheclimatealongsidepro-
industryenergycompaniesisproblematicandlikelyemergesfromtheclimate
changeskepticismoftenfoundinthesemeetings(thustheexpertslikely
representapro-andanti-climatechangebinarytothoseinattendance).
Skepticismtowardsthescienceofclimatechangewasoftenexpressedduring
thesemeetings,withdiscussionsamongmembersofthepublicbecomingheated.
AtaparticularmeetingduringOct2011inNewtown,whilstGeorgeMonbiot
(journalistandpoliticalactivist)wasgivingapragmaticcritiqueofthe
economicsbehindenergyproduction(emphasisingtheneedtotakeownership
ofenergyproductioninsteadofexploitingdevelopingcountries)amemberof
theaudiencestoodandbeganshoutingatthespeakers:“you’repreachingyour
ownreligion”.
Thesamefaceswereoftenfoundinmeetings–andIbecamefamiliarwitha
numberofkeyactivists.Sometookaninterestinthisresearchproject,andasked
questionsonthetopicofstudy.Thiswasoftenaccompaniedbynotetaking.
Duringquestionsessionswithspeakersattheseevents,residents(asactivists)
displayedadetailedknowledgeandexpertiseofthetechnology,oftenquoting
scientificresearchtosupporttheircomments.Attimesthesescientificsources
wereoftenflawedandanumberofcommentatorsoftendisplayedsignsof
confirmationbiasorlackofunderstandingofthescientificcommunityleading
themtoattributeequalbearingtofringeresearchersastheywouldscientific
consensus(evidentincallsfora‘balanced’argument).However,this‘lay
expertise’thatwasexpressedhasbeensubjecttoresearchintheliterature
(Epstein,1995;Kerretal.,1998;Jauffret-Roustide,2009;CollinsandEvans,
2002)andmayrepresentabodyofknowledgethatwouldbenefitplanningand
researchapproachesthathaveasofyetdisregardedormarginalisedthe
inclusionofresidents.
Inadditiontoattendingpublicmeetings,preliminaryresearchwasundertaken
byattendinganorganised7milewalkamongstturbineswiththegroup‘Socially
Leicestershire’(Figure8).DespitebeingbasedinGilmorton,Leicestershireand
notinthetargetareaofthecurrentstudy,thewalkallowedfortheexploration
164
ofwalkingmethodologiesbytalkingtotheparticipantsonthewalkaboutmy
methodologicalideasanddiscussingvariousapproacheswiththem.Ialsosought
toevaluatehowtheparticipantsofthewalkrespondedtotheturbinesinthe
countrysideandhowthisexperienceshapedtheirperceptionsoftheobjects.In
ordertodothisIaskedeachparticipant6questionsviaemailfollowingthe
eventseekingtofindoutaboutthethingsthestoodoutonthewalk,howthey
walkmadethemthinkaboutnatureandthecountrysideandaskingthemto
provideanarrativeofthedayandofthewalk.Againhereresponsessupported
previouspreliminaryfindings(andfindingssupportedthroughoutthemain
study).Theseincludedresponsestoturbinesfocusingonissuesrelatedtoa
distrustofpoliticsorthemotivesbehindwindenergydevelopmentandalackof
engagementwiththe‘ordinary’personduringtheconstructionandplanning
phasesofdevelopment:
Figure8,Walkingamongsttheturbinesduringpreliminaryfieldwork
“SinceIreadthebusinesspapers7daysaweek,Iamamongstthosewho
questiontheappropriatenessandnecessityofWTsbeingplantedinan
165
environmentclosetoresidentialhousing–andthequestionofwhetherit’salla
‘political’statementmadebysuccessivegovernmentstoboasthowtheyare
meetinganEUtarget-andindividuallandowners/investorsarejumpingonto
thebackofthistomakemoneythroughsellingbacktotheNationalGrid–
irrespectiveastowhatthisdoestothelandscapeandthefeelingsoftheordinary
personlivingnearby!”(Bill,April2013).
Methodologicallytheapproachsufferedfromalowresponserateasinterviews
wereconductedfollowingtheeventoveremail.Despiteprovidingsome
preliminaryfindings,thisapproachwasdroppedinfavorofface-to-face
interviewsinlatterstrategiesallowingformoreaconversationalinterviewstyle
thatfacilitatedaricherdatacollection.
Thewalkalsopresentedaturningpointinmyownresearchjourneyandby
confrontingtheobjectsofmystudyIbegantoconsideralternativeapproachesto
understandingturbines.Priortothistheturbinespresentedthemselvesasan
objectthatalwayseludedunderstandingandthusrequiredgreaterresearchin
ordertobeunderstood–withtheassumptionthattheanswertotheproblem
was‘outthere’tobediscovered.ItisatthispointduringtheresearchthatI
consideredthattheturbinesmaynotthemselvesbeexplainablebutrather,in
theirinabilitytobeaccommodated,representthediscordanceinmy
understandingormyphilosophicalapproachestoresearch.Thisledtoajourney
analysingwindenergyinthetermsofpsychoanalyticaltheory(turbineasobjet
petita)andanexplorationofthemeswithinthepsychoanalyticaldiscoursethat
seektoaccountforandmovebeyondthesiteofantagonism(thatinthiscase
emergesduetothelimitationswiththecurrenteconomicsystem).This
approachseeksnottounderstandtheobjectbutratheridentifiesitasa
symptomofalarger,underlyingissue;and,althoughthemedicalbasisfor
psychoanalysishasbeenlargelydiscredited,asadiscourseorphilosophical
traditionitcanhelptoraiseinterestingapproachesthatmayotherwisebe
absentfromtheliterature.Theseconceptsarediscussedinchapter2wherethe
limitationswithintheseapproachesareoutlinedandamethodologyisproposed
thatbuildsonanddevelopsthislineofflight.
166
AnadditionalwalkwasorganisedaspartoftheESRCFestivalofSocialScience
priortosecondphasedataanalysis(Figure9).Agroupofeightvolunteerswere
takenonawalkclosetotheNantYrAriansiteandwereencouragedtodiscuss
theirthoughtsonwindturbinesandtheplanneddevelopmentsinMid-Wales.
InvitationsforthewalkweresenttocommunitygroupsthroughoutMid-Wales
andtransportwasprovidedfromAberystwythtoensurethatthosewithout
transportwereabletomakethewalkshouldtheywish.Afewofthewalkers
werefromthelocalramblingorganisationandexpressedaclearanti-turbine
developmentstance(inlinewiththestanceoftheorganisation);onewalker
joinedfromthelocalGreenpeacegroupandtheotherwalkersweregeneral
membersofthepublic.
Figure9,Posterofwalkamongsttheturbines
SomeMScstudentsandlecturersalsojoinedthewalk.Participantsweregiven
camerasandasktodocumenttheirwalk,takingpicturesofthingsthatappeared
interestingtothemaswewalkedalongthelandscape,movingclosertothe
turbinesbeforenavigatingapatharoundthenineturbinedevelopmentat
Ystumtuen.Thewalkhadathreefoldpurpose,firstlytoexploreparticipatory
researchmethodologiescombiningwalkingandphotographytoexplore
167
potentialconceptsforfutureresearchfollowingthecurrentstudy;secondlyto
engagethelocalcommunityinsocialscienceresearch,providingapolitically
neutralspacewherelocalpeoplewhofeelstronglyonthisissueareableto
performtheirownresearch–leadingtheresearchprocessthroughtheuseof
participatorymethods;andthirdlyasapieceofresearchinitself,providinga
richsourceofdatathatinformtheapproachesinthepresentstudy.
Duringthiswalkitwasfoundthattheuseofphotographyhadpotentialin
capturingmomentsofcreativitythatmayotherwisebemissed.Howeverthis
approachedrequiredgreaterdedicationfromparticipants,andwouldnotbe
applicableforcapturingtheexperiencesoftouristsmovingthroughthe
landscapeandbeyondthereachofthestudybeforeIwasabletocollectthe
cameraanddiscusstheirimages.Itwouldbeinterestingtofollowupthecurrent
studywithmoreworkinthisarea,exploringinteractionsofbodieswithinthe
landscapethroughphotography,workingwithlocalpeopleasparticipantsto
allowforextendeddiscussionsontheimagescreated.
Thenextsectionofthischapterwilldiscusspreliminaryworkundertakenin
WhiteleeWindFarmvisitorcentre.Here,workspecificallysoughttoconsider
theinteractionsbetweenvisitors/touristsandthewindturbinesandhowIcould
begintodevelopanapproachtoanswermyresearchquestions.
CaseStudy:Developingawindfarmintoatouristattraction:
WhiteleeWindFarmvisitorcentre
Inexploringthepotentialforwindenergytofunctionaspartofatourist
attraction,itisinterestingtodiscussEurope’slargestwindfarm,sitedonthe
EagleshamMoor,approximately13milesdrivefromcentralGlasgow.Thewind
farmishometo215turbinesthatcangenerate539MWofenergy,enoughto
power290,000homesandplansarecurrentlyunderwaytoextendthis
developmentbyafurther12MW,boostingthecapacitytocoverover300,000
homes.However,inadditiontothewindturbines,thesitehousesavisitorcentre
168
and70kmoftrailsthatcanbefreelyaccessedbythepublic.Thesetrailsareused
forcycling,walkingandhorseridingandallowvisitorstogetupclosetothe
turbinesthattoweroverthelandscape.Thesitepresentsaninterestingcase
studyasalongsidethedevelopmentofthewindfarm,the£2millionvisitor
centrehasbecomeatouristattractionitselfandhasrecentlyjoinedthe
AssociationofScottishVisitorAttractions(ASVA),afterrecordingnearly250,000
visitorssince2009.Thesitehasreceivedconsistentlypositivecommentsfrom
visitors,fortheopportunitiesitprovidesthemtowalk,cycleandenjoythe
countrysideinthesurroundingsofthetechnology.Whenwalkingaroundthe
site,avisitorisabletoexperiencethemagnitudeoftheturbinesastheytower
over,andthesoundasthehugebladescutthroughthewind–asoundthatis
inimitable.Indeed,thissoundhasbeenthesubjectofpublicprotestdespite
evidencesuggestingnoadverseimpactonhealth(Colbyetal.,2009).Despitethe
profusionofthisotherworldlysoundwhenclosetotheturbines,turninga
cornerandwalkingtowardsthevisitorcentreresultsinthesoundquietingtoa
dimhum,whilsttheturbinesremaininview.Theviewoftheturbinesfromthe
visitorcentrecanbeseenbelowinFigure10.
Figure10,Viewfromthevisitorcentre
169
Targetingawidedemographicofvisitors,thesiteoffersfacilitiesforboth
childrenandadults,visitingresidents,dayvisitorsandeducationtourists.This
casestudyexploresthefacilitiesavailableatthesiteandthedevelopment
processofthecentredrawingonobservationandunstructuredinterviews
duringasitevisitinJuly2012.
Facilitiesandfeaturesofthesite
Thevisitorcentreisbestexplainedbyseparatingthesiteintothreedistinct
areas:theshopandcafé,thelearninghubandtheexhibition.Thesethreeareas
arehousedwithinthesinglebuildinglocatedclosetothefrontentranceofthe
windfarmwithit’sowndedicatedcarpark.
Locatedwithinthecarparkisabladefromoneoftheturbines,demonstrating
thesheersizeofthemachineryandofferingaphotoopportunitytovisitors.Inits
unfamiliaritytheobjectdrawstheeyeandencouragesfurtherinspection.Istood
infrontoftheobjectandstretchmyarmswidecomparingmyselftotheblade.A
colleaguetookaphoto,butmyfigureisbarelyvisible,dwarfedduetothesizeof
theblade.Onenteringthebuilding,thevisitorismetbyareceptiondeskand
informationpointthatfeaturesanumberofpostersandflyersforupcoming
eventsatthesite.Adjacenttothisdeskisanopeningthatopensintoanopen
plancafé/shopwherevisitorsareabletopurchasewindfarmrelatedgifts(such
ast-shirts,paperweights,postcards,jewelry)inadditiontoscientificallythemed
children’stoys(likelyduetothepartnershipwithGlasgowScienceCentrethat
willbediscussedshortly).Thecaféoffersaselectionofhotandcoldfoods,
drinksandchildren’smeals,whichareservedintheviewofalargewindowthat
overlooksthewindfarm.Theenvironmentisquietandlight,andthewooden
beamsandstructuresthatoverarchthecaféhelptocreateanimageofaspace
thathasconsideredtheecologyofthearea.Thisisreinforcedthroughposters,
emphasisingtheconsciousconstructionofthefacility,explainingtovisitorsthat
thesiteisanextensionofthenatureseenthroughthewindows.Posters
170
throughoutlinkthesitewithnatureprojectsfromtheRSPB,electriccarcharging
stationsoutsideofthesiteallowvisitorstochargetheirenvironmentallyfriendly
vehiclesandsignshighlighttheuseofrenewableenergysourcesinpoweringthe
site.AnexampleofsomeofthismaterialisseenbelowinFigure11.
Figure11,Naturediaryfromthevisitorcentre,whereyoungpeopleareableto
recordthethingsthattheyseearoundthesite.
TeriNicklin,SPRMarketingsaid:“Ultimatelythetargetsofthesiteweretomake
somethingthatwastrulysustainableandtogivepeopleaccesstosuchaunique
resource.Everythingwedidatthecentrewasdonetothehigheststandard,even
thematerialitwasbuiltfrom–we’vegotnaturaltimber,we’vegotnatural
ventilationinthebuildingandweusenaturallighting.Thesitehasanelectric
vehiclechargingareaandweuserecycledwateranduselocalsuppliesinthe
caféandshops.BasicallyitgetsaccesstooneofthemostuniquesitesinEurope”
Duringinterview,Janicenotedthatthesiteaimedtoprovidea‘balanced’account
ofthedebatesurroundingwindturbinesandindeedbothsidesofthedebateare
represented.Tothedegreethiscouldbeconsideredbalancedisdebatableand
dependentontheuseoftheterm;ifthistermisreferringtoarepresentationof
171
thedebateinthetermsofthescientificconsensusonwindenergythenindeedit
isaccurate.However,ifbalanceisherereferringtoequalrepresentationofboth
sidesoftheturbinedebate(maybethiscouldbereferredtoas‘falsebalance’?,
BoykoffandBoykoff,2004)thenindeeditdoesnotfulfillthiscriteria,andthe
siteappearstobeasuccessfullyoperatingPRexerciseinsupportofwindenergy.
Arguably,inthiscase,a‘falsebalance’mayhaveanappropriateplacewithinthe
windturbinedebatewherebothsidesoftheconflicthavetherighttocontribute
onissuesofpowerrelationsandidentitycanemerge.
JaniceMcLaughlin,DirectorofOnshoreDevelopmentsaid:“itwastherereallyto
provideanimpartialeducationalresource–itisnottheretopromotethewind
farm,whichisprobablyclearfromthematerialyou’veseenonline.It’sthereto
provideabalancetoallsidesofthedebateandwiderinformationaround
renewableenergyandwindfarmdevelopment”
Theexhibitionspacepresentsanexampleofsuccessfulsciencecommunication.
Hereanumberofattractionsarepresentforvisitorstoengagewith,most
notablyaquizwherevisitorscantakeapictureoftheirfacetobesuperimposed
onawindturbinewhileansweringquestions.Thequestionsareinformativeand
theanswersprovidesomeinterestinginsightsintowindpower.Onenotable
examplethatsurprisedbothmyselfandcolleagueswasonthetimerequired
beforeawindenergydevelopmenthadpaidoffconstructioncosts(farlessthan
expected)andanotherexplainedthemostefficientwindbladedesigns
(interestinglyrejectedastheyarelessvisuallyappealing).Otheractivities
includehandsonengagementwithdemonstrationsofwindenergyconstruction
sites,allowingvisitorstoconstructtheirown‘windfarm’andavideosoughtto
linkWhiteleewiththehistoricaltraditionofindustrialdevelopmentinScotland.
Theturbinesarethuspositionedwithinasymbolicdimensionofperceptionthat
linksthemwith'higherconcepts'(Devine-Wright,2005)suchasanestablished
nationalindustrialheritageandglobalconcernsoverenergyproduction(asin
Pasqualetti,2000)(seeFigure12below).Thisaspectofthesiteismanagedby
GlasgowScienceCentre.SRPnotethat‘visitorscentresarenotwhat[they]do’
andsoaprocesswasopenedwherebysciencecommunicationorganisationscan
172
bidontheopportunitytodesignandmanageavisitorcentreonthesite.This
biddingprocesswaswonbyGlasgowScienceCentre,whoalreadyhada
preexistingrelationshipwithSRP,workingwiththemonanumberofoutreach
projects–bringingsciencedemostogalleriesandpublicexhibitionsand
workingwithothercommunitiesclosetowindfarms.Aneducationspaceis
presentwithinthevisitorcentrewhereschoolsandvisitorscanparticipatein
classroomstyledemonstrations.Theroomisbrightlycolouredwithchildren’s
drawingsonthewalls,andtheequipmentplacedaroundtheperipheriesofthe
roomgiveittheappearanceofamessylab–awelcomingatmosphereforyoung
scientists.Talkingwithoneofthetechnicianspresentatthesite,itappearsthat
duringdemonstrationsvisitorsaregivenahands-ontaughtworkshop,building
theirownwindturbinesandengagingwiththescienceinawaythatis
entertaining.Glasgowsciencecentrealsorunguidedbustoursaroundthewind
farm,providingtheopportunityfortouriststogetup-closetothetechnologyina
waythattheymayhavenotbeenotherwiseable.Heretheturbinesarecarefully
framedasobjectsworthyofintrigueandcuriosity,readyfortheawaitingeyesof
theexploringsemioticians(Urry,2011,p.13).
Figure12,Tiledwallfromtheexhibitionareaofthesite
173
Inadditiontotheattractionsavailabletotourists,thevisitorcentreoperatesasa
venuethatcanbehiredout-anendeavorthatappearstohaveemerged
organicallywithoutpreviousplanning.Followingtherequestsfromvisitors,the
sitehasnowbecomeavenueformeetings,partiesandspecialevents.Despite
SRPnotingthatthiswasnotasignificantventureforthemandis‘justniceto
have’itisinterestingtonotethesignificancethathasbeenplacedonsuch
venturesonthewebsite.Bothvenuehireandbirthdaypartieshavetheirown
sectionswithinthevisitorcentrepage,aswellasaccesstothevenuehireguide,
abirthdaypartybrochureandimagesthatadvertisethevenue.Whiteleealso
hosttheirowneventsatthewindfarmincludinga‘meettheexpert’series,
wherevisitorscanlearn‘Whitelee-relatedthings’fromvisitingspeakers.Recent
speakersincludeRSPBrepresentativesandScottishPowerRenewablesown
habitatandbiodiversityecologist.Moreinnovativeandunusualuseofthesiteis
seeninpostersthatarepositionedthroughoutthevisitorcentre,advertising
opportunitiesforturbinetaichiwithinthewindfarm,andmotherandtoddler
walkinggroups(Figure13).
Figure13,TurbineTaiChiposter
174
Teri:“they’rejustnicetohave.Inallhonestyitwasn’tsomethingwewere
anticipatinganditcameaboutfromdemandfrommembersofthepublic.People
goupthereandtheyjustloveitandwekeptgettingrequestsfrompeopleasking
tohireitfordifferenteventssoitwasjustreallyaresponsetodemand”
Developmentofthevisitorcentre
SPRhavenotedthatinthebeginningofthedevelopment,theintentiontobuilda
visitorcentrewasnotanintentionandthroughdiscussionswithstakeholdersan
opportunityemergedto‘dosomethingdifferent’.
Janice:“Itemergedearlyoninthedevelopmentprocessofthewindfarmasa
gemofanideaandevolvedovertime,duringdiscussionswithcouncilsandother
stakeholders.Thedevelopmentprocessforwindfarmsareverylongand
whiteleewasprobablyasmuchas10yearsinthedevelopmentprocess,soits
notsomethingthathappenedquickly,itssomethingthatevolvedoveraperiodof
timeduringdiscussions.Earlyonwecouldseethatthiswindfarmwasquite
unique,verylarge,largestinEuropebyalongshotandveryclosetolarge
centresofpopulationandtherewasanobviousopportunitytodosomething
differenthere.”
AsthelargestwindfarminEurope,Whiteleerepresentsauniquesiteoffering
notonlyanopportunitytogazeatsomethingoutoftheordinarybutan
opportunitytoseewhatwasatthetime,akeysymboloftheindependent
Scotlandcampaign.
Theynotethattheresponsetothevisitorcentrehasbeen‘overwhelmingly’
positive,withvisitorstravellingfromboththelocalvicinitybutalso
internationally.Theynoteanumberofkeyregularcustomersoftenvisit
throughouttheweektoenjoythecaféandthesceneryforwalkingandoften
familiesvisitduringtheweekend.
175
Teri:“we’reoverwhelmedwiththepositivitywegetback.Peoplecommenton
thepeaceandquietatthesite,thetranquility,theaccessitgrantsthemtothe
widersite.Inallhonesty,we’vebeenastoundedatthepositivitywe’vereceived,
peoplehavereallytakenownershipofit,especiallyalotoflocalpeople–they
feelitistheirwindfarm.”
Andindeedthesiteissomethingthatcanbeenjoyed.Despiteconcernsoften
notedaboutthenoiseofturbines,experiencingthewindfarmatadistanceand
atthefootofawindturbinecanreallyhelptoalleviateconcerns.Whilststanding
atthevisitorcentre,notmorethan10minuteswalkfromthenearestturbinethe
‘whooshing’thatdominatesthelandscapewhenstandingatthebaseofaturbine
isbarelyaudible.
Andthusitisarguablethattheunderlyingintentionofthedevelopmentis
revealed.Thedevelopmentappearstobetailoredtoaddresscommonconcerns
overwindenergy,targetingthosethatareoftenmostexpressedbyanti-turbine
lobbygroups.ThepartnershipwiththeRSPBismostnotable,reversingtheoften
quotedviewthatwindturbinedevelopmentsaredetrimentaltobird
populations,sharingtheconcernsofthegeneralpublicontheissuebutalso
positioningWhiteleeasanareaofconservation.However,duringinterview,
whenaskedonthisissue,SRPrejectedthatthiswastheirintention:
Janice:“Ifweweretodevelopawindfarmandwehadlocalopposition,would
weproposeavisitorcentretotrytoalleviatesomefears?Iwouldsayprobably
not.Itsprobablyaseparateissue–Idon’tseethat.”
Thepotentialforthevisitorcentretoactuallyworktoalleviateconcernand
accuratelypresent'controversy'isanareathatrequiresfurtherresearch,but
currentresearchinvisitorstudiesatsciencecentreswouldsuggestthatsuch
approachescanbeproblematic(forexample,MacdonaldandSilverstone,1992's,
detailedaccountofrepresentationsofcontroversyattheScienceMuseum).Teri
howevermadenoteoftheimpactthevisitorcentremayhaveoncommunity
176
groupsandmadeexplicitmentionoftacklingmisconceptionsconcerningnoise
pollution:
Teri:“Ithinkwhatitdoeshelp,ifyoueverhaveanycommunitygroupswhoare
unsureorwhohaveneverexperiencedawindfarmbefore,wefindwhenwe
takethemuptoWhitelee,weshowthemthevisitorcentreandwhenyougo
thereyou’reliterally100metresawayfromaturbineandyouseethemall
turningandhearhowquiettheyareandexperience–andyougo,ifthat’sthe
largestwindfarminEuropeyou’vegottheexperiencefirsthandofbeingin
amongsttheturbinesandspeakingtostaffathevisitorcentre.Weoftenfindthat
peoplewho’veneverexperiencedturbinescomingtothevisitorcentrehelps.”
Engagingwiththepoliticalnatureofwindenergy
JanicenotedtherecentvisitofWelshEnergyMinister,JohnGriffiths,suggesting
atthepresenceofthepoliticalinterestthatwouldallowforthedevelopmentofa
similarprojectinWales;however,theviabilityofsuchaprojectwouldrequire
greaterresearch.Whiteleepresentsaninterestingcasestudyofwhat
undoubtedlyisasuccessfullyoperatingvisitorcentrewithinawindfarm
development.Theresourceprovidesasiteofengagementforlocalcommunities
inanearbywindfarmprojectanditselfisdependentonthesecommunitiesfor
theiruseofitsresources–theextentofthisdependencywasnotmadeclearby
SRP.Inaddition,thepartnershipwithGlasgowsciencecentreallowsthe
educationalresourcesoftheGSCtoextentbeyondthecityandprovidean
educationalresourceforlocalcommunitiesthatisindeedintheinterestofSRP.
Thiswasnotedduringinterview:
Janice:“Itsnotthatyouwouldproposeavisitorcentreateverywindfarmto
overcomepeoplesfears,butasaneducationalresource,ifpeopleatother
developmentsiteshaveconcernswe’reabletobringthemalongtoWhiteleeand
letthemseeandtohelpthemunderstand.”
177
Thistopdownapproach(alludingtooutdateddeficittheoriesofunderstanding,
p.16)mayindeedimposelimitationstotheextentthatvisitorscanbe‘helpedto
understand’butneverthelessthisinterestinengagementfrombothparties,
mediatedthroughthevisitorcentre,allowsforanattractionthatisenjoyable.
TheexperienceatthevisitorcentreisbestcomparedtoNantYrArianvisitor
centre,wherebyrevenueisgeneratedinthemainthroughthecaféandcoffee
shop,supportedbythegiftshop.Likewise,thevisitorcentreoperatesasan
educationalresourcethatmaybringschoolsandcommunitygroupsintothe
area.ThemostnotabledifferencesinWhiteleeistheirpromotionof‘alternative’
classesandusesofthelandscapeinexerciseswhichmayhelptobringadditional
groupsofvisitorstothearea.ItisalsoworthnotingthatasiteinMid-Wales
wouldnotbenefitfrombeinglocatedtoamajorpopulationsitesuchasGlasgow
andthiswillberequiredtobefactoredintoanyproposal.
Indeed,theexperienceatthesiteisenjoyableandprovidesanewlevelof
engagementwiththetechnologythatsurroundthecentre,howeverifweareto
considersomeofthelatterpointsnotedinthischapter,somelimitationsmaybe
revealed.LikeGrit’svisittothemuseum,thespacepermitsenjoymentinaway
thatiscontrolledandspecified,andvisitorengagementremainspassive.The
wayswithinwhichvisitorscanengagewiththetechnologyisclearlydefined
eitherthroughwalkwaysandcycleroutesthatweaveanacceptable(maybethe
mostpicturesque)patharoundthewindfarm,orthroughstructuredsessions
andinteractionsmediatedthroughatourguide/museumexhibition.Designated
pathsareoutlinedforthevisitortotravelthroughonthelandscape,although
thereisapossibilityforonetowanderoffthepassandgetclosertotheturbine
andcomefacetofacetothespinningblades.Althoughmoreunusual‘becomings’
thatmayresultmaydrawsomestares.Thisraisesquestionsonthepotentialof
thespacetoprovokedebate,newideasandnewwaysofthinking–something
thatIhavearguedisessentialtoaddressdistrustanddisillusionmentthatdrive
perceptionsofthetechnologyandofclimatescience.Ormaybethespacedoes
havethispotentialbutitemergesinawaythatisnotvisibleimmediatelytothe
visitoruntilamomentofserendipity?Ormaybethispotentialexistswithinall
spaces?
178
PotentialwithintheencountersatWhitelee
Inconcludingthissection,Inowwishtoconsidermyresearchquestionsand
reflectonhowthesortsofresponsesIhadduringpreliminaryresearchat
Whiteleecaninformthestudy:
Impactsonvisitorbehavior
Thesitevisitandcorrespondinginterviewsdidnotsuggestanynegativeimpact
onvisitingbehaviortotheregionfromtheconstructionofthesite.However,
unliketheareaunderinvestigationinthecurrentwork,thesitewasnotformally
knownforit’s‘natural’beautyanddidnothaveapre-existingtourismproduct.
Thesitewasanewdevelopmentinanotherwisevacantsite–andthusavoided
potentialconflictswithpreexistingexpectationsofvisitors.Althoughweare
unabletodetermineanynegativeimpactfromthesite–thesuccessful
applicationofavisitorcentrealongsidethewindturbinedevelopmentsuggests
thatthereisdemandforsuchaconceptfromthepublic.Visitorsclearlytookan
interestinthefacilitiesofferedbythesite–boththosedependentontheunique
natureofthedevelopmentanditspositionalitytothewindturbines(TaiChi
amongsttheturbines,scienceworkshops,etc.)andthoseindependenttothe
windturbines(thecafé,toiletfacilitiesforwalkers,etc.).Thevisitorcentre
transformedthelarge-scaleindustrialfacilityintoasiteaccessibletotourists–
anditisdifficulttoimaginethepresenceofvisitorsinitsabsence.
Howdopeoplerespondtowindenergydevelopmentsinrurallandscapes?
Inthinkingaboutthisquestion,Iamrequiredtoreflectonmyownreactionsand
experienceswalkingaroundthewindturbinesatWhitelee.Thepresentationof
theturbinesatthesitecreatedanopportunityformetoexaminethemasa
curiosityasavisitor.Indeed,thefirsttimewearepresentedwithaturbineisat
theentranceofthesitewherealargebladeispresentedaloneinthecarkparkas
astagedphotoopportunityforvisitors.Istoodinfrontofthebladeandstretched
179
outmyarmsasmycolleaguetookmyphoto.Aswelookedatthephotographthe
sheersizeoftheturbinebladesbecameclear,thissinglebladereducingmetoa
minorfeatureinthephoto.Wethenwalkedthepathsbetweentheturbinesand
hadtheopportunitytocomefacetofacewiththestructures.Thenoiseofthe
spinningbladescuttingtheair,andthesheerscaleofthestructureswere
startling–andacolleaguecommentedthattheywereconcernedthatattimes
thebladesfelttoocloseforcomfortastheyrotatedaboveourheads.Thescaleof
thebladesandverticalstructureweredifficulttocomprehend–incomparableto
anythingexperiencedineverydaylife.Experiencingthesestructuresupclose
gavethelandscapesurroundingthevisitorsiteanotherworldlyappearance,
fillingvisitorswithaweandwonderatboththetechnicalmarvelrequiredto
buildthesehugestructures-andthewaythemovementofthebladesgivesthe
turbineanappearanceoflife.Itsinterestingtoconsiderthatexperiencingthe
turbineinthiswaymayprovideanopportunityforthevisitortoglimpsethe
nexusofwherelifeandtechnologymeet,drawingnewparallelsbetweenthe
worldtheyseearoundthemcreatedbyhumansandtheworldcreatedthrough
millionsofyearsofevolution.
Developingaresponsetoclimatechangethroughtourism?
Herethesitemaybeparticularlysuccessfulasitallowsvisitorstolearnmore
aboutrenewableenergyandtoexperiencesomeofthesciencearoundclimate
changeinawaythatisentertaining.Thevisitorcentrehostedanumberof
attractionsthatprovedtobeinterestingandprovidedmewithinformationthatI
hadnotknownpriortovisiting.ThepartnershipwithGlasgowScienceMuseum
isalsointerestingasitestablishesaformalrelationshipwithascience
communicationcentrethatcanprovideteachingtoyoungpeoplewithgreater
impartialitythantheorganisationdependentonrenewableenergyforits
income.
Asnotedthekeyformsofengagementhoweverremaintrappedwithinatop
downapproachof‘educating’visitorsonthetechnology–withsomeofthemore
180
interestingandpotentiallyproductiveideasemergingasaby-productofthe
development(e.g.thewindturbinetaichi),emergingasideasfrompatronsof
thesitewhothenestablishedtheirownusesofthefacilities.Itistheselatter
sessionsthatmayofferanopportunityforvisitorstogainanunderstandingof
theturbines–upclose–openingupthepossibilitytothinkdifferentlyabout
howtheyunderstandwhatthesestructuresmean,andhowtheyfitintoalong
termstrategytoaddressanthropogenicglobalwarming.Theseideasdosuggest
apotentialwithinthesesitesifmorespacesweregiventoallowunstructured
creativityfromvisitors,allowingthemtodeveloptheirownresponsetothe
structuresandcreateopportunitiestosharethesewithothers.
Waysofmeasuringthis?
Proposingthepotentialwithinthesenewwaysofencounteringthetechnology
doesproposesomenewchallengesonrecordingandmeasuringtheimpactof
theseexperiences–andthepotentialthattheseexperiencescreateforvisitors.
ThereflectiveprocessIundertookfollowingthevisit,recordingmyexperiences
andinteractionsprovedusefulinwritingthissectionandasimilarreflective
diarymaybeusefultorecordsomeoftheresponsestoparticipants.The
applicabilityinthecurrentstudyislimitedhoweverasvisitorswillnotbeableto
becontactedfollowingtheinitialmeeting.Adegreeoftrainingwouldalsobe
neededtoallowparticipantsto‘see’inthewayrequiredinordertoengagewith
theexperienceinawaythatwouldprovidemeaningfulinformation.Inchapter2,
Ihaveexploredhowwemaybegintoanalysesomeoftheseexperiences,
drawingonparticipant-ledprocessesandcreatingamoreopenformof
interview/conversationtoallowtheparticipantgreaterflexibilitytoleadthe
conversationallowingforthesemorecreativemomentstobecaptured.
Concludingremarks
WithinthischapterIhaveoutlinedsomeofthepreliminaryresearchconducted
aspartofthisthesis.Theworkoutlinedinthischapterhadasignificantimpact
181
inshapingthedirectionofthecurrentproject,andhelpedtoclarifyandinform
myideasinlatterpartsoftheprojectdiscussedinChapters4and5.
IndeedWhitelee’sprovidedacasestudyofasuccessfullyimplementedvisitor
attractionbasedaroundthewindturbines.Thisfedintothedevelopmentofthe
surveyutilisedinChapter4,wherethepotentialforasimilardevelopmentis
exploredwithinMid-WaleswhichincontrasttotheGlasgowsitehasamore
naturefocuseddestinationimage.WithinChapter4,Iexploredthepotentialfora
sitesimilartothatdevelopedinWhiteleetobeadoptedinMidWales–where
thewindturbinesbecomepositionedassomethingunusualforTouriststoGaze
uponandlearnaboutwhilsttheyareabletotakeadvantageofthefacilitiesand
greateraccessprovidedbyadevelopment.WithinthischapterIhighlightthat
althoughthereispotentialwithinthissitetoprovideaneducationalresource,
thehighlystructurednatureoftheengagementhasthepossibilityofpotentially
limitingthesortsof‘creativebecomings’Iseektoexploreopportunitiesto
nurture.Theseareasoflimitationwereexploredwithinthewalkaroundthe
turbineswherelessofastructurebothintermsoftheresearchprocessandthe
visititselfwithinthewalkallowedforinterestinginteractionswithinthe
landscapetoemergeandbecollected.Thisprocessallowedsomeofthe
methodologicalapproachestobetestedandtrialed,andresultedinthemethod
thatisutilisedinChapter5.
Thecurrentprojectwillnowseektostartaconversationthatwillcontinuewith
thetrajectorybeganhereinansweringthesequestions,exploringthepotential
withintheencounterwiththeturbineinthesightseeingspacetoopenuplinesof
flight,creatingpossibilitiesfornewwaysofimaginingthesespaces.
182
Chapter4:Results–ParticipantSurvey
Introduction
DuringJulyandAugust2012;152surveyswereconductedwithvisitorsatthree
sitesinMid-Wales–BwlchNantyrArianvisitorcentre,Aberystwythtourist
InformationCentre(TIC),andtheHafodHotel,DevilsBridge.Theselocations
wereselectedbasedontheirproximitytothethenproposedprojectatNantYr
Arian,suitabilityofthesiteforresearch(attheselocationsitwaspossibleto
easilyapproachtouristsandtheyheldagreaterfootfallthansomealternatives),
accessibilitytopowerpointsforelectronicequipmentusedthroughoutthestudy
andtheavailabilityofphotomontagesfromtheNantYrMochDevelopers
webpage
Sample
152interviewswereconductedwithvisitors.Inadditiontothecollectionof
questionnairedata,15.1hoursofinterviewmaterialwasrecorded.Itisnot
suggestedthatthissampleoffersahomogenousaccountoftouristsvisitingeach
ofthedestinationsasateachdestinationthetypeoftouristvisitingmaybe
different,duetothedifferingtourismproductsofferedateachsite(Nantyr
Arianofferswalking,cycling,andanopportunitytoseethefeedingoftheRed
Kites;Aberystwythisasmalltownofferingshopping,siteseeingetc).Thereis
howeverlikelytobeoverlap.AsMid-Walesisanareathatalreadyfeaturesa
numberofwindturbinedevelopments,itisalsolikelythatvisitorsmayalready
beawareandundeterredfromvisitinginthepresenceofwindenergyprojects.
Therefore,thecurrentsamplemayprovideaninsightintotheimpactof
increaseddevelopment,andnottheimpactsofwindenergyitselfonvisiting
behaviororattitudes.
9.2%ofthesampleidentifiedthemselvesasa‘resident’.Thisequatesto14
individualsanddoesnotprovidealargeenoughsampletobeconsideredreliable
183
tocomparethissubpopulationwiththesampleinwhole.Themajorityofvisitors
werevisitingforoneweek,andnotedtheirmainreasonforvisitingtobeforthe
scenery,landscapeandcountryside(56.5%).Tenpointfivepercentidentified
thebeachesasthemainreasonforvisiting,andafurther7.2%statedthatitwas
tovisitfriendsandrelatives.Thisresultiscomparabletofindingsbyvisitwales
in2009and2011,wherevisitingthecountrysidewasfoundtobethemain
reasonforovertwothirdsofthesample;andsupportsthefindingsofNFO2003,
where97%oftouristssurveyedidentifiedthe‘unspoiltviewsofthelandscape’
aseitherveryimportant,orimportant.Thirtyeightpercentofthesamplehad
notpreviouslyvisitedthearea,meaningthatthemajorityofthoseinterviewed
wererepeatvisitors.
InaquestionadaptedfromNFO(2003),participantswereasked,“whatdoyou
thinkisthemainreasonforvisitingwales?”(Theoriginalquestionasked,“What
isyourmainreasonforvisiting”).Anadaptationoftheoriginalquestionwas
necessaryinordertobeabletoalsoincludetheresponsesofresidentsinthe
studyandtoavoidthedifficultyindefininga‘tourist’.Indeed,althoughanumber
ofparticipantshadtravelledfromabroadtovisittheregion,alargenumberof
participantswerevisitingfromanareawithindrivingdistancetovisitthearea
fortheday.Herethedistinctionbetweentouristandresidentbreaksdown,and
itmadelittlesensetofilterparticipantsbasedonapredeterminedarbitrary
distanceoftravel.
Participantresponses–section1
Participantswereshownalistoflandscapefeaturesandaskedforeachtostateif
thefeaturewouldeither‘enhance’,‘detract’orhave‘noimpact’ontheir
experienceasavisitorinMid-Wales.Participantswereoverallpositiveaboutthe
firstsevenfeatures,indifferentabout‘fishfarms’,splitfairlyevenlyonopinion
onthenextthreecategories(includingwindfarms)andwereoverallnegative
aboutthelastfour(Figure14).Interestingly,theresultobtainedforwindfarms
iscomparabletothatforquarries,whichalreadyhavealong-standinghistoryin
184
Walesandwouldarguablybeanexpectedfeaturewhenvisiting.Somequarries
havebecometouristattractionsintheirownright,beingdevelopedintonature
reservesandrepresentingapieceofWelshheritage.
Figure14,Participantperceptionofeachlandscapefeature
Facilitiesthatofferedadirectbenefittothetourist(e.g.Cablecars,waymarking
signs,etc)alsoratedhigherthaninfrastructuredevelopments(telephonewires
andpoles,pylons)thatmayalsoprovideanessentialroleintheattraction.
Pylonsandmobiletelephonemastswerethemostnegativelyperceived
developments.Thefirstofthesehasbeenasourceofpubliccriticism–tothe
extenttowhichthenationalgridleadtoaninvestigationin2011intodeveloping
adesignmoreappealingtothepublic.TheseresultssupportthoseinNFO
(2003).Plantedforestry,trails,andothertraditionally‘natural’developments
ratedhigherwithparticipantsandpylonsandwiringwererankedsignificantly
lower.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Num
berofparticipants
Detracts Enhance NoImpact
185
Duringthesurveyparticipantswereaskedtoratetheirinterestinanumberof
activities(walking,cycling,visitingmuseums,visitingthebeach,andvisiting
historicsites).Foreachoftheseactivities,participantscouldsayiftheyhad
alreadycompletedtheactivity,wereplanningtoundertaketheactivity,were
interestedbutnotplanningatthecurrentstageorrequiredfurtherinformation,
oriftheywerenotinterested.Asthefocusofthisstudy,theresultsaboveon
windenergywerecomparedtoresponsesfromparticipantsthatwereinterested
ineachactivity(hadalreadyundertaken,plannedtoundertakeorwere
interestedinundertakingtheactivity,seeFigure15).Comparingthestandard
deviationfortheresultsshownbelow,suggeststhatthereislittledifference
betweenactivitytypesandperceptionsofwindenergy(smallstandarddeviation
amongstmeansforeachactivity,seetable4).
Table4,Standarddeviationofresponsesamongsteachactivity,expressedasa
fractionoftotalresponsesforthatactivity.
StandardDeviation
Enhance 0.013
Detract 0.015
Noimpact 0.025
Asthosethatgowalkingandcyclingaremorelikelytocomefacetofacetowind
turbines,theyrepresentanactivitythathasthepotentialtobeimpactedtoa
greaterextentbyadevelopment.Asnosignificantdifferenceinopiniononwind
energyemergesbetweenparticipantsthatsaidtheywouldorwouldnottake
partincyclingorwalking;inthissample,itcanthereforebeassumedthat
factorsthatinfluencevisitorsinterestinrecreationalactivitieshasnosignificant
impactontheirperceptionofwindenergyi.e.walkersarenomoreputoff
by/enthusedbywindenergythancyclistsorbeachvisitors.Theseresultsare
demonstratedbelowinFigure16.Itishoweverinterestingtonotethatdespite
this,amongstallactivitiesahigherproportionofrespondentsnotedthatwind
turbineswould‘detract’fromtheirexperience,thanhave‘noimpact’or
‘enhance’theexperience.
186
Figure15,Comparablepercentagesofperceptionsofwindenergyfor
participantsthatareinterestedineachtypeofactivity.
Thethirdsectionofthequestionnairepresentedparticipantswithanimageof
the(then)proposeddevelopmentatNantYrMoch,withrespecttotheircurrent
location–e.g.insurveysconductedinDevilsBridge,participantswerepresented
withanimageoftheproposeddevelopmentfromDevilsBridge.Theseimages
werecreatedbythedeveloperoftheNantYrMochprojectandwereavailable
online.Threeimageswereusedthroughoutthesummerinterviews,twowere
wireframedesignproposalsandonewasaphotomontageoftheproposed
developmentwhereimagesofturbinesweresuperimposedontoaphotographof
thecurrentlandscape.Foreachimageabeforeandafterviewwaspresented,
allowingparticipantstoperceivetheproposedchangesinlandscapeforthe
questionsthatfollowed.Participantswerethenasked,inlightoftheimagesif
theywould:
a.Changetheirvisitingbehaviorbyvisiting‘moreoften’,‘lessoften’orifthere
wouldbe‘noimpact’.
b.Changetheirdurationofstaybyvisitingfora‘longerperiod’,a‘shorter
period’,oriftherewouldbe‘noimpact’.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
walking cycling museums beach historicsights
Num
berofparticipants(%
)
enhance
detract
noimpact
187
Figure16,(a)demonstratesthedifferenceinresponsesfromvisitorswho
planned,hadattendedorwereinterested(said‘yes’inresponsetothequestion)
inwalkingagainstthosethatwerenotinterested(‘no’).(b)Demonstratesthe
responsesfromvisitorswithregardtocycling.Thedatainthechartsbeloware
configuredtoaccountforthesizeofthesampleinthe‘yes’and‘no’categories
andarethuspresentedaspercentages.
a.Walking
b.Cycling
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
yes no
Num
berofparticipants(%
)
enhance
detract
noimpact
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
yes no
Num
berofparticipants(%
)
enhance
detract
noimpact
188
Themajorityofparticipantsstatedthatnochangewouldoccurintheirbehavior
ateachofthesitesforbothquestions(Figure17).Aminoritydididentifythat
theywouldvisitlessoftenorforashorterperiod.Inpreviousstudies,these
individualshavebeenreferredtoasa‘significantminority’(NFOWorldGroup,
2002,2003);inanareahighlydependentontourismsuchasMidWalesany
decreaseinvisitornumberscouldhaveasignificantimpactontheeconomyasa
whole.Itisthusworthspendingsometimefurtherexploringthisminority.
Figure17,responsesfromparticipantswhenaskedabouttheirvisitingbehavior
(a)andduration(b)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Nochange Shorter Longer
Num
berofparticipants(%
)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Nochange Less More
Num
berofparticipants(%
)
(b)
(a)
189
Oftheseparticipantsthatwouldvisitlessoften,agreaternumberwere
encounteredatthesiteinAberystwyth,followedbyNantYrArian.Itispossible
howeverthatatAberystwyth,theuseofwireframeimagestodisplaythe
proposeddevelopmentfromconstitutionhillhadanimpactonthisresult.These
imageshowevermayhaveputgreateremphasisonthevisibilityofthe
developmentthancanbeexpectedinarealdevelopment,whereturbineswould
beabletoblendinwiththeskylineandfauna.Indeed,itwasoftennotedby
participantswherephotomontageswereusedinNantYrArianthattheturbines
weredifficulttonoteintheimages.Thiswouldnotexplainthegreater
percentageofvisitorswhonotedtheywerelesslikelytovisitNantyrArianthan
DevilsBridge(wherewireframeswerealsoused).ThisincreaseatNantYrArian
maybeduetotheperceptionfromvisitorsthatthesitingofthedevelopmentis
likelytohaveanimpactononeofthemainviewpointsoppositethevisitor
centre.However,thisresultremainssurprisingconsideringthenumberofwind
turbinesalreadypresentinthesurroundingareaofthesiteatNantYrArian.It
wasinterestingtonotethatwhilstinterviewingparticipants,anumberwhere
notawareoftheturbinesthatsurroundedthemthroughouttheinterview.
Sometimesparticipantswouldstronglyobjecttothepositioningofturbines
withinanenvironment,whichtheyconsiderednaturalanduntouched,despitea
numberofturbinesalreadypositionedaroundtheperimeterofthesite.The
historyofNantYrArianalsomakesitaninterestingcase,asdespitebeing
perceivedasbeinganaturaldevelopment,thelakeandthesiteitselfisaproduct
oftheindustrialpastoftheregion,thelakebeingaman-madeobjecttoassistin
theminingofleadatthesite.Themininghistoryoftheregionisreproducedby
oneofthesignpostedwalksthattakevisitorsalongthepathwaythatminers
wouldhavetraveled.InSection2ofthischapter,thereliabilityofestimatingthis
‘significantminority’andtheuseofaquantitativemethodofenquiryasawhole
ischallenged.
Afinalsectionofthequestionnaireaskedvisitorstorespondonascaleof1-5the
extenttowhichtheyagreedwiththefollowingstatements:
190
a. Howinterestedwouldtheybeinvisitingawindfarmdevelopmentifa
visitorcentrewasopened?
b. Howinterestedaretheyinaholidaythathelpedyoureducetheircarbon
footprint(forthesameprice)?
c. Whatifthisholidaywasmoreexpensive?
Thesequestionssoughttobegintolookbeyondconsideringtheimpactsofthe
technology,andtowardsanexplorationofthepotentialofferedintheproposed
windenergydevelopments.Withinthecurrentchapter,thisideaisexplored
throughaconsiderationofthepotentialtodevelopawindenergyattractionas
hasbeenseenelsewhere(suchasinthecasestudyatWhitelee,pg.88).
Table5,Interestinattendingawindfarmattractionandvisitortype
Travelling
though
thearea
Staying
locally
Dayvisit Attending
anevent
Resident Other Totals
Not
intere
sted
(1)
4 6 8 4 3 5 30
2 4 7 7 1 0 1 20
3 1 14 7 1 2 3 28
4 4 17 4 4 5 2 36
Very
Intere
sted
(5)
8 14 7 1 4 5 39
Totals 21 58 33 11 14 16 153
191
Whenaskedhowinterestedparticipantswouldbeinvisitingawindenergy
attractionsuchasthis,theresultswerefairlyevenlydistributedfrom‘not
interested’(1)to‘veryinterested’(5).Visitorswhowerestayinglocallyforan
extendedvisitweremorelikelytoshowinterestinvisitingawindfarm
attraction.
Whenaskedabouttheirinterestinaholidaythatofferedanopportunityto
reducetheircarbonfootprint,visitorswereonthewholepositiveuntil
additionalcostwasinvolved(seeFigure18below).
Figure18,Responsesfromparticipantswhenaskedoftheirinterestinaholiday
thatwouldreducetheircarbonfootprint
Althoughitispossibletonotethattheadditionalcostdidhaveanimpacton
interestinalowcarbonholiday,themotivesbehindthisdecreasearenot
possibletobedeterminedandanumberofpossiblescenarioscouldexplainthis
correlation.Forexample,thisimpactmayjustaslikelybeduetoalackoffunds
availablewithintheparticipant’sholidaybudget,astobeduetoalackofinterest
inpayingforalowcarbonholiday.Itishoweverinterestingtocomparethe
perceptionsofwindenergyfromsectiontwototheinterestinalowcarbon
holiday.Herethosethatsawwindturbinesasanenhancementtotheirvisit
respondedmorepositivelytoalowcarbonoffering,andmoreofthese
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4 5
Num
berofparticipants
LessInterestMoreInterested
Nocost
ExtraCost
192
participantsexpressedgreaterinterestingdespitetherebeinganadditionalcost
involved.Ofthosewhosaidtheywerenotinterested(avalueof‘1’),agreater
proportionofparticipantswerethosethatnotedthatwindfarmsdetractedfrom
theirexperienceasavisitor.
Table6,Participantinterestinaholidaythatoffsettheircarbonfootprintwithin
thesamecost(a)andforanadditionalcost(b).
a)
Enhancesthe
experience
Detractsfromthe
experience
NoImpact
NotInterested(1) 0% 3% 8%
2 0% 6% 0%
3 10% 30% 26%
4 38% 29% 32%
VeryInterested(5) 53% 32% 34%
b)
Enhancesthe
experience
Detractsfromthe
experience
NoImpact
NotInterested(1) 5% 24% 14%
2 13% 16% 18%
3 23% 35% 40%
4 40% 19% 24%
VeryInterested(5) 18% 6% 4%
NoAnswer 3% 0% 0%
193
Participantresponses–section2
Iwillnowtoseektogivethedataabovesomecontextbyconsultingthe
responsesprovidedbyparticipantsduringthefinalqualitativestageofthis
phaseofstudyandwillattempttohighlightsomepotentialissueswith
assessmentthattheaforementioned‘significantminority’ofparticipantsstated
theywillvisitlessofteninresponsetoawindenergydevelopment.Although
therearesimilaritiesthatcanbedrawnbetweenmixedmethodologiesandthe
approachcurrentlyapplied,theuseofsemi-structuredinterviewstowardsthe
endofthesurveysoughtnottotriangulatethedata,butrathertoproblematiseit
andtoopenupavenuesfornewlinesofquestioninginfuturestagesofthe
project.
Duringthissectionparticipantswereaskedfourquestions:
1.Whatmakesyouconsideralandscapetobeaestheticallypleasing?What
featuresdoyoufindattractive?Howdoesthiseffectyour'use'ofthelandscape
asavisitor?
2.Howawareareyouofcurrentclimatechangescienceandrenewableenergy?
Areyouinterested?Howdoyoufindoutyourinformation?Doesthiseffectyour
actions?
3.Howdoyouthinktheconstructionofawindfarmprojectsuchastheonein
theimagescouldimpacttheexperiencefortourists?Bothpositiveandnegative
impacts?
4.HowdoyouconsideryouroverallexperienceinMidWalesasadestination?
Whatwillyourememberfromyourvisitandtellothers?
Theaimofthislineofquestioningsoughttointroduceadiscussionintothe
participant’sperceptionsofnatureandtheenvironment,theirperceptionof
climatescience,theirperceivedimpactsofwindenergyandhowtheyconsider
theseideastofitwithMidWalesasadestination.
194
Results
InordertopresenttheresultsfromthequalitativesectionofGenre1,Iwill
highlightanumberofkeythemesthatemergedfromthediscussionswith
participants.
1.Visualimpactsandnaturallandscapes
Duringconversationswithparticipantsitbecameclearthattheaesthetic
qualitiesofthelandscapewashighlyimportant,andthesignificanceofthevisual
aspectsoftheareaswasoftencommenteduponwhendiscussingthe‘natural’
landscapesofMidWales.Itisthroughthisvisualengagementthatthenatural
landscapeisenjoyedbyvisitors,andalthoughsomeparticipantsvisitedtoenjoy
theexperienceofcyclingorwalkingitself,forotherstheseactivitieswere
undertakeninorderforthemtogetabetterview:
Comingintothelandscapewaslike‘cominghome’–restatingtheconception
thatthroughawalkinnature,oneisabletoreturnbrieflytoawayoflifemore
‘natural’thanthelifeinthetownsorcities.Forparticipantsthis‘natural’
landscapeofferedanescapefromtheirdailyurbanlives,butforsomethe
presenceofwindturbinesmadethemworrythatthisescapewouldnotlast
forever:
“WhatdoIliketosee?Greenandkeptasnaturalaspossible.I’vebeencoming
toWalessincenineformyfamilyholidays–weusedtolovegoingalongthe
beachlookingatthings–Iwasn’tthesittingonthesandslookingatthesea
buildingsandcastles,Iwouldlookforflowersandshellsandinteresting
things.WewenttobarmouthandIusedtolikethehillsandmymotherwasn’t
awalkerbutwedideventuallygetuponthehills–therewasaspecialwalk
andthatwasbeautifulandyoucouldlookfromthetopofthehillsoverthe
estuary–anditisoneofthemostbeautifulplacesonearth…Ithoughtthisis
likecominghome.”Simon,M,62
195
Therewasclearindicationthatthepresenceofturbineshadavisualimpacton
somevisitors,affectingtheirabilitytoseethelandscapethattheywishedtovisit
andeffectingtheirenjoyment.
2.Beyondthevisual
Despitethisclearimpactfromthevisualpresenceoftheturbines,alarge
numberofrespondentsmadeitclearfromtheirexplanationsthattheir
perceptionsoftheturbinesweremorecomplexandduetoanumberofother
factorsbeyondaestheticalpreference.Itisalsoclearthatthequantitativesection
ofGenre1wasillequippedtodealwithissuesofdistrustthatwererevealedin
throughthequalitativeinterviewsection-raisingquestionsofthereliabilityof
theinitialquantitativesection(andofotherstudiesthathaveemployedasimilar
approach).Amongsomeoftheissuesthatemergedinthissectionofthestudy,
ideasofdistrustwerementionedbyalargenumberofparticipantsdirected
towardsthepoliticsandsciencebehindwinddevelopmentsaswellasadistrust
inmeasaresearcherandthecurrentstudyitself.Thisconceptoftrusthasbeen
“Ithinktheylookreallyintrusive”Sarah,F,33
“Ilikewalkingaroundandjustlookingatthescenery,becausewecomefrom
anurbanarea.Justtakeitallinandbeawareanditsamazing–I’mafraid
ultimatelyofabeautifulplacelikethisbecomingurbanised.Windturbines,
andthensomethingelse.”John,M,36
“Ilikethiscountry,Idon’tlikepartsofitbeingalteredandchanged,butI
understandforthegreatergoodthesethingshavetobedone.”David,M,56
“Ithinkthey’reugly,theyspoilalovelyview–Ijusthopethey’regoingto
work–wesawsomewhenwewerecomingover,andwesawthreeand
obviouslyyouweredrivingandallthisbeautifulandyougetthesebig
monstersandonewasn’tevenworking!”Jane,F,35
“Ithinkseeingwindmillsontopsofmountainsandthingsdoesn’tdoanything
forme–I’mnotworriedaboutso-callednoisefromthembutwhentheyspoil
theview–Ilikeseeingthemountainsastheyshouldbeandhavingtreeson
themsometimesisn’tagoodthingbutcertainlyhavingtoomanywindmills
wouldn’tbeagoodthing”Sarah,F,33
196
wellresearchedwithintheliteratureandhasbeenarguedtobeaproductof
competenceandsincerity(Craig1990;Fricker1998),notionsofraceand
sexuality(Anderson,1995;Code,1990)andsocialhierarchies(Shapin,1994;
Addelson,1983).Examplesofhowthisdistrustmanifestedareshownbelow.
a.Distrustinclimatescience
Hereparticipantsnotedadistrustinthescienceofclimatechange.Thisisan
areathathasbeenwidelyresearchedandisarguablyanareaofresearchinits
ownright(e.g.Lorenzonietal.,2007;PoortingaandPidgeon,2003;Blake,2001;
KollmussandAgyeman,2002).Responsesdemonstratedamisunderstandingby
thosespokentoofsomeofthefundamentalissuesofclimatechange,aswellas
distrustintheinformationthattheyhavebeenpresentedontheissue.Inthe
quotebelowSandraequatesthegeneral,widespreadwarmingeffectofglobal
warmingtobeintheinterestsoftheUK.Suchanassumptionfailstoconsiderthe
wideimpactsonecosystemsfromevenasmallincreaseintemperature,andfails
toconsidertheimpactontheNorthAtlanticDeepWaterthatmayresultinlower
temperaturesintheUKintheeventofawarmingevent.Whenasked,the
majoritynotedthattheirmajorsourcesofinformationonclimatechangeand
windenergywasnewspapersandTVdocumentaries.
b.Distrustinthepoliticalmotivebehindthedevelopments
Inasimilarwaytothepointnotedabove,participantsnotedadistrustinthe
sourcesthroughwhichtheyreceivetheirinformation–specificallypoliticians
andotherexperts.Potentiallyduetotheexpensesscandalthatprominently
“itsjustontvisn’tit,oneminutethey’regoingyehitsgoingtogetworseand
theicecapsaregoingtomelt,thenitsnowe’regettingreadyforanotherice
age.Okay,Idon’treallyworryaboutittoomuchit’singodshands.”Bill,M,
51
“Itsallconflictingyouknow,it’sclimatechangenow–it’snotglobal
warminganymore.YouknowwhatImean?Youknow,wediscussinwork
andpeoplesay‘globalwarming?Youknow,great–betterthanrainingin
July!’.YehI’mskepticalI’llbehonest.”Sandra,F,33
197
featurewithinthemediaatthetimeofinterview,participantssawclimate
changeasanopportunityfortheenterprisingtoexploitfortheirownbenefit.
c.Distrustintheeffectivenessoftheturbines
Hereparticipantsidentifiedalackoftrustinthewindenergytechnologyitself,
expressingdoubtinthetechnology’sabilitytocontributetowardsrenewable
energytargets.Oftenparticipantsnotedthattherewasaneedfortheturbinesto
oftenbe‘switchedoff’duringperiodsofhighactivity,somethingthatappears
contradictoryandsuggeststhattheturbinesareanimpropersolution.This
critiqueoftenappearswithintheright-wingmedia,butthisoftenrepresents
onlyasmallpercentageofthepotentialyearlyoutputofadevelopment.
“Idon’tlikethem–becausethereasonis,ifit’stoowindytheyhavetoswitch
themoff.Ivehadthisdiscussioninworkwithdifferentpeopleandyouknow
porthcawlinsouthwales,they’retalkingaboutdoing250justoffthecoast
andweweresayingimagine250,350fthighandimagineallofthat–howare
thesurfersgoingtomanage…ifitdoestheirjobfine,butifyouhavetoswitch
themoffwhenitstoowindy,what’sthepoint?”Tony,M,28
“Idonotlikewindfarmsgenerallywindfarms,forastarttheydon’tproduce
enoughelectricityforthedetrimentaleffectthereisn’t–Imightswaytowards
themifitproducedalotmoreelectricitythanitdoes.Ialsothinkit’s
detrimentaltothelocals.”Chloe,F,38
“‘I’mverycynicalabouttheaspectofclimatechange,we’vedonealotof
reading…weclutterallourmostbeautifulplaceswiththesewindturbines
whichonlyproduce15%ofourpower…Ithinktheproductionofwindmillsis
acynicalbusinessopportunityandthefactthegovernmentarereducing
grantsnowthateveryoneishookedonthemmakesitlesspossibletoproduce
them.”Harry,M,28
“Youalwaysseesomuchnegativepublicityonthetv…you’reneversure
who’sbehindinformation–someoneseemstobegettingrichoffthebackof
it”Tom,M,25
“Multinationalswillbenefitandlocalpeoplewillsuffer”Rhian,F,33
198
d.Distrustinthecurrentstudyitselfandmyimpartiality
Duringtheresearchprocess,anumberofparticipantsbegantoquestionmy
impartialityandbecamecautiousinprovidingmewithresponsestoquestions.
WhenIaskedthemabouttheiropinionsontheimages,theyweresuspiciousof
myintentions–eitherseeingmyquestionsasanopportunityfordevelopersto
findevidencetosupporttheirproposalsorasanopportunityforevidencetobe
collectedagainstthedevelopment.Interestinglythesamequestionsoftendrew
oppositeresponses.Twoopposingexamplesareprovidedbelowduringthe
sectionwhereparticipantsareshowntheimagesoftheproposeddevelopment:
Withineachofthesecasesparticipantsnotedthattheyfeltwindenergy
developmentswoulddetractfromtheirexperienceasavisitor–howeverwhen
thiswasdiscussedfurtheritbecameclearthatthisresponsewasmore
complicatedthanareactiontotheaestheticsofthedevelopments,andemerged
fromanemotionalresponsetosomethingthattheysawrepresentedinthe
turbine.Itwasalsointerestingtoobservethatsomeparticipantsprovideda
negativeresponsewhenaskedaboutturbinestoavoidgoing‘onrecord’andto
Duringthequestionwhereparticipantsarepresentedabeforeandafterimage:
“insomerespectyou’reforcingmetoanswer…Ithinkthatthecomparison,
you’reindicatingIthinkthatthatisgoingtobedetrimental–butsomepeople
likewindmills.Ithinkthecomparison–forgetthat–andaskthequestion
aboutit[withoutthepicture].You’requestionsuggeststhatthatisapretty
scenicsiteandthat[theimages]saysnoitisn’t.”
theparticipantalsoreferstothelineofquestioningpursuedastakinga‘when
didyoustopbeatingyourwife’approach,suggestingthatIamusingloaded
questions.
Again,duringthesectionofthequestionnairewheretheparticipantsareshown
theimages:
“wellthatdoesn’tshowtheinfrastructure–itcan’tbeafterthedevelopment
becausetheroadnetworkthat’srequiredtotakethesemonstrositiesinare
goingtoleavepermanentscarssothat’safalserepresentation.
Iinformtheparticipantthattheseareimagesprovidedbythedevelopers
“Wellthat’swhyit’sfalse.That’salie!Isthatrecording?Wellthat’salie!The
impactvisuallyinthedistantlandscapeofturbinesanythingupto300meter
high–it’safalserepresentation.”Tom,M,55
199
provideinformationthatcouldpotentiallybeusedtosupportaplanning
applicationforadevelopment.Heretheparticipantnotedthattheywould
exaggeratethenegativeimpactontheirbehaviorinordertoavoidproviding
evidencethatmaysupportsomethingthattheyobjectedtoonthegroundsof
principle.Hereaquantitativeapproachrecordsthese‘protest’responses
alongsidetrulynegativeresponsestothedevelopmentsandisunableto
discriminate.
e.Issuesofnationality
AnadditionalissuethatemergedwasaproductofnationalidentityinWalesand
theperceptionsofWalesasrural.Asacountrythathashistoricallyfailedto
benefitfromindustrialdevelopment,thereisahealthyskepticismfromthe
publictowardsproposeddevelopments.Alocalhistoricalissuethatcontinuedto
emergeindiscussions,orwassuggestedatthroughconversationswasthe
floodingoftheTrywerynvalley(thishasbeendiscussedpreviouslyonpage18).
Someparticipantssawtheproposedwindenergydevelopmentsasanextension
ofthisindustrialisationofWalesandWelshresources.
3.Reliabilityofdata
Thequalitativesectionallowedforgreaterdiscussiontobeundertakenwith
participantsonthereasoningbehindtheiranswers.Movingfrompart2topart3
Itaught19yearsandIusedtotakethechildrenoutalottoseewindfarmsup
againstthem,Iknowtheareawellandbasicallyitsanotherexampleoftaking
somethingoutofWales–you’vetakenleadfromhere,silverfromhere,trees
aregoingfromhere–it’sthesamethingastheforestryplantedtrees60years
agoandtheyweresuppoedtobringalotofemployment–verylittle
employment,allthetreesaretakentoWiltshire,soIthinkWalescantake
advantageofthem,butnotthroughmultinationalcompanies.
Iask:What’syourbiggestworrythen?
Thatthey’lljustinundateMidWaleswiththesewindfarmsanditwouldbe
likeanindustrialisation.You’vegottoaskthequestion,howmanywindfarms
areplannedfortheSouthEast?There’sverylittlewindfarmsinSussex,they
tendtobe–samethingasnuclearpower.Seth,M,62
200
ofthesurvey,wherethediscussionofwindenergymovesfromdiscussingwind
turbinesintheabstracttoaspecificandpotentiallyrealdevelopmentinMid
Wales,someparticipantschangedtheirresponsesandnolongerconsideredthe
windenergydevelopmentstobesomethingthatwoulddetractfromtheir
experience.
Onerespondentcalledthewindturbines“dirtybigwhitethings”,intrusiveand
outofplace,butonshowinghertheimageshenoted:
Otherparticipantsthatalsosaidthattheturbineswoulddetractfromtheir
experiencesaid:
Wheninterviewingotherparticipantsthisdisparitybetweenwhatwas
expressedbyparticipantsandanaccuraterepresentationoftheirlikelybehavior
followingthewindenergydevelopmentwaslessexplicit.Howeverfurther
questionsofreliabilitycanberaised.
SomeparticipantsatNantYrArianexpressedaveryclearopinionthatshoulda
windenergydevelopmentbebuiltanywhereneartothevisitorcentre(evenif
therewasonlyoneturbine)theywouldnotbeinterestedinvisiting.However,
“Ikindofexpectthattheywilllookhugeandugly,butfromadistancethey
don’thaveamassiveimpact.Lookingatthatonthehorizon…NoIdon’tthink
itwould[haveanimpact],Ilovethiscountry,don’tliketheideaofpartsofit
beingalteredandchanged–butalsoIunderstandforthegreatgoodthese
thingshavetobedone.”Kate,W,42
“Idon’tlikethealterationtotheview,butitwouldn’teffectmyintentionto
visitmidwales.”John,M,22
“itprobablyhasnochangeonmybehavior,butIthinkit’sawful.”Gavin,M,61
“thefirstimpressionisitthattheydodetract[beforewelookatthepicture]
butwe’llgetmoreofthem,andwe’llseemoreofthem,butpersonallyIthink
I’llstarttoignorethem,butthatisn’ttosaythatIthinkthey’renecessarilythe
waytogo.”Adam,M,62
“despitetheturbinesI’dstillcome–Idon’thavetolookthatway!”Jane,F,28
201
thesestatementsareproblematicasthereisalreadyawindenergydevelopment
closetothevisitorcentreandcanbeseenwhenenteringtheforestry
commissionsiteandfromthefeedinggroundoftheRedKites.WhenIaskedthe
participantsaboutthis,theynotedthattheyhadnotnoticedthewindenergy
developmentorwerenotawareofit.
Oneparticipantwashighlyiratethroughouttheinterview,andbeganshouting‘I
wouldn’tbeinterestedatall’whenwefirstbegantodiscusswindenergy.For
himwindenergywasoffensiveandwhenvisitingMidWales,hesoughtoutwhat
hereferredtoassecludednaturalspots.Interestingly,thisparticipantwasalso
highlyawareofclimatescienceandwassupportiveofotherrenewableenergy
technologies,buthadasuspiciononthetrueintentionofwindfarmdevelopers.I
askedhimhowhefeltonseeingthewindturbineswhenhearrivedatthevisitor
centre,andaskedhowhewasabletodealwiththisconfrontation,having
expressedsuchstrongfeelingsagainstthetechnology.Hewentsilentand
respondedthathe‘didn’tknow’andconfessedthathehadn’tnoticedthewind
turbineswhenhehadbeenwalkingaroundthesite.Hethenstartedtoconsider
theimpactthatthewindturbinesmayhaveonhisvisitingbehaviorstating:“well
itwouldn’taffectmyspendingatall.I’dstillcomehereforacupofcoffee.And
we’rebrainwashedintothinkingthisisafundamentalneedforthecountry.Id
stillcomeforacoffeeandcomeandseearedkite.”Soheredespiteinitially
recordinganegativeimpactfromtheturbines,anddespitetheparticipant
expressingduringthestudythatthedevelopmentwouldresultinhimvisiting
thearealessoften–duringtheinterviewstagetheparticipantappearsto
contradictthis.
Concludingremarksforthissection
WithinthisfirstgenreofenquiryIfirstwishtosuggestthatanumberof
limitationsexistwithinasurveyledapproach.Notonlyaresomeoftheideas
discussedbyparticipantsduringthislessstructuredinterviewsectionexcluded
fromconventionalsurveywork–butadditionally,exploringtheseissuesof
202
distrusthasrevealednewquestionsoftheaccuracyofthesurveyapproachin
determiningtheimpactonvisitorbehavior.
Likepreviousstudieshavenoted,theresultsconfirmtheimportanceofthe
landscapeofMidWalesinthevisitorexperience,andsuggestthataminorityof
visitorsconsiderthewindenergydevelopmentstodetractfromtheirexperience
asavisitor.However,forsomevisitorswhenthewindenergydevelopmentthat
wasdiscussedwasgivencontextandvisitorswereshownplannedinformation
onthedevelopment,theyconsideredthattheturbineswouldhavealesser
impactontheirvisitingbehaviorduetotheproximityoftheproposed
development.Forotherstheveryexistenceofthewindenergydevelopmentwas
problematic,andtheirrejectionofwindenergydevelopmentsemergedasoneof
personalprinciple.Itwasfoundduringdiscussionsthatalthoughparticipants
wouldcommentonthevisualfeaturesofthewindturbine(‘they’rebigandugly’)
onfurtheranalysisitappearsthatanumberofinterconnectedfeelingsand
responsestoseeingthedevelopmentinfluencetheirperceptions.Participants
oftenexpressedacleardistrustinthesciencebehindthedevelopmentsand
notedthatthisleadtotheformationoftheiropinionsonthetechnology;whilst
othersexpressedadistrustinthemotivesofthedevelopersbehindtheproject.
Thesefindingsechopreviousresearchonresidentswhichtoohasrejectedthe
oftenquotedNIMBYsyndrome,andpointedtowardthecontributionofthe
campaignstanceofacommunitygroup(VanderHorst,2007),thebeliefsheldby
thepublicregardingwindfarmimpacts(Wolsink,1996),thecommunicationand
consultationmethodsemployedduringtheplanningprocess(Gross,2007),and
thenatureoftheplanningsystemandsuspicionofthedeveloper’smotives
(Wolsink,2000).SupportingBelletal.(2005),Itoowishtoarguethataclear
distinctionisrequiredbetweenpublicopinionsofwindenergyandopinionsof
windfarms,howeverthecurrentstudydemonstratesthatitisdifficulttomake
thisdistinction.
Theuseofimagesprovidedbythedeveloperwasasourceofconcernbysome
participantsanditisworthnotingthatinconsistenciesinpresentationformat
(wireframe/photomontage)mayimpactresults.Itisalsopossiblethatduetothe
203
staticnatureoftheimage,showingthebladesinastaticpositionmaypresenta
lessvisuallyappealingscenethananimageinmotion.Withinfutureworkit
wouldbeinterestingtoexplorethis,andpotentiallyprovidemorereliable
resultsifselfrenderedmovingimagesareuse,howeverthiswasnotpossibly
withinthecapacitiesofthecurrentwork.
Participantsalsodemonstratedalackoftrustinthecurrentstudyandmyown
motivesasaresearcher,withsomesuspectingIsupportedthedevelopmentand
thusworkedforthewindenergydevelopers;orhavinggreetedthemwitha
Welshaccent,wasfromthelocalareaandwasprotestingthedevelopments.
Despitebeingtransparentontheaimsofthecurrentstudy,overcomingthis
distrustwasdifficultanditwasclearthatsomeparticipantsmetmewith
suspicionandcaution,oriftheyhadastakeinthedebatesurroundingthe
development,soughttoinfluencetheresultstomeettheiragenda.HereIwas
arguedwithandaccusedofaskingleadingquestions:‘that’slikeasking'when
didyoustopbeatingyourwife'?’.
Inclosingthischapter,Iwishtosuggestrecommendationsthatemergefromthis
approachandalineofquestiontobeexploredinchapter6thatseektomove
beyondtheselimitations.Itisclearthatamethodologyisrequiredthatisableto
addressthedistrustexpressedbyparticipantsincreatingtheirperceptionsof
renewableenergies–notjusttofindandrecordthesemomentsofdistrust,but
alsotoattempttoengagewithandattempttoworkbeyondthemallowinga
moreaccurateresulttobeobtainedonthetrueimpactsfromthese
developments.Theaestheticqualitiesofthesedevelopmentsarealsohighly
important,howeveritisclearforsomeparticipantsthatbeingface-to-facewith
thedevelopmentstirredstrongemotions,suggestingthatratherthanbeingtwo
separateresponsestowindenergy(oneofaesthetic/visualandoneofemotion)
thatthesetworesponsesaredirectlylinked–seekingtomovebeyonddistrust
andtowardsaconsiderationofaestheticsisthusthewronglineofquestioning.
Thisdoeshoweversuggestapossibilityforapotentialwithinanencounterwith
windenergy(forexamplewithinawindenergytouristattraction)thatprovokes
andoffersanopportunityforvisitorstoreconsidertheirperceptionstowards
204
environmentalissues.Anumberofquestionsthusemerge,thatfedintothe
developmentofGenre3:
- Howcanweanalyseperceptionsofwindturbinedevelopmentsrather
thanofwindenergy?
- Howcanwecreatearesearchapproachthatengageswithdistrustinthe
currentstudytoproducemorereliableresults?
- Howweproducearesearchapproachthatattemptstoengagewith
participantstoattempttopreventreproducingfeelingsofdistrustin
research,scienceandtechnology?
- Isthereapotentialtoexplorethepotentialincomingfacetofacewith
thesewindturbines,asvisitors(re)considertheirperceptionsofwind
energy?I.e.canwindenergytourismfunctionasastrategytoaddressthe
growingthreatofclimatechange?
- Howcanweanalysethispotentialandwhatwoulditlooklike?
Thefollowingchapterwillnowattempttoworkwithandaddresssomeofthese
questionsthroughadiscussionoftheresultsobtainedwithinGenre3.
205
Chapter5:Results-BecomingsandIntensities
Introduction
ThischapterwillanalysedatacollectedduringinterviewswithvisitorstoNant
YrArianthroughoutJune,JulyandAugust2013.Throughoutthesethreemonths,
Iwalkedthepathmarkedoutforvisitorsandengagedinconversationwith
walkers.Thewalkerwasthenaskedtotakepartinthestudy,andwemovedto
sitonabenchthatoverlookedawindturbinetobeginthelooselystructured
interview.Thisschedulehasbeenpresentedonpage145.Theconversationwas
allowedtomoveintounexpectedareas,andtodeviatefromthescheduleif
promptedbytheparticipant.
Interviewswerethentranscribedandsortedbyusinganinterpretivecoding
strategy.HereIsoughttodocumentandcategorisethebreadthofthedata
collected,whilstretainingthevoiceoftheparticipants.The‘cabinetof
curiosities’createdinthisexercisewasthenscrutinised,andconceptsrevealed
inthecodingprocesswerecomparedandcontrasted.Inordertodevelop
meaningfromtheseconversations,aprocessofrepresentationofthedatawas
undertakenthatfocusesonthe‘becomings‘thatoccurduringtherecorded
interaction.Thisisidentifiedas‘genre3’onpage108,asthethirdpointwithin
thequalitativecontinuumtobeexplored.Usingtheseconversations,thisGenre
exploresthecreativepotentialwithintheexperienceadaptingtheapproach
takenbyGrit(2012).Bydoingthis,Ihopetoexplorethepotentialtorevealnew
sensations,waysofthinkingandbeingthatcanemergethroughsightseeing,in
anefforttorevealopportunitiesthatmayleadtonewwaysofthinkingabout
ecologicalissuesbeyondthecurrentconstraintsinpublicdiscourse.
Theanalysisbelowchartstheresponsesofparticipantsontothechartprovided
inGrit(2012)(Figure6,page94,andreproducedbelowforthereader).Foreach
ofthequadrants,examplesareprovidedonhowthesesortsofbecomings
manifestedwithintheinteractionswithvisitors.Theuseofthisframework
206
providesatoolfromwhichopportunitiesfordifferencemaybeextracted.This
analysistreatsthecommentsofparticipantsasatexttobeexplored,noting
examplesthatmayprovidesuggestionsoforientationsofbodieswithinthe
Nant-yr-Arianassemblage.Theframeworkprovidesameanstonotonly
documentthemoreusualandexpectedbecomings–butalsothemore
extraordinary,andthepotentialthismayexhibit.Indeed,followingDeleuze,this
analysisdoesnotseektofindoutwhatsomething‘is’orwhatitmay‘mean’,but
ratherattemptstoexplorewhatitcan‘do’(seequote,page83).
Asafinalpointinthisintroductionitisworthnotingthatalthoughtheresponses
ofparticipantsbelowarechartedontothetwo-dimensionalaxisprovidedbyGrit
(2012)(Figure6,page92andreproducedbelow),thesepositionsarenot
definitive.Indeed,toconsidertheseplacementsasstaticpositionsdetermined
throughanalysis,suggestsIhaveanagencyIdonotclaimtoposses.Instead,
thesepositionsneedtobeunderstoodas‘snapshots’ofadynamicprocessand
allocatedwithinthecurrentanalysistoallowfortheformsofmovementsand
theiraffectstobediscussedandobserved.Thisideaisdiscussedinconcluding
thischapteronpage255.
Figure6,ChartofpotentialbecomingsfromGrit(2012)
207
Thischapterwillnowchartsomeofthepotentialmovementsofbodieswithin
theNant-Yr-ArianassemblagethatweredocumentedduringJune,Julyand
August2013.ForeachofthequadratsinFigure6,anumberofwaysinwhich
thisformofbecomingwasexemplifiedisshownwithquotesanddiscussion.
Analysis
1.Becomingatourist
Quadrant1identifiesthosebecomingsthatcanbelikenedtothe‘ideal’tourist
experience.Thesearedefinedasbecomingswheretheencountersaremoreor
lessdictatedbythespacewithinwhichtheyoccur,andalthoughthetouristis
satisfied,theopportunitiesforcreativity(ordifference)arelimited.Thiscanbe
likenedtoMacCannellsconceptionofTouriststrappedwithinthe‘TouristGaze’
andtheego-mimeticcritiqueoftourismofcomeswiththis.Thisistheencounter
thatremainsdominatedbythevisual.Despitethesebecomingswithholdingthe
potentialforcreativity,theintensityoftheconnectionsbetweenbodiesishigh,
andtheexperiencepromotestheformationofnewassemblages(seepage84for
adiscussionof‘intensity’).This‘tourist’becomingwasexemplifiedinanumber
ofwaysinthedata,bothinresponsestotheenvironmentalsurroundingsofthe
visit,inresponsestothewindenergydevelopmentsandinresponsetoothers
thatwerevisitingthesite.
a.Becomingaretreater
Thesebecomingssuggestafeelingofescape,gettingawayfromnormal,
industriouslifeandexperiencingtranquilityandsolitude.Suchexperiences
evokethosediscussedbyUrry(1990)(discussedonpage65).Indeed,these
becomingsarerepresentativeofthetouristmarketingmaterialofMidWales
(seeFigure19belowforanexample),wherethe‘natural’beautyisemphasised
andaspaceiscreatedwheretheindividualbodyisabletoenterintoamore
208
basicand‘authentic’relationshipwiththesurroundinglandscape(andit’s
bodies).
Figure19,ExampleofMidWalesmarketingmaterialfrom2014.
Itisworthnotingthecritiquethathasbeenmadeofthismarketingdiscourse,
arguingthatitreproducesthesubordinationofWelshidentitytosurrounding
“Yeslikesocietyagain.Yeahsowe’redippinginandout,andwe’resucha
technologyfastpacedsocietynowthatwelikegoingbacktotheoldtimes,a
bitlikewhenwegrewupandyoudidjigsawsandyoucommunicated,
whereasnowwe’reguiltyofittoowerelysomuchontheinternetevenjust
forfindingdirectionsordecidingwheretogowhenyoudon’tknowanarea,
andtogobacktothebasicsandtobringtheseupwhereit’snotmoney
orientated.Sothat’swhatweloveaboutermthispartofthecountry,it’sjust
sounspoiltnotthatwe’reanti-socialatallwelovepeoplebutit’snicetodip-
out.“
Kath,41,F.
“Ithinkthefactthatyouknowyou’vegotamainarterialroutehere,youcan
befromourhomeinasyousayanhourandahalf,butthenwithinten
minutesyoucanbeermsomewherecompletelydifferenti.e.youcanbeerm
almostermcompletelycutofffromroadnoise…manyotherpeopleit’sanice
daytodaythere’sotherpeopleabout.I’vebeenherewhenthereareveryfew
andvirtuallyhadtheplacetoyourself.Sothat’s[pause]that’ssomething
whichyouenjoynowandagain,notalwaysbutit’s,it'snicetohavethat.”
Tim,45,M.
209
nations(PritchardandMorgan,2001).ThispatriarchalconceptionofWelsh
identityandculturewasapointmentionedbyanumberofparticipantsinthe
field,forexampleSimon,72,noted:“It's[inaudible,wind,20:57]asif,er,Walesis
fiftytoahundredyearsbehindwhereEnglandisandbelieveyoume,it'sadamn
goodthing,youknow?”
Thisconceptionofretreatappearedcloselylinkedtoaperceivedlackof
commercialisationinthespacethatwasretreatedto.Throughthisretreatthe
ruralcountrysideisreaffirmedas‘other’andmeetspriorexpectations,providing
aspacewithinwhichanescapefromtheday-to-dayispossible.
Thesiteexploredduringthestudythisisparticularlyinterestingwhenthe
historyoftheareaisconsidered.Indeedmuchofthelandexploredbytourists
andconsideredtobeanescapefrombusycommerciallifehasbeensculpted
throughindustryandcommercialdevelopment.ThelakefromwhichRedKites
arefedplayedakeyroleduringthetimewhenslateminingwasstillprofitable,
asthecoldwaterfromthelakewasusedtocooltheheavymachineryused.
Despitethis,visitorsviewthesiteasanescapefromtheireverydaylivesinthe
city.Thesitefeaturessignpoststhroughoutdirectingvisitorstothemost
picturesqueviews,andaroundapaththatcarvesitswaythroughthelandscape,
aroundthehillshidingwalkersfromtheroadthatleadsvisitorstothesite.
b.Becominganenvironmentalist
Thesebecomingsareprogressivebutagainfallinlinewiththestructureof
stabilityandpredictability.Heretheenvironmentalissuesdonotalludethe
“Imeantocomehereitsniceandpeacefulsoifitwasn’tasitisnowandmore
commercialisedIthinkitwouldbenotquiteasnice.Yesthere’slotsofplaces
likethisinWales,likeMargamandalltherestofit,youcangowalkinginthe
hillsandermit’snotspoilt.Soit’snicejusttocomeuphereafewtimesfora
walkwiththedogs,there’safewpeopleuphere,it’snice.Yeahitsnice,I
wouldcomeagainbutermyouseeifitwastoocommercialisedwithlotsof
noiseandkidsallovertheplacethenit’smorelikeyoukindofwanttoget
awayfromthem.”
Pete,61,M
210
becoming,andrevealthemselvesintheirentirety.Theproblemisclearand
addressableandthereisaclearwayforwardfromtheissuesthatareraised.In
thissatisfactiontheintensityofthebecomingremainshighandisableto
continueformingnewassemblages.
Despiteenvironmentalissuesemergingwithinthisbecoming,thestructureof
theinteractionremains‘tourist’astheissueappearssubordinatedbytheGaze.
Thatisnottosuggestthatsuchinteractionsarenotvaluable,butrathertheyfail
toreachapotentialthatisexploredinalatterpartofthecurrentchapter(p.
233),andenvironmentalissuesareconsideredina‘habitual’way.Thisisseen,
forexample,throughthereproductionofthemesorargumentsseenin
newspapersondiscussionsaroundclimatechange.
Againthesebecomingsaredirectedbythesitethroughsignpostsandmessage
boards.Thesitecontainsawoodeneco-friendlybuildingthatcontainsacafé,
toiletsandasmallshop.Here,visitorscanpickupleafletsonhowthecafé
recyclesitsenergyandhowthelocalecosystemisusedtoitsfulleffectwithin
thesitetosupportthecaféandthefacilities.Thebuildinghasagrassroofthat
collectsrainwaterthatisusedtoflushthetoilets.Whilstsittingonthetoilet,
visitorscanreadinformationonhowthishappensviaasignonthebackofthe
toiletdoors.Thisideaofreusingandrecyclingcanhelpshapeperceptionsofthe
windturbines,whichalthoughfurtherawaystillenterintotheNant-yr-Arian
assemblageduetotheirsheersize.Signsonthepathdirectthevisitortolookout
towardsthehorizonandgazeatthescenery,asturbinesspininthedistance,the
energyofthewindspinsaroundthebladesandcanbere-used–justlikethe
waterinthetoilet.
“WellasIsayunlesseverybodydoesitthenIdon’tknow,asIwassayingwhat
theUKdoesisjustadropintheoceanfromwhereIsitatthemoment,we’re
penalisingourselvesinthesortofeconomicmarketbyhavingallthesesortof
greentaxesandthisthatandtheother,andermOKmostoftheEUisdoing
muchthesamebutatthemomentIthinkit’sonlyCaliforniainAmericathat’s
doinganythingaboutit,andcertainlyIndian,Chinaandmostoftheothersort
ofindustrialisedEasterncountriesain’tdoingathing.SoIdon’tknowwhy
arewepenalisingourselves?Weneedtostartmakingandgrowingourown
things.”Kay,22,M
211
c.Becomingahistorian
Thesebecomingsappearasawarenessandaconsiderationforhistorythat
allowstouriststobothunderstandandappreciatethelandscapeuponwhich
theyplacetheirgaze.Suchbecomingscanbelikenedtothoseidentifiedby
Edwards&Llurde(1996),andFrantálandKunc(2011);wheretechnicalobjects
havebeenpresentedasattractionsthroughlinkstotheindustrialheritageofthe
region(discussedonpage38).
However,itisinterestingthatthroughthesebecomingsthefaçadeofthe
‘natural’environmentisexploredbytheparticipants.Herethe‘natural’quality
ofthelandscapeisquestionedandtheroleof‘man’[sic]inshapingthelandscape
thatsurroundingsthemisappreciated.Theexperiencehoweverremains
enjoyable,andthetouristisabletocontinueontheirwalkalongthepathto
continueappreciatingthecountrysidethatsurroundsthem.Inasimilarway
above,thebecoming-historianassembledgeopenedthepossibilityforthe
participanttodrawconnectionsbetweenthehistoricalminingpastofthearea
“…thepartofthenaturehereIthinkisalsothehistory….Youknow,theold
miner'spath.Andthenitwas,youknow,Iwassaddenedwhentheydug-up
partofitto,er-Idon'twhether,why,buttheywidenedandflattenedpartof
it.Buttome,you-youknow,itwaslovelywalkingalongthatpartknowing
thatpeoplehad,er,walkedalongthere,youknow,toworkandfromwork,
youknow….butthenatureis,youknow,it's-it'sobviouslyit'sallaffectedby
man,Imeannaturehere.Idon'tsupposethere'sanythinghereapartfrom
grassandafew-somescrub-that,that'snatural-naturallyhere.Everything
elseisinfluencedbyman“
Simon,72,M
“Wellwehadthecoalandthenthewool,orthecoalandthewoolsothemines
andthemills.Soyesyoucan’tmovefar–andyeteveninthebeautifulareas
oftheYorkshireDalestheleadmines/tinminesorwhateverthey’veall
impactedontheenvironmentuptherebutintimeitis–Imeanontheother
sideofhereyoudon’tknowuptheRhayaderValleywheretheleadminesand
thegoldminesandthatyoucanstillseetheimpactofthetoxicelementson
thevegetationthere,it’snotgrownoverandermsortofbecomehiddenand
errit’sstill-theimpacttomanisstillveryvisible,butherenotsomuch.But
thisisamodernimpactyouknow.Therewego.“
Victoria,61,F
212
andthepresentdaylandscapeinfrontofthem.Thisbecomingisstillverymuch
inlineandstructuredbythespace,theparticipantGazingfromasafedistance
andalthoughenjoyablethereislittlemovementofbodiesinunexpected
directions.
Incontrasttothis,therecordabovefromClairenotedaninstancewherein
becomingattachedtotheirhistoricalqualities,thebodiesoftheassemblage
formedconnectionstofamiliarstructurespreviouslydisplacedbytimeand
space.Despitethisofferingthepotentialforcreativity(forexampleanimagined
journeyintothepast),theaccountsofparticipantsrevealinstanceswherea
potentiallyconfrontationalexperiencenullifiestheeffectofthismovement,and
thedefinedroleofthespaceismaintainedasthetouristsgoonwiththeir
journey.They’reabletojustturntheirheadandenjoytheviewinanother
direction.
Nant-yr-Ariandoesnotcontainanyspecificitemsthatmayshapethegazeofthe
touristtocreatethislinktothepast,butitcontainsplaquesonwhichshort
storiesarewritten.OneplaquetellsthestoryofOwainGlyndwr,thelastnative
WelshmantopossessthetitlePrinceofWales.Glyndwrheldhiscourtinthe
nearbytownofMachynlleth,wherehesetoutplansforanindependentWales.In
thelate19thcentury,the14thcenturyprincewasrevivedasinterestinWelsh
nationalismgrew.Fromthis,Glyndwrandhisstorybecameamythassociated
withWelshnationalism,representingthetriumphandprideofWales(hewas
neverbetrayedbyhissidedespitetherewards,andneversurrendered).His
nearbycastlewascapturedwhilstGlyndwrwasawayfighting,hisfamily
imprisoned.ThesesignpostspointtoanimaginedWalesadvertisedto
internationalmarkets.TheUSAVisitWalessitesuggeststhatpeoplevisitas:
“Walesishometo641castles,morethananyothercountryinEurope.You’re
encouragedtovisitthem:climbtowers,walkancientwallsandexplore
“It’snotthatIdon’twanttolookatit,butthatIcanaccommodate,it’sjusta
modernwindmill.Andwedidn’thaveobjectionstowindmillslitteringupthe
hillsides.”
Claire,47,F
213
dungeons.Thisisthelandofmagic,mythanddragons.”Despitethisinteresting
journeyintothepast,thebecomingremainstamedbythetouristspaceas
touristsgazeontotheimagestheyhavefoundwithintouristbrochures,now
projectedinfrontofthemontothelandscape.
d.Becomingacritic
In‘becomingacritic’,thelandscapebecomessomethingthatcanbejudged,
comparedandgradedbasedondesiresandexpectationsanddesires.Responses
recordedforthisbecomingcanbelikenedtothatofanonlinereviewlikeone
canreadononeofthemanyuser-generatedreviewwebsites(e.g.Tripadvisor).
Theseonlineplatformsarebecomingkeyinfluencersonthewaythattourists
imaginedestinationsandmakedecisionsonwheretheywillvisitandspend
theirmoney(e.g.Miguéns,Baggio,&Costa,2008).Participantsherenotedtheir
favoriteandleastfavoritefeaturesofthelandscapeastheydirectedtheirGaze,
comparingthelandscapetotheirpreviousexperiencesandwhattheyhaveseen
ontelevisionandduringadvertising.Thistooisawell-researchedareaof
tourismstudy(e.g.Kim,etal.,2012;ChiangandYeh,2011;Kimetal.,2006).
Thisisaclearexampleofabecomingwherethelandscapeispositionedas
somethingthereforthevisitortoenjoy,subordinatedbytheGazeanddesireof
thetourist.Landscapebecomessomethingthatisthereforthevisitortouse,and
thenotionofitnotaccommodatingthedesiresofthevisitorissooutofplaceas
tobeamusing.
TheonecriticismI'vegotsinceI'vebeenhereisthattherearenostop-off
pointsontheroadsandtomeit'sludicrousbecauseyou'regoingalongand
youseeafantasticshot-andyoucan'tstopontheroad.Itonlywantsalittle
bitofa,alay-by.Youknow?Andsomewherethatyougetanunobstructed
view.Youknow,therearelittlelay-bysbutthere'ssomebushesthatobscure-
buteverywhereyou-I'vebeenintheworldbefore,in-especiallyinAustralia
orAmerica,yougetviewpointsandif-ifit'sonasteepslope,theyputlikea
littlegantryupandsoyou're-youknow-andyoucanstay-takepicturesand
stopandhavealook,youknow?Andthere'snowhereherelikethat-tome,it
spoilsit.
Alice,38,F
214
Inasimilarwayinthisexamplewealsoseethenotionoflandscapeappearingas
ifobjectsthatcanbecollected.Theyappearintheabovecommentasifobjects
thatcanbecomparedfortheirpeculiaritiesanddefects.TheGazestructureshow
andwhentheseimagescanbecontrasted–withfeatures(orbodies)thatdonot
meetapredefinedstandardbeingexcludedfromthescene.Inthequoteabove,
Alicemakesreferencetothe‘unobstructedview’thatshedesirestonotonly
gazeon–buttocollectthatgazewithhercamera.Sometimesshesees
opportunitiesthatmayoffersuchaview,but‘bushesthatobscure’preventher
fromgettingthatpostcardshot.Thisisfurtherdiscussedinthefollowing
examplebelow:
e.Becomingaphotographer
Thebecomingofthephotographercanbeconsideredtobethebecomingofthe
touristparexcellence.HeretheGazeappearsasembodiedastheviewfinderof
camera,framingthelandscape,removingthatwhichisnotdesirableandturning
theenvironmentintoaseriesofsnapshotsthatcanberecalledathome.Yetas
UrryandLarsen(2011)state,manytouristsappeardisappointedastheir
photographsfailtoliveuptotherichermemoriesthattheyhavemade(inpart
duringtheframingofthesephotographsthemselves)(p.155).ForUrryand
Larsen,thedevelopmentoftheTouristGazeisintrinsicallylinkedwiththe
developmentofphotography,tracingthedevelopmentoftheGazeas
photographyhasmovedfromfilm,todigitalintoanonlinemedium.
“[Iphotograph]unusualthings.thingswedontseeoften.onthewalk,we
wereintheforestandwewereonatrainandtherewas-theremusthave
been-atreethathadbeenuprootedandhangingfromtherootshadgrown
overasortofgrassyasifawitchhadmadeacavernthere.allhanginggreen
frondssoitookafewpicturesofthat.iliketotakeinterestingthings….Idont
justgoforbeautybutififinditabitquirkyorinteresting.”
Adam,50,M
215
Asphotographer,touristsengagedcreativelybutpredictablywiththelandscape,
takingphotographsofthingsthatappearinterestingandunusual.Thebecoming
remainsofahighintensityasthroughthecamerathetouristisableto
rediscovertheenvironment,albeitwithinthepredictablestructureofatourist
experience.However,thepotentialfornewopportunitiesarehintedatas
identifiedbytheparticipantthatwishestoinvestigateinsidetheturbine
(describedabove),astheimagebecomesarhizomaticplatformthatallowsnew
connectionsandcreativitytoemerge.
Additionally,thecameraallowsforpartsofthelandscapethatdonotfitintothe
imagethevisitorwishestoseetoberemoved.Thevisitorisabletomaterailly
createtheirmemoriesastheyseefitthroughthephotographyandthepartsof
thelandscapethatappearobtrusiveorunfittingcanbeframedout.
Whatkindofthingswouldyouwanttotakepicturesof?Whatkindofthingswouldaimfor?Justwhatevercatchesyoureyereally.Youknow,it'sjust-Isuppose,slight
landmarksorjust,like,saywhencomingthroughthere,youcanseequitea
waydownthevalleysojusttheviewreally.
Scott,28,M
Wouldyoutakepicturesofwindturbines,doyouthink?IwenttotakeapictureofitandthenIdecidednottoandIdon'tknowwhy
really.
Scott,28,M
I'dprobablytakethe-ifIwasnearandIcouldseeinsideofit,I'dtakea
pictureoftheinsideofitbecausetheinsideintriguesmemorethanthe
outsideofit..”
Jess,26,F
Isupposewhenyoutakeapicture,youwanttoseethe-thenaturalbeauty
…andunfortunately,that'snotnatural.
Scott,28,M
Becauseyoualsosaidyoutriedtomasktheroadaswell,soyou'relookingfor
justthenatural-justthesce-youknow,scenery.Yeah.
Jess,26,F
216
Intheexampleabove,Jessnoteshowshe‘masks’outtheroadfromher
photographstojustshowthenaturalsceneryinresponsetoScott’scomment
thattheyonlywishtocapturethe‘naturalbeauty’.InGavin’scommentabove,he
acknowledgesthatthecameraisunabletocapturethefulllandscape.Theimage
appearsflatonthepage–therealexperienceofbeingatthesiteisnotabletobe
captured.Insteadhecapturessmallreminders–closeupphotographsoftree
bark,smalldetailstoremindhimofthelargerpicture.
Throughthisframingofthelandscape,thepotentialforunexpectedcreativityis
reduceddespitenewdoorsandoptionscontinuetoopenupasthecamera
encouragesexploration.Thiswasnotedaboveonpage209,wherethe
requirementsforanunobstructedview–apre-existingpreferenceforcertain
imagesdefinesandlimitsthewaysinwhichthecameraisusedandthe
photographifproduced.Garrod(1990)inreferencetoUrry(1990)referstothe
TouristGazeexpressedthroughphotographyasa‘self-reinforcingclosedcircle
ofrepresentation’.Hereimagescollectedwhilstonholidayandinfluencedby
imagesobservedpriortovisiting,andthemselvesfurtherreinforcethe
expectationsoffuturevisits.Modernmassmedia(andsocialmedia)hasthe
effectofsolidifyingthisconformitytoexpectation.Inordertobedeemed
appropriatetheseimagesneedtoberepresentativeofmorethananimage(the
feelingofbeingthere,theexcitement,therelaxation),whilstatthesametime
idealisedrepresentationsoftherealPlaceallowingvisitorstovalidatetheirvisit.
Thiscanleadtosomesymbolstakingonasmuchsignificanceasthewhole
destinationitself,functioningasastand-inforthedestinationandeverything
thatthedestinationmayrepresent(romanceinParisisnotguaranteed,butthe
Eiffeltoweris[Urry,2002p.12]).
[Itakephotographsof]eithersort-ofbiglandscapesor,orjusttheoddsort-of
detailandthensort-of,nice-nicebitofpatterntreebarkor,orthatsortof
thing.Just,youknow,sort-of-justlittlesort-oflittledetailsthat,thatremind
youofthebiggerpicturebecause-sometimesifyousortoftakeabig
panorama,itjustgetsflatonthepageandwhereasifyousort-ofpickoutthe,
thelittledetailsthenyouthinkahyes,IwaslookingatthiswhenIwas
walkingpastthatand-itsort-ofbringsittolifeabit.
Gavin,49,M
217
AsKlingmann,2007,notes,thesesignificantpiecesofarchitecturearemorethan
thesymbolicrepresentationofthedestination–theyarean‘enduringpublic
presence’(p.327)andthusbecomesomethingthroughwhichthedestination
maybeaccessed.WithinCopenhagenanexampleisprovidedearlierwithinthe
thesiswherewindturbineshavetakenonthisrole,boththroughactiveinclusion
throughthedestinationimage–butalsointheirenduringpresenceoffthecoast
ofDenmark.Heretheturbinesaremorethanvisualambassadorsbutfitwithina
destinationeco-system,bothintermsofitsdestinationimageandenvironmental
networks.
AtNant-Yr-Arian,theGazeisnotpurposefullydirectedtowardstheturbines.
UnlikethesignsthatdirecttheGazeofvisitorsoverpicturesqueunobstructed
views,therearenosignsthatdirectthevisitortoconsideraviewencompassing
windturbines.Theyarenotframedbythesignpostsandinsteadappearonthe
landscapeinthedistance,sometimeshiddenbythetrees.Itisthroughthisthe
roleofthewindturbineasthex-thingissuggestedinthecommentabove.Here,
despitetheeffortofthephotographer,theturbinerefusestobeneutralisedand
subordinatedintotheGazeofthevisitorandforcesitselftoentertheimage.It
stands‘betweenyouandprobablytheverythingyou’retryingtophotograph’
Andyousaidthey'dhaveabiggerimpactifitwasasunset.Whatdidyoumeanbythat?Isupposethey'dbesilhouetted-and,andatthemoment,youknow,the-the
lightingissuchthatthey,youknow,you-you'vesort-ofgottolookforthem
but,Imean,iftheywereonthathillside-betweenyouandprobablythevery
thingyou'retryingtophotograph.Buttheywouldhaveabeautyperhaps,in
themselves?Imeanthey've-Imeanincertainsettingstheymightadd
somethingeven.
Scott,28,M
Yeah,younearlysaidthatbefore….There'ssomethingsortof–
Jess,26,F
WellIadmityeah,there'salmostsomethingother-worldlyaboutthem-yes
thereis,yeah.
Scott,28,M
218
andleadstonewconsiderations.Agapappearsintheclosedcircleof
representation,astheGazequestionsitself.Thevisitorstartstoreconsiderthe
roleoftheturbineandthequalitiestheymayaddtothelandscapeandtheimage
theywillcontributetothecircleofrepresentation.Thereissomething
‘otherworldly’aboutthem.
f.Becomingatraveller(butnotanomad)
Inthisbecomingtheturbinebecomesamarkeronthelandscapeandthevisitor
startstoconsidertheirjourneyandplaceinspace.Theintensityofthebecoming
remainshighasnewassemblagesareintegratedandformedasplacesbecoming
detachedfromtheirgeographiclocationsandtheturbinesbecomeacompass
pointingthedirectionoftravel.Inbecomingplace-markersthewindturbines
offerareassuranceandhelptoconsolidatetheidentityoftravellerforthe
tourist.Thewindturbinebecomesareassuringsignpostthattheyareontheir
waytotheirdestination.
I’vedonethisjourneytoandfromtheUniversityoverthelasttwelvemonths
quiteabit,youkindofwhenyou’redrivingonyourownyoubreakyour
journeydownintobits,soIgofromheretowhat’sthefirstpointNewtown,
thenWelshpool,thenShrewsbury,soyoubreakitdown.SoIknowwhenI
comeinthiswayandIseethemIknowIamnotthatfarawayfromwhereI
needtobe,soit’slikeapointofacompass.
Dotheykindofcatchyoureye?Yeah,IknowwhereIamwhenIseethem.Ithink‘ohI’venotgotfartogo
thankGod!’
Mary,19,F
Idon'tthinkohwhatastunningview,shameaboutthewindfarmoverthere.
It-Imean,we've-we'vebeensort-ofpickingthemoutwhenwe'vebeen
drivingaroundbecauseIthinkatonepointwecouldseethreedifferentwind
farmswhereweweredrivingyesterdayandwewerejustseeingwherethey
were,youknow,inthesamewayasthatwewere-wewerefindingonthe
mapwherethehighpointswhere.
Tim,45,M
219
Asimilarbecomingwasidentifiedforoneotherparticipant.Hereagainthe
turbinesrepresentaplacemarkerbutratherthanstandingoutfromthe
surroundinglandscape,throughthisbecomingtheturbinesappearincorporated
intothelandthatisexplored.Theybecomelikeapartofthemapthatisgazedat
andusedtonavigatethetouristspace,identifyingthedifferentpointsofinterest.
Here,fromthecarwindowthesurroundinglandscapebecomesasighttobe
gazedupon.EverythingisavailabletobeconsumedbytheGazeanddespite
catchingtheeyeofthetouristthewindturbinebecomesautomatically
accommodatedbytheholidayassemblage.Indoingthis,anypotentialwithin
thisencounterisnulledasthetouristGazedomesticatestheturbinebody.
Similarsightscanalsobeaccommodated;Ihavefoundmyselfoftendrivingpast
thecofiwchdrywerynmonument,twentyminutesSouthfromNantYrArianby
car.ThemonumentremembersthevillageofCapelCelyn,floodedtoprovide
drinkingwaterforthecityofLiverpoolinthe1960s.Onmylastdrivethe
monumenthadbeenupdatedtoalsorememberthetragedyatAberfanwhere
116childrenand28adultsdiedafteraspoiltipcollapsedonthevillage.Soeasily
thespectacleofthemonument,writtenbyhandinWelshonabrightpink
background,canbecomejustanothersignpostonthewaytoNantYrArianor
Aberystwyth.
220
g.Becomingapragmatist/becomingresolved
Inthisbecomingasenseofcontemplationoccursandpragmaticallythecosts
andbenefitsofwindenergyareweighedup.Althoughheretheintensityofthe
becomingsarehighintheirabilitytoformnewconnectionsandassemblages
andtopromotetheformationoffurtherassemblages,thecreativepotentialis
diminishedintheresolutionfoundinthesebecomings.Thepragmatismthatwas
demonstratedbyparticipantsemergedoftenasthereproductionofcommonly
appearingcommentsfoundwithinthenewsandinpublicdiscussionsonthe
technology.Thisisbestexploredthroughexamples:
g.1.a‘necessaryevil’
Thistermwasacommonlyspokenphraseandonecommonlyfeltandexpressed
bytheparticipantsofthestudy.Heredespitethewindturbinesbeingsomething
thatisundesirabletheypresentthemselvesasnecessaryinfaceofimpending
globaldisaster.Thelackofcreativityinthisbecomingisdemonstratedthrough
thisphrase,firstlyinitsresolution,it’ssatisfactionandunderstandingofthe
situationthatleadstoapositionofresolve;asolutionintheformofthewind
turbineappearsasnecessaryandfitting,despiteit’s‘evil’qualities.Andsecondly,
inthepowerlessnessitsuggests–theturbinepresentsitselfastheonlysolution,
despitebeingfullyappropriateand‘evil’itistheonlysolutionavailableto
addresstheproblemandthusitisnecessarytobeaccepted–thereisnopointof
challenge.
Theveryideaofa‘necessaryevil’iscounterproductivetodevelopinga
progressiveapproachtoenergymanagement.Theideaoverlooksassumptions
madeontherequirementforacertainlevelofenergyproductionandalsofailsto
challengethesuitabilityofthetechnologythatcanprovidethisenergyina
‘clean’form.Indoingso,the(currently)cheapestandmostmarketready
Ifit’sthecostofsavingtheplanetIdon’tmind.
Sam,24,M
221
solutionappearsasthelogicaloptiondespiteits‘evil’drawbacks.Obviouslythe
wholesalerejectionoftheneedforgreentechnologywouldnotbefavorable
either,butatrajectorythatleadstoconsideringalternativeideasandthe
benefitsthatthesemayoffercouldcreatenewopportunitiesnotpreviously
accessible.Howeverthisisnotnecessarilythecase,asdiscusseding.2:
g.2.vs.thealternatives
Thealternativestowindenergyareweighedupandadecisionismadebasedon
thesuitabilityofthetechnologycomparedtootheravailableoptions.Inthe
examplebelow,theparticipant‘weighedup’theimpactcomparedtoacoalmine,
andwindenergyoffersapragmaticsolutioninthefaceofgrowingenergy
demand.
Inthisexample,despitethepotentialthatmayoccurfollowingacritical
appraisalofthetechnology,thetrajectoryislimitedbythe‘pragmatic’naturein
whichtheoptionsareappraised.
Falsebinariesareconsidered,andthespacewithinwhichthetrajectorybegins
constrainedthepossibledirectionsandassemblagesthatcouldbeformed.
Indeedhere,Robconsideredthepossiblealternativestobecoalminingora
quarry.BothofthesesuggestionshavehistoriclinkstobothNantYrArianand
Walesasawhole.ItisnotpossibleforRobtoknowofallthealternativesthat
maybeavailable–butinsteadofthisassemblageopeningupatrajectoryof
“Imeanevenifyouwerecoalmining,youknow,you’dhaveanopencast
mine,oryouknowaquarryso,youknow,you’regoingtogetitfrom
somewhere,you’vegottogettheresourcesfromsomewhereand,andthat
tomeisyouknowuser-friendlyreally,Imeanyou’retakingadvantageof
youknow[pause]anaturalway.Openingthegroundforthecoalmine,you
knowthat’sthe–
Diggingupthe-Yeah,yeah,wellyou’regunnadestroygoodcountrysidethenreally,soyou
justacceptthemreally.“
Rob,66,M
222
greaterresearch,andexplorationintotheissue–thepotentialisdiminishedas
robjust‘accept[s]themreally’.
g.3.asarequirementofcontemporaryliving
Therequirementsof‘modern’lifemeanthatcompromiseshavetobemade.
Hereweextendtheframeofspacethatdictatestothebecomingbeyondthe
touristexperienceandconsideritwithinwidersocio-politicalterms.Thespace
thatdictatesthebecomingisthusnottheliteralpathsorthesignpoststhatlead
thetouristtogazeatpreselectedobjects,butratherthepathsandsignpostsof
sociallife,thedesiresthatdominatelatecapitalistideology.
Asintheexamplesabove,atrajectorydoesnotemergetoconsiderhowsomeof
theproblemsfacedfrommodernlifecanbeaddressedinanyotherwaybeyond
thatGazeduponbythevisitor.Maybetheturbinesprovideaneasywayforthe
guiltfeltbythevisitortobeabsolved?Theyprovidecomfortthattheirwayoflife
willnotchangeasthesolutionsarepresentedrightinfrontofthem.Notonly
doesthisnotbeginatrajectorywhereotherformsofcleanenergyare
considered(asintheaboveexample),butalsotheconditionsof‘modernlife’
thatrequirethiscompromise(ofcausingobstructionsinthepreviously
‘unblotted’landscape)arenotquestioned.Ratherthanglobalnarrativesabout
reducingcarbondioxideemissions,theimpactsoftheturbinesareweighed
againstthedesiretorunawashingmachine–evenheretheturbinescomeout
ontop.
“SoIthinkifyoulivedhereandyou’renotusedtoseeingthemyouknowlike
thatunblottedbyanythingandtheystartstickingthemup,thenyoumight
starthavingobjections.Butthenwhenyoulookattherealityoflifewellyou
wantyourwashingmachineandyouryouknowelectricity,andyouwantan
ermuninterruptedsupplythenit’sgottocomefromsomewhere.Soyou
weighituphowyou’regoingtogetit,ifyouwanttojointhemodernliving
butstilllivehere.”
Kay,22,M
223
Summary
Withinthissectionthebecomingsthathavebeendiscusseddemonstrate
movementsofassemblagesthatshowenergyandvitality,butarehoweverstill
guidedbythetouristspaceorareidentifiedasthosethatwouldbeexpected
fromthetouristexperience.Itsnotedthatalthoughthisisenjoyableforthe
tourist,itisnotnecessarilyproductive,forexample,inreproducingthe
conceptionofWalesas‘primitiveOther’.ThisisparticularlyinterestinginWales,
asitishometoaculturethathasdefineditselfonthisOtherness.AsWilliams,
(1985)notes:‘acountrycalledWalesexistsonlybecausetheWelshinventedit.
TheWelshexistonlybecausetheyinventedthemselves’(p.2).TheEnglishword
WalesitselfderivesfromtheAngo-Saxonwordfor‘foreign’,leadingJenkins
(1997)toarguethatoneofthedefiningfeaturesofthecountryisitssharingofa
boundary‘withandagainst’theEnglish.
The‘becomingapragmatist/resolved’isaparticularlysuitableexampleofthis
formofbecoming.Hereamovementisidentifiedwherequestionsbegintobe
askedbyparticipants,butthisuncertaintyisquicklytamedthroughresolution
andratherthanopeningupaspaceforthoughtandreflection,thescenefalls
underthesubordinationoftheGaze.Inthisbecomingweseea‘tourist
becoming’intheformoftheinteraction.Thevisitorisnotbecomingatouristin
thesensethatwemaytraditionallyunderstandinthattheyarenotpartakingin
abecomingassociatedwiththetourismindustry(takingphotos,readingaguide
book,etc).Butnevertheless,theirrelationshipwiththespaceandthebodiesthat
surroundthemisonethatcanbelikenedtothatwithinthetouristexperience–
oneofmastery,controlandterritorialisation.
Thenextsectiondiscussessimilarbecomingsthatwereconstructedorconfined
bythetouristspace,butarehoweverofalowerintensity.Duetothis,incontrast
tothebecomingsidentifiedinthissectionthatpromotemovementandthe
formationofnewassemblages,thebecominginsteadresultsintourists
becomingdisinterestedorwantingtofleethesceneentirely.
224
2.Becomingadisinterestedtourist
Asinthetouristbecomingsdiscussedabove,thesebecomingsarethosethatare
structured,dictatedandorganisedbythespacewithinwhichtheyoccur.Within
theencounterbodiesagainperformastheyshould,gazingorbeinggazedat,
howeverherethesebodiesaredisinterestedintheexperience.Unlikeinthe
previousaccounts,theselowintensitybecomingscreateanundesirable
experienceforthebodiesinvolvedandtheformationofassemblagesisslowed
orshutdown.Forvisitorsthisisnotadesirableexperience.Duringthese
becomingstheturbinesdonotofferreassurance,worryingthoughtsemergeand
visitorsfeelpowerlessasthenoiseofthebladesinterruptstheirgaze.The
landscapeappearsgloomyanddoesn’tofferthesecuritythatvisitorsseek,or
realliferefusestodisappeardespiteeffortsto‘getawayfromit’.
a.BecominggloomyinWales
Althoughararebecomingnotedduringtheinteractions,heretheconditions
withinwhichtheinterviewtookplaceandweatherconditionswereseento
affecttheresponsesfromparticipants.Participantswantedtoescapefromthe
weatherandgetinsidetosomewherewarmandcomforting–toacomfortthat
wasnotavailabletothemintheoutdoors.Thediscussionsweretruncatedand
rushedandtheweatherliterallyinterferedwiththerecordingequipment
distortingandcuttinguptheresponsesofparticipantsaswetriedtoengagein
conversation.
Justliketheweatherthatsurroundedus,theturbinesbecameobjects
representingthisgloomforoneparticipant(quotedbelow),drawingattentionto
ourbleaksurroundingsandstirringupstereotypicalperceptionsofrainyWales.
Thelake?Abitgloomyinthedistance,isn'tit?[Laughs]butthat-that'sWalesthough,
isn'tit?
Gavin,49,M
225
DuringtheweeksspentconductingresearchinNant-Yr-Arian,itwasrarethat
researchhadtobesuspendedduetotheweather,howeveronanumberof
occasionstherainandwindmadeitimpossibletospeaktopeopleandrecord
theinterviews.Onsomeoccasionspeoplewantedtoendtheinterviewearlyasit
begantorainandwewerenotabletofindshelter.
Onaclearday,theviewfromthesiteextendedfarintothedistance,withthe
lakeandtreesintheforegroundandthewindturbinesinthebackgroundonthe
hill.Onanumberofoccasions,ondaysthatcouldbedescribedasgloomy,the
mistcoveredtheentiresiteandtheturbineswerehidden.Thelandscapetakes
onadifferentcharacterinthesecircumstances,itbecomesmoremysterious,
otherworldly.Attimesthemistcanbecomesothickthatyouareunabletosee
furtherthananoutstretchedhand.Unfortunatelyontheseoccasions,Ioften
foundmyselftobetheonlypersonstandingonthehillatthesite.
b.Becomingdistractedfromtheview
Despitethestructuringofthespacetodisplaythe‘natural’surroundingsina
waythatisaccessibletothetourist,somethingappearstogetintheway.Inthis
becomingthewindturbineinterruptstheGazeofthevisitor,itcatchestheireye
andrefusestoletgo–sometimesitalmostGazesback.
Idon'tknowwhatitisreally.It's-yeah.Justthatitseemstobeabitofa-I
don'tknow.Ijustdoesn'tlooklikeit'sintherightplace.Imean,Iknowthat
youcan'treallyhidethemaway.Ithinkit'sjustthe-yeah,it'sjustsort-of-it
attractsyoureye,doesn'tit?Soit-youknow,whereeverythingelseisso
beautifuland,sortof,createdandyou'vegotyoursortofman-made-sort-of
thinginthemiddleofit.
Whatdoyoumeanbycreated?Wellyouknow,sortof-I'dsaycreatedbyGod.Erm,beautifulsortof-asit's
meanttobe.Andthenyou'vegotasortof,um-Iknowthatyou'vegotman-
madebitsallaroundeverywherebut-I,Idon'tknow.It'ssoobvious-it'sso
noticeablethatyoucan'thelpbutbeattractedtolookatit,Ithink.Yeah.
Claire,47,F
226
Herethepresenceoftheturbinecreatesasenseofuneaseforthetourist.Despite
thetouristsattempttoGazeoverthelandscapethattheyidentifyasbeing
‘created’theturbineenterstheframeandrefusestobehidden.Thisbecomingis
notconsideredcreativeasitdoesnotmovebeyondthestructuredefinedbythe
touristspace(thetouristisstillatouristGazingoverthelandscapeina
predictableway),howeverherethelandscapethatisGazedupondoesn’topen
itselfuptobeviewed,somethinggetsinthewayandrefusestostopattracting
theeye.Intheexampleprovided,thebeautifullandscapethatisperceivedtobe
aperfectcreationbyGodisdisturbedbythisThing.
Inthefurtherexamples,theturbineenterstheassemblageandithasthe
potentialto‘spoil’thetouristexperience.Thisoccursdespitethepotential
offeredfromthetechnologythroughcarbonmitigation,aspracticalapplications
appearsecondarytoTouristdesire.
IntheexamplefromScottandJess,thepresenceoftheturbineswithinthe
assemblagedrawstheeyetotheextentthat‘nomatterwhereyoulook’they
occupytheGaze.Here,thepresenceoftheturbinewithinthelandscape
assemblageoverridesanyotherbodieswithintheassemblage,andthehappy
visitorassemblagebeginstofallapart.Thedeconstructionofthevisitor
assemblagemeansthatnotonlydoesenjoymentsuffer,butalsothepotentialfor
furtherexplorationislimitedasthevisitorleavesthesiteandmaynotconsider
returningasithasbeen‘spoilt’.Jessexpressesherangerthatresultedfromthe
YeahIdon’t,Idon’tmindthem,IjustyouknowI,IyouknowIcan’tsee
[pause]thatthey’reaproblemreally,ImeanIdolike,IdolikethemandI
thinkthey’rejustsortoferrhelpingtheenvironmentbynotusing,youknow,
anyother-
Scott,28,M
Butevenwhenyoulookatthefarendofthisvalleygoingforward,youyou’ve
stillgotthoseandtheydrawtheeyenomatter,nomatterermwhereyoulook
thoseparticularthingsdrawtheeye.That's-that'sa-it'sashamereally.I
knowithastobedone,butitjustsort-ofspoilsthelandscapeabit.
Jess,26,F
227
constructionoftheturbines–andsheusestheoftenrecurringexpressionof
thembeinglikea‘blotonthelandscape’.Ihavefoundthisterminology
interesting,bringingtomindtheideaofthestaindescribedbyLacanXI.Herethe
stainisareminderofthatwhicheludesunderstandingwithinthecurrentframe
ofreferenceandemergesasanuncomfortable,alarming,irregular‘stain’onan
otherwisecompleteimage.
ThepresenceoftheturbinespreventsJessfrom‘gettingaway’fromthecitieson
herholidayasthereminderofhome(theturbine/blot)interruptstheholiday
assemblage,breakingitapart.Theturbineisunabletobeaccommodatedinto
theholidayassemblage,stainingtheotherwise‘beautifulviews’,andrendering
themundesirabletotheeye.
d.Becomingafraidofthenoise
Noisewasalsonotedtobeabigpartofthewayturbineswereperceived,but
alsoinwhattheturbinescandoandhowtheycanaffectvisitors.AsJess,26,F
noted:‘Imeanthey’renevergoingtofitinthey’renotnaturalbutyouknow
they’renotsilent,youwouldn’tnoticethey’rethere,they’renot–theyjustjump
onyou.’Herethesoundoftheturbineisnotedasitsmoredistinguishableand
intrudingfeature–thenoiseitcanpotentiallymake–anditspotentialto‘jump
onyou’withthissound.
Youdon'twanttobeinawaybuttheykindof,likeIsay,catchyoureye.
Scott,28,M
Per-personally,tenyearsagowhentheyfirststartedbeinginstalled.I-I
foundthattherewas-theyusedtoangermealittleand,andit,itdidgo
againstme.
Jess,26,F
Whydidtheyangeryouinitially?Becauseit-youwere-youwerespoilingnature…beautifulviewsandyou
travelsomewherethat'smoreremote,getawayfromcitiesandthensuddenly
there'sablotonthelandscape-
Jess,26,F
228
Thepossibilitywithinsensoryapproachesbeyondthevisualhasbeen
consideredbysomeworkingonmore-than-representationalapproachesto
understandinglandscape.Itisarguedthatthroughamultisensoryapproachto
understandinglandscape(andinthiscasethedestinationofNantYrArian),we
areabletobegintounderstandnotonlyhowwethinkoflandscape,butalsohow
itinfluenceshowwethink.CrouchandDesforges(2003)considersthepotential
withinamultisensoryapproachtoresearchtoexplorewheretouristsareableto
‘work’theconstrainingframeworkswithinwhichtheyfindthemselves–re-
configuringthemtomeettheirdesires.Thisfindingsupportsthepointmadeon
page90,heredespitemovingbeyondthevisualtotheear–theGazeisstill
present–disembodiedfromtheeyetotheear.TheearstillGazesoutand
searchesforthosefeaturestobeconsumed,andrejectsthosethatdonotmeet
thepredefinedlimitationsthatresultfromrestrictionsoftheGaze.Thusnot
onlydowefailtogobeyondtheGazehere–buttheexperiencefailstomove
beyondonedefinedbythetouristspacewithinwhichitoccurs.
Wheretheinterviewswereconducted,overlookingtheturbinesatadistance,it
wasnotpossibletohearthembutyetvisitorsimaginedtheimpactthenoisemay
haveontheirexperience.
IntheexampleherefromAdam,hedescribestheturbinesas‘whining’.Herethe
turbinesappearalmostanthropomorphised,givenagencyoverthevisitor,and
seenasstrainingbodiesonthelandscape.Theideaoftheturbines‘whining’is
interesting,suggestingahighandunpleasantsound,associatedwithfeelingsof
painorself-pity.Itreinforcestheideathattheseobjectsarealientotheir
…butIjustthinkthey’reablotonthevisualenvironment,they’reanegative
introductionsothat’swhatIseeaboutit.Andapartfromtheimpactonthe
wildlife,thebirdsparticularlyIguesstheydon’t–wellyoucanseethetrack
thatgoesacross,andobviouslythere’sanindustrialdevelopmenttherethat
willputthemupandmaintainthem,buterrtobefairyoucan’thearthem
fromherebutifyougooverthereI’msureyou’llhearthemwhining.
Adam,50,M
229
surroundings–itsownmovementbeyondoutsideofitsowncontrolandin
oppositiontoitsdesire.Hereitisnotevennecessarytohearthewhiningofthe
turbines,buttheexpectationofthesoundisenoughtocreateadisturbance.
e.BecomingGazedat
Withalackforbettervocabulary,thisbecomingisdefinedintermsborrowed
fromLacanianPsychoanalysis.Indeed,theGazehereisnotunliketheGazeofthe
Tourist,stratifyingandsegmentingthesubjectofitsGaze–howeverherethe
Gazeisdirectedfromtheexteriorinwards,highlightingvulnerabilitiesand
disruptingthesecurityofferedwithinthetouristexperiencewithinthe
structuraltermsofthisexperience.
InSeminarXI,Lacanusesanautobiographicalaccounttoexplainwhathemeans
whenreferringtotheGaze.Heexplainstohisseminaraudiencethatduringhis
travelsinBrittanyinFrance,hespenttimewithsomepoorlocalfishermen.
Duringabeautifulday,oneofthefishermen,pointedtoashinycanoftunathat
floatedinthewaternearby.Thecanreflectedthesunlightthatshoneontoitand
themanturnedtoayoungLacanandsaid,“youseethatcan?Doyouseeit?Well
itdoesn’tseeyou!”(Lacan,1978,p.95).Unliketheotherfishermenwholaughed
atthecomment,Lacandidnotfindthisodd‘joke’amusing.Indeed,itisclearthe
canisnotseeinginanysenseasitdoesnothaveeyes-butLacansuggeststhat
thecanwasstill‘gazing’athim-bringingtohisattentionthatdespitefeelinglike
hebelonged,hewasneverthelessoutofplacehereasawealthyyoungman.This
event-thestanding-outofthecanoftuna(andthejoke)-disruptedtheideal
pictureestablishedintheyoungLacan.Thegazeofthecanwasdirectedathim–
andonlyhim–ashestoodoutfromtherestofthescene,despitehisownfeeling
thathebelonged.
Itjustinterruptstheview,Ithink.
Soitkindoflikestandsout?Yeah,it'skind-oflikeyoukeepyou-youknow,it'sdisruptsyour-enjoyment,
Ithink,ofthecountryside.
Tim,45,M
230
Intheexampleabove,Timusesthewordenjoyment.ThisiswhatLacanis
consideringwhenhespeaksofGazeinthisway,viatheword‘jouissance’.The
Gazeinterruptstheenjoymentofthesubject,whichforLacanisaproductive
development.Ihavealreadydiscussedwhythisapproachisnotdeemed
productivewithinthecurrentproject(page79).IncontrasttoLacan,thecurrent
projectconsidersdesire/enjoymenttobeproductiveasitleadstofurther
explorationandcreativity–ratherthandisinterestordiscomfortasweseehere.
Itistruethatthisdiscomfortcoulditselfofanintensitytoleadtonewcreative
becomings–butinthisexample,thejumpisn’tmadeandthedisruptionremains
framedwithinthestructureofthetouristspace.Onceagainweshouldareturn
totheideaoftheturbinesasblotsonthelandscape–atermoftenrepeated,and
representedwithinthepresstodescribetheturbines,andagainindicatingthe
dominanceoftheGazeindeterminingthatwhichitdeemsinterestingand
worthyofitsattention.Thesestructuresthatcouldotherwisefunctionasakey
tounlockcreativityinsteadbecomereducedto‘blots’onapreviouslyperfect
image,andopportunitiesforcreativityarenegated.
f.Becominganannoyedtourist
Herethistouristbecomingresultsinannoyanceandadesiretoleavethescene.
Thewindturbinesentertheassemblageanddisruptthepossibilitiesofcreating
newconnectionsbetweenbodiesastouristsbecomeannoyedandexpressa
desiretoeitherlookelsewhereorleavethespace.Oftenparticipantsinthework
expressedsomeaggressionoranger–inthisangerthepossibilityforcreative
becomingsisminimal,astheangerdistortsandremovesthepotentialforthe
touriststostarttorethinktheirideasasnewassemblagesareformed.Instead
Well-Iwouldn'tcallthembeautiful,Iwouldn'tcallthemugly…they'rejust-
they'rejusttome,ablotonthelandscapeinmyopinion
Victoria,61,F
231
theangerjustforcesthemtolookawayandenteraspacethatismore
accommodating.
Justlikeintheexampledescribedaboveonthe‘blots’onthelandscape,herethe
turbinesresultinanaffectiveresponseinthevisitorsthatisincompatiblewith
theirdesire.Theturbinesappearinoppositiontothedominatingpoweroftheir
Gaze,refusingtobesubordinatedintotheirpreexistingnarrativeofthewelsh
countryside.Indeed,intheexampleabove,Tonydiscusseshow‘evenfalling
downbuildings’areabletobeaccommodatedintothisnarrative,butthewind
turbinescontinuetostandout,theyarean‘eyesore’.
Asaresultofthis,Natashanotesthatshetends‘towalkawayfromthem’leaving
thespaceanddiminishingtheirpotentialtofunctionastheX-thing.Shenotes
thatduetotheturbines,shewillnotgowheretheyareandwouldlookinan
oppositedirection(aclassicallypicturesquelandscapewithrollinghills).This
oppositedirectionismappedoutfortouristsonasignpost,highlightingthe
areasofinterestastheydirecttheirGaze.
Tony,61,M:Assoonaswesatdown-
Sarah,63,F:Thosewindmills.
Tony:…assoonaswesatdownthecommentwas,excusethis‘Whythehell
dotheyallowthemtobuildthosethere,andthere’smorejustoverthere’tous
it’saneyesore,andIcan’tunderstandthem.
Sarah:Andifyouneedtheresearchtheydon’treallydoalotofgooddothey?
Tony:I’mnotreallypositive,I’mnotverypositive.Ijustfindthemveryugly.
ButIdo,Idofindthemugly.Idon’tthinkthey’vegotanyartisticmeritor
anythingelseinthematall.Imeansomeoldbuildings-evenfallingdown
buildings-Icanseesomeartisticmeritin.Youknow,onvisitingtheruins
youfindaround.Ican'tseeanythingatallinthese.
WellIwouldn'tlookdirectlyatthem.Iwouldratherlookoverthere!It'sas
simpleasthat.Wetendtowalkawayfromthem.Notfacingthembut,erm-
andtoacertainextent,wedon'tgowheretheyare.Ifyouknowthey'reallup
there,youdon'tgothere.
Natasha,53,F
232
Summary
Thebecomingsidentifiedinthissectionemergeasaproductofthetouristspace
(asaproductofthefacilitiesestablishedfortouriststogazefromorat,ortohelp
facilitateotheraspectsofthetouristspace)butfailtomeettherequirementsof
touristdesire.Hereinsteadofprovokingcreativity,movementandnew
connectionsbetweenbodies,theybecomerepelled(theyfleethescene)andthe
opportunityforcreatingnewassemblagesisreduced.Herethepresenceofthe
turbinesnotonlyprovokedfeelingsthatwerenotenjoyable,theyprompteda
responsefromtheparticipantsthatoftenendedupwiththemwantingtostop
thediscussion,orwalkaway.Theturbineswereuninspiringbutalsodistracted
fromtherestofthelandscapethatsurroundedthem.Withintheexamplesabove
thisemergesastheoften-quotedreferencetotheturbinesasa‘blot’onthe
landscape.Thisideaexemplifiestheformofthisbecoming,wheretheturbine
bodyappearsasablocktotheGazingtourist.Ihavepreviouslylikenedtheidea
oftheTurbineas‘blot’totheskullthatappearstofleethesceneonHolbein’s
Ambassadors(page71)anditisinterestingtoseethisideabeingdemonstrated
inthefield.HereIalsomakereferencetotheconceptofGazewithinLacanian
Psychoanalysis.HereIborrowthisideatohelpillustratethedirectionofGaze
thatIintendedtoportray,anditisinterestingtoseeparticipantsnotethatthe
turbinesasblotrestricttheir‘enjoyment’oflandscape–somethingthatcanbe
likenedtotheconceptoftheobjetpetitaninLacanianPsychoanalysis.This
interruptionnotonlyoccurswithinthevisualdomain,butthefearofthe
potentialsoundoftheturbinebodydisruptsthetouristsdesirefor‘natural’
silence.Inimaginingthissound,theturbinetookonanalmostsupernatural
quality,‘whining’inthedistanceorjumpingontotheunsuspectingGazing
tourist.
Inthislaterexamplesomeofthemorecreativepossibilitiesthatareexploredin
moredetailinthenextsectionbegintoemerge.Withinthenextsection,an
opposingandmoreproductiveresultisdiscussed–wheretheappearanceofthe
turbineresultsina‘becomingother’,andnotonlydotheturbinesoffer
inspirationbuttheyprovokeachainofbecomingtobeginthatleadsinto
233
unexpectedterritory.Indeed,whatmakesthesebecomingsdifferentisnotthe
enjoymentthatarisefromtheminthetouristbodies,butratherwhattheydoto
thebodiesthemselves–howtheyrealignwhatthesebodiesareanddoas
touristsstartto‘become’likechildrengazingoverthelandscape,orwind
turbinescreatemysteryandintriguethatbeginsajourneyformeaning.
234
3.Becomingnomadic(Other)
Withinthisthirdquadrant,Iidentifybecomingsthataredeemedcreativeand
openupaspacefornewformationsofassemblagesthatgobeyondthose
dictatedbythetouristspace.ThesecreativebecomingsemergeasAffectand
PerceptsinresponsetotheX-thing;inthiscasethewindturbine.AsAffect
disruptstheopinionatedandeverydaylinksbetweenexperiences,theordered
flowofexperienceemergesassingularitiesandthepredeterminedlimitsand
locationsofaffectaredisrupted.Thepotentialforbodiestonolongerbetourists,
butbecomenomadicisexplored–asflowbetweenbodiesishighandofan
extensivespeed,movingfreelyandindirectresponsetotheaffectsandpercepts
itexperiences.
ForDeleuze,thisquadrantcontainsthebecomingsthathewouldconsider
‘ethical’.Onpage80,Iprovideanexplanationoftheseethicalbecomingsby
contrastingthemtotheconfrontationwithlackinpsychoanalysis.Justlikefirst
quadrant,theprocessseekstoofferopportunitiesfornewwaysofthinkingand
beingintheworldtoemerge,butavoidsdictatingthetermswithinwhichthey
mayappear.Itisimportanttonote,thattheimportanceofthesebecomingsexist
notinwhatthey‘are’,butratherinwhatthey‘do’.Indeed,thisiswhatthe
‘nomadic’conceptrefersto–thepotentialfortherejectionoffixedsingularities
andanembracingofdifference–thepotentialtobecomeOther.
a.Becomingateletubbie
Inthisbecoming,thefindingofthewindturbinebeginsatrajectorythat
rearrangesthecompositionofseveralassemblagesandleadstonewand
unexpectedsensations.Indeed,hereweseeevidenceofthisunexpected
connectionasasenseofplayfulnessemergesasthevisitorsbecomelike
children’sTVcharactersplayingonthelandscape.
235
Iamnotaimingtodiscoversomeformofmeaningbehindthis‘becoming’and
moveawayfrompositingthisbecomingasfunctioninginplaceofdesire.Instead
wefollowDeleuzeandseedesirebestexpressedascreativity.Thiscreative
movementmayleadnowhereasthecompositionofbodiesreturnstoamore
expectedform,butitisthisinitialmovefromthevirtualtotheactualthatwe
wishtochart–theopeningupofspacesofcreativityandthenotingoftheir
potentials.Suchexperiencesweremetwithenjoyment,andconversationflowed
freelyastheparticipantsimaginedthemselvesasthechildren’scharactersand
beganlinkingthisexperiencewithchildhoodmemories.
Hereweseesomeofthelimitationswithinthetourismspacestretchedand
experimentedwith,asitbecomesasiteofplay.Urryhasreferredtoplacesof
playwithinhisworkonTourismMobilities–herefocusingontheroleof
movement(orintensity)inshapingandreshapingplace.Inthissense,playdoes
notonlyoccurwithinPlace,butPlaceitselfisinplay(placesofplay,placesin
play).Thisideaofplayfitswellwiththeconceptdiscussedthroughoutthis
chapter–movingbeyondtheideaofplayasenjoymenttowardsanideaofplay
asexperimentationandexploration.Playcanbelikenedtoachildrummaging
throughacabinetofcuriosities,experimentingwiththeitemsthattheyfind
So,howdoyouthinktheturbineseffectwhereyoulook?[Dogwhines].Jess,26,F:Inoticethembutinapositiveway.
Scott,28,M:Whatdotheymakeyouthink?
Jess:teletubbies[Laugh].
That’struethough.Thatistruetherewasaturbineintheteletubbies!Jess:Ineedtogrowup![Laugh]
Scott:SomepeoplewouldputtheminasindustrialbutIjustwouldn’t.,Ithink
youknowitsharnessingsomethingthat’snatural.Theonlywayifpeople
objectedistomakethemcamouflagedsotheywouldblendintothehills,but
then-
Jess:Yeah,likeprettycolours
Scott:Yeah,she,alwaysthinkstheyshouldbelikepastels,lotsofyouknow-.
Jess:No,nothere’sgottobesomeartistouttherewhoprobablylikes-.
Scot:Teletubbieland.
Jess:[Laugh]Yeh!that’swhatitis!
236
inside,puttingtheseitemstouseinwaysthatothersmayfindstrangeand
unexpected.Thisconceptofplayalsoextendstothetouristspaceitself,the
landscapeandtheturbines,themselves‘playing’.Aspeopleenterandleavethe
scene,asweatherchanges,asthepublicandpoliticaldiscoursearoundthese
‘placesofmovement’rearrange,distortandreconfiguretheirpositioninrelation
toothers,formingnewassemblageswithnewpossibilities.
b.Becomingachild
Thewindturbineherebeginsatrajectorythatdisplacestimeandspaceasthe
visitorbeginstoimagethemselvesaschildren.Inthisfirstexample,the
appearanceoftheturbinesbeginsaprocesswherebytheparticipantstartsto
considerhowlandscapehaschangedovertime,promptingthemtoconsider
theirrelationshipwiththeirgrandparents.Wewerediscussingthismemory
whilstclimbingupahill,bothslightlystrugglingaswewalkedupasteepsection.
Wewerefacingdownatthegroundaswepushedourselvesupthehill,the
turbinesinthedistancecatchingoureyeaswespoke.ForRob,theappearanceof
theturbinesremindedhimofthepassageoftime–hedescribeshowheflashed
back.Astheturbinesturninthedistanceonthehillside,andcatchhiseye
temporarilydistractinghim,heimagineshisgrandfathercallingtohim,telling
himto‘getamoveon’.
Thesecondseesanimaginaryscenariowheretheturbinesbecomelikeachild’s
toy.Thisexampleisparticularlyinterestingaspriortothisbecomingthe
conversationwasdifficultwithTim.Hewasinitiallyquiteclosedtoquestioning,
findingitdifficulttoelaborateonsomeofhisthoughts.Hedidnotarticulate
emotionalresponsesandprovidedshortstraightforwardresponses,suchas
whenaskedhowhefeltaboutthewindturbines,herespondedbysayingbluntly
thathedidn’tlikethemwithlittleelaboration.Ithenaskedwhathethoughtof
whenhesawthemandhisresponseisshownbelow.
237
On’becomingachild’Timbegantoopenup,andtheobjectsthatinprevious
discussionsthatweredisruptinghisenjoymentbegantobeseeninadifferent
way.PriortothisTimobjectedtotheturbinesanddidnotprovidean
explanationonwhyhefeltthisway–butfollowingthetrajectorynotedinthe
examplebelow,Timbegantoplaywithsomeoftheideasandconversationcame
easierbetweenus.Theturbinestookanadifferentcharacterastheywere
thoughtofastoysonthelandscape,andbecameobjectswithwhichachildcould
playwith.MaybeTimimaginedhimselfasthischild,pickinguptheturbinefrom
hiscabinetofcuriositiesandexploringthepossibilitieswithit–imaginingthe
differentwaysitcanbeusedandplayedwith.Placeitselfbeginsto‘play’asthe
distancesbetweenusandtheturbinesconverge,andtheyfeelcloseenoughto
touchortoblowonlikedandelions.
Whatdoyouthinkwhenyouseethem?M:WelltoysonthehillsideIwouldsay![laughs]
Whatdoyoumeanbythat,toysinthehillside?M:Well,ifachildcameupherehe’dlookoverthereandthinkyeahthat’s
good,youcouldblowthose.
Tim,45,M
Whatdoyouthinkwhenyouseethewindmills?well,howtimeshavechanged.I’mfromYorkshireoriginallyandIusedtogo
walkingalotwithmygranddadandgrandmaandwindmillsjustweren’tseen
inthecountrysideinthosedaysandthey’reproppingupeverywhere.Wego
toSkegnesswhichisontheEastcoastandyou’vegotwindfarmsouttosea.
It’sthesignofthetimesitneedstohappenbutitisabitofaneyesoreandits
moderntechnologytakingoverthingsthatlikethis–hasprobablybeenhere
forhundredsofyearswherepeoplewouldjustmaketheirwayaround.
Whenyouseethemdoyouthinkithasanimpactonyourwalk?Ithinkitstodowiththechildhoodmemorieswithmeandthewhole
innocencefactorandwalkingaround–itsjustabitofa–allthetimeI’m
lookingdownherebutinthecornerofmyeyeI’mseeingthemtwirling
aroundsoyou’rewantingtolookover.EarlieronIsawmyselfflashingback
andsawmygranddadinfrontandeggingmeon–‘cmongetamoveon’sortof
thinganditsnicetothinkthatIcanstilldothat–I’vestillgotpartofmy
childhooddeepdownandreflectingonwhatwedidasyoungsters.
Rob,66,M
238
Onfirstappearance,onecouldquestionhowsuchabecomingcouldbeusefulas
partofastrategytomitigateforclimatechange,ortoencouragegreater
awarenessofissuessurroundingglobalwarming.Indeed,itisverypossiblethat
itisnot–buttheappearanceofthesemorecreativetrajectoriessuggestsa
potentialwithintheexperiencethatcouldpossiblybeutilisedwithintheright
circumstancestoinspireaproductivecreativityonthisspecificissue.
c.Becomingmystified/confused
TheturbineasX-thingcreatesabecomingthatismysteriousandunresolved.
Thisemergesasparticipantsdescribemomentsofexperiencing‘other-ness’or
asbeingmesmerised,capturedbythemovementoftheblades.Theturbineson
thelandscapearedescribedasiftheyappearto‘dance’,takingonanalmost
humanlikequalityandasenseofautonomy.Thiscanbethecasesometimes
whengazingoutattheturbines–thewaythelightcatchesthebladessometimes
canturnthecontinuouscycleofturningintoanalmosthypnoticsway.
TheexamplenotedaboveindiscussionwithAdam,wasaresponsethat
appearedanumberoftimesduringconversationswithparticipants.Theynoted
asenseof‘otherness’abouttheturbines–notindustrialobjects,butnotnatural.
Imean,I,I,Iquitelikethem,Ithinkyoucouldeven,couldevensaythey’re
prettythewaythey,theyturnandthenit’skindlikekindofamusicaltypefeel
throughitIthink,youknowlikealmostlikeadanceorsomethingifIwas
beingperfectlyhonest.
Victoria,61,F.
They-theydon'tsortofleapoutatmeoranything-aboutthesky-linebut
they'renotsort-ofegregious,sortof,we-weareindustrial…Imean,they-
theyclearlyareindustrialbutthere's-there'san"otherness"aboutthem.
Thereisan"otherness"aboutthem?Butnotakind-ofindustrial"otherness"?No,it-it'snottheequivalentofaloadofcoolingtowersor-orchimneys.
You,youfeelthat-Idon'tknow.There'ssort-of-orthere'ssomethingmes-
mesmericbecauseyoujustwatchthemmoving.
Adam,50,M
239
Inpartthismaybeduetothemovementthattheymakeandthelinksofthe
objecttothenaturalworld–bothintermsoftheirlocation,andtheneedfor
themtobesituatedinanareaofhighwind.Oftenwhenwatchingtheturbineson
thehillwetooweresubjecttothepowerofthewind,sometimesstrongenough
topushusoffourfeet.Theturbineshoweverremainedunmovedhowever
unbearableforus,allbutslightlyswayinginthedistance.
Intheaboveexample,somevisitorsdiscusstheirholidayingexperiencesandthe
windturbinesthatwerelocatedclosetotheirholidaycottage.Throughouttheir
visittheturbineshadbecomeapointofdiscussionforthegroup.Whenlooking
outfromtheirholidayhome,theydiscussedalternativecoloursthattheturbines
couldbepaintedin.Theyalsoconsideredtheturbinesrelationtoother
technologyoftenfoundinruralareasofWales,inparticularquarries.Forthem,
comingfromaformerindustrialarea,windenergyprovidesalessintrusive
solutiontosecuringaresourceforenergyproduction.Thecreativepotential
howeverbeginstoemergeasthevisitorsexploretheturbinesfromtheirholiday
cottageandseethat‘theydefinitelymove’.
Lydia,21,F:Itseemsintheeveningbecausethesunisobviouslyrightgoing
overwhereweareintheevening,soit'sshiningonthem-
Bella,20,F:It'sreflectingitonto-
Lydia:…sothey,intheeveningtheylook-
Bella:Theydefinitelymarchacrossthemountainintheevening.
Whatdoyoulikeaboutthem?Sophie,13,F:They'rebig.They-theycoolyoudownwhen,youknow,you're
closetothem.[Laughter].
Ruby,59:Haveyoueverstoodclosetoone?
Sophie:No.
Ruby:Wouldyouliketo?
There'saplaceinScotlandandyoucangoupinsideaturbine.It'slikeatouristattraction.Sophie:Dad,canwegotoScotland?
240
Heretheturbinesmovementisnotreferringtotheturningofthebladesthatwe
wouldassociate,butratheranimaginedforwardmarchoverthelandscape.The
groupnotesthattheturbineshavebeenaconstantsourceofdiscussionduring
thevisit,appearingassomethingunusualandopeningupthepotentialfora
creativetrajectoryasthisunusualobjectavoidsexplanation.Theplayfulnotion
oftheturbines‘marching’acrossthemountainisexploredbythegroup,and
eachdaytheydiscusshowtheturbinesappearcloserorfurtheraway.Itisinthis
explorationthattheturbinesemergeasOtherness,appearingdifferentfromthe
staticandindustrialquarryandassomethingunusual,provocativeand
interestingforthegroup(especiallyforoneofthechildren).Maybethe
interactioncouldleadtothegroupvisitingScotlandontheirnextholidayto
furtherexploresomeoftheideasthatthisvisithasprovoked.
Summary
ThroughthebecomingsidentifiedwithinthissectionIhavesoughttoillustrate
thepotentialfor‘becomingother’withinthetouristspace.Thesebecomings
createanopportunityfordifferencethatgoesbeyondthatconsideredexpected
withinthetouristspaceandidentifyapotentiallineofflightthatmayresultin
unexpectedopportunities.Theseareofparticularinterestinthecurrentstudyas
theymayofferanopportunityforwaysofthinkingaboutecologyand
environmentoutsideofadominantideologyincapableofaddressingthecurrent
problemsfacedbycontemporaryecology.
IpreviouslyusedanexamplefromGrittoexplainthesesortsofbecomings(page
94).HereGritexplainstheappearanceofthelionasX-thingasopeningupnew
possibilitieswithinthehospitalityspace.Thebodieswithinthespace(Grit,his
daughter,thelion,thehotel,thewindow,thepeopleintown)becomere-
organisedandthroughtheX-thingnewrelationshipsarepossiblebetweenthese
bodies.Inoneofthesereorganisationshefindshimselfandhisdaughterlike
hunters,searchingthelandscapeforthelion.Althoughnotessentialwithinthe
becomings,theseexperiencescanbelikenedtothatofplay(anditisinteresting
tonotesomeofthemorechild-likebecomingsthatemergeinthepresentstudy),
241
allowingvisitorstotryondifferentidentitiesandexplorenewimagination-
scapes.Grithaslikenedthisideaofexperimentationtoa‘culturallaboratory’
(2012).
Withintheexamplesabove,similarbecomingsappearasvisitorsbecome
transportedbacktotheirchildhoodorthelandscapebecomesacanvasonwhich
theyprojecttheirimaginedimages.Indeed,itisdifficulttodirectlylinkthese
becomingstoanincreaseinecological‘awareness’,buttodosowouldpotential
negatetheproductivepotentialoftheexperience(limitingthewayswithin
whichthis‘awareness’canoccur’).Inbeingundefinedandunrestrictingin
prescribingvalidity,itoffersthepotentialtocreatenewecologiesthatareasof
yetunimagined.Inadditiontothisvalueisplacedontheactofbecomingother
itself–astheactofthinkingdifferently(throughdeterritorialisationand
reterritorialisation)isaformofcritiqueoremancipatoryperformanceitself
againstcontrollingordominatingdiscourses.
Intheseexamplestheformsofbecoming-otherappearasenjoyableand
encourageproductive-desire,butinthenextsectionIwilldiscussasimilarform
ofbecoming-otherwithlessenjoyableconsequences.Here,althoughthe
deterritorialisationofthespaceopensupalineofflight,thisnewbecoming
cannotbereterritorialisedandtheexperiencefallsapart–resultinginthe
expulsionofthetourist.
242
4.BecomingdisinterestedOther
Thisquadrantidentifiesthosebecomingswheretheassemblageentersalineof
flightthatisbothunexpectedandpotentiallyrevolutionary.Withinthisquadrant
thepotentialemergesasthesupportingsystemsofthetouristexperienceare
deconstructedandnolongercapableofsupportingthebecomingswithinthe
touristspace–howeverthisexperienceisnolongerpleasant,andinsteadof
fosteringnewideasandbecomingstoemerge,theexperienceresultsinthe
formercomposition(thatofthetourist/walkerinthecountryside)ofbodies
beingterminated.
ThesebecomingsareidentifiedbyGrit(2014)asthosewheredespitesuggesting
apotentialwithintheencountertheprevailinginstitutions/discoursesare
unabletoaccommodatefortheunexpectedmovementandthusresultin
disintegrationoftheassemblage(weseethiswhenheiskickedoutofthe
museum,discussedonpage177).Theprocessofproductive-becomingcanthus
beunderstoodsimplyastheneedtobalancetheneedforcreativitywitha
pragmaticgroundingfromaconsiderationofcontextandapplication.
IndeedthisisnotedbyDeleuzeandGuattari,whorefertothespacethatemerges
fromthisfailureofdeterritorialisation.Clearlyreferringtotheideaoftheblack
holefromwithinthescientificdiscourse(astarthathascollapsedontoitselfand
lightcannotescape),itisrelocatedandtakesonnewforminAThousand
Plateaus.Heretheblackholeisthepointatwhichdeterritorialisationpassesa
pointofnoreturn,asintensitynolongerbecomesbearableandabreakismade
withthesignifyingsystem.BothDeleuzeandGuattariindrawingon
psychoanalysisconsiderthisthedomainofmadness,theentirerejectionofall
socialstructuresandofsubjectivity.Indeed,theycallusnottoturnourbackson
boundaries,buttodismantlethemwithsystemiccaution.
Withinthecurrentstudy,theblackholeisconsideredtheplacewhereintensity
ordeterritorialisationcannolongerbeaccommodatedbythetourismspace.The
movementbeyondtheboundarieswithinthespaceorwithinthepredefined
243
desiresofthetouristreachesapointwhereinsteadofpromotingfurther
movementandcreativity,thetrajectoryhasnowherelefttotravel.These
momentsarecreative,butinsteadofcontinuingtoproduceadditional
formationsofbodies,thetouristsfindthemselveswantingtoleaveduetothe
intensityofthiscreativityorthenaturewithinwhichthiscreativityhasemerged.
a.Becomingdistrustingandcynical
HeretheappearanceandinteractionwiththeturbineassemblageasX-thing
beginsabecomingthatpromotesdistrustandfeelingsofcynicism.Thedistrust
emergesasaffect,notdirectedtowardstheturbinebodybutasaffectitself.The
visitorassemblagebreaksdownandnowbecomesthedistrustingofscience
assemblageorthecynicalmemberofthepublicassemblage–nolongeristhe
landscapeopeningitselfuptobegazedupon,nowitonlyprovokesquestions
anduneasyfeelings,withoutprovidinganswers.
IntheexampleabovewithAlexandAndy,theturbineprovokedadiscussion
abouttheirdistrustofthesciencebehindthetechnology.Theylinkedthese
feelingstothedistrusttheyhavetowardsthetobaccoindustryandpoliticians.
Theyareconcernedthatfinancialinterestsareatplay,anddecisionsarenot
beingmadebasedontheeffectivenessofthetechnologybutratherfromself-
interest.Onpage192,asimilarpointwasraisedduringinterviewswithinGenre
Alex,33,M:Ialsofinditdifficulttoget-tocometoaconclusionaboutthe
efficiencyofwind-generatedelectricity,becausewereadsomanyconflicting
reports.Youneverknowhowobjectivetheresearchbehindtheparticular
reportis,likeI’moldenoughtorememberthatforyearsthepetrolcompanies
employedscientiststoprovethatleadinpetroldidn’tdoanyharmtoanyone.
Andy,29,M:Tobaccocompanieslikewise.
Alex:Theresearchthatsaiditdidwasdiscreditedforalmostageneration.
[…]
Alex:[Laughs]Ijustseeit’spoliticiansconningus.Iwon’tbesurprisedif
there’saback-handerfortheturbinecompanies,andwhyshouldwebe
payingasubsidyforthem?Thatreallygripes.
244
1anditwasnotedhowrecentpoliticaleventssuchastheexpensesscandal
couldhaveshapedpublicperceptionandpublictrustinpoliticalinstitutions.
Heretheresearchfromthetobaccoindustryisnotedwhereresearchindicated
thatsmokingcausedharmwassuppressedtoavoidanimpactonsales.Thereis
likelymuchtobesaidaboutthecrossoversbetweenpoliticsandthetobacco
industry,thelatterbeingthebirthplaceforpublicrelations.Howeverthis
discussionalsorevealsapotentialmisunderstandingonthescientificprocess,
whereitmaytakeaperiodoftenyearsinordertoformascientificconsensus
especiallyonissuesthatwouldrequirealotofproofsuchasglobalwarming.The
lackofapublicdiscourseonthescientificmethodhasallowedthecontribution
of3%ofscientiststobeconsideredofequalvalueindebatestotheconsensusof
97%ofscientistsinfavourofmanmadeglobalwarming.
ThefeelingsofdistrustledAlexandAndytogetirateindiscussingthewaythey
felttheyarebeingexploited.Theinterviewshortlyterminatesfollowingthisas
familymembersencouragethemtomoveon–thesesortsofbecomingsarenot
welcomeonapeacefulwalkinthecountryside.
IntheexampleabovefromAnt,theturbineprovokedadiscussionontheHS2
development.Heretheappearanceoftheturbinebodycreatedacynical-
becoming,leadingAnttoconsiderhowthecountrysideathishomewillsoonbe
‘cutup’bytheconstructionofthehigh-speedtrain.Onpage24,Idiscusshow
thisisareactionfeltbysomelocalpeopletowardstheturbinesandlinkitintoa
discourseinWalesthathasseenvillagesandcountrysidereplacedwithlarge
It'showisthe-it'slike,er,we'vegotwhereIlive,HS2goingtocomeright
passedmyhouseandI'mthinkingit'scuttingupallthecountryside,just
somethingthatonlyafewpeoplearegoingtobenefitfrominthearea.
Nobody'sgoingtobenefitinmyareaandyet-becauseit's-it'sgoingfrom
LondonandcuttingthroughBuckinghamshireandOxfordshirethere'sno
stationsoranythinggoingin.It'sjustthepeoplefromBirminghamtoLondon
thatwillbenefitfromit.Idon'tknowifthat'sthesameherewiththose?
Probablythepeopleintheareaarebenefitingsortoffromthem.Idon't
know.Idon'tknowhow-youknow?Who'sbenefittingfromthem?
Ant,42,M
245
infrastructureprojectstosupplyEnglandwithresources.Antdoesnothavethis
Welshnationalistdiscourse,andsoinsteadthequestionisleftunanswered:“I
don’tknowhow–youknow?Who’sbenefittingfromthem?”
Followingthis,Antdecidedtoendthediscussion,ashewantedtocontinuewith
hiswalk.
b.Becomingoldandbeingjudged
HeretheturbineasX-thingonenteringtheassemblagecreatesatrajectorythat
isuncomfortabletothewalkersandpromotesafeelingofbeingwatched.
Howeverunlikebeing‘gazedat’aspreviouslydiscussedonpage229,the
becomingsaremorecreativeandmovebeyondthetouristspace.Whilst
David,45,M:We’vegotasimilarthingathomeyouknowit’sgoingoffwhere
welive.Aschoolbacksontoourhouserightatthecorneroftheschoolfield
andit’sbeenquietthere,beentheresincethe‘70’sandallofasuddenthey’ve
putaplaygroundrightinthecornerwhichislessthanthreemetersfromour
wall–
Mandy39,F:Threemetersfromourboundarysothechildren-
David:…andallthekidscomethereandit’slikejustlookingintomygarden
andit’slike-
Mandy:Andthat’sourhousesignificantlychangedforever.
David:ItdrivesmemadtothepointwhereIwouldmovebutIdon’twantto
becauseI’velivedthereallmylife.[Laughs].
Yeah,yeah,yeahIgetthat,soitwouldbethesamething.David:Soitwouldbethesameifthatwas–ifIlivedtheresomewhere.
Mandy:Onlybecauselikewe’retheonlyoneswhoknowwhatitwaslike
before,soobviouslyifsomeonewascomingtobuyourhousethey’vegotthe
choicetosaywouldthatbotherthem/woulditnot,butIthinkforusithas
beenasignificantchange,andalsofromaprivacypointofviewIthinkthatit
worksbothways,thechildrenneedprivacytoplayandwewanttoenjoyour
gardenwithoutfeelingvulnerableaswegetolder.Oncewe’reoutofthe
schoolcommunity–sorryI’mgoingoffonatangent-
No,it’sfine..Mandy:It’sacaseofwewon’tbeknownandobviouslywe’llbeolderand
wouldhateforsomeonetocomment,‘ohthoseoldpeoplearewatchingme
whileI’mplaying’,it’sthesocietywelivein,it’sabitdelicate.
246
discussingtheopinionsoftheturbinesasvisitors,theyconsideredhowitmight
bedifferentiftheylivedbyawindfarm.Theconversationshiftedandthe
visitorsformedacomparisonbetweenthisexperienceandtheirown
experiencesofhavingaschoolbuiltbehindtheirhouse.Theyidentifyfeelingsof
anxiety,andnotethattheywouldfeelvulnerablebeingsoclosetotheschool,
beingwatchedbythechildren.Theyalsoconsiderthattheywouldbejudgedfor
themselveswatchingthechildren-duetothe‘delicate’natureofsociety.Thisis
quiteastrangetangentthatemergedinthisdiscussion,asthevisitorsimagine
themselvesbeingaccusedofbeingpedophilesforwatchingthechildrenplayin
theschool,orpossiblyjustidentifiesageneralanxietytowardsachangingworld
thathasevolvingsocialnormsthattheyareconcernedofoverstepping.
Asimilarbecomingalsoemergedasawalker,Roy,discussedhisfearof
becomingeuthanisedagainsthiswill.Againherethereisanindicationofafear
andanxietytowardsachangingworldwithnewsocialnormsthatRoyfeelshe
maynolongerhaveaplacein.Maybethetrajectorythatemergedfromthe
interventionoftheturbineleadtoRoytoconsidersomeofhisbasalfears–of
gettingold,ofnolongerbeingofvalue,beingreplacedbyayoungergeneration,
ofdying.
c.Becomingaconservativechauvinist
Herethewindturbineassemblageonenteringthetouristvisitorassemblage
beginsaproblematicanddisturbingtrajectorythatemergesasabecoming
concernedaboutimmigration.HerethepresenceoftheturbineassemblageasX-
thingpromptstheconsiderationofoverpopulationandsoonitisclearthatthis
concernismorefocusedontheoverpopulationbyindividualsofacertain
Imean,tobehonest-Imean,I'm-I'm,er,sixty-three,ermand-and,andyou
know,andI’mactuallyhaveaworryaboutwhetherinmylifetimesomebody
willstartsaying,youknow,probablynotthatmucholderthanyouwillbe
sayingthat,youknow,thisguyneedsaninjectionbecausethereisn'tenough
roomforusyoungpeople.
Roy,63,M
247
nationality:‘EasternEuropeanorAsian,Indians’intheMidlands–“every
languageyoucanthinkofapartfromEnglish”andthefear(or‘concern’)that
comeswiththeinvasionofthe‘Other’.
IhaveattemptedtorepresenttheangershownbyJohnaboveashestutteredout
thewordsofthequotebelow.Theappearanceoftheturbinebeganatrajectory
thatledhimbackhometotheMidlandsandthethoughtsthathe‘liveswith’
everyday.Theholidayassemblagebegantofallapart;frustrationandanger
replacingthefeelingsofrelaxingthatwereexpressedpreviouslyduringour
conversation.
Thediscoursearoundoverpopulationhadasmallrevivalinthemid00s,with
DavidAttenboroughnotingthatsendingbagsofflourtostarvingfamiliesin
Africawas‘barmy’.Socialproblemssuchaspoverty,famine,lackofresources,
arepositedasbeinga‘natural’responsetohuman-madeproblem.Unfortunately
suchideasoftenoverlookthoseaffectedbythesesocialproblemsarethepoorest
insociety.Itisunclearhowoverpopulationlinksinwiththeanti-immigration
M:Everybody’sgotarightto[inaudible,wind,0:28:20]buterm,butthe
effectsIthink,er,youknowIthinktheer-I,I,andIwonderwhetherthese
windfarms,Imeanthat'swhat,youknow,ispartofyoursenseofyour,erm,
researchbuterm,youknowitsortoftie-inIhavetosay,Ihavetosay,I-I've
gotsomequite,youknow…heavythoughtssurrounding,er,youknow-and
it'sbasedinandaround,Ithink,over-population-becauseIthinkwe'reona
-areal-youknow,we'reonacoursefordisaster.
WhatIfindinterestingis,right,soyouknow,wetalk-we'vebeenspeakingaboutthesethings.Um,maybeonlybecauseImadeyousitdownandtalkaboutit,doyouthinktheywould'vecomeupifIhadn'tdonethat?M:Ilivewiththem.It'sadailyconcerneverywhereIlook.ImeanI'm-You
know,fromtheMidlandsandIseeover-populationeverywhere,erm,
immigration,excessiveimmigration,ermandit'snotintegrated-
immigration,it'sjustfloodinganarea,youknow-youdon'tnecessarily-I
mean,it's-IcouldtakeyouandIcouldta-Icouldtakeyou-Icouldwalkyou
foranhourandahalf;youwouldn't-youwouldn'thearEnglish.-It'deither
beEasternEuropeanorAsian,Indian-everylanguageyoucanthinkofapart
fromEnglish-youknow,and-andit's,youknowit'sconcerning,youknow?
John,51,M
248
rhetoricthenusedbyJohnandtheparanoiathatfollows.Henotesthathesees
‘over-populationeverywherehelooks’andhisconcernovernothearingpeople
speakEnglishinlargesectionsoftheMidlands.
d.Becomingcoveredingrayslime
Imean,Ithinkthereshouldbe-therearenowafewconservationareasinthe
seaandthatisvery,verynecessaryaroundourcoastbecauseIused-whenI
usedtoscubadive,alotofplaceyougoandtheeffluentthatwascomingout,
youwouldnotbelieveit.Itisdisgusting.Ander-it-wellwe'veactuallybeen
divingandyouseenthisbrowncloudtowardsyou-andyouthinkwhatthe
hell'sthat?AndyouthinkIknowwhatitis-
Really?Ohno.…offyougo,youknow?AndthethingisontheIsleofWight,Iwas-wewas
thereonedayinourrib,sortof-youknow-havingaSundaybythecliffand
er,IsaidGodwhat'sthatsmell?Andwelookedinthewater,ithadchanged
colour.Cloudsofitandthatallgetswashedoneway.Whatdoesn'tsettle
comesbackandthere'snothinglivingontheseabed.It'sagreyslime.And,
youknow,nowtheysaywellwe'recleaningitupnowandit'sbeingtreated
withinfra-redandallthat,butitdoesn'tstopthedeposits,youknow?And
thatshouldn'tbeallowed.Theyshouldn'tbeallowedtodischarge-Anyway,
that'senoughofthattypeofthingbut-
ButIthink-Ithinkit's-Idon'tknowifit'smayberelevant,maybe.Doyousee,youknow-
Yousee,it'sourwholeatt-
…thedumpingoftheshitto-Yeah.Atleastthatiscleaner.
…theturbines?Iseethat-wellIthinkdumpingoftheshitasyoueloquentlyputit,isworse
thanthose-becauseit'sjustoutofsight,outofmind,youknow?Andunless
youdiveandhavealookatit,youwouldnotbelieveyoureyes.That'strue,
youknow?Itis-itisoutofsight,isn'tit?Itisoutofsightsopeopledon't
care.Imean,ifyougodowntoCornwall,theydon'tmakeanypretence.You
goaroundthereandtheoldmurphy'sarefloatingaround.Youknow,you
knowwherethepointsare.Youthinkyesthere'squiteafewhereandyougo
abitfurtherandyougettheoddoneortwoandbythetimetheygettothe
town,they'veeitherdispersedorsunk,youknowbut-
Rob,66,M
249
Astheturbineenterstheassemblageatrajectorybeginsthatleadstoanew
positionofbodiesincorporatinganaffectofdisgustandthegreyslime(or
faeces)assemblage.Theformationofthisnewassemblageoccursafterthewind
turbinesbeginareconsiderationofpositioningleadingtoanimaginingofthe
oceansandtidalpowers-beforetheunexpectedemergenceofthestorynoted
belowonthevisitors’experiencesinCornwall.Itisinthisstorythevisitornotes
theirdisgustatbeingfacetofacewiththe‘oldmurphys’floatingintheseaand
thenrelatesthisbacktowindenergy.Thewindturbineassemblageisnow
alteredasitisbroughtfacetofacewiththeseoldmurphys.
Interestingly,Robnotesthattheoldmurphysareworsethattheturbinesasthey
areoutofsight.Hisconcernhereisnotjustaboutdisgustingexperienceof
comingfacetofacewiththemurphysunderwater–buttheecologicalimpacts.
Asthemurphysandturbinesentertheassemblagetheyarebothconsidered
alienbodies–both‘ecologicalimpacts’tobemitigated.
e.BecomingaChristianandhavingyourbeliefschallenged
Erm,andIwouldsaythatIguessthoseareinasenseanecessitynowifthings
arewhatthey'resayingtheyare,youknow,withwhat'shappening.
Yeah.Howdoyoufeelaboutwhatthey'resaying?Partofme-I'veheardsomanydifferentviewpointsthat,thattherearen't-
thereisn't-itisn'tasbad-…it'snot,it'sjustthetimes,youknow,thatwe'rein
thatthingswillgothroughcycles.Andthereforeit's,it'smaybegovernment
orsomebodytryingtomakemoneyoffofit-Erm,whichispossible.Erm,I-
youhearsomanydifferentstories.Imean,Ithinkit-personallyIthink
maybeitisjustacycle-…thatwe'reinsome-Againitcomesbacktomy
personalviewofifthere'saGod,whichIbelievethereis,He'sgotitincontrol
andtherefore-maybethat's-somewillsaythat'ssimplisticandyouhaven't
gottothinkaboutthesethingsandyou'rekindofjust,youknow,puttingyour
headinthesandbutyoueitherbelievethatHe'sgotitallincontrolwhich
He'sdoneprettywellsofar-oryouthinkyouasthislittlesort-ofhumancan
dosomething,willmakea-probablyaminordifference.Idon'tthinkit's
makingabigenoughdifferenceto-It'salmostasif,like,thosearepeople
tryingtomakeabitofadifference,isn'tit?It'ssortof-yeah.It'sa-it's
almostkind-ofarebelliousthing.It'ssayingwecancopewithout.Wedon't
needaperson-again,I'msayingmyviewpointbut-wedon'tneedaGod.We
canputthisworldright.Wecanbeincontrolofitand-[laughs]andIwould
say,clickofthefingers,Hecoulddestroyitifhewantedtoso-it'salmosta
verysmallsymbolic,symbolicthingofrebellionorwecandowithoutyou.
Andactuallyinhindsight,itlooksa-anightmare.
Calvin,62,M
250
Heretheturbineasx-thingbeginsatrajectorythatatfirstresultsinabecoming-
cynicalbeforeunexpectedlyreactingwithreligiousandChristianassemblages,
resultinginabecomingthatexpressesprejudiceandachallengetotheChristian
idealsofthevisitor.Calvinfindsthattheassemblageresultsinatrajectorythat
bringsintoquestionsomeofthefundamentalbeliefsthatheholds.HeseesGod
asincontrolandtheunfoldingofhistoryaspartofHisplan.Theactionsof
individualstopreventglobalwarming–astheyarepositingthattheyareableto
havesomecontrolovertheworld,inasensetoplayGod–areconsideredtobe
‘rebellious’andanti-religious.Asthistrajectoryistravelledthebodieswithinthe
assemblagearenolongerorganisedinthesameway.
Thisreformationofassemblageshasresultedinwhatwaspreviouslyconsidered
tobea‘necessity’tonowbeconsidereda‘nightmare’.
Summary
WithinthisfinalsectionIhavesoughttoprovideexamplesofbecomingsthat
leadintoanexperiencethatalthoughdisplaythepotentialforcreative,resultsin
somethingthatisunproductive.Withintheseexamples,thepotentialcreative
naturewithinthetouristspaceisrevealedbutislimitedbytheintensityofthe
becoming.Hereduetothe‘low’intensityoftheformationthepotentialforfuture
creativityisreducedtheexperienceislessthanpleasantforthetourist.This
resultsinthedecompositionofbodieswithintheassemblage.
AsInoteintheintroductiontothissection,theseexperiencescanbelikenedto
thatdescribedbyGrit(2014)inthemuseum.Hereherespondstotheobjects
andbodiesaroundhimasnewassemblagesform.However,hesoonfinds
himselfsurroundedwithpeoplestaringstrangelyathimduetohisunusual
behavior,andheisaskedtoleavethemuseumbyasecurityguard.Within
Deleuzianterms,thesebecomingsareethicalinthattheypromotecreativityand
movetowardsdifference,butarelessproductiveduetothenatureoftheir
intensity.Withinaclinicalsetting,suchexperiencescouldbelikenedtomental
251
illness,wheretheunityofconsciousnesscollapsesandthemindopensitselfup
theendlessandinfinitemutationsandchaos.Withinthetourismsettingthis
insteadrelatestotheunityoftheexperience,resultinginsteadinthedestruction
oftheexperienceratherthanofthemindofthementalpatient.
Thissuggeststheneedforasortofbalancebetweenthepotentialwithin
becoming-otherandtheunderstandingthatisgainedthrough
reterritorialisation.Suchunderstandingsmaybefacilitatedbythe‘territory’
withinwhichtheyoccur,bothintermsofthetouristwithakeeneyeof
serendipitousexperiencesandtheterritoryofthesightseeingspaceitself,
providingaspacewithinwhichthesecreativepotentialscanbeexploredand
examined.
Thatisnottosaythatthepossibilityforblackholescanbeentirelyavoided,but
arguestheneedforacuratedcabinetofcuriosities,organisedinawayto
facilitatedesiring-productionincreativelyusefulways.
Thisthesiswillnowproceedtoreflectontheresultsdiscussedaboveineachof
thequadrantstogether,pullingtogetherthevariousstrandsandideasthathave
emergedthroughthisanalysisandconsideringthepotentialideasthatcanbe
drawnfromconductingresearchinthisway.
252
Reflectionsofthecurrentanalysis
Inthischapterthebecomingsofexperiencesinthecountrysidewereanalysed.
Thisanalysisdoesnotattempttoofferaframeworkoraselectionofbecomings
thatmaybeaccessedbythevisitor,butratheraimstoprovideanempiricalbasis
tosupporttheargumentthatthepotentialforthesetypesofbecomingsis
present.Thewaysinwhichthetypesofbecomingarepresentareevidenced
throughexamplesdrawingonfieldworkundertakeninNant-Yr-Arian,an
attractioninMidWales.Itisarguedthatthiswayofthinkingaboutexperience
needstobeexploredfurtherintourismplanningtoconsiderhowspacesof
sightseeingcanbeusedtounlocktheir‘radical’potential.
DuetotheadoptionofaDeleuzianinspiredresearchmethodology,a
schizophrenicapproachtoanalyzingthedataisused.Thefirststageofthis
reflectionincludesadiscussionofthebecomingsinaformattocomplywiththe
researchoutcomesofthecurrentproject,tocomplywiththerequirementsofthe
fundingbodiesthatsupportedthisresearch,andtoengageandcomplywith
discoursesofacademicresearchwithwhichthisworkwillseektoinfluence.The
workdoesnotseektoquantifytheresponsesofparticipants,butratherto
outlinetheformsofresponsesandanalysehowthesemayimpactonthetourist
experience.Arejectionofthisinitialanalysisanddiscussionthenfollows,where
theanti-philosophicalconsiderationsofthisworkisdiscussed,exploringthe
potentialempiricallysuggestedbythiswork.ThisisexploredthroughDeleuze’s
conceptoftheVirtual.
PlannedHabitualAnalysis(aTouristanalysis)
Thestudyidentifiedbecomingsthatwouldbeexpectedtoemergeasaproductof
thetourismplanningandmarketingofNantYrArian,asboththesiteofthe
researchandanimportanttouristsite,andindeedoftheregionasawhole.Here
thetouristspacehasbeenconstructedasasiteforenjoyment.Thistouristspace
couldbeanalysedinUrryiantermsasoneconstructedinlinewiththeTourist
253
Gaze–herewecouldidentifythepositionofthebenchesalongthewindingpath
thatdirecttheeyesofthetouristoverapicturesquelandscape(onethatis
modeledtoVictorianbourgeoisstandards)orconsiderthesignpostedlandscape
(thecorpse)thatcarvesupheterogeneousplaceintodiscreteconsumablespaces
(theorgans)(Foucault,1973,p.162).Thetouristbecomingsnotedabove
representthosethatwouldbeemergentandconsistentwiththediscourses
describedbyUrry(1990).Visitorsdescribedabecomingofretreat,‘gettingaway
fromit’,leavingbehindthetroublesandcomplicationsofthecitytoexperiencea
morepeacefulexistenceinthecountrysideandhavetheirdesiresmet.The
landscapepresentsitselfasasafewhole;openingitselfuptorepresentationand
understandingasthetouriststakepicturesandconsiderenvironmentalissues.
Thetouristsherearehappyandtheexperiencewouldbelikelytopromote
repeatvisitsastouristsencouragefriendsandfamilytovisitandalsoenjoythe
countryside.Thewindturbinesmakeapositiveimpacthereontheexperienceas
theyfunctionasanobjecttobeGazeduponbythetouristappearingasan‘organ’
ofthedissectedbody.Itappearsassomethinginterestingorfamiliar,emerging
asamodernversionofawindmillandofferingreassurance;orappearsas
somethinguglyanddistastefulasthesolutionisclearlyelsewhere.Itisinthese
becomingsthatthepotentialtoexplorethedevelopmentofwindenergytourist
attractionswithinthecurrentdiscourseoftourismplanningisdemonstrated–
howeverIwishtoarguethatamoreproductive(orradical)potentialshouldbe
exploredthroughcreativebecomings.
Negativeimpactsinaconventional(tourist)senseareidentifiedwithin
‘disinteresttouristbecomings’.HerethespacecreatedbytheTouristGazeis
unsatisfyingandfailstomeetthedesiresoftourists.Sometouristsspoke
negativelyoftheturbines,explainingthattheydistractedfromtheview,catching
theireyeastheymovedonthehillsideandbeinganinterruptioninanotherwise
perfectpicture–likeablotorstain.Noise(ortheperceivedpotentialimpactof
noise)wasalsoamajorconcernfortourists.Indeed,wheretheinterviewswere
conducteditwasnotpossibletohearthenoiseoftherotatingblades,but
neverthelesstouristswereanxiousaboutthepotentialimpactthatnoisemay
haveontheirexperience.Themostunproductivebecomingnotedwasthatofthe
254
‘annoyedtourist’.Herethepresenceoftheturbinestirredupfeelingsofanger,
frustrationandannoyance,makingthevisitorwanttoturnawayandheadinthe
oppositedirection–howeverhereitisnotpossibletodistinguishifthisopposite
directionisoutofNantYrArianorjustawayfromtheturbineitself(maybe
towardsthecafé?).Sometimesgettingtotherootofthisannoyancewasdifficult
butitwaspossibletodiscoverinsomecasesthatitemergednotonlyfrom
subjectiveaestheticpreference,butalsofromfeelingsofdistrust.Theannoyed
touristwantedtostoptalkingaboutwindturbines,andbecamefrustratedto
questioningandtotheresearchprocess(albeitnotasfrustratedaswas
previouslyrecordedinGenre1)–thisunproductivequalitymayhaveimpactson
bothmanagementrequirementsforaconventionaltourismstrategy,aswellasa
radicalonethatemphasisesproductivecreativity.Quotationsthatrecord
negativeresponsestowindenergyarefamiliartothosethathavebeenfoundin
thepreviouslyundertakenperceptionbasedresearch(e.g.Aitchison,2012;
Atkinson,2006;Devine-Wright,2005;MoriScotland,2002)andresultsfromthe
presentstudyinGenreone(seepage182).
Inadditiontothesetouristbecomings,theworkutilisedaparticipantled
methodologythatallowedmoreunusual,orwhatisconsideredheretobe,
creativebecomingsinresponsetothewindturbines.Thisapproachallowed
conceptionsofthetechnologytoberecordedthatmaybeoverlookedinmore
top-downapproaches.Theresearchdemonstratesadegreeofplaybythe
tourists,playingwithconceptsofPlaceasthelandscapebecomeslikethe
backdroptotheteletubbiesTVshowandtheturbinesbecomeliketoysontheir
landscape.Thisideaofplayduringthetouristexperiencehasbeenstudiedas
partoftheperformativeturnintourismstudies,notablybyVeijolaandJokinen
(1994:149)whoattempttoreturntheroleofthebodytotourismstudies.
Incidentally,thecurrentworkalsoseekstocontinuedrawingfromthisidentified
absenceinresearchthatconsidersembodiment,butnowlookstotheabsenceof
theabsent-body(DeleuzeandBacon,2003,p.34)withinsociologicalstudieson
tourism–theabsenceofthebodywithoutorgans.
255
Visitorimpactsthatmaybeseenasmorenegative,emergeasfeelingsofdistrust,
fearanduncertaintyinresponsetothewindturbines.Fromatourism
managementperspective,thedataissuggestiveoftheunderlyingprocessesthat
influenceperceptionsofwindturbinedevelopments.IndeedWolsink(2000)
notesthatnegativeperceptionsofwindenergydevelopments(specifically
NIMBY-ism)emergesnotfromadislikeofthetechnologybutratherfroma
distrustinthescienceandgovernancesurroundingthedevelopments.Workhas
alsoidentifiedtheimpactofalackofconsistentplanningpolicyinMidWalesand
alackofpublicengagementintheplanningprocessashavinganegativeimpact
onpublicperceptionsofthetechnology(Warrenetal.,2005).Thesenegative
perceptionsemergeinthedataasgeneralcynicismanddistrustin‘experts’and
politicians,drawinglinkswithrecentscandalsthathavedamagedpublictrustin
government(expensesscandal,etc.).Theseresultsseemtopointtowardsan
argumentforaconceptionofturbineimpactsthatgoesbeyondsubjective
aesthetics(withoutdisregardingit),consideringtheaestheticqualitiesofthe
turbinetobeunabletobedetachedfromconceptionsofpowerandpolitics.
Furthermore,conventionalsurveyorinterview-basedmethodologiesmayfailto
recognisetheseaspectsofturbineimpactsontourismexperience,andthusfail
torevealthepotentialwithintourismtoaddresstheseissues.Itisthusargued
thatamoreparticipatoryandopenapproachisneededtoresearchonthistopic.
ConceptionsofVirtualities(aNomadicanalysis)
“Philosophyisthetheoryofmultiplicities,eachofwhichiscomposedofactual
andvirtualelements.Purelyactualobjectsdonotexist.Everyactualsurrounds
itselfwithacloudofvirtualimages”(DeleuzeandParnet,2002,p.148).
ToconsideraDeleuzianapproachinthecurrentworkitisnecessarytofirstnote
someontologicalconsiderationswithintheframeworkusedduringanalysisand
howthisrelatestotheprojectthatseekstoexploreunexaminedpotentialities
withintourism.ForDeleuzethereisnosubjecttoexperience,thereisonly
experienceitself.Experienceisinaconstantstateof‘becoming’madeupofboth
256
‘virtual’and‘actual’states.Themovementofabecomingfromavirtualstateinto
anactualstateisreferredtoasdivergentactualisation.Actualisation,however
shouldnotbeseenassomethingfinal,butratherasacontinuousprocessin
relationtothevirtual.Egyed(2006)notes:‘Virtual’isDeleuze’snameforthe
mobiledifferenceofheterogeneousmultiplicities–fordynamicbeing.Actual
beingsdonot,inhisview,haveseparateexistenceapartfromthisvirtualbeing.
Theyare,simply,temporalphasesintheprocessofitseternalactualisation.’(p.
81-2).ItisherewhereDeleuze’smethodologyoftranscendentalempiricismis
based.Thetranscendentalherereferstothevirtual,therealfactorsthatleadto
thegenesisofacertainstateofaffairsinreal‘actual’experience.Aproject
utilisingthismethodologythusseekstoanalysethefundamentalstructuresof
virtualityandhowtheseimpactuponrealexperience,andthusisnotinterested
inspecificcasesofactualexperience,asthesearepurelyspecifictothe
conditionswithinwhichtheyemerge.Thusinaworkthatseekstocontinuea
trajectoryinitiatedbyDeleuziannon-sense,actualisedconceptsneedtobe
acknowledgedfortheirroleinresponsetoemergentproblems.Anethical
researchforDeleuzedisrupts,confrontsandruptures,creatingandpermitting
thecreationofthoughtthatavoidsrespondingpredictablytoproblems.Thisisa
bodyofresearchwithoutorgans,“permeatedbyunformed,unstablematters,by
flowsinalldirections,byfreeintensitiesornomadicsingularities,bymador
transitoryparticles”(DeleuzeandGuattari,2004b,p.40)
Massumi(2002)paraphrasesDeleuzeinprovidingacritiqueoftheproblems
withtheuseofmodelsinculturalandliterarytheory,stating‘[it]isnotthatthey
aretooabstracttograsptheconcretenessofthereal.Theproblemisthatthey
arenotabstractenoughtograsptherealincorporealityoftheconcrete’(p.5).
Suchissuesareinherenttotheuseofanyframeworkwhenappliedtonew
contextandinnewapplications.UnlikeGrit,thebecomingsdescribedinthis
chaptercannotbeplacedfirmlywithineachquadrantofthediagramandinstead
Iwouldliketopositionthesebecomingsonascale,emphasisingtheir
compositionasoneofcontinuousmovement–thismovementmaylastasecond
orcouldextendbeyondthetemporalconfinesoftheresearch.Inaddition,
consideringthesebecomingsasspatialmovementsisalsoproblematicandis
257
providedonlytoenableaframeworkforthesemovementstobewrittendown.
Insteadthesemovementsshouldbeconsideredtoruncoincidently,alternating
infrequencyandintensityasconnectionbetweenassemblagesareformedand
broken,insideandoutsideofeachother.Thusthecategorisationofbecomings
abovereflectsrecognitionofanunderlyingcreativepotential(orpossiblelack
thereof)suggestedwithinthebecoming,apotentialthatmaynotbeequal
amongstallbecomingsnotedbutisneverthelesssuggestiveofthequalitiesof
thecategorytowhichitbelongs.
Itisalsoimportanttonotethedeeplyinterpretativenatureofthecurrent
analysis.Thedeterminationofthedegreeofcreativitywithinabecomingdoes
havesubjectivequalitiesbutinlinewithaDeleuzianapproachthese
classificationsaimnottobedescriptivebutratherseektoarguethatan
underlying/hidden/apparentpotentialformultiplicitylieswithinthecoreof
thesebecomings.Inaddition,thetrue‘result’oranalysisseeksnottoproducea
listofpotentialbecomings,oralistofpotentialrolesthatthetourist(ortourism
manager)canassume/producebutratherseekstoempiricallyshowthe
potentialforcreativebecomingswithintourism(itisnotedearlierthatDeleuze
wouldaskthequestionof‘where?’ratherthanof‘what?’).Thistoocanbesaidof
thecategorisationofthesecreativebecomings,whicharepresenttoenablethe
analysisallowingfortheempiricalargumentofthisresulttobemade.These
categoriesdonotseektoprovideanexhaustivelistofpossiblepositions,but
ratherresultfromatrajectorythatemergesafteranencounterwith
contemporaryworkutilisingDeleuzianphilosophyalongsidesocialscience
research,aconceptinscribedonapersonalplaneofimmanence.Ratherthan
beingvaluedfortheirdescriptivequality,theseconceptsareexploredfortheir
productivequalityandthusfindfamiliaritywithanti-philosophy.Inaddition,the
productivepotentialoftheseconceptsliesintheopportunitiestheyoffertobe
revisedandexpanded,asthemselvestheyfunctionastheX-thingopeningthe
doortoatrajectorythatmaybeunexpected.
258
Chapter6:EngaginginCrystalisation
WithinthischapterIwillnowseektobringtogetherthewaysofknowingthat
havebeenexploredwithinthecurrentwork,notingthecontributionsthatthis
studywillmaketothefield.Thischapterwillseektoexploreinstancesof
similarityandinstancesofconfrontationwithinthedatathathasbeencollected.
ThisispresentedbelowasthreethemesthatIhavedrawnfromthework.
Withineachofthethemes,Idrawfromthevariousformsofknowingwithinthe
projectandinpositioningthemalongsideeachotherattempttodrawideasthat
mayinformfuturework.Eachthemeismadeupofdatacollectedduringthe
Genre,theoreticaldiscussionsandmyownpersonalreflectionstotheprocess.
Ellingson(2009),notesthatalthoughthis‘debriefing’isnotalwaysnecessary,it
iscanbehighlyusefultothereader,“youdebriefyourreaderswithyour
thoughtsonsomeofthewaysinwhichyouthinkyourrepresentationsfit
together”(originalemphasis,p.113).Withinthisdebriefingshesuggeststhe
intentionisnottopresentasolidsummaryorconclusionastowhattheresults
maysuggest,butrathertodeconstruct,problematiseandquestiontheindividual
meaningofeachrepresentationandhowtheserepresentationsmayfittogether:
“Icommonlyofferexplicitconnectionsamongthepiecesofmyworkasyet
anotherfacetofthecrystalthroughwhichreadersmayencounterthetext.Ido
notseetheseaslimitingreaders’interpretationsbutasprovidingmorefoodfor
thought.”(p.113).
Thusitisimportanttonotethatalthoughthecurrentchapterseekstoexplore
someofthethemesthatemergethroughoutthecurrentwork,thesearenot
definitiveconclusionsbutratherfunctionasafurthertexttobeanalysed
alongsidetheothersidesofthe‘crystal’.Indeed,Iwishtoassertthisbyincluding
myownreflectionsandpersonalresponsestothedataintheanalysis,anditis
possiblethatthereadermaydisagreewiththewaythatthedatahasbeen
(dis)organised.Ifirstwishtooutlinethegenresthatwereutilisedinthecurrent
workanddiscusstheirroleinaddressingtheresearchquestions.
259
Genre1utilisedasurveyapproachsupportedbyasemi-structuredinterview.
Thisapproachsoughttoanalysethepotentialimpactsfromwindenergy
developmentsthroughapost-positivistapproach,reusingquestionsthatwere
alreadypresentwithintheliteratureandproblematisingtheusefulnessofthese
questionsthroughasemi-structuredinterviewandcriticalanalysis.Usinga
photo-elicitationmethod,responsestothewindenergydevelopmentswere
recorded.However,theauthenticityoftheseresponseswasquestioneddueto
effectivenessoftheuseofphotomontageimages,andduetoissuesofparticipant
distrustinthetechnologyandtheresearchprojectitself.Drawingonprevious
research,thisapproachsoughttoconsiderthepotentialtodeveloparesponseto
climateconcernswithintourism,exploringtheinterestofparticipantsinvisiting
avisitorattractiondevelopedaroundawindturbinedevelopmentasseenin
WhiteleeWindFarm.Althoughusefuldataforthefundersforthecurrent
project,thisapproachlimitsthewaythatthewindenergydevelopmentand
tourismmaybestrategicallyappliedwithinaclimatechangemitigationstrategy.
Inordertomovebeyondthislimitation,thenextempiricalstrategysoughtto
furtheranalysethewaythatpeopleengagewiththeturbinesandhowthis
engagementcouldbeappliedwithinastrategytoworktowardsaddressingthe
impendingclimatecrisis.
Genre3soughttoaddressthesamequestionsastheaforementionedapproach,
howeveritadoptedadifferentstrategyandsoughttoanswerthesequestionsin
adifferentwayinthehopeofaddressingtheproblemswithGenre1.Usinga
moreinterpretivistapproach,Isoughttoaddresstheissuesthatemergefrom
theinitialgenre,movingbeyondthelimitationsimposedthroughtheadoptionof
commonlyusedmethodologiestoinvestigatethisissuewithintheliterature.
Researchquestion2heretakesprominenceoverresearchquestion1,asIbegin
tolookatthewaypeople‘respond’totheturbinedevelopmentsinsteadof
consideringthepotential‘impacts’.Herethepotentialwithintourismisexplored
atamorefundamentallevel,exploringiftheseencounterswithwindturbines
offerthepotentialforpeopletothinkdifferentlyabouttheenvironmentand
climateandifthisthinkingisproductive
260
Althoughnotagenreofresearch,Ialsowishforthetheoreticalworkthathas
beenundertakentobeconsideredonesideoftheresearchcrystalandhaveso
consideredthisgenre2.Thisgenrealsochartsmydevelopmentasaresearcher,
asIexploresomeofthepoliticalissuesthatsurroundenvironmentalconcerns,
andbuildontheseissuestoconsiderhowamitigationstrategybasedwithin
tourismmayappear.ThesepoliticalissuesarelargelybasedonaMarxist
conceptionofNatureandEcology.WithinthistheoreticalchapterIalsoaddress
issuesrelatingtotheconductoftheresearchprocessitself.Earlyresearch
identifiedfeelingsofdistrustthatledtothedevelopmentofamoreparticipant-
ledapproachinordertoavoidreproducingthisdistrust.Throughananalysisof
theliteratureIhereconsiderhowaresearchapproachcanbebothpolitically
progressivewithoutbeingdictatorialinitsrequirements.
Inordertoprovideanopportunityforproductiveanalysis,anumberofpossible
crystalisationsarepresentedbelowasthemesoftheprojectthathaveemerged
fromtheresearch.
Theme1:Creativity,theUnexpectedandtheTurbineasX-thing
Centraltothework(althoughemergingwithinthesecondhalfoftheproject)
wastheimportanceforunplannedandunexpectedevents,andthepotentialfor
thewindturbinetocreatethispossibility.Thispotentialforcreativityemerges
asofgreaterprimaryconcern,thanexplicitlyaddressingenvironmental
concernsinordertoavoidprivilegingcertainformsofengagement.Theturbine
functionsasGrit’sX-thingintworespects,firstastheprovocativeobjectfor
participantsinthestudyidentifiedinGenre3butalsoasmyownX-thing,
openingupopportunitiesformyownnewengagementswiththeworld.
Attheproject’scorethiscreativityisrepresentedintheanalyticalprocessesthat
Iamcurrentlyworkingwith,withinthemethodologyofcrystalisationthatis
employedatthecoreofthistext.FollowingDeleuze’sontologyofimmanence,
thisprocessseekstoconsiderandreorganisetheaffects,assemblagesand
conceptsthatmakeuptheworldaroundus.Byreorganisingtheseconnections,
261
newwaysofseeingtheworldcanappear(ortoadoptthecontextofthecurrent
study,newwaysoflookingattheproblemanddevelopingsolutionscanappear)
andratherthanseekingfixedresponsesandconclusiveanswers(thatmaynot
exist),theapproachseekstolookforstoriesthatringtrue,resonate,engage,and
move.
Thisapproachemergesincontrasttopreviousstudiesthathavesituated
participantswithinamorepassiverole.Thesepreviousstudieshaveadopteda
moresurveyledormorepositivistbasedapproachsuchasthatemployedwithin
Genre1.Thisislikelyaresultoffundingthathasallowedfortheseprevious
projectstobeundertaken,astheyarenotedtobeoftenfundedbyNGOor
GovernmentOrganisationsandwouldthusrequiregeneralisableandresultsthat
areabletofitwithinapreexistingnarrative.LowandEverett(2014)have
pointedtothedifficultieswhenworkingwithfundingpartners.Indeed,theneed
forcommunicableand‘useful’resultsforthefundingpartnerswasalsoanissue
withinthepresentstudyandledtotheapproachtakeninGenre1,butthe
flexibilitywithinthePhDprojectallowedforagreaterdegreeofresearcher
autonomyandcontrol.Themethodologicalproblemswithinthesestudieshas
alreadybeennotedearlierintheproject,whereInoteissueswithWillingnessto
PayandContingentValuationapproachesandaddresslimitationswithinspecific
studieswithintheliterature.Withintheseapproachesparticipantresponsesare
limitedeitherbythequestionsaskedorthroughtheanalysisitself-respondents
canfindthemselvesreducedtotickingboxesonanissuethatisveryimportant
tothem,ordespitebeingaskedopen-endedquestionsfindtheirvoiceslimited
bytheresearcherduringtheanalysisofthedata.
Withinphase1andtheliteraturereviewitisarguedthatthisapproachmaybe
bothlimitingthepotentiallyusefuldataavailableandmaybecontributing
towardsfeelingsofdistrustandalienation.Inpartthishasbeenarguedtobea
resultofmarketledapproachestorenewableenergydevelopment,allowingthe
dominationbylargerbusinesses(Malon,2006)andduetoalackof
considerationforlocalconcerns(McKenzie-Hedger,1995).Despitethis,local
supportfordevelopmentsisasignificantissueandcanoftenmeanthedifference
262
betweentheacceptanceandrejectionofaprojectapplication(Toke,2002).A
lackofcleargovernmentpolicyalsoreinforcedthisdistrust(Warrenetal.,2005)
resultinginconflictbetweenthemediaandnumerouslobbygroupsasthey
soughttopushtheirownagendaandinfluencepublicdiscourse.InWalesother
issuesinvolvingWelshidentitywererevealed,highlightingthecontinuing
relevanceofpasteventsatTryweryn.Withingenre3,thefloodingofTryweryn
wasmentionedexplicitlybysomeparticipants,whorelatedthedevelopmentof
windturbinesinMidWalestothefloodingofthevalleytoprovidewaterfor
Liverpoolin1960.Itisclearbothfromtheliteraturereviewandfromdiscussing
theseissueswithparticipantsinthestudythatthereisarealfeelingofalackof
benefitforlocalcommunitiesthatareinproximitytotheproposed
developments.
Consideringtheseissuesandtheremitofthecurrentstudytoresearchthe
impactsofwindenergydevelopmentsandtoexploreopportunitiesfor
engagementwithclimatescience,amethodologywasrequiredthatwould
attempttoworkbeyondtheseconcerns.Inordertodothis,itwasproposedthat
participantledmethodologiesmayofferthepotentialtoworkwiththeissuesfelt
byparticipantsprovidinganopportunityfortheproductionofnewresearch
data,whilstaddressingfeelingsofdistrust(oratleastavoidingthereproduction
offeelingsofdistrust)inanefforttoexplorepossibilitiestoworkbeyondthese
barriers.Inordertoaddresstheseissuesitwasessentialthatanyanalysis
retainedthevoiceoftheparticipantsandavoidedprivilegingcertainformsof
responsesandformsofdatathatcouldbecollected.Itisforthisreasonthatthe
currentstudyadoptsamethodologyofcrystalisation,whichinturninfluenced
theanalyticalstrategyemployedwithinGenre3.
Thevalueof‘creativity’wasseenasnotonlyallowingforademocratised
researchapproach,butalsotoopenupaspaceforthinkingaboutnatureandour
environmentdifferently.WithinGenre2,Iexploretheselatterideasfurther,
drawingontheresearchjourneythatledtomeexploringtheproductive
potentialofthinking‘creatively’aboutecologyandenvironment.Theseideas
areexploredfurtherintheme2belowandhereIwishtoreturntotheuseof
263
creativitywithintheresearchprocessandtheroleoftheturbineasX-thing
(drawingontheterminologyutilisedbyGrit,2012).Withincrystalisation,a
numberofresearchstrategiesfromcontrastingepistemologiesareutilised
alongsideoneanotherinawaythatcouldnotusuallybepossible.Thisapproach
seekstocombinethegoalsofartistic/impressionistapproachesinunraveling
acceptedtruthsandtoexplorethespecificaspectsoftheexperiencewhilstalso
exploringthepragmaticimplicationsforpractitionerswhichmaybeconsidered
asaqualityofamoremiddlegroundapproach.Iaimtogenerateinterpretations
fromthedatathatiscollected,exploringthedatafromvariousanglesto
generatenewideasabouttheworld(currentlyexpressedwithinthecurrent
chapterasanumberof‘themes’ofthework).Theseinterpretationsarenot
definitiveandreadersmaydisagreeandemergewiththeirownconclusions
basedonthedataandtheresearchpresented.Inthiswaytheworkseeksnot
onlytobecreativebutalsotoinspirecreativityinothers,creatingopportunities
fornewdebatesandnewwaysofconductingresearch.Init’smulti-genre
approachthisstrategyavoidedprivilegingcertainformsofdatacollectionthat
mayexcludesomepotentialparticipantsintheworkandallowsforthedatato
beaccessibletoaswideademographicaspossible.Indeed,onpage130,I
discussthevalueofincludingawiderangeofparticipantsactivelywithinthe
researchprocessdrawingontheexampleofAidstrailsprovidedinEpstein
(1995).Itooalsotoexploretheopportunitytoworkbeyondfeelingsofdistrust,
andthusrequiredanapproachthatisinclusiveandopen.
ThiswasfacilitatedbytheresearchmethodologyofGenre3whereinsteadof
seekingtointerpretthetextinaconventionalsense,Iusedatacollectedduring
interviewswithparticipantstochartthemesandmovements(the‘becomings’).
HereIsoughttoavoidinterpretingthetexttofindhiddenmessages,andinstead
presentedthewordsofparticipantsastheywerepresentedtomeinthefield.
Theinterpretationthatisconducteddrawslinksbetweendifferentsectionsof
speech(ordifferentbecomings),thuschartingmyownbecomingsonengaging
withthetextaswellasthoseofmyparticipants.Indoingthis,thevoicesthatare
representedarenotdissectedandinterrogated(asinapsychosocial
methodology)butarepresentedasarecordedsnapshotsofaninteraction.Using
264
aframeworkdevelopedbyGrit,Iapplyandexploretheexpressionsofthe
participantsinmyfieldwork,inordertoprovoketheinteractionsforproductive
potential.Indeed,thisanalysisisdeeplyinterpretiveandpersonal,butIhave
soughttojustifymyreasoningandclearlyoutlinemyprocesses.Furthermore,
throughtheutilisationofthisframeworkIamabletoaccommodateresponses
thatmaybeexcludedinotherresearchmethodologies,representingdatathat
maybeunusualorconsideredwithoutvalueinalternativeresearchapproaches.
Withinmyanalysisitissometimestheseunusualresponsesthatwere
interestingastheyidentifiedpossibilitiesforopportunitiesofthinkingdifferently
thatcanemergewhenconfrontedwiththewindturbine.
FromdatacollectedwithinGenre3itisclearthatturbinehasthepossibilityto
functionastheX-thing.JustasthelionenteringthesceneforGrit,theemergence
oftheturbineoverthehillformyparticipantwalkershasthepotentialtodisrupt
anddisorganisetheassemblageswithinthescene.Opportunitiesfor‘becoming-
other’emerge,exemplifiedwithinthedatathroughthestoriestoldby
participantsin‘becomingachild’or‘becomingoldandjudged’.Hereunexpected
responsesemergethatarenotconstructedbythetouristspace,anopportunity
iscreatedfordeterritorialisation,asnewassemblagesarecreatedandmeanings
openthemselvestochange.Ofparticularinterestwithintheanalysiswerethese
becomingsthatopenthemselvesuptofurtherdeterritorialisationasthey
promotefurthercreationofnewassemblagesinlinewithtouristdesire.Irefer
totheseashighintensitycreativebecomings.Beyondgenre3,theturbinecan
alsobeconsideredasanX-thingwithintheresearchprojectitself,asIreflecton
theroleoftheturbineinmyownjourney.Theappearanceoftheturbine
provokedmetoread,studyandreflectmoreontheassumptionsthatImake
whenconductingresearch.Indeed,Iamnowaverydifferentresearcherand
person,threeyearsonafterfirstvisitingtheturbinesinNantYrArian.Ihave
attemptedtodisplaythiswithinthecurrentproject,exploringthedifferent
avenuesthatIhavevisitedwithintheproject,oftenleadingtoadeadend(e.g.
lookingatpotentialwithinpsychoanalysisasaresearchapproach,exploring
WTPandCVtechniques,developingwalkingmethodologiesandphotographic
techniques).Ihavetriedtoavoidpresentingthecurrentdocumentasacoherent
265
whole,asintruthitrepresentsadisjointedjourney,withbumpsintheroadand
unexpecteddeviations.Therearemanyunexpectedassemblagesthathavebeen
createdanddismantledfollowingtheappearanceofthefirstturbinein2011.
Theme2:Opportunitiesforpersonalreflectiononecologicalissues
Thisprojectopeneduptheopportunityformyownpersonalreflectionon
ecologicalissues,butalsodemonstratedthepotentialforreflectionforallwithin
spacesoftravel.Withinthisspace,beingconfrontedwithawindturbinemade
someparticipantsthinkanddiscusstheissuesofwindenergyandclimate
changeeitheramongstthemselvesasagroupoftravellersorindividuallyduring
theinterview.Additionally,theworkopenedaspaceformyownreflectionand
theoreticalexplorationsonecologicalissuesandaddressingtheseissueswithin
aresearchframework.Thisisrepresentedwithinthecurrenttextthatchartsmy
ownjourneyinsearchingforproductiveopportunitieswithintourism,and
developingaresponsetothegrowingthreatofclimatechangewithinthe
humanities.
WithinGenre1,thepotentialtodeveloparesponsewithintourismtoclimate
changeisaddresseddirectly.Visitorswereaskediftheywouldbeinterestedin
visitingawindfarmvisitorcentrewheretheywouldbeabletolearnmoreabout
thewindfarmdevelopmentsandenvironmentalissues.Visitorswhowere
stayinglocallytovisitforanextendedperiodoftime(incontrasttodayvisitors
andthosetravellingthroughanarea)showedgreaterinterest(53%were
‘interested’or‘veryinterested’).Sixtyfourpercentofresidentsinterviewed
werealso‘interested’or‘veryinterested’,howeverthisisunreliableduetoa
smallsamplesize(=14).Participantsalsonotedaninterestintheopportunityto
reducetheircarbonfootprintwhilstontheirholiday,howeverthisinterest
decreasedwhentheywererequiredtopayagreaterprice.Itwasalsopossibleto
considerthepotentialwithinawindfarmvisitorcentrefromthedataobtained
fromthesitevisitandstaffinterviewsatWhiteleeWindFarm,Scotland.Atthe
siteontheoutskirtsofGlasgowvisitorsareabletogetupclosetotheturbines
266
andtakepartinactivitiessuchasTaiChai,cyclingandcrafts.Thereisalsoa
highlysuccessfulinteractiveexhibitthatseekstoinformvisitorsaboutthe
technology.Themanagersthatwereinterviewedalsonotedanumberof‘regular
customers’whooftenvisittoenjoythefacilitiesandthescenerysuggestinga
potentialfortheseinitiallyintrusiveobjectstobecomepartofthedailylivesof
membersofthelocalcommunities.Thecentrehasalsoforcednewconnections
tobedevelopedbetweentheprivateandpublicsector,openingupnew
possibilitiesforcollaborationandengagement.SPRnotedduringinterviewsthat
theirlackofexperienceincreatingavisitorcentrerequiredthattheyseek
supportfromtheGlasgowScienceCentre.ApartnershipwiththeRSPBhasalso
beenestablished,likelyinresponsetopopularconceptionsofdamagetonative
birdpopulationsfromwindturbinedevelopments,furtherstrengtheningthe
centresscientificbasisandofferingasaneducationalresource.
Genre3builtontheseinitialresultsastheinteractionsthatcouldtakeplaceat
suchavisitorcentrewereexploredandanalysed.Throughaparticipantled
interviewapproach,participantsdiscussedtheirresponsestotheturbineson
thelandscapeandtheseinteractionswereanalysed.Hereusingamethodology
drawingonDeleuzianphilosophy,thepotentialwithintheseinteractionsare
analysed.Heretheanalysisdoesnotseektounderstandwhattheseinteractions
maymean,butratherask-whatisitpossiblefortheseinteractionstodo?And
thus,whatopportunitiesdoface-to-faceinteractionswithwindturbinesoffer
(likethatfromvisitingavisitorcentre)forpeople,anddotheymakepeople
thinkdifferentlyabouttheenvironment,windenergyandclimatechange?
Thesesortsofthoughtsemergeasboth‘plannedhabitualbecomings’andmore
nomadicandcreativebecomings.Therewereanumberofvisitorswho
expressedtheirreflectionsontheenvironment,eitherpositively(apro-turbine
stance)ornegatively(eitherananti-turbinestanceoradistrustinclimate
science).Forsomethereallifeappearanceoftheturbinesonlyhelpedtosupport
theirposition,butforothersstandingface-to-facewiththeturbineshelpedto
alleviatetheirfearsandtheworriestheypreviouslyhadaboutnoise,visual
impact,etc.ThroughtheuseoftheDeleuzianmethodology,moreunusual
267
responsescouldberecordedandconsidered.Someoftheseunusualresponses
suggestthepossibilityformorecreativethinkingthatmayopenupthe
possibilityaboutthinkingaboutecologyandtheenvironmentinnewways.For
example,forsomeparticipantsbecomingfacetofacewiththeturbinesallowed
themtoengagedifferentlywiththetechnologyinanewway,seeingthem
throughtheeyesofthechildorseeingthemasmysteriousobjectsthatprovoked
thought.Fortheseparticipantsitispossiblethatthisnewwayofseeingmay
openupthepossibilityforthemtobegintoreconsiderthewaytheyrelateto
theirenvironmentandtheworldaroundthem.DuringanalysisIalsorefertothe
ideaof‘intensity’andrevealedthepossibilityforhighintensitybecomingsin
theseinteractions.Theseinteractionsareespeciallyimportantastheyrevealeda
potentialfornewwaysofthinkingandbeingintheworldtoemergeandforthis
processtocontinueasonenewlyformedassemblageleadstoanother.Here
assemblagesareconstantlycreatedanddestroyed,asbodiesreorganise
themselvesinspace,creatingachainreactionthatmayleadtounexpected
results–justasthefallofonedominocantriggerasurprisingchainreactionina
RubeGoldbergmachine.
ThetheoreticalworkinGenre2soughttosearchforanddevelopanopportunity
forecologicalcritiquefromwithintheliterature.Here,Iask‘whydoweneedto
resist?’anddevelopanargumentforaconsiderationofecologythatbuildsona
MarxistconceptionofNature.Throughthis,Iarguethatanethicalconceptionof
ecologyneedstolookbeyondformsofethicalconsumptionthatemergefrom
neoliberalcapitalism,andtowardsaradicalgreenagendathathasanti-
capitalismroots.Anyopportunitiesforthisformofecologythatcanemergefrom
withinthetourismexperiencethusneedstoemergefromthemomentswithin
thisspacethatprovokeself-reflectionandawarenessonthelimitationsofthe
currenteconomicsystem.InitiallyIexploredtheseideasthroughtheconception
oftheGazeprofferedbyMacCannell,ashisideaofthethirdgazesuggesteda
potentialwithintourismwheretouristdesiredemandsmorethancanbeoffered
withintheexperience.HereIconsideredthepotentialforthisdesiretocreatea
spaceforcritiquethroughamoreorthodoxreadingofLacan’sGaze,alongside
Z� izek’srecentworktopoliticisetheLacaniantext.Despiteofferingthepotential
268
forpoliticalcritique,theresultislimitingwithinthecurrentproject,asalthough
illuminatingthepotentialwithindesire,thispotentialbecomeslimitedwithin
theconfinesofpsychoanalyticaltheory.Tofullyliberatethispotential,Iturned
totheworkofDeleuzeandGuattariandtheircritiqueofpsychoanalysis.
Throughthisapproach,Iprovideatheoreticalbasistotheprojectandarguethat
apotentialwithinthetouristspaceexistsduetothenatureofcapitalistdesire
itself.DeleuzeandGuattari’scritiqueseesareversalandliberationofdesire,
whereratherthanbeingsomethingtobeovercomeorcontainedwithin
psychoanalysis(thedesireisthesymptomofcapitalism),desirebecomesthe
sourceofchangeitselfandbyexploringthemomentswheredesirebecomes
liberatingwemayfindmomentstoenhanceorexploittoprovokechange.Linked
withinalltheseprocesseshasbeenmyownpersonaljourneyasIhavesoughtto
reflectonecologicalissuesandsocialresearch.Theprojectcamewithchallenges
asIsoughttodevelopanapproachthatwasbothpoliticallyconscious,butwas
abletomeettherequirementsofmyfundingpartners.Iapproachedtheproject
withtheintentiontodevelopacritiqueoftheprevailingconceptionsofwind
energyandtourism.Theoretically,myapproachtothisresearchhasmaturedasI
becamemorefamiliarwithcontemporarytheoreticalapproachesthatwent
beyondmyfoundationinEco-Marxism,andratherthanmerelycritiquing
prevailingsystemsIbegantoconsiderthepossibilitytodevelopapositive
approachthatsoughttoexploreopportunitiesforaproductivepotentialwithin
theseprevailingsystems.Inordertoavoidreproducingsystemsofpowerand
dominationthiscritiquebecomeslessexplicitanddirectedtowardsclimateor
economicissues–andmoreaboutexploringopportunitiesforwaysofthinking
thatmayleadtocreatingopportunitiestochallengeorexistoutside(ormaybe
‘visitaplaceoutside)ofdominantpublicdiscoursesorprevailingideologies.
Throughtheuseofthetheoriesadoptedinthecurrentproject,anapproachwas
developedthatisabletoofferthisliberatingpotential.Theseideasarediscussed
withinthetheoreticalchapterswherealineofflightthroughtheacademictextis
chartingasthisliberatingmethodologyisdeveloped.
Inadditiontobeingtheoreticallyliberating,amethodologywasrequiredthat
wasopentoparticipantengagementandwouldavoidprivilegingcertainforms
269
ofknowledge.InitiallyIsoughttoexplorethisthroughpsychoanalysisin
responsetotheliteraturebutfoundthislimiting–thisisdiscussedonpage80.
Thisstrategyfailedatofferingatrueliberatingpotential,insteadreplacingone
systemofthoughtwithanother,withatheorythatattimescanresemblea
sacredtext.Complyingwiththistextoffersthepossibilityforproductive
engagement,butrequiresaleapoffaithassuchapossibilitycannotbe
empiricallyshown.Tomovebeyondthis,Iaimedtodevelopanapproachthat
worksbeyondthestructuresandapproachesdevelopedfrompsychoanalysisbut
reframestheminawaythatisopenandavoidstheoreticallydogmaticbased
interpretation.BydoingthisIhavesoughttoworkwiththepositiveaspectsof
psychoanalysisandaddresswhatIsawaslimitations.
Ihavealsobeenmadeawareofmyownlimitationsthroughthisresearch
journey.Onbecomingawareofmylimitedunderstandsofthetopic,Ipassed
throughphasesofresentmentanddefiance,thenresignationandsurrender,and
finallypurposeandintent.Withinpsychoanalyticalframeworks,thisphaseof
resignationemergedasthelimitofpossibleunderstanding,andledtoasearch
elsewherewhereIfoundmoreproductiveapproachesincontrastingtheoretical
frameworks.Theselaterframeworkswereliberatingastheyproposedan
understandingofcreativityandfreedom(unliketheframeworksthatencourage
andrequiresubmissionwithpsychoanalysis)andpromoteanunderstandingof
theworldthatispersonalandfullofmovement.Indeed,Iamnolesssureofthe
correctapproachtoecologyandneitherdoIfullyrejectorembracethe
possibilitiesofwindenergy–butnowIamabletoproposeanapproachthat
mayfindpossibilitiesfornewwaysofdoingresearchorofthinkingaboutthe
worldthatmightleadtotheseanswers,andacknowledgestheessentialrolethat
otherswillplayinthisjourney.
Althoughtheframeworkthatwasusedwithinthecurrentstudymaybe
reproducedandmayassistotherresearchers–thestudyaimsnottoprovidea
template,butrathertofunctionasan‘x-thing’init’sownright.BuildingonGrit’s
(2012)work,Iadaptedthemodelheutilisedtobespecifictothecurrentstudy
anditsaims(providingamethodthatproduceddatathatwillbeusefulto
270
funders,andonecananalysedatathatiscreatedwithparticipantsincontrastto
theethnographicapproachinGrit’swork);whilstalsoaimingtolookbeyond
(linkingtheseapproachestoamoreexplicitlypoliticalprojectandbeingopento
theunexpected).Herethepotentialthatemergesfromthisprojectforfuture
research(ers)isnotnecessarilyinthemethodsandapproachesthathavebeen
developed,maybenoteventheideasthathaveemergedfromtheresearch,but
ratherintheopeningupthatcanoccurfromthework–thenewideasthatmay
emergefromtheintroductionoftheideaswithinthecurrentprojectintothe
academicdiscourse.Thisprojectinitswrittenformrepresentsthechartingofa
numberofbecomings,someverypersonal,anditaimstobeginatrajectorythat
willcontinuebeyondthetextinmywork(andpossiblyintheworkoffuture
researcherswhoseektoadoptacomplementaryapproach).
Theme3:Thefascisminusall
Lastly,IwishtoalludetoFoucaultinhisprefaceforAnti-Oedipus,wherehe
referstothelureofpowerwithinonesownpersonaldiscourse.Hereherefers
notonlyto‘power’inatraditionalsense(asthedominationofonepersonover
another,ofthepowerrepresentedinpositionsofauthority)(pg.xiv-xv)butalso
theinternalneedfordominationoverknowledgeandunderstanding.Itisthis
dominationthatAnti-Oedipusseekstoovercome,toopenapossibilityforpeople
tostartaskingnewquestionsandthinkingdifferently.Thisprojectbroughtto
thesurfacefeelingsoftotalisingparanoiainitsparticipants(includingmyself)
andrepresentedmyownovercomingofthisneedforcompleteandwhole
understandings.Theprojectidentifiedthesemomentsof‘fascism’overdiscourse
asparticipantssoughttopreserveaconceptionoflandscapethathasnever
existed.Navigatingtheseideaswhilstpreservingmyownpoliticalaspirationsfor
theworkproveddifficult,butthroughdifferencetheprojectidentifiedproductive
potentialforbothmyselfasresearcherandfortheparticipantsofthestudy.
Thisdominationoverunderstandingisexemplifiedinthestatementsofthe
CountrysideCouncilforWalesandtheCampaignfortheProtectionofRural
Wales,whoholdaprivilegedandfetishisedconceptionoftheWelshcountryside.
271
Herethewindturbinesrepresentapotentialintrusionintoalandscapethatthey
consider‘natural’and‘wild’.Althoughthereisasignificanceinhavingapersonal
andsubjectiverelationshipwiththeWelshlandscape,declaringoneversionof
theWelshcountryside(whichitselfhasbeencreatedfromyearsoffarmingand
humanactivity)unequivocallyasthe‘true’and‘natural’version,disregardsthe
potentialwithinthecountrysideforfuturedevelopmentbothaesthetically,
economicallyandaspartofaclimatemitigationstrategy.InMortons(2007)
book,EcologywithoutNature,inresponsetotheseapproachestoecologyhe
writes:“PuttingsomethingcalledNatureonapedestalandadmiringitfromafar
doesfortheenvironmentwhatpatriarchydoesforthefigureofWoman.”(pg.5)
Here‘protection’oftheenvironmentonlyresultsingreaterdominationandthus
estrangement;ratherthanasanacknowledgementoftherolethatthe
environmentplaysinourdailylives.
Withintheempiricalsectionsoftheprojectthisfascismoverdiscourseappeared
notonlyinthefixedperceptionsofthesurroundingnatureandenvironmentbut
alsointhefixedunderstandingsoftheseconcepts.Thusratherthancreating
opportunitiesforthinkingdifferently,conflictingviewsonlysoughttoreaffirm
thetotalisingunderstandingsofparticipants.Thiscanbelikenedtothefindings
ofCrossley(2012)inherstudywithvolunteertourists.Exploringvolunteer
tourists’encounterswithpovertyinruralKenya,shefindsthatdespitepoverty
beingconceptualisedasathreateningobject,touristsareabletodealwiththis
anxietybyremovingtheencountersoftheirtransformativepotential.The
povertyofthosethattheyencounterbecomesneutralisedasitisconsumedand
thecommunitiesareseenas‘poorbuthappy’.Withinthecurrentstudysimilar
movementswererevealedinthepresenceoftheturbine,wheredespitethe
turbinefunctioningastheX-thing(andthusopeninguppossibilitiesfor
difference)thispotentialissoonnegatedandpacified.Foroneparticipant
despiteinitiallyexpressinginsecuritytowardstheturbine,herexperienceswith
religionweresoonnotedandanewtotalisingsystempresentedtodealwiththis
insecurity(pg.133).
272
Thisisthesiteforthebattleoverclimatechangewithinthehumanities–the
challengeistoovercomefixedandtotalisingsystemsofthought.Unlikeprevious
approachesthathavesoughttoeducate,orengageandthusencouragetrust,
theseresultsappeartosuggestathirdwaythatmovesbeyondbothapproaches.
Theprojectsuggeststhatthepotentialliesnotonlywithinengagementasthe
transformativepotentialherecanstillbeneutralised,butwithinthe
proliferationof‘creativebecomings’alongsideengagement.Theendgoalliesnot
inengagementbutratherintheproliferationofamultiplicityofpotentially
productiveexperiences.
Theprojectalsorepresentsmyownbattlewiththeneedfortotalising
discourses.Althoughnotexplicitwithinthewritingoftheproject,early
approachesweredrivenbyaneedforanapproachtoresearchingthetopicthat
wasresistanttocritique.Inanefforttomovebeyondthelimitationsofpositivist
approaches,theprojectturnedtowardsmoreinterpretivistmethodologiesbased
onpsychoanalyticaltheory.Althoughthesetheoriesofferedsecurityandthe
potentialforunderstanding,Isoonbecameawarethattheapproachwaslimiting
initsinfallibility.Thelureofsuchatotalisingsystemwascompelling,asitcould
beusedtofullyexplaintheactionsofanybehaviororexperiencesthateitherIor
theparticipantsinmystudynoted.However,suchsystemsareincompatible
withanapproachtounderstandingphenomenoninawaythatisledthrough
scientificinvestigation,intheirinabilitytobedisproved.InitiallyIthoughtthat
afterunpackingsomeoftheideaswithinthetheory,psychoanalysiswouldbe
abletoaccountfortheselimitations.However,throughfurtherstudyitwasclear
thatitwasnecessarytolookelsewhere-despitehavingalreadyinvestedalarge
amountoftimeandenergy(andfinances).Afterdecidingtostopstudying
psychoanalysis,Ibecameawareofsimilarcritiquesbeingraisedbyacademics
andadoptedthestrategyemployedlaterwithinthestudy.
273
Chapter7:Evaluatingandmovingforward
Thepurposeofthisfinalchapteristoprovideanoverviewoftheresearch,
drawingtogetherthemainlineofargument,outliningthemethodofstudythat
wasadopted,discussingthecontributionofknowledgetothefieldandstating
recommendationsforpolicyandfutureresearch.
ProjectOverview
Thestudysetouttoexploretherelationshipsbetweenvisitorsandwindenergy
developmentsintheMidWalescountryside.Throughamethodologyof
crystalisation,theworksoughttoexplorethepotentialopportunitiesthatmay
emergefromthisinteraction–initiallyintermsofdevelopingavisitorattraction
aroundwindenergy,butmoreimportantlyinordertoexplorethepotential
withintheseinteractionstofunctionaspartofaradicalpoliticalproject.The
aimsofthisstudyweredevelopedbothinpartnershipwiththefundingpartners
TPMWwhosoughttoexaminethewaysthatimpactsofwindenergycouldbe
understood,andmyownaimsofdevelopingaprojectthatsoughttounderstand
howwindenergydevelopmentscouldbeutilisedwithinaformofactivism
towardspublicengagement.
TheextenttowhichIamabletoprovideconcreteanswerstothesequestionsis
restricted–inpartduetotheopen-endedmethodologythathasbeenadopted.
Whendevelopinganapproachtoexplorethe‘impact’oftheproposedwind
energydevelopmentatNantYrMoch,Ifoundthecurrentstrategiesadoptedin
theliteraturetobelackingreliability,eitherduetoinherentweaknesseswithin
themethodologiesused,orduetotheadaptationsrequiredwhenanalysinga
developmentthathasyettobebuilt.Theseissuesareunavoidablewithinastudy
thatseekstopredictthepotentialimpactfromadevelopmentthatisstillinthe
planningprocess,asthepotentialchangesthatmayoccurinpublicattitudesare
unknown.Thismaybeespeciallytrueinthecaseofwindenergywherethe
publicishighlydependentontheprintmediaforinformationondevelopments,
aswasfoundinGenre1.Evenduringtheyearswithinwhichthepresentstudy
274
wasconducted,thepoliticaldiscoursesurroundingwindenergyhaschanged
significantly,withdecreasingsupportforwindenergydevelopmentsaspartof
conservativegovernmentpolicy.Itisdifficulttoanticipatehowthepolitical
landscapemaychangeinthetimerequiredforadevelopmenttobeplanned,
approved,andconstructed,andtheresultingeffectthismayhaveonpublic
perception.Whilstacknowledgingtheselimitations,Ireproducedsomeofthe
techniquesadoptedinpreviousresearchtoprovidedatathatcanbeusedasa
comparisontootherstudiesthathavehadaninfluentialimpactontourism
planningandenvironmentalpolicy.TodothisIdevelopedamixedmethodology
approach(Genre1),usingsomeofthekeyquestionsfrompreviousworkanda
semi-structuredinterviewsection.However,throughtheuseofthissemi-
structuredinterviewIrevealedfurtherconcernsthatbringintoquestionthe
reliabilityoftheresultsthatcanbeobtainedonthistopicthroughasurveybased
approach.Theabilitytothusprovideapredictionofimpactfromthe
developmentontourismisdifficult,andanyresultisbasedonanumberof
assumptionsthatarelikelytochange(possiblyduetotheresultofthestudy
itself).Quantifiedimpactsarethuspotentiallymisleadingandqualitativeresults
althoughinterestingandusefulaspartofalongitudinalprojectcannotbe
generalisedandmayhavelimiteduseforprovidingplanningorpolicy
recommendations.
Inconsideringtheopportunitiespresentwithinthevisitor-turbineencounterto
functionasaformofactivismtheprojectfoundgreatersuccess.Withina
Deleuzianframework,thereisasuggestedpotentialwithintheencounterto
openupapathwaytodifference.Thatistosay,thatiswaspossibletoidentify
participantsthatexperiencedortookpartinbecomingsthatgobeyondwhatis
expectedwithinthesignpostedtouristspace.AlthoughIbeganthisinvestigation
withamoretraditionalMarxistconceptioninmindofwhatthissortofactivism
wouldappearas,throughouttheresearchprocessIrecognisedtheneedfora
morebottomupformofengagementandthusthegoaloftheencountermoved
fromonethatpromptedreflectioninspecifiedways(forexamplecritical
thinkingtowardstheinabilityofturbinestoaddressthefundamentaleconomic
andsocialissuesthatpreventprogressiveenvironmentalaction),towards
275
developingaspacewheredifferentwaysofthinkingcanemerge,outofthe
everyday,thatmaybringhabitualthoughtprocessesintoquestion.Therouteto
emancipationislessclear(itisitself‘becoming’),butisledthroughemergent
ideasandwaysofbeingratherthanfromdiscoursesthatthemselvesmayhave
beenusedastoolsofoppression.However,althoughthecurrentresearchhas
identifiedthepotentialforthissortofengagement,thereisaclearneedto
considerthenextsteponhowthesesortsofbecomingscanbecultivated.
Contributiontotheliterature
Thisthesiscontributesknowledgeinanumberofways.Theworkhassoughtto
introducenewconcepts,providenewapproachestomethodologyandaddtoa
growingbodyofresearchonwindenergyandtourism.Themaincontributionis
toprovideinsightstotourismmanagers(thosewhohaveanecotourism/green
agenda),scholars,andactivists,onhowtourismspacecanfunctionwithina
radicalenvironmentalprojectandtobeginaconversationonhowthese
interactionsmaybeexploited.Thisthesisprovidesaframeworktoacademicsin
tourismstudyandmanagement,forthemtoconsidertheopportunitieswithin
tourismspaceoutsideofcapitalistdiscoursesofmanagingandcontrollingspace
toensuregreatereconomicproductivity.
Theworkexplicitlyaddressesthelimitationswithinthecurrentliteratureon
windenergyandtourism,providingaconstructivecritiquethatattemptsto
proposewaysaroundtheselimitations.InprovidingthiscritiqueIdonotaimto
negatetheworkthathasbeenconductedpreviously,butratherstresstheneed
fornewwaysofapproachingresearchinthisarea,toavoidreproducingdistrust
andalienation,andproducingpotentiallymisleadingresultsonasubjectthatis
highlyimportanttoeconomicandenvironmentalsustainability.Ihave
attemptedtomovebeyondtheselimitationsmyself,howeverIacknowledgethe
limitationsthatmayexistinreproducingthisframework(withinatendered
researchprojectforexample).Nevertheless,thisthesisaimstoargueforthe
needtoexplorenewresearchapproachesthataremoreinclusiveandresponsive
276
torequirementsofparticipants.Recommendationsforfuturestudyare
discussedinmoredetailonpage278.
Thetextalsoprovidesarobustcritiqueofamorepsychoanalyticallybased
conceptionofGaze.ThisformationhasrecentlybeenadoptedbyMacCannell
(2012)inanefforttoprovideatheoreticalbasistohisprojecttoconsiderthe
politicalpotentialintourism.Thecurrentprojectclarifiessomeofthepointsthat
areunclearinMacCannell’stextthroughanexpositionoftheoriginalsource
material,andprovidesaconsiderationofthelimitationswithinthisapproach.I
thendevelopaprogressivetheoreticalapproachtoaddresstheselimitations
throughtheworkofDeleuzeandGuattari.Indoingthis,theworkprovidesa
clearexpositionofkeytheoreticalideasthataredrivingresearchinothersfields
(suchasinmediastudyandcriticaltheory),andintroducestheseconceptstothe
tourismliterature.
Moreover,thisthesisalsoprovidesanadditionalcontributiontothegrowing
fieldof‘Deleuzestudies’,representinganearlystudyinagrowingareaofstudy
stillinitsinfancy.Indoingthis,inGenre3IhaveadoptedGrit’s(2013)concept
oftheX-thingandhisframeworkofbecoming,adaptingtheseconceptstouseas
atooltoguidemyDeleuzianinspiredanalysis.IndoingthisIaimedtocreatean
‘inventivemethod’inthetermsofLuryandWakeford(2012);reorientatingthe
existingconceptsinorderto“makeadifference”(p.11)withinthecurrent
context.TheprojectasawholeisalsofundamentallyDeleuzianinitsadoptionof
crystalisation.Heretheopen-endednatureoftheresearchprocessisembraced
andmadetransparent,asanongoingprocessofbecomingthattranscendsthe
wordsonthesepages.AsmoreofDeleuze’sworkbecomestranslatedinto
English,thereisagrowinginterestinconsideringhowtheseideascanbe
interpretedwithinsocialresearch.Indeed,thetheoreticalideasthatDeleuze
proposedfitintoemergingculturalandphilosophicalideas(e.g.
Metamodernism),makingFoucault’s(albeitironic)predictionofaDeleuzian
centuryallthemorereal.Thecurrentprojectprovidesanadditionalearly
contributiontowardstheemergingdiscourseofDeleuzianstudieswithin
tourismresearch.
277
Iwishtoclosethisinitialreflectionontheprocessandcontributionwithaword
onthelimitationofcritique.Thecurrentprojectsoughttoprovokeandexplore
newwaysofconductingresearchinresponsetotheresearchquestion.Theways
withinwhichthiswasdoneandthatarepresentedwithinthistextemergeasa
productofmyownpersonaldiscourse,situatedwithinatimeandspace–andto
considertheseideasoutsideofthediscoursewithinwhichtheyemergedisnot
productive.InsteadIaskthereadertoaccompanymethroughajourneyasIseek
toanswermyresearchquestions,askingthemtofollowmyleadandrespondasI
didtothetextasitpresenteditselftome.Itisinthissensethattheprojectis
successful.
Addressingtheresearchquestions
WithinthissectionIwillnowrunthougheachofmyresearchquestionsand
reflectonhowthecurrentprojecthasattemptedtoprovidearesponse.
1.Whatarethepotentialimpactsonvisitorbehaviorfromwindenergy
developmentsinMidWales?
Thestudyhasproblematisedthisquestion,arguingthedifficultyindetermining
inreliablyaccessingtheimpactofthedevelopment.InGenre1(page175),I
reproducesomeofthepreviousstrategiesthathavebeenadoptedinanattempt
todeterminetheimpactofwindenergydevelopmentsontourism.Ithen
problematisetheseresultsthoughasemi-structuredinterview,revealing
sourcesofunreliabilityinthisdata.Theresultsthatwereobtainedfromthe
surveysupportthosecollectedinpreviousstudies,howeverresultsfromsemi-
structuredinterviewsuggestthattheextenttowhichanimpactmayhavea
negativeeffectonvisitorenjoyment(orvisitornumbers)maybeexaggerated.In
closingtheresultsofGenre1,Ipositanumberofnewquestionstofunction
insteadofresearchquestion1thatreflectbackontothemainresearch
questions.Thesubjectofenquirythusbecomeshowamethodologycanbe
developedtoanalysewindturbineturbinesratherthanwindenergyitself;howa
278
researchapproachcanbedevelopedtoavoidreproducingfeelingsofdistrust;
andhowanapproachcanbedevelopedtoaccessthepotentialwithinthe
experiencewiththeturbine.
2.HowdopeoplerespondtowindenergydevelopmentsinruralWales?
Thisquestionfollowsdirectlyonfromtheprevious,inpartasaresultofthe
outcomeofGenre1.TheresultsofGenre1caninparthelptoanswerthis
question.Onpage193,Iprovideadiscussionoftheresponsesparticipantsmade
whenaskedabouttheirexperienceswhenfacingthewindturbinesandtheir
perceptionsofwindenergy.Arangeofresponseswereexpressedonthe
turbines,rangingfrominterestandintriguetorevulsion.Whilstparticipants
expressedthatthewindturbinesdisruptedtheirenjoymentofthe‘natural’
countryside,attimestheywereunawareoftheturbinesthatsurroundedus.It
wassuggestedfromtheseresultsthatresponsestoturbinesaremorecomplex
thanaesthetics,andareimbuedwithvaluesthatemergefromdiscoursesof
distrustandnationality.ThisquestionisexploredfurtherthroughGenre3,
whereIexploretheseinteractionsinmoredetailchartingbothpragmaticand
moreexploratoryresultsinresponsetotheturbines(page205).Thesemore
unusualresultsareofparticularinterestastheymaysuggestapotentialwithin
theencounterthatcouldbeexploitedtofunctionasaformofenvironmental
activism.
3.Istherepotentialwithintheseencountersthroughtourismtodeveloparesponse
tothegrowingthreatofclimatechange?
Followingdirectlyonfromquestion2,Genre3suggestedthroughthesemore
unusualbecomingsthatthispotentialmightexistwithintheencounter.Thisline
ofenquiryemergedfromatheoreticalexplorationinbothtourismtheory
(particularlythatofGazeandSecondGaze)andfromcontemporarycritical
theory.InGenre2,Iattemptedtocombinecontemporaryideasfromcritical
theorytotourismtheoryinordertoexploreradicalpotentialswithintourism.
279
TheseideaswerethentestedinGenre3.Withintheencountersitwasnot
possibletodirectlydrawparallelstotheunexpectedbecomingsrecordedand
explicitenvironmentaloutcomes–howeverthegoalherewasfocusedon
revealingthepotentialformofanencounter,andnotnecessarilythecontent.It
issuggestedinthenextsectionofthisevaluationonhowthisresultmaybebuilt
onthroughGrit’sconceptofSerendipitytofurtherexplorethispotential
explicitly.
Inadditiontothesemoreexploratoryattemptstorespondtothisquestion,the
studyalsofoundinterestfromtouristsinthedevelopmentofanattractionbased
onwindenergyinGenre1,andprovidedtheexampleofacasestudyofa
successfulwindenergyattractioninScotland(pg.163).
4.Howcananapproachforanalyzingimpacts/responsesbedeveloped?Whatare
theissueswithcurrentmethodologiesandhowcantheseissuesbeovercome?
ThisquestionisaddressedthroughGenre2,andthroughChapter2.Withinthese
sectionsoftheworkIbuildontheresultsofGenre1andthetheoreticaland
empiricalliteraturetobuildacritiqueofcurrentapproachesandamethodology
toaddressthesecritiques.Ipositthatinordertoavoidreproducingthe
conditionsofdistrust(orpossiblytoevenstartworkingtoaddressingthem)we
needtoutiliseamoreparticipantledapproachtoresearch.Theseideasare
discussedonpage134,whereIpositionthisapproachalongsidethegrowing
bodyofresearchthathassupportedforgreaterpublicengagementinissuesof
scienceandtechnology.Amethodologywasthenproducedthatsoughttoavoid
privilegingcertainformsofknowledgeaboveothers,whilstmeetingtheother
requirementsofthestudy(tangibleoutcomes,reproducibility,clarity,etc).
280
Recommendationsforfutureresearch
WithinthissectionIwillleadonfromthepreviousreflectiononprocessand
contributionandbegintoconsideroptionsforfutureresearch.Itishowever
worthnotingthattoofferspecificrecommendationsforfuturestudydonot
directlyfitwiththegoalsofthecurrentproject.Insteaditishopedthatthis
projectisintendedtofunctionasamachinethatcanbemodifiedandadaptedby
thereadertofunctionfortheirspecificpurpose.
Intermsofcontinuingtoexplorethepotentialwithintourismtofunctionwithin
aprogrammeofradicalenvironmentalism,furtherresearchisrequired.Building
onfromthefoundationthathasbeenprovidedwithinthecurrentwork,moreis
requiredtobetterunderstandhowcreativebecomingscanbecultivatedwithin
thetourismspace.Grit(2014)providesaconceptofserendipitytodescribethis
cultivation,linkingthediscoveryofthecreativebecomingtothatofanartist
searchingforinspiration,whereakeeneyeisrequiredtohuntdownthemore
unexpectedandcreativeopportunitieswithinthespace.Itwouldbeinteresting
toconsiderhowtourismspacescanbeplannedandmanagedtofacilitatethese
sortsofbecomings.Infurtherdevelopingtheparticipantledapproachthatis
advocatedinthisproject,itwouldbeinterestingtodevelopanapproachthat
allowsforagreaterdegreeofparticipantautonomyandexpression.Thewalk
thatwasorganisedaspartoftheESRCfestivalofsocialscienceprovidedan
interestingapproach,utilisingphotographyasatooltoallowparticipantsto
representtheirideasinthefield,andisworthyofaprojectinitsownright
(possiblyalongsideacommunityartexhibitiontoextendthecreative
possibilitiestothewidercommunity).
Furtherresearchisalsorequiredtoexploretheapplicationofthecurrent
approachinothertouristspaces.Itwouldbeinterestingtoexplorehow/ifother
touristspacesallowforcreativebecomingstoemergeandthekeyfeaturesthat
playaroleinmakingthesemovementsoccur.Assuchinstanceswillreveal
opportunitiesfornewwaysofenjoymentandself-discovery,ofparticular
interestmayberesearchonvoluntourismandhowtheresultsfromamore
281
DeleuzianinspiredapproachwouldcontrasttotheLacanianresearchofCrossley
(2012).Theapproachwithinthecurrentstudymayrevealopportunitiesfor
reflectionthatwereoverlookedinamorepsychoanalyticalbasedmethodology,
thusrevealinganasofyetunknownpotentialforcriticalreflectionwithin
voluntourismspace.Likewise,thereispotentialinthemethodsusedinthis
projectforapplicationtocommunity-basedtourismandacriticalreframingof
host/guestrelationships.
Policyrecommendations
AlthoughIamabletomakepolicyrecommendationsthesedonotemergeonly
fromtheempiricalphasesoftheproject,butratheremergefroman
understandinggainedfromextendedworkonthistopic.Despitetheattemptof
TAN8toaddresspublicdistrustthroughcommunityengagementthese
exerciseshaveprovenunsuccessful.Iwouldrecommendgreateremphasisbe
placedoncommunityengagementsothatitfeaturesasacorecomponentof
environmentalplanningguidelinesandpolicyratherthanasanafterthoughtto
boostpublic‘buyin’.Engagementexercisesalsorequirenewframeworksto
allowforproperinputfromthepublicandforimplementationoftheseideas.A
trulyinclusivestrategywouldnotonlyincreasepublictrust,butcouldprovide
plannerswithadditionalusefuldatathatmaybeexcludedinamoretopdown
approach.Iwouldrecommendthoseinvolvedindevelopingtheseproposalsto
consultCollinsandEvans(CardiffUniversity)andtheirworkonthestudyof
expertiseandexperience(see,CollinsandEvans,2002).Theirworkhasbeen
highlyinfluentialinthedevelopmentofmyownideas.
Fundamentally,inordertoaddresspublicdistrustinrenewableenergy
technologyandspecificallywindenergy,alternativefundingstrategiesneedto
bedeveloped.Therenewablesobligationhasmadeitmoredifficultfor
communityownedprojectstobeestablished,andtheindustryhasbecome
dominatedbymultinationaldevelopers.Thishasnothelpedtoaddressthe
feelingsofpowerlessnessandexploitationfeltbythepublic,echoedinthisstudy.
Iwouldrecommendanalternativefundingapproachbetakenallowingfor
282
greatergreeninvestmentandagreaterdegreeofpublicownershipthatfeeds
directlyintolocalcommunities.ProposalssuchasGreenInfrastructure
QuantitativeEasingortheestablishingofaGreenNationalInvestmentBankmay
providesuchresources.Suchanapproachcouldoffernotonlyallowforthe
greaterinvestmentinrenewabletechnologythatisneeded,butcouldallowfor
moreresearchonmoreexperimentalapproachestosolvingourenergyproblem
(bothtechnologicallyandsociologically)andthegenerationofanewgreen
energyeconomythatcouldprovideneweconomicprosperitytocommunities
thataredependentondecliningindustries.
Suchproposalsappearoutofreachatmycurrentviewpoint,butIamonlyaware
ofthesetrajectoriesduetomyownexploration.AsIhavewalkedthe
countrysideinWales,readphilosophicaltextsandtheoreticalapproaches,and
spenttimeinthefieldresearchingwindenergy,assemblagesofbodieshavebeen
destroyedandreconstructedopeningupnewtrajectoriesthatappeared
previouslyoutofreach.Suchopportunitiesforreflectionneednotbethe
privilegeofacademia,butcanbeaninherentpropertyoftourism(andthe
‘tourism’ofeverydaylife).Providinganopportunityforthepublictounlock
theseopportunitiesisourresponsibilityifwewishtocollectivelydevelopa
progressiveresponsetothegrowingenergycrisis.
283
References
Adamowicz,W.,Louviere,J.,&Swait,J.(1998).Introductiontoattribute-basedstated
choicemethods.NOAA-NationalOceanicAtmosphericAdministration,Washington,USA.
Adams,M.&Guy,S.(2007).Editorial:Sensesandthecity.TheSensesandSociety,2,
133–136.
Addelson,K.P.(1983).Themanofprofessionalwisdom.InS.Harding&M.Hintikka
(Eds.),Discoveringreality:Feministperspectivesonepistemology,metaphysics,
methodology,andphilosophyofscience.D.Reidel,London.
Adler,J.(1989).Travelasperformedart.AmericanJournalofSociology,1366-1391.
Aitchison,C.(2012).TourismImpactsofWindFarmsinWales:AStudyofGarregLwyd
HillWindFarm,Powys.RESUK&IrelandLtd.RenewableEnergyCompany
Alberini,A.(2006).HandbookonContingentValuation:1stedn,EdwardElgar:UK.
Anderson,B.(2006)Becomingandbeinghopeful:towardsatheoryofaffect.
EnvironmentandPlanningD:SocietyandSpace,24,733-752.
Anderson,B.andHarrison,P.(2006)Questioningaffectandemotion.Area,38,333-
335.
Anderson,E.(1995).Thedemocraticuniversity:Theroleofjusticeintheproductionof
knowledge.SocialPhilosophyandPolicy,12(2),186–219.
Anderson,J.(2004).Talkingwhilstwalking:ageographicalarchaeologyofknowledge.
Area,36(3),254-261.
Anholt,S.(2007).Competitiveidentity:Thenewbrandmanagementfornations,cities
andregions.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.
Arrow,K.,Solow,R.,Portney,P.R.,Leamer,E.E.,Radner,R.,Schuman,H.,(1993).Report
oftheNOAAPanelonContingentValuation.FederalRegister,58(10),4601-4614.
284
Atkinson,P.A.(2006)Rescuingautoethnography.JournalofContemporary
Ethnography,35(4),400-404.
AusWEA(AustralianWindEnergyAssociation).(2004).WindFarmingandTourism.
FactSheet4.WindIndustryDevelopmentProject.
Aydemir,M.(2007).ImagesofBliss:Ejaculation,Masculinity,Meaning:UnivOf
MinnesotaPress.
Baloglu,S.,&Brinberg,D.(1997).Affectiveimagesoftourismdestinations.Journalof
travelresearch,35(4),11-15.
Barad,K.(2007).Meetingtheuniversehalfway:Quantumphysicsandtheentanglement
ofmatterandmeaning.DukeuniversityPress.
Barrell,J.(1980).Thedarksideofthelandscape:TheruralpoorinEnglishpainting,
1730-1840.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Barrell,J.(1990).Thepublicprospectandtheprivateview:thepoliticsoftastein
eighteenth-centuryBritain.InPugh,S.(ed.)Readinglandscape:country-city-capital.
Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.
Bauer,M.(2000).Classicalcontentanalysis:Areview.InM.W.Bauer&G.Gaskell
(Eds.)Qualitativeresearchingwithtext,image,andsound:Apracticalhandbook(p.131-
151).London:Sage.
Bazeley,P.(2013).Qualitativedataanalysis:Practicalstrategies.London:Sage.
BBC.(2005).BBC-Liverpool-Features-FloodingApology.RetrievedOctober25,
2014,from:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/content/articles/2005/10/17/feature_welsh_reservo
ir_feature.shtml
BBC.(2012).Windfarmsandpylons''limited'impactonWelshtourism.Retrieved
October27,2014,fromhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-26970340
285
Beck,U.(2010).Climateforchange,orhowtocreateagreenmodernity?Theory,
Culture&Society,27(2-3),254-266.
Becker,H.S.(1998).Tricksofthetrade:howtothinkaboutyourresearchwhileyou’re
doingit.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Bell,D.,Gray,T.,&Haggett,C.(2005).The‘socialgap’inwindfarmsitingdecisions:
explanationsandpolicyresponses.Environmentalpolitics,14(4),460-477.
BertotJ.C.&McClureC.(1996).SailorAssessmentFinalReport:FindingsandFuture
SailorDevelopment.Baltimore,Md.:DivisionofLibraryDevelopmentandServices.
Bhaskaran,V.(2010).WilltheiPadkillthepapersurvey?Research.RetrievedApril24,
2013fromhttp://www.research-live.com/comment/will-the-ipad-kill-the-paper-
survey?/4003283.article
Bianchi,R.V.(2009).The‘criticalturn’intourismstudies:Aradicalcritique.Tourism
Geographies,11(4),484-504.
Bishop,R.andT.Heberlein(1979).MeasuringValuesofExtramarketGoods:AreDirect
MeasuresBiased?AmericanJournalofAgriculturalEconomics61,926-930.
Bishop,R.C.,T.A.Heberlein,andMaryJoKealy.(1983).Contingentvaluationof
environmentalassets:Comparisonwithasimulatedmarket.NaturalResources.Journal.
23,619-633.
Bissell,D.(2008)Comfortablebodies:sedentaryaffects.EnvironmentandPlanningA,
40,1697-1712.
Blake,D.E.(2001).Contextualeffectsonenvironmentalattitudesandbehavior.
EnvironmentandBehavior33,708–725.
Blamey,R.K.(1997).Ecotourism:Thesearchforanoperationaldefinition.Journalof
sustainabletourism,5(2),109-130.
286
Blamey,R.K.(2001).Principlesofecotourism.Theencyclopediaofecotourism,2001,5-
22.
Blandford,C.,White,S.,Thomas,B.,&Osment,F.(1994).Landscapeimpactassessment
forwindturbinedevelopmentinDyfed.Blandford(Chris)Associates.
Bornhorst,T,BrentRitchie,JR.,andSheehan,L.(2010).Determinantsoftourism
successforDMOs&destinations:Anempiricalexaminationofstakeholders'
perspectives.Tourismmanagement3(5),572-589.
Boud,D.andFales,A.(1983)Reflectivelearning:keytolearningfromexperience.
JournalofHumanisticPsychology,23(2),99-117.
Boud,D.,Keogh,R.andWalker,D.(1985)Promotingreflectioninlearning:amodel.In
D.Boud,R.KeoghandD.Walker(eds.)Reflection:turningexperienceintolearning.
London:KoganPage.
Boxall,S.R.,Cabioch,L.,D’Hieres,G.C.,Collins,M.,Guegueniat,P.,Statham,J.C.S.P.,and
Wartel,M.(1995).FlUXMANCHEII,hydrodynamics,biogeochemicalprocessesand
fluxesintheChannel.MarineScienceandtechnologies,SecondMASTdaysandEuromar
market,1.OfficialPublicationoftheEuropeanCommunities.
Boykoff,M.T.,&Boykoff,J.M.(2004).Balanceasbias:globalwarmingandtheUS
prestigepress.Globalenvironmentalchange,14(2),125-136.
Braden,J.B.&Kolstad,C.D.(Eds.)(1991).MeasuringtheDemandforEnvironmental
Quality.1stedn,North-Holland/Elsevier,Amsterdam.
BritishWindEnergyAssociation(BWEA).(2006).Theimpactofwindfarmsonthe
touristindustryintheUK.RetrievedNovember4,2014from:http://www.west-
norfolk.gov.uk/pdf/stewAppendix%2010.pdf
Bruton,M.J.,&Nicholson,D.(1987).Localplanninginpractice.London:Hutchinson.
287
Bryman,A.(2008).Socialresearchmethods.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Buhalis,D.,&Cooper,C.(1998).Smallandmediumsisedtourismenterprisesatthe
destination.Embracingandmanagingchangeintourism:Internationalcasestudies,329.
Burman,E.(1994).DeconstructingDevelopmentalPsychology.LondonandNewYork:
Routledge.
BurninghamK.(2000).“UsingtheLanguageofNIMBY:ATopicforResearch,Notan
ActivityforResearchers,”LocalEnvironment5(1),55–67.
Campbell,K.K.,&Jamieson,K.H.(1978).Formandgenre:Shapingrhetoricalaction.
Philosophy&Rhetoric,13(3),217-219.
Campey,V.etal(2003)[StarConsultants]AStudyintotheAttitudeofVisitors,Tourists
andTourismOrganisationstowardsWindfarmsontheBoundariesoftheLakeDistrict
NationalPark,LeedsMetropolitanUniversity
Carpiano,R.M.(2009).Cometakeawalkwithme:The“Go-Along”interviewasanovel
methodforstudyingtheimplicationsofplaceforhealthandwellbeing.Health&Place,
15(1),263-272.
Cater,C.(2001).BeyondtheGaze:Thereflexivetouristandthesearchforembodied
experience.UnpublishedPhDthesis.UniversityofBristol.
Cater,C.andDash,G.(2013)KarlMarx:Alienationandfalseconsciousnessin
adventurousactivities.OutdoorAdventureandSocialTheory.Routledge:London
Cederholm,E.A.(2004).Theuseofphoto-elicitationintourismresearch:Framingthe
backpackerexperience.ScandinavianJournalofHospitalityandTourism,4(3),225–241.
Chard,C.andLangdon,H.(1996).Transports:travel,pleasureandimaginative
geography,1600–1800,StudiesinBritishArt3,NewHavenandLondon:YaleUniversity
Press.
288
Charmaz,K.(2005).TheSAGEhandbookofqualitativeresearch.Sage:ThousandOaks,
CA.
Chiang,Y.J.,&Yeh,S.S.(2011).Theexaminationoffactorsinfluencingresidents’
perceptionsandattitudestowardfilminducedtourism.AfricanJournalofBusiness
Management,5(13),5371-5377.
Chon,K.S.(1991).Tourismdestinationimagemodificationprocess:Marketing
implications.Tourismmanagement,12(1),68-72.
Chon,K.S.(1992).Self-image/destinationimagecongruity.AnnalsofTourismResearch,
19(2),360-363.
Clough,P.(2007).TheAffectiveTurn:TheorisingtheSocial.DukeUniversityPress,
London.
Code,L.(1991).Whatcansheknow?Feministtheoryandtheconstructionofknowledge.
Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress.
Coffey,A.&Atkinson,P.(1996).Makingsenseofqualitativedata:Complementary
researchstrategies.SAGE:ThousandOaks,CA.
Colby,D.,Dobie,R.,Leventhall,G.,Lipscomb,D.M.,McCunney,R.J.,Seilo,M.T.,&
Sondergaard,B.(2009).Windturbinesoundandhealtheffects:Anexpertpanelreview.
Collins,H.M.&Evans,R.(2002).Thethirdwaveofsciencestudiesstudiesofexpertise
andexperience.Socialstudiesofscience,32(2),235-296.
Colman,R.(2012).TransformingImages:Screens,Affect.London:Routledge
Constantine,R.,Brunton,D.H.,&Dennis,T.(2004).Dolphin-watchingtourboats
changebottlenosedolphin(Tursiopstruncatus)behaviour.BiologicalConservation,
117(3),299-307.
Cook,G.(2004).RenewableEnergyPolicyinDenmark—AnIntroduction;Scottish
ParliamentInformationCentre(SPICe):Edinburgh,UK.��
289
Cooke,P.,&Morgan,K.(1993).Thenetworkparadigm:newdeparturesincorporate
andregionaldevelopment.EnvironmentandPlanningD.InSocietyandSpace,11.543-
564
Cooper,A.(1998).Anobstacletowindpowerdevelopment.JournalofPlanningand
EnvironmentalLaw.423,433-441.
Cooper,C.,&Buhalis,D.(1992).Strategicmanagementandmarketingofsmalland
mediumsisedtourismenterprisesintheGreekAegeanislands.Managingprojectsin
hospitalityorganisations,Cassell,London,101-125.
Correia,L.,andCharters,S.(2004).WineroutesinPortugal:Acasestudyofthe
BairradaWineRoute.Journalofwineresearch,15(1),15-25.
Cosgrove,D.(1985).Prospect,perspectiveandtheevolutionofthelandscapeidea.
TransactionsoftheInstituteofBritishGeographers,45-62.
CouncilfortheProtectofRuralWales(CPRW).(2000).PolicyonLandBasedWind
Installations,March2000,RetrievedApril2,2014from:
http://www.cprw.org/wind/renpol.htm
CountrysideCouncilforWales(CCW).(1992).WindTurbinepowerstations.Thepolicy
oftheCountrysideCouncilforWalesinresponseofwindturbinepowerstations.
CountrysideCouncilforWalesBangor.
Couper,M.P.,Traugott,M.,&Lamias,M.(2001).Websurveydesignandadministration.
PublicOpinionQuarterly,65(2),230-253
Craig,E.(1990).Knowledgeandthestateofnature:Anessayinconceptualsynthesis.
Oxford:ClarendonPress.
Crawshaw,C.andUrry,J.(1997)‘Tourismandthephotographiceye’,inC.RojekandJ.
Urry(Eds.)TouringCultures.London:Routledge.176–95.
Creswell,J.W.,andPlanoClark,V.(2007)"Designingandconductingmixedmethods
research."(2007).Sage:London.
290
Crossley,É.(2012).Poorbuthappy:Volunteertourists’encounterswithpoverty.
TourismGeographies,14(2),235-253.
Crotty,M.(1998).Thefoundationsofsocialresearch:Meaningandperspectiveinthe
researchprocess.Sage:London
Crouch,D.(2002).Surroundedbyplace-embodiedencounters'inColman,S.andCrang,
M.(eds)Tourism:Betweenplaceandperformance.
Crouch,D.(2003)'Spacing,Performing,andBecoming:TanglesintheMundane',
EnvironmentandPlanningA,35,1945–1960.
Crouch,D.(2010)‘Flirtingwithspace:Thinkinglandscaperelationally’,Cultural
Geographies,17(1):5–18.
Crouch,D.&Desforges,L.(2003).Thesensuousinthetouristencounterintroduction:
Thepowerofthebodyintouriststudies.Touriststudies,3(1),5-22.
Cugno,R.J.andThomas,K.T.(2009).ABookReviewofLauraEllingson’sEngaging
CrystallisationinQualitativeResearch:AnIntroduction.TheWeeklyQualitativeReport
2(19),456-458.
Cummings,R.G.,Brookshire,D.S.&Schulze,W.D.(1986)ValuingEnvironmentalGoods:
AnAssessmentoftheContingentValuationMethod,RowmanandAllanheld:NewJersey.
Cummings,R.G.,Brookshire,D.S.&Schulze,W.D.(Eds.)(1986).ValuingPublicGoods:
TheContingentValuationMethod.1stedn,Rowman&Allanheld,Totowa,NJ.
Dalton,G.J.,Lockington,D.A.,&Baldock,T.E.(2008).Asurveyoftouristattitudesto
renewableenergysupplyinAustralianhotelaccommodation.RenewableEnergy,
33(10),2174-2185.
Daniels,S.,andCosgrove,D.(1993).SpectacleandText:LandscapeMetaphorsin
CulturalGeographyinPlace/Culture/Representation,ed.JamesDuncanandDavidLey.
London:Routledge.
291
Dann,G.(1977),Anomie,ego-enhancementandtourism.AnnalsofTourismResearch
4(4),184-194.
Dash,G.(2012).Windpower'sotheruntappedresource.NewStatesmanRetrieved
April2,2014from:http://www.newstatesman.com/energy/2012/02/local-wind-
needed-economic
Dash,G.,&Cater,C.(2015).Gazingawry:ReconsideringtheTouristGazeandnatural
tourismthroughaLacanian–Marxisttheoreticalframework.TouristStudies,15(3),
267-282.
Davidson,R.(2010).GoldwindPurchases106.5MWIllinoisProject.WindPower
Monthly,December11.RetrievedApril4,2014from:
http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1047296/Goldwind-purchases-1065
MW-Illinois-project.
DeLeon,J.P.,&Cohen,J.H.(2005).Objectandwalkingprobesinethnographic
interviewing.FieldMethods,17(2),200-204.
DEFRA.(1998).SustainableDevelopment:OpportunitiesforChange,ConsultationPaper
onaRevisedUKStrategy,DepartmentforEnvironmentFoodandRuralAffairs,London:
TheUKGovernment.
Deleage,J.P.(1989).Eco-MarxistcritiqueofPoliticaleconomy.CapitalismNature
Socialism,1(3),15-31.
Deleuze,G(1994).Differenceandrepetition.London:Continuum.
Deleuze,G.(1990).Thelogicofsense.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Deleuze,G.(2006).Nietzscheandphilosophy.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Deleuze,G.&Guattari,F.(2004a).Anti-Oedipus.London:BloomsburyPublishing.
Deleuze,G.&Guattari,F.(2004b).AThousandPlateaus.London:Continuum.
Deleuze,G.,&Bacon,F.(2003).ThelogicofSensation.Continuum:London.
292
Deleuze,G.,&Parnet,C.(2002).Theactualandthevirtual.DialoguesII,148-52.
Deleuze,G.,Guattari,F.,Tomlinson,H.,&Burchell,G.(1994).Whatisphilosophy?New
York:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Denzin,N.K.(1997).Interpretiveethnography:Ethnographicpracticesforthe21st
century.SagePublications.
Desmond,J.(1999).Stagingtourism:BodiesondisplayfromWaikikitoSeaWorld.
Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Desvousges,W.H.,Smith.,V,&McGivney,M.P.(1983).AComparisonofAlternative
ApproachesforEstimatingRecreationandRelatedBenefitsofWaterQuality
Improvements.ReporttotheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.
Deutsch,K.W.(1970).Politicsandgovernment:Howpeopledecidetheirfate.Houghton
Mifflin:Boston.
Devine-Wright,P.(2005).LocalAspectsofUKRenewableEnergyDevelopment:
ExploringPublicBeliefsandPolicyImplications.LocalEnvironment,10:57-69.
Dewsbury,J.D.(2000)Performativityandtheevent:enactingaphilosophyof
difference.EnvironmentandPlanningD:SocietyandSpace,18,473-496.
Dewsbury,J.,Harrison,P.,Rose,M.andWylie,J.(2002)Introduction:Enacting
Geographies.Geoforum,33,437-440.
Dey,I.(2003).Qualitativedataanalysis:Auserfriendlyguideforsocialscientists.
London:Routledge.
Dickey,A.,&Higham,J.E.(2005).Aspatialanalysisofcommercialecotourism
businessesinNewZealand:Ac1999benchmarkingexerciseusingGIS.Tourism
Geographies,7(4),373-388.
Dickson,D.(2005).Thecasefora‘deficitmodel‘ofsciencecommunication.SciDev.net,
27.
293
Diener,E.,&Crandall,R.(1978).Ethicsinsocialandbehavioralresearch.UChicago
Press.
Dimitropoulos,A.&Kontoleon,A.(2009).Assessingthedeterminantsoflocal
acceptabilityofwind-farminvestment:AchoiceexperimentintheGreekAegean
Islands.EnergyPolicy,Elsevier,37(5),1842-1854.
DTI,(2003).OurEnergyFuture:CreatingaLowCarbonEconomy.EnergywhitePaper.
DTI.(1994).NewandRenewableEnergy:FutureprospectsintheUK.EnergyPaper62.
DTI.(1998).ReviewofEnergySourcesforPowerGeneration.ConsultationDocument.
DepartmentofTradeandIndustry,London.
DTI.(2000).NewandRenewableEnergy:Prospectsforthe21stCentury.TheRenewables
ObligationPreliminaryConsultation.DepartmentofTradeandIndustry,London.
DTI.(2001).EnergyProjectsfortheUK.DepartmentofTradeandIndustry,HMSO,
London.
Duchesne,M.,Côté,S.D.,&Barrette,C.(2000).Responsesofwoodlandcaribouto
winterecotourismintheCharlevoixBiosphereReserve,Canada.Biological
conservation,96(3),311-317.
DuffyB.,Smith,K.,Terhanian,G.&Bremer,J.(2005).Comparingdatafromonlineand
face-to-facesurveys.InternationalJournalofMarketResearch,47(6)615–639.
Duncan,J.(1995).‘Landscapegeography’,ProgressinHumanGeography19(3),414–
22.
Dunn,C.E.(2007).ParticipatoryGIS—apeople'sGIS?Progressinhumangeography,
31(5),616-637.
EC.(1998).CardiffEuropeanCouncil,15and16June1998.PresidencyConclusions,
TheEuropeanCommission–EUROPA,RetrievedonApril4,2014from:
http://europa.eu.int/council/off/conclu/jun96.htm
294
EC.(2001).ASustainableEuropeforaBetterWorld:AEuropeanUnionStrategyfor
SustainableDevelopment.Commission’sproposaltotheGothenburgEuropeanCouncil.
EC.(2002).TheAmsterdamTreaty:AComprehensiveGuide,TheEuropean
Commission-EuropeanUnionOnline,RetrievedonApril4,2014from:
http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/a09000.htm
Eckersley,R.(1992).EnvironmentalismandPoliticalTheory.NewYork:StateUniversity
ofNewYorkPress.
Edensor,T.(2000a).Stagingtourism:Touristsasperformers.Annalsoftourism
Research,27(2),322-344.
Edensor,T.(2000b).WalkingintheBritishcountryside:reflexivity,embodiedpractices
andwaystoescape.Body&Society,6(3-4),81-106.
Edensor,T.(2006).Sensingtouristspaces.Travelsinparadox:Remappingtourism,23-
45.
Edensor,T.(2007).MundaneMobilities,performancesandspacesoftourism.Social&
CulturalGeography,8(2),199-215.
Edwards,J.A.andLlurdeJ.C.(1996).Minesandquarries:Industrialheritagetourism.
AnnalsofTourismResearch23,341–363
Egyed,B.(2006),Counter-ActualisationandtheMethodofIntuition,inConstantinV.
Boundas(ed.),DeleuzeandPhilosophy,Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.
Ellingson,L.L.(Ed.).(2009).Engagingcrystallisationinqualitativeresearch:An
introduction.Sage:UK
EllisC.S.&Bochner,A.(2000).Autoethnography,PersonalNarrative,Reflexivity:
ResearcherasSubject.In:TheHandbookofQualitativeResearch.(Ed.)NormanDenzin
andYvonnaLincoln.Sage,733-768.
295
Ellis,C.(2004).TheethnographicI:Amethodologicalnovelaboutautoethnography.
RowmanAltamira.
Epstein,S.(1995).Theconstructionoflayexpertise:AIDSactivismandtheforgingof
credibilityinthereformofclinicaltrials.Science,Technology&HumanValues,20(4),
408-437.
ESRC(2015):ResearchEthicsFramework:
http://www.esrc.ac.uk/files/funding/guidance-for-applicants/esrc-framework-for-
research-ethics-2015/
EubanksJr,T.L.,Stoll,J.R.,&Ditton,R.B.(2004).Understandingthediversityofeight
birdersub-populations:Socio-demographiccharacteristics,motivations,expenditures
andnetbenefits.JournalofEcotourism,3(3),151-172.
Evans,J.,&Jones,P.(2011).Thewalkinginterview:methodology,mobilityandplace.
AppliedGeography,31(2),849-858.
Feifer,M.(1985).Goingplaces.London:Macmillan
Firestone,W.A.(1993).Alternativeargumentsforgeneralisingfromdataasappliedto
qualitativeresearch.EducationalResearcher,22(4),16-23.
Fisher,W.R.(1980).Rationalityandthelogicofgoodreasons.Philosophy&Rhetoric,
121-130.
Foucault,M.(1973).TheBirthoftheClinic:AnArchaeologyofMedicalPerception.
PantheonBooks:NewYork.
Franklin,A.(2001).TheTouristGazeandbeyondaninterviewwithJohnUrry.Tourist
studies,1(2),115-131.
Frantál,B.&Kunc,J.(2011).Windturbinesintourismlandscapes:CzechExperiences.
AnnalsofTourismResearch,38(2),499-519.
296
Freeman,C.(1991).Networksofinnovators:asynthesisofresearchissues.Research
policy,20(5),499-514.
Freire,J.R.(2009).Localpeople-acriticaldimensionforplacebrands.JournalofBrand
Management,16(7),420-438.
Fricker,M.(1998).Rationalauthorityandsocialpower:Towardsatrulysocial
epistemology.ProceedingsoftheAristotelianSociety,98(2),159–177.
Frosh,S.,&Emerson,P.D.(2005).Interpretationandover-interpretation:disputingthe
meaningoftexts.QualitativeResearch,5(3),307-324.
G.D.GarrodandK.G.Willis(1999).EconomicValuationoftheEnvironment.Edward
Elgar,Cheltenham.
Gable,R.K.andWolf,M.B.(1993).Instrumentdevelopmentintheaffectivedomain:
Measuringattitudesandvaluesinthecorporateandschoolsetting.Boston:Kluwer-
Nijhoff.
Garrod,B.(2008).ExploringPlacePerception:APhoto-basedAnalysis,Annalsof
TourismResearch.35(2):381-401.
George,R.(2014).MidWales(Powys)ConjoinedWindFarmInquiry:Letterto
Inspector|RussellGeorgeAM.RetrievedOctober27,2014,from
http://www.russellgeorge.com/news/mid-wales-powys-conjoined-wind-farm-inquiry-
letter-inspector
Ghaye,T.(2000)Intothereflectivemode:bridgingthestagnantmoat.Reflective
Practice,1(1)5-9.
Giddens,A.(1981).AContemporaryCritiqueofHistoricalMaterialism.BerkeleyandLos
Angeles:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Giddings,L.S.,(2006).Mixed-methodsresearchPositivismdressedindrag?Journalof
researchinnursing,11(3),195-203.
297
Gray,B.(1985)Conditionsfacilitatinginterorganisationalcollaboration.Human
Relations38(10),911–936.
Gray,B.(1989).Collaborating:FindingCommonGroundforMultipartyProblems.San
Francisco:Jossey–Bass
Gray,H.P.(1970).WanderlustandSunlustTypes.CitedinN.Leiper(1995).Tourism
Management,40-41.
Greaves,D.AndMorgan,G.(2011)NewMeasuresandTrendsinthePowysEconomy,
LlandrindodWells.PowysCountyCouncil.
Green,C.H.&Tunstall,S.M.(1991).Theevaluationofriverwaterqualityimprovements
bythecontingentvaluationmethod.AppliedEconomics,23(7),1135-1146.
Green,N.(1990).TheSpectacleofNature.ManchesterUniversityPress:UK.
Gregory,D.(1994).GeographicalImaginations.Blackwell:UK.
Grit,A.(2013).Theopeningupofhospitalityspacestodifference:exploringthenatureof
homeexchangeexperiences.UnpublishedPhDThesis:UniversityofStrathclyde.
Grit,A.(2014).MessingaroundwithSerendipities.In:Veijola,S.,Molz,J.G.,Pyyhtinen,
O.,Höckert,E.,&Grit,A.DisruptiveTourismandItsUntidyGuests:AlternativeOntologies
forFutureHospitalities.PalgraveMacmillan,UK.
Gross,C.(2007).CommunityperspectivesofwindenergyinAustralia:Theapplication
ofajusticeandcommunityfairnessframeworktoincreasesocialacceptance.Energy
policy,35(5),2727-2736.
Gruffudd,P.(1994).Backtotheland:historiography,ruralityandthenationin
interwarWales.TransactionsoftheInstituteofBritishGeographers,19,61-77.
Gumbrecht,H.G.(2004)TheProductionofPresence:WhatMeaningCannotConvey.
StanfordUniversityPress,Stanford.
298
Hall,C.M.(1999).Rethinkingcollaborationandpartnership:Apublicpolicy
perspective.Journalofsustainabletourism,7(3-4),274-289.
Hall,T,A.Coffey&B.Lashua.(2006).Storiesassorties.QualitativeResearcher3,2-4.
Hanley,N.MacMillan,D.,WrightR.E.,Bullock,C.,Simpson,I.,Parsisson,D.,&Crabtree,
B.(1998).ContingentValuationversusChoiceExperiments:EstimatingtheBenefitsof
EnvironmentallySensitiveAreasinScotland.JournalofAgriculturalEconomic,.49(1),
1-15.
Hanley,N.,Nevin,C.,(1999).Appraisingrenewableenergydevelopmentsinremote
communities:thecaseoftheNorthAssentEstate,Scotland.EnergyPolicy27,527–547.
Haywood,K.(2010).Apple’siPad–Theultimatefieldresearchtool?RetrievedApril4,
2014fromhttp://wp.nmc.org/keene/2010/03/16/the-ipad-the-ultimate-field-
science-tool/
Heerwegh,D.;Loosveldt,G.(2008).Face-to-FaceversusWebsurveyinginahigh-
internet-coveragepopulation.PublicOpinionQuarterly,72(2),836-846
Hein,J.R.,Evans,J.,&Jones,P.(2008).Mobilemethodologies:Theory,technologyand
practice.GeographyCompass,2(5),1266-1285.
Herbert,J.D.(1990).PaintersandTourists:MatisseandDerainontheMediterranean
Shore.In:TheFauveLandscape.Ed.JudiFreeman.LosAngeles:LosAngelesCountyArt
Museum.153–74.
Hickey-Moody,AandMalins,P.(2007).Deleuzianencounters:Studiesincontemporary
socialissues.Sage:London.
Hitchins,R.,&Jones,V.(2004).Livingwithplantsandtheexplorationofbotanical
encounterwithhumangeographicresearchpractice.Ethics,PlaceandEnvironment,7,
3-18.
299
Holland,E.W.(2002).DeleuzeandGuattari'sAnti-Oedipus:introductionto
schizoanalysis.RoutledgePress,UK.
Hollway,W.,&Jefferson,T.(2000).Doingqualitativeresearchdifferently:Free
association,narrativeandtheinterviewmethod.Sage:UK.
Holmes,L.(2004)referenceto‘GuidanceforEnsuringConfidentialityandthe
ProtectionofData’inBryman,(2008,3rdEdition)SocialResearchMethods,Oxford
UniversityPress,UK.
HouseofLords.(2000).ScienceandSociety.London:HerMajesty’sStationaryOffice.
Hull,A.(1995).LocalStrategiesforrenewableenergy:PolicyapproachesinEngland
andWales.LandUsePolicy127-16.
IEA.(2014).Renewableenergy.RetrievedAugust14,2016,from
https://www.iea.org/aboutus/faqs/renewableenergy/
Ingold,T.(2006).Up,acrossandalong.PlaceandLocation:StudiesinEnvironmental
AestheticsandSemiotics,5,21-36.
Ingold,T.,&Lee,J.(2008).Waysofwalking:Ethnographyandpracticeonfoot.London:
Ashgate.
Iso-Ahola,S.E.(1980)TheSocialPsychologyofLeisureandRecreation.Dubuque,Iowa:
W.e.Brown.
J.M.Rose,M.Bliemer,D.Hensher,A.T.Collins.(2008).Designingefficientstatedchoice
experimentsinthepresenceofreferencealternatives.TransportationResearchPartB,
42(4),395–406
James,I.(2006)TheFragmentaryDemand:AnintroductiontothephilosophyofJean-
LucNancy,StanfordUniversityPress.
Jarvis,P.(1992)Reflectivepracticeandnursing.NurseEducationToday,12(3),174-
181.
300
Jasonoff,S.(1997).Civilisationandmadness:ThegreatBSEscareof1996.Public
UnderstandingofScience6(3),221-32.
Jauffret-Roustide,M.(2009).Self-supportfordrugusersinthecontextofharm
reductionpolicy:alayexpertisedefinedbydrugusers'lifeskillsandcitizenship.Health
SociologyReview,18(2),159-172.
Jay,M.(1993).Downcasteyes:Thedenigrationofvisionintwentieth-centuryFrench
thought.UnivofCaliforniaPress.
Johnston,L.(2006).SoftwareandMethod:ReflectionsonTeachingandUsingQSR
NVivoinDoctoralResearch.InternationalJournalofSocialResearchMethodology,9(5),
379-391
Jones,J.L.,&Sinclair,B.(2011).Assessmentonthego:SurveyingstudentswithaniPad.
JournalofLibraryInnovation,2(2),22-35.
Judd,D.R.andFainstein,S.S.(eds.)(1999)TheTouristCity.NewHaven:YaleUniversity
Press.
Kassean,H.,&Gassita,R.(2013).Exploringtouristspushandpullmotivationstovisit
Mauritiusasatouristdestination.AfricanJournalofHospitality,TourismandLeisure,
2(3),1-13.
KayeB.K.&JohnsonT.J.(1999).ResearchMethodology:TamingtheCyberFrontier.
SocialScienceComputerReview,17,323-337.
Kealy,M.J.andR.W.Turner.(1993).Atestoftheequalityofclosed-endedandopen-
endedcontingentvaluation.AmericanJournalofAgriculturalEconomics,75,321-331.
Kelle,U.(2004).Computer-assistedqualitativedataanalysis.InC.Seale,G.Gobo,J.F.
Gubrium&D.Silverman(Eds.),Qualitativeresearchpractice(473-489).London:Sage
Publications.
Kerr,A.,Cunningham-Burley,S.,&Amos,A.(1998).Thenewgeneticsandhealth:
mobilisinglayexpertise.Publicunderstandingofscience,7(1),41-60.
301
Kim,S.S.,Robinson,M.,&Long,P.(2006).Understandingpopularmediaproduction
andpotentialtouristconsumption:Amethodologicalagenda.
Kim,S.,Kim,M.,Agrusa,J.,&Lee,A.(2012).Doesafood-themedTVdramaaffect
perceptionsofnationalimageandintentiontovisitacountry?Anempiricalstudyof
KoreaTVdrama.JournalofTravel&TourismMarketing,29(4),313-326.
Kingsbury,P.(2011).Sociospatialsublimation:thehumanresourcesofloveinSandals
ResortsInternational,Jamaica.AnnalsoftheAssociationofAmericanGeographers,101
(3),650-669.
Kollmuss,A.,&Agyeman,J.(2002).Mindthegap:whydopeopleactenvironmentally
andwhatarethebarrierstopro-environmentalbehavior?.Environmentaleducation
research,8(3),239-260.
Kraus,N.,Malmfors,T.,andSlovic,P.(1995).Intuitivetoxicology:Expertandlay
judgmentsofchemicalrisks.RiskAnalysis,12,215-232.
Krieger,Susan(1991).SocialScience&theSelf:PersonalEssaysonanArtForm.Rutgers
UniversityPress:NewJersey.
Krueger,A.D.,Parsons,G.R.,&Firestone,J.(2011).Valuingthevisualdisamenityof
offshorewindpowerprojectsatvaryingdistancesfromtheshore:Anapplicationon
theDelawareshoreline.LandEconomics,87(2),268-283.
Kuehn,S.(2005).SociologicalInvestigationoftheReceptionofHornsRevandNysted
OffshoreWindfarmsIntheLocalCommunities.ReportNo.2005-044,ECONAnalysis:
Compenhagen.
Kusenbach,M.(2003).Streetphenomenologythego-alongasethnographicresearch
tool.Ethnography,4(3),455-485.
Kvale,S.(1996):InterViews—AnIntroductiontoQualitativeResearchInterviewing.
SAGE,ThousandOaks,CA.
302
Lacan,J.(1978).SeminarXI:TheFourFundamentalConceptsofPsycho-Analysis.Norton:
NewYork.
Lacan,J.,Fink,B.T.,Fink,H.C.,&Grigg,R.C.(2006).Écrits:Thefirstcompleteeditionin
English.WWNorton&Co,NewYork.
Ladenburg,J.,Dubgaard,A.,Martinsen,L.&Tranberg,J.(2005).Economicvaluationof
thevisualexternalitiesofoff-shorewindfarms.ReportfromtheFoodandResource
EconomicInstitute,TheRoyalVeterinaryandAgriculturalUniversity,Copenhagen,
Reportno.179.
Lake,R.(1993).RethinkingNIMBY.JournaloftheAmericanPlanningAssociation.59(1),
87-93.
Lancaster,K.(1966).ANewApproachtoConsumerTheory.JournalofPolitical
Economy,74,132-157.
LandUseConsultants.(2004).RenewableEnergy–PlanningandDevelopmentDatabase.
DTIPROJECTPROFILENOPP201
Larsen,J.(2008)'De-ExoticisingLeisureTravel',LeisureStudies,27,21–34.��
Latham,A.,&McCormack,D.P.(2009).Thinkingwithimagesinnon-representational
cities:vignettesfromBerlin.Area,41(3),252-262.
LaurierE,PhiloC,(2003).Theregionintheboot:mobilisinglonesubjectsandmultiple
objects.EnvironmentandPlanningD:SocietyandSpace,21(1),85–106.
Law,J.,&Urry,J.(2004).Enactingthesocial.Economyandsociety,33(3),390-410.
LeCompte,M.D.&Preissle,J.,(1993).Ethnographyandqualitativedesignineducational
research.AcademicPress,SanDiego.
Lee,J.&Ingold,T.(2006).Fieldworkonfoot:perceiving,routing,socialising.inP
Collins&SColman(eds),LocatingtheField.Space,PlaceandContextinAnthropology.
303
Berg,Oxford,67-86.
Lenman,R.(1990).ArtandtourisminsouthernGermany,1850–1930,inArthur
Marwick(ed.)TheArts,LiteratureandSociety,Routledge:London.
Levi-Strauss,C.(1963).StructuralAnthropology(Vol.2).BasicBooks,NewYork.
Lilley,M.B.,Firestone,J.,&Kempton,W.(2010).Theeffectofwindpowerinstallations
oncoastaltourism.Energies,3(1),1-22.
Lindhjem,H.&Navrud,S.(2011).Usinginternetinstatedpreferencesurveys:Areview
andcomparisonofsurveymodes.InternationalReviewofEnvironmentalandResource
Economics5,300-351.
Lorenzoni,I.,Nicholson-Cole,S.,&Whitmarsh,L.(2007).Barriersperceivedto
engagingwithclimatechangeamongtheUKpublicandtheirpolicyimplications.Global
environmentalchange,17(3),445-459.
Lorimer,H.(2005).Culturalgeography:thebusynessofbeing‘more-than-
representational’.Progressinhumangeography,29(1),83-94.
Low,T.,&Everett,S.(2014).Industryengagementwithtourismresearch:Theimpacts
ofsocialcontrolandemotionallabour.TourismManagementPerspectives,12,134-143.
Löytynoja,T.(2008).Thedevelopmentofspecificlocationsintotouristattractions:
casesfromNorthernEurope.Fennia186,1.
Lubbren,N.,&Crouch,D.(2003).Visualcultureandtourism.Berg,Oxford.
Lury,C.,&Wakeford,N.(Eds.).(2012).Inventivemethods:Thehappeningofthesocial.
Routledge.
MacCannell,D.(1976).Thetourist:Anewtheoryoftheleisureclass.SchockenBooks,
NewYork.
304
MacCannell,D.(1976).TheTourist:Anewtheoryoftheleisureclass.Universityof
CaliforniaPress,California.
MacCannell,D.(2001).Touristagency.Touriststudies,1(1),23-37.
MacCannell,D.(2002).Theegofactorintourism.JournalofConsumerResearch,29(1),
146-151.
MacCannell,D.(2011).TheEthicsofSightseeing.UniversityofCaliforniaPress,
California.
Macdonald,S.,&Silverstone,R.(1992).Scienceondisplay:therepresentationof
scientificcontroversyinmuseumexhibitions.PublicUnderstandingofScience,1(1),69-
87.
MacKay,K.J.,&Couldwell,C.M.(2004).Usingvisitor-employedphotographyto
Investigatedestinationimage.JournalofTravelResearch,42,390–396.
Maclure,M.(2013)Classificationorwonder?Codingasananalyticpracticein
qualitativeresearch,inA.ColmanandJ.Ringrose(eds)Deleuzeandresearch
methodologiesEdinburghUniversityPress,UK,164-183.
Macnaghten,P.,&Urry,J.(1998).Contestednatures.SAGEPublications,London.
Mallon,K.(2006).Renewableenergypolicyandpolitics:ahandbookfordecision-making.
Earthscan:UK.
Mallon,K.(2006).RenewableEnergyPolicyandPolitics.Earthscan,London.
Mandell,M.P.(1999).Theimpactofcollaborativeefforts.ReviewofPolicy
Research,16(1),4-17.
Marks,G.&vonWinterfeldt,D.(1984).“Notinmybackyard":Influenceofmotivational
concernsonjudgmentsaboutariskytechnology.JournalofAppliedPsychology
(August),408-415.
305
Masny,D.,&Cole,D.R.(2012).Mappingmultipleliteracies:AnintroductiontoDeleuzian
literacystudies.BloomsburyPublishing.
Massumi,B.(2002)Parablesofthevirtual:Movement,Affect,Sensation.DukeUniversity
Press,London.
Massumi,B.(2002).FromParablesfortheVirtual:Movement,Affect,Sensation.Duke
UniversityPress,Durham.
Matthews,H.,Taylor,M.,Sherwood,K.,Tucker,F.,Limb,M.,(2000)Growing-upinthe
countryside:childhoodandtheruralidyll,JournalofRuralStudies,16(2),141–153.
Maxwell,J.A.,&Miller,B.A.(2008).Categorisingandconnectingstrategiesin
qualitativedataanalysis.InS.N.Hesse-Biber,S.Nagy,&P.Levy(Eds.),Handbookof
emergentmethods.GuilfordPress,NewYork.
May,T.(2003).WhenisaDeleuzianbecoming?ContinentalPhilosophyReview,36(2),
139-153.
Mayumi,K.(1991).TemporaryEmancipationfromtheLand.EcologicalEconomics,4
(1),35–56.
McCormack,D.(2003)Aneventofgeographicalethicsinspacesofaffect.Transactions
oftheInstituteofBritishGeographers,28,488-507.
McFadden,D.(1974),ConditionalLogicAnalysisofQualitativeChoiceBehavior,in
Zarembka,P.(ed.)FrontiersinEconometrics.AcademicPress,NewYork.
McKenzie-Hedger,M.(1995).WindpowerandplanningpolicyintheUK.LandUse
Policy,12,17-28.
McLaughlin,A.(1990).Ecology,Capitalism,andSocialism.SocialismandDemocracy10,
69–102.
306
McManus,P.(1996).Contestedterrains:politics,storiesanddiscoursesof
sustainability.EnvironmentalPolitics,5(1),48-73.
Mezirow,J.(1981)Acriticaltheoryofadultlearningandeducation.AdultEducation,
32(1),3-24.
Michalena,E.–Tripanagnostopoulos,Y.(2010).Contributionofthesolarenergyinthe
sustainabletourismdevelopmentinMediterraneanislands.RenewableEnergy,35(3),
667-673.
Middleton,J.(2009).‘Steppingintime’:walking,time,andspaceinthecity.
EnvironmentandPlanningA,41,1943-1961.
Miguéns,J.,Baggio,R.,&Costa,C.(2008).Socialmediaandtourismdestinations:Trip
Advisorcasestudy.AdvancesinTourismResearch,26-28.
Miles,M.&Huberman,A.(1994).Qualitativedataanalysis:Anexpandedsourcebook
(2nded.).Sage:BeverlyHills,CA.
Miller,D.A.(1988).TheNovelandthePolice.UniversityofCaliforniaPress:California.
Miller,K.I.(2000).Commongroundfromthepost-positivistperspective.In“straw-
person”argumenttocollaborativecoexistence.InCorman,S.R.&Poole,M.S.(Eds.),
Perspectivesonorganisationalcommunication:FindingCommonground.GuilfordPress,
UK.
Mishler,E.(1979).Meaningincontext:Isthereanyotherkind?HarvardEducational
Review,49(1),1-19.
Mitchell,C.(1995).TherenewablesNFFO:AReview.EnergyPolicy23,1077-1091.
Mitchell,C.andConner,P.(2004).RenewableEnergyPolicyintheUK1990-2003.
EnergyPolicySpecialEdition,32,1887-1889.
Mitchell,R.C.&Carson,R.T.(1989).UsingSurveystoValuePublicGoods:TheContingent
ValuationMethod.1stedn.ResourcesfortheFuture:WashingtonD.C.
307
Money,R.B.,&Crotts,J.C.(2003).Theeffectofuncertaintyavoidanceoninformation
search,planning,andpurchasesofinternationaltravelvacations.TourismManagement,
24(2),191-202.
MORIScotland.(2002).TouristAttitudesTowardsWindFarms:AReportforScottish
RenewablesForumandtheBritishWindEnergyAssociation.MORIScotland,Edinburgh.
Morse,J.M.,&Richards,L.(2002).ReadmeFirstforaReader’sGuidetoQualitative
Methods.Sage,ThousandOaks,CA.
Morton,T.(2007).EcologyWithoutNature:Rethinkingenvironmentalaesthetics.
HarvardUniversityPress,MA.
Moufakkir,O.,&Reisinger,Y.(Eds.).(2013).TheHostGazeinGlobalTourism.Cab
International,UK.
Müllner,A.,Linsenmair,K.E.,&Wikelski,M.(2004).Exposuretoecotourismreduces
survivalandaffectsstressresponseinhoatzinchicks(Opisthocomushoazin).Biological
Conservation,118(4),549-558.
Mulvey,L.(1989).VisualandOtherPleasures.Macmillan,London.
Munster,A.(2006).MaterialisingNewMedia.DartmouthCollegePress.
Neill,H.R.,Cummings,R.G.,Ganderton,P.T.,Harrison,G.W.,McGuckin,T.,(1994).
Hypotheticalsurveysandrealeconomiccommitments.LandEconomics70,145–154.
NFOSystemThree.(2002).InvestigationintothePotentialImpactofWindFarmson
TourisminScotlandFinalReport,preparedforVisitScotland.
NFOWorldGroup.(2003).Investigationintothepotentialimpactofwindfarmson
tourisminWales.PreparedfortheWelshTouristBoard.
Olsson,L.M.(2009).Movementandexperimentationinyoungchildren'slearning:
DeleuzeandGuattariinearlychildhoodeducation.Routledge:London
308
Orr,J.(2004).TheMilitarisationofInnerSpace.CriticalSociology,30(2),30.
Orr,J.(2006).PanicDiaries:AGenealogyofPanicDisorder.Durham:DukeUniversity
Press.
Orton,F.andPollock,G.(1980).LesDonnéesBretonnantes:LaPrairiede
representation.ArtHistory3(3),314-344.
OxfordEnglishDictionary(2015).Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2015.Web.May,14.
Parker,S.,&Khare,A.(2005).Understandingsuccessfactorsforensuringsustainability
inecotourismdevelopmentinsouthernAfrica.JournalofEcotourism,4(1),32-46.
ParliamentaryOfficeofScienceandTechnology.(2001).OpenChannels:Publicdialogue
inscienceandtechnology.ReportNo.153.HerMajesty’sStationaryOffice.
Pasqualetti,M.(2000).Morality,spaceandthepowerofwind–energylandscapes.
GeographicalReview,90(3),381-394.
Patton,M.(2002).QualitativeResearch&EvaluationMethods.Sage,CA.
Paulos,E.,&Goodman,E.(2004).Thefamiliarstranger:Anxiety,comfort,andplayin
publicplaces.ProceedingsofCHI2004ConferenceonHumanFactorsinComputing
Systems.ACM,NewYork.
Pearce,P.L.(1988).“MethodologyinTourismResearch.AnnalsofTourismResearch.
15:1-28.
Pollak,R.A.(1996).Governmentriskregulation.AnnalsoftheAmericanAcademyof
PoliticalandSocialScience545,25-34.
Poortinga,W.,&Pidgeon,N.F.(2003).Publicperceptionsofrisk,scienceand
governance.CentreforEnvironmentalRisk,UniversityofEastAnglia,Norwich,UK.
309
Potter,J.(1996).Discourseanalysisandconstructionistapproaches:Theoretical
background.BritishPsychologicalSociety,UK.
Powell,W.(2003).Neithermarketnorhierarchy.Thesociologyoforganisations:classic,
contemporary,andcriticalreadings315,104-117.
Propen,A.D.(2006).CriticalGPS:Towardanewpoliticsoflocation.ACME:An
InternationalE-JournalforCriticalGeographies,4(1),131-144.
Rapo,A.(2011).WhatHy-Linewillofferismorelikeindustrio-tours.CapeCodTimes.
RetrievedonApril04,2014from
http://www.capecodtimes.com/article//20110330/OPINION/103300324/-
1/NEWSMAP
RCEP.(2000).Energy–TheChangingClimate:TheRoyalCommissiononthe
EnvironmentalPollution’s22ndReport.RoyalCommissiononEnvironmentalPollution.
Reed-Danahay,D.E.(Ed.).(1997).Introduction.Auto/ethnography:Rewritingtheself
andthesocial.Berg,NewYork.
Reed,A.(2002).Cityofdetails:interpretingthepersonalityofLondon.Journalofthe
RoyalAnthropologicalInstitute8,127-41.
Richards,L.(2009).Handlingqualitativedata:Apracticalguide.SAGEPublications,
London.
Richardson,L.(2000).Writing:Amethodofinquiry.InN.D.Y.Lincoln(Ed.),Handbook
ofqualitativeinquiry(2nded.),Sage,CA.
Riddington,G;Harrison,T;McArthur,D;Gibson,H;Millar,k.(2008).Theeconomic
impactsofwindfarmsonScottishtourism.ReportfortheScottishGovernment.
Riddington,G.,McArthur,D.,Harrison,T.,&Gibson,H.(2010).Assessingtheeconomic
impactofwindfarmsontourisminScotland:GIS,surveysandpolicyoutcomes.
InternationalJournalofTourismResearch,12(3),237-252.
310
RobertsonBellAssociates(1997)TaffElyResidentsSurvey,December1997
Rossetto,T.(2012).Embodyingthemap:TourismpracticesinBerlin.TouristStudies,
12(1),28-51.
Ryan,C.,&Saward,J.(2004).Thezooasecotourismattraction–visitorreactions,
perceptionsandmanagementimplications:ThecaseofHamiltonZoo,NewZealand.
JournalofsustainableTourism,12(3),245-266.
Saldana,J.(2009).Anintroductiontocodesandcoding.Thecodingmanualfor
qualitativeresearchers.
Saldana,J.(2009).TheCodingManualforQualitativeResearchers.Sage,London.
Sangpikul,A.(2008).TravelmotivationsofJapaneseseniortravellerstoThailand.
InternationalJournalofTourismResearch,10(1),81-94.
Scarles,C.(2010).Wherewordsfail,visualsignite:OpportunitiesforVisual
AutoethnographyinTourismResearch.AnnalsofTourismResearch37.905-926.
Schaefer,D.R.andDillman,D.A.(1998).DevelopmentofaStandardE-Mail
Methodology:ResultsfromanExperiment.PublicOpinionQuarterly,62,378-397.
Schaffhauser,D.(2010).DukeUtryingoutiPadsforfieldresearch.CampusTechnology.
RetrievedApril04,2014from
http://campustechnology.com/articles/2010/07/13/duke-u-trying-out-ipads-for-
field-research.aspx
Sellar,C.,J.R.Stoll,andJ-P.Chavas.(1985).ValidationofEmpiricalModelsofWelfare
Change:AComparisonofNonmarketTechniques.LandEconomics61(Feb.),156-75.
Shapin,S.(1994).Asocialhistoryoftruth:Civilityandscienceintheseventeenthcentury.
Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Shaw,G.andWilliams,A.M.(1994).CriticalIssuesinTourism:AGeographical
Perspective.Oxford:Blackwell.
311
Sheehan,K.B.,&McMillan,S.J.(1999).Responsevariationine-mailsurveys:An
exploration.JournalofAdvertisingResearch,39(4),45–54.
ShellerM.,&UrryJ.(2006).ThenewMobilitiesparadigm.EnvironmentandPlanningA,
38(2),207–226.
Short,J.R.(1991).Imaginedcountry:environment,culture,andsociety.Syracuse
UniversityPress,NY.
Sills,S.J.,&Song,C.(2002).Innovationsinsurveyresearch:AnapplicationofWeb-
basedsurveys.SocialScienceComputerReview,20,22-30.
Silva,G.,&McDill,M.E.(2004).Barrierstoecotourismsuppliersuccess:Acomparison
ofagencyandbusinessperspectives.JournalofSustainableTourism,12(4),289-305.
Simpson,C.(2010).ShiftingfromlandscapetocountryinAustralia,afterMabo.Metro
Magazine:Media&EducationMagazine,(165),88.
Smith,R.(1995).Derridaandautobiography.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Smith,V.K.(1996).Estimatingeconomicvaluesfornature:Methodsfornon-market
valuation.EdwardElgarPublishing,Gloucester.
Soderstrom,O.(2005)‘Representation’inAtkinson,d.,Jackson,P.,Sibley,D.and
Washbourne,N.CulturalGeography.Acriticaldictionaryofkeyconcepts.London:I.B.
Tauris.
Soja,E.W.(1996).Thirdspace:JourneystoLosAngelesandotherreal-and-imagined
places.Cambridge,MA.
StanleyL.,&Wise,S.(1993).BreakingOutAgain:FeministOntologyandEpistemology.
2ndedition,Routledge,LondonandNewYork.
StarAttractions.(2011).TouristAttractionsinSnowdoniaWales-VisitElectric
Mountain,Llanberis!RetrievedOctober25,2014,fromhttp://www.star-
attractions.co.uk/attractions/electric_mountain.htm
312
Stewart,K.(2007)OrdinaryAffects.DukeUniversityPress,London.
Strachan,P.&Lai,D.(2004).WindEnergyPolicy,PlanningandManagementPracticein
theUK:HotAiroraGatheringStorm?RegionalStudies,38(5),549–569.
Strachan,P.A.,&Lal,D.(2004).Windenergypolicy,planningandmanagementpractice
intheUK:hotairoragatheringstorm?RegionalStudies,38(5),549-569.
Strauss,A.L.(1987).QualitativeAnalysisforSocialScientists.CambridgeUniversity
Press,Cambridge.
Strauss,A.L.,&Corbin,J.M.(2008).Basicsofqualitativeresearch:Techniquesand
Procedures.Sage,CA.
Sturgis,P.,&Allum,N.(2004).Scienceinsociety:re-evaluatingthedeficitmodelof
publicattitudes.Publicunderstandingofscience,13(1),55-74.
Surrey,J.(1996).TheBritishElectricityExperiment:Privatisation:theRecord,the
Issues,theLessons.Earthscan,Jan1.
SustainableDevelopmentCommission.(2004).WindpowerintheUK:Aguidetothekey
issuessurroundingonshorewindpowerdevelopmentintheUK.London.
Szarka,J.(2004).Windpower,discoursecoalitionsandclimatechange:breakingthe
stalemate?EuropeanEnvironment,14,317-330.
Szolnoki,G.,Hoffman,D.(2013)Online,face-to-faceandtelephonesurveys-comparing
differentsamplingmethodsinwineconsumerresearch.InternationalJournalofWine
EconomicsandPolicy,2(2),57-66.
Tamboukou,M.(2008).Machinicassemblages:Women,arteducationandspace.
Discourse:StudiesintheCulturalPoliticsofEducation,29(3),359-375.
Taylor,D.andRand,M.(1991).PlanningforwindenergyinDyfed.EERU065
313
Taylor,D.andLark,C.(1991).TherenewableenergypotentialinDyfed:apreliminary
assessment.OpenUniversity,EnergyandEnvironmentResearchUnit,UK.
Terhanian,G.(2003).Theunfulfilledpromiseofinternetresearch.MRSConference.
Paper37.
Tesch,R.(1990).QualitativeResearch:AnalysisTypesandSoftwareTools.TheFalmer
Press,London.
Thayer,R.&Hansen,H.(1988).WindontheLand,LandscapeArchitecture,March,68-
73.
TheScotsman.(2002).Touristsbearnoillwindtofarms.RetrievedOctober27,2014,
fromhttp://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/tourists-bear-no-ill-
wind-to-farms-1-626688
TheTourismCompanyandRegenerisConsulting.(2014).StudyintothePotential
EconomicImpactofWindFarmsandAssociatedGridInfrastructureontheWelsh
TourismSector.ReportfortheWelshGovernment.
TheTourismCompany.(2012).Theimpactofwindturbinesontourism–aliterature
review.ReportfortheIsleofAngleseyCouncil,UK.
Thorp,L.(2006).ThePulloftheEarth:Participatoryethnographyintheschoolgarden.
Lanham,MD:AltaMiraPress.
Thrift,N.(1996)SpatialFormations,London:Sage.�
Thrift,N.(2004)IntensitiesofFeeling:Towardsaspatialpoliticsofaffect.Geografiska
AnnalerB,86,57-78.
Thrift,N.(2007)Non-RepresentationalTheory:Space,Politics,Affect.Routledge,
London.
TMS(TheMarketSpecialists).(2005).WesternIslesTouristBoardWindFarmResearch.
FinalReport.WITB,March.
314
Tobin,G.A.,&Begley,C.M.(2004).Methodologicalrigorwithinaqualitative
framework.Journalofadvancednursing,48(4),388-396.
Toke,D.(2002).WindPowerinUKandDenmark:CanRationalChoiceHelpExplain
DifferentOutcomes?EnvironmentalPolitics,11,83-99.
Toke,D.(2005).Aregreenelectricitycertificatesthewayforwardforrenewable
energy?AnevaluationoftheUnitedKingdom’sRenewableObligationinthecontextof
internationalcomparisons.EnvironmentandPlanningC:GovernmentandPolicy,23,
361-374.
Turner,B.A.(1994).Patternsofcrisisbehavior:aqualitativeinquiry.InA.Brymanand
R.G.Burgess(eds),AnalyzingQualitativeData,195-215,Routledge,London.
Urry,J.(1990).TheTouristGaze.London:Sage,UK.
Urry,J.,&Larsen,J.(2011).TheTouristGaze3.0.Sage,UK.
VanderHorst,D.(2007).NIMBYornot?Exploringtherelevanceoflocationandthe
politicsofvoicedopinionsinrenewableenergysitingcontroversies.Energypolicy,35
(5),2705-2714.
VanSelm,M.,&Jankowski,N.W.(2006).Conductingonlinesurveys.Quality&Quantity,
40(3),435-456.
Veal,A.J.(2006)ResearchMethodsforLeisureandTourism:APracticalGuide,Prentice
Hall,NewYork.
Veijola,S.,&Jokinen,E.(1994).TheBodyinTourism.Theory,Culture&Society,11(3),
125-151.
VisitWales,(2013).WalesVisitorSurvey.StrategicMarketing.Retrievedonline26
October,2014from:
http://wales.gov.uk/topics/cultureandsport/museumsarchiveslibraries/cymal/resear
chandevidence/wales-visitor-survey-2013/?lang=en
315
Walker,G.(1995).Renewableenergyandthepublic.LaneusePolicy12,49-59.
Warren,C.R.,Lumsden,C.,O’Dowd,S.andBirnie,R.V.(2005).GreenonGreen:Public
PerceptionsofWindPowerinScotlandandIreland.JournalofEnvironmentalPlanning
andManagement.48,853-875.
Waterton,E.(2012)‘Heritagetourismanditsrepresentations’,inBushell,R.,Staiff,R.
andWatson,S.(eds).��
WCED,(1987).OurCommonFuture(TheBruntdlandReport).WorldCommissionon
EnvironmentandDevelopment,UP,NewYork.
Weaver,D.(2005).Thedistinctivedynamicsofexurbantourism.InternationalJournal
ofTourismResearch,7(1),23-33.
Weaver,D.B.,&Lawton,L.J.(2007).Twentyyearson:Thestateofcontemporary
ecotourismresearch.TourismManagement,28(5),1168-1179.
WelshAssemblyGovernment(WAG).(2005).TechnicalAdviceNote(TAN)8:Renewable
Energy
WelshGovernment(WG).(2010).DomesticTourismtoWalesin2007,2008and2009.
GovernmentSocialResearch.
WelshGovernment,2014.GreatBritishTourismSurvey.Available
Online:http://gov.wales/statistics-and-research/great-britain-tourist-
survey/?lang=enAccessed:Aug2015
WG(2012)VisitstoTouristAttractionsinWales:ReportforVisitWales.Welsh
Government.
Williams,M.(1999).AddresstotheseminarWindTurbinesandtheWelshLandscape:
LookingforawayforwardLlandrindodWells,Powys.InStevenson,R.2009.Discourse,
Powerandenergyconflicts:understandingWelshrenewableenergyplanningpolicy.
EnvironmentandPlanningC:GovernmentandPolicy,27(3),512-526.
316
Wolsink,M.(1996).Dutchwindpowerpolicy:stagnatingimplementationof
renewables.Energypolicy,24(12),1079-1088.
Wolsink,M.(2000).WindpowerandtheNIMBY-myth:institutionalcapacityandthe
limitedsignificanceofpublicsupport.Renewableenergy,21(1),49-64.
Wood,D.J.andGray,B.(1991)Towardacomprehensivetheoryof
collaboration.JournalofAppliedBehavioralScience,27(2),139–162.
Woods,M.(2003).ConflictingEnvironmentalVisionsoftheRural:Windfarm
DevelopmentinMidWales.SociologiaRuralis,43,271-288.
Woods,M.(2005).ContestingRurality:politicsintheBritishcountryside.Ashgate
PublishingLtd,UK.
WorldTravelandTourismCouncil(WTTC).(2014).TravelandTourismEconomic
Impact.
Wylie,J.(2007).Landscape.Abingdon.Routledge.YarwoodR(2007)Thegeographiesof
policing.ProgressinHumanGeography,31,447465.
Wylie,J.W.(2005).ASingleDay'sWalking:narratingselfandlandscapeonthe
SouthwestCoastPath.TransactionsoftheInstituteofBritishGeographers,30(2),234-
247.
Wylie,J.W.,Lorimer,H.(2010).Loop(ageography).PerformanceResearch,15(4),6-13.
Wynne,B(1989)”SheepfarmingafterChernobyl”,Environment,31,11-15&33-38
Yin,R.K.(2003).Casestudyresearch,designandmethods,3rded.SagePublications,UK.
Yoo,S.,Shin,C.&Kwak,S.(2006).Inconveniencecostofspammail:acontingent
valuationstudy,AppliedEconomicsLetters,13(14),933.
Z� izek,S.(1992).LookingAwry:AnintroductiontoJacquesLacanthroughpopular
culture.TheMITPress,MA.
317
Z� izek,S.(1997).ThePlagueofFantasies.Verso,London.
Z� izek,S.(1999)TheTicklishSubject–TheAbsentCentreofPoliticalOntology,Verso,
London.
Z� izek,S.(2001).Thefragileabsolute:or,whyistheChristianlegacyworthfightingfor?
Verso,London.
Z� izek,S.(2008).NatureanditsDiscontents.SubStance,37(3),37-72.
Z� izek,S.(2012).Pervertsguidetoideology(DirectedbySophieFiennes).ZeitgeistFilms,
UK.
Zwirn,M.,Pinsky,M.,&Rahr,G.(2005).Anglingecotourism:Issues,guidelinesand
experiencefromKamchatka.JournalofEcotourism,4(1),16-31.