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.