The research has shown that very few of the respondents are opposed to windfarm developments, provided that the development occurs in the appropriate places. Consequently, respondents were invited to indicate on a map where they believe windfarms should not be located in the WCR (Question E3). Figure 4.27 maps their 178 plottings.
Locations close to the coast emerge as no-go areas with an emphasis on the areas surrounding St Helena Bay, Britannia Bay and Paternoster. The West Coast Peninsula subregion received 78% of the markings of places where windfarms should not be located, whereas the Bergrivier subregion received 15% and the Swartland subregion 7%. The distribution of places where windfarms should not be located corresponds roughly with the special places sited by both respondent groups so that it becomes clear that places respondents regard as special should stay clear of windfarm development.
Reasons given for marking these locations are their scenic value, the natural emptiness of the surroundings and the associated tourism activities and facilities. For instance, Lubitz (2011 pers com) and her husband who operate a guesthouse outside Paternoster bemoaned that the windfarm would be located in the viewscape of their guesthouse so disturbing the peace and tranquility they offer their guests. Robinson (2011 pers com) who runs a home, Trevelyn Lodge, for 47 disabled people close to Paternoster in the community of Trekoskraal is concerned about the health effects the spinning turbines might have especially on his autistic residents.
The community of Paternoster has formed a group ‘NoWindfarmsPaternoster’ to express their discontent with the proposed windfarm project. During the group’s meeting on 19 December 2011 their consternation became patently clear that the marginalized community of Paternoster had not been informed nor involved during the EIA process of the particular project. Only the literate members of the community have the opportunity to actively involve themselves in the proposed projects because the newspaper advertisements and information documents in the library are largely inaccessible to less literate citizens. The action group expressed the need for the developers and consultants to verbally and personally inform the marginalized groups about the meetings. In St Helena Bay and Britannia Bay residents believe that the windfarm project will benefit the community as a whole, although they do raise concerns, but to a lesser degree than the case with the Paternoster windfarm which has already been approved.
Given the respondents’ clear and strong views about where windfarms do not belong, they were asked to map appropriate locations for windfarms in the WCR. Figure 4.28 indicates their sitings. A dispersed distribution pattern emerges for the 192 appropriate locations in comparison
to the concentrated nature of the inappropriate locations in Figure 4.27. There is not a very big difference between the 178 locations where windfarms should not be located and the 192 locations where windfarms are deemed appropriate. The 14 more appropriate places identified by respondents can indicate they find more appropriate locations for windfarm development in the WCR than locations that are not appropriate, but the difference is too small to say this for sure.
The distribution of places where the windfarms should be located clearly tends toward the interior of the region away from urban settlements. NIMBYism, from the coastal residents’ point of view, could underlie this distribution, but as many other reasons have been cited for their opposition to windfarms, it cannot simply be attributed to NIMBYism. The inland locations are unfortunately not always endowed with exceptional prevailing wind resources like those closer to the coast (Diab 1995). Some respondents indicated that windfarms should be located offshore, but no offshore windfarms have yet been proposed for South Africa. Figure 4.28 does, however, show that a number of these appropriate places coincide with the areas where windfarms have already been proposed. There are fewer points in the Paternoster, St Helena Bay and Britannia Bay areas compared to Figure 4.27 which indicates that the windfarms close to these two locations are the definite ones that deserve more attention from the developers. Heather-Clark (2011), of Environmental Resources Management (ERM), reiterated it during a meeting of the West Coast Business Chamber that there is no ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to whether wind energy is the solution for the WCR, but emphasized that exploration of the issues associated with the proposed developments must be done to establish the most appropriate locations from both developer and community perspectives. The positives of any location must exceed the negatives.
Gipe (2004: 301) reminds us that “where it exists, criticism of wind energy results largely from fear of change this new technology may bring to the community. Though it may fear this technology, the community should not apply more stringent standards to wind machines than it applies to any other similar structure or device now standing.” For example, the first Dutch windmills were burned to the ground by opposing parties, yet today, the Dutch windmills are valued as a natural part of the landscape (Gipe 2004). But not all forms of resistance are attributable to the ‘growing pains’ of accepting such a new technology as the results of this study tries to explain.
The information gathered through the questionnaire survey and from other primary data has been analysed and the findings discussed. The final chapter highlights the main findings of the study, revisits the objectives and lists the limitations before giving recommendations and making some concluding remarks.