Grid networks are electrical distribution infrastructures that are typically represented as essential for society, however, constructing new power lines often creates conflict. Developing a critical-spatial approach to social acceptance, this research defined such conflicts as underpinned by spatially-embedded and multi-scalar power asymmetries between different stakeholders and organisations. Attending to the spatial dimensions of power, we extend the critical social acceptance literature in three ways. First, by investigating how stakeholders, technologies and discourses are embedded across spaces, places and scales. Second, by assessing the performative dimensions of imaginaries used to legitimise or contest power line proposals. Third, by adopting a methodological approach that integrated participatory GIS into semi structured interviews. We use the Munga-Hamra power line proposal in Sweden as a case study. Thematic analysis revealed how the powerline was legitimated by an ‘elite’ coalition of private and public sector stakeholders who ‘localised’ a national socio-technical imaginary in regional and local imaginaries of industrial growth. The power line was contested by a coalition of rural stakeholders including affected landowners, residents and tourism businesses who invoked imaginaries of a ‘rural idyll’ to argue for undergrounding the line. Both coalitions legitimated their positions by ‘othering’ imaginaries held by the adversary coalition (e.g., urban vs. rural). Moreover, we identified a third set of ‘neutral’ actors who strategically avoided adversarial positions and coalition membership. The findings illustrate the valuable contributions that critical-spatial approaches to social acceptance research can make; and the significance of attending to stakeholders with overlooked ‘neutral’ positionalities within such conflicts.
Scientific publications
For, against, or on the fence? Developing a critical-spatial approach to social acceptance to examine conflict over a power line in Sweden
This study used the Munga-Hamra power line proposal in Sweden as a case study. Thematic analysis revealed how the powerline was legitimated by an ‘elite’ coalition of private and public sector stakeholders. The power line was contested by a coalition of rural stakeholders including affected landowners, residents and tourism businesses. Both coalitions legitimated their positions by ‘othering’ imaginaries held by the adversary coalition (e.g., urban vs. rural). A third set of ‘neutral’ actors strategically avoided adversarial positions.
