Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Horst (PowerPoint)

VIEWS: 2 PAGES: 13

									For whom the wind blows: an
 emergent resource gaze?

        Dan van der Horst

    d.vanderhorst@bham.ac.uk
    Wind farm approval rates in the period
                1999-2003*

•   40% for Wales
•   50% for England
•   75% for Northern Ireland
•   94% for Scotland

    Why such unequal outcomes?


       * BWEA, 2003; figures relate to total declared capacity
 What do we know about those
  involved in local opposition?

The view from industry (quotes):
• “trouble with retired ABCs”
• “Avoid chocolate box villages”
• “Selecting a place where people
  understand that electricity doesn’t come
  out of the light switch” (ex-mining area)
View from a Guardian columnist (Toynbee 2004):

How unsurprising that the Prince joins Country Life
 and the Telegraph's nimby campaign against
 wind farms, in the company of Noel Edmonds,
 David Bellamy (Referendum party, now Tory)
 and Bernard Ingham of the nuclear lobby. If only
 there were space here to give the full
 heartrending succession of Telegraph wind-farm
 sob stories, such as Anne Hassan-Hicks, who
 fears her 18th-century house in Tennyson
 country may lose £100,000 in value as it looks
 on to farmland due to sprout wind turbines.’
    The urbanite perspective?
‘[T]he open countryside space is portrayed
   as a space of consumption in which
   ramblers walk – and walk freely –
   experiencing peace and quiet and
   spectacular scenery. The land’s value lies
   not in its productive activity, but as an
   escape for city-dwellers, as somewhere to
   reconnect with nature, and to inspire art,
   literature and music’ (Woods, 2003, 285).
     Rural versus urban views
• Evidence that rural people are more tolerant, or even
  actively supportive of renewable energy activities than
  urban people (Bergmann et al., 2006; Hain et al., 2005 –
  both Scottish studies),
• Evidence that attitudes of ‘local’ people were more
  favourable towards renewable energy facilities than
  those of ‘newcomers’ who had recently moved to the
  area (Landscape Design Associates, 2000 in Hain et al.,
  2005 - regarding windfarms in Mid-Wales; Hanley and
  Nevin, 1999 - regarding biomass/wind/hydro in Assynt,
  on the west coast of Scotland).
• Evidence that the argument of job creation is important
  for many people in rural Scotland who support the
  development of renewables, but not for urbanites
  (Bergmann et al., 2006).
Transformation of (bits of) the countryside

 • ‘post-productivism’ with respect to farming
   (Mather et al, 2006)
 • ‘counter-urbanisation’ (Fielding, 1998)
 • ‘rural gentrification’ (Phillips, 1993)
 • ‘greentrification’ (Smith and Phillips, 2001),
 • ‘aspirational ruralism’ (Woods, 2003)

So are wind farms a form of neo-productivism?
(Tourist gaze -> resource gaze)
Is there evidence of Envir. Inequality?
Processes causing environmental inequity:
1. Historic patterns of site location and associated
    housing for workers;
2. The operation of housing and land markets over long
    time periods;
3. Land use planning policies that tend to agglomerate
    industrial activities;
4. And “deliberate targeting of deprived areas by
    companies seeking to gain planning permission where
    local opposition is likely to be less substantial,
    influential and well organized” (Walker et al. 2005, p.
    373).
Analysis of 77 wind farm
applications in England
                            Accepted

                            rejected



    (appeals not
    included on this map)
 Univariate regression for local authority
           planning outcomes
Independent variables with predictive scores of more than 60%.
                                     %       Sig. of     Sig.      Directio
                                     correct variable    Model     n
  Years of potential life lost       72.7    0.011       0.004     -
  voter turnout in 2001              70.1    0.005       0.002     +
  Distance to polluting source       63.6    0.087       0.080     +
  % population aged 16-24            62.3    0.020       0.008     -
  Ammonia emissions to air           62.3    0.027       0.010     +
  Number of days of ground frost 62.3        0.134       0.120     +
  Rural classification               61.1    0.085       0.076     +
  Annual rainfall                    61      0.084       0.078     +
+ means a high value of the variable, is associated with a higher chance of rejection
- means a low value of the variable, is associated with a higher chance of rejection
Mann-Whitney p<0.05 found for the following local variables     Appeal Planning
  (LSOAs with planning refusal have:)                           Decision decision
Fewer years of potential life lost                              0.00042   0.0089
Higher voting turnout                                           0.00050   0.0090
Lower health deprivation index                                  0.0066    (p>0.05)
Smaller percentage of people aged 16-24                         0.0097    (p>0.05)
Lower crime deprivation index                                   0.016     0.042
Lower percent urban type                                        0.017     (p>0.05)
Lower cadmium emissions                                         0.018     0.016
Higher proportion of self-employed                              0.019     (p>0.05)
Higher number of cultural heritage sites                        0.019     0.039
Smaller length of principal roads                               0.020     0.021
Fewer students                                                  0.023     (p>0.05)
Lower emissions of dioxins and furans                           0.025     (p>0.05)
More small employer and own account workers                     0.028     (p>0.05)
fewer persons employed in public admin, defence, soc security   0.031     (p>0.05)
Lower illness and disability                                    0.031     (p>0.05)
More settlements                                                0.034     (p>0.05)
Higher annual rainfall                                          0.041     0.030
Multivariate regression; the best models for x variables
(% correctly predicted by the model; significance of individual variables)


  Name of variables                        10var.model 8 var. model   4 var. model
                                              85.7%    83.1%             81.8%
  voter turnout in 2001                    0.003        0.002         0.001
  distance to nearest tourist attraction   0.003        0.009         0.055
  Rural classification                     0.019        0.002
  number of land fill sites                0.006        0.005         0.074
  number of post offices                   0.011        0.021
  Ammonia emissions to air                 0.015        0.008
  Number of days of ground frost           0.017        0.055
  Flood zone 2                             0.129        0.019
  Flood zone 3                             0.144
  Emergency hospital admissions            0.172
  % employed in manufacturing                                         0.126
              conclusions
• The (very) local area clearly does matter
• Local democratic deficit is key, + several
  indicators associated with social capital.
• The planning process produces unequal
  outcomes
• Appeals produce more unequal outcomes
  than the first phase of application
• Does this amount to environmental
  inequality? (scale, time, issue dependent)

								
To top