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

* BWEA, 2003; figures relate to total declared capacity

Why such unequal outcomes?

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)

What do we know about those involved in local opposition?

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).

Accepted

rejected

Analysis of 77 wind farm applications in England

(appeals not included on this map)

Univariate regression for local authority planning outcomes

Independent variables with predictive scores of more than 60%.

% correct

Sig. of variable

Sig. Model

Direction

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 (LSOAs with planning refusal have:)

AppealDecision

Planningdecision

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

Larger number of post offices 0.042 (p>0.05)

Fewer road accidents 0.047 (p>0.05)

Higher proportion of 2nd homes and holiday homes 0.048 (p>0.05)

Name of variables 10var.model 85.7%

8 var. model83.1%

4 var. model 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

Multivariate regression; the best models for x variables(% correctly predicted by the model; significance of individual variables)

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)