Le développement durable à l'épreuve des paysages d'Eole. Analyse de contestations sociales autour de parcs d'éoliennes : étude de cas français (Finistère) et québécois (Gaspésie)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On the basis of two empirical case-studies (Finistère, France ; Gaspésie, Québec), we contribute to show that landscape and sustainable development are two notions which feed mutually. In two different geographical, social, cultural and political contexts, social contestations emerge just as the first windmills are build; this happens whether the windfarms are small and disseminated or large and concentrated, whether a regional development objective is edicted or not. In both cases, public and private local actors grab hold of the landscape question a recurrent issue in the contestations to launch processes of concertation, in order to elaborate decision-making tools. Thus, what is at stake behind the landscape' notion is the localising of an object the windmill that comes from a global sustainable development policy, whereas the national policies are essentially energy and industry policies. The political dimension of the landscape' grows: the necessity of taking into account the social representations' and even the conflictual relationships between plural visions is asserted; the notion of landscape converges on that of the participation of the populations in the collective orientations in development and spatial planning. However, we propose that this political dimension is completely assumed: beyond the idea of " social acceptability " which dominates, beyond the devices of participation which decline especially on the modes of the communication and the negotiation, it would be advisable to formulate objectives more political than managerial and to recognize that the "perceiving" subject is coupled with a " active subject ". / A partir de l'analyse de deux cas empiriques (Finistère, France ; Gaspésie, Québec), nous contribuons à montrer que les notions de paysage et de développement durable se nourrissent réciproquement. Dans deux contextes géographiques, sociaux, culturels et politiques différents, des contestations sociales émergent dès les premières implantations d'éoliennes, que celles-ci prennent la forme de petits parcs disséminés ou de grands parcs concentrés spatialement, qu'un objectif de développement économique régional soit affiché ou pas. Dans les deux cas, les acteurs locaux, publics et privés, se saisissent de la question du paysage thème récurrent des contestations pour initier des processus de concertation visant à élaborer des outils d'aide à la décision. Ainsi, le paysage porte l'enjeu de « localiser » un objet issu d'une politique globale de développement durable, l'éolienne, dans des contextes où les politiques nationales sont essentiellement énergétiques et industrielles. Le paysage voit sa dimension politique se renforcer : ainsi s'affirment la nécessité de prendre en compte les « représentations sociales » voire les relations parfois conflictuelles entre des regards pluriels ; la notion de paysage rejoint celle de participation des populations aux orientations collectives en matière de développement et d'aménagement des territoires. Toutefois, nous proposons que cette dimension politique soit pleinement assumée : au-delà de l'idée d' « acceptabilité sociale » qui domine, au-delà des dispositifs de participation qui se déclinent surtout sur les modes de la communication et de la négociation, il conviendrait de formuler des objectifs plus politiques que managériaux et de reconnaître que le sujet « percevant » se double d'un « sujet agissant ».
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".