Challenging wind turbine projects in the name of landscape: looking beyond 'NIMBY' to a discussion of the development of the land
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, natural resources have supported the economy and the development of many regions in Quebec. However, the conditions of their exploitation have evolved with changes in historical, social and geographical contexts, as new resources appear while others disappear. A major challenge is therefore to ensure that diverse projects, whether related to new or more traditional resources, can co-exist in the same territory. The wind power industry clearly illustrates this challenge. The efforts made to promote this 'new' resource often face strong social criticism in local communities likely to host wind farms. Following a brief summary of the main strategies adopted by the Government of Quebec to support this green industry, our attention will be turned to one of the central arguments of its opponents, also found in other industrialized countries: the landscape. By analyzing the briefs submitted to a commission set up by the provincial bureau for public hearings on the environment, the BAPE (Bureau des audiences publiques sur l'environnement), we identify four main social discourses reflecting different conceptions of landscape, each of which raises different issues pertaining to the exploitation of wind power. We attempt to demonstrate that, through the landscape argument, people can challenge decisions that have been made regarding environmental and regional planning, as well as their underlying conceptions of development. Our analysis also reveals that positions are not simply divided between those in favour and those opposed to wind turbines, but rather that they are based on different representations of the territories concerned. From our point of view, a deeper understanding of such rationalities and underpinnings could shed light on current social dynamics and governance practices related to this energy industry and the emerging resource of landscape. / Ressources halieutiques, minières et forestières ont historiquement rythmé l'économie et le développement de plusieurs régions du Québec. Les conditions de leur exploitation évoluent cependant selon les contextes historiques, sociaux et géographiques. Dans cette perspective, des ressources émergent alors que d'autres disparaissent. Dès lors, un défi important est de faire cohabiter, dans un même territoire, les divers projets liés à ces ressources, aussi bien celles traditionnelles que récentes. La filière de l'énergie éolienne illustre bien ce défi. La mise en valeur de ce qui apparaît pour certains comme une « nouvelle » ressource énergétique provoque des tensions, souvent fortes, dans des communautés susceptibles d'accueillir des parcs de production. Après avoir décrit brièvement les stratégies gouvernementales adoptées au Québec pour mettre en place cette filière énergétique, cet article s'attarde à un argument récurrent des contestations, également exprimé dans d'autres pays industrialisés : celui du paysage. À partir de l'examen de mémoires déposés lors d'une commission tenue par le Bureau des audiences publiques sur l'environnement (BAPE), nous dégageons quatre principaux discours d'acteurs, basés sur des conceptions différentes du paysage, et qui renvoient à différents enjeux touchant la mise en valeur de la ressource éolienne. Nous tentons ainsi de montrer que, par l'argument du paysage, des groupes questionnent les choix d'occupation et d'aménagement du territoire, ainsi que les modèles de développement qui sont sous-jacents aux projets et aux politiques publiques. Cet examen révèle aussi que les positions ne sont pas binaires, entre ce qui serait le clan des « pro » éoliens et celui des opposants mais qu'elles reposent plutôt sur des représentations différentes des territoires concernés. Une compréhension approfondie des rationalités et de leurs fondements pourrait, croyons-nous, éclairer les dynamiques sociales et les pratiques de gouvernance concernant cette filière énergétique et la ressource émergente du paysage.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".