'Landscape', and 'Justice', and 'Place', oh my!

A Theoretical Framework for Social Dimensions of Energy Transitions.

My work is motivated by a desire to contribute to the efforts of climate change mitigation, particularly, of reducing negative impacts on nature and future generations.

My research is focused on the social dimensions of energy transitions with an emphasis on the rural transformations. Energy infrastructure is constituted spatially (Bridge et al., 2013) and has diverse landscape implications (Sherren et al., 2019). The interruption of idyllic landscapes is problematic because these places hold individual and social meanings that are tied to the materiality of a particular space (Creswell, 2015). It is also problematic when communities and local values are not involved in land-use planning. The theoretical framework I use to approach my research draws from three scholarly areas: landscapes of amenity and consumption, sense of place theory, and environmental justice.

Though often imagined as a picture or a snapshot, landscapes are material manifestations of process and subject to continual change via geological and human processes. Tim Ingold describes a theory of form – not as static – but as a moment in the processes that created it (Boyer and Howe, 2019). For example, a pebble, a hill, or a cloud can be viewed in an instant but they are the products of process and are continually changing.[1] Similarly, landscapes are the material manifestations of process and change. I believe this is intuitively understood and yet there is socio-political push-back to change (see Chappell et al., 2020; katesimon sherrencouper, 2020), especially in landscapes of amenity and consumption: spaces where people go to enjoy and be affected by a particular, instantaneous material form.

Sense of place theory is closely related here.[2] The concept of 'sense of place' attends to individual and social interactions through which places gain their significance (Creswell, 2015). Within the concept of sense of place, we have the symbolic ‘place meanings’ (McLachlan, 2009; Eaton et al., 2019; Devine-Wright and Batel, 2017) and the bonds of ‘place attachments’ (Devine-Wright and Howes, 2010; Stedman, 2002; Kudryavstev et al., 2012). Sense of place also develops when place is considered as 'chronotope' (i.e. time-place): it is shaped by and shapes the identity of people and dialogical transactions (conversations) within it (Van Eijck and Roth, 2010). Here, place is not simply a location, it is dynamic and unfolding through time, a narrative of experiences. This makes me think of post-structuralism and I would like to understand how the various theories under this philosophical umbrella could be used to unpack this idea of ‘chronotope’.[3]

Considering ‘landscape’ and ‘place’, the geographies of renewable energy present challenges for achieving a ‘just’ energy transition. From a distributional perspective, rural areas are well-suited, technically speaking, to host renewable energy infrastructure, and have been bearing the brunt of material changes associated with energy transition (McCarthy, 2015). From a procedural perspective, institutions residing in urban centres or ‘cores’ are making decisions that affect rural outskirts or ‘peripheries’ (Poupeau, 2019; Murphy & Smith, 2013; Zografos & Martinez-Alier, 2009). This phenomenon was experienced in Ontario in 2009 when the Green Energy Act – passed in the province’s capital Toronto – circumvented rural municipalities’ authority to regulate renewable energy projects (Fast, 2015). From a recognitional perspective, rural areas are now facing a form of stigmatization whereby renewable energy developers discursively devalue rural areas as a way to position them as the obvious choice for renewable energy projects (Rudolph & Kirkegaard, 2019).

I use the concept of environmental justice as a lens through which to better understand these challenges as this concept considers the distribution of social impacts of resource and environment related activities. Recently, research in the area of energy justice has emerged to address the distribution of social impacts of energy systems. Both of these call for increased public participation as a way to address injustice (see Jenkins, 2018; Reed & George, 2011).

[1] Implicitly, here, we have the importance of temporal scales. [2] There is a conceptual tension between the ideas of ‘landscape’ and ‘place’ that, I think, relates to the idea that all landscapes are places but not all places are landscapes. Landscapes are material representations of process, of contrived land-use plans. Place, and certainly, ‘sense of place’ is oriented in human understandings and interactions. There is a lot to unpack here using post-humanism. For example, would this help explain why ‘landscape’ is imagined as ‘displaced’ from the viewer? What would Braidotti (2020) say of landscape, place, and human resistance to the renewable energy technology meant to curtail negative impacts of climate change?) [3] The first sentence of Paul Harrison (2006)’s chapter “Poststructuralist Theories” is not particularly encouraging of this endeavour: “Like all ‘isms’, ‘poststructuralism’ is an awkward term and one which continues to generate more confusion, frustration, argument and outright anger than most.” (p. 122). I consider myself forewarned and will be aware of ‘affect’ as I explore this area in the future!

The figure below illustrates how these concepts and ideas are connecting with and considering one other to inform the central guiding question:

Whose values are represented spatially?


Boyer, D. and Howe C. (Co-hosts). (2019, March 21). 169 – Tim Ingold [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from http://culturesofenergy.com/169-tim-ingold/

Braidotti, R. (2020). “We” Are In This Together, But We Are Not One and the Same. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-020-10017-8

Bridge, G., Bouzarovski, S., Bradshaw, M., & Eyre, N. (2013). Geographies of energy transition: Space, place and the low-carbon economy. Energy Policy, 53, 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.066

Brown, G., Sanders, S., & Reed, P. (2018). Using public participatory mapping to inform general land use planning and zoning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 177, 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.04.011

Brown, G., Reed, P., & Raymond, C. M. (2020). Mapping place values: 10 lessons from two decades of public participation GIS empirical research. Applied Geography, 116, 102156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2020.102156

Bryan, J. (2011). Walking the line: Participatory mapping, indigenous rights, and neoliberalism. Geoforum, 42(1), 40–50. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.09.001

Calvert, K., Jahns, R. (Submitted). Participatory Mapping and Spatial Planning for Renewable Energy Development: the case of ground-mount solar in rural Ontario.

Chambers, R. (2006). Participatory Mapping and Geographic Information Systems: Whose Map? Who is Empowered and Who Disempowered? Who Gains and Who Loses? The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 25(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00163.x

Chappell, E. N., Parkins, J. R., & Sherren, K. (2020). Climax thinking, place attachment, and utilitarian landscapes: Implications for wind energy development. Landscape and Urban Planning, 199(March), 103802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103802

Cresswell, T. (2015). Place: An Introduction. John Wiley and Sons Ltd. West Sussex, UK.

Devine-Wright, P., & Batel, S. (2017). My neighbourhood, my country or my planet? The influence of multiple place attachments and climate change concern on social acceptance of energy infrastructure. Global Environmental Change, 47, 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.08.003

Devine-Wright, P., & Howes, Y. (2010). Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: A wind energy case study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.008

Eaton, W. M., Burnham, M., Running, K., Hinrichs, C. C., & Selfa, T. (2019). Symbolic meanings, landowner support, and dedicated bioenergy crops in the rural northeastern United States. Energy Research and Social Science, 52(February), 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.02.005

Fagerholm, N., Eilola, S., Kisanga, D., Arki, V., & Käyhkö, N. (2019). Place-based landscape services and potential of participatory spatial planning in multifunctional rural landscapes in Southern highlands, Tanzania. Landscape Ecology, 34(7), 1769–1787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00847-2

Fast, S. (2015). Qualified, absolute, idealistic, impatient: dimensions of host community responses to wind energy projects. Environment and Planning A, 47(7), 1540–1557. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X15595887

Firth, R. (2014). Critical cartography as anarchist pedagogy? Ideas for praxis inspired by the 56a infoshop map archive. Interface: A Journal for and about Social Movements, 6(1), 156–184. http://www.interfacejournal.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Interface-6-1-Firth.pdf

Foster, V. (2016). Collaborative Arts-based Research for Social Justice. New York: Routledge.

Harrison, P. (2006). Poststructuralist Theories. In Aitken, & Valentine. (2006). Approaches to Human Geography.

Harris, L. M., & Hazen, H. D. (2006). Power of maps: (Counter) Mapping for conservation. Acme, 4(1), 99–130. https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0357973

Hopkins, P. (2019). Social geography I: Intersectionality. Progress in Human Geography, 43(5), 937–947. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132517743677

Jenkins, K. (2018). Setting energy justice apart from the crowd: Lessons from environmental and climate justice. Energy Research and Social Science, 39(November 2017), 117–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.015

Johnson, J., & Madge, C. (2016). Empowering Methodologies: Feminist and Indigenous Approaches. In I. Hay (Ed.) Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography. Ontario: Oxford University Press Canada.

katesimon sherrencouper. (2020, June 17). Sherren ISSRM 2020 keynote Climax thinking and the challenge of reimagining our landscapes [Video File]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abZsAMwt2YM

Kudryavtsev, A., Stedman, R. C., & Krasny, M. E. (2012). Sense of place in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 18(2), 229–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.609615

Lupton, D. (2020, June 7). Map Making as a Social Research Method [Video file]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uHHXzLthHw

McCall, M. K., & Dunn, C. E. (2012). Geo-information tools for participatory spatial planning: Fulfilling the criteria for ‘good’ governance? Geoforum, 43(1), 81–94. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.07.007

McCarthy, J. (2015). A socioecological fix to capitalist crisis and climate change? The possibilities and limits of renewable energy. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 47(12): 2485–2502. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X15602491

McGregor, H. E., Madden, B., Higgins, M., & Ostertag, J. (2018). Braiding Designs for Decolonizing Research Methodologies: Theory, Practice, Ethics. Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology, 9(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.7577/rerm.2781

Murphy, J., & Smith, A. (2013). Understanding transition-periphery dynamics: Renewable energy in the highlands and Islands of Scotland. Environment and Planning A, 45(3), 691–709. https://doi.org/10.1068/a45190

Poupeau, F. M. (2019). Metropolitan and rural areas fighting for the control of electricity networks in France. A local geopolitics approach to energy transition. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 38(3), 464–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654419868230

Reed, M. G., & George, C. (2011). Where in the world is environmental justice? Progress in Human Geography, 35(6), 835–842. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132510388384

Rice, C., & Mündel, I. (2018). Story‐Making as Methodology: Disrupting Dominant Stories through Multimedia Storytelling. Canadian Review of Sociology, 55(2), 211-231. https://doi.org/10.1111/cars.12190

Rice, C., Harrison, E., & Friedman, M. (2019). Doing Justice to Intersectionality in Research. Cultural Studies - Critical Methodologies, 19(6), 409–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708619829779

Rudolph, D., & Kirkegaard, J. K. (2019). Making Space for Wind Farms: Practices of Territorial Stigmatisation in Rural Denmark. Antipode, 51(2), 642–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12428

Sherren, K., Parkins, J. R., Owen, T., & Terashima, M. (2019). Does noticing energy infrastructure influence public support for energy development? Evidence from a national survey in Canada. Energy Research and Social Science, 51, 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.01.014

Schmidt, J. (2013). The empirical falsity of the human subject: new materialism, climate change and the shared critique of artifice, Resilience, 1(3), 174-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/21693293.2013.837241

Smith, M. (1999). To Speak of Trees: Social Constructivism, Environmental Values, and the Future of Deep Ecology. Environmental Ethics, 21(4), 359–376. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics19992143

Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place: Predicting behavior from place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environment and Behavior, 34(5), 561–581. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502034005001

ThisIsNotanAtlas. (2019, December 12). This Is Not an Atlas - A Documentary on Counter-Cartographies [Video file]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8-GKyy3j6I

Upham, P., Johansen, K., Bögel, P. M., Axon, S., Garard, J., & Carney, S. (2018). Harnessing place attachment for local climate mitigation? Hypothesising connections between broadening representations of place and readiness for change. Local Environment, 23(9), 912–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2018.1488824

van Eijck, M., & Roth, W. M. (2010). Towards a chronotopic theory of “place” in place-based education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5(4), 869–898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-010-9278-2

Zografos, C., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2009). The politics of landscape value: A case study of wind farm conflict in rural Catalonia. Environment and Planning A, 41(7), 1726–1744. https://doi.org/10.1068/a41208