The Politics of Landscape Value: A Case Study of Wind Farm Conflict in Rural Catalonia
Abstract
Conflicts over the installation of wind farms constrain the potential to adopt an effective means for mitigating climate change. Although conventional wisdom attributes wind farm opposition to ‘not in my back yard’ attitudes, research shows that this explanation fails to incorporate the multiplicity of underlying motivations of opposition. Instead, distributional and institutional factors and procedural opportunities for public participation significantly influence support for wind farms. We consider the relevance of a political ecology explanation of wind farm conflicts by focusing on a case study in rural Catalonia, Spain. We argue that the conflict constitutes a recurrence of older and broader ‘centre’–‘periphery’ antagonisms and that two more explanatory elements are complementary to this political ecology explanation: the existence of alternative landscape valuations and the encouragement of instrumental rationality by the planning framework. We suggest that the absence of opportunities for meaningful deliberation in decision making and the predominance of decisional bottom lines curtail claims to fairer distribution of costs and benefits from locally hosted energy developments, as well as alternative landscape value claims, and that this fuels conflict.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
EDCs was the first theoretical framework to raise critical concern over wind energy development.
“EDCs was the first theoretical framework to raise critical concern over wind energy development”
From The political ecologies of "green" extractivism(s): An introduction (2024) · cites this paper as Zografos & Martínez-Alier, 2009
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The political ecologies of "green" extractivism(s): An introduction
Dunlap, A., Verweijen, J., & Tornel, C. (2024) · Journal of Political Ecology · doi:10.2458/jpe.6131 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
“EDCs research often also examines center-periphery exchange dynamics undergirding asymmetrical distributions (Zografos & Martínez-Alier, 2009; Scheidel et al. 2018), akin to a dependency theory of the local.”
Background
- Authors
- Zografos, C., & Martínez-Alier, J.
- Affiliations
- Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES)
- Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientais, Edifici Ciències, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain
- Corresponding author
- Zografos, Christos
- ORCID
- Zografos, Christos
- Venue
- Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-01-01
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1726-1744
- ISSN
- 0308-518X (ISSN-L)
- 1472-3409
- OpenAlex
- W1963985712
- Cited by
- 147
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 22.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Environment and Planning A Economy and Space (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology, Conservation, and Geographical Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Keywords
- landscape values, political ecology, center-periphery relations, citizen participation, distributive justice, instrumental rationality, energy planning, climate change mitigation, rural Catalonia, deliberative democracy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review