Wind Energy Policy, Development, and Justice in Ontario and Nova Scotia, Canada: a Comparison of Technocratic and Community- Based Siting Processes
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Western University Scholarship@Western Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository 6-27-2017 12:00 AM Wind energy policy, development, and justice in Ontario and Nova Scotia, Canada: A comparison of technocratic and community- based siting processes Chad JR Walker The University of Western Ontario Supervisor Dr. Jamie Baxter The University of Western Ontario Graduate Program in Geography A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree in Doctor of Philosophy © Chad JR Walker 2017 Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd Part of the Environmental Studies Commons, Human Geography Commons, and the Nature and Society Relations Commons Recommended Citation Walker, Chad JR, "Wind energy policy, development, and justice in Ontario and Nova Scotia, Canada: A comparison of technocratic and community-based siting processes" (2017). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 4696. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/4696 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Abstract and Keywords This thesis primarily examines wind energy policy and development through the lens of local acceptance and environmental justice in Ontario and Nova Scotia, Canada. It has been argued that encouraging more participatory planning alongside introducing financial benefits, can powerfully shape local responses. With little in the Canadian context to substantiate this claim, this dissertation attempts to fill a gap in the literature. The thesis also investigates a methodological question within the social scientific, mixed method literature. Using a small subset of this literature associated with wind energy development, research was undertaken to examine potential relationships between research design and method dominance. Results from Study 1- which looked at distributive justice and wind energy development highlight stark differences between Ontario and Nova Scotia in terms of perceptions of local benefits. Qualitative and quantitative findings point to the strength of traditional benefit sharing initiatives but also more novel forms of benefit structures. Study 2 examined local residents’ experiences of planning processes and found much stronger levels of procedural justice in Nova Scotia. It also suggested that local opposition to wind turbines in Ontario was intertwined with procedural injustice including few opportunities to participate. There were low levels of ‘the ability to affect change’- an idea that was common to both provinces. The findings from the methodological investigation (Study 3) suggest there is little evidence in the domain that qualitative methods are being heavily marginalized, yet there is some indication that research design may influence method priority. Some of the key theoretical contributions relate to the advancement of the resident-centered viewpoint, and the application of Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation. Methodologically, the multi-jurisdiction approach is unique and likely will help to inform Canadian wind energy policy. In study 3, novel methods were used to look at the concept of method priority- an idea that should inspire future researchers to question the ways the concept has been measured in the past. Practical contributions, including public i engagement through the media, as well the publication of a ‘Toolkit’ and the hosting of a stakeholder workshop rounded out the research. Keywords: wind energy; social responses; mixed methods; energy policy; community-based development ii Co-Authorship Statement This dissertation was written in the Integrated-Article format and thus is made up of a collection of papers that have either been accepted for publication or are currently under peer review. The thesis is book-ended by Introduction and Methods Chapters to begin and a Discussion and Conclusion Chapter to close. The manuscripts are as follows: Chapter 3: Walker, C., & Baxter, J. (2017). “It's easy to throw rocks at a corporation”: wind energy development and distributive justice in Canada. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 1-15. Chapter 4: Walker, C., & Baxter, J. (2017). Procedural justice in Canadian wind energy development: A comparison of community-based and technocratic siting processes. Energy Research & Social Science, 29, 160-169.* Chapter 5: Walker, C., Baxter, J. (Under review). Sequence and method dominance in mixed-method research: An empirical investigation using the social dynamics of wind energy literature. Qualitative Research. All of the above papers are co-authored with my supervisor, though as the first author I conducted the research, which involved research problem identification, academic literature review, analysis and writing. *Based on some comments following thesis defense, some minor changes were made relative to the published article in Energy Research & Social Science. iii Acknowledgements Thank you first to the most supportive supervisor I can imagine. Jamie, I owe you a lot over the past seven years we have worked together. I will continue to strive to become the type of academic you are today. I am also incredibly lucky to have such a great family who has helped me so much to pursue my dreams. Mom, dad, and Jace especially- you have been with me through the highs and lows of personal and professional life and I do not think I would be here without you. Ainsley, thanks so much for all the support you have given to me. I will be forever indebted to you. I am also incredibly appreciative to all my past and present colleagues from the Environmental Health and Hazards Lab. You have set a high standard for what it means to be a successful graduate student and this has helped me push harder to become an academic. I hope to see many of you on a regular basis again soon. iv Table of Contents Abstract and Keywords ................................................................................................................ i Co-Authorship Statement .......................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. ix Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 1.1: Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1: Background ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Organization of the Thesis ..................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Study objectives ......................................................................................................................7 1.4 Literature Review: Social dynamics of wind energy .............................................................. 8 1.4.1 The NIMBY explanation .................................................................................................. 9 1.4.2 Noise, Acoustics and Health .......................................................................................... 12 1.4.3 Visual issues ................................................................................................................... 14 1.4.4 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................... 16 1.5 Mixed methods research in practice .................................................................................... 27 1.6 Research Problem and Context ........................................................................................... 28 1.6.1 Ontario: Community profiles ........................................................................................ 34 1.6.2 Nova Scotia: Community profiles ................................................................................. 40 1.7 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 48 1.8 References ............................................................................................................................ 51 Chapter 2: METHODS .................................................................................................66 2.1: Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 66 2.2: Study 3 – A Critical review of the Mixed Methods literature ............................................ 67 2.2.1: Literature reviews of methodological practices ........................................................... 67 2.2.2: Sampling strategy for the mixed methods review ....................................................... 70 2.2.3: Analytic framework ...................................................................................................... 71 2.2.4: Rigour in