IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envira/v46y2014i3p550-565.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Siting Prisons, Sighting Communities: Geographies of Objection in a Planning Process

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah Armstrong

    (Ivy Lodge, Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research, University of Glasgow, 63 Gibson Street, Glasgow G12 8LR, Scotland)

Abstract

This paper reviews the planning process for a Scottish prison located near a former mining village. Analysing the letters of objection submitted by residents offers an opportunity to explore local views about prison and community and to relate these to the unique social and spatial history of the area. The planning process itself structured how residents were able to express themselves and defined what counted as a relevant objection. After deconstructing this process, the paper then restores and uses as a framework for analysis three geographies of objection stripped from local responses to the development proposal: The emotional, temporal, and spatial. Emotional expressions of objection added intensity and gave meaning to claims about the historical decline of the region and also conveyed a deep sense of the proposed building site as a lived space. Particular grounds of opposition—over fear of strangers, the fragility of a local orchid, and the pollution from mining—provide an opportunity to explore the complex nature of place meaning and community identity, ultimately leading to a conclusion that the meaning of place is always in flux. The paper argues that Simmel's classic concept of the stranger, as the outsider who comes to stay, offers a useful analytic in understanding how the quality of proximal remoteness that prisons and other unwanted developments constitute participates in a constantly evolving sense of the local.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah Armstrong, 2014. "Siting Prisons, Sighting Communities: Geographies of Objection in a Planning Process," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(3), pages 550-565, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:46:y:2014:i:3:p:550-565
    DOI: 10.1068/a45407
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/a45407
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/a45407?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Geraint Ellis, 2004. "Discourses of Objection: Towards an Understanding of Third-Party Rights in Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(9), pages 1549-1570, September.
    2. Mhairi Aitken & Seonaidh McDonald & Peter Strachan, 2008. "Locating 'power' in wind power planning processes: the (not so) influential role of local objectors," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(6), pages 777-799.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hübner, Gundula & Leschinger, Valentin & Müller, Florian J.Y. & Pohl, Johannes, 2023. "Broadening the social acceptance of wind energy – An Integrated Acceptance Model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    2. Haggett, Claire, 2011. "Understanding public responses to offshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 503-510, February.
    3. Pepermans, Yves & Loots, Ilse, 2013. "Wind farm struggles in Flanders fields: A sociological perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 321-328.
    4. Aitken, Mhairi, 2010. "Wind power and community benefits: Challenges and opportunities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 6066-6075, October.
    5. Richard Cowell, 2017. "Decentralising energy governance? Wales, devolution and the politics of energy infrastructure decision-making," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(7), pages 1242-1263, November.
    6. Jones, Christopher R. & Eiser, J. Richard, 2009. "Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local onshore wind development with reference to an English case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 4604-4614, November.
    7. Leibenath, Markus & Wirth, Peter & Lintz, Gerd, 2016. "Just a talking shop? – Informal participatory spatial planning for implementing state wind energy targets in Germany," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 206-213.
    8. Thomas Lauf & Kristina Ek & Erik Gawel & Paul Lehmann & Patrik Söderholm, 2020. "The regional heterogeneity of wind power deployment: an empirical investigation of land-use policies in Germany and Sweden," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 63(4), pages 751-778, March.
    9. Ottinger, Gwen & Hargrave, Timothy J. & Hopson, Eric, 2014. "Procedural justice in wind facility siting: Recommendations for state-led siting processes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 662-669.
    10. Stephen Willey, 2007. "Planning Appeal Processes: Reflections on a Comparative Study," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 39(7), pages 1676-1698, July.
    11. Zhang, Xiang & Xu, Jian-gang & Ju, Yang, 2018. "Public participation in NIMBY risk mitigation: A discourse zoning approach in the Chinese context," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 559-575.
    12. Atkinson-Palombo, Carol & Kuby, Michael J., 2011. "The geography of advance transit-oriented development in metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona, 2000–2007," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 189-199.
    13. Bidwell, David, 2013. "The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial wind energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 189-199.
    14. Nadaï, Alain & Labussière, Olivier, 2017. "Landscape commons, following wind power fault lines. The case of Seine-et-Marne (France)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 807-816.
    15. Wolsink, Maarten, 2007. "Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2692-2704, May.
    16. Yvonne Rydin & Lucy Natarajan & Maria Lee & Simon Lock, 2018. "Do local economic interests matter when regulating nationally significant infrastructure? The case of renewable energy infrastructure projects," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 33(3), pages 269-286, May.
    17. Díaz, Paula & Adler, Carolina & Patt, Anthony, 2017. "Do stakeholders’ perspectives on renewable energy infrastructure pose a risk to energy policy implementation? A case of a hydropower plant in Switzerland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 21-28.
    18. Chad Walker & Jamie Baxter & Danielle Ouellette, 2014. "Beyond Rhetoric to Understanding Determinants of Wind Turbine Support and Conflict in Two Ontario, Canada Communities," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(3), pages 730-745, March.
    19. Keiron Bailey & Benjamin Blandford & Ted Grossardt & John Ripy, 2011. "Planning, Technology, and Legitimacy: Structured Public Involvement in Integrated Transportation and Land-Use Planning in the United States," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 38(3), pages 447-467, June.
    20. Katrina Raynor & Tony Matthews & Severine Mayere, 2017. "Shaping urban consolidation debates: Social representations in Brisbane newspaper media," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 54(6), pages 1519-1536, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:46:y:2014:i:3:p:550-565. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.