Exceptional Spaces for Sustainable Living: The Regulation of One Planet Developments in the Open Countryside

ABSTRACT

This paper explores the ‘regime of practices’ that are put in place when novel forms of sustainable living in the countryside are proposed that nevertheless contrast with established planning rationalities of urban containment and countryside protection. The article uses Foucault’s concept of governmentality to explore the innovative and arguably progressive One Planet Development policy in Wales. The paper focuses in particular on the Ecological Footprint and its associated data and monitoring requirements as a way of demonstrating One Planet Living. The analysis highlights the tensions between enabling One Planet Development and the governance of individuals’ lives and behaviours.

KEYWORDS:

• Planning
• governmentality
• One Planet Development
• low impact development
• Ecological Footprint

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by Cardiff University’s CUROP initiative. Thank you to Lilly O’Brien for assistance with data collection, to colleagues Andrea Collins and Richard Cowell for comments on an early version of the paper, and to Alessandro Galli for discussions of the Ecological Footprint. Thank you also to Allan Archer for exploring the footprint calculator with me, and to Erica Thompson at One Planet Council for use of the images of Rhiw Las. I also benefited from the patience and very constructive comments of referees.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Galli et al. (2012) explain The Ecological Footprint as an accounting tool that enables comparison of direct and indirect human resource use and emissions with the planet’s ecological or bio-capacity, and its capacity for renewable resource production and assimilation. The Ecological Footprint and biocapacity are expressed in global hectares (gha). The WWF (2016, p. 77) identify that accounts calculate the Earth’s biocapacity in 2012 as 1.7 gha per person. This figure is then often interpreted as a figure to be attained for ‘One Planet Living’. The figure changes over time depending on various factors.

2. The calculator erroneously takes a national per capita footprint measure for ‘shared services’ which everyone in society bears the footprint for – e.g. defence spending – and divides it by the number of people proposing to live in the One Planet Development. The figure should not be divided as a per capita figure. Welsh Government commissioned some sensitivity analysis of the error.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Neil Harris

Neil Harris is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Geography and Planning at Cardiff University. Neil is a Chartered Town Planner and his research interests extend to planning policy, planning practice, and planning theory. He has a particular interest in exploring statutory planning tools and practices through different theoretical lenses. E-mail: [email protected].