mirror of
https://github.com/kidwellj/mapping_environmental_action.git
synced 2024-10-31 23:42:20 +00:00
added ragg(), removed unnecessary font libraries, streamlined crs loading
This commit is contained in:
parent
d83f3b1f43
commit
deb05acd7a
|
@ -11,7 +11,6 @@ date: "`r Sys.Date()`"
|
||||||
bibliography: biblio.bib
|
bibliography: biblio.bib
|
||||||
linkcolor: black
|
linkcolor: black
|
||||||
geometry: margin=1in
|
geometry: margin=1in
|
||||||
# fontfamily: mathpazo
|
|
||||||
fontsize: 11pt
|
fontsize: 11pt
|
||||||
output:
|
output:
|
||||||
html_document:
|
html_document:
|
||||||
|
@ -65,14 +64,13 @@ require(sf) # new simplefeature data class, supercedes sp in many ways
|
||||||
# See issue https://github.com/kidwellj/mapping_environmental_action/issues/3 for progress re: migration from sp()
|
# See issue https://github.com/kidwellj/mapping_environmental_action/issues/3 for progress re: migration from sp()
|
||||||
# require(sp) # needed for proj4string, deprecated by sf()
|
# require(sp) # needed for proj4string, deprecated by sf()
|
||||||
# require(maptools)
|
# require(maptools)
|
||||||
require(ggplot2)
|
|
||||||
|
library(ragg) # better video device, more accurate and faster rendering, esp. on macos. Also should enable system fonts for display
|
||||||
|
library(tidyverse)
|
||||||
require(tmap) # using as an alternative to base r graphics and ggplot for geospatial plots
|
require(tmap) # using as an alternative to base r graphics and ggplot for geospatial plots
|
||||||
require(tmaptools) # for get_asp_ratio below
|
require(tmaptools) # for get_asp_ratio below
|
||||||
require(grid) # using for inset maps on tmap
|
require(grid) # using for inset maps on tmap
|
||||||
require(broom) # required for tidying SPDF to data.frame for ggplot2
|
require(broom) # required for tidying SPDF to data.frame for ggplot2
|
||||||
require(tidyr) # using for grouped bar plot
|
|
||||||
# require(plyr) # already a dependency of knitr, remove?
|
|
||||||
# require(dplyr) # already a dependency of knitr, remove?
|
|
||||||
require(reshape2) # using for grouped bar plot
|
require(reshape2) # using for grouped bar plot
|
||||||
require(scales)
|
require(scales)
|
||||||
# require(sqldf) # using sqldf to filter before loading very large data sets
|
# require(sqldf) # using sqldf to filter before loading very large data sets
|
||||||
|
@ -91,11 +89,6 @@ require(scales)
|
||||||
require(plotly) # allows for export of plots to dynamic web pages
|
require(plotly) # allows for export of plots to dynamic web pages
|
||||||
require(gtable) # more powerful package for multi-plot layouts, not necessary for knitr
|
require(gtable) # more powerful package for multi-plot layouts, not necessary for knitr
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Packages used for features or issues relating to pdf_document knitr format
|
|
||||||
# Note: implementation of fonts (currently commented out) is specific to pdf_document output
|
|
||||||
# require(showtext) # for loading in fonts
|
|
||||||
# require(extrafont) # font support
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
# Set up local workspace:
|
# Set up local workspace:
|
||||||
if (dir.exists("data") == FALSE) {
|
if (dir.exists("data") == FALSE) {
|
||||||
dir.create("data")
|
dir.create("data")
|
||||||
|
@ -107,7 +100,6 @@ if (dir.exists("derivedData") == FALSE) {
|
||||||
dir.create("derivedData")
|
dir.create("derivedData")
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<<<<<<< HEAD
|
|
||||||
# # Setup PostGIS database connection
|
# # Setup PostGIS database connection
|
||||||
# dw <- config::get("datawarehouse")
|
# dw <- config::get("datawarehouse")
|
||||||
#
|
#
|
||||||
|
@ -119,38 +111,20 @@ if (dir.exists("derivedData") == FALSE) {
|
||||||
# host = dw$server,
|
# host = dw$server,
|
||||||
# port = 5432
|
# port = 5432
|
||||||
# )
|
# )
|
||||||
=======
|
|
||||||
# Setup PostGIS database connection
|
|
||||||
dw <- config::get("datawarehouse")
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
con <- dbConnect(odbc::odbc(),
|
|
||||||
driver = dw$driver,
|
|
||||||
database = dw$database,
|
|
||||||
uid = dw$uid,
|
|
||||||
pwd = dw$pwd,
|
|
||||||
host = dw$server,
|
|
||||||
port = 5432
|
|
||||||
)
|
|
||||||
>>>>>>> 89c9a2a5a4542de5584daa0304a53008a779ded8
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
# Define Coordinate Reference Systems (CRS) for later use
|
# Define Coordinate Reference Systems (CRS) for later use
|
||||||
# Note: I've used British National Grid (27000) in this paper, but have found that
|
# Note: I've used British National Grid (27000) in this paper, but have found that
|
||||||
# it is falling out of use in many cases, so will be defaulting to WGS84 in future
|
# it is falling out of use in many cases, so will be defaulting to WGS84 in future
|
||||||
# data-sets and papers.
|
# data-sets and papers.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
# Working with EPSG codes for spatialfeature CRS given the usage of this approach with sf()
|
# Proj4 is also now deprecated in favour of WKT2, so I will be adapting code to use this more robust standard in the future. See here for more details: https://inbo.github.io/tutorials/tutorials/spatial_crs_coding/#set-the-crs-of-a-spatial-object-in-sp
|
||||||
# for discussion related to this fix, see https://gis.stackexchange.com/q/313761/41474
|
|
||||||
# TODO: remove below as part of overall migration to sf()
|
# TODO: remove below as part of overall migration to sf()
|
||||||
# See issue https://github.com/kidwellj/mapping_environmental_action/issues/3 for progress re: migration from sp()
|
# See issue https://github.com/kidwellj/mapping_environmental_action/issues/3 for progress re: migration from sp() and https://github.com/kidwellj/mapping_environmental_action/issues/4 for progress re: abandoning of Proj4 more broadly
|
||||||
bng <- CRS("+init=epsg:27700")
|
|
||||||
wgs84 <- CRS("+init=epsg:4326")
|
wgs84 <- CRS(SRS_string = "EPSG:4326") # WGS 84 has EPSG code 4326, note: crs() requires sp() to get epsg data
|
||||||
|
bng <- CRS(SRS_string = "EPSG:27700") # BNG has EPSG code 4326
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Configure fonts for plots below, commented out currently because of incompatibilities
|
|
||||||
## Loading Google fonts (http://www.google.com/fonts)
|
|
||||||
# Note: implementation of fonts (currently commented out) is specific to pdf_document output
|
|
||||||
# font_add_google("Merriweather", "merriweather")
|
|
||||||
# The following will load in system fonts (uncomment and run as needed on first execution)
|
|
||||||
# font_import(pattern="[A/a]rial", prompt=FALSE)
|
|
||||||
```
|
```
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
# Introduction[^15541312]
|
# Introduction[^15541312]
|
||||||
|
|
1312
mapping_draft.Rmd
1312
mapping_draft.Rmd
File diff suppressed because it is too large
Load diff
3482
mapping_draft.html
3482
mapping_draft.html
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
1468
mapping_draft.md
1468
mapping_draft.md
File diff suppressed because it is too large
Load diff
|
@ -1,816 +0,0 @@
|
||||||
\documentclass[11pt,]{article}
|
|
||||||
\usepackage{lmodern}
|
|
||||||
\usepackage{amssymb,amsmath}
|
|
||||||
\usepackage{ifxetex,ifluatex}
|
|
||||||
\usepackage{fixltx2e} % provides \textsubscript
|
|
||||||
\ifnum 0\ifxetex 1\fi\ifluatex 1\fi=0 % if pdftex
|
|
||||||
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
|
|
||||||
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
|
|
||||||
\else % if luatex or xelatex
|
|
||||||
\ifxetex
|
|
||||||
\usepackage{mathspec}
|
|
||||||
\else
|
|
||||||
\usepackage{fontspec}
|
|
||||||
\fi
|
|
||||||
\defaultfontfeatures{Ligatures=TeX,Scale=MatchLowercase}
|
|
||||||
\fi
|
|
||||||
% use upquote if available, for straight quotes in verbatim environments
|
|
||||||
\IfFileExists{upquote.sty}{\usepackage{upquote}}{}
|
|
||||||
% use microtype if available
|
|
||||||
\IfFileExists{microtype.sty}{%
|
|
||||||
\usepackage{microtype}
|
|
||||||
\UseMicrotypeSet[protrusion]{basicmath} % disable protrusion for tt fonts
|
|
||||||
}{}
|
|
||||||
\usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry}
|
|
||||||
\usepackage{hyperref}
|
|
||||||
\PassOptionsToPackage{usenames,dvipsnames}{color} % color is loaded by hyperref
|
|
||||||
\hypersetup{unicode=true,
|
|
||||||
pdftitle={Mapping Environmental Action in Scotland},
|
|
||||||
pdfauthor={Jeremy H. Kidwell},
|
|
||||||
colorlinks=true,
|
|
||||||
linkcolor=black,
|
|
||||||
citecolor=Blue,
|
|
||||||
urlcolor=Blue,
|
|
||||||
breaklinks=true}
|
|
||||||
\urlstyle{same} % don't use monospace font for urls
|
|
||||||
\usepackage{natbib}
|
|
||||||
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
|
|
||||||
\usepackage{longtable,booktabs}
|
|
||||||
\usepackage{graphicx,grffile}
|
|
||||||
\makeatletter
|
|
||||||
\def\maxwidth{\ifdim\Gin@nat@width>\linewidth\linewidth\else\Gin@nat@width\fi}
|
|
||||||
\def\maxheight{\ifdim\Gin@nat@height>\textheight\textheight\else\Gin@nat@height\fi}
|
|
||||||
\makeatother
|
|
||||||
% Scale images if necessary, so that they will not overflow the page
|
|
||||||
% margins by default, and it is still possible to overwrite the defaults
|
|
||||||
% using explicit options in \includegraphics[width, height, ...]{}
|
|
||||||
\setkeys{Gin}{width=\maxwidth,height=\maxheight,keepaspectratio}
|
|
||||||
\IfFileExists{parskip.sty}{%
|
|
||||||
\usepackage{parskip}
|
|
||||||
}{% else
|
|
||||||
\setlength{\parindent}{0pt}
|
|
||||||
\setlength{\parskip}{6pt plus 2pt minus 1pt}
|
|
||||||
}
|
|
||||||
\setlength{\emergencystretch}{3em} % prevent overfull lines
|
|
||||||
\providecommand{\tightlist}{%
|
|
||||||
\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}
|
|
||||||
\setcounter{secnumdepth}{5}
|
|
||||||
% Redefines (sub)paragraphs to behave more like sections
|
|
||||||
\ifx\paragraph\undefined\else
|
|
||||||
\let\oldparagraph\paragraph
|
|
||||||
\renewcommand{\paragraph}[1]{\oldparagraph{#1}\mbox{}}
|
|
||||||
\fi
|
|
||||||
\ifx\subparagraph\undefined\else
|
|
||||||
\let\oldsubparagraph\subparagraph
|
|
||||||
\renewcommand{\subparagraph}[1]{\oldsubparagraph{#1}\mbox{}}
|
|
||||||
\fi
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
%%% Use protect on footnotes to avoid problems with footnotes in titles
|
|
||||||
\let\rmarkdownfootnote\footnote%
|
|
||||||
\def\footnote{\protect\rmarkdownfootnote}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
%%% Change title format to be more compact
|
|
||||||
\usepackage{titling}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
% Create subtitle command for use in maketitle
|
|
||||||
\newcommand{\subtitle}[1]{
|
|
||||||
\posttitle{
|
|
||||||
\begin{center}\large#1\end{center}
|
|
||||||
}
|
|
||||||
}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\setlength{\droptitle}{-2em}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\title{Mapping Environmental Action in Scotland}
|
|
||||||
\pretitle{\vspace{\droptitle}\centering\huge}
|
|
||||||
\posttitle{\par}
|
|
||||||
\author{\href{http://jeremykidwell.info}{Jeremy H. Kidwell}}
|
|
||||||
\preauthor{\centering\large\emph}
|
|
||||||
\postauthor{\par}
|
|
||||||
\predate{\centering\large\emph}
|
|
||||||
\postdate{\par}
|
|
||||||
\date{2019-02-01}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\begin{document}
|
|
||||||
\maketitle
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\hypertarget{introduction15541312}{%
|
|
||||||
\section[Introduction]{\texorpdfstring{Introduction\footnote{This
|
|
||||||
research was jointly funded by the AHRC/ESRC under project numnbers
|
|
||||||
AH/K005456/1 and AH/P005063/1.}}{Introduction}}\label{introduction15541312}}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Until recently, environmentalism has been treated by governments and
|
|
||||||
environmental charities as a largely secular concern. In spite of the
|
|
||||||
well-developed tradition of ``eco-theology'' which began in earnest in
|
|
||||||
the UK in the mid-twentieth century (and which has many precursors in
|
|
||||||
previous centuries), third-sector groups and governments, particularly
|
|
||||||
in Britain and Europe, have largely ignored religious groups as they
|
|
||||||
have gone about their business crafting agendas for behaviour change,
|
|
||||||
developing funding programmes, and developing platforms to mitigate
|
|
||||||
ecological harm, motivate consumers and create regulation regimes. That
|
|
||||||
this has changed is evidenced by the fact that several prominent
|
|
||||||
non-religious environmental groups have commissioned studies and crafted
|
|
||||||
outreach programmes to persons with a particular faith tradition or to
|
|
||||||
``spiritual communities'' including RSPB (2013) and the Sierra Club USA
|
|
||||||
(2008).\footnote{This is not to say that there have been no
|
|
||||||
collaborations before 2000, noteworthy in this respect is the WWF who
|
|
||||||
helped to found the Alliance of Religion and Conservation (ARC) in
|
|
||||||
1985.} Further, since 2008, the Scottish Government has provided a
|
|
||||||
significant portion of funding for the ecumenical charity,
|
|
||||||
Eco-Congregation Scotland, which works to promote literacy on
|
|
||||||
environmental issues in religious communities in Scotland and helps to
|
|
||||||
certify congregations under their award programme. What is not well
|
|
||||||
known, however, even by these religious environmental groups themselves,
|
|
||||||
is whether or how their membership might be different from other
|
|
||||||
environmental groups. This study represents an attempt to illuminate
|
|
||||||
this new interest with some more concrete data about religious groups in
|
|
||||||
Scotland and how they may differ from non-religious counterparts.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\hypertarget{eco-congregation-scotland-the-basics}{%
|
|
||||||
\section{Eco-Congregation Scotland: The
|
|
||||||
Basics}\label{eco-congregation-scotland-the-basics}}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
There are 344 eco-congregations in Scotland. By some measurements,
|
|
||||||
particularly in terms of individual sites and possibly also with regards
|
|
||||||
to volunteers, this makes Eco-Congregation Scotland one of the largest
|
|
||||||
environmental third-sector groups in Scotland.\footnote{This suggestion
|
|
||||||
should be qualified - RSPB would greatly exceed ECS both in terms of
|
|
||||||
the number of individual subscribers and budget. The RSPB trustee's
|
|
||||||
report for 2013-2014 suggests that their member base was 1,114,938
|
|
||||||
people across Britain with a net income of £127m - the latter of which
|
|
||||||
exceeds the Church of Scotland. If we adjust this based on the
|
|
||||||
Scottish share of the population of the United Kingdom as of the 2011
|
|
||||||
census (8.3\%) this leaves us with an income of £9.93m. The British
|
|
||||||
charity commission requires charities to self-report the number of
|
|
||||||
volunteers and staff, and from their most recent statistics we learn
|
|
||||||
that RSPB engaged with 17,600 volunteers and employed 2,110 members of
|
|
||||||
staff. Again, adjusted for population, this leaves 1,460 volunteers in
|
|
||||||
Scotland and 176 staff. However, if we measure environmental groups
|
|
||||||
based on the number of sites they maintain, RSPB has only 40 reserves
|
|
||||||
with varying levels of local community engagement. For comparison, as
|
|
||||||
of Sep 14 2015, Friends of the Earth Scotland had only 10 local groups
|
|
||||||
(concentrated mostly in large urban areas). Depending on how one
|
|
||||||
measures ``volunteerism,'' it may be possible that ECS has more
|
|
||||||
engaged volunteers in Scotland as well - if each ECS group had only 4
|
|
||||||
``volunteers'' then this would exceed RSPB.}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
In seeking to conduct GIS and statistical analysis of ECS, it is
|
|
||||||
important to note that there some ways in which these sites are
|
|
||||||
statistically opaque. Our research conducted through interviews at a
|
|
||||||
sampling of sites and analysis of a variety of documents suggests that
|
|
||||||
there is a high level of diversity both in terms of the number of those
|
|
||||||
participating in environmental action and the types of action underway
|
|
||||||
at specific sites. Work at a particular site can also ebb and flow over
|
|
||||||
the course of time. Of course, as research into other forms of activism
|
|
||||||
and secular environmental NGOs has shown, this is no different from any
|
|
||||||
other third sector volunteer group. Variability is a regular feature of
|
|
||||||
groups involved in activism and/or environmental concern.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
For the sake of this analysis, we took each Eco-Congregation Scotland
|
|
||||||
site to represent a point of analysis as if each specific site
|
|
||||||
represented a community group which had ``opted-in'' on environmental
|
|
||||||
concern. On this basis, in this section, in the tradition of human
|
|
||||||
geography, we ``map'' environmental action among religious communities
|
|
||||||
in Scotland a variety of ways. This is the first major geographical
|
|
||||||
analysis of this kind conducted to date in Europe. We measure the
|
|
||||||
frequency and location of ECS sites against a variety of standard
|
|
||||||
geo-referenced statistical data sets, seeking to provide a statistical
|
|
||||||
and geographically based assessment of the participation of religious
|
|
||||||
groups in relation to the following:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\begin{itemize}
|
|
||||||
\tightlist
|
|
||||||
\item
|
|
||||||
Location within Scotland
|
|
||||||
\item
|
|
||||||
Religious affiliation
|
|
||||||
\item
|
|
||||||
Relation to the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD)
|
|
||||||
\item
|
|
||||||
Relation to the 8-Fold Scottish Government Urban-Rural Scale
|
|
||||||
\item
|
|
||||||
Proximity to ``wilderness'' (based on several different designations)
|
|
||||||
\end{itemize}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
For the sake of comparison, we also measured the geographical footprint
|
|
||||||
of two other forms of community group in Scotland, (1) Transition Towns
|
|
||||||
(taking into account their recent merge with Scotland Communities
|
|
||||||
Climate Action Network) and (2) member groups of the Development Trust
|
|
||||||
Association Scotland (``DTAS''). These two groups provide a helpful
|
|
||||||
basis for comparison as they are not centralised and thus have a
|
|
||||||
significant geographical dispersion across Scotland. They also provide a
|
|
||||||
useful comparison as transition is a (mostly) non-religious
|
|
||||||
environmental movement, and community development trusts are not
|
|
||||||
explicitly linked to environmental conservation (though this is often
|
|
||||||
part of their remit), so we have a non-religious point of comparison in
|
|
||||||
Transition and a non-environmental point of comparison with DTAS
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\hypertarget{technical-background}{%
|
|
||||||
\section{Technical Background}\label{technical-background}}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Analysis was conducted using QGIS 2.8 and R 3.5.2, and data-sets were
|
|
||||||
generated in CSV format.\footnote{Kidwell, Jeremy. (2016).
|
|
||||||
Eco-Congregation Scotland, 2014-2016. University of Edinburgh.
|
|
||||||
\url{http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/ds/1357}.} To begin with, I assembled a
|
|
||||||
data set consisting of x and y coordinates for each congregation in
|
|
||||||
Scotland and collated this against a variety of other specific data.
|
|
||||||
Coordinates were checked by matching UK postcodes of individual
|
|
||||||
congregations against geo-referencing data in the Office for National
|
|
||||||
Statistics postcode database. In certain instances a single
|
|
||||||
``congregation'' is actually a series of sites which have joined
|
|
||||||
together under one administrative unit. In these cases, each site was
|
|
||||||
treated as a separate data point if worship was held at that site at
|
|
||||||
least once a month, but all joined sites shared a single unique
|
|
||||||
identifier. As noted above, two other datasets were generated for the
|
|
||||||
sake of comparative analysis.\footnote{For further detail on Dataset
|
|
||||||
generation, see Kidwell, Forthcoming, 2018.} These included one
|
|
||||||
similar Environmental Non-Governmental Organisation (ENGO) in Scotland
|
|
||||||
(1) Transition Scotland (which includes Scotland Communities Climate
|
|
||||||
Action Network);\footnote{My dataset on transition towns will be made
|
|
||||||
available later in 2016. Initial data was aquired from the Transition
|
|
||||||
Scotland website
|
|
||||||
\url{http://www.transitionscotland.org/transition-in-scotland} on
|
|
||||||
December 10, 2014. We are currently in the process of collaboratively
|
|
||||||
generating a more up-to-date dataset which will reflect their
|
|
||||||
collaboration with SCCAN.} and another community-based NGO, Scottish
|
|
||||||
Community Development Trusts.\footnote{Data was acquired from the
|
|
||||||
Development Trusts Association website,
|
|
||||||
\url{http://www.dtascot.org.uk}, accessed on 20 July 2015. As above,
|
|
||||||
we are currently in the process of active collaboration with
|
|
||||||
volunteers from the DTAS to co-generate a new dataset.} As this report
|
|
||||||
will detail, these three overlap in certain instances both literally and
|
|
||||||
in terms of their aims, but each also has a separate identity and
|
|
||||||
footprint in Scotland. Finally, in order to normalise data, we utilised
|
|
||||||
the PointX POI dataset which maintains a complete database of Places of
|
|
||||||
Worship in Scotland.\footnote{PointX data for ``Landscape Data'' items
|
|
||||||
is sourced from Ordnance Survey Land-Line and MasterMap(R) and the
|
|
||||||
data points are augmented with additional information provided through
|
|
||||||
research by PointX staff, and data aquired from unidentified ``local
|
|
||||||
data companie(s)'' and the ``118 Information'' database (see:
|
|
||||||
\url{http://www.118information.co.uk}). This data is under license and
|
|
||||||
cannot be made available for use. It is important to note that I
|
|
||||||
became aware of inaccuracies in this dataset over the course of use
|
|
||||||
and subsequently generated my own dataset in collaboration with
|
|
||||||
churches in Scotland. This will be made available later in 2016. I am
|
|
||||||
in active conversation with OS about improving the quality of the data
|
|
||||||
in PointX regarding places of worship.}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\hypertarget{background-and-history-of-eco-congregation-scotland}{%
|
|
||||||
\section{Background and History of Eco-Congregation
|
|
||||||
Scotland}\label{background-and-history-of-eco-congregation-scotland}}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Eco-Congregation Scotland began a year before the official launch of
|
|
||||||
Eco-Congregation England and Wales, in 1999, as part of an effort by
|
|
||||||
Kippen Environment Centre (later renamed to Forth Environment Link, or
|
|
||||||
``FEL'') a charity devoted to environmental education in central
|
|
||||||
Scotland\footnote{From \url{http://www.forthenvironmentlink.org},
|
|
||||||
accessed 12 July 2015.} to broaden the scope of its environmental
|
|
||||||
outreach to churches in central Scotland.\footnote{Interview with
|
|
||||||
Margaret Warnock, 29 Aug 2014.} Initial funding was provided, through
|
|
||||||
Kippen Environment Centre by way of a ``sustainable action grant'' (with
|
|
||||||
funds drawn from a government landfill tax) through a government
|
|
||||||
programme called Keep Scotland Beautiful (the Scottish cousin of Keep
|
|
||||||
Britain Tidy). After this initial pilot project concluded, the Church of
|
|
||||||
Scotland provided additional funding for the project in the form of
|
|
||||||
staff time and office space. Additional funding a few years later from
|
|
||||||
the Scottish Government helped subsidise the position of a business
|
|
||||||
manager, and in 2011 the United Reformed Church contributed additional
|
|
||||||
funding which subsidised the position of a full-time environmental
|
|
||||||
chaplain for a 5-year term, bringing the total staff to five.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The programme launched officially in 2001 at Dunblane Cathedral in
|
|
||||||
Stirling and by 2005 the project had 89 congregations registered to be a
|
|
||||||
part of the programme and 25 which had completed the curriculum
|
|
||||||
successfully and received an Eco-Congregation award. By 2011, the number
|
|
||||||
of registrations had tripled to 269 and the number of awarded
|
|
||||||
congregations had quadrupled to
|
|
||||||
\texttt{sum(ecs\$award1\ \textless{}\ "01/01/2012",\ na.rm=TRUE)}. This
|
|
||||||
process of taking registrations and using a tiered award or recognition
|
|
||||||
scheme is common to many voluntary organisations. The ECS curriculum was
|
|
||||||
developed in part by consulting the Eco-Congregation England and Wales
|
|
||||||
materials which had been released just a year earlier in 1999, though it
|
|
||||||
has been subsequently revised, particularly with a major redesign in
|
|
||||||
2010. In the USA, a number of similar groups take a similar approach
|
|
||||||
including Earth Ministry (earthministry.org) and Green Faith
|
|
||||||
(greenfaith.org).
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
In the case of Eco-Congregation Scotland, congregations are invited to
|
|
||||||
begin by ``registering'' their interest in the programme by completing a
|
|
||||||
basic one-sided form. The next step requires the completion of an award
|
|
||||||
application, which includes a facilitated curriculum called a ``church
|
|
||||||
check-up'' and after an application is submitted, the site is visited
|
|
||||||
and assessed by third-party volunteer assessors. Sites are invited to
|
|
||||||
complete additional applications for further awards which are
|
|
||||||
incremental (as is the application process). Transition communities, at
|
|
||||||
least in the period reflected on their map, go through a similar process
|
|
||||||
(though this does not involve the use of a supplied curriculum) by which
|
|
||||||
they are marked first as ``interested,'' become ``active'' and then gain
|
|
||||||
``official'' status.\footnote{From the Transition map key, ``Green pins
|
|
||||||
are `official' groups Blue pins are active communities who are
|
|
||||||
connected to the Scottish Transition network Yellow pins show interest
|
|
||||||
in this area''}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\hypertarget{representation-by-regional-authorities-council-areas}{%
|
|
||||||
\section{Representation by Regional Authorities (Council
|
|
||||||
Areas)}\label{representation-by-regional-authorities-council-areas}}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Perhaps the first important question to ask of these groups is, where
|
|
||||||
are they? I calculated the spread of eco-congregations and transition
|
|
||||||
groups across each of the 32 council areas in Scotland. Every council
|
|
||||||
area in Scotland has at least one eco-congregation or transition group).
|
|
||||||
The most are located in , with 48, whereas the mean among all the 32
|
|
||||||
council areas is 10.75, with a median of 8, standard deviation of
|
|
||||||
9.4698162, and interquartile range of 11.5. The following choropleth
|
|
||||||
maps show the relative concentration of eco-congregations (indicated by
|
|
||||||
yellow to red).
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
(\emph{TODO: need to implement}) Though there are too few
|
|
||||||
eco-congregations and transition groups for a numerically significant
|
|
||||||
representation in any of the intermediate geographies, mapping the
|
|
||||||
concentration of sites by agricultural parishes allows for a more
|
|
||||||
granular visual and I include this for comparison sake. Note, for the
|
|
||||||
sake of a more accurate visual communication, we have also marked out
|
|
||||||
areas of Scotland that are uninhabited with hash marks on the map of
|
|
||||||
agricultural parishes. (\emph{TODO: this will be done in the final
|
|
||||||
draft, once I get my image masking fixed!}).\footnote{This was
|
|
||||||
calculated by calculating a 10m wide footprint for every postcode in
|
|
||||||
Scotland, areas which are not within 10m of a postcode (as of May
|
|
||||||
2014) are counted as uninhabited.}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\begin{figure}
|
|
||||||
\centering
|
|
||||||
\includegraphics{figures/plot_admin_ecs_choropleth-1.pdf}
|
|
||||||
\caption{Figure 1}
|
|
||||||
\end{figure}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\includegraphics{figures/plot_admin_ecs_normed_choropleth-1.pdf}
|
|
||||||
\includegraphics{figures/plot_admin_ecs_normed_choropleth-2.pdf}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Given the way population and places of worship are unevenly distributed
|
|
||||||
across Scotland it is important to represent data in terms of relative
|
|
||||||
distribution. For this study, we attempted to ``normalise'' our data in
|
|
||||||
two different ways, (1) as shown by Figure 2 above, by taking population
|
|
||||||
figures from the 2011 census (see data sheet in Appendix A) and (2) by
|
|
||||||
adjusting relative to the number of places of worship in each council
|
|
||||||
region.\footnote{See note above regarding the data used from the PointX
|
|
||||||
POI database. Note, for our research,we filtered out religious groups
|
|
||||||
not represented within the Eco-Congregation footprint. We discuss
|
|
||||||
representation by tradition and religion further below.adition and
|
|
||||||
religion further below.} The latter of these two can yield
|
|
||||||
particularly unexpected results. Thus, of the 4048 ``places of worship''
|
|
||||||
in Scotland, the highest concentration is actually the region, with 435,
|
|
||||||
second is 329 (). Rank of Council Areas by population and number of
|
|
||||||
places of worship is also included in Appendix A.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
We can use this data to normalise our figures regarding Eco-Congregation
|
|
||||||
Scotland communities and this draws the presence in Edinburgh of ECS
|
|
||||||
communities into even sharper relief, as Edinburgh, though ranked second
|
|
||||||
in terms of population and fifth in terms of places of worship, ranks
|
|
||||||
first for the presence of all ECS congregations and awarded ECS
|
|
||||||
congregations. However, taking population as the basis for normalisation
|
|
||||||
first, we find that Edinburgh is far from the most prominent outlier. In
|
|
||||||
trying to communicate this difference for a lay-audience, we have chosen
|
|
||||||
to list this difference as a multiplier (i.e.~there are 2.x times as
|
|
||||||
many congregations as their share of population and an average figure of
|
|
||||||
congregations might allow for) as this conveys the difference in a
|
|
||||||
straight-forward way. Outliers where the disparity between their
|
|
||||||
relative share of the total ECS footprint and their relative share of
|
|
||||||
population is different by a positive ratio of more than double include
|
|
||||||
the Orkney Islands (3.7 times more eco-congregations than their expected
|
|
||||||
average share based on population), Argyll and Bute
|
|
||||||
(\texttt{admin\_lev1{[}CODE=S12000023{]}\$ecs\_pop\_factor} 4.2x),
|
|
||||||
Stirling (2.76x), and Perthshire and Kinross (2.18x). Interestingly,
|
|
||||||
there are no outliers whose relative share of the total footprint of ECS
|
|
||||||
is double or more in the negative direction (see Appendix A chart for
|
|
||||||
full numbers).
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Turning to the total of 4048 ``places of worship'' in Scotland, we find
|
|
||||||
a slightly different picture of the relative concentration of
|
|
||||||
Eco-Congregations in Scotland. In this case, the outliers are
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Whereas our initial measurements indicated a prominent lead for
|
|
||||||
Edinburgh, by normalising our data in this way we can highlight the
|
|
||||||
stronger-than-expected presence of several others that might otherwise
|
|
||||||
escape notice because they lie in a region with significantly lower
|
|
||||||
population or numerically less places of worship. Taking the PointX data
|
|
||||||
on ``places of worship'' in Scotland, we find a less dramatic picture,
|
|
||||||
but also a slightly different one. The positive outliers include East
|
|
||||||
Renfrewshire (3.4x) Edinburgh (2.9x), Stirling (2.2), West Lothian
|
|
||||||
(1.9x) and Aberdeen (1.5x). Again, negative outliers are far less
|
|
||||||
dramatic, with only Midlothian possessing a ratio of more than 100\%
|
|
||||||
negative difference from the number of ``places of worship'' at 1.5x
|
|
||||||
\emph{fewer}.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\includegraphics{figures/create_admin_barplot-1.pdf}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\includegraphics{figures/create_choropleth_others-1.pdf}
|
|
||||||
\includegraphics{figures/create_choropleth_others-2.pdf}
|
|
||||||
\includegraphics{figures/create_choropleth_others-3.pdf}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
We can compare the representation in these various regions against our
|
|
||||||
comparison groups to see how other community-based organisations cluster
|
|
||||||
in Scottish administrative districts. Here there are some significant
|
|
||||||
contrasts. Scottish Community Development trusts are most intensely
|
|
||||||
concentrated in the Highlands and Argyll \& Bute. But, this is
|
|
||||||
consistent with all the other categories, Eco-Congregations, Places of
|
|
||||||
Worship, and dtas are all over-represented in this area, varying only by
|
|
||||||
the degree. Edinburgh is different, here we find that Eco-Congregations
|
|
||||||
and Transition projects are over-represented, while dtass are
|
|
||||||
under-represented. Finally, the highlands are another strong contrast,
|
|
||||||
here we find a very strong over-representation by transition towns and
|
|
||||||
dtass while the representation of Eco-Congregations is relatively close
|
|
||||||
to the population share for that area. The two areas of greatest
|
|
||||||
contrast for Eco-Congregations from the other groups are unsurprising,
|
|
||||||
Edinburgh is the location of the ECS offices, while Stirling is the area
|
|
||||||
in which ECS first began (see Appendix B for full data).
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\hypertarget{christian-denominations}{%
|
|
||||||
\section{Christian Denominations}\label{christian-denominations}}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Eco-Congregation Scotland describes itself as an ``ecumenical movement
|
|
||||||
helping local groups of Christians link environmental issues to their
|
|
||||||
faith, reduce their environmental impact and engage with their local
|
|
||||||
community.'' There are several ties to the Church of Scotland, as the
|
|
||||||
denomination provides office space to Eco-Congregation Scotland in the
|
|
||||||
Church of Scotland complex at 121 George Street in Edinburgh and
|
|
||||||
provides funding for one full-time member of staff. In spite of this,
|
|
||||||
ECS has, from the start, attempted to emphasise its ecumenical
|
|
||||||
aspirations and this is reflected in a wide variety of ways. The name
|
|
||||||
``eco-congregation'' is meant to be tradition neutral (in interviews,
|
|
||||||
staff noted how they have sought to avoid names such as ``eco-kirk''
|
|
||||||
which would be the more obvious Presbyterian title, or ``eco-community''
|
|
||||||
or ``eco-church'' which might indicate allegiance towards another).
|
|
||||||
Further, the group has a environmental chaplain on their staff whose
|
|
||||||
position is funded by the United Reformed Church, and other members of
|
|
||||||
staff are funded by the Scottish government, and as such, carry no
|
|
||||||
formal affiliation with a religious institution. This diversity and
|
|
||||||
ecumenicism is reflected in a membership which is, though dominated by
|
|
||||||
the Church of Scotland, nevertheless, made up of a range of Christian
|
|
||||||
traditions.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Though these are not numerically significant, it is important to note
|
|
||||||
that some member congregations describe themselves as ecumenical
|
|
||||||
communities, and others are hybrids reflecting the merging of two
|
|
||||||
traditions. As this ecumenical/hybrid designation involves a small
|
|
||||||
number of the overall total, for the sake of this research, these have
|
|
||||||
been combined into a category called ``ecumenical.'' Further, as
|
|
||||||
research conducted by Church of Scotland statistician Fiona Tweedie has
|
|
||||||
shown, in many Scottish communities with only one church, members of
|
|
||||||
this church will specify their denominational affiliation in a variety
|
|
||||||
of ways (Roman Catholic, Quaker, Methodist, etc.) even though the church
|
|
||||||
and its minister are formally affiliated with the Church of
|
|
||||||
Scotland.\footnote{Fiona Tweedia, \emph{Ecumenical Audit: Questionnaire
|
|
||||||
Findings} (2014).} So, we should be careful not to assume that the
|
|
||||||
various denominational affiliations of eco-congregations are indicative
|
|
||||||
in an absolute way.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
A wide variety of historians and sociologists of religion have noted the
|
|
||||||
regional significance of different Christian denominations in Scotland
|
|
||||||
so we sought to assess the relative distribution and concentration of
|
|
||||||
eco-congregations by denomination. Finding comparative statistics is a
|
|
||||||
complex task, made more complicated by several factors. First, most
|
|
||||||
demographic data on religious belonging in Scotland comes in the form of
|
|
||||||
the 2011 census and as such is far more atomised than this data-set
|
|
||||||
which identifies groups at the level of ``congregations'' rather than
|
|
||||||
individuals. Equating these two is also complex, as participation by
|
|
||||||
members of congregations can be measured in a variety of ways, there are
|
|
||||||
often a small number of active participants in each eco-congregation
|
|
||||||
group, but may also be a large scale, but passive, support by the wider
|
|
||||||
community.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
So why provide this kind of data (i.e.~at the level of individual
|
|
||||||
churches) when more granular data (i.e.~at the level of individuals
|
|
||||||
persons) is available in the form of the census and related parallel
|
|
||||||
publications such as the 2008 Scottish Environmental Attitudes survey?
|
|
||||||
We believe that mapping places of worship provides a useful intermediate
|
|
||||||
level of analysis and may complement our more atomised understanding of
|
|
||||||
EA which has been assessed at the level of individual persons to date.
|
|
||||||
Because representation within some administrative areas of Scotland, can
|
|
||||||
lead to a small number of data points, we have kept analysis to a
|
|
||||||
National level and have not provided more specific administrative-area
|
|
||||||
level calculations.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lr@{}}
|
|
||||||
\caption{ECS by denomination}\tabularnewline
|
|
||||||
\toprule
|
|
||||||
& x\tabularnewline
|
|
||||||
\midrule
|
|
||||||
\endfirsthead
|
|
||||||
\toprule
|
|
||||||
& x\tabularnewline
|
|
||||||
\midrule
|
|
||||||
\endhead
|
|
||||||
Baptist & 4\tabularnewline
|
|
||||||
C of S & 254\tabularnewline
|
|
||||||
C of S / URC & 3\tabularnewline
|
|
||||||
Cong & 1\tabularnewline
|
|
||||||
Ecu & 5\tabularnewline
|
|
||||||
FCS & 1\tabularnewline
|
|
||||||
Independent & 2\tabularnewline
|
|
||||||
Meth & 4\tabularnewline
|
|
||||||
Non. & 1\tabularnewline
|
|
||||||
Quaker & 1\tabularnewline
|
|
||||||
RC & 15\tabularnewline
|
|
||||||
SEC & 41\tabularnewline
|
|
||||||
Unitarian & 1\tabularnewline
|
|
||||||
URC & 11\tabularnewline
|
|
||||||
\bottomrule
|
|
||||||
\end{longtable}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
As one might expect, there is a strong representation of the Church of
|
|
||||||
Scotland, almost 74\% of eco-congregations, with this number remaining
|
|
||||||
the same when we only count awarded sites. We can confirm, on the basis
|
|
||||||
of this analysis that ECS has a disproportional representation by Church
|
|
||||||
of Scotland churches. At the 2002 church census count, it only
|
|
||||||
represented 40.20\% of Scottish churches (1666 of 4144 total churches).
|
|
||||||
Similarly, on the 2011 Scottish census, only 32.44\% of persons claimed
|
|
||||||
to be members of the Church of Scotland. We can adjust this
|
|
||||||
representation to 60\%, if one excludes the 2,445,204 persons (46\% of
|
|
||||||
the total on the census) who reported either ``no religion'' or
|
|
||||||
adherence to a religious tradition not currently represented among the
|
|
||||||
eco-congregation sites. There is a slight over-representation by the
|
|
||||||
United Reformed church, though this seems considerably more dramatic
|
|
||||||
when one takes into account the fact that this is a trebling or more of
|
|
||||||
their overall share of Scottish churches. The URC makes up only sightly
|
|
||||||
more than 1\% of church buildings in Scotland and a tiny 0.04\% of
|
|
||||||
respondents to the 2011 census. The Scottish Episcopal church hovers
|
|
||||||
right around a proportional representation within ECS. More concerning
|
|
||||||
are the significant underrepresentation by Roman Catholic churches,
|
|
||||||
Baptists, the Free Church of Scotland, and other independent churches.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
While Roman Catholic churches make up just over 10\% of the church
|
|
||||||
buildings in Scotland, less than 5\% of churches registered as
|
|
||||||
eco-congregations are RC. Even more dramatic is the quartering of
|
|
||||||
baptist churches, and the non-existent representation among the
|
|
||||||
significant group of independent churches and small denominations. These
|
|
||||||
make up nearly 25\% of all Scottish churches (over a thousand) and yet
|
|
||||||
only 4 have registered as eco-congregations. We provide several
|
|
||||||
tentative advisories in response to these under-representations in the
|
|
||||||
final section of this paper.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\hypertarget{eco-congregations-urban-rural-and-remote}{%
|
|
||||||
\section{Eco-Congregations, Urban, Rural and
|
|
||||||
Remote}\label{eco-congregations-urban-rural-and-remote}}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\begin{verbatim}
|
|
||||||
## OGR data source with driver: ESRI Shapefile
|
|
||||||
## Source: "/Users/jeremy/gits/mapping_environmental_action/data", layer: "SG_UrbanRural_2016"
|
|
||||||
## with 8 features
|
|
||||||
## It has 6 fields
|
|
||||||
\end{verbatim}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Rather than bifurcate congregations into an urban/rural dichotomy, for
|
|
||||||
this study we used the Scottish Government's six-point remoteness scale
|
|
||||||
to categorise eco-congregations along a spectrum of highly populated to
|
|
||||||
remote areas. This 8-fold scale (calculated biennially) offers a more
|
|
||||||
nuanced measurement that combines measurements of remoteness and
|
|
||||||
population along the following lines:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\begin{enumerate}
|
|
||||||
\def\labelenumi{\arabic{enumi}.}
|
|
||||||
\tightlist
|
|
||||||
\item
|
|
||||||
Large Urban Areas - Settlements of over 125,000 people.
|
|
||||||
\item
|
|
||||||
Other Urban Areas - Settlements of 10,000 to 125,000 people.
|
|
||||||
\item
|
|
||||||
Accessible Small Towns - Settlements of between 3,000 and 10,000
|
|
||||||
people, and within a 30 minute drive time of a Settlement of 10,000 or
|
|
||||||
more.
|
|
||||||
\item
|
|
||||||
Remote Small Towns - Settlements of between 3,000 and 10,000 people,
|
|
||||||
and with a drive time between 30 and 60 minutes to a Settlement of
|
|
||||||
10,000 or more.
|
|
||||||
\item
|
|
||||||
Very Remote Small Towns - Settlements of between 3,000 and 10,000
|
|
||||||
people, and with a drive time of over 60 minutes to a Settlement of
|
|
||||||
10,000 or more.
|
|
||||||
\item
|
|
||||||
Accessible Rural Areas - Areas with a population of less than 3,000
|
|
||||||
people, and within a drive time of 30 minutes to a Settlement of
|
|
||||||
10,000 or more.
|
|
||||||
\item
|
|
||||||
Remote Rural Areas - Areas with a population of less than 3,000
|
|
||||||
people, and with a drive time of between 30 and 60 minutes to a
|
|
||||||
Settlement of 10,000 or more.
|
|
||||||
\item
|
|
||||||
Very Remote Rural Areas - Areas with a population of less than 3,000
|
|
||||||
people, and with a drive time of over 60 minutes to a Settlement of
|
|
||||||
10,000 or more.
|
|
||||||
\end{enumerate}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The key question which this analysis seeks to answer is whether ECS, or
|
|
||||||
the other groups surveyed, are more concentrated in Urban or Rural
|
|
||||||
areas, so as is the case below with our analysis of deprivation, we are
|
|
||||||
concerned with the outer conditions, i.e.~the urban areas (items 1-2)
|
|
||||||
and remote areas (items 7-8).
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Of all the groups surveyed in this study, Eco-Congregation Scotland is
|
|
||||||
the most heavily concentrated in large urban areas (33.53\%), exceeding
|
|
||||||
by almost 50\% the rate for all places of worship (22.96\% in large
|
|
||||||
urban areas). Transition is a much more modest 20\% and development
|
|
||||||
trusts a bit lower at 15\%. It is interesting to note that the rate of
|
|
||||||
ECS concentration in these large urban areas matches the level of
|
|
||||||
overall population distribution (34.5\%). On the other end of the scale,
|
|
||||||
Eco-Congregation Scotland is the least concentrated in remote rural
|
|
||||||
areas (with 3.93\% on level 7 and 5.44\% on level 8 on the urban-rural
|
|
||||||
scale), though again, they correlate roughly to the general population
|
|
||||||
distribution (3.2\% and 2.9\% respectively). Places of worship outpace
|
|
||||||
both the population of Scotland and the footprint of Eco-Congregation
|
|
||||||
Scotland, with 14.98\% in very remote rural areas, but this is exceeded
|
|
||||||
by transition at 16.47\% and both by Scottish community development
|
|
||||||
trusts at 32.14\%. So while Eco-Congregation Scotland correlates roughly
|
|
||||||
with Scottish population distribution across the urban-rural scale, it
|
|
||||||
has a considerably more urban profile than either of the other two
|
|
||||||
groups surveyed.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\includegraphics{figures/create_ur_barplot-1.pdf}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\begin{figure}
|
|
||||||
\centering
|
|
||||||
\includegraphics{figures/create_urbanrural_ecs_chart_choropleth-1.pdf}
|
|
||||||
\caption{Figure 9}
|
|
||||||
\end{figure}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\hypertarget{wealth-employment-and-literacy}{%
|
|
||||||
\section{Wealth, Employment, and
|
|
||||||
Literacy}\label{wealth-employment-and-literacy}}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\begin{verbatim}
|
|
||||||
## OGR data source with driver: ESRI Shapefile
|
|
||||||
## Source: "/Users/jeremy/gits/mapping_environmental_action/data", layer: "sc_dz_11"
|
|
||||||
## with 6976 features
|
|
||||||
## It has 9 fields
|
|
||||||
\end{verbatim}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\includegraphics{figures/create_simd_barplot-1.pdf}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Another crucial point of assessment relates to the relation of
|
|
||||||
Eco-Congregation communities to the Scottish Index of Multiple
|
|
||||||
Deprivation. This instrument aggregates a large variety of factors which
|
|
||||||
can lead to deprivation including crime rates, employment levels, access
|
|
||||||
to services (implicating remoteness), and literacy. By assessing ECS,
|
|
||||||
Transition, and dtas against the deprivation scale, we can assess
|
|
||||||
whether eco-congregations fall within particular demographics and also
|
|
||||||
whether the fully aggregated SIMD measurement provides a useful point of
|
|
||||||
comparison for our purposes. The SIMD essentially divides Scotland into
|
|
||||||
6407 geographic zones and then ranks them based on their relative
|
|
||||||
deprivation. This data set can be split into any number of groups, but
|
|
||||||
for our purposes we have settled on Quintiles, splitting the SIMD data
|
|
||||||
set at every 1302 entries. We then measured where each transition group,
|
|
||||||
ECS, and dtas fell within these zones and calculated how they fell into
|
|
||||||
these five quintiles, from more to least deprived.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The first, and most compelling finding is that, in general
|
|
||||||
Eco-Congregation Scotland and Transition Scotland are both roughly the
|
|
||||||
same and match the level of population distribution in the lowest
|
|
||||||
quintile of the general SIMD measurement. 8\% of transition groups and
|
|
||||||
eco-congregation groups which have received awards and 9\% of the
|
|
||||||
population are located within this quintile. However, taken in relation
|
|
||||||
to the distribution of places of worship in the lowest quintile, we find
|
|
||||||
that eco-congregations are located at half the rate that places of
|
|
||||||
worship are (15\%) and dtass match this much more closely at 14\%.
|
|
||||||
Turning towards the top quintile, this pattern also holds, here both
|
|
||||||
transition groups (21\%) and eco-congregations (21\% and 29\% of awarded
|
|
||||||
congregations) depart from the population distribution in this upper
|
|
||||||
quintile (which is 10\%). Again, general places of worship (at 11\%) and
|
|
||||||
DTASs (at 5\%) take the opposite direction. We can say decisively that
|
|
||||||
in communities which have been identified as good candidates for
|
|
||||||
intervention to reduce deprivation, ECS and Transition are less likely,
|
|
||||||
and they are over-represented at the areas which fall into the least
|
|
||||||
deprived quintile.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
We can find divergence between transition communities and
|
|
||||||
eco-congregation when we split out SIMD domains. In the lowest quartile,
|
|
||||||
measuring exclusively for the income domain, ECS is more represented
|
|
||||||
(11\%) - roughly the same as DTAS (12\%), and transition is less (6\%)
|
|
||||||
represented. In general (as shown on the chart in Appendix D), these
|
|
||||||
trends hold when representation of our groups are measured within other
|
|
||||||
non-remoteness domains of the SIMD. Our basic conclusion is that
|
|
||||||
transition towns are least likely to operate within the lowest quartile
|
|
||||||
of SIMD and DTASs are most likely, with ECS somewhere in the middle.
|
|
||||||
Given the general disparity against the presence of places of worship,
|
|
||||||
it seems fair to suggest that this might be an area for improvement,
|
|
||||||
perhaps even worth developing a special programme which might target
|
|
||||||
areas in SIMD quartile 1 for eco-congregation outreach. This might be
|
|
||||||
considered particularly in light of the starkest underrepresentation of
|
|
||||||
ECS and transition within the SIMD domain of education, skills, and
|
|
||||||
training.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\begin{verbatim}
|
|
||||||
## Reading layer `SSSI_SCOTLAND' from data source `/Users/jeremy/gits/mapping_environmental_action/data/SSSI_SCOTLAND.shp' using driver `ESRI Shapefile'
|
|
||||||
## Simple feature collection with 15872 features and 7 fields
|
|
||||||
## geometry type: POLYGON
|
|
||||||
## dimension: XY
|
|
||||||
## bbox: xmin: -296506.9 ymin: 530237.9 xmax: 467721.5 ymax: 1220310
|
|
||||||
## epsg (SRID): NA
|
|
||||||
## proj4string: +proj=tmerc +lat_0=49 +lon_0=-2 +k=0.9996012717 +x_0=400000 +y_0=-100000 +datum=OSGB36 +units=m +no_defs
|
|
||||||
\end{verbatim}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\begin{verbatim}
|
|
||||||
## Reading layer `WILDLAND_SCOTLAND' from data source `/Users/jeremy/gits/mapping_environmental_action/data/WILDLAND_SCOTLAND.shp' using driver `ESRI Shapefile'
|
|
||||||
## Simple feature collection with 42 features and 3 fields
|
|
||||||
## geometry type: MULTIPOLYGON
|
|
||||||
## dimension: XY
|
|
||||||
## bbox: xmin: 76877.24 ymin: 578454.1 xmax: 435367.1 ymax: 1190510
|
|
||||||
## epsg (SRID): NA
|
|
||||||
## proj4string: +proj=tmerc +lat_0=49 +lon_0=-2 +k=0.9996012717 +x_0=400000 +y_0=-100000 +datum=OSGB36 +units=m +no_defs
|
|
||||||
\end{verbatim}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\begin{verbatim}
|
|
||||||
## Reading layer `National_Forest_Inventory_Woodland_Scotland_2017' from data source `/Users/jeremy/gits/mapping_environmental_action/data/National_Forest_Inventory_Woodland_Scotland_2017.shp' using driver `ESRI Shapefile'
|
|
||||||
## Simple feature collection with 199698 features and 7 fields
|
|
||||||
## geometry type: POLYGON
|
|
||||||
## dimension: XY
|
|
||||||
## bbox: xmin: 65210.1 ymin: 532547.9 xmax: 461253.7 ymax: 1209179
|
|
||||||
## epsg (SRID): NA
|
|
||||||
## proj4string: +proj=tmerc +lat_0=49 +lon_0=-2 +k=0.9996012717 +x_0=400000 +y_0=-100000 +datum=OSGB36 +units=m +no_defs
|
|
||||||
\end{verbatim}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\hypertarget{proximity-to-wilderness}{%
|
|
||||||
\section{Proximity to ``Wilderness''}\label{proximity-to-wilderness}}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Chasing down a curiosity, I decided to try and calculate whether
|
|
||||||
proximity to ``wilderness'' or ``scenic nature'' or just trees might
|
|
||||||
have some impact on generating more mobilised communities. I realised
|
|
||||||
that there would be several problems with this kind of calculation up
|
|
||||||
front, first being that ``nature'' is a deeply problematic construct,
|
|
||||||
reviled by geographers and philosophers alike. With this in mind, I
|
|
||||||
identified several different ways of reckoning wilderness, starting with
|
|
||||||
the highly anachronistic ``Scenic Land'' designation from the 1970s.
|
|
||||||
Then I pursued the more carefully calculated ``core wild areas''
|
|
||||||
generated by SNH just a few years ago. However, even the core wile areas
|
|
||||||
concept has been criticised heavily, so I also expanded out my search to
|
|
||||||
include all sites of special scientific interest and then went even
|
|
||||||
wider to include the Scottish Forestry Service's ``Native Woodland'' and
|
|
||||||
finally, the most generic possible measurement, any land identified as
|
|
||||||
forested at the last Forest Inventory.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Proximity to these areas was the next concern, because many of these
|
|
||||||
designations deliberately exclude human habitat, so it was necessary to
|
|
||||||
measure the number of sites within proximity. There is a question which
|
|
||||||
lies here regarding aesthetics, namely, what sort of proximity might
|
|
||||||
generate an affective connection? From my own experience, I decided upon
|
|
||||||
the distance represented by a short walk, i.e.~a half-kilometre.
|
|
||||||
However, with the more generic measurements, such as SSSI and
|
|
||||||
forestation, this wouldn't do, as there are so many of these sites that
|
|
||||||
a buffer of 500 meters encapsulates almost all of inhabited Scotland. So
|
|
||||||
for these sites I also calculated a count within 50 metres.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
So what did I discover? The results were inconclusive. First, it is
|
|
||||||
important to note that on the whole, Eco-Congregations tend to be more
|
|
||||||
urban than place of worship taken generally at a rate of nearly 3:1
|
|
||||||
(5.4\% of Eco-Congregations lie in areas currently designated as ``Very
|
|
||||||
Remote Rural Areas'' whereas nearly 15\% of places of worship lie in
|
|
||||||
these areas), so what I was testing for was whether this gap was smaller
|
|
||||||
when specifying these various forms of ``wild'' remoteness. For our
|
|
||||||
narrowest measurements, there were so few sites captured as to render
|
|
||||||
measurement unreliable. There are, for obvious reasons, 0 sites located
|
|
||||||
within any of SNG's core wild areas. Similarly, there are very few of
|
|
||||||
our activist communities located within SSSI's (only
|
|
||||||
\texttt{st\_within(pow\_pointX\_sf,\ sssi)} places of worship out of
|
|
||||||
over 4k, 2 transition towns, (or 2\%) and 7 community development trusts
|
|
||||||
(3\%)). However, expanding this out makes things a bit more interesting,
|
|
||||||
within 50 metres of SSSI's in Scotland lie
|
|
||||||
\texttt{st\_within(ecs\_sf,\ st\_buffer(sssi,\ dist\ =\ 50))}
|
|
||||||
Eco-Congregations (or just under 1\%), which compares favourably with
|
|
||||||
the
|
|
||||||
\texttt{st\_within(pow\_pointX\_sf,\ st\_buffer(sssi,\ dist\ =\ 50))}
|
|
||||||
places of worship (or just 1.5\%) far exceeding our ratio (1:1.5
|
|
||||||
vs.~1:3). This is the same with our more anachronistic measure of
|
|
||||||
``scenic areas,'' there are 7 eco-congregations within these areas, and
|
|
||||||
175 places of worship, making for a ratio of nearly 1:2 (2.1\%
|
|
||||||
vs.~4.3\%). Taking our final measure, of forested areas, this is hard to
|
|
||||||
calculate, as only one Eco-Congregation lies within either native or
|
|
||||||
generally forested land.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\begin{verbatim}
|
|
||||||
## [1] 0 3 59
|
|
||||||
\end{verbatim}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\begin{verbatim}
|
|
||||||
## [1] 7 62 610
|
|
||||||
\end{verbatim}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\includegraphics{figures/wilderness_plots-1.pdf}
|
|
||||||
\includegraphics{figures/wilderness_plots-2.pdf}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\hypertarget{appendix-a}{%
|
|
||||||
\section{Appendix A}\label{appendix-a}}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\hypertarget{appendix-b}{%
|
|
||||||
\section{Appendix B}\label{appendix-b}}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
(JK note to self: same as above, but augmented with multipliers by which
|
|
||||||
categories are different from one another)
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\hypertarget{appendix-c---data-by-urban-rural-classification}{%
|
|
||||||
\section{Appendix C - Data by Urban / Rural
|
|
||||||
Classification}\label{appendix-c---data-by-urban-rural-classification}}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\renewcommand\refname{Citations}
|
|
||||||
\bibliography{biblio.bib}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\end{document}
|
|
|
@ -1,63 +0,0 @@
|
||||||
# STAGE 3a, calculate sums based on SIMD12R columns and generate new integer sets with quintile count data
|
|
||||||
simd_rownames = c("Quintile 1","Quintile 2","Quintile 3","Quintile 4","Quintile 5")
|
|
||||||
simdr12_ecs = c((sum(ecs_clean$SIMDR12<1301)), (sum(ecs_clean$SIMDR12 > 1300 & ecs_clean$SIMDR12 < 2602)), (sum(ecs_clean$SIMDR12 > 2601 & ecs_clean$SIMDR12 < 3903)), (sum(ecs_clean$SIMDR12 > 3902 & ecs_clean$SIMDR12 < 5204)), (sum(ecs_clean$SIMDR12 > 5203 & ecs_clean$SIMDR12 < 6505)))
|
|
||||||
# names(simdr12_ecs) <- simd_rownames
|
|
||||||
simdr12_transition = c((sum(transition_clean$SIMDR12<1301)), (sum(transition_clean$SIMDR12 > 1300 & transition_clean$SIMDR12 < 2602)), (sum(transition_clean$SIMDR12 > 2601 & transition_clean$SIMDR12 < 3903)), (sum(transition_clean$SIMDR12 > 3902 & transition_clean$SIMDR12 < 5204)), (sum(transition_clean$SIMDR12 > 5203 & transition_clean$SIMDR12 < 6505)))
|
|
||||||
# names(simdr12_transition) <- simd_rownames
|
|
||||||
simdr12_permaculture = c((sum(permaculture_clean$SIMDR12<1301)), (sum(permaculture_clean$SIMDR12 > 1300 & permaculture_clean$SIMDR12 < 2602)), (sum(permaculture_clean$SIMDR12 > 2601 & permaculture_clean$SIMDR12 < 3903)), (sum(permaculture_clean$SIMDR12 > 3902 & permaculture_clean$SIMDR12 < 5204)), (sum(permaculture_clean$SIMDR12 > 5203 & permaculture_clean$SIMDR12 < 6505)))
|
|
||||||
# names(simdr12_permaculture) <- simd_rownames
|
|
||||||
simdr12_dtas = c((sum(dtas_clean$SIMDR12<1301)), (sum(dtas_clean$SIMDR12 > 1300 & dtas_clean$SIMDR12 < 2602)), (sum(dtas_clean$SIMDR12 > 2601 & dtas_clean$SIMDR12 < 3903)), (sum(dtas_clean$SIMDR12 > 3902 & dtas_clean$SIMDR12 < 5204)), (sum(dtas_clean$SIMDR12 > 5203 & dtas_clean$SIMDR12 < 6505)))
|
|
||||||
# names(simdr12_dtas) <- simd_rownames
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
# STAGE 3b, calculate sums based on INCR12 columns and generate new integer sets with quintile count data
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
incr12_ecs = c((sum(ecs_clean$INCR12<1301)), (sum(ecs_clean$INCR12 > 1300 & ecs_clean$INCR12 < 2602)), (sum(ecs_clean$INCR12 > 2601 & ecs_clean$INCR12 < 3903)), (sum(ecs_clean$INCR12 > 3902 & ecs_clean$INCR12 < 5204)), (sum(ecs_clean$INCR12 > 5203 & ecs_clean$INCR12 < 6505)))
|
|
||||||
incr12_transition = c((sum(transition_clean$INCR12<1301)), (sum(transition_clean$INCR12 > 1300 & transition_clean$INCR12 < 2602)), (sum(transition_clean$INCR12 > 2601 & transition_clean$INCR12 < 3903)), (sum(transition_clean$INCR12 > 3902 & transition_clean$INCR12 < 5204)), (sum(transition_clean$INCR12 > 5203 & transition_clean$INCR12 < 6505)))
|
|
||||||
incr12_permaculture = c((sum(permaculture_clean$INCR12<1301)), (sum(permaculture_clean$INCR12 > 1300 & permaculture_clean$INCR12 < 2602)), (sum(permaculture_clean$INCR12 > 2601 & permaculture_clean$INCR12 < 3903)), (sum(permaculture_clean$INCR12 > 3902 & permaculture_clean$INCR12 < 5204)), (sum(permaculture_clean$INCR12 > 5203 & permaculture_clean$INCR12 < 6505)))
|
|
||||||
incr12_dtas = c((sum(dtas_clean$INCR12<1301)), (sum(dtas_clean$INCR12 > 1300 & dtas_clean$INCR12 < 2602)), (sum(dtas_clean$INCR12 > 2601 & dtas_clean$INCR12 < 3903)), (sum(dtas_clean$INCR12 > 3902 & dtas_clean$INCR12 < 5204)), (sum(dtas_clean$INCR12 > 5203 & dtas_clean$INCR12 < 6505)))
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
# STAGE 3c, calculate sums based on EMPR12 columns and generate new integer sets with quintile count data
|
|
||||||
empr12_ecs = c((sum(ecs_clean$EMPR12<1301)), (sum(ecs_clean$EMPR12 > 1300 & ecs_clean$EMPR12 < 2602)), (sum(ecs_clean$EMPR12 > 2601 & ecs_clean$EMPR12 < 3903)), (sum(ecs_clean$EMPR12 > 3902 & ecs_clean$EMPR12 < 5204)), (sum(ecs_clean$EMPR12 > 5203 & ecs_clean$EMPR12 < 6505)))
|
|
||||||
empr12_transition = c((sum(transition_clean$EMPR12<1301)), (sum(transition_clean$EMPR12 > 1300 & transition_clean$EMPR12 < 2602)), (sum(transition_clean$EMPR12 > 2601 & transition_clean$EMPR12 < 3903)), (sum(transition_clean$EMPR12 > 3902 & transition_clean$EMPR12 < 5204)), (sum(transition_clean$EMPR12 > 5203 & transition_clean$EMPR12 < 6505)))
|
|
||||||
empr12_permaculture = c((sum(permaculture_clean$EMPR12<1301)), (sum(permaculture_clean$EMPR12 > 1300 & permaculture_clean$EMPR12 < 2602)), (sum(permaculture_clean$EMPR12 > 2601 & permaculture_clean$EMPR12 < 3903)), (sum(permaculture_clean$EMPR12 > 3902 & permaculture_clean$EMPR12 < 5204)), (sum(permaculture_clean$EMPR12 > 5203 & permaculture_clean$EMPR12 < 6505)))
|
|
||||||
empr12_dtas = c((sum(dtas_clean$EMPR12<1301)), (sum(dtas_clean$EMPR12 > 1300 & dtas_clean$EMPR12 < 2602)), (sum(dtas_clean$EMPR12 > 2601 & dtas_clean$EMPR12 < 3903)), (sum(dtas_clean$EMPR12 > 3902 & dtas_clean$EMPR12 < 5204)), (sum(dtas_clean$EMPR12 > 5203 & dtas_clean$EMPR12 < 6505)))
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
# STAGE 3d, calculate sums based on HER12 columns and generate new integer sets with quintile count data
|
|
||||||
her12_ecs = c((sum(ecs_clean$HER12<1301)), (sum(ecs_clean$HER12 > 1300 & ecs_clean$HER12 < 2602)), (sum(ecs_clean$HER12 > 2601 & ecs_clean$HER12 < 3903)), (sum(ecs_clean$HER12 > 3902 & ecs_clean$HER12 < 5204)), (sum(ecs_clean$HER12 > 5203 & ecs_clean$HER12 < 6505)))
|
|
||||||
her12_transition = c((sum(transition_clean$HER12<1301)), (sum(transition_clean$HER12 > 1300 & transition_clean$HER12 < 2602)), (sum(transition_clean$HER12 > 2601 & transition_clean$HER12 < 3903)), (sum(transition_clean$HER12 > 3902 & transition_clean$HER12 < 5204)), (sum(transition_clean$HER12 > 5203 & transition_clean$HER12 < 6505)))
|
|
||||||
her12_permaculture = c((sum(permaculture_clean$HER12<1301)), (sum(permaculture_clean$HER12 > 1300 & permaculture_clean$HER12 < 2602)), (sum(permaculture_clean$HER12 > 2601 & permaculture_clean$HER12 < 3903)), (sum(permaculture_clean$HER12 > 3902 & permaculture_clean$HER12 < 5204)), (sum(permaculture_clean$HER12 > 5203 & permaculture_clean$HER12 < 6505)))
|
|
||||||
her12_dtas = c((sum(dtas_clean$HER12<1301)), (sum(dtas_clean$HER12 > 1300 & dtas_clean$HER12 < 2602)), (sum(dtas_clean$HER12 > 2601 & dtas_clean$HER12 < 3903)), (sum(dtas_clean$HER12 > 3902 & dtas_clean$HER12 < 5204)), (sum(dtas_clean$HER12 > 5203 & dtas_clean$HER12 < 6505)))
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
# STAGE 3e, calculate sums based on ESTR12 columns and generate new integer sets with quintile count data
|
|
||||||
estr12_ecs = c((sum(ecs_clean$ESTR12<1301)), (sum(ecs_clean$ESTR12 > 1300 & ecs_clean$ESTR12 < 2602)), (sum(ecs_clean$ESTR12 > 2601 & ecs_clean$ESTR12 < 3903)), (sum(ecs_clean$ESTR12 > 3902 & ecs_clean$ESTR12 < 5204)), (sum(ecs_clean$ESTR12 > 5203 & ecs_clean$ESTR12 < 6505)))
|
|
||||||
estr12_transition = c((sum(transition_clean$ESTR12<1301)), (sum(transition_clean$ESTR12 > 1300 & transition_clean$ESTR12 < 2602)), (sum(transition_clean$ESTR12 > 2601 & transition_clean$ESTR12 < 3903)), (sum(transition_clean$ESTR12 > 3902 & transition_clean$ESTR12 < 5204)), (sum(transition_clean$ESTR12 > 5203 & transition_clean$ESTR12 < 6505)))
|
|
||||||
estr12_permaculture = c((sum(permaculture_clean$ESTR12<1301)), (sum(permaculture_clean$ESTR12 > 1300 & permaculture_clean$ESTR12 < 2602)), (sum(permaculture_clean$ESTR12 > 2601 & permaculture_clean$ESTR12 < 3903)), (sum(permaculture_clean$ESTR12 > 3902 & permaculture_clean$ESTR12 < 5204)), (sum(permaculture_clean$ESTR12 > 5203 & permaculture_clean$ESTR12 < 6505)))
|
|
||||||
estr12_dtas = c((sum(dtas_clean$ESTR12<1301)), (sum(dtas_clean$ESTR12 > 1300 & dtas_clean$ESTR12 < 2602)), (sum(dtas_clean$ESTR12 > 2601 & dtas_clean$ESTR12 < 3903)), (sum(dtas_clean$ESTR12 > 3902 & dtas_clean$ESTR12 < 5204)), (sum(dtas_clean$ESTR12 > 5203 & dtas_clean$ESTR12 < 6505)))
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
# STAGE 4a - calculate percentages
|
|
||||||
simdr12_ecs_percent<- prop.table(simdr12_ecs)
|
|
||||||
simdr12_transition_percent<- prop.table(simdr12_transition)
|
|
||||||
simdr12_permaculture_percent<- prop.table(simdr12_permaculture)
|
|
||||||
simdr12_dtas_percent<- prop.table(simdr12_dtas)
|
|
||||||
incr12_ecs_percent<- prop.table(incr12_ecs)
|
|
||||||
incr12_transition_percent<- prop.table(incr12_transition)
|
|
||||||
incr12_permaculture_percent<- prop.table(incr12_permaculture)
|
|
||||||
incr12_dtas_percent<- prop.table(incr12_dtas)
|
|
||||||
empr12_ecs_percent<- prop.table(empr12_ecs)
|
|
||||||
empr12_transition_percent<- prop.table(empr12_transition)
|
|
||||||
empr12_permaculture_percent<- prop.table(empr12_permaculture)
|
|
||||||
empr12_dtas_percent<- prop.table(empr12_dtas)
|
|
||||||
her12_ecs_percent<- prop.table(her12_ecs)
|
|
||||||
her12_transition_percent<- prop.table(her12_transition)
|
|
||||||
her12_permaculture_percent<- prop.table(her12_permaculture)
|
|
||||||
her12_dtas_percent<- prop.table(her12_dtas)
|
|
||||||
estr12_ecs_percent<- prop.table(estr12_ecs)
|
|
||||||
estr12_transition_percent<- prop.table(estr12_transition)
|
|
||||||
estr12_permaculture_percent<- prop.table(estr12_permaculture)
|
|
||||||
estr12_dtas_percent<- prop.table(estr12_dtas)
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
# STAGE 4b, generate data frame using integer sets
|
|
||||||
simd = data.frame(simdr12_ecs, simdr12_ecs_percent, incr12_ecs, incr12_ecs_percent, empr12_ecs, empr12_ecs_percent, her12_ecs, her12_ecs_percent, estr12_ecs, estr12_ecs_percent, simdr12_transition, simdr12_transition_percent, incr12_transition, incr12_transition_percent, empr12_transition, empr12_transition_percent, her12_transition, her12_transition_percent, estr12_transition, estr12_transition_percent, simdr12_permaculture, simdr12_permaculture_percent, incr12_permaculture, incr12_permaculture_percent, empr12_permaculture, empr12_permaculture_percent, her12_permaculture, her12_permaculture_percent, estr12_permaculture, estr12_permaculture_percent, simdr12_dtas, simdr12_dtas_percent, incr12_dtas, incr12_dtas_percent, empr12_dtas, empr12_dtas_percent, her12_dtas, her12_dtas_percent, estr12_dtas, estr12_dtas_percent)
|
|
||||||
write.csv(simd, "derivedData/simd.csv", row.names=FALSE)
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
simd_percents_only = data.frame(simd_rownames, simdr12_ecs_percent, incr12_ecs_percent, empr12_ecs_percent, her12_ecs_percent, estr12_ecs_percent, simdr12_transition_percent, incr12_transition_percent, empr12_transition_percent, her12_transition_percent, estr12_transition_percent, simdr12_permaculture_percent, incr12_permaculture_percent, empr12_permaculture_percent, her12_permaculture_percent, estr12_permaculture_percent, simdr12_dtas_percent, incr12_dtas_percent, empr12_dtas_percent, her12_dtas_percent, estr12_dtas_percent)
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue