Contested environmental policy infrastructure: Socio-political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste facilities

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

Volumn 30, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 302-311

  Wolsink, Maarten ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Environmental conflict; Infrastructure decisions; Policy learning; Social acceptance; Waste; Water management; Wind power

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDIES; CURRENT PRACTICES; DECISION MAKING PROCESS; ENVIRONMENTAL CAPACITY; ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES; LOCAL COMMUNITY; NETHERLANDS; POLICY LEARNING; POLICY OBJECTIVES; POLICY PARADIGM; PUBLIC INTEREST; RENEWABLE ENERGIES; SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE; WASTE FACILITIES; WASTE MINIMIZATION; WASTE POLICY;

CONSERVATION; DECISION MAKING; ENERGY CONVERSION; WASTE DISPOSAL; WATER MANAGEMENT; WIND POWER;

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION;

COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECISION ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES; INNOVATION; INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK; POLICY ANALYSIS; POLICY STRATEGY; RENEWABLE RESOURCE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SUSTAINABILITY; WASTE FACILITY; WASTE MANAGEMENT; WIND POWER;

NETHERLANDS;

EID: 77955273589     PISSN: 01959255     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2010.01.001     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Agterbosch S., Breukers S. Socio-political embedding of onshore wind power in the Netherlands and North Rhine-Westphalia. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 2008, 20:633-648.
2. Aitken M., McDonald S., Strachan P. Locating 'power' in wind power planning processes: the (not so) influential role of local objectors. J Environ Plan Manag 2008, 51:777-799.
3. Bergek A., Jacobsson S., Sanden B.A. 'Legitimation' and 'development of positive externalities': two key processes in the formation phase of technological innovation systems. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 2008, 20:575-592.
4. Breukers S., Wolsink M. Wind energy policies in the Netherlands: institutional capacity-building for ecological modernisation. Env Polit 2007, 16:92-112.
5. Buijs A.E. Public support for river restoration. A mixed-method study into local residents' support for and framing of river management and ecological restoration in the Dutch floodplains. J Environ Manag 2009, 90:2680-2689.
6. Carter J.G., White I., Richards J. Sustainability appraisal and flood risk management. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2009, 29:7-14.
7. Cowell R., Owens S. Governing space: planning reform and the politics of sustainability. Environ Plan C - Gov Policy 2006, 24:403-421.
8. Davies A.R. Civil society activism and waste management in Ireland: the Carranstown anti-incineration campaign. Land Use Policy 2008, 25:161-172.
9. Davoudi S. Scalar tensions in the governance of waste: the resilience of state spatial Keynesianism. J Environ Plan Manag 2009, 52:137-156.
10. Dawson J.I., Darst R.G. Meeting the challenge of permanent nuclear waste disposal in an expanding Europe: transparency, trust and democracy. Env Polit 2006, 15:610-627.
11. deBruijn, K.M., 2005. Resilience and flood risk management. A system approach applied to lowland rivers. PhD Thesis, Technical University Delft.
12. deBruin D., Schultz B. A simple start with far-reaching consequences. Irrig Drain 2003, 52:51-63.
13. deVries J., Wolsink M. Making space for water: spatial planning and water management in the Netherlands. Planning for climate change 2009, 191-204. Earthscan, London, Sterling VA. S. Davoudi, J. Crawford, A. Mehmood (Eds.).
14. Dietz T., Ostrom E., Stern P.C. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 2003, 302:1907-1912.
15. Disco C. Remaking "Nature": the ecological turn in Dutch water management. Sci Technol Human Values 2002, 27:206-235.
16. Dolfing, B., 2000. Waterbeheer geregeld? Een historisch bestuurskundige analyse van de institutionele ontwikkeling van de hoogheemraadschappen van Delfland en Rijnland 1600-1800. PhD thesis, University Leiden.
17. Elliott S.J., McClure J. "There's just hope that no one's health is at risk": residents' reappraisal of landfill siting. J Environ Plan Manag 2009, 52:237-255.
18. Ellis G., Cowell R., Warren C., Strachan P., Szarka J. Expanding wind power: a problem of planning or of perception?. Plan Theory Pract 2009, 10(4):523-532.
19. Enserink B. Thinking the unthinkable - the end of the Dutch river dike system? Exploring a new safety concept for the river management. J Risk Res 2004, 7:745-775.
20. European Wind Energy Association: wind energy - the facts 2009, EWEA, Earthscan, London.
21. Falkenmark M. Towards integrated catchment management: opening the paradigm locks between hydrology, ecology and policy-making. Int J Water Resour Dev 2004, 20:275-281.
22. Folke C., Hahn T., Olsson P., Norberg J. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 2005, 30:441-473.
23. Frey B.S., Benz M., Stutzer A. Introducing procedural utility: not only what, but also how matters. J Inst Theor Econ 2004, 160:377-401.
24. Gagnon C., Hirsch P., Howitt R. Can SIA empower communities?. Environ Impact Asses Rev 1993, 13:229-253.
25. Gallagher L., Ferreira S., Convery F. Host community attitudes towards solid waste landfill infrastructure: comprehension before compensation. J Environ Plan Manag 2008, 51:233-257.
26. Gerrits L., Marks P. Complex bounded rationality in dyke construction path-dependency, lock-in in the emergence of the geometry of the Zeeland delta. Land Use Policy 2008, 25:330-337.
27. Grimeaud D. The EU water framework directive. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 2004, 13:27-40.
28. Hocke P., Renn O. Concerned public and the paralysis of decision-making: nuclear waste management policy in Germany. J Risk Res 2009, 12:921-940.
29. Höppner C. Trust - a monolithic panacea in land use planning?. Land Use Policy 2009, 26:1046-1054.
30. Howe J., White I. Like a fish out of water: the relationship between planning and flood risk management in the UK. Plan Pract Res 2004, 19:415-425.
31. Jay S.A. At the margins of planning 2008, Offshore wind farms in the United Kingdom, Ashgate, Aldershot.
32. Johnson R.J., Scicchitano M.J. Willing and able: explaining individuals' engagement in environmental policy making. J Environ Plan Manag 2009, 52:833-846.
33. Kamp L.M., Smits R.E.H.M., Andriesse C.D. Notions on learning applied to wind turbine development in the Netherlands and Denmark. Energy Policy 2004, 32:1625-1637.
34. Karjalainen T.P., Järvikoski T. Negotiating river ecosystems. Impact assessment and conflict mediation in the cases of hydro-power construction. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2010, 30:319-327.
35. Lauber V. REFIT and RPS: options for a harmonised community framework. Energy Policy 2004, 32:1405-1414.
36. Lorenzoni I., Pidgeon N.F., O'Connor R.E. Dangerous climate change: the role for risk research. Risk Anal 2005, 25:1387-1398.
37. Mannarini T., Roccato M., Fedi A., Rovere A. Six factors fostering protest: predicting participation in locally unwanted land uses movements. Polit Psychol 2009, 30:895-920.
38. McCauley D. Wasting energy? Campaigns against waste-to-energy sites in France. Env Polit 2009, 18:917-938.
39. Mumford J., Gray D. Consumer engagement in alternative energy - can the regulators and suppliers be trusted?. Energy Policy 2010, 38. 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.05.054.
40. Nadai A., van der Horst D. Wind power planning, landscapes and publics. Land Use Policy 2010, 27:181-184.
41. Nelson D.R., Adger W.N., Brown K. Adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a resilience framework. Annu Rev Environ Resour 2007, 32:295-419.
42. Neuvel J.M.M., van den Brink A. Flood risk management in Dutch local spatial planning practices. J Environ Plan Manag 2009, 52:865-880.
43. North D. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance 1990, Cambridge University Press.
44. Nykvist B., Nilsson M. Are impact assessment procedures actually promoting sustainable development? Institutional perspectives on barriers and opportunities found in the Swedish committee system. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2009, 29:15-24.
45. Ohl C., Eichhorn M. The mismatch between regional spatial planning for wind power development in Germany and national eligibility criteria for feed-in tariffs - a case study in West Saxony. Land Use Policy 2010, 27:243-254.
46. Owens S. Siting, sustainable development and social priorities. J Risk Res 2004, 7:101-114.
47. Owens S., Rayner T., Bina O. New agendas for appraisal: reflections on theory, practice, and research. Environ Plann A 2004, 36:1943-1959.
48. Pahl-Wostl C. The importance of social learning in restoring the multifunctionality of rivers and floodplains. Ecol Soc 2006, 11(1). (art.no.10).
49. Parker D.J. Floodplain development policy in England and Wales. Appl Geogr 1995, 15:341-363.
50. Pidgeon N.F., Lorenzoni I., Poortinga W. Climate change or nuclear power - no thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Glob Environ Change 2008, 18:69-85.
51. Price J.L., Joseph J.B. Demand management - a basis for waste policy: a critical review of the applicability of the waste hierarchy in terms of achieving sustainable waste management. Sustain Dev 2000, 8:96-105.
52. Raadgever G.T., Mostert E., van de Giesen N.C. Identification of stakeholder perspectives on future flood management in the Rhine basin using Q methodology. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 2008, 12:1097-1109.
53. Reiche D. Aufstieg, Bedeutungsverlust und Re-Politisierung erneuerbare Energien. Zeitschift für Unweltpolitik & Umweltrecht 2002, vol. 25:27-59.
54. Rootes C. Acting locally: the character, contexts and significance of local environmental mobilizations. Env Polit 2007, 16:722-741.
55. Roth D., Warner J. Flood risk, uncertainty and changing river protection policy in the Netherlands: the case of 'calamity polders'. Tijdschr Econ Soc Geogr 2007, 98:519-525.
56. Saarikoski H. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) as collaborative learning process. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2000, 20:681-700.
57. Saarikoski H. When frames conflict: policy dialogue on waste. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 2006, 24:615-630.
58. Sabatier P.A. The advocacy coalition framework: revisions and relevance for Europe. J Eur Public Policy 1998, 5:98-130.
59. Sinclair J.A., Diduck A., Fitzpatrick P. Conceptualizing learning for sustainability through environmental assessment: critical reflections on 15years of research. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2008, 28:415-428.
60. Thelen K. Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annu Rev Pol Sci 1999, 2:369-404.
61. Toke D., Breukers S., Wolsink M. Wind power deployment outcomes: how can we account for the differences?. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2008, 12:1129-1147.
62. Tompkins E.L., Adger W.N. Defining response capacity to enhance climate change policy. Environ Sci Policy 2005, 8:562-571.
63. Van Baren, NGE, 2001. Planhiërarchische oplossingen: een bron van maatschapplijk confict. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.
64. Van der Most H., Wehrung M. Dealing with uncertainty in flood risk assessment of dike rings in the Netherlands. Nat Hazards 2005, 36:191-206.
65. Vanclay F. International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2003, 21:5-11.
66. Walker G. Environmental justice, impact assessment and the politics of knowledge: The implications of assessing the social distribution of environmental outcomes. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2010, 30(5):312-318.
67. Warren C.R., McFadyen M. Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland. Land Use Policy 2010, 27:204-213.
68. Watson N., Walker G. Critical perspectives on integrated water management. Geogr J 2007, 173:297-299. (Special issue).
69. Weidner H., Jänicke M. Capacity building in national environmental policy 2002, Springer, Berlin.
70. Wester-Herber M. Underlying concerns in land-use conflicts - the role of place-identity in risk perception. Environ Sci Policy 2004, 7:109-116.
71. Wiering M.A., Arts B.J.M. Discursive shifts in Dutch river management: 'deep' institutional change or adaptation strategy?. Hydrobiologia 2006, 565:327-338.
72. Wilson D.C. Stick or carrot? The use of policy measures to move waste management up the hierarchy. Waste Manag Res 1996, 14:385-398.
73. Wolsink M. Reshaping the Dutch planning system: a learning process?. Environ Plann A 2003, 35:705-723.
74. Wolsink M. Policy beliefs in spatial decisions: contrasting core beliefs concerning space making for waste infrastructure. Urban Stud 2004, 41:1669-1690.
75. Wolsink M. River basin approach and integrated water management - governance pitfalls for the Dutch Space-Water-Adjustment Management Principle. Geoforum 2006, 37:473-487.
76. Wolsink M. Wind power implementation. The nature of public attitudes. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2007, 11:1188-1207.
77. Wolsink M. Near-shore wind power. Protected seascapes, environmentalist's attitudes, and the technocratic planning perspective. Land Use Policy 2010, 27:195-203.
78. Wolsink M., Baumeister M. Van nijlpaard tot Maasbedding (From hippo to the Maas riverbed) 2003, Jan van Arkel, Utrecht.
79. Wolsink M., Breukers S. Contrasting the core beliefs regarding the effective implementation of wind power. An international study of stakeholder perspectives. J Environ Plan Manag 2010, 53(4). 10.1080/09640561003633581.
80. Wolsink M., Devilee J. The motives for accepting or rejecting waste infrastructure facilities. Shifting the focus from the planners' perspective to fairness and community commitment. J Environ Plan Manag 2009, 52:217-236.
81. Wüstenhagen R., Wolsink M., Bürer M.J. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 2007, 35:2683-2691.
82. Yin R.K. Case study research. Design and methods 2009, Sage, Thousand Oaks CA. 4th edition.
83. Zito A.R., Bruckner L., Jordan A., Wurzel R.K.W. Instrument innovation in an environmental lead state: 'new' environmental policy instruments in the Netherlands. Env Polit 2003, 12:157-178.