Socio-political embedding of onshore wind power in the Netherlands and North Rhine–Westphalia

Agterbosch, Susanne; Breukers, Sylvia

doi:10.1080/09537320802292958

Cited by 22 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the Netherlands, none of the perspectives was dominant, reflecting a lack of learning and inconsistent policy, as will be illustrated by the conclusions of the example project case. In Germany, hardly any opposition to wind projects existed because a framework was created favoured civil and local shareholding, while at the same time also promoting their increased involvement (Agterbosch and Breukers, 2008). Citizens' projects and other private developments were strongly stimulated by the opportunities to feed wind-generated electricity into the grid at a reasonable price.…”

Section: Wind Power Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The creation of this kind of framework requires clear socio-political acceptance among government agencies and actors in the energy markets and spatial planning realm, of necessary policy measures. The wind power policy in the Netherlands has been very inconsistent over more than two decades (Breukers and Wolsink, 2007) and the socio-political acceptance of effective policy has clearly been far below the level of, for example, Germany (Agterbosch and Breukers, 2008).…”

Section: Wind Power Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Wolsink

2010

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

207

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Link to publicationCitation for published version (APA): Wolsink, M. (2010). Contested environmental policy infrastructure: socio-political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste facilities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(5), 302-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.01.001 General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. AbstractDecisions to build new infrastructure are often contested. The general idea is that such infrastructure is considered to serve the (proclaimed) public interests, whereas the impact or risk is concentrated at a smaller scale, for example in local communities. The nature of such risk is that it concerns threats to environmental quality. A frequently arising type of environmental conflict arises when the proclaimed public good lies within the domain of environmental policy and sustainability. Impact assessments are essential parts of identification and assessment of acceptability and risks associated with projects, plans or programs. The social acceptability of building infrastructure as a part of environmental policy, however, is hardly conceptually defined so far, and the role of policy appraisal methods is unclear. The social acceptance of environmental-policy infrastructure is conceptually defined as institutionally determined, and will be elaborated in three cases. The first case is the policy domain of renewable energy implementation, which is a major component of climate change mitigation strategies. The empirical basis comes mainly from studies on the implementation of wind power. The second case concerns the building of waste infrastructure, which is part of environmental policies that, however, not only focus upon sound waste management and disposal, but primarily upon waste minimization (the 'waste management hierarchy'). The third case is the Dutch policy on space-water management, that tries to implement a new style of management that contrasts with the current style of water management and governance that is based on control and 'hard' infrastructure. This is now becoming the spearhead of climate change adaptation policy. All three cases show a large variety of social acceptance issues, in which the appraisal of the impact of siting the facilities is confronted with the desirability of the policies. Th...

show abstract

Section: Wind Power Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Wind Power Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Wolsink

2010

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

207

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, more inclusive participation is better able to deliver equity in decision making (see, for example, Kakonge, 1996;O'Faircheallaigh, 2010;Petts, 2003;Shepherd, 1997;Sinclair, 2002;Wiklund, 2011). It is widely recognised that the timing of the participation is crucial in order to facilitate deliberation, with early participation, as encompassed in the Arhus Convention (UNECE, 1998) being an essential precondition of a legitimate process (Agterbosch and Breukers, 2008).…”

Section: Linking Rationality and Legitimacy Of Ea With Game Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

A game theory perspective on environmental assessment: What games are played and what does this tell us about decision making rationality and legitimacy?

Bond

Pope

Morrison‐Saunders

et al. 2016

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Game theory provides a useful theoretical framework to examine the decision process operating in the context of environmental assessment, and to examine the rationality and legitimacy of decision-making subject to Environmental Assessment (EA). The research uses a case study of the Environmental Impact Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal processes undertaken in England. To these are applied an analytical framework, based on the concept of decision windows to identify the decisions to be assessed. The conditions for legitimacy are defined, based on game theory, in relation to the timing of decision information, the behaviour type (competitive, reciprocal, equity) exhibited by the decision maker, and the level of public engagement; as, together, these control the type of rationality which can be brought to bear on the decision. Instrumental rationality is based on self-interest of individuals, whereas deliberative rationality seeks broader consensus and is more likely to underpin legitimate decisions. The results indicate that the Sustainability Appraisal process, conducted at plan level, is better than EIA, conducted at project level, but still fails to provide conditions that facilitate legitimacy. Game theory also suggests that Sustainability Appraisal is likely to deliver 'least worst' outcomes rather than best outcomes when the goals of the assessment process are considered; this may explain the propensity of such 'least worst' decisions in practice. On the basis of what can be learned from applying this game theory perspective, it is suggested that environmental assessment processes need to be redesigned and better integrated into decision making in order to guarantee the legitimacy of the decisions made.

show abstract

“…In Germany the feed-in support system -REFIT-has positively affected the involvement of the civil society and local initiatives to wind farms and correspondingly. The implemented planning system did not endorse the selection of sites by higher authorities, instead it only set a priority for wind developments ('Priviligierung') and then left the actual planning of the local wind development and site selection to local authorities (82).…”

Section: The Impact Of the Spatial Planning And Of Location Decision mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They have participated in cooperatives or other civil initiatives -'Bürgerinitiative' in German-to establish wind farms and thus became shareholders. There is a wide range of motives for such initiatives, but a strong driving force behind this development were various grassroots initiatives (Figure 3) based on environmental concern and the willingness to be involved in the development of alternatives to conventional and nuclear power generation (82,114). In the meantime, such civil initiatives have evolved into new energy companies with an inherent high degree of acceptance of renewables energy.…”

Section: Market Acceptancementioning

confidence: 99%

Wind Power: Basic Challenge Concerning Social Acceptance

Wolsink¹

SpringerReference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Socio-political embedding of onshore wind power in the Netherlands and North Rhine–Westphalia

Cited by 22 publications

References 18 publications

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

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

A game theory perspective on environmental assessment: What games are played and what does this tell us about decision making rationality and legitimacy?

Wind Power: Basic Challenge Concerning Social Acceptance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About