Reference : Siting Controversies Analysis: Framework and Method for Questioning the Procedure
Scientific journals : Article
Law, criminology & political science : Political science, public administration & international relations
Social & behavioral sciences, psychology : Sociology & social sciences
http://hdl.handle.net/2268/173444
Siting Controversies Analysis: Framework and Method for Questioning the Procedure
English
Rossignol, Nicolas mailto [Université de Liège - ULg > Département de science politique > Anal. et éval. des politiques publ.-Méthod. de sc. politique >]
Parotte, Céline mailto [Université de Liège - ULg > Département de science politique > Politique européenne >]
Joris, Geoffrey [Université de Liège - ULg > Département de science politique > Sciences administratives >]
Fallon, Catherine mailto [Université de Liège - ULg > Département de science politique > Département de science politique >]
2-Dec-2014
Journal of Risk Research
Routledge
Siting Controversies Analysis
Yes (verified by ORBi)
International
1366-9877
Abingdon
United Kingdom
[en] Siting Controversies ; Windfarms ; Participation
[en] Siting controversies are commonplace, as well against the construction of roads, railways, nuclear waste disposals, as against windfarms. Local citizens resist against siting decisions taken by the authorities, following a dynamics often quoted as ‘Not In My Back Yard’. Yet contested for its lack of analytical value, NIMBY is still used strategically by actors to qualify citizens as irrational and egoistic. Beyond this labelling, many factors are investigated to understand the dynamics behind siting controversies. In this paper, we focus on the impact of the legal procedure structuring the implantation of windfarms in the Walloon Region (Belgium), and its translations within different decision making processes in specific case studies. To that regard, we consider the legal procedure as a ‘public policy instrument’. It is neither neutral nor natural, and carry values and interests. It organizes inter-personal relations between actors, and is potentially catalyzer of frustrations. In addition, this legal procedure is the object of translations within different contexts, including different actors participating to specific decision making processes. The empirical approach of this paper is based on case studies data and on the use of an innovative methodology called ‘Open Process Workshop’. This methodology consists in a structured workshop with key stakeholders, during which the legal procedure is questioned. Overall, we demonstrate that the focus on the legal procedure - and its translations within different decision making processes - allows systemic analysis providing deep understandings of controversies and reaffirming the interlinks between ‘the social’ and ‘the technical’ in such controversies. In addition, we argue that the methodology used fosters the production of innovative knowledge, mutual understanding and collective learning between the participants.
Spiral
Electrabel GDF-Suez
Researchers ; Professionals ; Students ; General public
http://hdl.handle.net/2268/173444
10.1080/13669877.2014.983948

File(s) associated to this reference

Fulltext file(s):

FileCommentaryVersionSizeAccess
Restricted access
Rossignol et al - (Published) JRR - EOL Siting controversies analysis.pdfPublisher postprint290.67 kBRequest copy

Bookmark and Share SFX Query

All documents in ORBi are protected by a user license.