IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/juipol/v41y2016icp206-213.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Just a talking shop? – Informal participatory spatial planning for implementing state wind energy targets in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Leibenath, Markus
  • Wirth, Peter
  • Lintz, Gerd

Abstract

Many authors call for participatory approaches to spatial planning in dealing with land use conflicts on wind energy. In one region of Saxony, planning officials established an informal working group on wind energy to complement statutory spatial planning. In a qualitative case study, we found that the conflicting discursive frames in the participation process proved to be stable and were modified only marginally. The outcomes of the working group can be explained by the character of the initial frames and other contextual factors. Regarding planning practice, we suggest discussing contested planning issues in a wider context.

Suggested Citation

  • Leibenath, Markus & Wirth, Peter & Lintz, Gerd, 2016. "Just a talking shop? – Informal participatory spatial planning for implementing state wind energy targets in Germany," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 206-213.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:juipol:v:41:y:2016:i:c:p:206-213
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jup.2016.02.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957178716300492
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jup.2016.02.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Liebrenz, Frank, 2013. "Planungs- und Governance-Prozesse bei der Festlegung von Eignungsgebieten für die Windenergienutzung in Regionalplänen: Das Beispiel Schleswig-Holstein," Arbeitsberichte der ARL: Aufsätze, in: Governance-Prozesse für erneuerbare Energien, pages 45-55, ARL – Akademie für Raumentwicklung in der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft.
    2. Bidwell, David, 2013. "The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial wind energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 189-199.
    3. Wolsink, Maarten, 2007. "Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2692-2704, May.
    4. Geraint Ellis & John Barry & Clive Robinson, 2007. "Many ways to say 'no', different ways to say 'yes': Applying Q-Methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 517-551.
    5. Swofford, Jeffrey & Slattery, Michael, 2010. "Public attitudes of wind energy in Texas: Local communities in close proximity to wind farms and their effect on decision-making," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2508-2519, May.
    6. McLaren Loring, Joyce, 2007. "Wind energy planning in England, Wales and Denmark: Factors influencing project success," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 2648-2660, April.
    7. Pepermans, Yves & Loots, Ilse, 2013. "Wind farm struggles in Flanders fields: A sociological perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 321-328.
    8. Jami, Anahita A.N. & Walsh, Philip R., 2014. "The role of public participation in identifying stakeholder synergies in wind power project development: The case study of Ontario, Canada," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 194-202.
    9. Mhairi Aitken & Seonaidh McDonald & Peter Strachan, 2008. "Locating 'power' in wind power planning processes: the (not so) influential role of local objectors," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(6), pages 777-799.
    10. Hall, Peter A. & Taylor, Rosemary C. R., 1996. "Political science and the three new institutionalisms," MPIfG Discussion Paper 96/6, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Suškevičs, M. & Eiter, S. & Martinat, S. & Stober, D. & Vollmer, E. & de Boer, C.L. & Buchecker, M., 2019. "Regional variation in public acceptance of wind energy development in Europe: What are the roles of planning procedures and participation?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 311-323.
    2. Radtke, Jörg & Ohlhorst, Dörte, 2021. "Community Energy in Germany – Bowling Alone in Elite Clubs?," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    3. Fink, Simon & Ruffing, Eva, 2020. "Learning in iterated consultation procedures – The example of the German electricity grid demand planning," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    2. Lombard, Andrea & Ferreira, Sanette, 2014. "Residents' attitudes to proposed wind farms in the West Coast region of South Africa: A social perspective from the South," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 390-399.
    3. Bidwell, David, 2013. "The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial wind energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 189-199.
    4. Langer, Katharina & Decker, Thomas & Menrad, Klaus, 2017. "Public participation in wind energy projects located in Germany: Which form of participation is the key to acceptance?," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 63-73.
    5. Langer, Katharina & Decker, Thomas & Roosen, Jutta & Menrad, Klaus, 2016. "A qualitative analysis to understand the acceptance of wind energy in Bavaria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 248-259.
    6. Songsore, Emmanuel & Buzzelli, Michael, 2014. "Social responses to wind energy development in Ontario: The influence of health risk perceptions and associated concerns," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 285-296.
    7. Haggett, Claire, 2011. "Understanding public responses to offshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 503-510, February.
    8. Pepermans, Yves & Loots, Ilse, 2013. "Wind farm struggles in Flanders fields: A sociological perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 321-328.
    9. Brennan, Noreen & van Rensburg, Thomas M., 2020. "Public preferences for wind farms involving electricity trade and citizen engagement in Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    10. Devine-Wright, Patrick & Wiersma, Bouke, 2020. "Understanding community acceptance of a potential offshore wind energy project in different locations: An island-based analysis of ‘place-technology fit’," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    11. Chad Walker & Jamie Baxter & Danielle Ouellette, 2014. "Beyond Rhetoric to Understanding Determinants of Wind Turbine Support and Conflict in Two Ontario, Canada Communities," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(3), pages 730-745, March.
    12. Maciej J. Nowak & Agnieszka Brelik & Anna Oleńczuk-Paszel & Monika Śpiewak-Szyjka & Justyna Przedańska, 2023. "Spatial Conflicts concerning Wind Power Plants—A Case Study of Spatial Plans in Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-20, January.
    13. Hoen, Ben & Firestone, Jeremy & Rand, Joseph & Elliot, Debi & Hübner, Gundula & Pohl, Johannes & Wiser, Ryan & Lantz, Eric & Haac, T. Ryan & Kaliski, Ken, 2019. "Attitudes of U.S. Wind Turbine Neighbors: Analysis of a Nationwide Survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    14. Landeta-Manzano, Beñat & Arana-Landín, Germán & Calvo, Pilar M. & Heras-Saizarbitoria, Iñaki, 2018. "Wind energy and local communities: A manufacturer’s efforts to gain acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 314-324.
    15. Kaldellis, J.K. & Kapsali, M. & Kaldelli, El. & Katsanou, Ev., 2013. "Comparing recent views of public attitude on wind energy, photovoltaic and small hydro applications," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 197-208.
    16. Roddis, Philippa & Carver, Stephen & Dallimer, Martin & Norman, Paul & Ziv, Guy, 2018. "The role of community acceptance in planning outcomes for onshore wind and solar farms: An energy justice analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 226(C), pages 353-364.
    17. Kontogianni, A. & Tourkolias, Ch. & Skourtos, M. & Damigos, D., 2014. "Planning globally, protesting locally: Patterns in community perceptions towards the installation of wind farms," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 170-177.
    18. Simón, Xavier & Copena, Damián & Montero, María, 2019. "Strong wind development with no community participation. The case of Galicia (1995–2009)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    19. Mills, Sarah Banas & Bessette, Douglas & Smith, Hannah, 2019. "Exploring landowners’ post-construction changes in perceptions of wind energy in Michigan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 754-762.
    20. Jinjin Guan & Harald Zepp, 2020. "Factors Affecting the Community Acceptance of Onshore Wind Farms: A Case Study of the Zhongying Wind Farm in Eastern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-19, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:juipol:v:41:y:2016:i:c:p:206-213. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/utilities-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.