IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i24p10535-d463026.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Participation and Airport Development: The Case of the Site Selection for Berlin Brandenburg Airport (BER) in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Sedlin

    (Faculty of Law and Economics & Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology, University of Greifswald, Soldmannstr. 15, D-17487 Greifswald, Germany)

  • Volker Beckmann

    (Faculty of Law and Economics & Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology, University of Greifswald, Soldmannstr. 15, D-17487 Greifswald, Germany)

  • Rong Tan

    (School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University, Yuhangtang Road 866, Hangzhou 310058, China)

Abstract

Airport projects can have a significant impact on sustainable development. In Germany, as in many other developed countries, airport development is confronting a dilemma because, on the one hand, airports are important infrastructural components and, on the other hand, airport development faces strong resistance from local populations and interest groups. Thus, uncertainties and long time periods, up to 20 years from the beginning of planning to breaking ground, are quite normal. To ease airport development in Germany, administrative procedures and public participation were enhanced. Nevertheless, even with improved public participation, siting decisions in the case of Berlin Brandenburg Airport (BER) were lengthy as usual and remain controversial today due to the selection of Schönefeld as the site. Against this background, it seems that public participation in the case of the BER site selection did not particularly deliver the hoped-for results, but why? To answer this question, Creighton’s principles of effective public participation are employed as benchmarks. Moreover, the benchmarking indicates that public participation was not effectively applied. Thus, the possible benefits of public participation could not or could only be partly reaped. Furthermore, from a broader politico-economic perspective, the analysis exposes that public participation was just “a small cog in the machine” of the BER site selection process. It seems that other factors had a more substantial influence on the siting decision than public participation and led decision makers, in addition to regular challenges, into a predicament that might have made Schönefeld the only possible siting solution. In this context, different counterfactual scenarios are discussed to show under which circumstances other outcomes might have occurred regarding the BER site selection.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Sedlin & Volker Beckmann & Rong Tan, 2020. "Public Participation and Airport Development: The Case of the Site Selection for Berlin Brandenburg Airport (BER) in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-34, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:24:p:10535-:d:463026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/24/10535/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/24/10535/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Suau-Sanchez, Pere & Pallares-Barbera, Montserrat & Paül, Valerià, 2011. "Incorporating annoyance in airport environmental policy: noise, societal response and community participation," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 275-284.
    2. Tianxiao Zhou & Rong Tan & Thomas Sedlin, 2018. "Planning Modes for Major Transportation Infrastructure Projects (MTIPs): Comparing China and Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-23, September.
    3. Thomas Webler, 1999. "The craft and theory of public participation: a dialectical process," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 55-71, January.
    4. Hans-martin Niemeier, 2013. "Expanding Airport Capacity Under Constraints in Large Urban Areas: The German Experience," International Transport Forum Discussion Papers 2013/4, OECD Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ortwin Renn & Andreas Klinke, 2013. "A Framework of Adaptive Risk Governance for Urban Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(5), pages 1-24, May.
    2. Collins, Timothy W. & Nadybal, Shawna & Grineski, Sara E., 2020. "Sonic injustice: Disparate residential exposures to transport noise from road and aviation sources in the continental United States," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    3. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    4. Natalie A Jones & Pascal Perez & Thomas G Measham & Gail J Kelly & Patrick D’Aquino & Katherine Daniell & Anne Dray & Nils Ferrand, 2008. "Evaluating Participatory Modeling: Developing a Framework for Cross-case Analysis," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2008-11, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    5. Clare Bayley & Simon French, 2008. "Designing a Participatory Process for Stakeholder Involvement in a Societal Decision," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 195-210, May.
    6. Pedro Plasencia-Lozano, 2021. "An Ex Ante Analysis of the Planned Transportation Network in the Region of Extremadura (Spain) by Using Physical Parameters," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-32, May.
    7. Dobruszkes, Frédéric & Efthymiou, Marina, 2020. "When environmental indicators are not neutral: Assessing aircraft noise assessment in Europe," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    8. Wang, Jue & Aenis, Thomas & Hofmann-Souki, Susanne, 2018. "Triangulation in participation: Dynamic approaches for science-practice interaction in land-use decision making in rural China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 364-371.
    9. Andreas Klinke & Marion Dreyer & Ortwin Renn & Andrew Stirling & Patrick Van Zwanenberg, 2006. "Precautionary Risk Regulation in European Governance," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 373-392, June.
    10. Kiani Sadr, Maryam & Nassiri, Parvin & Hosseini, Mohsen & Monavari, Masoud & Gharagozlou, Alireza, 2014. "Assessment of land use compatibility and noise pollution at Imam Khomeini International Airport," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 49-56.
    11. Fabio Monteduro & Ilenia Cecchetti & Ylenia Lai & Veronica Allegrini, 2021. "Does stakeholder engagement affect corruption risk management?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 25(3), pages 759-785, September.
    12. Schweizer, Pia-Johanna & Bovet, Jana, 2016. "The potential of public participation to facilitate infrastructure decision-making: Lessons from the German and European legal planning system for electricity grid expansion," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 64-73.
    13. Dominik Hauptvogel & Susanne Bartels & Dirk Schreckenberg & Tobias Rothmund, 2021. "Aircraft Noise Distribution as a Fairness Dilemma—A Review of Aircraft Noise through the Lens of Social Justice Research," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-18, July.
    14. Thomas C. Beierle, 2002. "The Quality of Stakeholder‐Based Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 739-749, August.
    15. Elena Cigu & Daniela Tatiana Agheorghiesei & Anca Florentina Gavriluță (Vatamanu) & Elena Toader, 2018. "Transport Infrastructure Development, Public Performance and Long-Run Economic Growth: A Case Study for the Eu-28 Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-22, December.
    16. Adler, Nicole & Yazhemsky, Ekaterina, 2018. "The value of a marginal change in capacity at congested airports," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 114(PA), pages 154-167.
    17. Everingham, Jo-Anne & Rolfe, John & Lechner, Alex Mark & Kinnear, Susan & Akbar, Delwar, 2018. "A proposal for engaging a stakeholder panel in planning post-mining land uses in Australia’s coal-rich tropical savannahs," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 397-406.
    18. Andreas Klinke & Ortwin Renn, 2002. "A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk‐Based, Precaution‐Based, and Discourse‐Based Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 1071-1094, December.
    19. Zhou, Tianxiao & Tan, Rong & Shu, Xianfan, 2022. "Rigidity with partial elasticity: Local government adaptation under the centralized land quota system in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    20. Simon French & David Rios Insua & Fabrizio Ruggeri, 2007. "e -Participation and Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 211-226, December.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:24:p:10535-:d:463026. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.