IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envira/v35y2003i4p705-723.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reshaping the Dutch Planning System: A Learning Process?

Author

Listed:
  • Maarten Wolsink

    (Department of Geography and Planning, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

Abstract

The Dutch physical planning system is at a turning point. Recently the government proposed a new institutional framework for spatial planning. At first sight, the intended changes look like an example of improvements resulting from a learning process. However, the main lines of the proposal blatantly deviate from the insights into planning, balanced decisionmaking, and ‘governance’ that have emerged during the past decade. This is illustrated and explained from three perspectives. First, the growing need for change was put forward several times by the Scientific Council for Government Policy, a think tank whose task is to advise the government from a certain intellectual distance. The development of ideas by this agency is an example of cognitive learning. Second, the example of infrastructure planning that is crucial in this cognitive development is used to illustrate this by confronting the ideas with the experiences in two major national projects. As a third line, the deviations between the empirical evidence, the analysis, and the advice to the government on the one hand, and the governmental proposal on the other, are explained in relation to the ‘advocacy coalition framework’ theory on policy-oriented learning.

Suggested Citation

  • Maarten Wolsink, 2003. "Reshaping the Dutch Planning System: A Learning Process?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 35(4), pages 705-723, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:35:y:2003:i:4:p:705-723
    DOI: 10.1068/a35173
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/a35173
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/a35173?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. P M McGuirk, 2001. "Situating Communicative Planning Theory: Context, Power, and Knowledge," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 33(2), pages 195-217, February.
    2. Maarten Wolsink & Paulien De Jong, 2001. "Waste Sector Structure: Institutional Capacity for Planning Waste Reduction," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 92(2), pages 148-163, May.
    3. Joe Weston, 2002. "From Poole to Fulham: A Changing Culture in UK Environmental Impact Assessment Decision Making?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(3), pages 425-443.
    4. Wolsink, Maarten, 2000. "Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 49-64.
    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. Rebecca Houghtaling, 2005. "Local impediments to realization of national policy: the role of stakeholders in siting wind projects," NEURUS papers neurusp97, NEURUS - Network of European and US Regional and Urban Studies.
    2. Wolsink, Maarten, 2007. "Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of 'backyard motives'," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 11(6), pages 1188-1207, August.

    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. Christos Zografos & Joan Martínez-Alier, 2009. "The Politics of Landscape Value: A Case Study of Wind Farm Conflict in Rural Catalonia," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(7), pages 1726-1744, July.
    2. Koecklin, Manuel Tong & Longoria, Genaro & Fitiwi, Desta Z. & DeCarolis, Joseph F. & Curtis, John, 2021. "Public acceptance of renewable electricity generation and transmission network developments: Insights from Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    3. Lyhne, Ivar & Aaen, Sara Bjørn & Nielsen, Helle & Kørnøv, Lone & Larsen, Sanne Vammen, 2018. "Citizens’ self-mobilization, motivational factors, and the group of most engaged citizens: The case of a radioactive waste repository in Denmark," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 433-442.
    4. Gross, Catherine, 2007. "Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2727-2736, May.
    5. Raitio, Kaisa, 2013. "Discursive institutionalist approach to conflict management analysis — The case of old-growth forest conflicts on state-owned land in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 97-103.
    6. Ioannidis, Romanos & Koutsoyiannis, Demetris, 2020. "A review of land use, visibility and public perception of renewable energy in the context of landscape impact," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    7. Sunak, Yasin & Madlener, Reinhard, 2012. "The Impact of Wind Farms on Property Values: A Geographically Weighted Hedonic Pricing Model," FCN Working Papers 3/2012, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN), revised Mar 2013.
    8. Faulques, Martin & Bonnet, Jean & Bourdin, Sébastien & Juge, Marine & Pigeon, Jonas & Richard, Charlotte, 2022. "Generational effect and territorial distributive justice, the two main drivers for willingness to pay for renewable energies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    9. Unknown, 2012. "Social Impact Assessment of Alternative Energy Production in Alberta," Project Report Series 139519, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    10. Amaury Chesné & Romanos Ioannidis, 2024. "An Investigation of the Perception of Neoclassical, Eclectic, Modernist, and Postmodern Architecture within Different Urban Landscapes: Athens vs. Paris," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-29, March.
    11. Tong Koecklin, Manuel & Fitiwi, Desta & de Carolis, Joseph F. & Curtis, John, 2020. "Renewable electricity generation and transmission network developments in light of public opposition: Insights from Ireland," Papers WP653, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    12. Xiongwei Quan & Gaoshan Zuo & Helin Sun, 2022. "Risk Perception Thresholds and Their Impact on the Behavior of Nearby Residents in Waste to Energy Project Conflict: An Evolutionary Game Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-20, May.
    13. van Putten, Marloes & Lijesen, Mark & Özel, Tanju & Vink, Nancy & Wevers, Harm, 2014. "Valuing the preferences for micro-generation of renewables by househoulds," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 596-604.
    14. Cairns, George & Wright, George & Fairbrother, Peter & Phillips, Richard, 2017. "‘Branching scenarios’ seeking articulated action for regional regeneration – A case study of limited success," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 189-202.
    15. Cathrine Ulla Jensen & Toke Emil Panduro & Thomas Hedemark Lundhede, 2014. "The Vindication of Don Quixote: The Impact of Noise and Visual Pollution from Wind Turbines," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(4), pages 668-682.
    16. Baxter, Jamie & Morzaria, Rakhee & Hirsch, Rachel, 2013. "A case-control study of support/opposition to wind turbines: Perceptions of health risk, economic benefits, and community conflict," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 931-943.
    17. Josefa Sánchez Contreras & Alberto Matarán Ruiz & Luis Villodres Ramírez & Celia Jiménez Martín & Guillermo Gámez Rodríguez & Rafael Martín Pérez & Álvaro Campos-Celador, 2024. "Energy Colonialism in Europe: A Participatory Analysis of the Case of Granada (Spain)," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-27, January.
    18. Toke, David, 2011. "The UK offshore wind power programme: A sea-change in UK energy policy?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 526-534, February.
    19. Walker, Chad & Baxter, Jamie & Ouellette, Danielle, 2015. "Adding insult to injury: The development of psychosocial stress in Ontario wind turbine communities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 358-365.
    20. Sebastian Schär & Jutta Geldermann, 2021. "Adopting Multiactor Multicriteria Analysis for the Evaluation of Energy Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sae:envira:v:35:y:2003:i:4:p:705-723. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.