IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v134y2023ics0264837723003940.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The legitimacy of land use decisions by public authorities in the Netherlands: Results from a survey experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Herkes, Feie J.
  • Zouridis, Stavros

Abstract

Because of the ever-growing scarcity of land, decisions on land use are increasingly contested. Public authorities and policy makers rely on the legitimacy of their powers to make these decisions. This contribution empirically tests three legitimacy claims commonly used by public officials. We compare the political claim of representation of the public interest with the participative claim of co-decision and the judicial claim of neutrality and general legal norms applied equally to all. Our representative survey experiment (N = 1501) tests these claims in the context of land use decisions in the Netherlands. It appears that the participative and the judicial claim produce substantially more public legitimacy than the political claim of representing the public interest. Both co-decision and judicialization of decision-making can thus be effective ways to secure legitimacy of land use decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Herkes, Feie J. & Zouridis, Stavros, 2023. "The legitimacy of land use decisions by public authorities in the Netherlands: Results from a survey experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:134:y:2023:i:c:s0264837723003940
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106928
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837723003940
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106928?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. Puustinen, Tuulia & Krigsholm, Pauliina & Falkenbach, Heidi, 2022. "Land policy conflict profiles for different densification types: A literature-based approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    2. Xu, Min & Liu, Yong & Cui, Caiyun & Xia, Bo & Ke, Yongjian & Skitmore, Martin, 2023. "Social acceptance of NIMBY facilities: A comparative study between public acceptance and the social license to operate analytical frameworks," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    3. Wolf, Eva & Van Dooren, Wouter, 2017. "How Policies Become Contested: A Spiral of Imagination and Evidence in a Large Infrastructure Project," SocArXiv 8grp4, Center for Open Science.
    4. Aronow, Peter M. & Baron, Jonathon & Pinson, Lauren, 2019. "A Note on Dropping Experimental Subjects who Fail a Manipulation Check," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(4), pages 572-589, October.
    5. James L. Gibson, 2007. "The Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court in a Polarized Polity," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(3), pages 507-538, November.
    6. Chris Skelcher & Jacob Torfing, 2010. "Improving democratic governance through institutional design: Civic participation and democratic ownership in Europe," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 71-91, March.
    7. Ibrahim, Abdul-Salam & Abubakari, Mohammed & Akanbang, Bernard A.A. & Kepe, Thembela, 2022. "Resolving land conflicts through Alternative Dispute Resolution: Exploring the motivations and challenges in Ghana," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    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. Steven J. Kachelmeier & Dan Rimkus & Jaime J. Schmidt & Kristen Valentine, 2020. "The Forewarning Effect of Critical Audit Matter Disclosures Involving Measurement Uncertainty," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 2186-2212, December.
    2. Graham Haughton & Phil McManus, 2022. "Becoming WestConnex – Becoming Sydney: Object-oriented politics, contested storylines and the multi-scalar imaginaries of building a motorway network in Sydney, Australia," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 40(4), pages 913-932, June.
    3. Devorah Manekin & Reed M. Wood, 2020. "Framing the Narrative: Female Fighters, External Audience Attitudes, and Transnational Support for Armed Rebellions," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 64(9), pages 1638-1665, October.
    4. Jimin Pyo & Michael G. Maxfield, 2021. "Cognitive Effects of Inattentive Responding in an MTurk Sample," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 2020-2039, July.
    5. Nicole Wu, 2023. "“Restrict foreigners, not robots”: Partisan responses to automation threat," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 505-528, July.
    6. Lim, Sijeong & Dolsak, Nives & Prakash, Aseem & Tanaka, Seiki, 2022. "Distributional concerns and public opinion: EV subsidies in the U.S. and Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    7. Yang, Xisi & Thøgersen, John, 2022. "When people are green and greedy: A new perspective of recycling rewards and crowding-out in Germany, the USA and China," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 217-235.
    8. Maxime Walder & Oliver Strijbis, 2022. "Negative Party Identification and the Use of Party Cues in the Direct Democratic Context," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(4), pages 325-335.
    9. Iris Stucki & Fritz Sager, 2018. "Aristotelian framing: logos, ethos, pathos and the use of evidence in policy frames," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 373-385, September.
    10. Ma, Binfeng & Wang, Xiaofang, 2023. "How does green floating bond and financial sector readiness promote green economic growth evidence from China," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(PB).
    11. Elena Kantorowicz‐Reznichenko & Jarosław Kantorowicz & Keren Weinshall, 2022. "Ideological bias in constitutional judgments: Experimental analysis and potential solutions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 716-757, September.
    12. Maarten Loopmans & Linde Smits & Anneleen Kenis, 2022. "Rethinking environmental justice: capability building, public knowledge and the struggle against traffic-related air pollution," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 40(3), pages 705-723, May.
    13. Jennifer A. Kagan & Tanya Heikkila & Christopher M. Weible & Duncan Gilchrist & Ramiro Berardo & Hongtao Yi, 2023. "Advancing scholarship on policy conflict through perspectives from oil and gas policy actors," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(3), pages 573-594, September.
    14. Imrat Verhoeven & Tamara Metze, 2022. "Heated policy: policy actors’ emotional storylines and conflict escalation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(2), pages 223-237, June.
    15. Azusa Uji & Sijeong Lim & Jaehyun Song, 2024. "From plastic to peace: Overcoming public antipathy through environmental cooperation," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(2), pages 279-293, March.
    16. Kayla S. Canelo, 2022. "Citations to Interest Groups and Acceptance of Supreme Court Decisions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 189-222, March.
    17. Diament, Sean M. & Kaya, Ayse & Magenheim, Ellen B., 2022. "Frames that matter: Increasing the willingness to get the Covid-19 vaccines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    18. Lars Dorren & Wouter Dooren, 2021. "Chameleonic knowledge: a study of ex ante analysis in large infrastructure policy processes," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(2), pages 289-312, June.
    19. Mardani Najafabadi, Mostafa & Magazzino, Cosimo & Valente, Donatella & Mirzaei, Abbas & Petrosillo, Irene, 2023. "A new interval meta-goal programming for sustainable planning of agricultural water-land use nexus," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 484(C).
    20. Coppens, Tom & Van Dooren, Wouter & Thijssen, Peter, 2018. "Public opposition and the neighborhood effect: How social interaction explains protest against a large infrastructure project," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 633-640.

    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:lauspo:v:134:y:2023:i:c:s0264837723003940. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-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.