IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i17p6772-d401859.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Landscape Conflicts—A Theoretical Approach Based on the Three Worlds Theory of Karl Popper and the Conflict Theory of Ralf Dahrendorf, Illustrated by the Example of the Energy System Transformation in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Olaf Kühne

    (Department of Geography, Eberhard Karls University, 72074 Tübingen, Germany)

Abstract

On the basis of Karl Popper’s Three Worlds Theory, a theoretical approach to landscape can be derived, which includes the physical foundations of landscape (Landscape 1), the individual construction and emotions drawn from and placed upon landscape (Landscape 2), and social conventions regarding landscape (Landscape 3). These three landscape dimensions are connected via Landscape 2, which also provides an approach for the systematic investigation of the relations between the dimensions. Ralf Dahrendorf’s conflict theory in turn serves as a theoretical framework for when the different connections develop in a conflictual way and how these can be regulated. Dahrendorf sees a principled productivity of conflicts, providing they are settled fairly. On the basis of the conditions he has developed for just such a conflict settlement, the implementation of the energy system transformation is examined against the background of its consequences for the landscape, with the result that essential conditions for an orderly settlement of conflicts are not fulfilled, thereby contributing to the polarization of society.

Suggested Citation

  • Olaf Kühne, 2020. "Landscape Conflicts—A Theoretical Approach Based on the Three Worlds Theory of Karl Popper and the Conflict Theory of Ralf Dahrendorf, Illustrated by the Example of the Energy System Transformation in," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-20, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:17:p:6772-:d:401859
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/17/6772/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/17/6772/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gailing, Ludger & Bues, Andrea & Kern, Kristine & Röhring, Andreas, 2019. "Socio-spatial dimensions in energy transitions: Applying the TPSN framework to case studies in Germany," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 52(6), pages 1112-1130.
    2. Neukirch, Mario, 2014. "Konflikte um den Ausbau der Stromnetze: Status und Entwicklung heterogener Protestkonstellationen," Research Contributions to Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies, SOI Discussion Papers 2014-01, University of Stuttgart, Institute for Social Sciences, Department of Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies.
    3. Weber, Florian & Jenal, Corinna, 2018. "Gegen den Wind: Konfliktlinien beim Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien in Großschutzgebieten am Beispiel der Windenergie in den Naturparken Soonwald-Nahe und Rhein-Westerwald," Arbeitsberichte der ARL: Aufsätze, in: Weber, Florian & Weber, Friedericke & Jenal, Corinna (ed.), Wohin des Weges? Regionalentwicklung in Grossschutzgebieten, volume 21, pages 217-249, ARL – Akademie für Raumentwicklung in der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft.
    4. 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.
    5. Breukers, Sylvia & Wolsink, Maarten, 2007. "Wind power implementation in changing institutional landscapes: An international comparison," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2737-2750, May.
    6. Plankl, Reiner, 2013. "Regionale Verteilungswirkungen durch das Vergütungs- und Umlagesystem des Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetzes (EEG)," Thünen Working Paper 162942, Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut (vTI), Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    7. Sören Messinger-Zimmer & Julia Zilles, 2016. "(De-)zentrale Energiewende und soziale Konflikte: regionale Konflikte um die Vertretung des Gemeinwohls," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 85(4), pages 41-51.
    8. Olaf Kühne & Florian Weber, 2016. "Zur sozialen Akzeptanz der Energiewende," Sustainability Nexus Forum, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 207-213, November.
    9. Reusswig, Fritz & Braun, Florian & Heger, Ines & Ludewig, Thomas & Eichenauer, Eva & Lass, Wiebke, 2016. "Against the wind: Local opposition to the German Energiewende," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 214-227.
    10. Olaf Kühne & Florian Weber, 2018. "Conflicts and negotiation processes in the course of power grid extension in Germany," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(4), pages 529-541, May.
    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. Schneider, Nina & Rinscheid, Adrian, 2024. "The (de-)construction of technology legitimacy: Contending storylines surrounding wind energy in Austria and Switzerland," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    2. Olaf Kühne & Lara Koegst & Marie-Luise Zimmer & Greta Schäffauer, 2021. "“... Inconceivable, Unrealistic and Inhumane”. Internet Communication on the Flood Disaster in West Germany of July 2021 between Conspiracy Theories and Moralization—A Neopragmatic Explorative Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-22, October.
    3. Weber Florian & Jenal Corinna & Rossmeier Albert & Kühne Olaf, 2017. "Conflicts around Germany’s Energiewende: Discourse patterns of citizens’ initiatives," Quaestiones Geographicae, Sciendo, vol. 36(4), pages 117-130, December.
    4. Pepermans, Yves & Loots, Ilse, 2013. "Wind farm struggles in Flanders fields: A sociological perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 321-328.
    5. Roßmeier, Albert & Weber, Florian, 2022. "Stormy times. Civic engagement in wind power development: Between support and rejection," Arbeitsberichte der ARL: Aufsätze, in: Stefansky, Andreas & Göb, Angelina (ed.), "All change please!": Challenges and opportunities of the energy transition, volume 32, pages 48-74, ARL – Akademie für Raumentwicklung in der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft.
    6. Bartholdsen, Hans-Karl & Eidens, Anna & Löffler, Konstantin & Seehaus, Frederik & Wejda, Felix & Burandt, Thorsten & Oei, Pao-Yu & Kemfert, Claudia & Hirschhausen, Christian von, 2019. "Pathways for Germany's Low-Carbon Energy Transformation Towards 2050," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 12(15), pages 1-33.
    7. Heagle, A.L.B. & Naterer, G.F. & Pope, K., 2011. "Small wind turbine energy policies for residential and small business usage in Ontario, Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 1988-1999, April.
    8. Dehler-Holland, Joris & Okoh, Marvin & Keles, Dogan, 2022. "Assessing technology legitimacy with topic models and sentiment analysis – The case of wind power in Germany," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    9. Berka, Anna L. & Creamer, Emily, 2018. "Taking stock of the local impacts of community owned renewable energy: A review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 3400-3419.
    10. Lee, Gi-Eu & Loveridge, Scott & Joshi, Satish, 2017. "Local acceptance and heterogeneous externalities of biorefineries," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 328-336.
    11. Karsten Berr & Petra Lohmann & Olaf Kühne, 2023. "The Contributions of Philosophy and the Social Sciences to Landscape Conflict Research—A Critical Comparison," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-23, December.
    12. Anshelm, Jonas & Simon, Haikola, 2016. "Power production and environmental opinions – Environmentally motivated resistance to wind power in Sweden," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 1545-1555.
    13. Krüger, Timmo, 2021. "Energiekonflikte und Demokratiekrise. Eine radikaldemokratische Perspektive auf das Ringen um Gemeinwohlziele der Energiewende," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 31(4), pages 539-563.
    14. Damián Copena & David Pérez-Neira & Xavier Simón, 2019. "Local Economic Impact of Wind Energy Development: Analysis of the Regulatory Framework, Taxation, and Income for Galician Municipalities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-18, April.
    15. 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.
    16. Feurtey, Évariste & Ilinca, Adrian & Sakout, Anas & Saucier, Carol, 2016. "Institutional factors influencing strategic decision-making in energy policy; a case study of wind energy in France and Quebec (Canada)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1455-1470.
    17. Bergek, Anna, 2010. "Levelling the playing field? The influence of national wind power planning instruments on conflicts of interests in a Swedish county," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2357-2369, May.
    18. Larsen, Sanne Vammen & Hansen, Anne Merrild & Nielsen, Helle Nedergaard, 2018. "The role of EIA and weak assessments of social impacts in conflicts over implementation of renewable energy policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 43-53.
    19. Thøgersen, John & Noblet, Caroline, 2012. "Does green consumerism increase the acceptance of wind power?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 854-862.
    20. Natarajan, L. & Rydin, Y. & Lock, S.J. & Lee, M., 2018. "Navigating the participatory processes of renewable energy infrastructure regulation: A ‘local participant perspective’ on the NSIPs regime in England and Wales," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 201-210.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:17:p:6772-:d:401859. 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.