IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i22p12905-d684766.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Healthy Metaphor? The North Sea Consultation and the Power of Words

Author

Listed:
  • Haye Geukes

    (Faculty of Science, Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University, 2311 EZ Leiden, The Netherlands)

  • Udo Pesch

    (Department of Values, Technology and Innovation, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5015, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Aad Correljé

    (Department of Values, Technology and Innovation, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5015, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Behnam Taebi

    (Department of Values, Technology and Innovation, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5015, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands)

Abstract

The North Sea Consultation was set up to resolve conflicting claims for space in the North Sea. In 2020, this consultation process resulted in the North Sea Agreement, which was supported by the Dutch Parliament and cabinet as a long-term policy; however, the fishing sector felt excluded, left the consultation process, and does not support the agreement. Using semi-constructed interviews and the method of wide reflective equilibrium, this research found that in this conflict the metaphor of ‘health’ has played a decisive role. While all stakeholders want to keep the sea ‘healthy’, they disagree on what a healthy sea actually means, leading to contrastive positions on the desirability of trawler fishing, wind parks, and conservation areas—the North Sea Agreement’s main foci of interest. To prevent the unproductive escalation of such a conflict, it is inevitable to acknowledge the moral connotations of such metaphors, as this allows a decision-making process that can be considered more just.

Suggested Citation

  • Haye Geukes & Udo Pesch & Aad Correljé & Behnam Taebi, 2021. "A Healthy Metaphor? The North Sea Consultation and the Power of Words," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-16, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:22:p:12905-:d:684766
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/22/12905/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/22/12905/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Behnam Taebi & Jan H. Kwakkel & Céline Kermisch, 2020. "Governing climate risks in the face of normative uncertainties," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(5), September.
    2. Franke, Andrea & Blenckner, Thorsten & Duarte, Carlos M. & Ott, Konrad & Fleming, Lora E. & Avan, Antia & Reusch, Thorsten B.H. & Bertram, Christine & Hein, Jonas & Kronfeld-Goharani, Ulrike & Dierkin, 2020. "Operationalizing Ocean Health: Toward Integrated Research on Ocean Health and Recovery to Achieve Ocean Sustainability," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 228646, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    3. Ezra M. Markowitz & Azim F. Shariff, 2012. "Climate change and moral judgement," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(4), pages 243-247, April.
    4. Neelke Doorn & Lieke Brackel & Sara Vermeulen, 2021. "Distributing Responsibilities for Climate Adaptation: Examples from the Water Domain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-16, March.
    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. Van Uffelen, N. & Taebi, B. & Pesch, Udo, 2024. "Revisiting the energy justice framework: Doing justice to normative uncertainties," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 189(PA).
    2. Mattauch, Linus & Hepburn, Cameron & Stern, Nicholas, 2018. "Pigou pushes preferences: decarbonisation and endogenous values," INET Oxford Working Papers 2018-16, Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford.
    3. David Klenert & Franziska Funke & Linus Mattauch & Brian O’Callaghan, 2020. "Five Lessons from COVID-19 for Advancing Climate Change Mitigation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(4), pages 751-778, August.
    4. Ericson, Torgeir & Kjønstad, Bjørn Gunaketu & Barstad, Anders, 2014. "Mindfulness and sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 73-79.
    5. Teresa Myers & Matthew Nisbet & Edward Maibach & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2012. "A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(3), pages 1105-1112, August.
    6. Di Falco, Salvatore & Sharma, Sindra, 2018. "Investing in Climate Change Adaptation: Motivations and Green Incentives in the Fiji Islands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 394-408.
    7. Tim T. Pedersen & Mikael Skou Andersen & Marta Victoria & Gorm B. Andresen, 2021. "30.000 ways to reach 55% decarbonization of the European electricity sector," Papers 2112.07247, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2022.
    8. Xiang, C. & van Gevelt, T., 2025. "China's global leadership aspirations and domestic support for climate policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    9. Chelsea Batavia & Michael Paul Nelson, 2018. "Translating climate change policy into forest management practice in a multiple-use context: the role of ethics," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 81-94, May.
    10. Alexander H DeGolia & Elizabeth H T Hiroyasu & Sarah E Anderson, 2019. "Economic losses or environmental gains? Framing effects on public support for environmental management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, July.
    11. Sara Fuller, 2020. "Towards a politics of urban climate responsibility: Insights from Hong Kong and Singapore," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(7), pages 1469-1484, May.
    12. Matthew J. Hornsey & Kelly S. Fielding & Emily A. Harris & Paul G. Bain & Tim Grice & Cassandra M. Chapman, 2022. "Protecting the Planet or Destroying the Universe? Understanding Reactions to Space Mining," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, March.
    13. Chris Neale & Maura M. K. Austin & Jenny Roe & Benjamin A. Converse, 2023. "Making people aware of eco-innovations can decrease climate despair," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(12), pages 1-21, December.
    14. Robert O Keohane & Melissa Lane & Michael Oppenheimer, 2014. "The ethics of scientific communication under uncertainty," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 13(4), pages 343-368, November.
    15. Babutsidze, Zakaria & Chai, Andreas, 2018. "Look at me Saving the Planet! The Imitation of Visible Green Behavior and its Impact on the Climate Value-Action Gap," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 290-303.
    16. Fergus Green, 2018. "Anti-fossil fuel norms," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 150(1), pages 103-116, September.
    17. Susanne Stoll-Kleemann & Susanne Nicolai & Philipp Franikowski, 2022. "Exploring the Moral Challenges of Confronting High-Carbon-Emitting Behavior: The Role of Emotions and Media Coverage," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-19, May.
    18. Nan Li & Joseph Hilgard & Dietram A. Scheufele & Kenneth M. Winneg & Kathleen Hall Jamieson, 2016. "Cross-pressuring conservative Catholics? Effects of Pope Francis’ encyclical on the U.S. public opinion on climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 139(3), pages 367-380, December.
    19. Diaz Pranita & Sri Sarjana & Budiman Mahmud Musthofa & Hadining Kusumastuti & Mohamad Sattar Rasul, 2023. "Blockchain Technology to Enhance Integrated Blue Economy: A Case Study in Strengthening Sustainable Tourism on Smart Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-24, March.
    20. Aysha Fleming & Frank Vanclay & Claire Hiller & Stephen Wilson, 2014. "Challenging dominant discourses of climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 407-418, December.

    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:13:y:2021:i:22:p:12905-:d:684766. 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.