IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i24p16802-d1299386.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Contributions of Philosophy and the Social Sciences to Landscape Conflict Research—A Critical Comparison

Author

Listed:
  • Karsten Berr

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

  • Petra Lohmann

    (Department of Architecture, University of Siegen, 57076 Siegen, Germany)

  • Olaf Kühne

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

Abstract

In recent years, the study of ‘landscape’ has gained importance in both the public and in the sciences. In philosophy and the social sciences, different traditions for dealing with ‘landscape’ have developed—not least based on a common reference point of Georg Simmel’s “Philosophy of Landscape” published in 1913. In this paper, these traditions are examined with regard to their suitability for contributing to the analysis and regulation of landscape conflicts and for providing answers to the landscape-related challenges of the present—both in terms of science and society—exemplified by the challenges of the energy transition. The central points of criticism are, besides an insufficient amount of conceptual work and a ‘forgetting of the individual’ of philosophy and the social sciences, the reduction of the concept of landscape to the concept of nature in philosophical landscape research.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:24:p:16802-:d:1299386
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/24/16802/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/24/16802/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Kamlage, Jan-Hendrik & Drewing, Emily & Reinermann, Julia Lena & de Vries, Nicole & Flores, Marissa, 2020. "Fighting fruitfully? Participation and conflict in the context of electricity grid extension in Germany," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    4. Olaf Kühne & Lara Koegst, 2023. "Neopragmatic Reflections on Coastal Land Loss and Climate Change in Louisiana in Light of Popper’s Theory of Three Worlds," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, January.
    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. 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.
    2. Songsore, Emmanuel & Buzzelli, Michael, 2014. "Social responses to wind energy development in Ontario: The influence of health risk perceptions and associated concerns," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 285-296.
    3. Dolata, Ulrich, 2014. "Märkte und Macht der Internetkonzerne: Konzentration - Konkurrenz - Innovationsstrategien," Research Contributions to Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies, SOI Discussion Papers 2014-04, University of Stuttgart, Institute for Social Sciences, Department of Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies.
    4. Radtke, Jörg & Scherhaufer, Patrick, 2022. "A social science perspective on conflicts in the energy transition: An introduction to the special issue," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Wüstenhagen, Rolf & Menichetti, Emanuela, 2012. "Strategic choices for renewable energy investment: Conceptual framework and opportunities for further research," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 1-10.
    7. Pepermans, Yves & Loots, Ilse, 2013. "Wind farm struggles in Flanders fields: A sociological perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 321-328.
    8. 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.
    9. Dolata, Ulrich, 2017. "Social movements and the Internet: The sociotechnical constitution of collective action," Research Contributions to Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies, SOI Discussion Papers 2017-02, University of Stuttgart, Institute for Social Sciences, Department of Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies.
    10. Shen, Xingchi & Lyu, Shoujun, 2019. "Wind power development, government regulation structure, and vested interest groups: Analysis based on panel data of Province of China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 487-494.
    11. Fjaestad, Maja, 2013. "Winds of time: Lessons from Utö in the Stockholm Archipelago, 1990–2001," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 124-130.
    12. Aitken, Mhairi, 2010. "Wind power and community benefits: Challenges and opportunities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 6066-6075, October.
    13. 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.
    14. Berka, Anna L. & Hoicka, Christina E. & Sperling, Karl, 2025. "The political economics of civic energy: A framework for comparative research," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    15. Fettke, Ulrike, 2018. "Etablierte und Außenseiter in der Kommunalpolitik? Eine Fallstudie zu Windkraft in einer badenwürttembergischen Kleinstadt," Research Contributions to Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies, SOI Discussion Papers 2018-03, University of Stuttgart, Institute for Social Sciences, Department of Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies.
    16. Dolata, Ulrich & Schrape, Jan Felix, 2014. "Masses, crowds, communities, movements: Collective formations in the digital age," Research Contributions to Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies, SOI Discussion Papers 2014-02, University of Stuttgart, Institute for Social Sciences, Department of Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies.
    17. Lewis, Geoffrey McD., 2010. "Estimating the value of wind energy using electricity locational marginal price," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3221-3231, July.
    18. González, Javier Serrano & Lacal-Arántegui, Roberto, 2016. "A review of regulatory framework for wind energy in European Union countries: Current state and expected developments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 588-602.
    19. 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.
    20. Lee, Gi-Eu & Loveridge, Scott & Joshi, Satish, 2017. "Local acceptance and heterogeneous externalities of biorefineries," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 328-336.

    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:15:y:2023:i:24:p:16802-:d:1299386. 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.