IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v7y2004i2p101-114.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Siting, sustainable development and social priorities

Author

Listed:
  • Susan Owens

Abstract

It is usually assumed that large-scale facilities ‘have to go somewhere’. The problem of finding sites is frequently construed as meeting some national need whilst ensuring justice for local communities who bear the brunt of environmental hazards and costs. This paper explores the dynamics of siting controversies and their relationship with political and economic priorities. Drawing on evidence from the transport and minerals sectors in the UK, it challenges the dominant storyline in which conflicts over siting are represented in terms of ‘national need versus local interests’. Consequently it calls into question the concept of the policy ‘cascade’, whose advocates seek to restrict debate about generic issues at local inquiries. It is argued that local resistance both provides an institutional platform for, and is in turn reinforced by, a wider policy critique. Arrangements for consideration of specific projects therefore provide crucial apertures for debate about national priorities, and repeated controversy acts as an important longer-term stimulus to policy learning and change.

Suggested Citation

  • Susan Owens, 2004. "Siting, sustainable development and social priorities," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 101-114, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:7:y:2004:i:2:p:101-114
    DOI: 10.1080/1366987042000158686
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/1366987042000158686
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/1366987042000158686?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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tim Marshall & Richard Cowell, 2016. "Infrastructure, planning and the command of time," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(8), pages 1843-1866, December.
    2. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    3. Eva Eichenauer & Ludger Gailing, 2022. "What Triggers Protest?—Understanding Local Conflict Dynamics in Renewable Energy Development," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-25, September.
    4. Anabela Botelho & Lina Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Using stated preference methods to assess environmental impacts of forest biomass power plants in Portugal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 1323-1337, October.
    5. Owens, Susan & Driffill, Louise, 2008. "How to change attitudes and behaviours in the context of energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(12), pages 4412-4418, December.
    6. van der Horst, Dan, 2007. "NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2705-2714, May.
    7. Jamie K. Wardman & Ragnar Löfstedt, 2018. "Anticipating or Accommodating to Public Concern? Risk Amplification and the Politics of Precaution Reexamined," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1802-1819, September.
    8. Shackley, Simon & Mander, Sarah & Reiche, Alexander, 2006. "Public perceptions of underground coal gasification in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(18), pages 3423-3433, December.
    9. Harriet Bulkeley, 2006. "Urban Sustainability: Learning from Best Practice?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 38(6), pages 1029-1044, June.
    10. Yasminah Beebeejaun, 2017. "Exploring the intersections between local knowledge and environmental regulation: A study of shale gas extraction in Texas and Lancashire," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(3), pages 417-433, May.
    11. Naimeh Masumy & Sara Hourani, 2024. "The Invocation of the Precautionary Principle within the Investor–State Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Not Seizing the Occasion," Laws, MDPI, vol. 13(2), 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:taf:jriskr:v:7:y:2004:i:2:p:101-114. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    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.