IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v39y2021i3p626-645.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

After the facts: Producing, using and contesting knowledge in two spatial-environmental conflicts in the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Dik Roth
  • Michiel Köhne
  • Elisabet Dueholm Rasch

    (Wageningen University, the Netherlands)

  • Madelinde Winnubst

Abstract

While the problematic role of knowledge in controversial policy processes is widely acknowledged, relatively little is known about how protesting citizen groups involved in such controversies construct, mobilize and use knowledge. This article explores these issues in two conflicts about planned interventions in the Netherlands. The first case, about energy policies, concerns protests against plans for shale gas extraction. In the second case, concerning flood risk management, citizens organized protests against a planned ‘bypass’ of the River Waal. To better understand the role of citizen groups as knowledge actors, we analyse how these groups organized and strategized their protests and produced, used and contested knowledge to claim voice in decision-making. The study shows the key role of citizen groups as knowledge actors in contested planning processes, and of their knowledge strategies in internally divided communities. It also shows the importance of the source and type of knowledge and how it is constructed, mobilized and used in various stages of resistance against policy plans.

Suggested Citation

  • Dik Roth & Michiel Köhne & Elisabet Dueholm Rasch & Madelinde Winnubst, 2021. "After the facts: Producing, using and contesting knowledge in two spatial-environmental conflicts in the Netherlands," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 39(3), pages 626-645, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:39:y:2021:i:3:p:626-645
    DOI: 10.1177/2399654420941513
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2399654420941513
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2399654420941513?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helga Nowotny, 2003. "Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 151-156, June.
    2. Stoutenborough, James W. & Vedlitz, Arnold, 2016. "The role of scientific knowledge in the public's perceptions of energy technology risks," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 206-216.
    3. Wolsink, Maarten, 2000. "Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 49-64.
    4. Mark Whitehead & Rhys Jones & Jessica Pykett, 2020. "Questioning post-political perspectives on the psychological state: Behavioural public policy in the Netherlands," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 38(2), pages 214-232, March.
    5. Rikki John Dean, 2018. "Counter-Governance: Citizen Participation Beyond Collaboration," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 180-188.
    6. Peter Weingart, 1999. "Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 151-161, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Jinfeng Wang & Lingfeng Li & Qing Li & Sheng Wang & Xiaoling Liu & Ya Li, 2022. "The Spatiotemporal Evolution and Prediction of Carbon Storage in the Yellow River Basin Based on the Major Function-Oriented Zone Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-18, June.

    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. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Nicola da Schio & Bas van Heur, 2022. "Resistance is in the air: From post-politics to the politics of expertise," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 40(3), pages 592-610, May.
    3. Nataliia Sokolovska & Benedikt Fecher & Gert G. Wagner, 2019. "Communication on the Science-Policy Interface: An Overview of Conceptual Models," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-15, November.
    4. Vincenzo Pavone & Joanna Goven & Riccardo Guarino, 2010. "From risk assessment to in-context trajectory evaluation. GMOs and their social implications," Working Papers 1011, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    5. Koecklin, Manuel Tong & Longoria, Genaro & Fitiwi, Desta Z. & DeCarolis, Joseph F. & Curtis, John, 2021. "Public acceptance of renewable electricity generation and transmission network developments: Insights from Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    6. Chiasson, Guy & Angelstam, Per & Axelsson, Robert & Doyon, Frederik, 2019. "Towards collaborative forest planning in Canadian and Swedish hinterlands: Different institutional trajectories?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 334-345.
    7. Lyhne, Ivar & Aaen, Sara Bjørn & Nielsen, Helle & Kørnøv, Lone & Larsen, Sanne Vammen, 2018. "Citizens’ self-mobilization, motivational factors, and the group of most engaged citizens: The case of a radioactive waste repository in Denmark," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 433-442.
    8. Gross, Catherine, 2007. "Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2727-2736, May.
    9. Ioannidis, Romanos & Koutsoyiannis, Demetris, 2020. "A review of land use, visibility and public perception of renewable energy in the context of landscape impact," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    10. Kate Dooley & Aarti Gupta, 2017. "Governing by expertise: the contested politics of (accounting for) land-based mitigation in a new climate agreement," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 483-500, August.
    11. Sunak, Yasin & Madlener, Reinhard, 2012. "The Impact of Wind Farms on Property Values: A Geographically Weighted Hedonic Pricing Model," FCN Working Papers 3/2012, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN), revised Mar 2013.
    12. Faulques, Martin & Bonnet, Jean & Bourdin, Sébastien & Juge, Marine & Pigeon, Jonas & Richard, Charlotte, 2022. "Generational effect and territorial distributive justice, the two main drivers for willingness to pay for renewable energies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    13. Unknown, 2012. "Social Impact Assessment of Alternative Energy Production in Alberta," Project Report Series 139519, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    14. Amaury Chesné & Romanos Ioannidis, 2024. "An Investigation of the Perception of Neoclassical, Eclectic, Modernist, and Postmodern Architecture within Different Urban Landscapes: Athens vs. Paris," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-29, March.
    15. Abood Khaled Alamoudi & Rotimi Boluwatife Abidoye & Terence Y. M. Lam, 2022. "The Impact of Stakeholders’ Management Measures on Citizens’ Participation Level in Implementing Smart Sustainable Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-21, December.
    16. Tong Koecklin, Manuel & Fitiwi, Desta & de Carolis, Joseph F. & Curtis, John, 2020. "Renewable electricity generation and transmission network developments in light of public opposition: Insights from Ireland," Papers WP653, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    17. Xiongwei Quan & Gaoshan Zuo & Helin Sun, 2022. "Risk Perception Thresholds and Their Impact on the Behavior of Nearby Residents in Waste to Energy Project Conflict: An Evolutionary Game Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-20, May.
    18. Gunn, Callum J. & Bertelsen, Neil & Regeer, Barbara J. & Schuitmaker-Warnaar, Tjerk Jan, 2021. "Valuing patient engagement: Reflexive learning in evidence generation practices for health technology assessment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    19. van Putten, Marloes & Lijesen, Mark & Özel, Tanju & Vink, Nancy & Wevers, Harm, 2014. "Valuing the preferences for micro-generation of renewables by househoulds," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 596-604.
    20. Rau, Henrike & Goggins, Gary & Fahy, Frances, 2018. "From invisibility to impact: Recognising the scientific and societal relevance of interdisciplinary sustainability research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 266-276.

    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:sae:envirc:v:39:y:2021:i:3:p:626-645. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.