Siting controversies analysis: framework and method for questioning the procedure

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

Siting controversies analysis: framework and method for questioning the procedure. / Rossignol, Nicolas; Parotte, Céline; Joris, Geoffrey; Fallon, Catherine.

In: Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 20, No. 10, 01.04.2017, p. 1253-1274.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

Rossignol, N, Parotte, C, Joris, G & Fallon, C 2017, 'Siting controversies analysis: framework and method for questioning the procedure', Journal of Risk Research, vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 1253-1274. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.983948

APA

Rossignol, N., Parotte, C., Joris, G., & Fallon, C. (2017). Siting controversies analysis: framework and method for questioning the procedure. Journal of Risk Research, 20(10), 1253-1274. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.983948

Vancouver

Author

Rossignol, Nicolas ; Parotte, Céline ; Joris, Geoffrey ; Fallon, Catherine. / Siting controversies analysis: framework and method for questioning the procedure. In: Journal of Risk Research. 2017 ; Vol. 20, No. 10. pp. 1253-1274.

Bibtex - Download

@article{995291f856a04f5fa617567bd04d2348,
title = "Siting controversies analysis: framework and method for questioning the procedure",
abstract = "Siting controversies are commonplace, as well against the construction of roads, railways, nuclear waste disposals, as against windfarms. Local citizens resist against siting decisions taken by the authorities, following a dynamics often quoted as {\textquoteleft}Not In My Back Yard{\textquoteright}. Yet contested for its lack of analytical value, NIMBY is still used strategically by actors to qualify citizens as irrational and egoistic. Beyond this labeling, many factors are investigated to understand the dynamics behind siting controversies. In this paper, we focus on the impact of the legal procedure structuring the implantation of windfarms in the Walloon Region (Belgium), and its translations within different decision-making processes in specific case studies. To that regard, we consider the legal procedure as a {\textquoteleft}public policy instrument{\textquoteright}. It is neither neutral nor natural, and carry values and interests. It organizes interpersonal relations between actors, and is potentially catalyzer of frustrations. In addition, this legal procedure is the object of translations within different contexts, including different actors participating to specific decision-making processes. The empirical approach of this paper is based on case studies data and on the use of an innovative methodology called {\textquoteleft}Open Process Workshop{\textquoteright}. This methodology consists of a structured workshop with key stakeholders, during which the legal procedure is questioned. Overall, we demonstrate that the focus on the legal procedure – and its translations within different decision-making processes – allows systemic analysis providing deep understandings of controversies and reaffirming the interlinks between {\textquoteleft}the social{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}the technical{\textquoteright} in such controversies. In addition, we argue that the methodology used fosters the production of innovative knowledge, mutual understanding, and collective learning between the participants.",
keywords = "Siting Controversy, Participation, Procedure, Method",
author = "Nicolas Rossignol and C{\'e}line Parotte and Geoffrey Joris and Catherine Fallon",
note = "Score=10",
year = "2017",
month = apr,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/13669877.2014.983948",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "1253--1274",
journal = "Journal of Risk Research",
issn = "1366-9877",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis (CRC)",
number = "10",

}

RIS - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Siting controversies analysis: framework and method for questioning the procedure

AU - Rossignol, Nicolas

AU - Parotte, Céline

AU - Joris, Geoffrey

AU - Fallon, Catherine

N1 - Score=10

PY - 2017/4/1

Y1 - 2017/4/1

N2 - Siting controversies are commonplace, as well against the construction of roads, railways, nuclear waste disposals, as against windfarms. Local citizens resist against siting decisions taken by the authorities, following a dynamics often quoted as ‘Not In My Back Yard’. Yet contested for its lack of analytical value, NIMBY is still used strategically by actors to qualify citizens as irrational and egoistic. Beyond this labeling, many factors are investigated to understand the dynamics behind siting controversies. In this paper, we focus on the impact of the legal procedure structuring the implantation of windfarms in the Walloon Region (Belgium), and its translations within different decision-making processes in specific case studies. To that regard, we consider the legal procedure as a ‘public policy instrument’. It is neither neutral nor natural, and carry values and interests. It organizes interpersonal relations between actors, and is potentially catalyzer of frustrations. In addition, this legal procedure is the object of translations within different contexts, including different actors participating to specific decision-making processes. The empirical approach of this paper is based on case studies data and on the use of an innovative methodology called ‘Open Process Workshop’. This methodology consists of a structured workshop with key stakeholders, during which the legal procedure is questioned. Overall, we demonstrate that the focus on the legal procedure – and its translations within different decision-making processes – allows systemic analysis providing deep understandings of controversies and reaffirming the interlinks between ‘the social’ and ‘the technical’ in such controversies. In addition, we argue that the methodology used fosters the production of innovative knowledge, mutual understanding, and collective learning between the participants.

AB - Siting controversies are commonplace, as well against the construction of roads, railways, nuclear waste disposals, as against windfarms. Local citizens resist against siting decisions taken by the authorities, following a dynamics often quoted as ‘Not In My Back Yard’. Yet contested for its lack of analytical value, NIMBY is still used strategically by actors to qualify citizens as irrational and egoistic. Beyond this labeling, many factors are investigated to understand the dynamics behind siting controversies. In this paper, we focus on the impact of the legal procedure structuring the implantation of windfarms in the Walloon Region (Belgium), and its translations within different decision-making processes in specific case studies. To that regard, we consider the legal procedure as a ‘public policy instrument’. It is neither neutral nor natural, and carry values and interests. It organizes interpersonal relations between actors, and is potentially catalyzer of frustrations. In addition, this legal procedure is the object of translations within different contexts, including different actors participating to specific decision-making processes. The empirical approach of this paper is based on case studies data and on the use of an innovative methodology called ‘Open Process Workshop’. This methodology consists of a structured workshop with key stakeholders, during which the legal procedure is questioned. Overall, we demonstrate that the focus on the legal procedure – and its translations within different decision-making processes – allows systemic analysis providing deep understandings of controversies and reaffirming the interlinks between ‘the social’ and ‘the technical’ in such controversies. In addition, we argue that the methodology used fosters the production of innovative knowledge, mutual understanding, and collective learning between the participants.

KW - Siting Controversy

KW - Participation

KW - Procedure

KW - Method

UR - http://ecm.sckcen.be/OTCS/llisapi.dll/open/35793906

U2 - 10.1080/13669877.2014.983948

DO - 10.1080/13669877.2014.983948

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 1253

EP - 1274

JO - Journal of Risk Research

JF - Journal of Risk Research

SN - 1366-9877

IS - 10

ER -

ID: 5655753