Policy beliefs in spatial decisions: Contrasting core beliefs concerning space-making for waste infrastructure

被引:39
作者
Wolsink, M [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Amsterdam, Dept Geog & Planning, NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
D O I
10.1080/0042098042000294619
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
In planning the existence of structural differences in policy, beliefs among stakeholders are crucial. This study concludes that the most salient contrasts in beliefs about spatial and environmental planning concern the way the process is managed. Some of those contrasts reflect fundamental assumptions about the possibilities for reaching consensus and the relevance of involvement of actors in the process. The beliefs of the key actors involved in six siting decisions about waste infrastructure were identified and analysed by using Q methodology and cultural theory. This revealed that core beliefs about choices in environmental policy and waste management are connected with beliefs about spatial planning. The contrasts mainly concern issues of scale linked to competences regarding decision-making. The belief system of dominating actors is mainly hierarchical, combined with a technocratic approach to waste management prioritising incineration. Two alternative belief systems emphasised prevention as priority and egalitarian views on spatial decisions. Although the hierarchical approach of dominant coalitions was far from effective, the tendency remains of increasing top-down planning. Facility siting is increasingly framed in terms of larger areas and the reliance on hierarchical planning fits the authoritarian bias that emerges in such resealing processes.
引用
收藏
页码:2669 / 2690
页数:22
相关论文
共 71 条
[1]   Examining the claims of environmental ADR - Evidence from waste management conflicts in Ontario and Massachusetts [J].
Andrew, JS .
JOURNAL OF PLANNING EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, 2001, 21 (02) :166-183
[2]  
[Anonymous], RISK HLTH SAFETY ENV
[3]  
Beierle TC, 2000, J POLICY ANAL MANAG, V19, P587, DOI 10.1002/1520-6688(200023)19:4<587::AID-PAM4>3.0.CO
[4]  
2-Q
[5]   Network power in collaborative planning [J].
Booher, DE ;
Innes, JE .
JOURNAL OF PLANNING EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, 2002, 21 (03) :221-236
[7]  
Brown S.R., 1980, POLITICAL SUBJECTIVI
[8]  
Burningham Kate., 2000, LOCAL ENVIRON, V5, P55, DOI [10.1080/135498300113264, DOI 10.1080/135498300113264]
[9]   Understanding sustainable development in the context of other emergent environmental perspectives [J].
Clarke, AH .
POLICY SCIENCES, 2002, 35 (01) :69-90
[10]   MYTHS OF NATURE - CULTURE AND THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF RISK [J].
DAKE, K .
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ISSUES, 1992, 48 (04) :21-37