LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
whitton, john; Parry, Ioan (2015)
Publisher: Elsevier
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
The concept of social sustainability is discussed in a wide range of literatures, from urban planning to international development. Authors agree a notion of social sustainability is difficult to define, comprising numerous component parts (criteria), such as community cohesion, human wellbeing, effective dialogue and the access that citizens have to those that make important decisions on their behalf. The definition and measurement of these criteria and the role of social sustainability in energy decision making is a contentious issue. We argue that a community led, asset based approach is required to achieve any sense of how social sustainability can be defined in a community setting within the context of energy developments. We propose a conceptual framework based on a process of community group prioritization and visioning. Our earlier research on public participation and the role of dialogue for nuclear energy development in the UK, US and Japan is used to demonstrate barriers to be overcome if our systemic model of social sustainability is to become a reality. We highlight the importance of fairness and justice, place based approaches and socio-energy systems, concluding that these are necessary to promote a community and institutional awareness of social sustainability for large energy developments.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • [1] Ames S. Community visioning. In: Steiner FR, Butler K, editors. Planning and urban design standards. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons; 2006. p. 39-40.
    • [2] Cuthill M. Strengthening the 'social' in sustainable development: developing a conceptual framework for social sustainability in a rapid urban growth region in Australia. Sustain Dev 2010;18:362-73, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.397.
    • [3] Lapachelle P, Emery M, Hays RL. The pedagogy and the practice of community visioning: evaluating effective community strategic planning in rural Montana. Commun Dev 2010;41(2):176-91.
    • [4] McKinlay P. The challenge of democratic participation in the community development process. Commun Dev J 2006;41(4):492-505.
    • [5] Murtagh B. City visioning and the turn to community: the case of Derry/Londonderry. Plan Pract Res 2001;16(1):9-19.
    • [6] Webler T, Tuler S, Kreuger R. What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environ Manag 2001;27(3):435-50, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002670010160.
    • [7] Magis K, Shinn C. Emergent themes of social sustainability. In: Dillard J, Dujon V, King MC, editors. Understanding the social aspect of sustainability. New York: Routledge; 2009.
    • [8] Whitton J. Stakeholder participation for the Legacy Ponds and Legacy Silos (LP&LS) facility at Sellafield, Cumbria, UK: the nature and effectiveness of the dialogue. In: Proceedings of ICEM '09. 2009.
    • [9] Whitton J. Participant perceptions on the nature of stakeholder dialogue carried out by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) [Ph.D. thesis]. UK: University of Manchester; 2010.
    • [10] Walker BJA, Wiersma B, Bailey E. Community benefits, framing and the social acceptance of offshore wind farms: an experimental study in England. Energy Res Soc Sci 2014;3:46-54, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.07.003.
    • [11] Lawless WF, Akiyoshi M, Angjellari-Dajci F, Whitton J. Public consent for the geological disposal of highly radioactive nuclear wastes and spent nuclear fuel. Int J Environ Stud 2014;71(1):41-62, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2014.881165.
    • [12] Innes JE, Booher DE. Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Plan Theory Pract 2004;5(4):419-36, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000293170.
    • [13] Lake RW, Hanson S. Needed: geography research on urban sustainability. Urban Geogr 2000;21(1):1-4, http://dx.doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.21.1.1.
    • [14] Yitfachel O, Hedgcock D. Urban social planning of an Australian city. Cities http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0264-2751(93)90045-K.
    • sustainability: the 1993;11(2):139-57,
    • [15] Jones R, Tonts M. Rural restructuring and social sustainability: some reflections on the Western Australian wheatbelt. Aust Geogr 1995;26(2):133-40, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049189508703142.
    • [16] Raven RPJM, Jolivet E, Mourik RM, Feenstra YCFJ. ESTEEM: managing societal acceptance in new energy projects. A toolbox method for project managers. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2009;76:963-77, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.02.005.
    • [17] Raven RPJM, Mourik RM, Feenstra YCFJ, Heiskanen E. Modulating societal acceptance in new energy projects: towards a toolkit methodology for project managers. Energy 2009;34:564-74, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2008.08.012.
    • [18] Beck U, Giddens A, Lash S. Reflexive modernization. Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Stanford University Press; 1994.
    • [19] Dryzek JS. Deliberative democracy and beyond: liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2000.
    • [20] Flood RL. The relationship of systems thinking to action research. Syst Pract Action Res 2010;23:269-84, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11213-010-9169-1.
    • [21] Jackson MC. Systems methodology for the management sciences. New York: Plenum; 1991.
    • [22] Welch C. Guest editorial to special edition. System 2009;31(2&3):43-4.
    • [23] Bijl R. Never waste a good crisis: towards social sustainable development. Soc Indic Res 2011;102:157-68, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9736-y.
    • [24] Sachs I. Social sustainability and whole development: exploring the dimensions of sustainable development. In: Egon B, Thomas J, editors. Sustainability and the social sciences: a cross-disciplinary approach to integrating environmental considerations into theoretical reorientation. London: Zed Books; 1999. p. 25-36.
    • [25] Littig B, Grießler E. Social sustainability: a catchword between political pragmatism and social theory. Int J Sustain Dev 2005;8(1/2):65-76, http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2005.007375.
    • [26] Dempsey N, Bramley G, Power S, Brown C. The social dimension of sustainable development: defining urban social sustainability. Sustain Dev 2011;19:289-300, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.417.
    • [27] Vallance S, Perkins HC, Dixon JE. What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts. Geoforum 2011;42:342-8.
    • [28] Devine-Wright P, Devine-Wright H, Sherry-Brennan F. Visible technologies, invisible organisations: an empirical study of public beliefs about electricity supply networks. Energy Policy 2010;38:4127-34, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.039.
    • [29] Krütli P, Stauffacher M, Flüeler T, Scholz RW. Functional-dynamic public participation in technological decision-making: site selection processes of nuclear waste repositories. J Risk Res 2010;13(7):861-75, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669871003703252.
    • [30] Cotton M, Devine-Wright P. Putting pylons into place: a UK case study of public perspectives on the impacts of high voltage overhead transmission lines. J Environ Plan Manag 2012;56(8):1225-45, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.716756.
    • [31] Cotton M, Devine-Wright P. Making electricity networks “visible”: industry actor representations of “publics” and public engagement in infrastructure planning. Public Underst Sci 2012;21(1):17-35, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662510362658.
    • [32] Cowell R, Bristow G, Munday M. Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: the role of community benefits in wind energy development. J Environ Plan Manag 2011;54(4):539-57, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2010.521047.
    • [33] Rojanamon R, Chaisomphob T, Bureekul T. Public participation in development of small infrastructure projects. Sustain Dev 2012;20:320-34, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.473.
    • [34] Shamsuzzoha AHM, Grant A, Clarke J. Implementation of renewable energy in Scottish rural area: a social study. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:185-91, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.146.
    • [35] Lidskog R, Sundqvist G. On the right track? Technology, geology and society in Swedish nuclear waste management. J Risk Res 2004;7(2):251-68, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1366987042000171924.
    • [36] Dawson JI, Darst RG. Meeting the challenge of permanent nuclear waste disposal in an expanding Europe: transparency, trust democracy. Environ Polit 2006;15(4):610-27, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644010600785226.
    • [37] WCMRWS (West Cumbria Managing Radioactive Waste Safely Partnership). The final report of the West Cumbria managing radioactive waste safely partnership. Copeland, UK: Copeland Borough Council; 2012. Available at: http:// www.westcumbriamrws.org.uk/images/final-report.pdf [accessed 12.02.13].
    • [38] Aas Ø, Devine-Wright P, Tangeland T, Batel S, Ruud A. Public beliefs about high-voltage powerlines in Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom: a comparative survey. Energy Res Soc Sci 2014;2:30-7, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.04.012.
    • [39] Walker G. Renewable energy and the public. Land Use Policy 1995;12:49-59.
    • [40] Wustenhagen R, Wolsink M, Burer MJ. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 2007;35: 2683-91.
    • [41] Burningham K. Using the language of NIMBY: a topic for research, not an activity for researchers. Local Environ Int J Justice Sustain 2000;5:55-67.
    • [42] Devine-Wright P. Rethinking NIMBYism: the role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. J Commun Appl Soc Psychol 2009;19:426-41.
    • [43] Batel S, Devine-Wright P. A critical and empirical analysis of the national-local 'gap' in public responses to large-scale energy infrastructures. J Environ Plan Manag 2015;58(6):1076-95.
    • [44] Aaltonen K, Jaakko K, Tuomas O. Stakeholder salience in global projects. Int J Proj Manag 2008;26:509-16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.05.004.
    • [45] Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manag Rev 1997;22(4):853-86.
    • [46] Whitton J. Emergent themes in nuclear decommissioning dialogue: a systems perspective. Systemist 2011;33(2/3):132-49.
    • [47] Shapiro I. Enough of deliberation: politics is about interest and power. In: Macedo S, editor. Deliberative politics: essays on democracy and disagreement. New York: Oxford University Press; 1999. p. 28-38.
    • [48] Mendelberg T. The deliberative citizen: theory and evidence. Polit Decis Mak Delib Particip 2002;6:151-93.
    • [49] Rossi J. Participation run amok: the costs of mass participation for deliberative agency decision-making. Northwest Univ Law Rev 1997;92:173-249.
    • [50] Rowe G, Frewer LJ. A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms. Sci Tech Hum Val 2005;30(2):251-90.
    • [51] Beierle TC. The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Anal 2002;22(4):739-49, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00065.
    • [52] Rowe G, Frewer LJ. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci Tech Hum Values 2000;25(1):3-29, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016224390002500101.
    • [53] De Marchia B, Ravetz JR. Risk management and governance: a post-normal science approach. Futures 1999;31:743-57.
    • [54] Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 1993;(September):739-55.
    • [55] Ravetz JR. The post-normal science of precaution. Futures 2004;36:347-57.
    • [56] Ravetz JR. Post-Normal Science and the complexity of transitions towards sustainability. Ecol Complex 2006;3:275-84.
    • [57] Buhr K, Wibeck V. Communication approaches for carbon capture and storage: underlying assumptions of limited versus extensive public engagement. Energy Res Soc Sci 2014;3:5-12.
    • [58] Irvin R, Stansbury J. Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort? Public Adm Rev 2004;64:55-65.
    • [59] Reed MS. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 2008;141:2417-31, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014.
    • [60] Habermas J. Towards a theory of communicative competence. Inquiry 1970;13:363-72.
    • [61] Habermas J. Theory of communicative action, vol. 2: reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press; 1987.
    • [62] van Stokkom B. Deliberative group dynamics: power, status and affect in interactive policy making. Policy Polit 2005;33(3):387-409, http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/0305573054325701.
    • [63] Cabinet Office. Consultation Principles. Crown Copyright; 17th July 2012 [Updated 5th November 2013]. Available at: https://www.gov. uk/government/publications/consultation-principles-guidance[accessed 25.04.14].
    • [64] Bond A, Palerm J, Haigh P. Public participation in EIA of nuclear power plant decommissioning projects: a case study analysis. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2004;24:617-41, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2004.02.002.
    • [65] Kemp RV, Bennett DG, White MJ. Recent trends and developments in dialogue on radioactive waste management: experience from the UK. Environ Int 2006;32:1021-32.
    • [66] Cuppen E, Breukers S, Hisschemöller M, Bergsma E. Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands. Ecol Econ 2010;69:579-91, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.09.005.
    • [67] Evans B, Parks J, Theobald K. Urban wind power and the private sector: community benefits, social acceptance and public engagement. J Environ Plan Manag 2011;54(2):227-44, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2010.505829.
    • [68] Energy Act 2004. The Stationary Office, London.
    • [69] DECC. Written ministerial statement by Edward Davey on the management of radioactive waste. 31st January 2013. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/ government/speeches/written-ministerial-statement-by-edward-daveyon-the-management-of-radioactive-waste [accessed 24.04.14].
    • [70] Lawless WF, Bergman M, Feltovich N. Consensus-seeking versus truth-seeking. ASCE Hazard Toxic Radioact Wastes 2005;9(1):59-70, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-025X(2005)9:1(59).
    • [71] US DOE SSAB 2008. Available online at: www.em.doe.gov/Pages/ssab. aspx(accessed 21.09.08).
    • [72] Bradbury JA, Branch KM, Malone EL. An evaluation of DOE-EM public participation programs (PNNL-14200). Online report; 2003. Available at: http:// www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical reports/pnnl-14200.pdf
    • [73] CEC. White Paper 2001. European Governance (COM (2001) 428 final; Brussels, 25.7.2001). Brussels: Commission of the European Community.
    • [74] US DOE-SRS-CAB. 2008. DOE Savannah River Site Citizens Advisory Board website. Available online at: http://cab.srs.gov/srs-cab.html [accessed 02.05.14].
    • [75] Holmes OW. Dissent: Abrams v. United States; 1919.
    • [76] Robertson PJ, Choi T. Deliberation, consensus and stakeholder satisfaction. Public Manag Rev 2012;14(1):83-103, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2011.589619.
    • [77] Cabinet Office. A summary of opinion poll about nuclear power. (“Genshiryoku ni kansuru tokubetsu yoron chosa no gaiyou”). Cabinet Office, The Government of Japan; 2009.
    • [78] Ishibashi K. Earthquake induced nuclear power plant failure (“Genpatsu Shnisai”). Kagaku 1997;67:720-4.
    • [79] Wakamatsu Y, Available at: http://www.nsr.go.jp/archive/jnes/tokushu/ taiwa3/index.html [accessed 21.04.14] Civic Engagement (“Sanka suru shimin”); 2005.
    • [80] Bell D, Gray T, Haggett C. Policy, participation and the 'social gap' in wind farm siting decisions. Environ Polit 2005;14(4):460-77, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644010500175833.
    • [81] Devine-Wright P. Renewable energy and the public: from NIMBY to participation. London, UK: Earthscan; 2011.
    • [82] Planning Act. Chapter 29. London: The Stationary Office; 2008.
    • [83] Localism Act. Chapter 20. London: The Stationary Office; 2011.
    • [84] BRC. Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. In: Report (Final) to the Secretary of Energy, Washington, DC; 2012.
    • [85] Checkland PB. Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: Wiley; 1981.
    • [86] Turcu C. Re-thinking sustainability indicators: local perspectives of urban sustainability. J Environ Plan Manag 2013;56(5):695-719, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.698984.
    • [87] Reed M, Dougill AJ. Participatory selection process for indicators of rangeland condition in the Kalahari. Geogr J 2002;168(3):224-34, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-4959.00050.
    • [88] Parry IM. Public opinion and perceptions of risk towards local nuclear power in Anglesey, north Wales [M.Sc. thesis]. UK: Keele University; 2011.
    • [89] Pidgeon N. Memorandum on public attitudes and nuclear power. In: House of Lords Science and Technology Committee Inquiry on 'Nuclear R&D Capabilities'. 2011.
    • [90] NCVO. Big local: the early years; 2015.
    • [91] Coghlan D, Brannick T. Doing action research in your own organization. London: Sage Publications; 2005.
    • [92] Midgley G. Science as systemic intervention: some implications of systems thinking and complexity for the philosophy of science. Syst Pract Action Res 2003;16(2):77-97.
    • [93] Shaw A, Sheppard SRJ, Burch S, Flanders D, Wiek A, Carmichael J, et al. Making local futures tangible - synthesizing, downscaling, and visualizing climate change scenarios for participatory capacity building. Glob Environ Change 2009;19:447-63.
    • [94] Sheppard SRJ, Shaw A, Flanders D, Burch S, Wiek A, Carmichael J, et al. Future visioning of local climate change: a framework for community engagement and planning with scenarios and visualization. Futures 2011;43: 400-12.
    • [95] Busby P. Carbon neutrality: now is the time for action. Renew Can Lett 2009:5.
    • [96] Whitton J, Parry IM, Howe JM. Social sustainability: participant-led dialogue as a basis for the development of a conceptual framework for energy infrastructure decisions. Int J Sustain Policy Pract 2014;9(3):1-13. Available at: http://ijspp.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.274/prod.78
    • [97] DEFRA. Measuring Progress: Sustainable Development Indicators 2010. National Statistics Compendium. Crown Copyright, 2010. Available at: http:// sd.defra.gov.uk/documents/SDI2010 001.pdf [accessed 13.08.12].
    • [98] ODPM. The Egan review: skills for sustainable communities. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; 2004.
    • [99] OECD. Society at a Glance 2011 - OECD Social Indicators. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2011. Available at: www.oecd. org/els/social/indicators/SAG [accessed 29.08.12].
    • [100] Colantonio A. Social Sustainability: An exploratory Analysis of its Definition, Assessment Methods, Metrics and Tools. OISD (EIB) (Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development) (European Investment Bank) Working Paper No. 1; 2007.
    • [101] White SK. Reason and authority in Habermas: a critique of the critics. Am Polit Sci Rev 1980;74(4):1007-17. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 1954320?origin=JSTOR-pdf [accessed 09.10.14].
    • [102] Petrova MA. NIMBYism revisited: public acceptance of wind energy in the United States. Wiley Int Rev: Clim Change 2013;4(Nov/Dec (6)):575-601.
    • [103] Devine-Wright P. Local aspects of UK renewable energy development: exploring public beliefs and policy implications. Local Environ: Int J Justice Sustain 2005;10(1):57-69.
    • [104] Devine-Wright P. Rethinking NIMBYism: the role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. J Commun Appl Soc Psychol 2006;19:426-41.
    • [105] Jones CR, Eiser JR. Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local onshore wind development with reference to an English case study. Energy Policy 2009;37:4604-14.
    • [106] Wolsink M. Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renew Energy 2000;21: 49-64.
    • [107] Wolsink M. Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes: equity and fairness instead of 'backyard motives'. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2007;11:1188-207.
    • [108] Walter G. Determining the local acceptance of wind energy projects in Switzerland: the importance of general attitudes and project characteristics. Energy Res Soc Sci 2014;4:78-88.
    • [109] Macquarie CCH. The CCH Macquarie dictionary of law. Sydney: CCH Australia Limited; 1996.
    • [110] Miller CA, Richter J, O'Leary J. Socio-energy systems design: a policy framework for energy transitions. Energy Res Soc Sci 2015;6:29-40.
    • [111] (a) Skitka LJ, Winquist J, Hutchinson S. Are outcome fairness and outcome favorability distinguishable psychological constructs a meta-analytic review. Soc Justice Res 2003;16(4):309-41; (b) Walker BJA, Wiersma B, Bailey E. Community benefits, framing and the social acceptance of offshore wind farms: an experimental study in England. Energy Res Soc Sci 2014;3:46-54, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.07.003.
    • [112] Tyler TR, Lind EA. A relational model of authority in groups. In: Zanna MP, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 25. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1992. p. 115-91.
    • [113] Wolsink M. Undesired reinforcement of harmful 'self-evident truths' concerning the implementation of wind power. Energy Policy 2012;48:83-7.
    • [114] Pidgeon N, Demski C. From nuclear to renewable: energy systems transformation and public attitudes. Bull Atomic Sci 2012;68(4):1-12.
    • [115] Bronfman NC, Jiménez RB, Arévalo PC, Cifuentes LA. Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources. Energy Policy 2012;46:246-52, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.057.
    • [116] Doukas H, Karakosta C, Flamos A, Psarras J. Electric power transmission: an overview of associated burdens. Int J Energy Res 2011;35:979-88, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/er.1745.
    • [117] Glasson J. Better monitoring for better impact management: the local socio-economic impacts of constructing Sizewell B nuclear power station. Impact Assess Project Apprais 2005;23(3):215-26, http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154605781765535.
    • [118] Rogers JC, Simmons EA, Convery I, Weatherall A. Public perceptions of opportunities for community-based renewable energy projects. Energy Policy 2008;36:4217-26, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.07.028.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article