BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

The Social Dimension of Renewable Energy Developments

Yıl 2013, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 4 , 663 - 691 , 20.03.2014

Zeynep Peker

https://izlik.org/JA49KW77BW

Öz

Abstract

Seeking clues for sustainable energy future, this paper focuses on the social dimension of renewable energy developments. It aims to gain insight into this dimension and to clarify its significance. With this purpose, it reviews the general understandings, key assumptions and the different views in the relevant literature, on the basis of two main themes: local opposition and participation. While doing this, it adopts a view that renewable energy developments should be promoted without sacrificing the social pillar of sustainable development. In order to achieve socially acceptable solutions and transition to sustainable society, such a view points to a need for understanding social context of renewable energies and searching for more democratic and fair processes, and above all, a change in the dominant policy paradigms. The “what?” and “how?” questions in the context of our country necessitates further research on the social and policy dimensions of renewable energy. Since the subject has not been adequately addressed yet, this paper is considered to serve as a reference and to open up a new research field.

Keywords: Renewable Energy, Sustainable Development, Local Opposition, Participation.

 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Renewable Energy Sustainable Development Local Opposition Participation

Kaynakça

  • Agterbosch, S., Meertens, R. M., ve Vermeulen, W. J. (2009). The relative importance of social and institutional conditions in the planning of wind power projects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13 (2): 393-405.
  • Agterbosch, S., Vermeulen, W., ve Glasbergen, P. (2004). Implementation of wind energy in the Netherlands: the importance of the social-institutional setting. Energy Policy, 32 (18): 2049-2066.
  • Aitken, M. (2010a). A three-dimensional view of public participation in Scottish land-use planning: empowerment or social control? Planning Theory, 9 (3): 248-264.
  • Aitken, M. (2010b). Why we still don't understand the social aspects of wind power: a critique of key assumptions within the literature. Energy Policy, 38 (4): 1834-1841.
  • Aitken, M. (2010c). Wind power and community benefits: challenges and opportunities. Energy Policy, 38 (10): 6066-6075.
  • Aitken, M. (2009). Wind power planning controversies and the construction of 'expert' and 'lay' knowledges. Science as Culture, 18 (1): 47-64.
  • Aitken, M., McDonald, S., ve Strachan, P. (2008). Locating 'power' in wind power planning processes: the (not so) influential role of local objectors. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51 (6): 777-799.
  • Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 36 (4): 216-224.
  • Barry, J., Ellis, G., ve Robinson, C. (2008). Cool rationalities and hot air: a rhetorical approach to understanding debates on renewable energy. Global Environmental Politics, 8 (2): 67-98.
  • Beddoe, M., ve Chamberlin, A. (2003). Avoiding confrontation: securing planning permission for on-shore wind energy developments in England: comments from a wind energy developer. Planning Practice & Research, 18 (1): 3-17.
  • Bell, D., Gray, T., ve Haggett, C. (2005). The 'social gap' in wind farm siting decisions: explanations and policy responses. Environmental Politics, 14 (4): 460-477.
  • Cass, N., Walker, G., ve Devine-Wright, P. (2010). Good neighbours, public relations and bribes: the politics and perceptions of community benefit provision in renewable energy development in the UK. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 12 (3): 255-275.
  • Christensen, P., ve Lund, H. (1998). Conflicting views of sustainability: the case of wind power and nature conservation in Denmark. European Environment, 8 (1): 1-6.
  • Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking 'participation': models, meanings and practices. Community Development Journal, 43 (3): 269-283.
  • Cowell, R., Bristow, G., ve Munday, M. (2011). Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: the role of community benefits in wind energy development. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54 (4): 539-557.
  • Devine-Wright, P. (2005). Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy, 8 (2): 125-139.
  • Devine-Wright, P. (2011a). Enhancing local distintiveness fosters public acceptance of tidal energy: a UK case study. Energy Policy, 39 (1): 83-93.
  • Devine-Wright, P. (2011b). Public engagement with large-scale renewable energy technologies: breaking the cycle of NIMBYism. WIRES Climate Change, 2 (1): 19-26.
  • Devine-Wright, P. (2009). Rethinking NIMBYism: the role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19 (6): 426-441.
  • Devine-Wright, P., & Howes, Y. (2010). Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: a wind energy case study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30 (3): 271-280.
  • Dinçer, İ. (2000). Renewable energy and sustainable development: a crucial review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 4 (2): 157-175.
  • DTI (2003). Our energy future - creating a low carbon economy. Norwich: Department of Trade and Industry, The Stationary Office.
  • Elliott, D. (2000). Renewable energy and sustainable futures. Futures, 32 (3-4): 261-274.
  • Ellis, G., Barry, J., ve Robinson, C. (2007). Many ways to say 'no', different ways to say 'yes': applying q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50 (4): 517-551.
  • Ellis, G., Cowell, R., Warren, C., Strachan, P., ve Szarka, J. (2009). Expanding wind power: a problem of planning, or of perception? Planning Theory & Practice, 10 (4): 523-532.
  • Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 15 (2): 226-243.
  • Flavin, C., ve Dunn, S. (1999). A new energy paradigm for the 21st century. Journal of International Affairs, 53 (1): 167-190.
  • Gross, C. (2007). Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: the application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance. Energy Policy, 35 (5): 2727-2736.
  • Haggett, C. (2009). Public engagement in planning for renewable energy. S. Davoudi, J. Crawford, ve A. Mehmood (Der.) Planning for climate change: İçinde 297-307. London, UK: Earthscan.
  • Haggett, C. (2004). Tilting at windmills? The attitude-behaviour gap in renewable energy conflicts. London: ESRC.
  • Hammarlund, K. (2002). Society and wind power in Sweden. M. J. Pasqualetti, P. Gipe, ve R. W. Righter (Der.) Wind power in view: energy landscapes in a crowded world: İçinde 101-114. San Diego, USA: Academic Press.
  • Hillier, J. (2003). 'Agon'izing over consensus: why Habermasian ideals cannot be 'real'. Planning Theory, 2 (1): 37-59.
  • Hindmarsh, R. (2010). Wind farms and community engagement in Australia: a critical analysis for policy learning. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, 4 (4): 541-563.
  • Hindmarsh, R., ve Matthews, C. (2008). Deliberative speak at the turbine face: community engagement, wind farms, and renewable energy transitions, in Australia. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 10 (3): 217-232.
  • Khan, J. (2001). "Siting Conflicts in Renewable Energy Projects in Sweden: Experience From the Siting of a Biogas Plant". New Perspectives on Siting Controversy Konferansı, 17-20 Mayıs, Glumslöv, İsveç.
  • Loring, J. M. (2007). Wind energy planning in England, Wales and Denmark: factors influencing project success. Energy Policy, 35 (4): 2648-2660.
  • McLachlan, C. (2009). 'You don't do a chemistry experiment in your best china': symbolic interpretations of place and technology in a wave energy case. Energy Policy, 37 (12): 5342-5350.
  • Moomaw, W., Yamba, F., Kamimoto, M., Maurice, L., Nyboer, J., Urama, K., Weir, T. (2011). Renewable energy and climate change. O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, C.von Stechow (Eds) IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation: İçinde 161-208. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. Social Research, 66 (3): 745-758.
  • ODPM (2004). Planning policy statement 22: renewable energy. Norwich: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Crown Copyright.
  • Owens, S. (2004). Siting, sustainable development and social priorities. Journal of Risk Research, 7 (2): 101-114.
  • Pløger, J. (2004). Strife: urban planning and agonism. Planning Theory, 3 (1): 71-92.
  • Rowe, G., ve Frewer, L. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 30 (2): 251-290.
  • Rydin, Y. (2007). Re-examining the role of knowledge within planning theory. Planning Theory, 6 (1): 52-68.
  • Rydin, Y., ve Pennington, M. (2000). Public participation and local environmental planning: the collective action problem and the potential of social capital. Local Environment, 5 (2): 153-169.
  • Sathaye, J., Bouille, D., Biswas, D., Crabbe, P., Geng, L., Hall, D., Imura, H., Jaffe, A., Michaelis, L., Peszko, G., Verbruggen, A., Worrell, E., Yamba, F. (2001). Barriers, opportunities, and market potential of technologies and practices. B. Metz (Der.) Climate change 2001: mitigation, contribution of working group III to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change: İçinde 345-398. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • SE (2007). Scottish planning policy 6: renewable energy. Scotland: Scottish Executive, Development Department, Crown copyright.
  • Short, L. (2002). Wind power and English landscape identity. M. J. Pasqualetti, P. Gipe, ve R. W. Righter (Der.) Wind power in view: energy landscapes in a crowded world: İçinde 43-58. San Diego: Academic Press.
  • Shove, E. (1998). Gaps, barriers and conceptual chasms: theories of technology transfer and energy in buildings. Energy Policy, 26 (15): 1105-1112.
  • Szarka, J. (2004). Wind power, discourse coalitions and climate change: breaking the stalemate?. European Environment, 14 (6): 317-330.
  • Toke, D. (2005). Explaining wind power planning outcomes: Some findings from a study in England and Wales. Energy Policy, 33 (12): 1527-1539.
  • Toke, D., Breukers, S., ve Wolsink, M. (2008). Wind power deployment outcomes: how can we account for the differences? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12 (4): 1129-1147.
  • Tsoutsos, T. D., ve Stamboulis, Y. A. (2005). The sustainable diffusion of renewable energy technologies as an example of an innovation-focused policy. Technovation, 25 (7): 753-761.
  • Upreti, B. R. (2004). Conflict over biomass energy development in the United Kingdom: some observations and lessons from England and Wales. Energy Policy, 32 (6): 785-800.
  • Van der Horst, D. (2007). NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy, 35 (5): 2705-2714.
  • WAG (2005). Planning policy Wales technical advice note 8: planning for renewable energy. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government, Crown copyright.
  • Walker, G. (1995). Renewable energy and the public. Land Use Policy, 12 (1): 49-59.
  • Walker, G., ve Devine-Wright, P. (2008). Community renewable energy: what should it mean? Energy Policy, 36 (2): 497-500.
  • Warren, C. R., ve McFadyen, M. (2010). Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland. Land Use Policy, 27 (2): 204-213.
  • Warren, C. R., Lumsden, C., O'Dowd, S., ve Birnie, R. V. (2005). 'Green on green': public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48 (6): 853-875.
  • White, S. C. (1996). Depoliticising development: the uses and abuses of participation. Development in Practice, 6 (1): 6-15.
  • Wolsink, M. (2010). Contested environmental policy infrastructure: socio-political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste facilities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30 (5): 302-311.
  • Wolsink, M. (2007a). Planning of renewables schemes: deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation. Energy Policy, 35 (5): 2692-2704.
  • Wolsink, M. (2000). Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renewable Energy, 21 (1): 49-64.
  • Wolsink, M. (2007b). Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes: equity and fairness instead of 'backyard motives'. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11 (6): 1188-1207.
  • Wolsink, M., ve Breukers, S. (2010). Contrasting the core beliefs regarding the effective implementation of wind power. An international study of stakeholder perspectives. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 53 (5): 535-558.
  • Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., ve Bürer, M. J. (2007). Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy, 35 (5): 2683-2691.

Yenilenebilir Enerji Gelişimlerinin Sosyal Boyutu

Yıl 2013, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 4 , 663 - 691 , 20.03.2014

Zeynep Peker

https://izlik.org/JA49KW77BW

Öz

Öz

Sürdürülebilir enerji geleceği için ipuçları arayışıyla bu makale, yenilenebilir enerji gelişimlerinin sosyal boyutuna odaklanmaktadır. Bu boyutun doğasını anlamayı ve önemine açıklık kazandırmayı amaç edinmektedir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, yerel muhalefet ve katılım olarak belirlenen iki ana tema temelinde ilgili literatürdeki genel anlayışları, temel kabulleri ve farklı görüşleri incelemektedir. Bunu yaparken, yenilenebilir enerji gelişimlerinin sürdürülebilir kalkınmanın sosyal ayağını feda etmeksizin desteklenmesi görüşünü benimsemektedir. Toplumsal olarak kabul edilebilir çözümlere ve sürdürülebilir topluma geçişe erişebilmek üzere böyle bir görüş, yenilebilir enerjilerin sosyal bağlamının anlaşılması ve daha demokratik ve adil süreçlerin aranması gerekliliğini ve hepsinden önemlisi, hâkim politika paradigmalarında bir değişimi işaret etmektedir. Ülkemiz bağlamında “ne?” ve “nasıl?” soruları yenilenebilir enerjinin sosyal ve politika boyutlarına dair daha fazla araştırmayı gerekli kılmaktadır. Konunun henüz yeterince ele alınmamış olması nedeniyle bu makalenin yapılacak çalışmalara bir referans olarak hizmet edeceği ve yeni bir araştırma alanının önünü açacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Yenilenebilir Enerji, Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma, Yerel Muhalefet, Katılım.

 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yenilenebilir Enerji Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Yerel Muhalefet Katılım

Kaynakça

  • Agterbosch, S., Meertens, R. M., ve Vermeulen, W. J. (2009). The relative importance of social and institutional conditions in the planning of wind power projects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13 (2): 393-405.
  • Agterbosch, S., Vermeulen, W., ve Glasbergen, P. (2004). Implementation of wind energy in the Netherlands: the importance of the social-institutional setting. Energy Policy, 32 (18): 2049-2066.
  • Aitken, M. (2010a). A three-dimensional view of public participation in Scottish land-use planning: empowerment or social control? Planning Theory, 9 (3): 248-264.
  • Aitken, M. (2010b). Why we still don't understand the social aspects of wind power: a critique of key assumptions within the literature. Energy Policy, 38 (4): 1834-1841.
  • Aitken, M. (2010c). Wind power and community benefits: challenges and opportunities. Energy Policy, 38 (10): 6066-6075.
  • Aitken, M. (2009). Wind power planning controversies and the construction of 'expert' and 'lay' knowledges. Science as Culture, 18 (1): 47-64.
  • Aitken, M., McDonald, S., ve Strachan, P. (2008). Locating 'power' in wind power planning processes: the (not so) influential role of local objectors. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51 (6): 777-799.
  • Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 36 (4): 216-224.
  • Barry, J., Ellis, G., ve Robinson, C. (2008). Cool rationalities and hot air: a rhetorical approach to understanding debates on renewable energy. Global Environmental Politics, 8 (2): 67-98.
  • Beddoe, M., ve Chamberlin, A. (2003). Avoiding confrontation: securing planning permission for on-shore wind energy developments in England: comments from a wind energy developer. Planning Practice & Research, 18 (1): 3-17.
  • Bell, D., Gray, T., ve Haggett, C. (2005). The 'social gap' in wind farm siting decisions: explanations and policy responses. Environmental Politics, 14 (4): 460-477.
  • Cass, N., Walker, G., ve Devine-Wright, P. (2010). Good neighbours, public relations and bribes: the politics and perceptions of community benefit provision in renewable energy development in the UK. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 12 (3): 255-275.
  • Christensen, P., ve Lund, H. (1998). Conflicting views of sustainability: the case of wind power and nature conservation in Denmark. European Environment, 8 (1): 1-6.
  • Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking 'participation': models, meanings and practices. Community Development Journal, 43 (3): 269-283.
  • Cowell, R., Bristow, G., ve Munday, M. (2011). Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: the role of community benefits in wind energy development. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54 (4): 539-557.
  • Devine-Wright, P. (2005). Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy, 8 (2): 125-139.
  • Devine-Wright, P. (2011a). Enhancing local distintiveness fosters public acceptance of tidal energy: a UK case study. Energy Policy, 39 (1): 83-93.
  • Devine-Wright, P. (2011b). Public engagement with large-scale renewable energy technologies: breaking the cycle of NIMBYism. WIRES Climate Change, 2 (1): 19-26.
  • Devine-Wright, P. (2009). Rethinking NIMBYism: the role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19 (6): 426-441.
  • Devine-Wright, P., & Howes, Y. (2010). Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: a wind energy case study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30 (3): 271-280.
  • Dinçer, İ. (2000). Renewable energy and sustainable development: a crucial review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 4 (2): 157-175.
  • DTI (2003). Our energy future - creating a low carbon economy. Norwich: Department of Trade and Industry, The Stationary Office.
  • Elliott, D. (2000). Renewable energy and sustainable futures. Futures, 32 (3-4): 261-274.
  • Ellis, G., Barry, J., ve Robinson, C. (2007). Many ways to say 'no', different ways to say 'yes': applying q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50 (4): 517-551.
  • Ellis, G., Cowell, R., Warren, C., Strachan, P., ve Szarka, J. (2009). Expanding wind power: a problem of planning, or of perception? Planning Theory & Practice, 10 (4): 523-532.
  • Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 15 (2): 226-243.
  • Flavin, C., ve Dunn, S. (1999). A new energy paradigm for the 21st century. Journal of International Affairs, 53 (1): 167-190.
  • Gross, C. (2007). Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: the application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance. Energy Policy, 35 (5): 2727-2736.
  • Haggett, C. (2009). Public engagement in planning for renewable energy. S. Davoudi, J. Crawford, ve A. Mehmood (Der.) Planning for climate change: İçinde 297-307. London, UK: Earthscan.
  • Haggett, C. (2004). Tilting at windmills? The attitude-behaviour gap in renewable energy conflicts. London: ESRC.
  • Hammarlund, K. (2002). Society and wind power in Sweden. M. J. Pasqualetti, P. Gipe, ve R. W. Righter (Der.) Wind power in view: energy landscapes in a crowded world: İçinde 101-114. San Diego, USA: Academic Press.
  • Hillier, J. (2003). 'Agon'izing over consensus: why Habermasian ideals cannot be 'real'. Planning Theory, 2 (1): 37-59.
  • Hindmarsh, R. (2010). Wind farms and community engagement in Australia: a critical analysis for policy learning. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, 4 (4): 541-563.
  • Hindmarsh, R., ve Matthews, C. (2008). Deliberative speak at the turbine face: community engagement, wind farms, and renewable energy transitions, in Australia. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 10 (3): 217-232.
  • Khan, J. (2001). "Siting Conflicts in Renewable Energy Projects in Sweden: Experience From the Siting of a Biogas Plant". New Perspectives on Siting Controversy Konferansı, 17-20 Mayıs, Glumslöv, İsveç.
  • Loring, J. M. (2007). Wind energy planning in England, Wales and Denmark: factors influencing project success. Energy Policy, 35 (4): 2648-2660.
  • McLachlan, C. (2009). 'You don't do a chemistry experiment in your best china': symbolic interpretations of place and technology in a wave energy case. Energy Policy, 37 (12): 5342-5350.
  • Moomaw, W., Yamba, F., Kamimoto, M., Maurice, L., Nyboer, J., Urama, K., Weir, T. (2011). Renewable energy and climate change. O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, C.von Stechow (Eds) IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation: İçinde 161-208. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. Social Research, 66 (3): 745-758.
  • ODPM (2004). Planning policy statement 22: renewable energy. Norwich: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Crown Copyright.
  • Owens, S. (2004). Siting, sustainable development and social priorities. Journal of Risk Research, 7 (2): 101-114.
  • Pløger, J. (2004). Strife: urban planning and agonism. Planning Theory, 3 (1): 71-92.
  • Rowe, G., ve Frewer, L. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 30 (2): 251-290.
  • Rydin, Y. (2007). Re-examining the role of knowledge within planning theory. Planning Theory, 6 (1): 52-68.
  • Rydin, Y., ve Pennington, M. (2000). Public participation and local environmental planning: the collective action problem and the potential of social capital. Local Environment, 5 (2): 153-169.
  • Sathaye, J., Bouille, D., Biswas, D., Crabbe, P., Geng, L., Hall, D., Imura, H., Jaffe, A., Michaelis, L., Peszko, G., Verbruggen, A., Worrell, E., Yamba, F. (2001). Barriers, opportunities, and market potential of technologies and practices. B. Metz (Der.) Climate change 2001: mitigation, contribution of working group III to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change: İçinde 345-398. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • SE (2007). Scottish planning policy 6: renewable energy. Scotland: Scottish Executive, Development Department, Crown copyright.
  • Short, L. (2002). Wind power and English landscape identity. M. J. Pasqualetti, P. Gipe, ve R. W. Righter (Der.) Wind power in view: energy landscapes in a crowded world: İçinde 43-58. San Diego: Academic Press.
  • Shove, E. (1998). Gaps, barriers and conceptual chasms: theories of technology transfer and energy in buildings. Energy Policy, 26 (15): 1105-1112.
  • Szarka, J. (2004). Wind power, discourse coalitions and climate change: breaking the stalemate?. European Environment, 14 (6): 317-330.
  • Toke, D. (2005). Explaining wind power planning outcomes: Some findings from a study in England and Wales. Energy Policy, 33 (12): 1527-1539.
  • Toke, D., Breukers, S., ve Wolsink, M. (2008). Wind power deployment outcomes: how can we account for the differences? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12 (4): 1129-1147.
  • Tsoutsos, T. D., ve Stamboulis, Y. A. (2005). The sustainable diffusion of renewable energy technologies as an example of an innovation-focused policy. Technovation, 25 (7): 753-761.
  • Upreti, B. R. (2004). Conflict over biomass energy development in the United Kingdom: some observations and lessons from England and Wales. Energy Policy, 32 (6): 785-800.
  • Van der Horst, D. (2007). NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy, 35 (5): 2705-2714.
  • WAG (2005). Planning policy Wales technical advice note 8: planning for renewable energy. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government, Crown copyright.
  • Walker, G. (1995). Renewable energy and the public. Land Use Policy, 12 (1): 49-59.
  • Walker, G., ve Devine-Wright, P. (2008). Community renewable energy: what should it mean? Energy Policy, 36 (2): 497-500.
  • Warren, C. R., ve McFadyen, M. (2010). Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland. Land Use Policy, 27 (2): 204-213.
  • Warren, C. R., Lumsden, C., O'Dowd, S., ve Birnie, R. V. (2005). 'Green on green': public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48 (6): 853-875.
  • White, S. C. (1996). Depoliticising development: the uses and abuses of participation. Development in Practice, 6 (1): 6-15.
  • Wolsink, M. (2010). Contested environmental policy infrastructure: socio-political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste facilities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30 (5): 302-311.
  • Wolsink, M. (2007a). Planning of renewables schemes: deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation. Energy Policy, 35 (5): 2692-2704.
  • Wolsink, M. (2000). Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renewable Energy, 21 (1): 49-64.
  • Wolsink, M. (2007b). Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes: equity and fairness instead of 'backyard motives'. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11 (6): 1188-1207.
  • Wolsink, M., ve Breukers, S. (2010). Contrasting the core beliefs regarding the effective implementation of wind power. An international study of stakeholder perspectives. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 53 (5): 535-558.
  • Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., ve Bürer, M. J. (2007). Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy, 35 (5): 2683-2691.
Toplam 67 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Yazarlar

Zeynep Peker

Gönderilme Tarihi 20 Ocak 2015
Yayımlanma Tarihi 20 Mart 2014
IZ https://izlik.org/JA49KW77BW
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2013 Cilt: 15 Sayı: 4

Kaynak Göster

APA Peker, Z. (2014). Yenilenebilir Enerji Gelişimlerinin Sosyal Boyutu. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15(4), 663-691. https://izlik.org/JA49KW77BW

Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi Aile Yılı Özel Sayısı Çağrısı
Sayı Editörü
Prof. Dr. NEBİYE KONUK KANDEMİR

Sevgili Araştırmacılar ve Değerli Yazarlar,
Aile, toplumun temel yapı taşıdır ve bireylerin gelişimi ile sosyal yaşamın şekillenmesinde kritik bir rol oynamaktadır. Aile yapıları ve dinamikleri, tarihsel, kültürel ve toplumsal faktörlerle şekillenirken, bu faktörlerin aile içerisinde yaşanan sorunları, ilişkileri ve güç dengelerini nasıl etkilediği büyük bir önem taşımaktadır. 2025 yılı "Aile Yılı" olarak ilan edilmesi, aile olgusunun daha geniş bir perspektiften ele alınmasını ve bu konudaki farkındalığın artırılmasını hedeflemektedir.
Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, "Cilt: 28 Sayı: Özel Sayı" olarak 2026 yılında yayımlanacak olan Aile Yılı Özel Sayısı'na yönelik makale çağrısında bulunmaktadır. Bu özel sayı, aile yapılarını, rollerini ve dinamiklerini inceleyen çalışmalara ev sahipliği yapmayı hedeflemektedir.
Aile ile ilgili çalışmalara olan ihtiyaç, yalnızca bireysel düzeyde değil, toplumsal düzeyde de açıktır. Son yıllarda, aile içi ilişkilerin sağlıklı bir şekilde sürdürülmesi, toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği, kadın hakları, çocuk sağlığı ve eğitim gibi konular ön plana çıkmış, bu konularda yapılacak bilimsel araştırmaların önemi artmıştır. Aile Yılı Özel Sayısı'nın hazırlanması, bu kritik meselelerin sistematik bir biçimde incelenmesine ve topluma duyurulmasına olanak sağlayacaktır.
Bu özel sayı, aile dinamiklerini, ilişkilerini ve sorunlarını derinlemesine inceleyen, özgün ve yenilikçi çalışmaları bir araya getirerek, alanında önemli bir kaynak oluşturmayı hedeflemektedir. Ayrıca, uzmanların görüşleri ve çeşitli disiplinlerden gelen katkılar sayesinde, aile kavramına dair güncel bakış açıları sunulacak, toplumsal fayda sağlanacaktır.
Aşağıda, özel sayıda kabul edilebilecek (ama bunlarla sınırlı olmayan) güncellenmiş konular listesi yer almaktadır:

• Aile Yapıları ve Değişimi
• Geleneksel ve Modern Aile Rolleri
• Aile İçi İletişim ve İlişkiler
• Ailedeki Psiko-Sosyal Dinamikler
• Aile İlişkilerinde Kültürel Farklılıklar
• Evlilik ve Boşanma Dinamikleri
• Aile ve Çocuk Gelişimi
• Ebeveynlik Stilleri ve Çocuk Üzerindeki Etkileri
• Aile Ekonomisi ve Sosyal Politika
• Aileyi Etkileyen Toplumsal Değişimler
• Aile ve Eğitim İlişkisi
• Ailede Şiddet ve Koruma Mekanizmaları
• Aile İçi Sağlık ve Refah
• Kadınların Aile İçindeki Rolü ve Değişen Dinamikleri
• Kadın Hakları ve Aile İlişkileri
• Kadının Aile Üyeleriyle İlişkileri ve Güç Dinamikleri
• Ailede Cinsiyet Eşitliği
İki bağımsız anonim hakem tarafından değerlendirmeden geçecek makaleler, kabul edilmesi halinde, Aralık 2026'da yayımlanacak özel sayımızda yer alacaktır. Gelecek sayıların dolmuş olması ve süreçte makale yoğunluğunun bulunması nedeniyle dergimiz, özel sayı dışında makale kabulüne kapalıdır. Özel sayı dışında dergimize gönderilen makaleler iade edilecektir.
Saygılarımızla