A complementary perspective on legitimation in regional development: the crisis of acceptance of liquefied natural gas (LNG) on the touristic island of Rügen

Ihar  Buika; Daniel Schiller

doi:10.14512/rur.3089

Authors

Ihar Buika Institut für Geographie und Geologie, Universität Greifswald
Daniel Schiller Institut für Geographie und Geologie, Universität Greifswald

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.3089

Keywords:

Protest , Legitimacy , Acceptance , Liquefied natural gas (LNG), Complementary perspective

Abstract

As the substance of public interest in spatial planning and development remains permanently challenged, the relationship between legitimacy and acceptance is constantly in the focus of discussion. After the wave of interest in participation-intensive communicative legitimation approaches from the 1970s, a still new generation of agonistic approaches has been intensively discussed since the 2000s, raising expectations of a more efficient resolution of conflicts which continue to pose a risk of disturbing or preventing deliberative negotiation. Although such approaches are participation-oriented, too, there are nevertheless concerns that these expectations could remain unfulfilled like those regarding the communicative approach nowadays are. Against this background, our qualitative study, based on 20 semi-structured interviews, is intended to enrich discussion about the complementary perspective on legitimation by clarifying aspects that condition the composition of rational, communicative and agonistic legitimation approaches in particular development projects. The protest against the liquefied natural gas terminal on the island Rügen demonstrates that strong recourse to the rational legitimation approach has restricted participation and thus overshadowed communicative and agonistic demands for broader local participation and led to a severe crisis of acceptance. We argue that it is essential in terms of acceptance-fostering to counter complex issues with equally complex solutions. Moreover, effective and accepted planning and development policy depends on a spatially and temporally sensible, pragmatic composition of legitimation approaches.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Allmendinger, P.; Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2002): The Communicative Turn in Urban Planning: Unravelling Paradigmatic, Imperialistic and Moralistic Dimensions. In: Space and Polity 6, 1, 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562570220137871

Alsheimer, S.; Schnell. T.; Chlebna, C.; Rohe, S. (2025): Competing terms for complementary concepts? Acceptance and legitimacy. In: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 207, 114960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114960

Baxter, P.; Jack, S. (2008): Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. In: The Qualitative Report 13, 4, 544–559. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1573

Bekkers, V., Edwards, A. (2007): Legitimacy and democracy. A conceptual framework for assessing governance practices. In: Bekkers, V.; Dijkstra, G.; Edwards, A.; Fenger, M. (eds.): Governance and the Democratic Deficit. Assessing the Democratic Legitimacy of Governance Practices. London, 35–60.

Benhabib, S. (ed.) (1996): Democracy and Difference. Princeton.

Benner, M. (2024): An ideational turn in economic geography? In: Progress in Economic Geography 2, 1, 100014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peg.2024.100014

Berger, J.; Ridgeway, C.L.; Fisek, H.M.; Norman, R.Z. (1998): The Legitimation and Delegitimation of Power and Prestige Orders. In: American Sociological Review 63, 3, 379–405. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657555

Bitektine, A.; Haack, P. (2015): The “macro” and the “micro” of legitimacy: toward a multilevel theory of the legitimacy process. In: Academy of Management Review 40, 1, 49–75. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0318

BMWK – Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (2022): Notfallplan Erdgas für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Berlin.

Bond, S. (2011): Negotiating a ‘democratic ethos’: moving beyond the agonistic-communicative divide. In: Planning Theory 10, 2, 161–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210383081

Daimer, S.; Hufnagl, M.; Warnke, P. (2012): Challenge-oriented policy-making and innovation systems theory: reconsidering systemic instruments. In: Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Reseach ISI (ed.): Innovation system revisited. Experiences from 40 years of Fraunhofer ISI research. Karlsruhe, 217–234.

de Geus, T.; Wittmayer, J.M.; Vogelzang, F. (2022): Biting the bullet: Addressing the democratic legitimacy of transition management. In: Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 42, 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.12.008

Dewey, J. (1903): Studies in Logical Theory. Chicago.

Durner, W. (2023): Juristische Perspektiven auf die Idee der agonistischen Planung. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning 81, 5, 478–492. https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.1662

Forester, J. (1982): Planning in the face of power. In: Journal of the American Planning Association 48, 1, 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944368208976167

Galison, P. (1999): Trading zone: coordinating action and belief. In: Biagioli, M. (ed.): The science studies reader. New York, 137–160.

Galison, P. (2010): Trading with the Enemy. In: Gorman, M.E. (ed.): Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise: Creating New Kinds of Collaboration. Cambridge, 25–52. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014724.003.0003

Goodin, R.E.; Dryzek, J.S. (2006): Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics. In: Politics and Society 34, 2, 219–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329206288152

Guckelberger, A. (2023): Beschleunigung per Gesetz – über Sinn und Sinnhaftigkeit der Legalplanung. In: Natur und Recht 45, 6, 361–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10357-023-4195-9

Gutmann, A.; Thompson, D.F. (2004): Why deliberative democracy? Princeton.

Habermas, J. (1971): Vorbereitende Bemerkungen zu einer Theorie der kommunikativen Kompetenz. In: Habermas, J.; Luhmann, N. (eds.): Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie – Was leistet die Systemforschung? Frankfurt am Main, 101–141.

Hansen, A.D. (2014): Laclau and Mouffe and the ontology of radical negativity. In: Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory 15, 3, 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/1600910X.2014.973895

Healey, P. (1992): Planning through Debate. The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory. In: Town Planning Review 63, 2, 143–162. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.63.2.422x602303814821

Healey, P. (1997): Collaborative Planning. Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25538-2

Healey, P. (2009): The Pragmatic Tradition in Planning Thought. In: Journal of Planning Education and Research 23, 3, 277–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X08325175

Hechter, M. (2009): Legitimacy in the Modern World. In: American Behavioral Scientist 53, 3, 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209338793

Hillier, J. (2002): Shadows of power. An allegory of prudence in land-use planning. London.

Hillier, J. (2003): Agon’izing over consensus: why Habermasian Ideals cannot be ‘Real’. In: Planning Theory 2, 1, 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952030020010

Innes, J.E. (1998): Information in Communicative Planning. In: Journal of the American Planning Association 64, 1, 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369808975956

Innes, J.E.; Booher, D.E. (2015): A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming dividing discourses. In: Planning Theory 14, 2, 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095213519356

Kuckartz, U. (2019): Qualitative text analysis: a systematic approach. In: Kaiser, G.; Presmeg, N. (eds.): Compendium for Early Career Researchers in Mathematics Education. Cham, 181–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15636-7_8

Kühn, M. (2021): Agonistic planning theory revisited: The planner’s role in dealing with conflict. In: Planning Theory 20, 2, 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095220953201

Kühn, M. (2023): Planungskonflikte und Partizipation: die Gigafactory Tesla. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning 81, 5, 538–556. https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.1698

Laclau, E.; Mouffe, C. (1985): Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Towards Radical Democratic Politics. London.

Lindblom, C.E. (1959): The Science of “Muddling Through”. In: Public Administration Review 19, 2, 79–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/973677

Lindblom, C.E. (1965): The intelligence of Democracy. Decision Making Through Mutual Adjustment. New York.

Longhurst, R. (2016): Semi-structured Interviews and Focus Groups. In: Clifford, N.; Cope, M.; Gillespie, T.; French, S. (eds.): Key Methods in Geography. London, 143–156.

Mansbridge, J.; Bohman, J.; Chambers, S.; Christiano, T.; Fung, A.; Parkinson, J.; Thompson, D.F.; Warren, M.E. (2012): A systemic approach to deliberative democracy. In: Parkinson, J.; Mansbridge, J. (eds.): Deliberative Systems. Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale. Cambridge, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139178914.002

Mäntysalo, R.; Balducci, A., Kangasoja, J. (2011): Planning as agonistic communication in a trading zone. Re-examining Lindblom’s partisan mutual adjustment. In: Planning Theory 10, 3, 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210397147

Mäntysalo, R; Mattila, H.; Hirvola, A. (2023): Institutional Gaps in Agonistic and Communicative Planning Theories. Critical Implications of the ‘Systemic’ Turn in Deliberative Democracy Theory. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning 81, 5, 437–448. https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.1676

Marquez, X. (2016): The Irrelevance of legitimacy. In: Political Studies 64, 1 S, 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12202

Mathiesen, T. (1974): The Politics of Abolition. Oslo.

Mattila, H. (2018): The “Aesthetic Turn” as a Bridge between Communicative and Agonist Planning Theories. In: Architectural Research in Finland 2, 1, 94–113.

Mouffe, C. (2005): On the Political. Thinking in Action. London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203870112

Mouffe, C. (2013): Agonistics. Thinking the world politically. London.

Owen, R.; Macnaghten, P.; Stilgoe, J. (2012): Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. In: Science and Public Policy 39, 6, 751–760. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093

Pløger, J. (2021): Conflict, consent, dissensus: The unfinished as challenge to politics and planning. In: Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 39, 6, 1294–1309. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654420985849

Pløger, J. (2023): Agonism, decision, power. The art of working unfinished. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning 81, 5, 449–460. https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.1668

Poscher, R. (2013): Wozu Juristen streiten. Eine agonistische Theorie juristischer Meinungsverschiedenheiten. In: Juristen Zeitung 68, 1, 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1628/002268813804755308

Rorty, R. (1979): Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton.

Suchman, M.C. (1995): Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. In: Academy of Management Review 20, 3, 571–610. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788

Torfing, J.; Loklindt Christensen, S.; Sørensen, E. (2024): Coping with conflicts, dilemmas and paradoxes through constructive hybridisation. In: Røiseland, A.; Sørensen, E.; Torfing, J. (eds.): Advancing Co-creation in Local Governance. Cheltenham, 47–60. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802202236

Upham, P.; Oltra, C.; Boso, A. (2015): Towards a cross-paradigmatic framework of the social acceptance of energy systems. In: Energy Research and Social Science 8, 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.05.003

von Hirschhausen, C.; Barner, L.; Holz, F.; Kemfert, C.; Kunz, N.; Präger, F.; Steigerwald, B. (2024): Gasversorgung in Deutschland stabil: Ausbau von LNG-Infrastruktur nicht notwendig. Berlin. = DIW aktuell 92.

Zelditch, M. (2001): Processes of Legitimation: Recent Developments and New Directions. In: Social Psychology Quarterly 64, 1, 4–17. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090147