His expertise is:
At the Environmental Science department (1984-1999), world-wide pioneer of social research on renewable energy (non-hydro) implementation.
In the late 1980-ies: three of the very first articles on the issue of social acceptance of wind power in international peer reviewed journals: (Neth J Housing Environ Res 1987; Environ Impact Assess Rev 1988; Wind Engineering 1989; all links in the Scopus overview, this page).
Based on this research: PhD thesis in 1990 (see cover above) on public acceptance of wind power, within the broader frame of social acceptance.
The focus has always been on a limited quantity of papers, only when publishing papers woiuld have potential impact. Not always successful, but several have shown remarkable impact:
Most articles can be accessed directly at the "Key Publications and Research" page (link top of this page). Alternatively, all full texts of articles are available at "Research Gate". https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Maarten_Wolsink
Physics 2,5 yrs
BA Political Science 1979
MA Political Science methods & Mass communication 1982
PhD (Social) Pschology 1990
From 1979-1982 research assistant at the Department of Methodology (Political Science,University of Amsterdam)
From 1983-1993 contract researcher at IVAM, Department of Environmental Sciences.
1990 PhD in Social Psychology (thesis on the Public and Social Acceptance of Wind Power; see cover above)
1994-1998 associate professor Social Sciences at the Interdisciplinary Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Amsterdam
Since 1999 associate professor Environmental Geography at the Department of Geography, Planning and International Development Studies, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences
Some significant sideline positions outside the University of Amsterdam:
* Leibniz Institut (Interdisciplinary Association of German Research Institutes). Project Advisory Board Leibniz Alliance on energy Transitions.
* MISTRAL External Board (Multi-sectoral approaches to Innovative Skills Training for Renewable energy And sociaL acceptance) PhD Training Network sponsored by the Marie-Sklodovska-Curie programm EU; lead by Queens University Belfast. From 2018-present
* NWO (Nederlandse organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek; the Netherlands Research Council): Member of the Board of ESR (Economic Social Research council) from 1994-1997.
* SWOME: Member of the Board from 1991-2008 (National platform of social science researchers on environmental and energy issues).
* SENSE (Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment; research school 7 Dutch universities) Research Program Board 1996-1998.
M. Wolsink (2020) Distributed energy systems as common goods: Socio-political acceptance of renewables in intelligent microgrids. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 127, 109841 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109841
M. Wolsink (2019) Social acceptance, lost objects, and obsession with the ‘public’—The pressing need for enhanced conceptual and methodological rigor. Energy Research & Social Science 48, 269-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.12.006
M. Wolsink (2018) Social acceptance revisited: gaps, questionable trends, and an auspicious perspective. Energy Research & Social Science 46, 287-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.034
M. Wolsink (2018) Co-production in distributed generation: renewable energy and creating space for fitting infrastructure within landscapes. Landscape Research 43, 4, 542-561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1358360
M. Wolsink (2016) Environmental education excursions and proximity to urban green space – densification in a ‘compact city’. Environmental Education Research, 22, 7, 1049-1071. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1077504
Wolsink, M. (2016) ‘Sustainable City’ requires ‘recognition’—The example of environmental education under pressure from the compact city. Land Use Policy, 52, 174-180. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837715004159
M. Wolsink (2014) Distributed Generation of Sustainable Energy as a Common Pool Resource: Social Acceptance in Rural Setting of Smart (Micro-)grid Configurations. In B. Frantál & S. Martinát (Eds.) New Rural Spaces. Towards Renewable Energies, Multifunctional Farming, and Sustainable Tourism. (pp. 36-47) Brno: UGN Academy of Sciences Czech Republic. http://dare.uva.nl/record/1/429149
M. Wolsink (2013). Wind Power : Basic Challenge Concerning Social Acceptance. In L.Y. Kaltschmitt, M., N.J. Themelis, L.Y. Bronicki, L. Söder & L.A. Vega (Eds.), Renewable Energy Systems (pp. 1785-1821). New York: Springer. [go to publisher site]
M. Wolsink (2013). The next phase in social acceptance of renewable innovation. EDI Quarterly, 5(1), 10-13. [go to publisher's site]
M. Wolsink (2013). Fair Distribution of Power Generating Capacity: Justice, Microgrids and Utilizing the Common Pool of Renewable Energy. In K Bickerstaff, G Walker & H Bulkeley (Eds.), Energy Justice in a Changing Climate. Social equity and low-carbon energy (pp. 116-138). London / New York: Zed Books. Series “Just Sustainabilities: Policy, Planning, and Practice” #2 FullText
M. Wolsink (2013). Acceptation sociale de l’innovation en matière d’énergie renouvelable: en quoi l’offshore est-il différent? In G. Gueguen-Hallouët & H. Levrel (Eds.), Energies marines renouvelables: enjeux juridiques en socio-économiques: actes du colloque de Brest, 11 et 12 octobre 2012 (pp. 215-238). Paris: A. Pedone. [go to publisher's site] FullText
M. Wolsink (2012). Undesired reinforcement of harmful 'self-evident truths' concerning the implementation of wind power. Energy Policy, 48, 83-87.
M. Wolsink (2012). The research agenda on social acceptance of distributed generation in smart grids: renewable as common pool resources. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(1), 822-835.
M. Wolsink (2012). Wind power: basic challenge concerning social acceptance. In R.A. Meyers (Ed.), Encyclopedia of sustainability science and technology. - Volume 17 (Springer Reference) (pp. 12218-12254). New York: Springer. [go to publisher's site]
M. Wolsink (2011). Discourses on the implementation of wind power: stakeholder views on public engagement. In P. Devine-Wright (Ed.), Renewable energy and the public: from NIMBY to participation (pp. 75-87). London: Earthscan. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309735819_Discourses_on_the_Implementation_of_Wind_Power_Stakeholder_Views_on_Public_Engagement
M. Wolsink (2011). De homo economicus onder stroom: energie-opwekking en -gebruik in smart grids. In S. Pront-van Bommel (Ed.), De consument en de andere kant van de elektriciteitsmarkt: inleidingen op het openingscongres van het Centrum voor Energievraagstukken Universiteit van Amsterdam op 27 januari 2010 (pp. 136-166). Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam, Centrum voor Energievraagstukken.
M. Wolsink (2010). Contested environmental policy infrastructure: socio-political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste facilities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(5), 302-311. [go to publisher's site]
M. Wolsink (2010). Near-shore wind power - protected seascapes, environmentalists' attitudes, and the technocratic planning perspective. Land Use Policy, 27(2), 195-203. [go to publisher's site]
M. Wolsink & S. Breukers (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.
J. de Vries & M. Wolsink (2009). Making space for water: spatial planning and water management in the Netherlands. In S. Davoudi, J. Crawford & A. Mehmood (Eds.), Planning for climate change: strategies for mitigation and adaptation for spatial planners (pp. 191-204). London: Earthscan. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254915928_Making_space_for_water_spatial_planning_and_water_management_in_the_Netherlands
M. Wolsink & J. Devilee (2009). The motives for accepting or rejecting waste infrastructure facilities: shifting the focus from the planners’ perspective to fairness and community commitment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52(2), 217-236. [go to publisher's site]
M. Wolsink (2008). Vernieuwbare energie. In T. Dietz, F. den Hertog & H. van der Wusten (Eds.), Van natuurlandschap tot risicomaatschappij: de geografie van de relatie tussen mens en milieu (pp. 111-117). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
D. Toke, S. Breukers & M. Wolsink (2008). Wind power deployment outcomes: How can we account for the differences? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12(4), 1129-1147.
R. Wüstenhagen, M. Wolsink & M. Bürer (2007). Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy, 35(5), 2683-2691.
M. Wolsink (2007). 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.
S. Breukers & M. Wolsink (2007). Wind power implementation in changing institutional landscapes: An international comparison. Energy Policy, 35(5), 2737-2750.
M. Wolsink (2007). Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives’. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(6), 1188-1207.
S. Breukers & M. Wolsink (2007). Wind energy policies in the Netherlands: Institutional capacity-building for ecological modernization. Environmental Politics, 16(1), 92-112.
M. Wolsink (2006). River basin approach and integrated water management: Governance pitfalls for the Dutch Space-Water-Adjustment Management Principle. Geoforum, 37(4), 473-487.
M. Wolsink (2006). Invalid theory impedes our understanding: A critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY. Transactions - Institute of British Geographers, 31(1), 85-91.
M. Wolsink (2004). Policy beliefs in spatial decisions: Contrasting core beliefs concerning space making for waste infrastructure. Urban Studies, 41(13), 2669-2690. Full text
M. Wolsink (2003). Reshaping the Dutch planning system: A learning process? Environment and Planning A, 35, 705-723. Full text
M. Wolsink (2003). Utilities as tools for shaping the city: waste management and power supply. In S. Musterd & W. Salet (Eds.), Amsterdam human capital (pp. 143-161). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. [go to publisher's site]
M. Wolsink (2003). The planning system and its impact on sustainable urban form and energy demand. In S. Attali, E. Métreau, M. Prône & K. Tillerson (Eds.), Time to turn down energy demand: energy intelligent solutions for climate, security and sustainable development: ECEEE 2003 Summer Study proceedings (pp. 575-586). Stockholm: European Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. [go to publisher's site]
M. Wolsink (2002). Der "Infrastrukturansatz" und der Versuch zur Neugestaltung des Niederländischen Planungssystems. Planungsrundschau, 6, 42-67. Planungsrundschau_Wolsink_Infrastructuransatz
S. Carvalho & M. Wolsink (2001). Instrumentos da política de redução de resíduos: a experiência holandesa. Indústria e Ambiente, 22, 10-17. [go to publisher's site]
P. de Jong & M. Wolsink (2001). The Structure of the Dutch Waste Sector and Impediments for Waste Reduction. In J.C. Powell, R.K Turner & I.J. Bateman (Eds.), Waste Management and Planning (pp. 397-414). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
M. Wolsink & K. Wortmann (2001). Further than ever from Kyoto? Rethinking energy efficiency can get us there. Dynamics of consumption. Paris: ECEEE/ADEME.
K. Wortmann & M. Wolsink (2001). Dynamics of consumption and the need for an institutional perspective. In M. Wolsink & K. Wortmann (Eds.), Further than ever from Kyoto? Rethinking energy efficiency can get us there: Dynamics of consumption (pp. 274-278). Paris: ECEEE/ADEME.
M. Wolsink & P. de Jong (2001). Waste Sector Structure: Institutional Capacity for Planning Waste Reduction. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 92(2), 148-163.
M. Wolsink (2000). Learning in environmental policy: the obstinacy of policy beliefs and other structural impediments. In A. Gijswijt & F. Buttel (Eds.), Sociological Theory and the Environment, partII Cultural and Social Constructivism (pp. 223-228). Amsterdam: SISWO.
M. Wolsink (2000). Wind power and the NIMBY-myth. Institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renewable Energy, 21(1), 49-64.
P.T. de Jong & M. Wolsink (1999). Afvalreductie en de structuur van afvalsectoren; lessen uit het buitenland. Milieu: tijdschrift voor milieukunde, 14(1), 11-23.
E. Tellegen & M. Wolsink (1998). Society and its Environment. An Introduction. Reading, UK: Gordon and Breach Publishers.
P. de Jong & M. Wolsink (1997). The structure of the Dutch waste sector and impediments for waste reduction. Waste Management & Research, 15(6), 641-658. [go to publisher's site]
M. Wolsink (1996). Dutch wind power policy. Stagnating implementation of renewables. Energy Policy, 24(12), 1097-1088. Full text
E. Tellegen, P.T. de Jong, M.P. Slingerland, S. Wijmer & M. Wolsink (1996). Nutsbedrijven en de beperking van het huishoudelijk milieugebruik in Nederland. Amsterdams Sociologisch Tijdschrift, 23(1), 218-241. http://rjh.ub.rug.nl/ast/article/view/23764
M. Wolsink (1995). Natuur en milieu uit de eerste hand [Review of the book -]. Jeugd en Samenleving, 25(8), 501-503. Full text
M. Wolsink (1995). Grote projekten: een wrr-advies over betere besluitvorming. Milieu: tijdschrift voor milieukunde, 10(2), 72-78. Full text copy
M. Jonk & M. Wolsink (2003). De wijk naar het winterbed. Risicobeleving rond woningbouw in de bedding van de Maas. In M. Wolsink & M. Baumeister (Eds.), Van nijlpaard tot Maasbedding. Verscheidenheid en samenhang in de milieugeografie (pp. 121-145). Utrecht: Jan van Arkel.
M. Wolsink & M. Baumeister (Eds.). (2003). Van nijlpaard tot Maasbedding. Verscheidenheid en samenhang in de milieugeografie. Utrecht: Jan van Arkel.
M. Wolsink & M. Baumeister (2003). Verscheidenheid binnen een Amsterdams milieu. In M. Wolsink & M. Baumeister (Eds.), Van nijlpaard tot Maasbedding. Verscheidenheid en samenhang in de milieugeografie (pp. 11-28). Utrecht: Jan van Arkel.
M. Wolsink & L.A. de Klerk (2002). Kwaliteit van de leefomgeving. Modernisering en de verdeling van de ruimte. In H. Knippenberg & M. van Schendelen (Eds.), Alles heeft zijn plaats: 125 jaar geografie en planologie aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam, 1877-2002 (pp. 377-398). Amsterdam: Aksant. Full text copy
M. Wolsink (2000). Ontwikkeling van burgerzin? De gevaren van NME als instrument voor gedragsverandering. In D.J. Joustra (Ed.), NME met een duurzaam perspectief; Essaybundel Extra impuls Natuur en milieueducatie 1996-1999 (pp. 30-33). Amsterdam: Nat. Comm. voor intern. samenwerking en Duurzame Ontw..
P. de Jong and M. Wolsink (1997). The Structure of the Dutch Waste Sector and Impediments for Waste Reduction. Waste Management & Research 14 (6) 641-658. full text.
M. Wolsink (1997). New experimental electricity tariff systems for household end use. In Sustainable energy opportunities for a greater Europe: the energy efficiency challenge for Europe: proceedings of the 1997 ECEEE summer study 9-14 june 1997, Spindleruv Mlýn, Czech Republic (pp. 54/1-54/14). København: Energistyrelsen. [go to publisher's site]
M. Wolsink (1996). Het NIMBY-denken: eindpunt of startpunt van een leerpeoces. In R. van Est, H. van der Graaf & J. Eberg (Eds.), Leren met beleid. Beleidsverandering en beleidsgericht leren bij NIMBY, milieu- en technologiebeleid (pp. 19-40). Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.
M. Wolsink (1996). Dutch Wind Power Policy. Stagnating Implementation of Renewables. Energy Policy 24 (12) 1079-1088.
M. Wolsink (1996). Resultater af EF-undersogelsen (Annoyance from windturbine noise on sixteen locations in three countries. In T.H. Pedersen (Ed.), Genevirkning af st?j fra vindm?ller (pp. A6 1-A6 5). Lyngby (Dk): Delta Akustik & Vibration. Lydteknisk Institut. full text
P.T. de Jong & M. Wolsink (1995). Waste reduction and the structure of the Dutch waste sector. In R.S.A.R. van Rompaey, M.T.J. Kok, S. Zwerver & M.M. Berk (Eds.), Climate change research: evaluation and policy implications (pp. 1105-1108). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
M. Wolsink (1995). Policy failure in the introduction of renewable energy; wind power in the Netherlands. In A. Persson (Ed.), Sustainability and the Reinvention of Government - A challenge for Energy Efficiency. Part II (pp. 103-114). Stockholm: European Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
M. Wolsink (1994). Entanglement of interests and motives: assumptions behind the 'nimby-theory' on facility siting. Urban Studies 31 (6) 851-866. [full text ResearchGate]
M. Wolsink (1993) Milieuproblemen - Houdingen en gedrag van jongeren. Jeugd en Samenleving 23 (12) 637-650. full text.
M. Wolsink (1993) De veronderstelloingen achter het nimby-beleid. Beleid & Maatschappij 20 (3), 143-152. full text.
M. Wolsink & M. Sprengers (1993) Windtubine noise: a new environmental threat? in M. Vallet (Ed.) (ed.) Noise as a public health problem, Vol.2,. INRETS, Bron (France). pp. 235-238 full text WindTubine Noise
M. Wolsink (1989) Attitudes and expectancies about wind turbines and wind farms. Wind Engineering 13 (4), 196-206 Full text Wind Engineering
M. Wolsink (1988) The social impact of a large wind turbine. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 8 (4) 223-334. Full text EIARev
M. Wolsink (1987) Wind power for the electricity supply of houses. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 2 (3) 195-214 . Full text Jstor
Three broad topics have main been research objects of Maarten Wolsink over the years. The most significant one is the implementation of renewable energy : social acceptance and the institutional character of this concept (see next section).
One of the relevant issues within this domain is the siting of facilities and decision making about such energy infrastructure. The simplistic common sense views among developers and authorities alike can be recognized as a dominant pattern of thinking and behaving. As such they are the manifestation of a real 'institution' . Those views are that resistance in society against infrastructure is dominated by mere selfish "backyard feelings". This view is fully flawed, although in how many ways it is incorrect depnds upon the sort of infrastrcuture. This idea of not-in-my-backyard (nimby, a concept with roots in organized crime in the 1970-ies' US waste industry) is a popular a myth, but it has an intriguing persistence which had to be investigated. Wind farms are a clear example of the invalidity of the Nimby-'theory', as already came out of my research the 1980-ies.
Generally speaking, the nimby syndrome is not a phenomenon of a disease among residents, but it is in fact reflecting a limited understanding among authorities, developers, and shallow journalism. The label is often used to mask the use of misconceptions and of incompetence in planning andpolicy. Consequently a second research topic became environmental risk and conflict in waste, water, and energy infrastructure decision-making.
is related to the support or resistance to policies that effectively promote the implementation of wind power. This is not only related to government, but also to societal actors like energy companies, environmental organisations, tourist organisations etc. An even more common misunderstanding is that the strongest barriers are found in community acceptance ('local resistance') whereas the positive acceptance (local initiatives and support for community energy initiatives) atlocal/community level is in fact remarkably high. The concept of social acceptance is elaborated (see figure) in the high impact papers in Energy Policy, 2007 (Wüstenhagen et al.; Top25 energyPolicy#4) and Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews (link 'most cited' below; link to paper next section). Most widespread non-acceptance concerns a variety of reasons for actors in policy (also governmental actors, despite their lip service in positively formulated policies and objectives) as well as actors in the market, to refuse to set the proper conditions for enabeling the high potential of acceptance at the level of communities to materialize. These impediments are always institutional by nature. The first time the institutional character of renewable's acceptance and implementation issues was defined was in 2000 intwo high-impact articles: Jacobsson & Johnson (2000, Energ Policy 28: 625) and Wolsink (Renewable Energy, 2000). After 10 years the latter paper is still in the top-25 of most downloaded papers in the journal.
The most recent publication (RenSust Energ Reviews 2012; link below) is
also the most import one. It covers all dimensions of the acceptance of elements
that will be part of energy supply based on renewable sources. It concerns the
social acceptance of the various characteristics of "smart grids" as a
carrier of renewables implementation. These will become an important next phase
in renewables' deployment. The paper is called "The research agenda on social
acceptance of distributed generation in smart grids: Renewable as common pool
resources" in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2012. (link below; also
to a Dutch text on this topic).
In micro-grids there can be an integration of distributed generation with renewable sources by fine-tuning of different sources among eachother, and with demand in these smart microgrids.
Innovation - A change of ideas, that becomes
manifest in products, processes, or organizations, that are
applied successfully in practice.
An energy supply and consumption system containing a substantial part of power generated with renwable sources should be considered a new socio-technical system (STS). This is a system with new scientific and technological as well as socio-economic and organizational components, which is reflecting new ideas and concepts on the proffered design of such new systems. For any innovation the linkages between these both components, must be addressed. The development of innovations and their implementation requires favourable institutional conditions and extensive social learning. This also holds for renewables. All aspects of a new STS featuring a substantial amount of renewable energy are subject to social acceptance: any actor may accept certainaspects, while simultaneouslyrejecting other aspects, as a result of social, economic, and/or political learning processes.
Problematic in innovation are so-called institutional
"lock-in's". Most barriers to innovation can be brought down to
such lock-in's that exist because the current institutions (the
way society is organizedand stuctured) are not fit for the new
developments and ideas. The existing structure is based on
historic developments ("path-dependency") an an example of such
historic developments in the energy and wastsectors can be
found in the 2003 chapter "Utilities as Tools for Shaping the
Institutions - Existing patterns of behaviour and thinking,determined by existing societal rules; "the rules of the game in a society".
The acceptance of innovation requires new patterns in thinking and behaviour of all different types of actors. This is institutional change, and therefore the support orresistance tothese institutional changes is the fundamental factor in social acceptance. Some examples of institutions are (among others):
- theorganizationand dominant ways of thinkingin the energy sector;
- the ways of thinking among developers and authorities about decision-making about investing and building renewables (e.g. J Env Plann Management 2010);
-the persistence of the interpretation of problems in community acceptance in terms 'backyard' protection (e.g. RenewSustEnergyRev 2007).
This latter pattern of thinking,which implies also a rigid idea about nimby-ism, has as such becomea major impediment for renewables implementation (also see 'environmental conflict' below). The truth is that debates about for example windturbines are debates about landscape, not primarily about energy (e.g. Land Use Policy 2010; Energ Policy 2007). Furthermore, they concern all kinds of variables that are associated with local and community identity, and with community involvement in decision making as wellas the energy schemes themselves.
Research on the genuine reasons for objecting and/or
supporting renewable energy as well as support or resistance
to concrete schemes, had a spin-off of studies in environmental
conflict in infrastructure decision-making. In EIA Review 2010
you can find a recent comparison of renewable energy, waste,
and water infrastructure. This research line concerns the
original criticisms of nimby-thinking (Urban Studies 1994) as
well as more recent criticisms (Transactions IBG 2006).
Furthermore, empirical research on energy and waste
Important in the empirical research is the development of a reliable "nimby scale" (a set reliable set of items measuring an acceptance-rejection position based on the theoretical references to the backyard). Interesting is in particular that this scale reveals that if there is an inclination to reject this is not reflecting the pre-supposed egitist nature of residents to 'protect ones turf' (as hypotheticallyproclaimed by Dear 1992). It rather indicates a commitment to other closely related others and it is more a community values scale. In fact any reference of residents to the 'backyard' isassociated with feelings about equity and perceived fairness of process (J EnvPlann Man 2009). Meanwhile, the ways of decision making are again linked to very specific institutionalized patterns of thinking, as shown in studies that apply the special method of Q-sort. Examples of this: on waste infrastructure Urban Studies 2004; on international comparison of beliefs among actors involvend in windpower implementation: Wolsink and Breukers, J of Env Plann Man 2010).
A base lineis that the procliamed environmental benefits of inrastructure is not taken for granted. The claims, for example about new energy infrastructure, among policy makers and developers can be criticizedfor very good reasons. This applies for example for Carbon Sequestration (CCS; not exactly an innovation, but an effort to continue coal base power generation) or 'shale-gas fracking' (high environmental impact and also an effort to continue natural gas based energy supply). Obviously, most forms of biomass or biofuels can also be criticized for very good reasons. See for example the brief overview on renewables ("vernieuwbare energie") in the Dutch text below.
Breaking the Rules – Energy Transitions as Social Innovations. Leibnitz association Conference June 14th-15th, 2018 at WZB Berlin Social Science Center ; keynote: "Renewables: common pool natural resources ‒ distributed generation in intelligent grids" www.researchgate.net/publication/325929457_Renewables_common_pool_natural_resources_-_distributed_generation_in_intelligent_grids
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. Workshop on stakeholder involvement in Nuclear Decision-Making. Paris (F) 17-19 January 2017. Introduction session "Stakeholder invovement on 'other sectors'" and presentation Common misconceptions on stakeholder involvement - Reviewing deployment of RES"" . https://www.oecd-nea.org/civil/workshops/stakeholder-involve2017/presentations/7a_Maarten_Wolsink.pdf & https://www.oecd-nea.org/civil/workshops/stakeholder-involve2017/presentations/7d_Maarten_Wolsink.pdf
Energy Landscapes Perception, Planning, Participation and Power, Dresden (D) 16-18 September 2015. Keynote 17 September Participation as co-production — Inevitable Community Involvement in Distributed Generation in Micro-Grids. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Maarten_Wolsink DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1056.3282
‘Sharing Futures’ Summer School: Interdisciplinarity and intergenerationality in planning sustainable urban environments
24-26th August 2015. University of Birmingham, Edgbaston. Institutional Conditions for Microgrids: Social Acceptance of Integrating Distributed Generation and Land Use Required for the Infrastructure.
Conference “Controversy over Energy Technologies: What Shapes Community Acceptance of Wind Power?” 24 October 2014. Danish Technical University, DTU Management Engineering; Lyngby (DK) Integration of renewables supply and demand; social acceptance of crucial smarts grid elements ─ Scale Conflicts about Distributed Generation. http://podcast.llab.dtu.dk/feeds/what-shapes-community-acceptance-of-wind-power/
Maarten Wolsink was promotor for the admittance to the degree of doctor of several PhD's:
Maarten Wolsink was External PhD Reviewer or a member of the PhD Thesis Committee and viva - opposition:
Rolf Wüstenhagen, Maarten Wolsink, MaryJean Bürer
Special Issue Energy Policy, 2007, with the highest impact of all SI's in this jounal ever. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03014215/35/5?sdc=1
Twelve papers, among those 7 with very high impact In particular the lead paper by Wustenhagen, Wolsink, Burer (elaboration of the concept of Social Acceptance of energy innovation), Gross (on justice and community fairness), Wolsink (Deliberate and fair decision making on landscape issues), Van der Horst (relevance of location in siting controversies), Jobert, Laborgne and Mimler (Comparison of local acceptance of wind projects in Germany and France), Breukers and Wolsink (Institutional coparison of 3 international cases), and Sauter and Watson (deployment of micro-generation, in particular PV).
Thesis Publishers, Amsterdam 1990.
(Maatschappelijke acceptatie van windenergie; also published as PhD-thesis; University of Amsterdam).
by Egbert Tellegen & Maarten Wolsink
(1st Ed. published by Gordon & Breach/OPA, 1998)
Egbert Tellegen en Maarten Wolsink
Stenfert Kroese, Leiden, 1992.
Natacha Bakker, Ton Dietz, Maarten Wolsink (red.) Ruimte voor Milieu. Jan van Arkel, 2007.
Maarten Wolsink & Michael Baumeister (Eds.)
Jan Van Arkel.