The governance of waste in Ireland is highly contentious, with conflicts over many issues ranging from landfill expansion to charges for municipal waste collection. One of the most intense conflicts surrounds plans to introduce, over the forthcoming decade, incineration for municipal solid waste for the first time in the Republic. Such conflicts over waste incineration, and particularly over the siting of waste-incineration facilities, are not new phenomena and they have been examined empirically and theoretically through a range of disciplinary lenses and in different geographical contexts. These studies, although useful and interesting, rarely give close attention to the geographical strategies involved in such conflicts. The author's empirical investigation of incineration conflicts in Ireland reveals the centrality of a dynamic and evolving spatial dimension, both in the governing strategies adopted by the state in support of a system of waste management that involves a commitment to incineration, and in the transnational advocacy coalition approach adopted by antiincineration campaigners seeking alternatives to incineration. The author concludes that the scalar strategies surrounding incineration reveal the need for a more intricate analysis of power, politics, and place in the analysis of conflicts over waste governance, both in Ireland and beyond—an approach that may be more clearly articulated through a geographically informed understanding of governmentality.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdgerNBrownKFairbrassJJordanAPaavolaJRosendoSSeyfangG, 2003, “Governance for sustainability: Towards a ‘thick’ analysis of environmental decisionmaking”Environment and Planning A351095–1110.
2.
AminA, 2002, “Spatialities of globalisation”Environment and Planning A34385–399.
3.
BederSShortlandM, 1992, “Siting a hazardous waste facility: The tangled web of risk communication”Public Understanding of Science1139–160.
4.
BoyleM, 2001, “Cleaning up after the Celtic Tiger: The politics of waste management in the Irish Republic”Journal of Scottish Association of Geography Teachers3071–91.
5.
BoyleM, 2002, “Cleaning up after the Celtic Tiger: Scalar ‘fixes’ in the political ecology of Tiger economies”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series27172–194.
6.
BulkeleyHBetsillM, 2003Cities and Climate Change: Urban Sustainability and Global Environmental Governance (Routledge, London).
7.
BulkeleyHDaviesA REvansBGibbsDKernK.TheobaldK, 2003, “Environmental governance and transnational local authority networks in Europe”Journal of Environmental Politics and Planning5235–254.
8.
BurgessJ, 2004, “Deliberative mapping: Citizens and specialists informing decisions on science and technology, Briefing 4 Citizens Panels in Deliberative Mapping: A user guide”, http://www.deliberative-mapping.org.
9.
CallananMKeoganJ, 2003Local Government in Ireland: Inside OutInstitute of Public Administration, 57–61 Lansdowne Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4.
10.
CarnoyMCastellsM, 2001, “Globalisation, the knowledge society and the network state”Global Networks11–19.
11.
CastellsM, 2000The Rise of the Network Society (Blackwell, Oxford).
12.
CEC, 2001aEuropean Governance, A White Paper COM (2001) 428 Final (Commission of the European Communities, Brussels).
13.
CEC, 2001bA Sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development COM (2001) 264 Final (Commission of the European Communities, Brussels).
14.
CoxK, 1998, “Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale, or: Looking for local politics”Political Geography171–23.
15.
CSD, 2001Report of the Secretary-General on Sustainable Human Settlements Development and Environmentally Sound Management of Solid WasteCommission for Sustainable Development, UN Commission for Sustainable Development, New York.
16.
CullenM, 2002, “Waste: Still much to do to catch up”Irish Times 11 August, page 14.
17.
DarierE, 1999Discourses of the Environment (Blackwell, Oxford).
18.
DaviesA R, 2002, “Power, politics and networks: Shaping partnerships for sustainable communities”Area34190–203.
19.
DaviesA R, 2003, “Waste wars—public attitudes and the politics of place in waste management strategies”Irish Geography3693–96.
20.
DaviesA R, 2004, “Working with waste”Waste Awareness January/February, page 6.
21.
DaviesA R, 2005, “Anti-incineration campaigning in Ireland: A case for developing an environmental justice dialogue?”, manuscript submitted for publication; available from the author.
22.
DavoudiS, 2000, “Planning for waste management: Changing discourses and institutional relationships”Progress in Planning53165–216.
23.
DavoudiSEvansN, 2003, “Strategic waste planning and the role of regional technical advisory bodies”Town and Country Planning7249–52.
24.
DavoudiSEvansN, 2004, “Exploring the barriers to and enablers of creating ‘institutional capital’ for regional waste planning in England”, presented at AESOP Congress, July, Grenoble; copy available from authors, CUDEM, Centre for Urban Development and Environmental Management, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds.
25.
DeanM, 1999Governmentality (Sage, London).
26.
DenteBFareriPLigteringenJ, 1998The Waste and the Backyard: The Creation of Waste Facilities: Success Stories in Six European Countries (Kluwer, Dordrecht).
27.
Di Chiro, 1997, “Local actions, global visions: Remaking environmental expertise”Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies8203–231.
28.
DoELG, Department of the Environment and Local Government, Dublin.
29.
1992 Environmental Protection Act.
30.
1996 Waste Management Act.
31.
1997 Sustainable Development: A Strategy for Ireland.
32.
1999 Local Government Act.
33.
2000 National Development Plan.
34.
2001 Amendment of 1996 Waste Management Act.
35.
2003 Protection of the Environment Act.
36.
EPA, 2003National Waste Database 2001Environmental Protection Agency, PO Box 3000, Johnstown Castle Estate, County Wexford.
37.
EscobarA, 1996, “Constructing nature: Elements for a post-structuralist political ecology”, in Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development and Social Movements Eds PeetRWattsM, (Routledge, London) pp 46–68.
38.
European Environmental Agency, 2004EEA Signals 2004 (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg).
39.
FaganH, 2002, “Grounding waste: Towards a sociology of waste networks”, NIRSAWP Series 18, National University of Ireland, Maynooth.
40.
FahyF, 2003, “Talking rubbish—waste management strategies in Ireland”, Trinity Papers in Geography 8, Dublin, Trinity College, University of Dublin.
41.
FeatherstoneD, 2003, “Spatialities of transnational resistance to globalization: The maps of grievance of the Inter-Continental Caravan”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, NewSeries28404–421.
42.
FischelW, 2001, “Why are there NIMBYs?”Land Economics77142–152.
43.
FlyvbjergB, 2001Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it can Succeed Again (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
Forás, 2001Key Waste Management Issues in IrelandForfás, Wilton Park House, Wilton Place, Dublin 2.
46.
FoucaultM, 1988, “The ethic of case for the self as a practice of freedom”, in Michel Foucault—Politics, Philosophy, Culture—Interviews and Other Writings 1977–1984 Ed. KritzmanL, (Routledge, London) pp 46–49.
47.
GerrardM, 1996Whose Backyard, Whose Risk: Fear and Fairness in Toxic and Nuclear Waste Siting (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
48.
GrayP, 1995, “Waste incineration—controversy and risk communication”European Review of Applied Psychology4529–34.
49.
HabermasJ, 1987Philosophical Discourse of Modernity (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
HunterSLeydenK, 1995, “Beyond NIMBY: Explaining opposition to hazardous waste facilities”Policy Studies Journal23601–619.
52.
Irish Examiner2001, “The tricky business of making the emerald isle go green”, 1 February, page 10.
53.
JessopB, 1995, “The regulation approach, governance and post-Fordism: Alternative perspectives on economic and political change?”Economy and Society24307–333.
54.
JessopB, 1997, “The governance of complexity and the complexity of governance: Preliminary remarks on some problems and limits of economic guidance”, in Beyond Market and Hierarchy: Interactive Governance and Social Complexity Eds AminAHausnerJ, (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos) pp 95–128.
55.
KeckMSikkinkK, 1998Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY).
56.
KielKMcClainK, 1996, “House price recovery and stigma after a failed siting”Applied Economics281351–1358.
57.
KubalT, 1998, “The presentation of political self: Cultural resonance and the construction of collective action frames”Sociological Quarterly39539–554.
LaffenB, 1996, “Ireland: A region within regions—the odd man out”, in Cohesion Policy and European Integration: Building Multi-level Governance Ed. HoogeL, (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 320–337.
60.
LeachRPercy-SmithJ, 2001Local Governance in Britain (Palgrave, Basingstoke, Hants).
61.
LimaM, 2004, “On the influence of risk perception on mental health: Living near an incinerator”Journal of Environmental Psychology2471–84.
62.
LuloffAAlbrechtSBourkeL, 1998, “NIMBY and the hazardous and toxic waste siting dilemma: The need for concept clarification”Society and Natural Resources1181–89.
63.
MarstonS, 2001, “Confronting social movements with spatial theory: A review of Byron Miller's Geography and Social Movements”Political Geography20925–928.
64.
MasseyD, 2002, “Don't lets counterpose place and space”Development4524–25.
65.
MillerB, 2001Geography and Social Movements (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN).
66.
MurdochJ, 2004, “Putting discourse in its place: Planning, sustainability and the urban capacity study”Area3650–58.
67.
MurrayR, 1999Creating Wealth from Waste Demos, 3rd floor, Magdalen House, 136 Tooley Street, London SE1 2TU.
68.
NievesLHimmelbergerJRatickSWhiteA, 1992, “Negotiated compensation for solid waste disposal facility siting—an analysis of the Wisconsin experience”Risk Analysis12505–511.
69.
O'BrienM, 1999, “Rubbish values: Reflections on the political economy of waste”Science and Cultures8269–295.
70.
O'LearyE, 2003, “A critical evaluation of Irish regional policy”, in Irish Regional Development: A New Agenda Ed. O'LearyE, (Liffey Press, Dublin) pp 15–37.
71.
O'RiordanTChurchC, 2001, “Synthesis and context”, in Globalism, Localism and Identity: Fresh Perspectives on the Transition to Sustainability Ed. O'RiordanT, (Earthscan, London) pp 3–24.
72.
PerreaultT, 2003, “Changing places: Transnational networks, ethnic politics and community development in the Ecuadorian Amazon”Political Geography2261–88.
73.
PetersGPierreJ, 2001Governance, Politics and the State (Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hants).
74.
PettsJ, 1992, “Incineration risk perceptions and public concern: Experiences in the UK improving risk communication”Waste Management and Research10169–182.
75.
PickerillJ, 2000, “Environmentalists and the net: Pressure groups, new social movements and new ICTs”, in Reinvigorating Democracy? British Politics and the Internet Eds WardSGibsonR, (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 129–150.
76.
PurcellM, 2003, “Islands of practice and the Marston/Brenner debate: Towards a more synthetic critical human geography”Progress in Human Geography27317–332.
77.
RhodesR, 1997Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability (Open University Press, Milton Keynes, Bucks).
78.
RootesC, 1999, “Acting globally, thinking locally? Prospects for a global environmental movement”Environmental Politics8290–310.
79.
SelmanP, 2000, “Networks of knowledge and influence: Connecting the planners and the planned”Town Planning Review71109–121.
80.
SharpJRoutledgePPhiloCPaddisonR, 2000, “Introduction”, in Entanglements of Power: Geographies of Domination/Resistance Eds SharpJRoutledgePPhiloCPaddisonR, (Routledge, London) pp 1–42.
81.
SnaryC, 2004, “Understanding risk: The planning officers' perspective”Urban Studies4133–35.
82.
StapletonLLehaneMTonerP, 2000Ireland's Environment: A Millennium ReportEnvironmental Protection Agency, PO Box 3000, Johnstown Castle Estate, County Wexford.
83.
StokerG, 1998, “Governance as theory: Five propositions”International Social Science Journal5017–28.
84.
TammemagiH, 1999The Waste Crisis: Landfills, Incinerators and the Search for a Sustainable Future (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
85.
TaylorG, 2001Conserving the Emerald Tiger: The Politics of Environmental Regulation in Ireland (Arlen House, Galway).
86.
UNCED, 1992Agenda 21United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, New York.
87.
WalshEWarlandRClayton-SmithD, 1997Don't Burn it Here: Grassroots Challenges to Trash Incinerators (Penn State Press, University Park, PA).
YearleyS, 1995, “Dirty connections: Transnational pollution”, in A Shrinking World? Eds AllenJHamnettC, (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 143–183.
91.
ZeissC, 1998, “Noxious facilities and host community response: A causal framework”Journal of Environmental Health6118–28.
92.
ZeissCPaddonB, 1992, “Management principles for negotiating waste facility siting agreements”Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association421296–1304.
