Germany and the Waste Incinerator in the North Black Forest

  • Ragnar E. Löfstedt


This case study examines the proposed siting and building of one incinerator and two aerobic waste digesters in the North Black Forest region of Germany. The risk management tool used was that of deliberation, more specifically a citizen advisory board, and is a good example of the deliberative approach, since the principal actors eventually agreed where the waste incinerator should be sited. This was no easy task. There was a deep, ingrained distrust between the public and the proposers of the two waste solutions. The public, media and the local policy-makers, moreover, were initially hostile to the use of the citizen advisory boards to help find a solution.


Risk Management Waste Incinerator Public Trust Waste Plant Participatory Democracy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    Peter Katzenstein, Policy and Politics in Western Germany: The Growth of a Semi-sovereign State (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1987);Google Scholar
  2. Peter Katzenstein, ‘The Third West German Republic: continuity in change’, International Journal of Foreign Affairs (1998), 325–44; Richard Munch, ‘The political regulation of technological risks’, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 36 (1995), 109–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 2.
    Ortwin Renn, Thomas Webler and Peter Wiedemann (eds), Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1995).Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    R. Dahrendorf, Gesellschaft und Demokratie in Deutschland (Society and democracy in Germany) (Munich: DTV, 1968).Google Scholar
  5. 4.
    E. Hartrich, The Fourth and Richest Reich: How the Germans Conquered the Postwar World (New York: Macmillan, 1980); Katzenstein, Policy and Politics in Western Germany.Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    Dieter Lorenz, ‘The constitutional supervision of the administrative agencies in the Federal Republic of Germany’, Southern California Law Review, 53: 2, (1980), 543–82.Google Scholar
  7. 6.
    D.P. Currie, ‘Air pollution control in Western Germany’, University of Chicago Law Review, 49: 2 (1982), 359–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 7.
    See Helmut Wiedner, ‘Environmental policy and politics in Germany’, in Uday Desai (ed.), Environmental Politics and Policy in Industrialized Countries (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002).Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    Robert Coppock, Regulating Chemical Hazards in Japan, West Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the European Community: A Comparative Examination (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1986).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. Hey and U. Brendle, Umweltverhande und EG. Strategien, Politische Kulturen und Organisationsformen (Environmental groups and the EU: Strategies, Political Cultures and Forms of Organisation) (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1994).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Susan J. Pharr and Robert D. Putnam (eds), Disaffected Democracies: What’s Troubling the Trilateral Countries? (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen and Jim Skea, Acid Politics (London: Belhaven, 1991).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    See R. Koopmans, Democracy from Below: New Social Movements and the Political System in West Germany (Boulder, CO: Westview Press 1995).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    David Vogel, Trading Up: Consumer and Environmental Regulation in a Global Economy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heinrich Pehle, ‘Germany: Domestic obstacles to an international forerunner’, in Mikael Skou Andersen and Duncan Liefferink (eds), European Environmental Policy: The Pioneers (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heinrich Pehle and Alf Inge Jansen, ‘Germany: the engine in European environmental policy?’, in Kenneth Hanf and Alf Inge Jansen (eds), Governance and Environment in Western Europe (Harlow: Longman, 1998).Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    This case description is adopted from R. Löfstedt, ‘The role of trust in the North Black Forest: an evaluation of a citizen panel project’, Risk: Health Safety and Environment, 7 (1999), 10–30. The sections from this article have been reprinted with permission.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    Ortwin Renn, Thomas Webler and Hans Kastenholz, ‘Procedural and substantive fairness in landfill siting’, Risk: Health, Safety and Environment, 7 (1996), 145–68.Google Scholar
  19. 27.
    Ortwin Renn, ‘Premises of risk communication: results of two participatory experiments’, in Roger E. Kasperson and Peter J. Stallen (eds), Communicating Risks to the Public: International Perspectives (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ragnar E. Löfstedt 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ragnar E. Löfstedt

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations