Schiphol as a Controversial Planning Issue: History, Frame Analysis and Reframing

1
Schiphol as a Controversial Planning Issue
History, Frame Analysis and Reframing

• January 17, 2001
• dr. Michel J.G. van Eeten
• Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management
• Delft University of Technology

2
Todays session

• reflecting on policy frames behind your models
• exploring the political dimensions of your models
• legitimating your models in a polarized arena
• using your models to reframe the currently
  intractable issue
• all this based on the outcomes of a policy
  analysis on Schiphol performed for project TNLI
  of the ministries of VW, VROM and EZ in 1997

3
A Brief History of Schiphol

• for many decades relatively unproblematic growth
• co-evolution of Schiphol and KLM
• 1980s growth of air traffic becomes policy issue
• 1990s full-blown controversy over expansion of
  Schiphol
• 1995 precarious compromise buys a little time
  expansion with a fifth runway AND reduction of
  environmental impacts and limits to growth
• late 1990s to today expansion issue returns with
  a vengeance
• societal debate, TNLI project, salami tactics

4
Analysis for a Wicked Policy Problem

• the policy analysis assignment
• why Schiphol expansion is a wicked policy problem
• fundamental causal uncertainties and disagreement
• polarization over values
• conventional modelling efforts and policy
  analysis is unable to deal with these types of
  problems
• they often simply reproduce existing stakeholder
  positions

5
Frame Analysis (1)

• the need for any policy design for Schiphol to be
  sensitive to the competing policy frames and
  their consequences for problem solving and
  modeling
• frame analysis means identifying the underlying
  problem stories, causal assumptions, values
• testing your sensitivity for different frames in
  the Schiphol issue a D.I.Y frame analysis, based
  on a sample of statements from the Schiphol debate

6
Frame Analysis (2)

• assignment identify different frames behind the
  statements
• pay special attention to those arguments that are
  not captured adequately by the economy-environment
  tradeoff (or for-against further expansion
  tradeoff)

7
Frame A Societal Integration of a Growing Airport

• focus regional, spatial
• balancing and distributing cost and benefits in
  region
• expansion is desirable as long as regional
  benefits outweigh increased costs
• proposals e.g., air traffic should generate
  funds to cover the costs of insulation of housing

8
Frame B1 Expansion as an Economic Necessity

• focus investement in national economy
• expansion of civil aviation infrastructure as a
  necessity in the face of international economic
  competition
• aviation and transport are backbone of economy
• growth is necessary for economic survival
• no growth only means relocating environmental
  effects
• proposals e.g., new aviation infrastructure

9
Frame B2 Expansion as Unjustified Use of Public
Funds

• focus investement in national economy
• aviation hardly contributes to national economy
  (hidden costs, exaggerated benefits)
• there are better opportunities
• unjustified use of public funds, both from
  economic as environmental perspective
• proposals e.g., alternative investments such as
  ICT

10
Frame C Ecological Modernization of the Civil
Aviation Sector

• focus air traffic as branch of industry
• conditions for ensuring sustainability are not in
  place
• prices do not reflect real costs
• governmental roles are entangled
• aviation is treating differently than other
  branches of industry
• proposals e.g., put conditions in place, such as
  tax on kerosine and tickets, similar safety and
  noise standards as other industries

11
Frame D Sustainable Solutions to a Growing
Demand for Mobility

• focus growth of mobility
• growth of mobility is autonomous and given
• try to substitute "unclean" by "clean" transport
  modes
• innovate
• proposals e.g., greening of aviation
  infrastructure, innovation of airplane design,
  substitution of air traffic with High Speed Rail

12
The Potential for Reframing (1)

• the conventional framing of the issue the
  economy vs. environment tradeoff

13
The Potential for Reframing (1)

• the conventional framing of the issue the
  economy vs. environment tradeoff

14
The Potential for Reframing (2)

• a proposal for reframing the issue the economy
  vs. environment tradeoff as a repressive dilemma
• new policy options

15
The Potential for Reframing (3)

• expanding the policy options further
• combining the new alternatives and their semiotic
  opposites
• e.g., non-integration leads to ecological
  modernization (not-A ? C)
• or deregulation leads to integration (not-C ? A)
• or integration leads to not meeting growing
  demands for mobility (A ? not-D)

16
Conclusion

• how can your models benefit from the potential
  for reframing and new policy options?
• and vice versa do your models contribute to
  reframing the currently intractable issue or do
  they reinforce existing positions and frames
  (such as economy vs. environment)?