Engaging citizens: local interactions, policy discourse and courses of protest against mobile phone cell site deployment

Figures & data

Table 1. Overview of cases (N = 16).

Location	Course	Study	Type	Sustained collective action?
Alkmaar	2010–2011	Extensive	Rejecting	No
Amersfoort	2005–2013	Intensive	Tolerating	Yes
Amstelveen	2011–ongoing	Intensive	Tolerating	Yes
Amsterdam Geuzenveld-Slotermeer	2005–2007	Intensive	Mediating	Yes
Amsterdam (Jordaan)	2013–ongoing	Extensive	Mediating	Yes
Amsterdam Osdorp/Oud-Sloten	2004–2009	Intensive	Rejecting	No
Amsterdam Oud Zuid	2000–2008	Intensive	Cooperating	Yes
Assendelft	2012–ongoing	Extensive	Tolerating	Yes
Breda	2010–2011	Extensive	Rejecting	No
Egmond ad Hoef (Bergen)	2011–ongoing	Intensive	Mediating	Yes
Egmond Binnen (Bergen)	2008–ongoing	Intensive	Mediating	Yes
Gorinchem	2010	Extensive	Rejecting	No
Hengelo	2008–2012	Intensive	Tolerating	Yes
Hilversum	2009–ongoing	Intensive	Mediating	Yes
Valkenswaard	2010–2012	Intensive	Rejecting	Yes
Wageningen	2012–ongoing	Extensive	Mediating	Yes

Table 2. Four types of engagement with citizen protest, discourse formation and outcomes.

Municipal engagement	Framing rules (discourse)	Feeling rules (discourse)	Outcome: collective action?	Outcome: policy changes?
Rejecting	Affirming technological imperative	Trust government and science	No sustained collective action; individual complaints	Marginal; juridification
Tolerating	Affirming technological imperative	Tolerating fear, visual pollution and loss of property value	Outbursts, no sustained collective action	Research on alternative locations; juridification
Mediating	Acknowledging conflict; affirming technological imperative as well as health frame	Legitimising specific health worries	Sustained, diverging collective activism	Local policy-creation; change of location
Co-operating	Politicising and including any frame	Legitimising and triggering any fear or concern	Sustained, unifying collective action	Redefining (local) policy; removing masts