How a new university campus affected people in three villages: the dynamic nature of social licence to operate

References

• Bice S. 2014. What gives you a social licence? An exploration of the Social Licence to Operate in the Australian mining industry. Resources. 3:62–80.
   Google Scholar
• Bice S, Moffat K. 2014. Social licence to operate and impact assessment. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 32(4):257–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boutilier RG. 2014. Frequently asked questions about the social license to operate. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 32(4):263–272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen C, Vanclay F, Zhang Y. 2019. The social impacts of a stop-start transnational university campus: how the impact history and changing plans of projects affect local communities. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 77:105–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooney J. 2017. Reflections on the 20th anniversary of the term ‘social licence’. J Energy & Nat Resour Law. 35(2):197–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dare M, Schirmer J, Vanclay F. 2014. Community engagement and social license to operate. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 32(3):188–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demuijnck G, Fasterling B. 2016. The social license to operate. J Bus Ethics. 136(4):675–685.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards P, Lacey J. 2014. Can’t climb the trees anymore: social licence to operate, bioenergy and whole stump removal in Sweden. Social Epistemology. 28(3–4):239–257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehrnström-Fuentes M, Kröger M. 2017. In the shadows of social licence to operate: untold investment grievances in Latin America. J Clean Prod. 141:346–358.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esteves AM, Vanclay F. 2009. Social Development Needs Analysis as a tool for SIA to guide corporate-community investment: applications in the minerals industry. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 29(2):137–145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gulakov I, Vanclay F. 2018. Social impact assessment in the Russian Federation: does it meet the key values of democracy and civil society? Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 36(6):494–505.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gulakov I, Vanclay F. 2019. Social impact assessment and stakeholder engagement in the Russian Federation: representativeness, deliberativeness and influence. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 75:37–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gulakov I, Vanclay F, Arts J. 2020. Modifying social impact assessment to enhance the effectiveness of company social investment strategies in contributing to local community development. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. doi:10.1080/14615517.2020.1765302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunningham N, Kagan R, Thornton D. 2004. Social license and environmental protection: why businesses go beyond compliance. Law Social Inq. 29(2):307–341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall N, Lacey J, Carr-Cornish S, Dowd AM. 2015. Social license to operate: understanding how a concept has been translated into practice in energy industries. J Clean Prod. 86:301–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanna P, Vanclay F, Langdon EJ, Arts J. 2016. Conceptualizing social protest and the significance of protest action to large projects. Extr Ind Soc. 3(1):217–239.
   Google Scholar
• Jijelava D, Vanclay F. 2014a. Assessing the social license to operate of development cooperation organizations: A case study of Mercy Corps in Samtskhe-Javakheti, Georgia. Social Epistemology. 28(3–4):297–317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jijelava D, Vanclay F. 2014b. Social license to operate through a gender lens: the challenges of including women’s interests in development assistance projects. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 32(4):283–293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jijelava D, Vanclay F. 2017. Legitimacy, credibility and trust as the key components of a social license to operate: an analysis of BP’s projects in Georgia. J Clean Prod. 140:1077–1086.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jijelava D, Vanclay F. 2018. How a large project was halted by the lack of a social licence to operate: testing the applicability of the Thomson and Boutilier model. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 73:31–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lacey J, Lamont J. 2014. Using social contract to inform social licence to operate: an application in the Australian coal seam gas industry. J Clean Prod. 84:831–839.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luke H. 2017. Social resistance to coal seam gas development in the Northern Rivers region of Eastern Australia: proposing a diamond model of social license to operate. Land Use Policy. 69:266–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer-Mapstone L, Rifkin W, Louis WR, Moffat K. 2018. Company-community dialogue builds relationships, fairness, and trust leading to social acceptance of Australian mining developments. J Clean Prod. 184:671–677.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moffat K, Lacey J, Zhang A, Leipold S. 2016. The social license to operate: a critical review. Int J For Res. 89(5):477–488.
   Google Scholar
• Moffat K, Zhang A. 2014. The paths to social licence to operate: an integrative model explaining community acceptance of mining. Resour Policy. 39:61–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mottee LK, Arts J, Vanclay F, Howitt R, Miller F. 2020. Limitations of technical approaches to transport planning practice in two cases: social issues as a critical component of urban projects. Plann Theory Pract. 21(1):39–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Overduin N, Moore M-L. 2017. Social license to operate: not a proxy for accountability in water governance. Geoforum. 85:72–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen J, Kemp D. 2013. Social license and mining: A critical perspective. Resour Policy. 38:29–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parsons R, Lacey J, Moffat K. 2014. Maintaining legitimacy of a contested practice: how the minerals industry understands its ‘social licence to operate’. Resour Policy. 41(1):83–90.
   Google Scholar
• Pasaribu S, Vanclay F, Zhao Y. 2020. Challenges to implementing socially-sustainable community development in oil palm and forestry operations in Indonesia. Land. 9(3):61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perry D, Wiewel W. 2015. The university as urban developer: case studies and analysis. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Piggott-McKellar AE, Pearson J, McNamara KE, Nunn PD. 2019. A livelihood analysis of resettlement outcomes: lessons for climate-induced relocations. Ambio. doi:10.1007/s13280-019-01289-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prno J. 2013. An analysis of factors leading to the establishment of a social licence to operate in the mining industry. Resour Policy. 38(4):577–590.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prno J, Slocombe DS. 2012. Exploring the origins of ‘social license to operate’in the mining sector: perspectives from governance and sustainability theories. Resour Policy. 37(3):346–357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prno J, Slocombe DS. 2014. A systems-based conceptual framework for assessing the determinants of a social license to operate in the mining industry. Environ Manage. 53(3):672–689.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahman AA, Castka P, Love T. 2019. Corporate social responsibility in higher education. Corp Soc Resp Env Manage. 26:916–928.
   Google Scholar
• Sedlacek S. 2013. The role of universities in fostering sustainable development at the regional level. J Clean Prod. 48:74–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomson I, Boutilier R. 2011. The social license to operate. In: Darling P, editor. SME mining engineering handbook. 3rd ed. Littleton CO: Society for Mining Metallurgy and Exploration; p. 1779–1796.
   Google Scholar
• Vanclay F. 2002. Conceptualising social impacts. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 22(3):183–211.
   Google Scholar
• Vanclay F. 2012. The potential application of Social Impact Assessment in integrated coastal zone management. Ocean Coast Manag. 68:149–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanclay F. 2017a. Project induced displacement and resettlement: from impoverishment risks to an opportunity for development? Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 35(1):3–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanclay F. 2017b. Principles to gain a social license to operate for green initiatives and biodiversity projects. Curr Opin Env Sust. 29:48–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanclay F, Baines J, Taylor CN. 2013. Principles for ethical research involving humans: ethical professional practice in impact assessment Part I. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 31(4):243–253.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanclay F, Hanna P. 2019. Conceptualizing company response to community protest: principles to achieve a social license to operate. Land. 8(6):101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang J, Li Y, Wang Q, Cheong KC. 2019. Urban-rural construction land replacement for more sustainable land use and regional development in China: policies and practices. Land. 8(11):171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WKU, 2019. Chronology. Wenzhou: Wenzhou-Kean University. [accessed 2020 Apr 10]. http://www.wku.edu.cn/en/chronology/
   Google Scholar
• Wolsink M. 2007. Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes: equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives’. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 11(6):1188–1207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wustenhagen R, Wolsink M, Burer M. 2007. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy. 35:2683–2691.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang A, Measham T, Moffat K. 2018. Preconditions for social license: the importance of information in initial engagement. J Clean Prod. 172:1559–1566.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar