The Power of Place

How Local Engagement with Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste Re-situated Technoscience and Re-assembled the Public

  • Catharina Landstrom University of Oxford
  • Stewart Kemp

Abstract

Investigating the role of geographical location in public engagement with science we examine the West Cumbria Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) Partnership’s undertaking of one of the most extensive local public engagements with environmental risk science in the UK. The case study highlights the transformative impacts of this three-year long local engagement on both science and the public. Differently from other invited public engagements, organised as experiments controlled by scientists in spaces set aside from the everyday, the Partnership’s lay members led a process unfolding in the place that was potentially at risk. The Partnership had the authority to demand that scientists addressed issues of local interest. We frame the analysis with the notions ‘re-situating technoscience' and ‘re-assembling the public' to illuminate how scientific knowledge claims were modified and a new local public emerged, at the intersection of public engagement with science and public participation in environmental risk governance.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aitken M (2009) Wind power planning controversies and the construction of 'expert' and 'lay' knowledges. Science as Culture 18(1): 47-64.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430802385682

Beck U (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.

Bergmans A (2010) Meaningful communication among experts and affected citizens on risk: challenge or impossibility? Journal of Risk Research 11(1-2): 175-193.

Bergmans A, Sundqvist G, Kos D and Simmons P (2015) The participatory turn in radioactive waste management: deliberation and the social-technical divide. Journal of Risk Research 18(3): 347-363.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.971335

Bickerstaff K (2012) 'Because we've got history here': nuclear waste, cooperative siting, and the relational geography of a complex issue. Environment and Planning A 44: 2611-2628.

https://doi.org/10.1068/a44583

Blowers A (2017) The Legacy of Nuclear Power. London: Routledge

Blowers A (2010) Why dump on us? Power, pragmatism and the periphery in the siting of new nuclear reactors in the UK. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 7: 157-173.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2010.506488

Blowers A and Sundqvist G (2010) Radioactive waste management - technocratic dominance in an age of participation. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 7: 149-155.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2010.509042

Bogner A (2012) The Paradox of Participation Experiments. Science, Technology & Human Values 37: 506-527.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243911430398

Braun K and Schultz S (2010) "… a certain amount of engineering involved": Constructing the public in participatory governance arrangements. Public Understanding of Science 19: 403-419.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509347814

Bulkeley H (2005) Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales and networks. Political Geography 24: 875-902.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2005.07.002

Bulkeley H and Mol A P J (2003) Participation and Environmental Governance: Consensus, Ambivalence and Debate. Environmental Values 12: 143-154.

https://doi.org/10.3197/096327103129341261

Burgess J, Stirling A, Clark J, Davies G, Eames M and Williamson K (2007) Deliberative mapping: a novel analytic - deliberative methodology to support contested science - policy decisions. Public Understanding of Science 16: 299-322.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507077510

Callon M (1999) The Role of Lay People in the Production and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge. Science, Technology & Society 4: 81-94

https://doi.org/10.1177/097172189900400106

Callon M, Lascoumes P and Barthes Y (2009) Acting in an uncertain world. An essay on technical democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chilvers J (2013) Reflexive Engagement? Actors, Learning, and Reflexivity in Public Dialogue on Science and Technology. Science Communication 35: 283-310.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012454598

Chilvers J (2007) Democratizing science in the UK: the case of radioactive waste management. In: Leach M, Scoones I and Wynne B (eds) Science and Citizens. Globalization and the challenge of engagement. London: Zed Books, pp. 237- 243.

Cohen B and Ottinger G (2011) Introduction: Environmental Justice and the Transformation of Science and Engineering. In: Ottinger G and Cohen B (eds) Technoscience and Environmental Justice. Expert Cultures in a Grassroots Movement. Cambridge Mass: The MIT Press, pp. 1-18.

https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262015790.003.0001

Committee for Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) (2009) CoRWM report to government. Geological Disposal of Higher Activity Radioactive Wastes. CoRWM Document Number 2550, Available at: https://curie.ornl.gov/system/files/documents/SEA/corwm_report_on_geological_disposal_final_31_jul_2009_doc_2550.pdf (accessed xx.xx.xxxx)

Davies SR, Selin C, Gano G and Guimares Pereira A (2012) Citizen engagement and urban change: Three case studies of material deliberation. Cities 29: 351-357.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2011.11.012

Defra (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), and the Devolved Administrations (2008) Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal. London: The Stationery Office.

Durant D and Fuji Johnson G (2009) Nuclear Waste Management in Canada. Critical Issues, Critical Perspectives. Vancouver/Toronto: UBC Press.

Durant D and Stanley A (2009) An Official Narrative: Telling the History of Canada's Nuclear Waste Policy Making. In: Durant D and Fuji Johnson G (eds) Nuclear Waste Management in Canada. Critical Issues, Critical Perspectives. Vancouver/Toronto: UBC Press, pp. 31-51.

Felt U and Fochler (2010) Machineries for Making Publics: Inscribing and De-scribing Publics in Public Engagement. Minerva 48: 219-238.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-010-9155-x

Felt U, Igelsböck J, Schikowitz A and Völker T (2016) Transdiciplinary Sustainability Research in Practice: Between Imaginaries of Collective Experimentation and Entrenched Academic Value Orders. Science, Technology & Human Values 41: 732-761.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915626989

French S and Bayley C (2011) Public participation: comparing approaches. Journal of Risk Research 14: 241-257.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.515316

Fuji Johnson G (2009) The Darker side of Deliberative Democracy: The Canadian Nuclear Waste Management Organization's National Consultation Process. In: Durant D and Fuji Johnson G (eds) Nuclear Waste Management in Canada. Critical Issues, Critical Perspectives. Vancouver/Toronto: UBC Press, pp. 90-105.

Hare M (2011) Forms of Participatory Modelling and its Potential for Widespread Adoption in the Water Sector. Environmental Policy and Governance 21: 386-402.

https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.590

Haraway D (1988) Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14: 575-599.

https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066

Huistra H and Mellink B (2016) Phrasing history: Selecting sources in digital repositories. Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History 49: 220-229.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01615440.2016.1205964

Landström C, Whatmore SJ, Lane SN, Odoni NA, Ward N and Bradley S (2011) Co-producing flood risk knowledge: redistributing expertise in 'participatory modelling'. Environment and Planning A, 43: 1617-1633.

https://doi.org/10.1068/a43482

Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Laurent B (2016) Political experiments that matter: Ordering democracy from experimental sites. Social Studies of Science 46: 773-794.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716668587

Mackerron G and Berkhout F (2009) Learning to listen: institutional change and legitimation in UK radioactive waste policy. Journal of Risk Research 12: 989-1008.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870903126085

Marres N (2012) Material Participation. Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137029669

Meadowcroft J (2002) Politics and scale: some implications for environmental governance. Landscape and Urban Planning 61: 169-179.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00111-1

Newig J, Kochskämper E, Challies E and Jager NW (2016) Exploring governance learning: How policymakers draw on evidence, experience and intuition in designing participatory flood risk planning. Environmental Science and Policy 55: 353-360.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.020

NWMO (Nuclear Waste Management Organization) (2005) Choosing a Way Forward: The Future Management of Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel. Final Study. Toronto: NWMO.

Papazu I (2016) Authoring participation. Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies 4: 17-31.

https://doi.org/10.5324/njsts.v4i1.2169

Pierce J, Martin DG and Murphy JT (2011) Relational place-making: the networked politics of place. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 36: 54-70.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2010.00411.x

Ricoeur P (1973) The Model of the Text: Meaningful Action Considered as a Text. New Literary History 5: 91-117.

https://doi.org/10.2307/468410

Selin C, Rawlings K C, de Ridder-Vignone K et al. (2016) Experiments in engagement: Designing public engagement with science and technology for capacity building. Public Understanding of Science 26: 634-649.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515620970

Shelley FM, Solomon BD, Pasqualetti MJ and Murauskas GT (1988) Local conflict and the siting of nuclear waste disposal repositories: and international appraisal. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 6: 323-333.

https://doi.org/10.1068/c060323

Sundqvist G and Elam M (2010) Public Involvement Designed to Circumvent Public Concern? The 'Participatory Turn' in European Nuclear Activities. Risks, Hazards and Crisis in Public Policy 1: 203-229.

https://doi.org/10.2202/1944-4079.1046

Swyngedouw E (2014) Where is the political? Insurgent mobilisations and the incipient 'return of the political'. Space and Polity 18: 122-136.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13562576.2013.879774

Tamboukou M (2014) Archival research: unravelling space/time/matter entanglements and fragments. Qualitative Research 14: 617-633.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794113490719

Tavares AO and dos Santos PP (2014) Re-scaling risk governance using local appraisal and community involvement. Journal of Risk Research 17: 923-949.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2013.822915

Tsouvalis J and Waterton C (2012) Building 'participation' upon critique: The Loweswater Care Project, Cumbria, UK. Environmental Modelling and Software 36: 111-121.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.01.018

Van Ast JA and Gerrits L (2017) Public participation, experts and expert knowledge in water management in the Netherlands. Water Policy 19: 115-127.

https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2016.253

Welch C (2000) The archaeology of business networks: the use of archival records in case study research. Journal of Strategic Marketing 8: 197-208.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2000.10815560

Wesselink A, Paavola J, Fritsch O and Renn O (2011) Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance: practitioners' perspectives. Environment and Planning A 43: 2688-2704.

https://doi.org/10.1068/a44161

Whatmore SJ and Landström C (2011) Flood-Apprentices: An Exercise in Making Things Public. Economy & Society 40: 582-610.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2011.602540

Whitman GP, Pain R and Milledge DG (2015) Going with the flow? Using participatory action research in physical geography. Progress in Physical Geography 39: 622: 639.

Wynne B (1996) May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In: Lash S, Szerszynski B and Wynne B (eds) Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. London: SAGE, pp. 44–83.

Wynne B (2014) Further disorientation in the hall of mirrors. Public understanding of Science 23: 60-70.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513505397

Published
2020-01-23