4.3 Article

Deliberative Mapping of options for tackling climate change: Citizens and specialists 'open up' appraisal of geoengineering

Journal

PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE
Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages 269-286

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0963662514548628

Keywords

climate change; framing risk; governance of science and technology; public participation; risk perception; technology assessment

Funding

  1. Norfolk Charitable Trust
  2. Climate Geoengineering Governance (CGG) project (ESRC/AHRC Grant) [ES/J007730/1]
  3. Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals (IAGP) project (EPSRC/NERC Grant) [RES-066-27-00013]
  4. ESRC [ES/J007730/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/J007730/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Appraisals of deliberate, large-scale interventions in the earth's climate system, known collectively as geoengineering', have largely taken the form of narrowly framed and exclusive expert analyses that prematurely close down' upon particular proposals. Here, we present the findings from the first upstream' appraisal of geoengineering to deliberately open up' to a broader diversity of framings, knowledges and future pathways. We report on the citizen strand of an innovative analytic-deliberative participatory appraisal process called Deliberative Mapping. A select but diverse group of sociodemographically representative citizens from Norfolk (United Kingdom) were engaged in a deliberative multi-criteria appraisal of geoengineering proposals relative to other options for tackling climate change, in parallel to symmetrical appraisals by diverse experts and stakeholders. Despite seeking to map divergent perspectives, a remarkably consistent view of option performance emerged across both the citizens' and the specialists' deliberations, where geoengineering proposals were outperformed by mitigation alternatives.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available