The limits of upstream engagement in an emergent technology: Lay perceptions of hydrogen energy technologies

Renewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY to Participation

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 245-260

  Flynn, Rob ^a   Bellaby, Paul ^a   Ricci, Miriam ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF ENGLAND   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84920973581     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781849776707     Document Type: Chapter

References (51)

1. AEA Energy and Environment (2008) Removing the Economic and Institutional Barriers to a Hydrogen Future, Report to the Department for Transport, February, www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/scienceresearch/futures/horizons/june08
2. Abelson, J., Forest, P. G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E. and Gauvin, F. P. (2003) ‘Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes’, Social Science and Medicine, vol 57, pp239-251
3. Barbour, R. and Kitzinger, J. (1999) Developing Focus Group Research, Sage, London
4. Bellaby, P. and Upham, P, Flynn, R, Dresner, S., Fish, R, Goldring, J, Hughes, N., Ricci, M., Speakman, D. and Tomei, J. (2007) Public Engagement with Hydrogen Infrastructures in Transport, Report for the Department for Transport, UK, contract number PPRO4/54/2, wwww.dft.gov.uk/pgr/scienceresearch/futures/horizons/june08
5. Bickerstaff, K., Simmons, P. and Pidgeon, N. (2008) ‘Constructing responsibilities for risk: Negotiating citizen-state relationships’, Environment and Planning A, vol 40, pp1312-1330
6. Bloor, M., Frankland, J, Thomas, M. and Ronson, K. (2001) Focus Groups in Social Research, Sage, London
7. Burningham, K., Barnett, J., Carr, A., Clift, R. and Wehrmeyer, W. (2007) ‘Industrial constructions of publics and public knowledge: A qualitative investigation of practice in the UK chemicals industry’, Public Understanding of Science, vol 16, no 1, pp23-43
8. Chilvers, J. and Burgess, J. (2008) ‘Power relations:The politics of risk and procedure in nuclear waste governance’, Environment and Planning A, vol 40, pp1881-1900
9. Cornwall, A. (2008) Democratising Engagement:What the UK Can Learn from International Experience, April, Demos, London
10. Doubleday, R. (2007) ‘Risky public engagement and reflexivity: Alternative framings of the public dimensions of nanotechnology’, Health, Risk and Society, vol 9, no 2, pp211-227
11. Eames, M. and McDowall, W. (2006) Transitions to a UK Hydrogen Economy, UKSHEC Social Science Working Paper No.19, Policy Studies Institute, London
12. Ekins, P. and Hughes, N. (2007) The Prospects for a Hydrogen Economy, UKSHEC Social Science Working Paper, Policy Studies Institute, London
13. European Commission (2006) Introducing Hydrogen as an Energy Carrier: Safety, Regulatory and Public Acceptance Issues, Report for the Director-General for Research Sustainable Energy Systems, EUR22002, Luxembourg
14. Flynn, R., Bellaby, P. and Ricci, M. (2008) ‘Environmental citizenship and public attitudes to hydrogen energy technologies’, Environmental Politics, vol 17, no 5, pp766-783
15. Flynn, R. (2007) ‘Risk and the public acceptance of new technologies’, in R. Flynn and P. Bellaby (eds), Risk and the Public Acceptance of New Technologies, Palgrave-Macmillan, Basingstoke and New York
16. Fuhrmann, K. and Bleischwitz, R. (2007) ‘Existing acceptance analysis in the field of hydrogen technologies’,Work Package 1,Task 1, Deliverable 1.6, College of Europe, Roads2HyCom (R2H1007PU), www.roads2hycom/Downloads/Roads2HyCom
17. Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P. and Wynne, B. (2000) Wising Up:The Public and New Technologies, Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, University of Lancaster, Lancaster
18. Heinz, B. and Erdmann, G. (2008) ‘Dynamic effects on the acceptance of hydrogen technologies: an international comparison’, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol 33, no 12, pp3004-3008
19. Horlick-Jones, T, Walls, J., Rowe, G, Pidgeon, N, Poortinga, W, Murdock, G, and O’Riordan, T. (2007a) The GM Debate: Risk,Politics and Public Engagement, Routledge, London and New York
20. Horlick-Jones, T, Rowe, G. and Walls, J. (2007b) ‘Citizen engagement processes as information systems:The role of knowledge and the concept of translation quality’, Public Understanding of Science, vol 16, pp259-278
21. Irwin, A. (2007) ‘Public dialogue and the scientific citizen’, in R. Flynn and P. Bellaby (eds) Risk and the Public Acceptance of New Technologies, Palgrave-Macmillan, Basingstoke and New York
22. Irwin, A. and Wynne, B. (1996) ‘Introduction’, in A. Irwin and B.Wynne (eds) Misunderstanding Science?, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
23. Leach, M. and Scoones, I. (2005) ‘Science and citizenship in a global context’, in M. Leach, I. Scoones and B.Wynne (eds) Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, Zed Books, London and New York
24. Leach, M., Scoones, I. and Wynne, B. (2005) ‘Introduction’, in M. Leach, I. Scoones and B.Wynne (eds) Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, Zed Books, London and New York
25. Lidskog, R. (2008) ‘Scientised citizens and democratised science: Re-assessing the expert-lay divide’, Journal of Risk Research, vol 11, nos 1/2, pp69-86
26. McDowall, W. and Eames, M. (2006) ‘Forecasts, scenarios, backcasts and roadmaps to the hydrogen economy: A review of the hydrogen futures literature’, Energy Policy, vol 34, pp1236-1250
27. Mohr, A. (2007) ‘Against the stream: Moving public engagement on nanotechnologies upstream’, in R. Flynn and P. Bellaby (eds) Risk and the Public Acceptance of New Technologies, Palgrave-Macmillan, Basingstoke and New York
28. Mythen, G. and Walklate, S. (2006) ‘Introduction:Thinking beyond the risk society’, in G. Mythen and S.Walklate (eds) Beyond the Risk Society, Open University Press, Maidenhead, UK
29. Petts, J. (2004) ‘Barriers to participation and deliberation in risk decisions: Evidence from waste management’, Journal of Risk Research, vol 7, no 2, pp115-133
30. Petts, J. (2008) ‘Public engagement to build trust: False hopes?’ Journal of Risk Research, vol 11, no 6, pp821-835
31. Pidgeon, N. and Rogers-Hayden, T. (2007) ‘Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or “upstream engagement”?’ Health, Risk and Society, vol 9, no 2, pp191-210
32. Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T, Walls, J. and O’Riordan, T. (2005) ‘Using surveys in public participation processes for risk decision-making:The case of the 2003 British GM Nation’, Risk Analysis, vol 25, no 2, pp467-479
33. Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R. and Slovic, P. (2003) ‘Introduction’, in N. Pidgeon, R. Kasperson and P. Slovic (eds) The Social Amplification of Risk, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
34. Pidgeon, N., Simmons, P. and Henwood, K. (2006) ‘Risk, environment and technology’, in P.Taylor-Gooby and J. Zinn (eds) Risk in Social Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford
35. Renn, O. (1999) ‘A model for an analytic-deliberative process in risk management’, Environmental Science and Technology, vol 33, no 18, pp3049-3055
36. Renn, O. (2008) Risk Governance, Earthscan, London
37. Ricci, M., Newsholme, G., Bellaby, P. and Flynn, R. (2007a) ‘The transition to hydrogenbased energy: Combining technology and risk assessments and lay perspectives’, International Journal of Energy Sector Management, vol 1, no 1, pp43-50
38. Ricci, M., Bellaby, P. and Flynn, R. (2007b) ‘Stakeholders’ and publics’ perceptions of hydrogen energy technologies’, in R. Flynn and P. Bellaby (eds) Risk and the Public Acceptance of New Technologies, Palgrave-Macmillan, Basingstoke and New York
39. Ricci, M., Flynn, R. and Bellaby, P. (2008) ‘What do we know about public perceptions and acceptance of hydrogen? A critical review and new case study evidence’, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol 33, no 21, pp5868-5880
40. Rifkin, J. (2002) The Hydrogen Economy,Tarcher/Putnam, New York
41. Roche, M.Y., Mourato, S., Fischedick, M., Pietzner, K. and Viebahn, P. (2009) ‘Public attitudes towards and demand for hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles: A review of the evidence and methodological implications’, Energy Policy: doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.03.029
42. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. (2004) ‘Evaluating public participation exercises: A research agenda’, Science,Technology and Human Values, vol 29, no 4, pp512-556
43. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. (2005) ‘A typology of public engagement mechanisms’, Science, Technology and Human Values, vol 30, no 2, pp251-290
44. Rowe, G., Marsh, R. and Frewer, L. (2004) ‘Evaluation of a deliberative conference’, Science,Technology and Human Values, vol 29, no 1, pp88-121
45. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies,The Royal Society, London
46. Slovic, P. (2000) The Perception of Risk, Earthscan Publications, London
47. Stirling, A. (2005) ‘Opening-up or closing down? Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology’, in M. Leach, I. Scoones and B. Wynne, Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, Zed Books, London and New York
48. Taylor-Gooby, P. and Zinn, J. (2006) ‘The current significance of risk’, in P.Taylor-Gooby and J. Zinn (eds) Risk and Social Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford
49. United Nations (2006) ‘The hydrogen economy: a non-technical review’, www.uneptie.org/energy/publications/pdfs/Hydro_Econ_final.pdf
50. Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. (2004) See-through Science:Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream, Demos, London
51. Wynne, B. (2005) ‘Risk as globalizing discourse? Framing subjects and citizens’, in M. Leach, I. Scoones and B.Wynne (eds) Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, Zed Books, London and New York.