Expertise, trading zones and the planning system
A case study of an energy-from-biomass plant
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7761763 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Nick Hacking (0000-0003-2219-7724, Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research, Data and Methods, corresponding author), Robert Evans (0000-0003-1471-201X), Jamie Lewis (0000-0002-1065-6017, Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research, Data and Methods) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 7 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 1418-1435 |
| Publication date | 2024-06-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Environment and Planning E Nature and Space (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2514-8486 • E-ISSN: 2514-8494 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/25148486231212083 |
| OpenAlex | W4388620768 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 48 |
Planning disputes are sites of contestation in which science-based regulations come into conflict with the place-based knowledge of local communities. The procedural and often technical nature of these regulations means that these controversies are marked by an asymmetry of resources that is often experienced by community groups as an asymmetry in credibility. In short, the expertise of developers is generally accepted as such, whilst the knowledge claimed by citizens is dismissed as ‘anecdotal’ or ‘NIMBYism’. In this article, we make the argument that the asymmetries of expertise are less stark than the current system typically allows and that recognising and accommodating this would improve the planning system by enhancing the representation and inclusion of community voices. We explore this position by using a case study of the construction of a Energy-from-Biomass plant in South Wales. Drawing from 30 qualitative interviews, we maintain that the planning process has the potential to function as one of a network of ‘trading zones’ in which different communities enact their rights and have their claims to knowledge and expertise recognised. Crucial to this argument is understanding that the levels and kinds of expertise that different parties bring to the interactions are more than just matters of attribution: community groups can have genuine expertise
Attribution · Business · Credibility · Knowledge management · Political science · Public relations · Social science · Sociology · Computer Science · Law · Mining and Resource Management · Psychology · Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy · Social Psychology · Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
Rationality and power
Rethinking Expertise
What is Qualitative Interviewing?
The Sociology of Expertise
Civic Science for Sustainability
Planning as agonistic communication in a trading zone
The democratic legitimacy of public participation in planning
Why public participation isn’t a tool for democratizing planning. A comment
Language and practice
Levels of Expertise and Trading Zones
Innovating public participation methods
The Third Wave of Science Studies
Biomedical Conventions and Regulatory Objectivity
Expertise revisited, Part II
A Pluralistic Approach to Interactional Expertise
They give you the keys and say ‘drive it!’ Managers, referred expertise, and other expertises
Clarifying interactional and contributory expertise
The Public Understanding of Science and Public Participation in Regulated Worlds
Regulatory science—Towards a sociological framework
The complexity of evidence for sustainable development policy
A Ladder Of Citizen Participation
Protesting against neoliberal and illiberal governmentalities
Hybrid Management
Using Documents in Social Research
Scientific expertise and volunteer power in the Cook County forest preserves
Rationales for Public Participation in Environmental Policy and Governance
The epistemic tensions of nuclear waste siting in a nuclear landscape
Towards a critical politics of translation
Green Groups and Grey Areas
Expert Conceptualisations of the Role of Lay Knowledge in Environmental Decisionmaking
The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies
Enactments of Expertise
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |