专业知识、贸易区和规划系统:一个生物质发电厂的案例研究

IF 3 2区 社会学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Nick Hacking, Robert Evans, Jamie Lewis
{"title":"专业知识、贸易区和规划系统:一个生物质发电厂的案例研究","authors":"Nick Hacking, Robert Evans, Jamie Lewis","doi":"10.1177/25148486231212083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":11723,"journal":{"name":"Environment and Planning. E, Nature and Space","volume":"28 8","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Expertise, trading zones and the planning system: A case study of an energy-from-biomass plant\",\"authors\":\"Nick Hacking, Robert Evans, Jamie Lewis\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/25148486231212083\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11723,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environment and Planning. E, Nature and Space\",\"volume\":\"28 8\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environment and Planning. E, Nature and Space\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/25148486231212083\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environment and Planning. E, Nature and Space","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/25148486231212083","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

规划争议是基于科学的法规与当地社区基于地点的知识发生冲突的争论场所。这些规定的程序和往往是技术性质意味着,这些争议的特点是资源不对称,社区团体经常经历这种不对称,即信誉不对称。简而言之,开发商的专业知识通常被接受,而市民声称的知识则被视为“轶事”或“邻避主义”。在本文中,我们提出的论点是,专业知识的不对称并不像当前系统通常允许的那样明显,认识和适应这一点将通过增强社区声音的代表性和包容性来改善规划系统。我们通过在南威尔士建设生物质能源工厂的案例研究来探讨这一立场。从30个定性访谈中,我们认为规划过程有可能成为一个“贸易区”网络的一部分,在这个网络中,不同的社区制定他们的权利,并承认他们对知识和专业知识的要求。这一论点的关键在于理解,不同各方为互动带来的专业知识的水平和种类不仅仅是归因问题:社区团体可以拥有真正的专业知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Expertise, trading zones and the planning system: A case study of an energy-from-biomass plant
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
13.80%
发文量
101
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信