Energy and Society Researcher. PDRA at UCLan Energy, working within the Energy and Society Research Group, at the University of Central Lancashire. Research interests focus on Energy and Social Science research, but also include social and political philosophy and psychology to a lesser degree. Husband of one, father of two, occasional runner/biker/swimmer/gymer outside of work when free time allows.
ABSTRACT The concept of social sustainability is discussed in a wide range of literatures with va... more ABSTRACT The concept of social sustainability is discussed in a wide range of literatures with varying emphases; relating to multiple disciplines such as urban planning, international development and accountancy. Authors agree that a notion of social sustainability is difficult to define and comprises numerous component parts or criteria, such as community cohesion, human wellbeing, effective dialogue and the access that individuals and communities have to those that make important decisions on their behalf. The definition and measurement of these criteria and the role of social sustainability in decision making is a contentious issue (the holistic versus reductionist debate). We outline our journey towards a conceptual framework for social sustainability and how our earlier research on the role of dialogue during engagement on energy infrastructure development has led us to propose a conceptual framework for the inclusion of social sustainability criteria in decision making within a range of settings.
ABSTRACT The concept of social sustainability is discussed in a wide range of literatures, from u... more ABSTRACT The concept of social sustainability is discussed in a wide range of literatures, from urban planning to international development. Authors agree a notion of social sustainability is difficult to define, comprising numerous component parts (criteria), such as community cohesion, human wellbeing, effective dialogue and the access that citizens have to those that make important decisions on their behalf. The definition and measurement of these criteria and the role of social sustainability in energy decision making is a contentious issue. We argue that a community led, asset based approach is required to achieve any sense of how social sustainability can be defined in a community setting within the context of energy developments. We propose a conceptual framework based on a process of community group prioritization and visioning. Our earlier research on public participation and the role of dialogue for nuclear energy development in the UK, US and Japan is used to demonstrate barriers to be overcome if our systemic model of social sustainability is to become a reality. We highlight the importance of fairness and justice, place based approaches and socio-energy systems, concluding that these are necessary to promote a community and institutional awareness of social sustainability for large energy developments.
The concept of social sustainability is discussed in a wide range of literatures with varying emp... more The concept of social sustainability is discussed in a wide range of literatures with varying emphases; relating to multiple disciplines such as urban planning, international development and accountancy. Authors agree that a notion of social sustainability is difficult to define and comprises numerous component parts or criteria, such as community cohesion, human wellbeing, effective dialogue and the access that individuals and communities have to those that make important decisions on their behalf. The definition and measurement of these criteria and the role of social sustainability in decision making is a contentious issue (the holistic versus reductionist debate). We outline our journey towards a conceptual framework for social sustainability and how our earlier research on the role of dialogue during engagement on energy infrastructure development has led us to propose a conceptual framework for the inclusion of social sustainability criteria in decision making within a range o...
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, 2018
This review of public perceptions of unconventional oil and gas exploration identifies four main ... more This review of public perceptions of unconventional oil and gas exploration identifies four main types of study. First, UOG is analysed in terms of specific environmental and public health impacts. Second, by examining socioeconomic impacts (namely the development of energy boom-towns). Third, in terms of the relationship between prior knowledge of UOG technology and public attitudes of support or opposition. Fourth, in terms of framing and discursive analysis of UOG by stakeholder groups including the print media. We identify a specific knowledge gap for environmental health professionals: that research is needed into how public and environmental health messages can be best communicated to diverse communities potentially affected by fracking, in order to directly improve public health outcomes. Highlights • The public perceptions literature is analysed in the context of primary health impacts (from environmental harm) and secondary impacts from boomtown development • Four main areas of research of identified – specific impacts, public understanding, perceptions of socioeconomic impacts, framing analyses. • Further research needed into the effects of public health perceptions on other health behaviours, and the most effective communicative strategies to achieve community health outcomes.
We have discussed previously that a community led, asset based approach is required to achieve an... more We have discussed previously that a community led, asset based approach is required to achieve any sense of how social sustainability can be defined in a community setting within the context of energy developments. Our approach aims to initiate a lasting change within ‘energy’ communities through building social capital; focusing on community assets not deficits to define their social priorities. Through deliberation, we develop an understanding of social sustainability so that a community is well placed to enter discussions with government and industry regarding large energy developments that will directly affect them. We review the 2015 Generic Design Assessment (GDA) Public Dialogue Pilot process for potential new nuclear reactors in the UK. We examine the aims of the dialogue, giving particular attention to a comparison between the national sampling of citizens for the GDA and the local community, deliberative approach we have proposed previously. We find an ongoing tension between ‘national’ engagement processes (such as the GDA Public Dialogue Pilot process) and the specific requirements of those energy communities that live adjacent or close to energy infrastructure, manifested here by a conflict between the requirements of the convenor and those of participants regarding priority issues for discussion. We also reveal a paradox; despite participant preference for a remote, internet-based engagement process, they agreed that face to face contact is a priority to encourage trust building between participants and the convenor of the process – a desired outcome of the process. The GDA Public Dialogue Pilot process has demonstrated that stakeholders are willing to engage with and be more directly involved in local energy-related decisions that affect them directly, provided there is opportunity to discuss locally-relevant and site-specific issues in addition to those of a broader nature. There exists a disparity and conflict between ‘national’ engagement processes and the ‘local’ priorities of those energy communities that are adjacent or close to energy infrastructure. In this process and others, we have seen an imbalance between the requirements of the convenor and those of participants regarding priority issues for discussion. This continues to be a persistent challenge for those convening stakeholder engagement events where the scope and context is not primarily site-specific. However, it is encouraging that convenors and participants alike continue to be willing to work towards resolving this.
Panels:
History of Nuclear Energy and Society I: Nuclear Power, International Organizations and A... more Panels: History of Nuclear Energy and Society I: Nuclear Power, International Organizations and Anti-nuclear Movements in a Comparative and Transnational Perspective
and:
History of Nuclear Power and Society II: How to Research Societal Perceptions of and Engagement with Nuclear Energy in a Historical and Interdisciplinary Perspective
ABSTRACT The concept of social sustainability is discussed in a wide range of literatures with va... more ABSTRACT The concept of social sustainability is discussed in a wide range of literatures with varying emphases; relating to multiple disciplines such as urban planning, international development and accountancy. Authors agree that a notion of social sustainability is difficult to define and comprises numerous component parts or criteria, such as community cohesion, human wellbeing, effective dialogue and the access that individuals and communities have to those that make important decisions on their behalf. The definition and measurement of these criteria and the role of social sustainability in decision making is a contentious issue (the holistic versus reductionist debate). We outline our journey towards a conceptual framework for social sustainability and how our earlier research on the role of dialogue during engagement on energy infrastructure development has led us to propose a conceptual framework for the inclusion of social sustainability criteria in decision making within a range of settings.
ABSTRACT The concept of social sustainability is discussed in a wide range of literatures, from u... more ABSTRACT The concept of social sustainability is discussed in a wide range of literatures, from urban planning to international development. Authors agree a notion of social sustainability is difficult to define, comprising numerous component parts (criteria), such as community cohesion, human wellbeing, effective dialogue and the access that citizens have to those that make important decisions on their behalf. The definition and measurement of these criteria and the role of social sustainability in energy decision making is a contentious issue. We argue that a community led, asset based approach is required to achieve any sense of how social sustainability can be defined in a community setting within the context of energy developments. We propose a conceptual framework based on a process of community group prioritization and visioning. Our earlier research on public participation and the role of dialogue for nuclear energy development in the UK, US and Japan is used to demonstrate barriers to be overcome if our systemic model of social sustainability is to become a reality. We highlight the importance of fairness and justice, place based approaches and socio-energy systems, concluding that these are necessary to promote a community and institutional awareness of social sustainability for large energy developments.
The concept of social sustainability is discussed in a wide range of literatures with varying emp... more The concept of social sustainability is discussed in a wide range of literatures with varying emphases; relating to multiple disciplines such as urban planning, international development and accountancy. Authors agree that a notion of social sustainability is difficult to define and comprises numerous component parts or criteria, such as community cohesion, human wellbeing, effective dialogue and the access that individuals and communities have to those that make important decisions on their behalf. The definition and measurement of these criteria and the role of social sustainability in decision making is a contentious issue (the holistic versus reductionist debate). We outline our journey towards a conceptual framework for social sustainability and how our earlier research on the role of dialogue during engagement on energy infrastructure development has led us to propose a conceptual framework for the inclusion of social sustainability criteria in decision making within a range o...
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, 2018
This review of public perceptions of unconventional oil and gas exploration identifies four main ... more This review of public perceptions of unconventional oil and gas exploration identifies four main types of study. First, UOG is analysed in terms of specific environmental and public health impacts. Second, by examining socioeconomic impacts (namely the development of energy boom-towns). Third, in terms of the relationship between prior knowledge of UOG technology and public attitudes of support or opposition. Fourth, in terms of framing and discursive analysis of UOG by stakeholder groups including the print media. We identify a specific knowledge gap for environmental health professionals: that research is needed into how public and environmental health messages can be best communicated to diverse communities potentially affected by fracking, in order to directly improve public health outcomes. Highlights • The public perceptions literature is analysed in the context of primary health impacts (from environmental harm) and secondary impacts from boomtown development • Four main areas of research of identified – specific impacts, public understanding, perceptions of socioeconomic impacts, framing analyses. • Further research needed into the effects of public health perceptions on other health behaviours, and the most effective communicative strategies to achieve community health outcomes.
We have discussed previously that a community led, asset based approach is required to achieve an... more We have discussed previously that a community led, asset based approach is required to achieve any sense of how social sustainability can be defined in a community setting within the context of energy developments. Our approach aims to initiate a lasting change within ‘energy’ communities through building social capital; focusing on community assets not deficits to define their social priorities. Through deliberation, we develop an understanding of social sustainability so that a community is well placed to enter discussions with government and industry regarding large energy developments that will directly affect them. We review the 2015 Generic Design Assessment (GDA) Public Dialogue Pilot process for potential new nuclear reactors in the UK. We examine the aims of the dialogue, giving particular attention to a comparison between the national sampling of citizens for the GDA and the local community, deliberative approach we have proposed previously. We find an ongoing tension between ‘national’ engagement processes (such as the GDA Public Dialogue Pilot process) and the specific requirements of those energy communities that live adjacent or close to energy infrastructure, manifested here by a conflict between the requirements of the convenor and those of participants regarding priority issues for discussion. We also reveal a paradox; despite participant preference for a remote, internet-based engagement process, they agreed that face to face contact is a priority to encourage trust building between participants and the convenor of the process – a desired outcome of the process. The GDA Public Dialogue Pilot process has demonstrated that stakeholders are willing to engage with and be more directly involved in local energy-related decisions that affect them directly, provided there is opportunity to discuss locally-relevant and site-specific issues in addition to those of a broader nature. There exists a disparity and conflict between ‘national’ engagement processes and the ‘local’ priorities of those energy communities that are adjacent or close to energy infrastructure. In this process and others, we have seen an imbalance between the requirements of the convenor and those of participants regarding priority issues for discussion. This continues to be a persistent challenge for those convening stakeholder engagement events where the scope and context is not primarily site-specific. However, it is encouraging that convenors and participants alike continue to be willing to work towards resolving this.
Panels:
History of Nuclear Energy and Society I: Nuclear Power, International Organizations and A... more Panels: History of Nuclear Energy and Society I: Nuclear Power, International Organizations and Anti-nuclear Movements in a Comparative and Transnational Perspective
and:
History of Nuclear Power and Society II: How to Research Societal Perceptions of and Engagement with Nuclear Energy in a Historical and Interdisciplinary Perspective
Uploads
We review the 2015 Generic Design Assessment (GDA) Public Dialogue Pilot process for potential new nuclear reactors in the UK. We examine the aims of the dialogue, giving particular attention to a comparison between the national sampling of citizens for the GDA and the local community, deliberative approach we have proposed previously. We find an ongoing tension between ‘national’ engagement processes (such as the GDA Public Dialogue Pilot process) and the specific requirements of those energy communities that live adjacent or close to energy infrastructure, manifested here by a conflict between the requirements of the convenor and those of participants regarding priority issues for discussion. We also reveal a paradox; despite participant preference for a remote, internet-based engagement process, they agreed that face to face contact is a priority to encourage trust building between participants and the convenor of the process – a desired outcome of the process.
The GDA Public Dialogue Pilot process has demonstrated that stakeholders are willing to engage with and be more directly involved in local energy-related decisions that affect them directly, provided there is opportunity to discuss locally-relevant and site-specific issues in addition to those of a broader nature. There exists a disparity and conflict between ‘national’ engagement processes and the ‘local’ priorities of those energy communities that are adjacent or close to energy infrastructure. In this process and others, we have seen an imbalance between the requirements of the convenor and those of participants regarding priority issues for discussion. This continues to be a persistent challenge for those convening stakeholder engagement events where the scope and context is not primarily site-specific. However, it is encouraging that convenors and participants alike continue to be willing to work towards resolving this.
History of Nuclear Energy and Society I: Nuclear Power, International Organizations and Anti-nuclear Movements in a Comparative and Transnational Perspective
and:
History of Nuclear Power and Society II: How to Research Societal Perceptions of and Engagement with Nuclear Energy in a Historical and Interdisciplinary Perspective
We review the 2015 Generic Design Assessment (GDA) Public Dialogue Pilot process for potential new nuclear reactors in the UK. We examine the aims of the dialogue, giving particular attention to a comparison between the national sampling of citizens for the GDA and the local community, deliberative approach we have proposed previously. We find an ongoing tension between ‘national’ engagement processes (such as the GDA Public Dialogue Pilot process) and the specific requirements of those energy communities that live adjacent or close to energy infrastructure, manifested here by a conflict between the requirements of the convenor and those of participants regarding priority issues for discussion. We also reveal a paradox; despite participant preference for a remote, internet-based engagement process, they agreed that face to face contact is a priority to encourage trust building between participants and the convenor of the process – a desired outcome of the process.
The GDA Public Dialogue Pilot process has demonstrated that stakeholders are willing to engage with and be more directly involved in local energy-related decisions that affect them directly, provided there is opportunity to discuss locally-relevant and site-specific issues in addition to those of a broader nature. There exists a disparity and conflict between ‘national’ engagement processes and the ‘local’ priorities of those energy communities that are adjacent or close to energy infrastructure. In this process and others, we have seen an imbalance between the requirements of the convenor and those of participants regarding priority issues for discussion. This continues to be a persistent challenge for those convening stakeholder engagement events where the scope and context is not primarily site-specific. However, it is encouraging that convenors and participants alike continue to be willing to work towards resolving this.
History of Nuclear Energy and Society I: Nuclear Power, International Organizations and Anti-nuclear Movements in a Comparative and Transnational Perspective
and:
History of Nuclear Power and Society II: How to Research Societal Perceptions of and Engagement with Nuclear Energy in a Historical and Interdisciplinary Perspective