Advertisement

Scientific Evidence or Lay People’s Experience? On Risk and Trust with Regard to Modern Environmental Threats

  • Rolf Lidskog
Chapter

Abstract

The town was a unique example of social engineering. With substantial resources and good planning, here were realized in a short time a great number of the ideals that had guided, for instance, the creation of the Swedish welfare state. The town was exceptionally well-planned — it was a showpiece with its housing, shops, sports centers, five schools, three swimming pools, pleasure park, 200-room hotel, and guest house for official visitors. Other facilities included a cultural center with a theater, a cinema, and a library. In the rest of the country people languished for long periods on the housing list, but in this town a family could almost immediately obtain a good apartment in one of the 18-storey blocks. There was plenty of food in the stores — in one of them a surprised visitor was able to count 14 different varieties of meat and sausage. There was even a greenhouse so that fresh tomatoes would always be available.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. For a discussion of the siting of the nuclear-power plant to supply Kiev with electricity, the choice of reactor technology, and the decision to build both the facility and the town of Pripyat, refer to P. Read, Ablaze: The Story of Chernobyl ( London: Mandarin, 1993 ).Google Scholar
  2. For the ecological consequences of the Chernobyl disaster, see, for example, V. Savchenko, ed., The Ecology of the Chernobyl Catastrophe: Scientific Outlines of an International Programme of Collaborative Research ( Carnforth: Parthenon Publishing Group, 1995 );Google Scholar
  3. V. Davydchuk, ‘Ecosystem Remediation in Radioactively Polluted Areas: The Chernobyl Experience,’ Ecological Engineering, 8 (4) (1997): 325–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 3.
    K. Erikson, A New Species of Trouble: Explorations in Disaster, Trauma, and Community ( New York: W. W. Norton, 1994 ).Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    S. Sörlin, ‘Problem Continents and Island Experiences: Environment and Science in the Past and in the Present’, pp. 14–29 in A. Nordgren, ed., Science, Ethics, Sustainability: The Responsibility of Science in Attaining Sustainable Development ( Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 1997 ).Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    S. Cutter, Living with Risk: The Geography of Technological Hazards ( London: Edward Arnold, 1993 ).Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    U. Beck, Risk Society; P. Dickens, ‘Society and Nature,’ Developments in Sociology, 9 (1993): 121–66;Google Scholar
  8. B. McKibben, The End of Nature ( New York: Anchor Books, 1989 ).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Brown, ‘Popular Epidemiology: Community Response to Toxic Waste-Induced Disease in Woburn, Massachusetts and Other Sites,’ Science, Technology, and Human Values, 12 (1) (1987): 76–85;Google Scholar
  10. P. Brown, ‘Popular Epidemiology Revisited,’ Current Sociology, 45 (3) (1997): 137–56;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. A. Irwin, Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise, and Sustainable Development ( London: Routledge, 1995 ).Google Scholar
  12. 10.
    D. Jamieson, ‘The Epistemology of Climate Change: Some Morals for Managers,’ Society and Natural Resources, 4 (4) (1991): 319–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 12.
    R. Lidskog, Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Management in Sweden: Movements, Politics, and Science ( Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 1994 )Google Scholar
  14. R. Lidskog, ‘From Conflict to Communication? Public Participation and Critical Communication as a Solution to Siting Conflicts,’ Planning Practice and Research, 12 (3) (1997): 239–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 14.
    G. Porter and J. Brown, Global Environmental Politics, 2nd edn ( Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996 ), p. 1;Google Scholar
  16. I. Elander and R. Lidskog, ‘The Rio Declaration and Subsequent Global Initiatives,’ forthcoming in N. Low B. Gleeson, I. Elander, and R. Lidskog, eds, Consuming Cities: The Urban Environment in the Global Economy after the Rio Declaration ( London: Routledge, 1999 ).Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    T. Sager, Communicative Planning Theory ( Aldershot: Avebury, 1994 ).Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    C. Lindblom, ‘The Science of “Muddling Through,”’ Public Administration Review, 19 (2) (1959): 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 20.
    J. Friedmann, Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning ( New York: Doubleday, 1973 ).Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    J. Forester, Planning in the Face of Power ( Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989 ).Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    J. Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interest ( Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1971 )Google Scholar
  22. J. Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume I: Reason and the Rationalization of Society ( Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1984 ).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    P. Nzess, ‘Normative Planning Theory and Sustainable Development,’ Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 11 (3) (1994): 145–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 26.
    For further discussion on this point see M. Cohen, ‘Science and the Environment: Assessing Cultural Capacity for Ecological Modernization,’ Public Understanding of Science, 7 (2) (1998): 149–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 27.
    A. Giddens, Consequences of Modernity ( Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990 ).Google Scholar
  26. 29.
    J. Ravetz and S. Funtowicz, ‘Commentary,’ Journal of Risk Research, 1 (1) (1998): 45–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 30.
    See, for example, J. Friedmann, Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987 );Google Scholar
  28. P. Healey, ‘Planning Through Debate: The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory,’ Town Planning Review, 63 (2) (1992): 143–62;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. F. Fischer and J. Forester, eds, The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1993 ).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 31.
    See, for example, Irwin, Citizen Science; S. Lash, ‘Reflexivity and its Double: Structure, Aesthetics, Community,’ pp. 110–73 in U. Beck, A. Giddens, and S. Lash, Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Traditions, and Aesthetics in Modern Social Order ( Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994 );Google Scholar
  31. S. Lash and J. Urry, Economies of Signs and Space ( London: Sage, 1994 );Google Scholar
  32. B. Wynne, ‘May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert—Lay Knowledge Divide,’ pp. 44–83 in S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, and B. Wynne, eds, Risk, Environment, and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology ( London: Sage, 1996 ).Google Scholar
  33. 32.
    U. Beck, Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk ( Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995 ), p. 8Google Scholar
  34. U. Beck, ‘From Industrial Society to Risk Society: Questions of Survival, Social Structure, and Ecological Enlightenment,’ Theory, Culture, and Society, 9 (1) (1992): 97–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 33.
    Beck, Ecological Politics, p. 124. See also A. Blowers, ‘Environmental Policy: The Quest for Sustainable Development,’ Urban Studies, 30 (4/5) (1993): 775–96.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    See, for example, Lash and Urry, Economies of Signs and Space and R. Lidskog, ‘In Science We Trust? On the Relation between Scientific Knowledge, Risk Consciousness, and Public Trust,’ Acta Sociologica, 39(1) (1996): 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 38.
    A. Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age ( Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991 ), p. 18.Google Scholar
  38. 40.
    M. Molina and S. Rowland, ‘Stratospheric Sink for Chlorofluoromethanes: Chlorine Atom Catalyses Destruction of Ozone,’ Nature, 249 (1974): 810–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 41.
    See, for example, T. Brante, S. Fuller, and W. Lynch, eds, Controversial Science: From Content to Contention ( Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993 );Google Scholar
  40. B. Campbell, ‘Uncertainty as Symbolic Action in Disputes among Experts,’ Social Studies of Science, 15 (3) (1985): 429–53;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. E. McMullin, ‘Scientific Controversy and its Termination,’ pp. 49–91 in T. Engelhardt and A. Caplan, eds, Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987 ).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. R. Burkhart, ‘Consensus-Oriented Public Relations as a Solution to the Landfill Conflict,’ Waste Management and Research, 12 (3) (1994): 223–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. P. Macnagh ten and J. Urry, ‘Towards a Sociology of Nature,’ Sociology, 29 (2) (1995): 203–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 45.
    M. Douglas, Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences ( London: Routledge amp; Kegan Paul, 1986 ).Google Scholar
  45. 49.
    T. Lindgren, Merhabs skönhet. (The Beauty of Merhab) ( Stockholm: MânPocket, 1985 ), p. 143.Google Scholar
  46. 52.
    S. Antilla and E. Torp, ‘Environmental Adjustment and Private Economic Strategies in Reindeer Pastoralism: Combining Game Theory with Participatory Action Research,’ Acta Borealia, 13 (2) (1996): 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 55.
    Cf. P. Ricoeur, De l’Interprétation: Essai sur Freud ( Paris: Seuil, 1965 ).Google Scholar
  48. 57.
    D. Archibugi and D. Held, eds, Cosmopolitan Democracy: An Agenda for a New World Order ( Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995 );Google Scholar
  49. J. Cohen and J. Rogers, eds, Associations and Democracy ( London: Verso, 1995 );Google Scholar
  50. D. Held, Democracy and the Global Order ( Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995 );Google Scholar
  51. D. Zolo, Cosmopolis: The Prospect of a World Government ( Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rolf Lidskog

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations