Deliberative Mapping of options for tackling climate change: Citizens and specialists 'open up' appraisal of geoengineering - PubMed (original) (raw)

Deliberative Mapping of options for tackling climate change: Citizens and specialists 'open up' appraisal of geoengineering

Rob Bellamy et al. Public Underst Sci. 2016 Apr.

Abstract

Appraisals of deliberate, large-scale interventions in the earth's climate system, known collectively as 'geoengineering', have largely taken the form of narrowly framed and exclusive expert analyses that prematurely 'close down' upon particular proposals. Here, we present the findings from the first 'upstream' appraisal of geoengineering to deliberately 'open up' to a broader diversity of framings, knowledges and future pathways. We report on the citizen strand of an innovative analytic-deliberative participatory appraisal process called Deliberative Mapping. A select but diverse group of sociodemographically representative citizens from Norfolk (United Kingdom) were engaged in a deliberative multi-criteria appraisal of geoengineering proposals relative to other options for tackling climate change, in parallel to symmetrical appraisals by diverse experts and stakeholders. Despite seeking to map divergent perspectives, a remarkably consistent view of option performance emerged across both the citizens' and the specialists' deliberations, where geoengineering proposals were outperformed by mitigation alternatives.

Keywords: climate change; framing risk; governance of science and technology; public participation; risk perception; technology assessment.

© The Author(s) 2014.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Overview of the Deliberative Mapping process. MCM: Multi-Criteria Mapping.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Criteria map of specialist and citizen criteria groups and subgroups. Criteria groups and subgroups in bold indicate those independently developed by both the specialists and the citizens, criteria groups and subgroups in normal font indicate those developed by citizens and dashed criteria groups and criteria subgroups in italics indicate those developed by specialists. *Criteria subgroup also developed by citizens under feasibility criteria group. Co-benefits developed as a lone but cross-cutting criterion by one specialist. Criteria groups and subgroups are high-level groupings that do not show the full complexity of issues that lie beneath. †Criteria subgroup also deployed as a principle by specialists. ‡A principle developed by specialists.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Citizens’ aggregate final rankings of core options appraised by (a) all male participants and (b) all female participants. VLC: voluntary low carbon living; OSW: offshore wind energy; NMM: new market mechanism; BIO: biochar; ACS: air capture and storage; SAI: stratospheric aerosol injection; BAU: business as usual. Frequency of participants appraising (n) is indicated to the right of the graphic. Performances increase on an arbitrary subjective scale to the right. Bar length represents the range between the most optimistic mean score of the corresponding participants and the most pessimistic mean score of the corresponding participants. The white bar dissecting the ranges is the grand mean for the corresponding participants.

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

(a) Academic, (b) civil society, (c) industry and (d) government experts’ and stakeholders’ aggregate final rankings of core options appraised by all participants. VLC: voluntary low carbon living; OSW: offshore wind energy; NMM: new market mechanism; BIO: biochar; ACS: air capture and storage; SAI: stratospheric aerosol injection; BAU: business as usual. Frequency of participants appraising (n) and ruling them out on principle (p) is indicated to the right of the graphic. Performances increase on an arbitrary subjective scale to the right. Bar length represents the range between the most optimistic mean score of the corresponding participants and the most pessimistic mean score of the corresponding participants. The white bar dissecting the ranges is the grand mean for the corresponding participants.

References

    1. Bellamy R. (2013) Framing geoengineering assessment. Opinion Article, Geoengineering Our Climate Working Paper and Opinion Article Series. Available at: wp.me/p2zsRk-9H (accessed 15 July 2014).
    1. Bellamy R, Hulme M. (2011) Beyond the tipping point: Understanding perceptions of abrupt climate change and their implications. Weather, Climate, and Society 3: 48–60.
    1. Bellamy R, Chilvers J, Vaughan N, Lenton T. (2012) A review of climate geoengineering appraisals. WIREs: Climate Change 3: 597–615.
    1. Bellamy R, Chilvers J, Vaughan N, Lenton T. (2013) ‘Opening up’ geoengineering appraisal: Multi-Criteria Mapping of options for tackling climate change. Global Environmental Change 23: 926–937.
    1. Bickel J, Lane L. (2009) An Analysis of Climate Engineering as a Response to Climate Change. Frederiksberg: Copenhagen Consensus Center.

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources