Bellamy Rob, Chilvers Jason, Vaughan Naomi E
University of Oxford, UK
University of East Anglia, UK.
Public Underst Sci. 2016 Apr;25(3):269-86. doi: 10.1177/0963662514548628. Epub 2014 Sep 15.
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.
对地球气候系统中被统称为“地球工程”的蓄意大规模干预措施的评估，很大程度上采取了狭隘且排他的专家分析形式，这些分析过早地针对特定提议“定了调”。在此，我们展示了对地球工程进行的首次“上游”评估的结果，该评估旨在刻意“打开思路”，纳入更广泛多样的框架、知识和未来路径。我们报告了一个名为“审议性绘图”的创新性分析 - 审议参与式评估过程中的公民部分。从英国诺福克郡精心挑选出一群具有社会人口统计学代表性且多样化的公民，让他们针对应对气候变化的其他选项，对地球工程提议进行审议性多标准评估，同时不同的专家和利益相关者也进行对称评估。尽管试图梳理不同观点，但在公民和专家的审议中，对各选项表现却出现了惊人一致的看法，即减缓气候变化的替代方案比地球工程提议表现更优。
