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.
AlfasiN (2021) Why public participation isn’t a tool for democratizing planning. A comment. Planning Theory20(2): 175–178.
2.
AnklamEBahlMIBallR, et al. (2022) Emerging technologies and their impact on regulatory science. Experimental Biology and Medicine247(1): 1–75.
3.
ArnsteinSR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners35(4): 216–224.
4.
BäckstrandK (2003) Civic science for sustainability: Reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics3(4): 24–41.
5.
BalducciAMäntysaloR (2013) Urban Planning as a Trading Zone. New York: Springer.
6.
BalestriniMDiezTKresinF (2015) From participatory sensing to making sense. Proceedings of the Workshop Environmental Infrastructures and Platforms 2015 – Infrastructures and Platforms for Environmental Crowd Sensing and Big Data co-located with the European Citizen Science Association General Assembly 2015 (ECSA GA’2015): 49–56.
7.
BellM (2022) The epistemic tensions of nuclear waste siting in a nuclear landscape. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space6(2): 841–862.
8.
BorrazODemortainD (2015) Science réglementaire. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
9.
CambrosioAKeatingPSchlichT, et al. (2009) Biomedical conventions and regulatory objectivity: A few introductory remarks. Social Studies of Science39(5): 651–664.
10.
CarrES (2010) Enactments of expertise. Annual Review of Anthropology39: 17–32.
11.
CollinsH (2013) Three dimensions of expertise. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences12(2): 253–273.
12.
CollinsHEvansR (2007) Rethinking Expertise.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
CollinsHEvansRGormanM (2007) Trading zones and interactional expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A38(4): 657–666.
14.
CollinsHEvansRGormanM (2019) Trading zones revisited. The Third Wave in Science and Technology Studies: Future Research Directions on Expertise and Experience: 275–281.
15.
CollinsHEvansRWeinelM (2016) Expertise revisited, part II: Contributory expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A56: 103–110.
16.
CollinsHEvansRWeinelM (2017) Interactional expertise. In: FeltUFouchéRMillerCA, et al. (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge, MA/London: The MIT Press.
17.
CollinsHM (2011) Language and practice. Social Studies of Science41(2): 271–300.
18.
CollinsHMEvansR (2002) The third wave of science studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science32(2): 235–296.
19.
CollinsHMSandersG (2007) They give you the keys and say, ‘drive it!’ Managers, referred expertise, and other expertises. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A38: 621–641.
20.
DIAG (2017) Representations by D.I.A.G. (Docks Incinerator Action Group) in relation to the application for a new bespoke permit by Biomass UK No. 2 Limited. Barry, South Wales: Docks Incineration Action Group.
21.
DIAG (2022) Submission to consultation, January 2022, Voluntary Retrospective Environmental Impact Assessment on behalf of Biomass UK No. 2 Limited. Barry, South Wales: Docks Incineration Action Group.
22.
EC (1975) Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on Waste. Brussels: European Council.
23.
EdenSDonaldsonAWalkerG (2006) Green groups and grey areas: Scientific boundary-work, nongovernmental organisations, and environmental knowledge. Environment and Planning A38(6): 1061–1076.
24.
EdwardsRHollandJ (2013) What is Qualitative Interviewing?. London: A&C Black.
25.
EvansR (2008) The sociology of expertise: The distribution of social fluency. Sociology Compass2(1): 281–298.
26.
EvansR (2011) Collective epistemology: The intersection of group membership and expertise. In: SchmidHBSirtesDWeberM (eds) Collective Epistemology. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag, 177–202.
27.
EvansRCollinsH (2007) Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28.
EvansRCollinsH (2008) 25 Expertise: From attribute to attribution and back again? The Handbook Of Science And Technology Studies. 609.
29.
EvansRHackingNLewisJ (2023) Expanding citizen science: Community action without primary data collection. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice.
30.
FlyvbjergB (1998) Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
FrickerM (2007) Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32.
GalisonP (1997) Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33.
GalisonP (1999) Trading zone. Coordinating Action and Belief. The Science Studies Reader/еd. by M. Biagioi.
34.
GalisonP (2010) Trading with the enemy. Trading zones and interactional expertise:Creating New Kinds Of Collaboration21(1): 147–175.
35.
GoddiksenM (2014) Clarifying interactional and contributory expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A47(0): 111–117.
36.
GormanME (2002) Levels of expertise and trading zones: A framework for multidisciplinary collaboration. Social Studies of Science32(5–6): 933–938.
37.
HackingNFlynnA (2017) Networks, power and knowledge in the planning system: A case study of energy from waste. Progress in Planning113: 1–37.
38.
HackingNFlynnA (2018) Protesting against neoliberal and illiberal governmentalities: A comparative analysis of waste governance in the UK and China. Political Geography63: 31–42.
39.
HagendijkRP (2004) The public understanding of science and public participation in regulated worlds. Minerva42(1): 41–59.
40.
HeilbronJ (2003) The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41.
IrwinARothsteinHYearleyS, et al. (1997) Regulatory science—towards a sociological framework. Futures29(1): 17–31.
42.
JasanoffS (1990) The Fifth Branch – Science Advisers as Policymakers.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43.
KimuraAHKinchyA (2019) Science by the People: Participation, Power, and the Politics of Environmental Knowledge. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
44.
LimaFPARodrigoR (2015) The value of practice: A critique of interactional expertise. Social Studies of Science, 46(2): 282–311.
45.
MachenR (2018) Towards a critical politics of translation:(Re) producing hegemonic climate governance. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space1(4): 494–515.
46.
MäntysaloRBalducciAKangasojaJ (2011) Planning as agonistic communication in a trading zone: Re-examining lindblom’s partisan mutual adjustment. Planning Theory10(3): 257–272.
47.
MillerC (2001) Hybrid management: Boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime. Science, Technology, & Human Values26(4): 478–500.
48.
MoghissiAAStrajaSRLoveBR, et al. (2014) Innovation in regulatory science: Evolution of a new scientific discipline. Technology & Innovation16(2): 155–165.
49.
OreskesNConwayEM (2011) Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
50.
PettsJBrooksC (2006) Expert conceptualisations of the role of lay knowledge in environmental decision making: Challenges for deliberative democracy. Environment and Planning A38(6): 1045–1059.
51.
PlaisanceKSKennedyEB (2014) A pluralistic approach to interactional expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A47: 60–68.
52.
PriorL (2016) Using Documents in Social Research. London / Thousand Oaks / New Delhi: Sage Publications.
53.
RobertsonCFeickR (2019) Geographical expertise: From places to processes and back again. The Third Wave in Science and Technology Studies: Future Research Directions on Expertise and Experience: 87–104.
54.
RushefskyME (1986) Making Cancer Policy.Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
SlotterbackCSLauriaM (2019) Building a Foundation for Public Engagement in Planning: 50 Years of Impact, Interpretation, and Inspiration from Arnstein’s Ladder. Journal of the American Planning Association85(3): 183–187.
57.
TurnpennyJRusselDRaynerT (2013) The complexity of evidence for sustainable development policy: Analysing the boundary work of the UK Parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers38(4): 586–598.
58.
Van BouwelJVan OudheusdenM (2017) Participation beyond consensus? Technology assessments, consensus conferences and democratic modulation. Social Epistemology31(6): 497–513.
59.
VenaNB (2023) Scientific expertise and volunteer power in the Cook County forest preserves. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space6(1): 259–279.
60.
VoßJ-PAmelungN (2016) Innovating public participation methods: Technoscientization and reflexive engagement. Social Studies of Science46(5): 749–772.
61.
WesselinkAPaavolaJFritschO, et al. (2011) Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance: Practitioners’ perspectives. Environment and Planning A43(11): 2688–2704.
62.
WoodsMBalestriniMBejtullahuS, et al. (2018) Citizen sensing: a toolkit. Making Sense. https://discovery.dundee.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/39984081/Citizen_Sensing_A_Toolkit.pdf
63.
ZakhourS (2020) The democratic legitimacy of public participation in planning: Contrasting optimistic, critical, and agnostic understandings. Planning Theory19(4): 349–370.
