Course Handbook Sociology Honours (SCIL10024)

Second semester, 2013-2014

Sociology of the Environment and Risk

Course convener: Dr Claire Haggett

Tuesdays, 14.10 p.m. – 15.50 p.m. Weekly, except week 6 Chrystal MacMillan Building, seminar room 1

2

The course in brief Hello and a very warm welcome to Sociology of the Environment and Risk. This course presents a sociological perspective on environmental knowledge, issues, campaigns and risks. We explore what 'the environment' is, how environmental quality is measured and understood, and how we perceive of environmental risks and problems. Sociological analyses on the relationship between human societies and their natural environments are discussed via: * evaluating social constructivist theories about the environment * discussion of the relationship between local and global environmental issues * analysis of the role played by science in environmental debates * discussion of the role of the media, and the media construction of environmental issues and risks *considering sociological theories of environmental transitions and futures We examine a number of case studies (energy, food, fashion, technology and pollution) and examples with key themes and questions running throughout: how are issues framed? Who is responsible for mitigating a risk, cleaning up after a disaster or saving the planet, and how is blame apportioned? What is the epistemological basis for knowledge claims about the environment; or, how do we know what we know about environmental problems and risks? The course involves a significant ‘research component’, so is assessed entirely by essays: there is no examination. Undergraduate and visiting-student assessment is via a 1,500 word mid-term essay (25% of the overall mark) and a 3,500-4,500 word final essay (75% of mark).

3

Objectives The learning outcomes are such that at the end of the course you will be familiar with and be able to discuss: 1. The concept of social constructionism and its value in understanding the

environment; 2. How responsibility and blame for environmental problems are apportioned; 3. The relationship between individual and societal factors in causing and

tackling environmental issues; 4. The factors that shape public perception of risks; 5. How sociological analyses of science and of its public understanding can help

us understand the role it plays in environmental matters; 6. How the essentials of life – clothes, food, energy – and their environmental

consequences can be considered sociologically; 7. How technologies are used and their impacts experienced; 8. Sociological interpretations of different scenarios for the future. The course is therefore designed to meet the Programme Outcomes criteria set out in the Sociology Honours handbook in relation to sociological knowledge and understanding, general cognitive skills, discipline specific skills and key generic and transferable skills (for further details, please refer to the see the programme specification section in the honours handbook). Visiting undergraduates - Please consult your handbook for details of submission and assessment procedures. Student presentations Although they are not assessed, an essential element of the learning experience in the course are presentations to the class. In Week 1, you will sign up for a presentation topic. In a small group (two-three students) you will prepare a short presentation (10 minutes) to the class on your chosen topic. While you may draw on the reading list, it will be particularly useful to discuss your own ideas and examples. One of the aims of these presentations is to generate discussion among your fellow students, so try to make them as interesting and engaging as possible, and encourage questions and debate. You are perfectly at liberty to present on the same topic as one of your essays. Remember to follow the rules of good presentation: have a clear structure; try to speak from notes rather than read a text; look at your audience; vary pace and intonation; have a clear aim and structure to your presentation; don’t simply summarize the reading but try to say something interesting using it; don’t be afraid to be controversial. It is important that you prepare your presentations as a group so that it links together well and that you keep to time. Examples of possible topics are:

4

(a) ‘Nature and society are different from each other’. Discuss. (b) How would you explain ‘social constructionism’ (with examples) to a non-

sociologist? (c) How is responsibility for causing and tackling environmental problems

apportioned? (d) What can sociological ideas tell us about how we respond to environmental

issues and problems? (e) ‘If something happens, the media will tell us about it’. Discuss. (f) Examine the media framing of a particular environmental issue. (g) Discuss perceptions of risk in a particular area (e.g. terrorism, smoking,

mobile phones, alcohol, unprotected sex, GM food) and discuss how the literature on risk perception can be applied to the understanding of it.

(h) Is society getting riskier? (i) Discuss the role of scientific expertise (particularly contested knowledge) in

a dispute about risk or the environment (j) Are ordinary people too stupid to understand environmental science? (k) What is the relationship between food and the environment, and why might

sociologists care? (l) What is the relationship between fashion and the environment, and why

might sociologists care? (m) Examine a wind farm protest from a sociological perspective. (n) How does consultation and communication with people shape decision

making and support and opposition? (o) How does our relationship with technology effect the environment? (p) Discuss examples of subjective interpretations of environmental impact (q) Are we in a ‘risk society’, as Ulrich Beck asserts? (r) How can we save the planet? Office hours Please tell me as soon as possible if you have any questions or are having any problems with the course, if you would find it helpful to have an individual chat about your presentation or essay topics, or if there are any other aspects of the course you would like to discuss with me. I am always happy to discuss ideas, questions or problems with any students. My office hours are Fridays 2.30-4.30. My office is 5.07, Chrystal Macmillan Building. If those times don’t suit, I am happy to make appointments to see you at other times too or answer questions by email - claire.haggett@ed.ac.uk Please note that I work part time hours (afternoons only).

5

Reading List ‘Key’ readings are designed to tie in closely with lectures, so please read them before each session of the class. ‘Additional’ readings are for those doing an essay on a particular topic. Don’t feel you need to read all of these for your essay, but equally don’t restrict yourselves to them: for an honours level course such as this, you can do your own literature searches. The further readings below are intended to start you in this process by acting as a guide to the kind of literature available: they’re not a definitive essay reading list. I’ve asked for copies of the ‘further reading’ books that I expect to be in heavy demand to be transferred to the Reserve section of the Main Library: these books are indicated with an asterisk. Given the length of this reading list, it would not be reasonable to do this with all the further readings, so you will find that some books are out on loan. In those cases, staff at the Library’s service desk can recall them for you. However, this process normally takes at least a week, so plan your essay work in advance, recalling those books you will need which are out. Recent journal articles will normally be available electronically via the electronic journal holdings of Edinburgh University Library (http://www.lib.ed.ac.uk/): you’ll need to be logged in via EASE/MyEd to get access to them. Useful overall readings: e.g. alternative overall ‘takes’ on the environment and society There is no course textbook, but there are several textbooks and monographs that offer overviews of sociological approaches to the environment: Cudworth, E. (2002) Environment and Society, London: Routledge. (Hub reserve)

Dickens, P. (2004) Society and Nature, Cambridge: Polity. (Hub reserve)

Goldblatt, D. (1996) Social Theory and the Environment, Cambridge: Polity. (Hub reserve)

Hannigan, J. (2005) Environmental Sociology, London: Routledge. (Hub reserve)

Irwin, A. (2001) Sociology and Environment, Cambridge: Polity. (Hub reserve)

Pretty. J., et al. (eds), (2007) The SAGE Handbook of Environment and Society, London: SAGE. (Hub reserve)

Sutton, P. (2004) Nature, Environment and Society, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. (Hub reserve)

Sutton, P. (2007) The Environment: A Sociological Introduction, Cambridge: Polity. (Hub reserve)

Urry, J. and MacNaghten, P. (1998) Contested Natures, London: Sage. (Hub reserve)

6

There are also a number of collections of readings that are also useful:

Dunlap, R. et al. (eds) (2002) Sociological Theory and the Environment: Classical Foundations, Contemporary Insights, Boulder, Colorado: Rowman and Littlefield. (Hub reserve)

Redclift, M. and Benton, T. ( eds) (1994) Social Theory and the Global Environment, London: Routledge. (Hub reserve)

Redclift, M. and White, G. (eds) (2005) New Developments in Environmental Sociology, Cheltenham: Elgar. (Hub reserve)

Redclift, M. and Woodgate, G. (eds) (1997) The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology, Cheltenham: Elgar. (Hub reserve)

Week 1: Tuesday 14th January Introduction - The social construction of the environment This session is firstly an introduction and overview of the course. We think about the key themes that run through the course – blame, risk, responsibility, knowledge, epistemology, the role of the media and science – which are the focus of the first half of the course. In the second half of the course, we will think about particular case studies – food, clothes, energy, pollution and environmental quality – and explore how these themes are enacted through them. Secondly, in this session, we explore ideas about the social construction of the environment. We think about what it means to say that the ‘environment’ and elements in it are socially constructed, how humans have shaped the natural environment, and how there are different versions of what the environment is and how it should be used. We then think about how we come to our own conclusions about environmental issues, problems, and actions. The value of social constructionism is considered, and how useful it is when we might be faced with series and imminent environmental risks. Key readings: Burningham, K. and Cooper, G. (1999) Being constructive: social constructionism

and the Environment, Sociology, 33: 297-316. (E-Journal)

Greider, T. and Garkovich, L. (1994) Landscapes: The social construction of nature and the environment, Rural Sociology, 59 (1): 1-14. (available in Library periodicals)

Woolgar, S. and Pawluch, D. (1985a) Ontological gerrymandering: the anatomy of social problems explanations, Social Problems, 32: 214-227. (E-Journal)

Woolgar, S. and Pawluch, D. (1985b) How shall we move beyond constructionism?: Response to Critics, Social Problems, 33: 159-162. (E-Journal)

Additional readings:

7

Burningham, K. (1998) A noisy road or noisy residents? A demonstration of the utility of social constructionism for analysing environmental problems, The Sociological Review, 46 (3): 536-563. (E-Journal)

Castree, N. and Braun B. (1998) The construction of nature and the nature of construction: Analytical and political tools for building survivable futures, In B. Braun and N. Castree (eds.) Remaking Reality: Nature at the Millennium, New York: Routledge: 3-42. (Short and Standard Loan)

Collins, H. and Yearley, S. (1992a) Epistemological Chicken, In Pickering, A. (ed.) Science as Practice and Culture, Chicago: Chicago University Press. (Short Loan)

Collins, H. and Yearley, S. (1992b) Journey into Space, In Pickering, A. (ed.) Science as Practice and Culture, Chicago: Chicago University Press. (Short Loan)

Coeterier, J. (1996) Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape, Landscape and Urban Planning, 34: 27-44. (E-Journal)

Cronon, W. (1996) The trouble with wilderness; or, getting back to the wrong nature, In W. Cronon (ed.) Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, New York: W.W. Norton: 69-90. (Hub Short Loan)

Demeritt, D. (2006) Science studies, climate change, and the prospects for constructivist critique, Economy and Society, 35 (3): 453-479. (E-Journal)

Habron, D. (1998) Visual perception of wild land in Scotland, Landscape and Urban Planning, 42: 45-56. (E-Journal)

Hannigan, J. (2006) Social construction of environmental problems and risks, chapter 5 in Environmental Sociology (second edition) London: Routledge: 63-78. (Short and Standard Loan)

Martell, L. (1994) Rethinking relations between society and nature, chapter 6 in Ecology and Society: 164-183. (Short Loan)

Mace, B.L., Bell, P.A. and Loomis, R.J. (1999) Aesthetic, affective, and cognitive effects of noise on natural landscape assessment, Society and Natural Resources, 12 (3): 225-242. (E-Journal)

Potter, J. (1997) Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London: Sage (chapter 1) (Short Loan)

Shove, E. (2010) Sociology in a Changing Climate, Sociological Research Online, 15 (3): available online at http://www.socresonline.org.uk/15/3/12.html

Shultis, J. (1999) The Duality of wilderness: Comparing popular and political conceptions of wilderness in New Zealand, Society and Natural Resources, 12: 389-404. (E-Journal)

Urry, J. (2010) Sociology Facing Climate Change, Sociological Research Online, 15 (3): available online at <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/15/3/1.html>

Week 2: Tuesday 21st January Behaviour, blame, and responsibility

8

In this session, we think about who and what causes environmental problems. Different approaches to addressing environmental issues and encouraging pro-environmental behaviours, and different strategies and tools for persuading and punishing people are considered and evaluated, and their underlying rationales considered. Some of these, including government sponsored initiatives, focus on individuals and their role in causing and preventing environmental problems. Others consider more broadly the social context in which people make their decisions, and the values, norms, and structures by which they are constrained. Both are evaluated here.

Key readings: Shove, E. (2010) Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social

change, Environment and Planning A, 42 (6): 1273- 1285. (E-Journal)

Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., Metcalfe, R. and Vlaev, I. (2012) Influencing behaviour: the mindspace way, Journal of Economic Psychology, 33: 264-277. (E-Journal)

Additional readings: Blake, J. (1999) Overcoming the `value -action gap' in environmental policy:

tensions between national policy and local experience, Local Environment, 4: 257 – 278. (E-Journal)

Chappells, H. and Shove, E. (2005) Debating the future of comfort: environmental sustainability, energy consumption and the indoor environment, Building Research & Information, 33 (1): 32-40.

Darnton, A. (2004) Driving public behaviours for sustainable lifestyles, (available online 4/1/13) http://collection.europarchive.org/tna/20080530153425/http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/publications/pdf/desk-research2.pdf

Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D. and Vlaev, I. (2010) MINDSPACE, Institute of Government and The Cabinet Office. (available online 4/1/13) http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/MINDSPACE.pdf

Dunlap, R. E., and McCright, A. M. (2010) 'Climate change denial: sources, actors, and strategies', chapter 14 in The Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society, Abingdon: Routledge, pp240-260 (available to download through the Library catalogue as an e-book)

Hand, M., Shove, E. and Southerton, D. (2005) Explaining showering: a discussion of the material, conventional, and temporal dimensions of practice, Sociological Research Online, 10 (2): (available online 4/1/13) http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/hand.html

Inglehart, R. (2008) Changing vales among Western Publics from 1970-2006, West European Politics, 31 (1-2): 130-46. (E-Journal)

Inglehart, R. (1971) The Silent Revolution in Europe: Intergenerational Change in Post-Industrial Societies, American Political Science Review, 65(4): 991–1017 (E-Journal)

9

Kollmuss, A. and Agyeman, J. (2002) Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour?, Environmental Education Research 8(3): 239-260. (E-Journal)

Lorenzonia, I., Nicholson-Coleb, S., and Whitmarsh, L. (2007) ‘Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications’, Global Environmental Change, 17: p445-459 (E-Journal)

Shove, E. (2003) Converging conventions of comfort, cleanliness and convenience, Journal of Consumer Policy, 26 (4): 395-418. (E-Journal)

Shove, E. and Walker, G. (2010) Governing transitions in the sustainability of everyday life, Research Policy, 39: 471-476. (E-Journal)

Sustainable Consumption Round Table (2006) I will if you will, National Consumer Council and Sustainable Development Commission, London, (available online 4/1/13) http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/data/files/publications/I_Will_If_You_Will.pdf

Thaler, R. H. and Sunstein, C. R. (2008) Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness, London: Yale University Press. (Hub Short Loan)

UNEP (2008) Kick the habit: A UN guide to climate neutrality, United Nations Environment Programme, (available online 4/1/13) http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/kick-the-habit/

Whitmarsh, L., O'Neill, S. and Lorenzoni, I. (2011) Climate change or social change? Debate within, amongst and beyond disciplines, Environment and Planning A, 43(2): 258 -261. (E-Journal)

Week 3: Tuesday 28th January Knowledge, naming and framing: the epistemology of environmental issues The last session considered influences on behaviour; here we focus in more depth on the sources of our knowledge about the environment, how that knowledge is created and shaped, and how (and why) it may or may not have an impact. We discuss the role of the media in both telling us what we should know, and what we should care about. We consider how environmental issues are framed, shaped, and at times, ignored, by the media, and upon what criteria that selection is made. We think in particular about naming and framing; how the name given to an issue constructs the very nature of that issue, and who might be responsible for it. Key readings: Hilgartner, S. and Bosk, C. (1988) The rise and fall of social problems: A public

arenas model, Sociology, 29(2): 203-220. (E-Journal)

Gamson, W.A. and Modigliani, A. (1989) Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach, American Journal of Sociology, 95 (1): 1-37. (E-Journal)

10

Additional readings:

Allan, S. (2002) Media, Risk and Science, Buckingham: Open University Press. (Standard Loan)

Antilla, L. (2010) Self-censorship and science: a geographical review of media coverage of climate tipping points, Public understanding of science, 19(2): 240-256. (E-Journal)

Boykoff, M.T. and Boykoff, J.M. (2007) Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage, Geoforum, 38: 1190-1204. (E-Journal)

Bignell, J. (2005) Media Semiotics (2nd edition), Manchester: University of Manchester Press. Particularly Chapter 5 ‘Television news’, pp105-130. (Short and Standard Loan)

Fowler, R. (1991) Language in the News. Discourse and Ideology in the Press, London: Routledge. (Short and Standard Loan)

Jones, S. (2011) A review of the impartiality and accuracy of the BBC’s coverage of Science: 14-102. (available online 4/1/13) http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/science_impartiality/science_impartiality.pdf

Liu, X., Vedlitz, A. and Alston, L. (2008) Regional news portrayal of global warming and climate change, Environmental science and policy, 11 (5): 379-393. (E-Journal)

Mazur, A. (1998) Global environmental change in the news, International Sociology, 13 (4): 457-472. (E-Journal)

Mazur, A. and Lee, J. (1993) Sounding the global alarm: environmental issues in the US national news, Social Studies of Science, 23: 681-720. (E-Journal)

Miller, M. M. and Riechart, B.P. (2005) Interest group strategies and journalistic norms: news media framing of environmental issues, Chapter 2 in Allan, S., Adam, B., and Carter, C. (eds) Environmental Risks and The Media, London: Routledge, pp45-54. (available in New College Library)

O’Donnell, C. and Rice, R.E. (2008) Coverage of environmental events in US and UK newspapers: frequency, hazard, specificity and placement, International Journal of Environmental Studies, 65 (5): 637-654. (E-Journal)

O’Neill, S. J. (2013) ‘Image matters: Climate change imagery in US, UK and Australian newspapers’, Geoforum, 49: 10-19 (E-Journal)

Olaussin, U. (2009) Global warming-global responsibility? Media frames of collective action and scientific certainty, Public understanding of science, 18: 421-436. (E-Journal)

Roll-Hansen, N. (1994) Science, Politics, and the Mass Media: On Biased Communication of Environmental Issues, Science, Technology & Human Values, 19: 324-41. (E-Journal)

Stallings, R. (1990) Media discourse and the social construction of risk, Social Problems, 37(1): 80-95. (E-journal)

11

Schoenfeld, A.C., Meier, R. F. and Griffin, R. J. (1979) Constructing a social problem: The press and the environment, Social Problems, 27(1): 38-61. (E-journal)

Spence, A., Venables, D., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W. and Demski, C. (2010) Public Perceptions of Climate Change and Energy Futures in Britain Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted in January March 2010, (available online 4/1/3) http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/climate-change-public-perceptions-of-climate-change-report.pdf

Whitmarsh, L. (2009). What’s in a name? Commonalities and differences in public understanding of “climate change” and “global warming”, Public Understanding of Science, 18: 401–420. (E-Journal)

Week 4: Tuesday 4th February Scientific expertise, public understanding of science, and the environment In this session, we consider the role of science in debates over environmental controversies, how scientific practice influences the outcomes that are generated, and the way in which results are disseminated. Scientific procedures are influenced by social decisions, and we consider the impact that this has on knowledge about the environment. We explore cases were scientific models clash with lay understanding, and the role of public perceptions and understandings of science in debates about environmental problems and action. Key readings: Collingridge, D. and Reeve, C. (1986) Myths of science (chapter 2, pp. 7-14), and

Realities of science (chapter 3, pp. 15-27). In: Collingridge, D. and Reeve, C. (eds.) Science Speaks to Power: The Role of Experts in Policy Making, London: Frances Pinter. (Short and Standard Loan)

Wynne, B. (1992) Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science, Public Understanding of Science, 1: 281-304. (E-Journal)

Yearley, S. (1994) Understanding science from the perspective of the sociology of scientific knowledge: an overview, Public Understanding of Science, 3: 245-258. (E-Journal)

Additional readings: Anderegg, W.R.L., Prall, J.W., Harold, J., and Schneider, S.H. (2010) Expert

credibility in climate change, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America. (available online 4/1/13) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2901439/

Collingridge, D. and Reeve, C. (1986) Science Speaks to Power: The Role of Experts in Policy Making, London: Frances Pinter. (Short and Standard Loan)

12

Collins, H. (1985) Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice, London: Sage. (Short Loan)

Collins, H. and Evans, R. (2002) The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Excellence, Social Studies of Science, 32: 235-296. (E-Journal)

Durant, J.R., Evans G.A. and Geoffrey, P.T. (1989) The public understanding of science, Nature, 340: 11-14. (E-Journal)

Irwin, A. (1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development, London: Routledge. (Short and Standard Loan)

Irwin, A. and Wynne, B. (eds) (2002) Misunderstanding Science: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (HUB Short Loan) (Standard Loan)

Jasanoff S., et al. (eds) (1995) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. (HUB Short Loan) (Short and Standard Loan)

Lahsen, M. (2005) Technocracy, Democracy, and U.S. Climate Politics: The Need for Demarcations, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30: 137-169. (E-Journal)

Lightman, A. and Gingerich, O. (1992) When Do Anomalies Begin?, Science, 255(5045) : 690-695. (E-Journal)

Nelkin, D. (ed.) (1984) Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions, Beverley Hills, CA: Sage. (Short and Standard Loan)

Nemecek, S. (1997) Science versus Antiscience?, Scientific American, 276(1): 96-100. (E-Journal)

Racker, E. (1989) A view of misconduct in science, Nature, 339: 91-937. (E-Journal)

Shackley, S. and Wynne, B. (1996) Representing Uncertainty in Global Climate Change Science and Policy: Boundary-Ordering Devices and Authority, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 21: 275-302. (E-Journal)

van der Sluijs, J., van Eijendhoven, J., Shackley, S. and Wynne, B. (1998) Anchoring Devices in Science for Policy, Social Studies of Science, 28: 291-323. (E-Journal)

Williams, G. and Popay, J. (1994) Lay knowledge and the privilege of experience. In: Gabe, J., Kelleher, D. and Williams, G. (eds.), Challenging Medicine, London: Routledge. (Short and Standard Loan)

Wynne, B. (1994) Scientific Knowledge and the Global Environment. In: Redclift, M. and Benton, T. (eds.), Social Theory and the Global Environment, London: Routledge. (Hub reserve)

Wynne, B. (1996) May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In: Lash, S., Szerszynski, B. and Wynne, B. (eds.), Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, London: Sage. (Hub reserve) (Short and Standard Loan)

Yearley, S. (2008) 'Nature and the environment in science and technology studies' In: Hackett, E. et al. (eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. (Short and Standard Loan)

13

Week 5: Tuesday 11th February Perceptions of risk We think in this session about the social construction of risks, the sources of our information and knowledge about risks, and the relationships between the ‘reality’ of risks and our perceptions (and how we understand what that reality is). Building on weeks 3 and 4, we explore the role of scientific expertise in determining risk and the role of the media and other intermediaries in communicating that risk (and suggesting who is to blame for a risk, and how we should change our behaviours). Key readings: Green, J. (1997) Risk and Misfortune: The Social Construction of Accidents,

London: UCL press (chapter 1) (in Short Loan and Main Library) Freudenberg, W.R. (1988) Perceived Risk, Real Risk: Social Science and the Art of

Probabilistic Risk Assessment, Science, 242 (4875):44-49. (E-Journal) Additional readings Allan, S. (2002) Media, Risk & Science, Buckingham: Open University Press. (Hub

reserve)

Bellaby, P. (1990) To Risk or not to Risk? Uses and Limitations of Mary Douglas on Risk-Acceptability for Understanding Health and Safety at Work and Road Accidents, Sociological Review, 38: 465-483. (E-Journal)

Douglas, M. (1985) Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. (Standard Loan)

Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A. (1982) Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers, Berkeley: University of California Press. (Particularly, Introduction: Can we Know the Risks we Face?) (Hub reserve) (Short and Standard Loan)

Flynn, R., Ricci, M. and Bellaby, P. (2011) The Mirage of Citizen Engagement in Uncertain Science: Public attitudes towards hydrogen energy, International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 1(2): 97-114. (E-Journal)

Fox, N.J. (1999) Postmodern reflections on 'risk', 'hazards' and life choices. In Lupton, D. (ed.), Risk and Sociocultural Theory: New Directions and Perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Standard Loan)

Franklin, J. (ed.) (1998) The Politics of the Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity Press. (Short and Standard Loan)

Freudenberg, W.R. (1992) Heuristics, Biases, and the Not-So-General Publics: Expertise and Error in the Assessment of Risks. In: Krimsky, S.and Golding, D. (eds.), Social Theories of Risk, Westport: Praeger. (Standard Loan)

Furedi, F. (2002) Culture of Fear: risk-taking and the morality of low expectation, London: Continuum. (Particularly, Preface pp.vii-xviii, and A World of Risky Strangers pp. 107-126) (Hub reserve)

14

Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravetz, J.R. (1992) Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post normal science. In: Krimsky, S.and Golding, D. (eds.), Social Theories of Risk, Westport: Praeger. (Standard Loan)

Glassner, B. (2000) The Culture of Fear: Why Americans are Afraid of the Wrong Things, New York: Basic. (Standard Loan)

Irwin, A. (1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise, and Sustainable Development, London: Routledge. (Short and Standard Loan)

Jasanoff, S. (1999) The Songlines of Risk, Environmental Values, 8: 135-152. (E-Journal)

Kasperson, R. (1992) The Social Amplification of Risk: Progress in Developing an Integrative Framework. In: Krimsky, S.and Golding, D. (eds.), Social Theories of Risk, Westport: Praeger. (Standard Loan).

Kasperson, J.X. and Kasperson, R.E. (2005) Social Contours of Risk, London: Earthscan. (Standard Loan)

Law, A. and McNeish, W. (2007) Contesting the New Irrational Actor Model: A Case Study of Mobile Phone Mast Protest, Sociology, 41: 439-456. (E-Journal)

Leach, M., Scoones, I., and Wynne, B. (eds.) (2005) Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, London: Zed Books. (Standard Loan)

Lupton, D. (ed.) (1999). Risk and Sociocultural Theory: New Directions and Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Particularly the Introduction) (Standard Loan)

Perrow, C. (1984) Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies, New York: Basic Books. (Short and Standard Loan)

Petts, J. (2004) Barriers to participation and deliberation in risk decisions: evidence from waste management, Journal of Risk Research, 7 (2): 115-133. (E-Journal)

Phillimore, P. and Moffatt, S. (2004) ‘If we have wrong perceptions of our area, we cannot be surprised if others do as well’: Representing risk in Teeside's environmental politics, Journal of Risk Research, 7 (2): 171-184. (E-Journal)

Pidgeon, N. et al., (eds.) (2003) The Social Amplification of Risk, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Hub reserve)

Plough, A. and Krimsky, S. (1987) The emergence of risk communication studies: social and political context, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 12 (3/4): 4-10. (E-Journal)

Rayner, S. (1986) Management of Radiation in Hospitals: Plural Rationalities in a Single Institution, Social Studies of Science, 16: 573-91. (E-Journal)

Ricci, M., Bellaby, P. and Flynn, R. (2008) What do we know about public perceptions and acceptance of hydrogen? A critical review and new case study evidence, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 33: 5868-5880. (E-Journal)

Slovic, P. (1987) Perception of risk, Science, 236: 280-285. (E-Journal)

15

Slovic, P. (1992) Perception of risk: reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In: Krimsky, S.and Golding, D. (eds.), Social Theories of Risk, Westport: Praeger. (Standard Loan).

Slovic, P. (2000) The Perception of Risk, London: Earthscan. (Hub reserve)

Starr, C. (1969) Social Benefit versus Technological Risk, Science, 165: 1232-38. (E-Journal)

Vaughan, D. (1996) The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA, Chicago: Chicago University Press. (Hub reserve)

Williams, G., and Popay, J. (1994) Lay Knowledge and the Privilege of Experience. In Gabe, J., Kelleher, D. and Williams G. (eds.), Challenging Medicine, London: Routledge. (Short and Standard Loan)

Wynne, B. (1989) Sheep farming after Chernobyl: a case study in community scientific information, Environment, 31: 10-15. (E-Journal)

Week 6: Tuesday 18th February Innovative Learning Week (no class) Week 7: Tuesday 25th February Food: choice, consumption and culture In this lecture, we explore some of the issues developed thus far in the course in terms of different case studies. Food is one of most basic requirements for human survival, yet its consumption in modern materialist societies has complex social, political and environmental influences and consequences. We think about what we eat in terms of choice, quantity, and availability. We also consider what happens to food packaging and waste, and who is responsible for addressing and tackling these important issues. The role of popular culture and how it impacts upon consumption choices and demand is also addressed, and we consider the range of social, economic and environmental barriers to change. Key readings: Dixon, J. M., Hinde, S. J. and Banwell, C. L. (2006) Obesity, Convenience and

“Phood”, British Food Journal, 108 (8): 634 – 645. (E-Journal)

Leahy, T. (2008) Unsustainable food production: its social origins and alternatives. In Germov, J., and Williams, L. (eds.) A Sociology of Food and Nutrition: The Social Appetite, Oxford: Oxford University Press (other chapters in this book also worth a look, including chapters 4 and 5) (Hub reserve)

Shove, E. (2003) Converging conventions of comfort, cleanliness and convenience, Journal of Consumer Policy, 26 (4): 395-418. (E-Journal)

Additional Readings

16

Abraham, J., (1991) Food and Development: The Political Economy of Hunger and the Modern Diet, London, Kogan Page Ltd. (Short and Standard Loan)

Asch, D. and Wolfe, B. (2001) New Economy – New Competition: The Rise of the Consumer?, Hampshire and New York: Palgrave. (Standard Loan)

Beardsworth, A. and Keil, T. (1992) The Vegetarian Option: Varieties, Conversions, Motives and Careers, Sociological Review, 40: 253-91. (E-Journal)

Belasco, W. and Scranton, P. (2002) Food Nations: Selling Taste in Consumer Societies, New York and London: Routledge. (Standard Loan)

Blythman, J. (2004) Shopped: The Shocking Power of British Supermarkets, London: Fourth Estate. (Short and Standard Loan)

Cockburn, A. (1996) A Short, Meat-Oriented History of the World: From Eden to the Mattole, New Left Review, 215: 16-58. (E-Journal)

Cook, I. Crang, P. and Thorpe, M. (1998) Biographies and geographies: consumer understandings of the origins of foods, British Food Journal, 100 (3): 162-167. (e-journal)

Fiddes, N. (1991) Meat: A Natural Symbol, London: Routledge. (Short and Standard Loan)

Germov, J. and Williams, L. (2004) A Sociology of Food and Nutrition: The Social Appetite, New York: Oxford University Press. (Hub reserve)

Haddock-Fraser, J., Poole, N. and Doishita, M. (2009) The Failure of Multinational Food Retailers in Japan: A Matter of Convenience?, British Food Journal, 111 (4): 327 – 348. (E-Journal)

Heasman, M. and Mellentin, J. (2001) The Functional Foods Revolution: healthy people, healthy profits?, London: Earthscan. (Standard Loan)

Hinrichs, C.C. (2000) Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of direct agricultural market, Journal of Rural Studies, 16: 295-303 (E-Journal)

Holloway, L. and Kneafsey, M. (2000) Reading the space of the Farmers’ Market: A preliminary investigation from the UK, Sociologia Ruralis, 40 (3): 285-299. (E-Journal)

Kahn, B.E. and McAlister, L. (1997) Grocery Revolution: The New Focus on the Consumer, New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc. (Standard Loan)

Kirwan, J. (2004) Alternative Strategies in the UK Agro-Food System: Interrogating the Alterity of Farmers’ Markets, Sociologia Ruralis, 44 (4): 395-415. (E-Journal)

Lawrence, F. (2004) Not on the Label: what really goes into the food on your plate, London: Penguin. (Short and Standard Loan)

Lupton, D. (1996) Food, the Body, and the Self, London: Sage

ESRC (1999) The Politics of GM Food: Risk, Science and Public Trust, Falmer, Brighton: ESRC Global Environmental Change Programme. (available online 4/1/13)

17

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/prfh0/adams_et_al_briefing_on_uncertainty.pdf

Levidow, L. (2001) Precautionary Uncertainty: Regulating GM Crops in Europe, Social Studies of Science, 31: 842-874. (E-Journal)

Markkula, A. and Moisander, J. (2012) Discursive Confusion over Sustainable Consumption: A Discursive Perspective on the Perplexity of Marketplace Knowledge, Journal of Consumer Policy, 35: 105–125. (E-Journal)

Michman, R.D. and Mazze, E.M. (1998) The Food Industry Wars: Marketing Triumphs and Blunders, Connecticut and London: Quorum Books. (Short and Standard Loan)

Nissinen, A. and Stanley, K. (1989) Unbalanced Diets as a Cause of Chronic Diseases, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 49 (5): 993 – 998. (E-Journal)

Noble, G., Stead, M., Jones, S., McDermott, L. and McVie, D. (2007) The paradoxical food buying behaviour of parents: Insights from the UK and Australia, British Food Journal, 109 (5): 387 – 398. (E-Journal)

Pollan, M. (2008) In Defence of Food: The Myth of Nutrition and the Pleasures of Eating, London and New York: Penguin Books. (Standard Loan)

Prentice, A. M. (2006) The Emerging Epidemic of Obesity in Developing Countries, International Journal of Epidemiology, 35 (1): 93 – 99. (E-Journal)

Ritzer, G. (2004) The McDonaldization of Society, California: Pine Forge Press. (Short and Standard Loan)

Senauer, B., Asp, E. and Kinsey, J. (1991) Food Trends and the Changing Consumer, Minnesota: Eagan Press. (Standard Loan)

Seyfang, G. (2005) Shopping for Sustainability: Can Sustainable Consumption Promote Ecological Citizenship?, Environmental Politics, 14 (2) 290 – 306. (E-Journal)

Seyfang, G. (2008) Avoiding Asda? Exploring consumer motivations in local organic food networks, Local Environment, 13 (3): 187-201. (E-Journal)

Seyfang, G. (2009) The new economics of sustainable consumption: seeds of change, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. (Short Loan)

Tansey, G. and Worsley, T. (1995) The Food System: A Guide, London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. (Short and Standard Loan)

Toke, D. and Marsh, D. (2003) Policy Networks and the GM Crops Issue: Assessing the Utility of the Dialectical Model of Policy Networks, Public Administration, 81 (2): 229-251. (E-Journal)

Valentine, G. (1999) Eating in: Home, consumption and identity, The Sociological Review, 47, 3: 491-524 (E-Journal)

Warde, A. (1997) Consumption, Food and Taste, London: Sage. (chapters 4 and 7) (Short and Standard Loan)

Wood, R. C. (1995) The Sociology of the Meal, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. (Standard Loan)

18

Weatherell, C., Tregear, A. and Allinson, J. (2003) In search of the concerned consumer: UK public perceptions of food, farming and buying local, Journal of Rural Studies, 19: 233-44. (E-Journal)

Week 8: Tuesday 4th March What (not) to wear: fashions, fads, and fairness In this lecture, we continue to explore some of the key issues on the course. Clothes are another essential, and their use, choice, and consumption has a very significant environmental impact; as yet not given a great deal of attention by sociologists. We think about what we wear in terms of how we chose, how we are influenced by fashions and trends, and use a semiotic lens to understand these choices and the messages and meanings that they convey. We examine the impact of cheap 'throwaway' clothes and their environmental and social costs and benefits. The role of popular culture and how it impacts upon clothing consumption choices and demand is also addressed, and we consider the range of social, economic and environmental barriers to change. Key readings: Winge, T. (2008) Green Is the New Black?: Celebrity Chic and the “Green”

Commodity Fetish, Fashion Theory, 12 (4): 511-524. (E-Journal)

Shove, E. (2003) Converging conventions of comfort, cleanliness and convenience, Journal of Consumer Policy, 26 (4): 395-418. (E-Journal)

Additional Readings

Allwood, J. M., Ellebæk Laursen, S., Malvido de Rodríguez, C., M P Bocken, Nancy (2006) Well Dressed? The Present and Future Sustainability of Clothing and Textiles in the UK, Cambridge: University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing. Minimally - Executive Summary, p.2-4. (available online 4/1/13) http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/uploads/Resources/Reports/UK_textiles.pdf

Asch, D. and Wolfe, B. (2001) New Economy – New Competition: The Rise of the Consumer?, Hampshire and New York: Palgrave. (Standard Loan)

Birtwistle, G., and Moorw, C.M. (2007) Fashion clothing – where does it all end up? International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 35 (3): 210-216 (E-Journal)

Clark, H. (2008) Slow + fashion: an oxymoron or a promise for the future? Fashion Theory, 12 (4): 427-446 (E-Journal)

Fiddes, N. (1991) Meat: A Natural Symbol, London: Routledge. (Short and Standard Loan)

Garland, J. (2009) Fast Fashion from UK to Uganda, (available online 4/1/13)

19

Markkula, A. and Moisander, J. (2012) Discursive Confusion over Sustainable Consumption: A Discursive Perspective on the Perplexity of Marketplace Knowledge, Journal of Consumer Policy, 35: 105–125. (E-Journal)

Morgan, L.R. and Birtwistle, G. (2009) An investigation of young fashion consumers’ disposal habits, International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33: 190–198. (E-Journal)

Niinimäki, K. (2010) Eco-Clothing, Consumer Identity and Ideology, Sustainable Development, 18: 150–162. (E-Journal)

Ritzer, G. (2004) The McDonaldization of Society, California: Pine Forge Press. (Short and Standard Loan)

Seyfang, G. (2005) Shopping for Sustainability: Can Sustainable Consumption Promote Ecological Citizenship?, Environmental Politics, 14 (2) 290 – 306. (E-Journal)

Seyfang, G. (2009) The new economics of sustainable consumption: seeds of change, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. (Short Loan)

Tokatli, N., Wrigley, N. and Kizilgün, Ö. (2008) Shifting global supply networks and fast fashion: made in Turkey for Marks & Spencer, Global Networks, 8 (3): 261-280. (E-journal)

War on Want (2008) Fashion Victims II: How UK Clothing Retailers are Keeping Workers in Poverty. (available online 4/1/13) http://www.waronwant.org/attachments/Fashion%20Victims%20II.pdf

Week 9: Tuesday 11th March Energy: context, communication, and consultation This lecture outlines a sociology of energy. We think about energy generation and use, and how and why sociologists should be interested in these issues. We then focus on renewable energy, conflicts about the siting and development of a range of renewable technologies, and the most useful way of understanding these debates. Drawing on the themes from earlier in the course, we think about rationality and responsibility: are people who protest against renewables irrational, selfish or morally faulty in some way? Or should we be thinking more broadly about how decisions are made and behaviour enacted? This lecture addresses these questions by focusing on two key aspects: the social context in which people make their decisions; and the role of consultation, communication, and engagement. Key readings: Burningham, K. (2000) Using the Language of NIMBY: A topic for Research not an

activity for researchers, Local Environment, 5(1): 55-67. (E-journal)

Wolsink, M. (2007) Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes: equity and fairness instead of “backyard motives”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11: 1188-1207. (E-Journal)

20

Additional readings: Bailey, I., West, J. and Whitehead, I. (2011) Out of sight but not out of mind? Public

perceptions of wave energy and the Cornish Wave Hub, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 13 (2): 139-158. (E-Journal)

Bell, D., Gray, T. and Haggett, C. (2005) Policy, participation and the social gap in wind farm siting decisions, Environmental Politics, 14(4): 460-477. (E-Journal)

Bell. D., Haggett, C., Gray, T. and Swaffield, J. (forthcoming) Revisiting the social gap: public opinions and relations of power in the local politics of wind energy, forthcoming in Environmental Politics (available on Learn)

Bellaby, P., Ricci, M. and Flynn, R. (2010) Engaging the public on paths to sustainable energy: Who has to trust whom?, Energy Policy, 38(3): 2633-2640. (E-Journal)

Devine-Wright, P. (2005) Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy, Wind Energy, 8 (2): 125-139. (E-Journal)

Devine-Wright, P. (2009) Rethinking Nimbyism: the Role of Place Attachment and Place Identity in Explaining Place-protective Action, Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19(6): 426-441. (E-Journal)

Devine-Wright, P. (2011a) Enhancing local distinctiveness fosters public acceptance of tidal energy: a UK case study, Energy Policy, (39): 83-93. (E-Journal)

Devine-Wright, P. (2011b) Place attachment and public acceptance of renewable energy: a tidal energy case study, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31: 336-343. (E-Journal)

Devine-Wright, P. and Howes, Y. (2010) Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: a wind energy case study, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30 (3): 271-280. (E-Journal)

Feldman, S. and Turner, D. (2011) Why Not NIMBY?, Ethics, Policy and Environment, 13 (3):251-266. (E-Journal)

Gross, C. (2007) Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and fairness framework to increase social acceptance, Energy Policy, 35: 2727-2736. (E-Journal)

Haggett, C. (2009) Implications of alternative mitigation responses: renewable energy, Chapter 26 in Handbook of Climate Change and Society, London: Routledge (available on Learn)

Haggett. C. (2010a) The principles, procedures, and pitfalls of public engagement in decision-making about renewable energy. In P. Devine-Wright (ed.) Renewable Energy and the Public, London: Earthscan. (available on Learn)

Haggett, C. (2010b) Why not Nimby? A response, reviewing the empirical evidence, Ethics, Place, and Environment, 13 (3): 313-316. (E-Journal)

Haggett, C. (2010c) Public perceptions of offshore wind energy, Energy Policy, 39 (2): 503-510. (E-Journal)

21

Van der Horst D. (2007) NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies, Energy Policy, 35: 2705-2714. (E-Journal)

Walker, G., Devine-Wright, P., Hunter, S., High, H. and Evans, B. (2010) Trust and community: exploring the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable energy, Energy Policy, 2655-2663. (E-Journal)

Wolsink, M. (1994) Entanglement of interests and motives: Assumptions behind the NIMBY-theory on facility siting, Urban Studies, 31 (6): 851-866. (E-Journal)

Week 10: Tuesday 18th March Technology, scripting, and subjectivity In this lecture, the last of the case studies, we think about the interactions between people and technologies. We focus on two alternative ways of thinking about this interaction. Firstly, we draw on the literature on ‘scripting’ to explore the way in which the use of an object is anticipated and even forced during its design. Secondly, we explore the role of subjectivity, perception and context in determining how people will respond to a new technology and/or its consequences, and we think in particular here about environmental quality and pollution. Key readings: Abi-Ghanem, D. and Haggett, C. (2009) Shaping people’s engagement with

microgeneration technology: the case of solar photovoltaics in UK homes, in P. Devine-Wright (ed.) Renewable Energy and the Public, London: Earthscan (available on Learn)

Burningham, K. (1998) A noisy road or noisy residents? A demonstration of the utility of social constructionism for analysing environmental problems, The Sociological Review, 46, 3: 536-563 (E-Journal)

Phillimore, P. and Moffatt, S. (2004) ‘If we have wrong perceptions of our area, we cannot be surprised if others do as well’: Representing Risk in Teesside’s Environmental Politics, Journal of Risk Research, 7 (2): 171–184. (E-Journal)

Additional readings: Aune, M. (2007) Energy comes home, Energy Policy, 35: 5457-5465. (E-Journal)

Bijker, W. E. (1995) Sociohistorical technology studies, in Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Peterson, J. C. & Pinch, T. (Eds.) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. (Standard and Hub short loan)

Callon, M. (1986) The Sociology of an Actor-Network: the Case of the Electric Vehicle. In. Callon, M., Law J. and Rip A. (eds.), Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World, Basingstoke: Macmillan. (Short Loan)

22

Chappells, H. and Shove, E. (2005) Debating the future of comfort: environmental sustainability, energy consumption and the indoor environment, Building Research and Information, 33(1): 32-40. (E-Journal)

Flynn, R. and Bellaby, P. (eds.)(2007) Risk and the Public Acceptance of New Technologies, Basingstoke: Palgrave. (Standard Loan)

Guy, S. (2006) Designing urban knowledge: competing perspectives on energy and buildings, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 24: 645-659. (E-Journal)

Haggett, C. (2011) Understanding people’s experience of noise from wind farms. In: Cowell, R., Strachan, P. and Warren, C. (eds.) Wind Power, Governance and Society: Lessons for Future Sustainable Energy, Basingstoke: Palgrave (available on Learn)

Keirstead, J. (2007) Behavioural responses to photovoltaic systems in the UK domestic sector, Energy Policy, 35: 4128-4141. (E-Journal)

Kroesen, M. and Bröer, C. (2009) Policy discourse and people's internal frames, and declared aircraft noise annoyance: an application of Q-methodology, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126 (1): 195-207. (E-Journal)

Laird, F.N. (2001) Solar Energy, Technology Policy, and Institutional Values, New York: Cambridge University Press. (Standard Loan)

Mace, B.L., Bell, P.A. and Loomis, R.J. (1999) Aesthetic, affective, and cognitive effects of noise on natural landscape assessment, Society and Natural Resources, 12 (3): 225-242. (E-Journal)

Owens, S. (2000) Engaging the public: information and deliberation in environmental policy, Environment and Planning A, 32: 1141-1148. (E-Journal)

Shove, E. (2003) Users, technologies and expectations of comfort, cleanliness and convenience, Innovation, 16(2): 193-206. (E-Journal)

Shove, E. (2004) Efficiency and Consumption: Technology and Practice, Energy and Environment, 15(6): 1053-1065. (E-Journal)

Shove, E. and Chappells, H. (2001) Ordinary consumption and extraordinary relations: utilities and their users. In: Warde, A. & Gronow, J. (Eds.) Ordinary Consumption, London: Routledge. (Hub reserve)

Shove, E., Chappells, H. and Lutzenhiser, L. (2008) Comfort in a Low Carbon Society, guest editorship and editorial of a special issue of Building Research and Information, 36 (4): 307-311. (E-Journal)

Shultis, J. (1999) The Duality of wilderness: Comparing popular and political conceptions of wilderness in New Zealand, Society and Natural Resources, 12: 389-404. (E-Journal)

Yearley, S., Cinderby, S., Forrester, J., Bailey, P. and Rosen, P. (2003) Participatory modelling and the local governance of the politics of UK air pollution: a three-city case study, Environmental Values, 12 (2): 247-62. (E-Journal)

23

Week 11: Tuesdays 25th March Futures In this final lecture, we look to the future. We consider different sociological conceptualisations of how society and the environment might develop (as well as the relationship between the two). We firstly consider the ideas of ‘ecological modernisation’ and the treatise that with new smarter, cleaner, more efficient technologies we can solve the environmental problems of the past and develop more sustainable ways of living in the future. We then draw on the ideas of Ulrich Beck and his concept of ‘the risk society’ to explore whether increased development and technology is the answer – or the problem. Key Readings and Resources Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, Chapter 1. (Short and

Standard Loan)

Mol, A. and Spaargaren, G. (2000) Ecological Modernisation Theory in Debate: A Review, Environmental Politics, 9: 17-49. (E-journal)

Additional Readings and Resources Adam, B., Beck, U. and van Loon, J. (2000) The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical

Issues for Social Theory, London: Sage (Hub Short Loan and Reserve)

Ashworth, P., Bradbury, J., Wade, S., Feenstra, C.F.J.Y., Greenberg, S., Hund, G. and Mikunda, T. (2012) What’s in store: Lessons from implementing CCS, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 9: 402–409. (E-Journal)

Beck, U. (1992b) On the Logic of Wealth Distribution and Risk Distribution, in Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London: Sage pp.19-50 (Hub Short Loan and Reserve)

Beck, U. (1994) Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk, Cambridge: Polity. (Hub Reserve)

Beck, U. (1995) Ecological Enlightenment: Essays on the Politics of the Risk Society, Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press. (Hub Reserve)

Bradbury. J., Greenberg, S. and Wade, S. (2011) Communicating the risks of CCS, GCCSI: Canberra. (available online 4/1/13) http://cdn.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/publications/21027/communicating-risks-ccs.pdf

Capek, S.M. (1993) The "environmental justice" frame: A conceptual discussion and an application, Social Problems, 40(1) Special Issue on Environmental Justice: 5-24. (E-Journal)

Clayton, A., Spinardi, G. and Williams, R. (1999) Policies for Cleaner Technology: A New Agenda for Government and Industry, London: Earthscan. (Standard Loan)

Dingwall, R. (1999) "Risk society": The cult of theory and the millennium?, Social Policy and Administration, 33(4): 474-491. (Library Periodicals)

24

Dresner, S. (2008) The Principles of Sustainability London: Earthscan. Ch 6. (Hub reserve)

Elliott, A. (2002) Beck’s Sociology of Risk: A Critical Assessment, Sociology, 36(2): 293-316. (E-Journal)

Furedi, F. (2002) Culture of Fear: Risk-Taking and the Morality of Low Expectation, London: Continuum. (Particularly, Who Can You Trust? pp. 127-145) (Hub reserve)

Goldblatt, D. (1996) The Sociology of Risk: Ulrich Beck, in Social Theory and the Environment, Cambridge: Polity, pp154-187 (Standard Loan and Hub Reserve)

Gorman, M.E. and Mehalik, M.M. (2002) Turning Good into Gold: A comparative Study of Two Environmental Innovation Networks, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 27: 499-529. (E-Journal)

Jackson, T. (2010) Prosperity Without Growth, London: Earthscan. (Particularly Chapters 4, 5, and 12) (Short and Standard Loan) or Jackson, T. (2009) Prosperity Without Growth? The Transition to a Sustainable Economy, Sustainable Development Commission Report. (available online 4/1/13) http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/data/files/publications/prosperity_without_growth_report.pdf)

Krieg, E. J. (1995) A socio-historical interpretation of toxic waste sites: The case of Greater Boston, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 54 (1): 1-14. (E-Journal)

Metz B., et al. (2005) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (available online 4/1/13) http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

Midden, C.J.H. and Huijts, N.M.A. (2009) The Role of Trust in the Affective Evaluation of Novel Risks: The Case of CO2 Storage, Risk Analysis, 29 (5): 743-751 (E-Journal)

Mol, A.P.J. (2003) Globalization and Environmental Reform, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Hub reserve)

Mol, A.P.J. (1997) Ecological Modernization: Industrial Transformations and Environmental Reform. In: Redclift, M. and Woodgate, G. (eds.) The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology, Cheltenham: Elgar. (Hub reserve)

Murphy, J. (2000) Ecological Modernisation, Geoforum: 31 1-8. (E-Journal)

Sorensen, K. (ed.) (1994) The Car and its Environments: The Past, Present and Future of the Motorcar in Europe, Brussels: European Commission. (Short and Standard Loan)

Walker, G.P. and Bulkeley, H. (2006) Geographies of Environmental Justice, Geoforum, 37 (5): 655-659. (E-Journal) (note – this issue of Geoforum contains a collection of international case studies on environmental

25

justice, so is worth a look)

Walker, G. P., Mitchell, G., Fairburn, J., and Smith, G. (2005) Industrial pollution and social deprivation: evidence and complexity in evaluating and responding to environmental inequality, Local Environment, 10(4): 361-377. (E-Journal)

Week 12: Tuesday 1st April Reading week: no lecture

26

Essays Undergraduates and visiting students are assessed via: (1) A mid-term Short Essay which makes up 25% of your marks for the course.

You must submit your Short Essay through ELMA (see below) no later than noon on Monday 24th February 2014 (Week 7). Penalties apply for late submission.

• Your short essay should be between 1400-1600 words. • This word count includes any footnotes or endnotes, but excludes the

bibliography. • Essays above 1,600 words will be penalized using the Ordinary level

criterion of 1 mark for every 20 words over length: anything between 1,601 and 1,620 words will lose one point, between 1,621 and 1,640 two points, and so on.

• Note that the lower 1400 figure is a guideline for students which you will not be penalized for going below. However, you should note that shorter essays are unlikely to achieve the required depth and that this will be reflected in your mark.

• Please also state a precise word count. • Essays submitted on time will be returned to you through ELMA within

three weeks. (2) A Long Essay which makes up 75% of your marks for the course. Long essays must be submitted through ELMA no later than noon on Monday 28th April 2014. Penalties apply for late submission.

• Your long essay should be between 3,500 and 4,500 words. • This word count includes any footnotes or endnotes, but excludes the

bibliography. • Essays above 4,500 words will be penalized using the Ordinary level criterion of 1

mark for every 20 words over length: anything between 4,501 and 4,520 words will lose one point, between 4,521 and 4,540 two points, and so on.

• Note that the lower 3,500 figure is a guideline for students which you will not be penalized for going below. However, you should note that shorter essays are unlikely to achieve the required depth and that this will be reflected in your mark.

• Please also state a precise word count. • Essays submitted on time will be returned to you through ELMA within

three weeks.

THE TWO ESSAYS MUST BE ON DIFFERENT TOPICS. A note on word count: in the past, students have asked what is/isn’t included in the word count. To avoid any confusion, the word count includes everything that

27

is in the main body of your essay – all the text, any sub-headings, any references, any quotes, any footnotes, any endnotes, any tables – anything that is in your actual essay. What is does not include is the front page (which will have your essay title, your exam number, and the word count listed on it) and it does not include anything that follows your essay, ie the bibliography is not included. I hope that is clear – please do ask if you have any questions. And please don’t go over the word count - marks will be deducted! Electronic Submission of Essays Course work will be submitted online using our submission system – ELMA. You will not be required to submit a paper copy. Marked course work, grades and feedback will be returned online – you will not receive a paper copy of your marked course work or feedback. For information, help and advice on submitting coursework and accessing feedback, please see the ELMA wiki at https://www.wiki.ed.ac.uk/display/SPSITWiki/ELMA Pitfalls to avoid: Plagiarism Plagiarism is a serious offence attracting severe penalties: see the Sociology Honours Handbook or other student handbook relevant to you for what it is and how to avoid it. You must ensure that you understand what the University regards as plagiarism and why the University takes it seriously. All cases of suspected plagiarism, or other forms of academic misconduct, will be reported to the School Academic Misconduct Officer. You’ll find further information in the Sociology Honours handbook, and at the following site: http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/undergrad/honours/what_is_plagiarism The School of Social and Political Science uses the ‘Turnitin’ system to check that essays do not contain plagiarised material. Turnitin compares every assignment against a constantly-updated database, which highlights all plagiarised work. Academic Misconduct in Submission of Essays: Coursework submitted to the GSO will be regarded as the final version for marking. Where there is evidence that the wrong piece of work has been deliberately submitted to subvert hand-in deadlines - e.g. in a deliberately corrupted file - the matter may be treated as a case of misconduct and may be referred to the School Academic Misconduct Officer. Pitfalls to avoid: Lateness Please note that both essays must be submitted by the deadline. Should this be after the deadline (noon on the relevant day) then Lateness Penalties will apply. See the Sociology Honours Handbook or other student handbook relevant to you for the lateness penalties, and on what to do should you have a good reason to miss the deadline.

28

The School of Social & Political Science does not operate a system of ‘extensions’. If you are submitting an essay late you should also complete a Late Penalty Waiver (LPW) form explaining any mitigating circumstances. In the absence of a LPW, or where a LPW is submitted without a genuine case for mitigation late penalties will be applied. Note that if you do have good reason for being late with an essay, and you provide adequate evidence explaining this, you will not be penalised! Please see the Sociology Honours handbook for full details of our procedures. Essay topics You are not restricted to the list below. Although you must consult me if you intend to do so, you may construct your own essay title within any of the areas covered by the course.

1) Is social constructionism a useful idea when thinking about the environment?

2) Who or what is to blame for environmental problems? 3) How can we understand human behaviour towards the environment? 4) How do the public understand science? And does it matter? 5) Are environmental risks knowable? 6) Do our perceptions of risks differ from the reality? 7) Why might environmental sociologists be interested in food? 8) Why might environmental sociologists be interested in fashion? 9) How do we engage with technology and what implications does this have

for the environment? 10) Is technological scripting a useful way of understanding people's

engagement with and use of energy or technology? 11) Does social context matter in decisions about how and where to site new

technologies and developments? 12) Is NIMBY a useful way to conceptualise protest against renewable energy

developments? If not, what is? 13) 'Environmental quality is just a matter of opinion'. Discuss. 14) Can we 'develop our way out of disaster'? 15) If we want to 'save the planet', should we be thinking idealistically or

realistically?

How the mid-term and final essay differ The mid-term and final essays must be on different topics. I haven’t set separate questions or reading lists for them, but the obvious difference is that, because the mid-term essay is shorter and you have less time to work on it, it is less ambitious. In both essays, you’ll obviously want to read all the essential reading, but for the mid-term you can draw on the further reading in a more limited way. If discussing, for example, particular environmental risks, it would be appropriate to choose one risk if it is a mid-term essay, and more than one if it is the final essay. You are perfectly at liberty to give your class presentation on the topic of your mid-term or final essay.