IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i5p1641-d147929.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Toward a Socially Desirable EU Research and Innovation Agenda on Urban Waste: A Transnational EU Citizen Consultation

Author

Listed:
  • Durwin Lynch

    (Athena Institute for Research on Innovation and Communication in Health and Life Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Frank Kupper

    (Athena Institute for Research on Innovation and Communication in Health and Life Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Jacqueline Broerse

    (Athena Institute for Research on Innovation and Communication in Health and Life Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Growing waste production has become a global sustainability challenge that is in need of innovative solutions. It has been argued that greater public engagement in science and technology policy could stimulate new directions for innovation and provide orientation for the development of more acceptable, sustainable, and desirable innovations that address societal needs. In 2013, the European Commission (EC) piloted a EU-wide study to engage citizens in setting the research and innovation (R&I) agenda on urban waste. This yielded the question: ‘To what extent are the proposed ideas considered innovative, feasible, and meaningful for the EC R&I agenda?’ This article addresses the outcomes of 100 focus group discussions held in 27 European Union (EU) countries in which 992 citizens were consulted. Citizens discussed a number of (self-experienced) barriers and concerns regarding waste management, and proposed and prioritized over 350 ideas to realize a (near) zero-waste society. Although citizens found it complex to propose innovative and feasible ideas, their priorities were consistent with current EU research policy areas of importance (e.g., reduce packaging, stimulate recycling), and in addition, citizens proposed various new ways to strengthen current waste management (e.g., innovations to enhance convenience in household waste management). We argue that citizen involvement in EC R&I agenda-setting across the EU is feasible, and leads to meaningful input. However, in making sense of this input, it is essential to take contextual differences into account. Various recommendations are given for future agenda-setting activities at the EU level.

Suggested Citation

  • Durwin Lynch & Frank Kupper & Jacqueline Broerse, 2018. "Toward a Socially Desirable EU Research and Innovation Agenda on Urban Waste: A Transnational EU Citizen Consultation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-19, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:5:p:1641-:d:147929
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1641/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1641/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anneloes Roelofsen & Jacqueline Broerse & Tjard de Cock Buning & Joske Bunders, 2010. "Engaging with future technologies: how potential future users frame ecogenomics," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(3), pages 167-179, April.
    2. Laurie Boussaguet & Renaud Dehousse, 2009. "Too big to fly? A review of the first EU citizens' conferences," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(10), pages 777-789, December.
    3. Marianne Benard & Tjard de Cock-Buning, 2014. "Moving from monodisciplinarity towards transdisciplinarity: Insights into the barriers and facilitators that scientists faced," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(6), pages 720-733.
    4. Magda Pieczka & Oliver Escobar, 2012. "Dialogue and science: Innovation in policy-making and the discourse of public engagement in the UK," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 113-126, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Laurens K. Hessels & Stefan P.L. De Jong & Stijn Brouwer, 2018. "Collaboration between Heterogeneous Practitioners in Sustainability Research: A Comparative Analysis of Three Transdisciplinary Programmes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-16, December.
    2. Farhad Mukhtarov & Andrea Gerlak & Robin Pierce, 2017. "Away from fossil-fuels and toward a bioeconomy: Knowledge versatility for public policy?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(6), pages 1010-1028, September.
    3. Roelofsen, Anneloes & Boon, Wouter P.C. & Kloet, Roy R. & Broerse, Jacqueline E.W., 2011. "Stakeholder interaction within research consortia on emerging technologies: Learning how and what?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 341-354, April.
    4. Rhisiart, Martin & Störmer, Eckhard & Daheim, Cornelia, 2017. "From foresight to impact? The 2030 Future of Work scenarios," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 203-213.
    5. Torgersen, Helge & Bogner, Alexander & Kastenhofer, Karen, 2013. "The Power of Framing in Technology Governance: The Case of Biotechnologies (ITA-manu:script 13-01)," ITA manu:scripts 13_01, Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA).
    6. Laura Gebhardt & Mascha Brost & Alexandra König, 2019. "An Inter- and Transdisciplinary Approach to Developing and Testing a New Sustainable Mobility System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-22, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:5:p:1641-:d:147929. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.