Advertisement

Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 1323–1334 | Cite as

Actor networks and the construction of applicable knowledge: the case of the Timbre Brownfield Prioritization Tool

  • Filip Alexandrescu
  • Petr Klusáček
  • Stephan Bartke
  • Robert Osman
  • Bohumil Frantál
  • Stanislav Martinát
  • Josef Kunc
  • Lisa Pizzol
  • Alex Zabeo
  • Elisa Giubilato
  • Andrea Critto
  • Alena Bleicher
Original Paper

Abstract

This article deals with experiences acquired during the process of developing the Timbre Brownfield Prioritization Tool (TBPT). Developing a decision support tool that takes into account the expectations and experiences of its potential users is similar to creating applicable knowledge by the joint action of scientists and heterogeneous actors. Actor network theory is used to explore the construction of this form of applicable knowledge as a process of actor network creation. Following the French sociologist Callon, networks are seen to be initiated and carried out by a group of scientists (tool developers) via four moments of translation, called problematization, interessement, enrolment and mobilization. Each step in the construction of the TBPT—from the initial research question to the final model—can be linked in retrospect to changing configurations of actor networks. Based on the experiences of the tool developers in the Czech Republic, Poland, Germany and Romania, we illustrate how these configurations varied across space and time. This contribution emphasizes the ability to correlate gains in knowledge with the more visible changes in the scope of actor networks in order to highlight achievements but also limitations in acquiring applicable knowledge.

Keywords

Actor network theory Applicable knowledge Brownfield prioritization Four moments of translation End-users Timbre research project 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support for the research leading to this article. This work was supported by the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme in the theme ENV.2010.3.1.5-2—Environmental technologies for brownfield regeneration: project Timbre—Tailored Improvement of Brownfield Regeneration in Europe (Grant No. 265364). The sponsor had neither influence on the study design nor any involvement in the collection, analysis or interpretation of the data, in writing the report or in the decision to submit the report for publication. The work was also enabled by the Czech Science Foundation (Geography of recycling of urban space, 17-26934S). We are, moreover, grateful for valuable comments to members of the Timbre International Advisory Board, two anonymous reviewers and the editorial team. We are also thankful to all our respondents who have shared their insights with us and in particular to the late Teodor Sileam. The “Timbre Brownfield Prioritization Tool” is available for end-users for free after registration at the following internet address: www.timbre-project.eu/Prioritization-Tool.html.

References

  1. Arnott D, Pervan G (2005) A critical analysis of decision support systems research. J Inf Technol 20(2):67–87. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnott D, Pervan G (2008) Eight key issues for the decision support systems discipline. Decis Support Syst 44(3):657–672. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2007.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartke S, Schwarze R (2015) There cannot be perfect tools: trade-offs of sustainability principles and user requirements in designing tools supporting sustainable land-use decisions between greenfields and brownfields. J Environ Manag 153:11–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.01.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartke S, Martinát S, Klusáček P, Pizzol L, Alexandrescu F, Frantál B, Critto A, Zabeo A (2016) Targeted selection of brownfields from portfolios for sustainable regeneration: user experiences from five cases testing the timbre brownfield prioritization tool. J Environ Manag 184:94–107. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boerboom L, Ferretti V (2014) Actor-network-theory perspective on a forestry decision support system design. Scand J For Res 29(sup 1):84–95. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2014.946960 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bojovic D, Bonzanigo L, Giupponi C, Maziotis A (2015) Online participation in climate change adaptation: a case study of agricultural adaptation measures in Northern Italy. J Environ Manag 157:8–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brno Brownfields (2013) [online] available from: gis.brno.cz/flex/flexviewer/index.php?project = gismb_brownfields_publicGoogle Scholar
  8. Callon M (1986) The sociology of an actor-network: the case of the electric vehicle. In: Callon M, Law J, Rip A (eds) Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: sociology of science in the real world. Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 19–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Callon M (1990) Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. Sociol Rev 38(S1):132–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Callon M (2007 [1986a]) Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In: Asdal K, Brenna B, Moser I (eds) Technoscience: the politics of interventions, Oslo Academic Press, Oslo, pp 57–78Google Scholar
  11. Callon M, Latour B (1981) Unscrewing the big Leviathan: how actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. In: Knorr-Cetina K, Cicourel AV (eds) Advances in social theory and methodology: toward an integration of micro-and macro-sociologies, Routledge, Boston, pp 277–303Google Scholar
  12. Callon M, Law J (1997) After the individual in society: lessons on collectivity from science, technology and society. Can J Sociol 22(2):165–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Callon M, Rabeharisoa V (2003) Research “in the wild” and the shaping of new social identities. Technol Soc 25:193–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Callon M, Lascoumes P, Barthe Y (2009) Acting in an uncertain world: an essay on technical democracy. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Cobârzan B (2007) Brownfield redevelopment in Romania. Transylv Rev Adm Sci 3:28–46Google Scholar
  16. Courtney JF (2001) Decision making and knowledge management in inquiring organizations: toward a new decision-making paradigm for DSS. Decis Support Syst 31:17–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diez E, McIntosh BS (2009) A review of the factors which influence the use and usefulness of information systems. Environ Model Softw 24:588–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. El-Gayar O, Fritz B (2006) Environmental management information systems (EMIS) for Sustainable development : a conceptual overview. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 17:756–784Google Scholar
  19. Eom S (2011) The intellectual structure of decision support systems research (1991–2004). In: Schuff D, Paradice D, Burstein F, Power DJ, Ramesh S (eds) Decision support an examination of the DSS discipline. Springer, New York, pp 49–68Google Scholar
  20. Frantál B, Klusáček P, Kunc J, Martinát S (2012) Report on results of survey on brownfield regeneration and statistical analysis. TIMBRE Deliv D3:1. doi: 10.13140/2.1.1546.7202 Google Scholar
  21. Frantál B, Kunc J, Klusáček P, Martinát S (2015) Assessing success factors of brownfields regeneration: international and inter-stakeholder perspective. Transylv Rev Adm Sci 44(E):91–107Google Scholar
  22. Gad C, Jensen CB (2010) On the consequences of post-ANT. Sci Technol Hum Values 35(1):55–80. doi: 10.1177/0162243908329567 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garb Y, Jackson J (2010) Brownfields in the Czech Republic 1989–2009: the long path to integrated land management. J Urban Regen Renew 3(3):263–276Google Scholar
  24. Gross M (2006) Beyond expertise: ecological science and the making of socially robust restoration strategies. J Nat Conserv 14(3):172–179. doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2006.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jóhannesson GT (2005) Tourism translations: actor-network theory and tourism research. Tour Stud 5(2):133–150. doi: 10.1177/1468797605066924 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klusáček P, Frantál B, Kunc J, Martinát S, Osman R, Zabeo A, Bartke S, Finkel M, Morio M, Cosmo L, Pizzol L (2013) Prioritization tool, software, and manual. Timbre Deliv D3:2. doi: 10.13140/2.1.1382.8807 Google Scholar
  27. Klusáček P, Frantál B, Kunc J, Martinát S, Osman R, Zabeo A, Cosmo L, Alexandrescu F, Brückmann C, Bartke S, Finkel M, Morio M, Pizzol L, Krupanel J, Homuth A, Sileam T (2014) Prioritization tool: result of demonstration studies and outreach material. Timbre Deliv D3:3. doi: 10.13140/2.1.3078.6247 Google Scholar
  28. Latour B (1987) Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Latour B (1999) Pandora’s hope: essays on the reality of science studies. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social-an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Latour M, Woolgar S (1979) Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Liberecký Region database (2013) [online] available from: regionalni-rozvoj.kraj-lbc.cz/page3531/english-versionGoogle Scholar
  33. Mason RO, Mitroff II (1973) Program for research on management information systems. Manag Sci 19(6):475–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McIntosh BS, Ascough JC, Twery M et al (2011) Environmental decision support systems (EDSS) development: challenges and best practices. Environ Model Softw 26:1389–1402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Murdoch J (1998) The spaces of actor-network theory. Geoforum 29(4):357–374. doi: 10.1016/S0016-7185(98)00011-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Onwubuya K, Cundy A, Puschenreiter M (2009) Developing decision support tools for the selection of “gentle” remediation approaches. Sci Total Environ 407:6132–6142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pippin AM (2009) Community involvement in brownfield redevelopment Makes cents: a study of brownfield redevelopment initiatives in the United States and Central and Eastern Europe. Georg J Int Comp Law 37:589–619Google Scholar
  38. Pizzol L, Zabeo A, Klusáček P, Giubilato E, Critto A, Frantál B, Martinát S, Kunc J, Osman R, Bartke S (2016) Timbre brownfield prioritization tool to support effective brownfield regeneration. J Environ Manag 116:178–192. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.09.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Popescu G, Pătrăşcoiu R (2012) Brownfields sites—between abandonment and redevelopment case study: craiova City. Hum Geogr 6(1):91–97. doi: 10.5719/hgeo.2012.61.9 Google Scholar
  40. Review of Brno Brownfields Revitalisation (2013) [online] available from: www.brno.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/Podnikatel/Brownfields_2013_EN.pdf
  41. Rizzoli AE, Young WJ (1997) Delivering environmental decision support systems: software tools and techniques. Environ Model Softw 12(2–3):237–249. doi: 10.1016/S1364-8152(97)00016-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sandink D, Simonovic SP, Schardong A, Srivastav R (2016) A decision support system for updating and incorporating climate change impacts into rainfall intensity-duration-frequency curves: review of the stakeholder involvement process. Environ Model Softw 84:193–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Semezin E, Sutter GW II (2009) Decision support systems (DSSs) for Inland and coastal waters Management—gaps and challenges. In: Marcomini A, Sutter GW II, Critto A (eds) Decision support systems for risk-based management of contaminated sites. Springer, London, pp 427–430Google Scholar
  44. Shim JP, Warkentin M, Courtney JF, Power DJ, Sharda R, Carlsson C (2002) Past, present, and future of decision support technology. Decis Support Syst 33(2):111–126. doi: 10.1016/S0167-9236(01)00139-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Timbre (2010): Description of Work of European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme funded project Timbre—Tailored Improvement of Brownfield Regeneration in Europe—in theme ENV.2010.3.1.5-2—environmental technologies for brownfield regeneration—available on request from coordinator—timbre-info@ufz.deGoogle Scholar
  46. Walsham G, Sahay S (1999) GIS for district-level administration in India: problems and opportunities. MIS Q 23(1):39–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Filip Alexandrescu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Petr Klusáček
    • 3
  • Stephan Bartke
    • 4
    • 5
  • Robert Osman
    • 3
  • Bohumil Frantál
    • 3
  • Stanislav Martinát
    • 3
    • 6
  • Josef Kunc
    • 3
  • Lisa Pizzol
    • 2
  • Alex Zabeo
    • 2
  • Elisa Giubilato
    • 2
  • Andrea Critto
    • 2
  • Alena Bleicher
    • 7
  1. 1.Research Institute for the Quality of LifeRomanian AcademyBucharestRomania
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and StatisticsUniversity Ca’ Foscari of VeniceVeniceItaly
  3. 3.Institute of GeonicsAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicBrnoCzech Republic
  4. 4.Department of EconomicsHelmholtz Centre for Environmental ResearchLeipzigGermany
  5. 5.German Environment AgencyDessau-RoßlauGermany
  6. 6.School of Geographical Sciences and Urban PlanningArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  7. 7.Department of Urban and Environmental SociologyHelmholtz Centre for Environmental ResearchLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations