Managing Hazardous Environments through Nonhuman Mediation: Advancing Collaborative Knowledge through the Co-production of Science, Technology and Society Daniel Beech, DGES, Aberystwyth University, dib8@aber.ac.uk Tel: 01970 622610 Supervisors: Professor Michael Woods Dr Carina Fearnley Photograph taken from Jökulsárlón, towards Vatnajökull on fieldwork in April 2014

Introducing the Research Research Title: The Networked Volcanic Hazard: An Actor-Network of Technology and Communication Research Question: How does technology represent volcanic hazard environments from the perspective of both human and non-human actors? Academic Approaches Relevance to Research Science and Technology Studies (Stirling, Jasanoff) Co-producing, Transforming and Distributing Knowledge Actor Network Theory (Latour, Law, Callon) Networked Power Dynamics and Scales Methods Observations Semi Structured Interviews Study Sites Icelandic Met Office ISAVIA London VAAC UK Met Office Cabinet Office Academic Institutes Department for Civil Protection Civil Aviation Authority

Iceland’s Natural Hazards: Environmental Issues A multi-hazard environment, risks transcend territorial borders: Seismic Hazards (Volcanoes, Earthquakes), Climatic Hazards (Snowfall, Flooding, Avalanches) Multi-hazard environments possess “social-political complexities that are co-productive of ecological conditions” (Nightingale, 2003, p.81) Widespread distribution of seismic monitoring stations across Iceland, findings processed by experts at Icelandic Met Office and London VAAC Increasing use of volcanic ash identification instruments, Geographical Information Systems and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Dense, interactive monitoring environment, required to prevent aviation crises (Google Maps, July 2014) (www.icelandictimes.com/section.php, July 2014)

Bruno Latour: Mediating Actor-Networks Latour (2012) does not distinguish between human and nonhuman, instead constitutes mediation (Callon) - “Mediator” (the actant that initiates action and transforms data) - “Intermediary” (the actant that directs the flow of information) Mediations create linkages between institutions and actors (human and nonhuman), generating more complex environmental management frameworks Latour’s “toolbox” of translated knowledge has the capacity to theorise how technology establishes decision-making within networks www.larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2009/07/26/short-circuits, July 20

Sheila Jasanoff: Re-constructing Hazards (STS) Context and social construction alter risk perception (Jasanoff, 1998); technology mediates change as “risk perception is rarely generated through science alone” Slovic, 2000) (www.earthzine.org, July 2014) (www.openhazards.com/topics-seismology, July 2014) Technology such as GIS re-presents and re-constructs knowledge of hazardous environment’s, but the initial implementation and consumption of GIS is partially determined by “socially mediated consequences” (Renn, 1998, 57)

1) Constructing and Positioning Technology “Technological systems are agents of governance because, like laws and social norms, they both enable and constrain behaviour; science and technology policies, in both the private and public sector, build on tacit and inarticulate imaginations of publics and what they need” (Jasanoff, 2001, 20) (www.volcanism.wordpress.com/ireland-closes-airspace, July 2014) (www.blogs.egu.eu/review-of-the-bgs-myvolcano-iphone-app, 2014) Technological actors create an agential layer that mediates environmental actions, with significant power and trust.

2) Mediating Hazardous Environments “It (technology) is a mediator, and also a co-ordinator, if there is a natural hazard or threat then we can (use it to) step up the system and take decisions with an institution like the IMO (Icelandic Met Office) who are more involved in the monitoring at the national level” (Department for Civil Protection) (www.volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm, July 2014) “If one critical station (monitoring) breaks down, we don’t get any data from it, it means that usually the data accuracy is less, but we still get data from the others, we just need to make sure that we have enough stations, it’s very common that some of these instruments are maybe not working properly” (Icelandic Met Office)

3) Reliance upon the Nonhuman “Other” “We are trying to create something reliable, robust, that could be a quite solid way forward of creating a response to an emergency, there could be a big uncertainty with base maps of evacuation zones, so how do you think you could manage the uncertainty?” (Icelandic Met Office) (www.volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm, July 2014) “The behaviour of different volcanoes is different and it happens that Hekla has a very short preparation time and you really have to rely on the seismograph measurement if you are really going to be successful” (University of Iceland)

4) Collaborating Environmental Knowledge “How can you represent the volcanic hazard, how can you then show risk on maps? We are still trying to find people that understand the terms of the spatial, what people can understand or read from hazard maps? Our colleagues are looking at CGI animation to represent volcanic hazards” (UK Academic) www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation/vaac/, July 2014 www.en.vedur.is/earthquakes-and-volcanism/volcanic-eruptions/, July 2014

Environmental Co-Production The innovative capacity of scientific institutions and the technical appetite of Icelandic society co-produces technology that can then thrive on mediation The hazard network comprises of social, scientific and political actors, reliant upon the technical nonhuman for information Co-produced innovation is altering knowledge and representations of hazardous environments, leading to them becoming increasingly virtual Too much text for one slide. My research has only been conducted in one hazardous environment; regions with lower technical capacities may have alternative levels of innovative collaboration www.explorevolcanoes.com, July 2014

Photograph taken of SnaefellsJokull, on fieldwork in March 2014 Conclusions ANT enables network actors to view technology as an established mediator between the human and the nonhuman Appropriate technology advances collaboration between institutes 3) Technology emerges from innovative co-produced knowledge (Jasanoff), but then has the power to change environmental representations Thank You dib8@aber.ac.uk Photograph taken of SnaefellsJokull, on fieldwork in March 2014

Academic References Callon, Michel. "Society in the making: the study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis." The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (1987): 83-103. Jasanoff, Sheila. "The political science of risk perception." Reliability Engineering & System Safety 59.1 (1998): 91-99. Jasanoff, Sheila. Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage publications, 2001. Latour, Bruno. We have never been modern. Harvard University Press, 2012. Law, John. "Actor network theory and material semiotics." The new Blackwell companion to social theory (2009): 141-158.Nightingale Slovic, Paul Ed. The perception of risk. Earthscan Publications, 2000. Stirling, Andy. "Risk, uncertainty and precaution: some instrumental implications from the social sciences." Negotiating change (2003): 33-76. Renn, Ortwin. "The role of risk perception for risk management." Reliability Engineering & System Safety 59.1 (1998): 49-62.