It takes time to make good: Some reflections on ERW-D social science research and engagement
1/4 - Knowing enough when there is no stopping rule : scientific understanding and deployment conditions.
“The problem is epistemological … that there are no self-declaring indicators which tell the policy maker when enough knowledge has been accumulated to move into action (p7) … wicked problems lack a stopping rule: we cannot know whether we have sufficient understanding to stop searching for more understanding (p16)”
(The Hartwell Paper; Prins et al, 2010)
As the authors of the Hartwell Paper allude to in the quotation above, climate change as a human-global phenomenon has been described by many as a ‘wicked problem’. Wicked problems are where the systems involved are highly complex and partially understood. Facts, values, frames of reference and potential solutions are often in dispute, and uncertainties exist which may be difficult or impossible to resolve through conventional scientific means (Rayner, 2012).
As a core part of our contribution to the ERW-D programme we witnessed the sustained work by natural scientists (plus some techno-economic specialists) developing the research underpinnings of ERW, and based on an open, ongoing display of their knowledge in the making. Additionally, we have started to wonder whether it may be both timely and beneficial to take into account the idea of making good. Dictionary definitions of making good offer various meanings: to make valued or complete, to recompense or repair damage, to be successful, to effect or fulfil something intended or promised. Such definitions are indicative of expectations for why scientific research is of so much value in policy making. But they also provide glimpses into the problems that can occur when science finds itself stretched by the demands placed upon it, and where the challenges it raises can be epistemological rather than contributing to problem-solving in any straight-forward way. A good indication of this is given in the opening quotation.
ERW-D is an evolving research (innovation) and deployment proposal
The ERW-D programme was energised early on by the idea that silicate rock dust can be readily utilised, as a waste product from the mining industry. If transported across relatively short distances it would be inexpensive to supply, had potential to improve soil structure (as enhancer or amendment), and so could be beneficial for farming; hence its evident relevance to the agricultural sector (Beerling et al, 2018). On the other hand, ERW’s raison d’être was as a CDR technology, i.e. to assist with meeting the wider global climate challenge based in scientific understanding of the processes of carbon removal and sequestration. The proposal here is, by spreading rock dust on the ground, to chemically fix carbon in groundwater and increase carbonate sedimentation in the oceans. Another idealised commitment might be to the idea of using mineral resources locally to multiply benefits across the environmental sphere, to people, and society-wide (inclusive of rural communities). This presupposes that conducting environmental alongside social science research has potential to support such a positive, sustainability narrative.
Subsequently, the ERW-D research and innovation programme has conducted analysis of techno-economic challenges concerning deployment at different scales (Beerling et al, 2025), including social science input on the role that can be played by Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). Currently in the UK, RRI is institutionally approved by EPSRC as an integrative approach for science and society to work together (Framework for responsible research and innovation – UKRI). Beerling et al’s (2025) ERW-D scalability analysis acknowledges how RRI can provide an overarching enabling framework so that science does not simply operate autonomously and blind to its social context.
But RRI can take many forms, as Waller at al (2025) have argued in a carefully worked through assessment of different approaches to greenhouse gas removal innovation and research taken across five different GGR technologies. RRI was initially proposed to build ethical and social concerns into otherwise solely techno-economic programmes; in particular, where development was ‘upstream’ of deployment or commercialisation (Rogers-Hayden and Pidgeon, 2007). By contrast the state of scientific knowledge with some Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) approaches, including ERW, could be thought of as simultaneously exhibiting both upstream and downstream (i.e. deployed) characteristics.
Thus far, the ERW-D social sciences team has shown the relevance of this distinction between fundamental scientific research and its deployment in society. Our first specialist ERW-D publication (O’Sullivan et al, 2025) elucidates a composite of generic public conditions for ERW deployment based on having studied perceptions of the balance of risks and benefits while valuing fairness towards spatial distribution of ERW impacts. Also important to the analysis was understanding how, under particular conditions, deployment would not be considered locally acceptable. Non-acceptability conditions included: “being ineffective as a CDR, environmental contamination connected to ecosystems, the absence of remediation plans, and mitigation deterrence through false accounting” (O’Sullivan et al, 2025, abstract). Overall, the reported findings suggested that ERW deployment as a carbon removal technology would be dependent upon transparent governance and monitoring, informed also by understanding the case for more place specific pathways reflecting how place is valued.
So far, so good. In moving onto our second blogpost, however, we shift gear from what we have established thus far as an approach to dealing with the inevitable epistemological problem that ERW science is both necessary in advance of deployment while lacking a stopping rule. What follows comes from making the equally plausible assumption that scientific inquiry will always reach beyond itself into timeless efforts towards understanding.
REFERENCES
Beerling, D. J. et al. (2018) Farming with crops and rocks to address global climate, food and soil security. Nat. Plants 4, 138–147.
Beerling, D.J., Reinhard, C.T., James, R.H., Khan, A., Pidgeon, N.F., and Planavsky, N.J. (2025) Challenges and opportunities in scaling enhanced weathering for carbon dioxide removal. Nature Reviews Earth and Environment, 6, 253.
O’Sullivan, K., Pidgeon, N., Henwood, K. et al. (2025) Who pays for carbon dioxide removal? Public perceptions of risk and fairness of enhanced rock weathering in the UK. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1010. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05384-9
Prins, G. et al (2010) The Hartwell Paper: A new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009, Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford and LSE MacKinder Programme for the Study of Long Wave Events
Rayner, S. 2012. Uncomfortable knowledge: the social construction of ignorance in science and environmental policy discourses Economy and Society 41 107-125 https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2011.637335
Rogers-Hayden, T. and Pidgeon, N.F. (2007) Moving engagement “upstream”? nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering inquiry. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 346-364.
Waller L, Cox E, Binner A, Garcia TC, Everett R, Henwood K, Ingram J, Morris C, O'Sullivan K, Pidgeon N, Price C, Reed M, Silvestri A and Bellamy R (2025) Responsible research and innovation of carbon removal: strategies for field trials. Frontiers in Climate 7:1658453. doi: 10.3389/fclim.2025.1658453
2/4 - So what does the inevitable lack of a stopping rule mean for the original ERW-D vision? How much progress has been made in the social and natural sciences?
At this stage, fundamental uncertainties and potential space-time misalignments remain outstanding at the intersection of deployment and our current social and natural scientific understandings of ERW to effect carbon removal at scale. Further work is needed to assess and move forward from this situation, in ways cognizant of environmental impacts and societal ramifications. Commercial deployments of ERW are underway, but no completely firm determinations have yet been reached from bodies of results obtained from field trials, testing for contaminants uptake by plants etc (but see Schiedung, M. et al., 2026).
It is understandable, in the absence of a stopping rule, that there should be uncertainty as to when the ERW’s scientific work programme can commit new, consolidated evidence and address the (increasingly damaging) effects of climate change. This is not a singular issue but rather one that is complex and relational, as it entwines environmental science and more social understandings together. The challenges are significant when considering whether modelling, field and experimental science can be used intelligibly to support mutual benefits for the environment, societies and people.
In her book After Geoengineering: Climate Tragedy, Repair, and Restoration, Holly Buck (2019) gives an account of why working towards a more complexly ‘relational’ orientation will become important in the aftermath of the climate tragedy that will long outlive specific technology programs. She conducted extensive research into both carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and climate engineering, using ethnographic field work with experts. Doing so enabled her to develop a well-grounded understanding of emerging prospects for CDR culminating in a set of reflections on how to start the “long work ahead” (p245) of opening-up possibilities for repairing and restoring climate damaged systems. Using evocative language, she called this “creativity in the ruins” (p247).
Moving Forward; Towards “creativity in the ruins?”
So how might the approach we have taken in our research, now in its final year, contribute further to programme-wide efforts towards making good on ERW-D?
An outstanding epistemological issue for us as social scientists working alongside ERW-D natural scientists is that we continue to generate further shareable knowledge and practical understanding drawing from our data-rich, public research workshops and stakeholder engagements. We consider this to be a key priority, as we write about our project methodologies and write up findings.
Possibly our situation resembles something that is known in the world of climate interventions - a prospect that might at first appear strange to some if science and technology approaches are still learning to play catch up with nature-based understandings. By way of example, nature-rich road verges are a generative outcome of NOT cutting back rough ground vegetation too early in the Spring. Known by growers and agri-scientists alike, the practice of grass cutting prematurely results in higher nutrient levels in the soil preventing desirable growth of the wild seedlings a few months later. We present it as potentially contributing to intellectual work, if interpreted to show the possibility of temporally informed ways of approaching landscape (here roadside) interventions in the climate and biodiversity problems-space.
Also, well-known – this time among social scientists - is a methodological approach to qualitative research that is both purposive and emergent: one we typically want to follow through on, including in our ERW-G project (Henwood 2022). A purposive approach is aligned with more complex ideas of intentionality, as a researcher’s goal is not always fully disclosed at the outset. The term purposive can be used to direct intention towards an initial problem formulation (as outlined for the whole of ERW-D above) while incorporating emergent issues (Hammersley, 2022). Foregrounding these issues requires analysis to be unlike the kind for single indicators (and most readily commanding the attention of precision science and modelling) i.e. they are not “self-declaring” (Henwood and Pidgeon,1992).
Hence, in our further original analysis projects, the intention is not to provide exhaustive answers to matters fully formed from ideas built into a pre-planned project design. It is not to make discoveries as direct replacements for “self-declaring indicators” which, if followed through, can inform policy decisions for climate action. Rather, it is to bring to fruition valuable, generative insights requiring dedicated analysis, as informed by a programme of work carefully designed at the outset. This means not trimming back at too early a stage but rather working in a timely way towards effectively understanding changes taking place situated in time and space. This involves focussing attention on what comes centre stage in those contexts where it is possible to study the variously embedded ramifications of expert, technological knowledge, as it seeks to fulfil its intended purpose. It means being able to flesh out key emergent insights and perspectives using original ways of utilising data gathered up from our stakeholder interviews and public workshops.
As a further epistemological point, what currently lies undeclared might be partially known, albeit supressed by social, cultural and political forces and processes constitutive of persistent knowledge barriers. There is a risk that known-unknowns can be psychologically acted out within formal science, should it remain detached from concerns expressed by wider publics. The analysis of disavowal of emotions such as guilt and shame regarding our ecological debt (Randall, 2013) is relevant here – but such concepts tend to be considered out of bounds.
Accordingly, we frame our continuing analytical work creatively, and in ways that reflect our interest in using lively social sciences and arts methods for public engagement and net zero governance research (Henwood and Pidgeon, 2025). Some of the framings that we are currently working on are: Intangible realities: nature as part of place; Emplaced deliberative and participatory engagements; Image objects and model objects anchored in place; Institutional logics; and Life forms deserving of human care. All of these bear on this problematic of not cutting back too early on CDR social sciences analysis in order to generate creativity in the ruins.
REFERENCES
Buck, H. (2019) After Geoengineering: Climate Tragedy, Repair and Restoration London and New York: Verso
Hammersley, M. (2022) Emergent Design. Chapter 4 in U. Flick (Ed) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research Design pp 55-68
Henwood, K.L and Pidgeon, N.F (2025) Lively methods for net zero governance and public engagement. British Academy Net Zero Governance Paper Series. www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/5825/Lively_methods_for_net-zero_governance_and_public_engagement_-_2025.pdf
Henwood, K.L. (2022) Interpretive risk ethnography as a means of understanding risk problems: Encounters with the ordinary-extraordinary and what comes after? In B. Switek and Abramson, A., Swee, H. (eds) Extraordinary Risks, Ordinary Lives: Logics of Precariousness in Everyday Contexts. London, Palgrave Macmillan (10.1007/978-3-030-83962-8_12)
Henwood, K.L. and Pidgeon, N.F. (1992). "Qualitative research and psychological theorising". British Journal of Psychology, 83, 97-111.
Randall, R. (2013) Great expectations: the Psychodynamics of ecological debt. Chapter 5 in S. Weintrobe (ed) Engaging with Climate Change: Psychoanalytic and Interdisciplinary Perspectives, London: Routledge, pp87-102
Schiedung, M. et al. (2026) ‘Uncertainties of enhanced rock weathering for climate-change mitigation’, Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, pp. 1–14. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-026-00761-7.
3/4 - Design and practical utilisation of ERW-D’s social science research engagements.
We have chosen to use different but complementary modalities of qualitative research: deliberative, participatory, and visual, all of which can adeptly enact research that is engaging (relatable, enjoyable, empathic etc) for participants.
Our combination of research modalities and methods relies on using talk and text-based methods extensively and intensively to generate rich experiential knowledge (Henwood and Shirani, 2022). Group discussions, conducted over the course of a day workshop, were facilitated and moderated by researchers who jointly deployed interactive group activities. These activities were augmented by two bespoke research tools (the adaptive landscape model (ALM) and ERW deployment image timeline (DPIT).
A key characteristic of the tools-augmented group interactions was how they successfully promoted personally meaningful experiential talk. Group discussion can highlight culturally sensitive forms of meaning making. Shifts in social perception in place occurred when moving a model object (i.e. a plastic figure of buildings, wind turbines, people or animals) or image object (photographs) to different places on the 3-D architectural model. Activating discussions, in ways that were important for the research, meant that group participants could find ways to attend to spatial and temporal changes pertinent to how science development and technologies had potential to affect people and the places that they live in.
Certain research ideas feeding into the day workshop drew principally from deliberative research. Here the established practice is for researchers to offer balanced, relevant expert and technological information on substantive and scientific matters, and to provide a context for discussion of a focal inquiry topic (ERW and as a novel CDR technology). Without this the session discussions would remain too unfamiliar and challenging to discuss (Pidgeon et al, 2014).
Participatory methods tend to interactive, free form activities, guided by participant interests. They are means of augmenting qualitative forms of engagement so that they are relatable (enjoyable, empathic etc). In our study they were purposively designed to create spaces and places where research activities could help make otherwise invisible or intangible phenomena more tangible and real.
Using this metaphor of making visible is widespread within social science methodology and practice. It counteracts over-reliance on using single methods (interviews, observation), and it seeks out ways of filling in their blind spots. Use of visual imagery is a particularly good example. It harnesses potentials that come with acknowledging the role of mental imagery and other imaginative engagements: this involves symbolisation as a more creative form of representation, while extending lived experiences in thought and talk (Henwood, Shirani and Groves, 2018; Henwood and Finn, 2010; Henwood and Colthart, 2012). Ways of making abstract ideas and phenomena that are at first only dimly perceived (basalt rock dust, carbonate deposition, gasification) visible to people in the spaces and places where people live and work was a key research task, and it involved finding lively ways for participants to engage with the presented topics and materials.
REFERENCES
Henwood, K., and Shirani, F. (2022). Qualitative longitudinal design: Time, change, interpretive practice. Chapter 25 in Uwe Flick (Ed) Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research Design pp 414-429
Henwood, K., Shirani, F. and Groves, C. (2018). Using photographs in interviews: When we lack the words to say what practice means. Chapter 38 in U. Flick (ed) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection London: Sage, pp599-614
Henwood, K. and Coltart, K. (2012) Researching lives through time: Analytics, narrative and the psychosocial, A Timescapes Methods Guide (No10). In B. Neale and K. Henwood (eds) ISSN 2049-9248 (online) Timescapes Methods Guide Series - (2012) Publications and Outputs | Timescapes Archive
Henwood, K. and Finn, M. (2010). Researching masculine & paternal subjects in times of change: Insights from a QLL and psychosocial case study. In Thomson, R. (ed) Timescapes Working Paper Series 3. Intensity and Insight: Qualitative Longitudinal Methods as a Route to the Psychosocial. http://www.timescapes.leeds.ac.uk/assets/files/WP3_final_Jan%202010.pdf
Pidgeon, N.F., Demski, C.C, Butler, C., Parkhill, K.A. and Spence, A. (2014) Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 111 (Sup 4), 13606-13613. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1317512111.
4/4 – Towards a Positive Sustainability Narrative: Reflections on our role within ERW-D and stakeholder relations.
We have prioritised interacting with the scientific teams at regular, organised ERW-D events over time. This has provided us as social scientists with opportunities to raise questions, participate in, and deliberate the unfolding natural science evidence and techno-economic modelling. Issues arising had to do, for example, with initial problem formulation and integrative scientific research strategy. The immediate advantages of these (often in person) interactions were that insights were generated for sharing with programme partners and the project external advisory panel in a timely way.
Regarding the in-person meetings which also informed the internal programme reviews, we found the social science advisory capabilities particularly useful in raising the profile of the rationales and processes for engaging with public agendas in shaping ERW-D research and innovation. Advisory panel feedback usefully underscored the original ERW-D work programme’s commitment to engaging stakeholders and publics in designing the purposes and ethical parameters of science and technology development, deployment, and assessment (DEFRA, 2022). The dedicated advisory panel expressed interest in helping us scope out the scale and focus of our evolving plans for our public engagement activities, confirming their support for doing this as part of what was for us a tried and tested approach.
Drawing from what is already understood about conducting research with stakeholders in net zero research across various sectors where society and technology intersect (Carr-Whitworth et al, 2023), we expected our chosen forms of stakeholder and public engagement to bring to fruition ways of making good on ERW as a rapidly evolving socio-technical programme. Equally, we were alert to challenges arising about scalability. For us as social scientists, this was aimed at understanding impacts and ramifications for society and publics of policies and deployment spanning larger and smaller spatial scales, rather than solving the technical or economic scalability problem per se. As multidisciplinary environmental and socio-cultural risk research scholars, a key matter for us is to understand how it is possible for planetary Climate, Earth and Ocean Sciences to key into consequential narratives in national UK, devolved and regional governance policy, in ways cognisant of “the local” : that is inclusive of the everyday lives of people in the place where they live.
We appreciated how this way of working was supported by guidance from a wider set of stakeholders already equipped with relevant, varied and necessary expertise, and with commitments to developing it further. Stakeholders included policy or science experts, spokespersons from civil society, the agricultural and mining sectors, landowners, other business operations (e.g. start-ups for carbon markets).
Moving forward: How programmatic engagements involve working through informed, lively analysis
Programme-wide discussion to integrate divergent discourses occurred throughout the lifetime of ERW-D. We found this to be a valuable precursor for conducting informed analysis of our social science research data resourced from carefully designed data sets. As we work to sustain this work, and in making more of already consolidated insights via peer reviewed publication thus far (O’Sullivan et al, 2025), less examined aspects of our well-crafted data sets need to be brought to life (Henwood and Pidgeon, 2025). There is work to be done to thoroughly elucidate this in ways specific to ERW-D, including data curation strategies.
There is more to be explained about how our ERW workshops were carefully designed to present complex ideas involving policy time-horizons to publics. This dovetails into understanding initial findings suggesting that they do not readily translate into commonsense frames. Methods already used have successfully linked ERW as a CDR with agricultural practice. But we also know that unassessed time horizons build risk into this sector. There is a question arising about assumed responsibilities as this agricultural risk-time dimension becomes more complex to understand. We are working through uncertainties and consequences of different institutional logics (James et al, in preparation). Might this represent a way to reflect further on our imperfect understanding of difficulties with constituting a suitable “stopping rule”?
Inter-disciplinary connections with pragmatism
In making a social scientific contribution within the ERW-D programme, we joined up with knowledge-making practices and techniques from the Social Studies of Science and Technology (SSST). Working within the interdisciplinary risk field, we have shared, generic interests with SSST’s broad community of theorists and practitioners who are seeking ways to assess what is at stake in scientific deliberations alongside those of wider society. SSST’s conceptual arguments prioritise understanding why and how science, technology and society co-evolve in relationship and over time. They help evolve ways of studying novel technologies to understand their potentials and challenges as part of wider socio-technical arrangements or configurations. And the idea of co-evolution reflects a relational and temporal understanding of science in society, going beyond static assessments deploying normative arguments and contested ideas of societal configuration (see e.g. Felt et al, 2017).
But, equally, approaches such as ours that are rooted in social scientific pragmatism (Pidgeon et al, 2014) and interpretivism (Thomas and Henwood, 2024) intentionally shift attention by posing more dispersed questions. In past research, we have shown how it is possible to prioritise and expand ethical and affective concerns as conveyed within commonsense frames (Henwood, 2019; Henwood and Pidgeon, 2025, 2016). Taking a pragmatic approach can elucidate how societal values (for equity, transparent decisions, dignity) can become a primary source of problem framing. Research conducted in this way raises the significance of human centrism and its critics, giving methodological impetus to reassessing technological changes and environmental ethics (Pidgeon, 2020).
Human-centrism as a research strategy is pragmatic (i.e. it does more than take a literal, representational stance). It generates research insight by considering people’s perceptions, social engagements and constructions of studied events and phenomena (some popular, others creative, sometimes imaginative). This kind of approach is a useful antidote to research that closes down the terms of debate by being reliant on simple dichotomies that leave wide gaps in approaching aspects of risk, ethics and governance of new technologies that require more nuance. It is particularly relevant with topics such as ERW which has multiple manifestations: as a form of carbon dioxide removal (CDR), as an intervention in our landscapes as places of work and habitation and, indeed, as something containing other, less tangible forms of meaning and value.
Final Remarks: How to Make Good and ERW-D’s Positive Sustainability Narrative
The pragmatic approach is in methodological terms well equipped to ask questions about how ERW impacts are perceived in ways that are socially situated and emplaced. This was the approach built into the ERW-D social sciences work programme from the beginning and took the form of stakeholder and public engagement research. It was also a strategy for reckoning with risk deriving from unwanted science-culture tensions concerning the pairing of ideas such as reparation and repair, renewal and regeneration, for example, which communities engaging in inter-connected (non-siloed) working can render more tangible. Our highly practical (yet also epistemically reflective) research and innovation engagement strategy took seriously the collaborative goal of social and natural scientists working together. Working in such ways, ERW-D could make good and foster the kind of positive sustainability narrative that its work has already seeded.
REFERENCES
Carr-Whitworth, R., Barrett, J., Colechin, M., Pidgeon, N.F., Styles, R., Betts-Davies, S., Cox, E., Watson, A. and Wilson, O. (2023) Delivering net zero in the UK: Twelve conditions for success. Environmental Research Letters https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ace199
DEFRA (2022) Review of Public Engagement, conducted by the Defra Social Science Advisory Group
Felt, U., Fouche, R., Miller, C., and Smith-Doerr, L. (2017) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies 4th edition London and Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press
Henwood, K. (2019) Investigating risk – Methodological insights from interpretive social science and sustainable energy transitions research. In A, Olofsson and J. Zinn (eds) Researching Risk and Uncertainty: Methodologies, Methods and Research Strategies. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan pp129-152
Henwood, K. and Pidgeon, N. (2015). Gender, ethical voices and UK nuclear energy policy in the post-Fukushima era. Chapter 5 in B. Taebi and S Roeser (eds)The Ethics of Nuclear Energy: Risk, Justice and Democracy in the Post-Fukushima Era Cambridge University Press, pp 67-84.
Henwood, K.L. and Pidgeon, N.F. (2016). Interpretive environmental risk research: Affect, discourse and change. In J. Crighten, Firkins, A.R. and Candlin, C.N. (Eds) Communicating Risk Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan ISBN 9781137478771.
O’Sullivan, K., Pidgeon, N., Henwood, K. et al. (2025) Who pays for carbon dioxide removal? Public perceptions of risk and fairness of enhanced rock weathering in the UK. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1010. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05384-9
Pidgeon, N.F. (2020) Engaging publics about environmental and technology risks: frames, values and deliberation. Journal of Risk Research doi.org/ 10.1080/13669877.2020.1749118
Pidgeon, N.F., Demski, C.C, Butler, C., Parkhill, K.A. and Spence, A. (2014) Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 111 (Sup 4), 13606-13613. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1317512111.
Thomas, G. and Henwood, K. (2024). Interpreting and Deliberating Hydrogen Visions: A HiAct Synthesis Report: https://hi-act.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Synthesis-report-deliberation-expert-and-public-visions-2.pdf