IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envira/v34y2002i12p2175-2192.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk, Responsibility, and Blame: An Analysis of Vocabularies of Motive in Air-Pollution(ing) Discourses

Author

Listed:
  • Karen Bickerstaff

    (Department of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, England)

  • Gordon Walker

    (Department of Geography, Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent ST4 2DE, England)

Abstract

In this paper we analyse the reasonings that people deploy in explaining and rationalising their behaviour in relation to the collective environmental and health-risk problem of urban air quality. We draw on an empirical study of public perceptions of air pollution to identify a range of ‘vocabularies of motive’ or discourses that serve to move responsibility to act away from the individual and onto other groups. We consider how far each of these ‘vocabularies' can be interpreted as a mode of blaming, and draw conclusions linking our analysis to wider relational and moral tensions. Our analysis suggests that blame, although conceptually powerful, falters under empirical scrutiny. On this basis we argue for a more sensitive reading of responsibility discourses in academic debate and enquiry. Conclusions and policy implications are developed, linking our interpretation to the (confrontation of) wider relational and moral tensions, which characterise collective-risk situations.

Suggested Citation

  • Karen Bickerstaff & Gordon Walker, 2002. "Risk, Responsibility, and Blame: An Analysis of Vocabularies of Motive in Air-Pollution(ing) Discourses," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 34(12), pages 2175-2192, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:34:y:2002:i:12:p:2175-2192
    DOI: 10.1068/a3521
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/a3521
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/a3521?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. G Myers & P Macnaghten, 1998. "Rhetorics of Environmental Sustainability: Commonplaces and Places," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 30(2), pages 333-353, February.
    2. Karen Bickerstaff & Gordon Walker, 2001. "Participatory Local Governance and Transport Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 33(3), pages 431-451, March.
    3. Ian H. Langford & Stavros Georgiou & Ian J. Bateman & Rosemary J. Day & R. Kerry Turner, 2000. "Public Perceptions of Health Risks from Polluted Coastal Bathing Waters: A Mixed Methodological Analysis Using Cultural Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 691-704, October.
    4. Mike Raco & Rob Imrie, 2000. "Governmentality and Rights and Responsibilities in Urban Policy," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 32(12), pages 2187-2204, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pamela Box & Deanne Bird & Katharine Haynes & David King, 2016. "Shared responsibility and social vulnerability in the 2011 Brisbane flood," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(3), pages 1549-1568, April.
    2. Peng Cheng & Jiuchang Wei & Yue Ge, 2017. "Who should be blamed? The attribution of responsibility for a city smog event in China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 85(2), pages 669-689, January.

    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. Andrew M. Wood, 2004. "Domesticating Urban Theory? US Concepts, British Cities and the Limits of Cross-national Applications," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(11), pages 2103-2118, October.
    2. Florian Justwan & Bert Baumgaertner & Juliet E Carlisle & Emma Carson & Jordan Kizer, 2019. "The effect of trust and proximity on vaccine propensity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-16, August.
    3. Alexander Walter & Roland Scholz, 2007. "Critical success conditions of collaborative methods: a comparative evaluation of transport planning projects," Transportation, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 195-212, March.
    4. Kathryn Furlong, 2012. "Good Water Governance without Good Urban Governance? Regulation, Service Delivery Models, and Local Government," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 44(11), pages 2721-2741, November.
    5. Harriet Bulkeley & Tim Rayner, 2003. "New Realism and Local Realities: Local Transport Planning in Leicester and Cambridgeshire," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 40(1), pages 35-55, January.
    6. Han Wang & Yueli Xu, 2024. "Achieving Neighborhood-Level Collaborative Governance through Participatory Regeneration: Cases of Three Residential Heritage Neighborhoods in Shanghai," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-17, March.
    7. Harriet Bulkeley & Pauline M McGuirk & Robyn Dowling, 2016. "Making a smart city for the smart grid? The urban material politics of actualising smart electricity networks," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 48(9), pages 1709-1726, September.
    8. Anabela Carvalho & Jacquelin Burgess, 2005. "Cultural Circuits of Climate Change in U.K. Broadsheet Newspapers, 1985–2003," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1457-1469, December.
    9. Chidambaram, Bhuvanachithra & Janssen, Marco A. & Rommel, Jens & Zikos, Dimitrios, 2014. "Commuters’ mode choice as a coordination problem: A framed field experiment on traffic policy in Hyderabad, India," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 9-22.
    10. Ian H Langford & Mihalis S Skourtos & Areti Kontogianni & Rosemary J Day & Stavros Georgiou & Ian J Bateman, 2001. "Use and Nonuse Values for Conserving Endangered Species: The Case of the Mediterranean Monk Seal," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 33(12), pages 2219-2233, December.
    11. John Clayton & Catherine Donovan & Jacqui Merchant, 2016. "Distancing and limited resourcefulness: Third sector service provision under austerity localism in the north east of England," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(4), pages 723-740, March.
    12. Peter Loukopoulos & Roland W Scholz, 2004. "Sustainable Future Urban Mobility: Using ‘Area Development Negotiations’ for Scenario Assessment and Participatory Strategic Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(12), pages 2203-2226, December.
    13. Canelas, Patricia & Noring, Luise, 2022. "Governmentalities of land value capture in urban redevelopment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    14. Emma H. E. Fromberg & Conny A. Bakker & David Peck, 2024. "Conceptualising a Circular Economy—an Enquiry into Circular Economy Conceptual Metaphors," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 827-850, June.
    15. William Sites, 2012. "God from the Machine? Urban Movements Meet Machine Politics in Neoliberal Chicago," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 44(11), pages 2574-2590, November.
    16. Heather Kohls & Russell Kashian, 2006. "Committee Size and Smart Growth: An Optimal Solution," Working Papers 06-03, UW-Whitewater, Department of Economics.
    17. Venda Louise Pollock & Joanne Sharp, 2012. "Real Participation or the Tyranny of Participatory Practice? Public Art and Community Involvement in the Regeneration of the Raploch, Scotland," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 49(14), pages 3063-3079, November.
    18. Anita Kokx & Ronald van Kempen, 2009. "Joining Forces in Urban Restructuring: Dealing with Collaborative Ideals and Role Conflicts in Breda, the Netherlands," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(5), pages 1234-1250, May.
    19. Keiron Bailey & Benjamin Blandford & Ted Grossardt & John Ripy, 2011. "Planning, Technology, and Legitimacy: Structured Public Involvement in Integrated Transportation and Land-Use Planning in the United States," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 38(3), pages 447-467, June.
    20. Nick F. Pidgeon & Wouter Poortinga & Gene Rowe & Tom Horlick‐Jones & John Walls & Tim O'Riordan, 2005. "Using Surveys in Public Participation Processes for Risk Decision Making: The Case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public Debate," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 467-479, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sae:envira:v:34:y:2002:i:12:p:2175-2192. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.