发表机构
University of Michigan; Arizona State University; Science Illustrator; University of Wisconsin–Madison（密歇根大学; 亚利桑那州立大学; 科学插画师; 威斯康星大学麦迪逊分校）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
该研究针对聚变能源发展的公众参与问题，提出参与生态框架，结合六个案例揭示当前聚变公众参与的局限性，并给出指导性问题。
AI 中文摘要
将决定未来聚变设施（包括废物产生、氚管理、安全实现以及对土地、水和当地社区的影响）的决策，本质上正日益成为社会技术问题。对于以往的能源技术，其中包括裂变，此类决策曾以自上而下的方式做出，并遭遇了持续的公众反对。研究表明，这种反对很少是公众理解不足导致的，而是源于特定地点的环境、健康、社会文化和经济担忧，以及对技术选择和选址方式的不信任。我们认为，聚变开发者有机会采用不同的设计方式，因此提出了一种参与生态：即随时间持续开展的多种互补参与模式，以取代当前大型基础设施项目中常见的一次性公众咨询。我们综合了以人为中心和以环境为中心的设计框架，并引入了一个框架，将反对重新解读为社区与技术开发者在价值观、规范或设计特征上的分歧。我们展示了本研究中的六个案例研究：参与式技术评估焦点小组、参与式设计研讨会、聚变设施的沉浸式虚拟现实模型、Global Fusion Forum平台、Imaginary Energies推测设计平台，以及Heartbeat（一种基于艺术的声音装置）。将这些案例映射到价值观-规范-设计框架后，可显示每个案例如何探究或弥合专家与公众之间不同部分的差距，并揭示了聚变公众参与工作普遍存在的两个局限性：很少要求开发者阐明自身的价值观和规范，且环境仅得到间接体现。最后，我们为构建自身参与式参与活动的聚变研究人员提出了五个指导性问题。
英文摘要
Decisions that will shape future fusion facilities, including the production of waste, the management of tritium, the achievement of safety, and impacts on land, water, and local communities, are increasingly becoming sociotechnical in nature. For prior energy technologies, fission among them, such decisions were made top-down and met sustained public opposition. Research shows such opposition is rarely a deficit of public understanding and is instead rooted in place-specific environmental, health, sociocultural, and economic concerns and in distrust of how technologies are selected and sited. We argue that fusion developers have an opportunity to design differently, and we propose an ecology of participation: multiple, complementary modalities of engagement sustained over time, replacing the one-off public consultations now typical of large infrastructure projects. We synthesize human- and environment-centered design frameworks and introduce a framework that reinterprets opposition as a divergence between communities and technology developers in values, norms, or design characteristics. We present six case studies from our work: participatory technology assessment focus groups, participatory design workshops, immersive virtual-reality models of a fusion facility, the Global Fusion Forum platform, the Imaginary Energies speculative design platform, and Heartbeat, an arts-based sound installation. Mapping these onto the values-norms-design framework shows how each interrogates or closes a different part of the expert-public gap, and exposes two limitations of fusion public engagement efforts writ large: developers are seldom asked to articulate their own values and norms, and the environment is represented only indirectly. We close with five guiding questions for fusion researchers building their own participatory engagements.
