PaperlayerView exact revision on arXiv

Source-linked AI summary

An ecology of participation for fusion energy development

Aditi Verma, Katie Snyder, Andrea Morales Coto, Nathan Kawamoto, Daniel Hoover, Ana Kova, Sara Eskandari, Stephanie O'Malley, Jared Owens, Mahmud Farooque, Gabrielle Hoelzle, Stephanie Diem, Kevin Daley

arXiv:2610.10914v1physics.soc-phcs.CYcs.HC

TL;DR

Fusion engineering choices increasingly shape societal and environmental impacts, while prior top-down energy development and deficit explanations do not capture context-specific opposition. The paper synthesizes participatory and human- and environment-centered approaches, mapping case studies to values, norms, and design divergences. The mapping shows that the cases engage different parts of that gap, while exposing limits in developer reflection and community decision-making power.

Abstract

from arXiv · show

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.

Introduction

As fusion development shifts toward demonstration and power-plant-scale systems, design decisions increasingly shape societal and environmental outcomes. The paper argues for inclusive, deliberative design and an ecology of participation as an alternative to top-down approaches.

Introduction

  • Fusion design choices shape waste, tritium management, safety, jobs, emergency zones, grid integration, and land and water use.The authors describe these engineering decisions as sociotechnical and note that their list of potential impacts may be incomplete.Source: Introduction · p. 2
  • Earlier energy projects, including fission, often made decisions hierarchically with little community input, a pattern associated with opposition and siting controversies (10–12).The Shippingport station was completed without community consultation or meaningful consideration of near- and long-term environmental impacts (11).Source: Introduction · p. 2
  • The authors propose an ecology of participation and a human- and environment-centered approach to inform fusion design and examine community-developer divergences.The paper introduces case studies and maps them onto a values, norms, and design divergence framework.Source: Introduction · p. 3

Why publics oppose clean energy technologies

Energy-project opposition reflects context-specific material impacts and distrust in how projects are selected, developed, and sited, rather than simply a lack of public understanding. Human- and environment-centered approaches, including value sensitive design, offer ways to bring community perspectives into design, while leaving challenges in translating and weighting values.

Why publics oppose clean energy technologies

  • Energy-project opposition is not simply a knowledge deficit; it reflects location-specific environmental, aesthetic, health, sociocultural, economic, and governance concerns (11–28).The concern categories overlap rather than operating as mutually exclusive explanations.Source: Why publics oppose clean energy… · p. 3, Table 1 · p. 3
  • Communities resist energy projects over local material impacts or distrust in decision-makers and governance, with concerns mediated by local culture, history, and geography.The authors argue that direct interaction with potential host communities and participatory decision-making are important for energy-project development.Source: Why publics oppose clean energy… · p. 4

Bringing human and environment-centered perspectives to fusion technology design

  • Human- and environment-centered design strategies seek to include community needs, knowledge, and context, while human-centered design treats users as people embedded in sociocultural settings.Earlier user-centered methods observed people in specific contexts and incorporated those observations into ideation.Source: Bringing human and… · p. 5

Value sensitive design

  • Value sensitive design examines how values shape requirements and invites communities to share values that experts translate into norms and design requirements.Legislation, codes, standards, financial viability, and market demand can shape translation; VSD does not guarantee the exact outcome users want.Source: Value sensitive design · p. 6
  • Selecting and weighting community values equitably can be difficult, and expert-dependent best-worst methods may overlook or misrepresent individual preferences.Some values may also be impossible to translate into design characteristics or may lead to conflicting design choices.Source: Value sensitive design · p. 7

Participatory design and co-design

The paper brings participatory, human-centered, and environment-centered design approaches together to support ongoing mutual learning between fusion developers and communities. It frames opposition as divergence in values, norms, or design characteristics and describes an early focus-group effort to explore public hopes and concerns.

Participatory design and co-design

  • Co-design makes users partners across the project timeline, moving beyond gathering their ideas to collaborative, hands-on design that can better fit specific needs and contexts.It can take longer up front, and in some cases communities initiate the process and invite experts to collaborate.Source: Participatory design and co-design · pp. 7–8

Participatory technology assessments

  • Participatory technology assessment involves societal groups in assessing technology and its consequences, and can be especially valuable while fusion designs and their intended uses remain open to change.The paper describes pTA as a precursor or parallel activity to participatory design and identifies early-stage fusion design as a promising setting.Source: Participatory technology assessments · pp. 8–9

Speculative design

  • Speculative design uses imagined future contexts to examine current values, beliefs, and trajectories, and can expose inequities embedded in designs and infrastructure.It may generate strange or dystopian visions, which advocates argue can help critique current values and systems (79, 81).Source: Speculative design · pp. 9–10

Design justice

  • Design justice asks who designs, who benefits, and what values technologies reproduce, while calling for accountability and participation that lets users reshape or reject projects.Education should support direct participation rather than secure acceptance of a project that does not suit users’ needs or contexts.Source: Design justice · p. 10

More than human design

  • More-than-human design treats the environment and non-human actors as participants in design, addressing impacts that conventional processes may treat as externalities.Energy impacts can extend beyond production sites to mining and waste-management locations, where human and non-human communities may experience effects for decades; methods include umwelt sketches and species passports (86, 89, 90).Source: More than human design · pp. 10–11

Mutual learning and preparation

  • Mutual learning combines accessible translation with users’ sense-making, allowing expert and user knowledge to contribute to new knowledge and potentially reduce gaps and build trust over time.Translation can prepare engagement by helping experts consider users’ perspectives; it does not itself close gaps in technical knowledge.Source: Mutual learning and preparation · pp. 11–12

Interrogating and closing the gap in values, norms and design characteristics

  • The framework locates divergence between communities and developers in values, norms, or design characteristics, and treats discovering and potentially closing it as ongoing work across multiple encounters.Differences in values or norms can lead to design mismatches, and some divergences may not be closable.Source: Interrogating and closing the gap in… · pp. 13–14, Figure 1 · p. 13

Case studies of human and environment-centered approaches to fusion energy

  • The initial Wisconsin focus groups adapted part of the pTA framing phase to elicit hopes and concerns and support trust and transparency early in fusion design.Participants largely reported being treated respectfully and able to voice concerns; their interest in staying connected helped motivate the Global Fusion Forum.Source: pTA focus groups · pp. 14–15

Participatory design workshops

Participatory design workshops and immersive VR models gave students and community members ways to explore fusion facilities and express priorities, questions, and concerns. The workshop concepts emphasized community history, nature, transparency, worker care, and safety, while VR reflections surfaced questions about trust, costs, operation, and waste.

Participatory design workshops

  • The course paired nuclear science and engineering with communication, qualitative research, and participatory design, preparing students to engage community members respectfully.Students practiced through peer and family interviews and created facility tours for broad audiences.Source: Participatory design workshops · pp. 15–16
  • The workshop process moved from shared values and questions to mapped ideas, team-selected criteria, and facility concepts presented as text and generated images.Teams included students and community members, with designated roles for facilitation, storytelling, archiving, and observation; the resulting workshop data were analyzed across notes, workbooks, presentations, and responses.Source: Participatory design workshops · p. 16
  • Teams prioritized community history, integration with nature, host-community access, worker care, and community health and safety in their facility concepts.Examples included repurposing Detroit industrial buildings, designing a transparent visitor-accessible facility, and using ziplines between buildings.Source: Participatory design workshops · p. 17
  • Students and community members’ designs led the authors to recommend balancing standardizable systems with adaptation to local aesthetic and functional preferences.The authors describe the process as a way to learn community preferences, hopes, and concerns.Source: Participatory design workshops · p. 17

Immersive experiences of fusion energy technologies

  • The VR project created an explorable tokamak cross-section and a first-person facility model to convey system components, scale, and the facility’s broader setting.The team adapted an ITER-based model and combined it with facility surroundings; the model was optimized for VR streaming and included guided points of interest and a component-labeling activity.Source: Immersive experiences of fusion energy… · p. 19
  • Students also shared scripted VR facility-tour videos with friends and family, and the models were used across undergraduate and summer-school cohorts and other visiting groups.The sharing with friends and family was an unintended way for students to communicate what they had learned.Source: Immersive experiences of fusion energy… · pp. 22–23
  • Imagining a facility in their hometown, students raised questions about safety and trust while expressing hopes for cheap electricity and a less objectionable visual impact than a fission plant.The reflection prompt explicitly asked students to consider a hypothetical facility in their own town.Source: Immersive experiences of fusion energy… · p. 23
  • Students’ VR reflections ranged from fascination or overwhelm to curiosity about materials, design complexity, scale, and how fusion compares with fission.One student singled out the blanket, vacuum vessel, and the opportunity to see inside the reactor in VR.Source: Immersive experiences of fusion energy… · p. 23

An online platform for learning about and informing fusion energy technology design

Global Fusion Forum combines accessible fusion information with opportunities for users to share perspectives, while Imaginary Energies invites users to generate facility concepts and Heartbeat makes laboratory sounds available as an interactive experience. Together, these efforts offer online and arts-based ways to learn about and engage with fusion energy design.

An online platform for learning about and informing fusion energy technology design

  • Global Fusion Forum was developed to let interested publics learn about fusion energy while expressing perspectives on how its technologies should be developed.The motivation included participants’ interest in continued engagement and evidence of low fusion literacy; the platform launched in May 2024.Source: An online platform for learning about… · p. 23
  • The team combined expertise across fusion science, engineering, communication, illustration, user experience, and web development to shape content around prospective users’ questions.Technical narratives were shortened into readable chunks and reviewed for accuracy through several iterations.Source: An online platform for learning about… · p. 24
  • The platform organizes information into fusion basics, fusion energy systems, and real-world aspects, with questions that invite users to share perspectives rather than test knowledge.Topics include workforce, regulation, waste, and environmental impacts; since its 2024 launch, the forum has been used in over 40 countries.Source: An online platform for learning about… · p. 26

Speculative design of fusion energy facilities

  • Imaginary Energies began as an online alternative to a proposed physical design kit, creating a facility-design idea bank amid logistical and funding constraints.Users can specify a facility’s type, size, location, and additional features, then generate and view facility concepts.Source: Speculative design of fusion energy… · p. 27, Figure 14 · p. 29

Arts-based engagement

  • Heartbeat streams sounds from fusion labs and plants, with visualizations of sound variation intended to let nontechnical audiences experience the activity of fusion facilities.Its stated aim is to demystify fusion while revealing details that fascinate scientists and engineers.Source: Arts-based engagement · p. 29
  • Heartbeat’s underlying theory is that presenting ordinary scientific activity aesthetically may encourage broader public curiosity and adoption.The project also solicits fusion sounds from researchers and professionals worldwide.Source: Arts-based engagement · p. 30

Toward ecologizing participation

An ecology of participation uses complementary engagement modalities over time rather than relying on one-off consultation. Mapping the case studies across values, norms, and design reveals both different ways to address divergences and limits in who participates and how the environment is represented.

Toward ecologizing participation

  • The authors propose multiple engagement modalities to replace late-stage, one-off consultation that can reduce communities’ opportunity to shape technology design and local impacts.They do not claim one modality is best; the approaches can meet differing levels of interest and availability.Source: Toward ecologizing participation · p. 31

Cognizance of power dynamics

  • Researchers designed the projects predominantly, so most efforts involved or collaborated with communities rather than empowering them to make decisions.The authors imagine communities commissioning experts and determining engagement modalities, timing, and frequency.Source: Cognizance of power dynamics · p. 31

Mapping our case studies across the values, norms, design space

  • The case studies address different divergences: focus groups surface values before designs exist, VR invites reactions to ITER, and Global Fusion Forum enables exchange about development norms.Community input from focus groups can inform norms and designs; input on ITER may inform later fusion systems.Source: Mapping our case studies across the… · p. 32
  • Participatory design workshops traverse values, norms, and designs, while Imaginary Energies and Heartbeat engage design through speculative visualization and facility sounds.Imaginary Energies mediates some values-to-norms translation through the platform; the authors describe full-pyramid engagement as time-intensive and complementary efforts as parts of an ecology.Source: Mapping our case studies across the… · p. 33
  • The mapping exposes two limitations: developers are seldom asked to articulate their own values and norms, and environmental concerns remain secondary to human concerns.The authors call for treating the environment as a stakeholder in its own right.Source: Mapping our case studies across the… · p. 33

A framework for building the ecology of participation

The authors offer fusion researchers and technology developers a framework for creating participatory engagements that contribute to an ecology of participation.

A framework for building the ecology of participation

1.What part of the divergence are you seeking to learn about or close?

The first guiding question is which divergence—values, norms, or design—an engagement seeks to learn about or close. The authors recommend direct engagement and choosing methods and collaborations in light of that aim.

1.What part of the divergence are you seeking to learn about or close?

  • Decide whether the engagement seeks to learn about or close divergence in values, norms, or design.The researchers’ role in fusion research or technology development may shape which divergence matters most to them.Source: 1.What part of the divergence are you… · p. 34
  • Early-stage researchers and designers should consider how their values and norms shape choices and overlap with those of publics.The authors say these questions require direct engagement, not a vacuum or secondary data.Source: 1.What part of the divergence are you… · p. 34
  • Values-sensitive design or co-design may be useful depending on the divergence being explored, and collaboration can build shared understanding and engagement practices.Source: 1.What part of the divergence are you… · p. 34

2.Where is your engagement located across the values, norms, design space?

The second guiding question is where an engagement begins and ends across values, norms, and design. The authors also emphasize including both researchers and communities, and allowing time for trust to grow.

2.Where is your engagement located across the values, norms, design space?

3.Who is missing from your ecology of participation?

An ecology of participation should include underrepresented and indirectly impacted groups, non-human life, and future generations. Engagement modes should account for participants’ access and consider how current design affects communities not yet present.

3.Who is missing from your ecology of participation?

  • Identify underrepresented groups and people indirectly impacted but excluded, and match digital, in-person, or hybrid engagement to participants’ access.Internet access and travel can limit participation; these barriers should be accommodated.Source: 3.Who is missing from your ecology of… · p. 34
  • Represent the environment and non-human creatures as impacted communities; life-cycle assessment could help.The authors note that their own work represented the environment only indirectly.Source: 3.Who is missing from your ecology of… · p. 34
  • Consider how current energy-system design affects future generations, using speculative design and lessons from past design work to explore their needs and constraints.The authors pose how to design for communities that do not yet exist but will experience systems’ net benefits and harms.Source: 3.Who is missing from your ecology of… · pp. 34–35

4.How can different engagement practices complement one another?

Engagement should be coordinated with other efforts over time, balancing consistent communication against overburdening communities. A mix of practices can be matched to community interest and access.

4.How can different engagement practices complement one another?

  • Coordinate episodic and ongoing engagements with other efforts, while balancing consistent communication against over-engagement and demands on community members’ time.Dedicated community members can relay information to larger groups and share group ideas with designers.Source: 4.How can different engagement… · p. 35
  • Use practices suited to community interest and access, including oral deliberation, debate, focus groups, and immersive learning experiences.The passage also points to participatory design methods, including PTA.Source: 4.How can different engagement… · p. 35
  • Consider where each engagement begins and ends in addressing values, norms, and designs across the broader ecology of participation.Source: 4.How can different engagement… · p. 35

5.Which divergences cannot be closed?

Some divergences between communities and developers may be understood but not closed. The authors advise against forcing acceptance and suggest treating different energy choices as healthy diversification.

5.Which divergences cannot be closed?

Conclusion

The work relied on expertise spanning technical, design, policy, and scientific fields, including specialties beyond plasma physics and fusion technology. The authors conclude that building an ecology of participation involves multidisciplinary collaboration.

Conclusion

  • Expertise beyond plasma physics and fusion technology was critical to the work, which drew on technical communication, participatory design, engineering, policy, and other fields.The team’s expertise also included scientific illustration, UX design, web-application development, computer science, and 3D modeling and visualization.Source: Conclusion · p. 35
  • Building an ecology of participation is also an exercise in forging collaborations across disciplines and forms of expertise.Source: Conclusion · p. 35
  • The authors state that fusion energy system development may rely on this kind of multidisciplinary collaboration.Source: Conclusion · p. 35

Author declarations

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The study’s human-participant work followed institutional review and consent procedures, while privacy and ethical restrictions limit data sharing to requests and anonymized or aggregate forms.

Conflict of interest

Ethics approval

  • The participatory design workshops and virtual-reality student reflections were reviewed by the University of Michigan IRB and deemed exempt; participants gave informed consent.The protocol was HUM00240439, approved October 30, 2023.Source: Ethics approval · p. 36
  • The focus groups were approved by the University of Wisconsin–Madison IRB, with informed consent for participation and recording; data were reported only in aggregate or anonymized form.Participants were adults, received a stipend for completing both sessions, and their data were collected confidentially.Source: Ethics approval · p. 36

Data availability statement

  • Study data are available from the corresponding author on request, but are not public because privacy and ethical restrictions limit sharing.The restrictions stem from consent agreements covering recordings, worksheets, reflections, and discussion notes.Source: Data availability statement · p. 36
Loading 2610.10914v1…