Anticipatory practices in the solid urban waste controversy in Gipuzkoa: Contested socio-technical futures

Anticipatory practices shape socio-technical realities by co-creating, mobilizing, and contesting multiple futures that guide present action. They influence what is deemed (un)desirable or (im)plausible in socio-technical trajectories at the intersection of STI, policy, and society. This article offers a retrospective analysis (2002–2025) of the anticipatory structuring of the long-standing controversy over the solid urban waste management system in the province of Gipuzkoa (Basque Country, Spain). It examines how community groups, institutions, experts, and political parties have enacted both formal and informal anticipatory practices to support or challenge incineration-centered futures. The study identifies and analyzes the methodologies, epistemic and normative assumptions, degrees of (in)formality, and domains of origin (STI, policy, civil society) of these practices, assessing their alignment with pro- or anti-incineration positions. The analysis shows that these practices have largely sustained two polarized scenarios—one advocating for incineration and another rejecting it—and that formal and informal futures interact and co-evolve across distinct temporal phases, actor configurations, and socio-political dynamics. Four key insights emerge: (i) formal anticipatory practices and informal futures interact in both conflictual and supportive modes; (ii) power asymmetries shape the degree of anticipatory practices’ (in)formality, visibility, and capacity to influence; (iii) dominant visions are often met with reactive “counter-visions” rather than substantive alternatives; and (iv) the prominence of anticipatory practices varies across phases, peaking in the early stages of the controversy. • Anticipatory practices (APs) shape and express desired socio-technical trajectories. • Formal APs are more common among those with power and expertise. • Visions are challenged not only by alternative visions but by “counter-visions” too. • Formal and informal APs interact in both conflictual and supportive modes. • APs are more prominent at early phases of the controversy.