What is at stake? Practices of linking actors, issues and scales in environmental politics.

Authors

  • Linda Soneryd

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5324/njsts.v3i2.2162

Abstract

Efforts to include a broader set of actors, knowledges and values in environmental decision-making have been promoted as a key remedy to technocratic decision-making and environmental degradation, and as instrumental for better decisions and democratic empowerment. Yet, such inclusive efforts yield uncertain results and entail various theoretical and practical problems, not least when environmental problems are increasingly complex and transgress political-geographic boundaries. We therefore need to take a step back from the normative presupposition that public involvement will enhance environmental governance with a more agnostic approach to its outcomes in terms of legitimate actors and issues: How are alliances created between issues and actors in relation to specific problems? How are stakes recognized as legitimate and tied to specific groups of actors and scales? What is the relation between governments’ inclusive approaches and visions of socio-technical progress and alternative socio-technical imaginaries of the future? This paper will discuss the contributions in this special issue in relation to these questions. The examples brought up by the authors can all be seen as practices in which legitimate participants and stakes are made real and with various scaling effects and possible futures as a result.

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Benson, D., O. Fritsch et al. 2014. Evaluating participation in WFD river basin management in England and Wales: Processes, communities, outputs and outcomes. Land use policy, 38:213-222.

Boström, M., Å. C. Vifell, et al. 2015, forthcoming. Social Sustainability Requires Social Sustainability. Procedural Prerequisites for Reaching Substantive Goals. Nature and Culture, 10 (2).

Bourblanc, M., A. Crabbe et al. 2013. The marathon of the hare and the tortoise: implementing the EU Water Framework Directive. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(10): 1449-1467.

Braun, K. and S. Schultz. 2010. ‘…a certain amount of engineering involved’: Constructing the public in participatory governance arrangements. Public Understanding of Science, 19(4): 403-419.

Czarniawska, B. and B. Joerges. 1996. Travel of idea. In B. Czarniawska and G. Sevón (eds.) Translating Organizational Change. pp13–48. de Gruyter.

Djelic, M-L. and K. Sahlin-Andersson. 2006. Transnational Governance: Institutional Dynamics of Regulation. In M.L. Djelic and K. Sahlin-Andersson (eds.) Transnational Governance: Institutional Dynamics of Regulation. Cambridge University Press.

European Commission. 2001. European Governance: A White Paper, Commission of the European Communities.

European Commission. 2003. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Guidance document no. 8. Public participation in relation to the Water Framework Directive. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

EU. 2000. Water Framework Directive. 2000/60/EEC.

Felt, U. and M. Fochler. 2010. Machineries for Making Publics: Inscribing and De-scribing Publics in Public engagement. Minerva 48(3): 219-238.

Irwin, A. 2001. Constructing the Scientific Citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science 10(1):1-18.

Jamison, A. 2010. Climate change knowledge and social movement theory. WIREs Climate Change 1 :811-823

Larsson, B. 2012. The cosmopolitanization of childhood: eco-knowledge in children’s eco-edutainment books. Young, 20 (2), 1999–2218.

Lidskog, R., L. Soneryd and Y. Uggla. 2009. Transboundary Risk Governance, Earthscan.

Maniates, M. F., 2001. Individualization: plant a tree, buy a bike, save the world? Global Environmental Politics, 1 (3), 31–52.

McNeil, M. and J. Haran. 2013. Publics of Bioscience. Science as Culture 22(4): 433-451.

Middlemiss, L. 2014. Individualised or participatory? Exploring late-modern identity and sustainable development. Environmental Politics, 23 (6), 929–946.

Minkel, J.R. and G. Stix. 2006. Policy leader of the year. Scientific American, 295 (6), 51.

Paterson, M. and J. Stripple. 2010. My space: governing individuals’ carbon emissions. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28 (2), 341–362.

Seifert, F. 2006. Local steps in an international career: A Danish-style consensus conference in Austria. Public Understanding of Science, 15(1), 73-88.

Soneryd, L. and Y. Uggla. 2015. Green governmentality and responsibilization: new forms of governance and responses to ‘consumer responsibility’, Environmental Politics, published online.

Soneryd, L. and Å. Wettergren. 2015. Klimatförändring och emotionshantering: Institutionalisering av miljörörelsen i Danmark. Slagmark Tidskrift for Idéhistorie, 71:163-176

Thörn, H., C. Cassegård et al. 2015, forthcoming. National consensus culture meets global climate justice: the cases of Denmark, Japan, and Sweden.

Uggla, Y., 2008. Strategies to create risk awareness and legitimacy: the Swedish climate campaign. Journal of Risk Research, 11 (6), 719–734.

Welsh, I. and B. Wynne. 2013. Science, Scientism and Imaginaries of Publics in the UK: Passive Objects, Incipient Threats, Science as Culture, 22(4): 540-566.

Yearley, Steven. 2005. Cultures of Environmentalism. Empirical Studies in Environmental Sociology, Palgrave Macmillan.

Downloads

Published

2016-12-01

Issue

Section

Special Issue Peer Reviewed Articles