Anthropogenic climate change: how to understand the weak links between scientific evidence, public perception, and low-carbon practices

Engels, Anita

doi:10.2147/eect.s63005

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly to what was found in GEA documents, this includes the engagement of authors from diverse disciplines, institutional affiliations, geographic locations, and with a variety of areas of topical expertise [9,14,41]. However, stakeholders can also provide information in other roles stemming from a broader diversity of worldviews, beliefs and knowledge systems [7,[42][43][44][45][46]. For example, non-scientific stakeholders could contribute information based on cultural beliefs or experiences to the problem framing and to analyzing the potential success or failure of solution options, including co-benefits and side effects [47,48].…”

Section: Source Of Informationmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…The literature stresses that while scientists involved in GEAs are experts in their fields, they are not necessarily experts in communication, requiring input from a broader group in order to improve understanding. This includes in particular ensuring that GEA messages fulfill a demand from end-users [5,20] and are framed appropriately [42,49]. Another crucial aspect is the role of stakeholders in interpreting information, making often complex and technical findings more usable [52], a highly pragmatic rationale akin to those which came up during interviews regarding this category of objectives.…”

Section: Communication and Understandingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Objectives for Stakeholder Engagement in Global Environmental Assessments

Garard

Kowarsch

2017

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global environmental assessments (GEAs) are among the most large-scale, formalized processes for synthesizing knowledge at the science-policy-society interface. The successful engagement of diverse stakeholders in GEAs is often described as a crucial mechanism for increasing their legitimacy, salience and credibility. However, the diversity of perspectives on the more precise objectives for stakeholder engagement remains largely unclear. The aims of this study are to categorize and characterize the diversity of perspectives on objectives for stakeholder engagement in GEAs; to explore differences in perspectives within and between different stakeholder groups and categories; and to test whether the more practical prioritization and selection of objectives in GEAs can be linked to deliberative policy learning as a higher-level rationale for stakeholder engagement. For these purposes, we conduct a grounded theory analysis and a keyword analysis of interview material and official GEA documents relating to two GEAs: UN Environment's Fifth Global Environment Outlook and the Working Group III contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report. Based on the analysis, we identify six categories of objectives and present as hypotheses promising ways forward for prioritizing and characterizing objectives for stakeholder engagement in GEAs, as well as potential reasons for the differences between perspectives on objectives. This study draws attention to the need for future GEA processes to have more explicit discussions on the objectives for stakeholder engagement, as well as the importance of moving towards increasingly deliberative and inclusive assessment processes more broadly.

show abstract

Section: Source Of Informationmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Communication and Understandingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Objectives for Stakeholder Engagement in Global Environmental Assessments

Garard

Kowarsch

2017

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, due to the existence of universal environmental values typically framing nuclear energy as unsustainable, a pattern consistent across the four countries might also be deemed likely. investigated since the 1980s [9][10][11][12], through both in-depth academic studies [13][14][15] and continuous polling surveys [16][17][18]. Public concern about climate change often takes lower priority than other issues of public attention, such as a nation's overall economic situation, unemployment or most recently, migration policies, which people perceive to be more immediate risks and challenges.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate concerned but anti-nuclear: Exploring (dis)approval of nuclear energy in four European countries

Sonnberger

Ruddat

Arnold

et al. 2021

Energy Research & Social Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Finally, participatory processes such as deliberation platforms have a number of objectives which are in and of themselves valuable from a normative perspective (Garard and Kowarsch, 2017b). For example, deliberation platforms can strengthen communication and understanding of the hugely diverse perspectives on complex policy problems (Andonova, 2006;Reid et al 2006;Reed, 2008;Engels, 2016), can increase the ownership felt by multiple actors over the processes and outcomes (Clark et al 2006;Cooper et al 2007;Cornwall, 2008), and can lead to social learning (Fabricius et al 2006;Leemans, 2008;Reed, 2008;Gerlak et al 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Elements of success in multi-stakeholder deliberation platforms

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deliberation platforms are an important component of the multi-actor sciencepolicy interface within the realm of environmental governance, increasingly characterized by the engagement of a diversity of actors. Deliberation platforms provide a mechanism through which stakeholders with diverse perspectives can both discuss problems and explore potential solutions related to environmental governance, integrating scientific and other knowledge. This study employs a Qualitative Content Analysis of 16 semi-structured interviews to investigate which elements of deliberation platforms are most central to their success and how these elements interact with one another from the perspective of public engagers. This fills a gap in the literature on the qualification of knowledge and experience of public engagers regarding the organization of multi-stakeholder deliberation platforms. Elements to consider in the organization of deliberation platforms were ranked, and five central elements were identified: (1) the selection of participants relevant to the topic and conducive to positive interactions, (2) openness as an attitude in both organizers and participants, (3) facilitation of interactions and the role of the facilitator, (4) communication and transparency between organizers and participants, and (5) fostering dialog between participants through various means. Different manifestations of these five central elements which can fit best within different particular contexts and suit various objectives are also investigated based on the interview material. The discussion summarizes the lessons learned with regards to organizing deliberation platforms from the perspective of public engagers, and explores the potential for trade-offs and co-benefits between central elements as a means to improve the efficiency and efficacy of organizing such platforms. Furthermore, the links between the central elements and social learning, as a particular, overarching objective of deliberation platforms, are discussed. This study is an important step towards further analysis of deliberation platforms, necessary in order to avoid the risks of convening actors with diverse perspectives to discuss politically-relevant topics. It provides insights relevant to public engagers and to future studies analyzing these increasingly important venues for engagement in environmental governance.

show abstract

Anthropogenic climate change: how to understand the weak links between scientific evidence, public perception, and low-carbon practices

Cited by 14 publications

References 58 publications

Objectives for Stakeholder Engagement in Global Environmental Assessments

Objectives for Stakeholder Engagement in Global Environmental Assessments

Climate concerned but anti-nuclear: Exploring (dis)approval of nuclear energy in four European countries

Elements of success in multi-stakeholder deliberation platforms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About