The Experts below are selected from a list of 102 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Anna Wesselink - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Comparing the role of Boundary organizations in the governance of climate change in three EU member states
Environmental Science and Policy, 2014Co-Authors: Robert Hoppe, Anna WesselinkAbstract:A plethora of institutional forms has emerged whose remit is to link climate change science to policy-making. These can be understood as Boundary arrangements where science and politics meet and intertwine when formalized these may be referred to as Boundary organizations. This article examines Boundary organizations and their role in climate change governance in three EU member states: Germany (FRG), United Kingdom (UK) and the Netherlands (NL). A multi-level conceptual framework and tentative causal model steer the comparison. It demonstrates how context at the political-cultural and problem governance levels is crucial to understanding the operation and impact of Boundary organizations. We find that the climate change policy issue is generally treated as a moderately structured problem with goal agreement. However, given this problem structure, 'climate change' is framed differently: as primarily economic (UK) or environmental (FRG) or in between (NL), and as primarily mitigation (UK, FRG) or adaptation (NL). In all countries, but in FRG and the NL more than in UK, climate change issue politics is split in two sub-arenas: one 'environmental' (to do with adaptation), the other 'economic' (to do with mitigation and/or energy transition). National Boundary arrangements are more (FRG, NL) or less (UK) stable over time, between bureaucratic-cum-advocacy and technocracy-cum-learning in all three countries, depending on policy domain, policy stage and political context at the time. They in turn sit within National political-cultural spheres that we characterize as, for this policy issue, primarily corporatist (NL), personalized and meritocratic (UK), and corporatist veering towards consensual (FRG). The multilevel conceptual framework for mapping Boundary arrangements and detecting causal patterns therefore serves to satisfactorily describe, compare and explain National differences in expert advice on climate change policy. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd.
-
Lost in the problem: The role of Boundary organisations in the governance of climate change
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2013Co-Authors: Rob Hoppe, Anna Wesselink, Rose CairnsAbstract:In this article, we explore how climate change science is connected to climate change governance. When formally institutionalized, as in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), these sites may be referred to as Boundary organizations. These institutions engage not only in the quality assessment of scientific research, but also in the design of innovative policy instruments, or evaluation of policy impacts—activities that we refer to as Boundary work. Boundary work is inherently ‘tricky business’. Science and politics are normally demarcated spheres with different sacred stories. Scientists aspire to ‘speak truth to power’, while policymakers want ‘politics on top and science on tap’. Boundary work endeavors to coordinate these apparently incompatible aspirations. In this article, we describe, analyze, and assess whether, to what extent, and how the major interNational and some National Boundary organizations in climate change governance have been able to avoid over-politicization and over-scientization. We demonstrate that the nature and success of Boundary organizations and the ways they work depend on: (1) the degree to which the climate change problem is defined as ‘wicked’ or unstructured, or as (relatively) ‘tame’ and structured; (2) the stage of the policy process; and (3) characteristics of the policy network and the socio-political context: the degree to which relevant players insist on strict separation and a linear relation from science to politics, or, alternatively, are tolerant of a blurring of the boundaries and hence a two-way, coproductive relation between science and politics. Anna Wesselink's contribution to this article was financially supported by the European Union (European Commission, European Reintegration Grant PERG08-GA-2010-276934). WIREs Clim Change 2013, 4:283–300. doi: 10.1002/wcc.225 Conflict of interest: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest for this article. For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.
Rose Cairns - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Lost in the problem: The role of Boundary organisations in the governance of climate change
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2013Co-Authors: Rob Hoppe, Anna Wesselink, Rose CairnsAbstract:In this article, we explore how climate change science is connected to climate change governance. When formally institutionalized, as in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), these sites may be referred to as Boundary organizations. These institutions engage not only in the quality assessment of scientific research, but also in the design of innovative policy instruments, or evaluation of policy impacts—activities that we refer to as Boundary work. Boundary work is inherently ‘tricky business’. Science and politics are normally demarcated spheres with different sacred stories. Scientists aspire to ‘speak truth to power’, while policymakers want ‘politics on top and science on tap’. Boundary work endeavors to coordinate these apparently incompatible aspirations. In this article, we describe, analyze, and assess whether, to what extent, and how the major interNational and some National Boundary organizations in climate change governance have been able to avoid over-politicization and over-scientization. We demonstrate that the nature and success of Boundary organizations and the ways they work depend on: (1) the degree to which the climate change problem is defined as ‘wicked’ or unstructured, or as (relatively) ‘tame’ and structured; (2) the stage of the policy process; and (3) characteristics of the policy network and the socio-political context: the degree to which relevant players insist on strict separation and a linear relation from science to politics, or, alternatively, are tolerant of a blurring of the boundaries and hence a two-way, coproductive relation between science and politics. Anna Wesselink's contribution to this article was financially supported by the European Union (European Commission, European Reintegration Grant PERG08-GA-2010-276934). WIREs Clim Change 2013, 4:283–300. doi: 10.1002/wcc.225 Conflict of interest: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest for this article. For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.
Jan Bondaruk - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Ecosystem services deficits in cross-Boundary landscapes: spatial mismatches between green and grey systems
Urban Ecosystems, 2019Co-Authors: Marcin Spyra, Luis Inostroza, Adam Hamerla, Jan BondarukAbstract:Quantitative analyses of the influence of Boundary lines on ecosystem services distributions remain rare. Approaches towards integrative assessments of green and grey landscape systems, particularly in cross-boundaries contexts, remain underdeveloped. This study aims to close that knowledge gap. This study was carried out in the cross-Boundary landscape of the cities of Cieszyn (in Poland) and Český Těšín (in the Czech Republic), which form one urban system that is divided by a National Boundary. The study proposes a novel quantitative method to (1) assess and analyse the spatial structure of urban green and grey systems and (2) analyse the potential provision of ecosystem services (ES) in cross-Boundary landscapes. The methodology could be useful for various types of cross-Boundary landscapes. A spatial analysis using technomass (Ψ) and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) indicators was performed and combined with population data. The ratio between technomass and number of inhabitants to NDVI, used as a proxy indicator for the provision of ES, was implemented for the identification of areas of deficits in ecosystem services provision. The study shows significant spatial asymmetries, indicated inter alia by the share of grey and green systems and distribution of ES deficit areas. The spatial asymmetries of the urban cross-Boundary landscape indicate the need for environmental governance covering green and grey systems located on both sides of a Boundary as a spatial unit. This challenges current planning frameworks based mostly on “static” Euclidean land-use zones.
Rob Hoppe - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Lost in the problem: The role of Boundary organisations in the governance of climate change
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2013Co-Authors: Rob Hoppe, Anna Wesselink, Rose CairnsAbstract:In this article, we explore how climate change science is connected to climate change governance. When formally institutionalized, as in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), these sites may be referred to as Boundary organizations. These institutions engage not only in the quality assessment of scientific research, but also in the design of innovative policy instruments, or evaluation of policy impacts—activities that we refer to as Boundary work. Boundary work is inherently ‘tricky business’. Science and politics are normally demarcated spheres with different sacred stories. Scientists aspire to ‘speak truth to power’, while policymakers want ‘politics on top and science on tap’. Boundary work endeavors to coordinate these apparently incompatible aspirations. In this article, we describe, analyze, and assess whether, to what extent, and how the major interNational and some National Boundary organizations in climate change governance have been able to avoid over-politicization and over-scientization. We demonstrate that the nature and success of Boundary organizations and the ways they work depend on: (1) the degree to which the climate change problem is defined as ‘wicked’ or unstructured, or as (relatively) ‘tame’ and structured; (2) the stage of the policy process; and (3) characteristics of the policy network and the socio-political context: the degree to which relevant players insist on strict separation and a linear relation from science to politics, or, alternatively, are tolerant of a blurring of the boundaries and hence a two-way, coproductive relation between science and politics. Anna Wesselink's contribution to this article was financially supported by the European Union (European Commission, European Reintegration Grant PERG08-GA-2010-276934). WIREs Clim Change 2013, 4:283–300. doi: 10.1002/wcc.225 Conflict of interest: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest for this article. For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.
Marcin Spyra - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Ecosystem services deficits in cross-Boundary landscapes: spatial mismatches between green and grey systems
Urban Ecosystems, 2019Co-Authors: Marcin Spyra, Luis Inostroza, Adam Hamerla, Jan BondarukAbstract:Quantitative analyses of the influence of Boundary lines on ecosystem services distributions remain rare. Approaches towards integrative assessments of green and grey landscape systems, particularly in cross-boundaries contexts, remain underdeveloped. This study aims to close that knowledge gap. This study was carried out in the cross-Boundary landscape of the cities of Cieszyn (in Poland) and Český Těšín (in the Czech Republic), which form one urban system that is divided by a National Boundary. The study proposes a novel quantitative method to (1) assess and analyse the spatial structure of urban green and grey systems and (2) analyse the potential provision of ecosystem services (ES) in cross-Boundary landscapes. The methodology could be useful for various types of cross-Boundary landscapes. A spatial analysis using technomass (Ψ) and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) indicators was performed and combined with population data. The ratio between technomass and number of inhabitants to NDVI, used as a proxy indicator for the provision of ES, was implemented for the identification of areas of deficits in ecosystem services provision. The study shows significant spatial asymmetries, indicated inter alia by the share of grey and green systems and distribution of ES deficit areas. The spatial asymmetries of the urban cross-Boundary landscape indicate the need for environmental governance covering green and grey systems located on both sides of a Boundary as a spatial unit. This challenges current planning frameworks based mostly on “static” Euclidean land-use zones.
