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

Linda Soneryd
{"title":"What is at stake? Practices of linking actors, issues and scales in environmental politics.","authors":"Linda Soneryd","doi":"10.5324/NJSTS.V3I2.2162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":91145,"journal":{"name":"Nordic journal of science and technology studies","volume":"3 1","pages":"18-23"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic journal of science and technology studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5324/NJSTS.V3I2.2162","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

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.
这其中的利害关系是什么?将环境政治中的行动者、问题和规模联系起来的实践。
在环境决策中纳入更广泛的行为者、知识和价值观的努力已得到提倡,作为解决技术官僚决策和环境退化的关键补救办法,并作为更好的决策和赋予民主权力的工具。然而,这种包容性的努力产生了不确定的结果,并带来了各种理论和实践问题,尤其是在环境问题日益复杂和超越政治地理界限的情况下。因此,我们需要从一种规范性的假设中退一步,即公众参与将以一种更加不可知论的方式来看待其在合法行为者和问题方面的结果,从而加强环境治理:在特定问题上,问题和行为者之间是如何建立联盟的?股权如何被认定为合法并与特定的参与者群体和规模相关联?政府的包容性方法和社会技术进步的愿景与未来的替代社会技术想象之间的关系是什么?本文将讨论本期特刊中有关这些问题的贡献。作者提出的例子都可以被看作是实践,其中合法的参与者和利益是真实的,并具有各种规模效应和可能的未来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信