气候变化 "是什么意思?对三个气候大会中气候变化框架的分析

IF 4.9 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Corinna Zeitfogel , Tim Daw , David Collste
{"title":"气候变化 \"是什么意思?对三个气候大会中气候变化框架的分析","authors":"Corinna Zeitfogel ,&nbsp;Tim Daw ,&nbsp;David Collste","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103936","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>How climate change is framed within CAs is critical for both the democratic legitimacy and transformative potential of CAs. Narrow technical frames can exclude valid perspectives and policy options and close down debate on broader systemic and potentially more transformative issues. Conversely, such ‘system-supporting’ framings may yield more specific and applicable policy recommendations, increasing the likelihood of implementation. In this study, we present a framework and approach to analyse framings in climate assemblies. We apply this framework to examine the evidence provided to a German, a UK and a Global citizen assembly. Our analysis suggests that despite differences in scale, remit and commissioning bodies, evidence in these three assemblies had a similar range of framings. General evidence most frequently incorporated frames related to safety, governance, and fairness. Although all assemblies incorporated some degree of system-challenging frames, many of them were used little. Topic-specific evidence on energy in both the German and UK assemblies almost exclusively used energy technologies frames, potentially at the expense of critical perspectives. Interestingly, we did not observe major differences in the amount of system-challenging frames used between the assemblies commissioned by civil society actors and those commissioned by parliament; however, we observed some differences in the way some frames were used. We propose that integrating system-challenging frames with actionable steps could enhance the transformative potential of future assemblies. Our framework can be used to study how the framing of evidence influences deliberations and outcomes and to assess assemblies’ claims to provide balanced information.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"162 ","pages":"Article 103936"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What do you mean 'Climate Change'? An analysis of climate change framings in three climate assemblies\",\"authors\":\"Corinna Zeitfogel ,&nbsp;Tim Daw ,&nbsp;David Collste\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103936\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>How climate change is framed within CAs is critical for both the democratic legitimacy and transformative potential of CAs. Narrow technical frames can exclude valid perspectives and policy options and close down debate on broader systemic and potentially more transformative issues. Conversely, such ‘system-supporting’ framings may yield more specific and applicable policy recommendations, increasing the likelihood of implementation. In this study, we present a framework and approach to analyse framings in climate assemblies. We apply this framework to examine the evidence provided to a German, a UK and a Global citizen assembly. Our analysis suggests that despite differences in scale, remit and commissioning bodies, evidence in these three assemblies had a similar range of framings. General evidence most frequently incorporated frames related to safety, governance, and fairness. Although all assemblies incorporated some degree of system-challenging frames, many of them were used little. Topic-specific evidence on energy in both the German and UK assemblies almost exclusively used energy technologies frames, potentially at the expense of critical perspectives. Interestingly, we did not observe major differences in the amount of system-challenging frames used between the assemblies commissioned by civil society actors and those commissioned by parliament; however, we observed some differences in the way some frames were used. We propose that integrating system-challenging frames with actionable steps could enhance the transformative potential of future assemblies. Our framework can be used to study how the framing of evidence influences deliberations and outcomes and to assess assemblies’ claims to provide balanced information.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"volume\":\"162 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103936\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124002703\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124002703","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

如何在 CA 中确定气候变化的框架对于 CA 的民主合法性和变革潜力都至关重要。狭隘的技术框架可能会排除有效的观点和政策选择,关闭对更广泛的系统性问题和可能更具变革性问题的辩论。相反,这种 "系统支持 "框架可能会产生更具体、更适用的政策建议,从而提高实施的可能性。在本研究中,我们提出了一个分析气候大会框架的框架和方法。我们运用这一框架来研究向德国、英国和全球公民大会提供的证据。我们的分析表明,尽管在规模、职权范围和委托机构方面存在差异,但这三个大会中的证据具有相似的框架。一般证据最常包含与安全、治理和公平相关的框架。虽然所有会议都在一定程度上采用了挑战系统的框架,但其中许多框架很少使用。在德国和英国议会中,有关能源的特定主题证据几乎都使用了能源技术框架,这可能牺牲了批判性视角。有趣的是,我们并没有观察到民间社会行动者委托的议会与议会委托的议会在系统挑战框架的使用量上存在重大差异;但是,我们观察到某些框架的使用方式存在一些差异。我们建议,将挑战制度的框架与可操作的步骤相结合,可以增强未来大会的变革潜力。我们的框架可用于研究证据框架如何影响审议和审议结果,以及评估大会关于提供平衡信息的主张。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What do you mean 'Climate Change'? An analysis of climate change framings in three climate assemblies
How climate change is framed within CAs is critical for both the democratic legitimacy and transformative potential of CAs. Narrow technical frames can exclude valid perspectives and policy options and close down debate on broader systemic and potentially more transformative issues. Conversely, such ‘system-supporting’ framings may yield more specific and applicable policy recommendations, increasing the likelihood of implementation. In this study, we present a framework and approach to analyse framings in climate assemblies. We apply this framework to examine the evidence provided to a German, a UK and a Global citizen assembly. Our analysis suggests that despite differences in scale, remit and commissioning bodies, evidence in these three assemblies had a similar range of framings. General evidence most frequently incorporated frames related to safety, governance, and fairness. Although all assemblies incorporated some degree of system-challenging frames, many of them were used little. Topic-specific evidence on energy in both the German and UK assemblies almost exclusively used energy technologies frames, potentially at the expense of critical perspectives. Interestingly, we did not observe major differences in the amount of system-challenging frames used between the assemblies commissioned by civil society actors and those commissioned by parliament; however, we observed some differences in the way some frames were used. We propose that integrating system-challenging frames with actionable steps could enhance the transformative potential of future assemblies. Our framework can be used to study how the framing of evidence influences deliberations and outcomes and to assess assemblies’ claims to provide balanced information.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Science & Policy
Environmental Science & Policy 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
332
审稿时长
68 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Science & Policy promotes communication among government, business and industry, academia, and non-governmental organisations who are instrumental in the solution of environmental problems. It also seeks to advance interdisciplinary research of policy relevance on environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity, environmental pollution and wastes, renewable and non-renewable natural resources, sustainability, and the interactions among these issues. The journal emphasises the linkages between these environmental issues and social and economic issues such as production, transport, consumption, growth, demographic changes, well-being, and health. However, the subject coverage will not be restricted to these issues and the introduction of new dimensions will be encouraged.
×
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