Conflicting temporalities of social and environmental change

in Boström, M.; Davidson, D. (Eds.) Environment and Society: Concepts and Challenges. (2018)

This chapter explores how time and temporality – that is, the rhythms and tempos of social and environmental change – have been considered in social theory before going on to explore the conceptual ... [more ▼]

This chapter explores how time and temporality – that is, the rhythms and tempos of social and environmental change – have been considered in social theory before going on to explore the conceptual frameworks and practices through which policy-makers seek to influence temporal processes in the specific context of climate change policy. The chapter highlights conflict between the temporalities of climate change and the temporalities of politics, as well as conflict between the temporalities of competing political and decision-making processes. While policy-makers advocate strategies to depoliticize climate policy in response to these conflicts, the chapter argues this is neither possible nor desirable. Instead, it advocates more democratic and deliberative approaches to the challenge of synchronizing ever more visible ecological temporalities with the multiple temporalities of the social. [less ▲]

Review of Fact and Fiction in Global Energy Policy: 15 Contentious Questions

in Risk Analysis : An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis (2018), In Press

In a so-called “Post-truth” era, the role of facts in society has become ever more ambiguous and contentious. Increasingly, facts are simultaneously used as a tool for risk assessment and risk management ... [more ▼]

In a so-called “Post-truth” era, the role of facts in society has become ever more ambiguous and contentious. Increasingly, facts are simultaneously used as a tool for risk assessment and risk management on the one hand, and an instrument of politicking and social polarisation on the other. That facts are subjective artefacts is not new. Pioneering sociologists like Emile Durkheim (Durkheim, 1996), Michel Foucault (Foucault, 2008, Burchell et al., 1991), and the Frankfurt School (Nicholas, 2012) (to name a few), have ruminated over the subjectivities of knowledge more than a century ago. But the difference in our current modern, hyper-globalised world is that the subjective nature of facts are increasingly both the best tool we have to deal with global risk, and a prime source of global risk at the same time. The question this raises, is how to deal with this paradox in policy? And is cooperation possible without consensus on whose facts are more true? [less ▲]

The significance of meaning in and the meaning of biodiversity research: Why IPBES needs the social sciences and humanities

in Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research (2017)

The term “biodiversity” is often used to describe phenomena of nature, which can be studied without a reference to the socially constructed, evaluative, or indeed normative contexts. In our paper, we ... [more ▼]

The term “biodiversity” is often used to describe phenomena of nature, which can be studied without a reference to the socially constructed, evaluative, or indeed normative contexts. In our paper, we challenge this conception by focusing particularly on methodological aspects of biodiversity research. We thereby engage with the idea of interdisciplinary biodiversity research as a scientific approach directed at the recognition and management of contemporary society in its ecological embedding. By doing this, we explore how research on and assessments of biodiversity can be enhanced if meaning, aspiration, desires, and related aspects of agency are methodically taken into account. In six sections, we substantiate our claim that the discourse on biodiversity (including the IPBES (Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) debate) is incomplete without contributions from the social sciences and humanities. In the introduction, a brief overview of biodiversity’s conceptual history is provided showing that “biodiversity” is a lexical invention intended to create a strong political momentum. However, that does not impede its usability as a research concept. Section 2 examines the origins of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) by way of sociological discourse analysis. Subsequently, it proposes a matrix as a means to structure the ambiguities and tensions inherent in the CBD. The matrix reemphasizes our main thesis regarding the need to bring social and ethical expertise to the biodiversity discourse. In Section 3, we offer a brief sketch of the different methods of the natural and social sciences as well as ethics. This lays the groundwork for our Section 4, which explains and illustrates what social sciences and ethics can contribute to biodiversity research. Section 5 turns from research to politics and argues that biodiversity governance necessitates deliberative discourses in which participation of lay people plays an important role. Section 6 provides our conclusions. [less ▲]

The Clash of Risk Perceptions: Reconciling ‘the publics’ and ‘the experts’

in Janardhanan, Nandakumar (Ed.) Resurgence of Nuclear Power: Challenges and Opportunities for Asia (2017)

The polarisation of risk perceptions between “experts” and “the publics” has been a major challenge in the development and operation of nuclear power plants across the world. For this reason, much ... [more ▼]

The polarisation of risk perceptions between “experts” and “the publics” has been a major challenge in the development and operation of nuclear power plants across the world. For this reason, much research has been dedicated to better understand public risk perceptions. Yet, nuclear developments in India and many countries in developing Asia continue to be mired in conflicts with the public with vastly different sets of concerns, priorities, and interests that seem irreconcilable with those of the nuclear industry. This calls for a different perspective, and perhaps a broader approach, to understanding the apparent clash of risk perceptions between “experts” and “the publics”. Presenting original data collected from interviews with the nuclear establishment and civil society stakeholders in India, this chapter focuses on the points of convergences and divergences between the two groups. The goal here is not simply to present ‘the other side of the story’ and thus to emphasise polarisations between the two groups. It instead seeks to explore the full range of alternative perceptions evident through the interviews and thence to unpack and challenge practices through which nuclear risk comes to be seen as a straightforward clash of disparate risk perceptions. With this approach, the voices of moderation on both sides start to emerge, illuminating important conversations that can help depolarise the nuclear debate. [less ▲]

Energy Security in Southeast Asia? Let’s start with the Future

in Kyoto Review of Southeast Asia (2015), (18),

The Mutable Nature of Risk and Acceptability: A Hybrid Risk Governance Framework

in Risk Analysis : An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis (2015), 31(11), 1969-1982

This article focuses on the fluid nature of risk problems and the challenges it presents to establishing acceptability in risk governance. It introduces an actor-network theory (ANT) perspective as a way ... [more ▼]

This article focuses on the fluid nature of risk problems and the challenges it presents to establishing acceptability in risk governance. It introduces an actor-network theory (ANT) perspective as a way to deal with the mutable nature of risk controversies and the configu- ration of stakeholders. To translate this into a practicable framework, the article proposes a hybrid risk governance framework that combines ANT with integrative risk governance, deliberative democracy, and responsive regulation. This addresses a number of the limita- tions in existing risk governance models, including: (1) the lack of more substantive public participation throughout the lifecycle of a project; (2) hijacking of deliberative forums by particular groups; and (3) the treatment of risk problems and their associated stakeholders as immutable entities. The framework constitutes a five-stage process of co-selection, co- design, co-planning, and co-regulation to facilitate the co-production of collective interests and knowledge, build capacities, and strengthen accountability in the process. The aims of this article are twofold: conceptually, it introduces a framework of risk governance that ac- counts for the mutable nature of risk problems and configuration of stakeholders. In practice, this article offers risk managers and practitioners of risk governance a set of procedures with which to operationalize this conceptual approach to risk and stakeholder engagement. [less ▲]

The Australia-India Nuclear Deal – A Qualitative Risk Analysis Perspective

Article for general public (2014)

The developmental state in ecological modernization and the politics of environmental framings: the case of Singapore and implications for East Asia

in Nature and Culture (2012), 7(1), 95-119

In East Asia, climate change as a policy concern has been a late developer. The last decade, however, has seen the mainstreaming of environmental is- sues in core policy circles, but in the form of market ... [more ▼]

In East Asia, climate change as a policy concern has been a late developer. The last decade, however, has seen the mainstreaming of environmental is- sues in core policy circles, but in the form of market-friendly, pro-industrial development framings. This paper problematizes such environmental fram- ings by looking at the politics of state-led ecological modernization and the institutional reforms that have emerged out of it. It argues that State-led ecological modernization necessarily leads to environmental framings that are too narrowly defined by state and industrial interests – hence the focus on carbon emissions, energy security and the impact on Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The State-driven assumption that society can modernize itself out of its environmental crisis through greater advancements in technological development also ignores the fact that this process often leads to the creation of other environmental and social problems, which in turn undermines the fundamental goals of stability and sustainability. Civil society needs to be given greater space in the policy and framing processes in order to have a more balanced policy approach to environmental reform in a more equitable way. [less ▲]

Responses to Air Pollution Based on Historical and Current Policies in the EU and ASEAN

in Global Environment (2010), 3(6), 150-183

This review paper focuses on an important new question: how can climate change affect maritime and other cities of Southeast Asia, and what challenges and possible responses can be identified based on ... [more ▼]

This review paper focuses on an important new question: how can climate change affect maritime and other cities of Southeast Asia, and what challenges and possible responses can be identified based on historical and current regional policies and action, especially with regard to air pollution? This review was undertaken as part of the ISDP and ISEAS sponsored initiative: Regional Cooperation in Environmental Protection: Lessons from Two Regions (EU and ASEAN). We examined the cases of the EU and ASEAN policies for the protection of air quality from a scientific practitioner’s point of view. We seek to ascertain if ASEAN can respond to regional human-induced environmental problems given existing problems of national sovereignty and the interest-based character of ASEAN-type associations, since ASEAN’s goal, in contrast to that of the EU, has been regional cooperation rather than regional integration. Both regions are responding differently to climate change and the global economic and environmental realities resulting from, or arising in reaction to, their policies (or lack thereof ). While the EU and ASEAN can and should learn from one another and their relations have been the subject of studies (see for example), there are still challenges to be addressed to effectively drive improvement of critical regional (air) pollution issues that may ultimately impact health and productivity. Each regional organization has in its own manner made exemplary efforts towards resolving environmental degradation within its own region and taken efforts to make a positive international impact, but there is still the need for international treaties and more local efforts to empower the regional visions. Our aim is to highlight the status of the respective policy frameworks and exemplify areas in which we can learn from one another in the field of air pollution, given its global relevance for climate change. We conclude by suggesting a strategic summary framework for future action. This paper is not meant to be a history of either EU or ASEAN policy; for this, the reader is referred instead to appropriate literature, most notably the EU Environmental Policy Handbook, especially the air quality chapter (3) with excellent background information on European Atmospheric Environment Policy. [less ▲]

Clean-Growth Opportunities for Southeast Asia

Article for general public (2009)