liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 42 of 42
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the 'Create feeds' function.
  • 1.
    Backstrand, Karin
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Sweden.
    Kuyper, Jonathan W.
    Stockholm University, Sweden; University of Oslo, Norway.
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR. University of Oxford, England.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Non-state actors in global climate governance: from Copenhagen to Paris and beyond2017In: Environmental Politics, ISSN 0964-4016, E-ISSN 1743-8934, Vol. 26, no 4, 561-579 p.Article in journal (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    n/a

  • 2.
    Beck, Silke
    et al.
    UFZ Helmholtz Centre Environm Research, Germany .
    Borie, Maud
    University of E Anglia, England .
    Chilvers, Jason
    University of E Anglia, England .
    Esguerra, Alejandro
    UFZ Helmholtz Centre Environm Research, Germany .
    Heubach, Katja
    UFZ Helmholtz Centre Environm Research, Germany .
    Hulme, Mike
    Kings Coll London, England .
    Lidskog, Rolf
    University of Örebro, Sweden .
    Lövbrand, Eva
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research.
    Marquard, Elisabeth
    UFZ Helmholtz Centre Environm Research, Germany .
    Miller, Clark
    Arizona State University, AZ 85287 USA .
    Nadim, Tahani
    Museum Nat Berlin, Germany .
    Nesshoever, Carsten
    UFZ Helmholtz Centre Environm Research, Germany .
    Settele, Josef
    UFZ Helmholtz Centre Environm Research, Germany German Centre Integrat Biodivers Research IDiv, Germany .
    Turnhout, Esther
    Wageningen University, Netherlands .
    Vasileiadou, Eleftheria
    Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands .
    Goerg, Christoph
    UFZ Helmholtz Centre Environm Research, Germany University of Kassel, Germany .
    Towards a Reflexive Turn in the Governance of Global Environmental Expertise The Cases of the IPCC and the IPBES2014In: GAIA, ISSN 0940-5550, Vol. 23, no 2, 80-87 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The role and design of global expert organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) needs rethinking. Acknowledging that a one-size-fits-all model does not exist, we suggest a reflexive turn that implies treating the governance of expertise as a matter of political contestation.

  • 3.
    Bäckstrand, Karin
    et al.
    Lunds universitet.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research .
    Planting trees to mitigate climate change: Contested discourses of ecological modernization, green governmentality and civic environmentalism2006In: Global Environmental Politics, ISSN 1526-3800, E-ISSN 1536-0091, Vol. 6, no 1, 50-75 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Forest plantations or so-called carbon sinks have played a critical role in the climate change negotiations and constitute a central element in the scheme to limit atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations set out by the Kyoto Protocol. This paper examines dominant discursive framings of forest plantation projects in the climate regime. A central proposition is that these projects represent a microcosm of competing and overlapping discourses that are mirrored in debates of global environmental governance. While the win-win discourse of ecological modernization has legitimized the inclusion of sink projects in the Kyoto Protocol, a green governmentality discourse has provided the scientific rationale necessary to turn tropical tree-plantation projects operational on the emerging carbon market. A critical civic environmentalism discourse has contested forest sink projects depicting them as unjust and environmentally unsound strategies to mitigate climate change. The article examines the articulation and institutionalization of these discourses in the climate negotiation process as well as the wider implications for environmental governance.

  • 4.
    Bäckstrand, Karin
    et al.
    Stockholms universitet.
    Lövbrand, EvaLinköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Research Handbook on Climate Governance2015Collection (editor) (Refereed)
  • 5.
    Bäckstrand, Karin
    et al.
    Department of Political Science, Stockholm University, Sweden.
    Lövbrand, EvaLinköping University, The Tema Institute, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Research handbook on climate governance2015Collection (editor) (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The 2009 United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen is often represented as a watershed in global climate politics, when the diplomatic efforts to negotiate a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol failed and was replaced by a fragmented and decentralized climate governance order. In the post-Copenhagen landscape the top-down universal approach to climate governance has gradually given way to a more complex, hybrid and dispersed political landscape involving multiple actors, arenas and sites. The Handbook contains contributions from more than 50 internationally leading scholars and explores the latest trends and theoretical developments of the climate governance scholarship.

  • 6.
    Bäckstrand, Karin
    et al.
    Stockholm University .
    Lövbrand, Eva
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    The road to Paris: contending climate governance discourses in the post-Copenhagen era2016In: Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, ISSN 1523-908X, E-ISSN 1522-7200, 1-19 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In this paper, we advance discourse analysis to interpret how the state and direction of climate governance is imagined or interpreted by the multitude of actors present at UN climate conferences. We approach the annual Conferences of the Parties (COP) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as active political sites that project ideas, assumptions and standards for the conduct of global politics. This paper examines to what extent the discourses of green governmentality, ecological modernization and civic environmentalism identified by Bäckstrand and Lövbrand [(2006). Planting trees to mitigate climate change. Contested discourses of ecological modernization, green governmentality and civic environmentalism. Global Environmental Politics, 6(1), 51–71; Bäckstrand, K., & Lövbrand, E. (2007). Climate governance beyond 2012. Competing discourses of green governmentality, ecological modernization and civic environmentalism. In M. Pettenger (Ed.), The social construction of climate change. Ashgate] a decade ago still inform how climate governance is imagined and enacted in the post-Copenhagen era. After reviewing scholarship on climate governance and International Relations, we introduce our discursive framework and systematically compare three contending discourses of climate governance articulated at COP 17 in Durban (2011), COP 19 in Warsaw (2013) and COP 20 in Lima (2014). We end by discussing whether the discursive struggles played out at UN climate conferences represent a shift in the ways in which climate governance was imagined and enacted on the road to Paris, and to what extent our findings may help to extend scholarship in this field.

  • 7.
    Gupta, Aarti
    et al.
    Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Turnhout, Esther
    Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
    Vijge, Marjanneke
    Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
    In pursuit of carbon accountabiity: the politics of REDD+ measuring, reporting and verification systems2012In: Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, ISSN 1877-3435, E-ISSN 1877-3443, Vol. 4, no 6, 726-731 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This article reviews critical social science analyses of carbon accounting and monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) systems associated with reducing emissions from deforestation, forest degradation and conservation, sustainable use and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+). REDD+ MRV systems are often portrayed as technical. In questioning such a framing, we draw on perspectives from science and technology and governmentality studies to assess how MRV systems may exercise disciplinary power (through standardization, simplification and erasing the local) but also mobilize counter-expertise, produce resistance and thus have necessarily contingent effects. In doing so, we advance the concept of ‘carbon accountability’ to denote both how forest carbon is accounted for in REDD+ and the need to hold to account those who are doing so.

  • 8.
    Hulme, Mike
    et al.
    University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
    Mahony, Martin
    University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
    Beck, Silke
    Heimholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany.
    Goerg, Christoph
    Heimholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany.
    Hansjuergens, Bernd
    Heimholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany.
    Hauck, Jennifer
    Heimholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany.
    Nesshoever, Carsten
    Heimholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany.
    Paulsch, Axel
    Heimholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany.
    Vandewalle, Marie
    Heimholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany.
    Wittmer, Heidi
    Heimholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany.
    Boeschen, Stefan
    University Augsburg, Germany.
    Bridgewater, Peter
    Global Garden Consulting, Isle of Man, UK.
    Chimere Diaw, Mariteuw
    African Model Forests Network Secretariat, Yaoundé, Cameroon. .
    Fabre, Pierre
    CIRAD, France.
    Figueroa, Aurelia
    German Development Institute-DIE, Bonn, Germany .
    Luen Heong, Kong
    Internationell Rice Research Institute, Metro Manila, Philippines.
    Korn, Horst
    German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Germany .
    Leemans, Rik
    Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Norowi Hamid, Mohd
    MARDI, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
    Monfreda, Chad
    Arizona State University, Tempe, USA.
    Pielke, Roger
    University of Colorado, USA.
    Settele, Josef
    Heimholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany.
    Winter, Marten
    Heimholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany.
    Vadrot, Alice B M
    Interdisciplinary Centre Comparat Research Social Science ICC, Vienna, Austria.
    Van den Hove, Sybille
    Median SCP, Valldoreix (Barcelona), Spain.
    Van der Sluijs, Jeroen P
    University of Utrecht, The Netherlands.
    Letter: Science-Policy Interface: Beyond Assessments2011In: Science, ISSN 0036-8075, E-ISSN 1095-9203, Vol. 333, no 6043, 697-698 p.Article in journal (Other academic)
  • 9.
    Jerneck, Anne
    et al.
    Lund University.
    Olsson, Lennart
    Lund University.
    Ness, Barry
    Lund University.
    Anderberg, Stefan
    Lund University.
    Baier, Matthias
    Lund University.
    Clark, Eric
    Lund University.
    Hickler, Thomas
    Biodivers and Climate Research Centre BiK F.
    Hornborg, Alf
    Lund University.
    Kronsell, Annica
    Lund University.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Persson, Johannes
    Lund University.
    Structuring sustainability science2011In: Sustainability Science, ISSN 1862-4065, E-ISSN 1862-4057, Vol. 6, no 1, 69-82 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    It is urgent in science and society to address climate change and other sustainability challenges such as biodiversity loss, deforestation, depletion of marine fish stocks, global ill-health, land degradation, land use change and water scarcity. Sustainability science (SS) is an attempt to bridge the natural and social sciences for seeking creative solutions to these complex challenges. In this article, we propose a research agenda that advances the methodological and theoretical understanding of what SS can be, how it can be pursued and what it can contribute. The key focus is on knowledge structuring. For that purpose, we designed a generic research platform organised as a three-dimensional matrix comprising three components: core themes (scientific understanding, sustainability goals, sustainability pathways); cross-cutting critical and problem- solving approaches; and any combination of the sustainability challenges above. As an example, we insert four sustainability challenges into the matrix (biodiversity loss, climate change, land use changes, water scarcity). Based on the matrix with the four challenges, we discuss three issues for advancing theory and methodology in SS: how new synergies across natural and social sciences can be created; how integrated theories for understanding and responding to complex sustainability issues can be developed; and how theories and concepts in economics, gender studies, geography, political science and sociology can be applied in SS. The generic research platform serves to structure and create new knowledge in SS and is a tool for exploring any set of sustainability challenges. The combined critical and problem- solving approach is essential.

  • 10.
    Jonsson, Anna
    et al.
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Andersson, Lotta
    SMHI.
    Participatory Research in Theory and Practice: Why, How and When?2009In: Climate Science and Policy Research: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges, Norrköping: Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research , 2009, 1-60 p.Chapter in book (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    The scope of climate change research has grown immensely over the last decade. Beyond the extensive efforts to map and understand how the various components of the climate system interact and respond to human forcing, academics from a range of fields are today deeply involved in the social and political struggle to develop effective and legitimate climate change policies. While initially focused on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, we have in recent years seen a growing academic interestin local, national, regional and trans-national climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts.In a time when decision makers have linked such efforts to other policy areas such as energy security, finance, land use, and social development, new academic fields have also become involved in the study of climate change. Hence, climate change research is increasingly conducted at the interface between the natural and social sciences, engineering and the humanities. This development spurs self-reflection in the research community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), with the mandate to assess the latest research for decision-makers, is currently working and deliberating on how to design the nextround of assessment in the light of a widen agenda of climate change policy. It is at this dynamic interface that we find the expanding field of climate science and policy research.

    Climate science and policy research is by no means a stable academic field. Rather, it is byvirtue a broad, diverse and hybrid enquiry that includes a range of epistemological, theoretical and methodological orientations. While much of the research under this umbrella has developed in parallel to (and often in direct response to) climate change policy, the field also includes a wide set of scholarly efforts to challenge and problematise the ideas and discourses underpinning such policies. This scholarly diversity may question climate science and policyresearch as a meaningful academic label. And indeed, as indicated by the various contributions to this report, the interpretations of what this field is all about vary considerably. However, despite this variety, we argue that the different academic contributions to this field converge around the quest to interpret, understand, problematise and, at times, solve the challenges facing society under a changing climate. Some of this scholarly work has, directly or indirectly, sought to inform climate change policy. In other cases climate change has emerged as a vantage point for advancing the academic understanding of how links between nature and society, science and policy, development and environment, North and South are constituted and sustained.

    In this report we draw attention to a set of conceptual and methodological challenges that wethink arise from this broad scholarly enquiry. In the first chapter, Simonsson examines the importance of scale in climate change research. In order to effectively inform policy, she suggests that the academic study of climate change needs to adjust to the geographies ofclimate change policy-making. However, since science may not be able to deliver climate information at the spatial resolution asked by decision-makers, Simonsson also calls for greater scholarly awareness of the scalar challenges in climate science for policy. In the second chapter, Ostwald and Kuchler trace the conceptual genealogy of climate science and policy research. Starting in the historic development of the climate sciences, they end up in amuch more complex and inter-disciplinary research landscape. Ostwald and Kuchler ask how researchers in the field of climate science and policy research can relate to this complexity.

    In the third chapter, Glaas, Friman, Wilks and Hjerpe situate climate science and policy research in the scholarly debate on Mode 1 and Mode 2 science. Following a long-standing debate on the role of science in climate policy making, they ask whether this field of enquirygains its legitimacy from autonomous basic research produced in sites distinctly demarcatedfrom the world of policy (Mode 1), or from knowledge produced in the context of application (Mode 2). While it may be  challenging for scholars of climate science and policy to engage inboth modes of knowledge production at the same time, the authors point at examples where the distinction between Mode 1 and Mode 2 breaks down into a new research domain whichthey label as Mode 1.5. A similar discussion is raised by Hansson and Wibeck in chapter four.While climate science and policy research can be interpreted as an academic field in its own right, its close links to action can also result in a difficult balancing act for researchers. Drawing upon examples from public acceptance studies, Hansson and Wibeck highlight problems that arise when climate researchers advance a normative agenda and hereby influence the people they study. Finally, in chapter five, Jonsson, Lövbrand and Andersson offer examples of research produced in direct collaboration with affected stakeholders. While such participatory research. often is said to increase the legitimacy and problem-solving capacity of climate science and policy research, the authors discuss how and when thatpromise holds true.

    The conceptual and methodological challenges discussed in this report are the result of a seminar series held at the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research (CSPR) at Linköping University from autumn 2007 to spring 2008. As such the chapters reflect an ongoing debate and internal self-reflection at a centre that still is young and under development. Since its establishment in 2004, the CSPR has grown steadily and today functions as an interdisciplinary platform for more than 20 senior and junior researchers active in the field of climate science and policy research. In this report we do not set out to give a comprehensive picture of the challenges facing researchers at the CSPR, nor scholars inthe broader field of climate science and policy research. Neither is it a statement of whatCSPR is, but rather a bouquet of thoughts around our own research. By sharing our reflections with a broader scholarship, we do, however, hope that this report will contribute to theongoing debate on the scope, direction and function of this expanding and dynamic academic field.

  • 11.
    Kuchler, Magdalena
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Simulative governance: on the collaborative language of civil society participation in the CDM's stakeholder framework2014Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    The Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is often used as a prime example of new and hybrid forms of governance operating at the public-private frontier. The practical enactment of this arrangement involves a wide array of non-state actors. This broad involvement is here assumed to mark a shift towards more polycentric and networked modes of governing where agents are invited as 'stakeholders' in the process of rule-setting and implementation. In this paper we depart from the liberal norm of consensus and instead examine its political effects. We do so by employing the post-political critique to interrogate what it entails for civil society actors to be stakeholders that raise their concerns on specific CDM projects. Based on analyses of documentation of the project validation and direct communication with the CDM Executive Board, as well as interviews with key actors in the CDM process, we ask what kinds of politicizing and/or de-politicizing effects that the stakeholder framework fosters and what spaces for social critique and resistance it produces. The analysis suggests that stakeholding in the CDM constitutes a form of simulative governance that holds a promise of activated civil society participation but, simultaneously, employs tactics that aim at avoiding politicization of local communities and de-politicizing voices of critique from global civic actors. The paper contributes to the post-political critique by lifting it beyond the Western-centric focus on advanced modern societies and opening up to spaces where de-politicization practices can take the form of non-activating potentially political actors.

  • 12.
    Kuchler, Magdalena
    et al.
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Simulative governance: on the collaborative narrative of civil society participation in the CDM stakeholder framework2016In: Environmental Politics, ISSN 0964-4016, Vol. 25, no 3, 434-453 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is often cited as an exemplar of new, hybrid forms of global environmental governance operating at the public–private interface. Practically, enacting this arrangement involves a wide range of non-state actors. This broad involvement is here assumed to mark a shift towards more polycentric and networked modes of governance in which agents collaborate as ‘stakeholders’ in the process of consensual rule-setting and implementation. Using post-political critique, the depoliticising effects of the stakeholder framework on civil society actors are interrogated, using formal and informal participation opportunities to raise concerns regarding specific CDM projects. The analysis suggests that the CDM’s collaborative narrative of stakeholding structurally fails to stimulate public (re)engagement and is, instead, a prime example of simulative governance that struggles to achieve the simultaneity of two incompatibilities: the participatory revolution and the post-political turn.

  • 13.
    Kuchler, Magdalena
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Stakeholding as governmental rationality and practice: on the political effects of collaborative carbon market governance2014Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 14.
    Lövbra, Eva
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    The contextual and the general. The scientific boundaries of social studies of science: Book review of 'Science in environmental policy: The politics of objective advice' by Ann Campbell Keller2011In: Environment and planning A, ISSN 0308-518X, E-ISSN 1472-3409, Vol. XX, no XX, XX- p.Article, book review (Other academic)
  • 15.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research .
    Bridging political expectations and scientific limitations in climate risk management - On the uncertain effects of international carbon sink policies2004In: Climatic Change, ISSN 0165-0009, E-ISSN 1573-1480, Vol. 67, no 03-Feb, 449-460 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Despite great advances in carbon cycle research during the past decade the climatic impact of terrestrial ecosystems is still highly uncertain. Although contemporary studies suggest that the terrestrial biosphere has acted as a net sink to atmospheric carbon during the past two decades, the future role of terrestrial carbon pools is most difficult to foresee. When land use change and forestry activities were included into the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the requirements for scientific precision increased significantly. At the same time the political expectations of carbon sequestration as climate mitigation strategy added uncertainties of a social kind to the study of land-atmosphere carbon exchange that have been difficult to address by conventional scientific methods. In this paper I explore how the failure to take into account the effects of direct human activity in scientific projections of future terrestrial carbon storage has resulted in a simplified appreciation of the risks embedded in a global carbon sequestration scheme. I argue that the social limits to scientific analysis must be addressed in order to accommodate these risks in future climate governance and to enable continued scientific authority in the international climate regime.

  • 16.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies.
    Co-producing European climate science and policy.: A cautionary note on the making of useful science2011In: Science and Public Policy, ISSN 0302-3427, E-ISSN 1471-5430, Vol. 38, no 3, 225-236 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper examines the tight coupling between European climate science and policy. Drawing upon the analytical idiom of co-production it examines how knowledge-making practices are incorporated into European climate policy-making, and more importantly, how EU climate policy has influenced the funding, making and interpretation of useful European climate policy research. The paper identifies a tension between the critical/reflexive ambition built into the co-production idiom, and the more utilitarian interpretation of the term. Whereas the former sets out to expose and interrogate the ontological assumptions underpinning public policy, the latter seeks to be useful by responding to the knowledge needs of societal decision-makers. This tension is analysed through a case study of the integrated research project ADAM funded under the 6th Framework Programme of the European Union.

  • 17.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research.
    Knowledge and the environment2014In: Advances in international environmental politics / [ed] Michelle M. Betsill, Kathryn Hochstetler, Dimitris Stevis, Houndsmill, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014, 2, 161-184 p.Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 18.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Pure science or policy involvement? Ambiguous boundary work for Swedish carbon cycle research2007In: Environmental Science and Policy, ISSN 1462-9011, E-ISSN 1873-6416, Vol. 10, 39-47 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 19.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Revisiting the politics of expertise in light of the Kyoto negotiations on land use change and forestry2009In: Forest Policy and Economics, ISSN 1389-9341, E-ISSN 1872-7050, Vol. 11, no 5-6, 404-412 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

      This paper examines the close links between knowledge-making authority and decision making authority in the multilateral negotiations on terrestrial sinks of greenhouse gases. Drawing upon social constructivist science studies and public sphere theories in international relations, the paper traces the communicative contexts in which state actors have struggled to bring meaning to the sink concept and hereby translated the production and validation of knowledge claims into political authority. In particular focus are instances of. epistemic chaos" when the lack of consensual knowledge and shared normative commitments has forced states to publicly interpret and justify what counts as credible carbon cycle expertise and good terrestrial carbon management. The empirical tracing of such justificatory arguments begins at the third conference of the parties (COP3) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Kyoto in 1997, and ends at COP 10 in Buenos Aires in 2004. Although scientific expertise emerges a central avenue for political bargaining in this negotiation process, the paper does not interpret expert politics as a mere reflection of material power and dominant state interests. Rather. when approaching authoritative knowledge as a product of social relations, the course and outcome of global climate governance appear more inclusive and open-ended.

  • 20.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies.
    Science in environmental policy: the politics of objective advice2011In: ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING A, ISSN 0308-518X, Vol. 43, no 2, 506-507 p.Article, book review (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    n/a

  • 21.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    et al.
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Beck, Silke
    UFZ, Germany.
    Chilvers, Jason
    University of E Anglia, England.
    Forsyth, Tim
    University of London London School Econ and Polit Science, England.
    Hedrén, Johan
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Hulme, Mike
    Kings Coll London, England.
    Lidskog, Rolf
    University of Örebro, Sweden.
    Vasileiadou, Eleftheria
    Technical University of Eindhoven, Netherlands.
    Who speaks for the future of Earth? How critical social science can extend the conversation on the Anthropocene2015In: Global Environmental Change, ISSN 0959-3780, E-ISSN 1872-9495, Vol. 32, 211-218 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper asks how the social sciences can engage with the idea of the Anthropocene in productive ways. In response to this question we outline an interpretative research agenda that allows critical engagement with the Anthropocene as a socially and culturally bounded object with many possible meanings and political trajectories. In order to facilitate the kind of political mobilization required to meet the complex environmental challenges of our times, we argue that the social sciences should refrain from adjusting to standardized research agendas and templates. A more urgent analytical challenge lies in exposing, challenging and extending the ontological assumptions that inform how we make sense of and respond to a rapidly changing environment. By cultivating environmental research that opens up multiple interpretations of the Anthropocene, the social sciences can help to extend the realm of the possible for environmental politics.

  • 22.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    et al.
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Bäckstrand, Karin
    Department of Political Science Lund University.
    Climate governance beyond 2012. Competing discourses of green governmentality, ecological modernization and civic environmentalism2007In: The Social Construction of Climate Change. Power, Knowledge, Norms, Discourses / [ed] Mary E. Pettenger, Hamsphire, Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Ltd , 2007, 123-147 p.Chapter in book (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Individuals, international organizations and states are calling for the world to confront climate change. Efforts such as the Kyoto Protocol have produced intractable disputes and are deemed inadequate. This volume adopts two constructivist perspectives - norm-centred and discourse - to explore the social construction of climate change from a broad, theoretical level to particular cases. The contributors contend that climate change must be understood from the context of social settings, and that we ignore at our peril how power and knowledge structures are generated. They offer a greater understanding of why current efforts to mitigate climate change have failed and provide academics and policy makers with a new understanding of this important topic.

  • 23.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    et al.
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies.
    Bäckstrand, KarinLunds universitet.Khan, JamilLunds universitet.Kronsell, AnnicaLunds universitet.
    Environmental politics and deliberative democracy.: Examining the promise of new modes of environmental governance2010Collection (editor) (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This important new book provides an excellent critical evaluation of new modes of governance in environmental and sustainability policy. The multidisciplinary team of contributors combine fresh insights from all levels of governance all around a carefully crafted conceptual framework to advance our understanding of the effectiveness and legitimacy of new types of steering, including networks, public private partnerships, and multi-stakeholder dialogues. This is a crucial contribution to the field. Frank Biermann, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands Can new modes of governance, such as public private partnerships, stakeholder consultations and networks, promote effective environmental policy performance as well as increased deliberative and participatory quality? This book argues that in academic inquiry and policy practice there has been a deliberative turn, manifested in a revitalized interest in deliberative democracy coupled with calls for novel forms of public private governance. By linking theory and practice, the contributors critically examine the legitimacy and effectiveness of new modes of governance, using a range of case studies on climate, forestry, water and food safety policies from local to global levels. Environmental Politics and Deliberative Democracy will appeal to scholars, both advanced undergraduate and postgraduate, as well as researchers of environmental politics, international relations, environmental studies and political science. It will also interest practitioners involved in the actual design and implementation of new governance modes in areas of sustainable development, food safety, forestry and climate change.

  • 24.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Hjerpe, Mattias
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR.
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, CSPR. University of Oxford, England.
    Making climate governance global: how UN climate summitry comes to matter in a complex climate regime2017In: Environmental Politics, ISSN 0964-4016, E-ISSN 1743-8934, Vol. 26, no 4, 580-599 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This article examines the role the UNFCCC plays in a polycentric climate regime complex. Through an extended questionnaire survey at the UN Climate Conferences in Warsaw (2013), Lima (2014) and Paris (2015), we study what government delegates and non-state observers see as the main purpose of UN climate summitry and their roles therein. Only a minority of these actors attend UN Climate Conferences to actively influence the outcome of the intergovernmental negotiation process. Instead, most come to these meetings to network, build interpersonal relationships, learn from each other and foster a sense of community across scales of difference. The ability of the UNFCCC to bring together different actors across time and space, to perform multiple policy tasks, has become one of its notable strengths and is an important facilitative practice that holds the polycentric regime complex together.

  • 25.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    et al.
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Jonsson, Anna C
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Glaas, Erik
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Democratizing Expertise in Theory and Practice:: Exploring Knowledge Gaps and New Research Ideas2012Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This CSPR briefing report is a summary of an international workshop hosted by the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research and Department of Thematic Studies: Water and Environmental Studies, Linköping University in Norrköping on 21 November 2011. The workshop brought together some 20 scholars interested in the role of science in democratic societies. In the following report we present the analytical aim, setup and outcomes of the workshop. We also reflect upon promising ideas for future research that were discussed during the workshop deliberations. With this brief summary we would like to thank all participants for their thoughtful input to the workshop theme. While the report is intended to reflect the rich and vibrant debate that took place in the CSPR conference room this sunny November day, it is of course difficult to fully represent the diversity of views and perspectives presented by our workshop participants. Hence, any arguments  (and  mistakes)  forwarded  in  this  briefing  remain  those  of  the  authors. Finally,  we  would  also  like  to  acknowledge  the  workshop  support  provided by  the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research and the Department of Thematic Studies: Water  and  Environmental  Studies.  By  positioning  our  research  environment  in  an ongoing scholarly debate and by identifying promising project ideas for spring 2012, we hope that time and money was well spent.

    Workshop aim

    The role of science in democratic societies has been widely debated in recent years. In an age of food scares such as the BSE crisis in the UK and environmental mega-risks such as nuclear disasters and anthropogenic climate change, scholars and practitioners alike have suggested that scientific experts need to test the validity of their knowledge claims outside the laboratory in order to gain public trust and legitimacy. The aim of this workshop  is  to  take  stock  of  this  scholarly  debate  by  discussing  its  theoretical foundations and practical implications. We use climate change as our main empirical case, although the debate extends well beyond this policy domain. What do calls for more  democratic  modes  of  climate  science  and  expertise  entail?  What  ideals  of democracy  do  they  rest  upon?  What  can  we  learn  from  practical  efforts  to  engage publics  and  stakeholders  in  the  making  and  interpretation  of  climate  science?  By bringing  together  scholars  at  the  intersection  of  science  and  technology  studies, environmental  studies  and  democratic  theory  the  workshop  sets  out  to  identify promising  ideas  for  future  research  that  may  advance  the  science  and  democracy research agenda.

  • 26.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies.
    Khan, Jamil
    Lund University, Sweden.
    The deliberative turn in green political theory2010In: Environmental politics and deliberative democracy: Examining the promise of new modes of environmental governance / [ed] Bäckstrand, K., Khan, J., Kronsell, A. & Lövbrand, E., Edward Elgar Press , 2010, 1, 240- p.Chapter in book (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This important new book provides an excellent critical evaluation of new modes of governance in environmental and sustainability policy. The multidisciplinary team of contributors combine fresh insights from all levels of governance all around a carefully crafted conceptual framework to advance our understanding of the effectiveness and legitimacy of new types of steering, including networks, public private partnerships, and multi-stakeholder dialogues. This is a crucial contribution to the field. Frank Biermann, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands Can new modes of governance, such as public private partnerships, stakeholder consultations and networks, promote effective environmental policy performance as well as increased deliberative and participatory quality? This book argues that in academic inquiry and policy practice there has been a deliberative turn, manifested in a revitalized interest in deliberative democracy coupled with calls for novel forms of public private governance. By linking theory and practice, the contributors critically examine the legitimacy and effectiveness of new modes of governance, using a range of case studies on climate, forestry, water and food safety policies from local to global levels. Environmental Politics and Deliberative Democracy will appeal to scholars, both advanced undergraduate and postgraduate, as well as researchers of environmental politics, international relations, environmental studies and political science. It will also interest practitioners involved in the actual design and implementation of new governance modes in areas of sustainable development, food safety, forestry and climate change.

  • 27.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research.
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research.
    Governing beyond or with the state?: state conceptions in studies of non-state climate action2015In: Rethinking the green state: environmental governance towards climate and sustainability transitions / [ed] Karin Bäckstrand, Annica Kronsell, Abingdon: Routledge, 2015, 43-62 p.Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 28.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research.
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research.
    Wither Carbon Accounting? On the Political Effects of 400 ppm2013Other (Other academic)
  • 29.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    et al.
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Ostwald, Madelene
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Climate Science and Policy Research Conceptual and Methodological Challanges2009Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    The scope of climate change research has grown immensely over the last decade. Beyond the extensive efforts to map and understand how the various components of the climate system interact and respond to human forcing, academics from a range of fields are today deeply involved in the social and political struggle to develop effective and legitimate climate change policies. While initially focused on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, we have in recent years seen a growing academic interestin local, national, regional and trans-national climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts.In a time when decision makers have linked such efforts to other policy areas such as energy security, finance, land use, and social development, new academic fields have also become involved in the study of climate change. Hence, climate change research is increasingly conducted at the interface between the natural and social sciences, engineering and the humanities. This development spurs self-reflection in the research community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), with the mandate to assess the latest research for decision-makers, is currently working and deliberating on how to design the nextround of assessment in the light of a widen agenda of climate change policy. It is at this dynamic interface that we find the expanding field of climate science and policy research.

    Climate science and policy research is by no means a stable academic field. Rather, it is byvirtue a broad, diverse and hybrid enquiry that includes a range of epistemological, theoretical and methodological orientations. While much of the research under this umbrella has developed in parallel to (and often in direct response to) climate change policy, the field also includes a wide set of scholarly efforts to challenge and problematise the ideas and discourses underpinning such policies. This scholarly diversity may question climate science and policyresearch as a meaningful academic label. And indeed, as indicated by the various contributions to this report, the interpretations of what this field is all about vary considerably. However, despite this variety, we argue that the different academic contributions to this field converge around the quest to interpret, understand, problematise and, at times, solve the challenges facing society under a changing climate. Some of this scholarly work has, directly or indirectly, sought to inform climate change policy. In other cases climate change has emerged as a vantage point for advancing the academic understanding of how links between nature and society, science and policy, development and environment, North and South are constituted and sustained.

    In this report we draw attention to a set of conceptual and methodological challenges that wethink arise from this broad scholarly enquiry. In the first chapter, Simonsson examines the importance of scale in climate change research. In order to effectively inform policy, she suggests that the academic study of climate change needs to adjust to the geographies ofclimate change policy-making. However, since science may not be able to deliver climate information at the spatial resolution asked by decision-makers, Simonsson also calls for greater scholarly awareness of the scalar challenges in climate science for policy. In the second chapter, Ostwald and Kuchler trace the conceptual genealogy of climate science and policy research. Starting in the historic development of the climate sciences, they end up in amuch more complex and inter-disciplinary research landscape. Ostwald and Kuchler ask how researchers in the field of climate science and policy research can relate to this complexity.

    In the third chapter, Glaas, Friman, Wilks and Hjerpe situate climate science and policy research in the scholarly debate on Mode 1 and Mode 2 science. Following a long-standing debate on the role of science in climate policy making, they ask whether this field of enquirygains its legitimacy from autonomous basic research produced in sites distinctly demarcatedfrom the world of policy (Mode 1), or from knowledge produced in the context of application (Mode 2). While it may be  challenging for scholars of climate science and policy to engage inboth modes of knowledge production at the same time, the authors point at examples where the distinction between Mode 1 and Mode 2 breaks down into a new research domain whichthey label as Mode 1.5. A similar discussion is raised by Hansson and Wibeck in chapter four.While climate science and policy research can be interpreted as an academic field in its own right, its close links to action can also result in a difficult balancing act for researchers. Drawing upon examples from public acceptance studies, Hansson and Wibeck highlight problems that arise when climate researchers advance a normative agenda and hereby influence the people they study. Finally, in chapter five, Jonsson, Lövbrand and Andersson offer examples of research produced in direct collaboration with affected stakeholders. While such participatory research. often is said to increase the legitimacy and problem-solving capacity of climate science and policy research, the authors discuss how and when thatpromise holds true.

    The conceptual and methodological challenges discussed in this report are the result of a seminar series held at the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research (CSPR) at Linköping University from autumn 2007 to spring 2008. As such the chapters reflect an ongoing debate and internal self-reflection at a centre that still is young and under development. Since its establishment in 2004, the CSPR has grown steadily and today functions as an interdisciplinary platform for more than 20 senior and junior researchers active in the field of climate science and policy research. In this report we do not set out to give a comprehensive picture of the challenges facing researchers at the CSPR, nor scholars inthe broader field of climate science and policy research. Neither is it a statement of whatCSPR is, but rather a bouquet of thoughts around our own research. By sharing our reflections with a broader scholarship, we do, however, hope that this report will contribute to theongoing debate on the scope, direction and function of this expanding and dynamic academic field.

  • 30.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    et al.
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies.
    Pielke Jr, Roger
    University of Colorado, Boulder.
    Beck, Silke
    Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research.
    A democracy paradox in studies of science and society?2011In: Science, Technology and Human Values, ISSN 0162-2439, E-ISSN 1552-8251, Vol. 36, no 4, 474-496 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Today many scholars seem to agree that citizens should be involved in expert deliberations on science and technology issues. This interest in public deliberation has gained attraction in many practical settings, especially in the European Union, and holds the promise of more legitimate governance of science and technology. In this article, the authors draw on the European Commission’s (EC) report “Taking the European Knowledge Society Seriously” to ask how legitimate these efforts to “democratize” scientific expertise really are. While the report borrows from deliberative democrats' normative accounts of legitimacy, the authors identify a tension between the principles for legitimate rule prescribed by deliberative democratic theory and the report’s celebration of diversity and dissent. While this inconsistency suggests that the legitimacy of deliberative governance arrangements is justified on empirical rather than normative grounds, it remains an open question whether studies of science and technology offer enough empirical support for such a justification. In this article, the authors address this pressing question and propose three possible responses.

  • 31.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    et al.
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Pielke, Roger
    University of Colorado.
    Accountable to Whom, How and When? Learning from Science Policy Decisions and Research Practice in the European ADAM project2009In: Presented at the 9th NESS Conference in London, June 9-12 2009, 2009Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 32.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    et al.
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Rindefjall, Teresia
    Nordqvist, Joakim
    Closing the Legitimacy Gap in Global Environmental Governance? Lessons from the Emerging CDM Market2009In: GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS, ISSN 1526-3800, Vol. 9, no 2, 74-100 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 33.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research.
    Stripple, Johannes
    Lunds universitet.
    Bringing governmentality to the study of global climate governance2014In: Governing the climate: new approaches to rationality, power and politics / [ed] Johannes Stripple, Harriet Bulkeley, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , 2014, 1, 27-41 p.Chapter in book (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Since the 1990s when global governance emerged as a new and powerful research agenda, scholars have sought to understand the changing role of the state in a time of globalization (Rosenau and Czempiel 1992; Cerny 2010). By drawing attention to the rise of hybrid, nonhierarchical and network-like modes of governing on the global stage, global governance studies have taught us that the state is no longer the sole, or even the principal, source of authority in the international system. As nonstate actors have taken on an increasing number of governance functions in world politics, the sources and institutional locus of authority have changed (Cutler, Haufler and Porter 1999; Hall and Biersteker 2002). The field of global climate governance is no exception. In a time when United Nations (UN) negotiations on a future climate deal have lost momentum, students of international relations have turned their attention to the multiple ways transnational actors and networks such as environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) (Wapner 1996; Betsill and Corell 2008), corporations (Levy and Egan 2003; Newell and Paterson 2010) and city networks (Bulkeley and Betsill 2003) contribute to public rule-setting and steering. Rather than approaching the state as the only actor with purpose and power, the growing field of climate governance studies has sought to establish a broader conception of politics that captures the richness and complexity of climate governance ‘beyond the international regime’ (Okereke, Bulkeley and Schroeder 2009; Bernstein et al. 2010; Hoffmann 2011).

  • 34.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Stripple, Johannes
    Lund University, Sweden.
    Disrupting the public-private distinction: excavating the government of carbon markets post-Copenhagen2012In: Environment and Planning. C, Government and Policy, ISSN 0263-774X, E-ISSN 1472-3425, Vol. 30, no 4, 658-674 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper draws upon the recent carbon market turmoil to understand how the private realm is imagined in global climate governance. Instead of asking which entities (eg, public or private authorities) govern the carbon economy, we draw attention to the procedures (eg, caps on emissions, techniques of verification, or performance standards) by which carbon markets are made thinkable and governable as administrative domains. When focusing on these calculative practices, carbon market governance does not signify a retreat of the state. Rather, in this paper we argue that the involvement of nonstate actors in the governance of carbon markets represents a transformation of political rule that replaces formal and hierarchical techniques of government with more indirect regimes of calculation. From this vantage point carbon market governance emerges as an expression of a changing rationality of government where the private realm becomes elevated from being a passive terrain to be acted upon and instead turned into an entity that is both object and subject of government.

  • 35.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research.
    Stripple, Johannes
    Lund University .
    Foucault and critical policy studies2015In: Handbook on critical policy studies / [ed] Frank Fischer, Douglas Torgerson, Anna Durnová, Michael Orsini, Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015, 92-108 p.Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This chapter explores what kinds of critical policy studies may transpire from Michel Foucault’s nominalist engagement with traditional political concepts such as power, government and the state. We argue that Foucault’s work paves the way for a decentred form of policy analysis that asks how we govern and are governed in micro-settings including at the level of the individual subject. The focus on the ‘how of governing’ stems from a rejection of any a priori understanding of the distribution of power or location of government, and arises instead from an interest in, and awareness of, the historically situated practices, rationalities and identities by which governing operates. Viewed in this manner, Foucault-inspired policy studies neither offer us a substantive theory about the forces that shape public policy, nor does it tell us what constitutes public policy (e.g. actors, interests, structures). The role of the analyst is instead to critically interrogate how these political spaces come about, how power operates through them, and, ultimately, how they could be different.

  • 36.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research.
    Stripple, Johannes
    Lund University.
    Governmentality2014In: Critical environmental politics / [ed] Carl Death, London and New York: Routledge, 2014, 111-120 p.Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 37.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    et al.
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Stripple, Johannes
    Lunds universitet, Sweden.
    Making climate change governable.: Accounting for carbon as sinks, credits and personal budgets2011In: Critical Policy Studies, ISSN 1946-0171, Vol. 5, no 2, 187-200 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This article explores how climate governance is accomplished in practical terms. To that end we develop an ‘analytics of carbon accounting’ that draws attention to the calculative practices that turn stocks and flows of carbon into objects of governance. Carbon accounting as a rationality of government is primarily concerned with the ways in which carbon can be measured, quantified, demarcated and statistically aggregated; but the concept also alludes to questions about (political) accountability in relation to emissions of greenhouse gases. The paper outlines three different regimes of carbon accounting – ‘the national carbon sink’, ‘the carbon credit’ and ‘the personal carbon budget’ – to illustrate how stocks and flows of carbon are constructed as administrative domains amenable to certain forms of political and economic rationality, such as government regulation, market exchanges and self-governance by responsible individual subjects.

  • 38.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    et al.
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research .
    Stripple, Johannes
    Department of Political Science Lund University.
    The climate as political space. On the territorialization of the global carbon cycle2006In: Review of International Studies, ISSN 0260-2105, E-ISSN 1469-9044, Vol. 32, 217-235 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    International Relations have increasingly projected an image of the world where territoriality has lost its organising force. The global movements of people, information, capital and pollution are seen as signs of increasing deterritorialisation. Climate change is one of these issues beyond borders that due to its global framing has been established within the international. This article is an investigation into the political geography of the carbon cycle. We approach the tension between the representations of climate space as global and deterritorial on the one hand, and political practices that reterritorialise the climate on the other. We trace the political transformation of the global carbon cycle into national sinks and argue that the two tendencies of deterritorialisation and reterritorialisation of climate space mirror the spatial assumptions of IR; the national inside and global outside.

  • 39.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    et al.
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Stripple, Johannes
    Lund University.
    Wiman, Bo
    Kalmar University.
    Earth System governmentality Reflections on science in the Anthropocene2009In: GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE-HUMAN AND POLICY DIMENSIONS, ISSN 0959-3780, Vol. 19, no 1, 7-13 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper examines Earth System Science as a novel approach to global environmental change research. Drawing upon Michel Foucaults governmentality concept, the paper opens up the Earth System metaphor to political analysis and asks what it does to our understanding of nature and society as a governable domain. We trace the scientific practices that have produced the Earth System as a thinkable analytical category back to the International Geophysical Year in 1957. We also identify the Anthropocene as a central and yet ambiguous system of thought for Earth System Science that harbours different strategies for sustainability in terms of (1) the persons over whom government is to be exercised; (2) the distribution of tasks and actions between authorities; and (3) contrasting ideals or principles for how government should be directed.

  • 40.
    Stripple, Johannes
    et al.
    Statsvetenskapliga institutionen, Lunds universitet, Sweden.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Carbon Market Governance Beyond the Public-Private Divide2010In: Global Climate Governance Post 2012. Architectures, Agency and Adaptation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , 2010, 1, 27-38 p.Chapter in book (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

       An assessment of policy options for future global climate governance, written by a team of leading experts from the European Union and developing countries. Global climate governance is at a crossroads. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol was merely a first step, and its core commitments expire in 2012. This book addresses three questions which will be central to any new climate agreement. What is the most effective overall legal and institutional architecture for successful and equitable climate politics? What role should non-state actors play, including multinational corporations, non-governmental organizations, public-private partnerships and market mechanisms in general? How can we deal with the growing challenge of adapting our existing institutions to a substantially warmer world? This important resource offers policy practitioners in-depth qualitative and quantitative assessments of the costs and benefits of various policy options, and also offers academics from wide-ranging disciplines insight into innovative interdisciplinary approaches towards international climate negotiations.

  • 41.
    Uhrqvist, Ola
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research.
    Rendering global change problematic: the constitutive effects of Earth System research in the IGBP and the IHDP2014In: Environmental Politics, ISSN 0964-4016, E-ISSN 1743-8934, Vol. 23, no 2, 339-356 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Efforts to predict the future habitability of Earth are examined in three interrelated IGBP and IHDP projects: Global Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems (GCTE), Land Use and Land Cover Change (LUCC), and the Global Land Project (GLP). Drawing upon project documentation and research plans from 1986 to 2012, and 10 interviews with researchers involved in project design and implementation, we trace how these projects have represented the problem of global change in the modelling of ecosystem and land-use dynamics. The imagining of global change was recalibrated as project participants brought more aspects of natural and human life into their computations. A top-down gaze informed by atmospheric physics and predictable cause–effect relationships gave way to a more complex Anthropocene imaginary dominated by non-linearity and less predictable thresholds and pathways. Given intrinsic links between ways of representing and knowing a phenomenon and ways of acting upon it so as to transform it, qualitative change in how the Earth System is ‘rendered problematic’ may imply changes for the practices of environmental science and governance.

  • 42.
    Uhrqvist, Ola
    et al.
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Lövbrand, Eva
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
     Seeing and Knowing the Earth as a System: Tracing the History of the Earth System Science Partnership2009Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

     

    In this paper we trace the institutional history and rationale of the Earth System Science Partnership by studying the practical and epistemic contributions of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme and the International Human Dimensions Programme respectively. While the main aim of our study is to offer an empirical understanding of how this new partnership for the integrated study of the Earth System has come about, the paper also conceptualises the scientific practices and modes of thought represented by the ESSP as a central form of agency in Earth System governance. In order to understand the formation of governance practices in the Earth System, we argue that it is necessary to critically scrutinise the diverse set of knowledges and practices that have constituted the Earth System as a thinkable and governable domain.

1 - 42 of 42
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf