IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i9p1571-d110798.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Objectives for Stakeholder Engagement in Global Environmental Assessments

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer Garard

    (Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, EUREF Campus 19, 10829 Berlin, Germany
    Faculty VI, Technical University of Berlin, Straße des 17 Juni 135, 10623 Berlin, Germany)

  • Martin Kowarsch

    (Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, EUREF Campus 19, 10829 Berlin, Germany)

Abstract

Global environmental assessments (GEAs) are among the most large-scale, formalized processes for synthesizing knowledge at the science–policy–society interface. The successful engagement of diverse stakeholders in GEAs is often described as a crucial mechanism for increasing their legitimacy, salience and credibility. However, the diversity of perspectives on the more precise objectives for stakeholder engagement remains largely unclear. The aims of this study are to categorize and characterize the diversity of perspectives on objectives for stakeholder engagement in GEAs; to explore differences in perspectives within and between different stakeholder groups and categories; and to test whether the more practical prioritization and selection of objectives in GEAs can be linked to deliberative policy learning as a higher-level rationale for stakeholder engagement. For these purposes, we conduct a grounded theory analysis and a keyword analysis of interview material and official GEA documents relating to two GEAs: UN Environment’s Fifth Global Environment Outlook and the Working Group III contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report. Based on the analysis, we identify six categories of objectives and present as hypotheses promising ways forward for prioritizing and characterizing objectives for stakeholder engagement in GEAs, as well as potential reasons for the differences between perspectives on objectives. This study draws attention to the need for future GEA processes to have more explicit discussions on the objectives for stakeholder engagement, as well as the importance of moving towards increasingly deliberative and inclusive assessment processes more broadly.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer Garard & Martin Kowarsch, 2017. "Objectives for Stakeholder Engagement in Global Environmental Assessments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-21, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:9:p:1571-:d:110798
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/9/1571/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/9/1571/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jabbour, Jason & Flachsland, Christian, 2017. "40 years of global environmental assessments: A retrospective analysis," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 193-202.
    2. James Ford & Will Vanderbilt & Lea Berrang-Ford, 2012. "Authorship in IPCC AR5 and its implications for content: climate change and Indigenous populations in WGII," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(2), pages 201-213, July.
    3. Gisli Palsson & Bronislaw Szerszynski & Sverker Sörlin & John Marks & Bernard Avril & Carole Crumley & Heide Hackmann & Poul Holm & John Ingram & Alan Kirman & Mercedes Pardo Buendia & Rifka Weehuizen, 2013. "Reconceptualizing the 'Anthropos' in the Anthropocene: Integrating the social sciences and humanities in global environmental change research," Post-Print hal-01500892, HAL.
    4. Martin Kowarsch & Jennifer Garard & Pauline Riousset & Dominic Lenzi & Marcel J. Dorsch & Brigitte Knopf & Jan-Albrecht Harrs & Ottmar Edenhofer, 2016. "Scientific assessments to facilitate deliberative policy learning," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 2(1), pages 1-20, December.
    5. Thomas Koetz & Katharine Farrell & Peter Bridgewater, 2012. "Building better science-policy interfaces for international environmental governance: assessing potential within the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, March.
    6. Yamineva, Yulia, 2017. "Lessons from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on inclusiveness across geographies and stakeholders," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 244-251.
    7. Garard, Jennifer & Kowarsch, Martin, 2017. "If at first you don’t succeed: Evaluating stakeholder engagement in global environmental assessments," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 235-243.
    8. van der Hel, Sandra, 2016. "New science for global sustainability? The institutionalisation of knowledge co-production in Future Earth," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 165-175.
    9. David Victor, 2015. "Climate change: Embed the social sciences in climate policy," Nature, Nature, vol. 520(7545), pages 27-29, April.
    10. Esteve Corbera & Laura Calvet-Mir & Hannah Hughes & Matthew Paterson, 2016. "Patterns of authorship in the IPCC Working Group III report," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(1), pages 94-99, January.
    11. Riousset, Pauline & Flachsland, Christian & Kowarsch, Martin, 2017. "Global environmental assessments: Impact mechanisms," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 260-267.
    12. Daniel H. Cole, 2015. "Advantages of a polycentric approach to climate change policy," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(2), pages 114-118, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Binbin Yang & Sang-Do Park, 2023. "Who Drives Carbon Neutrality in China? Text Mining and Network Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-24, March.
    2. Alejandro Esguerra & Sandra van der Hel, 2021. "Participatory Designs and Epistemic Authority in Knowledge Platforms for Sustainability," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 21(1), pages 130-151, Winter.
    3. Michael Schoon & Michael E. Cox, 2018. "Collaboration, Adaptation, and Scaling: Perspectives on Environmental Governance for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-9, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Haas, Peter M., 2018. "Preserving the epistemic authority of science in world politics," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2018-105, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    2. Karin M. Gustafsson, 2019. "Learning from the Experiences of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Balancing Science and Policy to Enable Trustworthy Knowledge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-14, November.
    3. Vanessa J. Schweizer, 2020. "Reflections on cross-impact balances, a systematic method constructing global socio-technical scenarios for climate change research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(4), pages 1705-1722, October.
    4. Martin Bohle, 2019. "One Realm: Thinking Geoethically and Guiding Small-Scale Fisheries?," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 31(2), pages 253-270, April.
    5. Erlend A. T. Hermansen & Bård Lahn & Göran Sundqvist & Eirik Øye, 2021. "Post-Paris policy relevance: lessons from the IPCC SR15 process," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 1-18, November.
    6. Chukwumerije Okereke, 2017. "A six-component model for assessing procedural fairness in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 509-522, December.
    7. Kari De Pryck, 2021. "Intergovernmental Expert Consensus in the Making: The Case of the Summary for Policy Makers of the IPCC 2014 Synthesis Report," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 21(1), pages 108-129, Winter.
    8. Uwe Cantner & Martin Kalthaus & Matthias Menter & Pierre Mohnen, 2023. "Global knowledge flows: characteristics, determinants, and impacts," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 32(5), pages 1063-1076.
    9. Hallberg-Sramek, Isabella & Nordström, Eva-Maria & Priebe, Janina & Reimerson, Elsa & Mårald, Erland & Nordin, Annika, 2023. "Combining scientific and local knowledge improves evaluating future scenarios of forest ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    10. Antonio J. Castro & Cristina Quintas-Soriano & Jodi Brandt & Carla L. Atkinson & Colden V. Baxter & Morey Burnham & Benis N. Egoh & Marina García-Llorente & Jason P. Julian & Berta Martín-López & Feli, 2018. "Applying Place-Based Social-Ecological Research to Address Water Scarcity: Insights for Future Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, May.
    11. Kate Elizabeth Gannon, Mike Hulme, 2017. "Geoengineering at the ‘edge of the world’: exploring perceptions of ocean fertilization through the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation," GRI Working Papers 280, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    12. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Martiskainen, Mari, 2020. "Hot transformations: Governing rapid and deep household heating transitions in China, Denmark, Finland and the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    13. Troy J. Bouffard & Ekaterina Uryupova & Klaus Dodds & Vladimir E. Romanovsky & Alec P. Bennett & Dmitry Streletskiy, 2021. "Scientific Cooperation: Supporting Circumpolar Permafrost Monitoring and Data Sharing," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, June.
    14. Spector, Sam, 2020. "Space travel and the limits to growth," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    15. Nikas, A. & Gambhir, A. & Trutnevyte, E. & Koasidis, K. & Lund, H. & Thellufsen, J.Z. & Mayer, D. & Zachmann, G. & Miguel, L.J. & Ferreras-Alonso, N. & Sognnaes, I. & Peters, G.P. & Colombo, E. & Howe, 2021. "Perspective of comprehensive and comprehensible multi-model energy and climate science in Europe," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 215(PA).
    16. Jayme Walenta, 2020. "Climate risk assessments and science‐based targets: A review of emerging private sector climate action tools," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), March.
    17. Giuseppe Lucio Gaeta & Stefano Ghinoi & Matteo Masotti & Francesco Silvestri, 2021. "Economics research and climate change. A Scopus-based bibliometric investigation," SEEDS Working Papers 0321, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised Apr 2021.
    18. Richard B. Stewart & Michael Oppenheimer & Bryce Rudyk, 2017. "Building blocks: a strategy for near-term action within the new global climate framework," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 1-13, September.
    19. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Van de Graaf, Thijs, 2018. "Building or stumbling blocks? Assessing the performance of polycentric energy and climate governance networks," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 317-324.
    20. Grimley, Matthew & Chan, Gabriel, 2023. "“Cooperative is an oxymoron!”: A polycentric energy transition perspective on distributed energy deployment in the Upper Midwestern United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:9:p:1571-:d:110798. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.