IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v44y2017i2p225-234..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The UK’s 2012 Climate Change Risk Assessment: How the rational assessment of science develops policy-based evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Tangney

Abstract

This paper describes the views of participants in the UK’s 2012 Climate Change Risk Assessment, to provide insights into the development and use of scientific evidence for complex social-ecological policy problems like climate adaptation. Interviews confirm that ‘linear-rationalist’ prescriptions commonly used for the ex-ante policy appraisal of science facilitate processes of politicisation, providing a façade of legitimacy behind which the inevitable normative decisions required during evidence development can be safely made for political ends. The UK’s risk assessment was used tactically rather than instrumentally at all levels of government to garner political legitimacy for various policy portfolios. The tactical or political use of evidence occurred overtly, as an aid during policy advocacy, and covertly through the politicisation of expert knowledge. However, the linear-rationalist assessment method was largely inadequate for characterising climate change problems, for making instrumental use of climate science and suppressed broader institutional learning about climate-related policy-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Tangney, 2017. "The UK’s 2012 Climate Change Risk Assessment: How the rational assessment of science develops policy-based evidence," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(2), pages 225-234.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:44:y:2017:i:2:p:225-234.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scw055
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hulme,Mike, 2009. "Why We Disagree about Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521727327.
    2. Hulme,Mike, 2009. "Why We Disagree about Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521898690.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Natalie Slawinski & Jonatan Pinkse & Timo Busch & Subhabrata Bobby Banerjeed, 2014. "The role of short-termism and uncertainty in organizational inaction on climate change: multilevel framework," Working Papers hal-00961226, HAL.
    2. Andreas Bjurström & Merritt Polk, 2011. "Climate change and interdisciplinarity: a co-citation analysis of IPCC Third Assessment Report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 525-550, June.
    3. Tammy Tabe, 2019. "Climate Change Migration and Displacement: Learning from Past Relocations in the Pacific," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    4. Felix J. Formanski & Marcel M. Pein & David D. Loschelder & John-Oliver Engler & Onno Husen & Johann M. Majer, 2022. "Tipping points ahead? How laypeople respond to linear versus nonlinear climate change predictions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 1-20, November.
    5. 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.
    6. Janet Judy McIntyre‐Mills, 2013. "Anthropocentrism and Well‐being: A Way Out of the Lobster Pot?," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 136-155, March.
    7. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    8. Sanober Naheed & Salman Shooshtarian, 2021. "A Review of Cultural Background and Thermal Perceptions in Urban Environments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-15, August.
    9. Hall, C. Michael & Amelung, Bas & Cohen, Scott & Eijgelaar, Eke & Gössling, Stefan & Higham, James & Leemans, Rik & Peeters, Paul & Ram, Yael & Scott, Daniel & Aall, Carlo & Abegg, Bruno & Araña, Jorg, 2015. "No time for smokescreen skepticism: A rejoinder to Shani and Arad," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 341-347.
    10. Nancy Menning, 2018. "Narrating climate change as a rite of passage," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 343-353, March.
    11. Mercedes Bleda & Elisabeth Krull & Jonatan Pinkse & Eleni Christodoulou, 2023. "Organizational heuristics and firms' sensemaking for climate change adaptation," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(8), pages 6124-6137, December.
    12. Richard Matthew, 2014. "Integrating climate change into peacebuilding," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 123(1), pages 83-93, March.
    13. Chhetri, Netra & Ghimire, Rajiv & Wagner, Melissa & Wang, Meng, 2020. "Global citizen deliberation: Case of world-wide views on climate and energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    14. Hochachka, Gail, 2021. "Integrating the four faces of climate change adaptation: Towards transformative change in Guatemalan coffee communities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    15. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2015. "An Evaluation of the Treatment of Risk and Uncertainties in the IPCC Reports on Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 701-712, April.
    16. Robert, Christopher LeBaron & Zeckhauser, Richard Jay, 2010. "The Methodology of Positive Policy Analysis," Scholarly Articles 4450129, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    17. Georgina Endfield & Carol Morris, 2012. "Cultural spaces of climate," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(1), pages 1-4, July.
    18. George Ferns & Kenneth Amaeshi & Aliette Lambert, 2019. "Drilling their Own Graves: How the European Oil and Gas Supermajors Avoid Sustainability Tensions Through Mythmaking," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(1), pages 201-231, August.
    19. Laura Fogg-Rogers & Enda Hayes & Kris Vanherle & Péter I. Pápics & Tim Chatterton & Jo Barnes & Stephan Slingerland & Corra Boushel & Sophie Laggan & James Longhurst, 2021. "Applying Social Learning to Climate Communications—Visualising ‘People Like Me’ in Air Pollution and Climate Change Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-16, March.
    20. Friederike E. L. Otto & Petra Minnerop & Emmanuel Raju & Luke J. Harrington & Rupert F. Stuart‐Smith & Emily Boyd & Rachel James & Richard Jones & Kristian C. Lauta, 2022. "Causality and the fate of climate litigation: The role of the social superstructure narrative," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 13(5), pages 736-750, November.

    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:oup:scippl:v:44:y:2017:i:2:p:225-234.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.