Nội dung được dịch bởi AI, chỉ mang tính chất tham khảo
Chú ý khoảng cách: Đương đầu với sự chậm trễ trong quản lý môi trường
Ambio - 2019
Tóm tắt
Khoảng cách giữa các mục tiêu chính sách công và trạng thái môi trường thường rất lớn. Tuy nhiên, trong khi những thất bại về mục tiêu trong quản lý môi trường được nghiên cứu trong nhiều ngành học, kiến thức về các nguyên nhân khác nhau khiến việc đạt được mục tiêu bị trì hoãn vẫn chưa đầy đủ. Trong bài viết này, chúng tôi đề xuất một khuôn khổ phân tích mới về các cơ chế trì hoãn trong khoa học và chính sách, với ý định cung cấp một góc nhìn bổ sung để mô tả, phân tích và chống lại sự trì hoãn trong quản lý môi trường. Khuôn khổ này được xây dựng dựa trên các phát hiện từ nghiên cứu trường hợp gần đây tập trung vào những thất bại về mục tiêu trong các chính sách liên quan đến biến đổi khí hậu, hóa chất độc hại, mất đa dạng sinh học và ô nhiễm dinh dưỡng. Nó cũng liên quan đến các nghiên cứu trước đó về quy trình khoa học và chính sách cũng như sự tương tác của chúng. Chúng tôi minh họa khuôn khổ này bằng hai cơ chế trì hoãn mà chúng tôi cho là đặc biệt quan trọng cần được nêu bật - sự phủ nhận khoa học và ngưỡng quyết định. Chúng tôi kêu gọi tiến hành thêm nghiên cứu trong lĩnh vực này, phát triển khuôn khổ, và không kém phần quan trọng là tăng cường chú ý đến các cơ chế trì hoãn trong việc xem xét và phát triển chính sách môi trường ở cả cấp quốc gia và quốc tế.
Từ khóa
#quản lý môi trường #chính sách công #cơ chế trì hoãn #biến đổi khí hậu #mất đa dạng sinh họcTài liệu tham khảo
Alford, J., and B.W. Head. 2017. Wicked and less wicked problems: A typology and a contingency framework. Policy and Society 36: 397–413.
Alfredsson, E., and M. Karlsson. 2016. Klimatpolitik under osäkerhet. Kostnader och nyttor—bevis och beslut. Swedish Government Official Report. SOU 2016:47 Part 2. Wolters Kluwer, Stockholm.
Baranzini, A., J.C.J.M. van den Bergh, S. Carattini, R.B. Howarth, E. Padilla, and J. Roca. 2017. Carbon pricing in climate policy: Seven reasons, complementary instruments, and political economy considerations. WIREs Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.462.
Bergman, Å., G. Becher, B. Blumberg, P. Bjerregaard, R. Bornman, I. Brandt, S.C. Casey, and H. Frouin. 2015. Manufacturing doubt about endocrine disrupter science. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 73: 1007–1007.
Boan, J.J., J.R. Malcolm, M.D. Vanier, D.L. Euler, and F.M. Moola. 2018. From CLIMATE to Caribou: How manufactured uncertainty is affecting wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 42: 366–381.
Boström, M., R. Lidskog, and Y. Uggla. 2017. A reflexive look at reflexivity in environmental sociology. Environmental Sociology 3: 6–16.
CBD. 2014. Global biodiversity outlook. Montréal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
Chapron, G. 2014. Challenge the abuse of science in setting policy. Nature 516: 289.
Cohen, S. 2001. States of denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering. Polity Press: Cambridge.
Eberly, W.R. 1974. History of the phosphate detergent Ban in Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 84: 405–414.
Edvardsson, K. 2007. Setting rational environmental goals: Five Swedish environmental quality objectives. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50: 297–316.
Edvardsson, K., M. Karlsson, M. Gilek, and S.O. Hansson. 2017. Climate and environmental science denial. A review of the scientific literature published in 1990–2015. Journal of Cleaner Production 167: 229–241.
EEA. 2001. Late lessons from early warnings: The precautionary principle 1896–2000. European Environment Agency, Report 22-2001, Copenhagen.
EEA. 2013. Late lessons from early warnings: Science, precaution and innovation. European Environment Agency, Report 1-2013, Copenhagen
EEA. 2018. Achieving EU’s key 2020 environmental objectives slipping away. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
Eriksson, J., M. Karlsson, and M. Reuter. 2010. Technocracy, politicization, and non-involvement: Politics of expertise in the European regulation of chemicals. Review of Policy Research 27: 167–185.
Gifford, R., and A. Nilsson. 2014. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology 49: 141–157.
Gilbert, N. 2011. Data gaps threaten chemicals safety law. Nature 475: 150–151.
Gilek, M., M. Karlsson, S. Linke, and K. Smolarz. 2016. Environmental governance of the Baltic Sea. Dordrecht: Springer.
Gilek, M., and M. Karlsson. 2016. Seeking pathways towards improved environmental governance of the Baltic Sea. In Environmental Governance of the Baltic Sea, ed. M. Gilek et al., 229–246. Dordrecht: Springer.
Haas, P.M. 1992. Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization 46: 1–35.
Haas, P.M. 2004. When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy 11: 569–592.
Hansson, S.O. 2018. Dealing with climate science denialism: experiences from confrontations with other forms of pseudoscience. Climate Policy 18: 1094–1102.
Hassler, B. 2017. Transnational environmental collective action facing implementation constraints—the case of nutrient leakage in the Baltic Sea Action Plan. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 19: 408–422.
HELCOM. 2016. White-tailed eagle productivity. HELCOM core indicator report. Retrieved March 21, 2019, from http://helcom.fi/Core%20Indicators/White-tailed%20eagle%20productivity_HELCOM%20core%20indicator%202016_web%20version.pdf.
Herweg, N., N. Zahariadis, and R. Zohlmhöfer. 2017. The multiple stream framework: Foundations, refinements, and empirical applications. In Theories of the policy process, ed. C.M. Weible. Milton: Routledge.
Jenkins-Smith, H.C., D. Nohrstedt, C.M. Weible, and K. Ingold. 2017. The advocacy coalition framework: An overview of the research program. In Theories of the policy process, ed. C.M. Weible. Milton: Routledge.
Jentoft, S., and R. Chuenpagdee. 2015. The ‘New’ Marine Governance: Assessing governability. In Governing Europe’s Marine environment. Europeanization of regional seas or regionalization of EU policies?, ed. M. Gilek and K. Kern, 15–34. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
Jóhannsdóttir, A. 2009. The significance of the default A study in environmental law methodology with emphasis on ecological sustainability and international biodiversity law. Academic Dissertation. Faculty of Law, Uppsala University. Uppsala: Uppsala University.
Karlsson, M. 2005. Managing complex environmental risks for sustainable development. PhD Thesis. Karlstad: Karlstad University.
Karlsson, M. 2006. Science and norms in policies for sustainable development. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 44: 49–56.
Karlsson, M. 2010. The precautionary principle in EU and U.S. chemicals policy. In Regulating chemical risks, ed. J. Eriksson et al. Dordrecht: Springer.
Karlsson, M. 2019. Chemicals denial—a challenge to science and policy. Sustainability 11: 4785. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174785.
Karlsson, M., and M. Gilek. 2018. Management of hazardous substances in the marine environment. In Handbook on marine environment protection, ed. M. Salomon and T. Markus. Dordrecht: Springer.
Karlsson, M. and N. Westling. 2017. Synergier överallt – om klimatpolitikens dolda vinster och andra samhällsprojekts klimatytta. Swedish Government’s Official Inquiries. Stockholm: Fossilfritt Sverige.
Keskitalo, E.C., and M. Pettersson. 2012. Implementing multi-level governance? The legal basis and implementation of the EU water framework directive for forestry in sweden. Environmental Policy and Governance 22: 90–103.
Klapwijka, M.J., J. Boberg, J. Bergh, K. Bishop, C. Björkman, D. Ellison, A. Felton, R. Lidskog, et al. 2018. Capturing complexity: Forests, decision-making and climate change mitigation action. Global Environmental Change 52: 238–247.
Kortenkamp, A., and M. Faust. 2018. Regulate to reduce chemical mixture risk. Science 361: 224–226.
Le Moal, M., C. Gascuel-Odoux, A. Ménesguen, Y. Souchon, C. Étrillard, A. Levain, F. Moatar, A. Pannard, et al. 2019. Eutrophication: A new wine in an old bottle? Science of the Total Environment 651: 1–11.
Lindsey, P.A., G.A. Balme, P. Funston, P. Henschel, L. Hunter, H. Madzikanda, N. Midlane, and V. Nyirenda. 2013. The trophy hunting of African lions: Scale, current management practices and factors undermining sustainability. PLoS ONE 8: e73808.
Linke, S., M. Gilek, M. Karlsson, and O. Udovyk. 2013. Unravelling science-policy interactions in environmental risk governance of the Baltic Sea. Journal of Risk Research 17: 505–523.
Machin, A. 2019. Changing the story? The discourse of ecological modernisation in the European Union. Environmental Politics 28: 208–227.
Nolin, J. 1995. Ozonskitet och vetenskapen. En studie av postnormal vetenskap. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
OECD. 2001. Environmental Performance reviews: Achievements in OECD countries. Paris: OECD.
Rahmstorf, S. 2004. The climate sceptics. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam. Retrieved March 21, 2019, from http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Other/rahmstorf_climate_sceptics_2004.pdf.
Rakhyun, E.K., and K. Bosselmann. 2013. International environmental law in the anthropocene: Towards a purposive system of multilateral environmental agreements. Translational Environmental Law 2: 285–309.
Runhaar, H., C. Dieperink, and P. Driessen. 2006. Policy analysis for sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 7: 34–56.
Ruseva, T., M. Foster, G. Arnold, S. Siddiki, A. York, R. Pudney, and Z. Chen. 2019. Applying policy process theories to environmental governance research: Themes and new directions. Policy Studies Journal 47: S66–S95.
Sandin, P., M. Peterson, S.O. Hansson, C. Rudén, and A. Juthe. 2002. Five charges against the precautionary principle. Journal of Risk Research 5: 287–299.
Saunders, F., M. Gilek, and S. Linke. 2017. Knowledge for environmental governance. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 6: 769–782.
Schellnhuber, J., S. Rahmstorf, and R. Winkelman. 2016. Why the right climate target was agreed in Paris. Nature Climate Change 6: 649–653.
SEPA. 2019. Fördjupad utvärdering av miljömålen 2019. Stockholm: Swedish Environment Protection Agency.
Shmelev, S. (ed.). 2017. Green economy reader. Dordrecht: Springer.
Steg, L., and C. Vlek. 2009. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research Agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology 29: 309–317.
Stirling, A., and J. Coburn. 2018. From CBA to precautionary appraisal. In Governance of emerging technologies, ed. E. Kaebnick and M.K. Gusmano. Hoboken: Hastings Center Special Report.
Thelander, J., and J. Lundgren. 1989. Nedräkning pågår. Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.
Tynkkynen, N. 2017. The Baltic Sea environment and the European Union: Analysis of governance barriers. Marine Policy 81: 124–131.
UNEP. 2018. Emissions gap report 2018. Nairobi: UNEP.
UNEP. 2019. Global chemicals outlook II. Nairobi: UNEP.
Unruh, G.C. 2000. Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 28: 817–830.
van Asselt, M.B.A., and O. Renn. 2011. Risk governance. Journal of Risk Research 14: 431–449.
van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. 2017. A precauctionary strategy to avoid dangerous climate change is affordable: 12 Reasons. In Green economy reader, ed. S. Shemelev, 265–289. Dordrecht: Springer.
Varjopuro, R., E. Andrulewicz, T. Blenckner, T. Dolch, A.-S. Heiskanen, M. Pihlajamäki, U.S. Brandt, M. Valman, et al. 2014. Coping with persistent environmental problems: Systemic delays in reducing eutrophication of the Baltic Sea. Ecology and Society 19: 48.
Walker, W.E. 2000. Policy analysis: A systematic approach to supporting policymaking in the public sector. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 9: 11–27.
Weible, C.M. 2017. Moving forward and climbing upward: Advancing policy process research. In Theories of the Policy Process, ed. C.M. Weible. Milton: Routledge.
Wijedasa, L.S., J. Jauhiainen, M. Könönen, M. Lampela, H. Vasander, M.C. LeBlanc, S. Evers, T.E.L. Smith, et al. 2017. Denial of long-term issues with agriculture on tropical peatlands will have devastating consequences. Global Change Biology 23: 977–982.
WMO. 2018. Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 2018. Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project–Report 58. Geneva: WMO.
Woutersen, M., M. Beekman, M.E.J. Pronk, A. Muller, J.A. de Knecht, and B.C. Hakkert. 2018. Does REACH provide sufficient information to regulate mutagenic and carcinogenic substances? Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2018.1480351.
