Cartography of pathways: A new model for environmental policy assessments

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.03.017

Environmental Science & Policy

Volume 51, August 2015, Pages 56-64

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.03.017 Get rights and content

Highlights

•
Environmental assessments require refined guidance for value-laden policy analysis.
•
Different disciplines may jointly identify practical consequences of policy means.
•
They should map alternative policy pathways, potential overlaps and trade-offs.
•
Policy objectives are to be revised if policy means have severe side-effects.
•
Assessments could foster learning processes about viable policy paths.

Abstract

How can assessments of environmental policy issues be policy-relevant without being policy-prescriptive? The predominant technocratic and decisionist responses to this question misleadingly assume that value-neutral scientific recommendations for public policy means, or even objectives, are possible. On the other end of the spectrum, the literature on democratic and pragmatic models of expertise in policy often does not satisfactorily explain what researchers can contribute to public discourses surrounding disputed, value-laden policy objectives and means. Building on John Dewey's philosophy, this article develops the “pragmatic-enlightened model” (PEM) of assessment making, which refines the existing pragmatic models. It is used to some extent by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. According to the PEM's policy assessment methodology, policy objectives and their means can only be evaluated in light of the practical consequences of the means. Learning about the secondary effects, side effects and synergies of the best means may require a revaluation of the policy objectives, for instance, regarding the use of bioenergy for climate mitigation. Following the PEM, assessments would—based on a thorough problem analysis—explore alternative policy pathways, including their diverse practical consequences, overlaps and trade-offs, in cooperation with stakeholders. Such an arduous interdisciplinary cartography of multiple objectives, multi-functional policy means and the broad range of their quantitative and qualitative practical consequences may face considerable practical challenges and uncertainty. Yet, it could make assessments more policy-relevant and less prescriptive, and could effectively support a learning process about the political solution space.

Section snippets

Introduction: environmental assessments require a refined orientation

For the guidance of global, large-scale scientific assessments of complex environmental issues, such as, for instance, the assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Global Environment Outlook (GEO) series by the United Nations Environment Programme, the criteria of policy-relevance, legitimacy and credibility seem widely accepted. However, these criteria are hard to achieve in practice, at least simultaneously; this is due to the many significant trade-offs and

Theory: the interdependency of objectives and means

Understanding the interdependency of policy objectives, means and consequences (supplementary material A.2 explains these three terms in more detail) is key for the development of a refined pragmatic model as more appropriate guidance for assessments. It helps develop a compelling methodological idea for how environmental policy objectives and means—given the inevitably implied ethical values—can actually be assessed by researchers in a scientifically sound and reliable manner. The analysis of

Result: the pragmatic-enlightened model of assessment making

Building on this pragmatist theory of how policy objectives and means can be scientifically evaluated, let us now refine the promising pragmatic model of scientific expertise in policy. This will result in the pragmatic-enlightened model (PEM). In the following, we sketch the structure of a PEM-guided assessment that comprises several stages and that is an echo of standard policy process models (e.g., Dunn, 2012).

The first stage is the comprehensive analysis and definition of the policy problem

Towards application

Superficially, the PEM claims may seem to be widely shared, just combining the strengths of the prevalent approaches: (1) evaluating both policy objectives and policy means in scientific assessments, and analyzing their costs and benefits (technocratic model); (2) avoiding policy-prescription (decisionist model); (3) and including stakeholders (pragmatic model). This implies that at least some PEM elements seem robust and are not confined to the proponents of pragmatist philosophy. However, the

Conclusion

This article developed the PEM as a model for solution-oriented, large-scale environmental assessments. The basic claims of the PEM may possibly also be interesting for other formats of scientific expertise in policy. According to the PEM, researchers, along with stakeholders, act as the “cartographers” of different, viable policy pathways and their practical consequences by acting as the “mapmakers” of the political solution space. They provide a guidebook with alternative options for

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Christian Flachsland, Michael Pahle, Eva Schmid, Jan Minx, Marcel Dorsch, Pauline Riousset and Jennifer Garard for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article, and Ashley Renders for editing.

References (31)

D. Sarewitz
How science makes environmental controversies worse
Environ. Sci. Policy
(2004)
B. Siebenhüner
The changing role of nation states in international environmental assessments: the case of the IPCC
Global Environ. Change
(2003)
J.P. van der Sluijs et al.
Beyond consensus: reflections from a democratic perspective on the interaction between climate politics and science
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.
(2010)
M.B. Brown
Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation
(2009)
D.W. Cash et al.
Knowledge systems for sustainable development
PNAS
(2003)
J. Dewey
Logic: the theory of inquiry
J. Dewey
Theory of valuation
H. Douglas
Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal
(2009)
W.N. Dunn
Public Policy Analysis
(2012)
O. Edenhofer
Our role as cartographers of the global solution space

O. Edenhofer et al.

Mapmakers and navigators, facts and values

Perspect. Sci.

(2014)

J. Habermas

Toward a Rational Society

(1971)

D.W. Hands

Reflection Without Rules: Economic Methodology and Contemporary Science Theory

(2001)

M. Hulme

Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity

(2009)

IPCC

Cited by (125)

Communication in the science-policy interface: Evidence from a boundary organization in Nebraska, USA
2023, Environmental Science and Policy
Boundary organizations have a crucial function in environmental governance by facilitating the processes through which scientists and decision-makers generate, exchange, evaluate, and utilize knowledge to identify societal problems, propose potential solutions, and make decisions on appropriate courses of action. This support for evidence-informed decision making is essential in addressing environmental challenges effectively. Despite the growing popularity of boundary organizations, there remains a significant challenge in designing information dissemination platforms to bridge the communication divide between scientific experts and non-experts. To address this gap, we used natural language processing tools to analyze the communication strategies of a specific boundary organization – the Nebraska Water Center – and examined how these strategies evolved over time to address relevant water policy issues in the state. We identified three prominent topics in the Center’s periodicals between 1970 and 2018: policy and planning, water quality and quantity, and public engagement and workforce development. The prevalence of each topic changed over time, reflecting changes in both federal and state legislative priorities and subsequent responses from the scientific community. Our results also demonstrate how boundary organizations can design information exchange platforms that consider perspectives and needs of not only scientists and policymakers but also more diverse groups of actors. These findings are critical for developing strategies for bridging science and policy in environmental governance.
Plausibility in models and fiction: What integrated assessment modellers can learn from an interaction with climate fiction
2023, Futures
Integrated assessment models (IAMs) are critical tools to explore possible pathways to a low-carbon future. By simulating complex interactions between social and climatic processes, they help policymakers to systematically compare mitigation policies. However, their authoritative projections of cost-effective and technically feasible pathways restrict more transformative low-carbon imaginaries, especially because IAM pathways are often understood in terms of probability rather than plausibility. We suggest an interaction with climate fiction could be helpful to address this situation. Despite fundamental differences, we argue that both IAMs and climate fiction can be seen as practices of storytelling about plausible future worlds. For this exploratory article, we staged conversations between modellers and climate fiction writers to compare their respective processes of storytelling and the content of both their stories and story-worlds, focusing specifically on how they build plausibility. Whereas modellers rely on historical observations, expert judgment, transparency and rationality to build plausibility, fiction writers build plausibility by engaging with readers’ life worlds and experience, concreteness and emotionally meaningful details. Key similarities were that both modellers and fiction writers work with what-if questions, a causally connected story and build their stories through an iterative process. Based on this comparison, we suggest that an interaction between IAMs and climate fiction could be useful for improving the democratic and epistemic qualities of the IAM practice by 1) enabling a more equal dialogue between modellers and societal actors on plausible futures and 2) critically reflecting upon and broadening the spectrum of plausible futures provided by IAMs.
Reviewing the sociotechnical dynamics of carbon removal
2023, Joule
In recent years, carbon removal and associated net-zero energy technologies have emerged as serious options for policymakers and scientists to consider when trying to address climate change. How, where, and when to use these options effectively are, however, polemic, and research examining the social or justice dimensions of deployment—actual or prospective—remains uncommon. This review provides an interdisciplinary and holistic perspective of the sociotechnical dynamics of carbon-removal options. It employs a sociotechnical approach that reveals the different epistemic, economic, technical, social, political, and environmental elements necessary for a net-zero energy transition. In this review, we first summarize seven broad classes of carbon removal—afforestation and reforestation, soil carbon sequestration, marine biomass and blue carbon, direct air capture with carbon storage, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, enhanced weathering, and biochar. The review then explores four critical sociotechnical areas in greater depth: modeling and assessment, social acceptance, innovation and scaling, and policy and governance. We conclude with implications for policy and research.
'Qualculating' a low-carbon future – Assessing the performativity of models in the construction of the French net zero strategy
2023, Futures
The aim underlying the notion of a Net zero 2050 future (NZ 2050) is the achievement of a balance between anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases by sources, and their removals by carbon sinks, by the mid-point of the current century. This paper delves into the relation between numerical modelling and political decisionmaking in the construction of a NZ future, by examining the recent development of the French national low-carbon strategy (SNBC-2) (2016-2018) and related processes. SNBC-2 was the first attempt to put a NZ2050 France, and the path towards it, into a numerical, calculative form. We show that, aside from yielding a collective capacity to quantify farther into the future, one major lesson of the French attempt at representing NZ2050 was that available models for doing so were of limited relevance. The analysis discusses these shortcomings and their implications with regard to the performativity of numerical models in making NZ2050 a doable horizon. Performativity refers to a circular and dynamic relation between modelling and the realm that they aim to represent (here, NZ2050 future). Modelling a future is thus conceived as an algorithmic and relational process, which contributes to the assembly of all the elements that might compose this future, or to bringing about their emergence. Based on the notion, drawn from science and technology studies, of ‘qualculation’ – which understands calculation as a process that is at once qualitative and quantitative, relational and algorithmic – we underline the crucial, but ambiguous role of non-calculative adjustments used to compensate for the calculative limitations of models. We show that these adjustments can potentially lead to both gain and loss in performativity, depending on whether or not the qualculation process makes them explicit and allows them to be collectively remembered and critically discussed. We also argue that calculative limitations and the resulting adjustments show that the relationship between models and policymaking is somewhat more reciprocal than what has been argued in the literature: models do encapsulate a form of politics which they enact, but they also can be challenged and reshaped by the emergence of new political objectives.
Staging science: Dramaturgical politics of the IPCC's Special Report on 1.5 °C
2023, Environmental Science and Policy
The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) first report after the adoption of the Paris Agreement, attracted substantial attention in science, media, and politics. In a climate regime where discursive and symbolic elements are important aspects of climate governance, how the IPCC's products are strategically mobilized and staged provide insights into an important facet of science-policy-politics interfaces. Drawing on a novel analytical framework for dramaturgical governance analysis, this article presents an in-depth case study of the IPCC's SR15. It examines how, where, why, and in front of what audiences it was brought out onto stage. The analysis, based on ethnographic observations at COP24 and COP25, expert interviews, background discussions, and document analysis, shows that the IPCC – now more than ever – is mobilized for different and sometimes contradictory political purposes. Different performance patterns reveal organizational strategies that the IPCC had already used during its sixth assessment cycle to meet the diversifying and increasingly incompatible expectations it is facing. At the same time, the analysis shows that questions about the IPCC’s official mandate and practices of fulfilling and interpreting it, responses to misrepresentation of the report, and the problem of political venue shopping within IPCC processes remain unanswered. The study concludes that the production and performance of global environmental assessments are inextricably linked. In addition to the notion of co-production, future research and efforts to design interfaces between science, policy and politics should therefore put more emphasis on the politics inscribed in practices of co-performance.
Undone science in climate interventions: Contrasting and contesting anticipatory assessments by expert networks
2022, Environmental Science and Policy
In global climate governance, anticipatory assessments map future options and pathways, in light of prospective risks and uncertainties, to inform present-day planning. Using data from 125 interviews, we ask: How are foundational experts contesting the conduct of anticipatory assessment of carbon removal and solar geoengineering – as two emerging but controversial strategies for engaging with climate change and achieving Net Zero targets? We find that efforts at carbon removal and solar geoengineering assessment leverage and challenge systems modeling that has become dominant in mapping and communicating future climate impacts and mitigation strategies via IPCC reports. Both suites of climate intervention have become stress-tests for the capacity of modeling to assess socio-technical strategies with complex, systemic dimensions. Meanwhile, exploring societal dimensions demands new modes of disciplinary expertise, qualitative and deliberative practices, and stakeholder inclusion that modelling processes struggle to incorporate. Finally, we discuss how the patterns of expert contestation identified in our results speak to multiple fault-lines within ongoing debates on reforming global environmental assessments, and highlights key open questions to be addressed.

View all citing articles on Scopus

¹: Both the authors contributed equally to this work and are listed in alphabetical order.

View full text

Cartography of pathways: A new model for environmental policy assessments

Highlights

Abstract

Section snippets

Introduction: environmental assessments require a refined orientation

Theory: the interdependency of objectives and means

Result: the pragmatic-enlightened model of assessment making

Towards application

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Environ. Sci. Policy

Global Environ. Change

Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.

Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation

Knowledge systems for sustainable development

PNAS

Logic: the theory of inquiry

Theory of valuation

Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal

Public Policy Analysis

Our role as cartographers of the global solution space

Mapmakers and navigators, facts and values

Perspect. Sci.

Toward a Rational Society

Reflection Without Rules: Economic Methodology and Contemporary Science Theory

Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity