Suchergebnisse

Questions about the future of the energy system in the UK have, in recent years become deeply entangled with a number of previously discrete intellectual, commercial and policy domains. Not least, the emergence of what Hulme (2009) refers to as 'upper-case Climate Change' to distinguish this discourse from the routine dynamics of weather and climate systems, with its imperative massively to reduce global production of greenhouse gases within the next 50-60 years, has added a sense of urgency and a different rationale to underpin future strategies for managing the energy sector than has previously been the case. Each IPCC assessment report has provided stronger justification for the need for action; many governments in the developed world have responded by seizing opportunities to review, redirect and /or renew their energy policies and provide a framework for future investment by the private sector (see, for example, DTI 2003, 2006, 2007) whilst seizing opportunities to benefit from the rapid deployment of technological innovations to support the growth of 'clean energy' systems.

This article argues for a cultural perspective to be brought to bear on studies of climate change risk perception. Developing the "circuit of culture" model, the article maintains that the producers and consumers of media texts are jointly engaged in dynamic, meaning‐making activities that are context‐specific and that change over time. A critical discourse analysis of climate change based on a database of newspaper reports from three U.K. broadsheet papers over the period 1985–2003 is presented. This empirical study identifies three distinct circuits of climate change—1985–1990, 1991–1996, 1997–2003—which are characterized by different framings of risks associated with climate change. The article concludes that there is evidence of social learning as actors build on their experiences in relation to climate change science and policy making. Two important factors in shaping the U.K.'s broadsheet newspapers' discourse on "dangerous" climate change emerge as the agency of top political figures and the dominant ideological standpoints in different newspapers.

Contingent valuation (CV) is a technique for providing estimates of the monetary value of public goods which have no market. The authors consider whether the information provided for the hypothetical market enables respondents to express their 'true' preference for the 'good', or whether their willingness to pay is dependent on the quantity and quality of information provided in the survey. They argue that a cultural perspective in which the CV transaction is viewed as a communicative 'dialogue-at-a-distance' between researchers and respondents through the medium of the CV text provides more insight into the encoding and decoding of the 'good'—in this case an agri-environment policy to enhance nature conservation on an internationally significant wetland in South East England. They argue that, within its own scientific parameters, CV surveys are unable to capture fully all the aspects of the 'good' to be valued. The problem is more acute when the 'good' represents the uncertain outcomes (in terms of landscape and biodiversity) of a policy. Without a complete specification, which may well be an impossibility for environmental 'goods', respondents are able to bring their own readings to their interpretation of the scenario. This means that CV researchers cannot know precisely what 'good' respondents were attempting to 'value'. The authors follow the production of the CV scenario for the valuation of the Pevensey Levels Wildlife Enhancement Scheme; conduct a critical discourse analysis to demonstrate how the linguistic and visual representations inevitably fulfil rhetorical functions; and then present the deliberations of respondents to the CV survey who participated in in-depth discussion groups after completion of the survey.

This paper discusses the methodological development of Deliberative Mapping (DM), a participatory, multi-criteria, option appraisal process that combines a novel approach to the use of quantitative decision analysis techniques with some significant innovations in the field of participatory deliberation. DM is a symmetrical process, engaging "specialists" and "citizens" in the same appraisal process, providing for consistency of framing, mutual inter-linkage and interrogation, and substantial opportunities for face-to-face discussion. Through a detailed case study of organ transplantation options, the paper discusses the steps in DM. The analysis shows that DM is able to elicit and document consensual judgments as well as divergent views by integrating analytic and deliberative components in a transparent, auditable process that creates many opportunities for personal learning, and provides a robust decision-support tool for contested science-policy issues.