Suchergebnisse

Taylor & Francis The changing political environment in Hong Kong is likely to accelerate the transition in environmental policy discourse. Opportunities for critical public involvement are increasing and new environmental discourses are emerging. Yet, previous social surveys did not explore the range of these discourses and few focused on climate change. The paper outlines the public discourses of climate change in Hong Kong. Using Q-methodology, four distinctive discourses were identified, namely Pure Environmentalism, Political Pragmatism, Popular Optimism, and Fair Rationalism. While the first one is climate-centric, the other three are political or social in nature and do not indicate a clear or coherent climate orientation. This suggests that the climate change concern of the Hong Kong public is not tightly embedded into a coherent narrative of social and institutional transformation. Effective climate change governance and policies require strengthening the link between such concern and the public desires for social and institutional transformation. Bringing together the ongoing social movements and environmental campaigns will be instrumental to nurture an active climate citizenry. ; postprint

Many recent planning decisions, such as planned retreat of coastal settlements from the sea, are premised upon the scientific consensus that climate change is real. Not all local residents accept forced relocation, and some hold a radical form of rights-based belief that is hostile to government intervention into private arenas. This 'deontological libertarian' belief is related to a sceptical view of climate science. Data from an Australian survey are employed to demonstrate that climate scepticism is associated with the tendency to see private-property rights as a fundamental entitlement irredeemable in the prospect of forced retreat, regardless of compensation. The sceptical view has defensible normative elements constructed upon the framework of inviolable rights also underpinning recognised environmental and development imperatives. Appealing to absolute rights generally may be an effective way to approach the sceptical public. Rights offer a generalisable framework in which sceptics which they can see how their non-sceptical counterparts are similarly situated despite expressing a different policy preference. Although consensus is not guaranteed, communication can proceed more easily by making a common ontological terrain explicit. © 2014 Taylor & Francis. ; postprint

AbstractMany Queenslanders who were affected by the severe flood events in 2011 failed to recover their losses. Arrangements for flood insurance are under federal reviews in response to mounting public pressure. Against this backdrop, a household survey was conducted to solicit residents' preferences. The majority of interviewed residents favoured optional purchase of flood insurance. Non‐insurance was associated with expectations of liberal assistance, indicating the possibility of 'moral hazard'. Willingness to pay for flood insurance was related to social influence. The non‐insured households would spend more if they expected positive responses from people around. Attempts to reduce non‐insurance should address aspects of social influence.

As a political institution, open deliberation on public policy can enhance legitimacy and procedural justice. As a science, decision-aiding deliberative procedures can help overcome bounded rationality of individuals. Integrating the two modes of inquiry would be perfect for capturing the plural values of the environment. However, the analytic requirements seem to point in a different direction from the political ideals. Legitimacy problems arise when the supposedly unconstrained process is professionally 'guided'. But rigorous decision aids fail to work without some degree of cognitive guidance. A trend in ecosystems valuation research is the use of analytic techniques in the deliberative processes of value articulation. In this paper an analytic – deliberative approach is assessed against a deliberative democracy theory. This approach seeks to facilitate deliberation within individuals and to engineer preference towards instrumental rationality. The evaluative framework allows predetermination of the range of outcomes. Little room has been made for value debates, thus the moral need for actual discussion is weak. Being expert centred, the framework provides constricted spaces for empowerment. Alternative expressions unintelligible to the science may be put at a disadvantage. The scope for a reflexive democratic institution appears limited. A promising deliberative valuation approach should be integrative, including analytic and political elements as complementary to each other, and should be democratic in its production.

AbstractMonetary valuation of urban green space using stated‐preference approaches has gained prominence among pragmatic urban researchers, but the resultant reduced potential for value pluralism has gone unnoticed. There is confusion on value concepts. Public‐social values have been treated as private‐economic ones. The potential for reflecting the multiple values and social roles of urban nature is thus reduced. Being method‐driven, the practice fails to relate to the claimed objective of comprehensively portraying it. There is inadequate understanding of the philosophy and psychology of the values associated with urban green space, despite its multi‐faceted role being widely recognized. This results in an unreflective acceptance of economic techniques. More work is needed to clarify issues concerning the manifestation and theoretical foundation of value pluralism. Deliberative approaches may be a potential complementary or alternative valuation method.RésuméL'évaluation monétaire de l'espace vert urbain à l'aide de modèles basés sur les préférences déclarées a pris de l'importance chez les auteurs pragmatiques de la recherche urbaine, mais le fait qu'elle affaiblit le potentiel du pluralisme des valeurs est passé inaperçu. Les concepts de valeur se mélangent. Les valeurs publiques sociales ont été traitées comme des valeurs privées économiques. La capacité de refléter les multiples valeurs et rôles sociaux de la nature urbaine a donc été réduite. La pratique, mue par la méthode, ne rejoint pas l'objectif exprimé de représenter intégralement cet espace. Bien que les différentes facettes de son rôle soient généralement reconnues, il se crée une compréhension inadéquate de la philosophie et de la psychologie des valeurs associées à l'espace vert urbain. C'est ainsi que les techniques économiques sont acceptées sans discernement. Il faut envisager d'autres études pour clarifier les aspects liés à la manifestation et au fondement théorique du pluralisme des valeurs. Des approches délibératives pourraient constituer une méthode d'évaluation complémentaire ou alternative.