oru.sePublications
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Publications (10 of 133) Show all publications
Berglez, P. & Lidskog, R. (2019). Foreign, domestic, and cultural factors in climate change reporting: Swedish media's coverage of wildfires in three continents. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 13(3), 381-394
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Foreign, domestic, and cultural factors in climate change reporting: Swedish media's coverage of wildfires in three continents
2019 (English)In: Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, ISSN 1752-4032, E-ISSN 1752-4040, Vol. 13, no 3, p. 381-394Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This study examines domestic media’s coverage of foreign wildfires from a climate change perspective. It explores Swedish newspapers’ coverage of wildfires in Australia, the Mediterranean region and the USA during a three-year period (February 2013–March 2016), focusing on how and to what extent climate change is viewed as an underlying cause. A central result is that climate change is mentioned far more often in the case of Australian wildfires than of fires in the other two regions. Another finding is that the climate change issue became more prominent after a severe domestic wildfire in 2014. These observations are also examined qualitatively through a combined frame and discourse study where the importance of foreign news values, the use of foreign sources, cultural proximity/distance, and domestication procedures are analyzed. In conclusion, foreign, domestic, and cultural factors in climate change reporting in relation to extreme events are further discussed.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Routledge, 2019
Keywords
Wildfires, climate change, media, news values, culture, framing
National Category
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology) Media Studies
Research subject
Media and Communication Studies; Sociology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-63070 (URN)10.1080/17524032.2017.1397040 (DOI)000462242000009 ()2-s2.0-85038026905 (Scopus ID)
Projects
Risk governance, legitimacy and social learning in the handling of the forest fire in Västmanland
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas
Available from: 2017-12-07 Created: 2017-12-07 Last updated: 2019-06-19Bibliographically approved
Gustafsson, K. M., Berg, M., Lidskog, R. & Löfmarck, E. (2019). Intersectional boundary work in socializing new experts: The case of IPBES. Ecosystems and people, 15(1), 181-191
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Intersectional boundary work in socializing new experts: The case of IPBES
2019 (English)In: Ecosystems and people, ISSN 2639-5908, Vol. 15, no 1, p. 181-191Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Expert organizations are often described as facilitators of the interactions between science and policy. In managing this boundary, they must also manage other boundaries, such as those between different knowledge systems and between different categories of actors. However, how this intersectional boundary work is performed, and what it implies, is still unexplored territory. Focusing on the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), this study contributes knowledge on the intersectionality of boundary work and how it influences the production of global policy-relevant knowledge. This is done by examining how IPBES socializes junior experts to become senior experts. This socialization process makes a number of norms and ideals visible and enables an analysis of how the know- how of boundary work is passed forward from one generation of experts to the next. The study analyzes three boundaries: between senior and junior experts, between science and policy, and between scientific knowledge and indigenous and local knowledge. The findings show how intersectional boundary work is crucial in the creation of expert organizations and policy-relevant knowledge. In the case of IPBES, this study shows how the institutionalization of the organization unintentionally has created restrictions for the boundary work between different knowledge systems.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2019
Keywords
Boundary work, IPBES, socialization, experts, science-policy, indigenous knowledge, local knowledge
National Category
Sociology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-74975 (URN)10.1080/26395916.2019.1628105 (DOI)
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas
Available from: 2019-07-03 Created: 2019-07-03 Last updated: 2019-07-10Bibliographically approved
Lidskog, R., Johansson, J. & Sjödin, D. (2019). Wildfires, responsibility and trust: public understanding of Sweden’s largest wildfire. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Wildfires, responsibility and trust: public understanding of Sweden’s largest wildfire
2019 (English)In: Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, ISSN 0282-7581, E-ISSN 1651-1891Article in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

Wildfires present a growing risk to many countries, and climate change is likely to exacerbate this risk. This study analyzes how people directly affected by a wildfire understand its causes and consequences, as well as the future risk of wildfires. The point of departure is that social understanding of wildfires has an important influence on the consequences that emerge in the wake of a wildfire. The empirical case analyzed here is the largest forest fire in modern Swedish history, and the material basis of the study is a postal survey to all individuals directly affected by the fire. The results revealed a complex picture of the respondents’ understanding of the wildfire. Even if the fire was human caused, there was little blame toward forest companies and fire departments. Many positive consequences, such as a long-term increase in biodiversity, were attached to the disaster, and there was a belief that organizations will learn from it and take action to limit wildfires in the future. Simultaneously, the majority of the respondents believed that climate change may lead to an increased risk of forest fires in the future. These findings illustrate the complexity of people's perceptions of the fire and its aftermath.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2019
Keywords
Forest fire, disaster, climate change, trust, extreme weather, accountability, risk
National Category
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology) Forest Science Social Sciences Interdisciplinary
Research subject
Sociology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-73369 (URN)10.1080/02827581.2019.1598483 (DOI)000464310400001 ()
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas, 2014-1875
Available from: 2019-03-27 Created: 2019-03-27 Last updated: 2019-06-20Bibliographically approved
Gustafsson, K. M. & Lidskog, R. (2018). Boundary organizations and environmental governance: Performance, institutional design, and conceptual development. Climate Risk Management, 19, 1-11
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Boundary organizations and environmental governance: Performance, institutional design, and conceptual development
2018 (English)In: Climate Risk Management, E-ISSN 2212-0963, Vol. 19, p. 1-11Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The concept boundary organization has been introduced to identify and explain a specific way of organizing the interface between science and policy. Although the original meaning of the concept has been criticized, the term has come to be frequently used in studies of knowledge transfer and science-policy relations. This usage constitutes the reason for this paper, which investigates how the concept of boundary organization has come to be used and defined and explores its contribution to the discussion of the organization of the science-policy interplay. The analysis finds that despite its spread and usage, the concept boundary organization does not refer to any specific form of organization and does not per se give any guidance about how to organize science-policy interplay. Instead, boundary organization is mainly used as an empirical label when studying the governance of expertise and the management of science-policy interfaces. This finding is also true for studies of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which describe that organization as a boundary organization without saying anything about what that label means in terms of institutional design and practical implications. However, to label an organization as a boundary organization nevertheless works performatively; it shapes an organization’s identity, may provide legitimacy, and can also stabilize the interactions between it and other organizations. Therefore, boundary organization is an important concept, but primarily as a way to facilitate interaction. Thus, the focus of research should be on analyzing how the concept is used and what its implications are for the organization studied.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2018
Keywords
Boundary organization; Science-policy interface; Institutional design; Hybrid management; IPCC
National Category
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology)
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-62918 (URN)10.1016/j.crm.2017.11.001 (DOI)000429589000001 ()2-s2.0-85036504015 (Scopus ID)
Funder
Swedish Research Council
Available from: 2017-12-01 Created: 2017-12-01 Last updated: 2018-11-09Bibliographically approved
Klapwijk, M. J., Boberg, J., Bergh, J., Bishop, K., Björkman, C., Ellison, D., . . . Mårald, E. (2018). Capturing complexity: Forests, decision-making and climate change mitigation action. Global Environmental Change, 52, 238-247
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Capturing complexity: Forests, decision-making and climate change mitigation action
Show others...
2018 (English)In: Global Environmental Change, ISSN 0959-3780, E-ISSN 1872-9495, Vol. 52, p. 238-247Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Managed forests can play an important role in climate change mitigation due to their capacity to sequester carbon. However, it has proven difficult to harness their full potential for climate change mitigation. Managed forests are often referred to as socio-ecological systems as the human dimension is an integral part of the system. When attempting to change systems that are influenced by factors such as collective knowledge, social organization, understanding of the situation and values represented in society, initial intentions often shift due to the complexity of political, social and scientific interactions. Currently, the scientific literature is dispersed over the different factors related to the socio-ecological system. To examine the level of dispersion and to obtain a holistic view, we review climate change mitigation in the context of Swedish forest research. We introduce a heuristic framework to understand decision-making connected to climate change mitigation. We apply our framework to two themes which span different dimensions in the socio-ecological system: carbon accounting and bioenergy. A key finding in the literature was the perception that current uncertainties regarding the reliability of different methods of carbon accounting inhibits international agreement on the use of forests for climate change mitigation. This feeds into a strategic obstacle affecting the willingness of individual countries to implement forest-related carbon emission reduction policies. Decisions on the utilization of forests for bioenergy are impeded by a lack of knowledge regarding the resultant biophysical and social consequences. This interacts negatively with the development of institutional incentives regarding the production of bioenergy using forest products. Normative disagreement about acceptable forest use further affects these scientific discussions and therefore is an over-arching influence on decision-making. With our framework, we capture this complexity and make obstacles to decision-making more transparent to enable their more effective resolution. We have identified the main research areas concerned with the use of managed forest in climate change mitigation and the obstacles that are connected to decision making.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2018
Keywords
Adaptation, Forest industry, Forestry, Global change, Governance, Socio-ecological system, adaptive management, bioenergy, carbon emission, carbon sequestration, climate change, complexity, decision making, emission control, forest ecosystem, governance approach, international agreement, pollution policy, strategic approach, Sweden
National Category
Agricultural Science, Forestry and Fisheries Ecology Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology) Political Science (excluding Public Administration Studies and Globalisation Studies)
Research subject
Sociology; Biologi med ekologisk inriktning; Enviromental Science; Political Science
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-69678 (URN)10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.07.012 (DOI)000449444900022 ()2-s2.0-85051138787 (Scopus ID)
Funder
Mistra - The Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research
Note

Funding Agencies:

Swedish Forestry Industry  

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU)  

Umeå University  

Forestry Research Institute of Sweden 

Available from: 2018-10-18 Created: 2018-10-18 Last updated: 2018-11-29Bibliographically approved
Boström, M., Andersson, E., Berg, M., Gustafsson, K. M., Gustavsson, E., Hysing, E., . . . Öhman, J. (2018). Conditions for Transformative Learning for Sustainable Development: A Theoretical Review and Approach. Sustainability, 10(12), Article ID 4479.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Conditions for Transformative Learning for Sustainable Development: A Theoretical Review and Approach
Show others...
2018 (English)In: Sustainability, ISSN 2071-1050, E-ISSN 2071-1050, Vol. 10, no 12, article id 4479Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Continued unsustainability and surpassed planetary boundaries require not only scientific and technological advances, but deep and enduring social and cultural changes. The purpose of this article is to contribute a theoretical approach to understand conditions and constraints for societal change towards sustainable development. In order to break with unsustainable norms, habits, practices, and structures, there is a need for learning for transformation, not only adaption. Based on a critical literature review within the field of learning for sustainable development, our approach is a development of the concept of transformative learning, by integrating three additional dimensions—Institutional Structures, Social Practices, and Conflict Perspectives. This approach acknowledges conflicts on macro, meso, and micro levels, as well as structural and cultural constraints. It contends that transformative learning is processual, interactional, long-term, and cumbersome. It takes place within existing institutions and social practices, while also transcending them. The article adopts an interdisciplinary social science perspective that acknowledges the importance of transformative learning in order for communities, organizations, and individuals to be able to deal with global sustainability problems, acknowledging the societal and personal conflicts involved in such transformation.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
MDPI, 2018
Keywords
conflict, institutional, learning, social change, social practice, structure, transformative
National Category
Sociology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-70403 (URN)10.3390/su10124479 (DOI)000455338100145 ()2-s2.0-85057440663 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2018-12-03 Created: 2018-12-03 Last updated: 2019-01-29Bibliographically approved
Berg, M. & Lidskog, R. (2018). Deliberative democracy meets democratised science: a deliberative systems approach to global environmental governance. Environmental Politics, 27(1), 1-20
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Deliberative democracy meets democratised science: a deliberative systems approach to global environmental governance
2018 (English)In: Environmental Politics, ISSN 0964-4016, E-ISSN 1743-8934, Vol. 27, no 1, p. 1-20Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The main achievements of the debates on deliberative democracy and democratised science are investigated in order to analyse the reasons, meanings and prospects for a democratisation of global environmental policy. A deliberative systems approach, which emphasises the need to explore how processes in societal spheres interact to shape the deliberative qualities of the system as a whole, is adopted. Although science plays a key role in this, its potential to enhance deliberative capacity has hardly been addressed in deliberative theories. The democratisation of science has potential to contribute to the democratisation of global environmental policy, in that it also shapes the potential of deliberative arrangements in the policy sphere. Deliberative arrangements within the policy sphere may stimulate the democratisation of science to different degrees.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Routledge, 2018
Keywords
Global environmental governance, deliberative democracy, democratised science, science and technology studies, deliberative systems approach
National Category
Environmental Sciences Political Science (excluding Public Administration Studies and Globalisation Studies)
Research subject
Sociology; Political Science
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-59410 (URN)10.1080/09644016.2017.1371919 (DOI)000415796700001 ()2-s2.0-85028561738 (Scopus ID)
Funder
Swedish Research Council
Available from: 2017-08-29 Created: 2017-08-29 Last updated: 2018-01-13Bibliographically approved
Lidskog, R. & Sundqvist, G. (2018). Environmental expertise (1ed.). In: Magnus Boström & Debra J. Davidson (Ed.), Environment and Society: Concepts and Challenges (pp. 167-186). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Environmental expertise
2018 (English)In: Environment and Society: Concepts and Challenges / [ed] Magnus Boström & Debra J. Davidson, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018, 1, p. 167-186Chapter in book (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

This chapter elaborates a sociological understanding of environmental expertise. The background is that expertise is a frequently used concept in environmental discussions as well as in environmental research but is rarely defined in any deeper sense. By drawing on findings from Science and Technology Studies (STS), this chapter develops an understanding of expertise that is both about having skills and competence and having a social position within a specific domain, i.e. being about epistemic as well as social dimensions. This means that there is no expertise per se but different practices of expertise. Thus, the importance of expertise should not be taken for granted but rather investigated. This understanding is illustrated by examples from the climate change issue.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018 Edition: 1
Series
Palgrave Studies in Environmental Sociology and Policy
National Category
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology)
Research subject
Sociology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-68445 (URN)10.1007/978-3-319-76415-3 (DOI)978-3-319-76414-6 (ISBN)978-3-319-76415-3 (ISBN)
Available from: 2018-08-13 Created: 2018-08-13 Last updated: 2018-08-13Bibliographically approved
Lidskog, R. & Sundqvist, G. (2018). Environmental Expertise as Group Belonging: Environmental Sociology Meets Science and Technology Studies. Nature and Culture, 13(3), 309-331
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Environmental Expertise as Group Belonging: Environmental Sociology Meets Science and Technology Studies
2018 (English)In: Nature and Culture, ISSN 1558-6073, E-ISSN 1558-5468, Vol. 13, no 3, p. 309-331Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

What is environmental expertise? The background to this question is that many scholars consider environmental expertise crucial for discovering, diagnosing, and solving environmental problems but do not discuss in any depth what constitutes expertise. By investigating the meaning and use of the concept of expertise in three general theories within environmental sociology—the treadmill of production, risk society, and ecological modernization—and findings from science and technology studies (STS), this article develops a sociological understanding of environmental expertise: what it is and how it is acquired. Environmental expertise is namely about group belonging and professional socialization around specialized skills; that is, it concerns both substantial competence and social recognition. The implications of this general view on expertise are then used to enrich theories in environmental sociology.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Berghahn Journals, 2018
Keywords
Ecological modernization, environmental expertise, environmental sociology, risk society, scientism, science and technology studies, treadmill of production
National Category
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology)
Research subject
Sociology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-69851 (URN)10.3167/nc.2018.130301 (DOI)000447594000001 ()
Available from: 2018-10-25 Created: 2018-10-25 Last updated: 2018-11-01Bibliographically approved
Díaz Reviriego, I., Beck, S., Darbi, M., Hauck, J., Hudson, C., Janz, C., . . . Neßhöver, C. (2018). Five years of IPBES : Reflecting the achievements and challenges and identifying needs for its review towards a 2nd work programme.  . Leipzig, Germany: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ)
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Five years of IPBES : Reflecting the achievements and challenges and identifying needs for its review towards a 2nd work programme. 
Show others...
2018 (English)Report (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

On 17 to 19th October 2017, twenty-four academics and practitioners with diverse inter- and transdisciplinary experiences gathered for a workshop to collectively reflect on IPBES’ work and performance. The workshop was held at the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) in Leipzig. The workshop and this report represent an effort to proactively contribute to IPBES’ ongoing (external) review process. The external review process opens up a window of opportunity towards re-thinking the very purpose of IPBES and identifying new pathways to live up to its initial ambitions, such as to move beyond assessments. The workshop identified a spectrum of potential opportunities, provided visions for the future work of IPBES, and collected insights into how to cope with them. While the workshop focussed on identifying future challenges and possible solutions, all participants underlined the great achievements that IPBES has already accomplished. This report provides a synthesis of the workshop discussions. The main recommendations for the external review were:

 - The external review should seize the opportunity to establish itself in a responsive and future-oriented way so that it not only assesses past performance but also facilitates learning and identifies new pathways for IPBES. It is important that the focus of the review is not just on the extent to which IPBES has fulfilled its ambitions but also on the efficiency with which it has done this, and on the potential unintended effects of decisions.

 - For IPBES to achieve its initial ambitions, strengthening the (mainly global-scale) scientific knowledge base behind assessments is necessary but not yet sufficient. To meet its broader set of goals, it is required to pay critical attention to all aspects of policy support, knowledge generation and capacity-building, including the meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities and the incorporation of local and indigenous knowledge. This will require building synergies between knowledge systems, promoting the engagement of the social sciences and humanities, and addressing current challenges in the nomination and selection procedures for the identification of experts.

 - The external review also opens up space to identify a full range of alternative options and choices that are available when reforming IPBES. The review should engage in real-world dialogues and liaise closely with partners from research, policy and practice as well as with national platforms and local actors.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Leipzig, Germany: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), 2018. p. 16
National Category
Social Sciences Sociology
Research subject
Sociology; Political Science; Social and Economic Geography
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-68449 (URN)
Note

http://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=38006

Available from: 2018-08-13 Created: 2018-08-13 Last updated: 2018-08-14Bibliographically approved
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0001-6735-0011

Search in DiVA

Show all publications