To Örebro University

This study explores the nature and significance of a crucial form of global environmental expertise: that which relates to conducting global environmental assessments with the aim of influencing decision-making. Drawing on the theory of expertise, which conceptualizes expertise as a social position defined by epistemic practice, this study focuses on expertise in the context of global environmental challenges—particularly relating to climate change and the IPCC—highlighting the expertise required to address this kind of complex and multifaceted issue. This type of expertise allows for a synthesis of the current state of environmental challenges, the proposal of options for action, and communication of these findings to decision-makers and society at large. This expertise shapes knowledge that is much broader than a single disciplinary field, encompassing both ecological and social dynamics, and allows for the development of recommendations for action. This study finds that such expertise embodies a distinct epistemic practice with four key characteristics that distinguish it from more narrowly defined forms of expertise and introduces the term “mega-expertise” to capture the character and position of this kind of expertise. This study concludes by reflecting on the broader implications of this form of expertise, considering its relationship to more traditional, disciplinary scientific expertise.

Environmental expertise is a frequently used concept in environmental discussions and in environmental research. It is often seen as crucial for environmental policy-making and environmental discourses. Through its competence, authority and mandate, expertise offers guidance to organizations and individuals concerning how to understand, address and manage environmental issues. At the same time, expertise is often questioned; its capacity to deliver both trustworthy and relevant knowledge is contested. This entry discusses the meaning of expertise, both the social and epistemic base for becoming an expert and the importance it has. Environmental expertise is a key concept for environmental sociology but, at the same time, is a concept that needs to be further elaborated and studied.

The gap between what is known about climate change and the action taken to prevent it has instigated debates around how to reconfigure global environmental assessment organizations to better inform and foster transformative change. One recurring request involves the need for a broader and better inclusion of social scientific knowledge. However, despite such intentions, the inclusion of social scientific research remains limited. How can this be explained? Through a detailed analysis of the IPCC special report on limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees, this article reveals how the institutional conditions of global environmental assessments condition and shape what knowledge is included in these assessments, as well as how this knowledge is represented. It discusses how and why the understanding of social processes and structures remains underdeveloped, despite such knowledge being critical for transformative change. To integrate such knowledge into environmental assessments would require substantial changes to the current epistemic infrastructure used by global environmental assessments. It is therefore time to think beyond global environmental assessments and consider complementary institutional science–policy relations through which social scientific research can assist policy actions to promote deep transformative change.

This article discusses “academic housekeeping” undertaken within IPCC, understood as the work that is rarely made visible or rewarded, but is nevertheless essential to the success of the organization. It explores the conditions, motivations, and implications for individual researchers involved in the IPCC, with particular emphasis on the invisible, un(der)recognised and unrewarded work they engage in. The empirical material consists of aninterview study of researchers involved in the IPCC assessment work. The article concludes with a discussion on the implications of unrewarded work for individual experts,expert organisations, and academic institutions.

Using the Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (RVA) as a lens, this study examines the making of risk communication in Swedish municipalities by comparing two central professions in this work, safety and communication. Sweden's decentralised responsibility for risk preparedness means that municipalities are given a central role in promoting increased preparedness among residents and local actors. However, there is little guidance on how to organise the work and how to coordinate between the different professions involved. Municipal officials are tasked with developing strategies to implement national policies, including conducting and communicating RVA. The study is comparing two central professions in Swedish municipalities' risk communication, safety, and communication, to analyse their views on central tasks and perceptions of their practice. The theoretical approach is based on risk communication and institutional theory, and the empirical material consists of an interview study with both safety and communication officers (N = 36). The findings reveal that while both professional logics are active in municipal risk communication, interactions, and negotiations between them are somewhat limited. The organisational structure of the RVA favours the logic of safety officers, which has implications for how risk communication is made in practice. The article concludes by discussing what effect this may have on preparedness.

In Sweden, municipalities and municipal planning are central to the government’s preparedness for climate-related risks, as municipalities are the organizations that will largely have to adapt to and prepare for climate change. However, there is little government guidance in the form of clearly formulated policies, policy objectives, and detailed regulations to support municipalities in this work. In practice, municipal officials are tasked with developing climate preparedness, including facilitating citizen awareness of the need to prepare for climate-related risks. By exploring the local level of Swedish public administration, which in practice has to deal with different and sometimes divergent understandings of a situation and who should manage it, the paper explores the implications of officials’ meaning-making about local risk governance. An exploratory approach to risk governance and meaning-making rationality is used to examine Swedish municipal officials’ views of citizens’ climate crisis preparedness and the motives and barriers they perceive the citizens to have in developing this preparedness. An interview study is conducted with 23 officials in 5 municipalities. Based on the results, the paper discusses the implications of the perception that citizens have no constructive role to play in the work to better prepare municipalities for climate change. The paper concludes by discussing how officials’ meaning-making rationality needs to be addressed in the development of robust climate preparedness.

The theory of reflexive modernization asserts that society has entered a new and radicalized form of modernity, in which the original institutions and social boundaries that characterise modern society are dissolving. One of the most prominent thinkers on this theory is Ulrich Beck, who in his book Risk Society claims that we are witnessing a social transformation that is as great as that when industrial society replaced feudal society. While industrial society was centred around the production and distribution of wealth, risk society is centred around the production and distribution of risks. These risks are human-caused, severe, transboundary and uncontrollable by early modern institutions and have therefore become a driving force in changing society. The theory of reflexive modernization and the notion of risk society have been vividly discussed in environmental sociology. Today, it is an established and well-referenced theory in environmental sociology as well as in risk sociology and social theory.

Reflexivity and its counterpart— anti-reflexivity— are key concepts in environmental sociology. Reflexivity and similar concepts are presented as means for taking constructive steps towards sustainability in face of the often wicked nature (complex, uncertain, dynamic, value-laden, dilemmatic, ambivalent) of socio-ecological problems and risks. Anti-reflexivity is the suppressing or resisting of reflexivity. This entry discusses definitions of reflexivity, anti-reflexivity and related concepts based on key scholarly work in environmental sociology. From this field of research, reflexivity— or its absence/resistance— is discussed with regards to the system or macro level (society at large, state apparatus, the scientific field or general discourses in the public sphere), the process level (governance networks, decision-making processes), or at the level of individual and collective choices of action (consumption/lifestyle choices, social movements).

While there has been much discussion about what kind of expertise the IPCC needs to develop to (better) guide climate policy, little has been said about how the experts themselves assess the challenges of making science policy-relevant. The paper aims to address this gap by exploring how leading IPCC experts reflect on and evaluate their work. The empirical material consists of an interview study with experts currently or recently involved in the IPCC. The selection strategy aimed to achieve a broad range of experience among those with key roles in the assessment work, including experts from all three working groups, from different regions, and of different genders. Data from the interviews was analyzed thematically using NVivo. The concept of boundary work was used to analyze the distinctions and boundaries in this work; how the IPCC experts draw boundaries between science and policy, between policy-relevance and policy-prescriptiveness, and between certain and uncertain knowledge. By analyzing the experts’ own experiences and ideas about what makes science relevant to policy-making, the paper contributes to the discussion about current and future challenges for the IPCC.