Book contents
- Environmental Expertise
- Reviews
- Environmental Expertise
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 What Is Science? (And Why Does This Matter?)
- 3 Frames: Beyond Facts Versus Values
- Case A Framing Climate Change
- 4 Science, Politics, and the Public in Knowledge Controversies
- Case B What Does ‘Climategate’ Tell Us About Public Knowledge Controversies
- Case C Whose Deficit Anyway? Institutional Misunderstanding of Fracking-Sceptical Publics
- 5 The Limits to Knowledge
- Case D Angry Bulbs
- 6 Usable Knowledge
- Case E Expertise for European Fisheries Policy
- 7 Interdisciplinarity and the Challenge of Knowledge Integration
- Case F Knowledge Integration in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
- Case G Integrated Assessment for Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
- 8 Lay Expertise
- Case H Lay Expertise and Botanical Science
- Case I The Loweswater Care Project
- 9 Environmental Experts at the Science–Policy–Society Interface
- Case J Groupthink and Whistle Blowers in CO2 Capture and Storage
- 10 Environmental Knowledge in Democracy
- 11 Conclusion
- Index
- References
Case G - Integrated Assessment for Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2019
Book contents
- Environmental Expertise
- Reviews
- Environmental Expertise
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 What Is Science? (And Why Does This Matter?)
- 3 Frames: Beyond Facts Versus Values
- Case A Framing Climate Change
- 4 Science, Politics, and the Public in Knowledge Controversies
- Case B What Does ‘Climategate’ Tell Us About Public Knowledge Controversies
- Case C Whose Deficit Anyway? Institutional Misunderstanding of Fracking-Sceptical Publics
- 5 The Limits to Knowledge
- Case D Angry Bulbs
- 6 Usable Knowledge
- Case E Expertise for European Fisheries Policy
- 7 Interdisciplinarity and the Challenge of Knowledge Integration
- Case F Knowledge Integration in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
- Case G Integrated Assessment for Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
- 8 Lay Expertise
- Case H Lay Expertise and Botanical Science
- Case I The Loweswater Care Project
- 9 Environmental Experts at the Science–Policy–Society Interface
- Case J Groupthink and Whistle Blowers in CO2 Capture and Storage
- 10 Environmental Knowledge in Democracy
- 11 Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Environmental ExpertiseConnecting Science, Policy and Society, pp. 176 - 183Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Alcamo, J., Shaw, R., and Hordijk, L., eds. (1990). The RAINS Model of Acidification. Science and Strategies in Europe. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Amann, M., Bertok, I., Cofala, J., et al. (1996). Cost-effective Control of Acidification and Ground-Level Ozone. Laxenburg: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.Google Scholar
Amann, M., Bertok, I., Borken-Kleefeld, J., et al. (2011). Cost-effective Control of Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases in Europe: Modelling and Policy Applications. Environmental Modelling and Software, 26, 1489–1501. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.07.012Google Scholar
Bäckstrand, K. (2001). What Can Nature Withstand? Science, Politics and Discourses in Transboundary Air Pollution Diplomacy. Lund Political Studies 116. Department of Political Science. Lund University.Google Scholar
Bäckstrand, K. (2017). Critical Loads: Negotiating What Nature Can Withstand. In Meadowcroft, J. and Fiorino, D. J., eds., Conceptual Innovation in Environmental Policy (pp. 129–154). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hajer, M. A (1995). The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hettelingh, J. P., Posch, M., Slootweg, J., et al. (2015). Effects-based Integrated Assessment Modelling for the Support of European Air Pollution Abatement Policies. In de Vries, W., Hettelingh, J. P., and Posch, M., eds., Critical Loads and Dynamic Risk Assessments of Nitrogen, Acidity and Metals for Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems (pp. 613–635). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI:10.1007/978–94–017–9508–1_25Google Scholar
Lövblad, G., Tarrason, L., Tørseth, K., and Dutchak, S. (2004). EMEP Assessment, Part I, European Perspective. Oslo: Norwegian Meteorological Institute.Google Scholar
Maas, R., and Grennfelt, P., eds. (2016). Towards Cleaner Air. Scientific Assessment Report 2016. EMEP Steering Body and Working Group on Effects of the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution. Oslo.Google Scholar
Nilsson, J., and Grennfelt, P., eds. (1988). Critical Loads for Sulphur and Nitrogen. The Nordic Council of Ministers 15. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Reis, S., Grennfelt, P., Klimont, Z., et al. (2012). From Acid Rain to Climate Change. Science, 338, 1153–1154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Star, S. L., and Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’, and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.Google Scholar
Sundqvist, G., Letell, M., and Lidskog, R. (2002). Science and Policy in Air Pollution Abatement Strategies. Environmental Science & Policy, 5(2), 147–156.Google Scholar
Tuinstra, W., Hordijk, L., and Kroeze, C. (2006). Moving Boundaries in Transboundary Air Pollution Co-production of Science and Policy under the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution. Global Environmental Change, 16 (4), 349–363.Google Scholar
Turnhout, E., Hisschemöller, M., and Eijsackers, H. (2007). Ecological Indicators: Between the Two Fires of Science and Policy. Ecological Indicators, 7(2), 215–228.Google Scholar