Risk Management at the Science–Policy Interface: Two Contrasting Cases in the Field of Flood Protection in Germany
Risk Management at the Science–Policy Interface: Two Contrasting Cases in the Field of Flood Protection in Germany
复制标题
科学与政策界面的风险管理：德国防洪领域的两个对比案例
DOI：
10.1080/15239080701622758
复制
发表时间：
2007
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
H. Garrelts
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
H. Lange;H. Garrelts
摘要本文关注的是如何将关于气候变化和新风险的科学辩论作为政治决策的基础。关键的风险问题如何“扩散”到政策中，而政策又必须向公众说明气候变化的风险？在讨论科学与政策的互动时，提到了关于模糊科学与政策制定之间界限的辩论。在这里，异质的，往往是相互竞争的话语发挥作用。这使得语篇分析在概念和理论上都成为一种恰当和被广泛接受的工具。然而，由于话语分析的建构主义倾向，话语分析很难解释哪一种竞争性话语获胜。案例研究提供了一些证据表明，当话语分析的框架是一个更现实的方法，如金顿的政策窗口的方法，可以获得复杂的理解。两个案例。虽然代表重叠的政策领域，风险管理有很大的不同。在这两方面，国家都是关键的参与者。在第一种情况下，关于北方德国的海岸保护，负责的行政官员试图改变和减少风险问题及其对不确定性的强调，使其与他们自己的安全讨论相一致，从而产生科学-行政混合体。第二种情况，一个新制定的关于河岸防洪的政治战略，明确地借鉴了不确定性和风险，从而将这个问题直接转移和整合到政治行政系统中。从治理的角度来看，解释是指不同的指导背景下的机构设置，行为者星座，政治框架和自然极端事件。
Abstract This paper concerns the way in which the scientific debate on climate change and new risks is being adopted as a basis for political decision making. How does the crucial risk issue ‘diffuse’ into policy, which in turn has to give the public account of the risks of climate change? In discussing the science–policy interface, reference is made to the debate on blurring boundaries between science and policy making. Here, heterogeneous and often competing discourses come into play. This makes discourse analysis an appropriate and well-accepted tool in both conceptual and theoretical aspect. However, which of the competing discourses wins the day can hardly be explained in a discourse analytical way, due to its constructivist bias. Case studies provide some evidence that complex understanding can be obtained when discourse analysis is framed by a more realistic approach, such as Kingdon's policy window approach. Two cases are presented. Although representing overlapping policy domains, the risk management differs considerably. In both the state proves to be the pivotal actor. In the first case, on coastal protection in northern Germany, the administrative officers in charge try to transform and to curtail the risk issue and its emphasis on uncertainty in a way that makes it compatible with their own safety discourse, thus generating a scientific–administrative hybrid. The second case, a newly enacted political strategy on riparian flood protection, draws explicitly on uncertainty and risk, thus transferring and integrating the issue firsthand into the political–administrative system. Taking a governance perspective, the explanation refers to different steering contexts in terms of institutional settings, actor constellations, political framings and natural extreme events.