Advertisement

Science-based Stakeholder Dialogues in Climate Change Research

  • Martin Welp
  • Anne C. de la Vega-Leinert
  • Susanne Stoll-Kleemann
  • Cornelia Fürstenau
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)

Keywords

Forest Management Analytical Hierarchy Process Forest Owner Communication Tool Climate Change Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abrams, P., Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Gardner, J., Heylings, P. (2003). Evaluating Governance: A Handbook to Accompany a Participatory Process for a Protected Area. Draft, July. Parks Canada and TILCEPAGoogle Scholar
  2. Badeck, F.W., Fürstenau, C., Lasch, P., Suckow, F., Peltola, H., Garcia-Gonzalo, J., Briceño-Elizondo, E., Kellomäki, S., Lexer, M.J., Jäger, D., Lindner, M., Thiel, D., Kaipainen, T., Lehikoinen, N., Junge, S., Feliu, J. (2005). Adaptive forest management at the scale of management units. In: Kellomäki, S., Leinonen, S. (eds). Management of European forests under changing climatic conditions. Research Notes 163. University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forestry, 315–382Google Scholar
  3. Biernacki, P., Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball Sampling. Problems and Techniques of Chain Referral Sampling. Sociological Methods and Research 10(2), 141–163Google Scholar
  4. Chess, C. (2000). Evaluating Environmental Public Participation: Methodological Questions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43, 769–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. van Daalen, C. E., Thissen, W. A. H., Berk, M. M. (1996). The Delft process: experiences with a dialogue between policy-makers and global modellers. Global Environmental Change 6, 267–285Google Scholar
  6. Eggers, T. (2002). The impacts of manufacturing and utilisation of wood products on the European carbon budget. Joensuu, European Forest Institute, 90Google Scholar
  7. European Climate Forum (2003). The Biofuels Directive. Potential for climate protection? Conference Summary (Norwich, UK, 8th–10th September, 2003). URL: http://european-climate-forum.net/events/norwich2003/pdf/ecf_conference_summary.pdfGoogle Scholar
  8. European Climate Forum (2004). What is dangerous climate change? Initial results of a Symposium on Key Vulnerable Regions and Climate Change and Article 2 of the UNFCCC, Buenos Aires, 14 December 2004. URL: http://www.european-climate-forum.net/pdf/ECF_beijing_results.pdfGoogle Scholar
  9. Fiorino, D.J. (1990). Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: a survey of institutional mechnisms. Science, Technology and Human Values 15, 226–243Google Scholar
  10. Funtowicz, S., J. Ravetz (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25, 739–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in comtemporary societies. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  12. Hage, M., Leroy, P., Willems, E. (2005). Participatory approaches in governance and in knowledge production: What makes the difference? Paper presented at the International Sociology Association Conference “Environment, knowledge and democracy”, 6–7 July 2005, Marseille, FranceGoogle Scholar
  13. Hasselmann, K., Latif, M., Hooss, G., Azar, C., Edenhofer, O., Jaeger, C. C., Johannessen, O. M., Kemfert, C., Welp, M., Wokaun, A. (2003). The Challenge of Long-term Climate Change. Science 302, 1923–1925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kangas, J., Kangas, A. (2002). Multiple criteria decision support methods in forest management-An overview and comparative analyses. In: Pukkala, T. (ed). Multi-Objective Forest Planning. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, 37–70Google Scholar
  15. Kellomäki, S., Väisänen, H., et al. (1993). FinnFor: a model for calculating the response of boreal forest ecosystem to climate change, University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forestry, 1–120Google Scholar
  16. Lasch, P., Badeck, F. W., et al. (2002). Sensitivity of simulated forest growth to changes in climate and atmospheric CO2. Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt Supplement 1, 155–171Google Scholar
  17. Lexer, M. J. (2000). Ein multi-attributives Nutzenmodell zur Unterstützung der waldbaulichen Entscheidungsfindung dargestellt am Beispiel sekundärer Nadelwälder. Forstwissenschaftliches Zentralblatt 119, 377–394Google Scholar
  18. Metzger, M. J., Leemans, R., Schröter, D., Cramer, W., the ATEAM consortium (2004). The ATEAM vulnerability mapping tool. Office C.T. de Wit Graduate School for Production Ecology and Resource Conservation (PE&RC), Wageningen, The Netherlands. CD-ROM publication No. 27. URL www.pikpotsdam.de/ateamGoogle Scholar
  19. Morales, P., Sykes, M.T., Prentice, C., Smith, P., Smith, B., Bugmann, H., Zierl, B., Friedlingstein, P., Viovy, N., Sabaté, S., Sánchez, A., Pla, E., Gracia, C.A., Sitch, S., Arneth, A., Ogee, J. (2005). Comparing and evaluating process-based ecosystem model predictions of carbon and water fluxes in major European forest biomes. Global Change Biology 11(12), 2211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Morgan, M. G., B. Fischhoff, A. Bostrom, Atmanet, C.J. (2002). Risk Communication; A Mental Models Approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Pohl, C. (2005). Transdisciplinary collaboration in environmental research. Futures 37, 1159–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ravetz, J. (1999). What is Post-Normal Science? Futures 31, 647–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rowe, G., Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values 25, 3–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Runge, D., Reusswig, F. (2004). Substitution von Geschäftsreisen durch Videokonferenzen. Zusammenfassung des Endberichts vom Dezember 2003. Potsdam Insitute for Climate Impact Research, Germany. URL: http://www.european-climate-forum.net/pdf/Zusammenfassung%20ECF.pdfGoogle Scholar
  25. Reusswig, F., Schwarzkopf, J., Pohlenz, P. (2004). The climate blockbuster ‘the day after tomorrow’ and its impact on the german cinema public. PIK Report No. 92. http://www.pik-potsdam.de/pik_web/publications/pik_reports/reports/pr.92/pr92.pdfGoogle Scholar
  26. Saaty, T. L. (1990). Multicriteria Decision Making-The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. RWS Publications, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  27. Schröter D., Cramer, W., Leemans, R., Prentice, I.C., Araújo, M.B., Arnell, N.W., Bondeau, A., Bugmann, H., Carter, T.R., Gracia, C.A., de la Vega-Leinert, A.C., Erhard, M., Ewert, F., Glendining, M., House, J.I., Kankaanpää, S., Klein, R.J.T., Lavorel, S., Lindner, M., Metzger, M.J., Meyer, J., Mitchell, T.D., Reginster, I., Rounsevell, M., Sabaté, S., Sitch, S., Smith, B., Smith, J., Smith, P., Sykes, M.T., Thonicke, K., Thuiller, W., Tuck, G., Zaehle, S., Zierl, B. (2005). Ecosystem Service Supply and Vulnerability to Global Change in Europe. Science 310(5752), 1333–1337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stoll-Kleemann, S., O’Riordan, T., Jaeger, C.C. (2001). The psychology of denial concerning climate mitigation measures: evidence from Swiss focus groups. Global Environmental Change 11(2), 107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stoll-Kleemann, S., Welp, M. (2006). Linking Case Studies to the Integrative Theory of Reflexive Dialogues. In: Stoll-Kleemann, S., Welp, M. (eds). Stakeholder Dialogues in Natural Resources Management. Springer-Verlag, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  30. Vega-Leinert, de la, A.C., Schröter, D., Leemans, R., Frisch, U., Pluimers, J. (in review). A stakeholder dialogue on European vulnerability. A contribution to the ATEAM special issue submitted to Regional Environmental ChangeGoogle Scholar
  31. Vennix, J.A.M. (1999). Group model-building: tackling messy problems. System Dynamics Review 15(4), 379–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Webler, T. (1995). Models for Environmental Discourse. In: Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Renn, O., Webler, T., Wiedemann, P. (Eds). Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, 35–86Google Scholar
  33. Welp, M., Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2006). Integrative Theory of Reflexive Dialogues. In: Stoll-Kleemann, S., Welp, M. (eds). Stakeholder Dialogues in Natural Resources Management. Springer-Verlag, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  34. Welp, M., de la Vega-Leinert, A., Stoll-Kleemann, S., Jaeger, C.C. (2006). Science-based stakeholder dialogues: tools and theories. Global Environmental Change 16, 170–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Welp, M., Kasemir, B., Jaeger, C.C. (in press). Citizens’ Voices in Environmental Policy: The Contribution of Integrated Assessment Focus Groups to Accountable Decision Making. In: Coenen, F.H.J.M., Paterson, R. (Eds). The Promise and Limits of Participatory Processes for the Quality of Environmentally Related Decision-making. Springer-Verlag, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Welp
    • 1
  • Anne C. de la Vega-Leinert
    • 2
  • Susanne Stoll-Kleemann
    • 3
  • Cornelia Fürstenau
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Applied Sciences EberswaldeGermany
  2. 2.Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchGermany
  3. 3.Humboldt University of BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations