IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enscpo/v77y2017icp193-202.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

40 years of global environmental assessments: A retrospective analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Jabbour, Jason
  • Flachsland, Christian

Abstract

This paper provides a retrospective analysis of global environmental assessment (GEA) processes and their changing character, focus and political context over the past 40 years. We examine how and why elements of organizational design, objectives, and the evolving political landscape have interacted and changed, with a view of informing the design and conduct of future processes. We find that the historical genesis of GEAs is closely connected to the emergence of environmental multilateralism. However, the prevailing conditions and assumptions which originally gave rise to the GEA concept have changed significantly over time, giving rise to an increasing demand for a focus on response options and policies. We also find that the epistemic and process complexity of GEAs has increased substantially, without a corresponding expansion in the magnitude and composition of GEA management teams. We suggest that developing analytical capacities for policy assessment as well as ensuring sufficient resources and tools to manage increasingly complex GEAs is essential to ensure their future relevance and success. This article is part of a special issue on solution-oriented GEAs.

Suggested Citation

  • Jabbour, Jason & Flachsland, Christian, 2017. "40 years of global environmental assessments: A retrospective analysis," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 193-202.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:77:y:2017:i:c:p:193-202
    DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.05.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901117304331
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.05.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mohamad Javad OmaraShahestan & Samira OmaraShastani, 2017. "Evaluating Environmental Considerations With Che cklist And Delphi Methods, Case Study: Suran City, Iran," Environment & Ecosystem Science (EES), Zibeline International Publishing, vol. 1(2), pages 1-4, November.
    2. Rolf Lidskog & Monika Berg & Karin M. Gustafsson & Erik Löfmarck, 2020. "Cold Science Meets Hot Weather: Environmental Threats, Emotional Messages and Scientific Storytelling," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 118-128.
    3. Jennifer Garard & Martin Kowarsch, 2017. "Objectives for Stakeholder Engagement in Global Environmental Assessments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-21, September.
    4. Erlend A. T. Hermansen & Bård Lahn & Göran Sundqvist & Eirik Øye, 2021. "Post-Paris policy relevance: lessons from the IPCC SR15 process," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 1-18, November.
    5. Kelly Wanser & Sarah J. Doherty & James W. Hurrell & Alex Wong, 2022. "Near-term climate risks and sunlight reflection modification: a roadmap approach for physical sciences research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 174(3), pages 1-20, October.
    6. Haas, Peter M., 2018. "Preserving the epistemic authority of science in world politics," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2018-105, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    7. Christoph Kehl & Steffen Albrecht & Pauline Riousset & Arnold Sauter, 2021. "Goodbye Expert-Based Policy Advice? Challenges in Advising Governmental Institutions in Times of Transformation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-16, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:77:y:2017:i:c:p:193-202. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/environmental-science-and-policy/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.