Exploring legitimization strategies for contested uses of citizen-generated data for policy

IF 3 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Journal of Human Rights and the Environment Pub Date : 2020-12-01 DOI:10.4337/9781800881099.00008
A. Suman, S. Schade, Yasuhito Abe
{"title":"Exploring legitimization strategies for contested uses of citizen-generated data for policy","authors":"A. Suman, S. Schade, Yasuhito Abe","doi":"10.4337/9781800881099.00008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we investigate how citizens use data they gather as a rhetorical resource for demanding environmental policy interventions and advancing environmental justice claims. While producing citizen-generated data (CGD) can be regarded as a form of ‘social protest’, citizens and interested institutional actors still have to ‘justify’ the role of lay people in producing data on environmental issues. Such actors adopt a variety of arguments to persuade public authorities to recognize CGD as a legitimate resource for policy making and regulation. So far, scant attention has been devoted to inspecting the different legitimization strategies adopted to push for institutional use of CGD. In order to fill this knowledge gap, we examine which distinctive strategies are adopted by interested actors: existing legitimization arguments are clustered, and strategies are outlined, based on a literature review and exemplary cases. We explore the conceivable effects of these strategies on targeted policy uses. Two threads emerge from the research, entailing two complementary arguments: namely that listening to CGD is a governmental obligation and that including CGD is ultimately beneficial for making environmental decisions. We conclude that the most used strategies include showing the scientific strength and contributory potential of CGD, whereas environmental rights and democracy-based strategies are still rare. We discuss why we consider this result to be problematic and outline a future research agenda.","PeriodicalId":43831,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights and the Environment","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Human Rights and the Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800881099.00008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

In this article, we investigate how citizens use data they gather as a rhetorical resource for demanding environmental policy interventions and advancing environmental justice claims. While producing citizen-generated data (CGD) can be regarded as a form of ‘social protest’, citizens and interested institutional actors still have to ‘justify’ the role of lay people in producing data on environmental issues. Such actors adopt a variety of arguments to persuade public authorities to recognize CGD as a legitimate resource for policy making and regulation. So far, scant attention has been devoted to inspecting the different legitimization strategies adopted to push for institutional use of CGD. In order to fill this knowledge gap, we examine which distinctive strategies are adopted by interested actors: existing legitimization arguments are clustered, and strategies are outlined, based on a literature review and exemplary cases. We explore the conceivable effects of these strategies on targeted policy uses. Two threads emerge from the research, entailing two complementary arguments: namely that listening to CGD is a governmental obligation and that including CGD is ultimately beneficial for making environmental decisions. We conclude that the most used strategies include showing the scientific strength and contributory potential of CGD, whereas environmental rights and democracy-based strategies are still rare. We discuss why we consider this result to be problematic and outline a future research agenda.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
探索为政策使用有争议的公民生成数据的合法化策略
在本文中,我们研究了公民如何使用他们收集的数据作为要求环境政策干预和推进环境正义主张的修辞资源。虽然生产公民生成数据(CGD)可以被视为一种“社会抗议”形式,但公民和感兴趣的机构参与者仍然必须“证明”非专业人员在生产环境问题数据方面的作用。这些行为者采用各种论据来说服公共当局承认CGD是政策制定和监管的合法资源。迄今为止,很少有人注意检查为推动机构使用CGD而采取的不同合法化战略。为了填补这一知识空白,我们研究了感兴趣的行为者采用了哪些独特的策略:基于文献综述和典型案例,对现有的合法化论点进行了归纳,并概述了策略。我们探讨了这些策略对目标政策使用的可能影响。研究中出现了两条线索,包含了两个互补的论点:即听取CGD是政府的义务,以及将CGD纳入最终有利于做出环境决策。我们得出的结论是,最常用的策略包括展示CGD的科学实力和贡献潜力,而基于环境权利和民主的策略仍然很少。我们讨论了为什么我们认为这个结果是有问题的,并概述了未来的研究议程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
期刊介绍: The relationship between human rights and the environment is fascinating, uneasy and increasingly urgent. This international journal provides a strategic academic forum for an extended interdisciplinary and multi-layered conversation that explores emergent possibilities, existing tensions, and multiple implications of entanglements between human and non-human forms of liveliness. We invite critical engagements on these themes, especially as refracted through human rights and environmental law, politics, policy-making and community level activisms.
期刊最新文献
The seabed and the South: from stock stories to new histories of international lawmaking Reimagining climate equity to incorporate the non-human Paradise lost? The red right hand of green technology Expanding NGOs’ standing: climate justice through access to the European Court of Human Rights Book review: Sumudu A Atapattu, Carmen G Gonzalez and Sara L Seck (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2021) 476 pp.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1