Search

This chapter examines current approaches for studying local and regional perspectives of change and implications for regional knowledge production, such as this assessment of the Barents area. There are three main approaches: community studies, indigenous knowledge and stakeholder approaches.

A powerful winter storm hit central Sweden and southern Finland at Christmas time 2011. Storms of that magnitude cause electricity outages that disturb everyday life in many ways. Modern societies are vulnerable to such storms because of their dependence on the supply of electricity. The issue of electricity supply is different for Finland and Sweden, as the two countries have different political and economic contexts and have made different decisions with regard to the issue. In Sweden, companies have invested in the cabling of electric wires since 2005, whereas in Finland cabling is just getting underway, accompanied by intensive debate on how to cover the costs. Although the 2011 storm did not reach Lapland, the article shows that demographic, geographic and administrative structures and resources matter when it comes to the vulnerability of the region. Lapland is sparsely populated, with thin service structures, rescue services that are heavily reliant on volunteers, and an aging population, making vulnerability quite a different issue than in densely populated urban centres in the South. The article is based on documents, interviews and newspaper articles which have been analysed and mapped using situational analysis, a method developed by Adele Clarke.

The inability of Russia to take care of its environment motivated the neighbouring countries to international environmental cooperation in the beginning of the 1990s. In the last twenty years a complex structure of international environmental cooperation, funding arrangements and international environmental projects has developed. In the meantime, Russia has become richer and stronger, but its level of environmental protection is yet to reach Western standards. Russia’s environmental agency will be analyzed from the perspective of environmental responsibilisation: how common un-derstandings of problems have been developed; how responsibility has been shared between participants in international environmental cooperation in Northwestern Russia; and how capable Russia is to tackle its environmental problems on its own. In the light of interviews and survey results Russia appears to be an object rather than an independent environmental actor in international environmental cooperation, and is still very dependent on international assistance.

Most of the research on effectiveness of international environmental regimes is based on the study of international environmental agreements and their implementation by different countries. In this study, however, the object of study is an international environmental regime in Northwestern Russia which is based on collaboration between national and regional decision-makers, funding agencies and programs. The effectiveness of international environmental regimes has both institutional and environmental dimensions. Institutional effectiveness refers to a regime’s capacity to fulfil the aims set for it. Environmental effectiveness refers to impacts of cooperation on the state of the environment and to the use of natural resources. These two dimensions of effectiveness do not necessarily support each other. In this study the participants in international environmental cooperation in Northwestern Russia have been asked to evaluate the regime and its effectiveness. 50 Russian and 20 Nordic participants have been interviewed for the study during winter 2003–2004. In addition, a questionnaire was sent to project managers working in Northwestern Russia in the fall 2004 and 50 of them responded. This article gives an overview of the results from the interviews and questionnaires. Respondents to interviews and questionnaires consider international environmental cooperation in Northwestern Russia institutionally effective, but they differ in their evaluation of environmental effectiveness.

"Since 2008, Europe has been shaken by an ongoing crisis. If relevant parts of populations are exposed to socioeconomic risks, it is a distinctive characteristic of European political ethics that they must not be left alone, but should be subject to support and solidarity by budget support policy, economic development policies and social policy at different levels. But, in analogy with medical and psychological findings, some parts of the vulnerable population, although experiencing the same living conditions as others, are developing resilience, which in our context means that they perform social, economic and cultural practices and habits which protect them from suffer and harm and support sustainable patterns of coping and adaption. This resilience to socioeconomic crises at household levels is the focus of the project. It can consist of identity patterns, knowledge, family or community relations, cultural and social as well as economic practices, be they formal or informal. Welfare states, labour markets and economic policies at both macro or meso level form the context or 'environment' of those resilience patterns. For reasons of coping with the crisis without leaving the common ground of the implicit European social model (or the unwritten confession to the welfare state) under extremely bad monetary conditions in many countries, and for reasons of maintaining quality of life and improving social policy, it is a highly interesting perspective to learn from emergent processes of resilience development and their preconditions. Thus, the main questions are directed at understanding patterns and dimensions of resilience at micro-/household level in different types of European member and neighbour states accounting for regional varieties, relevant internal and external conditions and resources as well as influences on these patterns by social, economic or labour market policy as well as legal regulations." (Author's abstract, IAB-Doku) ((en))

Since 2008, Europe has been shaken by an ongoing crisis. If relevant parts of populations are exposed to socioeconomic risks, it is a distinctive characteristic of European political ethics that they must not be left alone, but should be subject to support and solidarity by budget support policy, economic development policies and social policy at different levels. But, in analogy with medical and psychological findings, some parts of the vulnerable population, although experiencing the same living conditions as others, are developing resilience, which in our context means that they perform social, economic and cultural practices and habits which protect them from suffer and harm and support sustainable patterns of coping and adaption. This resilience to socioeconomic crises at household levels is the focus of the project. It can consist of identity patterns, knowledge, family or community relations, cultural and social as well as economic practices, be they formal or informal. Welfare states, labour markets and economic policies at both macro or meso level form the context or ‘environment’ of those resilience patterns. For reasons of coping with the crisis without leaving the common ground of the implicit European social model (or the unwritten confession to the welfare state) under extremely bad monetary conditions in many countries, and for reasons of maintaining quality of life and improving social policy, it is a highly interesting perspective to learn from emergent processes of resilience development and their preconditions. Thus, the main questions are directed at understanding patterns and dimensions of resilience at micro-/household level in different types of European member and neighbour states accounting for regional varieties, relevant internal and external conditions and resources as well as influences on these patterns by social, economic or labour market policy as well as legal regulations.

Laurence C. Smith: Uusi pohjoinen. Maailma vuonna 2050. Ursa 2011.