Tackling climate change requires collective, cross-borders actions and local solutions for mitigation measures. Variety of actors are involved in climate change adaptation and mitigation, ranging from local communities to the global supranational institutions. People tend to perceive individual action as failing to cope with climate change (e.g. outlined in Lorenzoni and Pidgeon, 2006) and therefore ascribe high responsibility to the institutional level. This article will analyze how the public in Baltic -Nordic countries perceive the institutional responsibilities in climate change adaptation and mitigation. This article is based on data of Special Eurobarometer (459), conducted in 2017 and the questions analyzed in this article are related to concerns about climate change and the perception of institutional responsibilities in tackling climate change (institutions: national governments, European Union, business and industry, regional and local authorities; and environmental groups). The local, national and global institutions are perceived as having different responsibilities and impacts in tackling climate change. Also, the perceptions of institutional and individual responsibility varies across the countries. Results indicate that climate change is perceived as one of the top three most serious global issues in Baltic -Nordic countries as well as the concern about climate change in those countries is increasing. Regarding public perceptions of institutional responsibility related to climate change risks, most people in EU member states indicate national governments as having highest responsibility. However, there are significant differences comparing the perception of public in Nordic and Baltic States.
This paper sets a framework for using semiotics as an analytical method for Earth system science. It illustrates the use of such a method by analysing a dataset consisting of 32,383 abstracts of research articles pertaining to Earth system science, modelled as semantic networks. The analysis allows us to explain the epistemological advantages of this method as originating in the systems thinking common in both Earth system science and semiotics. The purpose of this methodological proposal is that of bringing the recent and critical planetary boundaries framework to the attention of ecosemiotics and biosemiotic criticism, and vice versa. Ecosemiotics is a branch of the biosemiotic modelling theory and is thus grounded in Charles Peirce’s schematic semiotics, but also developed in inspiration of Juri Lotman’s systemic semiotics. Both of these foundations of ecosemiotics are compatible with the rationale of Earth system science, given the schematism of Peirce’s semiotics and Lotman’s notion of meaning as an affordance of the biosphere. Far from exhausting the hermeneutic possibilities evoked by the discussed dataset, we argue that such semiotic analysis, made possible by the digital capacity of modelling large amounts of data, reveals new horizons for semiotic analysis, particularly regarding humans’ modelling of the environment.
Šiame leidinyje analizuojamos socialinės, aplinkosauginės, ekonominės, technologinės bei geopolitinės rizikos Lietuvoje, ekspertinis jų vertinimas ir visuomenės rizikos suvokimas. Autorės pristato objektyvius rizikos indikatorius (duomenis iš įvairių oficialių institucijų), pateikia ekspertinius vertinimus (Lietuvos savivaldybių ekspertų internetinė apklausa) ir analizuoja gyventojų rizikos suvokimą (reprezentatyvi Lietuvos gyventojų apklausa). Pagal atliktus tyrimus, autorės suformuluoja reikšmingas rizikų valdymo rekomendacijas, kurios adresuojamos savivaldybėms, ekonominės, socialinės, technologijų plėtros ir
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.