PSIA Students pursue research on the environment

PSIA students scooped three of the four inaugural AIRE Student Research Awards for their Master thesis

The awards were launched by the Interdisciplinary Workshop on Environmental Research [AIRE] to acknowledge and disseminate the best environmental research conducted in 2022 at the Master level in all Sciences Po schools, and to encourage students to pursue research related to the environment.

The three students from PSIA's Master in Environmental Policy - Rebecca Fenn (1st prize); Jan-Philipp Schmidt (2nd prize) and Anna Panizzoli (prix spécial du jury) - were recognized by a jury of international scholars and experts chaired by Prof Richard Balme for the quality and originality of their Master theses’ research project.

Students received their prizes on February 1st, 2023, in presence of Sciences Po’s Provost for academic affairs Sergei Guriev and of representatives of PSIA’s team.

First Prize : Rebecca Fenn, PSIA

"The Indirect Effects of Strategic Climate Change Litigation. A case study on the role of winning or losing strategic climate change litigation cases based on cases in the Netherlands, Ireland, Germany, and the United Kingdom"

The aim of this thesis is to analyse the role of winning or losing a strategic climate change litigation case at court for the indirect effects (social mobilisation and media attention) attained by that case. Possible effects of winning or losing range from winning being decisive for the indirect effects, over indirect effects being largely independent of whether a case is lost or won, to NGOs being able to profit from litigation loss. To develop an understanding of the role which winning or losing may play for social mobilisation and media attention, a qualitative comparative case study approach focusing on four cases was chosen. The case studies are based on expert interviews, document analysis, and an analysis of newspaper articles. The results suggest that, in all cases, climate change litigation leads to some increased media attention and social mobilisation. NGOs have strategies to make use of both litigation loss and judicial success, and social mobilisation and media attention may complement each other. However, the success of those strategies and the intensity of social mobilisation and media reporting also depend on interactions with other factors, which may include suitable opportunities for mobilisation and media reporting, social and political conditions, or the general characteristics of the NGOs, cases, and the campaigns. This thesis may offer starting points for further research on factors influencing media attention and social mobilisation, mechanisms and strategies through which cases may enhance social mobilisation and media attention, as well as cases’ broader societal and political impacts.

>The jury particularly appreciated the comparative dimension of the research, its methodological and analytical precision, and its political and civic implications at the crossroads of environmental law, the sociology of social movements and climate public action.

Second Prize: Jan Philipp Schmidt, PSIA

"Conservation versus Development? Use of Economic Valuation in Biodiversity-related decision-making processes. The case of the hydropower projects Kalivac and Pocem and the Vjosa National Park"

The second prize was awarded ex-aequo with Hugo d'Assenza David from the Urban School.

In recent years different methodologies of economic valuations of ecosystem services have been developed to tackle the ongoing degradation of ecosystems and loss of biodiversity. Despite high expectations, the tools’ role in integrating environmental costs and benefits into the decision-making process is heavily debated, as evidence on the actual use of ecosystem service valuations (UESV) is scarce. This thesis examines the contribution of economic valuations and ecosystem service valuations to the decision-making process over the planned construction of two major hydropower projects and the creation of a protected area at the Vjosa River in southern Albania. To analyse the case, a negotiation analysis following the framework of Faure (1991) was conducted. This encompassed the systemic study of five main elements of the negotiation: actors, structure, strategy, process and results. A questionnaire was developed based on the framework and 18 semi-structured interviews were conducted both online and physically in Albania with actors from the government, national and international NGOs, local administrations and scientists. Actors involved in the negotiation used economic valuations of ecosystem services or economic arguments linked to ecosystem services as strategic resource of advocacy and justification to challenge conventions and strengthen their argumentation within a process of deliberation. Leaving the purely “rationalist” view of decision-making, the location of the case study within a 3D-space of decision-making highlights how interconnected organizational and political factors such as low government budgets, a sizeable influence of international stakeholders and changes in the government’s political agenda have directed the outcome of the negotiation process. Finally, the analysed role of economic valuations of ecosystem services points to interesting future research avenues. To investigate how economic valuations can be used more effectively to prevent loss of biodiversity in early stages, research could look at economic valuation’s contribution to standards of investments for infrastructure projects. Following research on bottom-up governance it will be interesting to explore how economic valuations could be embedded more deeply in open participatory approaches (e.g., in gathering data on ecosystem services with local populations) providing a higher degree of transparency to the decision-making process.

The jury praised the original and innovative nature of this research on the important subject of the valuation of ecosystem services. The mobilization of a three-dimensional mapping methodology clarifies the complex interaction between the different factors and processes at work in the decision

Prix spécial du jury: Anna Panizzoli, PSIA

"Investigating Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Technoscience to understand the co-production of Covid19 in France"

After the outbreak of COVID-19, many initiatives emerged in France. They developed a tool to detect SARS-CoV-2 traces in sewage. They proposed to use Wastewater-Based Epidemiology (WBE) to tackle COVID-19. Authorities in charge of managing the disease opposed the development of the initiatives. They refused to resort to WBE to address the disease. In my thesis, I build on Science and Technologies Studies (STS) to investigate the disagreements that pitted initiatives against each other and against authorities. They concerned the production of knowledge on WBE and the choice to use WBE for COVID-19. I use disagreements over WBE as an entry point to understand the way COVID19 was managed in France, including how science on the disease was co-produced and technical choice on its management were made. The thesis starts with delineating the empirical background of my research. It identifies the main actors engaged in WBE. It contextualizes their activities within the strategy adopted in France to tackle COVID-19. Relevant actors included Obépine, the BMBM, WaterCov, Veolia, and Suez, i.e., the WBE initiatives. They also included authorities such as the French Ministry of Health and that of Research. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the state of art. It considers contributions on WBE for COVID-19, France’s response to COVID-19, and COVID-19 management. It addresses their limitations. It clarifies my ambition to tackle them by considering science and technology as socially constructed, and state and non-state actors as knowledgeable agents. Chapter 3 presents the research’s theoretical framework. It depicts the STS concepts and theories that I harnessed and how I refined them to fit my research and its findings. STS contributions included these on controversies, co-production, and discourses. I built on them to develop the concept of Networked Civic Epistemology. I integrated them with Discursive Analysis à la Française. Chapter 4 clarifies the research’s design and methodology. It illustrates the qualitative methods that I triangulated and explores my positionality as a researcher. Participant observation functioned as the main research technique during the three months of field research. Both a battle-field logic and a high degree of politicization marked my investigating “science in action”. Chapter 5 lays out the research’s findings and discusses them. It starts with exploring the five co-productions and sociotechnical imaginaries that I identified during my research. They corresponded to each WBE actor. It shows how their interactions unfolded within a war of position, the outcome of which was the imposition of a hegemonic discourse on COVID-19 and its management. Authorities marginalized alternative sociotechnical solutions that the initiatives promoted. Chapter 5 then illustrates the two types of trials of strength that I identified during the research, i.e., trials within Science and trials within science. It shows how trials of the second type predominated among WBE actors. Initiatives mainly competed for state funding and the maximization of individual utility. It describes the strategies and narratives that WBE actors deployed, thus providing insights into related technoscience. Chapter 5 concludes with examining the state’s evolving behavior towards WBE and its civic epistemology.

The jury wished to salute the originality and high quality of this research, whose use of the STS (Science and Technology Studies) approach is exemplary for environmental research.