學術產出-學位論文
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 知識,跨國網絡,與實踐: 以參與式視角探討東南亞國家協會之氣候變遷治理
Of knowledge, transnational networks, and practices: Exploring ASEAN’s climate change governance through a participatory lens作者 宋麗秋
Salazar, Virgemarie貢獻者 杜文苓
Tu, Wen-ling
宋麗秋
Salazar, Virgemarie關鍵詞 東協
參與式治理
氣候變遷
跨國網路
實踐社群
Communities of practice
ASEAN
Participatory governance
Climate change
Transnational networks日期 2023 上傳時間 2-Aug-2023 13:47:02 (UTC+8) 摘要 氣候變遷已成為需要前所未有的集體行動之棘手議題。在東南亞這個極易受氣候變遷威脅的地區，各國政府間已透過東南亞國家協會（下稱東協）通過應對其負面影響的合作協議。然而，東協是否能有效解決此複雜問題仍存在諸多疑慮，儘管東協一直在與非國家行為體合作解決此議題，但研究指出東協在治理上仍未完全建立起與公民組織或地方社群的穩健關係。因此，本論文將探討有關東協更具參與式及兼容性的氣候變遷治理之前景。非國家行為體諸如專家學者、倡導團體等加入跨國網路影響東協的治理機制及傳達信息。他們對治理的參與將受檢驗以找到更好的方法去使區域性標準在各成員國間主流化、在政策決定中整合相關知識、及兼容不同的利益關係者。本研究項目在此藉由分析非國家行為體及其所屬之跨國網路於東協的氣候變遷措施中之參與情況以探索其參與過程。本研究之具體研究問題如下：一、東協的治理脈絡如何決定非國家行為體進入氣候變遷的區域性進程？二、跨國氣候變遷網路在東協的行動如何促進參與式治理？三、東協中之知識仲介如何促進氣候變遷治理之學習？本論文透過針對關鍵報導人之半結構性訪談資料及針對政策聲明與其他相關文件之文本分析提出三個重要發現。首先，由於東協的支持以國家為中心進行決策之政府間組織設計與規範，現行的東協氣候變遷治理框架使得整合入參與式方法相當具挑戰性。其次，本研究表明，一方面，東協中的跨國網路作為實踐社群，提供非國家行為體機會去表達其關切並通知決策者相關科學知識及區域性知識；另一方面，實踐的雙重性使得行為體可以增進參與，同時也藉製造、複製會限制參與性的根深蒂固的規範、理念和權力關係使現有之架構永久化。最後，已發現有關集體學習的知識仲介行為在某種程度上促進了非國家行為體在氣候變遷治理上的參與，然而，集體學習做為共同實踐的結果，仍受到東協機構及成員國之主導性社會、政治、經濟狀況之影響。儘管已有一些對於東協中氣候變遷治理的研究，本論文仍給予了透過強調跨國網路在促進非國家行為體參與區域層級的氣候變遷治理中扮演的角色的原創性知識貢獻。因此，這些發現提供了對於實踐理論、東協區域建設、參與性治理的理論性貢獻。本研究收集之資料也提供了豐富使用者對於東協中參與性氣候變遷治理作為一種現象的理解之實證貢獻。除此之外，本研究中的政策影響可以為未來與東協氣候變遷治理工作相關的干預措施和策略提供信息。
Climate change being a “wicked” problem necessitates collective action of an unprecedented kind. In Southeast Asia, a region highly vulnerable to climate risks and hazards, governments have enacted cooperative arrangements through ASEAN in response to the adverse impacts of climate change. Still, questions abound on whether ASEAN can effectively manage this complex problem. While ASEAN has been working with non-state actors on this issue, studies have noted that ASEAN has yet to fully realize strong partnerships with civil society groups and local communities involved in governance. Thus, this dissertation investigates the prospect of a more participatory and inclusive governance of climate change in ASEAN.Non-state actors like experts, academics, and advocacy groups join transnational networks to inform and influence ASEAN’s governance mechanisms. Their participation in governance is examined to find answers on better ways to mainstream regional standards across member states, integrate relevant knowledge in policy decisions, and include various stakeholders. In doing so, this research project explores participatory processes by analyzing the involvement of non-state actors, and the transnational networks they belong to, in ASEAN’s initiatives on climate change. The following are the specific research questions of this study: (1) How does ASEAN’s governance context determine the access of non-state actors in regional processes on climate change? (2) How can the practices of transnational climate networks in ASEAN promote participatory governance? (3) How do knowledge brokers in ASEAN facilitate learning in climate change governance?Using data from semi-structured interviews of key informants and textual analysis of policy statements and other relevant documents, the dissertation presents three significant findings. Firstly, the prevailing ASEAN governance framework on climate change makes integrating participatory approaches rather challenging given ASEAN’s intergovernmental design and norms that support state-centric decision-making. Secondly, the study demonstrates that, on the one hand, transnational networks in ASEAN serve as communities of practice that provide non-state actors with opportunities to articulate their concerns and inform decisionmakers with pertinent scientific and local knowledge. On the other hand, the dual nature of practices is enabling actors to promote participation as well as perpetuate existing structures by producing and reproducing entrenched norms, ideas, and power relations that constrain participation. Lastly, knowledge brokering practices linked to collective learning have been found to facilitate the participation of non-state actors in climate change governance to a certain extent. However, collective learning, as a result of shared practices, remain subject to ASEAN institutions and the predominant social, political, and economic conditions in member states.While there have been a few studies on climate change governance in ASEAN, this dissertation imparts an original contribution to knowledge by underscoring the role of transnational networks in fostering the participation of non-state actors in climate change governance at the regional level. Hence, the findings offer theoretical contributions to practice theory, ASEAN region building, and participatory governance among others. The data gathered also provide empirical contributions that enrich one’s understanding of participatory climate change governance in ASEAN as a phenomenon. Moreover, policy implications of the research can inform future interventions and strategies related to ASEAN’s governance efforts on climate change.參考文獻 Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (1998). Why states act through formal international organizations. Journal of conflict resolution, 42(1), 3-32.Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2009). The Governance Triangle: Regulatory Standards Institutions and Shadow of the State. In W. Mattli & N. Woods (Eds.), The Politics of Global Regulation (pp. 44-88). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Acharya, A. (2003). Democratisation and the prospects for participatory regionalism in Southeast Asia. Third World Quarterly, 24(2), 375-390.Acharya, A. (2011). Engagement or Entrapment? Scholarship and Policymaking on Asian Regionalism. International Studies Review, 13(1), 12-17.Acharya, A. (2014). Constructing a security community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the problem of regional order (3rd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the middle ground: Constructivism in world politics. European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 319-363.Adler, E. (2004). Communitarian international relations: The epistemic foundations of international relations (1st ed.). London and New York: Routledge.Adler, E. (2008). The spread of security communities: communities of practice, self-restraint, and NATO`s Post—Cold War Transformation. European Journal of International Relations, 14(2), 195-230. doi:10.1177/1354066108089241Adler, E. (2013). Constructivism in international relations: Sources, contributions, and debates. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of international relations (Vol. 2, pp. 112-144). London and Thousand Oaks: Sage.Adler, E. (2019). World ordering: A social theory of cognitive evolution (Vol. 150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Adler, E., & Faubert, M. (2022). Epistemic communities of practice. In A. Drieschova, C. Bueger, & T. Hopf (Eds.), Conceptualizing International Practices: Directions for the Practice Turn in International Relations (pp. 47-76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Adler, E., & Haas, P. (1992). Conclusion: Epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program. International Organization, 46(1), 367-390.Adler, E., & Pouliot, V. (2011). International practices. International theory, 3(1), 1-36.Adler‐Nissen, R. (2016). Towards a practice turn in EU studies: The everyday of European integration. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 54(1), 87-103.Allison, L., & Taylor, M. (2017). ASEAN`s ‘people-oriented’ aspirations: civil society influences on non-traditional security governance. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 71(1), 24-41.Anbumozhi, V. (2017). Ensuring ASEAN’s Sustainable and Resilient Future. In A. Baviera & L. Maramis (Eds.), ASEAN@50 Building ASEAN Community: Political–Security and Socio-cultural Reflections (Vol. 4, pp. 309-323). Jakarta: Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia.Andonova, L. B., Betsill, M. M., & Bulkeley, H. (2009). Transnational Climate Governance. Global Environmental Politics, 9(2), 52-87.Arino, Y., Prabhakar, S. V. R. K., Lee, Y.-Y., Ikeda, M., & Zusman, E. (2021). ASEAN State of Climate Change Report. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.Arts, B., Behagel, J., Turnhout, E., De Koning, J., & Van Bommel, S. (2014). A practice based approach to forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics, 49, 4-11.Arts, B., Behagel, J., van Bommel, S., de Koning, J., & Turnhout, E. (2013). Prelude to practice: introducing a practice based approach to forest and nature governance. Forest and nature governance: a practice based approach, 3-21.Ascher, W., Steelman, T. A., & Healy, R. G. (2010). Knowledge and environmental policy: Re-imagining the boundaries of science and politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Asian Development Bank. (2009). The Economics of Climate Change in Southeast Asia: A Regional Review. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.Asiyanbi, A. P. (2016). A political ecology of REDD+: Property rights, militarised protectionism, and carbonised exclusion in Cross River. Geoforum, 77, 146-156.Autesserre, S. (2014). Going micro: Emerging and future peacekeeping research. International Peacekeeping, 21(4), 492-500.Averchenkova, A., Fankhauser, S., & Finnegan, J. J. (2021). The influence of climate change advisory bodies on political debates: evidence from the UK Committee on Climate Change. Climate policy, 21(9), 1218-1233.Ba, A. D. (2016). Institutionalization of Southeast Asian: ASEAN and ASEAN Centrality. In A. D. Ba, C.-C. Kuik, & S. Sudo (Eds.), Institutionalizing East Asia: Mapping and Reconfiguring Regional Cooperation (pp. 11-34). London: Routledge.Bäckstrand, K. (2003). Civic Science for Sustainability: Reframing the Role of Experts, Policy-Makers and Citizens in Environmental Governance. Global Environmental Politics, 3(4), 24-52.Bäckstrand, K., Khan, J., Kronsell, A., & Lövbrand, E. (2010). The promise of new modes of governance. In K. Bäckstrand, J. Khan, A. Kronsell, & E. Lövbrand (Eds.), Environmental politics and deliberative democracy: Examining the promise of new modes of governance (pp. 3-27). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Bacudo, I., & Lim, A. (2021). Positioning ASEAN in International Climate Negotiations: Lessons Learned from the ASEAN Negotiating Group for Agriculture (ANGA). Jakarta: ASEAN Climate Resilience Network.Balsiger, J., & VanDeveer, S. (2012). Navigating Regional Environmental Governance. Global Environmental Politics, 12(3), 1-20.Barton, J. R., Krellenberg, K., & Harris, J. M. (2015). Collaborative governance and the challenges of participatory climate change adaptation planning in Santiago de Chile. Climate and Development, 7(2), 175-184.Bauer, A., Feichtinger, J., & Steurer, R. (2012). The governance of climate change adaptation in 10 OECD countries: challenges and approaches. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 14(3), 279-304.Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. B. (2019). Process-tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Beeson, M. (2014). Regionalism and globalization in East Asia: politics, security and economic development. Houndmills, Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Behagel, J. H., Arts, B., & Turnhout, E. (2019). Beyond argumentation: a practice-based approach to environmental policy. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 21(5), 479-491.Béland, D., & Cox, R. H. (2010). Introduction: Ideas and politics. In D. Béland & R. H. Cox (Eds.), Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research (pp. 3-20 ). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Béland, D., & Cox, R. H. (2016). Ideas as coalition magnets: coalition building, policy entrepreneurs, and power relations. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(3), 428-445.Benjaminsen, G., & Kaarhus, R. (2018). Commodification of forest carbon: REDD+ and socially embedded forest practices in Zanzibar. Geoforum, 93, 48-56.Bennett, A., & Checkel, J. T. (2015). Process Tracing: From Philosophical Roots to Best Practices. In A. Bennett & J. T. Checkel (Eds.), Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool (pp. 3-37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Berg, M., & Lidskog, R. (2018). Deliberative democracy meets democratised science: A deliberative systems approach to global environmental governance. Environmental Politics, 27(1), 1-20.Betsill, M. (2014). Transnational Actors in International Environmental Politics. In M. Betsill, K. Hochstetler, & D. Stevis (Eds.), Advances in International Environmental Politics. Houndmills, Basingstoke and Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Bierman, F. (2014). Global Governance and the Environment In M. Betsill, K. Hochstetler, & D. Stevis (Eds.), Advances in International Environmental Politics (second ed., pp. 245-270). Houndmills, Basingstoke and Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Bixler, R. P. (2021). The Knowledge Network: Identifying Actors and Structural Dimensions of Knowledge Transfer. In C. C. Ferreira & C. F. C. Klütsch (Eds.), Closing the Knowledge-Implementation Gap in Conservation Science: Interdisciplinary Evidence Transfer Across Sectors and Spatiotemporal Scales (pp. 143-169). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2010). Governance Without a State: Can It Work? Regulation & Governance, 4(2), 113-134.Boxelaar, L., Paine, M., & Beilin, R. (2006). Community engagement and public administration: Of silos, overlays and technologies of government. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 65(1), 113-126.Bremberg, N. (2015). The E uropean Union as Security Community‐Building Institution: Venues, Networks and Co‐operative Security Practices. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(3), 674-692.Bremberg, N., Sonnsjö, H., & Mobjörk, M. (2019). The EU and climate-related security risks: a community of practice in the making? Journal of European integration, 41(5), 623-639.Breslin, S., & Nesadurai, H. E. S. (2017). Who Governs and How? Non-State Actors and Transnational Governance in Southeast Asia. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 48(2), 187-203. doi:10.1080/00472336.2017.1416423Broadhead, J., & Izquierdo, R. (2010). Assessment of land use, forest policy and governance in Cambodia. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Food and Agricultural Organization, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.Bueger, C. (2015). Making things known: Epistemic practices, the United Nations, and the translation of piracy. International political sociology, 9(1), 1-18.Bueger, C., & Gadinger, F. (2015). The play of international practice. International Studies Quarterly, 59(3), 449-460.Bulkeley, H., Andonova, L., Betsill, M., Compagnon, D., Hale, T., Hoffmann, M., . . . VanDeveer, S. (2014). Transnational Climate Change Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bulkeley, H., & Mol, A. P. (2003). Participation and environmental governance: consensus, ambivalence and debate. Environmental values, 12(2), 143-154.Busse, N. (1999). Constructivism and Southeast Asian Security. The Pacific Review, 12(1), 39-60.Caballero-Anthony, M. (2018). Negotiating Governance on Non-Traditional Security in Southeast Asia and Beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.Capie, D. (2010). When does track two matter? Structure, agency and Asian regionalism. Review of International Political Economy, 17(2), 291-318. doi:10.1080/09692290903378801Caplan, N. (1979). The Two-Communities Theory and Knowledge Utilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 22(3), 459-470. doi:10.1177/000276427902200308Catacutan, D., Finlayson, R., Perdana, A., Lusiana, B., Leimona, B., Simelton, E., . . . Yasmi, Y. (2019). Policy guidelines for agroforestry development adopted by ASEAN. In M. van Noordwijk (Ed.), Sustainable development through trees on farms: agroforestry in its fifth decade (pp. 337−359). Bogor, Indonesia: World Agroforestry (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional Program.Chandra, A. C., Abdulrahim, R., & Almuttaqi, A. I. (2017). Non-state Actors’ Engagement with ASEAN: Current State of Play and Way Forward. In A. Baviera & L. Maramis (Eds.), ASEAN@50 Building ASEAN Community: Political–Security and Socio-cultural Reflections (Vol. 4, pp. 221-246). Jakarta: Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia.Checkel, J. T. (2001). Why comply? Social learning and European identity change. International Organization, 55(3), 553-588.Cockerham, G. B. (2010). Regional integration in ASEAN: Institutional design and the ASEAN way. East Asia, 27(2), 165-185.Collins, A. (2013). Building a People-Oriented Security Community the ASEAN Way. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Contandriopoulos, D., Lemire, M., Denis, J. L., & Tremblay, É. (2010). Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: a narrative systematic review of the literature. The Milbank Quarterly, 88(4), 444-483.Cummings, S., Kiwanuka, S., Gillman, H., & Regeer, B. (2019). The future of knowledge brokering: perspectives from a generational framework of knowledge management for international development. Information Development, 35(5), 781-794.Cvitanovic, C., Cunningham, R., Dowd, A. M., Howden, S. M., & van Putten, E. (2017). Using social network analysis to monitor and assess the effectiveness of knowledge brokers at connecting scientists and decision‐makers: An Australian case study. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27(3), 256-269.Cvitanovic, C., Hobday, A. J., van Kerkhoff, L., Wilson, S. K., Dobbs, K., & Marshall, N. A. (2015). Improving knowledge exchange among scientists and decision-makers to facilitate the adaptive governance of marine resources: a review of knowledge and research needs. Ocean & Coastal Management, 112, 25-35.Davies, M. (2016). A community of practice: explaining change and continuity in ASEAN`s diplomatic environment. The Pacific Review, 29(2), 211-233.Ding, D. K., & Beh, S. E. (2022). Climate Change and Sustainability in ASEAN Countries. Sustainability, 14(2), 999.Dryzek, J. S., & Pickering, J. (2017). Deliberation as a catalyst for reflexive environmental governance. Ecological Economics, 131, 353-360.Duchelle, A. E., Simonet, G., Sunderlin, W. D., & Wunder, S. (2018). What is REDD+ achieving on the ground? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 32, 134-140.Dunlop, C., & Radaelli, C. (2018a). The lessons of policy learning: types, triggers, hindrances and pathologies. Policy & Politics, 46(2), 255-272. doi:10.1332/030557318x15230059735521Dunlop, C., & Radaelli, C. (2018b). Does Policy Learning Meet the Standards of an Analytical Framework of the Policy Process? Policy Stud J, 46(Suppl Suppl 1), S48-S68. doi:10.1111/psj.12250Durst, P., & Soriaga, R. (2020). Final Evaluation of the ASEAN-Swiss Partnership on Social Forestry and Climate Change (ASFCC). Retrieved from https://www.aramis.admin.ch/Default?DocumentID=67101&Load=trueEckstein, D., Künzel, V., Schäfer, L., & Winges, M. (2019) Global Climate Risk Index 2020. In, Briefing Paper. Who Suffers Most from Extreme Weather Events? Weather-Related Loss Events in 2018 and 1999 to 2018 (pp. 1-44). Bonn, Germany: Germanwatch.Elliott, L. (2003). ASEAN and environmental cooperation: norms, interests and identity. The Pacific Review, 16(1), 29-52. doi:10.1080/0951274032000043235Elliott, L. (2012). ASEAN and Environmental Governance: Strategies of Regionalism in Southeast Asia. Global Environmental Politics, 12(3), 38-57.Elliott, L. (2017). Environmental regionalism: moving in from the policy margins. The Pacific Review, 30(6), 952-965. doi:10.1080/09512748.2017.1303534Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Collaborative governance regimes. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Ensor, J., & Harvey, B. (2015). Social learning and climate change adaptation: evidence for international development practice. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(5), 509-522.Ernst, A. (2019). Research techniques and methodologies to assess social learning in participatory environmental governance. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 23, 100331.Evans, M. (2010). New directions in the study of policy transfer. London and New York: Routledge.Falkner, R. (2016). The Paris Agreement and the new logic of international climate politics. International Affairs, 92(5), 1107-1125.Fasting, S., Bacudo, I., Damen, B., & Dinesh, D. (2021). Climate Governance and Agriculture in Southeast Asia: Learning From a Polycentric Approach. Frontiers in Political Science, 88. doi: 10.3389/fpos.2021.698431.Fazey, I., Bunse, L., Msika, J., Pinke, M., Preedy, K., Evely, A. C., . . . Reed, M. S. (2014). Evaluating Knowledge Exchange in Interdisciplinary and Multi-stakeholder Research. Global Environmental Change, 25, 204-220.Feldman, M. S., & Khademian, A. M. (2007). The role of the public manager in inclusion: Creating communities of participation. Governance, 20(2), 305-324.Few, R., Brown, K., & Tompkins, E. L. (2007). Public participation and climate change adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Climate policy, 7(1), 46-59.Fischer, F. (2017). Climate crisis and the democratic prospect: participatory governance in sustainable communities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Ford, J. D., Cameron, L., Rubis, J., Maillet, M., Nakashima, D., Willox, A. C., & Pearce, T. (2016). Including indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment reports. Nature Climate Change, 6(4), 349-353. doi:10.1038/nclimate2954Gerard, K. (2014). ASEAN and civil society activities in ‘created spaces’: the limits of liberty. The Pacific Review, 27(2), 265-287.Gerard, K. (2015). Explaining ASEAN`s Engagement of Civil Society in Policymaking: Smoke and Mirrors. Globalizations, 12(3), 365-382.Gerstl, A., & Helmke, B. (2012). The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Climate Change: A Threat to National, Regime, and Human Security. In B. C. G. Teh (Ed.), Human Security Securing East Asia’s Future (pp. 135-156). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Glas, A., & Balogun, E. (2020). Norms in practice: people-centric governance in ASEAN and ECOWAS. International Affairs, 96(4), 1015-1032.Glas, A., & Laurence, M. (2022). Changing Norms in Practice: Noninterference in the UN and ASEAN. Journal of Global Security Studies, 7(2), ogac003.Goldstein, J., & Keohane, R. (1993). Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework. In J. Goldstein & R. Keohane (Eds.), Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change (pp. 3-30). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Græger, N. (2016). European security as practice: EU–NATO communities of practice in the making? European security, 25(4), 478-501.Gritten, D., Greijmans, M., Lewis, S. R., Sokchea, T., Atkinson, J., Nguyen Quang, T., . . . Mohns, B. (2015). An uneven playing field: regulatory barriers to communities making a living from the timber from their forests–examples from Cambodia, Nepal and Vietnam. Forests, 6(10), 3433-3451.Guerrero, M., Varghese, A., Conlu, T., & San Jose, D. (2020). ASEAN Guidelines for Sustainable Harvest and Resource Management Protocols for Selected Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs). Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.Haas, E. (1980). Why collaborate? Issue-linkage and international regimes. World politics, 32(3), 357-405.Haas, E. (1990). When Knowledge is Power: Three Models of Change in International Organizations (Vol. 22). Berkeley: University of California Press.Haas, P. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1-35.Haas, P. (2000). International institutions and social learning in the management of global environmental risks. Policy Studies Journal, 28(3), 558-575.Haas, P., & Haas, E. (1995). Learning to learn: improving international governance. Global governance, 1, 255-285.Hajjar, R., Engbring, G., & Kornhauser, K. (2021). The impacts of REDD+ on the social-ecological resilience of community forests. Environmental Research Letters, 16(2), 024001.Hale, T. (2019). Transnational Actors and Transnational Governance in Global Environmental Politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 23(1), 1-18. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032644Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative politics, 275-296.Handley, K., Sturdy, A., Fincham, R., & Clark, T. (2006). Within and beyond communities of practice: Making sense of learning through participation, identity and practice. Journal of management studies, 43(3), 641-653.Haris, S. M., Mustafa, F. B., & Ariffin, R. N. R. (2020). Systematic Literature Review of Climate Change Governance Activities of Environmental Nongovernmental Organizations in Southeast Asia. Environmental management, 66(5), 816-825.Harvey, B., Cochrane, L., & Van Epp, M. (2019). Charting Knowledge Co‐production Pathways in Climate and Development. Environmental Policy and Governance, 29, 107–117.Hegger, D., Lamers, M., Van Zeijl-Rozema, A., & Dieperink, C. (2012). Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: success conditions and levers for action. Environmental Science & Policy, 18, 52-65.Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2013). Building a conceptual approach to collective learning: Lessons for public policy scholars. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 484-512.Hoffman, M. (2014). Climate Change. In T. G. Weiss & R. Wilkinson (Eds.), International Organization and Global Governance (pp. 605-617). London: Routledge.Hulme, M., & Mahony, M. (2010). Climate change: What do we know about the IPCC? Progress in Physical Geography, 34(5), 705-718.Jasanoff, S. (2005). Judgment under siege: the three-body problem of expert legitimacy. In S. Maasen & P. Weingart (Eds.), Democratization of Expertise (pp. 209-224). Dordecht: Springer.Jiménez, A., LeDeunff, H., Giné, R., Sjödin, J., Cronk, R., Murad, S., . . . Bartram, J. (2019). The enabling environment for participation in water and sanitation: A conceptual framework. Water, 11(2), 308.Jodoin, S., Duyck, S., & Lofts, K. (2015). Public participation and climate governance: an introduction. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 24(2), 117-122.Johnston, A. I. (2003). Socialization in International Institutions: The ASEAN Way and International Relations Theory. In G. J. Ikenberry & M. Mastanduno (Eds.), International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific (pp. 107-162). New York: Columbia University Press.Jones, D. M., & Jenne, N. (2016). Weak states` regionalism: ASEAN and the limits of security cooperation in Pacific Asia. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 16(2), 209-240.Jones, D. M., & Smith, M. L. (2007). Making process, not progress: ASEAN and the evolving East Asian regional order. International Security, 32(1), 148-184.Kalafatis, S. E., Lemos, M. C., Lo, Y.-J., & Frank, K. A. (2015). Increasing information usability for climate adaptation: The role of knowledge networks and communities of practice. Global Environmental Change, 32, 30-39.Kearney, J., Berkes, F., Charles, A., Pinkerton, E., & Wiber, M. (2007). The role of participatory governance and community-based management in integrated coastal and ocean management in Canada. Coastal Management.Keck, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell.Kiem, A. S., & Austin, E. K. (2013). Disconnect between science and end-users as a barrier to climate change adaptation. Climate research, 58(1), 29-41.Kim, M. H. (2011). Theorizing ASEAN integration. Asian Perspective, 35(3), 407-435.Klinke, A. (2012). Democratizing Regional Environmental Governance: Public Deliberation and Participation in Transboundary Ecoregions. Global Environmental Politics, 12(3), 79-99.Koh, K. L., & Robinson, N. (2002). Regional Environmental Governance: Examining the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Model. In D. C. Esty & M. H. Ivanova (Eds.), Global Environmental Governance: Options & Opportunities (Vol. 8, pp. 101-120). New Haven: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental StudiesKoremenos, B., Lipson, C., & Snidal, D. (2001). The rational design of international institutions. International Organization, 55(4), 761-799.Koster, M. (2019). Assembling formal and informal urban governance: Political brokerage in Recife, Brazil. Anthropologica, 61(1), 25-34.Krasner, S. (1982). Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables. International Organization, 36(2), 185-205.Kuhn, T. (2002). Negotiating boundaries between scholars and practitioners: Knowledge, networks, and communities of practice. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(1), 106-112.Kuyper, J. W., Linnér, B.-O., & Schroeder, H. (2018). Non-state actors in hybrid global climate governance: justice, legitimacy, and effectiveness in a post-Paris era. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 9(1). doi:10.1002/wcc.497Lave, J. (1991). Chapter 4: Situating learning in communities of practice.(pp. 63-82). In L. Resnick, L. B, M. John, S. Teasley, & D (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition: American Psychological Association.Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lavis, J., Ross, S., McLeod, C., & Gildiner, A. (2003). Measuring the impact of health research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 8(3), 165-170.Levy, J. S. (1994). Learning and foreign policy: Sweeping a conceptual minefield. International Organization, 48(2), 279-312.Lin, Y., & Beyerlein, M. M. (2006). Communities of Practice: A Critical Perspective on Collaboration. In M. M. Beyerlein, S. T. Beyerlein, F. A. Kennedy, & F. H. Kennedy (Eds.), Innovation Through Collaboration (Vol. 12, pp. 53-79). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.MacKillop, E., Quarmby, S., & Downe, J. (2020). Does knowledge brokering facilitate evidence-based policy? A review of existing knowledge and an agenda for future research. Policy and Politics, 48(2), 335-353.Michaels, S. (2009). Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(7), 994-1011.Miller, C. A. (2007). Democratization, international knowledge institutions, and global governance. Governance, 20(2), 325-357.Mitton, C., Adair, C. E., McKenzie, E., Patten, S. B., & Perry, B. W. (2007). Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the literature. The Milbank Quarterly, 85(4), 729-768.Moravcsik, A. (1993). Preferences and power in the European Community: A liberal intergovernmentalist approach. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 31(4), 473-524.Muccione, V., Huggel, C., Bresch, D. N., Jurt, C., Wallimann-Helmer, I., Mehra, M. K., & Caicedo, J. D. P. (2019). Joint knowledge production in climate change adaptation networks. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 39, 147-152.National Research Council. (2008). Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. Washington, DC: The National Academics Press.Nesadurai, H. E. (2009). ASEAN and regional governance after the Cold War: from regional order to regional community? The Pacific Review, 22(1), 91-118.Newig, J., Challies, E., Jager, N. W., Kochskaemper, E., & Adzersen, A. (2018). The environmental performance of participatory and collaborative governance: a framework of causal mechanisms. Policy Studies Journal, 46(2), 269-297.Norman, L. (2015). Interpretive process tracing and causal explanations. Qualitative & Multi-Method Research, 13(2), 4-9.O’Neill, K. (2009). The Environment and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Overland, I., Sagbakken, H. F., Chan, H.-Y., Merdekawati, M., Suryadi, B., Utama, N. A., & Vakulchuk, R. (2021). The ASEAN climate and energy paradox. Energy and Climate Change, 2, 100019.Pouliot, V. (2008). The logic of practicality: A theory of practice of security communities. International Organization, 62(2), 257-288.Pouliot, V. (2015). Practice tracing. In A. Bennett & J. T. Checkel (Eds.), Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool (pp. 237-259). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Pouliot, V., & Cornut, J. (2015). Practice theory and the study of diplomacy: A research agenda. Cooperation and conflict, 50(3), 297-315.Pouliot, V., & Thérien, J. P. (2018). Global governance in practice. Global Policy, 9(2), 163-172.Prutsch, A., Steurer, R., & Stickler, T. (2018). Is the participatory formulation of policy strategies worth the effort? The case of climate change adaptation in Austria. Regional environmental change, 18(1), 271-285.Quick, K. S., & Feldman, M. S. (2011). Distinguishing participation and inclusion. Journal of planning education and research, 31(3), 272-290.Raitzer, D. A., Bosello, F., Tavoni, M., Orecchia, C., Marangoni, G., & Samson, J. N. G. (2015). Southeast Asia and the Economics of Global Climate Stabilization. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.Rajamani, L. (2016). Ambition and differentiation in the 2015 Paris Agreement: Interpretative possibilities and underlying politics. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 65(2), 493-514.Ramirez, M. A. M., Lecciones, A. M., & Capiña, X. G. B. (2019). Social Forestry in the ASEAN Region: Gaps and Strategic Interventions. Los Baños, Philippines: Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture.Raustiala, K. (1997). States, NGOs, and International Environmental Institutions. International Studies Quarterly, 41, 719–740.RECOFTC, & AWG-SF. (2017). Social forestry and climate change in the ASEAN region: Situational analysis 2016. Bangkok: RECOFTC-The Center for People and Forests.Rich, A. (2010). Ideas, Expertise, and Think Tanks. In D. Béland & R. H. Cox (Eds.), Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research (pp. 191-208). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Rosen, A. (2015). The Wrong Solution at the Right Time: The Failure of the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. Politics & Policy, 43(1), 30-58.Rother, S. (2015). Democratizing ASEAN through “Alternative Regionalism”? The ASEAN Civil Society Conference and the ASEAN Youth Forum. ASIEN, 136(July), 98-119.Rüland, J. (2014). The limits of democratizing interest representation: ASEAN’s regional corporatism and normative challenges. European Journal of International Relations 20(1), 237–261.Russel, D., Beck, S., Campos, I., Capriolo, A., Castellari, S., den Uyl, R. M., . . . Weiland, S. (2018). Analyzing the Policy Framework for Climate Change Adaptation. In H. Sanderson, M. Hildén, D. Russel, G. Penha-Lopes, & A. Capriolo (Eds.), Adapting to Climate Change in Europe: Exploring Sustainable Pathways - From Local Measures to Wider Policies (1 ed., pp. 273-313). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (2019). The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications. In Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 189-220). London: Routledge.Sahraie, M. (2011). The ASEAN actions on climate change: Recognizing or pro-actively addressing the issue. Sustainable development law on climate change: Working paper series. Rome: International Development Law Organization (IDLO) and the Centre for International Sustainable Development Law (CISDL).Salamanca, A., & Anschell, N. (2020). ASEAN Guidance for Climate-Smart Land Use Practices: A Review (D. G. f. I. Z. (GIZ) Ed.). Jakarta: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ).Salamanca, A., & Nguyen, H. (2016). Climate change adaptation readiness in the ASEAN countries. Retrieved from Bangkok, Thailand: www.jstor.org/stable/resrep02771.Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303-326.Schreurs, M. A. (2010). Multi-level governance the ASEAN Way. In H. Enderlein, S. Wälti, & M. Zürn (Eds.), Handbook on Multi-Level Governance (pp. 308-320). Cheltenham, U.K. : Edward Elgar.Scott, T. (2015). Does collaboration make any difference? Linking collaborative governance to environmental outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(3), 537-566.Seah, S., & Martinus, M. (2021). Gaps and Opportunities in ASEAN’s Climate Governance. Singapore: ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.Sil, R., & Katzenstein, P. J. (2010). Beyond paradigms: Analytic eclecticism in the study of world politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Sondarjee, M. (2021). Collective learning at the boundaries of communities of practice: Inclusive policymaking at the World Bank. Global Society, 35(3), 307-326.Stone, D. (2008). Global Public Policy, Transnational Policy Communities, and Their Networks. The Policy Studies Journal, 36(1), 19-38.Stone, D. (2011). Knowledge Networks and Transnational Policy Process. In G. Papanagnou (Ed.), Social Science and Policy Challenges: Democracy, Values and Capacities (pp. 143-164). Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.Stubbs, R. (2019). ASEAN sceptics versus ASEAN proponents: evaluating regional institutions. The Pacific Review, 32(6), 923-950.Tosun, J., & Schoenefeld, J. J. (2017). Collective climate action and networked climate governance. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 8(1), e440.Turnhout, E., Stuiver, M., Klostermann, J., Harms, B., & Leeuwis, C. (2013). New roles of science in society: different repertoires of knowledge brokering. Science and public policy, 40(3), 354-365.Van Kammen, J., de Savigny, D., & Sewankambo, N. (2006). Using knowledge brokering to promote evidence-based policy-making: the need for support structures. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 84, 608-612.Verdon‐Kidd, D. C., Kiem, A. S., & Austin, E. K. (2014). Bridging the gap between researchers and decision‐makers. Applied studies in climate adaptation, 51-59.Ward, V., House, A., & Hamer, S. (2009). Knowledge brokering: the missing link in the evidence to action chain? Evidence & policy: a journal of research, debate and practice, 5(3), 267-279.Weber, E. P., & Khademian, A. M. (2008). Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public administration review, 68(2), 334-349.Weber, M. S., & Yanovitzky, I. (2021). Knowledge Brokers, Networks, and the Policymaking Process. In M. S. Weber & I. Yanovitzky (Eds.), Networks, Knowledge Brokers, and the Public Policymaking Process. (pp. 1-26). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Wenger, E. (2010). Communities of practice and social learning systems: the career of a concept. In Blackmore, C. (Ed.), Social learning systems and communities of practice (pp. 179-198). London: Springer.Wiseman, G. (2015). Diplomatic practices at the United Nations. Cooperation and conflict, 50(3), 316-333.Wolf, M. J., Emerson, J. W., Esty, D. C., de Sherbinin, A., Wendling, Z. A., & al., e. (2022). 2022 Environmental Performance Index. Retrieved from epi.yale.eduWong, G. Y., Moeliono, M., Bong, I. W., Pham, T. T., Sahide, M. A., Naito, D., & Brockhaus, M. (2020). Social forestry in Southeast Asia: Evolving interests, discourses and the many notions of equity. Geoforum, 117, 246-258.World Bank. (2019). Forest Country Note – Vietnam. Washington, DC: World Bank.Yoshimatsu, H. (2005). From distrust to mutual interests?: Emerging cooperation in Northeast Asia. East Asia, 22(4), 18-38.Young, O. R. (2017). Governing Complex Systems: Social Capital for the Anthropocene. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Zimmerman, E. (2016). Think Tanks and Non-Traditional Security: Governance Entrepreneurs in Asia. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Zimmerman, E., & Stone, D. (2017). ASEAN think tanks, policy change and economic cooperation: from the Asian financial crisis to the global financial crisis. Policy and Society, 37(2), 260-275. doi:10.1080/14494035.2017.1397394 描述 博士
國立政治大學
亞太研究英語博士學位學程(IDAS)
107265505資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107265505 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 杜文苓 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Tu, Wen-ling en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 宋麗秋 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Salazar, Virgemarie en_US dc.creator (作者) 宋麗秋 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Salazar, Virgemarie en_US dc.date (日期) 2023 en_US dc.date.accessioned 2-Aug-2023 13:47:02 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 2-Aug-2023 13:47:02 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Aug-2023 13:47:02 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0107265505 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/146501 - dc.description (描述) 博士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 亞太研究英語博士學位學程(IDAS) zh_TW dc.description (描述) 107265505 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 氣候變遷已成為需要前所未有的集體行動之棘手議題。在東南亞這個極易受氣候變遷威脅的地區，各國政府間已透過東南亞國家協會（下稱東協）通過應對其負面影響的合作協議。然而，東協是否能有效解決此複雜問題仍存在諸多疑慮，儘管東協一直在與非國家行為體合作解決此議題，但研究指出東協在治理上仍未完全建立起與公民組織或地方社群的穩健關係。因此，本論文將探討有關東協更具參與式及兼容性的氣候變遷治理之前景。非國家行為體諸如專家學者、倡導團體等加入跨國網路影響東協的治理機制及傳達信息。他們對治理的參與將受檢驗以找到更好的方法去使區域性標準在各成員國間主流化、在政策決定中整合相關知識、及兼容不同的利益關係者。本研究項目在此藉由分析非國家行為體及其所屬之跨國網路於東協的氣候變遷措施中之參與情況以探索其參與過程。本研究之具體研究問題如下：一、東協的治理脈絡如何決定非國家行為體進入氣候變遷的區域性進程？二、跨國氣候變遷網路在東協的行動如何促進參與式治理？三、東協中之知識仲介如何促進氣候變遷治理之學習？本論文透過針對關鍵報導人之半結構性訪談資料及針對政策聲明與其他相關文件之文本分析提出三個重要發現。首先，由於東協的支持以國家為中心進行決策之政府間組織設計與規範，現行的東協氣候變遷治理框架使得整合入參與式方法相當具挑戰性。其次，本研究表明，一方面，東協中的跨國網路作為實踐社群，提供非國家行為體機會去表達其關切並通知決策者相關科學知識及區域性知識；另一方面，實踐的雙重性使得行為體可以增進參與，同時也藉製造、複製會限制參與性的根深蒂固的規範、理念和權力關係使現有之架構永久化。最後，已發現有關集體學習的知識仲介行為在某種程度上促進了非國家行為體在氣候變遷治理上的參與，然而，集體學習做為共同實踐的結果，仍受到東協機構及成員國之主導性社會、政治、經濟狀況之影響。儘管已有一些對於東協中氣候變遷治理的研究，本論文仍給予了透過強調跨國網路在促進非國家行為體參與區域層級的氣候變遷治理中扮演的角色的原創性知識貢獻。因此，這些發現提供了對於實踐理論、東協區域建設、參與性治理的理論性貢獻。本研究收集之資料也提供了豐富使用者對於東協中參與性氣候變遷治理作為一種現象的理解之實證貢獻。除此之外，本研究中的政策影響可以為未來與東協氣候變遷治理工作相關的干預措施和策略提供信息。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Climate change being a “wicked” problem necessitates collective action of an unprecedented kind. In Southeast Asia, a region highly vulnerable to climate risks and hazards, governments have enacted cooperative arrangements through ASEAN in response to the adverse impacts of climate change. Still, questions abound on whether ASEAN can effectively manage this complex problem. While ASEAN has been working with non-state actors on this issue, studies have noted that ASEAN has yet to fully realize strong partnerships with civil society groups and local communities involved in governance. Thus, this dissertation investigates the prospect of a more participatory and inclusive governance of climate change in ASEAN.Non-state actors like experts, academics, and advocacy groups join transnational networks to inform and influence ASEAN’s governance mechanisms. Their participation in governance is examined to find answers on better ways to mainstream regional standards across member states, integrate relevant knowledge in policy decisions, and include various stakeholders. In doing so, this research project explores participatory processes by analyzing the involvement of non-state actors, and the transnational networks they belong to, in ASEAN’s initiatives on climate change. The following are the specific research questions of this study: (1) How does ASEAN’s governance context determine the access of non-state actors in regional processes on climate change? (2) How can the practices of transnational climate networks in ASEAN promote participatory governance? (3) How do knowledge brokers in ASEAN facilitate learning in climate change governance?Using data from semi-structured interviews of key informants and textual analysis of policy statements and other relevant documents, the dissertation presents three significant findings. Firstly, the prevailing ASEAN governance framework on climate change makes integrating participatory approaches rather challenging given ASEAN’s intergovernmental design and norms that support state-centric decision-making. Secondly, the study demonstrates that, on the one hand, transnational networks in ASEAN serve as communities of practice that provide non-state actors with opportunities to articulate their concerns and inform decisionmakers with pertinent scientific and local knowledge. On the other hand, the dual nature of practices is enabling actors to promote participation as well as perpetuate existing structures by producing and reproducing entrenched norms, ideas, and power relations that constrain participation. Lastly, knowledge brokering practices linked to collective learning have been found to facilitate the participation of non-state actors in climate change governance to a certain extent. However, collective learning, as a result of shared practices, remain subject to ASEAN institutions and the predominant social, political, and economic conditions in member states.While there have been a few studies on climate change governance in ASEAN, this dissertation imparts an original contribution to knowledge by underscoring the role of transnational networks in fostering the participation of non-state actors in climate change governance at the regional level. Hence, the findings offer theoretical contributions to practice theory, ASEAN region building, and participatory governance among others. The data gathered also provide empirical contributions that enrich one’s understanding of participatory climate change governance in ASEAN as a phenomenon. Moreover, policy implications of the research can inform future interventions and strategies related to ASEAN’s governance efforts on climate change. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents Introduction 11.1 Overview of the study 11.2 Research puzzle 41.3 Rationale of the study 61.4 Related literature: history, concepts, and debates 101.4.1 Transnational environmental governance 101.4.2 The global climate regime 131.4.3 Participation in climate change governance 171.4.4 The prospect of participatory regionalism in ASEAN 211.5 Conceptual framework 241.6 Research design 271.7 Contributions of the study 30Can ASEAN’s governance of climate change become participatory? 332.1 Introduction 332.2 Issues in ASEAN’s climate change governance 342.3 Factors of governance context 372.3.1 Collective Interests 392.3.2 Institutional Factors 432.3.3 Ideational elements 512.4 Participation in regional governance 542.4.1 Intergovernmentalism limits access 552.4.2 Low engagement of non-state actors due to ASEAN Way 582.4.3 Diffusion of ideas from global climate regime evident 602.5 Prospect of participatory governance in ASEAN 63From practices to praxis: ASEAN’s transnational climate governance networks as communities of practice 663.1 Introduction 663.2 Communities of practice 683.3 Transnational climate governance networks in ASEAN 733.4 Case studies of ASEAN’s transnational climategovernance networks 763.4.1 ASEAN Regional Knowledge Network on Forest andClimate Change 773.4.2 ASEAN Social Forestry Network 793.4.3 ASEAN Climate Resilience Network 813.5 Transnational networks as communities of practice 843.6 Participation in communities of practice 913.7 From practices to praxis 1093.8 Governing through shared practices 112Participation through knowledge brokering and collective learning: Evidence from ASEAN 1144.1 Introduction 1144.2 Knowledge brokering 1174.3 Learning 1204.4 Social forestry and climate change in ASEAN 1254.5 ASFCC program 1294.6 Process tracing of knowledge brokering practices andcollective learning 1344.6.1 Systematic mechanisms 1364.6.2 Non-systematic mechanisms 1444.6.3 Collective learning process and outcomes 1484.7 Adoption of agroforestry guidelines as collectivelearning 1544.8 Explaining participation through practices 1604.9 Learning through participation 164Concluding Chapter 1655.1 Important findings 1655.2 Empirical contributions 1695.3 Theoretical contributions 1715.4 Research implications 173References 178Appendix 1.1 195Appendix 2.1 197Appendix 2.2 200Appendix 2.3 205Appendix 2.4 206Appendix 2.5 206Appendix 3.1 207Appendix 3.2 208Appendix 3.3 209Appendix 3.4 214Appendix 4.1 226Appendix 4.2 228Appendix 4.3 229Appendix 4.4 236Appendix 4.5 247 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2784794 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107265505 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 東協 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 參與式治理 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 氣候變遷 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 跨國網路 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 實踐社群 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Communities of practice en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) ASEAN en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Participatory governance en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Climate change en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Transnational networks en_US dc.title (題名) 知識,跨國網絡,與實踐: 以參與式視角探討東南亞國家協會之氣候變遷治理 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Of knowledge, transnational networks, and practices: Exploring ASEAN’s climate change governance through a participatory lens en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (1998). Why states act through formal international organizations. Journal of conflict resolution, 42(1), 3-32.Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2009). The Governance Triangle: Regulatory Standards Institutions and Shadow of the State. In W. Mattli & N. Woods (Eds.), The Politics of Global Regulation (pp. 44-88). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Acharya, A. (2003). Democratisation and the prospects for participatory regionalism in Southeast Asia. Third World Quarterly, 24(2), 375-390.Acharya, A. (2011). Engagement or Entrapment? Scholarship and Policymaking on Asian Regionalism. International Studies Review, 13(1), 12-17.Acharya, A. (2014). Constructing a security community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the problem of regional order (3rd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the middle ground: Constructivism in world politics. European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 319-363.Adler, E. (2004). Communitarian international relations: The epistemic foundations of international relations (1st ed.). London and New York: Routledge.Adler, E. (2008). The spread of security communities: communities of practice, self-restraint, and NATO`s Post—Cold War Transformation. European Journal of International Relations, 14(2), 195-230. doi:10.1177/1354066108089241Adler, E. (2013). Constructivism in international relations: Sources, contributions, and debates. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of international relations (Vol. 2, pp. 112-144). London and Thousand Oaks: Sage.Adler, E. (2019). World ordering: A social theory of cognitive evolution (Vol. 150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Adler, E., & Faubert, M. (2022). Epistemic communities of practice. In A. Drieschova, C. Bueger, & T. Hopf (Eds.), Conceptualizing International Practices: Directions for the Practice Turn in International Relations (pp. 47-76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Adler, E., & Haas, P. (1992). Conclusion: Epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program. International Organization, 46(1), 367-390.Adler, E., & Pouliot, V. (2011). International practices. International theory, 3(1), 1-36.Adler‐Nissen, R. (2016). Towards a practice turn in EU studies: The everyday of European integration. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 54(1), 87-103.Allison, L., & Taylor, M. (2017). ASEAN`s ‘people-oriented’ aspirations: civil society influences on non-traditional security governance. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 71(1), 24-41.Anbumozhi, V. (2017). Ensuring ASEAN’s Sustainable and Resilient Future. In A. Baviera & L. Maramis (Eds.), ASEAN@50 Building ASEAN Community: Political–Security and Socio-cultural Reflections (Vol. 4, pp. 309-323). Jakarta: Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia.Andonova, L. B., Betsill, M. M., & Bulkeley, H. (2009). Transnational Climate Governance. Global Environmental Politics, 9(2), 52-87.Arino, Y., Prabhakar, S. V. R. K., Lee, Y.-Y., Ikeda, M., & Zusman, E. (2021). ASEAN State of Climate Change Report. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.Arts, B., Behagel, J., Turnhout, E., De Koning, J., & Van Bommel, S. (2014). A practice based approach to forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics, 49, 4-11.Arts, B., Behagel, J., van Bommel, S., de Koning, J., & Turnhout, E. (2013). Prelude to practice: introducing a practice based approach to forest and nature governance. Forest and nature governance: a practice based approach, 3-21.Ascher, W., Steelman, T. A., & Healy, R. G. (2010). Knowledge and environmental policy: Re-imagining the boundaries of science and politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Asian Development Bank. (2009). The Economics of Climate Change in Southeast Asia: A Regional Review. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.Asiyanbi, A. P. (2016). A political ecology of REDD+: Property rights, militarised protectionism, and carbonised exclusion in Cross River. Geoforum, 77, 146-156.Autesserre, S. (2014). Going micro: Emerging and future peacekeeping research. International Peacekeeping, 21(4), 492-500.Averchenkova, A., Fankhauser, S., & Finnegan, J. J. (2021). The influence of climate change advisory bodies on political debates: evidence from the UK Committee on Climate Change. Climate policy, 21(9), 1218-1233.Ba, A. D. (2016). Institutionalization of Southeast Asian: ASEAN and ASEAN Centrality. In A. D. Ba, C.-C. Kuik, & S. Sudo (Eds.), Institutionalizing East Asia: Mapping and Reconfiguring Regional Cooperation (pp. 11-34). London: Routledge.Bäckstrand, K. (2003). Civic Science for Sustainability: Reframing the Role of Experts, Policy-Makers and Citizens in Environmental Governance. Global Environmental Politics, 3(4), 24-52.Bäckstrand, K., Khan, J., Kronsell, A., & Lövbrand, E. (2010). The promise of new modes of governance. In K. Bäckstrand, J. Khan, A. Kronsell, & E. Lövbrand (Eds.), Environmental politics and deliberative democracy: Examining the promise of new modes of governance (pp. 3-27). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Bacudo, I., & Lim, A. (2021). Positioning ASEAN in International Climate Negotiations: Lessons Learned from the ASEAN Negotiating Group for Agriculture (ANGA). Jakarta: ASEAN Climate Resilience Network.Balsiger, J., & VanDeveer, S. (2012). Navigating Regional Environmental Governance. Global Environmental Politics, 12(3), 1-20.Barton, J. R., Krellenberg, K., & Harris, J. M. (2015). Collaborative governance and the challenges of participatory climate change adaptation planning in Santiago de Chile. Climate and Development, 7(2), 175-184.Bauer, A., Feichtinger, J., & Steurer, R. (2012). The governance of climate change adaptation in 10 OECD countries: challenges and approaches. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 14(3), 279-304.Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. B. (2019). Process-tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Beeson, M. (2014). Regionalism and globalization in East Asia: politics, security and economic development. Houndmills, Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Behagel, J. H., Arts, B., & Turnhout, E. (2019). Beyond argumentation: a practice-based approach to environmental policy. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 21(5), 479-491.Béland, D., & Cox, R. H. (2010). Introduction: Ideas and politics. In D. Béland & R. H. Cox (Eds.), Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research (pp. 3-20 ). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Béland, D., & Cox, R. H. (2016). Ideas as coalition magnets: coalition building, policy entrepreneurs, and power relations. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(3), 428-445.Benjaminsen, G., & Kaarhus, R. (2018). Commodification of forest carbon: REDD+ and socially embedded forest practices in Zanzibar. Geoforum, 93, 48-56.Bennett, A., & Checkel, J. T. (2015). Process Tracing: From Philosophical Roots to Best Practices. In A. Bennett & J. T. Checkel (Eds.), Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool (pp. 3-37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Berg, M., & Lidskog, R. (2018). Deliberative democracy meets democratised science: A deliberative systems approach to global environmental governance. Environmental Politics, 27(1), 1-20.Betsill, M. (2014). Transnational Actors in International Environmental Politics. In M. Betsill, K. Hochstetler, & D. Stevis (Eds.), Advances in International Environmental Politics. Houndmills, Basingstoke and Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Bierman, F. (2014). Global Governance and the Environment In M. Betsill, K. Hochstetler, & D. Stevis (Eds.), Advances in International Environmental Politics (second ed., pp. 245-270). Houndmills, Basingstoke and Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Bixler, R. P. (2021). The Knowledge Network: Identifying Actors and Structural Dimensions of Knowledge Transfer. In C. C. Ferreira & C. F. C. Klütsch (Eds.), Closing the Knowledge-Implementation Gap in Conservation Science: Interdisciplinary Evidence Transfer Across Sectors and Spatiotemporal Scales (pp. 143-169). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2010). Governance Without a State: Can It Work? Regulation & Governance, 4(2), 113-134.Boxelaar, L., Paine, M., & Beilin, R. (2006). Community engagement and public administration: Of silos, overlays and technologies of government. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 65(1), 113-126.Bremberg, N. (2015). The E uropean Union as Security Community‐Building Institution: Venues, Networks and Co‐operative Security Practices. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(3), 674-692.Bremberg, N., Sonnsjö, H., & Mobjörk, M. (2019). The EU and climate-related security risks: a community of practice in the making? Journal of European integration, 41(5), 623-639.Breslin, S., & Nesadurai, H. E. S. (2017). Who Governs and How? Non-State Actors and Transnational Governance in Southeast Asia. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 48(2), 187-203. doi:10.1080/00472336.2017.1416423Broadhead, J., & Izquierdo, R. (2010). Assessment of land use, forest policy and governance in Cambodia. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Food and Agricultural Organization, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.Bueger, C. (2015). Making things known: Epistemic practices, the United Nations, and the translation of piracy. International political sociology, 9(1), 1-18.Bueger, C., & Gadinger, F. (2015). The play of international practice. International Studies Quarterly, 59(3), 449-460.Bulkeley, H., Andonova, L., Betsill, M., Compagnon, D., Hale, T., Hoffmann, M., . . . VanDeveer, S. (2014). Transnational Climate Change Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bulkeley, H., & Mol, A. P. (2003). Participation and environmental governance: consensus, ambivalence and debate. Environmental values, 12(2), 143-154.Busse, N. (1999). Constructivism and Southeast Asian Security. The Pacific Review, 12(1), 39-60.Caballero-Anthony, M. (2018). Negotiating Governance on Non-Traditional Security in Southeast Asia and Beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.Capie, D. (2010). When does track two matter? Structure, agency and Asian regionalism. Review of International Political Economy, 17(2), 291-318. doi:10.1080/09692290903378801Caplan, N. (1979). The Two-Communities Theory and Knowledge Utilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 22(3), 459-470. doi:10.1177/000276427902200308Catacutan, D., Finlayson, R., Perdana, A., Lusiana, B., Leimona, B., Simelton, E., . . . Yasmi, Y. (2019). Policy guidelines for agroforestry development adopted by ASEAN. In M. van Noordwijk (Ed.), Sustainable development through trees on farms: agroforestry in its fifth decade (pp. 337−359). Bogor, Indonesia: World Agroforestry (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional Program.Chandra, A. C., Abdulrahim, R., & Almuttaqi, A. I. (2017). Non-state Actors’ Engagement with ASEAN: Current State of Play and Way Forward. In A. Baviera & L. Maramis (Eds.), ASEAN@50 Building ASEAN Community: Political–Security and Socio-cultural Reflections (Vol. 4, pp. 221-246). Jakarta: Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia.Checkel, J. T. (2001). Why comply? Social learning and European identity change. International Organization, 55(3), 553-588.Cockerham, G. B. (2010). Regional integration in ASEAN: Institutional design and the ASEAN way. East Asia, 27(2), 165-185.Collins, A. (2013). Building a People-Oriented Security Community the ASEAN Way. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Contandriopoulos, D., Lemire, M., Denis, J. L., & Tremblay, É. (2010). Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: a narrative systematic review of the literature. The Milbank Quarterly, 88(4), 444-483.Cummings, S., Kiwanuka, S., Gillman, H., & Regeer, B. (2019). The future of knowledge brokering: perspectives from a generational framework of knowledge management for international development. Information Development, 35(5), 781-794.Cvitanovic, C., Cunningham, R., Dowd, A. M., Howden, S. M., & van Putten, E. (2017). Using social network analysis to monitor and assess the effectiveness of knowledge brokers at connecting scientists and decision‐makers: An Australian case study. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27(3), 256-269.Cvitanovic, C., Hobday, A. J., van Kerkhoff, L., Wilson, S. K., Dobbs, K., & Marshall, N. A. (2015). Improving knowledge exchange among scientists and decision-makers to facilitate the adaptive governance of marine resources: a review of knowledge and research needs. Ocean & Coastal Management, 112, 25-35.Davies, M. (2016). A community of practice: explaining change and continuity in ASEAN`s diplomatic environment. The Pacific Review, 29(2), 211-233.Ding, D. K., & Beh, S. E. (2022). Climate Change and Sustainability in ASEAN Countries. Sustainability, 14(2), 999.Dryzek, J. S., & Pickering, J. (2017). Deliberation as a catalyst for reflexive environmental governance. Ecological Economics, 131, 353-360.Duchelle, A. E., Simonet, G., Sunderlin, W. D., & Wunder, S. (2018). What is REDD+ achieving on the ground? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 32, 134-140.Dunlop, C., & Radaelli, C. (2018a). The lessons of policy learning: types, triggers, hindrances and pathologies. Policy & Politics, 46(2), 255-272. doi:10.1332/030557318x15230059735521Dunlop, C., & Radaelli, C. (2018b). Does Policy Learning Meet the Standards of an Analytical Framework of the Policy Process? Policy Stud J, 46(Suppl Suppl 1), S48-S68. doi:10.1111/psj.12250Durst, P., & Soriaga, R. (2020). Final Evaluation of the ASEAN-Swiss Partnership on Social Forestry and Climate Change (ASFCC). Retrieved from https://www.aramis.admin.ch/Default?DocumentID=67101&Load=trueEckstein, D., Künzel, V., Schäfer, L., & Winges, M. (2019) Global Climate Risk Index 2020. In, Briefing Paper. Who Suffers Most from Extreme Weather Events? Weather-Related Loss Events in 2018 and 1999 to 2018 (pp. 1-44). Bonn, Germany: Germanwatch.Elliott, L. (2003). ASEAN and environmental cooperation: norms, interests and identity. The Pacific Review, 16(1), 29-52. doi:10.1080/0951274032000043235Elliott, L. (2012). ASEAN and Environmental Governance: Strategies of Regionalism in Southeast Asia. Global Environmental Politics, 12(3), 38-57.Elliott, L. (2017). Environmental regionalism: moving in from the policy margins. The Pacific Review, 30(6), 952-965. doi:10.1080/09512748.2017.1303534Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Collaborative governance regimes. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Ensor, J., & Harvey, B. (2015). Social learning and climate change adaptation: evidence for international development practice. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(5), 509-522.Ernst, A. (2019). Research techniques and methodologies to assess social learning in participatory environmental governance. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 23, 100331.Evans, M. (2010). New directions in the study of policy transfer. London and New York: Routledge.Falkner, R. (2016). The Paris Agreement and the new logic of international climate politics. International Affairs, 92(5), 1107-1125.Fasting, S., Bacudo, I., Damen, B., & Dinesh, D. (2021). Climate Governance and Agriculture in Southeast Asia: Learning From a Polycentric Approach. Frontiers in Political Science, 88. doi: 10.3389/fpos.2021.698431.Fazey, I., Bunse, L., Msika, J., Pinke, M., Preedy, K., Evely, A. C., . . . Reed, M. S. (2014). Evaluating Knowledge Exchange in Interdisciplinary and Multi-stakeholder Research. Global Environmental Change, 25, 204-220.Feldman, M. S., & Khademian, A. M. (2007). The role of the public manager in inclusion: Creating communities of participation. Governance, 20(2), 305-324.Few, R., Brown, K., & Tompkins, E. L. (2007). Public participation and climate change adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Climate policy, 7(1), 46-59.Fischer, F. (2017). Climate crisis and the democratic prospect: participatory governance in sustainable communities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Ford, J. D., Cameron, L., Rubis, J., Maillet, M., Nakashima, D., Willox, A. C., & Pearce, T. (2016). Including indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment reports. Nature Climate Change, 6(4), 349-353. doi:10.1038/nclimate2954Gerard, K. (2014). ASEAN and civil society activities in ‘created spaces’: the limits of liberty. The Pacific Review, 27(2), 265-287.Gerard, K. (2015). Explaining ASEAN`s Engagement of Civil Society in Policymaking: Smoke and Mirrors. Globalizations, 12(3), 365-382.Gerstl, A., & Helmke, B. (2012). The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Climate Change: A Threat to National, Regime, and Human Security. In B. C. G. Teh (Ed.), Human Security Securing East Asia’s Future (pp. 135-156). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Glas, A., & Balogun, E. (2020). Norms in practice: people-centric governance in ASEAN and ECOWAS. International Affairs, 96(4), 1015-1032.Glas, A., & Laurence, M. (2022). Changing Norms in Practice: Noninterference in the UN and ASEAN. Journal of Global Security Studies, 7(2), ogac003.Goldstein, J., & Keohane, R. (1993). Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework. In J. Goldstein & R. Keohane (Eds.), Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change (pp. 3-30). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Græger, N. (2016). European security as practice: EU–NATO communities of practice in the making? European security, 25(4), 478-501.Gritten, D., Greijmans, M., Lewis, S. R., Sokchea, T., Atkinson, J., Nguyen Quang, T., . . . Mohns, B. (2015). An uneven playing field: regulatory barriers to communities making a living from the timber from their forests–examples from Cambodia, Nepal and Vietnam. Forests, 6(10), 3433-3451.Guerrero, M., Varghese, A., Conlu, T., & San Jose, D. (2020). ASEAN Guidelines for Sustainable Harvest and Resource Management Protocols for Selected Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs). Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.Haas, E. (1980). Why collaborate? Issue-linkage and international regimes. World politics, 32(3), 357-405.Haas, E. (1990). When Knowledge is Power: Three Models of Change in International Organizations (Vol. 22). Berkeley: University of California Press.Haas, P. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1-35.Haas, P. (2000). International institutions and social learning in the management of global environmental risks. Policy Studies Journal, 28(3), 558-575.Haas, P., & Haas, E. (1995). Learning to learn: improving international governance. Global governance, 1, 255-285.Hajjar, R., Engbring, G., & Kornhauser, K. (2021). The impacts of REDD+ on the social-ecological resilience of community forests. Environmental Research Letters, 16(2), 024001.Hale, T. (2019). Transnational Actors and Transnational Governance in Global Environmental Politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 23(1), 1-18. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032644Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative politics, 275-296.Handley, K., Sturdy, A., Fincham, R., & Clark, T. (2006). Within and beyond communities of practice: Making sense of learning through participation, identity and practice. Journal of management studies, 43(3), 641-653.Haris, S. M., Mustafa, F. B., & Ariffin, R. N. R. (2020). Systematic Literature Review of Climate Change Governance Activities of Environmental Nongovernmental Organizations in Southeast Asia. Environmental management, 66(5), 816-825.Harvey, B., Cochrane, L., & Van Epp, M. (2019). Charting Knowledge Co‐production Pathways in Climate and Development. Environmental Policy and Governance, 29, 107–117.Hegger, D., Lamers, M., Van Zeijl-Rozema, A., & Dieperink, C. (2012). Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: success conditions and levers for action. Environmental Science & Policy, 18, 52-65.Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2013). Building a conceptual approach to collective learning: Lessons for public policy scholars. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 484-512.Hoffman, M. (2014). Climate Change. In T. G. Weiss & R. Wilkinson (Eds.), International Organization and Global Governance (pp. 605-617). London: Routledge.Hulme, M., & Mahony, M. (2010). Climate change: What do we know about the IPCC? Progress in Physical Geography, 34(5), 705-718.Jasanoff, S. (2005). Judgment under siege: the three-body problem of expert legitimacy. In S. Maasen & P. Weingart (Eds.), Democratization of Expertise (pp. 209-224). Dordecht: Springer.Jiménez, A., LeDeunff, H., Giné, R., Sjödin, J., Cronk, R., Murad, S., . . . Bartram, J. (2019). The enabling environment for participation in water and sanitation: A conceptual framework. Water, 11(2), 308.Jodoin, S., Duyck, S., & Lofts, K. (2015). Public participation and climate governance: an introduction. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 24(2), 117-122.Johnston, A. I. (2003). Socialization in International Institutions: The ASEAN Way and International Relations Theory. In G. J. Ikenberry & M. Mastanduno (Eds.), International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific (pp. 107-162). New York: Columbia University Press.Jones, D. M., & Jenne, N. (2016). Weak states` regionalism: ASEAN and the limits of security cooperation in Pacific Asia. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 16(2), 209-240.Jones, D. M., & Smith, M. L. (2007). Making process, not progress: ASEAN and the evolving East Asian regional order. International Security, 32(1), 148-184.Kalafatis, S. E., Lemos, M. C., Lo, Y.-J., & Frank, K. A. (2015). Increasing information usability for climate adaptation: The role of knowledge networks and communities of practice. Global Environmental Change, 32, 30-39.Kearney, J., Berkes, F., Charles, A., Pinkerton, E., & Wiber, M. (2007). The role of participatory governance and community-based management in integrated coastal and ocean management in Canada. Coastal Management.Keck, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell.Kiem, A. S., & Austin, E. K. (2013). Disconnect between science and end-users as a barrier to climate change adaptation. Climate research, 58(1), 29-41.Kim, M. H. (2011). Theorizing ASEAN integration. Asian Perspective, 35(3), 407-435.Klinke, A. (2012). Democratizing Regional Environmental Governance: Public Deliberation and Participation in Transboundary Ecoregions. Global Environmental Politics, 12(3), 79-99.Koh, K. L., & Robinson, N. (2002). Regional Environmental Governance: Examining the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Model. In D. C. Esty & M. H. Ivanova (Eds.), Global Environmental Governance: Options & Opportunities (Vol. 8, pp. 101-120). New Haven: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental StudiesKoremenos, B., Lipson, C., & Snidal, D. (2001). The rational design of international institutions. International Organization, 55(4), 761-799.Koster, M. (2019). Assembling formal and informal urban governance: Political brokerage in Recife, Brazil. Anthropologica, 61(1), 25-34.Krasner, S. (1982). Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables. International Organization, 36(2), 185-205.Kuhn, T. (2002). Negotiating boundaries between scholars and practitioners: Knowledge, networks, and communities of practice. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(1), 106-112.Kuyper, J. W., Linnér, B.-O., & Schroeder, H. (2018). Non-state actors in hybrid global climate governance: justice, legitimacy, and effectiveness in a post-Paris era. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 9(1). doi:10.1002/wcc.497Lave, J. (1991). Chapter 4: Situating learning in communities of practice.(pp. 63-82). In L. Resnick, L. B, M. John, S. Teasley, & D (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition: American Psychological Association.Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lavis, J., Ross, S., McLeod, C., & Gildiner, A. (2003). Measuring the impact of health research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 8(3), 165-170.Levy, J. S. (1994). Learning and foreign policy: Sweeping a conceptual minefield. International Organization, 48(2), 279-312.Lin, Y., & Beyerlein, M. M. (2006). Communities of Practice: A Critical Perspective on Collaboration. In M. M. Beyerlein, S. T. Beyerlein, F. A. Kennedy, & F. H. Kennedy (Eds.), Innovation Through Collaboration (Vol. 12, pp. 53-79). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.MacKillop, E., Quarmby, S., & Downe, J. (2020). Does knowledge brokering facilitate evidence-based policy? A review of existing knowledge and an agenda for future research. Policy and Politics, 48(2), 335-353.Michaels, S. (2009). Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(7), 994-1011.Miller, C. A. (2007). Democratization, international knowledge institutions, and global governance. Governance, 20(2), 325-357.Mitton, C., Adair, C. E., McKenzie, E., Patten, S. B., & Perry, B. W. (2007). Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the literature. The Milbank Quarterly, 85(4), 729-768.Moravcsik, A. (1993). Preferences and power in the European Community: A liberal intergovernmentalist approach. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 31(4), 473-524.Muccione, V., Huggel, C., Bresch, D. N., Jurt, C., Wallimann-Helmer, I., Mehra, M. K., & Caicedo, J. D. P. (2019). Joint knowledge production in climate change adaptation networks. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 39, 147-152.National Research Council. (2008). Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. Washington, DC: The National Academics Press.Nesadurai, H. E. (2009). ASEAN and regional governance after the Cold War: from regional order to regional community? The Pacific Review, 22(1), 91-118.Newig, J., Challies, E., Jager, N. W., Kochskaemper, E., & Adzersen, A. (2018). The environmental performance of participatory and collaborative governance: a framework of causal mechanisms. Policy Studies Journal, 46(2), 269-297.Norman, L. (2015). Interpretive process tracing and causal explanations. Qualitative & Multi-Method Research, 13(2), 4-9.O’Neill, K. (2009). The Environment and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Overland, I., Sagbakken, H. F., Chan, H.-Y., Merdekawati, M., Suryadi, B., Utama, N. A., & Vakulchuk, R. (2021). The ASEAN climate and energy paradox. Energy and Climate Change, 2, 100019.Pouliot, V. (2008). The logic of practicality: A theory of practice of security communities. International Organization, 62(2), 257-288.Pouliot, V. (2015). Practice tracing. In A. Bennett & J. T. Checkel (Eds.), Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool (pp. 237-259). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Pouliot, V., & Cornut, J. (2015). Practice theory and the study of diplomacy: A research agenda. Cooperation and conflict, 50(3), 297-315.Pouliot, V., & Thérien, J. P. (2018). Global governance in practice. Global Policy, 9(2), 163-172.Prutsch, A., Steurer, R., & Stickler, T. (2018). Is the participatory formulation of policy strategies worth the effort? The case of climate change adaptation in Austria. Regional environmental change, 18(1), 271-285.Quick, K. S., & Feldman, M. S. (2011). Distinguishing participation and inclusion. Journal of planning education and research, 31(3), 272-290.Raitzer, D. A., Bosello, F., Tavoni, M., Orecchia, C., Marangoni, G., & Samson, J. N. G. (2015). Southeast Asia and the Economics of Global Climate Stabilization. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.Rajamani, L. (2016). Ambition and differentiation in the 2015 Paris Agreement: Interpretative possibilities and underlying politics. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 65(2), 493-514.Ramirez, M. A. M., Lecciones, A. M., & Capiña, X. G. B. (2019). Social Forestry in the ASEAN Region: Gaps and Strategic Interventions. Los Baños, Philippines: Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture.Raustiala, K. (1997). States, NGOs, and International Environmental Institutions. International Studies Quarterly, 41, 719–740.RECOFTC, & AWG-SF. (2017). Social forestry and climate change in the ASEAN region: Situational analysis 2016. Bangkok: RECOFTC-The Center for People and Forests.Rich, A. (2010). Ideas, Expertise, and Think Tanks. In D. Béland & R. H. Cox (Eds.), Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research (pp. 191-208). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Rosen, A. (2015). The Wrong Solution at the Right Time: The Failure of the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. Politics & Policy, 43(1), 30-58.Rother, S. (2015). Democratizing ASEAN through “Alternative Regionalism”? The ASEAN Civil Society Conference and the ASEAN Youth Forum. ASIEN, 136(July), 98-119.Rüland, J. (2014). The limits of democratizing interest representation: ASEAN’s regional corporatism and normative challenges. European Journal of International Relations 20(1), 237–261.Russel, D., Beck, S., Campos, I., Capriolo, A., Castellari, S., den Uyl, R. M., . . . Weiland, S. (2018). Analyzing the Policy Framework for Climate Change Adaptation. In H. Sanderson, M. Hildén, D. Russel, G. Penha-Lopes, & A. Capriolo (Eds.), Adapting to Climate Change in Europe: Exploring Sustainable Pathways - From Local Measures to Wider Policies (1 ed., pp. 273-313). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (2019). The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications. In Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 189-220). London: Routledge.Sahraie, M. (2011). The ASEAN actions on climate change: Recognizing or pro-actively addressing the issue. Sustainable development law on climate change: Working paper series. Rome: International Development Law Organization (IDLO) and the Centre for International Sustainable Development Law (CISDL).Salamanca, A., & Anschell, N. (2020). ASEAN Guidance for Climate-Smart Land Use Practices: A Review (D. G. f. I. Z. (GIZ) Ed.). Jakarta: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ).Salamanca, A., & Nguyen, H. (2016). Climate change adaptation readiness in the ASEAN countries. Retrieved from Bangkok, Thailand: www.jstor.org/stable/resrep02771.Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303-326.Schreurs, M. A. (2010). Multi-level governance the ASEAN Way. In H. Enderlein, S. Wälti, & M. Zürn (Eds.), Handbook on Multi-Level Governance (pp. 308-320). Cheltenham, U.K. : Edward Elgar.Scott, T. (2015). Does collaboration make any difference? Linking collaborative governance to environmental outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(3), 537-566.Seah, S., & Martinus, M. (2021). Gaps and Opportunities in ASEAN’s Climate Governance. Singapore: ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.Sil, R., & Katzenstein, P. J. (2010). Beyond paradigms: Analytic eclecticism in the study of world politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Sondarjee, M. (2021). Collective learning at the boundaries of communities of practice: Inclusive policymaking at the World Bank. Global Society, 35(3), 307-326.Stone, D. (2008). Global Public Policy, Transnational Policy Communities, and Their Networks. The Policy Studies Journal, 36(1), 19-38.Stone, D. (2011). Knowledge Networks and Transnational Policy Process. In G. Papanagnou (Ed.), Social Science and Policy Challenges: Democracy, Values and Capacities (pp. 143-164). Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.Stubbs, R. (2019). ASEAN sceptics versus ASEAN proponents: evaluating regional institutions. The Pacific Review, 32(6), 923-950.Tosun, J., & Schoenefeld, J. J. (2017). Collective climate action and networked climate governance. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 8(1), e440.Turnhout, E., Stuiver, M., Klostermann, J., Harms, B., & Leeuwis, C. (2013). New roles of science in society: different repertoires of knowledge brokering. Science and public policy, 40(3), 354-365.Van Kammen, J., de Savigny, D., & Sewankambo, N. (2006). Using knowledge brokering to promote evidence-based policy-making: the need for support structures. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 84, 608-612.Verdon‐Kidd, D. C., Kiem, A. S., & Austin, E. K. (2014). Bridging the gap between researchers and decision‐makers. Applied studies in climate adaptation, 51-59.Ward, V., House, A., & Hamer, S. (2009). Knowledge brokering: the missing link in the evidence to action chain? Evidence & policy: a journal of research, debate and practice, 5(3), 267-279.Weber, E. P., & Khademian, A. M. (2008). Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public administration review, 68(2), 334-349.Weber, M. S., & Yanovitzky, I. (2021). Knowledge Brokers, Networks, and the Policymaking Process. In M. S. Weber & I. Yanovitzky (Eds.), Networks, Knowledge Brokers, and the Public Policymaking Process. (pp. 1-26). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Wenger, E. (2010). Communities of practice and social learning systems: the career of a concept. In Blackmore, C. (Ed.), Social learning systems and communities of practice (pp. 179-198). London: Springer.Wiseman, G. (2015). Diplomatic practices at the United Nations. Cooperation and conflict, 50(3), 316-333.Wolf, M. J., Emerson, J. W., Esty, D. C., de Sherbinin, A., Wendling, Z. A., & al., e. (2022). 2022 Environmental Performance Index. Retrieved from epi.yale.eduWong, G. Y., Moeliono, M., Bong, I. W., Pham, T. T., Sahide, M. A., Naito, D., & Brockhaus, M. (2020). Social forestry in Southeast Asia: Evolving interests, discourses and the many notions of equity. Geoforum, 117, 246-258.World Bank. (2019). Forest Country Note – Vietnam. Washington, DC: World Bank.Yoshimatsu, H. (2005). From distrust to mutual interests?: Emerging cooperation in Northeast Asia. East Asia, 22(4), 18-38.Young, O. R. (2017). Governing Complex Systems: Social Capital for the Anthropocene. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Zimmerman, E. (2016). Think Tanks and Non-Traditional Security: Governance Entrepreneurs in Asia. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Zimmerman, E., & Stone, D. (2017). ASEAN think tanks, policy change and economic cooperation: from the Asian financial crisis to the global financial crisis. Policy and Society, 37(2), 260-275. doi:10.1080/14494035.2017.1397394 zh_TW
