communicologyКоммуникологияCommunicology2311-30652311-3332МАК10.21453/2311-3065-2024-12-3-164-175communicology-461Research ArticleЭКОНОМИЧЕСКАЯ СОЦИОЛОГИЯ (СОЦИОЛОГИЧЕСКИЕ НАУКИ)ECONOMIC SOCIOLOGY (SOCIOLOGY)Место стратегических экологических коммуникаций в управлении изменениями (на примере национального проекта «Экологическое благополучие»)The place of strategic ecological communications in change management (based on the national project “Ecological Well-Being”)https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8782-3680ПановаЕ. В.PanovaE. V.

Панова Елена Васильевна – кандидат политических наук, руководитель Аппарата Комитета Государственной думы России по экологии, природным ресурсам и охране окружающей среды, научный руководитель Центра устойчивого развития Российского государственного геологоразведочного университета имени Серго Орджоникидзе

103265, Москва, ул. Охотный ряд, 1

Panova Elena Vasilievna – CandSc (Polit.), Head of the Office of the Russian State Duma Committee on Ecology, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, scientific director of the Center for Sustainable Development of the Russian State Geological Prospecting University

103265, Moscow, Okhotny Ryad, 1

karrypoupe@gmail.comГосударственная дума Российской ФедерацииРоссияState Duma of the Russian FederationRussian Federation202406102024123164175Copyright © Панова Е.В., 20242024Панова Е.В.Panova E.V.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.communicology.ru/jour/article/view/461

В настоящее время в России на государственном уровне принимаются решения, формируются программы, направленные на комплексное улучшение состояния окружающей среды. Это затрагивает интересы различных аудиторий: бизнеса, общественности, федеральных и региональных групп влияния и требует построения стратегических коммуникаций, направленных на разъяснение, расширение числа сторонников, объединение усилий, легитимизацию сделанного выбора, изменение поведения. Целью исследования является анализ места стратегических экологических коммуникаций в программе действий по реализации государственных экологических стратегий. В работе автор опирается на теоретические исследования российских и зарубежных авторов по данному вопросу. В практической части анализирует коммуникации в процессе формирования национального проекта «Экологическое благополучие». Результаты проведенного исследования медиа и официальных ресурсов государственных органов власти позволяют говорить о нескольких коммуникативных моделях поведения: публичной и непубличной. Этап формирования нацпроекта сопровождается непубличной коммуникацией, что создает определенные риски при выходе информации в публичное пространство, так как со стороны различных групп могут возникнуть критика и несогласие с принятием соответствующих решений. Автор предлагает перечень возможных конфликтных тем, а также рассматривает особенности формирования стратегических экологических коммуникаций, опираясь на матрицу М. Харвелла.

Comprehensive improvement of the state of the environment is currently the subject of government decisions, programs and projects in Russia. This affects the interests of various audiences: business, the public, federal and regional influence groups, and hence requires strategic communications aimed at explaining, expanding the number of supporters, uniting efforts, legitimizing the governmental decisions, and changing the behavior of the audiences. The purpose of the study is to analyze the place of strategic environmental communications in the action program for the implementation of state environmental strategies. The author relies on theoretical studies of Russian and foreign authors on this issue. In the practical part, she analyzes communications in the process of forming the national project “Ecological Well-Being”. The results of the conducted study of the media and official resources of state authorities allow to consider several communicative models of behavior: public and non-public. The stage of formation of the national project is accompanied by non-public communication, which creates certain risks when information is released into the public space, since criticism and disagreement with the adoption of relevant decisions may arise from various groups. The author offers a list of possible conflict topics and examines the features of the formation of strategic environmental communications, based on M. Harvell’s matrix.

стратегические экологические коммуникациипубличные и непубличные коммуникациисубъекты коммуникацииэкологическое благополучиеstrategic ecological communicationspublic and non-public communicationssubjects of communicationecological well-beingReferencesБулавинова М.П. (2018). Научная коммуникация: факторы развития // Наука и общество: современные зарубежные исследования. Сб. обзоров и рефератов / РАН. ИНИОН. Центр науч.-информ. исслед. по науке, образованию и технологиям; отв. ред. Е.Г. Гребенщикова; ред.-сост. М.П. Булавинова. Москва. С. 51-62.Braus J. (2009). Tools of engagement: how education and other social strategies can engage people in conservation action. In: Free Choice Learning and the Environment. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.Гавра Д.П. (2021). Стратегические коммуникации и тексты стратегических коммуникаций: к теоретическому обоснованию категорий // Российская школа связей с общественностью. № 22. С. 10-30.Bulavinova M.P. (2018). Scientific communication: factors of development. In: Science and society: modern foreign studies. Reviews and abstracts. RAS INION. Center for Scientific Information research on science, education and technology; eds Grebenshchikova E.G.; Bulavinova M.P. Moscow. P. 51-62 (in Rus.).Панова Е.В. (2023). Современная экологическая политика: особенности отношений бизнеса и власти // Вестник Пятигорского государственного университета. № 2. C. 33-40.Gavra D.P. (2021). Strategic communications and texts of strategic communications: towards a theoretical justification of categories. Russian School of Public Relations. No. 22. P. 10-30 (in Rus.).Панова Е.В. (2024). Экологическая и научная коммуникации: соотнесение понятий // Коммуникология. Т. 12. № 2. С. 25-36Goldberg J. et al. (2016). Climate change, the great barrier reef and the response of Australians. Palgrave Communications. Vol. 2. No. 1. P. 1-8.Тихомирова Е.И. (2015). Коммуникация и стратегические коммуникации // Петербургская школа PR: от теории к практике. СПб.: Издательство СПбГУ.Hallahan K. et al. (2007). Defining strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 3-35.Braus J. (2009). Tools of engagement: how education and other social strategies can engage people in conservation action. In: Free Choice Learning and the Environment. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.Harwell M.C. (2020). Establishing a common framework for strategic communications in ecosystem-based management and the natural sciences. In: Ecosystem-based management, ecosystem services and aquatic biodiversity: theory, tools and applications. Cham: Springer Nature.Goldberg J. et al. (2016). Climate change, the great barrier reef and the response of Australians. Palgrave Communications. Vol. 2. No. 1. P. 1-8.Liang Y., Kee K.F., Henderson L.K. (2018). Towards an integrated model of strategic environmental communication: advancing theories of reactance and planned behavior in a water conservation context. Journal of Applied Communication Research. Vol. 46. No. 2. P. 135-154.Hallahan K. et al. (2007). Defining strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 3-35.Long R.D., Charles A., Stephenson R.L. (2015). Key principles of marine ecosystem-based management. Marine Policy. Vol. 57. No. 1. P. 53-60.Harwell M.C. (2020). Establishing a common framework for strategic communications in ecosystem-based management and the natural sciences. In: Ecosystem-based management, ecosystem services and aquatic biodiversity: Theory, tools and applications. Cham: Springer Nature.Mattheiß V. et al. (2018). Evaluation of ecosystem-based management responses in case studies: AQUACROSS Deliverable 8.2. In: European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Grant Agreement No. 642317.Liang Y., Kee K.F., Henderson L.K. (2018). Towards an integrated model of strategic environmental communication: advancing theories of reactance and planned behavior in a water conservation context. Journal of Applied Communication Research. Vol. 46. No. 2. P. 135-154.McLoughlin N. (2021). Communicating efficacy: how the IPCC, scientists, and other communicators can facilitate adaptive responses to climate change without compromising on policy neutrality. Climatic Change. Vol. 169. No. 5. P. 3-17.Long R.D., Charles A., Stephenson R.L. (2015). Key principles of marine ecosystem-based management. Marine Policy. Vol. 57. No. 1. P. 53-60.Mortenius H. (2014). Creating an interest in research and development as a means of reducing the gap between theory and practice in primary care: an interventional study based on strategic communication. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Vol. 11. No. 9. P. 8689-8708.Mattheiß V. et al. (2018). Evaluation of ecosystem-based management responses in case studies: AQUACROSS Deliverable 8.2. In: European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Grant Agreement No. 642317.Myer M., Johnston J.M. (2020). Models and mapping tools to inform resilience planning after disasters: a case study of hurricane Sandy and Long Island ecosystem services. In: Ecosystem-based management, ecosystem services and aquatic biodiversity: Theory, tools and applications. Amsterdam: Springer.McLoughlin N. (2021). Communicating efficacy: how the IPCC, scientists, and other communicators can facilitate adaptive responses to climate change without compromising on policy neutrality. Climatic Change. Vol. 169. No. 5. P. 3-17.Panova E.V. (2023). Modern environmental policy: features of business and government relations. Bulletin of Pyatigorsk State University. No. 2. P. 33-40 (in Rus.).Mortenius H. (2014). Creating an interest in research and development as a means of reducing the gap between theory and practice in primary care: an interventional study based on strategic communication. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Vol. 11. No. 9. P. 8689-8708.Panova E.V. (2024). Environmental and scientific communications: correlation of concepts. Communicology. Vol. 12. No. 2. P. 25-36 (in Rus.).Myer M., Johnston J.M. (2020). Models and mapping tools to inform resilience planning after disasters: a case study of hurricane Sandy and Long Island ecosystem services. In: Ecosystem-based management, ecosystem services and aquatic biodiversity: theory, tools and applications. Amsterdam: Springer.Reed M.S. et al. (2018). A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restoration Ecology. Vol. 26. No. 1. P. 7-17Reed M.S. et al. (2018). A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restoration Ecology. Vol. 26. No. 1. P. 7-17.Tikhomirova E.I. (2015). Communication and strategic communications. In: St. Petersburg school of PR: from theory to practice. SPb.: St. Petersburg State University Publishing House (in Rus.).VanDyke M., Lee N.M. (2020) Science public relations: the parallel, interwoven, and contrasting trajectories of public relations and science communication theory and practice. Public Relations Review. Vol. 46. No. 4.VanDyke M., Lee N.M. (2020) Science public relations: the parallel, interwoven, and contrasting trajectories of public relations and science communication theory and practice. Public Relations Review. Vol. 46. No. 4.Vulturius G., Andre K., Swartling A.G., Brown C., Rounsevell M. (2020). Successes and shortcomings of climate change communication: Insights from a longitudinal analysis of Swedish Forest owners. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. Vol. 63. No. 7. P. 1177-1195.Vulturius G., Andre K., Swartling A.G., Brown C., Rounsevell M. (2020). Successes and shortcomings of climate change communication: insights from a longitudinal analysis of Swedish Forest owners. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. Vol. 63. No. 7. P. 1177-1195.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.