Publications

Understanding mediations between variable production and evolving uses of electricity. Presentation of the human and social sciences research project 2023-2028 in 5 axes: - New organizational arrangements between production and consumption, and the ways in which resources are used - Influence of the ways in which energy communities emerge and operate on the fair sharing of costs and benefits - Influence of intermediaries on the perception of the variability of renewable energies and consumer practices - Design of public policies and regulation relating to flexibility: new forms of services (suppliers, aggregators, communities) and integration into market mechanisms, international comparison - Legal translation of flexibility and questions of energy justice: European comparison, multi-scale contractual analysis, innovations in specific rights for the players concerned.

Climate risk is considered "too big to ignore" (Garschagen et al., 2020), and seen as the result of a series of interactions between society and nature that lead to socio-environmental extremes (Balch et al., 2020). What's more, its uncertain nature seems to limit the use of a climate model and projection as a single decision-making tool (Hallegatte, 2009). Understanding the strategies of economic actors, or in other words, how actors coordinate to cope with this change, is a fruitful research agenda (Agrawal, 2008; Wang et al., 2013; Agrawal & Carmen Lemos, 2015). Among the challenges of climate change, the question of flood prevention and management seems to deserve our full attention. More specifically, the challenge is to understand how economic players in an exposed territory adapt and cope with the economic development-flood dilemma. The aim of our paper is to examine how economic agents, both private and public, manage the dilemma between economic development and flooding in an area that is highly exposed to risk and has a history of transforming its hydraulic environment (Cœur, 2003). Based on an abductive approach, we mobilize the concept of risk regime (Wissman-Weber & Levy, 2018) to qualify tensions between economic agents and the construction of a compromise (Renn et al., 2018). More concretely, we propose to study the risk regime that stabilizes around the Athanor sorting and incineration plant located in the Grenoble metropolis. This critical site for waste collection, the circular economy, district heating and the energy transition of the metropolis is strongly affected by the evolution of climate risk due to its spatial positioning in a high-hazard flood zone. Between the choice of maintaining the site or relocating it, we highlight a process of in situ transformation synchronized with structuring diking and securing projects for political, economic, societal and environmental reasons. The aim is therefore to characterize a problematic local situation, inherited from historical choices whose eventual resolution is complicated by climate change. We apply this risk regime at the level of a "scene" in the sense of (Decrop et al., 2001), bringing together a set of "identified or identifiable" actors (Decrop et al., 2001, p. 9). In this context, the study of scenes can help us understand the modalities of evolution and transformation. The notion of scene is relevant to the study of negotiation spaces "in which risk is the object or one of the objects" (Decrop et al., 2001). Our case study is then a micro-scene defined as a localized situation presenting a flooding and industrialization issue (presence of a detected or historical risk, presence of installations or particular industrial interest, presence of stakeholder concerns). In concrete terms, it enables us to detect tensions and fragilities at the boundary between the two dynamics, and the choices negotiated between a multiplicity of stakeholders in a context of climate change. This work is based on an analysis of the discourses of the main players on this scene, we have analyzed the governance model, the economic model and the discourses. The aim is to highlight a local risk regime at the frontier between adaptation and resilience needs on the one hand, and industrial development ambitions (driven by the metropolis and businesses) on the other. Our results show that: (1) despite the presence of an accepted, objectified flood risk made critical by climate uncertainty, interdependence effects are emerging, leading to a critical immobility of the Athanor station. Between the choice of maintaining and relocating, a range of political, economic and mitigation issues are at play, leading to a decision in favor of conversion in an at-risk area; (2) at-risk areas are faced with an overlap between climate mitigation objectives and adaptation issues. In this context, the actors making up the localized risk regime are dealing with a meagre portfolio of adaptive options; (3) in situ transformation effects are conducted and desired, contributing more to carbon neutrality but also more resilient than before to socio-environmental extremes.

The ST aims to explore the consequences of taking ecological issues into account in our contemporary political systems, using the methodological and theoretical resources of political science. Two dimensions will be explored. The first will examine the epistemological dimension. In what way do the specific characteristics of the environment call into question the conditions under which sociological inquiry is constructed? The second looks more directly at what ecology does to institutional players. How are the classic actors of political analysis transformed by the irruption and management of ecological constraints? Axis 1: Studying ecology. Interactions and epistemological issues. This session will examine the feedback effects generated by the very nature of the "ecology" object. Beyond the routine methods of the social sciences, does the complexity of interactions between social worlds and non-human worlds raise other epistemological questions? What is the specificity of the methodological approach in political ecology? To address these questions, GREP wanted to frame the session around two issues, notably addressed by the thesis work of some doctoral students. The first concerns conditions of access to the field. Environmental mobilizations are on the increase, both in their discursive regimes (such as existential urgency) and in the repertoires of action used (from disobedience to violence, from hyperlocalization to transnationalization...), but also in the conditions of their political and legal treatment. We'll be exploring the effects of ecological tensions on fieldwork (closed access, co-optation, etc.): is the ecological cause in itself a condition for difficult access to the field? The second question concerns the conditions for securing research activity. Ecological mobilizations are subject to intensive legalization (administrative control, repressive practices, etc.). As a result, the investigator faces difficulties not only in gaining access to the field, but also in securing his survey data, protecting his sources, securing the actors he meets, and so on. This also raises questions about the conditions for publicizing the results obtained (certification, verification, etc.). GREP hopes to contribute to a collective reflection - beyond the ecological question alone - on the conditions for managing conflictual situations in the study of certain terrains. This will make it possible to clarify the conditions for protecting research at institutional level (protection of one's institution, mission orders, etc.). Axis 2: What ecology does to institutional players. This approach has already been the subject of a number of questions (such as the air-conditioning process, the proposals put forward by sustainability transitions, etc.). The workshop aims to reinforce and clarify some of the effects of this complex relationship. In particular, it will examine the framing effects of the actors involved in institutionalizing this object. This will enable us to present different strategies for adapting/reformulating/adjusting ecological issues according to the theoretical frames of reference and professional practices of the players involved. Certain dimensions may be highlighted, such as the relationship with the State/the forces of order (in the designation of legitimate forms of intervention by political ecology) or in the evolution of framing arguments (relationship with the law, diversification of causes mobilized, ecology and international regimes, etc.).

Journalists, it is widely admitted, are engaged in new forms of boundary work on social media platforms, seeking to uphold their influence over news dissemination. This study focuses on music festivals as a case study to examine journalists' endeavors in maintaining their authority on social media. We analyze Twitter coverage of music festivals in France during the summer of 2018, systematically collecting data from 16 festivals of varying sizes and musical genres. Through this analysis, we investigate journalists' engagement and evaluate the trading of authority with other stakeholders through mentioning practices. Our findings challenge the prevailing notion of journalists as primary arbiters of authority on social media platforms. Despite their conspicuous presence during music festivals on Twitter, journalists emerge as relatively passive participants compared to other stakeholders in the music scene. Moreover, their ability to assert or receive authority from the broader public sphere is limited. This study sheds light on the bounded nature of journalists' boundary work on social media platforms, emphasizing the evolving dynamics of authority within digital information ecosystems.

This chapter attempts to explain the missed appointment of ecology in the French presidential elections of 2022, by looking first at the dynamics of public opinion and the media. It then examines the place given to the environment in the presidential programs and the positions of the various candidates, before looking at the limited electoral consequences of these agenda shifts.