Assessing the capability approach as a justice basis of climate resilience strategies

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Jose C. Cañizares-Gaztelu, Samantha Copeland, N. Doorn
{"title":"Assessing the capability approach as a justice basis of climate resilience strategies","authors":"Jose C. Cañizares-Gaztelu, Samantha Copeland, N. Doorn","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2024.2338349","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Climate adaptation and resilience scholars are struggling to address distributive and procedural justice in climate resilience efforts. While the capability approach (CA) has been widely appraised as a suitable justice basis for this context, there are few detailed studies assessing this possibility. This paper addresses this gap by advancing discussions about the prospects of the CA for guiding justice work in climate resilience. With its emphasis on the final value and mutually irreducible character of the concrete beings and doings of individuals, we find the CA relevant for tackling salient aspects of adaptation, such as the multi-faceted and locally specific nature of climate vulnerability. We also present and discuss a capability application that has particular relevance for including distributive and procedural justice considerations in climate resilience. On the other hand, we find that extant arguments in support of the CA neglect the limitations of the CA and some dilemmas involved in applying it, also overestimating the differences between the CA and other justice approaches, especially those based on resources and needs. These problems lead us to advise against treating the CA as a one-size-fits-all solution to the ills of climate resilience and they further raise a need for joining efforts with complementary approaches.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Global Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2024.2338349","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Climate adaptation and resilience scholars are struggling to address distributive and procedural justice in climate resilience efforts. While the capability approach (CA) has been widely appraised as a suitable justice basis for this context, there are few detailed studies assessing this possibility. This paper addresses this gap by advancing discussions about the prospects of the CA for guiding justice work in climate resilience. With its emphasis on the final value and mutually irreducible character of the concrete beings and doings of individuals, we find the CA relevant for tackling salient aspects of adaptation, such as the multi-faceted and locally specific nature of climate vulnerability. We also present and discuss a capability application that has particular relevance for including distributive and procedural justice considerations in climate resilience. On the other hand, we find that extant arguments in support of the CA neglect the limitations of the CA and some dilemmas involved in applying it, also overestimating the differences between the CA and other justice approaches, especially those based on resources and needs. These problems lead us to advise against treating the CA as a one-size-fits-all solution to the ills of climate resilience and they further raise a need for joining efforts with complementary approaches.
评估作为气候抗御战略司法基础的能力方法
气候适应和复原力学者们正在努力解决气候复原力工作中的分配公正和程序公正问题。虽然能力方法(CA)被广泛认为是适合这种情况的司法基础,但很少有详细的研究对这种可能性进行评估。本文针对这一空白,推进了有关能力法在指导气候适应性司法工作方面前景的讨论。由于强调了个人的具体存在和行为的最终价值和相互不可还原性,我们发现 "能力建设 "与解决适应问题的突出方面相关,例如气候脆弱性的多面性和地方特殊性。我们还介绍并讨论了一种能力应用,这种应用对于将分配和程序正义因素纳入气候适应性具有特殊意义。另一方面,我们发现现存的支持 "共同国家评估 "的论点忽视了 "共同国家评估 "的局限性以及在应用过程中的一些困境,同时也高估了 "共同国家评估 "与其他正义方法之间的差异,尤其是那些基于资源和需求的方法。这些问题促使我们提出建议,不要将 "共同国家评估 "作为解决气候适应性问题的万能方案,并进一步提出了与互补性方法共同努力的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Global Ethics
Journal of Global Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信