在基于自然的水管理解决方案的设计中检查知识和认知正义

Johan Arango-Quiroga, Alaina Kinol, Laura Kuhl
{"title":"在基于自然的水管理解决方案的设计中检查知识和认知正义","authors":"Johan Arango-Quiroga, Alaina Kinol, Laura Kuhl","doi":"10.1371/journal.pclm.0000194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the last decade, Nature-based Solutions (NbS) for water management have gained traction as triple-win options for climate action due to their ability to address social, economic, and environmental challenges. Recent developments in the literature of NbS have resulted in a body of work addressing questions about knowledge and justice. In line with these developments, this paper proposes the Knowledge and Epistemic Injustice in NbS for Water Framework (KEIN Framework) to identify the production of epistemic injustices in the design of NbS for water management. The KEIN framework draws on questions about knowledge and power raised by Avelino and five mechanisms that lead to epistemic injustice based on work by Fricker and Byskov. We apply the framework to examine a proposal presented to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) that included both NbS for water management and Indigenous People in South America. Rather than being an analysis of the project or the GCF per se, the goal of this analysis is to demonstrate the utility of the framework to analyze proposals during the design stage. We argue that proposals submitted to the GCF are reflective of a broadly held international environmental logic. We also identify indications that knowledge was organized and treated in a way that favored external actors at the expense of local actors. Our analysis also revealed prejudices against people’s epistemic capacities, with potential implications for how the generation of local knowledge is adopted on the ground. The framework illustrates how the design of NbS may minimally disrupt power relations due to the influential role of some actors in generating knowledge. This study contributes to the operationalization of epistemic justice in designing NbS. Through the application of the proposed framework, the study contributes to future work advancing the construction of epistemically just NbS.","PeriodicalId":74463,"journal":{"name":"PLOS climate","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining knowledge and epistemic justice in the design of nature-based solutions for water management\",\"authors\":\"Johan Arango-Quiroga, Alaina Kinol, Laura Kuhl\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pclm.0000194\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Over the last decade, Nature-based Solutions (NbS) for water management have gained traction as triple-win options for climate action due to their ability to address social, economic, and environmental challenges. Recent developments in the literature of NbS have resulted in a body of work addressing questions about knowledge and justice. In line with these developments, this paper proposes the Knowledge and Epistemic Injustice in NbS for Water Framework (KEIN Framework) to identify the production of epistemic injustices in the design of NbS for water management. The KEIN framework draws on questions about knowledge and power raised by Avelino and five mechanisms that lead to epistemic injustice based on work by Fricker and Byskov. We apply the framework to examine a proposal presented to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) that included both NbS for water management and Indigenous People in South America. Rather than being an analysis of the project or the GCF per se, the goal of this analysis is to demonstrate the utility of the framework to analyze proposals during the design stage. We argue that proposals submitted to the GCF are reflective of a broadly held international environmental logic. We also identify indications that knowledge was organized and treated in a way that favored external actors at the expense of local actors. Our analysis also revealed prejudices against people’s epistemic capacities, with potential implications for how the generation of local knowledge is adopted on the ground. The framework illustrates how the design of NbS may minimally disrupt power relations due to the influential role of some actors in generating knowledge. This study contributes to the operationalization of epistemic justice in designing NbS. Through the application of the proposed framework, the study contributes to future work advancing the construction of epistemically just NbS.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74463,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLOS climate\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLOS climate\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000194\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLOS climate","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000194","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去十年中,基于自然的水管理解决方案(NbS)因其应对社会、经济和环境挑战的能力,已成为气候行动的三赢选择。国家统计局文献的最新发展导致了一系列关于知识和正义问题的工作。根据这些发展,本文提出了水国家统计局框架(KEIN框架)中的知识和认知不公正,以确定水国家统计局设计中认知不公正的产生。KEIN框架借鉴了Avelino提出的关于知识和权力的问题,以及Fricker和Byskov基于工作提出的导致认知不公正的五种机制。我们应用该框架来研究绿色气候基金(GCF)的一项提案,该提案既包括水资源管理的国家基准,也包括南美洲的土著人民。该分析的目的不是分析项目或GCF本身,而是演示该框架在设计阶段分析提案时的效用。我们认为,提交给绿色气候基金的提案反映了广泛持有的国际环境逻辑。我们还确定了一些迹象,表明知识的组织和处理方式有利于外部参与者,而牺牲了本地参与者。我们的分析还揭示了对人们认知能力的偏见,这可能会影响当地知识的产生方式。该框架说明,由于一些行为体在知识产生过程中发挥了重要作用,国家统计局的设计可能会最大限度地破坏权力关系。本研究有助于认知公正在国家统计局设计中的可操作性。通过应用所提出的框架,本研究有助于未来的工作推进认知公正的国家统计局的建设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Examining knowledge and epistemic justice in the design of nature-based solutions for water management
Over the last decade, Nature-based Solutions (NbS) for water management have gained traction as triple-win options for climate action due to their ability to address social, economic, and environmental challenges. Recent developments in the literature of NbS have resulted in a body of work addressing questions about knowledge and justice. In line with these developments, this paper proposes the Knowledge and Epistemic Injustice in NbS for Water Framework (KEIN Framework) to identify the production of epistemic injustices in the design of NbS for water management. The KEIN framework draws on questions about knowledge and power raised by Avelino and five mechanisms that lead to epistemic injustice based on work by Fricker and Byskov. We apply the framework to examine a proposal presented to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) that included both NbS for water management and Indigenous People in South America. Rather than being an analysis of the project or the GCF per se, the goal of this analysis is to demonstrate the utility of the framework to analyze proposals during the design stage. We argue that proposals submitted to the GCF are reflective of a broadly held international environmental logic. We also identify indications that knowledge was organized and treated in a way that favored external actors at the expense of local actors. Our analysis also revealed prejudices against people’s epistemic capacities, with potential implications for how the generation of local knowledge is adopted on the ground. The framework illustrates how the design of NbS may minimally disrupt power relations due to the influential role of some actors in generating knowledge. This study contributes to the operationalization of epistemic justice in designing NbS. Through the application of the proposed framework, the study contributes to future work advancing the construction of epistemically just NbS.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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