气候适应中公平与正义的定义和概念化

IF 8.6 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
S.E. Walker , E.A. Smith , N. Bennett , E. Bannister , A. Narayana , T. Nuckols , K. Pineda Velez , J. Wrigley , K.M. Bailey
{"title":"气候适应中公平与正义的定义和概念化","authors":"S.E. Walker ,&nbsp;E.A. Smith ,&nbsp;N. Bennett ,&nbsp;E. Bannister ,&nbsp;A. Narayana ,&nbsp;T. Nuckols ,&nbsp;K. Pineda Velez ,&nbsp;J. Wrigley ,&nbsp;K.M. Bailey","doi":"10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2024.102885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Diverse disciplines are contributing to the growing body of evidence exploring the interaction between climate adaptation and justice and/or equity. As a result, the literature lacks consistency in how the terms equity and justice are applied and defined, challenging efforts to synthesize evidence and translate it into policy and practice. This scoping review aims to investigate the diversity of ways in which climate adaptation researchers conceptualize equity and justice and synthesize common frameworks to lend insight into emerging practices and future research needs. Our results synthesize 316 articles and highlight several gaps in the literature with respect to specific climate hazards and social identity groups. The results also indicate that very few scholars define and differentiate between equity and justice, but when they do, issues of scale, affected actors, pathways and normative principles are key components in such definitions. We expand on these themes, arguing that there is little utility in adaptation scholars and practitioners coming to complete consensus on best approaches for studying and evaluating equity and justice. Rather, research needs to address the plurality of approaches by being explicit in their definitions and conceptual grounding. We provide guidance for achieving such clarity in both the study and practice of climate adaptation. Finally, we compare common equity and justice frameworks according to their specific utility and most relevant contexts. We conclude by underscoring the importance of pluralism in how equity and justice are measured and defined as it parallels the diverse contexts in which climate adaptation occurs. The results of our review call for more nuanced investigation and communication of the ways in which equity and justice intersect with climate adaptation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":328,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Change","volume":"87 ","pages":"Article 102885"},"PeriodicalIF":8.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937802400089X/pdfft?md5=09ac24ad3bcd68ab2dd71faa86d265ac&pid=1-s2.0-S095937802400089X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Defining and conceptualizing equity and justice in climate adaptation\",\"authors\":\"S.E. Walker ,&nbsp;E.A. Smith ,&nbsp;N. Bennett ,&nbsp;E. Bannister ,&nbsp;A. Narayana ,&nbsp;T. Nuckols ,&nbsp;K. Pineda Velez ,&nbsp;J. Wrigley ,&nbsp;K.M. Bailey\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2024.102885\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Diverse disciplines are contributing to the growing body of evidence exploring the interaction between climate adaptation and justice and/or equity. As a result, the literature lacks consistency in how the terms equity and justice are applied and defined, challenging efforts to synthesize evidence and translate it into policy and practice. This scoping review aims to investigate the diversity of ways in which climate adaptation researchers conceptualize equity and justice and synthesize common frameworks to lend insight into emerging practices and future research needs. Our results synthesize 316 articles and highlight several gaps in the literature with respect to specific climate hazards and social identity groups. The results also indicate that very few scholars define and differentiate between equity and justice, but when they do, issues of scale, affected actors, pathways and normative principles are key components in such definitions. We expand on these themes, arguing that there is little utility in adaptation scholars and practitioners coming to complete consensus on best approaches for studying and evaluating equity and justice. Rather, research needs to address the plurality of approaches by being explicit in their definitions and conceptual grounding. We provide guidance for achieving such clarity in both the study and practice of climate adaptation. Finally, we compare common equity and justice frameworks according to their specific utility and most relevant contexts. We conclude by underscoring the importance of pluralism in how equity and justice are measured and defined as it parallels the diverse contexts in which climate adaptation occurs. The results of our review call for more nuanced investigation and communication of the ways in which equity and justice intersect with climate adaptation.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":328,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Environmental Change\",\"volume\":\"87 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102885\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937802400089X/pdfft?md5=09ac24ad3bcd68ab2dd71faa86d265ac&pid=1-s2.0-S095937802400089X-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Environmental Change\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"6\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937802400089X\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Environmental Change","FirstCategoryId":"6","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937802400089X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

探索气候适应与正义和/或公平之间相互作用的证据越来越多,不同学科都在为此做出贡献。因此,在如何应用和定义公平与正义这两个术语方面,文献缺乏一致性,这对综合证据并将其转化为政策和实践的工作提出了挑战。本次范围界定综述旨在调查气候适应研究人员对公平与正义概念的不同理解方式,并总结出共同的框架,以便深入了解新兴的实践和未来的研究需求。我们的研究结果综合了 316 篇文章,并强调了在特定气候灾害和社会身份群体方面的文献空白。结果还表明,很少有学者对公平与正义进行定义和区分,但当他们这样做时,规模、受影响的参与者、途径和规范性原则等问题是此类定义的关键组成部分。我们对这些主题进行了扩展,认为适应学者和实践者就研究和评估公平与正义的最佳方法达成完全共识的作用不大。相反,研究需要通过明确定义和概念基础来解决方法多元化的问题。我们为在气候适应的研究和实践中实现这种明确性提供指导。最后,我们根据常见的公平与正义框架的具体效用和最相关的背景对其进行了比较。最后,我们强调了在衡量和定义公平与正义时多元化的重要性,因为这与气候适应所处的不同背景相类似。我们的综述结果呼吁对公平和正义与气候适应的交叉方式进行更细致的调查和交流。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Defining and conceptualizing equity and justice in climate adaptation

Diverse disciplines are contributing to the growing body of evidence exploring the interaction between climate adaptation and justice and/or equity. As a result, the literature lacks consistency in how the terms equity and justice are applied and defined, challenging efforts to synthesize evidence and translate it into policy and practice. This scoping review aims to investigate the diversity of ways in which climate adaptation researchers conceptualize equity and justice and synthesize common frameworks to lend insight into emerging practices and future research needs. Our results synthesize 316 articles and highlight several gaps in the literature with respect to specific climate hazards and social identity groups. The results also indicate that very few scholars define and differentiate between equity and justice, but when they do, issues of scale, affected actors, pathways and normative principles are key components in such definitions. We expand on these themes, arguing that there is little utility in adaptation scholars and practitioners coming to complete consensus on best approaches for studying and evaluating equity and justice. Rather, research needs to address the plurality of approaches by being explicit in their definitions and conceptual grounding. We provide guidance for achieving such clarity in both the study and practice of climate adaptation. Finally, we compare common equity and justice frameworks according to their specific utility and most relevant contexts. We conclude by underscoring the importance of pluralism in how equity and justice are measured and defined as it parallels the diverse contexts in which climate adaptation occurs. The results of our review call for more nuanced investigation and communication of the ways in which equity and justice intersect with climate adaptation.

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
Global Environmental Change
Global Environmental Change 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
18.20
自引率
2.20%
发文量
146
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Global Environmental Change is a prestigious international journal that publishes articles of high quality, both theoretically and empirically rigorous. The journal aims to contribute to the understanding of global environmental change from the perspectives of human and policy dimensions. Specifically, it considers global environmental change as the result of processes occurring at the local level, but with wide-ranging impacts on various spatial, temporal, and socio-political scales. In terms of content, the journal seeks articles with a strong social science component. This includes research that examines the societal drivers and consequences of environmental change, as well as social and policy processes that aim to address these challenges. While the journal covers a broad range of topics, including biodiversity and ecosystem services, climate, coasts, food systems, land use and land cover, oceans, urban areas, and water resources, it also welcomes contributions that investigate the drivers, consequences, and management of other areas affected by environmental change. Overall, Global Environmental Change encourages research that deepens our understanding of the complex interactions between human activities and the environment, with the goal of informing policy and decision-making.
×
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