Marta Olazabal , Ana T Amorim-Maia , Cecilia Alda-Vidal , Sean Goodwin
{"title":"是什么限制了我们对气候变化适应的想象?","authors":"Marta Olazabal , Ana T Amorim-Maia , Cecilia Alda-Vidal , Sean Goodwin","doi":"10.1016/j.cosust.2024.101476","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Imaginaries of adaptation are currently dominated by technocratic, homogenous, top-down approaches that hinder sustainable, just, and effective adaptation worldwide. We have identified three practices that contribute to this problem: (1) an assumption of universality in adaptation; (2) a neglect of pluralistic knowledge systems and values; and (3) an oversimplification of adaptation processes. These three practices have been found to lead to reproductions of vulnerabilities, unsustainable outcomes, or ephemeral changes. New ways of conceptualising and doing adaptation are necessary to expand imaginaries and visions around what adaptation can and cannot be. Through two examples (everyday adaptations and nature-based solutions), our review indicates that expanding or adopting alternative imaginaries of adaptation can help localise adaptation practice, particularly by acknowledging the need for multiple forms of knowledge and the iterative nature of adaptation governance processes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":294,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability","volume":"71 ","pages":"Article 101476"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343524000630/pdfft?md5=c5534fd9a27a7f4f06d04a4bf32a327e&pid=1-s2.0-S1877343524000630-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What is limiting how we imagine climate change adaptation?\",\"authors\":\"Marta Olazabal , Ana T Amorim-Maia , Cecilia Alda-Vidal , Sean Goodwin\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cosust.2024.101476\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Imaginaries of adaptation are currently dominated by technocratic, homogenous, top-down approaches that hinder sustainable, just, and effective adaptation worldwide. We have identified three practices that contribute to this problem: (1) an assumption of universality in adaptation; (2) a neglect of pluralistic knowledge systems and values; and (3) an oversimplification of adaptation processes. These three practices have been found to lead to reproductions of vulnerabilities, unsustainable outcomes, or ephemeral changes. New ways of conceptualising and doing adaptation are necessary to expand imaginaries and visions around what adaptation can and cannot be. Through two examples (everyday adaptations and nature-based solutions), our review indicates that expanding or adopting alternative imaginaries of adaptation can help localise adaptation practice, particularly by acknowledging the need for multiple forms of knowledge and the iterative nature of adaptation governance processes.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":294,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability\",\"volume\":\"71 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101476\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343524000630/pdfft?md5=c5534fd9a27a7f4f06d04a4bf32a327e&pid=1-s2.0-S1877343524000630-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343524000630\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"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":"Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343524000630","RegionNum":2,"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}
What is limiting how we imagine climate change adaptation?
Imaginaries of adaptation are currently dominated by technocratic, homogenous, top-down approaches that hinder sustainable, just, and effective adaptation worldwide. We have identified three practices that contribute to this problem: (1) an assumption of universality in adaptation; (2) a neglect of pluralistic knowledge systems and values; and (3) an oversimplification of adaptation processes. These three practices have been found to lead to reproductions of vulnerabilities, unsustainable outcomes, or ephemeral changes. New ways of conceptualising and doing adaptation are necessary to expand imaginaries and visions around what adaptation can and cannot be. Through two examples (everyday adaptations and nature-based solutions), our review indicates that expanding or adopting alternative imaginaries of adaptation can help localise adaptation practice, particularly by acknowledging the need for multiple forms of knowledge and the iterative nature of adaptation governance processes.
期刊介绍:
"Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability (COSUST)" is a distinguished journal within Elsevier's esteemed scientific publishing portfolio, known for its dedication to high-quality, reproducible research. Launched in 2010, COSUST is a part of the Current Opinion and Research (CO+RE) suite, which is recognized for its editorial excellence and global impact. The journal specializes in peer-reviewed, concise, and timely short reviews that provide a synthesis of recent literature, emerging topics, innovations, and perspectives in the field of environmental sustainability.