{"title":"气候变化时代的强制性环境保护主义和政治合法性:乌干达渔业的案例","authors":"Godfreyb Ssekajja","doi":"10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2025.103045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>One would expect the growing environmental validation of coercion to jolt scholars out of the ’dogmatic slumber’ in which the preeminence of participatory procedures and inalienable rights is often taken for granted. Yet, as climate change is increasingly invoked to justify coercive environmentalism, the political consequences of this emerging paradigm remain underexamined. The perceived effectiveness of authoritarian regimes, such as China, in addressing ecological crises is contributing to a shift from participatory to coercive approaches. This trend not only raises the risk of democratic backsliding but also poses concerns about implications for political legitimacy. This paper examines the relationship between coercive governance, environmental crisis management, and political legitimacy. It uses field surveys and interviews to assess how the 2015 deployment of soldiers to enforce fisheries regulations influences support for regime institutions and evaluations of regime performance. The findings show that the militarized policy undermines legitimacy, as indicated by both the widespread opposition it generates and the negative assessments of government, stemming from heightened social inequalities—within and between communities—and reduced community involvement in fisheries management. Additionally, while many participants perceive improved fisheries protection, this does not equate to enhanced legitimacy, as these perceptions do not translate into support for the policy or the government overall. Instead, increased conflict—both between fishers and soldiers, and among the fishers themselves—along with reports of heightened personal insecurity, further suggests that the policy undermines legitimacy. This evidence of failure to secure widespread legitimacy implies that, for long-term sustainability, coercive measures must eventually give way to strategies that foster communal ownership and active participation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":328,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Change","volume":"94 ","pages":"Article 103045"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Coercive environmentalism and political legitimacy in the age of climate change: the case of fisheries in Uganda\",\"authors\":\"Godfreyb Ssekajja\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2025.103045\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>One would expect the growing environmental validation of coercion to jolt scholars out of the ’dogmatic slumber’ in which the preeminence of participatory procedures and inalienable rights is often taken for granted. Yet, as climate change is increasingly invoked to justify coercive environmentalism, the political consequences of this emerging paradigm remain underexamined. The perceived effectiveness of authoritarian regimes, such as China, in addressing ecological crises is contributing to a shift from participatory to coercive approaches. This trend not only raises the risk of democratic backsliding but also poses concerns about implications for political legitimacy. This paper examines the relationship between coercive governance, environmental crisis management, and political legitimacy. It uses field surveys and interviews to assess how the 2015 deployment of soldiers to enforce fisheries regulations influences support for regime institutions and evaluations of regime performance. The findings show that the militarized policy undermines legitimacy, as indicated by both the widespread opposition it generates and the negative assessments of government, stemming from heightened social inequalities—within and between communities—and reduced community involvement in fisheries management. Additionally, while many participants perceive improved fisheries protection, this does not equate to enhanced legitimacy, as these perceptions do not translate into support for the policy or the government overall. Instead, increased conflict—both between fishers and soldiers, and among the fishers themselves—along with reports of heightened personal insecurity, further suggests that the policy undermines legitimacy. This evidence of failure to secure widespread legitimacy implies that, for long-term sustainability, coercive measures must eventually give way to strategies that foster communal ownership and active participation.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":328,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Environmental Change\",\"volume\":\"94 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103045\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Environmental Change\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"6\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378025000822\",\"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/S0959378025000822","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}
Coercive environmentalism and political legitimacy in the age of climate change: the case of fisheries in Uganda
One would expect the growing environmental validation of coercion to jolt scholars out of the ’dogmatic slumber’ in which the preeminence of participatory procedures and inalienable rights is often taken for granted. Yet, as climate change is increasingly invoked to justify coercive environmentalism, the political consequences of this emerging paradigm remain underexamined. The perceived effectiveness of authoritarian regimes, such as China, in addressing ecological crises is contributing to a shift from participatory to coercive approaches. This trend not only raises the risk of democratic backsliding but also poses concerns about implications for political legitimacy. This paper examines the relationship between coercive governance, environmental crisis management, and political legitimacy. It uses field surveys and interviews to assess how the 2015 deployment of soldiers to enforce fisheries regulations influences support for regime institutions and evaluations of regime performance. The findings show that the militarized policy undermines legitimacy, as indicated by both the widespread opposition it generates and the negative assessments of government, stemming from heightened social inequalities—within and between communities—and reduced community involvement in fisheries management. Additionally, while many participants perceive improved fisheries protection, this does not equate to enhanced legitimacy, as these perceptions do not translate into support for the policy or the government overall. Instead, increased conflict—both between fishers and soldiers, and among the fishers themselves—along with reports of heightened personal insecurity, further suggests that the policy undermines legitimacy. This evidence of failure to secure widespread legitimacy implies that, for long-term sustainability, coercive measures must eventually give way to strategies that foster communal ownership and active participation.
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.