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

IF 9.1 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Godfreyb Ssekajja
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们会期望越来越多的环境对强制的认可能把学者们从“教条主义的睡眠”中惊醒,在这种睡眠中,参与性程序和不可剥夺的权利往往被认为是理所当然的。然而,随着气候变化越来越多地被用来为强制性环境保护主义辩护,这种新兴模式的政治后果仍未得到充分研究。专制政权(如中国)在解决生态危机方面的有效性正在促成从参与式方法向强制性方法的转变。这一趋势不仅增加了民主倒退的风险,还引发了对政治合法性影响的担忧。本文探讨了强制性治理、环境危机管理和政治合法性之间的关系。它使用实地调查和访谈来评估2015年部署士兵执行渔业法规如何影响对政权机构的支持和对政权绩效的评估。研究结果表明,军事化政策破坏了合法性,这一点可以从它引发的广泛反对和对政府的负面评价中看出,这源于社区内部和社区之间加剧的社会不平等,以及社区参与渔业管理的减少。此外,虽然许多参与者认为渔业保护得到了改善,但这并不等同于提高了合法性,因为这些看法并没有转化为对政策或政府整体的支持。相反,不断增加的冲突——包括渔民和士兵之间的冲突,以及渔民自己之间的冲突——以及个人不安全感加剧的报道,进一步表明该政策破坏了合法性。这种未能确保广泛合法性的证据意味着,为了长期可持续性,强制性措施最终必须让位于促进社区所有权和积极参与的战略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信