{"title":"预期式治理是开启了还是关闭了未来的可能性?来自全球南方不同背景的调查结果","authors":"Karlijn Muiderman , Joost Vervoort , Aarti Gupta , Rathana Peou Norbert-Munns , Marieke Veeger , Maliha Muzammil , Peter Driessen","doi":"10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102694","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>There is an urgent need to understand how anticipation processes such as scenario planning impact governance choices in the present. However, little empirical research has been done to analyze how anticipation processes frame possibilities for action. This paper investigates how assumptions about the future open up or close down anticipatory governance actions in a large number of climate-focused anticipation processes. We focused on four Global South regions: West Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia and Central America. We apply an analytical framework that identifies four diverse approaches to anticipatory governance and connect this to the notion of opening up or closing down of possibility spaces for action. Across the four regions, we find that many anticipation processes open up dialogue about deep uncertainties and pluralistic worldviews but end up informing mostly technocratic and linear planning actions in the present. We also observe that anticipation processes in the Central American context more often break this trend, particularly when transformative ambitions are formulated. The focus on more technocratic futures and linear planning strategies and reliance on a mostly North-based global futures industry may close down more culturally, socially and politically diverse and regionally relevant future worldviews in anticipation processes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":328,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Change","volume":"81 ","pages":"Article 102694"},"PeriodicalIF":8.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is anticipatory governance opening up or closing down future possibilities? Findings from diverse contexts in the Global South\",\"authors\":\"Karlijn Muiderman , Joost Vervoort , Aarti Gupta , Rathana Peou Norbert-Munns , Marieke Veeger , Maliha Muzammil , Peter Driessen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102694\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>There is an urgent need to understand how anticipation processes such as scenario planning impact governance choices in the present. However, little empirical research has been done to analyze how anticipation processes frame possibilities for action. This paper investigates how assumptions about the future open up or close down anticipatory governance actions in a large number of climate-focused anticipation processes. We focused on four Global South regions: West Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia and Central America. We apply an analytical framework that identifies four diverse approaches to anticipatory governance and connect this to the notion of opening up or closing down of possibility spaces for action. Across the four regions, we find that many anticipation processes open up dialogue about deep uncertainties and pluralistic worldviews but end up informing mostly technocratic and linear planning actions in the present. We also observe that anticipation processes in the Central American context more often break this trend, particularly when transformative ambitions are formulated. The focus on more technocratic futures and linear planning strategies and reliance on a mostly North-based global futures industry may close down more culturally, socially and politically diverse and regionally relevant future worldviews in anticipation processes.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":328,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Environmental Change\",\"volume\":\"81 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102694\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Environmental Change\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"6\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378023000602\",\"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/S0959378023000602","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}
Is anticipatory governance opening up or closing down future possibilities? Findings from diverse contexts in the Global South
There is an urgent need to understand how anticipation processes such as scenario planning impact governance choices in the present. However, little empirical research has been done to analyze how anticipation processes frame possibilities for action. This paper investigates how assumptions about the future open up or close down anticipatory governance actions in a large number of climate-focused anticipation processes. We focused on four Global South regions: West Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia and Central America. We apply an analytical framework that identifies four diverse approaches to anticipatory governance and connect this to the notion of opening up or closing down of possibility spaces for action. Across the four regions, we find that many anticipation processes open up dialogue about deep uncertainties and pluralistic worldviews but end up informing mostly technocratic and linear planning actions in the present. We also observe that anticipation processes in the Central American context more often break this trend, particularly when transformative ambitions are formulated. The focus on more technocratic futures and linear planning strategies and reliance on a mostly North-based global futures industry may close down more culturally, socially and politically diverse and regionally relevant future worldviews in anticipation processes.
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.