{"title":"被锁定的脆弱性。有必要让适应箱外部参与进来","authors":"Julia Teebken","doi":"10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2024.102807","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>“Vulnerable populations” are experiencing a (re)emphasis in climate change adaptation research and practice even though the concept has long been contested. Adaptation planning is increasingly expected to restore past inequalities and address systemic injustices. Yet, we know little about the role local environmental agencies, bureaucrats, and policy practitioners (can) play in addressing “vulnerable populations”. Drawing from qualitative empirical research in Atlanta, Georgia, the United States, and Jinhua, Zhejiang in China, the local problem recognition about “vulnerable populations” and adaptation decision-making was examined. The findings reveal severe limitations in the way “vulnerable populations” are approached, with certain groups being politically contested and being considered difficult to be prioritized. In both cases, accidental forms of adaptation stand out, which mainly focus on blue-green infrastructure interventions and neighborhood revitalization programs, some of which recreated “vulnerable populations”. The findings hint to vulnerability being more deeply rooted in external conditions to the individual, which requires different policy interventions. The article presents a novel understanding by conceptualizing “vulnerable populations” as an instance of vulnerable political institutions. There’s a need to explore the nature of our political systems, how much inequality we allow and which redistribution mechanisms the state has for addressing interdependent dimensions of inequality. To make “vulnerable populations” finally a front and center concern begs us to radically engage the outside of the conventional adaptation box. Inequality studies offers synergies with adaptation justice discourses and different policy instruments that address the root causes of vulnerability.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":328,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378024000116/pdfft?md5=6eadd9f6c03af1c42f98035352baa6a3&pid=1-s2.0-S0959378024000116-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vulnerability locked in. On the need to engage the outside of the adaptation box\",\"authors\":\"Julia Teebken\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2024.102807\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>“Vulnerable populations” are experiencing a (re)emphasis in climate change adaptation research and practice even though the concept has long been contested. Adaptation planning is increasingly expected to restore past inequalities and address systemic injustices. Yet, we know little about the role local environmental agencies, bureaucrats, and policy practitioners (can) play in addressing “vulnerable populations”. Drawing from qualitative empirical research in Atlanta, Georgia, the United States, and Jinhua, Zhejiang in China, the local problem recognition about “vulnerable populations” and adaptation decision-making was examined. The findings reveal severe limitations in the way “vulnerable populations” are approached, with certain groups being politically contested and being considered difficult to be prioritized. In both cases, accidental forms of adaptation stand out, which mainly focus on blue-green infrastructure interventions and neighborhood revitalization programs, some of which recreated “vulnerable populations”. The findings hint to vulnerability being more deeply rooted in external conditions to the individual, which requires different policy interventions. The article presents a novel understanding by conceptualizing “vulnerable populations” as an instance of vulnerable political institutions. There’s a need to explore the nature of our political systems, how much inequality we allow and which redistribution mechanisms the state has for addressing interdependent dimensions of inequality. To make “vulnerable populations” finally a front and center concern begs us to radically engage the outside of the conventional adaptation box. Inequality studies offers synergies with adaptation justice discourses and different policy instruments that address the root causes of vulnerability.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":328,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Environmental Change\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378024000116/pdfft?md5=6eadd9f6c03af1c42f98035352baa6a3&pid=1-s2.0-S0959378024000116-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Environmental Change\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"6\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378024000116\",\"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/S0959378024000116","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}
Vulnerability locked in. On the need to engage the outside of the adaptation box
“Vulnerable populations” are experiencing a (re)emphasis in climate change adaptation research and practice even though the concept has long been contested. Adaptation planning is increasingly expected to restore past inequalities and address systemic injustices. Yet, we know little about the role local environmental agencies, bureaucrats, and policy practitioners (can) play in addressing “vulnerable populations”. Drawing from qualitative empirical research in Atlanta, Georgia, the United States, and Jinhua, Zhejiang in China, the local problem recognition about “vulnerable populations” and adaptation decision-making was examined. The findings reveal severe limitations in the way “vulnerable populations” are approached, with certain groups being politically contested and being considered difficult to be prioritized. In both cases, accidental forms of adaptation stand out, which mainly focus on blue-green infrastructure interventions and neighborhood revitalization programs, some of which recreated “vulnerable populations”. The findings hint to vulnerability being more deeply rooted in external conditions to the individual, which requires different policy interventions. The article presents a novel understanding by conceptualizing “vulnerable populations” as an instance of vulnerable political institutions. There’s a need to explore the nature of our political systems, how much inequality we allow and which redistribution mechanisms the state has for addressing interdependent dimensions of inequality. To make “vulnerable populations” finally a front and center concern begs us to radically engage the outside of the conventional adaptation box. Inequality studies offers synergies with adaptation justice discourses and different policy instruments that address the root causes of vulnerability.
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.