{"title":"减缓气候变化。减缓行动规范中的风险和不确定性研究差距","authors":"Ibsen Chivata Cardenas","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103912","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In this perspective paper, we are concerned with the general problem of how to increase the probability of achieving the expected outcomes of climate change mitigation actions. Climate change mitigation actions prevent, limit, reduce, delay or slow the rate of environmental changes produced by greenhouse gas emissions. A mitigation action can fail to achieve its intended outcome or create an adverse outcome elsewhere, which means uncertainty about mitigation outcomes or risk. Thus, mitigation risk can be defined by the deviation from a given mitigation goal and the associated uncertainties. We observe a lack of take-up of crucial concepts associated with risk in the climate change mitigation literature. Next, the concepts of risk, risk perception, risk acceptance and agents’ concerns are sometimes used interchangeably. As discussed in this paper, this has resulted in a lack of research about, for example, critical causes of mitigation failure. This situation means that some crucial knowledge gaps remain unaddressed or little researched. In this paper, we strive to identify those research gaps that need to be addressed in managing mitigation actions. Based on literature on risk, clarifications and distinctions regarding the potential meaning, scope, roles and implications among key concepts, such as risk knowledge, mitigation risk, uncertainty, agents’ concerns, risk perception and risk acceptance are given. A key distinction is that the central concept of concerns is associated with agentsʼ objectives, interests, visions, needs, preferences, norms, criteria or values and is different from risk perception. Following this, the gaps this perspective paper discusses are identified and justified by the analysis of how specialised literature in mitigation of climate change reflects aspects linked to the risk concepts. The discussed gaps entail the identification and operationalisation of agents’ concerns, the lack of knowledge about the influence of risk perception and risk acceptance on the weighting of agents’ concerns, and the impacts of the disparity in power relations among agents involved in mitigation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"162 ","pages":"Article 103912"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mitigation of climate change. Risk and uncertainty research gaps in the specification of mitigation actions\",\"authors\":\"Ibsen Chivata Cardenas\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103912\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>In this perspective paper, we are concerned with the general problem of how to increase the probability of achieving the expected outcomes of climate change mitigation actions. Climate change mitigation actions prevent, limit, reduce, delay or slow the rate of environmental changes produced by greenhouse gas emissions. A mitigation action can fail to achieve its intended outcome or create an adverse outcome elsewhere, which means uncertainty about mitigation outcomes or risk. Thus, mitigation risk can be defined by the deviation from a given mitigation goal and the associated uncertainties. We observe a lack of take-up of crucial concepts associated with risk in the climate change mitigation literature. Next, the concepts of risk, risk perception, risk acceptance and agents’ concerns are sometimes used interchangeably. As discussed in this paper, this has resulted in a lack of research about, for example, critical causes of mitigation failure. This situation means that some crucial knowledge gaps remain unaddressed or little researched. In this paper, we strive to identify those research gaps that need to be addressed in managing mitigation actions. Based on literature on risk, clarifications and distinctions regarding the potential meaning, scope, roles and implications among key concepts, such as risk knowledge, mitigation risk, uncertainty, agents’ concerns, risk perception and risk acceptance are given. A key distinction is that the central concept of concerns is associated with agentsʼ objectives, interests, visions, needs, preferences, norms, criteria or values and is different from risk perception. Following this, the gaps this perspective paper discusses are identified and justified by the analysis of how specialised literature in mitigation of climate change reflects aspects linked to the risk concepts. The discussed gaps entail the identification and operationalisation of agents’ concerns, the lack of knowledge about the influence of risk perception and risk acceptance on the weighting of agents’ concerns, and the impacts of the disparity in power relations among agents involved in mitigation.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"volume\":\"162 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103912\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124002466\",\"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":"Environmental Science & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124002466","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}
Mitigation of climate change. Risk and uncertainty research gaps in the specification of mitigation actions
In this perspective paper, we are concerned with the general problem of how to increase the probability of achieving the expected outcomes of climate change mitigation actions. Climate change mitigation actions prevent, limit, reduce, delay or slow the rate of environmental changes produced by greenhouse gas emissions. A mitigation action can fail to achieve its intended outcome or create an adverse outcome elsewhere, which means uncertainty about mitigation outcomes or risk. Thus, mitigation risk can be defined by the deviation from a given mitigation goal and the associated uncertainties. We observe a lack of take-up of crucial concepts associated with risk in the climate change mitigation literature. Next, the concepts of risk, risk perception, risk acceptance and agents’ concerns are sometimes used interchangeably. As discussed in this paper, this has resulted in a lack of research about, for example, critical causes of mitigation failure. This situation means that some crucial knowledge gaps remain unaddressed or little researched. In this paper, we strive to identify those research gaps that need to be addressed in managing mitigation actions. Based on literature on risk, clarifications and distinctions regarding the potential meaning, scope, roles and implications among key concepts, such as risk knowledge, mitigation risk, uncertainty, agents’ concerns, risk perception and risk acceptance are given. A key distinction is that the central concept of concerns is associated with agentsʼ objectives, interests, visions, needs, preferences, norms, criteria or values and is different from risk perception. Following this, the gaps this perspective paper discusses are identified and justified by the analysis of how specialised literature in mitigation of climate change reflects aspects linked to the risk concepts. The discussed gaps entail the identification and operationalisation of agents’ concerns, the lack of knowledge about the influence of risk perception and risk acceptance on the weighting of agents’ concerns, and the impacts of the disparity in power relations among agents involved in mitigation.
期刊介绍:
Environmental Science & Policy promotes communication among government, business and industry, academia, and non-governmental organisations who are instrumental in the solution of environmental problems. It also seeks to advance interdisciplinary research of policy relevance on environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity, environmental pollution and wastes, renewable and non-renewable natural resources, sustainability, and the interactions among these issues. The journal emphasises the linkages between these environmental issues and social and economic issues such as production, transport, consumption, growth, demographic changes, well-being, and health. However, the subject coverage will not be restricted to these issues and the introduction of new dimensions will be encouraged.