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

IF 4.9 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Environmental Science & Policy Pub Date : 2024-09-25 DOI:10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103912
Ibsen Chivata Cardenas
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这篇视角论文中,我们关注的是如何提高气候变化减缓行动实现预期结果的概率这一一般性问题。气候变化减缓行动可以防止、限制、减少、延迟或减缓温室气体排放造成的环境变化速度。减缓行动可能无法实现预期结果,也可能在其他方面造成不利结果,这意味着减缓结果或风险的不确定性。因此,减缓风险可以用偏离特定减缓目标和相关不确定性来定义。我们发现,气候变化减缓文献中缺乏与风险相关的重要概念。其次,风险、风险认知、风险接受和代理人的担忧等概念有时会交替使用。正如本文所讨论的,这导致了对减缓失败的关键原因等方面研究的缺乏。这种情况意味着一些重要的知识缺口仍未得到解决或研究甚少。在本文中,我们将努力找出在管理减灾行动方面需要解决的研究缺口。本文以有关风险的文献为基础,对风险知识、减灾风险、不确定性、代理人的担忧、风险感知和风险接受等关键概念的潜在含义、范围、作用和影响进行了澄清和区分。一个关键的区别是,"关注 "这一核心概念与代理人的目标、利益、愿景、需求、偏好、规范、标准或价值观有关,不同于风险认知。在此基础上,通过分析减缓气候变化的专业文献如何反映与风险概念相关的方面,确定了本视角文件所讨论的差距,并证明了这些差距的合理性。所讨论的不足之处包括:代理人关注点的识别和操作化、缺乏关于风险认知和风险接受对代理人关注点权重的影响的知识,以及参与减缓工作的代理人之间权力关系差异的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.
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
Environmental Science & Policy
Environmental Science & Policy 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
332
审稿时长
68 days
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.
期刊最新文献
Ontological conflict over forests in Inari/Aanaar: Sámi’s fight for preservation and renewal Editorial Board Uncertain climate futures: Cultivating 3 A resilience in urban Ghana A conceptual framework for responding to cross-border climate change impacts What is equitable urban forest governance? A systematic literature review
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1