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

IF 8.6 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Global Environmental Change Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102694
Karlijn Muiderman , Joost Vervoort , Aarti Gupta , Rathana Peou Norbert-Munns , Marieke Veeger , Maliha Muzammil , Peter Driessen
{"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 ,&nbsp;Joost Vervoort ,&nbsp;Aarti Gupta ,&nbsp;Rathana Peou Norbert-Munns ,&nbsp;Marieke Veeger ,&nbsp;Maliha Muzammil ,&nbsp;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 ,&nbsp;Joost Vervoort ,&nbsp;Aarti Gupta ,&nbsp;Rathana Peou Norbert-Munns ,&nbsp;Marieke Veeger ,&nbsp;Maliha Muzammil ,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目前迫切需要了解预期过程(如场景规划)如何影响治理选择。然而,很少有实证研究来分析预期过程如何框架行动的可能性。本文研究了在大量以气候为重点的预测过程中,对未来的假设如何开启或关闭预期治理行动。我们专注于四个全球南方地区:西非、南亚、东南亚和中美洲。我们采用了一个分析框架,该框架确定了四种不同的预期治理方法,并将其与开放或关闭行动可能性空间的概念联系起来。在这四个地区,我们发现许多预期过程开启了关于深层不确定性和多元世界观的对话,但最终却为目前的技术官僚和线性规划行动提供了信息。我们还注意到,中美洲的预期进程更经常打破这一趋势,特别是在制定变革雄心时。对技术官僚主义期货和线性规划策略的关注,以及对主要以北方为基础的全球期货行业的依赖,可能会在预期过程中关闭更具文化、社会和政治多样性以及与区域相关的未来世界观。
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
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.

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.
期刊最新文献
The curve: An ethnography of projecting sea level rise under uncertainty Between theory and action: Assessing the transformative character of climate change adaptation in 51 cases in the Netherlands Air pollution under formal institutions: The role of distrust environment A globally just and inclusive transition? Questioning policy representations of the European Green Deal “Scale and access to the Green climate Fund: Big challenges for small island developing States”
×
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