Resilience thinking – is vagueness a blessing or a curse in transdisciplinary projects?

Winges, Maik; Grecksch, Kevin

doi:10.4324/9781315103761-5

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is notably the case for "hard" or infrastructural projects, such as seawalls and other coastal defence measures to counter coastal erosion and flooding, which are popular yet often increase and/or displace erosion (Cooper and Pilkey 2012;Nunn 2013;Betzold and Mohamed 2017). Adaptation itself produces winners and losers (Eriksen et al 2015;Nightingale 2017: 12;Winges and Grecksch 2017;Mikulewicz 2018;Siebenhüner 2018), yet these distributional effects of adaptation measures have been rarely studied (Gibbs 2016). Adaptation may reproduce and even deepen underlying inequalities and social vulnerability, by favouring the wealthier and more powerful, for example in Nepal (Nightingale 2017), Kenya and Malawi (Barrett 2014(Barrett , 2015, and beyond (Thomas and Warner 2019).…”

Section: Allocation Of Risksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Access and allocation in climate change adaptation

Grecksch

Klöck

2020

Int Environ Agreements

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As climate change impacts become increasingly apparent, adaptation becomes increasingly urgent. Accordingly, adaptation to climate change has shifted towards the centre of attention in both policy and research. In this article, we review the last 10 years of adaptation research (2008-2018), with a focus on work within the Earth System Governance network. We use the lens of access and allocation to structure our review and examine how adaptation affects, and is affected by, access to basic needs, basic rights, and decision-making on the one hand, as well as allocation of responsibilities, resources, and risks on the other. We find that questions of justice, equity, and fairness are fundamental to all dimensions of adaptation. The access perspective, for example, suggests that we need to assess vulnerability, understood broadly, while the allocation perspective focuses on questions of responsibility for being vulnerable, e.g. when people live, or move to, hazard-prone areas exposed to climate risk. This also relates to questions of who is responsible for selecting, implementing, and funding adaptation measures. Overall, we find that the framework of "access and allocation" and its subcategories offer a detailed approach to adaptation and adaptation research, but that it is not intuitive. The notion of "climate justice" seems to resonate more with both academic and policy debates.

show abstract