Transformative climate change adaptation: bridging existing approaches with post-foundational insights on justice

Mummery, Jane; Mummery, Josephine

doi:10.1080/13549839.2019.1656180

Cited by 10 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When engaging with resilience issues in the context of climate change, they typically express concern for vulnerable communities. Research topics can thus include the (un)equal distribution of environmental burdens, struggles for recognition, claims to participation, and unequal impacts of anthropogenic climate change (Braun, 2014;Yanarella and Levine, 2014;Skillington, 2015;Sjöstedt, 2015;Weichselgartner and Kelman, 2015;Pizzo, 2015;Lockie, 2016;Derickson, 2016;Lyster, 2017;Schlosberg et al, 2017;Mummery and Mummery, 2019). Davoudi (2018, p. 5), for instance, problematize the very notion of "resilience", pointing out that there are "unjust resilience building programs" that not only neglect disadvantaged communities, but also create "resilient enclaves" for "privileged elites".…”

Section: The Diversification Of Resilience Research In the Social Scimentioning

confidence: 99%

Review article: Towards a context-driven research: a state-of-the-art review of resilience research on climate change

Ossewaarde

Filatova

Georgiadou

et al. 2021

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The twofold aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the current state of resilience research with regard to climate change in the social sciences and propose a research agenda. Resilience research among social scientists is characterized by much more diversity today than a few decades ago. Different definitions and understandings of resilience appear in publications during the last 10 years. Resilience research increasingly bears the mark of social constructivism, a relative newcomer compared to the more long-standing tradition of naturalism. There are also approaches that are indebted to both “naturalism” and “constructivism”, which, of course, come in many varieties. Based on our overview of recent scholarship, which is far from being exhaustive, we have identified six research avenues that arguably deserve continued attention. They combine naturalist and constructivist insights and approaches so that human agency, reflexivity, and considerations of justice and equity are incorporated into systems thinking research or supplement such research. Ultimately, we believe that the overarching challenge for future research is to ensure that resilience to climate change does not compromise sustainability and considerations of justice (including environmental, climate, and energy justice).

show abstract

Section: The Diversification Of Resilience Research In the Social Scimentioning

confidence: 99%

Review article: Towards a context-driven research: a state-of-the-art review of resilience research on climate change

Ossewaarde

Filatova

Georgiadou

et al. 2021

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…CC BY 4.0 License. Pizzo, 2015;Lockie, 2016;Derickson, 2016;Lyster, 2017;Schlosberg, Collins & Niemeyer, 2017;Mummery & Mummery, 2019). Duffield (2016), for instance, refers to digital humanitarianism as a 'resilience of ruins'.…”

Section: The Diversification Of Resilience Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The diversification of resilience research and the tension between, and the reconciliation of, A first promising direction for future resilience research that emerges from the diversification of resilience research concerns the reconciliation of naturalism and constructivism. Resilience cannot operate as a theoretical model or unifying paradigm, given that naturalism and constructivism are grounded in contrasting epistemological and ontological assumptions; and reflect contrasting scientific universes and manifest different scientific and political commitments (Mummery & Mummery, 2019).…”

Section: Six Upcoming Themes In Diversified Resilience Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…meanings of transformation, the theorization of transformation in terms of just resilience, the linkage of resilience to desirable futures, the development of a transformation agenda in participative, proactive and deliberative ways, and the comparison of different administrative capacities and new governance arrangements that explain differences in system adaptation and reconfiguration (cf. Blühdorn, 2013;Fischer, 2017;Davoudi, 2018;Köhler et al, 2019;Mummery & Mummery, 2019).…”

Section: Six Upcoming Themes In Diversified Resilience Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A fifth theme for future resilience research concerns the role of environmental, energy and climate justice in theorizing, modeling, interpreting and explaining resilience to climate change (cf. Skillington, 2015;Fazey et al, 2018;Mummery & Mummery, 2019). For future research, theories of environmental justice, energy justice and climate justice, that is, theoretical insights on (un)equal distribution of environmental and social burdens, struggles for recognition, claims to participation, and unequal impacts of climate change, can be conducive to helping furthering comprehension of adaptive and transformative resilience and transformational adaptation.…”

Section: Six Upcoming Themes In Diversified Resilience Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Review article: Towards a context-driven research: a state-of-the-art review of resilience research on climate change

Ossewaarde¹,

Filatova²,

Georgiadou³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Since the 1970s, Holling's socio-ecological systems (SES) approach has been a most predominant theoretical force in resilience research in the context of the climate crisis. From Holling's approach, however, two contrasting scientific approaches to resilience have developed, namely, naturalism and constructivism. While naturalist resilience research takes SES as complex systems marked by non-linearity and evolutionary changes, constructivist resilience research focuses on the embeddedness of SES in heterogenous contexts. In naturalist resilience research resilience is defined as a system property, while in constructivist resilience research resilience is politically loaded and historically contingent. The aim of this paper is to review and structure current developments in resilience research in the field of climate change studies, in terms of the approaches, definitions, models and commitments that are typical for naturalism and constructivism; identify the key tension between naturalist and constructivist resilience research in terms of the widely discussed issue of adaptation and transformation, and discuss its implications for sustainable development; and propose a research agenda of topics distilled from the adaptation-transformation tension between naturalist and constructivist resilience research.

show abstract

How path dependency manifests in flood risk management: observations from four decades in the Ennstal and Aist catchments in Austria

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Path dependency occurs when a contingent event predetermines what further steps can be taken and self-reinforcing mechanisms lock-in any further development on a sub-optimal trajectory. Path dependency is a prominent concept in the adaptation pathways literature, but insufficiently defined and operationalised. The present paper empirically tracks all constitutive elements of path dependency for four decades of flood risk management (FRM) in two alpine mountain regions in Austria, the Ennstal and Aist river catchments, using a mixed-methods approach. FRM governance has a critical role whether decisions lead to path dependency. Lock-in manifests not just in technical structures, but also in inertia of incumbent actor coalitions and management paradigms. Sub-optimality is hard to assess for lack of clearly defined protection targets; however, it appears in the ways that structural measures are implemented—too little, too late or with negative impacts on nature conservation. Past floods do not qualify as contingent events, as they have not fundamentally changed FRM practice. By contrast, technological and institutional shifts over longer periods, such as digital hazard maps and EU directives, have gradually reoriented FRM strategies. Institution-based self-reinforcing mechanisms are more prevalent than technology-based self-reinforcing mechanisms. Established actor coalitions combined with institutional density illustrate how those in charge uphold a path to defend their position, power and resources. Our recommendations for how to overcome path dependency in FRM governance are: encourage niche experiments, link FRM more closely with climate change adaptation, revise the national policy framework towards polycentric governance approaches and improve professional training.

show abstract

Transformative climate change adaptation: bridging existing approaches with post-foundational insights on justice

Cited by 10 publications

References 39 publications

Review article: Towards a context-driven research: a state-of-the-art review of resilience research on climate change

Review article: Towards a context-driven research: a state-of-the-art review of resilience research on climate change

Review article: Towards a context-driven research: a state-of-the-art review of resilience research on climate change

How path dependency manifests in flood risk management: observations from four decades in the Ennstal and Aist catchments in Austria

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About