Climate adaptation planning is said to be a necessary and inevitable facet of future societies, and is rapidly occurring across a range of geopolitical scales. Previous scholarship suggests that a democratic decentralized approach, one that fosters inclusive participation and representation, is central to achieving equitable and sustainable outcomes of adaptation. However, recent studies frequently characterize the adaptation process as dominated by a techoscientific approach, among expert and elite actors, that tends to obscure or neglect the perceptions and desires of more marginalized members of society. This paper employs a values-based approach to better understand motivational factors for a closed and non-inclusive adaptation process. Through a case study of early, yet formidable stages of adaptation planning in the urban, coastal region of Hampton Roads, Virginia, empirical data among the epistemic community were gathered by interviews and participant observation at de facto adaptation planning forums. Research results document an exclusionary process favoring the participation and representation of technocratic elites and the exclusion of elected officials and local citizens. When linking these case study findings to value theory, inferences are made that adaptation planning in Hampton Roads is motivated by dominant institutional actor values of power and security, those that are theorized to be in opposition to values fostering social and environmental justice. In light of these research results, this paper calls for a critically reflexive adaptation practice, thereby challenging values, assumptions, and beliefs of the self, as well as social structures and power relations that shape adaptation planning.

No abstract

Climate change has the potential to displace large populations in many parts of the developed and developing world. Understanding why, how, and when environmental migrants decide to move is critical to successful strategic planning within organizations tasked with helping the affected groups, and mitigating their systemic impacts. One way to support planning is through the employment of computational modeling techniques. Models can provide a window into possible futures, allowing planners and decision makers to test different scenarios in order to understand what might happen. While modeling is a powerful tool, it presents both opportunities and challenges. This paper builds a foundation for the broader community of model consumers and developers by: providing an overview of pertinent climate-induced migration research, describing some different types of models and how to select the most relevant one(s), highlighting three perspectives on obtaining data to use in said model(s), and the consequences associated with each. It concludes with two case studies based on recent research that illustrate what can happen when ambitious modeling efforts are undertaken without sufficient planning, oversight, and interdisciplinary collaboration. We hope that the broader community can learn from our experiences and apply this knowledge to their own modeling research efforts.

Amid the growth of circular economy research, policy, and practice, there are increasingly loud calls for a unified and singular definition of circularity. This unity is needed, proponents argue, to enable swift action in the face of climate and environmental crises. Our work interrogates the ideal of convergence around the circular economy. We ask whether circularity must be singular and uniform in order to be effective. Based on convergence science research and social theory rooted in ideas of divergence, our paper draws on observations of a convergence science workshop, focus groups, interviews, and questionnaires with US-based circular economy professionals to explore shared and divergent understandings and practices of circularity. We find that even among a relatively homogeneous group of research participants (in terms of race, class, and education), there is significant divergence in terms of both practices and perceptions of circular economy principles. We focus in this paper on how research participants understand innovation in the circular economy as just one potential illustration of divergent circularity. Our research contributes to an understanding of circular economy knowledge politics, illuminating how circularity is contested even among those who advocate most strongly for its implementation. We ultimately find opportunity and promise precisely in the spaces of contestation, and see divergence as a way to hold space for multiple ways of being and relating to economies, materials, and beings. These more inclusive pathways, we argue, may be necessary to ensure just and effective transitions to more circular economic forms.