Power mechanisms and structures shape climate change adaptation outcomes, the measures adopted, and who is identified as requiring adaptation support. But to what extent does research recognize such power‐adaptation linkages? Based on a systematic literature review, we enquire if and how the framing of power matters for adaptation research and what the implications may be for practice. Our enquiry is predicated on the relationship between the researcher and the research focus being itself a relationship of power. Since power is complex and a single definition is not desirable, different actor‐orientated frames of power were used for the data analysis. The results show that authors are more likely to work with issues of power to (i.e., agency), power over, and empowerment, rather than resistance or disempowerment. Demonstrating the effect of such frames, these proportions change according to whether the research focuses on equity, effectiveness, or participation. For instance, power to is strongly associated with effectiveness, while disempowerment is associated more with equity. Together with other identified patterns, our review shows that researchers frame power in adaptation in ways that constitute biases and blind spots. Attention to particular frames of power can limit attention to important dynamics within adaptation processes. Both the content and context to which the identified frames are applied suggest structural trends in adaptation research that require increased attention. Since researchers' frames of power influence both research outcomes and broader adaptation‐power relations, the results indicate that reflexivity is needed to improve both adaptation research and practice. This article is categorized under: Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Institutions for Adaptation
Environmental rights are recognised in s 24 of the Constitution, but the Constitutional Court has not engaged with these in a meaningful manner in the last decade. Fuel Retailers, handed down in 2007, was the last case to engage s 24 fully. Although it used the concept of sustainable development to give content to the right, the case has been criticised for its economic focus and the lack of certainty in its approach. The resulting precedent may have been difficult to follow, creating a barrier for potential environmental cases in more recent years. However, a challenge prior to the interpretation of environmental rights in the court room is that environmental issues do not always make it to court. The three cases analysed in this piece reflect matters in which environmental rights were relevant, but neither argued by the parties nor raised by the Court. This may be attributed to the complexity of environmental matters, or to difficulties related to competing priorities and legal standing. More particularly, the challenges faced by the environment in getting to court are akin to the difficulties faced by children in having their rights vindicated-both must be represented by others. The three cases discussed in this article suggest that the Court has something of an environmental blindspot. This can be likened to the gender blindspots that have existed in past cases, and arguably still exist. Having made the case for an environmental blindspot, this article considers an array of tools that might address the problem. Internationally, independent environmental agencies and specialised environmental courts have been created, but these may not be the best fit for the South African context. Instead, this article suggests that existing legal tools may be used for the realisation of s 24's environmental rights. The Constitutional Court may make use of its broad powers to pick up on environmental issues even where these have not been explicitly identified by the parties. While this may be contrary to established procedure, the Constitutional Court does adopt a flexible approach when it believes that specific rights or provisions in the Constitution are essential to ventilate and to resolve the issues raised in a matter. This flexibility may allow the court to bypass the challenges facing s 24, enabling the development of this important constitutional right. Finally, this article suggests a proactive approach to s 24, formalising an upper guardian for the environment to accelerate the development of the right's content.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.