Access and allocation in earth system governance: water and climate change compared

Gupta, Joyeeta; Lebel, Louis

doi:10.1007/s10784-010-9139-1

Cited by 73 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…who has relevant responsibilities and how can such responsibilities be monitored and implemented) and risks (i.e. who faces the risks caused by abuse of the rights and responsibilities and who compensates for these risks) associated with such ecocentric limits for all peoples and countries (Gupta and Lebel 2010). It also calls for greening the financial, aid and trade institutions (e.g.…”

Section: Environmental Inclusivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainable development goals and inclusive development

Gupta

Vegelin

2016

Int Environ Agreements

Self Cite

568

313

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Achieving sustainable development has been hampered by trade-offs in favour of economic growth over social well-being and ecological viability, which may also affect the sustainable development goals (SDGs) adopted by the member states of the United Nations. In contrast, the concept of inclusive development emphasizes the social, ecological and political dimensions of development. In this context, this paper addresses the question: What does inclusive development mean and to what extent is it taken into account in the framing of the SDGs? It presents inclusive development as having three key dimensions (social, ecological, and relational inclusiveness) with five principles each. This is applied to the 17 SDGs and their targets. The paper concludes that while the text on the SDGs fares quite well on social inclusiveness, it fares less well in respect to ecological and relational inclusiveness. This implies that there is a risk that implementation processes also focus more on social inclusiveness rather than on ecological and relational inclusiveness. Moreover, in order to de facto achieve social inclusiveness in the Anthropocene, it is critical that the latter two are given equal weight in the actual implementation process.

show abstract

Section: Environmental Inclusivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainable development goals and inclusive development

Gupta

Vegelin

2016

Int Environ Agreements

Self Cite

568

313

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, how can we reach interdisciplinary conceptualizations and definitions of allocation and access? Given the breadth of debates on allocation, it seems important to improve interdisciplinary understandings (Gupta and Lebel 2010). So far allocation and access are defined differently in different disciplines: Lawyers speak of equity, economists of distribution, resource analysts of access, political scientists of fairness, geographers of socio-spatial distributions and environmental justice, and sociologists of social justice.…”

Section: The Problem Of Allocation and Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Earth system governance: a research framework

Biermann

Betsill

Gupta

et al. 2010

Int Environ Agreements

Self Cite

275

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Earth System Science Partnership, which unites all major global change research programmes, declared in 2001 an urgent need to develop ''strategies for Earth System management''. Yet what such strategies might be, how they could be developed, and how effective, efficient and equitable such strategies would be, remains unspecified. It is apparent that the institutions, organizations and mechanisms by which humans currently govern their relationship with the natural environment and global biochemical systems are not only insufficient-they are also poorly understood. This article presents the science programme of the Earth System Governance Project, a new 10-year global research effort 123Int Environ Agreements (2010) 10:277-298 DOI 10.1007 endorsed by the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP). It outlines the concept of earth system governance as a challenge for the social sciences, and it elaborates on the interlinked analytical problems and research questions of earth system governance as an object of study. These analytical problems concern the overall architecture of earth system governance, agency beyond the state and of the state, the adaptiveness of governance mechanisms and processes as well as their accountability and legitimacy, and modes of allocation and access in earth system governance. The article also outlines four crosscutting research themes that are crucial for the study of each analytical problem as well as for the integrated understanding of earth system governance: the role of power, knowledge, norms and scale.

show abstract

“…Addressing real-world problems also requires empirical insight in these processes. I therefore argue for a multidisciplinary approach and to let philosophers join forces with disciplines like law, hydrology, policy science, and new institutional economics (see (Gupta and Lebel, 2010) for a similar plea). If the ethical aspects of water governance are to be adequately addressed, the philosophical skills should be complemented with profound knowledge of water, including partly technical (hydrological) knowledge, knowledge of the prevailing legal constraints, combined with insights from policy sciences and institutional economics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%