Exploring farmer preference shaping in international agricultural climate change adaptation regimes

Sova, Chase; Vervoort, Joost; Thornton, Thomas F.; Helfgott, Ariella; Matthews, David; Chaudhury, Abrar

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.008

Cited by 71 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Explicit consideration of how invisible power conditions procedural justice opportunities within CCD design is scarce (Sova et al, 2015). However, it has been suggested that internationallydriven, 'expert' knowledge and western science are being privileged within CCD design.…”

Section: Designing Ccd: Multi-stakeholder Preferences Procedural Jusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CCD design is often 'top-down' and 'expert-led', with minimal local-level involvement and decisions imposed on target populations (Mustalahti et al, 2012;Sova et al, 2015). Yet, CCD initiatives instigated across levels are commonly cloaked in the rhetoric of 'participation' and 'inclusion' (Dodman and Mitlin, 2013).…”

Section: Designing Ccd: Multi-stakeholder Preferences Procedural Jusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The CCD literature predominantly considers stakeholders' inability to achieve procedural justice in CCD design to result from visible and hidden powerlessness (Sova et al, 2015). For instance, resource shortages are often used to explain governments' non-involvement (Stringer et al, 2012), while limited local participation is frequently attributed to low education levels and the opportunity costs of foregoing livelihood activities (Gustavsson et al, 2014).…”

Section: Designing Ccd: Multi-stakeholder Preferences Procedural Jusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While the literature touches on participation and recognition in CCD design, it does not systematically analyse procedural justice, meaning further research is required. Stakeholders' inability to achieve procedural justice is often presented as a product of visible and hidden powerlessness (Sova et al, 2015).…”

Section: Designing Ccd: Multi-stakeholder Preferences Procedural Jusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mustalahti et al, 2012;Sova et al, 2015), but systematic evaluations are scarce. Empirical insights from project-level initiatives that explicitly pursue triple-wins for adaptation, mitigation and development are particularly lacking.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Exploring Power and Procedural Justice Within Climate Compatible Development Project Design

Wood

Dougill

Quinn

et al. 2016

The Journal of Environment & Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate compatible development (CCD) is gaining traction as a conceptual framework for mainstreaming climate change mitigation and adaptation within development efforts.Understanding whether and how CCD design processes reconcile different stakeholder preferences can reveal how the concept contends with patterns of socio-cultural and political oppression that condition patterns of development. We therefore explore procedural justice and power within CCD design through a case study analysis of two donor-funded projects in Malawi. Findings show that donor agencies are driving design processes and involving other stakeholders selectively. Whilst considerable overlap existed between stakeholders' 'revealed' priorities for CCD, invisible power dynamics encourage the suppression of 'true' preferences, reducing the likelihood that CCD will be contextually-appropriate and have widespread stakeholder buy-in. Visible, hidden and invisible forms of power create barriers to procedural justice in CCD design. We present five recommendations to help policymakers and practitioners to overcome these barriers.2

show abstract

Section: Designing Ccd: Multi-stakeholder Preferences Procedural Jusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Designing Ccd: Multi-stakeholder Preferences Procedural Jusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Designing Ccd: Multi-stakeholder Preferences Procedural Jusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Designing Ccd: Multi-stakeholder Preferences Procedural Jusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Exploring Power and Procedural Justice Within Climate Compatible Development Project Design

Wood

Dougill

Quinn

et al. 2016

The Journal of Environment & Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Four approaches to anticipatory climate governance: Different conceptions of the future and implications for the present

Muiderman

Gupta

Vervoort

et al. 2020

WIREs Climate Change

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In times of accelerating earth system transformations and their potentially disruptive societal consequences, imagining and governing the future is now a core challenge for sustainability research and practice. Much social science and sustainability science scholarship increasingly engages with the future. There is, however, a lack of scrutiny of how the future is envisioned in these literatures, and with what implications for governance in the present. This article analyses these two aspects, building on the concept of "anticipatory governance." We understand anticipatory governance to broadly mean governing in the present to adapt to or shape uncertain futures. We review perspectives within public policy, futures studies, social-ecological systems, environmental policy and governance, transition studies, science and technology studies, and responsible research and innovation literatures. All these literatures engage explicitly or implicitly with the notion of anticipatory governance, yet from distinct ontological and epistemological starting points. Through our review, we identify four approaches to anticipatory governance that differ with regard to (a) their conceptions of and engagement with the future; (b) their implications for actions to be taken in the present; and (c) the ultimate end to be realized through anticipatory governance. We then map onto these four approaches a diverse set of methods and tools of anticipation that each engages with. In concluding, we discuss how these four approaches provide a useful analytical lens through which to assess ongoing practices of anticipatory governance in the climate and sustainability realm.

show abstract

Sociology and Climate Change: A Review and Research Agenda

Falzon

Roberts

Brulle

2021

Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exploring farmer preference shaping in international agricultural climate change adaptation regimes

Cited by 71 publications

References 70 publications

Exploring Power and Procedural Justice Within Climate Compatible Development Project Design

Exploring Power and Procedural Justice Within Climate Compatible Development Project Design

Four approaches to anticipatory climate governance: Different conceptions of the future and implications for the present

Sociology and Climate Change: A Review and Research Agenda

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About