Politics, values, and reflexivity: The case of adaptation to climate change in Hampton Roads, Virginia

Abstract

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.

Enabling Reflexive Decision-Making Towards Transformative Adaptation

“…A key contribution of sociology to climate change adaptation has been to critically evaluate projects (Haverkamp 2017), critically examine reflexivity (Boström et al 2017), and expose the contradictions between capitalism and sustainable environmental conservation (Igoe et al 2010). The implication is that individual agency is futile in the face of structural, and ultimately more powerful, constraints.…”

Enacting Responsibilities in Landscape Design: The Case of Advanced Biofuels

“…Central to the notion of reflexivity in RRI is taking responsibility for considering our own beliefs and assumptions. In the field of climate adaptation planning, Haverkamp [6] puts forward a value-based approach to show how adaptation strategies are anything but politically neutral and value-free constructs. For example, a tendency to rely on expert knowledge at the expense of knowledge from local communities can lead to an overly biased framing of problems (e.g., in terms of biophysical impacts instead of social impacts), and the suggestion of related solutions (e.g., engineered and technical remedies), which are often disconnected from 'real' local concerns and needs [6:49].…”

“…Many scholars have also focused on case studies to examine the concerns and values of different stakeholders and community actors surrounding specific biofuel projects [4,5]. However, despite the dynamics of dialogues and co-production mechanisms being instrumental in shaping the outcomes of decision-making [6], few studies have offered more detailed accounts of planning processes in biofuel developments [7].…”

Evidence-Based Advocacy for Municipal Climate Change Action

“…We are already seeing this play out with respect to municipal climate change action. For example, Haverkamp (2017), through a case study in Hampton Roads, Virginia, documents how elected officials and local citizens were excluded from a series of adaptation forums by planning practitioners and other technocratic elites to “avoid political turmoil” (12). Hodge and Gordon (2014) state that planners are expected to learn how to act strategically through training and practice; however, they also state that training rarely equips planners for political leadership, and there are few formal specifications that guide action.…”