The framing of power in climate change adaptation research

Abstract

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

Power in resilience and resilience's power in climate change scholarship

“…Such dynamics are also visible in the composition of research teams and directionality of research efforts whereby the Global North secures its place at the epicenter of climate change knowledge production while the Global South continues to be subjugated as a site for empirical verification. As Woroniecki et al (2019, p. 7) argue, “the risk is that [power] is perceived as immutable and owned by different actors, rather than as determined through relationships that can be shaped through collective processes”. Seeing power as immutable can seriously hamper capacities for envisioning alternative, transformative futures of resilience.…”

“…Such insights are consistent with other, albeit limited, analyses of the conceptualization of power in resilience (and by association adaptation) scholarship. For instance, Woroniecki et al (2019) highlight that "power over" occupies a core focus in the climate change adaptation literature, referring to the process of "one actor […] influencing the behavior of another, and in indirect expressions, where one actor influences the context in which another may operate". The overemphasis on particular actors "holding" power over others risks preserving common tropes and stereotypes that obscure the agency and capacities of historically marginalized groups, reinforcing the need for intervention by external actors who allegedly possess the knowledge and tools to front resilience processes.…”

“…These include careful and caring approaches that foreground everyday, experiential, and emotional knowledge, lending themselves to the decentralization of "knowledge hegemonies that characterize contemporary thought in climate change governance" and decision making (Cast an Broto, 2020, p. 242). Equally as important are authors' illustrations of the cross-scalar interactions that challenge disembodied accounts of resilience and their tendency to homogenize unevenly positioned groups; they reflect a focus on "power to", also described by Woroniecki et al (2019) as prevalent in studies of power and adaptation, albeit with varied nuance and complexity. In contrast, our review finds that examinations of resistance and the recalibration of power differentials remain underdeveloped.…”

“…However, similarly to concepts such as “adaptation” (Woroniecki et al, 2019) and “vulnerability” (Camponeschi, 2021), scholarly discussions of resilience demonstrate a lack of clear conceptualization with respect to power (Jordan, 2019). Such reluctance has been criticized for flattening complexity to focus on climatic over social drivers (Arora‐Jonsson, 2016; Kashwan et al, 2019), over‐emphasizing the stability of current systems and processes (Carr, 2019), isolating resilience from broader socio‐natural processes (Nightingale et al, 2020), and presenting associated policies as technical and value‐free (Mikulewicz, 2019).…”

Access and allocation in climate change adaptation

“…A large strand of adaptation research has focused on assessing vulnerability as a precondition for understanding adaptation needs (Grothmann et al 2013;de Sherbinin et al 2019;Woroniecki et al 2019). In the terminology of the ESG framework, this research has been interested in how climate change affects basic needs, as well as how adaptation can minimize adverse effects of climate change and safeguard access to basic needs.…”