Adaptation interventions and their effect on vulnerability in developing countries: Help, hindrance or irrelevance?
Adaptation interventions and their effect on vulnerability in developing countries: Help, hindrance or irrelevance?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105383
复制
发表时间：
2021-01-22
影响因子：
6.9
通讯作者：
West, Jennifer Joy
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Eriksen, Siri;Schipper, E. Lisa F.;West, Jennifer Joy
本文批判性地回顾了旨在适应气候变化和减少脆弱性的国际资助干预措施的成果。它强调了一些干预措施如何无意中加强、重新分配或创造新的脆弱性来源。造成这些适应不良结果的机制有四个：（一）对脆弱性背景的理解肤浅;（二）利害关系方在设计和执行方面的参与不公平;（三）将适应纳入现有发展议程;（四）对如何定义“适应成功”缺乏关键参与。新出现的文献显示了克服适应干预措施目前在减少脆弱性方面的失败的潜在途径：第一，改变适应工作者和参与适应干预措施的当地人口之间的接触条件;第二，扩大对“当地”脆弱性的理解，以涵盖全球背景和脆弱性的驱动因素。从过去的适应干预中吸取的一个重要教训是，在目前的适应与发展模式中，与“脆弱”人口接触的不公平条件被复制，导致脆弱性的多尺度过程在很大程度上被忽视。特别是，与其设计改变边缘化群体做法的项目，还不如将组织内部和与边缘化群体的学习过程置于适应目标的中心。我们提出的问题，是否需要采取适应后的学术和实践转向类似于后发展，寻求一个多元化的思想适应，同时批判性地询问这些想法如何形成适应的政治和潜在的过程（重新）生产脆弱性的一部分。我们警告说，除非明确解决框架和规模的政治问题，否则转型干预措施可能会对边缘化人群产生比当前适应更大的不利影响。(c)2021作者爱思唯尔有限公司出版
This paper critically reviews the outcomes of internationally-funded interventions aimed at climate change adaptation and vulnerability reduction. It highlights how some interventions inadvertently reinforce, redistribute or create new sources of vulnerability. Four mechanisms drive these maladaptive outcomes: (i) shallow understanding of the vulnerability context; (ii) inequitable stakeholder participation in both design and implementation; (iii) a retrofitting of adaptation into existing development agendas; and (iv) a lack of critical engagement with how 'adaptation success' is defined. Emerging literature shows potential avenues for overcoming the current failure of adaptation interventions to reduce vulnerability: first, shifting the terms of engagement between adaptation practitioners and the local populations participating in adaptation interventions; and second, expanding the understanding of 'local' vulnerability to encompass global contexts and drivers of vulnerability. An important lesson from past adaptation interventions is that within current adaptation cum development paradigms, inequitable terms of engagement with 'vulnerable' populations are reproduced and the multi-scalar processes driving vulnerability remain largely ignored. In particular, instead of designing projects to change the practices of marginalised populations, learning processes within organisations and with marginalised populations must be placed at the centre of adaptation objectives. We pose the question of whether scholarship and practice need to take a post-adaptation turn akin to post-development, by seeking a pluralism of ideas about adaptation while critically interrogating how these ideas form part of the politics of adaptation and potentially the processes (re)producing vulnerability. We caution that unless the politics of framing and of scale are explicitly tackled, transformational interventions risk having even more adverse effects on marginalised populations than current adaptation. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.