Inserting Ethics into Deliberation on Adaptation and Resilience Policy

将道德纳入适应和复原力政策的审议中

• 批准号: AH/T007982/1
• 负责人: Keith Hyams
• 金额: $ 10.76万
• 依托单位: University of Warwick
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Research Grant
• 财政年份: 2020
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2020 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FT007982%2F1
• 关键词: Inserting; Ethics; into; Deliberation; Adaptation

This follow-up project aims to integrate into adaptation and resilience policy-making some of the lessons gained through the Why We Disagree About Development (WhyDAR) research project (NE/P01609X/1). WhyDAR aimed to identify different ways in which urban resilience is understood while investigating the role of science, technology, ethics and expertise in the making of resilience strategies in the Global South. It drew out key ethical questions arising from disagreement about conceptions to resilience, and asked what an equitable approach to resilience would look like in the face of this disagreement. Aiming to integrate these lessons into real-life adaptation and resilience policy, this project will work together with the climate adaptation team at the municipal level in Cape Town, South Africa (upper middle income). South Africa is likely to experience - and, in some cases, have already experienced - the negative effects of climate change, such as droughts and floodings. Unfortunately, access to resilient infrastructures, including housing, health care, and food chains, and representative institutions is highly unequal, inequitable, and inadequate within South Africa. Consequently, especially the poorest and most vulnerable community members are often left out and underrepresented within resilience and adaptation strategies, threatening their lives, health, food security, livelihoods, well-being, and access to crucial services, such as water and energy supply. This situation raises ethical issues of how adaptation and resilience planning within the most climate vulnerable LMICs can become more equal, equitable, and representative of those who are most in need of inclusion, including taking into account the fact that different stakeholders have different conceptions of and aims for resilience. Working together with the municipal climate adaptation team of Cape Town, the project will develop and implement three procedural methodologies for inserting ethical deliberations into adaptation and resilience planning and policy-making at the local and municipal level: (i) Stakeholder dialogues bring together representatives of different affected groups, including policy-makers, city council members, service providers, NGOs, businesses, and not members of the local communities. Through dialogue, deliberators will be forced to take into account the interests of other groups, explain and provide justification for their own views.(ii) Scenario building exercises will encourage deliberators to reflect on the ethical aspects of different resilience scenarios and how they may be resolved. In particular, we will try out an exercise in which the deliberators will be behind a 'veil of ignorance' when considering a scenario and will not know what identity they have within it. Only afterwards will their identities be revealed to them and they will then evaluate whether the solutions that they came up with behind the veil were really fair to all stakeholders.(iii) Problem-oriented deliberations focus on solving particular, real-life resilience challenges. At different stages during the planning process, the planners will be asked to reflect, with the help of a trained ethicist, on the ethical implications of their plan.The aims of these exercises will be to test different framework for inserting ethics into resilience planning in Cape Town; to draw lessons and best practices from that, which can be scaled up and implemented in similar LMIC contexts; to identify and co-produce knowledge about the ethical aspects of resilience planning; and to build capacity for taking into account ethics when deliberating on resilience within municipal and local institutions. The project will involve researchers at the University of Warwick and the University of Cape Town in collaboration with the City Climate Adaptation Team of Cape Town and the non-governmental organizations Practical Action and Christian Aid.

这一后续项目旨在将通过“为什么我们对发展持不同意见”研究项目(NE/P01609X/1)获得的一些经验教训纳入适应和复原力政策。WhyDAR旨在确定理解城市复原力的不同方式，同时调查科学、技术、伦理和专门知识在制定全球南方复原力战略方面的作用。它引出了因对复原力的概念存在分歧而产生的关键伦理问题，并询问在这种分歧面前，公平对待复原力的方法是什么。为了将这些经验教训纳入现实生活中的适应和复原力政策，该项目将与南非开普敦(中上收入)市政一级的气候适应小组合作。南非可能会经历--在某些情况下已经经历了--气候变化的负面影响，如干旱和洪水。不幸的是，在南非，获得有弹性的基础设施，包括住房、医疗保健、食物链和有代表性的机构的机会是非常不平等、不公平和不充分的。因此，在复原力和适应战略中，特别是最贫穷和最脆弱的社区成员往往被排除在外，代表性不足，威胁到他们的生命、健康、粮食安全、生计、福祉以及获得水和能源供应等关键服务的机会。这种情况提出了伦理问题，即气候最脆弱的小岛屿发展中国家的适应和复原力规划如何能够变得更加平等、公平和代表最需要纳入的人，包括考虑到不同的利益攸关方对复原力有不同的概念和目标。该项目将与开普敦市政气候适应小组合作，制定和实施三种程序方法，将伦理审议纳入地方和市政一级的适应和复原力规划和决策：(I)利益攸关方对话，使不同受影响群体的代表聚集在一起，包括政策制定者、市议会成员、服务提供者、非政府组织、企业和不是当地社区的成员。通过对话，审议人员将被迫考虑其他群体的利益，解释并为自己的观点提供理由。(Ii)情景构建练习将鼓励审议人员反思不同弹性情景的伦理方面，以及如何解决这些问题。特别是，我们将尝试一种练习，在这种练习中，审议人员在考虑一种情景时，将被隐藏在一层“无知的面纱”后面，而不知道他们在其中有什么身份。只有在此之后，他们的身份才会被揭示，他们才会评估他们在面纱背后提出的解决方案是否真的对所有利益相关者公平。(Iii)以问题为导向的审议侧重于解决特定的、现实生活中的弹性挑战。在规划过程的不同阶段，规划者将被要求在训练有素的伦理学家的帮助下对其计划的伦理影响进行思考。这些活动的目的是测试将伦理纳入开普敦复原力规划的不同框架；从中吸取教训和最佳做法，这些经验和最佳做法可以在类似的LMIC背景下扩大和实施；确定并共同产生关于复原力规划的伦理方面的知识；以及在市政和地方机构内审议复原力时考虑伦理的能力。该项目将由华威大学和开普敦大学的研究人员参与，与开普敦城市气候适应小组以及非政府组织实际行动和基督教援助组织合作。

项目成果

Who Should Represent Future Generations in Climate Planning?

• DOI: 10.1017/s0892679422000168
• 发表时间: 2022-01-01
• 期刊: ETHICS & INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
• 影响因子: 1.3
• 作者: Byskov, Morten Fibieger;Hyams, Keith
• 通讯作者: Hyams, Keith

Epistemic injustice in Climate Adaptation

气候适应中的认知不公正

• DOI: 10.1007/s10677-022-10301-z
• 发表时间: 2022
• 期刊: Ethical Theory and Moral Practice
• 影响因子: 1
• 作者: Byskov M

Introducing the Multi-Dimensional Injustice Framework: a case study in climate-related health risks

介绍多维不公正框架：气候相关健康风险的案例研究

• DOI: 10.5871/jba/009s7.063
• 发表时间: 2021
• 期刊: Journal of the British Academy
• 作者: Oyebode O

Perceptions of the Governance of the Technological Risks of Food Innovations for Addressing Food Security

对食品创新技术风险治理以解决粮食安全的看法

• DOI: 10.3390/su151511503
• 发表时间: 2023
• 期刊: Sustainability
• 影响因子: 3.9
• 作者: Kunyanga C

Interactions between climate and COVID-19.

• DOI: 10.1016/s2542-5196(22)00174-7
• 发表时间: 2022-10
• 期刊: The Lancet. Planetary health
• 作者: Ford JD;Zavaleta-Cortijo C;Ainembabazi T;Anza-Ramirez C;Arotoma-Rojas I;Bezerra J;Chicmana-Zapata V;Galappaththi EK;Hangula M;Kazaana C;Lwasa S;Namanya D;Nkwinti N;Nuwagira R;Okware S;Osipova M;Pickering K;Singh C;Berrang-Ford L;Hyams K;Miranda JJ;Naylor A;New M;van Bavel B;COVID Observatory
• 通讯作者: COVID Observatory