Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Eriksen 2016 Reframing Adaptation
Eriksen 2016 Reframing Adaptation
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Article history: This paper is motivated by a concern that adaptation and vulnerability research suffer from an under-
Received 13 February 2015 theorization of the political mechanisms of social change and the processes that serve to reproduce
Received in revised form 11 September 2015 vulnerability over time and space. We argue that adaptation is a socio-political process that mediates
Accepted 14 September 2015
how individuals and collectives deal with multiple and concurrent environmental and social changes. We
Available online 26 September 2015
propose that applying concepts of subjectivity, knowledges and authority to the analysis of adaptation
focuses attention on this socio-political process. Drawing from vulnerability, adaptation, political ecology
Keywords:
and social theory literatures, we explain how power is reproduced or contested in adaptation practice
Politics
Climate change adaptation
through these three concepts. We assert that climate change adaptation processes have the potential to
Power constitute as well as contest authority, subjectivity and knowledge, thereby opening up or closing down
Authority space for transformational adaptation. We expand on this assertion through four key propositions about
Subjectivity how adaptation processes can be understood and outline an emergent empirical research agenda, which
Knowledges aims to explicitly examine these propositions in specific social and environmental contexts. We describe
how the articles in this special issue are contributing to this nascent research agenda, providing an
empirical basis from which to theorize the politics of adaptation. The final section concludes by
describing the need for a reframing of adaptation policy, practice and analysis to engage with multiple
adaptation knowledges, to question subjectivities inherent in discourses and problem understandings,
and to identify how emancipatory subjectivities – and thus the potential for transformational adaptation
– can be supported.
ã 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.014
0959-3780/ ã 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
524 S.H. Eriksen et al. / Global Environmental Change 35 (2015) 523–533
expected to adapt to climate change and who ought to plan and transformation debates, much of which has been synthesized in
guide those processes. the recent IPCC report (Adger et al., 2014; Denton et al., 2014;
Until recently within the climate change literature, adaptation Mimura et al., 2014; Olsson et al., 2014). In parallel, this literature
was largely conceived as a formal policy intervention or a planned reflects increasing recognition that vulnerability cannot be
single action that moderates harm or capitalizes upon benefits addressed through adjustments to maintain the current system
(Klein et al., 2007), essentially a linear and implicitly politically (incremental adaptation (Pelling, 2011)) alone, but that there is a
neutral response to actual or expected bio-physical changes (Smit need for adaptation measures to address how vulnerability is
and Pilifosova, 2001). We build from more recent advances in the produced. The call for transformational adaptation attempts to
literature addressing the complex social and individual processes address the roots of vulnerability through action “that changes the
that mediate responses to biophysical change, which draw our fundamental attributes of a system in response to climate and its
attention to power and politics (Eakin and Lemos, 2006; Eriksen effects” (Agard et al., 2014, p. 1758). We support this call, but argue
et al., 2011; Eriksen and Lind, 2009; Manuel-Navarrete, 2010; additionally that both the production of vulnerability and efforts to
O’Brien et al., 2007). This literature makes it clear that too narrow a address this vulnerability though adaptation – transformational or
focus on policy-making and planning in response to climatic otherwise – must be conceptualized as political and contested,
stressors runs the risk of characterizing adaptation decision- with outcomes that are not likely to be the same across different
making processes as exclusively beneficial and primarily technical populations.
or managerial, bounded only by economic and technical capacities Issues of power in adaptation processes and empowerment of
as well as scientific uncertainty. vulnerable groups are rising on the agenda (Manuel-Navarrete,
Closely connected to debates over adaptation responses, the 2013; Moser, 2013; Schipper et al., 2014). Nevertheless, there are
debate on climate vulnerability is also changing to take more few conceptual tools to understand how power operates in the
account of unequal vulnerability to multiple socio-environmental adaptation process. All adaptation actions will influence social
stressors. Here, the literature addresses the differential impacts of relations, governance and distribution of resources in any given
economic globalisation, conflict and climate change within and population or place. Yet not all these changes are desirable to
across populations (Eakin, 2005; Leichenko and O’Brien, 2008; everyone. Whether and how adaptation addresses social injustice
Ziervogel et al., 2006). This more nuanced perspective on and fundamental inequities in resource distribution will always be
vulnerability is evident, for example, in how the social context disputed, and dependent on specific knowledge, authorities, and
of vulnerability is treated between the fourth and fifth assessment subjectivities. As the literature in Science and Technology studies
reports of the IPCC (2007, 2014). Yet, much research on climate (STS) has long argued, science is thoroughly social and how
change vulnerability continues to situate vulnerability within knowledge is produced and for what purposes is significantly
analyses of climate, rather than in societies and political economies. contextual and contested across different cultural and historical
In doing so, this research masks the social-political causes of risk contexts (Haraway, 1991; Jasanoff, 2005; Longino, 1990). As such,
and vulnerability (Ribot, 2011), as well as the socio-environmental taking seriously the political nature of adaptation precludes the
processes (Nightingale, 2015) that mediate responses to climate development of clear models of what transformational adaptation
change and that have been central to how humans have always looks like since such models are always products of one worldview.
responded to environmental variability. We follow Taylor and Rather, we argue for more empirical and analytical attention on the
others in “emphasiz[ing] the need to conceptualize the relational contexts within which authorities, knowledges and subjectivities
dynamics of vulnerability, where the relative security of some come together to shape what counts as adaptation and for whom.
social groups is achieved through the production of insecurity We propose that a reflexive and critical interrogation of the politics
among others” (2013, p. 318). In short, despite the recent shift away of adaptation itself may provide opportunities for a more
from linear, biophysical explanations, we see in most scientific fundamental change in system attributes.
writing and policy responses a reluctance to deal with the politics When understood in this sense, we argue for reframing
of adaptation head-on. This reluctance is underscored by the lack adaptation to take account of how the exercise of power is always
of a coherent conceptual framework to facilitate addressing this present within climate change responses. Our concern is to provide
challenge. The consequence has been a lack of empirical research analytical insights into why pathways towards ‘transformational
focusing explicitly on the social-political domains within which a adaptation’ are so difficult to conceive and promote, and to hold in
fuller understanding of adaptation processes for long-term change view how any transformational adaptation pathway will inevitably
can emerge (Shove, 2010) and a need for more theoretical be plagued by contradictory outcomes. To do so, we focus on
innovation to help guide such studies. authority, knowledges, and the way that individuals and groups are
To address this challenge, we argue that adaptation should be positioned in relation to adaptation (‘subjectivities’) to capture
conceptualized explicitly as a contested social-political process multi-scalar politicised relationships that extend between house-
that mediates how individuals and collectives deal with multiple holds to the global scale. We argue that it is these political
types of simultaneously occurring environmental and social dynamics that are most important in shaping adaptation processes
changes. Our conceptualization builds on perspectives that view and outcomes and that help us to link climate related adaptation
adaptation not as a single decision or measure, but as a social efforts to broader processes of socio-environmental change.
process wherein social and political relations shape the simulta- We use the term politics in its broadest sense, namely, the
neous management of diverse changes, many of which are not processes through which individuals and collectives cooperate and
driven directly or consciously by climate change (Pelling, 2011). As collude to order and govern everyday affairs. Drawing from social
such, climate change should not be separated from other kinds of theory contributions to the understanding of power and politics,
change to which societies respond, nor should adaptation to we mobilize authority, knowledges and subjectivities as theoreti-
uncertainty and change be considered as something new that only cal lenses to more precisely conceptualize the effects of power as
emerged with climate change. they pertain to environmental governance. Authority captures how
Rather, adaptation must be seen as part of the dynamics of the operation of power manifests in the competition for influence
societies rather than simply being a technical adjustment to and the ability to exert agendas by one individual or institution
biophysical change by society. This framing recognizes the over another within environmental governance and adaptation
important contributions made by social scientists for understand- processes (Fairhead et al., 2012; Nightingale and Ojha, 2013; Sikor
ing inequality and social justice issues within adaptation and and Lund, 2009). Struggles for authority are manifest at all scales,
S.H. Eriksen et al. / Global Environmental Change 35 (2015) 523–533 525
and intertwined in the processes by which different knowledges elaborate on how taken together, authority, knowledges and
are used in adaptation (Beck et al., 2014; Bulkeley, 2012; Hulme, subjectivity can conceptually anchor a deeper understanding of
2011; Jasanoff, 2013; Mahony, 2014), and how environmental how power operates in the politics of adaptation. Section 4
subjectivities emerge in relation to broader discourses of change describes four key propositions that emerge from our discussion of
and transformation (Nightingale, 2015). ‘Knowledges’ in its plural how politics of adaptation operate through authority, knowledges
form signals how understandings of climate change and adapta- and subjectivity. The section then outlines a research agenda and
tion are based in more than just scientific knowledge (Hulme, introduces the papers in this special issue. Section 5 concludes by
2010; Jasanoff, 2013; Mahony, 2014). By exploring the ability of describing the need to understand how power and politics operate
actors’ to assert one understanding over another (authority), and through authority, knowledges and subjectivity in order to identify
evaluating how knowledges combine and influence each other, we how adaptation practices and processes can challenge, rather than
are able to show “on-the-ground” effects of knowledges and reaffirm, existing power relations, and hence contribute to
discourses (Goldman, 2011; Taylor, 2013). deliberate transformational adaptation.
Similarly, we use the term subjectivities to link wider societal
processes to individual lives. Subjectivity is a concept used in social 2. Adaptation as a socio-political process
theory to capture how the operation of power, both in terms of
‘power over’ and the ‘power to act’, results in social differentiation In this section, we show how the literature on adaptation and
(Butler, 1997; Foucault, 1995). Subjectivities emerge from the vulnerability has increasingly illustrated the relevance of social
exercise of power through a process of internalizing dominant and political processes, and the importance of politics within them,
cultural codes, discourses and disciplining practices, and the for adaptation dynamics. Yet, this research continues to suffer from
acceptance of and resistance of these, processes which are always an under-theorization of the political mechanisms that serve to
present even if often unconscious (Butler, 1997; Nightingale and reproduce vulnerability over time and space. It is the need to
Ojha, 2013). Subjectivity helps to show how the exercise of power conceptualize these mechanisms – and the need for further
situates individuals and collectives in relation to each other in empirical research that probe the role of power and politics in
contexts such as environmental governance. Gender, race, class adaptation – that motivates our analysis here.
and other environmental subjectivities (‘pastoralists’, ‘farmers’) In response to the more managerial or technocratic approaches
are produced through everyday social and environmental inter- to adaptation observed in practice, adaptation scholars are calling
actions, which serve to simultaneously order the social world, and for a greater policy focus to the underlying causes of vulnerability
to shape individual life chances. Subjectivities are never stable and risk (Ribot, 2011; SREX, 2012). Some of this work recognizes
categories, but rather reflect the dynamic exercise of power, and as the importance of social capital, governance, and adaptation
such can have contradictory and unpredictable outcomes (Butler, policies in creating inequality (Pelling and High, 2005). This
1997; Morales and Harris, 2014; Nightingale, 2011). Subjectivity is apparent agreement can mask very different interpretations of
thus always ‘Janus faced’: adaptation, for example, can serve to vulnerability and its causes, and thus what constitutes legitimate
reproduce subjectivities and inequalities, but if adaptation adaptation. As pointed out by O’Brien et al. (2007), vulnerability is
involves everyday practices that clash with cultural codes, it can seen by some scholars as an outcome of climate change, albeit
bring such cultural codes and their forms of symbolic violence into filtered through social factors and institutional responses, whereas
view. By bringing them into view, the ‘natural order of things’ is other analyses focus on how social and political processes drive
challenged and provides an opportunity for the alteration of vulnerability as an inherent state. Similarly, some chapters of the
subjectivities (e.g. from ‘poor farmer’ to ‘climate resilient most recent IPCC (2014) report continue to treat adaptation
agricultural innovator’) (Nightingale and Ojha, 2013). primarily as the adoption of specific technologies, programs,
Taken together, authorities, knowledges and subjectivities draw policies or measures to address climate risk, while other chapters
our attention to the everyday practices within which the exercise clearly recognize the way that adaptation to climate change is
of power is both cemented and transformed. This is crucial in the effected through social and political processes, and some reflect
context of climate change adaptation if we want to illuminate how both perspectives (Adger et al., 2014; Mimura et al., 2014; Noble
power is embedded within both problem framing and responses. et al., 2014; Olsson et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2014).
Thus the papers in this special issue focus on the moments through Given that the IPCC report represents a synthesis of the current
which politicisation comes clearly into view in social interactions literature, it not surprising that these analytical tensions remain
and decision-making around climate change adaptation and (Beck et al., 2014; Mahony, 2015). And there continue to be
analyse how such moments are foundational to shaping outcomes. numerous attempts in adaptation planning and academia to isolate
Such moments include the formation of policy and plans, the climate change impacts and adaptation from the “messiness” of
organization and activities of social movements, everyday live- other societal spheres in order to retain conceptual clarity and
lihoods activities and struggles, as well as enrolment in and the analytical purity of the concept (Arndt et al., 2012; Biagini et al.,
actions associated with formal politics (such as parties, parlia- 2014; Yohe and Schlesinger, 2002). Analytical purity facilities the
mentary negotiations and actions). The case studies show clearly use of empirical models that are contingent upon our capacity to
that the politics of adaptation across scales shape the space for isolate causes and effects, enabling evaluations of the economic
transformational adaptation in a dynamic manner. First because costs and benefits of adaptation, and facilitating the association of
knowledge, subjectivity and authority shape what particular response options with specific environmental signals. However,
adaptation interests and actions take place. And second, because such approaches fall short of taking a deep understanding of
the contestations that take place through the adaptation process vulnerability contexts, its social drivers, and in particular the social
themselves alter fundamental attributes of society including and political-economic production of marginality and associated
knowledges, subjectivity and authority. risk as a starting point for adaptation efforts (Eriksen et al., 2011;
In what follows, we first review other work on climate change Leichenko and O’Brien, 2008; Ribot, 2011).
adaptation and how it contributes to our conceptualization of the Rather than conceptualizing adaptation as a policy process
politics of adaptation. Section 3 turns to social theory for more independent from broader patterns of social change, therefore, we
conceptual resources in order to capture how power and politics conceptualize adaptation as part and parcel of these processes of
permeate efforts to address climate change in the context of on- change. This means that adaptation needs to be tied to the
going processes of social and ecological transformation. Here we everyday livelihood activities and ambitions of individuals and
526 S.H. Eriksen et al. / Global Environmental Change 35 (2015) 523–533
groups in society (O’Brien, 2012). It is deeply problematic to decision-making across the globe (Amundsen, 2012; Eakin, 2006;
distance adaptation from the drivers of vulnerability, or to see Eriksen and Selboe, 2012; Leichenko and O’Brien, 2008; Reid and
adaptation as a program or a policy process delinked from how Vogel, 2006; Scoones et al., 1996; West and Hovelsrud, 2010;
other aspects of societal change take place. Contested intersec- Ziervogel et al., 2006). All these processes are embedded in how
tional social relations cannot be reduced to concepts such as ‘social the politics of climate change adaptation play out. A number of case
capital’ (Fine, 2001), nor is it safe to assume that core political studies are emerging that clearly show how the range of
contestations and struggles will be solved through better policies adaptation options considered at any moment in time are
and ‘good governance’ (Eakin and Lemos, 2006). Perhaps most inevitably the product of contested decisions regarding invest-
fundamentally, the delinking of climate change adaptation from ment, resource allocation and social activities made years, if not
the political economic processes through which climate change decades earlier (Wise et al., 2014). Actors with significant presence
itself is produced (i.e. carbon emissions) (O’Brien, 2012), is one way and clout in public and private spheres may have greater
for the majority of the world’s population to comply with, rather opportunities to help bias the parameters of decision-making to
than challenge, a future determined by a high-emitting minority. their benefit (Ribot, 2010). Public sector interventions in adapta-
By implicitly limiting the concept of adaptation to a rational policy tion processes may also serve to reinforce state political machinery
process, people are presented as ‘recipients of adaptation’, rather at the expense of vulnerability reduction, as demonstrated by
than active agents in shaping their destinies (Eriksen et al., 2015). Nelson and Finan (2009) in the case of drought responses in NE
Yet any adaptation decision, whether made by an individual Brazil. Similarly, dissonance of visions and priorities between
adjusting his or her livelihood strategy, or a policy maker designing different social groups can result in lost opportunities for action as
formal adaptation strategies, is the product of prioritizing some well as mis- characterization of the underlying causes of
interests over others, privileging and experiencing some biophysi- vulnerability (Eakin and Appendini, 2008).
cal changes over others, hearing some voices and ignoring others. Together, these and other contributions make the case that
These processes of prioritization and exclusion necessarily have adaptation is a profoundly social process that includes informal
positive and negative effects distributed socially, spatially and and formal institutions, learning, diverse local values and
through time. negotiation of interests. Clearly there is a need to analyze how
More socially- and politically-oriented analyses have focused power and politics underpin these processes (Eriksen and Lind,
on global climate change negotiations as well as processes of 2009; Eriksen and Selboe, 2015; Naess, 2013; Tschakert et al.,
national climate change policy formation, including the potential 2013). Nevertheless, the mechanisms through which decisions
negative effects of climate change adaptation policies (Arnall et al., arise out of the exercise of power, struggles over whose knowledge
2014; Bulkeley, 2012; Marino and Ribot, 2012). Recent work on the counts, and how some actors are able to exercise more power in
possibility of maladaptation is situated within these efforts, adaptation decision-making than others (i.e. politics), is not well
emphasising that adaptation aimed at one group may have elaborated within these literatures.
negative effects on other groups as well as over time (Barnett A critical question then is how a better understanding of the
and O’Neill, 2010; Taylor, 2013). Furthermore, Tanner and Allouche political processes inherent in adaptation can help facilitate
(2011) call attention to how ideas, power and resources are transformational adaptation, or alter the fundamental attributes
conceptualised, negotiated and implemented by different groups, and processes in society driving vulnerability (as well as rising
and in particular how adaptation and mitigation responses are a emissions). In particular, the normative goals of transformation we
direct outcome of knowledges and discourses about climate would put forward must include more sustainable development
change. pathways in terms of reduced poverty, inequity, and environmen-
There have also been recent challenges to the idea that better tal degradation, recognizing that all of these are negotiated
policy-making and more scientific knowledge are needed to (political) concepts and processes (Manuel-Navarrete, 2010;
address adaptation. So far, most research has focused on providing Moser, 2013). Rather than enhancing participation of vulnerable
a scientific basis for policy makers to make decisions. This leads to groups in adaptation processes designed by powerful groups, there
a need to frame analyses within the boundaries of climate science is a need for co-production of these processes by the vulnerable
and attributing any ecological and social changes directly to (Manuel- Navarrete, 2013). In other words, there is a need for
changes in climatic conditions (rather than as part of more disadvantaged groups to have access to subjectivities that cast
complex socio-environmental change where the attribution of them in active roles rather than as either victims or villains in
climate change cannot easily be quantified). The literature on the responding to environmental change (Hartmann, 2013), as well as
politics of climate change, however, questions the credibility, policy and science making forums wherein different knowledges
salience and legitimacy of institutionalized ‘scientific knowledge’ are contested. It is critical that individuals have control over their
for climate change decision making (Hulme, 2010, 2011). They circumstances, through framing ‘adaptation’ as a process that goes
rather call for increased inclusion of local knowledge and moving well beyond normal poverty or material notions of basic needs and
debates and decision-making about how to address climate change social equity, to include people’s diverse values and ambitions
from the sphere of ‘experts’ into the public sphere (Beck et al., (Barnett, 2013).
2014). There is thus a need for analyses of politics and inequities to In the next section we draw on social theory to gain access to
move beyond policy and situate adaptation as part of socio- the mechanisms through which social inequality, decision-making
political processes involving relations, contestations, negotiations authority, and knowledge of change are contested and stabilized
and cooperation at multiple scales, from the individual to that of over time and space. This kind of conceptualization also reveals the
international negotiations. processes through which different outcomes are possible and how
We therefore argue that an understanding of the social radical changes like those expected by climate change can become
dynamics of vulnerability is required as a starting point to address opportunities to not only expose the workings of power, but also
the political nature of climate change. A growing literature shape politics in a more emancipatory direction. We conceptualise
grounded in contextual rather than outcome interpretations of policies as one of a diversity of moments of politicisation wherein
vulnerability documents how adaptation to multiple processes of authorities, knowledges and subjectivities come together to frame
socio-environmental change – which include economic globaliza- which actions and policies are developed, how they are framed and
tion and market restructuring, conflict and insecurity, local loss of who advocates for them. In what follows we use the concepts of
resource rights, as well as climate change – shapes lives and daily authority, knowledges and subjectivity as tools for understanding
S.H. Eriksen et al. / Global Environmental Change 35 (2015) 523–533 527
how adaptation mobilizes and reproduces specific configurations tools to probe how society-climate change dynamics are bound up
of power, discourse and understandings of socio-environmental in struggles over authority, knowledges and subjectivites across
change, as well as produces uneven outcomes. scales. Importantly, we understand these dynamics to be
thoroughly relational, such that actions and struggles within
3. Conceptualizing power and politics: authority, knowledges one population will necessarily impact upon other places and
and subjectivity populations. This insight is not only relevant for understanding
how populations manage change through daily decisions and
As we have shown in the above section, scholars contributing to planning or how adaptation programs play out in localities (Taylor,
the adaptation literature have begun thinking about how power 2013). It also signals the way that struggles over authority,
and politics play out in climate change contexts. At the same time, knowledges and subjectivities are foundational to how the science
however, this literature needs to go beyond observations of of climate change is done (Ford, 2008; Hulme, 2010), which kinds
inequalities and unevenness in order to probe how climate change of resources, populations and regions are targeted for adaptation
is yet another context for struggles over how values and resources efforts as a result, and who is considered knowledgeable and
are governed and accessed across scales (Forsyth, 2010; Mahony, competent to undertake planned activities. At the same time, it
2014; Taylor, 2013). To date, these insights have only partially been highlights how these struggles intersect with on-going processes
taken up by climate change adaptation research and policy. We of adaptation, namely, the continual dynamics of social relations,
suggest they need to be foundational. A conceptualization of practices, knowledges and environments that are integral to all
adaptation must take account of the normative dilemma: who human societies. In short, we advocate for holding in view the
decides what trajectories of change are desirable and ‘good’. tensions between new policies and programs that are explicitly
Power has been widely conceptualized across the social sciences designed to respond to climate change, and on-going processes of
with some classifying different types of power, while others focus adaptation, which have much wider influence and histories. A
more on its effects (Allen, 1999, 2002; Bashevkin, 2009; Dean, 1999; focus on power and politics, more specifically, authorities,
Rose, 1999 Dean, 1999; Rose, 1999). We draw primarily from these knowledges and subjectivities, is an important step for doing just
latter conceptualizations of power, which sidestep the thorny that.
question of what power is, and rather focus on how we see power The concept of authority in climate change adaptation draws
in action (Allen, 1999; Butler, 1997; Foucault, 1995; Rose, 1999). our attention to formalized institutions and organizations at
Similarly, we take a broad understanding of politics as the different scales wherein legitimacy to make decisions about
contestations, collaborations and negotiations through which environmental governance is claimed, as well as some of the less
collectives govern their everyday affairs (Hansen and Stepputat, formalized contexts where authority over resource governance is
2001; Rose, 1999). Rather than focusing on politics as an abstract asserted and recognized. Institutions are most often conceptual-
process, or the exclusive domain of formal government and political ized as the ‘rules of the game’ or the norms, values and practices
parties, we see the exercise of power through authority, knowledges that guide formal and informal organizations (Leach et al., 1999;
and subjectivities as the moments wherein politics comes into view. Ostrom, 1990). This distinction between rules and norms and
Here, the exercise of power is inherent to all political processes, but organizations helps to show that a formal governance structure
this does not necessarily imply coercive power. Rather, the exercise (i.e. a government office) can change, but the institution can
of power is a productive force, one that allows for action and agency remain the same (the rules and norms that govern its conduct), or
and is integral to all human interactions (Butler, 1997; Foucault, vice versa.
1991; Nightingale and Ojha, 2013). In any interaction, power can be For our purposes, the institutions and organizations relevant for
enacted as ‘power over’ or ‘empowerment’, in addition to horizontal climate change adaptation are diverse, incorporating not only
or lateral moves (Mahoney and Yngvesson, 1992; Nightingale, those of formal government (which often include public–private
2011). We prefer this framing to other more static definitions of collaborations and interactions) and formally constituted policy
power because it allows us to probe how the exercise of power can spheres (e.g. watershed councils, NGO-industry roundtables,
simultaneously have positive and negative effects. When we bring community user-groups), but also other modes of governance
this conceptualization to climate change adaptation, it also draws such as traditional authorities, neighborhood coalitions, and social
attention to how adaptation processes can support beneficial movements. Power operates within and between these different
livelihood change for some people and at the same time, be formal and informal organizations and institutions, as well as
detrimental to others (Taylor, 2013). between actors at different levels and scales (Leach et al., 2010), to
The idea that power and politics shape how environmental shape who is authorised in what ways to promote adaptation and
change and societies co-emerge is certainly not new. Extending mitigation efforts. A focus on the operation of power as manifest in
back at least to the early 1980s, scholars drew from political authority opens up the black box of institutions to reveal the
economy approaches to probe how environmental development dynamics between various rules, norms and organisations that are
practices and projects are shaped by politics, both at the stage of instrumental to shaping adaptation trajectories. A relational
conception and implementation (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987; understanding of authority suggests the need to probe how
Forsyth, 2003; Peet and Watts, 2004). These contributions have struggles over authority in these contexts are deeply entwined in
long highlighted the fact that environmental vulnerability is the management of resources and environments, and ultimately,
shaped by intersecting processes of social relations, divisions of adaptive capacity. Using authority, and how it is contested or
labor, political economies, and environmental conditions (Blaikie reinforced, imposed and accepted by different actors, provides a
et al., 1994; Emel and Peet, 1989; Watts, 1983), such that tool to understand the mechanisms through which different actors
vulnerability emerges from the ability to access resources across are able to further their particular interests in adaptation actions,
time, space and between different actors, rather than from and how adaptation actions may both reinforce unequal power
absolute quantities or qualities of resources (Sen, 1999; Watts relations but in other cases open up space for contesting existing
and Bohle, 1993). inequities.
But simply showing that ‘power and politics’ shape resource At the global scale, struggles over authority and across different
access, control and distribution is insufficient for understanding knowledge communities in relation to climate change have been
how to intervene in these dynamics, as adaptation policies and taken up by scholars inspired by Science and Technology studies
programs explicitly seek to do. There is a need for better analytical (STS). This work has probed how the advent of bodies like the
528 S.H. Eriksen et al. / Global Environmental Change 35 (2015) 523–533
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change knowledge claims co-emerge, but also in how knowledges, claims
(UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to govern environments and adaptation efforts are recognized—
(IPCC) have helped shape which kinds of knowledges are whether through violence, compliance, or embracing those claims.
considered authoritative and of universal relevance to climate In terms of climate change adaptation, this kind of conceptuali-
change responses. As Hulme (2010, p. 561) states, “ . . . the making zation helps us to focus in on the mediated relationship between
of global kinds of knowledge through new institutional arrange- changing resources and politics that underpin the governance of
ments is intimately tied to the political and social ordering that those changes. Hence, doing an action (such as fencing in a
accompanies that knowledge-making,”. The issue is not so much previously communal waterhole by a farmer, or converting
whether one kind of science or knowledge is ‘more accurate’ or customary drought grazing areas into private irrigation farming
‘objective’ for making decisions related to adaptation, but rather, plots as part of government policy) in the name of adaptation to
how knowledges are both a product of, as well as serve to shape, drought or climate change is a way to exert authority, and for those
global politics around climate change. For example, “[f]raming losing land access, accepting those changes legitimizes authority.
global climate change as a universal risk that demands collective Climate change adaptation processes in these ways have the
action serves to underscore the need for consensus-based potential to constitute, but also contest, authority.
knowledge production and decision support” (Beck et al., 2014, Our final analytical category, subjectivities, helps us to connect
p. 81). In this way, knowledges and authority are deeply embedded the exercise of power to uneven social relations and individual
within each other and in terms of climate change adaptation have agency. Rather than focusing on agency per se, conceptualizations
been foundational to who is considered to need adaptation and of subjectivity theorize subjects to emerge relationally from the
who has the knowledge to promote adaptive efforts. exercise of power via dominant discourses and practice, and the
A focus on authority brings clearly into view how knowledges of internalization, resistance and ultimately re-expression of those
climate change are valued differently across cultural, geographic discourses and practices (Butler, 1997; Gibson-Graham, 2002;
and analytical scales and that these values are at least in part Krause and Schramm, 2011). Individuals and groups are subjected
embedded in struggles over authority. Conclusions from interna- – most often unconsciously or automatically – by cultural codes
tionally sanctioned reports (including the IPCC), for example, are and hegemonic practices that serve to shape how they are
politically potent because they are used to justify particular types identified by society, often manifesting in inequalities based upon
of adaptation measures, and what knowledge is included or not is gender, class, race, as well as other categories of social difference
critical for the types of adaptation processes that are supported. like disability or geographical location (Bondi and Davidson, 2003;
The whole way that climate science is produced is therefore an Nightingale, 2011; Nightingale and Ojha, 2013). At the same time,
arena for contestation (Beck, 2012; Beck et al., 2014; Forsyth, 2014; the process of internalization and resistance of domination is
Mahony, 2014, 2015). Most of these ‘global’ reports review (mainly) foundational to how people consciously and unconsciously see
scientifically produced research, with some recent efforts to themselves in relation to the world; effectively how subjects ‘push
include grey literature (e.g. NGO reports) and local knowledge. This back’ against the exercise of power (Butler, 1990, 1997). This opens
gives authority to particular kinds of scientists in producing up the possibility for resistance or reframing of domination; in
knowledge about the distribution of vulnerability and adaptation short, the power to act, or in other theoretical language, agency.
needs (Beck et al., 2014). Although the IPCC reports are not Note that in our framing, what is called agency vs. structure
supposed to be ‘policy prescriptive’ but rather merely provide a (Giddens, 1984) is here conceptualized as one relational process
knowledge base, this stance masks the normative judgments made wherein ‘structure’ is something that is continually (re) produced
when scientists decide which values and indicators to include in through the internalization and re-expression of subjectivity
their research, and which research to include in the review and (known as the ‘ambivalence of the subject’ (Butler, 1997)) and
which to exclude. as such, is dynamic. The acceptance of domination (i.e. caste
The IPCC reports have, for example, been criticized for relying hierarchies) is therefore a contradictory process, wherein believing
too much on global models, which do not represent regional and one is subordinate can be the very basis for exercising power and
local changes in climate well (Beck et al., 2014; Hulme, 2010, 2011). resisting domination. Similarly, the conscious rejection of domi-
This reflects a general problem that in many regions, few local nation can lead to embracing new, more liberating subjectivities
studies of regional climate change, vulnerability and poverty exist. that allow one to move outside of hierarchical relations (Butler,
Hence the ‘knowledge base’ becomes dominated by knowledge 1997; Krause and Schramm, 2011; Nightingale, 2011). Subjectivity
produced by northern scientific institutions, whereas the diversity therefore shows us very clearly how the exercise of power is not
of local realities and values are poorly represented for many areas, only repressive, nor is it only hierarchical (domination and
serving to narrow how problems are formulated and which repression) (Mahoney and Yngvesson, 1992). Rather, subjectivities
solutions are considered. In the present juncture, we would like to allow us to explore the way that social inequality can be a basis for
suggest that broadening the debate is absolutely vital (O’Brien further disadvantaging individuals and communities, but it can
et al., 2015). also serve as a platform from which to resist domination and assert
Struggles over authority are not contained to contestations over alternative ways of addressing climate change adaptation.
knowledge, however. Debates on the relationship between land, Analytical attention to subjectivity can therefore offer insights
property and authority offers conceptual insights that are relevant into the ways that social inequalities are produced and cemented
for making sense of how authority is bound up in adaptation (Lund, over time and context. When subjectivity is combined with
2008, 2011; Peluso and Lund, 2011; Sikor and Lund, 2009). Within authority and knowledges, our conceptualization points research-
this debate, not only is authority exerted or claimed, it also needs to ers towards the everyday practices, institutions and political
be recognized. Land rights, for example are not simply bestowed. economic effects wherein contested processes that serve to create
Rather, the ability to grant land rights is one way actors and vulnerabilities are produced, as well as the processes that offer
institutions exert their authority, while at the same time, the alternative subjectivities and new people and institutions to be
acceptance (or denial) of those rights by their beneficiaries and authorized at different scales.
other parties is a potent way to legitimate (or undermine) those A focus on subjectivity therefore brings into view two crucial
actors and institutions (Lund, 2008; Peluso and Lund, 2011; Sikor processes within climate change adaptation: how individuals
and Lund, 2009). Within this framing, we again see how authority come to be positioned in relation to adaptation efforts and how
is constituted relationally, not only in how institutions and people understand themselves within those processes. Climate
S.H. Eriksen et al. / Global Environmental Change 35 (2015) 523–533 529
change adaptation policies and programs are evaluating ‘adaptive a All adaptation decisions, processes and interventions are embedded
capacity’ and reframing entire populations as ‘climate vulnerable’ in arrangements of authority affecting what decisions are taken, by
or ‘climate resilient’. These subjectivities are not simply labels that whom, which interests are furthered in decision-making, and the
help to direct international efforts at supporting adaptation. outcomes on differential vulnerability.
Rather, they serve to bring people into relationships with policies,
programs, authorities across scales and each other based upon new Whose authority is legitimized through adaptation interven-
definitions of what capacities they possess and what vulnerabil- tions and actions? How do cross-scalar institutional and social
ities they face. Subjectivity also highlights how people internalize relations contribute to the legitimization or de-legitimization of
and resist such subjection and its relationship to their actions. authority, and with what implications for the agency and authority
Whether you see yourself as vulnerable, or capable of altering of others? What constitutes legitimate adaptation in different
practices to become less vulnerable, for example, may determine contexts and through which actions, institutions and subjectivities
whether you consciously engage in adaptation. Similarly, the idea is that legitimacy granted?
that climate change is affecting our lives may seem disempowering
and resisted if seen as ‘imposed’ by central government or outside Authority and knowledge in adaptation are dynamic and self-
development agencies. This is particularly relevant given the reinforcing: Authority is legitimized, reinforced, and challenged
labeling of groups such as women, indigenous peoples, or through the use of knowledge; knowledge serves as a basis for
developing countries as ‘vulnerable’ or lacking ‘climate resilience’. challenging or asserting the legitimacy of authority.
In other words, new kinds of subjectivities are emerging in relation
to climate change and the analytical task is to demonstrate their In what ways do contestations over knowledge shape how
contradictory effects in order to more clearly track how power and adaptation is conceived, mobilized and implemented? Whose
politics operate within climate change adaptation. knowledge counts in decision-making and whose knowledge is
In short, we argue that the challenge of adaptation demands excluded? What are the processes through which certain types of
conceptualizing power not only as a means of repression or knowledge are considered legitimate, authorizing some to take the
domination but also, simultaneously, as a source of innovation and lead in adaptation decision-making? What are the mechanisms
transformation. As people come together over common goals, or through which household practices and adaptation interventions
agree to promote a particular development pathway, they can lead to recognition of new knowledges? In what ways is
simultaneously serve to authorize certain people to lead and knowledge used to resist authority and alter power relations in
particular logics to prevail. The operation of power must be seen to adaptation processes? And how does the interaction of knowledge
have complex outcomes, ones that serve to reshape how people are and authority help explain the uneven and contested outcomes of
viewed in relation to climate change and how they see themselves. adaptation processes?
The competition, collusion and conflict that characterises policy-
making manifests in cementing rationalities and promoting New kinds of subjectivities are emerging in relation to climate
particular regimes of governance. It is therefore such political change, with contradictory effects on power and vulnerability.
processes and the operation of power within them that are our
main interest in analysing climate change adaptation. We propose that for understanding adaptation processes and in
formulating any intervention, one must ask how different groups
4. Four propositions and an emerging research agenda are subjected as ‘vulnerable’, ‘resilient’, ‘poor’ or ‘progressive’.
What are the mechanisms (practices, discourses, actions) by which
Our theorization of the politics of adaptation leads us to the the subjects of adaptation are defined, and through what
assertion that climate change adaptation processes have the mechanisms can subjectivity in turn provide emancipatory
potential to constitute as well as contest, authority, subjectivity opportunities? How do adaptation practices and policies either
and knowledge, thereby opening up or closing down space for entrench existing subjectivities or create new subjectivities? How
transformational adaptation (Fig. 1). We expand on this assertion does this subjection shape who is considered competent to guide
through four key propositions about how adaptation processes can adaptation, what decisions and actions are prioritized in policies,
be understood. Together these propositions and questions form the and how particular adaptation strategies are legitimized for some
basis of a new empirical research agenda, which aims to explicitly populations? To what extent do people consciously accept or resist
examine these propositions in specific social and environmental such labels and what are the implications of such acceptance–
contexts. resistance for perceptions of adaptive capacity, in daily adaptive
practices, and in the potential for collective action in the face of
social and environmental change? How do different groups
conceptualize vulnerability and themselves as vulnerable? How
do they perceive their own self-efficacy and agency? How are these
cognitive attributes associated with actions, outcomes, conflict and
compliance? In what ways are subjectivities mobilized as a
resource for actors at different levels to assert their agendas and
protect their interests in face of social and environmental change?
processes by legitimizing particular knowledges and subjectivities, meaning of environmental change and who has legitimate claims
and to what extent can adaptation processes challenge existing in efforts to alter development pathways.
development? To what extent can limitations to collaboration and Similarly, Mosberg and Eriksen illustrate how various illicit
conflict in adaptation be explained by the “Janus” faced nature of household drought strategies in Kenya serve both to entrench
subjectivity, through which both oppression and empowerment subjectivity and vulnerability, but also form part of how people
can take place within the same dynamic? In what ways do contest authority and power relations. The processes driving the
collaborative and conflictual relations across scales form part of politics of adaptation are contradictory, driven by a malleability of
the contestation of authority and knowledges, and open up space what practices are considered social acceptable, and the way that
for transformational adaptation? subjectivity and authority can simultaneously be contested and
The propositions and research questions constitute an reinforced through an individual or household engaging in illicit
emerging research agenda that the articles in this special issue coping strategies. Statutory and customary law do not necessarily
begin to take up. The research agenda calls for empirical, coincide; in addition, environmental shocks and hardship can
experiential and contextual studies that critically analyse the provoke changes in social norms, redefining what is considered
politics of adaptation and, crucially, how these politics may open socially acceptable. These politics contribute to explaining why
up or close down spaces for transformational adaptation—or vulnerability is far from static or linear.
adaptation that addresses the politically contested root causes of Manuel-Navarrete and Pelling illustrate how the promotion of
vulnerability. An integral part of this agenda is to develop the certain subjectivities and centralisation of authority form part of
empirical evidence of how the relationships between subjectiv- dominant development paths, but when challenged, can open up
ities, knowledges, and authority in adaptation affect the space for transformation. They describe politics promoting three
distributional implications of adaptation processes. In particular, intersecting patterns of socio-ecological change for the case of
this agenda demands explicit attention to and documentation of Akumal in coastal Mexico; that of development, adaptation and
conflict, compromise and negotiation as integral manifestations transformation. The politics of development and adaptation
of the politics of adaptation, and the ultimate implications – both involved social exclusion of workers in the tourism industry from
positive and negative – of these politics for differential accessing coastal resources. Communities of workers in turn
vulnerabilities moving forward. mobilized emancipatory subjectivities to resist resettlement and
Delving into the politics of adaptation will not produce exclusion from the tourist resort, contesting existing authority and
prescriptive guidelines on how to avoid inequitable or unjust establishing their own settlement. Nevertheless, a politics of
outcomes in adaptation; nor will such research and analysis adaptation and development contribute to segregation and
provide clear signals on whether or not a population engaged in inequality that increase socio-ecological vulnerability. In this
adaptation processes will eventually achieve a desired transfor- contribution, how economically marginalized actors are able to
mative outcome. The politics of adaptation is necessarily influence authority through contesting their subjectivities proves
contextual and, by definition, about contestation, conflict and critical to understanding how transformational patterns of socio-
negotiation over processes and outcomes. Nevertheless, if those ecological change plays out over time and space.
engaged in adaptation processes can recognize that, and, with the Nagoda in this issue explains how technocratic understand-
support of the research community, evaluate how responses to ings of the causes of vulnerability inherent in both development
climate – even those considered to be mere technical adjustments and climate change adaptation policies in Nepal tend to margin-
to changing climatic parameters – will have specific implications alise other knowledges. While local practices and formal policies
for identities, rights, voice, and power relations, there may be in some cases represent opportunities for opening up the spaces
greater possibilities for constructive outcomes from even the most of contestation of subjectivities, knowledge and authority, there
contested change processes. As others involved in sustainability are several examples of policies acting to limit this space,
transitions have argued (e.g. Rodela, 2013), opportunities for exacerbating vulnerability instead. Nagoda describes how this
critical reflection and processes of social learning may hold the space is shut down by a lack of consideration of differential local
greatest promise for achieving the promise of transformational understandings of vulnerability, as well as by adaptation policies
adaptation. This implies broadening the emphasis in adaptation that focus largely on biophysical determinants of adaptation,
activities from the practical measurable outcomes of any invest- ignoring social and political factors and marginalisation processes
ment or intervention to include a focus on the process of decision- driving vulnerability.
making and implementation, and the complex social contexts in Cumulatively, the articles in this issue demonstrate that the
which adaptations are occurring. daily adaptation practices among households, communities and
Collectively, the articles help provide empirical evidence as well nations, and the power struggles inherent in them, do not occur in
as conceptual material to begin to theorize, for example, how a vacuum. Adaptation at all levels of intervention becomes part and
discourse, indigenous and scientific knowledges, institutions, daily parcel of on-going efforts to reaffirm or contest authority, claim
practices and formal politics, serve to frame what adaptation is, its access to contested resources and opportunities, leverage identity
relationship to mitigation, and the implications of adaptation for and meaning (subjectivities), frame understandings, and assert
particular places and populations. Climate change policy inter- knowledge about issues of critical importance for survival. These
venes in people’s everyday lives, where a variety of institutions, articles illustrate that adaptation interventions, policies and
practices and beliefs already exist about how to best manage the practices often serve to protect current development patterns
environment. Næss et al. in this issue demonstrate how climate and processes. They reproduce particular subjectivities, impeding
policy is inherently embedded in on-going struggles for resource the questioning of whether such patterns serve to reinforce the
control and management, and how powerful allegiances across same politics and power relations that reinforce vulnerability, or if
scales among local and international actors can serve to shape both they can lead to transformation of vulnerability.
the discourse of policy and its consequences on the ground. Ultimately, the extent to which formal policies, research
Through this analysis they explore how multilateral development practices and community actions can open up, rather than close
agencies’ investments in energy sector development in Kenya down, the space for contestation as adaptation may be a critical
come into conflict with efforts to meet the energy needs of determinant of the transformative potential of adaptation and for
resource poor communities. Adaptation thus immediately whom. While it may be impossible to identify whether any specific
becomes embedded in existing conflicts among actors about the adaptation process will, over time, provide conditions for
S.H. Eriksen et al. / Global Environmental Change 35 (2015) 523–533 531
transformation, we argue that the analytical lenses of authority, subjectivities can be supported. It is crucial for all actors –
knowledges and subjectivities can help bring the hidden agendas including academic communities – involved in climate change
and politics inherent in adaptation to light and to bring attention to adaptation efforts to recognize how power and politics operate in
the domains wherein open debate is required. these spaces to create vulnerability or, alternatively, to foster
emancipatory action. The papers in this sense also illustrate that
5. Concluding remarks: supporting adaptation adaptation practices and processes can be a source of social
transformation. Rather than reaffirming existing power relations,
In this paper, we have argued that adaptation needs to be adaptation efforts can challenge them. This is particularly the case
reframed as a socio-political process, taking place through where the ‘natural (political) order of things’ does not match
struggles over authority, knowledges and subjectivities across changing livelihood activities, social allegiances and interactions
scales by multiple actors. What does such a conceptual under- that emerge as populations respond to social and environmental
standing of the politics of adaptation mean for efforts to support challenges. It is in these moments, wherein the influence of
adaptation processes? Does an understanding of how subjectiv- authority, knowledges and subjectivities themselves become
ities, knowledges and authority interact bring us closer to central to debates over how adaptation ought to proceed, that
identifying how the ultimate drivers of vulnerability can be we see potential for transformational adaptation.
addressed?
The papers in this special issue attempt to address this question
Acknowledgements
by drawing attention to the underlying social causes of vulnera-
bility that often lie outside the sphere of individual and spatially
We are grateful to Jesse Ribot and Tor Håkon Inderberg for
oriented responses. These causal factors and contestations of them
helpful insights on earlier drafts. Some of the theoretical
– fundamentally of a political nature – are rarely addressed by
development and empirical research reported in this article and
adaptation policies. Rather, our perspective illuminates the role of
special issue were carried out as part of the Research Council of
a program or intervention in affecting adaptation, including how it
Norway funded project “The politics of climate change adaptation:
creates, supports, or undermines particular subjectivities, knowl-
An Integrative Approach of Development and Climate Change
edges and forms of authority. It helps explain, for example, why
Interventions in Nepal and Mongolia” (2011–2014) and a British
adaptation options are typically conceived of as formal public
Academy funded International Partnership and Mobility Award
sector interventions or programs addressing specific climate risk.
“Political Violence and Climate Change” (2012–2015). A big thanks
Such adaptations implicitly reinforce the authority of policy-
to Marianne Mosberg for helping with the many practicalities
makers and experts, rather than for example the full range of actors
connected to getting this whole special issue together.
involved in managing change, including vulnerable populations.
Furthermore, they place responsibility for adaptation on local
adjustments and techno-managerial measures rather than in social References
struggles. In the worst case, such efforts can exacerbate
marginalization through coercion, the de-legitimization of local Adger, N., Pulhin, J., Barnett, J., Dabelko, G., Hovelsrud, G., Levy, M., Oswald Spring,
Ú., Vogel, C., Adams, H., Hodbod, J., 2014. Human security. In: Field, C.B., Barros,
knowledges, and the subjecting of groups as passive ‘vulnerable V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.
people’ requiring assistance. L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., Girma, B., Kissel, E.S., Levy, A.N., MacCracken, S.,
Several contributions to this special issue also describe the Mastrandrea, P.R., White, L.L. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working
everyday practices that bypass, negotiate and change entrenched Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of
inequalities. Together they begin to provide an empirical base for Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
understanding how to address vulnerability, although there is a New York, NY, USA, pp. 755–791.
Agard, J.E., Schipper, L.F., Birkmann, J., Campos, M., Dubeux, C., Nojiri, Y., Olsson, L.,
need for further research into these various forms of resistance and
Osman-Elasha, B., Pelling, M., Prather, M.J., Rivera- Ferre, M.G., Oliver Ruppel, C.,
how formal and informal civil society movements are also part of Sallenger, A., Smith, K.R., Clair, A.L.S., 2014. Annex II Glossary, Climate Change
the politics of adaptation. Our approach thus represents an 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group III
important departure from the managerial focus of current to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1757–1758.
adaptation efforts. The reframing leads to four key propositions: Allen, J., 1999. Spatial assemblages of power: from domination to empowerment. In:
first, that all adaptation decisions, processes and interventions are Massey, D., Allen, J., Sarre, P. (Eds.), Human Geography Today. Polity Press,
embedded in arrangements of authority; second, authority and Cambridge, pp. 194–218.
Allen, A., 2002. Power, subjectivity, and agency: between arendt and foucault. Int. J.
knowledge in adaptation are dynamic and self-reinforcing; third, Philos. Stud. 10, 131–149.
that new kinds of subjectivities are emerging in relation to climate Amundsen, H., 2012. Illusions of resilience? An analysis of community responses to
change, with contradictory effects on power and vulnerability; and change in Northern Norway. Ecol. Soc. 17.
Arnall, A., Kothari, U., Kelman, I., 2014. Themed section: the politics of climate
fourth, adaptation takes place in contexts of existing, dynamic change. Geogr. J. 180 (2), 98–196.
patterns of social relations. These propositions form the basis for a Arndt, C.W., Farmer, K., Strzepek Thurlow, J., 2012. Climate change, agriculture and
research agenda for understanding adaptation as a socio-political food security in Tanzania. Rev. Dev. Econ. 16, 378–393.
Barnett, J., O’Neill, S., 2010. Maladaptation. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 211–213.
process.
Barnett, J., 2013. Climate change and security. In: Sygna, L., O’Brien, K., Wolf, J. (Eds.),
At core then, we argue that no one actor or process can A Changing Environment for Human Security: Transformative Approaches to
determine whether adaptation trajectories are the ‘right ones’ or Research, Policy and Action. Routledge, London, pp. 34–45.
Bashevkin, S., 2009. Women, Power, Politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
not, and whether they will (at last) address the fundamental causes
Beck, S., Borie, M., Chilvers, J., Esguerra, A., Heubach, K., Hulme, M., Lidskog, R.,
of vulnerability. It is inevitable that both formal and less structured Lövbrand, E., Marquard, E., Miller, C., 2014. Towards a reflexive turn in the
adaptation processes will be fraught with inequities in social governance of global environmental expertise: the cases of the IPCC and the
relations, struggles over who has the right knowledge, and who is IPBES. GAIA-Ecol. Perspect. for Sci. Soc. 23, 80–87.
Beck, S., 2012. Between tribalism and trust: the IPCC under the public microscope.
authorized to govern and guide change. It is impossible to create Nat. Cult. 7, 151–173.
spaces for decision-making and action in which such politics are Biagini, B., Bierbaum, R., Stults, M., Dobardzic, S., McNeeley, S.M., 2014. A typology of
absent. Instead, the contributions of this special issue underscore adaptation actions: a global look at climate adaptation actions financed through
the global environment facility. Glob. Environ. Change 25, 97–108.
the need for a shift in focus to engage with multiple adaptation Blaikie, P., Brookfield, H., 1987. Land Degradation and Society. Methuen, London.
knowledges, to question subjectivities inherent in discourses and Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davies, I., Wisner, B., 1994. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s
problem understandings, and to identify how emancipatory Vulnerability and Disaster. Routledge, London.
532 S.H. Eriksen et al. / Global Environmental Change 35 (2015) 523–533
Bondi, L., Davidson, J., 2003. Troubling the place of gender. In: Anderson, K., Domosh, IPCC, 2007. Summary for policymakers. In: Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P.,
M., Pile, S., Thrift, N. (Eds.), Handbook of Cultural Geography. Sage, London, pp. van der Linden, P.J., Hanson, C.E. (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: Impacts,
590. Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth
Bulkeley, H., 2012. Governance and the geography of authority: modalities of Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
authorisation and the transnational governing of climate. Environ. Plann. A 44, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 7–22.
2428–2444. IPCC, 2014. Summary for policymakers. In: Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J.,
Butler, J., 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge, Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O.,
New York. Genova, R.C., Girma, B., Kissel, E.S., Levy, A.N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P.R.,
Butler, J., 1997. The Psychic Life of Power. Stanford University Press, Stanford. White, L.L. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.
Dean, M., 1999. Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. SAGE, Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Thousand Oaks, Calif.; London. Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Denton, F., Wilbanks, T.J., Abeysinghe, A.C., Burton, I., Gao, Q., Lemos, M.C., Masui, T., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY,
O’Brien, K.L., Warner, K., 2014. Climate-resilient pathways: adaptation, USA, pp. 1–32.
mitigation, and sustainable development. In: Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D. Jasanoff, S., 2005. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the
J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., United States. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Genova, R.C., Girma, B., Kissel, E.S., Levy, A.N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P.R., Jasanoff, S., 2013. States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social
White, L.L. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Order. Routledge.
Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Klein, R.J.T., Huq, S., Denton, F., Downing, T.E., Richels, R.G., Robinson, J.B., Toth, F.L.,
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. 2007. Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation. In: Parry, M.L.,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., Linden, P.J.v.d., Hanson, C.E. (Eds.), Climate Change
USA, pp. 1101–1131. 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II
Eakin, H., Appendini, K., 2008. Livelihood change, farming, and managing flood risk to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
in the Lerma Valley, Mexico. Agric. Hum. Values 25, 555–566. Change. Cambridge University Press, UK, pp. 745–777.
Eakin, H., Lemos, M.C., 2006. Adaptation and the state: Latin America and the Krause, K., Schramm, K., 2011. Thinking through political subjectivity. Afr. Diaspora
challenge of capacity-building under globalization. Glob. Environ. Change 16 4, 115–134.
(1), 7–18. Leach, M., Mearns, R., Scoones, I., 1999. Environmental entitlements: dynamics and
Eakin, H., 2005. Institutional change, climate risk, and rural vulnerability: cases institutions in community-based natural resource management. World Dev. 27,
from Central Mexico. World Dev. 33, 1923–1938. 225–247.
Eakin, H., 2006. Weathering Risk in Rural Mexico. Climatic, Institutional, and Leach, M., Leach, M., Scoones, I., Stirling, A., 2010. Dynamic sustainabilities:
Economic Change. University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. technology, environment, social justice. Earthscan .
Emel, J., Peet, R., 1989. Resource management and natural hazards. In: Peet, R., Leichenko, R.M., O’Brien, K., 2008. Environmental Change and Globalization: Double
Thrift, N. (Eds.), New Models in Geography. Unwin and Hyman, London, pp. 49– Exposures. Oxford University Press.
76. Longino, H.E., 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in
Eriksen, S., Lind, J., 2009. Adaptation as a political process: adjusting to drought and Scientific Inquiry. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
conflict in Kenya’s drylands. Environ. Manag. 43, 817–835. Lund, C., 2008. Local Politics and the Dynamics of Property in Africa. Cambridge
Eriksen, S., Selboe, E., 2012. The social organisation of adaptation to climate University Press, Cambridge.
variability and global change: the case of a mountain farming community in Lund, C., 2011. Fragmented sovereignty: land reform and dispossession in Laos. J.
Norway. Appl. Geogr. 33, 159–167. Peasant Stud. 38, 885–905.
Eriksen, S., Selboe, E., 2015. Transforming towards or away from sustainability? How Mahoney, M.A., Yngvesson, B., 1992. The construction of subjectivity and the
conflicting interests and aspirations influence local adaptation. In: O’Brien, K., paradox of resistance: reintegrating feminist anthropology and psychology.
Selboe, E. (Eds.), The Adaptive Challenge of Climate Change. Cambridge Signs 18, 44–73.
University Press, Cambridge, UK. Mahony, M., 2014. The predictive state: science, territory and the future of the
Eriksen, S., Aldunce, P., Bahinipati, C.S., Martins, R.D.A., Molefe, J.I., Nhemachena, C., Indian climate. Soc. Stud. Sci. 44, 109–133.
O’Brien, K., Olorunfemi, F., Park, J., Sygna, L., 2011. When not every response to Mahony, M., 2015. Climate change and the geographies of objectivity: the case of the
climate change is a good one: identifying principles for sustainable adaptation. IPCC’s burning embers diagram. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 40, 153–167.
Clim. Dev. 3, 7–20. Manuel-Navarrete, D., 2010. Power, realism, and the ideal of human emancipation in
Eriksen, S., Inderberg, T.H., O’Brien, K.L., Sygna, L., 2015. Development as usual is not a climate of change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Clim. Change 1, 781–785.
enough. In: Inderberg, T.H., Eriksen, S., O’Brien, K., Sygna, L. (Eds.), Climate Manuel-Navarrete, D., 2013. Human-environmental integration and social power in
Change Adaptation and Development: Changing Paradigms and Practices. global environmental change research. In: Sygna, L., O'Brien, K., Wolf, J. (Eds.), A
Routledge. Changing Environment for Human Security: Transformative Approaches to
Fairhead, J., Leach, M., Scoones, I., 2012. Green grabbing: a new appropriation of Research, Policy and Action. Routledge, London, pp. 305–315.
nature? J. Peasant Stud. 39, 237–261. Adding insult to injury: climate change and the inequities of climate intervention.
Fine, B., 2001. Social Capital Versus Social Theory: Political Economy and Social Marino, E., Ribot, J. (Eds.), Glob. Environ. Change 22 (2), 323–558 (Special issue).
Science at the Turn of the Millennium. Routledge, London. Mimura, N., Pulwarty, R., Duc, D., Elshinnawy, I., Redsteer, M., Huang, H., Nkem, J.,
Ford, J., 2008. Emerging trends in climate change policy: the role of adaptation. Int. Rodriguez, R.S., Field, C., Barros, V., 2014. Adaptation planning and
Public Policy Rev. 3, 5–15. implementation. In: Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J.,
Forsyth, T., 2003. Critical Political Ecology. Routledge, London. Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C.,
Forsyth, T., 2010. Politicizing environmental explanations: what can political Girma, B., Kissel, E.S., Levy, A.N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P.R., White, L.L.
ecology learn from sociology and philosophy of science? In: Goldman, M.J., (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A:
Nadasdy, P., Turner, M.D. (Eds.), Knowing Nature: Conversations at the Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
Intersection of Political Ecology and Science Studies. University of Chicago Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change.
Press, Chicago. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,
Forsyth, T., 2014. Climate justice is not just ice. Geoforum 54, 230–232. USA, pp. 869–898.
Foucault, M., 1991. Governmentality. In: Burchell, G., Gordon, C., Miller, P. (Eds.), The Morales, M.C., Harris, L.M., 2014. Using subjectivity and emotion to reconsider
Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. University of Chicago Press, participatory natural resource management. World Dev. 64, 703–712.
Chicago, pp. 87–104. Moser, S., 2013. Individual and community empowerment for human security. In:
Foucault, M., 1995. Discipline and Punishment. Vintage Books, New York. Sygna, L., O’Brien, K., Wolf, J. (Eds.), A Changing Environment for Human
Gibson-Graham, J., 2002. Beyond global vs. local: economic politics outside the Security: Transformative Approaches to Research, Policy and Action. Routledge,
binary frame. In: Wright, M., Herod, A. (Eds.), Geographies of Power: Placing London.
Scale. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 328. Naess, L.O., 2013. The role of local knowledge in adaptation to climate change. Wiley
Giddens, A., 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Interdiscip. Rev.: Clim. Change 4, 99–106.
Structuration. Polity Press, Cambridge. Nelson, D.R., Finan, T.J., 2009. Praying for drought: persistent vulnerability and the
Goldman, M., 2011. Knowing Nature: Conversations at the Intersection of Political politics of patronage in Ceará, Northeast Brazil. Am. Anthropol. 111, 302–316.
Ecology and Science Studies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago; London. Nightingale, A.J., Ojha, H.R., 2013. Rethinking power and authority: symbolic
Hansen, T.B., Stepputat, F., 2001. States of Imagination: Ethnographic Explorations of violence and subjectivity in Nepal’s Terai Forests. Dev. Change 44, 29–51.
the Postcolonial State. Duke University Press, Durham and London. Nightingale, A.J., 2011. Bounding difference: the embodied production of gender,
Haraway, D., 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: the Reinvention of Nature. caste and space. Geoforum 42, 153–162.
Routledge, New York. Nightingale, A.J., 2015. A socionature approach to adaptation: political transition,
Hartmann, B., 2013. Lines in the shifting sand: the strategic politics of climate intersectionality, and climate change programmes in Nepal. In: Inderberg, T.H.,
change, human security and national defence. In: Sygna, L., O’Brien, K., Wolf, J. Eriksen, S., O’Brien, K., Sygna, L. (Eds.), Climate Change Adaptation and
(Eds.), A Changing Environment for Human Security: Transformative Development: Transforming Paradigms and Practices. Routledge, London, pp.
Approaches to Research, Policy and Action. Routledge, London, pp. 46–55. 219–234.
Hulme, M., 2010. Problems with making and governing global kinds of knowledge. Noble, I.R., Huq, S., Anokhin, Y.A., Carmin, J., Goudou, D., Lansigan, F.P., Osman-
Glob. Environ. Change 20, 558–564. Elasha, B., Villamizar, A., 2014. Adaptation needs and options. In: Field, C.B.,
Hulme, M., 2011. Reducing the future to climate: a story of climate determinism and Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M.,
reductionism. Osiris 26, 245–266. Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., Girma, B., Kissel, E.S., Levy, A.N., MacCracken,
S.H. Eriksen et al. / Global Environmental Change 35 (2015) 523–533 533
S., Mastrandrea, P.R., White, L.L. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Scoones, I., Chibudu, C., Chikura, S., Jeranyama, P., Machaka, D., Machanja, W.,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution Mavedzenge, B., Mombeshora, B., Mudhara, M., Mudziwo, C., Murimbarimba, F.,
of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Zirereza, B., 1996. Hazards and Opportunities: Farming Livelihoods in Dryland
Panel of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Africa. Lessons from Zimbabwe. Zed Books in association with the International
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 833–868. Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.
O’Brien, K.L., Eriksen, S., Nygaard, L.P., Schjolden, A., 2007. Why different Sen, A., 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.
interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses. Clim. Shove, E., 2010. Social theory and climate change. Theory Cult. Soc. 27, 277–288.
Policy 7, 73–88. Sikor, T., Lund, C., 2009. Access and property: a question of power and authority.
O’Brien, K.L., Eriksen, S., Inderberg, T.H., Sygna, L., 2015. Climate change and Dev. Change 40, 1–22.
development: adaptation through transformation. In: Inderberg, T.H., Eriksen, Smit, B., Pilifosova, O., 2001. Adaptation to climate change in the context of
S., O'Brien, K., Sygna, L. (Eds.), Climate Change Adaptation and Development: sustainable development and equity. In: McCarthy, J.J., Canziani, O.F., Leary, N.A.,
Transforming Paradigms and Practices. Routledge. Dokken, D.J., White, K.S. (Eds.), Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and
O’Brien, K.L., 2012. Global environmental change II: from adaptation to deliberate Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 877–912.
transformation. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 36, 667–676. Smith, K.R., Woodward, A., Campbell- Lendrum, D., Chadee, D.D., Honda, Y., Liu, Q.,
Olsson, L., Opondo, M., Tschakert, P., Agrawal, A., Eriksen, S., Ma, S., Perch, L., Olwoch, J.M., Revich, B., Sauerborn, R., 2014. Human health: impacts,
Zakieldeen, S.A., 2014. Livelihoods and Poverty. In: Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., adaptation, and co-benefits. In: Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J.,
Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C.,
Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., Girma, B., Kissel, E.S., Levy, A.N., MacCracken, S., Girma, B., Kissel, E.S., Levy, A.N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P.R., White, L.L.
Mastrandrea, P.R., White, L.L. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A:
and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change.
Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,
New York, NY, USA, pp. 793–832. USA, pp. 709–754.
Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons. The evolution of Institutions for Swyngedouw, E., 2010. Apocalypse forever?: post-political populism and the
Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. spectre of climate change. Theory Cult. Soc. 27, 213–232.
Peet, R., Watts, M., 2004. Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development and Tanner, T., Allouche, J., 2011. Towards a new political economy of climate change and
Social Movements, second ed. Routledge, London. development. IDS Bull. 42, 1–14.
Pelling, M., High, C., 2005. Understanding adaptation: what can social capital offer Taylor, M., 2013. Climate change, relational vulnerability and human security:
assessments of adaptive capacity? Glob. Environ. Change 15, 308–319. rethinking sustainable adaptation in agrarian environments. Clim. Dev. 5, 318–
Pelling, M., 2011. Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to Transformation. 327.
Routledge, London. Tschakert, P., van Oort, B., St Clair, A.L., LaMadrid, A., 2013. Inequality and
Peluso, N.L., Lund, C., 2011. New frontiers of land control: introduction. J. Peasant transformation analyses: a complementary lens for addressing vulnerability to
Stud. 38, 667–681. climate change. Clim. Dev. 5, 340–350.
Reid, P., Vogel, C., 2006. Living and responding to multiple stressors in South Africa— Watts, M.J., Bohle, H.G., 1993. The space of vulnerability: the causal structure of
glimpses from KwaZulu-Natal. Glob. Environ. Change 16, 195–206. hunger and famine. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 17, 43–67.
Ribot, J.C., 2010. Vulnerability does not just fall from the sky: toward multi-scale Watts, M.J., 1983. Silent Violence: Food, Famine and Peasantry in Northern Nigeria.
pro-poor climate policy. In: Mearns, R., Norton, A. (Eds.), Social Dimensions of University of California Press.
Climate Change: Equity and Vulnerability in a Warming World. The World Bank, West, J.J., Hovelsrud, G.K., 2010. Cross-scale adaptation challenges in the coastal
Washington, DC. fisheries: findings from Lebesby, Northern Norway. ARCTIC 63.
Ribot, J., 2011. Vulnerability before adaptation: toward transformative climate Wise, R.M., Fazey, I., Stafford Smith, M., Park, S.E., Eakin, H.C., Archer Van Garderen,
action. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 1160–1162. E.R.M., 2014. Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of
Rodela, R., 2013. The social learning discourse: trends, themes and interdisciplinary pathways of change and response. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 325–336.
influences in current research. Environ. Sci. Policy 25, 157–166. Wolf, J., O’Brien, K., Sygna, L., 2013. The future is now: human security as a choice. In:
Rose, N., 1999. Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge Sygna, L., O’Brien, K., Wolf, J. (Eds.), A Changing Environment for Human
University Press, Cambridge. Security: Transformative Approaches to Research, Policy and action. Routledge,
SREX, 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters London, pp. 452–458.
to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. In: IPCC (Ed.), Cambridge University Yohe, G., Schlesinger, M., 2002. The economic geography of the impacts of climate
Press, Cambridge. change. J. Econ. Geogr. 2, 311–341.
Schipper, E.L.F., Ayers, J., Reid, H., Huq, S., Rahman, A., 2014. Community-Based Ziervogel, G., Bharwani, S., Downing, T.E., 2006. Adapting to climate variability:
Adaptation to Climate Change: Scaling It Up. Routledge. pumpkins, people and policy. Nat. Resour. Forum 30, 294–305.