liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Governing borderless climate risks: moving beyond the territorial framing of adaptation
Stockholm Environm Inst, Sweden.
Not Found:Linkoping Univ, Dept Themat Studies, S-58183 Linkoping, Sweden; Stockholm Environm Inst, Sweden.
2019 (English)In: International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, ISSN 1567-9764, E-ISSN 1573-1553, Vol. 19, no 4-5, p. 369-393Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Despite the increasing relevance of cross-border flows of goods, capital and people in shaping risks and opportunities today, we still live in a bordered world, where the nation state plays a key role in planning and governance. Yet, climate change impacts will not be contained within country borders, meaning that climate change adaptation governance should also consider borderless climate risks that cascade through the international system, in relatively simple or highly complex ways. In this paper, we demonstrate how the notion of borderless climate risks challenges the dominant territorial framing of adaptation and its problem structure. To advance knowledge, we ask: why has a territorial framing and the national and sub-national scales dominated adaptation governance? How do borderless climate risks challenge this framing and what are possible governance responses? We draw on constructivist international relations theory and propose that the epistemic community that developed to interpret climate change adaptation for decision-makers had certain features (e.g. strong environmental sciences foundation, reliance on place-based case study research) that established and subsequently reinforced the territorial framing. This framing was then reinforced by an international norm that adaptation was primarily a national or local responsibility, which has paradoxically also informed calls for international responsibility for funding adaptation. We conclude by identifying types of governance responses at three different scales-national and bilateral; transnational; international and regional-and invite more systematic evaluation by the IR community.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
SPRINGER , 2019. Vol. 19, no 4-5, p. 369-393
Keywords [en]
Climate risk; Climate change adaptation; Governance; Epistemic community; Norms; UNFCCC
National Category
Social Sciences Interdisciplinary
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-159543DOI: 10.1007/s10784-019-09441-yISI: 000476608600002OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-159543DiVA, id: diva2:1342492
Note

Funding Agencies|Swedish Research Council Formas [211-2012-1842]; Mistra Geopolitics research programme

Available from: 2019-08-13 Created: 2019-08-13 Last updated: 2019-08-13

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text
In the same journal
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics
Social Sciences Interdisciplinary

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf