ReviewCurrent opinion in environmental sustainability2024
What is limiting how we imagine climate change adaptation?
Review in Current opinion in environmental sustainability, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping sexual and gender minority inclusion in national adaptation plans globally.npj climate action · 2026Article
- Exploring climate-related health risks and behaviors among vulnerable populations in the eastern Mediterranean: the cases of Jewish and Bedouin Negev desert residents.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Navigating the politics of transformational adaptation in international climate negotiations.npj climate action · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Imaginaries of adaptation are currently dominated by technocratic, homogenous, top-down approaches that hinder sustainable, just, and effective adaptation worldwide. We have identified three practices that contribute to this problem: (1) an assumption of universality in adaptation; (2) a neglect of pluralistic knowledge systems and values; and (3) an oversimplification of adaptation processes. These three practices have been found to lead to reproductions of vulnerabilities, unsustainable outcomes, or ephemeral changes. New ways of conceptualising and doing adaptation are necessary to expand imaginaries and visions around what adaptation can and cannot be. Through two examples (everyday adaptations and nature-based solutions), our review indicates that expanding or adopting alternative imaginaries of adaptation can help localise adaptation practice, particularly by acknowledging the need for multiple forms of knowledge and the iterative nature of adaptation governance processes.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.