A typology of loss and damage perspectives

Emily Boyd, Rachel James, Richard Jones, H.R. Young, F.E.L. Otto

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Loss and Damage (L&D) has been the subject of contentious debate in international climate policy for several decades. Recently, formal mechanisms on L&D have been established, but arguably through unclear language. This ambiguity is politically important, but researchers and practitioners require clearer understandings of L&D. Here we report on the first in-depth empirical study of actor perspectives, including interviews with 38 key stakeholders in research, practice, and policy. We find points of agreement and also important distinctions in terms of: the relationship between L&D and adaptation, the emphasis on avoiding versus addressing L&D, the relevance of anthropogenic climate change, and the role of justice. A typology of four perspectives is identified, with different implications for research priorities and actions to address L&D. This typology enables improved understanding of existing perspectives and so has potential to facilitate more transparent discussion of the options available to address L&D.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)723–729
JournalNature Climate Change
Volume7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 25 Sep 2017

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A typology of loss and damage perspectives'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this