Data Set

Abstract

• This scoping review aimed to investigate the diversity of ways in which climate adaptation researchers conceptualize equity and justice and synthesize common frameworks to lend insight into emerging practices and future research needs. Our results synthesize 316 articles and highlight several gaps in the literature with respect to specific climate hazards and social identity groups. The results also indicate that very few scholars define and differentiate between equity and justice, but when they do, issues of scale, affected actors, pathways, and normative principles are key components in such definitions. Files for each stage of screening and evaluation are included here.
  
  We conducted a scoping review in concordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. The search was conducted by a professional systematic review informationist and included a mix of keywords and subject headings representing ‘climate adaptation’, ‘climate mitigation’, ‘equity/inequity’, ‘justice/injustice’, and others. The search had no time limitations and was completed in May 2022. Articles were limited to those written in English language. Studies that were not published in academic journals were excluded. Reproducible search strategies can be found associated with this record [Search_translation_report.txt] or in the Supplemental Materials on the publisher's website.
  
  The searches yielded a total of 6031 citations across all the utilized databases. All citations were imported into the online screening platform Covidence (Cochrane) via EndNote (Clarivate). Duplicate citations (n=712) were automatically identified and removed by Covidence. Each article was independently screened by two reviewers during each stage of the screening process. A team of four reviewers screened references by title and abstract removing irrelevant articles that did not align with screening criteria (n=4509) [Title_abstract_irrelevant_articles.csv]. All disagreements were adjudicated by a third reviewer. Full-text articles (n=801) were screened by a team of five reviewers using the same criteria used for title and abstract screening and again, all disagreements were adjudicated by a third reviewer. The full-text screening excluded 485 studies [Full_text_excluded_articles.csv], leaving 316 [Final_included_articles.csv] studies included in our review. Before both screening phases, reviewers pilot-screened approximately 38 articles to reach a Fleiss’ kappa value of 0.79. Study selection is presented in a PRISMA flowchart.

Creator

• Wrigley, J
• Pineda Velez, K
• Bennett, N
• Bailey, KM
• Nuckols, T
• Bannister, E
• Walker, SE
• Narayana, A
• Smith, EA

Date Issued

• 2023

Academic Affiliation

• Environmental Studies

Subject

• Adaptation
• Climate Change
• Interdisciplinary
• Scoping Review
• Justice
• Equity
• Conceptual Framing

Dernière modification

• 2024-02-20

Resource Type

• Data Set

Déclaration de droits

• In Copyright

DOI

•  https://doi.org/10.25810/n7ny-my85

Language

• English [eng]

License

• Creative Commons BY Attribution 4.0 International

Des relations

Articles

La vignette	Titre	Date de téléchargement	Visibilité	actes
	Climate_Adaptation_dataset_README.txt	2023-08-02	Public	Télécharger
	Search_translation_report.txt	2023-08-02	Public	Télécharger
	Full_text_excluded_articles.csv	2023-08-02	Public	Télécharger
	Final_included_articles.csv	2023-08-02	Public	Télécharger
	Title_abstract_irrelevant_articles.csv	2023-08-02	Public	Télécharger
	All_articles_deduplicated.xlsx	2023-08-02	Public	Télécharger