12 pages., Digitalization is a key enabler of sustainable development of cities’ socio-economic dynamics with the potential to foster climate-friendly urban environments and societies. The advent of the 4th industrial revolution has seen the increased application of digitalization in several fields and at different levels. High-tech digital devices, platforms and environments are increasingly being deployed to enhance productivity, efficiency and sustainability, and improve overall well-being of urban dwellers. Digitalization is projected to further impact cities in future, transform jobs and trigger life-style changes with far-reaching impacts that will ultimately affect cities’ resilience and adaptation capacities. While a growing body of research has highlighted the significance of digitalization to climate change mitigation such as reducing GHG and CO2 emissions, comprehensive evaluations of the potentials of digitalization as an enabler of climate change adaptation remain scarce. This paper addresses this gap by analysing the current trend in digital revolution in relation to climate change adaptation and examines the likely challenges of digitalization. A desk research method was adopted, focusing on core digitalization concepts driving the Fourth Industrial Revolution (IR 4.0). Nine case studies in cities across various continents were selected to assess the potentials of digitalization in addressing climatic hazards and to highlight benefits from implementing digitalization, while considering the social-ecological-technological challenges and tensions around IR 4.0. Our findings reveal the capabilities of digitalization in supporting more effective early warning and emergency response systems, enhancing food and water security, improving power infrastructure performance, enabling citizen engagement and participatory adaptation measures and minimizing the impacts of climatic hazards. Finally, we recommend feasible pathways to overcome present risks and challenges in order to optimize the numerous opportunities offered by digitalization in support of climate change adaptation initiatives.
20 Pages, Springer Online, Aspirations to farm ‘better’ may fall short in practice due to constraints outside of farmers’ control. Yet farmers face proliferating pressures to adopt practices that align with various societal visions of better agriculture. What happens when the accumulation of external pressures overwhelms farm management capacity? Or, worse, when different visions of better agriculture pull farmers toward conflicting management paradigms? This article addresses these questions by comparing the institutional manifestations of two distinct societal obligations placed on California fruit and vegetable farmers: to practice sustainable agriculture and to ensure food safety. Drawing on the concept of constrained choice, I define and utilize a framework for comparison comprising five types of institutions that shape farm management decisions: rules and standards, market and supply chain forces, legal liability, social networks and norms, and scientific knowledge and available technologies. Several insights emerge. One, farmers are expected to meet multiple societal obligations concurrently; when facing a “right-versus-right” choice, farmers are likely to favor the more feasible course within structural constraints. Second, many institutions are designed to pursue narrow or siloed objectives; policy interventions that aim to shift farming practice should thus anticipate and address potential conflicts among institutions with diverging aspirations. Third, farms operating at different scales may face distinct institutional drivers in some cases, but not others, due to differential preferences for universal versus place-specific policies. These insights suggest that policy interventions should engage not just farmers, but also the intersecting institutions that drive or constrain their farm management choices. As my framework demonstrates, complementing the concept of constrained choice with insights from institutional theory can more precisely reveal the dimensions and mechanisms that bound farmer agency and shape farm management paradigms. Improved understanding of these structures, I suggest, may lead to novel opportunities to transform agriculture through institutional designs that empower, rather than constrain, farmer choice.