Diverse disciplines are contributing to the growing body of evidence exploring the interaction between climate adaptation and justice and/or equity. As a result, the literature lacks consistency in how the terms equity and justice are applied and defined, challenging efforts to synthesize evidence and translate it into policy and practice. This scoping review aims 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. We expand on these themes, arguing that there is little utility in adaptation scholars and practitioners coming to complete consensus on best approaches for studying and evaluating equity and justice. Rather, research needs to address the plurality of approaches by being explicit in their definitions and conceptual grounding. We provide guidance for achieving such clarity in both the study and practice of climate adaptation. Finally, we compare common equity and justice frameworks according to their specific utility and most relevant contexts. We conclude by underscoring the importance of pluralism in how equity and justice are measured and defined as it parallels the diverse contexts in which climate adaptation occurs. The results of our review call for more nuanced investigation and communication of the ways in which equity and justice intersect with climate adaptation.

中文翻译：

---

气候适应中公平与正义的定义和概念化


不同学科正在提供越来越多的证据来探索气候适应与正义和/或公平之间的相互作用。因此，文献在公平和正义这两个术语的应用和定义方面缺乏一致性，这对综合证据并将其转化为政策和实践的努力提出了挑战。本次范围界定审查旨在调查气候适应研究人员概念化公平和正义的方式的多样性，并综合共同框架，以深入了解新兴实践和未来的研究需求。我们的结果综合了 316 篇文章，并强调了文献中关于特定气候危害和社会身份群体的几个空白。结果还表明，很少有学者对公平与正义进行定义和区分，但当他们这样做时，规模、受影响的参与者、路径和规范原则等问题是此类定义的关键组成部分。我们对这些主题进行了扩展，认为适应学者和实践者就研究和评估公平与正义的最佳方法达成完全共识几乎没有什么用处。相反，研究需要通过明确定义和概念基础来解决方法的多样性。我们为气候适应的研究和实践实现如此清晰的目标提供指导。最后，我们根据共同的公平和正义框架的具体效用和最相关的背景对其进行比较。最后，我们强调多元化在衡量和定义公平和正义方面的重要性，因为它与气候适应发生的不同背景相一致。 我们的审查结果要求对公平和正义与气候适应的交叉方式进行更细致的调查和沟通。