In this viewpoint, drawing on a critical lens in both climate change adaptation and digital agriculture studies, we scrutinize how adaptation, digitalization, innovation and participation are discursively represented, understood and imagined in existing peer-reviewed literature as enabling equal and just agricultural transformations. Reviewing digital-agriculture-adaptation literature between 2010 and 2023, we find that most studies are ambiguous about how they define adaptation and how they frame it under digitally driven development narratives such as Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA). Digital technologies are mostly introduced as tools and services in a top-down way by business and state actors, or researchers who are external to local communities. There is limited evidence on how and whether farmers are consulted or on how they take initiatives in technological innovations for agricultural adaptation. We argue that the literature conceptually and methodologically integrating agricultural adaptation and digitalization is still lacking, and existing debates are fragmented and siloed. Future research should narrow in on politics, situated context and farmers' perspectives, lived experiences and subjectivities to counteract the current preponderant top-down, development agenda and techno-fix. Towards this goal, ongoing debates in digital geographies, critical agrarian studies and feminist political ecology can help cross-pollinate the subfield of digitally mediated agricultural adaptation to climate change.

Urbanisation, land commodification and policy assemblages intersect to redefine the role of farmland in ruralresidents' livelihoods. This study explores the under-examined question of how the farmland-livelihood nexusimpacts vulnerable groups in agricultural restructuring and the potential of farmland as a medium/policy tool forsustainable poverty reduction. A research framework focusing on three key farm characteristics - farmland size,quality, and location - is established. The study focuses on a grain production region of Jilin Province inNortheast China, where significant efforts have been made to reduce rural poverty. Binary and ordinal logisticregressions are used to analyse the survey data collected in 2017-18 from nearly 3,000 vulnerable ruralhouseholds. The results show that: 1) larger farmland size promotes land cultivation but with a diminishingmarginal effect; 2) higher farmland quality favours land transfer; 3) farmland proximity to small towns/largecities facilitates land transfer, but proximity to medium-sized towns promotes land cultivation. Moreover,farmland's role is socially differentiated in rural livelihoods, providing both subsistence security for thevulnerable and transfer dependency for the poorest, with risks of widening inequalities. The study paves the wayfor future research on nuancing the farmland-livelihood nexus, and it highlights the importance of this understandingfor advising poverty reduction work.

This report examines how Sweden has governed climate-related mobilities (CCM) over the past four decades, arguing that climate change and migration debates have been present but largely marginal and highly fragmented in national politics. Using a climate mobilities lens, it understands CCM as multiple, interconnected forms of movement (displacement, migration, planned relocation, immobility) shaped by social-ecological and political relations, rather than as a linear effect of environmental change. Methodologically, the study combines discourse analysis of around 180 parliamentary and official documents (1980s–2020s) with roughly 40 reports from key agencies and think tanks, plus four expert interviews, to trace discursive trajectories and governance practices across policy fields.

The analysis identifies three main periods. From 1985 to the early 2000s, Swedish debates centred on “environmental refugees”, initially framed as victims in the Global South but quickly linked to European conflicts and Chernobyl, leading to a distinctive clause in the 1989 Aliens Act that provided protection for people displaced by environmental disasters. This phase combined solidarity and historical responsibility narratives with early efforts to embed environmental displacement into refugee law and EU-level cooperation.

From the mid-2000s to 2020, “climate refugees” replaced “environmental refugees” and CCM was increasingly discussed through climate governance and adaptation, often via development cooperation and “climate aid”, with Bangladesh becoming a symbolic hotspot. Sweden sought to present itself as a climate-transition leader, promoting CCM in Nordic and EU arenas, but at home the special legal clause was rarely used and ultimately removed in 2021 to align with EU asylum law, amid a broader shift towards restrictive migration policy.

After 2020, CCM discourses have pluralised but remain scattered across migration/asylum, development cooperation, and climate adaptation, with growing emphasis on climate aid, security, and preparedness, and a new tendency to fold CCM into green-transition labour needs. Internal climate-related (im)mobilities within Sweden are only weakly acknowledged, mainly as short-term evacuation rather than as structural mobility or displacement.

The report concludes that Swedish CCM governance is contingent and shaped by shifting interactions between refugee governance, development aid, and environmental policy, with no single institution clearly responsible. It warns that current trajectories risk “developmentalising” and technocratising CCM, sidelining protection and rights, and calls for more coherent, rights-based and multi-scalar approaches, including renewed legal innovation, stronger EU–Nordic cooperation, explicit integration of (im)mobilities into climate and development policy, and support for intersectional, agency-centred research on climate mobilities.

Migrants constitute a sizable portion of vulnerable workers in digitally-mediated work, particularly in the gigeconomy. They face wide-scale labour exploitation as well as exclusions and further marginalization fromexisting labour markets and welfare systems. Policy intervention is a focal point of debate in the expanding gigeconomy literature. In Nordic countries, it is often assumed the welfare state will regulate the gig economy, butdue to ambiguous understandings of what the gig economy is, debates are focused on topics such as taxation,often downplaying complexities. This study aims to explore how strategic silences towards migration underpinpolicy narratives relating to the foregrounding of gig economy in welfare contexts, specifically Sweden. Ourapproach highlights silence as an agentic and strategic process. Based on twenty-three selected Swedish Government Official Reports (SOU series) issued between 2016 and 2022, we first mapped the main themes regardingthe gig economy in the Swedish policy arena. We show the Swedish state is shifting to recognize migrants and thegig/platform economy, but the role of structural inequalities remains ambiguous. We further critically analyzedcontents of ten reports and show silence is strategic in two ways: first maintaining normative work forms as thekey interest of the state and second, positioning precarious migrant labour as a sphere of exclusion. This study provides new perspectives and insights into the governance of the gig economy by highlighting the role ofstrategic production of silences regarding structural inequalities and the tensions within welfare-labour relations.