Questions of power and justice are increasingly discussed as important levers for social-ecological transformations. By centering the knowledge of those concerned and integrating different ways of knowing, transdisciplinarity also aims at transformative outcomes. However, transdisciplinary knowledge production on the ground is always prone to reproducing existing power relations and knowledge hierarchies. How can transdisciplinary practice tackle the challenge of unjust knowledge production? The concept of epistemic justice can help navigate questions of knowledge, power and justice. It specifically addresses whose knowledge counts, whose knowledge is considered valid and whose knowledge is included or excluded. Based on a literature synthesis of how epistemic justice has been operationalized in sustainability science so far, I developed reflection criteria to unpack the concept of epistemic justice. In my presentation, I will introduce these criteria and guiding questions for transdisciplinary practice. I will discuss aspects to consider when designing the conditions in which transdisciplinary knowledge production takes place as well as during knowledge production processes as such, but also deeper interpersonal capabilities and structural constraints that can be addressed individually and collectively. By systematically reflecting on these criteria, researchers and other societal actors are not only able to address normative aims of justice but might also strengthen the transformative potential of transdisciplinary knowledge production.

The ‘EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change’ has four main objectives: to make adaptation smarter, faster, more systemic, and to step up international actions for climate resilience. However, there is a tension between the necessity for fast adaptation and the challenge of implementing systemic changes, which require slower, more deliberative negotiations, and debate. This tension is particularly pertinent for the integration of local knowledge into adaptation strategies, which has only recently been acknowledged by the latest IPCC reports and EU climate policies. The integration of local knowledge in policymaking has a direct impact on epistemic justice, which is a principle that ensures fair and equal representation and participation in processes of knowledge production among diverse stakeholders.

In this paper, we propose and justify a process indicator for integrating local knowledge into EU policymaking that seeks to advance epistemic justice in processes of climate adaptation. The indicator is designed to overcome weaknesses in the EU Adaptation Strategy and to close gaps in the European Commission Better Regulations Toolbox through coordination with territorial and local stakeholders. The indicator aims to advance epistemic justice along three main dimensions, namely distributive, participatory, and recognitional epistemic justice. As a regulatory tool, the indicator consists of a checklist to assess and evaluate critical ex-ante (problem framing) and ex-post (appraisal of the policy’s initial design) aspects of epistemic justice in policymaking. In addition, the indicator also enhances political accountability, facilitates the implementation of more just policies, and fosters efficient management, thus facilitating more successful climate change adaptation. Currently, the indicator prototype consists of approximately 30 questions for assessing policy design and implementation.

This paper brings together a diverse range of scholars from geoethics, geological risks, philosophy, science and technology studies, and political science. We have put together this interdisciplinary team to identify and assess - from multiple conceptual and methodological perspectives – the key components of epistemic justice that are relevant for implementing local knowledge into adaptation strategies. Based on this process, we have established an interdisciplinary consensus to substantiate our claim that epistemic justice and local knowledge are mutually dependent factors that underpin fair, actionable, and efficient climate adaptation policies. Two disparate, yet related, bodies of literature guide our policy recommendation, namely i) transdisciplinary research on local, traditional, and indigenous knowledge, and ii) philosophical research on epistemic justice. In addition to this theoretical knowledge, we use our combined experiences in the field in terms of i) direct engagement with local communities, especially in terms of communication and management of geological hazards, ii) the development of practical geoethical principles to guide interactions with local communities, iii) involvement in policymaking processes at the EU level, and iv) political lobbying.

There is increasing awareness of the need to pay attention to the ethical-political dimensions of knowledge co-production in transdisciplinary (TD) research. These dimensions are ethical as they require judgement about what is right and wrong to do in specific situations (e.g. inclusion of marginalised groups in all project phases). They are also political, as actions and decisions taken in a TD project are intertwined with complex and dynamic socio-political processes. Despite the good intentions, knowledge co-production processes might often reproduce or generate new social, epistemic or environmental injustices. The latter is particularly likely if no concepts and methods are in place to explicitly reflect upon whether and how justice is embedded in and through TD processes and practices.

While the topic of justice in research and practice is discussed more generally in the sustainability transitions and transformations literature, to date little attention is paid to how to actively foster ethics and justice in the context of TD research. Limited evidence is available on how to identify and incorporate considerations of ethics and justice in research and practice and how these considerations are connected to climate adaptation and biodiversity strategies (Juhola et al., 2022). Recent studies indicate that beside the development of justice-oriented indicators to evaluate the progress in achieving justice in these contexts, we also need (a) to better understand perceptions and attitudes towards (in)justices of those involved in TD research (Hülle et al., 2018) and (b) to establish processes to build capacities to navigate the ethical-political complexities of TD research (Caniglia et al., 2023)

In our presentation, we will show how we are addressing these needs in the EU transdisciplinary project PLUS Change, which aims to develop more sustainable land use strategies in 12 European regions. We will talk about how we are explicitly attending to the role of ethics and justice in TD research and practice.

First, we will show how we a) foreground ethics and justice aspects in TD research on land use change processes in PLUS Change, b) foster reflexivity on challenges and opportunities of including an ethics and justice lens when working on climate change and biodiversity goals, and, finally, c) build capacities to navigate ethical and justice-related matters in TD practices. Second, we will present our mixed method approach consisting of surveys, interviews, and focus groups as well as how it allows us to conduct formative evaluation and support reflexivity in the project. Third, we will present some of the preliminary results, including insights from a baseline survey and from a series of three ethics webinars to illustrate: research and practice partners’ perceptions of justice, related experiences in their work across different geographies and disciplines, and strategies to address them.

We hope that by drawing on the data analysis and discussions in the project we will inspire the TD community to explicitly engage with ethical aspects and complex power dynamics between different knowledge forms at the intersection of research and practice.

References

Caniglia et al. (2023). Practical wisdom and virtue ethics for knowledge co-production in sustainability science. Nature Sustainability 2023, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-01040-1

Hülle et al. (2018). Measuring Attitudes Toward Distributive Justice: The Basic Social Justice Orientations Scale. Social Indicators Research, 136(2), 663–692. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11205-017-1580-X/TABLES/15

Juhola, (2022). Connecting climate justice and adaptation planning: An adaptation justice index. Environmental Science & Policy, 136, 609–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2022.07.024