Explore the vast range of titles available.

Flood risk is often unequally distributed. These inequalities highly depend on socio‐political decisions. The recognition of the needs of individuals within a floodplain needs to be considered as a precondition for reaching justice in flood risk management, especially as people differ in their vulnerabilities and capacities to deal with floods. This paper addresses the question of how vulnerable population groups are recognized in flood risk management used in the federal state of Upper Austria. We use a qualitative research method, which is based on policy, legal documents and strategies and on 32 semi‐structured interviews conducted at different levels. Even though clearly stating the overall policy goal of reducing social vulnerability and inequality, most risk reduction strategies neglect these aspects, which creates an implementation gap regarding recognition justice. Strict adherence to the principle of equality leads to, among others, uniform design levels and cost contributions that undermine the notion of differentiated vulnerability. By contrast, disaster aid payments do use eligibility criteria that recognize social inequalities. However, even if justice principles are implemented, they lack transparency and accountability, which creates a legitimacy gap. Restricting the role of civil servants in the public administration through hybrid governance may narrow implementation and legitimacy gaps.

Flood risks can stem from various causes and exhibit distinct characteristics that shape the way they are governed. Depending on flood risk characteristics, specific policies are designed and organisations are involved. In Indonesia, like in other regions, organisational divisions are made for coastal floods, fluvial floods and pluvial floods (resulting from tides, rivers and rain, respectively). The Indonesian cities of Manado and Pontianak both face recurring floods. However, the characteristics of and responses to these floods are different, with consequences for distributive, procedural as well as recognition justice in those cities. In line with Fraser, we define recognition justice in relation to three forms of misrecognition: cultural domination, disrespect, and non‐recognition, with examples from Manado and Pontianak. We show that the misrecognition of certain types of floods overlaps and interacts with the non‐recognition of low‐income informal settlements, disrespect and stereotyping of residents of these areas, and a lack of attentiveness to the culture, livelihoods and practices of people who live alongside rivers. In this way, we examine the landscape of recognition justice in the event of flooding in an urban context, drawing on qualitative interview data gathered from the cities of Manado and Pontianak. The following questions are considered: Who experiences misrecognition? By whom is this misrecognition perpetrated? At which level (institutional frameworks or laws, implementation or social practices) and what are the resulting consequences of this misrecognition? Finally, we explore the interactions between different forms of misrecognition, which create a foundation for further distributional and procedural injustices.

We develop and apply the concept of equitable knowledge co-production (EKC) by proposing a reflexive framework to support inclusive stakeholder engagement with diverse knowledge-holders. This framework is built on the authors' experiences of leading three ongoing Horizon 2020 projects, and its goal is to contribute to the realisation of epistemic and recognition justice in the context of large-scale research and innovation projects by raising awareness of how knowledge co-production is carried out during the project proposal and implementation phases.

Flood risks worldwide are increasing due to climate change. Managing these risks is ever more necessary. Although flood risk management (FRM) is often understood as a technical challenge, it also involves decisions about the distribution of resources and risks in floods, which can be inherently unfair. People are disparately affected by floods due to their location. Because of their various socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, they also differ in their capacity to deal with floods. These differences need to be recognised in FRM to prevent disproportionate impacts on vulnerable communities. However, at present, a knowledge gap exists on how to make FRM more inclusive and just, and discussions on recognition justice in the context of FRM are scarce. This article therefore examines recognition of differences in the capacity of people to deal with floods in FRM in England (United Kingdom), Finland, Flanders (Belgium) and France. We analyse if, and how, these differences are recognised in FRM policy and practice and through decision‐making procedures, drawing on examples from the implementation of five FRM strategies in each country (flood risk prevention, flood defence, flood risk mitigation, flood preparation and flood recovery). Furthermore, we aim to highlight opportunity spaces to strengthen recognition justice in future FRM.

Post-disaster recovery is widely regarded as the least understood, yet highly consequential, phase of disaster management, shaping both short consequences and long-term trajectories of affected communities. Recovery efforts tend to prioritise physical reconstruction, often deepening socio-spatial inequalities. This paper argues for a reconceptualisation of recovery through the lenses of spatial justice, highlighting three interrelated dimensions: distributive justice (equitable allocation of resources in space), procedural justice (inclusive and participatory spatial governance) and recognition justice (valuing lived spatial experiences and human dignity). While these dimensions are often present in critiques of recovery practices, they have been approached in a fragmented manner. To address this gap, a systematic literature review (n = 68) examines how recovery practices reproduce socio-spatial inequalities, how governance structures shape recovery processes and how spatial justice can offer a transformative opening in disaster recovery. Understandings of, and responses to, disaster are reframed through the spatial justice lens, proposing an integrated conceptual framework for spatial justice in disaster recovery as a scaffold for critical analysis in research and practice. This provides a useful starting point for more detailed, case-based and methodologically innovative studies that can test and extend the framework. PRACTICE RELEVANCE Post-disaster recovery is often approached as a technical challenge of rebuilding, yet practitioners know that decisions about where, how and for whom recovery occurs fundamentally reshape social and spatial relations. An integrated framework is presented to help practitioners identify and address justice concerns in recovery processes. Drawing on a systematic literature review, it highlights how recovery efforts frequently reproduce socio-spatial inequalities through exclusionary governance, market-driven redevelopment and neglect of marginalised communities. The proposed framework brings together distributive, procedural and recognition justice to guide more inclusive and equitable practices. For planners, architects, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and local authorities, it offers a lens through which to critically assess interventions, recognise whose voices are heard or silenced, and design recovery strategies that strengthen community agency and long-term resilience. Rather than restoring pre-disaster vulnerabilities, practitioners can use this framework to envision recovery as a transformative opportunity toward more just and sustainable futures.

The energy ‘crisis’ in Switzerland during the winter of 2022–23 highlighted the need to integrate the idea of sufficiency into previously efficiency-focused discourses and policies. A mixed-methods approach was used to explore emerging sufficiency practices and energy justice. Qualitative interviews (n = 28) with a diverse range of households and building management companies (‘régies’) in Geneva, as well as a quantitative online survey, were undertaken in 2023. It was found that different measures and recommendations did lead to efforts to reduce energy consumption, but also revealed flaws as practices typically lacked an energy justice perspective. Important discrepancies occurred between low- and high-income groups, tenants and owners, inhabitants of houses and apartments. These included a misrecognition of some residents’ vulnerabilities, their limited agency and a lack of acknowledgment of differentiated responsibilities. This led to a negative impact on the implementation of sufficiency. Some residents were marginalised: feeling anxious, disregarded, powerless, belittled and hence excluded from collective sufficiency efforts. Policy relevance Policies and strategies for the implementation of energy sufficiency measures will not be effective unless they include energy justice issues. If sufficiency policies and strategies are to be effective, they must account for differing housing, tenure, socio-economic conditions, capabilities and tackle recognition-based injustices. Decision-making spaces and processes need to become more inclusive, particularly to represent more vulnerable people, include a broader range of the socio-economic population and account for differing responsibilities.

This article draws insights from access, claim-making and critical environmental justice scholarships to reveal how community-based conservation (CBC) may provide strategic openings for marginalised individuals to claim recognition. Empirically, we ground it in the context of a Sustainable Charcoal Project in rural Kilosa, Tanzania. In our study villages, Ihombwe and Ulaya Mbuyuni, the project provided an opening for the marginalised to claim recognition based on contested migration-and-settlement histories. These histories produced intra-community differentiation as firstcomers (mis)used the project for political domination, cultural status and material benefits. When the project opened governance spaces, latecomers embraced CBC institutions and processes as strategic openings to contest their marginalisation and claim for recognition. We suggest that CBC may produce political benefits where (mal)recognition of rights to resource access occurs as some people hold a sense of belonging more to the land than others.

Calling on the concept of environmental justice in its distributive, procedural and recognition dimensions, we implemented a coelaborative scenario building approach to explore sustainable livelihoods pathways in four sites belonging to two Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs) in southern Africa. Grounded on participation and transdisciplinarity, as a foundation for decolonised anticipatory action research, we aimed at stimulating knowledge exchange and providing insights on the future of local livelihoods engaging experts living within these TFCAs. Our results show that wildlife and wildlife‐related activities are not seen as the primary drivers of local livelihoods, despite the focus and investments of dominant stakeholders in these sectors. Instead, local governance and land use regulations emerged as key drivers in the four study sites. The state of natural resources, including water, and appropriate farming systems also appeared critical to sustain future livelihoods in TFCAs, together with the recognition of indigenous culture, knowledge and value systems. Nature conservation, especially in Africa, is rooted in its colonial past and struggles to free or decolonise itself from the habits of this past despite decades of reconsideration. To date, the enduring coloniality of conservation prevents local citizens from truly participating in the planning and designing of the TFCAs they live in, leaving room for limited benefits to local citizens and often limiting Indigenous people's capacity to conserve. A practical way forward is to consider environmental justice as a cement between the two pillars of the TFCA concept, that is, nature conservation and socio‐economic development of local or neighbouring communities, as part of a more broadly and urgent need to rethink the relationships between people in, and with, the rest of nature. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Résumé Utilisant le concept de justice environnementale dans ses dimensions de distribution, de procédure et de reconnaissance, nous avons mis en oeuvre une approche de coélaboration de scénarios afin d'explorer des trajectoires durables des modes de subsistance des populations locales dans quatre sites appartenant à deux zones de conservation transfrontalières (TFCA) en Afrique australe. Sur la base d'une recherche‐action anticipative et décolonisée, basée sur la participation et la transdisciplinarité, notre objectif était de stimuler l'échange de connaissances et produire des regards sur les futurs des moyens de subsistance locaux en impliquant des experts vivant dans ces TFCA. Nos résultats montrent que la faune et les activités liées à la faune ne sont pas considérées comme les principaux moteurs des moyens de subsistance locaux, malgré l'attention et les investissements des parties prenantes dominantes dans ces secteurs. Au contraire, la gouvernance locale et les réglementations d'utilisation 2 des terres sont apparues comme des facteurs clés dans les quatre sites étudiés. L'état des ressources naturelles, y compris l'eau, et les systèmes agricoles appropriés sont également apparus comme essentiels pour maintenir les moyens de subsistance futurs dans les TFCA, de même que la reconnaissance des cultures locales, des connaissances et des systèmes de valeurs indigènes. La conservation de la nature, en particulier en Afrique, est enracinée dans son passé colonial et lutte encore pour se libérer ou se décoloniser des habitudes de ce passé malgré des décennies de remise en question. À ce jour, la colonialité persistante de la conservation empêche les citoyens locaux de participer réellement à la planification et à la conception des TFCA dans lesquelles ils vivent, apportant de bénéfices limités pour ces citoyens et limitant souvent la capacité des populations autochtones à conserver les ressources naturelles. Nous proposons une façon concrète d’avancer en considérant la justice environnementale comme un ciment entre les deux piliers du concept TFCA, c'est‐à‐dire la conservation de la nature et le développement socioéconomique des communautés locales ou voisines, dans le cadre d'un besoin plus large et urgent de repenser les relations entre les humains dans, et avec, le reste de la nature. Resumo Apelando ao conceito de justiça ambiental nas suas dimensões distributiva, processual e de reconhecimento, implementámos uma abordagem coelaborativa de construção de cenários para explorar caminhos de modos de vida sustentáveis em quatro sítios pertencentes a duas Áreas de Conservação Transfronteiriças (ZFCA) na África Austral. Para a investigação de acções antecipatórias descolonizadas e com base na participação e transdisciplinaridade, procurámos estimular a troca de conhecimentos e fornecer conhecimentos sobre o futuro dos meios de subsistência locais, envolvendo peritos que vivem dentro destas Áreas de Conservação Transfronteiriças. Os nossos resultados mostram que a vida selvagem e as actividades relacionadas com a vida selvagem não são vistas como os principais motores dos meios de subsistência locais, apesar do enfoque e dos investimentos dos intervenientes dominantes nestes sectores. Em vez disso, a governação local e os regulamentos sobre o uso da terra emergiram como os principais impulsionadores nos quatro locais do estudo. O estado dos recursos naturais, incluindo a água, e os sistemas agrícolas apropriados também pareceram críticos para sustentar os futuros meios de subsistência das TFCAs, juntamente com o reconhecimento da cultura indígena, do conhecimento e dos sistemas de valores. A conservação da natureza, especialmente em África, está enraizada no seu passado colonial e luta para se libertar ou descolonizar dos hábitos deste passado, apesar de décadas de reconsideração. Até à data, a persistência da colonialidade da conservação impede os cidadãos locais de participarem verdadeiramente no planeamento e concepção das TFCAs em que vivem, deixando espaço para benefícios limitados aos cidadãos locais e limitando frequentemente a capacidade de conservação dos povos indígenas. Uma forma prática de avançar é considerar a justiça ambiental como um cimento entre os dois pilares do conceito de TFCA, ou seja, a conservação da natureza e o desenvolvimento socioeconómico das comunidades locais ou vizinhas, como parte de uma necessidade mais ampla e urgente de repensar as relações entre os humanos na, e com, o resto da natureza. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Flood risks worldwide are rising and it is increasingly recognised that the impacts of floods are not neutral. Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics determine people's capacity to deal with flood events. These differences in social vulnerability to floods need to be considered in flood risk management (FRM) to prevent the most vulnerable groups from being disproportionately impacted. However, due to a diversification of FRM strategies and the involvement of various policy domains, the experts working on FRM are no longer a homogeneous group. Where FRM was previously dominated by engineers, now various experts are involved that have different disciplinary backgrounds, knowledge bases and approaches to FRM. As a result, they also differ in their recognition of social vulnerability to floods. In this paper, we explore the different types of knowledge and expertise in FRM in three countries (England, Flanders and France), focussing on the strategies of flood defence and flood risk prevention. We characterise the epistemic communities supporting the domains and study to what extent experts differ in their recognition of social vulnerability to floods. We also dive into the mechanisms employed to stimulate integration between experts and consider the extent to which this integration can strengthen recognition justice.

Agriculture plays a dual role as both a key driver and a potential solution for biodiversity loss. Farmers, holding a variety of values related to nature, are therefore key actors in biodiversity conservation. EU environmental policies, however, neglect this value diversity, potentially leading to ineffective and unjust outcomes. Acknowledging the EU Common Agricultural Policy's (CAP) substantial influence on farmers and nature conservation, we employed a Critical Discourse Analysis to examine nature's values conveyed in CAP documents at EU and German level. We explored four value‐centred pathways—Green Economy (prioritizing instrumental values), Nature Protection (prioritizing intrinsic values), Earth Stewardship (prioritizing relational and intrinsic values) and Degrowth (representing instrumental, intrinsic and relational values). All four pathways are represented in the documents with varying dominance, indicating strategic policy formulation based on diverse stakeholder interests, multi‐level governance structure and the complex interplay of environmental and agricultural policy objectives. The European Commission predominantly adheres to a Green Economy pathway, which prioritizes environmental goals alongside economic growth, often overshadowing non‐economic nature values. Germany shows a greater reflection of Nature Protection and Earth Stewardship pathways, highlighting a tendency to consider intrinsic and relational values of nature. Our analysis demonstrated that the European Commission exerts significant discursive influence, steering Member States' policies towards EU Green Deal objectives. However, Germany's tendency to consider intrinsic and relational values of nature suggests that pathways and values can be dynamically renegotiated at national or regional levels. Critical differences in the expression of diverse values of nature between governance levels hence raise questions about (mis)recognizing EU policy recipients. The predominant focus on instrumental values may undermine the legitimacy and effectiveness of policies by failing to adequately represent diverse ecological and ethical considerations of policy recipients. Policy Implications: A divergence between EU and German approaches to valuing nature in agricultural policy suggests that EU policies, prioritizing instrumental values, do not fully accommodate plural values of Member States. This can potentially lead to recognition injustices. To enhance policy effectiveness and equity, we advocate for a paradigm shift towards more regionalized policymaking accounting for value plurality and fostering local environmental stewardship. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Die Landwirtschaft spielt eine doppelte Rolle – sie ist sowohl eine zentrale Ursache als auch eine potenzielle Lösung für den Verlust der biologischen Vielfalt. Landwirtinnen und Landwirte, die unterschiedliche Werte in Bezug auf die Natur halten, sind daher zentrale Akteure im Naturschutz. Die Umweltpolitik der EU berücksichtigt diese Wertediversität jedoch nur unzureichend, was zu ineffektiven und ungerechten Ergebnissen führen kann. Angesichts des erheblichen Einflusses der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik (GAP) der EU auf Landwirtinnen und Landwirte sowie auf den Naturschutz haben wir eine kritische Diskursanalyse durchgeführt, um die in GAP‐Dokumenten auf EU‐ und Bundesebene vermittelten Naturwerte zu untersuchen. Dabei analysierten wir vier wertzentrierte Entwicklungspfade – Green Economy (Fokus auf instrumentelle Werte), Nature Protection (Fokus auf intrinsische Werte), Earth Stewardship (Fokus auf relationale und intrinsische Werte) und Degrowth (umfassend instrumentelle, intrinsische und relationale Werte). Alle vier Pfade sind in den untersuchten Dokumenten präsent, jedoch in unterschiedlicher Gewichtung. Dies weist auf eine strategische Politikgestaltung hin, die von vielfältigen Akteursinteressen, der Mehrebenen‐Governance‐Struktur und dem komplexen Zusammenspiel der Umwelt‐ und Agrarpolitikzielen geprägt ist. Die Europäische Kommission orientiert sich überwiegend am Pfad der Green Economy, der Umweltziele mit wirtschaftlichem Wachstum verbindet und dabei nichtökonomische Naturwerte häufig in den Hintergrund drängt. In den deutschen Dokumenten spiegeln sich stärker die Pfade Nature Protection und Earth Stewardship wider, was auf eine höhere Berücksichtigung intrinsischer und relationaler Werte der Natur hinweist. Unsere Analyse zeigt, dass die Europäische Kommission maßgeblich diskursiven Einfluss nimmt und die Politiken der Mitgliedstaaten in Richtung der Ziele des Europäischen Green Deal lenkt. Gleichzeitig verdeutlicht die deutsche Ausprägung, dass Naturwerte auf nationaler oder regionaler Ebene dynamisch neu ausgehandelt werden können. Die Unterschiede in der Gewichtung von Naturwerten zwischen den Governance‐Ebenen werfen Fragen nach der Anerkennung der EU‐Politikadressaten auf. Der dominante Fokus auf instrumentelle Werte kann die Legitimität und Wirksamkeit von Politiken untergraben, wenn ökologische und ethische Perspektiven der Adressaten unzureichend berücksichtigt werden. Politikimplikationen: Die Divergenz zwischen EU‐ und deutschen Ansätzen zur Bewertung der Natur in der Agrarpolitik legt nahe, dass EU‐Politiken, die instrumentelle Werte priorisieren, die pluralen Wertvorstellungen der Mitgliedstaaten nicht vollständig erfassen. Um Wirksamkeit und Gerechtigkeit zu erhöhen, plädieren wir für stärker regionalisierte Politikgestaltung, die Wertpluralität berücksichtigt und lokale Umweltverantwortung fördert. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.