3.8 Article

Looking beyond justice as universal basic needs is essential to progress towards 'safe and just operating spaces'

Journal

EARTH SYSTEM GOVERNANCE
Volume 2, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2019.100030

Keywords

Planetary boundaries; Environmental justice; Environmental governance; Development discourse; Scientific expertise

Funding

  1. project 'Ecosystem Services, Wellbeing and Justice: Developing Tools for Research and Practice' [NE/L001411/1]
  2. UK Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation (ESPA) programme
  3. Department for International Development (DFID)
  4. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
  5. Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
  6. NERC [NE/L001411/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Taking point of departure in the ambitious framework for 'safe and just operating spaces' for socialecological systems, this paper explores the applicability of this conceptual framing. Specifically, we draw attention to limitations in the conceptualisation of justice as a question of attaining a minimal level of (material) wellbeing. With an empirical case from Laos, we apply a broader notion of environmental justice based on interconnected dimensions of distribution, procedure and recognition to examine the dynamic relationship between 'safe' and 'just' at village level, and we question how 'boundaries' of social and ecological sustainability are conceptualized and determined. Our findings illustrate important considerations for the way conservation interventions are rationalized and designed, in particular for the way social and environmental sustainability are portrayed and how governance is envisaged to function locally. This paper contributes to current sustainability debates on how to explore and integrate justice dimensions in development and conservation within human-defined planetary boundaries. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available