Multispecies justice: theories, challenges, and a research agenda for environmental politics

Celermajer, Danielle; Schlosberg, David; Grove, Kevin; Stewart-Harawira, Makere; Thaler, Mathias; Tschakert, Petra; Verlie, Blanche; Winter, Christine

doi:10.4324/9781003213321-7

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 34 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But future work could explore in a more detailed fashion, deliberation and decision-making on speci c models of NSB. Our research approach could be extended, for instance, to consider other species 45 , and future generations 46 . Another issue to explore is the ways in which these processes may be institutionalised within energy governance more broadly, in different energy regimes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying responsible algorithm design to neighbourhood-scale batteries in Australia

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the governance of algorithms is of growing societal concern, the energy sector has been slow to engage with this issue. We argue that there are at least three systemic concerns to the design and operation of algorithms in the new, digital energy era. Namely, reliance on algorithms can bias considerations towards the easily quanti able, that they can inhibit explainability, transparency and trust, and that they could undermine energy users' autonomy and control. We examine these tensions through an interdisciplinary study that reveals the diversity and materiality of algorithms. Our study focuses on neighbourhood-scale batteries (NSBs) in Australia as a case study of new energy algorithms. We conducted qualitative research with energy sector professionals and citizens to understand the range of perceived bene ts and risks of NSBs and the algorithms that drive their behaviour. Issues raised by stakeholders were integrated into our development of multiple NSB optimisation algorithms, whose impacts on NSB owners and customers we quanti ed through techno-economic modelling. Our resultsshow the allocation of bene ts and risks vary considerably between different algorithm designs. This insight a need to improve energy algorithm governance, enabling accountability and responsiveness across the design and use of algorithms so that the digitisation of energy technology does not lead to adverse public outcomes. Taken together, our study underscores the importance for researchers and developers of new algorithms to take a holistic view of stakeholders and public bene t, and demonstrates one method to practice responsible algorithm design. MainAlgorithms are playing ever more pervasive and critical roles in the operation of the electricity system as it becomes digitised and decentralised. The design of these algorithms -considering the values and biases they encode -has to date received scant attention by energy researchers and developers. We believe this to be an important omission given recent controversies regarding the reach of algorithmic authority in ever more areas including healthcare 1,2 , hiring practices 3,4 , law enforcement 5,6 and new media's role in social and political life 7 which have exposed deep ethical shortcomings that challenge the "arc of inevitability" of technical solutions 8 .Existing discussions of algorithms in the energy eld have tended to focus on questions of data privacy and the cybersecurity of smart meters and in-home devices 9,10 . While important, we argue that these overlook at least three systemic concerns. The rst is that algorithms tend to narrow considerations to factors that offer plentiful, easily quanti ed data, such as nancial values, excluding public values that may be harder to quantify. Such omissions narrow the conception of energy and have the potential to introduce structural biases 11 . Secondly, the challenging explainability of algorithms exacerbates accountability concerns and distrust of the energy system, and risks creating hidden outcomes 11 such as new forms o...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying responsible algorithm design to neighbourhood-scale batteries in Australia

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, here we primarily consider social equity as applied to human populations. However, Indigenous and multispecies scholarship challenge the notion that the social realm is limited to humans, seeing humans as socially engaged with other beings 30,100 like corals 29 and whales 101 . Indeed, non-human beings, ecosystems, and natural features such as rivers are increasingly acknowledged as not only objects of care but also subjects of rights, sometimes with accompanying governance frameworks that endow them with legal personhood, or empower local custodians to give voice to nature in decision making 102,103 .…”

Section: Equity For or Amongst Whom?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Social equity is key to sustainable ocean governance

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Calls to address social equity in ocean governance are expanding. Yet ‘equity’ is seldom clearly defined. Here we present a framework to support contextually-informed assessment of equity in ocean governance. Guiding questions include: (1) Where and (2) Why is equity being examined? (3) Equity for or amongst Whom? (4) What is being distributed? (5) When is equity considered? And (6) How do governance structures impact equity? The framework supports consistent operationalization of equity, challenges oversimplification, and allows evaluation of progress. It is a step toward securing the equitable ocean governance already reflected in national and international commitments.

show abstract

“…Some of these analyses have proven contentious; the concerns (Table 2) reflect the different aspects of data justice we described above. Although the critiques reproduce a longstanding tension between human-centered and more-than-human justice paradigms (Celermajer et al, 2021), they share a theme: the nature or use of data could result in injustices and harms to life. Should the authors of these studies succeed in their objective of influencing global conservation policy and altering flows of funding and resources, then currently unrecognized justice implications of data may have large effects on human and nonhuman lives within and beyond conserved landscapes.…”

Section: Risks Of Global Prioritization Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Data justice and biodiversity conservation

Pritchard

Sauls

Oldekop

et al. 2022

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increases in data availability coupled with enhanced computational capacities are revolutionizing conservation. But in the excitement over the opportunities afforded by new data, there has been less discussion of the justice implications of data used in conservation, that is, how people and environments are represented through data, the conservation choices made based on data, and the distribution of benefits and harms arising from these choices. We propose a framework for understanding the justice dimensions of conservation data composed of five elements: data composition, data control, data access, data processing and use, and data consequences. For each element, we suggest a set of guiding questions that conservationists could use to think through their collection and use of data and to identify potential data injustices. The need for such a framework is illustrated by a synthesis of recent critiques of global conservation prioritization analyses. These critiques demonstrate the range of ways data could serve to produce social and ecological harms due to the choice of underlying data sets, assumptions made in the analysis, oversimplification of realworld conservation practice, and crowding out of other forms of knowledge. We conclude by arguing that there are ways to mitigate risks of conservation data injustices, through formal ethical and legal frameworks and by promoting a more inclusive and more reflexive conservation research ethos. These will help ensure that data contribute to conservation strategies that are both socially just and ecologically effective.

show abstract

Multispecies justice: theories, challenges, and a research agenda for environmental politics

Cited by 9 publications

References 34 publications

Applying responsible algorithm design to neighbourhood-scale batteries in Australia

Applying responsible algorithm design to neighbourhood-scale batteries in Australia

Social equity is key to sustainable ocean governance

Data justice and biodiversity conservation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About