Turnhout, Esther, Bridgewater, Peter, Chambers, Josephine, Forsyth, Tim, Huang, Qingxu, Leventon, Julia, Linnér, Björn-Ola, Mehta, Lyla, Nelson, Valerie ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1075-0238, Raab, Kristina, Reyes-Garcia, Victoria, Sabinot, Catherine and Stokland, Håkon B. (2026) Knowing and unknowing transformative change: epistemic inequities and epistemic justice in the IPBES transformative change assessment. Environmental Science & Policy, 182:104434. ISSN 1462-9011 (Print), 1873-6416 (Online) (doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2026.104434)

Preview	PDF (Open Access Article) 53973 NELSON_Knowing_And_Unknowing_Transformative_Change_(OA)_2026.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (692kB) | Preview
Preview	PDF (Author's Accepted Manuscript) 53973 NELSON_Knowing_And_Unknowing_Transformative_Change_(AAM)_2026.pdf - Accepted Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (525kB) | Preview

Abstract

Calls for transformative change towards a just and sustainable world often discuss the role of paradigms and knowledge systems as levers for transformation. Yet, current knowledge practices can also obstruct transformation since research priorities reflect dominant interests in science, economy and society and dominant paradigms and knowledge systems, and marginalise alternative forms of knowledge. This situation posed a challenge for the Transformative Change Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). This article reflects on how the assessment reported on existing inequities in the knowledge that was available for the assessment and discusses whether and how it was able to mitigate these existing inequities and pursue epistemic justice in the assessment process. Our findings point to a general dominance of positivist and natural science literature and an underrepresentation of alternative, pluralist, critical, relational, and Indigenous paradigms and knowledge systems. We also show that the assessment process was limited in its ability to mitigate these epistemic inequities and was unable to prevent epistemic injustices from occurring. These findings are related to a diversity of factors including limited diversity in the assessment team, rules and procedures of IPBES, and wider structural factors, including specific dominant norms and values of what good and credible knowledge is and of how assessments should be developed. All in all, we note a persistent unknowing of transformative change through the production of ignorance. We conclude by identifying options for transforming environmental research and global environmental assessments.

Item Type:	Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:	IPBES, transformative change, epistemic injustice, justice, environment, biodiversity
Subjects:	H Social Sciences > H Social Sciences (General) J Political Science > JF Political institutions (General)
Faculty / School / Research Centre / Research Group:	Faculty of Engineering & Science Faculty of Engineering & Science > Natural Resources Institute Faculty of Engineering & Science > Natural Resources Institute > Centre for Society, Environment and Development (CSED) Faculty of Engineering & Science > Natural Resources Institute > Centre for Society, Environment and Development (CSED) > Political Ecology, Culture & Arts
Last Modified:	21 Jul 2026 09:07
URI:	https://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/53973

Actions (login required)

View Item

Downloads