Current approaches to health system resilience tend to prioritize system-level outcomes (e.g. functionality) while overlooking key underlying social processes, contexts, and power-laden interactions through which resilience is produced. When community resilience is subsumed under health system resilience, without attending to distinct contextual factors, it can lead to fragmented approaches or maladaptive outcomes that misalign with the resilience of communities. Therefore, resilience approaches need to include additional methods that incorporate analyses of power structures and context. We propose intersectionality theory as a methodological lens to investigate the underlying social processes and power dynamics that shape community resilience and health system resilience interactions. An intersectionality approach prompts researchers to distinguish how resilience capacity is derived through the involvement of community actors, their unique intersecting social identities, and their lived experiences. Including an intersectional lens in resilience approaches provides researchers with the tools to identify points of practical constraints that arise at the intersection of communities and health systems, with particular attention on the burdens that are placed on community actors.

The uptake of transformative mission-oriented innovation policies has coincided with explicit calls to better understand their justice implications. Our qualitative meta-analysis addresses this ‘justice deficit’ by identifying, synthesizing, and reinterpreting empirical findings of 26 justice-related case studies that collectively draw from 1569 data points, and which pertain to the mission context of the German Energiewende. We review observations linked to four justice tenets (e.g., distributive justice) across four policy arenas of the mission (e.g., programmatic arena). The results reveal some of the multi-scalar, multi-spatial, and multi-temporal ways through which injustices are conduced and addressed. We argue that injustices should not be treated as apolitical side effects of ‘neutral’ missions but rather viewed as symptomatic of contested policymaking processes.

Many of today’s societal challenges involve temporal risk-risk tradeoffs. Given the bias toward short-term safety, these temporal risk-risk tradeoffs pose intergenerational justice concerns. There are currently no risk management frameworks that adequately include these concerns. This paper aims to fill this gap by exploring what intergenerational justice entails in the context of large-scale physical risk management interventions and to see to what extent intergenerational justice can be included in two existing frameworks: the Planetary Boundaries framework and the Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways approach. By examining common currencies from intragenerational justice, the paper argues that intergenerational justice requires preserving resources that maintain choice and option space. Applying these frameworks to the Northern European Enclosure Dam case suggests that the two frameworks together provide a comprehensive assessment of large-scale risk management interventions, balancing capability and resource-based justice while safeguarding adaptive capacity and ecological integrity. The paper also discusses the limits to the right to safety. Two fundamental open questions that require further research are the scope of intergenerational justice (or: how far in the future does intergenerational justice extend?) and how to deal with tradeoffs between different planetary boundaries.

Transformative mission-oriented innovation policy aims to redirect innovation, but evidence of this directional ability is limited. This paper examines whether transformer missions redirect values reflected by mission-oriented projects. We study the EU Mission ‘Restore our Ocean and Waters’ and use probabilistic topic modelling and thematic analyses to identify, conceptualize, and compare latent values described in 17 policy documents (i.e., strategic layer), 37 mission-oriented projects, and 809 mission-relevant projects (i.e., operational layer). We map how these values changed during the mission launch. The results of this study are ambivalent. On the one hand, the mission launch corresponds with an increase of funded projects of which mission-oriented projects commonly frame efforts towards mission objectives. On the other hand, there is a misalignment between policy and project-level values while the prevalence of project-level values remained largely unaffected by the mission. These mixed results provide a more nuanced understanding of transformer missions’ directional abilities.

Governance lies at the heart of instigating, steering, and creating the conditions for mission-oriented transitions that potentially help resolve some of our grand societal challenges. In doing so, policymakers will need to navigate both epistemic and normative considerations to develop, implement, and evaluate missions responsibly. A number of scholars have therefore expressed the need for a better conceptualization of responsible mission governance as a procedural approach, particularly with the aim of coping with the complexity, uncertainty, and contestation that render these wicked problems intractable. In this paper we develop an integrative framework for responsible mission governance by taking wickedness dimensions as our entry point. Accordingly, we argue that responsible mission governance should integrate various complementary governance responsibilities (e.g., reflexivity) and modes (e.g., reflexive governance) that potentially improve the effectiveness and desirability of missions.

Land use change, managed retreat, and relocation programs are examples of exposure reduction measures in flood risk management (FRM). Exposure reduction measures are especially prone to conflict at the local level due to competing interests, values, and attachments. In this paper, we build upon the capability approach to justice and specifically the concept of political capabilities to advance justice in exposure reduction measures in FRM. A capabilities-based approach to justice helps to recognize the multiplicity of valuable ways of life and addresses a wide range of inequalities including concerns related to recognition justice. The innovation of our capabilities-based approach to justice is that we include both actors who have too little political influence as well as those who have too much and can thus excessively steer FRM in their advantage. A political capabilities analysis is different than a focus on principles or rights because it draws attention to realized political influence and includes the informal stages of FRM politics such as lobbying. The political capabilities concept also shifts the focus from vulnerability to human agency, thereby addressing concerns in the FRM literature about the loss of self-determination and misrecognition. The paper concludes with a critical discussion of the opportunities and limitations of using the political capabilities concept in FRM.

Climate adaptation and resilience scholars are struggling to address distributive and procedural justice in climate resilience efforts. While the capability approach (CA) has been widely appraised as a suitable justice basis for this context, there are few detailed studies assessing this possibility. This paper addresses this gap by advancing discussions about the prospects of the CA for guiding justice work in climate resilience. With its emphasis on the final value and mutually irreducible character of the concrete beings and doings of individuals, we find the CA relevant for tackling salient aspects of adaptation, such as the multi-faceted and locally specific nature of climate vulnerability. We also present and discuss a capability application that has particular relevance for including distributive and procedural justice considerations in climate resilience. On the other hand, we find that extant arguments in support of the CA neglect the limitations of the CA and some dilemmas involved in applying it, also overestimating the differences between the CA and other justice approaches, especially those based on resources and needs. These problems lead us to advise against treating the CA as a one-size-fits-all solution to the ills of climate resilience and they further raise a need for joining efforts with complementary approaches.

As global issues such as climate change and diminishing resources become increasingly pressing, water recycling has moved into the focus. However, the successful implementation of Direct Potable Water Reuse (DPR) projects hinges on securing public acceptance, which remains challenging. This paper aims to flesh out possible reasons for the lingering public rejection of DPR. We will do so by conducting a literature review on how public acceptance is understood and what approaches are proposed to enhance it. These approaches are analyzed using Responsible Research and Innovation principles and the `opening up', `closing down' and `leaving ajar' approaches. Our research identifies an overreliance on the controversial information deficit model, closing down large parts of public engagement. We advocate for becoming more inclusive through the `leaving ajar' approach. Particularly, attention should be paid to reflexivity and responsiveness to public concerns to ensure meaningful public engagement.

With the increasing reliance on technological advancements, it becomes imperative to critically examine and evaluate their implications on society and the environment. The concepts of acceptance and acceptability have gained prominence among researchers shaping technology implementation strategies. However, the lack of precise definitions for these concepts leads to diverse interpretations, compromising their usefulness in technology development and impeding further progress in research endeavours. This paper illustrates how these important concepts have been used in the energy technology discourse and develops a schematic overview highlighting the varied overarching interpretations of these concepts: the funnel of acceptance and acceptability. It underscores how different research levels – institutional, societal, and individual – affect the relevant understanding of these concepts. The funnel metaphor emphasises the interconnectedness of these interpretations and underlines the importance of addressing all research levels to ensure technology implementation processes advance in a desirable and responsible manner.

Public sector organizations increasingly use artificial intelligence to augment, support, and automate decision-making. However, such public AI can potentially infringe on citizens’ right to autonomy. Contestability is a system quality that protects against this by ensuring systems are open and responsive to disputes throughout their life cycle. While a growing body of work is investigating contestable AI by design, little of this knowledge has so far been evaluated with practitioners. To make explicit the guiding ideas underpinning contestable AI research, we construct the generative metaphor of the Agonistic Arena, inspired by the political theory of agonistic pluralism. Combining this metaphor and current contestable AI guidelines, we develop an infographic supporting the early-stage concept design of public AI system contestability mechanisms. We evaluate this infographic in five workshops paired with focus groups with a total of 18 practitioners, yielding ten concept designs. Our findings outline the mechanisms for contestability derived from these concept designs. Building on these findings, we subsequently evaluate the efficacy of the Agonistic Arena as a generative metaphor for the design of public AI and identify two competing metaphors at play in this space: the Black Box and the Sovereign.

European research funding organizations (RFOs) are increasingly experimenting with public engagement in their funding activities. This case study draws attention to the challenges they face in preparing, implementing, and evaluating ethical public engagement in the context of setting funding priorities, formulating calls for proposals, and evaluating project proposals. We discuss challenges related to seven themes: (1) recruiting participants; (2) commitments and expectations; (3) meaningful dialogue and equal engagement; (4) accommodating vulnerability; (5) funding call formulations; (6) lack of expertise in engagement ethics; and (7) uncertainty, resource constraints, and external factors. To address these challenges, we propose the following seven interventions: (1) developing comprehensive recruitment strategies with experienced recruiters and community organizations; (2) establishing clear communication of roles, expectations, and outcomes through codes of conduct; (3) training mediators to address power imbalances; (4) designing flexible engagement methods and providing tailored support; (5) implementing collaborative feedback loops for inclusive funding call formulation; (6) enhancing ethical standards through internal expertise and external advisory inputs; and (7) developing adaptive strategies for flexible and ethical public engagement. These recommendations emphasize the need for context-adaptive insights to support funding organizations to implement ethical public engagement activities, even when faced with organizational constraints and a lack of ethical expertise.

Societal inequities and barriers to participation in societal decisions mean that some people and groups have difficulty in accessing sufficient resources to meet their essential needs. This increases the vulnerability of those who lack social and political capital in times of crises, such as climate change impact events. Collective action institutions can redress this inequity by facilitating the redistribution of essential resources from the wealthy to the vulnerable. In this article, we use a stylised agent-based model of a community subject to a climate change impact that affects the availability of an essential resource. We use it to explore the types of societal conditions and policies that contribute to the emergence of a collective action institution that effectively redistributes resources to ensure that people are able to maintain a sufficient level of welfare. We find that removing barriers to participation in societal decisions for vulnerable people, and increasing the sensitivity and urgency in the decision-making process to impacts in the community, help to realise effective collective action institutions. The key insight that our model helps to uncover is that participatory justice promotes timely distributive justice.