Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-18 (section)

==== 18.4.3.4 Knowledge–Technology and Ecological Arenas ====

<div id="h3-19-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Knowledge–technology arenas comprise the interaction in knowledge spaces connected to technology transitions. The institutional and political architecture through which knowledge and technology interact is described in sustainability transitions literature ( [[#Fazey--2018b|Fazey et al., 2018b]] ; [[#Sengers--2019|Sengers et al., 2019]] l Kanger, 2020 #3709). A common theme explored in that literature is the ability of actors to access and apply various forms of knowledge as a means of effecting change. Different forms of innovation are recognised as a core enabling condition for achieving system transitions for CRD ( [[#18.3|Section 18.3.3]] ; Cross-Chapter Box INDIG). However, while scientific and technology knowledge may be useful, in some cases, they remain subordinate to political agendas, or are controlled by actors in positions of power and thus not equitably distributed ( ''very high confidence'' ) ( [[#Mormina--2019|Mormina, 2019]] ). Participatory decision making, for example, assumes that multiple actors, with differing motivations, agency and influence, engage with climate decision making and co-produce actions. Yet some actors may not participate in the process if the proposed actions do not align with their motivations or if they do not have adequate agency ( [[#Roelich--2019|Roelich and Giesekam, 2019]] ). Hence, effectively using knowledge to inform policy is challenging for both scientists, policymakers and civil society alike.

Science, technology and innovation (STI) policies are expected to shape expectations of the potential for a better world based on access to information, clean technologies, higher labour productivity, economic growth and a healthier environment ( [[#Brasseur--2016|Brasseur and Gallardo, 2016]] ; [[#Schot--2018|Schot and Steinmueller, 2018]] ; [[#Singh--2018|Singh et al., 2018]] ; [[#Mormina--2019|Mormina, 2019]] ; [[#Bamzai-Dodson--2021|Bamzai-Dodson et al., 2021]] ). STI policies are considered as ‘social goods for development’. Hence, STI policies are often proposed or implemented as means of addressing environmental challenges such as climate change along with SDGs such as the reduction of inequality, poverty and environmental pollution ( [[#Mormina--2019|Mormina, 2019]] ). Realising the benefits of STI, however, may be contingent on building broader STI capacity and bolstering nations’ systems of innovation ( ''very high confidence'' ) ( [[#Mormina--2019|Mormina, 2019]] ). This could include building global research partnerships to address priority STI needs as well as long-standing gaps between the Global North and South. Such an approach shifts the framing of STI as one focused on individual investigators to one comprised of building knowledge networks. It also creates opportunities for integration of disparate forms of knowledge and innovation, including local and Indigenous knowledge, into global knowledge systems (Cross-Chapter Box INDIG).

Furthermore, an extensive literature increasingly incorporates natural and ecological systems as knowledge domains relevant to understanding opportunities for sustainability and CRD. For example, the literature on socio-ecological systems (SES) ( [[#Sterk--2017|Sterk et al., 2017]] ; [[#Holzer--2018|Holzer et al., 2018]] ; [[#Avriel-Avni--2019|Avriel-Avni and Dick, 2019]] ; [[#Martínez-Fernández--2021|Martínez-Fernández et al., 2021]] ) as well as social, ecological and technological systems (SETS) ( [[#McPhearson--2017|McPhearson and Wijsman, 2017]] ; [[#Webb--2018|Webb et al., 2018]] ; [[#Ahlborg--2019|Ahlborg et al., 2019]] ), explicitly integrate ecological knowledge into sustainability, including concepts such as planetary boundaries ( [[#18.1.1|Section 18.1.1]] ), adaptation and nature-based solutions, natural resources management, rights and access to nature, and understanding of how humans govern society–nature interactions in the face of climate change ( [[#Benjaminsen--2018|Benjaminsen and Kaarhus, 2018]] ; [[#Mikulewicz--2019|Mikulewicz, 2019]] ; [[#Nightingale--2020|Nightingale et al., 2020]] ). Some of these interactions are explained in Cross-Chapter Box INDIG, including conflict over which knowledges are recognised as valuable in understanding and responding to climate change and therefore shape the nature of climate actions. Actor engagement in stewardship, solidarity and inclusion of multiple knowledges and nature–society connectedness can highlight the intertwined nature of ecological change and knowledge relations, thereby supporting shifts to sustainability ( [[#Pelling--2010|Pelling, 2010]] ; [[#Hulme--2018|Hulme, 2018]] ; [[#Ives--2019|Ives et al., 2019]] ; [[#Nightingale--2020|Nightingale et al., 2020]] ) (see also Box 18.6).

The expanding definition of what constitutes credible, relevant and legitimate knowledge is leading to the democratisation of knowledge and efforts to address historical inequities in access to knowledge ( [[#Ott--2016|Ott and Kiteme, 2016]] ; [[#Rowell--2019|Rowell and Feldman, 2019]] ). This is reflected in the communication of science, which is increasingly focused on reducing the distance between internal scientific and public communication and more engagement in public science governance and knowledge production ( [[#Waldherr--2012|Waldherr, 2012]] ; [[#Peters--2013|Peters, 2013]] ). One innovative approach in co-production of knowledge is mobilising communities through citizen science ( [[#Heigl--2019|Heigl et al., 2019]] ). This also presents additional opportunities to incorporate local knowledge with scientific research, and better match scientific capability to societal needs.

<div id="18.4.3.5" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="community-arenas"></span>