Teea Kortetmäki

Land use practices and their expansion raise pressing questions for environmental ethics and have been identified as a key driver of biodiversity loss. In this article, we examine how well the existing environmental ethics and political philosophy approaches suit for addressing the normative questions of land use, especially when empirical knowledge about human land use impacts on nonhuman life is also considered. We point out that the current approaches typically address land use with intactness-, resource-, or integrity-based perspectives. These perspectives form a continuum between quantity-oriented and quality-oriented philosophical approaches to land use. We argue that existing approaches are insufficient for theorizing the environmental ethics of land use: what is needed is an integrative perspective that better captures the constituents of a landscape that human activities might influence. We address this gap and make a theoretical contribution by providing a framework that integrates elements from the existing philosophical approaches with landscape ecology and helps address the quality of land use and land management. This framework helps normative environmental theorizing about land use in a way that is sufficiently nuanced and empirically informed.

Sustainability transitions in agrifood systems imply significant changes in agriculture encompassing land use and farming practices as well as the goods produced. Transition processes are challenging and politically contested in many European countries with various climatic, market, and policy conditions. However, research has not yet examined how perceptions of justice in agricultural sustainability transitions differ or align between countries with relatively similar environmental farming conditions. We compare two countries, England and Finland, with similar challenges in climatic terms yet relatively different policy and market conditions. Using interview and focus group data, we examine how justice related issues are described and claimed by farmers and other stakeholders in the context of agrifood system sustainability transitions in these countries. Findings from both countries revealed more similarities than differences. The similarity of many concerns, especially among farmers, implies that just agrifood transitions would greatly benefit from increased cross-country exchange, learning, and knowledge exchange. We also uncovered relevant differences in, for example, problem diagnosis and proposed or claimed solutions. Our results show the value of cross-country comparisons and have implications for realizing just agrifood transitions more successfully by fostering cross-country learning, exchange, and collaboration.

Transformative biodiversity conservation requires innovative approaches that expand knowledge production in complex social-ecological systems, incorporating diverse perspectives to effectively address biodiversity loss. Conservation efforts often involve working with incomplete data, uncertain conditions and unforeseen challenges, while also navigating the varied power dynamics, values and interests of multiple actors. Beyond optimising existing conservation practices, designing transformative conservation actions requires generating innovative, action-oriented solutions that embrace value plurality and integrate diverse knowledge systems. However, the ways to effectively foster transformative change in conservation remain underexplored. By following a pragmatist approach, this article explores the theoretical and practical contributions of sensemaking and abductive reasoning processes in fostering creative problem-solving to achieve more innovative, just conservation outcomes. We start by elaborating the meanings of sensemaking processes triggered by surprises and uncertainty and explain their key role when moving from well-structured problems to addressing complex systemic issues in conservation. We then present the abductive logic (of ‘what may be’), a key form of reasoning within sensemaking processes, and how it can be used to complement inductive and deductive approaches to critically explore plausible accounts of complex problems. Using illustrative examples, we show how actors can organise action-oriented research in ways that effectively engages in scientifically informed and culturally appropriate sensemaking processes. We argue that nurturing attention, curiosity and creativity allows sensemaking processes to stimulate novel interpretations and organisations of uncertain, interconnected challenges characterising biodiversity conservation problems. When combined with action-oriented research, sensemaking and abductive reasoning contribute to activating novel thinking for approaching complex problems in biodiversity conservation and enable spaces for value and knowledge pluralism. Collaborative approaches involving diverse actors to foster collective sensemaking can enable context-sensitive, actionable solutions, while promoting social learning through meaningful participation and enhancing collective capacities to address biodiversity loss. We conclude by discussing key challenges in engaging with sensemaking processes and suggesting practices for enhancing the transformative potential of sensemaking for transformative biodiversity conservation.

This chapter provides the contextual outline and introduction to the keynote talk on climate engineering, food security, and justice. Instead of summarising the talk as a whole, the chapter focuses on introducing the background research that is essential for constructing arguments with relation to the topic. The first section introduces climate engineering, followed by a description of different methods to it, and the existing scientific findings on the connections between climate engineering and food security. The summation articulates the main starting points for reasoning about climate engineering and justice from the viewpoint of food security.

Just low-carbon transition raises pressing questions about the fate of workers in different industries and regions. Industrial decarbonization will influence job availability, quality, and regional economic structures even where industries are not foreseen to phase out. Yet, labour-oriented just transition studies have so far focused on fossil fuel industries neglecting other energy-intensive industries. This qualitative research article focuses on energy-intensive industries in four industrially significant localities in Finland. These industries are expected to undergo significant changes in their energy-intensive production processes. The article examines industrial workers’ work and employment related perceptions concerning decarbonization, climate policies, and worker-level and regional capacities to transform vis-à-vis vulnerability under decarbonization. The findings reveal that just transition appears not only as a regional but also as an intra-factory and worker-level challenge, requiring comprehensive addressing by multiple actors. Differing regional characteristics and companies’ decarbonization strategies link to different perceptions about transition prospects and related justice concerns. While some solutions suggested by workers are shared across all studied contexts, others relate to region- or industry-specific factors or socially vulnerable worker groups needing more support. The results also call for reassessing the relationship between public and private sector regarding their responsibilities for just transition.

In this paper, we develop a holistic policy evaluation framework that aims to harness a fuller potential of just transitions. Although appeals for broader understanding of just transitions are becoming louder, applicable frameworks supporting consideration of justice in the planning and evaluation of transition policies are still lacking. The evaluation framework developed integrates the multidimensional understanding of justice more consistently into the consideration of policy intervention points for sustainability transitions. We test and apply the framework to the discussions concerning just food system transitions in Finland. The results show that justice issues deserve attention across all the policy intervention points, but their relative importance differ. A better understanding of the relative importance of justice concerns is critical when designing policy mixes for more active and emancipatory just transitions governance. We close the paper by explicating further avenues for the application and development of the framework.

The capabilities approach has attracted broad interest in environmental ethics. One very interesting application is the environmental or extended capabilities approach which promotes the notion of environmental capabilities that contribute to the flourishing of non-human beings and ecological systems. The approach however lacks any account of the capabilities of ecological systems. This essay applies the environmental capabilities approach at the ecosystem level and examines how the flourishing of an ecosystem can be understood in terms of capabilities. Ecosystem flourishing presumes the ability of a given system to maintain its characteristic functions, diversity and quality, and do so even in the face of various disturbances. Resilience can be understood as a central capability of ecosystems to maintain their characteristic functioning in disruptive circumstances, which is particularly important with regard to human-induced environmental changes. This argument evokes duties of ecological justice regarding ecosystems. The nature of these duties is considered and linked with a discussion on how the environmental capabilities approach can promote more holistic decision-making.

This chapter elaborates the ontological and ethical underpinnings and implications of the concept of planetary well-being. We illustrate how planetary well-being can contribute conceptually to transformative thinking and discussing well-being, and to organizing human societies in more life-considerate ways. The chapter focuses on two themes: First, the ontological grounding and implications of planetary well-being, and second, the central ethical underpinnings and ramifications of planetary well-being. We demonstrate how planetary well-being is positioned in the broader ontological and ethical-theoretical landscape, owing to its process-oriented perspective and morally inclusive (non-anthropocentric) grounds. Those grounds also encourage cross-cultural deliberation and collaboration over the contemporary challenges regarding the ecological crises that threaten nonhuman and human well-being.

This article identifies perceived climate change risks and adaptation aspects among farms and food processing enterprises using a case study in Finland. In addition, the article pinpoints key factors that contribute to the social acceptance of climate change adaptation and mitigation policies in the food system. The purpose is to study the willingness of farms and food enterprises to accept and adapt to different climate policy implementation. The research data consists of 27 thematic interviews conducted in 2012 and 2013. The main research questions were: 1. What risks does climate change pose to farms and food enterprises? 2. What adaptation features can be identified in farms and food enterprises? 3. What factors contribute to the social acceptance of climate change mitigation and adaptation in relation to policy practices? For data analysis content analysis was utilized. The results show that climate change is a somewhat indistinct issue from the viewpoint of the food enterprises. In addition, the adaptation to climate change in food enterprises can be characterized as a reactive strategy based on the localization and decentralization of food supply chains, as well as on the development of regional food systems. Farmers found it difficult to estimate the overall consequences of climate change for their farms. They also gave strong support to localized food systems. The study found that social acceptance of adaptation policies depends on the degree of limitation and estimated effects of the policies on the profitability of farming and food entrepreneurship. More broadly, a nexus between food security and energy security policies and climate change adaptation goals should be established. A local energy system would ensure the functioning of the local food system as well. We conclude that value-based strategic partnerships in the food supply chain could enhance the regions’ adaptive capacity and resilience, as well as its social acceptance of climate change adaptation goals.

The aim of this paper is to discuss food security in the context of sustainable farming practices in Finland. There are two research questions: 1) How are the Finnish farms vulnerable from the viewpoint of food security? 2) How could they increase their resilience for guaranteeing food security in the future? The paper is based on a qualitative study for which 15 Finnish food system specialists were interviewed in 2015. According to the results, three types of vulnerabilities are discovered: 1) market vulnerabilities, 2) continuity of farms, and 3) environment changes. For reducing vulnerabilities, the re-evaluation of policy instruments is needed. At the same time, new knowledge and skills are needed for supporting the decision-making at the farm level.

One of the hardest questions in environmental philosophy is the debate between anthropocentric and ecocentric accounts of value. I argue that a great deal of the disagreement in this debate arises from a) misunderstanding of the concepts used in the debate and b) unfruitful reading of vaguely framed arguments. The conceptual and argumentative analysis of the debate shows that many arguments can be ignored as they either contain conceptual confusion or concern issues that are actually irrelevant to the centrism division. However, there are arguments that maintain their relevance, and these arguments have important consequences on the practical environmental ethics. Hence, contrary to Bryan G. Norton’s optimism about the “centrism convergence” on the level of practical environmentalism, I contend that disagreements prevail even in practice. As a solution, I suggest that the centrism debaters should focus on the practical level and work to find space for agreement.

Food security is the major desired outcome of any food system, but its realization may be prevented by vulnerabilities in a food system. By shifting the focus of their vulnerability analysis from the discrete components of the food system to the food system as a whole, the authors of this article were able to develop a qualitative food system vulnerability matrix. The objective of the research was to make the concept of food system vulnerability operational by identifying vulnerability drivers, vulnerable systems and vulnerable subclasses in light of food security. The vulnerability matrix was set up with five classes of vulnerable systems (‘Vulnerability of what?’) on the horizontal axis and vulnerability drivers (‘Vulnerability to what?’) on the vertical axis. The authors analyzed the relationship between vulnerability drivers and vulnerable systems by using qualitative, abductive content analysis within the context of the Finnish food system. The data consists of public documents collected from the web pages of key organizations within the Finnish food system including ministries and their administration, interest groups and non-governmental organizations. It therefore covers various types of content related to food policy and management. Excerpts from the documentation data were coded according to which vulnerable system subclasses they addressed. The key findings of the study highlight the importance of using a systems approach that takes into account social, ecological and technical considerations. Such a framework covers multiple stressors, including exogenous natural drivers and endogenous social drivers, as well as the coalescence of vulnerability and food security discourses. The benefits of the proposed vulnerability framework for public food policy and food supply chain management include the explicit recognition of vulnerability drivers and vulnerable systems, a higher degree of specificity when speaking about food security, and opportunities for the identification of vulnerability-based innovations.

Just transition is gaining increasing attention. The need to consider social justice in sustainability transitions is finally being acknowledged. Research on this issue has, to date, mainly concentrated on energy systems. In this paper, we examine how the elaboration of dietary transition widens the spectrum of justice questions in sustainability transitions research. We explicate the arising normative questions along the dimensions of distributive, procedural and recognitive justice; widening the considerations further to restorative and cosmopolitan justice. Dietary transition widens the justice considerations to basic needs, food security and nutrition. By doing so, it evokes socio-cultural tensions that require recognition and procedural solutions. The uneven distribution of capacities to innovate and adapt require scrutiny from the just transition scholarship. Likewise, the recognition of non-human animals and integrity of agro-ecological systems. The relational three-dimensional understanding of justice can advance inter- and transdisciplinary research across various systems.

In this article, we address the social vulnerability of people to climate mitigation policies and contribute to assessing the social impacts of climate policies by introducing a matrix tool for conducting vulnerability assessments and participatory climate policy planning. The matrix serves as a methodological tool for identifying social groups in their social spaces. First, we lay the foundation for the matrix by linking social vulnerability to equality and justice, demonstrating the importance of addressing social vulnerability in climate policy design and research. Next, we introduce the ways in which social vulnerability has been addressed in the integration of social and climate policy dimensions in the Nordic welfare states that also serve as the test bed for our contribution. We then establish a methodological tool for assessing and discussing social vulnerability to climate policies, especially with relation to policy impacts on equal opportunities for well-being, and fostering participation in policy planning; a vulnerability matrix. The matrix is flexible, and adjustable to different policy contexts and governance levels. We demonstrate matrix use in the Nordic context, reflect on its potential uses and discuss the benefits and limitations of the matrix as a tool for addressing social vulnerability to climate policies.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to consider the concepts of exposure, coping capacity and adaptive capacity as a multiple structure of vulnerability in order to distinguish and interpret short-term coping responses and long-term strategic responses to food system vulnerability. Design/methodology/approach This paper applies an abductive approach for qualitative analysis of data, which were collected through 18 semi-structured interviews among Finnish food system actors. Findings The findings suggest that coping capacity and adaptive capacity are indeed two different concepts, which both need to be addressed in the examination of food system vulnerability. Public and private food system governance and related decision-making processes seem to focus on building short-term coping capacity rather than strategic adaptive capacity. In fact, conservative and protective policies can be counterproductive in terms of building genuine adaptive capacity in the food system, highlighting institutional and policy failures as limiting adaptive capacity and affecting future vulnerability. Originality/value This paper is the first to provide evidence on the multiple structure of food system vulnerability. It simultaneously considers the external aspect (vulnerability drivers) and internal factors, including short term coping capacity and more strategic adaptive capacity, as key determinants of vulnerability.

Addressing the global extent of the current biodiversity crisis requires engaging with the existence of multiple equally legitimate values, but also with diverse ethical perspectives underpinning conceptions of right and wrong actions. However, western monist positions have mostly explicitly or implicitly directed conservation strategies by defining the space of legitimate arguments, overlooking solutions that do not fit neatly the chosen approaches. As ignoring diverse ethical positions leads to injustices and reduces the potential of conserving biodiversity, there is a need to recognise and navigate the ethical landscape. Ethical pluralism may provide opportunities to do so. However, the ethical underpinnings of pluralism have not been fully considered in biodiversity conservation. In this article, we elaborate the meaning, importance and limits of ethical pluralism while highlighting opportunities and challenges that the position may entail in biodiversity conservation science and practice. We argue that ethical pluralism allows recognising not only the existence of incommensurable plural values, but also that moral conflicts should embrace intra and inter-cultural criticism and the legitimacy of agonism and dissent, as opposed to monistic and relativistic approaches. We conclude by discussing how grounding ethical pluralism in environmental justice and environmental pragmatism may contribute to navigating the ethical landscape in biodiversity conservation. Particularly, we highlight opportunities to: i) promote (non-anthropocentrically understood) recognition and environmental justice in biodiversity conservation and, ii) move beyond theoretical debates seeking the single best ethical theory and focus on ethical diversity as a common source of possible solutions.

Information on dietary adequacy is needed to assess food and nutrition security in a modern society, especially in the transition towards climate-friendly food systems. In this study, differences in the nutritional adequacy of diets among Finnish adults were evaluated in population groups of different education, income and urbanisation levels. The study used data from the FinDiet 2017 Survey (n = 1655, 18–74 years). Modelled usual intakes of foods and nutrients were evaluated relative to food-based dietary guidelines issued by the National Nutrition Council of Finland (FNNC) and with respect to nutrient adequacy following the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations and FNNC. For about half of the nutrients studied, intakes were found to be adequate. Intakes of protein, fat, saturated fatty acids and salt were estimated to be high. By contrast, inadequate intakes were seen in folate and vitamins A, D, B1, B2 and C in almost all groups studied. Groups with a higher education and income, groups that lived in urban areas and, in particular, women adhered more closely to recommended food consumption and nutrient intakes than others. However, major challenges posed by the Finnish diet are common to all groups studied, and only certain dietary features evaluated in view of nutritional adequacy are associated with socioeconomic differences.

Food systems are confronted with a low-carbon transition challenge. The need for significant emission reductions in industrial food systems implies significant systemic transformations in food production, processing, and consumption. The wide-reaching impacts of such transformations have evoked public discussion and academic research on just transition in food systems. The undisputable legitimacy of the idea of just transition makes it an attractive concept for all food system actors who might be affected by low-carbon transition policies in direct and indirect ways. Some of the claims that are being made are warranted claims for justice, some merely defend the achieved privileges and benefits. In addition, existing food injustices have evoked suggestions that just transition must be about making the food system overall just and sustainable. All these calls complexify low-carbon transition. How to make sense of these partly conflicting claims for justice and just transition in food systems?

Low-carbon transitions in industrialised societies will have significant social, economic and environmental impacts, raising concerns of justice. Calls for urgent transitions evoke a question about the roles of different actors in advancing transitions and ensuring they are just. While the responsibilities for emission mitigation have been long discussed, responsibilities for making a just transition have not. The question about responsibilities is particularly pressing because of the diverse constellation of actors involved in climate action, including diverse forms of non-state actors from city-level and business alliances to grassroots activists. We examine the responsibilities of state and non-state actors in the decarbonisation process, asking: what role do different actors play regarding the justice impacts of climate action? We combine sustainability transition studies and political philosophy on roles and responsibilities to create a role-based framework for just transition-related responsibilities of different actors at different spatial scales.

This study examines the potential of local plant proteins in promoting sustainable dietary transition in public catering and, simultaneously, helping rural regions find sustainable livelihoods in the future. Environmental and health reasons call for a transition to more plant-based diets in Western countries. This poses a livelihood challenge for many rural/semi-rural regions that are currently livestock-dominated. Local plant protein crops could be a ‘win-win’ solution, both for promoting dietary transition and for supporting local rural economies – presently two conflicting objectives in regions where animal production prevails. This study is based on a development project in which local public catering actors undertook to increase the use of local plant proteins. It analyses public actors’ rationalities that explain actions and inactions for sustainability transition and the positioning of plant proteins therein. Results demonstrate how the dominant catering rationalities, and mismatches between regime and niche actor rationalities, hinder the mainstreaming of local plant proteins. The discussion reflects upon ways to overcome these barriers.

Tensions between the well-being of present humans, future humans, and nonhuman nature manifest in social protests and political and academic debates over the future of Earth. The increasing consumption of natural resources no longer increases, let alone equalises, human well-being, but has led to the current ecological crisis and harms both human and nonhuman well-being. While the crisis has been acknowledged, the existing conceptual frameworks are in some respects ill-equipped to address the crisis in a way that would link the resolving of the crisis with the pivotal aim of promoting equal well-being. The shortcomings of the existing concepts in this respect relate to anthropocentric normative orientation, methodological individualism that disregards process dynamics and precludes integrating the considerations of human and nonhuman well-being, and the lack of multiscalar considerations of well-being. This work derives and proposes the concept of planetary well-being to address the aforementioned conceptual issues, to recognise the moral considerability of both human and nonhuman well-being, and to promote transdisciplinary, cross-cultural discourse for addressing the crisis and for promoting societal and cultural transformation. Conceptually, planetary well-being shifts focus on well-being from individuals to processes, Earth system and ecosystem processes, that underlie all well-being. Planetary well-being is a state where the integrity of Earth system and ecosystem processes remains unimpaired to a degree that species and populations can persist to the future and organisms have the opportunity to achieve well-being. After grounding and introducing planetary well-being, this work shortly discusses how the concept can be operationalised and reflects upon its potential as a bridging concept between different worldviews.

This chapter gives an overview of the objectives of the book, presents its structure, and summarizes the content of each section and chapter. It introduces planetary well-being as a novel cross-disciplinary concept coined to foster global transformation to a more inclusive and equal expression of well-being for all. The chapter describes how researchers from different human, social, and natural sciences apply and reflect on the concept of planetary well-being in this book, demonstrating its value as an interdisciplinary and cross-cutting driver of change. The Introduction concludes that sustainability science and policy need a concept of well-being that is built on systemic and non-anthropocentric grounds.

This special issue builds understanding of just transitions by looking at specific dynamics in food system transitions. The articles in the special issue apply a multi-dimensional understanding of justice, which stress that in addition to distributional matters, also recognition and procedural justice require attention in transitions. The current injustices in the food system emphasize the interrelatedness of these dimensions. The special issue includes eight articles that scrutinize food system transition in various contexts from Finland to Brazil and from farm-level decision-making to the UN food system summit. The papers demonstrate the focality of recognition justice for interpreting contestations around sustainability transitions. They also draw attention to existing power imbalances that affect the alternative visions of sustainability and need attention for procedural justice. In future, salient power analysis and normative frameworks are required to spot trade-offs and blind spots in just transition.

In this article, we propose a framework of principles and criteria for just transitions in food systems. Climate mitigation activities are urgently needed in food systems, but can have damaging social, environmental, economic, and health impacts. Consequently, food system transitions can cause significant side effects across and beyond food systems, aggravating existing inequalities and unsustainabilities, causing new ones, or hampering equal engagement in the transition itself. Thus, justice questions stand at the core of assessing decarbonization pathways and policies and must link to other sectors as well: Who bears the costs and who enjoys the benefits of the transitions? Can transitions be inclusive, leaving no one behind? We examine the establishment and purpose of general principles and food system-specific criteria for just transition, present the framework – standards for judging, evaluating, and deliberating justice in food system transitions – and reflect upon the uses of the framework and future developments.

There are different views on which issues can be considered as questions of justice. Until rather recently, the distributive paradigm, or the view that justice is primarily and mostly an issue of distributing certain goods, has dominated the discussion in social justice. Today, distributive paradigm has been challenged by the idea that justice also has other important dimensions such as recognition—the ‘cultural’ dimension of justice that concerns respect and social relations—and participation, the ‘political’ dimension. I propose that this multidimensional approach could be labeled as a ‘broad’ view of justice, in comparison...