Diversifying knowledge(s) to advance climate-health responses locally and globally

The impacts of climate change on health are not equitably distributed. Likewise, the ability to respond to—and benefit from responses to—climate change is also experienced inequitably. How responses are developed, who they are designed for and by, as well as the context in which they are intended to be implemented will influence the needs, capacity, and success of adaptation responses. The Paris Agreement mandates a path towards just and equitable responses to climate change. Researchers and policy makers are not only interested in understanding how climate change will impact human and ecosystem health, but also how we might adapt to these risks in a way that considers how the burdens and benefits of our responses will be distributed: when it comes to responding to climate change, who wins, who loses, and who decides? My thesis contributes to assessing the justice and equity dimensions of how we respond to climate risks and impacts, with a focus on how connecting different forms of knowledge can enable a more just response. While the academic and political importance of climate adaptation effectiveness and procedural justice is known, the literature exploring what these concepts mean in practice remains scant. As such, my thesis aims to provide empirical evidence that examines the critiques of existing processes, questions the limitations of conventional approaches, and builds confidence in the possibilities of knowledge diversity and procedural justice. This thesis aims to be transparent and critically reflexive about examining existing and potential ways that knowledges have, and could, come together to advance climate responses across local and global scales. In asking, why do Indigenous knowledges and local knowledges matter for effective adaptation responses, Chapter 2 critically appraises how diverse knowledges contribute to climate-health monitoring and response systems. In asking, what does procedural justice mean for initiating adaptation responses in practice, Chapter 3 contextualises a process for initiating an integrated climate-food-health response working within existing networks of diverse knowledges. In asking, can climate change evidence assessments achieve a standard of procedural justice necessary for working with diverse knowledges and knowledge holders, Chapter 4 assesses how to equitably and meaningfully bring together diverse knowledges and reform an evidence assessment process that feeds global climate adaptation responses.