Operationalising epistemic justice to diagnose municipal climate adaptation evidence systems

Municipal climate adaptation is increasingly described as evidence based. In practice, however, the evidence that shapes local adaptation planning often concentrates on standardised assessments, indicator dashboards, and other formats that are designed for comparability and reporting. These formats offer clear advantages, yet they can also narrow what is visible and discussable in decision making, especially when lived experiences and local knowledge do not readily translate into accepted evidential forms. This study starts from a simple question. Does a given adaptation evidence portfolio provide sufficiently representative coverage of what matters for local adaptation, or does it systematically privilege particular knowledge forms and contents.

To address this question, this study operationalises epistemic justice as a diagnostic lens for adaptation evidence systems. The aim is not to judge whether a process is morally just or unjust. The aim is to make the structure of evidential recognition inspectable by asking what kinds of knowledge are treated as credible, what kinds of experiences become intelligible within prevailing categories and tools, and what institutional rules and incentives determine whether a claim can be recognised as evidence. Conceptually, the analysis is aligned with an adaptation decision making sequence that distinguishes understanding, planning, and managing. This alignment clarifies where evidence is produced, where it is mobilised, and where it is reviewed.

Empirically, the protocol is demonstrated using materials from three municipalities in the Seoul Capital Area, South Korea. The dataset consists of two bundles of evidence artefacts. The first bundle includes formal evidence embedded in adaptation related plans and reports, standardised assessments, and survey based materials. The second bundle includes artefacts generated through participatory knowledge production activities conducted within a research and development programme, such as workshop outputs, participatory mapping products, and prioritisation records. Each artefact is coded using a structured spreadsheet workflow with a codebook, coding rules, and summary tables. The comparison focuses on expressive coverage rather than predictive accuracy. It examines how the portfolio represents who is affected, where impacts are situated, how causal narratives and constraints are articulated, and what kinds of actions are rendered feasible or infeasible.

The contribution is a transferable diagnostic protocol that makes evidential bias and representational gaps empirically describable and comparable across cases. The study offers an approach for moving beyond general calls for more participation or more data by specifying how evidence systems can be examined and improved in municipal climate adaptation decision support.