In recent years, scholars have noted a broadening of environmental justice research, both geographically and conceptually, to include global issues that expand beyond the spatial distributions of environmental ‘goods' and ‘bads' to include other dimensions including recognition, participation, and capabilities. The purpose of this report is to consider how this broadening has influenced research topics and themes, the geographic locations of researchers, and the future course of environmental justice research. We searched for articles identifying environmental justice as a keyword from 2000 to 2009 in Scopus, Web of Science, and GeoBase. While the number of articles published looking at environmental justice has increased over the past decade, our search contradicts the previous claims that environmental justice research has greatly expanded conceptually or geographically beyond its traditional origins. Our findings show that environmental justice research remains firmly rooted in the United States, focusing on the distributional aspects of environmental harms. We introduce alternative research methodologies that can be used to inform a more holistic and just approach to research in this area.

Transdisciplinary sustainability scientists are called to conduct research with community actors to understand and improve relations between people and nature. Yet, research hierarchies and power relations continue to favour western academic researchers who remain the gatekeepers of knowledge production and validation. To counter this imbalance, in 2018 we structured a multi‐day workshop to co‐design a set of principles to guide our own transdisciplinary, international and intercultural community of practice for biocultural diversity and sustainability. This community includes community collaborators, partner organizations, and early career and established researchers from Argentina, Bolivia, Canada, Germany, Mexico and South Africa. In 2021, we undertook online critical reflection workshops to share our research experiences and deepen our intercultural understanding of the application of the principles. Through these exercises, we adopted seven principles for working together that include: honour self‐determination and nationhood; commit to reciprocal relationships; co‐create the research agenda; approach research in a good way: embed relational accountability; generate meaningful benefits for communities; build in equity, diversity and inclusion; and emphasize critical reflection and shared learning. We explain these principles and briefly highlight their application to our research practices. By sharing these principles and associated practices, we seek to facilitate debate and spur transformations in how we conduct international and intercultural sustainability research. Our efforts also illustrate a strategy for on‐going knowledge co‐production as we cultivate safe and ethical spaces for learning together. Lessons learned may be particularly useful to those who engage in intercultural, collaborative research to advance sustainability transformations. Read the freePlain Language Summaryfor this article on the Journal blog.

The research and policy landscape for biodiversity conservation is changing. Protected areas are now expected to meet a broad range of objectives including effective and equitable management. In this new landscape, organizations strive to find ways to ensure the rights of local and Indigenous peoples are respected while conservation scientists have endorsed the need for platforms for international research and practice. For 40 years, a growing international network of sites support such research and practice, yet, it has been underutilized and largely ignored by scientists and decision‐makers alike. To better understand this paradox, this article explores the evolution of the World Network of UNESCO Biosphere Reserves internationally and its application in Canada. Analysis of archived materials, a national survey of practitioners, and interviews with past and present members of Canada's national committee reveals an expanded mandate for biosphere reserves beyond conservation science and biodiversity protection. The article recommends that to support the expanded conservation agenda, biosphere reserves work with governments and conservation scientists to connect more effectively with global concerns and initiatives such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and Sustainable Development Goals; establish appropriate, reliable, and active transdisciplinary partnerships; and meaningfully engage a broader range of knowledge holders.

While stakeholder involvement in environmental management is now common, we suggest that stakeholders can contribute to a pluralistic civic science that incorporates local knowledge directly into environmental decision making and research. We consider how insights from feminist scholarship might help us to understand the influence of power relations among our subjects of study and in determining how scientific knowledge is defined and used. We pay particular attention to how knowledge is produced, how participation is constrained, and to what extent community participants and researchers would benefit from critical reflection in their work. We apply these elements to an assessment of a community forestry pilot project in Burns Lake, British Columbia, Canada. Our findings suggest that while local participants have considered community forestry effective, practices have not met the ideals of a pluralistic civic science. We identify some of the reasons for this discrepancy and provide suggestions for future practice.