Table 1 The eco-surplus governance matrix.
From: Innovation curse: the wastefulness of technologies believed to mitigate climate change
Governance principle | Eco-deficit culture | Eco-surplus culture | Connection to foundational & key supporting literature | Successful case-studies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge Valuation | Technocratic Elitism: Privileges proprietary, codified, and Western scientific knowledge. Devalues and excludes Indigenous and Local Knowledges. | Epistemic Pluralism: Formally recognizes and integrates diverse knowledge systems (scientific, Indigenous, local) as equally valid in decision-making. | Epistemic Justice (Fricker, 2007; Whyte, 2017); Knowledge Co-Production (Tengö et al., 2014); Anti-Colonial Science (Liboiron, 2021) | Indigenous Protected Areas in Australia (Ens et al., 2015); Indigenous Guardians Program in Canada (Courtois, 2024); Māori and freshwater management in New Zealand (Harmsworth et al., 2016) |
Participation & Power | Tokenistic Engagement: Employs top-down, exclusionary decision-making where community input is merely a formality (“box-ticking”). | Empowered Deliberation: Devolves power to communities through shared governance, enabling them to exercise self-determination and control over environmental outcomes. | Procedural Justice & Self-Determination (Holland, 2017; Whyte, 2020); Climate Democracy (Smith, 2021); Indigenous Resurgence (Simpson, 2017) | Community-based management of freshwater fishery (Campos-Silva & Peres, 2016); Arapaima co-management (Petersen et al., 2016); New Zealand Te Urewera Act (Eco Jurisprudence Monitor, 2014) |
Innovation Goal | Technological Solutionism: Focuses narrowly on market-driven, high-cost technological fixes that often ignore social and ecological context. | Relational Well-being: Aims for outcomes defined by reciprocity, kinship, and ecological health, fostering regenerative systems rather than mere “solutions.” | Responsible Innovation (Stilgoe et al., 2013); Just Sustainabilities (Agyeman, 2005); Socio-Technical Transitions (Geels, 2011); Relationality & Collective Continuance (Whyte, 2017); Reciprocity (Kimmerer, 2015) | Karuk and Yurok cultural burning in Northern California (Marks-Block et al., 2021); Whanganui River legal personhood (Macpherson & Turoa, 2025) |
Accountability & Risk | Externalized Harm: Displaces environmental and social risks onto marginalized, low-income, and future generations. | Internalized Responsibility: Employs anticipatory and precautionary governance to internalize full lifecycle costs and prevent harm before it occurs | Distributive Justice (Adger et al., 2006); Precautionary Principle (Goldstein, 2001); Climate Justice (Schlosberg & Collins, 2014); Decolonizing the Anthropocene (Davis & Todd, 2017) | Yurok Tribe Carbon Offset Forest Stewardship (Beck, 2021); KBIC Ecological Restoration (Gagnon & Ravindran, 2023) |
Transparency | Strategic Opacity: Operates with data asymmetry and obscure decision-making processes that benefit incumbents and conceal liabilities. | Data Sovereignty & Accountability: Ensures communities have control over their own data and that decision-making processes are open and accountable. | Climate Governance Transparency (Gupta, 2010); Indigenous Data Sovereignty (Rainie et al., 2019) | CARE and FAIR Principles (Carroll et al., 2021) |
