Bridging the Digital Divide: Ensuring Justice and Inclusion

Holland (2017) iterates that procedural justice is about ensuring fairness in decision-making, including equitable representation, diverse perspectives, and addressing power imbalances. However, this view falls short when tackling the 'Digital Divide,' which excludes certain communities from climate discourse and denies them access to essential resources.

Schlosberg (2012) expands on procedural justice with a ‘capabilities approach’ to adaptation justice, emphasizing fair processes that recognize the needs of vulnerable communities. He argues that justice in climate adaptation requires respecting the cultures and experiences of those most impacted, as their vulnerabilities are often shaped by systemic inequities. This perspective broadens procedural justice to include equitable access to digital resources, which is essential for climate change adaptation discussions.

Regarding the Digital Divide, procedural justice involves not just fair decision-making, but also requires access to digital tools as a means of engaging with climate change issues. Digital access empowers those most affected by climate change to participate meaningfully in discussions and solutions, creating a more holistic approach to sustainability.

Holland (2017) underlines that procedural justice means that all affected voices are heard in decision-making. Yet, communities without reliable internet are often excluded from online platforms where key climate policies are discussed. During COVID-19, climate discussions moved online, which left those without digital access—particularly marginalized groups—unable to participate due to a lack of skills or tools (Sanders et al., 2021). This digital divide limits participation and perpetuates inequities, emphasising the need for policies that include all voices, especially during critical periods such as pandemics, when decision-making is essential for sustainability.

Transparency is another element of procedural justice, requiring that information on sustainability and climate impacts is accessible to everyone. Without digital tools, some communities are kept in the dark about decisions affecting their environment and livelihoods. For instance, Finger et al. (2016) describes how mobile data in Senegal helped authorities track cholera spread, informing communities about risks and preventive measures. However, if less affluent areas in Senegal lack mobile access, they miss out on these benefits, aggravating health disparities.

The digital divide also contributes to power disparities in climate discourse. According to Dwivedi et al. (2022), wealthy individuals and organisations can dominate climate discourses due to their easy access to technology, however marginalised communities with insufficient digital literacy or internet access struggle to voice their viewpoints. This power imbalance often results in policies that prioritise the concerns of wealthier activists, while ignoring the needs of those most affected by climate change who lack a platform. For example, climate discussions might focus on technology solutions favoured by wealthy countries rather than addressing pressing needs in deprived regions, such as infrastructural improvements.

The UNDP (2022) emphasises the significance of bridging the digital divide to increase participation and ensure that all voices are heard in climate conversation. From a procedural justice perspective, equitable access to information and venues enables marginalised populations to make meaningful contributions to choices that affect their lives. Without this access, the experiences and perspectives of those most affected by climate change are overlooked, resulting in incomplete and potentially unjust sustainability initiatives.

In conclusion, bridging the digital divide is critical to having equitable and inclusive climate discussions.   Providing internet access to marginalised communities allows them to voice their distinctive viewpoints, which are critical for developing successful and fair climate policies. When everyone has an input in climate decisions, our collective response becomes stronger and more equal, addressing the true needs of those who are most affected.

References

Holland, B. 2017. Procedural justice in local climate adaptation: political capabilities and transformational change. Environmental politics. 26(3), pp.391–412.

Schlosberg, D. (2012) ‘Climate Justice and Capabilities: A Framework for Adaptation Policy’, Ethics & International Affairs, 26(4), pp. 445–461. doi:10.1017/S0892679412000615.

Sanders, Cynthia K, and Edward Scanlon. “The Digital Divide Is a Human Rights Issue: Advancing Social Inclusion Through Social Work Advocacy.” Journal of human rights and social work vol. 6,2 (2021): 130-143. doi:10.1007/s41134-020-00147-9

Finger, F., Genolet, T., Mari, L., de Magny, G.C., Manga, N.M., Rinaldo, A. and Bertuzzo, E. 2016. Mobile phone data highlights the role of mass gatherings in the spreading of cholera outbreaks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS. 113(23), pp.6421–6426.

UNDP Climate Change Adaptation (2021). Bridging the digital divide will save our planet | Climate Change Adaptation. [online] Available at: https://www.adaptation-undp.org/bridging-digital-divide-will-save-our-planet.

Dwivedi, Y.K., Hughes, L., Kar, A.K., Baabdullah, A.M., Grover, P., Abbas, R., Andreini, D., Abumoghli, I., Barlette, Y., Bunker, D., Chandra Kruse, L., Constantiou, I., Davison, R.M., De’, R., Dubey, R., Fenby-Taylor, H., Gupta, B., He, W., Kodama, M. and Mäntymäki, M. (2022). Climate change and COP26: Are digital technologies and information management part of the problem or the solution? An editorial reflection and call to action. International Journal of Information Management, [online] 63(63), p.102456. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102456.