LIST OF PANELS

Since their publication in 2009, planetary boundary concepts and related' tipping points' (Rockström et al., 2009; McKay et al., 2022) have significantly influenced academic debates and policy recommendations in international organizations and governments worldwide to move towards more sustainable governance. However, this framework has been the subject of multiple academic criticisms from the natural sciences, social sciences, and the political community. What is controversial is that the limits and tipping points are synonymous with climate risks and are proposed by experts (in natural sciences) without the participation of social scientists, governments, and the deliberation of the general public. In particular, the dimension of global inequality (particularly in the global south) and social justice is not included (Biermann and Kim 2020). Today an interesting global debate is taking place on how we can identify positive social tipping points to meet climate goals. Diverse authors have identified a lack of studies on tipping points in the socio-economic domain, and they might be highly policy-relevant in climate change (Filatova et al. 2016; Kopp et al. 2016; Biggs et al. 2018; Kabir et al. 2018; Milkoreitet al 2018).

This discussion reveals the need to discuss the model of governance we need in the 21st century to address planetary emergencies, live within planetary boundaries in a fair and just manner, and incite positive tipping points. One challenge is generating a more significant interaction between environmental dynamics (climate change, loss of biodiversity) and sociopolitical dynamics, allowing different types of knowledge to interact effectively. In this process, achieving greater participation of the actors is necessary, democratizing the decision-making processes in defining environmental objectives. Nevertheless, governance commencing at a local, regional, national, and international scale is a necessary enabling condition.

Reimagined governance will help address complex issues, currently epistemologically "gray areas" in environmental governance studies, such as understanding the role of the State, the political dimension determined by social values ​​​​and priorities, as well as the relationships between knowledge/power and those involved in the processes of change in environmental governance (Chaffin et al., 2016) (Huntjens & Kemp, 2022).

Questions

·    What are the implications of planetary boundaries and predominant tipping points framing the governance of the Earth system?

·    How do the dominant scientific paradigms impact public policy? What consequences does it have for governance models? Isn't it necessary for a more robust political debate on environmental objectives?

·    Are we returning to the old debate of evidence-based public policies or imagining a new future and supporting policies?

·    Is it possible to make boundary-setting processes more democratic considering scientific knowledge science-based and people's future imaginaries?

·    What challenges do academics/policymakers have? Is it necessary to create transdisciplinary spaces to generate knowledge, define objectives, and design strategies for change? What academic challenge is presented to studies on governance models? Is it helpful to combine elements of competing and coexisting governance paradigms (Karpouzoglou, Dewulf, and Clark, 2016) (Partelow et al., 2020)?.

This panel aims to collect contributions that analyze how to improve climate change governance, focusing on how public policy designs can shape the inclusion of diverse knowledge and perspectives on the governance of transitions, enabling more inclusive and sustainable policies. We invite submissions that present novel ideas and policy recommendations to improve global environmental governance. Contributions are primarily sought on the following themes:

• Theoretical and critical reflections on the discussion of the limitation of tipping point framing based on ecological rather than the socio-political-cultural economic domain.

• Case studies of development with the participation of social scientists, governments, and the deliberation of the general public concerning particular sectors and mechanisms of climate governance (mitigation, adaptation.);

• Case studies highlighting best practices and challenges in operationalizing od public participation in policymaking processes and governance mechanisms addressing climate change in particular countries or regions of the world;

. Case studies that include inter and transdisciplinary research on relevant topics combine different theoretical and methodological approaches.