Climate change is one of the most important ethical issues of our time. Urban scholars and policymakers now recognise the need to address justice concerns associated with cities’ responses to climate change. However, little empirical research has examined whether and how cities have integrated justice into climate mitigation planning. Here, we show that large cities in the US are increasingly attending to justice in their climate action plans and that the recognition of structural and historical injustices is becoming more common. We demonstrate that justice is articulated differently across mitigation sectors, uncover local characteristics that may impact cities’ level of engagement with justice, and introduce four policy tools that pioneer cities have developed to operationalise just climate policies on the ground. More attention to justice in policy implementation and evaluation is needed as cities continue to move toward just urban transitions.
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10354536
- Publisher / Repository:
- Taylor & Francis Online
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Urban Policy and Research
- ISSN:
- 0811-1146
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1 to 17
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
more » « less
Abstract A growing number of cities are investing in green infrastructure to foster urban resilience and sustainability. While these nature-based solutions are often promoted on the basis of their multifunctionality, in practice, most studies and plans focus on a single benefit, such as stormwater management. This represents a missed opportunity to strategically site green infrastructure to leverage social and ecological co-benefits. To address this gap, this paper builds on existing modeling approaches for green infrastructure planning to create a more generalizable tool for comparing spatial tradeoffs and synergistic ‘hotspots’ for multiple desired benefits. I apply the model to three diverse coastal megacities: New York City, Los Angeles (United States), and Manila (Philippines), enabling cross-city comparisons for the first time. Spatial multi-criteria evaluation is used to examine how strategic areas for green infrastructure development across the cities change depending on which benefit is prioritized. GIS layers corresponding to six planning priorities (managing stormwater, reducing social vulnerability, increasing access to green space, improving air quality, reducing the urban heat island effect, and increasing landscape connectivity) are mapped and spatial tradeoffs assessed. Criteria are also weighted to reflect local stakeholders’ desired outcomes as determined through surveys and stakeholder meetings and combined to identify high priority areas for green infrastructure development. To extend the model’s utility as a decision-support tool, an interactive web-based application is developed that allows any user to change the criteria weights and visualize the resulting hotspots in real time. The model empirically illustrates the complexities of planning green infrastructure in different urban contexts, while also demonstrating a flexible approach for more participatory, strategic, and multifunctional planning of green infrastructure in cities around the world.
-
more » « less
Societal Impact Statement It is increasingly common for plant scientists and urban planning and design professionals to collaborate on interdisciplinary teams that integrate scientific experiments into public and social urban spaces. However, neither the procedural ethics that govern scientific experimentation, nor the professional ethics of urban design and planning practice, fully account for the possible impacts of urban ecological experiments on local residents and communities. Scientists that participate in design and planning teams act as decision‐makers, and must expand their domain of ethical consideration accordingly. Conversely, practitioners who engage in ecological experiments take on the moral responsibilities inherent in generation of knowledge. To avoid potential harm to human and non‐human inhabitants of cities while maintaining scientific and professional integrity in research and practice, an integrated ethical framework is needed for urban ecological planning and design.
Summary While there are many ethical and procedural guidelines for scientists who wish to inform decision‐making and public policy, urban ecologists are increasingly embedded in planning and design teams to integrate scientific measurements and experiments into urban landscapes. These scientists are not just informing decision‐making – they are themselves acting as decision‐makers. As such, researchers take on additional moral obligations beyond scientific procedural ethics when designing and conducting ecological design and planning experiments. We describe the growing field of urban ecological design and planning and present a framework for expanding the ethical considerations of socioecological researchers and urban practitioners who collaborate on interdisciplinary teams. Drawing on existing ethical frameworks from a range of disciplines, we outline possible ways in which ecologists, social scientists, and practitioners should expand the traditional ethical considerations of their work to ensure that urban residents, communities, and non‐human entities are not harmed as researchers and practitioners carry out their individual obligations to clients, municipalities, and scientific practice. We present an integrated framework to aid in the development of ethical codes for research, practice, and education in integrated urban ecology, socioenvironmental sciences, and design and planning.
-
While inquiry in operations research (OR) modeling of urban planning processes is long-standing, on the whole, the OR discipline has not influenced urban planning practice, teaching and scholarship at a level of other domains such as public policy and information technology. Urban planning presents contemporary challenges that are complex, multi-stakeholder, data-intensive, and ill structured. Could an OR approach which focuses on the complex, emergent nature of cities, the institutional environment in which urban planning strategies are designed and implemented and which puts citizen engagement and a critical approach at the center enable urban planning to better meet these challenges? Based on a review of research and practice in OR and urban planning, we argue that a prospective and prescriptive approach to planning that is inductive in nature and embraces “methodological pluralism” and mixed methods can enable researchers and practitioners develop effective interventions that are equitable and which reflect the concerns of community members and community serving organizations. We discuss recent work in transportation, housing, and community development that illustrates the benefits of embracing an enhanced OR modeling approach both in the framing of the model and in its implementation, while bringing to the fore three cautionary themes. First, a mechanistic application of decision modeling principles rooted in stylized representations of institutions and systems using mathematics and computational methods may not adequately capture the central role that human actors play in developing neighborhoods and communities. Second, as innovations such as the mass adoption of automobiles decades ago led to auto-centric city design show, technological innovations can have unanticipated negative social impacts. Third, the current COVID pandemic shows that approaches based on science and technology alone are inadequate to improving community lives. Therefore, we emphasize the important role of critical approaches, community engagement and diversity, equity, and inclusion in planning approaches that incorporate decision modeling.more » « less
-
Mapping supply of and demand for ecosystem services to assess environmental justice in New York Citynull (Ed.)Livability, resilience, and justice in cities are challenged by climate change and the historical legacies that together create disproportionate impacts on human communities. Urban green infrastructure has emerged as an important tool for climate change adaptation and resilience given their capacity to provide ecosystem services such as local temperature regulation, stormwater mitigation, and air purification. However, realizing the benefits of ecosystem services for climate adaptation depend on where they are locally supplied. Few studies have examined the potential spatial mismatches in supply and demand of urban ecosystem services, and even fewer have examined supply–demand mismatches as a potential environmental justice issue, such as when supply–demand mismatches disproportionately overlap with certain socio-demographic groups. We spatially analyzed demand for ecosystem services relevant for climate change adaptation and combined results with recent analysis of the supply of ecosystem services in New York City (NYC). By quantifying the relative mismatch between supply and demand of ecosystem services across the city we were able to identify spatial hot- and coldspots of supply–demand mismatch. Hotspots are spatial clusters of census blocks with a higher mismatch and coldspots are clusters with lower mismatch values than their surrounding blocks. The distribution of mismatch hot- and coldspots was then compared to the spatial distribution of socio-demographic groups. Results reveal distributional environmental injustice of access to the climate-regulating benefits of ecosystem services provided by urban green infrastructure in NYC. Analyses show that areas with lower supply–demand mismatch tend to be populated by a larger proportion of white residents with higher median incomes, and areas with high mismatch values have lower incomes and a higher proportion of people of color. We suggest that urban policy and planning should ensure that investments in “nature-based” solutions such as through urban green infrastructure for climate change adaptation do not reinforce or exacerbate potentially existing environmental injustices.more » « less
