An official website of the United States government
Abstract 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.
more »
« less
Planning Ecologically Just Cities: A Framework to Assess Ecological Injustice Hotspots for Targeted Urban Design and Planning of Nature-Based Solutions
This paper presents a typology of ecological injustice hotspots for targeted design of nature-based solutions to guide planning and designing of just cities. The typology demonstrates how the needs and capabilities of nonhuman nature can be embedded within transitions to multi- and interspecies relational futures that regenerate and protect urban social-ecological systems. We synthesise the findings of previous quantitative and qualitative analyses to develop the Ecologically Just Cities Framework that (1) works as a diagnostic tool to characterise four types of urban ecological injustices and (2) identifies nature-based planning actions that can best respond to different types of place-based ecological injustices. 摘要 本文提出了一个生态不公正热点的类型学，用于有针对性地设计基于自然的解决方案，以指导公正城市的规划和设计。该类型学展示了非人类自然的需求和能力如何能够被嵌入到向多物种和跨物种关系的未来过渡中，从而再生和保护城市社会生态系统。我们综合了之前的定量和定性分析结果，制定了生态公正的城市框架，(1) 作为诊断工具来描述四种类型的城市生态不公正；(2) 确定了基于自然的规划行动，可以最好地应对不同类型的地方生态不公正问题。
more »
« less
- 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
-
-
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. SummaryWhile 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.more » « less
-
Over the past several decades, urban planning has considered a variety of advanced analysis methods with greater and lesser degrees of adoption. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is probably the most notable, with others such as database management systems (DBMS), decision support systems (DSS), planning support systems (PSS), and expert systems (ES), having mixed levels of recognition and acceptance (Kontokosta, C. E. (2021). Urban informatics in the science and practice of planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 41(4), 382–395. doi:10.1177/0739456X18793716; Yigitcanlar, T., Desouza, K. C., Butler, L., & Roozkhosh, F. (2020). Contributions and risks of artificial intelligence (AI) in building smarter cities: Insights from a systematic review of the literature. Energies, 13(6), 1473). Advances in information technologies have moved very slowly in the field of urban planning, more recently concerning ‘smart city’ technologies while revolutionizing other domains, such as consumer goods and services. Baidu, Amazon, Netflix, Google, and many others are using these technologies to gain insights into consumer behaviour and characteristics and improve supply chains and logistics. This is an opportune time for urban planners to consider the application of AI-related techniques given vast increases in data availability, increased processing speeds, and increased popularity and development of planning related applications. Research on these topics by urban planning scholars has increased over the past few years, but there is little evidence to suggest that the results are making it into the hands of professional planners (Batty, M. (2018). Artificial intelligence and smart cities. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 45(1), 3–6; Batty, M. (2021). Planning education in the digital age. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 48(2), 207–211). Others encourage planners to leverage the ubiquity of data and advances in computing to enhance redistributive justice in information resources and procedural justice in decision-making among marginalized communities (Boeing, G., Besbris, M., Schachter, A., & Kuk, J. (2020). Housing search in the Age of Big data: Smarter cities or the same Old blind spots? Housing Policy Debate, 31(1), 112–126; Goodspeed, R. (2015). Smart cities: Moving beyond urban cybernetics to tackle wicked problems. Cambridge journal of regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 79–92). This article highlights findings from a recent literature review on AI in planning and discusses the results of a national survey of urban planners about their perspectives on AI adoption and concerns they have expressed about its broader use in the profession. Currently, the outlook is mixed, matching how urban planners initially viewed the early stages of computer adoption within the profession. And yet today, personal computers are essential to any job.more » « less
-
Abstract Australia is experiencing mounting pressures related to processes of urbanisation, biodiversity loss and climate change felt at large in cities. At the same time, it is cities that can take the leading role in pioneering approaches and solutions to respond to those coupling emergencies. In this perspective piece we respond to the following question: What are the required transformations for prioritising, valuing, maintaining and embracing nature in cities in Australia? We adopt the mission framework as an organising framework to present proposed pathways to transform Australian cities as nature-positive places of the future. We propose three interconnected pathways as starting actions to steer urban planning, policy and governance in Australian cities: First, cities need to establish evidence-based planning for nature in cities and mainstream new planning tools that safeguard and foreground urban nature. Second, collaborative planning needs to become a standard practice in cities and inclusive governance for nature in cities needs to prioritise Aboriginal knowledge systems and practices as well as look beyond what local governments can do. Third, for progressing to nature-positive cities, it is paramount to empower communities to innovate with nature across Australian cities. Whilst we focus on Australian cities, the lessons and pathways are broadly applicably globally and can inspire science-policy debates for the post COP15 biodiversity and COP26 climate change implementation processes.more » « less
-
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
