Search for: All records

Many climate policies adopt improving equity as a key objective. A key challenge is that policies often conceive of equity in terms of individuals but introduce strategies that focus on spatially coarse administrative areas. For example, the Justice40 Initiative in the United States requires 518 diverse federal programs to prioritize funds for “disadvantaged” census tracts. This strategy is largely untested and contrasts with the federal government’s definition of equity as the “consistent and systematic fair, just and impartial treatment of all individuals (Executive Office of the President, Federal Register, 2021).” How well does the Justice40 approach improve equity in climate adaptation outcomes acrossindividuals? We analyze this question using a case study of a municipality that faces repetitive flooding and struggles to effectively manage these risks due to limited resources and public investment. We find that the way the Federal Emergency Management Agency implements the Justice40 Initiative can be an obstacle to promoting equity in household flood-risk outcomes. For example, in this case study, ensuring the majority of benefits accrue in “Justice40 Communities” does not reduce risk for the most burdened households, does not reduce risk-burden inequality, and produces net costs. In contrast, we design simple funding rules based on household risk burden that cost-effectively target the most burdened households, reduce risk-burden inequality, and accrue large net benefits. Our findings suggest that “disadvantaged community” indicators defined at coarse spatial scales face the risk of poorly capturing many climate risks and can be ineffective for meeting equity promises about climate-related investments. 

Climate risks are growing. Research is increasingly important to inform the design of risk‐management strategies. Assessing such strategies necessarily brings values into research. But the values assumed within research (often only implicitly) may not align with those of stakeholders and decision makers. These misalignments are often invisible to researchers and can severely limit research relevance or lead to inappropriate policy advice. Aligning strategy assessments with stakeholders' values requires a holistic approach to research design that is oriented around those values from the start. Integrating values into research in this way requires collaboration with stakeholders, integration across disciplines, and attention to all aspects of research design. Here we describe and demonstrate a qualitative conceptual tool called a values‐informed mental model (ViMM) to support such values‐centered research design. ViMMs map stakeholders' values onto a conceptual model of a study system to visualize the intersection of those values with coupled natural‐human system dynamics. Through this mapping, ViMMs integrate inputs from diverse collaborators to support the design of research that assesses risk‐management strategies in light of stakeholders' values. We define a visual language for ViMMs, describe accompanying practices and workflows, and present an illustrative application to the case of flood‐risk management in a small community along the Susquehanna river in the Northeast United States. 

Decision-makers increasingly invoke equity to motivate, design, implement and evaluate strategies for managing flood risks. Unfortunately, there is little guidance on how analysts can develop measurements that support these tasks. Here we analyse how equity can be defined and measured by surveying 167 peer-reviewed publications that explicitly state an interest in equity in the context of flood-risk management. Our main result is a taxonomy that systematizes how equity has been, and can be, defined and measured in flood-risk research. The taxonomy embodies how equity is a pluralistic and unavoidably ethical concept. Despite this, we find that most quantitative studies fail to motivate or defend critical value judgements on which their findings depend. We also find that studies often include only a single equity measurement. This practice can overlook important trade-offs between competing perspectives on equity. For example, the few studies that employ distinct principles show that conclusions about equity depend on which principle underlies a specific measurement and how that principle is operationalized. We draw on our analysis to suggest practices for developing more useful equity indicators and performing more comprehensive quantitative equity assessments in the broader context of environmental risks. 

Abstract Harnessing scientific research to address societal challenges requires careful alignment of expertise, resources, and research questions with real‐world needs, timelines, and constraints. In the case of place‐based research, studies can avoid misalignment when grounded in the realities of specific locations and conducted in collaboration with knowledgeable local partners. But literature on best practices for such research is underdeveloped on how to identify appropriate locations and partners. In practice, these research‐design choices are sometimes made based on convenience or prior experience—a strategy labeled opportunism. Here we examine a deliberative and exploratory approach in contrast to default opportunism. We introduce a general framework for scoping place‐based opportunities for research and engagement. We apply the framework to identify climate‐adaptation planning decisions, rooted in specific communities, around which to organize research and engagement in a large project addressing coastal climate risks in the Northeast US. The framework asks project personnel to negotiate explicit project goals, identify corresponding evaluation criteria, and assess opportunities against criteria within an iterative cycle of listening to needs, assessing options, prioritizing actions, and refining goals. In the application, we elicit a broad range of objectives from project personnel. We find that a structured process offers opportunities to collaboratively operationalize notions of equity and justice. We find some objectives in tension—including equity objectives—indicating trade‐offs that other projects may also need to navigate. We reflect on challenges encountered in the application and on near‐term costs and benefits of the exploratory process.