| 1. |
- Grabowski, Zbigniew Jakub, et al.
(författare)
-
How deep does justice go? Addressing ecological, indigenous, and infrastructural justice through nature-based solutions in New York City
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Environmental Science and Policy. - : Elsevier BV. - 1462-9011 .- 1873-6416. ; 138, s. 171-181
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Scholarship on Nature-based Solutions (NbS) primarily focuses on the potential for NbS to deliver multiple benefits to humans and biodiversity from networked natural systems. These approaches, if enacted without sensitivity to local contexts and histories, can deepen long standing injustices resulting from the destruction of complex self-organizing ecological systems, the usurpation of Indigenous governance and knowledge, and the prioritization of technical managerial approaches transforming nature into infrastructure. Here we review, synthesize, and critically reflect on existing scholarship on the rise of NbS in New York City, USA, to inform environmental policy in support of just transformations of complex urban systems. To do so, we examine NbS within the context of the social-ecological-technological system (SETS) of NYC. We organize our review and synthesis around three interrelated concepts of justice: Ecological, Indigenous Environmental, and Infrastructural Justice. Ecological Justice entails addressing the harms, needs, and desired futures of ecological actors while identifying synergies with human focused environmental justice concerns and movements. Indigenous Environmental Justice requires restoring Indigenous systems of governance and knowledge while making space for a diversity of social-ecological practices of marginalized communities. Infrastructural Justice addresses the historical and ongoing injustices perpetuated through mainstream infrastructure policy and design practice – including Environmental Justice concerns – which have increasingly turned towards NbS. Without embedding these principles within emergent NbS focused environmental policy agendas seeking just transformations, they will likely recreate utilitarian, anthropocentric, and colonial modes of managing nature as infrastructure. We conclude with a research-to-action agenda for meeting the interdependent needs of urban ecosystems and humans.
|
|
| 2. |
- Grabowski, Zbigniew J., et al.
(författare)
-
Transforming US urban green infrastructure planning to address equity
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Landscape and Urban Planning. - : Elsevier BV. - 0169-2046 .- 1872-6062. ; 229
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Cities across the Unites States have embraced green infrastructure (GI) in official planning efforts. The plans conceptualize GI as providing multiple functions and benefits for urban residents, and form part of complex responses to intersectional urban challenges of social injustice and inequity, climate change, aging and expensive infrastructure, and socio-economic change. To date, it is unclear whether official city GI programs address systemic racism and urban inequality. To fill this knowledge gap, we coded and analyzed 122 formal plans from 20 US cities to examine if and how they address equity and justice in three domains: visions, processes, and distributions. We find a widespread failure of plans to conceptualize and operationalize equity planning prin-ciples. Only 13% of plans define equity or justice. Only 30% of cities recognize that they are on Native land. Over 90% of plans do not utilize inclusive processes to plan, design, implement, or evaluate GI, and so target many communities for green improvements without their consent. Although 80% of plans use GI to manage hazards and provide multiple benefits with GI, less than 10% identify the causes of uneven distributions and vulnera-bility. Even fewer recognize related issues of houselessness and gentrification. Very few plans have mechanisms to build community wealth through new GI jobs. We find promising seeds of best practices in some cities and plan types, but no plan exemplified best practices across all equity dimensions. If formal GI planning in US cities does not explicitly and comprehensively address equity concerns, it may reproduce the inequalities that GI is meant to alleviate. Based on our results, we identify-three key needs to improve current GI planning practices for green infrastructure and equity. First, clear definitions of equity and justice are needed, second, planning must engage with causes of inequality and displacement, and third, urban GI planning needs to be transformed through a focus on inclusion.
|
|
| 3. |
- Grabowski, Zbigniew J., et al.
(författare)
-
What is green infrastructure? A study of definitions in US city planning
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. - : Wiley. - 1540-9295 .- 1540-9309. ; 20:3, s. 152-160
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- In response to interdependent challenges, city planners are increasingly adopting “green infrastructure” (GI). Reviewing 122 plans from 20 US cities, we identify what types of city plans address and define GI, including the concepts associated with GI, as well as the types, functions, and benefits of GI. The most common plans that feature GI, some of which focus exclusively on GI, comply with US Clean Water Act regulations for stormwater and sewer systems. Municipalities also address GI through diverse planning processes, including the creation of comprehensive citywide plans. Many of these plans (~40%) do not explicitly define GI. When they do, stormwater concepts predominate, followed by landscape concepts, along with an emergent emphasis on integrating GI with other built infrastructure systems. Large differences in GI types, functions, and benefits across concepts, plan types, and cities indicate a need for synthesis of GI definitions. To facilitate this synthesis, we provide a database of GI definitions from plans used in our analysis. We conclude with a broad synthetic definition of GI to provide clarity and stimulate discussion in rapidly evolving planning, policy, and research arenas.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Hoover, Fushcia-Ann, et al.
(författare)
-
Environmental justice implications of siting criteria in urban green infrastructure planning
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning. - 1523-908X .- 1522-7200. ; 23:5, s. 665-682
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Green infrastructure (GI) has become a panacea for cities working to enhance sustainability and resilience. While the rationale for GI primarily focuses on its multifunctionality (e.g. delivering multiple ecosystem services to local communities), uncertainties remain around how, for whom, and to what extent GI delivers these services. Additionally, many scholars increasingly recognize potential disservices of GI, including gentrification associated with new GI developments. Building on a novel dataset of 119 planning documents from 19 U.S. cities, we utilize insights from literature on justice in urban planning to examine the justice implications of criteria used in the siting of GI projects. We analyze the GI siting criteria described in city plans and how they explicitly or implicitly engage environmental justice. We find that justice is rarely explicitly discussed, yet the dominant technical siting criteria that focus on stormwater and economic considerations have justice implications. We conclude with recommendations for centering justice in GI spatial planning.
|
|
| 6. |
- McPhearson, Timon, et al.
(författare)
-
A social-ecological-technological systems framework for urban ecosystem services
- 2022
-
Ingår i: One Earth. - : Elsevier BV. - 2590-3330 .- 2590-3322. ; 5:5, s. 505-518
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- As rates of urbanization and climatic change soar, decision-makers are increasingly challenged to provide innovative solutions that simultaneously address climate change impacts and risks and inclusively ensure quality of life for urban residents. Cities have turned to nature-based solutions to help address these challenges. Nature-based solutions, through the provision of ecosystem services, can yield numerous benefits for people and address multiple challenges simultaneously. Yet, efforts to mainstream nature-based solutions are impaired by the complexity of the interacting social, ecological, and technological dimensions of urban systems. This complexity must be understood and managed to ensure ecosystem-service provisioning is effective, equitable, and resilient. Here, we provide a social-ecological-technological system (SETS) framework that builds on decades of urban ecosystem services research to better understand four core challenges associated with urban nature-based solutions: multi-functionality, systemic valuation, scale mismatch of ecosystem services, and inequity and injustice. The framework illustrates the importance of coordinating natural, technological, and socio-economic systems when designing, planning, and managing urban nature-based solutions to enable optimal social-ecological outcomes.
|
|
