1,720,957 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Resilience Justice and Community-Based Green and Blue Infrastructure
No full textThe environmental conditions of marginalized communities, particularly low-income communities of color, make those communities disproportionately more vulnerable to major disturbances and changes, such as climate change, health crises, pollution releases, disasters, economic shocks, and social and political upheaval. Many of the most important movements for justice with respect to environmental conditions, including environmental justice, disaster justice, and climate justice, are connected to broader movements for racial and social justice, asserting that Black and Brown lives matter. These movements seek to confront, dismantle, and reform systems of racism, colonialism, and structural inequality.
In particular, low-income communities of color have inequitably less and worse green and blue infrastructure, such as parks and green spaces, trees, restored waterways, biotic stormwater controls, food gardens, and wetlands. In general, “green and blue infrastructure” is a public-policy term that refers to the biotic and aquatic conditions on which communities depend, and is considered roughly equivalent to the more business-oriented term “natural capital” and the more science-oriented term “ecosystem services.” Having disproportionately lower quantities and quality of green and blue infrastructure makes low-income communities of color more vulnerable and less resilient to disasters, pollution, climate change, and health stressors, than residents in higher-income White neighborhoods. For example, neighborhoods having too few parks and trees have higher rates of asthma and obesity and poorer mental and physical health among Black and Latino children. Low-income neighborhoods and neighborhoods of color are more vulnerable to urban heat island effects, heat waves, and heat-related deaths due to disproportionately less trees, vegetation, and green spaces. Low-income neighborhood residents typically do not receive the benefits of green and blue infrastructure policies that are designed to mitigate and prevent urban flooding, even though low-income people of color are substantially more likely to live in flood-prone areas.
Public policies to remedy unequal green and blue infrastructure in low-income neighborhoods of color often fail because inequality and racism are deeply embedded in social systems and institutions. Top-down government decisions to create new green and blue infrastructure in these neighborhoods often fail to build neighborhood social capital (i.e., cooperation, trust, problem-solving, networks), empower the marginalized and oppressed residents, and address community-defined needs. New green and blue infrastructure either are neglected and degraded over time or displace existing residents through green gentrification, when new green and blue infrastructure stimulate external investment and land-development in the neighborhood, driving up property values and rents and driving out the low-income residents of color as their neighborhoods become whiter and wealthier. The interconnected environmental, economic, social, and political vulnerabilities of marginalized neighborhoods make them less resilient to shocks of all types, including well-intended but unjust government policies and investments.
Co-governance of green and blue infrastructure, in which government agencies and grassroots neighborhood groups share decision-making authority and management responsibilities, offers systemic reform both to improve the community’s green and blue infrastructure and to empower low-income communities of color and build their resilience. This Article proposes a co-governance approach to seeking more equitable and community-based green and blue infrastructure in communities that have been marginalized by racism, structural poverty and inequality, colonial structures, pervasively unequal environmental, economic, social, and political conditions, and disproportionate vulnerabilities. A co-governance approach differs in certain ways from more government-oriented reforms, such as more equitable distribution of government-provided infrastructure, improved participatory processes for government decision-making, and legal accountability of the government for discriminatory decisions. A cogovernance approach also differs from typical approaches for devolving power from the public to private sectors, including public-private partnerships, community-provided infrastructure as a commons, and government support for private infrastructure having community benefits.
Moreover, new co-governance structures must not only hybridize institutions of government-managed and community-managed resources, but also be characterized by “resilience justice”: systems-oriented principles and tools of racial justice, neighborhood empowerment, and community resilience. Government resources and authority are needed but should be integrated with bottom-up organizing and power. The concepts and framework of resilience justice are based on syntheses of over 300 studies of community resilience, as well as principles of human capabilities/ community-capacities justice and environmental justice.
Part I of this Article describes what green and blue infrastructure are and their general benefits and specific contributions to the adaptive capacities of communities. Part I also summarizes and synthesizes the abundant literature on the disproportionately less and worse green and blue infrastructure in low-income communities of color, and the impacts on community capacities and vulnerabilities. Part II articulates the concept and principles of resilience justice by which green and blue infrastructure policy generally and co-governance reforms specifically should be evaluated. Part III describes the concept and features of co-governance, contrasting it with other governance responses to green and blue infrastructure inequities. Part IV features several case studies of co-governance arrangements for green and blue infrastructure in particular low-income communities of color in the sense that at least some elements of co-governance characterize these governance arrangements. These case studies illuminate not only the promise of co-governance of community-based green and blue infrastructure but also the barriers to and limits of co-governance arrangements, particularly in light of resilience-justice goals. Part V reflects on what will be needed to create and implement co-governance structures for community-based green and blue infrastructure that will advance resilience justice. The Article concludes with suggestions for future research and governance reforms
Resilience Justice and Community-Based Green and Blue Infrastructure
Get PDFThe environmental conditions of marginalized communities, particularly low-income communities of color, make those communities disproportionately more vulnerable to major disturbances and changes, such as climate change, health crises, pollution releases, disasters, economic shocks, and social and political upheaval. Many of the most important movements for justice with respect to environmental conditions, including environmental justice, disaster justice, and climate justice, are connected to broader movements for racial and social justice, asserting that Black and Brown lives matter. These movements seek to confront, dismantle, and reform systems of racism, colonialism, and structural inequality.
In particular, low-income communities of color have inequitably less and worse green and blue infrastructure, such as parks and green spaces, trees, restored waterways, biotic stormwater controls, food gardens, and wetlands. In general, “green and blue infrastructure” is a public-policy term that refers to the biotic and aquatic conditions on which communities depend, and is considered roughly equivalent to the more business-oriented term “natural capital” and the more science-oriented term “ecosystem services.” Having disproportionately lower quantities and quality of green and blue infrastructure makes low-income communities of color more vulnerable and less resilient to disasters, pollution, climate change, and health stressors, than residents in higher-income White neighborhoods. For example, neighborhoods having too few parks and trees have higher rates of asthma and obesity and poorer mental and physical health among Black and Latino children. Low-income neighborhoods and neighborhoods of color are more vulnerable to urban heat island effects, heat waves, and heat-related deaths due to disproportionately less trees, vegetation, and green spaces. Low-income neighborhood residents typically do not receive the benefits of green and blue infrastructure policies that are designed to mitigate and prevent urban flooding, even though low-income people of color are substantially more likely to live in flood-prone areas.
Public policies to remedy unequal green and blue infrastructure in low-income neighborhoods of color often fail because inequality and racism are deeply embedded in social systems and institutions. Top-down government decisions to create new green and blue infrastructure in these neighborhoods often fail to build neighborhood social capital (i.e., cooperation, trust, problem-solving, networks), empower the marginalized and oppressed residents, and address community-defined needs. New green and blue infrastructure either are neglected and degraded over time or displace existing residents through green gentrification, when new green and blue infrastructure stimulate external investment and land-development in the neighborhood, driving up property values and rents and driving out the low-income residents of color as their neighborhoods become whiter and wealthier. The interconnected environmental, economic, social, and political vulnerabilities of marginalized neighborhoods make them less resilient to shocks of all types, including well-intended but unjust government policies and investments.
Co-governance of green and blue infrastructure, in which government agencies and grassroots neighborhood groups share decision-making authority and management responsibilities, offers systemic reform both to improve the community’s green and blue infrastructure and to empower low-income communities of color and build their resilience. This Article proposes a co-governance approach to seeking more equitable and community-based green and blue infrastructure in communities that have been marginalized by racism, structural poverty and inequality, colonial structures, pervasively unequal environmental, economic, social, and political conditions, and disproportionate vulnerabilities. A co-governance approach differs in certain ways from more government-oriented reforms, such as more equitable distribution of government-provided infrastructure, improved participatory processes for government decision-making, and legal accountability of the government for discriminatory decisions. A cogovernance approach also differs from typical approaches for devolving power from the public to private sectors, including public-private partnerships, community-provided infrastructure as a commons, and government support for private infrastructure having community benefits.
Moreover, new co-governance structures must not only hybridize institutions of government-managed and community-managed resources, but also be characterized by “resilience justice”: systems-oriented principles and tools of racial justice, neighborhood empowerment, and community resilience. Government resources and authority are needed but should be integrated with bottom-up organizing and power. The concepts and framework of resilience justice are based on syntheses of over 300 studies of community resilience, as well as principles of human capabilities/ community-capacities justice and environmental justice.
Part I of this Article describes what green and blue infrastructure are and their general benefits and specific contributions to the adaptive capacities of communities. Part I also summarizes and synthesizes the abundant literature on the disproportionately less and worse green and blue infrastructure in low-income communities of color, and the impacts on community capacities and vulnerabilities. Part II articulates the concept and principles of resilience justice by which green and blue infrastructure policy generally and co-governance reforms specifically should be evaluated. Part III describes the concept and features of co-governance, contrasting it with other governance responses to green and blue infrastructure inequities. Part IV features several case studies of co-governance arrangements for green and blue infrastructure in particular low-income communities of color in the sense that at least some elements of co-governance characterize these governance arrangements. These case studies illuminate not only the promise of co-governance of community-based green and blue infrastructure but also the barriers to and limits of co-governance arrangements, particularly in light of resilience-justice goals. Part V reflects on what will be needed to create and implement co-governance structures for community-based green and blue infrastructure that will advance resilience justice. The Article concludes with suggestions for future research and governance reforms
Environmental Justice, Resilience Justice, and Watershed Planning
Get PDFWatershed planning is an increasingly used governance tool for addressing environmental problems at ecosystem scales of watersheds, which are areas of land that drain to a common body of water. In recent years, watershed planning in the United States has been undergoing an “equity evolution”: watershed planners have begun integrating environmental justice considerations into their plans, often in response to demands by low-income communities of color. This Article explores a comprehensive set of principles, processes, analytical tools, and strategies for equitable watershed planning. It integrates a resilience justice perspective with environmental justice. Resilience justice is concerned with the systemically unequal vulnerabilities and adaptive capacities of marginalized and oppressed communities, who are vulnerable to disruptions and changes like natural disasters, climate change, and housing insecurity (e.g., gentrification) and have been marginalized from governance systems affecting their capacities to thrive. Watershed plans should not only address unequal environmental harms and decision-making but also empower low-income communities of color and facilitate their resilience. An equity transformation, not merely an equity evolution, is needed in watershed planning. This Article examines a case study of the University of Louisville Resilience Justice Project’s work with government agencies and communities to integrate environmental and resilience justice into planning for the Mill Creek watershed, composed of marginalized neighborhoods in Southwest Louisville, Kentucky
Recommended from our members
Environmental Justice, Resilience Justice, and Watershed Planning
No full textWatershed planning is an increasingly used governance tool for addressing environmental problems at ecosystem scales of watersheds, which are areas of land that drain to a common body of water. In recent years, watershed planning in the United States has been undergoing an “equity evolution”: watershed planners have begun integrating environmental justice considerations into their plans, often in response to demands by low-income communities of color. This Article explores a comprehensive set of principles, processes, analytical tools, and strategies for equitable watershed planning. It integrates a resilience justice perspective with environmental justice. Resilience justice is concerned with the systemically unequal vulnerabilities and adaptive capacities of marginalized and oppressed communities, who are vulnerable to disruptions and changes like natural disasters, climate change, and housing insecurity (e.g., gentrification) and have been marginalized from governance systems affecting their capacities to thrive. Watershed plans should not only address unequal environmental harms and decision-making but also empower low-income communities of color and facilitate their resilience. An equity transformation, not merely an equity evolution, is needed in watershed planning. This Article examines a case study of the University of Louisville Resilience Justice Project’s work with government agencies and communities to integrate environmental and resilience justice into planning for the Mill Creek watershed, composed of marginalized neighborhoods in Southwest Louisville, Kentucky
Environmental Justice, Resilience Justice, and Watershed Planning
No full textWatershed planning is an increasingly used governance tool for addressing environmental problems at ecosystem scales of watersheds, which are areas of land that drain to a common body of water. In recent years, watershed planning in the United States has been undergoing an “equity evolution”: watershed planners have begun integrating environmental justice considerations into their plans, often in response to demands by low-income communities of color. This Article explores a comprehensive set of principles, processes, analytical tools, and strategies for equitable watershed planning. It integrates a resilience justice perspective with environmental justice. Resilience justice is concerned with the systemically unequal vulnerabilities and adaptive capacities of marginalized and oppressed communities, who are vulnerable to disruptions and changes like natural disasters, climate change, and housing insecurity (e.g., gentrification) and have been marginalized from governance systems affecting their capacities to thrive. Watershed plans should not only address unequal environmental harms and decision-making but also empower low-income communities of color and facilitate their resilience. An equity transformation, not merely an equity evolution, is needed in watershed planning. This Article examines a case study of the University of Louisville Resilience Justice Project’s work with government agencies and communities to integrate environmental and resilience justice into planning for the Mill Creek watershed, composed of marginalized neighborhoods in Southwest Louisville, Kentucky
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
