1. Evaluating the Potential for Justice in Urban Climate Change Adaptation in the U.S. Sara Hughes, Ph.D. Regional Studies Association December 17, 2013 Visiting Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research and ORISE Postdoctoral Research Participant at U.S. EPA

2. Disclaimers The work presented here was carried out during my Visiting Scientist appointment with NCAR. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. EPA.

3. Outline 1.Cities and climate change adaptation 2.Justice in urban adaptation 3.Preliminary evaluations of urban sustainability programs in the U.S. 4.Gaps and priority areas for justice in adaptation research

4. 1. Cities and Climate Change Adaptation Cities are sites of climate change impacts Expanded urban heat islands Uncertainty in water supplies

5. 1. Cities and Climate Change Adaptation Source: UN World Urbanization Prospects 2011 An urbanizing population Percent urban

6. 1. Cities and Climate Change Adaptation Decentralization of climate change response to local level in the U.S. Driven by fiscal and political conditions Driven by local jurisdiction over important policy areas Increases importance of local decision makers and decision making processes in adaptation

7. 1. Cities and Climate Change Adaptation Cities are sources of innovation and policy action

8. 1. Cities and Climate Change Adaptation Two dimensions of adaptation: 1.Reducing exposure and vulnerability Increasing water supply availability Mitigating urban heat islands 2. Increasing resilience Improving health Educating people about evacuation routes Providing opportunities to increase personal and community assets Hughes, Sara. (Forthcoming). “Justice in Urban Climate Change Adaptation: Criteria and Application to Delhi,” Ecology & Society, Special Issue: Governing Adaptation Equity Econom y Environ -ment Why justice and urban climate change adaptation?

9. 1. Cities and Climate Change Adaptation Urban climate change adaptation plans usually include a range of actions Have potential to restructure a city and reallocate environmental burdens and benefits Understanding the implications for disadvantaged populations is a major gap in urban climate change policy research (Bulkeley 2010)

10. What is justice in urban climate change adaptation? John Rawls (outcomes and impacts): Social and economic inequalities are just only if they work to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society Amartya Sen (process): Alternatives should be chosen according to their advancement or retreat of justice, as measured by their ability to enhance people’s freedoms and capabilities 2. Justice in Urban Adaptation

11. 1. Representation of disadvantaged groups in adaptation planning (Process) 2. Priority setting and framing that recognizes the needs of disadvantaged groups (Outcomes) 3. Benefits and their distribution that enhance freedoms and capabilities of disadvantaged groups (Impacts) Hughes, Sara. (Forthcoming). “Justice in Urban Climate Change Adaptation: Criteria and Application to Delhi,” Ecology & Society, Special Issue: Governing Adaptation 2. Justice in Urban Adaptation What is justice in urban climate change adaptation?

12. Why would people be left out? 2. Justice in Urban Adaptation

13. A. Political economy of urban poverty D. Institutional capacities C. Technocratic governance B. Thick injustice Mechanisms of injustice 2. Justice in Urban Adaptation Hughes, Sara. (Forthcoming). “Justice in Urban Climate Change Adaptation: Criteria and Application to Delhi,” Ecology & Society, Special Issue: Governing Adaptation Why would people be left out?

14. A. Political economy of urban poverty Lack of accountability to, and representation of, the poor Poor have few opportunities to participate in policy making processes and little influence on elections Often no government agency, department or ministry with responsibility, programs, or funds Agencies that do have authority may perceive poverty differently and incompletely 2. Justice in Urban Adaptation

15. B. Thick injustice Deep, densely concentrated, and opaque injustices Legacies of past policies and resource allocation Ex: Suburbanization and zoning Long-lasting spatial differentiation (infrastructure, urban design, neighborhoods, etc.) 2. Justice in Urban Adaptation

16. C. Technocratic governance People marginalized by dominance of technical information in policy making Over-reliance on measured and modeled outcomes Exclusion of human impacts and local conditions Epistemologies become institutionalized 2. Justice in Urban Adaptation

17. D. Institutional capacities Local governments have the authority but not the administrative, financial, or technical capacity Lack qualities of good governance: autonomy, transparency, and responsiveness Under-funded Under-trained Under-staffed 2. Justice in Urban Adaptation

18. A. Political economy of urban poverty D. Institutional capacities C. Technocratic governance B. Thick injustice 1. Representation of disadvantaged groups in planning (Process) 2. Priority setting and framing that recognizes the needs of disadvantaged groups (Output) 3. Benefits and their distribution enhance freedoms and capabilities of disadvantaged groups (Outcomes) Criteria Mechanisms 2. Justice in Urban Adaptation Hughes, Sara. (Forthcoming). “Justice in Urban Climate Change Adaptation: Criteria and Application to Delhi,” Ecology & Society, Special Issue: Governing Adaptation

19. 3. Evaluating Urban Programs in the U.S. Local sustainability plans: indicators of urban adaptation

20. 3. Evaluating Urban Programs in the U.S. Local Government Sustainability Survey 2010 ⁻ International City/County Management Association ⁻ 2,176 responses (25.4% response rate) ⁻ Detailed report of policy initiatives of Chief Administrative Officers in U.S. local governments ⁻ Water conservation (reducing exposure) ⁻ Low-income community support (increasing resilience) International City/County Management Association. 2010. Local Government Sustainability Survey. http://bookstore.icma.org/Local_Government_Sustainabilit_P2097C170.cfm Local sustainability plans: indicators of urban adaptation

21. 3. Evaluating Urban Programs in the U.S. Local sustainability plans: indicators of urban adaptation Water Conservation ⁻ Conserve quantity of water in aquifers ⁻ Use gray water and/or reclaimed water ⁻ Limits on impervious surface on private property ⁻ Use price structures that encourage conservation ⁻ Other incentives for conservation

22. 3. Evaluating Urban Programs in the U.S. Proportion of cities with water conservation programs Proportion of cities

23. 3. Evaluating Urban Programs in the U.S. Low-income community support ⁻ Energy reduction programs ⁻ Transportation programs ⁻ Affordable housing ⁻ Disability housing ⁻ Elderly housing ⁻ Homeless shelters ⁻ IT access ⁻ Pre-school programs ⁻ After school programs ⁻ Quality of life metrics Local sustainability plans: indicators of urban adaptation

24. 3. Evaluating Urban Programs in the U.S. Proportion of cities with low income programs Proportion of cities

25. Cities with low income programs 3. Evaluating Urban Programs in the U.S.

26. Proportion of cities with both programs Proportion of Cities

27. 3. Evaluating Urban Programs in the U.S. Is adaptation a city’s response to its environment?

28. 3. Evaluating Urban Programs in the U.S. Problem context −Water stress −Poverty levels Demographics −Population −Income −% Democratic voters −% Highly educated Institutions −Citizens committee −Sustainability budget −Sustainability staff −Manager form of government Region % of water conservation actions in place % of low income community support programs in place Independent variablesDependent variables Linear regression model

29. 3. Evaluating Urban Programs in the U.S. Independent Variable % Water Conservation Actions % Low Income Population Actions Water stress0.700* Poverty level-0.228* (log)Population0.0216***0.0330*** (log)Income0.0740***-0.0547* % Democratic-0.0006380.000861* % Highly ed.-0.00532**-0.000519 Citizens committee0.0430*0.0583*** Sust. budget0.0369*0.0464*** Sust. staff0.0594**0.0193 Manager FOG0.0953***0.00273 Midwest-0.0802***-0.0342* Southeast-0.01174-0.00803 West Coast0.04000.441* North East-0.0775**-0.00420 Number = Regression Coefficient * = 95% confidence ** = 99% confidence *** = 99.9% confidence

30. 4. Gaps and Priority Areas Implications for justice in adaptation Cities focus on measures that reduce exposure ⁻ How are these developed and implemented? Lack of resilience-enhancing measures Drivers: ⁻ Positive feedbacks, others? ⁻ Sustainability institutions help A. Political economy of urban poverty D. Institutional capacities C. Technocratic governance B. Thick injustice

31. Thank you Sara.Hughes@gmail.com