Panagiota Kotsila:

Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities

2020-09-03T11:32:56Z

Panagiota Kotsila:

"Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities" as a driver of injustice refers to the ways in which (access to) useful information and know-how around sustainable urban interventions and their benefits is not shared effectively or equally among disciplines, sectors or social groups, and thus constrain the potential for both sustainability and justice.

==General introduction==

Effective, inclusive and socially considerate knowledge brokerage can enhance the justice aspect of urban sustainability interventions, especially when it includes and brings benefits to under-privileged and vulnerable groups (Partidario & Sheate, 2013; van der Velden, 2004). To know of and about sustainable infrastructures (e.g. urban green areas, healthy food, or social innovation projects), including how they are governed, why they are beneficial, and how they can be accessed, can be in itself an enabling factor for their implementation, accessibility and benefit received (Trencher et al., 2013). When, on the other hand, knowledge production and communication is exclusive, it can become a driver of injustice by limiting the potential for participation, stewardship or uptake of innovations.

[[File:8-Lack-Of-Effective-Knowledge-Brokerage.jpg|600px]]

==Manifestations and types of injustice==

Access to knowledge can be seen as a distributive justice concern that in turn impacts procedural justice, given that environmental and sustainability awareness and education will presumably animate more informed and meaningful, and thus more inclusive, participation. The extent to which people not only access, but also internalize the innovations being undertaken can to a great extent determine the benefits perceived. In Ljubljana, for example, it was found that farmers had low awareness of existing food-related producers’ networks, and little overall knowledge of better practices to reach the consuming public. This was seen to be both hampering the producers’ potential of surviving financially against industrialized agricultural businesses and limiting the availability of fresh food locally produced for consumers (Wascher et al., 2015).

In a wider sense, a lack of environmental awareness/education that might stem from lack of adequate information campaigns or lack of policy that would popularize sustainability-oriented initiatives, can further hinder the development of inclusive innovation in cities (e.g. nature-based solutions, or energy transitions) (Nature4Cities, 2018a, 2018b; Valkenburg & Cotella, 2016). Exclusivity of access in relation to urban sustainability and its benefits can also be the result of miscommunication, or obstacles in collaboration and knowledge brokerage, between the scientific community and civil society – including activists, NGOs and the wider public. Difficult terminology, unwelcoming communication platforms, and a lack of “translating” insights to useful materials for policy-makers, practitioners or citizens can hinder the uptake of innovations (Morrow, 2019). If relying on digital means, for example, a gap could arise between those with access to technological literacy on digital technologies, and those without.

In short, knowledge brokerage is related to justice in urban sustainability because those who can best leverage knowledge produced or required to make sustainability transitions happen are those best positioned to benefit from them.

{{#ev:youtube|4emPrKoUKYo}}

==Illustration==

*Crowdsourcing for urban governance in Ghent, Belgium

The city of Ghent, Belgium, is committed to achieving urban sustainability (e.g. making the city’s food system more local, sustainable, and resilient through their project ‘Gent en Garde’; and having the largest designated cyclist area in Europe). The city has dedicated a department to increasing citizen participation. Their strategy includes the use of technology-based tools and face-to-face processes, as those tools are meant to give access to urban governance decision-making to as many people as possible. However, a too heavy a reliance on digital participation can neglect certain populations, such as those who do not have access to or knowledge of digital platforms or simply those who don’t have access to smart phones or tablets with reliable and ample data plans.

While a ‘smart city’ approach is often connected to sustainability and innovation, there is a need for policies, including participation tools, to be relevant in the everyday lives of its inhabitants, how they experience the city, and what they need from and in the city and its assets or resources. While it can be difficult to achieve inclusive stakeholder involvement within normative decision-making procedures, doing so can promote justice and the long-term success of sustainability goals.
“We have a smart city imaginary but it is very different from what happens at the local levels because organizations and administrators need to deal with a number of problems that have to do with participation, the meaning of participation (it can be also non-leading to greater democracy) and the issue of access and opportunities.”
[Source: (Certomà et al., 2020), CROWD_USG project]

[[File:xx.png|400px|thumb|left|Photo by Veronica Vitale/crowdusg.net. Digital and social technologies can enhance the participatory process and improve knowledge brokerage, leading to more inclusive and representative urban governance. It can also become another form of exclusion, however, if only the technologically literate have access to digital platforms.]]

==Ways forward==

==Links to projects==

This driver links to the following research projects: FOODMETERS NATURE FOR CITIES; CLEVER CITIES, MILESECURE, SEISMIC, SHARECITY

==References==

[[Category:Drivers]]

Limited citizen participation in urban planning

2020-09-03T11:28:45Z

Panagiota Kotsila: /* Manifestations and types of injustice */

"Limited citizen participation in urban planning" as a driver of injustice refers to the limited involvement and engagement of citizens and citizens’ initiatives in decision-making around the planning, design, implementation and/or evaluation of urban sustainability-oriented interventions.

==General introduction==

When citizen participation is not encouraged, supported and sought out in a meaningful way, sustainability planning interventions risk being a reflection of top-down priorities that represent and enhance the status quo in terms of both sustainability and injustice. The question of participation does not only concern the availability of structures in place to accommodate input from local communities and stakeholders, but also the openness and potential of these structures with regard to inclusivity and impact (Anguelovski et al., 2018<ref>Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J., & Brand, A. L. (2018). From landscapes of utopia to the margins of the green urban life. City, 22(3), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2018.1473126</ref>; Fainstein, 2014<ref>Fainstein, S. S. (2014). The just city. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 18(1), 1–18.</ref>; Kotsila et al., 2020<ref>Kotsila, P., Anguelovski, I., Baró, F., Langemeyer, J., Sekulova, F., & Connolly, J. J. T. (2020). Nature-based solutions as discursive tools and contested practices in urban nature’s neoliberalisation processes. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 251484862090143. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848620901437</ref>). In other words, it is important to consider what and whom are the different collectives that participate representing, what is the depth of participation that is allowed or catered for, and how much are participation outcomes taken into account when designing interventions.

[[File:7-Limited-Citizen-Participation.jpg|600px]]

==Manifestations and types of injustice==

Inclusive participation can be hindered in both centrally/state-managed projects and in community-based initiatives around urban sustainability, when existing inequalities are not acknowledged in their design.

For example, a social housing cooperation project in Rotterdam, counted on the participation of the housing community for the design of a climate adaptation plan in the communal public area. However, the time span for this process of participation was too long. Renters were initially involved but later started dropping out while homeowners had a stronger voice and their opinion was more valued. The community input was eventually minimal as the sense of ownership of the plan by most of the community was also lost. This project highlighted a sort of institutional classism which foreclosed the possibility of inclusivity and justice in the participation process and its targeted outcome: a sustainability intervention [UrbanA Arena insights].

Limited participation and citizen engagement with urban planning processes is also observed to be an issue in those research and innovation projects that aim to enhance or promote co-creation through inclusive processes of knowledge sharing. Some of these challenges have to do with the short timelines of research projects which do not allow for deeper engagement with local stakeholders and communities, and the pre-defined research methods and processes of analysis that many of these projects follow.

*Bottom-up sustainability as a form of civil participation

Participation is often cast in terms of stewardship and volunteerism around urban sustainability (Connolly et al.2013<ref>Connolly, James J, Erika S Svendsen, Dana R Fisher, and Lindsay K Campbell. 2013. "Organizing urban ecosystem services through environmental stewardship governance in New York City." Landscape and Urban Planning 109 (1):76-84.</ref>). Community-initiated projects (e.g. urban gardens, repair shops, food sharing networks) support urban sustainability objectives in different ways but count on the long-term unpaid work of activists and engaged individuals. Although many of such initiatives strive for expanding the sphere of the commons, and thus produce a counter-narrative to neoliberal ideologies, reliance on such participation might run the risk of shifting responsibility from the public sector to the people, and of privileging the participation of some (more available, more accessible) groups over others.

In the case of bottom-up projects, one of the most common observations in this regard is that people cannot afford to “pay into” participatory/community-led projects or cannot dedicate time away from work or their dependents. Direct participation processes demand commitment, so a diversification of participation options (i.e. through email, in organized workshops, and digitally through participation apps), including monetary compensations and childcare options, can all facilitate participation and achieve more inclusive outcomes (procedural & representational justice).

*Activism and organizing as an answer to participation limitations

It is often the case that the most vulnerable groups are those excluded from processes that will dictate their outcome upon them and without accounting for their needs, vulnerabilities, identities, or preferences (recognition justice). As a result of this institutional barriers to participation, in the fight for social justice it is people from those groups who decide to raise their voices and organize. In anti-gentrification struggles for example, those involved in grassroots movements are often “low income, marginalized people struggling to survive day to day,” making bottom-up efforts potentially “exhausting personally for individuals with other everyday life commitments to take care of” (responsibility and intersectional justice).

Whereas they can be facing the same constraints of resources/time, community organization is often the most effective way of achieving justice in the city. In Manhattan, NY, for example, the mostly Latinx and Afro-American communities protested a development-oriented zoning plan that would essentially gentrify East Broadway [https://ny.curbed.com/2018/8/23/17771002/manhattan-inwood-zoning-nyc-industrial-photo-essay]. By doing their own engagement projects to understand the needs and wants from the diverse communities, the environmental issues but also the issues of crime and of the business ecosystem in the neighbourhoods, and recommended plans that included the redevelopment of a park, the strengthening of the local economy, and ensuring waterfront access. A group of communities also put a lawsuit against the rezoning plan, supported with the own zoning studies, and as of December 2019, they managed to strike down the plan [https://www.thecity.nyc/manhattan/2019/12/19/21212251/judge-nixes-inwood-rezoning-siding-with-locals-against-mayoral-building-plan],[https://citylimits.org/2018/12/13/lawsuit-cites-flaws-in-environmental-review-seeks-annulment-of-inwood-rezoning/] [UrbanA Arena insights].

{{#ev:youtube|ThdnxtO53tc}}

==Illustration==

Participatory budgeting in Amsterdam Indische Buurt

In 2011, after an exchange program with an NGO in Brazil, the Centre for Budget monitoring and Citizen participation (CBB) was founded in the Indische Buurt, in the Eastern district of Amsterdam. This consists of (1) a community-initiated stream that practices budget monitoring and formulates its own priorities, and (2) a municipality-initiated stream which uses an online application that provides financial data information to the public, at the level of the neighbourhood. As the TRANSIT project reports, these contribute to budget transparency and accountability at local level as well as participatory decisions on which neighbourhood projects to prioritize.

However, in 2013, according to one of the project interviewees the CBB decided to let go of the “human rights” perspective in their discourse and aims.It meant that city authorities had more flexibility in adapting the participatory budgeting initiative in the context of austerity policies. This, arguably, stripped the initiative of its more radical potential for making social and environmental justice a priority. Linking also with issues of unfit institutions, this removal of “human rights” approach was claimed to have worked in favour of upscaling of the initiative in cities across the country.

In the case of the Indische Buurt budget monitoring has changed the way the district plan was developed: in co-creation with citizens. In 2015 a resolution was accepted in the local district council stating that in 2017 20% of the local budget should fall under the responsibility of residents. In terms of procedural justice, concerning the initiative itself, involved stakeholders mentioned that participation in the activities was characterized by only a few people who had the time to engage in the process and persevered in understanding financial documents. Even though efforts were made to make the reading and understanding of the budget as easy as possible, it still seemed to be an ‘elite’ that participated. This raised questions whether the group was or should be representative. Someone feared this process was used as a legitimization for already made decisions, while another felt that s/he contributed to decision making. [Source: TRANSIT project]

[[File:Hague participation.png|400px|thumb|left|Photo by The Hague Academy for Local Governance. Inclusive citizen participation in decision-making processes promotes democracy and is crucial to the success of sustainability initiatives. Above, a diverse group of participants from different countries, sectors, and levels of government, discuss experiences and challenges at the Citizen Participation and Inclusive Governance course in the Hague.]]

==Links to projects==

This driver links to the following research projects: TRANSIT, TESS, CROWD_USG, AGAPE, WWWforEurope, NATURVATION, CONVERGE, GREENSURGE, ROCK, UNALAB.

==References==

[[Category:Drivers]]

Limited citizen participation in urban planning

2020-09-03T11:26:11Z

Panagiota Kotsila:

"Limited citizen participation in urban planning" as a driver of injustice refers to the limited involvement and engagement of citizens and citizens’ initiatives in decision-making around the planning, design, implementation and/or evaluation of urban sustainability-oriented interventions.

==General introduction==

When citizen participation is not encouraged, supported and sought out in a meaningful way, sustainability planning interventions risk being a reflection of top-down priorities that represent and enhance the status quo in terms of both sustainability and injustice. The question of participation does not only concern the availability of structures in place to accommodate input from local communities and stakeholders, but also the openness and potential of these structures with regard to inclusivity and impact (Anguelovski et al., 2018<ref>Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J., & Brand, A. L. (2018). From landscapes of utopia to the margins of the green urban life. City, 22(3), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2018.1473126</ref>; Fainstein, 2014<ref>Fainstein, S. S. (2014). The just city. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 18(1), 1–18.</ref>; Kotsila et al., 2020<ref>Kotsila, P., Anguelovski, I., Baró, F., Langemeyer, J., Sekulova, F., & Connolly, J. J. T. (2020). Nature-based solutions as discursive tools and contested practices in urban nature’s neoliberalisation processes. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 251484862090143. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848620901437</ref>). In other words, it is important to consider what and whom are the different collectives that participate representing, what is the depth of participation that is allowed or catered for, and how much are participation outcomes taken into account when designing interventions.

[[File:7-Limited-Citizen-Participation.jpg|600px]]

==Manifestations and types of injustice==

Inclusive participation can be hindered in both centrally/state-managed projects and in community-based initiatives around urban sustainability, when existing inequalities are not acknowledged in their design.

For example, a social housing cooperation project in Rotterdam, counted on the participation of the housing community for the design of a climate adaptation plan in the communal public area. However, the time span for this process of participation was too long. Renters were initially involved but later started dropping out while homeowners had a stronger voice and their opinion was more valued. The community input was eventually minimal as the sense of ownership of the plan by most of the community was also lost. This project highlighted a sort of institutional classism which foreclosed the possibility of inclusivity and justice in the participation process and its targeted outcome: a sustainability intervention [UrbanA Arena insights].

Limited participation and citizen engagement with urban planning processes is also observed to be an issue in those research and innovation projects that aim to enhance or promote co-creation through inclusive processes of knowledge sharing. Some of these challenges have to do with the short timelines of research projects which do not allow for deeper engagement with local stakeholders and communities, and the pre-defined research methods and processes of analysis that many of these projects follow.

*Bottom-up sustainability as a form of civil participation

Participation is often cast in terms of stewardship and volunteerism around urban sustainability (Connolly et al.2013<ref>Connolly, James J, Erika S Svendsen, Dana R Fisher, and Lindsay K Campbell. 2013. "Organizing urban ecosystem services through environmental stewardship governance in New York City." Landscape and Urban Planning 109 (1):76-84.</ref>). Community-initiated projects (e.g. urban gardens, repair shops, food sharing networks) support urban sustainability objectives in different ways but count on the long-term unpaid work of activists and engaged individuals. Although many of such initiatives strive for expanding the sphere of the commons, and thus produce a counter-narrative to neoliberal ideologies, reliance on such participation might run the risk of shifting responsibility from the public sector to the people, and of privileging the participation of some (more available, more accessible) groups over others.

In the case of bottom-up projects, one of the most common observations in this regard is that people cannot afford to “pay into” participatory/community-led projects or cannot dedicate time away from work or their dependents. Direct participation processes demand commitment, so a diversification of participation options (i.e. through email, in organized workshops, and digitally through participation apps), including monetary compensations and childcare options, can all facilitate participation and achieve more inclusive outcomes (procedural & representational justice).

*Activism and organizing as an answer to participation limitations

It is often the case that the most vulnerable groups are those excluded from processes that will dictate their outcome upon them and without accounting for their needs, vulnerabilities, identities, or preferences (recognition justice). As a result of this institutional barriers to participation, in the fight for social justice it is people from those groups who decide to raise their voices and organize. In anti-gentrification struggles for example, those involved in grassroots movements are often “low income, marginalized people struggling to survive day to day,” making bottom-up efforts potentially “exhausting personally for individuals with other everyday life commitments to take care of” (responsibility and intersectional justice).

Whereas they can be facing the same constraints of resources/time, community organization is often the most effective way of achieving justice in the city. In Manhattan, NY, for example, the mostly Latinx and Afro-American communities protested a development-oriented zoning plan that would essentially gentrify East Broadway [https://ny.curbed.com/2018/8/23/17771002/manhattan-inwood-zoning-nyc-industrial-photo-essay]. By doing their own engagement projects to understand the needs and wants from the diverse communities, the environmental issues but also the issues of crime and of the business ecosystem in the neighbourhoods, and recommended plans that included the redevelopment of a park, the strengthening of the local economy, and ensuring waterfront access. A group of communities also put a lawsuit against the rezoning plan, supported with the own zoning studies, and as of December 2019, they managed to strike down the plan [https://www.thecity.nyc/manhattan/2019/12/19/21212251/judge-nixes-inwood-rezoning-siding-with-locals-against-mayoral-building-plan],[https://citylimits.org/2018/12/13/lawsuit-cites-flaws-in-environmental-review-seeks-annulment-of-inwood-rezoning/].

{{#ev:youtube|ThdnxtO53tc}}

==Illustration==

Participatory budgeting in Amsterdam Indische Buurt

In 2011, after an exchange program with an NGO in Brazil, the Centre for Budget monitoring and Citizen participation (CBB) was founded in the Indische Buurt, in the Eastern district of Amsterdam. This consists of (1) a community-initiated stream that practices budget monitoring and formulates its own priorities, and (2) a municipality-initiated stream which uses an online application that provides financial data information to the public, at the level of the neighbourhood. As the TRANSIT project reports, these contribute to budget transparency and accountability at local level as well as participatory decisions on which neighbourhood projects to prioritize.

However, in 2013, according to one of the project interviewees the CBB decided to let go of the “human rights” perspective in their discourse and aims.It meant that city authorities had more flexibility in adapting the participatory budgeting initiative in the context of austerity policies. This, arguably, stripped the initiative of its more radical potential for making social and environmental justice a priority. Linking also with issues of unfit institutions, this removal of “human rights” approach was claimed to have worked in favour of upscaling of the initiative in cities across the country.

In the case of the Indische Buurt budget monitoring has changed the way the district plan was developed: in co-creation with citizens. In 2015 a resolution was accepted in the local district council stating that in 2017 20% of the local budget should fall under the responsibility of residents. In terms of procedural justice, concerning the initiative itself, involved stakeholders mentioned that participation in the activities was characterized by only a few people who had the time to engage in the process and persevered in understanding financial documents. Even though efforts were made to make the reading and understanding of the budget as easy as possible, it still seemed to be an ‘elite’ that participated. This raised questions whether the group was or should be representative. Someone feared this process was used as a legitimization for already made decisions, while another felt that s/he contributed to decision making. [Source: TRANSIT project]

[[File:Hague participation.png|400px|thumb|left|Photo by The Hague Academy for Local Governance. Inclusive citizen participation in decision-making processes promotes democracy and is crucial to the success of sustainability initiatives. Above, a diverse group of participants from different countries, sectors, and levels of government, discuss experiences and challenges at the Citizen Participation and Inclusive Governance course in the Hague.]]

==Links to projects==

This driver links to the following research projects: TRANSIT, TESS, CROWD_USG, AGAPE, WWWforEurope, NATURVATION, CONVERGE, GREENSURGE, ROCK, UNALAB.

==References==

[[Category:Drivers]]

2020-09-03T10:51:39Z

Panagiota Kotsila: /* Manifestations and types of injustice */

"Limited citizen participation in urban planning" as a driver of injustice refers to the limited involvement and engagement of citizens and citizens’ initiatives in decision-making around the planning, design, implementation and/or evaluation of urban sustainability-oriented interventions.

==General introduction==

When citizen participation is not encouraged, supported and sought out in a meaningful way, sustainability planning interventions risk being a reflection of top-down priorities that represent and enhance the status quo in terms of both sustainability and injustice. The question of participation does not only concern the availability of structures in place to accommodate input from local communities and stakeholders, but also the openness and potential of these structures with regard to inclusivity and impact (i.e. what are the different collectives represented, what is the depth of participation and how much are participation outcomes taken into account?) (Anguelovski et al., 2018; Fainstein, 2014; Kotsila et al., 2020)

[[File:7-Limited-Citizen-Participation.jpg|600px]]

==Manifestations and types of injustice==

When citizen participation is not encouraged, supported and sought out in a meaningful way, sustainability planning interventions risk being a reflection of top-down priorities that represent and enhance the status quo in terms of both sustainability and injustice. The question of participation does not only concern the availability of structures in place to accommodate input from local communities and stakeholders, but also the openness and potential of these structures with regard to inclusivity and impact (Anguelovski et al., 2018; Fainstein, 2014; Kotsila et al., 2020). In other words, it is important to consider what and whom are the different collectives that participate representing, what is the depth of participation that is allowed or catered for, and how much are participation outcomes taken into account when designing interventions.

Inclusive participation can be hindered in both centrally/state-managed projects and in community-based initiatives around urban sustainability, when existing inequalities are not acknowledged in their design. For example, a social housing cooperation project in Rotterdam, counted on the participation of the housing community for the design of a climate adaptation plan in the communal public area. However, the time span for this process of participation was too long. Renters were initially involved but later started dropping out while homeowners had a stronger voice and their opinion was more valued. The community input reduced to minimal as the sense of ownership of the plan by most of the community was also slowly lost. This project highlighted a sort of institutional classism which foreclosed the possibility of inclusivity and justice in the participation process and its targeted outcome: a sustainability intervention [UrbanA Arena insight].
Limited participation and citizen engagement or stewardship with urban planning processes is also observed to be an issue in research and innovation projects that aim to enhance or promote co-creation through inclusive processes of knowledge sharing. Some of these challenges and obstacles include the short timelines of research projects and the pre-defined methods and processes that these will follow.

*Self-organizing for sustainability as a form of civil participation

Participation is often cast in terms of stewardship and volunteerism around urban sustainability (Connolly et al.2013). Community-initiated projects (e.g. urban gardens, repair shops, food sharing networks) support urban sustainability objectives in different ways but count on the long-term unpaid work of activists and engaged individuals. Although many of such initiatives strive for expanding the sphere of the commons, and thus produce a counter-narrative to neoliberal ideologies, reliance on such participation might run the risk of shifting responsibility from the public sector to the people, and of privileging the participation of some (more available, more accessible) groups over others.

In the case of bottom-up projects, one of the most common observations in this regard is that people cannot afford to “pay into” participatory/community-led projects or cannot dedicate time away from work or their dependents. Direct participation processes demand commitment, so a diversification of participation options (i.e. through email, in organized workshops, and digitally through participation apps), including monetary compensations and childcare options, can all facilitate participation and achieve more inclusive outcomes (procedural & representational justice).

*Activism as an answer to and a complement to participation limitations

It is often the case that the most vulnerable groups are those excluded from processes that will dictate their outcome upon them and without accounting for their needs, vulnerabilities, identities, or preferences (recognition justice). As a result of this institutional barriers to participation, in the fight for social justice it is people from those groups who decide to raise their voices and organize. In anti-gentrification struggles for example, those involved in grassroots movements are often “low income, marginalized people struggling to survive day to day,” making bottom-up efforts potentially “exhausting personally for individuals with other everyday life commitments to take care of” (responsibility and intersectional justice).
Whereas they can be facing the same constraints of resources/time, community organization is often the most effective way of achieving justice in the city. In Manhattan, NY, for example, the mostly Latinx and Afro-American communities protested a development-oriented zoning plan that would essentially gentrify East Broadway (see more here: [[https://ny.curbed.com/2018/8/23/17771002/manhattan-inwood-zoning-nyc-industrial-photo-essay]]). By doing their own engagement projects to understand the needs and wants from the diverse communities, the environmental issues but also the issues of crime and of the business ecosystem in the neighbourhoods, and recommended plans that included the redevelopment of a park, the strengthening of the local economy, and ensuring waterfront access. A group of communities also put a lawsuit against the rezoning plan, supported with the own zoning studies, and as of December 2019, they managed to strike down the plan [https://www.thecity.nyc/manhattan/2019/12/19/21212251/judge-nixes-inwood-rezoning-siding-with-locals-against-mayoral-building-plan],[https://citylimits.org/2018/12/13/lawsuit-cites-flaws-in-environmental-review-seeks-annulment-of-inwood-rezoning/].

{{#ev:youtube|ThdnxtO53tc}}

==Illustration==

Participatory budgeting in Amsterdam Indische Buurt

In 2011, after an exchange program with an NGO in Brazil, the Centre for Budget monitoring and Citizen participation (CBB) was founded in the Indische Buurt, in the Eastern district of Amsterdam. This consists of 1) a community-initiated stream that practices budget monitoring and formulates its own priorities, and 2) a municipality-initiated stream which uses an online application that provides financial data information to the public, at the level of the neighbourhood. As the TRANSIT project reports, these contribute to budget transparency and accountability at local level as well as participatory decisions on which neighbourhood projects to prioritize.

However, in 2013, according to one of the project interviewees the CBB decided to let go of the “human rights” perspective in their discourse and aims (see this interview).It meant that city authorities had more flexibility in adapting the participatory budgeting initiative in the context of austerity policies. This, arguably, stripped the initiative of its more radical potential for making social and environmental justice a priority. Linking also with issues of unfit institutions, this removal of “human rights” approach was claimed to have worked in favour of upscaling of the initiative in cities across the country.

In the case of the Indische Buurt budget monitoring has changed the way the district plan was developed: in co-creation with citizens. In 2015 a resolution was accepted in the local district council stating that in 2017 20% of the local budget should fall under the responsibility of residents (see this interview). In terms of procedural justice, concerning the initiative itself, involved stakeholders mentioned that participation in the activities was characterized by only a few people who had the time to engage in the process and persevered in understanding financial documents. Even though efforts were made to make the reading and understanding of the budget as easy as possible, it still seemed to be an ‘elite’ that participated. This raised questions whether the group was or should be representative. Someone feared this process was used as a legitimization for already made decisions, while another felt that s/he contributed to decision making.

[Source: TRANSIT project]

[[File:xx.png|400px|thumb|left|Photo by The Hague Academy for Local Governance. Inclusive citizen participation in decision-making processes promotes democracy and is crucial to the success of sustainability initiatives. Above, a diverse group of participants from different countries, sectors, and levels of government, discuss experiences and challenges at the Citizen Participation and Inclusive Governance course in the Hague.]]

==Ways forward==

==Links to projects==

This driver links to the following research projects:

==References==

[[Category:Drivers]]

2020-09-03T08:17:34Z

Panagiota Kotsila:

This database consists of the summaries of results of an in-depth study on the drivers and manifestations of urban injustice related to sustainability.

==Addressing justice in urban sustainability==

Justice is understood here as a variegated set of conditions ― substantially concerned with distribution of resources, political processes, and social recognition ― that allows for full human flourishing. If conditions within a given society systematically support some, but hinder other individuals or groups with regard to basic flourishing (i.e. thriving within reasonable limits) according to achievable outcomes that they value in order to live a healthy and fulfilled life, then that society is to some degree unjust (see for example the work of Fraser, 2005 <ref> Fraser, N. (2005). Mapping the feminist imagination: From redistribution to recognition to representation. Constellations, 12(3), 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619205.002 </ref>; Nussbaum, 2000 <ref>Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women’s capabilities and social justice. Journal of Human Development, 1(2), 219–247.</ref>; Schlosberg, 2013 <ref>Schlosberg, D. (2013). Theorising environmental justice: the expanding sphere of a discourse. Environmental Politics, 22(1), 37–55.</ref>).

Manifestations and drivers of injustice are not only seen as a challenge to be addressed by urban sustainability, but also – in certain circumstances – as a potential undesirable outcome of efforts meant to accomplish urban sustainability. Urban sustainability efforts aspiring to address the current and future needs of society call for greater attention to questions of and claims for justice, as those needs are being shaped by deeply political processes and differential access to resources while also being unequally recognised in society. The challenge remains in how to make urban neighbourhoods greener, healthier, more sustainable and more liveable, while protecting the right to housing, public space, and healthy amenities, for all.

==Drivers of injustice in the context of urban sustainability==

This study identified ten drivers of injustice which manifest, arise or are being exacerbated, in the context of urban sustainability efforts.

# [[Exclusive access to the benefits of sustainability infrastructure]]
# [[Material and livelihood inequalities]]
# [[Racialized or ethnically exclusionary urbanization]]
# [[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]]
# [[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]]
# [[Unfit institutional structures]]
# [[Limited citizen participation in urban planning]]
# [[Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities]]
# [[Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism]]
# [[Weak(ened) civil society]]

[[File:All drivers graphic logos.jpg|1100px|thumb|left|10 drivers of injustice in the context of urban sustainability]]

==Methodology followed==

In the framework of the UrbanA project, we examined 43 relevant EU-funded research projects, taking place since the mid-2000s, and conducted a meta-analysis of their findings [[https://urban-arena.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/D4.1_Drivers-and-manifestations-of-injustice_final.pdf]]. The selection of projects and materials built on a previous extensive mapping of different '''[[Database of approaches|approaches]]''' towards sustainability and justice, evidenced and studied in Europe through a broader sample of 350 EU-funded research projects. Data used to develop the database on the drivers of injustice included: deliverables; policy briefs; reports on events; academic and non-academic publications, and was combined with targeted interviews with core researchers in those projects.

The drivers presented in this database formed the basis of discussions at the second UrbanA Arena event, taking place online on June 4th and 5th 2020, and organized by the [http://www.bcnuej.org/| Barcelona Lab for Urban Environmental Justice and Sustainability]. Insights were added to complement the information in the [[Media:Booklet of summaries Arena.pdf|summary booklet]] prepared for the Arena, and current wiki entries are open for further additions and refinement, as part of our broader call for co-creation of the UrbanA knowledge commons on sustainable and just cities.

Short [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aU90IXiBPs&list=PLjbNPZqbaFXxg-RG_wYebOPp-MFhoGgLc| video summaries] of each driver are also available on the UrbanA Youtube account.

==References==

Database of drivers of injustice

2020-09-03T08:13:13Z

Panagiota Kotsila: /* Methodology */

This database consists of the summaries of results of an in-depth study on the drivers and manifestations of urban injustice related to sustainability.

==Drivers of injustice in the context of urban sustainability==

This study identified ten drivers of injustice which manifest, arise or are being exacerbated, in the context of urban sustainability efforts.

# [[Exclusive access to the benefits of sustainability infrastructure]]
# [[Material and livelihood inequalities]]
# [[Racialized or ethnically exclusionary urbanization]]
# [[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]]
# [[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]]
# [[Unfit institutional structures]]
# [[Limited citizen participation in urban planning]]
# [[Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities]]
# [[Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism]]
# [[Weak(ened) civil society]]

==Methodology==

In the framework of the UrbanA project, we examined 43 relevant EU-funded research projects, taking place since the mid-2000s, and conducted a meta-analysis of their findings [[https://urban-arena.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/D4.1_Drivers-and-manifestations-of-injustice_final.pdf]]. The selection of projects and materials built on a previous extensive mapping of different '''[[Database of approaches|approaches]]''' towards sustainability and justice, evidenced and studied in Europe through a broader sample of 350 EU-funded research projects. Data used to develop the database on the drivers of injustice included: deliverables; policy briefs; reports on events; academic and non-academic publications, and was combined with targeted interviews with core researchers in those projects.

The drivers presented in this database formed the basis of discussions at the second UrbanA Arena event, taking place online on June 4th and 5th 2020, and organized by the [http://www.bcnuej.org/| Barcelona Lab for Urban Environmental Justice and Sustainability]. Insights were added to complement the information in the [[Media:Booklet of summaries Arena.pdf|summary booklet]] prepared for the Arena, and current wiki entries are open for further additions and refinement, as part of our broader call for co-creation of the UrbanA knowledge commons on sustainable and just cities.

Short [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aU90IXiBPs&list=PLjbNPZqbaFXxg-RG_wYebOPp-MFhoGgLc| video summaries] of each driver are also available on the UrbanA Youtube account.

==A brief definition and overall conclusion==

Justice is understood here as a variegated set of conditions ― substantially concerned with distribution of resources, political processes, and social recognition ― that allows for full human flourishing. If conditions within a given society systematically support some, but hinder other individuals or groups with regard to basic flourishing (i.e. thriving within reasonable limits) according to achievable outcomes that they value in order to live a healthy and fulfilled life, then that society is to some degree unjust (see for example the work of Fraser, 2005 <ref> Fraser, N. (2005). Mapping the feminist imagination: From redistribution to recognition to representation. Constellations, 12(3), 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619205.002 </ref>; Nussbaum, 2000 <ref>Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women’s capabilities and social justice. Journal of Human Development, 1(2), 219–247.</ref>; Schlosberg, 2013 <ref>Schlosberg, D. (2013). Theorising environmental justice: the expanding sphere of a discourse. Environmental Politics, 22(1), 37–55.</ref>).

Manifestations and drivers of injustice are not only seen as a challenge to be addressed by urban sustainability, but also – in certain circumstances – as a potential undesirable outcome of efforts meant to accomplish urban sustainability. Urban sustainability efforts aspiring to address the current and future needs of society call for greater attention to questions of and claims for justice, as those needs are being shaped by deeply political processes and differential access to resources while also being unequally recognised in society. The challenge remains in how to make urban neighbourhoods greener, healthier, more sustainable and more liveable, while protecting the right to housing, public space, and healthy amenities, for all.

[[File:All drivers graphic logos.jpg|1100px|thumb|left|10 drivers of injustice in the context of urban sustainability]]

==References==