Methodology and Analytical Framework for Environmental Justice and Equity Analysis

Anthropology ◽  
2021 ◽  

Indigenous environmental justice (IEJ) is distinct from the broader EJ field, which has been found to exhibit certain limitations when applied to Indigenous contexts. Indigenous scholars have observed, for example, that EJ scholarship generally does not consider Indigenous sovereignty, laws, and governance. Attempts to ensure the relevance and applicability of EJ to Indigenous contexts and realities have resulted in what can be thought of as an “Indigenizing” of the EJ scholarship. Recent scholarship thus recognizes that Indigenous peoples occupy a unique position in terms of historical, political, and legal context, and that this requires specific recognition of their goals and aspirations, such as those outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN General Assembly [UNGA] 2007). Achieving IEJ will require more than simply incorporating Indigenous perspectives into existing EJ theoretical and methodological frameworks, as valuable as these are for diagnosing injustice. IEJ offers a theoretical and analytical framework that goes beyond “Indigenizing” and “decolonizing” existing EJ scholarship and extends to frameworks informed by Indigenous intellectual traditions, knowledge systems, and laws. Indigenous nations and societies are diverse and no single IEJ framework will serve all contexts and situations. There are, however, commonalities among suggested frameworks as evidenced through various international environmental declarations prepared by Indigenous peoples over the past three decades that convey key concepts relating to IEJ. First, Indigenous knowledge systems should be utilized as a theoretical framework for analysis. In this frame, justice applies to all “relatives” in Creation, not just people. EJ is not just about rights to a safe environment, but it includes the duties and responsibilities of people to all beings and, conversely, their responsibilities to people. IEJ is regarded as a question of balance and harmony, of reciprocity and respect, among all beings in Creation; not just between humans, but among all “relatives,” as LaDuke 1999 and Kanngieser and Todd 2020 show. Second, Indigenous legal traditions should form the basis for achieving justice. Scholars have noted how Western legal systems continue to fail Indigenous peoples and the environment. In this sense, grounding conceptions of justice and injustice in Indigenous intellectual and legal traditions opens up possibilities for achieving justice. Finally, IEJ must acknowledge the historical and ongoing role colonialism has played in perpetuating injustices.


2021 ◽  
pp. 99-107
Author(s):  
Fadi Haddad ◽  
Zara Raheem ◽  
Peter Mattingly ◽  
Saswati Mishra ◽  
Medha Patk

The COVID-19 pandemic has hollowed out corporate office spaces in large US metropolitan centers, resulting in three potential downstream differential impacts: (1) on places, as demand for urban office spaces, commercial real estate, and housing have changed; (2) on profits, as small and local businesses in proximity to these office spaces depend on office workers and other foot traffic; and, (3) on people, as the livelihoods of many diverse but historically marginalized communities have been disproportionately affected. In this article, we examine these impacts, with downtown Seattle used as a case study to validate some urban trends. In leveraging data and technology-based approaches to assess and support urban vitality and equity goals, policymakers can explore the value of a Main Street data-driven analytical framework. Here, we explore how such a framework can support more targeted responses, including implementing technology policy initiatives that increase the digitalization of Main Street businesses and support their resilience. Complementing this data-driven framework, institutionalizing equity analysis in regional decision-making systems can better account for differential impacts on vulnerable communities to implement more inclusive future of work recovery strategies.


2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-83
Author(s):  
Floriane Clement ◽  
Govinda Basnet ◽  
Fraser Sugden ◽  
Luna Bharat

Debates over the effectiveness of foreign aid have been recently revived both in the development sector and in the academia. International funding agencies have notably adopted new principles to improve aid delivery. Using the particular case study of a set of irrigation interventions in Western Nepal, we argue that these steps will not radically improve the pro-poor outcomes of aid interventions as long as the latter are framed in an apolitical, technical and managerial vision and discourse of development. We propose to adopt social and environmental justice as an analytical framework and vocabulary for action.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 1894
Author(s):  
Tom Rye ◽  
Anders Wretstrand

The topic of social equity in transport planning has been dealt with, in particular, by authors such as Martens (2012) and Martens and Golob (2012) using a social justice based-approach. However, such an approach, whilst valuable and analytically rigorous (based as it is on accessibility modelling), does not consider a wide range of possible other social impacts of transport, as set out in a framework first put forward by Geurs et al. (2009). This paper uses Geurs’ analytical framework to consider two empirical case studies: The National Transport Strategy for Scotland, adopted in January 2016, together with associated national level spending plans; and Sweden’s 2014–2025 National Transport Plan. The paper will first summarise the contents of each document before analysing them in relation to the categories of social impact that Geurs (2009) identifies, and assess how, in relation to each category of impact, various social groups will benefit or disbenefit. A range of projects (planned) to be delivered by the two national strategies is then analysed in relation to the criteria. This analysis shows that the two national strategies/plans are in their distribution of spending, and the projects funded are generally working away from greater social equity in their distributional impacts.


Author(s):  
J. Timmons Roberts ◽  
Melissa M. Toffolon-Weiss

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura P. Kohn-Wood ◽  
Michael S. Spencer ◽  
Rachel D. Dombrowski ◽  
Omari W. Keeles ◽  
Daniel K. Birichi

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 433-444
Author(s):  
Amanuel Isak Tewolde

Many scholars and South African politicians characterize the widespread anti-foreigner sentiment and violence in South Africa as dislike against migrants and refugees of African origin which they named ‘Afro-phobia’. Drawing on online newspaper reports and academic sources, this paper rejects the Afro-phobia thesis and argues that other non-African migrants such as Asians (Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis and Chinese) are also on the receiving end of xenophobia in post-apartheid South Africa. I contend that any ‘outsider’ (White, Asian or Black African) who lives and trades in South African townships and informal settlements is scapegoated and attacked. I term this phenomenon ‘colour-blind xenophobia’. By proposing this analytical framework and integrating two theoretical perspectives — proximity-based ‘Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT)’ and Neocosmos’ exclusivist citizenship model — I contend that xenophobia in South Africa targets those who are in close proximity to disadvantaged Black South Africans and who are deemed outsiders (e.g., Asian, African even White residents and traders) and reject arguments that describe xenophobia in South Africa as targeting Black African refugees and migrants.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document