New York City Environmental Justice Alliance Waterfront Justice Project

This paper reviews key challenges and opportunities addressed by the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance's (NYC-EJA) Waterfront Justice Project, a citywide campaign to promote climate resilience and sustainability in urban industrial waterfront communities of New York City. NYC-EJA is a non-profit membership-driven network linking grassroots organisations from low-income neighbourhoods and communities of colour in their struggle for environmental justice. The Waterfront Justice Project is documenting community vulnerability in the context of climate change impacts, sources of industrial pollution, and demographic and socio-economic trends. This campaign is enabling community-based organisations, environmental justice communities, city planners, local and state government agencies, local business-owners, and other stakeholders to work in partnership to achieve community resilience while advocating for local jobs and promoting best practices in pollution prevention. New York City's waterfront policies ease the siting and clustering of public infrastructure, water pollution control plants, waste transfer stations, energy facilities, and heavy manufacturing uses in six areas designated as Significant Maritime and Industrial Areas (SMIAs). The SMIAs are located in environmental justice communities, largely low-income communities and communities of colour, in the South Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. New York City's local waterfront land use and zoning policies create cumulative risk exposure not only to residents and workers in the host waterfront communities, but also, in the event of storm surge or sea-level rise, to neighbouring, upland communities.     

Survey‐Based Approach for Hydrological Vulnerability Indicators Due to Climate Change: Case Study of Small‐Scale Rivers1

Jung, Yong and Minha Choi, 2012. Survey‐Based Approach for Hydrological Vulnerability Indicators Due to Climate Change: Case Study of Small‐Scale Rivers. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 48(2): 256‐265. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752‐1688.2011.00608.x Abstract: The vulnerability indicators can be used to develop water resource policy in the context of climate change. The Delphi method, an interactive prediction technique, is an efficient way to apply weighting functionality to vulnerability indicators consisting of three parts: Exposure, Sensitivity, and Adaptive Capacity on climate change. The Delphi method is an anonymous iterative survey of expert opinion, which is then shared with other participants. A total of three different rounds were carried out. The first round was a problem selection set, and the second and third were the standard Delphi survey. Fifty‐eight experts (66% academic and 34% practitioner) were invited. The rates of reply were 59, 50, and 38% for the first, second, and third Delphi processes, respectively. The degree of consensus of the Delphi survey was validated via variance changes and Kendall’s W test. Exposure and Adaptive Capacity presented increased levels of agreement among respondents in their given priorities. Particularly strong convergence (0.20 to 0.71 in Kendall’s W) of the experts’ opinions for Adaptive Capacity was observed. The results of this study indicate that finalized factors with ultimate weights through the Delphi method can be a strong support for governmental policy making with respect to climate change.     

大西南通道农业气候资源及开发利用途径

作者在分析大西南沿线农业气候资源特点的基础上,从不同侧面和不同层次对大西南沿线农业开发的共性问题进行了较全面的分析和探讨,并提出了开发的途径和思路。     

“双碳”目标下中国气候变化诉讼的法治因应

气候变化诉讼在全球范围内的兴起,不仅为国际气候治理带来新曙光,也为我国应对气候变化提供了新思路。具体而言,这一制度关涉到中国“双碳”目标的实现、应对气候变化新路径的探索、全球气候治理话语权的提升及企业抗气候风险能力的增强,在我国已具备现实的发展需求。但从实然层面而言,气候变化诉讼虽已可以在环境公益诉讼中窥见雏形,但囿于实体法与程序法的缺位,加之法院在气候治理中能动性体现不足,司法与行政关系亟待厘清,提起气候变化诉讼仍存有诸多障碍。未来我国应不断完善气候变化诉讼的落实路径,充分发挥法院在司法解释、案例指导等方面对气候变化诉讼的助推作用,并在明晰气候司法与行政关系的基础上,逐步加强公众参与。     

Project coordinators’ views on climate adaptation costs and benefits – justice implications

ABSTRACT

As local climate adaptation activity increases, so does the number of questions about costs, benefits, financing and the role that economic considerations play in adaptation-related decision-making and policy. Through five cases, covering a range of climate risks and types of adaptation measures, this paper critically examines Swedish project coordinators’ perceptions of costs and benefits in already-implemented climate adaptation measures. Our study finds that project coordinators make use of different system boundaries – on temporal, geographical and administrative scales – in their cost/benefit evaluations, making the practice of determining adaptation costs arbitrary and hard to compare. We further demonstrate that the project coordinators interpret costs and benefits in a manner that downplays the intangible environmental and social costs and benefits arising from the adaptation measures, despite their own experience of how such measures negatively impact upon social value. The exclusion of social and environmental costs and benefits has severe implications for justice, as it can bias decisions against people and ecosystems that are affected negatively. Based on the findings, we propose three tentative social justice dilemmas in local climate adaptation planning and implementation: 1. Cost and benefit distribution across scales; 2. The identification and valuation of non-market effects; and 3. The equitable allocation of costs and benefits.     

The role of community-based watershed development in reducing farmers’ vulnerability to climate change and variability in the northwestern highlands of Ethiopia

ABSTRACT

Community-based watershed development (CBWD) has been implemented in Ethiopia since the last three decades. However, the benefits of these watershed development interventions for climate change adaptation are not well documented. This study, therefore, assesses the contributions of CBWD in reducing farmers’ vulnerability to the impacts of climate change and variability in the northwestern highlands of Ethiopia. Data were collected from systematically selected 157 households using questionnaire. The questionnaire consists of questions on climate, ecosystem and households’ livelihood capital. Livelihood Vulnerability Index (LVI) and Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change Livelihood Vulnerability Index (IPCC-LVI) methods were used to generate vulnerability indices. Vulnerability indices computed for three conserved watersheds were compared with one non-conserved watershed using one-way ANOVA test. LVI score for ecosystem related indicators was significantly low for Adef Wuha compared to the non-conserved watershed. Similarly, LVI scores generated from agriculture, wealth and social indicators were low for Tija Baji and Guansa watersheds. On the other hand, the IPCC-LVI result did not show significant differences in exposure; however, sensitivity scores of conserved watersheds were significantly lower compared to the non-conserved. The adaptive capacities of two conserved watersheds (Guansa and Tija Baji) were also significantly lower as compared to the non-conserved. The overall (composite) vulnerability of watersheds generated from both methods (LVI and IPCC-LVI) showed that the conserved watersheds were less vulnerable to climate change compared to the non-conserved. The findings suggest that CBWD is an important strategy to reduce vulnerability of smallholder farmers to the ongoing and future climate change.