Search

Environmental policy debates often get polarized along binaries of environment versus economic development or conservation versus rights. Sustainability scientists and practitioners generally suggest finding common grounds as a pathway for building consensus among the diverse perspectives involved in polarized environmental policy discussions. This paper takes a critical stance towards such calls for common grounds by calling attention to the implicit assumptions that underlie these discourses. We study the case of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) in India, which has polarized the forest policy discourse between conservationists and rights activists in India. We examine scientific publications on the FRA using discourse and framing analysis and show that scholarly discourses on FRA lie along a spectrum characterized by underlying epistemic and normative practices. We identify five groups of scholars based on the unique positions they have taken on FRA: a) advocacy-centric, b) welfare-centric, c) community-centric, d) dialogue-centric, and e) techno-centric scholars. We find that negative framings of the forest dweller community lead to scientific endorsement of policy prescriptions that empower socio-political institutions that are external to these communities. We argue that scholarly calls for common grounds often assume uniform or neutral framings for the stakeholders involved. We conclude that recognizing the polarization spectrum in environmental policy discourses can help us move towards pluralistic approaches to environmental governance. • Scientific polarization on Indian forest policy discourses lies along a spectrum. • Epistemic and normative practices shape scientific positions on forest policies. • Negative framings of traditional communities tend to empower external institutions. • Calls for dialogue often do not specify framings for the stakeholders involved. • Recognize the polarization spectrum for enabling pluralistic environmental governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Justice and fairness have become key considerations in sustainability pathways and nature-based solutions (NBS), following activists and critical scholars who have long argued that the urban environment is an inherently political space that requires an analysis of benefits and burdens associated with its existence, use, and access. However, what justice means and how it is expressed, recognized, or achieved is often implicit in the literature on NBS, even though underlying notions of justice shape the analysis done and actions proposed. This paper starts from the premise that justice knows many different interpretations, therefore warranting scholars and practitioners working on NBS to carefully consider the differences and frictions between competing meanings of justice. Drawing from the history of social and environmental justice theory, we give an account of some key justice dilemmas and discuss their tenets as it relates to the end, means, and participants in the making of justice. From this, we draw out questions and commitments academics and practitioners in the NBS space should grapple with more explicitly. We argue that the emergent tension between pragmatic policy approaches and critical theoretical engagement is hindering a version of NBS that goes beyond a reflection of the justice implications of NBS to ensuring that NBS contributes to the furthering of justice. We advocate for the inclusion of critical social sciences and humanities perspectives and approaches beyond tokenism to instead encourage ontological, epistemological, and political reflection of the work academics and practitioners do in the NBS space. • Distributive, procedural, recognitional justice are vital for nature-based solutions. • These dimensions of justice have multiple and conflicting meanings. • Political theory and philosophy help in understanding differences and conflict. • We offer five key justice questions for researchers and practitioners to reflect with. • Praxis and reflectivity are crucial to balancing act of practicing justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Future pluvial flood exposure related to vulnerability at two spatial scales • Parcel scale revealed more spatial bias and correlations than census block group scale • Future flood exposure was negatively correlated with building age at parcel scale • City historical context affected relationships between flood exposure and redlining Flooding occurs at different scales and unevenly affects urban populations based on the broader social, ecological, and technological system (SETS) characteristics particular to cities. As hydrological models improve in spatial scale and account for more mechanisms of flooding, there is a continuous need to examine the relationships between flood exposure and SETS drivers of flood vulnerability. In this study, we related fine-scale measures of future flood exposure—the First Street Foundation's Flood Factor and estimated change in chance of extreme flood exposure—to SETS indicators like building age, poverty, and historical redlining, at the parcel and census block group (CBG) scales in Portland, OR, Phoenix, AZ, Baltimore, MD, and Atlanta, GA. We used standard regression models and accounted for spatial bias in relationships. The results show that flood exposure was more often correlated with SETS variables at the parcel scale than at the CBG scale, indicating scale dependence. However, these relationships were often inconsistent among cities, indicating place-dependence. We found that marginalized populations were significantly more exposed to future flooding at the CBG scale. Combining newly-available, high-resolution future flood risk estimates with SETS data available at multiple scales offers cities a new set of tools to assess the exposure and multi-dimensional vulnerability of populations. These tools will better equip city managers to proactively plan and implement equitable interventions to meet evolving hazard exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]