ARTICLE DE RECHERCHE

Evaluating the Incorporation of Climate Justice
Concerns Within Resilience Plans Across
Eleven U.S. Coastal Cities

Kristin B. Raub1, Hannah Platter2, Erin O’Mara3, and Bindu Panikkar4

1Consortium of Universities for the Advancement of Hydrologic Science, Inc. (CUAHSI),
The Global Resilience Institute at Northeastern University
2Picker Engineering Program, Smith College
3Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont
4Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Gund Institute for Environment

Mots clés: resilience planning, climate justice, distributive justice, procedural justice, Just
Resilience Index

ABSTRAIT

Building coastal resilience can help communities prepare and adapt to climate change. While
the impacts of climate change are not equitably distributed, a method has not been developed
to measure how resilience plans address justice. This study developed a Just Resilience Index
( JRI) to assess how justice themes were incorporated into resilience plans. The JRI examines
how justice frameworks (recognitional, distributive, and procedural justice, community
capability) were addressed within the resilience plans of 11 U.S. coastal cities. Justice was
considered in 41% of the resilience plan actions. Fifty-two percent of the justice-related
actions recognized the needs of low-income communities but only 3% recognized specific
racial groups. Of the justice-related actions, 73% addressed distributive justice but procedural
justice was least characterized within the plans (46%). The JRI can guide future planning
efforts to ensure that justice frameworks are better integrated within resilience planning to
reduce inequities from climate-related disasters.

INTRODUCTION

An increase in climate disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Ida have led to the development
of resilience approaches to ensure that communities can adapt. These emergencies have also
demonstrated that disasters disproportionately impact marginalized areas of communities
(Adger, 2010; Cutter et al., 2008; Shi et al., 2016; Thomas et al., 2013; Van Zandt et al.,
2012). In these socially and environmentally disadvantaged communities, the risks and adver-
sities may cluster together, where loss of one capability may increase the susceptibility to other
pertes, leading to “corrosive disadvantages” (Wolff & De-Shalit, 2007). The need to assess and
address social and economic vulnerability, in addition to environmental factors, in resilience
planning and implementation is now universally recognized (United Nations Framework Con-
vention on Climate Change [CCNUCC], 2021). If policies do not address the needs of the most
vulnerable populations, climate change would worsen the existing inequalities (Schlosberg &
Collins, 2014). Responses to Hurricane Katrina demonstrated how preexisting or systemic
injustices deepen patterns of vulnerabilities and disadvantages among marginalized commu-
nités (Bullard & Wright, 2009).

un accès ouvert

journal

Citation: Raub, K. B., Platter, H.,
O’Mara, E., & Panikkar, B. (2023).
Evaluating the Incorporation of Climate
Justice Concerns Within Resilience
Plans Across Eleven U.S. Coastal
Cities. Journal of Climate Resilience &
Justice climatique, 1, 33–54. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1162/crcj_a_00007

EST CE QUE JE:
https://doi.org/10.1162/crcj_a_00007

Auteur correspondant:
Kristin B. Raub
kraub@cuahsi.org

droits d'auteur: © 2023
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Publié sous Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International
(CC PAR 4.0) Licence.

La presse du MIT

Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00007/2157234/crcj_a_00007.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023

Evaluating Climate Justice Concerns Within Resilience Plans

Resilience strategies are intended to minimize the impacts and risks stemming from climate
changement. Resilience involves building community capacity to withstand, adapt, and transform
in positive ways in response to disturbances, risks, and vulnerabilities. Toujours, how social vulner-
abilities are assessed, how the most vulnerable populations are protected, and how issues of
power and justice are conceptualized within resilience planning approaches are less known.
Strategies aimed at producing just outcomes should examine who benefits and who bears
pertes, and should direct efforts and resources toward helping those vulnerable to adapt to
unforeseeable disruptions (Fainstein, 2014, 2018; Zolli, 2012).

Regardless of this wider recognition to consider social vulnerability within resilience plan-
ning, scholars have widely critiqued efforts to build resilience that have tended to prioritize
elitist, hierarchical, short-term, unsustainable technocratic approaches (Eriksen et al., 2015;
Holland, 2017; Patterson et al., 2018; Pelling, 2011; Pelling et al., 2015). A prior analysis
of resilience planning in eight global cities found that the planning process enhanced power
imbalances, failed to consider impacts on inequality, primarily protected economically valu-
able areas, and failed to protect vulnerable areas (Anguelovski et al., 2016). Resilience efforts
by the Rockefeller Foundation have similarly been criticized as trying to improve the resilience
of downtown and economically powerful areas (Shi, 2020). Similar observations were
reported by Puszkin-Chevlin (2007) and Fainstein (2018), noting that interventions can com-
pound patterns of environmental injustice and create new sources of inequity. A discursive
disconnect was found between governmental focus on resilience-based approaches and com-
munity concerns (Schlosberg et al., 2017). Failure to address vulnerability risks perpetuates
patterns of urban and rural spatial inequities and favors those already positioned to succeed
(Adger et al., 2006), while putting marginalized populations at further disadvantage (Agyeman,
2013; Anguelovski et al., 2016; Shi et al., 2016). Inequities unaddressed within resilience
approaches may also lead to conflicts over their legitimacy, limiting the overall success and
sustainability of climate resilience efforts (Adger, 2016; Agyeman, 2013; Schlosberg, 2012;
Schlosberg et al., 2017). Pelling (2011) identifies that adaptation as implemented has multiple
facets: pathways that favor maintaining the status quo, transition (incremental change), et
transformation (radical change). Transformative approaches are required in many cases to
address systemic inequities, and a justice framework has been identified as essential to creating
the transformative changes necessary for just resilience approaches (Shi et al., 2016).

There are four main justice frameworks relevant to resilience planning: recognitional jus-
tice, distributive justice, procedural justice, and the capabilities approach (Californie). Recognitional
justice highlights a pluralistic approach in decision-making and valuing the diverse knowledge
systems of socially vulnerable populations who are typically not recognized or misrecognized,
and making them politically relevant (Fraser, 1997; Schlosberg, 2012; Jeune, 2012). Distrib-
utive justice is the examination of the distribution of environmental risks and benefits and
explores the disparities across social groups and communities within resilience planning
and adaptive capacity within this context (Foster et al., 2019; McDermott et al., 2013).
Procedural justice is the extent and robustness of the procedural engagement of vulnerable
communities in decision-making (Foster et al., 2019). Procedural justice also advances recog-
nitional justice by providing political agency to the vulnerable communities to influence resil-
ience decisions and enhance community capacity. Malloy and Ashcraft (2020, p. 4) define
capability as the “resources, opportunities, freedoms, and institutions necessary for individuals
and groups to exist as full members in a given society.” In this framing, CA incorporates dis-
tributive, procedural, and recognitional justice and there is considerable overlap within them
(Malloy & Ashcraft, 2020; Schlosberg et al., 2017). Contextual justice is another framing that is
similarly used within adaptation and is defined by Foster et al. (2019, p. 3) as the “social,

Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice

34

Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00007/2157234/crcj_a_00007.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023

Evaluating Climate Justice Concerns Within Resilience Plans

économique, and political factors and processes that contribute to uneven vulnerability and
shape adaptive capacity,” which was based on McDermott et al. (2013). While contextual
equity examines the root causes of vulnerability or preexisting conditions, the capabilities
approach can, in addition, probe how specific capabilities are explored within certain settings
alongside cataloging the ways that climate change causes injustices and undermines the foun-
dation of human capabilities (Foster et al., 2019; McDermott et al., 2013; Schlosberg, 2012).
Most of the literature on justice in resilience planning has largely focused on distributive and
procedural justice (Fainstein, 2018; Holland, 2017; Paavola, 2008; Paavola & Adger, 2006)
but less on capability or these approaches together (Pelling, 2011; Schlosberg et al., 2017).
Ainsi, CA is not just about understanding distribution of resources, procedural engagement,
and recognition of vulnerable groups within resilience planning, but also about assessing how
resources or services enhance quality of life. In this study we explore how the 100 Resilient
Cities program improves capabilities through their interventions and how the agency of the
disadvantaged communities are enhanced, which in turn enables everyday adaptation
(Wilden & Feldmeyer, 2021).

A growing group of scholars calls for a critical assessment of resilience planning and ques-
tions if it is justly sustainable and beneficial for all. Recent studies have investigated justice
within the resilience plans written as part of the 100 Resilient Cities program; cependant, none
have developed an index to compare the extent to which justice was incorporated within resil-
ience planning across cities (Fitzgibbons & Mitchell, 2019; Grove et al., 2020; Meerow et al.,
2019). The objective of this study is to develop a “Just Resilience Index” that can both assess
the extent to which justice frameworks have been included in resilience plans and can provide
guidance for how future planning efforts can centralize justice. In this research, we conduct a
document analysis of 11 city resilience plans across the United States to examine how justice
considerations are incorporated within resilience planning. This assessment builds on the
theoretical framing of the capabilities approach as framed by Schlosberg (2012), Schlosberg
et autres. (2017), Sen (2009), and Nussbaum (2011).

MÉTHODES

A document analysis was conducted of 11 coastal U.S. city resilience plans that were written
as part of the 100 Resilient Cities (100 RC) program to investigate how elements of justice have
been incorporated into resilience planning. Le 100 Resilient Cities (100RC) program (2013–
2019) provided funding to select cities across the globe to hire a chief resilience officer and to
develop a resilience plan. A prior study found that diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice was
the most considered theme within the actions of 11 resilience plans (Raub et al., 2021). Le
current study furthers the analysis by Raub et al. (2021) and examines the resilience plans of
Boston, New York City, Miami, Norfolk, La Nouvelle Orléans, Les anges, San Francisco, Oakland,
Berkeley, Seattle, and Honolulu.

Just Resilience Index ( JRI)

The Just Resilience Index ( JRI) was developed to analyze the extent to which justice was incor-
porated within resilience plans. We examined how justice themes were addressed specifically
by the actions within the resilience plans. The index examined the following: (1) the populations
that were recognized and awarded benefits (c'est à dire., recognitional justice); (2) instances where
distributive justice, procedural justice, and community capabilities were addressed; (3) le
strength of the focus on justice in each action; et (4) the justification or rationale for the incor-
poration of justice within the action. See the summary of the scoring criteria used in the JRI in

Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice

35

Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00007/2157234/crcj_a_00007.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023

Evaluating Climate Justice Concerns Within Resilience Plans

Tableau 1.

The Just Resilience Index: Scoring Criteria

Category
Recognitional justice

Point Values
0, 1

Frameworks of justice

Strength of focus

Justification for

inclusion of justice

0, 1

0, 1

0, 1

Criteria
0 = no population identified (par exemple., just referencing equity, vulnerable populations),
1 = specific population(s) identified (par exemple., communities of color, low-income
communautés).

0 = both distributive and procedural equity not included in the action, 1 = both

included in the action.

0 = justice not the primary focus of the action, 1 = justice was the primary focus.

0 = no justification of justice articulated, et 1 = justification articulated.

Tableau 1. The codebook for the study was tested for intercoder reliability until a minimum of
90% reliability was obtained between independently coded sets of resilience plan actions (voir
the Appendix for more details).

Per the JRI scoring criteria, each action had a potential for a maximum of 4 points. As each
resilience plan had a different number of total actions, each has a different maximum potential
JRI score. Par exemple, Boston only had 23 actions with a maximum potential score of 92,
whereas New York City had 101 actions with a maximum potential score of 404. Donc,
JRI scores were compared across cities using the percentage of the actual score as compared to
the potential score. The criteria used for each JRI category are detailed in the following
sections.

Recognitional Justice

We examined how seven populations were recognized in the resilience plans: socioeconomic
status (revenu), course, genre, ability, English proficiency (more broadly, cultural accommoda-
tion), immigrants and refugee communities, those impacted by incarceration and policing,
et autre. These categories were not preselected, but rather determined through pilot analysis
of the 11 resilience plans. These populations were identified when an action directly recog-
nized the above population or when it used indirect language (par exemple., bettering community–
police relationships indicated the population impacted by incarceration and policing).

Frameworks of Justice

Justice frameworks included distributive justice, procedural justice, and capabilities approach
applied in the resilience actions. Distributive justice was addressed when an action acknowl-
edged or sought to rectify the differences in how benefits and costs were distributed across
specific populations, such as how communities of color may lack access to fresh and healthy
foods compared to the rest. Procedural justice was defined as actions that sought to include
recognized populations within the process, such as ensuring that people of color are included
in decision-making. Enhancing community capability was categorized as any action that
sought to enhance the capacities and the security of vulnerable communities, such as job
training programs or increasing the number of affordable housing units in a new development.
Cependant, as CA is “multi-dimensional, providing a ‘thick’ and heterogenous conception of
what constitutes human flourishing rather than attempting to reduce this to a single denomi-
nator or element of life” (Pellicer-Sifres et al., 2021, p. 1028), we explore it qualitatively rather
than attempt to quantify its inclusion in resilience plan actions.

Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice

36

Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00007/2157234/crcj_a_00007.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023

Evaluating Climate Justice Concerns Within Resilience Plans

Strength of Focus

The focus category was used to distinguish between the extent to which justice was included
in individual actions. Par exemple, some actions centralized justice, whereas others were
primarily on a separate topic but would include one sentence relating the topic to a justice
principle. Donc, JRI points were only assigned to actions where the primary focus was on
justice.

Justification

The justification category was included to distinguish between actions that articulated why
justice principles were included and those that did not. Justification revealed a distinct level
of awareness about the inclusion of justice.

Comparison to City Demographics

To better understand the context in which the resilience plans were written, the JRI scores were
compared to the demographics of each city. Demographic information was collected from the
U.S. Census and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): median income
levels, percentages of the population below the poverty line, and the racial makeup of each
city’s population.

RÉSULTATS

This section details the JRI scores per city. The frameworks of justice (recognitional, distribu-
tive, procedural, and capabilities approach) addressed by the resilience plan actions are
addressed within the JRI scores. Enfin, the JRI scores are compared to city demographics.

Just Resilience Index

The JRI scores the actions within each city’s resilience plan according to how each action
included recognitional, distributive, and procedural justice, focused on justice (c'est à dire., mention
vs. primary focus of the action), and provided justification for its equity focus (see Table 2).

Recognitional Justice

Out of the total 246 justice-related actions, 208 actions (85%) recognized at least one specific
population. Of the seven population categories examined, the low-income population was the
most recognized (52%, 127 de 246), followed by ability (19%, 47 de 246) and race (18%, 44 de
246) within the justice-related actions (see Table 3). De la 44 actions (out of 593 actions) que
included race, only eight actions from four plans recognized specific racial groups; most (82%)
addressed race broadly. Par exemple, 78% (18 de 23 actions) of Boston’s actions explored
racial implications, while only 2% (1 de 45) of the actions addressed racial concerns in
New York City’s plan, and other cities like Miami, Norfolk, and San Francisco did not address
race in their actions. Alternativement, immigrant and refugee concerns were recognized by only
five cities. Only four cities—Boston, Les anges, New York City, and Seattle—addressed (ou
acknowledged) the concerns of all seven populations.

Distributive Justice

There was variability in how the 11 cities included distributive justice within their actions.
Seattle incorporated distributive justice the most in 89% (39 de 44) of its justice-related actions,
and Oakland included distributive justice the least in 48% (13 de 27) of its justice-related

Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice

37

Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00007/2157234/crcj_a_00007.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023

E
v
un
je
toi
un
t
je
n
g
C

je
je

m
un
t
e

J.
toi
s
t
je
c
e
C
o
n
c
e
r
n
s

W

je
t
h
je
n
R.
e
s
je
je
je
e
n
c
e
P.
je
un
n
s

City ( Justice-Related
Actions/Total Actions)
Berkeley (8/27)

Boston (23/23)

Honolulu (9/44)

Les anges (38/96)

Miami (16/59)

La Nouvelle Orléans (9/41)

Tableau 2.

Just Resilience Index Scores of the Eleven Resilience Plans

Recognitional
Justice

Both Distributive and
Procedural Justice

Primary
Focus

Justification

JRI Score %
(Actual Score/Potential Score)

8 (100%)

20 (87%)

9 (100%)

30 (79%)

14 (88%)

7 (78%)

% Per No. of Justice-Related Actions
3 (38%)

3 (38%)

Per Justice-Related Actions

4 (50%)

56% (18/32)

Per Total Actions
17% (18/108)

15 (65%)

4 (44%)

10 (26%)

5 (31%)

1 (11%)

15 (65%)

22 (96%)

78% (72/92)

78% (72/92)

4 (44%)

7 (78%)

67% (24/36)

14% (24/176)

27 (71%)

17 (45%)

55% (84/152)

22% (84/384)

8 (50%)

5 (56%)

3 (19%)

1 (11%)

47% (30/64)

39% (14/36)

13% (30/236)

9% (14/164)

New York City (45/101)

40 (89%)

16 (36%)

29 (64%)

25 (56%)

61% (110/180)

27% (110/404)

Norfolk (9/42)

Oakland (27/37)

San Francisco (18/54)

Seattle (44/69)

8 (89%)

18 (67%)

12 (67%)

4 (9%)

Total (246/593)

208 (85%)

0 (0%)

3 (11%)

2 (11%)

17 (39%)

76 (31%)

6 (67%)

0 (0%)

39% (14/36)

8% (14/168)

12 (44%)

6 (33%)

3 (11%)

2 (11%)

33% (36/108)

24% (36/148)

31% (22/72)

10% (22/216)

32 (73%)

28 (64%)

46% (81/176)

29% (81/276)

147 (60%)

112 (46%)

55% (543/984)

23% (543/2372)

J.
o
toi
r
n
un

je

o

F

C

je
je

t

m
un
e
R.
e
s

je
je
je

e
n
c
e

un
n
d
C

je
je

m
un
e

t

J.
toi
s
t
je
c
e

3
8

Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00007/2157234/crcj_a_00007.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023

E
v
un
je
toi
un
t
je
n
g
C

je
je

m
un
t
e

J.
toi
s
t
je
c
e
C
o
n
c
e
r
n
s

W

je
t
h
je
n
R.
e
s
je
je
je
e
n
c
e
P.
je
un
n
s

Tableau 3.

Populations Recognized Within Resilience Actions

Justice-Related
Actions/Total
Actions in Plan
(% of total)

Income

Race

Gender

Ability

English
Proficiency

Immigrant &
Refugee
Communities

Incarceration
& Policing

Other

Total Actions (% of Justice-Related Actions)

City
Berkeley

Boston

8/27 (29.6%)

3 (38%)

4 (50%)

–

2 (25%)

1 (13%)

23/23 (100%)

9 (39%)

18 (78%)

2 (9%)

3 (13%)

2 (9%)

Honolulu

9/44 (20.4%)

6 (75%)

1 (11%)

–

3 (38%)

1 (11%)

Les anges

38/96 (39.5%)

16 (42%)

1 (3%)

5 (13%)

9 (24%)

3 (8%)

Miami

16/59 (27.1%)

12 (75%)

–

1 (6%)

2 (13%)

La Nouvelle Orléans

9/41 (21.9%)

5 (56%)

1 (11%)

–

–

–

–

–

1 (4%)

–

3 (8%)

–

–

–

3 (38%)

2 (9%)

16 (70%)

–

4 (50%)

3 (8%)

30 (79%)

3 (19%)

1 (11%)

8 (50%)

7 (78%)

New York City

45/101 (44.5%)

23 (51%)

1 (2%)

9 (20%)

17 (38%)

6 (13%)

4 (9%)

8 (18%)

31 (69%)

Norfolk

Oakland

9/42 (21.4%)

7 (78%)

–

–

–

–

27/37 (72.9%)

12 (44%)

9 (33%)

1 (4%)

3 (11%)

5 (19%)

San Francisco

18/54 (33.3%)

9 (50%)

–

–

3 (17%)

1 (6%)

Seattle

TOTAL

44/69 (63.8%)

25 (57%)

10 (23%)

3 (7%)

5 (11%)

4 (9%)

246/593 (41.5%)

127 (52%)

45 (18%)

21 (9%)

47 (19%)

23 (9%)

–

–

–

4 (9%)

12 (5%)

1 (11%)

1 (11%)

2 (7%)

23 (85%)

–

9 (50)

5 (11%)

24 (55%)

25 (10%)

156 (63%)

J.
o
toi
r
n
un

je

o

F

C

je
je

t

m
un
e
R.
e
s

je
je
je

e
n
c
e

un
n
d
C

je
je

m
un
e

t

J.
toi
s
t
je
c
e

3
9

Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00007/2157234/crcj_a_00007.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023

Evaluating Climate Justice Concerns Within Resilience Plans

actions. Distributive justice actions included providing equitable access to goods (47%, 85 de
180), information (3%, 6 de 180), and services (49%, 89 de 180) to vulnerable populations. Pour
example, Boston’s Initiative 19 detailed equitable implementation of resilient, low-carbon
energy sources, including local energy generation and microgrids, in vulnerable neighbor-
hoods. San Francisco focused on the equitable distribution of information as they ensure a
culturally competent and multilingual campaign to spread information about the programs.
Norfolk defined equitable distribution of services to build financial stability of unbanked
and underbanked low-income individuals and families through banking services.

Procedural Justice

How the cities included procedural equity within their justice-related actions had the great-
est variability. D'abord, we examined each city’s “active engagement” with community
groups/members in the development of their resilience plans and found that 10 of the 11 cities
provided accounts of community engagement in the preparation of their plans. Cependant, juste
four cities (New York City, Boston, Honolulu, and Miami) demonstrated procedural justice,
which included engaging vulnerable populations in resilience planning (as opposed to
engagement with the broader community). Secondly, we examined the procedural justice pro-
posed in the implementation of the justice-related actions. Boston incorporated procedural
justice into 87% (20 de 23) of its justice-related actions, while New Orleans, Norfolk, et
San Francisco included it the least. Procedural justice was commonly addressed in policy
measures (41%, 47 de 114), community engagement (42%, 48 de 114), and inclusion (removal
of barriers) (17%, 19 de 114) across the 11 resilience plans. New York City’s plan recognized
that “decisions about City policies and initiatives should be informed by broad public engage-
ment with a wide range of stakeholders, including residents whose voices are not heard
because of barriers such as language and time” (City of New York, 2015), lequel
acknowledges the importance of community engagement in policymaking.

Both Distributive and Procedural Justice

Of the justice-related actions, only 31% addressed both distributive and procedural justice.
Boston had the highest (65%) and Norfolk had the lowest percentage (0%) de, including both
frameworks within their actions. Of the justice frameworks employed within the resilience
plan actions, distributive justice was the most frequently included (73%, 180 de 246) followed
by procedural justice (46%, 114 de 246) (see Table 4).

Capabilities Approach (Californie)

The capabilities approach defines the specific approaches, services, and investments made to
improve the functioning and capabilities of the most vulnerable communities and integrates
aspects of recognitional, distributive, and procedural justice. Capabilities were frequently
considered within housing initiatives, programs for community well-being, and building
neighborhood relationships to encourage social cohesion. Examples of CA include, comment
Seattle (Action 13.2) encouraged social cohesion by implementing a community-based polic-
ing model that aims to build a trusting relationship between police and the greater community,
as well as creating a special pilot team to respond to nonemergency 911 calls. Honolulu
(Action 4) enacted a progressive property tax that keeps housing affordable for low-income
residents. Berkeley recommended building the capacity of the community by reducing the
achievement gap in Berkeley public schools, as well as furthering racial equity and helping
students with college and career readiness.

Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice

40

Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00007/2157234/crcj_a_00007.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023

Evaluating Climate Justice Concerns Within Resilience Plans

Tableau 4.

Frameworks of Justice Addressed Within Resilience Plans

Justice-Related Actions

Non. of Inclusions (% of Justice-Related Actions)

Distributive Equity (DE)

Procedural Equity (PE)

Actions with Both DE and PE

8

23

9

38

16

9

45

9

27

18

44

4 (50%)

17 (74%)

7 (78%)

30 (79%)

10 (63%)

7 (78%)

33 (73%)

6 (67%)

13 (48%)

14 (78%)

39 (89%)

246

180 (73%)

6 (75%)

20 (87%)

6 (67%)

14 (37%)

8 (50%)

2 (22%)

23 (51%)

2 (22%)

9 (33%)

4 (22%)

20 (45%)

114 (46%)

3 (38%)

15 (65%)

4 (44%)

10 (26%)

5 (31%)

1 (11%)

16 (36%)

0 (0%)

3 (11%)

2 (11%)

17 (39%)

76 (31%)

City
Berkeley

Boston

Honolulu

Les anges

Miami

La Nouvelle Orléans

New York City

Norfolk

Oakland

San Francisco

Seattle

TOTAL

Focus

The “focus” category of the JRI measured the extent to which the entire action centralized
justice. Seattle had the highest percentage of its justice-related actions with a primary focus
on justice (73%). Entre-temps, San Francisco had the lowest percentage of its justice-related
actions with a primary focus on justice (33%). Examples of actions with a primary focus on
justice include Seattle’s “build more housing for families of all income levels” action to keep
up with the city’s increased demand and Boston’s “Connect Bostonians to Reflect and Con-
front Racial Inequity.”

Justification

This category explored if the actions provide clear justifications for incorporating justice. Less
than half of the justice-related actions (46%) included a justification for its focus on justice.
The plans cover a wide range of scores, depuis 96% of Boston’s justice-related actions providing
clear justification to none provided for Norfolk. Par exemple, New York City’s “Improve food
access, affordability, and quality, and encourage a sustainable, resilient food system” action
begins with a justification that “the City’s current food system does not allow for equitable
access to nutritious food” and went on to characterize why this was true in New York City.

JRI Scores

The JRI scores for each plan were calculated in two ways: d'abord, the percentage per the total
number of actions (actual score / 4 potential points × total actions in each plan) to assess the
breadth of engagement with frameworks of justice and, second, the percentage per the justice-
related actions (actual score / 4 × total justice-related actions in each plan) to assess the depth
of engagement on justice issues. Boston, Seattle, and New York City achieved the highest JRI
scores across all actions (breadth), and Boston, Honolulu, and New York City achieved the

Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice

41

Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00007/2157234/crcj_a_00007.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023

Evaluating Climate Justice Concerns Within Resilience Plans

highest JRI scores across the justice-related actions (depth). The Honolulu resilience plan had
the fifth lowest JRI score when calculated against all actions (14%), but the second-highest JRI
score when calculated only against justice-related actions (67%). The inverse of this can be
seen with the Oakland plan. Oakland had the fourth highest JRI score when the score was
calculated for the full plan (24%), but had the second-lowest JRI score when calculated against
only its justice-related actions (33%). Other plans were more consistent, with Boston scoring
the highest across both calculations and Norfolk ranking in the bottom three.

Demographic Data of the Eleven Cities Compared to JRI Scores

An analysis comparing resilience plans to their city demographics was done by looking at data
from the U.S. Census Bureau from 2019 and from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development from early 2020. The results indicated that income was the most recognized
population and specific racial groups were the least (only 8 de 44 actions that recognized race
identified a specific racial group) across the 11 resilience plans. To investigate these results
further, the two demographic statistics highlighted in this next phase of analysis were the per-
cent White (non-Hispanic) and the percent homelessness in each city.

The percentage of a city that is White and non-Hispanic was not found to be correlated with
a plan’s performance on the JRI (R2 = 0.076) (voir la figure 1). Anecdotally, cities with a higher
percent of White residents tended to have higher JRI scores. Par exemple, Boston has a signif-
icantly higher JRI score than the racial makeup of the city would suggest, and Seattle has the
highest percentage of White residents (64%) and the second-highest JRI score based on the
total actions (29%). Inversement, Miami has the lowest percentage of White residents (11%)
and the fourth-lowest JRI score based on total actions within the resilience plan (19%).

The percentage of a city’s population that is experiencing homelessness was found to
have a low correlation with the percent of a plan’s justice-related actions that reference
revenu (R2 = 0.419) (voir la figure 2). The data is derived from a program within the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development called Continuums of Care. Miami and
Norfolk have the lowest percentages of people experiencing homelessness (0.13% et

Chiffre 1. The percentage of the JRI score compared to the percent of the city’s population that is
Blanc (non-Hispanic) depuis 2019.

Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice

42

Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00007/2157234/crcj_a_00007.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023

Evaluating Climate Justice Concerns Within Resilience Plans

Chiffre 2. The percentage of the justice-related actions that refer to income and the percent of
the city’s population that is experiencing homelessness in the corresponding U.S. Département de
Housing and Urban Development Continuums of Care.

0.18%) and have the two highest rates of references to income within their justice-related
actions (75% et 78%, respectivement). Entre-temps, Boston, San Francisco, and New York City
have the highest rates of people experiencing homelessness (0.89%, 0.92%, et 0.93%), et
all have fewer references to income, ranking them in the lower half of plans (39%, 50%, et
51%, respectivement).

DISCUSSION

A document analysis of 11 coastal U.S. city resilience plans found that justice was not uni-
formly considered across the plans. The five key findings from this study are: (1) The concerns
of the low-income population were the most recognized within the resilience plan actions; (2)
procedural equity was the least addressed in the study and distributive equity was better
addressed; (3) the breadth and the depth to which justice issues are incorporated matters
and needs to be considered in equity-based assessments; (4) leadership differences between
the cities may explain some of the differences in how justice was incorporated in resilience
plans; et (5) the JRI could provide a framework to guide cities in incorporating frameworks of
justice into their own planning efforts.

The Concerns of the Low-Income Population Were the Most Recognized Within the Resilience

Plan Actions

Sur 50% of the justice-related actions recognized the needs of the low-income population
and only 18% addressed race. This difference in emphasis could be because income is a func-
tional status, whereas race is a demographic status; cependant, it is imperative that racial dis-
parities be more directly considered in resilience planning. Litman (2012) makes the argument
that in some cases it is preferable to plan for functional statuses (par exemple., income or ability) rather
than demographic statuses (par exemple., race or age) since they are more ambiguous, so those who are
a part of the functional group but not the demographic group do not feel alienated. While
income inequality in the United States may address some racial concerns as more people
of color are low-income (Akee et al., 2019) and are more likely to experience homelessness
(U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2020), addressing income inequality

Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice

43

Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00007/2157234/crcj_a_00007.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023

Evaluating Climate Justice Concerns Within Resilience Plans

alone does not address issues related to racial inequality and systemic racism. Systemic issues
of redlining and environmental inequities uniquely place communities of color at risk, et
particular attention is required to redress disparities stemming from systemic racism, so it is
not perpetuated. Within actions about race, very few of the references were specific to racial
groupes. Some plans used generic terms such as “people of color” or “racial equity,” without
specifying the concerns of Black, Indigenous, or Hispanic communities. De la 45 actions that
recognized race, only eight of them (18%) mentioned a specific racial identity or population.
Even Boston, avec 78% of its actions recognizing race, only mentioned one specific racial
identity in one action, pointing to a reluctance of these plans to discuss race in depth.

Resilience planning in an equitable way requires understanding the needs of specific
vulnerable communities, and not referring to race as a monolith. Bonds (2018) shows that if
transformative measures are not taken, resilience approaches can uphold systemic racism and
maintain the status quo. A panel on how legacies of slavery and racial divisions could be
addressed in resilience planning found a compulsion to recoil from assertions of racial
inequalities as political problems (Grove et al., 2020), an observation that alludes to the
difficulties in addressing issues related to systemic racism. Meerow et al. (2019) argue that
“by making recognition one of the core elements of equity, especially in the political sphere,
we may be better equipped to address the needs of those who are misrecognized and polit-
ically excluded from climate adaptation efforts” (p. 804). Jeune (2012) extends this argument
by noting that distributive injustice itself stems from lack of recognition. Ainsi, an under-
standing of the historical, sociocultural, and political background of vulnerable communities
can better inform resilience planners of the structural conditions that cause disproportionate
poverty, increased susceptibility to risks, lack of access to services, and exclusion (Bulkeley
et coll., 2013).

Procedural Equity Was the Least Addressed Within Resilience Plan Actions and Distributive Equity Was

the Most Addressed

La plupart (73%) of the actions addressed distributive justice, which is consistent with other studies
that found that “when cities do address justice issues, they focus on distributive equity, inclure-
ing more equitable access to infrastructure, goods, services, and opportunities. Fewer strate-
gies focused on procedural or recognitional justice” (Meerow et al., 2019, p. 805). Though the
capabilities approach is meant to increase the agency of individuals and communities (Wilden
& Feldmeyer, 2021), this study shows that the most vulnerable communities were not actively
engaged in improving the capabilities and distributive inequities. Just four cities (New York
City, Boston, Honolulu, and Miami) engaged vulnerable populations in resilience planning.
Prior research has shown that vulnerable populations tend to be the least represented at public
réunions, local planning, and decision-making (Laurian, 2004; Schlosberg et al., 2017), et
how to improve the functional capabilities of the most vulnerable population requires greater
focus within resilience research (Schlosberg & Collins, 2014, p. 446). But this research shows
that the community’s needs and vulnerabilities were addressed based on minimal recognition
of impacted communities and were primarily based on the needs of the low-income popula-
tion, with little procedural engagement.

The Breadth and the Depth to Which Justice Issues Are Incorporated Matters and Needs to Be

Considered in Equity-Based Assessments

It is not only important to simply incorporate justice within resilience planning, but it also
matters how justice is incorporated. The differences between the full plan and the justice-

Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice

44

Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00007/2157234/crcj_a_00007.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023

Evaluating Climate Justice Concerns Within Resilience Plans

related action calculations of the JRI scores are important to note as it indicates that some plans
include justice across many actions, but they do not address it in depth, while other plans only
address it in a few of their actions, but address justice much more comprehensively. For exam-
ple, the Honolulu resilience plan achieved only 14% of its potential JRI score when calculated
across all the actions within its resilience plan, but it achieved 67% of its potential score when
calculated against just its justice-related actions, demonstrating depth in incorporation of jus-
tice within its resilience plan actions. Donc, justice should both be included in as many
actions as possible and given meaningful consideration.

The justification category was the best predictor of the overall JRI score and was the most
variable across the cities. The four plans that achieved the highest justification scores (Boston,
96%, Honolulu, 78%, New York City, 56%, and Seattle, 64% when looking only at justice-
related actions) did well across all the JRI elements, and the plans that scored poorly (Norfolk,
0%, La Nouvelle Orléans, 11%, Oakland, 11%, and San Francisco, 11% when looking only at
justice-related actions) did poorly across most of the other categories as well. Cities that are
intentional about integrating aspects of justice into all of city planning are more likely to
acknowledge the problems that their cities face with respect to justice, as opposed to cities
who only recognize justice concerns/values in specific instances. Researchers note in other
100RC cities that in order to access equity and justice, these plans must identify these con-
cerns as integral components of the plan (Fitzgibbons & Mitchell, 2021).

Leadership Differences Between the Cities May Contribute to Understanding How Justice Was

Incorporated in Resilience Plans; Cependant, This Merits Further Analysis

The political affiliation of each mayor and the educational/career background of each chief
resilience officer (during the time the plan was written) may have played a role in the incor-
poration of justice within resilience plans; cependant, further analysis is needed. Most of the
mayors that enacted the resilience plans were Democrats (11 of 13—the Miami resilience plan
was written jointly with two surrounding counties, so it is associated with three mayors). Only
4 of the 11 Chief Resilience Officers (Boston, Seattle, Oakland, and Honolulu) had a back-
ground or experience with a focus on justice. Docteur. Atyia Martin (Boston) has a history of racial
justice work, Katya Sienkiewicz (Seattle) has a background in refugee work, Kiran Jain
(Oakland) has a background that includes work with legal and civil rights, and Joshua Stanbro
(Honolulu) received an award for Native Hawaiian rights (Martine, n.d.; Sienkiewicz, n.d.;
Jain, n.d.; Sierra Club of Hawaiʻi, n.d.). Boston, Seattle, and Oakland were each the first,
second, and fourth (respectivement) cities according to the full-plan calculations (breadth) et
Boston and Honolulu were each the first and second (respectivement) cities according to the
justice-related action calculations (depth). Anecdotally, the background of those in charge
of writing the plans may have influenced the extent to which justice was included within resil-
ience planning. This is supported by a recent study of equity in decision-making for climate
adaptation, which suggests that new equity planners are needed to advance inclusive partic-
ipation in decision-making (Chu & Cannon, 2021).

Another factor could be that the specific challenges that the cities have faced (and are cur-
rently facing) may have influenced the ways in which justice was included within the plans.
Par exemple, the Seattle resilience plan recognized income in many of its actions and the city
has an affordability crisis (Caldararo, 2017). This is consistent with a study that reports that staff
who worked on the creation of Toronto’s resilience plan for 100RC stated that the push for
their plan to focus on equity came from feedback from the public, not from the 100 Resilient
Cities program (Fitzgibbons & Mitchell, 2021).

Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice

45

Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00007/2157234/crcj_a_00007.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023

Evaluating Climate Justice Concerns Within Resilience Plans

The Just Resilience Index Could Provide a Framework to Guide Cities in Incorporating Frameworks of

Justice Into Their Own Planning Efforts

The JRI is not only useful as a method to analyze and compare existing planning efforts, mais
it can also be used as a guide for how to meaningfully incorporate justice during the devel-
opment of future planning efforts. Several key lessons from this analysis can guide future
resilience planning. The first key lesson is to make sure that the four justice frameworks (recog-
nitional justice, procedural justice, distributive justice, and capabilities approach) are incorpo-
rated into as many of the resilience plan actions as possible, et deuxieme, to make sure that
they are a central focus of each action they are incorporated within. Spécifiquement, the incorpo-
ration of procedural justice should begin at the earliest phases of plan development when con-
sidering who will be tasked with developing said plan and whose voices will be heard during
any needs assessments or community forums. Par exemple, intentionally seeking to increase
procedural justice may be applied as seeking someone with demonstrated experience with
justice to be involved in writing the plan or inviting key stakeholders from communities that
have recognized vulnerabilities (recognitional justice) to serve a role as well. A strategy that
has been demonstrated to address equity is the provision of stipends as compensation for time
(Bierer et al., 2021; Gelinas et al., 2020) to offset missed wages, child care, or transportation
frais, or other costs that may have otherwise prohibited the involvement of key stakeholders.
Another strategy is to develop meaningful relationships with “knowledge brokers” (Cvitanovic
et coll., 2017; Davison et al., 2015), which means cultivating a relationship with members of
vulnerable communities who serve in a trusted leadership position within that community.
Another key lesson is to use the “recognized populations” section of the codebook (see the
Appendix) as guidance to ensure vulnerable populations are specifically identified, meaning-
fully incorporated into the development and planning process, and that their diverse needs are
considered within each relevant action. We also want to highlight the importance of using
mixed methods to analyze JRI as not all measures of justice can be easily quantified, especially
Californie. CA shows the interdependence of distributive, procedural, and recognitional justice but
goes beyond exploring just how resources and services are distributed and how communities
are engaged and recognized (Schlosberg, 2007).

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

One limitation of this research is that it only included resilience plans that were written as part
of the 100RC program, which meant that each city was following the same guidance for plan
development. Future research should conduct interviews with those who wrote the resilience
plans to investigate the decision-making behind plan development and why justice was
included to the extent that it was. These interviews could also assess how many of the
justice-related initiatives have been implemented and what impact they may have had. Addi-
tionally, future research should expand this analysis to include the planning efforts of inland
communities and conduct a more thorough analysis of how a comprehensive set of commu-
nity demographic statistics may correlate with JRI scores. Enfin, future research should
include the study of the application of the JRI to the development of resilience planning efforts.

CONCLUSIONS

The threats of climate change are not distributed equitably. To ensure that resilience plans do
not perpetuate systemic injustices, theories of justice need to be centered within resilience
planning. Our research finds that despite the use of the language of justice, many of the resil-
ience plans still do not have an explicit focus on justice. Our study found that recognitional

Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice

46

Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00007/2157234/crcj_a_00007.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023

Evaluating Climate Justice Concerns Within Resilience Plans

and procedural justice need to be better addressed within resilience plans. We also show how
capability approaches can help clarify how community security and well-being are enhanced.
Cities that enacted community-based policing, nonemergency helplines, progressive taxes,
and reducing achievement gaps may improve community security and well-being and its
capability to respond to risks or capacity to thrive, but additional studies are required to val-
idate that such efforts enhance resilience. The JRI developed in this study can be an effective
model to explore how justice frameworks are incorporated within resilience plans. While JRI
affords a comparative evaluation of theories of justice within resilience plans, we also highlight
the need for mixed methods for an effective analysis of justice frameworks.

Without the identification of who is excluded, who benefits, and whose knowledge sys-
thèmes, traditions, and cultures are valued, resilience planning ignores the social structures
and institutional processes that perpetuate systemic inequities. Our recommendations include
que (1) resilience plans intentionally prioritize theories of justice, (2) the plans should be
coproduced by deeply engaging vulnerable communities to understand their specific circum-
stances and needs in resilience planning and its subsequent implementation, et (3) case
studies of community-based resilience planning in socially and economically vulnerable
communities are required to improve current practices of incorporating equity within
community-based adaptation (Foster et al., 2019). Just resilience approaches can build more
resilient communities by affording fair opportunities and outcomes to all.

REMERCIEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful critique.

RÉFÉRENCES

Adger, W. N. (2016). Place, well-being, and fairness shape prior-
ities for adaptation to climate change. Environnement mondial
Changement, 38, A1–A3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016
.03.009

Adger, W. N. (2010). Social capital, collective action, and adapta-
tion to climate change. En M. Voss (Ed.), Der Klimawandel:
Sozialwissenschaftliche Perspektiven (pp. 327–345). VS Verlag
für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531
-92258-4_19

Adger, W. N., Paavola, J., Huq, S., & Mace, M.. J.. (Éd.). (2006). Fair-
ness in adaptation to climate change. AVEC Presse. https://doi.org
/10.7551/mitpress/2957.001.0001

Agyeman, J.. (2013). Introducing just sustainabilities: Policy, plan-
ning and practice. Zed Books. https://swbplus.bsz-bw.de
/bsz421254564cov.htm

Agyeman, J., Schlosberg, D., Craven, L., & Matthieu, C. (2016).
Trends and directions in environmental justice: From inequity
to everyday life, community, and just sustainabilities. Annual
Review of Environment and Resources, 41(1), 321–340. https://
doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-090052

Akee, R., Jones, M.. R., & Porter, S. R.. (2019). Race matters: Income
shares, income inequality, and income mobility for all U.S. races.
Demography, 56(3), 999–1021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524
-019-00773-7, PubMed: 30945204

Anguelovski, JE., Shi, L., Chu, E., Gallagher, D., Goh, K., Lamb, Z.,
Reeve, K., & Teicher, H. (2016). Equity impacts of urban land
use planning for climate adaptation: Critical perspectives from
the Global North and South. Journal of Planning Education
and Research, 36(3), 333–348. https://est ce que je.org/10.1177
/0739456X16645166

Bierer, B. E., Blanc, S. UN., Gelinas, L., & Strauss, D. H. (2021). Fair
payment and just benefits to enhance diversity in clinical
recherche. Journal of Journal of Clinical and Translational Science,
5(1), Article e159. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2021.816,
PubMed: 34527298

Bonds, UN. (2018). Refusing resilience: The racialization of risk and
resilience. Urban Geography, 39(8), 1285–1291. https://doi.org
/10.1080/02723638.2018.1462968

Bulkeley, H., Carmin, J., Castán Broto, V., Edwards, G. UN. S., &
Fuller, S. (2013). Climate justice and global cities: Cartographie
the emerging discourses. Changement environnemental mondial, 23(5),
914–925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.010

Bullard, R.. D., & Wright, B. (2009). Race, place, and environmental
justice after Hurricane Katrina: Struggles to reclaim, rebuild, et
revitalize New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. Routledge.

Caldararo, N. (2017). The housing crisis and homelessness: A San

Francisco ethnography. Urbanities, 7(1), 3–21.

Chu, E. K., & Cannon, C. E. (2021). Equity, inclusion, and justice as
criteria for decision-making on climate adaptation in cities.
Opinion actuelle sur la durabilité environnementale, 51, 85–94.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.02.009

City of New York. (2015). One New York: The plan for a strong and
just city. https://resilientcitiesnetwork.org/downloadable
_resources/Network/New-York-City-Resilience-Strategy-English
.pdf

Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., &
Webb, J.. (2008). Community and regional resilience: Perspectives
from hazards, disasters, and emergency management (CARRI
Research Report No. 1). Community & Regional Resilience
Institut.

Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice

47

Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00007/2157234/crcj_a_00007.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023

Evaluating Climate Justice Concerns Within Resilience Plans

Cvitanovic, C., Cunningham, R., Dowd, UN. M., Howden, S. M., &
van Putten, E. je. (2017). Using social network analysis to monitor
and assess the effectiveness of knowledge brokers at connecting
scientists and decision makers: An Australian case study. Envi-
ronmental Policy and Governance, 27(3), 256–269. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1002/eet.1752

Davison, C. M., Ndumbe-Eyoh, S., & Clement, C. (2015). Critical
examination of knowledge to action models and implications for
promoting health equity. International Journal for Equity in
Health, 14, Article 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-015
-0178-7, PubMed: 26022369

Eriksen, S. H., Rossignol, UN. J., & Eakin, H. (2015). Reframing
adaptation: The political nature of climate change adaptation.
Changement environnemental mondial, 35, 523–533. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.014

Fainstein, S. (2014). Resilience and justice: Debates and develop-
ments. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,
39(1), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12186

Fainstein, S. (2018). Resilience and justice: Planning for New York
City. Urban Geography, 39(8), 1268–1275. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1080/02723638.2018.1448571

Fitzgibbons, J., & Mitchell, C. L. (2019). Just urban futures? Explor-
ing equity in “100 Resilient Cities.” World Development, 122,
648–659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.06.021

Fitzgibbons, J., & Mitchell, C. L. (2021). Inclusive resilience: Exam-
ining a case study of equity-centred strategic planning in
Toronto, Canada. Cities, 108, Article 102997. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1016/j.cities.2020.102997

Foster, S., Leichenko, R., Nguyen, K. H., Blake, R., Kunreuther, H.,
Madajewicz, M., Petkova, E. P., Zimmerman, R., Corbin-Mark,
C., Yeampierre, E., Tovar, UN., Herrera, C., & Ravenborg, D.
(2019). New York City panel on climate change 2019 report.
Chapter 6: Community-based assessments of adaptation and
equity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1439(1),
126–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14009, PubMed:
30875123

Fraser, N. (1997). Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the

“postsocialist” condition. Routledge.

Gelinas, L., Blanc, S. UN., & Bierer, B. E. (2020). Economic vulner-
ability and payment for research participation. Clinical Trials,
17(3), 246–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774520905596,
PubMed: 32063065

Grove, K., Barnett, UN., & Cox, S. (2020). Designing justice?
Race and the limits of recognition in greater Miami resilience
planning. Geoforum, 117, 134–143. https://est ce que je.org/10.1016/j
.geoforum.2020.09.014

Holland, B. (2017). Procedural justice in local climate adaptation:
Political capabilities and transformational change. Environnemental
Politique, 26(3), 391–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2017
.1287625

Jain K. (n.d.). Bay Area: Resilient by design challenge. Retrieved
Juin 30, 2021, from https://www.resilientbayarea.org/kiran-jain.
Laurian, L. (2004). Public participation in environmental decision
making: Findings from communities facing toxic waste cleanup.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(1), 53–65.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360408976338

Litman, T. (2012). A new social equity agenda for sustainable trans-

portation. Victoria Transit Policy Institute.

Malloy, J.. T., & Ashcraft, C. M.. (2020). A framework for imple-
menting socially just climate adaptation. Climatic Change,
160(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02705-6

Martine, UN. (n.d.). About Dr. S. Atyia Martin. AtyiaMartin.Com.
Retrieved June 30, 2021, from https://www.atyiamartin.com
/contact.

McDermott, M., Mahanty, S., & Schreckenberg K. (2013) Examin-
ing equity: A multidimensional framework for assessing equity in
payments for ecosystem services. Environmental Science &
Policy, 33, 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.10.006
Meerow, S., Pajouhesh, P., & Miller, T. R.. (2019). Social equity in
urban resilience planning. Local Environment, 24(9), 793–808.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2019.1645103

Nussbaum, M.. C. (2011). Creating capabilities the human develop-
ment approach. Orient Blackswan. https://doi.org/10.4159
/harvard.9780674061200

Paavola, J.. (2008). Science and social justice in the governance of
adaptation to climate change. Environmental Politics, 17(4),
644–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010802193609

Paavola, J., & Adger, W. N. (2006). Fair adaptation to climate
changement. Ecological Economics, 56(4), 594–609. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.015

Patterson, J.. J., Thaler, T., Hoffmann, M., Hughes, S., Oels, UN., Chu,
E., Mert, UN., Huitema, D., Burch, S., & Jordan, UN. (2018). Political
feasibility of 1.5°C societal transformations: The role of social
justice. Opinion actuelle sur la durabilité environnementale, 31,
1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.11.002

Pellicer-Sifres, V., Simcock, N., & Boni, UN. (2021). Compréhension
the multiple harms of energy poverty through Nussbaum’s theory
of central capabilities. Local Environment, 26(8), 1026–1042.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2021.1952968

Pelling, M.. (2011). Adaptation to climate change: From resilience
to transformation. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324
/9780203889046

Pelling, M., O’Brien, K., & Matyas, D. (2015). Adaptation and trans-
formation. Climatic Change, 133(1), 113–127. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1007/s10584-014-1303-0

Puszkin-Chevlin, UN. (2007). Determinants of local hazard mitigation
policy and built environment vulnerability: Three case studies
from Florida’s Treasure Coast (Doctoral dissertation). Columbia
University.

Raub, K. B., Stepenuck, K. F., Panikkar, B., & Stephens, J.. C. (2021).
An analysis of resilience planning at the nexus of food, energy,
eau, and transportation in coastal US cities. Durabilité,
13(11), Article 6316. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116316

Schlosberg, D. (2012). Climate justice and capabilities: A frame-
work for adaptation policy. Ethics & International Affairs, 26(4),
445–461. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679412000615

Schlosberg, D. (2007). Defining environmental justice: Theories,
mouvements, and nature. Presse universitaire d'Oxford. https://doi.org
/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199286294.001.0001

Schlosberg, D., & Collins, L. B. (2014). From environmental to cli-
mate justice: Climate change and the discourse of environmental
justice. WIRE Changement climatique, 5(3), 359–374. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1002/wcc.275

Schlosberg, D., Collins, L. B., & Niemeyer, S. (2017). Adaptation
policy and community discourse: Risk, vulnerability, and just
transformation. Environmental Politics, 26(3), 413–437. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2017.1287628

Sen, UN. (2009). The idea of justice. Belknap Press of Harvard Uni-

versity Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674054578

Shi, L. (2020). From progressive cities to resilient cities: Lessons
from history for new debates in equitable adaptation to climate
changement. Urban Affairs Review, 57(5), 1442–1479. https://doi.org
/10.1177/1078087419910827

Shi, L., Chu, E., Anguelovski, JE., Aylett, UN., Debats, J., Goh, K.,
Schenk, T., Seto, K. C., Dodman, D., Roberts, D., Roberts, J.. T.,
& VanDeveer, S. D. (2016). Roadmap towards justice in urban
climate adaptation research. Changement climatique, 6(2),
131–137. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2841

Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice

48

Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00007/2157234/crcj_a_00007.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023

Evaluating Climate Justice Concerns Within Resilience Plans

Sierra Club of Hawaiʻi. (n.d.). Josh Stanbro announced as Honolu-
lu’s first chief resilience officer. Sierra Club of Hawaiʻi. Retrieved
Juin 30, 2021, from https://sierraclubhawaii.org/ blog/josh
-stanbro-announced-as-honolulus-first-chief-resilience-officer.
Sienkiewicz, K. (n.d.). Katya Sienkiewicz. LinkedIn. Retrieved June
30, 2021, from https://www.linkedin.com/in/katya-s-3a51402/.
Thomas, D. S. K., Phillips, B. D., Lovekamp, W. E., & Fothergill, UN.
(Éd.) (2013). Social vulnerability to disasters. CRC Press. https://
search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db
=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=1728756. https://doi.org/10.1201
/b14854

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
(2021). What do adaptation to climate change and climate resil-
ience mean? The Big Picture. https://unfccc.int/topics/adaptation
-and-resilience/the-big-picture/what-do-adaptation-to-climate
-change-and-climate-resilience-mean#eq-2

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2020). CoC
homeless populations and subpopulations reports. https://www
.hudexchange.info/programs/coc/coc-homeless-populations-and

-subpopulations-reports/?filter_Year=2020&filter_Scope=CoC
&filter_State=VA&filter_CoC=&program=CoC&group=PopSub
Van Zandt, S., Peacock, W. G., Henry, D. W., Grover, H., Highfield,
W. E., & Brody, S. D. (2012). Mapping social vulnerability to
enhance housing and neighborhood resilience. Housing Policy
Debate, 22(1), 29–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2011
.624528

Wilden, D., & Feldmeyer, D. (2021). Measuring knowledge and
action changes in the light of urban climate resilience. City
and Environment Interactions, 10, Article 100060. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1016/j.cacint.2021.100060

Wolff, J., & De-Shalit, UN. (2007). Disadvantage. Oxford University
Presse. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278268.001
.0001

Jeune, je. M.. (2012). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton

Presse universitaire. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400839902

Zolli, UN. (2012, Novembre 2). Learning to bounce back. New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/opinion/forget
-sustainability-its-about-resilience.html

APPENDIX: CODEBOOK

The following is an addendum to the codebook developed by Raub et al. (2021). The DEIJ
(Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice) section of the original codebook has been expanded
to capture the nuances of how justice was incorporated within the actions of resilience plans.

Defining an Action (Material From Original Codebook)

Only information relating to an action should be coded. Each resilience plan provides different
additional information to support the description of the action. Examples of the additional
information include a description of co-benefits (sometimes called “How this will help us”
or “Resilience Value”), a list of partners and leads, a description of the timeline, performance
metrics, and funding sources. Call-out boxes, spotlight features, case studies, and other sup-
plementary material do not count—these are often separated from the material about an action
using a different color background or text.

En général, it is recommended that those using this codebook in the future code the actions
multiple times in multiple sittings as specific references to the codebook elements can be easy
to miss upon initial review. En plus, it is important to only code for explicit instances of
these categories. Assumptions do not count.

Recognized Populations

More than one population can be included within each action. En plus, justice organiza-
tion (etc.) mentioned within an action do not count unless directly impacted by or will impact
the action.

Socioeconomic Status (Income)

(cid:129)

Actions recognizing those experiencing homelessness, certain income levels (mid- à
low-income). Includes job preparation services that target low-income or communities
with high portions of its members experiencing homelessness or financial hardship.
Includes “unbanked” and “underbanked” individuals or populations. Reference to con-
centrated poverty and barriers to employment (as employment can be necessary to
access income).

Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice

49

Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00007/2157234/crcj_a_00007.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023

Evaluating Climate Justice Concerns Within Resilience Plans

Economic mobility does not count unless they specifically reference income groups.
Includes reference to Medicaid communities.

(cid:129)
(cid:129)

Race

(cid:129) Actions highlighting the need to better serve specific racial communities, direct refer-
ence to racial justice, communities of color, or other specific racial groups that have
historically been marginalized. Includes reference to minority populations only if the
action specifies that minority refers to a specific racial population (otherwise, it is
“other”).

Gender

(cid:129)

Ability

Reference or focus on gender, femmes, and the LGBTQ community. This includes
W/MBE’s ( Women and Minority Owned Business Enterprises).

(cid:129)

Elderly and senior populations (reference to “all ages”), actions related to (dis)ability
and accessibility. Includes mental ability, and related services, as long as it is refer-
enced within the context of justice (mental health services alone do not count unless
it is in the context of a barrier or limitation of a specific population); chronic illness and
medical illness; includes communities facing addiction (opioid user populations).
(cid:129) Does not include “user friendly” design of websites/information unless it is in the con-

text of language services, sign language, audio recordings, et ainsi de suite.

(cid:129) Must be able to distinguish between accessibility in terms of (dis)ability and
geographic/general limitations, especially in terms of transportation. Unless the action
is explicit in how they are using the term, transportation accessibility does not count.

English Proficiency (More Broadly, Cultural Accommodations)

(cid:129)

(cid:129)

Includes language and translation services (for those whose primary language is not
English), culturally appropriate offerings or accommodations.
Seeking to include cultural organizations in action development or implementation.

Immigrants and Refugee Communities

(cid:129)

(cid:129)

Specific reference to immigrant and/or refugee communities. These terms must be
explicitly used within the action.
Includes DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) recipients, the legal process
surrounding legalization and naturalization, etc..

Those Impacted by Incarceration and Policing

(cid:129)

Services for the formerly incarcerated, reducing incarceration rates, reentry services,
decriminalization of specific offences. Police relations with communities, criminal
(dans)justice (reform).

Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice

50

Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00007/2157234/crcj_a_00007.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023

Evaluating Climate Justice Concerns Within Resilience Plans

(cid:129) Violence reduction and crime reduction (strategies, etc.) as long as they are not in the

context of increasing arrests, police presence, or other problematic strategies.

Other

(cid:129)

The criteria for the “other” category is meant for actions that reference justice-related
terms or themes, but do not specify a target population anywhere within the action or
reference populations outside of the seven defined above. If any of the following cri-
teria appear in an action along with a target population (specified anywhere within the
same action), the action should be classified using one of the above categories.
(cid:129) When populations are identified outside of the seven described above, they should be

noted (par exemple., veterans, youth aging out of foster care, etc.).

○

Youth counts as OTHER as long as it is in a DEIJ context (needing specific resources,
being underserved, aging out of foster care, etc.)

(cid:129) General use of terms such as justice, vulnerable populations, underserved, and equi-

table with no other details relating to a specific population.

(cid:129) General discussion of environmental justice (such as in the context of brownfield reme-
diation), gentrification, or segregation without referencing a specific population cur-
rently harmed or sought to benefit from the action.

(cid:129) Use of the term diversity in the context of human populations either as an acknowl-
edgement or seeking to increase it, et ainsi de suite, without specifying a population or
demographic.

(cid:129) Minority groups are classified as “other” if no other information is given to specify
which minority. If the term “minority” is included within the action but the action spec-
ifies which group (par exemple., people of color, genre, etc.), the action should be classified as
the population specified.
Reference to (lower) literacy levels as barriers or resources for those with lower literacy
levels (as related to education, for native English speakers). Includes low educational
attainment, as long as it is in the context of providing resources/services for this pop-
ulation or acknowledging barriers, et ainsi de suite.

(cid:129)

Justice Frameworks

Each action can apply more than one justice framework. Each of these frameworks must be in
the context or connected to one of the recognized populations described above or the “other
category” (par exemple., vulnerable or underserved communities, environmental justice, use of justice
terms like equitably or inclusive, etc.).

Distributive Justice: (Access to or Provision of Services or Good)

(cid:129)
(cid:129)

The “unequal distributions of impacts and/or responsibilities” (Agyeman et al., 2016).
Relating to the distribution of goods and services. Ensuring that new or existing services
or resources are distributed or accessible in an equitable manner. Includes providing
services to previously excluded communities or communities that had limited access.
(cid:129)
Temporal or spatial distribution of access, hazards, benefits, et ainsi de suite.
(cid:129)
Equitable access to clean air, eau, health care, healthy environments/living spaces.
(cid:129) While coding, it is best to write down distributive inequity OF WHAT: food, energy, eau,
atterrir, brownfields, housing/shelter, et ainsi de suite, as it will be helpful for future analysis.

Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice

51

Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00007/2157234/crcj_a_00007.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023

Evaluating Climate Justice Concerns Within Resilience Plans

(cid:129)

(cid:129)

(cid:129)

Providing resources to companies; organizations/agencies can count as distributive
equity, as long as they directly improve access to services for a recognized population.
Planning about providing services or increasing access does not count because planning is
an intermediate step, unless it includes language about distribution of services, et ainsi de suite.
The distribution of information only does not count. Distributive justice is about the
provision of services or programs and HOW the information is distributed. If the action
describes how the information will be shared equitably, then it counts as distributive
(otherwise, it counts as just enhancing capability).

(cid:129) Collecting data and analyzing data on different distributive inequities counts as distrib-
utive equity. Especially a discussion of breaking down data by neighborhood, racial
groupes, et ainsi de suite.

(cid:129) Distributive justice is about the distribution of benefits and risks. If the actions are talking
about equitable distribution of services, food, eau, power services, it is distributive equity
(there is a comparison here). Cependant, if the actions are only seeking to build disadvan-
taged communities and building capacity, the action counts as community capability.

Procedural Justice: (Process: Including Communities in the Process and Changing the Process to Be

More Equitable)

“Inclusion in participation and procedure” (Agyeman et al., 2016).

(cid:129)
(cid:129) Does the action engage each of the recognized populations within the actions, are they

(cid:129)

(cid:129)
(cid:129)

(cid:129)
(cid:129)
(cid:129)

part/included in preparing the plan? Includes outreach and engagement.
Relating to the processes by which resources are distributed, organizational change,
policy change. Includes actions that aim to give people a voice (if explicitly naming
the populations described above).
Removing barriers to participation, participatory justice, ensuring “seats at the table.”
Includes changes to laws, règlements, policies, and standard procedures to make them
more equitable. Cependant, these laws/regulations/policies must be about equitable
inclusion in their design or about improving justice.

○

Par exemple, removing disclosure requirements for formerly incarcerated individ-
uals when applying for jobs.

Fairness in decision-making.
Inclusivity, transparency, public deliberation: Information and language access.
Participation (inclusivity), were the communities engaged in developing the action or
will they be engaged in implementing the action?

(cid:129) Getting individuals/communities (bottom up) involved in higher level (city/state/
programmatic) decision-making—efforts to promote justice bottom-up perspectives.
(cid:129) Does not include planning efforts unless it includes the target populations in the

drafting/writing of the plan. OR changing a procedure/process.

(cid:129) Distribution of funding does not count (this would be distributive justice), unless the action
includes how target communities will be involved in deciding where the funding goes.

Capability Approach: (Offered Things) This category was not quantified. The following criteria were

created to provide loose framework for qualitative commentary. Future research is required to quantify

such a multidimensional concept.

(cid:129)
(cid:129)

Efforts to train communities ( job training).
Incorporating the needs, shared values of communities and responding appropriately.

Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice

52

Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00007/2157234/crcj_a_00007.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023

Evaluating Climate Justice Concerns Within Resilience Plans

(cid:129)
(cid:129)

Promoting capability for communal well-being, such as via a ground-up approach.
Social cohesion, which includes eliminating disrespect, insults, and degradation
between/among populations/communities/individuals.

(cid:129) May include certain citizen science approaches and the inclusion of local knowledge.
(cid:129)
Enhancing community/individual ability to continue improving their situation. Provid-
ing services with the goal that the populations won’t need them again in the future
because they are now better off.

(cid:129) Offered programs count as enhancing community capability if it is catered toward
addressing the most disadvantaged. (In contrast, procedural justice is when the com-
munities are involved in program development, such as through a public deliberation
process.)
This includes actions that improve community well-being (overall) of vulnerable
communautés.
EXAMPLES:

(cid:129)

(cid:129)

○

○

○

San Francisco Initiative 1.4: Expand Access to Health Facilities and Services for Our
Most in Need—this counts as enhancing community capabilities because it is pri-
marily in terms of increasing services at homeless shelters.
Increasing housing affordability—developers having more affordable units.
Actions related to promoting or increasing use of women- and minority-owned
business enterprises ( WMBEs).

○ Honolulu Action 35: Increase Coordination with Neighborhood Emergency Pre-
paredness Groups, which included an element about distributing donations and
working with local groups to make sure they get to groups at the neighborhood
level. This is addressing community capability in environmental or health emergen-
cies. En général, most programs are focused on addressing community capabilities,
but they must be particularly taking into account the needs of low-income, Noir,
Indigenous, and disabled communities.

If there is not enough information to assign a justice framework, record “not enough infor-

mation” for the action.

Justice Resilience Index

There are a possible four points per action. Points are assigned for each category for explicit
inclusion of the criteria. Inferred use of the criteria does not count.

Focus

Primary Focus. Primary focus is if justice is the central core or focus of the action. D'abord, look at
the title of the action. If justice is included within the title, it is often the primary focus of the
action. Cependant, if justice-related terms are in the title, but not consistently throughout the
action itself, it counts as partial focus. Be aware that while shorter actions may only have
one reference to a population, the sole purpose of the action may still be to serve that one
population, and therefore the action will be primary focus. Par exemple, the Fresh Food
Retailer action in the New Orleans resilience plan references low-income communities once,
but the sole purpose of the action is to provide access to fresh foods to this community.

If justice is not included within the title and is not included consistently through-
Partial Focus.
out the description of the action but occurs more often than a one-word mention (par exemple., occur-
ring twice in multiple paragraphs or parts of the action), it is considered a partial focus.

Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice

53

Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00007/2157234/crcj_a_00007.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023

Evaluating Climate Justice Concerns Within Resilience Plans

If justice is included within the action as a single word or short phrase, it is consid-
Mention.
ered a mention (par exemple., just referencing vulnerable populations, equity, or underserved
populations).

(cid:129)
(cid:129)

0 pt = justice not included within the action at all
1 pt = the action has primary focus on justice

Justification

A justification is defined as a statement describing a justice-related issue within the action
without describing implementation. This is often a preamble leading into a description of what
the city plans to do to combat the challenge being described.

(cid:129)
(cid:129)

0 pt = no purely descriptive text
1 pt = the action describes a justice-related topic as a statement of fact, not offering an
action related to it

Justice Frameworks

The criteria for each justice framework are provided above in the section titled “Justice
Frameworks.”

(cid:129)

(cid:129)

0 pt = no true justice framework or use of either distributive or procedural equity, mais
not both
1 pt = 1 point for included both distributive and procedural equity in the action

Recognized Populations

Does the action identify specific populations?

(cid:129)

(cid:129)

0 pt = no specific population identified (par exemple., generic use of terms such as equity, vul-
nerable communities, or inclusive governance)
1 pt = specific population identified (including specific “other” populations outside of
the main seven population categories: socioeconomic status, course, ability, genre,
culture/language proficiency, immigrant/refugee, and those impacted by policing)

Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice

54

Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00007/2157234/crcj_a_00007.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023

Télécharger le PDF