INOM
EXAMENSARBETE THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, AVANCERAD NIVÅ, 30 HP
STOCKHOLM SVERIGE 2016,
Assessing Social-Ecological Justice in Projects, Plans and Processes
A Woorkbook for Sustainable development ANTON BERTILSON
KTH
SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
TRITA 02
www.kth.se
Assessing Social-Ecological Justice in Projects, Plans and Processes Utvärdering av Social-Ekologisk Rättvisa i Projekt, Planer och Processer
Degree project in Strategies for sustainable development, Second Cycle AL250X, 30 credits
Author: Anton Bertilson
Supervisor: Ulrika Gunnarsson-Östling Examiner: Josefin Wangel
Division of Environmental Strategies Research (fms)
Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science and Engineering School of Architecture and the Built Environment
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
1
Abstract
This thesis aims to develop a workbook to assess social-ecological justice (SEJ) in projects, plans and processes. Social-ecological justice bridges many sustainability discourses in order to create a more inclusive and wider sustainability concept than previous ones (Gunnarsson Östling & Svenfelt, (Submitted Book Chapter)). In order to fill the gap between SEJ theory and practically assessing SEJ in projects, plans and processes there is a need for a tool that can help and guide practitioners in their work. This thesis aims to fill the existing gap by developing the SEJ workbook. A lot of the developed SEJ methodology is based on an already existing workbook developed by the Resilience Alliance (2010) called: Assessing resilience in social-ecological systems: Workbook for practitioners. This workbook and SEJ have the same definition of what a social-ecological system is, and share a lot of similar theoretical aspects. The methodology of this thesis is a combination of a theoretical study of the SEJ concept, an analytic comparative study between a Resilience Assessment and the SEJ concept, and semi-structured interviews with practitioners that in different ways works with sustainable development today. The result is a five steps workbook that consists of the parts:
1) Identifying issues, defining the area and actor analysis, 2) History of the issues, 3) Dynamics of the issues and cross-scale interactions, 4) Governance and 5) Acting on the assessment. Each step has questions that aim to help the analyst complete the SEJ assessment.
This entire process creates an inclusive and broad understanding of SEJ issues in projects, plans and processes. The complete SEJ assessment can help decision makers and actors in the area make well informed decisions for future sustainable development. It can also serve as a first step in an EIA (environmental impact assessment) with connections to social, ecological and socioeconomic aspects.
2
Abstract (Swedish)
Detta examensarbete har målet att utveckla en handbok för att utvärdera social-ekologisk rättvisa (SER) i projekt, planer och processer. Social-ekologisk rättvisa binder ihop flera hållbarhets diskurser för att skapa ett mera sammanhållande och bredare hållbarhetskoncept (Gunnarsson Östling & Svenfelt, (Submitted Book Chapter)). För att fylla gapet mellan teori och praktik så behövs det ett hjälpmedel som kan hjälpa praktiker att utvärdera SER i projekt, planer och processer. Denna handbok ämnar till att fylla detta gap. Mycket av SER metodiken som utvecklats har sin bas i Resilience Alliance (2010) handbok: Assessing resilience in social-ecological systems: Workbook for practitioners. Denna handbok och SER har liknande definitioner av vad ett social-ekologiskt system är, och delar många teoretiska aspekter.
Examensarbetets metod är en kombination av en teorietisk studie av SER konceptet, analytisk studie som jämför en resiliensanalys (från Resilience Alliance handboken) och SER konceptet, samt semi-strukturerade intervjuer med praktiker som idag arbetar med hållbarhet i projekt, planer och processer. Resultatet är en fem-stegs handbok som innehåller delarna: 1) Identifiering av problem, avgränsningar av området och aktörsanalys, 2) Problemens historia, 3) Problemens dynamik och tvärvetenskapliga samverkansprocesser, 4) Governance och 5) Agerande utifrån analysen. Varje steg har frågor som är menade att hjälpa den som utför utvärderingen att komma framåt i processen. Hela processen skapar en samanhållen och bred förståelse för SER problem i projektet, planen eller processen. SER handboken kan också hjälpa beslutsfattare och relevanta aktörer att ta väl informerade beslut för framtida utveckling. Handboken kan även användas som ett första steg i en MKB med fokus på de sociala, ekologiska och socioekonomiska aspekterna som bör tas upp.
3
Preface
Big thank you to all of the individuals that have helped me complete my master thesis. Thanks to Ulrika Gunnarsson-Östling for supervising, comments and guidance throughout the entire process. Another big thank you to the interviewed practitioners: Fredrik Karlsson, John Sjöström and Sofie Karlsborn for taking the time and answering my questions. Your ideas and answers were very interesting and helped a great deal to develop the thesis.
And of course a very big thank you to my supporting family, especially my wife Sandra for the motivation you have been throughout this thesis. Last but not least thank you to Malin, my classmate and friend, for important questions and motivating me develop my thesis, and the many hours spent on Skype.
4
Table of content
Abstract ... 1
Abstract (Swedish) ... 2
Preface ... 3
Glossary ... 6
1. Introduction ... 7
1.1. Background ... 7
1.2. Social-ecological justice ... 8
1.3. Aim and research questions ... 10
1.4. Delimitations ... 10
2. Method ... 11
3. Theory ... 12
3.1. Resilience ... 12
3.2. Assessing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: Workbook for Practitioners ... 14
Step 1: Setting soft boundaries – defining the system... 15
Step 2: System dynamics ... 16
Step 3: Cross-scale interactions ... 16
Step 4: Governance systems ... 17
Step 5: Acting on the assessment... 18
4. Analysis – developing the SEJ workbook ... 20
4.1. Similarities between SEJ and a resilience assessment ... 20
4.2. Useful parts of the RA to include in the SEJ workbook ... 21
Step 1: Setting soft boundaries – defining the system... 21
Step 2: System dynamics ... 22
Step 3: Cross-scale interactions ... 23
Step 4: Governance systems ... 23
Step 5: Acting on the assessment... 24
4.3. What should be added to the SEJ assessment? ... 25
What is missing according to the concept? ... 25
Results from the interviews ... 26
What should be added or excluded according to the practitioners and why? ... 27
4.4. The workbook: Assessing social-ecological justice ... 28
Part 1: Identifying issues, defining the area and actor analysis ... 28
Part 2: History of the issues ... 30
5
Part 3: Dynamic of the issues and cross-scale interactions... 30
Part 4: Governance ... 32
Part 5: Acting on the assessment ... 34
5. Discussion ... 36
General discussion ... 36
Method criticism ... 37
Assessment criticism ... 37
Connections to similar research ... 38
Suggestions for future development and research ... 38
References ... 40
Appendix 1: Interview questions ... 42
6
Glossary
SEJ – Social-Ecological Justice RA – Resilience Assessment
SEC – Swedish Environmental Code (miljöbalken) EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment
Analyst –The one conducting a SEJ assessment or a RA SER – Social Ekologisk Rättvisa (Swedish translation of SEJ)
SES – Social ecological systems, systems with both social and ecological factors that influence and depend on each other.
Focal system – The system within the soft boundaries in a resilience assessment.
7
1. Introduction
This thesis focuses on the development of a workbook for assessing social-ecological justice (SEJ) in plans, projects and processes. The idea came from the author’s previous studies of Ecosystem Support and Environmental Justice (AG2803), Planning for Resilience (AG2811) and Project: Sustainable Urban Development (AG2809) at KTH.
1.1. Background
The sustainability concept has been included in many decisions-making processes when it comes to dealing with climate change, poverty, health and natural resource related issues (Gunnarsson Östling & Svenfelt, (Submitted Book Chapter)). However there are several discourses connected to sustainability (Eco-localism, Political ecology, Green growth, Ecological economics, Environmental justice) but they do not value nature and justice in the same way and the solutions and types of changes vary between the discourses (ibid). Others have also gotten similar conclusions and argued for the need for an understanding of the differences between sustainability discourses (Glavic & Lukman, 2006).
Bradley et al, (2008) argues for how the sustainability discourse in Sweden today is focused on creating “win-win” strategies and the (in)justice perspective is therefore overlooked. The paper discusses three different cases in Sweden in regards to justice in planning. Their conclusion is that today’s sustainability discourse limits the acknowledgement, identification and discussion of justice in a planning context (Bradley, et al., 2008). The authors also argue for more research and discussion around the subject and that the justice perspective in the sustainability discourse needs to be enhanced and developed (ibid). Researchers at KTH (Gunnarsson Östling & Svenfelt, (Submitted Book Chapter)) have developed a concept called social-ecological justice that focuses on social and ecological aspects connected to sustainability. This concept aims to bridge several discourses and create a concept that expands the scales and reduces sub-optimizing as well as including both inter- and intragenerational justice and both local and global effects (ibid).
The concept developed by Gunnarsson-Östling and Svenfelt (Submitted Book Chapter) is similar in many ways to the parts included in the analytical tool of a resilience assessment developed by the Resilience Alliance (2010). The foundation and basic characteristics in the workbook (Resilience Alliance, 2010) have a lot of similarities with the social-ecological justice concept developed Gunnarsson-Östling & Svenfelt (Submitted Book Chapter). They both describe systems the same way and have short and long term thinking in what is to be assessed and preserved. The workbook also deals with the complexity of social-ecological systems that is very important for assessing complex issues (Resilience Alliance, 2010).
Even if Gunnarsson-Östling & Svenfelt (Submitted Book Chapter) have created this concept there is still a need for a tool to help practitioners assess social-ecological justice in processes, plans and projects. Such a tool does not exist today and would contribute to more focus on social, equity and ecological aspects in new developments and plans. Therefore this thesis aims to develop such a tool with the help of the methodology in “Assessing resilience in social-ecological systems: Workbook for practitioners.” (Resilience Alliance, 2010).
8
I would argue that the combination of the methodology of the workbook developed by the Resilience Alliance and the clear concept of SEJ is a great foundation for a workbook to assess justice in social-ecological systems, plans, processes and projects. The method of the RA workbook has a broad perspective and encourages an adaptive approach to dealing with the specific issue (Resilience Alliance, 2010).
There is also a need, according to me, to analyze the justice perspective in plans, projects and processes today as it is an important and often forgotten part of sustainability. If we truly want to achieve sustainability in a project there is a need to assess many different aspects of the project and discuss the meaning of sustainability and the implications that the project has.
And a SEJ assessment of a project can lead to a better understanding on how the specific project influences generations, communities and groups in both social and environmental ways. I believe that there is no win-win situation to any project since there is always someone that has a different opinion on what to prioritize. And from a democratic point of view there is a need to listen and make decisions with all the cards on the table so that the one who makes the decisions also can be held responsible for the consequences. A practical tool for assessment of the justice perspectives in the plan, project or process is therefore needed.
1.2. Social-ecological justice Origin
The concept of social-ecological justice has its foundation in multiple discourses around sustainable development (Gunnarsson Östling & Svenfelt, (Submitted Book Chapter)). The main concepts that SEJ are based on are Environmental Justice and Social-Ecological Resilience (ibid). SEJ is not meant as a new discourse, according to the authors, but instead should serve as a framework for sustainable development, where a holistic viewpoint tries to include as many factors as possible (ibid). There have been previous similar developments trying to link ecological and social aspects together as one. For example, (Raworth, 2012) combines (Rockström, et al., 2009) planetary boundaries with social aspects to link social and ecological sustainability. Raworth’s doughnut is a very good example in trying to include many aspects at once when talking about sustainability, but it is not developed to evaluate a specific area or development in the same way that SEJ can do.
SEJ views the world as a social-ecological system where humans are dependent on nature’s ecosystem supporting services (food, water, air quality etc.). The concept has an anthropocentric approach and aims to fill the need for connecting the ecological benefits in society, at the same time as the distribution of resources and environmental impacts is just between different groups in society. Gunnarsson-Östling & Svenfelt (Submitted Book Chapter) argues for that the connection of ecosystem support and environmental justice needs to be emphasised, since they are seldom mention together in a sustainable debate. The reasons for this are that the industrialised societies have lost their connection to the dependence on nature and what it provides (ibid). As well as the foundation for the wealth comes with negative environmental effects in the underdeveloped countries, a long way from the end- consumer (ibid).
9
As stated earlier, a lot of the foundations of SEJ concept origins from the Environmental Justice discourse. Environmental justice has its roots in the 1980s in the US (Bullard, 2001).
At this time 75% of the African-American communities had a hazardous landfill in their neighbourhoods. And at this time the African-American community was only 20% of the total population (ibid). This led to major protests both from the African-American communities and from environmental movements. The most famous one was the Warren County landfill where a lot of the protests was in vain at the time but led to an increased collaboration and expansion of the environmental justice movement and fifteen years later the state of North Caroline was sentenced to pay 25 million dollars to clean up the landfill (Bullard, 2001).
These environmental justice protests has a history of having a retro-perspective, meaning that the often happen after something has affected people in a negative way. Since then the Environmental Justice has increased in number and impact, with multiple different organisations working to increase environmental justice around the globe (Bullard, 2001). It is clear for someone who is familiar with Environmental Justice that SEJ share a lot of similarities with the Environmental Justice discourse.
SEJ instead focuses on both being pro- and retro-active in its way of dealing with environmental justice (Gunnarsson Östling & Svenfelt, (Submitted Book Chapter)).
Definition of SEJ
The concept of SEJ, as defined by Gunnarsson-Östling & Svenfelt (Submitted Book Chapter), fills the gap between planning, decisions making and tries to address the many different aspects included in various sustainability concepts and justice-focused discourses. The concept deals with power-structures, inter- and intragenerational justice, local and global dependence on ecosystems as well as both environmental benefits and burdens (ibid). All of these aspects is connected to both between communities and countries (ibid).
Gunnarsson-Östling & Svenfelt (Submitted Book Chapter) has developed eight characteristics that they argue for should be included in SEJ. They are:
1. Base decisions on how the system/case/society depends upon and influences local ecosystems and social-ecological systems in other regions.
2. Acknowledge and deal with conflicts, complexity, dynamics, and uncertainty.
3. Just distribution of environmental goods and services, between and within both communities and generations.
4. Just distribution of environmental bads (environmental burdens), between and within both communities and generations.
5. Principles for just distribution should be discussed and defined.
6. Justice permeates planning, policies and production and consumption.
7. Awareness and identification of who is included, who decides, and where power is located.
8. Environmental decisions are based on and shaped by affected groups/peoples/communities
10 1.3. Aim and research questions
The aim of this thesis is to create a workbook for practitioners that want to assess social- ecological justice, as defined by Gunnarsson-Östling & Svenfelt (Submitted Book Chapter) and similar concepts, in projects, plans and processes. This workbook will base its methodology in the resilience assessment found in Resilience Alliance (2010) workbook:
Assessing resilience in social-ecological systems: Workbook for practitioners.
The reason for choosing projects, plans and processes is to include as many aspects of ex-ante planning as possible.
In order to answer the aim, three research questions will guide the process:
Q1: What similarities are there between social-ecological justice and the resilience assessment?
Q2: What parts of a resilience assessment can be used to assess social-ecological justice in processes, plans and projects? And how should these parts be modified to better fit the social- ecological justice framework?
Q3: What steps are not included the resilience assessment and needs to be added to complete a social-ecological justice assessment according to the concept and practitioners?
1.4. Delimitations
This thesis uses the concept of social-ecological justice as the main framing for creating a more sustainable and just assessment for plans, processes or projects. It does not look into how well other concepts or discourses handle the issue of sustainability and justice in plans, processes and projects.
The methodology is based on the resilience alliance workbook for practitioners (Resilience Alliance, 2010) and no other specific method has been investigated.
The developed SEJ workbook is not tested on a practical case because of the limited time frame.
11
2. Method
This thesis uses a qualitative method with a comparative study of two the concepts social- ecological justice and a resilience assessment. The literature study is complemented with semi-structured interviews. The method and theory used in the paper are connected to each of the three research questions.
The first research question “What similarities are there between social-ecological justice and the resilience assessment”? will be answers through a first describing the theory of resilience and the resilience assessment workbook and then comparing these to social-ecological justice.
The second research question “What parts of RA can be used to assess social-ecological justice in processes, plans and projects? And how should these parts be modified to fit the social-ecological justice framework?” will be answered by analysing the parts in the RA workbook and the definition of SEJ.
The third research question is: “What steps are not included in the resilience assessment and need to be added to complete a social-ecological justice assessment according to the concept and practitioners?”. This question will complement the previous research and add what is missing in the resilience assessment. This way, it will theoretically show what aspects that needs to be added to the assessment of SEJ. This will be complemented with semi-structured interviews (appendix 1) with practitioners that daily deal with assessing social sustainability in order to give criticism and develop the assessment of SEJ. First the results of the interviews will be presented then the summary of what the practitioners wanted to add. Three different interview subjects with different backgrounds and fields where chosen: Environmental Strategist at Helsingborg City, EIA Specialist at COWI and Environmental Coordinator at Sweco.
The selection of interview subjects was in the basis that the workbook aim to assess projects, plans and processes. This meant that a large number of people that work with these today were contacted for the possibility of an interview. Interviews were conducted both in person and by phone. All of the interviewee was asked the questions found in appendix 1 and depending on the answer follow-up questions were posed. There follow-up questions where to get a deeper understanding of the answers that the interviewee gave.
12
3. Theory
3.1. Resilience
Resilience theory has its origin in the study of the interaction between predators and pray done in 1970s and its response to ecological stability. The definition of resilience was then the possibility of a system to remain within the same state when a change occurs. (Folke, 2006) More recently, the definition of resilience in a social-ecological concept has been developed by Walker and Salt (2006). They define resilience as a system thinking around three concepts:
(1) we humans are part of a social system which is integrated with an ecological system, leading to a social-ecological system (SES). (2) SES:s are complex and non-linear systems which can exist in multiple states and are adaptive towards change and disturbances. (3) Resilience is defined as a system’s capacity to deal with change and still keep its primary functions and feedbacks. (Walker & Salt, 2006)
Since the world in which we live is a made of complex social and ecological system that changes all the time, a resilience thinking can help cope with the changes and plan for a wanted development instead of a uncertain and unexpected one (Folke, 2006). A few case studies have been conducted in Sweden with focus on resilience in a planning context (Sellberg, et al., 2015). This study showed many advantages of resilience in planning, such as understanding complex problems and bridging the collaboration of crisis management and planning. There was also a criticism towards the workbooks underdeveloped practical usage for planning (ibid). Fabiniyi, et al. (2015) also critizises the concept of resilience, arguing for the lack analysis of where power is located, and a lack of focus on the importance of who decides the change in the current case (ibid). They also argue that there is a lack of focus on the social aspects in practice when using a resilience assessment (ibid). The RA workbook argues that it includes power relationships and that it is up to the author of the assessment to value what is most important in the specific case (Resilience Alliance, 2010).
The adaptive cycle (figure 2) is a central part of the resilience concept and is used to describe a system and how it changes over time (Resilience Alliance, 2010).
13 Figure 1. The adaptive cycle (Resilience Alliance, 2010).
The first phase that a system starts in is the exploitation phase (r) where the system starts to develop and has a lot of possibilities of what it develops into (Resilience Alliance, 2010). As an example a meadow can be seen as a forest in its exploitation phase. No trees are there yet and multiple choices exist in terms of what type of forest it will be. When the forest moves on to the conservation phase (k) the type of trees has now been “set” and this phase can be very long (think the amazons), or shorter (forest production), depending on the area and what disturbances that might occur (Resilience Alliance, 2010). The conservation phase ends when a disturbance occurs and destroys the forest (ex: fire or deforestation) (ibid). Then the system goes into a release phase (omega) where the future is uncertain and the previous system has collapsed new possibilities exists (ibid). The last phase of the system is the reorganization phase (alpha) where the cycle now is repeated and the end of the phase can be the forest again returning to being a meadow. After this phase the meadow can again be a forest but the possibilities are open. (Resilience Alliance, 2010)
This means that depending on the phase the system is in there are different possibilities for adapting and dealing with change. A system that is in the exploitation phase can handle change and still persists, while a system within the conservation phase has a harder time dealing with change. (Resilience Alliance, 2010)
14
3.2. Assessing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: Workbook for Practitioners
A resilience assessment is conducted with the help of the Resilience Alliance workbook:
Assessing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: Workbook for Practitioners (Resilience Alliance, 2010). The workbook has its foundation in the very well put argument below.
“Human activities over the past fifty years have altered ecosystems around the world faster and more extensively than at any other time in history. These changes expose the need for a better understanding of how to manage, cope with, and adapt to change. Many of the challenges that confront natural resource management today are linked to dynamic processes that are themselves undergoing change. These circumstances require not only that we rethink how we approach human-environment interactions in the broadest sense, but also how we intervene in and manage the ecosystems upon which human well-being depends.” (Resilience Alliance, 2010, p. 4)
The assessment consists of the five steps: Describing the system, System dynamics, Cross- scale interactions, Governance systems and Acting on the assessment (figure 3) (Resilience Alliance, 2010).The framework for the assessment is the definition of society as an integrated part of nature called a social-ecological system (Resilience Alliance, 2010). This also implies that the systems are complex and consists of political, cultural, technological and economic factors that interact with multiple ecosystems in very complex ways (ibid).
Figure 2. Resilience assessment framework (Resilience Alliance, 2010, p. 5).
15
Step 1: Setting soft boundaries – defining the system
This section of the assessment aims to set the first step towards defining what is to be assessed (geographical and time wise) by defining what the boundaries are and defining the focal system. Each assessment is different from the other since the focal system and its components will be different depending on time, scale and current issues concerned. It is important to realise that no SES exists on its own, but rather are dependent on multiple system that lays outside the focal systems boundaries. This can be exemplified with a forest as the focal system, if the forest is located very close to a city, people will influence this forest to a great extent. But if the same forest is located very remote then people will not have the same amount of influence. (Resilience Alliance, 2010)
The first part of defining the boundaries for the focal system is done by identifying the main issues of concern. These issues vary depending on context, stakeholder and system and are therefore depend on the specific assessment. The issues are summarized in a table including the main issues of concern and the valued attributes of the system regarding that specific issue. This could be biodiversity where the issues might be a lack of green space etc. The idea is also to return to this section during the process to re-evaluate and add issues to the list.
(Resilience Alliance, 2010)
The second part of defining the boundaries consists of defining the resilience of what, meaning the key components of the SES. This includes the most valued aspects of the system, both natural and social. These aspects should be connected to the main issues already identified. There is a need to widen the aspects here so that as many actors as possible are included in the process, this helps determining what are key components of the system are.
The more complex the system is the more the need for many actors to be involved is increased. (Resilience Alliance, 2010)
As a third step the disturbances, uncertainties and disruptions that affect the key components of the system. The disturbances are divided into “pulse” (fast and short timescale) and “press”
(slow and long timescale). These are also categorized into a table to get an overview of the characteristics of the disturbances. This is an important part of the assessment in terms of deciding what aspects that are the most important for the system to be adaptive towards.
(Resilience Alliance, 2010)
The last stage of the first step of the assessment is focused around expanding the system in terms of scale, time and space. Here a history of the system’s components are analysed, as well as disturbances in the past, and other aspects that are important for how the system today functions. A table is also conducted describing the social and ecological dimensions that influence the larger and smaller scale systems. This means that this section contributes to understanding how the system has changed over time and what disturbances that caused the change. (Resilience Alliance, 2010)
16 Step 2: System dynamics
In this step the adaptive cycle (figure 2) plays a central role in understanding how the system changes over time and where opportunities lies in terms of managing the change. The framework for the adaptive cycle is applied to the system. Then the most significant key variable that manages the systems change is analysed further to give a clear connection between change and variables that govern and cause the change. This is complex in larger and interconnected systems since it might be unclear what factors lead to the change. The end of this section then aims to describe the variables that drive the change in the system and how they can be tracked to govern the change in the focal system. The section also tries to determine which phase of the adaptive cycle the system currently is in. (Resilience Alliance, 2010)
The second part of this step is to define the different states that the focal system exists in. A state varies from another by the characteristics of the system. It can be the water in a well being drinkable or not, these states are then characterised by the drinkability of the water. This is very different depending on the focal system and requires a deep analysis of the systems components and their interactions. The goal of this part is also to determine the most important factors that affect the state which the system is in. Even if the system does not change very often in its current state it is important to know what factors to look for when the change might occur in the future. (Resilience Alliance, 2010)
This leads into discussing the thresholds and transitions that might occur in the future and if they are wanted or undesired. It is important to know which factors drive the change in the system past the threshold so it can be avoided. Here the characteristics that determine how the system change are important to understand so that they can be govern and adapted into an desired state or kept in a desired state. The key to this is adaptation in the specific context of the focal system in question. (Resilience Alliance, 2010)
Step 3: Cross-scale interactions
As mentioned before a SES interacts with smaller-scale and larger-scale systems around them.
These interactions are important to be able to understand how the focal system works and what interactions there are. These interactions can be illustrated with the help of many adaptive cycles connected to each other showing the cross-scale interactions. This way of showing the interactions is called “The Panarchy” (figure 4). (Resilience Alliance, 2010)
17
Figure 3. "The Panarchy", an illustration of the connection of smaller and larger-scale systems.
(Folke, 2006)
The larger-scale system and the smaller-scale system are analysed separately in connection to the issues identified in step one as well as the disturbances that threaten the focal system.
(Resilience Alliance, 2010)
The thresholds of the focal system identified in step 2 are widened and analysed on a larger and smaller scale to see how the interaction of the system influence the change. Factors that determine how well the focal system deals with the change should also be discussed in the same context. An example form this is a city’s capacity to handle a major fire, the entire country can help in fighting the fire as well as repairing the damaged afterwards. But if the city theoretically were its own country then no such help would exist. This section also includes factors that lay outside the focal system that might influence the change within the focal system. An example of this is how climate change would affect an area, the area in itself is not responsible for climate change but is still very much influence by it. This is all done with the connection between social and ecological factors. (Resilience Alliance, 2010)
The last part of this step includes identifying specific and general resilience. The difference between the two can be described as specific resilience being a roads capacity to handle heavy rain and general resilience the whole focal systems capacity to handle heavy rain. Here the importance lies with not sub-optimizing solutions for the system as well as taking advantage of the specific resilience within the system to strengthen the general resilience. (Resilience Alliance, 2010)
Step 4: Governance systems
This step of the assessment aims to determine how decisions are taken in the focal system, both formal and informal ones. It can also include informal rules that govern the directions that the system takes. In regards to this, the section promotes an adaptive governance approach, meaning that the governance of the system should be able to handle a changing
18
system. This means including many stakeholders, creating social networks as well as working with formal legislation. This can enhance resilience since it promotes flexibility, inclusiveness, diversity and innovation. (Resilience Alliance, 2010)
The key informal and formal institutions are mapped out in the focal system and on larger and smaller scales. Here the information gathered in step 3 comes in hand for understanding the decisions that are made. It is also important to look at the history of the system from step 1 to see what decisions that has formed the system today. Overviews of how much influence the formal institutions and informal rules have over the issues identified in step 1 are presented here in a worksheet. Questions such as “where is power located?” and “who decide if changes happen?” should be reflected on here in connection to the issues. This is very important for creating a more resilient system and seeing how to manage the changes that are needed.
(Resilience Alliance, 2010)
The social networks present among stakeholders are another important factor to analyse in this step. This determines how well the system can cope with changes since a system with a good connection between the stakeholders leads to a higher resilience in most cases. Mapping the social network in the system can be done by helpful tools or by key informants that have great knowledge of the system in question. The key components of the social network should also be analysed when the mapping is done. This means that number of relations between actors, centrality of actors and cohesive subgroups should be determined in the social network, as well as the lack of connection between groups or key actors being shown. After this is done, a reflection of the management of the issues identified in relation to how the social network is composed should determine how well the issues can be handled. This will show if any actor/actors work against the change and the amount of influence they have over the issues. (Resilience Alliance, 2010)
Step 5: Acting on the assessment
This step is mainly about summarising the finding in previous steps of the analysis. The workbook suggest completing two tables that reflect the overall work process. These tables are however not mandatory and they suggest creating your own summary if it better fits the context of the analysis. In order to do this each step of the assessment should be included and the result from these summarised and presented in a way that is easy to understand.
(Resilience Alliance, 2010)
The next step of acting on the assessment is aimed to help create a resilience-based stewardship where multiple known areas are given suggested solutions for increasing the resilience of the system. These areas are biological, economic and cultural diversity;
stabilizing feedbacks and creating renewal; social learning through experimentation and innovation; adapt governance to changing conditions (figure 5). (Resilience Alliance, 2010)
19
The step ends with the question: “time for transformation?” where the questions should be answered and implications analyzed. It seems to be common that transformation is wanted after a resilience assessment. Either towards a new state for the system or changes needs to be made to keep the system in balance against future disturbances. Creating change however, is not always uncomplicated. This section aims to evaluate if there are other interests that might want to “highjack” the transformation so that it benefits them and not the system. It is also important to discuss who might be influenced negatively by the wanted changes. Are there minorities or different actors that might get influenced worse than others? Suggested actions towards managing this is building trust among the stakeholders and actors involved in the process. This should be done by first analyzing the opportunities for trust building then conducting a plan for its implementation. (Resilience Alliance, 2010)
The final step of the workbook is to adapt and implement an adaptive management around the given issues identified. This means that the assessment is the foundation for understanding the system and the results is the key to managing an adaptive management that enhances resilience in the area. (Resilience Alliance, 2010)
Figure 4. Examples of stewardship strategies to enhance social-ecological resilience (Resilience Alliance, 2010).
20
4. Analysis – developing the SEJ workbook
The analysis answers the research questions step by step to give a clear view of the analytic process of the paper. The first research question “How is social-ecological justice defined?”
has been answered in the theory (chapter 3.1) and is therefore not processed as a question here. These answers are the foundation for the development of the SEJ workbook and the section 4.4 is meant to be the actual finished workbook.
4.1. Similarities between SEJ and a resilience assessment
Q2: What similarities are there between social-ecological justice and the resilience assessment?
This question gives a general overview of the similarities of the concepts in order to enlighten the connection between the SEJ concept and the resilience assessment.
Both SEJ and a RA have their foundations in creating long term sustainability but perhaps not with the same view of what is considered sustainable. SEJ has a lot of definitions in regards to how sustainability is defined and what is to be included (Gunnarsson Östling & Svenfelt, (Submitted Book Chapter)). A RA does not define what is included in the sustainability discourses (Resilience Alliance, 2010). Instead a RA values the conservation or transformation of a system so that the valued attributes are enhanced (Ibid). This has to be combined with a sustainability focus or discourse in order to create long term sustainability. A system can theoretically be resilient and at the same time be un-sustainable. The valued attributes of the system are dependent on whose voice is heard most in the assessment, this could be the strongest actor or even the person conducting the assessment. There is a discussion of governance and government in the process of the RA but not the main focus (Resilience Alliance, 2010). In the SEJ concept however there is a much larger focus on who is included in the entire process since this is a very important aspect when discussing justice (Gunnarsson Östling & Svenfelt, (Submitted Book Chapter)). So both concepts deal with who is included but not in the same way.
The main similarity of the two concepts is that they both see the world as a social-ecological system. This means they both enlighten the connection between ecosystem services and society as a very important interdependence that needs to be enhanced. In the definition of SEJ, the first point of what characterises the concept is to “base decisions on how the system/case/society depends upon and influences local ecosystems and social-ecological systems in other regions” (Gunnarsson Östling & Svenfelt, (Submitted Book Chapter)). This is very similar to the foundation in the resilience assessment in terms of valuing the connection of ecosystem and social-ecological systems and its interconnection as a very important factor to consider (Resilience Alliance, 2010).
The second characteristics of SEJ, to “acknowledge and deal with conflicts, complexity, dynamics and uncertainty” can also be found in the RA (Gunnarsson Östling & Svenfelt, (Submitted Book Chapter)). The resilience assessment discusses and deals with uncertainty to a large extent (Resilience Alliance, 2010). The RA focuses on uncertainties and disturbances
21
that influence the system and the complex dynamic of the system as well as the conflicts within the system that might hinder or lead to change (Resilience Alliance, 2010).
Another aspect that both SEJ and RA share is that there it is important to know who is conducting the assessments. Many of the parts of the assessments are subjective and therefore the author/analyst can steer the direction of the analysis (intentional or un-intentional) to a direction that benefits the author. The identified issues or system dynamics are not always fact/statistics based information. Instead they can be feelings or emotions that different actors in society has around subjects. And the author/analyst are also a person with subjective feelings that affect what is valued and what conclusions are drawn from reading, interviews, workshops, site visits, etc.
The main difference between the two concepts is that the resilience assessment does not focus on justice as an important issue to assess while SEJ values it as the main important thing.
4.2. Useful parts of the RA to include in the SEJ workbook
Q3: What parts of the resilience assessment can be used to assess social-ecological justice in processes, plans and projects? And how should these parts be modified to fit the social-ecological justice framework?
This section analyses each part of the resilience assessment in connection to the definition of social-ecological justice to examine how to modify the workbook to fit the social-ecological framework. It is done in a step-by-step process that follows the outline of the resilience assessment. This part also analyses method parts that can be useful for assessing social- ecological justice in plans, projects and processes.
Step 1: Setting soft boundaries – defining the system
The method used in the RA can be applicable for the SEJ assessment as well. This is the case since both of the concepts have the same definition of what a social-ecological world looks like and how it interacts. The methodology also breaks down the issues and guides the author in how to think around actors, issues, interactions of system on smaller and larger scales, etc.
This can in a SEJ context lead to a good understanding of the issues connected to the plan, project or process in question.
Identifying the main issues of concern in a SEJ context is also an important start for an assessment. Here the issues should not vary that much from assessment to assessment since they all should focus on issues connected to the definition of SEJ. This means that all of the 8 characteristics found in section 3.1. should narrow the assessment down more than a RA. The consequence of this is that the process should be less complex and each assessment more similar to each other than the RA is. This simplifies and speeds up the assessment process and makes each assessment more comparable with others.
The first step of the RA is focused on defining the system boundaries in order to narrow the assessment and keep a focus on the area in question (Resilience Alliance, 2010). A similar approach is important for the SEJ as the area is different each time and this helps to narrow the investigation. Defining the boundaries of a plan, project or process, including geographic
22
scale and time, is therefore important for a SEJ assessment. Depending on the case the time and geographic scales varies a lot. The first characteristics of the SEJ: “Base decisions on how the system/case/society depends upon and influences local ecosystems and social- ecological systems in other regions.” is closely connected to this (Gunnarsson Östling &
Svenfelt, (Submitted Book Chapter)).
The RA focuses on including many actors in the ongoing analysis in order to get a complete view of the problems and solutions for the specific case (Resilience Alliance, 2010). This is even more important in a SEJ context since the emphasis is on justice and inclusiveness (Gunnarsson Östling & Svenfelt, (Submitted Book Chapter)). To assess and find the main issues of the plan, project or process as many actors as possible should be included in the process in the specific case. This fits very well with the 8th characteristic: “Environmental decisions are based on and shaped by affected groups/peoples/communities” (Gunnarsson Östling & Svenfelt, (Submitted Book Chapter)). The issues of concern should all be connected to social-ecological problems and in the context of the SEJ this means creating a
“just distribution of environmental goods and services, between and within both communities and generations” which is the third characteristic of SEJ (ibid). This is also important in order to analyse the disturbances and uncertainties that can affect the project in the future.
The analysis of the history of the system can also be useful for understanding the different justice context and who values what. This, as well as expanding the scale and looking outside the system are important in order to understand the wider picture in the specific case. All of these aspects aims to deal with the second characteristic of SEJ: “Acknowledge and deal with conflicts, complexity, dynamics, and uncertainty” (Gunnarsson Östling & Svenfelt, (Submitted Book Chapter)). The first step should with this in mind define the system, include actors and identify the issues.
Step 2: System dynamics
There is a need to understand how the system works and what connections there are to other systems/regions so that decision can be based upon these influences. SEJ focuses a lot on how the current system influences other parts of the world in a justice perspective, this could be developed in the systems dynamic section (Gunnarsson Östling & Svenfelt, (Submitted Book Chapter)). Meaning that the dynamic and feedbacks of the issues is investigated and mapped out, leading to an increased understanding of these interactions for the decision makers. The RA puts a lot of focus on how the ecological system functions and what feedback there are between social and ecological parts of the system (Gunnarsson Östling & Svenfelt, (Submitted Book Chapter)). This way the different thresholds are found, this is however not applicable for the SEJ context (ibid).
The main perspective that the RA has in this step is to govern the changes in the system with the help of thresholds and the adaptive cycle theory (Resilience Alliance, 2010). But this is something that does not work as well with the concept of SEJ since the adaptive cycle and thresholds are very closely connected to resilience theory but not found in SEJ theory.
However the idea of mapping what governs and influences the identified issues from step one
23
is very important in order to understand the system in question. Therefor a similar analytic process could be conducted when doing a SEJ assessment.
Step 3: Cross-scale interactions
Much like step 2 the idea of this section works very well for a SEJ assessment since there is a need to understand the cross-scale interactions that the plan, process or project has. This means the effects that developments in the area of interest have on other communities, countries or continents and vice versa.
However the theory of “the Panarchy” and general and specific resilience is not applicable in a SEJ context directly (Resilience Alliance, 2010). But a similar part can take place in a SEJ assessment by investigating/dividing the issues into small and large scale issues in plan, process or project. The point of this is to see if any small-scale issues interact with larger- scale issues. An example of this would be if a small scale issue is that one community does not have access to roads for cars while a large scale-issue would be that the region suffers from major pollutions from cars. By “solving” only the small scale issue the large-scale pollution problem would not be fixed. This section can enlighten these aspects of the issues to give clear understanding of them and to avoid sub-optimizing issues.
Cross-scale interactions in general are important in plans, processes and projects since these do not exist on their own but are part of a larger context. In order to fully understand the consequences of a project, plan or process, it has to be put in a larger context. This is something that SEJ in theory focuses a lot about. The just distribution of environmental goods and burdens (characteristics 4 and 5) as well as the understanding of where power is located and who is included (characteristic 7) in the process are connected to this.
The RA method of assessing the cross-scale interactions can be applicable for the SEJ assessment which means analysing the smaller and larger scale aspects that influences the systems separately. This should be done in connection the specific issues of concern identified in step one.
This is also an important section to analyse and deal with conflicts that occur in the process (characteristic 2 of the SEJ). There will most likely be conflicts with different issues on larger and smaller scales and there is no win-win situation to strive towards but instead acknowledge the different aspects of the issues and analyse the different consequences of the perspectives.
There is always a risk of sub-optimizing different issues and then missing the bigger picture.
Step 4: Governance systems
This step is very important to the SEJ assessment and a lot of the methodology of the RA can be used for the SEJ context as well. This is because the main aim of the step is to determine how, and by whom, decisions (both formal and informal ones) are taken within the project, plan or process. Something that is very important in SEJ theory (Gunnarsson Östling &
Svenfelt, (Submitted Book Chapter)). This is complicated and might in many cases be very time consuming. RA methodology suggest mapping out the different actors that governs the informal and formal decisions connected to the system in question. This also includes the social network among actors and how they are connected to each other.
24
In resilience theory the adaptability of the system is very important and enhances the systems capability to handle change. And a high degree of connection between the actors leads to a higher adaptability to change in theory. In a SEJ context a high degree of connection between actors can lead to a better understanding of decisions being made and increase the collaboration between different groups in the community. This connects to the 7th characteristic of SEJ. However there is a need to get these actors analysed much sooner in a SEJ context since inclusiveness is one of the keystone to social-ecological justice theory. I would argue that this should instead part of step one in the SEJ assessment.
Step 5: Acting on the assessment
In the RA the last step focuses a lot on the summary of the previous analysis in order to set the foundation for what changes the system should/can handle (Resilience Alliance, 2010).
There is a lot of focus on the creation of social-connections and increased resilience based stewardship of the system in question in order to enhance resilience (ibid). In a SEJ context the idea of summarizing and connecting the important actors to each other is a good step towards increasing the understanding and contribution that the assessment of SEJ in the project, plan or process will have. This is because the assessment could serve as a decision- making document and by summarizing it will be easier and faster to understand these parts.
In this section there is also a “time for transformation” section where the assessment should ask if it is time to do something different in the future and what that should be. This is a good idea for the SEJ assessment as well to give adequate suggestions for steps towards a more just plan, project or process. Here the conclusions can help set the direction that the results of the assessment can have and what is to be focused on in the future.
25
4.3. What should be added to the SEJ assessment?
Q4: What steps are not included the resilience assessment and needs to be added to complete a social-ecological justice assessment according to the concept and practitioners?
This section starts off with the theoretical analysis of what is missing and ends with the results of the interviews with practitioners and the conclusions from these.
What is missing according to the concept?
The results from answering research question 3 shows that the only characteristic of SEJ that is not directly included in the RA is number six: justice permeates planning, policies, production and consumption. However automatically when doing a SEJ assessment justice permeates the entire report and will include and focus on justice as the most important thing.
There is a need to adjust the methodology of the assessment to better fit the SEJ context. This is because the SEJ assessment will have a more narrow approach than the RA. One thing that is moved to the beginning of the assessment is the actor analysis. The motivation for this is that there is a large focus on inclusiveness and power relationships in the SEJ concept which means that there is a need to include as many actors as possible as early as possible (Gunnarsson Östling & Svenfelt, (Submitted Book Chapter)).
None of the questions in the RA are directly transferred into the SEJ assessment but instead new questions adapted to SEJ are developed. These questions have in some cases sub- question to help the analyst in the process and examples to help to get an idea of what answer the question is after.
In the actor analysis the conflicts between the actors has been enhanced and also placed in the beginning since this is more important in a SEJ context. This is important because conflicts that actors with strong formal or informal powers has with actors that has little or no formal power can influence how the discussions develops. If these conflicts are not known there is a risk of small-voiced actors staying silent and not getting their issues heard.
The second step/part is now only focused on the history of the issues instead of the area. This is because to fully understand the issues there is a need to understand the issues history. The system dynamics section has been moved down and integrated with the third step/part cross- scale interactions.
The dynamic section and the cross-scale interactions have been altered to focus on the issues and its feedbacks with higher and lower scales. This is because the SEJ is much more trouble based while the RA can be describing a system without mainly focusing on the issues. Here the idea is to create a wider and better understanding of how the issue are connected to the world and in what way they interact with other issues or aspects.
26 Results from the interviews
All interviewed practitioners believe that in practice it will be hard to include all the actors and get them to speak their minds (Coordinator, 2016) (Environmental strategist, 2016) (Specialist, 2016). However Environmental Strategist Helsingborg City believes that is this is coordinated beforehand that it is possible to include all the actors in a good way (Environmental strategist, 2016).
In all method processes regarding plans and projects it is important to be able to adapt the analysis according to the specific circumstances (Environmental strategist, 2016). There is also a need to be able to motivate the choices done in the process so that it is clear why the certain approach was taken (ibid). Environmental Coordinator (2016) at Sweco argues that there is a risk with posing to specific questions in an assessment process. He argues that this can lead to results that are not the one that the assessments were after (Coordinator, 2016). It is better to keep a wider and more open analysis but to compare these with known scientific conclusions (ibid).
There is risk with the current methodology that comparability of different SEJ assessments will be low (Environmental strategist, 2016). This means that it is hard to motivate the usage of the assessment and get clear results since each assessment depends on the specific case (ibid). This could be addressed if there were scientific research that shows that these types of assessments contribute to positive effects for the project, plan or process.
Environmental strategist at Helsingborg City mentions that EIA is always used in the plan- process and followed very precisely. There is not much room to adjust it according to the specific case (Environmental strategist, 2016). They mostly work with smaller scale investigations that lay the foundation for the EIA in the end (ibid). This is something that SEJ assessment also could act as. This means that the SEJ is not the entire sustainability research of a plan, project or process, but a part of it.
The EIA gives concrete alternatives to work with to use in the decisions that follows (Srinivas, 2015). This does not mean that one of the alternatives developed have to be used but it gives a clear perspective between them and simplifies the discussions (ibid).
Environmental Coordinator at Sweco be believes that this is a very good way to work with complicated sustainability assessment since it simplifies the decision making process (Coordinator, 2016).
EIA Specialist at COWI (Specialist, 2016) argues for that there is a lack of social and socioeconomic focus in the EIA even though the SEC says that this should be included (Miljöbalken (1998:808), 2016). Chapter 6, paragraph 31 of the SEC says that the EIA should
“identify and describe the direct and indirect effects that the planned development has on people, animal, plants, land, water, air, climate, landscape and cultural habitat” (authors translation) (Miljöbalken (1998:808), 2016). The SEJ assessment can contribute to more focus
1 6 kap. 3 §. MB
27
being placed on social and socioeconomic aspects and be included in the EIA process according to EIA Specialist at COWI (Miljöbalken (1998:808), 2016).
What should be added or excluded according to the practitioners and why?
One thing that the Environmental Strategist at Helsingborg City was keen on adding was the summary of lessons and facts learned in the assessment process that could be used in other contexts or for other divisions in the same organisation (Environmental strategist, 2016). This means that in the last step there should be a section to summarize and discuss aspects that can be useful for others to know, hence saving time in other areas.
Environmental Coordinator at Sweco argues that there is a need to compose alternatives for future developments as the last step of the assessment, much like the EIA does (Coordinator, 2016). This would make the decisions and discussions easier since it can focus around these alternatives and not all issues identified.
Traceability and a red thread throughout the process is something that EIA Specialist at COWI argues for is the most important thing in the process. It has to be visible what calculations and conclusions are drawn so that it can be criticized and defended in a good way. He also believes that there is enough information in the SEC 6st chapter 3th paragraph2 (Miljöbalken (1998:808), 2016) to argue for that the SEJ should be a part of the EIA process.
(Specialist, 2016)
2 6 kap. 3 §. MB
28
4.4. The workbook: Assessing social-ecological justice
The focus of SEJ is to connect multiple sustainability discourses in order to create a better definition of sustainability in a justice perspective. Focus in the assessment should be the connection of social and ecological aspects that impact society/groups/communities in unjust ways. The steps of the assessment aims to help with the process of determining issues, history of the area, cross scale interactions of the issues as well as the governance in the plan, process or project that is to be analysed. At the end of the assessment the evaluation of how to act on the assessment and a summery is presented. It is important to remember the characteristics of SEJ when conducting the assessment to keep the focus throughout the process. The characteristics of SEJ are:
1. Base decisions on how the system/case/society depends upon and influences local ecosystems and social-ecological systems in other regions.
2. Acknowledge and deal with conflicts, complexity, dynamics, and uncertainty.
3. Just distribution of environmental goods and services, between and within both communities and generations.
4. Just distribution of environmental bads (environmental burdens), between and within both communities and generations.
5. Principles for just distribution should be discussed and defined.
6. Justice permeates planning, policies and production and consumption.
7. Awareness and identification of who is included, who decides, and where power is located.
8. Environmental decisions are based on and shaped by affected groups/peoples/communities Source: (Gunnarsson Östling & Svenfelt, (Submitted Book Chapter))
These characteristics are taken into consideration by following the analytic process of the assessment. It is important to understand that depending on the specific case the assessment takes different directions and different sections are more important. It is encouraged to follow the assessment with smaller adaptations to the specific context. In order to increase transparency in the assessment the responsible analyst (the one conducting the assessment) should be know and documented.
Analyst Name:
Company of analyst:
Hired by:
Know interests of company in the project, plan or process:
Part 1: Identifying issues, defining the area and actor analysis
In order to identify the issues of concern today and/or issues in the future, it is important to define the plan, process or project that is the case in question. This should be done (if possible) in a geographical scale with soft boundaries so there is a soft line to what lies outside of the case in question. For a process this can be very hard and could therefore not include geographical boundaries but other appropriate boundaries.
1a) Define the plan, process or projects (geographical) boundaries.
Ex: The municipal borders, the plot of the project area or all groups affected by the process.
