谁的环境正义?阿拉巴马州伯明翰市中心的市民参与和棕地重建

IF 3 2区 社会学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Environment and Planning. E, Nature and Space Pub Date : 2023-09-18 DOI:10.1177/25148486231199330
Sandra Cutts, Russell Fricano, Robert Peters
{"title":"谁的环境正义?阿拉巴马州伯明翰市中心的市民参与和棕地重建","authors":"Sandra Cutts, Russell Fricano, Robert Peters","doi":"10.1177/25148486231199330","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Environmental legislation promotes citizen participation in the environmental review process through public hearings, community meetings, and advisory groups. However, environmental justice literature advocates higher levels of grassroots citizen empowerment through education and involvement in the decision-making process. Numerous research studies indicated that although the federal government supports community involvement in environmental restoration projects, such involvement has never been implemented to its fullest potential. This case study examines citizen participation and empowerment in the environmental review process in the redevelopment of three brownfields in underserved neighborhoods in downtown Birmingham, Alabama. This study quantifies empowerment leveraging Arnstein's ladder of participation in a novel approach. Utilizing a survey questionnaire, this analysis was conducted in three ways: a comparison of actual citizen participation methods used in the process with those providing a higher level of empowerment; compilation of open-ended responses of citizen dissatisfaction with the environmental review process; and utilizing Arnstein's Ladder to measure perceived levels of empowerment of citizen, public official, and developer stakeholders. Findings suggest that the types of participation methods used were at lower levels of citizen empowerment removed from decision-making; in responses to open-ended questions, citizens expressed shortcomings in the participatory process compared with their opinion on how it should be conducted, and perceived levels of empowerment differed among the categories of stakeholders. Citizens reported perceptions of empowerment at levels of tokenism removed from decision-making, while developers and public officials reported higher levels of empowerment. This study concludes that more innovative citizen participation techniques, university/community partnerships, and collaborative compact models are needed for more equitable participation. Statement of Problem—The purpose of this case study is to analyze how well citizen participation in the environmental review process as specified by legislation corresponds to normative guidelines prescribed in the environmental justice literature.","PeriodicalId":11723,"journal":{"name":"Environment and Planning. E, Nature and Space","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Environmental justice for whom? Citizen participation and brownfield redevelopment in downtown Birmingham, Alabama\",\"authors\":\"Sandra Cutts, Russell Fricano, Robert Peters\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/25148486231199330\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Environmental legislation promotes citizen participation in the environmental review process through public hearings, community meetings, and advisory groups. However, environmental justice literature advocates higher levels of grassroots citizen empowerment through education and involvement in the decision-making process. Numerous research studies indicated that although the federal government supports community involvement in environmental restoration projects, such involvement has never been implemented to its fullest potential. This case study examines citizen participation and empowerment in the environmental review process in the redevelopment of three brownfields in underserved neighborhoods in downtown Birmingham, Alabama. This study quantifies empowerment leveraging Arnstein's ladder of participation in a novel approach. Utilizing a survey questionnaire, this analysis was conducted in three ways: a comparison of actual citizen participation methods used in the process with those providing a higher level of empowerment; compilation of open-ended responses of citizen dissatisfaction with the environmental review process; and utilizing Arnstein's Ladder to measure perceived levels of empowerment of citizen, public official, and developer stakeholders. Findings suggest that the types of participation methods used were at lower levels of citizen empowerment removed from decision-making; in responses to open-ended questions, citizens expressed shortcomings in the participatory process compared with their opinion on how it should be conducted, and perceived levels of empowerment differed among the categories of stakeholders. Citizens reported perceptions of empowerment at levels of tokenism removed from decision-making, while developers and public officials reported higher levels of empowerment. This study concludes that more innovative citizen participation techniques, university/community partnerships, and collaborative compact models are needed for more equitable participation. Statement of Problem—The purpose of this case study is to analyze how well citizen participation in the environmental review process as specified by legislation corresponds to normative guidelines prescribed in the environmental justice literature.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11723,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environment and Planning. E, Nature and Space\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environment and Planning. E, Nature and Space\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/25148486231199330\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environment and Planning. E, Nature and Space","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/25148486231199330","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

环境立法通过公开听证会、社区会议和咨询小组促进公民参与环境审查过程。然而,环境正义文献主张通过教育和参与决策过程,提高基层公民的赋权水平。许多研究表明,尽管联邦政府支持社区参与环境恢复项目,但这种参与从未充分发挥其潜力。本案例研究考察了在阿拉巴马州伯明翰市中心服务不足的三个棕地社区重新开发的环境审查过程中的公民参与和赋权。本研究以一种新颖的方法利用阿恩斯坦的参与阶梯来量化授权。利用调查问卷,从三个方面进行了分析:在过程中使用的实际公民参与方法与提供更高水平授权的方法的比较;编制市民对环境检讨程序不满的开放式回应;并利用阿恩斯坦阶梯来衡量公民、公职人员和开发商利益相关者的授权感知水平。调查结果表明,所使用的参与方法类型是在较低水平的公民赋权,从决策中移除;在回答开放式问题时,公民表达了参与性过程的缺点,而不是他们对如何进行参与性过程的看法,并且不同利益相关者类别的授权程度不同。公民报告说,他们认为在决策过程中没有象征性的授权,而开发商和公职人员报告说,授权的程度更高。本研究的结论是,要实现更公平的参与,需要更多创新的公民参与技术、大学/社区伙伴关系和协作契约模式。问题陈述:本案例研究的目的是分析立法规定的公民参与环境审查过程与环境司法文献中规定的规范性准则的对应程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Environmental justice for whom? Citizen participation and brownfield redevelopment in downtown Birmingham, Alabama
Environmental legislation promotes citizen participation in the environmental review process through public hearings, community meetings, and advisory groups. However, environmental justice literature advocates higher levels of grassroots citizen empowerment through education and involvement in the decision-making process. Numerous research studies indicated that although the federal government supports community involvement in environmental restoration projects, such involvement has never been implemented to its fullest potential. This case study examines citizen participation and empowerment in the environmental review process in the redevelopment of three brownfields in underserved neighborhoods in downtown Birmingham, Alabama. This study quantifies empowerment leveraging Arnstein's ladder of participation in a novel approach. Utilizing a survey questionnaire, this analysis was conducted in three ways: a comparison of actual citizen participation methods used in the process with those providing a higher level of empowerment; compilation of open-ended responses of citizen dissatisfaction with the environmental review process; and utilizing Arnstein's Ladder to measure perceived levels of empowerment of citizen, public official, and developer stakeholders. Findings suggest that the types of participation methods used were at lower levels of citizen empowerment removed from decision-making; in responses to open-ended questions, citizens expressed shortcomings in the participatory process compared with their opinion on how it should be conducted, and perceived levels of empowerment differed among the categories of stakeholders. Citizens reported perceptions of empowerment at levels of tokenism removed from decision-making, while developers and public officials reported higher levels of empowerment. This study concludes that more innovative citizen participation techniques, university/community partnerships, and collaborative compact models are needed for more equitable participation. Statement of Problem—The purpose of this case study is to analyze how well citizen participation in the environmental review process as specified by legislation corresponds to normative guidelines prescribed in the environmental justice literature.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
13.80%
发文量
101
期刊最新文献
Expertise, trading zones and the planning system: A case study of an energy-from-biomass plant Grass versus trees: A proxy debate for deeper anxieties about competing stream worlds Everyday youth climate politics and performances of climate citizenship in Aotearoa New Zealand Political ecologies of a university and land at Cairo's urban periphery: The American University in Cairo's suburban desert campus ‘My body tells me to stay here’: Materiality, identity and everyday politics in Wentang Town, China
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1