The first two pairs (New Orleans and Dhaka, Metro Manila and Medellin) unpack the inequitable impacts of specific infrastructure and spatial planning interventions.
Medellín attack the problem using infrastructures and spacial planning intervention (top-down decisions).
two pairs (Santiago and Jakarta, Boston and Surat) highlight procedural equity implications of decision-making approaches that exclude the poor or rely on private sector action
This group attack the problem analyzing the decision making process (down-top, or at least giving more tools to under represented groups).
Future adaptation plans must critically considerthe distribution of adaptation benefits, costs, and responsibilities across society, address unsustainable and inequitable development patterns, and apply interventions that – at a minimum – treat groups equally regardless of socio-economic status or – better yet – actively prioritize beneficial outcomes for disadvantaged and vulnerable groups
I think there is a challenge here: how can the disadvantaged and vulnerable groups (under represented) have a sit in the table if those who choose the decision makers are not the under represented?
However, privatization of responsibilities is also incentivizingrent-seeking behavior over the city’s infrastructure and public services. Their experiences showthat institutionalization of adaptation through public-private partnerships or private networks can sometimes yield exclusionary behaviors
At the end: exclusionary behaviors
Participation and inclusion of the most marginalized remain peripheral to adaptation planning
At the end there is a lot to do with under-represented communities.
Equity Impacts of Urban Land Use Planning forClimate Adaptation
Lectura para el seminario, presentada por Kaitlin Strange.
"tool of imperialists"