WEBVTT Kind: captions Language: en-US 00:00:00.054 --> 00:00:03.040 We are going to talk about environmental justice at the border, 00:00:03.040 --> 00:00:06.880 focusing on the San Diego-Tijuana earthquake scenario and the model 00:00:06.880 --> 00:00:09.896 for meaningful inclusion that we think can really travel. 00:00:09.920 --> 00:00:13.760 My name is Elizabeth Reddy. I am an assistant professor 00:00:13.760 --> 00:00:16.480 of engineering design and society and geophysics 00:00:16.480 --> 00:00:17.840 at Colorado School of Mines. 00:00:17.840 --> 00:00:22.640 My colleague is Gloria Muñoz, and she is working on her Ph.D. in planning 00:00:22.640 --> 00:00:27.256 and environmental management at the University of Manchester. 00:00:27.280 --> 00:00:32.160 So, this – I want to start off with this lovely image. 00:00:32.160 --> 00:00:35.840 This is a photo by the artist Ana Teresa Fernández. 00:00:35.840 --> 00:00:40.056 It’s called Borrada. And it really highlights 00:00:40.080 --> 00:00:44.400 something about the U.S.-Mexico border, especially in San Diego 00:00:44.400 --> 00:00:47.496 and Tijuana, the region we’re going to be talking about. 00:00:47.520 --> 00:00:52.536 You can see here an effort to erase the border. 00:00:52.560 --> 00:00:57.840 Fernández’s point, though, of this work is to really highlight 00:00:57.840 --> 00:01:04.296 just how unerasable the border is and how, at the same time, 00:01:04.320 --> 00:01:09.496 how absolutely contiguous both sides of it are. 00:01:09.520 --> 00:01:15.040 So today we are going to be talking about an earthquake scenario that 00:01:15.040 --> 00:01:21.736 was developed between 2015 and 2019 in the San Diego-Tijuana region. 00:01:21.760 --> 00:01:27.760 And we are basing our talk on a paper that’s currently under review that we 00:01:27.760 --> 00:01:31.360 hope we get to share with you soon, but the key thing we want you to 00:01:31.360 --> 00:01:38.776 focus on and start thinking about is the nature of environmental justice in, 00:01:38.800 --> 00:01:44.753 not just scenario concepts, but in scenario building. 00:01:47.605 --> 00:01:54.960 - So, as my colleague Beth was saying before, this idea about the border is 00:01:54.960 --> 00:02:01.496 something that really permeates our thinking and inspired our reflection 00:02:01.520 --> 00:02:07.656 upon the work that was done by the San Diego-Tijuana scenario earthquake. 00:02:07.680 --> 00:02:13.360 And especially, again, because it was such an interesting and unique project 00:02:13.360 --> 00:02:18.160 stemming from an interest of understanding the complexity of a 00:02:18.160 --> 00:02:25.816 region that is, in some – in some ways, so different, but also, as Beth stated, 00:02:25.840 --> 00:02:33.128 is so interconnected by many other – by many others reasons and situations 00:02:33.166 --> 00:02:35.280 and variables and factors. 00:02:35.280 --> 00:02:41.840 So, again, our paper is mostly focused on the concept of environmental justice. 00:02:41.840 --> 00:02:45.416 So the first thing to do is talk about that definition. 00:02:45.440 --> 00:02:52.536 We use a definition proposed by Schlosberg, which defines 00:02:52.560 --> 00:02:57.680 and explains environmental justice as a social practice. 00:02:57.680 --> 00:03:00.720 So what does this mean? It’s a way of doing things. 00:03:00.720 --> 00:03:04.720 So it’s a way of doing things. In this case, it’s a way of engaging 00:03:04.720 --> 00:03:08.560 with each other. It’s a way of researching and understanding 00:03:08.560 --> 00:03:13.496 environmental problems and environmental challenges 00:03:13.520 --> 00:03:18.080 from a standpoint, from a perspective, of equity. 00:03:18.080 --> 00:03:26.240 So, first of all, equitable distribution, as this literature on environmental 00:03:26.240 --> 00:03:30.960 justice has been going on, or has been developing for over the last 40 or 50 00:03:30.960 --> 00:03:37.840 years, one of the main areas of interest was actually understanding how goods – 00:03:37.840 --> 00:03:43.680 society’s goods and society’s and environmental’s risks are distributed. 00:03:43.680 --> 00:03:49.760 Because we are standing from a – we are coming from an understanding 00:03:49.760 --> 00:03:54.240 that there is an equal distribution of goods and risks. 00:03:54.240 --> 00:04:00.080 Not everybody gets to benefit from environmental resources. 00:04:00.080 --> 00:04:08.720 And, in that same way, affectations and harm is not equally distributed. 00:04:08.720 --> 00:04:13.336 There are people who are most exposed than others. 00:04:13.360 --> 00:04:20.880 So, again, in this 40, 50 years of work from different scholars around 00:04:20.880 --> 00:04:28.856 environmental justice, things have developed, not only to think about 00:04:28.880 --> 00:04:36.136 how and why these goods and these risks and these hazards are distributed 00:04:36.160 --> 00:04:46.240 differently within society, but also starting to think about, 00:04:46.240 --> 00:04:49.040 what are the outcomes of that? What are the result? 00:04:49.040 --> 00:04:54.376 What does that mean for people, for persons, for groups? 00:04:54.400 --> 00:05:00.480 And, in that sense, now, or more recent work on environmental justice is 00:05:00.480 --> 00:05:09.120 not only focused on distribution but also inclusion, also on procedures, 00:05:09.120 --> 00:05:19.200 also on recognition. So, in this conversation being had, participation 00:05:19.200 --> 00:05:26.910 takes a strong – an important role. I must correct myself. 00:05:27.840 --> 00:05:35.280 Understanding that, if we want to really understand the complexity about this 00:05:35.280 --> 00:05:43.016 unjust distribution of hazard and of environmental benefits or resources, 00:05:43.040 --> 00:05:51.280 we also have to take into account the persons, the groups, ideas, 00:05:51.280 --> 00:05:57.016 and livelihoods and stories and life stories, specifically, and their 00:05:57.040 --> 00:06:02.480 ideas on how this can be resolved. So environmental justice work more 00:06:02.480 --> 00:06:07.200 recently has developed various mechanisms and methodologies 00:06:07.200 --> 00:06:13.680 to include these communities that are most affected by hazard – 00:06:13.680 --> 00:06:17.120 by environmental hazards. And you can imagine that 00:06:17.120 --> 00:06:19.920 means minorities, minority groups, 00:06:19.920 --> 00:06:26.093 and marginalized or economically disadvantaged groups. 00:06:28.147 --> 00:06:36.240 In this sense, again, to understand the full scope about a problem, 00:06:36.240 --> 00:06:40.320 we have to go into those communities. We already know how to do that, right? 00:06:40.320 --> 00:06:46.720 But, thinking about this – and, again, how the idea about environmental 00:06:46.720 --> 00:06:51.760 justice has progressed, we have started to see that one of the main things – 00:06:51.760 --> 00:06:57.680 or, one of the first steps to take in order to get better results in 00:06:57.680 --> 00:07:02.640 our research, is to reflect upon how we define participation. 00:07:02.640 --> 00:07:07.600 What do we want to get out of it? How do we engage with each other 00:07:07.600 --> 00:07:14.320 when we are set in those – in those platforms, where we can see each other 00:07:14.320 --> 00:07:20.080 eye to eye and have a conversation. And it can be a conversation, or it can 00:07:20.080 --> 00:07:24.800 be an interview, a questionnaire, where we only get the ideas that 00:07:24.800 --> 00:07:27.840 we need to answer the questions that we already have and that we 00:07:27.840 --> 00:07:34.000 constructed in our research team. Or it can – it can be more of a 00:07:34.000 --> 00:07:39.600 collaborative process where we do engage in a conversation, 00:07:39.600 --> 00:07:44.480 but we also try to have, like, a brainstorm about what the 00:07:44.480 --> 00:07:51.920 solutions might be. What can the other side of the coin look like if we – 00:07:51.920 --> 00:07:56.136 if we attempted to solve the issues that we’re looking upon. 00:07:56.160 --> 00:08:00.880 So, in this sense – and, as you can see here in the slide, participation 00:08:00.880 --> 00:08:11.200 takes different views. It takes [speaking Spanish]. 00:08:11.200 --> 00:08:14.560 You can look at it differently depending on how you define it. 00:08:14.560 --> 00:08:18.296 And, again, participation for what. 00:08:18.320 --> 00:08:24.000 Next slide, please, Beth. So, in our work, again, thinking about 00:08:24.000 --> 00:08:29.520 the scenario – this bi-national scenario for the – for the earthquake 00:08:29.520 --> 00:08:38.880 in the U.S.-Tijuana border region, we touched upon, again, this debate 00:08:38.880 --> 00:08:44.240 and these ideas of environmental justice, but we touched upon a really particular 00:08:44.240 --> 00:08:47.520 constant that’s more recent and has been developed [inaudible], 00:08:47.520 --> 00:08:53.200 for example, for – for example, by Schlosberg, but also other scholars 00:08:53.200 --> 00:09:00.960 like Nancy Fraser or Marion in 2016 that is one of the main authors 00:09:00.960 --> 00:09:07.256 that we were using to develop our thinking about the scenario. 00:09:07.280 --> 00:09:13.200 So recognitional justice, this is a really important concept that will help us 00:09:13.200 --> 00:09:20.000 think about our work as researchers in collaborative process, not only with 00:09:20.000 --> 00:09:23.280 the communities that we want to study, those communities that we already 00:09:23.280 --> 00:09:28.480 know are at risk or that are, again, highly impacted by certain types of 00:09:28.480 --> 00:09:33.360 hazards, but also while we – while we are in these platforms 00:09:33.360 --> 00:09:36.880 that I’ve talked about where we can get – we get to engage with each other 00:09:36.880 --> 00:09:42.056 and look at each other eye to eye. So recognitional justice, in this sense, 00:09:42.080 --> 00:09:48.000 means acknowledging that there are differences within us, among us, 00:09:48.000 --> 00:09:52.240 between different groups, between different persons, that we come from 00:09:52.240 --> 00:09:56.560 different contexts, we come from different life stories, and that, 00:09:56.560 --> 00:10:06.320 if we want to engage with each other in a way that there’s an equal capability 00:10:06.320 --> 00:10:12.400 of participating and that all the voices are heard and acknowledged 00:10:12.400 --> 00:10:17.200 in the same way, then we have to acknowledge those differences. 00:10:17.200 --> 00:10:23.200 We have to recognize them, reflect upon them, and try to 00:10:23.200 --> 00:10:30.936 balance out that difference. As Schlosberg put it – puts it, 00:10:30.960 --> 00:10:35.120 part of the problem of injustice is actually a lack of recognition 00:10:35.120 --> 00:10:40.480 of those group differences. And, again, taking back some 00:10:40.480 --> 00:10:45.920 of Marion’s work, when we don’t recognize those differences, 00:10:45.920 --> 00:10:51.840 then we fail to see that we may be privileging one set of voices. 00:10:51.840 --> 00:10:55.280 And, in that same way, or at that same time, when we 00:10:55.280 --> 00:11:02.960 privilege one, we erase another. We displace some other voices. 00:11:02.960 --> 00:11:07.520 And that has consequences – consequences that you, yourself, 00:11:07.520 --> 00:11:13.520 have made, probably have seen in your own research, but also that we – 00:11:13.520 --> 00:11:20.160 as we develop our work as researchers, we can also see happening in knowledge 00:11:20.160 --> 00:11:25.496 production – who gets to say what through what eyes. 00:11:25.520 --> 00:11:27.800 Next slide, please. 00:11:29.748 --> 00:11:36.296 - Okay, so let’s come back to the San Diego-Tijuana earthquake scenario 00:11:36.320 --> 00:11:40.376 and the Rose Canyon Fault, which is right here. 00:11:41.200 --> 00:11:48.856 So San Diego and Tijuana are incredibly closely connected as a set of cities, 00:11:48.880 --> 00:11:54.960 and when the Rose Canyon Fault was newly kind of characterized, we started 00:11:54.960 --> 00:12:01.840 to better understand that a rupture along this fault, which kind of stretches from 00:12:01.840 --> 00:12:06.560 La Jolla along the I-5 corridor, downtown San Diego, and then kind of 00:12:06.560 --> 00:12:12.000 splinters into San Diego Bay, Coronado, and the Silver Strand, when we started 00:12:12.000 --> 00:12:19.336 to understand that this could cause significant harm in the whole region, 00:12:19.360 --> 00:12:23.040 it really provoked a lot of interest in developing a scenario, 00:12:23.040 --> 00:12:28.598 in this case, for a magnitude 6.8 quake. 00:12:29.360 --> 00:12:35.360 So I want to talk a little bit about the kinds of effects that this earthquake 00:12:35.360 --> 00:12:38.960 could have for people and then the kinds of ways that the scenario 00:12:38.960 --> 00:12:44.320 played out. So you see here a picture of San Diego and Tijuana. 00:12:44.320 --> 00:12:50.856 It’s from 2007, but it’s still – still tells a story, right? 00:12:50.880 --> 00:12:55.440 Tijuana is on my right side. San Diego is on my left side. 00:12:55.440 --> 00:13:00.400 And these cities have really – they share a great deal, right? 00:13:00.400 --> 00:13:06.080 Physically, they share certain kinds of soils. 00:13:06.080 --> 00:13:12.160 They share certain kinds of – certainly seismic motion can 00:13:12.160 --> 00:13:16.856 move through them quite easily, right? 00:13:16.880 --> 00:13:21.576 They also share steep slopes and proximity to fault lines, right? 00:13:21.600 --> 00:13:25.520 And really big risks of landslides and liquefactions. 00:13:25.520 --> 00:13:29.680 In Tijuana, though, risks might be slightly greater than those in San Diego 00:13:29.680 --> 00:13:36.136 due to steeper slopes, urban expansion, and aggravated soil stability. 00:13:36.160 --> 00:13:41.416 In the event of an earthquake, both cities are going to have effects. 00:13:41.440 --> 00:13:46.480 And, if we’re thinking about how those harms are going to be distributed, 00:13:46.480 --> 00:13:50.800 we have to understand that, while there are – I mean, at most recent 00:13:50.800 --> 00:13:59.360 count, 6,000 to 8,000 people living without homes in San Diego, in Tijuana, 00:13:59.360 --> 00:14:08.856 53% of people, as of 2018, were living in informal settlements on slopes 00:14:08.880 --> 00:14:14.536 in flood zones and likely to suffer tremendously from quakes. 00:14:14.560 --> 00:14:18.240 So those harms, then, are unequally distributed. 00:14:18.240 --> 00:14:23.440 Further, these people are less likely than those of us with homes, with resources, 00:14:23.440 --> 00:14:28.136 to be able to bounce back from an earthquake, to recover. 00:14:28.160 --> 00:14:31.336 Unequal distribution of harms, right? 00:14:31.360 --> 00:14:35.280 But we have to understand that these cities are mutually dependent. 00:14:35.280 --> 00:14:37.440 They’ve grown up together. 00:14:37.440 --> 00:14:42.480 So San Diego and Tijuana might – we might call their populations different, 00:14:42.480 --> 00:14:46.880 but the harms that affect Tijuana affect San Diego, and vice versa. 00:14:46.880 --> 00:14:51.440 Where San Diego has expensive rents, Tijuana has cheaper rents. 00:14:51.440 --> 00:14:56.400 Where Tijuana has a thriving maquiladora industry, San Diego 00:14:56.400 --> 00:15:00.320 has a powerful tourist industry and tech industry. 00:15:00.320 --> 00:15:05.280 And all of these depend on the movement of goods and people 00:15:05.280 --> 00:15:08.150 back and forth and back and forth. 00:15:09.200 --> 00:15:14.080 So, when we talked about the San Diego-Tijuana earthquake scenario, 00:15:14.080 --> 00:15:20.936 when we began to talk in 2015, there was interest from Mexicans 00:15:20.960 --> 00:15:24.000 and U.S. Americans, right? People were excited about this. 00:15:24.000 --> 00:15:29.600 The plan was to make – to do an Earth science assessment, to do 00:15:29.600 --> 00:15:35.200 an engineering assessment based on that Earth science, to use that data to ask 00:15:35.200 --> 00:15:41.576 questions of social science, and to turn that into policy recommendations. 00:15:41.600 --> 00:15:47.840 Unfortunately, this plan didn’t work out in the ways we might have anticipated. 00:15:47.840 --> 00:15:52.400 While the Earth science working group got up and running, 00:15:52.400 --> 00:15:59.280 no problems, engineering faltered. They were using a tool called Hazus, 00:15:59.280 --> 00:16:02.880 which many of you are going to be familiar with, right, that does 00:16:02.880 --> 00:16:06.960 great estimation work for losses based on a database that 00:16:06.960 --> 00:16:12.136 already exists for the U.S. Mexico doesn’t have anything like that. 00:16:12.160 --> 00:16:18.880 So, while the Mexican team, the team responsible for taking on the Mexican 00:16:18.880 --> 00:16:25.576 data, was still scrambling to pull together databases and analyze things, 00:16:25.600 --> 00:16:32.160 the social science team, in the – in working on the scenario, 00:16:32.160 --> 00:16:38.880 was already taking the data they had, well, only to San Diegan stakeholders 00:16:38.880 --> 00:16:41.840 to talk about the potential effects that they might 00:16:41.840 --> 00:16:45.256 see for damages as projected by Hazus. 00:16:45.280 --> 00:16:49.680 So – whoo. [laughs] 00:16:49.680 --> 00:16:54.080 Some participants in our research described Tijuana as simply more 00:16:54.080 --> 00:16:58.560 remote from the epicenter of the study than San Diego was. 00:16:58.560 --> 00:17:01.920 And, by that, it didn’t just mean where the earthquake was – 00:17:01.920 --> 00:17:03.760 the hypothetical earthquake was starting. 00:17:03.760 --> 00:17:07.440 They meant where meetings were taking place, where funding was being 00:17:07.440 --> 00:17:12.720 distributed, and where decisions – key decisions about technology used – 00:17:12.720 --> 00:17:15.059 were happening. 00:17:15.520 --> 00:17:23.576 And this had implications, right? Because the differences between 00:17:23.600 --> 00:17:29.040 San Diegan and Tijuanan researchers and participants weren’t acknowledged 00:17:29.040 --> 00:17:34.640 as part of our planning, in the end, our planning only – 00:17:34.640 --> 00:17:38.240 our scenario only included San Diego. 00:17:38.240 --> 00:17:42.456 And thus – I mean, if you reflect back on what I was saying earlier, 00:17:42.480 --> 00:17:49.656 a whole bunch of the issues that affected San Diego were also totally excised. 00:17:49.680 --> 00:17:55.760 From this – I mean, this situation is totally specific to the San Diego-Tijuana 00:17:55.760 --> 00:17:58.560 border, right, but there are some kinds of insights that travel. 00:17:58.560 --> 00:18:03.040 And we want to emphasize those here. Environmental injustices are embedded 00:18:03.040 --> 00:18:06.720 in extant social systems and power structures, right? We know that. 00:18:06.720 --> 00:18:14.080 But those same systemic equalities, like differences in income levels, resources, 00:18:14.080 --> 00:18:20.056 access, can have effects for those of us who produce knowledge too. 00:18:20.080 --> 00:18:25.920 Political and economic factors need to be taken on as collective challenges if 00:18:25.920 --> 00:18:33.120 we mean to be inclusive in our planning, produce good knowledge, and engage 00:18:33.120 --> 00:18:37.336 with unequal distribution of hazards in the world. 00:18:37.360 --> 00:18:40.960 And we need to think about what kinds of advocacy for change 00:18:40.960 --> 00:18:46.400 within the systems we’re part we’re up for. So we want to advocate for 00:18:46.400 --> 00:18:49.600 equitable participation and really thinking about what that means.