Before going in more depth in the analysis of the content of the strategy, it is important to come back on its structure. The document of 128 pages, identifies the six following challenges for the city of Paris100:
1. Social, economic and spatial inequalities, and social cohesion 2. The terror threat and security context
3. Climate Change
4. Air pollution, a challenge for environmental health 5. The Seine and river-related risks
6. Territorial governance
The approaches to these challenges are organized into three different pillars, namely: "An inclusive and cohesive city, which builds on the strength of its residents to become more resilient"; "A city built and developed to meet the challenges of the 21st century"; "A city in transition that mobilises collective intelligence, adapts its operations, and cooperates with its surrounding territories". The strategy contains a total of 35 actions dispatched in each of different pillars.
Vulnerabilities identified by the strategy and their environmental justice implications
The PRS identifies different vulnerabilities of the metropolis and its structures. This section maps out the vulnerabilities presented in the document and how they relate – or not – to the vulnerabilities identified in the previous chapter. Those vulnerabilities are categorized in the six big challenges mentioned above and are specified further in the document.
The first challenges concerns "Social, economic and spatial inequalities, and social cohesion", it refers to the strong social inequalities among the metropolises. Indeed, as the document highlights, Paris is not an example of fairness and justice when it comes to individual's socio-economic backgrounds. In 2012, the first decile of the richest earned seven times more than the last decile, the poorest of the population.101 However, the city's strong inequalities are not only present in terms of income. A number of other characteristics may make an individual more vulnerable in the face of adversity, as the document acknowledge: "precariousness refers to living an existence lacking in predictability, job security, material or psychological welfare"102.
100 The Paris Resilience Strategy. Municipality of Paris. (2017, June)
101 Ibid.
102 The Paris Resilience Strategy. Municipality of Paris. (2017, June), p22
According to the Paris Resilience Strategy, five different groups of individuals present vulnerabilities and are inclined to social exclusion, thus need particular attention when developing adaptative strategies and policies. Those groups are women, children, the elderly, the disabled and displaced communities. The identification of vulnerable groups by the PRS is coherent with the global consensus notably determined by the United Nations and the European Commission (see chapter 4).
This first challenge also stresses the geographical disparities in terms of income. Indeed, the strategy identifies that the most financially deprived groups are concentrated in the north and northeast of the city and mostly in the suburb, beyond the physical limits of the city represented by the ring road: "Pockets of poverty are concentrated in suburban neighborhoods, especially in the north and northeast of Paris. The “Périphérique” (ring road) remains a strong physical and symbolic boundary between the capital and the rest of the metropolitan area"103. The vulnerable parts of the population need to be identified in order to develop environmental policies that will not deepen their vulnerabilities, but at the contrary enhance their situation, hence building effective adaptation to climate change. To create more social and environmental justice, both dimensions need to be given equal attention, otherwise, it could not be considered as just (see chapter 4). This is a consideration that the municipality of Paris seems to be aware of, as reflected in the strategy: "the city has identified social inclusion and the fight against inequality, alongside the objective of climate resilience, as priorities for a resilient Paris."104 This in line with what was mentioned in the previous chapter and the strategy acknowledges the different inequalities among the metropolis. However, notwithstanding the document’s awareness of different vulnerabilities related both to groups of individuals and to urban sensitivities to climate change, the strategy still presents some limitations regarding the explicit articulation of these two dimensions. In fact, as we shall see in the next sections, the PRS does build interesting adaptative actions in consideration to environmental justice yet fails in more globally making clear and explicit which vulnerabilities are targeted in each of the actions. Yet, as demonstrated in the previous chapter (see chapter 4), different urban vulnerabilities have specific impacts on different groups. "Human and ecosystem vulnerability are interdependent"105, hence the use of the term environmental inequalities. In the following sections I shall analyze the selected actions with these considerations in mind, evaluating how
103 The Paris Resilience Strategy. Municipality of Paris. (2017, June), p23
104 Ibid.
105 Revi, A., D.E. Satterthwaite, F. Arag n-Durand, J. Corfee-Morlot, R.B.R. Kiunsi, M. Pelling, D.C. Roberts, and W. Solecki, 2014: Urban areas. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.
the strategy articulates resilience and targets specific vulnerabilities of the city, and the consequences thereof for different groups.
After evaluating the vulnerabilities of the city concerning the social dimension, the strategy also identifies multiple environmental issues that the system and infrastructures of Paris may not withstand (here, infrastructures refer to "the basic systems and services, such as transport and power supplies, that a country or organization uses in order to work effectively"106). According to the strategy, the first and biggest challenge of the city of Paris in the face of climate change is the rise of temperatures, increasing "risks such as heatwaves, droughts, violent storms, flooding, and water scarcity"107. Those negative outcomes of this challenge do not come alone as they are increasing other vulnerabilities: social ones (see chapter 4). Indeed, in the case of intense heatwave, the strategy acknowledges that a few vulnerable groups are more affected and present higher risk than the rest of the population.
Those groups are children, elderly, homeless or people having health issues108. In this regard, the PRS highlights the fact that fighting social inequalities and disparities and fighting climate change issues go hand in hand: "This is why action against social exclusion and action against climate change are intrinsically linked, and why solidarity remains a priority for the resilience of the territory".109 Moreover, although the PRS points out the characteristics that makes a human being vulnerable to heat waves, and briefly recognizes the vulnerabilities related to income or social deprivation that places groups of individuals in certain locations of the metropolis, it tends to insufficiently represent those vulnerable territories especially when they are located above the limits drawn by the ring road, thus reinforcing spatial disparities (see chapter 4).
Additionally, other vulnerabilities identified by the strategy are here mention-worthy.
Among them, air pollution (see chapter 4) is becoming a frightening threat, causing 6500 premature deaths each year in the Greater Paris Metropolis, marking its place alongside the deaths caused by alcohol and tabaco110. In this regard, both the ring road around the city and the density of population and traffic inside its walls are causes that should be addressed.
However, here again the strategy fails to precisely identify which groups exactly are more exposed to health problems related to air pollution, which are, as stated in Chapter 4, the ones living in areas of poor environmental quality.
106 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/fr/dictionnaire/anglais/infrastructure
107 PRS P25
108 PRS P25
109 PRS P25
110 PRS P26
The challenges and vulnerabilities identified by the PRS are addressed through different actions. Yet, the strategy does have some challenges unrelated to environmental justice, such as the terror threat. Consequently, it is important to draw an overview of those actions, and highlight the ones that present environmental justice implication, relevant to this thesis. Table 2 lists all the 35 actions, making the ones significantly related to environmental justice and useful for the analysis stand out by making them in bold. For each action, the presence of the most relevant concepts is specified (determined thanks to the coding), as well as the vulnerabilities or challenges the action is addressing.
Table 2:
Actions Title of the action Presence of key concepts (most relevant codes)
Vulnerabilities / Challenges
EJ
implications Pillar 1:
An inclusive and cohesive city, which builds on the strength
of its
residents to become more resilience
ACTION 1
Mobilise a citizen reserve network to support crisis management and daily resilience building efforts
N/A Social cohesion NO
ACTION 2
Deploy wide-ranging, interactive first aid and risk management training
DJ-
Responsibilities
Social cohesion YES
ACTION 3
Ensure psychological support for all City residents after a shock to strengthen social cohesion and preserve health
N/A Social cohesion
Mental health
NO
ACTION 4
Strengthen support for parents and families and help the education community deal with trauma and daily stress
N/A Mental Health
Educational system
NO
ACTION 5
Increase daily solidarity measures by facilitating links between those who want to get involved and those who need help
PJ- Participation Social cohesion Food supply
YES
ACTION 6
Encourage neighbours, youth and adults to temporarily occupy public spaces
PJ- Participation DJ-
Responsibilities
Social cohesion Potentially
ACTION 7
Support the creation of new community-focused local jobs
PJ- Participation PJ-
Responsibilities
Social cohesion Energy
consumption
YES
ACTION 8
Support initiatives, implementation and co-funding of resilience
PJ-
participation DJ-
responsibilities
Urban heat island effect Social cohesion
YES – Strong
Pillar 2:
A city built and
developed to meet the challenges of the 21st century
Pillar 3: A city in transition that mobilises collective
solutions by individuals and local stakeholders
Governance ACTION
9
Standardise temporary and small-scale interventions to liven, re-invent and transform urban spaces with citizens
PJ- participation PJ- inclusion
Social
vulnerabilities Lack of open space
YES
ACTION 10
Transform schoolyards into cooling island “oases”
DJ- rights DJ-
responsibilities PJ-
participation
Urban heat island effect Health risks Social cohesion
YES – Strong
ACTION 11
Anticipate risks, their potential impacts on infrastructure, their cost, and develop multi-partner mitigation solutions
Resilience Vulnerable infrastructures
YES
ACTION 12
Anticipate future energy consumption and site energy generation locally to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050
Governance Energy consumption
YES
ACTION 13
Improve knowledge of the underground to reduce risks related to building collapse and flooding, and enhance infrastructure
N/A Floods
Vulnerable infrastructures
YES
ACTION 14
Initiate the transformation of the ring road (“Périphérique”) and the motorway network
DJ-
responsibilities PJ-
participation Governance
Vulnerable infrastructure Air pollution
YES – Strong
ACTION 15
Transform public spaces to increase social wellbeing and inclusion through integrated planning, innovation, and a better incorporation of nature
Adaptation Vulnerable infrastructures
YES
ACTION 16
Transform street lighting to provide multiple urban services
DJ-
responsibilities Resilience
Energy consumption
YES
ACTION 17
Adapt public facilities to address priority challenges and ensure that they are flexible, modular and capable of accommodating multiple uses
DJ- Rights Vulnerable infrastructures
YES
ACTION 18
Develop integrated green spaces to respond to climate and social challenges
PJ- participation Resilience
Social cohesion Vulnerable infrastructures
YES
ACTION 19
Explore the city from its roots to its canopy and assess the potential for
PJ-
participation PJ- inclusion
Vulnerable infrastructures
YES
intelligence, adapts its operations, and
cooperates with its surrounding territories
rooftop and basement development
Governance ACTION
20
Mainstream temporary urbanism
PJ- Legitimacy PJ- Inclusion Governance DJ- rights
Vulnerable groups
YES – Strong
ACTION 21
Develop the first resilient and climate-sensitive
neighbourhood at Saint-Vincent-de-Paul
DJ- Rights Resilience Adaptation
Vulnerable groups Vulnerable infrastructures
YES
ACTION 22
Design an exemplary resilient neighbourhood at Bercy-Charenton
PJ- Legitimacy PJ- Participation
Flood risks NO (or not identifiable) ACTION
23
Incorporate resilience solutions in urban planning through regulatory documents and specifications
DJ-
Responsibilities Governance
N/A Potentially
ACTION 24
Create an open-source, multi-target resource, research and training centre for resilience
PJ – legitimacy N/A Potentially
ACTION 25
Establish an observatory to understand how different risks impact public health and study socio- environmental vulnerabilities of the territory
N/A
Socio-environmental vulnerabilities
YES
ACTION 26
Mobilise innovation and digital stakeholders to help develop a dynamic and participatory mapping of urban resilience challenges
PJ- Legitimacy PJ-
Participation
N/A YES
ACTION 27
Develop new finance mechanisms for resilience solutions in Paris: from sustainability bonds to resilience bonds
PJ- Legitimacy N/A YES
ACTION 28
Shift municipal investments, concession treaties, public service delegations and public procurement towards resilience by using new indicators
PJ- Legitimacy Governance
N/A Potentially
ACTION 29
Ensure continuity of municipal activity in the event of an emergency
PJ- Legitimacy N/A Potentially
ACTION 30
Build resilience into municipal information systems and enhance security in the event of cyber attacks
Governance PJ- Legitimacy
Vulnerable digital
infrastructures Floods
Heat waves
YES
ACTION 31
Define and sign a territorial cooperation pact with peri-urban and rural municipalities, based on common interests and shared actions
Governance PJ- Inclusion PJ- Legitimacy Adaptation
Food supply Social cohesion Energy
consumption
YES – Strong
ACTION 32
Support the watershed’s climate change adaptation programme to preserve water resources and
limit the scale of floods in partnership with rural municipalities
Governance Floods
Water scarcity
YES
ACTION 33
Adopt a sustainable food strategy for the territory
PJ-
Participation Governance
Food supply Energy consumption
YES – strong
ACTION 34
Carry out a multi-stakeholder study to examine the potential for creating coworking centres and facilitate job swapping at the metropolitan scale
Adaptation DJ- rights
Energy consumption Air pollution
YES
ACTION 35
Develop circular economy, local manufacturing and non-monetary trading
PJ- Participation Social cohesion Food supply
YES
Selection of the actions
All the actions highlighted have strong environmental justice implications in the sense that they aim to bring solutions to climate change present and future issues and improve the life of the citizens. The actions selected are the ones addressing key vulnerabilities as identified in the context chapter, as well as presenting solutions for adaptation to climate change. They present strong implications as they address the risks that have the most impacts on both the city and its citizens (based on chapter 4), thus incline to create or strengthen environmental injustices (they usually address simultaneously different challenges and/or vulnerabilities). Finally, the selection was also based on the progress and implementation of those actions, as they have been implemented or are currently undergoing first steps of implementation, thus allowing to go deeper in the analysis and understanding how they differ from their presentation in the PRS as well as their real-world implication. Among the actions not selected, some do present strong environmental justice implication but belong to the field of climate mitigation, thus excluded in this analysis.
As explained, in the next sections, I will focus particularly on a few actions having strong environmental justice application while simultaneously having seen some progress and implementation throughout the years that followed the publication of the PRS. I will present my interpretations, based on the theoretical framework and the methodology, of those actions and their meanings in relation to the different key concepts and the research questions.
The strategy's conceptualization of climate change adaptation
As already mentioned before (see chapter 1), we have now reached an era where mitigation, which is in short diminishing climate change, is not anymore sufficient to ensure the safety and wellbeing of humans and societies. This is why the city of Paris has to find new ways to overcome and prepare 'to both the current effects of climate change and the predicted impacts in the future' – to reuse the words of the definition of adaptation by the European commission111. Adaptation is consequently a key component of resilience (see chapter 2). The PRS, and particularly its second pillar, seeks to understand the different challenges that the city faces or will face and build efficient adaptation strategies with the aim of "protecting the most vulnerable groups from these threats and adapting the City’s infrastructure to their specific needs"112. This would imply to evaluate the vulnerabilities of both the city and its inhabitants to develop suitable actions acknowledging the rights and responsibilities of everyone and avoid unexpected negative outcomes (such as unfairness). Consequently, before diving into the governance conceptualization of the strategy and its procedural justice implications, it is important to assess the resilience of the PRS in its capacity to adapt the city to climate change in a fair way, using the lenses of distributive justice.
If the adaptation to climate change of the city of Paris ought to be fair, it must include forms of distributive justice (defined in chapter 2). In this section, I will focus in understanding which groups need to be given particular attention when distributing the benefits of the actions designed in the PRS and if those groups are fairly identified, taking into consideration vulnerabilities they may present. The Paris Resilience Strategy touches upon the vulnerabilities of the city and the population in a few actions and attempts to adapt certain structures to improve the protection of vulnerable groups towards negative climate change outcomes, whilst also enhancing the capacity of those structures to withstand shocks. Yet again, most of the actions of the strategy are not explicit or exhaustive enough to understand precisely who is targeted,
111 Adaptation to climate change. (2022). Climate Action
112 The Paris Resilience Strategy. Municipality of Paris. (2017, June), p64
how and why. To assess the distribution of rights and burdens in the strategy, I will focus on two precise actions among the ones having distributive justice implications as these actions have seen significant progress in their implementation throughout the years, thus allowing me to dive deeper in their analysis, notably thanks to additional sources.
Distributive justice in the adaptation to heat waves: schoolyards as cooling islands Action 10 aims to "transform schoolyards into cooling islands "oases""113. It is the action that present the most codes related to distributive justice in the analysis. The action was inspired by the city of Milan, in Italy, that designs its schoolyards as educational gardens, and contains high environmental justice implications. Indeed, the project is touching upon the city's vulnerability to heat waves and the urban heat island effect (see chapter 4) that are more and more frequent due to global warming, and that disproportionally affect certain individuals more than others. As highlighted by the strategy in the introduction of the third challenge of the city, climate change: "In this context [of extreme heat events] the most vulnerable individuals are disproportionately affected: children, the elderly, the sick, and those on the streets."114 In order to protect those vulnerable groups and improve the resistance of the city to extreme heat, this action plans to "cooldown" Parisians schoolyard by transforming and adapting them. The reason those schoolyards are the perfect space, according to the PRS, to develop such a project lies in the fact that almost all Parisians live less that 200 meters away from a school, and "Paris schoolyards, (…) represent a total of more than 600,000m2"115. Changing the material of those schoolyards, asphalt, and including more vegetation would transform them into 'cooling' spaces accessible to all and especially to the most vulnerable. Sebastien Maire, the chief officer of the strategy, also stresses in an interview that (at the time the interview was conducted) the individuals vulnerable to heat waves such as the elderly were transported in municipal cabs to access cool areas in situation of heat waves. Transforming all schoolyards of the city would mean creating a universal access to cooling space regardless of the location of people presenting vulnerabilities. There is consequently a clear acknowledgement of the importance of making this adaptative action just in its distribution, as the presence of schoolyards is evenly spread among the territory. Yet, as I shall explain further, this 'accessibility to all' present imperfections and limitations. The strategy itself does not detail further the process of development and implementation of those cooling islands. Thus, the use of an interview of the Chief officer of
113 The Paris Resilience Strategy. Municipality of Paris. (2017, June), p66
114 The Paris Resilience Strategy. Municipality of Paris. (2017, June), p25
115 The Paris Resilience Strategy. Municipality of Paris. (2017, June), p66
the strategy, Sebastien Maire, of 2019, is relevant here to give more information on this action, which strengthens the idea of increasing social cohesion while adapting the city to climate change. In the interview, the chief officer states that they "co-build the project with the children, educational communities, parents and teachers"116. This involvement of the children is done through a particular process. The website of the Council for architecture, urbanism and environment117 informs us further on this: the first steps consist in creating workshop to educate and raise awareness to climate change among the children, adapting this sensibilization to the context of each school. During this step, children will be encouraged to think about climate change in general, and how can their school adapt to it. This is done thanks to discussions, activities and drawings. Sebastien Maire take the example of one of the schoolyards where the children drew the fence around the greenspace in the shape of a caterpillar118, which brings playfulness in the participation as well as a sense of reward when the children see their own imagination brought to life. The second step would be a decision-making process with the different actors involved such as the teachers and school staff, resulting in an exhibition for each school presented to the parents. Then, the council studies the decision and their feasibility, cross-cutting with technical constrains which in turn prepares the last step, the construction.
Including the children in the design of the schoolyards not only has an educative dimension, increasing their comprehension of the world and its current challenges, but also improves their understanding and acceptance of such changes in their known environment. Indeed, including the children in the development of a project that directly concerns them, increased their understanding of climate change threats and involves them in the creation of solutions to threats that affect them directly. This strengthens the procedural justice dimension of the action. Yet, here I will analyze in more depth its distributive justice, as the procedural justice is presented in the next section of this analysis, through different actions.
To understand the spatial distribution of the action, it is interesting to look at the spatial distribution of the first ten schoolyards transformed from 2019 to 2021 with the financial support of the UIA, Urban Innovative Action of the UE119. This is presented in Figure 7120. This figure is followed by Table 3, which shows some demographic information of the
116 Qu’est-ce qu’une ville résiliente ? La stratégie de résilience de Paris - S. MAIRE. (2019, July 15).
117 La démarche du CAUE de Paris. (2018). Conseil d’architecture, d’urbanisme et de l’environnement
118 Qu’est-ce qu’une ville résiliente ? La stratégie de résilience de Paris - S. MAIRE. (2019, July 15).
119 Cours Oasis and Urban Innovation Action. (2019). Transforming 10 Parisian schoolyards into local community spaces adapted to climate change
120 Les cours Oasis. (2019). Ville de Paris. https://www.paris.fr/pages/les-cours-oasis-7389#dix-cours-pilotes
neighborhoods where a schoolyard has been transformed. Those demographics are income distribution, the part of elderlies and the part of migrants or French born abroad.
Figure 7:
Table 3:
Neighbourhoods Number of schoolyards
Percentage of migrants
121
Aging population (percentage of the population above 60 years old) 122
Income distribution (Median income per unit
consumption in euros) 123
Percentage of
population without diplomas among124
3e 1 20,8% 18% 30489 16,8
5e 1 16,4% 24% 33155 8,9%
11e 1 19,2% 19% 25037 16,9%
13e 1 21,1% 23% 22670 19,5%
14e 1 19,7% 23% 27097 18,8%
15e 1 17,7% 23% 30931 13,5%
19e 1 24,9% 19% 16887 29,5 %
121 Insee, RP 2011, Revenus fiscaux localisés, CNAF. Calcul : Céreq-ESO CNRS, Caen
122 Lacaze, D. (2019, February 19). Voici les arrondissements préférés des seniors parisiens. BFM BUSINESS
123 Insee, RP 2011, Revenus fiscaux localisés, CNAF. Calcul : Céreq-ESO CNRS, Caen.
124 Ibid.
20e 2 22,2% 20% 18953 25,3%
In bold are indicated the 'extreme numbers', the lowest and the highest for each demographic category. This table shows that the fifth arrondissement is the one with the most elderlies among the ones having a transformed schoolyard, counting for more than 24% of the district. Yet, the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth count only one percent less elderlies.
Although they remain rather high-income neighborhood, it does not mean that their population does not present vulnerabilities. As the PRS acknowledges, the elderlies are among the most vulnerable groups in the context of extreme weather and more specifically heat waves.
Consequently, that action succeed in distributing those first cooling islands in a way that they are accessible to a group presenting strong vulnerabilities to heat waves: the elderlies.
Moreover, the table shows that one neighborhood in particular, the nineteenth, cumulates vulnerabilities as it is the poorest in terms of income but also the ones with the least educated population (in terms of diplomas) and concentrating the highest percentage of migrants. The twentieth arrondissement find itself right after the nineteenth, at the second position of the most vulnerable neighborhoods presented in table 3. Both of those districts present transformed schoolyards, and the twentieth is the only one that counts two on its territory. I thus argue that the implementations of Action 10 hereby presented are a great first step in the even distribution of heatwaves adaptation benefits among the population of Paris.
The action improves the resilience of the city to heat waves while distributing its benefits among everyone presenting vulnerabilities to those same heat waves, and not only the first concerned, i.e., the children. It is thus possible to state that the conception of this action is reinforcing distributive justice as it benefits to all and more particularly to the most vulnerable.
However, if the distribution of benefits is fair in the conception of the action, it presents imperfections and limitations. Indeed, even though the end goal is to transform all schoolyards of Paris without exception, this only concerns Paris intra-muros. While the strategy, both in introduction and in different actions, emphasize the importance of developing adaptation at the scale of the Greater Paris, this action does not go beyond the limits represented by the ring road and no schoolyards are – nor will be – transformed in the Parisians suburbs. This results in a distributive injustice with the population of the city inside its walls being the only focus of Action 10, thus being privileged in the distribution of benefits over the rest of the population.
That injustice is reinforced by the fact that, on 982 thousand people over 65 years old in the Greater Paris metropolis, 632 thousand live outside the walls of Paris (versus 350 thousand