Environment Board reviews environmental equity investigation draft – Evanston RoundTable

Report on Evanston’s Draft Environmental Equity Investigation

Introduction and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Evanston’s Environment Board has reviewed a draft environmental equity investigation conducted by the MKSK planning firm. The investigation, initiated by a 2020 City Council resolution, aims to address the impacts of discriminatory policies on community health and the environment. This initiative directly supports several UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), primarily focusing on SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) by seeking to create equitable access to a healthy environment for all residents.

Identification of Focus Areas for Targeted Intervention

The investigation identified two primary “focus areas” characterized by significant environmental inequities. These areas, located in south and west Evanston, were determined through analysis of factors including household income, life expectancy, and the historical impacts of redlining and segregation. This targeted approach is essential for advancing SDG 10 by concentrating policy and planning efforts on communities most affected by systemic disparities.

Strategic Recommendations for Sustainable and Equitable Development

The draft report outlines a series of general and specific recommendations designed to foster environmental equity. A key proposal is the official designation of the focus areas as “green zones” to prioritize investment and policy implementation. Recommendations are structured across four main categories:

1. Open Space, Parks & Trees

   These recommendations aim to enhance urban green infrastructure, contributing to SDG 11, SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 15 (Life on Land).

   • Prioritize and support tree planting in areas with low canopy coverage to mitigate urban heat island effects.
   • Empower community groups to maintain and care for local natural areas.
   • Pilot a “Green Schoolyards” initiative to convert asphalt areas into nature-based play spaces, promoting both ecological health and student well-being (SDG 3).

2. Streets & Transportation

   These strategies focus on creating sustainable, accessible, and healthy transportation systems, in line with SDG 11 and SDG 3.

   • Bolster the public transit network and improve the accessibility, safety, and comfort of existing transit stops.
   • Invest in a connected network of cycling and walking facilities for all ages and abilities.
   • Implement “green alleys” with permeable pavement to reduce stormwater runoff, supporting SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation).
   • Develop strategies to reduce truck pollution in residential neighborhoods.

3. Housing & Development

   These proposals address housing affordability and quality, which are fundamental to achieving SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 10, and SDG 11.

   • Explore licensing for rental housing to improve landlord accountability and property maintenance.
   • Incentivize the development of affordable housing and promote inclusionary zoning to mitigate gentrification.
   • Encourage building improvements that enhance indoor air quality and reduce pollution and waste, contributing to SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).

4. Community Services

   These recommendations focus on building community capacity and resilience, aligning with SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

   • Align environmental sustainability efforts with local workforce development to create pathways into “green” careers.
   • Improve waste management systems and address issues like illegal dumping in focus areas.
   • Increase the distribution of resources like rain barrels to manage flooding.
   • Foster greater coordination between city departments, commissions, and community organizations to ensure efficient and collaborative action.

Board Review and Considerations for Implementation

During its review, the Environment Board raised critical questions regarding the plan’s execution, underscoring the importance of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) for successful implementation.

• Accountability: Board members expressed concern over the lack of a designated entity or “champion” responsible for overseeing the implementation of the recommendations and tracking progress.
• Institutional Framework: It remains unclear how the city will integrate these recommendations into its ongoing operations and who will be responsible for regular monitoring and reporting.
• Community Engagement: Questions were raised about the breadth of community group engagement during the study’s development phase.
• Identified Gaps: The report was noted to have omitted key local entities, such as the Ridgeville Park District, which serves a significant portion of one of the focus areas.

A final draft of the investigation is expected early next year, at which point a more detailed conversation with the City Council regarding implementation and accountability is anticipated.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on Evanston’s environmental equity investigation addresses several Sustainable Development Goals by focusing on the intersection of environmental quality, social justice, and urban planning. The following SDGs are relevant:

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The investigation examines how pollution impacts public health, which is a core component of ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The central theme of the article is environmental equity and justice, directly addressing how “racially discriminatory policies have impacted pollution” and creating disparities among different communities within the city. The goal is to reduce these inequalities.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: This is the most prominent SDG in the article. It covers numerous issues discussed, including affordable housing, sustainable transport (public transit, cycling, walking), access to green and public spaces (parks, trees), waste management, and participatory urban planning.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article highlights the city’s efforts to create more inclusive and accountable institutions through “meaningful public participation in City policies” and the active engagement of underrepresented groups in decision-making processes.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the recommendations and issues discussed in the article, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination. The article connects directly to this by investigating how “pollution” impacts “public health” and recommending strategies to reduce “truck pollution” and improve air quality in buildings.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… race, ethnicity… or other status. The investigation’s focus on “environmental equity” and its goal to “actively engage with and empower underrepresented groups” directly aligns with this target.
   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices. The article states the project’s origin is to investigate “how racially discriminatory policies have impacted pollution” and to address historic redlining and segregation, which is the essence of this target.

3. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services. The study’s recommendations to incentivize “affordable housing” and explore “licenses for rental housing… to improve landlord accountability and property maintenance” support this target.
   • Target 11.2: By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all. This is addressed through recommendations to “bolster the public transit network,” improve transit stops, and invest in a “connected network of cycling and walking facilities.”
   • Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management. The city’s resolution for “meaningful public participation in City policies” and the entire community engagement process undertaken by MKSK reflect this target.
   • Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management. This is relevant to the recommendations to reduce “truck pollution,” improve air quality in buildings, and address waste management issues where some areas have “trash all the time.”
   • Target 11.7: By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces. The recommendations to prioritize “tree planting,” support community groups maintaining “natural areas,” and pilot “Green Schoolyards” directly contribute to this target.

4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The city’s pledge for “meaningful public participation” and the effort to engage community groups in the study process are practical applications of this target. The discussion about who will track progress and be the “champion” for the study also relates to building accountable institutions.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions and implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress:

• Explicit Indicators Used for Analysis: The article states that MKSK analyzed factors like “household income, life expectancy, historic redlining and segregation” to identify focus areas. These serve as baseline indicators of existing inequality.
• Implied Process and Outcome Indicators:
  • Environmental Justice Tracking Dashboard: The recommendation to develop this dashboard implies the creation and monitoring of a set of specific, quantitative indicators to track progress on environmental justice issues over time.
  • Access to Green Space: Progress can be measured by the number of new trees planted in focus areas, the area of asphalt converted to “nature-based play spaces” through the Green Schoolyards initiative, and the number of community groups supported to maintain natural areas.
  • Sustainable Transportation: Indicators could include the number of improved bus stops, the length (in miles or kilometers) of new “cycling and walking facilities,” and data from bike-sharing or scooter-sharing programs in “first-mile/last mile” solutions.
  • Housing Quality and Affordability: Progress could be tracked by the number of new affordable housing units developed and the implementation rate and effectiveness of a new rental licensing system.
  • Pollution and Waste Management: A reduction in truck traffic on residential streets, improved air quality metrics, and a decrease in resident complaints about trash in alleys could serve as indicators.
  • Community Resilience: The number of rain barrels distributed in focus areas and the area of permeable pavement installed in “green alleys” can be used to measure efforts to reduce flooding.
  • Public Participation: The number of “environmental justice education and training workshops” held and the level of participation from underrepresented groups can be used as an indicator of inclusive decision-making.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: evanstonroundtable.com