506
The arguments for more effective urban governance of food, energy, and water
systems are twofold:
1. Cities offer unique perspectives for FEW, both because urban system integration
can demonstrate solutions for global crises and also because addressing the crises that cities themselves present for nexus security is essential for specific populations in the present time. Cities around the world are experiencing unprecedented
problems at scales never before seen in terms of population growth and density,
sprawl, polarization by income including extreme poverty, disinvestment, and
exclusion or segregation by race, ethnicity, and national identity. Population
migration, the flight of refugees from areas experiencing environmental distress
or conflict, or from regions experiencing long-standing ethnic conflicts such as
in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, or locations experiencing economic distress
and conflict such as Central America, are specific cases of this problem. We use
exclusion to mean the denial of economic, political, and/or cultural resources and
basic necessities as well as spatial exclusion and segregation. In the USA, such
exclusion is experienced by many communities along the lines of race and ethnicity, including African American, Native American, and immigrant or ethnic
minority communities.
2. The experiences of communities—whether defined socially or spatially—that are
subject to impoverishment and exclusion need to be the starting point for
addressing integrated FEW crises. Developing solutions that are equitable and
sustainable is not just about stating the problem, but also about asking how
examining the problems and their sources help us identify pathways that lead to
positive outcomes for these communities and thus for society as a whole. Positive
models that are available to us from some cities—such as Curitiba for equitable
transportation as discussed in Sect. 18.5.3 and Belo Horizonte for equitable food
systems—also need to be investigated for their suitability and appropriateness
for all outcomes.
18.4.1 Examples of Urban Nexus Insecurity Impacts
From the perspective of households and neighborhoods as well as communities, nexus
security issues need to be addressed in the form of housing, transportation, utilities,
and other infrastructure that form the structure in which FEW resources come together
and are accessed by households. Decisions and policies related to land and its use,
political fragmentation, and the presence or absence of intergovernmental cooperation
all affect how these structures and services are provided or accessed (the policy criterion). The dynamics of social and spatial exclusion within and between communities
can result in a denial of FEW resources or degradation of their quality.
Residential segregation by race and ethnicity in US cities, for example, leads to
pernicious disparities in everything from education to health and employment. Such
segregation is not simply the result of personal prejudices or the unfortunate byproduct of economic decisions. Study after study has shown how government policies
C. Harris et al.
The arguments for more effective urban governance of food, energy, and water
systems are twofold:
1. Cities offer unique perspectives for FEW, both because urban system integration
can demonstrate solutions for global crises and also because addressing the crises that cities themselves present for nexus security is essential for specific populations in the present time. Cities around the world are experiencing unprecedented
problems at scales never before seen in terms of population growth and density,
sprawl, polarization by income including extreme poverty, disinvestment, and
exclusion or segregation by race, ethnicity, and national identity. Population
migration, the flight of refugees from areas experiencing environmental distress
or conflict, or from regions experiencing long-standing ethnic conflicts such as
in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, or locations experiencing economic distress
and conflict such as Central America, are specific cases of this problem. We use
exclusion to mean the denial of economic, political, and/or cultural resources and
basic necessities as well as spatial exclusion and segregation. In the USA, such
exclusion is experienced by many communities along the lines of race and ethnicity, including African American, Native American, and immigrant or ethnic
minority communities.
2. The experiences of communities—whether defined socially or spatially—that are
subject to impoverishment and exclusion need to be the starting point for
addressing integrated FEW crises. Developing solutions that are equitable and
sustainable is not just about stating the problem, but also about asking how
examining the problems and their sources help us identify pathways that lead to
positive outcomes for these communities and thus for society as a whole. Positive
models that are available to us from some cities—such as Curitiba for equitable
transportation as discussed in Sect. 18.5.3 and Belo Horizonte for equitable food
systems—also need to be investigated for their suitability and appropriateness
for all outcomes.
18.4.1 Examples of Urban Nexus Insecurity Impacts
From the perspective of households and neighborhoods as well as communities, nexus
security issues need to be addressed in the form of housing, transportation, utilities,
and other infrastructure that form the structure in which FEW resources come together
and are accessed by households. Decisions and policies related to land and its use,
political fragmentation, and the presence or absence of intergovernmental cooperation
all affect how these structures and services are provided or accessed (the policy criterion). The dynamics of social and spatial exclusion within and between communities
can result in a denial of FEW resources or degradation of their quality.
Residential segregation by race and ethnicity in US cities, for example, leads to
pernicious disparities in everything from education to health and employment. Such
segregation is not simply the result of personal prejudices or the unfortunate byproduct of economic decisions. Study after study has shown how government policies
C. Harris et al.