Language, context, and action: exploring equity and justice content in Vancouver environmental plans

ABSTRACT Environmental plans have been criticised for failing to appropriately address equity and justice concerns, exacerbating inequity, and overlooking systemic injustices. Some scholars have argued that the use of equity and justice terminology impacts the equity and justice work being done, citing challenges with vague uses of equity. Our research used thematic content analyses, with a focus on language-use, to explore equity and justice framings in four environmental planning documents in Vancouver, B.C. Framings of equity and justice were coded across nine dominant themes and compared against how often each plan acknowledged and addressed four dimensions of justice: distributive, procedural, recognition, and epistemic. We found that plans with more specific, nuanced, and seemingly intentional framings of equity and justice generally included more well-rounded engagement with the four dimensions of justice. Between documents, we highlight vague uses of equity, a focus on distribution, and equity being framed primarily as a guaranteed byproduct. Across documents, we highlight benefits-for-all language, different responses to systemic injustice, and different planning contexts. In discussing the contextual differences across plans, we argue it is important for more research to consider equity and justice in planning on a micro level to better understand the specific justice needs and limitations of different cities and planning goals. We also argue for more work to include epistemic justice alongside the traditional distributive, procedural, and recognition justices. Key policy highlights To better support equity and justice work, planners should aim to have a clear and specific understanding of a project’s equity and justice concerns, priorities, and goals early in the planning process; equity and justice priorities and approaches should guide the entire planning process, rather than be incorporated into a finished product after-the-fact. To better support equity and justice work, approaches to equity and justice in plans should be grounded in a detailed and nuanced understanding of systemic injustices and intersectionality. Generalised, “benefits-for-all” language could risk inequitable solutions; whenever possible, plans should identify specific groups and their unique needs. To better consider local needs and address equity and justice issues, plans should acknowledge and incorporate diverse knowledge systems, perspectives, and practices such as Indigenous ways of “doing, being, and knowing”.