Analyze

This forum was organized by the Taiwan Instiute for Sustainable Energy (TAISE) in the context of the United Nations Global Treaty on Plastics.

This event was the City Council meeting for the City of Santa Ana on february 15th 2022. The meeting took place in the city of Santa Ana council chambers. This meeting was organized by the city and city council. The purpose of this event was to award community members, pass agenda items, and listen to community concerns.

This event was held at the University of California, Irvine in-person on campus and over Zoom. "This seminar will focus on harms caused by the operations of Formosa Plastics Corporation in Taiwan, Vietnam and the United States, focusing on coastal communities. Panelists include people who have spent years working to address these harms in different ways." (DisasterSTS). The lead organizers include Tim Schutz and Kim Fortun.

The event was held over Zoom (but was primarily for and about workers in Santa Ana, CA) and was organized by the Labor Network for Sustainability.

This study has additionally been published with additional guides to project and organizational management, such as the Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, published by the Project Management Institute. It serves as a source of reference for other organizations hoping to operate within China’s semi-autonomous state. As a case study of effect bargaining and collaboration with government actors, this text has further been referenced across non-profit management guides, as well as environmental justice studies within similar academic settings to our class.

The case study findings in the text have been discussed with senior staff at the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and members of the California Latino Legislative Caucus. It has also been presented at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and the Yale Center for the Study of Race, Indigeneity, and Transnational Migration during a Scoping Analysis workshop with California policymakers and advocates.

Zoning – Percent of Watershed Area
Commercial – 12.7%
Educational - 0.0%
Hospital – 1.3%
Industrial – 45.8%
Office – 1.3%
Open Space – 7.4%
Residential Detached 1.6%
Residential High Density Row House - 20.1%
Residential Mixed Use -1.7%
Residential Multifamily – 0.2%
Residential Low Density Row House – 3.7%
Residential Traditional – 1.1%
No Data – 3%

Land Use Type - % Watershed Area 

Barren Land - 2.4% 
Commercial -7.0% 
Forest - 1.9% 
High Density Residential - 25.9% 
Medium Density Residential - 1.4% 
Low Density Residential - 0% 
Industrial - 42.0% 
Institutional - 7.4% 
Other Developed Land -7.8% 
Transportation - 3.0% 
Wetland - 0% 
Water -1.3% 

Property Ownership – Percent of Watershed Area

City Owned – 12.8%
Private – 37.3%
Right of Way – 23.1%
Rail Roads – 25.4%
State Owned – 2.2%
Federal Owned – 0.5%

Land use: extraction: Pits. Fill: mounds.

quarry to farm to landfill

practices: extraction, cultivation, disposal.

public participation is discouraged at sites engaged in these practices. Landfill has always been private property (what does that mean when the contents of 'private property' are regularly distributed into public property downstream?). Public participation is organized solely by the public, met with resistance by most public officials, and disdain/scorn/disbelief by PRPs. 

Land use on federal public lands in southern Utah ranges from oil and mineral extraction by private companies that have received leases from the U.S. government, to ranchers who also must go through a permitting process to graze their cattle on public lands, to subsistence users (e.g. hunting, fishing, firewood collection, plant collecting), to local and tourist recreators who hike, bike, camp, drive off-road vehicles, canyoneer, climb, etc.

These varying uses are regulated based on the agency responsible for an area's management and on its designation (e.g. as general BLM or USFS land, as national monument, as wilderness, etc.). BLM land especially (and to some extent national forests) are intended to be multi-use spaces, but such regulations (for instance, wilderness designations that allow hiking and equestrian use but prohibit bicycles and off-road vehicles) antagonize relationships between different land users.

Department of Interior agencies such as BLM and USFS seek to take into account public perspectives in managing public lands for multiple-use through the creation of advisory councils (US Fish and Wildlife Service also does this), the positions of which are divided into specific land-user/"stakeholder" categories such as recreational land users, commercial tourist companies, extractive industry representatives, BLM staff, and so on. One area for further ethnographic exploration is examining how/whether these advisory councils actually shape public lands management--they do hold votes on whether to recommend particular policies to federal agencies but by all appearances these council polls simply communicate a recommendation and are not binding in any way. Additionally, as this is one way in which members of "the public" are included in a formalized way (this is a position people must apply for, be accepted to, hold for a certain length term, and participate in a specific number of meetings), I am curious to know whether this avenue for public participation (or for the communication of public perspectives through representatives) is perceived as an effective or meaningful inclusion of multiple perspectives and interests. Another facet of public participation has been BLM hearings and city/county council hearings, which seem to be predominantly perceived as futile engagement that merely stokes community-level conflict. In communities where a number of people may hold anti-federal sentiment, is a system of advisory councils run by federal agencies perceived as desirable or effective?