Chapter 4 and Greening The City

Chapter four in Agyeman's book describes an index to compare sustainable organization's directives and evaluate their relation to sustainability and environmental justice. Agyemen outlines her methodology and explains that her descriptions of the organizations within this chapter all have the same score on her index because organizations that rate below a 3 should not be considered relater to JSP.

I noticed that many of these organizations were located in either on the East coast (mainy New York city) or the West cost. It is interesting to think about what influences people in different locations who face the same worldwide environmental crisis react differently. I would assume that organizations formed in NYC or California were formed out of disparate need for their services. States in the Midwest are so sprawling that people who live there do not face the same realities of overcrowding, pollution and climate change in the same ways as city-dwellers. In the same vein, the Greening the City chapter highlights organizations and practices for city dwellers to become more sustainable. Coincidence? Sadly, we as a society seem only to find environmentally nurturing alternatives to our daily practices only when put in disparate situations and atrocious conditions. The critique for both the Greening the City chapter and chapter 4 would be that the issues raised and practices prescribed seem too practical to spend time reading. People are driven by challenge, and once they fulfill their task, they will generally lose interest. Planting prairie wildflowers in your yard, or simply allowing primary succession to occur, is too easy and simplistic for people to accept. We all want to figure something important out, or buy that new technology--but all we really have to do is get a sense of what the ecosystem we inhabit is like and conform to it.

Sustainable Communities by Julian Agyeman Chapter 4: Just Sustainability in Practice

Summary
Having read Chapter 2: The Sustainability Discourse & Sustainable Communities last week, I really wanted to delve deeper into some of Agyeman’s recommended practices for building just sustainability. I was pleased to find that Chapter 4 was chock full of existing programs from around the United States that the author found to be promoting sustainable justice. Not only were there three examples of actual beneficial programs in each of the categories of solid waste, land-use planning, toxic chemicals use, transportation and residential energy use, but Agyeman also went so far as to rate some of the leading US sustainability initiatives to determine which were most just.
For the category of land-use planning, Agyeman is critical of traditional zoning regulations and cites New Urbanism and Smart Growth movements as more favorable to just sustainability because they support collaboration and a variety of uses and income levels. Urban Ecology in Oakland, California was commended for its focus on helping low-income communities to restructure themselves using to Smart Growth theories. Bethel New Life in Chicago, Illinois hires minority contractors to help build sustainable centers and programs. The Bronx Center Project in New York City encourages residents of one of the most troubled areas of the city to restore usable spaces and to create new places for community education and health.
In addressing solid waste management, recognized programs helped their communities to move beyond “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” to environmental, economic and legal empowerment. The author was particularly approving of Minneapolis’ The Green Institute because it combines neighborhood economic development with environmentally sustainable ventures. The New York City Environmental Justice Alliance helps communities to reduce their solid waste and to fight back against waste transfer-station infractions. ReDo of Baltimore, Maryland organizes donations of unwanted materials and teaches people how to reuse old items.
I could go on listing all the organizations that were recognized by Agyeman as visionaries in the just sustainability movement, but for the sake of brevity, I will mention just a few more that stood out as leaders in this area. The Toxic Use Reduction Institute of Lowell, Massachusetts “helped industry to reduce toxic chemicals used in manufacturing by 41 percent over the past decade, while improving the competitiveness of Massachusetts companies.”(p.123) Communities for a Better Environment in Oakland, California raises awareness on local energy and pollution issues and helps to guide the community to make informed decisions on future power plants. In the name of transit equity, the Los Angeles Bus Riders Union actually succeeded in getting the MTA to stop unjust fare hikes, promote student travel and overhaul the aging bus fleet.

Application
I was very interested in the way that Agyeman had used the Just Sustainability Index to rank sustainable organizations throughout the U.S., Of course, I immediately wondered if the sustainability project that I was working on would be listed in the Index, but I think the fact that the Downsview Park project exists outside U.S. borders kept it off the list. The more I read on, I was forced to think about how Downsview would stack up according to the author’s JSI categories -and I was also a little worried that it would be lacking. In order to know more, I went onto the Downsview Park website (www.pdp.ca) to see if some of Agyeman’s just sustainability search terms were there. I was pleased to find phrases such as “social equity” and “social diversity” built into the corporate mandate. Although the words “just” or “justice” were not explicitly mentioned in Downsview Park’s website, it seems like social equity is being very seriously addressed in the park planning process.
When I critically examined the list of park programs and events, I was also pleased to note that there is a wide mix of free events for children (Family Day, Eco-School programming, sports), adults (Movies Under the Stars, Driftmania), retirees (Wings & Wheels, Doors Open Toronto), and even a nice mix of celebrations honoring the cultures of East Asia, Latin America, Portugal, as well as Jewish and Christian events. From my background with the park, I also know that it supports various cultural groups, community organizations and sustainable businesses by offering partnership opportunities, and rental space. Based on my brief examination of Downsview Park according to Agyeman’s JSI, the park would obtain a 3, which is the highest score. Downsview Park is a sustainable development project that is in the very early stages of development, but it appears they are making good progress in the effort to incorporate social justice into this huge project.
Once I had read the chapter and used it to examine the sustainability project that I am involved in, I used the hand-out on Justice & Sustainability Resources to look more deeply at some of projects mentioned in the chapter. I visited the website for Urban Habitat in California. I was struck by the website’s boisterous spirit of civil disobedience. It positions itself as an organization ready to take on some serious issues with some serious action. It looked downright rowdy and definitely confrontational. I then realized that I was in the wrong website: I was actually trying to find the website for Urban Ecology, which was mentioned in Chapter 4 as a beacon of hope for land-use planning and just sustainability. This website, was much more calm, and more what I had expected from a group of community planners. In fact, it reminded me of the Downsview Park website, which, being run by the Canadian government, also tries to infuse an aura of calm, peaceful determination into their project. Graphic design in a website sure can make a difference in how a project is perceived!

Agyeman, Chapter 2 – The Sustainability Discourse and Sustainable Communities

Agyeman brings up a major point throughout the chapter – the gap between knowledge and action, between science and will.
The author points out that the newer sustainability movements include economic vitality, civic democracy, ecological integrity, and social well-being, all of which contribute to a high quality of life for all, essentially, to just sustainability.
Agyeman criticizes the Bush administration’s policies and points out that the US has the potential to be a world leader in sustainable development, especially in terms of funding; however, the US supports sustainable development in other countries, yet lacks implementation domestically, and the “US lifestyle of limitless consumption” continues.
Agyeman goes on to discuss policy tools (sustainability indicators, the concepts of environmental space and ecological footprint), economic indicators (“natural capital” theory, GNP vs GDP, Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare), and sustainability policies (eco taxes, elimination of agricultural and energy subsidies, local exchange trading schemes, affordable housing, recycling & renewable energy, efficient transportation, community supported agriculture). Eco taxes seem to be an idea that would be highly effective if implemented; local exchange trading schemes (such as Ithaca Hours) seem to have a limited range of usefulness, and remind me of the US prior to a universal currency…. The author’s other policies, aside from the subsidy issue which I lack enough knowledge about, seem to be fairly obvious in their benefits.
Agyeman asks a poignant question: Can we achieve sustainable development and sustainable communities by tweaking existing policies, which we are doing at present, or do we need a rethink, a paradigm shift?
The author describes the characteristics of a sustainable community (outlined on p. 63, Table 2.1), “continually adjusting to meet the social and economic needs of its residents while preserving the environment’s ability to support it.” (Roseland) One criticism I have of the author’s discussion of equality and social justice is his tendency to focus solely on the African American population in his discussions. Why the exclusivity? Do environmental and social justice issues not affect Hispanics, Asians, and other minority groups? He outlines representativeness (sic) as an important aspect of participation of the JSP, which he seems to firmly support, yet he lacks representativeness in his discussions.
Agyeman compares narrow-focus and broad-focus civic environmentalism (Table 2.3, p 71). The narrow-focus concept seems more environment focused (Chesapeake Bay watershed restoration), while the broad-focus concept seems more civic focused (Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative, resident-driven urban community revitalization). Much of the discussion in “Greening the City” seems to me to be along the lines of narrow-focus environmentalism, aside from the Urban Agriculture section. Broad-focus environmentalism speaks much more to the Just Sustainability Paradigm, with a vision of political transformation and a paradigm shift toward a more holistic, citizen-empowered way of thinking.
Agyeman asks how to translate the various approaches of civic environmentalism into durable programs that actually protect ecosystems. It seems to me that a broad-focus approach may be the most effective, or at least the most lasting, in creating programs or policies for just sustainability. It provides for a more interconnected, participatory process (JSP/EJP) than narrow-focus civic environmentalism (NEP).

Agyemen Chapter 1

To begin with, Agyeman provides us with some definitions of Environmental Justice- and makes a distinction between the movement (born 1982) and environmental concerns (which have always existed in one form or another. The movement began with the coining of the term environmental racism, which signifies the environmental mistreatment of a neighborhood based on the race of the people who live there. Once this was found to occur, it provided something to rally around--hence the beginning of a movement. The foundations of the movement then, of course, can be found especially in the civil rights movement.

Agyeman goes on to discuss whether or not the focus on racism is helpful. Some argue that such a strong focus combined with the significant focus on environmentalism takes away from other anti-racism movements.

The author describes in detail the institutional history of the Environmental Justice movement, which really began to take shape in October 1991 when an environmental summit authored the Principles of Environmental Justice, a list of the seventeen pillars of the EJ movement. Another conference is held to ratify the principle in 2002.
He also details some of the laws that have been established at the federal level. Despite the fact that the movement has had significant policy implications, its true strength lies in the fact that it remains a broad-based grass-roots citizens movement. At the local and activist level it is "political opportunity, mobilization, and action" while it is also a "policy principle." (19)

Agyeman outlines some of the policy tools, such as the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, the Good Neighbor Agreement, and The Precautionary Principle.

Another interesting discussion is about risk-assessment. Who can best determine what the environmental risk is of (whatever)? Is is the people, who either do or will have direct experience of the risky activity, is it the corporation or whoever who is instigating the activity, or is it the policy makers who can best say what the risk is? It seems to make sense that the people would best be able to determine how it affects them, and then policy makers should listen to them.
For Agyeman there are five important aspects of the way he defines the Environmental Justice movement for this book. These are: "procedural, substantive, distributive, reactive and proactive." (26)
At this point the author goes in-depth about the situation in Massachusetts, but I won't go into that here, especially since I read the chapter that goes into detail on the fifteen different organizations.

This chapter gave me a better understanding about where the movements roots are. I think this really complimented both my own reading of Chapter 4, the "practical" chapter, and Ken Reardon's talk last Tuesday. All together, it's really quite inspiring to read and hear all of this, and it informs a lot of my own initiatives, including the project I'm involved in for this class.

One thing I find especially intriguing and important is how helpful it is to know the history of the movement- to know that it has roots in the Civil Rights Movement, and that throughout the past few decades, there have been not a few ground-breaking achievements. Hearing about these, and especially about East St. Louis (even though I've heard it at least 6 times now) is really inspiring.

Despite all of this grand inspiration though, there is still so much disagreement and it seems that he spends half of the rest of the book outlining (why?) all of the nit-picky issues. While it's important to understand that there are hardships and important distinctions that can and should be made, is it really that valuable? I mean, surely it's OK to have different people working in different ways to achieve environmental sustainability for everyone. No?

Anyway, I guess my critique is just that: that is seems Agyeman dug himself a nice hole of a book to write, that on the one hand is informative and at some points inspiring, but it was difficult to understand what he is really trying to convey. Maybe that is due to my reading less than the whole thing. At any rate, I would wish for less details on the disagreements, and more details on what actions are working and why and how, and which haven't, and why and how-- asking too much? Should I read a different book? What book is that?

In Chapter 5, Agyeman does an in depth study of an organization called Alternatives for Community and Environment (ACE)—an organization which he identifies as a Just Sustainability association. Here are a few key reasons why Agyeman places ACE within the Just Sustainability Paradigm.

1) ACE is more proactive than reactive.
2) ACE uses very deliberative tools and techniques.
3) ACE focuses on a greater region (Boston) instead of a local community (Roxbury).
4) ACE builds coalitions with other groups in order to optimize its impact on the community.

Personally, I am most interested in the story that Agyeman tells about a group of young students who organized themselves around the asthma epidemic that plagued their neighborhood (Roxbury). After discovering that many Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) buses would remain idle in the streets of Roxbury for hours at a time, the students organized an Anti-Idling March and ultimately demanded that the MBTA pay for its reckless behavior (a sum of $1.3 million).

This case study demonstrates several important themes that we can apply to our work as socially and environmentally conscious members of society. First, we must understand that in order to initiate positive change within an area that we must humbly work alongside the members of the community in an accessible and genuine manner. Second, we must find an affective way to organize ourselves and then mobilize the community. For example, each key leader of ACE spearheads his/her own campaign and then relies on the support of local volunteers and community memhers to achieve goals. This model delegates authority and responsibilty so that ACE can adopt more issues and work with more people. Lastly, we must educate and empower residents in order to build a network of concerned people within the community. If we do not gain support from community members, then our plans will certainly fail.

In the end, I think that successful community planning truly depends upon active community involvement and that active community involvement depends upon the commitment level of the people spearheading a movement. We do not necessarily have a specific model of success to follow, but we do know that successful plans are usually carried out by people who are truly invested in their work—invested in the idea of social and environmental equity. In my mind, ACE experiences a great amount of success because the leaders of the organization are passionate about what they do and because they know how to transmit their excitement to the world around them.

Agyeman: Chapter 4 "Just Sustainability in Practice"

I really enjoyed this chapter i fully understand Agyeman's frustration when he says that in looking and and researching the sustainable practices of top ten company's the results are shockingly minimal. I definitely agree and understand that only a handful of sustainable practice examples is not enough to change the world. Although overall i found this chapter to be very positive and inspirational. The thing that made me the happiest was the different approaches that people are taking towards sustainability. I strongly believe that one of the keys to sustainability is not excepting something for the way it is just because we are used to it. Every daily action should at some point be re-examined and thought of in a different light, this is where sustainable practice can truely prosper.

Some of my favorite case studies included those reharding land-use planning. I really enjoyed those stories where socio-economic barriers were broken and the community worked as one force to succeed. For inctance, the urban-ecology in Oakland, CA where its community design program provides planning and design services to low-income urban neighborhoods to assist them with community development. The Urban Ecology's Sustainable Cities Program approaches municipal governments and works with community groups to promote more sustainable development patterns. There are many other fantastic and innovative case studies throughout this chapter, others dealing with such issues as solid waste management, toxic chemical use, residential energy use, and transprotation planning.

Once again the only critique one can make regarding the material in this chapter is that there is not enough examples of such sustainable actions, it would be amaxing if there were examples of all communities in all states that show sustainable practices. Although we know that the ideas of community sustainability are difficult for many to accept and implement. The best way to adapt sustainable practices is by seeeing companies who are actually taking the actions and succeeding. This success can help to motivate others to become sustainable as well, in a progressive and positive manner.

Agyeman Ch 4: Just Sustainability in Practice and Greening the City

Reading Agyeman's Chapter 4 andthe Greening the City article and resource sheets supplied by Elan ensured that I spent much of my recent time reading about case studies, exemplary organizations, and best practices.
Additional resources:
saveourenvironment.org (from Agyeman)
fingerlakesbuygreen.org (from the Trumansburg State Fair)

Summary of Agyeman:
In this chapter Agyeman uses a methodological approach he calls the Just Sustainability Index to measure organization's commitment to justice. Agyeman then looks at Land Use Planning, Solid Waste Management, Toxic Chemical Use, Residential Energy Use, and Transportation Planning and identifies organizations throughout the US that have a high rating on the JSI that are addressing these urban hazards. For example, Residential Energy Use is "often seen as incompatible with affordable." (p. 124). What can organizations do to help low-income residents of cities improve the energy efficiency of their homes. The National Center for Appropriate Technology In Butte, MO, The Massachusetts Energy Consumer's Alliance in Boston, MA, and Communities for a Better Environment in Oakland, CA all run programs, work to institute policy, and create funding for efficient residential energy use for all.

Synthesis/Application
To build on the example I have just offered of residential energy use... as a preservationist our field is criticized for lauding a building stock that no longer allows for ease of heating and cooling and other environmental factors. Efficient residential energy use is "often seen as incompatible with affordable" and I would say affordable is often seen as incompatible with preservation. While the reality is more complex, I was particularly interested in this example because we should be able to give people efficient, low-cost housing, and I believe that using our existing building stock can help us achieve this goal. Agyeman points out, correctly, that a "filtering principle" often gets applied to the generation of affordable housing stock in cities. This filtering principle is that older, less-efficient homes become occupied by lower income residents. As preservationists, proponents of green architecture and sustainability it is imperative we keep this at the forefront as we move forward.

Websites and other Resources:
Elan's list of resources includes links to all of the organizations evaluated in Agyeman's Chapter 4. I took a look at some of these during my reading. When looking into further resources included in the handout I concentrated on those that provided tools and data for policy implementation. I found policylink.org to contain information, and toolkits which could be used in a myriad of ways as advocacy tools. I encourage everyone to visit.

Agyeman Continued: Chapter 1 Environmental Justice

After reading chapter one, I regret not having read this chapter before reading chapter four Just Sustainability in Practice. Chapter four provides a hopeful view of Just Sustainability by providing real examples of the theory in practice. Chapter one on the other hand gives a broad overview of the origins of environmental justice, which is the umbrella movement that has brought ideas of justice and equity into our national discourse about the environment and sustainability.

As Agyeman explains in chapter one, environmental justice as a movement has several foundations including the civil rights movement, the antitoxics movement, Native Americans struggles, the labor movement, and the traditional environmental movement. The modern day environmental movement, based upon several other social movements, began as the result of grassroots community organizing that was then supported by these established movements. “Grassroots environmentalism” was communities of colors’ way of expressing their demands for equality and justice in environmental issues facing their communities. More specifically, these communities expressed the need for municipal governments and environmental organizations to help alleviate the unjust and unequal burden of environmental problems imposed upon communities of color. Agyeman outlined the national political efforts to address environmental injustice and how the environmental justice movement has used these policy initiatives to further their missions and goals. As Agyeman explains Clinton’s Executive Order 12898, for example, forced federal agencies to adopt policies that address and reduce environmental injustice and inequity, which elevated the movement from grassroots organizations to national commissions. Beyond Clinton’s Executive Order, environmental justice advocates have a number of policy tools which allow them to implement change in communities that are disproportionately affected by environmental problems. These policies include but are not limited to the Civil Rights Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act. In this chapter, Agyeman also addressed the importance of involving community members in the process of analyzing environmental risk and setting research agendas. By engaging communities in a community-based participatory research initiative scientists and environmental experts can further equalize the process of addressing environmental issues. Finally, Agyeman attempted to define Environmental Justice Policy, which he admitted was a rather difficult thing to do. Using the definition of Environmental Justice, he explains the growth of the Environmental Justice Movement. He argues that the growth of the movement is directly linked to the way that environmental justice ideas have been framed, because groups have been mobilized around this framing. More specifically, Agyeman defines Environmental Justice Policy as policy that incorporates procedural justices (involving all people affected), substantive justice (giving people the opportunity to enjoy a clean and healthful environment, and distributive justice (distributing environmental benefits equally to all people). By framing Environmental Justice in a way that seeks to determine the causes and remedies of injustice in a way that resonates with the identity of the people affected, the leaders of the Environmental Justice movement have fostered the immense growth of the Environmental Justice movement.

The most useful part of this chapter was Agyeman’s critique of the environmental justice efforts in the metro Boston area. The low income communities in the Mystic River Watershed only have access to polluted air and water due to the industries that poison their communities. The state government has implemented Environmental Justice Policy on both the law and policy levels. Though these efforts are progressive, Agyeman argues that have fallen short by failing to integrate policy and actually improve conditions rather than just sustaining them. Agyeman’s final point is extremely applicable to our studies. It seems that Agyeman in this chapter is suggesting that Environmental Justice has deep historical roots and it is growing movement that has potential to implement positive change. His critiques of Boston’s efforts help me as a student recognize the shortcomings of this type of work. As a planner one should be seeking to improve rather than simply maintain. Furthermore, the discussion about community-based participatory research, though slightly glazed over, was very applicable. As a student, I have always been interested in processes that engage and involve community members in community work. Environmental Justice is certainly no exception. By addressing the environmental issues that residents feel are the most pressing, researchers and scientists can do their part in creating environmental justice.

CH 2 Sustainable Discourse

The goal of Sustainable Communities is to ultimately improve the quality of life for all people with out jeopardizing the quality of life for future generations, while living within our ecosystem’s limits. In Chapter 2 Agyeman introduces theory and gives examples to show that just-sustainability is possible in real communities.
“Sustainability is at least as much about politics, injustice and inequity as it is about science or the environment.” This quote explains that sustainability encompasses way more than just the environmental factors.
The US policy on SD has changed direction during the Bush Administration. The Clinton approach focused primarily on a domestic quest for SD while the current SD policy has placed an emphasis on international changes through US aid. The new approach has left out the US domestic commitment and responsibility to SD. The new approach states that “countries that live by these broad standards, ruling justly, investing in their people, and encouraging economic freedom, will receive more aid from America” Instead of the US taking the lead to enact more sustainable practices domestically and becoming the example for other countries we have a “we have done enough” mentality and allowing us to continue our “limitless consumption” while directing our checkbooks towards changing other counties.
Policy Tools. By using policy tools like sustainability indicators, sustainability inventory, and environmental space we can set goals, create action steps and measure progress. Sustainability Indicators gauge the communities current conditions, target concerns, and measure progress. The indicators reflect the entire community’s sustainability concerns, both social and environmental factors. Sustainability Inventories give the community a holistic system approach. The inventories serve as a platform that requires collaboration from many local government sectors to set goals and develop action plans.
New Economics. The economic tool for measuring a nation’s wealth is GDP (Gross Domestic Product) which measures all goods and services produced within the countries borders. This indicator only measures the wealth of a country through paid activities or standards of life and not the quality of life. The GDP doesn’t account for wealth distribution, unpaid activities, or environmental factors such as pollution, decreasing natural resources, or loss of diverse ecosystems. The US may have the highest GDP but because it doesn’t adjust for environmental factors and quality of life GDP isn’t a good indicator of sustainability.

What motivates...

Chapter 6 “From Confrontation to Implementation” by Agyeman
and
Chapter 4 “Greening the City” by Mark Roseland

synthesis/application

For this section of my blog, I am going to refer to something from the Roseland Ch. 4 (optional) reading. Roseland explains that the “enlightenment” to “go green” for many developers and landscape architects came out of a recognition of a growing market in environmental responsibility. I have been both excited and frustrated in the past couple of years with this movement. It is exciting in that it is initiating positive environmental change, however; it seems that if the main inspiration for “going green” is profit, then calling it environmental responsibility is a paradox. Developers who have chosen to follow this trend are not taking the responsibility to do so, but taking advantage of a lucrative opportunity.
At an architecture firm that I worked at, about 6 years ago, I remember talking to a fellow project-manager about some design ideas she had for a client who had said they were open to using to hay-bale construction in their home. This was a high-end residential architecture firm, and this sort of idea was highly unconventional, however; she thought since the client seemed interested, that the architect at our firm might be willing to look into it. My coworker brought the idea up at a staff meeting, and everyone else at the firm laughed (literally) at her suggestion. She realized that they thought she must be joking, and so she reverted back to convention. I would love to see how this scenario would play out today, given the prospect to do something “cutting edge” in high end design, promising of exposure to potential clients looking for this type of “environmentally-responsible” firm.

critique/inquiry

Agyeman mentions “the short term marriage of convenience” between groups with different agendas coming together when an issue becomes painful enough for both of them. I was left wondering if Agyeman believes that the scenario of equally-sensed urgency from opposing groups is the only time they would be willing to put down their differences to work together? Unfortunately, I think it is. And this could be extremely disastrous, because it seems that there is an urgency that is somehow lurking under the radar of extreme urgency, and we need the collaboration to start now. So my question becomes, what would inspire collaboration between the various types of groups, before it gets to the point where it is a forced partnership, or more importantly, before it is too late? I think Agyeman makes several great arguments in the two chapters I’ve read (3 & 6) for why the JSP is a good solution for both the NEP and the EJP reaching their goals, but I didn’t see him talking anywhere about the nuts and bolts of what leads them to finally making that JSP commitment.

Summary

In the final chapter of Agyeman presents ideas that he hopes will lead to implementation of sustainability practices through synergistic efforts from the EJP and the NEP movements.
First he discusses the debate about sustainable efforts from organizations with different ideological differences being more likely to mesh at a local or national level. He shows that when an issue creates a sense of urgency for both types of groups, that it has an overriding effect on any differences within the coalition.
Second he argues that ironically, the bridge between the EJP and NEP will not come from a collaboration between the two, but from EJ groups working with JS groups. He brings up an interesting point; that the JSP group “may not have experienced injustice in the personal and visceral way that many neighborhood-based EJ groups have” (179).
Third he examines the problem of unfulfilled policy rhetoric. He confirms that there is more action, implementation, and general follow through at the local level. He also alludes to the tendency of the NEP’s policies to be far less explicit and quantifiable than those of the JSP and the EJP policy promises. He calls for a general need, on local, national, and international levels, to have wider policy discussions on clarifying how progress, success, need, sufficiency, and efficiency are measured.
Fourth he shows the promise of utilization of tools such as environmental space. However; he mentions the point of view that given the current U.S. political climate, it may be too late to institutionalize environmental space. He brings up a hopeful point to counter though, that no other country in the world has such an advanced EJ infrastructure to base this environmental space implementation on.
And lastly, he looks at his definition of the JSP vs. the EJP and examines where certain groups fit in. He makes sure to clarify that the “JSP is not rigid, single, and universal…. It is flexible and contingent, with overlapping discourses that come from recognition of the validity of a variety of issues…”

Agyeman Chapter 6: From Confrontation to Implementation

In this chapter Agyeman presents instances of international, national, and local coalitions between JSP, EJP, and NEP organizations that have had varied levels of success. Agyeman hypothesizes that the most successful coalitions, the ones which achieve “movement fusion” are between just sustainability and environmental justice groups (178). He concludes the chapter with thoughts on emerging organizations and other frameworks that have the potential to advance the just sustainability paradigm.

At the beginning of this chapter, Agyeman sets a lofty agenda for himself, but is unable to succeed in moving through the discourse. Agyeman begins by presenting examples of local and national coalitions between organizations with varying degrees of just sustainability focus, but is limited in his analysis. He seems to struggle with the need to have environmental justice and sustainability completely accounted for by a single organization. The notion that organizations with divergent, but in some ways complementary, goals could successfully work together seems unattainable. While it may be true that having an aligned agenda creates an easier marriage of organizations, ignoring those with different views of the world may not be the best way to encourage any kind of justice, let alone environmental justice.

Agyeman then describes the new tool of environmental space, which “quantifies and helps operationalize sustainability while simultaneously highlighting the role of equity and justice” (181). Environmental space is at first positioned to be the juncture between EJP and NEP organizations, but Agyeman then dissects its agenda, and writes that it focuses a little too heavily on the environmental aspects of sustainability and too lightly on issues beyond “green.” While this may be true, that does not meet the movement can’t be an ally to just sustainability or that environmental space falls short of any benchmark other than the one created by Agyeman himself.

Through Agyeman’s dissection of goals and roles and interconnections between organizations, it seems he may be missing an important factor, the key focus of a social or environmental movement: change. Instead of breaking down other movements and highlighting how they are dissimilar, bridging the known chasms through respect and understanding may provide a more solidified front to move multiple agendas forward simultaneously. Agyeman seems more focused on why EJPs or NEPs are doing what they are doing – the values behind the actions – than on how outcomes can intersect to create synergies that go beyond what each organization could do by itself.

Agyeman, Chapter 5: Alternatives for Community and Environment (ACE)

(Critique in blue. Comments and/or insights desired.)

In this chapter, Agyeman employs a case-study approach of an organization to determine whether it is aligned primarily with EJP or JSP, how the two paradigms overlap in actual practice, and why an organization may evolve over time to become more oriented towards JS. The subject is ACE, a non-profit founded in Boston’s Roxbury neighborhood in 1993 with a mission of mobilizing the community (and identified Environmental Justice Population) to take charge of their own urban environment. ACE received a rating of 3 on Agyeman’s Just Sustainability Index.

Agyeman argues that in the 10 years between ACE’s founding and the time of the case study, ACE evolved from an EJP-identified organization to a JSP-identified one. The four criteria that signaled the shift are:

1) Widening the geographic area of focus from a local habitat (Roxbury) to a regional one (New England). ACE was originally formed to respond to issues affecting the residents of Roxbury, such as air-quality and bus-fare increases, but has expanded its scope and plans to become even more involved in regional action.

2) Growing from a reactive, “one crisis at a time” organization to a proactive, community-visioning and empowerment support system that uses participatory processes to identify problems that the community currently faces or is likely to face in the future.

3) Building coalitions that persist across unique campaigns and that create greater capacity in the entire system. ACE’s institutional and informal partnerships aren’t dissolved as issues are put to rest; instead, they nurture long-term relationships that are grounded in a sense of common purpose.

4) Employing increasingly sophisticated operational tactics (lobbying, legal, etc.) that help to distinguish ACE from more parochial organizations by emphasizing its ability to marshal resources and ensure its longevity.

ACE’s modus operandi is rooted in a platform of popular education and empowerment-practice. Popular education seeks to increase a community’s capacity for self-determination through education and outreach; empowerment-practice attempts to harness individuals’ competencies and skills to envision and implement a stronger community.

Without going into a full recap ACE’s history and campaigns, I will say that I was duly impressed by ACE’s ability to grow and stay true to its mission, as well as the clearly deliberate ways they have chosen to express their mission in everything that they do, from staff hiring to program selection. I was also interested in ACE’s timeline, which charted its “critical moments” since its inception and did a nice job of really showing how such an organization gains strength and momentum over time. Much like Ken Reardon’s explanation of the East St. Louis project, ACE’s timeline illustrates that even the most complex, best-organized grassroots movements are really a series of smaller moves that build-up and help to define and grow the organization.

Agyeman concludes that ACE began as an EJ organization and has since become a JS organization. I agree, and I agree with his reasons for making that assessment; I just kind of feel like, “so what?” I mean, ACE is what it is, and I don’t know how much value is added by definitively stating that it’s part of one paradigm or another: Whether it is identified with EJP or JSP doesn’t change its mission. I suppose it’s useful to make the distinction for outsiders who want to be able to point to a JS organization because they’re learning about JS (like we are), or to create a rubric for determining whether other orgs are JS, et cetera, but overall I feel like it’s a lot mental acrobatics, splitting of hairs, labored articulation—call it what you will—to arrive at the foregone conclusion that they are a great organization doing important work. Like so much of what we have read about thus far, I don’t question that the intentions are good or that the logic behind it isn’t solid, but I do feel that there is an incredibly prolific body of work out there that merely seeks to define, to categorize, and to theorize, without much overture toward real action. Does anybody else feel this way, as well? I’m actually quite torn about it, like maybe I’m only seeing half of the picture, and if I could see the other half then I would somehow feel more satisfied, or be able to at least connect the inputs with some outputs.

Chapter 4: Just Sustainability in Practice

Having read Chapter 3, “Just Sustainability in Theory”, it made sense to continue with Chapter 4, “Just Sustainability in Practice.” This section of the book takes five sustainability category issues, and within each section sites 3 examples of organizations that receive the highest just sustainability ranking (on a scale from 0 to 3). The majority of organizations sited are able to combine the practice of increasing sustainability while at the same time incorporating historically disenfranchised segments of the population so that economic and educational opportunities are increased. The five categories examined are: land-use planning, solid waste management, toxic chemical use, residential energy use, and transportation planning.

I really enjoyed reading this chapter, because it reminded me that the theories about which we are learning really do have practical and successful applications. I especially appreciated the mention of groups that were able to organize to prevent municipalities from constructing detrimental structures in already disadvantaged communities (examples being the transit village in Oakland, California and the Green Institute in Minneapolis, Minnesota). This is similar to what Professor Reardon discussed in class, however, the community group in East St. Louis was able to alter city plans so that a transportation center would be running through the neighborhood. They were able to spot an opportunity (increased transportation to higher paying jobs) and press the city to change their original plans so that their community would not be left behind.

What I really like about Chapter 4 is that throughout the section there were several mentions of the education processes that go into creating more just sustainable practices. There really is a lot of government and non-profit programs that help citizens live more environmentally conscious, but not enough people are aware of them. For instance, the Los Angeles Bus Riders Union has “begun a Student Pass campaign to simplify the process for students applying for student transit passes and to lower their costs.” Another example is Communities for a Better Environment in Oakland, which helps Californians to become more informed abut energy issues and potential threats to the community. Not only does education help people to become more aware of their environment, but it also provides an opportunity for people to bridge gaps and communicate with each other in socially healthy ways.

The Sustainability Discourse

The sustainability discussion has typically focused on matters of impact reduction, or eco-efficiency. Ecological modernization has been the term used to make processes more efficient, reducing resource use and waste. As a result, the issue has been largely about scientific and technological solutions rather than system-wide solutions. This has led to a “sustainability gap,” where economic, social, and political issues have been left out, resulting in a large “equity deficit.” In order to make a real transition towards sustainability, there must also be social sustainability, as a sustainable society cannot be so without involving social, political, equity, and other relevant issues.
Agyeman explains how weak the United States has been, in terms of policy and understanding, in doing sustainable development. While the Clinton Administration had a desire to pursue it somewhat aggressively, it has strong political and social barriers. The current administration, on the other hand, has assumed that sustainable development is not a U.S. issue but one for other countries, and so has decided to fund developing nations to claim its promotion of sustainable development. Meanwhile, the United States continues to be responsible for the consumption of 25% of society’s resources and roughly 25% of the world’s impact on the environment, though it has less than 5% of the world’s population. Clearly, sustainable development in this case must heavily involve politics if it is going to be done.
Despite this large political barrier, many cities in the United States have taken sustainable development seriously. San Francisco, among the best examples of just sustainability, has focused its efforts on equity, equitable pollution distribution, community participation, and resource use and waste reduction. Many cities are seeing the tremendous benefit of smart growth and community equity and vibrancy. Where sustainable development has at least been approached, there are more involved citizens, a less politically apathetic government, and a move towards environmental impact reduction. While there are is still a long way to go, these cities are setting the examples of what has to be done socially and politically in order to achieve just sustainability.
On a different note, Greening of the City showed the importance of making the city green to achieve sustainability. It makes clear that green itself can be unsustainable if the design is done incorrectly. Rather, greening of the city is an essential component for social improvement, economic savings, and natural connections between humans and other forms of life. Greening of the city aims to improve aesthetics, create social opportunities for community engagement, reduce pollution and enhance the city climate, and reduce energy costs.

ch. 4: Just Sustainability in Practice

This chapter (ch. 4, "Just Sustainability in Practice") of Agyeman is an extension of chapter 3, "Just Sustainability in Theory" and provides examples of issue categories in sustainability, and examples of how organizations in different cities have approached these issues. Agyeman provides the following points in the material:

"Despite the somewhat depressing overall picture, there are national environmental and sustainability membership organizations in the United States that are beginning to engage with the emergent JSP." The Just Sustainability Index was created to chart the current status of just sustainability discourse and provide a relatively "accurate" picture of an organization's commitment to the JSP by examining both "mission" and "program" issues. Throughout the chapter, Agyeman provides examples of organizations with sustainability concerns and practices that score a ""on the JSI (this is the highest score). A "3" is scored based on the criteria that the, "Core mission statement relates to intra- and intergenerational equity and justice and/or justice and equity occur in same sentence in prominent contemporary textual or programmatic material." Agyeman also notes that based on a conducted survey, more than 30 percent of selected national environmental and sustainability membership organizations had a JSI of "0," meaning that their core mission statements had no mention of justice or equity. "Ideas of sustainability and environmental justice are being applied together, and in practice, in different locations and contexts. Many are based on multistakeholder partnerships..." Agyeman provides three examples of organizations/implemented programs within each of five issue categories. These categories are land use planning, solid waste management, toxic chemical use, residential energy use, and transportation planning. The main point of tension within each category are as follows: Land-use planning: geographic segregation of both people and land utility, decreased social mobility; solid waste management: recycling facilities are not a welcome land use; toxic chemical use: right-to-know concept, toxic use reduction, Precautionary Principle, and clean production; residential energy use: "investment necessary to increase environmental efficiency of existing homes and reduce the ecological impact of new home construction is often seen as incompatible with affordability goals;" transportation planning: "large-scale highway projects have had a significant impact on minority and low-income neighborhoods while facilitating increased automobile use and emissions by wealthier suburban residents." "There are a minority of national environmental and sustainability membership-based organizations in the United State that show a state concern for equity and justice within the context of their work..." There are, however, several international organizations that have a JSI of 3. Some positive news is that the representative examples presented in each of the five issue categories are samples of local/practical initiatives: "Perhaps it is because they are smaller organizations, not large national membership-based organizations, that they can be more locally responsive to the needs of diverse communities."

This reading has a strong, clear, and relevant connection to the class and concept of greening cities. It is important to understand the issues at hand, and why certain attempts at addressing them may or may not be successful; such as large organizations with little concern for equity versus small/local operations that directly address problems at hand and can give attention to several groups of individuals. Also, it must be kept in mind that green cities are wonderful in theory, but are they sustainable in practice? Do they contribute to crumbling social structures, or help to strengthen them?

I was thrilled with the examples given in this chapter, especially because some presented are seen as controversial. This helps to eliminate the all-too-idealistic feeling of saving the world by making cities greener, and acknowledges the real and current problems that are created by living in complex societies. Although these small examples do not give some instruction as to how to implement similar operations, they do provide some examples for creative solutions.

Chapter 3: Just Sustainability in Theory

In Chapter 3: "Just Sustainability in Theory" of Sustainable Communities and the Challenge of Environmental Justice, Julian Agyeman claims that the JSP (Just Sustainability Paradigm) is a bridge between the NEP (New Environmental Paradigm) and the EJP (Environmental Justice Paradigm). The four main focal areas of concern of the JSP are quality of life, present and future generations, justice and equity, and living within ecosystem limits. Agymen explains the following three points:
If we are to develop more cooperative endeavors and look toward movement fusion, we need to know why the gap exists between the EJP and NEP. This gap must be bridged with frank and open discussion. These two movements had very different beginnings, with the environmental justice movement had community/grassroots beginnings (bottom-up) whereas the sustainability agenda came from expert committees and governments. There has been a history of mistrust between these two movements, and the environmental justice movement is more diverse (in all ways) than the sustainability movement because it arose from popular instead of expert origins.
There is an ongoing green-brown sustainability interpretation battle. This battle is between the richer countries of the North ("green") who are concerned with environmental protection , biodiversity, and protecting the ozone; and the poorer countries of the South ("brown") who are concerned with the alleviation poverty, infrastructural development, health, and education. This is paralleled in the US by the narrow vs. broad focus environmentalism (NEP vs. EJP/JSP). Another paralleled issue is the historical "ecological debt" that the South says is owed by the North.
"If the wider public is to support such progressive policies, there must be an entitlement to a cross-curricular 'education for sustainability' in schools and universities and broadly based, accessible popular education campaign." Purely information-based campaigns (whether run by non-profits or governmental bodies) tend to fail. Behaviors of groups of people need to be changed, which can be accomplished through social marketing. Agyeman cites McKenzie-Mohr and Smith (1999): " the primary advantage of social marketing over other forms of community education is that it starts with people's behavior and works backward to select a particular tactic suited for that behavior."


This chapter of Agyeman's book presents solid, although theoretic ideas. The author supports his statements with examples of successfully implemented programs. However, no examples are presented of implemented/unsuccessful programs or theory. I would have liked to see more criticism instead of pure praise.

Introduction:
This chapter introduces the idea that environmental justice and sustainability movements have been opposing forces in the past. The idea that sustainability ( along with buying organic, shopping local etc) has been the privilege of the morally minded middle class while environmental justice has been a struggle for proper provision of basic necessities (clean drinking water, non-toxic food supplies, etc). The idea is then introduced that sustainability can really only be achieved from a cooperation of these two forces.
Chapter 1:
This chapter provided a history of the environmental justice movement in relation to civil rights movements. Environmental justice as a bottom up grassroots movement, much like the civil rights movement, is at the opposite side of the top down approach of new environmentalism (which focuses more on preserving wildlife as opposed to the threat of toxics in an urban area as a result of environmental racism)

These first chapters provided an interesting history of the two movements which not many people think about. I was interested by how much thought is put into the definition of each particular issue because it illustrated just how important clarifying terms truly is.

I think that this book is an interesting read, my only criticism of this book is that it seems repetitive to someone who is already familiar with these concepts. It seems like everything I read about sustainability is not really new information, just further definition and clarification of what already makes sense. The interesting parts are the case studies because people make far greater strides in improving the principles and methods of sustainability when they try them out in the real, day to day world.

Chapter 4: Just Sustainability in Practice

In chapter 4, Just Sustainability in Practice, Agyeman presents the results of a survey that she conducted in order to analyze how committed various national environmental and sustainability organizations were to justice and equity. In order to conduct her survey, Agyeman created the Just Sustainability Index, which she used to quantify and then measure the extent to which selected organizations were incorporating justice and equity into their missions and agendas. According to Agyeman’s results, the national environmental and sustainability organizations that she surveyed were generally scoring very low, which suggests that many of our national environmental and sustainability organizations are not concerned with justice and equity. Agyeman then highlighted a number of organizations that exemplify just sustainability in practice. She organized these progressive organizations according to the major environmental issue that they were tackling. These categories included land-use planning, solid waste management, toxic chemical use, residential energy use, and transportation. Though a small minority, these few examples of organizations, practicing just sustainability provided a template for future work in this area. It proved that there is hope and that there is real work being done to further the cause.

The Green Institute in Minneapolis was particularly interesting, because it was created by a diverse and empowered group of citizens who exercised their right to take control of their neighborhood and community. By mobilizing the community, citizens were able to prevent unwanted development in their neighborhood, which proved to big businesses and developers that the needs of residents could not be ignored. The community activism in Minneapolis reflects the need for citizen participation in public policy concerning urban issues. As Professor Reardon makes the case in his article, it is becoming more and more necessary for city officials, developers, and public and private funders to collaborate with citizens when planning the future of cities. In general, these readings together stress the importance of good participatory planning and they demonstrate that when citizens get involved they can be successful advocates for preserving their cities.

After reading this chapter, I had a number of doubts about how comprehensive and how objective the data was that Agyeman collected for her survey. Agyeman failed to thoroughly explain how she selected which organizations were surveyed and how she created her Just Sustainability Index. In this chapter that information, though mentioned, was glossed over. Of course she could have explained these things earlier in the book, but from reading this chapter alone, I felt that there were a few unexplained elements of her survey. It seems that her dismal view of our national enviromental organizations could be a bit extreme. Furthermore, Agyeman did not explain in this chapter how she was defining just sustainabilty. Again, this could have been addressed earlier in her book, but from reading this chapter alone I felt that she failed to explain her expectations for how an organization practicing just sustainability should behave.

Intro and Chap 1--- Confusing arguments for an inappropriately generalized topic

Intro:

It seems as if environmental perspectives often clash with those that are sustainable. There is interestingly enough a difference in both geographical and historical origin of these perspectives. Agyeman seems to be most interested in how these both work together rather than their differences. At the root of environmental justice and sustainability there exists a grey spot where they collide “theoretically, conceptually and practically”. It is these similarities that must be focused on in order to achieve anything in these areas which is where the EJP and NEP come into play. These paradigms are the basis for JSP which is a progressive idea that helps span each perspective making the goals of Sustainable, Environmental Justice possible.

I think that the book goes about discussing these paradigms the wrong way as it builds barriers to the new minds that approach this field. Instead of labeling the perspectives as these confusing acronyms, Agyeman should have simplified it all and described what the goals of sustainability advocates and environmental justice advocates are. Each party has specified interest sets which do not necessarily coincide with the generalized perspective portrayed. The JSP sounds like the most viable solution, but is going to end up being like politics’ “Green” party which no one really knows what they stand for. Fence sitters can only last for so long concerning hot-headed issues like this one.

Chapter 1:

Environmental justice’s first official exhibit of protest was in Warren County, NC after the government wanted to dump toxic, PCB infested soil in towns with a large minority population. There was a large protest and many were jailed. This set a precedent for years after this happened in 1984 as EJ now constantly deals with situations such as this one. Now, governmental agencies are getting involved in a more scientific way by trying to map out EJ communities and prevent issues such as the Warren County problem.

I believe the way people, as portrayed by Agyeman, go about dealing with EJ is from too much of a macro perspective. In order to work with this it must be dealt from within. For an agency to try and target EJ areas is not the smallest of tasks, to begin with. Even if these areas could all be identified, they each would need to be dealt with differently. A more micro perspective would be a better way at going about this. If EJ could be seen as more of a grassroots movement, more support would definitely be given.

Sustainable Communities and the Challenge of Environmental Justice, Chapter 2: The Sustainability Discourse and Sustainable Communities

Reaction to Readings-
Sustainable Communities and the Challenge of Environmental Justice by Julian Agyeman
Chapter 2: The Sustainability Discourse and Sustainable Communities


As suggested, I tried to start reading Chapter 3: Just Sustainability in Theory, but I found the acronyms so confusing that I had to go back and read Chapter 2: The Sustainability Discourse and Sustainable Communities first. In fact, in order to get through the readings I had to make myself a chart of frequently-used acronyms. Once I was comfortable with Agyeman’s terminology, I was happy that I had decided to read Chapter 2 because it was an informative and interesting treatment of historic and current strategies for environmental sustainability (NEP), environmental justice (EJP) and the emergence of just sustainability (JSP).

Summary:
Julian Agyeman used this chapter to discuss how sustainability initiatives must go beyond environmentalism to include social justice. With a particular focus on recent US federal government sustainability policies, he discussed how institutions are learning how to become sustainable. Political processes are informing sustainability ventures both in America and abroad, but the author was highly critical of the current Bush administration’s backwards, hypocritical approach to sustainability. In contrast to the Clinton administration’s action-based and collaborative recommendations published in the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) report from 1996, the 2002 Working for a Sustainable World (WSSD) report spoke only of throwing money toward sustainable programs outside the United States. Agyeman used this and many other American social customs to show that there is an “equity deficit” in many US sustainability initiatives.

The vast majority of local American sustainability policies do not even mention, let alone properly address just sustainability. While Agyeman was often critical of American attempts (or lack thereof) of environmental justice, he also mentioned several useful tools for informing local just sustainability policies. Sustainability inventories, the Dutch “environmental space” concept, San Francisco’s Sustainability Plan and ecological footprints were suggested because they all incorporate some concepts of resource allocation and community empowerment.

Agyeman briefly discussed a need for a radical change to American economic thinking, but spent more time in this chapter on other applied policies that could help communities move toward just sustainability. Some of the suggestions include better transit systems, community agriculture, eco-taxes, affordable housing, and Local Exchange Trading Schemes (LETS) such as the “Ithaca Hours” program. It was interesting to note that it seems that smaller communities are embracing such policies much more easily than large ones and that it is often the cities that are most polluted and full of disenfranchised populations that do not take sustainability seriously.

Synthesis/Application:
While I found the entire second chapter to be fascinating. I was most engaged by the section toward the end of the chapter that compared narrow and broad-focused environmentalism. This section was highly applicable to some of my most recent work with the Downsview Park project in Toronto. Having just stepped out of a job where I was helping to build a sustainable community, I was able to critically examine some the policies and institutional attitudes that were informing that project. I have been struggling to see where some of the friction within that project has been coming from, and this chapter showed the need for many such projects to break through into a new kind of “third generation environmentalism.” I now know that some of the major tensions that Downsview has been experiencing could be attributed to its presently narrow focus land restoration without a true balance of community cooperation.

Granted, massive projects take a long time to implement, but perhaps Downsview is wrong in aiming toward land restoration before attempting to address some major community-based hurtles. It appears that Kenneth Reardon will be addressing such issues of community cynicism toward government-led projects and so I hope to learn more strategies for dealing with this.

Inquiry/Critique:
Should all sustainable initiatives look first toward community justice in order to be successful? This question also ties in with the community garden project that we are working on with Keith. Do grass-roots sustainability projects (gardens and otherwise) have a higher level of success because they are initially informed and powered by a broad-focused community approach?

I was interested in the author’s mention of the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) as a new and more appropriate measure economic stability. I will have to read further chapters of the book in order to learn more about this Index. I am hoping to get some more information on this topic because I would like to compare it to other alternative economic tools. In fact, I was surprised that no mention was given to Howard T. Odum’s concept of Emergy accounting, which is another alternative systems evaluation tool that combines ecological and economic thinking. Emergy accounting and the idea of “embodied energy” is currently being used to inform permaculture design principles and practices around the world, but is it applicable here?