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.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Sunday, September 9, 2007
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
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.
Agyeman- Introduction and Chapter 6
SUMMARY- Introductory Chapter
Agyeman begins by distinguishing the difference between environmental justice and sustainability. Environmental justice, he argues, focuses on “community reaction to external threats” (a bottom up approach) while sustainability deals with man’s relationship with the natural environment and his responsibility to take care of it (a top down approach). Although these two factions do not seemingly share the same values, Agyeman proposes that we bridge the gap between them and form a new paradigm which he calls the Just Sustainability Paradigm. Agyeman uses evidence from various countries to show that there is a direct correlation between a nation’s “commitment to equity and its “commitment to environmental quality” (5). Specifically, he says that nations can best combine sustainable policy with social awareness if different organizations within the nation come together, adopt the same attitude, and fight for the same cause.
MY THOUGHTS- Introductory Chapter
The Just Sustainability Paradigm (JSP) could definitely work if all of the players involved could agree on the same set of core values and goals. Unfortunately, individual interests (whether held by key leaders or even entire organizations) usually corrupt collaborative efforts like the JSP. If the JSP becomes a prominent paradigm, it will certainly gain attention from politicians and the political parties that they represent. At which point, the integrity of the JSP will more than likely be compromised. As we discuss the complexity of large scale environmental change, I grow increasingly convinced that progress is almost exclusively possible at the local level. Looking at the enormous task at hand, I tend to believe that policy makers and power players will never find a complete (or adequate) solution to the problem.
SUMMARY- Chapter 6
Coincidentally, Agyeman begins this chapter by questioning whether change is most effective at the local or national level. He does not necessarily answer this question, but he does claim (and justify) that coalitions can overcome their differences and work together for a common cause. He says that the JSP must adopt a specific standard and only accept partner organizations that fully agree to and support this standard. Under this system, individual interests will hold less weight than the collective goal.
MY THOUGHTS- Chapter 6
I have a completely different attitude about the information presented in Chapter 6 than I do the information presented in the Introduction. Specifically, I think that Agyeman makes a strong argument when he talks about the promises of environmental space as a means to achieve the goals of the JSP. If we were to zone, design, protect, and provide environmental space for disenfranchised members of society, we could move out of the realm of theory and into the zone of practicality. Although we may never change the corrupt systems that govern society, we can certainly introduce sustainable practices from the bottom up and enable individuals to fight against injustice.
Agyeman begins by distinguishing the difference between environmental justice and sustainability. Environmental justice, he argues, focuses on “community reaction to external threats” (a bottom up approach) while sustainability deals with man’s relationship with the natural environment and his responsibility to take care of it (a top down approach). Although these two factions do not seemingly share the same values, Agyeman proposes that we bridge the gap between them and form a new paradigm which he calls the Just Sustainability Paradigm. Agyeman uses evidence from various countries to show that there is a direct correlation between a nation’s “commitment to equity and its “commitment to environmental quality” (5). Specifically, he says that nations can best combine sustainable policy with social awareness if different organizations within the nation come together, adopt the same attitude, and fight for the same cause.
MY THOUGHTS- Introductory Chapter
The Just Sustainability Paradigm (JSP) could definitely work if all of the players involved could agree on the same set of core values and goals. Unfortunately, individual interests (whether held by key leaders or even entire organizations) usually corrupt collaborative efforts like the JSP. If the JSP becomes a prominent paradigm, it will certainly gain attention from politicians and the political parties that they represent. At which point, the integrity of the JSP will more than likely be compromised. As we discuss the complexity of large scale environmental change, I grow increasingly convinced that progress is almost exclusively possible at the local level. Looking at the enormous task at hand, I tend to believe that policy makers and power players will never find a complete (or adequate) solution to the problem.
SUMMARY- Chapter 6
Coincidentally, Agyeman begins this chapter by questioning whether change is most effective at the local or national level. He does not necessarily answer this question, but he does claim (and justify) that coalitions can overcome their differences and work together for a common cause. He says that the JSP must adopt a specific standard and only accept partner organizations that fully agree to and support this standard. Under this system, individual interests will hold less weight than the collective goal.
MY THOUGHTS- Chapter 6
I have a completely different attitude about the information presented in Chapter 6 than I do the information presented in the Introduction. Specifically, I think that Agyeman makes a strong argument when he talks about the promises of environmental space as a means to achieve the goals of the JSP. If we were to zone, design, protect, and provide environmental space for disenfranchised members of society, we could move out of the realm of theory and into the zone of practicality. Although we may never change the corrupt systems that govern society, we can certainly introduce sustainable practices from the bottom up and enable individuals to fight against injustice.
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?
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?
Environmental Justice Intro & Chap 4
Introduction and Chapter 4: Just Sustainability in Theory
In the introduction, Agyeman gives a brief history of the relationship between environmental justice and sustainability. Environmental justice is characterized as a grassroots “bottom-up” approach, while sustainability is a “top-down” approach. This dichotomy creates the void which separates the two movements. Agyeman then introduces Just Sustainability as the bridge that can unite these two movements, which are in actuality not as dissimilar as many think.
Agyeman Chapter 3 & Reardon Community Development Outline
Summary: Chapter 3 “Just Sustainability in Theory” by Agyeman
NEP – New Environmental Paradigm – “sets out an environmental stewardship and sustainability agenda that currently influences the work of most environmental and sustainability organizations but has little to say about equity or justice.”
EJP – Environmental Justice Paradigm – “framework for integrating class, race, gender, environment, and social justice concerns.”
JSP – Just Sustainability Paradigm – “ ‘the need to ensure a better quality of life for all, now and into the future, in a just and equitable manner, whilst living within the limits of supporting ecosystems.’” “Prioritizes justice and equity but does not downplay the environment, our life support system.”
In Chapter 3 of "Sustainable Communities and the Challenge of Environmental Justice," Julian Agyeman emphasizes that he is not offering the JSP as a cure-all solution to the problems of environmental destruction and humanitarian injustices in the world, but instead as a bridge between the NEP and EJP. He proposes that “we simply have to bridge the gap with frank and open discussion, if we are to move toward a just and sustainable communities together.” The JSP is put forth as a framework with a foundation in overlapping discourses among movements.
Agyeman explores the reasoning for the gap between the NEP and the EJP, and to sum up (including what seems to be his bias), he suspects that the NEP efforts give primacy to “natural resources, wilderness, endangered species,” etc, instead of “toxics, public health and unjust distribution of environmental risk” because the NEP group is not comprised of people who are not affected by the latter problems. The following table lists some of the corresponding polarizing issues and characteristics Agyeman mentions between the groups.
Although at first glance above table may make it seem that the joining of forces of the two groups would be a solution to the problem of the EJP needing the NEP to mobilize Aggyman’s JSP, in actuality; the two groups need each other equally. “Fundamentally, at global, national, regional, and local scales, the JSP means ‘acknowledging the interdependence of social justice, economic well-being and environmental stewardship. The social dimension is critical since the unjust society is unlikely to be sustainable in environmental or economic terms in the long run (Haughton 1999).”
Agyman describes the GPI, Gross Progress Indicator, which (as opposed to the GDP) uses more than 20 aspects of human life to evaluate the economy that most people actually experience.
Agyeman discusses Community Based Social marketing, and mentions the Ecological Footprint tool, which is popular in the U.S. because it tells us that we are living unsustainable lifestyles by showing us the land area required to sustain our lifestyles. But he explains that the Environmental Space (calculator) is a much better, more powerful policy tool, because it shows specifically how much less we should consume of any given source.
synthesis/application
Ken Reardon’s Participatory Neighborhood Planning Outline appears to be the framework of an example of DIPS (Deliberative and Inclusionary Processes and Procedures) that Agyeman mentioned.
In Reardon’s list of “Steps in the Process,” number 7, “Monitoring, Evaluating, and Modifying Neighborhood Plans” is expressed as monitoring and evaluation of project implementation, impact, and effectiveness, and the alteration of projects as necessary. I am again reminded of the work I did with the Cornell Division of Nutritional Sciences Community Nutrition Program over this past summer, where at one point our research team worked on evaluation of a Cooperative Extension program; “Cooking Up Fun.” (“Cooking Up Fun” is an integrated nutrition, youth development program designed to help youth aged 9 to 14 acquire independent food skills.) The CNP is very committed to an assets-based participatory approach, and when we had to use a Logic Model to evaluate “Cooking Up Fun,” we realized that it was not an appropriate evaluation tool. Towards the end of my work with DNS, we realized that we would have to develop a new evaluation tool, that would participatory itself, just like the planning. I was not involved long enough to see the new tool come to fruition, but I was there for a meeting where we discussed that we needed to get the community on board to create it; because the idea of success and/or failure of the program should come from the community, not Cornell.
critique/inquiry
There is really no mention in either of the readings of the process of selection/recruitment/identification for the citizens who are brought on board in the description of the initial stages in the participatory planning process. In many communities, there may be a problem of self-selection when it comes to community participation. Meaning; that the type of citizens who are acting in a way that is seen as counterproductive to progress in a community are not likely to be the same people who volunteer or are selected to participate in community planning. However; perhaps they are the very people whose opinion and perspective needs to be expressed and heard in order to establish a more equitable, sustainable change in a community. Their seemingly destructive behavior may in fact be the best method they know to show their discontent with their community and frustration at their inability to know what changes need to be made, so instead they just choose to be destructive to see things change in some way. I’m reminding myself of a quote from the movie “Donnie Darko,” where Donnie explains his take on Gram Green’s “The Destructors”: “They say right when they flood the house and they tear it to shreds that... ‘destruction is a form of creation,’ so the fact that they burn the money is ironic. They just want to see what happens when they tear the world apart. They want to change things.”
NEP – New Environmental Paradigm – “sets out an environmental stewardship and sustainability agenda that currently influences the work of most environmental and sustainability organizations but has little to say about equity or justice.”
EJP – Environmental Justice Paradigm – “framework for integrating class, race, gender, environment, and social justice concerns.”
JSP – Just Sustainability Paradigm – “ ‘the need to ensure a better quality of life for all, now and into the future, in a just and equitable manner, whilst living within the limits of supporting ecosystems.’” “Prioritizes justice and equity but does not downplay the environment, our life support system.”
In Chapter 3 of "Sustainable Communities and the Challenge of Environmental Justice," Julian Agyeman emphasizes that he is not offering the JSP as a cure-all solution to the problems of environmental destruction and humanitarian injustices in the world, but instead as a bridge between the NEP and EJP. He proposes that “we simply have to bridge the gap with frank and open discussion, if we are to move toward a just and sustainable communities together.” The JSP is put forth as a framework with a foundation in overlapping discourses among movements.
Agyeman explores the reasoning for the gap between the NEP and the EJP, and to sum up (including what seems to be his bias), he suspects that the NEP efforts give primacy to “natural resources, wilderness, endangered species,” etc, instead of “toxics, public health and unjust distribution of environmental risk” because the NEP group is not comprised of people who are not affected by the latter problems. The following table lists some of the corresponding polarizing issues and characteristics Agyeman mentions between the groups.
Although at first glance above table may make it seem that the joining of forces of the two groups would be a solution to the problem of the EJP needing the NEP to mobilize Aggyman’s JSP, in actuality; the two groups need each other equally. “Fundamentally, at global, national, regional, and local scales, the JSP means ‘acknowledging the interdependence of social justice, economic well-being and environmental stewardship. The social dimension is critical since the unjust society is unlikely to be sustainable in environmental or economic terms in the long run (Haughton 1999).”
Agyman describes the GPI, Gross Progress Indicator, which (as opposed to the GDP) uses more than 20 aspects of human life to evaluate the economy that most people actually experience.Agyeman discusses Community Based Social marketing, and mentions the Ecological Footprint tool, which is popular in the U.S. because it tells us that we are living unsustainable lifestyles by showing us the land area required to sustain our lifestyles. But he explains that the Environmental Space (calculator) is a much better, more powerful policy tool, because it shows specifically how much less we should consume of any given source.
synthesis/application
Ken Reardon’s Participatory Neighborhood Planning Outline appears to be the framework of an example of DIPS (Deliberative and Inclusionary Processes and Procedures) that Agyeman mentioned.
In Reardon’s list of “Steps in the Process,” number 7, “Monitoring, Evaluating, and Modifying Neighborhood Plans” is expressed as monitoring and evaluation of project implementation, impact, and effectiveness, and the alteration of projects as necessary. I am again reminded of the work I did with the Cornell Division of Nutritional Sciences Community Nutrition Program over this past summer, where at one point our research team worked on evaluation of a Cooperative Extension program; “Cooking Up Fun.” (“Cooking Up Fun” is an integrated nutrition, youth development program designed to help youth aged 9 to 14 acquire independent food skills.) The CNP is very committed to an assets-based participatory approach, and when we had to use a Logic Model to evaluate “Cooking Up Fun,” we realized that it was not an appropriate evaluation tool. Towards the end of my work with DNS, we realized that we would have to develop a new evaluation tool, that would participatory itself, just like the planning. I was not involved long enough to see the new tool come to fruition, but I was there for a meeting where we discussed that we needed to get the community on board to create it; because the idea of success and/or failure of the program should come from the community, not Cornell.
critique/inquiry
There is really no mention in either of the readings of the process of selection/recruitment/identification for the citizens who are brought on board in the description of the initial stages in the participatory planning process. In many communities, there may be a problem of self-selection when it comes to community participation. Meaning; that the type of citizens who are acting in a way that is seen as counterproductive to progress in a community are not likely to be the same people who volunteer or are selected to participate in community planning. However; perhaps they are the very people whose opinion and perspective needs to be expressed and heard in order to establish a more equitable, sustainable change in a community. Their seemingly destructive behavior may in fact be the best method they know to show their discontent with their community and frustration at their inability to know what changes need to be made, so instead they just choose to be destructive to see things change in some way. I’m reminding myself of a quote from the movie “Donnie Darko,” where Donnie explains his take on Gram Green’s “The Destructors”: “They say right when they flood the house and they tear it to shreds that... ‘destruction is a form of creation,’ so the fact that they burn the money is ironic. They just want to see what happens when they tear the world apart. They want to change things.”
Just Sustainability in Practice: chap 4.
Agyeman creates an index of different environmental organizations, rating them based on if equity and justice are important factors in the groups description. Many of the large name organizations do not have equity or justice written in. Agyemen also gives examples of different organizations that do work on environmental issues while making equity and justice a central role. Agyeman focuses on 5 major environmental issues facing cities: land-use planning, solid waste, toxic chemical waste, residential energy use, and transportation.
What is unfortunate, but not surprising to me in this chapter is the disconnect between equity and environment. The real question is why does this separation exist, can it be eliminated (or at least lessoned), and if so, how? In the example of the Los Angeles Bus Riders Union the separation is shown, and many questions arise. In this example many of the buses which were used by lower income inner city dwellers were in bad shape, and were there were not enough of them either. On the other side the subway was losing money (therefore taking money away from what could be put towards inner city bus improvements, and while it was attempting to draw in riders, it was not doing well. In transportation especially this seems to be a problem that comes up. While many will argue that the construction of these subway lines into the suburbs must be built to create a more sustainable option to driving cars, and that support will follow, the bus riders union provides an example of the dangers of this argument. As of now it seems that the answer is yes, often sustainability and equity do have an inherent separation in many situations (but not all). Much of this has to do with money, the money it takes to create one issue often takes away from the other. Another reason for the separation is the difference of interests of different communities. For those with a lower income getting to work for cheap is what matters, for those with higher income, they have more leisure to focus on environmental sustainability. So that could be some of the why, and the pessimistic sometimes yes they are at odds. About decreasing the distance. Agyeman also provides many examples of this as well. In the same bus situation the group encouraged and got low emission buses, so while the grand scheme planning dream (at least at present) the divide seems almost inevitable, on the small scale bringing environmental sustainability to equity, and equity to sustainability (like the case of reusing materials) is possible.
While there are many good examples of equitable sustainability in practice, it would have been interesting to read about those organizations which were not working well with justice and sustainability. Why are these organizations failing, is it due to lack of trying or because of other difficulties. As stated above, I feel that Agyeman actually presents examples of the automatic separation between these issues, if Agyeman had presented failed cases and explained how they could be improved this would have been more effective then just listing good cases.
What is unfortunate, but not surprising to me in this chapter is the disconnect between equity and environment. The real question is why does this separation exist, can it be eliminated (or at least lessoned), and if so, how? In the example of the Los Angeles Bus Riders Union the separation is shown, and many questions arise. In this example many of the buses which were used by lower income inner city dwellers were in bad shape, and were there were not enough of them either. On the other side the subway was losing money (therefore taking money away from what could be put towards inner city bus improvements, and while it was attempting to draw in riders, it was not doing well. In transportation especially this seems to be a problem that comes up. While many will argue that the construction of these subway lines into the suburbs must be built to create a more sustainable option to driving cars, and that support will follow, the bus riders union provides an example of the dangers of this argument. As of now it seems that the answer is yes, often sustainability and equity do have an inherent separation in many situations (but not all). Much of this has to do with money, the money it takes to create one issue often takes away from the other. Another reason for the separation is the difference of interests of different communities. For those with a lower income getting to work for cheap is what matters, for those with higher income, they have more leisure to focus on environmental sustainability. So that could be some of the why, and the pessimistic sometimes yes they are at odds. About decreasing the distance. Agyeman also provides many examples of this as well. In the same bus situation the group encouraged and got low emission buses, so while the grand scheme planning dream (at least at present) the divide seems almost inevitable, on the small scale bringing environmental sustainability to equity, and equity to sustainability (like the case of reusing materials) is possible.
While there are many good examples of equitable sustainability in practice, it would have been interesting to read about those organizations which were not working well with justice and sustainability. Why are these organizations failing, is it due to lack of trying or because of other difficulties. As stated above, I feel that Agyeman actually presents examples of the automatic separation between these issues, if Agyeman had presented failed cases and explained how they could be improved this would have been more effective then just listing good cases.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)