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…”
Sunday, September 16, 2007
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
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.
"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.
Friday, September 14, 2007
new resource
From a valuable Australian website http://www.sustainability.murdoch.edu.au/main.html, with excellent case studies
CITIES AS SUSTAINABLE ECOSYSTEMS Principles and Practices
Shipping Rates
Author/Editor: Peter Newman, Isabella Jennings
Price: $35.00
Format: Paperback | 296 Pages | 7 x 10 | Tables. Figures.
You may prefer the Hardcover edition.
Publisher: Island Press
Series:
Subject:
ISBN: 1-59726-188-2
Pub. Date: 11/30/2007
***Status: Available in the Fall
or call 1-800-621-2736
Modern city dwellers are largely detached from the environmental effects of their daily lives. The sources of the water they drink, the food they eat, and the energy they consume are all but invisible, often coming from other continents, and their waste ends up in places beyond their city boundaries.
Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems shows how cities and their residents can begin to reintegrate into their bioregional environment, and how cities themselves can be planned with nature’s organizing principles in mind. Taking cues from living systems for sustainability strategies, Newman and Jennings reassess urban design by exploring flows of energy, materials, and information, along with the interactions between human and non-human parts of the system.
Drawing on examples from all corners of the world, the authors explore natural patterns and processes that cities can emulate in order to move toward sustainability. Some cities have adopted simple strategies such as harvesting rainwater, greening roofs, and producing renewable energy. Others have created biodiversity parks for endangered species, community gardens that support a connection to their foodshed, and pedestrian-friendly spaces that encourage walking and cycling.
A powerful model for urban redevelopment, Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems describes aspects of urban ecosystems from the visioning process to achieving economic security to fostering a sense of place.
Peter Newman is professor of city policy and director of the Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy at Murdoch University in Perth, Australia. He recently completed a Fulbright scholarship, which he spent at the University of Virginia studying sustainability initiatives in the U.S. He is the author of Sustainability and Cities (Island Press, 1999).
Isabella Jennings is a graduate student in the School of Environmental Science at Murdoch University. Her past and current research is related to the cities as sustainable ecosystems idea.
CITIES AS SUSTAINABLE ECOSYSTEMS Principles and Practices
Shipping Rates
Author/Editor: Peter Newman, Isabella Jennings
Price: $35.00
Format: Paperback | 296 Pages | 7 x 10 | Tables. Figures.
You may prefer the Hardcover edition.
Publisher: Island Press
Series:
Subject:
ISBN: 1-59726-188-2
Pub. Date: 11/30/2007
***Status: Available in the Fall
or call 1-800-621-2736
Modern city dwellers are largely detached from the environmental effects of their daily lives. The sources of the water they drink, the food they eat, and the energy they consume are all but invisible, often coming from other continents, and their waste ends up in places beyond their city boundaries.
Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems shows how cities and their residents can begin to reintegrate into their bioregional environment, and how cities themselves can be planned with nature’s organizing principles in mind. Taking cues from living systems for sustainability strategies, Newman and Jennings reassess urban design by exploring flows of energy, materials, and information, along with the interactions between human and non-human parts of the system.
Drawing on examples from all corners of the world, the authors explore natural patterns and processes that cities can emulate in order to move toward sustainability. Some cities have adopted simple strategies such as harvesting rainwater, greening roofs, and producing renewable energy. Others have created biodiversity parks for endangered species, community gardens that support a connection to their foodshed, and pedestrian-friendly spaces that encourage walking and cycling.
A powerful model for urban redevelopment, Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems describes aspects of urban ecosystems from the visioning process to achieving economic security to fostering a sense of place.
Peter Newman is professor of city policy and director of the Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy at Murdoch University in Perth, Australia. He recently completed a Fulbright scholarship, which he spent at the University of Virginia studying sustainability initiatives in the U.S. He is the author of Sustainability and Cities (Island Press, 1999).
Isabella Jennings is a graduate student in the School of Environmental Science at Murdoch University. Her past and current research is related to the cities as sustainable ecosystems idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)