Sunday, September 16, 2007
Ch.3 Just Sustainability in Theory
In this chapter Agyemen compared the differences between "ecological sustainability" and "environmental health". The differences being that ecological sustainability was more of a Northern thing and environment-based. The other being a Southern thing and more equity-based. I agree that these differences do exist and create a divide between what should be a common goal. In reading this chapter I am now a little lost as to what I should call myself, am I more for sustainability, ecology, the environment, greening, justice, equity, economy, or quality of life. In all, I think that what Agyeman was trying to do was combine these things, to make the differences between the paradigms known, and then combine them to form one...movement. It does seem silly that it should exist so separated, and Agyemen tries to explain this through a few things, primarily social class. Where "environmentalism" is more grass roots and started around the civil rights movement, sustainability is more academic. I strongly agree, and admit I never fully thought this out. Combining these two would obviously make the most sense towards living good lives in a healthy world. The biggest challenge does seem to be figuring out whether we're worrying about the environment, or we're worrying about people? I think it's both, that's what sustainability is to me at least, but how do we attack both issues. Previously we read about systems, and how everything is connected. I agree with that as well, but then this means that people affect the environment, and the environment affects people, and so on. So which do we start with, the environment or people? I suppose I'm still a little confused but I think the answer is people. I know in my group project (Connect Ithaca) I was trying to explain the other day how we should get people more involved by instead of focusing on the good, focusing on the bad. What I meant/mean is that in order to make people care about the earth we have to make them feel it is a right of theirs to have better water, air, etc. They have to feel that some injustice exists in order to want to remediate it. Once this inequity is brought to light they will seek to fix it by in turn "fixing" the environment. So, like I said, I think it starts with people, I think it starts with the environment and equity, then moves on to what almost seems to be "extra" (sustainability, greening, etc).
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)