Sustainable Communities: Chapters 3 & 4

Agyeman : Chapters 3 & 4

The more that I read of Agyeman’s book the more I come to the conclusion that his writing is a bunch of over-intellectualized garbage. His thoughts are well articulated and rarely a page goes by without a comment that makes me think. So I ask myself… how come I am struggling with a text that has me nodding in agreement most of the time? I have concluded that Agyeman writing is essentially useless. As in… what is the practical use of this book? Is he advocating for more Just Sustainability, by pointing out how most of our larger Environmental organizations miss the mark when it comes to issues of social justice?

Consider the following example…
The National Audubon Society earned a 0 on the Just Sustainability Index. I guess the National Audubon Society isn’t as worried about justice of the underpriveledged… um… birds? It’s about birds. I challenge anyone to integrate concepts of justice and equity into the mission of the National Audubon Society. After Agyeman lists the National Audubon Society as one of the organizations with a JSI of 0, he then remarks that “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, …”, inferring that many organizations have missed the mark by not infusing a purpose of social justice in thier mission. I don’t use this to make light of providing justice for the underprivileged. No one can deny that is a noble goal of any organization or government policy, but Agyeman constructs this elaborate system of useless categorization and profiling to lump many organizations as having no or little component of justice. He’s right. They don’t, and they don’t care to. It is not part of their mission, so where is the connection? The National Audubon has as much to do with equity/justice as the Minnesota chapter of Star Trek Lovers.

Audubon is about the birds. WWF is about the wildlife. American Rivers is about the rivers. When I worked for several of the state PIRG’s for 2 years our focus was primarily on a state recycling bill, a bill that was equitable for all soda and water drinkers and affects inner cities as much if not more than wealthier suburbs (state PIRGs JSI = 0). Environmental organizations start out as the idea of a small group of people passionate about an issue. They grow or not based on their public support. Their mission may have components of social and/or environmental justice. Where is the advantage of rating these organizations with a JSI?

Agyeman’s examples are each great cases of local initiatives with components of social justice making a difference locally. The fact that the Los Angeles Bus Riders Union ordered 248 natural gas powered busses doesn’t mean that that organization should be compared with organizations whose primary or sole goal is environmental stewardship. The concepts overlap. Social Justice is important. Environmental stewardship is important. The ties that Agyeman creates between the two burdens each with the others problems, confuses the issue of scope, and have no practical purpose that I see.

Chapter 4 and Greening The City

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

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

Greening the city/ chap 1

Both chapter one of environmental justice and greening the city discuss environmentalism as it relates to the poor. In greening the city different methods of creating a green city are discussed. The author argues these methods although occasionally, the benefits are good enough to outweigh the cost. Additionally the different methods will help low income people by lowering costs for items such as heat and food. Agyeman connects lower income with bad environmental conditions, claiming that groups need to refocus on social equity/justice in addition to sustainability.

The connect between low income and poor living conditions is no surprise. Those who have less money often also have less rights, time, or money to put into fixing the problems of their community .Therefore it is much easier for outside people to take advantage of the poor neighborhoods by doing things such as dumping in the community. Although there is a definite connection in the problem, the issue (which was the same one I had last week and still feel is relevant) is how are the solutions connected? Agyeman suggests that environmental organizations reshaping their focus on justice will work, but if the issues are coming largely from outside the community some of the proposed solutions may be being focused in the wrong place. On the other hand comparing hte two different articles sustainable communities brings up many solutions to creating healtyer environments that do help the poor (bridging the gap between environmentalism and equity) such as creating gardens which help by providing cheaper food. The other idea that sustainable communities brings up is the idea of environmental incentives. Both on the large scale of the government making laws which promote different forms of green building, and that on the smaller personal level of decreasing cost is a much more effective way of creating change than trying to change for moral reasons.

Although both articles bring up very valid points both have issues. Agyeman discusses the connection between equity and sustainability but many of his points actually show the opposite. His examples are mostly problems and not solutions, although he claims connection between both. Greening the city skims over some arguments, like in the case of where it states the benefits outdo the costs but doesn't really give data to back this up. Also with some of the methods there is dispute on the effectiveness (such as in the case of the green roof where the actual amount that it creates insulation is debated). Despite these facts both authors give a good showing of the connections between poor environmental conditions and the poor, and also show the amount this is forced onto them.

Chapter 6- solid thoughts and summary

Being entirely frustrated with the EJPs and the NEPs I decided to read a section of the book that does not focus on these annoying abbreviations that I cannot process well while reading. This was Chapter 6- final thoughts. What particularly caught my interest was a section called Just Sustainability: Reality or Rhetoric? It initially discussed Warner’s research on San Francisco which discussed the incredible lengths the city was planning on going to in order to become sustainable. In his book, Warner discussed plans and more plans and writings and research, but never wrote of a particular project. Later, Portney wrote of San Francisco but saw it from the opposite perspective. Despite a great deal of talk about what was going to be done and what had been done in the distant past, San Francisco wasn’t actually doing anything. As a matter of fact, the city had been green-washing its plans.

For this reason Agyeman discusses why he likes doing case studies on smaller local projects. This was interesting as if you look at the case studies discussed in chapter 4 you can see they aren’t large scale projects. The ones that may be of larger scope are not discussed as much in detail.

This discussion however was entirely different from the National vs Local one had previously in the chapter. This focused on 3 steps:

1. Discovering the support of an issue
2. Coming together to discuss the issue
3. Seeing if people were still supportive after the issue became a political issue

With these three steps all Agyeman was able to do was see that Environmental Sustainable Justice cannot be all things to all people. On the national and local levels, it has entirely different meanings. It is all contingent on the factors of the particular movement.

Application wise, this perspective is really valuable that things can be better deciphered on the local perspective. Further dissemination is possible by beginning on this level as well. I am curious as to how it is possible to begin spreading out after beginning small without having tremendous boundaries to overcome. If there are huge boundaries how do you go about achieving your goals? One of the most difficult things in any project is expanding- what is the best technique when it involves something as sensitive as the topic of sustainable justice? These are all just some questions I had while reading this concluding chapter. I usually have a different perspective than other people so it’d be interesting to hear what you think. Chapter 6 was a good one also because there were summarizations of everything. This really keeps your mind on track.

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

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

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

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).