|
Sustainability is now a modular slogan everyone uses, but in this universal approbation people may agree upon nothing. 1 ‘Sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’2 are terms which have arisen over the past two decades in response to issues surrounding our biophysical environment 3. Although bandied about by business, government, media, community and academic bodies alike, definitions and interpretations of these terms are as varied and numerous as the individuals holding them. The differing positions held reflect differing perceptions of the social and environmental problems at hand and how ‘sustainability’ may best address these. As discussed by McManus, the discourses surrounding this issue have been largely appropriated, defined and delineated by texts and events such as the Brundtland Report of 1987 and the UNCED summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, such that the interpretations of ‘sustainability’ which included or relied upon critiques of pro-growth economic behaviour have been marginalised 4. Concomitantly, the definitions tabled by the Brundtland Commission, itself a collection of politicians, reflected the dominance of neo-liberalism at the time, with its calls for continued economic growth and devolved government intervention 5. These interpretations have been embraced by many groups, including government and business groups. While reducing the vastly intricate, divergent and overlapping views of sustainability or sustainable development to pro- or anti-growth stances is blatantly simplistic, it illustrates some of the disparities residing under the banner of ‘sustainability’ or ‘sustainable development’. Bodies such as the World Bank and the Business Council of Australia look upon sustainable development as a way of making economic development last 6: such interpretations rely on continued economic growth to provide the increases in living standard sought, and include pricing instruments for incorporating environmental concerns into the economy 7. These interpretations of sustainability rely at their base on the economy to deliver the desired improvements in our personal well-being and environmental amenity, for these benefits to trickle down to all if growth is upheld as our primary economic goal. Varying degrees of regulation are recommended to bring this about. In contrast to this, stand many of the ‘deep green’ interpretations of sustainability, which consider pro-growth, profit-driven economies as the source of many of the current problems facing our biophysical, social, cultural and political realms 8. These economies are seen as inherently unjust and exploitative and at odds with any behaviour which may endeavour to address issues concerning ecological sensitivity, equity or social well-being. Such models therefore call for zero-growth or steady state economies, and represent far more substantial overhauls to our current modus operandi 9. However, many such notions of sustainability rely on major shifts in our social philosophies and do not often get a voice within the current decision-making processes concerning sustainability. Table 1 illustrates one possible representation of some of the main interpretations of ‘sustainability’. Issues of note concerning sustainability include, among many others: sustainability of what and for whom, who are the agents of change, what is the underlying vision? As Table 1 would imply, agreeing to sustainable development or calls for sustainability is a politically loaded act: any decisions must ideally be made with as much knowledge as can be gained regarding the premises upon which the protagonists stake their claims. Hence, while the language of sustainability has become ubiquitous and powerful, it is far from an agreed upon code of philosophy or practice. This leads us into the dangerous situation whereby terms such as ‘sustainability’ or ‘sustainable development’ become ‘plastic words’ 10 which are rarely questioned but mean different things to all concerned. More disturbingly, decisions are subsequently often made in the name of ‘sustainability’ or ‘sustainable development’ with no elucidation as to what these may entail. Consequently, many prominent policy framing forums and brainstorming sessions can proceed with no clarification of terms or explanation of underlying assumptions: as a result, while ‘sustainability’ – a broadly appealing term – is promoted it is rarely made clear what that may mean. This was the case with one recent Sydney convention about the sustainable city, which touted sustainability in the energy, water, transport, waste and chemical industry sectors and called for biodiversity preservation, while ignoring future food production or housing provision and not clarifying what urban ‘sustainability’ may mean. This stood in stark contrast to the conference’s focussing diagram shown in figure 1.1, the structure of which would imply that food is the first, most substantial area to be considered, and housing the most intense 11. Further, while the rhetoric warmly embraced community participation, there were no translation services or ticket price categories for ‘community member’, let alone ‘unemployed’ or ‘homeless’. Access to this debate over urban sustainability in Sydney was thus largely restricted to industry, government and academia, with the sole participant identifying as a ‘community member’ standing at the conference’s closure to highlight the opacity of the terms of the debate and the exclusion felt due to this. The conference’s issues would also imply that ‘sustainability’ in Sydney does not require or include provision of housing, food or health services. Sustainable what and for whom indeed.
Figure 1.1. Focusing diagram for the Greenprint for Sydney Conference, 1999. While categories such as ‘light’ through to ‘deep’ green, and debates for or against continued economic growth have emerged as an attempt to disentangle the philosophies surrounding sustainability, these philosophies may all tend to provide overarching models. That is, much of the literature concerning ‘sustainability’ tends to propose or assert models which are implied to be universally applicable and appropriate, whether the model is continued economic growth or community autonomy. What such literature hence can fail to take into account is the role within these models of either the wider context or the individual. Calls for ‘sustainability’ as interpreted in this thesis, ultimately rely upon people; hence, the interpretation of this term that this study draws upon is more in line with Esteva’s interpretation of ‘development’ 12 or Buell and DeLuca’s ‘sustainable democracy’ 13. These authors highlight more direct and transparent political and decision-making processes as crucial to any efforts regarding ‘sustainability’ or ‘development’. This is seen as necessary to counter the possible imposition of any overarching, absolutist visions, be they of market forces or communal modes of being. For, as Squires informs us,
Whatever ‘sustainability’ may be, it will be nothing if not firmly rooted in the beliefs, identities, aspirations and abilities of real people, able to act as they see fit and make informed choices regarding the means of their own existence. If much of our social and environmental concerns stem from the opacity of decision making processes, any reparative processes and structures may primarily depend upon the generation of spaces within which people can contest the direction of these very processes and structures and the assumptions upon which they lie. These processes and structures therefore need to be relevant, flexible and resilient. To ensure such relevance, individuals must be able to act for sustainability in ways that they see fit. This requires that individuals be able to establish and engage with these structures through various activities and make informed choices regarding these. This can be seen as requiring ease of finding the structures, processes and spaces involved, ease of finding information concerning these, and ease of becoming part of these. Hence, for this thesis, ‘sustainability’ can be framed in terms of access – to people, spaces and resources. As knowledge and information are necessary for decisions concerning the management of a space or a resource, these individuals and groups require access to knowledge and information, as well as to spaces, other individuals and resources. Hence, access is crucial to generating the spaces for debate and thus for establishing relevant, flexible and resilient processes and structures. This study therefore interrogates ‘sustainability’, as highlighted by community gardens, in terms of access to the information, individuals, structures and spaces that individuals consider appropriate. |
||||||||||
<< email:lcrabtre@*SPAMBINGLER*els.mq.edu.au >> NOTE: Remember to delete the expression *SPAMBINGLER* from the address before sending the email. << honours index >> << phd index >> << home >> << to top of page >> |
|||||||||||
