Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘SHP Winter 2011’ Category

“Sustainability”: Conservative or Liberal?

Posted in SHP Winter 2011, Uncovering & Evaluating Sources, What is Sustainability? on March 12, 2011| 6 Comments »

Earlier in the quarter, students wondered where sustainability falls within the framework of the standard right-left American political dynamic. Is sustainability inherently a conservative or liberal notion? Might it sometimes contain aspects of both sides of this spectrum? Or perhaps sustainability is not reducible to this familiar dichotomy?

A sampling of Internet sources shows that there is quite a range of opinions regarding these questions. This post will provide some food for thought and, in so doing, draw on a sampling of sources that can serve as a starting point in addressing these questions.

(more…)

Advertisement

Read Full Post »

The CLF’s Regional Equity Atlas as a tool to spur community development

Posted in Equity, Quantifying Sustainability, SHP Winter 2011, Student work, Uncovering & Evaluating Sources on February 24, 2011| Leave a Comment »

[This post written by Chris White, Daniel Gray, Tony Smith]

The Coalition for a Livable Future‘s Regional Equity Atlas (REA) provides a wealth of information regarding the socio-economic conditions of Portland and the metro area. This tool is useful for research regarding many various aspects of the equity pillar of sustainability. One potentially useful aspect of this resource is the ability for small and large businesses to find new areas for investment and development. One example of a positive development is the Yellow Line expansion along Interstate Ave. in North Portland.

There have been significant instances where communities were not included in the planning stages of major development. The REA has made note of two major projects which have left the community feeling neglected. In the 1950s the construction of the Memorial Coliseum uprooted many members of the local community without proper compensation. Another example is the construction of I-5 which tore through the same community as the Memorial Coliseum had done a decade before.[1]

There is a significant difference between how proponents of these two projects approached the local community and how the MAX Yellow Line project was built. (more…)

Read Full Post »

The CLF’s Regional Equity Atlas: Strengths and Weaknesses

Posted in Equity, Quantifying Sustainability, SHP Winter 2011, Student work, Uncovering & Evaluating Sources on February 24, 2011| Leave a Comment »

[This post written by Noah Sharpsteen, Teddy Messan, Nigel Peltier, John Stephenson]

This discussion focuses on the Coalition for a Livable Future’s Regional Equity Atlas (REA) and will address the strengths and weaknesses of the atlas’ ability to provide/represent useful data in regards to equity. [1] More specifically, we will argue that the type of representation in use by the REA (visual representation) allows for the specific learning and recognition of the trends being presented, but, ultimately, the lack of certain kinds of information to supplement these maps limits the atlas’ availability to make substantive connections and provide for causal reasoning in regard to the different situations exemplified by the specific maps given.

The REA uses maps to represent data relevant to equity considerations. We believe that this kind of visual representation allows for the following benefits: 1) it provides a holistic approach so connections internal to the specific map can be made; 2) fosters ‘quick and easy’ correlation of ‘trends’ or ‘conclusions’ which makes the identification of problems much easier; 3) and allows for pattern-development which leads to a greater sense of organization for the reader.[2] We feel that these benefits apply within the REA as well.

Unfortunately, the ‘trends’ or ‘conclusions’ that are the resultant benefits of the use of visual representation are communicated poorly within the REA as a whole. (more…)

Read Full Post »

“Sustainability” is a malleable practice geared toward human needs

Posted in SHP Winter 2011, Student work, What is Sustainability? on February 1, 2011| Leave a Comment »

[Post written by: Teddy Gautier & T. Smith]

It is important to remember that the need for sustainability arose from fears relating to present and future living standards, namely, but not limited to, depletion of vital natural resources, poverty, negative impacts on the environment, an anthropocentric view, and a general lack of understanding in terms of complex biospheric interactions. All of these fears or threats arise from human actions and interactions with and within their environment. As a result, any definition of sustainability should include the social requirements that need to be met as the core idea, and the environmental and economic aspects would be then be able to be accounted for. Also, that definition should let people know about the different steps that need to be followed in order to implement sustainable practices. The idea is not to propose a definition that is an absolute, thus making it near impossible to achieve, but rather to create a statement that is more practical and applicable to real life situations. Sustainability should be a conceptual framework that allows for amendments or changes to satisfy particular problems. The definition of sustainability that we are proposing will feature social sustainability as the primary focus, yet without understating the importance of the economic and environmental pillars.

Sustainability, as defined the Brundtland Commission and ubiquitously quoted, is: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Following that definition is the key concept of “needs,” specifically the needs of the world’s poor and marginalized. When poverty is eradicated it should follow that the level of education throughout the world will grow immensely. It is very important that the value of education should not be understated. Positive democratic discourse and human well-being are direct corollaries of education and awareness. Education also provides means, solutions, upward mobility, and opportunity. When poverty is removed and social equity is established then economic and environmental challenges, in terms of sustainability, can be assessed and redressed with much greater ease.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Learning from critiques of the history and theories of “sustainability”

Posted in Critiques of Sustainability, SHP Winter 2011, Student work, Uncovering & Evaluating Sources, What is Sustainability? on January 25, 2011| Leave a Comment »

[Post written by – Noah Sharpsteen, John Stephenson, Nigel Peltier, Daniel Gray]

Works Under Discussion:

The overarching discussion consists in the critique of the history and general concept of sustainability. Ricketts critiques sustainability by connecting it with radical movements in the 1960s and 1970s, comparing its general motivating influences to ‘catastrophe’ literature, recognizing the overly broad nature of the issues subsumed under the label ‘sustainability’ – stating that its inter-connected approach is “trivially true if true at all,” and ultimately locates its rationale in the sphere of a ‘religious’ dogmatism.[1] Bonevac critiques of a number of the definitions of sustainability used in contemporary practice.[2] The critiques range from stating that the definitions are too stringent and thus impossible to too weak and thus easily satisfied – even by the system in place today. The critique is sharp and insightful and provides a baseline both for further research into the definition (or purpose of a definition) of sustainability and also a model of critical approaches to sustainability in general. Rather than discuss the critical merits of Ricketts’ work, a work we feel to be awfully shallow, we believe that a discussion of Bonevac’s criticisms of the definition(s) of sustainability will prove more fruitful for developing an understanding and substantial critiques of sustainability in use today.

Bonevac established that the current definitions of sustainability are not theoretically possible to satisfy in an absolute sense. This notion of being absolutely possible to be satisfied is an important part of many of his criticisms. His idea of the definitions given are “all-or-none.” What is important to note, in our opinion, is that the definitions he gives – the ones actually given in the recent literature on sustainability – do demand the unsatisfiable criteria that Bonevac describes. We feel that his criticisms are important to understand, but they focus sharply on an issue that Bonevac misunderstands – namely, the apparently stringent criteria given by the definitions are focused on a different point. The motivation behind giving such definitions is not to set up absolute criteria, but to set up a framework for development, research, and improvement of the network of practices that have been labeled ‘sustainable.’ We believe that his criticisms stand as they are, but that has not ultimately stalled ‘sustainable’ practices and the efforts to further understand this concept and specify its ideological boundaries. This raises both an important question and important point. The question is, “What is the point of such a definition?” The point is that there is no common agreement that a definition of sustainability should have an idea of an ‘end-state’ or an eventual ultimate goal.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: