Andy Scerri

Accounting for sustainability: Combining qualitative and quantitative research in developing 'indicators' of sustainability

Indicators‐based projects are currently central to many local, city‐wide, national and international sustainability initiatives. The quantitative basis of many such projects means that achieving sustainability through them is often undertaken as a technical task. The size, scope and sheer number of indicators included within many such projects means that they are often unwieldy and resist effective implementation. Arguably, the techno‐scientific ‘edge’ inherent in them tends to blur the possibilities for bringing into question the structures of power and criteria by which values are translated into practice. It limits the way that a community may use indicators to support sustainable practices or to challenge unsustainable practices. The article discusses some of the methodological issues that arise when setting out to develop and implement qualitative indicators of sustainability that incorporate some quantitative metrics. This alternative approach involves people in actively learning and negotiating over how best to put sustainability into practice. The aim of such a research method is to engage citizens in the job of achieving sustainability as a task of itself, undertaken on terms acceptable to them in the context of the communities in which they live.

Urban sustainability in theory and practice : circles of sustainability

Part 1: Setting the Global-Local Scene 1. Confronting a World in Crisis 2. Defining the World around Us Part 2: Understanding Social Life 3. Social Domains 4. Social Mapping 5. Social Meaning Part 3. Developing Methods and Tools 6. Assessing Sustainability 7. Generating an Urban Sustainability Profile 8. Measuring Community Sustainability 9. Conducting a Peer Review 10. Adapting to Climate Change 11. Projecting Alternative Futures 12. Simulating Future Trends Conclusion

Reframing social sustainability reporting : towards an engaged approach

Existing approaches to sustainability assessment are typically characterized as being either “top–down” or “bottom–up.” While top–down approaches are commonly adopted by businesses, bottom–up approaches are more often adopted by civil society organizations and communities. Top–down approaches clearly favor standardization and commensurability between other sustainability assessment efforts, to the potential exclusion of issues that really matter on the ground. Conversely, bottom–up approaches enable sustainability initiatives to speak directly to the concerns and issues of communities, but lack a basis for comparability. While there are clearly contexts in which one approach can be favored over another, it is equally desirable to develop mechanisms that mediate between both. In this paper, we outline a methodology for framing sustainability assessment and developing indicator sets that aim to bridge these two approaches. The methodology incorporates common components of bottom–up assessment: constituency-based engagement processes and opportunity to identify critical issues and indicators. At the same time, it uses the idea of a “knowledge base,” to help with the selection of standardized, top–down indicators. We briefly describe two projects where the aspects of the methodology have been trialed with urban governments and communities, and then present the methodology in full, with an accompanying description of a supporting software system.

Justification, compromise and test: Developing a pragmatic sociology of critique to understand the outcomes of urban redevelopment

The outcomes of urban redevelopment projects are never predictable, nor do they conform perfectly to any single ideological expression of contemporary development approaches, whether that of rational master planning for the public interest, a market-driven neoliberal approach in the name of the competitive world class city or some other vision of utopia. We argue here that a critical pragmatic analytical lens can be applied usefully to improve our understanding of the justifications, qualifications and compromises that contribute to shaping such projects in their contexts. The critical pragmatic approach, deriving from the work of Laurent Thévenot, Luc Boltanski and others, is offered here with illustrative applications to the case of a major redevelopment project in Vancouver, Canada. The approach is situated within planning theory related to governmentality, communicative action theory and American pragmatic philosophy. We establish the utility of studying disputes in the public sphere surrounding development projects, in terms of the objects and actors involved in particular contexts (as opposed to a pure discourse approach) and in terms of the nature and trajectory of compromises attempted and attained in the process (as opposed to consensus-seeking or governmentality approaches).

Green citizenship and the political critique of injustice

Over recent decades, normative theories of green citizenship have drawn upon observations that a long-prevalent dualistic understanding of society, as completely subjecting nature, is being displaced by growing political and cultural support for a holistic view of society, as participating in nature. Differences between avowedly liberal and civic-republican interpretations of green citizenship notwithstanding, the normative theories share five key social critiques: (1) the need to challenge nature/culture dualism; (2) to dissolve the division between the public and private spheres; (3) to undermine state-territorialism; (4) to eschew social contractualism and (5) to ground justice in awareness of the finiteness and maldistribution of ecological space (ES). This article offers a sympathetic provocation to normative theories of green citizenship. Adopting a critical realist perspective, it describes the partial and problematic realisation of these critiques in the contemporary types of social and political participation, contents of the rights and duties and institutional arrangements of the ‘stakeholder’ citizenship that has become established within the neoliberal or weak eco-modernising, global competition state. This perspective is important because it offers new insights into the discursive framework that encompasses contemporary debates over justice and injustice. In particular, injustice from within the post-industrial ecostate appears to be a diffuse whole-of-society problem, the by-product of unsustainable development that lacks an identifiable class of perpetrators. This makes the progressive task of enunciating claims that injustice is present in some senses difficult, while conservative ideological positions are simplified.

Facilitated and emergent social learning in sustainable urban redevelopment: exposing a mismatch and moving towards convergence

This article makes a case for the importance of social learning in urban planning and development practice, particularly in the context of attempts to achieve higher standards of sustainability. We proceed by comparing learning outcomes in Vancouver’s Southeast False Creek and Melbourne’s Docklands urban redevelopment projects. We find that the instrumental model of learning supports facilitated learning approaches pursued in a manner that is mostly disconnected from the learning being demanded for improved decision-making and improved results. The emergent learning which can be empirically demonstrated, which is more easily explained by a systems-theory model, lacks exposure to deliberative process.

Accounting for sustainability: Implementing a residential emissions reduction strategy using an approach that combines qualitative and quantitative indicators of sustainability

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explain and demonstrate the importance and usefulness of mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches in participatory residential sustainability policy and practice.Design/methodology/approach – The approach uses a theoretical model, developed through engagements with cultural and political sociology, to inform participatory engagement in selecting “indicators” of urban residential sustainability.Findings – If they are to influence policy and practice effectively, quantitative indicators of sustainability need to be subjected to dialogical negotiation and deliberation aimed at establishing qualitative assessment of the problem.Originality/value – Recognizing as foundational the need to negotiate the terms on which the task of achieving sustainability is implemented, the approach links “natural” with “social” scientific endeavour in a policy‐oriented and practical approach to binding together quantitative with qualitative “indicators” of sustainability.

From issues to indicators: developing robust community sustainability measures

Recent debate on sustainability indicator development has centred upon top-down and bottom-up methods. In practice, a key difficulty is the establishment of defensible issues and indicators to use. Here, we present a structured approach for transitioning from initial community consultation designed to elicit issues to the downstream definition, composition and measurement of those issues via indicators. The approach incorporates two quantitative techniques from the literature, analytic hierarchy process and Qualitative Sustainability System Index. The application of these techniques is designed to foster a better understanding of the priority of and relationships between issues, prior to the construction of measurement instruments and indicators of sustainability. We develop a prototype implementation of the approach, and elicit feedback from an expert panel on its suitability in a community sustainability context.

Globalizing Consumption and the Deferral of a Politics of Consequence

How do ‘we’ in the wealthy parts of the world rationalize our constant deferral of doing anything much, beyond symbolic moments of ameliorative action, about the problems starkly presented every night on the world news? Intensifying globalization, from electronic capitalism to techno-science, has drawn the fate of the world into an ever-tightening orbit. Indeed, the plight of others has become increasingly immediate. Images of crisis abound. However, despite the presence of these crises—including projections of global climate change, food insecurity, and the deaths of over three million children a year from malnutrition in the global South—life goes on in the North. While there are many ways to approach such an issue, this article asks, ‘What kind of individualism, and what kinds of values and norms, allow for the deferral of an alternative politics of consequence?’ Part of the answer, it argues, is found in a form of projective individualism. This we suggest is a dominant condition of the autonomous personhood long associated with modernization and globalization. It is asserted that desires for self-improvement and self-affirmation have emerged as commonsense understandings of lifes possibilities. In this situation, persons are confronted with a tension between the joyfulness of achieving desires and the world-weariness which accompanies awareness of the scale of global problems. The article examines how the purveyors of a form of soft consumption have stepped in to ameliorate this tension, offering new places and experiences—third spaces of comfortable pleasure, ethically adjudicated experiences—that address the cultural and political needs of projective individuals. Through a series of examples, the article argues that projective individualism prompts a form of sympathy-without-empathy that undermines possibilities for solidarity with the global South on social and environmental issues. ¿En qué forma ‘nosotros’ en las partes ricas del mundo, racionalizamos nuestro constante aplazamiento por hacer algo, que va más allá de momentos simbólicos de acción para mejorar ante los problemas crudamente presentados cada noche en las noticias mundiales? La intensificación de la globalización, del capitalismo electrónico a la tecnociencia, ha trazado el destino del mundo en ámbito cada vez más restringido. En efecto, la difícil condición de otros, se ha hecho cada día más inmediata. Abundan las imágenes de crisis. Sin embargo, a pesar de la presencia de estas crisis—que incluyen las proyecciones del cambio climático, la inseguridad alimenticia, y las muertes de más de tres millones de niños al año por malnutrición en el sur global—la vida sigue en el norte. Mientras existen muchas maneras de enfocar semejante asunto, este artículo cuestiona, ‘¿qué tipo de individualismo, y qué tipo de valores y normas, permiten el atraso de una política alternativa de consecuencia?’ Se sostiene que parte de la respuesta se encuentra en una forma de individualismo proyectivo. Nosotros sugerimos que esto es una condición dominante del individualismo autónomo asociado durante largo tiempo con la modernización y la globalización. Se afirma que los deseos de autosuperación y autoafirmación surgieron como nociones de sentido común sobre las posibilidades de la vida. En esta situación, las personas han hecho frente a una tensión entre la alegría de lograr los deseos y el agotamiento mundial que acompaña el conocimiento del grado de los problemas globales. El artículo examina cómo los proveedores de una forma de consumo ligero han intervenido para mejorar esta tensión, ofreciendo nuevos lugares y experiencias—espacios terceros de cómodo placer y experiencias adjudicadas éticamente—que responden a las necesidades culturales y políticas de los individuos proyectivos. A través de una serie de ejemplos, el artículo sostiene que el individualismo proyectivo estimula una forma de simpatía –sin-empatía que entorpece las posibilidades de solidaridad con el sur global en asuntos sociales y el medio ambiente. 生活在世界富裕地区的“我们”，如何理性说明我们在缓和性行动的象征性时刻以外对每晚都在世界新闻中呈现无遗的各种问题一贯的延期处理？正在强化的全球化，从电子资本主义到技术科学，已经将世界命运导入了一个持续收紧的轨道。事实上，他者的困境正日益逼近。危机的意象多现。然而，尽管这些危机已经出现——包括全球气候变化、食品不安全、以及全球南方每年超过三百万的的儿童死于营养不良——北方生活依然持续。当有许多办法可以解决这一问题时，本文设问：哪种个人主义和哪种价值与规范，考虑到了关于后果的一种替代性政治的推迟？本文认为，部分答案在于一种投射性个人主义。我们认为这是一种长期与现代化和全球化相联系的自主性个人特质的主导性条件。渴望自我改进与自我肯定已作为生命可能性的常识性理解而出现。在这种情况下，人们面对着达成愿望的欢乐与意识到全球问题的规模相伴随的厌世之间的紧张。本文考察了某种软消费的供应商是如何进入并缓解这种紧张的，文章提供了新的场所与经验——安逸的享乐与道德上被判决之体验的第三空间——解决了投射性个体的文化和政治需要。通过一系列的例子，本文认为投射性个人主义促发了一种没有移情的同情心，它损害了与全球南方在社会和环境问题上团结一致的可能。 세계의 부유한 지역에 사는 ‘우리”가 어떻게 매일 밤 세계 뉴스에 보도되는 어두는 현실 문제들에 대해서 개선을 하기 위한 행동을 나타나는 상징적인 계기를 넘어서 많은 것을 하지 않는 것을 정당화하는가? 전자 자본주의에서부터 기술-과학에 이르기까지 강화되고 있는 세계화가 세계의 운명을 어느 때보다도 더 견고한 궤도로 끌어 들였다. 정말로 다른 사람들의 역경이 점차 더 즉각적인 것이 되었다. 위기의 이미지가 넘쳐 난다. 그렇지만, 글로벌 기후 변화 예측, 식량 불안, 영양실조로 인한 한 해 빈곤 국가 아동 3백만 명의 죽음을 포함하는 위기에도 불구하고 부유한 북반구의 삶은 계속된다. 이러한 문제에 대한 접근은 다양하지만, 이 논문은 어떤 개인주의와 어떤 종류의 가치와 규범이 대안적인 정치에 장애가 되고 있는가를 묻고자 한다. 그에 대한 답은 투영적인 개인주의(projective individualism) 형태에서 찾을 수 있다. 이것은 오랜 동안 근대화와 세계화와 연계된 자동적인 개인성(personhood)을 만들어 내는 조건이다. 자기 개선과 자기 확인에 대한 욕구가 삶의 가능성에 대한 상식적인 이해로 등장했다. 이러한 상황에서 사람들은 욕망을 충족시키는 즐거움과 지구적 문제의 규모에 대한 인식에 동반되는 지구적 피로 사이에서 발생되는 긴장을 직면하고 있다. 이 논문은 어떻게 소프트한 소비 형태를 제공하는 사람들이 윤리적으로 문제가 없는 안락한 즐거움의 공간 인 새로운 공간과 경험을 제공하면서 이러한 긴장을 약화시키는데 개입하는지를 검토한다. 새로운 공간과 경험은 투영적인 개인들의 문화적이고 정치적인 수요를 다룬다. 이 논문은 여러 사례를 통하여 투영적 개인주의가 남반부의 사회문제와 환경문제를 둘러싼 연대의 가능성을 약화시키는 감정이입(empathy)없는 동정(sympathy)을 만들어 낸다는 것을 주장한다.

Making Other Worlds Possible: Performing Diverse Economies

Contributors to this collection offer a “reflective and theoretically developed accompaniment” to the “critique of ‘capitalocentrism’” (p. 10) found in J.K. Gibson-Graham’s earlier works The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It) and A Postcapitalist Politics. Capitalocentrism is “a discursive framing that position[s noncommodified relations] as less important, more dependent, less dynamic— indeed, contained ‘within’ a space colonized by capitalism” (p. 3–4). The critique seeks to “convene [noncommodified] practices, alongside so-called capitalist activity ... on a single plane in which value, importance, and driving dynamism need to be empirically investigated and creatively theorized, rather than read off from an [albeit unnamed] economics textbook” (p. 4). Although the authors primarily work in Geography, their “diverse economies research program” avows an “explicitly political interest in imagining and enacting other worlds,” such that its authors recommend this latest book as “a major political intervention for our times” (p. 8, 19). Informed by Michel Foucault’s subjective ethics and the Actor-Network Theory promoted by Bruno Latour and Michel Callon, the contributors aim to displace neoliberal capitalism and neoclassical ideas by observing, and in some cases themselves contributing, to the enactment of what they label diverse economies. This aim is to be achieved through a Participatory Action Research-driven program that is designed to facilitate a postcapitalistic form of “performative ontological politics” (p. 6). As such, Making Other Worlds should be of interest to NPS readers, especially readers interested in questions that arise at the intersection of politics and ethics in the contexts of globalizing capitalism. The book contains both theoretical and empirical chapters. The former chapters offer valuable insight into the thinking behind the program. However, the language used in these chapters seems a little overwrought. In the first twenty pages alone, one reads not only of “capitalocentrism,” “agencement,” and “performation,” of “metrological interventions” and “metrological politics,” “performative effect,” the “perlocutionary performative” and “materialities of performativity” but also, many, many references to “ontology.” This term is strewn about with uninhibited enthusiasm, and combined with some extravagant prose: “performative ontological politics” comes with a “transcendent ontology,” “ontologies of economy,” “extradiscursive ontology of difference and complex interrelationship,” and, claims such as: