فضاهای توسعه پایدار در استراتژی منطقه ای شکارچی سفلی: استفاده از 'جامعه شناسی فرهنگی فضا'
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|29423||2012||9 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Geoforum, Volume 43, Issue 1, January 2012, Pages 35–43
Sustainable development was introduced as an approach to overcoming growing concerns about consumption and the limitations of the natural resource base upon which society depends. It advocates a system in which economic growth can still occur, but within natural resource limits and such as not to disadvantage either current or future generations. However the implementation of sustainable development has proven problematic due to definitional problems, institutional constraints and unresponsive socio-political systems. This paper examines the mechanisms through which an aspatial policy such as the Australian Government’s National Strategy for Ecological Sustainable Development is reinterpreted through the recent spatial planning processes of Lower Hunter Regional Strategy. This paper applies the cultural sociology of space theoretical framework which considers the dialectical relationship between material practices and the symbolic meanings that people attach to their environment. The framework provides insights into how within this spatial planning process, through a combination of language and representation, spatial practices and power rationalities produce discourses and spaces. Applying the framework also shows how a desired “sustainable future” is achieved through the predominance of land development rationality.
The implementation of sustainable development exists in tension with economic growth rationalities. In recent decades there has been an imperative to transform urban and regional spaces such as Newcastle and the Lower Hunter in Australia away from Fordist modes of production into sites of capital accumulation consistent with the “new economy” (Krueger and Gibbs, 2007). This involves the promotion of economic development via the attraction of new industries, greater economic competition, urban entrepreneurialism and the promotion of consumption-based urban and regional landscapes. At the same time there is an imperative to create urban and regional spaces in line with the specific Australian approach to sustainable development through the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (NSESD) ( Australian Government, 1992). Despite the apparent tension, the very regions that are transforming their modes of production into ones consistent with the ‘new economy’ are also promoting their credentials as more sustainable cities and urban regions ( Krueger and Gibbs, 2007). Enacted in 1992, Ecological Sustainable Development (ESD) is a broad aspatial policy framework which involves balancing economic, social and environmental outcomes to “enhance individual and community well-being”, “provide equity within and between generations” and “maintain essential ecological processes and life-support systems” (Australian Government, 1992). The NSESD is aspatial in the sense that it does not have a specific spatial outcome in itself, rather it is a manifesto that is intended to influence the formulation of legislation, policies and plans, many of which have spatial outcomes. The concept of sustainability is such that it can be moulded into forms that fit existing belief systems (McManus, 1996). Thus rather than implementing stronger forms of sustainable development that might consider resource availability, consumption patterns and the capacity of ecosystems to act as sinks, weaker forms of sustainability have been adopted that involve the protection of certain natural systems, substitution of natural capital and new types of consumption (Carter, 2001). The transformation of urban and regional spaces to meet the challenges of sustainable development can be considered, therefore, as another element of the new modes of production associated with the new economy. There has been a substantial focus on the “sustainable development paradox” (Krueger and Gibbs, 2007) which claims that sustainable development can never achieve the necessary outcome where human activities operate within ecological limits whilst it operates within or is implemented by a capitalist system that also favours economic growth. Related to the sustainable development paradox is the well documented mismatch that occurs between sustainable development policy and its implementation (Coffey, 2005, Crabtree, 2005, Freeman, 2004, Gibbs, 2000 and Unsworth, 2007). However, less attention has been given to the mechanisms through which the ideas of sustainable development are reworked to reflect more normative economic development paradigms. Through an application of Jensen and Richardson’s (2004) “cultural sociology of space”, this paper explores how the “reworking” of the NSESD occurs in the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy (LHRS) through the dialectical relationships between “socio-spatial practices and the symbolic and cultural meanings that social agents attach to their environments” ( Jensen and Richardson, 2004, p. 45).
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
In this paper, I have applied the cultural sociology of space framework developed by Jensen and Richardson (2004) to consider how language and representation, practices and power rationalities work to transform an aspatial policy discourse such as the NSESD into particular spatial forms and knowledge about urban sustainability. It provides an insight into how the implementation of the NSESD has proven problematic, and how the expectation that such a policy might provide a workable approach for considering the way humans consume and utilise resources. However in relation to urban planning, the idea of creating sustainable urban spaces when applied has tended to follow a formula of actions that focus on broad regional scale measures and local scale measures such as mixed land uses, walkable neighbourhoods, transport options, compact housing, redevelopment of old urban areas and new types of public open space. This does not decisively address actual NSESD objectives or the issues related to the sustainability of urban areas. Furthermore current approaches to urban planning position land development and capital accumulation strategies as a precondition for sustainable development (Richardson and Jensen, 2003) and as such the concept has been reinterpreted into forms that may not achieve the desired outcomes. In drawing attention to the analysis of language and representation, the cultural sociology of space provides insights into the way existing and imagined spaces of the Lower Hunter are perceived. Through the choice of particular words and concepts, two concurrent processes involving the priming of the existing policy and the mapping of spaces were identified. Firstly, similar language to the NSESD was adopted in the LHRS so that it could be linked to specific spatial outcomes. Secondly, the existing spaces of the Lower Hunter were represented in very specific ways (e.g. problem spaces) so as to ensure they are receptive to the particular version of ESD being used in the LHRS. The use of infographics was an extension of the textual elements and is a mechanism for representing particular understandings of space and how certain spatial arrangements might produce ESD outcomes. The cultural sociology of space framework encourages the researcher to look beyond language to the spatial practices that are embedded within textual elements. The LHRS involved the construction of priority lists, broad scale land use zoning maps and planning principles. At one level these spatial practices provide a mechanism through which textual plans can be implemented. They are also underpinned, however, by a political process that requires making distinctions between decisions of high importance, low importance, inclusion and exclusion. ESD in the LHRS is, therefore, directed predominantly by land development interests who were ideologically positioned to inform the spatial planning process to establish systems of administration and encourage the use of institutional resources in a way that influences the production of sustainable urban spaces. The Department of Planning was the key NSW Government agency responsible for the development and implementation of the LHRS and input from other resource and environmental agencies is either selectively used or placed outside the spatial planning process. Thus the focus on achieving dwelling and employment land release targets took priority over the DPI’s preferred model for sustainable agricultural systems in the Lower Hunter. Attempts by interest groups to introduce alternative narratives in relation to sustainable development were curtailed by a limited and discontinued participatory approach. The development of institutional resources such as the “Neighbourhood Planning Principles” gives legitimacy to what is now understood as urban sustainability. The result is that the practices reflect both power relationships and existing spatial relationships, whereby systems of sustainable development implementation occur within normative economic growth rationalities and post-political responses to social and environmental issues. Power rationalities are derived from the interplay between the language and the practices whereby that which is said (or written) and done can provide insights into the way that the value systems, logics and worldviews are mobilised to support particular agendas. This is where the pathways to sustainability become particularly complicated because different knowledge systems are presented as being the best way of achieving sustainable outcomes. Thus it is not just about interest coalitions pursuing agendas; it is about the fundamental basis of defining the problem that requires action and the approach to the problem. This involves mechanisms that have the effect of normalising approaches that are branded as “sustainable development” which create new knowledge systems that coincide with approaches to economic competitiveness and urban land development. The interplay between language and practices can be seen in how the importance given to higher density urban development and urban consolidation still involves a significant expansion of the urban footprint as a result of the provision of greater housing choice. The implementation of a process that moves towards ESD in relation to spatial planning is complicated. It involves the production of urban spaces that might be taken to be more sustainable. However the bending of ESD to fit particular agendas and rationalities can actually elude the attainment of approaches that result in overcoming concerns about resource consumption, the limitations of natural resources and intra- and intergenerational equity. In accepting particular policies or interventions that create spaces for sustainable development, it is important to consider the way in which language and representation, practices and power rationalities work to produce such spaces. The important point from this research, then, is to be vigilant about the way spatial planning is being mobilised and whether or not strategic planning processes such as the LHRS can mobilise forms of ESD that are capable of delivering sustainable urban spaces. Finally, although Jensen and Richardson (2004) formulated the cultural sociology of space framework around a spatial plan (i.e. the European Spatial Development Perspective), it has also proved to be a useful way of investigating how an aspatial policy discourse such as ESD plays out in a spatial planning process. It provides a way of bringing into focus the relationship between space and social action and its relationship between practices and symbolic meanings is highly relevant to the analysis of spatial planning processes.