ArticlePDF Available

From the Bottom-Up: Culture in Community Sustainability Planning



Emerging conceptualizations of a 'four pillar' model of sustainability, which include cultural vitality, environmental responsibility, economic health, and social equity as the basis of community resiliency (Hawkes 2001), have influenced a variety of local planning initiatives in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Caribbean, and Europe. Focusing on the cultural dimension of this sustainability framework, this paper explores the conceptual and operational challenges and gaps that are highlighted as the model is applied in community sustainability planning contexts. Methodologically, the paper is primarily based on a review and analysis of strategic approaches to conceptually and operationally integrate culture within community sustainability planning in Canada, located within two sources: (1) the Integrated Community Sustainability Plan (ICSP) guides developed by provinces and municipal associations, and (2) a selection of ICSPs developed by individual communities. In closing, the paper reflects on the process of migration or adaptation of community planning paradigms to the community sustainability framework as observed in these ICSP materials and other initiatives.
Paper for ‘Culture and the Making of Worlds’, 3
ESA Sociology of Culture research network mid-term Conference,
7-9 October 2010, Università Bocconi, Milan, Italy
From the bottom-up: culture in community sustainability planning
N.A. Duxbury
Centre for Social Studies at the University of Coimbra
Coimbra, Portugal
M. S. Jeannotte
Centre on Governance, University of Ottawa
Ottawa, Canada
Emerging conceptualizations of a ‗four pillar‘ model of sustainability, which include cultural
vitality, environmental responsibility, economic health, and social equity as the basis of
community resiliency (Hawkes 2001), have influenced a variety of local planning initiatives in
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Caribbean, and Europe. Focusing on the cultural
dimension of this sustainability framework, this paper explores the conceptual and operational
challenges and gaps that are highlighted as the model is applied in community sustainability
planning contexts. Methodologically, the paper is primarily based on a review and analysis of
strategic approaches to conceptually and operationally integrate culture within community
sustainability planning in Canada, located within two sources: (1) the Integrated Community
Sustainability Plan (ICSP) guides developed by provinces and municipal associations, and (2) a
selection of ICSPs developed by individual communities. In closing, the paper reflects on the
process of migration or adaptation of community planning paradigms to the community
sustainability framework as observed in these ICSP materials and other initiatives.
Keywords: sustainability, cultural planning, cultural policy, urban planning, community
Culture is not a pile of artefactsit is us; the living, breathing sum of us. A sustainable
society depends upon a sustainable culture. If a society‘s culture disintegrates, so will
everything else. Vitality is the single most important characteristic ...
Jon Hawkes, 2006
As Tony Fry (2009) notes in Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics, and New Practice, we are
now living in a new epoch of ‗Sustainment with pressing environmental concerns and a
growing imperative to rethink how we live together on this planet and the future we are
designing and creating. The framework for sustainable development, while inheriting historical
baggage of development, is in the process of being reconstructed as discussions widen and
become more inclusive, and as sustainability considerations spread across intellectual spheres
and professional practices. This reframing process has the potential for ‗greater coherence with
goals and values such as social justice, self-reliance, and ecological balance (Nurse 2006: 45). It
introduces the challenge of intergenerational equity to ongoing discussions and practices of
multicultural relations, dialogue, and social cohesion (among other topics). And it encourages
holistic and integrative ways of thinking in community planning practice, emphasizing
interconnectedness, cross-sectoral collaborations, and plural perspectives that encompass both
the community‘s physical form and its people.
From the bottom-up: culture in community sustainability planning
Internationally, city planning paradigms are mutating from building ‗creative cities‘ to
achieving ‗sustainable cities‘. Local sustainability planning is often ‗encouraged‘/imposed by
other government levels, particularly in Canada where the federal government requires local
governments to develop Integrated Community Sustainability Plans (ICSPs) to access gas tax
monies. The ICSPs, longer-term planning documents tied to federalprovincial agreements, are
based on a model of sustainability incorporating four interlinked dimensions: environmental
responsibility, economic health, social equity, and cultural vitality (Government of Canada
2005). The Province of Quebec´s recent provincial initiative to make culture a cornerstone of
sustainable development policy has provided a further incentive for municipalities to adopt this
model of sustainability planning (QMCCSW 2009).
A number of guidance documents and templates have been developed by provincial
governments and various municipal associations to guide municipalities in the creation of these
ICSPs. Regarding the culture pillar of community sustainability, however, the guides contain
many gaps and omissions. Thus, with scant guidance from above, cities/communities are taking
the lead in defining the parameters of culture within community sustainability planning
The paper takes as its theoretical framework the ‗four pillar‘ model of sustainability, which
includes cultural vitality, environmental responsibility, economic health, and social equity as the
basis of community resiliency (Hawkes 2001). This model has been instrumental in including
an explicit consideration of culture as part of public sustainability discussions and community
plans. Methodologically, the paper is primarily based on a review and analysis of strategic
approaches to conceptually and operationally include and integrate culture within community
sustainability planning within two major sources: (1) the ICSP guides developed by provinces
and municipal associations, and (2) a selection of ICSP plans developed by individual
communities. Through this analysis, the paper identifies key themes, issues, divergences, and
conceptual and operational gaps in linking culture with sustainability. In closing, it reflects on
the process of migration or adaptation of community planning paradigms to the community
sustainability framework as observed in these ICSP materials as well as some of the
international initiatives in this area.
First, however, it is useful to begin with a brief ‗broad stroke‘ contextualization of the
involvement of municipalities in planning for and supporting culture, and the ways in which this
interest, though not legislated as a municipal responsibility, becomes gradually enmeshed within
city planning and operations in Canada.
The challenge of planning for culture
Cultural planning has been described as an inclusive, multi-stakeholder consultation and
decisionmaking process to think strategically about how collective actions can encourage
cultural vibrancy, and how culture can contribute to civic goals and be integrated into a wide
range of municipal actions (Russo and Butler 2007). It is concerned with sustaining traditions
and heritage as well as making room for spontaneous cultural expression and evolution.
Integrating cultural considerations into traditional planning paradigms has been challenging on
two fronts the nature of ‗culture‘ and the ‗voluntary‘ (unlegislated) adoption of municipal
roles in cultural development. First, ‗culture‘ has multiple definitions and understandings; is
diverse, fluid, and dynamically changing in nature; contains both intangible and tangible
components; and makes multidimensional impacts and contributions these attributes challenge
planning systems more accustomed to land use and hard service provision (Russo and Butler
From the bottom-up: culture in community sustainability planning
Secondly, municipal support for culture is typically not mandated through legislation. In
Canada, the jurisdictional circumstances are particularly murky, with the provinces having
responsibility for municipalities, but the federal government having the power to intervene in
such ‗urban issues as public transportation, housing and cultural infrastructure (Gattinger
2008). With culture considered a shared jurisdiction and sustainability not mentioned at all in
the Canadian constitution, these jurisdictional ambiguities have opened the door to policy and
planning innovations. Politically, there has been a growing recognition of the need to respond to
global, environmental and demographic challenges through actions that are local and shaped by
a strong sense of place (External Advisory Committee on Cities and Communities 2006: 10).
However, without formal institutions to foster collaboration and coordination in these areas,
increasing reliance has had to be placed on non-structural factors such as cultures of
collaboration, local leadership, and partnerships (Gattinger 2008).
In Canada, as cities have become more involved in the ‗softer‘ aspects and issues of community
development, a variety of municipal roles relating to culture have evolved within city processes
and structures. Yet because it is not a legislated responsibility, municipal action in culture is
generally propelled by and reliant on a combination of public demand, political will, and
demonstrated impact (Duxbury and Russo, forthcoming). Despite a growing appreciation for
the value of arts and culture, the reality in most communities is challenging and emergent.
Consequently, from a pragmatic perspective, conceptual ‗bridges‘ and opportunistic ‗pathways‘
play important roles in integrating cultural considerations into city planning and operations.
Evolving city roles
Despite this uncertain and challenging context, municipalities of all sizes increasingly tend to
recognize and support cultural activities and development in their communities in various ways.
Contextualized within the past decade, a general evolutionary trajectory can be observed by size
of cities. In very small communities (but not exclusively), the City role is primarily to support
the community‘s proactive agents. As the community grows in size, the City‘s role tends to
become more active, facilitating, strategically positioning and planning, aligning diverse forces
and resources, and generally working in partnerships with community organizations. Soon,
there is a track record of municipal action in the area of culture and many municipalities have
adopted arts policies and/or cultural strategies. (In some cities, there is much support and
activity but no cultural plan as yet.) In general, ‗larger‘ small cities take on even more proactive
roles to develop cultural facilities and a mature, more comprehensive approach to cultural
development and planning. Partnerships (with private developers, community groups) are
increasingly common. More emphasis is placed on integrating culture in broader city planning,
although a separate cultural plan may not be in place prior to its inclusion in these plans. In part,
these developments have been influenced by the rise in importance of ‗place‘, pervasive public
discourse on the attraction of the ‗creative class‘ for economic competitiveness, and a generally
heightened awareness of the culture-related initiatives of other cities.
As the municipality‘s involvement in culture grows more complex, a leadership function
emerges, with the municipality supplying infrastructure and resources, branding particular areas
of the city as ‗cultural districts‘, facilitating the capacity development and growth of community
organizations, and shaping the broader contours of cultural development in the city through
enabling policies, plans, and strategies. This greater complexity and institutionalization
introduces new structures and processes into government and may introduce new hierarchies in
governance processes, both in terms of working with the community and within municipal
government systems. This process of institutionalization may also broaden municipal
perspectives on culture, moving beyond a traditional recreational function to involve all
This section is based on an analysis of the inclusion of cultural considerations in broader city plans of a
selection of small cities in Canada (10,000-125,000 population) in Duxbury (forthcoming).
From the bottom-up: culture in community sustainability planning
bureaucratic actors (from finance to bylaws to planning departments) who increasingly consider
community cultural implications in their own areas of city management.
These changes are occurring within a broader trend of municipalities (of all sizes) gradually
shifting from ‗planner-provider-deliverer‘ roles to ‗enabler-convener-catalyst-broker‘ ones
(Duxbury and Russo, forthcoming). This perspective emphasizes partnerships, collaboration in
governance, and addressing public issues and goals through joint initiatives. It makes municipal
involvement in culture more necessary (to leverage resources and public amenities through
partnerships and development processes) and influences how this involvement is organized and
plays out. Greater community involvement and responsibility for engagement in planning and
decision-making processes is evident in the formation of citizen-volunteer cultural committees
and advisory groups as part of the governance structure; in an array of partnerships, facilities
provision, and supportive arrangements with community non-profit cultural organizations; and
in a growing emphasis on community capacity building.
The rise of sustainability
The rise of a sustainability paradigm in planning heavily informs and shapes the nature of recent
community planning initiatives across Canada and in Europe. Many emphasize holistic
thinking, interconnectedness, and integrated planning, encompassing both the community‘s
physical form and its people (e.g., SALAR 2008; Thames Gateway North Kent 2006; Focus
Kingston 2009; Alred 2008; City of Ottawa et al. 2010). In Canada, the emergence of Integrated
Community Sustainability Plans (ICSPs) reinforces this approach. This four-pillar model has
been instrumental in including an explicit consideration of culture as part of public
sustainability discussions and community plans. In the absence of an existing Cultural Master
Plan, sustainability-influenced city planning paradigms can serve to introduce a framework for
nurturing cultural development within a comprehensive, holistic, and interconnected view of
community dynamics and challenges. Within the sustainability context, however, the role or
place of culture is still uncertain, and is being worked out through community dialogues within
community planning processes. As well, integrated pragmatic approaches in implementing and
acting on the plans and ideas are often challenging in practice. Thus, the major trajectories of
this integration in the longer-term are not yet clear.
Within writings on community development and sustainability, thinking about culture as a
significant aspect of sustainable development has been thinly distributed but pervasive in at both
macro/global and local levels (Duxbury and Gillette 2007). Rana and Piracha (2007) refer to the
gradual consideration of cultural elements in the sustainable development paradigm as ‗a
sideline to this point (p. 21) and culture has typically been the underdeveloped component of
both conceptual and planning frameworks for long-term community well-being and
sustainability. In many cases, cultural considerations are considered under the umbrella of
social sustainability (e.g., Stren and Polèse 2000).
The inclusion of culture within public sustainability dialogues is emergent and, in general,
fractured through clustering around different foci. For example, Duxbury, Gillette and Pepper
(2007) observed ten different areas in which culture-related discussions could be found: the
culture of sustainability (changing behaviour, consumption patterns, and ways of thinking);
globalization and local cultures; heritage conservation; sense of place; indigenous knowledge
and traditional practices; community cultural development as a tool of civic engagement; arts,
education, and youth; sustainable design; planning paradigms; and cultural policy and local
government. In a review of scientific literature, Soini and Birkeland (2009) found that ‗the
concept of cultural sustainability has … been described in vague, diverse, and sometimes also in
conflicting ways‘ and identified seven ways in which the term is used: as more or less identical
to social sustainability; to promote cultural continuation; associated with economic viability; to
From the bottom-up: culture in community sustainability planning
mean locally-based (anti-globalist) development; inseparable from ecological sustainability; to
highlight eco-cultural justice; and as cultural change and socio-cultural evolution (in Birkeland
and Soini 2010: 8). The emergent nature and wide scope of these literatures and discourses
challenge synthesis, with no consensus on how these terms might be linked or how they
intersect with policy and planning contexts.
Nonetheless, within the international context, four main dimensions within public discourse on
culture in sustainability are prominent
1. Sustainability of economic development (or economic dimensions of sustainability),
where cultural organizations can play an important role. This approach is frequently
linked to the sustainability of cultural heritage sites as well as the long-term survival of
certain cultural institutions.
2. Strategies and means to reduce the environmental footprint of the arts/cultural sector
(e.g., Hartley 2009) and the environmental benefits of conserving and reusing heritage
3. Sustainability as a message which culture and the arts can convey to others and build
awareness through public campaigns and project development. This reflects the
involvement of artists and cultural institutions in overall sustainable development
through enhancing public knowledge and awareness, purveying information and
influencing values and behaviours (e.g., Kagan and Kirchberg 2008).
4. A ‗systematic approach towards sustainability where the cultural dimension is
integrated together with others social, economic, environmental in a holistic
conceptualization of sustainable development which can be rooted in policy and
planning frameworks (Varbanova 2008).
Although the various paths overlap, this section focuses on the last dimension, especially as it
has emerged though policy- and planning-related literature internationally. Within this context,
four conceptual threads have been brought forward to understand and position culture within
community sustainability: (1) culture as capital; (2) culture as process and way of life,
interacting with an environment; (3) culture as a central binding element providing the values
underlying sustainable (or unsustainable) actions; and (4) culture as creative expression
providing insights on environmental/sustainability concerns.
Culture as capital
Within the sustainability field, culture has often been discussed in terms of cultural capital,
defined as ‗traditions and values, heritage and place, the arts, diversity and social history
(Roseland et al. 2005: 12). We inherit this stock of tangible and intangible cultural capital from
past generations and pass it onto future generations. This view is prominent in discussions of
built heritage within the context of sustainable development planning (e.g., Gražulevičiūtė
2006). Although the value of cultural capital may not always be measurable in terms of money,
both tangible and intangible cultural assets are considered as capital that has value. This cultural
capital, as Throsby (1999) argued, is situated within cultural ―ecosystems‖ [that] underpin the
operations of the real economy‘ (p. 9).
Culture as process and way of life
Both Hawkes (2006) and Nurse (2006) argued that it is critical to move beyond talking only
about ‗the arts‘, heritage‘, and cultural industries and to include broader notions of culture as
This list is adapted and extended from an earlier observation of prominent discourses on culture and
sustainable development in Varbanova (2008).
This discussion is based on a section of Duxbury and Jeannotte (2010) which explores the conceptual
underpinnings of international policy discourses concerning culture and sustainability.
From the bottom-up: culture in community sustainability planning
a ‗whole way of life in discussions of sustainability. Hawkes described culture as the ways that
we make sense of our lives together, or in more formal terms, as the social production of
meaning (p. 2). By moving beyond a focus on professional arts production, this view allows for
a broader considerations of the potential of the cultural perspective to facilitate ‗the democratic
generation and expression of society‘s values and aspirations through creative participation (p.
Doubleday, Mackenzie, and Dalby (2004) argued that discussions of sustainability must include
dynamic understandings of the particular complexities of culture as well as of the place in which
it occurs, so that community and geographic contexts are fully incorporated. Complementary to
this perspective, culture is viewed as an adaptive and iterative process ‗born wherever humans
had to work out a relationship with nature and themselves (Nadarajah 2000); a formalization
of practices by individuals and/or communities as they adjust to, survive, and prosper in special
contexts (Rana and Piracha 2007: 22). Along these lines, and overlapping with the next
category, many researchers are exploring how ideas of sustainable living and development are
embodied in cultural and moral values and practices of societies (past and present) (e.g., Davies
and Brown 2006; Paliwal 2005; Tiwari 2007; Yan et al. 2008).
Culture as a vehicle for sustainable values
The elements of our habitus how people view the world around them, their philosophy and
ethics, traditional knowledge, and symbolic relationships with each other and their environment
have been found to be critical factors in the sustainability of individual communities (Berkes
1998). Rana and Piracha (2007) positioned culture as the glue that binds together all other
concerns: culture provides the building blocks of identity and ethnic allegiances and moulds
attitudes to work. It underlies political and economic behaviour. Most importantly, it builds the
values that can drive collective action for a sustainable future in the new global context‘ (p. 21).
The development of ‗cultures of sustainability is the focus of a wide spectrum of academic and
activist efforts. For example, Brocchi (2008) identified ways of thinking and a range of
capabilities that support a more sustainable approach to the environmental crisis.
Culture as creative expression
Related to ‗culture as a vehicle for sustainable values, this category focuses primarily on art
practices and works addressing environmental and sustainability-related themes and concerns,
and highlights art as a vehicle for transmission of observations, insights, and knowledge. For
example, EcoART collaborations merge comprehensive research with visual art and ecological
interventions that aim to restore relationships between the physical ground and the humans
inhabiting that ground (Carruthers 2006: 7; see also Glotfelty and Fromm 1996). Themes of
community engagement and awareness, education, preservation, and conservation are common.
Governments and organizations in a variety of jurisdictions have been attempting to bridge the
gap between theory and practice with regard to culture and sustainability. At the international
level, UNESCO (e.g., World Bank/UNESCO 1998, 1999; UNESCO 2005) and the United
Cities and Local Government NGO (see, e.g., Pascual 2009) have played prominent roles
(Duxbury and Jeannotte 2010). At the national and subnational levels, a variety of initiatives
can be observed internationally, including: Canada‘s introduction of ICSP requirements; the
Province of Quebec‘s provincial sustainability action plan based on a four-pillar model
(QMCCSW 2009); New Zealand‘s ‗four well-beings of communities‘ model and its
requirement for local authorities to produce Long-Term Council-Community Plans (LTCCP)
that integrate and interconnect cultural, social, economic, and environmental well-being
(NZMCH 2006a, 2006b); Sweden‘s national municipal association‘s position paper, Culture in
the Sustainable Society (SALAR 2008); the development of a Sustainable Development and
Culture Charter in Lille, France (Cullen 2009); and various U.K. community planning
From the bottom-up: culture in community sustainability planning
initiatives, in particular the operational guide, Sustainable Culture, Sustainable Communities,
produced for the Thames Gateway North Kent region (2006).
Each initiative struggles with defining culture and sustainability in both locally resonant and
policy-relevant ways, and in operationalizing what are inherently ‗slippery‘ concepts within an
evolving field. As instrumentally policy and planning reports, they exist in a grey area between
conceptual development and articulation, and political operationalization. They tend to
encompass the essences of past discussions about the roles of culture in community
development, social cohesion, economic development, and so forth. Due to the contextual nexus
of these documents, there is a very fine line between articulating rationales for the inclusion of
cultural considerations within a sustainable development context and conceptually
demonstrating or advancing this inclusion.
Canada’s Integrated Community Sustainability Plans
In 2005, Canada‘s federal government introduced Gas Tax Fund Agreements, signed in 2005-06
with the provinces and territories, in support of community infrastructure investment, under
which the federal government began to share with municipalities a portion of the federal tax on
The Agreements were conditional upon preparation of Integrated Community
Sustainability Plans (ICSPs) overarching documents, informed by sustainability principles,
intended to align municipal plans and policies under one integrated decision-making framework
(Baxter and Purcell 2007). The GTF agreements allow municipalities to use a portion of gas tax
funds to increase local capacity to undertake community-based planning, which has helped fund
these processes. Since the GTF agreements differ from province to province or territory, several
provinces, territories, and provincial associations of municipalities have developed guides to aid
municipalities in developing ICSPs.
In an analysis of 17 ICSP guides that have been widely used by cities and communities to
determine how the cultural pillar of sustainability has been incorporated into the overall
framework (Duxbury and Jeannotte, forthcoming), we found that only about half of the guides
defined what they meant when they discussed the inclusion of culture or integration of culture
within community sustainability plans. Even fewer mentioned key aspects or notable local
contexts of culture that might influence how communities deal with the fourth pillar in their
plans. Most of the plans accepted the now-common-within-Canada advice that culture
constitutes the fourth pillar of sustainability (as demonstrated in the fact that most of them cited
a rationale for including it). However, the assumption that everyone agrees on what constitutes
‗culture‘ in a community may, in fact, lead to ambiguity in terms of integration and
mechanisms. Nonetheless, it is interesting to recognize the ‗speculative‘ variety inherent in
these early attempts, and the conceptual frameworks and gaps they reveal.
Overall, among the guidance materials developed to lead municipalities through the ICSP
development processes, four major gaps are notable:
1. Definitions of culture. The majority of the community sustainability plan guides lack a
definition of culture or advice on how a community should go about defining its own
culture. Without such a definition, it has been difficult for some communities to follow
through on the various steps needed to integrate culture into sustainability plans. The
nine planning guides offering a definition of culture provided a broad range of
This initiative and the External Advisory Committee on Cities and Communities were established
within the political context of developing a New Deal for Cities and Communities in Canada. By the time
the Committee delivered its final report, the federal ruling party had changed, and the New Deal ceased to
be a policy priority. However, the ICSP requirement was set into programs developed under the previous
government, and they continue in force to the current day.
From the bottom-up: culture in community sustainability planning
interpretations ranging from the anthropological (i.e., focused on community identity
and values) to the expressive (i.e., focusing on heritage buildings and arts and culture
activities and resources) to a combination of the two. The issue of cultural diversity was
mentioned explicitly only by one guide, while another included ‗tolerance of others in
its definition of culture.
2. How to incorporate culture. Most guides failed to discuss the incorporation of culture
into community vision statements or sustainability principles. This may be implied or
even expected by the guides‘ authors in their advice on public consultation and
engagement, but given the fact that many Canadian community ICSPs are driven by gas
tax agreements and focused on obtaining infrastructure funds for environmental
purposes, it cannot be assumed that culture will be included. Ironically, although most
guides were vague about the definition of culture or the need to incorporate it at a high
strategic level, they tended to be very clear about the need to integrate it into overall
community planning policies and processes, usually accompanied by pragmatic
references to the public engagement process.
3. A lack of local contextualization. Very few of the guides suggested that key aspects of
the local, regional, or provincial culture might have an impact on decisions taken with
regard to culture and sustainability. This may be a consequence of the failure to define
what is meant by culture if a generic definition is assumed, those who drafted the
guides may have under-emphasized the need to discuss the unique cultural aspects of a
locality. Nevertheless, reading between the lines, one can discern (for example), a deep
concern about heritage in Nova Scotia, a preoccupation with identity and the
preservation of memory in Quebec, and some unease about industrial decline and
increasing diversity in Ontario.
4. A lack of attention to the implementation and evaluation stages of the
sustainability planning cycle. Again, part of the reason may be that the ICSP process
in Canada has been linked so closely to non-cultural infrastructure aspects of
sustainability. As no funding was directly allocated for cultural infrastructure, there may
have been little incentive to suggest that communities develop indicators of cultural
sustainability or to provide benchmarks of success. Another part of the reason for this
gap may go back to the lack of a definition of culture in most of the guides. Without a
definition of this feature of the sustainability landscape, it becomes very difficult to
develop indicators for it and, hence, to measure success or failure in integrating culture
into sustainability frameworks.
On the positive side, this ‗fuzzy‘ guidance structure has led to innovations in municipalities
particularly eager to include the cultural dimension in its detailed sustainability planning
frameworks. On the negative side (and more commonly) continued uncertainty appears to have
contributed to an underdeveloped attention to the cultural fourth pillar.
Highlights from an analysis of a sample of ICSPs
As seen in the analysis of the guides, within the community sustainability context, the role and
placement of culture is still uncertain, and thus must be worked out through community
dialogues within individual community planning processes. Through Internet searches and
email inquiries, 62 ICSPs or closely related city sustainability plans were identified, in draft
form, fully approved, or under development. The majority of these plans were developed by
small communities or mostly-rural areas.
Among a sample of ICSPs and related sustainability documents developed by small
communities, a few were conceptually holistic in their approach: for example, the Powell River
Sustainability Charter (launched in 2007) defines cultural sustainability as developing,
renewing and maintaining human cultures that create positive, enduring relationships with other
From the bottom-up: culture in community sustainability planning
peoples and the natural world (Alred 2008: 20). More commonly, however, cultural
considerations in ICSPs are linked to (a) community identity, distinctiveness, attractiveness, and
sense of place; and (b) sociability, public participation and voluntarism, social networks, or
community based support systems in the community (Yarmouth 2009: 17). Identity is closely
associated with architectural character, heritage buildings and other historic resources, and
public spaces, with direct operational links to heritage stewardship as well as the recognition
and celebration of rich community histories, multi-cultural origins, and evolving character.
Contextualizing or rationalizing the inclusion of culture in the ICSPs is also two-fold in nature:
the first path emphasizes culture as assets to be exploited in tourism-related economic
development, community attractiveness, downtown revitalization, and the town‘s regional role;
the second emphasizes the social or quality of life aspects of the community, community
engagement and social cohesion, collective identity, and may also address social issues and
challenges such as youth engagement/advancements and cultural diversity.
Overall, the ICSPs feel appropriate and tailored to each community‘s priority environmental and
other issues and concerns, but also seemed to be a ‗missed opportunity for integrating cultural
(and social) aspects into both short- and long-term plans and actions. Concrete actions seem
disconnected from holistic definitions of sustainability or cultural sustainability, action plans do
not tend to prioritize cultural items (if included, they often are listed at a low priority level), and
culture-related items within economic and social sustainability contexts appear to be minor
suggestions in these areas. When overall ICSP implementation schedules are outlined, concrete
actions on the cultural component are delayed when, for example, Years 1 and 2 of ICSP
Implementation are earmarked as planning years for the social and cultural pillars (e.g.,
Chester 2009). Further, culture-specific actions often seem rudimentary, reflecting very early
steps in engaging with the cultural aspects and assets of the community in any planning context.
For example, recommended actions often focus on inventorying the heritage and arts resources,
public awareness-raising, and occasionally the provision of coordinated support. Finally, the
culture-related ideas, visions, and plans brought forth through the ICSP process also seem
undermined or ‗moderated by very limited municipal resources and action commitments.
Larger cities
In larger cities, sustainability planning initiatives are more likely to focus on environmental
challenges (only), reinforced by being explicitly tied to a municipal Sustainability Office. Thus,
policy development is tightly linked to operational programs and lines of responsibility, which
tends to work against holistic, multidimensional, intertwined conceptualizations. Among larger
cities that acknowledge culture within a sustainability framework, four types of situations are
generally observed, roughly delineated by the extent to which culture is integrated into the
overall view of community sustainability:
Cultural considerations are explicitly but tangentially integrated (e.g., cultural
development or cultural legacies are presented as part of the holistic view of a
sustainable city, but not conceptually integrated with other sustainability initiatives).
Culture is included under a social umbrella, with references to cultural diversity and
cultural expressions as part of the community‘s social dimensions.
Culture is included as a separate pillar of sustainability and there are some cultural
references within the economic and social pillars, but the overall integrated nature of
the plan has not gelled and a holistic interconnected vision does not resonate
throughout the plan.
A comprehensive, holistic view of a sustainable community explicitly highlights culture
and attempts to conceptualize this inclusion (e.g., Ottawa, Calgary, Kingston, Port
From the bottom-up: culture in community sustainability planning
Overall, preliminary analyses indicate that the size of the communities, dynamics and pressures
related to population growth or shrinkage, and regional specificities tend to influence the
content of the plan, community views about its culture, and the roles that cultural assets and
characteristics are perceived to play in community (sustainable) development more broadly.
Furthermore, current community development priorities, issues, and gaps understandably tend
to overshadow conceptual frameworks of sustainability at the operationalization or action plan
stage of the ICSP development process. Funding available for ‗green infrastructure‘ and
environmental remediation projects also plays a role in the types of elements that are prioritized
in the follow-up action plans.
Integrated community sustainability plans provide a long-term, ‗joined up planning framework
for a community to collectively envision and decide on strategic directions for its development,
a ‗coordinated approach that both reflects and integrates four dimensions of sustainability. On
the basis of the current research, while the inclusion of culture within small city planning is
gradually advancing, integration of cultural considerations within a holistic planning paradigm
has not yet been achieved.
While the explicit adoption of a four-pillar model of sustainability in Canada has been an
important step in recognizing the importance of culture and the multifaceted contributions it
makes and, potentially, in launching more holistic ways of thinking about and planning
communities, the impact on understanding the place of culture in sustainable development is
less clear.
Conceptual issues and avenues
At present, thinking about culture in a community sustainability context is emergent, diversely
conceived, overly focused on the concrete, tends to overstress (heritage) preservation and not
discuss (future) resiliency and change, and is generally missing a systems approach that
holistically links past, present, and future, and links culture with other domains.
Communities on the edge such as those in Canada‘s North – may serve as particularly
instructive and insightful cases. Described as being ‗always at risk of losing capacity, cultural
depth, and self-reliance (Yukon, Part 1: 15), cultural sustainability goals look to ‗a more self-
reliant community (one that is not losing capacity and culture)‘ and enhanced community
identity where development is respectful of the community‘s cultural identity, landmarks are
preserved, cultural values are recognized as part of the planning process, and infrastructure
development is culturally appropriate in design, placement, and approach and thus enhances the
community‘s cultural identity (p. 15). Similarly, Quebec‘s long-standing attention to its cultural
and linguistic identity tends to underlie a comprehensive view of culture, much more holistic
than in other cases, encompassing multiple definitions.
Overall, based on the array of plans and guides reviewed, it appears that the development of
conceptual frameworks for considering culture should be systems-based and threefold in nature,
encompassing and balancing notions of:
1. Historical/heritage vitality including preservation of intangible and physical assets and
their integration into the community‘s life both in the present and the future;
2. ‗Cultural vitality‘ including dynamic contemporary processes and opportunities to
engage in a variety of ways through multiple channels; and
From the bottom-up: culture in community sustainability planning
3. Culture as values and that which is valued, shaping a way of life and interactions with
an environment.
Further, it seems that the model of a cultural lens on all matters may be more fruitful as an
analogy than that of a pillar, which tends to atomize and silo cultural considerations into a
separate chapter in the plans.
Applied fields ... in transition
Individual communities form the terrain for working out conceptual frameworks and ideas
about a healthy, vibrant, inclusive, and sustainable community. From this perspective, the text
that is worked out in the ICSPs (usually a collaboration between the local government and its
community, with consultant-led facilitation and expertise also inserted) involves a process of
adopting resonating paradigms about the ‗good community‘ while also learning to adopt a
systems-based manner of thinking. In shifting to a ‗sustainability‘ mindset, it is clear that this
process of transition is also enmeshed in issues of ‗continuity‘ as understood by the community,
including recognition and remediation of neglect or damage conducted to date. Explicit linkages
with scientific literature are rare.
As an applied field, the planning processes entailed in sustainable community planning require
that conceptual thinking about sustainability be linked with ideas about community
development. In the process of developing the ICSPs, prevailing discourses that link across
departments and sectors, and resonate with political decision-makers and other community
leaders, are shifting to a more long-term, holistic, systems-based, and environmentally-minded
manner of thinking and planning. Multiple conceptual frameworks feed into this arena,
including ideas about ‗healthy communities‘, ‗vibrant communities‘, ‗creative cities‘,
community (economic) development, ‗complete communities‘, ‗resilient communities‘, and
‗sustainable communities‘. Two commonly reoccurring grounding references found in the plans
are to the Melbourne Principles and the Natural Step Framework. Thinking about this may also
be enriched by encompassing models such as the nine fundamental human needs and 12 key
community systems (Park et al. 2009). Linking the emerging sustainability paradigm with
existing thematic plans and strategies (each created according to the norms and paradigms of the
individual fields) is a necessary but complicating process of moving forward.
Use-contexts political, bureaucratic, and in the community are shaped in part by these
discursive flows and dictate what is possible in official documents and plans. Local specificities
define the evolving terrain and, amidst an array of interests, ideas, opportunities, and challenges,
determine how best to proceed at the time. Culture to put a spotlight on the central concern of
this paper is the social product of an assembly of many small organizations, entrepreneurial
and activist individuals, other residents, and visitors, and must be collectively nurtured,
developed, and sustained over time. The specificities of individual communities geographic
location, environmental features, and economic resources; historic roles, heritage, and
contemporary mix of cultures; community activism, entrepreneurialism, and identity provide a
diversity of fields of action to actively create and recreate each city‘s distinct sense of place and
ways of being. Culture plays an important role in the dynamic process of balancing these
myriad interests and actors as part of the community‘s ‗continuous renewal through balance and
interconnectedness‘ (Kingston 2009: 1).
The four-pillar model of sustainability represents an in-process paradigm shift for both the
discipline of sustainability and the community and cultural planning fields. The struggles
evident in organizing the ICSP planning processes and documents and, especially, in
operationalizing an integrated view of community sustainability reflects Western society‘s
tendency to silo and divide rather than think in holistic, cyclical manners. Difficult as the
transition to a more holistic perspective may be, it would appear necessary if culture is to be
integrated effectively into local dialogues about sustainability.
From the bottom-up: culture in community sustainability planning
Alred, J. 2008, August. Sustainability charter for Powell River: base document. Report
developed for Vancouver Island University (Powell River site).
Baxter, K.H. and M. Purcell. 2007, November. Community sustainability planning. Municipal
world, pp. 35-38.
Berkes, F. 1998. Cultural and natural capital: a systems approach revisited. In A. Mendis, ed.
Social capital formation and institutions for sustainability. Vancouver: University of British
Birkeland, I and K. Soini, 2010. ‗Developing the role and meaning of cultural sustainability in
cultural policy‘. Paper presented at the International Conference on Cultural Policy Research,
Jyväskylä, Finland, August.
Brocchi, D. 2008. The cultural dimension of sustainability. In S. Kagan and V. Kirchberg, eds.
Sustainability: a new frontier for the arts and culture. Frankfurt: Verlag für Akademische
Schriften, p. 26-58.
Carruthers, B. 2006. Mapping the terrain of contemporary ecoart practice and collaboration.
Paper prepared for ‗Art in Ecology A Think Tank on Arts and Sustainability‘, Vancouver.
Chester, District of. 2009. Integrated community sustainability plan.
City of Ottawa, City of Gatineau, and National Capital Commission. 2010. Choosing our future
Cullen, C. 2009. Lille and the Agenda 21 for culture. In Cities, cultures and developments: a
report that marks the fifth anniversary of Agenda 21 for culture. Barcelona: Committee on
Culture of United Cities and Local Governments, p. 42-47.
Davies, W.K.D. and D.F. Brown. 2006. Culturing sustainability: towards frameworks of
understanding. In J. C.-K. Lee and M. Williams, eds. Environmental and geographic education
for sustainability: cultural contexts. New York: Nova Science, p. 23-38.
Doubleday, N., F. Mackenzie and S. Dalby. 2004. Reimagining sustainable cultures:
constitutions, land and art. Canadian geographer, Vol. 48, no 40, p. 389-402.
Duxbury, N. Forthcoming. Shifting strategies and contexts for culture in small city planning:
Interlinking quality of life, economic development, downtown vitality, and community
sustainability. In A. Lorentzen and B. van Heur (Eds.), Cultural political economy of small
cities. London: Routledge.
Duxbury, N. and E. Gillette. 2007. Culture as a key dimension of sustainability: exploring
concepts, themes, and models. Vancouver: Centre of Expertise on Culture and Communities,
Simon Fraser University.
Duxbury, N., E. Gillette and K. Pepper. 2007. Exploring the cultural dimensions of
sustainability. Creative city news: special edition, no. 4. Vancouver: Creative City Network of
Duxbury, N. and M.S. Jeannotte. Forthcoming. Including culture in sustainability: an
assessment of Canada‘s integrated community sustainability plans. Submitted to Sustainability:
science, practice, and policy (special issue on ‗The missing pillar? Bolstering the social
dimension in sustainability projects‘).
From the bottom-up: culture in community sustainability planning
Duxbury, N. and M.S. Jeannotte. 2010. ‗Culture, sustainability, and communities: exploring the
myths‘. Paper presented at the International Conference on Cultural Policy Research, Jyväskylä,
Finland, August.
Duxbury, N. and A. Russo. Forthcoming. Making the case for culture at the local level,
nationally: the role for the Creative City Network of Canada. Submitted to Multi-disciplinary
research in the arts.
External Advisory Committee on Cities and Communities. 2006. From restless communities to
resilient places: building a stronger future for all Canadians. Ottawa: Infrastructure Canada.
Focus Kingston. 2009, November 10. Sustainable Kingston: designing our community’s
future…together. Draft 1 (v5).
Fry, T. 2008. Design futuring: Sustainability, ethics and new practice. Oxford: Berg.
Gattinger, M. 2008. Multilevel governance and cultural infrastructure: a review of Canadian and
international experience. Appendix B in N. Duxbury, ed. Under construction: the state of
cultural infrastructure in Canada. Vancouver: Centre of Expertise on Culture and
Communities, Simon Fraser University.
Glotfelty, C. and H. Fromm (eds.). 1996. The ecocriticism reader. Athens: University of
Georgia Press.
Government of Canada, 2005. Integrated community sustainability planning a background
paper. Discussion paper for Planning for Sustainable Canadian Communities Roundtable,
organized by the Prime Minister‘s External Advisory on Cities and Communities, September
Gražulevičiūtė, I. 2006. Cultural heritage in the context of sustainable development.
Environmental research, engineering and management, Vol. 3, no. 37, p. 74-79.
Hartley, J. 2009. Arts and ecological sustainability. D’Art topics in arts policy, No. 34,
International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies, Sydney,
Hawkes, J. 2001. The fourth pillar of sustainability: culture’s essential role in public planning.
Melbourne: Common Ground.
Hawkes, J. 2006. Creative democracy‘. Keynote at ‗Interacció ‘06: Community Cultural
Policies‘, Barcelona.
Kagan, S. and V. Kirchberg (eds.). 2008. Sustainability: a new frontier for the arts and culture.
Frankfurt: Verlag für Akademische Schriften.
Kingston Sustainability Summit. 2009, July. Kingston integrated community sustainability plan
(ICSP): sustainability summit results, May 25-29, 2009.
Nadarajah, M. 2000. City, culture and sustainable development: towards a cultural framework
for sustainable urbanization. In Report of the international conference on culture in
sustainability of cities I. Kanazawa: IICRC, p. 48-61.
Nurse, K. 2006. Culture as the fourth pillar of sustainable development. Report prepared for
Commonwealth Secretariat, UK.
From the bottom-up: culture in community sustainability planning
NZMCH (New Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage). 2006a. Cultural well-being and
local government. report 1: definition and context of cultural well-being. Wellington: NZMCH.
NZMCH. 2006b. Cultural well-being and local government: report 2: resources for developing
cultural strategies and measuring cultural well-being. Wellington: NZMCH.
Paliwal, P. 2005. Sustainable development and systems thinking: a case study of a heritage city.
International journal of sustainable development and world ecology, Vol. 12, no 2, p. 213-220.
Park, C., M. Purcell and J. Purkis. 2009. Natural step integrated community sustainability
planning a guide. Ottawa: The Natural Step Canada.
Pascual, J. 2009. Culture and sustainable development: examples of institutional innovation and
proposal of a new cultural policy profile. Barcelona: Committee on Culture of the United Cities
and Local Governments.
QMCCSW (Quebec Ministry of Culture, Communications and the Status of Women). 2009.
Notre culture, au coeur du développement durable: plan d’action de développement durable
2009-2013. Quebec: QMCCSW.
Rana, R.S.J.B. and A.L. Piracha. 2007. Cultural frameworks. In M. Nadarajah and A.T.
Yamamoto, eds. Urban crisis. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, p. 13-50.
Roseland, M. et al. 2005. Towards sustainable communities: resources for citizens and their
governments. Gabriola Island: New Society.
Russo, A. and Butler, D. (2007) Cultural planning toolkit. Vancouver: Creative City Network of
Canada and 2010 Legacies Now.
SALAR (Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions). 2008. Culture in the
sustainable society. Stockholm: SALAR.
Soini, K. and I. Birkeland. 2009. ‗From policy to practices: the discourse on cultural
sustainability‘. Paper presented at the Nordic Conference on Cultural Policy, Jyväskylä, August.
Stren, R. and M. Polèse. 2000. The new sociocultural dynamics of cities. In M. Polèse and R.
Stren, eds. The social sustainability of cities: diversity and the management of change. Toronto:
U of Toronto Press.
Thames Gateway North Kent. 2006. Sustainable culture, sustainable communities: the cultural
framework and toolkit for Thames Gateway North Kent.
Throsby, D. 1999. Cultural capital. Journal of cultural economics, Vol. 23, p. 3-12.
Tiwari, S.R. 2007. Transforming cultural heritage into sustainable future: a case study of Patan,
Nepal. In M. Nadarajah and A.T. Yamamoto, eds. Urban crisis. Tokyo: United Nations
University Press, p. 62-106.
UNESCO. 2005. Convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural
Varbanova, L. 2008. Culture and sustainability: building linkages from the ground up (Europe).
Report developed for the Centre of Expertise on Culture and Communities, Simon Fraser
From the bottom-up: culture in community sustainability planning
World Bank/UNESCO. 1998. ‗Culture in Sustainable Development: Investing in Cultural and
Natural Endowments conference, Washington.
World Bank/UNESCO. 1999. Understanding culture in sustainable development: investing in
cultural and natural endowments. (Conference proceedings and discussion paper). Washington.
Yan, Y. et al. 2008. Analysis of the role of the Mosuo culture in local environmental protection
in Lugu Lake region. International journal of sustainable development and world ecology, Vol.
15, p. 48-55.
Yarmouth, Municipality of the District of. 2009. Integrated community sustainability plan.
Yukon (Department of Community Services, Government of Yukon). No date. Integrated
community sustainability plan template (part 1). Whitehorse: Government of Yukon.
... This "classic formulation", however, has been subject to challenge and critique. Some scholars accept the triad structure but underline the urgency of providing a balance among the three components and integrating them as the prerequisite for achieving sustainability (Neuman 1998, Berke 2002, Winston and Pareja Eastaway 2008, Dale and Newman 2010, Peterson 2016), others from a revisionary standpoint propose alternatives and challenge the accuracy and sufficiency of the proposed triad framework (Hawkes 2001, Godschalk 2004, Duxbury and Jeannotte 2010, Burford et al. 2013, Soini and Birkeland 2014, Leal Filho et al. 2016. Here, we reflect on a number of key critiques that will help us gain a more nuanced understanding of the debate. ...
... They propose that due to the growing significance of geographical and cultural diversity in the world and a cultural turn which involves language and new roles of culture in society, "cultural sustainability" must be presented as the fourth and parallel dimension to ecological, economic, and social sustainability. In some countries such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, local planning authorities have included cultural aspects into their sustainability initiatives (Duxbury and Jeannotte 2010). ...
... Scholars who call for integrating the three pillars of sustainable development recognise "social dimension" as a valid component, underline its under-developed and under-theorised status, and call for more theoretical and empirical investigations (Littig andGriessler 2005, Peterson 2016). Both perspectives of revisionist approach either recognise the social pillar of sustainable development as an integral component of sustainable development despite adding new pillars (Hawkes 2001, Godschalk 2004, Duxbury and Jeannotte 2010, Burford et al. 2013, Soini and Birkeland 2014, Leal Filho et al. 2016), or where new frameworks are introduced, social dimension is included but with different terminology (Seghezzo 2009). For example, in Seghezzo's framework, the proposed dimension of "Person" has social implications and includes interaction between humans, human values, quality of life, social justice, and alike. ...
This article presents a critical reflection on the theory and practice of social sustainability in the built environment, identifies areas of agreement and disagreement, explores theoretical and conceptual gaps and challenges, and suggests practical implications for future research and urban policy. It argues that despite revisionist approaches which challenge the tripartite structure of sustainable development, social dimension of sustainability remains an essential valid pillar. Utilising a qualitative meta-analysis methodology for undertaking critical analysis of previous research and publications on the topic, key themes of theory and practice of social sustainability are identified and critically examined. Accordingly, 10 key formative characteristics of social sustainability and their research and policy implications are introduced. The article concludes with institutional observations for policy-makers to achieve greater success in addressing largely underestimated dimensions of social sustainability in urban settings.
... Así, el enfoque de la sostenibilidad, aparece como res‑ puesta crítica a esta orientación de planificación pública presentada como modelo de éxito y fuertemente influida por las recomendaciones de Richard Florida (2002). El enfoque de la sostenibilidad ha adquirido notable relevancia en el mundo anglosajón, tanto en el ámbito de la planificación pública, como en el académico (Jeannotte y Duxbury, 2010). El estudio de la relación cultura‑ ‑sostenibilidad emerge ligado a la planificación pública; así, el análisis de las tensiones entre nivel conceptual ‑normativo ‑operativo de la sostenibilidad ¿Ciudad creativa y sostenible? ...
... En con‑ secuencia, la política cultural local ha evolucionado de la perspectiva de la 36 | Ma. Victoria Sánchez Belando, Joaquim Rius Ulldemolins, Matías I. Zarlenga planificación y provisión directa de servicios culturales al rol de facilitador y catalizador (Duxbury y Jeannotte, 2010), instalando con esta acción, escenarios potencialmente más participativos, dado el nuevo planteamiento en la relación entre sector privado, tercer sector y la ciudadanía en general en la creación, en la gestión cultural y en el diseño de políticas dirigidas al sector cultural. No obstante, esta potencialidad no se ha concretado de forma equilibrada y en cambio parece, como veremos, haberse materializado un predominio creciente de los sectores privados en la política cultural. ...
Full-text available
Culture has become one of the key elements in the economic and social development and identity of cities. In this sense, cultural policies have taken a local, entrepreneurial turn, which has been described as the creative city. However, there have been growing calls for new paradigms in which culture can contribute towards a more sustainable form of development. Within this context, Barcelona has developed a cultural policy model which has been presented as a balanced synthesis of the models for the creative and the sustainable city. Local government has therefore played a leading role in the movement for sustainable and participatory cultural policies for cities. However, some of the measures associated with the planning of cultural facilities, participation in culture and the organisation of big events indicate that the strategy that has been adopted faces contradictions and limitations regarding the involvement of the artistic and local community.
... In fact, culture has been integrated into New Zealand's sustainable wellbeing framework. Moreover, strategies for cultural heritage preservation and the related importance for collective identities have also been subjects of debate in regional development studies [6]. ...
Full-text available
This paper seeks to contribute to a better understanding of cultural sustainability in mountain regions by offering perspectives for sustainable governance at the intersection of intangible cultural heritage preservation and local tourism development. For this purpose, the influence of tourism on intangible cultural heritage was studied in the context of the practice of transhumance, an ancient form of pastoralism. This paper focuses on the case of South Tyrol, Italy, a touristically highly developed region where cross-border transhumance was granted intangible cultural heritage status by UNESCO in 2019. Adopting a qualitative approach, 13 interviews were conducted with cattle and sheep farmers, cultural practitioners, and experts as well as tourism representatives. Highlighting the benefits of including culture in the discussion about sustainability, the paper seeks to inform local governance measures for enhanced cultural heritage preservation and sustainable tourism.
... (12) Having placed culture firmly within the sustainability paradigm and given clear marching orders with regard to stakeholder consultation and engagement, the federal government then turned to the provinces and the municipalities to determine how these elements would be integrated into the ICSPs. Our broader research project examines provincial and local efforts to conceptualize and integrate cultural considerations within local sustainability planning processes (Duxbury and Jeannotte 2010). For this article, we focused on the interaction of professional and amateur expertise within the type of complex and uncertain situation highlighted in third wave SSK studies. ...
Full-text available
In 2005, the federal government introduced a requirement that Canadian communities develop Integrated Community Sustainability Plans (ICSPs) in order to access Gas Tax money. These plans were to be based on a four-pillar model of sustainability that included not only environmental responsibility, but also economic health, social equity and cultural vitality. As communities set out to fulfill this requirement, they had to adopt new techniques to describe relationships among the four pillars and to engage a wide variety of stakeholders in the development of the plans. This article explores how ideas about culture and sustainability circulated among both experts (cultural planners) and non-experts (citizens), including the part played by new technologies in the exchange of ideas among stakeholders. It explores how the public was involved in determining the 'public interest' in these areas, and examines how experts interpreted their roles in the ICSP development process and engaged in the various stages of facilitating, guiding, framing, and informing public deliberation. The article also considers the contributions that both experts and non-experts made in articulating a vision for culture within the four-pillar model of sustainability. Keywords: Culture, sustainability, communities, experts, citizens
Full-text available
ABSTRACT Demand for healthy food consumption is a basic right for a person. For covering this demand, several alternative farming systems, especially organic farming, are developed. Relations of organic farming with local culture and space are research gap. For filling research gap this thesis is conducted in Aydın and Van Provinces (Turkey). A mixed method including survey and in-depth interview technics which are applied on stakeholders in organic farming sector are carried out. Research mainly focuses on explanation of relations between organic farming and culture, space and development (CSD) dynamics. CSD Model is developed to understand this relation in holistic perspective. The model is put forwarded as basic argument for having a clear understand about organic farming. The findings clarify that there is a link between organic farming and local culture in research areas. This link is shown through farming practices and transmission of local farming knowledge. Also organic farming spaces are conceptualised under six subjects. Organic farming contributes to rural development via farming incentives, contrary to production sell. Organic farming sector in Turkey have not able to access desired trend yet. Basic reason for it is that knowledge and consciousness level of farmers and consumers are not enough. Also there are a issue of trust against to organic food. However; it is possible to overcome these mistakes in organic farming sector, thanks to suitable political strategies. Keywords: Organic Farming, Culture, Space, Sustainable Rural Development, Organic Farming Policy, Farming Resilience, CSD Model. ÖZET Sağlıklı gıda tüketim talebi bir bireyin en doğal hakkıdır. Bu talebin karşılanması amacıyla başta organik tarım olmak üzere alternatif yetiştiricilik sistemleri geliştirilmiştir. Organik tarımın yerel kültür ve mekan ile ilişkisi literatürde üzerinde durulmayan konulardır. Bu araştırma, literatürdeki bu boşluğu doldurmak amacıyla Aydın ve Van illerinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmada organik tarım sektöründe faaliyet yürüten paydaşlara yönelik anket ve derinlemesine görüşmeleri içeren karma yöntem uygulanmıştır. Araştırma organik tarım ile kültür, mekan ve kalkınma (KMK) dinamikleri arasındaki ilişkinin açıklanması üzerine odaklanmaktadır. Bu ilişkinin bütüncül perspektiften açıklanmasında KMK Modeli geliştirilmiştir. KMK Modeli organik tarımın anlaşılmasında temel bir argüman olarak ileri sürülmektedir. Elde edilen bulgular ortaya koymaktadır ki organik tarım ile her iki yörenin kültürü arasında bir bağlantı vardır. Bu bağlantı tarımsal pratiklerde ve bilgi aktarımında ortaya çıkmakta ve tarımsal dirençle ilişkilidir. Ayrıca organik tarım mekanları altı başlık altında kavramsallaştırılmıştır. Organik tarım kırsal kalkınmaya ürün satışından ziyade devlet teşvikleri aracılığıyla katkı sunmaktadır. Türkiye’de organik tarım sektörü henüz istenilen gelişimi yakalayamamıştır. Bunun temel nedeni üretici ve tüketicinin organik tarım konusundaki bilgi ve bilinç düzeyinin yetersizliği ile organik ürüne ilişkin güven sorunudur. Ancak belirlenecek doğru politik stratejilerle sektördeki yanlışlıkların düzeltilmesi şimdilik mümkün görünmektedir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Organik Tarım, Kültür, Mekan, Sürdürülebilir Kırsal Kalkınma, Organik Tarım Politikası, Tarımsal Direnç, KMK Modeli
The creative city model has been the subject of increasing debate since the 1980s, especially in the context of cities, which have converted culture into a central element of their development model. However, less attention has been paid to the influence of the local development model on the local cultural policy and their hidden and long-term effects as cultural ‘white elephants’. This chapter will focus on analysing the city of València that has used culture as a central element in its economic and urban development. This urban phenomenon combines cultural legitimation, wasteful investments, financial and social unsustainability, and, at the least, corruption.
Full-text available
The search for sustainable futures calls forward a cultural change process. The cultural dimension of (un)sustainability stands at the core of the global crisis, pointing at the roots of unsustainable development and exploring alternatives. While sustainability offers an inspiring research field for artists and other cultural actors, the arts and other cultural sectors constitute experimental, reflexive and transformative fields for the advancement of sustainability. This book explores the manifold dimensions of that new mutual frontier: The twenty-one selected texts offer interdisciplinary insights from sociology, economics, phenomenology and philosophy, and from artists actively contributing to the search process of sustainability. The twenty-one authors share their experiences from Europe, Asia, North and Central America and Africa. Cultural actors and artists around the world as well as civil society organizations and institutional actors will find significant insights for their work in this book. This book also sets a landmark for a new research approach that will interest students,researchers and educators in the fields of arts and culture (including fashion and creative industries), as well as in the fields of sustainability, peace studies, ecology, systems thinking, globalization and development.
Full-text available
Lugu Lake region not only has a plateau lake, which has important ecological functions, but also a unique matriarchal culture and Axia marriage. The natural ecology and water quality in Lugu Lake region have remained good for generations, not only because of the relatively closed geography and local economic underdevelopment but also because of the local Mosuo culture. To understand the relationship between the Mosuo culture and protection of the local environment, it is necessary to understand current Mosuo ideology and life styles in relation to potential environmental change. We undertook an investigation from 2004–2006 in the Lugu Lake region, talking to many Mosuo families and tourists. A questionnaire survey was conducted, with 136 questions for Mosuo families and 72 questions for tourists. Analysis of the results indicates that the Mosuo matriarchal families, Axia marriage, traditional religious beliefs and life style have played an important role in natural resources use, population control and environmental protection. Recently, with the rapid development of transportation and tourism, communication between Lugu Lake region and the outside has increased, leading to changes in traditional Mosuo culture and ideology that affect their roles in environmental protection. Changes in Mosuo ideology, family, marriage form, production system, life style, environmental consciousness and protection motivation may profoundly impact the local environment. Thus, careful development of Mosuo culture is essential to harmonise its relationship with the environment and regional sustainable development.
Full-text available
Globalisation is about the interconnection of peoples places in accelerated ways, but it is also about resistance and adaptation in the face of change. Discussions of sustainability now incorporate both dynamic understandings of culture and the recognition that place matters because the practices that are in need of sustaining, as well as those that pose threats, happen in particular communities and in specific geographic contexts. Culture is codified not only in property rights and legislation, but also in the public artistic expressions of peoples and places. Case studies from Nunavut and Scotland show the interrelationships of sovereignty and claims to identity and community. Art, as a result of creative action in the case of Cape Dorset Inuit printmakers and carvers on Baffin Island, and a millennium tapestry telling the stories of the Isle of Harris, complement matters of property rights. Both discussions show that identity is about material culture and property relations in respect of land. Serious discussions of sustainability, in contrast to the technical practices frequently invoked using the term sustainable development, require considerations of the dynamics of complex cultural arrangements in particular places, rather than assumptions of stability of either peoples or their ecological contexts.
Full-text available
A broader concept of sustainable development includes not only environmental, but also economic, social and cultural aspects. Lots of researches implemented around the world demonstrate that preservation of cultural heritage enhances environmental, social, cultural and economic sustainability. Cultural heritage can contribute towards well-being and quality of life of communities, can help to mitigate the impacts of cultural globalization and can become an incentive for sustainable economic development. Preservation of cultural heritage is often understood as a barrier to economic development, though various economic benefits can be generated by cultural heritage and its preservation: creation of income and jobs, job training and maintenance of craftsmanship skills, revival of city centers, heritage tourism, increase in property values, enhancement of small business et cetera. Re-use of abandoned or inefficiently used historic buildings is fundamental for reviving communities and improving quality of life. In order to implement sustainable development strategies and to improve quality of life it is essential to recognize cultural heritage as a valuable resource and development incentive. The influence of immovable cultural heritage on implementing strategies of sustainable development, the role of cultural heritage in the context of globalization as a basic means for avoiding the trend of cultural globalization, creation of sustainable communities and a possible impact of heritage resources on economic development and resource productivity are discussed in the paper.
The concept of sustainable cities is based on a development paradigm that recognizes that cities make an important contribution to social and economic development. System thinking, including hard and soft systems, can be used to provide a new perspective and tools to resolve questions. The 500-year-old heritage city of Udaipur in India, which has traditionally maintained the spirit of living in a sustainable manner, is now seeking sustainable development. This paper attempts to analyse the issues underlying sustainable development of Udaipur by applying CATWOE in order to comprehend the systemic elements of the city from a soft systems perspective.
Many of the most critical global environmental issues are rooted in local, day-to-day problems. Local decisions about such issues benefit all citizens globally. This book attempts to identify and document the current range of initiatives toward developing sustainable communities. Dozens of tools, initiatives, and resources are presented, accompanied by hundreds of references to aid readers in their own research. Part 1 explores the meaning of sustainable development and its implications for communities. A framework for sustainable community development is also presented. Part 2 is comprised of a set of sustainable community building blocks. Each chapter provides an overview explaining the topic and its relevance to sustainable communities followed by a set of planning tools, practical initiatives, and associated resources that have helped citizens and their governments move toward sustainable communities. Part 3 focuses on mobilizing citizens and their governments toward sustainable communities. It concentrates on government of sustainable communities and tools for managing community sustainability, and concludes with lessons for designing effective sustainable community development policies. Topics include urban agriculture and aquatic systems, water and sewage, conservation issues, air quality, transportation planning, land use, housing, and community economic development. This book focuses on the developed countries of North America, i.e., the United States and Canada. (PVD)