2. Urban regeneration and sustainability in contemporary cities
2.7. Sustainable development and sustainability
Figure 2.1: The ‘Planner’s triangle’ (Campbell, 1996).
Planners must thus attempt to reconcile three conflicting interests within planning and development:
to grow the economy, distribute this growth fairly, and prevent harm to the earth’s ecosystems.
Conflicts however arise between these goals, illustrated by the property conflict, the resource conflict and the development conflict; and planners often ultimately represent one particular goal, consequently neglecting the other two (Campbell, 1996). The centre of the triangle represents a balance of the three goals, and perhaps the most important issue spatial planning seeks to address in contemporary cities: sustainable development, and the transition to sustainability (Rees, 1995;
Campbell, 1996; Jepson, 2004; McCarthy, 2004; Conroy, 2006). There is now a need to promote proactive, flexible and inclusive planning processes to ensure inclusive, productive and sustainable futures for cities (Beall and Fox, 2009). The following section outlines the main concepts of sustainable development and sustainability, which will be investigated in this study through the exploration of mega-projects and urban regeneration in Durban.
policies and strategies, and thus urges the expansion of the economic calculus to include both development and sustainability, requiring that particular attention be paid to the health of nature and the well-being of people and the environment (Gibbs et al, 1998; Meadows, 1998; Omann and Spangenberg, 2002; Hopwood et al, 2005). Sustainable development thus reflects a concern to promote development that applies the principles of intra-generational and inter-generational equity, and policies towards it require the integration of economic, social, environmental and institutional objectives into a coherent strategy protecting the core interests of each (Omann and Spangenberg, 2002; McCarthy, 2004). This concept has the “potential to address fundamental challenges for humanity, now and into the future” (Hopwood et al, 2005: 38), and is incorporated within the planning and policy of cities around the world (Couch and Dennemann, 2000), including Durban.
Three imperatives of sustainable development can be identified as the environmental imperative of living within ecological means, thus protecting and restoring the environment; the economic imperative of meeting basic material needs, and improving economic efficiency; and the social imperative of meeting basic social needs and cultural sustainability, thereby enhancing social well- being (Holling et al, 1998; Schwabe, 2002; Hopwood et al, 2005; Gończ et al, 2007). The overall systems that must be made desirable, and so maintained, are thus not simply ecosystems, but socio- ecological systems. Sustainable development must therefore aim to promote and preserve socio- ecological systems at all levels that are dynamic, adaptable, satisfying, resilient, and therefore durable in the long term (Gibson, 2006). It consequently suggests a type of development which requires a transformation of both people-to-nature and people-to-people relationships on the local to global scale (Rees, 1995).
Sustainable development is related to the concept of sustainability, as social, environmental and economic sustainability should be integrated in order to begin to make development more sustainable (Clark, 1995; Goodland, 1995). Sustainability is an innovative normative concept, which Berkes et al (2003) defines as the maintenance of the capacity of ecological systems to support social and economic systems. Focusing on sustainability thus implies avoiding practices which appear to be acceptable in the short term, but which, in reality, undermine future possibilities (McGranahan et al, 1996; Folke et al, 2003). This study will explore the extent to which the city of Durban incorporates sustainability within its urban regeneration strategies.
2.7.1 The four dimensions of sustainability
Sustainability is defined as having four dimensions: the social, environmental, economic and institutional (Spangenberg et al, 2002). The environmental dimension of sustainability has simply been defined as the sum of all bio-geological processes and their elements; and ecological sustainability involves the long-term viability, protection and maintenance of natural systems, both as providers of inputs and ‘sinks’ for wastes, as well as for their intrinsic value (Goodland, 1995;
Swilling, 2003; Jepson, 2004; Conroy, 2006; Roberts et al, 2009).
The social dimension of sustainability focuses on a number of elements, including individual human beings, their skills, their dedication, experiences and resulting behaviour; and has therefore been somewhat more difficult to define (Valentin and Spangenberg, 2000; Spangenberg et al, 2002).
Social sustainability involves the long-term viability of social systems, which incorporate aspects such as the cohesion of communities, cultural identity, diversity, equity, tolerance, fellowship, and commonly accepted standards of honesty, laws and discipline. Social sustainability can only be achieved through systematic community participation and strong civil society, and requires shared values, equal rights, and community, religious and cultural interactions (Goodland, 1995; Schwabe, 2002; Swilling, 2003; Jepson, 2004; Conroy, 2006).
The economic dimension of sustainability relates to aspects such as the role of human-made capital, the maintenance of capital, the efficient use of resources, the promotion of competitiveness and the viability of various sectors. It also encompasses the promotion of economic growth and development, and the diversification of income sources within the carrying capacity of the environment (Goodland, 1995; European Commission, 2001; Jepson, 2004; Conroy, 2006).
The fourth dimension of sustainability is institutions, which are understood as being the achievements which arise from human interaction, including formal and informal organisations; as well as the systems of rules, or codes of conduct, which are created to govern interactions amongst members of a society through defining practices and assigning roles (Valentin and Spangenberg, 2000;
Spangenberg et al, 2002; Berkes et al, 2003; Colding et al, 2003; Gunderson, 2003). These aspects are important in terms of governing within sustainability, which includes strong leadership and democratic governance (Schwabe, 2002; Gibson, 2006), which is required to manage the enhancement of the other elements of sustainability. Each of these dimensions will be incorporated
within the exploration of the relationship between urban regeneration and sustainability, which is the focus of this study.
2.7.2 The complex nature of sustainability
Sustainability is a multi-faceted concept, which is inherently dynamic, as a result of constantly striving for balance amid varying background conditions; indefinite, as it is based on abstract, context-specific and long-term goals; and contested, due to the array of human values, perceptions and competing political interests which the concept evokes. It is understood differently by various groups of people; and a common definition is therefore difficult to construct, posing a challenge when attempting to reach consensus on the best way in which sustainability may be achieved (Dalal et al, 2003; Mog, 2004; Faber et al, 2005).
A critical consideration in cities in developing countries is whether it is possible to tackle historically unprecedented rates of urban poverty while stimulating sustainable economic development (Beall and Fox, 2009). There must therefore be a focus on the interface and trade-offs between the objectives of economic and social development, and environmental protection (Lehtonen, 2004;
Hermans and Knippenberg, 2006). This is a crucial consideration in a city such as Durban, as the city has included sustainability as a fundamental objective within its policy framework and development rhetoric. The following section examines the types of sustainability, which are determined by the choices and trade-offs that are made by cities.
2.7.3 Weak and strong sustainability
It becomes crucial to distinguish between different types of sustainability, as each represents a paradigm shift of differing proportions; and the two main categories which emerge are that of weak sustainability and strong sustainability. As stated by Ekins et al (2003), a description of weak environmental sustainability derives from the idea that welfare is not normally dependent on a specific form of capital, and can be maintained by substituting manufactured or human-made capital for natural capital. The underlying assumption of weak sustainability is therefore that there is no critical difference between different forms of capital, or between the kinds of welfare which they generate. A weak sustainability view gives greater weight to environmental considerations, while maintaining that they must be balanced against the benefits of economic development, and trade-offs are therefore still possible (Owens, 1994; Gibbs et al, 1998; Ekins et al, 2003; Gończ et al, 2007).
Strong sustainability challenges the view that all forms of capital are substitutable, and advocates that the substitutability of manufactured or human-made capital for natural capital is seriously limited by environmental characteristics such as irreversibility, uncertainty and the existence of ‘critical’
components of natural capital, which are viewed as being essential to human well-being, and are therefore irreplaceable. Many also regard natural capital as a complement to manufactured or human- made capital in many instances, and thus great importance is placed on it. Within strong sustainability, environmental capacities are regarded as ultimately placing constraints on economic activity (Owens, 1994; Ekins et al, 2003). Socio-political systems and the economy are seen as embedded within ecosystem services; and good governance is responsible for regulating the relationship between these components, as well as the integrity of these relationships (Gibson et al, 2008).
The decisions that are made concerning which of these sustainability paths will be followed affect the long term viability and prosperity of any entity undertaking such a transition. The ultimate goal is global sustainability, with the ideal being based on the vision of strong sustainability. However the environment cannot be managed successfully at the global level without first achieving progress towards sustainability at the local level. It is therefore essential to focus on sustainability at the local level as a gateway, with cities providing a unique opportunity for the move towards sustainability to be explored, and the most appropriate platform for the delivery of sustainable development policies and initiatives (Satterthwaite, 1997; Gibbs et al, 1998; Agyeman and Evans, 2003). This study therefore focuses on the implementation of sustainability at a city level, through the investigation of mega-projects in Durban.
In the South African context, the future city has been imagined in a particular way that reflects modernism or a western perspective on urban development. Pieterse, a leading urban philosopher, suggested that the future of these cities needs to be re-imagined via a set of lenses on the ‘non- western city’, which include a number of possible futures, such as the “democratic city”,
“educational/learning city”, “productive city”, “inclusive city”, “cultural city”, and the “sustainable city” (Swilling, 2003). The following sections discuss sustainable cities, and the principles which define them.