2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
2.3 Social sustainability
2.3.4 Vulnerability and well-being
provided to society may not directly benefit certain members of society and may cause more harm than good. The argument provided here is that, social cohesion in groups can be exclusive or elitist and leave people out. For example, businesses may in fact adopt sustainable environmental methods only to discover that these methods may in fact result in negative consequences to the social environment (Coetzee and Nomdo, 2002). Coetzee and Nomdo (2002: 13) state that, "as such, social capital can serve to reinforce boundaries of inclusion and exclusion, affirm inequalities in participation or decision-making, and marginalise individuals or households". This can be observed with regards to the informal sector of society, where in most cases these groups are virtually ignored or disconnected from the decision making process. Social capital therefore attempts to eliminate any inequalities that may exist, by creating trust between society and the private sector, thereby enhancing community well-being (Coetzee and Nomdo, 2002). The degree of social capital experienced by individuals depicts the level of social sustainability achieved within society.
Social sustainability is a concept that is a holistic approach to sustainability, which is focused on providing benefits to communities as a whole with regards to improving the quality of life. Social sustainability creates a society that is socially aware of impacts that may result from inconsiderate actions. Social sustainability is not only focused on uplifting one individual, but it is focused on enriching many individuals with skills so as to sustain themselves for the future. The following section will provide an understanding of vulnerability and well-being as the degree to which an individual is vulnerable determines the level of social sustainability.
Cutter and Solecki (1996) argue that vulnerability is a dynamic process, as it deals with environmental risk sources (spatially defined in terms of a hazard) in relation to societal reaction. Coetzee and Nomdo (2002: 30) define risk as; "the likelihood of a detrimental outcome as a result of a particular activity or event". Risks are not considered in terms of environmental risks, however, risks can be explained in terms of social well-being (Chechile and Carlisle, 1991; Coetzee and Nomdo, 2002; Bull-Kamanga et ai., 2003; Lee, 2006; Jones et ai., 2008). Risks can be termed as chronic (small-scale, long-term exposures) and acute (large-scale, short-term events) (Schwing, et ai., 1980; Krimsky and Golding, 1991; Cutter and Solecki, 1996; Smith, 1996; Bull-Kamanga et ai., 2003; Scott and Oelofse, 2005; De Sherbinin et ai., 2007; Hardoy and Pandiella, 2009).
Thus the level an individual is exposed to a certain adversity affects one's level of social sustainability (Cutter and Solecki, 1996; Smith, 1996; Spiers, 2000; Coetzee and Nomdo, 2002; Hogan and Marandola, 2005). Individuals in close proximity to a particular development are vulnerable to exposure to fumes (toxic and non- toxic), noise and dust (Cutter and Solecki, 1996; Hogan and Marandola, 2005; Hom, 2007; Hardoy and Pandiella, 2009). It is mostly the poor and marginalised groups that are at greater risk (Coetzee and Nomdo, 2002; Blowers and Hinchliffe, 2003). At its core, "the concept of vulnerability implies a measure of risk combined with the level of social and economic ability to cope with the resulting event" (Smith, 1996: 25). However, Timmerman describes vulnerability at a society level as: "the degree to which a system, or part of a system, may react adversely to the occurrence of a hazardous event" (Smith, 1996: 25).
Moser (1996, cited in Coetzee and Nomdo, 2002) highlights the relationship between vulnerability and well-being and states that vulnerability is dependent on the variations of well-being in a changing environment. Well-being in terms of environmental concerns has been at the forefront of many debates. O'Neill (1993: 1) describes well-being as:
"characterised in terms of the satisfaction of wants or preferences- the stronger the preference satisfied, the greater the well-being". Well-being is thus determined by the accommodation of environmental problems (Fadda and Jiron, 1999; O'Neill, 1993; Lee, 2006; Wackernagel et ai., 2006; Aguilar and De Fuentes, 2007; Holden and Linnerud, 2007; Jones et ai., 2008; van Zeijl-Rozema et ai., 2008). However, the level of well-being, with regards to the market, is dependent upon how much a person would pay in order to achieve satisfaction, whereas a non-market view would state that well-being is determined
33
by an improvement in services for an individual, be it education related or simply living within an environment that is not considered harmful (O'Neill, 1993).
The reality is that, ideal markets are non-existent and the exponential growth of people and the result of globalization, has resulted in many individual's well-being being affected.
Utilitarian's on the other hand explain that well-being should be conceptualized in terms of utility (Griffin, 1986). Utility can be described as resulting in pleasure and the absence of pain, whereby an individual's desire is fulfilled (Griffin, 1986). Griffin (1986) further explains that well-being consists of basic needs and desires, however, Griffin (1986) stresses that needs have precedence over desires. Individuals needs outweigh desires, since needs are considered as achieving certain outcomes of an individual to survive. Needs can be classified as instrumental and basic needs, instrumental needs are defined as the needs an individual acquires as a result of an end and basic needs are defined as the needs for achieving essential human livelihoods (Griffin, 1986; Dobson, 1990; Dryzek, 1992; Ekins, 1992).
Coetzee and Nomdo (2002) argue that well-being can be explained in terms of a continuum. On one end of the continuum, well-being is explained as a state that is very vulnerable to changes in the urban environment while on the other end, well-being is explained as a state that is resilient to the changes in the environment (Coetzee and Nomdo, 2002). In this case, vulnerability and well-being are discussed with reference to households and livelihoods. In terms of households, the level of vulnerability is determined on the basis of a collective set of individuals in a given household and this can be explained in developing countries (Coetzee and Nomdo, 2002). Households can be described by levels of production, consumption and distribution and it is within this framework that livelihood is highlighted. Accoding to, De Satge (2002, cited in Coetzee and Nomdo, 2002: 10) a, "livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for the means ofliving. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from shocks and stresses and maintain and enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, whilst not undermining the natural resource base". It can therefore be explained that an individual's or a household's livelihood, is determined by the level of vulnerability, as different livelihoods cope differently with respect to the changes in the environment.
Coetzee and Nomdo (2002), further explain that livelihood is dependent on an individuals or households access to assets. It is important to state that social responsibility programmes developed by a resource extraction industry, namely; Lafarge Mining South Africa and its Ridgeview Quarry, provide individuals and specifically in this case communities with assets to improve their living conditions, thereby encouraging social sustainability. It is explained that in order for an individual or household to sustain their livelihood, these assets need to be maintained (Coetzee and Nomdo, 2002). Moser's (1996) classification basically explains that vulnerability is decreased when households or individuals change their assets into a form of income, thereby sustaining their livelihood (Coetzee and Nomdo, 2002). Moser (1996, cited in Coetzee and Nomdo, 2002) classifies assets into labour, human capital, productive assets, social capital and household relations. Vulnerability is at its greatest when these assets are depleted, resulting in an individuals level of well-being being affected. As a result, companies who seek greater social responsibility try to adopt mechanisms that are socially acceptable and which increase resilience and this further creates a need for corporate social responsibility and increasing social sustainability.
Thus the greater the vulnerability of an individual, the greater the impacts of a development on that individual's level of well-being, however, if the vulnerability is low, the impacts on well-being are minimal (Coetzee and Nomdo, 2002; Lee, 2006;
Wackemagel et
at.,
2006; Holden, and Linnerud, 2007; Hom, 2007; Jones etat.,
2008;Hardoy and Pandiella, 2009). Because vulnerability can be linked to an individual's ability to cope, this is an area in which building capacity through social responsibility programmes can be helpful in decreasing vulnerability and thereby enhancing social sustainability.
Thus the concepts illustrated above, such as vulnerability and well-being were important to examine in this research, as an individual's level of vulnerability and well-being detemlines the degree of social sustainability. Social sustainability can be explained as one of the pillars of sustainable development and is therefore believed to have evolved as a result of ethical awareness. Social sustainability involves social capital and is therefore about creating a social environment for individuals to improve their quality of life, while ensuring a fair distribution of costs and benefits (Hill and Bowen 1997· Newman 2006·
" "
Swilling and Annecke, 2006; Devereux, 2008; Scheinsohn and Cabrera, 2009). The following sections of this chapter Section 2.4 and 2.5 will explain the two principles that are important for social sustainability, namely social justice (equity) and public
35
participation. Addressing the concept of social justice (equity) and public participation in this study allows for the evaluation of the contribution to social sustainability by social responsibility programmes.