Culture+and+Sustainability+Center

**Go Fix It!: Culture and Sustainability Centers**

Sustainability has often come across a major rival, our culture. Within the analysis of any sustainability problem, culture is a barrier to which is impenetrable. The solution I propose includes providing centers of sustainability in all areas including the city, suburbs, and rural areas. Included in this solution is a supporter of social interactions which will hopefully improve the quality of life. Instead of community centers, sustainability centers will provide bulletins and information about what is going on with the environment, what is being done with respect to government, as well as include information on individual efforts to strive towards sustainability. There are already sustainability centers implemented in some universities and states such as Oregon, Idaho, Arkansas, and California. An aspect of these centers is to also provide research opportunities to those who are interested in innovative ideas. According to the Urban Ecology Coalition which includes a manual of neighborhood indicators, the creation of these centers is completed with thorough analysis of indicators of sustainability initiatives in deciding what is appropriate for the community. This manual provides the four indicators or levels of sustainability center strategy: data poetry, core, background, and deep sustainability. According to the Evaluation and Program Planning by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation includes a planning model for sustaining innovations within organizational, community, and state systems. This article focuses on a five step method: assessment, development, implementation, evaluation, and reassessment or modification. According to this article, State Incentive Grant (SIG) program funded by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention in which from 1997 to 2002, a series of three-year grants of $9 million each have been given to a large majority of the states to fund the following goals: promote systems change in state and local prevention systems, and implement and evaluate science-based prevention programs and/or strategies. The way in which these centers operate depends on the profile of the town or city. There are also sustainability centers within the higher education realm, existing in Penn State, University of Oregon, and many more. Sustainability is slowing making its way into college town, where students guide the development, economy, and politics of the area. The culture and sustainability center would also incorporate educational courses and information readily available on energy, green chemistry, and engineering around sustainability. This would put sustainability within our culture, and if sought we can find it. That is the major difficulty, sustainability is difficult to understand when sustainability is a way of thinking, a non-material idea similar to that of the American Dream. The centers will ease the area's movement towards sustainability, and hopefully remains a prevalent communal center. Observing sustainable activities within society has made a gradual appearance with that of recycling bins, yet this is not enough. The way in which we use energy to sustain our life is unsustainable for the environment and culture. The ideals that are propagating through the dominance of the market resulting in increasing consumption and materialism are not ideal in a time of change. And is evidently hard to remove their influence, but the field can be made even with an implementation and sustainable analysis of the specific area. There have also been international efforts to make a global sustainability center, however it does attempt to bridge gaps it can be utilized to unite the smaller sustainability centers. The important aspect of this policy is that it is molded around the needs of the community. The social constraints of sustainability are often avoided, this will aid to level the playing field and provide some support to ensure integration into culture.

Lipman, B. “The Matrix.” 2010. <<[]>>

Meter, K. “Neighborhood Sustainability Indicators Guidebook.” Urban Ecology Coalition. 1999 <<[]>>.

Johnson, K.; Hayes, C.; Center, H.; Daley, C. “Building capacity and sustainable prevention innovations: a sustainability planning model.” Evaluation and Program Planning. Volume27, Issue 2. May 2004 pp135-149. <<[]>>

1. Johnson, K.; Hayes, C.; Center, H.; Daley, C. “Building capacity and sustainable prevention innovations: a sustainability planning model.” Evaluation and Program Planning. Volume27, Issue 2. May 2004 pp135-149.

2. The author works at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation- Louisville Center. His research focuses on human service challenges. He received a BS in Forestry in 1964, an MS in Criminal Justice in 1969, a PhD in Social Science from Michigan State University in 1971, and an MSSW from the Kent School of Social Work at the University of Louisville in 1994. Johnson has also written about law enforcement training, drug use, and prevention of harmful legal products in youth.

3. The main topic in the text, the model of sustainability, assumes a five-step process: assessment, development, implementation, evaluation, and reassessment/modification. The text also addresses factors that inhibit sustainable innovation. A sustainability action strategy is presented that includes goals with corresponding sets of objectives, actions, and results that determine the extent of readiness to sustain an innovation.

4. The main argument is made through the initial definition of what constitutes sustainability and its perception, then the paper defines sustainability the a general view of the model. The article then delves deeper observing the micro- level aspects including sustainability capacity, sustainable innovtation attributes, and sustainable actions. A clear summary and list of lessons involved in the model process and future steps conclude the article.

5. (1) “State Incentive Grant (SIG) program funded by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP). From 1997 to 2002, a series of three-year grants totaling $9 million each have been given to a large majority of the states to fund these goals: (1) promote systems change in state and local prevention systems and (2) implement and evaluate science-based prevention programs and/or strategies.”

 (2) “From the list of 11 terms in the literature that defined the process of continuing an innovation beyond a trial or demonstration period, we selected sustainability as the overarching construct that is broad enough to incorporate the essential elements of the other constructs, especially institutionalization.”

 (3) “A standardized sustainability readiness score ranging from 0 to 100 (inadequate ¼ 0–25, marginally adequate ¼ 26–50, adequate ¼ 51–75, very adequate ¼ 76–100) was computed for each factor. A consensus among the five key state prevention stakeholders who assisted in the assessment reported that the quantitative readiness scores had high face validity in comparison with their individual subjective assessments, which were based on working in a variety of roles within the state prevention system.”

6. This paper gives specific methods to which other programs have learned, therefore revolutionizing and innovating the policy of integrating sustainability into culture through these sustainability centers.

7. * See quotes and #6

1. Meter, K. “Neighborhood Sustainability Indicators Guidebook.” Urban Ecology Coalition. 1999 <<[]>>.

2. Meter works at the Crossroads Resource Center for the University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center. He has also written about global cooperation, farm bills, and food importation. He is the president of this center and has attended Harvard, Boston University, Swarthmore College for public administration, history, and chemistry.

3. The main topic of this article includes a guidebook for other beginning sustainability centers. The guidance of more experienced centers provides a basis or foundation in order to have a more stable initiation.

4. The main topic is made through thorough analysis of indicators of particular neighborhood which should be analyzed. The UEC neighborhood history provides this experience basis, as well as thoroughly explaining the specific indicators and the result with respect to the success of implementation.

5. (1) “The Urban Ecology Coalition's Neighborhood Sustainability Indicators Project (UEC- NSIP) in Minneapolis is apparently the first U.S. effort to engage residents directly in defining indicators of neighborhood sustainability for their own communities.”

 (2) “This guide, useful for all of the above reasons, is focused upon one specific challenge: //how do// //neighborhood residents ensure that their neighborhood becomes more sustainable in the long term?// Developed for urban neighborhoods, we feel it is also useful for small towns, rural  counties and suburbs -- any locale where grassroots people are active in defining a long-term  future for their community. Useful for local residents as well as external investors, this is a  guide, but not a recipe.”

 (3) “Our approach to sustainability indicators tries to:  • Focus on neighborhood assets rather than deficiencies;  • Engage local residents in thoughtful planning;  • Express values that have been formally adopted by community residents;  • Identify the linkages among issues that are often seen as separate in neighborhood action (i.e., "housing," "economic development,""transportation," and "public safety."); <span style="display: block; font-family: Times New Roman,serif; text-align: left;"> • Focus on the long-term future of the neighborhood; and <span style="display: block; font-family: Times New Roman,serif; text-align: left;"> • Work toward equitable distribution of resources, opportunity and wealth for the current generation as well as for future generations.”

6. Like the previous reference, this is a guide to program implementation based upon the profile of the neighborhood, this is a clear outline to ensure understanding and hopeful success to implement this program for the long term.

7. See above