Sustainable City: The Politics of Creating a Viable Intentional Community∗

Begum Ozkaynak and Zeynep Kadirbeyoglu

1. Introduction This paper will explore whether it is possible to think of a city as an intentional

community with a common/shared goal leading towards a sustainable city. What

constitutes a sustainable city is widely debated and there is no consensus whether it

can be achieved. Some even refer to its utopian nature by emphasising that it should

be named unsustainable city (see, for example, Martinez-Alier, 2002). We will argue

that a sustainable city can be best approached as an ongoing process and achieved

only through the emergence of an intentional community, which has a shared long-

term objective of social, economic and environmental sustainability. The literature, by

also making use of future scenarios analysis, has identified several characteristics of

the path that would lead towards a sustainable city. In line with this strand of

literature, we will examine participatory processes, trust of people in these processes,

the possibility of coexistence of different social actors and groups with a more equal

distribution of wealth and power, access to information and resources, cooperation

and coordination. All these factors, which make up the path to a sustainable city and

which are contested issues in political science, can be achieved through mainly three

stimuli: top-down processes, bottom-up processes and an external intervention.

Through the use of the case of Yalova (Turkey),1 this paper will investigate which

∗ This paper is partially based on the fieldwork conducted for the ongoing PhD thesis of Begum Ozkaynak. The fieldwork was made possible through the funding from Open Society Institute-Istanbul (Project No: OSIAF 20009098) and Bogazici University Research Fund (Project No: 03M106) . 1 Yalova is the smallest city in Turkey and is situated in the northwest of the country. It is surrounded by large industrial cities like Istanbul, Bursa and Kocaeli. The case study mainly tried to decipher the position of multiple stakeholders in the community vis-à-vis alternative development paths at the local level and look at possible alliance and/or consensus building among them. The stakeholders in Yalova were identified as the central state (Governorship of Yalova), the local government, the industrialists (large-scale industry, small and medium size industry), farmers/florists, representatives of the tourism industry, shopkeepers, full time residents of Yalova (women, pensioners, youth) and the summer residents. The fieldwork in Yalova was conducted during 2003 and consisted of 33 in-depth interviews, 3 focus-groups, 3 workshops, and a quantitative survey administered to a total of 1196 households representative of urban and rural population of the city. By means of the focus groups—with women, men and young people— and workshops with the key actors (the Governor, the Mayor, Yalova parliament members, Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Local Agenda 21, Sector—industry, tourism, floristry—representatives etc.), and the quantitative survey with the local public it was possible

1

process, or combination thereof, increases the likelihood of a city to move in the

direction of a sustainable city.

2. The City, Utopia and Intentional Communities Intentional communities are described as deliberate attempts to create a new social

order for their members. The shared goals and values can vary among different

intentional communities yet the attempt to overcome the existing social, ecological or

economic problems seems to lie at the heart of applied utopias that have created

such communities.

The literature that focuses on intentional communities tends to concentrate on

applied utopias such as the Kibbutzim or the multiplicity of communities in the US

(see, for example Kanter, 1972). There are also studies that include the attempts by

the nation-states to create a national unity through the use of narratives as part of

assembling intentional and imagined communities (see, for example, Hoey [2003] for

the case of transmigration and the creation of the Indonesian identity).

In this paper, we will attempt to examine the case of a city as an intentional

community. The reason for this is that the path towards a sustainable city – which will

be defined in the next section – can be achieved only if people feel part of a

community, very similar to that of an intentional one. It can be argued that a city is not

an intentional community because its creation was not intentional. We will argue that

this type of argument is not valid in cases where a city is composed by people who

share a sense of belonging to the city and who intentionally chose to live there and

are aware of the problems and possibilities that the city can offer.

For these factors to create an intentional community out of a city, this paper

will argue, there needs to be equality in wealth and power within the local community

and a level of participation in the governance and trust towards fellow urban dwellers

as well as towards the institutions that govern the city. Therefore, a city as a whole

can be considered an intentional community, where all inhabitants have a common

interest in living in a more sustainable environment and thereby, building long term

community capacity and fostering the integration of economic, social and

environmental goals.

to have an idea of people’s economic, social and environmental perceptions of the existing situation in the city and their desires about the future.

2

3. Sustainable City as an Intentional Community Sustainability is a very vague term and is used to mean different things to different

people (see Appendix 1 for a classification of sustainability approaches).2 It gained its

popularity following the publication of the report by the World Commission on

Environment and Development entitled Our Common Future in 1987. In the last two

decades, there has been an increasing emphasis on the local, regional and sectoral

levels in attaining sustainability (Finco and Nijkamp, 2001). In this context, Agenda 21

action plan, which was the output of the 1992 Earth Summit, emphasised the role of

local authorities in the implementation of sustainability through Local Agenda 21

(Lafferty and Eckenberg, 1998).

There is also a growing interest in the role of cities in sustainability discussions

as a high proportion of the world’s production, consumption and waste generation are

concentrated in urban areas. It is estimated that 61% of the world population will be

living in the cities by the year 2025 (Topfer, 1999; Hall and Pfeiffer, 2000). Therefore,

in order to achieve sustainability at the global level there needs to be sustainability at

the level of the cities (see, for example, Rees, 1999 and Redclift, 1996). Furthermore,

urban planning has gone through a significant transformation (see, e.g., Nijkamp and

de Montis, 1999) which has meant that a social science approach became more

valuable than a pure engineering approach in urban management nowadays. Since it

was realised that cities offer the greatest opportunities to make changes necessary

for general sustainability – as they are decentralised institutional units – it became

necessary to consider issues like quality of life, urban form, urban intensification,

production sites and environmental protection as part of an integrated sustainability

discussion. Therefore, the term urban planning has been replaced by urban

sustainability.

Today, terms like sustainable cities, sustainable human settlements or

sustainable urban development are as popular as the original term itself. However,

there are no clear definitions of what these terms mean. Urban sustainability as a

practical definition is surrounded with assumptions and value judgements. Munda

(2002) argues that a city’s sustainability depends on at least four types of capital and

on their interaction: man-made, natural, human and social capitals. Moreover,

2 For a range of definitions used in the 1980s, see Pezzey (1989) and Pearce et al. (1989). For a detailed review of the updated discussions on sustainability see Neumayer (1999), Ozkaynak (2000) and Harris et al. (2001).

3

Drakhis-Smith (1995) argues that any discussion of urban sustainability has to

address issues of equity, social justice, basic human needs, environmental

awareness and integrity at the philosophical and ethical level as well as addressing

issues like employment, poverty, health, urban physical environment, infrastructure

and institutions at the policy-level.

In urban sustainability discussions, inter-linkages across time and spatial

scales are also important (Ravetz, 2000) since the relationship of the city with its

hinterland is crucial in assessing the overall impacts of policies in support of urban

sustainability (Frey, 1999; Haugton, 1999). Looking for short-term solutions, one may

decide that urban economic agenda has primacy over long-term sustainability

concerns, in which case the consistency of short-term and long-term goals has to be

checked.

Gallopin and Rijsberman (2000) argue that the analysis of sustainable

development requires the adoption of a long-term view in order to be able to account

for the dynamic interaction—though complex and indeterministic in nature—of social,

economic and ecological processes. In this context, urban sustainability has to be

concerned with the future and has to seek to reconcile economic, social and

ecological dimensions over the long-term. In addition to time and scale

considerations, Frey (1999) draws attention to the fact that each individual city may

have its own very specific structure, socio-economic and historical conditions. This

means that the path of an existing city towards sustainability depends upon the

characteristics of that city and there is no standard blueprint for building a sustainable

urban environment.

The above discussion makes clear that the urban-environment is a dynamic

and multi-faceted phenomenon with its history, built-form and at least four different

forms of capital—economic, social, ecological and cultural—and is also related to

higher geographical levels. It is the playing ground of many conflicting interests.

Indeed part of what makes urban sustainability such a challenge is that the dynamics

between these different aspects/dimensions cannot be reduced to a few simple

relationships as problems at different scales interrelate. Several authors rightly note

that the increasing complexity of urban environment means that urban sustainability

cannot be addressed from one perspective or one scientific discipline (Frey, 1999;

McGill, 2001; Munda, 2001). Research focusing on a single aspect such as energy

efficiency and urban form, transportation system or natural protection is not likely to

4

generate a reliable basis for the operationalising urban sustainability (Frey, 1999;

Munda, 2001; Nijkamp, 2000). Therefore, a holistic, co-evolutionary and long-term

perspective is needed in the process that would lead towards a sustainable city.

Having completed an overview of the urban sustainability concept, we will

argue that the operationalisation of urban sustainability should take into consideration

that it is a process rather than a fixed end point and that its emergence necessitates

the creation of an intentional community with the shared long-term objective of social,

economic and environmental sustainability. In this context, as Roseland (2000, p.

171) emphasises, there is need to move towards social relationships which provide

more cohesion and fulfilment and cooperative social organisations which allow

people to place more emphasis on common goals: “Society will have to be less a

collection of large numbers of competing individuals and agencies, each following

materialist objectives, and more a large number of locally based communities who

have a broader view of what constitutes quality of life. These communities in turn will

cooperate with each other in the pursuit of wider common goals.”

Of course, the crucial question becomes how this can be achieved within the

case of a city. For such an analysis, it is important to uncover the underlying driving

forces of urban sustainability as they represent the key factors and trends, which

influence and shape the urban environment. This would help in identifying what kind

of similarities can be drawn in urban sustainability discussions and intentional

communities.

Moreover, in the literature, there is an increasing body of work that sees

scenario analysis as a valuable approach to address the issue of urban sustainability

(see, for example, Visions project, 2000; Intel City Roadmap, 2003).3 Scenario

analysis develops a set of diverse, plausible stories about how the future may unfold,

motivated by the question of “how might key driving forces lead to different

outcomes”, thereby providing a framework for weighting current options against a

range of possible outcomes in a world characterised by uncertainty, ambiguity and

risk. In this context, it is believed that in a city, scenario approach can offer a common

framework for different social actors to address the critical issues and concerns, and

a forum for discussion to assess the sustainability of different possibilities.

3 For a detailed review of scenario approach and a recent scenario typology, see van Notten et al. (2003).

5

One of the arguments of this paper is that if an evaluation of future scenarios,

of a particular city, can be made according to a set of socio-economic and

environmental criteria and hence, the most “desirable” scenario – in theory – can be

obtained, it would then be possible to explore and formulate the paths – top-down

and/or bottom up – that need to be taken in an explicit and intentional way within the

community to move towards this desirable scenario. Of course, this desirable

scenario in theory may not be desirable by all actors partly because different groups

are differently affected and partly because people have different priorities and

perceptions about the nature of the issues. However, if urban sustainability is best

approached as an ongoing process, such an analysis gives us the opportunity to see

what can be done at the local level to strengthen the forces that favour a more

sustainable urban development and which consensus might be built towards this

path. In this context, the paper also considers the issue of equity – given the impacts

of different scenarios on different actors – and possible convergence of interests in

order to better understand the dynamics that would enhance urban sustainability with

a long-term vision.

4. Driving forces and Possible Future Scenarios How can people become aware of the problems of a particular locality and start

acting upon them in order to find solutions? This type of action requires the

community to feel like they belong to the city and capable of formulating common

goals despite the variation in socio-economic status, gender, occupation or age.

However, belongingness and environmental values are not enough to compel people

to create an intentional community with the shared goal of adopting a future scenario

that would ensure urban sustainability.

This could happen through three main stimuli: there could be a bottom-up

process whereby community organisations, grassroots groups or NGOs start to

promote the idea that concrete steps need to be taken in order to tackle the problems

of the urban setting. Occurring independently or in collaboration with this there could

be top-down initiatives undertaken by the state or local government, such as the

implementation of the Local Agenda 21, in order to improve the living standards,

employment possibilities or environmental conditions through different measures. A

third stimulus can come externally through an interested, yet independent agent,

6

namely the researcher who is interested in the possibility of adopting policies which

would lead to the approval of a path towards the achievement of urban sustainability.

This paper will argue that the likelihood of the desirable scenario towards the

achievement of urban sustainability increases if at least the first two of these stimuli

work together in a co-ordinated manner. In order to see how this could be possible,

we will first review the driving forces influencing the urban environment. While doing

so we will introduce empirical evidence from a case study – Yalova – in order to

clarify how these forces, in fact, affect the possibilities of creating an intentional

community and what should be the role of different actors/stakeholders in trying to

bring about the path towards urban sustainability. The inherent conflicts in the case of

Yalova and how these can be solved will constitute the topic of the last section.

4.1 Key Driving Forces Influencing the Urban Environment Cities are affected by a number of economic, demographic, social, political and

natural factors or trends that shape the urban environment and act upon urban

sustainability. These factors are the key driving forces influencing the existing

situation in an urban environment and propelling the system forward (Leitmann,

1999). It is commonly accepted that these driving forces such as economic

globalisation or population migration are like constraints, at least in the short and

medium term. Policy makers must accept these forces as given, but, they can bend

and shape them to serve their objectives (Gallopin and Rijsberman, 2000; Hall and

Pfeiffer, 2000). According to Hall and Pfeiffer (2000, p. 43) the secret is how to use

the driving forces positively to promote local development: “the political process, itself

one of the drivers, can help shape the way the economy and society and technology

and culture develop.”

4.1.1 Demographic Factors: Population Demographics and Migration Pressures Leitmann (1999) notes that rapid urban growth or population demographic change

can be a main driving force which can cause pressure on industries, commerce,

energy consumption, transportation, housing, water generation and other

environmental pressures.

Moreover, migration pressures can be a constraint in the achievement of

urban sustainability as people who have just moved into the city may not feel part of it

and may not have the shared goals that the rest of the population has come to share

7

– as a result of the participatory political process. Yet if the system is participatory

and can accommodate within the social environment, the new comers then could, in

a short time span, also acquire knowledge about the city, its problems and prospects

for the future. In this way they can also be part of the deliberative process which has

allowed people to choose a desirable future scenario path towards urban

sustainability.4

The case study conducted in Yalova can help us to clarify this point. Yalova is

one of the top ten cities with the most rapid local population growth in Turkey – with

an annual growth rate of 22% in the 1990-2000 period. Only, 1/3 of the people living

in the city were born and raised in Yalova. The majority of people in the city are

migrants from different parts of Turkey, pensioners who have settled in the city and

the group of people who come seasonally to the city to spend their summers in their

second residences.5 When we consider all of these people together and those who

were born there, 92% of the respondents in Yalova have said “Yes” when asked, “Do

you think that you will continue to live in Yalova?” This is also consistent with the high

level of residents’ satisfaction with their lives in Yalova compared to the rest of people

in Turkey. When asked, “To what extent are you satisfied with your life?” 79% in total

indicated that they were satisfied or very satisfied whereas this amounts only to 50%

in Turkey’s General Public Surveys (see, for example, Çarkoğlu, 2002). This probably

means that the current conditions of life, at least for the majority, are not bad in

Yalova compared to other cities in Turkey.

The quantitative survey revealed that most of the people (around 80%) feel

that they belong to Yalova. However, both the qualitative and quantitative survey

revealed the fact that Yalova lacks mechanisms to encourage the full integration of

different groups within the urban structure. There are few opportunities like cinemas,

sports centres, festivals, concerts or even restaurants to reconcile cultural and

income-level differences within the civil society and especially for full-time residents

to enjoy urban life. This is especially a concern among the young people. This 4 Abrupt changes/shocks, such as a major earthquake, can lead to some discontinuity in this direction even under participatory systems, yet, these will not be discussed in this paper. 5 In the quantitative survey, there are mainly two types of reasons mentioned when permanent and seasonal residents of Yalova are questioned about their concerns in coming to Yalova, which are in some ways contradicting. The first type is related to economic reasons (e.g. finding better employment opportunities) and the second type is related with smallness, the climate and the environmental qualities (e.g. to pass summer terms, to live in the retirement period, health reasons, pleasure and calm). This constitutes probably two different local tendencies that can shape policies in Yalova. In

8

problem of lack of cultural and social life, if not properly addressed, combined with

unemployment, can lead to problems of integration, an increase in the rate of crime

or young people choosing to leave the city. However, in general, one can argue that

there is still a considerable amount of belonging to Yalova by its inhabitants.

4.1.2 Economic Factors In seeking to understand the driving forces behind urban development, the local

economy and its relation with the national and global economy, employment and

technology are crucial areas that need to be addressed.

Urban Economic Base, Globalisation and Liberalisation of Economic Activities

A very important aspect in the evolution of cities is their level of economic

development. Hall and Pfeiffer (2000) note that at a UNDP colloquium in 1997 on

sustainability, attended by 151 mayors, unemployment was declared the top urban

concern (UNDP, 1998, p. 198). Therefore, it seems that the classical vision of

economic growth within a system of increasing global competition continues to be the

driving force of development strategies and policies throughout local agendas as well

as international ones. Globalisation and trade liberalisation are leading production to

shift from many traditional urban centres to cities that can demonstrate market

advantage (World Bank, 2000). This, of course, influences the local development

strategies as cities, forced to compete for investments, often adopt an entrepreneurial

style of management, which is quite different from those traditionally associated with

the activity of local governments primarily representing the public interest.6 Therefore,

a discussion needs to take place around the question of whether the free market can

lead to urban sustainability. The market forces can favour economic priorities at the

expense of social and environmental policies and safeguards (Zetter and Hassan,

2002). Naess (2001), for example, argues that there is little reason for hope that a

sustainable urban development will emerge as a result of uncontrolled market forces.

As such, it is possible to argue that urban sustainability requires a fundamentally new

relationship between production, consumption and the environment, which is,

actual situation, as the quantitative survey reveals the dominant one seems to be the economic one. Of course, this does not exclude the possibility of a reversal in this balance or a compromise solution. 6 Hall and Pfeiffer (2000, p. 62) rightly note: “Development economists argue that endogenous growth is a better solution. But this is not easy: there are too few Silicon Valleys, and all too many unsuccessful attempts at innovation.”

9

somehow the case in intentional communities. Certainly, for a consistent and

effective urban sustainability policy, there is need to integrate the economic

development issues with social and environmental strategies and bring the economic

organisation under social control.

For example, the population census (2000) and the quantitative survey show

that in Yalova the level of literacy and schooling together with the number of High

School and University graduates is definitely above the national average. Moreover,

in terms of human development index calculated by UNDP, Yalova is ranked second

in Turkey with 0,817.

Therefore, it is possible to argue that Yalova has a good, educated yet young

workforce and offers opportunities to support a variety of investments in the region.

Behar (2003) argues that labour supply may constitute an opportunity for a higher

economic growth rate, given the education level and quality of labour force. However,

the way in which this productive force is used depends very much on the choice of

the local community among alternative development paths in Yalova but also on the

market pressures and on the global context.

Sector Trends and the Role of Technology

Hall and Pfeiffer (2000) point out that whereas a century ago growth meant

industrialisation and a shift away from agriculture, today industrial employment began

to decline in tandem with increasing importance of the services sector, which includes

legal services, management consultancy, information handling, accountancy, media,

advertising and marketing. Depending on the dynamics of urbanisation and economic

development, there is also a flourishing informal sector, not only in developing but

also in developed cities providing flexible opportunities for migrants, unemployed

workers and young people (Hall and Pfeiffer, 2000).

Hence, both in developed and developing world, cities are experiencing

permanent technology and sector evolutions or revolutions which are seen as

important driving forces of change in urban environment. To clarify this point, looking

at sector trends in Yalova and understanding the possible development paths in the

city is quite instructive.

10

Strong industry with a good local image – In Yalova, since 1970s a big group,

namely AKKOK (composed of AK-SA, AK-TOPS, AK-AL), has been investing in the

region. AKSA is the world’s largest acrylic producer under a single roof – and second

otherwise – with strong production margins and a robust financial structure less

dependent on the Turkish economy given its export-oriented nature. Though there

are different legal cases filed against AKSA – still pending – claiming that diffusion of

some chemicals in the area during the earthquake harmfully affected human health

and agricultural land, AKSA and the overall group of AKKOK has in general a good

image in the local region given the employment opportunities that it offers. Investment

reports related with the company indicate that their sound performance is expected to

be sustained in the near future. They even plan to increase their capacity until 2005

(Ata Invest Report, 2003). This means that AKKOK group will continue to be an

important player in the city with a vision of expanding the industries in the region.

Historical ties with tourism- From a historical perspective, tourism has always been

important for the city, first during the 1930s until 1970s as the countryside of Istanbul

with thermal sources and then during 1980s for sea tourism with summer houses. As

such, Yalova in the middle of these big cities can play a role for being the countryside

for all these places. These qualities can also be integrated for foreigners with a wide

variety of activities, such as historical site seeing with daily trips to Istanbul and

Bursa.

Declining traditional agricultural sector- An important tendency in the city was the

selling of agricultural land for construction as an easy way of earning money given

the problems of agricultural sector in Turkey. Both the official reports and the

quantitative survey indicate that the share of traditional agriculture as percentage of

employment will continue to decrease in Yalova. This will certainly have an impact on

the labour market and employment structure in the coming years. Erder (2003)

argues that such a transition will also produce, sometimes traumatic, results on

women working as an unpaid family worker in the agricultural sector. There is a

danger that a significant number of uneducated women will be left with the options of

“unemployment” or “unskilled jobs”.

11

IT Services and Tourism vision of the local government - Given the tendencies of

Istanbul gradually expanding as a metropolitan area, the local government focus on

the possibilities of generating employment in Yalova as part of the Istanbul hinterland

in services sector mainly on IT (e.g. call centre, process outsourcing) and on tourism

sector (e.g. congress/meeting and weekend tourism and thermal/health tourism) by

offering to businesses adequate infrastructure and urban services, relatively at lower

cost than Istanbul. In the context of IT services, an organised information and

communication industry zone has already been established with the approval of

central government in 2003. Moreover, the University of Uludağ in Bursa and the

University of Bahçeşehir are part of this project. For congress/meeting tourism, it is

argued that Yalova offer quite a good location, on the one hand, by its closeness to 3

big cities and on the other, by its natural environment.

The Challenge of Informal Economy - Buğra and Keyder (2003) note that in

Turkey’s employment structure, for example, within the working population, the

percentage of formally employed wage earners, even in comparison to Southern

Europe is quite low and limited relative to that of self-employed and unpaid family

workers. This observation is quite relevant for Yalova as well. The official statistics

show that today in Yalova the percentage of self-employed and unpaid family

workers make up 46% of total employed population. Then, 51% is regular or casual

employees. However, only 46% of those regular or casual employees are under the

social security system. Therefore, it can be argued that given the demographic

pressures, Yalova will face further challenges in evolving towards formal employment

as the economy and demography undergo some transformations.

4.1.3 The Social Factors Uneven Development and Equity Trends

Uneven development and equity trends are important issues influencing urban

environment. Gallopin et al. (1997) point that there has been a growing stratification

between rich and poor both within and between countries over the last 20 years.

Widening equity gaps and increasing poverty within a society interacts with the urban

environment in two ways: first, the actions of low-income groups who migrate to cities

result in the expansion of the informal sector, squatting, social instability and other

consequences for the environment. Second, environmental degradation results in

12

increased poverty as the economically disadvantaged are disproportionately affected

by many environmental risks and problems. Urban studies indicate that the mortality

and morbidity from gastrointestinal and respiratory infections are significantly higher

for the urban poor than for other urban residents (Leitmann, 1999; World Bank,

2000). They mainly lack the economic ability to invest in risk mitigating measures and

pay for services, are less knowledgeable about alternatives, and do not have the

political strength to push for environmental improvements (Bartone et al. 1994 in

Leitmann, 1999). Viederman (1994, p.) argues that the “there can be no real

sustainability without equity, within and among the nations of the world. Without

equity there is no social and political stability.” Therefore, the causes of increasing

inequalities – both structural and governance related – should be tackled in order to

move towards urban sustainability.

Although in reality Yalova is ranked among the firsts in terms of purchasing

power (HDI, 2001) and the unemployment is below the national official rate, the trend

among the general public is that economic issues such unemployment, economic

stagnation and high cost of living are among the most important problems of the city

parallel to that of the country. The unstable and uncertain economic conditions in

general and higher unemployment rates in province and district centres and

especially among the younger generation are the main reasons for negative

perceptions about economic conditions at the local level. Moreover, the problem of

“underemployment” should not be underestimated in Yalova. This means there are

surely people who want to change their present job, are seeking a second job

because of an insufficient salary or because they are not working in their usual

occupation constitute an important group.

The qualitative and quantitative work reveals that in Yalova, there is the

recognition of an ‘easy money earning’ and ‘rent-seeking’ culture. Actually, this is

seen as one the main sources of today’s economic problems. All the in-depth

interviews acknowledged that the development strategy that has been followed in the

last two decades was mostly short-sighted and there was a reluctance in the past of

using Yalova’s productive potential in different sectors (industry, tourism, agriculture).

Therefore, at local level, the full-time residents, especially the young and low-middle

income groups have certainly economic priorities and are in search for growth.

In Yalova, though the income distribution is not mentioned as an actual major

problem, there is a relatively big low-income class. It is also known that there are still

13

some really poor families dependent on some very basic incomes. Erder (2003)

argues that the changes that will take place in the Turkey’s labour market over the

next decades combined with global trends may lead to the rise of income inequalities

and this inequality may worsen unless effective policy measures are taken. In Yalova,

this would certainly manifest himself in marked polarisation within the city and some

exclusionist practices, the so-called urban inequalities, especially on women.

Therefore, the integration of residential areas of low-income groups with the urban

system is very important and depends on local policies as well as national policies.

This inevitably leads to the question of how powerful are (or will be in the future) local

governments in the face of central governments.

When taking the qualitative and quantitative survey into account, both policy-

makers at the local government level, the sector representatives and the general

public have a positive outlook for the coming years in economic, social and quality of

life terms. These positive/optimistic expectations about the future may be a sign of

belief that problems are transitory and there are solutions on the horizon.

Values and Lifestyles

Value systems are not often recognised as being important when anticipating the

future (Galoppin and Rijsberman, 2000). It can be argued that social values and

priorities at the local level define the amount of investment that the societies are

ready to make for sustainability. Therefore, the examination of shift in values in the

urban environment together with globalising lifestyles and cultures are very important

as they have the potential of significant change. Hall and Pfeiffer (2000, p. 96) list a

few dominant trends which could be influential in different cities: declining household

size, different structure of professions, higher education, increasing relevance of

singles or childless people.

In a study of attitudes to urban development, Naess (1993) shows that the

environmental measures that are popular are those, which are not perceived as a

threat to the consumption and behavioural pattern of each individual. This is why

actually Rees (1999) and Martinez-Alier (2003) suggest that sustainable

development, in its strong sense, requires a transformation of both human-to-nature

and people-to-people relationships on the local and global scales as today’s

economy is driven by consumption. Rees (1999, p.42) notes: “[t]here is more to be

gained from changing behaviour and values than there is from technological fixes”.

14

However, as Gallopin et al. (1997, p. 3) notes “social transition is difficult, especially

without a widely-shared positive vision of the purpose of change and why it is

necessary”. In this context, there should be more focus on the cultural and

educational backgrounds that will ensure and expand sustainability in the longer

term.

In the case of Yalova there is the danger that as the city grows more

materialist and individualist lifestyles would dominate. However, it is possible to

foresee a future where social and environmental values take precedence. This can

be achieved through certain compensatory schemes as well as participatory

processes within the community.

4.1.4 Political Factors Decentralisation of Authority and Governance

There is increasing diversity of actors affecting urban policies and economies due to

a trend promoting decentralisation of authority and decision-making based on trust,

transparency, accountability and institutional capacity. Accordingly, the new actors

range from central to local government, on to financial institutions, NGOs, the media

and the private sector with both its national and multinational, formal and informal

components and citizen groups. In this context, alliances between powerful groups

play a dominant role in shaping the urban environment and determining societal

norms.

Moreover, Gibbs and Healey (1995), while not denying the role of the central

government7, argue that in coming decades local strong sustainable development

strategy will largely be implemented through the actions of local authorities as they

are ideally placed at the most practical level to coordinate multi-level strategies. They

can address economic, social and environmental issues in an integrated way both at

the city and regional levels. Similarly, McGill (1998, p. 469) sees a robust local

government, as the necessary driving force to integrate, both horizontally and

vertically, all the players in the urban sustainability process.

Various issues such as narrow political considerations, personalised power,

corruption and theft of public funds can challenge good governance. There needs to

be local institutions with competence to coordinate actions and an institutional

7 It is generally argued that the central government should offer its steering hand in relation to general policy and its own responsibilities for investment (McGill, 1998).

15

environment that would enable social actors to discuss different aspects of problems

at hand. It is indicated that opening the political processes and institutions to the

participation and monitoring of civil society strengthens the presence of

underrepresented interests and concerns within the decision making process

(Devine, 2002). Of course, public participation, by itself does not mean guaranteeing

sustainable development. It is entirely possible that a participatory and accountable

policy may opt for short tem goals rather than a long-term urban sustainability.

There are two preconditions for an effective public participation to occur. Full

and effective participation can take place only when the information is available to all

affected parties (O’Neill, 1998). Therefore, increasing the amount and quality of

information provided and enhancing its dissemination and accessibility, by the local

governments, for example, is crucial. Information provision to all parties is also

important for transparency, accountability and fighting corruption. Second, effective

dialogue, participation and negotiation can only be between equals. In this context,

power imbalances are one the main difficulties to integrate environment and

development policies. Bargaining power inequalities have a serious potential of

hampering consensus decision-making.

In Yalova local participation is still low and this is similar to the general trend in

Turkey. Yet in the case of Yalova, there is a considerable amount of effort by the

local government and Local Agenda 21 to improve transparency and accountability of

local institutions. The e-government/e-municipality project, for which Yalova has been

chosen as the pilot city, is a factor enhancing transparency, accountability and local

participation by enabling greater access to information. Moreover, the actual Mayor

(the representative of the local municipality) and the Governor (a representative of

the central government) seem to be cooperating and coordinating issues under the

same vision which somehow makes them powerful at least on the local scale.

Overall, Yalova seems to be one of the few cities in Turkey where there are signs of

good governance.

These developments are also welcomed among the general public. As regards

trust to institutions, especially for local institutions, but also for national ones, trust in

Yalova is higher than the general average in Turkey. However, in terms of ranking,

there is still a similar picture to that of Turkey as low trust to political parties, to the

media and to some extent to the municipality and NGOs is still remarkable.

16

It is important to underline the fact that the lack of civil society and related

institutions accommodate its own dangers. Keyder (2000), for example, points out

that the expansion of decision making powers of local governments without the social

control of civil society, may lead to increased corruption, environmental destruction

and disrespectful treatment of cultural heritage instead of solving local problems. As

such, urban management and planning can easily lose its rationality in the face of

political and self-seeking relations. In some circumstances, the elected municipalities

can directly shape local politics or in some others self-interested economically or

politically powerful and organised groups can have the opportunity to make choices

on behalf of the overall city community.

4.1.5 Environmental Factors Following Hall and Pfeiffer (2000), there is, at least, a triple relationship between

nature and cities. Accordingly, nature is, first, a resource input, second a location

space and third, a shell for human’s emotional and physical existence as a consumer

good. This complex relationship has shaped urban environment in the past and will

continue to be influential in the future.

Resource Depletion, Energy and Land Use Patterns

Despite hopes for better physical and natural environments in urban areas, the trend

has been historically towards over-exploitation of the so-called renewable resources

and depletion of non-renewable resources. Increasing ecological degradation and

loss of eco-systems and biodiversity have negative impacts on both human health

and quality of life. Furthermore, according to the projections of Gallopin et al. (1997)

both future energy use and emissions of CO2 – a consequence of growing use of

coal, oil and natural gas – will double by the year 2020. The implication of this trend

is that the world is far from solving its energy source problems and that of

atmospheric emissions.

International Demand for Social and Environmental Concern and Greater Public Awareness Given that environmental problems have become more obvious and ubiquitous, it is

argued that there is, both internationally and locally, a growing interest in

environmental issues and acknowledgement of the need for environmental

17

sustainability. Therefore, one of the current policy issues in local economic

development is how to match the growth of interest in environmental issues and

sustainable development with the perceived need for employment and income

generation (Gibbs and Healey, 1995).

Environmental problems are not mentioned among the most important

problems of the city and the environmental goals are not a priority among the city

dwellers. However, the quantitative survey results indicate that there is increasing

environmental consciousness within the community. It is also observed through the

results that people have environmental values in general. 66% of the respondents

indicated that protecting the environment should be given priority even if it causes

slower economic growth and some loss of jobs. This support for environmental

protection goes up to 78% when the question is formulated as, “whether developing

countries such as Turkey should be concerned with environmental problems or not?”

These results are promising and can be a shaping factor in local politics in the future.

4.2 Future Scenarios As already mentioned, constructing future scenarios at city scale and investigating

their evaluation according to a set of economic, social and environmental criteria is

an effective format to bring together the enormous amount of information about city

life and address some critical issues. Of course, this should be done in conjunction

with the identification of the stakeholders as the selected evaluation criteria should

reflect actors’ values, preferences and interests. Then, we can identify the most

desirable scenario, given the theoretical idea of urban sustainability, and have

policies from both bottom-up and top-down to strengthen the forces that favour a

more sustainable urban development. However, in order for the residents of that

particular city to accept a scenario and act accordingly there should be no major

losers.

In the case of Yalova, three alternative development paths – rather than

scenarios to make things simpler – were formulated for the quantitative survey. The

first alternative is based on enhanced industrialisation with the establishment of an

industrial organised zone. The other two alternatives are based on Non-Industrial

Sectors, one being the development of Eco-Tourism and Agriculture in the region and

the other the development of IT Services together with a University. Of course, this IT

18

Services policy might take longer to create employment in the city when compared to

the industry based development.

In the quantitative survey, the respondent’s were asked to choose one of these

three scenarios and some socio-economic and demographic factors (e.g. gender,

age, education etc.) were investigated in explaining people’s scenario choices. The

results revealed that 40% favoured IT Services-University based development

whereas the other two scenarios have around 30% support.

Moreover, based on the qualitative research insights and quantitative survey

analysis, the following social impact matrix was formed to understand possible

conflicts and/or convergence of interests among various actors in the community. The

impact of each development path on various actors in Yalova, based on their

perceptions, is noted below by using a value scale of five, between “Very Bad” and

“Very Good”.

Social Impact Matrix in the Yalova Case Study

Social Actors in Yalova

Industry Based

Development Path

Agriculture-Tourism Based Development

Path

IT Services-University Based

Development Path

Local Government Bad Good Very Good Big Industry Very Good Bad Good Small/Medium Industry Very Good Medium Good Tourism Very Bad Very Good Good Commercials Very Good Medium Good Farmers/Florists Very Bad Very Good Medium Women Medium Good Good Retired Bad Very Good Medium Young Good Medium Very Good Summer Residents Very Bad Very Good Medium

By applying NAIADE (following Munda, 1995) to this social impact matrix, the

possibilities of convergence of interests among the various actors (based on the

distance among their positions towards three alternatives) were obtained (See Figure

1).8

Figure 1: Possible Coalition Formations in the Case of Yalova

8 The values on the left represent the credibility degrees of this convergence.

19

AB

C

G1 Local Gove

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

G8

G9

G10

Groups

rnment

Big Industry

Small/Medium Industry

Tourism Sector Repr.

Shop Owners/ommercials

Farmers/Florists

Women

Retired People

Young People

Summer HousersA

B

C

AB

C

G1 Local Gove

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

G8

G9

G10

Groups

rnment

Big Industry

Small/Medium Industry

Tourism Sector Repr.

Shop Owners/ommercials

Farmers/Florists

Women

Retired People

Young People

Summer HousersAB

C

G1 Local Gove

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

G8

G9

G10

Groups

rnment

Big Industry

Small/Medium Industry

Tourism Sector Repr.

Shop Owners/ommercials

Farmers/Florists

Women

Retired People

Young People

Summer HousersA

B

C

From our analysis, it appeared that the city might arrive at some compromise solution

(marked as point C) which is the IT Services-University policy option. As one can see,

the position of the actors differed for other two alternatives and two separate

coalitions were formed (point A and B) around Agricultural-Tourism alternative and

Industry based alternative, respectively. Of course, the distribution of wealth and

power among these groups, the access to information and resources and the context

within which strategic decisions are taken is very important for the final outcome.

Therefore, taking this analysis as the point of departure, then the aim should

be to explore and formulate the paths that need to be taken at the local level to

increase the likelihood of such a convergence and consensus building given the

problem areas. It is at this junction that this paper considered the idea of sustainable

city as an intentional community. In this context, the studies of intentional

communities can help us to better understand the dynamics that would enhance

consensus building among different stakeholders in an urban environment with a

long-term vision.

5. Concluding Remarks The discussion of the concept of urban sustainability concluded that a sustainable

city ought to be an intentional community if it is going to be viable. Following this we

have analysed the driving forces affecting the urban environment in general and the

case of Yalova in particular. We have uncovered that despite population pressures

20

the inhabitants of Yalova have a significant level of belonging to the city. In order to

include the newly arrived people and increase the willingness of the already existing

people, local government should engage in programmes which would involve the

residents in the decision making process. This can be done at different levels yet

attention should be paid to groups which do not usually have a voice – such as

women. In certain cases these groups, if they are not coming together in a bottom-up

manner, could be contacted by municipal officials and organised into stakeholder

groups.

Another important feature that is significant in achieving urban sustainability is

the presence of certain environmental and social values. We have seen that in the

case of Yalova, despite higher than average levels of environmental consciousness,

there is a tendency to forgo the environment if industry can bring employment and

increased living standards in monetary terms. This is an expected result and can only

be dealt with through compensatory mechanisms and by addressing the issues of

inequality in terms of gender, wealth and power.

21

Appendix 1: A Classification of Sustainability Approaches

Sustainability

Approaches

Very Weak

Sustainability

Weak Sustainability Strong Sustainability Very Strong

Sustainability

Sustainability Perspectives

Utilitarian/Technocentric/ Economic Natural Capital/Ecocentric/Ecological

Types of Sustainability

Sustainable Growth

Sustainable Development

Sustainable Development Ecological Sustainability

Policy Objectives Constant Capital Stock

Constant Capital Stock

Few Restrictions on Resource Using

Activities

1. ‘Constant Natural Capital Stock with

Critical Natural Capital Constraints’

2. ‘Critical Natural Capital’ Rule in Physical Terms

Steady State

Substitutability/ Irreversibility

Perfect Substitutability

Limited Substitutability

Some Irreversibility Considerations

Complementarity

Critical Natural Capital Loss Irreversible

Perfect Complementarity

Continuous Running Down

of Energy/Matter

The Ethics of Sustainability

Strong Anthropocentrism

Weak Anthropocentrism Weak Anthropocentrism or NonAnthropocentrism

Ecocentrism

Intra-/Inter-generational Equity Unstructured Bequest Package

Concern for Distribution within Current Generation

Structured Bequest Package

22

References Ata Invest Report (2003). “AKSA: Company Update”, EMEA Region Research.

Barkin, D. (1997). “Will Higher Productivity Improve Living Standards” in R. Burgess, M. Carmona and T. Kolstee (ed.) The Challenge of Sustainable Cities.

Behar, C. (2003). “An Overview of Turkey’s Population”, TUSİAD Report on “Turkey on Eve of the 21st Century: New Challenges and New Opportunities”, Chapter 1.

Boettke (1997).

Boisvert V., N. Holec and F.D. Vivien (1998). “Economic and Environmental Information for Sustainability”, in S. Faucheux and M. O’Connor (eds) (1998), pp. 99-120.

Boland, L. (1996). “Realism in Economic Model Building” in Medema and Samuels (1996).

Brundtland, G.H. (chair) (1987). Our Common Future. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Buğra, A. and Keyder, Ç. (2003). “New Poverty and Changing Welfare Regime of Turkey”, UNDP port.

Busenberg, G. (2001). “Learning Organizations and Public Policy”, Journal of Public Policy, 21 (2): 173-189.

Camagni et al. (1998).

Colander (2000). “The Death of Neoclassical Economics”, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 22 (2).

Costanza, R., O. Segura and J. Martinez-Alier (eds) (1996). Getting Down to Earth: Practical Applications of Ecological Economics. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Craig, P.P. and H. Glasser and W. Kempton (1993). “Ethics and Values in Environmental Policy: The Said and The UNCED”, Environmental Values, 2: 137-57.

Devine, Pat (2002): “Participatory Planning Through Negotiated Coordination”, Science and Society, 66(1):72-85.

Dosi, G. and R. R. Nelson (1994). “An Introduction to Evolutionary Theories in Economics”, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 4: 153-172.

Drakakis-Smith, D. (1995). “Third World Cities: Sustainable Urban Development I”, Urban Studies, 35 (4-5), pp. 659-677.

Dryzek, J.S. (1994). “Ecology and Discursive Democracy: Beyond Liberal Capitalism and the Administrative State”, in M. O’Connor (ed.) (1994), pp. 177-97.

Erder, S. (2003). “Social Consequences of A Changing Demographic Structure: The Past, the Present and The Future”, TUSİAD Report on “Turkey on Eve of the 21st Century: New Challenges and New Opportunities”, Chapter 3.

Faber, M.; T. Petersen, J. Schiller (2002). “Homo œconomicus and homo politicus in Ecological Economics”, Ecological Economics, 40: 323-333.

23

Faucheux, S. and M. O’Connor (eds) (1998). Valuation for Sustainable Development: Methods and Policy Indicators. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Finco, A. and Nijkamp, P. (2001). “Pathways to Urban Sustainability”, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 3, pp. 289-302.

Foldvary, Fred (1996). Beyond Neoclassical Economics: Heterodox Approaches to Economic Theory.

Foster, J. (ed.) (1997). Valuing Nature? Economics, Ethics and Environment. London and New York: Routledge.

Frey, B. and Alois Stutzer (2002). “What can Economists Learn from Happiness Research?”, Journal of Economic Literature, 15, pp. 402-435.

Frey, H. (1999). Designing the City: Towards a More Sustainable Urban Form.

Froger, G. and G. Munda (1998). “Methodology for Environmental Decision Support”, in S. Faucheux and M. O’Connor (eds) (1998), pp. 167-86.

Funtowicz, S. and J.R. Ravetz (1994). “The Worth of a Songbird: Ecological Economics as a Post-Normal Science”, Ecological Economics, 10: 197-207.

Funtowicz, S.O. and J.R. Ravetz (1991). “A New Scientific Methodology for Global Environmental Issues”, in R. Costanza (ed.) (1991), pp.137-52.

Galbraith, J. K (1991). “Economics in the Century Ahead”, The Economic Journal, 101: 41-46.

Gallopin, G. C. and F. Rijsberman (2000). “Three Global Water Scenarios”, International Journal of Water, 1 (1), pp. 16-40.

Gallopin, G., A. Hammond, P. Raskin, R. Swart (1997). Branch Points: Global Scenarios and Human Choice.

Garnett, R. F. (1999). “Postmodernism and Theories of Value: New Grounds for Institutionalist/Marxist Dialogue?”, Journal of Economic Issues, 33 (4): 817-834.

Gibbs, D. (1997). “Urban Sustainability and economic development in the United Kingdom: exploring the contradictions”, Cities, 14 (4).

Gibbs, D. and M. Healey (1995). “Local government, environmental policy and economic development” in M. Taylor (ed.), Environmental Change: Industry, Power and Policy.

Gibbs, D.C., J. Longhurst and C. Braithwaite (1998). “’Struggling with Sustainability’: weak and strong interpretations of sustainable development within local authority policy”, Environment and Planning A, 30, pp. 1351-1365.

Gowdy, J. (1994). Co-evolutionary Economics: the Economy, Society and the Environment, Kluwer Academic Publisher

Gowdy, J. (1997). “The Value of Biodiversity: Markets, Society, and Ecosystems”, Land Economics, 73(1): 25-41.

Hahn, F. (1991). “The Next Hundred Years”, The Economic Journal, 101: 47-50.

24

Hall P. and U. Pfeiffer (2000). Urban Future 21: A Global Agenda for Twenty First Century Cities. E. & F.N. Spon: New York.

Harris, Jonathan M., Timothy A Wise, Kevin P. Gallagher, and Neva R. Goodwin eds. (2001), A Survey of Sustainable Development: Social and Economic Dimensions, Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Haughton (1997). “Developing Sustainable Urban Development Models”, Cities, 14(4), pp. 189-195.

Haughton, G. (1999). “Environmental Justice and the Sustainable City”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18 (3), pp. 233-43.

Haughton, G. and C. Hunter (1994). Sustainable Cities.

Hausman, D. M. and M. S: McPherson (1993). “Taking Ethics Seriously: Economics and Contemporary Moral Philosophy”, Journal of Economic Literature, 31: 671-731.

Hodgson, G. (1996). “Towards a Worthwile Economics” in Medema and Samuels (1996).

Hodgson, G. (1998). “The Approach of Institutional Economics”, Journal of Economic Literature, 36: 166-192.

Hoey, B. A. (2003) “Nationalism in Indonesia: Building Imagines and Intentional Communities through Transmigration” Ethnology, 42(2), 109+.

Hoyer, K. G. and P. Naess (2001). “The Ecological Traces of Growth: Economic Growth, Liberalization, Increased Consumption—and Sustainable Urban Development?”, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 3, pp. 177-192.

Jacobs, M. (1994). “The Limits to Neo-classicism: Towards an Institutional Environmental Economics”, in M. Redclift and Woodgate (eds) (1994), pp. 67-91.

Jacobs, M. (1997). “Environmental Valuation, Deliberative Democracy and Public Decision-Making Institutions”, in J. Foster (1997) (ed.), pp. 211-31.

Kannappan, S. (1995). “Review Article: The Economics of Development: The Prosrusean Bed of Mainstream Economics”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 43 (4): 863-889.

Kanter, R.M. (1972) Community and Commitment, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Klein, P. (1996). “How Should Economists Do Economics? A Pragmatic Perspective” in Medema and Samuels (1996).

Köhn, J., J. Gowdy, F. Hinterberger and J. van der Straaten (eds) (1999). Sustainability in Question: the Search for a Conceptual Framework. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar

Krueger, O. A. (1994). “Economists’ Changing Perceptions of Government”, Weltwirtschaftliche Archive, 127: 417-431.

Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

25

Lafferty, W. M. and K. Eckenberg (1998). From the Earth Summit to Local Agenda 21: Working Towards Sustainable Development, London: Earthscan.

Laffont, J. (2002). “Public Economics Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow”, Journal of Public Economics, 86: 327-334.

Lazear, E. (2000). “Economic Imperialism”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics.

Leamer, E. (1996). “Questions, Theory and Data”, in Medema and Samuels (1996).

Leitmann, J. (1999). Sustaining Cities: Environmental Planning and Management in Urban Design. McGraw-Hill Companies.

Magnusson, L. and J. Ottosson (eds.) (1997). Evolutionary Economics and Path Dependence, Edward Elgar.

Martinez-Alier (2003). Urban Sustainability

Martinez-Alier, J., G. Munda and J. O’Neill (1999). “Theories and Methods in Ecological Economics; a Tentative Classification”.

McGill, R. (1998). “Urban Management in Developing Countries”, Cities, 15 (6), pp. 463-471.

McGill, R. (2001). “Urban Management Checklist”, Cities, 18(5), pp. 347-354.

Medema, S. and W. Samuels (1996). Foundations of Research Economics: How do Economists do Economics?

Mega and Pedersen (1998). Urban Sustainability Indicators, European Foundation.

Meier, G. and J. Stiglitz (eds.) (2000). Frontiers in Economics, New York: Oxford University Press and World Bank.

Miller, G. J. (1997). “The Impact of Economics on Contemporary Political Science”, Journal of Economic Literature, 35: 1173-1204.

Mueller, D. (1997). Pespectives on Public Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press.

Munda, G. (1996). “Cost-Benefit Analysis in Integrated Environmental Assessment: Some Methodological Issues”, Ecological Economics, 19 (2): 157-168.

Munda, G. (1997). “Environmental Economics, Ecological Economics, and the Concept of Sustainable Development”, Environmental Values, 6: 213-33.

Munda, G. (2001). Indicators and Evaluation Tools for the Assessment of Urban Sustainability.

Munda, G. (2002). “SMCE: Methodological Foundations and Operational Consequences”.

Naess, P. (2001). “Urban Planning and Sustainable Development”, European Planning Studies, Vol. 9, No. 4.

Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (2002). “Evolutionary Theorizing in Economics”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(2): 23-45.

26

Neumayer, E. (1999). Weak and Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

New Athens Charter, 2003

Nijkamp and de Montis (1999). “New Perspectives on Urban Sustainability Analysis: Space-Time Evaluation in the context of Multicriteria Decision Making”.

Nijkamp, p. (2000). “The Role of Evaluation in Supporting a Human Sustainable Development: A Cosmonomic Perspective”

Norgaard R.B. (1989). “The Case for Methodological Pluralism”, Ecological Economics, 1: 37-57.

Norgaard, R.B. (1984). “Coevolutionary Development Potential”, Land Economics, 60: 160-73.

O’Connor, M. (1998). “Ecological-Economic Sustainability”, in S. Faucheux and M. O’Connor (eds) (1998), pp. 19-42.

O’Connor, M. and C. Spash (eds) (1999). Valuation and the Environment: Theory, Method and Practice. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

O’Connor, M., S. Faucheux, G. Froger, S. Funtowicz and G. Munda (1996). “Emergent Comlexity and Procedural Rationality: Post-Normal Science for Sustainability”, in R. Costanza et al (eds.)(1996), pp. 224-47.

O’Neill, J. (1997). “Value Pluralism, Incommensurability and Institutions” in J. Foster (ed.) (1997), pp. 75-87.

O’Neill, J. (1998). The Market: Ethics, Knowledge and Politics. London and New York: Routledge.

Ollikainen, M. (1997). “Sustainable Development from the Viewpoint of Ethics and Economics” in A. Tylecote and J. van der Straaten (eds) (1997), pp. 39-53.

Ozkaynak, Begum (2000): Operationalising Sustainability, MPhil Thesis, University of Manchester.

Pencavel, J. (1991), “Prospects for Economics”, The Economic Journal, 101: 81-87.

Pezzey, J. (1992). “Sustainability: An Interdisciplinary Guide”. Environmental Values, 1: 321-62.

Pierson P. (2000). “Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics”, American Political Science Review 94: 251-267.

Polanyi, Karl (1957): “The Economy as Instituted Process”, ch.XIII in Polanyi, Karl, Conrad Arensberg and Harry Pearson (eds), Trade and Market in the Early Empires, Glencoe Illinois,The Free Press.

Radin, M. J. (1996). Contested Commodities.

Ravetz, J. (2000). “Integrated assessment for sustainability appraisal in cities and regions”, in Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20, pp. 31-64.

27

Redclift, M. (1993). “Sustainable Development: Needs, Values, Rights”, Environmental Values, 12: 2-20.

Redclift, M. (1996). Wasted: Counting the Costs of Global Consumption, London: Earthscan.

Redclift, M. (1999). in E. Becker and T. Jahn (1999), Sustainability and the Social Sciences.

Rees, W. (1999). “Achieving Sustainability: reform or transformation?” in Satterthwaite (1999).

Richardson, D. (1997). “The Politics of Sustainable Development” in S. Baker, M. Kousis, D. Richardson and S. Young (eds) (1997), The Politics of Sustainable Development: Theory, Policy and Practice within EU. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 44-71.

Robbins, L. (1932). An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science

Roseland, M. (2000). “Sustainable community development: integrating environmental, economic and social objectives”, Progress in Planning, 54: 73-132.

Rydin, Y. (1999). “Can we Talk Ourselves into Sustainability? The Role of Discourse in the Environmental Policy Process”, Environmental Values, 8, pp. 467-488.

Sachs, I. (1999). “Social Sustainability and Whole Development: Exploring the Dimensions of Sustainable Development” in E. Becker and T. Jahn (1999), Sustainability and the Social Sciences.

Samuels, W. (1996). “Foreword” in Foldvary (1996).

Samuels, W.J., (1997). “Instrumental Valuation” in the Economy as a Process of Valuation, edited by W. Samuels, S. Medema and A. Schmid, 1-71. Cheltenham, U.K: Edward Elgar.

Samuelson, L. (2002). “Evolution and Game Theory”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(2): 47-66.

Sandmo, A. (1990). “Buchanan on Political Economy: A Review Article”, Journal of Economic Literature, 38: 50-65.

Satterthwaite, D. (ed.) (1999). The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Cities, London: Earthcan.

Schotter, A. (1996). “You’re Not Making Sense, You’re Just Being Logical“, in Medema, S. and W. Samuels (1996).

Scrase, J. I. And W. R. Sheate (2002). “Integration and Integrated Approaches to Assessment: What do they mean for the Environment”, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 4, pp. 275-294.

Selman, P. Local Sustainabiliy, Paul Chapman, London, 1996.

Sen, A. (1986). “The Standard of Living” in Tanner Lectures on Human Values.

Sen, A. (1987). On Ethics and Economics

Sikor, T. and Norgaard R.B. (1999). “Principles for Sustainability: Protection, Investment, Co-operation, and Innovation” in Köhn et al. (eds) (1999), pp. 49-66.

28

Sikor, T. and Norgaard R.B. (1999). “Principles for Sustainability: Protection, Investment, Co-operation, and Innovation” in Köhn et al. (eds) (1999), pp. 49-66.

Simon, H.A. (1976). “From Substanstive to Procedural Rationality”, in S.J. Latsis (ed.) (1976), Methods and Appraisal in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 129-48.

Simon, S. (2003). EE Internet Encyclopaedia.

Söderbaum, P. (1992). “Neo-classical and Institutional Approaches to Development and the Environment”, Ecological Economics, 5: 127-44.

Söderbaum, P. (1999). “Politics and Economics in Relation to Environment and Development: On Participation and Responsibility in the Conceptual Framework of Economics” in Köhn et al. (eds) (1999), pp. 283-300.

Spash, C. L. (1999). “The Development of Environmental Thinking in Economics”. Environmental Values, 8: 413-435.

Stiglitz, J. (1991). “Another Century of Economic Science”, The Economic Journal, 101: 134-141.

Stiglitz, J. (2001). “Foreword” in Great Transformation

Stiglitz, J. (2002). “New Perspectives on Public Finance: Recent Achievements and Future Challenges”, Journal of Public Economics, 86: 341-360.

Swaney, J. (1987). “Elements of a Neoinstitutional Environmental Economics”, Journal of Economic Issues, 21(4): 1739-79.

Topfer, K. (1999). Global Environmental Outlook 2000. Earthscan: London

Urban Foundation (1993). Managing Urban Growth: the International Experience, UF Research, No. 1.

van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. and J. M. Gowdy (2003). “The microfoundations of macroeconomics: an evolutionary perspective”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 27: 65-84.

Viederman, S. (1994). “Public Policy: Challenge to Ecological Economics” in Jansson et al. (eds) (1994), pp. 467-78.

Vitousek, P., P. Ehrlich, A. Erhlich and P. Matson (1986). “Human Appropriation of the Products of Photosynthesis, Bioscience, 34: 368-73.

World Bank Report (2000). Cities in Transition, A Strategic View of Urban and Local Government Issues, Washington.

Zetter, R. and A. Hassan (2002). “Urban Economy or Environmental Policy? The Case of Egypt”, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 4, pp. 169-184.

29