Community participation by case study participants

As discussed in Chapter Two, ‘civic participation’ has long been considered an essential element of citizenship. Civic participation shows commitment and action towards the common good and also helps citizens as individuals by increasing their self-confidence and other skills; it could consist of involvement in community groups or be more political in orientation. A focus on ‘community’ has also been a strong element of ecopolitical theory since its inception, although perhaps partly due to criticism of this aspect of early theorists’ work (see Saward 1993; Kenny 1996), later theorists have veered away from the idealistic and potentially anarchistic direction early theory was taking (Eckersley 1996a ; Hay 2001). Nevertheless, Green politics arose from grassroots movements and has always emphasised the importance of grassroots participation in politics (Rainbow 1993). Participation in community-based activities aimed at furthering the environmental common good would therefore seem to be an ideal area in which to consider and refine environmental citizenship theory, and theorists such as Light (2002), Barry (2006) and Seyfang (2006) specifically look

at the involvement of environmental citizens in activities at the community level. The case study begins its exploration of respondents’ public sphere actions by looking at their involvement in community-based activities.

The term ‘community’ is open to interpretation (Walker et al. 2007). For example, the organic growers’ co-operative studied by Seyfang (2006) is community- based given that it is oriented to the public good and run as a collective rather than by private owners, without members necessarily living in the same local area, while other programs are clearly related to a particular locality (Kellett 2007) or entity such as a school (Flowers & Chodkiewicz 2009).

The questionnaire asked respondents to what degree they have been involved in community-based responses to climate change, in the last five years, with a range of options given. The response rate is lower for questions in this section than in the previous one, about activities, which is an interesting result in itself, although it possibly indicates some confusion about the meaning of the term.

In Tasmania at least, climate change-directed activities organised by community-based participants rather than government departments or professionalised NGOs are relatively new (SLT 2010), with the TCCO’s ‘Climate Connect’ community grants program commencing in 2009 (TCCO 2010). Some community programs, projects or activities, however, have existed for many years, without being targeted specifically at climate change, for example informal car

pooling, bulk buying of food by groups of neighbours and some community gardens58_;

such activities take place for many interrelating reasons, such as building community, social inclusion and health as well as environmental reasons (Adams 2009; SHSC 2010). Others are much newer and aimed specifically at climate change, for example alternative energy programs where a community group arranges for a bulk purchase of solar hot water systems or solar panels, as happened in South Hobart in 2009 (SHSC 2010), and co-ordination of community responses, like local groups organising along the lines of the Transition Towns movement, which in Tasmania is a loose coalition of around twenty local groups trying to engage their local communities in reducing GHG and building community resilience in face of the changes that must come with peak oil and climate change (Transition Tasmania 2010).

Figure 3 gives the percentage of respondents involved in various community- based responses to climate change, in the last five years. With no figures with which to compare the results, it is not possible to know whether the participation rates shown

58

While many of the thirty (EWT 2010) community gardens now in Tasmania are recent projects, climate change is not always a major consideration in their establishment (DPAC 2011).

in Figure 3 are unusual or what could be expected, although it would seem that they must be quite high. For example even the lowest figure, 32.3 percent of respondents involved in co-ordinating a community response, must be high when considering, say, that the South Hobart Sustainable Community group has around 200 members (SLT 2010), only four percent of the suburb’s population of around 5,000 (Australian Postcodes 2011), and only around twelve people are actively involved in co- ordinating the group (SLT 2010).

The interviewees varied with respect to their involvement in community- based responses to climate change. Nine of the interviewees live in areas where ‘transition’ groups exist: in inner or bushland fringe suburbs of Hobart, a satellite town and in a rural area. Six of these participants have had at least some involvement with these groups. Those who lived in these areas but were not involved in the transition groups cited their lack of time, or for some simply that they prefer other types of community involvement, for example Michelle is involved in the local arts community. None of the participants who lived in other areas had any involvement in community-based responses to climate change; and the transition groups were the only specific community-based responses to climate change that were mentioned by participants, although a number of them mentioned the need to support the local economy, as discussed above in the consumption section.

Figure 3: Involvement in community-based responses to climate change in the last five years.

Jack comments on the experience of living in an area where he has found a community of like-minded people:

It’s certainly a comfort thing, living in South Hobart, and being surrounded by greenies who don’t question what you’re talking about. We’re all on the same page, it’s almost like we’re all from the same tribe. And it’s only when you go and try to talk to some other tribe that the language breaks down or the values are different, or there’s something underlying that’s different, and it makes for difficult communication. In my experience.

While not actively avoiding them, he finds it difficult to hold conversations with people with different values, for example,

Just zipping up to Bali for the weekend … There’s nothing bizarre about that, that’s just normal, so cheap, so why wouldn’t you? … I mean I’d love to be able to say to somebody: don’t you understand that this is helping to bugger up the planet and make for a harder world to live in

ultimately? … I’d love to find a better way to say all that. … I’d rather them respond than react, but they always seem to react.

It seems that for Jack, community is very much based on shared values, as well as his local area. Through his values, though, he connects his own and his local community’s actions with the global environment and people elsewhere who have lower ecological footprints than Australians. He has attempted to engage with people who are not part of his values-based community, but has found it too difficult. There is, therefore, very much a local-global dimension to Jack’s citizenship, and a stronger allegiance to the earth than to the wider society he lives within.

A number of the other interviewees pointed out that they are trying to

influence other people to change the way they live, for example, Sally’s six-month blog on her Tasmanian-only diet; or through showing that it is possible to live a satisfying life, as Michelle says, ‘without buying new stuff’; and also through subtle messages, such as Pat’s invitation to friends who drive everywhere to car share to a recent event. More survey respondents engage in ‘informal discussions’ than any of the other community responses to climate change, however the survey does not ask whether the informal discussions are with people who have different views; it is also

family’. A small number of people pointed out that there is no point in informal discussions as they ‘lead nowhere’ or not many people are willing to face the truth59_.

Hamilton (2003) argues that paid employment is best understood as being part of a person’s community involvement and can be an important part of an

individual’s response to climate change; one which has received little attention in the literature. Several of the interviewees saw their work as an important part of their contribution to climate change mitigation or preparedness. Myra and Michelle both run their businesses on sustainable lines, with low carbon footprints through sourcing second-hand materials, while Anna is a teacher who uses her own practices, such as catching the bus to work, as a role model for the students. Donna has attempted to make changes to the practices of her workplace to reduce its carbon footprint, for example through lobbying for the large number of computers used there to be turned off when not in use. Alex has started a new career in sustainable building design.

Surprisingly, given their membership of the Greens, only one interviewee, Jim, made a definite connection between politics and community involvement around climate change, through his community and professional association activism against a major road development. He is also involved in finding alternatives to car-based transport through his community involvement and his work as a planner in the public sector. After mentioning a new federal government initiative on better cities, he says

I have some hope, I keep hanging on, I’ve been in this job for twenty years and there’s always been hope. So of course, that’s why I get involved locally with the council and issues here. And with the Transition Tasmania movement, which is addressing things like growing food.

The other interviewees, even those who are involved in the transition movement, did not explicitly make the connection between the community and politics. Rather, it seems, they see community involvement around climate change as an alternative to working within the formal political system, although Alex was the only one to articulate this point:

I don’t personally think you can rely on the government to do the right thing, they ultimately have a political agenda. And I don’t approve the major parties’ agendas, so I’d rather put energy into making local communities more self-sufficient so that they are not relying on outside resources, particularly government resources to survive. … And there’s a benefit in sort of combining the skills of a community.

However, a number of the participants are or have been involved in environmental campaigns and organisations – community-based and political at the same time – though not specifically related to climate change, for example Leanne is very active in the animal rights movement and Donna was one of the co-ordinators until recently of a major environmental campaign.

Whether political or not, community involvement is still an expression of the participants’ concerns through action in the public sphere. Where climate change is concerned, more than half of the interviewees had some community involvement around climate change, somewhat more than for survey respondents.

Figure A10 and Table A13 in Appendix Six explore the reasons for survey respondents not participating in community-based responses to climate change: lack of opportunity stands out, while the numbers who had ‘not thought about’ the types of community responses listed are quite low. There is a high proportion of non-

responses and confused responses to the questions about community involvement, perhaps indicating a lack of awareness or understanding around, for example, community gardens. Combined with the lack of opportunity this result shows that there is significant potential for further participation in community-based responses in Tasmania, at least among Greens members. However, the percentage of

respondents who ‘prefer doing this as an individual or family’ indicates that the potential for community-based responses has a limit.