Добірка наукової літератури з теми "Urban ecology South Australia Whyalla Case studies"

Bacterial production is important in aquatic carbon cycles because it represents a key component whereby dissolved and particulate carbon can be recycled back into food webs. Despite its acknowledged importance, few studies have examined bacterial production in lowland rivers. Since studies have suggested bacterial production is closely related to some carbon pools, we anticipated this to be the case in the Murray River, but that the timing and type of carbon inputs in the Murray River may lead to bacterial dynamics that differ from studies from other sites. Bacterial abundance and production were measured at three contrasting sites of the lowland Murray River, south-eastern Australia, over an 18-month period. Bacterial abundance varied across the three sites on the Murray River and was correlated with chlorophyll a concentrations but not with temperature, nutrients, particulate organic carbon and dissolved organic carbon concentrations. Bacterial production also varied across the sites. Lowest production was at the site most immediately downstream of a large reservoir, with production generally ranging from 0.88 to 8.00 μg C L−1 h−1. Bacterial production in a reach within a large forest ranged from 4.00 to 17.38 μg C L−1 h−1. Production at the reach furthest downstream ranged from 1.04 to 23.50 μg C L−1 h−1. Bacterial production in the Murray River was generally greater than in the European River Spree, reaches of the Meuse and Rhine without immediate impacts from major urban centres and the Amazon River, but was similar to the concentration measured in the Mississippi and Hudson Rivers. Bacterial production was closely correlated with chlorophyll a concentration and total phosphorus, but not with temperature, dissolved organic carbon, particulate organic carbon or inorganic nitrogen. Despite the differences in production and respiration measured at different sites across the Murray River, bacterial growth efficiency was very similar at the three sites. Bacterial populations in the Murray River appear to be influenced by reach-specific conditions rather than broad-scale drivers such as temperature, carbon and nutrient concentrations.

Prescribed burning is used in Australia as a tool to manage fire risk and protect assets. A key challenge is deciding how to arrange the burns to generate the highest benefits to society. Studies have shown that prescribed burning in the wildland–urban interface (WUI) can reduce the risk of house loss due to wildfires, but the costs and benefits of different arrangements for prescribed burning treatments have rarely been estimated. In this study, we use three different models to explore the costs and benefits of modifying the spatial arrangement of prescribed burns on public land, using the south-west of Western Australia as a case study. We simulate two hypothetical scenarios: landscape treatments and WUI treatments. We evaluate the long-term costs and benefits of each scenario and compare the results from the three models, highlighting the management implications of each model. Results indicate that intensifying prescribed burning treatments in public land in the WUI achieves a greater reduction in damages compared with applying the majority of the treatments in rural areas. However, prescribed burning in the WUI is significantly more expensive and, despite additional benefits gained from this strategy, in most cases it is not the most economically efficient strategy.

Climate change induced sea-level rise (SLR) is on its increase globally. Regionally the lowlands of China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and islands of the Malaysian, Indonesian and Philippine archipelagos are among the world’s most threatened regions. Sea-level rise has major impacts on the ecosystems and society. It threatens coastal populations, economic activities, and fragile ecosystems as mangroves, coastal salt-marches and wetlands. This paper provides a summary of the current state of knowledge of sea level-rise and its effects on both human and natural ecosystems. The focus is on coastal urban areas and low lying deltas in South-East Asia and Vietnam, as one of the most threatened areas in the world. About 3 mm per year reflects the growing consensus on the average SLR worldwide. The trend speeds up during recent decades. The figures are subject to local, temporal and methodological variation. In Vietnam the average values of 3.3 mm per year during the 1993-2014 period are above the worldwide average. Although a basic conceptual understanding exists that the increasing global frequency of the strongest tropical cyclones is related with the increasing temperature and SLR, this relationship is insufficiently understood. Moreover the precise, complex environmental, economic, social, and health impacts are currently unclear. SLR, storms and changing precipitation patterns increase flood risks, in particular in urban areas. Part of the current scientific debate is on how urban agglomeration can be made more resilient to flood risks. Where originally mainly technical interventions dominated this discussion, it becomes increasingly clear that proactive special planning, flood defense, flood risk mitigation, flood preparation, and flood recovery are important, but costly instruments. Next to the main focus on SLR and its effects on resilience, the paper reviews main SLR associated impacts: Floods and inundation, salinization, shoreline change, and effects on mangroves and wetlands. The hazards of SLR related floods increase fastest in urban areas. This is related with both the increasing surface major cities are expected to occupy during the decades to come and the increasing coastal population. In particular Asia and its megacities in the southern part of the continent are increasingly at risk. The discussion points to complexity, inter-disciplinarity, and the related uncertainty, as core characteristics. An integrated combination of mitigation, adaptation and resilience measures is currently considered as the most indicated way to resist SLR today and in the near future.References Aerts J.C.J.H., Hassan A., Savenije H.H.G., Khan M.F., 2000. Using GIS tools and rapid assessment techniques for determining salt intrusion: Stream a river basin management instrument. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Part B: Hydrology, Oceans and Atmosphere, 25, 265-273. Doi: 10.1016/S1464-1909(00)00014-9. Alongi D.M., 2002. Present state and future of the world’s mangrove forests. Environmental Conservation, 29, 331-349. Doi: 10.1017/S0376892902000231 Alongi D.M., 2015. The impact of climate change on mangrove forests. Curr. Clim. Change Rep., 1, 30-39. Doi: 10.1007/s404641-015-0002-x. Anderson F., Al-Thani N., 2016. Effect of sea level rise and groundwater withdrawal on seawater intrusion in the Gulf Coast aquifer: Implications for agriculture. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 4, 116-124. Doi: 10.4236/gep.2016.44015. Anguelovski I., Chu E., Carmin J., 2014. Variations in approaches to urban climate adaptation: Experiences and experimentation from the global South. Global Environmental Change, 27, 156-167. Doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.05.010. Arustienè J., Kriukaitè J., Satkunas J., Gregorauskas M., 2013. Climate change and groundwater - From modelling to some adaptation means in example of Klaipèda region, Lithuania. In: Climate change adaptation in practice. P. Schmidt-Thomé, J. Klein Eds. John Wiley and Sons Ltd., Chichester, UK., 157-169. Bamber J.L., Aspinall W.P., Cooke R.M., 2016. A commentary on “how to interpret expert judgement assessments of twenty-first century sea-level rise” by Hylke de Vries and Roderik S.W. Van de Wal. Climatic Change, 137, 321-328. Doi: 10.1007/s10584-016-1672-7. Barnes C., 2014. Coastal population vulnerability to sea level rise and tropical cyclone intensification under global warming. BSc-thesis. Department of Geography, University of Lethbridge, Alberta Canada. Be T.T., Sinh B.T., Miller F., 2007. Challenges to sustainable development in the Mekong Delta: Regional and national policy issues and research needs. The Sustainable Mekong Research Network, Bangkok, Thailand, 1-210. Bellard C., Leclerc C., Courchamp F., 2014. Impact of sea level rise on 10 insular biodiversity hotspots. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 23, 203-212. Doi: 10.1111/geb.12093. Berg H., Söderholm A.E., Sönderström A.S., Nguyen Thanh Tam, 2017. Recognizing wetland ecosystem services for sustainable rice farming in the Mekong delta, Vietnam. Sustainability Science, 12, 137-154. Doi: 10.1007/s11625-016-0409-x. Bilskie M.V., Hagen S.C., Medeiros S.C., Passeri D.L., 2014. Dynamics of sea level rise and coastal flooding on a changing landscape. Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 927-934. Doi: 10.1002/2013GL058759. Binh T.N.K.D., Vromant N., Hung N.T., Hens L., Boon E.K., 2005. Land cover changes between 1968 and 2003 in Cai Nuoc, Ca Mau penisula, Vietnam. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7, 519-536. Doi: 10.1007/s10668-004-6001-z. Blankespoor B., Dasgupta S., Laplante B., 2014. Sea-level rise and coastal wetlands. Ambio, 43, 996- 005.Doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0500-4. Brockway R., Bowers D., Hoguane A., Dove V., Vassele V., 2006. A note on salt intrusion in funnel shaped estuaries: Application to the Incomati estuary, Mozambique.Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 66, 1-5. Doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2005.07.014. Cannaby H., Palmer M.D., Howard T., Bricheno L., Calvert D., Krijnen J., Wood R., Tinker J., Bunney C., Harle J., Saulter A., O’Neill C., Bellingham C., Lowe J., 2015. Projected sea level rise and changes in extreme storm surge and wave events during the 21st century in the region of Singapore. Ocean Sci. Discuss, 12, 2955-3001. Doi: 10.5194/osd-12-2955-2015. Carraro C., Favero A., Massetti E., 2012. Investment in public finance in a green, low carbon economy. Energy Economics, 34, S15-S18. Castan-Broto V., Bulkeley H., 2013. A survey ofurban climate change experiments in 100 cities. Global Environmental Change, 23, 92-102. Doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.005. Cazenave A., Le Cozannet G., 2014. Sea level rise and its coastal impacts. GeoHealth, 2, 15-34. Doi: 10.1002/2013EF000188. Chu M.L., Guzman J.A., Munoz-Carpena R., Kiker G.A., Linkov I., 2014. A simplified approach for simulating changes in beach habitat due to the combined effects of long-term sea level rise, storm erosion and nourishment. Environmental modelling and software, 52, 111-120. Doi.org/10.1016/j.envcsoft.2013.10.020. Church J.A. et al., 2013. Sea level change. In: Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Eds: Stocker T.F., Qin D., Plattner G.-K., Tignor M., Allen S.K., Boschung J., Nauels A., Xia Y., Bex V., Midgley P.M., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Connell J., 2016. Last days of the Carteret Islands? Climate change, livelihoods and migration on coral atolls. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 57, 3-15. Doi: 10.1111/apv.12118. Dasgupta S., Laplante B., Meisner C., Wheeler, Yan J., 2009. The impact of sea level rise on developing countries: A comparative analysis. Climatic Change, 93, 379-388. Doi: 10.1007/s 10584-008-9499-5. Delbeke J., Vis P., 2015. EU climate policy explained, 136p. Routledge, Oxon, UK. DiGeorgio M., 2015. Bargaining with disaster: Flooding, climate change, and urban growth ambitions in QuyNhon, Vietnam. Public Affairs, 88, 577-597. Doi: 10.5509/2015883577. Do Minh Duc, Yasuhara K., Nguyen Manh Hieu, 2015. Enhancement of coastal protection under the context of climate change: A case study of Hai Hau coast, Vietnam. Proceedings of the 10th Asian Regional Conference of IAEG, 1-8. Do Minh Duc, Yasuhara K., Nguyen Manh Hieu, Lan Nguyen Chau, 2017. Climate change impacts on a large-scale erosion coast of Hai Hau district, Vietnam and the adaptation. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 21, 47-62. Donner S.D., Webber S., 2014. Obstacles to climate change adaptation decisions: A case study of sea level rise; and coastal protection measures in Kiribati. Sustainability Science, 9, 331-345. Doi: 10.1007/s11625-014-0242-z. Driessen P.P.J., Hegger D.L.T., Bakker M.H.N., Van Renswick H.F.M.W., Kundzewicz Z.W., 2016. Toward more resilient flood risk governance. Ecology and Society, 21, 53-61. Doi: 10.5751/ES-08921-210453. Duangyiwa C., Yu D., Wilby R., Aobpaet A., 2015. Coastal flood risks in the Bangkok Metropolitan region, Thailand: Combined impacts on land subsidence, sea level rise and storm surge. American Geophysical Union, Fall meeting 2015, abstract#NH33C-1927. Duarte C.M., Losada I.J., Hendriks I.E., Mazarrasa I., Marba N., 2013. The role of coastal plant communities for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 3, 961-968. Doi: 10.1038/nclimate1970. Erban L.E., Gorelick S.M., Zebker H.A., 2014. Groundwater extraction, land subsidence, and sea-level rise in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Environmental Research Letters, 9, 1-20. Doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/9/8/084010. FAO - Food and Agriculture Organisation, 2007.The world’s mangroves 1980-2005. FAO Forestry Paper, 153, Rome, Italy. Farbotko C., 2010. Wishful sinking: Disappearing islands, climate refugees and cosmopolitan experimentation. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 51, 47-60. Doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8373.2010.001413.x. Goltermann D., Ujeyl G., Pasche E., 2008. Making coastal cities flood resilient in the era of climate change. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on flood defense: Managing flood risk, reliability and vulnerability, 148-1-148-11. Toronto, Canada. Gong W., Shen J., 2011. The response of salt intrusion to changes in river discharge and tidal mixing during the dry season in the Modaomen Estuary, China.Continental Shelf Research, 31, 769-788. Doi: 10.1016/j.csr.2011.01.011. Gosian L., 2014. Protect the world’s deltas. Nature, 516, 31-34. Graham S., Barnett J., Fincher R., Mortreux C., Hurlimann A., 2015. Towards fair outcomes in adaptation to sea-level rise. Climatic Change, 130, 411-424. Doi: 10.1007/s10584-014-1171-7. COASTRES-D-12-00175.1. Güneralp B., Güneralp I., Liu Y., 2015. Changing global patterns of urban expoàsure to flood and drought hazards. Global Environmental Change, 31, 217-225. Doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.002. Hallegatte S., Green C., Nicholls R.J., Corfee-Morlot J., 2013. Future flood losses in major coastal cities. Nature Climate Change, 3, 802-806. Doi: 10.1038/nclimate1979. Hamlington B.D., Strassburg M.W., Leben R.R., Han W., Nerem R.S., Kim K.-Y., 2014. Uncovering an anthropogenic sea-level rise signal in the Pacific Ocean. Nature Climate Change, 4, 782-785. Doi: 10.1038/nclimate2307. Hashimoto T.R., 2001. Environmental issues and recent infrastructure development in the Mekong Delta: Review, analysis and recommendations with particular reference to large-scale water control projects and the development of coastal areas. Working paper series (Working paper No. 4). Australian Mekong Resource Centre, University of Sydney, Australia, 1-70. Hibbert F.D., Rohling E.J., Dutton A., Williams F.H., Chutcharavan P.M., Zhao C., Tamisiea M.E., 2016. Coral indicators of past sea-level change: A global repository of U-series dated benchmarks. Quaternary Science Reviews, 145, 1-56. Doi: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2016.04.019. Hinkel J., Lincke D., Vafeidis A., Perrette M., Nicholls R.J., Tol R.S.J., Mazeion B., Fettweis X., Ionescu C., Levermann A., 2014. Coastal flood damage and adaptation costs under 21st century sea-level rise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 3292-3297. Doi: 10.1073/pnas.1222469111. Hinkel J., Nicholls R.J., Tol R.S.J., Wang Z.B., Hamilton J.M., Boot G., Vafeidis A.T., McFadden L., Ganapolski A., Klei R.J.Y., 2013. A global analysis of erosion of sandy beaches and sea level rise: An application of DIVA. Global and Planetary Change, 111, 150-158. Doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2013.09.002. Huong H.T.L., Pathirana A., 2013. Urbanization and climate change impacts on future urban flooding in Can Tho city, Vietnam. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 379-394. Doi: 10.5194/hess-17-379-2013. Hurlimann A., Barnett J., Fincher R., Osbaldiston N., Montreux C., Graham S., 2014. Urban planning and sustainable adaptation to sea-level rise. Landscape and Urban Planning, 126, 84-93. Doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.12.013. IMHEN-Vietnam Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Environment, 2011. Climate change vulnerability and risk assessment study for Ca Mau and KienGiang provinces, Vietnam. Hanoi, Vietnam Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Environment (IMHEN), 250p. IMHEN-Vietnam Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Environment, Ca Mau PPC, 2011. Climate change impact and adaptation study in The Mekong Delta - Part A: Ca Mau Atlas. Hanoi, Vietnam: Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Environment (IMHEN), 48p. IPCC-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014. Fifth assessment report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Jevrejeva S., Jackson L.P., Riva R.E.M., Grinsted A., Moore J.C., 2016. Coastal sea level rise with warming above 2°C. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 13342-13347. Doi: 10.1073/pnas.1605312113. Junk W.J., AN S., Finlayson C.M., Gopal B., Kvet J., Mitchell S.A., Mitsch W.J., Robarts R.D., 2013. Current state of knowledge regarding the world’s wetlands and their future under global climate change: A synthesis. Aquatic Science, 75, 151-167. Doi: 10.1007/s00027-012-0278-z. Jordan A., Rayner T., Schroeder H., Adger N., Anderson K., Bows A., Le Quéré C., Joshi M., Mander S., Vaughan N., Whitmarsh L., 2013. Going beyond two degrees? The risks and opportunities of alternative options. Climate Policy, 13, 751-769. Doi: 10.1080/14693062.2013.835705. Kelly P.M., Adger W.N., 2000. Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate change and facilitating adaptation. Climatic Change, 47, 325-352. Doi: 10.1023/A:1005627828199. Kirwan M.L., Megonigal J.P., 2013. Tidal wetland stability in the face of human impacts and sea-level rice. Nature, 504, 53-60. Doi: 10.1038/nature12856. Koerth J., Vafeidis A.T., Hinkel J., Sterr H., 2013. What motivates coastal households to adapt pro actively to sea-level rise and increased flood risk? Regional Environmental Change, 13, 879-909. Doi: 10.1007/s10113-12-399-x. Kontgis K., Schneider A., Fox J;,Saksena S., Spencer J.H., Castrence M., 2014. Monitoring peri urbanization in the greater Ho Chi Minh City metropolitan area. Applied Geography, 53, 377-388. Doi: 10.1016/j.apgeogr.2014.06.029. Kopp R.E., Horton R.M., Little C.M., Mitrovica J.X., Oppenheimer M., Rasmussen D.J., Strauss B.H., Tebaldi C., 2014. Probabilistic 21st and 22nd century sea-level projections at a global network of tide-gauge sites. Earth’s Future, 2, 383-406. Doi: 10.1002/2014EF000239. Kuenzer C., Bluemel A., Gebhardt S., Quoc T., Dech S., 2011. Remote sensing of mangrove ecosystems: A review.Remote Sensing, 3, 878-928. Doi: 10.3390/rs3050878. Lacerda G.B.M., Silva C., Pimenteira C.A.P., Kopp Jr. R.V., Grumback R., Rosa L.P., de Freitas M.A.V., 2013. Guidelines for the strategic management of flood risks in industrial plant oil in the Brazilian coast: Adaptive measures to the impacts of sea level rise. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 19, 104-1062. Doi: 10.1007/s11027-013-09459-x. Lam Dao Nguyen, Pham Van Bach, Nguyen Thanh Minh, Pham Thi Mai Thy, Hoang Phi Hung, 2011. Change detection of land use and river bank in Mekong Delta, Vietnam using time series remotely sensed data. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2, 370-374. Doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-764x.2011.04.011. Lang N.T., Ky B.X., Kobayashi H., Buu B.C., 2004. Development of salt tolerant varieties in the Mekong delta. JIRCAS Project, Can Tho University, Can Tho, Vietnam, 152. Le Cozannet G., Rohmer J., Cazenave A., Idier D., Van de Wal R., de Winter R., Pedreros R., Balouin Y., Vinchon C., Oliveros C., 2015. Evaluating uncertainties of future marine flooding occurrence as sea-level rises. Environmental Modelling and Software, 73, 44-56. Doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.07.021. Le Cozannet G., Manceau J.-C., Rohmer J., 2017. Bounding probabilistic sea-level projections with the framework of the possible theory. Environmental Letters Research, 12, 12-14. Doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa5528.Chikamoto Y., 2014. Recent Walker circulation strengthening and Pacific cooling amplified by Atlantic warming. Nature Climate Change, 4, 888-892. Doi: 10.1038/nclimate2330. Lovelock C.E., Cahoon D.R., Friess D.A., Gutenspergen G.R., Krauss K.W., Reef R., Rogers K., Saunders M.L., Sidik F., Swales A., Saintilan N., Le Xuan Tuyen, Tran Triet, 2015. The vulnerability of Indo-Pacific mangrove forests to sea-level rise. Nature, 526, 559-563. Doi: 10.1038/nature15538. MA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Current state and trends. Island Press, Washington DC, 266p. Masterson J.P., Fienen M.N., Thieler E.R., Gesch D.B., Gutierrez B.T., Plant N.G., 2014. Effects of sea level rise on barrier island groundwater system dynamics - ecohydrological implications. Ecohydrology, 7, 1064-1071. Doi: 10.1002/eco.1442. McGanahan G., Balk D., Anderson B., 2007. The rising tide: Assessing the risks of climate changes and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones.Environment and urbanization, 19, 17-37. Doi: 10.1177/095624780707960. McIvor A., Möller I., Spencer T., Spalding M., 2012. Reduction of wind and swell waves by mangroves. The Nature Conservancy and Wetlands International, 1-27. Merryn T., Pidgeon N., Whitmarsh L., Ballenger R., 2016. Expert judgements of sea-level rise at the local scale. Journal of Risk Research, 19, 664-685. Doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2015.1043568. Monioudi I.N., Velegrakis A.F., Chatzipavlis A.E., Rigos A., Karambas T., Vousdoukas M.I., Hasiotis T., Koukourouvli N., Peduzzi P., Manoutsoglou E., Poulos S.E., Collins M.B., 2017. Assessment of island beach erosion due to sea level rise: The case of the Aegean archipelago (Eastern Mediterranean). Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 449-466. Doi: 10.5194/nhess-17-449-2017. MONRE - Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, 2016. Scenarios of climate change and sea level rise for Vietnam. Publishing House of Environmental Resources and Maps Vietnam, Hanoi, 188p. Montz B.E., Tobin G.A., Hagelman III R.R., 2017. Natural hazards. Explanation and integration. The Guilford Press, NY, 445p. Morgan L.K., Werner A.D., 2014. Water intrusion vulnerability for freshwater lenses near islands. Journal of Hydrology, 508, 322-327. Doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.11.002. Muis S., Güneralp B., Jongman B., Aerts J.C.H.J., Ward P.J., 2015. Science of the Total Environment, 538, 445-457. Doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.08.068. Murray N.J., Clemens R.S., Phinn S.R., Possingham H.P., Fuller R.A., 2014. Tracking the rapid loss of tidal wetlands in the Yellow Sea. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment, 12, 267-272. Doi: 10.1890/130260. Neumann B., Vafeidis A.T., Zimmermann J., Nicholls R.J., 2015a. Future coastal population growth and exposure to sea-level rise and coastal flooding. A global assessment. Plos One, 10, 1-22. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118571. Nguyen A. Duoc, Savenije H. H., 2006. Salt intrusion in multi-channel estuaries: a case study in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, European Geosciences Union, 10, 743-754. Doi: 10.5194/hess-10-743-2006. Nguyen An Thinh, Nguyen Ngoc Thanh, Luong Thi Tuyen, Luc Hens, 2017. Tourism and beach erosion: Valuing the damage of beach erosion for tourism in the Hoi An, World Heritage site. Journal of Environment, Development and Sustainability. Nguyen An Thinh, Luc Hens (Eds.), 2018. Human ecology of climate change associated disasters in Vietnam: Risks for nature and humans in lowland and upland areas. Springer Verlag, Berlin.Nguyen An Thinh, Vu Anh Dung, Vu Van Phai, Nguyen Ngoc Thanh, Pham Minh Tam, Nguyen Thi Thuy Hang, Le Trinh Hai, Nguyen Viet Thanh, Hoang Khac Lich, Vu Duc Thanh, Nguyen Song Tung, Luong Thi Tuyen, Trinh Phuong Ngoc, Luc Hens, 2017. Human ecological effects of tropical storms in the coastal area of Ky Anh (Ha Tinh, Vietnam). Environ Dev Sustain, 19, 745-767. Doi: 10.1007/s/10668-016-9761-3. Nguyen Van Hoang, 2017. Potential for desalinization of brackish groundwater aquifer under a background of rising sea level via salt-intrusion prevention river gates in the coastal area of the Red River delta, Vietnam. Environment, Development and Sustainability. Nguyen Tho, Vromant N., Nguyen Thanh Hung, Hens L., 2008. Soil salinity and sodicity in a shrimp farming coastal area of the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Environmental Geology, 54, 1739-1746. Doi: 10.1007/s00254-007-0951-z. Nguyen Thang T.X., Woodroffe C.D., 2016. Assessing relative vulnerability to sea-level rise in the western part of the Mekong River delta. Sustainability Science, 11, 645-659. Doi: 10.1007/s11625-015-0336-2. Nicholls N.N., Hoozemans F.M.J., Marchand M., Analyzing flood risk and wetland losses due to the global sea-level rise: Regional and global analyses.Global Environmental Change, 9, S69-S87. Doi: 10.1016/s0959-3780(99)00019-9. Phan Minh Thu, 2006. Application of remote sensing and GIS tools for recognizing changes of mangrove forests in Ca Mau province. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Geoinformatics for Spatial Infrastructure Development in Earth and Allied Sciences, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, 9-11 November, 1-17. Reise K., 2017. Facing the third dimension in coastal flatlands.Global sea level rise and the need for coastal transformations. Gaia, 26, 89-93. Renaud F.G., Le Thi Thu Huong, Lindener C., Vo Thi Guong, Sebesvari Z., 2015. Resilience and shifts in agro-ecosystems facing increasing sea-level rise and salinity intrusion in Ben Tre province, Mekong Delta. Climatic Change, 133, 69-84. Doi: 10.1007/s10584-014-1113-4. Serra P., Pons X., Sauri D., 2008. Land cover and land use in a Mediterranean landscape. Applied Geography, 28, 189-209. Shearman P., Bryan J., Walsh J.P., 2013.Trends in deltaic change over three decades in the Asia-Pacific Region. Journal of Coastal Research, 29, 1169-1183. Doi: 10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-12-00120.1. SIWRR-Southern Institute of Water Resources Research, 2016. Annual Report. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Ho Chi Minh City, 1-19. Slangen A.B.A., Katsman C.A., Van de Wal R.S.W., Vermeersen L.L.A., Riva R.E.M., 2012. Towards regional projections of twenty-first century sea-level change based on IPCC RES scenarios. Climate Dynamics, 38, 1191-1209. Doi: 10.1007/s00382-011-1057-6. Spencer T., Schuerch M., Nicholls R.J., Hinkel J., Lincke D., Vafeidis A.T., Reef R., McFadden L., Brown S., 2016. Global coastal wetland change under sea-level rise and related stresses: The DIVA wetland change model. Global and Planetary Change, 139, 15-30. Doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2015.12.018. Stammer D., Cazenave A., Ponte R.M., Tamisiea M.E., 2013. Causes of contemporary regional sea level changes. Annual Review of Marine Science, 5, 21-46. Doi: 10.1146/annurev-marine-121211-172406. Tett P., Mee L., 2015. Scenarios explored with Delphi. In: Coastal zones ecosystems services. Eds., Springer, Berlin, Germany, 127-144. Tran Hong Hanh, 2017. Land use dynamics, its drivers and consequences in the Ca Mau province, Mekong delta, Vietnam. PhD dissertation, 191p. VUBPRESS Brussels University Press, ISBN 9789057186226, Brussels, Belgium. Tran Thuc, Nguyen Van Thang, Huynh Thi Lan Huong, Mai Van Khiem, Nguyen Xuan Hien, Doan Ha Phong, 2016. Climate change and sea level rise scenarios for Vietnam. Ministry of Natural resources and Environment. Hanoi, Vietnam. Tran Hong Hanh, Tran Thuc, Kervyn M., 2015. Dynamics of land cover/land use changes in the Mekong Delta, 1973-2011: A remote sensing analysis of the Tran Van Thoi District, Ca Mau province, Vietnam. Remote Sensing, 7, 2899-2925. Doi: 10.1007/s00254-007-0951-z Van Lavieren H., Spalding M., Alongi D., Kainuma M., Clüsener-Godt M., Adeel Z., 2012. Securing the future of Mangroves. The United Nations University, Okinawa, Japan, 53, 1-56. Water Resources Directorate. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2016. Available online: http://www.tongcucthuyloi.gov.vn/Tin-tuc-Su-kien/Tin-tuc-su-kien-tong-hop/catid/12/item/2670/xam-nhap-man-vung-dong-bang-song-cuu-long--2015---2016---han-han-o-mien-trung--tay-nguyen-va-giai-phap-khac-phuc. Last accessed on: 30/9/2016. Webster P.J., Holland G.J., Curry J.A., Chang H.-R., 2005. Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment. Science, 309, 1844-1846. Doi: 10.1126/science.1116448. Were K.O., Dick O.B., Singh B.R., 2013. Remotely sensing the spatial and temporal land cover changes in Eastern Mau forest reserve and Lake Nakuru drainage Basin, Kenya. Applied Geography, 41, 75-86. Williams G.A., Helmuth B., Russel B.D., Dong W.-Y., Thiyagarajan V., Seuront L., 2016. Meeting the climate change challenge: Pressing issues in southern China an SE Asian coastal ecosystems. Regional Studies in Marine Science, 8, 373-381. Doi: 10.1016/j.rsma.2016.07.002. Woodroffe C.D., Rogers K., McKee K.L., Lovdelock C.E., Mendelssohn I.A., Saintilan N., 2016. Mangrove sedimentation and response to relative sea-level rise. Annual Review of Marine Science, 8, 243-266. Doi: 10.1146/annurev-marine-122414-034025.

Obscured in contemporary climate change discourse is the fact that under even the most serious mitigation scenarios being envisaged it will be virtually impossible to avoid runaway ecosystem collapse; so great is the momentum of global greenhouse build-up (Anderson and Bows). And under even the best-case scenario, two-degree warming, the ecological, social, and economic costs are proving to be much deeper than first thought. The greenhouse genie is out of the bottle, but the best that appears to be on offer is a gradual transition to the pro-growth, pro-consumption discourse of “ecological modernisation” (EM); anything more seems politically unpalatable (Barry, Ecological Modernisation; Adger et al.). Here, I aim to account for how cheaply EM has managed to allay ecology. To do so, I detail the operations of the co-optive, definitional strategy which I call the “high-ground” strategy, waged by a historic bloc of actors, discourses, and institutions with a common interest in resisting radical social and ecological critique. This is not an argument about climate laggards like the United States and Australia where sceptic views remain near the centre of public debate. It is a critique of climate leaders such as the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands—nations at the forefront of the adoption of EM policies and discourses. With its antecedent in sustainable development discourse, by emphasising technological innovation, eco-efficiency, and markets, EM purports to transcend the familiar dichotomy between the economy and the environment (Hajer; Barry, ‘Towards’). It rebuts the 1970s “limits to growth” perspective and affirms that “the only possible way out of the ecological crisis is by going further into the process of modernisation” (Mol qtd. in York and Rosa 272, emphasis in original). Its narrative is one in which the “dirty and ugly industrial caterpillar transforms into an ecological butterfly” (Huber, qtd. in Spaargaren and Mol). How is it that a discourse notoriously quiet on endless growth, consumer culture, and the offshoring of dirty production could become the cutting edge of environmental policy? To answer this question we need to examine the discursive and ideological effects of EM discourse. In particular, we must analyse the strategies that work to continually naturalise dominant institutions and create the appearance that they are fit to respond to climate change. Co-opting Environmental Discourse Two features characterise state environmental discourse in EM nations: an almost universal recognition of the problem, and the reassurance that present institutions are capable of addressing it. The key organs of neoliberal capitalism—markets and states—have “gone green”. In boardrooms, in advertising and public relations, in governments, and in international fora, climate change is near the top of the agenda. While EM is the latest form of this discourse, early hints can be seen in President Nixon’s embrace of the environment and Margaret Thatcher’s late-1980s green rhetoric. More recently, David Cameron led a successful Conservative Party “detoxification” program with an ostentatious rhetorical strategy featuring the electoral slogan, “Vote blue, go green” (Carter). We can explain this transformation with reference to a key shift in the discursive history of environmental politics. The birth of the modern environmental movement in the 1960s and 70s brought a new symbolic field, a new discourse, into the public sphere. Yet by the 1990s the movement was no longer the sole proprietor of its discourse (Eder 203). It had lost control of its symbols. Politicians, corporations, and media outlets had assumed a dominant role in efforts to define “what climate change was and what it meant for the world” (Carvalho and Burgess 1464). I contend that the dramatic rise to prominence of environmental issues in party-political discourse is not purely due to short-term tactical vote-winning strategy. Nor is it the case that governments are finally, reluctantly waking up to the scientific reality of ecological degradation. Instead, they are engaged in a proactive attempt to redefine the contours of green critique so as to take the discourse onto territory in which established interests already control the high ground. The result is the defusing of the oppositional element of political ecology (Dryzek et al. 665–6), as well as social critique in general: what I term the gentrification of climate change. If we view environmentalism as, at least partially, a cultural politics in which contested definitions of problem is the key political battleground, we can trace how dominant interests have redefined the contours of climate change discourse. We can reveal the extent to which environmentalism, rather than being integrated into capitalism, has been co-opted. The key feature of this strategy is to present climate change as a mere aberration against a background of business-as-usual. The solutions that are presented are overwhelmingly extensions of existing institutions: bringing CO2 into the market, the optimistic development of new techno-scientific solutions to climate problems, extending regulatory regimes into hitherto overlooked domains. The agent of this co-optive strategy is not the state, industry, capital, or any other manifest actor, but a “historic bloc” cutting across divisions between society, politics, and economy (Laclau and Mouffe 42). The agent is an abstract coalition that is definable only to the extent that its strategic interests momentarily intersect at one point or another. The state acts as a locus, but the bloc is itself not reducible to the state. We might also think of the agent as an assemblage of conditions of social reproduction, in which dominant social, political, and economic interests have a stake. The bloc has learned the lesson that to be a player in a definitional battle one must recognise what is being fought over. Thus, exhortations to address climate change and build a green economy represent the first stage of the definitional battle for climate change: an attempt to enter the contest. In practical terms, this has manifest as the marking out of a self-serving division between action and inaction. Articulated through a binary modality climate change becomes something we either address/act on/tackle—or not. Under such a grammar even the most meagre efforts can be presented as “tackling climate change.” Thus Kevin Rudd was elected in 2007 on a platform of “action on climate change”, and he frequently implored that Australia would “do its bit” on climate change during his term. Tony Blair is able to declare that “tackling climate change… need not limit greater economic opportunity” and mean it in all sincerity (Barry, ‘Towards’ 112). So deployed, this binary logic minimises climate change to a level at which existing institutions are validated as capable of addressing the “problem,” and the government legitimised for its moral, green stand. The Hegemonic Articulation of Climate Change The historic bloc’s main task in the high-ground strategy is to re-articulate the threat in terms of its own hegemonic discourse: market economics. The widely publicised and highly influential Stern Review, commissioned by the British Government, is the standard-bearer of how to think about climate change from an economic perspective. It follows a supremely EM logic: economy and ecology have been reconciled. The Review presents climate change, famously, as “the greatest market failure the world has ever seen” (Stern et al. viii). The structuring horizon of the Stern Review is the correction of this failure, the overcoming of what is perceived to be not a systemic problem requiring a reappraisal of social institutions, but an issue of carbon pricing, technology policy, and measures aimed at “reducing barriers to behavioural change”. Stern insists that “we can be ‘green’ and grow. Indeed, if we are not ‘green’, we will eventually undermine growth, however measured” (iv). He reassures us that “tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy for the longer term, and it can be done in a way that does not cap the aspirations for growth of rich or poor countries” (viii). Yet Stern’s seemingly miraculous reconciliation of growth with climate change mitigation in fact implies a severe degree of warming. The Stern Review aims to stabilise carbon dioxide equivalent concentrations at 550ppm, which would correspond to an increase of global temperature of 3-4 degrees Celsius. As Foster et al. note, this scenario, from an orthodox economist who is perceived as being pro-environment, is ecologically unsustainable and is viewed as catastrophic by many scientists (Foster, Clark, and York 1087–88). The reason Stern gives for not attempting deeper cuts is that they “are unlikely to be economically viable” (Stern et al. 231). In other words, the economy-ecology articulation is not a meeting of equals. Central to the policy prescriptions of EM is the marketising of environmental “bads” like carbon emissions. Carbon trading schemes, held in high esteem by moderate environmentalists and market economists alike, are the favoured instruments for such a task. Yet, in practice, these schemes can do more harm than good. When Prime Minister Kevin Rudd tried to legislate the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme as a way of addressing the “greatest moral challenge of our generation” it represented Australia’s “initial foray into ecological modernisation” (Curran 211). Denounced for its weak targets and massive polluter provisions, the Scheme was opposed by environmental groups, the CSIRO, and even the government’s own climate change advisor (Taylor; Wilkinson). While the Scheme’s defenders claimed it was as a step in the right direction, these opponents believed it would hurt more than help the environment. A key strategy in enshrining a particular hegemonic articulation is the repetition and reinforcement of key articulations in a way which is not overtly ideological. As Spash notes of the Stern Review, while it does connect to climate change such issues as distributive justice, value and ethical conflicts, intergenerational issues, this amounts to nothing but lip service given the analysis comes pre-formed in an orthodox economics mould. The complex of interconnected issues raised by climate change is reduced to the impact of carbon control on consumption growth (see also Swyngedouw and While, Jonas, and Gibbs). It is as if the system of relations we call global capitalism—relations between state and industry, science and technology, society and nature, labour and capital, North and South—are irrelevant to climate change, which is nothing but an unfortunate over-concentration of certain gases. In redrawing the discursive boundaries in this way it appears that climate change is a temporary blip on the path to a greener prosperity—as if markets and capitalism merely required minor tinkering to put them on the green-growth path. Markets are constituted as legitimate tools for managing climate change, in concert with regulation internalised within neoliberal state competition (While, Jonas, and Gibbs 81). The ecology-economy articulation both marketises “green,” and “greens” markets. Consonant with the capitalism-environment articulation is the prominence of the sovereign individual. Both the state and the media work to reproduce subjects largely as consumers (of products and politics) rather than citizens, framing environmental responsibility as the responsibility to consume “wisely” (Carvalho). Of course, what is obscured in this “self-greening” discourse is the culpability of consumption itself, and of a capitalist economy based on endless consumption growth, exploitation of resources, and the pursuit of new markets. Greening Technology EM also “greens” technology. Central to its pro-growth ethos is the tapering off of ecosystem impacts through green technologies like solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal. While green technologies are preferable to dependence upon resource-intensive technologies of oil and coal, that they may actually deliver on such promises has been shown to be contingent upon efficiency outstripping economic growth, a prospect that is dubious at best, especially considering the EM settlement is one in which any change to consumption practices is off the agenda. As Barry and Paterson put it, “all current experience suggests that, in most areas, efficiency gains per unit of consumption are usually outstripped by overall increases in consumption” (770). The characteristic ideological manoeuvre of foregrounding non-representative examples is evident here: green technologies comprise a tiny fraction of all large-scale deployed technologies, yet command the bulk of attention and work to cast technology generally in a green light. It is also false to assume that green technologies do not put their own demands on material resources. Deploying renewables on the scale that is required to address climate change demands enormous quantities of concrete, steel, glass and rare earth minerals, and vast programs of land-clearing to house solar and wind plants (Charlton 40). Further, claims that economic growth can become detached from ecological disturbance are premised on a limited basket of ecological indicators. Corporate marketing strategies are driving this green-technology articulation. While a single advertisement represents an appeal to consume an individual commodity, taken collectively advertising institutes a culture of consumption. Individually, “greenwash” is the effort to spin one company’s environmental programs out of proportion while minimising the systemic degradation that production entails. But as a burgeoning social institution, greenwash constitutes an ideological apparatus constructing industry as fundamentally working in the interests of ecology. In turn, each corporate image of pristine blue skies, flourishing ecosystems, wind farms, and solar panels constitutes a harmonious fantasy of green industry. As David Mackay, chief scientific advisor to the UK Government has pointed out, the political rhetoric of green technology lulls people into a false sense of security (qtd. in Charlton 38). Again, a binary logic works to portray greener technologies—such as gas, “clean coal”, and biomass combustion—as green. Rescuing Legitimacy There are essentially two critical forces that are defused in the high-ground strategy’s definitional project. The first is the scientific discourse which maintains that the measures proposed by leading governments are well below what is required to reign in dangerous climate change. This seems to be invisible not so much because it is radical but because it is obscured by the uncertainties in which climate science is couched, and by EM’s noble-sounding rhetoric. The second is the radical critique which argues that climate change is a classic symptom of an internal contradiction of a capitalist economy seeking endless growth in a finite world. The historic bloc’s successful redefinition strategy appears to jam the frequency of serious, scientifically credible climate discourse, yet at the level of hegemonic struggle its effects range wider. In redefining climate change and other key signifiers of green critique – “environment”, “ecology”, “green”, “planet”—it expropriates key properties of its antagonist. Were it not that climate change is now defined on the cheery, reassuring ground of EM discourse, the gravity of the alarming—rather than alarmist (Risbey)—scientific discourse may just have offered radical critique the ammunition it needed to provoke society into serious deliberations over its socioeconomic path. Radical green critique is not in itself the chief enemy of the historic bloc. But it is a privileged element within antagonistic discourse and reinforces the critical element of the feminist, civil rights, and student movements of the 1960s and 1970s. In this way ecology has tended to act as a nodal point binding general social critique: all of the other demands began to be inscribed with the green critique, just as the green critique became a metaphor for all of the others (Laclau). The metaphorical value of the green critique not only relates to the size and vibrancy of the movement—the immediate visibility of ecological destruction stood as a powerful symbol of the kernel of antagonistic politics: a sense that society had fundamentally gone awry. While green critique demands that progress should be conditional upon ecology, EM professes that progress is already green (Eder 217n). Thus the great win achieved by the high-ground strategy is not over radical green critique per se but over the shifting coalition that threatens its legitimacy. As Stavrakakis observes, what is novel about green discourse is nothing essential to the signifiers it deploys, but the way that a common signifier comes to stand in and structure the field as a whole – to serve as a nodal point. It has a number of signifiers: environmental sustainability, social justice, grassroots democracy, and peace and non-violence, all of which are “quilted” around the master-signifiers of “ecology”, “green”, or “planet”. While these master-signifiers are not unique to green ideology, what is unique is that they stand at the centre. But the crucial point to note about the green signifier at the heart of political ecology is that its value is accorded, in large part, through its negation of the dominant ideology. That is to say, it is not that green ideology stands as merely another way of mapping the social; rather, the master-signifier "green" contains an implicit refutation of the dominant social order. That “green” is now almost wholly evacuated of its radical connotations speaks to the effectiveness of the redefinitional effort.The historic bloc is aided in its efforts by the complexity of climate change. Such opacity is characteristic of contemporary risks, whose threats are mostly “a type of virtual reality, real virtuality” (Beck 213). The political struggle then takes place at the level of meaning, and power is played out in a contest to fix the definitions of key risks such as climate change. When relations of (risk) definition replace relations of production as the site of the effects of power, a double mystification ensues and shifts in the ground on which the struggle takes place may go unnoticed. Conclusion By articulating ecology with markets and technology, EM transforms the threat of climate change into an opportunity, a new motor of neoliberal legitimacy. The historic bloc has co-opted environmentalist discourse to promote a gentrified climate change which present institutions are capable of managing: “We are at the fork in the road between order and catastrophe. Stick with us. We will get you through the crisis.” The sudden embrace of the environment by Nixon and by Thatcher, the greening of Cameron’s Conservatives, the Garnaut and Stern reports, and the Australian Government’s foray into carbon trading all have their more immediate policy and political aims. Yet they are all consistent with the high-ground definitional strategy, professing no contraction between sustainability and the present socioeconomic order. Undoubtedly, EM is vastly preferable to denial and inaction. It may yet open the doors to real ecological reform. But in its present form, its preoccupation is the legitimation crisis threatening dominant interests, rather than the ecological crisis facing us all. References Adger, W. Neil, Tor A. Benjaminsen, Katrina Brown, and Hanne Svarstad. ‘Advancing a Political Ecology of Global Environmental Discourses.’ Development and Change 32.4 (2001): 681–715. Anderson, Kevin, and Alice Bows. “Beyond ‘Dangerous’ Climate Change: Emission Scenarios for a New World.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369.1934 (2010): 20–44. Barry, John, and Matthew Paterson. “Globalisation, Ecological Modernisation and New Labour.”Political Studies 52.4 (2004): 767–84. Barry, John. “Ecological Modernisation.” Debating the Earth : the Environmental Politics Reader. Ed. John S. Dryzek & David Schlosberg. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. ——-. “Towards a Model of Green Political Economy: From Ecological Modernisation to Economic Security.” Global Ecological Politics. Ed. John Barry and Liam Leonard. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, 2010. 109–28. Beck, Ulrich. “Risk Society Revisited.” The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory. Ed. Barbara Adam, Ulrich Beck, & Joost Van Loon. London: SAGE, 2000. Carter, Neil. “Vote Blue, Go Green? Cameron’s Conservatives and the Environment.” The Political Quarterly 80.2 (2009): 233–42. Carvalho, Anabela. “Ideological Cultures and Media Discourses on Scientific Knowledge: Re-reading News on Climate Change.” Public Understanding of Science 16.2 (2007): 223–43. Carvalho, Anabela, and Jacquelin Burgess. “Cultural Circuits of Climate Change in UK Broadsheet Newspapers, 1985–2003.” Risk analysis 25.6 (2005): 1457–69. Charlton, Andrew. “Choosing Between Progress and Planet.” Quarterly Essay 44 (2011): 1. Curran, Giorel. “Ecological Modernisation and Climate Change in Australia.” Environmental Politics 18.2: 201-17. Dryzek, John. S., Christian Hunold, David Schlosberg, David Downes, and Hans-Kristian Hernes. “Environmental Transformation of the State: The USA, Norway, Germany and the UK.” Political studies 50.4 (2002): 659–82. Eder, Klaus. “The Institutionalisation of Environmentalism: Ecological Discourse and the Second Transformation of the Public Sphere.” Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. Ed. Scott Lash, Bronislaw Szerszynski, & Brian Wynne. 1996. 203–23. Foster, John Bellamy, Brett Clark, and Richard York. “The Midas Effect: a Critique of Climate Change Economics.” Development and Change 40.6 (2009): 1085–97. Hajer, Maarten. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Laclau, Ernesto. On Populist Reason. London: Verso, 2005. Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso, 1985. Risbey, J. S. “The New Climate Discourse: Alarmist or Alarming?” Global Environmental Change18.1 (2008): 26–37. Spaargaren, Gert, and Arthur P.J. Mol, “Sociology, Environment, and Modernity: Ecological Modernization as a Theory of Social Change.” Society and Natural Resources 5.4 (1992): 323-44. Spash, Clive. L. “Review of The Economics of Climate Change (The Stern Review).”Environmental Values 16.4 (2007): 532–35. Stavrakakis, Yannis. “Green Ideology: A Discursive Reading.” Journal of Political Ideologies 2.3 (1997): 259–79. Stern, Nicholas et al. Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. Vol. 30. London: HM Treasury, 2006. Swyngedouw, Erik. “Apocalypse Forever? Post-political Populism and the Spectre of Climate Change.” Theory, Culture & Society 27.2-3 (2010): 213–32. Taylor, Lenore. “Try Again on Carbon: Garnaut.” The Australian 17 Apr. 2009: 1. While, Aidan, Andrew E.G. Jonas, and David Gibbs. “From Sustainable Development to Carbon Control: Eco-state Restructuring and the Politics of Urban and Regional Development.”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 35.1 (2010): 76–93. Wilkinson, Marian. “Scientists on Attack over Rudd Emissions Plan.” Sydney Morning Herald Apr. 15 2009: 1. York, Richard, and Eugene Rosa. “Key Challenges to Ecological Modernization theory.”Organization & Environment 16.1 (2003): 273-88.

Taste and Lively Matter in the Anthropocene This paper is concerned with the role of taste in relation to food produced in backyard or community gardens. Taste, as outlined by Bourdieu, is constructed by many factors driven primarily by one’s economic position as well as certain cultural influences. Such arguments tend to work against a naïve reading of the “natural” attributes of food and the biological impulses and responses humans have to taste. Instead, within these frameworks, taste is positioned as a product of the machinations of human society. Along these lines, it is generally accepted that the economic and, consequently, the social shaping of tastes today have been significantly impacted on by the rise of international agribusiness throughout the twentieth century. These processes have greatly reduced the varieties of food commercially available due to an emphasis on economies of scale that require the production of food that can be grown in monocultures and which can withstand long transport times (Norberg-Hodge, Thrupp, Shiva). Of course, there are also other factors at play in relation to taste that give rise to distinction between classes. This includes the ways in which we perform our bodies and shape them in the face of our social and economic conditions. Many studies in this area focus on eating disorders and how control of food intake cannot be read simply as examples of disciplined or deviant bodies (Bordo, Probyn, Ferreday). Instead, the links between food and subjectivity are much more complex. However, despite the contradictions and nuance acknowledged in relation to understandings of food, it is primarily conceptualised as an economic and symbolic good that is controlled by humans and human informed processes. In line with the above observations, literature on food provisioning choices in the areas of food sociology and human geography tends to focus on efforts to understand food purchasing decisions and eating habits. There is a strong political-economic dimension to this research even when its cultural-symbolic value is acknowledged. This is highlighted by the work of Julie Guthman which, among other things, explores “the conversion of tastes into commodities (as well as the reverse)” (“Commodified” 296). Guthman’s analysis of alternative food networks, particularly the organic sector and farmers markets, has tended to reaffirm a Bourdieuan understanding of class and distinction whereby certain foods become appropriated by elites, driving up price and removing it from the reach of ordinary consumers (“Commodified”, “Fast Food”). There has also been, however, some recognition of the limits of such approaches and acknowledgement of the fragility and porous nature of boundaries in the food arena. For example, Jordan points out in her study of the heirloom tomato that, even when a food is appropriated by elites, thereby significantly increasing its cost, consumption of the food and its cultural-symbolic meaning can continue unchanged by those who have traditionally produced and consumed the food privately in their gardens. Guthman is quite right to highlight the presence of huge inequities in both mainstream and alternative food systems throughout the world. Food may, however, be able to disrupt the dominance of these economic and social representations through its very own agentic qualities. To explore this idea, this paper draws on the work of political theorist, Jane Bennett, and eco-feminist, Val Plumwood, and applies some of their key insights to data gathered through in-depth interviews with 20 community gardeners and 7 Canberra Show exhibitors carried out from 2009 to 2012. These interviews were approximately 1 to 2 hours long in duration and were carried out in, or following, an extensive tour of the gardens of the participants, during which tastings of the produce were regularly offered to the interviewers. Jane Bennett sets out to develop a theoretical approach which she names “thing-power materialism” which is grounded in the idea that objects, including food, have agency (354). Bennett conceptualises this idea through her notion of “lively matter” and the “thing power” of objects which she defines as “the curious ability of inanimate things to animate, to act, to produce effects dramatic and subtle” (“The force” 351, “Vibrant”). The basic idea here is that if we are willing to read agency into the nonhuman things around us, then we become forced to recognise that humans are simply one more element of a world of things which can act on, with or against others through various assemblages (Deleuze and Guatarri). These assemblages can be made, undone and rebuilt in multiple ways. The power of the elements to act within these may not be equal, but nor are they stable and static. For Bennett, this is not simply a return to previous materialist theories premised on naïve notions of object agency. It is, instead, a theory motivated by attempts to develop understandings and strategies that encourage engaged ecological living practices which seek to avoid ongoing human-inflicted environmental damage caused by the “master rationality” (Plumwood) that has fuelled the era of the anthropocene, the first geological era shaped by human action. Anthropocentric thinking and its assumptions of human superiority and separateness to other elements of our ecological mesh (Morton “Thinking”) has been identified as fuelling wasteful, exploitative, environmentally damaging practices. It acts as a key impediment to the embrace of attitudinal and behavioural changes that could promote more ecologically responsible and sustainable living practices. These ideas are particularly prominent in the fields of ecological humanities, ecological feminism and political theory (Bennett “The force”, “Vibrant”; Morton “Ecological”, “Thinking”, “Ecology”; Plumwood). To redress these issues and reduce further human-inflicted environmental damage, work in these spaces tends to highlight the importance of identifying the interconnections and mutual reliance between humans and nonhumans in order to sustain life. Thus, this work challenges the “master rationality” of the anthropocene by highlighting the agentic (Bennett “The force,” “Vibrant”) or actant (Latour) qualities of nonhumans. In this spirit, Plumwood writes that we need to develop “an environmental culture that values and fully acknowledges the nonhuman sphere and our dependency on it, and is able to make good decisions about how we live and impact on the nonhuman world” (3). Food, as a basic human need, and its very gustatory taste, is animated by nonhuman elements. The role of these nonhumans is particularly visible to those who engage in their own gardening practices. As such, the ways in which gardeners understand and speak of these processes may provide insights into how an environmental culture as envisaged by Plumwood could be supported, harnessed and shared. The brevity of this paper means only a quick skim of the murky ontological waters into which its wades can be provided. The overarching aim is to identify how the recent resurgence of cultural materiality can be linked to the ways in which everyday people conceptualise and articulate their food provisioning practices. In so doing, it demonstrates that gardeners can conceptualise their food, and the biological processes as well as the nonhuman labour which bring it to fruition, as having actant qualities. This is most overtly recognised through the gardeners’ discussions of how their daily habits and routines alter in response to the qualities and “needs” of their food producing gardens. The gardeners do not express this in a strict nature/culture binary. Instead, they indicate an awareness of the interconnectedness and mutual reliance of the human and nonhuman worlds. In this way, understandings of “taste,” as produced by human centred relations predicated on exchange of capital, are being rethought. This rethinking may offer ways of promoting a more sustainable engagement with ecological beliefs and behaviours which work against the very notion of human dominance that produced the era of the anthropocene. Local Food, Taste and Nonhuman Agency Recent years have seen an increase in the purchasing, sale and growing of local food. This has materialised in multiple forms from backyard, verge and community gardens to the significant growth of farmers markets. Such shifts are attributed to increasing resistance to the privileging of globalised and industrial-scale agri-business, practices which highlight the “master rationality” underpinning the anthropocene. This backlash has been linked to environmental motivations (Seyfang “Shopping,” “Ecological,” “Growing”); desires to support local economies (particularly the financial well-being of farmers) (Norberg-Hodge); and health concerns in relation to the use of chemicals in food production (Goodman and Goodman). Despite evidence that people grow or buy food based on gustatory taste, this has received less overt attention as a motivator for food provisioning practices in the literature (Hugner). Where it is examined, taste is generally seen as a social/cultural phenomenon shaped by the ideas related to the environmental, economic and health concerns mentioned above. However, when consumers discuss taste they also refer to notions of freshness, the varieties of food that are available, and nostalgia for the “way food used to be”. Taste in its gustatory sense and pleasure from food consumption is alluded to in all of the interviews carried out for this research. While the reasons for gardening are multiple and varied, there is a common desire to produce food that tastes better and, thus, induces greater pleasure than purchased food. As one backyard gardener and successful Royal Canberra Show exhibitor notes: “[e]verything that you put [grow] in the garden [has a] better taste than from the market or from the shop.” The extent of this difference was often a surprise for the gardeners: “I never knew a home grown potato could taste so different from a shop bought potato until I grew [my own] […] and I couldn’t believe the taste.” The gardeners in this research all agreed that the taste of commercially available fruit and vegetables was inferior to self-produced food. This was attributed to the multiple characteristics of industrialised food systems. Participants referred specifically to issues ranging from reduction in the varieties available to the chemical intensive practices designed to lead to high yields in short periods of time. The resulting poor taste of such foods was exemplified by comments such as shop bought tomatoes “don’t taste like tomatoes” and the belief that “[p]otatoes and strawberries from the shop taste the same as each other”. Even when gardeners raised health concerns about mainstream food, emphasising their delight in growing their own because they “knew what had gone into their food” (Turner, “Embodied”), the issue of taste continued to play an important role in influencing their gardening practices. One gardener stated: “I prefer more [food that] is tasty than one that is healthy for me”. The tastiest food for her came from her own community garden plot and this motivated her to travel across town most days to tend the garden. While tasty food was often seen as being more nutritious, this was not the key driver in food production. The superior taste of the fruit and vegetables grown by these gardeners in Canberra calls their bodies and minds into action to avoid poor tasting food. This desire for tasty food was viewed as common to the general population but was strongly identified as only being accessible to people who grow their own. A backyard gardener, speaking of the residents of an aged care facility where he volunteers observes: “[w]hen you…meet these people they've lost that ability to do any gardening and they really express it. They miss the taste, the flavours.” Another backyard gardener and Show exhibitor recounted a story from two years prior when he and his wife invited guests for a New Year’s Day lunch. While eating their meal, a guest asked “did you grow these carrots?” When he confirmed that he had, she declared: “I can taste it.” Others noted that many young people don’t know what they are missing out on because they have never tasted home-grown produce. Through the sense of taste, the tomatoes, potatoes and carrots and myriad of other foodstuffs grown at homes or in community gardens actively encourage resistance to, or questioning of, the industrial agricultural system and its outputs. The gardeners link poor tasting food to a loss of human responsiveness to plants resulting from the spatial characteristics of industrial agriculture. Modern agribusiness requires large-scale, global production and streamlined agricultural processes that aim to limit the need for producers to respond to unique climatic and soil conditions (through genetically modification technology, see Turner, “Reflections”) and removes the need, and capacity, for individual care of plants. This has led to heavy reliance on agricultural chemicals. The gardeners tend to link high-level usage of pesticides and herbicides with poor taste. One highly successful Show exhibitor, states that in his food, “There’s better taste …because they haven’t got the chemicals in them, not much spray, not much fertiliser, for that is better”. However, when chemical use is limited or removed, the gardeners acknowledge that food plants require more intensive and responsive human care. This involves almost daily inspection of individual plants to pick off and squash (or feed to chickens and birds) the harmful bugs. The gardeners need to be vigilant and capable of developing innovative techniques to ensure the survival of their plants and the production of tasty food. They are, of course, not always successful. One organic community gardener lamented the rising populations of slaters and earwigs which could decimate whole beds of newly sprouted seedlings overnight. This was a common issue and, in response, the gardeners research and trial new methods of control (including encouraging the introduction of “good” bugs into the ecosystem through particular plantings). Ultimately, however, the gardeners were resigned to “learn[ing] to live with them [the ‘bad’ bugs]” while exerting regular bodily and mental efforts to reduce their populations and maximise their own food production. The lack of ultimate control over their growing patch, and the food it could produce, was acknowledged by the gardeners. There was an awareness and understanding of the role nonhuman elements play in food production, ranging from weather conditions to soil microbes to bugs. The gardeners talk of how their care-giving is responsive to these elements. As one community gardener asserts: “…we prefer to … garden in a way that naturally strengthens the plant immune system.” This involves regular attention to soil microbes and the practice of what was referred to as “homeopathic” gardening. Through a responsive approach to the “needs” of plants, the soil, and other nonhuman elements, the plants then delivered “vitamins and minerals” to the gardeners, packaged in tasty food. The tastiest foods ensured their survival through seed-saving practices: “[i]f something tastes good, we’ll save the seed from it”. In this way, the plant’s taste encourages gardeners to invest their human labour to secure its future. The production of tasty food was understood to be reliant on collaborative, iterative and ongoing efforts between human and nonhuman elements. While gardening has often been represented as an attempt to bend nature to the will of humans (Power), the gardeners in this study spoke about working with nature in their quest to produce good tasting food. This was particularly evident in the interviews with gardeners who exhibit produce in the Canberra Show (see NMA for further details). However, despite the fact that taste is the key motivator for growing their own food, it is not a factor in Show judging. Instead, fruit and vegetable entries (those not turned into value added goods such as jams or relishes) are judged on appearance. While this focus on appearance tends to perpetuate the myth that the fruits and vegetables we consume should conform to an ideal type that are blemish free and uniform in size (just as is prized in industrialised agriculture), the act of gardening for the Show and the process of selecting produce to enter, contradicted this assumption. Instead, entering the Show seemed to reinforce awareness of the limits of human control over nature and emphasise the very agency of nonhuman elements. This is highlighted by one exhibitor and community gardener who states: I suppose you grow vegetables for the enjoyment of eating them, but there’s also that side of getting enough and perfecting the vegetables and getting… sometimes it’s all down to the day of whether you’ve got three of something, if it’s the right size and colour and so I’ll enter it [in the Show] on the day instead of putting an entry form in before …you just don’t know what you’re going to have, the bugs decide to eat this or the mice get it or something. There’s always something. In this way, where “there’s always something” waiting to disrupt a gardener’s best laid plans, the exhibitors involved in this project seem to be acutely aware of the agency of nonhumans. In these interviews there is evidence that nonhuman elements act on the gardeners, forcing them to alter their behaviours and engage with plants to meet both of their needs. While perfect specimens can sometimes be grown for the Show, the gardeners acknowledge that this can only be done with an element of luck and careful cultivation of the partnership between human and nonhuman elements in the garden. And, even then, you never know what might happen. This lack of ultimate control is part of the challenge and, thus, the appeal, of competing in the Show. Conclusion The era of the anthropocene demonstrates the consequences of human blindness to ecological matters. Myths of human supremacy and a failure to respect nonhuman elements have fuelled a destructive and wasteful mentality that is having serious consequences for our environment. This has prompted efforts to identify new environmental cultures to promote the adoption of more sustainable lifestyles. The resurgence of cultural materialism and the agentic capacity of objects is one key way in which this is being explored as a means of promoting new ethical approaches to how humans live their lives enmeshed with nonhumans. Food, as a basic necessity, provides a key way in which the interconnected relationships between humans and nonhumans can be brought to the fore. Taste, as a biological response and organic attribute of foodstuffs, can induce humans to act. It can cause us to alter our daily habits, behaviours and beliefs. Perhaps a more attentive approach to food, its taste and how it is produced could provide a framework for rethinking human/nature relations by emphasising the very limits of human control. References Bordo, Susan. Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture and the Body. Berkeley, CA: U of California P, 1993. Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Trans. R. Nice. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1984. Bennett, Jane. “The Force of Things: Steps Toward an Ecology of Matter.” Political Theory 32.3 (2004): 347–372. ---. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology Of Things. Durham, NC: Duke UP, 2010. Deleuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1993. Ferreday, Donna. “Unspeakable Bodies: Erasure, Embodiment and the Pro-Ana Community.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 6 (2003): 277–295. Goodman, David, and Michael Goodman. “Alternative Food networks.” International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Ed. R. Kitchin and N. Thrift. Oxford: Elsevier, 2008. Guthman, Julie. “Commodified Meanings, Meaningful Commodities: Re–thinking Production–Consumption Links through the Organic System of Provision.” Sociologia Ruralis 42.4 (2002): 295–311. ---. “Fast Food/Organic Food: Reflexive Tastes and the Making of ‘Yuppie Chow’.” Social and Cultural Geography 4.1 (2003): 45–58. Hugner, Renee. S., Pierre McDonagh, Andrea Prothero, Clifford J. Scultz, and Julie Stanton. “Who Are Organic Food Consumers?: A Compilation And Review Of Why People Purchase Organic Food.” Journal of Consumer Behaviour 6.2–3 (2007): 94–110. Jordan, Jennifer A. “The Heirloom Tomato as Cultural Object: Investigating Taste and Space.” Sociologia Ruralis 47.1 (2007): 20–41. Latour, Bruno. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Milton Keynes: Open UP, 1987. Morton, Timothy. The Ecological Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010. ---. “Thinking Ecology, the Mesh, the Strange Stranger and the Beautiful Soul.” Collapse VI (2010): 265–293. ---. Ecology without Nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2007. National Museum of Australia Urban Farming and the Agricultural Show. 12 Mar. 2014. ‹http://www.nma.gov.au/online_features/urban_farming_agricultural_show/home›. Norberg-Hodge, Helena. “Beyond the Monoculture: Strengthening Local Culture, Economy and Knowledge.” The Journal of Sustainability Education. 19 Mar. 2012. 13 Mar. 2014 ‹http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/content/beyond-the-monoculture-strengthening-local-culture-economy-and-knowledge_2012_03›. Plumwood, Val. Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis of Reason. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. Power, Emma. “Human-Nature Relations in Suburban Gardens.” Australian Geographer 36.1 (2005): 39–53. Probyn, Elspeth. Carnal Appetites: Foodsexidentites. London: Routledge, 2000. Seyfang, Gil. “Shopping for Sustainability: Can Sustainable Consumption Promote Ecological Citizenship?”. Environmental Politics 14.2 (2005): 290–306. -----. “Ecological Citizenship and Sustainable Consumption: Examining Local Organic Food Networks.” Journal of Rural Studies 22 (2006): 383–395. -----. “Growing Sustainable Consumption Communities: The Case Of Local Organic Food Networks.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 27.3/4 (2007): 120–134. Shiva, Vandana. Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply. Cambridge, MA: South End P, 2000. Thrupp, Lori Ann. “Linking Agricultural Biodiversity and Food Security.” International Affairs 76.2 (2000): 265–282. Turner, Bethaney. “Embodied Connections: Sustainability, Food Systems And Community Gardens.” Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability 16.6 (2011): 509-522. ---. “Reflections On a New Technology”. National Museum of Australia 2012. 12 Mar. 2014. ‹http://www.nma.gov.au/history/pate/objects/collection_reflections/genetically_modified_food_and_farming›. Acknowledgements Thank you to the gardeners who volunteered to be part of this study. The interviews related to the Royal Canberra Show were carried out as part of a collaborative project between the Faculty of Arts and Design at the University of Canberra (Joanna Henryks and Bethaney Turner) and the People and the Environment team (George Main and Kirsten Wehner) at the National Museum of Australia.

Includes bibliographical references (p. 575-607) Pt. A. Ecological cityscapes: theory & practice -- pt. B. Urban ecology Australia &ecopolis: ecocity projects in South Australia -- pt. C. Towards a theoretical synthesis of ecopolis About creating and maintaining 'ecological cities' and the necessary conditions for making ecocities. Sets the creation of human settlement in an ecological context and demonstrates through case study analyses that practical approaches to urbanism can be made within a theory of city-making grounded in principles of direct democracy and cooperative community processes.