Search results

Arguably waste management, in its various guises, has been subjected to more analysis at the community level than any other environmental sector to date. This attention spans geographical boundaries with community-based waste organisations, particularly those focused on recycling, minimisation and reuse, subjected to critical analysis across Africa (Myers, 2005) and Asia (Forsyth, 2005), as well as in North America (Adhikari, Trémier, Martinez & Barrington, 2010; Weinberg, Pellow & Schnaiberg, 2000), New Zealand (White & du Preez, 2005) and the UK (Luckin & Sharp, 2003). While all focused broadly on matters of sustainability and governance, the first explicit analysis of community-based waste initiatives as grassroots sustainability enterprises was undertaken in Ireland in the mid-2000s (Davies, 2009).

As the first decade of the 21st century drew to a close, the threats associated with economic crises, social inequalities, and human-induced environmental change focused unprecedented attention on global development trajectories. While questions about how the nature and impact of economic growth should be managed have long featured in environmentalist thought, the stark conditions created a new policy landscape of opportunity for alternative development strategies. National governments around the globe began to disseminate policy statements calling for ‘green growth’ and some, for example the United States, even developed stimulus packages aimed at restructuring economies towards a low carbon future. At the same time international non-governmental organisations such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) have developed entire initiatives focused on shaping what has come to be termed the ‘green economy’ (UNEP, 2011). Even large multinational corporations, such as Shell and their dialogues mechanism, are engaging with green economy discourses. New partnerships are emerging across governance sectors with Microsoft Corp and UNEP signing an agreement in 2009 to share knowledge collaboratively around green economy issues. In the United States, the BlueGreen Alliance is consolidating activity of labour unions and environmental organisations in order to maximise the number and quality of jobs in the green economy. With such a broad spectrum of actors and interests involved, it is unsurprising that there is no one agreed vision for a green economy. Some argue for development scenarios that promote reduced or no-growth pathways (Scott-Cato, 2009), others see the current crises creating innovation opportunities for new growth in different areas through processes of ‘creative destruction’ (Florida, 2010).

The preceding chapters of this volume illustrate the vitality and creativity of grassroots sustainability enterprises around the globe. Fundamentally grassroots sustainability enterprises are concerned with providing accessible basic material human needs such as shelter (housing), warmth (energy), food (gardening) alongside higher order needs including empowering marginalised groups or communities through employment, training and personal development. However they also often provide spaces for alternative practices, creative responses and even artistic expression. Undoubtedly such enterprises are sites of innovation focused on positive transitions across the sustainability troika of economy, environment and society. However, as Campbell et al. in this volume suggest, often this innovation is invisible to policy communities, other practitioners and wider publics (following Escobar, 1994). In part this is because the entrepreneurs at the centre of the enterprises are not seeking personal reward for their work and are not interested in the nuances of innovation theory, but it is also due to the unconventional nature of the innovations involved. Nonetheless this lack of profile does affect the ways in which grassroots sustainability enterprises and their work are received. As a result many enterprises remain niche spaces of innovation with limited impact beyond the locale in which they operate (Longhurst, this volume).

Sexual assault is prevalent on UK University campuses, and prevention efforts are being increased. However, at present there is limited evidence about UK students’ attitudes towards sexual assault prevention and what they think should be done to effectively address the issue. The purpose of this paper is to explore these views to provide a foundation for the development of a new intervention.

A cross-sectional anonymous online survey was completed by 515 students (73 per cent women; M age: 21.56; 79 per cent heterosexual; and 82.9 per cent white). There were quantitative questions about experiences of sexual assault, attitudes towards sexual consent and victim blaming. Qualitative data were collected regarding participants’ views on what universities should do to target sexual assault.

In line with previous studies, the authors found evidence of commonplace and normalised sexual assault behaviours. Women had more positive attitudes towards explicit consent than men, and were less likely to blame victims of sexual assault who had been drinking. Consent behaviour was predicted by positive views towards consent and lower levels of blaming. Themes relating to “awareness”, “attitudes”, “environment” and “opposition” were identified in the qualitative data.

Findings highlight the importance of engaging with students to develop effective prevention measures. Students are likely to find university-led prevention strategies acceptable, but this topic needs to be addressed in the context of the prevailing culture, which may provide an environment where certain behaviours are tolerated. New prevention programmes need to treat the issue as one that is relevant to all students and not just target men as perpetrators and women as victims. Such strategies need to do more than treat this as an isolated issue, to which the solution is re-education about the meaning of consent.

There is at present a lack of research evidence about UK students’ views on sexual assault prevention. This exploratory survey highlights areas for consideration when developing new interventions.

The previous chapter outlined the conceptual debates surrounding the multiplicity of activities that can be defined as already existing spaces of grassroots sustainability enterprise. The case has therefore already been made for a serious reflection on the contributions that these activities are making, and perhaps more importantly potentially could make, in terms of creating more resilient communities. In particular, the importance of grassroots sustainability enterprise has been emphasised for those who are already vulnerable to the vagaries of unsustainable development as currently practised around the globe. While these benefits, and the challenges that abound in terms of realising them, will be more carefully examined through detailed case study analysis in the second part of this book it is important to engage first with the complex issue of how such benefits can be elucidated in the context of sustainable development.