Essay on Sustainable Solutions for Albany: A Community-Centric Approach to Wastewater Management

The fictional town of Albany on the West Coast of New Zealand has been described in the current case study as a pristine tourist destination that continues to struggle with environmental conservation and wastewater treatment and disposal issues. Over the years, the district of Albany was dominated by production, mining, and agriculture. Industrial developments, mining, and agriculture continue to present conservation challenges in Albany. According to a study by the Ministry for the Environment (MFE) of New Zealand, Albany's harbors appeared to elevate levels of nutrients resulting from waste disposal. Such nutrient imbalance thereby began to downgrade the biotic environment of the harbors and prompted the need to remedy such unsustainable biodiversity trends.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

An internal analysis of the sewerage system in Albany found a limited capacity for expansion of the waste disposal locations from the increased flow of disposable waste. As such, MFE proposed a variety of recommendations to solve the increasing discharge of effluents into the harbor. Some of the recommendations included increasing the number of treatment and disposal alternatives. Furthermore, MFE recommended the use of secondary-level treatment of effluent by using aerated ponds. These recommendations faced sharp opposition from various interest groups, including the Conservation Group. A committee was thereby constituted by MFE to address the viewpoints of the interest groups. In this report, the author shall describe the propositions by the Conservation Group to the Ransfield Committee. The main opposition of the locals revolved around the secondary treatment and dispersal to Sand Patch, Nanarup Beach.

Conservation Group Opposition to MFE Recommendations

The conservation group consisted of various members of the socio-economic demographics of the Albany region. Mostly, this group consists of knowledgeable individuals from a wide array of disciplines, including retirees, public servants, and teachers. As such, the group is comprised of individuals with some level of understanding of the importance of conservation and sustainability. These groups are active in the conservation methodologies advocated for by environmental advocates globally. First, they are aware that any conservation research and recommendations must be based on the triple bottom line of the people-profits-planet. As such, the conservation group laments the absence of diverse human capital in the Water Authority.

From the triple helix system to conservation (industry-government-academia), the enlightened conservation group feels that people (community) are required to be integrated. In the present recommendations by the MFE, the technocrat-centered research biased the research to the technical domains of conservation and failed to factor in the human behavioral factors. The Conservation group is aware of the UN propositions for holistically engaging environmental sustainability and wastewater treatment processes. They thus lament the unilateral decision process by the Water Authority to conduct secondary waste treatment and disposal to Sand Patch. According to their understanding of community strengths and the multidisciplinary outlay of conservation endeavors, the opinion leaders in society will advocate for the involvement of the entire community capital in the conservation approach.

Furthermore, the Conservation team believes that the self-sustainability of the biotic system is an essential domain that requires to be explored to ensure long-term sustainability (Kassam et al., 2009). The approach taken by the Water Authority to treat the waste materials through secondary methodologies appears to be reactive and a short-term fix. The team is worried about the Water Authority's stubbornness to accept the "zero" discharge alternative.

Conservation Group Recommendation – Proactive Approach to Sustainability and Wastewater Treatment

While describing the proactive approach to sustainability, the conservation team first refers to the committee to the natural workings of the environmental systems. Without factoring in non-natural (human) reasons, the biotic system has been programmed to operate in self-sustaining models. In such models, all the products and byproducts of one natural process are entirely (or almost completely) consumed in a different approach. In such biological systems, the concept of waste is almost totally absent. All the nutrients are transformed from one organism and location to the next through biochemical processes (Kassam et al., 2009).

Researchers in conservation and sustainability continue to explore the means for "zero" waste release into the environment. In such a system, humans' actions are controlled to minimize wastage at the point of release. While developing the self-sustaining system, the conservation team proposes an increased investment in cyclic systems of agriculture and production. Further, the team shall propose that researchers in conservation science propose ways of recycling waste materials from the industries. While the conservation team is not equipped with the technical concepts in conservation, they are aware that the conservation effort is an all-involving affair. The group thereby proposes a culturally sensitive conservation approach that respects each individual equally.

Community Capitals Framework (CCF) for Sustainability

While the technical details in marine and land waste disposal approaches are in the domain of environmental experts (Ballinger, 2004), the entire sustainability process should be approached from a community point of view. As described above, the natural environment has devised means for self-sustainability and zero waste. While applying the community capital framework (CCF) to sustainability, the conservation team proposes a holistic community engagement in the research and practice of conservation. By using the CCF, the Water Authority shall investigate the root causes of waste overflow within the social and economic sectors of the economy. Such a community approach aims to leverage the strengths of the community in conservation. CCF combines the social, capital, cultural, financial, academic (expert), political, built, and natural capital in the production and conservation approaches (Mueller et al., 2020).

The first step in the CCF application in sustainability requires the investigation of the capitals and how they contribute to effluent release and disposal (Mueller et al., 2020). As opposed to the expert-dominated proposal presented by the Water Authority, CCF proposes solutions to sustainability by changing the attitudes of the engaged capitals towards "zero" effluent release. Furthermore, engaging the community capital from the start of the process shall allow for culturally sensitive production and sustainability practices. Intellectual capital is proposed by the conservation group to empower learners within the community with conservation knowledge. The teachers in the conservation group shall offer to train the students from a young age on proactive and prevention-based conservation approaches. Recycling and product reuse shall be taught in community halls and schools (Mueller et al., 2020).

Conclusion

While the CCF is a comprehensive conservation technique, the Water Authority does not need to achieve ideal conservation goals. Instead, they must increase the expert involvement from the various domains of society in the conversation around conservation. Just like our conservation team is multi-expert based, we also propose that the Water Authority includes a diverse group for the conservation proposition. Finally and most importantly, the conservation team proposes the exploration of design thinking and emergent design in exploring culture-sensitive and collaborative cultures in conservation and sustainability management. We must continue to follow all the goals of the sustainable development goals (SDG) and make sustainability a part of everyday conversation and not simplistically a conservation experts' playing field in Albany and other locations in New Zealand.

References

Ballinger, R. C. (2004). Managing Marine Waste Disposal. The GeoJournal Library The Oceans: Key Issues in Marine Affairs, 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2780-2_10

Kassam, A., Friedrich, T., Shaxson, F., & Pretty, J. (2009). The spread of Conservation Agriculture: justification, sustainability and uptake. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 7(4), 292–320. https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2009.0477

Mueller, D., Hoard, S., Roemer, K., Sanders, C., & Rijkhoff, S. A. M. (2020). Quantifying the community capitals framework: Strategic application of the community assets and attributes model. Community Development, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2020.1801785