For your reflection, start by typing your name. Use 'Heading' in the style menu for your name.
For your reflection on another class member's reflection, start by typing your name and using the 'Sub-heading 1' style from the pulldown menu.

Reflections on the conversation with Judy Gillespie

Ilyas Kanybek

With Judy Gillespie, we talked about social sustainability. First of all, we learned that there are different types of sustainability, including economic, environmental, and others. Dr. Gillespie said that sustainability is a three-legged stool. One of the most striking ideas we discussed was that "hyper individualism" suggests that we don’t even have a sense of shared values. I think it is particularly true for our times. As a society, we are incredibly individualistic, fragmented, and lonely. Anthropology suggests we are not designed like this. For hundreds of thousands of years, we have been creatures of community; we thrive together with other people. That, I believe, is what social sustainability is all about.

Dr. Gillespie also talked about three elements of social sustainability: equity, solidarity, and liberty (autonomy). It reminded me immediately of the French national motto: liberté, fraternité, et egalité. I think it is essential for us to have clear ideas about what we consider our values, just like France, just like countries or companies do. Equality, solidarity, and liberty could be three of the central values of sustainability. From these values, we can depart into a very rich and perhaps never-ending discussion of what these principles mean to each of us and how we can apply them in different circumstances. One of the questions we discussed during the class was whether, to be truly sustainable, we needed not just equality of opportunities but also equality of outcomes. I think this question of equity in this globalised world is one of the biggest ones. As a community, we've got to address these issues in a way that leads to solutions and changes.

Shaiyan Siddique

Hi Ilyas! I do agree with you that the society today is very individualistic and it surely does not feel like the way it is supposed to be, even though the vast majority of us have spent our lives knowing only this system. It reminds me of an interesting concept that I learned, that children who are born blind and deaf can smile without ever seeing another person smile, because it is an intrinsic feature of the mind.

Finding the correct balance of equality, solidarity and liberty is and will likely continue to be the greatest challenge to social sustainability.

Leandra Vanbaelinghem

Dr. Gillespie's social sustainability definition was the current and future ability to live well with each other, the earth and its system. This definition made sense, but the following equilibrium definition with liberty, equality and solidarity was not as straight forward. I understand the importance of all three words, yet they appear quite contradictory in equilibrium. Additionally, I could not help but think of how different this equilibrium would change with culture and religion. For instance, in Jainism, solidarity would be favoured over liberty in terms of the ability to live with one another. Hence, this makes me ponder how community-specific social sustainability and resilience are. It is quite challenging for me to conceptualize this on a global scale. The Covid-19 pandemic was an example discussed to exemplify the importance of liberty and how it highlighted the individualistic extent we humans have become. Although I agree with this point, and there are definitely examples to show how the pandemic has disrupted relationships and families, I do think in parts of the world, solidarity was strengthened.

The presentation also covered theoretical components of being socially sustainable and while I understood where the ideas behind those concepts were coming from, it was difficult for me to imagine how they could be strived for in the real world. Particularly, equality of outcomes, a concept satisfying the intersection between economic dimension and substantive aspect. Shaiyan asked what equality of outcomes would look like in our world and if it is possible to achieve this. Dr. Gillespie answered that we are still determining what that would look like, and that what we know is what it should not look like, and that this is very difficult to achieve on a global scale. I do not fully agree with the unimaginative goal-setting philosophy, probably because of my science background. I started to ponder on what scale equality of outcomes for social sustainability and resiliency could be achieved. Community scale was suggested to be achievable, but thinking of what that would look like was still challenging. Even thinking about the homeless population living near Brandt's creek, made me wonder in what ways equality of outcomes could be achieved with Kelowna for social sustainability. I think a contextual example addressing this would help me understand the type of work and impact that comes out of this area of research. Lastly, towards the end of the presentation, we discussed children's involvement in government decisions and policy, which the presenter said should occur more. It was evident that the class had mixed ideas regarding this topic. Children should have a say on the matter that will impact their future, but children should also be protected and have a childhood, and how valuable would their insights be on complex subjects. I believe discussing this further as a class as well as what contributes to a good sustainability policy, would be helpful.

Annie Furman

I also found some of Dr. Gillespie’s definitions on social sustainability to be somewhat unclear. I agree that social sustainability seems like it has the potential to vary widely between cultures, and it strikes me as difficult to codify something that has the potential to be so subjective.

I’m from an arts background, not a science background, but I don’t agree with the “unimaginative goal-setting philosophy” regarding equality of outcomes either. In the climate-engaged section of the fine arts community, one of the guiding ideas at the moment is that a failure of imagination got us into the current unsustainable climate situation, and therefore creative imagination of sustainable futures is required to get us out. So saying that we only know what equality of outcomes doesn’t look like doesn’t come across as the most practical approach to me either.

Thomas Letcher-Nicholls

I really appreciated the space that Professor Gillespie gave us to think about the connections between the field of social work and our Brandt’s Creek project. Professor Gillespie spoke movingly about her work in child welfare in Alberta and British Columbia. For her, sustainability is about our current and future ability to live well together. I found this is a really valuable contribution to our course when thinking about the scale of our project on the community or local level.

I am really excited about this course as an opportunity to work on a truly place-based, local project, and so it was helpful – and moving – to think about the different communities around Brandt’s Creek. We discussed who are considered part of the community – and those who are overlooked. We discussed the community of unhoused people living along Brandt’s Creek, and how they might be avoided or actively ignored as part of Kelowna’s community. This reminded me of Professor Parrott’s point that the most vulnerable are those with the least environmental impact. I do not have any answers yet of course, but I think it is really important to think about the intersections between community work and sustainability in this context.

We also talked about community engagement: who is included in policy discussions; who gets invited to the table; and who shows up. As a group, I think we agreed that policy discussions often overlook people who should have a seat at the table. We discussed how children, for example, do not have voice in discussions about climate change action, even though they are the ones who will be most affected in the future.

In an ideal world, I think, a healthy Brandt’s Creek would contribute to the well-being of everyone in Kelowna. Professor Gillespie works on the role of place in well-being; and I think a healthy, sustainable and resilience creek would be a meaningful and special place for Kelowna. I live in Glenmore where the Creek is well maintained and a great place for families to get outside, meet, play, and walk dogs. It would be amazing if the North End part of Brandt’s Creek could be the same. Moreover, following this presentation, it is clear that it would be crucial that all the community would be made to feel welcome at discussions around care for the creek. As a class project, I think it is super important that our reports and suggestions are as inclusive and expansive in their visions as possible.

Leandra Vanbaelinghem

I agree with Tom that Dr. Gillespie giving us space to discuss with her the connection between social sustainability and Brandt's creek was helpful and eye-opening. It was beneficial for me that Tom pointed out a connection with Dr. Parrot's presentation regarding that the most vulnerable social groups are those that contribute the smallest environmental impact. It got me thinking about the Q&A period after Dr. Parrot's talk, where we discussed whether countries' and communities' actions to improve our planetary state should be equal all around or have an equity approach instead because countries and communities have contributed unequally to our planetary crisis. I agree with Tom's opinion that our class reports should be as inclusive and expansive as possible, as should be the goal of many community plans. My biological background, however, cannot help but think of assessing the creek's ecosystem health as a foundational focus to then think about how to expansively integrate it positively in our community. Hence, this makes me ponder whether a system's quality approach to sustainability should or is based on a hierarchy approach starting with environmental science and then community or is a nonsequential multidirectional approach.

Shaiyan Siddique

Professor Gillespie presented after professor Parrott, and started with the concept of social sustainability as defined by the discipline of social work. In this field, social sustainability is presented as one of the three pillars of sustainability, and is defined as the “current and future ability to live together with each other and with the world”. Since I come from a natural science background, this version of sustainability was a refreshingly different point of view for me. The fact that it felt new and refreshing also made me wonder about how little attention is paid to ensure social sustainability in this capitalistic, materialistic, and hyperindividual rat race of a society that we currently live in. When professor Gillespie mentioned that without social sustainability, environmental and economic sustainability cannot be achieved, that also gave me food for thought.

Examining the definition of social sustainability closely, the part that I found the most interesting, novel and appealing was the “with each other” part. If not all, the vast majority of the definitions of sustainability in current use are anthropocentric. As professor Parrott mentioned during the first session of discussions, when we talk about Earth’s sustainability, we are usually not concerned about the large rock floating in the universe, but rather the life that is present on its skin. And since we humans are the only species of that community of life which is doing all the research, the priority intentionally or unintentionally becomes centered on how we think things should be. Consequently, while we may try to consider all animals as equal, some animals will inevitably be more equal than others – George Orwell’s famous quote comes to mind. The bottom line then is that fortunately or unfortunately, what and how humans think have become the most important determinant for the sustainability of all life on the planet.

Now here comes the importance of living in sustainable harmony within the human society and with each other, just as it is important to consume resources responsibly. I remember our instructor professor Janmaat explaining in a previous discussion that the best way to get people to care about nature or any environmental issue is through the creation of empathy for the subject. I agree with this opinion and I also believe that people living in happy and peaceful societies are much more likely to be sensitive towards the welfare of nature and of the future generation. This is the reason why in a previous reflection, I emphasized about leveraging human feelings and love as a tool to save Brandt’s creek. Since Brandt’s creek is not as well known as its neighbouring creeks, engaging the public through information sharing and the mobilization of knowledge would perhaps be the first steps towards this end.

Anjali Desai

Hi Shaiyan, I really appreciate your comment on the hyper-capitalistic society and how the community and human aspect of sustainability is often ignored. In my reflection is speak of how in my previous work experience in compliance law, ESG: Environment, Social and Governance compliance is increasingly being brought into discussion to change the narrative of sustainability.

Hoda Pourpirali

I would like to thank Dr. Gillespie for her speech on the subject of sustainability, especially on social sustainability. Before this discussion, I had never thought about social sustainability thoroughly, and I thought of it more as an economic and environmental sustainability. But this session, leveled up my knowledge about social sustainability and the role of individuals and communities in relation to environment.

Social sustainability refers to the ability of a community or society to meet the needs of its members both currently and in the future. It involves ensuring that social, economic and environmental systems are balanced in a way that promotes well-being and equality for all. It is a multi-level concept, as a community is embedded within larger systems such as the nation-state and the international community.

A key aspect of social sustainability is social cohesion, which refers to the sense of belonging and togetherness within a community. This can be achieved through formal and substantive dimensions. On the formal level, there needs to be equality of opportunity in the economic, political and social spheres. However, it is not enough to simply have equal opportunities, there also needs to be equality of outcome, where all members of the community have access to the resources they need to thrive.

Substantively, social sustainability is about ensuring that everyone has a voice and is able to participate in the decision-making process. This means that the community must be inclusive, and diverse and respect the rights of all members. A lack of social cohesion can lead to conflict and division, which can have a negative impact on the well-being of individuals and the community as a whole.

In conclusion, social sustainability is a complex and multi-faceted concept that involves balancing different systems and ensuring that all members of the community have equal access to opportunities and resources. By promoting social cohesion and inclusivity, we can create communities and societies that are sustainable and able to meet the needs of their members both now and in the future.

Kevin Auster

I can relate to your conclusions in your reflection because much of Dr. Gillespie's resonated with me in the same way. I also have a renewed understanding of sustainability and, more specifically, social sustainability and the varying dimensions that shape our society. Although, I still had a substantial knowledge of how the social environment contributes to sustainability because of my focus on urban planning, which emphasizes balancing economic, enviornmental, and social needs against each other to bring about the most equitable and healthy outcomes. I think it's great we can hear from these guest lectures and for students such as yourself to learn more about the different components of sustainability because it is in instances such as this that make our society and professionals are more cognisant of the interwoven nature of societal functions and the environment. Understanding social sustainability is a critical component of sustainability, and understanding the complex dynamics of social sustainability will help us create equitable, healthy, and resilient communities.

Em Isaak

Dr. Gillespie envisions sustainability as a three-legged stool. The three legs are liberty, equality, and solidarity. She goes through this process as asking if we can all live well together. I thought that was an interesting choice of words. The idea of living well together is very broad. Should we all live together the way head-butting siblings do? Or are we striving for a more harmonious relationship with one another? My gut is saying it is the latter but still framing these relationships is important for us to think about.

Throughout Dr. Gillespie’s presentation, she had questions to prompt further discussion. One of the discussions was surrounding whose voices are heard at the table when decisions are being made. Our class got into a pretty deep conversation about the role children can play. Everyone in class had differing perspectives on how much involvement there should be from children and even though it was a heavy discussion, I thought it was very important. I think this class would be more beneficial to us and our project if we had time to debrief the presenters every class. I think that would allow us all to share our thoughts on the topics being discussed which could help us narrow our focus to Brandt’s Creek. I feel that there is a strong need for more discussion amongst the class as so far the discussion portion has been getting cut short.

Daisy Pullman

Hi Em, thanks for your reflection! While I liked the concept of "living well together" from Dr Gillespie's presentation, I think you're right that we need to problematise this idea and consider what it would look like in practice.

I also agree that more time to debrief or ask questions would enhance the presentations! Sometimes it's harder to see the connection between the presentations and our Brandt's Creek project. Some more time to discuss the context of the creek and our ideas with the presenters would help us see the connections with their research.

Kevin Auster

Dr. Gillespie talks about what social sustainability is and why it matters. What I retained from her presentation is that social sustainability is the practice of creating and maintaining equitable, healthy, and resilient societies. It promotes social well-being, equity, and human rights, with access to education, healthcare, affordable housing, economic opportunity, and democratic participation. It also addresses systemic issues such as poverty, discrimination, and inequality. Social sustainability has formal and substantive dimensions, with the former focusing on laws and policies and the latter on the actual experience of well-being and quality of life. Social sustainability is crucial for ensuring the well-being of current and future generations and promoting healthy, equitable, and inclusive communities.

Social sustainability is relevant because it helps me understand more of the specific dynamics that contribute to it. Learning the dimensions and aspects of social sustainability is an example of these dynamics, making me more aware of the complex nature of everything. Social sustainability is only one pillar of sustainability, so the economic and environmental pillars of sustainability are surely just as involved in their own way. I also see how these dynamics within each pillar of sustainability will inevitably overlap, highlighting our world's interconnectedness.

Dr. Gillespie's presentation will also be helpful to my research on channelized right-turn lanes and pedestrian safety because I can apply perspectives from the different dimensions of social sustainability to understand the interactions between pedestrians and cars at these right-turn lanes. The different dimensions all provide additional avenues to approach my research question from, which will help me analyze my data concerning how formal aspects and substantive aspects of the social environment contribute to my understanding of pedestrian safety and knowledge production.

Gabrielle Heschuk

I really appreciated how Kevin summarized Dr. Gillespie's presentation really well and concisely. Kevin was able to create a link between Dr. Gillespie's presentation and his discipline and research. It was interesting to see where he was able to make this link since this topic of social sustainability is very broad and could be seen as ambiguous.This was useful in understanding how social sustainability can be used in a variety of disciplines. It would be interesting to continue the discussion around the importance of sustainability within different disciplines as the academic conversation that started last class would be worth continuing.

Annie Furman

I’ve found it very interesting that thus far, every speaker has had a different way of defining sustainability. I suppose I’m not surprised that people working in different fields have different understandings of sustainability, but it wasn’t something I had thought much about prior to this class. Dr. Gillespie specifically focused in on social sustainability in her presentation, which she defines as our “current and future ability to live well together.” While I understand the ethos behind this definition, I’m less certain of its practical specifics. Who is it that defines what living “well” entails? This view of sustainability seems much more subjective to me, and therefore much more inclined to change across different cultures and societies.

For example, it became quite apparent in our discussion with Dr. Gillespie that even among just our twelve class members, there are a wide variety of opinions regarding the role children should have in government policies and legislation. What one person may interpret as an indicator of our ability to live well together (i.e., children having the right to weigh in on decisions that will affect their current and future wellbeing), another may interpret as an indicator that we are not living well together (i.e., children being expected to make policy decisions deprives them of certain protections and experiences of childhood, and putting this onus on them is a symptom of social sustainability failure in older generations). What is the socially sustainable thing to do in this scenario?

I’d also like to echo Em’s point about the need for more discussion time in class to debrief and engage in further questions with the speakers. With Dr. Gillespie’s view of social sustainability on my mind, I think that the ability of the specific social system that is our Brandt’s Creek groups to live (and work) well together would be greatly increased by having more opportunities to discuss the speakers’ presentations amongst ourselves during class time.

Thomas Letcher-Nicholls

Thank you for this Annie, I really enjoyed reading it! I also grappled a little with the specifics of Professor Gillespie’s definition of “sustainability”. I totally agree with your question of what living “well” means in the definition “our current and future ability to live well together”.

I also wondered who “our” refers to – is it “our” community in Kelowna, or is it a larger scale (BC, Canada, the world)? How does this apply to climate change, for example, where we might need to think about the global community taking action? I suppose I was thinking about this in the light of the previous talk on systems. I completely agree with your and Leandra’s point that social sustainability must vary according to its specific location in the world. In relation to Brandt’s Creek, I suppose we need to work out for whom the Creek is important and meaningful, and for what reasons.

Sofia Bahmutsky

Dr. Judy Gillespie from the Faculty of Social Work brought a refreshing perspective and very dialogue-based lecture to our class. Most of her presentation consisted of prompts for dialogue and debate between individuals, leading to very interesting and useful discussion. Dr. Gillespie’s work and profession revolves around child welfare in rural northern Alberta and BC communities. Although I have never studied children psychology or any social sciences for that matter, the perspectives and insight from the lecture proved relevant to the IGS 585 Brandt’s Creek project.

Dr. Gillespie’s definition of sustainability echoed the three-legged stool, however her focus was mainly on the “Social” leg of the trio, which she believed to be the more challenging and least developed of the sustainability “legs” (the others being environmental and economic). Social sustainability was explained as the current and future ability to live together. I think this definition can be interpreted in many ways. I understood it as the ability for us as humans to live well alongside all other animate and inanimate beings on Earth.

The three elements of social sustainability are equality, liberty, and solidarity. These three components are in a constant state of pull. All are incredibly important but are also in perpetual dialectic positions to one another. I brought up the example in class how covid-19 has seemed to shake the foundation of how these three pillars of social sustainability can easily collapse. Dr. Gillespie facilitated some excellent conversation points, and the rest of the lecture was mostly spent deliberating and exchanging ideas. I think that the entire atmosphere of the class was something that can be applied to the IGS 585 course. This class gave a very open and productive space for speaking and an open feeling that all types of opinions were welcome. I believe that this style of negotiating can be useful for the Brandt’s creek since each one of us comes from very different backgrounds and skillsets. If we get the opportunity to practice mindful and facilitated discussion this may help to incorporate more interdisciplinary aspects to our projects. Overall, social sustainability is something that I believe I also tend to overlook when I think about sustainability in general. When thinking about Brandt’s creek and the vulnerable population living in the immediate area, social sustainability seems to be extremely important and relevant to the project and must be prioritized as to not be “forgotten” which Dr. Gillespie mentioned and I also happen to agree with.

Em Isaak

Thank you for a really thoughtful reflection Sofia! I also wrote in my reflection about how productive our class discussion was last session. I really appreciate your point about mindful and facilitated dialogue. I think our class needs to have more of these conversations if we are to think critically about our project. I agree with you that social sustainability is often forgotten and overshadowed by economic and environmental sustainability especially in regards to minority communities. I have read in some other folks reflections as well, that many of us are hoping for more discussion during the class so hopefully that means we can change the class process to involve more dialogue which would ultimately help us with out project.

Gabrielle Heschuk

Dr. Gillespie's guest seminar introduced me to an entirely new perspective of what defines sustainability. She spoke about social sustainability. It is the idea of the current world and the future worlds ability to live well together and live with the systems. Dr. Gillespie discussed the three elements to social sustainability, Liberty, Equality, and Solidarity. While this concept was completely new to me, I appreciated learning about a new perspective on sustainability. I had never before considered the importance of social sustainability, mostly because I perhaps didn't know it existed. However, after Dr. Gillespie's seminar, I can understand the importance of it. This linked nicely with the previous guest seminar from Dr. Parrott as she was discussing the holistic nature of sustainability and considering all aspects of a living system. Similarly, Dr. Gillespie brought the perspective of also including different and new aspects of sustainability to solve issues as they are all important. Em brought up a really great point during a discussion we had about ensuring that all aspects of sustainability are looked at, and it was the idea of a sandwich with different layers. They mentioned that similar to a sandwich, you need to look at all the layers and the aspects otherwise it is not complete.

One of the main takeaways of this guest seminar was the importance of sparking good academic discussions amongst our peers. We were able to have some great dialogue surrounding different perspectives on youth, covid and politics. While at times we were challenging each other, it was also a learning opportunity within the classroom. This was something I really appreciated from Dr. Gillespie as she gave us the space to talk and share and challenge ideas. In particular there was a great conversation that started about the appropriate age in which youth should be able to vote and make mature decisions. There was divide in opinions and strong points were made about how youth should be included in voting as it affects their future but also that youth should be allowed to not have to worry about the future so much.

Hoda Pourpirali

Hi Gabrielle, like you, Dr. Gillespie’s speech introduced me to a new perspective in terms of sustainability. I was familiar with some concepts such as social justice, equality, freedom, and …, but thinking about them in the context of sustainability was entirely new for me. You build a bridge between Dr. Parrot and Dr. Gillespie’s speech and it is so valuable and interesting for me. I also agree with you and appreciate Dr. Gillespie for involving us in her speech and making a motivation for everyone to explain their opinion.

Daisy Pullman

I appreciated how Dr Judy Gillespie introduced the concept of social sustainability, which is something we have not yet had the chance to discuss much in this class. I found her definition: that we need to be able to live together now and in the future, a useful conceptualisation.

The location of Brandt’s creek makes the consideration of social sustainability a significant facet of this project. The north end section of the creek that we will focus on is right beside a community of homeless people. Any intervention we propose needs to consider their well-being, and must include them in the planning and decision-making processes. They are the closest neighbours to the creek, so the success of any restoration intervention will depend upon their inclusion and consultation. Ideally, we can move beyond limiting harm (i.e. proposing an intervention that would displace people) and work towards developing an inclusive proposal that enhances social sustainability as well as environmental.

I enjoyed the class discussion about including children in planning and decision making processes. Brandt's Creek runs alongside Bankhead Elementary School, and I think including the school in this project could be an interesting avenue to explore.

Sofia Bahmutsky

I agree with you Daisy about the homeless population which is in closest proximity to Brandt's creek will have the most impactful potential to be involved in any restoration efforts. Without their input and consideration, the project will likely be unfruitful. Involving children could also provide input and alternative opinions which adults may overlook. Sometimes the innocence and simplicity of a child's mind and heart is incredibly moving and I think that as we grow up, that part inside each of us gets slightly eroded over time over the course of routine adult life. It's nice to get that fresh youthful perspective every so often to remind us what is really important in our lives.

Anjali Desai

Starting the discussion on a theme similar to that of Dr. Parrot, Dr. Gillespie spoke of how social sustainability is interconnected and is an important area of action to achieve environmental and economic sustainability. To her, sustainability is a three legged stool which represent equity, solidarity, and liberty (autonomy). The interplay between these three factors determines the sustainability of the “system” i.e. society.

I first got exposed to place based methods in the qualitative methods class I took last term and the project conducted at the WoodHaven Eco-Culture center. With relation to the Brandt’s creek project, it provided us to engage in a truly placed-based project as it allows us to understand the impact of the surrounding establishments on the creek and reciprocally of the creek in the lives of the surrounding communities and wildlife. Social cohesion, community engagement and attachment to the local environment or place you live in an important factor to get the local community aware and engaged in improving the local environment.

As we move ahead, our group is increasingly focusing on the community aspect and exploring ways to involve the local community, students and government in addressing the water quality issues of the creek.

The theme of the presentation also related to my previous work experience in the area of corporate compliance law and how ESG: Environment, Social and Governance compliance is increasingly being brought into discussion to change the narrative of sustainability.

Ilyas Kanybek

I agree with Anjali that the visualization presented by Dr Gillespie as a metaphor of 3 legged stool was indeed remarkable in understanding the main pillars of sustainability. We took a course last semester together with Anjali and learnt a lot about social sustainability and that was particularly relevant to the presentation.