Zinda Park: Rural Community Eco-park Complex in Bangladesh

Abstract

This is a case of sustainable development where the three pillars of sustainability—economic, environmental and social—have been well knitted to build up a model village. A model village should have all facilities including economic and social infrastructure like roads, schools, hospitals or health centres, banking facilities and eco-parks. This case is a good example of a cohesive model of sustainability. The main question that the case tries to develop is why this model of Zinda Park is such a successful model. The answer to this question lies in addressing the three pillars of sustainable development. The case has opened up challenges in terms of three pillars of sustainability and how to overcome them.

Overcoming Environmental Sustainability Challenges

The main concern of sustainable development therefore stems out of environmental issues challenging the first and prime pillar of sustainability: environmental sustainability. In this case, one of the concerns of environmental sustainability was rapid urbanization in suburbs and places near Dhaka, capital city of Bangladesh. In fact, urbanization is coupled with destruction and depletion of environmental resources disturbing the ecological balance that leads to disturbance in social sustainability. Thus creating eco-parks is a good solution to prevent any such ecological disturbance in the society. However, the fact remains that the initiatives of urbanization by the government authority RAJUK would limit the initiative towards environmental sustainability. Purbanchal New town project is such a glaring example of urbanization in this context. The only way to bring about environmental sustainability is through green urbanization by creating such eco-parks in every township.

Overcoming Social Sustainability Challenges

In social sustainability four dimensions are important: equity, awareness of sustainability, participation and cohesion (Murphy, 2012). The globe had undergone rapid pace of industrialization in the last century which had caused global environmental problems. This leads to the question of economic and social sustainability of nations. Poverty, food crisis, unemployment problems and economic development of future generation are some examples. Basic amenities for the population like basic goods for life sustenance, access to good health and education are some of the important features of social perspective of sustainable development. Thus, the four pillars, which Murphy (2012) identified, are important for social sustainability. This case analysis is conducted based on the above- mentioned pillars.

Equity : Equity also implies that there should be no discrimination to access the facilities like health access, clean water, nutrition, employment, education, shelter, essential medicines and clean air, irrespective of gender, age, income and social community. This calls for protection of vulnerable people exposed to the risks of climate change and global warming, a fair distribution of wealth so that welfare of the nations increases to provide sustainable life mechanism for all humankind. The founders of Zinda Park realized this goal in their effort to conceptualize a model village consisting of a school, a library, a clinic, a mosque and an eco-park. In the face of the threat of urbanization, a model village such as this is the best way to ensure equitable social sustainability.

Awareness of sustainability: This has been identified as a social construct to promote awareness through green advertising and eco-labelling and environmental education programmes including education on sustainable development. The five founders of Zinda Park initially found it tough to raise awareness of the objective to set up a park. They wanted to convince the local heads who were not supporting the idea. However, the very idea of eco-park was to create ‘public awareness about the necessity of bio diversity’. In this case, founders have demonstrated awareness creation by setting an example themselves. By donating land, lifetime energy they could mobilize more people to contribute for the noble purpose. Value-based education is another way to spread awareness among people.

Participation : Participation of individuals and social groups leads to social inclusion. Participation also empowers people in decision making. This helps in promoting environmental reforms and brings in more legitimacy in accepting group efforts. This is in sync with the Institutional Legitimacy Theory (Suchman, 1995). This case study poses a very interesting question on the understanding of relevant stakeholder for rural development. Should it be the responsibility of the government to maintain sustainability or should it be the responsibility of the community? Whose responsibility is to create and maintain social capital? This case study has demonstrated that without community participation and engagement social capital cannot be created. Government can facilitate the process through appropriate public policy; however, it is only the community ownership that can maintain the community sustainability. Community ownership is the crux of community development that leads to rural development. The community participation and ownership of Zinda Park was so strong that it could mobilize institutions that supported the community against RAJUK’s initiatives. RAJUK’s effort to lease out the land to a third party failed due to participation, one of the major pillars of social sustainability. If the community can strengthen this aspect, then any future threats of such conflicts would not arise again and even if they arise, the community ownership will survive it. The method to strengthen community participation may be in the form of regular meetings with various stakeholders and collectively resolve such issues. Stakeholder engagement and participation in decision making as mentioned by the authors is one of the core values of social sustainability. Also unity in the community is also one of the major strength. It is therefore imperative to engage and involve more and more community people in this initiative of Zinda Park. The departmental work classification is thus a good example to strengthen community participation. Participation of vested interests will lead to social instability, therefore departmental work classification also ensured monitoring each others’ work that led to more social cohesiveness.

Social cohesion: This has been one of the main social sustainability indicators in OECD, EU Sustainable development document and Bristol Accord. Dempsey, Bramley, Powers and Brown (2011) define social cohesion and community sustainability incorporating five measurable dimensions in terms of social interactions, participation in groups, community stability, pride sense of place, safety and security. Social conflict is one of the major hurdles to achieve social well-being. This case opened up another debate on the role of state. The case demonstrated a conflict between state authority and the community. The aim of both is development, though the understanding was different and thus the conflict. When a community takes ownership of a particular initiative, the role of state minimizes only in terms of supporting the community. Trying to overrule the community and give the responsibility of eco-park would never bring social cohesion and would lead to dissatisfaction among community people against government. This itself would hamper social sustainability. Therefore in order to reduce social conflict in future, government should encourage and promote such model villages instead of replacing community ownership. The tripartite agreement between Ogropathik Pally Samiti, RAJUK and the state can ensure such social cohesion.

Overcoming Economic Sustainability Challenges

The example of Zinda Park also demonstrated how livelihood enhancement could also be brought about through environmental and social sustainability. The income generation from the eco-park for community people as well as for social welfare purposes reinforces economic sustainability. Community people and founders who have devoted their land and life to the noble cause of sustainability also need income for life sustenance. Also maintenance of eco-park accounts for a considerable sum of money. Therefore, viability of eco-park project also depends on revenue generation sources of eco-park. Eco-park has been developed for tourism and the proceeds from the revenue generation is meant for livelihood purposes and social welfare purposes. Not only that villagers also earn livelihood through backward and forward linkages of this eco-friendly tourist spot. For example, the tea-stall and parking spaces are rented out to villagers. The villagers earn money from the net revenue of tea-stalls and parking spaces.

The major challenge of economic sustainability of eco-park is the future economic viability of the project. The founders and community people who donated land and money have to be supported throughout their lives. Five thousand villagers of Zinda Park and also community people of surrounding villages who supported these projects through microfinance loans or through donations or through simply raising voices should see the fruits of their efforts. Some more revenue generation activities could be introduced to ensure more revenue and livelihood generation activities. For example, some boating options in the artificial lakes can be one more source of revenue. The library membership extension to people outside community based on charges could also enhance quality and maintenance of library. Creating a website of Zinda Park to attract international visitors may also generate more revenue to sustain the project and people involved with the project.

Overcoming Future Sustainability Challenges through Such Model Villages

The serenity and beauty of a village encompasses a perfect blend of natural and human development. Future sustainability could be ensured through building up natural capital instead of physical capital that would sustain future generations. This model talks about replacing urbanization with a model of rural development with urban amenities almost like one of the planning models of India known as PURA model (Providing Urban Amenities to Rural Areas). This should also ensure that there are urban amenities like power infrastructure and rural telecom and IT infrastructure. In this case, nothing had been highlighted as such; however, sustainable development requires IT infrastructure and renewable energy resources. Without destroying bio- diversity sustainable development can also be ensured by providing these facilities replacing brick and mortar urbanization. A replication of such eco-parks in each village can lead to overall sustainability of a nation.

References

Dempsey

, Bramley

, Powers

, & Brown

(2011). The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development, 19(5), 289–300.

Murphy

(2012). The social pillar of sustainable development: A literature review and framework for policy analysis. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 8(1), 15–29.

Suchman

M.C.

(1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.