sustainability and autodependency norman w. garrick lecture 8 ce 4710/5710
TRANSCRIPT
Sustainability and Autodependency
Norman W. GarrickLecture 8
CE 4710/5710
What is Sustainability?
Sustainability is the stewardship of natural and human-made resources
so that the quality of living and the health of our cities, countryside and open space do not deteriorate from one generation to the next
Cervero, The Transit Metropolis: Transit and the Changing World
Talking the Talk
Politicians in Jamaica and many other third world countries are very aware of the need to ‘talk’ sustainability but the policies often don’t add up to changes that support environmental sustainability. Environmental and health sustainability is often compromised in the interest of economic growth.
The situation in the USA is slightly different – often technological fixes are offered up as the solution that will cause us to achieve environmental health without changing any of the economic or social issues that impact sustainability
So how do we convert the seemingly vague concept of sustainability into a concrete framework for guiding policy and design?
The Three-Legged Stool
The common model of sustainability is made up of a triad of economic, social, and environmental sustainability
SustainabilityE
nviro
nmen
t
So
cie
ty
Eco
nom
y
The Problem with the Three-legged Stool Model
The three-legged stool model does not help us address seemingly hard questions like
• How do we improve people’s quality of life without necessarily increasing consumption to levels that might cause environmental degradation?
• Can we have a sustainable economy without the need for constantly increasing levels of consumption?
• Can we satisfy people’s desire for access without environmentally damaging levels of mobility?
The Starting Place for Understanding Sustainability
Source: http://www.spacetoday.org/images/SolSys/Earth/EarthBlueMarbleWestTerra.jpg
Why Protecting the Biosphere is the Bottom-line for Sustainability
We only have the one biosphere – this biosphere consists of natural ecosystems at different scales. It is a closed system with only one energy input and no output
for waste
Human activities have a big impact on the biosphere
We need to re-structure these activities so that we can satisfy our needs and desires without continuing to cause harm to the biosphere
The Three-Legged Stool
Sustainability
Env
ironm
ent
So
cie
ty
Eco
nom
y
The Problem with the Three-Legged Stool
The triad model of sustainability is considered by some to be flawed because it does not explicitly recognize that environmental sustainability requires changes to social and economic institutions – instead, it talks about balance
It is universally acknowledged that the three dimensions of sustainability - environmental, social and economic – are a useful and valid way of conceptualizing this issue
What is in dispute is the order in which they are considered. The three-legged stool does not imply any order or priority
The Appropriate Order for the Three Domains
The important shift is to recognize that the economy is the creation of society, and not the other way around.
The economy is thus framed by the social context in which it occurs.
Further, both society and the economy operate within the context of a natural environment of limited capacity.
This lead to the nested box model of sustainability in which the order of priority is environment, social, and economy sustainability
Environment
Economy
(LOW AND GLEESON 2003, HART 2006)
It is important not to take this model to mean that the economy, or economic considerations, are not important
Rather it should be interpreted as saying that growth should serve the interest of the society and be environmentally sustainable.
The most extreme examples of economic growth without social or environmental sustainability can be found in many “oil rich” countries around the world.
The Nested box model also contains echoes of Littman's point about striving for ‘development’ not just ‘growth’
Interpreting the Nested Box Model of Sustainability
From an article by McGranahan and Satterthwaite in
Pugh, Sustainable Cities in Developing Countries, Earthscan, pg. 73-87
Ref: Low and Gleeson, Making Urban Transportation Sustainable, Palgrave MacMillan, pg. 25 - 41.
Biloxi c2004Roads Slated for Expansion
8 lanes 6 lanes 5 lanes 4 lanes
Biloxi 2025With Road Expansion
Gulfport c2004Roads Slated for Expansion
8 lanes 6 lanes 5 lanes 4 lanes
Gulfport 2025With Road Expansion
Environment Society EconomyLevel 13 Domains
Level 212 Elements
(Goals)
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 07 09 10 11 12
Level 319 Indicators
***
* ** ** ** ** ** * * * * *
Level 422 Variables
Each indicator is measured by one or more variables
1 Minimize consumption of renewable and non-renewable resources for transportation
2 Design transportation and place making systems to maximize land use efficiency
3 Minimize transportation and place making system’s impact on ecological systems
4 Limit transportation related wastes and pollution
34
5. Transportation system meets access needs in a way that is consistent with human health and safety
6. Planning and management of transportation system incorporates different levels of government and community input
7. Transportation and place making system facilitates social interaction and social equity
8. Transportation and place making system meets basic access needs of all individuals
35
9. Transportation is affordable for individuals
10. Transportation is efficient for movement of people and goods
11. Transportation is locally self-sufficient
12. Transportation does not contribute to economic vulnerability of society
36
BestDist. of Columbia
17.4%
Alaska 22.1%
New York 22.6%
Connecticut 22.7%
Massachusetts 22.8%
WorstMississippi 44.2%
Wyoming 38.2%
Alabama 38.1%
Montana 38.0%
Kentucky 37.7%
BestOregon 6.7
Indiana 4.7
Dist. of Columbia
3.9
Massachusetts 3.8
South Dakota 3.4
WorstMichigan 0.3
Mississippi 0.4
Alaska 0.5
Louisiana 0.7
Hawaii 0.7
Connecticut: Ranked 19th, 23 % Growth in GDP, 12% Growth in VMT
BestNew York 12.5%
Washington 13.4%
Massachusetts 14.1%
Virginia 14.1%
California 15.1%
WorstMississippi 45.4%
Montana 40.8%
Rhode Island 40.3%
North Dakota 37.3%
South Carolina 37.1%
Connecticut: Ranked 40th, 32.9 % Federal Sources
BestDist. of Columbia
0.2%
New York 1.1%
Connecticut 1.4%
Delaware 1.4%
Rhode Island 1.5%
WorstAlaska 6.0%
Mississippi 4.5%
Montana 4.0%
Wyoming 3.9%
North Dakota 3.8%
Percentage spent on transportation petroleum shown
BestDist. of Columbia
90
New York 75
Massachusetts 73
Oregon 65
Washington 65
WorstMississippi 7
Montana 21
Arkansas 28
Wyoming 29
South Carolina 29
Connecticut: Ranked 16th, Score 55
43
An essential challenge for building more
effective cities is to get government back to the job of
consciously designing them
- Alexander
Marshall