499.full

7/28/2019 499.full

1/13

http://jpl.sagepub.com/Journal of Planning Literature

http://jpl.sagepub.com/content/15/4/499The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0885412201015004012001 15: 499Journal of Planning Literature

Edward J. Jepson, Jr.Sustainability and Planning: Diverse Concepts and Close Associations

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Planning LiteratureAdditional services and information for

http://jpl.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jpl.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jpl.sagepub.com/content/15/4/499.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This? - May 1, 2001Version of Record>>

by guest on January 25, 2013jpl.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jpl.sagepub.com/http://jpl.sagepub.com/http://jpl.sagepub.com/http://jpl.sagepub.com/content/15/4/499http://jpl.sagepub.com/content/15/4/499http://jpl.sagepub.com/content/15/4/499http://www.sagepublications.com/http://jpl.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jpl.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jpl.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jpl.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jpl.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jpl.sagepub.com/content/15/4/499.refs.htmlhttp://jpl.sagepub.com/content/15/4/499.refs.htmlhttp://jpl.sagepub.com/content/15/4/499.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jpl.sagepub.com/content/15/4/499.full.pdfhttp://jpl.sagepub.com/content/15/4/499.full.pdfhttp://jpl.sagepub.com/http://jpl.sagepub.com/http://jpl.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jpl.sagepub.com/content/15/4/499.full.pdfhttp://jpl.sagepub.com/content/15/4/499.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jpl.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jpl.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://jpl.sagepub.com/content/15/4/499http://jpl.sagepub.com/

7/28/2019 499.full

2/13

JournalofPlanningLiteratureSustainability and Planning

Sustainability and Planning:Diverse Concepts andClose Associations

Edward J. Jepson, Jr.

Sustainability is a term that has received a significantamount of attention in the public policy arena. Within the

planning profession, there has likewise been a growing recog-nition of its possible relevance in the areas of land use and

general community development, and planners are increas-ingly finding themselves either leading or being expected tocontribute to local sustainable development efforts. The

purpose of this article is to provide an introduction to thesustainability framework in terms of its scientific basis andcultural interpretations and to identify and explore concep-tual associationsthat tend totieit to theplanningprofession.

Sustainability has become integrated into the plan-ning profession in one sense: it is clearly recognized assomething that relates to planning. However, seem-ingly less clear to the profession is the opportunity thatplanninghasto fill a crucial role in this burgeoning con-ceptual and operational landscape. Within the

sustainability literature, there are calls for a humanecology that would relate societal conditions to thequality of both the natural andthe human environment(di Castri and Hadley 1986) and for a new type of pro-fession that can serveas a communicative link betweenscientists and the general public (Christensen 1996). Intheface of these calls,planners have remainedvirtuallysilent. Yet, what other profession is more naturallysuited to filling this role than planning?

In the review that follows, sustainability is tracedfrom its ecosystem roots, through its cultural interpre-tations to an emergent functional form, and then on toits natural associations with the professionof planning.Due to the complexity of sustainability and the exten-siveness of the literature, it is not possible that all ideas,interpretations, and nuances associated with the topiccan be presented in an article of this size. Rather, thisarticle is intended to provide an introduction to plan-ners who are unfamiliar with the basics of sustainabledevelopment or who are skeptical about whether the

concept might contribute to the practice of planning.

SUSTAINABILITYSCIENTIFIC BASIS

Sustainability inthe publicpolicy realm derives fromthe biological sciences and particularly from thesubfield of environmental science. It is important topoint out that biologists and ecologists are not in com-plete agreement regarding many basic sustainabilityprinciples and premises, even to the extent that defini-tions of thesame term canvary among authors (Glasseret al.1994). However, this lack of consensushasnotpre-ventedthe useof many ofthese principles andpremises

as the foundation for the formulation of sustainable

EDWARD J. JEPSON, JR. received his Ph.D. from the Departmentof Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Wisconsin

Madison in December 1999. He is presently working as a planningconsultant in the Madison, Wisconsin area.

Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 15, No. 4 (May 2001).Copyright 2001 by Sage Publications, Inc.

http://jpl.sagepub.com/http://jpl.sagepub.com/http://jpl.sagepub.com/http://jpl.sagepub.com/

7/28/2019 499.full

3/13

developmentpolicies.These arethe focusof thefollow-ing review.

Within the field of biology, there is fairlywidespreadagreement that living systems can be characterized as

being in a constant struggle to develop, to change, andto respond to disturbance and that sustainability refersto the ability of systems to maintain or maximize them-

selves over time. The nature of this struggle revolvesaround the use of energy for productive and reproduc-tive purposes and its subsequent disposal (Rees 1995;Ahern and Boughton 1994; Giaoutzi 1990; Mollison1990). When this insight is combined with the secondlaw of thermodynamics, a series of conclusions can bedrawn with respect to systems. The second law statesthat (1) energy exists in two states, free (available) and

bound (unavailable), and that (2) all productive pro-cesses result in a decrease in the quantity of free energyand an increase in the quantity of bound energy. As thisdynamic continues to occur, and because (according to

the first law of thermodynamics) the total quantity ofenergy in all forms can never be changed, an increas-ingly significant condition of disorder, or entropy, isincurred(Maser1997; Wackernageland Rees 1996; Ekins1993; Garbarino 1992; Georgescu-Roegen [1971] 1980).

From this, it can be concluded that a living systemcarries within it the seeds of its own destruction,

because the bound energy (which is constantly increas-ing and replacing free energy) cannot be tapped for theproductive and maintenance purposes that are essen-tial for its survival. Thus, it is only to the extent that asystem is open (i.e., able to import additional freeenergy and export bound energy) is it able to control its

internal level of disorder and thereby sustain itself(Boswell 1995; Rees 1995).

Within the limited perspective of an individual sys-tem, such a dynamic does not necessarily pose a prob-lem: itcanpersevere,providedits exportof entropyis in

balance with its import ofnegentropy (i.e., order). How-ever, it is unfortunately true that an open system (par-ticularly a successful one, when measured in terms ofproductivity) wreaks havoc on the other parts of thelargersystem with which it interacts. This is because, asstated by the second law of thermodynamics, a reduc-tion in entropy in one part of a system can only beachieved if there is a corresponding and equal increase

inentropyelsewhere inthesystem (Rees1995; King andSlesser 1994; D. Simon 1989). As a result, it becomesclear that an individual system cannot escape the priceof its own success, because all local systems arefinally dependent on the integrity of the larger systemthat they are causing to become increasingly disor-dered. In fact, the above-referenced dynamic doesindeed pose a serious problem to individual systems.

The concept of ecosystems is an extension of theliving-systems concept. It is proposed by ecologists torefer to a characteristic community of interdependentplants, animals, and/or microorganisms, all of whichare interlocked in a series of competitive and coopera-tive survival mechanisms that regulate the allocation ofresources among them (Peters and Noss 1995; Rees

1992; Davelaar and Nijkamp 1990; Giaoutzi 1990;Rolston 1988). This interlocking activity results in anecosystem behavioral pattern that has been character-izedto be essentially the same as that ofa living system,that is,a constantstruggleto changeand respondto dis-turbance (Ahern and Boughton 1994).

Although most ecologists hold that individual eco-systems cannot and do not persist through time (i.e.,reach a climax state of equilibrium) (Glasser et al. 1994;Hersperger1994), thereis some agreementthat they canand do approach a state of relative stability whengrowth and change are self-regulated to correspond to

changing internal and external organizational capaci-tiesandpotentialwithoutchanging theiressentialorga-nization (Mollison 1990; Smith 1996). Hence, eventhough the struggle to successfully adapt continuesunabated (Ahern and Boughton 1994), a system canenhance its sustainability by interacting more effec-tivelywithrespect to both internal andexternaldynam-ics (Lyle 1994; Munn 1989). This is because success inthis regard means the ecosystem is better able torespond to disturbances and control its growth so keyresources and processes on which it depends are notexhausted or overloaded (Maser 1997; Boswell 1995;Ahern and Boughton 1994; Hersperger 1994; Breheny

1992; Jacobs 1991).Effective systemic self-regulation is related to the

concept ofcarrying capacity and dependent on feedbackflows. The first of these concepts, carrying capacity, isunderstood to be the inherent and natural capacity of asystemto absorbthe resourceextractionsand wastedis-posal stresses that accompany productive activity tosupport the activities of its constituent life forms(Scruggs 1993; Rees 1992; Munn 1989). For this capacityto be maximized, it is necessary that there be an effec-tive feedback flow, whereby information is transmittedas signals that areused by thesystemto make appropri-ate and necessary compensatory internal adjustments

and modifications (Smith 1996; Boswell 1995; Rees1995; Scruggs 1993; Mollison 1990). Forexample, dwin-dling resources being followed by a slowdown in thegrowthrate of those activities or species withinthe eco-system that depend on those resources would consti-tute evidence of an effective feedback process. Suchmodifications are achieved as a result of interactionsamong the agents within a system. With respect to the

500 Journal of Planning Literature


7/28/2019 499.full

4/13

nature of these interactions, some writers have pro-posed it is a mixture of competition and cooperationandthat both of these are importantto thesystems con-tinued functioning (Davelaar and Nijkamp 1990;Rolston 1988). On the other hand, others have con-tended that a systems stability and sustainability areassociated with interactions that are cooperative and

connections that are beneficial (Giaoutzi 1990;Mollison 1990, 35). In all cases, it is the sum of theseinteractions together that combines to produce thegreater goodthe sustenance of the system.

If there is either an inability onthe part of a system toadjust to changes in the environment on which itdepends or a delay (referred to by some scientists aslag time [see, e.g., Botkin and Keller 1987, 75] in itsresponse to such changes (caused by nonreceipt of sig-nals, misinterpretation of signals, or failure to act uponsignals), a condition ofovershoot will occur. By defini-tion, such a conditionwill result in a mismatch between

thedemands beingplacedon theecosystem (intermsofresource extraction and/or waste assimilation) and itscapacity to meet those demands. Depending on theseverity of the mismatch, the continuedexistenceof theentire ecosystem itself may be threatened (Boswell1995; Rees 1995; Meadows et al. 1992).

Systems that are least likely to experience an adjust-ment mismatch are proposed to be those that are mostcomplex interms of thenumber of interactionsand con-nections between and among systemic agents (Lyle1994) and both the variety and redundancy of its func-tionality (Maser1997; Mollison 1990).This is partlydueto the fact that signals can be read differently by dif-

ferent receivers (Allen and Starr [1982] 1988); the moreof these there are, the more likely there will be a cor-rectreading that is appropriately acted upon. Further-more, when many agents perform several functions(many of which are redundant vis--vis other agents inthe system) in an integrated fashion, the capacity of thesystem to respond to environmental disturbance

becomes notably enhanced (the ecological term thatspecifically describes such complexity of connectionsand forms is biodiversity [Smith 1996]). Alternately, tothe extent that these two aspects are compromised (i.e.,a small number of components with specialized func-tions) is the extent to which a system becomes fragile

and nonresilient (Maser 1997).However, there is a caveat with respect to complex-

ity, and it is significant. There is apparently a built-intendency of systems to become ever larger and morecomplex (i.e., too many connections, too many agents)until lag times and systemic interdependencies leavethem virtually unmanageable and prone to a cata-strophic collapse (Boswell 1995; Rees 1995; Giaoutzi1990; Allen and Starr [1982] 1988). Such a collapse is

typically followed by a reorganization at a new, lowerlevel of complexity and a renewal of the steady marchtoward more complexity (Maser 1997). Even healthysystems, therefore, can be said to be destined for ulti-mate destruction as a result of complexities related tosize rather than efficient function (in other words, fromconditions arising from a systems success in maintain-

ing and expanding itself) (Boswell 1995; Rees 1995).Successful complex systems have also been charac-

terized as hierarchical in nature. Essentially, it is pro-posed that higher subsystems within such systemscommunicate withlower subsystems to exercise con-trol over their behavior and ranges of response (Allenand Starr [1982] 1988; Pattee 1973). Position in the hier-archy is inversely related to frequency dynamics,with higher subsystems operating on a slower andlonger-term time scale than those below. Within sucharrangements, there is a tension between tendenciestoward independence (among subsystems) on one

handandsystemic tendencies toward subordination ontheother(AllenandStarr [1982]1988;H. Simon1962).Acondition of relative stability is found when the con-trol is neither toodetailed nortoogeneral (Pattee 1973;H. Simon 1962).

SUSTAINABILITYCULTURAL INTERPRETATION

Public policies based on ecosystem theory requirethat a connection be made between the natural and thehuman realms and that the temporal dimensions ofconcern and interest extendbeyond the immediate intothe long term. Despite strong evidence that the level of

damage being inflicted on the natural environment byhuman activities is nonsustainable (Ekins 1994), opin-ion remains divided regarding what sustainability isand how it should be used as a conceptual guide in theformulation of public policy.

An understanding as to why this should be requiresthattwo fundamental cultural foundations be acknowl-edged,because these are tending to cause a repudiationof a more sustainable approach to the human develop-ment challenge. The first foundation is our Judeo-Christian religious philosophy that sharply separatesman from nature and holds the former as havingdominion and rights of exploitation over the latter;

thus, human beingsareviewed as entitled to usenatureina way that ismost beneficial to our welfare,withlittleorno regard forotherconsiderations. Theotherfounda-tion is the empiricist tradition, which views nature asmechanistic and something that can and should bemanipulated by human beings for their benefit.Emerging from that tradition is a scientific method thatis reductionist and that tends to encourage fragmenta-tion rather than the integration that is so essential to an

Sustainability and Planning 501


7/28/2019 499.full

5/13

ecosystem framework (Carley and Christie 1993;Beatley 1989).

Also serving to impede the transfer of ecosystemprinciples to the human domain is the relative status ofecology among the other scientific disciplines. Becauseit is inherently interdisciplinary by nature rather thanbounded (as, for example, physics or chemistry),

many of ecologys most basic tenets remain unsettled.As a result, it is unable to outgrow its reputation as afrontier area, easily challenged from both within andwithout (CarleyandChristie 1993, 67). This characteris-tic also makes it susceptible to accusations that it lacksthe requisite scientific rigor to serve as a basis on whichtoformulatepublicpolicy(di Castriand Hadley1986).

In addition, there are inherent behavioral and psy-chological characteristics of human beings that have

been proposedto have the effectof impeding the devel-opment of sustainable policies. One of these is a disin-clination to extend our sphere of concern either tempo-

rally (i.e., beyond the next one or two generations) orspatially (i.e., beyond family, friends, and personalinterests) (Garbarino 1992; Nijkamp et al. 1992; Dubos1981);another isa biological predispositionto tune outlong-term trends over which [we] have no control(White 1994,24).Athird possiblyrelevantcharacteristicis ourobservedtendencyto make decisionson thebasisof nearly every conceivable consideration except thefacts; to the extent that this is true is the extent to whichthe spread of new knowledge (e.g., about rain forestdestruction, the effects of pollution, ecosystem charac-teristics, etc.) as a strategy to achieve a transformationto a more sustainable society will be insufficient (Jones

1996).Countering these oppositional forcesareat least four

viewpoints thataremorecompatible withan ecosystemapproach to public policy. The first is a repudiation ofthe Judeo-Christian tradition of mans dominion overnature based on a reinterpretation of various biblicalpassages (Beatley 1989); another is a love of nature forits own sake that can have an almost spiritual quality,traceable to eighteenth- and nineteenth-century senti-ments of nostalgia and appreciation (Dwyer et al. 1994;Platt 1994; Jacobs 1991; Lynch 1981); a third is a utopiantraditionthat seeks to integratehuman beings into theirenvironment in a way that is more conducive to the full

range of their needs andtheir nature(Spain 1995);andafourth viewpoint tends to support adoption of an eco-system perspective as the result of a process of simplelogical reflection, namely, a recognition that uncon-strained consumption of limited resources will leadinevitably to Garret Hardins tragedy of the com-mons (Ruckelshaus 1989).

These forces and trends have combined to producetwo conflicting worldviews, or frameworks, that are

relevant to ecosystem theory and sustainabilitytheexpansionist and the ecological. The first of these,expansionist, draws most directly from Western empir-icist rootsandis thedominant socialparadigm; it viewshuman systemgrowthas virtually unlimiteddueto theunique capacity of human beings to use, to adapt, andto innovate. The ecological framework, on the other

hand, holds that there are limits to the ability of the nat-ural environment to support human beings, and thelevel andcharacterof human activity must be tempered

by an appreciation of the effects of that activity on natu-ral resources and characteristics (Rees 1995; Wackernageland Rees 1996; Costanza 1989).

The definitions of sustainability and/or sustainabledevelopment that have emerged from this conceptualand attitudinal turbulence tend to reflect either one orthe other worldview. For example, evidence of anexpansionist perspective can be found in definitionsthat emphasize the achievement of human objectives

such as those relating to consumption levels, economicbenefits, individual happiness, and community con-sciousness (Despotakis et al.1992; Daly 1989; Smit andBrklacich 1989; Barbier 1987). Evidence of an ecologicalperspective is revealed in definitions that contain a pre-ponderance of references to maintaining environmen-tal stocks and assets and ongoing systemic functioning(Rydin 1992).

There are also some definitions that attempt tobridge the gap between the two worldviews. For exam-ple, Meadows et al. (1992) defined a sustainable societyas one that hasin place informational, social, andinsti-tutional mechanisms that keep check on . . . feedback

loops (p. 209). An implicit assumption in such a view-point is that our current (expansionist) society can bemade compatible with sustainability. The definitionproposed by Kinsley (1994) suggests the direct incorpo-ration into human development policy of such ecosys-temconcepts as ecological thresholdand carrying capacity,the latterof which is used by Girardet(1992) in conjunc-tion with the sociological term quality of life (p. 177); bycombining terms from both viewpoints, there is theimplicit assumption that the two can be merged.

For the most part, however, the tendency has been tokeep definitions of sustainability and/or sustainabledevelopment imprecise and descriptive rather than

prescriptive. For example, the most frequently cited(and most widely accepted) definition is that proposed

by the Brundtland Commission, that is, developmentwhich meets the needs of the present without compro-mising the ability of future generations to meet theirneeds (Lele 1991). Another source defines sustain-ability as a strategy of development that results in theenhancement of human quality of life and the simulta-neous minimization of negativeenvironmentalimpacts



7/28/2019 499.full

6/13

(Spain 1995). Still a third definition advocates the inte-gration of ecological and economic uses of the earthslife-support systems (Loucks 1994). In all of thesecases, words with imprecise meanings are used. What,after all, are the needs that must be protected? Are allenvironmental impacts in need of the same level ofminimization, and how will that be measured? And

whocan argue about thevalue of thetype of integrationcalled for in the third definition?

In the opinion of some, this definitional variety andvagueness is neither good nor bad, but it is inevitable

because every major concept which encompasseshuman idealssuch as liberty or democracy[is] sub-

ject to diverse interpretation (Scruggs 1993). To others,this is a quality because it allows sustainability to be aunifying force,onethat enables opposing camps to findcommon ground (Blowers 1992; Lele 1991). Then thereare still others who propose that the negative substan-tive impact of definitional vagueness is the overriding

issue (Ekins 1993); this causes it to be, in the opinion ofone notedobserver, a thought-stopping cliche (Berkeand Kartez 1995), which either prevents the taking ofmeaningful action (Blowers 1992) or gives free reign toadvocates of the much more firmly entrenched expan-sionist framework (Lele 1991).

SUSTAINABILITYAN EMERGENT FUNCTIONAL FORM

Out of this cultural and philosophical milieu, theconcept of sustainability hasbegun to take some degreeof functional form relative to its application in humanaffairs, which revolves around the concept of reconcil-

ing the three Es, which are Environment, Economy,andsociety (interpreted in theform of redistributive, orEquity, principles). In essence, the emerging sustain-ability doctrine holds that the natural environment can

be protected, the economy developed, and equityachieved all at the same time and that the extent towhich we are successful in this simultaneous achieve-ment is the extent to which we wil l achievesustainability. What is required, it is proposed, is effec-tive balancing of objectives related to these threedimensions (Berke and Kartez 1995; Healey and Shaw1993;Scruggs 1993;Meadows etal.1992;Barbier1987).

This set of precepts is not necessarily incompatible

with the secondlawof thermodynamics andecosystemprinciples. the environmental dimension is based onthe universally shared recognition that we depend onour natural environment and that it must be conservedandprotected. In that themeasurement of environmen-tal impacts and values remains problematic, theprecau-tionary principle has emerged from the debate as a pro-posed guideto public actions. Recognizing the inherentinadequacy of scientific research relative to many com-

plex environmental dynamics, this principle holds thatit is entirely legitimate for public policy decisions to bemade before allof thefactsare in,before conclusions areentirely certain. What is required to stop or initiate aparticular public program or policy is a reasonable, sci-entifically derived estimate of the possibilityof adverseenvironmental impacts (Haughton and Hunter 1994;

Blowers 1993).With respect to the equity dimension, there tends to

be a focus on the part of many mainstreamadvocates onthe intergenerationalside of theequitycoin, with itscallfor natural resource conservation and environmentalprotection for the good of future generations. Becauseones children andgrandchildren, as well as natureandits creatures, are encompassed within the equation,intergenerational equity is not a difficult pill for mostpeople to swallow (at leastnot conceptually). However,such understanding does not so easily extend to theissue ofintragenerational equity, which may require a

diminution of ones personal standard of living or atransfer of ones wealth to benefit others who are herenow and who are unrelated. For example, it is one thingto favor the protection of a forest in ones home regionso that future generations can enjoy its shade and itspeace; however, it is quite another to contemplate itsdestruction based on a comparison of its value (as asource of spiritual sustenance) against the value of for-ests elsewhere (assources of material sustenance).Or, itis an entirely different matter to spend local tax dollarsto improve the energy efficiency of a suburban school(in the name of intergenerational equity) than it is totransfer tax dollars from one jurisdiction to help

another jurisdiction rebuild a crumbling school in apoor neighborhood (in the name of intragenerationalequity). In the case of such types of decisions, it is easyfor Darwinian notions related to victors in a competi-tive struggle to rise to the fore.

At onelevel, such notions canfind support inecosys-tem theory, where the agents of systems are recognizedas being engaged bothcooperativelyand competitively(Rees 1992; Davelaar and Nijkamp 1990; Rolston 1988).The idea is that out of this interplay whereby someaspects of a system supersede other aspects, a greatergood will emerge, namely, a sustainable system. How-ever, there is no obvious requirement thatrichcountries

notexploitpooronesorthat more affluentpeoplenotbeindifferentto theplight of those inpoverty. Such inequi-ties can be interpreted as reflecting the competitivedimension of the ecosystem interplay.

However, further reflection reveals intragener-ational equity to have solid justification within the eco-system framework. The discernment of this justifica-tion requires definitional clarification. First, a system isdefined by Websters Dictionary (1978 edition) as a reg-



7/28/2019 499.full

7/13

ularly interacting or interdependent group of itemsforming a unified whole. In the human sphere, thiswould be interpreted to include everything from aregional metropolitan system, a single city, or a globalsystemof trade.The need for successful systemsto con-trol against internal entropy has been previously dis-cussed. Entropy is not just consumption exceeding

product; Websters (1978) defines it more generally asthe steady degradation or disorganization of a systemor society. Because degraded is defined as degenera-tion ofstructure orfunction, thedysfunctionalityofdis-rupted societies and antisocial individuals mired inpoverty constitutes a fundamental violation of one ofthe principal requirements of a successful system. Sucha framework does not preclude competition as a neces-sary oradmissible componentof a successful system(asis called for within the ecosystem framework); how-ever, itprohibits theimpositionby oneagenton anotherof a condition of social, economic, or psychological

dysfunction.With respect to the third E, economy, there hastendedto be a focus onvaluing thebenefitsof economicdevelopment, defined as a qualitative increase in thecondition of life, or welfare, as an alternative to valuingthe benefits of economic growth, defined as a quantita-tive increase in the consumption of goods and services,or affluence (Ekins 1993; Blowers 1992; Sargent et al.1991; Munn 1989; Daly [1968] 1980). In the opinion ofmany, an economically developed society would notonly be more sustainable than a growing one, it wouldalso be a better place in which to live. However, therehas hardly been consensus in this regard, even among

those who advocate for sustainability. For example, theBrundtlandReport (World Commissionon EnvironmentandDevelopment1987)a strong statementof supportfor the application of sustainability in the realm ofhuman affairsadvocated growth as the solution toglobal problems. Although there has been criticism forthat position, there has also been wide acceptance of it,reflecting the continuing division among sustainabilityadvocates between those who see the need for radicalchange in terms of living habits and consumption andthose who push for a vision of the future that is verymuch like today, made possible by a growing economythat is more environmentally sensitive (Carley and

Christie 1993).The concept ofsubsidiarity has emerged as a funda-

mental basis for the integration of the three Es. Derivedfrom the ecosystem notion that the effectiveness ofinformation is related to the directness of the link andthe proximity between the sender and the receiver(Allen and Starr [1982] 1988), subsidiarity calls for pub-lic policy decisions to be made at the lowest possiblelevel. This has ledsome proponents to call for thedeter-

mination of public policy by local people workingtogether with a minimum of outside intervention(Con-cern, Inc. 1995; Hardoyet al.1992; Rees 1989).However,within the ecosystem framework can also be found thenotion ofhierarchy, which calls for some level of higherlevel control to achieve a state of systemic balance(Pattee 1973; H.Simon1962).Whenthese twodynamics

are combined, they produce a merged model of publicpolicy formation that is neither top-down nor bottom-up

but a combinationof both, one that recognizesthat localactions are in need of some degree of centralized guid-ance that is conceptually consistent across jurisdictions(Rees 1990; Lynch 1981).

Finally, the ecosystem concept of feedback flows hasproduced a recognition of the importance of informa-tion. To achieve an integration of the three Es, it is notonly necessary that there be complexity in terms ofinteractionsbut also that those interactions be based onaccurate signals that are then acteduponappropriately.

This translates into a model of policy formation thatrequires personal opinion (provided by citizensthrough an inclusivecitizen participationprocess) to becombined with factual information (provided by scien-tists and other objective experts) (Lyle 1994; Beatley1989). The lack of one orthe other will result in a flawedprocess, producing results that may be destructive,counterproductive, or ineffectual. One manifestation ofthis dimensionof the sustainability frameworkis a pro-liferation of social, economic, and environmentalindi-cators thatareselectedthrougha participatoryprocess(Andrews 1996). Although such indicators are alldesigned and intended to provide communities with a

knowledge base from which to draw for the formula-tion of publicpolicy, there remains a fair amountof con-troversy associated with them, related primarily totheir lack of a uniform theoretical basis (Boswell 1995;Haughton and Hunter 1994; Kay 1991).

Related to the concept of indicators is that of theurban, or ecological, footprint, which is a way of measur-ing the environmental impact of a functioning commu-nity. It is based on the notion that modern urban areasconstitute an extreme violation of the concept of carry-ing capacity, due to the fact that they draw from aresource base that covers a geographical area that is farremoved from, and many times the size of, the commu-

nity itself (Haughton and Hunter 1994; Rees andWackernagel1994). The ecological footprint is a calcula-tionof the areaof land that is needed to provide the rawmaterials and absorb the wastes that are produced in acommunity (Maclaren 1996; Wackernagel and Rees1996; Rees 1995). A sustainable community is proposedtobe one that seeks tominimizethe extent ofits exportedimpact as continuously measured through ecologicalfootprint calculation (Beatley 1995; Girardet 1992).



7/28/2019 499.full

8/13

Aland useplanningapproach bywhichsome propo-nents of sustainability have tried to integrate the threeEs is a new urbanism, a neotraditional design. Rootedconceptually in the traditional neighborhoods of preWorldWar II urban America, thisdevelopment approachis proposed to contribute to sustainability by reducingthe amount of land consumed for development, reduc-

ing automobile dependency, increasing attachment toplace, and encouraging social diversity. It does thisthrough neighborhoods that are organized around acentral square of retail and public uses and functionalopen spaces and that are pedestrian- friendly and com-pact, where streetscape and building amenities anddesigns encourage walking rather than driving andwhere housing is affordable to a variety of incomegroups (Davis 1995;Christoforidis1994;Bookout 1992).However, it is not without its detractors with respect to

both its assumptions and its results, particularly thoserelatedto environment, social diversity, andtransporta-

tion (see, e.g., Beatley and Manning 1997; Berman 1996;Crane 1996; Christoforidis 1994; Cervero 1989; Owens1986). Also, itscontributionto economic change is diffi-cult to discern, and its prevalent application at theurban periphery means that the consumption of openland continues, if at a reduced scale (due to its morecompact design).

Some proponents have attempted to pull togetherthe myriad of emergent strands and elements into aproscription for communities that will result in anenhancement of their long-term viability, that is, theirsustainability. Presented as an ideal toward which citi-zen groups and political leaders should strive, such

proposals tend to revolve around the basic premise thatsustainability is best achieved when communitiesengage in individual efforts to determine how each can

best fit into its immediate host environment (i.e., thatwhich is proximate and surrounding) and better con-nect with the components of its particular heritage.There is typically an emphasis on the importance ofempowering citizens for effective participation, pro-tecting the local environment, developing a more self-reliant regional economy, promoting interjurisdictionalcooperation, and strengthening the sense of commu-nity. Urban growth boundaries, green building pro-grams, and organic farming are some of the methods

advocated to achieve these goals (see, e.g., Roseland1998; Beatley and Manning 1997; Sargent et al. 1991).

SUSTAINABILITY AND PLANNING:CONCEPTUAL ASSOCIATIONS

The reasons why sustainability and the field of plan-ning are inextricably linked and mutually relevant arenumerous and persuasive. Among the most important

is the fact that the constituent concepts that composesustainabilityare considered by many of itsproponentsto be most applicable at the same level at which mostplanning occursandon which it is most focused,that is,the local or regional level (Friedmann 1993). There areessentially four reasons proposed for this within theenvironmental/sustainability literature. First, the

importantecosystemeffectsarethosethat occur nearestto the ecosystem (Rees 1989); second, the types ofglobalproblemsbeingencounteredvaryaccording tolocal circumstances, thus requiring a local policyresponse (Dubos 1981); third, political responsivenessis highest at the local level (Rees 1995); and fourth, thestrong conviction that is necessary for the achievementof sustainability goals and objectives can only emergein people who are directly and personally involved inpolicy formulation (Voisey et al. 1996).

Within this substate and subnational perspective,there is a decided preponderance of attention paid to

cities due to a recognition of the direct link betweenurban dynamics and environmental degradation, inwhich modern, industrialized cities are shown to breakthe basic ecological law of return and engage in aone-way appropriation (through trade) of the carryingcapacity of areasoutside themselves both in the form ofresource extraction and waste disposal (Beatley 1995,1989; Platt 1994; Rees 1992; Mollison 1990; Daly andCobb 1989). Because of their size and the highly con-sumptivelifestylethat theyarepurportedto encourage,these conurbations become accused of being entropic

black holes (Rees 1995), requiring the bioproductivecapacity of a land area ten to twenty times larger than

the area they themselves occupy (Wackernagel andRees 1996) andcapable of inflicting significant environ-mental damage on a global scale (Breheny 1992;Girardet 1992). The potential seriousness of the prob-lem becomes especially clear when it is considered thatever-growing populations in all parts of the world are

becoming increasingly urbanized (Haughton andHunter 1994; Button and Pearce 1989; Stone 1973).

It is, however, not just this energy-exchange, cause-and-effect dynamic that causes cities to be of particularconcern to sustainability proponents. Others have pro-posed that cities, because they are concentrations ofdiverse consumptive and productive activities, are by

their very natures prone to create market failures and,consequently, localized environmental degradation(Button and Pearce 1989). Still others have observedthat urbanization causes an isolation of city inhabitantsfrom nature and thus (possibly) an insensitivity towardits promise and its problems (Platt 1994; Stone 1973).According to Lewis Mumford (as cited by Hill 1992), itthen follows that the more urbanized in character anarea becomes, the more materialistic in character its



7/28/2019 499.full

9/13

inhabitants become and the more serious are the extentand significance of the environmental damage that itcauses.

A final principal reason for a focus on urbanizationamong sustainability proponents is that the physicalexpansion of cities has a direct and significant impacton the agricultural capacity of the human system. This

is because there is a tendency for cities to locate on ornear fertile land (Stone 1973). (For example, togetherwith their adjacent counties, metropolitan areasaccount for more than 50 percent of the prime agricul-tural land in the United States [Katz 1986].) As a resultof this mutual proximity, millions of acres of crop landhave been lost each year to the dynamics of worldwideurbanization since the 1980s (Tolba 1987; Katz 1986).

Given the local/urban bias of sustainability, there isan obviouslinkto planning.However, further reviewofthe literature reveals the link between the two concep-tual structures to be much more direct. First, there is the

recognition of a direct relationship between the condi-tion of the environment and not just overall urbandynamics but, specifically, urban form (Breheny 1993;Rydin 1992).In theviewof oneobserver, there isnowanabsence of the natural restraints that used to restrictthecharacterof urban form andmaintain a measure ofharmony (Gruen 1964, 34). In an era of large develop-ment projects and accordingly large developmenteffects, of interconnections and global hinterlands,urban land use market mechanisms left unrestrainedhave the potential of producing significantly negativeenvironmental damage. The most effective means bywhich such mechanisms can be controlled is through

the application of planning tools and methodologies(Barnett 1986; Brown 1981).

There are additional connecting dynamics betweenplanningand sustainability that canbe identified in theliterature. One of these is based on the recognition offorward thinking as a fundamental characteristic ofpublic policies aimed at achieving sustainability(Carley and Christie 1993, 180). Not only is a long-termperspective intrinsic to the theory and philosophy ofplanning (Tonn 1986; Lang 1983), it is also the case thatthe principal area of its concernland useinvolveseffects and consequences that are intrinsicallylong-term (i.e., intergenerational) (Manning 1986).

Another connecting dynamic that makes planning andsustainability mutually relevant is the recognition thatall facets of planning for the welfare of humans haveeffects on the flows and processes of the natural envi-ronment (Beatley 1989) and that this is particularly thecase with respect to land use planning (Christensen1996). This direct and fundamental interactive relation-ship places planning (potentially) in a unique positionto fulfill thecallsfor a humanecology among sustain-

ability advocates, that is, a framework that integratesthe natural and the social sciences, one that relates soci-etal conditions with the condition of the natural envi-ronment (di Castri and Hadley 1986).

Inaddition,planning theoryshares with ecologyandeconomics a fundamental concern with systems, sys-temic interconnections, and linkages and the attain-

ment of some kind of balance or equilibrium. There hashistorically been a rich range of conceptual explorationand debate among planners into how human settle-ments grow and develop in relation to their contextualenvironment(Darwent1975;Friedmann1964). Manyofthe terms used in these development discussionsthatis, organic and ecologist models of development,resilient regions, and natural economic forces(Friedmann and Weaver 1979, 56-61; Hoover 1971, 368-369)are identical to those used by ecologists andeconomists as they attempt to understand and explain

biological interactions and market transactions. Fur-

thermore, the focus on feedback among ecologists asthe means by which biological entities adjust to changeis in substance the same as the planners focus on trans-portation, capital flows, andcommunicationsystems asthe principal determinants of the level and pattern ofhuman system development (Friedmann and Bloch1990; Moss 1988; Castells 1985; Pred 1976; Friedmannand Alonso 1964).

Finally, both sustainability and planning are con-cerned with integration as a central conceptual chal-lenge. The integration that is sought within both theo-retical constructs is of four kinds: the first is acrossdisciplines, so as to produce a more coherent and com-

plete public policy (Carley and Christie 1993; di Castriand Hadley 1986); the second is across diverse actors ina productive (either ecological or sociopolitical) pro-cess, with a focus on communication (Meadows et al.1992; Alterman and MacRae 1983); the third is acrossvalues, that is, right and wrong/good and bad (Blameyand Common 1994; Howe 1990); and the fourth isacross institutions, so as to produce an approach that iscooperative and integrated (Daly and Cobb 1989;Owens 1992).

SUSTAINABILITY AND PLANNING:EVIDENCE OF INTEGRATION

The intrinsic intertwining of planning and sustain-ability is reflected in the significant body of planningarticles that has emerged regarding sustainability. Forexample, in 1995, an entire issue of the Journal ofPlanning Literature (vol. 9, no. 4) was devoted tosustainability, with articles on its conceptual signifi-cance and relationship to planning (Rees 1995; Spain1995), as well as its practical application in planning for



7/28/2019 499.full

10/13

community development (Beatley 1995; Berke 1995). In1996, the matter of integrating sustainability into thepractice of local planning was addressed in thePlanning Advisory Service publication, A PlannersGuide to Sustainable Development (Krizek and Power1996), and in articles in the Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association (Campbell 1996) and the Journal of

Planning Education and Research (McDonald 1996).These were followed four years later by Berke andConroy (2000) offering a methodology for the measure-ment of such integration into planning documents.Planning scholars William Rees and Timothy Beatleyhave coauthored books that cover the general topic ofhow communities can more effectively plan forsustainability (Wackernageland Rees 1996;Beatley andManning 1997, respectively).

Moreover, the intrinsicconnectednessbetweenplan-ning andsustainabilityis revealedin thenumber ofarti-cles in planning journals that address various aspects of

the emergent functional form that was previously dis-cussed, such as interjurisdictional and intrajurisdictionalequity (Beatley 1989); the issues of subsidiarity andinstitutional hierarchy (Deyle and Smith 1998; Harrisand King 1988); and, more recently, neotraditionaldesign (Southworth 1997; Berman 1996), sustainabilityindicators (Maclaren 1996), participatory processes(Innes and Booher 1999; Innes 1998; Julian et al. 1997),andurban growthboundaries (Weitz andMoore 1998).1

Inaddition,the most recent PlannersBookService Cataloglisted forty-eight books that relate to sustainabilitysthree Es of social equity, the environment, and eco-nomic development. Finally, Smart Growth is the name

given to a newly emerging developmentdoctrine in theplanning field that Lorentz and Shaw (2000) describedas striving for the protection of community and theenvironment through the seeking of balance amongsocial, economic, and environmental goals, or the threeEs of sustainability.

However, there is some evidence of sustainabilitybeing relatively absent from the professional literatureandacademics, at least as terminology. Only rarelydoesthe word (or its derivative, sustainable development)appear in journal article titles (a database reviewrevealed its presence in about a dozen articles in the

Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association,theJournal of

Planning Education and Research, and the Journal ofPlanning Literature for the period since 1997). This con-dition of scarcity also exists with respect to planningeducation: a scan of the Web sites of twenty large plan-ning departments revealed a minority (seven) toinclude a course with the word sustainability or sustain-able development in its title, none offering more than onesuch course, and even fewer (two) with the word in itsprogram description.

In addition,the major current initiative of theAmeri-can Planning Association (2000), Growing Smart, pro-poses a planning model that offers no remedy for thepresent entropic (i.e., nonsustainable) relationship thatmoderncommunitiesin theUnited Stateshave with theother systems (human and otherwise) on which theydepend (i.e., importing resources and exporting waste)

(Roseland 1998; Wackernagel and Rees 1996; Girardet1992). This proposed planning strategy is not essen-tially inconsistent withthe notion of humansettlementsexisting apart from nature and of the need to facilitatedevelopment, and its juxtaposition with sustainabilitymirrors the historical split in the planning profession

between an empiricist view (i.e., nature as something tobe mastered) and an organic view (i.e., humans andnature in balance) (Wilson [1974] 1983), views thatthemselves correspond to the mainstream expansionistworldview on one hand and the ecological worldviewon the other.

CONCLUSION

It is clear that sustainability andplanninghave muchin common. Moreover, they are complementary in thesense that sustainability has the potential of providingmuch, if not all, of the conceptual context (theories,goals, objectives, etc.) for the activity of planning in thetwenty-first century. Such being the case, and providedthey cangain a perspective that draws from the organictraditionof theirprofession,plannershavea potentiallysignificant role to play in the attainment of a more sus-tainable approach to development by building on the

professions intrinsic interest in integration and bal-ance. Because sustainable development would requirea strengthening of public sector planning, one impor-tant area of future work would be for planners to try tomove toward a more full understanding of the dynam-ics and the effects of the private property rights move-ment andassociated recent court decisionsthat weakenthe legal basis for land use controlsandzoning. Investi-gations could be conducted regarding the substantiveareas in which planners are now most actively intro-ducing the conceptof sustainability intopublic debates,with a particular emphasis on how these areas can beintegrated into one seamless conceptual field. Con-

tinued and expanded exploration of the characteristicsof effective participatoryprocessesand models is essen-tial. Finally, the profession should look at how it mightmore successfully organize itself to develop the consis-tency and commitment that are necessary for its mem-

bers to assume the leadership role that is both possibleand appropriate. Most fundamentally, it is importantthat the efforts of planners be guided by clarity regard-ing its scientific basis (so that they can keep strategies



7/28/2019 499.full

11/13

ontrack) anditsinherent limitations (imposedbyworld-view and cultural sentiment). Such internal guidancewill help ensure against planners either leading theircommunities astray or expecting too much, both ofwhich will contribute to their removal from the centerof the public policy challenge. It is hoped that this arti-cle will make a contribution in that regard.

NOTE

1. The cited references are included and intended to serve only asexamples of articles, not as guides to the planning literature, on thattopic.

REFERENCES

Ahern, Jack, and Jestena Boughton. 1994. Wildflower meadows assustainable landscapes.In Theecologicalcity: Preservingand restoringurban diversity, Rutherford H. Platt, Rowan A. Rowntree, andPamelaC. Muick, eds.Amherst:Universityof MassachusettsPress.

Allen, T.F.H., and Thomas B. Starr. [1982] 1988. Hierarchy: Perspectivesforecologicalcomplexity. Reprint,Chicago: Universityof ChicagoPress.

Alterman, Rachelle, and Duncan MacRae, Jr. 1983. Planning and pol-icy analysis: Converging or diverging trends? Journal of the Ameri-can Planning Association 49, 2: 200-15.

American Planning Association (APA). 2000. Growing smart [Online].Available: http://www.planning.org/plnginfo/GROWSMAR/gsindex.html

Andrews,James H. 1996. Goingby thenumbers.Planning62,9:14-18.

Barbier, Edward B. 1987. The concept of sustainable economic devel-opment. Environmental Conservation 14, 2: 101-10.

Barnett, Jonothan. 1986. The elusive city. New York: Harper & Row.

Beatley, Timothy. 1995. Planningand sustainability:The elements of anew (improved?) paradigm. Journal of Planning Literature 9, 4:383-95.

. 1989. Environmental ethics and planning theory. Journal ofPlanning Literature 4, 1: 1-32.

Beatley, Timothy, and K. Manning. 1997. The ecology of place: Planningfor environment, economy, and community. Washington, DC: IslandPress.

Berke, Philip R. 1995. Natural-hazard reduction and sustainabledevelopment: Aglobal assessment. Journal of Planning Literature 9,4: 371-82.

Berke, Philip R., and Maria Manta Conroy. 2000. Are we planning forsustainable development? Journal of the American Planning Associa-tion 66, 1: 21-33.

Berke, Philip R., and Jack Kartez. 1995. Sustainable development as aguide to land use policy. Research paper, Lincoln Institute of LandPolicy, Cambridge, MA.

Berman, Michael Aaron. 1996. The transportation effects ofneotraditional development. Journal of Planning Literature 10, 4:347-63.

Blamey, R., and M. Common. 1994. Sustainability and the limits topseudomarketvaluation.In Toward sustainabledevelopment, J.C.J.M.vanden Bergh andJ. vander Straaten, eds. Washington, DC:IslandPress.

Blowers, Andrew. 1993. The timefor change. In Planning for a sustain-able environment, Andrew Blowers, ed. London: Earthscan.

. 1992. Sustainable urban development: The political pros-pects. In Sustainable development and urban form, M. J. Breheny, ed.London: Pion.

Bookout, LloydW. 1992. Neotraditional town planning:A new visionfor the suburbs? Urban Land 51, 1: 20-26.

Boswell, Michael R. 1995. Establishing indicators of sustainabledevelopment. Paper presented at the annual conference of Colle-giate Schools of Planning, October 19-22, Detroit, MI.

Botkin, Daniel B., and Edward A. Keller. 1987. Environmental studies:Earth as a living planet. 2d ed. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Breheny, M. J. 1992. Sustainable development and urban form: Anintroduction. In Sustainable development and urban form, M. J.Breheny, ed. London: Pion.

Breheny, Michael.1993. Planningthe sustainable cityregion. Town andCountry Planning (April): 71-5.

Brown,LesterR.1981.Buildinga sustainable society.NewYork:Norton.

Button, Kenneth J., and David W. Pearce. 1989. Improving the urbanenvironment: How to adjust national and local government policyfor sustainable urban growth. Progress in Planning 32: 135-84.

Campbell, Scott. 1996. Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Journalof the American Planning Association 62, 3: 296-312.

Carley, Michael, and Ian Christie. 1993. Managing sustainable develop-ment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Castells, Manuel. 1985. High technology, economic restructuring andthe urban-regional process in the United States. In High technology,space, and society, Manuel Castells, ed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Cervero, Robert. 1989. Jobs-housing balancing and regional mobility.Journal of the American Planning Association 55, 2: 136-50.

Christensen, Norman L., Jr. 1996. Science and the sustainable use ofland. In Land use in America, Henry L. Diamond and Patrick F.Noonan, eds. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Christoforidis, Alexander. 1994. New alternatives to the suburb:Neo-traditional developments. Journal of Planning Literature 8, 4:429-40.

Concern, Inc. 1995. Building sustainable communities. Issue paper,Concern, Inc., Washington, DC.

Costanza, Robert. 1989. What is ecological economics? Ecological Eco-nomics 1, 1: 1-7.

Crane, Randall. 1996. On form versus function: Will the new urban-ism reduce traffic or increase it? Journal of Planning Education andResearch 15, 2: 117-26.

Daly, H. E. 1989. Steady-state and growth concepts for the next cen-tury. In Economy and ecology: Towards sustainable development,

F. Archibugi and P. Nijkamp, eds. Boston: Kluwer.Daly, Herman E. [1968] 1980. On economics as a life science. In Eco-

nomics, ecology, ethics: Essays toward a steady-state economy, HermanE. Daly, ed. New York: Freeman.

Daly, Herman E., and John B. Cobb, Jr. 1989. For the common good.Boston: Beacon.

Darwent, D. F. 1975. Growth poles and growth centers in regionalplanningA review. In Regional policy, J. Friedmann and W.Alonso, eds. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Davelaar, Evert-Jan, and Peter Nijkamp. 1990. Structural transforma-tion of cities: A Dutch example. In Sustainability of urban systems,Peter Nijkamp, ed. Brookfield, VT: Averbury.

Davis, Mike. 1995. House of cards. Sierra (November-December):37-41, 76.

Despotakis,V., M.Giaoutzi,and P. Nijkamp.1992. Spatial depiction of

localsustainable development. In Sustainable developmentand urbanform, M. J. Breheny, ed. London: Pion.

Deyle,RobertE., andRichardA. Smith.1998. Local government com-pliance with state planning mandates: The effects of state imple-mentation in Florida.Journal of the American Planning Association 64,4: 457-69.

di Castri, Francesco,and Malcolm Hadley. 1986. Enhancingthe credi-bility of ecology: Is interdisciplinary research for land use planninguseful? GeoJournal 13, 4: 299-325.

Dubos, Rene J. 1981. Celebrations of life. New York: McGraw-Hill.



7/28/2019 499.full

12/13

Dwyer, John F., HefbertW. Schroeder, andPaul H. Gobster. 1994. Thedeep significance of urban trees and forests. In The ecologicalcityPreserving and restoringurban biodiversity,RutherfordH. Platt,Rowan A. Rowntree, and Pamela C. Muick, eds. Amherst: Univer-sity of Massachusetts Press.

Ekins, Paul. 1994. The environmental sustainability of economic pro-cesses: A framework for analysis. In Toward sustainable development,

J.C.J.M. van den Bergh and J. van der Straaten, eds. Washington,DC: Island Press.

. 1993. Limits to growth and sustainable development:Grapplingwith ecologicalrealities.Ecological Economics 8,3:269-88.

Friedmann, John. 1993. Toward a non-Euclidian mode of planning.Journal of the American Planning Association 59, 4: 482-85.

. 1964. The concept of a planning regionThe evolution of anidea in the United States. In Regional development and planningAreader, John Friedmann and William Alonso, eds. Cambridge: MITPress.

Friedmann, John, and William Alonso. 1964. Regional developmentas a policy issue. In Regional development and planningA reader,

John Friedmann and William Alonso, eds. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Friedmann,John, andRobinBloch. 1990. American exceptionalism inregional planning, 1933-2000. International Journal of Urban andRegional Research 14, 4: 576-601.

Friedmann, John, and Clyde Weaver. 1979. Territory and function: The

evolution of regional planning. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Garbarino, James 1992. Toward a sustainable society. Chicago: Noble.

Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. [1971] 1980. The entropy law and theeconomic problem. In Economics, ecology, ethicsEssays toward asteady-state economy, Herman E. Daly, ed. New York: Freeman.

Giaoutzi,Maria. 1990. Complexityin urbandynamics: AGreek exam-ple. In Sustainabilityof urbansystems, PeterNijkamp,ed. Brookfield,VT: Gower.

Girardet,Herbert.1992. TheGaiaatlasofcities. NewYork:Doubleday.

Glasser, H., P. P. Craig, and W. Kempton. 1994. Ethics and values inenvironmental policy: The said andthe UNCED.In Toward sustain-abledevelopment, J.C.J.M.van denBerghandJ. vander Straaten,eds.Washington, DC: Island Press.

Gruen, Victor. 1964. Theheartof ourcities: Theurban crisis, diagnosisand

cure. New York: Simon & Schuster.Hardoy, Jorge, Diana Mitlin, and David Satterthwaite. 1992. The

future city. InMaking development sustainable: Redefininginstitutions,policy, and economics, Johan Holmberg, ed. Washington, DC: IslandPress.

Harris, Glenn, and Leslie King. 1988. Reconsidering planning andenvironmentalprotection.Journal of PlanningLiterature3, 4:373-85.

Haughton, Graham, and Colin Hunter. 1994. Sustainable cities. Lon-don: Jessica Kingsley.

Healey, Patsy, and Tim Shaw. 1993. Planners, plans and sustainabledevelopment. Regional Studies 27, 8: 769-76.

Hersperger, AnnaM. 1994. Landscapeecology andits potentialappli-cation to planning. Journal of Planning Literature 9, 1: 14-29.

Hill, David R. 1992. Sustainability, Victor Gruen, and the cellularmetropolis.Journal of the AmericanPlanningAssociation58,3: 312-26.

Hoover, Edgar Malone. 1971. An introduction to regional economics.New York: Knopf.

Howe, Elizabeth. 1990. Normative ethics in planning. Journal ofPlanning Literature 5, 2: 123-50.

Innes, JudithE. 1998. Informationin communicative planning.Journalof the American Planning Association 64, 1: 52-63.

Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 1999. Consensus building andcomplex adaptive systems: Aframework for evaluating collabora-tive planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65, 4:412-23.

Jacobs, Michael. 1991. The green economy: Environment, sustainabledevelopment and the politics of the future. Concord, MA: Pluto.

Jones, Alice. 1996. The psychology of sustainability: What plannerscan learn from attitude research. Journal of Planning Education andResearch 16, 1: 56-65.

Julian, David A., Thomas M. Reischl, Richard V. Carrick, and CathyKatrenich. 1997. Citizen participation: Lessons from a local UnitedWay planning process. Journal of the American Planning Association63, 3: 345-55.

Katz, David. 1986. Metropolitan food systems and the sustainablecity. In Sustainable communities, Sim Van der Ryn and PeterCalthorpe, eds. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

Kay, JamesJ. 1991. The concept of ecological integrity, alternativethe-ories of ecology, and implications for decision-support indicators.In Economic, ecological, and decision theories: Indicators of ecologicallysustainable development, Peter A. Victor, James J. Kay, and H. JackRuitenbeek, eds. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Environmental Advi-sory Council.

King, J., and M. Slesser. 1994. The natural philosophy of natural capi-tal: Can solar energy substitute? In Toward sustainable development,

J.C.J.M. van den Bergh and J. van der Straaten, eds. Washington,DC: Island Press.

Kinsley, Michael. 1994. Sustainable developmentProsperity with-out growth. Public Management (October): 6-9.

Krizek, Kevin J., and Joe Power. 1996. A planners guide to sustainabledevelopment. PAS 467. Chicago: American Planning Association.

Lang, Jon. 1983. Teaching planning to city planning students. Anargument for the studio/workshop approach. Journal of PlanningEducation and Research 2, 2: 122-29.

Lele, Sharachchandra M. 1991. Sustainable development: A criticalreview. World Development 19, 6: 607-21.

Lorentz, Amalia, and Kirsten Shaw. 2000. Are you ready to bet onSmart Growth? Planning 66, 1: 4-9.

Loucks, Orie L. 1994. Sustainability in urban ecosystems: Beyond anobject of study. In The ecological city: Preserving and restoring urbandiversity, Rutherford H. Platt, Rowan A. Rowntree, and Pamela C.Muick, eds. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Lyle, John Tillman. 1994. Regenerative design for sustainable develop-ment. New York: John Wiley.

Lynch, Kevin. 1981. Good city form. Cambridge: Massachusetts Insti-tute of Technology.

Maclaren,Virginia. 1996. Urbansustainabilityreporting.Journal of theAmerican Planning Association 62, 2: 184-202.

Manning, Edward W. 1986. Towards sustainable land use: A strategy.Ottawa, Canada: Minister of Supply and Services.

Maser, Chris. 1997. Sustainable community development. Delray Beach,FL: St. Lucie.

McDonald, Geoffrey T. 1996. Planning as sustainable development.Journal of Planning Education and Research 15, 3: 225-36.

Meadows, Donnella H., Dennis L. Meadows, and Jorgen Randers.1992. Beyond the limits. Post Mills, VT: Chelsea Green.

Mollison, Bill. 1990. Permaculture: A practical guide for a sustainablefuture. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Moss, Mitchell L. 1988. Telecommunications: Shaping the future. InAmericas new market geography, George Sternlieb and James W.Hughes, eds. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban PolicyResearch.

Munn, R. E. 1989. Towards sustainable development: An environ-mental perspective. In Economy and ecology: Towards sustainabledevelopment, F. Archibugi and P. Nijkamp, eds. Boston: Kluwer.

Nijkamp,P., P. Lasschuit,and F. Soeteman. 1992. Sustainable develop-ment in a regional system. In Sustainable developmentand urbanform,M. J. Breheny, ed. London: Pion.



7/28/2019 499.full

13/13

Owens, S. 1992. Energy, environmental sustainability and land-useplanning. In Sustainable development and urban form, M. J. Breheny,ed. London: Pion.

Owens, Susan. 1986. Energy, planning, and urban form. London: Pion.

Pattee, H. H. 1973. The physical basis and origin of hierarchical con-trol. In Hierarchy theory: The challenge of complex systems, H. H.Pattee, ed. New York: Braziller.

Peters, Robert L., andReed F. Noss. 1995. Americas endangered eco-

systems. Defenders 70, 4: 16-27.Platt, Rutherford H. 1994. The ecological city: Introduction and over-

view. In The ecological city: Preserving and restoring urban diversity,Rutherford H. Platt, Rowan A. Rowntree, and Pamela C. Muick,eds. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Pred,Allan.1976. Theinterurbantransmission of growth in advancedeconomies: Empirical findings versus regional-planning assump-tions. Regional Studies 10: 151-71.

Rees, William E. 1995. Achieving sustainability: Reform or transfor-mation? Journal of Planning Literature 9, 4: 343-61.

. 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capac-ity: What urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbaniza-tion 4, 2: 121-30.

. 1990. Planning for sustainable development: A resource book. Pro-ceedings of a symposium organized by the School of Communityand Regional Planning,Universityof BritishColumbia,November25-27, 1988. Vancouver, BC: Centre for Human Settlements.

. 1989. Defining sustainable development. CHS Research Bulle-tin. Vancouver, Canada: Centerfor HumanSettlements, Universityof British Columbia.

Rees,William E.,andMathis Wackernagel.1994.Ecologicalfootprintsand appropriated carrying capacity: Measuring the natural capitalrequirements of the human economy. In Investing in natural capital:The ecological economics approach to sustainability, A. M. Jannson, M.Hammer, C. Folke, and R. Costanza, eds. Washington, DC: IslandPress.

Rolston, Holmes,III. 1988. Environmental ethics. Philadelphia: TempleUniversity Press.

Roseland, Mark. 1998. Toward sustainable communities. GabriolaIsland, Canada: New Society Publishers.

Ruckelshaus, William D. 1989. Toward a sustainable world. Scientific

American 261, 3: 166-74.Rydin, Y. 1992. Environmental impacts and the property market. In

Sustainable development and urban form, M. J. Breheny, ed. London:Pion.

Sargent, Frederic O., Paul Lusk, Jose A. Rivera, and Maria Varela.1991.Ruralenvironmentalplanning forsustainable communities. Wash-ington, DC: Island Press.

Scruggs, Patricia. 1993. Chapter 1Definitions and principles. InGuidelines for state level sustainable development, Snyder Park, ed.Chapel Hill: Center for Policy Alternatives and EnvironmentalResource Program, University of North Carolina.

Simon, David. 1989. Sustainable development: Theoretical constructor attainable goal? Environmental Conservation 16, 1: 41-48.

Simon, Herbert A. 1962. The architecture of complexity. Proceedings ofthe American Philosophical Society 106, 6: 467-82.

Smit, Barry, and Michael Brklacich. 1989. Sustainable developmentandthe analysisof ruralsystems.Journal of Rural Studies5,4:405-14.

Smith, Timothy W. 1996. Sustainable communities in the urban-ruralinterface. Small Town & Rural Planning (March): 8-12.

Southworth, Michael. 1997. Walkable suburbs? An evaluation ofneotraditional communities at the urban edge. Journal of the Ameri-can Planning Association 63, 1: 28-44.

Spain, Daphne. 1995. Sustainability, feminist visions, and the utopiantradition. Journal of Planning Literature 9, 4: 362-69.

Stone, P. A. 1973. The structure, size and costs of urban settlements. Cam-bridge: University Printing House.

Tolba, Mostafa Kamal. 1987. Sustainable development: Constraints and

opportunities. Boston: Butterworth.Tonn, Bruce E. 1986. 500-year planningSpeculative provocation.

Journal of the American Planning Association 52, 2: 185-93.

Voisey, Heather, Christiane Beuermann, Liv Astride Sverdrup, andTimORiordan. 1996. The political significance of LocalAgenda 21:Theearlystages of some Europeanexperience. Local Environment 1,1: 33-50.

Wackernagel,Mathis, and William Rees.1996. Our ecological footprint.Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society.

Weitz, Jerry, and Terry Moore. 1998. Development inside urbangrowth boundaries: Oregons empirical evidence of contiguousurbanform.Journal of theAmerican PlanningAssociation64,4: 424-40.

White, Rodney R. 1994. Urban environmental management. New York:John Wiley.

Wilson, William H. [1974]1983. Moles andskylarks. In Introduction to

planning history in the United States, Donald A. Krueckeberg, ed.New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED).1987. Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


499.full

Documents

Transcript of 499.full