This article was downloaded by: [North Carolina State University]On: 28 September 2012, At: 13:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Community DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcod20

Building shared visions for sustainablecommunitiesMyra Louise Moss a & William Thomas Grunkemeyer ba Ohio State University, Ag. Admin., 2120 Fyffe Road, Columbus,43210-1066, USAb Ohio State University, Extension, 1680 Madison Avenue, Wooster,44691, USA

Version of record first published: 05 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Myra Louise Moss & William Thomas Grunkemeyer (2010): Building sharedvisions for sustainable communities, Community Development, 41:2, 240-254

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15575330903477309

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Building shared visions for sustainable communities

Myra Louise Mossa* and William Thomas Grunkemeyerb

aOhio State University, Ag. Admin., 2120 Fyffe Road, Columbus, 43210-1066 USA; bOhio StateUniversity, Extension, 1680 Madison Avenue, Wooster, 44691 USA

Since 1999 over 7000 residents in nine Ohio communities have engaged insustainable community visioning processes designed and facilitated by the OhioState University Extension faculty. These initiatives sought to identify andarticulate each community’s unique set of shared values through which thediverse populations of each community contribute to the formulation of a visionof the desired future. This shared vision balances and interconnects the social,environmental and economic interests of the community and is subsequently usedto establish goals that guide local planning efforts. Since all sectors of thecommunities are consulted, the resulting plans are widely understood, supportedand broadly implemented within the community. Applying a methodology basedon the four cornerstones of sustainability results in a community vision and planthat supports sustainable actions and outcomes.

Keywords: visioning; sustainable development; consensus; community planning;inclusion

Communities today are facing increasingly complex issues and rapid changes thatchallenge their future direction. Growing population diversity, economic hardshipand social inequity, conflicting development desires, and passionate environmentalconcerns all pose a challenge for local leaders and community developers in theirattempt to make sound, widely supported decisions. Conflicting views of whatcommunity residents want and expect of their community makes it difficult tounderstand and identify residents’ desires and arrive at a community consensus forthe future.

Community leaders and developers frequently rely on public hearings orcommunity wide meetings to determine residents’ views on specific developmentactivities and strategies. Hearings are often held in formal Council Chambers orother local government meeting facilities. Providing input, often behind a podium infront of a microphone and within a prescribed time limit, can be intimidating. Fewresidents attend these public hearings unless the topic is controversial. Whileproblems are identified and debated, few solutions are offered and consensus remainselusive. Community wide meetings may seek to involve diverse populations, but canunintentionally impede broad-based participation by their choice of location, timeand required commitment. Often held on weekends or evenings in a central location,

*Corresponding author. Email: moss.63@osu.edu

Community Development

Vol. 41, No. 2, April–June 2010, 240–254

ISSN 1557-5330 print/ISSN 1944-7485 online

� 2010 Community Development Society

DOI: 10.1080/15575330903477309

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

and requiring a substantial commitment of a participant’s personal time, thesemeetings limit diverse engagement.

Often leadership believes they have accurately identified community needs anddesires, but planning and acting upon this perceived consensus is met with intensepublic criticism by those who feel ignored or disenfranchised. Residents who feel leftout of the decision making process are often disgruntled. Many a communitydevelopment project has been derailed at the eleventh hour by community protestdue to an inability to discern what the community wants to be and what residentswill support. ‘‘Because development ideas so rarely arise from a shared vision ofwhat the community wants and needs, nearly every development decision results inconflict’’ (Goldberg, 2005, p.1). At the root of this dilemma is the lack ofunderstanding residents’ shared values and the inability to articulate a consensusvision that sets a clear direction for the community’s future.

Reaching community consensus and articulating a shared community vision isnot easy. Even smaller, rural communities are becoming increasingly diverse in age,income status, race, ethnicity and culture. Residents belong not only to ‘‘commu-nities of place’’ as defined by geographic locale, but also to ‘‘communities ofinterest.’’ ‘‘Communities of interest’’ are formed on the basis of common, sharedinterests, backgrounds or passions shared with other members of this particularcommunity. Many different and conflicting communities of interest can exist withinone community of place. So, while most residents may feel an affinity to their hometown, different passions and interests may influence their perception of what isvaluable. Finding effective methods to identify and engage residents can present achallenge for community developers. The process of discovering and defining acommunity’s ethos, the ‘‘. . . subtle web of values, meanings, purposes, expectations,obligations, and legitimating . . .’’ (Stackhouse, 1972, p. 5) that make up acommunity must be the first step in reaching an understanding of each community’sunique personality and aspirations.

The process of gathering citizen input needed to create a community vision istime consuming and cumbersome (Richards & Dalbey, 2006). Residents find theprocess of visioning to be frustrating and disillusioning when they do not seetheir heart felt input leading to community plans that actually materialize(Richards & Dalbey, 2006). Because of the difficulty inherent in conductinginclusive, community wide visioning initiatives many community leaders chooseto follow a more prescribed, structured process conducted with interested partiesand community stakeholders. The social action process, which has as its first stepa visioning exercise with parameters set by community leaders and involvingspecified community representatives, is one example. Some community strategicplanning efforts seek involvement of citizens at the problem identification stageto reduce future conflict (Flora & Flora, 2004). Extension’s Vision to Actionprogram promotes community or organizational visioning through one intensivecommunity workshop prior to engaging in planning (Borich, et al., 2001).Citizen empowerment approaches go a step further to involve a broaderrepresentation of residents to generate community change (Flora & Flora, 2004).Chattanooga’s leadership undertook a community visioning and developmentprocess through Vision 2000 that was successful in turning around a pollutedcity and building a legacy of resident input that continues today (SustainableCommunities Network, 1996). Many planners or community developers usetechniques such as charrettes (National Charrette Institute, 2009) or community

Community Development 241

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

workshops to involve diverse groups in the planning. Common threads amongall of these approaches include reliance on stakeholder’s initiation, communityinvolvement by public promotion and/or invitation, and time consumingvisioning events held in identified locations or through prescribed methods.There is no guarantee that diverse populations in the community who aredifficult to reach, and are traditionally disenfranchised from planning processes,will be likely or able to participate in these meetings. Barriers to participation bydiverse populations can be inherent in such visioning designs without theorganizers’ awareness.

The purpose of this paper is to present a method, approach and strategies for thedevelopment of a shared community vision that is inclusionary, results in aconsensus view of the future, is widely supported, and guides community planningresulting in sustainable outcomes. For community planning to be sustainable it mustbe supported by a vision representing community values and providing a clear senseof direction (Berke & Conroy, 2000; Krizeck & Power, 1996). ‘‘Truly participativedevelopment involves diverse stakeholders with varying perceptions, motivationsand values. Crafting a sustainable community must therefore begin with theparticipants asking themselves which values they share and which are central to thecommunity’s cultural identity’’ (Swisher, Rezola, & Sterns, 2009, p.1). The followingkey points will be emphasized in this paper:

(1) Discovering and articulating a shared, consensus community vision is acritical first step in building sustainable communities.

(2) Using this shared vision to guide community goal setting and planning resultsin increased support, buy-in and individual and collective action.

(3) Using sustainable cornerstones in the design and implementation of visioningand planning creates a shared and balanced long-term understanding of thecommunity’s desired future, leading to sustainable outcomes.

This article is based on over ten years of experience by the authors in facilitating thecreation of consensus-based residents’ visions in nine communities in Ohio. Thesenine communities included cities, villages, regions, townships, counties and range inpopulation from a few thousand to over 65,000. Consensus visions formed thestarting point for various types of plans, including community goal setting,comprehensive land use and economic development plans. In all cases thesecommunity visioning endeavors and the plans that grew from the residents’ sharedvisions were based upon cornerstones of sustainability. These cornerstones were usedas a methodology from which emerged the development of visioning, planningapproaches, and strategies to engage diverse populations and foster communitybuy-in.

Sustainable community visioning strategies

In 1998 Ohio State University Extension formed the Extension SustainableDevelopment Team (ESD Team) to assist local communities to address planningissues from a sustainable perspective. At that time sustainability was a relatively newconcept and was even less frequently used by communities as a methodologicalapproach to planning and community goal setting. A few notable exceptionsincluded the cities of Chattanooga, Tennessee, Seattle, Washington and Portland,

242 M.L. Moss and W.T. Grunkemeyer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

Oregon, who very early on were experimenting with sustainable communitydevelopment approaches.

One of the earliest and still most widely used definitions of the term ‘‘sustainabledevelopment’’ was articulated by the United Nations World Commission onEnvironment and Development (Bruntland Commission) in 1987: ‘‘Sustainabledevelopment is development that meets the needs of the present generation withoutcompromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’’ (WorldCommission on Environment and Development, p. 8) Core to this definition isintergenerational fairness and equity (Berke & Conroy, 2000; Bradshaw & Winn,2000), that is, the choices we make today must not negatively impact on the qualityof life for our grand and great grandchildren. Berke and Conroy (2000) offer aparticularly good definition by stating that sustainable development is ‘‘a dynamicprocess in which communities anticipate and accommodate the needs of futuregenerations in ways that reproduce and balance local social, economic and ecologicalsystems, and link local actions to global concern’’ (p. 22). There does emerge fromthe literature on sustainable development a general consensus on four cornerstonesthat make this concept unique. First, sustainable development is inclusionaryinvolving diverse populations. Second, sustainable development is long term,promoting intergenerational equity. Third, sustainable development brings about abalance between social, environmental and economic considerations. Fourth,sustainable development is multi-dimensional, purposefully linking togetherenvironmental, social and economic actions through goals and measurements ofprogress known as indicators.

The Extension Sustainable Development Team’s (ESD Team) early interest insustainability led to the development and testing of a community visioning andplanning approach built upon the four cornerstones of sustainability. They wereincorporated by using various strategies, techniques and tools that insuredconsistency with the methodologies of sustainability. Each plan began with acommunity vision to discover the community’s unique ethos. A consensus vision andlong range goals based on this vision were then articulated. The goals served to guidethe long term development of the community. Finally, multi-dimensional indicatorswere developed to monitor and evaluate each plan’s effectiveness in reachingintentional, sustainable goals.

Four visioning strategies were developed by the ESD Team to infusesustainability into community visioning and planning. These four strategies andthe cornerstone of sustainability to which they relate, are presented in thefollowing section. Specific actions under each strategy are described to helpcommunity development professionals understand how these concepts can beapplied to their visioning and planning processes in order to move towardsustainable outcomes.

Strategy I: Reduce barriers to engagement and participation by residents within thecommunity sustainability cornerstone #1: inclusion

Sustainable visioning and planning is an inclusionary process in both governance andresident involvement. The level of willingness to be involved and actual participationby the community has a direct bearing on the success of community visioning(Woods, 1996). By creatively designing methods to reduce barriers to participation, awider diversity of residents within the community can be involved.

Community Development 243

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

Two principles of inclusion guide sustainable visioning. First and foremost is thatthe residents themselves must determine the vision for their community’s future.Sustainability recognizes that it is the daily actions of each resident that givesdefinition and meaning to the community, so the vision must grow out of sharedvalues and be one that community residents understand, agree to and support. Oncethe vision is defined in this way, it becomes the responsibility of elected andappointed officials to provide leadership in moving forward an agenda that includespolicies and allocates resources to fulfill the community’s shared vision. A secondprinciple guiding an inclusionary planning process is that guidance for visioning andplanning must occur through an entity that embodies and represents the diversity ofthe targeted community. This entity should mirror the range of values in thecommunity and promote balance among them.

a. Activity one leading to inclusion: create and engage an inclusionary steeringcommittee to provide guidance

The first activity is the creation of a broad-based group to help guide the visioningand planning process. Specific responsibilities for this group include guiding andimplementing the visioning process, reviewing and analyzing information gathered,creating the plan and submitting the completed plan to the appropriate localauthorities for adoption. This group is known as the Sustainable Plan SteeringCommittee.

Certain challenges must be addressed when establishing an inclusionary steeringcommittee. Steering committees are often established by an initiating group, such asa City Council or Planning Commission, by appointing individuals to serve. Theseappointees are often well known leaders in the community, most frequentlyrepresenting financial interests and the public sector. As a result, the first meeting ofthe steering committee does not reflect the depth of diversity present in thecommunity. Sometimes this lack of diversity is recognized and the committeeselectively chooses the addition of specific individuals with whom they feelcomfortable. The result can be under-representation of community diversity andimbalance with new appointees who may not even represent or be supported by theirintended constituents.

To insure inclusion and balance in governance and guidance the ESDTeam uses a tool, Lasswell’s Wheel (Lasswell, 1958), to facilitate the steeringcommittee in brainstorming activities to help them understand, identify and reachconsensus regarding who should be added to establish an inclusive steeringcommittee (see Figure 1).

The inner ring of Lasswell’s Wheel represents the values that make up acommunity of place. These values include Power, Affection, Skills, Enlightenment,Wealth/Poverty, Well-Being, Respect, and Rectitude. The outer ring presentsexamples of types of institutions, organizations, groups or communities of interestthat uphold each of these values by aligning their core mission with the particularvalue. For example, entities that work within and uphold the values of ‘‘wealth/poverty’’ include businesses, foundations, insurance providers, landowners andpoverty groups, and entities that uphold the values of rectitude include faith-basedinstitutions and ministerial associations.

Lasswell’s Wheel is used by the initiating group in two ways: (1) to facilitate thesteering committee’s self assessment of the diversity of their membership; and (2) to

244 M.L. Moss and W.T. Grunkemeyer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

insure equitable balance in membership among the eight value areas. Un- or underrepresented interests can be identified as well as entities/population groups who canrepresent that value. The number of steering committee members from each of thevalue areas can be assessed for balance and equity. A steering committee with sevenmembers from the Power value area and only one from Rectitude would be in dangerof weighing public sector interests over the religious community’s interests, movingthe visioning and planning process in a vested direction. It would be ideal on acommittee of 32 members to have four representatives from each value area.

Using Lasswell’s Wheel as a facilitation tool with community groups is effectivein a number of ways. First, this tool provides an unbiased template that stimulatesawareness and information sharing one step removed from more emotional,personal considerations. Second, by identifying and inviting diversity, this tool helpsto involve new and emerging leaders from communities of interest that are oftendisenfranchised from community planning initiatives. Bringing in emerging leaderscan best be accomplished by the steering committee asking the identifiedorganization to appoint their representative rather than asking for a namedindividual to serve. The resulting steering committee may appear to be very largewith a membership of 35–45 not unusual. Rather than being unwieldy, such a largegroup is often needed to represent the diversity and values present within eachcommunity. Through their involvement, steering committee members become

Figure 1. Lasswell’s Value/Institution Categories.Source: (Lasswell, 1958, p. 202)

Community Development 245

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

knowledgeable emissaries for sustainability, able to facilitate vision sessions, engagein plan writing, and liaisons with their constituencies.

b. Activity two: incorporate diverse populations in developing the vision and creatingthe plan

The use of strategies that insure inclusion is equally critical when seeking toengage diverse groups and populations in the formulation of a community vision.Without broad participation, the vision is unlikely to reflect a shared communityconsensus. The ESD Team’s approach seeks to engage social, business andenvironmental interests as well as marginalized populations who are oftendisenfranchised from visioning and planning because they are difficult to identifyand reach. Examples of marginalized groups would include the homebound, lowincome, elderly, youth, religious groups and homeless as well as racial and ethnicpopulations.

The steering committee once again uses Lasswell’s Wheel (see Figure 1) toidentify these diverse populations and determine how they can best be reached. Toreduce barriers to participation the strategy of ‘‘going where people gather’’ is used.Piggybacking on top of already scheduled organizational meetings is encouraged byasking for 20–30 minutes on their regular agenda, long enough to seek input.Steering committee members and volunteers are trained as vision session facilitatorsand encouraged to meet with their own wide variety of constituent groups andpopulations. An environment is created in which those leading the sessions arerecognized as members of the community rather than outside consultants. By beingheld in comfortable and familiar locations, participants experience an open, safeenvironment where they can freely share their thoughts and ideas. Facilitators areprovided materials (paper and markers), targeted questions, and instructionsconcerning the return of the written input including the type of group, date,location and numbers in attendance. An ongoing list of completed vision sessions isreviewed frequently by the steering committee, using Lasswell’s Wheel as a guide,to insure a balance in the number of sessions completed within the various valuecategories.

To reach marginalized populations, the community knowledge and creativity ofthe inclusionary steering committee is used to reduce barriers to participation bybrainstorming ways these populations can most effectively be engaged. The creativityof the steering committees has led to a wide variety of visioning venues, many ofwhich are unique to each community. Vision input has been obtained duringcommunity gatherings such as county fairs, YMCA Saturday morning sports events,and home improvement shows, in senior centers during mealtime, in public schoollobbies, on cable access TV for the homebound and elderly, in local bar/restaurants,after Church services—anywhere and anyway that residents gather and feelcomfortable sharing their thoughts.

The ESD Team found that the most effective method of obtaining input fromresidents was through face-to-face group sessions. Other methods, such as surveys,focus groups and key informant interviews have been used, but the most successfulformat for soliciting candid input was discovered to be the face-to-face interactionsand dialogue among the participants in non-threatening, convenient and familiarenvironments. This method allows residents to listen to their neighbors’ ideas and seetheir own comments recorded, verbatim, on paper prominently displayed for all

246 M.L. Moss and W.T. Grunkemeyer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

participants to see. They are encouraged to hitchhike on top of each other’scomments. When complaints are voiced, the facilitators encourage the participantsto think of what they would do to address the problem, moving them to dream oflong range solutions.

A significant change in practice results from this sustainable approach;community residents do not have to come to visioning sessions; the visioning sessionscome to them. The knowledge and creativity of each steering committee memberidentifies where and how diverse populations within their community could be mosteffectively reached. Two examples from the City of Kent illustrate the effectiveness ofthis approach in reaching underrepresented populations. First, faith communitymembers on the steering committee who embodied the value of rectitude identifiedtwo marginalized groups in the community to include in visioning and planning. Onewas an African-American neighborhood located adjacent to a new higher incomehousing development on the outskirts of the city. The mostly lower income residentsof this neighborhood relied heavily on public transportation to access jobs andservices, but the closest bus stop was a mile away in the new development. Anoutcome of a visioning session, located in the community church where theygathered, was the addition of a bus stop in their neighborhood so residents couldmore easily access mass transit. Another disenfranchised, underserved populationidentified by Kent’s steering committee resulted a visioning session with communitymembers who were homeless. This session identified the importance of walkablespace as a primary means of transportation resulting in an increased commitment toenforce sidewalk snow removal regulations throughout the city. The homelessresidents also changed negative thinking about ‘‘Big Box’’ stores. Like so manycommunities, Kent saw these stores as an impediment to small business success.When homeless participants shared the importance of these stores in creating jobsthat provided opportunities for re-entry into the work force, Big Box stores becamerecognized by the steering committee for their contribution to communitysustainability.

Strategy II: use a generational planning approach to encourage long term focussustainability cornerstone #2: long-term

Sustainability uses a long-term focus that seeks to address the needs of today’sresidents without jeopardizing those resources needed by future generations.Community planning typically uses a timeframe of no more than five to ten yearsinto the future. Local elected officials frequently think in terms of the next electioncycle, not beyond, when considering community development (Krizek & Power,1996). Because visioning and planning for future generations is an unfamiliarconcept not eagerly embraced, public officials first need to become comfortable withits advantages.

A new generation is created every 25 years so the sustainability horizon pushesthe community to consider two future generations, or 50 years. Officials embracegenerational planning when they recognize that by encouraging residents to thinklong term, their discussions are re-focused on solutions and dwelling on immediateconflicts is reduced. This long horizon increases the ability to think about futurepossibilities without being bound by immediate challenges. Participants recognizethey now have time to resolve very complex issues and can more effectively dreamabout an ideal future. Once the long term future is identified, the community can

Community Development 247

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

then step back and begin to address immediate concerns through the development ofshort, medium and long-term goals, all from a sustainability perspective.

Facilitation tools that encourage this expanded timeframe are critical. Thesustainable community vision process uses two questions as a facilitation tool to helpparticipants focus on long term solutions:

(1) What do you value most about your community? (treasures)(2) What do you hope your community will become for your grandchildren and

great grandchildren? (rainbows)

First, encouraging people to identify features, resources, physical attributes andcharacteristics that they treasure about and within their community identifies thoseitems that must be preserved and enhanced through planning. Then, encouragingpeople to think about the future they want for family generations to come (rainbows)focuses responses beyond immediate needs and concerns and leads to the sharing ofideas and solutions that create a shared future. Participants, even those who initiallyinsist on raising their own personal concerns and issues, quickly begin to embrace theopportunity to offer opinions of their community’s unique features and long termpotential. Encouraging the expression and recording of thoughts using an asset-based approach (Kretzman & McKnight, 1993) makes it possible for the steeringcommittee to identify the common themes and shared vision that emerges from thesesessions, and then use this consensus to formulate sustainable planning goals.

The impact of this long term visioning approach is a reduction in conflict andarrival at consensus solutions that promote sustainable communities. One exampleof this impact comes from West Chester Township, one of the fastest growing areasin the state of Ohio. West Chester was the location of the Voice of America BethanyRelay Station used during the cold war era. The ending of that era brought with it a435 acre vacant site transferred by the US government to the community for theiruse. Some local leaders insisted the best use of the property was development whileothers desired to maintain open space sensitive to birding migration patterns.Families desired the park to be available for recreation. As an outcome ofcommunity visioning and resident input, a balanced, sustainable solution wasreached. It included the establishment of the Voice of America Museum, thedevelopment of a recreational park operated by Butler County MetroParks withacreage certified as an Important Birding Area by Audubon Ohio, the Voice ofAmerica Retail Center and the Miami University Learning Center. The community’slong term vision of solutions led to sustainable outcomes.

Strategy III: balance between the social, economic and environmental sectors of thecommunity sustainability cornerstone #3: interconnected

Each community provides for the needs of residents within three sectors; economic,social and environmental. Sustainability seeks to find the balance among theperspectives and values embodied by these three. The economic sector, often themost dominant, encompasses economic relationships in which people exchangeeconomic value through their work, purchases, and financial investments. The socialsector contains characteristics and relationships through which residents participatein social activities such as education, family, friendships and service to each other.The third sector considers the environment, both natural and built through which

248 M.L. Moss and W.T. Grunkemeyer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

residents value their natural spaces as well as buildings and physical features. Acornerstone of sustainable planning is to discover a balance by creating‘‘intentional,’’ linkages so that the improvement of an element in one sector ispurposefully structured to promote an equitable improvement in the other twosectors. Literature on community capitals supports the importance of theseinterconnections by recognizing the interactions between the seven capitals, natural,financial, built, political, social, human and cultural, within a community. Wheninvestment occurs in one area, for instance a new factory locates in a town andcreates jobs and increased tax base, the impact of this economic capital investmentmust also be considered in light of the impact, negative or positive, it will have on theother capitals in the community. Investment in one capital should ideally contributeto and support the others (Jacobs, 2007).

When visioning is completed, the steering committee begins the task ofreviewing resident input to identify emerging common threads from the wide rangeof interests. Two steps help the steering committees work through this difficulttask. The first is the identification of vision themes that emerge within each of thethree sectors. When participants share answers to each of the two vision questions,they are asked if their response makes a contribution to the social, economic orenvironmental sector of the community. Steering committee members receive areport from the ESD Team with the comments of each respondent listed by theidentified sector. The grouping of comments allows the steering committee to seethe total collection of ideas by social, environmental and economic interests andhelps in the committee’s identification of sector themes. For example, individualeconomic sector comments such as ‘‘support small businesses,’’ ‘‘purchase locallyproduced products,’’ and ‘‘involve kids in junior achievement’’ can lead to theeconomic theme ‘‘entrepreneurs are important to our community.’’ The steeringcommittee uses these themes to formulate sustainable planning goals that will helpto accomplish the community’s shared vision.

Goals must promote balance and linkages among the three sectors of thecommunity to be consistent with the sustainability principle of interconnection.Since each steering committee member represents an organization or entityembodying Lasswell’s values within the community and each clearly knows whichsector they aspire to represent, the committee’s diversity of interests is used todevelop sustainable goals. The ESD Team facilitates a session in which steeringcommittee members are grouped by sector and then asked to prioritize their sector’sthemes and related goals. After prioritization they are asked to share each goal withthe larger group. As one sector presents a goal, each of the other two sectors areasked to link one of their goals using a paradigm ‘‘we can support that goal if theother sectors can support linking our goal.’’ This method leads to intentionallyshared and sustainable goals as can be seen in the city of Kent’s linking the threesectors’ themes and goals to the development of their treasured downtown:

Theme: Business Development

. Develop small locally owned businesses (economic)

. Revitalize the downtown through community events and activities that make ita gathering place (social)

. Open store fronts to the riverfront for increased value and care of the naturalresource (environment)

Community Development 249

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

After the steering committee works through themes and creates linked, balancedgoals they take their report back to the community for validation prior to writing afinal report.

Kent’s process led to revitalizing their downtown to create a place whereresidents can gather, enjoy the benefits of restored historic buildings, and walk andpicnic in natural spaces along the Cuyahoga River. The downtown is also providinga place where local entrepreneurs can grow and thrive and provide for the needs oflocal residents. As a direct result of the plan, Kent Main Street was established tofurther the community’s desire to enhance the social, economic and environmentalbenefit of this key city district. Council adopted policies and practices such asarchitectural design standards that are guiding the construction and rehabilitation ofdowntown structures consistent with the community’s desire to celebrate theirhistory (built environment). A small business incubator was established in a restoredhistoric train station along the river and is now fully occupied with locally ownedstart-up businesses, many of which will be spun off into the downtown area oncethey are established (environment and economic). A wide variety of events, such as acommunity concert series and attractions such as coffee shops and an ice creamparlor have brought families and tourists to the downtown as a gathering place(social and economic). The backs of buildings are opening up to the river, and plansfor park and picnic areas on the riverbank have been developed (natural and builtenvironment and social). Finally, a local developer invested $6 million in vacantdowntown buildings, developing space for retail businesses on the street level andoffices on the upper floors (built environment, economic and social). Thisproject was fully occupied soon after rehabilitation began. These outcomes aremoving the Kent community toward its vision of a vibrant, sustainable downtownthat interconnects the social, environmental and economic interests of thecommunity.

Strategy IV: create multidimensional indicators sustainability cornerstone #4: multi-dimensional indicators

Measuring outcomes is important as well as difficult to accomplish and it is criticalthat measured outcomes be meaningful to a community (Flora, Flora & Wade,1996). Sustainability seeks to create meaningful community indicators that addresscommunity vision-based goals, linking together and supporting the environmental,social and economic values and desires of community residents. These indicators aredeveloped and used over the long-term to support the goals of the community.Through widely shared indicators each organization and individual within thecommunity can more clearly understand how their daily activities affect andcontribute to achieving the goals of the community.

Multidimensional indicators provide a ‘‘check and balance’’ guide to strengthenthe interconnection of the economic, social and environmental sectors of acommunity. Successful local organizations focus on activities that advance thevalues of their community according to their particular mission. They routinely useindicators to identify, evaluate and report their contribution to their community’swell-being. Economic development offices usually measure success in terms of jobscreated and increase in local tax base. Community healthcare providers may focuson increasing the number of residents with employer-provided healthcare coverageas their contribution to the social well-being of the community. A sustainability

250 M.L. Moss and W.T. Grunkemeyer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

approach seeks to insure that both organizations’ indicators are working incollaboration. By recognizing and adopting a multidimensional indicator like‘‘increase the number of jobs in the community with employer-provided health carecoverage,’’ each organization can make decisions that work in concert to achievecommunity goals.

Once a steering committee creates their community vision report with selectedthemes and goals, they begin to identify multidimensional indicators that communityorganizations can adopt to guide and evaluate the appropriateness of their futureactions. A technique used to design multidimensional indicators is to convene ameeting of organizations that see themselves as providing leadership in the threesustainable sectors and have them share and link their existing indicators. First, oneorganization shares their indicators of success (goals). Then, organizations from theother two sectors are given the opportunity to link their indicator to the first one. Inthe course of the dialogue, all organizations share their indicators, transforming uni-dimensional indicators into multi-dimensional, linked indicators. Noble County’svision desired that all residents would have access to safe, affordable public waterand sewer. Many rural residents were without public water or sewer and had todepend on unsafe and unreliable wells and inadequate septic systems. In response tocommunity desires, Noble County organizations established the following multi-dimensional indicator to further their own individual goals while addressing this keycommunity-wide vision-based goal:

. Goal: all County residents have access to safe, affordable, reliable water andsewer.

. Social Indicator: all communities and residents in Noble County benefitfrom access to public water and sewer (indicator for Noble CountyCommission).

. Economic Indicator: public water and sewer rates will be comparable withother rural water and sewer systems in surrounding counties (indicator forNoble County public water and sewer providers).

. Environmental Indicator: health and water quality issues from unsafe andunreliable water and inadequate septic systems will be eliminated (CountyHealth Department).

Noble’s indicators measured progress made, increased public oversight andaccountability, and led to elected leader’s commitment to seek funding for safe andaffordable water and sewer for county residents. In this county of only 3377 ruralhouseholds, over $7.3 million in grant funds has been secured in the past five years toserve an additional 60 households with safe, affordable public water and over 300households with affordable public sewer.

Indicator development projects in small communities often fail because theyestablish complicated systems with new indicators that are difficult to monitor,requiring trained personnel to track and evaluate. In order for indicators to beuseful, they must be relevant, supportable, and meaningful. The advantage of theESD Team’s approach is that is uses the success indicators already adopted andmonitored by local organizations. Then, to make these indicators sustainable, theorganizations themselves identify and link them together. Data already beinggathered can be compared and analyzed to insure that progress toward meeting thecommunity’s sustainable goals is on track.

Community Development 251

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

Conclusion

‘‘Citizen participation represents more than just a means toward creating new andbetter plans; it’s about creating better places’’ (Richards & Dalbey, 2006, p. 23).Vision-based plans, framed within the context of the four cornerstones ofsustainability, result in desirable outcomes for communities, such as: (1) Anunderstanding of sustainability by a wider and more diverse population; (2) Thecreation of a consensus vision that guides planning, policy development, socialaction and decision making; (3) An increase in motivation to balance and interlinksocial, economic and environmental values; and (4) Greater citizen buy-in for plansthat use their community vision-based goals (see Table 1).

The tools applied within the ESD Team’s approach to community visioning andplanning can be used in a variety of settings by community developmentprofessionals who seek to promote sustainable communities. Using Lasswell’sWheel as a group facilitation tool with sponsoring organizations at the beginning ofa visioning and planning program encourages diversity in project leadership. Theouter ring of the wheel is filled with community organizations and entities that

Table 1. A conceptual model of sustainable visioning and planning actions, and theoutcomes they produce.

SustainabilityApproach Actions Outcomes

Inclusion Create Steering Committeethat is diverse and inclusive;provide training on decision-making, outreach, leadershipand sustainability

Increases the skills and knowledge ofemerging community leaders

Increases diversity amongcommunity leaders

Conduct vision outreach toentire community includinggroups not usually part ofthe process

Increases residents participating inestablishing community vision

Increases diversity of participation

Conduct community planningthat reduces barriers toparticipation

Increases awareness and use ofsustainable practices in dailybehavior

Long-term Develop vision questions thatcause residents to think outto future generations

Decreases conflict when residents gobeyond immediate concerns to theformulation of long term solutions

Motivate local elected officialsto understand and consider thelong range implications of theirdecisions

Improves decision makingIncreases the policies and practicesthat will have long term impact

Balance Engage residents in opportu-nities to articulate, share andlink their values with others inthe community

Increases awareness andunderstanding of divergent views inthe community

Decreases conflictMulti-dimensional Use existing organizational in-

dicators to create multi-dimen-sional indicators

Improves measurements ofsustainability Increases use ofcommunity-wide indicators byresidents and organizations

Increases accountability amongcommunity leaders

Source: http://sustainabledevelopment.osu.edu.

252 M.L. Moss and W.T. Grunkemeyer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

represent corresponding inner wheel values, insuring inclusion. Once a list oforganizations has been brainstormed, the number of entities representing each innerring value should be brought in balance, avoiding the possible domination of oneinterest in the community over another.

Lasswell’s Wheel can also be used to identify populations/organizations to bereached through visioning sessions. The process of identifying the outer ringpopulations to visit and bringing balance among the values is the same as that usedin selecting the project management team. Once identified, barriers to participationcan be reduced by ‘‘going to where people gather.’’

The two visioning questions help to promote long range thinking. The firstquestion seeks to discover what is unique and valued about each community,articulating a foundation from which the community’s future can be created. Forexample, if the architecture of the central business district is valued, it becomes thefoundation for the built environment. The second question seeks to identify hopesfor the future, which then become long term goals. A shared desire to ‘‘retain ourolder population’’ leads to goals such as transitional housing and universal design topromote aging in place.

Engaging existing organizations in the development and monitoring of indicatorsthat intentionally interconnect social, economic and environmental benefits buildsoversight and accountability into the plan. Multidimensional indicators tied tointerconnected goals provide the structure and check and balance needed to insurethe plan remains consistent with sustainable principles. A sustainable goal maybecome the creation of jobs (economic) that do not use existing farmland(environment) and pay living wages (social). Each of these components of the goalcan be measured by the community to monitor success and sustainable outcomes.

Residents feel included when they participate in establishing the future directionof their community. Residents and planners make better decisions when theyconsider social, environmental and economic needs of all. When a shared, consensusvision is used to formulate goals that guide local leadership, the community is wellon its way to creating a better, sustainable place for all of its residents.

References

Berke, P.R., & Conroy, M.M. (2000). Are we planning for sustainable development? Anevaluation of 30 comprehensive plans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(1),21–33.

Borich, T., Cole, R., Darling, D., Green, P., Hancock, C., et al. (2001). Vision to action: Takecharge too. Ames, IO: North Central Regional Center for Rural Development.

Bradshaw, T.K., & Winn, K. (2000). Gleaners, do-gooders, and balers: Options for linkingsustainability and economic development. Community Development: Journal of theCommunity Development Society, 31(1), 112–129.

Flora, C.B., & Flora, J.L. (2004). Rural communities: Legacy and change. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.

Flora, C.B., Flora, J.L., & Wade, K. (1996). Measuring success and empowerment. In N.Walzer (Ed.), Community strategic visioning programs (pp. 57–74). Westport, CT:Praeger.

Goldberg, D. (2005). Choosing our community’s future. Washington, DC: Smart GrowthAmerica.

Grunkemeyer, W.T., & Moss, M.L. (2004). The sustainable community model approach tothe development and use of multi-dimensional quality of life indicators. In M. Sirgy, D.Rahtz, & D-J. Lee (Eds.), Community quality of life indicators: Best cases (pp. 29–52).Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Community Development 253

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

Jacobs, C. (2007). Measuring success in communities: Understanding the community capitalsframework. South Dakota State University Cooperative Extension Service. RetrievedSeptember 12, 2009 from http://agbiopubs.sdstate.edu/articles/ExEx16005.pdf

Kretzmann, J.P., & McKnight, J.L. (1993). Building communities from inside out: A pathtoward finding and mobilizing a community’s assets. Evanston, Ill: Institute for PolicyResearch.

Krizek, K., & Power, J. (1996). A planner’s guide to sustainable development. Chicago, Ill:American Planning Association.

Lasswell, H.D. (1958). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. New York: Meridian Books; TheWorld Publishing Company.

National Charrette Institute. (n.d.). NCICharretteSystem. Retrieved September 14, 2009 fromhttp://www.charretteinstitute.org/charrette.html

Richards, L., & Dalbey, M. (2006). Creating great places: The role of citizen participation.Journal of the Community Development Society, 37(4), 18–32.

Stackhouse, M.L. (1972). Ethics and the urban ethos: An essay in social theory and theologicalreconstruction. Boston: Beacon Press.

Sustainable Communities Network. (1996). Chattanooga, a city worth watching. RetrievedSeptember 20, 2009 from http://www.sustainable.org/casestudies/tennessee/TN_af_chattanooga.html

Swain, D., & Hollard, D. (2003). Measuring progress: Community indicators and the qualityof life. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(7): 789–814.

Swisher, M.E., Rezola, S., & Sterns, J. (2009). Sustainable community development. Universityof Florida IFAS Extension. Retrieved April 1, 2009 from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/CD027

West Chester Web Site. (date unknown). The voice of America park. West Chester Township.Retrieved September 12, 2009 from http://www.westchesteroh.org/CSParksVOAPark.cfm

Woods, M. (1996). Preconditions for successful program implementation. In N. Walzer (Ed.),Community strategic visioning programs (pp. 75–92). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

World Commission on the Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission). (1987).Our common future. Development and International Co-operation: Environment. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

254 M.L. Moss and W.T. Grunkemeyer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012