Sustainability and Autodependency

Norman W. GarrickLecture 8

CE 4710/5710

What is Sustainability?

Sustainability is the stewardship of natural and human-made resources

so that the quality of living and the health of our cities, countryside and open space do not deteriorate from one generation to the next

Cervero, The Transit Metropolis: Transit and the Changing World

Talking the Talk

Politicians in Jamaica and many other third world countries are very aware of the need to ‘talk’ sustainability but the policies often don’t add up to changes that support environmental sustainability. Environmental and health sustainability is often compromised in the interest of economic growth.

The situation in the USA is slightly different – often technological fixes are offered up as the solution that will cause us to achieve environmental health without changing any of the economic or social issues that impact sustainability

So how do we convert the seemingly vague concept of sustainability into a concrete framework for guiding policy and design?

The Three-Legged Stool

The common model of sustainability is made up of a triad of economic, social, and environmental sustainability

SustainabilityE

nviro

nmen

t

So

cie

ty

Eco

nom

y

The Problem with the Three-legged Stool Model

The three-legged stool model does not help us address seemingly hard questions like

• How do we improve people’s quality of life without necessarily increasing consumption to levels that might cause environmental degradation?

• Can we have a sustainable economy without the need for constantly increasing levels of consumption?

• Can we satisfy people’s desire for access without environmentally damaging levels of mobility?

The Starting Place for Understanding Sustainability

Source: http://www.spacetoday.org/images/SolSys/Earth/EarthBlueMarbleWestTerra.jpg

Why Protecting the Biosphere is the Bottom-line for Sustainability

We only have the one biosphere – this biosphere consists of natural ecosystems at different scales. It is a closed system with only one energy input and no output

for waste

Human activities have a big impact on the biosphere

We need to re-structure these activities so that we can satisfy our needs and desires without continuing to cause harm to the biosphere

The Three-Legged Stool

Sustainability

Env

ironm

ent

So

cie

ty

Eco

nom

y

The Problem with the Three-Legged Stool

The triad model of sustainability is considered by some to be flawed because it does not explicitly recognize that environmental sustainability requires changes to social and economic institutions – instead, it talks about balance

It is universally acknowledged that the three dimensions of sustainability - environmental, social and economic – are a useful and valid way of conceptualizing this issue

What is in dispute is the order in which they are considered. The three-legged stool does not imply any order or priority

The Appropriate Order for the Three Domains

The important shift is to recognize that the economy is the creation of society, and not the other way around.

The economy is thus framed by the social context in which it occurs.

Further, both society and the economy operate within the context of a natural environment of limited capacity.

This lead to the nested box model of sustainability in which the order of priority is environment, social, and economy sustainability

Environment

Economy

(LOW AND GLEESON 2003, HART 2006)

It is important not to take this model to mean that the economy, or economic considerations, are not important

Rather it should be interpreted as saying that growth should serve the interest of the society and be environmentally sustainable.

The most extreme examples of economic growth without social or environmental sustainability can be found in many “oil rich” countries around the world.

The Nested box model also contains echoes of Littman's point about striving for ‘development’ not just ‘growth’

Interpreting the Nested Box Model of Sustainability

From an article by McGranahan and Satterthwaite in

Pugh, Sustainable Cities in Developing Countries, Earthscan, pg. 73-87

Ref: Low and Gleeson, Making Urban Transportation Sustainable, Palgrave MacMillan, pg. 25 - 41.

Biloxi c2004Roads Slated for Expansion

8 lanes 6 lanes 5 lanes 4 lanes

Biloxi 2025With Road Expansion

Gulfport c2004Roads Slated for Expansion

8 lanes 6 lanes 5 lanes 4 lanes

Gulfport 2025With Road Expansion

Environment Society EconomyLevel 13 Domains

Level 212 Elements

(Goals)

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 07 09 10 11 12

Level 319 Indicators

***

* ** ** ** ** ** * * * * *

Level 422 Variables

Each indicator is measured by one or more variables

1 Minimize consumption of renewable and non-renewable resources for transportation

2 Design transportation and place making systems to maximize land use efficiency

3 Minimize transportation and place making system’s impact on ecological systems

4 Limit transportation related wastes and pollution

34

5. Transportation system meets access needs in a way that is consistent with human health and safety

6. Planning and management of transportation system incorporates different levels of government and community input

7. Transportation and place making system facilitates social interaction and social equity

8. Transportation and place making system meets basic access needs of all individuals

35

9. Transportation is affordable for individuals

10. Transportation is efficient for movement of people and goods

11. Transportation is locally self-sufficient

12. Transportation does not contribute to economic vulnerability of society

36

BestDist. of Columbia

17.4%

Alaska 22.1%

New York 22.6%

Connecticut 22.7%

Massachusetts 22.8%

WorstMississippi 44.2%

Wyoming 38.2%

Alabama 38.1%

Montana 38.0%

Kentucky 37.7%

BestOregon 6.7

Indiana 4.7

Dist. of Columbia

3.9

Massachusetts 3.8

South Dakota 3.4

WorstMichigan 0.3

Mississippi 0.4

Alaska 0.5

Louisiana 0.7

Hawaii 0.7

Connecticut: Ranked 19th, 23 % Growth in GDP, 12% Growth in VMT

BestNew York 12.5%

Washington 13.4%

Massachusetts 14.1%

Virginia 14.1%

California 15.1%

WorstMississippi 45.4%

Montana 40.8%

Rhode Island 40.3%

North Dakota 37.3%

South Carolina 37.1%

Connecticut: Ranked 40th, 32.9 % Federal Sources

BestDist. of Columbia

0.2%

New York 1.1%

Connecticut 1.4%

Delaware 1.4%

Rhode Island 1.5%

WorstAlaska 6.0%

Mississippi 4.5%

Montana 4.0%

Wyoming 3.9%

North Dakota 3.8%

Percentage spent on transportation petroleum shown

BestDist. of Columbia

90

New York 75

Massachusetts 73

Oregon 65

Washington 65

WorstMississippi 7

Montana 21

Arkansas 28

Wyoming 29

South Carolina 29

Connecticut: Ranked 16th, Score 55

43

An essential challenge for building more

effective cities is to get government back to the job of

consciously designing them

- Alexander

Marshall