Sustainable Planning Tools

I am always interested in environmental documentaries to watch so the following review in the New York Times, “PBS and HBO Examine Global Warming, Dimming of the Sum and Vanishing Species” caught my eye. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/18/arts/television/18comb.html?fta=y

This article I think fits into 2 of the 11 general environmental topics we covered this week. One, the documentaries are important educational tools for sustainability planning. Wheeler states that “one common behind [education, communication, and consensus building] is the recognition that for political or social change to occur people’s beliefs, knowledge, values, and paradigms of thought must also change.” I completely agree, especially in a democratic society, the public at large must become aware of the environmental issues that we face. Educational grassroots efforts on the part of interest groups are likewise benefiting people in developing nations, helping them understand the concept of an endangered species. Many of the people in some of the most fragile areas do not understand that the areas that they live are unique to the planet – they simply think that the species and habitats that surround them are more far reaching than they are – which gives little motivation for them to protect those areas.

The article gives an overview of three documentaries – two on PBS, one on HBO. They are “Nova: Dimming the Sun”, “Journey to Planet Earth: The State of the Planet’s Wildlife”, and “Too Hot Not to Handle”. These are just some of the documentaries produced for the general public recently. I recently watched a PBS documentary called “Hot Zones: Journey to Planet Earth”. The movie, like the previous ones I mentioned is not only an educational device, but it touches upon the sustainability issues in industrialized versus less developed countries. For instance, “Hot Zones” talks about how many third world nations have lost all but less than 10% (in certain areas all but 1%) of their tropical rainforests to logging, farming, etc. The phrase hot zones refers to areas on earth that are densely packed with a high percentage of the world species and if destroyed a huge percentage of these species will be extinct forever. Some habitats are just one likely forest fire away from being swept away.

Countries like Brazil and Madagascar argue that they have the right to do what they please within their own countries while the international community including other countries, the UN, interest groups, scientists and biologists have been trying to stop the destruction. Overall everyone on earth is affected. A loss of a species and habitat has worldwide repercussions from the loss of our ability to study the species to the surrounding communities loosing the resources to sustain themselves.

One reason that these countries face such issues regarding regions that should be protected is because of informal housing arrangements. People do not have title to land and areas are not zoned against use. This situation leaves people, especially in areas where land and resources are scare, to encroach on regions that are endangered.

A New York Times article last September reports that “Portland Again Tops a Sustainable Cities List” - http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/portland-again-tops-a-sustainable-cities-list/?scp=1&sq=sustainability%20indicators&st=cse. Have you ever wondered how certain cities are measured based on their sustainability? Although it is common knowledge that Portland is an environmentally friendly city, who would have thought that Chicago ranks four – I always thought that city looked pretty industrial. How did Phoenix drop 10 spots from 22 to 32 in one year? What methods are used to measure a city’s sustainability?

The article summarizes that the criteria used to come up with the ranking analyzes a number of obvious issues such as transportation options as well as more obscure one such as emergency preparedness. The article refers to an organization called SustainLane which actually assembles criteria, outputs rankings (SustainLane U.S. City Rankings), and outlines how they came to their conclusions. Another issue that they look at in addition to the two that I mentioned before is what is happening at the city level – what policy is being created to help cities sustain themselves. So, not only do they look at what is being provided now – but what seeds have been planted to foster sustainable development.

In addition to organizations such as SustainLane, 25 large cities have assembled their own criteria as well according to “Planning for Sustainability” by Steven M. Wheeler. The most notable city and corresponding sustainability indicator comes from Seattle Washington – a city that is frequently among the top of sustainability rankings. Its called the Sustainable Seattle process and outlined a number of sustainable indicators that eventually grew to number 40. Another interesting set of indicators was developed by the Jacksonville, Florida local government and measure “Quality of Life”.

The indicators outlined vary per organization that developed them. Some are common such as Air Quality and others are criticized for not being accurate. For instance, how can a sense of community be measured? Some indicators are just measured locally, others by organizations, and others by large governmental departments such as the EPA. Overall sustainability indicators can be very specific in nature or can just give an overview of what is going on with the development of a region. In any case, they are useful to pointing out problems as well as show the improvements that sustainable development can bring.