Measuring Sustainable Communities Presentation to the Sustainable - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Measuring Sustainable Communities

Presentation to the Sustainable Communities TAE January 31, 2019

Overview

• Why sustainable communities?
• Existing sustainability assessment systems
• Problems for use as a community

sustainability assessment system

• Suggestions for a CSAS

– Definition of sustainable community – Principles

• Examples

Why Sustainable Communities?

• It’s where we live, work, socialize . . .

consume (energy, water, goods), dispose of wastes (air, land, water)

• Community rather than “urban” or

“municipality”

– Emphasizes place – But not strict boundaries – And applies to rural/suburban/urban/region

Sustainability Assessment System Developed By Project Scale Agenda 21 United Nations X Global Millennium Development Goals (MDG) United Nations X Global Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) United Nations X Global

Sustainability Assessment System Developed By Index Scale Ecological Footprint (EF) Wackernagel and Rees (1990) X Unclear Environmental Sustainability Indicator (ESI) Consortium including the Yale Center for Law and Environmental Policy and the Center for International Earth Science Information Network at Columbia University X National Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) Redefining Progress, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization X National/State Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) Daly and Cobb (1989) X National Human Development Index (HDI) United Nations Development Program X National Environmental Vulnerability Index (EVI) South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission, the United Nations Environment Programme, and their partners X National Living Planet Index (LPI) Zoological Society of London and World Wildlife Fund X Global Genuine Savings (GS) World Bank Environment Department X National City Development Index (CDI) Second United Nations Conference

• n Human Settlements

X City

Sustainability Assessment System Developed By Tool Scale Leadership for Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) US Green Building Council X Neighborhood BREEAM Communities (BREEAM-C) United Kingdom X Neighborhood CASBEE for Urban Development (CASBEE-UD) Japan Green Building Council/Japan Sustainable Building Consortium X Neighborhood STAR Communities ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability, the U.S. Green Building Council, and the Center for American Progress X Municipality

Problems with Existing SAS

• Scale and generalizability
• Definition of sustainability
• Implementation issues

Scale and Generalizability

• Many designed for global or national scale
• Neighborhood too small
• “Leakage”
• Generalizability

Definition of Sustainability

• 3 Es perspective
• Interconnected nature
• Weak vs. strong sustainability
• Relationship of indicator to definition

Implementation Issues

• Static versus dynamic
• Ability to communicate with a larger audience
• Number of indicators
• Weighting
• Presentation/transparency

Moving forward . . .

A sustainable community is the aggregate of functionally and socially connected individuals and organizations that share collective resources in such a way that engages members in self- determination governance processes resulting in equitable provisioning of the health, educational, and material well-being among its residents while not negatively affecting future generations or other communities’ use of these resources.

Systems Approach

• Define community based on system to capture

leakage

• Not driven by policy or data

Logic Model Approach

Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Impacts $ public funding Conservation zoning Construction

• f water

treatment plans Protection of watershed Gallons of water treated Acres protected Drinking water standards met Water supply replenished Clean, renewable, and accessible drinking water

Relevant Systems

System Indicator Scale Energy “Green” energy consumption State? Water Recharge rate Watershed Land Soil contamination Any Air Air pollution Point measurements Climate CO2 emissions (equivalents)/person Any Ecosystem Habitat loss Habitat type Waste Landfilled trash/person Landfill service area Economics Poverty Commuting area Housing Adequate housing Education Secondary education completion Food Food security Health Access to health care

SOME FUN CHALLENGES

Energy Generation Energy Consumption Energy Imports Energy Exports CO2

Source: Conservation Institute https://www.conservationinstitute.org/water-cycle/ Aquifer map Groundwater monitoring

Interactive map

And on the human system side . . .

Metric Binghamton MSA Broome County Binghamton Census Tract 13 % of adult population with < H.S. education 9.7% 9.6% 14.9% 27.3% % of families in poverty 10.1% 10.8% 24.5% 60.5% % of households with housing costs >30% 25.1% 26.4% 39.6% 66.7%

The Importance of Equity

Metric Binghamton MSA Broome County Binghamton Census Tract 13 % of adult population with < H.S. education 9.7% 9.6% 14.9% 27.3% % of families in poverty 10.1% 10.8% 24.5% 60.5% % poverty (African American) 25.1% 26.4% 52.0% 75.3% % of households with housing costs >30% 25.1% 26.4% 39.6% 66.7% Gini index 0.46 0.46 0.51 0.48

A Comparison

Binghamton Burlington Energy (% “green” power consumption) 23.6% (includes nuclear and hydro); state level (2016) 24.0% (includes hydro); state level (2016) Energy (% green electricity generation) 62%; state level (Oct 2018) 100%; state level (Oct 2018) Energy (consumption per capita/state rank) 185 mil Btu/50 206 mil Btu/45 Groundwater levels Much above normal (Castle Creek well, 1/30/2019) Normal (Chitenden County well, January 2019) % habitat loss 23.3% (Allegheny Mountain Highlands) 54.4% (Eastern Great Lakes Lowland Forest) AQI 33 (good) (EPA AirNow, NYDEC) 30 (good) 11:00 am 1/31/19

The Human Systems

Binghamton Burlington % of adult population with < H.S. education 9.7% (MSA) 6.8% (MSA) % of families in poverty 10.1% (MSA) 5.8% (MSA) % of households with housing costs >30% 25.1% (MSA) 30.9% (MSA) Gini index 0.46 (MSA) 0.45 (MSA) Physically unhealthy days per month 3.6 (County) 2.8 (County) Mentally unhealthy days per month 3.7 (County) 3.1 (County) Food environment index * 8 (County) 8 (County)

* The Food Environment Index ranges from 0 (worst) to 10 (best) and equally weights two indicators of the food environment: Limited access to healthy foods and Food insecurity.

Wrapping Up

• Outcomes not inputs, activities, or outputs
• Choosing appropriate scale
• Using multiple scales
• Pay attention to equity