l‘“
M LmR’“
I“; . r1.“
.[Chzgfl J
.
Ui‘ . I"
:III‘v’L‘fVIdLB
oi]

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 C'JCIRCIDCNOUOhdd-nfl

 

SUSTAINABLE PLANNING?:
DEFINING THE CONCEPT

By

Brenda G. Mathenia

A PLAN B PAPER

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF URBAN PLANNING
Urban Planning Program

1992

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Thomas Lyons for his
assistance, and patience, while working on this Plan B. Not only did he provide
academic guidance, but his faith, encouragement and enthusiasm, throughout my graduate
program, have been invaluable. I would also like to express my best wishes to Dr.
Lyons as he pursues fame and fortune in sunny southern California. You will be missed,
but not forgotten. Thank you Tom!

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all of the faculty and staff of
the Urban Planning Program for making my graduate career at Michigan State three of
the most memorable and successful years in my life. Particular thanks goes to Dawn
Brown, our faithful secretary, for keeping me on the right path throughout the program,
and for providing immeasurable help and guidance in my quest for the ever elusive
M.U.P.

‘1 fly

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ......................................... 1
DEFINING SUSTAINABILITY ................................ 1
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE ........................... 3
SUSTAINABILITY OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY ............... 5
HUMAN ECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABILITY ................. 8
SUSTAINABILITY AND PLANNING: A DEFINITION ................. 9
CRITERIA FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT .................... 12
Reviving Growth ...................................... 14
Change the Quality of Growth ............................. 15
Conserving and Enhancing the Resource Base ................... 16
Reorienting Technology ................................. 17
Merging Environmental and
Economics in Decision Making ...................... 17
PLAN FOR ACTION/RECOMMENDATIONS ....................... 18
CASE STUDY ........................................... 22
CITY OF SANIBEL, FLORIDA ........................... 23
CONCLUSION ........................................... 28

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to establish a coherent and usable definition of
sustainability for planners. The overall goal in attempting this, is to help planners
understand and appreciate the importance of the interrelationships between humans and
their environment. There is a movement, one planners can ill afford to ignore, towards
reestablishment of a gentler, more humane relationship between man and nature.
Sustainability, and the various concepts associated with it, is one way in which humans
can begin to make positive steps toward healing the already battered and bruised earth,
as well as make plans for future actions which will ensure a long and healthier life for

the planet and all the life it hosts.

DEFINING SUSTAINABILITY

Webster’s New World Dictionary, 2nd Edition, defines sustain, the root of
sustainability, as "l. to keep in existence; keep up; maintain or prolong; 2. to provide
for the support of; specifically, to provide sustenance or nourishment for."1 Any
activity that is sustaining is, therefore, created to keep something ”in existence".

Defining sustainability for use by planners is not an easy task. Currently, there
is much literature concerning sustainable agriculture, sustainability of biological diversity,
as well as sustainable development. But what, if anything, do these terms mean to

planners? Obviously, sustainability in terms of development is the most relevant, since

 

‘ Guralnik, David 3., ed., Webster’s New World Dictionagy 0;

W, 2nd Edition, (New York: Simon & Schuster,
1986).

planners typically are involved in the development of, and activities involving, urban
areas. Again the question of what is sustainable development arises.

If we take Webster’s meaning, then sustainable development could be defined as
development which is designed to maintain or prolong something, perhaps a community:
to keep in existence whatever that particular development affects. That seems clear
enough, but the real question comes when deciding exactly what qualifies as being
sustainable development. Until we can establish criteria for what actually constitutes
sustainable development, as well as a way to implement these activities, we will make
precious little headway to truly effecting positive change for our cities, towns, or our
earth.

Because of this lack of understanding of what sustainability actually means in
terms of activity and action, it is crucial that we look at the definitions and uses of
sustainability criteria and concepts found in other disciplines. This is due to the fact that
other disciplines, agriculture and biology in particular, have been dealing with these same
terms and concepts much longer than the social sciences (e. g.: planners). By examining
their definitions, their concepts, programs, successes and failures, we can synthesize a
much clearer picture of what planners are facing, today and in the future, in terms of
sustainability issues. We can also begin to arrive at some conclusions about how to
begin implementing the appropriate changes in order to have effective sustainable
development activities actually occurring.

Before beginning a discussion of sustainability it is important to understand that

any definition will be relative to the particular discipline which is involved. The

particulars, will be vastly different from case to case, but the underlying concept, will
remain constant. We must remember Webster’s words, "to keep in existence”, in order
to truly appreciate the importance of being able to define or act to encourage true

sustainability. This is as true for the biologist as it is for the planner.

SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

Sustainable agriculture deals largely with concerns over soil erosion and
degradation, long term food production potentials, pollution caused by agricultural
practices, and the impacts agricultural policies have on the agricultural industry and the
earth as a whole. The concept of sustainable agriculture has led scientists to ”focus on
soil as an ecological community and to examine the long term impacts of farming
practices."2 This is an important statement, since the entire concept of sustainability
has its roots in biology and ecology. By looking at an activity as being merely one small
link in the chain that makes up the whole, sustainability (long term existence) can be
achieved. This sounds rather familiar in that it is reminiscent of the reasons
comprehensive planning is encouraged, the need for a holistic approach to planning. The
farmer is the prototype for humankind. He prospers only insofar as he understands the
land and by his management maintains its bounty.3 We must begin to manage and

understand the land, and the processes which affect it, for our own prosperity.

 

2 Charles Benbrook, "Protecting Iowa’ s Commonwealth: Challenges
for the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture," Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation 41, no. 2 (Mar/Apr 1991): 89.

3 Ian L. McHarg, Desiqn With Nature, (New York: Natural
History Press, 1969), 29.

 

i l

Soil erosion is one area of concern worldwide. Sustainable agricultural practices
are aimed at limiting, if not stopping, the unnecessary loss of fertile soil due to
inappropriate farming practices. This is an effort to maintain, and prolong, the
production capabilities of our earth. Much of the soil erosion problems can be solved
by utilizing intelligent farming practices such as strip farming, maintaining wind breaks,
not farming marginal lands, alternating crops, etc. But soil erosion is but one small part
of sustainable agriculture. An important area that is much more difficult to focus on than
are physical activities, is the economic mechanisms which encourage poor farming
practices. These policies reward for over-production of farm land, farming on marginal
lands, and heavy reliance on pesticides and fertilizers to produce large cash crops rather
than encouraging wise farming methods such as alternating crops, which may not make
as much money, but will help to nourish and replenish the soil. "Agricultural production
can only be sustained on a long-term basis if the land, water, and forests on which it is
based are not degraded."4 We must begin to pursue and utilize methods which will
sustain agricultural production.

Sustainable agriculture is a complex and involved process, but one that is being
acted upon. Ignoring the problems is what caused them to become so large in the first
place. (Americans should be familiar with agricultural crisis. The Dust Bowl of the
1930’s was largely a result of poor farming practices which turned the farmland of the
plains into a virtual desert.) The important thing is that corrective action is taking place.

Conservation farming practices are being stressed throughout the country, and there is

 

‘ World Commission on Environment and Development, W

Eutuge, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 133.

a greater awareness of the importance of protecting the soil for the future. Specific
policies that protect the resource base are needed to maintain and even enhance
agricultural productivity.‘ Unfortunately, policy changes are slow to follow. There
must be a change in the tax and monetary incentive systems which encourage farmers to
cultivate marginal lands, and to produce single large, and often easily destroyed, cash
crops. These same policies produce surplus foods which affect the state of agriculture,
poverty and dependence in developing nations. There is a long road ahead, and a bumpy
one at that, but the journey has begun. Planners can and must learn about the obstacles
and shortcuts to success by understanding more about the war being waged to encourage

sustainable agricultural practices.

SUSTAINABILITY OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

Biological diversity is a catch-phrase which proliferates in current literature
related to loss of habitat, species extinction, even global warming. Most know it is
important, but few truly understand what it means and the role it plays in survival of the
human species.

Reid defines biodiversity as "the variety and variability of living organisms and
the ecological complexes in which they occur; the variety of the world’s species,

including their genetic diversity and the assemblages they form.6 Biological diversity

 

5 Ibid.

6 Walter V. Reid and Kenton R. Miller, Keeping Options Aiive;

Ihg Scientifiic Basis for Conserving Biodiversity, (Washington D.C.:
World Resources Institute, 1989), 106.

is, in very simple terms, the variety of forms of life which exist in one place. Biologists
use this concept in studying the long term health and prospects of a variety of organisms
as well as their habitats. Much in the same way that a diverse economy will fair better
during economic recession or depression, than one based on a single industry, so can a
natural community survive natural alterations or man-made changes better if there exists
a variety of life forms.

Many people associate biological diversity with the "lower” life forms, the
conservation movement and natural resources protection. They also assume the loss of
a few species here and there will not affect them. As we proceed through the last decade
of the 20th century we are finding that humans and human activity is intimately linked
to the natural environment and the health and diversity found within. The unity and
balance of the natural environment is conditioned by the complex interrelationships
between each of the major sub-systems of the biosphere. Each is self-sustaining in the
natural state, yet intimately linked with the stability and progress of the other sub-
systems. Because of this linkage, a human modification of one part of one sub-system
can be translated into a series of repercussions which can ultimately influence, if not
disturb each of the other sub-systems, and thus the biosphere as a wholef’ Accordingly
much study is being carried out in an attempt to understand and limit the damage to
natural systems caused by human selfishness and ignorance.

According to James Gustave Speth, President, World Resources Institute,

". . . the world is being impoverished as its most fundamental capital stock - its

 

7 C. C. Park, Ecoloqv and Environmental Manaqement, (Kent: Wm.
Dawson & Sons Ltd., 1980), 62.

species, habitats, and ecosystems - erode. Not since the Cretaceous Era ended

some 65 million years ago have losses been so rapid and great. If the trend

continues, one quarter of the world’s species may be gone by 2050.

Desertification, fisheries collapse, tropical deforestation, - such losses already

attest amply to how much biological impoverishment costs humans today."8

It is crucial that humans begin to view themselves as an integral part of the
biosphere, rather than as lord and master of all they see. Planners can play an important
role in stressing ”the urgency of protecting natural areas and communities and wild
species because of the need to increase understanding of the functions of the biosphere
and of the operation of balance mechanisms."9 Until mankind’s superior attitude
changes, there is little hope that man will realize the importance of maintaining the
greatest amount of diversity of species and organisms possible. Currently, humans
benefit from the varieties of food crops and medicines which come from the existence
of a wide variety of plants and animals. According to the World Commission on
Environment and Development " scientists have intensively investigated only one in every
100 of Earth’s plant species, and a far smaller proportion of animal species. If nations
can ensure the survival of species, the world can look forward to new and improved
foods, new drugs and medicine, and new raw materials for industry.lo Humanity also

benefits from other products, besides food and medicine, such as the elegance of tropical

woods used in fine furniture production to the more general aesthetic benefits of natural

 

3 Reid, v.

9 R. F. Dasmann, "A Rationale for Preserving Natural Areas,"

Jogrnal of Soil and Water Conservation 28, 1973: 114-117, in C. C.

Park,
Sons

Ecology and Environmental Management, (Kent: Wm. Dawson &
Ltd., 1980), 34.

w World Commission, 147.

beauty and variety. Unfortunately there is a misconception that preserving biological
diversity, including habitat, species,, etc., is diametrically opposed to economic
development. We are learning, however, that sustainable economic development is
actually dependent on the sustained availability of natural resources. In the U.S. alone,
for example, agricultural crop-breeding programs, which utilize genetic diversity, ”add
an estimated $1 billion annually to the value of production.”“ From coal, and other
energy sources, to tropical rain forests and strong genetic crops, production/economic
activity must rely on some resource. All the resources we use are part of that natural,

biological diversity, and we must preserve it in order to survive ourselves.

HUMAN ECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABILITY

Human ecology studies the relationships of humans and their environment.
Unfortunately, for centuries, man did not see himself as part of the environment. Rather
he pictured himself above, able to effect change and be affected by change, but not really
as a link in the ecological chain which exists. Man is, however, only one of the species
of organic life in the biosphere, and , like all life forms, exists only in interrelation with
all others. The precise degree of interdependence may seem remote and tenuous at
times, but it is, nonetheless, real.12

Humanity is inextricably connected to nature. We eat, are housed, have

 

" Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies to Maigtaig
Bioiogicai Diversity, OTA-f—330, (Washington D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1987), 3.

‘2 John McHale, The Ecological Context, (New York: George
Braziller, 1970), 57.

medicine, simply survive because of what nature provides. Humans however, have taken
nature for granted, assuming it will always provide. Without protection, much of the
resources we rely on for day to day activities will be used up or destroyed in some other
fashion, much sooner than we will be able to replace them, leaving a collapsed and
devastated environment and economy. We must reverse this trend, and we must begin
now.

As the richest nation on earth we must lead the way in reorganizing priorities and
values. Attitude adjustments along with solid policy changes are the only way we can
work to undo some of the damage that has already taken place and to ensure that the
situation does not get worse. Once our priorities are set in the U.S., only then can we
propose to take our "knowledge" and "technology" to the developing nations in order to

assist them with development and the protection of their natural environment.

SUSTAINABILITY AND PLANNING: A DEFINITION

According to the World Commission on Environment and Development
sustainable development refers to development that meets present needs without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.13 This is a very
broad definition which can apply to a very broad array of activities. To establish a
definition for planners there must be a focus toward the types of duties which planners
perform. The central role of the planning profession is that of information gathering,

evaluation and synthesis. Planners are not the final decision makers, rather their role is

 

n World Commission, 43.

"essentially to ensure that decisions are made by elected representatives from a position
of informed knowledge.“

A single, specific definition for planners is difficult because of the variety of
activities which planners are involved in. A definition of sustainability or sustainable
development for planners might be as follows:

Sustainable development involves planning activity which encourages the pursuit
of development types and land-use policies and regulations which ensure the
protection of the ecological systems vital to life, while providing the means to
encourage positive, long-term, sustaining economic development activities which
are not wholly dependent on non-renewable resources and which tend to provide
equitable opportunities for all persons.

For planners this means knowing the difference between sustainable development
activities and those that are not. This is, perhaps, an overwhelming responsibility to
place on the planner, but it is one that can no longer be ignored.

Planners act as information gatherers and advisors to policy makers. With the
right knowledge, and an understanding of the importance of their activities, planners can
play a major role in reshaping the types and the location of new development. It is
important for planners to become ecologically aware in order for them to make a positive
influence on development that is both economically and ecologically sound. Planning is

a synthesizing activity and the skills of most planners lie in this area. It is here that the

"interface between planners and ecologists occurs in much the same way that interaction

 

1‘ R. D. Roberts and T. M. Roberts, Planning and Ecology,
(London: Chapman and Hall, 1984), 8.

10

F
is;

occurs between planners and many other specialist professions."ls

Planners talk of revitalization and economic development in order to bring quality
of life and prosperity to residents of urban and rural locations. As important as
economic development is, we must begin to fully understand the linkage between man-
made economic development and growth and the source of the resources we use which
allow for growth: the linkage between human and natural systems. Through ecology,
biology and other life and natural sciences, it has been well established that life, of all
kinds, exists as separate pieces of a huge, interrelated, complex web which makes up
LIFE. Man is just beginning to realize his place in this system, but he has much more
to learn and to understand.

An example which illustrates the lack of understanding concerning the concept of
sustainability is found in the conflict occurring between industry and conservationist in
the Northwest. The battle between protectors of the spotted owl and the logging industry
is at the front of this dispute. Logging interests believe the forests must be opened up
to provide a living for loggers, and to generate economic activity for the region and the
country. Conservationist are opposed to this on the grounds that the spotted owl, which
has already lost much habitat to earlier logging activities, will become truly endangered
leading to the eventual loss of the species. Both sides make a point, but the logging
industry fails to see the importance of strictly limiting the amount of logging in order to
preserve our nation’s ability to produce forest products for the long term. If we are not

careful with our natural resources, the Northwest will be depleted of timber in much the

 

” Ibid.

11

same way as the state of Michigan was in the 19th century. As is clear, there is little
activity in the logging industry in Michigan anymore. Loggers are thinking and acting
in the short term, while we must begin to think in the long term if sustainability is to be
achieved.

Of course, close management and limitations will result in unemployment for
many loggers, but that does not have to be the end of their prosperity. As changes are
made in industry focus, and the number of jobs decrease in resource intensive industry,
such as logging, there are many more jobs which can be created which rely on less
resource intensive activities. As we switch from heavy use and reliance on natural
resources, to a more sustainable structure of less use and more reuse, industries designed
to recycle and reuse waste and scraps from traditional industries can begin. Here lies
the basis for a new generation of economic growth, prosperity, and environmental
protection.

Of course none of this will happen until Americans change their attitudes toward
natural resources; policy makers take the lead and create appropriate policy for
sustainability; we reach true crisis status in terms of pollution, natural resources
depletion, economic depression; or all of the above. Let’s hope that with timely action
and effort we, planners in particular, can help influence and make policy changes happen

which will keep us from reaching the "crisis" point.

CRITERIA FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

While much of the current literature on sustainable development focuses on

12

developing countries, we can use the criteria established in the literature to form the base
from which our own planning activities can begin.

Critical objectives for environment and development policies that follow from the
concept of sustainable development include:

1. reviving growth

2. changing the quality of growth

3. conserving and enhancing the resource base

4. reorienting technology and managing risk

5. merging environment and economics in decision making"

From these objectives we can guide the activities of planners in attempting to
make sustainable development a reality. These objectives are based primarily on the
needs and requirements which developing countries face in coming to terms with
sustainability. In planning, these are the types of objectives which can easily make up
elements of local, regional and or state comprehensive planning efforts. In the United
States the major emphasis of our move toward sustainability will be in the area of policy
change and legislation. We, as humans, will also have to "change something in our

social structure,"‘7 our habits of life, and our expectations in regard to resource use and

 

“ World Commission, 49.

‘7 Ann Chisholm, Philosophers of the Earth: Conversations wi t1;
Ecoiogist, (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1972), 21.

13

our relationships to these resources and other life forms.18 As Kenneth Boulding states
in his essay, The Epgngmics pf the QQQming Spaceship filth, “we must make the
transition from using the earth as if its resources are limitless, and start thinking in terms
of recycling precious materials," as well as " stop assuming that increased production and
consumption are inevitable and desirable."19

The primary responsibility for change will lie with our elected representatives.
These elected officials rely on staff, such as planners, to provide them with the

information on which they base their decisions. A quick look at ways to meet the

aforementioned criteria may help planners begin to establish ways to effect change.

Reviving Growth:

Growth needs to be encouraged since that is what drives the United States
economy. Managed growth is, however, the kind of growth we need. The growth
management movement in this country is an attempt to limit and control growth which
often focuses on capacity of systems, and environmental issues. This is the direction in
which planning should continue to move with corresponding policy and legislative
changes to strengthen current practices. Florida’s state level growth management

legislation is a good example of the type of planning activity that can be achieved.

 

” Ibid, 8.

‘9 Kenneth Boulding, "The Economics of the Coming Spaceship

Earth," quoted in Ann Chisholm, Philosophers of the Eazgh:

Qgpvegsggigps with Ecologist, (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co.,
1972), 29.

14

Unfortunately, Florida is not able to truly claim foresight in planning, because as all too
often happens, tough legislation occurs in response to critical circumstances.

Planners need to begin pushing for tough legislation designed to guide growth as
well as protect environments. They also need to begin utilizing, more thoroughly,
methods of analysis such as Environmental Impact Assessment and carrying capacity

analysis in order to help quantify and back-up decisions to act to control growth.

Change the Quality of Growth:

Growth needs to be changed from the historical reliance on industry which is
intensive in energy use, material use and waste production, toward economic activity
rooted in diversity and renewable and recycled resources in order to ensure sustainability.
Additionally, growth needs to address the equity issue, by targeting small businesses,
which offer sustainable jobs and security, rather than the continued chase after the big
money interests such as General Motors. Diversity is the key, and a diverse and
adaptable economy, like a diverse and adaptable ecosystem, is a sustainable economy.
Economic development is unsustainable if it increases vulnerability to crisis”,
therefore, greater attention to new, high technology, service and small businesses would
provide for a more sustainable economy and environment than does reliance on a single

corporation such as General Motors.

 

” World Commission, 53.

15

Conserving and Enhancing the Resource Base:

There must be policy created which deals effectively with the high consumption
rate of resources in this country. Including emphasis on public transit, higher density
development (limiting sprawl), recycling and reuse of resources in industry and
manufacturing as well as consumer recycling and reuse.

We must actively pursue stronger policies to provide for the protection of
agricultural land and to ensure that sustainable farming practices are implemented on a
large scale.

The creation of new policies and strengthening of existing laws and legislation
aimed at the protection of biodiversity (species and habitats) is necessary. This is
imperative since protection of species and their habitats will provide the raw material for
development of new food sources, new human medicine, and future economic activity
as well as the continued supply of current resource needs. Protection should be provided
if for no other reason than the intrinsic value humans place on life.

Enhancing the resource base will also allow the continued reliance on non-
renewable resources such as coal and oil until the time when renewable resources can
take their place on a large scale.

Finally, policy and legislation which conserves and enhances our resource base
will help protect the natural regulating capabilities of earth, so that all life forms,

including human, can continue to thrive.

16

Reorienting Technology:

Present technological capabilities and those being research, must be reoriented
towards activities that use less material, are more efficient, and can utilize waste from
other technologies as a resource. Research and development activities for such
reorientation must be encouraged through increased support and funding at the national
level.

Additionally, there needs to be in place, at the national level, policies which
ensure, through incentives and disincentives, that commercial organizations find it
worthwhile to take fuller account of environmental factors in the technologies they
develop or use.21 This will result in not only greater protection for the environment but
will provide the necessary incentives to encourage technological advances to increase

efficiency, and decrease environmental impacts.

Merging Environment and Economics in Decision Making:

Reorganization of institutional arrangements is necessary to provide that those
making economic decisions are also responsible for making environmental decisions.
One cannot operate independently of the other with any chance of both needs being met.

There must be a change in attitudes and objective and institutional arrangements
at all levels of government. The sectoral fragmentation between industry types and
government agencies must be overcome so that industry and government begin to work

together in dealing with ecological and economic problems. There must also be a shift

 

” World Commission, 60.

17

in personal and corporate attitudes as well as changes in the legal and institutional
policies which enforce common (i.e., air, water, natural resources) interests. Our
"commons” must be protected if any hope exists for sustainability.

Additionally, there must be an increase in community knowledge and support for
ecologically sound planning efforts. A grass roots movement demanding protection for
the environment is necessary. A movement which can help to ensure that our elected
officials respond to the needs and desires of the many, over the needs and desires of the
few (primarily the moneyed interests). Increasing education and knowledge of ordinary
citizens is the key to building this " grass roots" constituency for the environment.

Finally, environmental objectives must be built into taxation, prior approval
procedures for investment and technology choice, foreign trade incentives, and all
components of development policy.22 This will provide for much of the pro-active

protection measures which must be in place to make sustainability possible.

PLAN FOR ACTION/RECOMMENDATIONS

What can planners do to become better prepared to meet the sustainability issue
head on and provide sound knowledge and advice? First, and foremost, planners must
become or stay aware of the latest in ecological/environmental issues. By taking formal
course work, planners can be prepared with a strong natural resources/ecological
background which will provide a solid base from which further inquiries can begin as

relates to various jobs or developments. If formal training is not feasible or desired, then

 

” Ibid, 64.

18

the planner should become well acquainted with a local ecologist or specialist in natural
resources so they may feel comfortable in calling upon that person, on a regular basis,
for advice and information.

As well as knowing the ecological side of issues, planners must be aware of the
variety of ways in which development can impact the environment. Some of this can be
accomplished by being aware of the ecological issues, but not all. The use of ecological
methods such as impact analysis and carrying capacity analysis may provide the
additional information necessary to make a more informed decision.

One such method, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which stems from
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, requires the federal government, or
proponents of an action which involves federal money, and which significantly affects
the environment, to demonstrate that they have carried out an assessment of the
environmental consequences of their proposals. This assessment is made in the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which describes the environmental impacts likely
to arise from the action and from alternatives to it.23 These assessments are not
currently required at local levels, except when federal monies are involved. Expanded
use of this type of analysis should be sought by local, regional and state planning
agencies to ensure comprehensive examination of development impacts.

Carrying capacity analysis, as a planning tool, studies the effects of growth (a
requirement of sustainable development,) - amount, type, location, quality — on the

natural and man-made environment in order to identify critical thresholds beyond which

 

” Roberts, 99.

19

public health, safety or welfare will be threatened by serious environmental problems.“

This planning tool, provides a means for planners to examine natural, man-made,
social and/or economic systems which interact to affect the capacity of the land to
accommodate growth. Analysis can provide the basis of implementing land use controls,
allowing planners to direct growth to the most appropriate areas.

Both carrying capacity analysis and environmental impact assessment provide the
means for examining, in a holistic or systemic manner, the effects of growth and
development on environmental as well as man-made systems. Even if the actual analysis
is not carried out, the concepts of carrying capacity and environmental impact assessment
suggest that developments should respect the functioning of the natural processes of the
environment, which is nearly as valuable as any specific technical report generated with
these techniques.”

Methodologies such as these not only provide for a thorough examination of the
effects of a specific activity, but they also ”form the basis for subsequent discussion,
public participation and the final decision-making process which progress through a series
of clearly defined steps."26

Planners must also take the initiative in dealing with developers. They need to

work with developers to ensure that the necessary requirements or changes are made in

 

2"Devon M. Schneider, David R. Godshalk, and Norman Axler, The

gargyihg Qapggity Concept as a Planning Tool, Planning Advisory
Service Report #338, December 1978, (Washington D.C.: American

Planning Association, 1978), 1.

 

” Ibid., 10.

” Roberts, 99.

20

the design or conceptual stage of development, so that both the ecological and economic
concerns of a community can be met. Planners can also act as educators to developers,
citizens and decision—makers alike. They must strive to provide information which will
drive home the importance of finding the right balance between nature and development.
Through their role as educators, planners can encourage the adoption of additional
legislation which will provide the appropriate authority to act to protect the environment
as well as providing direct protection to the environment.

Finally, planners must begin to utilize available planning tools, such as zoning,
transfer of development rights, etc., to prevent ecological damage from occurring.
Through hard learned lessons we are beginning to realize that it costs much less to
prevent a mishap than to react to it after the fact. The costs of ignoring potential
ecological effects of human activities are well illustrated by the discharge of kepone
pesticide into the James River of Virginia, a tributary of Chesapeake Bay.

Between 1966 and 1975, the pesticide kepone was discharged from the
manufacturing plant directly to the sewage treatment plant in Hopewell, Virginia,
saving the manufacturer approximately $200,000 in pollution control costs.
Kepone killed sewage-digesting micro-organisms, resulting in the discharge of
inadequately treated sewage, and kepone, into the James River. A 150 km
stretch of river was closed to fishing indefinitely, with sport and commercial
fishery losses estimated at $20 million during 1975-1980. The company has so
far paid $13 million in pollution fines. Two company executives were also
convicted and fined.27

From the previous example it is clear to see that had the manufacturer taken

responsibility for the technology they were producing, and not dumped the pesticide as

 

n Walter E. Westman, Ecology. Impact Assessment. and
Environmental Bianning, (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1985), 5-6.

21

they did, everyone would have profited. As it is this "laissez faire” attitude toward
environmental effects of development cost millions of dollars in lost revenue for
fisheries, millions in clean-up costs for the company, and the loss of healthy organisms
in the James River and Chesapeake Bay.

Planners have the tools to effect growth and development in their cities and
regions, but need the assistance of science and legislative authority to fully tackle the task
of promoting sustainable development. An important issue that must be addressed before
local planners can advance is the lack of national involvement in environment and
economic development. Until national legislation is passed requiring strict environmental
requirements, polluters and industry which do not want to be regulated, on a state or
local level, will use economic blackmail to water down local development and ecological
controls. If national goals are set, and maintained, local communities will have much
greater success establishing the tough controls and regulations which will provide for
sustainable development.

Through the use of impact assessment and carrying capacity analysis, planners can
give strength to the land use controls which they desire to implement. More importantly,
these tools, along with traditional planning tools, allow the planner to apply a holistic
approach to controlling development and protecting the ecological basis for human

survival and prosperity.

CASE STUDY

The following case study examines a community which utilized the concept of

22

carrying capacity to facilitate development plans and regulations in order to preserve the

character and environmental integrity of their town.

CITY OF SANIBEL, FLORIDA:28

Sanibel is a low-lying sand barrier island just offshore from the City of Fort
Myers in Lee County, Florida. Long world famous for its shelling beaches, Sanibel
developed slowly during the first 63 years of this century. In 1960, when Hurricane
Donna passed just to the east of the island, the permanent population on Sanibel was
approximately 30. In 1963 a 2-1/2 mile causeway was extended to the island, thus
opening the island to automobile access and an accelerated pace of growth and
development.

On November 5, 1974, the residents of Sanibel voted to incorporate, and on
December 16, 1974, the City of Sanibel assumed responsibility for the public health,
safety and welfare of the island and immediately set out to prepare a comprehensive plan
for the island. The City of Sanibel was formed in response to Lee County’s laissez-faire
approach to the development of the island, and is one of the earliest examples of carrying
capacity planning.

The planning process employed by the City was based on Jan McHarg’s Design

With Nature, and the well known Medford, New Jersey, plan. Detailed surveys of the

 

u The following case study example is adapted from Charles L.
Siemon, "Carrying Capacity Planning: Rx for the Future?," in

Implementation of the 1985 Growth Management Act : Egom Piahhihg he
Lend Development Reghlations, ed. Barbara C. Brumback and M.J.

Marvin, (Fort Lauderdale: FAU/FIU Joint Center for Environmental
and Urban Problems, 1989), 9-38.

 

23

natural and built environments were carried out, and projections were made as to the
impact of various levels of growth on the natural and built environments and the fiscal
integrity of the city. Pursuant to the dictates of its charter, the city decided that new
growth and development should be limited to that which could be supported by existing
and planned public service infrastructure. The Sanibel City Council determined that its
carrying capacity plan would have to account for the character of the community. Since
Sanibel was a medium-intense, semi—tropical resort characterized by natural resources
(including the Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge), the city determined that its
character could only be maintained if the total number of residential and hotel housing
on the island were limited to 7,000-9,000 dwelling units (far less than the 35,000
dwelling units that Lee County’s zoning would have permitted).

Chief among the limiting factors (i.e., water and sewer facility capacity) was
hurricane evacuation. Sanibel had been overtopped by hurricanes on at least four
separate occasions during the last century. The city council decided from the outset that
as a matter of policy, each resident and visitor should have a reasonable opportunity to
evacuate from the island in the event of a hurricane.

Sanibel Island had a restricted capacity for the evacuation, since the capacity of
the causeway and bridge leading to the island was finite, and the hurricane evacuation
warning period was limited. Carrying capacity was derived from a careful analysis of
the capacity of the island’s access system available for evacuation after a hurricane
warning period was posted.

The narrow two-lane causeway to the mainland was determined to have an

24

evacuation capacity of approximately 650 vehicles per hour. That number of vehicles
was then translated into a total number of households that could be accommodated
(assuming that each household would evacuate in its own automobile so that valuables
and pets could be protected during evacuation.

Calculations based on household sizes and the number of hours available for
evacuation yielded a maximum number of dwelling units that could be developed and still
have a reasonable evacuation opportunity available to all residents of the island.

Hurricane evacuation, however, was only one of several "limiting factor" analyses
that were carried out for the city in its carrying capacity analysis. The consultants also
considered the capacity of the island’s existing and planned roadway system, the capacity
of natural lands to absorb further development, the capacity of the island’s potable water
sources, and a number of subjective measures of the quality of life. The city council
reacted to the conclusions of the study by imposing a density limitation on development
that ensured that the population on the island would not exceed its carrying capacity.
Supportable growth was then allocated throughout the island on the basis of
environmental character and the availability of public services.

Limiting growth and development to an amount that did not exceed the carrying
capacity of Sanibel’s natural and built environments has proven to be very successful in
protecting the social, economic and environmental character of Sanibel. Moreover, the
fiscal benefits of a carefully and reasonably planned community have been translated into
very significant increases in land value.

As a land planning experiment, Sanibel was an ideal laboratory because it was an

25

island, uninfluenced by the land use decision of its neighboring municipalities.
Nevertheless, the experiment still serves as a sound demonstration of the value of
carrying capacity planning because it worked.

This is an excellent example of the holistic or systemic approach to planning
which is necessary to achieve true comprehensive planning and sustainable development.
Carrying capacity analysis is one method that has been shown to work.

There are, of course, drawbacks to carrying capacity analysis including the fact
that there is little reference material available, aside from collective experience and
examples done by planning agencies, on exactly how to complete an analysis. Carrying
capacity analyses are not easy to do, depending on the complexity attempted. Methods
for measuring capacity range from subjective interpretations of natural resource
inventories to simple arithmetic calculations to complex computer modeling techniques.
Just as in any analysis, the variable selected and assumptions made greatly influence the
reliability of the results?9

Besides the technical difficulties encountered in carrying capacity analysis, as well
as other forms of analysis, there is the political and legal problems which must be dealt
with. Political resistance will likely come from the pro-growth community if carrying
capacity results are translated into growth management policies.30 Legal challenges to
any tough growth management policies should also be expected and planned for. If the

policies are written well and provide specific information, planners can limit the legal

 

” Schneider, 8.
w Schneider, 9.

26

challenges which could result in the weakening or elimination of the growth controls.

There are also many concerns directed at the equity issues resulting from limiting
the amount of growth. In Sanibel, the planning program of the city has resulted in very
significant increases in land value. Opponents of carrying capacity planning argue that
it shuts off future development when an area is deemed "full,” which in turn may drive
up prices for existing housing. Poor people with no power to control resources will be
forced to live elsewhere.31

This is a legitimate concern and one that planners must face. In pursuing
sustainable development will low income individuals and families be removed from
attaining the quality of life and other benefits that result from well planned development
practices. Not necessarily, but the issue will have to be addressed directly. For
example, Sanibel Island has limited its dwelling units to between 7,000 and 9,000. To
provide equity, city officials could designate that a certain percentage of available
housing be for low income families. It may not be a perfect solution, but it can and does
work.

For sustainable development, this type of analysis and planning is the right
activity at the right time. More needs to be done, and with case studies like the City of
Sanibel, Florida available, other communities can begin addressing their environmental,

social and economic needs and concerns in ways which provide sound planning solutions.

 

” Siemon, 30.

27

CONCLUSION

This paper has attempted, and I believe, succeeded in defining sustainability and
sustainable development in terms which planners can more easily understand and utilize.
It remains, however, a difficult and challenging concept to understand or act upon.

Through the understanding of ecological processes which are at the basis of all
life, humans can begin to truly understand the importance of approaching growth in a
holistic manner. Life of all kinds is intimately linked, and what is detrimental to one
form of life will eventually have a negative effect on other (human) life.

Four environmental principles help to sum up the need for humans to understand,
respect and protect the natural world.

1. Nothing actually disappears when we throw it away.

2. all systems and problems are ultimately if not intimately inter-related.

3. We live on a planet whose resources are finite.

4. Nature has spent literally millions of years refining a stable ecosystem.32

By understanding and accepting the concepts which form the basis for these four
principles, planners will be well prepared to enter the sustainability battleground.
Agriculture, biology, and ecology have been dealing with sustainability for a long time.
It is time for the social scientist to employ the same processes and criteria to issues

which humans, the most social of all animals, are facing.

 

” Park, 62.

28

Development which provides for a variety of activity, life forms, and habitats will
be sustainable development. Controlling the type, rate and location of human growth will
ensure that other life forms and their habitats can survive. This survival is necessary for
the long-term prosperity of humanity as well as for the intrinsic value of the maintenance
of all life.

Sustainable development can be achieved with hard work and clear goals.
Planners can play an important role in moving our society toward sustainability through
various methods of land use controls, their role as educators, and finally through their
understanding and abilities to quantify the needs of ecological systems versus man-made
systems. They however, cannot do it alone. Major shifts in human values and attitudes,
as well as changes in institutional and economic policies will be necessary before any

prolonged and positive movement toward sustainability can truly begin.

29

Works Cited

Benbrook, Charles. ”Protecting Iowa’s Commonwealth: Challenges for the Leopold Center for

Sustainable Agriculture." Joemel ef Soil egg Water Conservation. Mar/Apr. 1991,
vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 89-95.

Brumback,BarbaraC.andM.J.Marvin,ed.Imlmn in fhl rth mn
Aet; Erem lening te land Development Reguletiens. Fort Lauderdale: FAU/FIU

Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems, 1989.

Chisholm, Ann. Bhilesephers ef the high; Cenversetiens with Emlegists. New York: E. P.
Dutton & Co., Inc., 1972.

Guralnik, David B., ed. Webster’s New World Dictionaty of the Ameriean theege, 2nd
edition. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1986.

McHale, John. The Ecolegical Context. New York: George Braziller, 1970.

McHarg, Ian L. Design with Nature. New York: Natural History Press, 1969.

Office of Technology Assessment. Teehnolegies te Maintain Bielegieai Diversity, OTA-f-330.
Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1987.

Park, C. C. Eeelogy and Environmental Management. Kent: Wm. Dawson & Sons Ltd.,
1980.

Reid, Walter V. and Kenton R. Miller. Kee in tion Alive“ Th ci n ifi i f r
Censerving Biodiversity. Washington D.C.: World Resources Institute, 1989.

Roberts, R. D. and T. M. Roberts. Planning ahd Ecology. London: Chapman and Hall, 1984.
Schneider, Devon M. , David R. Godshalk, and Norman Axler. The Car_rying Capeeity

Coneept as a Planning Teol. Planning Advisory Service Report #338. December 1978.
Washington D.C.: American Planning Association, 1978.

Westman, Walter E. Ecology, Impact Assessment, and Environmental Planning. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, 1985.

World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Ftrture. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1987.

Literature Reviewed
Allaby, Michael. id ai ° A rv f h New ienc f ur Livin . New
York: E.P. Dutton, 1989.
Benbrook, Charles. ”Protecting Iowa’s Commonwealth: Challenges for the Leopold Center for

Sustainable Agriculture." Joemal ef Seil and Water Censervation. Man/Apr. 1991,
vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 89-95.

Budd, William W. “What Capacity the Land?" Journal of Seil and Water Censervetieh.
Jan/Feb. 1992, vol. 42, no. 1, pp.28-31.

Chisholm, Ann. Philesephers ef the firth: Cenversations with Ecologists. New York: E. P.
Dutton & Co., Inc., 1972.

Clark, W.C. and RE. Munn, eds. Sustainable Develepment ef the Biesphere. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1986.

DeGrove, John M., ed. Balanced rowth' A Plannin ide f r ov rnm n .
Washington D.C.: ICMA, 1991.

Dixon, John A. and Paul B. Sherman. Economics of Pretgtfl Arees; A New Imk at Benefits
ahtLCgsts. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1990.

Doyle, Derek. ”Sustainable Development: Growth Without Losing Ground.” rn f il
she Water Conservation. Jan/Feb. 1991, vol. 41, no. 1, pp.8-13.

Guralnik, David B., ed. Webster’s New World Dictionag ef the American mghage, 2nd
edition. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1986.

Jacobs, Harvey M. "Planning the Use of Land for the let Century." Jehrnai pf Seil ahd
Watet Censervatien. Jan/Feb. 1992, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 32-34.

McHale, John. The Ecological Context. New York: George Braziller, 1970.
McHarg, Ian L. Design with Nature. New York: Natural History Press, 1969.

McHarg, Ian L. "Green the Earth, Heal the Earth." Journal ef Soil and Water Conservation.
Jan/Feb. 1992, vol. 42, no.1, pp. 39-41.

National Research Council. 0] i Kn W] e n Envir nm n Pr 1 m-S lvin '
Ceneepts md Case Studies. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 1986.

Odum, Eugene P. Basie flolegy. Philadelphia: Saunders College Publishers, 1983.

Office of Technology Assessment. Tghnologies to Maintain Bielegieal Diversity, OTA-f—330.
Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1987.

Park, C. C. Ecology and Environmental Management. Kent: Wm. Dawson & Sons Ltd.,
1980.

Reid, Walter V. and Kenton R. Miller. Keeping thions Alive: The Seientific Qsis fer
Censerving Biodiversity. Washington D.C.: World Resources Institute, 1989.

Roberts, R. D. and T. M. Roberts. Planning Ed Ecology. London: Chapman and Hall, 1984.

Sargent, Frederic O., et. al. Regal Environmental Planning fer Sustainable Cemmanih’es.
Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1991.

Schneider, Devon M., David R. Godshalk, and Norman Axler. W
as a Plahning Tgel. Planning Advisory Service Report #338, December 1978.
Washington D.C.: American Planning Association, 1978.

Shen, Susan. "Biological Diversity and Public Policy." Bioscienee. Nov. 1987, vol. 37,
pp.709-712.

Spirn, Ann W. "Designing with the Land." ournal of Soil and Water Censervatien. Jan/Feb.
1992, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 35-38.

Westman, Walter E. geology, Impact Assessment, and Environmental Planning. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, 1985.

World Commission on Environment and Development. Cur Common Future. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1987.

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIllllllllllllllll

 

31293 02656 8802

......

......
.....

......