Advertisement

Sustainability assessment of a community open space vision

  • Matthew CohenEmail author
  • John E. Quinn
  • Demi Marshall
  • Tim Sharp
Original Article
  • 36 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Sustainable Urban/Rural Planning and Architectural Design Innovation
  2. Sustainable Urban/Rural Planning and Architectural Design Innovation

Abstract

Urban sustainability visions must address diverse challenges spanning social and ecological issues yet urban visions are often weak in sustainability, demonstrating a need for a strong and holistic assessment of visioning processes, their outputs, and outcomes. Through a case study of a community visioning process for an urban neighborhood-scale open space in South Carolina, United States, this paper presents key insights from a novel approach for assessing the sustainability of visioning projects, framed around a program evaluation logic model. It describes a mixed-methods assessment of the case including: (1) a qualitative analysis of the visioning process that inspects the quality of the participatory process that generated the vision; (2) a content analysis of the vision report—the process output—that analyzes the sustainability content of the stakeholders’ ideas; and (3) a quantitative natural capital assessment that compares the vision against alternative plausible scenarios proposed by stakeholders to the visioning process’ outcomes and evaluates the ecological integrity of the vision. The research finds that the vision was crafted through a fair participatory process that created stakeholder satisfaction, that the vision emphasizes social capital and equity and justice over other sustainability ends, and that the neighborhood vision may generate stronger ecosystem services than other proposed options suggesting opportunity for positive feedbacks. Despite a positive assessment, the assessment used here showed there was room to co-create a stronger vision of a sustainable future that strives to achieve multiple sustainability principles across human and natural systems. Contributing to the literature on urban sustainability assessment, this paper demonstrates a novel and holistic approach to assessing sustainability of local urban planning processes and their outcomes and concludes with recommendations for streamlining such assessments to better inform policy decisions before they are made.

Keywords

Sustainability visioning Sustainable urban development Sustainability principles Urban planning Urban sustainability assessment Program evaluation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the residents of New Washington Heights and specifically the board of the Neighborhood Association for welcoming us into their community. We would also like to thank Mike Winiski for co-leading the public engagement process and Melanie Brown for her consulting on research methods for the natural capital assessment. Demi Marshall and Tim Sharp were supported by the Furman Advantage Summer Research Fellowship program.

Supplementary material

11625_2019_659_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (23 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 22 kb)

References

  1. Ackerman J (2004) Co-governance for accountability: beyond “exit” and “voice”. World Dev 32:447–463.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.06.015 Google Scholar
  2. Agyeman J, Evans T (2003) Toward just sustainability in urban communities: building equity rights with sustainable solutions. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 590:35–53.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716203256565 Google Scholar
  3. Andersen CB, Donovan RK, Quinn JE (2015) Human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP) in an agriculturally-dominated watershed, southeastern USA. Land 4(2):513–540Google Scholar
  4. Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plan 35(4):216–224Google Scholar
  5. Bai X, van der Leeuw S, O’Brien K, Berkhout F, Biermann F, Brondizio ES, Syvitski J (2016) Plausible and desirable futures in the Anthropocene: a new research agenda. Glob Environ Change 39:351–362.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.017 Google Scholar
  6. Bailey K, Grossardt T, Ripy J (2012) Toward environmental justice in transportation decision making with structured public involvement. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2320(2320):102–110.  https://doi.org/10.3141/2320-13 Google Scholar
  7. Bennett EM, Solan M, Biggs R, McPhearson T, Norstrom AV, Olsson P, Xu J (2016) Bright spots: seeds of a good Anthropocene. Front Ecol Environ 14(8):441–448.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1309 Google Scholar
  8. Berg C, Rogers S, Mineau M (2016) Building scenarios for ecosystem services tools: developing a methodology for efficient engagement with expert stakeholders. Futures 81:68–80Google Scholar
  9. Blackstock KL, Kelly GJ, Horsey BL (2007) Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecol Econ 60:726–742.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.014 Google Scholar
  10. Brown G, Chin SYW (2013) Assessing the effectiveness of public participation in neighbourhood planning. Plan Pract Res.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2013.820037 Google Scholar
  11. Brown MG, Quinn JE (2018) Zoning does not improve the availability of ecosystem services in urban watersheds. A case study from Upstate South Carolina, USA. Ecosyst Serv.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.04.009 Google Scholar
  12. Bryson JM, Quick KS, Slotterback CS, Crosby BC (2013) Designing public participation processes. Public Adm Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02678.x Google Scholar
  13. US Census (2015) Population estimates, July 1, 2015, (V2015). Greenville County South Carolina QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/45045,4530850. Accessed 1 April 2016
  14. Chesson J (2013) Sustainable development: connecting practice with theory. J Environ Policy Manag 15(1):1350002-1–1350002–27.  https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333213500026 Google Scholar
  15. Ciegis R, Ramanauskiene J, Startiene G (2009) Theoretical reasoning of the use of indicators and indices for sustainable development assessment. Inzinerine Ekon-Eng Econ 3:33–40Google Scholar
  16. Cohen M (2017) A systematic review of urban sustainability assessment literature. Sustainability 9(11):2048.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su9112048 Google Scholar
  17. Cohen M, Wiek A (2017) Identifying misalignments between public participation process and local context in urban development. Chall Sustain 5(2):1–22.  https://doi.org/10.12924/cis2017.05020011 Google Scholar
  18. Cohen M, Wiek A, Kay B, Harlow J (2015) Aligning public participation to stakeholders’ sustainability literacy—a case study on sustainable urban development in Phoenix, Arizona. Sustainability 7(7):8709–8728.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su7078709 Google Scholar
  19. Cooke B, Kothari U (eds) (2001) Participation: the New Tyranny. Zed Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, Ricketts TH, Salzman J, Shallenberger R (2009) Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7(1):21–28Google Scholar
  21. Davidson KM (2011) Reporting systems for sustainability: what are they measuring? Soc Indic Res 100(2):351–365.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9634-3 Google Scholar
  22. Davidson KM, Kellett J, Wilson L, Pullen S (2012) Assessing urban sustainability from a social democratic perspective: a thematic approach. Local Environ 17(1):57–73.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2011.631990 Google Scholar
  23. Ding X, Zhong W, Shearmur RG, Zhang X, Huisingh D (2015) An inclusive model for assessing the sustainability of cities in developing countries—trinity of cities’ sustainability from spatial, logical and time dimensions (TCS-SLTD). J Clean Prod 109:62–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.140 Google Scholar
  24. Evans B, Joas M, Sundback S, Theobald DK (2006) Governing local sustainability. J Environ Plan Manag 49:849–867.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560600946875 Google Scholar
  25. Farley HM, Smith ZA (2013) Sustainability: If it’s everything, is it nothing?. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Fereday J, Muir-Cochrane E (2006) Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Int J Qual Methods 5:80–92.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2011295 Google Scholar
  27. Forman RTT, Wu J (2016) Where to put the next billion people. Nature 537(7622):608–611.  https://doi.org/10.1038/537608a Google Scholar
  28. Fung A, Wright EO (2006) Deepening democracy: institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. Polit Soc 29:566–569.  https://doi.org/10.1521/siso.2006.70.4.566 Google Scholar
  29. Georgescu M, Chow WTL, Wang ZH, Brazel A, Roth M (2015) Erratum: prioritizing urban sustainability solutions: coordinated approaches must incorporate scale-dependent built environment induced effects. Environ Res Lett 10(7):061001.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/7/079601 Google Scholar
  30. Gibson RB (2006) Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 24(3):170–182.  https://doi.org/10.3152/147154606781765147 Google Scholar
  31. Gliedt T, Larson K (2018) Sustainability in transition: principles for developing solutions. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Goldstein B, Birkved M, Quitzau MB, Hauschild M (2013) Quantification of urban metabolism through coupling with the life cycle assessment framework: concept development and case study. Environ Res Lett.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035024 Google Scholar
  33. Graham J, Amos B, Plumptre T (2003) Principles for good governance in the 21st century. Policy Brief No. 15. Inst Gov. 1–6. http://iog.ca/sites/iog/files/policybrief15_0.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2019
  34. Guerry AD, Polasky S, Lubchenco J, Chaplin-Kramer R, Daily GC, Griffin R, Feldman MW (2015) Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: from promise to practice. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112(24):7348–7355Google Scholar
  35. Hara K, Kumazawa T, Kimura M, Tsuda K (2016) Participatory approach in vision setting: emerging initiatives in local municipalities in Japan. Sustain Sci 11(3):493–503Google Scholar
  36. Hassenforder E, Pittock J, Barreteau O, Daniell KA, Ferrand N (2016) The MEPPP framework: a framework for monitoring and evaluating participatory planning processesEnviron Manag 57:79–96.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0599-5 Google Scholar
  37. Hines A, Bishop P (2006) Thinking about the future. Social Technologies LLC, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  38. Innes JE, Booher DE (2004) Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Plan Theory Pract 5:419–436.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000293170 Google Scholar
  39. Iwaniec DM, Childers DL, Vanlehn K, Wiek A (2014) Studying, teaching and applying sustainability visions using systems modeling. Sustainability 6(7):4452–4469.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su6074452 Google Scholar
  40. John B, Keeler LW, Wiek A, Lang DJ (2015) How much sustainability substance is in urban visions? An analysis of visioning projects in urban planning. Cities 48(August):86–98.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.06.001 Google Scholar
  41. Kareiva P, Polasky S, Tallis H, Ricketts TH, Daily GC (2011) Natural capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  42. Karuppannan S, Sivam A (2011) Social sustainability and neighbourhood design: an investigation of residents’ satisfaction in Delhi. Local Environ 16(9):849–870Google Scholar
  43. Keen MEG, Mahanty S (2006) Sustainability assessment and local government: achieving Innovation through practitioner networks. Local Environ 11(2):201–2016.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830600558531 Google Scholar
  44. Keivani R (2010) A review of the main challenges to urban sustainability. Int J Urban Sustain Dev 1(1–2):5–16.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19463131003704213 Google Scholar
  45. Kemp R, Parto S, Gibson RB (2005) Governance for sustainable development: moving from theory to practice. Int J Sustain Dev 8:12–30.  https://doi.org/10.1504/ijsd.2005.007372 Google Scholar
  46. Kim J, Oki T (2011) Visioneering: an essential framework in sustainability science. Sustain Sci 6(2):247–251.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0130-8 Google Scholar
  47. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(1):25–43Google Scholar
  48. Leal Filho W, Platje J, Gerstlberger W, Ciegis R, Kaaria J, Klavins M, Kliucininkas L (2016) The role of governance in realising the transition towards sustainable societies. J Clean Prod 113:755–766.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.060 Google Scholar
  49. Li THY, Ng ST, Skitmore M (2013) Evaluating stakeholder satisfaction during public participation in major infrastructure and construction projects: a fuzzy approach. Autom Constr.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.09.007 Google Scholar
  50. Matson P, Clark WC, Andersson K (2016) Pursuing sustainability. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  51. McDonald RI, Weber KF, Padowski J, Boucher T, Shemie D (2016) Estimating watershed degradation over the last century and its impact on water-treatment costs for the world’s large cities. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(32):9117–9122.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605354113 Google Scholar
  52. McLaughlin JA, Jordan GB (2010) Using logic models. In: Wholey JS, Hatry HP, Newcomer KE (eds) Handbook of practical program evaluation. Wiley, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  53. Miller TR, Wiek A, Sarewitz D, Robinson J, Olsson L, Kriebel D, Loorbach D (2014) The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustain Sci 9(2):239–246.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0224-6 Google Scholar
  54. Nagpure AS, Reiner M, Ramaswami A (2018) Resource requirements of inclusive urban development in India: insights from ten cities. Environ Res Lett 13(2):025010.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa4fc Google Scholar
  55. Ness B, Urbel-Piirsalu E, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2007) Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol Econ 60(3):498–508.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.023 Google Scholar
  56. Nevens F, Dessein J, Meul M, Rogge E, Verbruggen I, Mulier A, Hongenaert M (2008) “On tomorrow”s grounds’, Flemish agriculture in 2030: a case of participatory translation of sustainability principles into a vision for the future. J Clean Prod 16(10):1062–1070.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.06.007 Google Scholar
  57. Newman P, Jennings I (2008) Cities as sustainable ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  58. Pope J, Annandale D, Morrison-Saunders A (2004) Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 24(6):595–616.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2004.03.001 Google Scholar
  59. Raworth K (2012) A safe and just space for humanity: can we live within the doughnut? Oxf Discuss Papers.  https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-458-1 Google Scholar
  60. Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2000) Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci Technol Hum Values 25:3–29Google Scholar
  61. Smith RW (1973) A theoretical basis for participatory planning. Policy Sci 4:275–295.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01435125 Google Scholar
  62. Tang Z, Brody SD, Quinn C, Chang L, Wei T (2010) Moving from agenda to action: evaluating local climate change action plans. J Environ Plan Manag 53(1):41–62Google Scholar
  63. Timotijevic L, Raats MM (2007) Evaluation of two methods of deliberative participation of older people in food-policy development. Health Policy.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2006.09.010 Google Scholar
  64. United Nations (2014) World urbanization prospects 2014 revision. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  65. United Nations (2017) New urban agenda. United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development. United Nations, QuitoGoogle Scholar
  66. Wiek A, Iwaniec D (2014) Quality criteria for visions and visioning in sustainability science. Sustain Sci 9:497–512.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0208-6 Google Scholar
  67. Wiek A, Lang D (2016) Transformational sustainability research methodology. In: Heinrichs H, Martens P, Michelsen G, Wiek A (eds) Sustainability science: an introduction. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 31–41Google Scholar
  68. Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL (2011) Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustain Sci 6(2):203–218.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0132-6 Google Scholar
  69. Wood JM, Quinn JE (2016) Local and landscape metrics identify opportunities for conserving cavity-nesting birds in a rapidly urbanizing ecoregion. J Urban Ecol 2(1):1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jue/juw003 Google Scholar
  70. Wu J (2014) Urban sustainability: an inevitable goal of landscape research. Landsc Ecol 25:1–4.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9444-7 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Earth and Environmental SciencesFurman UniversityGreenvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyFurman UniversityGreenvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations