Teaching and Learning for a Sustainable Future
© UNESCO 2010
MODULE 17: SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES
INTRODUCTION
The kind of change required by sustainability implicates each community,
each household, each individual. Successful solutions to problems at this
level of society will need to be rooted in the cultural specificity of the town or
region if the people are to be supportive of and involved in such change.
Source: UNESCO (1997) Educating for a Sustainable Future: A Transdisciplinary
Vision for Concerted Action, paragraph 114.
In the end, sustainable development will be made at the local community level. All
the other changes in favour of sustainability – by business, by national governments
and by international agencies – help create the conditions that facilitate action for
sustainable development at the local level by individuals, families, schools, hospitals,
workplaces and neighbourhoods.
As a result, all over the world people are working together to build a sustainable
future at the local level. The focus of this module is on the actions being taken by
citizens, local communities and governments to create towns and communities that
are more sustainable. The sustainable communities movement has diversified since
Local Agenda 21 initiatives were being promoted after the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.
These ‘new’ approaches to local community sustainability include Transition Towns,
Eco-villages, Neighbourhood Renewal programmes, Low (or Zero) Carbon Towns,
One Planet communities, local currency initiatives and many others.
The urban focus of this module complements the focus on rural communities in other
modules, e.g. Module 8 on local village health projects and Module 15 on sustainable
agriculture.
The module provides examples of ways in which communities around the world are
addressing local problems such as poverty and loneliness, unemployment and
economic decline, pollution and traffic congestion. This focus on solutions helps
establish several principles for sustainable community building that can be integrated
into educational programmes.
OBJECTIVES




To appreciate the scale of urbanisation around the world and the
opportunities and problems that this brings;
To identify characteristics of a sustainable community and principles of
sustainable community development;
To use these characteristics and principles to analyse case studies of
sustainable community development around the world; and
To recognise the different approaches in sustainable community movement
and their contribution to sustainable community development and local
citizenship.
ACTIVITIES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The urban transformation
What is a sustainable community?
Local solutions to global problems
Approaches to sustainable communities
Reflection
REFERENCES
Barton, H. (2000) Sustainable Communities: The Potential for Eco-neighbourhoods,
Earthscan, London.
Condon, P. (2010) Seven Rules for Sustainable Communities: Design Strategies for
the Post Carbon World, Island Press.
Desai, P. (2009) One Planet Communities: A Real Life Guide to Sustainable Living,
John Wiley & Sons.
Girardet, H. (2006) Creating Sustainable Cities (Schumacher Briefings), Green
Books.
Hopkins, R. (2008) The Transition Handbook: from oil dependence to local resilience,
Green Books.
McCamant, K. and Durrett, C. (2011) Creating Cohousing: Building Sustainable
Communities, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island BC.
O’Meara Sheehan, M. (2001) City Limits: Putting the Brakes on Sprawl, Worldwatch
Paper No.156, Worldwatch Institute.
Register, R. (2006) EcoCities: Rebuilding Cities in Balance with Nature, New Society
Publishers, Gabriola Island BC.
Roseland, M. (2005) Toward Sustainable Communities: Resources for Citizens and
Their Governments (3rd Edition), New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island
BC.
UNCHS State of the World’s Cities Reports (2010/11, 2008/9, 2006/7), UNCHS,
Nairobi.
UNEP (2000) Urban environmental management, Industry and Environment, 23(1-2).
UNESCO (2000) Cities of Today: Cities of Tomorrow, United Nations
CyberSchoolBus, New York.
United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (2001) Cities in a Globalising World:
Global Report on Human Settlements 2001, Earthscan, London.
INTERNET SITES
Green Communities Guide
International Council for Local Environment Initiatives
Sustainable Cities
United Nations International Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat)
United Nations International Conference on Human Settlements (Istanbul+5)
We the Peoples: 50 Communities
Transition Network
Sustainable Communities Network
Sustainable City Visualisation Tool
Global Ecovillage Network
One Planet Communities
CREDITS
This module was written for UNESCO by John Fien and Clayton White, in part,
utilises resources of the International Council for Local Environment Initiatives and a
teaching module on Sustainable Communities prepared by World Resources
Institute.
ACTIVITY 1: THE URBAN TRANSFORMATION
COMMUNITY SURVEY
What is your community like?
Is it located in the middle of a large city, or is in it a remote rural area? What is the
quality of environmental health? Is it well serviced with public transport, schools,
hospitals and parks? Do people have satisfying and enjoyable work? Is there
religious and ethnic harmony? Do people feel that their voice is heard by key
decision makers?
Questions such as these are a guide to monitoring how sustainable your community
is.
Assess the progress your community is making to a sustainable future.
URBAN GROWTH
While the human population will double over the next 50 years, our consumption of
energy and other resources is growing even faster. The amount of land required to
produce the food, fuel and fibre to sustain the average person in the North with their
present lifestyles – their Ecological Footprint – is nearly three times their share of the
productive land available on Earth.
This is especially the case in cities. For example, the ecological footprint of London is
120 times the area of the city itself. This has grave consequences:
Since most of us spend our lives in cities and consume goods imported from
all over the world, we tend to experience nature merely as a collection of
commodities or a place for recreation, rather than the very source of our lives
and well-being.
Source: Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. (1996) Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing
Human Impact on the Earth, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, Canada, p. 7.
Cities have grown remarkably in recent years. See for example a table which shows
the population of the world’s mega cities, their projected populations, and change in
ranking by 2025.
Tracking the social, economic and ecological problems that arise from urban growth,
the World Resources Report for 1996-97 stated that:
The world is in the midst of a massive urban transition unlike that of any other
time in history. Within the next decade, more than half of the world’s
population, an estimated 3.3 billion, will be living in urban areas – a change
with vast implications both for human well-being and for the environment As
recently as 1975, just over one third of the world’s people lived in urban
areas. By 2025, the proportion will have risen to almost two thirds.
The most rapid change is occurring in the developing world, where urban
populations are growing at 3.5% per year, as opposed to less than 1% in the
more developed regions. Cities are also reaching unprecedented sizes –
Tokyo, 27 million; Sao Paulo, Brazil, 16.4 million; Bombay [Mumbai] , India,
15 million – placing enormous strains on the institutional and natural
resources that support them.
Historically, cities have been driving forces in economic and social
development. Urbanisation is associated with higher incomes, improved
health, higher literacy, and improved quality of life. Other benefits of urban life
are less tangible but no less real: access to information, diversity, creativity,
and innovation.
Yet along with the benefits of urbanisation come environmental and social ills,
some of staggering proportions. These include a diversity of problems, from
lack of access to clean drinking water, to urban air pollution, to greenhouse
gas emissions. Although urban environmental problems defy easy
categorization, they can be grouped into two broad classes: those associated
with poverty and those associated with economic growth or affluence. The
two often coexist within the same city.
Source: World Resources Report, 1996-97: The Urban Environment.
Read a summary of the State of the World’s Cities 2001 which provides an overview
of urban growth in Africa, the Arab States, Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and
the Caribbean, and the world’s industrialised countries.
Read a national report on cities in your country provided to a Special Session of the
United Nations General Assembly in June 2001.
Investigate the problems in several of the world’s largest cities:





Abidjan – Cote d’Ivoire
Jakarta – Indonesia
Detroit – USA
Bangkok – Thailand
Mexico City – Mexico
Compare the impacts of urban growth in cities in the South and the North.
ACTIVITY 2: WHAT IS A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY?
Begin by opening your learning journal for this activity.
A sustainable community is far-seeing enough, flexible enough, and wise
enough to maintain its natural, economic, social, and political support
systems.
This is how the city of Olympia in the USA defines a sustainable community. The
people of neighbouring Thurston County define it this way:
A sustainable community continues to thrive from generation to generation
because it has:



A healthy and diverse ecological system that continually performs life
sustaining functions and provides other resources for humans and
other species
A social foundation that provides for the health of all community
members, respects cultural diversity, is equitable in its actions, and
considers the needs of future generations
A healthy and diverse economy that adapts to change, provides longterm security to residents, and recognizes social and ecological limits.
Source: Sustainable Community Roundtable.
STATE OF THE COMMUNITY REPORTING
Olympia and Thurston County are members of the Sustainable Community
Roundtable in South Puget Sound in Washington, USA. Each year, the Roundtable
produces a State of the Community report based on thirteen indicators of a
sustainable community.
Natural Environment
In a sustainable community, people acknowledge the interconnectedness of
all life, put the needs of the ecosystems and the human spirit above special
interests, and accept responsibility for creating a healthy, sustainable
environment.
Population
In a sustainable community, the population is stable and within the ‘carrying
capacity’ of the land, water, and air.
Water Consumption
In a sustainable community people use water no faster than it can be
naturally replenished. This means that consumption can be no greater than
the maximum sustainable yield of the water supply.
Food Production
In a sustainable community, farmland is preserved for local food production,
farmers and workers earn a living wage, non-toxic and humane practices are
utilized, and soil and water are protected for future generations.
Use of Raw Materials
In a sustainable community, people use materials efficiently, producing little
or no waste that cannot be reused, reprocessed, or reabsorbed by the Earth.
Transportation
In a sustainable community, most daily needs can be met by foot, bicycle or
public transportation. Public and private vehicles are powered by clean,
renewable fuels.
Housing
In a sustainable community, structures are designed and built in ways that
meet human needs and support social and environmental health. Housing is
safe, affordable, energy and resource efficient, and available to all.
Economy
In a sustainable community, a diverse local economy supports the basic
needs of everyone through satisfying, productive work, while making efficient
use of materials and energy.
Social Equity and Justice
In a sustainable community, human culture holds a high standard of equity
and justice in the relationships among people and in their relationship with the
natural world. People honor and uphold the well-being of the whole
community.
Governance and Participation
In a sustainable community, everyone is involved in community affairs and
there is a high level of co-operation, collaboration, and consensus at all levels
of governance: neighborhood, city and region.
Education
In a sustainable community, everyone is engaged in lifelong learning –
developing the self-esteem, knowledge, skills, and wisdom to live in ways that
support personal, social, and environmental health.
Health
In a sustainable community, people take responsibility for their individual well
being and co-operate to nurture social and environmental health.
Spirituality
In a sustainable community, people appreciate their unique potential for
growth, invention becomes a daily event and random acts of kindness
become the norm. It means showing by your actions what your true beliefs
and values are. A safe, caring community comes about with work, interaction,
communication, and planning.
Read the 2006 State of the Community report for South Puget Sound.
The 2006 Report is the most recent in a series of updates of a original survey
(baseline) published in 1995.
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY INDICATORS
State of the Community reports such as these are based upon indicators of
sustainability.
Indicators are criteria that can be monitored regularly in order to identify trends in a
community. Monitoring progress on different indicators can help a community
prioritise their needs and define objectives for community planning and action.
Indicators are of value to all the stakeholders in a community, including:





Residents
Business, industry and trade unions
Community organisations
National and provincial governments
Mayors, councillors and city planners
The 1996 United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) identified
seven categories of indicators for community sustainability:







Background data
Environmental management
Socioeconomic development
Local government
Infrastructure
Housing
Transport
These indicators are currently being used in many cities around the world to prepare
reports on local community sustainability.
Review other indicators of local sustainability.
Prepare a State of the Community report for your community using the thirteen
indicators used by the South Puget Sound Roundtable.
Q1:
What six aspects of a sustainable community are most important to you?
Why?
Q2:
How did you rate your community on these six aspects? Explain your rating by
identifying the relative strengths and limitations of your community on each of
these factors.
Q3:
Identify the policies and actions being undertaken by your local government to
address these six aspects.
Note: A search of your local council’s Internet site will be useful for answering
Question 3. If it does not have an Internet site, print the page of your learning journal
and use it as a guide in library research.
ACTIVITY 3: LOCAL SOLUTIONS TO GLOBAL
PROBLEMS
Begin by opening your learning journal for this activity.
Four communities that are making plans and moving towards local sustainability are
explored in this activity. The four case studies are located in North, Central and
South America and were prepared by the Environmental Education Project of the
World Resources Institute.
Each case study is presented in two parts.
Part 1 summarises a local problem – and invites you to take the role of a member of
that community. Your task is to analyse the problem and then use principles of
sustainable community development to suggest possible solutions.
Part 2 describes what the real community actually did to solve the problem.
The case studies are on three themes:
WATER SUPPLY – GUATEMALA CITY, GUATEMALA
Part 1 – The Problem
In Guatemala City, capital of the mountainous nation of Guatemala in Central
America, a unique engineering masterpiece is displayed. Built in 1904 by Francisco
Vela, it models in detail the topography of this rugged country. A hydraulic system
brings the rivers, lakes and oceans to life for the visitor.
Hydraulic systems of a different sort, or their lack, are at the centre of one of
Guatemala City’s most troublesome problems, that is, the lack of access by all of its
residents to a clean, safe water supply.
Like other developing country cities, Guatemala City grew very quickly during the
1980s. Its population almost doubled in under 40 years, from 477,000 in 1955 to
946,000 in 1995, and the metropolitan region is even larger, comprising
approximately 3 million people.
A large portion of the residents live in precarious and illegal squatter settlements.
These have grown up because there is not enough housing for all the new arrivals to
the city in the legal neighbourhoods. The residents of the squatter settlements have
no legal rights to the land, pay no taxes, and receive no city services. Their homes
are without water or toilets. Most residents obtain their water from a few public taps
or from privately owned water trucks. Water purchased from these trucks is often
contaminated. Because they do not own their own homes, most residents cannot
obtain credit to invest in improving housing standards and infrastructure.
According to the Ministry of Planning, more than three quarters of the city’s
population live on incomes that are below the poverty line, that is, less than US$100
a month.
Because of poor living conditions, including the lack of clean water and the
consumption of contaminated water, people in these settlements suffer many health
problems. Prime among them is the high incidence of often fatal diarrhoeal diseases.
A 1990 study found that the prevalence of acute diarrhoeal diseases and acute
respiratory infections in precarious settlements was more than twice as high as in the
rest of the city. Infant mortality rates, which increased by 10% between 1979 and
1984, exceed 64 per thousand live births and can reach as high as 130 in many of
these settlements. Many residents are not aware of the relationship between their
living conditions and health problems.
Q4:
If you were the mayor of Guatemala City, what would you encourage the city
council to do about conditions in the squatter settlements?
Q5:
How can running water be supplied even though you do not have money for
standard water mains and the people do not have enough money to pay taxes?
(Tip: You do not have to get water into every home. The World Health
Organisation defines ‘access to water’ as having a tap for running water within
200m of each house.)
Q6:
What would you do to improve health conditions in these settlements? Who
might you turn to for help in these endeavours, locally, nationally, globally.
Part 2 – Solutions For Local Sustainability
After an outbreak of typhoid fever, residents of El Mezquital, a squatter settlement of
9400 families in Guatemala City, got help from the United Nations Children’s Fund
(UNICEF) to support the installation of an emergency water supply system. Working
with the French organisation, Medecins sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders),
and with a community association, UNICEF purchased and helped distribute the
construction materials for 13 community water taps, which were installed by local
volunteers. Student nurses went door to door dispensing antiparasitic medicines to
children.
Soon after the pipes were laid in El Mezquital, a change in city government provided
the opportunity for a more broad-based effort to address similar problems in other
settlements. UNICEF, in co-operation with a local organisation called COINAP
(Committee for the Attention to the Population of Precarious Areas in Guatemala
City) started working with communities to help identify the best ways to provide water
to the residents. Community volunteers were trained to conduct surveys to determine
the extent of the health problems. Next they met with the COINAP technical team to
discuss the volunteers’ ideas about possible solutions. Volunteers were also taught
how and why diarrhoea occurs and how to prevent children from being infected. As
the community members learned more about the health impacts, they became
strongly motivated to help improve their living conditions.
Two different models for improved water supply were developed: the single-source
tank and the well. Both required active community involvement, outside technical
help, and the institutional support of COINAP.
In Chinautla (one neighbourhood of Guatemala City), residents asked the city to
install the single-source water tank. Such units are usually installed only on a
temporary basis at construction sites. From this single source, the community
created a supply network to reach individual residences. UNICEF provided the funds
for the pipes and other materials, and each family provided its own home connection.
The local community association receives the bill from the water company, and it
collects payment from residents for the water they have used. A resident chosen by
the community from residents is set aside for maintenance, and any surplus will go
toward other local infrastructure needs such as drains and sewers. Although the cost
of the water is more than the cost of households connected to the city water system,
it is still far less than the exorbitant rates the private trucks had charged.
Q7:
Summarise the principles of sustainable community development that were
followed in Guatemala City.
HOUSING – CALI, COLOMBIA, AND THE BRONX, NEW YORK, USA
Part 1 – The Problem
Cali, home to 1.7 million residents, is Colombia’s second largest city. Located in a
rich agricultural valley, Cali is an industrial and commercial centre for the South
American country.
In another part of the Americas, far to the north of Cali, 16.5 million residents call
New York City home. Because housing issues are so different in developing versus
developed countries, this case study concentrates on a neighbourhood in each of
these cities: the squatter settlement of Aguablanca in Cali and the downtrodden
Melrose Commons neighbourhood in South Bronx.
CALI
Although the overall environmental quality in Cali is good, many residents live in
extreme poverty in illegal squatter settlements. Because these communities have
sprung up on government-owned or privately owned land without the required
permits, they lack basic services such as water, sewage, electricity, roads and
garbage collection. Schools and primary health care are also lacking.
One such district is Aguablanca, a settlement of 350,000 residents covering 3700
acres (1500 hectares). Aguablanca attracted large numbers of people looking for a
better place to live after a series of natural disasters and political upheavals in the
1980s.
Most of Aguablanca’s housing consists of illegally constructed shacks by the
residents, most of whom had no home-building skills. Building a house or even
improving an existing structure was very expensive because middlemen had inflated
the prices of the only construction materials available locally.
Q8:
If you were the mayor of Cali, what practical steps would you take to address
the housing problems in Aguablanca?
Q9:
As mayor of Cali, what do you think the role of the Aguablanca residents
should be in solving their problems?
Q10:
Besides the residents themselves, who else (people or organisations) might
need to be involved in these efforts? What would they do?
Q11:
What obstacles might you encounter? How would you deal with them?
THE BRONX
Many areas of the Bronx present alarming scenes of urban environmental
deterioration. The crime rate is high in these depressed surroundings. The
neighbourhoods cry out for redevelopment.
In 1992, residents of Melrose Commons in the South Bronx discovered that the city
was planning to revitalise their neighbourhood, which is home to some 6000 people,
primarily of African-American and Latino descent. But the City Planning Department
had been working on the plan since 1985 and had sought almost no community
participation.
Residents learned that the ‘revitalisation’ would displace many community members
from their homes, apartments, and businesses. A few residents were outraged that
people who had stayed in the community through thick and thin would be rewarded
with the loss of their homes. They were also frustrated that the plan was developed
by people who did not live in or know the neighbourhood.
Q12:
If you lived in Melrose Commons and were one of the people concerned about
the city’s plan, what would be the first thing you would do to be heard?
Q13:
If that did not work, what else would you try?
Q14:
As a Melrose Commons resident, what would you like to see your community
become? What sorts of residential and commercial buildings, parks and
streets would provide an environment that is enjoyable to live in?
Part 2 – Solutions For Local Sustainability
CALI
The mayor of Cali worked with the Carvajal Foundation, a local philanthropic
organisation, to develop a program to help the people of Aguablanca help
themselves. The Foundation provided the leadership for the program and coordinated the efforts of government, private business, and the residents of the
community.
The Foundation built a warehouse in the middle of the squatter area and encouraged
manufacturers to sell building materials to residents at wholesale prices.
Because few of the residents understood basic building concepts, they often
purchased the wrong types of materials or used them incorrectly. So the Foundation
invited architecture students to come up with plans for a sound, simple, modular
house design that residents could use. Residents could start with a single space and
a bathroom and then expand into a fully developed house as resources allowed. The
basic starter house was 183ft² (17m²); the fully developed house was 968ft² (90m²).
Designs for a house with a workshop and a house with a small store were also
developed. The Foundation also got the city to approve building plans and set up an
office at the warehouse where residents could get building permits.
A government-owned bank opened an office where residents could start savings
accounts and obtain construction loans. The bank helped families evaluate their
financial resources and decide how much space they could afford initially. They were
taught how to read blueprints and how to build foundations, walls, and roofs and
install plumping and wiring. They could make a down payment of ₱50,000 (US$600)
and then take out a 10 year loan. The monthly payment for a basic single-space
house with bathroom was ₱20,000 (US$250), which is less than the nominal rent in
the district.
The success of the original program has inspired similar developments in other parts
of the city.
Q15:
Identify the principles of sustainable community development that were
followed in Cali City.
THE BRONX
At a series of public forums held by the Bronx Centre (a community-based volunteer
planning effort), long-time residents angrily denounced the city’s plan. They
organised the Nos Quedamos (‘We’re Staying’) Committee, with help from two
community organisers from the Bronx Centre and two architects.
In one year, the group had 168 meetings, and each week it sent out about 250 faxes
to city officials. The original plan was withdrawn by the city, and the Nos Quedamos
Committee became the focal point of a revised plan.
The residents’ insights produced many significant changes. The original plan called
for a 2 acre (8000m²) park in the middle of the project, but residents thought that
such a park would become a haven for drug addicts and criminals. The revised plan
includes many varied spaces that cater for different ages and different purposes that
are more easily kept safe.
The original plan proposed a middle-income community with 4000 units of small,
attached houses over 30 blocks. The plan developed by the Nos Quedamos
Committee envisioned a low-to-mid-rise mixed-income residential community with
about 1500 new dwelling units, 80 rehabilitated units, 174,000ft² (16,250m²) of space
in community structures.
One key to the plan was the use of six-to-eight story mixed use buildings with stores
at the street level and apartments above. Residents felt that such buildings would
provide enough people on the streets and in the stores to help make the
neighbourhood safe. Another key was to minimise the displacement of residents.
Under the original plan, about 78 families and 80 businesses were to be moved out
of the area; under the new plan, about 55 families and 51 businesses would have to
move, but almost all would be given top priority for new homes and stores within the
community.
By mid 1994 the new plan had been approved by all the necessary parties. The first
phase of the project will include all of the building types proposed for the larger
development and can thus serve as a model for subsequent development.
Q16:
Identify the principles of sustainable community development that were
followed in The Bronx.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE – MINNEAPOLIS, USA
Part 1 – The Problem
Minneapolis was founded in 1852 at the site of a thundering sixteen foot waterfall on
the Mississippi River. The waterfall gave the city its name, which comes from the
Greek and Dakota words meaning ‘city of waters’. A model sustainable energy
source, the falls powered the city’s flour mills for decades.
Just outside of the downtown area in Minneapolis lives the most culturally diverse
community in Minnesota. More than 100 ethnic groups are represented in the Phillips
neighbourhood. More than half of the 17,500 residents are members of minority
groups, and 24% of these people are Native Americans.
COMBATING ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM
For over a decade, the city and county have wanted to build a large county garbage
transfer station in the Phillips neighbourhood. Residents were against this project
from the beginning, for several reasons:





They believed it was an inappropriate land use for a residential
neighbourhood.
The site was one block away from six restaurants, a nursing home, and
residential homes and two blocks away from a high school.
The Phillips neighbourhood had already experienced heavy environmental
impacts, as evidenced by the high percentage of lead poisoning cases in
children.
The Phillips neighbourhood could not tolerate an increase in truck traffic.
Every year, several children were hit by trucks or cars because a main truck
route passes through Little Earth of United Tribes, a public housing project,
which was five blocks away from the proposed site.
The transfer station would provide only three jobs, which most likely would
not be held by neighbourhood residents.
Residents attempted to negotiate with the city and county, but got nowhere. When
the county began to demolish 27 homes to clear the proposed site, the residents
banded together and filed lawsuits to stop the project. The people saw this as a case
of ‘environmental racism’. They believed that their neighbourhood was being chosen
to carry an unfair burden because of its large minority, low-income population.
A series of meetings was held in the spring of 1992 by the community group, People
of Phillips, to discuss what to do next. The group could not come up with a workable
plan. When an outside adviser to this group asked, “And what will you do with the
land once you win the battle?”, the residents had no response.
Q17:
As a member of the community group, People of Phillips, what actions would
you suggest to keep the garbage transfer station out of your neighbourhood?
Q18:
What would you propose be done with the garbage transfer station site if you
won?
Q19:
What type of use of that land would most enhance and help your community?
Q20:
What processes should your community use to decide what to do with the
land?
Part 2 – Solutions For Local Sustainability
Soon after the series of meetings in the spring of 1992, the community received a
response to the adviser’s question in an unusual way. One of the residents had a
dream in which she saw a vision of ‘windmills, banks of trees, and wildlife
surrounding a glass building with solar panels on the roof’. She told the other
residents about this dream, and together they began to work to make it a reality.
The dream marked a change in the community’s focus. Instead of working against
something bad, they now put their energy into working for something good. They
named their project the Green Institute, set up a committee to organise it under the
auspices of the People of Phillips, and began to look for funding. In June 1993 they
opened their office in rented space.
Community members decided that the Green Institute would be an eco-industrial
park with a number of components, including: an ‘incubator’ for new environmental
businesses, a job training site, a research and development centre for
environmentally sound technology, an environmental learning centre, and a place
where new ideas for the Phillips neighbourhood could be generated.
In all of its endeavours, the Institute would be committed to the principle of
sustainability. Its design would include “energy conservation systems, solar
technology, wind turbines to demonstrate the harnessing of wind for energy, and
environmentally friendly materials and design principles.” And because of the
community’s diverse population, the work of the Institute would be guided by the
values, principles, and processes of the ethnic groups involved.
Six months after the Green Institute opened its office, the county gave up on its plans
for the garbage transfer station. Instead, it decided to add on to the existing garbage
incinerator located in downtown Minneapolis.
The Green Institute made a commitment to eliminating garbage from the waste
stream by opening a building materials exchange, called the ReUse Centre, to
handle construction materials that otherwise would have ended up as garbage.
By the end of 1996, the Reuse Centre had eliminated over 50 tons (45 metric tons) of
garbage from the waste stream and created 12 new jobs with a commitment to hiring
neighbourhood residents.
Today, the Green Institute has over 40 staff and a $3.3 million budget. A combination
of public and private funding has established a $6 million eco-industrial park which
has won many business, social and environmental design awards. It has the
potential of adding 200 jobs in the Phillips neighbourhood.
Q21:
Identify the principles of sustainable community development that were
followed in Minneapolis.
ACTIVITY 4: APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABLE
COMMUNITIES
The achievements of Guatemala City, Cali City, The Bronx and Minneapolis show
that community action for local sustainability can be very successful. However, you
may have noticed that the way each community focused on a limited range of
problems meant that a comprehensive plan for sustainable community development
was not possible.
This activity describes three initiatives that have the purpose of making such a plan –
and acting on it.
TRANSITION TOWNS
The Transition Towns ‘movement’ began in Kinsale, County Cork, Ireland in 2005.
And in a relatively short period of time, the movement has grown into a global
phenomenon with Transition Towns now located in countries ranging from the US
and New Zealand through to Chile and Italy.
A Transition Initiative (which could be a town, village, university or island, etc.) is a
community-led response to the pressures of climate change, fossil fuel depletion and
increasingly, economic contraction. There are thousands of initiatives around the
world starting their journey to answer one crucial question:
For all those aspects of life that this community needs in order to sustain itself
and thrive, how do we significantly rebuild resilience (to mitigate the effects of
Peak Oil and economic contraction) and drastically reduce carbon emissions
(to mitigate the effects of Climate Change)?
The community self-organises to respond in three phases.
First, it self-organises in groups in all the key areas such as food, transport, energy,
housing, education, textiles etc., and creates practical projects in response to that big
question (such as community supported agriculture, car clubs, local currencies,
neighbourhood carbon reduction clubs, urban orchards, reskilling classes).
Second, when the initiative is sufficiently competent with these concepts and
practices, it embarks on an EDAP (Energy Descent Action Plan) process. This is a
community-visioned and community-designed 15-20 year plan that creates a
coordinated range of projects in all these key areas, with the aim of bringing the
community to a sufficiently resilient and low CO₂-emitting state. A very small handful
of Transition Initiatives have embarked on this phase.
Third, they begin implementing the EDAP, sharing successes and failures with other
Transition Initiatives that are travelling the same path. As of March 2010, no initiative
has yet embarked on this phase.
Investigate the 12 steps that a community can follow to navigate their “transition”.
Explore Transition Iniatives around the world.
ONE PLANET COMMUNITIES
The One Planet framework was devised to help communities think holistically about
sustainability and create places where living and working within a fair share of our
planet’s resources is easy, attractive and affordable.
Specifically the framework helps communities to tackle two, related sustainability
challenges:
1. The need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a level sufficient to avert
dangerous climate change; and,
2. The need to reduce resource consumption to a sustainable, one planet, level.
The key strength of the framework is its use of the 10 One Planet principles as a
guide towards appropriate solutions.
Explore One Planet communities around the world.
LOCAL AGENDA 21
The Local Agenda 21 concept was developed by the International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) to help local governments implement the
recommendations in Agenda 21 that:
By 1996 most local authorities in each country should have undertaken a
consultative process with their populations and achieved a consensus on a ‘local
Agenda 21’ for the community.
Through consultation and consensus-building, local authorities would learn from
citizens and from local, civic, community, business and industrial organizations and
acquire the information needed for formulating the best strategies. The process of
consultation would increase household awareness of sustainable development
issues. Local authority programmes, policies, laws and regulations to achieve
Agenda 21 objectives would be assessed and modified, based on local programmes
adopted.
Source: Agenda 21, Chapter 28.
Sharing practical experiences between towns and cities is one of the most effective
strategies for sustainable community development. This has been facilitated by
several national and international networks. Two of the most significant networks are
the United Nations (Habitat II) process and the International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI).
Investigate how to prepare a Local Agenda 21 Plan.
ACTIVITY 5: REFLECTION
Begin by opening your learning journal for this activity.
Completing the module: Look back through the activities and tasks to check that you
have done them all and to change any that you think you can improve now that you
have come to the end of the module.
Q22:
What can you do, as a teacher, to encourage student participation in
community sustainability initives?


See Module 7 on Citizenship Education.
See Module 27 on Community Problem Solving.
Q23:
Which case study in Activities 3 & 4 would be the most useful for your class to
study? Why?
Q24:
How could a community survey be used to involve students in developing a
plan for community sustainability?
The World’s Mega Cities Population 2007 (and 2025
estimated)
Source: State of the World’s Cities Report 2008/9, UNCHS, Nairobi.
Indicators of Local Sustainability
Background data









Land use
Household formation rate
City population
Income distribution
Population growth rate
City product per person
Woman headed households
Tenure type
Average household size
Socioeconomic Development









Households below poverty line
Adult literacy rate
Informal employment
School enrollment rates
Hospital beds
School classrooms
Child mortality
Crime rates
Life expectancy at birth
Infrastructure




Household connection to water, sewerage, electricity, telephone
Consumption of water
Access to potable water
Median price of water
Transport




Modal split
Expenditure on road infrastructure
Travel time
Automobile ownership
Environmental Management





Wastewater treated
Regular solid-waste collection
Solid waste generated
Housing destroyed
Disposal methods for solid waste
Local Government





Major sources of income
Wages in the budget
Per-capita capital expenditure
Contracted recurrent expenditure ratio
Debt service charge



Government level providing services
Local government employees
Control by higher levels of government
Housing










House price to income ratio
Land development multiplier
House rent to income ratio
Infrastructure expenditure
Floor area per person
Mortgage to credit ratio
Permanent structures
Housing production
Housing in compliance
Housing investment
Cities Using Sustainability Indicators
Albania – Tirana
Angola – Luanda
Antigua & Barbuda – Antigua &
Barbuda
Armenia – Yerevan
Australia – Melbourne
Azerbaijan – Baku
Bangladesh – Chittagong, Dhaka,
Tangail
Barbados – Barbados
Belarus – Minsk
Belize – Belize City
Benin – Porto Novo, Cotonou
Bolivia – Cochabamba, El Alto, La
Paz, Santa Cruz de la S.
Botswana – Gaborone
Brazil – Brasilia, Curitiba, Recife, Rio
de Janeiro
British Virgin Islands – British Virgin
Islands
Brunei Darussalam – Bandar Seri
Begawan
Bulgaria – Sofia
Burkina Faso – Bobo-Dioulasso,
Koudougou, Ouagadougou
Burundi – Bujumbura
Cameroon – Douala, Yaounde
Canada – Hamilton/Wentworth,
Toronto
Central African Republic – Bangui
Chile – Santiago
China – Chengdu, Foshan, Hefei,
Qingdao, Shanghai, Zhangjiagang
Colombia – Bogota
Congo – Brazzaville
Cote d’Ivoire – Abidjan, Bouake
Croatia – Zagreb
Cuba – Camaguey, Cienfuegos, La
Habana, Pinar del Rio
Czech Republic – Prague
Denmark – Copenhagen
Djibouti – Djibouti
Ecuador – Cuenca, Guayaquil, Quito
Egypt – Assiout, Cairo, Gharbeya,
Tenth of Ramadan
El Salvador – San Miguel, San
Salvador, Santa Ana
Estonia – Tallin
Ethiopia – Addis Ababa, Adigrat,
Arbaminch, Awassa, Bahirdar, Dessie,
Diredawa, Gondar, Harar, Jimma,
Mekelle, Nekemte
Fiji – Suva
France – Bordeaux, Brest,
Dunkerque, Lyon, Marseille, Paris,
Rennes, Strasbourg
Gabon – Libreville
Gambia – Banjul, Basse, Farafenni
Georgia – Tbilisi
Germany – Duisburg, Erfurt, Freiburg,
Koln, Leipzig, Wiesbaden
Ghana – Accra, Kumasi, Tamale
Greece – Athens
Guatemala – Guatemala city
Guinea – Conakry, Labe
Guyana – George Town
Hungary – Budapest
India – Bangalore, Bhiwandi, Bombay,
Delhi, Gulbarga, Hubli-Dharbad,
Lucknow, Madras, Mysore, Tumkur,
Varanasi
Indonesia – Bandung, Banjarmasin,
Jakarta, Medan, Semarang, Surabaya
Iran – Mashad, Tehran
Israel – Tel Aviv
Jamaica – Kingston
Jordan – Amman
Kazakhstan – Almaty
Kenya – Kakamega, Kisumu,
Mombasa, Nairobi, Nakuru, Nyeri
Kyrgyzstan – Bishkek
Laos – Vientiane
Latvia – Riga
Lesotho – Maseru
Liberia – Monrovia
Lithuania – Vilnius
Madagascar – Antananarivo
Malawi – Blantyre, Lilongwe, Mzuzu,
Zomba
Mali – Bamako
Malta – Birkirkara
Mauritania – Nouakchott
Moldova – Chisinau
Mongolia – Ulaanbaatar
Morocco – Rabat
Mozambique – Beira, Maputo,
Nampula
Namibia – Oshakati, Windhoek
Nepal – Bharatpur, Biratnagar,
Kathmandu, Pokhara
Netherlands – Amsterdam, Tilburg
New Zealand – Auckland
Niger – Niamey
Nigeria – Ibadan, Kano, Lagos,
Onitsha
Pakistan – Lahore
Paraguay – Asuncion
Peru – Cajamarca, Lima, Trujillo
Philippines – Cebu, Davao, Metro
Manila
Poland – Warsaw
Romania – Bucharest, Tirgoviste
Russian Federation – Kostroma,
Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Novgorod,
Ryazan
Rwanda – Kigali
Sao Tome e Principe – Sao Tome
Senegal – Dakar, Kaoloack, Mbour,
Richard Toll, Tambacounda,
Ziguinchor
Seychelles – Seychelles
Slovak Republic – Bratislava
Slovenia – Ljubljana, Koper, Maribor
Sri Lanka – Colombo
Sudan – Khartoum
Sweden – Stockholm
Tanzania – Arusha, Dar es Salaam,
Mbeya, Mwanza
Tchad – N’Djamena
Togo – Lome
Tunisia – Tunis
Uganda – Jinja, Kampala, Mbale,
Mbarara
Ukraine – Donetsk
United Arab Emirates – Dubai
United Kingdom – Bedfordshire,
Cardiff, Glasgow, Hertfordshire
United States of America – Atlanta,
Des Moines, Hartford, New York,
Seattle
Venezuela – Valencia
Vietnam – Hanoi
Yemen – Sana’a
Yugoslavia (Serbia) – Belgrade, Nis,
Novi Sad, Podgorica
Zaire – Kinshasa
Zambia – Livingstone, Lusaka,
Siavonga
Zimbabwe – Bulawayo, Harare