Abstract nr. 843 Abstract code Advancing Green Urbanism in Urban Regions of America: Central Puget Sound Case Region Author Raker, Jeffrey, Saxion Universities of Applied Sciences, Utrecht, Nederland Co-author(s) - De Vries, Bauke Topic Track 3A - Sustainable and Healthy cities: urban development, health risks and spatialplanning: compact city debates - sustainable development and urban housing - construction Keywords Green Urbanism,Regionalism,Sustainable Development,Urban Policy 1.0 Introduction Green Urbanism is a planning approach that has emerged as a method to address environmentalas well as social and economic challenges associated with urban development. Advancing greenurbanism at a regional scale has been particularly difficult given the distinctive challengesassociated with the American system of planning: low tax revenue for local jurisdictions, low publicland ownership, extensive protections for individual property owners, political fragmentation, andinconsistent and outdated regulations and incentives (Nivola 1999). It is challenging to useregional authority without the existence of federal level leadership on spatial issues as damaginginter-regional competition can result and regional level authorities to enforce such measures havenot been granted in most states (Beatley, 2000). The new presidential administration hasexpressed a strong commitment to sustainable development and climate change issues (Broder &Baker, 2009). It is likely to advance some of these commitments, but it is important to identifygreen urbanism strategies that can be transferred from ‘green’ regions to regions that aredependent on manufacturing that contributes to global warming as well as the factors that givesuch regions the capacity to make such investments (Broder, 2009). The primary problem that this research attempts to understand is the inability of planners toensure green urbanism is coordinated across jurisdictions and advanced in a meaningful mannerin regional scale plans and policy guidance in America. The research evaluation confronts thispredicament by identifying activities that organizations in the Central Puget Sound region aredoing to advance green urbanism in response to specific obstacles and highlighting elements ofthe strategies utilized in the case region that may be strong candidates for application amongother US regions. This research supplements investigations into the characteristics of a community that facilitatesustainability planning (Budd et al., 2008; Brody et al., 2008; Jepson, 2004; Wheeler, 2000) andadds to the body of knowledge regarding regional scale green urbanism in America (Beatley,2000; Beatley & Wheeler, 2004; Jepson, 2004) by providing an additional level of detail on a caseregion that is commonly identified for its exemplary approach to sustainable urban development.

An assessment by experts in multiple sectors and scales is utilized to identify the tools or tacticsgenerated in the Central Puget Sound and to assign groupings of these strategies that are goodcandidates to be transferred to regions exhibiting less favorable characteristics. 2.0 Literature Review Edward J. Jepson identified 39 sustainability-oriented urban policies and surveyed whether theywere being implemented among 390 US cities as well as identifying the principal impediments totheir implementation (Jepson, 2004). Jepson found that the regional location, population size, andeducational attainment did not impact whether a community can implement these tools and a lackof knowledge, low public interest, and a perception that tools are inappropriate for planners havebeen more influential than political opposition, administrative limitations, and fiscal constraints(Jepson, 2004). He concluded that “all communities have an essentially equal potential toimplement,” but indicated that the level at which policies are pursued varies (Jepson, 2004). Hehighlighted the need to pursue research to explore whether this variation is dependent on ‘localpolitical culture and leadership’, ‘proximate environmental conditions’, the ‘nature of state laws’,the ‘effectiveness of interest groups’, or other variables (Jepson, 2004). William Budd, John C. Pierce, and Barbara Chamberlain developed a sustainability index for citiesin the U.S. and assessed the association between specific sustainable urban planning policies andcultural factors present in each location (Budd et al., 2008). In advancing on findings in previousresearch, they were able to identify a positive correlation between those communities moreinvested in sustainable urban development policies and expressions of a strong social capital(Putnam, 2000), a ‘creative class’ (Florida, 2002), and a ‘moralistic’ cultural heritage – historicsettlement of population with ideals for “politics as a public activity [with] government interventionin the economic and social life of a community” (Elazar, 1994; Budd et al., 2008). Samuel D. Brody, Sammy Zahran, Himanshu Grover, and Arnold Vedlitz explored potential factorsthat influence whether a community will voluntarily participate in climate planning programs bylooking at risk, stress, and opportunity among US counties. Risk – a localities vulnerability toclimate change – was determined by looking at the average temperature estimates from 2004 to2099, injuries and fatalities from historic ‘hydro-meteorological events’ from 1960 to 2005, andcounties with 15% of their land area within a coastal watershed. Stress – a localities level ofcontribution to climate change – was determined by using state level GHG emissions data andassigning it proportionately to county-level populations, identifying the percentage of the workforcein more resource-dependent and carbon-intensive industries such as forestry & manufacturing,and the modal split for work trips by non-motorized and transit modes. Opportunity – a localitiesability to adopt climate policies and planning – was determined by looking at the percentage of thepopulation using solar energy, the percentage of the population with a bachelors degree or above,and the number of nonprofit environmental groups based in the county (Brody et al., 2008). All of the factors except solar energy use were found to have an influence on whether a countywould participate in the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) program, which involves strongcommitments to sustainable urban development tools (Brody et al., 2008). For characteristics ofrisk a county with 15% more area in a coastal watershed is 3.8 times more likely to adopt the CCPand a level of 118 more fatalities and injuries in a county is associated with a 36% increase in thelikelihood of participation (Brody et al., 2008). For characteristics of stress a higher percentage ofnon-motorized and transit use in a county is associated with a 17% increase in the likelihood of

participation and an 8% higher level of carbon-based employment is associated with a 50%decrease in the likelihood of participation (Brody et al., 2008). For characteristics of opportunity acounty is almost 3 times more likely to participate for every additional environmental nonprofit anda 7% higher level of a county’s population that is college educated is associated with a 68%increase in the likelihood of participation (Brody et al., 2008). These findings indicate that regional location, population size, and education have an influence onthe adoption of such strategies and pinpoints a number of regions in the US that share specificcombinations of these characteristics. ‘Hotspots’ of these factors were identified to highlightlocations where counties participated in the CCP program (Brody et al., 2008). The spatial mapsreveal how the communities that contribute most to climate change and are less vulnerable to itseffects are less likely to participate in these types of planning policies (Brody et al., 2008). In Planning for Metropolitan Sustainability (2000) Stephen M. Wheeler highlighted a number offeatures that are important in ensuring that a strong commitment to regional sustainability planningcan be achieved: (1) Establishment of regional visions & plans that can be diffused to localgovernment and establish consensus on policy issues, (2) Regional coalition building facilitated byplanners & politician with an environmental, social equity, and business organization orientation,(3) Establishment of stronger regional authorities with statutory authorities over a specific area ofplanning with higher level government support and the ability to channel finance to local projectsand programs, (4) State-supported intergovernmental incentive frameworks that lead to betterregional coordination, (5) Regional sustainability indicators, (6) Multiple levels of publicparticipation, and (7) Public education & social learning with an ‘accumulation of social capital’(Wheeler, 2000). This framework is useful in organizing the elements of green urbanism utilized ata regional scale and assessing the level of green urbanism commitments among varying regionsof the US as it is the only contemporary reference specifically targeted to the assessment of‘metropolitan’ or regional level sustainability planning whereas the other resources investigatedare more targeted to city and county level commitments (Wheeler, 2000). 3.0 Research Methods The analysis in this research attempts to advance on the findings in Jepson, 2004 by fulfilling itscall for an investigation into ‘real life’ examples and a more firm establishment as to the ‘exactnature’ of the sustainable urban development tools that have been enacted (Jepson, 2004). Theevaluation provides an updated list of green urbanism approaches being explored and abackground of information on specific perceptions from experts in the case region. Wheeler’s framework has been selected as the primary mode of analysis for assessing the caseregion’s efforts to advance green urbanism. The interviews and planning document review arecompared with the regional sustainable development framework provided by Wheeler in order todiscover the level in which these strategies are being implemented and the level at which the fullrange of tools in the region are vulnerable to specific obstacles. In expanding on the analysis in Brody et al., 2008, this research seeks “contextualunderstanding… that broad statistical analysis cannot accomplish” and evaluates adopted policiesand the level at which they can be effectively implemented (Brody et al., 2008). It also highlightssome elements for “how and why jurisdictions commit to climate change plans and policies” (Brodyet al., 2008). The interviews are used to identify whether tools in use in the region have any

potential application in communities exhibiting low risk – high stress – low opportunitycharacteristics. Finally, the comments in the interviews and planning documents also helpestablish whether strategies might be implemented in traditionalist and individualist culturalenvironments as well as areas with lower social capital and creative class characteristics asdescribed by Budd et al., 2008. Accessibility to a number of important stakeholders has been enhanced by past workingrelationships with a number of those interviewed. In the interest of ‘reflexivity’ it is important to notethat the author of this evaluation has worked as a regional planner in the Central Puget Sound atan organization that understands there are advantages in experimentation that are associated withhigher levels of differentiation among local jurisdictions and market-based approaches that areenacted, but maintains that these activities should be coordinated within the organizing frameworkof regional regulatory authorities that have some capacity to enforce regional scale policy andensure coordination among fragmented jurisdictions and conflicting local level priorities. As this isthe case, it is particularly important to ‘manufacture distance’ to avoid any conclusions that aredeveloped out of “a deep and blinding familiarity” (McCracken, 1988). For this research examination it has been advantageous to be located outside of the US for morethan a year. Study on the variances between the Dutch and the American cultural definitionsregarding nature and different methods that have been employed have been important inestablishing a more externally oriented assessment of the situation in the case region. Locatingoutside of one’s home country is found to be a justifiable method of manufacturing academicdistance (McCracken, 1988). 3.1 Conducting Planning Document Review Information on spatial, demographic, ecological, economic, and socio-cultural information wasacquired from a number of reports from the Puget Sound Regional Council as well as local newsarticles in developing a profile of the case region. This review of regional planning documents wasalso conducted in order to highlight definitions for sustainable development applied by regionalorganizations in the case region, identify priorities established in policy, and evaluate performancemeasures to highlight how the region defines success regarding policy implementation. Thisreview included elements of the state Growth Management Act, two versions of the officialregional growth plan (Vision 2020 & Vision 2040) and complementary plans for transportation(Destination 2030) and economic development (Prosperity Partnership Regional EconomicStrategy), and a three year assessment of the implementation of a competing strategy (theCascade Agenda Progress Report). 3.2 Conducting Interviews Interview respondents from multiple scales and multiple sectors were selected in order to acquirea more comprehensive assessment of the actions taken inside and outside of the planning officeas well as the varying motivations behind different organization types. The original sample to beinvestigated included public, private, and non-profit organizations at the local, regional, and statelevel. The final list of 16 interview respondents includes state-level government represented by theManaging Director of the Growth Management Services division of the Washington State

Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development. The regional scale is representedby an interview with a Program Manager at the Puget Sound Regional Council (state and federaldesignated regional planning organization), a Project Manager dedicated to clean technology fromthe Prosperity Partnership (a regional economic development district & business association), anda Project Associate of the Cascade Agenda Cities Program at the Cascade Land Conservancy (aregional nonprofit organization dedicated to assisting local government in relatedregulations/incentives and market-based activities). The Puget Sound Regional Council has identified five ‘metropolitan cities’ as the communities thatare to receive the highest levels of growth through the year 2040 (PSRC, 2008). Local levelgovernment representatives from three cities (Tacoma, Bellevue, & Bremerton) of the fiveidentified (excludes Seattle & Everett due to limited responses) were interviewed as they representthe communities that are likely to face the most vital need for green urbanism initiatives in workingto confront this future growth. Additional perspectives were acquired from a Senior Researcher atSightline (a national level research institute), the head of Twelves Unlimited (a consultancy firm inmarketing), and a Project Assistant with Kitsap SEED (a pilot project to establish an eco-industrialpart with government support). To cover the three most recognized elements of sustainability (society, economy, andenvironment) interviews were also performed with a number of additional organizations with animportant stake in the region. The Urban Bays Project Coordinator at People for Puget Sound(large environmental nonprofit) and the Executive Director of the Cascade Bicycle Club (statewidebicycle advocacy organization) represented the environmental category. An interview with theDeputy Director of the Low Income Housing Institute and Emeritus Professor of Urban Design andPlanning at the University of Washington (a researcher with significant knowledge in communitydevelopment) represented the social dimension. Finally, the Business Development Manager atenterpriseSeattle (a county level economic development organization) and the Government AffairsDirector at the Master Builders Association of Pierce County (a construction industry associationsupporting green building techniques) served as a sampling of organizations with a moreeconomically based perspective. The interview questionnaire covered 10 primary questions covering past experience, definitions ofgreen urbanism, organizational roles, the unique elements of green urbanism in the Puget Sound,measures of success, obstacles to advancing green urbanism, the manifestation of theseobstacles in the case region, green urbanism tools and tactics, an assessment of coordination andintegration in the region, and factors in exporting measures from the case region to other areas. 4.0 Central Puget Sound Case Region The case region is located in Washington State in the extreme northwestern corner of the UnitedStates. The Central Puget Sound region is an area of 6,000 square miles containing four counties:King County, Kitsap County, Pierce County, & Snohomish County (OFM, 2008). All four countieshave coastal areas along the Puget Sound, a water body with a series of islands and inlets thatextend inland from the Pacific Ocean and the Strait of Juan de Fuca (PSRC, 2008). The multi-county region contains 82 cities and towns of varying size and character (Prosperity Partnership,2008). The majority of the cities are contained within an urban growth area adjacent to each otherwithin the areas nearest to the shoreline. A number of satellite cities with their own designatedgrowth boundaries are located outside of the contiguous urban area among rural, agricultural, and

nature areas. The case region contains almost 3.6 million people and 2 million jobs (OFM, 2008). According tothe Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), the region is forecast to grow by roughly 1.4 millionpeople and 1 million jobs by the year 2040 (PSRC, 2008). The planning targets are for 32 percentof the population growth to locate into 216 square miles contained in the five largest cities of theregion (Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, & Tacoma) (PSRC, 2008). Only seven percent of the growth istargeted to occur outside of the targeted urban growth boundary (PSRC, 2008). In connection to research in the literature review, the region exhibits high risk, low stress, and highopportunity characteristics (Brody et al., 2008). All of the counties in the Central Puget Sound areidentified as high opportunity communities that have additional capacity to invest in greenurbanism strategies due to educational attainment and a strong non-profit sector (Brody et al.,2008). As specified in Brody et al., 2008 high risk communities are generally located in line withcoastal proximity and counties in the Puget Sound are vulnerable to flooding and other climaticeffects due to a significant proportion of coastal shoreline and the slope variations in the region(Brody et al., 2008). Although the Central Puget Sound Region has been historically driven byresource-intensive industries such as logging, agriculture, and fishing and other forms of resource-extraction and manufacturing, all of the counties in the case region are characterized as low stresscommunities, unlike the Midwest and Southeast where the economy is still dependent on carbon-based industries and there are low development densities (Brody et al., 2008). The employmentgrowth in the clean technology industries was over 20% from 2005-2007 and expectations are thatthe impact of the industry will be significant given recent commitments to ‘green’ jobs developmentat the state level (Prosperity Partnership, 2008). In addition, many of the sizable industriestargeted for growth such as Information Technology, Business Services, Head Offices, and LifeSciences are likely to be less resource-intensive relative to other industries. The region also exhibits high levels of social capital and creative class and a moralistic politicalsub-culture that supports the adoption of green urbanism tools & tactics (Budd et al., 2008).Seattle has been ranked second among 49 US cities examined for cultural features that supportincreased urban sustainability attributes (Budd et. al., 2008). This ranking indicates that a‘moralistic political culture’ based on Daniel Elazar’s mapping of US sub-cultures is present in thecase region (See Section 2.3.4) (Elazar, 1994; Budd et. al., 2008). This implies that the generalpublic and politicians in the area recognize the importance of common needs and it involves a highlevel of public input in stakeholder decisions (Budd et. al., 2008). A secondary component of thisranking highlights that the region has strong levels of ‘social capital’ based on extensive levels oftrust in public officials and other actors which facilitates risk-taking (Budd et. al., 2008). In addition,the ranking indicates that the region exhibits many of the characteristics that support the formationof a ‘creative class’ as identified by Richard Florida (Budd et. al., 2008). This highlights how thecase region is made up of highly trained grouping of ‘creative professionals’ in high-techindustries, high levels of technology transfer between discovery and product, and some indicationthat there are higher levels of tolerance among diverse communities (Budd et. al., 2008). In combination with the high opportunity, high risk and low stress conditions identified for theCentral Puget Sound Region (Brody et. al., 2008), these cultural characteristics have shaped thestrong ecologically oriented perspective of the region’s residents. The determinant culturalcharacteristics are supported by recent evidence. There has been significant growth in venturecapital in recent years and significant financial commitments have been made toward research

and development that supports innovation in the region (Prosperity Partnership, 2008). In addition,the state has a high level of minority-owned businesses certifications (Prosperity Partnership,2008). Extremely high levels of employer-based charitable giving and Seattle’s top ranking in thenumber of arts organizations per capita of the 50 largest US cities indicate that the region has astrong non-profit sector (Prosperity Partnership, 2008). However, patents remain fairly low relativeto peer regions and even though the region has been able to attract a highly educated workforce,there has been a decline in homegrown postsecondary degrees awarded from 2004-2006 unlikemany peer regions (Prosperity Partnership, 2008). Individual charitable contributions also declinedto levels lower than peer regions (Prosperity Partnership, 2008). In general, these findings supportthe assessment that the region indeed contains elements of a ‘creative class’, a strong level of‘social capital’, and a ‘moralistic political culture’. This assessment also supports the evaluationthat the region contains high opportunity characteristics. In aligning the regional sustainability framework in Wheeler, 2000 to evidence in local planningdocuments and policy (See Figure 1.0), the Central Puget Sound Region appears to maintain astrong framework for sustainability planning with region visions and plans committed to a moresustainable planning agenda for growth management and other forms of green urbanism(Wheeler, 2000). [INSERT FIGURE 1.0] 5.0 Results A large set of green urbanism strategies were identified as part of the interview process. Therewas a significant level of overlap between different interview respondents regarding what theyconsidered to be the most pressing obstacles to the advancement of sustainable urbandevelopment. Many of the responsive measures are carried forward and analyzed for potentialapplication in other regions. Close to 100 strategies were identified among the interview responses (Figure 2.0a, 2.0b, & 2.0c).Many of these strategies fit into the policy areas highlighted in the analysis of strategies amongover 300 cities in Jepson, 2004. A set of nine other categories of tactics were created to deal withthe mass of information: (1) Sustainable Infrastructure & Services, (2) Green Economy & MarketCreation, (3) Planning Philosophy, (4) Monitoring & Benchmarks, (5) Influencing Non-SustainableBehavior, (6) Growth Management & Land Conservation, (7) Green Build, Design, & Restoration,(8) Environmental Planning & Policy Tools, and (9) Equalization of Jurisdiction SustainabilityPlanning Capacity. In analyzing the results, the strategies were evaluated for use among low Risk, high stress, andlow opportunity characteristics as well as the less supportive socio-cultural characteristics.Principles were established as to which types of strategies would be more likely to have an effectin each contextual environment based on interview responses. A specific set of the 100 or sostrategies were selected for those contexts, forming packages of strategies that can be consideredfor application by practitioners in region’s exhibiting these less supportive features. [INSERT FIGURE 2.0a, 2.0b, & 2.0c] 5.1 Strategies that Confront Less Supportive Risk, Stress, & Opportunity Characteristics

As specified in Brody et al., 2008 certain characteristics in a region impact its level of investment ingreen urbanism strategies. Strategies need to be developed to confront low opportunity, highstress, and low risk characteristics in order to advance sustainable urban development incommunities that do not currently support their application (Brody et. al., 2008). The passagesbelow evaluate tools in use in the case region that may help confront some of the limiting factors inthe regions exhibiting less supportive characteristics for sustainability planning. The groupings oftools are listed according to each of these less supportive characteristics (See Figure 3.0). Characteristics of low risk are exhibited in communities that are less vulnerable to climate changebecause they are not located in coastal areas, there are few injuries and fatalities associated withwater and weather effects, and they are not experiencing severe temperature increases (Brody et.al., 2008). A community that is less vulnerable to climate change is less likely to prioritize greenurbanism strategies as an investment for the region. The identified strategies in the case regionthat emphasize more ‘self-interested’ environmental policy are more likely to confront the apathy ofcommunities that exhibit these characteristics. Much of this is likely to involve enhancingeducational initiatives in the region and re-orienting the discussion around the ‘green’ economy.Green urbanism is more likely to be pursued in the interest of cost-savings or other advantagesthat do not necessarily fulfill obligations associated directly with environmental protection, butresult in similar outcomes. The likelihood of implementing other elements of green urbanism in lowrisk communities will depend on local cultural perceptions as these will influence whether acommunity is willing to invest in activities that will benefit other regions that do exhibit higher levelsof vulnerability to climate change. The characteristics of high stress are high greenhouse gas emissions, a high percentage of jobs incarbon-intensive industry, and a low percentage of work trips using public transit and non-motorized transport (Brody et. al., 2008). The set of tools in the case region that may support theestablishment of lower stress are those that set a community on a path to develop ‘green’economy alternatives and reduce the impact of polluting industries. This effort involvesenhancements to local environmental planning and an advocate role for planners to increasemotivations to pursue environmental commitments. In addition, there are a large number ofstrategies to confront non-sustainable transport challenges. High stress communities are more likely to be less responsive to voluntary programs (Brody et al.,2008). The comprehensive planning program as a component of the Growth Management Act,programs to encourage private sector developers to construct projects using green build/design,and a number of successful programs in the Central Puget Sound have been heavily dependenton voluntary commitments. In addition, it is important to note that the strategy to provide ‘lesssupport for a community unwilling to transition to 'green' economy’ as identified in the case regionwould be counterproductive in a community in which the transition from heavy industry will haveextreme socio-economic implications without additional tools to provide job training and otherforms of support in making the shift to more ‘green’ industry alternatives. Low opportunity characteristics involve a low percentage of population with bachelor’s degreesand a low number of non-profit environmental organizations, and one other un-correlated factor(low percentage of solar energy use among the majority of households) (Brody et. al., 2008). Thestrong causal relationship between the opportunity variables – the development of a strongnonprofit community as well as improvements in education – and the likelihood of participation in

establishing climate planning policies may indicate that these are some of the most promisingfactors in initiating climate policies in communities that would not be expected to participate (Brodyet al., 2008). To confront these low opportunity characteristics, it is necessary for a region to first build up basicfoundations such as educational commitments and job growth to allow for a grasp of complicatedenvironmental issues. This effort involves enhancing the advocacy of local planners. Tools thatmay be less effective are efforts that assume a high level of understanding regarding the necessityof commitments to sustainable urban development such as newly introduced growth controls andother more authoritative forms of environmental regulation without a concerted green awarenessprogram. [INSERT FIGURE 3.0] 5.2 Strategies that Confront Less Supportive Socio-Cultural Characteristics The case region has been identified as a community with socio-cultural characteristics that supportthe adoption of urban sustainability attributes (Budd et. al., 2008). Other regions in the UnitedStates do not have these supportive characteristics and the following passages highlight whichstrategies may be considered for application among communities that exhibit low levels of ‘socialcapital’, a less-existent ‘creative class’, and a ‘historical political legacy’ that does not supportsustainability planning (Budd et. al., 2008). The packaged tools are listed according to eachcontext (See Figure 4.0a & 4.0b). Low levels of ‘social capital’ have been expressed as reduced trust in regards to ‘reasoned risktaking’, ‘change to bring improvement’, public officials, and the level of consideration others willtake in regards to individually expressed opinions (Budd et. al., 2008). It is also expressed by aheightened concern for ‘free riding’ which reduces the ability of a community to act in a collectivemanner (Budd et. al., 2008). The significant level of public involvement and the high level ofengagement of local organizations in developing regional plans and funding decisions contributedto the level of trust between the public and government in the Central Puget Sound Region. Inaddition, the broad range of partnerships developed in the region represent an emphasis on both‘bonding social capital’ in which there is internal collaboration within a particular sector and‘bridging social capital’ in which different sectors and organization types collaborate (Putnam &Feldstein, 2003). Methods that contribute to ‘bonding social capital’ help build on existing assets in the region andmaking stronger ties among organizations and institutions with similar interests that can contributeto sustainability planning in an integrated manner. Additional strategies support ‘bridging socialcapital’ primarily by engaging in institutional reorganization and integration in regards to measuresof advancement towards sustainable development. These strategies need to respond to regionsexperiencing poor levels of trust among different sectors of the community. In addition, strategiesthat should be considered are those that enhance overall social objectives. If the culture of a region exhibits supportive characteristics it is an easier task of mobilizing supportto develop explicit commitments to sustainable urban development, whereas external mandatessuch as GHG restrictions, standards for fuel economy, requirements from utilities for a percentageof renewable energy, incentives for water and energy conservation, and incentives for the

development of non-motorized transport facilities are found to be more effective in thosecommunities with reduced levels of social capital (Budd et al., 2008). A community with less of a ‘creative class’ is represented by a lower percentage of a defined set ofprofessionals in ‘creative industries’, low levels of innovation (patents per capita), few ‘high tech’industries (as ranked by the Milken Institute on the ‘Tech Pole Index Rank), and less tolerance fordiversity (as indicated by the ‘Gay Index Rank’) (Budd et. al., 2008). The strategies that enhance aregion’s ‘creative class’ are those that contribute to technological innovation, educationalattainment, the development of ‘high tech industries’, and a celebration of diversity that will attract‘creative industries’ professionals. [INSERT FIGURE 4.0a] In contrast to the more publicly oriented form of governance in communities with a moralistic sub-culture, traditionalistic political sub-culture is characterized by an elitist or more exclusive form ofgovernance in which decision-making is more concentrated into a small group without an activeemphasis on fulfilling ‘the public good’ (Budd et. al., 2008). An Individualistic political sub-cultureinvolves governance that puts more of an emphasis on individual rights and a reduced emphasison governmental intervention (Budd et. al., 2008). These sub-cultures have been found to be lesssupportive of sustainability planning as the reduced level of trust between the public andgovernment in the traditionalistic sub-culture and the lower level of intervention in public issues inthe individualistic sub-culture impairs the ability of planners to implement green urbanismstrategies. Strategies that confront the challenges of a traditionalistic sub-culture will enhance public scrutinyand transparency in government and open the planning process to enhanced levels of politicalinfluence from organizations other than the mainstream public officials. Much of this involves atransition in the planning philosophy that is applied. To confront an individualistic sub-culture it isalso important to re-evaluate the overall planning philosophy, but it is likely that more market-based approaches incorporating more ‘self-interest’ will have the most practical effect. Thestrategies that may be considered closely parallel those applied in a community with low riskcharacteristics. [INSERT FIGURE 4.0b] 6.0 Discussion Findings from the study indicate that strategies to advance the clean technology sector, improvewater and energy efficiencies in buildings and infrastructure, and align economic development andphysical planning may be stronger candidates for application among varying US regions thanthose that depend heavily on the existence of strong state level growth controls, a productiveeconomy with fewer social conflicts, and a high risk level for negative environmental impacts thathave economic ramifications. These dependencies do suggest, however, that the path to advancegreen urbanism also involves a concerted effort to improve education, support the non-profitsector, and gather partnerships among non-traditional allies. These tactics enhance a region’s‘opportunity’ characteristics and improve the capacity of the region to invest in green urbanismtools and tactics that are facilitated by better communication throughout the entire map oforganizations and actors in the community.

Changes made in support of green urbanism have been observed to be generally centered aroundstrategies that yield increases in land and housing costs, which demonstrates a form of ‘greengentrification’ in which more prosperous cities are the communities in which these policies aremore likely to occur (Budd et al., 2008). Tacoma, Washington has been identified as third amongsix communities exhibiting a more integrated approach to sustainable urban development (Jepson,2004). In the interview with the City of Tacoma it was clear that the city had initiated its efforts toaddress economic development in response to severe socio-economic problems, but that it hasnow been able to embrace more of the environmental planning that has been adopted in theregion (Barnett, 2008). This may suggest that the communities that find it more challenging toaddress green urbanism due to a depressed economy and more extensive social problems arealso those in which a more holistic approach to sustainable development is pursued. Thosecommunities with the luxury to pursue extensive green urbanism tools could be emphasizingenvironmental dimensions over the other dimensions of sustainability. Urban regions in the US must be careful not to overextend regional authorities in absence ofeffective state and federal guidance that could level the playing field or equal out local andregional scale commitments to green urbanism. Unlike the strong regional authority that canextend regulatory powers in Portland, the Puget Sound maintains a wider embrace of local scalediversity with regional standards raised through peer-to-peer commitments. This may be a moretransferable approach for regional green urbanism as demographics change through the highmobility of the US population and a certain level of flexibility needs to be written into the system.Portland is experiencing demographic changes that threaten to undermine the relatively heavyhanded commitments the region has made regarding growth controls and the physical planningappears to have outmoded planning for economic development in a manner that has reduced theregion’s potential to pursue a strong green urbanism agenda (Putnam & Feldstein, 2003). However, the interviews have revealed that certain elements of regional development should beaddressed through the expansion of regional authority. In particular, more regional scale guidanceregarding energy, waste, and water systems may improve the alignment of political boundariesand ecological function (Blanco, 2008). Leaders in the Central Puget Sound served as originatorsof the Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement to ensure other regions were developing sustainableurban development programs that support policies to address climate change as they wouldotherwise experience a situation in which their commitment to environmental protection wouldsend highly mobile industries looking for less costly or less bureaucratic opportunities in othercommunities (Blanco, 2008). In the end, the influences on whether tools and tactics from the case region can be applied in adifferent region will heavily depend on the socio-cultural characteristics present in that region. Itmay be the case that a community that has a less intense emphasis on ‘purity’ in nature may beable to embrace the concepts of urban ecology more easily, but in a community that is unable topursue efforts that support the innovations associated with a creative class or a cultural historythat does not allow for high levels of civic engagement and trust for government there should be amore strict adherence to ‘self-interested environmentalism’ that embraces more practicalconsiderations of cost. 7.0 Conclusions & Recommendations

A portfolio of strategies indicated as potential areas to apply green urbanism among varyingcontexts has been developed out of this research. To confront low opportunity characteristics it isimportant to build upon basic social and educational institutions. In high stress communities theapproach should emphasize the economic advantages in the ‘green’ economy. In low riskcommunities it is important to engage in stronger investments in communication to ensure that thelow level of vulnerability to issues such as climate change does not impair a regions capacity toadvance sustainability. In a community with few characteristics of social capital it is important for regional planners andstakeholders to enhance upon and find creative options in engaging the public. In developing andrecruiting a creative class in a community with reduced levels of innovation, the lesson from thePuget Sound appears to be an emphasis on targeting industries that are export-oriented, but moreimportantly elements of this strategy should target industries that will contribute to the transitiontoward a green economy in order to match international peer regions. It is perhaps more difficult torespond to entrenched historical political culture, however, the key strategy in confronting atraditionalistic culture is to enhance civic engagement and political advocacy. One method ofovercoming a community that puts a strong emphasis on individual rights is to first adopt market-based approaches and express environmental planning as a ‘self-interested’ activity. Stakeholders conducting planning must respond to local socio-cultural characteristics and theinteraction between human and natural systems more effectively in formulating a regional strategyto advance green urbanism. This research evaluation has set out some conceptions of strategiesthat may respond more effectively to different levels of risk, stress, and opportunity as well asvarying levels of social capital, creative class, and different political sub-cultures. Additionalresearch should investigate whether the strategies identified as candidates for application in thesevarying planning contexts have been applied among practices conducted by regional planners andtest their level of effectiveness in each environment. Barnett, Elliott. Planner, City of Tacoma. Interview. July 22, 2008. Beatley, Timothy. 2000. Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Island Press,Washington, D.C., USA. Beatley, Timothy; Wheeler, Stephen M. 2004. The Sustainable Urban Development Reader.Routledge, New York, NY. Blanco, Hilda. Emeritus Professor of Urban Design & Planning, University of Washington.Interview. August 12, 2008. Broder, John. 2009. Geography Is Dividing Democrats Over Energy. The New York Times,January 26, 2009. Broder, John M.; Baker, Peter. Obama’s Order Is Likely to Tighten Auto Standards. New YorkTimes, January 25, 2009. Brody, Samuel D.; Zahran, Sammy; Grover, Himanshu; Vedlitz, Arnold. 2008. A spatial analysis oflocal climate change policy in the United States: Risk, stress, and opportunity. Landscape andUrban Planning 87: 33-41.

Budd, William; Lovrich Jr., Nicholas; Pierce, John C.; Chamberlain, Barbara. 2008. Culturalsources of variations in US urban sustainability attributes. Cities, 25: 257-267. Cascade Land Conservancy. 2008. The Cascade Agenda Progress Report. Seattle, WA, USA. Elazar, D. 1994. The American Mosaic: The Impact of Space, Time, and Culture on AmericanPolitics. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Florida, Richard. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure,Community and Everyday Life. Basic Books, Cambridge, MA, USA. Jepson, Edward J. Jr. 2004. The Adoption of Sustainable Development Policies and Techniques inU.S. Cities: How Wide, How Deep, and What Role for Planners? Journal of Planning Educationand Research, 23:229. McCracken, Grant. 1988. The Long Interview. Qualitative Research Methods Series 13. SagePublications, University of Guelph, Canada. Nivola, Pietro S. 1999. Laws of the Landscape: How Policies Shape Cities in Europe and America.Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C., USA. Piro, Rocky. Program Manager, Growth Management Department, Puget Sound Regional Council.Interview. July 17, 2008. Prosperity Partnership, 2008. Central Puget Sound Economic Development District, & PugetSound Regional Council. November, 2008. Puget Sound Regional Competitiveness Indicators2008-2009 Update. Seattle, WA, USA. Puget Sound Regional Council. 1995. Vision 2020: 1995 Update: Seattle, WA, USA. Puget Sound Regional Council. April 5, 2007. Destination 2030 Update: MetropolitanTransportation Plan for the Central Puget Sound Region. Seattle, WA, USA. Puget Sound Regional Council. April 24, 2008. Vision 2040: People-Prosperity-Planet: The GrowthManagement, Environmental, Economic, & Transportation Strategy for the Central Puget SoundRegion. Seattle, WA, USA. Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse & Revival of the American Community.Simon & Schuster, Inc. New York. Putnam, Robert D.; Feldstein, Lewis. 2003. Better Together: Restoring the American Community.Simon & Schuster, Inc. New York. Washington State Department of Community Trade & Economic Development. 2005. The State ofWashington Growth Management Act – 2005 RCW Update. Olympia, WA, USA. Washington State Office of Financial Management. 2008. County & City Data for Washington,Retrieved on December 15, 2008 from: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/localdata

Wheeler, Stephen M. 2000. Planning for Metropolitan Sustainability. Journal of Planning Educationand Research, 20; 133.

Presentation Preference Additional information