Review: Sustainability: Much More than Business as UsualAuthor(s): Edward J. Jepson, Jr.Reviewed work(s):

Planning for Sustainability by Stephen M. WheelerTaking Sustainable Cities Seriously by Kent E. Portney

Source: State & Local Government Review, Vol. 37, No. 2 (2005), pp. 166-171Published by: Carl Vinson Institute, University of GeorgiaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4355398Accessed: 03/05/2010 16:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cviug.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Carl Vinson Institute, University of Georgia is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to State & Local Government Review.

http://www.jstor.org

State and Local Government Review Vol. 37, No. 2 (2005): 166-71

Reviews and Essays

Sustainability: Much More Than Business as Usual

The concepts of sustainable development, "smart" growth, and livable cities have been the

topics of innumerable conferences, books, and reports in recent years. But are we any closer

to understanding exactly what these concepts mean and what public policies actually promote them? In the abstract, few public officials would dispute that all of these terms are desirable

labels to have associated with one's community. After all, no one wants to govern, much

less reside in, an unsustainable, unlivable city with "dumb" growth. But to what extent

can public officials know whether or when their community achieves sustainability, becomes

more livable, or develops patterns that are smart? Have scholars reached any consensus

about the meaning of these concepts or learned what practices promote them?

These issues assume particular significance in light of events such as the Oregon voters'

challenge in the fall of 2004 to the stringent land-use controls embraced by Act 100, which

is part of an array of legislation in that state that was considered by many urban planners to be among the most advanced smart-growth policies in the United States. Measure 37,

passed by a healthy 20 percent margin of Oregon voters, entitles eligible property owners to

receive compensation if land-use regulations restrict the use of property and reduce its fair market value. In lieu of compensation, the measure provides that the government responsible

for the regulation may choose to remove, modify, or not apply the regulation. In this review essay, Dr. Edjepson, an urban planner in the Department of Political Sci?

ence at the University of Tennessee, critiques two recent additions to the academic literature

on sustainable communities. He extracts what public officials should know about the meaning of sustainability and what they can learn from the various initiatives and policies pursued

by communities that intend to promote and measure progress toward sustainability.

David H. Folz

Reviews and Essays editor

This

essay evaluates two relatively re?

cent scholarly works on sustainable

development that have received wide praise

among the urban planning community of

scholars and professionals. Planning for Sus?

tainability (New York: Routledge Press, 2004),

by Stephen M. Wheeler, and Taking Sustainable

Cities Seriously (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,

2003), by Kent E. Portney, are examined in

light of their contribution to the understanding

of the meaning of sustainable development, the

policies that promote it, and the role public of?

ficials have in advancing a process of sustainable

development. Kent Portney (2003, ix), professor of political

science at Tufts University, describes his book,

Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously, as a "system? atic comparison of cities conducted for the pur?

pose of examining specific research hypotheses" related to not only what communities are doing

166 State and Local Government Review

Reviews and Essays

regarding sustainable development but also how

and why they are doing it. Portney (2003, 64)

develops an index that consists of 34 policy and

procedural elements that occur with varying

degrees of frequency among 24 U.S. cities that

have been "identified in the extant literature as

having some form of sustainability initiative."

The remainder of his book is a discussion of

underlying concepts, controversies, and poli? cies that relate to sustainable development. It is

replete with examples and multiple case studies.

In his analyses, Portney attempts to explain why some cities are taking the lead in sustainable

development while others have not pursued sustainable development policies.

Stephen Wheeler, author of Planning for

Sustainability, is an associate professor of com?

munity and regional planning at the University of New Mexico. He describes his book as an

attempt to "provide a systematic background to the subject of sustainability as it cuts across

many different specialties and scales" (Wheeler

2004, 1). After discussing the historical evo?

lution of the sustainability concept, Wheeler

relates it specifically to the profession of plan?

ning in terms of issues and practices on various

geographic and political scales, from interna?

tional to local. He concludes his work with a

short chapter that suggests how planners and

citizens can help to bring about more sustain?

able urban development through incremental

improvements in "institutions, knowledge, values, society, or the physical environment"

(Wheeler 2004, 237).

A Definition of Sustainable

Development

Part of the problem with using sustainable de?

velopment as a framework or basis for state and

local development policies is its definitional am?

biguity. Both books acknowledge this foible and

embrace the most common and widely accepted definition, which is advanced in Our Common

Future; that is, sustainable development is "de?

velopment that meets the needs of the present without sacrificing the ability of future genera? tions to meet their own needs" (WCED 1987,

8). Tb some, the vagueness of this definition

is a source of its strength and appeal, making

possible agreement among many interests. To

others, this vagueness signals failure, leaving

open the possibility that any policy might be

considered acceptable. Both authors concur that the heritage of sus?

tainable development is rooted in the work of

biologists and ecological scientists interested

in the connections between human activities

and the depletion of natural resources. In es?

sence, sustainable development is concerned

with how the human community can maintain

itself indefinitely under conditions of resource

consumption and waste generation. Both of

these conditions imply the existence of limits

(most resources are not infinitely available) and

the need for adaptability (things are constantly

changing). At no point does either author present his

own definition of sustainable development. Nonetheless, several underlying concepts and

assumptions emerge that can be identified as

framing the scope and emphasis of each author's

discussion of sustainable development policies and strategies. For instance, Portney believes

that any economic emphasis in policy should

be on social improvement rather than increased

economic production. Carrying capacity con?

siderations lead him to advocate local self-suf?

ficiency strategies. In his view, the creation of

shared values as well as the disruption of the

status quo are necessities for sustainability. Furthermore, Portney strongly believes in the

concept of community and the environment as a

"commons", i.e., a resource of public value that

unless protected will inevitably be depleted or

consumed by individuals behaving rationally; he devotes an entire chapter to the concept of

"communitarianism." While he acknowledges that logic may not inevitably lead to the inclu?

sion of quality of life and social justice stan?

dards as part of the sustainable development

paradigm, Portney nonetheless presents them as

important?and even necessary?preconditions for cities to become sustainable.

Wheeler traces the sustainable develop? ment movement to a reaction against a mod?

ernist worldview, with its reliance on facts and

its dismissal of values. However, he sees this

movement as arising not from a postmodern

perspective but from an "ecological worldview"

2005 161

Reviews and Essays

that respects diversity while also recognizing the need for common values and rules under

conditions of interdependency. From his per?

spective, it is necessary for a core set of values

to emerge from an ecological worldview, a de?

velopment that depends to a large extent on

the adoption and propagation of these values

by social, political, cultural, and economic in?

stitutions. Wheeler builds on this idea by pre?

senting five underlying themes that determine

a sustainable development agenda: (1) a long? term perspective, (2) a holistic outlook, (3) the

acceptance of limits, (4) a focus on place, and (5) active involvement in problem solving. Public

policy that is incompatible with any one of these

themes in terms of its formulation, character, or impacts is by definition not policy for sus?

tainability. Little in these definitions is particularly new

or innovative. Both authors acknowledge that

the definitions of sustainability and its deriva?

tive sustainable development have been and will

continue to be a topic of widespread discussion,

debate, and controversy. However, few urban

planning scholars would disagree that a rea?

sonable definition of sustainable development should include most of the elements proposed

by Portney and Wheeler. Both authors' view?

points are compatible with the concept of cities as systems or interdependent parts of systems that require a balance of resource and assimi?

lation capacities with regard to their environ?

ments for continued systemic survival.

Sustainable Development Policies

To convert concept into policy, both authors stress the importance of creating a sustainabil?

ity plan that integrates all of the dimensions of sustainability and identifies specific goals, objectives, and, most important, actions. A good

sustainability plan clearly identifies responsi? bilities for achieving progress and possesses

assigned measures of progress. Likewise, in?

dicators of sustainable development should be

clearly defined.

Based on his analysis of sustainability efforts in 24 cities, Portney presents five substantive areas that require policy attention: (1) the elimi? nation of sprawl and the management of growth

and the economy in order to minimize adverse

environmental impacts and to enhance self-suf?

ficiency; (2) the protection of environmentally sensitive areas through land-use regulation; (3) the reduction of automobile dependency and

transportation-generated pollution; (4) the re?

duction and prevention of all forms of pollution,

particularly solid and hazardous wastes; and (5) the conservation and efficient consumption of

energy and other natural resources, replacing nonrenewables with renewables. Policies relative

to social and environmental equity are noticeably absent from Portney's treatise. He is person?

ally convinced of their importance, but he is not

comfortably able to logically and inextricably tie

them to local government sustainability initia?

tives. In his opinion, it remains "a difficult ques? tion as to what extent [these issues] represent

important, even necessary, conditions for cities

to become sustainable" (Portney 2003, 63).1

Among these five substantive areas, Portney lists 25 actions appropriate for cities. These ac?

tions are very specific and include, for example, car pool lanes (i.e., diamond lanes) and eco-in-

dustrial park development. While he provides a detailed description of these actions, his most

effective use of illustrations appears in a chapter that profiles eight cities that take sustainability

seriously. In these in-depth profiles, Portney

nicely balances attention to the substantive

components of particular sustainability strat?

egies with the processes and politics that led

to adoption of the sustainability initiative. A

particularly interesting analysis concerns Chat?

tanooga, Tennessee, where sustainability fell

largely outside the purview of city government and effective action emerged largely as a re? sult of historical forces and the forging of new

institutional relationships. This case contrasts

sharply with that of Santa Monica, California, where a more conventional track of citizen

participation and visioning was followed by a

uniquely determined effort by city government to connect actions to measured progress.

Wheeler's framework for sustainability policies has much in common with Portney's. Both propose the enactment of policies that

protect the environment and reduce automobile

dependency. Like Portney, Wheeler recom? mends the elimination of sprawl by encourag-

168 State and Local Government Review

Reviews and Essays

ing more compact development, the conser?

vation of natural resources through reduced

material consumption and the construction of

"green" buildings, and the encouragement of

self-sufficiency by developing a locally oriented

economy. With respect to the environment, Wheeler goes further than Portney by recom?

mending not just the protection of environmen?

tally sensitive areas through land-use regulation but also an overall public policy commitment to

the protection and restoration of the environ?

ment. Wheeler's policy framework also includes

the equity elements of affordable housing and

environmental justice. His vision of sustainabil?

ity extends farther into social policy through his advocacy of integrating strategies that are

related to family planning. Wheeler presents a litany of planning tools

and techniques that have been used to advance

these particular policy concerns. He divides

the policy concerns among chapters that cor?

respond to a geographic and political hierarchy that begins at the international level and con?

cludes at the site level. The issues relevant at

each level are discussed in terms that are both

conceptual (i.e., what it is) and strategic (i.e., what can be done). His ideas about what should

and can be done to advance sustainability at

the local, neighborhood, and site levels are par?

ticularly detailed and well done. For example, Wheeler presents an excellent table that de?

picts how a traditional zoning ordinance can

be transformed into one that promotes sustain?

able development. His discussion of "ecological architecture" is especially comprehensive and

covers such aspects as materials, point systems, and potential incentives.

The Prospects for Achieving Sustainable Development

Both Our Common Future (WCED 1987) and its

derivative document, Agenda 21 (Sitarz 1994),

suggest that local government has a significant role in promoting sustainable development be?

cause it is in the local community that many of

the serious environmental and social problems exist and much of the needed change can be

achieved most effectively. However, Portney (2003, 14) notes that "there is little corre-

spondence between the geographic area of an

ecosystem and the boundaries of government institutions." That is, there are inherent limits

on what any single local governmental unit can

accomplish. For both Portney and Wheeler, another seri?

ous limitation on the capacity of communities

to develop the various types of needed sustain?

ability policies is the very nature of local gov? ernment. In addition to the mismatch between

jurisdictional boundaries and the ecosystems of

which they are a part, local officials also have

a tendency to equate growth with progress. This growth-machine mentality stems from the

dominant influence of monied interests on local

politics. As one might expect, both authors view

this dominion as anathema to the achievement

of sustainable development. They concur that

real progress toward sustainable development is

possible to the extent that local politics can be

freed from such disproportionate influences. In

this regard, Portney draws from urban regime

theory to propose that the number of communi?

ties that are able to take sustainability seriously is limited because most are unable to make the

transition from a maintenance or development

regime to the other types of regimes in which

more radical social change is possible. Both authors view inclusive participatory

processes as a means by which local policies can be freed from the dominating influence of

growth-oriented interests. Broad and inclusive

participation in the policy-making process is

viewed as the principal means for expanding the range of policies to include goals related to

quality of life, which encompasses social equity and environmental integrity. Broad participation also is the way to build a stronger sense of com?

munity and to create shared values. Nonetheless, both authors recognize inherent limitations in

the potential of participatory processes to lead

to real change. For one thing, many solutions

to sustainability problems require approaches derived from expertise rather than participation and consensus. It is also the case that participato?

ry processes in themselves do little to change the

power relationships that exist in a community.

Consequently, sustainable development visions

do not become the guides to public policy or

political decisions in most local governments.

2005 169

Reviews and Essays

These challenges are the primary reason

that Portney defines cities that take sustain?

able development seriously as those that have

placed issues of sustainability clearly and unam?

biguously on the public agenda. Both authors

consider to be important the integration of all

dimensions of sustainability and their conver?

sion into goals, objectives, and actions. Under

such a plan, the responsibility for achieving

progress is clearly assigned, and measures of

progress (sustainable development indicators) are clearly specified. Wheeler and Portney think

that few communities in the United States are

constituted to attain such a level of commitment

due largely to prevalent jurisdictional fragmen? tation, dominance by a growth-machine regime, and a general satisfaction with the status quo.

Consequently, most cities are unable to make

significant progress toward sustainability. Thus, while sustainable development visions may be

created, they likely will remain peripheral to

the local policy-making process, no matter how

highly participatory or inclusive the process is

that produced them. In Wheeler's (2004, 235)

view, when there exists an "enormous denial

about many of the problems around us," there

is just too much perception of "progress" un?

der policies that conflict with the principles of

sustainable development. Because of local limitations, both authors

stake out a larger role for state governments in

advancing a sustainability agenda. Consistent

with the concept of hierarchy from systems

theory, they view it as appropriate and neces?

sary for state governments to mandate statewide

goals and objectives with which local govern? ment development policies must conform.

Their rationale for this prescription concerns

the need to transcend both transboundary is?

sues and the local growth-machine mentality.

Following the New Jersey model, several states

could enact a smart-growth strategy that would

direct development toward existing communi?

ties, reduce housing and other inequities, and

protect common pool resources. States also are

best suited to facilitate regional approaches to

community development, thereby making it

possible for local political institutions to better

manage their share of environmental and social

problems. Through legislative mandate, states

can require the enactment of specific regulatory mechanisms (e.g., urban growth boundaries in

Oregon) or require consistency of local plans with state goals (e.g., Florida). Environmental

and social goals should be specified by the state, and cities can be required to take sustainability

seriously by adopting development policies that

are consonant with these state goals.

Conclusion

In both of the books reviewed, the authors have

somewhat pessimistic views regarding the ex?

tent to which sustainability will be adopted as

guides to local policy and action. Portney con?

cludes that only a few cities have the character?

istics necessary to adopt a serious approach to

sustainability and that these characteristics are

for the most part intrinsic, difficult to pinpoint, and beyond the scope of local manipulation or

policy control. He finds the role of the business

community in sustainable development initia?

tives to be problematic. On the one hand, their

involvement likely will lead to co-optation of a

local sustainability initiative, but on the other

hand, their exclusion probably will make it a

largely fruitless effort. Nevertheless, there are

examples of local governments such as "Chat?

tanooga, Jacksonville, Austin and others [that] have perhaps done considerably more than their

dominant political ideologies might predict"

(Portney 243). All qualifiers aside, Portney con?

siders his inability to explain adequately why some cities make progress and others do not

to actually be a source of optimism in that the

potential for progress exists anywhere. For in?

stance, he describes the interesting and dynamic role played by various local nonprofit groups in

the absence of local government support and

broad community participation. Wheeler's pessimism appears to be rooted

primarily in his assessment of the overall state

of politics in the United States. He is troubled

by the ease with which economic growth is em?

braced while two other important "E"s?envi?

ronment and equity?are largely ignored. Such

observations are nothing new, of course. His

corrective prescriptions?a clean political cul?

ture, an enlightened electorate, and real choices

within elections?are not accompanied by any

/10 State and Local Government Review

Reviews and Essays

constructive advice as to how such changes or

transformations might be achieved.

Wheeler, a planner himself, proposes a

substantial role for planners in their capacity as facilitators and advocates for sustainability.

Citing the profession's code of ethics, which

has environmental protection and social equity as fundamental requirements of professional

practice, Wheeler implies that elected officials

have a ready and willing source of allies in

their planning departments to help ease their

community's incremental transition to sustain?

ability. This idea is consistent with the notion

that planners at the vanguard can help reduce

the political risk of implementing policies of

change (Krumholz and Forester 1990). Neither book is structurally nor composi?

tionally perfect. In Portney's case, of primary concern is his failure to maintain consistency be?

tween his list of 25 actions and his expansionary discussions; not only is the order of discussion

inconsistent between chapters but many of the

actions that he lists are not even illustrated. Like?

wise, Wheeler tries to cover too much concep? tual and methodological terrain. In the process, what emerges is one more cookbook of myriad and miscellaneous suggestions about how com?

munities can progress toward sustainability. Nevertheless, both books offer much in the

way of thought-provoking observations and

information of potentially significant practi? cal value to state and local elected officials who

are interested in moving toward sustainability. Neither book offers many specifics on desir?

able state sustainability policies. However, by

understanding what communities are doing on

their own initiatives, state officials have a ready source of insight about what state legislation might help replicate sustainability achievements

among other communities. For example, one

legislative method, which is endorsed by both

Portney and Wheeler, is to link receipt of cer?

tain state funds to the adoption by communities of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental

Design standard for green subdivision develop? ment.2 . 2

Both of these books make the significant con?

tribution of trying to clarify how sustainability can be used as a true framework for community

development. Both Portney and Wheeler ap?

preciate that local elected officials work under

difficult conditions and that many of the fea?

tures and forces that affect the prospects for

achieving sustainability are beyond their con?

trol. However, both authors argue persuasively that success hinges on the strong support of

local government officials who understand the

necessity for changing business-as-usual devel?

opment practices and who are committed to de?

veloping a responsible and strategic approach to

achieving a vision of a more sustainable future.

Portney's study makes it clear that this can hap?

pen anywhere-, both authors argue persuasively that it should happen everywhere.

Edward J. Jepson Jr., AICP, Ph.D., is assistant

professor in the department of political science at the

University of Tennessee.

Notes

1. The social system equivalent of entropy is dysfunc? tion. Because entropy is the primary threat to the

integrity of systems, and inequity causes dysfunction in a social system, social equity is a necessity under the sustainability framework (see Jepson 2001).

2. More information about this building certification

process can be found at www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage. aspx?CategoryID= 19.

References

Jepson, Jr., Edward J. 2001. Sustainability and planning: Diverse concepts and close associations. Journal of Planning Literature 15, no. 4:499-510.

Krumholz, Norman, and John Forester. 1990. Making equity planning work. Philadelphia: Temple Univer? sity Press.

Sitarz, Daniel, ed. 1994. Agenda 21: The Earth Summit-

strategy to save our planet. Boulder: Earthpress. World Conference on Environment and Development

(WCED). 1987. Our common future. New York: Ox? ford University Press.

2005 111