TOOLS & STRATEGIES
CITIZENS DEVELOPING PLANNED SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBOURHOODS Montserrat Delpino-Chamy
1 Through a selection of Australian case studies, this collection aims to present community-based planning processes and design techniques used by different groups of citizens in building new neighbourhoods, or improve existing ones, independent of governmental sponsorship. • BOOK 1 - “Tools & Strategies”. The first book offers guidance to plan community-based processes, and methodological tools to assess design outcomes for sustainable neighbourhoods initiatives. Finally, it presents a review of the main strategies that led to achievement and failure in developing planned sustainable neighbourhoods, based on grassroots processes. • BOOK 2 - “Christie Walk”. The second book summarized the analysis of an eco-city residential project located 1km from Adelaide CBD. • BOOK 3 - “Northey Street City Farm”. The third book covers the case of an urban farm located 12km from Brisbane CBD • BOOK 4 - “Currumbin Ecovillage”. The final book presents the result regarding a private development project located 7km from the Gold Coas. This work is the result of a Research Project developed at the School of Geography, Planning & Environmental Management of the University of Queensland. The research was presented as final project to get the grade of Master in Urban and Regional Planning, in 2011, directed by the prof. Yusnani Mohd Yusof, with the support of the prof. Greg Brown.
ISBN: 978-956-401-816-4 June, 2020
INDEX THE NEIGHBOURHOOD APPROACH
4
COMMUNITY-BASED PLANNING PROCESS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBOURHOODS
14
STRATEGIES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 22 SUCCESSFUL GRASSROOTS INITIATIVES Define a community organization structure Partnerships with Local Authorities & Citizens Assure Economic Resources Selection of Accessible Location Design a pedestrian-friendly environment Achieve Housing sustainability Being a model of sustainable living
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
TOOLS TO ASSESS SUSTAINABLE PROJECTS 32 CONCLUSIONS
42
THE NEIGHBOURHOOD APPROACH
4
INTRODUCTION In a planning context, where the main regulatory framework defined by governments is generally modified at a slow rhythm and with a generic approach (Turner, 1972; Werlin, 2000), more specific and local solutions are being required to guarantee a fast and effective improvement of the quality of life of citizens, and a more efficient use of natural resources. Increasingly sustainable ideas are focusing on the need to work from a local perspective; reducing the scale of production, of consumption, of energy generation, and of democracy (Schumacher, 1973; UNCED, 1992; Register, 2002). The suggestion of working from the small scale is supported by the idea that natural resources and social dynamics could be managed in direct relation with their local contexts (Mumford, 1954). Recent ideological movements such as ‘Compact Cities’, ‘Smart Growth’ and ‘The New Urbanism’ have declared that, by promoting the development of compact, walkable, mixed land use and energy efficient human settlements, it is possible to promote a more efficient use of urban infrastructure, whilst improving human health and the conservation of natural resources (Congress for The New Urbanism, 2001; Alexander & Tomalty, 2002; UNHABITAT, 2009). At the same time, sustainable upgrading to existing neighbourhoods can also promote the increase of local resilience; providing urban systems with a more stable structure to face future economic and environmental changes (Hopkins, 2008). The direct relation between neighbourhoods and communities requires consider social dynamics when planning for the local scale. On the one hand, planning for built environments that promote human encounters could invigorate resident’s sense of community (Mumford, 1954; Lynch, 1981). Whilst on the other hand, recognising citizens as active generators of change in their neighbourhoods could help to promote the development of more vibrant communities, and ultimately promote the development of successful urban areas (Beske, 2007; Rudlin and Falk, 2009). Community development guided by the principles of sustainable neighbourhoods could be an interesting strategy to reinforce the dynamics of urban life. Planning at the local scale supports the development of more vibrant and efficient cities, promoting social interactions while reducing urban demands and pressures over natural resources (Peterman, 2000; Choguill, 2008). 5
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING THEORIES Planning for neighbourhood-scale has been presented as a conceptual response to social and liveable problems accumulating in large urban environments since Ebenezer Howard’s ‘Garden Cities’ in 1898¬. Similar approaches have been use for the construction of “industrial towns” during the modern era; promoting walkable settlements, and diversity of uses and residents. Pullman town in Chicago and Bournville town planned by Cadbury in the UK are some examples of these (Schubert, 2000). The concept of planning for ‘neighbourhood units’ has been related with Drummond’s analysis of Daniel Burnham’s 1912 Chicago Plan (Schubert, 2000), and also with the 1928 Sunnyside City Garden project promoted by RPAA and conceived by Stein and Wright in Queens (Rudlin and Falk, 2009). Though authors seems to agree that Clearence Perry’s ‘superblock’ principle developed for the 1929 New York Plan (see Figure 1) was the first successful approach able to relate the size, infrastructure and social configuration of neighbourhoods with pedestrianisation and sense of community concepts (Schubert, 2000; Choguill, 2008).
Figure 1 - Clarence Perry’s neighbourhood Unit. Regional Plan of New York, 1929 Source: McDonald, Noreen C. (2010) ‘School Sitting’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 76:2, 184 - 198
6
More recently ‘The Charter of the New Urbanism’ has responded to the effects of sprawl by promoting the restoration of urban centres and mix-use neighbourhoods (see Figure 2), referencing Perry’s planning ideas as a way to reactivate urban dynamics; relating physical design with social engineering (Schubert, 2000).
Figure 2 - Traditional Neighbourhood Development vs. Suburban Sprawl
The rise of environmental awareness and the re-valuation of communal dynamics have emerged as new factors promoting the redevelopment of neighbourhood units under sustainable principles (Rudlin and Falk, 2009). Nowadays international organisations such as the United Nations (UN) throughout ‘UN-HABITAT’ and ‘Local Agenda 21’, the European Renewable Energy Council, and independent movements such as ‘Eco Cities’ and ‘Transition Towns’, seem to agree that in order to generate more liveable and energy efficiency human settlements, local solutions should be implemented considering technical innovations and community involvement (UN, 1992; EREC, 2005; Hopkins, 2008; Downton, 2009).
7
Therefore, by focusing at the local scale, planning at the neighbourhood level is increasingly being considered as an effective way to achieve urban sustainability. By improving micro-scale planning outcomes, positive cumulative consequences could be generated at the macro-city scale (Engel-Yan ed al., 2005; Choguill, 2008). Simultaneously social dynamics can be encouraged by designing places for human relations to occur. This practice would support the development of stronger communities (Peterman, 2000; Beske, 2007). In conclusion, it is possible to recognise that efficient use of resources and future energy restrictions are new factors promoting the resurgence of an old concept - planning for neighbourhood scale. By reducing distances and involving community livelihood, the local scale is a much more energy- and socially-efficient scale for planning. Under this approach, the next section focuses on exploring advantages, particularities and implications of planning for the neighbourhood-unit. .
8
BENEFITS OF PLANNING FROM THE NEIGHBOURHOOD SCALE Originally neighbourhoods were considered in the planning field as geographic places defined according to their size (population density and accessibility), boundaries (political or physical) and identity (physical or historical) (Perry, 1929; Lynch, 1981; Pierson, 2008). More recently however, sustainable approaches have related neighbourhood design with characteristics such as: walkable, mixed land use, energy efficiency, and mix-income housing (Neal, 2003; Congress for The New Urbanism, 2001; UNHABITAT, 2009). These principles focused on reducing car dependency and promoting energy efficiency systems have arisen internationally as a response to urban sprawl, Climate Change and political effects of the ‘Kyoto Protocol’. At the national and local level though, benefits of the implementation of sustainable design principles in neighbourhoods can also be related with a more efficient use of urban infrastructure (Engel-Yan ed al., 2005; Gause, 2007), as well as an improvement of social interactions (Beske, 2007; Rudlin and Falk, 2009). In relation to the built environment, benefits related to economic savings, improvement of health and conservation of natural resources emerge from the development of compact, walkable, mixed land use and energy efficient neighbourhoods. In particular, density and its impact over the reduction of lot sizes, generates a significant reduction on the water infrastructure network and road requirements and costs (Schmitz ed. 2003; Engel-Yan ed al., 2005). High densities also decrease roads infrastructure requirements per inhabitant reducing development costs (Engel-Yan ed al., 2005), while offering higher real estate business possibilities. Compact developments, and planning for mixed land uses and a connected street grid, also promotes high pedestrian accessibility, supporting active transport behaviours. By improving cycling and walking conditions, sustainable neighbourhoods encourage physical activity, while reducing traffic congestion and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions generated by the use of private vehicles.
9
Through an appropriate design of streets and open space, it is possible to promote cultural and physical activities; and stormwater for the watering of urban landscapes. Reducing impervious surfaces could also help to promote more efficient management of runoff stormwater, decreasing peak flows and allowing the irrigation of rainwater back into the natural water cycle (Water by design – Introduction on WSUD in SEQ; Engel-Yan ed al., 2005) Urban forestry and urban agriculture reduce the intensity of urban heat islands (Capon and Blakely, 2007), while also contributing to the control of air pollution and noise (Engel-Yan ed al., 2005). Their implementation also supports local food production, generating the development of more resilient neighbourhoods (Hopkins, 2008) In general, mixed use neighbourhoods In general,and mixed alternative use neighbourhoods energetic, enviand alternative energetic, ronmental, educational and cultural environmental, activities educational stimulate and the development cultural activities stimulate the of local businesses and create development additional of local local jobs, businesses and place-making and create additional local jobs, design, active transportationand systems place-making and energy design, efficiency activetechniques transportation systems and enerincrease quality of life of people, gy efficiency reduce dependence techniques increase on financial quality investof life of people, reduce ments and significantly reduce dependence environmental on financial impactsinvestments (EREC, 2005). and significantly reduce environmental impacts (EREC, 2005). Besides physical configurations, many authors supporting neighbourhood developments in the past have done so using social principles. Fisher established the linkage between the amount and quality of human interaction with the size of neighbourhoods (Fischer, 1984). Before him, Lewis Mumford declared that considering neighbourhoods as basic units of cities promotes feelings of belonging among residents (Mumford, 1954). Nonetheless, physical components of an urban area do correlate with social interactions amongst the urban population, and Kevin Lynch advocated this point noting that properly revitalising the built environment of a neighbourhood can invigorate people, stimulating or creating sense of community, and generating with this the development of better communities (Lynch, 1981).
10
.
Beske comprehensively studies this idea and declares: “This concept appears to be particularly important since people who have a strong sense of community have greater feelings of safety and security, participate more in community affairs, and are more likely to vote, recycle, help others and volunteer (Schweitzer, 1996). Having a strong sense of community improves individual sense of wellbeing, in terms of increased happiness, decreased worrying, and a greater sense of self-efficacy (Davidson and Cotter 1991). Additionally, as Bachrach and Zautra (1985) found in their study of community response to the threat of a hazardous waste facility, a strong sense of community is related to a high degree of self-efficacy, and can help people deal with stressors in their community in proactive ways” (Beske, 2007, p.46). This means that neighbourhoods with a strong sense of community are more capable of organising themselves in a scenario of need - avoiding problems or reacting efficiently when they do occur (Rudlin and Falk, 2009) - resulting in a more resilient community (Hopkins, 2008). Neighbourhoods offering places or opportunities for interactions beNeighbourhoods offeringtween places residents or opportunities (such as for through interactions windows facing public spaces, between residents (suchconstant as through pedestrian windowsmovement facing public and spaces, village centres), are more likely to constant pedestrian movement support and social village relationships centres), occuring, are more likely strengthening social cohesion to support social relationships (EREC, occuring, 2005) andstrengthening generating safer social urban coheenvironments. sion (EREC, 2005) and generating safer urban environments. From this analysis therefore, it is possible to conclude that sustainable neighbourhoods are associated with places that promote efficient use of urban infrastructure, thereby minimising environmental impacts and providing quality human interactions, while generating economic benefits and strong communities (Rudlin and Falk, 2009). It is also expected that this characteristic will support sustainable neighbourhoods into the future, because: “the existence of a strong community can be the difference between successful and declining urban areas” (Rudlin and Falk, 2009, p.116).
. 11
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING: POTENTIALS AND LIMITATIONS OF BOTTOM-UP PROCESSES This research takes cognisance that local development, particularly the neighbourhood approach, is an effective way to improve urban sustainability, and build a sense of community. As discussed in preceding paragraphs, a neighbourhood approach to community development considers issues that are local and specific to an area. Therefore in order to develop effective policies at the governmental level, considerations rewarding local knowledge and concerns must be included. In Australia, even though up-bottom community building policies have been presented as an effective measure in building capacity between citizens to solve local problems (Murphy & Cauchi, 2002), a considerable array of issues have made it difficult for government policies to achieve their scope for neighbourhood development. Among the issues, Murphy & Cauchi have identify: the imposition of government process to communities, the incontinuity as a result in the constant change of government, the problems with governing and empowering, the distancing information to the small grassroots groups, and that the governmental language is not approachable by every member of the community (Murphy & Cauchi, 2002). In response to these issues, initatives and projects instigated or generated by community members could emerge as an alternative path to develop more sustainable and inclusive neighbourhoods. The difference between top-down and bottom-up planning process at the neighbourhood scale is defined by Checkoway as ’subarea planning‘ and ’neighbourhood planning‘; where ’subarea planning‘ is the process of deconcentrating central planning where ’subarea planning‘ is the agency process facilities of deconcentrating and functions to central subareas planning and agen’neighbourhood cy facilities and functions toplanning‘ subareasoccurs and ’neighbourhood when community planning‘ residents occurs develop when their own community residents developplans their and own programs plans and (Checkoway, programs (Checkoway, 1984). 1984).
12
Checkoway further identifies that this bottom-up process can be a reaction to external pressures and generated when residents get together to redevelop their own communities (Checkoway, 1984). These bottom-up initiatives are of significant importance because they promote community development by encouraging organisation and generation of common goals between residents. They also facilitate the saving of public time and resources by solving local problems internally between residents (Choguill, 2008). Arguably of most significance is their ability to undermine social hierarchies (Mayer, 2006), by developing projects that could pose examples of sustainable development for authorities and governments (Hopkins, 2008). As Peterman declared: “The creation of an “The independent creation ofagenda an independent or plan, which agenda is aorprocess plan, which is a process of poliof political development, tical development, is what brings is what neighbourhood brings neighbourhood planning planning to be viewed as a to be viewed as a process of community development” (Peterman, 2000, p.25) 2000, p.25) This strength of community-based organisation could also be perceived as a threat by governments, raising political issues on the legitimacy of local authorities. However, “whether it is identified as subsidiarity, decentralization, empowerment or participation, some component of democratization is widely viewed as being integral to the achievement of an environmentally sustainable future”. (Davis, 2009, p.2)
13
COMMUNITY-BASED PLANNING PROCESS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBOURHOODS
14
Even though some traditional steps of the rational planning process might be followed to successfully implement a neighbourhood development project (such as establishing objectives, determining alternatives, and assessing viability) (see Figure 3), the fact that community-based planning is based on strong democratic dynamics restricts the possibility of implementing a traditional autocratic approach to planning (Fainstein & Fainstein, 1972; Chapman, 1996; Peterman, 2000). Therefore, in order to allow public participation in every step of the way, community-driven neighbourhood planning processes should be collaborative, open and transparent (Peterman, 2000), or in other words inclusive and enabling (Chapman ed., 1996).
Figure 3 - Rational Planning Process
However, physical and social particularities of community-based developments have made it difficult to define a general planning model for their implementation. Nevertheless, identifiable concepts appear to be common among authors and publications dealing with local development issues.
15
To begin with, most authors recognised that in order to implement effective grassroots developments, projects should be driven by local civic associations (Blakely & Bowman, 1985; Kumaran, Hyma & Wood, 2004; Pierson, 2008). These associations could include community organisations, community development corporations, or advocacy planners working with local communities (Peterman, 2000), and would be recognised as the main actors in the planning process. Once the promoters of the process are identified, theory presents the definition of ‘shared objectives’ as one of the main requirements of a community-based planning process (Local Agenda 21). As Fainstein & Fainstein declared: “the definition of a common “the interest definition for theofwhole a common community interest is one for the of whole community is the major theoretical obstacles oneon of the democratic major theoretical planning obstacles process” on the democratic planning (Fainstein & Fainstein, 1972,process” p.196). (Fainstein & Fainstein, 1972, p.196). Therefore, on this first stage the celebration of community meetings supported by the role of planners are basic to define and legitimise core objectives for future developments (Fainstein & Fainstein, 1972; Chapman, 1996). These community meetings would also enable advancement of ‘capacity building’ processes for community members (Kumaran, Hyma & Wood, 2004). “Capacity building contributes “Capacity to the growth building of contributes assets suchto asthe ‘human growth of assets such as capital’, which includes the skills, ‘humanknowledge capital’, which and abilities includesofthe those skills, knowledge and abilities who live in the area. It alsoofbuilds those‘social who live capital’, in the which area. includes It also builds the ‘social capital’, which social networks, the sense ofincludes trust and thethe social willingness networks, to volunteer” the sense of trust and the willingness (Pierson, 2008, p.27) to volunteer” (Pierson, 2008, p.27) Capacity building is particularly important because it involves the generation of knowledge and technical skills that allow local communities to communicate their interests effectively (Chapman, 1996).
16
‘Collaboration’ and ‘developing partnerships’ are also popular concepts between local development theories, related with both top-down (Local Agenda 21, Chapman, 1996; Kumaran, Hyma & Wood, 2004) and bottom-up approaches (Morris & Hess, 1975; Blakely & Bowman, 1985; Pierson, 2008). William Peterman William had declared Peterman that had community declared leaders that community should leaders should build and build and maintainmaintain political,political, technical, technical, legal andlegal financial and financial linkageslinkages with people and with people and institutions institutionsoutside outsidetheir theirown owncommunity, community,asaswell well as coalitions with other as coalitions with communities other communities and organisations and organisations (Peterman, (Peterman, 2000). 2000). On this matter, connections with individual investors, organisational and institutional aids consistent with community objectives, charitable organisations, government organisations and local and regional community banks would facilitate the acquirement of monetary resources (OECD, 1998). Whilst partnerships related with technical expertise could also be useful in training, preparing and supporting collective projects. By working in ‘partnerships’ and based on a ’creative tension‘ between community and governmental agencies (Peterman, 2000), the concept of ‘governance’ also strengthens (Pierson, 2008). Additionally, ideas such as ‘building trust’ and relying on ‘volunteer work’ are extensively mention on literature reviews. In theory, most of these concepts appear related with the idea of a ‘Community Action Plan’ as a way of: “enabling communities “enabling to identify communities issues and to identify priorities issues and and to depriorities and to develop and velop and implement implement solutionssolutions to their to problems their problems through through participaparticipation rather than tion rather than providing providingexternally externallydriven drivenprograms programsand andprojects” projects” (Kumaran, Hyma & Wood, (Kumaran, Hyma &2004; Wood,p.2004; 34). p. 34). Community Action Plans are presented in relation to local economic development processes (Blakely & Bowman, 1985; OCDE, 1998), as well as for the sustainable improvement of existing neighbourhoods (Kumaran, Hyma & Wood, 2004). Therefore, it is possible to consider them as basic components of a community-based planning process. 17
COMMUNITY-BASED PLANNING MODEL
The concepts presented in literature and discussed above has been considered as the basic input to develop a Community-Based Planning Model proposal (Figure 4) to be used in the analysis of the selected case studies.
ADVOCACY PLANNERS
The model presented in Figure 4 identifies observations related with the idea that community developments should arise from grassroots organisations (Peterman, 2000). It also considers the legitimacy of shared objectives of a community (Fainstein & Fainstein, 1972; Chapman, 1996), as well as the development of an Action Plan, as the basic steps of the planning course (Blakely & Bowman, 1985; OCDE, 1998; Kumaran, Hyma & Wood, 2004).
18
In the literature, the role of advocacy planners also appears as an important factor supporting the planning process from the beginning. However, this role should not be of paternalistic nature, rather it should focus on the connection between community movements and governmental institutions (Fainstein & Fainstein, 1972). The design and implementation of Action Plans should be based on inclusiveness and dynamic processes, including capacity building for the community and establishment of partnerships with public and private stakeholders (OCDE, 1998; Peterman, 2000; Kumaran, Hyma & Wood, 2004; Pierson, 2008). As stated above, capacity building is a basic to develop human and social capital, enabling the generation of technical knowledge and volunteer support for the development process (Pierson, 2008), as well as providing opportunities for the rise of collective entrepreneurships as an internal way of generating economic resources (OCDE, 1998). Collaboration and partnerships provide knowledge that strengthens social capacity, and monetary resources that are fundamental for the implementation of the development (OCDE, 1998). Community participation and trust building between local actors and community members are conditions presented in every step of the way (Chapman, 1996; Peterman, 2000; Kumaran, Hyma & Wood, 2004; Pierson, 2008).
19
Since this planning process is contextualised at the local scale, its capacity to generate outcomes will be directly related with its success (Mansuri, 2004). The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OCDE) in their ‘Territorial Development’ publication suggest that a set of required outcomes legitimises community intentions, thus facilitating access to monetary resources for the implementation of projects. These outcomes include: ‘Community Statues’ and ‘Economic Assessment’, as a way to “make social performance compatible with economic efficiency” (OCDE, 1998, p.67). Eventually the need to develop a technical project should also be fundamental to build the idea. These three outcomes have been included in the Community-based Planning Process Model for further analysis (see Figure 5).
ADVOCACY PLANNERS
20
As a final consideration, it is important to recognise a general agreement between all the consulted sources, concluding that for the implementation of community-based development to be successful, it is necessary to switch from the governmental regulatory mode to a more democratic one base on ‘enabling and facilitating’ community entrepreneurships.
21
STRATEGIES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCCESSFUL GRASSROOTS INITIATIVES.
22
The research has identified the main strategies that led to achievement and failure of the implementation of sustainable outcomes in each one of the selected Australian case studies. An examination of these strategies proved evidence that similar tactics were used by different projects in the development of their ideas. This observation shows the fundamental existence of common objectives shaping the implementation of sustainable neighbourhood projects from the grassroots initiatives. According to this interpretation, the strategies previously recognised have been organized according to their similarities and presented in thematic groups, associated to administrative, physical, organisational, economic, social, environmental and educational features. Understanding that strategies are tactics used to achieve certain goals, by combining them in thematic groups made possibile the recognition of coincidental objectives associated with the implementation of community-based sustainable neighbourhood projects. These thematic groups and planning objectives are defined as follows:
23
OBJECTIVE #1: DEFINE A COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE AND CLEAR COMMUNICATION CHANNELS The study of the community-based project had shown that Communication channels are basic for generating good sustainable outcomes in the governance planning domain. The instauration of good communication channels between community members is basic support for the development of social capital, and the building of communities (Bacon, 2009). The NSCF case study had shown that weaknesses in this area could generate problems in the decision-making process of a grassroots organisations and a slow capacity to implement changes. Therefore, as defined in Table 3, the development of different channels of communication between community members is of high importance; supporting community collaboration and consensus (UNESCO) and increasing the possibilities to avoid problems or react efficiently when they do occur, resulting in more resilient community (Rudlin and Falk, 2009; Hopkins, 2008). Currumbin Ecovillage offers a good example of alternatives to create communication channels by implementing a community website, supported by a fibre-optic network, to facilitate community coordination. The organisation of residents into different interest groups has also emerged as an opportunity to facilitate coordination, especially in large neighbourhoods. Christie Walk eco-city had included specifications regarding governance and communication channels in its By-laws, defining resident corporations for each group of dwellings, and a primary corporation to discuss issues regarding the whole development. Clear definition of community organisational structures facilitates the coordination between residents and volunteers in the maintenance and improvement of the built environment; favouring the generation of social capital and strengthening their sense of community (Bacon, 2009).
24
OBJECTIVE#2: ESTABLISHMENT OF PARTNERSHIPS WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND CITIZENS In general, the research has identified the establishment of partnerships between local government and citizens, as one of the most beneficial strategies for the development of community-based sustainable projects. Volunteers have been recognised for playing a fundamental role in the development of these initiatives. Their participation had proved to help in the reduction of construction costs, while generating valuable work in maintenance of the project and the building of a community. Complementary the involvement of local authorities for the successful development of grassroots projects is a fundamental element recognised by different studies (Peterman, 2000; Mansuri & Vijayendra, 2004; Person, 2008). The experience shows that governmental support is key to provide technical and financial resources; while favouring the possibility of generating policy changes and modifications on the local regulatory framework (such as the inclusion of urban farms as an alternative land use for Brisbane’s urban footprint).
By analysing the reviewed case studies, opportunities to favour governmental and citizen involvement can be identified. In the Northey Street City Farm case study, the idea of keeping local authorities and neighbours constantly involved in the project, by informing and inviting them to be part of activities developed by the community, had proved to be a successful method to strengthen partnerships. Workshops, seminars and community consultations processes had also been used in the first stages of the Christie Walk and Currumbin Ecovillage developments, in order to create capacity building between local actors. In relation to volunteer involvement, the implementation of cooperative organisational structures has arisen as a good opportunity to promote citizens’ active participation in the development of sustainable neighbourhood projects. Related with Figure 5, and as recommended in OCDE (1998) and Mansuri & Vijayendra, (2004), this study confirmed that the generation of planning outcomes such as clear community statues, economic assessments and technical projects are also fundamental to communicate ideas to the wider community, helping in the establishment of local partnerships. 25
OBJECTIVE #3: ASSURE ECONOMIC RESOURCES
Promotion of a diverse and local economy is a basic feature in the development of sustainable communities. By providing jobs and business opportunities for local residents, mixed land use and diversity of activities are encouraged, helping in the reduction of car dependency (Neal, 2003; Congress for The New Urbanism, 2001; UNHABITAT, 2009) while promoting social interactions (Choguill, 2008). These practices would also support the development of successful urban areas (Rudlin and Falk, 2009). In order to generate diverse local economies, the recognition of the particular strengths of sustainable communities could offer excellent opportunities for the development of these activities. As the Christie Walk case study showed, the energy efficiency systems associated with sustainable housing could provide an interesting opportunity to generate economic incomes by retrofitting the local power grid. Local food production also opens the possibility to plan for Urban Markets, as showed in NSCF. A common feature between all the case studies is the offering of education for sustainable development business opportunities. However, only NSCF has been fully successful in this area; by defining a staff-team in charge of managing economic activities of the Farm, promoting the generation of both internal and external income.
26
OBJECTIVE #4: SELECTION OF ACCESSIBLE LOCATION FOR THE PROJECT The selection of a proper location has also proven to be important in the achievement of good sustainable outcomes. By being well-integrated within existing settlements, new neighbourhood projects can provide their residents with good accessibility to local shops and services, encouraging active transportation opportunities. This strategy promotes a reduction in energy consumption while promoting social relationships (EREC, 2005, Choguill, 2008; Rudlin and Falk, 2009). However, the selection of a good location is not always easy, and as proved by the analysis of case studies, its identification can take extended periods of time. Problems related with the availability of urban land and economic resources for its acquisition appear as main limitations. Urban Ecology Australia for instance had to go through a long process of capacity building, partnership with local actors, and one failed project, before finding a place for the development of Christie Walk. In this case, the involvement of ethical borrowers for the acquisition of the land was fundamental. However, depending on the nature of the project possibilities could emerge. The agricultural nature of Northey Street City Farm facilitated the opportunity of developing the project on a central location, making use of a flood plane next to Enoggera Creek. This example suggest the opportunity of incorporating urban agriculture activities into urban areas by making use of natural hazards land, as a strategy to plan for flood mitigations while promoting sustainable urban practices (Knowd, Mason & Docking, 2006).
27
OBJECTIVE #5: DESIGN FOR A PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT Careful design of the built environment proved to have strong influences over active transportation behaviours. Its support is related to encouraging physical activities between citizens, promoting a more efficient implementation of public transportation services (O’Meara, 1999; Gause, 2007) and reducing demands over road infrastructure (Engel-Yan ed al., 2005). The Christie Walk case study offered an excellent example of how architectonic design focused on planning for higher densities, mixed land uses, and incorporating meeting places along the project, can promote the development of a pedestrianly-friendly environment and social relations. Particular opportunities such as the reduction in the total amount of parking spaces and the inclusion of common gardens along the project have helped to promote communal land over private ownership, offering shared recreational activities for residents and invigorating the develop of a strong Sense of Community. In contrast, the study of Currumbin Ecovillage was evidence of how low density developments and the absence of proximal centres with shops and community services can discourage pedestrian mobility, reducing the sustainable outcomes of the neighbourhood.
28
OBJECTIVE# 6: ACHIEVE HOUSING SUSTAINABILITY
The development of more energy efficient dwellings has been related to reductions in the human impact on the natural environment; by demanding less energy and materials for their construction (EREC, 2005). However, it is unquestionable that building for sustainable housing is more economically and technically demanding. It requires careful planning from the beginning, integration of different technical aspects, and the use of non-traditional materials. The case studies have shown that this difficulty could be solved by involving volunteer work to reduce costs (e.g. Christie Walk) or transferring the extra cost of the construction to owners (e.g. Currumbin). Both measures have shown to be successful on their different contexts. It is important to note however, that in the case studies, the successful implementation of these sustainable housing techniques have been directly related to the development of an accurate technical project. In Christie Walk this process was developed openly and collaboratively between the Architect and residents, while Currumbin called a multidisciplinary team lead by the developers to define an internal Building Code to regulate the development of dwellings.
29
OBJECTIVE #7: BEING A MODEL OF SUSTAINABLE LIVING In the one hand, contemporary models of growth are promoting high consumption of natural resources, expansion of urban areas and generation of pollution and waste (UN-HABITAT 2009). On the other hand, centralised political systems of government and rigid regulations make it difficult to modify contemporary trends (Turner, 1972; Werlin, 2000). In this context, community-based sustainable projects can offer an alternative model for the development of more sustainable human settlements. The recommended case studies recognised this need by including in their statues the idea of being a model of sustainable living (Dowton, 2009; Currumbin Ecovillage, 2010; Northey Street City Farm, 2011). In line with this idea educational activities were implemented in each project. Opportunities related to the incorporation of educational centres, tours and educational courses generate sustainable knowledge, as well as economic opportunities. Complementary to these activities existing sustainable neighbourhood projects are also examples of an efficient and natural model of living. However, the research showed that different locations generate different sustainable planning responses. In relation to the promotion of natural environments, a Greenfield and low density development like Currumbin Ecovillage, had proven to be a good opportunity to generate conservation areas. While in the urban areas projects like Christie Walk and NSCF have shown that flood planes and urban gardens offer a successful ways to improve the natural environment, while generating a common activity that promotes social interactions and the building of a sense of community. As a significant finding, the involvement of volunteers in gardening activities has shown to be extremely effective in the promotion of biodiversity conservation activities and the promotion of education for sustainable development
30
As a significant finding, the involvement of volunteers in gardening activities has shown to be extremely effective in the promotion of biodiversity conservation activities and the promotion of education for sustainable development
31
TOOLS TO ASSESS SUSTAINABLE PROJECTS NEIGHBOURHOOD SCALE
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSESSMENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT The neighborhood approach to sustainable urban development requires to consider issues which are specific to a geographic area. To do so local knowledge and concerns need to be included in the planning process in order to invigorate the assets of the community and their quality of life. Checkoway (1984) defined this dynamics as ´neighborhood planning approach’ which occurs when community residents develop their own plans and programs (Checkoway, 1984). On a planning context, where the main regulatory framework defined by governments is generally modified at a slow rhythm and with a generic approach (Turner, 1972; Werlin, 2000), this ‘neighbourhood planning approach’ emerge as a more specific alternative to generate local solutions promoting a fastest and more effective improvement of the quality of life of citizens, and a more efficient use of natural resources. On this path, sustainable ideas are increasingly focusing on the need to validate the ‘neighborhood planning approach’ working from the local perspective which allows to reduce the scale of production, of consumption, of energy generation, and of democracy (Schumacher, 1973; UNCED, 1992; Register, 2002). This suggestion is supported by the idea that natural resources and social dynamics could be managed in direct relation with their local contexts (Mumford, 1954) empathizing the sustainable equilibrium within the environment. Checkoway further identifies that this bottom-up process can also be a reaction to external pressures or be generated when residents get together to redevelop their own communities (Checkoway, 1984). In this context initiatives and projects instigated or generated by community members emerge as an alternative path to develop more sustainable neighborhoods. However, in order to promote bottom-up planning processes it is needed to provide communities with diverse tool to assess and plan the performance of their own built environment, strengthening their capacity to plan for a more livable surrounding.
33
ASSESSMENT TOOL The main objective of this work is to build and offer a community-based assessment tool to evaluate the sustainability of existing neighborhoods. To do so, the methodology have been focused on the analysis of existing sustainable community principles, as defined by a selected group of international non-governmental organizations and/or grassroots movements, such as Local Agenda 21 , UNESCO , Healthy Neighbourhoods , Transition Towns and developers . The selection of these organizations has been base on considerations regarding their straight recognition of elements characterizing sustainable settlements; their neighborhood approach base on planning techniques focus on the local scale, as well as the availability of information. On an initial step the research have reveal a comparative analysis between sustainable community features identified by each of the aforementioned organizations. In order to systematize the information, these features have been organized into ‘planning domains’, identifying the main criteria for the development of sustainable neighborhoods. These ‘planning domains’ include:
Food and Farming, Medicine and Health, Education, Economy, Transport, Waste, Energy, Water, Housing, Governance, Natural Environment, Built Environment and Sense of Community, and Density.
34
On a second approach it is possible to recognized that, in general, UNESCO and Local Agenda 21 tend to focus on presenting ‘aims and scopes’ for policy development; while Healthy Neighborhoods, Transitions Towns, and the developers offer a more specific set of ‘design techniques’ centered on guiding local actors towards the effective implementation of sustainable principles for the construction of new neighborhoods. Despite this tendency, the comparative analysis between the different approaches shows a clear relation between the ‘aims and scopes’ proposed by the different organization, with specific ‘design techniques’ presented, as apparent feature for de development of sustainable communities. Having analyzed the major features presented by the studied organizations, it is possible to relate each one of the 13 planning domain identified, with their particular sustainable scopes and specific design techniques supporting the development of sustainable neighborhoods. Finally, by incorporating a simple assessment indicator, it possible to transform this group of sustainable neighborhood’s criteria into an evaluation tool to be used by local citizens for the improvement of their own communities.
35
PLANNING DOMAIN
FOOD & FARMING
SUSTAINABLE SCOPE Promote local food production and consumption
Promote healthy eating
MEDICINE & HEALTH
Contribute and promote the concept of ‘healthy lifestyles’
Natural Environment Awareness EDUCATION
Reinforce lifelong learning alternatives
36
DESIGN TECHNIQUE
LEVEL IMPLEM.
• Home gardens and small-scale agriculture
1 2 3 4 5
• Food shops and cafes being in close proximity to where people live.
1 2 3 4 5
• Urban Market Gardens
1 2 3 4 5
• Encourage participation in sport and recreation, art, culture and heritage opportunities
1 2 3 4 5
• Access to healthy food
1 2 3 4 5
• Promote participation in biodiversity conservation activities
1 2 3 4 5
• Increase awareness and promote, education for sustainable development
1 2 3 4 5
• Presence of schools
1 2 3 4 5
• Promote and support opportunities to participate in lifelong learning for everyone
1 2 3 4 5
• Teaching sustainable skills
1 2 3 4 5
OBSERVATIONS
PLANNING DOMAIN
ECONOMY
SUSTAINABLE SCOPE
Promote a diverse and local economy
Promote and encourage active transportation to access daily needs TRANSPORT Diversity of land use. Locating jobs, services, schools and shops close to where people live;
DESIGN TECHNIQUE
LEVEL IMPLEM.
• Provide satisfying and fairly paid work, with opportunities for the local workforce, including training
1 2 3 4 5
• Offer opportunities for voluntary and unpaid work
1 2 3 4 5
• Use local goods and services wherever possible
1 2 3 4 5
• Businesses own by local people
1 2 3 4 5
• Provide or support business opportunities in the environment sector
1 2 3 4 5
• Incorporate good environmental management practices
1 2 3 4 5
• Promote a diverse and local economy Food shops and cafes being in close proximity to where people live.
1 2 3 4 5
• Telephone and high speed internet
1 2 3 4 5
OBSERVATIONS
• Improve facilities and conditions for pedestrians, cyclists and public 1 2 3 4 5 transport users • including more efficient use of the car eg car-sharing, private vehicles powered by renewable fuels • Homes and services easily accessible by active transportation modes
1 2 3 4 5
• Promoting density around hubs
1 2 3 4 5
37
PLANNING DOMAIN
ENERGY
WATER
SUSTAINABLE SCOPE
energy efficient
DESIGN TECHNIQUE • Promotion of renewable energy sources • Reduction in energy consumption
Water consumption is not faster than the ratio it can be naturally replenished More efficient use of water
• Recycled grey water
LEVEL IMPLEM. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
• Reduce household water consumption (restriction on watering of gardens, promote dual-flush 1 2 3 4 5 toilets, low-flow shower heads)
• Reduce water landscape con1 2 3 4 5 sumption with native plants • Design of arterials and collectors 1 2 3 4 5 streetscapes and parkways • Collect rainwater
HOUSING
Safe, affordable and resource efficient houses
• Wide range of houses types and 1 2 3 4 5 prices
Promote sustainability in building and construction
• reuse of building materials;
• Bioclimatic design (solar access; indoor air quality and ventilation to minimise the need for air con- 1 2 3 4 5 ditioning)
• Compact housing • Green roofs
38
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
OBSERVATIONS
PLANNING DOMAIN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Density
Built Environment – Sense of Community
SUSTAINABLE SCOPE
DESIGN TECHNIQUE
LEVEL IMPLEM.
People acknowledge the interconnectedness of all life, put the needs of the ecosystems and the human spirit above special interests
• Include a network of open spaces consisting of both natural land and constructed public realm (“the lungs of the community”).
Conserve, enhance and encourage people to enjoy the characteristic landscape
• Increase land conservation
Stable population, within the carrying capacity of the land
• Compact developments
Ensure a ‘sense of community’ and neighbourhood
• Shops, services and other destinations can encourage physical activity, social interaction and con- 1 2 3 4 5 viviality.
People honour and uphold the well-being of the whole community
• Community Spaces (both outdoor and indoor) for recreation and social interaction
Facilitate social interactions
• High density around transportation corridors
Minimise crime and promote community safety
• Mixed land use programs
Protect local heritage and promote local diversity and distinctiveness
• Make use of previously developed land (‘PDL’) or vacant buildings 1 2 3 4 5 rather than green field sites
OBSERVATIONS
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
39
CONCLUSIONS
40
After applying these tools and methods to assess grassroots sustainable neighbourhoods projects in Australia (see Book 2, 3 & 4 of this collection), in it possible to conclude the following: • By relating planning strategies with sustainable benefits claimed by neighbourhood’s advocators (Perry, 1954; Peterman, 2000; Choguill, 2008; Pierson, 2008; Rudlin & Falk 2009) social advantages; such as inclusion, community participation and strengths in the sense of community between residents; had been observed on each one of the case studies. • • In relation with economic advantages, the relation between planning for neighbourhood’s scales and the efficiency use of urban resources (Engel-Yan et al., 2005; Gause, 2007) varies according to the density and location of the project, proving that high densities and accessible neighbourhood generate better sustainable outcomes. • • Regarding environmental benefits, all the analysed projects present positive sustainable outcomes. The incorporation of gardens and energy efficiency system in the design of dwellings had promoted biodiversity conservation activities and the reduction of energy demand associated to their neighbourhood’s constructions. Acknowledging the social and environmental benefits of planning for sustainable neighbourhoods from the grassroots, it is evident that obstacles regarding their promotion are highly related with economic assessments. The studied projects have shown that sustainable development is achievable through advocacy and volunteer job and the implementation of cooperative structures, or by transferring extra building costs to residents, offering sustainable-living products for those who can afford it.
41
However, in the one hand cooperative strategies difficult the possibility of expanding sustainable practices to traditional real estate developers (Crabtree, 2005) which are in charge of generating most of the built environment of our cities; while in the other hand transferring the price of sustainable designs to residents limits the possibility of incorporating these principles in affordable housing. In this matter the involvement of governmental support could be basic to balance the short-term economic disadvantage of these projects, understanding that by encouraging these types of constructions, benefits beyond simple economic efficiency can be achieved (Davis, 2009). In this context, creating more “enabling and facilitating” financial programs and regulatory frameworks (Chapman, 1996) could promote the implementation of sustainability from the grassroots. Simultaneously developing economic assessments of sustainable neighbourhoods which include social and environmental externalities could also promote a policy change. Regarding the methodology, both tools developed for the data collection (Table 3 and Figure 5) had proven to be successful in the characterisation and analysis of the selected case studies. In particular the ‘outcomes’ associated to the community-based planning model, defined in Figure 5, have shown being extremely precise on predicting the successful implementation of sustainable projects. It could be interesting to explore the use of these tools in other case studies in order to identify their limitations. The recognition of the ‘strategic objectives’ presented in the findings, could also be exposed to further theoretical analysis and empirical research in order to develop a stronger critical review regarding the problems associated to their implementation.
42
REFERENCES
43
REFERENCES • Beske, J 2007, ‘How urban form effects sense of community: A comparative case study of a traditional neighborhood and conventional suburban development in Northern Virginia’, MA Thesis, Iowa State University • Campbell, S & Fainstein, S 2003, Readings in Planning Theory, Blackwell, New York. • Checkoway, B 1984, ‘Two types of Planning in Neighbourhoods’, Journal of Planning Education and Research vol. 3, 102-109 • Chapman, DA (ed.) 1996, Creating Neighbourhoods and Places in the Built Environment, E&FN Spon, London • Choguill, C 2008, ‘Developing Sustainable Neighbourhoods’, Habitat International 32, 41–48 • Condon, P 2010, Seven Rules for Sustainable Communities: Design Strategies for the Post Carbon World, Island Press, Washington. • Congress for the New Urbanism 2001, Charter for the New Urbanism; CNU, viewed April 2011, <http://www.cnu.org/charter> • Davies, A 2009, ‘Does Sustainability Count? Environmental Policy, Sustainable Development and the Governance of Grassroots Sustainability Enterprise in Ireland’, Sustainable Development 17, 174–182 • Dieleman, F & Wegener, M 2004, ‘Compact City and Urban Sprawl’. Built Environment, Vol. 30, No. 4, 308-323. • Engel-Yan, J; Kennedy, C; Saiz,S. & Pressnail, K., 2005, ‘Toward sustainable neighbourhoods: the need to consider infrastructure interactions’, Canadian Journal for Civil Engineering, Vol. 32, No.1, 45–57 • European Renewable Energy Council 2005, Sustainable Communities, Brussels, viewed May 2011, < http://www.erec.org/projects/finalised-projects/sustainable-communities.html> • Fainstein,S & Fainstein, N 1972, The View from Below: Urban Politics and Social Policy, Little, Brown and Company, Boston • Fisher, C 1984, The urban experience, Harcourt Brace, San Diego. • Gause, JO (ed.) 2007, Developing Sustainable Planned Communities, Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C • Hopkins, R 2008, The Transition Handbook: From oil dependency to local resilience, Green Books Ltd, Devon • Kleiner, M 2006, ‘Advancing Sustainable Development and its Implementation Through Spatial Planning’, in Keiner, M (ed.), The Future of Sustainability, Springer. Netherlands. • Knowd, I, Mason, D & Docking, A 2006, ‘Urban Agriculture: The New Frontier’, City Structure Vol. 23, No. 1 • Kumaran, V, Hyma, B, Wood, D 2004, Community Action Planning. Addressing Ecological Restoration and Sustainable Livelihoods, T.R. Publications, Chennai
44
• Lynch, K 1981, A Theory of Good City Form, MIT Press, Cambridge MA and London • Mansuri, G & Vijayendra, R 2004, ‘Community-based and -Driven development: A Critical Review’, The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 19, no. 1. • Mayer, M 2006, ‘Manuel Castells’ The City and the Grassroots, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol 30, No. 1, 202–6 • Morris, D & Hess, K 1975, Neighbourhood Power, Beacon Press, Boston • Mumford, L 1954, ‘The neighbourhood and the neighbourhood unit’, Town Planning Review, vol. 24, 250–270. • Murphy, J & Cauchi, J 2002, “What’s Wrong with Community Building”, paper presented in the Community Development Conference of the Local Government Community Services Association of Western Australia, 4th – 6th December 2002 • Neal, P (ed.) 2003, Urban Villages and the Making of Communities, Spon Press, London • O’Meara, M 1999, Reinventing Cities for People and the Planet, Peterson, Jane edn, Worldwatch Institute, Washington. • OECD 1998, Micro-financing and Local Development, OCDE and IFDEC, Canada • Perry, C. 1929, The Neighbourhood Unit, Reprinted Routledge/Thoemmes, London, 1998 • Peterman, W 2000, Neighbourhood Planning and Community-Based Development, SAGE Publications, California. • Pierson, J 2008, Going Local. Working in Communities and Neighbourhoods, Routledge, Oxon • Register, R 2002, Ecocities: Building cities in balance with nature, Berkeley • Rudlin & Falk 2009, Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood, Architectural Press, Oxford • Schubert, D 2000, ‘The Neighbourhood Paradigm: from Garden Cities to Gated Communities’, in Freestone, R (ed.) Urban Planning in a Changing World, E&FN SPON, London • Schumacher, E. 1973, Small is Beautiful, Blond & Briggs Ltd., London • Stoner, P 2010, ‘Sustainable Cities as Communities and Villages’, in W.W. Clark II (ed.), Sustainable Communities, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC • Sustainable Green 2010, Landmatters’ Projects at the Ecovillage in Currumbin, viewed April 2011, < http://www.sustainablegreen.com.au/about/> • Turner, J. & Fichter, R (eds) 1972, Freedom to Build, Macmillan, New York • UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (Division for Sustainable Development) 2009, Agenda 21 - Action Plan for the Next Century, release 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development Rio de Janeiro, viewed April 2011, <http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/ agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml> • UN-HABITAT 2009, Planning Sustainable Cities — Global Report on Human Settlements 2009; viewed April 2011, <http://www.unhabitat.org/content.asp?typeid=19&catid=555&cid=5607> • YIN, R 2009, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th Edition. SAGE Publications • Werlin, H 2000, ‘The Slum Upgrading Myth’, Urban Studies, Vol. 36, No. 9, 1523-1534. • Winston, N 2010, ‘Regeneration for Sustainable Communities? Barriers to Implement Implementing Sustainable Housing in Urban Areas’, Sustainable Development, Vol. 18, 319–330
45
46
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To my teacher Yusnani Mohd Yusof, for her support, trust and guidance. To the prof. Greg Brown, for its methodological rigor, and encouraging me to explore both the campus and the country. To the architect Paul Downtown, for his amazing clarity regarding how to built a sustainable future; also for his patience and time. And to all the residents of Christie Walk, for opening their house and community, and share their laughs and stories with me.
& SLOOT SEIGETARTS
1
