CPN is designed and maintained by ONline @ UW: Electronic Publishing Group.

E-mail us at cpn@cpn.org

Topics: Environment

Encouraging Sustainable Communities
A Wingspread Conference Report

As the century closes and we try to make sense of the social, economic and environmental problems that challenge our country, a renewed interest in communities has emerged. This interest stems in part from a need for a more promising means through which meaningful change, change that has a tangible impact on people’s daily lives, can be brought about. The American family is increasingly fragile (not to mention politically controversial). Centralized government is characterized by a lack of responsiveness and innovation. And the global economy, whose influence in our lives seems to grow quarterly, is largely indifferent to our well-being. Communities, in contrast, offer the potential for responsiveness, innovation, equity and the strength that derives from tackling problems collectively.

If communities, positioned at the forefront of social change today, are well-placed to take on many of the key challenges facing society, they are not necessarily well-equipped. Indeed, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that if communities are key to the future well-being of American society, they must then be strengthened and revitalized. How do we strengthen the foundations of our communities? What policies and actions can advance a movement whose goal is the creation and rebuilding of communities?

I. Background

Thirty individuals, representing a wide range of organizations and interests, gathered at the Wingspread conference center in Racine, Wisconsin on August 2–4, 1996 to consider this challenge. We assembled on the assumption that community is crucial to improving the welfare and quality of life of all Americans, and that "sustainability" is a process whose characteristics will vary widely by locale, community and organization. Thus, we did not take on the task of defining the sustainable community. Instead, the discussion focused on the threats to community stability and strength, and the conditions and actions that will be necessary to enable communities themselves to chart a course towards revitalization and improved quality of life.

Our focus was on communities that work. Communities that are vibrant, rich and livable——for all their residents. The goal of livability, of improved quality of life led in turn to the acknowledgment that the current indicators of well-being are inadequate to our goal. We agreed that we must challenge statistics that merely indicate economic growth or employment levels, and focus instead on a broader redefinition of prosperity. What we need is not more economic growth for the sake of growth, but "smart growth" that meets people’s needs, respects environmental imperatives, and provides a basis for economic and social well-being for future generations. We must manage growth, both physical and economic, so that urban, suburban, and rural communities, and residents of all income levels, benefit.

In our discussion of how to advance and strengthen efforts to make communities sustainable, several factors or underlying assumptions emerged:

  • The factors that come to bear on a community’s well-being—economic, social, environmental—are complex and intertwined. Thus the strategies adopted to strengthen them will incorporate a complex mix of approaches, sectors and constituencies. Similarly, successful efforts to revitalize communities will necessarily involve linking issues, goals, interests and organizations in new ways. Perhaps complexity theory offers a clue to how to make sense of the jumble we now call sustainable communities.
  • We can no longer afford to separate rural and urban in our conceptualization and in policy. What happens in inner cities has an effect on biological diversity in wilderness areas. The urban economy has a direct, although not always well understood, impact on rural communities, while resources found in rural areas—agriculture, recreational opportunities—are critical to urban well-being. Effective policy making and development comes from viewing cities, suburbs and rural areas as part of a continuum along which all parts relate.
  • Development and economic decisions must be based on sound science. Ignoring science leads to costs that will be borne by future generations.
  • Community well-being depends on the commitment of residents’ time, resources and expertise. Excessive reliance on the expertise of outside experts overlooks the often unique and invaluable indigenous resources that contain the real key to a community’s revitalization. Participants recognized the importance of a "bottom-up" approach that emphasizes community self-determination and reliance. The importance and power of organizing was stressed repeatedly.
  • The politics of escape and exclusion undermine all communities. Perceptions that older urban and suburban communities are less desirable places to live have resulted in development patterns that can both eviscerate older communities and simultaneously lead to the permanent loss of agricultural lands, biodiversity and wilderness at the metropolitan fringe.
  • Power of place. It is impossible to quantify, difficult to explain, perhaps better left to the artist. But it is a value that underlies people’s decisions and that must increasingly inform policy making.

During our discussions it became clear that we were talking about a new model of development, one that recognizes complexity, linkages, science, indigenous experience and energy, and values place, local initiative and fairness. This model recognizes that a key part of the solution for protecting habitat and biological diversity is revitalizing our urban and suburban cores. It recognizes that sustainability includes justice and a firm commitment to making communities livable for all their residents. This model demands that we define prosperity to reflect people’s lives and aspirations, not statistical indicators.

II. Conditions for Sustainable Communities

Time constraints did not allow for the development of a detailed road map for livable communities and "smart growth." The discussion, however, did identify and explore several areas in which further attention, analysis and action would advance the field and strengthen communities.

1. An End to Sprawl

For many, the weekend’s clarion call was "an end to sprawl." They felt that a concerted, national focus on containing sprawl is both a smart policy approach and a politically promising way to focus activity on developing livable communities. Our landscapes are poignant portraits of the devastating impact of unmanaged growth on both inner-city communities and vulnerable habitat on the metropolitan fringe. Sprawl is driven by a perception that costs are lower in outlying areas and that new communities offer a respite from problems associated with urban areas, such as overcrowding, crime and high taxes. However, the costs of sprawl, frequently unquantified and unrecognized, are typically deferred and externalized, often creating a burden to be borne by future generations, the environment and those remaining in the urban core.

As a central organizing concept, sprawl brings together a range of interests, organizations, and goals. It recognizes that the protection of biodiversity will not be realized without addressing the problems of the city. It honors the importance of protecting habitat at the same time that it supports rich, diverse city neighborhoods. It encompasses the problem of air pollution from automobiles and trucks while addressing the mismatch of where jobs are located and where people live. It addresses questions of equity and the need to halt the politics of escape.

Although a focus on sprawl and, in effect, growth management, captures a range of social and environmental problems, it does not necessarily follow that, as a call to action, it is sufficiently compelling to the broader electorate. Many of us felt that citizens in different parts of the country have exhibited concern about the problems created by sprawl, but acknowledged that some work would have to be done to determine how to cast the issue so that it speaks to citizen concerns.

2. Revitalized Regionalism

Because the problems affecting communities do not recognize political boundaries, there was an equally strong sense that a renewed focus on regional approaches to strengthening communities must be a central part of improving community well-being. Participants pointed out, however, that what we need is not the regionalism of the past, but a new "community-based regionalism," one that respects and derives from the needs and input of communities. As devolution proceeds in the United States, the challenge is, as one participant put it, "to re-invent civic society at the regional level," to create a responsive regionalism that strengthens communities rather than dictates to them.

It was pointed out that regionalism is, and must be, organic, not a theoretical construct. The move towards regionalism is motivated by the fierceness of the global economy: Communities can no longer afford the inefficiencies of independent living. However, tradition, distrust and government policy discourage the formation of the new institutions that would help communities capture the benefits of cooperative approaches. The Mayor of Missoula noted that federal and state policies discourage his city from taking care of its surrounding communities even though the problems those communities experience will, in time, be the city’s responsibility.

3. Economic Reform/Transformation

The economics of rebuilding communities, in the context of a complex and global economy, were recognized by all as among the trickiest challenges facing the field. Indeed, the tension between two approaches or goals—reform and transformation—surfaced, with the group opting to emphasize a set of ideas that would reform the system but in ways that, if successful, would begin to move the economy towards more fundamental change. Thus, our discussion focused more on ways to change the incentives that undermine community prosperity and to make markets work for the benefit of people in places.

Our discussion of how to revitalize and strengthen community economies centered on four themes:

A. Principles

The group made an initial attempt to outline principles to guide thinking on economic policy that benefits and strengthens communities. Economic development and policy should:

  • broaden opportunity
  • promote economic efficiency
  • promote conservation
  • build community social capital
  • promote fiscal responsibility
  • make "place" matter
  • emphasize investment over consumption
  • encourage long-term savings
  • create meaningful work
  • offer living wages

In evaluating programs and policies, the key question that must be addressed is: Who benefits?

B. Tax Policy

The discussion came back repeatedly to the importance of tax policy and the need for a more equitable tax system. Although we did not enumerate the ways in which national tax policy undermines community autonomy and economic vitality, there was a strong feeling that the system rewards development patterns inimical to community health. At the local level, tax policy often provides incentives that result in sprawl.

C. Policy Change

While recognizing that much of what will strengthen communities emerges from within communities themselves, the participants acknowledged that state and federal policies nonetheless exert a powerful influence on local economies, programs and opportunities. Indeed, national, state, and local policies can undermine communities in fundamental, if sometimes unintended, ways. National transportation policy, for example, has facilitated sprawl and discouraged the use of public transportation. Policies and statutes that discourage regional cooperation have undermined planning and growth management. The group provided compelling anecdotal evidence of the policy barriers communities face in attempting to manage growth, create jobs and retain wealth. At the same time, opportunities for policy change were cited and some policy suggestions floated, such as expanding the Community Reinvestment Act to include the environment.

D. Community-based Economic Development

The discussion went beyond policy measures to the development process itself, touching on economic development programs and projects that enhance local ownership and autonomy. The discussion made clear that there is a lack of reliable information on what is happening at the local level and, equally important, what kinds of programs and strategies show promise. Some of the approaches mentioned were:

  • development of local currencies
  • increasing local ownership
  • employee-owned businesses.

4. Community-led Strategies are Essential

Resident-led processes, we all agreed, are at the heart of efforts to create livable communities. We discussed two general kinds of processes:

  1. organizing and advocacy, the goal of which is to increase residents’ power and control and, in turn, to effect economic and policy change;
  2. consensus-building, which seeks to produce a common community vision.

The first addresses concerns about fairness and equity, the latter enables communities to visualize their goals, inventory their assets, and begin to develop strategies to improve their communities. Both activities are central to efforts to achieve sustainability.

Organizing and consensus building are the building blocks of economic and policy change. The impenetrability of local bureaucracies, the power of national policy and the indifference of the global marketplace can only be countered by concerted local action that translates into political influence. At the same time, a community that is well organized is more likely to launch successful economic development initiatives and to ensure that economic policies and programs benefit all residents.

Given the centrality of community-led processes, the Wingspread Group agreed that they deserve greater support and recognition. Increased funding for organizing and consensus building, awards for social entrepreneurs, and a greater voice for community input in policy debates were all urged.

5. Stronger, Smarter Practice

Sustainable community initiatives are taking place in countless communities across the country. Information about myriad strategies and projects circulates through books, conferences, CD-ROMs, Web pages and other vehicles. As interest increases and activity expands, we confront some basic questions: What works and how can we strengthen efforts at the local level?

There are no graduate degrees offered in livable communities or "smart growth." The field is composed of a number of heretofore unrelated sectors that often work in ignorance of each other’s views and accomplishments. Like the Internet, it is an unorganized, almost chaotic aggregate of different actors, interests and initiatives that almost defies categorization. Making sense of it, strengthening its practice—applying more rigor to practice and evaluation of outcomes—is a central challenge.

Participants offered a number of suggestions for improving practice, particularly through better communication, that are listed in Appendix A.

6. An Expanded and Strengthened Constituency

Communication, and the need to "preach beyond the choir," was a consistent theme throughout the weekend. Indeed, it was recognized by all of us at Wingspread that the very term, sustainable communities, lacks punch even for advocates. So while many people share the goals and concerns of the sustainable community field, they do not perceive themselves as part of a larger field of ideas and action.

Expanding the constituency involves two key tasks. First, those involved in building and strengthening communities have to communicate more effectively. Second, we have to go beyond the existing sustainability "choir." There is a growing portion of the public that is sympathetic to the concerns and goals of livable communities but that has been turned off by confusing or pretentious language.

III. Next Steps

There are countless next steps, as our discussions clearly indicate. Experimentation and innovation are taking place all over the country, and even at the national policy level there is talk of more community-friendly policy. There are signs of energy and momentum. The question to us is: How can the energy, accomplishment and vision that are emerging in different parts of the country be strengthened and built upon so that communities prosper? How can an organic, decentralized, multidisciplinary field be advanced?

The Wingspread conference surfaced an array of promising, even tantalizing, policy options, programs and economic innovations designed to strengthen communities. Our challenge is to identify and promote those actions that increase support for community initiatives and policy change.

What actions might this Wingspread Group undertake over the next year to strengthen and support a "smart growth" agenda?

1. Communication

A. Develop a Language and a Message
The language used by sustainable communities advocates does not resonate with most Americans, nor even with many potential allies. Our task is to explore what language and which message would appeal to the interests of different constituencies and to a broader range of the public through market research, focus groups and other means.

B. Expand Constituency
We need to explore which constituencies (environmental? governmental?) are the most likely allies of "smart growth." How might the public be engaged? What vehicles exist or must be created to bring together different interests, sectors, and disciplines? These questions can be answered through market research, focus groups and consultation with different sectors, as well as further deliberation among ourselves.

2. Promote Policy Change

The Wingspread conference made clear that there is a plethora of promising policy ideas being developed and promoted to support communities. It was also clear, however, that these ideas are often incubated in isolation, or scattered across communities. In a number of cases, good ideas require further analysis and debate. The Wingspread Group (or some of its participants) could make a valuable contribution by compiling a list or preparing a document that develops a policy agenda for "smart growth" in livable communities. It would highlight concrete, innovative, informed state and national policy options for creating and strengthening healthy, livable communities. Such an agenda might then be promoted through the President’s Council for Sustainable Development and such organizations as the National Conference of Mayors.

3. Promote Community-based Regionalism

The undeniable logic of taking a regional approach to a range of issues critical to community health challenges the Wingspread Group to explore how it could advance understanding of the connections between cities and rural areas, and between urban and environmental vitality. The Wingspread Group might first undertake to explore what a new, community-based regionalism looks like, how it benefits communities, and how the current trend of devolution might allow for this new approach to governance. It could facilitate or encourage development of a strategy for communicating an informed and practical understanding of the value of community-based regionalism to a relevant set of interests. This might also include a specific focus on promoting alliances between urban and environmental interests.

4. Improve Practice

The strength and vitality of the sustainable development field derives from its focus on the power of place and local, bottom-up experimentation. Decentralized innovation, however, challenges us to develop a better understanding of what has worked and why, and what has failed and why. The Wingspread Group could encourage efforts to capture the lessons that have been learned through experimentation and implementation, and to share these lessons and insights with others in the field. At the same time, we might consider what role, if any, the Wingspread Group might play in expanding opportunities for practitioners to learn from one another.

5. Launch a "National Call for the End of Sprawl"

Sprawl emerged as the most compelling focus for change in our meeting, one that, when combined with regionalism, appears to offer a reasonably inclusive analysis of the factors contributing to community decline as well as a way to think about how to confront the challenge. The next step for the Wingspread Group is to begin to devise a strategy for how a focus on sprawl might be expanded and implemented across the country. This would include identifying the organizations and interests that need to be represented, what problems and issues require further analysis, what language would be most compelling, and other issues.

6. Create the Wingspread Group

A number of participants have commented since the meeting how much they benefited from the discussion. Much was said about the diversity of views, the richness of the conversation, and the opportunity to make connections across fields, constituencies and interests. And although not all constituencies and perspectives were present—business being conspicuously absent—the diversity of perspectives, interests and experiences that emerged at Wingspread resembles the mix of experience, expertise and insight that is needed to advance the idea of livable communities. Indeed, the importance of diversity—human in cities, biological in natural settings—clearly underlies much of what motivates much of our work, from urban revitalization to environmental protection efforts.

The richness of the Wingspread Group’s discussion is suggested in Appendix A which we include with this document in an effort to broaden and facilitate a national discussion of the issues that brought us together.

by Janet Maughan Rapporteur

Co-sponsors of this conference

  • Ford Foundation
  • Surdna Foundation
  • President’s Council on Sustainable Development
  • The Johnson Foundation

The conference co-sponsors encourage you to spread awareness of this report with others concerned with sustainable communities.

Appendix A

What actions will best advance the sustainable community agenda over the next 5-10 years?

The Wingspread "Encouraging Sustainable Communities" conference August 2-4, 1996 convened around the question: "What actions will best advance the sustainable community agenda over the next 5-10 years?" It is the rapporteur’s sense of the substance and tone of the discussion that participants identified the following:

    1. Employ market research to develop a better understanding of key audiences and conduct focus groups to develop the most effective language for those groups
    It was the sense of the group that the "experts" involved in promoting sustainable communities have not developed an adequate understanding of the needs of those outside these expert circles and are using their own jargon to communicate with them.

     

    		2. Collect, present and disseminate the stories and experiences relating to sustainable community efforts and initiatives
    While avoiding a "best practices" exercise, the group emphasized such a collection would need to be "eminently useful," quickly providing the essential information about significant cases of sustainable practices.

     

     
    3. Use the issues implicit in the concept of sustainable communities to form a political "common ground"
    While these issues are often described differently by different constituencies, they present a common problem to a wide range of interests. The group felt that if conveyed in understandable ways and in a relevant context, these issues could bring many parties "to the table" in a non-adversarial way to create "win-win" solutions.

     

     

    		4. Reach beyond the "already converted" to "real people"
    While acknowledging the many potentially allied organizations, conference participants repeatedly warned about "preaching to the choir." The sustainable communities agenda must be presented in common language to common people and gain popular currency among groups like the Elks and the labor unions, in addition to the Sierra Club and city councils. Hence, the importance of (1) above.

     

     

    5. Encourage use of the President’s "bully pulpit"
    It was noted that President Clinton and Vice President Gore could promote the sustainable communities recommendations of the final PCSD report. It will be important to encourage and assist them to do so.

     

    		6. "National Call for the End of Sprawl"
    Urban sprawl was identified by the group as one of the most significant barriers to sustainable communities and one whose negative effects could be quantified and described compellingly enough to mobilize action. A bold, comprehensive, national initiative akin to "putting a man on the moon in 10 years" is required.

     

    7. "Community-Empowered Regionalism"
    The group coined this phrase and felt it brought together two previously unrelated interests: community organizing and regionalism. Community ownership of and involvement in the process was thought to be the most effective way to create these new regions.

     

     

     

    		8. Act on Legislative Opportunities; Create "Policy Monuments"
    The group identified legislative opportunities in upcoming bills in need of support, particularly the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). New legislation might be introduced, such as a National Endowment for the Land and a National Endowment for Townships. The group also agreed that new "policy monuments" must be created, i.e., big, new, compelling, essentially irreversible and self-funding paradigm-advancing legislation, similar in effect to the Social Security Act or Medicare.

     

    9. Encourage new funding priorities and patterns
    Many are reevaluating philanthropy’s segmented approach to funding. Sustainable communities can provide funders with a more comprehensive, integrative and long-term approach.

     

     

    		10. Promote Civic Dialogues
    The group felt reviving the civic process would be essential to advancing the sustainable communities agenda—from local, multi-stakeholder roundtables to cross-sectoral national conferences. Building intermediary structures to enhance the process, resources and technology of these dialogues would increase their effectiveness many-fold.

     

The following is a summary of the actionable items proposed during the Wingspread "Encouraging Sustianable Communties" conference August 2-4, 1996:

I. Communication

A. Market Research

As a term, "sustainable communities" is not widely recognized or understood and does not resonate with most Americans, even though the concepts it contains may be widely supported. Focus groups could help determine plain, understandable and inspiring language that can efficiently communicate these concepts to inform, persuade and motivate "real people."

  • Market research would efficiently determine what people at all levels currently believe. Communication strategies could then be developed using stories and accompanying analysis to move citizens toward embracing sustainable policies. Targeted appeals must be made not only to obvious audiences (county commissioners, city officials, land developers, state and federal officials, members of environmental groups), but to a much larger group of people traditionally outside discussions of sustainability (civic groups like the Moose, Elks, labor unions, etc.)
  • Conduct an economic literacy campaign to promote a better understanding of the benefits of sustainable practices and the diminishing returns from current policies.

B. Stories and Experiences: Collection, Presentation and Dissemination

There is no shortage of reports and brochures on sustainable activities. They must be organized and made more manageable.

  • Funding a compilation of ongoing work on sustainable communities in a concise and useful format with the widest possible dissemination (via print, floppy disk, CD-ROM, Internet) would be a significant contribution.
  • A subsequent level of analysis might shed some light on why particular efforts succeeded or failed, facilitating better decision making.
  • These stories and experiences should be "packaged" for audiences outside current sustainable communities circles and would take a variety of forms, from video documentaries to curricular materials.
  • While publications, videos and web sites are useful, face-to-face presentations in communities are best to inspire "can do."

C. Using Images and Framing Arguments

Images are powerful vehicles to communicate a preferred future—from simple metaphors to actual visual presentation methods—such as the city of Chattanooga used to determine publicly-favored development options. Images can help concretize the positive alternatives to current practices.

  • Anyone promoting sustainable communities should be able to describe the characteristics of such a community and how it would "look." Regional web pages, or "virtual regions," could convey what the needed infrastructure (network of institutions, tools and practices) for a region might look like, long before such new thinking could be introduced in policy circles or public discourse.
  • Market research should serve to guide arguments and approaches which themselves should address "real people" in "real terms." The Bank of America report on the cost of sprawl did this by showing how sustainable operations can reduce costs, improve market penetration, enhance land values and strengthen customer loyalty.
  • Carefully framing arguments can also help set the stage for creating win-win solutions in which otherwise opposing sides avoid a power struggle over entrenched positions and instead create a solution that addresses the real needs of the parties. Framing a development question as "jobs vs. the spotted owl" draws the lines of conflict from the outset, while asking "How might a region sustain its prosperity over the next 50 years?" can bring many parties to the same side of the table to consider a shared problem and create mutually-satisfying solutions."
  • Use science to test proposals and predict their likely results.

D. Expand Constituency

Easily identifiable allies exist in many sectors and are already inclined to collaborate because of their current work or shared values. In the independent sector, for example, both Community Development Corporations (CDCs) and environmental organizations are vigorously pursuing new models of development. But the group identified the importance of going beyond the traditional constituencies and engaging businesses as partners as well as community and civic groups, members of both political parties, etc., to form the broadest constituency possible.

  • The White House "bully pulpit" should be used to promote the ideas in the PCSD report, including sustainable community. There is a great opportunity to further prepare Vice President Gore for that role over the next two to three years.
  • A strong scientific theory could add great potency to the work, so the Santa Fe Institute should be asked to convene leading sustainability theorists and practitioners to explore it.

II. National Initiatives

On the national level, the sustainable communities agenda can be advanced primarily in three areas: policy, training and education, and funding. While the action items are national in scope, some can also be applied at the local and regional levels. For the stakeholders at these levels, the group felt:

  • Relationships should be cultivated with executive and legislative officials in both parties and their staffs.
  • As the decisions and operations of business greatly impact sustainability, positively engaging this sector in the process can avoid energy-draining adversarialism. Data demonstrating the competitiveness of sustainable communities would be persuasive to this audience, and hearing from business people about their daily practices would reveal financial, technical and other information needs required to move forward desired changes.

A. Policy

  • Draft briefs on sustainable communities. Policies with sustainable communities implications will be formed soon after a new Administration begins its term. In this climate, well-reasoned and well-packaged briefs promoting sustainable communities will be useful to policy writers confronted with real-world political deadlines.
  • Create "policy monuments," i.e., big, new, compelling, essentially irreversible and paradigm-advancing legislation, similar to the Social Security Act and Medicare.
  • Introduce initiatives similar to the WPA and CCC of the Depression era could be used for national eco-restoration and urban revitalization today.
  • Create a national focus equivalent to "putting a man on the moon in 10 years" to develop energy, transportation, and manufacturing processes with zero waste and pollution.
  • Change national accounts to internalize externalities, i.e., quantify and incorporate up-to-now unincorporated costs (such as the cost of disposal). This could use the market to shift incentives toward sustainable practices.
  • Abolish the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and create a Center for Community Sustainability at the White House that is responsible for integrating national policy, devolving power, and improving the responsiveness of the federal government to community priorities. Inter-agency cooperation should be promoted and reinvention and devolution should be linked explicitly to the community level. Take advantage of the momentum behind devolution; don’t fight it.
  • Identify and remove institutional barriers to sustainability, e.g., subsidies that foster dependence or encourage over-use of resources.
  • Shift the tax burden from work-and-people to waste-and-pollution.
  • Support passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) legislation. It is the best representation yet of policy written for a regional level and is scheduled for reauthorization next year. Its passage should be vigorously supported; in doing so, raise public awareness of its contents.
  • Expand the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to include environmental standards.
  • Eliminate the mortgage deduction on second homes.
  • Create a National Endowment for the Land: public funds to buy or leverage the purchase of private development rights on landscape, greenbelt, agricultural, wood lot, piedmont and wilderness.
  • Create a National Endowment for Townships: public funds to facilitate in-fill housing in central cities and towns, to result in mixed-income neighborhoods.

B. Training & Education

  • Encourage the joint service Center for Sustainable Development being considered by the National Association of County Officials and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
  • Develop curricula and integrate sustainable development into all levels of education.

C. Funding

Major foundations are interested in the concepts embodied in sustainable communities and are seeking direction. If even a small number of foundations changed funding practices, they might encourage others to do so by highlighting the comprehensive, integrative, and long-term nature of funding around the notion of sustainable communities.

  • Establish something like a MacArthur "genius" program for leaders in sustainable communities or regions.
  • A national foundation should sponsor a major national "how to" demonstration forum on current technologies and their application in American communities.

III. Regional and Local Initiatives

A. "Community-Empowered Regionalism"

This phrase captures the notion of making "place" matter and involving those affected by a decision in the decision-making process. It also recognizes that the scope of current local decision-making entities (municipalities, community-based organizations, etc.) are too small to encompass the web of systems that affect them, while national and state entities are too large.

Promoting regional thinking will be a challenge. Helping people to visualize what a region is and the systems and relations it encompasses would be a tremendous step. New words, such as "city-states," may help wider conceptualization. Currently non-existent civil society organization needs to be built to act within these expanded regions, as would new systems and institutions to assume local responsibility and authority as devolution continues below the state level.

B. Policy

The group agreed on the need for a campaign such as a "national call for the end of sprawl," identifying it as one of the most central issues confronting sustainable communities. Alternative formulations to the descriptor "sustainable communities" included "communities that work," "livable communities," "smart growth," or "redefining prosperity." New strategies for growth management are needed and community participation and ownership are essential. Specific suggestions included:

  • Quantifying and dramatizing sprawl’s negative impacts on a community could be done by revealing the fiscal cost of repetitious infrastructure. The related issues of inner-city dis-investment, and the loss of environmental capital could also be addressed.
  • The fiscal impacts of public reinvestment and associated tax policies, with tangible and successful examples, would also need to be available to make persuasive cases as to the dangers and ultimate consequences further sprawl would bring.
  • Understanding how development occurs and what drives development patterns is important in fostering and highlighting feasible alternatives.
  • The creation of ISTEA-like bills would break the legislative log jam on environmental infrastructure.
  • Waste and/or energy consumption should be taxed.
  • Community decision making could be enhanced significantly by creating community indicators or adapting/adopting existing models created by a few communities and states.
  • Technology can also facilitate better decision making: financial modeling can show effects of potential decisions, and perhaps be visualized with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) capabilities; city-state Web pages (virtual regions) can show new relationships and identify needed intermediary structures; and visual simulation can significantly improve public input in neighborhood planning.

C. Community Process

Repeated emphasis was given to "bottom up" methods, calling for the inclusion of community organizers and leaders, and full community participation. Local experience must be leveraged to avoid outside expertise disempowering local actors. The entire process must be defined and refined within and among communities.
Specific suggestions included:

  • Embrace devolution, and make it serve the purpose of sustainable communities and civic renewal.
  • Target "real people." The hard work will be done by "real people," not experts or titled leaders. A way to get people started is to ask them to describe the community they would consider realistically ideal and ask them what they can do to build it themselves.
  • Organize communities to take charge of regions. Build on communities’ sense of place.
  • Build more bridges between other groups and seek new collaborations. The "community empowered regionalism" concept brings together two, previously unrelated perspectives.
  • Form urban-rural partnerships, cognizant that there are sometimes sharp divisions in current urban/rural political power alignments.
  • Implement sustainable policies and practices where you live and work.

D. Training & Education

  • Promote a new "culture of organizing" in communities. Facilitate it by establishing training institutes for sustainable community organizers. Provide these community organizers access to the stories and experiences collected nationally, as well as to contact people and networks.
  • Take advantage of educational opportunities in the community: apprenticeships, mentors, fund-a-class and student self-employment loan funds.

E. Funding

  • Help community foundations see how they might advance the sustainable communities agenda.
  • Establish "micro grants" for start-up community projects, perhaps on a challenge basis.
  • Create venture funds for innovation.
  • Experiment with "local currency" initiatives, such as "time dollars," which quantify community service hours in a non-monetary currency that can be bartered for other volunteer services, or for discounts on goods and services within the community.
  • Develop and improve community-based economic development tools (CRA, community-owned banks, green investment funds, etc.) to create wealth.

IV. Civic Dialogues

Typical modes of civic dialogue include public meetings, round tables and conferences. Each of these could be employed in communities throughout the country for issues pertaining to sustainability.

There is value in more direct contact among the many players (e.g. business people, developers, CDC executives, environmentalists, public health officials, government servants, specialists and funders) to share common interests and integrate knowledge. This means informal and formal get togethers around one or two questions on a regular, continuing basis in various parts of the country. Contacts like these allow for the cross-fertilization of ideas and spawn subsequent networking.

  • Theoreticians and practitioners in complementary areas such as community-building and civic renewal or community-organizing and community development should be brought together for dialogues.
  • The group agreed that the PCSD report, although not perfect, represents a national agenda. Developing multi-stakeholder coalitions or roundtables in each region of the country to build on it is a next step.
  • Community dialogues on tax reform might be another topic where local discussions could lead to some sort of national consensus.
  • A more ambitious course would be to build intermediary structures where meaningful local dialogues can occur. If the many stakeholders not only had a place to meet, but assistance with the process (e.g. conflict resolution, organizing); resources (data, a collection of experiences and stories); and technology (for visioning, consensus building), the results could be a quantum leap toward sustainable communities. This new paradigm might be developed in up to 10 localities and the results tracked with indicators to assess the potential of such heavily-facilitated dialogues.

By Brian Reilly Rapporteur

Associate Program Officer For The Environment
The Johnson Foudation

Back to Environment Index