On the Road to Zero Waste: Successes and Lessons from Around the World

• http://www.no-burn.org/on-the-road-to-zero-waste-successes-and-lessons-from-around-the-world

On the Road to Zero Waste: Successes and Lessons from Around the World

Zero waste is both a goal and a plan of action. The goal is to ensure resource recovery and protect scarce natural resources by ending waste disposal in incinerators, dumps, and landfills. The plan encompasses waste reduction, composting, recycling and reuse, changes in consumption habits, and industrial redesign. But just as importantly, zero waste is a revolution in the relationship between waste and people. It is a new way of thinking that aims to safeguard the health and improve the lives of everyone who produces, handles, works with, or is affected by waste-in other words, all of us.

This set of zero waste case studies profiles nine diverse communities, each providing a real-world example of authentic progress toward the goal of zero waste. 

On the Road to Zero Waste.pdf

To download individual case studies, visit here.

For more information about zero waste, visit www.no-burn.org/zerowaste. 

Diet - Climate Connection

Where agriculture and climate change meet

The CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security’s (CCAFS) “Big Facts” site represents the latest and most authoritative research on topics at the intersection of climate change, agriculture and food security. Explore and share the data and graphics on topics ranging from undernourishment and population to fisheries and forestry. Find out why it’s impossible to address climate issues without including agriculture—and vice versa.

• http://ccafs.cgiar.org/bigfacts/
• http://www.humanmedia.org

Cultivating a better food system

by Danielle Nierenberg and Ellen Gustafson, Food Tank: The Food Think Tank (www.FoodTank.org)

http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/jeffmcintirestrasbu/105771/cultivating-better-food-system-2013
 
As we start 2013, many people will be thinking about plans and promises to improve their diet and health. But we think a broader collection of farmers, policy-makers, and eaters need new, bigger resolutions for fixing the food system – real changes with long-term impacts in fields, boardrooms, and on plates all over the world. These are resolutions that the world can’t afford to break with nearly one billion still hungry and more than one billion suffering from the effects of being overweight and obese. We have the tools—let’s use them in 2013!

Growing in Cities: Food production doesn’t only happen in fields or factories. Nearly one billion people worldwide produce food in cities. In Kibera, the largest slum in Africa, farmers are growing seeds of indigenous vegetables and selling them to rural farmers. At Bell Book & Candle restaurant in New York, customers are served rosemary, cherry tomatoes, romaine, and other produce grown from the restaurant’s aeroponic rooftop garden.

Creating Better Access: People’s Grocery in Oakland and Fresh Moves in Chicago bring mobile grocery stores to food deserts giving low-income consumers opportunities to make healthy food choices. Instead of chips and soda, they provide customers with affordable organic produce, not typically available in their communities.

Eaters Demanding Healthier Food: Food writer Michael Pollan advises not to eat anything that your grandparents wouldn’t recognize. Try eating more fruits, vegetables, and whole foods without preservatives and other additives.

Cooking More: Home economics classes have declined in schools in the United Kingdom and the U.S. and young people lack basic cooking skills. Top Chefs Jamie Oliver, Alice Waters, and Bill Telepan are working with schools to teach kids how to cook healthy, nutritious foods.

Creating Conviviality: According to the Hartman Group, nearly half of all adults in the U.S. eat meals alone. Sharing a meal with family and friends can foster community and conversation. Recent studies suggest that children who eat meals with their families are typically happier and more stable than those who do not.

Focus on Vegetables: Nearly two billion people suffer from micronutrient deficiencies worldwide, leading to poor development. The World Vegetable Center, however, is helping farmers grow high-value, nutrient rich vegetables in Africa and Asia, improving health and increasing incomes.

Preventing Waste: Roughly one-third of all food is wasted—in fields, during transport, in storage, and in homes. But there are easy, inexpensive ways to prevent waste. Initiatives like Love Food, Hate Waste offer consumers tips about portion control and recipes for leftovers, while farmers in Bolivia are using solar-powered driers to preserve foods.

Engaging Youth: Making farming both intellectually and economically stimulating will help make the food system an attractive career option for youth. Across sub-Saharan Africa, cell phones and the internet are connecting farmers to information about weather and markets; in the U.S., Food Corps is teaching students how to grow and cook food, preparing them for a lifetime of healthy eating.

Protecting Workers: Farm and food workers across the world are fighting for better pay and working conditions. In Zimbabwe, the General Agricultural and Plantation Workers Union of Zimbabwe (GAPWUZ), protects laborers from abuse. In the U.S., the Coalition of Immokalee Workers successfully persuaded Trader Joe’s and Chipotle to pay the premium of a penny-per-pound to Florida tomato pickers.

Acknowledging the Importance of Farmers: Farmers aren’t just farmers, they’re business-women and men, stewards of the land, and educators, sharing knowledge in their communities. Slow Food International works with farmers all over the world, helping recognize their importance to preserve biodiversity and culture.

Recognizing the Role of Governments: Nations must implement policies that give everyone access to safe, affordable, healthy food. In Ghana and Brazil, government action, including national school feeding programs and increased support for sustainable agricultural production, greatly reduced the number of hungry people.

Changing the Metrics: Governments, NGOs, and funders have focused on increasing production and improving yields, rather than improving nutrition and protecting the environment. Changing the metrics, and focusing more on quality, will improve public and environmental health, and livelihoods.

Fixing the Broken Food System: Agriculture can be the solution to some of the world’s most pressing challenges—including unemployment, obesity, and climate change. These innovations simply need more research, more investment, and ultimately more funding.

Danielle Nierenberg and Ellen Gustafson are the co-founders of Food Tank: The Food Think Tank (www.FoodTank.org). Danielle is based in Chicago, IL and Ellen is based in San Diego, CA. Take a look at what they’ve got planned for their new organization:

Image credit: Project Dinner Table via photopin cc

The Art of Making Place

• http://urbantimes.co/2012/12/the-art-of-making-place-video/

'Place' can be a hard work to define in the English language. On the one hand, it's a physical location; on the other, it's a psychological space created by the expectations of the people who move within it.Architecture and design have a crucial role to play in defining how we as urbanites inhabit the spaces around us. Public spaces are designed with a specific form and a particular function in mind – although these functions are open to (re)interpretation. In this short film, a group of architects and planners give a crash course in placemaking, and explain the steps they have taken to improve the quality of public space in downtown Seattle.

"It's not about buildings, it's not about pipes under streets – it's about creating a space where people can interact with each other in a positive, safe way. That's the city I want."

• 
  

Raising Less Materialistic Kids

• http://www.nrdc.org/thisgreenlife/0406.asp

Establishing a green lifestyle is one thing. Getting your kids to go along is another, and the difficulty grows the older they get. My kids are at the tail end of 10 and 13. When they were toddlers, there was no problem containing their desire for "more," since my husband and I ruled the roost. Now that they're older, they have money of their own, go to stores without us, and are heavily influenced by their friends, most of whom are serious consumers. Kids are prey to more than 40,000 TV ads a year, and are far more easily manipulated by what they see than adults. Though my own kids have been brought up without TV (more to encourage reading and play than to keep out commercial influences), it doesn't seem to have made a difference. Through radio, magazines, billboards, the Internet, and that strange process known as osmosis, they've gotten to know the same jingles, logos and pitches as everyone else and to long for the same brands. Not too long ago, my 13-year-old daughter was swept up in the consumerist tide. Now, shopping trips with friends are a weekly affair, resulting, more often than not, in a purchase. Interestingly, the stuff she comes home with isn't always for herself -- often it's a present. The point for her is less to have than to buy. Why do I care? Because everything bought --indeed everything produced -- uses up natural resources, and everything discarded ends up back in nature, often in a harmful form. Through most of history, the quantities consumed were small enough that it didn't matter, but with the population explosion of the 20th century and rise of the market economy, consumption has skyrocketed. Since 1950, we've used up more resources than all the earth's previous inhabitants combined. Overconsumption is causing "strains on the environment never before seen," according to a 1998 United Nations' Human Development Report. In addition to depleting non-renewable resources, like fossil fuels, it uses up renewable resources like fish stocks and forests before they can replenish themselves, and causes pollution and waste beyond the powers of the earth to absorb them. The bottom line is this: if we don't lower consumption soon, we may overwhelm the earth's capacity to support us. The results could be catastrophic. Whether or not that sounds melodramatic to you depends on what you think catastrophic is. For me, it's something less than New York freezing over. It's the current loss of 30 million acres of global forest a year, warming of the earth's climate and mass extinction that scientists believe is already underway. We can look to technological improvements and legislation to help get us out of this mess, but I don't think they'll be enough without a cultural shift. A new ethos is needed that puts the long-term health of our planet above status, wealth and instant gratification. It's that ethos that I'm trying to cultivate with my teenage daughter by teaching the notion of limits-- both financial and natural -- and the idea that our actions have consequences that are no less real for being invisible. There's one thing, at least, that I don't have to teach -- a love of nature. The same girl who delights in shopping, and can never get enough music or clothes, has been entranced by animals since her earliest days. At 5, she was cupping butterflies in her hands to observe them and rescuing drowning bees from pools. As much as she adores city life, she also thrills to walks in the country. In other words, the challenge for her isn't appreciating nature, but recognizing her own impact on it. I still struggle with that one myself. —Sheryl Eisenberg MY STRATEGIES Here are some methods I've used with my kids to quench the desire for things they don't need: - I established a rule early on that they couldn't buy something -- even with their own money -- if they didn't announce their intention of doing so before entering the store. (I can't hold them to this when they shop without me, but the idea still serves as a touchstone.) - When we happen upon an egregious ad, I pull it apart to show how it plays on their anxieties and desires. I point out misleading statements and images, or I just say, "how can that be true?" --and let them discover the falsehoods themselves. - I have them compare expectations to reality. After they get something they wanted desperately, I ask if it turned out to be as wonderful as they thought. If the answer's no, we discuss what produced such high expectations in the first place. - When they're offered a plastic giveaway at a restaurant or fair, I suggest not accepting it if it's going to end up in the garbage the next day. - I try to be a more sustainable consumer myself and discuss my personal choices with them. - We talk about happiness -- what gives it and what never can. (requires Adobe Acrobat)

Sheryl Eisenberg, a long-time advisor to NRDC, posts a newThis Green Life every month. Sheryl makes her home in Tribeca (NYC), where—along with her children, Sophie and Gabby, and husband, Peter—she tries to put her environmental principles into practice. No fooling. Read more about Sheryl. Can't get enough. This pile of make-up (at left) is just a fraction of my daughter's stock. ONLINE RESOURCES For your kids PBS Don't Buy It WWF/CENTER FOR A NEW AMERICAN DREAM Center for a New American Dream  For you SIERRA CLUB Why Consumption Matters  WORLDWATCH INSTITUTE Good Stuff? A Consumption Manifesto CENTER FOR A NEW AMERICAN DREAM Kids and Commercialism MEDIA AWARENESS NETWORK: Dealing with Marketing - What Parents Can Do CENTER FOR A NEW AMERICAN DREAM Center for a New American Dream CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Branded for Life? UNITED NATIONS Human Development Report 1998 Math lesson. We adults have to learn, with our kids, to factor in environmental costs when calculating the price of things. The fairness issue. Global consumption isn't only too high; it's unevenly distributed. While the richest 20 percent of the world enjoys 86 percent of the resources, the poorest 20 percent gets just over 1 percent. Justice suggests that we raise the poor's share, at the same time as we bring consumption down overall. Connecting with nature. When my daughter was 8, we rented an old farmhouse in northern Italy. Characteristically, she spent the trip getting to know the local fauna, including moths, praying mantises, spiders and lizards -- many of whom are now featured in our family album.

With gift too, Less can be More

• http://www.nrdc.org/thisgreenlife/0611.asp

by Sheryl Eisenberg

I can still remember virtually every gift I received in childhood, not because the gifts were so special, but because they were so few. Though I was a comfortable child of the post-war boom, the times were thrifty compared to today. I never had more than a few dolls, stuffed animals, board games, crayons, records, books, a bike and a sled. And that was enough, more than enough, yet not so much more that I didn't appreciate each and every item -- and enjoy it to the end of its useful life, or my childhood, whichever came first. What middle class American child can say the same today? Our kids are so inundated with playthings, they need bins and chests and extra closets to store them all. And we adults are equally awash in our grown-up toys. Nevertheless, this holiday season, we will rush to the stores, actual and virtual, to buy more for our kids and each other. What gives? That the shopping frenzy is inconsistent with the spiritual and communal essence of the holidays is an old subject. I recently came across a reference to it in Howard's End, a wonderful story from 1910 that takes place in England, from which I gathered that not only isn't commercialization of the holidays new, it's not even uniquely American. The only point worth noting in 2006 is that the situation is worse than ever, and not just because we are increasingly out of touch with the meaning of the holidays (of all faiths). Our heedless extravagance has environmental costs that are steep and growing. The world's population is currently using 25 percent more resources each year than the earth can generate in that time, according to the latest Living Planet Report by the World Wildlife Fund. And that figure is projected to rise to 200 percent in the next 50 years if we don't change course. Do you wonder how it's possible to consume more than the earth produces? We manage it by living off our capital -- the resources that it's taken tens or hundreds or, in the case of fossil fuels, millions of years to accumulate. And you know what happens when you live off your capital. Though by no means the only offenders, Americans are among the worst (#2 on the list, after the United Arab Emirates). Our average per capita "ecological footprint" is over four times bigger than the earth can afford. While our seasonal lavishness isn't the only reason, it does contribute largely to the problem. But enough of this grinchiness. No one wants to give up on the holidays or the sense of abundance that the season bestows. The only question is how to be generous without bankrupting the earth. Here are some thoughts. Give things people need and can use, rather than products plucked from the shelves simply because they look good. Choose gifts made of sustainable materials -- bamboo rather than wood, hemp, organic cotton and wool, fleece made from recycled soda bottles, post-consumer recycled paper, natural cosmetics and organic, fair-trade chocolates and coffees. Buy locally made products, as the energy used to transport goods to the stores is one of the huge, hidden environmental costs of the holidays. Look for used things with a provenance. Old books and maps, retro clothing, antique jewelry and the like are one-of-a-kind gifts that collectors and aficionados will appreciate. Give things that reduce energy usage, such as commuter bicycles, solar-powered products, battery rechargers and carbon offsets. Avoid excessively packaged products. The packaging wastes resources without adding value and, if made from plastic, can release toxins after being discarded. Give tickets for concerts, shows, museums, sporting events, outdoor activities or parks. Give a party rather than presents -- and tell your guests that the party's gift-free. Give of yourself. Promise a shift of babysitting or dog-walking or a service that uses your special talents or skills, such as a webpage, a bridge lesson or home improvement help. Give a Good Card. It's like a gift card, but instead of enabling recipients to get something for themselves with the card, it lets them contribute to a favorite charity or cause through Network for Good. Most important, remember that the greatest gift of the season is the holidays themselves. It's the one time of year when society permits you -- indeed, encourages you -- to escape from the daily hurly-burly and experience the meaning and poetry of life. Don't miss the chance. -- Sheryl Eisenberg

Under the Hood of “Most Green” and “Most Livable” Cities Lists

• http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/nature-cities/95786/we-re-number-1-depending-values-embedded-most-green-city-lists

by David Maddox

Who doesn’t love a list? The 100 richest people in the world. The best guitar players of all time. The most beautiful beaches in the world. The world’s “greenest cities”. The USA’s most livable cities. The most resilient cities. For people interested in the particular theme of the list, the lists are fascinating. We can compare them against our own ideas and experience. We can debate and complain about the order. (I personally agree with Jimi Hendrix at number 1 in Rolling Stone’s list of guitar players, but think that Ry Cooder at #31 is scandalously low.)

Some lists are based on simple and easily understood data, such as the Forbes list of 2012’s richest people in the world. Let’s accept as correct Carlos Slim Helú’s valoration ($69 billion) and agree he has the most scratch. Among the swells, Mukesh Ambani, whose personal skyscraper towers above Mumbai and has a green wall, is a laggard and in the (relative) poorhouse at #20. A list of the most beautiful beaches, like the guitar players, is much more subjective, but nevertheless is grounded in a set of attributes, such as the beauty of the physical setting, the soft whiteness of the sand, and so on.

Lists are about values

Is this city greener …(the Paseo de Martí in Havana, Cuba) Photo by David Maddox

The critical think to keep in the front of one’s mind when pondering all such lists is that they are based on values, which are in turn based on concepts of what is important. That is, lists are grounded in a set of underlying indicators: elements or attributes that the creators of the list believe to be most central to the idea of “best of” in their particular category. If the creators left the attribute you think is most important out of their set of attributes for valoration, well, it was because they didn’t think it was important enough.

But if it is important it should be included in the foundational data that informs the list. And let’s be clear: if an attribute is left out of a valuation, then it affects the overall rankings and our overall impression of what’s “important”.

…than this one? How would you know? View from Central Park toward Columbus Circle, New York City. Photo by David Maddox.

Let us not think of “values” as simply being opinions. For any personal interest of ours, each of us has a set of attributes – a mental conceptual model, if you will – that we believe are key to qualities that are central to the idea of “better”. It is the same with lists, whether they are subjective (e.g., most over-rated footballer) or objective (i.e., something that is data- driven).

In data-driven best-of lists the values of the creators are expressed, or revealed, in:

(1) The attributes that are included in the valuation, and;

(2) The relative weights that are given to each attribute.

Note that the relative weighting of different attributes is also critical. Equal weighting is not an absence of weights, and essentially “values” all attributes equally. This is an expression of values.

Comparative lists of the attributes of cities

What is great about data-driven lists is that they facilitate apples vs. apples comparisons.

(1) We can compare a single city’s performance through time: is it improving based on the attributes used?

(2) We can compare among cities on standard scales, across time or across regions.

(3) If we can understand what is going on in the data we have chosen to use, then we might understand how our values are being expressed in terms of city performance and, importantly, in which specific areas we are succeeding or failing.

Certainly we can’t include all attributes into such rankings – that is the role of more detailed question-driven science and monitoring (say, Singapore’s city biodiversity index). But knowing what is in them is critical to understanding what to think of the final list and how to use it for good. How is it, for example, that New York City often scores low on “green” when in fact we use less water per capita, less energy per capita, use more public transportation, and have a tree canopy of 24% of total area? It is because of the values expressed in the construction of the list. Right, it’s complicated.

What can be great about lists is when they inspire (or sometimes embarrass) us into greater attention to both appropriate measurements and desired outcomes. At the heart of this idea is the importance of information in decision-making. My own city, New York, has generally been good at this – taking a information-rich and data-driven approach to planning.

Under the hood of “Most Green” and “Most Livable” cities lists

There are quite a few “most green city” and “most livable city” lists. And let me say right now, and with emphasis, that I think they are generally interesting and can be useful. But it is also important to know what values lay inside them. So, what are the values inherent in such lists? What “green” attributes drive the ranking of cities?

I can tell you that it is generally not biodiversity or the performance of ecosystem services. Even green space (typically expressed as the total area of park land or open space) is given a relatively modest role. Although the methods are typically only seen through a veil, the principle drivers in most of these lists are attributes involving energy, transportation, and public transportation. Water use is rarely included. Air quality, which is really an outcome related to energy and transportation, but which is also driven significantly by green infrastructure (e.g., parks and street trees), is occasionally included.

Take for instance a popular and impressive valoration by Siemens, the Green City Index. One element that is impressive is its attempt to include multiple cities across most regions of the world. Thus, we can ask about sustainable cities in Africa, or Asia, not just Europe and the U.S. (This is important because there are generally more data available in the U.S. and Europe, so I applaud Siemens for seeking out the harder to find data in other places.)

The exact methods are not made public, but the list below shows the attributes they include.

• CO2 emissions – total emissions
• Energy – use of renewables
• Land Use – including the % of the “green space” as part of the total city area
• Buildings – energy efficient buildings
• Transportation – public transportation networks
• Water – water use per capita
• Waste – existence of robust waste policies
• Air – the existence of air quality policies and targets
• Environmental Governance – existence of environmental planning

Note that they don’t include biodiversity or any meaningful measures of natural areas. The nine categories appear to be weighted equally. Parks and green space are placed in the category Land Use. This is the usual state of affairs. Just a few examples of recent lists of “Green” or “Sustainble” or “Livable” include those from PopSci, Mother Nature Network, Grist, and Country Home, and Scientific American has done a review of such lists in various categories. Attributes involving biodiversity, natural areas, protection of wetlands, street trees, or even water use are rare.

This needs to change.

A conceptual model for a green city that includes green infrastructure as a key driver. Graphic by David Maddox.

Making Most Green Cities lists better and inspiring more data collection

A mountain of research demonstrates that biodiversity, nature, and ecosystems in cities contribute to a wide array of desirable outcomes, from conservation and ecosystem services to sustainability, human wellbeing, community cohesion, and resilience to shocks. Indeed, in many cases they are drivers of key urban outputs such as air quality, storm water management, population health, housing prices, and quality of life.

In turn, these core components of “green” cities are the ones that also play a key role in determining livable and resilient cities. Browse other essays in this blog to see examples and links. TNOC contributor Marina Alberti wrote a textbook full of examples. Tim Beatley (another TNOC contributor) and colleagues make a similar argument in their new book “The Green Cities of Europe”.

So, here are some recommendations for attributes to include in future valorations of green cities – what we might call a fully specified conceptual model of the “Green Elements” of a green city.

(1) Green: High amounts of parkland, green, or blue space relative to the size of the municipal area. (This is measure typically included in green city lists today).

(2) Ecosystem services: Significant examples of investment in green infrastructure, including green roofs, bioswales, rain gardens, permeable surfaces, etc.

(3) Biodiversity: Demonstrated biodiversity, and institutional commitment to locally native species.

(4) Justice: Equitable distribution of this green or blue space among neighborhoods within the city (or related connectivity among parcels).

(5) Natural areas: High amounts of “natural areas” as a part of the green and blue space (i.e., not simply parks that are for recreation).

(6) Connectivity and Placement: Green areas that connected and placed purposefully relative to known threats (e.g., wetlands in the path of storm surge).

(7) Wildlands: Parkland, including significant natural or wilderness areas, within one-day’s journey from the city center.

A conceptual model for the elements of critical green in a “green” city. Graphic by David Maddox.

The specifics of each are of course arguable, as are their relative weighting. Also arguable is the weighting of these attributes relative to the commonly included transportation, energy, and so on. What is not arguable is their importance to urban sustainability, resilience, and human wellbeing – to the “Greenness” of a city. In some form, they belong in the methodology of any organization creating “Most Green City” lists.

And, more importantly, they belong in the conversations of the people planning and managing the cities.

So what? It’s just a list

Including such attributes among the values inherent in the methodology will change the ranking of cities – as any new metric would. But since nature, ecosystems and biodiversity are critical to “greenness” and sustainability, leaving them out, as the rankings now largely do, creates incorrect or misleading lists, which impedes both planning for improvements in these areas, but also corrupts pubic perception about what makes up a “green”, “sustainable”, and “resilient” city.

Greener cities are not only made up of LEED buildings, transit systems, energy sources, density planning and building codes. Green cities are also those that value and implement strategies for some of the key drivers of healthy and livable cities. This is more than just undifferentiated “green space”. It is coherent and connected planning for and evidence of parks, street vegetation, natural areas, and various provisions for ecosystem services. And, support for and interest in public engagement in the creation of an equitable experience in their benefits – that is, the creation of a real green ethos embedded deep in the philosophy of the city.

Yes, lists are silly diversions. Except that rankings are important because they both reflect andperpetuate our basic values about cities and what they are made of.

Elevate biodiversity, ecosystem services, and nature in cities to the levels of value they deserve.

David MaddoxNew York City, USA

The Ten Steps To Walkable Cities

• http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/kaidbenfield/96836/ten-steps-walkability

by Kaid Benfield

  

In Jeff Speck’s excellent new book, Walkable City, he suggests that there are ten keys to creating walkability.  Most of them also have something to do with redressing the deleterious effects caused by our allowing cars to dominate urban spaces for decades.  I don’t necessarily agree with every detail, and my own list might differ in some ways that reflect my own experience and values.  But it’s a heck of a good menu to get city leaders and thinkers started in making their communities more hospitable to walkers.

(I can’t say that Jeff and I know each other well, but we’re friends, and I like him a lot.  I’m listed in the acknowledgments, and one of my articles is cited in the narrative.  I previously reviewed The Smart Growth Manual, which Jeff co-authored with Andres Duany and Mike Lydon.)

Here are the author’s ten steps of walkability, with a memorable line from his description of each:

1. Put cars in their place.  (“Traffic studies are bullshit.”)  Startling quote, no?  Jeff believes, and I tend to agree, that a car-first approach has hurt American cities.  This is in part because traffic engineers too often have failed to acknowledge that increased roadway traffic capacity can lead to more, not fewer, cars on the road.  The resulting phenomenon of “induced demand” creates unanticipated consequences not only for traffic on freeways but especially in neighborhoods and downtowns, where streets are sometimes treated not as critical public spaces for animating city life but as conveyances for motor vehicles.  Jeff generally supports congestion pricing, but cautions that we must be very careful about assuming the merits of pedestrian-only zones.  (I think there are also circumstances where we must be very careful about congestion pricing, which I’ll discuss below.)
2. Mix the uses.  (“Cities were created to bring things together.”)  The research shows that neighborhoods with a diversity of uses – places to walk to – have significantly more walking than those that don’t.  Jeff makes the point that, for most American downtowns, it is housing – places to walk from, if you will – that is in particularly short supply.  He also points out, quite correctly, that for most (still-disinvested) downtowns, affordability is not much of an issue, because relatively affordable housing is all there is.  For those booming downtowns susceptible to gentrification, he recommends inclusionary zoning and “granny flats,” or accessory dwelling units.
3. Get the parking right.  (“Ample parking encourages driving that would not otherwise occur without it.”)  As do many progressive city thinkers, Jeff points out that we have a huge oversupply of underpriced parking, in large part due to minimum parking requirements for buildings and businesses.  A side effect is that adaptive reuse of historic properties can be discouraged, because there isn’t sufficient space to create parking required for the buildings’ new uses.  Jeff recommends consolidated parking for multiple buildings and businesses and higher prices, especially for curb parking, and shares a number of successful examples.
4. Let transit work.  (“While walkability benefits from good transit, good transit relies absolutely on walkability.”)  Jeff cites the disappointing experience of light rail in Dallas as an example of whatnot to do to support transit:  insufficient residential densities, too much downtown parking, routes separated from the busiest areas, infrequent service, and a lack of mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods near the stops.  Jeff recommends concentrating on those transit corridors that can be improved to support ten-minute headways, and working there to simultaneously improve both the transit and the urban fabric.  Quoting transportation planner Darrin Nordahl, Jeff also reminds us that public transportation is “a mobile form of public space,” and thus should be treated with respect and made pleasurable.  Amen to that.  (For the opposite, see my 2010 frustration with the deterioration allowed to the Washington Metro.) 
5. Protect the pedestrian.  (“The safest roads are those that feel the least safe.”)  Here again, it comes back to driving.  Jeff asserts that roadway “improvements” that facilitate car traffic – such as wider lanes or one-way streets – encourage higher speeds; thus, we should instead use narrow lanes and two-way streets.  Intriguingly, he argues – as have other new urbanists – for stripping some roadways of signage and mode delineation.  The idea is that, if drivers feel they might hit someone or something, they really will slow down or change routes.  Jeff supports, as I do, on-street curbside parking, because it buffers the sidewalk from moving vehicle traffic.
6. Welcome bikes.  (“In Amsterdam, a city of 783,000, about 400,000 people are out riding their bikes on any given day.”)  This step is only minimally about walkability, except for the point that bike traffic slows car traffic.  It’s all about making cities more hospitable to cycling, which many US cities are now doing.  Although the drivers complain, both the research and my personal experience as a driver suggest that car traffic isn’t really inconvenienced much if at all when the addition of cycling infrastructure is thoughtful. Jeff does discuss the very interesting point that some experienced cyclists actually prefer riding in the main roadway rather than in a designated lane.  Personally, if I’m on a busy downtown street, I’d rather have a dedicated lane; otherwise, I’d probably prefer to have full access to the road.
7. Shape the spaces.  (“Get the design right and people will walk in almost any climate.”)  Much as I liked this book, I’ll admit to wondering when, if ever, my urban designer friend was going to get around to urban design.  This chapter is mostly about providing the sense of enclosure we need to feel comfortable walking.  And, once again, the main villain is the car, this time in the form of surface parking lots along the walkway.  But Jeff also takes some shots at blank walls (correctly) and look-at-me architecture (I somewhat, but not entirely, agree).  He believes, as I do, that the amount of density to support good city walkability does not necessarily require tall buildings.
8. Plant trees.  (“It’s best not to pick favorites in the walkability discussion— every individual point counts— but the humble American street tree might win my vote.”)  Even though street trees correlate with fewer automobile accidents, many public transportation agencies seek to limit them because they believe they interfere with visibility.  But Jeff points out that, in addition to contributing to auto safety, trees provide myriad public benefits, including natural cooling, reduced emissions and energy demand for air conditioning, and reduced stormwater pollution.
9. Make friendly and unique [building] faces.  (“Pedestrians need to feel safe and comfortable, but they also need to be entertained.”)  Of the ten steps, this is the one most about design, or at least the most about design of things other than roadways.  For me, it evoked Steve Mouzon’s wonderful theory of “walk appeal,” holding that how far we will walk is all about what we encounter along the way.  Stores and businesses with street-level windows help (meaning that most banks and drugstores don’t), as does disguised or lined parking, vertical building lines, and architectural details.  Jeff isn’t so kind to parks, though, or green infrastructure designed to absorb stormwater.  (I respond below.)
10. Pick your winners.  (“Where can spending the least money make the most difference?”)  The subtitle here could well be, “in the real world, you can’t do everything.”  True enough.  Jeff argues for focusing on downtowns first, and on short corridors that can connect walkable neighborhoods.

I mentioned above that there really isn’t as much about design in this very good book as one would expect from an author whose business is design.  In that sense, it reminds me of my good friend David Dixon, with whom I have done more co-presentations at various conferences than I can count.  David is an accomplished architect and planner; I am a lawyer.  Yet, almost inevitably, in our presentations I talk about design that I believe is good for the environment, and David talks about assembling the political will to get it done.

Walkable City is like David’s presentations.  It’s really a political text about why he believes we need to do these things, the objectives we should strive for (rather than the design solutions), and the obstacles that stand in the way, which he debunks one by one.  There is not a single visual image in the book, and really only a handful of verbal descriptions of successful walkable places.  This book is intended to motivate more than to illustrate.

Walking versus driving

The book’s opening chapter, before Jeff gets into the ten steps, is devoted to the rapidly increasing demand for walkable places and to an indictment of our car-oriented cities, which “have effectively become no-walking zones.” A “public realm that is unsafe, uncomfortable, and just plain boring” will not work for creative young people, he says, because they value a pedestrian culture that, among other things, creates opportunities for chance encounters that turn into friendships.  Indeed, as others (including myself) have pointed out, the entry of the millennial generation into the housing market at the same time that baby boomers are retiring is dramatically strengthening the market for walkable places. 

  

To become competitive in the new marketplace for the best and brightest, cities must respond:

“The conventional wisdom used to be that creating a strong economy came first, and that increased population and a higher quality of life would follow.  The converse now seems more likely:  creating a higher quality of life is the first step to attracting new residents and jobs.”

Vancouver and Portland, Jeff argues, are among the places that are doing just that.

There’s a subtext to the book that I am not entirely comfortable with but that comes through strongly:  if we just stop making driving so convenient, easy and inexpensive, people will do less of it and walk more.  Put another way, making driving less convenient, more difficult, and more expensive will be good for walkers and for cities.  Sure, there are more politically skillful ways of phrasing it, but I think it’s undeniable that there is a sort of ideology and, in some circles, even hostility forming around this belief (“Cars suck” was the way one of my Facebook friends put it. “Has a place ever been made better by making it easier to drive to?” chimes another, rhetorically.)  There are losers as well as winners in this approach to walkability. 

Saying I’m not entirely comfortable, by the way, does not mean that I entirely disagree.  It’s all about finding the right balance and the answers, for me at least, aren’t always clear.

Parks and greenery

I do disagree with some of the suggestions in the book about greenery and parks, where I think Jeff is too dismissive.  In a passage headlined “Boring Nature,” he concedes that green spaces are "necessary" before adding “but they are also dull.”  “Verdant landscapes do not entertain.” 

  

To suggest that parks discourage walking is to ignore the experience of the Jardin du Luxembourg in Paris, Russell Square in London, and St. Stephen’s Green in Dublin, to name three of my very favorite urban places.  I don’t even want to think about Washington without Rock Creek Park, and I’m sure a lot of San Franciscans and New Yorkers feel the same way about Golden Gate and Central Parks.  In downtown DC, I will go out of my way to walk through one of our green squares while running an errand.  I believe we need respite and calm in cities as much as we need liveliness.

Do some parks do a poor job of it?  Oh, yeah.  Just read my essay on DC’s National Mall for my thoughts about the ones that get it wrong. 

Beyond parks per se, I disagree strongly with Jeff’s dislike of green infrastructure to reduce stormwater pollution:

“Current impulses to make our downtowns more sustainable by filling them with pervious surfaces, prairie grass, and the latest craze—“rain gardens”— threaten to erase one of the key characteristics that distinguishes cities from the suburbs that remain their principal competition.”

The way I see it, what these things “erase” is mostly mundane or ugly concrete.  Moreover, they accomplish some important things besides just looking pretty.  First, these techniques help prevent water pollution and combined sewer overflows, something Jeff rightly expresses concern about in his chapter on trees.  Second, even the book he co-authored, The Smart Growth Manual, advocates permeable pavement to control stormwater, as do a growing number of urban scientists and thinkers. Third, because these things can be done very attractively and in ways highly compatible with city fabric, they can raise property values, even if you’re not the kind of person who values nature intrinsically.

I actually doubt we have much real disagreement on these things; over an appropriate beverage Jeff and I would probably come to a great deal of agreement on which kinds of green belong where.  I definitely agree with the starting premise that cities should be cities and rural land and wilderness should be rural land and wilderness.  That’s one of the reasons I abhor the “new towns” that many otherwise progressive architects and planners are all-too-willing to plop down in the countryside when a big developer comes calling.

For me, the test of any city greening is whether or not it supports (rather than displaces) urban density and function.  (I disagree with those who espouse the oxymoronic “agrarian urbanism,” or want to demolish buildings in disinvested cities to replace them with 50-acre farms.  Smaller “farms” and gardens, though, can be great because they can support city life.)  One of the points I would try to make over that beverage would be that different approaches work in different cities and cultures.  Rightly sized and designed green infrastructure and parks are among the things that make cities possible in the 21st century.

I was a little surprised not to see more in Walkable City about street connectivity, which Ewing and Cervero’s exhaustive synthesis of transportation research found was the single most important determinant (among those analyzed) of how much walking takes place in a neighborhood.  Connectivity shortens distances, making purposeful walking more attractive.  Jeff does espouse small city blocks, which gets close to connectivity but isn’t quite the same thing.

Congestion can be good

Before closing, here’s why I think congestion pricing can be complicated:  many American cities need more, not less, congestion.  Suburban sprawl and the flight of people and investment out of downtowns in the late 20th century made a mess of things.  Some central cities, like Washington, have started to grow again, thank goodness.  But even DC has a population 23 percent below the 1950 level.  Others, like St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Buffalo, remain far below their once-thriving levels and have yet to rebound. 

The most commonly discussed form of congestion pricing is called “cordon pricing,” under which drivers are charged for entering downtown at certain times of day.  It works in London, and might even work in New York, cities whose downtowns are so strong that they can withstand being taxed in a way that their suburbs are not.  But the last thing that still-recovering downtowns need is to give people and businesses another reason not to go there.  Besides, here in DC and I suspect in many other places, the suburban roadways are far more congested than those in the city.  This needs some more thought and analysis before those of us who care about cities seize on it as a solution for everywhere.   

I could say even more

There is so much more in the book that I wish I had more time and space to relate.  (I'd love to quibble about grammar and syntax, too, preferably over a second round of that beverage I mentioned earlier.)  My sense is that Jeff, like I have on occasion, pretty much poured at least a little bit about everything he knew on the subject into this one volume, making it rich with interesting detail.

The bottom line is that Walkable City is very good indeed, a worthy addition to the canon of urban thinking.  The subject matter is critical, and Jeff is a very good and entertaining writer who keeps his reader engaged.  For those of us who think about cities for a living, this well-annotated treatise can help organize our thoughts and point us to helpful research and opinion.  For those outside the field but in a position to do something, it summarizes some of the best thinking on what to do to tame the car culture and make cities more walkable.  For those who are merely interested or who may be curious, it will change the way you see cities.  You can find Walkable City at your favorite bookstore or access it from Jeff’s website, which is pretty interesting in itself.

  

Kaid Benfield writes about community, development, and the environment on Switchboard and in other national media.  For more posts, see his blog's home page.  Please also visit NRDC’s Sustainable Communities Video Channels.

Zero Waste: From Dream to Reality in the Philippines

• http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/jeffmcintirestrasbu/97246/zero-waste-dream-reality-philippines

by Jeff McIntire-Strasburg

By Anne Larracas and the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives

“Environmental Possibilities: Zero Waste” features new ways of thinking, acting, and shaping government policy that are circling the globe. Each week, we highlight a success story in the zero waste movement, excerpted from a report by the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA). GAIA is a powerful worldwide alliance of more than 650 grassroots groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals in over 90 countries. Their collective goal is a just, toxic-free world without incineration. Other Worlds is excited to promote the work of GAIA and the organized communities it works with, and hopes that the stories inspire you and others to begin moving your home, town or city, nation, and planet toward zero waste.

The city of Alaminos is pioneering zero waste in the Philippines with an energetic fusion of bottom-up planning and community participation. Under a new law, the public and all levels of government share responsibility for managing waste. Villages, local officials, and non-profit allies are working together to meet the law’s goals. They have created composting systems and sorting facilities, and almost eliminated open burning and dumping as a result. The outcome has been stunning: whereas in 2009 almost every city dumping field had a pile burning, there were almost none two years later. With sky-high waste separation and composting rates, Alaminos has become a trend-setter for other Filipino cities.

Planning for the Future

As is typical for a fast-growing city, non-biodegradable packaging and products have become a part of everyday life in Alaminos. In recent years, non-recyclable products have spread, their problematic effects compounded by a large tourist population that brings in and disposes plastic packaging. Until recently, waste was managed almost wholly by municipal governments that typically hauled all waste to a central dumpsite.

In 2000, the Philippines passed a waste management law, known as Republic Act 9003. According to the law, the publicly-elected councils of all the 39 villages in Alaminos City must implement a comprehensive solid waste management plan. The law also mandates that each village construct a recycling center, separate garbage, create a village composting system, and collect different types of waste separately. Furthermore, the law outlaws open burning and uncontrolled dumpsites.

Regardless, waste management programs at the village level in Alaminos – as in most of the country – were still non-existent by 2009. Attempting to make its villages conform, the city of Alaminos first tried encouraging, and later mandating, that they take more responsibility for waste management. Neither approach worked. Alaminos still maintained a central dumpsite, and waste was collected by the city only in 14 of the 39 villages. The remaining villages had to deal with their own waste, which led to widespread open burning and dumping. Households did not practice separating their refuse into organics, recycling, and trash. The city still rarely used the recycling center that it had built in 2004.

It became clear that the city needed to redouble its efforts and to spark community involvement and excitement in order to achieve success.

The Birth of a Zero Waste City

In August 2009, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) proposed a partnership with the city government. The following month, the Zero Waste Alaminos project was born. GAIA provided one staff member for the project team, zero waste trainings, and support to village leaders as they drafted their own waste management plans. GAIA also provided financial support for printing educational materials, buying shredders for organics and plastics, awarding mini-grants for villages to build eco-sheds and purchase vehicles, and more. For its part, the city provided two full-time employees, transportation for the team, logistical support for all activities and trainings, technical assistance, and support in strategic planning for the villages.

After two years, ten villages had achieved full compliance with the 2000 waste management law. Five were very close. Many others were well on their way. The zero waste team had launched rapid-fire initiatives to create these results, including: conducting a comprehensive survey to assess the existing waste management practices throughout Alamitos, traveling to all 39 villages where they interviewed village chiefs, and holding workshops for village representatives and city officials to begin conversations about waste separation and collection, composting, relevant law, and the components of the Zero Waste Alamitos project.

Downtown Alaminos City. Credit: Ramon FVelasquez at Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons license

After the workshops, the team held 14 months of technical consultations and assemblies in the villages themselves. They resulted in a complete waste management plan, including a calendar of activities, investment plans for infrastructure, a budget with funding, and clarity about who was responsible for what. The plans were presented in assemblies for residents to comment on and approve before being implemented as the blueprint for each village’s waste management program. Once the villages had formulated their own waste management programs, they took ownership of the project.

The project team held separate sessions to consult with a range of stakeholders – from city workers to junk store representatives to health and tourism officials – to expand participation in implementing the law. As a result, resorts and inns established composting facilities and improved waste separation, tourists were informed about the strict no-littering and waste separation policies, hospitals and clinics started to separate their waste, and schools and universities improved their recycling and composting practices.

Toward Zero Waste: Results

The project grew by leaps and bounds over two years. While in 2009 almost no villages had begun implementation of the law, in 2011, 25 had local ordinances on waste management that specifically banned open burning and dumping and mandated household waste separation and composting. Ten villages passed every facet of the final evaluation with flying colors, while nine of those that did not pass were at least halfway to achieving their waste management goals.

A follow-up survey showed a high percentage of residents were separating out their waste (88% of those surveyed) and composting (53%). Fifteen villages are now consistently implementing pure composting. Worm composting has also increased, and the city has provided villages and schools with worms and organic fertilizer. Seventeen villages have started comprehensive collection systems. Thirty-two villages have built eco-sheds which provide temporary storage for residual, hazardous, and small amounts of recyclable waste, which are then collected by the city and brought to the city recycling facility.

Open dumping and burning decreased significantly: In 2009, almost every field had a pile burning; by 2011 there were almost none.

The survey also showed city government fully committed to the zero waste vision. The city has begun providing employees who were highly respected by village leaders to serve full-time as members of the project. In 2010, the city council passed into law the first zero waste city ordinance in the country, a local version of the national waste management law that includes a stronger provision against incineration and specifies how Alaminos will implement collection and conduct public education, among other things. This historic legislation upholds garbage separation, sets a target for waste diversion, and prohibits incineration.

Recently, Alaminos announced a “No-segregation, no-collection” policy. Residents will receive a warning if their waste is not separated. After a couple of warnings, their garbage will no longer be picked up. The city has already seen a noticeable reduction in the volume of overall waste. The city has considered – but not yet passed – a ban on plastic bags.

Much more needs to done to implement waste management programs in the villages – two years is not long enough to reverse decades of old habits. Still, the dramatic changes underway show what is possible when communities and local government unite their commitment and their energies.