Strategic Decision-Making for Sustainability – Review of by pitbull99

VIEWS: 47 PAGES: 20

									Working Paper #3: Strategic Sustainability –
    Review of Frameworks and Tools

 SFU Centre for Sustainable Community Development
                           www.sfu.ca/cscd

                          In Partnership with

          ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability
                         www.iclei.org

         Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources
                           www.cier.ca


                        Emilia Kennedy
                    Research Assistant, CSCD
               MA candidate, SFU Dept. of Geography

                         Sean Connelly
         Senior Researcher and Project Co-ordinator CSCD
             PhD candidate, SFU Dept. of Geography

                      Dr. Mark Roseland
                        Co-Investigator
        Director SFU CSCD, Professor, Dept. of Geography

                        Dr. Sean Markey
                          Co-Investigator
      Research Associate, CSCD, Professor, SFU Explorations




                         Funded By:
   Infrastructure Canada – Peer Reviewed Research Strategy

    Production of this working paper has been made possible through a
  financial contribution from Infrastructure Canada. The views expressed
     herein do not necessarily represent the views of the Government of
                                   Canada.

                             October 2007
Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum


    STRATEGIC DECISION-MAKING FOR SUSTAINABILITY – REVIEW
        OF FRAMEWORKS AND TOOLS VIS-À-VIS STRATEGIC
                       SUSTAINABILITY
The purpose of this document is to examine major sustainability frameworks and tools in light of
the concept of strategic sustainability. Specifically the aim is to see which frameworks fit, and
how, with research findings on strategic sustainability.


General Observations:
-    Importance of assessment – knowing what you have to work with
-    All these frameworks and tools assume the (standard) linear-rational model of plan making
     and roll out. Also assume stable political enviro for the planning effort. What benefits could
     be obtained from assuming the garbage can model (timing and luck) or other non-linear,
     non-rational models with some of these tools?
-    Most frameworks emphasize stakeholder participation and agreement while assuming that
     this can be readily obtained.
-    None or most do not address exactly who has the responsibility for implementation, that is
     where is the push to actually implement the plan coming from?
-    All of these frameworks and tools begin with the presupposition that sustainability in some
     general way has been decided as a positive goal for the given community or organization,
     but fail to adequately take into account the specific rationale or motivation that led a member
     of the community or organization to want to undertake sustainability planning
-    Not enough consideration of the forces external to the planning effort and external or
     internal contingencies that may complicate or undermine the planning effort
-    Difference between action planning and action itself
-    What is the cost-benefit ratio of undertaking a sustainability planning exercise versus just
     going ahead and undertaking a ‘sustainable’ action? (think Craik)
-    Lack of links to budgeting and financing in most of these frameworks
-    Lack of links to infrastructure

Can it be argued that most of these frameworks still produce planning-implementation gaps? If
so, what is missing from these frameworks?
 - Key is looking at which frameworks (potentially) or which parts of various frameworks
     address the planning-implementation gap given our research findings.
 - See Emilia’s diagram (attached) for musings
 - What is the role of management in strategic sustainability?


Gaps in (most of) the frameworks:
     1. Motivation and rationale for the plan
     2. Management of challenges, risk/innovation
     3. Establishing stakeholder involvement (what is the incentive, investment, payoff for each
        actor?)
     4. Operationalization/ responsibility among actors
     5. ‘Actually existing’ implementation
October 13, 2007                                                                                   2
Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum

   6. Ramping-up from low-hanging to higher-hanging fruit – incremental approaches that
      increase capacity and number of sustainability efforts implemented
   7. Importance or pre-existing knowledge, links to experts and external networks to inform
      awareness of sustainability, sustainability frameworks, best practices, informal
      knowledge,

Standard strategic decision-making formula is: 1) where do we want to go, 2) what actions can
get us there, 3) how are we doing.
   What is inadequate here? What is still causing the gap?

What is strategic sustainability?
  - how to allocate limited resources with the greatest impact for sustainability
  - how to generate the capacity to act
  - What capacity is required, at what stage, for what issue?

SC proposes community mobilization as interaction between:
   - community actors
   - values and visions of SCD
   - Structures and processes
   - Strategies, actions and instruments
   - Outcomes – impact of actions on all aspects of community capital



Frameworks and Tools reviewed by Seymoar (2004)
   1. Sheltair Adaptive Management
   2. The Natural Step
   3. Local Agenda/Action 21
   4. MetroQUEST (Envision)
   5. Environmental Management Systems
   6. Integrated Community Planning and
      Design (SCP)
   7. Smart Growth
   8. Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems
      (CASE) (UNEP)




October 13, 2007                                                                                 3
Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum



1. Sheltair Adaptive Management Framework
Summary:
   - Integrates adaptive management within the planning framework
   - Three governing processes in operation within the framework (diagram p. 28):
          o alignment of all the stages (vertical)
          o monitoring actual performance against results (horizontal)
          o feedback from bottom to top – allows adaptive response (vertical)
   - Central to the AMF is a Planning Framework, conceptualized as a hierarchical pyramid.
     The top is the ‘vision’ that unites the plan/project. The framework expands down through
     spheres and issues, goals, strategies, integration, indicators and targets, actions,
     implementation and monitoring. All levels must be aligned with higher levels and all
     lower levels provide feedback to higher levels (re: adaptive management)
   - * “Unlike most frameworks, the AMF requires an ‘integration’ stage that allows
     consolidation of knowledge and identification of synergies or conflicts prior to
     committing to actions.” (27)
   - Genuine incorporation of adaptive management, which is ‘policy as adaptation’. Assumes
     uncontrollable elements and therefore designs management to respond “to new
     knowledge and altering circumstances”. The goal of adaptive management is to “enhance
     capacity for learning as responding”
   - Adaptive management works well with long-term planning as it “allows for frequent
     readjustment of current policy and plans in the face of new knowledge, new experiences,
     new desires”
   - Hierarchy helps organize and communicate complexity
   - Alignment process allows decision-makers to see why each action is required and where
     it fits in
   - Support Tools: Sankey diagrams and MetaFlow Diagrams. These portray directions and
     quantities of flows in a system.
   - Timeline: Long term view (100 year) for vision, medium-term view (20-30 years) for
     strategies and actions
   - Works with: used with citiesPLUS, integrated planning and design charettes
   - Time and Cost: ?

Infrastructure:
    - No strong links to infrastructure planning.
    - MetaFlow Diagrams useful for infrastructure planning?
    - Integration stage might be useful for thinking of synergies between various infrastructure
        needs.

Strengths:
    - Genuine incorporation of adaptive management (p.27)
    - Integration stage and ‘catalyst strategies’ (p.27)
    - Requires identification of synergies or conflicts within the framework prior to
       commitment to action (p. 27)

Weaknesses:

October 13, 2007                                                                                 4
Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum

   -   Does not address rationale for planning
   -   Actor accountability missing
   -   Assumes unified planning body – how are conflicts between stakeholders addressed?



2. The Natural Step (TNS)
http://www.naturalstep.ca/

Summary:
   - TNS framework used for assessment, visioning and planning
   - A ‘science-based’, systems approach
   - Focus on “what can be agreed upon” (lowest common denominator?)
   - Seeks to integrate social and environmental considerations into daily operations
   - Operates around four system conditions (p.39)
   - Operates around the A-B-C-D implementation methodology and funnel metaphor
   - Five hierarchical levels for planning in complex systems: I) the system, ii) success in the
     system, iii) strategic guidelines, iv) actions, and v) tools and metrics
   - Timeline: long-term implied
   - Works with: EMS systems (ISO 14001), Life Cycle Assessments
   - Time and Cost: ?

Infrastructure
    - No particular links to an infrastructure lens

Strengths:
    - Smart Early Moves (p.41) addresses what can be done immediately with existing
       capacity
    - addresses financial considerations (return on investments) (p.41)
    - A-B-C-D method:
           o ‘(B)aseline’ assessment addresses capacity: which parts of the system are
              violating the system conditions and what does the community have in place to
              deal with them already?
           o ‘C’ phase looks for opportunities for innovation

Weaknesses:
  - Assumes unified planning body – how are conflicts between stakeholders addressed?
  - Requires extensive knowledge of ‘the system’ to be employed properly
  - Assumes negative cause-effect chains and ‘basic errors of societal design’ can be
     changed/’redesigned’ from within the framework/ does not consider external factors,
     limits to agency of those involved in planning
  - Weak consideration of social sustainability (hard to calculate ‘soft’ elements of
     sustainability in science-based approach)
  - Does not address jurisdictional/spatial organization – does the body planning have
     jurisdiction/spatial control of the 4 system conditions?


October 13, 2007                                                                                   5
Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum




3. Local Agenda/Action 21 (I.C.L.E.I.)
www.iclei.org

Summary:
   - Long-term, broad-based participatory planning process
   - Is a programming framework consisting of several components: principles (Earth Charter
     and Melbourne Principles), a LA21 planning guide, a Local Agenda self assessment tool,
     a sustainability inventory, a triple bottom line toolkit, and an ecoBudget® tool
   - LA21 planning guide outlines five planning elements: partnerships, community based
     issue analysis, action planning, implementation and monitoring, and evaluation and
     feedback)
   - Local Agenda self-assessment tool is to assess progress on LA21 and not an initial
     assessment of capacity or resources. That is closest to the sustainability inventory
   - Sustainability inventory surveys current natural, social and economic resources and
     current resource management practices. Can assist in identifying where the public can
     take more action.
   - Seeks to take outputs from the Local Agenda 21 process (international-level) to local
     level
   - Aims to develop long-term management structures ‘which are sustainable in the long
     term’
   - See Local Action arrow diagram (p.49)
   - Implementation planning calls for identifying roles and responsibilities as well as funding
     sources
   - Timeline: long-term, multi-generational
   - Works with: EMS to incorporate adaptive approach (p.47)
   - Time and Cost: ?

Infrastructure
    - weak links???

Strengths:
    - Calls for the institution of long-term sustainability management mechanisms and
       structures seeks stable, institutional permanence of sustainability within local
       governance as part of ‘unquestioned, regular municipal routine’
    - Focus on implementation: ‘securing unwavering implementation’ through the imposition
       of ‘anchoring principles, tools and mechanisms’ (p.49)
    - Implementation planning calls for identifying roles and responsibilities as well as funding
       sources (p.50)
    - Sustainability Inventory (p.52)
    - Consensus and participatory governance model
    - Considers the Global Commons. Most frameworks do not specifically address this.

Weaknesses:
  - Assessment of community capacity? Sustainability Inventory (p.52) does not appear to

October 13, 2007                                                                                 6
Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum

       specifically address this.
   -   Consensus/participatory governance model: Seymoar outline not clear on how
       stakeholders selected, nor how conflicts between stakeholders managed or integrated.
   -   Consensus= lowest common denominator?



4. MetroQUEST
Summary
   - Computer simulation/modelling tool
   - Useful for scenario exploration and comparison, for visual communication of
     sustainability and scenarios, education and facilitation tool
   - Intended to show ‘complex inter-relationships between planning choices and
     consequences’
   - Focuses on issue breadth rather than depth
   - Utilizes backcasting
   - Timeline: 20-40 years
   - Works with: TNS, CitiesPLUS, integrated design charettes, LA21, triple bottom line
     frameworks
   - Time: six months; Cost: $100,000
   - Where used: Vancouver (GVRD), Whistler, Brisbane, Greater Victoria, Bali, Mexico
     City, Langat Basin, Malaysia, Canterbury, NZ, Manchester, NW UK region

Infrastructure
    - weak links

Strengths:
    - Useful for public education, participation, dialogue and feedback
    - Useful for visualizing trade-offs between elements in a scenario
    - Easy to understand complex interactions

Weaknesses:
  - Designed specifically for regional governments
  - Data quality and availability?
  - A planning support tool rather than a planning tool



5. Environmental Management Systems
Summary
   - Environmental Management Systems (EMS) are standards-based organizational
     management tools used in “identifying and managing diverse environmental issues in a
     systematic way”
   - Is a systematic set of procedures that aims produce: product and service quality,
     regulatory compliance, risk reduction and preparedness, and credibility with stakeholders
   - Examples include International Organization for Standardization (ISO) EMSs, the

October 13, 2007                                                                                 7
Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum

       Demming model
   -   Focuses on those issues over which the community/City has direct influence
   -   ISO 14001 framework operates with four intended outcomes: product and service quality,
       credibility with stakeholders, regulatory compliance, and risk reduction and preparedness
   -   Works on the model “Plan It, Do It, Check It and Prove It, Act (Review and Improve)”
   -   See end of document for results of studies of effective implementation of EMS for
       comparison with our research results
   -   Timeline: non-specified
   -   Works with: TNS
   -   Time and Cost: ?

Infrastructure
    - could be useful for risk reduction in infrastructure
    - could be usefully applied to the infrastructure and service provision aspects of a larger
        planning endeavor

Strengths:
    - Because EMS is voluntary, internal to one organization, and is registered to a 3rd party
       certification body, the planning-implementation gap is likely to be smaller (this is also a
       weak point, because it is likely that the changes made through the EMS will be smaller,
       and non-systemic)
    - Implementation stage included explicit identification of roles and responsibilities
    - Includes training procedures
    - Aims for continual improvement (adaptive management)
    - EMS studies have shown that successful implementation aided by: senior management
       buy-in and commitment, shared responsibility and understanding of roles, champion
       possessing knowledge and authority, frequent communication, sufficient resources
    - Risk reduction?

Weaknesses:
  - Works best for those matters over which the municipality/community has direct influence
     (such as internal operations), and not so well for broader picture issues, such as those
     involved outside actors, including the public, and senior government
  - Assumes unified planning body
  - Better for small communities?
  - Focused on environmental management, not interaction/synergy/trade-offs between
     environment, social and economic concerns


6. Integrated Community Planning and Design
http://www.jtc.sala.ubc.ca/index.html

Summary:
   - Collaborative, stakeholder-driven design process
   - Centerpiece of the process is the design charette, which are short and intensive
     multistakeholder design workshops

October 13, 2007                                                                                     8
Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum

   -   Also consists of post-charette activities
   -   Timeline: short or long term
   -   Works with: TNS
   -   Takes 6 months to 2 years
   -   Cost: $60,000 - $350,000

Infrastructure
    - design/land-use focus ties well into many infrastructure concerns such as roads, sewage,
        drainage, green space, etc.

Strengths:
    - Using existing policy as starting point to show ramifications of implementation of these
       policies
    - Strong emphasis on stakeholder collaboration; uses consensus model
           o to save time and money
           o to solicit early buy-in
           o (are all the right stakeholders there? EC)
    - Charrette process intended to speed up implementation (is this the case in East Clayton?)
    - Charette can facilitate finding synergies among issues and help overcome ‘silo-based
       planning’
    - Design approach highlights the “3D” form of outcomes – tangible conception of plans,
       visions
    - Lends well to developing alternative design standards and regulations that can then be
       applied again in the community
    - The ‘looking for synergies’ approach could be applied to innovations in infrastructure

Weaknesses:
  - Land-use, design focus may overlook or under-emphasize non”3D” considerations such
     as consumption, social and economic justice
  - Consensus model may promote lowest common denominator outcome?
  - If post-charette activities not conducted there might be scale-back of planning outcomes
     (think East Clayton: post-charette activities not conducted, many decision-makers and
     stakeholders left, therefore strength of plan compromised)
  - Claims adaptive management approach, but weak in comparison to Sheltair AM



7. Smart Growth B.C.
Summary:
   - Evolved out of US anti-sprawl movement
   - Emphasis on sustainable growth and sprawl reduction, but also affordable housing, green
     space and agricultural land, sustainable transportation, alternative development standards
   - Primarily an educational package for interested citizens interested in ensuring that the
     government is held responsible and accountable for community development process
   - Focus on communication between citizens, government and ‘other stakeholders’
   - Highlights ‘wise’ use of taxes revenues

October 13, 2007                                                                                 9
Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum

   -   Includes a ToolKit, CAP (Community Assistance Program)
   -   Timeline: long term
   -   Works with:
   -   Where used: Maple Ridge, B.C.
   -   Time and Cost: ?

Infrastructure
    - design/land-use focus ties well into many infrastructure concerns such as roads, sewage,
        drainage, green space, etc.

Strengths:
    - Watchdog approach: Citizen rather than government/planning focused
    - Lends well to developing alternative design standards and regulations that can then be
       applied again in the community
    - CAP gives advice on building local capacity

Weaknesses:
  - Land-use, sprawl focus may overlook or under-emphasize non”3D” considerations such
     as consumption, social and economic justice



8. CASE: Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems
Summary:
   - A planning framework program that is meant to operationalize the Melbourne Principles
   - Views cities as ecosystems
   - Employs resource consumption/ecological footprint lens to view local scale and it’s
     connections to other scales and locales
   - Emphasizes not only planning, but also management (p. 98, see diagram). Management
     includes: “development of competencies [capacity], organizations, methodologies, and
     rules and tools… which generally improve’s the city’s environmental performance”
   - Calls for the integration of existing environmental management functions
   - Contains two tools: ESTIS (Environmentally Sound Technologies Information System)
     and maESTro
   - Risk Assessment and Technology Assessment
   - Timeline: long term
   - Works with: TNS
   - Time and Cost: ?

Infrastructure
    - goal is to have urban systems mimic natural ecosystem metabolisms;
    - resource consumption lens ties in well with demand management approaches;
    - Environmentally Sound Technologies and closed-loop system approach can be used to
        think of synergies in infrastructures;
    - integration of existing environmental management functions;
    - zero-waste goals

October 13, 2007                                                                               10
Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum



Strengths
    - Resource consumption/ecosystem point-of-view has strong links to infrastructure and
       specifically green infrastructure
    - Emphasizes all forms and levels of resource consumption in the city land-use/design-
       based frameworks tend to leave out many aspects of consumption
    - Emphasis on management may be useful in considering the planning-implementation gap
       (see Emilia diagram)
    - Emphasis on partnerships in order that shortcomings of one actor can be complemented
       overcome by strengths of another actor (think BBP and interaction of City, EMFs and
       financial institutions)

Weaknesses:
  - Requires in-depth and intensive scientific research
  - Over-emphasizes role of ESTs as answer to urban sustainability?
  - No capacity assessment
  - How is individual/household consumption addressed/regulated through the framework?
  - Social and economic sustainability adequately addressed?
  - How are partnerships sought, formed and secured?
  - Who is accountable?



Additional Frameworks and Tools
   9. CitiesPLUS network Long Range Integrated community planning
   10. Community Indicators
   11. Sustainability Appraisal
   12. REDDI – Rural Economic Development Data and Intelligence
   13. EarthCAT – Earth Charter Community Assessment Tool
   14. SCORE - Sustainability Competency and Opportunity Rating and Evaluation
   15. CMHC Costing Tool for Sustainable Community Planning
   16. “See-it” by Real Living Solutions


9. CitiesPLUS Network – Long range / integrated community planning
Summary:
   • Member cities of the Plus network commit to building on their existing planning process
     through the use of a long-term lens (typically 50-100 years). The plans include broad
     strategies that cover 30 year time periods and implementation activities over a 5 year
     period. In addition, each city commits to one immediate demonstration project that
     reflects the long-range sustainability goals.
   • Members participate in regular peer exchanges, which give them opportunities to share
     their work and learn from one another's experiences related to city and community
     planning issues.


October 13, 2007                                                                             11
Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum


   •   Long-range planning initiatives require commitment to a set of guiding sustainability
       principles, capacity to implement them and the appropriate tools to aid in decision-
       making and evaluation.
   •   Long-term integrated planning looks out 50-100 years and treats the city as a complex
       system, addressing environmental, economic, social and cultural well-being, as well as
       governance and infrastructure.
   •   Identifying actions requires backcasting from the desired future rather than planning
       based on existing trends.
   •   Long-range context provides stakeholders the opportunity to consider options and
       alternatives to the status quo in a less conflictual environment.
   •   Long-range planning incorporates an integrated and holistic approach to planning, uses a
       multi-generational timeframe, focuses on a communities relationship to it’s biophysical
       environment and uses adaptive management techniques to monitor and adjust initiatives
       as they are implemented to support resiliency in the face of incomplete knowledge.

Strengths:
    • Systems approach, integrated approach.
    • Recognizes the need for adaptive management
    • Planning process is used as a mechanism to build capacity and knowledge of
       sustainability.
    • Backcasting from goals rather than forecasting from existing trends makes it easier to
       break out of the status quo.
    • Peer-based learning to build capacity.

Challenges:
   • Assumes that those responsible for planning are also those responsible for
       implementation.
   • Assumes that the linkages between long, medium and short term strategies are congruent
       and not subject to being trumped by issues of politics, conflict, daily crisis.
   • How are conflicts addressed in moving from planning to implementation?


10. Community Indicators
http://www.sustainabilityindicators.org/
• Sustainability Indicators – developed to inform policy, raise awareness of public, raise
    awareness of decision-makers and monitor progress for SD. Useful in benchmarking,
    comparison and measuring progress of the implementation of SCD plans.
• Usually, indicators are organized based on specific areas or themes of a sustainable
    community planning initiative and linked to annual sustainability reports that assess overall
    achievement of plan implementation.
• Over time, indicators can identify areas where progress has been made in achieving their
    sustainability goals and alert communities to areas that need further attention.
• The purpose of indicator projects is to provide information to communities and decision-
    makers that will:


October 13, 2007                                                                                12
Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum

       o Contribute to improved decision-making and reduced risk by providing early warning
           signals for required policy and behavioural changes,
       o Help look at progress toward long-term goals,
       o Encourage initiative by recognizing success when it is achieved,
       o Facilitate continuous learning and adjustment on the part of all stakeholders,
       o Identify knowledge gaps and suggest priorities for action,
       o Help ensure accountability
•   Characteristics of good indicators are ones that are relevant, easy to understand, reliable and
    based on accessible data.

Strengths:
• Monitor SD trends – most existing tools for monitoring trends do not take a holistic or
    integrated approach. They are more easily absorbed and capture attention, focus attention on
    what matters, raise alarms to change policy direction and are cheaper to maintain that larger
    quantities of base statistics.
• Indicators can be effective capacity building exercises within a planning initiative, where
    indicators and the collection of data can provide a focal point for community engagement in
    planning initiatives.
• Encourages system and integrated thinking.
• Valuable as a source of information for decision-makers but are also a useful process as a
    pathway for community empowerment.

Challenges:
• Can tell a partial story, focus attention on what can be measured, decisions are driven by
   indicators and there is too much effort and resources focused on monitoring rather than
   doing.
• How do you maintain momentum in reporting on sustainability indicators after the process of
   development of the indicators has ended?
• How do you ensure that decision-makers will use indicators to measure progress and assess
   their actions accordingly?
• Participation needs to be formally linked to decision-making processes.
• Need to move indicator initiatives beyond a focus solely on a rational approach to decision-
   making that gives the “decision-maker” all the relevant information that allows them to see
   clearly the consequences of their decision.

11. Sustainability Appraisal
•   Sustainability Appraisal (SA) arose out of the requirement in the UK for local governments
    to ensure that their local plans matched sustainability objectives at a regional and national
    level. SA is focused on how to make better plans, does not address how to go about
    implementing plans. It is the process by which the performance of a plan, strategy or
    proposal is assessed in sustainability terms.
•   SA evolved to address concerns that EIA were used at late stages of decision-making process
    and therefore had limited success at evaluating alternatives – reactive in nature. SA includes
    processes that are objective-led / proactive in the development of plans/policies/projects that
    will lead to more sustainable outcomes. Proactive approaches to SA involve not merely


October 13, 2007                                                                                13
Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum

    examining social, economic and environmental impacts but also the interrelationships
    between them and to the larger system. Fits better with a systems approach to sustainability.
•   Key tasks of SA include the following:
       o Development of objectives and criteria – provides the basis against which
           performance is measured.
       o Testing objectives – ensure that objectives are compatible for SD
       o Defining baseline – define existing env., soc., econ. characteristics of area and how
           they might change.
       o Scoping – reviewing the content of plans/policies for breadth of coverage and
           whether it addresses all SD objectives.
       o Appraisal of strategic options – alternatives are appraised against framework
           objectives using matrix to identify most suitable options.
       o Appraisal of policies and proposals –
       o Reporting – transparent reporting so that process and conclusions are understood.

Strengths:
• Can assist decision-making process by improving the design and nature of sustainable
    policies and strategies.
• Makes linkages between all policies at the local government level in terms of their
    contribution to sustainability.

Challenges:
   • Difficulty in operationalizing the concept of SD. More guidance is required on how to
       effectively incorporate sustainability objectives, criteria and indicators into the
       assessment.
   • There is often a tendency to focus on the environment and the need to make trade-offs
       between the environment and the economy in SA. Social issues are rarely included.
   • Assumes that decision-makers will respond to SA results. Issue of accountability.


12. REDDI – Rural Economic Development Data and Intelligence
http://www.reddi.gov.on.ca/index.htm
• REDDI is a web-based tool designed to assist rural communities in Ontario to understand
    socio-economic trends, analyze community economic development opportunities, develop
    strategies, implement projects and track progress. The website is oriented to provide quick
    and easy access to strategic planning tools and templates that are accessible to rural
    communities without extensive planning capacity. A number of templates, worksheets, best
    practices and implementation strategies are included. An example of the strategic
    development process:
• Goal
        o A visionary statement of your overall, long-term purpose
        o What is the key challenge your project is working to resolve? Goal statements will
            use language such as: “To develop … To reduce …”
• Objectives
        o Specific, trackable statements of what you want to accomplish
        o What are the problems that contribute to your overall challenge?

October 13, 2007                                                                               14
Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum

       o What are the key changes that will help you reach your goal?
       o Determine the timelines (2-3 years)
•   Activities
       o Specific tasks that you will perform to implement your project
       o How can you group your activities logically to work towards your objectives?
       o What are your priorities or entry points for action?
       o Focus on the key steps that must happen
       o Filter: Is this activity really necessary?
       o Stay within budget!
•   Outputs
       o Short-term results (the direct product of your activities); usually tracked for each year
       o What are your deliverables – the concrete products of your activities?
       o Are they soft (qualitative) or hard (quantitative)?
       o Are they tangible or less tangible?
•   Outcomes
       o What success looks like in the short- and long-term
       o What are the short- (2-3 years) and long-term (4-10 years) changes emerging as a
            result of your project?
•   Impacts
       o Long-term measurable results (4-10 yrs)
       o Requires specialized research to measure
       o Can be very expensive, very rarely done

Strengths:
• Provides accessible information for any stage of the planning process, from issue
    identification to business plan development.
• Clearly outlines required activities at each stage of the planning – implementation process.

Weaknesses:
• Sectoral approach to rural economic development, not linked to integrative systems
  approach.



13. EarthCAT - Earth Charter Community Assessment Tool
http://www.earthcat.org/
http://www.earthcat.org/workbook/EarthCAT_Workbook.pdf

Summary:
   - Consists of two complimentary resources: the EarthCAT tool and the Taking Action: A
     Workbook for Sustainable Communities workbook.
   - Based on The Earth Charter, a declaration of 16 principles “that defines sustainability in a
     comprehensive, integrated way”. Originally drafted for the Rio Convention on 1992, it
     was launched in 1994 as a civil society initiative and signed in 2000. Developed by the
     Earth Charter Partnership for Sustainable Communities (ECPSC)


October 13, 2007                                                                                 15
Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum

   -   The purpose of EarthCAT and Taking Action is to help communities “set goals and
       targets, develop strategies to achieve them, and select indicators for monitoring your
       progress towards a more sustainable future.”
   -   EarthCAT is a software tool developed for use by communities interested in developing
       sustainability programs. Allows web based activities such as visioning process, track
       each step of the planning process, host on-line dialogues, and gives communities access
       to a database of goals, strategies, and targets.
   -   framework that permits them to identify their own priorities
   -   uses ‘whole systems approach’, using feedback loops.
   -   Argues that whole system strategies allow communities to shift resources and focus from
       problem-solving to asset-building, increasing community capacity
   -   Needs and assets conceived as community ‘building blocks’
   -   EarthCAT Stages:
           1. Gather core team                                               Identify patterns of
                       Define parameters                                     system behavior
                       Integrate existing                        5. Set Targets for improvement
                       planning processes                                    Find leverage points
           2. Convene Stakeholder group                                      in the system
                       Public outreach and                       6. Design Strategy for
                       media                                         community change
                       Build vision for future                   7. Select Indicators of Success
                       of commy                                              Gather baseline data
           3. Adopt Vision Statement                                         Gather progress data
                       Identify community                        8. Draft Action Plan
                       needs                                                 Prioritize and
                       Inventory assets                                      implement strategies
                       Assess capacity for                       9. Progress Report
                       improvement                               10. Refine, Revise and Restart
           4. Establish Goals                                    11. Leadership Skills
                       Study local trends

   -   Uses 5-legged, rather than 3-legged stool: social needs, economic needs, environmental
       needs, services and infrastructure, and governance needs
   -   Timeline: Long term view (100 year) for vision, medium-term view (20-30 years) for
       strategies and actions
   -   Works with: ??
   -   Time and Cost: Free; extensive planning process – 6 months to 2 years?
   -   Examples: Imagine Calgary

Infrastructure:
    - Addressed specifically in the framework: Services and infrastructure included as one of
        the five basic community needs
    - Defined as: “the physical and material needs we have are met directly through the
        community infrastructure we develop, and the products and services it can deliver - the
        housing construction, transportation networks, waste disposal facilities, energy
        generators, utilities, etc” (p. 12)

October 13, 2007                                                                                  16
Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum



Strengths:
    - Services and infrastructure included as basic community needs, one of five main spheres
       to be addressed
    - Extensive and intensive planning exercise based on ‘whole systems approach’
       integrated way of thinking of sustainability
    - Identify community needs, inventory assets, assess capacity for improvement. In the
       stage ‘Assess capacity for improvement’, planning body judges the effectiveness of
       community assets, and pinpoints where gaps and barriers exist, and then consider what
       opportunities exist to overcome these.
    - Leverage points for change (p.89)
    - Action Plan is to identify the actors and resources, and opportunities and constraints, that
       will be required to implement each strategy
    - Governance needs are included as a basic community need

Weaknesses:
  - Very, very (!) weakly addresses implementation: between the community action plan
     stage and the tracking and reporting progress stage, full implementation as planned is
     assumed.
  - Unified community vision: assumes consensus and agreement and unified community
     desires?



14. SCORE (Sustainability Competency and Opportunity Rating and
Evaluation)
http://www.zerowaste.org/score/

Summary:
   - Assessment tool that rates sustainability practices.
   - For internal operations of community governments (or businesses) in the areas of: senior
     management, facilities, human resources, purchasing, office operations, sustainability
     coordination, environmental affairs, marketing/public relations, finance/accounting
   - Based on benchmarking
   - Helps organizations understand where they are now and what 'sustainable' looks like
   - 3 stages/level of sustainability practices in the organization: Incubator, Initiative,
     Integrated
   - Works with: Systems audits, SWOT
   - Time and Cost: $350 (DIY) - $2000+
   - Examples: City of Santa Monica, Corvallis


Infrastructure:
    - no specific infrastructure links

Strengths:

October 13, 2007                                                                                17
Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum

   -   3 Stages (Incubator, Initiative, Integrated) useful way of conceiving and addressing
       risk/innovation ratios

Weaknesses:
  - Addresses only internal operations
  - Designed to be employed with other tools
  - Assumes no barriers or challenges to implementation


15. CMHC – Costing Tool for Sustainable Community Planning
http://www.dcs.sala.ubc.ca/UPLOAD/RESOURCES/links/CMHC_CostingToolUserGuide.pdf

Summary:
   - Geared specifically towards life cycle costing, including initial capital, annual operating,
     and replacement costs
   - created to allow a user to estimate the major costs of community development, and to
     compare alternative development scenarios.
   - primarily designed to assess costs for the residential component of a development
   - can be used for entire subdivision down to a collection of houses
   - Calculates 75-year lifecycle costing variables in the following categories: hard
     infrastructure, municipal services, private user costs, external costs, and green
     infrastructure alternatives.
   - Since costing is typically done late in the community planning process, this tool can be
     used during the planning process so that costing can be continuously checked. However,
     the tool should not be used as a substitute to the complete costing analysis stage of the
     development process.
   - The intended users are municipal councillors, planners and researchers who may not have
     extensive expertise in costing analysis. For example, municipal councillors can quickly
     compare differences
   - Works with: ??
   - Time and Cost: 75 year lifecycle analysis; tool is free of charge

Infrastructure
    - Specifically geared towards infrastructure
    - Consideration of ‘green’ infrastructure alternatives

Strengths:
    - Integration of financial considerations into sustainability planning
    - Allows a range of alternate scenarios to be developed

Weaknesses:
  - Limited to land-use, mainly residential
  - Considers economic and environment, but social considerations are secondary or weakly
     integrated
  - Most appropriately used for an entirely new development, being undertaken by one
     decision-maker?

October 13, 2007                                                                              18
Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum

   -    Best used as one tool in a broader sustainability planning process


16. “See-it” ™/Real Living Solutions process
http://www.real-livingsolutions.com/index.html

Summary:
   - ‘Strategy mapping’ and performance management software, web-hosted
   - Intended to simplify organizational complexity
   - Follows strategic planning models:
     o Agree on where you are today and where you want to go
     o Link goals to strategic plans, actions and metrics and build teams that will make the
         right things happen
     o Launch you model, engage your stakeholders and see if you are on track.
   - ‘Road Map’ interface links goals to strategies to actions
   - Score card interface tracks progress
   - Works with:
   - Time and Cost: 2 days or more, $$??

Infrastructure:
    - No specific links to infrastructure

Strengths:
    - Has visual simplicity for communicative purposes: “The internal management tool
       becomes the external communication tool”
    - Good for internal operations in a community planning or governance body

Weaknesses:
  - Assumes/works best when, shared vision already established
  - Does not address assessment, capacity, barriers, responsibilities
  - Does not synthesize environment, economic, social goals each addressed in a separate
     part of the ‘road map’




List of Strengths from above frameworks and tools:

   1. Sheltair’s use of adaptive management
   2. Sheltair integration stage
   3. TNS Smart Early Moves
   4. TNS A-B-C-D method (especially B and C)
   5. ICLEI call for the institution of long-term sustainability management mechanisms and
      structures
   6. ICLEI call for identifying roles and responsibilities as well as funding sources
   7. ICLEI and CASE consideration of global commons

October 13, 2007                                                                             19
Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum

   8. EMS focus on risk reduction
   9. ICPD charrette process as model of stakeholder involvement and identification of
       synergies
   10. ICPD alternative design standards and regulations
   11. CASE strong links to infrastructure via resource consumption/ecosystem point-of-view
       has strong links to infrastructure and specifically green infrastructure
   12. CASE And ICLEI emphasis on management (may be useful in considering the planning-
       implementation gap?)



   Critical ingredients for effective implementation of EMS

   -   from Seymoar (2004: 71)
   -   for comparison with our research results

   1. Senior management commitment including awareness of organizational change, the
      expanded need for resources initially and to a lesser degree on an ongoing basis.
   2. Shared vision and responsibility including shared understanding of the goals and roles of
      the EMS implementation team.
   3. A champion with the knowledge and authority to lead the process.
   4. Sufficient resources (i.e. organizational representatives, time, budget, tools).
   5. Good project management
   6. Visible and frequent communication, feedback and recognition




October 13, 2007                                                                             20
Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy

								
To top