Journal ofhttp://jpl.sagepub.

com/ Planning Literature

Sustainability and Planning: Diverse Concepts and Close Associations

Edward J. Jepson, Jr. Journal of Planning Literature 2001 15: 499 DOI: 10.1177/088541220101500401 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jpl.sagepub.com/content/15/4/499

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Planning Literature can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jpl.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jpl.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jpl.sagepub.com/content/15/4/499.refs.html

>> Version of Record - May 1, 2001 What is This?

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com by guest on January 25, 2013

Sustainability and Planning

Journal of Planning Literature

Sustainability and Planning: Diverse Concepts and Close Associations

Edward J. Jepson, Jr.

Sustainability is a term that has received a significant amount of attention in the public policy arena. Within the planning profession, there has likewise been a growing recognition of its possible relevance in the areas of land use and general community development, and planners are increasingly finding themselves either leading or being expected to contribute to local sustainable development efforts. The purpose of this article is to provide an introduction to the sustainability framework in terms of its scientific basis and cultural interpretations and to identify and explore conceptual associations that tend to tie it to the planning profession.

In the review that follows, sustainability is traced from its ecosystem roots, through its cultural interpretations to an emergent functional form, and then on to its natural associations with the profession of planning. Due to the complexity of sustainability and the extensiveness of the literature, it is not possible that all ideas, interpretations, and nuances associated with the topic can be presented in an article of this size. Rather, this article is intended to provide an introduction to planners who are unfamiliar with the basics of sustainable development or who are skeptical about whether the concept might contribute to the practice of planning.
SUSTAINABILITYSCIENTIFIC BASIS

Sustainability has become integrated into the plan-

ning profession in one sense: it is clearly recognized as something that relates to planning. However, seemingly less clear to the profession is the opportunity that planning has to fill a crucial role in this burgeoning conceptual and operational landscape. Within the sustainability literature, there are calls for a human ecology that would relate societal conditions to the quality of both the natural and the human environment (di Castri and Hadley 1986) and for a new type of profession that can serve as a communicative link between scientists and the general public (Christensen 1996). In the face of these calls, planners have remained virtually silent. Yet, what other profession is more naturally suited to filling this role than planning?

Sustainability in the public policy realm derives from the biological sciences and particularly from the subfield of environmental science. It is important to point out that biologists and ecologists are not in complete agreement regarding many basic sustainability principles and premises, even to the extent that definitions of the same term can vary among authors (Glasser et al. 1994). However, this lack of consensus has not prevented the use of many of these principles and premises as the foundation for the formulation of sustainable

EDWARD J. JEPSON, JR. received his Ph.D. from the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Wisconsin Madison in December 1999. He is presently working as a planning consultant in the Madison, Wisconsin area. Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 15, No. 4 (May 2001). Copyright 2001 by Sage Publications, Inc.

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com by guest on January 25, 2013

500

Journal of Planning Literature The concept of ecosystems is an extension of the living-systems concept. It is proposed by ecologists to refer to a characteristic community of interdependent plants, animals, and/or microorganisms, all of which are interlocked in a series of competitive and cooperative survival mechanisms that regulate the allocation of resources among them (Peters and Noss 1995; Rees 1992; Davelaar and Nijkamp 1990; Giaoutzi 1990; Rolston 1988). This interlocking activity results in an ecosystem behavioral pattern that has been characterized to be essentially the same as that of a living system, that is, a constant struggle to change and respond to disturbance (Ahern and Boughton 1994). Although most ecologists hold that individual ecosystems cannot and do not persist through time (i.e., reach a climax state of equilibrium) (Glasser et al. 1994; Hersperger 1994), there is some agreement that they can and do approach a state of relative stability when growth and change are self-regulated to correspond to changing internal and external organizational capacities and potential without changing their essential organization (Mollison 1990; Smith 1996). Hence, even though the struggle to successfully adapt continues unabated (Ahern and Boughton 1994), a system can enhance its sustainability by interacting more effectively with respect to both internal and external dynamics (Lyle 1994; Munn 1989). This is because success in this regard means the ecosystem is better able to respond to disturbances and control its growth so key resources and processes on which it depends are not exhausted or overloaded (Maser 1997; Boswell 1995; Ahern and Boughton 1994; Hersperger 1994; Breheny 1992; Jacobs 1991). Effective systemic self-regulation is related to the concept of carrying capacity and dependent on feedback flows. The first of these concepts, carrying capacity, is understood to be the inherent and natural capacity of a system to absorb the resource extractions and waste disposal stresses that accompany productive activity to support the activities of its constituent life forms (Scruggs 1993; Rees 1992; Munn 1989). For this capacity to be maximized, it is necessary that there be an effective feedback flow, whereby information is transmitted as signals that are used by the system to make appropriate and necessary compensatory internal adjustments and modifications (Smith 1996; Boswell 1995; Rees 1995; Scruggs 1993; Mollison 1990). For example, dwindling resources being followed by a slowdown in the growth rate of those activities or species within the ecosystem that depend on those resources would constitute evidence of an effective feedback process. Such modifications are achieved as a result of interactions among the agents within a system. With respect to the

development policies. These are the focus of the following review. Within the field of biology, there is fairly widespread agreement that living systems can be characterized as being in a constant struggle to develop, to change, and to respond to disturbance and that sustainability refers to the ability of systems to maintain or maximize themselves over time. The nature of this struggle revolves around the use of energy for productive and reproductive purposes and its subsequent disposal (Rees 1995; Ahern and Boughton 1994; Giaoutzi 1990; Mollison 1990). When this insight is combined with the second law of thermodynamics, a series of conclusions can be drawn with respect to systems. The second law states that (1) energy exists in two states, free (available) and bound (unavailable), and that (2) all productive processes result in a decrease in the quantity of free energy and an increase in the quantity of bound energy. As this dynamic continues to occur, and because (according to the first law of thermodynamics) the total quantity of energy in all forms can never be changed, an increasingly significant condition of disorder, or entropy, is incurred (Maser 1997; Wackernagel and Rees 1996; Ekins 1993; Garbarino 1992; Georgescu-Roegen [1971] 1980). From this, it can be concluded that a living system carries within it the seeds of its own destruction, because the bound energy (which is constantly increasing and replacing free energy) cannot be tapped for the productive and maintenance purposes that are essential for its survival. Thus, it is only to the extent that a system is open (i.e., able to import additional free energy and export bound energy) is it able to control its internal level of disorder and thereby sustain itself (Boswell 1995; Rees 1995). Within the limited perspective of an individual system, such a dynamic does not necessarily pose a problem: it can persevere, provided its export of entropy is in balance with its import of negentropy (i.e., order). However, it is unfortunately true that an open system (particularly a successful one, when measured in terms of productivity) wreaks havoc on the other parts of the larger system with which it interacts. This is because, as stated by the second law of thermodynamics, a reduction in entropy in one part of a system can only be achieved if there is a corresponding and equal increase in entropy elsewhere in the system (Rees 1995; King and Slesser 1994; D. Simon 1989). As a result, it becomes clear that an individual system cannot escape the price of its own success, because all local systems are finally dependent on the integrity of the larger system that they are causing to become increasingly disordered. In fact, the above-referenced dynamic does indeed pose a serious problem to individual systems.

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com by guest on January 25, 2013

Sustainability and Planning nature of these interactions, some writers have proposed it is a mixture of competition and cooperation and that both of these are important to the systems continued functioning (Davelaar and Nijkamp 1990; Rolston 1988). On the other hand, others have contended that a systems stability and sustainability are associated with interactions that are cooperative and connections that are beneficial (Giaoutzi 1990; Mollison 1990, 35). In all cases, it is the sum of these interactions together that combines to produce the greater goodthe sustenance of the system. If there is either an inability on the part of a system to adjust to changes in the environment on which it depends or a delay (referred to by some scientists as lag time [see, e.g., Botkin and Keller 1987, 75] in its response to such changes (caused by nonreceipt of signals, misinterpretation of signals, or failure to act upon signals), a condition of overshoot will occur. By definition, such a condition will result in a mismatch between the demands being placed on the ecosystem (in terms of resource extraction and/or waste assimilation) and its capacity to meet those demands. Depending on the severity of the mismatch, the continued existence of the entire ecosystem itself may be threatened (Boswell 1995; Rees 1995; Meadows et al. 1992). Systems that are least likely to experience an adjustment mismatch are proposed to be those that are most complex in terms of the number of interactions and connections between and among systemic agents (Lyle 1994) and both the variety and redundancy of its functionality (Maser 1997; Mollison 1990). This is partly due to the fact that signals can be read differently by different receivers (Allen and Starr [1982] 1988); the more of these there are, the more likely there will be a correct reading that is appropriately acted upon. Furthermore, when many agents perform several functions (many of which are redundant vis--vis other agents in the system) in an integrated fashion, the capacity of the system to respond to environmental disturbance becomes notably enhanced (the ecological term that specifically describes such complexity of connections and forms is biodiversity [Smith 1996]). Alternately, to the extent that these two aspects are compromised (i.e., a small number of components with specialized functions) is the extent to which a system becomes fragile and nonresilient (Maser 1997). However, there is a caveat with respect to complexity, and it is significant. There is apparently a built-in tendency of systems to become ever larger and more complex (i.e., too many connections, too many agents) until lag times and systemic interdependencies leave them virtually unmanageable and prone to a catastrophic collapse (Boswell 1995; Rees 1995; Giaoutzi 1990; Allen and Starr [1982] 1988). Such a collapse is

501

typically followed by a reorganization at a new, lower level of complexity and a renewal of the steady march toward more complexity (Maser 1997). Even healthy systems, therefore, can be said to be destined for ultimate destruction as a result of complexities related to size rather than efficient function (in other words, from conditions arising from a systems success in maintaining and expanding itself) (Boswell 1995; Rees 1995). Successful complex systems have also been characterized as hierarchical in nature. Essentially, it is proposed that higher subsystems within such systems communicate with lower subsystems to exercise control over their behavior and ranges of response (Allen and Starr [1982] 1988; Pattee 1973). Position in the hierarchy is inversely related to frequency dynamics, with higher subsystems operating on a slower and longer-term time scale than those below. Within such arrangements, there is a tension between tendencies toward independence (among subsystems) on one hand and systemic tendencies toward subordination on the other (Allen and Starr [1982] 1988; H. Simon 1962). A condition of relative stability is found when the control is neither too detailed nor too general (Pattee 1973; H. Simon 1962).
SUSTAINABILITYCULTURAL INTERPRETATION

Public policies based on ecosystem theory require that a connection be made between the natural and the human realms and that the temporal dimensions of concern and interest extend beyond the immediate into the long term. Despite strong evidence that the level of damage being inflicted on the natural environment by human activities is nonsustainable (Ekins 1994), opinion remains divided regarding what sustainability is and how it should be used as a conceptual guide in the formulation of public policy. An understanding as to why this should be requires that two fundamental cultural foundations be acknowledged, because these are tending to cause a repudiation of a more sustainable approach to the human development challenge. The first foundation is our JudeoChristian religious philosophy that sharply separates man from nature and holds the former as having dominion and rights of exploitation over the latter; thus, human beings are viewed as entitled to use nature in a way that is most beneficial to our welfare, with little or no regard for other considerations. The other foundation is the empiricist tradition, which views nature as mechanistic and something that can and should be manipulated by human beings for their benefit. Emerging from that tradition is a scientific method that is reductionist and that tends to encourage fragmentation rather than the integration that is so essential to an

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com by guest on January 25, 2013

502

Journal of Planning Literature relevant to ecosystem theory and sustainabilitythe expansionist and the ecological. The first of these, expansionist, draws most directly from Western empiricist roots and is the dominant social paradigm; it views human system growth as virtually unlimited due to the unique capacity of human beings to use, to adapt, and to innovate. The ecological framework, on the other hand, holds that there are limits to the ability of the natural environment to support human beings, and the level and character of human activity must be tempered by an appreciation of the effects of that activity on natural resources and characteristics (Rees 1995; Wackernagel and Rees 1996; Costanza 1989). The definitions of sustainability and/or sustainable development that have emerged from this conceptual and attitudinal turbulence tend to reflect either one or the other worldview. For example, evidence of an expansionist perspective can be found in definitions that emphasize the achievement of human objectives such as those relating to consumption levels, economic benefits, individual happiness, and community consciousness (Despotakis et al. 1992; Daly 1989; Smit and Brklacich 1989; Barbier 1987). Evidence of an ecological perspective is revealed in definitions that contain a preponderance of references to maintaining environmental stocks and assets and ongoing systemic functioning (Rydin 1992). There are also some definitions that attempt to bridge the gap between the two worldviews. For example, Meadows et al. (1992) defined a sustainable society as one that has in place informational, social, and institutional mechanisms that keep check on . . . feedback loops (p. 209). An implicit assumption in such a viewpoint is that our current (expansionist) society can be made compatible with sustainability. The definition proposed by Kinsley (1994) suggests the direct incorporation into human development policy of such ecosystem concepts as ecological threshold and carrying capacity, the latter of which is used by Girardet (1992) in conjunction with the sociological term quality of life (p. 177); by combining terms from both viewpoints, there is the implicit assumption that the two can be merged. For the most part, however, the tendency has been to keep definitions of sustainability and/or sustainable development imprecise and descriptive rather than prescriptive. For example, the most frequently cited (and most widely accepted) definition is that proposed by the Brundtland Commission, that is, development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs (Lele 1991). Another source defines sustainability as a strategy of development that results in the enhancement of human quality of life and the simultaneous minimization of negative environmental impacts

ecosystem framework (Carley and Christie 1993; Beatley 1989). Also serving to impede the transfer of ecosystem principles to the human domain is the relative status of ecology among the other scientific disciplines. Because it is inherently interdisciplinary by nature rather than bounded (as, for example, physics or chemistry), many of ecologys most basic tenets remain unsettled. As a result, it is unable to outgrow its reputation as a frontier area, easily challenged from both within and without (Carley and Christie 1993, 67). This characteristic also makes it susceptible to accusations that it lacks the requisite scientific rigor to serve as a basis on which to formulate public policy (di Castri and Hadley 1986). In addition, there are inherent behavioral and psychological characteristics of human beings that have been proposed to have the effect of impeding the development of sustainable policies. One of these is a disinclination to extend our sphere of concern either temporally (i.e., beyond the next one or two generations) or spatially (i.e., beyond family, friends, and personal interests) (Garbarino 1992; Nijkamp et al. 1992; Dubos 1981); another is a biological predisposition to tune out long-term trends over which [we] have no control (White 1994, 24). A third possibly relevant characteristic is our observed tendency to make decisions on the basis of nearly every conceivable consideration except the facts; to the extent that this is true is the extent to which the spread of new knowledge (e.g., about rain forest destruction, the effects of pollution, ecosystem characteristics, etc.) as a strategy to achieve a transformation to a more sustainable society will be insufficient (Jones 1996). Countering these oppositional forces are at least four viewpoints that are more compatible with an ecosystem approach to public policy. The first is a repudiation of the Judeo-Christian tradition of mans dominion over nature based on a reinterpretation of various biblical passages (Beatley 1989); another is a love of nature for its own sake that can have an almost spiritual quality, traceable to eighteenth- and nineteenth-century sentiments of nostalgia and appreciation (Dwyer et al. 1994; Platt 1994; Jacobs 1991; Lynch 1981); a third is a utopian tradition that seeks to integrate human beings into their environment in a way that is more conducive to the full range of their needs and their nature (Spain 1995); and a fourth viewpoint tends to support adoption of an ecosystem perspective as the result of a process of simple logical reflection, namely, a recognition that unconstrained consumption of limited resources will lead inevitably to Garret Hardins tragedy of the commons (Ruckelshaus 1989). These forces and trends have combined to produce two conflicting worldviews, or frameworks, that are

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com by guest on January 25, 2013

Sustainability and Planning (Spain 1995). Still a third definition advocates the integration of ecological and economic uses of the earths life-support systems (Loucks 1994). In all of these cases, words with imprecise meanings are used. What, after all, are the needs that must be protected? Are all environmental impacts in need of the same level of minimization, and how will that be measured? And who can argue about the value of the type of integration called for in the third definition? In the opinion of some, this definitional variety and vagueness is neither good nor bad, but it is inevitable because every major concept which encompasses human idealssuch as liberty or democracy[is] subject to diverse interpretation (Scruggs 1993). To others, this is a quality because it allows sustainability to be a unifying force, one that enables opposing camps to find common ground (Blowers 1992; Lele 1991). Then there are still others who propose that the negative substantive impact of definitional vagueness is the overriding issue (Ekins 1993); this causes it to be, in the opinion of one noted observer, a thought-stopping cliche (Berke and Kartez 1995), which either prevents the taking of meaningful action (Blowers 1992) or gives free reign to advocates of the much more firmly entrenched expansionist framework (Lele 1991).
SUSTAINABILITYAN EMERGENT FUNCTIONAL FORM

503

Out of this cultural and philosophical milieu, the concept of sustainability has begun to take some degree of functional form relative to its application in human affairs, which revolves around the concept of reconciling the three Es, which are Environment, Economy, and society (interpreted in the form of redistributive, or Equity, principles). In essence, the emerging sustainability doctrine holds that the natural environment can be protected, the economy developed, and equity achieved all at the same time and that the extent to which we are successful in this simultaneous achievement is the extent to which we will achieve sustainability. What is required, it is proposed, is effective balancing of objectives related to these three dimensions (Berke and Kartez 1995; Healey and Shaw 1993; Scruggs 1993; Meadows et al. 1992; Barbier 1987). This set of precepts is not necessarily incompatible with the second law of thermodynamics and ecosystem principles. the environmental dimension is based on the universally shared recognition that we depend on our natural environment and that it must be conserved and protected. In that the measurement of environmental impacts and values remains problematic, the precautionary principle has emerged from the debate as a proposed guide to public actions. Recognizing the inherent inadequacy of scientific research relative to many com-

plex environmental dynamics, this principle holds that it is entirely legitimate for public policy decisions to be made before all of the facts are in, before conclusions are entirely certain. What is required to stop or initiate a particular public program or policy is a reasonable, scientifically derived estimate of the possibility of adverse environmental impacts (Haughton and Hunter 1994; Blowers 1993). With respect to the equity dimension, there tends to be a focus on the part of many mainstream advocates on the intergenerational side of the equity coin, with its call for natural resource conservation and environmental protection for the good of future generations. Because ones children and grandchildren, as well as nature and its creatures, are encompassed within the equation, intergenerational equity is not a difficult pill for most people to swallow (at least not conceptually). However, such understanding does not so easily extend to the issue of intragenerational equity, which may require a diminution of ones personal standard of living or a transfer of ones wealth to benefit others who are here now and who are unrelated. For example, it is one thing to favor the protection of a forest in ones home region so that future generations can enjoy its shade and its peace; however, it is quite another to contemplate its destruction based on a comparison of its value (as a source of spiritual sustenance) against the value of forests elsewhere (as sources of material sustenance). Or, it is an entirely different matter to spend local tax dollars to improve the energy efficiency of a suburban school (in the name of intergenerational equity) than it is to transfer tax dollars from one jurisdiction to help another jurisdiction rebuild a crumbling school in a poor neighborhood (in the name of intragenerational equity). In the case of such types of decisions, it is easy for Darwinian notions related to victors in a competitive struggle to rise to the fore. At one level, such notions can find support in ecosystem theory, where the agents of systems are recognized as being engaged both cooperatively and competitively (Rees 1992; Davelaar and Nijkamp 1990; Rolston 1988). The idea is that out of this interplay whereby some aspects of a system supersede other aspects, a greater good will emerge, namely, a sustainable system. However, there is no obvious requirement that rich countries not exploit poor ones or that more affluent people not be indifferent to the plight of those in poverty. Such inequities can be interpreted as reflecting the competitive dimension of the ecosystem interplay. However, further reflection reveals intragenerational equity to have solid justification within the ecosystem framework. The discernment of this justification requires definitional clarification. First, a system is defined by Websters Dictionary (1978 edition) as a reg-

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com by guest on January 25, 2013

504

Journal of Planning Literature mination of public policy by local people working together with a minimum of outside intervention (Concern, Inc. 1995; Hardoy et al. 1992; Rees 1989). However, within the ecosystem framework can also be found the notion of hierarchy, which calls for some level of higher level control to achieve a state of systemic balance (Pattee 1973; H. Simon 1962). When these two dynamics are combined, they produce a merged model of public policy formation that is neither top-down nor bottom-up but a combination of both, one that recognizes that local actions are in need of some degree of centralized guidance that is conceptually consistent across jurisdictions (Rees 1990; Lynch 1981). Finally, the ecosystem concept of feedback flows has produced a recognition of the importance of information. To achieve an integration of the three Es, it is not only necessary that there be complexity in terms of interactions but also that those interactions be based on accurate signals that are then acted upon appropriately. This translates into a model of policy formation that requires personal opinion (provided by citizens through an inclusive citizen participation process) to be combined with factual information (provided by scientists and other objective experts) (Lyle 1994; Beatley 1989). The lack of one or the other will result in a flawed process, producing results that may be destructive, counterproductive, or ineffectual. One manifestation of this dimension of the sustainability framework is a proliferation of social, economic, and environmental indicators that are selected through a participatory process (Andrews 1996). Although such indicators are all designed and intended to provide communities with a knowledge base from which to draw for the formulation of public policy, there remains a fair amount of controversy associated with them, related primarily to their lack of a uniform theoretical basis (Boswell 1995; Haughton and Hunter 1994; Kay 1991). Related to the concept of indicators is that of the urban, or ecological, footprint, which is a way of measuring the environmental impact of a functioning community. It is based on the notion that modern urban areas constitute an extreme violation of the concept of carrying capacity, due to the fact that they draw from a resource base that covers a geographical area that is far removed from, and many times the size of, the community itself (Haughton and Hunter 1994; Rees and Wackernagel 1994). The ecological footprint is a calculation of the area of land that is needed to provide the raw materials and absorb the wastes that are produced in a community (Maclaren 1996; Wackernagel and Rees 1996; Rees 1995). A sustainable community is proposed to be one that seeks to minimize the extent of its exported impact as continuously measured through ecological footprint calculation (Beatley 1995; Girardet 1992).

ularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole. In the human sphere, this would be interpreted to include everything from a regional metropolitan system, a single city, or a global system of trade. The need for successful systems to control against internal entropy has been previously discussed. Entropy is not just consumption exceeding product; Websters (1978) defines it more generally as the steady degradation or disorganization of a system or society. Because degraded is defined as degeneration of structure or function, the dysfunctionality of disrupted societies and antisocial individuals mired in poverty constitutes a fundamental violation of one of the principal requirements of a successful system. Such a framework does not preclude competition as a necessary or admissible component of a successful system (as is called for within the ecosystem framework); however, it prohibits the imposition by one agent on another of a condition of social, economic, or psychological dysfunction. With respect to the third E, economy, there has tended to be a focus on valuing the benefits of economic development, defined as a qualitative increase in the condition of life, or welfare, as an alternative to valuing the benefits of economic growth, defined as a quantitative increase in the consumption of goods and services, or affluence (Ekins 1993; Blowers 1992; Sargent et al. 1991; Munn 1989; Daly [1968] 1980). In the opinion of many, an economically developed society would not only be more sustainable than a growing one, it would also be a better place in which to live. However, there has hardly been consensus in this regard, even among those who advocate for sustainability. For example, the Brundtland Report (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987)a strong statement of support for the application of sustainability in the realm of human affairsadvocated growth as the solution to global problems. Although there has been criticism for that position, there has also been wide acceptance of it, reflecting the continuing division among sustainability advocates between those who see the need for radical change in terms of living habits and consumption and those who push for a vision of the future that is very much like today, made possible by a growing economy that is more environmentally sensitive (Carley and Christie 1993). The concept of subsidiarity has emerged as a fundamental basis for the integration of the three Es. Derived from the ecosystem notion that the effectiveness of information is related to the directness of the link and the proximity between the sender and the receiver (Allen and Starr [1982] 1988), subsidiarity calls for public policy decisions to be made at the lowest possible level. This has led some proponents to call for the deter-

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com by guest on January 25, 2013

Sustainability and Planning A land use planning approach by which some proponents of sustainability have tried to integrate the three Es is a new urbanism, a neotraditional design. Rooted conceptually in the traditional neighborhoods of pre World War II urban America, this development approach is proposed to contribute to sustainability by reducing the amount of land consumed for development, reducing automobile dependency, increasing attachment to place, and encouraging social diversity. It does this through neighborhoods that are organized around a central square of retail and public uses and functional open spaces and that are pedestrian- friendly and compact, where streetscape and building amenities and designs encourage walking rather than driving and where housing is affordable to a variety of income groups (Davis 1995; Christoforidis 1994; Bookout 1992). However, it is not without its detractors with respect to both its assumptions and its results, particularly those related to environment, social diversity, and transportation (see, e.g., Beatley and Manning 1997; Berman 1996; Crane 1996; Christoforidis 1994; Cervero 1989; Owens 1986). Also, its contribution to economic change is difficult to discern, and its prevalent application at the urban periphery means that the consumption of open land continues, if at a reduced scale (due to its more compact design). Some proponents have attempted to pull together the myriad of emergent strands and elements into a proscription for communities that will result in an enhancement of their long-term viability, that is, their sustainability. Presented as an ideal toward which citizen groups and political leaders should strive, such proposals tend to revolve around the basic premise that sustainability is best achieved when communities engage in individual efforts to determine how each can best fit into its immediate host environment (i.e., that which is proximate and surrounding) and better connect with the components of its particular heritage. There is typically an emphasis on the importance of empowering citizens for effective participation, protecting the local environment, developing a more selfreliant regional economy, promoting interjurisdictional cooperation, and strengthening the sense of community. Urban growth boundaries, green building programs, and organic farming are some of the methods advocated to achieve these goals (see, e.g., Roseland 1998; Beatley and Manning 1997; Sargent et al. 1991).
SUSTAINABILITY AND PLANNING: CONCEPTUAL ASSOCIATIONS

505

The reasons why sustainability and the field of planning are inextricably linked and mutually relevant are numerous and persuasive. Among the most important

is the fact that the constituent concepts that compose sustainability are considered by many of its proponents to be most applicable at the same level at which most planning occurs and on which it is most focused, that is, the local or regional level (Friedmann 1993). There are essentially four reasons proposed for this within the environmental/sustainability literature. First, the important ecosystem effects are those that occur nearest to the ecosystem (Rees 1989); second, the types of global problems being encountered vary according to local circumstances, thus requiring a local policy response (Dubos 1981); third, political responsiveness is highest at the local level (Rees 1995); and fourth, the strong conviction that is necessary for the achievement of sustainability goals and objectives can only emerge in people who are directly and personally involved in policy formulation (Voisey et al. 1996). Within this substate and subnational perspective, there is a decided preponderance of attention paid to cities due to a recognition of the direct link between urban dynamics and environmental degradation, in which modern, industrialized cities are shown to break the basic ecological law of return and engage in a one-way appropriation (through trade) of the carrying capacity of areas outside themselves both in the form of resource extraction and waste disposal (Beatley 1995, 1989; Platt 1994; Rees 1992; Mollison 1990; Daly and Cobb 1989). Because of their size and the highly consumptive lifestyle that they are purported to encourage, these conurbations become accused of being entropic black holes (Rees 1995), requiring the bioproductive capacity of a land area ten to twenty times larger than the area they themselves occupy (Wackernagel and Rees 1996) and capable of inflicting significant environmental damage on a global scale (Breheny 1992; Girardet 1992). The potential seriousness of the problem becomes especially clear when it is considered that ever-growing populations in all parts of the world are becoming increasingly urbanized (Haughton and Hunter 1994; Button and Pearce 1989; Stone 1973). It is, however, not just this energy-exchange, causeand-effect dynamic that causes cities to be of particular concern to sustainability proponents. Others have proposed that cities, because they are concentrations of diverse consumptive and productive activities, are by their very natures prone to create market failures and, consequently, localized environmental degradation (Button and Pearce 1989). Still others have observed that urbanization causes an isolation of city inhabitants from nature and thus (possibly) an insensitivity toward its promise and its problems (Platt 1994; Stone 1973). According to Lewis Mumford (as cited by Hill 1992), it then follows that the more urbanized in character an area becomes, the more materialistic in character its

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com by guest on January 25, 2013

506

Journal of Planning Literature ability advocates, that is, a framework that integrates the natural and the social sciences, one that relates societal conditions with the condition of the natural environment (di Castri and Hadley 1986). In addition, planning theory shares with ecology and economics a fundamental concern with systems, systemic interconnections, and linkages and the attainment of some kind of balance or equilibrium. There has historically been a rich range of conceptual exploration and debate among planners into how human settlements grow and develop in relation to their contextual environment (Darwent 1975; Friedmann 1964). Many of the terms used in these development discussionsthat is, organic and ecologist models of development, resilient regions, and natural economic forces (Friedmann and Weaver 1979, 56-61; Hoover 1971, 368369)are identical to those used by ecologists and economists as they attempt to understand and explain biological interactions and market transactions. Furthermore, the focus on feedback among ecologists as the means by which biological entities adjust to change is in substance the same as the planners focus on transportation, capital flows, and communication systems as the principal determinants of the level and pattern of human system development (Friedmann and Bloch 1990; Moss 1988; Castells 1985; Pred 1976; Friedmann and Alonso 1964). Finally, both sustainability and planning are concerned with integration as a central conceptual challenge. The integration that is sought within both theoretical constructs is of four kinds: the first is across disciplines, so as to produce a more coherent and complete public policy (Carley and Christie 1993; di Castri and Hadley 1986); the second is across diverse actors in a productive (either ecological or sociopolitical) process, with a focus on communication (Meadows et al. 1992; Alterman and MacRae 1983); the third is across values, that is, right and wrong/good and bad (Blamey and Common 1994; Howe 1990); and the fourth is across institutions, so as to produce an approach that is cooperative and integrated (Daly and Cobb 1989; Owens 1992).
SUSTAINABILITY AND PLANNING: EVIDENCE OF INTEGRATION

inhabitants become and the more serious are the extent and significance of the environmental damage that it causes. A final principal reason for a focus on urbanization among sustainability proponents is that the physical expansion of cities has a direct and significant impact on the agricultural capacity of the human system. This is because there is a tendency for cities to locate on or near fertile land (Stone 1973). (For example, together with their adjacent counties, metropolitan areas account for more than 50 percent of the prime agricultural land in the United States [Katz 1986].) As a result of this mutual proximity, millions of acres of crop land have been lost each year to the dynamics of worldwide urbanization since the 1980s (Tolba 1987; Katz 1986). Given the local/urban bias of sustainability, there is an obvious link to planning. However, further review of the literature reveals the link between the two conceptual structures to be much more direct. First, there is the recognition of a direct relationship between the condition of the environment and not just overall urban dynamics but, specifically, urban form (Breheny 1993; Rydin 1992). In the view of one observer, there is now an absence of the natural restraints that used to restrict the character of urban form and maintain a measure of harmony (Gruen 1964, 34). In an era of large development projects and accordingly large development effects, of interconnections and global hinterlands, urban land use market mechanisms left unrestrained have the potential of producing significantly negative environmental damage. The most effective means by which such mechanisms can be controlled is through the application of planning tools and methodologies (Barnett 1986; Brown 1981). There are additional connecting dynamics between planning and sustainability that can be identified in the literature. One of these is based on the recognition of forward thinking as a fundamental characteristic of public policies aimed at achieving sustainability (Carley and Christie 1993, 180). Not only is a long-term perspective intrinsic to the theory and philosophy of planning (Tonn 1986; Lang 1983), it is also the case that the principal area of its concernland useinvolves effects and consequences that are intrinsically long-term (i.e., intergenerational) (Manning 1986). Another connecting dynamic that makes planning and sustainability mutually relevant is the recognition that all facets of planning for the welfare of humans have effects on the flows and processes of the natural environment (Beatley 1989) and that this is particularly the case with respect to land use planning (Christensen 1996). This direct and fundamental interactive relationship places planning (potentially) in a unique position to fulfill the calls for a human ecology among sustain-

The intrinsic intertwining of planning and sustainability is reflected in the significant body of planning articles that has emerged regarding sustainability. For example, in 1995, an entire issue of the Journal of Planning Literature (vol. 9, no. 4) was devoted to sustainability, with articles on its conceptual significance and relationship to planning (Rees 1995; Spain 1995), as well as its practical application in planning for

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com by guest on January 25, 2013

Sustainability and Planning community development (Beatley 1995; Berke 1995). In 1996, the matter of integrating sustainability into the practice of local planning was addressed in the Planning Advisory Service publication, A Planners Guide to Sustainable Development (Krizek and Power 1996), and in articles in the Journal of the American Planning Association (Campbell 1996) and the Journal of Planning Education and Research (McDonald 1996). These were followed four years later by Berke and Conroy (2000) offering a methodology for the measurement of such integration into planning documents. Planning scholars William Rees and Timothy Beatley have coauthored books that cover the general topic of how communities can more effectively plan for sustainability (Wackernagel and Rees 1996; Beatley and Manning 1997, respectively). Moreover, the intrinsic connectedness between planning and sustainability is revealed in the number of articles in planning journals that address various aspects of the emergent functional form that was previously discussed, such as interjurisdictional and intrajurisdictional equity (Beatley 1989); the issues of subsidiarity and institutional hierarchy (Deyle and Smith 1998; Harris and King 1988); and, more recently, neotraditional design (Southworth 1997; Berman 1996), sustainability indicators (Maclaren 1996), participatory processes (Innes and Booher 1999; Innes 1998; Julian et al. 1997), and urban growth boundaries (Weitz and Moore 1998).1 In addition, the most recent Planners Book Service Catalog listed forty-eight books that relate to sustainabilitys three Es of social equity, the environment, and economic development. Finally, Smart Growth is the name given to a newly emerging development doctrine in the planning field that Lorentz and Shaw (2000) described as striving for the protection of community and the environment through the seeking of balance among social, economic, and environmental goals, or the three Es of sustainability. However, there is some evidence of sustainability being relatively absent from the professional literature and academics, at least as terminology. Only rarely does the word (or its derivative, sustainable development) appear in journal article titles (a database review revealed its presence in about a dozen articles in the Journal of the American Planning Association, the Journal of Planning Education and Research, and the Journal of Planning Literature for the period since 1997). This condition of scarcity also exists with respect to planning education: a scan of the Web sites of twenty large planning departments revealed a minority (seven) to include a course with the word sustainability or sustainable development in its title, none offering more than one such course, and even fewer (two) with the word in its program description.

507

In addition, the major current initiative of the American Planning Association (2000), Growing Smart, proposes a planning model that offers no remedy for the present entropic (i.e., nonsustainable) relationship that modern communities in the United States have with the other systems (human and otherwise) on which they depend (i.e., importing resources and exporting waste) (Roseland 1998; Wackernagel and Rees 1996; Girardet 1992). This proposed planning strategy is not essentially inconsistent with the notion of human settlements existing apart from nature and of the need to facilitate development, and its juxtaposition with sustainability mirrors the historical split in the planning profession between an empiricist view (i.e., nature as something to be mastered) and an organic view (i.e., humans and nature in balance) (Wilson [1974] 1983), views that themselves correspond to the mainstream expansionist worldview on one hand and the ecological worldview on the other.
CONCLUSION

It is clear that sustainability and planning have much in common. Moreover, they are complementary in the sense that sustainability has the potential of providing much, if not all, of the conceptual context (theories, goals, objectives, etc.) for the activity of planning in the twenty-first century. Such being the case, and provided they can gain a perspective that draws from the organic tradition of their profession, planners have a potentially significant role to play in the attainment of a more sustainable approach to development by building on the professions intrinsic interest in integration and balance. Because sustainable development would require a strengthening of public sector planning, one important area of future work would be for planners to try to move toward a more full understanding of the dynamics and the effects of the private property rights movement and associated recent court decisions that weaken the legal basis for land use controls and zoning. Investigations could be conducted regarding the substantive areas in which planners are now most actively introducing the concept of sustainability into public debates, with a particular emphasis on how these areas can be integrated into one seamless conceptual field. Continued and expanded exploration of the characteristics of effective participatory processes and models is essential. Finally, the profession should look at how it might more successfully organize itself to develop the consistency and commitment that are necessary for its members to assume the leadership role that is both possible and appropriate. Most fundamentally, it is important that the efforts of planners be guided by clarity regarding its scientific basis (so that they can keep strategies

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com by guest on January 25, 2013

508

Journal of Planning Literature

Boswell, Michael R. 1995. Establishing indicators of sustainable development. Paper presented at the annual conference of Collegiate Schools of Planning, October 19-22, Detroit, MI. Botkin, Daniel B., and Edward A. Keller. 1987. Environmental studies: Earth as a living planet. 2d ed. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Breheny, M. J. 1992. Sustainable development and urban form: An introduction. In Sustainable development and urban form, M. J. Breheny, ed. London: Pion. Breheny, Michael. 1993. Planning the sustainable city region. Town and Country Planning (April): 71-5. Brown, Lester R. 1981. Building a sustainable society. New York: Norton. Button, Kenneth J., and David W. Pearce. 1989. Improving the urban environment: How to adjust national and local government policy for sustainable urban growth. Progress in Planning 32: 135-84. Campbell, Scott. 1996. Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Journal of the American Planning Association 62, 3: 296-312. Carley, Michael, and Ian Christie. 1993. Managing sustainable development. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Castells, Manuel. 1985. High technology, economic restructuring and the urban-regional process in the United States. In High technology, space, and society, Manuel Castells, ed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Cervero, Robert. 1989. Jobs-housing balancing and regional mobility. Journal of the American Planning Association 55, 2: 136-50. Christensen, Norman L., Jr. 1996. Science and the sustainable use of land. In Land use in America, Henry L. Diamond and Patrick F. Noonan, eds. Washington, DC: Island Press. Christoforidis, Alexander. 1994. New alternatives to the suburb: Neo-traditional developments. Journal of Planning Literature 8, 4: 429-40. Concern, Inc. 1995. Building sustainable communities. Issue paper, Concern, Inc., Washington, DC. Costanza, Robert. 1989. What is ecological economics? Ecological Economics 1, 1: 1-7. Crane, Randall. 1996. On form versus function: Will the new urbanism reduce traffic or increase it? Journal of Planning Education and Research 15, 2: 117-26. Daly, H. E. 1989. Steady-state and growth concepts for the next century. In Economy and ecology: Towards sustainable development, F. Archibugi and P. Nijkamp, eds. Boston: Kluwer. Daly, Herman E. [1968] 1980. On economics as a life science. In Economics, ecology, ethics: Essays toward a steady-state economy, Herman E. Daly, ed. New York: Freeman. Daly, Herman E., and John B. Cobb, Jr. 1989. For the common good. Boston: Beacon. Darwent, D. F. 1975. Growth poles and growth centers in regional planningA review. In Regional policy, J. Friedmann and W. Alonso, eds. Cambridge: MIT Press. Davelaar, Evert-Jan, and Peter Nijkamp. 1990. Structural transformation of cities: A Dutch example. In Sustainability of urban systems, Peter Nijkamp, ed. Brookfield, VT: Averbury. Davis, Mike. 1995. House of cards. Sierra (November-December): 37-41, 76. Despotakis, V., M. Giaoutzi, and P. Nijkamp. 1992. Spatial depiction of local sustainable development. In Sustainable development and urban form, M. J. Breheny, ed. London: Pion. Deyle, Robert E., and Richard A. Smith. 1998. Local government compliance with state planning mandates: The effects of state implementation in Florida. Journal of the American Planning Association 64, 4: 457-69. di Castri, Francesco, and Malcolm Hadley. 1986. Enhancing the credibility of ecology: Is interdisciplinary research for land use planning useful? GeoJournal 13, 4: 299-325. Dubos, Rene J. 1981. Celebrations of life. New York: McGraw-Hill.

on track) and its inherent limitations (imposed by worldview and cultural sentiment). Such internal guidance will help ensure against planners either leading their communities astray or expecting too much, both of which will contribute to their removal from the center of the public policy challenge. It is hoped that this article will make a contribution in that regard.
NOTE 1. The cited references are included and intended to serve only as examples of articles, not as guides to the planning literature, on that topic. REFERENCES Ahern, Jack, and Jestena Boughton. 1994. Wildflower meadows as sustainable landscapes. In The ecological city: Preserving and restoring urban diversity, Rutherford H. Platt, Rowan A. Rowntree, and Pamela C. Muick, eds. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Allen, T.F.H., and Thomas B. Starr. [1982] 1988. Hierarchy: Perspectives for ecological complexity. Reprint, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Alterman, Rachelle, and Duncan MacRae, Jr. 1983. Planning and policy analysis: Converging or diverging trends? Journal of the American Planning Association 49, 2: 200-15. American Planning Association (APA). 2000. Growing smart [Online]. Available: http://www.planning.org/plnginfo/GROWSMAR/ gsindex.html Andrews, James H. 1996. Going by the numbers. Planning 62, 9: 14-18. Barbier, Edward B. 1987. The concept of sustainable economic development. Environmental Conservation 14, 2: 101-10. Barnett, Jonothan. 1986. The elusive city. New York: Harper & Row. Beatley, Timothy. 1995. Planning and sustainability: The elements of a new (improved?) paradigm. Journal of Planning Literature 9, 4: 383-95. . 1989. Environmental ethics and planning theory. Journal of Planning Literature 4, 1: 1-32. Beatley, Timothy, and K. Manning. 1997. The ecology of place: Planning for environment, economy, and community. Washington, DC: Island Press. Berke, Philip R. 1995. Natural-hazard reduction and sustainable development: A global assessment. Journal of Planning Literature 9, 4: 371-82. Berke, Philip R., and Maria Manta Conroy. 2000. Are we planning for sustainable development? Journal of the American Planning Association 66, 1: 21-33. Berke, Philip R., and Jack Kartez. 1995. Sustainable development as a guide to land use policy. Research paper, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA. Berman, Michael Aaron. 1996. The transportation effects of neotraditional development. Journal of Planning Literature 10, 4: 347-63. Blamey, R., and M. Common. 1994. Sustainability and the limits to pseudo market valuation. In Toward sustainable development, J.C.J.M. van den Bergh and J. van der Straaten, eds. Washington, DC: Island Press. Blowers, Andrew. 1993. The time for change. In Planning for a sustainable environment, Andrew Blowers, ed. London: Earthscan. . 1992. Sustainable urban development: The political prospects. In Sustainable development and urban form, M. J. Breheny, ed. London: Pion. Bookout, Lloyd W. 1992. Neotraditional town planning: A new vision for the suburbs? Urban Land 51, 1: 20-26.

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com by guest on January 25, 2013

Sustainability and Planning

Dwyer, John F., Hefbert W. Schroeder, and Paul H. Gobster. 1994. The deep significance of urban trees and forests. In The ecological cityPreserving and restoring urban biodiversity, Rutherford H. Platt, Rowan A. Rowntree, and Pamela C. Muick, eds. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Ekins, Paul. 1994. The environmental sustainability of economic processes: A framework for analysis. In Toward sustainable development, J.C.J.M. van den Bergh and J. van der Straaten, eds. Washington, DC: Island Press. . 1993. Limits to growth and sustainable development: Grappling with ecological realities. Ecological Economics 8, 3: 269-88. Friedmann, John. 1993. Toward a non-Euclidian mode of planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 59, 4: 482-85. . 1964. The concept of a planning regionThe evolution of an idea in the United States. In Regional development and planningA reader, John Friedmann and William Alonso, eds. Cambridge: MIT Press. Friedmann, John, and William Alonso. 1964. Regional development as a policy issue. In Regional development and planningA reader, John Friedmann and William Alonso, eds. Cambridge: MIT Press. Friedmann, John, and Robin Bloch. 1990. American exceptionalism in regional planning, 1933-2000. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 14, 4: 576-601. Friedmann, John, and Clyde Weaver. 1979. Territory and function: The evolution of regional planning. Berkeley: University of California Press. Garbarino, James 1992. Toward a sustainable society. Chicago: Noble. Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. [1971] 1980. The entropy law and the economic problem. In Economics, ecology, ethicsEssays toward a steady-state economy, Herman E. Daly, ed. New York: Freeman. Giaoutzi, Maria. 1990. Complexity in urban dynamics: A Greek example. In Sustainability of urban systems, Peter Nijkamp, ed. Brookfield, VT: Gower. Girardet, Herbert. 1992. The Gaia atlas of cities. New York: Doubleday. Glasser, H., P. P. Craig, and W. Kempton. 1994. Ethics and values in environmental policy: The said and the UNCED. In Toward sustainable development, J.C.J.M. van den Bergh and J. van der Straaten, eds. Washington, DC: Island Press. Gruen, Victor. 1964. The heart of our cities: The urban crisis, diagnosis and cure. New York: Simon & Schuster. Hardoy, Jorge, Diana Mitlin, and David Satterthwaite. 1992. The future city. In Making development sustainable: Redefining institutions, policy, and economics, Johan Holmberg, ed. Washington, DC: Island Press. Harris, Glenn, and Leslie King. 1988. Reconsidering planning and environmental protection. Journal of Planning Literature 3, 4: 373-85. Haughton, Graham, and Colin Hunter. 1994. Sustainable cities. London: Jessica Kingsley. Healey, Patsy, and Tim Shaw. 1993. Planners, plans and sustainable development. Regional Studies 27, 8: 769-76. Hersperger, Anna M. 1994. Landscape ecology and its potential application to planning. Journal of Planning Literature 9, 1: 14-29. Hill, David R. 1992. Sustainability, Victor Gruen, and the cellular metropolis. Journal of the American Planning Association 58, 3: 312-26. Hoover, Edgar Malone. 1971. An introduction to regional economics. New York: Knopf. Howe, Elizabeth. 1990. Normative ethics in planning. Journal of Planning Literature 5, 2: 123-50. Innes, Judith E. 1998. Information in communicative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 64, 1: 52-63. Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 1999. Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65, 4: 412-23.

509

Jacobs, Michael. 1991. The green economy: Environment, sustainable development and the politics of the future. Concord, MA: Pluto. Jones, Alice. 1996. The psychology of sustainability: What planners can learn from attitude research. Journal of Planning Education and Research 16, 1: 56-65. Julian, David A., Thomas M. Reischl, Richard V. Carrick, and Cathy Katrenich. 1997. Citizen participation: Lessons from a local United Way planning process. Journal of the American Planning Association 63, 3: 345-55. Katz, David. 1986. Metropolitan food systems and the sustainable city. In Sustainable communities, Sim Van der Ryn and Peter Calthorpe, eds. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Kay, James J. 1991. The concept of ecological integrity, alternative theories of ecology, and implications for decision-support indicators. In Economic, ecological, and decision theories: Indicators of ecologically sustainable development, Peter A. Victor, James J. Kay, and H. Jack Ruitenbeek, eds. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Environmental Advisory Council. King, J., and M. Slesser. 1994. The natural philosophy of natural capital: Can solar energy substitute? In Toward sustainable development, J.C.J.M. van den Bergh and J. van der Straaten, eds. Washington, DC: Island Press. Kinsley, Michael. 1994. Sustainable developmentProsperity without growth. Public Management (October): 6-9. Krizek, Kevin J., and Joe Power. 1996. A planners guide to sustainable development. PAS 467. Chicago: American Planning Association. Lang, Jon. 1983. Teaching planning to city planning students. An argument for the studio/workshop approach. Journal of Planning Education and Research 2, 2: 122-29. Lele, Sharachchandra M. 1991. Sustainable development: A critical review. World Development 19, 6: 607-21. Lorentz, Amalia, and Kirsten Shaw. 2000. Are you ready to bet on Smart Growth? Planning 66, 1: 4-9. Loucks, Orie L. 1994. Sustainability in urban ecosystems: Beyond an object of study. In The ecological city: Preserving and restoring urban diversity, Rutherford H. Platt, Rowan A. Rowntree, and Pamela C. Muick, eds. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Lyle, John Tillman. 1994. Regenerative design for sustainable development. New York: John Wiley. Lynch, Kevin. 1981. Good city form. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Maclaren, Virginia. 1996. Urban sustainability reporting. Journal of the American Planning Association 62, 2: 184-202. Manning, Edward W. 1986. Towards sustainable land use: A strategy. Ottawa, Canada: Minister of Supply and Services. Maser, Chris. 1997. Sustainable community development. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie. McDonald, Geoffrey T. 1996. Planning as sustainable development. Journal of Planning Education and Research 15, 3: 225-36. Meadows, Donnella H., Dennis L. Meadows, and Jorgen Randers. 1992. Beyond the limits. Post Mills, VT: Chelsea Green. Mollison, Bill. 1990. Permaculture: A practical guide for a sustainable future. Washington, DC: Island Press. Moss, Mitchell L. 1988. Telecommunications: Shaping the future. In Americas new market geography, George Sternlieb and James W. Hughes, eds. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research. Munn, R. E. 1989. Towards sustainable development: An environmental perspective. In Economy and ecology: Towards sustainable development, F. Archibugi and P. Nijkamp, eds. Boston: Kluwer. Nijkamp, P., P. Lasschuit, and F. Soeteman. 1992. Sustainable development in a regional system. In Sustainable development and urban form, M. J. Breheny, ed. London: Pion.

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com by guest on January 25, 2013

510

Journal of Planning Literature

Sargent, Frederic O., Paul Lusk, Jose A. Rivera, and Maria Varela. 1991. Rural environmental planning for sustainable communities. Washington, DC: Island Press. Scruggs, Patricia. 1993. Chapter 1Definitions and principles. In Guidelines for state level sustainable development, Snyder Park, ed. Chapel Hill: Center for Policy Alternatives and Environmental Resource Program, University of North Carolina. Simon, David. 1989. Sustainable development: Theoretical construct or attainable goal? Environmental Conservation 16, 1: 41-48. Simon, Herbert A. 1962. The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 106, 6: 467-82. Smit, Barry, and Michael Brklacich. 1989. Sustainable development and the analysis of rural systems. Journal of Rural Studies 5, 4: 405-14. Smith, Timothy W. 1996. Sustainable communities in the urban-rural interface. Small Town & Rural Planning (March): 8-12. Southworth, Michael. 1997. Walkable suburbs? An evaluation of neotraditional communities at the urban edge. Journal of the American Planning Association 63, 1: 28-44. Spain, Daphne. 1995. Sustainability, feminist visions, and the utopian tradition. Journal of Planning Literature 9, 4: 362-69. Stone, P. A. 1973. The structure, size and costs of urban settlements. Cambridge: University Printing House. Tolba, Mostafa Kamal. 1987. Sustainable development: Constraints and opportunities. Boston: Butterworth. Tonn, Bruce E. 1986. 500-year planningSpeculative provocation. Journal of the American Planning Association 52, 2: 185-93. Voisey, Heather, Christiane Beuermann, Liv Astride Sverdrup, and Tim ORiordan. 1996. The political significance of Local Agenda 21: The early stages of some European experience. Local Environment 1, 1: 33-50. Wackernagel, Mathis, and William Rees. 1996. Our ecological footprint. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society. Weitz, Jerry, and Terry Moore. 1998. Development inside urban growth boundaries: Oregons empirical evidence of contiguous urban form. Journal of the American Planning Association 64, 4: 424-40. White, Rodney R. 1994. Urban environmental management. New York: John Wiley. Wilson, William H. [1974] 1983. Moles and skylarks. In Introduction to planning history in the United States, Donald A. Krueckeberg, ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Owens, S. 1992. Energy, environmental sustainability and land-use planning. In Sustainable development and urban form, M. J. Breheny, ed. London: Pion. Owens, Susan. 1986. Energy, planning, and urban form. London: Pion. Pattee, H. H. 1973. The physical basis and origin of hierarchical control. In Hierarchy theory: The challenge of complex systems, H. H. Pattee, ed. New York: Braziller. Peters, Robert L., and Reed F. Noss. 1995. Americas endangered ecosystems. Defenders 70, 4: 16-27. Platt, Rutherford H. 1994. The ecological city: Introduction and overview. In The ecological city: Preserving and restoring urban diversity, Rutherford H. Platt, Rowan A. Rowntree, and Pamela C. Muick, eds. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Pred, Allan. 1976. The interurban transmission of growth in advanced economies: Empirical findings versus regional-planning assumptions. Regional Studies 10: 151-71. Rees, William E. 1995. Achieving sustainability: Reform or transformation? Journal of Planning Literature 9, 4: 343-61. . 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization 4, 2: 121-30. . 1990. Planning for sustainable development: A resource book. Proceedings of a symposium organized by the School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, November 25-27, 1988. Vancouver, BC: Centre for Human Settlements. . 1989. Defining sustainable development. CHS Research Bulletin. Vancouver, Canada: Center for Human Settlements, University of British Columbia. Rees, William E., and Mathis Wackernagel. 1994. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: Measuring the natural capital requirements of the human economy. In Investing in natural capital: The ecological economics approach to sustainability, A. M. Jannson, M. Hammer, C. Folke, and R. Costanza, eds. Washington, DC: Island Press. Rolston, Holmes, III. 1988. Environmental ethics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Roseland, Mark. 1998. Toward sustainable communities. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers. Ruckelshaus, William D. 1989. Toward a sustainable world. Scientific American 261, 3: 166-74. Rydin, Y. 1992. Environmental impacts and the property market. In Sustainable development and urban form, M. J. Breheny, ed. London: Pion.

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com by guest on January 25, 2013