SUSTAINABILITY IN ACTION AT THE

LEVEL OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

DEFINING, FRAMING, & MEASURING A LOCAL SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVE

by

Julia K. Petersen

A degree project submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Public Administration

University of Washington

2009

2

Degree Project Summary Form

Author: Julia Petersen

Title: Sustainability in Action at the Local Government Level: Defining,

Framing, and Measuring a Local Sustainability Initiative

Date (Quarter/Year): Spring Quarter ~ June 10, 2009

D.P. Advisor: Joaquin Herranz

Gateway: Urban and Regional Affairs

Keywords: Sustainability, Local Government, Quadruple Bottom-Line, Indicators,

Tacoma, Environment

Abstract: The Degree Project offers a justification for sustainability in action at the

local government level, as well as a definition of sustainability along the four components of the quadruple bottom-line – environment, economy, society, and culture. It further describes two tools for operationalizing a sustainability initiative, the Quadruple Bottom-Line Analysis and Decision-Making Instrument and a Performance Measurement System for a Sustainability Initiative. Finally, the project assesses the City of Tacoma’s nascent sustainability initiative, reporting findings from interviews of employees, analyzing these results, establishing a baseline measurement of sustainability for the City, and making ten recommendations for their Office of Sustainability in moving toward a sustainable Tacoma.

Forquestionsregardingthisreport,pleaseemailpetersenjuliak@gmail.com.

3

Executive Summary To: City of Tacoma City Manager’s Office & Office of Sustainability From: Julia Petersen, Graduate Student Researcher, Evans School of Public Affairs Date: June 9, 2009 Re: City of Tacoma’s Sustainability Initiative

The City of Tacoma (COT) has recently joined many local, regional, and global cities in addressing the issues of sustainability, choosing to do so via an Office of Sustainability (OoS). With a blank slate upon which to create a unique and meaningful sustainability initiative, Tacoma’s effort has the opportunity to both positively impact its citizens and bioregion and lead the way among local sustainability initiatives in the United States.

An effort of this magnitude is unprecedented in the City of Tacoma. To assist the OoS in putting sustainability into action, I conducted extensive interviews of COT employees and reviews of COT documents in order to answer the question, “How sustainable is Tacoma?” In my research, I found the following:

• Enthusiasm and expertise already exist, and should be instrumental in advancing the OoS agenda

• Employees have high hopes for the OoS, especially in the office’s capacity to establish a vision for a sustainable Tacoma and coordinate departmental efforts toward that vision

• Many sustainable practices, programs, and policies are in progress, particularly toward the goals of the Climate Action Plan

• Key partners and stakeholders are critical to City of Tacoma activities, and will be essential in the success of the City’s sustainability initiative

I further analyze these findings to determine strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities to build on the former and overcome the latter. With information from both the findings and this analysis, I use Kent Portney’s Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously Index to arrive at a baseline measurement of Tacoma’s level of sustainability. The Index results show that, while Tacoma has room for improvement, at least in the environmental realm of sustainability, it scores well relative to other cities and despite the newness of its sustainability initiative.

While Tacoma has the makings of a successful sustainability initiative, the real challenge lies ahead. Many cities have found establishing an Office of Sustainability to be politically feasible and generally embraced by citizens. However, moving from advocacy and establishment of an Office of Sustainability to action requires leadership and reflection upon difficult questions. The consideration of such questions early in an initiative will ensure a more deliberate and comprehensive journey toward a sustainable outcome. Why should sustainability be the work of the local, as opposed to state or national, level of government? When a local government says ‘sustainability’, what does it mean? Who determines the vision of a sustainable city? Can sustainability be measured, and if so, how?

In fact, sustainability is the work of the local government level. This is because this level of government is closest to citizens and thus has the tightest feedback loops for communication and collaboration with the public. As well, due to their significant contributions to environmental

4

degradation, cities have become the primary obstruction to a sustainable outcome for citizens. This outcome, defined in this body of work as one that encompasses environmental, economic, social, and cultural well-being for citizens and the bioregion – The Quadruple Bottom-Line (QBL) Framework for a Sustainable City – is at serious risk of going unrealized unless cities, particularly American cities, begin the difficult work of motivating and maintaining change in the homes, habits, and hearts of citizens.

This difficult work begins with a defining and framing of sustainability in a way that captures commonly accepted notions of the concept, but also pushes beyond that to include the four components of the QBL and citizens’ visions of what their sustainable city will be.

Once a definition and framework have been settled upon, discussion must turn into action. Operationalizing sustainability is even more important than defining it, and this challenge alone has claimed many a local sustainability initiative. In order to more successfully advance sustainability in the City of Tacoma, I offer two tools for putting an initiative into action: the Quadruple Bottom-Line Analysis and Decision-Making Instrument and a Performance

Measurement System for a Sustainability Initiative. The former aims to provide space early in the decision-making process for an interdisciplinary group of professionals and stakeholders to conduct a meta-analysis of a proposed policy/action along a quadruple bottom-line. Using this instrument, they assess a policy/action according to its strengths, weaknesses, and most notably, its connection to goals set out in other city plans, such as the Comprehensive Plan. The latter tool offers guidance on measurement of a sustainable city initiative, citing broad principles of assessment and a measurement system that through determination of outcomes and indicators values the intangible aspects of sustainability.

The findings and analysis of the City of Tacoma sustainability initiative thus far, as well as extensive research on taking an initiative from theory to practice at the local government level, lead to specific recommendations for the OoS in its work toward a sustainable Tacoma.

1. Involve citizens every step of the way. 2. Reach out to external stakeholders. 3. Establish internal partnerships to overcome departmental silos. 4. Determine the “being” of a sustainable Tacoma. 5. Establish a vision of a sustainable Tacoma. 6. Choose principles for sustainability. 7. Craft a performance measurement system for a sustainability initiative. 8. Educate employees and citizens. 9. Provide financial support. 10. Share Tacoma’s sustainability experience and performance data.

Rather than just another layer of bureaucracy, the Office of Sustainability is Tacoma’s opportunity to establish its distinctiveness as a city. Tacoma can and should craft its sustainability effort as the chance to create an identity as not only a “green” city, but also a city that values its social relationships, cultural experiences, and economic well-being. Should Tacoma’s initiative take on the meaning of sustainability along the quadruple bottom-line, it will result in increased economic, environmental, social, and cultural well-being for its residents and bioregion, further establishing Tacoma as a place to be valued among its citizens.

5

Table of Contents

I.INTRODUCTION 7

SECTIONI 9

II.SUSTAINABILITYATTHELOCALGOVERNMENTLEVEL 10

III.WHATISSUSTAINABILITY? 11

IV.THEQUADRUPLEBOTTOM­LINEFRAMEWORKFORASUSTAINABLECITY 151.THEENVIRONMENTBOTTOM‐LINE 17

2.THEECONOMICBOTTOM‐LINE 18

3.THESOCIALBOTTOM‐LINE 19

4.THECULTUREBOTTOM‐LINE 20

V.TAKINGSUSTAINABILITYFROMCONCEPTANDFRAMEWORKTOACTION 22

1.THEQBLANALYSIS&DECISION‐MAKINGINSTRUMENT 22

2.APERFORMANCEMEASUREMENTSYSTEMFORALOCALSUSTAINABILITYINITIATIVE 25

SECTIONII 31

VI.BACKGROUND 32

VII.METHODOLOGY 33

VIII.FINDINGS 341.FINDING:ENTHUSIASM&EXPERTISEALREADYEXIST 34

2.FINDING:HIGHHOPESFORTHEOFFICEOFSUSTAINABILITY 34

3.FINDING:COTSUSTAINABLEPRACTICES,PROGRAMS,&POLICIESINPROGRESS 35

4.FINDING:KEYPARTNERS&STAKEHOLDERS 40

5.SUMMARYOFFINDINGS 41

IX.ANALYSISOFFINDINGS 421.STRENGTHS,WEAKNESSES,&OPPORTUNITIES 42

2.ESTABLISHINGABASELINEMEASUREMENT:HOWSUSTAINABLEISTACOMA? 48

SECTIONIII 50

X.RECOMMENDATIONSFORTACOMA’SOFFICEOFSUSTAINABILITY 51

XI.CONCLUSIONS 57

6

Tables, Figures, & Appendices

Tables

Table 1: Prominent Definitions of Sustainability 12 Table 2: A Summary of the Bellagio Principles of Assessment 27

Figures

Figure 1: The Quadruple Bottom-Line Framework for a Sustainable City 15 Figure 2: The Continuum of Sustainability 16 Figure 3: The Quadruple Bottom-Line Analysis & Decision-Making

Instrument 23

Figure 4: An AMOEBA, a graphic guide of key sustainability outcome indicators

29

Figure 5: Key Partners and Stakeholders 41

Appendices

Appendix A QBL Analysis & Decision-Making Instrument 58 Appendix B Performance Measurement System for a Sustainability

Initiative – description, logic models, and an AMOEBA 59

Appendix C City of Tacoma Resolution #37631 63 Appendix D Interview Questions 66 Appendix E Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Element Plan Goals 67 Appendix F Strategic Mobility Master Plan Timeline 68 Appendix G Urban Forestry Program Development Process Timeline 69 Appendix H Shoreline Master Program and Critical Area Preservation

Ordinance Update Timeline 70

Appendix I Key Partnerships and Stakeholders 71 Appendix J The Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously Index 74 Appendix K Potential ICMA Performance Measure Data for Sustainability

Performance Measurement 75

7

I. Introduction

The motivation for this body of work came out of a graduate course, Attaining a Sustainable

Society, at the conclusion of my first year of graduate studies at the University of Washington Evans School of Public Affairs. Week after week, the professor exposed us to readings, examples, guest speakers, and discussions, all focused on the very real and very serious global sustainability crises – too many people, not enough resources, perverse incentives to exploit these limited resources, and a desire for affluence that induces overconsumption. By the conclusion of the course, I was convinced that putting the concept of sustainability into action would save us from ourselves. After a more in depth study of sustainability, I became certain that the local level of government should be where this “action” takes place. As the closest level of government to people, cities can motivate and maintain change toward sustainable outcomes where it is most important – in the homes, habits, and hearts of citizens. Fortunately, the City of Tacoma was at this time beginning their Office of Sustainability, an outgrowth of the writing of their Climate Action Plan. Because of their willingness to accept my assistance in this start-up, I was able to take my research beyond the idealism of academia and apply it in a practical way to a very real case study of the City of Tacoma’s sustainability initiative. The body of work that has resulted is an outgrowth of this year-long process of initial exposure and alarm, study of professional and academic theories and frameworks on ‘doing’ sustainability, and application to the reality of a local government sustainability initiative. Throughout this process, the key challenge for sustainability initiatives done at the local level became clear – achieving a sustainable city is much more difficult than talking about or supporting it. Sustainability supporters have for many years been caught up in the hard work of defining the term and advocating for it. But in the US in particular, the concept has had difficulty gaining enough energy to go beyond discussion and into operation. Recently, however, the idea has gained momentum. Local governments and citizens, very much responsible for getting the concept the attention it has received in recent years, now must act quickly and decisively to determine what sustainability means at this level and begin ‘doing’ it. Herein lie the challenge, the risk, and the temptation. Local governments are challenged in their ability to move quickly, especially for an initiative such as sustainability that should involve significant citizen participation. Yet, citizens want quick results, and the nature of the crises we face demands change in the near future. The risk is, then, that governments will make a shallow attempt at sustainability, one that amounts to nothing more than use of the concept as a replacement for ‘environmental friendliness’. Two temptations result – the first is to “greenwash” governmental activities without changing the fundamental ways of doing business (i.e. economic development, urban planning, etc.). The second is to blindly adopt best practices that have worked well in other cities. While these practices may be informative, cutting and pasting them ignores the challenges unique to each region and city. As well, it disregards the need for citizen engagement as a means of increasing the likelihood that sustainable programs and projects will be effective.

8

As Newman et al. note in their book Resilient Cities, “The first step is awareness, and the second step is imagination.”1 Local governments in particular should move beyond notions of “how green is your government” and the best practices of others in “being green”, and into a framework of sustainability that captures what their city and region must do to overcome unsustainable ways of being. This movement should be comprehensive, involving a definition of sustainability beyond just environmental well-being. It should be interdisciplinary, involving experts and partners beyond those traditionally at the core of the project or task at hand. And it should be inclusive, involving many diverse citizens in determining the ‘where’, ‘what’, and ‘how’ of the sustainability initiative. Cities that do this – that follow a “determined, not a deterministic path” – can and will be successful in their journey toward sustainability.2 This body of work aims to make a case for the “determined” local government-led sustainability initiative. Its writing has been a journey, a slow awakening to the fact that change toward sustainability must come now, that we no longer have the luxury of pushing this challenge off to future generations, and that the challenges are best met by local government in genuine concert with citizens. In Section I, I explain the importance of the local government level in our sustainable future, offering a framework and management tools for taking sustainability beyond advocacy and a narrow focus on the environment, and into a realm that includes a simultaneous consideration of economy, society, and culture in decision-making, implementation, and measurement. In Section II, I present a case study of the City of Tacoma’s nascent sustainability initiative. As tasked by the City, I uncover the findings of comprehensive interviews designed to answer the question “How sustainable is Tacoma today?” I further analyze these findings to determine strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities and pose a baseline level of sustainability for the City. Finally in Section III, I offer recommendations for the City of Tacoma in the early stages of their sustainability initiative based upon both knowledge of sustainability literature and the analysis of the interview findings. Though written for the City of Tacoma, these recommendation statements could generally apply to sustainability initiatives of any local government. My hope is that this work will not only support and advance the City of Tacoma’s local sustainability initiative, but also make a broader case for local government as the platform for sustainability initiatives everywhere. If the reader walks away feeling inspired and informed - and further convinced that doing is more critical than endlessly discussing, that comprehensive is preferable to narrow, and that interdisciplinary and grassroots is more pervasive than siloed and top-down – then I will have illustrated how to operationalize a local sustainability initiative.

1 Newman, Peter, Timothy Beatley, and Heather Boyer. Resilient Cities: Responding to Peak Oil and Climate

Change. New York: Island P, 2008: p. 33. 2 Landry, Charles. The Creative City : A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. London: Earthscan, 2008: p. 3.

9

SECTION I Sustainability at the Local Government Level

10

II. SUSTAINABILITY AT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEVEL

Since the 1960s and 1970s, nation-states have been the primary catalyst of policy to remediate the negative environmental impacts of human behavior, relying primarily on legal methods for environmental protection and remediation.3 In recent years, however, the limiting narrowness and extreme slowness of large national and international governmental structures has spurred alternative frameworks to the environmental movement. Sustainability has become the new framework for a comprehensive consideration of the relationship between environmental, social, and economic forces. Its activists, while certainly many at the nation-state level, have largely been individual citizens banded together in a collective effort – an effort often carried out at the local government level. With more people living in cities than at any other time in our world history, local government efforts towards sustainability, while enabled by state, national, and international policy, are a highly effective level of action towards a sustainable future. As Newman and Jennings explain in their book Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems, “Cities are the defining ecological phenomenon of the twenty-first century. From a minor part of the global economy one hundred years ago, they have become the principal engines of economic growth and the places where most of humanity dwells.”4 With this concentration of economic expansion has come the dependence of that growth on global systems. Cities have become primary contributors to environmental degradation, drawing in resources from around the world, exporting wastes outside of their boundaries (including 80% of the world’s carbon emissions), and taxing regional and global ecosystems with their ever-larger ecological footprints.5 In past decades, these environmental and social ills have been combated at a national level. But as cities continue to grow in population, geographic area, and economic importance, the variance in challenges faced by these entities requires something more than a one-size-fits-all national effort. As a result, the local level has increasingly become an effective medium through which much of our planet’s work on sustainability takes place. As the closest government to the people, it is the arena for transforming individual and collective human behaviors, playing a “vital role in educating, mobilizing and responding to the public to promote sustainable development.”6 Because of this closeness, the local level overcomes the remoteness of global and even national environmental action. It allows for tighter feedback loops between citizen action toward a solution and the consequence of that action, providing quick and relevant information for continual individual and collective change toward a sustainable end.7

3OurCommonFuture.UnitedNations.WorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopment.Oxford:Oxford

UP,1987:p.17.4Newman,Peter,andIsabellaJennings.CitiesasSustainableEcosystems:PrinciplesandPractices.NewYork:

IslandP,2008:p.2.5NewmanandJennings,2008:3,37.6 "Local Authorities' Initiatives in Support of Agenda 21." Agenda 21 Chapter 28. 15 Dec. 2004. U.N. Department

of Economic & Social Affairs. 02 June 2009

<http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21chapter28.htm>. 7Speth,JamesGustave.RedSkyatMorning:AmericaandtheCrisisoftheGlobalEnvironment.NewHaven:

YaleNotaBene,2005:p.100.

11

American cities have a particular responsibility for participation in the growing local sustainability movement. They have enormous capacity to influence for the better the global pursuit of this concept. They also are a primary contributor to the global environmental and social problems that sustainability aims to address.8 Ignoring or unaware of this reality, the United States and many of its cities have responded with seriousness neither to the intent of sustainability nor the call to join the movement. As compared with many cities outside of the U.S., it would be fair to say that American cities and their citizens are lagging behind in their understanding of how individual behaviors affect the well-being of their local, regional, and global natural and human systems.9 It is easy to assume that a local sustainability effort will make hardly a dent in the myriad of sustainability issues. It has been internationally demonstrated over the past twenty to thirty years, however, that the local level of government is the place for a sustainability initiative to have significant impact. Because of their potential for influence and their role as primary contributors to environmental degradation, American cities in particular have an opportunity to tackle the many sustainability issues, influencing not only their natural environment and the lives of their citizens for the better, but also blazing a trail for an American sustainability initiative done well.

III. WHAT IS SUSTAINABILITY?

The briefest of public service tenure is enough for one to experience a coming and going of buzzwords – words that capture the latest philosophies or innovations and package them in a theory of best practice. This succession of jargon makes many skeptical of new ideas, fearful of digging into something only to have it replaced by the next new thing. Such is the risk with the term “sustainability.” Even the most vigilant supporters will speculate its replacement by another concept in years to come. This view of the concept as the latest in buzzwords coupled with the assumption that sustainability is an end goal to be achieved in the near future puts the very idea at risk of losing ground. Those who refuse to follow yet another popular concept will ignore efforts towards sustainability; meanwhile, those who support it will tire when the end goal of “sustainability” escapes them. Sustainability is not a buzzword, nor can we afford for it to be. With a planet strained under a burgeoning population, deployment of dangerous technologies, rampant consumerism, and a global economy fraught with perverse incentives, our very existence depends upon sustainability becoming more than just a word, but a way of life.10

8Dernbach,JohnC.,ed.StumblingTowardSustainability.Annapolis:EnvironmentalLawInstitute,2002:p.7.9Portney,KentE.TakingSustainableCitiesSeriously:EconomicDevelopment,theEnvironment,andQuality

ofLifeinAmericanCities.NewYork:MITP,2003:p.28.10Speth,JamesGustave.RedSkyatMorning:AmericaandtheCrisisoftheGlobalEnvironment.NewHaven:

YaleNotaBene,2005:p.99.

12

Sustainability is neither a final state of perfection nor only a means to that end. Particularly at the local government level, it is a story line rather than a scientific state to be realized.11 This “story line” denotes a journey characterized by exploration and implementation of holistic ways of locally attaining the quadruple bottom-line: environmental, social, economic, and cultural well being for both citizens and the bioregion. Sustainability is not only a doing of projects and practices, but a way of being that defines us (whether the ‘us’ is the individual, municipality, state, nation, or beyond) as stewards of our Earth and our human communities. Thus, all decisions and actions are viewed through a multi-faceted lens to assess how they add or detract from a sustainability story line; that is, how they impact natural and human systems. Sustainability implies that leaders and citizens will take into account the lack of political or financial power of future generations, and their inability to challenge present-day decisions.12 In order to do so, sustainable cities make decisions using the rubric of “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” alongside the “precautionary principle” of erring on the side of caution when knowledge of potential harm, especially harm to the environment or health of people, is limited.13,14 Often, sustainability is defined as a modifier of something else – as in ‘sustainable development’, ‘sustainable growth’, ‘sustainable communities’, ‘sustainable living’, etc. Each of these terms has slightly different implications, and much academic literature attempts to explain why one is preferable to the other. Table 1 illustrates several definitions of sustainability and related concepts as offered by organizations and authors known for their work on the concept. Though each definition differs slightly in content and focus, themes are common throughout: consideration of future generations, balance of human needs with the needs of the natural environment, prevention of natural and social capital depletion, and quality of life preservation. Table 1

PROMINENT DEFINITIONS OF SUSTAINABILITY

SOURCE DEFINITION

1987 United Nations

World Commission on

Environment &

Development

To ensure that it [humanity] meets the needs of the present without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own

needs.15

The Earth Charter

A sustainable lifestyle is one that allows Earth, with its beauty and

integrity and its abundant but limited resources, to meet the current

needs of all humankind in a way that will allow Earth to reproduce

itself, to regenerate itself, and to continue its evolution as it has done

11 Moore, Steven. Alternative Routes to the Sustainable City: Austin, Curitiba, and Frankfurt. New York: Lexington

Books, 2007: p. 1. 12 Our Common Future. United Nations. World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford

UP, 1987: p. 8. 13 Our Common Future, 1987: p. 8. 14 Toward a Sustainable World: The Earth Charter in Action, 2005: p. 71. 15 Our Common Future, 1987.

13

for four and a half billion years, and thus also meet the needs of

future generations.16

The Natural Step

Framework

In the sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically

increasing: 1) concentrations of substances extracted from the

Earth’s crust, 2) substances produced by society, 3) degradation by

physical means, and 4) in that society, human needs are met

worldwide.17

Stephen Wheeler Sustainable development is development that improves the long-term

health of human and ecological systems.18

Newman & Jennings

The path to sustainability lies in transforming our cities so that they

are based on the patterns and processes of natural, sustainable

ecosystems, achieving ecological regeneration, healthy communities,

and viable economies within their bioregions.19

American Planning

Association

Sustainability is the capability to equitably meet the vital human

needs of the present without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their own needs by preserving and protecting the

area's ecosystems and natural resources. The concept of

sustainability describes a condition in which human use of natural

resources, required for the continuation of life, is in balance with

Nature's ability to replenish them.20

International

City/County

Manager’s Association

Four interdependent elements: balancing environmental stewardship,

economic development, social equity, and financial and

organizational viability.

Development should improve quality of life, making a place more

livable without harming the environment or creating a financial

burden for residents… that principle should extend into economic

and social realms.21

Settling upon a definition of sustainability is important to a government entity for purposes of communication of their initiative’s vision. But this process looks very different at the level of local government, for this is the level at which sustainability gets done. For that reason, rather than cut and paste one of the above definitions into a city’s sustainability initiative, a local government should use the common interpretations of the concept to inspire a description unique to the doing of sustainability within that city. Indeed, as authors Bell and Morse explain, “People differ in the environmental, social and economic conditions within which they have to live, and having a single definition that one attempts to apply across this diversity could be both

16 Toward a Sustainable World: The Earth Charter in Action. The Earth Charter Initiative, 2005. 17 James, Sarah, and Torbj Lahti. The Natural Step for Communities: How Cities and Towns Can Change to

Sustainable Practices. New York: New Society, Limited, 2004. 18 Wheeler, Stephen. "Planning Sustainable and Livable Cities." The City Reader 2nd Edition. Ed. Richard Legates

and Frederic Stout. New York: Routledge, 1999. 19 Newman, Peter, and Isabella Jennings. Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems: Principles and Practices. New York:

Island P, 2008. 20 Policy Guide on Planning for Sustainability. American Planning Association. Adopted April 17, 2000. 21 ICMA Management Perspective: Sustainability. Oct. 2007. International City County Management Association. 2

June 2009 <http://icma.org/upload/bc/attach/%7BE92CF435-1512-47F3-A14B-26DEA69F6E1D%7D08-

078%20Mgmt%20Prsptv%20Sustainability%20v04.pdf>.

14

impractical and dangerous.”22 A city’s unique definition captures and allows for this diversity, making an initiative relevant and motivating to its citizens. Caution must be exercised, however, to not waylay progress towards a sustainable city with endless wordsmithing of a definition. While sustainability is clearly something as described in the many definitions above, it is nothing until it can be operationalized in a way that brings people closer to living harmoniously within natural and human systems. Therefore, it is far more critical to determine the vision of a sustainable city and the actions necessary to move toward that vision than deliberate at length about the content of the definition. “We will define and further sustainable development by the actions we take and by what we learn from those actions.”23 Sustainability is an iterative journey. It is further defined and made into something tangible by lessons learned in actually doing it. As Moore states in his book Alternative Routes

to the Sustainable City, “In the end, it is less important what we think sustainably might mean than what we are willing to do to achieve it.”24 Regardless of the details of the concept’s meaning, sustainability requires what author Charles Landry has termed a “meta-paradigm” shift in thinking - a completely new way of conceptualizing the world that informs and alters policy areas.25 This shift, as Edwards and Orr describe in their book The Sustainability Revolution: Portrait of a Paradigm Shift, is “nothing less than a rethinking and remaking of our role in the natural world” involving “the recalibration of human interactions to coincide with the way the biophysical world works.”26 As part of this recalibration, progress must be defined as more than an economic end of a collection of assets. Instead, sustainable progress entails a “perspective on life and the world that prizes the two central ideas of environmental ethics: the protection for their own sake of the living communities that evolved here with us and our trusteeship of the earth’s natural wealth and beauty for generations to come.”27 As the Earth Charter emphasizes, this transformation of thought is “essential to the survival and flourishing of human civilization in the twenty-first century,” and is “akin to the emergence of agriculture, rise of the nation-state, or the industrial revolution.”28 As such, the concept of sustainability must move beyond buzzword status and into the daily living of citizens. When this is done, it will take on a meaning of its own, beyond any definition a local government initiative could assign for it.

22Bell,Simon,andStephenMorse.SustainabilityIndicators:MeasuringtheImmeasurable?Detroit:

Earthscan/James&James,2008:p.12.23Dernbach,JohnC.,ed.AgendaforaSustainableAmerica.Annapolis:EnvironmentalLawInstitute,2008:p.9.24Moore,Steven.AlternativeRoutestotheSustainableCity:Austin,Curitiba,andFrankfurt.NewYork:

LexingtonBooks,2007:p.227.25Landry,Charles.TheCreativeCity:AToolkitforUrbanInnovators.London:Earthscan,2008:p.198.26Edwards,AndresR.,andDavidOrr.TheSustainabilityRevolution:PortraitofaParadigmShift.NewYork:

NewSociety,Limited,2005:p.xiv.27Speth,JamesGustave.RedSkyatMorning:AmericaandtheCrisisoftheGlobalEnvironment.NewHaven:

YaleNotaBene,2005:p.192.28TowardaSustainableWorld:TheEarthCharterinAction.TheEarthCharterInitiative.2005:p.165.

15

IV. THE QUADRUPLE BOTTOM-LINE FRAMEWORK FOR A

SUSTAINABLE CITY

In order to do sustainability, a framework that further defines the initiative can be useful in providing structure. Many cities simply target the environment as the focus of their framework. For example, the City of Seattle’s Office of Sustainability and the Environment works primarily with Mayor Nickels’s environmental priorities of climate change and urban forestry. Sustainability, however, is more than just protecting the environment, though it is often defined as such. This narrow definition casts the environment as separate and apart from human systems, limiting the capacity for the “meta-paradigm shift” necessary for human beings to see themselves as interconnected with nature. As authors Edwards and Orr state, “Sustainability has thus been framed in a narrow perspective, often associated with a single issue backed by proponents with a liberal mindset. Although sustainability is often marketed by environmental causes and protest campaigns, its values represent a broad context of issues that have spread underground in all sectors of society throughout the world.”29

Figure 1: The Quadruple Bottom-Line Framework for a Sustainable City

29 Edwards, Andres R., and David Orr. The Sustainability Revolution: Portrait of a Paradigm Shift. New York: New

Society, Limited, 2005: p. 7.

16

To capture this “broad context”, a local government can frame sustainability as the Quadruple Bottom-Line (QBL) - the junction of environment, economy, society, and culture (see Figure 1). It is an understanding of the equal importance of and interactions among environmental, economic, social, and cultural capital and the impact of government practices, programs, and policies on each.30 It implies as a requirement “new approaches to the planning, designing, and packaging of public sector projects and service programs.”31 From this awareness and approach comes the making of informed decisions that use public expenditures to enhance the sustainability of a city. The QBL Framework as a model falls in the middle of the sustainability spectrum between “strong” sustainability and “weak” sustainability (Figure 2).32 Under strong sustainability, the focus is completely on the environment. Trade-offs do not occur between economic, social, and/or cultural gain and environmental well-being. Weak sustainability, on the other hand, allows for positive economic outcomes to excuse negative impacts to other aspects of the QBL, typically justified in a cost-benefit analysis that only accounts for gains and losses in financial capital.

The weaknesses of each end of the sustainability spectrum make either framework a poor fit for local government. Strong sustainability pits the environmental bottom-line against the others. In doing so, it ignores the constrained financial, social, and cultural context under which decisions are made. It is often met with opposition and limited success - a city that enjoys environmental success at the expense of its human systems is ultimately unsustainable in the long-term. Weak sustainability, on the other hand, places the financial bottom-line as the number one consideration in decision-making. This allows for “green washing”, a concept that implies disingenuous environmental efforts on behalf of organizations for the sake of profit-making or

30 These four and additional types of capital are referred to as community capital in Roseland, Mark, Sean Connelly,

David Hendrickson, Chris Lindberg, and Michael Lithgow. Toward Sustainable Communities Resources For

Citizens And Their Governments. New York: New Society, 2005. 31 Roberts, Brian, and Michael Cohen. "Enhancing Sustainable Development by Triple Value Adding to the Core

Business of Government." Economic Development Quarterly 16 (2002): p. 127.32 Bell, Simon, and Stephen Morse. Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable? Detroit:

Earthscan/James & James, 2008: p. 14.

QBL Framework of a Sustainable City

Weak Sustainability Framework

Strong Sustainability Framework

Figure 2: The Continuum of Sustainability

17

political support. Organizations operating under a weak sustainability framework conduct “green” activities on one hand and meanwhile pursue economic goals on another, ignoring the connection between the two that the meta-paradigm shift of sustainability requires. As “being green” becomes more popular, weak sustainability is fast becoming the status quo for many local governments. Under the QBL Framework, sustainability falls between strong and weak. This placement allows for a city to acknowledge the reality of its decision-making environment while posing that decisions be made that consider all four components of the QBL as equally critical to a sustainable city. Trade-offs can and will occur between financial, social, cultural and environmental capital. Decisions should not be made, however, for the advancement of any of these to the detriment of another without mitigation. The QBL Framework prevents the dilution of sustainability into a concept that means only ‘environment’ (strong sustainability), while also prohibiting the green washing that can occur by stamping “environmentally friendly” on economic activities (weak sustainability). Thus, the QBL Framework obliges a city to formally acknowledge trade-offs among the components of a sustainable city, allows for preemptive mitigation to avoid backlash or imbalance, ensures that decisions are not consistently made in favor of one or another of the bottom lines, and establishes a local government as ultimately concerned with meeting human needs without sacrificing ecological well being. So as to further explain the QBL Framework for a Sustainable City, each of the four components is described below.

1. The Environment Bottom-Line How long can we go on and safely pretend that the environment is not the economy, is not

health, is not the prerequisite to development, is not recreation? Is it realistic to see

ourselves as managers of an entity out there called the environment, extraneous to us, an

alternative to the economy, too expensive to protect in difficult economic times? When we

organize ourselves starting from this premise, we do so with dangerous consequences to our

economy, health, and industrial growth.33

- Charles Caccia, May 1996

Many government entities comfortably consider an economic bottom-line, and often value in their cost-benefit analysis only those objects that can be quantified monetarily. In doing so, they define progress as the pursuit of economic ends. The Environmental component of the QBL Framework challenges this practice, asserting that unless environmental goals can be incorporated with economic goals, progress is a hollow notion.34 Rather than environmental

33 Charles Caccia, Member of the Parliament, House of Commons, WCED Public Hearing, Ottawa, 26-7 May 1986.

Quoted in Our Common Future. United Nations. World Commission on Environment and Development.

Oxford: Oxford UP, 1987: p. 38. 34 Newman, Peter, and Isabella Jennings. Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems: Principles and Practices. New York:

Island P, 2008.

18

degradation as the often accepted price of progress, under this Framework, environmental protection, restoration, and appreciation for its own sake is part of what progress means.35 Environmental benefits and costs, such as trees, clean water, or the detrimental effects of pollution on air quality, are seldom formally given thought or value in decision-making, whether in cost-benefit analysis or other forms of measurement. Though assignment of this value is a difficult and often subjective process, considering an environmental bottom-line will at the very least promote conversation about the ecological impacts of decisions, acknowledging when trade-offs have been made for the sake of any one of the other three bottom-lines. At the very most, a QBL approach to sustainability will result in valuing of environmental goods and services, capturing as a cost the negative externalities of economic decisions and as a benefit the positive externalities of ecological well-being. In order to capture ecological value, costs could be assigned through asset management, and/or as presented later in this paper, through a performance measurement system that through goals and indicators places value on natural capital under the QBL Framework. Where depletion of natural capital must occur, a plan for mitigation of negative environmental impacts should follow.

2. The Economy Bottom-Line Twentieth century suburbanization was in large part a reaction against the dirty, crowded,

unhealthy cities of the industrial revolution… in a similar manner sustainable city initiatives

of the next century may form a reaction against the excesses of twentieth century culture,

which is dominated by economic rather than environmental or social values.36

- Stephen Wheeler, Planning Sustainable and Liveable Cities

Government and private sector comfort with the economic bottom-line make it seem that consideration of the financial feasibility of a policy, program, or practice require no further explanation. However, at the local level, the financial bottom-line is more than just the analysis of financial capital. It is the consideration of the local economy and its relationship to the regional, national and global economy. The promotion of the local economy should not take a “growth at all costs” approach, but rather a preference for development of economic resources and activities that enhance the other three bottom-lines. This development does not always intimate “more”; rather, it implies capitalizing and improving upon already existing assets, encouraging new growth only when it furthers the vision of a sustainable city. As part of this development, the local community becomes more aware of the social, cultural and environmental implications of economic activities, including those that result from consumption of goods made outside of the local economy.

The economic bottom-line of a local government better defines assets as more than just a collection of buildings, land, and materials. Rather it portrays a city’s people, their relationships and access to opportunities (social capital), ecological resources and their limited capacities (natural capital), and culture, heritage, and recreation opportunities (cultural capital) as equally valuable to those assets that can be exchanged for money. This involves the valuation of these traditionally non-monetary assets so that true costs and benefits can be weighed in decision-

35 Dernbach, John C., ed. Agenda for a Sustainable America. Annapolis: Environmental Law Institute, 2008: p. 6. 36 Wheeler, Stephen. "Planning Sustainable and Livable Cities." The City Reader 2nd Edition. Ed. Richard Legates

and Frederic Stout. New York: Routledge, 1999.

19

making. This valuation is frequently done through performance measurement, further illustrated in Section V.

3. The Social Bottom-Line The sustainable development of cities will depend on closer work with the majorities of urban

poor who are the true city builders, tapping the skills, energies, and resources of

neighborhood groups and those in the ‘informal sector’.37

- World Commission on Environment & Development, Our Common Future Including the social bottom-line as part of a sustainability framework promotes the view that a community’s people, their connections to one another, their ability to fulfill their basic needs, and their access to opportunities for self-development are critical to its long-term well-being. As authors James and Lahti state in The Natural Step for Communities, “A local society cannot be sustainable if basic human rights or means to fulfill basic human needs are denied to certain members of society.”38 A sustainability endeavor that ignores the value of this social capital disregards the human assets of a city. A government communicates how much it values its citizens, their connections, needs, and access to opportunity (e.g. transportation, employment, education, housing, etc.) by whether or not its economic decisions positively or adversely affect its population as a whole and among disenfranchised segments in particular. Decisions made for the sake of environment are often inextricably tied to social equity, emphasizing that certain populations unfairly bear the brunt of negative environmental externalities. These populations are also less able act sustainably, for as Dernbach and contributing authors note in Agenda for a Sustainable America, “A less equitable distribution of economic resources works against sustainable consumption and production; those with low and moderate incomes usually cannot afford the initial up-front investment for more energy-efficient automobiles and homes.”39 Not only are those at the lower end of the income continuum more likely to bear the consequences of negative environmental externalities, they are also less likely to have the means to prevent or overcome this. Finally, a socially sustainable city confronts directly social challenges such as racism, poverty, income disparity, crime, and other factors. Newman and Jennings say of these challenges, “Every first world city has a third world city within it.”40 A governing entity looks for opportunities to confront its “third world” aspects, reducing inequities and promoting a sense of community, especially across the boundaries of geographic space, race, and income. In doing so, it improves the relationships between citizens, increases the value of a city’s social and human capital, and takes a step in the journey towards a sustainable city outcome.

37 Our Common Future. United Nations. World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford

UP, 1987: p. 7. 38 James, Sarah, and Torbj Lahti. The Natural Step for Communities: How Cities and Towns Can Change to

Sustainable Practices. New York: New Society, Limited, 2004: p. 99. 39 Dernbach, John C., ed. Agenda for a Sustainable America. Annapolis: Environmental Law Institute, 2008: p. 19. 40 Newman, Peter, and Isabella Jennings. Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems: Principles and Practices. New York:

Island P, 2008: p. 218.

20

4. The Culture Bottom-Line By looking at every aspect of culture as an imaginative resource we could see how the

meanings embodied in traditional and current culture create the identity and values of a

place. The local distinctiveness they express is vital in a world where cities increasingly look

and feel the same.41

- Charles Landry, The Creative City Corporate social responsibility guru John Elkington coined the phrase “triple bottom-line” in 1994, first noting the importance of including natural and social capital in profit-centric decision-making. The extension of the triple bottom-line - the quadruple bottom-line - has yet to have a pioneer, and is yet to be universally defined. The fourth component has been cited as a variety of things, from spirituality and ethics to education.

When the financial bottom-line is the focus of decision-making within a city, standard of living - income for things we purchase individually – becomes the metric by which we measure quality of life. Yet, this is a misunderstanding of quality of life equated with the individual’s ability to make purchases. In reality, quality of life is the sum of all things we purchase collectively and that which we choose not to purchase at all.42

This includes not only the “purchasing” of environmental and social well-being, but also cultural experiences. Sustainability at a global and perhaps national level works well under a triple bottom-line. I propose, however, that because of the delineated space in which a city’s citizens live, work, and play, a framework for local government sustainability include a fourth – the cultural bottom-line. In Toward Sustainable Communities, Roseland et al. drive this point home: “Sustainable communities are not merely about “sustaining” the quality of our lives – they are about improving it.”43 Formal recognition of a cultural component that accounts for that which expresses and enhances quality of life - arts, heritage, recreation, innovation, and identity - goes a long way in legitimizing cultural activities as important relative to economic, environmental, and social actions. Local governments face a unique challenge as compared to national or international entities. As Charles Landry states, “Homogenization and standardization of products, especially in the entertainment industry, is threatening local identities, increasingly making cities look and feel alike” and eroding cultural diversity.44 For example, as the economic bottom-line drives firms to make formula retail look and feel the same across the country, it simultaneously pushes cities to court this type of retail as both a mechanism for community investment and a generator of sales/property tax dollars. Communities struggle to maintain their sense of place within an increasingly banal world. While a city could experience success in the other three components of the QBL, an inadequately valued cultural component may limit attainment of increased levels of quality of life among citizens, making it a challenge for that city to distinguish itself from

41 Landry, Charles. The Creative City : A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. London: Earthscan, 2008: p. 11. 42 Roseland, Mark, Sean Connelly, David Hendrickson, Chris Lindberg, and Michael Lithgow. Toward Sustainable

Communities Resources For Citizens And Their Governments. New York: New Society, 2005: p. 11. 43 Roseland, Connelly, Hendrickson, Lindberg, and Lithgow, p. 2. 44 Landry, p. 39.

21

others. Subsequently, maintaining a diverse population and attracting new citizens may prove difficult.

Yet another challenge facing cities comes in the form of the often narrow discipline of planning, a discipline on which cities rely heavily and that also greatly impacts the cultural component. Frequently, planners talk about a city as if seeing if from the air (a map of zones, public spaces, business districts, etc.) rather than from the street and the experience of living within it. The cultural bottom-line challenges this practice - city planning shifts from a focus on the city as a machine with infrastructure to be mapped to a city as a living organism with dynamics of people and place to be understood, appreciated, and developed.45 Culture becomes the prism through which urban development is seen.46 To achieve this view of urban development, an interdisciplinary and innovative approach must be taken, an approach that furthers the fourth bottom-line. This approach combines not only the planning details of urban design, land use, and economic development, but also the input of engineers, accountants, social workers, environmentalists, arts and culture personnel, and more employed within a local government. Consequently, planning for a city’s future can move beyond land use issues (though this environmental focus should be maintained) and economic development and into the social and cultural dynamics of cities.”47 Most importantly, an interdisciplinary planning process allows a city to “shape the technicalities of urban planning rather than be seen as a marginal add-on to be considered once the important planning questions like housing, transport, and land use have been dealt with.”48

This change to a more interdisciplinary approach will subsequently enhance planning and economic development activities of local governments, taking a more holistic approach that values art, heritage, and recreation and building upon the social connections that already exist. This more holistic approach does not just sound like it will work – it does work. Author Mark J. Stern, in a University of Pennsylvania study of community based arts, concludes "Culture stimulates revitalization not through direct economic impact, but by building the social connections between people ... it increases the inclination and ability of residents to make positive changes in their community, and it increases the connections between neighborhoods of different ethnic and economic compositions."49 Similarly, a Chicago study by authors Diane Grams and Michael Warr determines that small community based arts organizations do many things: building social relationships, enabling problem solving and providing access to resources.50

Finally, through interdisciplinary urban planning, a cultural bottom-line emphasizes the importance of “space” for innovation within local government and within a broader city context. This space may be material: a Research and Development line item within each government

45 Landry, Charles. The Creative City : A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. London: Earthscan, 2008: pp. 250, 53. 46 Landry, p. 9. 47 Landry, p. 47. 48 Landry, p. 7. 49 Stern, Mark J. “Performing Miracles.” Center for and Urban Future, 2002. 50 Grams, Diane, and Michael Warr. “Leveraging Assets: How Small Budget Art Activities Benefit

Neighborhoods.” Study commissioned by John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur and Richard H. Driehaus

Foundations, 2003.

22

department’s budget, Economic Development focused on work spaces for creative professionals and artists, or local government provision or support of “third places”, those spaces apart from work or home that inspire creativity and social connections among citizens. Conversely, this space may be immaterial: encouragement of talent and tolerance of diverse ideas and backgrounds.51 Cities that offer both a material and immaterial atmosphere of support and encouragement foster an environment in which creative people can drive regional economic growth. As more members of this “creative class” seek arts, recreation and innovation friendly locales due to the city’s increased value of creative capital, the city as a whole becomes more tolerant to diversity. A “virtuous cycle” begins, with more opportunities for individuals to feel validated in their identities as the numbers of creative people increase, leading to increased economic output, increased regional vitality, and increased attractiveness and livability of the location as a whole.52 Because the inclination to experiment and innovate is at the very heart of urban culture, the city that honors and extends this tendency via a QBL Framework will prove to be more sustainable in the long term.

V. TAKING SUSTAINABILITY FROM CONCEPT &

FRAMEWORK TO ACTION As emphasized in Chapter III, sustainability as a concept is nothing without action. In Chapter IV the quadruple bottom-line provides the frame through which a local government can organize action toward local sustainability can organized. In this chapter, sustainability is put into operation through two tools: the Quadruple Bottom-Line Analysis & Decision-Making Instrument and a Performance Measurement System for a Sustainability Initiative.

1. The QBL Analysis & Decision-Making Instrument To put the QBL Framework for a Sustainable City into daily practice, it is important to frame decision-making within the context of the quadruple bottom-line. Because the QBL encompasses a potentially wide array of lenses through which an action/policy can be viewed, it is most important that this decision-making come in the form of an interdisciplinary effort, particularly for complex problems. This concept of an interdisciplinary effort is not new. However, as Newman et al. illustrate, “It is new to create processes that allow space in the decision-making process for this to occur. The space in the system is critical as professionals need to be able to go beyond their specializations to consider deeper issues where nobody tends to go.”53 The Quadruple Bottom-Line Analysis and Decision-Making Instrument (QBL-ADI) offers this space in the decision-making process, operationalizing sustainability by providing a meta-analysis tool through which policies and actions can be thoroughly reviewed along the four

51 Florida, Richard. Cities and the Creative Class. New York: Routledge, 2004. 52 Borrup, Tom. "Creative Organizations: Putting Culture to Work in Community Development." Reading Room.

Jan. 2004. Community Arts Network. 2 June 2009

<http://www.communityarts.net/readingroom/archivefiles/2004/01/creative_organi.php>. 53 Newman, Peter, Timothy Beatley, and Heather Boyer. Resilient Cities: Responding to Peak Oil and Climate

Change. New York: Island P, 2008: p. 116.

23

components (Figure 3 & Appendix A). The QBL-ADI is adapted from the City of Olympia, WA’s Sustainable Action Map, a tool created to “reinvigorate the City's sustainability efforts with a focus that is more on tangible actions.”54 As part of their efforts, the city wanted to communicate that sustainable action starts with sustainable decision-making. Based on a decision model they created, I propose here a similar QBL analysis and decision instrument that:

• Encourages decision-makers, planners, and implementers to work together to fully understand a policy/action along the four components of the QBL

• Helps decision-makers to understand and see the connections between traditionally disconnected concepts, acknowledging the trade-offs between the strengths and weaknesses of the QBL components

• Prevents imbalanced actions/policies that advance only one bottom-line at the expense of the others

• Ensures alignment of decisions with predetermined comprehensive plan goals and/or sustainability performance outcomes and indicators

• Is simple and user friendly

• Tells a story that is visual and appropriate for communication with the public

Figure 3

54 Sustainable Action Map. 1 June 2009. City of Olympia. 02 June 2009

<http://www.ci.olympia.wa.us/?sc_itemid=%7BE4972563-C03D-4172-83D4-CB284A32E96F%7D>.

24

Much like Olympia’s Sustainable Action Map, the QBL-ADI prescribes a five-step process.

Step 1: Identify the action/policy to be analyzed. Step 2: Brainstorm and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the action/policy along the components of the QBL. This stage should involve experts from various disciplines as well as stakeholders.

Step 3: Determine the potential comprehensive plan goals (CPGs) and/or sustainability initiative outcomes and indictors (SOIs) satisfied or progressed by this action/policy.

Step 4: Recommend future action. This future action is further illustrated by the stoplight, a visual aide that encourages distillation of the recommended action into one of three firm decisions:

- Green = Strengths significantly outweigh the weaknesses, and the action/policy should be supported along the specific QBL component

- Yellow = Strengths and weaknesses are weighted equally or near equally, and therefore the risks that are inherent in the action/policy must be addressed and managed through modification of the action/policy

- Red = Weaknesses outweigh strengths and unless significantly modified through innovative solutions, the action/policy must be stopped, reconstructed and reanalyzed before moving forward

Step 5: Decide the future of the action/policy. Decision-makers choose to move forward, pause, or stop. A decision to move forward is easily made if all QBL components are given green lights in Step 4. This does not necessarily imply, however, that weaknesses do not need to be addressed along any one of the components, but does mean that the action/policy’s strengths far outweigh its weaknesses.

Should some of the components result in a yellow designation, decision-makers would most likely decide in Step 5 to pause and modify the potentially significant weaknesses of the action/policy. Finally, three or more red light designations should result in a decision to stop

and reconsider the action/policy, addressing overwhelming weaknesses before again testing the modified action/policy using the QBL-ADI.

What makes the QBL-ADI unique is the connection between planning and the identification of the goals, outcomes, and indictors achieved or furthered by the policy/action. This ensures that every major decision of a local government meets or furthers goals or desired outcomes set previously through public processes (such as Comprehensive Plan goals). These goals are critical because they place value on aspects of a city that typically have no monetary value – ecological health, social equity, connections, and opportunities, and cultural experiences – and are therefore ignored by conventional Cost-Benefit Analysis. This should not imply a disregard for the economic impact of a decision, as the QBL-ADI should be used alongside a Cost-Benefit Analysis. However, the former instrument should be used to further inform the identification of costs and benefits beyond those traditionally considered in the latter tool.

25

In truth, the instrument chosen is less important than the creation of institutional architecture, or “space,” for planning, decision-making, and implementing processes that allow for sustainable outcomes to take place.55 To do so, tools such as the one proposed above should be completed together by an interdisciplinary group of professionals, as well as stakeholders and citizens. The goal when reviewing an action/policy should be to build financial, social, environmental, and cultural capital not only through the final decision but also in the approach used to make the decision. This requires that decision-making takes into account more than just the traditional financial bottom-line, adding value to an action or policy by accounting for the other four components. The QBL-ADI adds this value.

2. A Performance Measurement System for a Local Sustainability Initiative

The Quadruple Bottom-Line Framework for a Sustainable City offers guidance for a comprehensive sustainability initiative, providing four key components through which a vision of a sustainable city should be built. The importance of a framework in guiding measurement cannot be underestimated, for as the authors of the Bellagio Principles for Assessment note, “An effective framework accomplishes two important goals: first, it helps determine priorities in the choice of indicators; and second, it triggers the identification of indicators which may be more important in the future.”56 Sustainability is an amorphous term that to some means nothing, to others mean everything. As Bell and Morse, in their book Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable? claim, “Unfortunately, for those charged with the business of making the word mean something fixed, understandable and enforceable, there is no single meaning and there is no agreement on how it is measured and recognized in an objective sense.”57 Nonetheless, in the fluidity of the definition lies opportunity for a local government to determine what a sustainable city looks and acts like using a framework along a quadruple bottom-line and outcomes with indicators that further operationalize and inform a sustainability initiative. Many cities carry out sustainability initiatives without the formal use of outcomes, and many more without the determination of indicators with which to measure those outcomes if they have them. This is often because sustainability is difficult to define, and establishing set outcomes and indicators can be even more challenging. Frequently, if cities do not undergo a deliberate

and ongoing process of creating and revisiting these indicators, they come up short of communicating anything substantive. As they communicate less and less over time, they are slowly dropped from the initiative. For example, the City of Seattle, known internationally for its leadership on sustainability indicators in the late 90s, has since dropped its use of indicators

55 Roberts, Brian, and Michael Cohen. "Enhancing Sustainable Development by Triple Value Adding to the Core

Business of Government." Economic Development Quarterly 16 (2002): p. 127. 56 Hardi, Peter, and Terrence Zdan. Assessing Sustainable Development: Principles in Practice. Publication. (1997):

10. The International Institute for Sustainable. 2 June 2009 <http://www.iisd.org/pdf/bellagio.pdf>. 57 Bell, Simon, and Stephen Morse. Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable? Detroit:

Earthscan/James & James, 2008: p. 195.

26

completely. The indicators proved too cumbersome and time-consuming for a small staff, and as the mission of the office shifted under a new mayor, they became obsolete.58 While it is important to recognize the shortcomings of and objections to indicators as a means of measuring outcomes – including their tendency to reduce a complex concept to snippets of information – their value should not be underestimated as a mechanism of further definition and communication of what sustainability means within a city, for “…the very action of trying to implement what one thinks sustainability is may change one’s vision of what it is.”59 Bell & Morse acknowledge that many criticisms of sustainability measurement are accurate. However, they argue that much of the reason for this critique is that organizations have developed and used sustainability indicators incorrectly along several fronts. This incorrect use often takes the following forms:

• Indicators are frequently reductive, boiling sustainability down to one or a few numbers that suggest the success or failure of a sustainability initiative.

• The determination of indicators rarely involves broad citizen participation. Often indicators are arrived upon by experts or by government managers.

• If an indicator project is labeled as “participatory”, it is many times nothing more than a “nodding committee” made up of a select group of community members meant to legitimize top-down decisions and actions.

• If communicated to the public, indicators are often confusing and contradictory (some improve, others do not) and are rarely stated in simple, straightforward language.

• Expected outcomes and their indicators often elevate expectations to unreasonable heights, rather than managing and steadily increasing expectation over time.60

• The process of developing indicators is usually well intentioned and spirited. The process of maintaining and reflecting upon indicators is typically forgotten, causing the power of indicators to loose strength over time.

• Indicators frequently change with political motives, and thus lose their ability to highlight trends and inform decision-making.

This inappropriate use of indicators has resulted in botched sustainability initiatives and debate about whether or not measurement is useful. Many ask the following question – “If indicators are difficult to define, cumbersome and time-consuming to maintain, and potentially lack the power to communicate progress in a sustainability effort, why would a city create them?” There are convincing answers to this question, predicated by the fact that indicators cannot be judged on the case studies of their mismanagement, but rather, on their potential merits if managed well. Bell & Morse offer an explanation of the benefits of well-done indicators. They acknowledge that while indicators are challenging and time consuming, they present:

58 Interview with the Urban Forest Program Manager, City of Seattle Office of Sustainability and the Environment,

February 18, 2009.59 Bell, Simon, and Stephen Morse. Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable? Detroit:

Earthscan/James & James, 2008: p. 200. 60 Bell and Morse, pp. 84, 203, 199.

27

• An opportunity to inform and improve a sustainability initiative or project from start to finish

• An opportunity for a municipal government to reach out to citizens as stakeholders in a sustainable future

• An opportunity for a community to identify and prioritize what it values most in working toward sustainability

• An opportunity to abide by the oft spoken rule, “What gets measured gets done.” • An opportunity for government actors to communicate progress to citizens • An opportunity to hold both government and citizens accountable for progress • An opportunity to encourage iterative discussion of sustainability as it changes over time

The Bellagio Principles for Assessment, a product of a partnership between the International Sustainability Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation, supports the assertions of Bell & Morse. The principles provide further guidance in the use of indicators so as to avoid mismanagement and maximize the benefits that measurement can offer.61 The authors of the Bellagio Principles purposefully avoid a debate over specific measurements, instead prescribing a set of common characteristics for sustainability measurement. “With broad acceptance, it is expected that a common foundation will emerge, even though details of system design and indicator choice might vary greatly in any given application.”62 I offer a summary of the Principles in Table 2.

Table 2

A Summary of The Bellagio Principles of Assessment 1. GUIDING VISION AND GOALS

• Assessment should be guided by a clear vision of sustainability and goals that define that vision.

2. HOLISTIC PERSPECTIVE

• Assessment should include a review of the system as well as its parts and their interactions

• Assessment should consider the well-being of social, ecological, and economic sub-systems • Assessment should consider both positive and negative consequences of human activity in a way that

reflect both monetary and non-monetary costs and benefits

3. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS

• Assessment should consider equity and disparity within both present and future populations

• Assessment should consider life-supporting ecological systems

• Assessment should consider economic development and other non-market activities

4. ADEQUATE SCOPE

• Assessment should adopt a long time horizon

• Assessment should define the space of study beyond just local environments and populations

• Assessment should build on the past and present to anticipate the future

5. PRACTICAL FOCUS

• Assessment should be based on an explicit organizing framework

• Assessment should be based on a limited number of key issues and indicators

• Assessment should be based on standardized measurement wherever possible

6. OPENNESS

• Assessment should make the methods and data open and accessible to all

• Assessment should make explicit assumptions and judgments in data and interpretations

7. EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

• Assessment should be designed for the needs of the audience/users

• Assessment should be simple in structure and plain in language

61 Hardi, Peter, and Terrence Zdan. Assessing Sustainable Development: Principles in Practice. Publication. (1997).

The International Institute for Sustainable. 2 June 2009 <http://www.iisd.org/pdf/bellagio.pdf>. 62 Hardi and Zdan. <http://www.iisd.org/pdf/bellagio.pdf>.

28

8. BROAD PARTICIPATION

• Assessment should obtain broad representation of stakeholders

• Assessment should ensure participation of decision-makers

9. ONGOING ASSESSMENT

• Assessment should be repeated to determine trends

• Assessment should be iterative, adaptive, and responsive

• Assessment should adjust to frameworks and goals

• Assessment should promote learning and offer feedback in decision-making

10. INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY

• Assure continuity of assessment by assigning responsibility and providing ongoing support

• Assure continuity of assessment by securing institutional capacity

While the Bellagio Principles do offer guidance on the identification and use of indicators, they do not stipulate the ‘how’ of an indicator project. This ‘how’ may come in the form of a 5-step process for measurement as proposed by Bell and Morse – The Imagine Approach. This approach aims to put into practice the Bellagio Principles above, while also avoiding some of the common characteristics of the “botched” indicator process – misrepresentative participation, top-down identification, overly reductive, limited communication, and underemphasized reflection. The approach is defined as a “rapid, participatory, qualitative, descriptive approach with a very clear explicit statement of what it [performance indicator] is to be used for.”63 Key features of the Imagine Approach include:

• The refusal to reduce sustainability down to one absolute quantity; rather, the approach proposes a series of quantitative and qualitative data obtained over time that can better evaluate a complex whole for trends and further decision-making

• The acknowledgement that the measurers are part of the system being measured, and therefore bring ideas and action (often dismissed as bias) to the context being measured

• The inclusion, therefore, of the local community in determining indicators, as sustainability is a subjective construct of those participating in the journey to what the city wants to be; thus, “local communities should own and develop their own view of sustainability via indicators”64

• The partnership of leaders, project managers, and experts with stakeholders/citizens as a non-negotiable aspect of the process of determining indicators

• The importance of using performance indicators to influence policy through publication and marketing of their message

• The critical nature of reflection in further informing the ongoing indicator process The five steps of the Imagine Approach are as follows (with #3 and #4 reversed in order):65

1) Identify stakeholders and the system to be measured 2) Identify holistic sustainability outcomes and indicators 3) Determine key indicators from key end outcomes 4) Identify the ‘band of equilibrium’ (i.e. vision of a sustainable city) and develop an

AMOEBA diagram (explained below) 5) Reflect on outcomes and indicators and use the AMOEBA to show change over time

63 Bell, Simon, and Stephen Morse. Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable? Detroit:

Earthscan/James & James, 2008: p. 147. 64 Bell and Morse, p. 185. 65 Bell and Morse, p. 149.

29

The Imagine Approach can be combined and expanded upon by the use of traditional performance measurement, beginning first with “backcasting” – working backwards in Step #2 of the Imagine Approach from a vision of a sustainable city to determine outcomes necessary to reach that end. These outcomes can be further separated into intermediate (short-term) and end (long-term) outcomes and illustrated through a logic model that connects these to the final outcome, or vision.66 Indicators would then be determined for each outcome as a means of measuring progress. Using the QBL as a framework, I offer further explanation and illustration using four logic models in Appendix B to demonstrate the relationship between backcasting, outcomes, and indicators in performance measurement of a sustainability initiative. Arriving at outcomes and tracking sustainability with indicators is not enough, and here the Imagine Approach goes beyond traditional performance measurement to map out a series of indicators together in Step #4. This map, called an AMOEBA, uses key indicators for key end outcomes to provide a snapshot of a system’s (i.e. city’s) sustainability over time (Figure 4). From the pool of end outcomes and their indicators created in Step #2, stakeholders would choose the key outcomes and their indicators that best communicate a city’s vision of sustainability to a broad audience.

Figure 4: An AMOEBA, a graphic guide of key sustainability outcome indicators Typically used in visual representation of sustainable marine ecosystems, authors Bell and Morse adapt this tool to the performance measurement of a sustainable entity, such as a local government. An example is illustrated in Figure 4 above. In the figure, the components of the

66 Hatry, Harry P. Performance Measurement Getting Results. Washington, D.C.: Urban Inst Pr, 2007: p. 51.

30

quadruple bottom-line are the quadrants and the shaded ring is the “band of equilibrium” (i.e. upper and lower limits of the key indicators that portray the final outcome or vision, determined in Step #3). In an actual sustainability initiative, the numbers correspond to the key end outcome indicators of each quadrant (see Appendix B for further explanation). The more the AMOEBA takes on the shape of a perfect circle within the ring, the closer a city is to the realization of key outcomes and hence, the vision of a sustainable city. Because the AMOEBA is only a snapshot of sustainability, overlays of several AMOEBAs are useful in charting trends over time, as described in Step #5. The use of multiple AMOEBAs over time will inform the sustainability initiative, acting as a management and reflection tool. A combination of the innovative Imagine Approach and traditional performance measurement processes of backcasting and logic modeling can successfully measure an organic effort toward the vision of a sustainable city. Because of each initiative’s unique participants, opportunities, and challenges, this measurement of sustainability will look and feel differently across entities. If it does not, it has been mismanaged. As authors Bell and Morse state, “It is our contention that the idea of measuring sustainability in absolute, traditional, objective, empirical, and reductionist terms… is non-viable.”67 The most illustrative indicators are those informed by input of leaders, enhanced by expert knowledge, and made relevant by the views and experiences of a broad base of community stakeholders. Therefore, they will be less likely the casualties of a “botched” indicator effort, and more likely an integral factor in working toward and reflecting upon a sustainable city.

67 Bell, Simon, and Stephen Morse. Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable? Detroit:

Earthscan/James & James, 2008: p. 126.

31

SECTION II Case Study:

City of Tacoma’s Office of Sustainability

32

VI. Background

Tacoma’s initial efforts toward environmental improvements came in 2005 with Mayor Bill Baarsma’s signing of the U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection agreement. This was followed one year later by the City Council’s adoption of a resolution to curb global warming and greenhouse gases. In February 2007, the City Council appointed members of the Green Ribbon Climate Action Task Force, and charged them with defining carbon reduction goals for the city, as well as developing specific community and government action plans to meet these goals. The Green Ribbon Climate Action Task Force presented Tacoma’s Climate Action Plan to the City Council on July 1, 2008 after more than one year of reviewing data, studying climate action plans of other cities, and understanding the regional and state context for action. The Action

Plan identifies more than 80 strategies (40 of which are new to the city) to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions, organized under the following categories: 1) City leading by example, 2) Moving people and goods more efficiently, 3) Enhancing compact/livable neighborhoods, 4) Energy efficiency in buildings, homes, and industries, and 5) Reuse and recycle.68 The task force defined the use of these strategies as not only steps to reduce greenhouse emissions, but also as a “blueprint to grow our local economy, sustainably for the long term, to make Tacoma more livable and more attractive, and allow our citizens to be healthier and have the potential to save significantly on energy costs.”69 To this end, the Climate Action Plan recommends the creation of an Office of Sustainability, Tacoma Green Team (the implementers of the goals within the Action Plan), and a Citizen Oversight Commission.70 The latter entity was formed in early April 2009, with the former two entities beginning in May to June of 2009. Through the efforts of these three entities, the City of Tacoma’s administration expects to make progress on the Climate Action Plan within the first year to two years of start-up. The city’s definition of, vision of and framework for sustainability beyond that encompassed by the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals outlined in the Climate Action Plan have yet to be determined. City of Tacoma Resolution #37631, in its creation of the Office of Sustainability, calls for the Office to “establish 5- and 10-year goals for City government and the community and periodic updates and reports on the achievement of those goals” (Appendix C).71 This document suggests a definition of sustainability broader than that of emission reductions for the sake of climate change, and leaves the determination of a vision of a sustainable Tacoma to the Office of Sustainability. Tacoma is to be commended for creating and supporting a sustainability initiative through the Climate Action Plan. Reality, however, is important to remember – Tacoma is in the middle of the pack in regard to initiation of an Office of Sustainability, with others far ahead and many well behind. Neighboring cities such as Seattle and Portland began their initiatives in the 1990s,

68 Tacoma’s Climate Action Plan. Green Ribbon Climate Action Task Force. 1 July 2008: 6. City of Tacoma. 30

Nov. 2008. <http://www.cityoftacoma.org/Page.aspx?hid=9626>. 69 Tacoma’s Climate Action Plan, p. 5. 70 Tacoma’s Climate Action Plan, pp. 21-23. 71 Resolution No. 37631. 21 Oct. 2008. City of Tacoma City Council. 2 June 2009

<http://cms.cityoftacoma.org/enviro/resolution37631.pdf>.

33

but even they trail the efforts of international cities so much more successful at grasping and implementing the concept and behaviors of sustainability. While Tacoma is a bit behind the curve in its start-up of a sustainability initiative, very few U.S. cities have “done” sustainability successfully. The City has an exciting opportunity to take the lead in taking sustainability on full force, making it not just a “greening” of the city, but also a comprehensive and concerted effort towards meeting the economic, social, and cultural needs of its citizens while balancing the ecological well-being of the region. An effort of this magnitude is unprecedented in Tacoma, and will be closely observed and quickly evaluated as either a serious endeavor for real change towards sustainability, or a symbolic gesture that results in a compilation of departmentalized “green” efforts that, while positive, do not result in pervasive and permanent progress towards Tacoma becoming a truly sustainable city.

VII. Methodology In an effort to answer the question, “How sustainable is Tacoma?” I conducted approximately 40 interviews with City of Tacoma (COT) general government staff throughout March and April 2009.72 Lasting approximately one hour, these informal interviews began with a brief discussion of the concept of sustainability, followed by questions regarding sustainable practices, programs, and policies ongoing in their departments/divisions (Appendix D). While the environmental bottom-line was the focus of the interview, interviewees were encouraged to discuss economic, social, and cultural activities as part of a more comprehensive definition and framework for sustainability. I also thoroughly reviewed the City of Tacoma Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). As in most cities, Tacoma’s Comp Plan is the city’s official statement regarding land use and development, and guides the city’s regulatory Municipal Code (specifically Title 13 – Land Use Regulatory Code). The Comp Plan, though updated regularly according to the Washington State Growth

Management Act and fully reviewed every 7 years, is meant to express a vision of Tacoma for the next 10-20 years. It must be consistent with the Puget Sound Regional Council’s Vision

2040 (the long-term growth management, economic, and transportation strategy for central Puget Sound) and Pierce County’s planning policies. A summary of the goals of both the Comprehensive Plan and the its Downtown Element are included as Appendix E. Through the interviews and the Comp Plan review, I have created a catalog of “sustainable activities” along a quadruple bottom-line. As an additional aide to the new Office of Sustainability, a timeline of pertinent plans has been created and key partners and stakeholder groups identified. Based on these findings, I further analyze organizational strengths and weakness that might enhance or hinder a sustainable Tacoma effort, and determine opportunities for leveraging these strengths or overcoming these weaknesses. Using this information, I offer a baseline assessment of how seriously Tacoma currently takes sustainability.

72 General government does not include Tacoma Public Utilities (water, energy, cable, and rail). This report is

limited to general government activities only.

34

VIII. Findings

1. Finding: Enthusiasm & Expertise Already Exist In all cases, the interviewees expressed excitement and energy regarding the creation and start-up of the Office of Sustainability.73 Many described Tacoma at a tipping point, with the Office of Sustainability the potential tip in favor of establishing a city distinguished by its efforts toward becoming an ecologically sound and increasingly livable community. Interviewees’ expertise in their subject areas was apparent throughout the interviews. They easily described how their knowledge and abilities could enhance the work of the Office of Sustainability. In many cases, they were excited to have the authority of the Office of Sustainability offer additional legitimacy to their daily work.

2. Finding: High Hopes for the Office of Sustainability In addition to uncovering their department’s current sustainable endeavors, interviewees were also asked, “How can the Office of Sustainability best support the daily work of your department?” The answers offered were enlightening, and illustrate the potential charge for the Office of Sustainability. Interviewees desired support in:

• Articulating what it means to be, and establishing a vision of, a sustainable Tacoma • Coordinating efforts among departments and connecting isolated sustainable activities,

thereby institutionalizing a currently informal network of collaboration • Acknowledging, communicating, and applauding current COT sustainable efforts and

employee expertise • Crafting policies that legitimize and support sustainable activities • Advocating for sustainable project support from COT leadership, as well as state and

federal leaders • Educating employees, decision-makers, and the public through provision of training • Formulating a business case for sustainability, including provision of data to support

departmental sustainability efforts • Researching relevant best practices and cutting edge technologies, and helping

departments adapt this information to their needs • Assisting with grants and garnering of resources • Creating a support structure for innovation • Maintaining indicators that assess progress, further inform city staff, and evaluate

policies, programs, and practices against sustainability goals In general, those interviewed viewed the office as a coordinating entity rather than an office of enforcement. Many felt that establishing a vision of a sustainable Tacoma would be useful in, as one interviewee stated, “not only connecting the dots, but moving them in the same direction.”

73 Please note that some interviewees were unsure of the intent of the office, and quite a few were unaware of the

Climate Action Plan, particularly in Public Works. Others knew of the office, but were unaware of the progress

in appointing Commission members or a Sustainability Manager.

35

The desire for structure and policy support pervaded the interviews. Many interviewees, however, balanced this desire with a healthy sentiment against a top down or overly bureaucratic approach. Most importantly, employees expressed their hope that not only would the Office of Sustainability support their daily work, but enhance it through organization of their efforts into a cohesive city-wide effort toward a sustainable Tacoma.

3. Finding: COT Sustainable Practices, Programs, & Policies in

Progress A substantial number of already sustainable COT activities are underway that should be recognized and acknowledged as the foundation from which the Office of Sustainability can build. These activities are cataloged within the four components of the QBL Framework for a Sustainable City (presented in Section IV) according to the emphasis of the activity. As well, after each bulleted item, colored symbols indicate the activity’s compatibility (in either emphasis or intent) with one or more of the other quadruple bottom lines (environment = ♣, economic =

♦, social = ∗, cultural = ♠).

♣ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES The Environmental Activities section includes additional organization according to the five categories of the Climate Action Plan (CAP). Because the CAP is specifically focused on the environmental component of sustainability, only this section includes this method of categorization. Environmental activities outside of those pertinent to the CAP are listed at the end of this section.

CAP Category 1: City Leading by Example – Action to be Taken by City Government

Reduce consumption and promote environmentally responsible purchasing • Complete implementation of an electronic recruitment system by Human Resources • Electronic Content Management System under review in the City Clerk’s Office, with a

goal to eliminate paper back-ups currently necessary for open records requests (6 months to software approval, 2-3 years away from full implementation)

• Recently completed study of the Building and Land Use (BLU) permitting process, involving the pilot of an electronic business process and tools. BLUs is now moving on to a second pilot, with a goal to get the process solidified so that they can move to electronic processes and tools in permitting. Electronic permitting has the potential to search an address for applicable codes and offer prescriptive requirements, some of which could be tied to “sustainable” aspects of the Municipal Code.♦

• Additional paper reduction efforts in Police, Fire (training), and Real Property Services (deeds)

• Advocacy work in Solid Waste in partnership with the Northwest Product Stewardship Council

Save energy in City facilities and fuel in City vehicles • The Urban Waters Project, involving the construction of a Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design (LEED) certified building on a Superfund site, broke ground in April 2009 ♦

• A COT Facilities Condition Assessment will take place this year, with an intent for this process to inform a future energy audit and carbon footprinting of COT buildings

36

• Police Department use of LEED strategies on 4 new substations; current headquarters LEED silver certified

• Recent investment in a remote HVAC monitoring and diagnostic system for COT facilities, with a requirement for all new COT buildings to have one installed

• COT leadership role in the creation of the Puget Sound Clean Cities Coalition Green Fleet Initiative, a rating system for government fleets

• Recently implemented Fleet Services policy to purchase alternatively fueled cars, resulting in 22 hybrids purchased (9 this year alone), including 3 unmarked police hybrids, and approximately 103 biodiesel Solid Waste trucks

• Transition ongoing of Tacoma’s red and green stoplights to LED technology

CAP Category 2: Moving People & Goods More Efficiently

Encourage more people to ride together and/or reduce single occupancy vehicles • Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program housed within the COT Planning Division.

The goal of the CTR Program is a 10% reduction in drive-alone trips and 13% reduction in vehicle miles traveled for those employers of 100 or more. As part of this effort, the program includes management of a $300,000 grant to reduce driver trips to Downtown, potential management of a PSRC grant targeting car sharing, and coordination of bike month activities. In the COT Comp Plan, there is a call for innovation and expansion of CTR above and beyond state statutory requirements.

Reduce the need for driving/amount of driving • Creation of a non-motorized transportation Strategic Mobility Master Plan (SMMP). The

transport and funding strategy presented in the SMMP is meant to encourage and support transit, connectivity, and pedestrian and bicycle movement to guide the city away from auto centric mobility. (See Appendix F for the SMMP development timeline)

• Subsidization of bus passes and van pools for COT employees, with a recently added

COT transportation coordinator in the Community Relations Office ∗

• Human Resources researching and piloting a “work from home” program, including an

in-depth analysis of risk and setting up of expectations for departmental participation ∗

Change parking policies to discourage single-occupancy vehicle driving • A parking system strategy is under development, with a goal to remove parking

minimums required of developers, add pricing downtown, encourage parking at the periphery, and provide increased levels of transit into the Downtown (as well as a possibility of a Sound Transit Streetcar system in Tacoma)

CAP Category 3: Enhancing Compact/Livable Neighborhoods

Implement smart growth principles • Beginning of a Transfer of Development Rights program, with potential development

incentives offered for protection of open space, agricultural lands, natural resource lands,

and historic lands/sites ♦∗♠

Increase trees and open space • Recent adoption (2008) of a new Open Space Habitat and Recreation Plan • Development of an Urban Forestry Program to fill in the gaps in the Comp Plan, with

hopes that this process will inform the future creation of an Urban Forestry Master Plan

QBL Indicators

Environment = ♣

Economic = ♦

Social = ∗

Cultural = ♠

37

and Urban Forestry Manual for Citizens. (See Appendix G for the timeline of the Urban Forestry Program Development Process)

• Tacoma’s Tree Street NW (formerly known as the Free Street Tree Program) project through which residents can obtain free trees for planting in the right-of-way

CAP Category 4: Energy Efficiency in Our Buildings, Homes, and

Industries

Reduce energy use and expand the use of renewable energy sources • Current use of biogas generated in the wastewater digestion process for use in process

and building heating • Pending project for recovery of sewage plant digestive heat (methane capture) for

generation of the Central Wastewater Treatment Plant’s electricity • Offer of $25,000 loans to low income homeowners for energy efficient home

rehabilitation through The Home Energy Savings Program ♦∗

CAP Category 5: Reuse and Recycle… from Buildings to Food Waste

Maximize commercial and residential recycling • Pioneering efforts in recycling and curbside pick-up, including variable rates for disposal,

by the Solid Waste Department • Marketing of TAGRO, an award winning Class A biosolids blend for use in residential

and commercial horticulture and agriculture. The production of TAGRO translates to COT recycling of 100% of its residual solids (20,000 tons per year that it would otherwise have to pay to dispose) ♦

• Pending project for collection of commercial food waste, insertion of this food waste into the sewage waste stream, and reduction in the amount disposed in Tacoma’s landfill

• Potential construction of a Material Recovery Facility as the new Solid Waste facility transfer station, with hopes of advancing a COT zero waste initiative

Reuse, recycle and deconstruct buildings • Inclusion of historic building preservation in the CAP as a means of using fewer

materials in construction (one of the few cities to do so) ♠

Additional Environmental Policies, Programs, & Practices not encompassed by CAP

categories

• Storm water increasingly linked to land use through principles of Low Impact Development in federal/state requirements, the COT Comp Plan, and the general activities of the Surface Water Division of Environmental Services

• Advanced capabilities within Environmental Services to determine point and non-point pollution sources in the city’s surface water system

• Existence of a robust wastewater pre-treatment program for industry • Shoreline Master Program and Critical Area Preservation Ordinance update underway

that will take on greater scientific evaluation of appropriate preservation and restoration strategies for the COT shoreline (See Appendix H for the Update’s development timeline)

QBL Indicators

Environment = ♣

Economic = ♦

Social = ∗

Cultural = ♠

38

• Environmental education (focused on surface water, wastewater, and solid waste) of elementary students and the community via the EnviroChallenger Program. The program’s intent is to drive environmental awareness and change in the City of Tacoma

through education, primarily of children. ∗

• A Safe & Clean Initiative that includes several projects focused on sustainability, including:

o The First Creek Clean Up, which involved The Puyallup Nation as a partner in cleaning up over 140 tons of waste on Tacoma’s east side. The team ultimately hopes to develop a stewardship plan for the entire watershed.

♦∗♠

o The Complete Streets effort, with a goal to impact Public Works street design standards through the formation of Complete Street guidelines.

• A Regional Road Maintenance Program for protection of surface water systems from erosion, sedimentation, and subsequent endangerment to species due to development of roadways

• Environmentally friendly maintenance of fleet, including the use of re-refined engine oil (a recycled petroleum product), eco-friendly solvents, and recycling of materials

♦ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES • Community and Economic Development Department (CEDD) initiation of a Developer

Initiated Proposal that has become an administrative process for development of all city owned land. The proposal uses overlays on top of zoning to determine more than just the financial wherewithal of a project, such as environmental, cultural, and historical

opportunities. ♣♠

• CEDD 8-cluster development strategy, with subject area experts (i.e. knowledgeable community members) connected to each cluster so as to inform the process of business recruitment and retention. The clusters are: IT and Software, Business & Professional Services, Trade & Logistics, Creative Arts & Design, Financial Services, Clean

Technology and Clean Energy, Health Care, and Tourism. ♣∗♠

• Tax credits offered for Historic Building Rehabilitation, Multi-Family Residential Development (detailed below), Job Training & Job Creation, and International Financial Services firms locating in Tacoma

• Nascent efforts toward a “Go Local” buying program, with particular emphasis on local food sources through support of farmer’s markets

• Implementation in BLUs of a customer service expert center composed of subject matter expert teams that would see a project through the approval process. The goal is to expedite the permitting process so as to be more conducive to development. BLUs may eventually use this structure for “fast-track” permitting of those developers using “green” construction/renovation methods. ♣

∗SOCIAL ACTIVITIES

• The City’s Housing Division offers support of the low-income, elderly and disabled populations through several loan programs, including: major home repair loans, moderate rehabilitation loans, comprehensive rehabilitation loans, home energy improvement loans, affordable housing development loans, and down payment assistance loans ♣♦

QBL Indicators

Environment = ♣

Economic = ♦

Social = ∗

Cultural = ♠

39

• The Multi-family Property Tax Exemption, enacted by Tacoma in 1996, is offered to developers of affordable housing units in Tacoma’s mixed-use centers.74 The developers must guarantee at least 4 multi-family units for an eight-year property tax exemption, and 20% or more affordable units to those below the

area median income for a 12 year property tax exemption. ♣♦♠

• The Human Rights and Human Services Department provides funding for community services (pass-through of 15% of COT CDBG money) focused on equity in access to opportunities along socioeconomic and demographic lines. Programs include 2 senior centers, Community Youth Service, ADA compliance oversight, and more related to meeting the needs of community members.

♣♦♠

• Two ongoing efforts on behalf of both the City, County, and social service organizations - Housing First and The Coalition to End Homelessness – that aim to eliminate homeless encampments, provide housing to the homeless, and offer long-term solutions to the

area’s homeless challenge ♣♦♠

• The Housing Trust Fund Demonstration Project, a pilot program underway between United Way and Tacoma Community Redevelopment Authority, intends to help preserve, restore, and expand the stock of affordable housing. The Project will provide funds to qualified non-profit developers and non-profit/for-profit partnerships building affordable housing for low-income people.

• The Human Resources Health & Wellness Program promotes a work-life balance for COT employees

• COT Human Resources is currently planning a high school mentorship program for seniors at three local high schools ♦

• Community Based Services expansion beyond its four pilot neighborhoods. In a comprehensive approach to government service provision, the program emphasizes collaborative efforts between Tacoma Police, Code Enforcement, and other governmental

departments. ♣♦♠

• Five-pronged youth engagement strategy of the Police Department, including partnership with the Tacoma School District

• Fire Department provision of emergency preparedness, CPR, AED, and first aid training for citizens

♠CULTURAL ACTIVITIES

• Two arts focused full time employees and one Historic Preservation Officer in CEDD ♦

• An eight-cluster economic development focus that includes “creative arts and design” as

one of the clusters ♦∗

• One percent cost of construction for major city projects devoted to public art • A public art training program for local artists under development • Creation of an online local artists’ registry underway for use by developers and curators • Complete Streets Amenity Zones included in the Comp Plan ♦♦

74 City of Tacoma Comprehensive Plan, Element III, p. LU-24.

QBL Indicators

Environment = ♣

Economic = ♦

Social = ∗

Cultural = ♠

40

WISH LIST ACTIVITIES

An additional number of potential activities are on the wish lists of departments waiting for resources, technology, and policy support to bring them to fruition. These include:

• A COT sponsored anti-idling campaign • Eco-driving training available to citizens and employees • Bicycle safety training for citizens and employees • Expansion of EnviroChallenger to high school students • Expansion of EnviroChallenger to concepts pertaining to air quality and other

environmental topics • Further funding support for transformation of fleet to environmentally friendly vehicles • Funding for a Shoreline Restoration Plan as part of the Shoreline Master Plan • Water reclamation project in collaboration with local high water use industries • Do-it-yourself rain garden program that would encourage rain gardens as a standard

residential and commercial landscape design • TPU-General Government customer service website • Movement towards closed loop industries in Tacoma (interest and awareness in Solid

Waste) • Solar power panels on COT fire truck to generate energy for emergency lighting • Distance learning program (using close circuit TV) for Fire Department training,

resulting in decreased movement of rigs and fuel use

4. Finding: Key Partners & Stakeholders In their interviews, interviewees were asked, “Do you work with any external partners (private business, non-profits, quasi-government, churches, neighborhood councils, etc.) in general or in regard to sustainability?” Nearly every participant offered at least one partner in his or her efforts, particularly for activities concerning sustainability. Over the broad range of interviews, a pattern of partnerships and stakeholders began to emerge. This pattern is illustrated in Figure 5, with partners and stakeholders categorized according to their relationship to the COT department/division, and more importantly, to the Office of Sustainability. While this figure takes the shape of spheres extending outward from the Office of Sustainability, this is meant to demonstrate relative size and expanding spheres of influence away from municipal government departments. The figure is not meant to communicate relative importance. In planning projects, Figure 5 is a good reminder of the many groups of stakeholders that can be accessed. The subject matter of the project will no doubt determine the sphere(s) to be included. Appendix I offers a large version of Figure 5, as well as lists of partners relevant to each categorization. These partners were identified through both the one-on-one interviews and lists provided by several of the interviewees.

41

Figure 5: Key Partners & Stakeholders

5. Summary of Findings The energy surrounding the Office of Sustainability was palpable throughout the interviews, and much momentum is already present for the forward momentum of the new office. Many COT sustainable practices, programs, and policies offer a significant head start. Numerous employees are already knowledgeable on environmental topics related to their subject areas. All employees interviewed seek support and legitimacy for their attempts to make their daily work more sustainable. As well, while many of the city’s activities demonstrate sustainable attributes, those interviewed collectively agree that some activities could be considered unsustainable (i.e. not environmentally sound). In the interviews, weaknesses were identified in addition to strengths, and from these weaknesses arise opportunities for the Office of Sustainability to develop an action plan that supports both the Climate Action Plan and the intent of the office. Much work is to be done. The wish lists of departments and divisions equal if not surpass the number of sustainable activities already in place. Employees are waiting for resources, technology, and/or policies to catch up to their innovative ideas and projects. The Office of Sustainability can have a hand in not only facilitating, but also advocating, for all three.

42

IX. Analysis of Findings

1. Strengths, Weaknesses, and Opportunities

STRENGTHS The existing policies, programs, and practices listed in Chapter IX, Finding #3 go a long way in communicating the ‘strengths’ of the City of Tacoma’s in advancing a sustainability agenda. Although heavily weighted toward the environmental component of the QBL, they include an array of activities along the four components of the QBL Framework for a Sustainable City. Each already existing effort speaks to the technical expertise and prevailing enthusiasm of employees within their subject areas. Beyond the activities discussed in Finding #3, I identify below additional strengths (pertinent to a sustainability initiative) discovered through both my interviews with staff and my review of the Comp Plan.

Strength: Comprehensive Plan

• Tacoma’s Comprehensive Plan is of itself a document describing a sustainable Tacoma, with much of the plan phrased as a ‘to do’ list of policy goals (many of which overlap with the CAP) related to sustainability. Specifically, the Open Space & Recreation Element (Element IX) and the Culture & History Element (Element X) address many of the components of the QBL Framework for a Sustainable City. With a few slight adjustments and overall orientation toward sustainability along the quadruple bottom-line, the Comprehensive Plan could be effective as the guiding document of the Office of Sustainability (as it is in the City of Seattle).

• The Plan’s General Growth Strategy and Development Concept outlined in Element II uses an innovative approach to land use involving concentrations, centers, and corridors for designation of where growth should occur; low, medium, and high intensities for how much and what type of growth should occur; and growth tiers for when growth should occur. This structure removes the inflexibility of more traditional and strict land designations (i.e. industrial, commercial, and residential) and “recognizes that different types of land use may be located in the same area as long as the character of the area remains consistent.”75

• The Comp Plan includes all elements of the QBL: – Environment is heavily stressed as would be expected in a document outlining

standards for land use and development. Concepts of smart growth, transit oriented development, multimodal transport, sustainable urban and building design, conservation and protection of natural spaces, low impact development, and environmental stewardship are dominant throughout the plan.

– Economy is less emphasized, though its sustainability is mentioned as one of the goals of the plan (Appendix E). Financial bonuses and incentives are frequently mentioned as potential tools to encourage the Plan’s heavily emphasized environmental goals. The Downtown Element of the plan specifically links economic vitality and environmental quality.

75 City of Tacoma Comprehensive Plan, Element II, p. GD-7.

43

– Social concepts occur in the plan, though again are less pervasive than environmental concepts. The sections pertaining to housing, transportation, and the Downtown Element address the following: accessibility to housing and transport for all population segments, housing affordability in the form of mixed income development, fair housing access, food security, and educational opportunities.

– Surprisingly, the cultural component of the QBL is addressed quite thoroughly in the Comp Plan. Prevalent throughout the plan are references to historic/cultural amenities and preservation, maintenance and creation of public spaces, and concern over the city being viewed by citizens as livable and distinctive. Part X of the plan specifically addresses the Culture & History Element, expanding upon the ideas just listed in a comprehensive vision of history and the arts in Tacoma. Finally, the Downtown Element of the plan heavily focuses on culture, citing achievement of vitality downtown and quality of life improvements as central goals (Appendix E). Section 2.4 of this element furthers this vision, describing a City of the Arts that can be realized through economic concepts such as incentives, private-public partnership, and additional funds for support of artists working downtown.

Strength: Climate Action Plan

• The CAP reiterates much of the Comprehensive Plan, singling out some of the Comp Plan’s critical elements for more immediate attention and implementation.

• The CAP establishes a framework for the new Office of Sustainability’s initial work, allowing for an immediate focus on implementation of its recommendations for short-term change.

• The CAP provides staff with a leadership mandate that prioritizes environmental goals in city operations.

Strength: Safe & Clean Initiative

• Much like the CAP, the Safe & Clean teams are often, though unintentionally, focused around concepts described in the Comprehensive Plan. This makes sense, as the Comp Plan is intended to “express the long-range vision of how citizens want their community to look and function in the future.”76

• As a result of this initiative, several interviewees expressed its importance as an organizational change effort. They felt that because of the focus on interdisciplinary teams, they were able to reach across previously siloed functions to collaborate on a common goal. The initiative fostered new relationships between departments and personnel that will continue beyond the scope of the Safe & Clean effort, and will hopefully influence the city’s sustainability efforts.

Strength: Education

• EnviroChallenger is a fully established and successful mechanism for student and citizen education about the environmental services provided by the COT.

• The EnviroTalk newsletter is a channel for environmental services information dissemination, distributed to every household on a quarterly basis.

76 City of Tacoma Comprehensive Plan, Introduction, p. 8.

44

Strength: Partnerships

• Interviewees stressed again and again the importance of their department/division’s partnerships with other departments, quasi-governmental entities, community organizations, business groups, and citizens. Many of the more developed sustainability focused policies, programs, and practices discussed in Finding #3 progressed because of collaboration with one or more partners.

WEAKNESSES Weakness: Too Many Plans

• The city has numerous plans - City Council Strategic Plan, COT Comprehensive Plan, Climate Action Plan, and potential for a Sustainability Plan, to name a few – that overlap and occasionally contradict.

• Throughout the interviews of staff members, interviewees frequently said, “The Planning Department owns the Comprehensive Plan.” This document is not viewed as a shared document, a fact that limits its use within other departments and the potential to maximize the QBL ideas within the plan (and therefore, limit the potential of a sustainability initiative). Because the Comprehensive Plan is built through a participatory process, it should be the foundation for all other plans, and all other plans, including work plans, should reference the Comp Plan.

Weakness: Minor Comprehensive Plan Limitations

• Aside from those interviewed in the Community & Economic Development Department (and especially the Planning Division), staff does not appear to use the plan to guide their actions/work.

• Health and Human Services are only addressed peripherally in the plan, and therefore a significant part of the Society component of the QBL is missing.

• The Industrial Development section (Section V) of the Generalized Land Use Element includes a policy recommendation for sustainable design (LU-IDD-5), but neither Residential Development (Section III) nor Commercial Development (Section IV) sections include a similar policy.

• In the Capital Facilities element, the Maintenance of Capital Facilities section does not address environmental sustainability principles in maintenance, and the section titled Location and Design of Capital Facilities only briefly addresses energy conservation and protection of health and environment.

• Similarly, in the Transportation Element, parking facility maintenance and design does not include principles of environmentally sustainable design.

• Air quality is not addressed in the Comp Plan, although other environmental concepts such as biodiversity conservation, open space preservation, and water quality are frequently considered.

Weakness: Limited though Increasing Integration of & Collaboration in Work

• Though many interviewees noted that collaboration has improved considerably with the tenure of City Manager Eric Anderson, quite a few added that this collaboration had not yet been institutionalized. They felt that most collaborative projects come about because of positive personal relationships, and therefore may or may not be

45

passed on with employee turnover. The expectation of collaboration among department and divisions had not yet solidified in daily work.

• Because collaboration is not yet institutionalized, staff members continue to perceive silos as prevalent in the organization. Particularly between the long-term planners (Planning Department urban planners), the short-term planners (Public Works engineers), and the implementers (Public Works engineers and Code & Permitting personnel), a disconnect in communication and collaboration appears to be the status quo. This results in a Comprehensive Plan that sometimes disconnects with the Municipal Code or with the realities of implementation (such as funding, political feasibility, etc). As well, depending on funding sources (enterprise funds, grants, etc.) the Comp Plan may or may not be used as a guide for projects and policies. While many noted difficulties with collaboration, I did not get a sense from any of the interviewees that these difficulties were shrouded in bitterness or resentment. Rather, most seemed to want to overcome silos so as to improve the work of the organization, and felt that progress has been recently made in doing so through such processes as the Climate Action Plan and the Safe & Clean Initiative.

• One obstacle to smooth project completion comes in the flow of work, and the interaction with the public over time. Long-term planners interact with the public on the front end through the Comprehensive Plan process. The conversation at this point is typically focused on broad planning goals of the city. As Public Works engineers take on specific projects, they interact with citizens directly impacted by these projects. The public that each group speaks with may/may not be the same. Therefore, a project may shift away from the goals of the Comp Plan as a result of public input during implementation.

Weakness: Contradictory or Incomplete Policies

• The parking policies presented in the Comp Plan appear to call for an increased number of parking spaces (though also a pricing of these spaces); meanwhile, the CAP calls for a reduction.

• No formal pesticide policy exists for grounds maintenance. • No lead coordinator or official policy exists for community gardens, with efforts

scattered between various entities both internal and external to the city.

Weakness: Lack of Life Cycle Analysis Requirement & Asset Management

Consistency

• No consistent life cycle analysis process or policy across departments; therefore, no consistency as to how assets are assigned value, if at all. Some departments include environmental positive/negative externalities (i.e. removal of trees, increased water pollution, etc) in their life cycle analysis, while others do not. Even among those who do, there is not an institutionally accepted monetary value between them.

• No assessment tool for the consistent application of carbon footprinting as a means of ascertaining the negative impact of carbon emissions for projects.

Weakness: Unresolved Tension Between Growth & Livability

• Time and again, interviewees noted a tension between development for the sake of growth (and therefore an economic only bottom line), and development for the sake

46

of improved livability for citizens (environmental, social and cultural bottom lines). Often they expressed that Tacoma has traditionally taken on, as one interviewee put it, a “fundamental sense of desperation about growth”, and continues to do so today, to its own detriment.

• This tension may limit efforts of a sustainability initiative such as the implementation of a “public benefits package” for major private developments, fee-in-lieu requirements, tax credits for green development, and use of more overlays (i.e. socioeconomic, small business culture, etc.) in evaluating the pros and cons of major developments. Currently, the city asks for no impact fees, public benefits packages, or developers’ agreements from their major developers. While developers do have to follow zoning and permitting guidelines, these requirements are conservative relative to many other cities.

OPPORTUNITIES

Policies, Programs & Practices: An opportunity exists for -

Creation of a “sustainable” COT building program, in partnership with the city’s Building Maintenance Division. This program would involve the crafting of policies pertaining to new construction of city owned buildings, building renovations of currently owned city buildings, and day-to-day operation of city buildings. The policies would focus on energy consumption and conservation (CAP Category 1.5) including requirements for routine energy auditing, preference for contractors using “green” practices in public building construction/renovation (built into the RFP process) (CAP Category 1.3), participation in Tacoma Power’s EverGreen Options Program and other programs pertaining to building resource use and conservation (Category 1.6), and use of building commissioning for new and old facilities (Category 1.6).

Formation of a “sustainable development” determination for new developments and businesses in Tacoma. This determination could speed up the permitting process or offer otherwise preferential treatment such as fee code waivers or tax incentives/credits to business deemed “sustainable” in construction/renovation practices. This would require work in partnership with Building and Land Use (permitting), Economic Development (tax incentives), and Historic Preservation (called for in CAP Category 5.39) to create a comprehensive program for incentivizing environmentally friendly development and renovation in Tacoma.

Initiation of a “sustainable building practices” requirement for developers receiving CDBG monies, in partnership with the Housing Division of CEDD.

Creation of options for Impact Fees or a Public Benefits Package along a quadruple bottom-line (some work underway on this in regard to impact fees for street vacations, low quality wetland mitigation, and open space). These would be used for large-scale developments that require the support of the City and/or zoning or Code amendments. Potential negative environmental, social, and cultural impacts of the development would be offset by either impact fees determined in the permitting process or a Public Benefits Package negotiated through a developer’s agreement with the city.

Development of a “green” rubric for purchasing new vehicles. Extension of the current policy of variable rates of disposal to a rate that matches unit

cost to gallon of waste in a 1:1 pricing relationship.

47

COT coordination of community gardens/urban food sources projects in partnership with external organizations.

Introduction of Scoot Car, a car-sharing service, to Tacoma. The Planning Division has recently applied for a grant through the Puget Sound Regional Council in support of this opportunity.

Capacity building of local artists to help them become competitive public artists in local/regional markets by strengthening training programs and increasing opportunities to implement public art projects.

Staff, Funding, and Organizational Infrastructure: An opportunity exists for -

Removal of siloed work strategies and creation of project teams that involve urban planners, BLUs personnel, and Public Works engineers from start to finish of a project.

Inclusion of staff members not typically considered within the scope of environmental sustainability – such as Health and Human Services staff members and Economic Development staff members involved in Historic Preservation and Arts & Culture. This would provide a more comprehensive view of sustainability along the QBL.

Application of HR training infrastructure to internal sustainability training. Education on and communication of COT internal sustainable practices for new

employees during the required Human Resources new employees orientation. Use of a sustainability initiative as a means of increasing the appeal of COT as a

workplace and improving a recruitment package. Collaboration with the Community Relations Office, accessing an already established

communications and public relations infrastructure to promote current and future sustainable activities.

Use of the Community Based Services (CBS) pilot effort as an informative example of citizen engagement for a Sustainable Tacoma Initiative.

Tapping into the energy and excitement of staff, who are, according to one interviewee, “conservationists at heart”.

Documents & Tools: An opportunity exists for -

The widespread use of the Comp Plan as a document guiding the daily work of all department’s of the city involved in services for citizens. The internal departments (Finance, Human Resources, IT, etc.) could have an Internal Comprehensive Plan that supports the current (external) Comprehensive Plan.

Further development of the Comp Plan into a “Sustainable Tacoma” Plan rather than creating a separate plan that will, to a large extent, copy many of the concepts already in the Comp Plan.

Office of Sustainability involvement in the creation of a Strategic Mobility Master Plan, using the plan to further the goals of the Office of Sustainability and the CAP.

Use of the County’s recently completed Inclusionary Zoning study in furthering Tacoma’s social bottom-line.77

77 Pierce Country Housing Affordability Task Force. Housing Affordability: Final Report and Recommendations.

Rep. Mar. 2007. Pierce County Community Services Department Housing Division. 2 June 2009

<http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/xml/services/home/property/pals/landuse/housing%20affordability%20final%20re

port.pdf>.

48

Use of an instrument such as the QBL Analysis and Decision-Making Instrument proposed in Chapter V.1. as a mechanism for ensuring that decision-making on policies/action advances the sustainability initiative.

Measurement: An opportunity exists for -

A comprehensive and holistic indicators effort that involves citizens and attempts to measure aspects of the QBL in Tacoma (see Chapter V.2.).

The city’s recent Performance Management 2008 Report to Citizens, which targets quality of life indicators, to be expanded to include additional sustainability indicators.78

Support, Outreach & Education: An opportunity exists for -

Tacoma to brand itself within the context of sustainability. The city has not undergone a major branding campaign in approximately 10 years. Several interviewees cited stagnation of Tacoma’s identity. An initiative that involves citizens in determining what it means to be a sustainable Tacoma and creating indicators could be simultaneously used to “brand” Tacoma (much like Calgary in their ‘Imagine Calgary’ campaign).

Inclusion of additional topics in Envirotalk and as part of the EnviroChallenger message, such as air quality, biodiversity, etc. However, because both are funded by Environmental Services (though implemented by the Community Relations Office), the funding source for these would have to be extended.

Use of the Building and Land Use Division office as a primary point of contact for education and public awareness on sustainable building practices. With at least 20,000 persons making use of the office’s services each year, an opportunity exists for education on topics such as carbon footprinting, energy auditing, low impact development suggestions, recycling, etc.

Encouragement and further support for citizen installation of rain gardens, green roofs, and community gardens throughout the city.

2. Establishing A Baseline Measurement: How Sustainable is Tacoma?

A sustainability indicators project will take time, and will no doubt come after significant discussion about what sustainability means to the City of Tacoma. In the meanwhile, Tacoma’s leaders and Office of Sustainability Manager will want a baseline measurement of Tacoma as a sustainable city. Rubrics for assessing the sustainability of a city are admittedly few and far between, and even then are a rather crude representation of a city’s sustainability effort. The findings presented in Chapter IX offer significant insight into a baseline measure of how sustainable Tacoma is at present. Numerous activities are underway, and Tacoma certainly has the political leadership and stakeholder energy necessary to quickly advance a baseline. As one State Legislator recently stated during a presentation at the Evans School of Public Affairs, “The City of Tacoma is actually quite progressive as compared to other cities in Washington.”79

78 City of Tacoma: Performance Management 2008 Report to Citizens. Rep. Mar. 2009. City of Tacoma. 2 June

2009 <http://cms.cityoftacoma.org/web/PerfMgtRpt2008.pdf>. 79 Sharon Nelson, State Representative 34th District, to Land Use and Transportation Policy students on May 13,

2009. Her comment was made in regard to Tacoma’s support of House Bill 1490.

49

These findings, however, are qualitative for the most part. In order to arrive at a more quantitative measurement, I have made use of an index proposed by Kent Portney in his book Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously. This index, called the Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously

Index, offers what the author admits to be a rudimentary assessment of elements of what it means for a city to take sustainability seriously. He bases his assessment on a range of policies, programs, and other actions that are common across many cities undergoing “sustainability initiatives” (further defined as “any set of activities, programs, policies, or other efforts whose purpose is explicitly to becoming more sustainable”).80 He cautions that the index does not assess achievement of particular environmental or livability results, and likewise cannot claim with certitude that a link exists between the programs, policies or actions and sustainable outcomes.81 Rather, he makes assumptions that these actions generally result in favorable environmental outcomes. Informed by the material from my interviews and review of the Comp Plan, I answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the statements posed in Portney’s Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously Index (see results Appendix J). I then totaled the yes’s and no’s to arrive at a split of 18 to 15 respectively. This score can be compared with those of the 24 cities that Portney evaluated using the Index. With this score, Tacoma ties for 9th place with Tucson and Chattanooga, and places ahead of Austin, Phoenix, and Jacksonville.82 Eight cities score higher than 18 yes’s, with Santa Monica, Seattle, Portland, and Boulder among them. Had I been able to answer ‘yes’ to the three questions regarding indicators projects, Tacoma’s score of 21 would have placed it 7th in taking sustainability seriously out of the 24 cities. While these figures may have changed since the book’s publishing, (e.g. Seattle would no longer be #1 as it no longer maintains indicators), they are nevertheless illustrative, and perhaps helpful in establishing a baseline measurement of how seriously Tacoma is taking sustainability.

Upon establishment of performance indicators for the City of Tacoma’s sustainability initiative, I recommend that the city revisit the concept of a baseline measure, plotting the status quo against these indicators to learn more about their current state. As well, further research of a means for comparison to other cities would be advantageous in determining where Tacoma lies on a spectrum of U.S. city sustainability initiatives. SustainLane 2008 U.S. Rankings of the top 50 cities on a report card of urban sustainability could be a good start for this research.83

80 Portney, Kent E. Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously : Economic Development, the Environment, and Quality of

Life in American Cities. New York: MIT P, 2003: pp. 33, 35.81 Portney, pp. 33, 34. 82 Portney, Kent E. Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously : Economic Development, the Environment, and Quality of

Life in American Cities. New York: MIT P, 2003: p. 70.83 "SustainLane's 2008 US City Rankings - SustainLane.com." Go Green @ SustainLane: People-Powered

Sustainable Living Guide. SustainLane. 05 June 2009 <http://www.sustainlane.com/us-city-rankings/>.

50

SECTION III Recommendations for a Sustainability

Initiative at the Level of Local Government

51

X. Recommendations for Tacoma’s Office of Sustainability

Issues related to sustainability are many and serious and big. The launch of a government office to tackle these issues is not an inconsequential symbolic, financial, or political endeavor. In order for Tacoma’s Office of Sustainability to do justice to its title and the intent of its creation, as well as maximize the use of dollars towards this end, care must be taken in constructing the city’s sustainability endeavor, particularly in the early stages. More than a year of intense research and the aforementioned interviews supports the following list of recommendations for the creation and operation of Tacoma’s Office of Sustainability. This research reviewed both academic/professional literature on the topic and case studies of numerous cities, providing multiple examples of both successful and unsuccessful local initiatives towards sustainability. By no means exhaustive, the recommendations attempt to cover the most critical aspects of a local sustainability initiative as cited by academics and practitioners immersed in the study and practice of sustainability. It also takes the findings gathered in the interviews to make recommendations appropriate to the City of Tacoma in its sustainability effort. In general, however, the recommendations offered here could apply to any sustainability initiative at the local government level. Recommendation #1: Involve citizens every step of the way. The inclusion of citizen’s in public processes is critical in encouraging change that is itself sustainable. A refusal to involve citizens will lead only to superficial and abbreviated change motivated from the top-down rather than the bottom-up, a non-option for a concept such as sustainability that requires a paradigm shift in ways of thinking and living. Engagement of Tacoma’s citizens in sustainability efforts will enlist not only citizen support, but also their investment in the changes of lifestyle necessary to make the story-line of local sustainability one characterized by success. While some may criticize extensive citizen engagement processes as a hindrance to progress, the debate that results from this engagement “is the very social dynamic that provides the feedback loops necessary for problem identification and resolution.”84 Since urban problems are part and parcel of the reasons for sustainability at the local level, these feedback loops are essential in garnering citizen participation in solving these problems. As well, involvement of citizens supports the concept of a city as a living rather than static organism, with the needs and challenges of the actual citizens that must ‘do’ sustainability guiding a dynamic initiative. As authors Newman and Jennings state, “The issues of sustainability are far too complex and difficult to resolve without involving as many different views as possible in a creative strategic conversation.”85

84 Moore, Steven. Alternative Routes to the Sustainable City: Austin, Curitiba, and Frankfurt. New York: Lexington

Books, 2007: p. 109. 85 Newman, Peter, and Isabella Jennings. Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems: Principles and Practices. New York:

Island Press, 2008: p. 157.

52

Quite simply, citizen engagement is the way to create a relevant sustainability initiative and maintain the momentum necessary for change. It fosters not only awareness of issues relevant to the initiative (through a simultaneous education effort), but also promotes citizen ownership of the concept, appreciation for the complexity of the issues, and potential outgrowth of community-based initiatives for sustainability that are independent of local government. As Bell and Morse note, “It is the participative nature of sustainable city programmes [sic] that largely distinguish them from many other initiatives to put sustainability into practice.”86 Recommendation #2: Reach out to external stakeholders. As with any initiative, Tacoma should reach out to partners for knowledge, input, and collaboration on all efforts toward a sustainable city. Just as the Green Ribbon Task Force involved citizens from business, industry, academic, and government sectors, so too should these sectors be involved in the ongoing efforts to implement the Climate Action Plan. These partners will be critical in the development of strategic alliances that promote not only environmental, but also economic, social, and cultural sustainability within Tacoma. Partnerships will allow for the broadest reach to citizens and local stakeholders, and ensure that sustainability is more than just a government owned concept. As Speth illustrates in Red Sky at

Morning, “The best hope we have for this new force [of sustainability] is a coalescing of a wide array of civic, scientific, environmental, religious, student, and other organizations with enlightened business leaders, concerned families, and engaged communities, networked together, protesting, demanding action and accountability from governments and corporations, and taking steps as consumers and communities to realize sustainability in everyday life.”87 It should also be noted that the Findings presented in Chapter IX do not include discussion with stakeholders external to COT general government. Therefore, the point of view of crucial stakeholders on the city’s current status as a sustainable entity has not been captured. This could be an important step in reaching out to partners early in the process, thereby building relationships for future collaboration. Recommendation #3: Establish internal partnerships to overcome silos. A key concept in successful sustainability initiatives is the organization of work around achieving key outcomes toward a vision of a sustainable city rather than maintaining traditional divisions of labor manifested in siloed departmental structures. Yet, in many government entities, this shift has not occurred, and the consequences can be seen in the ecological well-being and quality of life attained by those cities. Governments have generally ignored the need to change themselves to better respond to pressing environmental issues that do not respect artificial departmental boundaries. Key departments, such as those concerned with ecology and economy, are institutionally distant from one another and rarely collaborate. However, the crises

86 Bell, Simon, and Stephen Morse. Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable? Detroit:

Earthscan/James & James, 2008: p. 83. 87 Speth, James Gustave. Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the Global Environment. New Haven: Yale

Nota Bene, 2005: p. 198.

53

we face are not separate, and the real world of interlocked systems will not change. Therefore, policies and institutions must.88 Authors Roberts and Cohen address this need for organizational change in their article Enhancing Sustainable Development by Triple Value Adding to the Core Business of

Government. The authors state, “Sustainability involves stepping over the comfort zone of agency lines of responsibility, adopting more flexible and innovative approaches to problem solving and identifying new means of adding value to core business activities.”89 Organizing around sustainability as a means of planning for the future, departments can identify internal partnerships necessary for advancing this common vision. Work would then be elevated beyond a task or project focus, and oriented around desired outcomes of a sustainable city. Collaboration would become more than an ad hoc occurrence, but an institutionalized way of doing work. Recommendation #4: Determine the “being” of a sustainable Tacoma. Once citizen and external stakeholders are engaged and work toward building internal partnerships has begun, the answers to several questions must be determined before embarking upon a full-fledged sustainability effort:

1) What will be the working definition of sustainability for the City of Tacoma? Will this definition encompass the broadest use of the word, or will it include only the environmental aspect of sustainability?

2) What geographic space will be included in the effort? Will the effort be only the city’s or will attempts be made to extend to the region?

3) What are the specific strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to a sustainability initiative for the city? How can these be leveraged or overcome?

4) How will the city itself embody sustainability among its own policies, thereby setting the example for Tacoma businesses and citizens?

In determining how to be sustainable, a definition of sustainability should be written, discussed, and debated as a jumping point for framing Tacoma’s effort. The definitions offered in Chapter III capture aspects of the many definitions throughout professional literature and case studies of cities engaged in a sustainability initiative. However, as noted in Chapter III, caution must be exercised in the length of time devoted to the process of defining sustainability, as momentum can be lost. Most critical in this discussion is the consideration of the Quadruple Bottom-line Framework for a Sustainable City presented in Chapter IV. This framework moves beyond the view of sustainability as purely environmental to that which balances environment with economy, society, and culture. Including culture, a concept not often seen alongside the three E’s of sustainability – environment, equity, and economy (often termed the triple-bottom line) - is unique to the QBL. Bell and Morse note of this addition to the sustainable city concept, “Sustainability… is all about people, and there may be little point achieving a sustainable system

88 Our Common Future. United Nations. World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford

UP, 1987: 9. 89 Roberts, Brian, and Michael Cohen. "Enhancing Sustainable Development by Triple Value Adding to the Core

Business of Government." Economic Development Quarterly 16 (2002): p. 132.

54

that reduces the quality of life of the people in that system.”90 The cultural capital present in a city contributes to and captures its distinctiveness, and is the key to a citizen’s sense of place, defined as the “center of felt value”, and quality of life.91 Only by taking into account citizens’ notions of their sense of place as expressed through art, heritage, recreation, and innovation can a local government understand how to guide and inspire citizen action towards ecological, social, and economic well-being. Recommendation #5: Establish a vision of a sustainable Tacoma. A vision that provides a framework for the creation of goals, indicators, and development of action plans is critical for success. The vision statement should define “ecological, social, economic, [and cultural] characteristics and value that the community has identified as crucial for sustainability, along with community priorities for short- and long-term action.”92 Caution must be used here - as many authors on the topic of sustainability illustrate, cities’ attempts toward a vision of sustainability are often fragmented and lack the necessary element of broad community participation. Cities that have the most comprehensive visions of sustainability involve citizens throughout the visioning process through more than online surveys or invitations to public meetings. They actively seek out public involvement, visiting spaces where a wide variety of citizens gather and questioning them on their vision of the city’s future. In one extremely successful example, Calgary through the Imagine Calgary initiative, garnered the involvement of over 18,000 of its citizens through an 18-month citizen engagement project. Once the vision was adequately captured, the city used citizen work groups to put the vision into goals and strategies that became the expression of and guide for a sustainable Calgary. “The power of the vision lies in the degree to which it is shared by many people.”93 Should Tacoma choose not to fully and genuinely involve citizens in the creation of the vision for a sustainable city, change towards sustainability in the truest sense of the word will be short-lived and less pervasive. Municipal government alone cannot force sustainability upon its citizens. It must set the example, provide the materials for awareness, ask questions, and facilitate the discussion of Tacoma’s sustainable future in an attempt to bring about the “meta-paradigm” shift necessary for this to happen. Recommendation #6: Choose principles for sustainability. Many well thought out and established sets of principles exist for sustainability, and a review of these is essential before guiding a sustainability effort. Sets of principles should capture the spirit of the city’s collaborative vision, while pushing the city beyond its comfort zone in what it means to be sustainable.

90 Bell, Simon, and Stephen Morse. Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable? Detroit:

Earthscan/James & James, 2008: p. 17. 91 Landry, Charles. The Creative City : A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. London: Earthscan, 2008: p. 37.92 Newman, Peter, and Isabella Jennings. Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems: Principles and Practices. New York:

Island P, 2008: p. 9. 93 Newman & Jennings, p. 11.

55

Sets of principles include (but are certainly not limited to) the Earth Charter, Melbourne Principles, Natural Step for Communities, Local Agenda 21 Guiding Principles, or Bossel’s Systems Model of Sustainability. Some cities choose one framework and work within its principles, while others create a hybrid of frameworks in order to attend to their city’s unique circumstances (e.g., Calgary). Recommendation #7: Craft a performance measurement system for the COT

sustainability initiative. Performance indicators of a sustainable city capture the vision of a sustainable Tacoma (Recommendation #5) and support the framework of sustainability principles guiding the initiative (Recommendation #6). These outcomes and indicators would be inclusive of those identified in the Climate Action Plan, as well as environmental indicators beyond those concerned only with climate change. Moreover, under the QBL Framework for a Sustainable City, indicators would also incorporate economic, social, and cultural benchmarks in consideration of the quadruple bottom-line. In the performance measurement process, I recommend using a combination of the Bellagio Principles for Assessment, Bell & Morse’s Imagine Approach, and traditional performance measurement tools such as logic models designed around outcomes (see Chapter V.2. for further explanation). In the crafting of these indicators, it is important to recognize that many departments already collect information relevant to a sustainability initiative. In particular, many departments are required to participate in a yearly report-out of the International City/County Manager’s Association’s (ICMA) Performance Measurements. In Appendix K, I have offered a review of each department’s reported measures, listing those that could be used in an indicator effort. Yet, as Chapter V illustrates, the effort to determine indicators should involve a broad array of citizens, and should not be motivated by what is already being done. As Hatry notes in Performance Measurement, “Too often, agencies base their selection of indicators on how readily available the data are, not how important the indicators are for measuring the achievement of outcomes.”94 Thus, indicators should first be established, then reviewed for the relevant ICMA measures that could be applied. As part of this process, action steps would then be outlined. These action steps would move the city closer to achieving its desired outcomes, becoming the work of the sustainability initiative. Recommendation #8: Educate employees and citizens. As James and Lahti note, “Many citizens and local officials still are not aware of the seriousness of what is happening at the global level or do not understand how this is directly related to the well-being of their own communities.”95 Thus, an effort toward education is a critical part of a sustainability initiative, and should be ongoing. For education of citizens and public awareness campaigns, the city’s Community Relations Office (CRO) conducts promotion and education with external citizens, housing both EnviroTalk

94 Hatry, Harry P. Performance Measurement Getting Results. Washington, D.C.: Urban Inst Pr, 2007: p. 59. 95 James, Sarah, and Torbj Lahti. The Natural Step for Communities: How Cities and Towns Can Change to

Sustainable Practices. New York: New Society, Limited, 2004: p. 3.

56

and EnviroChallenger. Both of these and the additional expertise of CRO personnel will be critical in reaching out to citizens in a comprehensive and participatory sustainability initiative. For even greater outreach, a powerful program for change in many cities comes in the form of household education programs. In this example of community based social marketing, trained advisors visit homes to audit energy, water, waste, and travel use and habits and discuss with citizens how they can best change their behaviors to work towards sustainability. One such program in Perth, Australia, The Living Smart Program, is on track to reduce annual household CO2 emissions by 1.5 tons.96 Many of the interviewees expressed their desire to have the Office of Sustainability provide education and training pertaining to the city’s sustainability initiative. I recommend that this be undertaken in partnership with the city’s Office of Human Resources (HR). The HR office currently maintains the city’s training program, and also conducts monthly Health and Wellness seminars. Both would be opportunities for use of the infrastructure and expertise already present. Finally, based on numerous ideas presented in the interviews, I recommend a plethora of activities that would promote sustainability education and discussion among both employees and citizens such as a “sustainable city” reading list and once a month book discussion, advocacy gatherings, educational seminars, and visits from sustainability “guests” from other cities.

Recommendation #9: Provide financial support. In the identification of Tacoma’s sustainable policies, program, and practices (Chapter IX), I also put forth a wish list of activities that departments indicated interest in carrying forward should resources or funding become available. In order to assist departments in fleshing these ideas out further, I recommend the provision of “seed money” in the form of small grants. Departments would apply to the Office of Sustainability for these grants, which would then be doled on a competitive basis. For external entities such as non-profit organizations and small businesses, I recommend that the Office of Sustainability establish a Sustainable City Revolving Loan Fund. This fund would offer low interest loans for projects that work toward the short and long outcomes of Tacoma’s vision of a sustainable city. Recommendation #10: Share Tacoma’s sustainability experience and

performance data. In learning about sustainability, a dearth of information exists on the sustainability efforts of cities (particularly U.S. cities) and their levels of success in meeting benchmarks. Because one effort looks so different from another, comparing initiatives across cities is difficult but nevertheless worthwhile. Unfortunately, few cities have documented their efforts from start-up through implementation. Tacoma has the exciting opportunity to share its institutional knowledge of sustainability through the Office of Sustainability, and extensive documentation of the effort should be encouraged and expected.

96 Newman, Peter, Timothy Beatley, and Heather Boyer. Resilient Cities: Responding to Peak Oil and Climate

Change. New York: Island P, 2008: p. 133.

57

XI. Conclusions Mahatma Gandhi states in Principle of Enoughness, “The earth provides enough to satisfy every person’s need but not every person’s greed…When we take more than we need we are simply taking from each other, borrowing from the future, or destroying the environment and other species.” This ability to live on and replenish rather than deplete our natural, social, and cultural capital is the bottom-line of sustainability. The use of the quadruple bottom line in decision-making is an attempt at ensuring that citizens can do so, and an effective entity to facilitate this process is local government, with the support of state and national policy. The magnitude of the crisis we face is easy to forget. Despite years of international treaties and national legal frameworks, our global ecological condition continues to worsen. Threats to biotic impoverishment mount, with nine main threats currently identified as: land conversion, land degradation, freshwater shortages, watercourse modifications, invasive species, overharvesting, climate change, ozone depletion, and pollution.97 Note that climate change involves just one of the nine, and that a local sustainability initiative will target as many of these as are locally relevant (though local actions do often have significant global consequences, so ‘relevance’ is meant to be used loosely here). Moreover, these nine account for our main environmental problems – we face additional challenges in achieving well-being in the other three components of the quadruple bottom-line – society, culture, and economy. As an excellent example of a local government engaging wholeheartedly in advancing a sustainable future, the City of Tacoma has committed to both sustainability via the Climate

Action Plan and the subsequent establishment of the Office of Sustainability. The creation of the Office of Sustainability was two years in the making – it may be tempting, therefore, to consider the hard work complete and offer congratulations for a job well done. However, the truly challenging work has only just begun. Future efforts must not just attack symptoms in a way that results in green-washing of governmental activities, but get at the disease itself by targeting the behaviors that cause the disease. This requires going beyond discussion and advocacy and into action that, at its core, aims to inspire a meta-paradigm shift in the homes, habits, and hearts of citizens.98 Rather than just another layer of bureaucracy, the Office of Sustainability is Tacoma’s opportunity to establish its distinctiveness as a city. Tacoma can and should craft its sustainability effort as the chance to create an identity as not only a “green” city, but also a city that values its social relationships, cultural experiences, and economic well-being. Case studies of other cities show what is possible. However, engaging Tacoma’s citizens in the effort will prove even more essential than instituting the practices of others, as this engagement will allow for the city to “get beyond best practice and operate at the cutting edge.”99 Because there exists no guarantee for success in the being and doing of sustainability, Tacoma would be wise to first tap into the energy and creativity of its citizens, working alongside them and other partners to explore and discover a sustainable Tacoma.

97 Speth, James Gustave. Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the Global Environment. New Haven: Yale

Nota Bene, 2005: pp. 30-33. 98 Speth, p. 102. 99 Landry, Charles. The Creative City : A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. London: Earthscan, 2008: p. 131.

Appendix A

59

Appendix B

Performance Measurement System for a Sustainability Initiative

The five steps of the Imagine Approach combined with components of traditional performance measurement are as follows (with #3 and #4 switched in order from the original):100

1) Identify stakeholders and the system to be measured (explained in Chapter V.2.)

2) Identify the sustainability outcomes and indicators (i.e. create logic models, as

illustrated on the following pages)

a. Begin first by determining a final outcome, or vision of a sustainable city b. “Backcast” from this vision to determine the end outcomes for each component of

the QBL. Most likely, there will be many end outcomes for each component. c. Determine the intermediate outcomes that will lead to end outcomes. d. Determine the actions necessary to lead to intermediate outcomes. e. Decide how each intermediate and end outcome should be measured using

indicators.

3) Determine key outcomes and indicators

a. Choose key outcomes and their indicators for each component of the QBL (from Step #2) that are most critical, offer a holistic picture of sustainability when put together, and/or best communicate progress or lack thereof to the public.

b. Outcomes and indicators determined in Step #2 that are not determined key in Step #3 will continue to be monitored, though they may not be mapped in Step #4 and #5.

4) Identify the “band of equilibrium” (i.e. vision of a sustainable city) and develop an

AMOEBA diagram (see Pg. 62 of this appendix for further explanation)

a. Determine the “reference state”, or point at which each key indicator portrays the desired final outcome. For example, if the indicator for an end outcome is the city’s overall annual reduction in ecological footprint, then the “reference state” would be the measurement at which the target for this indicator has been achieved.

b. Plot these key indicators within their respective quadrants on the AMOEBA. In this explanation, the AMOEBA on the following pages has numbered dots that would each correspond to a key indicator.

5) Reflect on outcomes and indicators and use the AMOEBA to show change over time

(see Chapter V.2. and Pg. 62 of this appendix for further explanation)

100 Bell, Simon, and Stephen Morse. Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable? Detroit:

Earthscan/James & James, 2008: p. 149.

Appendix B Cont.

Examples of Logic Models for Step #2 of the Performance Measurement System for a Local

Sustainability Initiative

61

Appendix B Cont.

Examples of Logic Models for Step #2 of the Performance Measurement System for a Local

Sustainability Initiative

62

Appendix B Cont.

The AMOEBA of Step #4 of the Performance Measurement System for a Local Sustainability Initiative

• The numbers within each quadrant correspond to key indicators.

• The “band of equilibrium” is the visual representation of each key indicator in its reference state (i.e. at achievement of the final outcome, or vision).

• Numbers plotted within this band are considered to have met the target for the vision of a sustainable city.

• Numbers outside of the band exceed and do not meet the target for the vision of a sustainable city.

• Numbers inside of the band do not meet the target for the vision of a sustainable city (For example, if #9 is the indicator “number of public art works that express Tacoma’s identity”, and the answer is 6 public art works, then this falls below the expected amount within the band of equilibrium).

• Use of many AMOEBAs over time should highlight trends in the indicators that can further inform a city’s sustainability initiative.

63

Appendix C

64

65

66

Appendix D

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

1) Onascalefrom1‐5andbasedonthepreviouslydiscusseddefinitions,howsustainabledoyouthinkTacomaisasametropolitanarea(notasagovernment

entity)rightnow?

2) Onascalefrom1‐5,basedonthepreviouslydiscusseddefinitions,howsustainable

doyouthinkTacomaisasacitygovernmentrightnow?

3) WhatisyourroleinthedepartmentofHumanResources?

4) Dothe5P’swithinyourdepartmentoranycommittee/teamyouserveon

specificallypromotea“sustainableTacoma”?Meaning,whatarethe5P’sinyour

departmentthatcouldbeviewedasthecityencouraging,promoting,reinforcing,

educating,etc.thecitizensofTacomainlivingsustainablelives?

5) Askquestionsaboutmorespecificdepartmentalpolicies,programs,etc.thatare

commonamongothercitiessustainabilityeffortswithinthatdepartment(e.g.

pesticidepolicy,bicycleplan).

6) Howcloselydoyouworkwithothercitydepartmentsingeneralorinregardtosustainabilityprojects/programs?

7) Doyouworkwithanyexternalpartners(privatebusiness,non‐profits,quasi‐government,churches,neighborhoodcouncils,etc)ingeneralorinregardto

sustainability?Howdoyoucollaboratewiththesepartners?

8) Howoftendoesyourdepartmentengagewithcitizens(forinputandfeedback)in

generalandinregardtosustainability?

9) Onascalefrom1‐5,howknowledgeabledoyouthinkyourdepartment’semployeesareonissuespertainingtosustainabilityanditsroleinthedepartment,theirdaily

work,etc.?

10) HowcantheOfficeofSustainabilitybestsupportthedailyworkofyour

department?Howcantheofficebearesourcetoyou?

11) HowdoyouthinkyouwouldbearesourcefortheOfficeofSustainability?

12) ArethereanyotherpeopleIshouldinterviewfromyourdepartmentorelsewhere?

67

Appendix E101

Comprehensive Plan Goals

1) Achieveabalancedpatternandvarietyofgrowthanddevelopment

2) Supportamultimodaltransportsystemthatefficientlymovespeopleandgoods3) Achieveforallresidentssound,safe,healthful,andattractivehousingintheir

locationofchoice

4) Providehighquality,well‐maintainedphysicalsystemsandfacilities5) Provideoptimumutilityfacilitiesandservices

6) Achieveadiversified,globallycompetitive,andsustainableeconomy

7) Offerapleasing,aesthetic,healthfulenvironmentthatinstillsasenseofprideincitizens

8) Ensureconservation,protection,enhancement,andpropermanagementofnaturalresourcesandshoreline,whileprovidingforabalancedpatternofdevelopment

accordingtotheneedsofcitizens

9) Acquire,develop,andimproverecreationandopenspacefacilities10) Encouragecitizenparticipationandinvolvementinpolicyformationanddecision‐

making

Downtown Element Goals

1) ResolvequestionsofhowtoresponsiblyincreasedensitywhilemaintainingahighqualitycityenvironmentanduniqueTacomacharacter

2) Coordinatelanduse,transportation,andparkingstrategiesthrougha

comprehensiveapproachtoDowntown

3) BuildCitycapacitytocreateawalkabledowntownthrough“completestreets”

policies

4) Developasetofurbandesignprinciples

5) Encouragelinksbetweeneconomicvitalityandenvironmentalqualitythroughan

awarenessoftheregionaleffectsofgrowthmanagement,landuseand

transportationdecisions

6) Generatenewpartnershipstopromoteinfilldevelopmentandlinklandusepolicy

witheconomicrevitalizationstrategies

7) Collaboratetoencouragepropertyownersanddeveloperstothinkbeyondproperty

linestoachievemutualbenefits

101Forbrevity,allgoalsinthisappendixhavebeenparaphrased.

68

Appendix F

Strategic Mobility Master Plan Timeline

(Submitted by Diane Wiatr, Urban Planner)

♦ Spring/Summer 2009 – Beginning Phase - Finalize scope of work with Alta Planning & Design and legal - Organize steering committee - Develop vision, goals, objectives - Analysis of existing documents and policy - Partner with Pierce Transit on their System Redesign Project

♦ August 2009 to January 2010 – Create Draft Plan

- Public outreach - Bikeways baseline and benchmarking tools - Conditions/opportunities analysis - City Council and Planning Commission presentations - Recommended bike and pedestrian network - Bike and pedestrian typologies and design guidelines - Education and outreach strategies - Funding/Implementation/Maintenance Plan

♦ Early 2010 – Draft Plan Critique

- Planning Commission presentation and public hearing - City Council presentation for review and recommendations

♦ Spring 2010 – Finalize Plan

- Edit and improve the Strategic Mobility Master Plan according to input from stakeholders

♦ June 2010

- Council consideration for Comp Plan amendment approval

69

Appendix G

Urban Forestry Program Development Process Timeline

(Submitted by Ramie Pierce, Urban Forester)

♦ June 2009 to June 2010 – Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Community workshops - Planning Commission meetings - City Council meetings

♦ July 2010 to April 2011 – Regulation Updates

- Update of sections of the Tacoma Municipal Code to reflect the new policies adopted in June 2010

♦ January 2011 to June 2011 – Urban Forestry Manual and Other Public Education

- Public outreach about the new regulations and manual

♦ June 2011 to June 2012 – Urban Forestry Management Plan

- Creation of site specific individual management plans for areas such as business districts and City owned parks

70

Appendix H

Shoreline Master Program and

Critical Area Preservation Ordinance Update Timeline (Submitted by Molly Harris, Urban Planner)

♦ June to August 2009 – Sub Area Meetings and Public Input

- Discussion of existing plan and background work on shoreline use analysis, restoration plan, and public access plan

♦ Ongoing – Department of Ecology and Technical Committee Review

♦ August 2009 to October 2009 – Create Draft Plan

♦ November 2009 – Finalize Draft Plan

♦ January 2010 – Draft Plan Critique

- Planning Commission presentation and public hearing

♦ March 2010

- Council public hearing and adoption

♦ April to August 2010 – Dept of Ecology Review & Approval

- Council public hearing and adoption

71

Appendix I

Key Partnerships & Stakeholders

CitizenGroups&Councils

BusinessGroups&Councils

Non­ProSitEntities

Non­MunicipalGovernmentEntities

CouncilMemberParticipatoryEntities

PeripheralMunicipalEntities

O.of.S.&COT

Depart‐ments

72

Key Partners & Stakeholders

BLACK:OfficeofSustainability&COTGeneralGovernmentDepartments

BROWN:PeripheralMunicipalEntities

• TacomaPublicUtilities

• TacomaLibrarySystem

• TVTacoma

PURPLE:CouncilMemberParticipatoryEntities

• COTBoards&Commissions

• PierceCountyTransit

• SoundTransit

• PugetSoundRegionalCouncil

BLUE:Non­MunicipalGovernmentEntities

• ThePuyallupTribalNation

• TheaFossPublicDevelopment

Authority

• PierceConservationDistrict

• Tacoma/PierceCountyHealth

Department

• MetropolitanParkDistrict

• TacomaHousingAuthority

• Universities&Colleges(Bates,TCC,

PierceCCC,UniversityofPuget

Sound,UW‐Tacoma)

• TacomaSchoolDistrict

• ThePortofTacoma

• PugetSoundAirAgency

• WashingtonDepartmentofEcology

• WashingtonDepartmentofNatural

Resources

• WashingtonDepartmentof

Transportation

• WashingtonDepartmentofFishand

Wildlife

• WAStateDepartmentofCommunity,

Trade,andEconomicDevelopment

• EnvironmentalProtectionAgency

GREEN:Non­ProfitEntities

• UnitedWay

• HabitatforHumanity

• Boy/GirlScoutsofAmerica

• Boys&GirlsClub

• YMCA

• UrbanLeague

• PeopleforPugetSound

• FutureWise

• CascadeLandConservancy

• Goodwill

• PugetCreekRestorationSociety

• CitizensforaHealthyBay

• TahomaAudubonSociety

• TacomaWheelmans

• BikeAllianceofWashington

• GreenTacomaPartnership

• TheZooSociety

• WalktheWaterfront

• TacomaOutboardAssociation

• NativePlantSociety

• SierraClub

• TacomaMountaineers

RED:BusinessGroupsandCouncils

• TacomaPierceCountyChamberof

Commerce

• NWProductStewardshipCouncil

• PugetSoundCleanCitiesCoalition

• AssociationofRealtors

• MasterBuildersAssociationof

Tacoma

• WashingtonAssociationofLakes

73

• WilliamFactorySmallBusiness

Incubator

• CityofTacomaBusinessDistricts

• BusinessAllianceforLocalLiving

Economies

• BurlingtonNorthernRailroad

Professionals

• TacomaWaterfrontBusiness

Association

• TideflatsandWaterway’sProperty

andBusinessOwnersAssociations

ORANGE:CitizenGroups,Councils,&Communications

• Neighborhood councils • Watershed councils (e.g. Chamber-

Clover Creek, Puyallup) • Exit 133 • The Volcano • The Tacoma News Tribune

• “Friends of” groups • Safe Streets groups • Kiwanis • Elks • Rotary Club

74

Appendix J

The Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously Index Sustainable Indicators Project

1. Indicators project is active in the last five years N

2. Indicators progress report in the last five years N

3. Does indicators project include “action plan” of policies/programs? N

“Smart Growth” activities

4. Eco-industrial park development N

5. Cluster or targeted economic development Y

6. Eco-village project or program N

7. Brownfield redevelopment (project or pilot project) Y

Land use planning, policies, and zoning

8. Zoning used to delineate environmentally sensitive growth areas Y

9. Comprehensive land use plan that includes environmental issues Y

10. Tax incentives for environmentally friendly development N

Transportation Friendly planning programs and policies

11. Operation of an inner-city public transit (buses and/or trains) Y

12. Limits on downtown parking spaces N

13. Car pool lanes N

14. Alternatively fueled city vehicle program Y

15. Bicycle ridership program Y

Pollution prevention and reduction efforts

16. Household solid waste recycling Y

17. Industrial recycling N

18. Hazardous waste recycling Y

19. Air pollution reduction program N

20. Recycled product purchasing by the government Y

21. Superfund site remediation Y

22. Asbestos abatement program N

23. Lead paint abatement program N

Energy and resource conservation/Efficiency initiatives

24. Green building program N

25. Renewable energy use by city government N

26. Energy conservation effort (other than Green Building program) N

27. Alternative energy offered to consumers (solar, wind, biogas, etc.) Y

28. Water conservation program Y

Organization/administration/management/coordination/governance

29. Single governmental/non-profit agency responsible for implementing sustainability

Y

30. Involvement of city/county/metropolitan council Y

31. Involvement of mayor or chief executive officer Y

32. Involvement of the business community (e.g. Chamber of Commerce) Y

33. General public involvement in sustainable cities initiative Y

TOTAL Yes/No 18Y/15N

75

Appendix K

Potential ICMA Performance Measure Data for Sustainability Performance Measurement

CODE ENFORCEMENT

#119. Total code violation cases remaining after being determined to be

unfounded or abated

#133. Voluntary Compliance

a. Total cases brought into voluntary compliance a percentage of all

cases open during the reporting period

b. Total cases brought into voluntary compliance as a percentage of cases

initiated during the reporting period

#145. Total number of permits issued

#147. Valuation of residential and commercial permits

#163. Total number of development plan reviews conducted

#164. Actual number of development plans that were reviewed

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

#14. Total operating and maintenance expenditures for all facilities operated

and maintained by your jurisdiction

#15. Total capital expenditures for maintenance of all existing facilities

operated and maintained by your jurisdiction

#16. Total operating and capital expenditures for maintenance of all existing

facilities operated and maintained by your jurisdiction

#23h. Expenditures on total repairs

#23j-n. Expenditures on utilities categorized and total

#23p. Expenditures on capital maintenanc3

#29. List of energy conservation strategies

#31a-d. Energy consumption per square foot

FLEET MANAGEMENT

#16a-b. Total number of vehicles in fleet

#16c-d. Total miles driven by all vehicles

#16e-g. Total number of vehicles and percentage of vehicles using alternative

fuel

#18a-b. Total number of vehicles and heavy equipment in fleet

#18c-d. Total number of vehicles/heavy equipment and percentage of

76

vehicles/heavy equipment using alternative fuel

#27. Fleet maintenance expenditures

#31. Fleet maintenance expenditures per mile/hour driven

#32. Fleet maintenance expenditures per vehicle

#40. Does your jurisdiction have a formal, written policy on the use of alternative

fuel?

#41. Fuel and alternative fuel expenditures

#42. How many vehicles and heavy equipment use the following alternative fuels

FIRE & EMS

#25. Total regular/in-service apparatus

#41. Number of residential one- and two-family dwelling structures

#44. Total residential structures

#50. Total structures

#61. Total structure fire incidents per 100,000 population

#62. Structure fire incidents per 1,000 structures

#72. Total arson incidents

#140. Total structures inspected

#149. Total HAZMAT incidents

a. HAZMAT incidents per 10,000 population

#150. Number of businesses that reported an inventory of chemicals and

hazardous materials

#151. Number of HAZMAT site inspections conducted during reporting period

#153. Total HAZMAT program expenditures

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

#13. Electronic government transactions a. Public transactions (payments, transactions) b. Municipal website c. Employee transactions (intranet)

HIGHWAY & ROAD MAINTENANCE

#21. Road rehabilitation expenditures for paved lanes per capita

HOUSING

#9. Rental assistance vouchers

b. How many households received vouchers during the reporting period?

#12. Number of new low-moderate income housing units completed with

public financial and non-financial assistance during the most recent

program year as a percentage of housing units needed

77

#25. Number of rehabilitated low-moderate income housing units completed

during the most recent program year as a percentage of substandard low-

moderate income housing units prior to rehabilitation.

#38. Number of low-moderate income households that purchased homes

during the reporting period with the aid of public financial and non-

financial assistance

#41. Has your jurisdiction established any programs to assist residents not

already in foreclosure with mortgage refinancing?

#42. Has your local government established any programs to assist

homeowners facing foreclosure?

REFUSE & RECYCLING

#22c. Tons of refuse collected from residential and non-residential accounts

#25. Average tons collected per account

#28. Total tons of refuse disposed of

#38. Tons of yard waste collected

a. Tons of yard waste disposed of at a landfill

b. Tons of yard waste composted

c. Total tons of yard waste collected

#46. How many tons of recycling materials were collected during the

reporting period?

#51. Average tons of recyclable material collected per account

#52. Tons of recyclable material collected as a percentage of all refuse and

recyclable material collected.

#57. Composting

a. Does your jurisdiction provide training or other resources to

encourage backyard composting or grasscycling (leaving grass clippings

on the lawn after it is mowed)?

b. Does your jurisdiction have a central composting drop-off site(s)

where yard waste and other organic material can be deposited?

c. Does your jurisdiction operate a composting facility?

d. Does your jurisdiction use (e.g., in municipal landscaping projects)

or sell (to citizens or other companies/agencies) the soil products that

result from composting?

#58. Other waste reduction incentives

a. Does your jurisdiction have a Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) program

whereby citizens/ customers are charged based on the amount of waste

they discard?

b. Source separation programs

78

i. Does your jurisdiction have a mandatory source separation

program that requires citizens/customers to separate recyclable

or compostable materials from their trash?

ii. If yes, is it enforced (e.g., the jurisdiction refuses to collect trash

that is not source separated and/or assesses a fine)?

d. Does your jurisdiction provide other waste diversion programs such as alternative daily cover, waste-to-energy, electronics recycling, etc.?

e. Does your jurisdiction have reciprocal and/or waste diversion agreements in place with other private or public organizations?

PURCHASING

Mostly yes/no questions that would be useful in learning more about COT type of purchasing and volume, but not for information on sustainable purchasing procedures.

79

WORKS CITED A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America’s Promise. 26 Feb. 2009. Office of

Management & Budget. 02 June 2009 <http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview/>.

Bell, Simon, and Stephen Morse. Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable?

Detroit: Earthscan/James & James, 2008. Borrup, Tom. "Creative Organizations: Putting Culture to Work in Community Development."

Reading Room. Jan. 2004. Community Arts Network. 2 June 2009 <http://www.communityarts.net/readingroom/archivefiles/2004/01/creative_organi.php>.

City of Tacoma: Performance Management 2008 Report to Citizens. Rep. Mar. 2009. City of

Tacoma. 2 June 2009 <http://cms.cityoftacoma.org/web/PerfMgtRpt2008.pdf>. Dernbach, John C., ed. Agenda for a Sustainable America. Annapolis: Environmental Law

Institute, 2008. Dernbach, John C., ed. Stumbling Toward Sustainability. Annapolis: Environmental Law

Institute, 2002. Galbraith, Kate. "Obama Signs Stimulus Packed With Clean Energy Provisions." The New York

Times 17 Feb. 2009. 2 June 2009 <http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/obama-signs-stimulus-packed-with-clean-energy-provisions/>.

Edwards, Andres R., and David Orr. The Sustainability Revolution: Portrait of a Paradigm Shift.

New York: New Society, Limited, 2005. Florida, Richard. Cities and the Creative Class. New York: Routledge, 2004. Grams, Diane, and Michael Warr. “Leveraging Assets: How Small Budget Art Activities

Benefit Neighborhoods.” Study commissioned by John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur and Richard H. Driehaus Foundations, 2003.

Hardi, Peter, and Terrence Zdan. Assessing Sustainable Development: Principles in Practice.

Publication. 1997. The International Institute for Sustainable. 2 June 2009 <http://www.iisd.org/pdf/bellagio.pdf>.

Hatry, Harry P. Performance Measurement Getting Results. Washington, D.C.: Urban Inst Pr,

2007. ICMA Management Perspective: Sustainability. Oct. 2007. International City County

Management Association. 2 June 2009 <http://icma.org/upload/bc/attach/%7BE92CF435-1512-47F3-A14B-26DEA69F6E1D%7D08-078%20Mgmt%20Prsptv%20Sustainability%20v04.pdf>.

80

James, Sarah, and Torbj Lahti. The Natural Step for Communities: How Cities and Towns Can

Change to Sustainable Practices. New York: New Society, Limited, 2004. Landry, Charles. The Creative City : A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. London: Earthscan, 2008. "Local Authorities' Initiatives in Support of Agenda 21." Agenda 21 Chapter 28. 15 Dec. 2004.

U.N. Department of Economic & Social Affairs. 02 June 2009 <http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21chapter28.htm>.

Moore, Steven. Alternative Routes to the Sustainable City: Austin, Curitiba, and Frankfurt. New

York: Lexington Books, 2007. Newman, Peter, and Isabella Jennings. Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems: Principles and

Practices. New York: Island P (2008). Newman, Peter, Timothy Beatley, and Heather Boyer. Resilient Cities: Responding to Peak Oil

and Climate Change. New York: Island P, 2008. Our Common Future. United Nations. World Commission on Environment and Development.

Oxford: Oxford UP, 1987. Pierce Country Housing Affordability Task Force. Housing Affordability: Final Report and

Recommendations. Rep. Mar. 2007. Pierce County Community Services Department Housing Division. 2 June 2009 <http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/xml/services/home/property/pals/landuse/housing%20affordability%20final%20report.pdf>.

Policy Guide on Planning for Sustainability. American Planning Association. Adopted April 17,

2000. Portney, Kent E. Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously : Economic Development, the

Environment, and Quality of Life in American Cities. New York: MIT P, 2003. Resolution No. 37631. 21 Oct. 2008. City of Tacoma City Council. 2 June 2009

<http://cms.cityoftacoma.org/enviro/resolution37631.pdf>. Roberts, Brian, and Michael Cohen. "Enhancing Sustainable Development by Triple Value

Adding to the Core Business of Governmnet." Economic Development Quarterly 16 (2002): 127-36.

Roseland, Mark, Sean Connelly, David Hendrickson, Chris Lindberg, and Michael Lithgow.

Toward Sustainable Communities Resources For Citizens And Their Governments. New York: New Society, 2005.

81

Speth, James Gustave. Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the Global Environment. New Haven: Yale Nota Bene 2005.

Stern, Mark J. “Performing Miracles.” Center for and Urban Future, 2002. Sustainable Action Map. 1 June 2009. City of Olympia. 02 June 2009

<http://www.ci.olympia.wa.us/?sc_itemid=%7BE4972563-C03D-4172-83D4-CB284A32E96F%7D>.

"SustainLane's 2008 US City Rankings - SustainLane.com." Go Green @ SustainLane: People-

Powered Sustainable Living Guide. SustainLane. 05 June 2009 <http://www.sustainlane.com/us-city-rankings/>.

Tacoma’s Climate Action Plan. Green Ribbon Climate Action Task Force. 1 July 2008: 6. City

of Tacoma. 30 Nov. 2008. <http://www.cityoftacoma.org/Page.aspx?hid=9626>. Toward a Sustainable World: The Earth Charter in Action. The Earth Charter Initiative, 2005. Wheeler, Stephen. "Planning Sustainable and Livable Cities." The City Reader 2nd Edition. Ed.

Richard Legates and Frederic Stout. New York: Routledge, 1999.