Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Strategic Decision-Making for Sustainability … Review of ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Strategic Decision-Making for Sustainability … Review of ...


Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Working Paper #3: Strategic Sustainability – Review of Frameworks and Tools SFU Centre for Sustainable Community Development In Partnership with ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources Emilia Kennedy Research Assistant, CSCD MA candidate, SFU Dept. of Geography Sean Connelly Senior Researcher and Project Co-ordinator CSCD PhD candidate, SFU Dept. of Geography Dr. Mark Roseland Co-Investigator Director SFU CSCD, Professor, Dept. of Geography Dr. Sean Markey Co-Investigator Research Associate, CSCD, Professor, SFU Explorations Funded By: Infrastructure Canada – Peer Reviewed Research Strategy Production of this working paper has been made possible through a financial contribution from Infrastructure Canada. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the Government of Canada. October 2007
  • 2. Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum STRATEGIC DECISION-MAKING FOR SUSTAINABILITY – REVIEW OF FRAMEWORKS AND TOOLS VIS-À-VIS STRATEGIC SUSTAINABILITY The purpose of this document is to examine major sustainability frameworks and tools in light of the concept of strategic sustainability. Specifically the aim is to see which frameworks fit, and how, with research findings on strategic sustainability. General Observations: - Importance of assessment – knowing what you have to work with - All these frameworks and tools assume the (standard) linear-rational model of plan making and roll out. Also assume stable political enviro for the planning effort. What benefits could be obtained from assuming the garbage can model (timing and luck) or other non-linear, non-rational models with some of these tools? - Most frameworks emphasize stakeholder participation and agreement while assuming that this can be readily obtained. - None or most do not address exactly who has the responsibility for implementation, that is where is the push to actually implement the plan coming from? - All of these frameworks and tools begin with the presupposition that sustainability in some general way has been decided as a positive goal for the given community or organization, but fail to adequately take into account the specific rationale or motivation that led a member of the community or organization to want to undertake sustainability planning - Not enough consideration of the forces external to the planning effort and external or internal contingencies that may complicate or undermine the planning effort - Difference between action planning and action itself - What is the cost-benefit ratio of undertaking a sustainability planning exercise versus just going ahead and undertaking a ‘sustainable’ action? (think Craik) - Lack of links to budgeting and financing in most of these frameworks - Lack of links to infrastructure Can it be argued that most of these frameworks still produce planning-implementation gaps? If so, what is missing from these frameworks? - Key is looking at which frameworks (potentially) or which parts of various frameworks address the planning-implementation gap given our research findings. - See Emilia’s diagram (attached) for musings - What is the role of management in strategic sustainability? Gaps in (most of) the frameworks: 1. Motivation and rationale for the plan 2. Management of challenges, risk/innovation 3. Establishing stakeholder involvement (what is the incentive, investment, payoff for each actor?) 4. Operationalization/ responsibility among actors 5. ‘Actually existing’ implementation October 13, 2007 2 Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
  • 3. Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum 6. Ramping-up from low-hanging to higher-hanging fruit – incremental approaches that increase capacity and number of sustainability efforts implemented 7. Importance or pre-existing knowledge, links to experts and external networks to inform awareness of sustainability, sustainability frameworks, best practices, informal knowledge, Standard strategic decision-making formula is: 1) where do we want to go, 2) what actions can get us there, 3) how are we doing. What is inadequate here? What is still causing the gap? What is strategic sustainability? - how to allocate limited resources with the greatest impact for sustainability - how to generate the capacity to act - What capacity is required, at what stage, for what issue? SC proposes community mobilization as interaction between: - community actors - values and visions of SCD - Structures and processes - Strategies, actions and instruments - Outcomes – impact of actions on all aspects of community capital Frameworks and Tools reviewed by Seymoar (2004) 1. Sheltair Adaptive Management 2. The Natural Step 3. Local Agenda/Action 21 4. MetroQUEST (Envision) 5. Environmental Management Systems 6. Integrated Community Planning and Design (SCP) 7. Smart Growth 8. Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems (CASE) (UNEP) October 13, 2007 3 Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
  • 4. Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum 1. Sheltair Adaptive Management Framework Summary: - Integrates adaptive management within the planning framework - Three governing processes in operation within the framework (diagram p. 28): o alignment of all the stages (vertical) o monitoring actual performance against results (horizontal) o feedback from bottom to top – allows adaptive response (vertical) - Central to the AMF is a Planning Framework, conceptualized as a hierarchical pyramid. The top is the ‘vision’ that unites the plan/project. The framework expands down through spheres and issues, goals, strategies, integration, indicators and targets, actions, implementation and monitoring. All levels must be aligned with higher levels and all lower levels provide feedback to higher levels (re: adaptive management) - * “Unlike most frameworks, the AMF requires an ‘integration’ stage that allows consolidation of knowledge and identification of synergies or conflicts prior to committing to actions.” (27) - Genuine incorporation of adaptive management, which is ‘policy as adaptation’. Assumes uncontrollable elements and therefore designs management to respond “to new knowledge and altering circumstances”. The goal of adaptive management is to “enhance capacity for learning as responding” - Adaptive management works well with long-term planning as it “allows for frequent readjustment of current policy and plans in the face of new knowledge, new experiences, new desires” - Hierarchy helps organize and communicate complexity - Alignment process allows decision-makers to see why each action is required and where it fits in - Support Tools: Sankey diagrams and MetaFlow Diagrams. These portray directions and quantities of flows in a system. - Timeline: Long term view (100 year) for vision, medium-term view (20-30 years) for strategies and actions - Works with: used with citiesPLUS, integrated planning and design charettes - Time and Cost: ? Infrastructure: - No strong links to infrastructure planning. - MetaFlow Diagrams useful for infrastructure planning? - Integration stage might be useful for thinking of synergies between various infrastructure needs. Strengths: - Genuine incorporation of adaptive management (p.27) - Integration stage and ‘catalyst strategies’ (p.27) - Requires identification of synergies or conflicts within the framework prior to commitment to action (p. 27) Weaknesses: October 13, 2007 4 Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
  • 5. Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum - Does not address rationale for planning - Actor accountability missing - Assumes unified planning body – how are conflicts between stakeholders addressed? 2. The Natural Step (TNS) Summary: - TNS framework used for assessment, visioning and planning - A ‘science-based’, systems approach - Focus on “what can be agreed upon” (lowest common denominator?) - Seeks to integrate social and environmental considerations into daily operations - Operates around four system conditions (p.39) - Operates around the A-B-C-D implementation methodology and funnel metaphor - Five hierarchical levels for planning in complex systems: I) the system, ii) success in the system, iii) strategic guidelines, iv) actions, and v) tools and metrics - Timeline: long-term implied - Works with: EMS systems (ISO 14001), Life Cycle Assessments - Time and Cost: ? Infrastructure - No particular links to an infrastructure lens Strengths: - Smart Early Moves (p.41) addresses what can be done immediately with existing capacity - addresses financial considerations (return on investments) (p.41) - A-B-C-D method: o ‘(B)aseline’ assessment addresses capacity: which parts of the system are violating the system conditions and what does the community have in place to deal with them already? o ‘C’ phase looks for opportunities for innovation Weaknesses: - Assumes unified planning body – how are conflicts between stakeholders addressed? - Requires extensive knowledge of ‘the system’ to be employed properly - Assumes negative cause-effect chains and ‘basic errors of societal design’ can be changed/’redesigned’ from within the framework/ does not consider external factors, limits to agency of those involved in planning - Weak consideration of social sustainability (hard to calculate ‘soft’ elements of sustainability in science-based approach) - Does not address jurisdictional/spatial organization – does the body planning have jurisdiction/spatial control of the 4 system conditions? October 13, 2007 5 Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
  • 6. Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum 3. Local Agenda/Action 21 (I.C.L.E.I.) Summary: - Long-term, broad-based participatory planning process - Is a programming framework consisting of several components: principles (Earth Charter and Melbourne Principles), a LA21 planning guide, a Local Agenda self assessment tool, a sustainability inventory, a triple bottom line toolkit, and an ecoBudget® tool - LA21 planning guide outlines five planning elements: partnerships, community based issue analysis, action planning, implementation and monitoring, and evaluation and feedback) - Local Agenda self-assessment tool is to assess progress on LA21 and not an initial assessment of capacity or resources. That is closest to the sustainability inventory - Sustainability inventory surveys current natural, social and economic resources and current resource management practices. Can assist in identifying where the public can take more action. - Seeks to take outputs from the Local Agenda 21 process (international-level) to local level - Aims to develop long-term management structures ‘which are sustainable in the long term’ - See Local Action arrow diagram (p.49) - Implementation planning calls for identifying roles and responsibilities as well as funding sources - Timeline: long-term, multi-generational - Works with: EMS to incorporate adaptive approach (p.47) - Time and Cost: ? Infrastructure - weak links??? Strengths: - Calls for the institution of long-term sustainability management mechanisms and structures seeks stable, institutional permanence of sustainability within local governance as part of ‘unquestioned, regular municipal routine’ - Focus on implementation: ‘securing unwavering implementation’ through the imposition of ‘anchoring principles, tools and mechanisms’ (p.49) - Implementation planning calls for identifying roles and responsibilities as well as funding sources (p.50) - Sustainability Inventory (p.52) - Consensus and participatory governance model - Considers the Global Commons. Most frameworks do not specifically address this. Weaknesses: - Assessment of community capacity? Sustainability Inventory (p.52) does not appear to October 13, 2007 6 Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
  • 7. Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum specifically address this. - Consensus/participatory governance model: Seymoar outline not clear on how stakeholders selected, nor how conflicts between stakeholders managed or integrated. - Consensus= lowest common denominator? 4. MetroQUEST Summary - Computer simulation/modelling tool - Useful for scenario exploration and comparison, for visual communication of sustainability and scenarios, education and facilitation tool - Intended to show ‘complex inter-relationships between planning choices and consequences’ - Focuses on issue breadth rather than depth - Utilizes backcasting - Timeline: 20-40 years - Works with: TNS, CitiesPLUS, integrated design charettes, LA21, triple bottom line frameworks - Time: six months; Cost: $100,000 - Where used: Vancouver (GVRD), Whistler, Brisbane, Greater Victoria, Bali, Mexico City, Langat Basin, Malaysia, Canterbury, NZ, Manchester, NW UK region Infrastructure - weak links Strengths: - Useful for public education, participation, dialogue and feedback - Useful for visualizing trade-offs between elements in a scenario - Easy to understand complex interactions Weaknesses: - Designed specifically for regional governments - Data quality and availability? - A planning support tool rather than a planning tool 5. Environmental Management Systems Summary - Environmental Management Systems (EMS) are standards-based organizational management tools used in “identifying and managing diverse environmental issues in a systematic way” - Is a systematic set of procedures that aims produce: product and service quality, regulatory compliance, risk reduction and preparedness, and credibility with stakeholders - Examples include International Organization for Standardization (ISO) EMSs, the October 13, 2007 7 Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
  • 8. Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum Demming model - Focuses on those issues over which the community/City has direct influence - ISO 14001 framework operates with four intended outcomes: product and service quality, credibility with stakeholders, regulatory compliance, and risk reduction and preparedness - Works on the model “Plan It, Do It, Check It and Prove It, Act (Review and Improve)” - See end of document for results of studies of effective implementation of EMS for comparison with our research results - Timeline: non-specified - Works with: TNS - Time and Cost: ? Infrastructure - could be useful for risk reduction in infrastructure - could be usefully applied to the infrastructure and service provision aspects of a larger planning endeavor Strengths: - Because EMS is voluntary, internal to one organization, and is registered to a 3rd party certification body, the planning-implementation gap is likely to be smaller (this is also a weak point, because it is likely that the changes made through the EMS will be smaller, and non-systemic) - Implementation stage included explicit identification of roles and responsibilities - Includes training procedures - Aims for continual improvement (adaptive management) - EMS studies have shown that successful implementation aided by: senior management buy-in and commitment, shared responsibility and understanding of roles, champion possessing knowledge and authority, frequent communication, sufficient resources - Risk reduction? Weaknesses: - Works best for those matters over which the municipality/community has direct influence (such as internal operations), and not so well for broader picture issues, such as those involved outside actors, including the public, and senior government - Assumes unified planning body - Better for small communities? - Focused on environmental management, not interaction/synergy/trade-offs between environment, social and economic concerns 6. Integrated Community Planning and Design Summary: - Collaborative, stakeholder-driven design process - Centerpiece of the process is the design charette, which are short and intensive multistakeholder design workshops October 13, 2007 8 Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
  • 9. Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum - Also consists of post-charette activities - Timeline: short or long term - Works with: TNS - Takes 6 months to 2 years - Cost: $60,000 - $350,000 Infrastructure - design/land-use focus ties well into many infrastructure concerns such as roads, sewage, drainage, green space, etc. Strengths: - Using existing policy as starting point to show ramifications of implementation of these policies - Strong emphasis on stakeholder collaboration; uses consensus model o to save time and money o to solicit early buy-in o (are all the right stakeholders there? EC) - Charrette process intended to speed up implementation (is this the case in East Clayton?) - Charette can facilitate finding synergies among issues and help overcome ‘silo-based planning’ - Design approach highlights the “3D” form of outcomes – tangible conception of plans, visions - Lends well to developing alternative design standards and regulations that can then be applied again in the community - The ‘looking for synergies’ approach could be applied to innovations in infrastructure Weaknesses: - Land-use, design focus may overlook or under-emphasize non”3D” considerations such as consumption, social and economic justice - Consensus model may promote lowest common denominator outcome? - If post-charette activities not conducted there might be scale-back of planning outcomes (think East Clayton: post-charette activities not conducted, many decision-makers and stakeholders left, therefore strength of plan compromised) - Claims adaptive management approach, but weak in comparison to Sheltair AM 7. Smart Growth B.C. Summary: - Evolved out of US anti-sprawl movement - Emphasis on sustainable growth and sprawl reduction, but also affordable housing, green space and agricultural land, sustainable transportation, alternative development standards - Primarily an educational package for interested citizens interested in ensuring that the government is held responsible and accountable for community development process - Focus on communication between citizens, government and ‘other stakeholders’ - Highlights ‘wise’ use of taxes revenues October 13, 2007 9 Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
  • 10. Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum - Includes a ToolKit, CAP (Community Assistance Program) - Timeline: long term - Works with: - Where used: Maple Ridge, B.C. - Time and Cost: ? Infrastructure - design/land-use focus ties well into many infrastructure concerns such as roads, sewage, drainage, green space, etc. Strengths: - Watchdog approach: Citizen rather than government/planning focused - Lends well to developing alternative design standards and regulations that can then be applied again in the community - CAP gives advice on building local capacity Weaknesses: - Land-use, sprawl focus may overlook or under-emphasize non”3D” considerations such as consumption, social and economic justice 8. CASE: Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems Summary: - A planning framework program that is meant to operationalize the Melbourne Principles - Views cities as ecosystems - Employs resource consumption/ecological footprint lens to view local scale and it’s connections to other scales and locales - Emphasizes not only planning, but also management (p. 98, see diagram). Management includes: “development of competencies [capacity], organizations, methodologies, and rules and tools… which generally improve’s the city’s environmental performance” - Calls for the integration of existing environmental management functions - Contains two tools: ESTIS (Environmentally Sound Technologies Information System) and maESTro - Risk Assessment and Technology Assessment - Timeline: long term - Works with: TNS - Time and Cost: ? Infrastructure - goal is to have urban systems mimic natural ecosystem metabolisms; - resource consumption lens ties in well with demand management approaches; - Environmentally Sound Technologies and closed-loop system approach can be used to think of synergies in infrastructures; - integration of existing environmental management functions; - zero-waste goals October 13, 2007 10 Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
  • 11. Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum Strengths - Resource consumption/ecosystem point-of-view has strong links to infrastructure and specifically green infrastructure - Emphasizes all forms and levels of resource consumption in the city land-use/design- based frameworks tend to leave out many aspects of consumption - Emphasis on management may be useful in considering the planning-implementation gap (see Emilia diagram) - Emphasis on partnerships in order that shortcomings of one actor can be complemented overcome by strengths of another actor (think BBP and interaction of City, EMFs and financial institutions) Weaknesses: - Requires in-depth and intensive scientific research - Over-emphasizes role of ESTs as answer to urban sustainability? - No capacity assessment - How is individual/household consumption addressed/regulated through the framework? - Social and economic sustainability adequately addressed? - How are partnerships sought, formed and secured? - Who is accountable? Additional Frameworks and Tools 9. CitiesPLUS network Long Range Integrated community planning 10. Community Indicators 11. Sustainability Appraisal 12. REDDI – Rural Economic Development Data and Intelligence 13. EarthCAT – Earth Charter Community Assessment Tool 14. SCORE - Sustainability Competency and Opportunity Rating and Evaluation 15. CMHC Costing Tool for Sustainable Community Planning 16. “See-it” by Real Living Solutions 9. CitiesPLUS Network – Long range / integrated community planning Summary: • Member cities of the Plus network commit to building on their existing planning process through the use of a long-term lens (typically 50-100 years). The plans include broad strategies that cover 30 year time periods and implementation activities over a 5 year period. In addition, each city commits to one immediate demonstration project that reflects the long-range sustainability goals. • Members participate in regular peer exchanges, which give them opportunities to share their work and learn from one another's experiences related to city and community planning issues. October 13, 2007 11 Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
  • 12. Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum • Long-range planning initiatives require commitment to a set of guiding sustainability principles, capacity to implement them and the appropriate tools to aid in decision- making and evaluation. • Long-term integrated planning looks out 50-100 years and treats the city as a complex system, addressing environmental, economic, social and cultural well-being, as well as governance and infrastructure. • Identifying actions requires backcasting from the desired future rather than planning based on existing trends. • Long-range context provides stakeholders the opportunity to consider options and alternatives to the status quo in a less conflictual environment. • Long-range planning incorporates an integrated and holistic approach to planning, uses a multi-generational timeframe, focuses on a communities relationship to it’s biophysical environment and uses adaptive management techniques to monitor and adjust initiatives as they are implemented to support resiliency in the face of incomplete knowledge. Strengths: • Systems approach, integrated approach. • Recognizes the need for adaptive management • Planning process is used as a mechanism to build capacity and knowledge of sustainability. • Backcasting from goals rather than forecasting from existing trends makes it easier to break out of the status quo. • Peer-based learning to build capacity. Challenges: • Assumes that those responsible for planning are also those responsible for implementation. • Assumes that the linkages between long, medium and short term strategies are congruent and not subject to being trumped by issues of politics, conflict, daily crisis. • How are conflicts addressed in moving from planning to implementation? 10. Community Indicators • Sustainability Indicators – developed to inform policy, raise awareness of public, raise awareness of decision-makers and monitor progress for SD. Useful in benchmarking, comparison and measuring progress of the implementation of SCD plans. • Usually, indicators are organized based on specific areas or themes of a sustainable community planning initiative and linked to annual sustainability reports that assess overall achievement of plan implementation. • Over time, indicators can identify areas where progress has been made in achieving their sustainability goals and alert communities to areas that need further attention. • The purpose of indicator projects is to provide information to communities and decision- makers that will: October 13, 2007 12 Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
  • 13. Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum o Contribute to improved decision-making and reduced risk by providing early warning signals for required policy and behavioural changes, o Help look at progress toward long-term goals, o Encourage initiative by recognizing success when it is achieved, o Facilitate continuous learning and adjustment on the part of all stakeholders, o Identify knowledge gaps and suggest priorities for action, o Help ensure accountability • Characteristics of good indicators are ones that are relevant, easy to understand, reliable and based on accessible data. Strengths: • Monitor SD trends – most existing tools for monitoring trends do not take a holistic or integrated approach. They are more easily absorbed and capture attention, focus attention on what matters, raise alarms to change policy direction and are cheaper to maintain that larger quantities of base statistics. • Indicators can be effective capacity building exercises within a planning initiative, where indicators and the collection of data can provide a focal point for community engagement in planning initiatives. • Encourages system and integrated thinking. • Valuable as a source of information for decision-makers but are also a useful process as a pathway for community empowerment. Challenges: • Can tell a partial story, focus attention on what can be measured, decisions are driven by indicators and there is too much effort and resources focused on monitoring rather than doing. • How do you maintain momentum in reporting on sustainability indicators after the process of development of the indicators has ended? • How do you ensure that decision-makers will use indicators to measure progress and assess their actions accordingly? • Participation needs to be formally linked to decision-making processes. • Need to move indicator initiatives beyond a focus solely on a rational approach to decision- making that gives the “decision-maker” all the relevant information that allows them to see clearly the consequences of their decision. 11. Sustainability Appraisal • Sustainability Appraisal (SA) arose out of the requirement in the UK for local governments to ensure that their local plans matched sustainability objectives at a regional and national level. SA is focused on how to make better plans, does not address how to go about implementing plans. It is the process by which the performance of a plan, strategy or proposal is assessed in sustainability terms. • SA evolved to address concerns that EIA were used at late stages of decision-making process and therefore had limited success at evaluating alternatives – reactive in nature. SA includes processes that are objective-led / proactive in the development of plans/policies/projects that will lead to more sustainable outcomes. Proactive approaches to SA involve not merely October 13, 2007 13 Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
  • 14. Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum examining social, economic and environmental impacts but also the interrelationships between them and to the larger system. Fits better with a systems approach to sustainability. • Key tasks of SA include the following: o Development of objectives and criteria – provides the basis against which performance is measured. o Testing objectives – ensure that objectives are compatible for SD o Defining baseline – define existing env., soc., econ. characteristics of area and how they might change. o Scoping – reviewing the content of plans/policies for breadth of coverage and whether it addresses all SD objectives. o Appraisal of strategic options – alternatives are appraised against framework objectives using matrix to identify most suitable options. o Appraisal of policies and proposals – o Reporting – transparent reporting so that process and conclusions are understood. Strengths: • Can assist decision-making process by improving the design and nature of sustainable policies and strategies. • Makes linkages between all policies at the local government level in terms of their contribution to sustainability. Challenges: • Difficulty in operationalizing the concept of SD. More guidance is required on how to effectively incorporate sustainability objectives, criteria and indicators into the assessment. • There is often a tendency to focus on the environment and the need to make trade-offs between the environment and the economy in SA. Social issues are rarely included. • Assumes that decision-makers will respond to SA results. Issue of accountability. 12. REDDI – Rural Economic Development Data and Intelligence • REDDI is a web-based tool designed to assist rural communities in Ontario to understand socio-economic trends, analyze community economic development opportunities, develop strategies, implement projects and track progress. The website is oriented to provide quick and easy access to strategic planning tools and templates that are accessible to rural communities without extensive planning capacity. A number of templates, worksheets, best practices and implementation strategies are included. An example of the strategic development process: • Goal o A visionary statement of your overall, long-term purpose o What is the key challenge your project is working to resolve? Goal statements will use language such as: “To develop … To reduce …” • Objectives o Specific, trackable statements of what you want to accomplish o What are the problems that contribute to your overall challenge? October 13, 2007 14 Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
  • 15. Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum o What are the key changes that will help you reach your goal? o Determine the timelines (2-3 years) • Activities o Specific tasks that you will perform to implement your project o How can you group your activities logically to work towards your objectives? o What are your priorities or entry points for action? o Focus on the key steps that must happen o Filter: Is this activity really necessary? o Stay within budget! • Outputs o Short-term results (the direct product of your activities); usually tracked for each year o What are your deliverables – the concrete products of your activities? o Are they soft (qualitative) or hard (quantitative)? o Are they tangible or less tangible? • Outcomes o What success looks like in the short- and long-term o What are the short- (2-3 years) and long-term (4-10 years) changes emerging as a result of your project? • Impacts o Long-term measurable results (4-10 yrs) o Requires specialized research to measure o Can be very expensive, very rarely done Strengths: • Provides accessible information for any stage of the planning process, from issue identification to business plan development. • Clearly outlines required activities at each stage of the planning – implementation process. Weaknesses: • Sectoral approach to rural economic development, not linked to integrative systems approach. 13. EarthCAT - Earth Charter Community Assessment Tool Summary: - Consists of two complimentary resources: the EarthCAT tool and the Taking Action: A Workbook for Sustainable Communities workbook. - Based on The Earth Charter, a declaration of 16 principles “that defines sustainability in a comprehensive, integrated way”. Originally drafted for the Rio Convention on 1992, it was launched in 1994 as a civil society initiative and signed in 2000. Developed by the Earth Charter Partnership for Sustainable Communities (ECPSC) October 13, 2007 15 Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
  • 16. Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum - The purpose of EarthCAT and Taking Action is to help communities “set goals and targets, develop strategies to achieve them, and select indicators for monitoring your progress towards a more sustainable future.” - EarthCAT is a software tool developed for use by communities interested in developing sustainability programs. Allows web based activities such as visioning process, track each step of the planning process, host on-line dialogues, and gives communities access to a database of goals, strategies, and targets. - framework that permits them to identify their own priorities - uses ‘whole systems approach’, using feedback loops. - Argues that whole system strategies allow communities to shift resources and focus from problem-solving to asset-building, increasing community capacity - Needs and assets conceived as community ‘building blocks’ - EarthCAT Stages: 1. Gather core team Identify patterns of Define parameters system behavior Integrate existing 5. Set Targets for improvement planning processes Find leverage points 2. Convene Stakeholder group in the system Public outreach and 6. Design Strategy for media community change Build vision for future 7. Select Indicators of Success of commy Gather baseline data 3. Adopt Vision Statement Gather progress data Identify community 8. Draft Action Plan needs Prioritize and Inventory assets implement strategies Assess capacity for 9. Progress Report improvement 10. Refine, Revise and Restart 4. Establish Goals 11. Leadership Skills Study local trends - Uses 5-legged, rather than 3-legged stool: social needs, economic needs, environmental needs, services and infrastructure, and governance needs - Timeline: Long term view (100 year) for vision, medium-term view (20-30 years) for strategies and actions - Works with: ?? - Time and Cost: Free; extensive planning process – 6 months to 2 years? - Examples: Imagine Calgary Infrastructure: - Addressed specifically in the framework: Services and infrastructure included as one of the five basic community needs - Defined as: “the physical and material needs we have are met directly through the community infrastructure we develop, and the products and services it can deliver - the housing construction, transportation networks, waste disposal facilities, energy generators, utilities, etc” (p. 12) October 13, 2007 16 Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
  • 17. Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum Strengths: - Services and infrastructure included as basic community needs, one of five main spheres to be addressed - Extensive and intensive planning exercise based on ‘whole systems approach’ integrated way of thinking of sustainability - Identify community needs, inventory assets, assess capacity for improvement. In the stage ‘Assess capacity for improvement’, planning body judges the effectiveness of community assets, and pinpoints where gaps and barriers exist, and then consider what opportunities exist to overcome these. - Leverage points for change (p.89) - Action Plan is to identify the actors and resources, and opportunities and constraints, that will be required to implement each strategy - Governance needs are included as a basic community need Weaknesses: - Very, very (!) weakly addresses implementation: between the community action plan stage and the tracking and reporting progress stage, full implementation as planned is assumed. - Unified community vision: assumes consensus and agreement and unified community desires? 14. SCORE (Sustainability Competency and Opportunity Rating and Evaluation) Summary: - Assessment tool that rates sustainability practices. - For internal operations of community governments (or businesses) in the areas of: senior management, facilities, human resources, purchasing, office operations, sustainability coordination, environmental affairs, marketing/public relations, finance/accounting - Based on benchmarking - Helps organizations understand where they are now and what 'sustainable' looks like - 3 stages/level of sustainability practices in the organization: Incubator, Initiative, Integrated - Works with: Systems audits, SWOT - Time and Cost: $350 (DIY) - $2000+ - Examples: City of Santa Monica, Corvallis Infrastructure: - no specific infrastructure links Strengths: October 13, 2007 17 Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
  • 18. Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum - 3 Stages (Incubator, Initiative, Integrated) useful way of conceiving and addressing risk/innovation ratios Weaknesses: - Addresses only internal operations - Designed to be employed with other tools - Assumes no barriers or challenges to implementation 15. CMHC – Costing Tool for Sustainable Community Planning Summary: - Geared specifically towards life cycle costing, including initial capital, annual operating, and replacement costs - created to allow a user to estimate the major costs of community development, and to compare alternative development scenarios. - primarily designed to assess costs for the residential component of a development - can be used for entire subdivision down to a collection of houses - Calculates 75-year lifecycle costing variables in the following categories: hard infrastructure, municipal services, private user costs, external costs, and green infrastructure alternatives. - Since costing is typically done late in the community planning process, this tool can be used during the planning process so that costing can be continuously checked. However, the tool should not be used as a substitute to the complete costing analysis stage of the development process. - The intended users are municipal councillors, planners and researchers who may not have extensive expertise in costing analysis. For example, municipal councillors can quickly compare differences - Works with: ?? - Time and Cost: 75 year lifecycle analysis; tool is free of charge Infrastructure - Specifically geared towards infrastructure - Consideration of ‘green’ infrastructure alternatives Strengths: - Integration of financial considerations into sustainability planning - Allows a range of alternate scenarios to be developed Weaknesses: - Limited to land-use, mainly residential - Considers economic and environment, but social considerations are secondary or weakly integrated - Most appropriately used for an entirely new development, being undertaken by one decision-maker? October 13, 2007 18 Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
  • 19. Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum - Best used as one tool in a broader sustainability planning process 16. “See-it” ™/Real Living Solutions process Summary: - ‘Strategy mapping’ and performance management software, web-hosted - Intended to simplify organizational complexity - Follows strategic planning models: o Agree on where you are today and where you want to go o Link goals to strategic plans, actions and metrics and build teams that will make the right things happen o Launch you model, engage your stakeholders and see if you are on track. - ‘Road Map’ interface links goals to strategies to actions - Score card interface tracks progress - Works with: - Time and Cost: 2 days or more, $$?? Infrastructure: - No specific links to infrastructure Strengths: - Has visual simplicity for communicative purposes: “The internal management tool becomes the external communication tool” - Good for internal operations in a community planning or governance body Weaknesses: - Assumes/works best when, shared vision already established - Does not address assessment, capacity, barriers, responsibilities - Does not synthesize environment, economic, social goals each addressed in a separate part of the ‘road map’ List of Strengths from above frameworks and tools: 1. Sheltair’s use of adaptive management 2. Sheltair integration stage 3. TNS Smart Early Moves 4. TNS A-B-C-D method (especially B and C) 5. ICLEI call for the institution of long-term sustainability management mechanisms and structures 6. ICLEI call for identifying roles and responsibilities as well as funding sources 7. ICLEI and CASE consideration of global commons October 13, 2007 19 Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy
  • 20. Review of sustainability planning frameworks and tools for Strategic Sustainability Curriculum 8. EMS focus on risk reduction 9. ICPD charrette process as model of stakeholder involvement and identification of synergies 10. ICPD alternative design standards and regulations 11. CASE strong links to infrastructure via resource consumption/ecosystem point-of-view has strong links to infrastructure and specifically green infrastructure 12. CASE And ICLEI emphasis on management (may be useful in considering the planning- implementation gap?) Critical ingredients for effective implementation of EMS - from Seymoar (2004: 71) - for comparison with our research results 1. Senior management commitment including awareness of organizational change, the expanded need for resources initially and to a lesser degree on an ongoing basis. 2. Shared vision and responsibility including shared understanding of the goals and roles of the EMS implementation team. 3. A champion with the knowledge and authority to lead the process. 4. Sufficient resources (i.e. organizational representatives, time, budget, tools). 5. Good project management 6. Visible and frequent communication, feedback and recognition October 13, 2007 20 Sean Connelly and Emilia Kennedy