Download to read offline
![Sustainable Communities Division
Educating…by supporting research and practice-building
• 3rd Annual Awards for Excellence in
Sustainability
• Webinars
• LEED ND Case Studies in Fall Newsletter
• 2015 IUCMA Local Government Sustainability
Survey
Members – Access the latest research & best practices for sustainability
[caption]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/translatingsustainabilitygoalsintoaction-161122015600/85/Translating-sustainability-goals-into-action-9-320.jpg)
More Related Content
Similar to Translating sustainability goals into action
More from Southern New England American Planning Association
Translating sustainability goals into action
- 1. Scott Turner, AICP,PE Nitsch Engineering Thomas Bott, AICP Kingston, Massachusetts George C. Homsy, PhD, AICP Binghamton University Worcester, Massachusetts October 20, 2016 Translating Sustainability Goals into Action
- 2. • Sustainable CommunitiesDivision • Translating a Goal into Action • Sustainability Survey & Discussion Agenda
- 3. Sustainable Communities Division “TheAPA Sustainable Communities Division (APA-SCD) supports planners who are committed to planning for sustainable communities by integrating all aspects of sustainability into our work through the combined economic, social, and ecological factors that shape our communities.” SCD Leadership is Building the Division Add Value to Members Planning Efforts
- 4.
- 5. Sustainable Communities Division ExecutiveCommittee: Chair: Scott Turner Secretary-Treasurer: Jennifer Koch Incoming Treasurer: Merrill St. Leger Demain Past Chair: Rob Kerns Communications & Outreach Ctte Chair: Beth Otto Policy & Leadership Ctte Chair: Anne Miller Education & Practice Ctte Chair: Jennifer Koch Coordinators: E-Bulletin: Stephanie Weigel Website & Publications Design: Andrew Parish Newsletter: Beth Otto, Andrew Parish Social Media: Kevin Cook APA Conference Coordinator: Open Sustainability Champions: Anne Miller Smart Cities & Sustainability: Rob Kerns Sustainability Policy Guide: Rob Kerns
- 6. Sustainable Communities Division SustainabilityChampions: Scott Edmondson – California Waverly Klaw – Colorado Kevin Coyle – Delaware Rebecca Keifer – Georgia Malika Hainer & Andrew Meindl – Illinois B. Scott Southall – Kentucky Angie Vincent - Massachusetts John Hoal – Missouri Marco Velotta – Nevada Joanna Nadeau – New York John Zeanah - Tennessee
- 7. Sustainable Communities Division •Newsletter Published Twice a Year • Website • Over 4200 LinkedIn Members • Twitter – Up to 1,011 • 1400+ E-bulletin Subscribers Members – Add your voice online, writing articles & passing on news LinkedIn Communicating…to Inform & Promote Dialogue
- 8. Sustainable Communities Division Leading…withLocal & National Initiatives • Sustainability Champions • APA Sustainability Policy Guide Update • APA Smart Cities & Sustainability Initiative Members – New leaders wanted to advocate for sustainability “We want representation and action across the Country and in each APA chapter”
- 9. Sustainable Communities Division Educating…bysupporting research and practice-building • 3rd Annual Awards for Excellence in Sustainability • Webinars • LEED ND Case Studies in Fall Newsletter • 2015 IUCMA Local Government Sustainability Survey Members – Access the latest research & best practices for sustainability [caption]
- 10. Sustainable Communities Division We’reGrowing… • Over 560 SCD Members – Up from 450 in 2015 • 12 Sustainability Champions • Widening Membership Through Action – New Volunteers
- 11. Sustainable Communities Division Whereare we headed… Continue Growth Expand Membership Increase Volunteer Base More Webinars Increase Sponsorship Prgram
- 12. Sustainable Communities Division Whyget involved… Network with professionals across the country who share the same passion for sustainability issues Volunteer and become highly involved in the Division at either the state or national level. Opportunities include: • Help with the newsletter • Help with annual awards • Assist with communications • Become involved with the Sustainability Champions program • Assisting with the national conference • Opportunities to propose by-right conference session and facilitated discussions.
- 13. Sustainable Communities Division Whyget involved… Divisions provides opportunities for those who want to get involved. If you have a great passion or idea and have the time and desire to Champion that idea, we are all for it and welcome your ideas.
- 14. ICMA Sustainability Survey2015 Figuring out what’s happening….
- 15. ICMA Sustainability Survey2015 • n = 1,899 • Surveyed all counties, all municipalities and towns >25,000, and a 1 in 2.5 sample of small municipalities • 22% response rate • Follow up to 2010 Sustainability Survey • Funded by USDA
- 16. Putting it together… SustainabilitySurvey 2015 • Some continuity to 2010 Survey • Focus groups: ICMA, American Planning Association • Practitioner interviews • APA Division input
- 17. Urban Suburban Rural N=1,899 County Municipality 60% council manager governments Who Answered the 2015 Survey? Suburban 54% Rural 31% Urban 15% County 22% Municipality 78%
- 18. 49% Metro core 28%Suburbs 28% Rural Sustainability Plans Has your jurisdiction adopted a sustainability plan? Yes 31% No 69%
- 19. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 2010 2015 19% 31% 2010 to2015 Changes in Planning Has your jurisdiction adopted a sustainability plan?
- 20. Priorities more balancedwith a sustainability plan. Community Priorities
- 21. 77% 50% 56% 46% 43% 36% 25% 25% 25%27% 31% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Population group Percentageofrespondents withasustainabilityplan Larger Communities are more likely to have a sustainability plan Sustainability Plans
- 22. • Do youhave a sustainability plan? • What form does it take? (Stand alone, in comp plan, etc.) • What challenges did you face drafting and adopting it? How did you overcome them? Discussion 1 Sustainability plans
- 23. Action Groups Items Percentof communities Tracked? Positive results Recycling / Waste mgmt. 10 5% to 66% 45% 85% Govt. Energy Cons. 15 6% to 64% 29% 91% Transit / Alt. transport 8 5% to 64% -- -- Land Use 8 1% to 46% -- -- Social Equity 6 12% to 30% 27% -- Water Conservation 5 8% to 27% 22% 72% Comm. Energy Cons. 10 6% to 24% 8% 59% Sustainability Actions • A few others as well • Total of 80 actions
- 24. Average Adoption Rate- 2015 80 items 2015 Average Adoption Rate
- 25. 80 items Average AdoptionRate - 2015 2015 2010 109 items Average Adoption Rate Average Adoption Rate
- 26. Sustainability plan 6% 8% 8% 9% 14% 14% 17% 18% 28% 35% 45% 49% 63% 64% 0% 20%40% 60% 80% Require govt renovation projects be certified green Generate electricity through waste Install a geo-thermal system Require govt construction proj. be certified green Establish a fuel efficiency target for govt vehicles Purchase energy star equipment Install charging stations for electric vehicles Install solar equipment More efficient pumps in water or sewer systems Upgrade traffic signals Upgrade streetlights or other exterior lighting Upgrade HVAC Conduct energy audits Purchase energy efficient appliances Energy Projects undertaken by government
- 27. Percent of communities Adopted aclimate mitigation plan 6% Adopted a climate adaptation plan 3% Local government GHG inventory 14% Community wide GHG inventory 9% Local government GHG targets 11% Community GHG targets 7% Climate Change Policy
- 28. • Have youplanned (in any document) for a changing climate? • What kinds of things are in the plan? • What challenges did you face drafting and adopting a climate plan? How did you overcome them? Discussion 2 Planning for Climate Change
- 29. CEO/CAO office 7% Multiple departments 9% Within one department 9% Taskforce 9% No dedicated staffing, but have goals 24% No staffing or goals 42% 24% This is down a bit from 2010. When 27% had dedicated staffing What are the staff for sustainability? of local governments dedicate no human resources to sustainability 66%
- 30. • Do youhave staff dedicated to sustainability? • Where are they stationed? What department do you think they should be in? Why? Discussion 3 Sustainability Staffing
- 31. 16% 20% 53% 48% 61% 68% 80% 68% 82% 73% 9% 12% 50% 55% 65% 82% 84% 85% 85% 91% 0% 20% 40%60% 80% 100% Climate change adaptation Climate change mitigation Provision of affordable housing Open space/farmland preservation Environmental protection Storm water management Hazard mitigation/evacuation planning Seeking funding and grants Economic development Land use planning/permitting Departments Coordination Regional Coordination Breaking through Silos
- 32. Factors Motivating Sustainability 6% 6% 8% 10% 14% 23% 18% 15% 31% 20% 37% 46% 46% 19% 25% 31% 32% 37% 40% 42% 47% 41% 48% 38% 36% 38% 34% 49% 42% 39% 33% 26% 31% 28% 18% 24% 17% 12% 10% 42% 20% 20% 19% 15% 12% 10% 10% 11% 8% 8% 6% 6% 0%50% 100% Threat of lawsuits Pressure from advocacy groups Desire to promote social equity Pressure from business/industry Pressure from residents Federal or state policies Leadership of regional/state officials Desire/expertise of municipal staff Potential to attract development projects Concern over the environment Federal or state funding opportunities Leadership of local elected officials Potential for fiscal savings Very Significant Significant Limited significance Not significant
- 33. 6% 6% 8% 10% 14% 23% 18% 15% 31% 20% 37% 46% 46% 19% 25% 31% 32% 37% 40% 42% 47% 41% 48% 38% 36% 38% 34% 49% 42% 39% 33% 26% 31% 28% 18% 24% 17% 12% 10% 42% 20% 20% 19% 15% 12% 10% 10% 11% 8% 8% 6% 6% 0% 50% 100% Threatof lawsuits Pressure from advocacy groups Desire to promote social equity Pressure from business/industry Pressure from residents Federal or state policies Leadership of regional/state officials Desire/expertise of municipal staff Potential to attract development projects Concern over the environment Federal or state funding opportunities Leadership of local elected officials Potential for fiscal savings Very Significant Significant Limited significance Not significant Factors Motivating Sustainability Economic factors help drive environmental sustainability
- 34. 6% 6% 8% 10% 14% 23% 18% 15% 31% 20% 37% 46% 46% 19% 25% 31% 32% 37% 40% 42% 47% 41% 48% 38% 36% 38% 34% 49% 42% 39% 33% 26% 31% 28% 18% 24% 17% 12% 10% 42% 20% 20% 19% 15% 12% 10% 10% 11% 8% 8% 6% 6% 0% 50% 100% Threatof lawsuits Pressure from advocacy groups Desire to promote social equity Pressure from business/industry Pressure from residents Federal or state policies Leadership of regional/state officials Desire/expertise of municipal staff Potential to attract development projects Concern over the environment Federal or state funding opportunities Leadership of local elected officials Potential for fiscal savings Very Significant Significant Limited significance Not significant Factors Motivating Sustainability Local leadership important
- 35. 6% 6% 8% 10% 14% 23% 18% 15% 31% 20% 37% 46% 46% 19% 25% 31% 32% 37% 40% 42% 47% 41% 48% 38% 36% 38% 34% 49% 42% 39% 33% 26% 31% 28% 18% 24% 17% 12% 10% 42% 20% 20% 19% 15% 12% 10% 10% 11% 8% 8% 6% 6% 0% 50% 100% Threatof lawsuits Pressure from advocacy groups Desire to promote social equity Pressure from business/industry Pressure from residents Federal or state policies Leadership of regional/state officials Desire/expertise of municipal staff Potential to attract development projects Concern over the environment Federal or state funding opportunities Leadership of local elected officials Potential for fiscal savings Very Significant Significant Limited significance Not significant Factors Motivating Sustainability Community pressure is not a big motivator
- 36. Factors Motivating Sustainability 6% 6% 8% 10% 14% 23% 18% 15% 31% 20% 37% 46% 46% 19% 25% 31% 32% 37% 40% 42% 47% 41% 48% 38% 36% 38% 34% 49% 42% 39% 33% 26% 31% 28% 18% 24% 17% 12% 10% 42% 20% 20% 19% 15% 12% 10% 10% 11% 8% 8% 6% 6% 0%50% 100% Threat of lawsuits Pressure from advocacy groups Desire to promote social equity Pressure from business/industry Pressure from residents Federal or state policies Leadership of regional/state officials Desire/expertise of municipal staff Potential to attract development projects Concern over the environment Federal or state funding opportunities Leadership of local elected officials Potential for fiscal savings Very Significant Significant Limited significance Not significant
- 37.
- 38.
- 39. Social Equity Still Noton the Radar Social Equity and Sustainability
- 40. • Do yourwritten plans refer to social equity? • If yes, in what way is the concept mentioned? • What drove you to include it? Or what slows you from considering the concept? Discussion 2 Planning for Climate Change
- 41. George Homsy Department ofPublic Administration Binghamton University ghomsy@binghamton.edu Masters Degree • Public Administration • Geography • Environmental Studies Master of Sustainable Communities
- 42. Translating Sustainability Goalsinto Action Scott Turner, AICP, PE Nitsch Engineering sturner@nitscheng.com Thomas Bott, AICP Kingston, Massachusetts tbott@kingstonmass.org George C. Homsy, PhD, AICP Binghamton University ghomsy@binghamton.edu Worcester, Massachusetts October 20, 2016
Editor's Notes
- #18 New graphics
- #19 New graphics
- #21 New graphics
- #30 Lack of human resources is higher in small places
- #32 Lack of human resources is higher in small places
- #33 Lack of human resources is higher in small places
- #34 Lack of human resources is higher in small places
- #35 Lack of human resources is higher in small places
- #36 Lack of human resources is higher in small places
- #37 Lack of human resources is higher in small places
- #38 But first… Typical conception Equal weight
- #39 But first… Typical conception Equal weight