Summary Classic economic considerations applied to the crucial urban problems of poverty, racial segregation, urban renewal, transportation, and education. Originally published in Request an e-inspection copy. Share this Title. Recommend to Librarian. Shopping Cart Summary. Items Subtotal. View Cart. By considering matters such as employment centres, organisation and technology of transportation and marginal valuation of residential Urban land is a precious resource and originally published in , Transportation and Urban Land First Published in Classic economic considerations applied to the crucial urban problems of poverty, racial segregation, urban renewal, transportation, and education.
Classic economic considerations applied to the crucial urban problems of poverty, racial Originally published in , this volume contains papers invited for a conference on economic research relevant to national urban development held in September of the same year. Originally published in , this volume contains papers invited for a conference on economic Toggle navigation. Partnerships and a shared vision for urban sustainability among federal, state, and local governments and organizations, with clearly articulated roles and responsibilities, can reduce the need for crisis management and last minute interventions.
5 Series Titles
Second, the contributions made by CAP LTER show that long-term, integrative, cross-disciplinary research provides a strong scientific foundation for decision making. Over 80 percent of the U. Additional federal science funding agencies must step forward to support this important endeavor. The Mojave Desert in California is a vast and seemingly harsh, yet fragile region; however, despite common perception, the desert is far from empty. The land is used for recreation, housing, and military training. It is a premium location for renewable energy development, as it has some of the highest-quality solar and wind resources in the nation.
It is also home to mining, agriculture, energy production, and a wide variety of human and natural communities, as well as unique ecosystems and a number of endangered species.
About the Series
The competition between human-centric land uses and the desire to preserve species habitat and manage on an ecosystemwide basis has increased the need for coordinated land management in the Mojave Desert. The desert is largely public land overseen by a patchwork of organizations. In the California Mojave, approximately 80 percent 25 million acres of the land is publicly owned, including two national parks, one national preserve, 72 wilderness areas, six military bases, and 10 state parks.
- RFF-USA | EfD - Initiative?
- Navigation menu!
- Led By Angels (Hope and Inspiration Book 2).
- Ma Mère LOye, No. 2: Petit Poucet - Full Score;
In addition, the area involves eight county jurisdictions and 37 federally recognized Native American Indian tribes. Conflicting demands for the use of California desert lands make it imperative that governmental agencies cooperate to support agency missions, protect desert resources, and manage public use.
That Act and the vicissitudes of history have resulted in major transfers of land from BLM to NPS, large wilderness designations, and responsibilities to administer adjacent and sometimes overlapping pieces of land Figure Source: Presentation by Russell Scofield, U. Department of the Interior, April 11, As the largest manager of public land in the Mojave Desert, BLM was engaged in ecosystem-based planning efforts, and the land transfers to NPS created conflict between the organizations over land-use planning and management.
There were major conflicts over grazing, desert tortoise recovery, off-road vehicle use, mining, hunting, military overflights, burro and wild horse management, water for wildlife, and development NPS, The group allows agencies to avoid duplication of effort by sharing information and facilities; it also coordinates federal efforts to acquire lands, eliminating situations where multiple agencies bid on the same parcel, which would artificially inflate property values. DMG is enhanced by longstanding personal and professional relationships among the participants.
Regular face-to-face meetings allow line officers to work as a group, set goals, address cross-boundary issues and get to know each other better. Informal networking is an important component. Although the function of DMG requires support from senior leadership, its success depends upon creating value for the participants. One dimension of this value is derived from the enhanced decision space they gain by participating in DMG. The group causes the individual members to think outside their own organizational boundaries and to enlarge the interpretation of their own agency mission to focus on landscape issues and regional sustainability.
Bimonthly meetings hosted by the group focus on land management issues of common concern. Although DMG is a very successful collaboration, it has neither budget nor regulatory authority over land use or other sustainability-based decisions, and thus its impact is limited to coordination of voluntary efforts by its members. The primary objective of the NCCP program is to conserve natural communities at the ecosystem level while accommodating compatible land use.
The DRECP will be implemented through specified conservation, avoidance and minimization measures, and a science-based monitoring and adaptive management program. DMG was chartered to facilitate ongoing collaboration among members in a closed forum. The DRECP has a clearly defined, finite process and regulatory authority over land use for one type of activity—renewable energy projects. They were initiated because holistic solutions to complex problems involving energy development, ecosystem conservation, and the public interest could not be developed and implemented by one agency or one governance level.
These efforts to achieve sustainable solutions are works in progress, but they are vivid examples of the links needed to achieve those solutions. As this example illustrates, reaching sustainability goals requires partnerships that move beyond traditional organizational boundaries. These partnerships can allow for the coordination of activities and sharing of critical information.
Also, employing adaptive approaches can allow for flexibility in anticipating new challenges to address complicated sustainability linkages. The Platte River flows through three states, irrigates 2. The Cooperative Agreement and related documents, signed by the governors of Nebraska, Wyoming, and. Freeman, Colorado State University, April 12, Reprinted with permission from the University Press of Colorado. Colorado and by the Secretary of the Interior, establish a shared vision and responsibility for managing the central Platte River. Through the agreement, participants created: 1 a governance structure with which to coordinate decisions and actions among three states, several federal agencies, special districts, power providers, water managers, and the agricultural sector; and 2 a decision framework that links species protection, groundwater and surface water management, power production, and land management.
Though the Platte River Program takes into account multiple water and land uses, it was created in response to statutory responsibilities to protect endangered species Freeman, The program recognizes the interconnections between groundwater and surface water management. Developing and implementing actions to protect the four endangered species required changes in both land and water management and presented questions about the magnitude, timing, frequency, and temperature of water flows.
A key component of the overall Platte River Program—one that helps address these uncertainties—is an Adaptive Management Plan, which provides an iterative process to test hypotheses about management strategies that will most closely achieve program objectives. Monitoring for improvements in river form and function, as well as in the status of the four species, guides decisions about the most appropriate management strategies. The GC has ten members, representing the three watershed states, two federal agencies FWS and BOR , water users from each of the three states, and representatives from two environmental organizations.
Though all key stakeholders participate, funding is provided by the three states and BOR. Initially, the GC guided a planning process that culminated in a Final Program Agreement signed by the three governors and the Secretary of the Interior in January Scarlett, At the third committee meeting, held in April , presenter David Freeman of Colorado State University noted that the multiparticipant GC operates with clear decision rules that require 9 of 10 members to concur on any major policy decision and 7 of 10 to agree on nonpolicy issues Freeman, The GC, which is responsible for implementing the program, contracted with a private natural resources consulting firm, Headwaters Corporation, to provide ongoing program management.
Though FWS has ultimate regulatory responsibility to ensure species protection under the ESA, this novel implementation structure provides a neutral entity to assist in cross-agency coordination. An executive director and technical staff, including a chief ecologist, are responsible for program implementation and report to the GC. Key challenges in shaping the governance structures and processes included deciding where to draw the negotiating boundaries and whom to include at the table. While federal and state governments and agencies have significant funding, regulatory, and decision-making responsibili-.
The driving factor that initiated action in the Platte River Basin was concern that implementing the Endangered Species Act could have significant consequences for farmers and others in the region. FWS was willing to be part of a neutral authority that brought together the stakeholders. The neutral authority obtained agreement on common goals and on monitoring to test some potential actions, thus employing adaptive management approaches.
The Great Lakes of North America are the largest body of fresh water on the planet and the largest coastal system in the lower 48 states of the United States Figure They have played a critical role both historically and currently in the environment, economy, and culture of the North American continent Swackhamer, Administratively the Great Lakes are very challenging, involving two countries, eight states, two provinces, and many local governments, native peoples, and other constituencies.
This treaty has provided the foundation for more than years of shared governance, which has evolved in response to various sustainability challenges to the Great Lakes. IJC is comprised of three U. In the s, severe water quality problems in the Great Lakes led to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, subsequently modified by protocol in and , and currently being renegotiated by the two governments.
A number of other governance institutions have arisen over time. The invasion of the sea lamprey and its devastating effect on the valuable native lake trout led to the establishment of the binational Great Lakes Fisheries Commission. A subsequent group, the Great Lakes Commission, was established in by interstate legislative compact and granted Congressional consent in It is a unique governmental institution that includes the two Great Lakes Canadian provinces as formal partners.
Its charge is to promote the orderly, integrated, and comprehensive development, use, and conservation of the water resources of the Great Lakes Basin. Image courtesy of the Great Lakes Commission. The sustainability threats to the Great Lakes in the twentieth century include the eutrophication and ecological collapse of Lake Erie, the introduction of invasive species, and the ecological and public health threats of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals.
We drew on the response to each of these threats to identify critical lessons learned from Great Lakes governance. IJC commissioned a number of prominent U. The models were the basis for discharge limits, for a decision by the U. Thus, IJC led to scientific knowledge that resulted in the Clean Water Act, sewage treatment, and discharge limits for water pollutants such as phosphorus. Without the facilitating and convening role of the IJC, it is not clear what the national trajectory of water quality management of nutrient point sources might have been.
The stakeholder community, including NGOs, is generally well known, visible, and historically very active.
CRC Press Online - Series: RFF Urban and Regional Economics Set
For example, activism by this community resulted in a Canadian ban of phosphorus in detergents and the adoption of bans in the United States to reduce levels of the nutrient in water. The existence of the Boundary Waters Treaty and the international Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement has led to other successful institutional arrangements that use science as a foundation for management and policy. For example, the International Association of Great Lakes Research consists of interdisciplinary researchers with a place-based focus. This group includes physical limnologists, fisheries biologists, aquatic biologists, aquatic chemists, ecological and human toxicologists, public health professionals, economists, sociologists, and decision scientists.
It also publishes a highly cited journal. Both the U. Another collective effort, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, is currently underway with significant Congressional funding. Cameron Davis, EPA, explained at the second committee meeting in February that the initiative is based on groundwork laid by an interagency task force of the federal agencies in the Basin Davis, This task force was very effective because it already had considerable interagency cooperation and solid relationships in place.
According to Pebbles at the February second committee meeting, yet another example of institutional arrangements facilitating the use of science for decision making is the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission Pebbles, , which coordinates fisheries management in a successful partnership with the states and provinces. These partners, who hold ultimate decision-making authority, developed a Joint Strategic Plan for fisheries management based on consensus decision making informed by science, regular monitoring, and accountability.
Strong relationships among the Commission, the U. The Great Lakes case reveals the important role the federal government can play in managing sustainability challenges by establishing and supporting institutions that are sustaining yet adaptable; generating scientific, social, and economic knowledge; and proactively engaging stakeholders regularly and often.
The Great Lakes examples confirm that linkages in the form of federal and international agreements can enable government entities and other organizations with multiple responsibilities at multiple scales to manage, lead, and govern sustainably. Image created with J. Dettmers, M. Gaden, and J. Wingfield, Great Lakes Fishery Commission. The nearly century-long history of dams on the Columbia River system—with their implications for energy production, water management, agriculture, forestry, recreation, and fish habitat—illustrates many crosscutting challenges in resource use, economics, and human well-being.
Exploitation of the Columbia River system for hydroelectric power and irrigation dates to the s. To promote rural electrification, the Pacific Northwest Regional Planning Commission, with representatives from Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington, was formed in Electrification was seen as an economic development strategy, as a means of advancing equity between urban and rural communities, and as a path to human well-being.
A newly formed interstate compact agency, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, was tasked with a regional energy planning; b fish and wildlife protection planning; and c engagement of states, local governments, customers, federal and state fish and wildlife agencies, Indian tribes, and the public.
The Council has also been successful at integrating decision making across diverse sectors—energy, habitat restoration, irrigation, and cultural practices—and at engaging diverse publics. In its annual reports to Congress, the Council uses a range of scientific metrics of progress, another successful practice. BPA and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council represent one of the earliest examples of shared governance with a mission and function beyond a single resource or ecological dimension.
A collaborative initiative with very broad participation, the Puget Sound Partnership PSP is an agency established under an executive order of the Governor of Washington.
- Far From The Madding Crowd;
- Angst in der Eidgenossenschaft (German Edition).
- New Releases.
- CRC Press Online - Series: The Resources for the Future Library Collection.
- Issues in Urban Economics - CRC Press Book.
- Reward Yourself.
- RFF Energy Policy Set - Various - Bok () | Bokus!
PSP is a state agency and as a result has a line item budget from the state legislature. PSP includes citizens, tribes, governments, business, and scientists working together with the objective of protecting and restoring the Sound. The primary focus of the partnership, as seen in its goals and objectives, appears to be the ecological health of the Sound and only indirectly the economic, social, and health dimensions of a sustainable region. Of the 21 indicators, PSP found that two showed clear progress, five showed mixed results, seven demonstrated no progress, and seven were considered incomplete because there were no data or because the targets had not been adopted or were still in development PSP, A report by the State of Washington Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee JLARC, stated that in a previous review of the Partnership, the Action Agenda lacked critical accountability tools, which are fundamental to determining whether the funding spent on clean-up efforts is restoring Puget Sound.
Specifically, the review notes that the Action Agenda does not link actions to the amount of progress they will make toward long-term restoration goals. Sufficient mechanisms are not in place to monitor actions in order to understand which ones are working JLARC, In addition, PSP has inadequate representation and participation by land-use authorities. Because land use is such a critical factor affecting ecological, economic, and social health, involving local land-use authorities presents a significant opportunity for collaboration.
While the examples reviewed by the committee varied in their details, they provide some common themes and insights on ways to enhance sustainability linkages in federal decision making. These lessons address issues of governance, decision-making processes, and science. Iterative improvements: Enhancing governance linkages to address sustainability does not need to occur through disruptive change, and in fact is generally more successful through iterative change with incremental steps. Positive benefits from incremental changes, if documented properly and articulated, can lead to broader and ultimately comprehensive change without the paralysis that can sometimes be associated with proposals for disruptive change.
Although the challenges of integrating decision making across domains and among agencies at various levels of government are significant, the examples we examined demonstrate innovations to integrate decisions that vary from modest and iterative steps to more substantial governance redesign.
The former initiatives should not be discounted merely because they are smaller, for they can often lead to significant accomplishments. For example, DMG in the Mojave, a pioneering effort to better coordinate information and enhance dialogue among multiple federal, state, and local agencies, did not involve any agency restructuring or any enhanced or new decisionmaking authorities.
The primary purpose was to improve dialogue among agencies with responsibilities within a single geographic area, within existing structures and authorities. Similarly, the success of the effort in Platte River Basin arose largely from the enforcement of an existing regulation implementing the ESA. FWS was willing to be part of a neutral authority that brought together the stakeholders; this neutral authority obtained agreement on common goals and on monitoring to test some potential actions, thus employing adaptive management approaches.
Multiple levels of government: Several of the fact-finding examples illustrate that change agents engaged in innovations to strengthen sustainability linkages in decisionmaking arise at all levels of government. Many examples the committee reviewed were initiated at the local or field level bottom-up , as multiple federal, state, and local agencies strived to grapple with linked issues. Project in the northeast.
Join Kobo & start eReading today
In both of these cases, federal agencies are critical partners, but the motivation for action started at a grassroots level. At the same time, the committee also reviewed examples in which national and even international agencies or forums initiated collaborative, interconnecting actions. In some instances, federal laws may have prompted the need for regulatory compliance, which in turn motivated creative local action to integrate decisions across interconnected agencies and issues.
The high costs of traditional compliance tools prompted the city to explore nonstructural alternatives, including extensive expansion of permeable surfacing. The extent of transformation needed to meet the stormwater regulations motivated the city to work across multiple agencies and examine co-benefits in other domains.
In the Great Lakes, a longstanding international treaty provided a forum that helped spark action at international, state, and local levels to address water quality needs in the region. Even within the Great Lakes context, however, some actions have been largely locally motivated. In addition, it is important to note that local and statewide policy efforts can also play a major role in sustainability efforts.
Network governance: Several of the examples examined by the committee illustrate the emergence of network governance models to enhance coordinated decision making and address sustainability linkages. The concept of network governance surfaced first in the private sector as corporations working together on joint projects developed horizontal, or shared, governance structures.
Applications of network governance models are also appearing in the public sector Goldsmith and Eggers, Such governance is characterized by a polycentric multi-participant, multi-agency approach, often operating with self-constituted decision rules determined through negotiation and cooperative agreements among participants. These governance structures provide a fabric for cross-domain, interagency, and public-private coordination without restructuring existing agencies or reallocating statutory authorities.
Numerous other examples vary along a continuum from loosely knit confederations to congressionally authorized, formal, interagency coordinating structures. Stakeholders at the table: The importance of having a full and adequate representation of all affected stakeholders in partnerships and other forms of collaborative governance structures is well understood.
In addition, the necessity of reaching consensus on goals, roles, responsibilities, and accountability is well documented NRC, b. Also, the committee recognizes the importance of having an agreed-upon process for decisionmaking that allows for a balanced evaluation of different development scenarios under the sustainability lens.
Examination of the more successful collaborative governance efforts—the Bonneville Power Authority, the Platte River Recovery Program, and the Mojave DMG—highlighted the importance of full participation by parties that repre-. In each of these cases, the organizations responsible for activities with the greatest influence on regional sustainability Bonneville Power on the Columbia River, the states of Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska on the Platte River, and federal land agencies in the Mojave were central to the collaborative effort.
Their support of consensus goals and implementation was critical. Conversely, within Puget Sound, the parties responsible for land use, a very important driver affecting the economy, human well-being, and environmental quality, are not included in the Puget Sound Partnership. Land-use authorities in some other locales do participate in collaborative governance efforts, however.
One example in the literature is the Boston Harbor Island National Recreation Area, a network governance structure that plans and manages a mosaic of state, local, and nonprofit lands; the group includes federal, state, and local agencies with land management responsibilities Boston Harbor Islands Partnership Charter, Mutual learning, interdisciplinary partnering, and trust: A strong science base with open dialogue and partnering among scientists, decision makers, and stakeholders is a hallmark of successful sustainability efforts.
Joint research efforts on the Great Lakes that involve academic and government laboratories in both the United States and Canada led to federal standards in both countries to improve water quality and to sustain commercial and recreational fisheries. Similarly, open sharing of data, research findings, and ecosystem maps among stakeholders was critical to finding a path forward for the DMG of the Mojave. Partnerships between fisheries experts from government laboratories and academia, as well as between decision makers and other stakeholders, played a key role in protecting salmon at the Bonneville dam.
These examples demonstrate that interdisciplinary, place-based research is often a vital part of addressing sustainability linkages. For example, increased temperatures disproportionally affect vulnerable populations in urban area heat islands. Predictive models of climate change indicate that temperatures will increase in Phoenix by mid-century to potentially dangerous levels heat waves with durations of up to 52 days with temperatures above degrees F.
More broadly, changes in climate will im-. Adaptive management: Many sustainability challenges that involve interconnections among domains—for example, transportation, energy, water, health, and species protection—are complex and dynamic, resulting in uncertainties about current interactions among variables, cause-effect relationships, and projected future conditions.
As a consequence of this complexity and uncertainty, participants in a number of the examples we examined are using an adaptive management approach, as described in the decision framework see Chapter 4. Adaptive management enables participants to set goals, undertake actions, monitor the effects of those actions on outcomes, and, most importantly, make adjustments as needed. In the Platte River Recovery Implementation Plan, adaptive management processes help managers address uncertainties regarding what water management regimes will best meet the needs of endangered species while, at the same time, sustaining sufficient water for agriculture, energy, and other uses.
To date, application of adaptive management has had limited implementation success in changing management actions based on experimentation and monitoring Murray and Marmorek, ; Kimberly et al. However, recent assessments of adaptive management indicate that effectiveness in using the approach can be enhanced by: 1 starting with a simple plan and adding complexity over time; and 2 engaging researchers at all stages of the process Kimberly et al.
Creative approaches to problem-solving can add value and provide multiple benefits or co-benefits to participants: Innovative thinking that crosses domains can result in sustainability solutions that increase efficiency and cost-effectiveness and that create win-win scenarios. For example, Philadelphia dealt with the treatment of storm water by providing a cost-effective solution that resulted in multiple benefits.
Working with decision makers at EPA, the city was able to reduce the need for additional costly infrastructure improvements by utilizing a variety of approaches to reduce the volume of water run-off and to take advantage of natural ameliorative processes in soils and subsurface environments.
At the same time, this green infrastructure approach was shown by the city to achieve co-benefits for outdoor recreation, public health, education, and the local economy. Communications: Sustainability solutions need to be communicated in a way that clearly identifies both the costs and benefits of action and inaction. For example, Philadelphia got an enormous boost for its approach when sustainability became a plank in the mayoral campaign. An effective communications strategy is important not only at the outset to engage major and important constituencies, but also throughout the process in keeping key stakeholders and the public generally aware of the progress being made and the work that still needs to be done.
Effective communications and stakeholder participation also promotes transparency and accountability. Alberti, M. Hepinstall, S. Coe, R. Coburn, M. Russo and Y. Accessed August 31, American Public Transportation Association. Sep-tainable: The Route to Regional Sustainability. Sep-tainable: Going Beyond Green.
Issues in Urban Economics
Accessed September 28, Becker, A. Inoue, M. Fischer, and B. Climate change impacts on international seaports: knowledge perceptions, and planning efforts among port administrators. Climatic Change Public Health Issues and Sustainability. June 12, Branas, C. Cheney, J. MacDonald, V. Tam, T. Jackson, and T. Ten Have. A difference-in-differences analysis of health, safety, and greening vacant urban space. American Journal of Epidemiology 11 Brunner, P.
Materials flow analysis: Reshaping urban metabolism. Journal of Industrial Ecology 11 2 Byron, C. Bengtson, B. Costa-Pierce, and J. Integrating science into management: Ecological carrying capacity of bivalve shellfish aquaculture. Marine Policy Fish and Wildlife Service. Center for the Future of Arizona. The Arizona We Want. Ciborowski, J. Niemi, V. Brady, S.
Doka, L. Johnson, J. Keough, S. Mackey, and D. Ecosystem responses to regulation-based water level changes in the Upper Great Lakes. White paper Greenworks Philadelphia. Crockett, C. Water Resources and Sustainability in Philadelphia. Cuo, L.