Sustainability and Planning - Edward J. Jepson, Jr

Journal of Planning LiteratureSustainability and Planning

Sustainability and Planning:Diverse Concepts andClose Associations

Edward J. Jepson, Jr.

Sustainability is a term that has received a significantamount of attention in the public policy arena. Within theplanning profession, there has likewise been a growing recog-nition of its possible relevance in the areas of land use andgeneral community development, and planners are increas-ingly finding themselves either leading or being expected tocontribute to local sustainable development efforts. Thepurpose of this article is to provide an introduction to thesustainability framework in terms of its scientific basis andcultural interpretations and to identify and explore concep-tual associations that tend to tie it to the planning profession.

Sustainability has become integrated into the plan-ning profession in one sense: it is clearly recognized assomething that relates to planning. However, seem-ingly less clear to the profession is the opportunity thatplanning has to fill a crucial role in this burgeoning con-ceptual and operational landscape. Within thesustainability literature, there are calls for a humanecology that would relate societal conditions to thequality of both the natural and the human environment(di Castri and Hadley 1986) and for a new type of pro-fession that can serve as a communicative link betweenscientists and the general public (Christensen 1996). Inthe face of these calls, planners have remained virtuallysilent. Yet, what other profession is more naturallysuited to filling this role than planning?

In the review that follows, sustainability is tracedfrom its ecosystem roots, through its cultural interpre-tations to an emergent functional form, and then on toits natural associations with the profession of planning.Due to the complexity of sustainability and the exten-siveness of the literature, it is not possible that all ideas,interpretations, and nuances associated with the topiccan be presented in an article of this size. Rather, thisarticle is intended to provide an introduction to plan-ners who are unfamiliar with the basics of sustainabledevelopment or who are skeptical about whether theconcept might contribute to the practice of planning.

SUSTAINABILITYSCIENTIFIC BASIS

Sustainability in the public policy realm derives fromthe biological sciences and particularly from thesubfield of environmental science. It is important topoint out that biologists and ecologists are not in com-plete agreement regarding many basic sustainabilityprinciples and premises, even to the extent that defini-tions of the same term can vary among authors (Glasseret al. 1994). However, this lack of consensus has not pre-vented the use of many of these principles and premisesas the foundation for the formulation of sustainable

EDWARD J. JEPSON, JR. received his Ph.D. from the Departmentof Urban and Regional Planning at the University of WisconsinMadison in December 1999. He is presently working as a planningconsultant in the Madison, Wisconsin area.

Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 15, No. 4 (May 2001).Copyright 2001 by Sage Publications, Inc.

development policies. These are the focus of the follow-ing review.

Within the field of biology, there is fairly widespreadagreement that living systems can be characterized asbeing in a constant struggle to develop, to change, andto respond to disturbance and that sustainability refersto the ability of systems to maintain or maximize them-selves over time. The nature of this struggle revolvesaround the use of energy for productive and reproduc-tive purposes and its subsequent disposal (Rees 1995;Ahern and Boughton 1994; Giaoutzi 1990; Mollison1990). When this insight is combined with the secondlaw of thermodynamics, a series of conclusions can bedrawn with respect to systems. The second law statesthat (1) energy exists in two states, free (available) andbound (unavailable), and that (2) all productive pro-cesses result in a decrease in the quantity of free energyand an increase in the quantity of bound energy. As thisdynamic continues to occur, and because (according tothe first law of thermodynamics) the total quantity ofenergy in all forms can never be changed, an increas-ingly significant condition of disorder, or entropy, isincurred (Maser 1997; Wackernagel and Rees 1996; Ekins1993; Garbarino 1992; Georgescu-Roegen [1971] 1980).

From this, it can be concluded that a living systemcarries within it the seeds of its own destruction,because the bound energy (which is constantly increas-ing and replacing free energy) cannot be tapped for theproductive and maintenance purposes that are essen-tial for its survival. Thus, it is only to the extent that asystem is open (i.e., able to import additional freeenergy and export bound energy) is it able to control itsinternal level of disorder and thereby sustain itself(Boswell 1995; Rees 1995).

Within the limited perspective of an individual sys-tem, such a dynamic does not necessarily pose a prob-lem: it can persevere, provided its export of entropy is inbalance with its import of negentropy (i.e., order). How-ever, it is unfortunately true that an open system (par-ticularly a successful one, when measured in terms ofproductivity) wreaks havoc on the other parts of thelarger system with which it interacts. This is because, asstated by the second law of thermodynamics, a reduc-tion in entropy in one part of a system can only beachieved if there is a corresponding and equal increasein entropy elsewhere in the system (Rees 1995; King andSlesser 1994; D. Simon 1989). As a result, it becomesclear that an individual system cannot escape the priceof its own success, because all local systems arefinally dependent on the integrity of the larger systemthat they are causing to become increasingly disor-dered. In fact, the above-referenced dynamic doesindeed pose a serious problem to individual systems.

The concept of ecosystems is an extension of theliving-systems concept. It is proposed by ecologists torefer to a characteristic community of interdependentplants, animals, and/or microorganisms, all of whichare interlocked in a series of competitive and coopera-tive survival mechanisms that regulate the allocation ofresources among them (Peters and Noss 1995; Rees1992; Davelaar and Nijkamp 1990; Giaoutzi 1990;Rolston 1988). This interlocking activity results in anecosystem behavioral pattern that has been character-ized to be essentially the same as that of a living system,that is, a constant struggle to change and respond to dis-turbance (Ahern and Boughton 1994).

Although most ecologists hold that individual eco-systems cannot and do not persist through time (i.e.,reach a climax state of equilibrium) (Glasser et al. 1994;Hersperger 1994), there is some agreement that they canand do approach a state of relative stability whengrowth and change are self-regulated to correspond tochanging internal and external organizational capaci-ties and potential without changing their essential orga-nization (Mollison 1990; Smith 1996). Hence, eventhough the struggle to successfully adapt continuesunabated (Ahern and Boughton 1994), a system canenhance its sustainability by interacting more effec-tively with respect to both internal and external dynam-ics (Lyle 1994; Munn 1989). This is because success inthis regard means the ecosystem is better able torespond to disturbances and control its growth so keyresources and processes on which it depends are notexhausted or overloaded (Maser 1997; Boswell 1995;Ahern and Boughton 1994; Hersperger 1994; Breheny1992; Jacobs 1991).

Effective systemic self-regulation is related to theconcept of carrying capacity and dependent on feedbackflows. The first of these concepts, carrying capacity, isunderstood to be the inherent and natural capacity of asystem to absorb the resource extractions and waste dis-posal stresses that accompany productive activity tosupport the activities of its constituent life forms(Scruggs 1993; Rees 1992; Munn 1989). For this capacityto be maximized, it is necessary that there be an effec-tive feedback flow, whereby information is transmittedas signals that are used by the system to make appropri-ate and necessary compensatory internal adjustmentsand modifications (Smith 1996; Boswell 1995; Rees1995; Scruggs 1993; Mollison 1990). For example, dwin-dling resources being followed by a slowdown in thegrowth rate of those activities or species within the eco-system that depend on those resources would consti-tute evidence of an effective feedback process. Suchmodifications are achieved as a result of interactionsamong the agents within a system. With respect to the

500 Journal of Planning Literature

nature of these interactions, some writers have pro-posed it is a mixture of competition and cooperationand that both of these are important to the systems con-tinued functioning (Davelaar and Nijkamp 1990;Rolston 1988). On the other hand, others have con-tended that a systems stability and sustainability areassociated with interactions that are cooperative andconnections that are beneficial (Giaoutzi 1990;Mollison 1990, 35). In all cases, it is the sum of theseinteractions together that combines to produce thegreater goodthe sustenance of the system.

If there is either an inability on the part of a system toadjust to changes in the environment on which itdepends or a delay (referred to by some scientists aslag time [see, e.g., Botkin and Keller 1987, 75] in itsresponse to such changes (caused by nonreceipt of sig-nals, misinterpretation of signals, or failure to act uponsignals), a condition of overshoot will occur. By defini-tion, such a condition will result in a mismatch betweenthe demands being placed on the ecosystem (in terms ofresource extraction and/or waste assimilation) and itscapacity to meet those demands. Depending on theseverity of the mismatch, the continued existence of theentire ecosystem itself may be threatened (Boswell1995; Rees 1995; Meadows et al. 1992).

Systems that are least likely to experience an adjust-ment mismatch are proposed to be those that are mostcomplex in terms of the number of interactions and con-nections between and among systemic agents (Lyle1994) and both the variety and redundancy of its func-tionality (Maser 1997; Mollison 1990). This is partly dueto the fact that signals can be read differently by dif-ferent receivers (Allen and Starr [1982] 1988); the moreof these there are, the more likely there will be a cor-rect reading that is appropriately acted upon. Further-more, when many agents perform several functions(many of which are redundant vis--vis other agents inthe system) in an integrated fashion, the capacity of thesystem to respond to environmental disturbancebecomes notably enhanced (the ecological term thatspecifically describes such complexity of connectionsand forms is biodiversity [Smith 1996]). Alternately, tothe extent that these two aspects are compromised (i.e.,a small number of components with specialized func-tions) is the extent to which a system becomes fragileand nonresilient (Maser 1997).

However, there is a caveat with respect to complex-ity, and it is significant. There is apparently a built-intendency of systems to become ever larger and morecomplex (i.e., too many connections, too many agents)until lag times and systemic interdependencies leavethem virtually unmanageable and prone to a cata-strophic collapse (Boswell 1995; Rees 1995; Giaoutzi1990; Allen and Starr [1982] 1988). Such a collapse is

typically followed by a reorganization at a new, lowerlevel of complexity and a renewal of the steady marchtoward more complexity (Maser 1997). Even healthysystems, therefore, can be said to be destined for ulti-mate destruction as a result of complexities related tosize rather than efficient function (in other words, fromconditions arising from a systems success in maintain-ing and expanding itself) (Boswell 1995; Rees 1995).

Successful complex systems have also been charac-terized as hierarchical in nature. Essentially, it is pro-posed that higher subsystems within such systemscommunicate with lower subsystems to exercise con-trol over their behavior and ranges of response (Allenand Starr [1982] 1988; Pattee 1973). Position in the hier-archy is inversely related to frequency dynamics,with higher subsystems operating on a slower andlonger-term time scale than those below. Within sucharrangements, there is a tension between tendenciestoward independence (among subsystems) on onehand and systemic tendencies toward subordination onthe other (Allen and Starr [1982] 1988; H. Simon 1962). Acondition of relative stability is found when the con-trol is neither too detailed nor too general (Pattee 1973;H. Simon 1962).

SUSTAINABILITYCULTURAL INTERPRETATION

Public policies based on ecosystem theory requirethat a connection be made between the natural and thehuman realms and that the temporal dimensions ofconcern and interest extend beyond the immediate intothe long term. Despite strong evidence that the level ofdamage being inflicted on the natural environment byhuman activities is nonsustainable (Ekins 1994), opin-ion remains divided regarding what sustainability isand how it should be used as a conceptual guide in theformulation of public policy.

An understanding as to why this should be requiresthat two fundamental cultural foundations be acknowl-edged, because these are tending to cause a repudiationof a more sustainable approach to the human develop-ment challenge. The first foundation is our Judeo-Christian religious philosophy that sharply separatesman from nature and holds the former as havingdominion and rights of exploitation over the latter;thus, human beings are viewed as entitled to use naturein a way that is most beneficial to our welfare, with littleor no regard for other considerations. The other founda-tion is the empiricist tradition, which views nature asmechanistic and something that can and should bemanipulated by human beings for their benefit.Emerging from that tradition is a scientific method thatis reductionist and that tends to encourage fragmenta-tion rather than the integration that is so essential to an

Sustainability and Planning 501

ecosystem framework (Carley and Christie 1993;Beatley 1989).

Also serving to impede the transfer of ecosystemprinciples to the human domain is the relative status ofecology among the other scientific disciplines. Becauseit is inherently interdisciplinary by nature rather thanbounded (as, for example, physics or chemistry),many of ecologys most basic tenets remain unsettled.As a result, it is unable to outgrow its reputation as afrontier area, easily challenged from both within andwithout (Carley and Christie 1993, 67). This characteris-tic also makes it susceptible to accusations that it lacksthe requisite scientific rigor to serve as a basis on whichto formulate public policy (di Castri and Hadley 1986).

In addition, there are inherent behavioral and psy-chological characteristics of human beings that havebeen proposed to have the effect of impeding the devel-opment of sustainable policies. One of these is a disin-clination to extend our sphere of concern either tempo-rally (i.e., beyond the next one or two generations) orspatially (i.e., beyond family, friends, and personalinterests) (Garbarino 1992; Nijkamp et al. 1992; Dubos1981); another is a biological predisposition to tune outlong-term trends over which [we] have no control(White 1994, 24). Athird possibly relevant characteristicis our observed tendency to make decisions on the basisof nearly every conceivable consideration except thefacts; to the extent that this is true is the extent to whichthe spread of new knowledge (e.g., about rain forestdestruction, the effects of pollution, ecosystem charac-teristics, etc.) as a strategy to achieve a transformationto a more sustainable society will be insufficient (Jones1996).

Countering these oppositional forces are at least fourviewpoints that are more compatible with an ecosystemapproach to public policy. The first is a repudiation ofthe Judeo-Christian tradition of mans dominion overnature based on a reinterpretation of various biblicalpassages (Beatley 1989); another is a love of nature forits own sake that can have an almost spiritual quality,traceable to eighteenth- and nineteenth-century senti-ments of nostalgia and appreciation (Dwyer et al. 1994;Platt 1994; Jacobs 1991; Lynch 1981); a third is a utopiantradition that seeks to integrate human beings into theirenvironment in a way that is more conducive to the fullrange of their needs and their nature (Spain 1995); and afourth viewpoint tends to support adoption of an eco-system perspective as the result of a process of simplelogical reflection, namely, a recognition that uncon-strained consumption of limited resources will leadinevitably to Garret Hardins tragedy of the com-mons (Ruckelshaus 1989).

These forces and trends have combined to producetwo conflicting worldviews, or frameworks, that are

relevant to ecosystem theory and sustainabilitytheexpansionist and the ecological. The first of these,expansionist, draws most directly from Western empir-icist roots and is the dominant social paradigm; it viewshuman system growth as virtually unlimited due to theunique capacity of human beings to use, to adapt, andto innovate. The ecological framework, on the otherhand, holds that there are limits to the ability of the nat-ural environment to support human beings, and thelevel and character of human activity must be temperedby an appreciation of the effects of that activity on natu-ral resources and characteristics (Rees 1995; Wackernageland Rees 1996; Costanza 1989).

The definitions of sustainability and/or sustainabledevelopment that have emerged from this conceptualand attitudinal turbulence tend to reflect either one orthe other worldview. For example, evidence of anexpansionist perspective can be found in definitionsthat emphasize the achievement of human objectivessuch as those relating to consumption levels, economicbenefits, individual happiness, and community con-sciousness (Despotakis et al. 1992; Daly 1989; Smit andBrklacich 1989; Barbier 1987). Evidence of an ecologicalperspective is revealed in definitions that contain a pre-ponderance of references to maintaining environmen-tal stocks and assets and ongoing systemic functioning(Rydin 1992).

There are also some definitions that attempt tobridge the gap between the two worldviews. For exam-ple, Meadows et al. (1992) defined a sustainable societyas one that has in place informational, social, and insti-tutional mechanisms that keep check on . . . feedbackloops (p. 209). An implicit assumption in such a view-point is that our current (expansionist) society can bemade compatible with sustainability. The definitionproposed by Kinsley (1994) suggests the direct incorpo-ration into human development policy of such ecosys-tem concepts as ecological threshold and carrying capacity,the latter of which is used by Girardet (1992) in conjunc-tion with the sociological term quality of life (p. 177); bycombining terms from both viewpoints, there is theimplicit assumption that the two can be merged.

For the most part, however, the tendency has been tokeep definitions of sustainability and/or sustainabledevelopment imprecise and descriptive rather thanprescriptive. For example, the most frequently cited(and most widely accepted) definition is that proposedby the Brundtland Commission, that is, developmentwhich meets the needs of the present without compro-mising the ability of future generations to meet theirneeds (Lele 1991). Another source defines sustain-ability as a strategy of development that results in theenhancement of human quality of life and the simulta-neous minimization of negative environmental impacts


(Spain 1995). Still a third definition advocates the inte-gration of ecological and economic uses of the earthslife-support systems (Loucks 1994). In all of thesecases, words with imprecise meanings are used. What,after all, are the needs that must be protected? Are allenvironmental impacts in need of the same level ofminimization, and how will that be measured? Andwho can argue about the value of the type of integrationcalled for in the third definition?

In the opinion of some, this definitional variety andvagueness is neither good nor bad, but it is inevitablebecause every major concept which encompasseshuman idealssuch as liberty or democracy[is] sub-ject to diverse interpretation (Scruggs 1993). To others,this is a quality because it allows sustainability to be aunifying force, one that enables opposing camps to findcommon ground (Blowers 1992; Lele 1991). Then thereare still others who propose that the negative substan-tive impact of definitional vagueness is the overridingissue (Ekins 1993); this causes it to be, in the opinion ofone noted observer, a thought-stopping cliche (Berkeand Kartez 1995), which either prevents the taking ofmeaningful action (Blowers 1992) or gives free reign toadvocates of the much more firmly entrenched expan-sionist framework (Lele 1991).

SUSTAINABILITYAN EMERGENT FUNCTIONAL FORM

Out of this cultural and philosophical milieu, theconcept of sustainability has begun to take some degreeof functional form relative to its application in humanaffairs, which revolves around the concept of reconcil-ing the three Es, which are Environment, Economy,and society (interpreted in the form of redistributive, orEquity, principles). In essence, the emerging sustain-ability doctrine holds that the natural environment canbe protected, the economy developed, and equityachieved all at the same time and that the extent towhich we are successful in this simultaneous achieve-ment is the extent to which we will achievesustainability. What is required, it is proposed, is effec-tive balancing of objectives related to these threedimensions (Berke and Kartez 1995; Healey and Shaw1993; Scruggs 1993; Meadows et al. 1992; Barbier 1987).

This set of precepts is not necessarily incompatiblewith the second law of thermodynamics and ecosystemprinciples. the environmental dimension is based onthe universally shared recognition that we depend onour natural environment and that it must be conservedand protected. In that the measurement of environmen-tal impacts and values remains problematic, the precau-tionary principle has emerged from the debate as a pro-posed guide to public actions. Recognizing the inherentinadequacy of scientific research relative to many com-

plex environmental dynamics, this principle holds thatit is entirely legitimate for public policy decisions to bemade before all of the facts are in, before conclusions areentirely certain. What is required to stop or initiate aparticular public program or policy is a reasonable, sci-entifically derived estimate of the possibility of adverseenvironmental impacts (Haughton and Hunter 1994;Blowers 1993).

With respect to the equity dimension, there tends tobe a focus on the part of many mainstream advocates onthe intergenerational side of the equity coin, with its callfor natural resource conservation and environmentalprotection for the good of future generations. Becauseones children and grandchildren, as well as nature andits creatures, are encompassed within the equation,intergenerational equity is not a difficult pill for mostpeople to swallow (at least not conceptually). However,such understanding does not so easily extend to theissue of intragenerational equity, which may require adiminution of ones personal standard of living or atransfer of ones wealth to benefit others who are herenow and who are unrelated. For example, it is one thingto favor the protection of a forest in ones home regionso that future generations can enjoy its shade and itspeace; however, it is quite another to contemplate itsdestruction based on a comparison of its value (as asource of spiritual sustenance) against the value of for-ests elsewhere (as sources of material sustenance). Or, itis an entirely different matter to spend local tax dollarsto improve the energy efficiency of a suburban school(in the name of intergenerational equity) than it is totransfer tax dollars from one jurisdiction to helpanother jurisdiction rebuild a crumbling school in apoor neighborhood (in the name of intragenerationalequity). In the case of such types of decisions, it is easyfor Darwinian notions related to victors in a competi-tive struggle to rise to the fore.

At one level, such notions can find support in ecosys-tem theory, where the agents of systems are recognizedas being engaged both cooperatively and competitively(Rees 1992; Davelaar and Nijkamp 1990; Rolston 1988).The idea is that out of this interplay whereby someaspects of a system supersede other aspects, a greatergood will emerge, namely, a sustainable system. How-ever, there is no obvious requirement that rich countriesnot exploit poor ones or that more affluent people not beindifferent to the plight of those in poverty. Such inequi-ties can be interpreted as reflecting the competitivedimension of the ecosystem interplay.

However, further reflection reveals intragener-ational equity to have solid justification within the eco-system framework. The discernment of this justifica-tion requires definitional clarification. First, a system isdefined by Websters Dictionary (1978 edition) as a reg-


ularly interacting or interdependent group of itemsforming a unified whole. In the human sphere, thiswould be interpreted to include everything from aregional metropolitan system, a single city, or a globalsystem of trade. The need for successful systems to con-trol against internal entropy has been previously dis-cussed. Entropy is not just consumption exceedingproduct; Websters (1978) defines it more generally asthe steady degradation or disorganization of a systemor society. Because degraded is defined as degenera-tion of structure or function, the dysfunctionality of dis-rupted societies and antisocial individuals mired inpoverty constitutes a fundamental violation of one ofthe principal requirements of a successful system. Sucha framework does not preclude competition as a neces-sary or admissible component of a successful system (asis called for within the ecosystem framework); how-ever, it prohibits the imposition by one agent on anotherof a condition of social, economic, or psychologicaldysfunction.

With respect to the third E, economy, there hastended to be a focus on valuing the benefits of economicdevelopment, defined as a qualitative increase in thecondition of life, or welfare, as an alternative to valuingthe benefits of economic growth, defined as a quantita-tive increase in the consumption of goods and services,or affluence (Ekins 1993; Blowers 1992; Sargent et al.1991; Munn 1989; Daly [1968] 1980). In the opinion ofmany, an economically developed society would notonly be more sustainable than a growing one, it wouldalso be a better place in which to live. However, therehas hardly been consensus in this regard, even amongthose who advocate for sustainability. For example, theBrundtland Report (World Commission on Environmentand Development 1987)a strong statement of supportfor the application of sustainability in the realm ofhuman affairsadvocated growth as the solution toglobal problems. Although there has been criticism forthat position, there has also been wide acceptance of it,reflecting the continuing division among sustainabilityadvocates between those who see the need for radicalchange in terms of living habits and consumption andthose who push for a vision of the future that is verymuch like today, made possible by a growing economythat is more environmentally sensitive (Carley andChristie 1993).

The concept of subsidiarity has emerged as a funda-mental basis for the integration of the three Es. Derivedfrom the ecosystem notion that the effectiveness ofinformation is related to the directness of the link andthe proximity between the sender and the receiver(Allen and Starr [1982] 1988), subsidiarity calls for pub-lic policy decisions to be made at the lowest possiblelevel. This has led some proponents to call for the deter-

mination of public policy by local people workingtogether with a minimum of outside intervention (Con-cern, Inc. 1995; Hardoy et al. 1992; Rees 1989). However,within the ecosystem framework can also be found thenotion of hierarchy, which calls for some level of higherlevel control to achieve a state of systemic balance(Pattee 1973; H. Simon 1962). When these two dynamicsare combined, they produce a merged model of publicpolicy formation that is neither top-down nor bottom-upbut a combination of both, one that recognizes that localactions are in need of some degree of centralized guid-ance that is conceptually consistent across jurisdictions(Rees 1990; Lynch 1981).

Finally, the ecosystem concept of feedback flows hasproduced a recognition of the importance of informa-tion. To achieve an integration of the three Es, it is notonly necessary that there be complexity in terms ofinteractions but also that those interactions be based onaccurate signals that are then acted upon appropriately.This translates into a model of policy formation thatrequires personal opinion (provided by citizensthrough an inclusive citizen participation process) to becombined with factual information (provided by scien-tists and other objective experts) (Lyle 1994; Beatley1989). The lack of one or the other will result in a flawedprocess, producing results that may be destructive,counterproductive, or ineffectual. One manifestation ofthis dimension of the sustainability framework is a pro-liferation of social, economic, and environmental indi-cators that are selected through a participatory process(Andrews 1996). Although such indicators are alldesigned and intended to provide communities with aknowledge base from which to draw for the formula-tion of public policy, there remains a fair amount of con-troversy associated with them, related primarily totheir lack of a uniform theoretical basis (Boswell 1995;Haughton and Hunter 1994; Kay 1991).

Related to the concept of indicators is that of theurban, or ecological, footprint, which is a way of measur-ing the environmental impact of a functioning commu-nity. It is based on the notion that modern urban areasconstitute an extreme violation of the concept of carry-ing capacity, due to the fact that they draw from aresource base that covers a geographical area that is farremoved from, and many times the size of, the commu-nity itself (Haughton and Hunter 1994; Rees andWackernagel 1994). The ecological footprint is a calcula-tion of the area of land that is needed to provide the rawmaterials and absorb the wastes that are produced in acommunity (Maclaren 1996; Wackernagel and Rees1996; Rees 1995). A sustainable community is proposedto be one that seeks to minimize the extent of its exportedimpact as continuously measured through ecologicalfootprint calculation (Beatley 1995; Girardet 1992).


Aland use planning approach by which some propo-nents of sustainability have tried to integrate the threeEs is a new urbanism, a neotraditional design. Rootedconceptually in the traditional neighborhoods of preWorld War II urban America, this development approachis proposed to contribute to sustainability by reducingthe amount of land consumed for development, reduc-ing automobile dependency, increasing attachment toplace, and encouraging social diversity. It does thisthrough neighborhoods that are organized around acentral square of retail and public uses and functionalopen spaces and that are pedestrian- friendly and com-pact, where streetscape and building amenities anddesigns encourage walking rather than driving andwhere housing is affordable to a variety of incomegroups (Davis 1995; Christoforidis 1994; Bookout 1992).However, it is not without its detractors with respect toboth its assumptions and its results, particularly thoserelated to environment, social diversity, and transporta-tion (see, e.g., Beatley and Manning 1997; Berman 1996;Crane 1996; Christoforidis 1994; Cervero 1989; Owens1986). Also, its contribution to economic change is diffi-cult to discern, and its prevalent application at theurban periphery means that the consumption of openland continues, if at a reduced scale (due to its morecompact design).

Some proponents have attempted to pull togetherthe myriad of emergent strands and elements into aproscription for communities that will result in anenhancement of their long-term viability, that is, theirsustainability. Presented as an ideal toward which citi-zen groups and political leaders should strive, suchproposals tend to revolve around the basic premise thatsustainability is best achieved when communitiesengage in individual efforts to determine how each canbest fit into its immediate host environment (i.e., thatwhich is proximate and surrounding) and better con-nect with the components of its particular heritage.There is typically an emphasis on the importance ofempowering citizens for effective participation, pro-tecting the local environment, developing a more self-reliant regional economy, promoting interjurisdictionalcooperation, and strengthening the sense of commu-nity. Urban growth boundaries, green building pro-grams, and organic farming are some of the methodsadvocated to achieve these goals (see, e.g., Roseland1998; Beatley and Manning 1997; Sargent et al. 1991).

SUSTAINABILITY AND PLANNING:CONCEPTUAL ASSOCIATIONS

The reasons why sustainability and the field of plan-ning are inextricably linked and mutually relevant arenumerous and persuasive. Among the most important

is the fact that the constituent concepts that composesustainability are considered by many of its proponentsto be most applicable at the same level at which mostplanning occurs and on which it is most focused, that is,the local or regional level (Friedmann 1993). There areessentially four reasons proposed for this within theenvironmental/sustainability literature. First, theimportant ecosystem effects are those that occur nearestto the ecosystem (Rees 1989); second, the types ofglobal problems being encountered vary according tolocal circumstances, thus requiring a local policyresponse (Dubos 1981); third, political responsivenessis highest at the local level (Rees 1995); and fourth, thestrong conviction that is necessary for the achievementof sustainability goals and objectives can only emergein people who are directly and personally involved inpolicy formulation (Voisey et al. 1996).

Within this substate and subnational perspective,there is a decided preponderance of attention paid tocities due to a recognition of the direct link betweenurban dynamics and environmental degradation, inwhich modern, industrialized cities are shown to breakthe basic ecological law of return and engage in aone-way appropriation (through trade) of the carryingcapacity of areas outside themselves both in the form ofresource extraction and waste disposal (Beatley 1995,1989; Platt 1994; Rees 1992; Mollison 1990; Daly andCobb 1989). Because of their size and the highly con-sumptive lifestyle that they are purported to encourage,these conurbations become accused of being entropicblack holes (Rees 1995), requiring the bioproductivecapacity of a land area ten to twenty times larger thanthe area they themselves occupy (Wackernagel andRees 1996) and capable of inflicting significant environ-mental damage on a global scale (Breheny 1992;Girardet 1992). The potential seriousness of the prob-lem becomes especially clear when it is considered thatever-growing populations in all parts of the world arebecoming increasingly urbanized (Haughton andHunter 1994; Button and Pearce 1989; Stone 1973).

It is, however, not just this energy-exchange, cause-and-effect dynamic that causes cities to be of particularconcern to sustainability proponents. Others have pro-posed that cities, because they are concentrations ofdiverse consumptive and productive activities, are bytheir very natures prone to create market failures and,consequently, localized environmental degradation(Button and Pearce 1989). Still others have observedthat urbanization causes an isolation of city inhabitantsfrom nature and thus (possibly) an insensitivity towardits promise and its problems (Platt 1994; Stone 1973).According to Lewis Mumford (as cited by Hill 1992), itthen follows that the more urbanized in character anarea becomes, the more materialistic in character its


inhabitants become and the more serious are the extentand significance of the environmental damage that itcauses.

A final principal reason for a focus on urbanizationamong sustainability proponents is that the physicalexpansion of cities has a direct and significant impacton the agricultural capacity of the human system. Thisis because there is a tendency for cities to locate on ornear fertile land (Stone 1973). (For example, togetherwith their adjacent counties, metropolitan areasaccount for more than 50 percent of the prime agricul-tural land in the United States [Katz 1986].) As a resultof this mutual proximity, millions of acres of crop landhave been lost each year to the dynamics of worldwideurbanization since the 1980s (Tolba 1987; Katz 1986).

Given the local/urban bias of sustainability, there isan obvious link to planning. However, further review ofthe literature reveals the link between the two concep-tual structures to be much more direct. First, there is therecognition of a direct relationship between the condi-tion of the environment and not just overall urbandynamics but, specifically, urban form (Breheny 1993;Rydin 1992). In the view of one observer, there is now anabsence of the natural restraints that used to restrictthe character of urban form and maintain a measure ofharmony (Gruen 1964, 34). In an era of large develop-ment projects and accordingly large developmenteffects, of interconnections and global hinterlands,urban land use market mechanisms left unrestrainedhave the potential of producing significantly negativeenvironmental damage. The most effective means bywhich such mechanisms can be controlled is throughthe application of planning tools and methodologies(Barnett 1986; Brown 1981).

There are additional connecting dynamics betweenplanning and sustainability that can be identified in theliterature. One of these is based on the recognition offorward thinking as a fundamental characteristic ofpublic policies aimed at achieving sustainability(Carley and Christie 1993, 180). Not only is a long-termperspective intrinsic to the theory and philosophy ofplanning (Tonn 1986; Lang 1983), it is also the case thatthe principal area of its concernland useinvolveseffects and consequences that are intrinsicallylong-term (i.e., intergenerational) (Manning 1986).Another connecting dynamic that makes planning andsustainability mutually relevant is the recognition thatall facets of planning for the welfare of humans haveeffects on the flows and processes of the natural envi-ronment (Beatley 1989) and that this is particularly thecase with respect to land use planning (Christensen1996). This direct and fundamental interactive relation-ship places planning (potentially) in a unique positionto fulfill the calls for a human ecology among sustain-

ability advocates, that is, a framework that integratesthe natural and the social sciences, one that relates soci-etal conditions with the condition of the natural envi-ronment (di Castri and Hadley 1986).

In addition, planning theory shares with ecology andeconomics a fundamental concern with systems, sys-temic interconnections, and linkages and the attain-ment of some kind of balance or equilibrium. There hashistorically been a rich range of conceptual explorationand debate among planners into how human settle-ments grow and develop in relation to their contextualenvironment (Darwent 1975; Friedmann 1964). Many ofthe terms used in these development discussionsthatis, organic and ecologist models of development,resilient regions, and natural economic forces(Friedmann and Weaver 1979, 56-61; Hoover 1971, 368-369)are identical to those used by ecologists andeconomists as they attempt to understand and explainbiological interactions and market transactions. Fur-thermore, the focus on feedback among ecologists asthe means by which biological entities adjust to changeis in substance the same as the planners focus on trans-portation, capital flows, and communication systems asthe principal determinants of the level and pattern ofhuman system development (Friedmann and Bloch1990; Moss 1988; Castells 1985; Pred 1976; Friedmannand Alonso 1964).

Finally, both sustainability and planning are con-cerned with integration as a central conceptual chal-lenge. The integration that is sought within both theo-retical constructs is of four kinds: the first is acrossdisciplines, so as to produce a more coherent and com-plete public policy (Carley and Christie 1993; di Castriand Hadley 1986); the second is across diverse actors ina productive (either ecological or sociopolitical) pro-cess, with a focus on communication (Meadows et al.1992; Alterman and MacRae 1983); the third is acrossvalues, that is, right and wrong/good and bad (Blameyand Common 1994; Howe 1990); and the fourth isacross institutions, so as to produce an approach that iscooperative and integrated (Daly and Cobb 1989;Owens 1992).

SUSTAINABILITY AND PLANNING:EVIDENCE OF INTEGRATION

The intrinsic intertwining of planning and sustain-ability is reflected in the significant body of planningarticles that has emerged regarding sustainability. Forexample, in 1995, an entire issue of the Journal ofPlanning Literature (vol. 9, no. 4) was devoted tosustainability, with articles on its conceptual signifi-cance and relationship to planning (Rees 1995; Spain1995), as well as its practical application in planning for


community development (Beatley 1995; Berke 1995). In1996, the matter of integrating sustainability into thepractice of local planning was addressed in thePlanning Advisory Service publication, A PlannersGuide to Sustainable Development (Krizek and Power1996), and in articles in the Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association (Campbell 1996) and the Journal ofPlanning Education and Research (McDonald 1996).These were followed four years later by Berke andConroy (2000) offering a methodology for the measure-ment of such integration into planning documents.Planning scholars William Rees and Timothy Beatleyhave coauthored books that cover the general topic ofhow communities can more effectively plan forsustainability (Wackernagel and Rees 1996; Beatley andManning 1997, respectively).

Moreover, the intrinsic connectedness between plan-ning and sustainability is revealed in the number of arti-cles in planning journals that address various aspects ofthe emergent functional form that was previously dis-cussed, such as interjurisdictional and intrajurisdictionalequity (Beatley 1989); the issues of subsidiarity andinstitutional hierarchy (Deyle and Smith 1998; Harrisand King 1988); and, more recently, neotraditionaldesign (Southworth 1997; Berman 1996), sustainabilityindicators (Maclaren 1996), participatory processes(Innes and Booher 1999; Innes 1998; Julian et al. 1997),and urban growth boundaries (Weitz and Moore 1998).1

In addition, the most recent Planners Book Service Cataloglisted forty-eight books that relate to sustainabilitysthree Es of social equity, the environment, and eco-nomic development. Finally, Smart Growth is the namegiven to a newly emerging development doctrine in theplanning field that Lorentz and Shaw (2000) describedas striving for the protection of community and theenvironment through the seeking of balance amongsocial, economic, and environmental goals, or the threeEs of sustainability.

However, there is some evidence of sustainabilitybeing relatively absent from the professional literatureand academics, at least as terminology. Only rarely doesthe word (or its derivative, sustainable development)appear in journal article titles (a database reviewrevealed its presence in about a dozen articles in theJournal of the American Planning Association, the Journal ofPlanning Education and Research, and the Journal ofPlanning Literature for the period since 1997). This con-dition of scarcity also exists with respect to planningeducation: a scan of the Web sites of twenty large plan-ning departments revealed a minority (seven) toinclude a course with the word sustainability or sustain-able development in its title, none offering more than onesuch course, and even fewer (two) with the word in itsprogram description.

In addition, the major current initiative of the Ameri-can Planning Association (2000), Growing Smart, pro-poses a planning model that offers no remedy for thepresent entropic (i.e., nonsustainable) relationship thatmodern communities in the United States have with theother systems (human and otherwise) on which theydepend (i.e., importing resources and exporting waste)(Roseland 1998; Wackernagel and Rees 1996; Girardet1992). This proposed planning strategy is not essen-tially inconsistent with the notion of human settlementsexisting apart from nature and of the need to facilitatedevelopment, and its juxtaposition with sustainabilitymirrors the historical split in the planning professionbetween an empiricist view (i.e., nature as something tobe mastered) and an organic view (i.e., humans andnature in balance) (Wilson [1974] 1983), views thatthemselves correspond to the mainstream expansionistworldview on one hand and the ecological worldviewon the other.

CONCLUSION

It is clear that sustainability and planning have muchin common. Moreover, they are complementary in thesense that sustainability has the potential of providingmuch, if not all, of the conceptual context (theories,goals, objectives, etc.) for the activity of planning in thetwenty-first century. Such being the case, and providedthey can gain a perspective that draws from the organictradition of their profession, planners have a potentiallysignificant role to play in the attainment of a more sus-tainable approach to development by building on theprofessions intrinsic interest in integration and bal-ance. Because sustainable development would requirea strengthening of public sector planning, one impor-tant area of future work would be for planners to try tomove toward a more full understanding of the dynam-ics and the effects of the private property rights move-ment and associated recent court decisions that weakenthe legal basis for land use controls and zoning. Investi-gations could be conducted regarding the substantiveareas in which planners are now most actively intro-ducing the concept of sustainability into public debates,with a particular emphasis on how these areas can beintegrated into one seamless conceptual field. Con-tinued and expanded exploration of the characteristicsof effective participatory processes and models is essen-tial. Finally, the profession should look at how it mightmore successfully organize itself to develop the consis-tency and commitment that are necessary for its mem-bers to assume the leadership role that is both possibleand appropriate. Most fundamentally, it is importantthat the efforts of planners be guided by clarity regard-ing its scientific basis (so that they can keep strategies


on track) and its inherent limitations (imposed by world-view and cultural sentiment). Such internal guidancewill help ensure against planners either leading theircommunities astray or expecting too much, both ofwhich will contribute to their removal from the centerof the public policy challenge. It is hoped that this arti-cle will make a contribution in that regard.

NOTE

1. The cited references are included and intended to serve only asexamples of articles, not as guides to the planning literature, on thattopic.

REFERENCES

Ahern, Jack, and Jestena Boughton. 1994. Wildflower meadows assustainable landscapes. In The ecological city: Preserving and restoringurban diversity, Rutherford H. Platt, Rowan A. Rowntree, andPamela C. Muick, eds. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Allen, T.F.H., and Thomas B. Starr. [1982] 1988. Hierarchy: Perspectivesfor ecological complexity. Reprint, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Alterman, Rachelle, and Duncan MacRae, Jr. 1983. Planning and pol-icy analysis: Converging or diverging trends? Journal of the Ameri-can Planning Association 49, 2: 200-15.

American Planning Association (APA). 2000. Growing smart [Online].Available: http://www.planning.org/plnginfo/GROWSMAR/gsindex.html

Andrews, James H. 1996. Going by the numbers. Planning 62, 9: 14-18.Barbier, Edward B. 1987. The concept of sustainable economic devel-

opment. Environmental Conservation 14, 2: 101-10.Barnett, Jonothan. 1986. The elusive city. New York: Harper & Row.Beatley, Timothy. 1995. Planning and sustainability: The elements of a

new (improved?) paradigm. Journal of Planning Literature 9, 4:383-95.

. 1989. Environmental ethics and planning theory. Journal ofPlanning Literature 4, 1: 1-32.

Beatley, Timothy, and K. Manning. 1997. The ecology of place: Planningfor environment, economy, and community. Washington, DC: IslandPress.

Berke, Philip R. 1995. Natural-hazard reduction and sustainabledevelopment: A global assessment. Journal of Planning Literature 9,4: 371-82.

Berke, Philip R., and Maria Manta Conroy. 2000. Are we planning forsustainable development? Journal of the American Planning Associa-tion 66, 1: 21-33.

Berke, Philip R., and Jack Kartez. 1995. Sustainable development as aguide to land use policy. Research paper, Lincoln Institute of LandPolicy, Cambridge, MA.

Berman, Michael Aaron. 1996. The transportation effects ofneotraditional development. Journal of Planning Literature 10, 4:347-63.

Blamey, R., and M. Common. 1994. Sustainability and the limits topseudo market valuation. In Toward sustainable development, J.C.J.M.van den Bergh and J. van der Straaten, eds. Washington, DC: IslandPress.

Blowers, Andrew. 1993. The time for change. In Planning for a sustain-able environment, Andrew Blowers, ed. London: Earthscan.

. 1992. Sustainable urban development: The political pros-pects. In Sustainable development and urban form, M. J. Breheny, ed.London: Pion.

Bookout, Lloyd W. 1992. Neotraditional town planning: A new visionfor the suburbs? Urban Land 51, 1: 20-26.

Boswell, Michael R. 1995. Establishing indicators of sustainabledevelopment. Paper presented at the annual conference of Colle-giate Schools of Planning, October 19-22, Detroit, MI.

Botkin, Daniel B., and Edward A. Keller. 1987. Environmental studies:Earth as a living planet. 2d ed. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Breheny, M. J. 1992. Sustainable development and urban form: Anintroduction. In Sustainable development and urban form, M. J.Breheny, ed. London: Pion.

Breheny, Michael. 1993. Planning the sustainable city region. Town andCountry Planning (April): 71-5.

Brown, Lester R. 1981. Building a sustainable society. New York: Norton.Button, Kenneth J., and David W. Pearce. 1989. Improving the urban

environment: How to adjust national and local government policyfor sustainable urban growth. Progress in Planning 32: 135-84.

Campbell, Scott. 1996. Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Journalof the American Planning Association 62, 3: 296-312.

Carley, Michael, and Ian Christie. 1993. Managing sustainable develop-ment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Castells, Manuel. 1985. High technology, economic restructuring andthe urban-regional process in the United States. In High technology,space, and society, Manuel Castells, ed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Cervero, Robert. 1989. Jobs-housing balancing and regional mobility.Journal of the American Planning Association 55, 2: 136-50.

Christensen, Norman L., Jr. 1996. Science and the sustainable use ofland. In Land use in America, Henry L. Diamond and Patrick F.Noonan, eds. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Christoforidis, Alexander. 1994. New alternatives to the suburb:Neo-traditional developments. Journal of Planning Literature 8, 4:429-40.

Concern, Inc. 1995. Building sustainable communities. Issue paper,Concern, Inc., Washington, DC.

Costanza, Robert. 1989. What is ecological economics? Ecological Eco-nomics 1, 1: 1-7.

Crane, Randall. 1996. On form versus function: Will the new urban-ism reduce traffic or increase it? Journal of Planning Education andResearch 15, 2: 117-26.

Daly, H. E. 1989. Steady-state and growth concepts for the next cen-tury. In Economy and ecology: Towards sustainable development,F. Archibugi and P. Nijkamp, eds. Boston: Kluwer.

Daly, Herman E. [1968] 1980. On economics as a life science. In Eco-nomics, ecology, ethics: Essays toward a steady-state economy, HermanE. Daly, ed. New York: Freeman.

Daly, Herman E., and John B. Cobb, Jr. 1989. For the common good.Boston: Beacon.

Darwent, D. F. 1975. Growth poles and growth centers in regionalplanningA review. In Regional policy, J. Friedmann and W.Alonso, eds. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Davelaar, Evert-Jan, and Peter Nijkamp. 1990. Structural transforma-tion of cities: A Dutch example. In Sustainability of urban systems,Peter Nijkamp, ed. Brookfield, VT: Averbury.

Davis, Mike. 1995. House of cards. Sierra (November-December):37-41, 76.

Despotakis, V., M. Giaoutzi, and P. Nijkamp. 1992. Spatial depiction oflocal sustainable development. In Sustainable development and urbanform, M. J. Breheny, ed. London: Pion.

Deyle, Robert E., and Richard A. Smith. 1998. Local government com-pliance with state planning mandates: The effects of state imple-mentation in Florida. Journal of the American Planning Association 64,4: 457-69.

di Castri, Francesco, and Malcolm Hadley. 1986. Enhancing the credi-bility of ecology: Is interdisciplinary research for land use planninguseful? GeoJournal 13, 4: 299-325.

Dubos, Rene J. 1981. Celebrations of life. New York: McGraw-Hill.


Dwyer, John F., Hefbert W. Schroeder, and Paul H. Gobster. 1994. Thedeep significance of urban trees and forests. In The ecologicalcityPreserving and restoring urban biodiversity, Rutherford H. Platt,Rowan A. Rowntree, and Pamela C. Muick, eds. Amherst: Univer-sity of Massachusetts Press.

Ekins, Paul. 1994. The environmental sustainability of economic pro-cesses: A framework for analysis. In Toward sustainable development,J.C.J.M. van den Bergh and J. van der Straaten, eds. Washington,DC: Island Press.

. 1993. Limits to growth and sustainable development:Grappling with ecological realities. Ecological Economics 8, 3: 269-88.

Friedmann, John. 1993. Toward a non-Euclidian mode of planning.Journal of the American Planning Association 59, 4: 482-85.

. 1964. The concept of a planning regionThe evolution of anidea in the United States. In Regional development and planningAreader, John Friedmann and William Alonso, eds. Cambridge: MITPress.

Friedmann, John, and William Alonso. 1964. Regional developmentas a policy issue. In Regional development and planningA reader,John Friedmann and William Alonso, eds. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Friedmann, John, and Robin Bloch. 1990. American exceptionalism inregional planning, 1933-2000. International Journal of Urban andRegional Research 14, 4: 576-601.

Friedmann, John, and Clyde Weaver. 1979. Territory and function: Theevolution of regional planning. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Garbarino, James 1992. Toward a sustainable society. Chicago: Noble.Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. [1971] 1980. The entropy law and the

economic problem. In Economics, ecology, ethicsEssays toward asteady-state economy, Herman E. Daly, ed. New York: Freeman.

Giaoutzi, Maria. 1990. Complexity in urban dynamics: AGreek exam-ple. In Sustainability of urban systems, Peter Nijkamp, ed. Brookfield,VT: Gower.

Girardet, Herbert. 1992. The Gaia atlas of cities. New York: Doubleday.Glasser, H., P. P. Craig, and W. Kempton. 1994. Ethics and values in

environmental policy: The said and the UNCED. In Toward sustain-able development, J.C.J.M. van den Bergh and J. van der Straaten, eds.Washington, DC: Island Press.

Gruen, Victor. 1964. The heart of our cities: The urban crisis, diagnosis andcure. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Hardoy, Jorge, Diana Mitlin, and David Satterthwaite. 1992. Thefuture city. In Making development sustainable: Redefining institutions,policy, and economics, Johan Holmberg, ed. Washington, DC: IslandPress.

Harris, Glenn, and Leslie King. 1988. Reconsidering planning andenvironmental protection. Journal of Planning Literature 3, 4: 373-85.

Haughton, Graham, and Colin Hunter. 1994. Sustainable cities. Lon-don: Jessica Kingsley.

Healey, Patsy, and Tim Shaw. 1993. Planners, plans and sustainabledevelopment. Regional Studies 27, 8: 769-76.

Hersperger, Anna M. 1994. Landscape ecology and its potential appli-cation to planning. Journal of Planning Literature 9, 1: 14-29.

Hill, David R. 1992. Sustainability, Victor Gruen, and the cellularmetropolis. Journal of the American Planning Association 58, 3: 312-26.

Hoover, Edgar Malone. 1971. An introduction to regional economics.New York: Knopf.

Howe, Elizabeth. 1990. Normative ethics in planning. Journal ofPlanning Literature 5, 2: 123-50.

Innes, Judith E. 1998. Information in communicative planning. Journalof the American Planning Association 64, 1: 52-63.

Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 1999. Consensus building andcomplex adaptive systems: A framework for evaluating collabora-tive planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65, 4:412-23.

Jacobs, Michael. 1991. The green economy: Environment, sustainabledevelopment and the politics of the future. Concord, MA: Pluto.

Jones, Alice. 1996. The psychology of sustainability: What plannerscan learn from attitude research. Journal of Planning Education andResearch 16, 1: 56-65.

Julian, David A., Thomas M. Reischl, Richard V. Carrick, and CathyKatrenich. 1997. Citizen participation: Lessons from a local UnitedWay planning process. Journal of the American Planning Association63, 3: 345-55.

Katz, David. 1986. Metropolitan food systems and the sustainablecity. In Sustainable communities, Sim Van der Ryn and PeterCalthorpe, eds. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

Kay, James J. 1991. The concept of ecological integrity, alternative the-ories of ecology, and implications for decision-support indicators.In Economic, ecological, and decision theories: Indicators of ecologicallysustainable development, Peter A. Victor, James J. Kay, and H. JackRuitenbeek, eds. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Environmental Advi-sory Council.

King, J., and M. Slesser. 1994. The natural philosophy of natural capi-tal: Can solar energy substitute? In Toward sustainable development,J.C.J.M. van den Bergh and J. van der Straaten, eds. Washington,DC: Island Press.

Kinsley, Michael. 1994. Sustainable developmentProsperity with-out growth. Public Management (October): 6-9.

Krizek, Kevin J., and Joe Power. 1996. A planners guide to sustainabledevelopment. PAS 467. Chicago: American Planning Association.

Lang, Jon. 1983. Teaching planning to city planning students. Anargument for the studio/workshop approach. Journal of PlanningEducation and Research 2, 2: 122-29.

Lele, Sharachchandra M. 1991. Sustainable development: A criticalreview. World Development 19, 6: 607-21.

Lorentz, Amalia, and Kirsten Shaw. 2000. Are you ready to bet onSmart Growth? Planning 66, 1: 4-9.

Loucks, Orie L. 1994. Sustainability in urban ecosystems: Beyond anobject of study. In The ecological city: Preserving and restoring urbandiversity, Rutherford H. Platt, Rowan A. Rowntree, and Pamela C.Muick, eds. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Lyle, John Tillman. 1994. Regenerative design for sustainable develop-ment. New York: John Wiley.

Lynch, Kevin. 1981. Good city form. Cambridge: Massachusetts Insti-tute of Technology.

Maclaren, Virginia. 1996. Urban sustainability reporting. Journal of theAmerican Planning Association 62, 2: 184-202.

Manning, Edward W. 1986. Towards sustainable land use: A strategy.Ottawa, Canada: Minister of Supply and Services.

Maser, Chris. 1997. Sustainable community development. Delray Beach,FL: St. Lucie.

McDonald, Geoffrey T. 1996. Planning as sustainable development.Journal of Planning Education and Research 15, 3: 225-36.

Meadows, Donnella H., Dennis L. Meadows, and Jorgen Randers.1992. Beyond the limits. Post Mills, VT: Chelsea Green.

Mollison, Bill. 1990. Permaculture: A practical guide for a sustainablefuture. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Moss, Mitchell L. 1988. Telecommunications: Shaping the future. InAmericas new market geography, George Sternlieb and James W.Hughes, eds. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban PolicyResearch.

Munn, R. E. 1989. Towards sustainable development: An environ-mental perspective. In Economy and ecology: Towards sustainabledevelopment, F. Archibugi and P. Nijkamp, eds. Boston: Kluwer.

Nijkamp, P., P. Lasschuit, and F. Soeteman. 1992. Sustainable develop-ment in a regional system. In Sustainable development and urban form,M. J. Breheny, ed. London: Pion.


Owens, S. 1992. Energy, environmental sustainability and land-useplanning. In Sustainable development and urban form, M. J. Breheny,ed. London: Pion.

Owens, Susan. 1986. Energy, planning, and urban form. London: Pion.Pattee, H. H. 1973. The physical basis and origin of hierarchical con-

trol. In Hierarchy theory: The challenge of complex systems, H. H.Pattee, ed. New York: Braziller.

Peters, Robert L., and Reed F. Noss. 1995. Americas endangered eco-systems. Defenders 70, 4: 16-27.

Platt, Rutherford H. 1994. The ecological city: Introduction and over-view. In The ecological city: Preserving and restoring urban diversity,Rutherford H. Platt, Rowan A. Rowntree, and Pamela C. Muick,eds. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Pred, Allan. 1976. The interurban transmission of growth in advancedeconomies: Empirical findings versus regional-planning assump-tions. Regional Studies 10: 151-71.

Rees, William E. 1995. Achieving sustainability: Reform or transfor-mation? Journal of Planning Literature 9, 4: 343-61.

. 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capac-ity: What urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbaniza-tion 4, 2: 121-30.

. 1990. Planning for sustainable development: A resource book. Pro-ceedings of a symposium organized by the School of Communityand Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, November25-27, 1988. Vancouver, BC: Centre for Human Settlements.

. 1989. Defining sustainable development. CHS Research Bulle-tin. Vancouver, Canada: Center for Human Settlements, Universityof British Columbia.

Rees, William E., and Mathis Wackernagel. 1994. Ecological footprintsand appropriated carrying capacity: Measuring the natural capitalrequirements of the human economy. In Investing in natural capital:The ecological economics approach to sustainability, A. M. Jannson, M.Hammer, C. Folke, and R. Costanza, eds. Washington, DC: IslandPress.

Rolston, Holmes, III. 1988. Environmental ethics. Philadelphia: TempleUniversity Press.

Roseland, Mark. 1998. Toward sustainable communities. GabriolaIsland, Canada: New Society Publishers.

Ruckelshaus, William D. 1989. Toward a sustainable world. ScientificAmerican 261, 3: 166-74.

Rydin, Y. 1992. Environmental impacts and the property market. InSustainable development and urban form, M. J. Breheny, ed. London:Pion.

Sargent, Frederic O., Paul Lusk, Jose A. Rivera, and Maria Varela.1991. Rural environmental planning for sustainable communities. Wash-ington, DC: Island Press.

Scruggs, Patricia. 1993. Chapter 1Definitions and principles. InGuidelines for state level sustainable development, Snyder Park, ed.Chapel Hill: Center for Policy Alternatives and EnvironmentalResource Program, University of North Carolina.

Simon, David. 1989. Sustainable development: Theoretical constructor attainable goal? Environmental Conservation 16, 1: 41-48.

Simon, Herbert A. 1962. The architecture of complexity. Proceedings ofthe American Philosophical Society 106, 6: 467-82.

Smit, Barry, and Michael Brklacich. 1989. Sustainable developmentand the analysis of rural systems. Journal of Rural Studies 5, 4: 405-14.

Smith, Timothy W. 1996. Sustainable communities in the urban-ruralinterface. Small Town & Rural Planning (March): 8-12.

Southworth, Michael. 1997. Walkable suburbs? An evaluation ofneotraditional communities at the urban edge. Journal of the Ameri-can Planning Association 63, 1: 28-44.

Spain, Daphne. 1995. Sustainability, feminist visions, and the utopiantradition. Journal of Planning Literature 9, 4: 362-69.

Stone, P. A. 1973. The structure, size and costs of urban settlements. Cam-bridge: University Printing House.

Tolba, Mostafa Kamal. 1987. Sustainable development: Constraints andopportunities. Boston: Butterworth.

Tonn, Bruce E. 1986. 500-year planningSpeculative provocation.Journal of the American Planning Association 52, 2: 185-93.

Voisey, Heather, Christiane Beuermann, Liv Astride Sverdrup, andTim ORiordan. 1996. The political significance of Local Agenda 21:The early stages of some European experience. Local Environment 1,1: 33-50.

Wackernagel, Mathis, and William Rees. 1996. Our ecological footprint.Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society.

Weitz, Jerry, and Terry Moore. 1998. Development inside urbangrowth boundaries: Oregons empirical evidence of contiguousurban form. Journal of the American Planning Association 64, 4: 424-40.

White, Rodney R. 1994. Urban environmental management. New York:John Wiley.

Wilson, William H. [1974] 1983. Moles and skylarks. In Introduction toplanning history in the United States, Donald A. Krueckeberg, ed.New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED).1987. Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Documents

Sustainability and Planning - Edward J. Jepson, Jr