This dossier sums up the discussions about environmental conditions and sustainability in the light of the development of the PerfectCity Charter. By asking our readers which factors define this issue for them the most we want to identify the relevant ones. And these are the result:

 

First, let’s have a closer look at the values of the factors: As we can see all factors are more or less close together. This shows that “Environmental conditions and sustainability” is a complex issue. The different factors are related to and dependent on each other. It is important to consider a master plan.
Besides this fact, this figures shows that “Energy efficiency and production” is considered to be the leading factor of this poll. It is well known, that environmental pollution and the emission of CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels constitute a threat to the environment and sustainable economic growth. We have supported this factor with an interesting article on how cities can be energy efficient and pictured different solution. For instance, cities should install energy efficient street lightning and should make new buildings more energy efficient.

In second place of this poll we find “Green space”. According to Greenspace Scotland “Green space” is any vegetated land or water within or adjoining an urban area. It includes:

• Derelict, vacant and contaminated land which has the potential to be transformed
• Natural’ green spaces - natural and semi-natural habitats
• Green corridors - paths, disused railway lines, rivers and canals
• Amenity grassland, parks and gardens
• Outdoors sports facilities, playing fields and children’s play areas
• Other functional green spaces e.g. cemeteries and allotments
• Countryside immediately adjoining a town which people can access from their homes

Several studies have shown the importance of green spaces for cities. A study by Groenewegen et al for open access journal BMC Public Health analyzed the effects of green space on health, well-being and social safety. Previous (experimental) research in environmental psychology has shown that a natural environment in a city has a positive effect on well-being through restoration and removal of stress and attentional fatigue. Descriptive epidemiological research has shown a positive relationship between the amount of green space in the living environment and physical and mental health and longevity. The study’s aim is to establish the relationship between the amount and type of green space in people’s living environment and their health, well-being, and feelings of safety, to study the mechanisms behind this relationship, and to specify the implications for policy making. You can have a look at the whole study here.
Public green spaces contribute to the social, economic and environmental well-being of a community and are places that provide free access to recreation and the supporting infrastructure.

The factor “Green construction and buildings” comes in third place. An American study, developed for the Sustainable Building Task Force, a group of over 40 California state government agencies, represents the most definitive cost benefit analysis of green building ever conducted. It demonstrates conclusively that sustainable building is a cost-effective investment, and its findings should encourage communities across the country to “build green.  “Green” or “sustainable” buildings use key resources like energy, water, materials, and land much more efficiently than buildings that are simply built to code. They also create healthier work, learning, and living environments, with more natural light and cleaner air, and contribute to improved employee and student health, comfort, and productivity. Sustainable buildings are cost-effective, saving taxpayer dollars by reducing operations and maintenance costs, as well as by lowering utility bills. For further information on the study “The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings” click here.
Green buildings and green construction are always issues of interest for PerfectCity. You can find many interesting articles, for instance Build Green! — Green Buildings and Green buildings — The majority of consumers reject additional costs for energy efficient sales and service areas.

The factor voted in fourth position was “Waste management and recycling”. The incidents that happened in Naples in December 2007 show what could happen when waste management and recycling is not handled properly. Rubbish has not been collected in Naples and the surrounding area of Campania in Italy since December 2007 because local landfills were full. The smell of trash thickens the airs as the Naples waste disposal problem grows. You can find a lot of other examples that show what happens when cities and regions do not benefit from a well working waste management system. We gave a resume about this in an article called “Environmental pollution – The dirtiest cities in the world".

The factor voted in fifth place is “Green public transportation”. This factor is followed by “Energy conservation systems” in sixth position.
“Xeriscaping” is voted last. Maybe this is because people are not familiar with this term. “Xeriscaping” is a landscape design for water conservation and it is promoted in areas that do not have easily accessible supplies of fresh waters. The Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) and the Bureau of Reclamation funded a comprehensive Xeriscape Conversion Study to research the amount of water saved by property owners who removed grass and replaced it with water-efficient xeriscape. The Xersicape Conversion Study began in 1995, and the final report was released in 2005. The final results show on average you can save 55 gallons (around 208 litres) of water per square foot (square foot = 0.0929 square metres) by converting grass to a water smart landscape. Even a densely-planted xeriscape saves enormous volumes of water. The study covers typical water savings, cost-effectiveness of conversion projects and residential landscape water use.

The results of this poll lead to the question what can we do for a sustainable living. We had an interesting discussion on this topic. So far, the problem of sustainability has been framed as everybody’s problem that someone else must solve. We tend to think this a problem that requires political or technical solutions. Sadly, the solutions require every one of us to make substantive changes to the way we behave. Three sets of behaviour are associated with sustainability; 1) consume less, 2) produce more, 3) waste nothing. This sounds simple, but it requires a dramatic change in our lifestyle, a radical redesign of our urban centres, reformation of the means we use to produce goods and fundamental shifts in provincial and federal policies. If we make these changes soon, then the costs will be minimized and benefit will be returned. The longer we wait, the more costs will rise and the more benefits will decrease, until we are faced with a situation where the costs are extreme and the only benefit is survival. If we continue behaving the way we are behaving, then one sad day we will have left only one choice; change or die. Rather, the sooner we change our behaviour and the design of our cities the sooner we reap the benefits of increase efficiencies and productivity that is the direct result of sustainable behaviour.