ISDRArticle

Abstract nr. 843
Abstract code
Advancing Green Urbanism in Urban Regions of America: Central Puget Sound Case Region
Author Raker, Jeffrey, Saxion Universities of Applied Sciences, Utrecht, Nederland
Co-author(s) - De Vries, Bauke
Topic Track 3A - Sustainable and Healthy cities: urban development, health risks and spatial
planning: compact city debates - sustainable development and urban housing - construction
Keywords Green Urbanism,Regionalism,Sustainable Development,Urban Policy
1.0 Introduction
Green Urbanism is a planning approach that has emerged as a method to address environmental
as well as social and economic challenges associated with urban development. Advancing green
urbanism at a regional scale has been particularly difficult given the distinctive challenges
associated with the American system of planning: low tax revenue for local jurisdictions, low public
land ownership, extensive protections for individual property owners, political fragmentation, and
inconsistent and outdated regulations and incentives (Nivola 1999). It is challenging to use
regional authority without the existence of federal level leadership on spatial issues as damaging
inter-regional competition can result and regional level authorities to enforce such measures have
not been granted in most states (Beatley, 2000). The new presidential administration has
expressed a strong commitment to sustainable development and climate change issues (Broder &
Baker, 2009). It is likely to advance some of these commitments, but it is important to identify
green urbanism strategies that can be transferred from ‘green’ regions to regions that are
dependent on manufacturing that contributes to global warming as well as the factors that give
such regions the capacity to make such investments (Broder, 2009).
The primary problem that this research attempts to understand is the inability of planners to
ensure green urbanism is coordinated across jurisdictions and advanced in a meaningful manner
in regional scale plans and policy guidance in America. The research evaluation confronts this
predicament by identifying activities that organizations in the Central Puget Sound region are
doing to advance green urbanism in response to specific obstacles and highlighting elements of
the strategies utilized in the case region that may be strong candidates for application among
other US regions.
This research supplements investigations into the characteristics of a community that facilitate
sustainability planning (Budd et al., 2008; Brody et al., 2008; Jepson, 2004; Wheeler, 2000) and
adds to the body of knowledge regarding regional scale green urbanism in America (Beatley,
2000; Beatley & Wheeler, 2004; Jepson, 2004) by providing an additional level of detail on a case
region that is commonly identified for its exemplary approach to sustainable urban development.

An assessment by experts in multiple sectors and scales is utilized to identify the tools or tactics
generated in the Central Puget Sound and to assign groupings of these strategies that are good
candidates to be transferred to regions exhibiting less favorable characteristics.
2.0 Literature Review
Edward J. Jepson identified 39 sustainability-oriented urban policies and surveyed whether they
were being implemented among 390 US cities as well as identifying the principal impediments to
their implementation (Jepson, 2004). Jepson found that the regional location, population size, and
educational attainment did not impact whether a community can implement these tools and a lack
of knowledge, low public interest, and a perception that tools are inappropriate for planners have
been more influential than political opposition, administrative limitations, and fiscal constraints
(Jepson, 2004). He concluded that “all communities have an essentially equal potential to
implement,” but indicated that the level at which policies are pursued varies (Jepson, 2004). He
highlighted the need to pursue research to explore whether this variation is dependent on ‘local
political culture and leadership’, ‘proximate environmental conditions’, the ‘nature of state laws’,
the ‘effectiveness of interest groups’, or other variables (Jepson, 2004).
William Budd, John C. Pierce, and Barbara Chamberlain developed a sustainability index for cities
in the U.S. and assessed the association between specific sustainable urban planning policies and
cultural factors present in each location (Budd et al., 2008). In advancing on findings in previous
research, they were able to identify a positive correlation between those communities more
invested in sustainable urban development policies and expressions of a strong social capital
(Putnam, 2000), a ‘creative class’ (Florida, 2002), and a ‘moralistic’ cultural heritage – historic
settlement of population with ideals for “politics as a public activity [with] government intervention
in the economic and social life of a community” (Elazar, 1994; Budd et al., 2008).
Samuel D. Brody, Sammy Zahran, Himanshu Grover, and Arnold Vedlitz explored potential factors
that influence whether a community will voluntarily participate in climate planning programs by
looking at risk, stress, and opportunity among US counties. Risk – a localities vulnerability to
climate change – was determined by looking at the average temperature estimates from 2004 to
2099, injuries and fatalities from historic ‘hydro-meteorological events’ from 1960 to 2005, and
counties with 15% of their land area within a coastal watershed. Stress – a localities level of
contribution to climate change – was determined by using state level GHG emissions data and
assigning it proportionately to county-level populations, identifying the percentage of the workforce
in more resource-dependent and carbon-intensive industries such as forestry & manufacturing,
and the modal split for work trips by non-motorized and transit modes. Opportunity – a localities
ability to adopt climate policies and planning – was determined by looking at the percentage of the
population using solar energy, the percentage of the population with a bachelors degree or above,
and the number of nonprofit environmental groups based in the county (Brody et al., 2008).
All of the factors except solar energy use were found to have an influence on whether a county
would participate in the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) program, which involves strong
commitments to sustainable urban development tools (Brody et al., 2008). For characteristics of
risk a county with 15% more area in a coastal watershed is 3.8 times more likely to adopt the CCP
and a level of 118 more fatalities and injuries in a county is associated with a 36% increase in the
likelihood of participation (Brody et al., 2008). For characteristics of stress a higher percentage of
non-motorized and transit use in a county is associated with a 17% increase in the likelihood of

participation and an 8% higher level of carbon-based employment is associated with a 50%
decrease in the likelihood of participation (Brody et al., 2008). For characteristics of opportunity a
county is almost 3 times more likely to participate for every additional environmental nonprofit and
a 7% higher level of a county’s population that is college educated is associated with a 68%
increase in the likelihood of participation (Brody et al., 2008).
These findings indicate that regional location, population size, and education have an influence on
the adoption of such strategies and pinpoints a number of regions in the US that share specific
combinations of these characteristics. ‘Hotspots’ of these factors were identified to highlight
locations where counties participated in the CCP program (Brody et al., 2008). The spatial maps
reveal how the communities that contribute most to climate change and are less vulnerable to its
effects are less likely to participate in these types of planning policies (Brody et al., 2008).
In Planning for Metropolitan Sustainability (2000) Stephen M. Wheeler highlighted a number of
features that are important in ensuring that a strong commitment to regional sustainability planning
can be achieved: (1) Establishment of regional visions & plans that can be diffused to local
government and establish consensus on policy issues, (2) Regional coalition building facilitated by
planners & politician with an environmental, social equity, and business organization orientation,
(3) Establishment of stronger regional authorities with statutory authorities over a specific area of
planning with higher level government support and the ability to channel finance to local projects
and programs, (4) State-supported intergovernmental incentive frameworks that lead to better
regional coordination, (5) Regional sustainability indicators, (6) Multiple levels of public
participation, and (7) Public education & social learning with an ‘accumulation of social capital’
(Wheeler, 2000). This framework is useful in organizing the elements of green urbanism utilized at
a regional scale and assessing the level of green urbanism commitments among varying regions
of the US as it is the only contemporary reference specifically targeted to the assessment of
‘metropolitan’ or regional level sustainability planning whereas the other resources investigated
are more targeted to city and county level commitments (Wheeler, 2000).
3.0 Research Methods
The analysis in this research attempts to advance on the findings in Jepson, 2004 by fulfilling its
call for an investigation into ‘real life’ examples and a more firm establishment as to the ‘exact
nature’ of the sustainable urban development tools that have been enacted (Jepson, 2004). The
evaluation provides an updated list of green urbanism approaches being explored and a
background of information on specific perceptions from experts in the case region.
Wheeler’s framework has been selected as the primary mode of analysis for assessing the case
region’s efforts to advance green urbanism. The interviews and planning document review are
compared with the regional sustainable development framework provided by Wheeler in order to
discover the level in which these strategies are being implemented and the level at which the full
range of tools in the region are vulnerable to specific obstacles.
In expanding on the analysis in Brody et al., 2008, this research seeks “contextual
understanding… that broad statistical analysis cannot accomplish” and evaluates adopted policies
and the level at which they can be effectively implemented (Brody et al., 2008). It also highlights
some elements for “how and why jurisdictions commit to climate change plans and policies” (Brody
et al., 2008). The interviews are used to identify whether tools in use in the region have any

potential application in communities exhibiting low risk – high stress – low opportunity
characteristics. Finally, the comments in the interviews and planning documents also help
establish whether strategies might be implemented in traditionalist and individualist cultural
environments as well as areas with lower social capital and creative class characteristics as
described by Budd et al., 2008.
Accessibility to a number of important stakeholders has been enhanced by past working
relationships with a number of those interviewed. In the interest of ‘reflexivity’ it is important to note
that the author of this evaluation has worked as a regional planner in the Central Puget Sound at
an organization that understands there are advantages in experimentation that are associated with
higher levels of differentiation among local jurisdictions and market-based approaches that are
enacted, but maintains that these activities should be coordinated within the organizing framework
of regional regulatory authorities that have some capacity to enforce regional scale policy and
ensure coordination among fragmented jurisdictions and conflicting local level priorities. As this is
the case, it is particularly important to ‘manufacture distance’ to avoid any conclusions that are
developed out of “a deep and blinding familiarity” (McCracken, 1988).
For this research examination it has been advantageous to be located outside of the US for more
than a year. Study on the variances between the Dutch and the American cultural definitions
regarding nature and different methods that have been employed have been important in
establishing a more externally oriented assessment of the situation in the case region. Locating
outside of one’s home country is found to be a justifiable method of manufacturing academic
distance (McCracken, 1988).
3.1 Conducting Planning Document Review
Information on spatial, demographic, ecological, economic, and socio-cultural information was
acquired from a number of reports from the Puget Sound Regional Council as well as local news
articles in developing a profile of the case region. This review of regional planning documents was
also conducted in order to highlight definitions for sustainable development applied by regional
organizations in the case region, identify priorities established in policy, and evaluate performance
measures to highlight how the region defines success regarding policy implementation. This
review included elements of the state Growth Management Act, two versions of the official
regional growth plan (Vision 2020 & Vision 2040) and complementary plans for transportation
(Destination 2030) and economic development (Prosperity Partnership Regional Economic
Strategy), and a three year assessment of the implementation of a competing strategy (the
Cascade Agenda Progress Report).
3.2 Conducting Interviews
Interview respondents from multiple scales and multiple sectors were selected in order to acquire
a more comprehensive assessment of the actions taken inside and outside of the planning office
as well as the varying motivations behind different organization types. The original sample to be
investigated included public, private, and non-profit organizations at the local, regional, and state
level.
The final list of 16 interview respondents includes state-level government represented by the
Managing Director of the Growth Management Services division of the Washington State

Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development. The regional scale is represented
by an interview with a Program Manager at the Puget Sound Regional Council (state and federal
designated regional planning organization), a Project Manager dedicated to clean technology from
the Prosperity Partnership (a regional economic development district & business association), and
a Project Associate of the Cascade Agenda Cities Program at the Cascade Land Conservancy (a
regional nonprofit organization dedicated to assisting local government in related
regulations/incentives and market-based activities).
The Puget Sound Regional Council has identified five ‘metropolitan cities’ as the communities that
are to receive the highest levels of growth through the year 2040 (PSRC, 2008). Local level
government representatives from three cities (Tacoma, Bellevue, & Bremerton) of the five
identified (excludes Seattle & Everett due to limited responses) were interviewed as they represent
the communities that are likely to face the most vital need for green urbanism initiatives in working
to confront this future growth. Additional perspectives were acquired from a Senior Researcher at
Sightline (a national level research institute), the head of Twelves Unlimited (a consultancy firm in
marketing), and a Project Assistant with Kitsap SEED (a pilot project to establish an eco-industrial
part with government support).
To cover the three most recognized elements of sustainability (society, economy, and
environment) interviews were also performed with a number of additional organizations with an
important stake in the region. The Urban Bays Project Coordinator at People for Puget Sound
(large environmental nonprofit) and the Executive Director of the Cascade Bicycle Club (statewide
bicycle advocacy organization) represented the environmental category. An interview with the
Deputy Director of the Low Income Housing Institute and Emeritus Professor of Urban Design and
Planning at the University of Washington (a researcher with significant knowledge in community
development) represented the social dimension. Finally, the Business Development Manager at
enterpriseSeattle (a county level economic development organization) and the Government Affairs
Director at the Master Builders Association of Pierce County (a construction industry association
supporting green building techniques) served as a sampling of organizations with a more
economically based perspective.
The interview questionnaire covered 10 primary questions covering past experience, definitions of
green urbanism, organizational roles, the unique elements of green urbanism in the Puget Sound,
measures of success, obstacles to advancing green urbanism, the manifestation of these
obstacles in the case region, green urbanism tools and tactics, an assessment of coordination and
integration in the region, and factors in exporting measures from the case region to other areas.
4.0 Central Puget Sound Case Region
The case region is located in Washington State in the extreme northwestern corner of the United
States. The Central Puget Sound region is an area of 6,000 square miles containing four counties:
King County, Kitsap County, Pierce County, & Snohomish County (OFM, 2008). All four counties
have coastal areas along the Puget Sound, a water body with a series of islands and inlets that
extend inland from the Pacific Ocean and the Strait of Juan de Fuca (PSRC, 2008). The multi-
county region contains 82 cities and towns of varying size and character (Prosperity Partnership,
2008). The majority of the cities are contained within an urban growth area adjacent to each other
within the areas nearest to the shoreline. A number of satellite cities with their own designated
growth boundaries are located outside of the contiguous urban area among rural, agricultural, and

nature areas.
The case region contains almost 3.6 million people and 2 million jobs (OFM, 2008). According to
the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), the region is forecast to grow by roughly 1.4 million
people and 1 million jobs by the year 2040 (PSRC, 2008). The planning targets are for 32 percent
of the population growth to locate into 216 square miles contained in the five largest cities of the
region (Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, & Tacoma) (PSRC, 2008). Only seven percent of the growth is
targeted to occur outside of the targeted urban growth boundary (PSRC, 2008).
In connection to research in the literature review, the region exhibits high risk, low stress, and high
opportunity characteristics (Brody et al., 2008). All of the counties in the Central Puget Sound are
identified as high opportunity communities that have additional capacity to invest in green
urbanism strategies due to educational attainment and a strong non-profit sector (Brody et al.,
2008). As specified in Brody et al., 2008 high risk communities are generally located in line with
coastal proximity and counties in the Puget Sound are vulnerable to flooding and other climatic
effects due to a significant proportion of coastal shoreline and the slope variations in the region
(Brody et al., 2008). Although the Central Puget Sound Region has been historically driven by
resource-intensive industries such as logging, agriculture, and fishing and other forms of resource-
extraction and manufacturing, all of the counties in the case region are characterized as low stress
communities, unlike the Midwest and Southeast where the economy is still dependent on carbon-
based industries and there are low development densities (Brody et al., 2008). The employment
growth in the clean technology industries was over 20% from 2005-2007 and expectations are that
the impact of the industry will be significant given recent commitments to ‘green’ jobs development
at the state level (Prosperity Partnership, 2008). In addition, many of the sizable industries
targeted for growth such as Information Technology, Business Services, Head Offices, and Life
Sciences are likely to be less resource-intensive relative to other industries.
The region also exhibits high levels of social capital and creative class and a moralistic political
sub-culture that supports the adoption of green urbanism tools & tactics (Budd et al., 2008).
Seattle has been ranked second among 49 US cities examined for cultural features that support
increased urban sustainability attributes (Budd et. al., 2008). This ranking indicates that a
‘moralistic political culture’ based on Daniel Elazar’s mapping of US sub-cultures is present in the
case region (See Section 2.3.4) (Elazar, 1994; Budd et. al., 2008). This implies that the general
public and politicians in the area recognize the importance of common needs and it involves a high
level of public input in stakeholder decisions (Budd et. al., 2008). A secondary component of this
ranking highlights that the region has strong levels of ‘social capital’ based on extensive levels of
trust in public officials and other actors which facilitates risk-taking (Budd et. al., 2008). In addition,
the ranking indicates that the region exhibits many of the characteristics that support the formation
of a ‘creative class’ as identified by Richard Florida (Budd et. al., 2008). This highlights how the
case region is made up of highly trained grouping of ‘creative professionals’ in high-tech
industries, high levels of technology transfer between discovery and product, and some indication
that there are higher levels of tolerance among diverse communities (Budd et. al., 2008).
In combination with the high opportunity, high risk and low stress conditions identified for the
Central Puget Sound Region (Brody et. al., 2008), these cultural characteristics have shaped the
strong ecologically oriented perspective of the region’s residents. The determinant cultural
characteristics are supported by recent evidence. There has been significant growth in venture
capital in recent years and significant financial commitments have been made toward research

and development that supports innovation in the region (Prosperity Partnership, 2008). In addition,
the state has a high level of minority-owned businesses certifications (Prosperity Partnership,
2008). Extremely high levels of employer-based charitable giving and Seattle’s top ranking in the
number of arts organizations per capita of the 50 largest US cities indicate that the region has a
strong non-profit sector (Prosperity Partnership, 2008). However, patents remain fairly low relative
to peer regions and even though the region has been able to attract a highly educated workforce,
there has been a decline in homegrown postsecondary degrees awarded from 2004-2006 unlike
many peer regions (Prosperity Partnership, 2008). Individual charitable contributions also declined
to levels lower than peer regions (Prosperity Partnership, 2008). In general, these findings support
the assessment that the region indeed contains elements of a ‘creative class’, a strong level of
‘social capital’, and a ‘moralistic political culture’. This assessment also supports the evaluation
that the region contains high opportunity characteristics.
In aligning the regional sustainability framework in Wheeler, 2000 to evidence in local planning
documents and policy (See Figure 1.0), the Central Puget Sound Region appears to maintain a
strong framework for sustainability planning with region visions and plans committed to a more
sustainable planning agenda for growth management and other forms of green urbanism
(Wheeler, 2000).
[INSERT FIGURE 1.0]
5.0 Results
A large set of green urbanism strategies were identified as part of the interview process. There
was a significant level of overlap between different interview respondents regarding what they
considered to be the most pressing obstacles to the advancement of sustainable urban
development. Many of the responsive measures are carried forward and analyzed for potential
application in other regions.
Close to 100 strategies were identified among the interview responses (Figure 2.0a, 2.0b, & 2.0c).
Many of these strategies fit into the policy areas highlighted in the analysis of strategies among
over 300 cities in Jepson, 2004. A set of nine other categories of tactics were created to deal with
the mass of information: (1) Sustainable Infrastructure & Services, (2) Green Economy & Market
Creation, (3) Planning Philosophy, (4) Monitoring & Benchmarks, (5) Influencing Non-Sustainable
Behavior, (6) Growth Management & Land Conservation, (7) Green Build, Design, & Restoration,
(8) Environmental Planning & Policy Tools, and (9) Equalization of Jurisdiction Sustainability
Planning Capacity.
In analyzing the results, the strategies were evaluated for use among low Risk, high stress, and
low opportunity characteristics as well as the less supportive socio-cultural characteristics.
Principles were established as to which types of strategies would be more likely to have an effect
in each contextual environment based on interview responses. A specific set of the 100 or so
strategies were selected for those contexts, forming packages of strategies that can be considered
for application by practitioners in region’s exhibiting these less supportive features.
[INSERT FIGURE 2.0a, 2.0b, & 2.0c]
5.1 Strategies that Confront Less Supportive Risk, Stress, & Opportunity Characteristics

As specified in Brody et al., 2008 certain characteristics in a region impact its level of investment in
green urbanism strategies. Strategies need to be developed to confront low opportunity, high
stress, and low risk characteristics in order to advance sustainable urban development in
communities that do not currently support their application (Brody et. al., 2008). The passages
below evaluate tools in use in the case region that may help confront some of the limiting factors in
the regions exhibiting less supportive characteristics for sustainability planning. The groupings of
tools are listed according to each of these less supportive characteristics (See Figure 3.0).
Characteristics of low risk are exhibited in communities that are less vulnerable to climate change
because they are not located in coastal areas, there are few injuries and fatalities associated with
water and weather effects, and they are not experiencing severe temperature increases (Brody et.
al., 2008). A community that is less vulnerable to climate change is less likely to prioritize green
urbanism strategies as an investment for the region. The identified strategies in the case region
that emphasize more ‘self-interested’ environmental policy are more likely to confront the apathy of
communities that exhibit these characteristics. Much of this is likely to involve enhancing
educational initiatives in the region and re-orienting the discussion around the ‘green’ economy.
Green urbanism is more likely to be pursued in the interest of cost-savings or other advantages
that do not necessarily fulfill obligations associated directly with environmental protection, but
result in similar outcomes. The likelihood of implementing other elements of green urbanism in low
risk communities will depend on local cultural perceptions as these will influence whether a
community is willing to invest in activities that will benefit other regions that do exhibit higher levels
of vulnerability to climate change.
The characteristics of high stress are high greenhouse gas emissions, a high percentage of jobs in
carbon-intensive industry, and a low percentage of work trips using public transit and non-
motorized transport (Brody et. al., 2008). The set of tools in the case region that may support the
establishment of lower stress are those that set a community on a path to develop ‘green’
economy alternatives and reduce the impact of polluting industries. This effort involves
enhancements to local environmental planning and an advocate role for planners to increase
motivations to pursue environmental commitments. In addition, there are a large number of
strategies to confront non-sustainable transport challenges.
High stress communities are more likely to be less responsive to voluntary programs (Brody et al.,
2008). The comprehensive planning program as a component of the Growth Management Act,
programs to encourage private sector developers to construct projects using green build/design,
and a number of successful programs in the Central Puget Sound have been heavily dependent
on voluntary commitments. In addition, it is important to note that the strategy to provide ‘less
support for a community unwilling to transition to 'green' economy’ as identified in the case region
would be counterproductive in a community in which the transition from heavy industry will have
extreme socio-economic implications without additional tools to provide job training and other
forms of support in making the shift to more ‘green’ industry alternatives.
Low opportunity characteristics involve a low percentage of population with bachelor’s degrees
and a low number of non-profit environmental organizations, and one other un-correlated factor
(low percentage of solar energy use among the majority of households) (Brody et. al., 2008). The
strong causal relationship between the opportunity variables – the development of a strong
nonprofit community as well as improvements in education – and the likelihood of participation in

establishing climate planning policies may indicate that these are some of the most promising
factors in initiating climate policies in communities that would not be expected to participate (Brody
et al., 2008).
To confront these low opportunity characteristics, it is necessary for a region to first build up basic
foundations such as educational commitments and job growth to allow for a grasp of complicated
environmental issues. This effort involves enhancing the advocacy of local planners. Tools that
may be less effective are efforts that assume a high level of understanding regarding the necessity
of commitments to sustainable urban development such as newly introduced growth controls and
other more authoritative forms of environmental regulation without a concerted green awareness
program.
[INSERT FIGURE 3.0]
5.2 Strategies that Confront Less Supportive Socio-Cultural Characteristics
The case region has been identified as a community with socio-cultural characteristics that support
the adoption of urban sustainability attributes (Budd et. al., 2008). Other regions in the United
States do not have these supportive characteristics and the following passages highlight which
strategies may be considered for application among communities that exhibit low levels of ‘social
capital’, a less-existent ‘creative class’, and a ‘historical political legacy’ that does not support
sustainability planning (Budd et. al., 2008). The packaged tools are listed according to each
context (See Figure 4.0a & 4.0b).
Low levels of ‘social capital’ have been expressed as reduced trust in regards to ‘reasoned risk
taking’, ‘change to bring improvement’, public officials, and the level of consideration others will
take in regards to individually expressed opinions (Budd et. al., 2008). It is also expressed by a
heightened concern for ‘free riding’ which reduces the ability of a community to act in a collective
manner (Budd et. al., 2008). The significant level of public involvement and the high level of
engagement of local organizations in developing regional plans and funding decisions contributed
to the level of trust between the public and government in the Central Puget Sound Region. In
addition, the broad range of partnerships developed in the region represent an emphasis on both
‘bonding social capital’ in which there is internal collaboration within a particular sector and
‘bridging social capital’ in which different sectors and organization types collaborate (Putnam &
Feldstein, 2003).
Methods that contribute to ‘bonding social capital’ help build on existing assets in the region and
making stronger ties among organizations and institutions with similar interests that can contribute
to sustainability planning in an integrated manner. Additional strategies support ‘bridging social
capital’ primarily by engaging in institutional reorganization and integration in regards to measures
of advancement towards sustainable development. These strategies need to respond to regions
experiencing poor levels of trust among different sectors of the community. In addition, strategies
that should be considered are those that enhance overall social objectives.
If the culture of a region exhibits supportive characteristics it is an easier task of mobilizing support
to develop explicit commitments to sustainable urban development, whereas external mandates
such as GHG restrictions, standards for fuel economy, requirements from utilities for a percentage
of renewable energy, incentives for water and energy conservation, and incentives for the

development of non-motorized transport facilities are found to be more effective in those
communities with reduced levels of social capital (Budd et al., 2008).
A community with less of a ‘creative class’ is represented by a lower percentage of a defined set of
professionals in ‘creative industries’, low levels of innovation (patents per capita), few ‘high tech’
industries (as ranked by the Milken Institute on the ‘Tech Pole Index Rank), and less tolerance for
diversity (as indicated by the ‘Gay Index Rank’) (Budd et. al., 2008). The strategies that enhance a
region’s ‘creative class’ are those that contribute to technological innovation, educational
attainment, the development of ‘high tech industries’, and a celebration of diversity that will attract
‘creative industries’ professionals.
[INSERT FIGURE 4.0a]
In contrast to the more publicly oriented form of governance in communities with a moralistic sub-
culture, traditionalistic political sub-culture is characterized by an elitist or more exclusive form of
governance in which decision-making is more concentrated into a small group without an active
emphasis on fulfilling ‘the public good’ (Budd et. al., 2008). An Individualistic political sub-culture
involves governance that puts more of an emphasis on individual rights and a reduced emphasis
on governmental intervention (Budd et. al., 2008). These sub-cultures have been found to be less
supportive of sustainability planning as the reduced level of trust between the public and
government in the traditionalistic sub-culture and the lower level of intervention in public issues in
the individualistic sub-culture impairs the ability of planners to implement green urbanism
strategies.
Strategies that confront the challenges of a traditionalistic sub-culture will enhance public scrutiny
and transparency in government and open the planning process to enhanced levels of political
influence from organizations other than the mainstream public officials. Much of this involves a
transition in the planning philosophy that is applied. To confront an individualistic sub-culture it is
also important to re-evaluate the overall planning philosophy, but it is likely that more market-
based approaches incorporating more ‘self-interest’ will have the most practical effect. The
strategies that may be considered closely parallel those applied in a community with low risk
characteristics.
[INSERT FIGURE 4.0b]
6.0 Discussion
Findings from the study indicate that strategies to advance the clean technology sector, improve
water and energy efficiencies in buildings and infrastructure, and align economic development and
physical planning may be stronger candidates for application among varying US regions than
those that depend heavily on the existence of strong state level growth controls, a productive
economy with fewer social conflicts, and a high risk level for negative environmental impacts that
have economic ramifications. These dependencies do suggest, however, that the path to advance
green urbanism also involves a concerted effort to improve education, support the non-profit
sector, and gather partnerships among non-traditional allies. These tactics enhance a region’s
‘opportunity’ characteristics and improve the capacity of the region to invest in green urbanism
tools and tactics that are facilitated by better communication throughout the entire map of
organizations and actors in the community.

Changes made in support of green urbanism have been observed to be generally centered around
strategies that yield increases in land and housing costs, which demonstrates a form of ‘green
gentrification’ in which more prosperous cities are the communities in which these policies are
more likely to occur (Budd et al., 2008). Tacoma, Washington has been identified as third among
six communities exhibiting a more integrated approach to sustainable urban development (Jepson,
2004). In the interview with the City of Tacoma it was clear that the city had initiated its efforts to
address economic development in response to severe socio-economic problems, but that it has
now been able to embrace more of the environmental planning that has been adopted in the
region (Barnett, 2008). This may suggest that the communities that find it more challenging to
address green urbanism due to a depressed economy and more extensive social problems are
also those in which a more holistic approach to sustainable development is pursued. Those
communities with the luxury to pursue extensive green urbanism tools could be emphasizing
environmental dimensions over the other dimensions of sustainability.
Urban regions in the US must be careful not to overextend regional authorities in absence of
effective state and federal guidance that could level the playing field or equal out local and
regional scale commitments to green urbanism. Unlike the strong regional authority that can
extend regulatory powers in Portland, the Puget Sound maintains a wider embrace of local scale
diversity with regional standards raised through peer-to-peer commitments. This may be a more
transferable approach for regional green urbanism as demographics change through the high
mobility of the US population and a certain level of flexibility needs to be written into the system.
Portland is experiencing demographic changes that threaten to undermine the relatively heavy
handed commitments the region has made regarding growth controls and the physical planning
appears to have outmoded planning for economic development in a manner that has reduced the
region’s potential to pursue a strong green urbanism agenda (Putnam & Feldstein, 2003).
However, the interviews have revealed that certain elements of regional development should be
addressed through the expansion of regional authority. In particular, more regional scale guidance
regarding energy, waste, and water systems may improve the alignment of political boundaries
and ecological function (Blanco, 2008). Leaders in the Central Puget Sound served as originators
of the Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement to ensure other regions were developing sustainable
urban development programs that support policies to address climate change as they would
otherwise experience a situation in which their commitment to environmental protection would
send highly mobile industries looking for less costly or less bureaucratic opportunities in other
communities (Blanco, 2008).
In the end, the influences on whether tools and tactics from the case region can be applied in a
different region will heavily depend on the socio-cultural characteristics present in that region. It
may be the case that a community that has a less intense emphasis on ‘purity’ in nature may be
able to embrace the concepts of urban ecology more easily, but in a community that is unable to
pursue efforts that support the innovations associated with a creative class or a cultural history
that does not allow for high levels of civic engagement and trust for government there should be a
more strict adherence to ‘self-interested environmentalism’ that embraces more practical
considerations of cost.
7.0 Conclusions & Recommendations

A portfolio of strategies indicated as potential areas to apply green urbanism among varying
contexts has been developed out of this research. To confront low opportunity characteristics it is
important to build upon basic social and educational institutions. In high stress communities the
approach should emphasize the economic advantages in the ‘green’ economy. In low risk
communities it is important to engage in stronger investments in communication to ensure that the
low level of vulnerability to issues such as climate change does not impair a regions capacity to
advance sustainability.
In a community with few characteristics of social capital it is important for regional planners and
stakeholders to enhance upon and find creative options in engaging the public. In developing and
recruiting a creative class in a community with reduced levels of innovation, the lesson from the
Puget Sound appears to be an emphasis on targeting industries that are export-oriented, but more
importantly elements of this strategy should target industries that will contribute to the transition
toward a green economy in order to match international peer regions. It is perhaps more difficult to
respond to entrenched historical political culture, however, the key strategy in confronting a
traditionalistic culture is to enhance civic engagement and political advocacy. One method of
overcoming a community that puts a strong emphasis on individual rights is to first adopt market-
based approaches and express environmental planning as a ‘self-interested’ activity.
Stakeholders conducting planning must respond to local socio-cultural characteristics and the
interaction between human and natural systems more effectively in formulating a regional strategy
to advance green urbanism. This research evaluation has set out some conceptions of strategies
that may respond more effectively to different levels of risk, stress, and opportunity as well as
varying levels of social capital, creative class, and different political sub-cultures. Additional
research should investigate whether the strategies identified as candidates for application in these
varying planning contexts have been applied among practices conducted by regional planners and
test their level of effectiveness in each environment.
Barnett, Elliott. Planner, City of Tacoma. Interview. July 22, 2008.
Beatley, Timothy. 2000. Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Island Press,
Washington, D.C., USA.
Beatley, Timothy; Wheeler, Stephen M. 2004. The Sustainable Urban Development Reader.
Routledge, New York, NY.
Blanco, Hilda. Emeritus Professor of Urban Design & Planning, University of Washington.
Interview. August 12, 2008.
Broder, John. 2009. Geography Is Dividing Democrats Over Energy. The New York Times,
January 26, 2009.
Broder, John M.; Baker, Peter. Obama’s Order Is Likely to Tighten Auto Standards. New York
Times, January 25, 2009.
Brody, Samuel D.; Zahran, Sammy; Grover, Himanshu; Vedlitz, Arnold. 2008. A spatial analysis of
local climate change policy in the United States: Risk, stress, and opportunity. Landscape and
Urban Planning 87: 33-41.

Budd, William; Lovrich Jr., Nicholas; Pierce, John C.; Chamberlain, Barbara. 2008. Cultural
sources of variations in US urban sustainability attributes. Cities, 25: 257-267.
Cascade Land Conservancy. 2008. The Cascade Agenda Progress Report. Seattle, WA, USA.
Elazar, D. 1994. The American Mosaic: The Impact of Space, Time, and Culture on American
Politics. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Florida, Richard. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure,
Community and Everyday Life. Basic Books, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Jepson, Edward J. Jr. 2004. The Adoption of Sustainable Development Policies and Techniques in
U.S. Cities: How Wide, How Deep, and What Role for Planners? Journal of Planning Education
and Research, 23:229.
McCracken, Grant. 1988. The Long Interview. Qualitative Research Methods Series 13. Sage
Publications, University of Guelph, Canada.
Nivola, Pietro S. 1999. Laws of the Landscape: How Policies Shape Cities in Europe and America.
Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
Piro, Rocky. Program Manager, Growth Management Department, Puget Sound Regional Council.
Interview. July 17, 2008.
Prosperity Partnership, 2008. Central Puget Sound Economic Development District, & Puget
Sound Regional Council. November, 2008. Puget Sound Regional Competitiveness Indicators
2008-2009 Update. Seattle, WA, USA.
Puget Sound Regional Council. 1995. Vision 2020: 1995 Update: Seattle, WA, USA.
Puget Sound Regional Council. April 5, 2007. Destination 2030 Update: Metropolitan
Transportation Plan for the Central Puget Sound Region. Seattle, WA, USA.
Puget Sound Regional Council. April 24, 2008. Vision 2040: People-Prosperity-Planet: The Growth
Management, Environmental, Economic, & Transportation Strategy for the Central Puget Sound
Region. Seattle, WA, USA.
Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse & Revival of the American Community.
Simon & Schuster, Inc. New York.
Putnam, Robert D.; Feldstein, Lewis. 2003. Better Together: Restoring the American Community.
Simon & Schuster, Inc. New York.
Washington State Department of Community Trade & Economic Development. 2005. The State of
Washington Growth Management Act – 2005 RCW Update. Olympia, WA, USA.
Washington State Office of Financial Management. 2008. County & City Data for Washington,
Retrieved on December 15, 2008 from: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/localdata

Wheeler, Stephen M. 2000. Planning for Metropolitan Sustainability. Journal of Planning Education
and Research, 20; 133.

Presentation Preference
Additional information

ISDRArticle

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to ISDRArticle (20)

ISDRArticle