Sustainable Water Plan- Sydney Region

Sustainable Development of Water Resources

Fresh water is a matter of life or death in the world. It is a resource essential for life on Earth and required for virtually all environmental processes. Worldwide it is used by humans for consumption, food production, in industrial processes, in energy production and a variety of recreational activities in additional to the natural environment’s requirements (Aplin et.al., 1999).

Water has been a critical factor in development of Australia and whilst it is scarce in many parts of Australia it is in ever increasing demand. Past and current mismanagement has put even greater stress on this resource in many parts of Australia (Australian State of the Environment Committee, 2001).The demand and intensity of debate about water resources rises and falls with not only economic and social pressures but in line with natural fluctuations such as drought (Young, 2000), indeed water is never far from the public consciousness in Australia;

“Think we’re blessed that we live in Australia
But at the moment we don’t have enough water
And when we do it contains giardia”
(Chris Duke and the Royals, 2006)

Water has become an issue of increasing importance to almost unprecedented levels at all levels of government in Australia in recent years both due to drought and other political factors (Dovers, 2008). In both 2006 and 2009 water was seen as the environmental issue of most concern to residents of New South Wales. Concern for water fell between 2006 and 2009 with the breaking of the drought, showing the change in concern over water resources is related to environmental, economic and social pressures but even with this drop it remained clearly the issue of most concern (Department of Environment Climate Change and Water, 2010b).

As a concept sustainable development is one of near universal approval with the precepts of sustainability and sustainable development virtually unchallenged by people (Hattingh, 2002 and Gunder & Hillier, 2009). Despite this, or indeed perhaps due to this approval there is a looseness of concept of sustainability and sustainable development that has resulted in almost all of the stakeholders in the sustainable development process, whom is virtually every person and organisation in the world forming their own definition of what exactly sustainability and sustainable development means. The most common definition used is that of the Brundtland report, that is;

“Sustainable Development is Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (United Nations, 1987)

This is a rather open and subjective definition of sustainable development and has resulted in the vast majority of definitions of sustainable development to be broken into two broad camps, that of strong sustainability and weak sustainability. These divisions are centred mainly on how the definition balances the interaction between the 3 pillars of Sustainable Development, the environmental aspect, the social aspect and the economic aspect.

The problem in defining sustainable development in a context of urban water supply has been noted as a complicated one (Syme, 2008). As a resource water is intimately linked to these three aspects (see table 1). It is vital for environmental health and this has recently been recognised with many heavily irrigated river systems being required to maintain an environmental flow to maintain the health of the natural environment in the river’s catchment. Socially water is an important resource as it is essential for human health. Quality of life will drop dramatically for people without access to adequate amounts of safe water; this is for their own consumption and for the production of food. Additionally water is used by a number of industries and for recreational purposes. The importance of water as a valuable resource gives it a significant economic value. The extraction and treatment of water can be a costly process, alongside the treatment and disposal of water after it has been used. Ultimately it is the consumers and general public who bear these financial costs. However it is important to not cost water so heavily that people are unable access adequate amounts of water as this can not only affect the quality of life but possibly health also.

Aspect of Sustainability	Environmental	Social	Economic
How Does Water Relate	Water is required for virtually all environmental processes. A lack of water in the natural environment can have severe impacts on habitat and species diversity.	Water is essential for human health and survival, both as a direct consumable and for the production of food. Water is also used in human industrial processes and for a multitude of recreational activities. A lack of convenient and safe water supply can have a severe effect on the quality of life for the people affected.	Water is an extremely valuable resource, especially in Australia. The collection and treatment of water is an expensive process. These costs are carried by both government and private industry however it is eventually the consumers and general public whom are forced to bear these costs. Additionally a lack of water naturally due to seasonal variations can have severe economic effects on food production and other industries.

Table 1- Water and the 3 Pillars of Sustainable Development

When the above factors are combined it becomes apparent that any plan for the sustainable management of water resources needs to carefully balance the need for water between three aspects of sustainable development. This means that a sustainable water management plan needs to be able to balance the supply of water for people’s social and economic needs with the need of that water in the natural environment. Additionally the economic cost of water needs to be kept as reasonable as possible so as to not deny the socio-economically disadvantaged access to the water they need for health and quality of life.

Water in the Sydney Region

As the Sydney region encompasses many local government areas the management of water in the Sydney region is considered a responsibility of the New South Wales State Government. Management of these water resources is the Sydney Water Corporation. For this reason the Sustainable Water Plan for Sydney will cover the same area of operations as Sydney Water. Sydney water provides water, waste water services and limited stormwater services to over 4 million people in the Sydney Basin, The Blue Mountains and the Illawarra (see figure 1).

The current system of water supply in Sydney is a very one way system where water is collected in dams, treated and pumped to the consumer where it is used. The waste water is then removed sent to a treatment plant and then released, with the majority of this water being released into the ocean. The major problem with this system is the linear nature as this doesn’t resemble the natural cyclical water cycle process. The population of Sydney is also increasing, with the supply of water remaining at the same level, so far increases in population haven’t greatly increased the demand for water do to increases in water use efficiency. It is therefore hoped that further increases to water use efficiency will help mitigate the increase on demand from future increases in population.

Figure 1 (not included here)- Area of Operations for Sydney Water (Sydney Water, 2010)

A Sustainable Water Plan for Sydney

Water is also one of the issues that New South Wales residents feel is going to increase in importance in the next decade (Department of Environment Climate Change and Water, 2010a). If this is the case the planning for this needs to occur now, rather than in 10 years time and that is where the Sustainable Water Plan for Sydney comes in.

A sustainable water plan for Sydney is one that is provides adequate supplies of safe water to as much of the population of the city at a reasonable economic cost, whilst having as little impact on the environment as possible. These three pillars can be seen in the three principle objectives of Sydney water, to protect public health, to protect the environment and maintain a successful business (Sydney Water, 2010).

The water supply for Sydney can vary dramatically (as shown in figure 2).and this means that supplies of water that are not rainfall reliant would be of use in Sydney.

Figure 2 (not included here)- Water Supply and Storage in Sydney (Sydney Catchment Authority, 2010)

There are two main approaches to water management and ensuring the supply of water to the population. The two approaches are demand management and supply management.

Demand management is increasing the efficiency of water use by consumers at the consumptive end. Historically demand management in Sydney has been a relatively successful process with the Sydney region using similar amounts of water now (in 2010) as it did in the 1970s despite the greater population. This shows that an expanding population does not necessarily require greater water supply if increases to efficiency can be continued (Sydney Water, 2010). Currently the majority of Sydney water’s demand management occurs through the Water 4 Life initiative. Historically demand management has been a voluntary process for residents due to the legal and ethical issues of enforcing how people use water in their homes; however the water restrictions and current water 4 life rules are enforceable with fines issued by authorised officers. The Water 4 life rules replace the previous level 0 and level 1 water restrictions, however level 2 and 3 restrictions can still be implemented if water levels in the dams drop below pre existing thresholds. In the Sydney reason demand management focuses strongly on residential water use as this is 70% of the water used in Sydney and it is hoped that water saving measures by residents and businesses will save 145 Billion Litres of water a year by 2015. (Sydney Water, 2010)

There is little room for major changes in the demand management side of water management in Sydney. This is due to the fact that water wise rules and water restrictions can only apply to water use outside of residential houses, this leaves water saving and efficiency measures for the water used inside the house an entirely voluntary process. Education and advertising can encourage people to be more efficient but dramatic changes to water price to encourage people to save water can have a negative effect on people’s ability to access the water they require for health and quality of life, especially people under financial hardship for other reasons.

There is greater flexibility in the supply management aspect of the Sustainable Water Plan for Sydney. This is finding new supplies of water for the region which are if possible not rainfall reliant. Four potential supply solutions would be a new dam system in Sydney, stormwater harvesting, desalination and water recycling. The first two of these solutions are less appropriate for a number of reasons. First of all both these systems are rainfall reliant so would not serve to alleviate water stress in drought conditions. There are few suitable locations for a new dam in Sydney due to the pre existing development and the most suitable location at Welcome Reef has been placed on indefinite hold (Sydney Catchment Authority, 2002). Stormwater harvesting is a more complicated issue for Sydney Water as Sydney Water doesn’t maintain the majority of the storm water systems in the region. The local council is in charge of storm water maintenance so it would need to occur on a council by council basis.

The Kurnell Desalination plant was a relatively controversial decision that was made, but now that it is in operation it supplies 15% of Sydney’s water needs with the potential to increase to 30%. As it is using sea water it is not reliant on rainfall and can increase production when there is need. However there was a large cost both environmentally and economically by the construction of the plant. However the majority of this economic cost and much of the environmental cost was during the construction of the plant and as this investment has been made the continued use of the desalination plant a much more reasonable option when compared with the costs for decommissioning it and developing an alternate system (WSAA, 2010).

The final option for supply management of water in Sydney is water recycling. The goal here is to move away from the current once through water system to a closed off water cycle. By closing off the water cycle it treats waste water as a resource to be utilised not waste to be disposed of. Recycled water can be used for non drinking purposes and treated accordingly or it can be used for drinking and treated accordingly, this is called indirect potable reuse. Once again the big advantage for this process is it is not reliant on rainfall and there is even less environmental impact than desalination. Recycled water for non drinking purposes is generally supported by communities, but water of non drinking water quality can only used for about 30% of the water use in a household. Another issue with this form of water recycling is the new pipe system required which limits this system primarily to new growth areas.

Indirect potable reuse is a more controversial proposal, and in Sydney would involve treating it to a high level and pumping it into the upper Nepean River to feedback into Warragamba dam. There are both major advantages and disadvantages to this system. The is less new infrastructure required and therefore it is a solution for all on Sydney rather than a particular area, however there are economic costs in the pumping system to move the water around Sydney. The treatment system is almost identical to the desalination process so the cost there is similar. Finally there is much more community opposition to drinking recycled water in Australia, despite the frequency of this process being used overseas. This social stigma is the main hold up for indirect potable reuse in Australia as the technology is as reliable as other potable water sources (Smith, 2005).

No single method listed above will provide the solution to the water management and supply issues in Sydney. A sustainable water plan for Sydney would attempt to balance the environmental, social and economic factors involved in providing water to residents in the Sydney region. The growing population of Sydney will require both more water and more reliable water and this will only be managed through a system of demand management and supply management. New sources of water for Sydney will most reliably be found either through a combination of desalination and water recycling. Both these supply systems will have an environmental cost and economic cost, but these costs are required to be able to provide for people’s social need, that is access to clean reliable water to maintain their health and quality of life.

References

Aplin, G., Beggs, P., Brierley, G., Cleugh, H., Curson, P., Mitchell, P., Pitman, A. & Rich, D. (1999) Global Environmental Crises: an Australian perspective 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, Melbourne

Australian State of the Environment Committee (2001) Australia State of the Environment 2001, Independent Report to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Heritage, CSIRO Publishing on behalf of the Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.

Chris Duke and the Royals (2006) Water, Scissors, Paper, Rock!, Audio CD, Electric Sun Productions, Sydney

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, (2010a) Who Cares About the Environment in 2009? A survey of NSW people’s environmental knowledge, attitudes and behaviours, NSW Government: Sydney

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, (2010b) Who Cares About the Environment in 2009? At a glance, NSW Government: Sydney

Dovers, S. (2008) Urban Waters: Policy, Institutions and Government, in P. (ed) Troubled Waters: Confronting the Water Crisis in Australia’s Cities, ANU epress, Canberra

El Saliby I, Olour, Y, Shon HK, Kandasamy J & Kim S (2009) Desalination plants in Australia, review and facts,

Gunder, M. & Hillier, J. (2009) Planning in ten words or less, Ashgate, Sustainability of and for the market.

Hattingh, J. (2002) On the imperative of sustainable development A philosophical and ethical appraisal in Janse van Rensburg et. Al. 2002 Environmental Education, Ethics and Action in Southern Africa. Pretoria

Misra BM & Kupitz, J (2004) The role of nuclear desalination in meeting the potable water needs in water scarce areas in the next decades, Desalination 166, pp 1-9

National Water Commission, (2007), Using recycled water for drinking: An Introduction, Waterlines Occasional Paper No 2, GHD, Australian Government: Canberra. Located at http://www.nwc.gov.au/resources/documents/using-recy-water-drinking-body-Waterlines-0607.pdf last accessed November 2010

NSW Office of Water (2010) 2010 Metropolitan Water Plan, NSW Government: Sydney

Smith S. (2005) Desalination, waste water, and the Sydney Metropolitan Water Plan, Briefing Paper No 10/05, NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service: Sydney located at http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/D92DB6F939EAC6FECA2570680025DA5E/$File/Desalination%20and%20index.pdf last accessed November 2010

Sydney Catchment Authority (2002) Water Saving Efforts Stop $1 billion dam and Create New Nature Reserve, Media Release available at http://www.sca.nsw.gov.au/news/media-releases/march-2002/water-saving-efforts-stop-$1billion-dam-and-create-new-nature-reserve last accessed November 2010

Sydney Catchment Authority (2010) Water Storage and Supply Report available at http://www.sca.nsw.gov.au/dams-and-water/weekly-storage-and-supply-reports/2010/4-november-2010 last accessed November 2010

Sydney Water (2010) Area of Operations available at http://www.sydneywater.com.au/OurSystemsAndOperations/images/AreaOfOperations.jpg last accessed November 2010

Sydney Water Corporation (2010) Desalination, www.sydneywater.com.au/Water4Life/desalination

Sydney Water Corporation (2010) Water for Life, www.waterforlife.nsw.gov.au/desalination

Syme, G. (2008) Sustainability in Urban Water Futures, in Troy, P. (ed) Troubled Waters: Confronting the Water Crisis in Australia’s Cities, ANU epress, Canberra

United Nations (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future found at http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm last accessed November 2010

Water Technology Net (2010) Desalination, www.water-technology.net

Water Technology Net (2010) White Paper: Solar-Driven Desalination with Reverse Osmosis. Located at www.water-technology.net/downloads/whitepapers/environmental/file1524 last accessed November 2010

WSAA (2006) Refilling the Glass; Exploring the issues surrounding water recycling in Australia, Water Services Association of Australia Position Paper No. 2. located at https://www.wsaa.asn.au/Publications/Documents/WSAAPositionPaper2%20Refilling%20the%20Glass.pdf last accessed November 2010

WSAA (2010) Implications of population growth in Australia on urban water resources, Water Services Association of Australia, Occasional Paper No. 25

Young, A. (2000) Environmental Change in Australia since 1788 2nd Ed. Oxford University Press Melbourne

Interpretation of Sustainable Development for Urban Regions

Sustainable Development is a relatively new concept, especially compared with the concept of Urban Planning and Development. It has only really emerged in the last few decades, but it is one of a small collection of concepts that receives nearly universal approval; concepts like justice, equity, democracy and fairness (Hattingh, 2002). As a concept very few people are willing to challenge the precepts of Sustainability and Sustainable Development (Gunder & Hillier, 2009). In spite of this nearly universal approval however the concept of Sustainable Development remains a subject that is remarkably hard to achieve a definition that is universally approved. In essence Sustainable Development is a concept that everybody approves of even if they can’t quite agree on what exactly Sustainable Development actually means.

Our Common Future, which is more commonly known as the Bruntland report gave the first and most often repeated definition of Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development is defined in this report as;

“Sustainable Development is Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (United Nations, 1987)

This definition of Sustainable Development is quite vague and has lead to repeated attempts over the past decades to refine, redefine and expand on this concept of sustainable development. Indeed since the Bruntland report’s definition an entire industry has developed around deciphering and advocating what Sustainable Development means (Kates, Parris & Leiserowitz, 2005). Indeed despite being embraced as a basis for integrating environmental, social and economic decision making in Australia since the Brundtland report was published (Buhrs & Aplin, 1999) in 2007 the Australian government was still only in the act of (re)defining what Sustainability meant to Australia (The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, 2007).

Often the difficulty in defining Sustainable Development comes from the different opinions of just what needs to be sustained and what needs to be developed (Kates, Parris & Leiserowitz, 2005). It has been said that whilst in the last few decades knowledge of what needs to be sustained has increased it is the definition of what and how to develop that has become more difficult (Sneddon, Howarth & Norgaard, 2006). The large variety of viewpoints that can be seen and expressed within the Sustainable Development debate can be seen in Figure 1. On one axis you have increasing socio-economic well being concerns and on the other you have increasing environmental concerns, with the shaded area representing views in the sustainable development debate.

Figure 1 (not included here)- Different views on Sustainable development (Hopwood, Mellor and O’Brien, 2005)

The under emphasis of the natural environment in the Brundtland report’s definition is why this definition has been called a “weak” definition of sustainability, where Sustainability can be achieved with the replacement of natural capital if the overall stock of capital has been maintained over time. A “strong” definition of Sustainability is one in which the maintenance of natural capital is required (Hattingh, 2002). Natural Capital is defined as both living systems and ecosystems and the renewable and non renewable resources used by humans such as water, minerals, oil, air, soil and fish (Hawken, Loving & Loving, undated). It has taken billions of years for the Earth’s supply of natural capital to develop and much of the capital being used is irreplaceable and this is what has lead to the main divide between weak and strong definitions of sustainability. Because of this looseness of definition Sustainable Development and Sustainability are terms used and redefined constantly by environmentalists, politicians and business leaders; all in different ways and there is now the risk that there are so many definitions that the concept may be becoming increasingly empty and in fact be moving towards meaninglessness (Kates, Parris & Leiserowitz, 2005 and Hopwood, Mellor and O’Brien, 2005).

The concept of sustainability has been adapted to fit a variety of different challenges such as sustainable cities, sustainable livelihoods, sustainable agriculture and sustainable fishing (Kates, Parris & Leiserowitz, 2005) and all of these concepts would come underneath the banner of “Sustainable Development” for at least some of the stakeholders in this process. But despite this and the wide variety of definitions of just what Sustainable Development entails there has slowly developed a core set of values and principles. These concepts are the “three pillars” of Sustainable Development; social, environmental and economic development. Thus whilst there might be considerable debate about the exact nature of Sustainable Development, with no one definition being correct (Harding, 1998) the vast majority of interpretations of Sustainable Development, both weak and strong focus on achieving a balance between these three domains; the environment, society and the economy (with the precise balance being what differs between definitions). As such there is an incredible array of different issues that come under the banner of Sustainable Development according to different people, issues such as; climate change, peak oil, deforestation, over fishing, threats to biodiversity, equality, urbanisation, food security, alternative energy, water pollution and wealth distribution can all be expressed in a sustainable development context.

With this in mind Sustainable Development policies and programs are especially important, as for the first time in history more people live in urban settings than in rural ones, this fact means that urban regions will be a key area worldwide for Sustainable Development planning. Cities and Urban regions are clearly at the centre of the Sustainable Development debate, this is both due to the number of people living in urban regions, but the amount of resources these regions consume relative to their size and the fact they are the technological and economic centres of the modern world (Finko & Nijkamp, 2001). This is especially true for Australia due to the high urbanisation rates and low density cities. 83% of the Australian population lives within 50km of the coast and the majority of the population lives in cities of over 1 million people. Housing stocks in Australia are growing rapidly and population growth is largest in cities. Australians are generally well housed with a high level of satisfaction with their standard of housing, and this is despite housing affordability issues. The amount of travel, particularly by car is increasing in Australian cities and this can have both health and quality of life issues attached to it. Changes to urban form and growth of cities are also subjecting a greater number of people to environmental noise issues (Australian State of the Environment Committee, 2001). All of these above urban development issues can be viewed from a Sustainable Development perspective, so a policy to counteract one of these issues can be seen as part of a Sustainable Development strategy whether it is formally acknowledged or not. Issues in Australian occurring from the urban environment intersecting with the natural environment that are of particular importance can be summarised as

• Growth of the “Mega Metropolitan” areas, particularly Sydney and the rest of the South Eastern growth corridor. Planning will need to take into account the disparity of growth and investment between large cities and also handle the high growth areas.
• Urbanisation of Coastal Environments, especially on the East Coast. This will have a large affect on both the existing natural local environment and local economy.
• The differential growth patterns of Inland urban regions. Due to economic shifts some inland urban areas are seeing a decline in population whilst some are seeing rather rapid growth.
• Ageing urban infrastructure and the inability of new infrastructure construction to keep up with growth rates is a concern in urban areas (Australian State of the Environment Committee, 2001).

Attention to these issues and more is required for Australian urban regions to begin on the path to sustainability, changes are required institutionally, change in the structures and approaches of the agencies of government, the private sector and the professions, and change in the way that issues and problems are defined and their solutions are approached (Australian State of the Environment Committee, 2001). As such policy or planning on any of these issues can be seen as relating to the Sustainable Development of Urban Regions.

In Europe many of the Sustainable Development issues being faced are similar to Australia due to similar levels of urbanisation and growth, with transport, energy use and industry causing the greatest affect on the natural environment. These areas along with tourism however are listed as being the areas that stand to gain the most from planning within a Sustainable Development framework (European Communities, 1993). Figure 2 shows how regional urban development can be seen to affect the surrounding natural environment. It is shown from a European perspective but is just as valid for non European urban regions.
 

Figure 2 (not included here)- The affect of Urban Development on the natural environment (European Communities, 1993)

To some extent however urban growth can be seen as a positive in the Developing World. Sustained Industrial Development has been a major contributor to poverty reduction and economic growth, especially in Asia. However not all developing countries share these benefits (United Nations, 2006). Most Urban growth in the world has occurred in Developing countries and is particularly due to rural-urban migration. Despite the growth often occurring faster than services can be provided, which can affect health, it has been shown that in developing countries services are still often better in urban environments that the corresponding rural ones and that the largest number of people living in poverty are still found in rural areas (Aplin et al., 1999). Environmental stress and lack of productive lands are often blamed for this rural-urban migration but it is more than just this. Social structures which regulating access to resources thought to improve quality of life also play a very important role in this migration pattern (Morrissey, 2008).

Depopulation of the sparser inhabited areas of the country is also seen as an issue in the Swedish Strategy for Sustainable Development with a review of planning and building legislation to bring town and country planning more into line with Sustainable Development goals. Particular focus is also being paid to calculating the costs and environmental impacts of the building sector by both the Swedish national government and the European Union. More sustainable energy use is another focus of the Swedish government and improving road and rail transportation with long term Sustainable Development goals in mind are additional aspects of the built environment section of the National Strategy (Swedish Ministry of the Environment, 2004).

The United Kingdom’s national sustainability strategy, Securing the Future sees creating sustainable communities a challenging task requiring the integrated delivery of environmental, economic and social goals. The attempt is to tackle this at the local level with the sustainable communities’ agenda, especially focusing on equality and participation whilst working on equalling opportunities at the national level (HM Government, 2005). This relationship between centralised direction and localised action is particularly apparent in the English example but common throughout the world, as globally agreed goals are expressed at a national level and then attempted to be delivered at a grass roots level (Smith, Blake & Davies, 2000). It has been observed that in Australia there can be difficulties when local strategic land use plans and Local Envionmental Plans have goals not aligned with State Government agency developed regional plans (NSW Department of Local Government, 2006).

Sustainable Urban development is an incredibly important objective on the way to the goal of achieving Sustainability. This is because cities hold the majority of people on the planet and are the largest consumers of resources on the planet also and it is the balancing of the three pillars of Sustainable Development (the environment, the economy and societal needs) that provides the greatest challenge to creating Sustainable Urban Regions (Finco & Nijkamp, 2001). The planner faces the challenges of not only simultaneously growing the economy, but spreading this growth equitably whilst not degrading the natural environment (Campbell, 1996).

The reported level of success that has been had by Urban planning in delivering Sustainable Development outcomes has often depended on whom is reporting the results, but generally the levels of success have been mixed. Often results of the sustainable communities projects in the United Kingdom have been hampered by an inability to generate enough local participation, such as in Huntingdonshire (Smith, Blake & Davies, 2000) or Sutton (Local Government Management Board, 1997). More success has been reported by programs such as the Hornsby Council in Sydney’s Earthwise Community Sustainability Indicators Program (Hornsby Shire Council, 2004) although the outcomes of this program are related to creating indicators that may later be involved in council planning to indicate progress towards sustainability.

Nationally results are reported to be even more positive, despite a lack of progress by many countries towards global Sustainable Development goals such as reducing the effect of climate change. Achievements since 1999 listed in the UK government National Sustainable Development Strategy in Sustainable Communities chapter are

• Places getting cleaner
• Places getting safer
• Places getting more attractive (HM Government, 2005)

Whilst these achievements would all come under the banner of Sustainable Development they hardly seem as critical for a national government when compared to Sustainable Developments intention to improving equality and quality of life for all citizens whilst minimising or eliminating natural environment degradation.

In Australia sustainable urban design has been noted as lacking. Often there are good strategies but then structures that contravene those strategies are still allowed to proceed. The failure of transferring academic research and theory into Sustainable Urban Design into practice has been singled out as a significant problem as has the length of time required to put good urban design into practice when compared to the short term political decision making cycle of Australia (Australian State of the Environment Committee, 2001).

Sustainable Development is an incredibly important issue in the world, with Sustainable Urban Development being a critical part of this due to the size of cities in the world, the percentage of the population living in those cities and the resources they consume. Developing effective Sustainable Urban development strategies is complicated greatly due to the variety of conflicting definitions of Sustainable Development and the various groups intent on using and coopting this term to further their own interests (either status quo or transformative). There have been a large variety of strategies and programs that could be claimed to fall under the banner of Sustainable Urban Development constructed at a variety of scales and whilst some have been reported as successful and some as unsuccessful there has been relatively few large scale Urban Sustaiable Development Policies that can be regarded as true successes, especially when looked at in relation to the broad goals of Sustainable development, that is to increase the quality of life of all citizens in an equitable manner whilst maintaining or improving natural environmental quality.

References

Aplin, G., Beggs, P., Brierley, G., Cleugh, H., Curson, P., Mitchell, P., Pitman, A. & Rich, D. (1999) Global Environmental Crises: an Australian perspective, 2nd Ed., Oxford University Press, Melbourne

Australian State of the Environment Committee (2001) Australia State of the Environment 2001, Independent Report to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Heritage, CSIRO Publishing on behalf of the Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.

Buhrs, T. & Aplin, G. (1999) Pathways towards sustainability: The Australian approach. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. Abingdon

Campbell, S. (1996) Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities? Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sustainable Development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62:3, p296-312

European Communities (1993) Towards Sustainability, Official Journal of the European Communities, No C 138/5

Finco, A. & Nijkamp, P. (2001) Pathways to Urban Sustainability, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 3 p289-302

Gunder, M. & Hillier, J. (2009) Planning in ten words or less, Ashgate, Sustainability of and for the market.

Hattingh, J. (2002) On the imperative of sustainable development A philosophical and ethical appraisal in Janse van Rensburg et. Al. 2002 Environmental Education, Ethics and Action in Southern Africa. Pretoria

Harding, R. (1998) Environmental Decision Making: the roles of scientists, engineers and the public. The federation press. Sydney

Hawken, P. Lovins, A. & Lovins, L.H. Natural Capitalism: Creating the next industrial revolution (see excerpts www.naturalcapitalism.org/)

HM Government (2005) Securing the Future; the UK government sustainable development strategy. Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Hopwood, B. Mellor, M. & O’Brien, G. (2005) Sustainable Development: Mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development, 13, 38-52

Hornsby Shire Council (2004) Case Study: Hornsby Earthwise Community Sustainability Indicators Project, Hornsby Council

Kates, R. Parris & T. Leiserowitz, A. (2005) What is sustainable development Goals, Indicators, Values and Practice. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, Volume 47, Number 3 8-21

Local Government Management Board (1997) Towards a Sustainable Sutton. Local Agenda 21 UK Case Study Project

Morrissey, J. (2008) Rural Urban Migration in Ethiopia. Forced Migration Review, 31. 28-29

NSW Department of Local Government (2006) Planning a Sustainable Future: A Department of Local Government Options paper on Integrated planning and reporting for NSW Local Councils, Department of Local Government

Smith, J. Blake, J. & Davies, A. (2000) Putting Sustainability in Place: Sustainable communities projects in Huntingdonshire. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 2 211-223

Sneddon, C. Howarth & R. Norgaard, R. (2006) Sustainable development in a post Brundtland world. Ecological Economics 57 253-268

Swedish Ministry of the Environment (2004) A Swedish Strategy for Sustainable Development- Economic, Social and Environmental, Swedish Ministry of the Environment

The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia (2007) Sustainability for survival: creating a climate for change Inquiry into a sustainability charter House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage Canberra: House of Representatives Publishing Unit http://www.aph.gove.au/house/committee/environ/charter/report/fullreport.pdf

United Nations (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future http://www.un-doduments.net/wced-ocf.htm

United Nations (2006) Trends in Sustainable Development. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. New York

While Environmental Planning emerged as a profession in the 1970s, the environmental planning movement was evident sometime before this

There can be little doubt that the environment is a major consideration for planning in the world today and that the environmental movement has considerable influence on the planning profession today (Williams, 2007), but it is much harder to trace back to when and where this environmental concern arose from. Environmental concern in planning did not appear out of the blue in the 1970s, it existed in various guises with differing degrees of influence just as planning as a concept did not emerge out of the blue at the turn of the 19th century but had existed in a variety of forms before then.

Planning can be seen as a product of its time (Freestone, 2007), reflecting, shaping and being shaped by social trends (Williams, 2007). This means the prevailing social, economic and environmental ideas are reflected in the planning theories of the time. Thus with the emergence of the modern environmental movement around the 1970s there can also be seen an emergence of environmental planning. However, environmental concerns do predate this 1970s emergence even if they are not primarily identified as environmental concerns, and much like this environmental concerns in planning existed prior to the 1970s even if they are not formally identified as such.

Environmental planning and in particular the term “environment” can have a broad variety of meaning. Environment at its most basic simply means “the sum total of the conditions of the surroundings within which an organism, or group, or an object exists” (Clark, 2003). This means environments can be used to talk about the natural, disturbed and artificial environment. This means in the broadest sense, assuming that the term “environmental” covers the built environment too, all planning can be considered environmental planning as planning has been focused on the built environment since its inception. However a more common definition is that “environmental” planning is more concerned with the natural environment.

An appreciation of the natural environment is not a new development in human history, however the most dramatic changes in attitude to the environment in Australia (since European settlement) have been since 1970 (coinciding with the emergence of environmental planning as a profession). These changes have been formalised with changes to laws regarding; pollution, chemical use, protection of native flora and fauna (especially endangered species) and regulation of natural resource use (Young, 2000).

The origin of a specific identity for planning dates to around the turn of the 19th century, emerging from ideas like the garden city movement, the city beautiful movement and concerns over public health (Thompson, 2007). Planning however has existed from ancient history to the present day in a variety of names, with a variety of different functions even if it wasn’t explicitly identified as planning. Classical Greece developed planning theories for the building of their city states and colonies, whilst in cultures like Ancient Egypt planning and architecture existed mainly to reinforce the power of the rulers with cities such as Thebes designed to meet religious and governmental roles (Greed, 2000).

It is however the 19th century that is identified as when modern town planning began to emerge in response to the conditions of life in the major metropolises of the age. Initially it was deeply concerned with improving urban health, efficiency and beauty (Freestone, 2007). The earliest planning reforms were intended to simply deal with the (linked) effects of disease, overcrowding and slum development. Drainage and sewerage were made necessary along with other interventions to halt the spread of cholera and other disease (Greed, 2000). In the United Kingdom the Public Health Act of 1875 provided local authorities the power to make and enforce building bylaws to control the height, structure and layout of buildings and the width of streets in an attempt to address air and water pollution, waste disposal and ventilation issues (Wood, 1999). These actions were done in the name of public health and chiefly aimed at the working class (Greed, 2000). This development of the planning system (in the United Kingdom) from a concern about health and pollution in fact give an environmental origin for planning that has since been forgotten (Wood, 1999). Indeed combating pollution is a major role for environmental planning today.

Initially planners like Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier (even if they did not self identify as planners) concentrated on transforming the urban environment with new designs and dramatic changes to the cities of their time. Whilst all pushing different ideas and directions they felt good planning was a way of creating social harmony. The plans arose from the fear and revulsion felt over the 19th century metropolises, an excitement about what technology meant for new urban forms and the expectation that a new age of freedom was at hand. Concentrating on ideal models for cities their plans may seem utopian to us today but they were in fact not just architectural changes but complete alternate societies (Fishman, 1996). None of these plans had much of a focus on the natural environment however, dealing mainly with architecture, urban design, politics and economics. Housing was the main question and Garden Cities (popularised by Howard) was one of the main answers (Hall, 2002).

Howard’s Garden city was seen by the inventor (for he saw himself as an inventor not a planner) as a combination of proposals already before the public. Focusing on combating the poverty that existed in existing cities it held many radical social ideas dating to the late 1800s (Fishman, 1996), there was no focus on the natural environment. The surrounding greenbelt parks of the Garden Cities existed mainly for human amenity however they could potentially serve a purpose of conservation and protection for the natural environment. As such the garden city movement can be seen to have an (initially) unintended connection to the environmental movement and what would later become known as environmental planning.

Planning focus started to shift during the 1920s, whilst still concerned primarily with housing there was a greater focus on planning for future needs due to the accelerating urban growth (Freestone, 2007). The Garden city movement had begun to give way towards modernist integrated high density ideas like Le Corbusier’s Radiant City (Hall, 2002) however, with housing and density the focus there was a decline in what could be seen as environmental planning.

Affordable housing and slum clearance and other social concerns came to the fore in the 1930s thanks to the depression (Freestone, 2007), with still no environmental focus. But an even bigger change to planning occurred in the post WW2. Post war reconstruction saw a burst to planning activity all over Europe with strategic plans for cities like London, Stockholm and Copenhagen (Hall, 2002). These plans tried to integrate the planning ideas that had emerged since the 19th century like garden cities, rural conservation, urban renewal, traffic planning, affordable housing and regional development, and influenced planning in cities such as Sydney, Ottawa and Tokyo worldwide (Amati & Freestone, 2009).

The post war period was not one where concern about the environment was strong so environmental planning was not a focus (Wood, 1999). One of the pre eminent names in planning of this era is that of Patrick Abercrombie, who amongst other things created the post war plans for London. His background as an architect was a common thing for planners in his time but is rare now and he held the technocratic outlook that was common for planners of his time. Favouring one shot design solutions he avoided many of the things common in planning now such as costing, cost benefit analysis, monitoring or projections feeling that much of the job needed to be done so cost was irrelevant and that poverty and inequality were concerns of sociologists and not planners (Amati & Freestone, 2009; Hall, 1995). His view of the car as a liberator to be planned for was also common for the time (Hall, 1995) and this could be seen as at odds with current environmental planning focuses. He continued to promote the Greenbelt idea proposed by the Garden City movement, which today has a strong connection to sustainability and environmental planning (Amati & Taylor, 2010). Indeed the post war period could be seen as a “heyday” for the Greenbelt, however the reasons initially put forward for the green belts were inevitably closer related to separation of urban and rural areas and providing human amenity rather than direct environmental concerns (Evans & Freestone, 2010).

The recognised environmental movement began to emerge worldwide around the 1970s and it is at this time we see the linked (re)emergence of environmental planning. Events like the Green Bans in Sydney during the early 1970s showed the power of this newly emerging environmental movement and brought this movement into the field of planning (The Planning Boardroom, 2010). In a case of history repeating itself the first environmental issues that environmental planning would be related to in the 1970s would be that of pollution. In this period pollution became a much more important factor in development control than it ever had been before (Wood, 1999). However in this case it was environmental health issues being the driving factor rather than simply human health. Protection of the environment became a one of the many focuses in this era (Hall, 2002) rather than one focus, such as housing that had existed previously.

The environmental agenda has remained at the forefront of planning since the emergence of the modern environmental movement in the 1970s. A development plan without environmental protection policies is as rare today as one including environmental protection was during the post war period (Wood, 1999). However concerns have broadened to include more than just the initial concerns of pollution and degradation (Hall, 2002) to things like globalisation, sustainable development, habitat protection and biodiversity conservation (Williams, 2007). As the environment has become a much more high profile issue politically since the 1970s there has also been an increase in political interest in environmental planning, particularly concerning issues such as sustainable development where planning is seen as a key instrument in delivering land use and development compatible with sustainable development (Wood, 1999). In fact the growth in concern about the environment and the subsequent creation of dedicated environmental agencies has been criticised as making environmental planning a more complicated issue (Williams, 2007).

Planning can be seen as a reflection of social trends, and the emergence of the modern environmental movement in the 1970s can directly be linked to the emergence of the modern environmental planner as a profession, however this is not the first time that environmental concerns have been present in planning. The fluctuation in concern for the environment socially is reflected in the fluctuations of importance given to the natural environment in planning. Planning grew out of initial concerns about pollution connected to the industrial revolution thus giving it a strong environmental connection at the beginning. As the concerns of society changed however the environmental focus of planning declined to its lowest level in the post war period where it was all but forgotten, only to re-emerge in the 1970s, and with this can the emergence of the environmental planning profession.

The environmental planning movement has been around since the inception of the planning movement it has just ebbed and flowed with the level of environmental concern in the society at the time.

References

Amati, M. & Freestone, R. (2009) ‘Saint Patrick’ Sir Patrick Abercrombie’s Australian tour 1948, Town Planning Review 80 (6)

Amati, M. & Taylor, L. (2010) From Green Belts to Green Infrastructure, Planning, Practice & Research 25 (2)

Clark, A. (2003) The Penguin Dictionary of Geography, 3rd Ed, Penguin Books, London

Evans, C. & Freestone, R. (2010) From Green Belt to Green Web: Regional open space planning in Sydney, 1948-1963, Planning, Practice & Research 25 (2)

Fishman, R. (1996) Urban Utopias: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Le Corbusier, in Readings in Planning Theory 2nd Ed, Blackwell Publishing, Cambridge

Freestone, R. (2007) A History of Planning, in Planning Australia: An overview of urban and regional planning ed Thompson, S., Cambridge University Press, Melbourne

Greed, C. (2000) Introducing Planning, The Athlone Press, London

Hall, P. (1995) Bringing Abercrombie back from the shades: A look forward and back, Town Planning Review 66 (3)

Hall, P. (2002) Planning: millennial retrospect and prospect, Progress in Planning 57 pp 263-284

The Planning Boardroom (2010) The Green Ban Movement, accessed online at http://www.theplanningboardroom.net/the-green-ban-movement/ last accessed March 2011

Thompson, S. (2007) What is Planning? In Planning Australia: An overview of urban and regional planning, ed Thompson, S., Cambridge University Press, Melbourne

Williams, P. (2007) The Natural Environment, in Planning Australia: An overview of urban and regional planning, ed Thompson, S., Cambridge University Press, Melbourne

Wood, C. (1999) Environmental Planning, in British Planning: 50 years of urban and regional policy, ed Cullingworth, B., Athlone Press, London

Young, A. (2000) Environmental Change in Australia since 1788, 2nd Ed, Oxford University Press, Melbourne