Mapping the Outcomes of Urban Sustainability Policies to Determine Spatial Equity

Principal Investigator: Prof. Julie Cidell (jcidell [at] illinois.edu)

Research Assistant: Michael Minn (minn2 [at] illinois)

Funded by the University of Illinois Campus Research Board, award RB14025

rev. 24 January 2014

Objectives

1. To determine the spatial distribution of the impacts of sustainability policies pertaining to energy, water, transportation, and soil contamination in 4-8 cities across the US;
2. To determine the extent to which spatial equity and spatial justice enter into sustainable urban policy;
3. To conduct a pilot study that can be used in applying for larger grants from the National Science Foundation and similar organizations.

Significance

Existing research on urban sustainability policy has demonstrated the need to move from considering the presence of a policy such as bikesharing or household recycling to understanding the outcomes of such policies. This proposed project will tackle one aspect of policy outcomes: understanding the spatial distribution of the implementation of a selection of sustainability policies in multiple US cities. The goal is to determine if spatial equity exists in how these policies are being implemented, or if they are disproportionately benefitting neighborhoods and demographic groups that are already privileged when it comes to the condition of their urban environment.

Previous Work

Cities have been at the forefront of climate change policy in the last decade and a half since national governments have found it difficult to come to consensus on climate change issues (Andonova and Mitchell 2010, Betsill 2001, Kousky and Schneider 2003). At the same time, related policies around the concept of sustainability or livable cities have expanded the scope of urban environmental regulation beyond tracking and reducing carbon emissions to include rooftops, light bulbs, obsolete electronics, pavement, and agriculture. However, these policies may be easier to conceive of than to implement. Furthermore, it is unclear how cities keep track of the effectiveness of their climate change and related environmental policies and what difference those policies are making on the ground.

The shift from national-level to municipal-level environmental governance has been a common theme of scholarship on urban sustainability in the last decade (e.g., Betsill and Bulkeley 2007, Bulkeley 2010, Cidell forthcoming-a, Koehn 2008, Krause 2011a, 2011b, Sharp et al. 2011). Researchers have argued that cities take on the policy role with regards to climate change because of the failure of their respective national governments to act, but also because they can achieve benefits such as meeting existing local environmental goals, saving money through energy efficiency, or self-promotion and identity-building (Betsill and Bulkeley 2004, Bulkeley 2010, Cidell forthcoming-b, Koehn 2008, Kousky and Schneider 2003).

Research in this area is now moving from uncovering the factors that determine the presence of a sustainability or climate change policy (Brody et al. 2008, Krause 2011a) to studying how such policies have been implemented (Krause 2011b, Pitt 2010, Tang et al. 2010, Portney 2013). One of the next steps is to see what kind of material difference is happening on the ground: are urban sustainability policies making cities measurably greener? (Betsill and Bulkeley 2007, Bulkeley 2010). Carbon reduction in particular is being used "to legitimate certain kinds of urban interventions over others" (While et al. 2010, p. 87), even if for a good cause. However, these changes in how cities develop and implement sustainability policies are not solely carbon-related. Privileging this particular aspect of environmental regulation over others such as water conservation, habitat preservation, or indoor environmental quality risks missing out on other ways in which policy is changing the relationship between the state and nature (Rice 2010).

At the same time, the issue of social equity is often left out of discussions of sustainability (Agyeman 2013). Urban environments are not produced evenly across space, and even policies such as household recycling that are meant to improve sustainability overall may have a disproportionately negative effect on already-disadvantaged groups (Pellow 2002). Alternatively, environmental improvements may only benefit those who already enjoy an urban environment relatively free of pollution and rich in amenities (Pellow and Park 2011). Knowing where the outcomes of urban sustainability policy are occurring is therefore vital to determining their spatial equity. Are bikesharing programs available to residents who do not own cars? Are rain barrel rebates being obtained in locations prone to flooding? Are brownfields being redeveloped in areas that are job-poor, or in locations that are already experiencing economic growth? Are green buildings providing healthy indoor environments for all workers, or only those in certain neighborhoods?

Previous work by the PI has focused on green buildings in the US (Cidell 2009a, Cidell 2009b, Cidell and Beata 2009) and the role that municipal policy has played in the distribution and spread of such buildings (Cidell forthcoming-a, Cidell and Cope forthcoming). Findings include the determination that municipal-level green building policies are, in fact, producing more green buildings; buildings in different regions of the US earn different credits under the most common, flexible rating system (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, under the US Green Building Council or USGBC); and traditional explanations of urban environmental regulation such as a highly-educated or Democratic-leaning population do not hold when it comes to the presence of green building policies.

This work has been carried out with prior funding from the CRB (which led to Cidell forthcoming-b), the Environmental Change Institute, and the National Science Foundation (which led to Cidell forthcoming-a and Cidell and Cope forthcoming). The PI has used results from this work in teaching a Discovery Course for freshmen titled, "The Sustainable City," and has presented findings at the Prairie Research Institute, the Third Global Economic Geography Conference in Seoul, the Geiger Memorial Lecture at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, and multiple departmental colloquia. The proposed project will extend this work by going beyond green buildings to consider other elements of urban sustainability policy. It will also serve as a pilot project to demonstrate the feasibility of this method and the importance of this work in preparation for a proposal submission to the National Science Foundation in October 2014.

Methodology

This project draws on Portney's (2013) work on urban sustainability policies as a starting point. Portney developed a 38-point index titled "Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously" which identifies measures that US cities are taking to improve their sustainability. While many of these measures have to do with administration (e.g., having a designated individual or department devoted to sustainability) or are applicable to the entire municipality at once (e.g, having a climate action plan), about half of them have a distinctly spatial component: e.g., eco-industrial park development, brownfield redevelopment, bikesharing, lead paint abatement, green buildings, and water conservation.

This project will focus on four different urban sustainability programs that are common across the country: brownfield redevelopment, bikesharing, green buildings, and rain barrel rebates. This mixture of programs covers both indoor and outdoor environments; the broader areas of industrial pollution, transportation, energy, and water; both home and workplace as environments for urban dwellers; human and environmental health; and individual and governmental responsibilities. Data for all four programs exists at the national or local level, in terms of addresses where the programs are being implemented. Mapping will be done in ArcGIS, the most common software used in geographical information systems and freely available to UIUC faculty and students, using the address locator function. The RA for the project will therefore be required to have basic ArcGIS skills. The anticipated schedule is to map one of the programs per city per week during the spring semester, plus demographic data for each of the four cities. If time permits in Spring 2014, the number of cities will be expanded.

Brownfields are defined by the EPA as "real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant" (EPA 2013). They pre-exist much of what we call urban sustainability today, although they have been incorporated by many cities under the sustainability umbrella (Portney 2013). The key part of the definition is that a brownfield is not just contaminated land, but land whose reuse is made more difficult by that contamination, or even just the perception of contamination. For example, a former dry cleaners in downtown Urbana has been paved over as a parking lot because of the uncertainty surrounding soil contamination on that site. Redeveloping brownfields is therefore not only about reducing pollution, but enabling economic development through reuse. The spatial distribution of brownfields within a city can therefore tell us which populations may benefit both environmentally and economically from cleanup. Brownfields data will be obtained from the EPA for all of the cities under study, although individual cities will also be contact to see if they keep a separate database.

Bikesharing programs have exploded across the US in the last few years. Most are run by private companies, though there are some under municipal control as well. The goal of these programs is to get more people to travel by bicycle for short trips within the city, thus reducing carbon emissions and enhancing individual health. Users pay a daily or yearly fee to participate, but trips under 30 minutes are usually free. Dozens of stations throughout the city mean that users can pick up and drop off bicycles close to their origins and destinations - at least ideally. Maps are already available for potential users of bikesharing programs; the work here will be to collect the location data in a centralized database in order to compare the spatial distribution of these programs across cities and see the extent to which they might be meeting the local population's need for transportation.

Green buildings reduce environmental impact through reduced use of building materials, energy, water, and waste generation, though energy is often the main focus. As certified by the US Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system, green buildings are found in every state in the country. The goal of LEED is to change the way the building industry operates and consider the indoor environment as a key part of human and environmental health. Hundreds of municipalities across the country, including most of the largest cities, have enacted some kind of policy designed to mandate or encourage the construction of LEED-certified buildings. The USGBC's database of certified projects will be used to map the location of these buildings in cities with a green building policy, concentrating on non-residential buildings (individual houses are rated according to a different system). We will use data on both new construction and existing, retrofitted buildings to determine the extent to which workers in all parts of the city benefit from a healthier workplace.

Water conservation is another key component of most urban sustainability programs. Here we will focus on rain barrel rebates. In many cities, residents can be partially or fully reimbursed for purchasing a rain barrel for home use. The two-fold goal of such programs is to reduce water consumption via rain harvesting, and to reduce stormwater runoff by capturing roof runoff in barrels. Location data is recorded via the address to which rebates are sent. Here, mapping the location of rain barrel rebate recipients will tell us the extent to which individual residents participating in a voluntary conservation program are spatially concentrated or evenly distributed across their respective cities. (Data will be aggregated to the Census block group level to maintain residents' privacy.)

Once mapped, the spatial distribution of these programs will be compared to demographic patterns within the cities in question, based on data from the US Census and American Community Survey. All programs will be compared to maps at the block group or tract level of demographic data such as average age, household income, and race/ethnicity of residents. Additionally, the bikeshare maps will be overlaid with maps showing the distribution of households with 1 or 0 cars. Rain barrel rebate maps will be compared to maps of home ownership to take into account that renters are less likely to be participating in such a program. Brownfields data will be compared to unemployment data and building permit data to determine the relationship between brownfield availability and development need. Green building maps will be compared to data from the Census Transportation Planning Package that identifies the number of workers by Census tract and connects them back to their home tract. More detailed spatial analysis such as cluster analysis and spatial autocorrelation will also be used to determine if there is a strong spatial pattern to the distribution of these programs' outcomes. For example, this can help determine the extent to which neighbors influence each other with regards to a voluntary program like rain barrel rebates by seeing if clusters exist.

Every city and its sustainability programs are different - this pilot project is intended to discover if the suggested data collection, mapping, and spatial analysis methodologies are feasible and appropriate for a wide range of US cities. The project will therefore start with four US cities, to be expanded as time permits. The RA will begin data collection and mapping with the largest central cities: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston. If sufficient time remains, they will add Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego. While not all of these cities have all four programs in place, starting with the largest cities by population enables the analysis to be based on the largest data sets available. For example, while rain barrel rebates are more common in smaller cities such as Santa Monica, the smaller physical size of such cities makes it more difficult to draw meaningful conclusions about spatial distribution. It might be that data on rain barrels rebates is hard to come by despite being ostensibly publicly available, necessitating a change to another program for the larger grant application.

This project also has theoretical and practical implications for studies of urban sustainability. It will help fill in the gap in the academic literature regarding the implementation and impacts of urban sustainability policies by looking at where they actually happen on the ground. Furthermore, if it turns out that social sustainability is being neglected in programs meant to improve the physical environment, cities will need to adjust how these programs are delivered. The PI therefore plans to share her results with the Sustainability Officer or equivalent in each of the cities studied, in keeping with the University of Illinois' mission as a land-grant university.

Budget

CRB funding will enable the PI to hire one graduate research assistant to carry out this work. Research assistance will be needed to help gather the data from various sources and to standardize it within ArcGIS. The RA will produce the various maps of both demographics and sustainability programs, as well as more advanced spatial analyses, during the Spring 2014 semester. A generous schedule of mapping one program per city per week will cover the spring semester. In Summer 2014, the RA will work with the PI to carry out the more detailed spatial analyses (if not already completed during the spring), write up the research results, and develop a proposal for the National Science Foundation to expand this work.

The total amount requested for this RA is $19,208 for a 50% appointment in spring semester and summer session, including fringe and tuition. It is also anticipated that some phone calls will be necessary to obtain local data and have budgeted $100 for that as well. There are no equipment or data costs anticipated.

Bibliography

Agyeman, J. (2013). Introducing Just Sustainabilities: Policy, Planning, and Practice. London: Zed Books.

Andonova, L. and Mitchell, R. (2010). The rescaling of global environmental politics. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35, 255-82.

Betsill, B. (2001). Mitigating climate change in U.S. cities. Local Environment, 6(4), 393-406.

Betsill, B. and Bulkeley, H. (2007). Looking back and thinking ahead. Local Environment, 12(5), 447-456.

Brody, S., Zahran, S., Grover, H., and Vedlitz, A. (2008). A spatial analysis of local climate change policy in the U.S. Landscape and Urban Planning, 87, 33-41.

Bulkeley, H. (2010). Cities and the governing of climate change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35, 229-253.

Cidell, J. (forthcoming-a). Performing leadership: municipal green building policies and the city as role model. To appear in Environment and Planning C.

Cidell, J. (forthcoming-b) Mapping the green building industry: how local are architects and general contractors? To appear in Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie.

Cidell, J. (2009). Building Green: The Geography of LEED-Certified Buildings and Professionals. Professional Geographer 61:2, 1-16.

Cidell, J. (2009). A political ecology of the built environment: LEED certification for green buildings. Local Environment 14:7, 621-633.

Cidell, J. and Beata, A. (2009). Spatial Variation Among Green Building Certification Categories: Does Place Matter? Landscape and Urban Planning 91:3, 142-151.

Cidell, J. and Cope, M. (forthcoming). The effect of municipal policy on U.S. green building activity. To appear in Journal of Planning and Environmental Management.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2013). Brownfields homepage. http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/, last viewed 27 August 2013.

Koehn, P. (2008). Underneath Kyoto. Global Environmental Politics, 8(1), 53-77.

Kousky, C. and Schneider, S. (2003). Global climate policy: will cities lead the way? Climate Policy, 3, 59-72.

Krause, R. (2011a). Policy innovation, intergovernmental relations, and the adoption of climate protection initiatives by U.S. cities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 33(1), 45-60.

Krause, R. (2011b). Symbolic or substantive policy? Environment and Planning C, 29, 46-62.

Park, L. and Pellow, D. (2011). The Slums of Aspen: Immigrants vs. the Environment in America's Eden. New York: New York University Press.

Pellow, D. (2002). Garbage Wars: The Struggle for Environmental Justice in Chicago. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Pitt, D. (2010). The impact of internal and external characteristics on the adoption of climate mitigation policies. Environment and Planning C 28, 851-871.

Portney, K. (2013). Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously: Economic Development, the Environment, and Quality of Life in American Cities. 2^nd edition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Rice, J. (2010). Climate, carbon, and territory. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100(4), 929-937.

Tang, Z., Brody, S., Quinn, C., Chang, L., and Wei, T. (2010). Moving from agenda to action: Evaluating local climate change action plans. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 53:1, 41-62.