36consensusbuilding.pdf

Consensus

Building

for

Sustainable

Communities

Karen

S.

Walz

Consensus-building

can playa roleincreating

and

maintaining sustainable

communities.

This ar-ticlefocuses

on

thatroleinachievingsustainabilityat

the level

of

local

communities,

particularly in the

context

of United

Statesplanningpractice.

A

design

forsustainable

consensus

is

proposed

thataddresses

the

process of developing

publicpolicy

and

describes

theprimary/^i'Me^raised

by

theconcept ofsustainability

and

the

key

characteristics

of

the desired project

outcomes.

Examples

from

several

community

plan-ning

programs

illustratetheapplicationofthis

model

to

communitiesof

diversesize,character,

and

geographic

location.

Consensus-Building

and

Sustainable

Communities

Sustainable

communities

result

from

many

indi-vidual decisions

made

by

residents,businesses,

com-munity

organizations,

and

governments.Public policy, asexpressed

by

community

plans,policies,

and

pro-grams, can helpcreate sustainable

communities

be-cause itinforms

and

shapes thesedecisions.

The

use

of

a

consensus-based

processtocreate publicpolicy

offersimportantadvantagesto

commun

ities

concerned

aboutsustainabi1ity

To

many

planners

and

community

leaders, consen-sus-building

evokes

an

image of

largegroupsof people

Karen

S. Walz,AICP,istheprincipalofStrategic

Commu-nitySolutions,aconsultingfirmspecializingincommunity

planning

and

publicparticipation. Sheisalsothe

Execu-tiveDirectorof TheDallasPlan, anot-for-profit

corpora-tion chargedwith developinga long-rangeplan for the

CityofDallas, Texas

and

building public-private partner-shipstoimplement the plan.

discussingissues endlessly,without reachinga

deci-sion—the ultimate sustainable meeting! Infact, con-sensuscanbe anessential toolinshaping

acommunity's

approach

to

meeting

current

and

future needs.

Sustainability is

a

concept

_of

global

signifi-cance, but effective action

toward

sustainability

must occur

locally. Sustainable

development

re-quires thatresources be used in

ways which

retain a resource base for use

by

future generations.

On

a

globalscale,the

United

States

and

other

"developed"

countriesbearresponsibility for a substantial

amount

of

resource use.

With

26

percent

of

the world's population,the

"developed"

countries

account

for

38

percentoftheworld'sdailyprotein

consumption,

79

percent

of

annualsteel

consumption, and 80

percentof

commercial energy

use.' Decisions

made

individually

by

residents,businesses,

and

local

communities

deter-mine

the collective level

of

resourceuse.

Each

day,

individuals

make

choices: willasoftdrink containerbe discardedorrecycled, willthetripto

work

be

made

as a single

occupant

in an

automobile

or as part

of

a carpool,

how

much

non-renewable energy

willbe used

toheat a

home

toacomfortablelevel

on

a winter

day?

Choices

aboutthe design

of

a

community—

itspublic

policyregarding

development—

contributetothe level

of resource

consumption

by

residents

and

businesses

inthat

community.

Sincethree-quarters

of

Americans

liveinurbanareas,-the

consumption

choices

made

by

cityresidents

have

a significant effect

on

the overall

level

of

nationalresource

consumption.

Localpublic policychoicescanlimit(orenhance) an

individual's abilityto use resources in a sustainable

way.

Ifa

community

offers curbside recycling, the

choicetorecycleasoftdrink container

becomes

more

attractive tothe

consumer.

Iftravel toan

employment

would

prefer a shorterbicycle rideor a

commute

via

lightrailwillbe unabletoexercise these choices. Since building design

and

siting affect

energy

needs for heating,theuse ofclimate-appropriatebuildingdesigns

and

subdivisionstandardsthattake

advantage

ofsolar

heating canassistin

accompi

ishingthedesiredresultof

acomfortable

home

witha

lower

level

of

non-renew-able

energy

use.

Governments

themselves, as

consumers of

re-sources,can usetheir

own

decisionstosupporta

more

sustainable pattern. In addition tothe choices

made

aboutdailyconsumption

levels,localpublic policycan

affectanother aspect

of

sustainable

choice—

the deci-sionto

remain

inanexisting

community

orto

move

to

a

newly-developing

area.

Each

existing

community

represents the

commitment

of

resources for capital construction, the use ofland forurban

development,

and

a historicinvestmentin

systems

of

travel,

commu-nication,

and

institutions.

The

resources thusinvested arenotreadilyreturnedtootheruses. If

communities

remain

attractive to residents

and

businesses, these

resources will continue to contribute to long-term

qualityoflife. Ifnot,individualswill

choose

to

move

to

new

communities,

requiring

new

resource investment

inthesystems, land use,

and

infrastructurenecessary

for a city.

Unless

our existing

communities

are sustainable, in terms

of

continuing quality of life, individualchoiceswill

make

pastinvestments

ineffec-tive.

They

will continue

consumption

patternsthat,

ultimately, will not be sustainable

because

the next generationwill

have

neither sustainable "qualityoflife

assets"" in existing

communities

nornaturalresource

reserves tobe ableto design appropriate sustainable

alternatives.

The processes

used

to

develop public

policy

affect the sustainability

of

the result.

At

the local

community

level,

many

public policy decisions are

made

by

acitycouncil or similar electedbody.

The

"majority-rule""process represented

by

acity

counciFs

vote

on

any

particular issuesets public policy.

How-ever,theprocess leadingtoavotewill

have

a

signifi-canteffect

on

the durabilityofthedecision

and

hence,

on

the sustainable use

of

any

resources invested as a

result.

Decisions

made

without the participation of

key

affected

groups

are not likely to be supported or

followed

by

those groups. Particularlyifthedecisions

limit

consumption,

these

groups

willseektooverturn them. Ifthedecisionsrequire individual action,these

groups

may

preventimplementation

by

choosingnotto participate.Finally,decisions

made

by

asmallmajority

(the 51 percent vote)

may

well be overturned or

reversed through the efforts of

groups

on

the losing

sideofthe vote.

Such

policyreversals

mean

resource investmentinprojectsor

programs

thatare

abandoned

before theyarecompleted, thatarenotfullyused, or

that

compete

with

one

another.

These

reversalsresult

in additional resource

consumption

with little or

no

quality

of

life benefit.

When

multiplied

by

the thou-sands

of

communities

inthiscountry, these decisions

mean

greater

consumption and

lesssustainability.

"Consensus"

isaconceptfor

which

there are

many

interpretations.

One

useful

way

todescribea

consen-sus resultisthat

everyone

agreesto livewithit,

even

thoughit

may

notbetheidealsolutionfor

any

individual participant.

Key

aspects

of

theconcept include:

• Inclusionofallaffected parties

("everyone"

means

all those

who

are affected or

have

a stake in the

outcome):

An

agreement

thatthe partieswillnottrytooverturn

the decision, not an

agreement

that signifies full

support

of

allconcepts;

and

An

outcome

thatismutuallybeneficial—itadequately

meets

the short-

and

long-term

needs of

theparties.

Such

a

consensus

agreement

requires thatallissues

be

considered. Participants

must

make

trades

between

available options. This negotiation process enables

participants toconsiderthelong-term implications

of

theirdecisions. Ifsuccessful, itcreates a

broad

base

of

community

support for the

outcome,

a level

of

supportthatisessential ifthepolicydirectionisto

be

maintained. Inaddition,thissupportshouldtranslate

intoparticipantwillingnessto

make

individualchoices

thatsupportthe

consensus

result.

These

featuresofa

consensus

resultare valuable foranypublicpolicydecision.Forissuesofsustainability,

they

become

even

more

important.

By

maintaining

consistent public policy, the

community

can invest

resources in

ways

which

will provide the greatest benefittocurrent residentswhileretainingoptionsfor future generations.

By

creating a

broad

base

of

support, all the individuals, businesses,

and groups

involved in theprocessare

more

likely to

make

their

own

choicesconsistentwiththe

consensus

agreement, thereby increasingsustainability.

By

consideringall affectedgroups

and

resolving disputesin

ways

which

considerfuture needs, aconsensus-building process supports

community

quality

of

life which, in turn,

A

Design

for

Sustainable

Consensus

The Process

Design of

a

decision-making

process does not guar-anteethattheprocessresultswill reflecta

consensus

northattheywill

prove

tohesustainableoverthelong term.

However,

thoughtful process design

can

in-creasethe likelihood that the

end

resultwill

have

these

characteristics. Process design

must

be appropriateto

the decision at hand.

A

process for

developing

a

twenty-year

comprehensive

plan will differ

from

a

processtodecide operationalissuesfora

community'

recycling operation.

The

six process

recommenda-tions

below

describefactors thatshould be considered

inan} publicdiscussiontoincrease the opportunity'for

consensus

and

enhance

the sustainabilit>'

of

the

re-sults.

1. IncludeAllAffected

Groups

The

individuals

and groups

that willbeaffected

by

the decision, the"stakeholders",

must

be involved in the discussion

and

the consensus-building process.

Each

group

bringsa particularexpertise

and

perspec-tivetothe discussion. Theirparticipation

means

that

theseresourcesareusedinaddressingtheissue. Their contributionshelptheprocess reach an

outcome

that

maintains

community

qualit\'oflife,asperceived

by

all

community members.

Their supportforthe

outcome

means

that the decision is less likely to be reversed

afterresources

have been

invested. Their

agreement

withthe

outcome

leadstoawi11ingnessto

implement

it.

atthe level

of

individual

and

community

action.

Inclusion

of

stakeholderscan be

accomplished

in several different

ways.

One

effective

method

is cre-ation

of

a representative citizens'

committee.

For

example,

the City

of

Austin,

Texas

used a Steering

Committee

to

develop

Austinplan. a

comprehensive

planthe

community

prepared inthemid-1980"s.

Nine

interest

groups were

identifiedtoserve

on

the

commit-tee: Business

and

Finance;Cultural Affairs;

Environ-mentalists;EthnicMinorities;

Human

Ser\ices;

Neigh-borhoods

and Geographic

Sectors;PublicInstitutions;

Real Estate

and Development; and

Community

at

Large.

The

number

of

representatives foreach

group

was

based

on

the

need

tobalance

committee

represen-tation.

Interest

group

members

were

soughtintvvo

ways.

Announcements

inthe local

newspaper

invited

inter-estedpersonsto

submit

anapplicationdescribingtheir

areas

of

interest/expertise. Inaddition,organizations representing certain interests, such as the Austin

Chamber

of

Commerce,

were asked

to

recommend

three representatives fortheir interestgroup. Several

hundred

applications

were

received.

The

Austin City Council

reviewed

theseapplications

and

appointed a

committee

of

94

persons reflecting these diverse

interests. Thislarge

group of

representatives

worked

together,througha

complex

process,to

propose

plan-ningpolicies for the City.

2.

Consider

Community

Capacity

When

theAustinplan process began, the

commu-nit>'

had

many

active organizations

and

a histop>'

of

citizenparticipationinlocal

government.

Community

participation in^ztfr/wp/owinvolvedtheSteering

Com-mittee, fourteen subject area

Task

Groups

and

24

geographic area Sector Planorganizations.

The

City's

budget

was

ableto

accommodate

the staffsupport

and

other resourcesforthis

massive

public

involvement

project.

As

aresult, thiseffort

was

generally consis-tent with the

community's

capacity to

manage

and

support an extensive consensus-buildingprocess.'

Many

communities

lack the capacitv- in terms

of

staffing,funding,institutionalorganization,and

partici-pantexpertisetocarry outaprocess

of

thismagnitude.

Design

oftheprocess should betailored torepresent

interest

groups

atthe level thatcan be supported

by

existing

community

capacity.

Jackson County,

Mis-souri""

found

that a process

of

workshops

with local

community

leaders, residents,

and

propert>'owners, coordinated through the

County

Plan

Commission,

was

effective in obtaining the participation of the

interest groupsaffected

by

the

County's

first

Master

Plan.

The

consensus

developed

throughthisprocess

is illustrated

by

thegroups'support oftheplan

which

resulted,

by

the plan's

unanimous

Plan

Commission

recommendation, and by

its

unanimous

adoption

by

the

County

Legislaturein 1994.

An

effective consensus-building process

may

in-creasecapacityfor

communit>

involvement

and

ex-pand

knowledge

abouttheimplicationsof

community

decisions for sustainability.

However,

the process should be designed so it can

succeed

with existing

capacityalone. Creation ofadditional capacitycan be an

added

benefit but should not be necessary' for

process success.

3. Insist

on

ElectedOfficials'

Involvement

A

public policy process is

normally

initiated

by

electedofficials.

The

continuing

involvement of

these

officialsisvitaltothecreation

of

asustainableprocess

outcome.

Sustainable

development,

since it retains

some

resourcesforfuturegenerations,ofteninvolves

on

individualchoicestypicallyspark controversy.

The

elected officials

must

understand the rationale for

these limitsiftheyare toenact

them

and

continueto

support

and

implement

them. Inthe caseof

Jackson

County,

the continuing

involvement of

the

County

Executive

Marsha Murphy,

who

initiatedthe

County's

Master

Plan project,

was

instrumentalto itssuccess.

4.Clearly

Define

Roles

&

Expectations

The

concept

of

long-term sustainabilityhasallthe ingredients

of

adifficultpublic policydecision: the issuesare

complex,

the results will

occur

overa long time period, there is uncertaintyabouttechnical

as-pects

of

the issues,

and

there are factors

beyond

the controlofthelocal

community.

A

consensus-building process

can

heightenparticipants'concerns

and

skep-ticism about their ability to affect results. Forthis

reason,realisticexpectationsshouldbe

communicated

and

acknowledged

atthe outset.

First, participant roles

must

be clearly defined, consistentwith

community

capabilities. Second, ex-pectations, in terms

of

time

commitment,

areas for

public involvement,

and

expected product,

must

be described

when

the process begins; modifications duringthe process

must

be

communicated

consistently toall participants.

In structuring a sustainable

consensus

process,

questionsaboutroles

and

expectationsinclude:

•

What

_{are the citizen participants}being asked_to

do?

Are

theyto

become

technicalexperts?

Are

theyto statea

broad

vision

and

generalgoals,oraretheyto

providespecific,program-level

recommendations?

•

What

role will the

government's

_staffplay? Will

they

manage

meeting and

schedulelogistics?

How

much

newtechnical

analysis

and

professional evalu-ation willtheyprovide duringthisprocess?

How

will elected

and

appointed officials be

in-volved?

If there are other participants, such as

volunteerfacilitators,

what

willthey

do?

•

What

issues willthisprocessaddress?

Whatchoices

do

participants

have

indealingwithissues thatlack

complete

technicalinformation?

•

What

arethe process deadlines?

What

_resultsare

expected

and

at

what

level ofdetail?

•

What

_is

meant

by consensus

_inthisprocess?

What

procedures will be used if the participants don't reach

complete

agreement?

What

happens

if

no

agreement

isreached beforethe process deadline?

Who

willbe responsibleforoutreachtothe

identi-fied interest

groups?

Who

will

communicate

with

the

community

at large?

How

will the

media

be involved?

A

clearunderstanding

of

participant roles

and

agree-ment

on

expectations abouttheprocess

and

its

prod-ucts will

encourage

participants to

make

realistic

commitments

tothe project. Process-related disputes can be reduced,allowingallparticipants tofocus

on

the

difficultquestions

ofplanning

forasustainablefuture.

The

Austinplan process

began

with written de-scriptionsoftherolesofCitystaff.Steering

Comm

ittee

members,

othercitizen participants, facilitators,

and

elected/appointedofficials.

As

theprocess continued,

changes

tothese roles

and

tootherprocedures within

theprocess

were

debated

by

an executive

committee

ofparticipants^

and

then

communicated

inwritingtoall

participants.

5.

Use

Dispute Resolution

Techniques

The

processofreach ingconsensus ona

community's

futureis,essentially, amulti-party negotiation process.

Ifthegoalissustainability,disputescannot be resolved

by

agreeingto"give

something

toeveryone".

Agree-ingtoextend

sewer

service into several

new

areas,for

moderate

development of

each,

may

resolveadispute about

which

largearea to serve.

But

ifa sustainable

community

isto result,propertyin

some

(or

most)

of

these areas

may

remain

undeveloped

in the near

future.

As

this issue

shows,

disputeresolution

tech-niquesare

even

more

importanttoasustainable con-sensus processsince sustainability

may

require

more

difficulttrade-offs.

Resources

fordispute resolutionshould be provided

to process participants, in the

form

of information,

training,and/orskilled personnel. Gettingto

Yes^and

Breaking

the Impasse:

Consensual

Approaches

to

Resolving Public Disputes^ are

among

the

many

referencesthatdescribe disputeresolutiontechniques appropriatetoa public process.

In Austin,

one

technique for resolving disputes

proved

especially effectiveinresolvingadispute

be-tween

the environmentalists

and

developers

on

the task

group

charged with

recommending

landuse policy.

When

theappropriate

development

standardsfor hill-side

development

could not be resolved in the

30-membertask

group,each

of

these interestsappointed

individualstorepresenttheirviewpoints

on

this particu-larissue.

The two

individuals

met

and,withthe

provided

theopportunityfor

added development

den-sity in

exchange

for project design that protected

natural areas.

A

second

technique, particularly appropriate for

sustainable

communities,

allowsresolution

of

issues thatinvolve uncertainty aboutfuture

demands.

San

Jose, Californiaprepared its

Horizon

2000

General

Plan

inthe early 1980s,at atime

when

employment

growth

inthe Silicon

Valley

area

was

magnifying

San

Jose'sfunctionasa

"bedroom

community"

for

work-ers

employed

inothercities.

The

Coyote

Valley area

became

the focus

of

pressuretoplan

new

residential

development.

The

resolution

of

thisdispute

was

a plan

that

allowed

some

non-residential

development

in

Coyote Val

ley,withresidential

development

tofollow

when

certain"trigger" levels

of development

demand

and jobs-housing

balance

were

reached.

6.

Make

Participation

Meaningful

The

finalprocess

recommendation

is

one

that

may

seem

obvious, butisessential toasustainable

commu-nity

—

public participation

must

be meaningful.

Many

residents are

extremely

cynical about

government's

responsiveness

and

effectiveness.

When

aprocess

of

consensus-building is initiated, these residents are

asked

to contribute time

and

resources to

develop

publicpolicy. Ifthe electedofficials

do

notfollowthe

recommendations

thatresult

from

sucha process,this

cynical

view

of

government

isstronglyreinforced

and

residents'willingnessto participatein

implementing

any

publicpolicywilldecreasesignificantly. This

was

thecaseinAustin

when

a

new

CityCouncildid nottake

action

on

the

recommendations

made

hytheAustinplan

participants.

Decision-makers concerned

aboutcreating

sustain-able

communities

must

be preparedto

implement

the

consensus-based

recommendations from

theprocess theyestablish. Ifthe

consensus

focuses

on

a

commu-nityvision

ora

goalsstatement, the

government

should be preparedtofollow

up

with

more

detailedplanning

and implementation

programs

toachieve thesegoals.

If

recommendations

establish policy

on

government

programs

suchasrecycling,

ordevelopment

regulation

suchaspassivesolar design, the

government

shouldbe prepared to allocate fiinds for the

program

in its

operatingbudgetor

modify

thesubdivisionregulations tocarry out these policies.

A

sustainable

community

isnot created,or

main-tained,

by

local

governments

acting alone. Process

participants

must

alsobepartnersinactiontoachieve

the

agreed-upon

goals. Participating interest

groups

must

be preparedto

implement

thesustainable

consen-susresults.

Meaningful

participation

means

that

inter-est

groups

takeaction as well.

By

working

together, the participants,both public

and

private,

who

shaped

the

consensus

cancreate the sustainable

community

that

consensus

described.

The

Issues

The

issuesaddressedina traditional

comprehensive

planning processareclosely related to the creation

of

sustainablecommunities.Inplanningfor sustainability,

some

of

these issues

must

be presented differently,

withdifferentanalysis

of

implications

and

opportuni-tiesfor

community

action.

The

presentation

of

these issuescanaidinbuilding

consensus and

should support

effortstocreatesustainablepublicpolicy. Fiveissues

withparticularsignificancetosustainable

communities

aredescribedbelow.

1. Public

&

Private

Investment

Capital

investment

decisions are important to sustainabilityforseveralreasons.

They

involvetheuse

of

land

and

the construction

of

buildings or other

facilitiesdesigned for long

term

use; consequently, they are decisions that are largely irreversible, e.g.

once

a grassland has

been

cleared

and graded

for

urban

development,

return to itsnaturalstate is very

unlikely. Capital investment decisions also include

private

owners'

choices about the location

of

a

new

home

or

development of

a

shopping

centeraswellas

publicchoicessuchastheextension

of

sewage

collec-tion lines or renovation of a central library.

These

investments often involvea largeopportunitycost as well.

Investment

of

acity'scapitalfundsina

new

fire

station

means

thosefunds

cannot

be spenttorenovate anold recreation center.

A

traditional

comprehensive

planning process

con-sidersquestionsof

market

demand

and

existing

capac-ity

when

addressing these investments.Planningfora sustainable

community must

consider other aspects

of

theseinvestmentdecisions:

Reuse

or renovation

of

existing buildings,facilities

and neighborhoods

can be

viewed

as a

way

to

continue the effectiveuse

of

resources

committed

by

pastinvestments.

•

When

_thelong-termcosts

of

service provision, daily

resource

consumption, and environmental

exter-nalitiesareconsidered,

development of

outlying land

may

be

much

more

costly than its

market

price suggests.

•

The

"life-cycle cost"

of an

investment

must

be

considered, notjust the initial capital outlay.

By

investment,cost

comparisons

reflecta

more

com-plete picture

of consumption.

The

sustainable

in-vestment

optionsare

more

clearlyidentified.

By

leaving

some

land

undeveloped,

natural areas

are retained that

enhance

current residents' quality

oflife.

These

areas alsoretain

development

options

to

meet

the

needs of

future generations, for

whom

current

development

patterns

may

not be

prefer-able.

2.

Resource

Management

&

Consumption

Local

governmental

operations

and

consumption

by

residents

and

businesses also use resources.

These

decisionsare relatively reversible

when

compared

to

the capitalinvestments discussed above.

They

arenot,

however,

always

addressed in

community

planning

processes.

A

common

approach

is to

assume

that

resource

consumption

willcontinueatcurrentlevel

of

usepercapita(oranotherconsumption

unit). Planning

efforts then

determine

how

large a supply of the

resource

must

be acquiredto

meet

futureneeds.

These

daily choices

become more

critical to a sustainableplanning process

because

continuation

of

current

consumption

patterns can

no

longer be

as-sumed:

there

may

notbe

enough

of

theresource

and

the reservesthat

do

exist

may

need

tobe maintained

for future generations. Instead,thesustainable

plan-ning process should considerthecontributionof

con-sumption

to

community

qualityoflife. Itthenshould

determine whether

there are other

ways

to achieve

these qualityoflife goals.

Ifcommunity

residents

want

attractive,landscaped

medians

along

major

roadways,

theuse

of

nativelandscaping or xeriscape

may

achieve

thisgoal

more

effectivelythan operational choicesto

water,fertilize

and

mow

more

frequently.

In addressing

consumption

issues,participantsina

consensus-building processcan contributetothe

dis-cussionofalternatives to the"standard"or"average"

consumption

patterns. Rather than accepting the

average

amount

of

water use percapita as the basis for

planning,participantscan considertherangeofactual

consumption

within a

community.

Process

partici-pantswith lower usecan

propose

practicesthat

would

reduce

consumption

by

thehigh

volume

users. In this

way,

the average is reduced,

fewer

resources are

consumed, and

qualityoflife objectives

may

still be achieved.

3.Accessibility

In

many

communities,

planning foraccess

means

ensuringthat

roadways

arebuilt tohandle projected

traffic. Forasustainable

community,

accessibilityisa

much

broader concept,implying accesstoinformation

and

opportunities as well as physical (automobile)

access.

Without

this broaderaccess,

some

residents

become

disenfranchisedand,overtime,polarization

of

the

community

will

make

ita lessdesirable

and

less

sustainable

community.

While

the typicalplanning process focuses

on

the

"bricks

and

mortar"

of

roads

and

otherinfrastructure, a sustainableplanning effort

must

focusfirst

on

the

peoplein

acommunity

and

on

their abilitytoobtainthe

information, skills, services,facilities,

and

other

re-sourcesthat

make

the

community

accessible. Again,

the sustainable

consensus

process supportsthis

objec-tivebecauseitincludespeople

whose

experience can

identifythe barriersthatexist

now.

The

participation

of these individuals is vital ifthe

community

of

the futureistoprovidetheequality

of

access

and

oppor-tunitythatareimportanttoasustainable

community.

4.

Community

Character

A

sustainable

community

reflectsitssurroundings

and

itscitizens.

The

climate,topography,

and

natural

resources

of

an area shouldaffectthe characteristics

ofa

community

that willbesustainableinitsuseoflocal

resources

and need

to import other resources.

A

community

that

does

not

meet

its citizens'

needs

for qualityoflife,security, identity,

and

livability willbeless

sustainable

overtime because

itscitizens (asresidents

and

investors) will

choose

to locateelsewhere.

For

a typical

comprehensive

planningprocess,

community

character

may

bea

minor

aspect

of

plan

implementa-tion,addressed

by

design

review

forcertain projects.

A

process forsustainable

community

planning

must

givegreater

importance

to this issue. Public involve-ment,throughaconsensus-buildingprocess,isvitalto

addressthisissueeffectively.

Community

participants

can identifythe features that are

most

significant to

them

indefiningtheir

community's

character. Their evaluation (as 'users'

of

the city) providesdirection

thatcanshape

community

designtosupportcontinuing

vitality.

A

critical

dilemma

faced

by

existing

communities

in

planning forsustainabilityisthepressure,regionally

and

nationally, for

outward

growth and

movement

to

new

communities.

These

trends

work

against the

continuing attractiveness

of

older cities and, hence,

theirsustainability asvital

communities.

Community

character issuesprovideexisting

communities

withthe

abilitytooffer distinctive living

environments

that

do

enjoy

a

human

scale,aconnection withthepast,

and

sense

of

identity thatisoftenlackingin

new

areas.

By

buildingontheseuniqueaspects

of

existing

community

character,

acommunity

canoffer attractiveoptionsfor future residentswhileretaininga scale thatis

support-ive

of

sustainable

development

objectives.

5. Quality

of

LifeLinksAll Issues

For communities

inthe

United

States,asustainable future

must

includetheconceptof continuingadesired

quality

of

life.

Communities

withaperceived decline

in quality

of

life experience disinvestment

and

out-migration

by

residents

and

business

owners

who

can

choose

among

many

available locationsinthiscountry.

Sincequality

of

liferelatesdirectlytoanindividual's

experience

of

a

community,

the choices

made

by

individuals, businesses,

and governments

thataffect the character

of

communities

will in turndetermine

whether

these

communities

willbesustainable.

Quality

of

life is a

concept

that isaffected

by

the technical issues often addressed in long-range

plan-ning—

the

adequacy

of

roadways,

availability

of

oppor-tunitiesfor

housingdevelopment,

effectiveness

of

city

emergency

response services.

Yet

quality

of

life

considers these issues in an integrated

way,

as an

individual residentperceivestheexperienceoflivingin that

community.

Thisintegrated

approach

tothe issues

supportsaconsiderationofsustainability,sincethese

concerns

arelinkedto

one

another and,in

some

cases,

involvetrade-offsininvestmentdecisions.

By

includ-ing overall quality

of

lifeconsiderationsinaplanning process,thesubstantive issuescan be consideredina

way

that supports sustainablechoices.

Quality

of

life offers a

means

to use

community

involvement

effectively as well, since it

changes

the

focus

of

discussion

from one of

technicalstandardsto

one of

the user'sexperience. This

approach

can serve

to

make

participation

more

effective

and

therefore,

increase

community

support for the result.

At

the

same

time, a consensus-building process offers an

effective

way

to

make

the trade-offs that

may

be necessary, while

remaining

consistentwiththe overal1

goal

of

a sustainablequality

of

life.

The

Outcome

A

planning processoften results in a

document—

set

of

statements.

Consensus

increases

community

supportfortheconcepts

and recommendations found

in the plan; this

"buy

in" increases the

chances

for

successfulimplementation.

What

outcomes

are

most

criticalforsustainability?

1.

Changes

inInvestment,

Consumption, and

Lifestyle

Choices

An

effective process

of

sustainable consensus-building should

change

community

resource use.

Understanding

ofthelong-term implications

of

invest-ment

decisionsshould help

governments

make

more

sustainablechoicesincapital

and

operating budgets.

Efforts to

make

sustainablelifestyleoptionsavailable

shouldallowindividualresidents,businessowners,

and

institutionsto

make

choicesthat

consume

lesswhile maintainingor

enhancing

qualityoflife

and

community

character.

As

individuals

choose

lifestyleoptionslike

in-town

housing

neartransitstops,the larger

commu-nity

and

the private sectorcansee the benefits

of

these

options.

Overtime,

individual decisionsshould support

sustainable

development

patterns. Private

and

public

implementation

will be

more

realistic ifthe policyis

adopted

witha broad base

of

community

support.

2. StablePolicy Direction

A

decision-making

process

based

on consensus

shouldresultinstronger publicsupportforthe resultant

policydirection. This, inturn,should allowthelocal

government

to

implement

the policy withless risk

of

community

directionshiftingdramatically.

A

sustain-able

community

isalong-termgoal;itssuccesswillnot be apparent withinanelectedofficial's

term

of

office.

Unless the policy direction

remains

consistent, the

community

willbe unableto testitseffectiveness.

The

consensus

processshouldresult inpolicythatis

more

sustainable

because

itis

more

stable.

3.

Monitoring

and

Feedback

Monitoring

of

progressisessentialforany long-term

program.

In

Jackson

County,

Missouri, the

Master

Plan includes provisionsfor

monitoring development

patterns

and

service

demands

annually; other

commu-nities

have

established "quality

of

lifeindicators" that

allowthe

community

to

measure

progress

toward

its

desiredquality

of

life.

The

feedback

from

these

moni-toring efforts allows the

community

to

determine

whether

initial

implementation

has

been

effective in

increasingsustainability. Policies

and

programs

can then be

modified

asappropriate to

accomplish

these

objectives.

4. Flexible

Response

to

Change

Some

changes

in

community

character

and growth

dynamics

cannot be anticipated.

New

technology,

global

economics,

and

other factors

may

affect a

community's

effortstoincrease sustainabilityin

ways

thatarenotanticipated

when

aplanisdeveloped.

For

time. In

Jackson County,

Missouri, for

example,

the future

development

plan is illustrated

by

a

'develop-ment

diagram'

showing

thegeneralcharacteristics

of

planned development.

The

plan then describes the

character

of

development

in each policy area.

As

development

proposalsare

made,

the plan provides

direction yetallowsflexibilityinthe specificdetails

of

individualprojects.Sustainable

community

objectives related to serviceprovision

and

community

character can be

achieved

while

responding

to

changing

condi-tions.

5.

Continuing

Community

Involvement

A

sustainable

consensus

process should result in

agreement on

policy direction—the substantive

con-sensus.Inaddition,itshouldstrengthen the

community's

capacityfor

involvement

and

coordinatedaction

on

a

varietyofissues.

San

Jose, Californiahassuccessfully

built

community

participationinplanningprograms. This

involvement

has

allowed

the City to

work

in

partnership with

neighborhood

groups, business

orga-nizations,

and

otherinterested parties to prepare

fo-cused area plans

and programs

addressingissuessuch

as infill housing,

energy

conservation,

and

resource

management.

Some

Austinplan

participants

have

continuedto

work

togetherinnegotiating

agreements

for a

Balcones Canyonlands Conservation

Plan asa

means

to balance

development and

environmental

protection issues.

Success

incarrying out plansfor a sustainable

community

requirescontinuing participa-tion

by

alI

community

interestgroups. This continuing

participation should be an

outcome

of

a sustainable

consensus

process.

7993.Washington,D.C.

^EveninacommunitylikeAustin,cinangingpoliticalandeconomic

conditions canchangethecapacityforplanning.

When

the local

economyturneddownin1986. Citybudget andstaffresources

wereconstrained, affecting theabilitytosupportthemassive

process alreadyunderway.

Mackson County isthe countyinwhich KansasCity, Indepen-dence,and seventeenothersmallercitiesandtownsare located.

^TheE.xecutiveCommitteeincludedtheSteeringCommittee Co-chairsandthechairsof eachofthefourteensubject areaTask

Groups. Laterintheprocess, asecondcommitteewas estab-lished to resolve inconsistenciesamongTaskGroup

recommen-dations.This group,theIntegrationCommittee,included repre-sentatives chosen by the Task Groups themselves. It was

responsiblefor thefinalconsensus planrecommendedthrough

theAustinplanprocess.

'Fisher,Rogerand WilliamUry,1981.GettingtoYes: Negotiating

AgreementWithout GivingIn. Penguin Books,

New

York. 'Susskind,Lawrence andJeffreyCruikshank. 1987.Breakingthe

Impasse:ConsensualApproachestoResolving PublicDisputes.

BasicBooks,

New

York.

Conclusion

Planning cannot resolve all the issues related to

sustainable resource use. Local

community

action

cannot guaranteeglobal sustainability.

But

planning

and

action to build

consensus

can

improve

local

com-munity

sustainability.

And

ifsustainability, likepolitics,

is allultimately local,theactions of

each

individual

community

contributetothe long-term health ofthe nation

and

the planet. Sustainableconsensus,

commu-nity

by

community,

can help achievethisglobalgoal,cp

Notes

'World Commission onEnvironment andDevelopment,

1987.Our

Common

Future.Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress.Page33.

'