Trip to Earthsong Eco-Neighbourhood

As part of the Planning 403 Housing course, we visited New Zealand’s first cohousing neighbourhood, located in Waitakere City, West Auckland. Earthsong Eco-Neighbourhood’s vision is “to establish a cohousing neighbourhood based on the principles of permaculture that will serve as a model of a socially and environmentally sustainable community”. Resource consent was granted for the 1.67 hectare site in 1999 where a consensus decision-making process was adopted by the community in creating an innovative urban housing development. Construction of the first few houses started in 2000 and all 32 homes were completed in 2006. The homes in Earthsong promotes sustainable living as the houses were constructed using rammed earth, timber and non-toxic materials, and were designed to incorporate passive solar principles (warm in winter, cool in summer). On the other hand, Earthsong also promotes environmental sustainability as permaculture “…minimises environmental impacts by reducing stormwater runoff and encouraging self-sufficiency in water consumption, energy use and food production”. The housing arrangement in Earthsong is also significant as it is designed in a way that it encourages social sustainability. Community living is enhanced through having shared facilities such as the ‘Common house/Earthsong Centre’; having weekly common meals; and through a pedestrian-friendly environment.

I found the trip to the Earthsong eco-village very interesting and educational not only because it is the only cohousing community in New Zealand, but it also gave me a first hand insight on what an urban eco-neighbourhood is like. The trip definitely increased my understanding of sustainability in terms of demonstrating and promoting innovative community design and environmentally responsible construction. After the trip, I’ve now become more open-minded that creating socially and environmentally sustainable communities is possible if everyone in the community works together to achieve one goal. Adopting a consensus decision-making process is significant as it gives everyone in the community a fair and equal opportunity in making decisions towards achieving the community’s main vision.

There are however questions and issues that arise from the Earthsong Eco-Neighbourhood type of urban development in terms of adopting it within the New Zealand context. Firstly, will this type of housing arrangement work in a larger-scale community in New Zealand? Will most people living in New Zealand accept cohousing? How can we change the mentality of most people in order for them to accept and be open-minded about promoting community living? In what ways can we promote a social and environmental sustainable community in New Zealand?

In my opinion, I think that the idea of a cohousing development will not fit in the context of a larger scale community development in New Zealand. This is because I think that in order for a cohousing development to be successful, the people within the community must have fairly similar values and outlook on life and what kind of lifestyle they have. Hence, it would be very difficult to promote a cohousing type of community living in terms of building large-scale communities due to people’s conflicting views and stances. However, cohousing should definitely be encouraged in building small-scale communities and/or neighbourhoods in order to promote social sustainability in New Zealand. On the other hand, I think that promoting environmentally sustainable urban environments should not be encouraged. It is important that New Zealand should catch up with other countries on building and developing sustainable homes as not only will it decrease environmental impacts, but also will be economically cheaper in the long-run.

Overall, I think that the development of the Earthsong Eco-Neighbourhood is a big step in terms of promoting environmental and social sustainability in New Zealand. Earthsong Eco-Neighbourhood could serve as a model in creating sustainable communities that encourages a more cohesive and co-operative urban communities.

Planning key words...

Interpretation of the physical environment at the street block and neighbourhood level

As a requirement for a Planning 122 (Studio 1) assignment, we were asked to produce and analyse the physical environment of our study area in Ponsonby through developing plans and sections at the "Street/Block" scale. The aim of this assignment is for us to grasp a detailed understanding of how the place works and functions, and at the same time considering its implications. This entry will include an extract of the assignment:

• Selected street block within study area

The selected street block within the study area is rectangular in shape and with the dimensions of approximately 61.5m by 129m. The area of the selected block is 7933.5 square meters or 0.79 hectares. The typical section within the block is rectangular in shape and is deeper within the block with the average size of around 12m by 30m. The more deeper and rectangular shape of the sections within the chosen street block is a design that is efficient in terms of the length of the streets surrounding the block therefore making access from private to public easy accessible. The way the block is designed also provides more frontages to the people. Frontages are especially important when the land use of the buildings within the block is mostly of commercial use. It is because they provide a physical and visual connection between the street and building and therefore allows for more accessibility of people and encourages more commercial use of the buildings. The typical building within the street block has an average size of approximately 216 square meters. The buildings are a mixture of attached and detached as some of the buildings hold two or more shops in it while other buildings is a shop by itself. The footprints within the chosen street block are usually big in relation to the size of its sections. This is because the dwellings within the block have usually no sideyards which mean they are often as wide as the section. The setback of the sections are also not as big probably because they are of commercial use compared to residential buildings where the set back and side yard are big enough. This makes the footprints of a commercial building larger than a footprint of a residential building.

• Typical section from selected street block within Ponsonby study area

The typical section within Ponsonby study area is commonly used commercially as cafes, retail shops or other business institutions. The section selected within the block is rectangular in shape with the size of approximately 20.2m by 31m. The area of the section is 626.2 square metres or 0.06 hectares. The area of the footprint within the section is 330.6 square metres or 0.03 hectares. This makes the percentage of the section taken by the footprint of the building 52.8%. The size of the setback from the street is only 1.6m which is fairly small compared to the setback of residential sections in the study area. The section selected however have sideyard measurements of 2m on the left side for the driveway and 1m on the right side of the section. The backyard of the section which approximately has an area of 208 square metres is used as a parking space. The parking lot has a site coverage of 33.2%. Overall, the total site coverage of the building and parking lot is 86%, leaving only 14% for the driveway and the setback.

• Street type

Cross section 1 was drawn across Redmond Street within the Ponsonby study area. Redmond Street is a busy street because it is where traffic gets diverted from Ponsonby Road to Pompallier Terrace then Redmond Street finally leading to Jervois Road. The function of Redmond Street is to provide one of the main routes to get from Ponsonby Road to Jervois Road therefore resulting for the overcrowding of cars around the area most of the time. The degree of which Redmond Street is enclosed is a lot as the trees are almost as tall as building which adds to the enclosure. Also, the overhang by the side walk further adds to the enclosure of the street. The ambience of the street makes me feel safe around Redmond Street because it is a busy street therefore you can hear congestion noise most of the time. The fact that there is a lot of foot movement and having the Ponsonby police station located on the street gives me that sense of security of Redmond Street. Furthermore, the sense of enclosure around the street also makes me comfortable around the area.

Cross section 2 was drawn across Sheehan Street within the Ponsonby study area. Sheehan Street is a dead end street with Ponsonby Intermediate School at the end of the street. This makes the street busy and congested around 8am and 3pm during the weekdays because school kids mostly walk to and from school therefore making foot traffic congested around that time. However, Sheehan Street is really quiet in between and after school classes and also during the weekends. This makes me feel uncomfortable walking around the street. The degree of enclosure is also less in Sheehan Street than in Redmond Street as the vegetation in the side walk are really short (less than 2m in height) therefore not adding to the sense of enclosure. Overall, I don’t feel safe and secure walking around Sheehan Street because of its lack of enclosure as well as the street having the atmosphere of a very quiet and calm street. Moreover, the fact that Sheehan Street is a dead end street gives me the feeling of the need for more security in the area especially when walking alone at night. The dead end street feature of Sheehan Street also show less connectivity to the whole study area itself and also provides lesser choice of routes to get from one point to Sheehan Street.

The main difference of Redmond Street and Sheehan Street is that Redmond Street is more enclosed defined by the tall trees and the overhang by the sidewalk. Having no setbacks in most of the buildings in Redmond Street also adds to the sense of enclosure as you can see from cross-section 1. Another difference between the two streets is that the road and the sidewalk are wider in Redmond Street mainly because it is designed for cars to divert traffic from Ponsonby Road to Jervois Road and also for people to move around more and therefore increase the level of commercial activity. In conclusion there is a quite obvious difference between the two streets. Sheehan Street being a residential street is quieter in terms of car and foot movement while Redmond Street being a busy commercial street has more congestion in terms of car movement. The degree to which the street is enclosed by buildings and trees is more shown in Redmond Street while Sheehan Street is more exposed.

Why 'Meritocracy' is not a desirable feature in our society today...

This essay was written for Planning 102 (Social and Economic Framework for Planning) which argues that the idea of meritocracy as an undesirable feature in our society today.

Introduction:

This essay will critically discuss that social factors such as the lack of access to opportunities, the socioeconomic status of an individual, ethnicity and gender better explain social mobility and the social stratification in a competitive society system of America. Social mobility is the upward or downward “movement of people or group from one class to another” (Newman and Harper, 2002, p. 322). Social stratification on the other hand is “the ranking system for groups of people that perpetuates unequal rewards and life chances in society” (Newman and Harper, 2002, p. 322). Using the case study of the domestic helpers in America, this essay will provide an understanding why meritocracy, the belief that an individual can work hard and gain merit through success, is not a desirable feature in the society. These domestic helpers constantly work hard through individual effort to provide their family with a better future. In the eyes of these women, providing for their families can be considered a success for them, hoping to live in what they call the “American dream” of everyone having equal chances of succeeding through hard work and achieving one’s goals. However, individual effort is still not enough to overcome the social barriers, hence are restrained to climb up the social stratification in a competitive system of America.

Introduction to Case study - Domestic helpers in America:

Domestic helpers in America have had a long history. Recruiting of domestic helpers began during the colonial period where indentured servants from England were made house labourers and were treated as slaves (Romero, 1992, p. 72). Paid domestic work especially working as housecleaners and nannies still exist today mainly in United States. The immigration of Latinas and Mexicans across the border to look for better opportunities has led to the increase in the number of Latina domestic helpers and the rise of the Chicana domestic helpers. Chicana domestic helpers are women of Mexican decent that are born and raised in the United States. (Romero, 1992, p. 6). They migrated to America and work as domestic helpers hoping to sustain their family’s needs. Romero (1992) states that domestic work “have been one of the several low paying, low status jobs the women had held during their lives” (p. 11). Latina domestic immigrant workers on the other hand are of Central American decent usually from Guatemala and El Salvador. Los Angeles has currently the most domestic workers in the United States which compromises of 70% Latina (Maid in America, 2004). Most Salvadorian and Guatemalan women left their countries without legal status often leaving their husband and children behind to find paid domestic work hoping to provide a better future for their family back home (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2001, p. 53). There are however a number of social barriers in accomplishing the dreams of these domestic helpers of moving up the social stratification and therefore achieve upward social mobility in a competitive system of America. These social constraints include the lack of access to opportunities, the socioeconomic status of an individual, ethnicity and gender.

Social factors:

a.) Lack of opportunities:

Limited access to opportunities such as education, healthcare and employment better explain the social class system in a society (McIntyre, 2006, p. 207). A social class system is a “group of people who share a similar economic position in a society, based on their wealth and income” (Newman and Harper, 2002, p. 232). The lack of opportunities especially in employment has resulted to the immigration of these domestic helpers to America. According to McIntyre (2006), the influx of Mexican and Latina migrants in America has resulted for the mobility of non-immigrants out of the lowest paying jobs as the new residents often settle on the lowest occupational ladder (p. 218). However, because of the low socioeconomic status of the Chicana and Latina domestic workers due to their lack of educational attainment and professional skills, they are usually held back at the bottom of the stratified society and are therefore prevented from moving up the social hierarchy of America.

b.) Socioeconomic status:

Socioeconomic status is the “prestige, honour, respect and lifestyle associated with different positions or groups in society” (Newman and Harper, 2002, p. 232). It is one of the main social factors that best explains social mobility and social stratification. Socioeconomic status is indicated by educational attainment, occupation, income, wealth and assets of an individual, household or community which enable them to produce and consume goods that is valuable in a society (Carter et al., 2000, p. 180). From the documentary Maid in America (2004), three Latina immigrants namely Thelma, Judith and Eva have a low socioeconomic bracket. According to Romero (1992d), the education background of the Mexicans and Latinas that migrate to America ranged from no schooling to the completion of high school (p. 11). They arrived in America with low levels of education, low English language skills and less professional qualifications and are desperate to find a job (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2001). According to Newman (2006), Latino/as are more likely to drop out of school and less likely to go to college than any other ethnic groups (p. 390). This therefore limits their choice of opportunities on finding a high paying job. Although Eva holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Accounting (Maid in America, 2004), it is still hard for her to get a job in the accounting profession because she lacks the skills and working experience that an employer or company requires. She moved to America thinking it is a land full of opportunities but ended up being a household keeper for an elderly person. Thelma on the other hand moved to Los Angeles to look for better income to provide for her family. She has been successful in finding a high paying job as a full-time nanny and housekeeper. According to her, the money that she earns in one week in El Salvador can be earned in one day in United States (Maid in America, 2004). Even though Thelma, Judith and Eva have been working long hours and only get paid enough for her family to survive, it will still be hard for them to achieve social mobility and therefore prevent them from climbing up the social hierarchy in America’s competitive society due to their low socioeconomic status.

c.) Ethnic background:

Ethnicity is another social factor that best explains social mobility and social stratification. In America, Hispanics, Asians and African Americans are considered as racial minorities. They are concentrated at the bottom of the occupational hierarchy and are often discriminated (Flynn, 2000, p. 57). However, the Chicana and Latina domestic workers are often undocumented and illegal to stay and work in America therefore do not have the same rights and opportunities as the U.S. citizens (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2001, p. 18). This is why they are often poorly paid and are mistreated by their employers because of the racial inequality in the economic and social system of America. People of colour in America tend to be members of the working class. According to Newman and Harper (2002), the working class are those who work in low-paying jobs (p. 294). Newman (2006) states that 17% of Latino/as earn about minimum wage (p. 410). Although they may earn enough money for their family to survive, the income that these domestic helpers receive is still not enough to accumulate savings and assets (Newman and Harper, 2002, p. 294). Both Mexican and Latina domestic housekeepers and nannies in America sacrifice spending time with their family and constantly work for hours so that they can earn enough income to support the needs of their family and in hoping that their children will not have a life like theirs (Newman and Harper, 2002, p. 295). This is true for the domestic helpers Thelma, Judith and Eva. There are however several groups that have been created to fight against racial discrimination especially for domestic helpers in America. In the documentary Maid in America (2004), group called the Coalition for Humane Immigration Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) was formed to address the human rights of immigrants particularly the Latina domestic helpers. Racial discrimination in America therefore prevents the minority races from achieving social mobility in a competitive social system.

d.) Gender:

Gender is one of the social factors that best explains social mobility and social stratification of the Chicana and Latina domestic workers in America’s competitive society. Hondagneu-Sotelo (2001) argues that domestic work has always been stereotyped as a job for poor women, immigrant women and for women of colour (p. 14). Women in the society are disadvantaged, often are treated unequally in the workforce such as labelling them to work in a low paying job such as domestic work (Augoustinos et al., 2005). Domestic work tends to be devalued and is considered as a minority work (Newman, 2006, p. 446). This is because domestic work is “invaluable to the entire economic system” (Newman, 2006, p. 446). This quote is relatively important as it explains why Thelma, Judith and Eva get paid fairly low. The unequal status of women in the society prevents the domestic helpers from achieving social mobility and resulting for them to remain in the low end of the societal hierarchy.

Conclusion:

The concept of meritocracy or the belief that an individual can work hard and achieve social mobility is not necessarily a desirable feature in the society. Individual factors alone cannot achieve social mobility and cannot overcome the social barriers as explained in the pervious paragraphs using the case study of domestic helpers in America. On the other hand, individual factors can however help achieve vertical social mobility between generations although social factors are still the main indication of the social status of an individual. Not everyone in the world is born in a wealthy family with a high socioeconomic status. Social constraints prevent those who are underprivileged to remain in the bottom of the social hierarchy. Social mobility and social stratification in a competitive social society of America can therefore be better explained by social factors than by individual effort.

References:

Augostinos, M., Tuffin, K. and Every, D. (2005) New racism, meritocracy and individualism: constraining affirmative action in education, Discourse & Society, 16: 3, 315-340.

Carter, W., Hauster, R., Huang, M. and Warren, J. (2000) Occupational Status, Education, and Social Mobility in the Meritocracy, in Arrow, K., Bowles, S. and Durlauf, S. Eds, Meritocracy and economic inequality, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 179-229.

Flynn, R. (2000) IQ Trends over Time: Intelligence, Race, and Meritocracy, in Arrow, K., Bowles, S. and Durlauf, S. Eds, Meritocracy and economic inequality, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 35-60.

Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (2001) Domestica: Immigrant Workers Cleaning and Caring in the Shadows of Affluence, Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Leadingham, K and Prado, A 2004, Maid in America, video recording, Women Makes Movies, New York.

McIntyre, L. (2006) Inequality and Achievement: Social Class, in The Practical Skeptic: Core Concepts in Sociology, Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 206-221.

Newman, D. (2006) Sociology: Exploring the Architecture of Everyday Life, Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.

Newman, D. and Harper, D. (2002) The Architecture of Stratification, in Sociology: Exploring the Architecture of Everyday Life, Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press, 277-322.

Romero, M. (1992) Maid in the U.S.A., New York: Routledge.

Integrated Catchment Management

As a requirement for our Planning 204 class, we were asked to prepare an Integrated Catchment Management Plan on the Pakuranga estuary and stream, sub-catchment of Tamaki estuary (the catchment study area). It is important to understand Integrated Catchment Management (ICM) as it is an approach used by planners to preserve and restore the catchment and its natural hydrological regime. ICM provides a range of techniques and approaches that is used to investigate the biophysical, social and economic forces affecting water as a vulnerable resource on a catchment basis. ICM is also significant in helping to address the need for multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to resource management. Through ICM, the relationship of effects between human activities and natural resources throughout the whole catchment is analysed and assessed, thus, allowing for future strategies and plans to be developed ensuring sustainable water and land resources within a catchment.

This blog entry will include a summary account of the ICM prepared on the catchment study area. It will provide information on the interaction of the studied catchment with the biophysical features of the natural environment and also the way in which human activity influences this interaction. It will also identify relevant issues within the catchment and address the good management strategies and develop clear implementation procedures to solve these problems.

Catchment Study Area:

The Pakuranga Catchment is located in Manukau City, within the Auckland eastern suburbs of Pakuranga and Howick. The total area of the Pakuranga catchment covers approximately 3000 hectares of land . The catchment site is less than 40m above sea level with topographic conditions of relatively flat and low lying (70% of the area) to gently sloping land. Slope on the northern and eastern side of the catchment is steeper (6°-15°) while it is flatter on the south and western side (2°-5°). The Pakuranga catchment consists of a main water body which is the Pakuranga Creek. The Pakuranga Creek consists of several branches of streams feeding into the Tamaki River. The main channel length of the Pakuranga Creek is 4.3km.

The Pakuranga Catchment was mostly of rural farmlands mainly for pastoral farming prior to the 1960 urbanisation. During the 1960’s, high levels of urban development occurred, averaging 1.5 % of the total catchment area being urbanised each year from 1960-1995. Urbanisation in the Pakuranga catchment has brought substantial environmental changes in terms of the land surface, natural flow of water bodies and water quality. Increased sediment loads and contaminants getting into Pakuranga Creek and its tributary arms have caused the water quality to degrade and have also impacted the terrestrial and aquatic ecology within the study catchment. In addition to that, some streams have been altered from their natural condition through the straightening of meanders, piping of water for residential use and lining of channel base with concrete.

Key Issues and Management Options:

Issue 1: Intensification of Land Use

The increasing demand for accommodating population growth has led to the intensification of land use within the catchment. The areas within the catchment that is currently experiencing urban intensification are in Pakuranga and Howick while Botany is currently undergoing Greenfield development. Land use intensification is the main issue that contributes largely to the other issues that will be addressed in the next sections. Impacts of increasing urban development within the catchment include the ecological and physical changes to the water body, increase in stream flows, destruction of stream ecosystem and water quality degradation. It is therefore important to accommodate growth within the study area in a sustainable manner that avoids further degradation of the catchment.

Issue 2: Water Quality Degradation

The degradation of water quality within the catchment is caused by point source and non-point source pollution. The main point source pollution in the Pakuranga creek and stream are of industrial spillages, sewage and storm water overflows and old landfill sites while non-point sources are caused by run-off from roads and storm water discharge. The increase of impervious surfaces within the catchment due to land use intensification accumulates pollutants that further degrade the waterways. According to van Roon and Knight, increasing impervious surfaces in urban catchment result in high flood flows that create a ‘first flush’ effects, “whereby city streets are washed clean and receiving waters are deluged with a slug of sediment-associated contaminants that cannot settle”. It is therefore important to develop practical solutions to improve water quality within the catchment.

Issue 3: Loss of Biodiversity

The intensification of land use has impacted habitat destruction and the bioaccumulation of nutrients in the water body, which in turn resulted in the loss of aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity within the Pakuranga catchment. Increased urbanisation within the catchment has caused the loss of riparian strips along the streams, fragmentation of forests and the channeling and channeling and piping of natural streams. Riparian vegetation and natural streams provide important diverse habitats for flora and fauna and therefore improve the likelihood of biodiversity being maintained. Increasing urbanisation also results in increase impervious surfaces, which then impacts the bioaccumulation of nutrients in the natural streams. Excessive nutrients on streams can stress some aquatic species and therefore their ability to survive. It is therefore important to address the biodiversity loss issue with appropriate management options to enhance and improve aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity within the catchment. Habitat destruction and further degradation of streams should be avoided.

Issue 4: Increased Sedimentation

The increasing intensification of land use has increased sedimentation within the Pakuranga catchment. Earthworks, construction and the removal of vegetation during urbanisation have increased the likelihood of erosion and sediment being transported by storm water to streams and creeks. On the other hand, stormwater excess causes souring of stream banks and sedimentation, thus, affecting the survival of aquatic biodiversity. It is therefore important for developers to avoid further soil loss into sensitive streams through adapting adequate construction practices.

Issue 5: Changed Hydrology

The increase in impervious surfaces, the channeling and piping of streams and the discharge of storm water has caused changes to the hydrological regime. Impervious surfaces prevent the natural absorbing and storing of rainfall, ground water replenishment and produce quick run-off responses to rainfall events. In order to maintain the hydrological balance within the catchment, it is important to impose measure on discharging of stormwater, prevent further channeling and piping of natural streams and apply LIUDD techniques to decrease impervious surface ratios.

Here is a link for the document that summarises management options for each issue:

http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddc9czjf_1c5vsdbfg

Freemans Bay Redevlopment Proposal

As part of our final studio project for Planning 123 a couple of years ago, we had to develop a report and produce a model on the redevelopment of a study site in Freemans Bay, Auckland. This is post is a summary account of the report done by my group.

Freemans Bay is one of the suburbs in Auckland that has undergone constant urban reclamation and urban renewal. The end result of this left the area in a poor condition, with many inadequate housing constructions and unused open spaces.

A site development potential map was produced by the group indicating the opportunities and constraints for redevelopment within the study site. In accordance to the site development potential map, a development brief was prepared supported by a model of the proposed redevelopment. The development brief of the proposal is aimed to achieve more sustainable outcomes for the future of the residents in Freemans Bay.

Development Brief:

• A net density of 86 dwellings per hectare.
• A mixture of terraced/row houses and medium rise apartment dwellings of 2-4 storey throughout the site.
• A minimum dwelling size of 70sqm (7m by 10m).
• A mixture of small dwellings (1-storey) to larger dwellings (2-storey).
• All dwellings to meet the criteria for a good quality of life within them.
• Bottom floor of he buildings on the corner of Franklin Road and Wellington Street are to be of commercial use.
• Communal space for the residents of the medium-rise apartment buildings.
• Private outdoor space for each unit (including back yards/front yards and balconies).
• A more permeable road system. Gwilliam Place and Sheridan Lane extended.
• Trees and vegetation lining on the roads and walkways.
• Security gate across the road entrances and parking facilities, ensuring only residents have access to these roads and parking.

Site Plan (how the proposal achieves more sustainable outcomes for the future):

The redevelopment proposal aims to achieve a more sustainable outcome through incorporating the principles of quality of life within and outside the dwellings. The dwellings within the site are mainly facing north-west and north-east. This is important because it allows for maximum sun exposure in certain periods of the day and is therefore energy efficient.

All of the dwellings within the site offer the inhabitant a choice of orientation between two cardinal directions. This is important as this provides the residents a range of choices and alternatives.

The proposed dwellings within the site have a four-storey limit. This is significant because having a four-storey limit provides a connection between the building height and the health of a person. It is also important to keep the buildings more to human scale.

The dwellings within the site also offers its residents positive outdoor spaces as seen in

the picture. Positive outdoor spaces are important make people comfortable when they use these spaces. It is therefore important to incorporate positive outdoor spaces in urban design as it provides a more sustainable outcome instead of having left over spaces that are not used.

The principle of robustness and variety are also applies in the development brief in order to achieve more sustainable outcomes. The proposed site will have a mixture of terraced/row houses and medium-rise residential dwellings as it is seen in the photo, thus allows the principle of variety to be enhanced.

The quality of robustness will also be

increased through the integration of commercial establishments along sections of Franklin Road as seen in the photo. This is important as the shops will increase the potential robustness of the outdoor spaces as the shop windows will increase visual contact and therefore will tend to attract a variety of users, hence enhance the level of activity along Franklin Road. On the other hand, the preservation of communal spaces within the site as private outdoor spaces are also important in maintaining the level of robustness of the surrounding dwellings.

Application of Cost-Benefit Analysis to District Planning in New Zealand

This essay was written for my Planning 222 (Studio 4) class..

Application of Cost-Benefit Analysis to District Planning in New Zealand

Cost-benefit analysis is a public policy decision-making tool used for evaluating proposed or previously enacted policies and projects in order to determine whether doing them is of public interest (Zerbe and Bellas, 2006). It is a process of identifying, measuring and comparing costs and benefits of a policy or project. Cost-benefit analysis is also used to identify between two or more policy or project alternatives that will generate the greatest net benefit (Zerbe and Bellas, 2006). To determine the net benefit of each policy or project proposal, all costs and benefits should be quantified in monetary terms and discounted to a common point in time (New Zealand Treasury, 2005). The application of cost-benefit analysis to district planning is important as government decision-makers require assurance that proposals for new spending on public policies or projects will result in a net increase in the national welfare and meet the Government’s public policy objectives (New Zealand Treasury, 2005). New Zealand’s district planning has a legislative basis on the requirements for cost-benefit analysis under s32 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991 and s77 of the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002. The requirement for s32 evaluation of the RMA 1991 ensures the provision of a process for working out how best to deal with resource management issues while promoting the purpose of the Act (Quality Planning, 2008). On the other hand, section 77 of the LGA 2002 ensures the provision of a process for working out how to best deal with issues regarding present and future social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being. These statutory decision-making obligations are similar except s32 evaluation is broader while s77 evaluation is more explicit as it considers present and future costs and benefits. Although undertaking cost-benefit analysis as required under s32 of the RMA 1991 and s77 of the LGA 2002 provides local government decision-makers a consistent tool for assessing proposals, there are limitations to cost-benefit analysis. Despite of the limitations, cost-benefit analysis is an effective public policy decision-making tool. Using New Zealand case studies, this essay will critically analyse the effectiveness of the application of cost-benefit analysis to district planning in New Zealand, particularly on its application to s32 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Cost-benefit analysis is a method used by local authorities to fulfill the statutory requirement of s32 of the Resource Management Act 1991. However, the failure to apply cost-benefit analysis principles while undertaking s32 analysis is evident in New Zealand planning practice. According to McShane (2003), s32 analysis does not require local authorities to place monetary values on intangible costs and benefits and is therefore assumed that “if benefits are not quantifiable then there is no need to analyse the costs” (p. 31). This is a major criticism on s32 analysis as it fails to apply a consistent and systematic tool for assessing proposals and plan changes which cost-benefit analysis provides. Another criticism to s32 analysis is the failure to account for discount rates. It is necessary to discount the costs and benefits occurring at different times (Zerbe and Bellas, 2006). In relation to the Northern Busway project completed in 2008, the discount rate to develop the project is higher. This means that it is best to develop the project then than in the future as costs will be higher. This is due to the benefits outweighing the costs of the Northern Busway as it provides public transport through better bus services, give people more travel options, and reduce car numbers and road congestion. As a result of the Northern Busway, the Northern Express had 55% more passengers in March 2008 than the previous month (North Shore City Council, 2008). This is therefore one indication of the effectiveness and efficiency of the project. The importance of applying and understanding the actual cost-benefit analysis process while undertaking s32 analysis is significant to ensure that policies and projects promote efficiency and effectiveness.

The application of cost-benefit analysis to New Zealand district planning is important as it provides a way for local authorities to decide on how to prioritize scarce resources consumed by policies and projects. Cost-benefit analysis also allows for efficiency as it includes environmental values in the same analysis as the concerned development (Hanley and Spash, 1993). For example, the proposed $700 million stadium on Auckland’s waterfront was rejected due to its environmental and construction costs (New Zealand Herald, 2006). It is clear from the Waterfront stadium decision that the environment, particularly the coastal marine area, was valued more than the stadium development. The environmental values concerning the Waterfront stadium project were therefore the main contributor on the decision-making criteria of the cost-benefit analysis.

However, cost-benefit analysis is criticized by many as an ineffective decision-making tool for district planning practice due to the limitations on its methodology. A main criticism on cost-benefit analysis is the “absence of any scientific method of aggregating preferences” (Zerbe and Bellas, 2006, p. 17). This means that utility cannot be measured therefore comparing utility between individuals cannot be decided objectively. However, Zerbe and Bellas (2006) state that cost-benefit analysis can aggregate preferences based on the ‘willingness to pay’ or ‘willingness to accept’ payment principles.

Another limitation is the difficulty in putting monetary values to compare goods particularly intangible costs and benefits. Hanley and Spash (1993) argue that environmental resources are often under-priced nor un-priced. The incorrect set of prices leads to market failure thus resulting in the inefficient allocation of resources (Hanley and Spash, 1993). The difficulty in putting monetary value is mainly due to the differences of how people value and perceive the importance of resources. This may often result in the neglect of important values such as integrity and equity (Zerbe and Bellas, 2006). As a result, non-quantitative values such as intrinsic environmental values and social values are often ignored. On the other hand, cost-benefit analysis does not also account for the cumulative effects of decisions, in this case the cumulative effects of neglecting environmental and social values that can be a serious problem in the long term. An example to illustrate this point is that there is a strong opposition on the SH20 Waterview Connection project mainly due to the negative externalities on the surrounding environment and social community. Social values that were ignored during the cost-benefit analysis of this project proposal include the displacement of some communities, uncertainty of compensation for the possible decrease of their property values and the loss of relationship of the community with losing hectares of public open space. Cost-benefit analysis is criticized because it does not always guarantee that a compensation test is passed (Zerbe and Bellas, 2006). On the other hand, environmental values that were neglected by traffic planners are the negative effects of higher carbon dioxide emissions to the surrounding environment.

Another criticism on the methodology of the cost-benefit analysis is that the results of the analysis will often be inequitable as it does not account for income distribution and thus reflecting the existing patterns of wealth (Zerbe and Bellas, 2006). This limitation is morally criticized as values tend to be weighted by income, which often results on the displacement of equity, fairness and moral values in general (Zerbe and Bellas, 2006). This means that those with more resources (the rich) have more votes to cast therefore has more influence on the policy or project than those with fewer resources (the poor) (Hanley and Spash, 1993). On the other hand, cost-benefit analysis also treats gains and losses equally (Hanley and Spash, 1993). To illustrate this point, for example, the discounted net benefit of a project of $1000 for the rich is treated equally as the discounted net benefit of $1000 for the poor in a similar project. This criticism of cost-benefit analysis however does not apply to New Zealand planning practice.

The role of cost-benefit analysis as a decision-making tool is also another limitation on the effectiveness and efficiency of policies and projects. “Cost-benefit analysis deprives citizens of the opportunity to participate in democratic process that bear on the allocation of public resources” (Zerbe and Bellas, 2006, p. 10). Undertaking cost-benefit analysis does not require public consultation. Zerbe and Bellas (2006) argue that public policies and projects should be decided in public forums and not by cost-benefit analysis alone. This ensures that policies and projects are of interest to the public and also reduces conflicts with the affected community. In relation to district planning in New Zealand, consultation is an important component to a s32 analysis. It is required under s32 to go through consultation in order to seek the views of stakeholder groups to determine their perception on the appropriateness, costs and benefits of proposed policies or projects (Quality Planning, 2008). In particular, the consultation of the tangata whenua and local iwi groups are significant when undertaking cost-benefit analysis in s32. An example of good consultation practice in New Zealand is the public consultation on the Northern Busway. Transit New Zealand and the North Shore City Council did extensive public consultation to enhance public awareness and also to enable the local community to raise and discuss issues, constraints and opportunities in relation to the Busway project. According to Transit New Zealand and North Shore City Council, results from the consultation strategy showed that 85% of the public support the general concept, 57% support for the proposed design and a 29% support for the design with conditions (Northern Busway, 2009). The case study of the Northern Busway is an example of how public consultation is important to be included in the cost-benefit analysis process. The need for public consultation when undertaking public policy decision-making allows for a more effective and efficient policies and projects, which is evident in the Northern Busway project.

Although there are limitations to the methodology of cost-benefit analysis as explained in the previous paragraphs, the benefits of cost-benefit analysis outweigh its costs and is therefore still considered as an effective and reliable decision-making tool for district planning in New Zealand. However, changes to the methodology of cost-benefit analysis are needed in order to ensure that this tool will implement more effective and efficient public policies and projects. In the context of New Zealand district planning, the application of cost-benefit analysis through the s32 analysis should be compulsory. Cost-benefit analysis should be the main method to implement the requirements of s32 analysis when assessing proposals and plan changes. Applying cost-benefit analysis regardless of its limitations will provide a more consistent and reliable method when evaluating costs and benefits during a s32 analysis. However, it is important that s32 analysis applies qualitative analysis equally with the standard quantitative analysis when undertaking cost-benefit analysis. The Quality Planning Organisation (1998) argues that it is significant that a s32 analysis combines the qualitative and quantitative parts of cost-benefit analysis to ensure that it gives an overall qualitative efficiency rating. Overall, I believe that changes to the methodology of cost-benefit analysis and enforcing it as the main tool to fulfill s32 analysis requirement under the Resource Management Act 1991 will best promote the sustainable management of the natural and physical resources, thus improving efficiency and effectiveness of New Zealand planning practice when dealing with public policy issues.

It’s not easy seeming green -A backlash to New Zealand’s vow of purity

Interesting article from The Economist online about New Zealand's so called "clean and green" image

source: http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15763381&subjectID=348924&fsrc=nwl

FANS combing internet sites are not the only people eagerly anticipating a pair of epic fantasy movies based on “The Hobbit”, by J.R.R. Tolkien, that it is planned will start filming this year. New Zealand’s tourist industry, too, is eager to see the islands’ sweeping and unsullied vistas revealed once more to millions of cinemagoers, as they were almost a decade ago when the first of the three films based on Tolkien’s “The Lord of The Rings” was released. Those films did a great deal to boost the country’s tourism trade (Air New Zealand promoted itself as the “airline to Middle Earth”), fitting nicely with the country ’s “100% Pure New Zealand” marketing slogan, first used a couple of years earlier.

But how much of this is, indeed, a fantasy? Last November, in his “Greenwash” column for the Guardian, a British newspaper, environmental journalist Fred Pearce pointed out that New Zealand’s greenhouse-gas emissions had risen 22% since 1990 (its commitment under the Kyoto Protocol was to keep them level) and were now 60% greater per head than Britain’s. The image New Zealand attempted to show the world amounted to a “shameless two fingers to the global community” in the face of a far dirtier reality, including the world’s third-highest rate of car ownership, and methane-belching cows that help to push agricultural emissions to almost half the country’s total.

When tackled on these claims by an Australian reporter, New Zealand’s normally amiable prime minister John Key angrily dismissed them as “bollocks”, pointing to his country’s efforts to tackle its emissions by energetically planting trees that would re-absorb them. But local papers took up the theme. “New Zealand: 100 per cent pure hype” trumpeted the New Zealand Herald. “We are clean and green, but only relatively speaking and by accident rather than conscious effort.” The ruggedness of much of New Zealand’s terrain may have protected its film-friendly uplands, but at lower elevations farming has stripped away forests, eroded hills and clogged rivers with silt and fertiliser run-off.

On previous occasions New Zealand has been able to see off threats to its green image. When concerns about “food miles” started to be widely voiced a few years ago, New Zealand’s agricultural exports—40% of its total exports—looked at risk. Few foodstuffs other than those on the space station rack up more miles than a leg of New Zealand lamb on a British dinner table. The government latched on to research by New Zealand’s Lincoln University which showed that the country’s agricultural exports were relatively efficient in terms of energy use, by comparison to agricultural production in Europe, even when shipping was taken into account. Europe’s concerns, it was implied, had more to do with fear of competition from unsubsidised antipodeans than concern about environmental degradation.

New Zealand has also followed some policies designed to match reality to green rhetoric. In 2007 an “Environmental Performance Review of New Zealand” by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) noted a bunch of improvements over the past ten years: better approaches to recycling and water treatment; reforestation of pasture to prevent erosion; strengthened efforts to preserve endangered species; the removal of agricultural and fishing subsidies; and, by OECD standards, a high use of renewable energy sources, at 30% of supply. However, the report also pointed to new environmental pressures, such as growing demand for electricity that was leading to greater use of fossil fuels for power generation, and climbing car ownership unhindered by measures such as road pricing.

Mr Key’s centre-right government, elected in 2008, although less green-in-spirit than the previous Labour-led coalition, has taken some environmental action. Just before last year’s Copenhagen summit, it enacted an emissions-trading scheme just as an Australian attempt to do the same was foundering. At Copenhagen, Tim Groser, the minister for climate-change negotiations and a pragmatic former trade diplomat, pushed strongly for a “global alliance” to research ways of reducing agricultural greenhouse-gas emissions.

From an environmentalist’s perspective, though, these positives are outweighed by much larger negatives. The emissions-trading scheme excludes agricultural emissions until 2015, and its generous allocations of free carbon credits to business have been lambasted by environmentalists. The country’s transport strategy favours road-building over already-scant public transport, and there is much talk of the need to ease resource-management rules that act as barriers to business. In February, the government revealed it was considering opening some of the country’s pristine public land up for mining—an activity to which the dwarves in “The Hobbit” are much given, but which is not popular with more elvish sensibilities. Energetic lobbying by environmental groups forced it to scale back the amount of land under consideration, but on March 22nd it announced that it still intended to open 7,000 hectares of conservation land to mining, with other conservation areas to be surveyed for their mineral potential.

Even the government’s boasts of reforestation to replace forests cleared for dairy farming are less green than they might appear. As the Guardian reported, these forests are not long-term sinks for carbon, but plantations, which will when harvested return carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The Sustainability Council of New Zealand, an independent body, has also criticised this approach as playing games with Kyoto targets.

In many ways, the dilemma New Zealand faces is no different to that of other rich countries—how to balance economic growth with the need to address environmental degradation. But it is particularly acute in a country so dependent on the export of commodities and landscape-driven tourism. The difference between New Zealand and other places is that New Zealand has actively sold itself as “100% Pure”. Now that New Zealanders themselves are acknowledging the gap between the claim and reality, and the risk to their reputation this poses, it is time for the country to find itself a more sustainable brand, and soon.

“…as our relationship to the environment becomes ever more complex and precarious, so city planning becomes one of the most important disciplines…”

This essay was written for my Planning 100 (Creative Communities) class 2 years ago. Feel free to critique..

“…as our relationship to the environment becomes ever more complex and precarious, so city planning becomes one of the most important disciplines…”. This quote by Richard Rogers is significant because it emphasises the need for city planning to preserve the environment. This essay will discuss how population growth, increasing consumerism, the growth of cities and the spread of suburbia have disastrous impacts on the environment. It will also discuss why the role of planners is significant. Planners over the world have one main goal, to prevent humanity from using resources unsustainably. This is done through imposing different environmental planning policies and raising local awareness in order to maintain the capacity of the earth to sustain society’s present and future needs.

Population growth in association with a changing lifestyle and increasing consumption is placing great damage and stresses on the environment (Benton-Short and Short, 2008, p. 73). According to the Final Report of the Urban Task Force on Urban Renaissance, the population increase in the last century was from one billion to six billion people (p. 28). Current trends put the global population at eight and a half billion by 2025 (Urban Task Force, 1999, p. 28). This rapid increase of global population inflicts serious stresses on the environment as human activity will increase. It is argued that human population is the underlying issue of the environment because the great number of people has direct and indirect effects that cause environmental deterioration (Botkin and Keller, 2005, p. 4). A trend that emerges with the rapid increase of population is the increasing human consumption. As humans, we directly depend on nature to meet the needs and demands ensuring society’s survival. However, we are using natural resources faster than they can be replenished (Botkin and Keller, 2005, p. 9). This increasing consumption due to rapid population growth has negative externalities especially on the environment. A major downside is the creation of pollution and solid wastes that are exceeding the capacity of the planet to absorb and convert them. Another negative impact is the avoidable degradation of renewable resources. As our lifestyle changes, our relationship with the environment becomes more complex and precarious in order to meet society’s ongoing needs and demands. City planning therefore is important in preserving the environment to provide needs for present and future generations.

The rising urbanism and suburban sprawl has modified the environment to a great extent. In 1990, only ten percent of the global population lived in cities, but today, fifty percent of the population lives in urban areas (Urban Task Force, 1999, p. 28). The urban population is increasing at a rate of one quarter of a million per day (Rogers, 1997, p. 4). This rapid increase of people who live in urban settlements has accelerated the rate of the deterioration of the environment. The growth of cities has modified the physical environment in many ways because consumerism is increasing the creation of pollution. It is in the urban centers that there is a concentration of air pollution, greenhouse gases, waste disposal problem, social unrest and other stresses in the environment (Botkin and Keller, 2005, p. vi). For example, Mexico City is seen as one of the largest and most polluted city in the world (Roger, 1997, p. 28). The layer of smog in Mexico City is six times more toxic than the acceptable standard set by the World Health Organisation (Roger, 1997, p. 28). This concentration of urban population in Mexico City is generating threats to the environment and therefore has harmful flow-on effects on the urban community. In other words, humans are the “greatest threat to humankind’s survival on the planet” (Rogers, 1997, p. 4). On the other hand, metropolitan growth especially in the developed world has resulted for the rise of suburban areas. The idea of suburban sprawl has extended jobs and residential housing further away from central cities (Benton-Short and Short, 2008, p. 86). Roger (1997) argues that it is the car that had the critical role of encouraging suburban sprawl (p. 35). It is estimated in 1997 that there are 500 million cars and is now considered the major contributors to air pollution rather than industries (Rogers, 1997, p. 86). However, the loss of open space to accommodate spaces for housing and roads is the most significant environmental impact of suburban sprawl. As more land is being cleared to accommodate the rising population in suburbia, ecosystem fragmentation becomes more complex and the reduction of diversity and species extinction therefore intensifies (Benton-Short and Short, 2008, p. 86). The preservation of the environment is important with the rising urbanisation and suburbanisation, thus city planning is significant in creating sustainable “cities that will offer opportunity today without jeopardising future generations” (Rogers, 1997, p. 28).

The roles of planners are important in providing a sustainable approach towards the environment to accommodate the rising population growth, consumerism, urbanism and suburban sprawl. As the human population grows larger, the capacity of the planet to ensure humanity’s survival is lesser. The job of planners is therefore very important in responding to society’s current demands without compromising those of future generations (Urban Task Force, 1999, p. 28). Rogers (1997) believes that “…city planning could be evolved to provide crucial tools for safeguarding our future, creating cities that provide sustainable and civilising environments” (p. 4). This quote is relevant because it emphasises the role of planners towards a sustainable urban environment. In New Zealand, planners are mainly employed by the local government. This is important because there is a localisation of decisions to meet local needs. The Resource Management Act 1991 is one of the main legislations that planners in New Zealand depend upon when making decisions. The main purpose of the act is “to promote sustainable management of natural and physical resources” (S5 (1) Resource Management Act 1991 (No. 69)). The emphasis on the RMA in urban planning decisions is important because it promotes sustainable development. The ultimate role of planners around the world is to apply holistic urban planning practices in which the environment is within the core of their long term objectives and policies.

Population growth, consumerism, urbanisation and suburbanisation are the main factors that changed our relationship with the environment. Rogers (1997) commented that the planet is perfectly capable of sustaining all humanity’s needs only if we value it. This is why planners have a very important role in promoting sustainability to meet the demands of the current and future generations.