How Does the New Urban Agenda Align with Comprehensive Planning in U.S. Cities? A Case Study of Asheville, North Carolina
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- What are the main sustainability themes within the New Urban Agenda?
- How well do sustainability themes of the New Urban Agenda align with the content of a case study U.S. city’s comprehensive plan?
- What does the New Urban Agenda offer to sustainability planning in the U.S., and what might be the most strategic way to leverage the New Urban Agenda in the U.S.?
2. Framing: The New Urban Agenda and Planning for Sustainability in the United States
2.1. United Nations Agendas and Sustainable Urban Development
2.2. Standard Approach to Sustainable Urban Development in the United States
3. Methods
3.1. Research Question 1: What Are the Main Sustainability Themes within the New Urban Agenda
as ‘Governance’. After coding the entire document, we reviewed each coded segment. Upon the first modification of the coding scheme, we re-coded this segment as ‘Multi-Layered and Poly-Centric Governance’. During a final review of the coding scheme, we realized there were a large number of segments relating to governance, and furthermore there was a clear division between segments pertaining to regional governance and segments speaking to the role of national sovereignty and local decision making nested within a vertical hierarchy of policy-making institutions. Thus, we assigned this example segment with the final code of ‘Multi-Layered Governance.’ We followed this process for every segment that we coded.“…recognize the leading role of national governments, as appropriate, in the definition and implementation of inclusive and effective urban policies and legislation for sustainable urban development, and the equally important contributions of subnational and local governments…”[20]
3.2. Research Question 2: How Well Do Sustainability Themes of the New Urban Agenda Align with the Content of a Case Study U.S. City’s Comprehensive Plan?
3.3. Research Question 3: What Does the New Urban Agenda Offer to Sustainability Planning in the U.S., and What Might Be the Most Strategic Way to Leverage the New Urban Agenda in the U.S.?
4. Results
4.1. Research Question (1) What Are the Main Sustainability Themes within the New Urban Agenda
4.2. Research Question (2) How Well Do Sustainability Themes of the New Urban Agenda Align with the Content of a Case Study U.S. City’s Comprehensive Plan?
4.3. Research Question (3) What Does the New Urban Agenda Offer to Sustainability Planning in the U.S., and What Might Be the Most Strategic Way to Leverage the New Urban Agenda in the U.S.?
5. Discussion
5.1. Research Question 1: What Are the Main Sustainability Themes within the New Urban Agenda
5.2. Research Question 2: How Well Do Sustainability Themes of the New Urban Agenda Align with the Content of a Case Study U.S. City’s Comprehensive Plan?
5.3. Research Question 3: What Does the New Urban Agenda Offer to Sustainability Planning in the U.S., and What Might Be the Most Strategic Way to Leverage the New Urban Agenda in the U.S.?
5.3.1. Gender
5.3.2. Governance
“Item 90. We will, in line with countries’ national legislation, support strengthening the capacity of subnational and local governments to implement effective local and metropolitan multi-level governance, across administrative borders, and based on functional territories, ensuring the involvement of subnational and local governments in decision-making and working to provide them with the necessary authority and resources to manage critical urban, metropolitan and territorial concerns.”.[19]
“Item 147. We will promote capacity development as a multifaceted approach that addresses the ability of multiple stakeholders and institutions at all levels of governance and combines the individual, societal and institutional capacity to formulate, implement, enhance, manage, monitor and evaluate public policies for sustainable urban development.”.[19]
6. Conclusions
- Integrate the New Urban Agenda into existing frameworks. The NUA makes some contributions unique from STAR, but we question whether it represents enough of a divergence to justify retiring a widely accepted tool. The history of STAR has been marked by a willingness to adapt it to stakeholder input and to align it with the SDGs. As such, we wonder if it would be more practical to revise STAR to embed further contributions of the NUA. Concerns always existed about whether the NUA would be implemented. In this instance, wrapping it into an already implemented framework could provide a strategic path towards implementing the NUA in the U.S. Particularly, given some concern in the literature regarding the strength of some community and city sustainability rating systems (for instance: Reference [16]), revisions guided by the NUA may result in stronger tools for guiding and assessing sustainable urban development.
- Infuse race, gender, and equity into urban sustainability goals. Race, gender, and equity are particular areas that the NUA should inform local planning through STAR Communities or other frameworks and planning efforts. These concerns are under-developed in STAR, and the Asheville case study did not adequately address these in its comprehensive plan. A recent statement of support for the NUA by the American Institute of Architects (AIA) reflects the hope to better adopt equity components of the NUA: “It [NUA] also speaks to inclusiveness of underrepresented populations in the process of urban development, addressing their “rights to the city” and aligning with issues of housing tenure, health, women’s and children’s rights, diversity, access to services, urban space and cultural amenities, to name but a few. In addition to being inclusive of the spectrum of the populace that will be inhabiting these places, the planning process must also represent diverse constituencies, including economists, financiers, planners, governmental organizations, and architects” [61]. As expressed by the AIA, the “New Urban Agenda, simply stated, is a call to action for all architects” [61].
- Reconcile multi-layered governance with local authority and national sovereignty. Achieving certain NUA goals seems more reasonable in states that devolve decision making to local jurisdictions, or enable multi-jurisdictional regional collaboration, as opposed to Dillon Rule states that do not support certain sustainability principles and norms. As a result, implementing the NUA might require driving sustainable urban development first in empowered cities while working to enact state-level policy changes in non-cooperative states, or articulating sustainability outcomes in ways that best align with individual states’ values and interests.
Limitations
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2018.
- Proudman, L. 5 Statistics on Why Sustainable Urban Development Matters; United Nations Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Liddle, B. Urbanization and Inequality/Poverty. Urban Sci. 2017, 1, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-Pérez, J. Urban Inequality: The City after the 2007 Crisis. Urban Sci. 2018, 2, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horne, R.; Adamson, D. What Can the New Urban Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals Do for Cities? The Conversation: Boston, MA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, M. A Systematic Review of Urban Sustainability Assessment Literature. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- John, B.; Keeler, L.W.; Wiek, A.; Lang, D.J. How Much Sustainability Substance Is in Urban Visions?—An Analysis of Visioning Projects in Urban Planning. Cities 2015, 48, 86–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- BREEAM Communities. Communities Technical Manual; BRE Global: Hertfordshire, UK, 2012; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Murakami, S.; Asami, M.Y.; Ikaga, T.; Ishida, H.; Inoue, K.; Iwamura, K. Environmental Performance Assessment Tool for Municipalities: Overview of CASBEE for Cities; Japan Sustainable Building Consortium: Tokyo, Japan, 2013; pp. 1–3. [Google Scholar]
- U.S. Green Building Council. LEED v 4 for Neighborhood Development; U.S. Green Building Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; pp. 1–161. [Google Scholar]
- STAR Community Rating System Version 2.0; STAR Communities: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
- Braulio-Gonzalo, M.; Dolores Bovea, M.; Jose Rua, M. Sustainability on the Urban Scale: Proposal of a Structure of Indicators for the Spanish Context. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2015, 53, 16–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berardi, U. Sustainability Assessment of Urban Communities through Rating Systems. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2013, 15, 1573–1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharifi, A.; Murayama, A. A Critical Review of Seven Selected Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment Tools. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2013, 38, 73–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reith, A.; Orova, M. Do Green Neighbourhood Ratings Cover Sustainability? Ecol. Indic. 2015, 48, 660–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wangel, J.; Wallhagen, M.; Malmqvist, T.; Finnveden, G. Certification Systems for Sustainable Neighbourhoods: What Do They Really Certify? Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2016, 56, 200–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharifi, A.; Murayama, A. Viability of Using Global Standards for Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment: Insights from a Comparative Case Study. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2015, 58, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prictchett, W.E. City Power in a New Era of Localism. Fordham Urban Law J. 2017, 44, 1449–1461. [Google Scholar]
- Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
- New Urban Agenda; United Nations: Quito, Ecuador, 2017.
- Watson, V. Locating Planning in the New Urban Agenda of the Urban Sustainable Development Goal. Plan. Theory 2016, 15, 435–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parnell, S. Defining a Global Urban Development Agenda. World Dev. 2016, 78, 529–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garschagen, M.; Porter, L. The New Urban Agenda: From Vision to Policy and Action. Plan. Theory Pract. 2018, 19, 117–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caprotti, F.; Cowley, R.; Datta, A.; Broto, V.C.; Gao, E.; Georgeson, L.; Herrick, C.; Odendaal, N.; Joss, S. The New Urban Agenda: Key Opportunities and Challenges for Policy and Practice. Urban Res. Pract. 2017, 10, 367–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Satterthwaite, D. A New Urban Agenda? Environ. Urban. 2016, 28, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birch, E.L. A Midterm Report: Will Habitat III Make a Difference to the World’s Urban Development? J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2016, 82, 398–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, M.A. From Habitat II to Pachamama: A Growing Agenda and Diminishing Expectations for Habitat III. Environ. Urban. 2016, 28, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The Habitat Agenda; United Nations: Istanbul, Turkey, 1996.
- The Millenium Development Goals Report; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
- Sachs, J.D. From Millennium Development Goals to Sustainable Development Goals. Lancet 2012, 379, 2206–2211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations. Global Indicator Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and Targets of the 2030 Agend for Sustainable Development; United Nations General Assembly: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 1–21. [Google Scholar]
- Hajer, M.; Nilsson, M.; Raworth, K.; Bakker, P.; Berkhout, F.; de Boer, Y.; Rockström, J.; Ludwig, K.; Kok, M. Beyond Cockpit-Ism: Four Insights to Enhance the Transformative Potential of the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 2015, 7, 1651–1660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United States Census. Number and Percent of Population: 2010—United States—Urban/Rural and Inside/Outside Metropolitan and Micropolitan Area; United States Census: Suitland, MD, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Saha, D.; Paterson, R.G. Local Government Efforts to Promote the “Three Es” of Sustainable Development: Survey in Medium to Large Cities in the United States. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2008, 28, 21–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Committee on Pathways to Urban Sustainability. Pathways to Urban Sustainability: Challenges and Opportunities for the United States; The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Alignment between UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the STAR Community Framework: Part 1; STAR Communities: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
- Elgert, L. The Double Edge of Cutting Edge: Explaining Adoption and Nonadoption of the STAR Rating System and Insights for Sustainability Indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 67, 556–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- QuickFacts: Asheville City, North Carolina. Available online: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/ashevillecitynorthcarolina (accessed on 27 November 2018).
- Wynne, K. “Climate City”: Asheville Hosts Climate Change Conference; WLOS: Asheville, NC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, D. Bill Nye—Yes, the Science Guy—To Headline Asheville’s 2019 Climate City Expo; Asheville Citizen Times: Asheville, NC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Accolades. Explore Asheville; Explore Asheville: Asheville, NC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Citizen-Times. Asheville Growth Future Special Report; Asheville Citizen Times: Asheville, NC, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, D. Asheville Residents Asked: What Do You Want to Know about Major Development Projects? Asheville Citizen Times: Asheville, NC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Zatkulak, K. Cost of Growth: How Asheville Is Working to Fix the Housing Crisis; WLOS: Asheville, NC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Sustainability Management Plan; City of Asheville: Asheville, NC, USA, 2009.
- Living Asheville: A Comprehensive Plan for Our Future; Comprehensive Plan; The City of Asheville: Asheville, NC, USA, 2018.
- Wartman, S. Agenda 21: UN Plot or Conspiracy Theory? Cincinnati Enquirer: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Berke, P.R.; Conroy, M.M. Are We Planning for Sustainable Development?: An Evaluation of 30 Comprehensive Plans. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2000, 66, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciegis, R.; Ramanauskiene, J.; Startiene, G. Theoretical Reasoning of the Use of Indicators and Indices for Sustainable Development Assessment. Inzinerine Ekon.-Eng. Econ. 2009, 63, 33–40. [Google Scholar]
- Davidson, K.M.; Kellett, J.; Wilson, L.; Pullen, S. Assessing Urban Sustainability from a Social Democratic Perspective: A Thematic Approach. Local Environ. 2012, 17, 57–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, X.; Zhong, W.; Shearmur, R.G.; Zhang, X.; Huisingh, D. An Inclusive Model for Assessing the Sustainability of Cities in Developing Countries—Trinity of Cities’ Sustainability from Spatial, Logical and Time Dimensions (TCS-SLTD). J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 109, 62–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foy, K.C. Complexities of Urban Sustainability: Using Local Land-Use Authority to Achieve Environmental Goals. Charlotte Law Rev. 2011, 3, 23–66. [Google Scholar]
- Pitt, D.; Randolph, J. Identifying Obstacles to Community Climate Protection Planning. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2009, 27, 841–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schragger, R. City Power: Urban Governance in a Global Age; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- National League of Cities. Cities 101—Delegation of Power. Available online: https://www.nlc.org/resource/cities-101-delegation-of-power (accessed on 27 November 2018).
- Richardson, J.; Gough, M.; Puentes, R. Is Home Rule the Answer? Clarifying the Influence of Dillon’s Rule on Growth Management; Brookings: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Wagner, A.N.C. Lawmakers Override Cooper’s GenX Bill Veto; Star News: Wilmington, NC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Leslie, L. House Seeks to Repeal Local Development Impact Fees; WRAL: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Henderson, B.N.C. Legislators’ Proposal Would Block Tree Ordinances; Charlotte Observer: Charlotte, NC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- City Rights in an Era of Preemption: A State-by-State Analysis 2018 Update; National League of Cities: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
- Hawk, T.; LeClair, C.; Washam, D. What New Urban Agenda Means for Architects; American Institute of Architects—Social Impact: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
Category | Theme | Frequency |
---|---|---|
Built Environment | Buildings | 1 |
Disaster risk and resilience | 12 | |
Housing | 18 | |
Infrastructure | 6 | |
Mobility | 9 | |
Urban renewal | 1 | |
Economy | Consumption and production | 3 |
Livelihoods | 14 | |
Local economy | 13 | |
Equity and Justice | Children and youth | 2 |
Education | 4 | |
Equal opportunity | 2 | |
Equal rights | 9 | |
Gender equality | 4 | |
Health | Food security | 6 |
Health care | 2 | |
Nutrition | 4 | |
Public health | 6 | |
Sanitation | 2 | |
Inclusive communities | Accessibility-age | 4 |
Accessibility-disabilities | 1 | |
Culture | 7 | |
Diversity | 4 | |
Immigration | 1 | |
Land Use | Green spaces | 4 |
Public spaces | 5 | |
Property rights | 2 | |
Urban form | 5 | |
Natural Environment | Air quality | 4 |
Climate change | 8 | |
Natural systems and conservation | 9 | |
Urban environmental quality | 3 | |
Waste | 5 | |
Natural Resources | Energy | 7 |
Food systems | 3 | |
Water resources | 4 | |
Water-drinking | 2 | |
Policy and Decision Making | Finance | 2 |
Good governance | 8 | |
Multi-layered governance | 13 | |
National sovereignty | 2 | |
Peace, safety, and security | 6 | |
Polycentric governance | 7 | |
Poverty | Homelessness | 1 |
Poverty eradication | 3 | |
Public/social services | 3 |
Living Asheville [46] | New Urban Agenda |
---|---|
Livable Built Environment | Built Environment |
Resilient Economy | Economy |
Interwoven Equity | Equity and Justice Inclusive Communities Poverty |
Harmony with the Environment | Land Use Natural Environment Natural Resources |
Healthy Community | Health |
Responsible Regionalism | Policy and Decision Making |
Harmony with the Natural Environment Goals [46] | New Urban Agenda |
---|---|
Implement Green Infrastructure and Enhance the Urban Tree Canopy | Land Use Green Spaces Natural Environment Natural systems and conservation Built Environment Infrastructure |
Promote Access to Well-Maintained Parks and Open Space for All | Land Use Public spaces Green Spaces Inclusive communities Equity and Justice Equal opportunity |
Mitigate Flooding and Erosion | Natural Environment Natural systems and conservation Natural Resources Water resources |
Protect Land and Water Assets | Natural Environment Natural systems and conservation Natural Resources Water resources |
Reduce Waste Production, Energy Use, Water Use and Light Pollution | Natural Environment Waste Natural Resources Energy Water resources |
Encourage Naturalized Stormwater Management Techniques | Natural Environment Natural systems and conservation Natural Resources Water resources |
Implement Green Building Programs | Built Environment Buildings |
Encourage the Use of Alternative and Clean Energy Systems | Natural Resources Energy |
Goal | Potential Performance Indicators |
---|---|
Promote Access to Well-Maintained Parks and Open Space for All |
|
Mitigate Flooding and Erosion |
|
Protect Land and Water Assets |
|
Reduce Waste Production, Energy Use, Water Use and Light Pollution |
|
Encourage Naturalized Stormwater Management Techniques |
|
Implement Green Building Programs |
|
Encourage the Use of Alternative and Clean Energy Systems |
|
Goal | Performance Indicators |
---|---|
Improve Community Involvement in Decision-Making |
|
Prioritize Investments Equitably and Fairly Across Neighborhoods |
|
Create a More Formal Neighborhood Planning Process |
|
Increase Access to Opportunities for All |
|
Goals | Number of Objectives | Number of Local Actions |
---|---|---|
Built environment | 7 | 68 |
Climate and energy | 7 | 68 |
Economy and jobs | 6 | 53 |
Education, arts and community | 6 | 59 |
Equity and empowerment | 6 | 56 |
Health and safety | 7 | 81 |
Natural systems | 6 | 53 |
Innovation and processes | 4 | 16 (Evaluation criteria) |
Emergent Category from the New Urban Agenda | Aligning Theme in Living Asheville [46] | Aligning Goal in STAR Community [11] |
---|---|---|
Built environment | Livable built environment | Built environment |
Economy | Resilient economy | Economy and jobs |
Equity and justice | Interwoven equity | Education, arts, and community Equity and empowerment |
Health | Healthy community | Health and safety |
Inclusive communities | Interwoven equity | Education, arts and community |
Land Use | Harmony with the environment | Built environment Natural systems |
Natural environment | Harmony with the environment | Natural systems |
Natural resources | Harmony with the environment | Climate and energy Natural systems |
Policy and decision making | Responsible regionalism | Innovation and process |
Poverty | Interwoven equity | Equity and empowerment |
Outcome | Description |
---|---|
EJ Outcome 3: Equitable Workforce Mobility | Demonstrate an increasing percentage of individuals within each racial, ethnic, and gender subgroup have obtained a high-quality post-secondary educational degree or credential over time |
EAC Outcome 1: Diverse Local Government Hiring | Part 1: Demonstrate that hiring to local government leadership positions reflects the gender, racial, and ethnic diversity of the community --AND-- Part 2: Demonstrate that hiring to local government staff positions reflects the gender, racial, and ethnic diversity of the community |
EE Outcome 3: Diverse Community Representation | Option A: Demonstrate that appointments to local advisory boards and commissions reflect the gender, racial, and ethnic diversity of the community --OR-- Option B: Demonstrate incremental progress in appointing local advisory boards and commission members that reflect the gender, racial, and ethnic diversity of the community Action 2: Policy and Code Adjustment: Adopt a policy to encourage diversity in local government appointments to advisory boards and commissions |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cohen, M.; Habron, G. How Does the New Urban Agenda Align with Comprehensive Planning in U.S. Cities? A Case Study of Asheville, North Carolina. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4590. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124590
Cohen M, Habron G. How Does the New Urban Agenda Align with Comprehensive Planning in U.S. Cities? A Case Study of Asheville, North Carolina. Sustainability. 2018; 10(12):4590. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124590
Chicago/Turabian StyleCohen, Matthew, and Geoffrey Habron. 2018. "How Does the New Urban Agenda Align with Comprehensive Planning in U.S. Cities? A Case Study of Asheville, North Carolina" Sustainability 10, no. 12: 4590. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124590
APA StyleCohen, M., & Habron, G. (2018). How Does the New Urban Agenda Align with Comprehensive Planning in U.S. Cities? A Case Study of Asheville, North Carolina. Sustainability, 10(12), 4590. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124590