Search

American cities vary considerably in the degree to which they pursue sustainability. What explains this variation? One plausible cause of such differences is that sustainability may be more appealing to high-income cities than to more economically challenged cities. Yet such strict economic determinism seems simplistic and removes politics from an inherently political process. The hypothesis here is that any such relationship between income and commitment to sustainability is conditioned by a city's level of environmental advocacy. The data utilized in this analysis are derived from two large-scale data sources. One is a comprehensive inventory of sustainability programs and policies in 50 large American cities. The other is a set of surveys in those same 50 cities. The multivariate model supports the hypothesis. Controlling for income growth and the predisposition of policymakers to be supportive of sustainability (as well as other alternative explanations), a city's commitment to sustainability is strongly linked to the advocacy of environmental and sustainability groups in the policymaking process. The example of Sustainable Seattle is used to illustrate the linkages that would seem to underlie the statistical analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. This response to Lenahan O'Connell's article “Exploring the Social Roots of Smart Growth Policy Adoption by Cities” examines whether the relationship between education and the adoption of smart growth programs in U.S. cities is reflective of the new political culture and rooted in postmaterial values or, perhaps, just reflective of a slightly different way of thinking about traditional economic development. Methods. Using data for 45 U.S. cities that have articulated broad policies to try to become more sustainable, this analysis includes a measure of the severity of air pollution as an indicator of the need for smart growth programs. Results. The measure of need is more strongly related to the pursuit of smart growth than is either education or income. Conclusions. Since the level of air pollution is frequently understood to make economic growth difficult or impossible, the results suggest that smart growth programs might be just as likely motivated by traditional economic development as by postmaterial values, and there is a need to develop a deeper understanding of the motivates for adopting such programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]