Search

In the modern American city, who determines environmental policy? Cities have undergone fundamental change in both their economies and populations. In terms of political forces, our expectation is that across a range of cities, where nonprofit environmental groups have been included or incorporated into the local policymaking process, there is greater commitment to environmental protection, and more extensive adoption and implementation of local policies and programs designed to protect the environment. To test this idea, we draw on our own research that combines two original data sets. First, we have collected information on what programs and policies are in place in America’s large cities. Second, for 50 large American cities, we have also surveyed top city administrators. We find that inclusion of environmental groups in city policymaking is strongly linked to city administrators’ perceptions of city commitment to environmental protection. The number of local environmental protection policies and programs also demonstrates a strong relationship to inclusion of environmental groups in city policymaking. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

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]

After briefly reviewing some conceptual underpinnings of sustainable cities, this paper analyses and compares sustainable cities initiatives in 24 US cities. The central question addressed in the paper is why some cities seem to take sustainability more seriously than others. Numerous demographic, socioeconomic and other characteristics of the cities are correlated with an Index of Taking Sustainability Seriously, which is a composite of some 34 different variables indicating whether each city engages in specific sustainability programmes, policies or activities. Many of the standard explanations, such as the income and wealth of the community, the liberalness of the city and the growth pressures placed on the city, are found to exhibit no correlation with the seriousness of the sustainability effort. What do correlate with the Index are: reliance on manufacturing, where having more residents employed in manufacturing industries is associated with less seriousness; and, the age of the population, where cities with older populations take sustainability more seriously. This has three implications for the future development of sustainable cities. First, some of the cities that might be said to need sustainability programmes the most—cities with heavy manufacturing that are more prone to pollution production—are the least likely to take such programmes seriously. Secondly, as cities' manufacturing bases decline, they should find it increasingly feasible to engage in sustainability initiatives. And, thirdly, as the populations of cities age, policy-makers should also find it easier to support, develop and take seriously sustainability programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]