Challenging Policy Barriers in Sustainable Urban Design

Bulletin of Geography. Socio–economic Series / No. 40 (2018): 41–56 BULLETIN OF GEOGRAPHY. SOCIO–ECONOMIC SERIES DE journal homepages: http://www.bulletinofgeography.umk.pl/ http://wydawnictwoumk.pl/czasopisma/index.php/BGSS/index http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/bog ISSN 1732–4254 quarterly G

Challenging policy barriers in sustainable urban design

Janis BirkelandCDMR

University of Melbourne, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, VIC 3010, Melbourne, Australia; e-mail: janis.lynn. [email protected]

How to cite: Birkeland, J. (2018). Challenging policy barriers in sustainable development. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, 40(40), 41–56. DOI: http://doi.org/10.2478/bog-2018-0013

Abstract. In built environment design, codes set minimum health and safety re- Article details: quirements, policies set aspirational targets, and incentives such as green build- Received: 30 November 2017 ing rating schemes set design standards. These approaches have failed to provide Revised: 03 March 2018 universal wellbeing and environmental justice (i.e. intra-generational equity), or Accepted: 15 March 2018 increases in the natural life-support system that exceed depletion rates (i.e. inter-generational equity). Governments that do not ensure all citizens can obtain basic needs, life quality and resource security fail to meet their basic responsibil- ities. Two recent documents, one representing sustainable urban policy and principles, the other representing urban biodiversity standards, are examined against the Positive Development Test (whether the development increases the public es- Key words: tate, ecological base and future public options). The discussion suggests that con- urban design, temporary policies and incentive schemes, as presently conceived, cannot provide positive development, green building rating tools, the basic physical preconditions for sustainability, let alone address socio-econom- net-positive design, ic inequities. An alternative design-based approach is presented to address the is- urban biodiversity, sues the paper identified. New Urban Agenda. © 2018 Nicolaus Copernicus University. All rights reserved.

Contents: 1. Introduction ...... 42 1.1. Background ...... 42 1.2. Criteria for review ...... 44 2. Conceptual issues raised by Habitat III ...... 44 2.1. Policy issues ...... 45 2.2. Design issues ...... 46 3. Institutional issues raised by Habitat III ...... 48 3.1. Management issues ...... 48 3.2. Accountability and standards ...... 49 3.3. Summary comments ...... 51

4. Green building rating and marketing tools ...... 51 4.1. The Green Star biodiversity credit scheme ...... 52 4.2. BCS (biodiversity credit scheme) proposed actions and outcomes ...... 52 5. Conclusion ...... 54 Note ...... 55 References ...... 55

1. Introduction ditions for both the ‘ecological base’ or means of survival (ecological carrying capacity, biodiversity, 1.1. Background ecosystem services, etc.) and ‘public estate’ or universal access to the means of survival (essential ser- Cities are far from sustainable in their present form. vices, social support systems, environmental justice, They are a source of resource depletion, contam- etc.). If redesigned on net-positive design principles, ination and waste, and a sink that drains regions cities could generate sustainability. of energy, materials, water and biodiversity. Often Although variously defined, sustainability essen- cities intensify floods, heatwaves, earthquakes and tially means inter- and intra-generational equity. hurricanes, segregate races and classes, limit social Cities fail to provide intra-generational equity when mobility, and block escape routes in civil or envi- they limit the life potential of the socio-economi- ronmental crises. Since the built environment is im- cally deprived and transfer wealth from the poor- plicated in most sustainability issues, it is therefore er to the richer. They lack inter-generational equity, central to solutions. Yet sustainable planning and because they reduce future options for survival and design have largely only aimed to mitigate its own wellbeing and are not easily adapted to changing adverse impacts through efficiency gains. Mean- conditions and climates. Given the losses of biodi- while, on average, 58% of the Earth’s wildlife, 3.8 versity and cultures, and disparities of wealth and billion years in the making, has been lost since 1970 inequities caused by cities, they must be retrofit- (WWF, 2016). Much of this owes to the habitat de- ted to create the physical preconditions for sus- struction, climate change and pollution caused by tainability and increase universal life quality. Yet, resource extraction, the construction and operation current urban policies, strategies and standards do of cities. To be sustainable, then, cities must reverse not yet contemplate net-positive outcomes. While this trajectory and give back more than they take. some now claim their buildings produce net ben- In a context of escalating environmental exploita- efits, this only means that, after construction, they tion and degradation, cities must be transformed to export renewable energy or recycled water across increase future public options and natural and social property lines. This neither compensates for the ad- support systems. Positive Development (PD) states verse ecological impacts due to resource extraction, that the positive ecological footprint of nature must construction and operation processes, nor increases exceed the negative ecological footprint of humans ecosystems and biodiversity in whole-system terms. (Birkeland, 2008). PD posits that cities can create Two divergent orientations in sustainability are their own ecosystem services, restock their biore- ‘green growth’ and ‘degrowth’. Green growth calls gions, and over-compensate for the impacts of con- for innovation, efficiency, and ‘closing loops’ or -re struction. Net-positive design is possible, because cycling at all stages of production and consump- cities can be retrofitted for net social and ecological tion. Theoretically, this might approach zero waste, gains over their lifecycle at no extra cost (Birkeland, carbon, energy while improving environmental con- 2004). However, this requires that urban design not ditions, but it only reduces relative material flows. just integrate nature, but create new spaces and con- PD adds the other side of the equation: increasing nature in excess of human consumption. Degrowth Janis Birkeland / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 40 (2018): 41–56 43 calls for a reduction in production and consump- harm’—instead of ‘do net good’. Consequently, ur- tion, through activism and democratic choice, ban design guidelines and assessment tools do not leading to values, behavior and eventually systems facilitate, let alone measure, net-positive outcomes. change (Demaria, Kothari, 2017). While challenging Although design was traditionally about value add- cultural and ideological bases is essential, PD adds ing, design tools draw narrow system boundaries another dimension: designing out the anti-sustaina- in time and space, such as ‘from time of purchase’ bility biases that are hardwired into the physical and or ‘within property lines’. Such boundaries limit the institutional architecture. Sustainability requires not duty of care and discount adverse bio-accumulative only disruptive innovations and radical worldviews, impacts. Therefore, PD provides informal and tech- but the reformation of design and decision-making nical tools for net-positive design and assessment, frameworks on ethics-based and eco-positive prin- using stationary temporal and spatial baselines, as ciples. Decision-making systems can make better follows: choices, but only design can create more and bet- • Ecological baseline: Building assessment and ter choices. rating tools set standards that are relative to current The retrofit of cities on net-positive principles practices, not sustainability. They do not envisage is unquestionably necessary, but some would ar- buildings that increase the natural environment in gue that better living environments cannot change a global sense. Some progressive sustainable design behavior, values, or personal and political power tools aim for onsite or offsite landscape regeneration relationships. Nevertheless, a different kind of liv- that improves upon pre-construction environments ing environment could reduce the causes of con- but does not increase the natural environment. This flict, discontent and poor health such as inequality, cannot offset the damage in building production, let and the impacts of political and economic injustices alone increase native ecosystems or environmental such as poverty. Physical quality and equity would justice sufficient to compensate for past harm. This not require ‘more’ regulation, incentives, investment is because, even if the original ecological base were or social change but simply a change of design con- restored, it could not provide enough space to sup- cepts. Others would argue that the requisite insti- port the current population sustainably (cf. Wack- tutional changes are not possible through existing ernagel, Rees, 1996). If development is to give back market or state structures. However, because cit- more than it takes from nature, the earth’s ‘effective’ ies can increase social and ecological foundations land area must be increased. Hence, the PD ecolog- profitably while reducing net adverse impacts and ical standard is net increases in ecological carrying threats, design could leapfrog the impasses creat- capacity or ‘ecological space’ (i.e. space created by ed by the state-market duality. A system of posi- vertical structures and building-integrated ecosys- tive environmental governance is also proposed tem services) beyond pre-industrial conditions. (Birkeland, 2008). However, this paper critiques • Social baseline: Social sustainability depends contemporary policy and incentive frameworks, to upon on ecological sustainability, but it also re- which it now turns. quires environmental and social justice. Due to Eco-positive design is achievable. Vertical struc- current disparities of wealth and opportunity, sus- tures can increase the space for nature and commu- tainable development needs to address environmen- nity to over-compensate for (otherwise unavoidable) tal inequities in the surrounding community. Green negative impacts of development and increase sus- developments often aim to include social amenities tainability. For example, buildings with permanent such as public spaces, plazas or building features building-integrated vegetation can sequester more like green walls that clean and re-oxygenate urban carbon than is emitted during resource extraction, air. Few, however, proactively prevent environmen- construction and operation (Renger et al., 2015), tal risks, correct offsite environmental and equity while providing ecosystem services, environmen- deficits, or provide accessible refuges with inbuilt tal amenities, public spaces and health benefits. sources of food and water for emergencies. Social However, the longstanding ethic has been ‘do no standards in green building tools, like their environmental standards, are ‘relative’. Projects only need to 44 Janis Birkeland / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 40 (2018): 41–56 show more benefits for building stakeholders (e.g., This is regardless of whether or not the standards or investors, occupants and neighbors) than the norm. implementation measures are delegated to industry These tools reward amenities that provide profit, or advisory bodies. The grounds for this obligation prestige and marketability anyway. The PD social lie in a broad interpretation of the social contract: standard, in contrast, is net increases in social and the basic duty of governments to their citizenry. environmental equity on a community-wide basis, Democracy requires physical security in the sup- and direct universal access to basic needs. ply of basic needs like food, shelter, water, peace, To assess whether current sustainability poli- safety and social interaction. The citizenry there- cy, incentives and tools address the physical pre- fore grants government the power to ensure that requisites of sustainability, or genuine bio-physical essential services are available. In cases of extreme sustainability, this paper examines two recent in- disparities of wealth, however, people that are de- itiatives through an eco-positive lens. First, The pendent on economic and electronic instruments New Urban Agenda or Habitat III (2016) explicit- can be effectively disenfranchised by poverty. The ly builds on many international sustainability dec- only reliable way to guarantee democracy and sus- larations that emphasize the city scale. Second, the tainability is direct physical access to the means of Australian Green Building Council’s Land Use and survival and wellbeing. This can only be guaran- Ecology Category Review (GBCA, 2017) proposes to teed if the built environment is designed to pro- integrate urban ecology into its ‘Green Star’ accred- vide them. The physical bases of sustainability can itation scheme. Green building rating tools are now be implemented by government, business, the com- the dominant means of setting design standards, munity, or cross-sectoral partnerships. However, if and this scheme builds on a review of biodiversi- these schemes fail to provide for sustainability (i.e. ty provisions in other certification tools. Since both ensure fundamental needs and fairness, protect the initiatives reflect contemporary approaches to ur- natural life-support system, enable adaptation to ban policy and implementation, and both received changing contexts and climates, and set basic safe- feedback from cross-sectoral experts, they can be ty standards and security) then the system of gov- taken to represent best-practice urban and build- ernance has no real legitimacy. ing scale design standards. They are examined here in terms of the gap between conventional sustainability frameworks and PD sustainability standards. 2. Conceptual issues raised by Habitat III

1.2. Criteria for review Habitat III: 94. We will implement integrated planning that aims to balance short-term needs with long-term desired out- This paper asks: do these representative documents comes of a competitive economy, high quality of life, and sustainable environment. We will also strive to build in flexibility address the biophysical prerequisites of sustainabil- in our plans in order to adjust to changing social and econom- ity? First, does Habitat III, or contemporary inter- ic conditions over time … national urban policy goals and strategies generally, address socio-political realities? Second, does the This section explores policy and design concepts Green Star biodiversity credit scheme, or building in Habitat III as they relate to the socio-economi- design standards and incentives schemes general- cally deprived and the ecological life-support sys- ly, address ecological issues? The criterion is the tem. A preliminary observation is that by listing ‘PD test’: whether or not a development expands fu- most urban policies without qualifiers or distinc- ture options for survival and wellbeing, by increas- tions, Habitat III essentially calls for a ‘balance’ being the ecological base in whole-system terms and tween established approaches. Balancing competing by increasing social equity on an area-wide basis, to policies through ‘flexible’ planning does not suggest over-compensate for shortfalls or uncertainties. If how cities might be physically transformed to re- not, governments are obligated to establish mecha- verse biodiversity losses and growing social ineq- nisms for transforming urban form, buildings and uities. Balancing interests is hardly transformative, infrastructure to enable a sustainable environment. which may help explain why policies fail to address Janis Birkeland / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 40 (2018): 41–56 45 systems design issues. As discussed below, these is- Urban-rural relationships sues include: the centralization of essential services which makes people dependent for basic needs on Habitat III: 49. We commit to support territorial systems that integrate urban and rural functions into the national and delivery systems that they cannot control; the ru- sub-national spatial frameworks and the systems of cities and ral-urban divide which is still characterized by ru- human settlements, promoting sustainable management and ral-to-urban wealth transfers and forces many to use of natural resources and land, ensuring reliable supply move to cities; and high density (people or dwell- and value chains that connect urban and rural supply and ings per land area) which often reduces access to demand to foster equitable regional development across the survival needs, amenities and green public spaces. urban-rural continuum and fill the social, economic, and territorial gaps.

2.1. Policy issues Cities have been likened to ‘black holes’ that de- plete their rural areas socially, economically and ecologically (Rees, 2002). Material flows between regions and cities are one-directional and ultimately Centralization and efficiency terminal as they draw down natural and social capi- tal (Birkeland, Schooneveldt, 2002). Habitat III does Habitat III: 51. We commit to promote the development of urban spatial frameworks, including urban planning and de- not suggest principles for spatial systems that ensure sign instruments that support sustainable management and reliable rural-urban supply chains, ‘equitable region- use of natural resources and land, appropriate compactness al development’, or for determining what ‘gaps’ to and density, polycentrism, and mixed uses, through infill or fill in. Nor does it indicate how planners can coun- planned urban extension strategies as applicable, to trigger teract an economic paradigm that demands cities economies of scale and agglomeration, strengthen food sys- compete to attract development. States and cit- tem planning, enhance resource efficiency, urban resilience, and environmental sustainability. ies often compete for ‘any’ industry through vari- ous costly subsidies and incentives. The rural poor Habitat III presents ‘efficiencies of scale and -ag then crowd into cities, imposing additional costs on glomeration’ as a solution. The centralized produc- urban services. Subsequently, some industries move tion and delivery of essential services (e.g., power overseas to access cheaper labor supplies. To cre- plants and wires, sewerage and pipes, farms and ate eco-productive urban-rural synergies, PD aims roads) may generate economies. However, efficien- to align systems of governance, economic and con- cy through spatial concentration does not guar- struction systems with regional resources, natural antee equitable distribution or universal access to systems and cultures, along the lines of Bioregion- basic needs. Although advocating local goods and al Planning. services, it does not say how infill and urban extensions ‘strengthen food planning’ or organize ur- Urban density and extension ban food, water or energy production. Centralized services often create dependency on mechanical or Habitat III: 52. We encourage spatial development strategies that take into account, as appropriate, the need to guide ur- monetary delivery systems that fail in crises (e.g., ban extension prioritizing urban renewal by planning for the Puerto Rico hurricane), and compact cities cut off provision of accessible and well-connected infrastructure and escape routes in emergencies (e.g., New Orleans ty- services, sustainable population densities, and compact design phoon). Further, concentric urban form has histor- and integration of new neighborhoods in the urban fabric, ically segregated people by class, race and income, preventing urban sprawl and marginalization. as land values rise near urban centers. Underprivi- leged residents in outer areas often lack the means A branch of urban design has conflated sustain- to commute to CBDs, which limits their employ- ability with densification. In practice, densification ment opportunities, life choices and social mobility. means spatial reduction and taller buildings to increase the number of people or dwellings per unit of horizontal land area. Efficiencies through short- er distances and less space reduce some negative 46 Janis Birkeland / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 40 (2018): 41–56 impacts, such as car mileage and may even reduce improving air quality, mitigating temperature inver- the rate of urban sprawl. Densification also creates sions and supporting biodiversity incubators. wealth from land price inflation and increased rent- al rates. However, it usually eliminates urban biodiversity and reduces the capacity of urban areas 2.2. Design issues to adapt to unpredictable social, political and environmental change. Reducing space cannot, in itself, Retrofitting for adaptability increase social benefits, nature or environmental amenities. Buildings today are separated mainly Habitat III: 97. We will promote planned urban extensions, infill, prioritizing renewal, regeneration, and retrofitting of -ur by paving. They restrict future development pat- ban areas, as appropriate, including upgrading of slums and terns, lock-in inequitable and consumerist lifestyles informal settlements, providing high-quality buildings and and limit future planning options. Instead of fixat- public spaces, promoting integrated and participatory ap- ing on numerical density, PD emphasizes creating proaches involving all relevant stakeholders and inhabitants, more mixed-use public space and using multifunc- avoiding spatial and socio-economic segregation and gentrifi- tional design to create synergies among ecological cation, while preserving cultural heritage and preventing and containing urban sprawl. and social functions. Habitat III envisages urban renewal and retrofit- Green public spaces ting, but does not mention designing new and old buildings to facilitate retrofitting for higher environ- Habitat III: 67. We commit to promote the creation and maintenance of well-connected and well-distributed networks mental standards when design capacity improves. of open, multi-purpose, safe, inclusive, accessible, green, and Buildings can last 100 years but are not yet designed quality public spaces to improve the resilience of cities to dis- for likely climatic conditions over their expected asters and climate change, reducing flood and drought risks lifespan. For example, building heating plants are and heat waves, improving food security and nutrition, physi- designed for the current local temperature range, cal and mental health, household and ambient air quality, re- while cooling loads are predicted to increase rapid- ducing noise, and promoting attractive and livable cities and human settlements and urban landscapes, prioritizing the ly. Rigid green buildings constructed today will re- conservation of endemic species. duce life-quality options for future generations and impede the transformation to net-positive sustain- Historically, concrete barriers diverted flood ability. ‘Retrofitting for adaptability’ means enabling waters from cities, while storm-water drains chan- future building modifications to meet changing neled rain water out of cities. These ‘brittle’ engi- technological standards, social needs and climates— neering systems exacerbated the impacts of storms not just diverse occupant needs and preferences. and floods. However, planning for ‘resilience’ has PD passive solar retrofit modules could significant- generally focused more on recovery than redesign ly reduce the costs of upgrades while avoiding ma- for prevention. Green infrastructure instead empha- jor structural change or heritage losses. This would sizes prevention through the use of natural systems cause less demolition waste, and a reduction in and services (Wesener et al., 2017). While Habitat the resource extraction and construction impacts III advocates public green space, it does not rec- caused by replacement buildings. oncile this with densification and centralization. It mentions urban food security, but does not indicate Construction innovation how open space will be designed to provide food and water for the underprivileged, and/or general Habitat III: 75. We commit to encourage national, sub-na- public in emergencies. How can ‘endemic species’ tional, and local governments, as appropriate, to develop sustainable, renewable, and affordable energy, energy-efficient be conserved when contemporary green buildings buildings and construction modes, and to promote energy and landscapes only feature tokens of remnant eco- conservation and efficiency, which are essential to enable the systems? In PD, integrated vertical and horizontal reduction of greenhouse gas and black carbon emissions, en- nature corridors would double as emergency evac- sure sustainable consumption and production patterns, and uation routes when transport systems fail, while Janis Birkeland / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 40 (2018): 41–56 47 help to create new decent jobs, improve public health, and re- sity 3 times). The focus on ground-level land uses duce the costs of energy supply. also omits the potential of vertical spaces to provide multiple benefits. PD posits that the ecolog- Habitat III calls for ‘energy-efficient buildings ical needs of land should be determined first, as and construction modes’ for jobs, savings and health most commercial opportunities are not limited to benefits, but does not call for changing building de- particular locations. Once urban spaces, surfaces, signs to reduce the demand for resources and the structures are optimized for public gain can eco- impacts of industrial supply chains that deliver con- nomic goods and services be integrated. struction supplies. For example, passive building design can create significant upstream savings through Design for eco-services compound (cumulative) efficiencies. In PD, passive energy systems are maximized before energy sys- Habitat III: 69. We commit to preserve and promote the tems are specified. Rather than endorsing proven ecological and social function of land, including coastal ar- yet marginalized passive design concepts, however, eas which support cities and human settlements, and foster Habitat III generally emphasizes innovation. Effi- ecosystem-based solutions to ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns; so that the ecosystem’s regenerative ciency-led innovations can increase materials pro- capacity is not exceeded. cessing and product sales, while reducing jobs and excluding passive eco-positive design alternatives. Habitat III states that the regenerative capaci- Buildings will soon be ‘printed’ (i.e. large-scale la- ty of nature should not be exceeded, but it has al- ser printing), yet Habitat III does not explore its im- ready been outstripped. Further, ‘ecosystem-based plications for sustainability. So far, printing has been solutions’ are not defined. ‘Regeneration’ has been used to display otherwise infeasible and unafforda- about restoration and enhancement. Nature cannot ble sculptural shapes—demonstrating virtuosity not be increased if confined to landscapes leftover by virtue. If programmed only for efficiency, printed buildings. Since landscaping and green roofs can- buildings will not produce net public benefits. not provide enough space to offset increasing land degradation, PD proposes ‘design for eco-servic- Mixed and multiple functions es’, which includes the intrinsic, along with instru- mental, values of nature (Birkeland, 2002). This is Habitat III: 98. We will promote integrated urban and territorial planning, including planned urban extensions based where natural systems support building and eco- on the principles of equitable, efficient, and sustainable use of system functions to achieve public benefits. For in- land and natural resources, compactness, polycentrism, appro- stance, ‘green scaffolding’ creates a triple skin that priate density and connectivity, multiple use of space, as well can support passive thermal systems, building-in- as mixed social and economic uses in the built-up areas, to tegrated eco-services and the like, with little add- prevent urban sprawl, to reduce mobility challenges and needs ed embodied materials, energy or cost (Birkeland, and service delivery costs per capita, and to harness density and economies of scale and agglomeration, as appropriate. 2007). It can reinforce old buildings on the exteri- or or interior, be structurally-integrated with new Although not always implemented, mixed-use buildings, sit above urban spaces or, alternatively, development has been a panacea for the monocul- above freeways to support algae fuel production or tural land-use patterns that typified the post-WWII other carbon sequestration systems. era. However, Habitat III does not state how to ‘harness density’ and ‘urban extensions’ for mixed land uses and multiple uses of space. On what ba- 3. Institutional issues raised by Habitat III sis should the amount of open space per capita or area be determined? Moreover, the underlying ten- et of zoning has remained the ‘highest economic use Habitat III: 15. … (b) recognize the leading role of national governments, as appropriate, in the definition and implemen- of land’. Throughout Habitat III, economics appears tation of inclusive and effective urban policies and legislation as the presumed lever for sustainability (economics for sustainable urban development, and the equally important is mentioned 73 times, ecology 2 times, biodiver- contributions of sub-national and local governments, as well 48 Janis Birkeland / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 40 (2018): 41–56 as civil society and other relevant stakeholders, in a transpar- tive physical solutions that actually accommodate ent and accountable manner. competing values, needs and interests. Thus, despite calling for a ‘paradigm shift’, Habitat III ap- This section moves from conceptual to insti- pears to lean unconsciously in favor of maintaining tutional frameworks which underlie development the status quo: management over design, risk as- control processes, accountability and standards. In sessment over prevention, incrementalism over sys- many countries, state and local governments are re- tems change, and interest balancing over conflict sponsible for land use and development, but they resolution. have hesitated to regulate beyond basic health and safety standards, especially given the pressures of Adaptive management ‘small government’. For example, the Australi- an building code has only recently included pas- Habitat III: 80. We commit to support the medium- to long- sive design strategies, widely known by the 1960s. term adaptation planning process, as well as city-level climate This hands-off approach was partly due to indus- vulnerability and impact assessments to inform adaptation try power, but also because planning and building plans, policies, programs, and actions that build resilience codes were prescriptive and rigid. Codes often fa- of urban inhabitants, including through the use of ecosystem-based adaptation. vored established technologies, stifled innovation or had arbitrary outcomes in specific contexts. They Adaptive management has been traced to Aldo gradually became more performance-based. Hab- Leopold who was a pragmatic environmental man- itat III, at time of writing, has not suggested any ager (Norton, 2005). In the urban context, it per- performance criteria for management accountabili- haps first appeared as ‘incrementalism’ which meant ty or design standards that would provide indicators taking small steps to avoid big mistakes (Davidoff, of genuine progress. By default, therefore, it leaves 1965). Adaptive management has not yet led to quality control and design standards to rating tools adaptive design, however. Climate change requires (below) which are, ironically, prescriptive. changeable physical environments, not just flexible mitigation measures. Given their long lifespans, 3.1. Management Issues green buildings that meet today’s narrow sustainability standards will continue to increase material flows, reduce biodiversity and alienate land from Habitat III: 41. We commit to promote institutional, political, legal, and financial mechanisms in cities and human set- potentially net-positive developments for decades. tlements to broaden inclusive platforms, in line with national Management focuses on procedures, not on creativ- policies that allow meaningful participation in decision-mak- ity, and scant attention is paid to investigating gaps ing, planning, and follow-up processes for all, as well as an en- between aims and on-ground outcomes (cf. Swain, hanced civil engagement and co-provision and co-production. 2008). For example, indirect incentive schemes sometimes have unintended consequences, neces- Policies are meant to be flexible to avoid con- sitating more layers of regulations or incentives to straining the discretion of decision makers. Thus, redirect outcomes toward the original objectives. they can often be paraphrased as ‘commit to pro- Regulatory and management mechanisms can con- mote’ all things for everyone. Accordingly, Habitat strain or reinforce bad design, but only design can III lists many management values without offering create urban sustainability. principles by which accountability, quality or suc- cess can be measured. For example, it sometimes Risk-assessment aligns economics with ecosystem-based management, long-term with short-term needs, competi- Habitat III: 78. We commit to support shifting from reactive tion and collaboration, and compact urban form to more proactive risk-based, all-hazards and all-of-society with expansion. This balancing approach means approaches, such as raising public awareness of the risk and that short-term financial issues will prevail in each promoting ex-ante investments to prevent risks and build re- case, due to the forces of institutional inertia and silience, while also ensuring timely and effective local respons- es, to address the immediate needs of inhabitants affected by unguided commercial innovation. It overlooks the natural and man-made disasters, and conflicts. potential of environmental design to find alterna- Janis Birkeland / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 40 (2018): 41–56 49

must be fundamentally different. In PD, any offset- The risk-based approach in management is of- ting or trading schemes would require net-positive ten, paradoxically, reactive. The tendency is still outcomes. to wait until the likelihood of disasters outweighs the costs of action. For example, nuclear power plants near fault lines or coastlines were defended 3.2. Accountability and standards on grounds that nuclear plant meltdowns were far less common than earthquakes or Tsunamis, and Criteria and indicators therefore low-risk. However, both have occurred near nuclear plants. Similarly, where the risk-bene- Habitat III: 91. … We will encourage appropriate regulatory frameworks and support to local governments in partner- fit balance seemed favorable, buildings were built on ing with communities, civil society, and the private sector to 100-year flood plains, leading to many ancillary in- develop and manage basic services and infrastructure ensur- vestments. There were huge losses in the 2011 flood ing that public interest is preserved and concise goals, respon- in Brisbane, Australia, despite a previous commit- sibilities, and accountability mechanisms are clearly defined. ment to preventing development on the 1974 flood plain. The costs of elevating or moving buildings, or Although policy declarations leave implemen- creating diversion lakes, could have been mitigated tation to others, Habitat III offers no hint of so- by (portable) commercial and recreational activity cial justice criteria or ecological baselines to define near or on the river. In a PD framework, the invest- management or professional accountability regard- ment in prevention is determined by the costs of the ing urban environments. Business and industry worst-case scenario, not risk calculations. have not demonstrated adequate ethical or ecological leadership. They are quick to adopt and market Direct action innovations that trigger irreversible systems change, such as robotic cars, without adequate considera- Habitat III: 129. We urge UN-Habitat to continue its work tion of the potential socio-economic and environ- to develop its normative knowledge and provide capacity de- mental repercussions. Industry reporting systems velopment and tools to national, sub-national, and local gov- usually call for continuous improvement, which ernments in designing, planning, and managing sustainable assumes current directions are positive. However, urban development. ‘more good and less bad’ development only slows Design implies direct action to solve prob- the growing rate of species extinctions, desertifica- lems in positive and multifunctional ways, rath- tion, wilderness depletion, climate change and dis- er than through indirect management tools alone parities of wealth. It does not reverse direction or (Birkeland, 2002). Administrative approaches tend increase nature (Birkeland, 2005). When govern- to empower those considered the important actors: ments adopt industry criteria, they risk abdicating decision makers in business, industry and govern- their raison-d’être (social contract) unless tangi- ment—not designers and scientists. Managerial le- ble, objective sustainability standards are included. vers and pullies stimulate entrepreneurial efforts and Nevertheless, some local governments have adopt- avoid dictating particular solutions, but they gener- ed private sector voluntary rating tools as de facto ally appeal to the profit motive. For example, trad- design standards (below). ing schemes and transferrable development rights allow flexibility in compensatory actions that offset Ecological standards negative impacts where cheapest to do so. Current- Habitat III: 76. We commit to make sustainable use of nat- ly, they do not require developments to pay back ural resources and to focus on the resource-efficiency of raw their full public costs anyway. This is partly because and construction materials like concrete, metals, wood, min- managers seldom have training in design or ecolo- erals, and land, establish safe material recovery and recycling gy, and are accountable to stakeholders, not future facilities, and promote development of sustainable and resil- generations or distant populations. While Habitat ient buildings, prioritizing the usage of local, non-toxic and III calls for more tools, it does not suggest that tools recycled materials, and lead-additive-free paints and coatings. 50 Janis Birkeland / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 40 (2018): 41–56

Habitat III appears to view buildings as be- growth is proffered. Even genuine progress indica- ing about materials, perhaps because it couches tors (GPI) are disregarded, which are well-estab- construction in an economic, not environmental, lished economic measures aimed at assessing life framework. The emphasis on resource efficiency quality (Hamilton, 1999). By default, Habitat III tac- (economic savings) and non-toxic building compo- itly endorses gross domestic product (GDP), widely nents (health savings) reflects the traditional view of understood as recording financial transactions that design as serving to reduce costs. Materials efficien- have harmful outcomes as positive. cy, while important, seldom improves the natural or social environment. More resource savings, recycled Social equity building products and non-toxic materials would only reduce total material flows if there were no Habitat III: 134. … to expand their potential revenue base, more new buildings. Healthier urban environments such as through multi-purpose cadasters, local taxes, fees, and do not address the pollutants already bioaccumu- service charges, in line with national policies, while ensuring that women and girls, children and youth, older persons, per- lating in nature. Nonetheless, building-integrated sons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and local communi- natural systems, as exemplified by ‘living machines’, ties, and poor households are not disproportionately affected. can improve environmental as well as human health (Todd, Todd, 1994). Habitat III does not call for im- In a world where eight men have the equivalent provements in ecological health, let alone reverse wealth of half the global population (Elliott, 2017), the direction of society’s unilateral relationship with ensuring that the disadvantaged are ‘not dispropor- nature. It is now meaningless to speak of bringing tionately affected’ does not mean a reduction in so- humans and nature into balance: cities must protect, cial stratification or discrimination. Projects that restore and increase nature. increase social inequities (e.g., gated communities) are typically approved as-of-right if they meet code Economic justice requirements. Even in the absence of exclusionary zoning, other socially-detrimental land uses, such as Habitat III: 5. By readdressing the way cities and human set- casinos, occupy space. Land use is progressively be- tlements are planned, designed, financed, developed, governed, coming zero sum. The burden of evidence in devel- and managed, the New Urban Agenda will help to end pover- opment disputes rests upon those adversely affected ty and hunger in all its forms and dimensions, reduce inequal- ities, promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic to show why and how they are injured, despite the growth, achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all borderless quality of environmental impacts. This women and girls, in order to fully harness their vital con- is a legacy of the view that wealth creation brings tribution to sustainable development, improve human health ‘progress’ which ultimately trickles down to every- and well-being, as well as foster resilience and protect the en- one. In contrast, PD calls for project ‘purposes’ to vironment. be considered in development approvals. A Hierar- chy of Innovation is provided to assess a project’s Habitat III does not suggest how needs like pov- net contribution to public welfare (Birkeland, 2008). erty and hunger will be addressed by settlements, or how decision frameworks might be changed to enable economic and environmental justice. It does 3.3. Summary comments not offer means to redress inequities and prejudice, other than to ‘fully harness’ the contribution of all To review, Habitat III, or New Urban Agenda, is women and girls. This appears to favor the assim- a welcome call to action. Despite an extensive list ilation of the socio-economically deprived into the of urban design policies, however, it does not re- ‘modern’ machine, reflecting the old view that social solve the basic contradictions behind them. Deci- justice will trickle down from urban development’s sion makers are left to balance competing values contribution to economic growth. Integration of the and interests with conventional methods and strat- marginalized in an economic system that transfers egies. This is the ‘fallacy of the middle’, where solu- wealth vertically is neither new nor transformative. tions fall outside the spectrum created by traditional Further, no measure of assessing inclusive, equitable Janis Birkeland / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 40 (2018): 41–56 51 dualisms. Existing physical and institutional struc- rating tools have gradually included more social tures cannot correct the problems with which they and environmental criteria, they still only count co-evolved. Since customary incremental approach- improvements over contemporary site conditions, es do not deal with sustainability imperatives and conventional buildings, or construction manage- barriers, the question is whether gaps in policy are ment practices. They do not compare building pro- plugged by implementation strategies and incen- posals against sustainability standards. Also, rating tives schemes. The primary instrument for improv- tools do not count the cumulative ecological losses ing sustainable design quality is now green building caused by certified green buildings. That is, they do rating tools, so they are briefly described first. Then not aim to be better than no building at all. More- a leading-edge urban biodiversity design tool, the over, since project proponents only need to gain a BCS (biodiversity credit scheme; see section 4.1), certain number of points across a range of catego- is examined to see how it addresses the ecological ries, they can pick the low-hanging fruit. Thus, as deficits that are ignored in contemporary urban pol- was noted years ago, some highly-ranked buildings icy. only achieved average energy efficiency (Newsham et al., 2009). Regarding policy gaps, rating tools almost never 4. Green building rating and marketing address urban-rural imbalances, rectify poverty or tools inequities of economic opportunity, increase ecological carrying capacity or net biodiversity, provide local food and water security, or access to basic needs, Green building rating and marketing tools are in- physical safety and essential services. Further, they dustry-led, membership-based, voluntary accredita- generally only count operational (post-construction schemes. They were introduced from 1990 by tion) impacts, omitting embodied materials, energy, green building councils that emerged in response water and waste. Despite occasional language like to the growing reach and complexity of building ‘public benefits’, ‘net gains’ or ‘positive’, they do not and planning codes and environmental impact as- contemplate or measure net-positive contributions sessments. Rating tools certify designs that promise to the surrounding social and ecological conditions. high operational efficiency and healthier living envi- When rating tools omit negative impacts and label ronments. They have elevated the status of sustain- reductions as ‘net positive’, they effectively label less able design in the building industry, and spawned harmful features as sustainable. In effect, they grant a variety of tools for predicting the performance of ‘indulgences’ to unsustainable projects and delay designs. Their use has grown rapidly; for example, change. Interestingly, by using systems boundaries there were 1,715 Green Star certified buildings in and thresholds to exclude remote impacts, rating Australia by 2018. Being voluntary, however, most tools simplify the analyses, but bypass environmen- construction is not affected. Also, the priority has tal impact assessment. The proposed BCS (biodi- been on uptake by developers, so they raise the bar versity credit scheme; see next section) begins to slowly. Many cities have now added industry-led reverse this by including several kinds of environ- rating tools to their development approval process- mental impact assessment, 25 years later. es. This means that local governments have begun to (figuratively) deputize the private sector to establish and verify design standards. 4.1. The Green Star biodiversity credit scheme The early rating tools focused on energy and resource efficiency, since efficient equipment,- in The Australian Green Building Council’s Land Use sulation, water recycling, healthy materials and so & Ecology Category Review proposes a biodiversi- on, benefit investors and owners financially. They ty credit scheme, or ‘BCS’. The BCS aims to incor- eventually pay back through operational savings, porate ecological issues into the Australian ‘Green status and branding. However, resource efficiency Star’ accreditation scheme. It is intended to go be- can only delay environmental destruction. While yond other rating tools to improve biodiversity and ecological outcomes in the urban environment. 52 Janis Birkeland / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 40 (2018): 41–56

The proposal includes an appendix on urban bi- sites within current urban boundaries or sites with odiversity in general. It is arguably the most ad- limited initial ecological value; early engagement vanced biodiversity component in a rating tool so with local governments to promote aligned respons- far, as most simply promote the use of surrogates es to increase urban biodiversity; the protection or like ground-level ‘permeability’ or species ‘richness’ enhancement, including creation, of any environ- (number of targeted species) in broad terms. A key mental qualities of the site; the creation of habitats question is: would the BCS increase biodiversity in and ecosystem services on-site and across the land- a whole-system sense, or just relative to what was scape that increase the resilience of the city; and the there before with or without a new building? Like consideration of the use of ecological offsets to fur- Habitat III, the BCS is abridged here and is sub- ther promote land or ecosystem restoration domes- ject to modification, so current versions should be tically. The principles for awarding credits are each inspected. First, a few preliminary observations summarized and then discussed below. should be made. The BCS proposes a key role for the community ‘Protect ecological value’ in identifying ecological values, in part to inculcate a ‘human-nature connection’. First, the value of eco- Protect ecological value by using sites with limited system services as currently perceived by humans ecological value, reusing previously developed land, is not a reliable measure of worth. Second, this im- remediating contaminated land, avoiding ecological- plies that environmental protection must wait for ly-sensitive land, and protecting existing ecological environmental awareness or cultural change. While features on sites or borders during site preparation public engagement and awareness-raising is vital, and construction. A high-level and timely ‘baseline the potential role of the physical environment in so- assessment’ should identify, map and assess terres- cial transformation has been overlooked (Birkeland, trial and aquatic habitats to determine: their re- 2014). Cities designed to feel and function like liv- covery potential; opportunities for protection and ing landscapes could arguably increase ecological restoration; adjacent and connected habitats and awareness more than an impending sense of loss. values; distance to significant biodiversity values; Another concern is that most rating tools simply direct and indirect site impacts; and functional and add up points, and the BCS does not appear to do structural connectivity requirements. A ‘biodiversi- otherwise. Since the BCS assesses the categories of ty management plan’ should then be undertaken to protection, impact minimization and enhancement protect and improve ecological values on site and at separately, a project may get enough points for the local and regional scales. (Note that this provision ‘assessment activity’ required for each of these cat- actually concerns landscapes, not buildings.) egories without achieving on-ground positive out- Discussion: This provision does not preclude comes. non-certified, ecologically-damaging projects on or near ecologically-sensitive sites. Such projects do not pay for green building certification and are not 4.2. BCS (biodiversity credit scheme) pro- subject to these criteria. Any building and landscape posed actions and outcomes construction, even if on remediated land, uses man- ufactured products that usually involved the frag- The BCS desired outcomes are to: increase the mentation of native species habitats and reductions amount of green spaces in cities; increase biodiver- of the natural environment. Moreover, this credit sity to ensure the healthy functioning of ecosystems; applies mainly to new buildings. In a new develop- connect landscapes and habitat to support biodiver- ment, the addition of green spaces and/or links to sity; create links between natural and human-made existing habitats would seldom compensate for the landscapes to support biodiversity and ecological ecological damage caused during construction. PD, function; promote responsible restoration of the en- in contrast, suggests that (otherwise unavoidable) vironment not just locally, but for the surrounding landscape. The desiredactions are: the selection of Janis Birkeland / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 40 (2018): 41–56 53 negative construction impacts could be offset by biodiversity values. Enhancing and creating onsite retrofitting other buildings with building-integrat- ecological values may require that the ‘additional ed eco-services and biodiversity nurseries. benefit’ of offsite actions improve onsite and offsite connectivity. Value creation is achieved by structures that create habitats, such as nesting boxes, ‘Minimize ecological impact’ green roofs and bio-swales. A ‘biodiversity management plan’ should assess the change from pre-con- Minimize ecological impact by limiting changes to struction conditions, consider off-site ecology, show on-site ecology that have indirect or offsite ecolog- evidence of public engagement and recommend ac- ical impacts, promoting retention of ecological val- tions to facilitate connectivity in the local area, as ues, and conducting an ‘offsite impact assessment’ agreed with local authorities and ecologists. that maps the condition of local and regional ter- Discussion: Improving the pre-construction eco- restrial and aquatic habitats. To demonstrate impact logical conditions on an old urban building with no minimization, a ‘baseline assessment’ and a meth- surrounding open space could provide an excuse to od ‘with metrics’ is required for measuring pre- and replace rather than retrofit a building, causing toxic post-construction changes in biodiversity: the per- demolition waste. There is no reference to incorpo- centage improvement of the site’s ecological value rating building-integrated ecological space, beyond from time of purchase to after construction. This ‘nesting boxes, bird boxes, artificial chimneys’ (de- should include the permeable surface areas for rain- signed to exclude predatory species is omitted). water drainage and reduce run-off, and a detailed Suggested ‘ecological enhancements’ include offsite ‘habitat assessment’ that lists habitat types, site con- connectivity improvements like ‘amphibian tunnels dition, site context and connectivity, existing and under highways’ and green roofs or walls. Facelifts potential species and their habitat requirements. cannot compensate a new multistory building’s ad- Discussion: These assessments focus on the eco- dition to material flows; however, some tall dou- logical values of the old and new landscape around ble-skin buildings have dedicated entire floors to buildings from time of land purchase. Again, re- gardens (for ventilation purposes, not biodiversity). lying on landscaping to increase ecosystem func- PD would compare the new building and retrofit tions and services will seldom compensate for the options as if neither structure yet existed. building’s physical footprint (ground coverage), let alone the ecological footprint. More landscaping and permeable surfaces on leftover ground areas ‘Connect ecological networks’ are not sufficient to increase nature beyond even pre-construction conditions. Also, on smaller pro- Connect ecological networks by maintaining corri- jects, ecological assessments of landscapes can be dors across the landscape to minimize long-term impractical, so certification will not likely be sought. impacts, ensure structural and functional landscape Where biodiversity losses in the construction lifecy- connectivity and increase species cover and rich- cle cannot realistically be calculated, a PD rule-of- ness. Ecological patches should be connected, bar- thumb is that the volume of new ecological space in riers to connectivity reduced, and/or existing green buildings should equal the gross floor area. chains, corridors or habitat ‘stepping stones’ should be extended. A ‘landscape and habitat plan’ should recommend actions to support an increase in bio- ‘Enhance ecological value and biodiversity’ diversity, to establish and maintain ecological networks, and measure the level of connectedness and Enhance ecological value and biodiversity by allow- changes in species richness, both onsite and off- ing off-site actions that provide “additional’ bene- site, over time. The landscape plan should establish fit, while prioritizing on-site biodiversity actions pre-construction conditions to set biodiversity en- and management practices. The minimum require- hancement benchmarks based on changes from the ment is conservation of existing high-quality biodi- baseline (time of purchase) using ‘appropriate’ met- versity values and a measurable expansion of urban rics and thresholds for measuring improvements. 54 Janis Birkeland / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 40 (2018): 41–56

Discussion: Connectivity is vital to biodiversi- ture with vertical urban/rural plant farming could ty protection. However, green corridors can be to- restore vast amounts of land to near-native condi- kenistic or even ecologically problematic. Measuring tions while saving resources and reducing net im- connectedness and species richness does not control pacts. While restoring farmland to native conditions disease or invasive species. Thus, urban ecosystem does not increase ecological space beyond pre-hu- enclaves and biodiversity incubators are also neces- man conditions, it may qualify as net positive where sary to reseed the bioregions. All buildings should combined with building-integrated biodiversity in- eventually be retrofitted with above-ground natural cubators and enclaves. landscapes so that cities become a living landscape. Where buildings cannot be eco-retrofitted, selected sites could be converted into parks or multilayered 5. Conclusion biodiversity preserves. Development rights could then be transferred to other properties in more suitable locations (Register, 2006). However, where In conclusion, current sustainable built environ- offsite buildings are retrofitted for net-positive -off ment policy declarations such as the New Urban setting purposes, PD recommends that the net im- Agenda, and implementation schemes such as the pacts of both projects should be tallied. Green Star biodiversity credit scheme, as presently conceived, will not deliver the basic physical prerequisites of ecological sustainability and socio-eco- ‘Manage on-site and restore off-site’ nomic justice. Managerial approaches that seek incremental improvements upon unsustainable de- Manage on-site and restore off-site enhancements velopment templates, or at best restorative actions, by establishing an adaptive management frame- will only achieve ‘less bad growth’. Ambiguous no- work for urban ecology in the local and regional tions of balance, resilience, engagement, connectiv- area to ensure the long-term management of bio- ity, regeneration and flexibility can be claimed by diversity, habitats and landscapes through on-going almost any development. More awareness, man- maintenance or improvements, and monitoring and agement and accounting activity does not translate ‘performance evaluations’ to establish, maintain and into proactive strategies or direct design action, let improve biodiversity values, habitats and ecological alone lead to the systems change that sustainabili- networks. This involves ‘long-term reporting’ and ty requires. Since there are irreconcilable differences collaborative arrangements with key stakeholders. between human constructs and biological ecosys- The participatory, adaptive approach is expected to tems, the former must change. To this end, PD pro- result in future conservation actions and landscape poses a set of fixed sustainability standards along interventions. Offsite compensation should not sub- with different systems of design, planning and de- stitute for on-site actions and should be carefully cision-making to realize an ecologically- and social- managed, monitored and evaluated. (Note: ‘offset- ly-positive urban living environment (1). ting’ concerned many BCS participants because it has been used to permit the destruction of relative- ly pristine environments.) Note Discussion: The BCS recognizes that offsets can be tokenistic. Offsite restoration activities seldom compensate for the full lifecycle impacts of con- (1) This article is part of the 40th issue of Bulletin struction works, and there is usually a net loss of Geography. Socio-economic Series entitled “Sus- in nature. Restoring damaged offsite ecosystems tainability—differently”, edited by Mirek Dymitrow should not absolve developments for negative onsite and Keith Halfacree (Dymitrow, Halfacree, 2018). impacts. Nevertheless, offsetting systems are essential. PD therefore calls for ‘net-positive biodiversity offsetting’ (Birkeland, Knight-Lenihan, 2016). For example, substituting monocultural agricul- Janis Birkeland / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 40 (2018): 41–56 55

References Third World Quarterly, Vol. 38(12), pp. 2588–2599. DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2017.1350821 Dymitrow, M. and Halfacree, K., 2018: Sustainability— Birkeland, J. editor, 2002: Design for sustainability: A differently. In: Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic sourcebook of integrated, eco-logical solutions, Lon- Series, Vol. 40. DOI: 10.2478/bog-2018-0011 don: Earthscan. Available at: https://eprints.qut.edu. Elliott, L., 2017: World’s eight richest men have the same au/9092/, DoA: 21.02.2018. total wealth as the poorest half of the world popula- Birkeland, J., 2004: Creating net positive design. Can- tion. In: Guardian, 16 January. Available at: https:// berra: Frank Fenner Foundation. Available at: http:// www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/ www.natsoc.org.au/our-projects/biosensitivefutures/ jan/16/worlds-eight-richest-people-have-same- part-5-social-change/built-environment/positive-de- wealth-as-poorest-50, DoA: 10.10.2017. velopment, DoA: 21.02.2018. GBCA [Green Building Council of Australia], 2017: Birkeland, J., 2005: Reversing negative impacts by de- Land Use and Ecology Category Review. Sydney: sign. In: Chief Minister’s Sustainability Expert Refer- Green Building Council of Australia. Available at: ence Group, editors, Sustainability for the ACT: The https://gbca.org.au/contact/, DoA: 10.10.2017. Future’s in our Hands. Canberra: Office of Sustaina- Habitat III, 2016: The new urban agenda (Quito dec- bility of the ACT Government, pp. 17–18. laration on sustainable cities and human settlements Birkeland, J., 2007: GEN 4: Positive Development – De- for all). Available at: http://habitat3.org/the-new-ur- signing for Net-positive Impacts. Canberra: BEDP ban-agenda/, DoA: 10.10.2017. (Built Environment Design Professions) and The Hamilton, C., 1999: The genuine progress indicator Royal Australian Institute of Architects Available at: methodological developments and results from Aus- http://www.environmentdesignguide.com.au/, DoA: tralia. In: Ecological Economics, Vol. 30(1), pp. 13–28. 21.02.2018. DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00099-8 Birkeland, J., 2008: Positive Development: From vicious Newsham, G.R., Mancini, S. and Birt, B.J., 2009: Do circles to virtuous cycles through Built Environment LEED-certified buildings save energy? Yes, but… In: Design. London: Earthscan. Available at: https:// Energy and Buildings, Vol. 41(8), pp. 897-905. DOI: eprints.qut.edu.au/25986/, DoA: 21.02.2018. 10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.03.014 Birkeland, J., 2014: Systems and social change for sus- Norton, B.G., 2005: Sustainability: A philosophy of tainable and resilient cities. In: Pearson, L., Newton, adaptive ecosystem management. Chicago: Universi- P. and Roberts, P. editors, Resilient sustainable cities, ty of Chicago Press. London: Routledge, pp. 66-82. Rees, W.E., 2002: Box 9: Eco-footprints and eco-logical Birkeland, J. and Knight-Lenihan, S., 2016: Biodi- design. In: Birkeland, J. editor, Design for sustainabil- versity offsetting and net positive design. In:Jour - ity: A Sourcebook of integrated eco-logical solutions. nal of Urban Design. Vol. 21(1), pp. 50–66. DOI: London: Earthscan, p. 73. 10.1080/13574809.2015.1129891 Register, R., 2006: Ecocity Berkeley: Building cities for Birkeland, J. and Schooneveldt, J., 2002: ACT sustain- a healthy future. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books. ability audit: A material flows analysis of the resi- Renger, B.C., Birkeland, J. and Midmore, D., 2015: dential sector of Canberra. Canberra: Planning and Net-positive building carbon sequestration. In: Build- Land Management Authority (republished by Land ing Research & Information, Vol. 43(1), pp. 11–24. and Water Australia, 2003: Mapping regional metabo- DOI: 10.1080/09613218.2015.961001 lism). Available at: https://library.dbca.wa.gov.au/stat- Swain, I., 2008: Box 40: Linking policies to outcomes. ic/FullTextFiles/070622.pdf, DoA: 21.02.2018. In: Birkeland, J. editor, Positive Development: From vi- Davidoff, P., 1965: Advocacy and pluralism in plan- cious circles to virtuous cycles through Built Environ- ning. In: Journal of the American Institute of Plan- ment Design, London: Earthscan, pp. 325–326. ners. Vol. 31(4), pp. 331–338. DOI: https://doi. Todd, N.J. and Todd, J., 1994: From eco-cities to living org/10.1080/01944366508978187 machines. Berkeley: CA: North Atlantic Books. Demaria, F. and Kothari, A., 2017: The post-develop- Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W.E., 1996: Our ecological ment dictionary agenda: paths to the pluriverse. In: footprint: Reducing the human impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers. 56 Janis Birkeland / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 40 (2018): 41–56

Wesener, A., McWilliam, W., Tavares, S. and Birkeland, WWF [World Wildlife Fund], 2016: Living planet re- J. editors, 2017: Integrated urban grey and green in- port 2016: Risk and resilience in a new era. Gland, frastructures. In: Landscape Review, Vol. 17(2), pp. Switzerland: WWF. Available at: https://www.wnf.nl/ 1–4. custom/LPR_2016_fullreport/, DoA: 21.02.2018.

The proofreading of articles, positively reviewed and approved for publishing in the ‘Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series’, wasfinanced from the funds of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education earmarked for activities popularizing science, in line with Agreement No 509/P-DUN/2016.