Sustainability for Whom? An Examination of the Equity Pillar of Sustainability at the Local Policymaking Level

Introduction

Socioeconomic inequity has long been linked to environmental degradation. ¹ As wealth moves upward, those accumulating the resources have more potential to create waste and pollution, but become increasingly insulated from the external costs. In such a situation, those who have the power to pass off external costs are economically and politically elite. Downey and Strife ² define elites as those in a position of power over a system's economic, political, military, or ideological networks. Downey and Strife cite Boyce ³ who argues that environmental degradation typically consists of winners and losers. Boyce ⁴ suggests that the ability of a person or group to pass off environmental costs works as an enabling factor to engage in environmentally destructive behavior. Furthermore, implicit in Boyce's ⁵ argument is that environmental degradation and inequity are “inextricably linked to one another.” ⁶ These observations echo what Stanton calls the power weighted decision rule, that states “when net winners from environmental degradation are more powerful than net losers, the degree of degradation will be higher than optimal,” and vice versa. ⁷

An important question to ask involves the capability of the sustainability movement to address these issues concerning questions of socioeconomic equity and environmental justice. The sustainability movement encompasses governmental and non-governmental actors. This article will focus on local governmental officials in the United States. Conceptually, Graf ⁸ argues, the original definition of sustainability, arising from the Brundtland Commission, echoes the desires of the global, economic power structures that aim at maintaining order and cooperation in a time of environmental and political stress. ⁹ As the term evolved in the 1990s, sustainability became what environmental policy scholar Walter Rosenbaum calls a “transcendent goal for the international environmental movement.” ¹⁰ Scholars throughout the 1990s and into the new millennium ¹¹ noted the tensions, ambiguities, and conceptual tensions within the concept of sustainability.

In this evolving literature, the concept of sustainability came to involve three components: economic, social, and environmental. Environmental scholar Jonathan Harris defines the economic and social components as:

Economic: An environmentally sustainable system must be able to produce goods and services on a continuing basis, to maintain manageable levels of government and external debt, and to avoid extreme sectoral imbalances which damage agricultural and industrial production.

Social: A socially sustainable system must achieve distributional equity, adequate provision for social services including health and education, gender equality, and political accountability and participation. ¹²

Harris' definitions emphasize balance and equity in sustainable systems. O'Hara (1995) argues that the connection between, for example, women or the poor and their relationship with their environment is essential for sustainability. ¹³ This way of thinking that O'Hara posits and Harris summarizes demonstrates the shift towards the three pillar approach to sustainability, rather than just environmental reforms that do not compromise economic growth and development.

Still, cities often engage in policies that “explicitly link[ed] ecological protection with economic growth.” ¹⁴ If growth dominates the framework for policy, this can often hinder the progress of redistributive programs and urban investment aimed at addressing inequity. An example of such hindrance is the tendency of city officials to rely upon flawed decision-making tools. Cost-benefit analyses (CBAs) are a prime example. By typically measuring income and diminishing utility, CBAs often disregard welfare improvement from redistribution programs. Furthermore CBA is known to exclude goods that are not easily valued in monetary terms. In short, the benefit of environmental regulatory programs and programs aimed at addressing issues in vulnerable communities are often undervalued. Finally, CBA often does not account for the social impacts of maldistribution programs. ¹⁵

Additionally, the growing problem of global warming induced climate change emerged alongside this evolving concept of sustainability. Notably, socioeconomic inequity is a driver for climate change vulnerability. Climate change impacts are not experienced equally throughout a city; rather, some sectors and some people—such as the very old, the very young, and the poor—tend to be more vulnerable to these impacts. ¹⁶ Thus, questions concerning climate change and sustainability must also include concerns surrounding socioeconomic equity.

The new millennium brought concern for how sustainability was being put into practice by local officials. Portney, ¹⁷ Jepson, ¹⁸ Conroy, ¹⁹ Saha and Paterson (2008), and Opp and Saunders ²⁰ all performed survey studies that queried city officials on what sorts of policies they were implementing. Equity was either not covered or weakly represented (Portney, Jepson), or the least examined category (Saha, Opp and Saunders), as compared to environment and economic pillars. Notably, cities yet to incorporate sustainability into their decision making seem to dismiss the term as a buzzword or lack the capacity to implement the sustainable policy. When asked, city leaders consider equity the lowest priority pillar of sustainability to be equity. ²¹

Opp and Saunders author the most comprehensive analysis of sustainable planning in relation to socioeconomic equity to date. Opp and Saunders' index is unique in that it ranks the top 150 cities in the United States in terms of all pillars of sustainability. It is common to claim that some cities are more sustainable than others. These cities (e.g., Portland or Seattle) may have a sustainability program or initiative, or may be generally more progressive than other cities. However, Opp and Saunders' index provides a systematic ranking of sustainable cities, based in methodology that centers on a complete definition of sustainability.

Using Opp and Saunders' index rankings, this study seeks to examine how officials of these cities try to address socioeconomic equity. The survey was constructed in such a way that queries officials on different types of socioeconomic equity issues (economic growth policies, worker standards and benefits, housing, and environmental justice). These four categories are by no means the only issues affecting socioeconomic equity. However, they do interrelate with the pillars of sustainability and are policies that often fall within the purview of city officials. The ultimate objectives and goals of this study were to assess how city officials in sustainable cities address these issues of socioeconomic equity, to determine what factors (if any) influence the performance of city officials on the study, and to gain greater understanding on which socioeconomic equity categories and specific policies city officials are likely to favor.

Methods

Unlike prior surveys, this study will focus directly on socioeconomic equity. The survey accomplishes this by asking more questions and by posing questions that are more in depth than prior literature. So, rather than simply ask if a city official can cite an affordable housing plan, this survey asks the respondents six questions concerning housing policy. Each question belongs in its own category, of which there are four: Economic Development, Wage and Benefits, Housing Fairness and Affordability, and Environmental Justice.

Each category was constructed with goals for assessment in mind. Economic Development, for example, examines how a city attracts business and what kind of growth—neoliberal or sustainable—that the city values. Wage and Benefits questions account for how a city perceives its role in protecting relatively vulnerable employees. If a city were to score well in this category, it would be overcoming Stanton's power-weighted decision rule. Housing and Environmental Justice questions were included because they both assess the urban environment, both in terms of structures and open space. Adequate, affordable housing is also critical for climate change resiliency. These subcategories were analyzed against demographic variables. The variables were selected because they commonly impact a city's resources, politics, and geographic stressors.

Questions are adapted from the concerns expressed regarding socioeconomic equity in prior literature on sustainability, as well as the Center for American Progress' (CAP) 2014 report Cities at Work: Progressive Local Policies to Rebuild the Middle Class. The areas that are represented in this were explicitly tied to equity, and more commonly addressed in prior literature.

The 150 highest scores on the Opp and Saunders' index comprise this survey's population. The survey respondents come from online searches of each city's website. The goal of the search was to find each city's sustainability official, or the closest position to it. Of the 150 cities, 44 cities provide an official associated with sustainability, 36 list an environmental services officer, 63 provide only a planning and development contact for the population, and seven cities did not list any contact e-mails on their website. This approach allows for a deeper understanding equity and sustainable policymaking at the local level.

Contacts for all 150 cities could not be acquired, so nine cities were eliminated from the original population, reducing the population size to 141. Of the 141 potential respondents, six e-mails bounced, again reducing the population size to 135. Of these 135, 44 cities responded, yielding a response rate of 32.6%. The initial survey distribution was preceded by a cover letter designed to explain the purpose of the study and ensure confidentiality. The first distribution garnered 30 responses. Following this initial distribution, seven reminders to complete the survey were sent between June 2014 and October 2014.

Results

The mean population of the responding cities was 169,657. The largest responding city was 1,516,429 (Philadelphia, PA) and the smallest was 9,577 (Jackson, WY). Please see the Appendix for a complete list of the responding cities and their respective populations. For the scale column, a score of “0” would mean that the respondent does nothing related to equity in that category. Conversely, a score of would 7 for Economic Development, 14 for Wage and Benefit Standards, 8 for Housing Affordability and Fairness, and 6 for Environmental Justice would mean that the respondent answered all the questions favorably, and thus achieved a perfect score for the subcategory. In short, each question was scored individually, and individual responses were added to form the cumulative score for the subcategory. Tables 1 and 2 describe the indexed responses for each subcategory of the survey.

Every subcategory's score fell below the median. Low scores were also common for many notable questions. For example, of the responding cities, 80% of the cities' minimum wage is not above the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour. Most cities (78%) do not possess a statute that protects workers. The vast majority of cities have not conducted a climate vulnerability assessment, or an environmental education program targeted to low income youth.

The 13 independent, demographic variables were analyzed against each subcategory (Economic Development, Wage and Benefit Standards, Housing Affordability and Fairness, and Environmental Justice) and against the total score, compiled by adding the scores of each category together for each respondent, using multiple regression.

When considering all the variables against the categories and total, the model as a whole did not produce significance (p>.05). However, the second set of regression modeling demonstrated significant relationships between the subcategories, as well as several significant correlations. Table 3 (below) illustrates the comparisons between each subcategory.

Demographic data was gathered from the American Community Survey. The variables include: the city's population, the city's location, the city's rank in the Opp and Saunders survey, racial demographics (percent white, black, and Hispanic), education (percent less than high school, high school diploma, some college, bachelor's or higher), median age, median household income, and percent below poverty level.

The model as whole was not statistically significant, but did produce several statistically significant relationships. While surprising, one reason for this lack of significance may be variable clouding that obfuscates the driving factors in the model. In order to gain some further insight into the independent, demographic variables' impact on the subcategories and total score, a correlation analysis was performed (see Table 4).

Several statistically significant correlations (p<.05) were found. Cities that perform well on certain subcategories tended to perform well on other subcategories. For example, Long Beach, CA scored a 5 on the Economic Development sub-category and a 7 on the Wage and Benefit sub-category. Wage and Benefits and Environmental Justice, as well as Environmental Justice and Housing Affordability and Fairness were significantly correlated.

This study yielded several important findings between cities and demographic factors. One, geographic location significantly influenced a city's performance on the total score. Cities in the Western region of the United States tended to perform the worst, overall, followed by cities in the Midwest, cities in the South, and cities in the East. Two, education levels predicted several subcategory scores. Cities with lower levels of education in their population tended to score better across several subcategories. Three, levels of Hispanic population had similar effects: as percentage Hispanic population increased, scores on several subcategories increased as well.

Discussion

Cities generally scored best on the wage and benefit standards section; still, 61% of respondents scored below the median for that category. Regarding issues surrounding socioeconomic equity, the descriptive statistics indicate that sustainable cities have a lot of room to improve. There was no significant relationship between the rank on the original, Opp and Saunders index and the rank on this most recent index. This lack of significance suggests that sustainability surveys are fairly subjective: even when using many of the same respondents, performances on the surveys can vary based on which aspects of sustainability the author(s) try to assess. Accordingly, there is no, single authoritative study on what constitutes sustainable policymaking at a local level in the United States.

Economic indicators also played no significant role in determining performances on subcategories or the survey as a whole. While the source of this lack of significance is difficult to determine, it is possible that cities do not consider addressing economic inequality to be within their jurisdiction or realm of responsibility. Or, the capacity of cities to respond may vary significantly, and this variance in capacity may drive differences in scores.

As Table 3 illustrates, cities with superior performances in the economic development category tend to show higher scores in the wage and benefit category at a significant level. It follows that cities who value an active role in equitable economic development would also tend to take the necessary measures to ensure fair worker pay and benefits. Thus, how a city perceives economic development may play an important role in how cities view their role of protecting employees, and vice versa.

A more surprising relationship may be the significance between the environmental justice category and the affordable and fair housing category. Affordable housing plans are often accompanied with infrastructure and park improvement. On a broader level, both housing and environmental justice concern aspects of the urban, human environment. Thus, it follows that cities that care to provide affordable housing would also see value in improving and maintaining other aspects of the built environment, such as community gardens or park space.

Finally, wage and benefits and environmental justice show strong, positive correlations. This relationship can perhaps best be explained by a general tendency in progressive thought: both categories include questions that are strongly associated with government's role in fostering social and economic justice. Wage and benefits questions primarily concern worker empowerment and protection, while environmental justice questions in large part assess how a city views its responsibility to enhance the built environment of those in lower socioeconomic strata. Thus, these categories shed light on how the cities view the role of local government in enhancing the well-being and protection of the individual. Cities that are more likely to take an active role in protecting workers thus also tend to value taking an active role in protecting the environment of underprivileged residents.

The survey results demonstrate that as population increases, scores on the economic development scores increase as well. Larger cities have unique opportunities and challenges that may account for this significant relationship. First, larger cities generally have more resources and revenue at their disposal to use for job development programs, for example. Because of a greater pool of resources, larger cities may feel less pressure to attract new growth through unconditional subsidies.

Wage and benefit standards show a significant relationship with Hispanic demographics and percentage of population who possess less than a high school education (Table 3). Hispanic voters tend to support Democrats, and this may result in producing local leaders who, generally speaking, are more accommodating to labor demands than Republicans. Furthermore, a high Hispanic population and a high percentage of citizens without a high school diploma (or equivalent) may indicate a larger blue-collar, working class based economy. While the decline of labor and worker rights in many parts of the United States is well documented, it is still reasonable to assert that areas with a substantial industrial or working class sector would demand a more proactive, pro-worker local government. Similarly, Table 3 also demonstrates a significant relationship between percentage of population with less than a high school diploma (or equivalent) and Housing Affordability and Fairness. In this regard, a lower level of education usually translates to a lower income. Thus, affordable housing programs and initiatives may simply be more necessary in areas with higher levels of citizens who lack a high school diploma or GED.

For total scores, location of the city was the only significant factor. Western cities were comprised mostly of cities from California and Oregon. Again, for the location variable, cities fell into one of four categories. Categories 3 and 4 represent the Western and Midwestern regions of the United States. According to the regression modeling, cities in the 4 and 3 regions typically performed less well on the survey as whole, with the fourth, western-most region performing the worst. Notably, California (along with other states bordering the Pacific coast) is considered a progressive state, frequently electing Democrats, with leaders who often speak out in favor of green policies. However, based on the results of this survey, the responding cities in these states often lag behind cities in other regions.

Conclusion

Sustainable cities have much room to grow in addressing socioeconomic equity. Additionally some generalities, particularly that the West possesses higher ground on the issue of sustainability, are put into question by the results of this survey. Finally, education plays a counterintuitive role in determining the scores of certain categories. While higher levels of education generally correlate with progressive political ideas, cities with higher levels of relatively uneducated citizens scored higher on several categories. This implies that socioeconomic equity policy is less a product of educational enlightenment, but more so a product of social and economic realities.

As a result of this study, future research on the topic of sustainability should consider the following: one, the concept of sustainability is malleable. Studies will vary based on how the researcher defines sustainability, and how the respondent understands sustainability. Two, officials and academics concerned with sustainability would be well advised to think deeply about why these pillar values of sustainability seem to compete with one another so often. The answer may be found in the current socioeconomic paradigm that is rooted in unchecked growth, consumption, and dominance. Future research on sustainability in cities and city government should keep this inherent tension between sustainability and current paradigms in mind.