The Suburbanization of Phoenix

Thanks to the Urban Demographics blog for sharing this interactive map of Chandler, a suburb of Phoenix. The images below are taken from NASA. According to the Urban Demographics blog, this suburb grew from just 3,799 residents in 1950 to 176,581 residents in 2000, based on 10-year census figures. "That's an average population growth rate of 8% per year".

The implications of this growth are noteworthy from an urban planning perspective. While I've heard that US Southwest cities are not growing as fast today (due to a slower real estate market among other reasons), interactive maps like these really demonstrate years of suburban growth when developers took advantage of a relatively stable real estate market, good housing demand and inexpensive (and highly undervalued) water supplies. The sad reality is that such suburbs today (particularly in the US Southwest) are really not practical to live in due to the disadvantages of urban isolation and the growing scarcity of water.

Climate Change Narcissism

Check out Daniel Sarewitz's piece on climate change narcissism. His article suggests that climate survivalism, that is, how individuals protect themselves and live in a world of climate change, ought to focus more on adaptation and not just mitigation.

But beyond the "individual", society will need to collectively adapt to the pressures brought on by climate change. Evidence of communities around the world that have suffered from natural disasters provide even more compelling reason to consider more strict policies such as rigid building codes and drought resistant crops to alleviate the burdens of hurricanes and heat waves respectively. Policies that are brought about by our governments need to recognize the realities of human behaviour. Asking millions of North Americans to cut down on driving is logical but simply unrealistic. Providing smart incentives to use transit, among other things, is one way to help society adapt in a world of higher fuel prices and help mitigate the impact of congestion, for example.

From the article:

"I assume that climate survivalism is not the version of adaptation that most people who are concerned about climate change would advocate. Yet the attention of climate change policy advocates (as well as climate change researchers) has never seriously focused on sensible approaches to adaptation. Until recently, leaders of the mainstream environmental community resisted open discussion about adaptation because they naively thought that they could get the world to stop using fossil fuels, and that any discussion about adaptation would simply give comfort to those who didn’t, or couldn’t, fully buy into their agenda."

More here.

Bogata's rise in the 1990s

The video above is a story about the City of Bogota, Colombia and how the city transformed in the 1990s. This transformation took place under the leadership of two mayors: Antanas Mockus and his successor, Enrique Penalosa. Mockus was committed to reducing crime, violence, corruption, traffic congestion and fostering an ethic of citizenry and respect in society.

Peñalosa used the momentum of Mockus to bring about drastic changes to the city through urban design; this involved the creation of parks, public spaces, affordable housing, efficient and well maintained public transportation. The youtube video runs for about 60 minutes. I highly recommend it not least for its inspiration, but how two leaders collectively changed a city through building a sense of citizenship and through urban planning.

Why banning light bulbs is bad policy

Check out Virginia Postrel's article on why banning light bulbs is bad policy. In December 2007, the U.S. federal government enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which requires all general-purpose light bulbs that produce 310–2600 lumens of light to be 30% more energy efficient (similar to current halogen lamps) than then-current incandescent bulbs by 2012 to 2014. The efficiency standards will start with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014. More here.

Here are some of here points:

"Banning light bulbs is one of the least efficient ways imaginable to attack those problems. A lamp using power from a clean source is treated the same as a lamp using power from a dirty source. A ban gives electricity producers no incentive to reduce emissions".

"Nor does it allow households to make choices about how best to conserve electricity. A well-designed policy would allow different people to make different tradeoffs among different uses to produce the most happiness (“utility” in econ-speak) for a given amount of power. Maybe I want to burn a lot of incandescent bulbs but dry my clothes outdoors and keep the air conditioner off. Maybe I want to read by warm golden light instead of watching a giant plasma TV".

More here.

The irrationality of rationality: 2 cent gas tax increase for transit

There has been on-going debate over the past 4 weeks about the relative merits of a 2 cent increase in the gas tax to help pay for the Evergreen Line, a yet to be built transit line in Metro Vancouver. Here are some facts you should know about courtesy of the popular urban planning blog, Planetizen:

"The two-cents-per-liter tax on gasoline is a new way to fund the delayed Evergreen Line, a $1.4 billion project."

"The fuel tax is part of a proposed funding formula announced Wednesday and designed to generate an additional $70-million per year for transportation authority TransLink, which has an annual budget of about $1.1-billion."

"Along with the fuel tax, the proposal includes potential property-tax increases or – the mayors’ preferred option – a new long-term revenue source that could involve a vehicle levy or some form of “road pricing” such as tolls."

"The proposal follows recent meetings between regional mayors and provincial Transportation Minister Blair Lekstrom, who last month criticized mayors for not coming up with a plan to fund their share of the Evergreen Line."

A couple of other facts courtesy of the CBC:

"According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Metro Vancouver drivers already pay the highest gasoline taxes in Canada, at 33 per cent."

"Construction on the Evergreen Line project was originally expected to start in 2010 and be completed in 2014. But by 2009 only the provincial and federal governments had committed just over $400 million each to cover their share of the cost for the $1.4 billion project." Plans for the line have been stalled for years because Metro Vancouver and TransLink have not come up with $400 million dollars to cover their share of the funding for the project."


I titled this post "the irrationality of rationality" because I have heard lots of complaints recently about the idea of a 2 cent increase in gas tax to fund transit. People are attempting to rationalize the economic futility of using the gas tax because of their selfish thinking and complete reliance on their cars. I have seen/heard these complaints via local radio, comment sections of news articles and from others. Opponents of the 2 cent increase in the gas tax generally argue that they do not use transit so why should they pay for it. They also argue that increasing transit fares are a more sensible approach  to generate revenue because those using transit should pay for. Last, some say its just another tax without any palpable benefits.

I think all of the arguments above are slightly irrational. One, while Metro Vancouver residents do pay one of the highest gas taxes in Canada, they receive a lot in return from this through a well functioning and efficient transit system and through good roads across the region. Yes, many people do not use transit and prefer their cars to drive around; but an additional 2 cents that may amount to an extra $10-20 per month in fuel expenses, that can, inter alia, help bring about new transit infrastructure to alleviate traffic congestion and pollutants is certainly a worthwhile compromise. Also, higher gas taxes are meant to pay for road maintenance and expansion too thereby yielding benefits for drivers too.

Increase transit fares instead? Transit in regions like Metro Vancouver is used by all demographics (low income, students, seniors, professionals and more). Lots of research has shown how the poor pay relatively higher transit fares per unit of service than the non-poor. Thus, just from a social equity point of view, increasing fares would likely reduce ridership. And when transit ridership has grown by 50 percent in this region in the past 10 years, this move would be highly idiotic.

New York Times: Drought: A Creeping Disaster

Check out this article from the NY Times on the devastating effects of drought (in the U.S. and the World) and what can be done about it.

This is yet another article on the importance of adaptation to climate change in the water sector. As part of my PICS internship, I am doing a lot of research on climate change adaptation in the water sector in the Canadian context. I plan on sharing more news articles, presentations and summaries of my research through Enviro Boys. While adaptation to climate change is site-specific (i.e. Holland's flood mitigation techniques may not apply directly to New Orleans) there is, nonetheless, a comprehensive collection of best practices that we can use to be more effective and productive with our efforts.

One thing is for sure, the time to generate knowledge and information about this topic is now so we can start to move forward on it.

The End of Abundance - A Review

I finished reading David Zetland's "End of Abundance: economic solutions to water scarcity" a few weeks ago on the ferry from Victoria to Vancouver, BC. To begin, David provides a comprehensive overview of the many facets and issues that are being discussed today in the world of water. What's most fascinating about this book is how economics, good public policy and institutions (with progressive leaders) can help shift water practices that are inherently inefficient and inequitable to ones that are just and sustainable.

David's core thesis is that the end of abundance (which means increased water scarcity in our world) requires institutions and leaders that are willing to use economic incentives and pricing to radically change the way we use water. His bottom line is that the solutions to our water crisis must be local in nature because what happens in water area is unique to that area.

The book is divided into two parts. Part 1 looks at "personal water choices". This refers to the water we use in our households, on our lawns and for personal use.  Part 2 explores "social water choices" which is primarily a discussion of the political and bureaucratic dimensions of water on topics like the environment, infrastructure and climate change, for example. I'll provide a story from part 1 and part 2 that capture the essence of his arguments in these respective sections. Following that, I provide my one critique of the book and a conclusion about why the book is important and why you should read it!

In the first part of the book, David provides us with his insights on what kind of pricing structures we should be using in our cities. He refers to a pricing structure called inclining block rate (IBR). He tells the story of Santa Barbara, California that went through an egregious drought in the 1990s. A number of strategies were utilized in response to this drought including the water agency using rigid IBRs. With the IBR pricing structure, the first block of  water delivered to Santa Barbara households was $1.09 (the first block was 375 litres and is essentially enough water to meet basic needs like sanitation and water for cooking). Additional blocks were 200 percent higher at $3.27, $9.81 and $29.43 per unit.  The rationale of this pricing structure is simple: as you use more water, you pay much more per unit.

This brought changes in behaviour and aggressive price penalties were fast and significant as gross water consumption dropped 50 percent and median monthly household consumption dropped from 25 to 17 cubic metres per month. When the drought eventually ended, prices were lowered but consumption was still only 60 percent of pre-drought levels. The main message here is that Santa Barbara priced their water based on shortages. The economics is simple, the political will is always the tougher battle which is why many places in North America have not brought about IBR structures yet.

There is so much more to part one including how we can better embrace reclaimed water techniques, how we can re-think our approach to bottled water,  the energy-water nexus and how we can create valuable and equitable water markets to allocate water more efficiently. Part 1 also provides numerous graphs that explain his water pricing models in a very accessible and non-esoteric way.

Part 2 is even more intriguing and is hard to capture in one paragraph. Zetland discusses several topics including the importance of good visionary leaders in water management, why building more water infrastructure is not the solution to our problems, water and the environment and the human right to water. All fascinating topics that I won't cover in this post.

I think the compelling message in part 2 is that local water management is perhaps the most useful framework we can use to manage our water and alleviate scarcity. I totally agree with Zetland and argued this in a conference presentation in February. In short, there can be many competing values and interests in a shared watershed. A farmer might be using the water to irrigate his/her crops, a city might be getting a lot of its water supply from it or some other group may be using it for whatever reason. These stakeholders might be fighting with each other claiming that they have historical rights to use their allocated amount of water. How do you reconcile the values of diverse communities on a scale that includes everyone experiencing the costs and benefits?

Part of the answer to the question above is to establish rights in baseline quantities and qualities and then facilitate reallocation of those rights. Consider the example of Michigan, U.S, where there is a law that makes all water users responsible for not impacting a watershed. "Property owners and riparians have a right to use water under or adjacent to their property, but any new use that may cause environmental harm needs to be offset by changes to existing uses. The key to this system is a web-based tool that allows anyone to estimate ecological impacts from a new well. If no impact is predicted, the system approves a permit and the well is registered. If impacts are predicted, then neighbours discuss how to reduce it. In the 25 percent of cases where neighbours cannot agree, a state employee gets involved; they reject only 4 percent of the cases they see" (page 184).

The practice above may sound progressive but it is proving to work in Michigan. It's important because it reconciles the diversity of interests surrounding water and the stakeholders have to think about how they are impacting the environment.

My critique of Zetland's book is his limited discussion of water and climate change adaptation.

Metro Vancouver Bikeability Index

A team of researchers at UBC recently released the Metro Vancouver bikeability index. The map above shows the availability of bike facilities, bike route density, topography and land use.

"If you make cycling and walking the easier choice, then people will be more likely to choose it because it’s faster to get [somewhere] than sitting in traffic,” said lead researcher Meghan Winters. “Then people will be less likely to choose their cars, they’ll be more likely to engage in physical activity, and that will reduce congestion in the city.”

I have been doing research this summer on active transportation exploring transportation options such as walking and cycling. Both options are becoming more salient forms of sustainable transportation and its refreshing to see a visual representation of such modes in the region. Indeed, the Metro Vancouver walkability index was released in the fall, and the bikeability index just a few weeks ago. Visual representations and maps like these, beyond the benefits of providing more information to residents, also help urban planners determine areas that could use more cycling infrastructure, for example.

Couple of small critiques. 1) I don't think the width of a bike path is measured. I have seen bike paths in Richmond, BC that are very narrow with most of the road space allocated to cars - hence a little less safe and secure.

2) While beyond the scope of the index, it would be neat if there was a qualitative dimension built into it. By qualitative I mean asking cyclists and motorists alike about their perceptions of cycling and perceptions of safety around cycling. For example, I may feel very safe and comfortable cycling in a separated bike lane downtown, however, a motorist may feel incredibly uncomfortable by my presence and less certain of how to interact with me when I leave the separated bike lane. Showing differences in perception of safety, among other things, would be a neat addition, I think.

Overall, this is really fascinating and, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Research:

"The Canadian Institutes of Health Research has provided the team with additional funds so that they can make up bikeability indexes for Victoria, Calgary, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, Charlottetown, Moncton and St. John's by 2012".

A great example of Bootleggers and Baptists

I finished reading David Zetland's End of Abundance a couple of weeks ago. A review of his book will come shortly. I first wanted to share an instructive example David uses to illustrate the Bootleggers and Baptists problem (also referred to as "Baptists and Bootleggers").  David refers to this term in different parts of his book.

Bootleggers and Baptists defined:  a slang term for an unholy alliance that combines moral righteousness with selfish greed to stop a reform that would benefit degenerates (according to Baptists) and/or the competition (according to the Bootleggers). A Baptists and Bootleggers coalition may also support a harmful change; one example is the coalition of environmentalists and corn-processors that supported a requirement that gasoline contain a minimum share of corn ethanol.

The definition above is derived from the glossary of his book. Using the example of U.S. corn ethanol, here is an excerpt from his book:

"The US corn ethanol program offers a useful example of a Baptists and Bootlegger confluence of greed, corruption and moral superiority. Greed can be traced to big agro-processing companies (ADM, Cargill and others) that make money by trading corn and ethanol. Corruption is connection to congressman who want campaign donations (legal bribes) from these companies and farmers benefit from congressionally induced demand, via per gallon subsidies, mandated corn ethanol fuel blends and tariff barriers that block imports of cheaper, sustainable sugarcane ethanol from Brazil.

The moral superiority component comes from the environmentalists who demand that Americans use more renewable  fuels and patriots who want energy independence from dodgy foreigners. Their clamor for renewables gave farmers, processors and politicians the cover they needed to start another program designed to transfer money from taxpayers and car drivers to the agricultural and political sectors. The worst irony is that this "green fuel" may have done nothing to reduce C02 emissions.

In this Baptists and Bootleggers alliance, environmentalists are happy to have more renewable fuel. Farmers and agro-businesses are happy to sell more fuel in the gasoline market. Taxpayers lose and drivers get lower-quality fuel. Politicians win twice, since they can claim to protect the environment at the same time as they collect brides from the corn industry. But there's an additional twist: corn ethanol uses a lot of free water, simultaneously increasing scarcity and pollution. Ethanol production would fall if we priced water for scarcity and purity".

Interpret the example above however you would like, I think it is instructive and insightful because it reveals how groups with potentially different opinions, perspectives and values can lobby for the same end goal and think that the outcome has served their mandate. Unfortunately, this may be a case of unintended consequences not least for the volatility it has brought to the price of corn, but worse yet, to the egregious overuse of cheap and in some cases, free water. Corn ethanol does have its problems and I have become more neutral about its merits as an alternative fuel. But the very fact that it does use copious amounts of cheap water for production is worrisome in an era of increased scarcity.

There are many examples where one can apply the Baptists and Bootlegger model. I think it's pretty fascinating in the case of corn-based ethanol and gets you to think about how and why we advocate for policies that seem to be good on the surface, but can be disastrous in reality.

A scathing critique of Glaeser's article on the locovore's dilemma

Further to Darlene's well-thought out and well-written response to Edward Glaeser's article, Colin Cureton, a graduate student in Food and Energy Policy at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs, offers a critical response on how urban farms do not displace people, decrease density, or increase emissions as much as people think or as much as Glaeser suggests.

Here is an excerpt from his post:

"The biggest assumption is the simplistic (and false) choice between urban land for people and urban land for food. While land is a scarce resource, most urban ag is thriving on what was or otherwise would be vacant urban land. The amount of vacant urban land is vast in cities across the country. For example, the New York City’s Department of City Planning figures show that 6% of NYC is considered vacant. In Detroit, this figure is an astonishing 25-30% (anyone wonder why a revolutionary urban food system is emerging there?). Chicago has 70,000-80,000 vacant lots. This list goes on.

Also, much of urban ag is practiced in spaces that does not disrupt nor would it disrupt urban development. Think boulevards, side yards, public parks, rooftops, and so on. These are the spaces where urban ag thrives. As an urban agriculturalist, all four of my farms are on previously vacant or underutilized land. Two are vacant lots, one is at a church, and one is in a public park. Are my urban farms displacing anyone?"

You can read the full post here.

Guest Entry: Beyond the locovore's dilemma, urban farming for the 21st century

A couple of weeks ago, I read an OpEd article by Edward Glaeser titled "The locovore's dilemma". Glaeser is one of my favourite urban scholars and we have blogged about his ideas a number of times on this blog. However, I didn't agree with many of his points in his OpEd. I passed along the article to my friend, Darlene Seto, to gather her thoughts about the article. She wrote a response to it, which you can view below.

Beyond the locovore's dilemma, urban farming for the 21st century

By: Darlene Seto

As a general admirer of Edward Glaeser’s work, I was most dismayed to see his recent June 16th OpEd for The Boston Globe, where he proclaimed, most erringly, that urban farms do more harm than good to the environment. I disagree.

Glaeser’s principal case against urban farming lies in the carbon output linked to such farms; he equates increasing urban farmland with an automatic reduction in living density, thereby increasing metropolitan sprawl. Yet his homogeneous use of ‘cropland’ fails to differentiate between the more intensive cultivation of vegetables, as more commonly found in urban areas, and the sprawling land involved in the production of commodities like corn, the crop which he uses to cite as a resource intensive no-no for urban agriculture. But not all farming is equal – and Glaeser’s assertions about land density might look a lot different were he to parse out those vast monocultures from his analysis, and especially were he to include the entire carbon life of much industrial corn, which then includes the methane emissions of feedlot cattle and petrochemical plastics.

Glaeser’s main failing, however, is not being able to see beyond the current agricultural paradigm. What agriculture looks like now – in a rural setting - is assumed to be what agriculture is in an urban one. Urban farms, however, are not large crop monocultures plopped down in the middle of a busy and well-utilized urban space.

Here in Vancouver, British Columbia, where I am writing from, a number of urban farms make their existence using vacant land or under-utilized land – spaces such as parking lots, individuals’ backyards (or frontyards!) and similar space. Food is grown in these smaller pieces of land, sometimes solely in hundreds of planters or boxes. By piecing together the yards of cooperative landowners around the city, these entrepreneurial farmers are using the urban context to re-imagine traditional conceptions of agriculture, creating new and vital landscapes in our neighbourhoods. And given the administrative and institutional challenges in which most urban farmers already face in dense urban areas, urban farming hardly imperils the urban densification or the commercial use of prime urban real estate, but rather puts other space into productive use.

Finally, while Glaeser does fleetingly mention some of the other benefits of urban agriculture – such as its educational value to children – such instances do not seem to hold any effective value in his argument. The benefits of having localized food initiatives such as urban farms, however, reach far beyond mere carbon mileage – and indeed are much more important and difficult to quantify. Glaeser’s greenhouse gas focus does not look at the broader environmental impacts of urban food (understanding that the environment is the area in which we live, work and play; another point I would contest in Glaeser’s piece). Increasing food assets in a city through things such as urban farming not only reduces food insecurity and better health outcomes, but promotes greater resiliency in an era of increasing climactic uncertainty, supports local economic activity, and contributes to community development and capacity building.

Take note: If anything, I would agree that the most important benefits to localized food systems are not at all in carbon savings from transportation. But it is through OpEds such as the one to which I am responding, that create an erroneous understanding of the potential for urban agriculture. This is a time where most cities should be attempting to retain all the green space and food assets that they can get. We should be working to understand and support the committed individuals and organizations working in this sector.

Darlene Seto is a graduate student at the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability at the University of British Columbia, Canada. A keen student of environment policy and governance, her current graduate work revolves around diversity and engagement in alternative food systems.

The Beijing-Shanghai High Speed Rail is now operating

I have been following China's High Speed Rail (HSR) plans for quite some time now. It's been particularly fascinating tracking the development of the Beijing-Shanghai line which will link China’s two largest cities in just under 5 hours. Scheduled trains will make stops along the way in Tianjin, Jinan and Nanjing. It cost $33 billion and the trains can travel between 250-300 km/h over the 1,318 km of track between the two cities.

Despite the ongoing critiques of HSR in China (we have documented them before on this blog, you can view them here and here), this is an impressive achievement which will provide more transportation options for China's growing citizenry. Adam Mayer who blogs at "China Urban Development Blog" says:

"Linking China’s government/cultural center with its commercial/financial hub is a milestone on the path towards creating a connected nation. Airlines will certainly be hurt by the line, but because China’s air traffic is already at capacity, the train should help ease the strain on Beijing and Shanghai’s airports".

Now that the line is open, expect a diversity of discussion on Enviro Boys surrounding its environmental, planning, economic, social and political implications.

Read more here.