Looking back at this book today, I see it has improved a great deal (my expectations are lower and my knowledge of sustainability somewhat increased). Now I find myself on the author's side of sustainability, describing something that is broad, not well defined and occurring largely outside of the planning profession. What is it that planners want to know about sustainability? Does it mean anything for the planning profession? The paper that follows examines sustainable development as an unfolding concept in discussions that range around the world. Some (many?) planners and communities have embraced the notion as an organizing theme. Is this another idea we will play with for a few years and discard or are we in store for a culture change, a shift in the course of the river?
"That most famous example, the architecture of Venice, survives in a changing lagoon because of a foundation built of wood, a biological supporting structure, surprising in our modern age of steel and concrete. Venice was founded in the fifth and sixth centuries A.D. as a refuge for people fleeing Germanic tribes, primarily the Lombards, who were destroying the Roman Empire. Inhabitants of towns around the northern Adriatic fled to the marshes, from which they could more easily defend themselves. At first, they returned to their home cities after a raid, but eventually they began to settle in the lagoon. The mud in the marshes was unstable and shifted continually; to create a city, it was necessary to stabilize the ground. The first Venetians did this by driving millions of saplings into the mud." (Botkin, p. 3)(Author's Comment: Driving millions of saplings into the mud as a foundation for a city! In a swamp? Hiding from the Lombards?)
"I could not help but compare my view at the end of the twentieth century with the view that must have confronted the first settlers more than one thousand years ago, a view of flat marshland that stretched disheartenly as far as the eye could see. I imagined what it might be like to begin to build the foundation for a great city by driving saplings into the salt marsh to hold the mud in place. What ideas, what views of nature, the "environment," and the relationship between people and nature did that take? While impelled by necessity, the first Venetians did not go to those marshes so long ago empty-handed, without the benefit of civilization. They brought with them three things: ideas, techniques, and a perspective of the world--how nature works, how people might change nature, and how the world in the future might be different from the world they had known in the past. Today, we are in a position in relation to the environment of our entire planet similar to that of the ancient settlers of Venice in relation to the marshes of the Adriatic. We see problems shifting before us whose solutions are unclear." (Botkin, p. 4)Daniel Botkin, a biologist and a person who is teaching a new understanding of ecology, tells this story to help us cope with the future, a future of staggering challenges. Like today's Homo sapiens, the Venetians may have been a brave, imaginative people shaping nature to their needs; or perhaps they were a desperate, cowardly tribe fleeing their aggressors and not knowing any better than to settle in a swamp. Botkin reminds us that in our relationship to the environment we often seem to be facing an "unending sea marsh on a gray day." Pounding an endless number of saplings into the mud to form an uncertain foundation. The apocalyptic view of us destroying what keeps us alive is certainly a compelling vision for our dark side (Darth Vader environmentalism). Botkin offers the possibility that, like the Venetians, we are building a new understanding of our relationship with the environment. The transition to sustainable development may become part of this new understanding of and relationships with ourselves and nature.
Since 1987 many environmental, economic, and political issues have been gathered under the sustainable development banner (or tent or umbrella). Conferences, reports, and projects have embraced sustainability: sustainable energy, sustainable communities, sustainable transportation, sustainable forestry, sustainable agriculture, sustainable technologies, sustainable Seattle, sustainable Minnesota, etc., etc. Does this wide acceptance simply provide an umbrella under which existing viewpoints can be gathered or does sustainable development represent a new framework or paradigm for planning? Campbell poses the question as to whether anyone could speak now in opposition (unsustainable development?).
The often quoted definition from Chapter 2 of the Brundtland report states that sustainable development is "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." (WCED, p. 43) The two key concepts which follow immediately are that the needs should focus particularly on the world's poor as an "overriding priority" and that the environment's ability to meet needs is limited by current capabilities of our technologies and social organizations. In other words, we need to remember the world's poor and recognize our own lack of understanding of the environment.
What many like about the phrase is its pairing of economic and environmental development, the idea that we can protect and conserve while developing our economies (having our cake and eating it, too). This seems to provide a positive response to the future rather than an apocalyptic one. Sustainable development also captures equity issues which are intergenerational, intragenerational and interspecies. The concept embraces economic, ecology and equity dimensions (more about these three E's later). Some say the phrase is like what "comprehensive planning" was to planners twenty years ago -- unifying, fulfilling, compelling, but perhaps not meant to last.
What many dislike about the phrase is the idea (arrogance) that we can develop (grow) while protecting ecosystems at the same time. Many environmentalists (particularly in the U.S.) feel that sustainable development gives us an excuse to keep doing what we are doing now. Viewpoints and definitions are different among European environmentalists where the concept is much more seriously addressed than in the U.S. Likewise, developing countries view sustainable development in ways different than U.S. views with equity issues and human development having a more prominent and defining role.
The second conference in 1977 produced "The Management of Sustainable Growth" and "Quest for a Sustainable Society", two volumes about alternatives to growth. The concepts set forth in the conference and these volumes provided other ways of thinking about the conventional view of growth (particularly western and U.S. viewpoints).
The Woodlands conference series was (and is) sponsored by George P. Mitchell who began building The Woodlands in the early 1970s as a federally funded new town. This town was designed around environmental principles with the help of Ian McHarg and has become one of the few federal new town success stories (in terms of survival, its protection of open space and continuing development). Mr. Mitchell's thinking about growth was reflected in his investment in The Woodlands and his role in creating The Woodlands Conference Series. The 1997 Woodlands Conference held in March 1997 again focused on sustainability with the theme "Sustainable Development: Making the Transition."
In the U.S., federal agencies have embraced sustainable development programs across a wide array -- from agriculture to commerce to energy. According to the U.S. Department of Energy's Center of Excellence for Sustainable Development
"we're finding that more and more cities, villages, neighborhoods and regions are using sustainable development as a guiding principle not only for near-term projects, but also for planning their futures. That's because truly sustainable development produces enduring benefits, not just today, but for our children and their children as well." (<www.sustainable.doe.gov:80/welcome.html>)In its "Guide to Green Government", the Canadian government states that it "believes that sustainable development is not only a desirable but an essential goal of public policy. Achieving sustainable development requires an approach to public policy that is comprehensive, integrated, open, and accountable. It should also embody a commitment to continuous improvement. Departmental strategies will provide the benchmarks against which progress towards sustainable development will be measured." The federal government in Canada now requires each department and agency to prepare a sustainable development strategy and environmental assessments assure that sustainability is considered in federal projects.
Setting goals is one of the critical steps being taken to operationalize sustainable development. There is increasing emphasis in federal programs to use sustainability goals and indicators. In defining goals and identifying indicators, we also shape the definitions of sustainable development.
"The original concept of sustainable development was in fact aimed at conciliating growth and the conservation of nature. The idea, however, is not to hold back growth. Growth must continue, as long as it is grounded in an intertemporal vision of human progress and is at once pragmatic and altruistic. It must assure both current and future generations the basis of natural resources they need for their well-being. This geo-environmental dimension of sustainability is the one most often associated with the idea of sustainable development." (ARIDAS, pp. 32-33)
The Brazilians go on to add three other critical dimensions to this definition. They include socio-economic, techno-scientific, and political-institutional. The transformation in thinking in a place like northeast Brazil is moving from an infrastructure-resource exploitation model of growth to a model that is strongly balanced by human and environmental dimensions. Hence, education, population issues, land ownership, financial issues, political circumstances, and technological shifts become part of the sustainable development strategy for this region. We were fortunate to participate in this rich, lengthy discussion of the region's future and observe the Brazilians hammer out a new approach to regional development. Solving problems in this region is critical to stopping deforestation of the Amazon rain forests, even though it is hundreds of miles away. We tend to think narrowly about how such deforestation occurs (greedy businesses, uninformed farmers, bad government policy). Yet, it is intertwined with history, climate, land ownership, poverty and global change.
A final example of operationalizing sustainable development is the use of sustainable development guidelines by The World Bank and NADBank (North American Development Bank). These two development banks require loan applicants to demonstrate sustainable development as part of the projects they are considering for financing. The NADBank has a sister organization, BECC (Border Environment Cooperation Commission), which reviews and recommends loan applications prior to submittal to NADBank. One of the six criteria used by BECC is sustainable development using the Brundtland report definition. Under this guideline, BECC's three sustainable development principles are: "(1) Human beings are at the center of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature; (2) The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations; and (3) In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it." (BECC, p. 16) Local and regional economic development planners might consider the implications of such a policy in their own planning or in associated financing processes. How would you define sustainable development and use this as part of loan or project approval criteria? How would you know if sustainable development was achieved in some way?
In its simplest form, sustainable development raises questions about what to sustain and what to develop (see Figure 1 and Grant, et al, p. 331). The questions must be considered over generational time horizons (25 to 50 years) and over longer time horizons (species). The generational question is one of how to feed, nurture, educate, house and employ a human population twice its current number while maintaining human's and the earth's essential life support. As one business leader poses the question, "if you think we're doing a good job managing with 6 billion people, how well do you think we'll do with 12 billion." Thus, this project about transitions raises the issues of carrying capacity, limits, and our scientific knowledge of these issues. What do we manage and how do we manage?
Figure 1. In its simplest portrayal, sustainable development raises basic questions about what to develop and what to sustain. These questions are generally asked from a human-centered prospective, as shown in this figure. The arrow represents the element of time associated with the intergenerational feature of sustainability definitions.
In the Global Commons project, the transition to sustainable development has been characterized as having three parts; a demographic transition, appropriate responses to resource demands from this demographic transition, and the challenge of sustaining basic life systems of the planet.
In the demographic transition, global population is expected to stabilize at 9 to 15 billion people in the 21st century, a level largely determined by what happens in developing countries. With improved health and economic conditions, death rates in the world have dropped quickly followed by declining birth rates. Population momentum alone in developing countries will increase world population from 6 billion to almost 9 billion people. Other factors for population growth that account for the remainder of increase include the desire for a large family (1 billion) and lack of contraception and unwanted fertility (2 billion). Hopes that these projections are occurring are evidenced by fertility rates that have declined in the developing world by almost half since the 1950's. Short of cataclysmic changes, the global demographic transition will occur within these parameters.
The second part of this transition is the challenge of sustaining a larger population, using resources appropriately. This means much larger food production, more energy supplies, and larger economies. Looking at current trends, a 2-4-6-8 transition was suggested in 1989, meaning that a doubled population would require 4x agriculture, 6x energy and an 8x economy. This model (Toth, Hizsnyik, and Clark, International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis, 1989) was for 10 billion people and provided an adequate diet and reduced inequities across nations. Looking back in time from 1950 to 1993 with a 2.2x population increase, we see a 2.7x increase in food, 4.4x energy, and 5.1x economy. The transition needed in the next 50 years to meet these resource demands (just in terms of these rough measures) is challenging.
The demographic transition pushes this resource transition, but a transition to sustainable development asks that our environmental resource base be sustained, and indeed nourished just as earth's human population is nourished. Here viewpoints part most clearly between those of ecologists and economists (or technologists and environmentalists). The ecologist might say that it is essential to preserve and protect ecosytem health; and that ecosystems have requirements that are being violated by expanding human population and economies. The economist might view resources of the environment as interchangeable with one another and see carrying capacity as a dynamic rather than static problem. (We will invent what we need when we need it at a price we can afford.) The ecologist may recognize the intrinsic value of environmental resources as part of a life system (each species has value within a diverse ecosystem and there is much we do not understand about how these systems function or what their value may to sustaining life); and may view the world as having finite capacities. The questions of what to develop and what to sustain arise most clearly in this part of defining what a transition might be.
Figure 2. The triangle of conflicting goals for planning, and the three associated conflicts. Planners define themselves, implicitedly, by where they stand on the triangle. The elusive ideal of sustainable development leads one to the center. From Scott Campbell, "Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities?" JAPA, Summer 1996, p.296.
Campbell places sustainable development in the context of conflicts among environmental, economic, and equity issues. The conflict between the environment and economy are characterized as the "resource conflict" (the spotted owl vs. loggers issue). For planners, it may be the developed city versus the undeveloped city. Sustainability says that "industry must leave enough of the exploited resource, be it human labor or nature, so that the resource will continue to deliver in the future." (Campbell, p. 299) Deciding what is "enough" is the nature of decisions about this particular conflict.
The economy-equity conflict is characterized as the "property conflict". Some of the issues in this conflict are suburban flight, gentrification of neighborhoods, and the way we govern private property. The equity-environmental relationship is characterized as the "development" conflict. This includes what happens to poor neighborhoods faced with pollution and waste, as well as, the effects of environmental decisions on jobs in resource dependent communities (fishing, logging, petroleum, mining).
The middle of the Economy-Environment-Equity triangle is where sustainable development might be found -- green, profitable, and fair -- and where sustainable development planning might occur. However, it is likely that planners operate primarily in the context of one or two of these conflicts, not all three. Campbell suggests that planners orient themselves within this triangle according to their particular roles, skills and values. The role of planners as described by Campbell is two-fold: "(1) to manage and resolve conflict and (2) to promote creative technical, architectural, and institutional solutions." Planners may act outside of the conflicts as mediators or they may join the fray within the conflict acting as advocates. Both of these planning activities are needed. Since current definitions of sustainable development are probably insufficient for the planning profession, Campbell suggests that it is by participating in these conflicts that we will provide sufficient details for such a definition. This is another way of "operationalizing" the definition as discussed above.
This is important because any transition toward more sustainable development has broad implications for basic human beliefs and behavior. However, changes in beliefs and basic cultural values will not occur simply because there are good ideas that make sense, that have strong political backing or are well funded. Many think of sustainable development in terms of programs and projects. Our experience in planning suggests that programs and projects are temporary, at best. As creatures capable of learning and change, we experiment as we learn.
Here sustainable development presents itself as a possible paradigm shift, not a program or project. A paradigm shift, as used here, is a significant cultural change encompassing beliefs, technologies and institutions. We don't know yet if sustainable development is this kind of change (and won't know for decades).
Is it likely that sustainable development would affect the course of events like the Industrial Revolution or the Renaissance? These were not economic development or cultural improvement programs. Is sustainable development representative of a different thought/belief process that would signal such a change? Fundamental environmental values have changed significantly in the last 30 years, perhaps also signaling a deeper change. Certainly, a comparison with the Industrial Revolution must seem exaggerated to anyone viewing sustainable development as a buzz word or another environmental improvement program.
Sustainable development has been called a compelling vision which has been embraced by many and thus represents the kind of change that may be needed during the next 50 years. We are at a unique place in time where rapid industrialization, rapid population expansion, loss of boundaries, globalization of economies, and shrinking cultural identities make this a much smaller planet. We truly have never been here before. We have more than sufficient proof that we can destroy species and ecosystems at much larger scales than could have occurred at other times in our 200,000 year history as Homo sapiens. We are probably capable of changing long term atmospheric and climatic conditions (as evidenced by current understanding of global warming). During this same time period, we are adding knowledge and technologies at an exponential rate which expand our capabilities to develop, share, and learn rapidly. In a time when physical systems and sociopolitical changes may occur in exponential or surprising ways, such capabilities are critical.
If you like fiction and want to read about sustainable development, read Daniel Quinn's two books about the way humans are in relation to the environment and how cultural change may occur. Quinn's stories ask some fundamental questions about saving the earth (you may not even realize it needs to be saved). In "Ishmael", he reminds us that we have been on the planet for 3 million years, presumably as comfortable and capable creatures. As Homo sapiens, we have been around for 200,000 years, much of which we have chosen to ignore or deny as part of our history (we call it "prehistory"). In the last 10,000 years, Ishmael tells us we have chosen a culture which violates some basic life principles with the firm belief that the problems created can be solved by that same culture. Ishmael, a wise and communicative gorilla, doesn't suggest we return to another time or adopt the practices of some indigenous people. (We couldn't even if we wanted to.) Rather, he suggests that we be aware of who we are and what we do. No sustainable development program here.
If you prefer non-fiction, read "Our Common Future" first since it has the definition most people are using. Then read Kai Lee's "Compass and Gyroscope." Lee describes the tools needed to make the journey toward sustainability. The compass for the journey that Lee calls "adaptive management" includes a better understanding of the relationship between human activity and nature in what Lee then calls "civic science." This is a compelling idea from the perspective that public understanding of sustainable development will be critical to value-based changes. He describes a process in which we carefully observe and learn from human interventions in natural systems, acknowledging that we make mistakes.
The gyroscope is what Lee calls "bounded conflict" that is a "pragmatic application of politics". Conflict and negotiation are essential parts of keeping level in this journey. Lee provides some directions on how we use conflict and negotiations to move forward. This is similar to Campbell's suggestion that sustainability will be defined in the context of working through conflicts. About planning, Lee says that "planning is the assembly of information and analytic skills" to describe the world and identify the uncertain consequences of actions. Planning is a process in a "framework of active negotiation" in which conflict proceeds productively. Lee provides a compelling (though at times overwhelming) blend of his knowledge of management, ecology, political science and resource management. This is the kind of thinking that can bolster transformative ideas.
Among the many studies being conducted about Yucca Mountain, the National Research Council was asked to appoint a committee to analyze and determine risk levels posed by this repository. The goal of the analysis was to determine ways in which the health effects to the global population could be limited over a period of more than 10,000 years (10,000 years?). The limit on the number of health effects was to be 1,000 incremental fatalities.
Imagine receiving this project as part of your planning assignment: prepare a regional development plan for the year 12,000 A.D. Include in this plan population projections and distribution, land use patterns, dominant population species, habitats, and transportation.
This real world example is given to illustrate that sustainable development in some ways asks us to view planning in a context as different and as challenging as planning for a world 10,000 years in the future.
The issues driving sustainability outside of the planning profession are largely global -- population growth, climate change, cross boundary pollution, stratospheric ozone depletion, mega-cities and urbanization, and globalization of economies. These are not issues most planners deal with day-to-day.
However, environmental and community issues at the local and regional level, raise questions about sustainability -- urban patterns of growth, use of resources, high levels of use and inefficient energy consumption, effects on low income populations, water quality and supply, habitat loss and damage, open space, quality of life, impacts of rapid growth, impacts of population and employment losses, and others are concerns for planners and their constituencies. For some planners, even issues such as immigration policies and globalization of economies translate into local and regional planning issues.
In Campbell's article, he questions whether or not planners are leaders or followers in resolving economic-environmental conflicts. He implies that planners are not playing a central role nor are they (we) at the forefront of the issue. He suggests that to play a central role, "planners must exploit those areas of conflict where they have the greatest leverage and expertise." (Campbell, p. 309)
From my vantage point, planners have not yet played a central role in the sustainable development dialogue. This conclusion is based on experience at conferences, reading planning literature, and working with other planners. An example: In late 1996, EPA created a pilot program for sustainable development projects and asked for proposals. The thrust of the program was linking economic and environmental goals in a specific project. The ideal project, from EPA's description, would be one that solved a real environmental problem while generating real jobs (a "more fish, more jobs" definition). Working with planning staff and a group of community organizations, various projects were discussed. None of the options identified came close to a sustainable development framework. Planners couldn't get out of their current economic development project-oriented perspective to a different kind of thinking. Environmental was landscaping and urban design. They didn't seem to "get it." The realities of particular jobs and particular circumstances make it difficult to "do" sustainable development.
The difficulty of getting "into" sustainable development is certainly not confined to planners. A group of academic and governmental researchers that meet from time to time to explore energy issues met a couple of years ago on sustainable transportation. Part of the discussion addressed sustainability, but they concentrated on the same ideas discussed at previous meetings of the same group. In other words, the titles changed but the discussions were pretty much the same. Sustainable development in this context often gets defined by its solid science and measurable aspects -- global warming and energy efficiency. The "soft" sciences are ignored.
Ishmael (Quinn's wise gorilla) tells a wonderful/awful story about the law of gravity and flying. He asks us to imagine a "would-be airman who has been pushed off the edge of the cliff and is pedaling away, and the wings of his craft are flapping like crazy." Early inventors of aircraft didn't know the laws of flying that we now know, but they had ideas of what they believed would work. They built aircraft and tried them out. Our pilot in this story believed his ideas strongly enough to launch himself from a very high cliff. From his vantage point, his flight was going very well. He was in the air with the ground far below. He was safe and thoroughly enjoying himself. What he didn't know (because that knowledge didn't exist) was that his aircraft violated the laws of flying. He began to worry as the ground approached, but assured himself that his ideas were correct and he only needed to pedal harder. It would be obvious to anyone today that he could have pedaled thousands of times harder and would still have crashed. Our mother culture tells us that certain things are true and will turn out in certain ways. We don't know the laws that might operate outside of such a culture (nor would we even admit that such laws might exist).
Sustainability (for me) raises some fairly fundamental questions about our role in nature and our relationships with ourselves and other species. What beliefs, behaviors and technologies do we have in place that violate life-support laws (some we know and some we don't)? Are Homo sapiens the dominant creature in the life system on the planet? Is this our environment to manage? Do we have the knowledge and skills to manage? Will we survive? These are not questions that show up on a zoning board agenda.
Sustainable development could play a role much like comprehensive planning did in the past. It could provide a new structure and framework for thinking about urban and regional issues. Certainly it encompasses the physical, social, environmental and political dimensions that planners have worked hard to incorporate within the planning profession. Campbell suggests that planners focus on their strengths as they incorporate sustainable development into their activities. This is probably a good starting point, although many planners have already begun to incorporate sustainability ideas in their activities and vocabulary.
Sustainable development also suggests new sets of information (for example, vacant land is neither vacant nor use-less; understanding the economy in terms of energy/materials flow); new relationships (with ecologists, environmental scientists, equity experts); and perhaps new skills (adaptive management, conflict resolution, consensus building, mediation).
Sustainable development is certainly relevant to planning, but only to the extent that planners choose to help define and operationalize it within the planning profession. There are many other useful ideas that have not become mainstream parts of professional practice. If, as suggested above, sustainability is indicative of a broader cultural change, then planners will probably participate as part of this cultural change but perhaps in less conscious and less structured ways. Botkin says that "nature in the twenty-first century will be a nature that we make; the question is the degree to which this molding will be intentional or unintentional, desirable or undesirable." (Botkin, p. 193) Planning is an intentional activity intended to help make the places humans live. Planners will thereby play a role in shaping nature. Sustainable development provides an available umbrella, tent, or banner under which planners may choose to decide on their role.
Daniel B. Botkin. 1990. "Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century." Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Government of Canada. 1995. "A Guide to Green Government." Hull, Quebec: Inquiry Centre.
Scott Campbell, Summer 1996. "Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities?" Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 63, No. 3.
Harlan Cleveland, editor. 1979. "The Management of Sustainable Growth." Pergamon Press
James C. Coomer, editor. 1979. "Quest for a Sustainable Society." Pergamon Press
Jill Grant, Patricia Manuel, and Darrell Joudrey. Summer 1996. "A Framework for Planning Sustainable Residential Landscapes, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 63, No. 3.
W. Kempton, J. Boster, and J. Hartley. 1995. "Environmental Values in American Culture." Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kai N. Lee. 1993. "Compass and Gyroscope." Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Dennis Meadows, editor. 1977. "Alternatives to Growth-I: A Search for Sustainable Futures." Cambridge, Mass: Ballinger Publishing Company.
President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). February 1996. "Sustainable America: A New Consensus for Prosperity, Opportunity, and a Health Environment for the Future." Washington, D.C.: PCSD
Projecto Aridas (ARIDAS), a collaboration of Federal and State Governments in Brazil. October 1995. "A Strategy for Sustainable Development in Brazil's Northeast." Brasilia: Ministry of Planning and the Budget
Daniel Quinn. 1993. "Ishmael." New York: Bantam Books
Daniel Quinn. December 1996. "The Story of B." New York: Bantam Books
Sim Van der Ryn and Peter Calthorpe. 1986. Paperback 1991. "Sustainable Communities." San Francisco: Sierra Club Books
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. "Our Common Future" Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
David Hitchcock is a charter member of APA and is currently the Associate Director of the Center for Global Studies at the Houston Advanced Research Center. He graduated from the University of Oklahoma with a Masters degree in regional and city planning and then attended the University of Pittsburgh where he studied environmental health and urban affairs. Mr. Hitchcock has a wide range of planning experience including inner-city revitalization, economic development, transportation policy, social service planning, and comprehensive planning. For the past twelve years, he has been involved in policy research on environmental and transportation issues. He was previously the Director of the Joint Center for Urban Mobility Research at Rice Center in Houston. Mr. Hitchcock is currently engaged in projects that include the Global Commons Project with the National Research Council, Houston Environmental Foresight (a science and community based program on environmental risk), electric power policy, and projects with Mexico on sustainable development and water resources. Mr. Hitchcock lives and works in The Woodlands, Texas about 35 miles north of Houston. He usually walks or bikes to work on the bike trails provided in this planned community of 47,000 people. The Center for Global Studies (CGS) has sustainable development as a principle part of its mission. The Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC) is a large non-profit, collaborative institution conducting research and development on environmental, energy and information technologies. CGS is the policy research division of HARC. Further information can be found at <www.harc.edu>.