One of the greatest stresses on our planet is our population. If we acted the way we do in a much less populated world we wouldn’t be doing so much damage to the environment, therefore we wouldn’t have to be worrying so much about sustainability. As it turns out there are over 6.6 billion of us and counting, so we are now in the position of having to address sustainability, seeing that modern civilization may be at stake. The funny thing is that our world has progressed exponentially over the past several decades, yet we have exercised very little foresight in regards to sustainability. Most of the dire issues we’re now forced to address are the result of our own carelessness.

That being said, I chose to look into sustainable communities. Communities are one of the most intimate hubs of human interaction. With the advent of the automobile and its mid-century boom following WWII, we Americans were set loose to explore the world outside our local communities that for thousands of years had been the place of almost all our daily activities. We were freed to travel, commute, and seek goods and services previously too inconvenient to reach often. The cultural and environmental consequences of the mobile lifestyle we pioneered have resulted in over a half-century frenzy of unsustainable development.

When the war ended, we Americans were on the top of our game. Our economy was the largest in the world, our power and influence was unrivaled, we were masters of innovation, and our heightened sense of patriotism all made us feel as if we were the beacon of success of the modern world. We were finally ready and able to buy cars and homes. The American dream was going mainstream. To aid this, the government made great efforts to foster a housing boom through various forms of aid, like low interest mortgages and tax deductibles. For the first time, making payments on a home was often cheaper than paying rent. Communities previously based on integrated structures, with housing, businesses and shopping all together, suddenly shifted toward an emphasis on the accommodation of traffic. To keep up with the development boom, Congress passed the Highway Revenue Act in 1956, which taxed gas for the purpose of building new roads. The more cars people bought the more gas they used; subsequently, more roads were built. The wheels were set in motion, and the mass conversion of natural land into concrete and asphalt had begun.

It’s hard to believe, but two-thirds of the land in cities that have developed in the era of the automobile is devoted to the moving, parking and servicing of cars. Since the beginning, we humans have been accustomed to tribes, villages, towns and other concentrated areas of living in which we interact closely with others. Now that we can drive to where we need to go, the places we would have otherwise found in our local communities are now spread out over much larger areas, meaning that walking has become nearly obsolete. We have transformed countless acres into roads, strip malls and housing developments, when we could have been building communities in which most of an individual’s basic needs are available by walking, biking, or public transportation. Greatly exacerbating the situation is the half-century old legislation that taxes gas for the purpose of building new roads, which only further encourages urban sprawl in a boundless, toxic, interdependent relationship between development, cars and roadways.

Urban sprawl is the result of more cars, more roads, and most importantly, inadequate zoning and planning. The way development has worked is that individuals/entities buy land around cities, build shopping centers and housing developments, and the cities then scurry to accommodate the necessary infrastructure and services (roads, power, sewer, schools, law enforcement, etc.). This pattern, left unchecked, has resulted in urban sprawl. Cities like Tokyo and states like Oregon have taken initiatives to create development boundaries so that developers and individuals contribute more to their centralized communities. When this happens, businesses, markets, schools, residences and the like are increasingly concentrated, which results in the conservation of land, resources and the environment.

One of the greatest costs of urban sprawl is the waste of land. Effective planning can result in cities in which individuals hardly need to drive. The consolidation of cities within smaller areas saves the surrounding land, reduces pollution, and fosters more intimate interactions between us and our communities. Most cities are over double the size they would otherwise be if they were based on consolidated layouts in which individuals were encouraged to walk or take public transportation. The big idea here is that since the beginning of the age of the vehicle, governments have done very poor planning in regards to the geographical and functional landscapes of urban areas.

Urban sprawl is much more complicated than it sounds. Economics, race, and social classes are fundamental to the concept. As cities have been built, the older areas within them often become run-down as wealthier, often white families move toward the outskirts (suburbs) where the communities are newer, the neighbors are of similar socio-economic dispositions, and traffic is perceived to be less. After a few decades, those neighborhoods are left behind for newer, further ones. The communities left behind are often broke, crime ridden, and inhabited by the poor and minorities. This leads us to one of urban sprawl’s greatest consequences, urban blight (also called urban decay).

Urban blight is the desolation, poverty and hardship left behind when those with money take flight. Cities are left to deal with sparse tax revenues, compounded by the need for welfare and law enforcement so common to such areas. The newer communities have plenty of tax revenue to provide adequate services, while the old ones are left to decay. So not only does urban sprawl mean the development of more natural land and the squandering of resources, it also means the further division of social classes and the neglect of the poor. This is a prime example of how sustainability means so much more than the environment and climate change. Even more importantly, it’s about to human nature.

So here we are with a bubbling population, unbridled development, depleting resources, a suffering environment and most ominous, a ticking clock. With other parts of the world at or beyond the threshold we reached around WWII, the degradation of the environment is happening more quickly with every passing moment. If our public awareness of the environment has just now gone mainstream, how can we expect countries like India and China to skip the fifty plus years of carelessness we’ve taken for granted? It’s a difficult question, but we must address it.

Words like “sustainability”, “green” and “eco-friendly” have just recently become part of our common vocabulary. Some ads push products, while some genuinely encourage a movement of sustainability. There are many facets of sustainability, from education to medicine to economics, but the concept is all-encompassing. Global sustainability will be achieved through synergistic efforts made on many fronts. I chose to look into communities because they are so closely tied to who we are, were and will be. They’re the crossroads of the individual, society and nature. If we are to become a sustainable culture, the understanding of such a need must come from the daily interactions and experiences we have within our communities, and as a result we must recognize and adopt a fundamental change of lifestyle.

It’s necessary to point out that achieving sustainability in the developing world is quite different than in the developed world. The problems inherent with unsustainable communities are far worse in developing nations where two-thirds of the populations live in cities. The lack of resources and services in such cities means that not only their inhabitants have poor, often unthinkable living conditions, but the environmental degradation surrounding them is much, much worse. The Sustainable Cities Program (SCP) is a joint facility of the U.N. Environmental Program and the U.N. Human Settlements Program that is designed to foster the planning and management needed to move cities in the developing world toward sustainability. In addition, the World Bank, the WTO, the U.N. and other international organizations have finally begun to join the movement, largely out of necessity. It’s becoming both a business plan and a holistic philosophy. The human costs related to unsustainable practices are much greater in such parts of the world, and the tools needed to combat them aren’t readily available. Organizations like the Smart Growth Network and The Institute for Sustainable Communities have been created to facilitate the efforts. Through education, leadership training, and community projects, such organizations work to put power in the hands of the people; a necessary step in breaking the cycles of exploitation and suppression that stagnate third-world nations.

The resources needed to plan sustainable communities in the developed world are also becoming more accessible. Government agencies, like the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy, have also adopted sustainable practices. Back in the 90’s the Clinton Administration even created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, which worked to connect many governmental agencies work toward sustainability. Unfortunately the efforts of the council have fallen on deaf ears in the current administration (surprise!). Websites like [www.sustcomm.com www.sustcomm.com], [www.sustainable.org www.sustainable.org] and [www.smartcommunities.ncat.org www.smartcommunities.ncat.org] provide tools like case studies, networks and other links necessary for governments, developers, or any person or entity to properly plan communities that are both livable and environmentally benign. One of the most crucial components of creating sustainable communities is the integration and reintegration of land within cities, especially blighted areas, into local communities. The key to all of this is planning. Cities have to set development borders and encourage developers to revive and build in areas already within developed areas. With the formation of integrated communities, cities can expand their network of public transportation within the newly revived areas, encouraging residents to conduct their daily activities within localized areas. This requires the obvious, such as businesses and schools, but also the aesthetics, like parks, bike paths and other natural areas that make the community an enjoyable place to live. Transforming old and new communities into sustainable ones takes education, planning, and what I believe to be most important component, leadership.

In 2003, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown launched the Sustainable Communities Plan. It laid the groundwork nationwide for major reforms of housing and planning, and also set goals and guidelines for what and how to build. Here in the U.S. in 1969, the EPA crowned Chattanooga, Tennessee the dirtiest city in America. It was a polluted industrial town plagued by unemployment, crime and urban blight. Community leaders quickly formed Vision 2000; a nonprofit organization that facilitated a city wide brainstorm that resulted in the choosing of 223 projects. Through pollution cleanups, renovations, education and collaboration, the city successfully turned itself into one of the most livable cities in America, boasting theaters, museums, aquariums, river-walks, efficient public transportation, green jobs and much more.

In my environmental science text book, sustainable communities are rated largely by “livability”. Livable cities maintain a high population density, preserve heterogeneity of residences, businesses, stores and shops, and keep layouts on a “human dimension” so that people can visit, conduct business, or take a walk all in a functional open area. But these features are only physical. In order for this transformation to become reality, a significant cultural evolution (or just as good, revolution) must occur. People will eventually have to overcome the apathy and disillusion that has landed us to where we are today.

As we move forward and our population increases, we will further degrade our environment and potentially create a world in which survival will be a higher priority than seeking a “livable” community (even though this is already the case in many parts of the world). Capitalism, consumerism and materialism draw us further and further from the natural world which quite precariously affords our survival. The faster we address the challenges preventing our sustainability, the fewer sacrifices we’ll have to make; and just as important as conservation and environmental stewardship, sustainable communities are places where we can live holistic, satisfying lives.