And who will INVOLVE the community, said the Little Red Hen?

According to Roseland, a collaborative process is a better alternative to the traditional DEAD approach (Decide, Educate, Announce, Defend) because it draws in the community and other potentially-impacted stakeholders early on in the decision making process (190). Collaboration is “…based on the democratic maxim that those affected by a decision should participate directly in the decision-making process” (Roseland 191). It involves actively planning with stakeholders, not for them (Roseland 191).

The advantages to shared decision-making include:

• More intelligent decisions b/c it incorporates best thinking of everyone
• Keeps people from getting into adversarial attitudes
• Increases likelihood of new/better ideas being thought up
• Everyone has a stake in implementing a decision b/c all have participated in its formation
• Lessens possibility that a minority will feel that an unacceptable decision has been imposed on them
• Each participant has an effective veto – levels playing field, creates equal authority in decision (Roseland 191-192).

Canadian Env. Assessment Agency (www.ceaa.gc.ca)

Okay, we’re sold on the concept. How do we do it?

The EPA website has a dizzying array of collaborative problem solving methods, public participation planning guides, and consensus building tools for environmental managers/public officials.

There is also SMARTe, a state/federal/international partnership to develop tools for community involvement in site revitalization (i.e. hazardous waste, toxic cleanup projects). And even IDEM has the CLEAN Community Challenge to help communities create and 

implement sustainable development plans.

Plenty of information exists for citizens too. Just one of the many user-friendly sites is the MyEnvironment website, where a citizen can enter their address and find out information for local air, water, and land quality; health hazards; energy production/savings methods; published reports; and opportunities for community connections. They even have a “Shout Outs” section to post environmental events happening in your area. It also connects the user to the MyEnvironment EPA blog and the official EPA blog, Greenversations.

However, based on citizens’ preferences (NOT managers and officials), is the internet the best venue to inform/communicate with people about environmental issues? I wonder…

I found a great article published by the EPA and Forest Service with results from an 8-year project evaluating the EPA’s Superfund community involvement program. From their many surveys, focus groups, and telephone interviews they gained some pretty telling insights about how people like to receive information:

• A majority of respondents, averaging 74%, prefer site cleanup information to come from the EPA directly. This means people find information from the EPA credible, an important characteristic in the stakeholder communication process.
• Sadly, only 44% of respondents reported actually receiving information from the EPA; the majority (average 78%) got their information from the media, especially newspapers! What a lost opportunity for community building between government agencies and citizens.
• Surprise! The preferred method of communication in ALL survey result categories was a mailing list, and a majority reported that radio, TV, and newspaper sources were NOT preferred.
• Web sites were preferred for less than 10% of respondents (Charnley and Engelbert 172).

What really counts in this study is the following (fairly obvious) finding: “An important pattern that appears…is that respondents who felt informed about the cleanup effort also appeared to have a positive view of EPA's effectiveness in cleaning up a site” (Charnley and Englebert 173). Citizens like to be informed, they like it to come from a credible source, they don’t want it second-hand from the media, and they’re not thrilled with the internet.

As environmental managers/public officials, we have research telling us how people like to get their information; access to all these tools for successful communication with stakeholders; and a few laws that kind of force us to get input from the public. But who is best for facilitating collaboration? They have to (1) be credible, (2) be physically accessible to both inform stakeholders and receive their input, and (3) have some level of authority to carry out any agreements reached via the collaboration process.

My vote is for local government (and no, there wasn’t any consensus on this one). Roseland lays it out pretty nicely. He writes that local governments can be great potential catalysts for sustainable development through the collaboration process because they:

• Are closest to communities
• Build/maintain infrastructure, set standards, regulations, taxes, and fees
• Can influence markets for goods and services (Roseland 193).

BUT as we all know (including Roseland), local governments are generally not rolling in dough. “Policy statements supporting stakeholder participation are inadequate, however, if they are not backed by sufficient resources, staff, and commitment to implement meaningful participation” (Roseland 191). This is where the need for citizen organizations comes in because of limited resources (staff, money, time, political will), and an array of other advantages:

• Provide innovative concepts
• “Furnish whole new paradigms for problem definition”
• Organize information laterally
• Can network across jurisdictions and sectors (public, private, government, corporate, NGOs) (Roseland 194).

Policies, laws, and important resources (i.e. money) often come from the national and regional levels. But when it comes to community/stakeholder involvement it seems like local governments – in coordination with citizen organizations – might be the best option in terms of individualized service.

But I could be wrong! In the study done by Charnley and Engelbert, respondents said they like to get information from the EPA directly, but didn’t specify which level (national, regional, representative state agencies). Maybe the local government doesn’t have the same measure of perceived expertise. Or perhaps people would be concerned with local politics getting in the way of candid discussions. Regardless of who facilitates collaboration, it is imperative to accept and include the public as a legitimate partner, listen to their concerns, and be honest and open throughout the entire process. Or you could just blow it off altogether...

Individual Project Update

I've been able to survey 8 out of 13 residents, which was no easy task. Keep in mind I've been trying at various days of week/times of day since mid-October (like landlord like tenants?). Out of the remaining five: three are never home except REALLY late and two do not answer their doors even when I know they are in fact home (the walls are thin and I live right below them). I will continue to haunt these five, and will tape the surveys to their doors if all else fails, although I don't know how fruitful that will be in getting a response. The trick is to get their email address to let them know my apartment number, and to emphasize the importance of rinsing and sorting!

Here's the survey:

 

And here's the data:

The good: 100% participation on signing the petition and willingness to drop off at my apartment. 0% on "Not at all concerned" and wouldn't recycle even if offered at the apartment.

Not so good: None willing to pay more than $15 extra a month for recycling services. Can't blame them!  Also, I was surprised to see that some people would only be willing to recycle one or two types of things, even though I'm doing all the work.

According to the city and Hoosier Disposal, you can't get bins for a complex with more than 4 units; they just don't do it. So the other alternative is to pay to get a recycling "dumpster" right next to the trash dumpster. I'm waiting on a call back for the estimate from Hoosier to relay the info to the landlord...but I'm not holding my breath. No further word from the landlord since that one fateful call.

When I'm home on break I'll get a few plastic bins for sorting, and a camera to take a few pics to give you guys an idea of what the setup will look like. 

Happy Thanksgiving!

Individual Project Update

Well, just moments ago I got off the phone with the infamous landlord!! I got a little more information on the situation, straight from the horse's mouth so to speak. Prior to this, all I had to work off of was hearsay from the real estate agent and a few tenants.

Apparently, the complex used to have recycling from the city and he and his son lugged all the blue bins to the curb every two weeks for pickup. However, people eventually stopped sorting and started just throwing their entire trash bags in the bins! So he cancelled it and got a dumpster, which I can't really blame him for doing.

However, now with renewed interest among the tenants (proved it with the survey!) and free labor (a girl that's willing to lug the bins herself) there's a glimmer of hope! He actually agreed to contact the city himself to find out about getting more bins. According to the city website, apartment complexes with 4 or more units are exempt from the curbside recycling program, so I'm not sure how he got away with this before. Maybe it's a new exemption? Anyhow, the good news is that if the city won't do it, Hoosier Disposal also offers recycling. And again, if he's got a sucker that's willing to do it for free (aka me) then he might actually foot the added recycling fee.

I'll be posting the results of the survey (just have to make the data look pretty) and an update on this NEW and exciting opportunity on next week's blog. I just couldn't wait to let you all know I finally got that "special" phone call. :)

Event 3: LEED Presentation (David Gulyas and Ted Mendoza)

This was an excellent talk as an introduction to LEED. First, Mr. Mendoza laid out the basic tenants of Green Building:

1) Site Planning

2) Water Management

3) Energy

4) Materials Use

5) Indoor Environmental Quality

He also emphasized collaboration between a variety of stakeholders in developing LEED, like product manufacturers, financial planners, property managers/owners, local/state government officials, and engineers, to name a few. The vision of the USGBC and LEED is to transform the building industry, by using historical building experience to improve design and create closed loop cycles for all aspects of construction. He explained the difference between the objectives for the USGBC (chapters, advocacy, green building, research, education) and the GBCI (administer LEED credentials and certify LEED projects).

There are now 1.04 billion square feet of LEED certified projects, and still growing as LEED is being enveloped into new construction projects. One interesting statistic: there are currently 27,581 commercially registered LEED projects, but only 5,707 commercially certified LEED projects. This shows the rigor of the program, and that improper planning (both financially and politically) can kill green building very easily.

The second half of the talk was conducted by David Gulyas, who went over the benefits of LEED certification:

1) Competitive Differentiator – lower operating costs, better indoor EQ, impacts tenants/buyers decisions    

     about leasing and purchasing

2) Mitigate Risk – protection against future lawsuits through 3^rd party certification

3) Attract Tenants – lease-up rates for green buildings can be upwards of 20% above average rates

4) Cost Effective – a 2% investment in green building design upfront can reap 20% in lifecycle savings, 

     AND a 10% increase in building sale price for energy efficient buildings

5) Increase Rental Rates – higher occupancy and rent premiums

Three things I learned (among others):

1) Increased productivity (not energy efficiency gains) is the biggest source of cost savings associated with 

    commercial LEED buildings! Proves what a difference a healthy work environment makes.

2) There is a new rating system for LEED certification in Neighborhood Development, AND the local 

     USGBC chapter is working with Habitat for Humanity on a new neighborhood being built on the west   

     side of Bloomington. 

3) The empire state building is LEED Gold!