On Tuesday 22 March 2011, Dr Mark Hostetler, Associate Professor in the Department of Wildlife Ecology & Conservation at the University of Florida, gave a webinar on Conserving Biodiversity in Subdivision Development.
You can find a recording of the webinar here.
The topic summary says that "Many residential developments and rural properties are situated near or in habitats that sustain native plant and animal communities. Conserving or restoring the unique natural features inherent on every parcel of land benefits the local environment, property owners, and the region’s heritage. When land is subdivided, how does one conserve local biodiversity and minimize impacts on surrounding landscapes? Design, construction, and post-construction phases are often not discussed holistically when green developments are built."
The webinar "introduces participants to the key principles and practices required to create conservation subdivisions. The webinar is part of a four module continuing education course developed by the Program for Resource Efficient Communities at the University of Florida. This continuing education course is devoted to defining, recognizing, restoring, and managing residential communities for biodiversity within the urban and rural matrix. The course is being offered in May in association with American Citizen Planner and Michigan State University. It is relevant to county and city planners, landscape architects, architects, civil engineers, environmental consultants, developers, private landowners, and interested citizens. More information will be presented during the webinar."
Mark has over twenty years of experience in urban wildlife issues and natural resource management. He conducts research and outreach on how urban landscapes could be designed and managed, from small to large scales, to conserve biodiversity. He has extensive experience in working with homeowners, developers, and policymakers on ways to manage and design residential developments for biodiversity. Dr. Hostetler co-founded UF’s Program for Resource Efficient Communities (PREC) and collaborates with an interdisciplinary team of scientists and graduate students. In conjunction with PREC, Mark is working with policymakers and developers to establish natural resource conservation strategies in communities that are billed as “green” developments. In particular, he works with planners and built environment professionals to establish management programs for conservation subdivisions. Dr. Hostetler has a bachelor’s in biology from Purdue University (1987) and his master’s (1992) and doctorate in zoology (1997) are both from University of Florida.
There is more information about Mark's work at the links below:
Wildlife Information - http://www.wec.ufl.edu/extension/
Living Green - http://livinggreen.ifas.ufl.edu
Program for Resource Efficient Communities - http://www.buildgreen.ufl.edu
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Values, assets, services, resources - choosing our words
Since my last blog, I've been working on watershed management plans and thinking about the extent to which we consciously consider the natural aspects of our watersheds, including the fresh or salt water bodies into which they eventually flow.
What difference does it make to how we approach our management planning if we use different words?
I can't help but feel that it really does make a difference. Top of mind or gut feel and untested ideas follow!
The terminology chosen for New Zealand's major piece of environmental legislation, the Resource Management Act, is "resource". My trusty little old Oxford dictionary tells me that the word resource is usually used in the plural to refer to "means of supplying a want, stock that can be drawn on" as well as various other meanings including ingenuity. Sure, the purpose of the Act is stated in section 5 as being sustainable management, which means "managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while—(a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and (b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and (c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment." Without being a lawyer or policy-maker, it does seem to me that the presumption is that resources are there to be used, and while "protection", or refraining from use (likely only some extractive or consumptive or otherwise damaging, rather than all uses - we do let people into national parks, don't we) is a less preferred option. Strictly speaking, I suspect those words "use, development, and protection" are meant in principle to be given equal weight, with the balancing between them varying from place to place - depending on its "values".
Ecosystem services is a term increasingly used to describe the benefits that we enjoy for free from the natural processes that go on in ecosystems. One online definition of "services" offered among many other meanings, "contribution to the welfare of others", a definition I liked. According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the services that ecosystems provide for us include provisioning services such as food and water; regulating services such as flood and disease control; cultural services such as spiritual, recreational, and cultural benefits; and supporting services such as nutrient cycling that maintain the conditions for life on Earth. I think it is a great idea for us to become more consciously aware of the tremendous benefits like these that we gain from natural systems. More and more we are trying to put a financial value on them - this might encourage us to see "protection", or non-use, as a beneficial thing. For example, an early effort in 1997 by Robert Costanza et al put an average price tag of US$33 trillion a year on these fundamental ecosystem services, which, the article said, "are largely taken for granted because they are free". That was nearly twice the value of the global gross national product (GNP) of US$18 trillion at the time. In 2008, the 2008 TEEB "Cost of Policy Inaction Study" estimated the annual economic cost of loss of ecosystem services by biodiversity and ecosystem degradation at US$2-4.5 trillion , or 3.3-7.5% of global GDP. In a way this definition brings us back to the phrase "life-supporting capacity" in the Resource Management Act - and this is a good thing! A salutary reminder, one might say.
Okay, what about assets? Lots of definitions here! One was "something valuable that an entity owns, benefits from, or has use of, in generating income". Another was a "useful or valuable quality, person, or thing; an advantage or resource" (that word again!). One of the things I liked about many of my dictionary and online definitions was the references to things like balance sheets, stock and inventories, because they imply that we're sitting on top of something valuable - which, in watersheds, we are! These terms also bring to mind the term "natural capital" and remind us that sensible money managers use or reinvest their interest and hold firmly onto the capital!
Perhaps not surprisingly, derived as they are from economic thinking, the definitions of natural capital I found were quite use-focused, one from the UK referring to "any stock or flow of energy and material within the environment that produces goods and services", and Wikipedia defining it as "the extension of the economic notion of capital (manufactured means of production) to goods and services relating to the natural environment. Natural capital is thus the stock of natural ecosystems that yields a flow of valuable ecosystem goods or services into the future." Again, this has to be a good way to think.
Where do "values" fit in? The terms I've looked at are all based on values, but these are seldom spelled out. Christchurch City Council made its values very explicit when it wrote its Waterways, wetlands and drainage guide. The Council sets out its philosophy of encouraging people to work with natural features and processes in the landscape. Noting that managing waterways or wetlands frequently includes their restoration and protection, the council integrated their urban stormwater and natural drainage functions with other core values of ecology, landscape, recreation, heritage and culture. The result is a multi-disciplinary and values-based approach to site assessment and to the design and management of developments and land use activities. These intangible values are slightly different from the tangible natural values the PPWCMA focuses on, but these two approaches would probably generate similar outcomes. Certainly in Christchurch, there have been some wonderful water-sensitive and economically beneficial results.
Well, I had hoped to argue myself into a position where I could say that one of these four terms was better than the rest (well, perhaps with three terms tied for first place and "resources" coming last!) but having gone through this admittedly very superficial analysis, I don't think I can. Perhaps we need all these kinds of terms and views to really get a grip on any watershed from a number of different perspectives. But I have no doubt that if we are to use values in our assessments and recommendations, we need to be very explicit and clear about what they are and how they will, in a very practical sense, guide our decision-making.
What difference does it make to how we approach our management planning if we use different words?
I can't help but feel that it really does make a difference. Top of mind or gut feel and untested ideas follow!
The terminology chosen for New Zealand's major piece of environmental legislation, the Resource Management Act, is "resource". My trusty little old Oxford dictionary tells me that the word resource is usually used in the plural to refer to "means of supplying a want, stock that can be drawn on" as well as various other meanings including ingenuity. Sure, the purpose of the Act is stated in section 5 as being sustainable management, which means "managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while—(a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and (b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and (c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment." Without being a lawyer or policy-maker, it does seem to me that the presumption is that resources are there to be used, and while "protection", or refraining from use (likely only some extractive or consumptive or otherwise damaging, rather than all uses - we do let people into national parks, don't we) is a less preferred option. Strictly speaking, I suspect those words "use, development, and protection" are meant in principle to be given equal weight, with the balancing between them varying from place to place - depending on its "values".
Ecosystem services is a term increasingly used to describe the benefits that we enjoy for free from the natural processes that go on in ecosystems. One online definition of "services" offered among many other meanings, "contribution to the welfare of others", a definition I liked. According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the services that ecosystems provide for us include provisioning services such as food and water; regulating services such as flood and disease control; cultural services such as spiritual, recreational, and cultural benefits; and supporting services such as nutrient cycling that maintain the conditions for life on Earth. I think it is a great idea for us to become more consciously aware of the tremendous benefits like these that we gain from natural systems. More and more we are trying to put a financial value on them - this might encourage us to see "protection", or non-use, as a beneficial thing. For example, an early effort in 1997 by Robert Costanza et al put an average price tag of US$33 trillion a year on these fundamental ecosystem services, which, the article said, "are largely taken for granted because they are free". That was nearly twice the value of the global gross national product (GNP) of US$18 trillion at the time. In 2008, the 2008 TEEB "Cost of Policy Inaction Study" estimated the annual economic cost of loss of ecosystem services by biodiversity and ecosystem degradation at US$2-4.5 trillion , or 3.3-7.5% of global GDP. In a way this definition brings us back to the phrase "life-supporting capacity" in the Resource Management Act - and this is a good thing! A salutary reminder, one might say.
Okay, what about assets? Lots of definitions here! One was "something valuable that an entity owns, benefits from, or has use of, in generating income". Another was a "useful or valuable quality, person, or thing; an advantage or resource" (that word again!). One of the things I liked about many of my dictionary and online definitions was the references to things like balance sheets, stock and inventories, because they imply that we're sitting on top of something valuable - which, in watersheds, we are! These terms also bring to mind the term "natural capital" and remind us that sensible money managers use or reinvest their interest and hold firmly onto the capital!
Perhaps not surprisingly, derived as they are from economic thinking, the definitions of natural capital I found were quite use-focused, one from the UK referring to "any stock or flow of energy and material within the environment that produces goods and services", and Wikipedia defining it as "the extension of the economic notion of capital (manufactured means of production) to goods and services relating to the natural environment. Natural capital is thus the stock of natural ecosystems that yields a flow of valuable ecosystem goods or services into the future." Again, this has to be a good way to think.
Where do "values" fit in? The terms I've looked at are all based on values, but these are seldom spelled out. Christchurch City Council made its values very explicit when it wrote its Waterways, wetlands and drainage guide. The Council sets out its philosophy of encouraging people to work with natural features and processes in the landscape. Noting that managing waterways or wetlands frequently includes their restoration and protection, the council integrated their urban stormwater and natural drainage functions with other core values of ecology, landscape, recreation, heritage and culture. The result is a multi-disciplinary and values-based approach to site assessment and to the design and management of developments and land use activities. These intangible values are slightly different from the tangible natural values the PPWCMA focuses on, but these two approaches would probably generate similar outcomes. Certainly in Christchurch, there have been some wonderful water-sensitive and economically beneficial results.
Well, I had hoped to argue myself into a position where I could say that one of these four terms was better than the rest (well, perhaps with three terms tied for first place and "resources" coming last!) but having gone through this admittedly very superficial analysis, I don't think I can. Perhaps we need all these kinds of terms and views to really get a grip on any watershed from a number of different perspectives. But I have no doubt that if we are to use values in our assessments and recommendations, we need to be very explicit and clear about what they are and how they will, in a very practical sense, guide our decision-making.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
"Make it so attractive that people want to work with us"
Still in recovery mode from an intense week in Melbourne and gradually processing all the information I gathered, I'm finding this quote "Make it so attractive that people want to work with us" works equally well as a banner for both the speaking and the environmental professions.
Standouts at the speakers convention on Saturday, Sunday and Monday 2-4 April included Peter Sheahan and Ngahihi o te ra Bidois, while Peter Baines broke our hearts then mended them again with his inspiring tales of his work in post-disaster recovery.
In line with the conference theme, "Stand up and Stand out", the workshops, panel and keynotes focused on standing out as speakers with social media, online content, selling, technology, networking, our bureaux and non-verbal communication (from the wonderful Michael Grinder) - all ways in which we as speakers can make it attractive for clients to work with us.
Chicago Wilderness is the source of the "attractive" quote, and it was passed on to me by Ian Morgans of the Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment (watershed) Management Authority (PPWCMA) in Melbourne. The PPWCMA is one of ten regional Catchment Management Authorities in the Australian state of Victoria, and I was lucky enough to meet Ian for a couple of hours. We talked about how they are approaching the complex question of preparing a management plan that is implemented by other agencies: the role of the PPWCMA is to inspire and support a wide range of groups, agencies and individuals in work that will deliver integrated management for sustainability of the catchment's assets. So Ian sees a large part of the plan's role as setting out the cost and other benefits of a partnership approach within an agreed and integrated framework. He says a plan is really an outcome of a goal and an alliance of players working towards it: developing and implementing a plan is more about the process than the plan itself.
And, like all good thinkers, Ian made me think, too! One of his first questions was, "In New Zealand, do you take a value-based or a problem-based approach to catchment planning?" My first reaction was to say, "Of course we take a value-based approach! We have clearly defined outcomes ....." at which point my voice trailed off as I realized that we do indeed take a problem-based approach, because we identify issues first, then the desired outcome of our interventions as we address them ... a problem based approach!
Ian's approach is to identify the assets in a catchment - the things we value - and work out what action needs to be taken to maintain, enhance or restore their quality. I think we need to do the same - and this is very much in line with the fourth order outcomes in Stephen Olsen's marvellous orders of outcomes framework that I've been working with for many years now, as well as with the DPSIR (drivers, pressures, states, impacts, responses) model.
Fortunately I was able to point to a paper on integrated management of natural and built assets that I gave with my friend and colleague Christine Heremaia at the May 2009 at the 5th NZWWA (now Water New Zealand) South Pacific Stormwater Conference in Auckland - and now need to bring this more closely into the catchment-based work I'm doing.
More on my other Melbourne meetings soon.
Standouts at the speakers convention on Saturday, Sunday and Monday 2-4 April included Peter Sheahan and Ngahihi o te ra Bidois, while Peter Baines broke our hearts then mended them again with his inspiring tales of his work in post-disaster recovery.
In line with the conference theme, "Stand up and Stand out", the workshops, panel and keynotes focused on standing out as speakers with social media, online content, selling, technology, networking, our bureaux and non-verbal communication (from the wonderful Michael Grinder) - all ways in which we as speakers can make it attractive for clients to work with us.
Chicago Wilderness is the source of the "attractive" quote, and it was passed on to me by Ian Morgans of the Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment (watershed) Management Authority (PPWCMA) in Melbourne. The PPWCMA is one of ten regional Catchment Management Authorities in the Australian state of Victoria, and I was lucky enough to meet Ian for a couple of hours. We talked about how they are approaching the complex question of preparing a management plan that is implemented by other agencies: the role of the PPWCMA is to inspire and support a wide range of groups, agencies and individuals in work that will deliver integrated management for sustainability of the catchment's assets. So Ian sees a large part of the plan's role as setting out the cost and other benefits of a partnership approach within an agreed and integrated framework. He says a plan is really an outcome of a goal and an alliance of players working towards it: developing and implementing a plan is more about the process than the plan itself.
And, like all good thinkers, Ian made me think, too! One of his first questions was, "In New Zealand, do you take a value-based or a problem-based approach to catchment planning?" My first reaction was to say, "Of course we take a value-based approach! We have clearly defined outcomes ....." at which point my voice trailed off as I realized that we do indeed take a problem-based approach, because we identify issues first, then the desired outcome of our interventions as we address them ... a problem based approach!
Ian's approach is to identify the assets in a catchment - the things we value - and work out what action needs to be taken to maintain, enhance or restore their quality. I think we need to do the same - and this is very much in line with the fourth order outcomes in Stephen Olsen's marvellous orders of outcomes framework that I've been working with for many years now, as well as with the DPSIR (drivers, pressures, states, impacts, responses) model.
Fortunately I was able to point to a paper on integrated management of natural and built assets that I gave with my friend and colleague Christine Heremaia at the May 2009 at the 5th NZWWA (now Water New Zealand) South Pacific Stormwater Conference in Auckland - and now need to bring this more closely into the catchment-based work I'm doing.
More on my other Melbourne meetings soon.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Melbourne - a water sensitive - and wonderful - city
Even more quirky and beautiful than I last remember it, Melbourne has so many Wow factors. Last time I was here several years ago I was hooked by the art gallery and the young fashion designer stores and impressed by the work Melbourne Water was doing on water use efficiency.
This trip I'm totally wowed by Day 1 of the National Speakers Association of Australia conference, a mix of outstanding workshops, mindblowing keynote opening speeches and comedy that had us all weeping with laughter. Comedy MC Andrew Horabin poked fun at speakers' self-obsession in a sidesplitting audience advisory, and as the wonderful Melbourne Age puts it, Fiona Scott-Norman has a 'forensic knowledge of bad music' and is absolutely hilarious. She's at the Melbourne comedy festival until April 24th and is worth crossing the Tasman (or indeed any other ocean) to see.
And my cynical old soul was totally wowed by Kevin Roberts, the New York-based CEO Worldwide of Saatchi & Saatchi: PR and advertising leave me cold (possibly something to do with not owning a television?) but his keynote on 'Building a personal and business brand your clients will love' had me leaping onto my chair to take part in the standing ovation at the end. His book 'Lovemarks' is on sale at the convention and having dismissed it yesterday, I may have to make the purchase today. A mix of iconoclastic humor, astute observation and deep insight, he talked a lot about the need for creativity, something I'm reading, speaking and writing about myself at the moment. If you ever get the chance to see him speak, do it!
There are now two days of convention proper followed by another day of workshops. On Tuesday I have arranged some meetings to talk about how the civil contracting business is going in Australia and the work that is being done here on catchment (watershed) management planning. Melbourne is such a beautiful city, and the Yarra River and the parks around it are teeming with rowers, runners, walkers and admirers of the lovely scenery. It is all much greener than last time I was here. They have had more rain than usual over the summer and though as we flew in over the city I could see the reservoirs were much less than full, they are at about 53% compared with 25% or less this time last year. No wonder they are keen on water management!
Melbourne is also the base of Rebekah Brown, Director Director of Monash University’s Centre for Water Sensitive Cities, which runs a wonderful urban water governance program. There are loads of resources on the website and her work is well worth a look, focusing as it does on the ecological, economic, social and cultural benefits of healthy waterways.
My friend with whom I'm staying (in one of the gorgeous spacious old apartments at which Australian cities excel) works at Sustainability Victoria - this is a model other places could do well to adopt: a formal government mandate to investigate, promote and support more sustainable living. But then, Australia is very obviously hitting its ecological limits. Will the rest of us set up similar initiatives in a timely fashion?
Wonder if I'll see the fabulous hot air balloons again today as I wend my way to the conference...?
This trip I'm totally wowed by Day 1 of the National Speakers Association of Australia conference, a mix of outstanding workshops, mindblowing keynote opening speeches and comedy that had us all weeping with laughter. Comedy MC Andrew Horabin poked fun at speakers' self-obsession in a sidesplitting audience advisory, and as the wonderful Melbourne Age puts it, Fiona Scott-Norman has a 'forensic knowledge of bad music' and is absolutely hilarious. She's at the Melbourne comedy festival until April 24th and is worth crossing the Tasman (or indeed any other ocean) to see.
And my cynical old soul was totally wowed by Kevin Roberts, the New York-based CEO Worldwide of Saatchi & Saatchi: PR and advertising leave me cold (possibly something to do with not owning a television?) but his keynote on 'Building a personal and business brand your clients will love' had me leaping onto my chair to take part in the standing ovation at the end. His book 'Lovemarks' is on sale at the convention and having dismissed it yesterday, I may have to make the purchase today. A mix of iconoclastic humor, astute observation and deep insight, he talked a lot about the need for creativity, something I'm reading, speaking and writing about myself at the moment. If you ever get the chance to see him speak, do it!
There are now two days of convention proper followed by another day of workshops. On Tuesday I have arranged some meetings to talk about how the civil contracting business is going in Australia and the work that is being done here on catchment (watershed) management planning. Melbourne is such a beautiful city, and the Yarra River and the parks around it are teeming with rowers, runners, walkers and admirers of the lovely scenery. It is all much greener than last time I was here. They have had more rain than usual over the summer and though as we flew in over the city I could see the reservoirs were much less than full, they are at about 53% compared with 25% or less this time last year. No wonder they are keen on water management!
Melbourne is also the base of Rebekah Brown, Director Director of Monash University’s Centre for Water Sensitive Cities, which runs a wonderful urban water governance program. There are loads of resources on the website and her work is well worth a look, focusing as it does on the ecological, economic, social and cultural benefits of healthy waterways.
My friend with whom I'm staying (in one of the gorgeous spacious old apartments at which Australian cities excel) works at Sustainability Victoria - this is a model other places could do well to adopt: a formal government mandate to investigate, promote and support more sustainable living. But then, Australia is very obviously hitting its ecological limits. Will the rest of us set up similar initiatives in a timely fashion?
Wonder if I'll see the fabulous hot air balloons again today as I wend my way to the conference...?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)