Unit 5

Urban Ecology,
Social And Economic Dimensions Of Sustainability,
Urban Heat Island Effects,
Sustainable Communities – Case Studies
 URBAN ECOLOGY

 Urban ecology is the study of ecosystems that include humans living in cities and urbanizing
landscapes.
 Urban ecology studies the relations of mankind with each other and their surroundings
including cities and urbanizing landscapes
 It aims to understand how human and ecological processes can coexist in human-dominated systems
and help societies with their efforts to become more sustainable.
 It has deep roots in many disciplines including sociology, geography, urban planning, landscape
architecture, engineering, economics, anthropology, climatology, public health, and ecology.
 Because of its interdisciplinary nature and unique focus on humans and natural systems, the term
"urban ecology" has been used variously to describe the study of humans in cities, of nature in
cities, and of the coupled relationships between humans and nature.
 Urban ecology addresses biological patterns and associated environmental processes in urban areas,
as a subdiscipline of biology and ecology.
 In this sense, urban ecology endeavours to analyse the relationships between plant and animal
populations and their communities as well as their relationships to environmental factors
including human influences
Urban ecology refers to “….such study in urban areas/system”. It has two dimensions …
1. describes urban design programs or designs that incorporate political, infrastructure
(roads, sewers, etc.), social and economic considerations
2. the area of biology that is concerned with urban areas. Concerned in terms of the
relationship, interactions, types, and numbers of species found within urban habitats.
To find out what kind of nature exists in urban system,Knowledge about ecological processes is
necessary. Based on this knowledge, management schemes maintaining the diversity of urban system
to be designed.

Interdisciplinary research involving natural and social sciences is imperative for a holistic approach

to integrating ecology into the process of urban planning.

 Migration, dispersal and extinction of species
 Habitats, environmental factors and resources
 Disturbance
 Colonization of open habitats
 Succession
 Biological interaction
 Species richness and diversity
 Complexity, stability and equilibrium
 Productivity
 Charts showing the relationships for the ecology in the city (left) and ecology of the city (right)

URBAN ECOLOGY can be viewed from three points:

(1) Ecology and evolution of living organisms residing in city boundaries;
(2) Biological, political, economic, and cultural ecology of humans in urban landscape;
(3) Cities resultant of the coupled relations of humans and natural processes.
The third view in which human and nature are observed as interacting forces shaping the
measurable patterns and processes should be followed by the field.
Human factors and natural systems with biotic and abiotic factors are coupled together since they
both drive and are affected by the patterns and processes they create,
A scheme of urban ecology showing the relationships between humans and natural drivers
which are influenced by the patterns and processes of abiotic and biotic drivers
Social And Economic Dimensions Of Sustainability
Defining social and economic dimensions needs cross‐and multidisciplinary studies and
ethical and political considerations

 Ethics/rules for the society/legislation/control mechanisms – the alternative is collapse of the society
 Legislation and rule of law to set targets for society vs individual rights –e.g.need or greed??
 Ethics for individuals should guide attitudes and behavior of the individual and a sense of
responsibility given through ethical education/religion/social values
 It is strongly argued that a prerequisite for a true sustainable development is the involvement, the
participation, from everyone in the society
 The concept of sustainability, social sustainability is neither an absolute nor a constant.
 Social sustainability has to be considered as a dynamic concept, which will change over time (from
year to year/decade to decade) in a place.
 This may come about through external influences: for example, social cohesion and interaction may
increase, prompted by changes in local authority service delivery or the threat of airport expansion.
 Economic, environmental and political crises at a local or broader scale may also influence social
activity at the local scale.
 Focusing on the contributory factors of urban social sustainability highlights scale as an important
issue.
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DIMENSIONS FOR TODAYS´ NEEDS
50 core indicators for sustainable development according to United Nations (social and economic
indicators in red) are agreed upon within the following necessary components of sustainable development
:
 •Poverty
 •Governance
 •Health
 •Education
 •Demographics
 •Natural hazards
 •Atmosphere
 •Land
 •Oceans, seas and coasts
 •Freshwater
 •Biodiversity
 •Economic development
 •Global economic partnership
 •Consumption and production patterns
Examples of non‐sustainable social and economic dimensions:
• Poverty
• High unemployment
• Low education
• Low quality health care systems
• Discrimination (ethnic, sex, age etc)
• Information and communication is restricted
• Criminality and violence
• Financial mismanagement
• Corruption
URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECTS
 URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECTS

The temperature of urban areas can be significantly higher than that of the surrounding rural areas. This fact is known
as the "Urban Heat Island" effect.

The Urban Heat Island Effect refers to the fact that cities can be up to 6-8º F hotter than the
surrounding rural areas
This usually happens because…
 Anthropogenic heat (Man-Made)
 Concrete can absorb a lot of heat
 Tall buildings increase overall surface area for heat absorption
 Urban Canyon effect
FACTORS WORK TO PROMOTE A HEAT ISLAND

 Concrete and man made surfaces

 Less water in the soil and environment
 Excess energy from buildings

Causes
EFFECTS OF UHI:
1. The extra heat from urban environments can cause extreme weather and climatic events such
as storms, hurricanes, and floods. Warmer air can hold more water and moisture, which
results in more precipitation.
2. For every 1°F warming, atmospheric water vapor increases 3-4%. Urban heat islands can cause
up to 15°F of warming, which can increase atmospheric water vapor by more than 50%!
 1. Every 1°C increase in air temperature, there is a 5-10% increase in electricity demand
this energy demand need more fossil fuels and more pollution.
2. Heat islands can exacerbate the health risk of heat waves during the summer,
difficulty in breathing in olds , heat craps, and heat strokes.
3. Impact on ecosystems, the atmosphere, and people.

MITIGATION
1. Building green roof/wall
2. Create more city parks
3. Covers roofs and roads with light colored materials to Increase the Albedo
4. Tree Plantation and Preservation
5. Plant Trees For Energy Efficiency GREEN ROOF/WALL

6. Low Impact Development Techniques

7. By increasing the Albedo, or solar reflectance (SR), of surfaces such as roofs, pavements,
and cars, the surfaces absorb less solar heat and thus transmit less heat back into the
environment.
This process, called "negative radioactive forcing," effectively cools the environment and
offsets substantial quantities of greenhouse CO2.
What Is an Urban Heat Island? Urban Heat Island- SUMMARY

• As urban areas develop, changes occur in their landscape. Buildings, roads, and other infrastructure
replace open land and vegetation. Surfaces that were once permeable and moist become impermeable
and dry. These changes cause urban regions to become warmer than their rural surroundings, forming
an "island" of higher temperatures in the landscape.

Where heat islands occur?

• Heat islands occur on the surface and in the atmosphere. On a hot, sunny summer day, the sun can heat

dry, exposed urban surfaces, such as roofs and pavement, to temperatures 50–90°F (27–50°C) hotter

than the air, while shaded or moist surfaces—often in more rural surroundings—remain close to air

temperatures. Surface urban heat islands are typically present day and night, but tend to be strongest

during the day when the sun is shining.

Atmospheric Heat Islands

• In contrast, atmospheric urban heat islands are often weak during the late morning and throughout the

day and become more pronounced after sunset due to the slow release of heat from urban

infrastructure. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F

(1–3°C) warmer than its surroundings. On a clear, calm night, however, the temperature difference can

be as much as 22°F (12°C).

Why Do We Care About Heat Islands?
• Heat islands can affect communities by increasing summertime peak energy demand, air conditioning costs, air
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, heat-related illness and mortality, and water quality.

High Energy Demand

• Increased energy consumption: Higher temperatures in summer increase energy demand for cooling and add pressure
to the electricity grid during peak periods of demand. One study estimates that the heat island effect is responsible for
5–10% of peak electricity demand for cooling buildings in cities.

Increased Emissions
• Elevated emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases: Increasing energy demand generally results in greater
emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Higher air temperatures also promote the
formation of ground-level ozone.

Quality of Life
• Compromised human health and comfort: Warmer days and nights, along with higher air pollution levels, can
contribute to general discomfort, respiratory difficulties, heat cramps and exhaustion, non-fatal heat stroke, and heat-
related mortality.

Water Quality
• Impaired water quality: Hot pavement and rooftop surfaces transfer their excess heat to stormwater, which then drains
into storm sewers and raises water temperatures as it is released into streams, rivers, ponds, and lakes. Rapid
temperature changes can be stressful to aquatic ecosystems.
What Can Be Done?
• Communities can take a number of steps to reduce the heat island effect, using four main strategies:

 Increasing tree and vegetative cover

 Creating green roofs (also called "rooftop gardens" or "eco-roofs")

 Using cool or green pavements

 Installing cool or reflective roofs

Green Rooftops
• A green roof is a roof of a building that is partially or completely covered with vegetation and soil, or a
growing medium, planted over a waterproofing membrane.

• The term "green roof" may also be used to indicate roofs that utilize some form of "green" technology,
such as solar panels or a photovoltaic module.

– Green roofs are also referred to as eco-roofs, vegetated roofs, living roofs, and greenroofs.
Advantages

 Economic Advantages
 Air Quality
 Water Quality
 Heat Dissipation
Cool Pavement

• The term refers to materials chosen to reduce pavement temperature by increasing pavement
reflectivity or controlling temperature by other means through choice of materials and engineering
design

Construction of Pervious Pavement

• Pervious pavements can be made of concrete, asphalt, open-celled stones, and gravel, that are mixed in
a manner that creates an open cell structure allowing water and air to pass through.

Advantages

• Because pervious pavements allow rainwater to seep into the ground through the pavement:
– Vegetation is watered, reducing
the need for irrigation
– Ground water is recharged
– Water resources are preserved
– Stormwater runoff is reduced
– Stormwater runoff quality is
improved
 SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES – CASE STUDIES

Sustainable community development is often referred to as ‘green development’, ‘green real

estate development’, ‘green communities’, or ‘sustainable built environments’, ‘sustainable
communities’, ‘sustainable real estate development’ and ‘healthy communities’.

 Successful holistic sustainable community development incorporates multiple features, described below,
to achieve the maximum social, economic and environmental benefit.
 The manner in which we develop and redevelop our communities can have significant and long ranging
impacts our economic competitiveness, social and environmental health.

A sustainable community is one that provides ample opportunity for sociability,

personal development, and community participation.

1. Ecological Protection 7. Affordable Housing

2. Density & Urban Design 8. Livable Community
3. Urban Infill 9. Sewage & Stormwater
4. Village Centres 10. . Water
5. Local Economy 11. . Energy
6. Sustainable Transport 12. . The 3 'R's
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES
 A community that can persist while meeting the needs of its members and the needs of
subsequent generations.
 Sustainable communities: formed to address the environmental, social, economic and spiritual
needs of the members.
 A community of homes built around sustainable principles:
 Clean Air And Water,
 Efficient Resource Use,
 Mimicking Natural Ecosystem Cycles,
 More Community And GOOD FOOD

Examples:
1903 - Letchworth, England. Garden City concept developed by Ebenezer Howard. Model for
sustainable communities in the US.
1920 - Welwyn Garden City, England. E. Howard.
1925 - Sunnyside, New York.
Radburn, New Jersey. Both developed by Regional Planning Association of
America, modeled after E. Howard communities.
DESIGNING SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

GENERAL PRINCIPLES:
1. Plan for sustainability from the beginning. Design for ecological principles
first.
2. Location: should be chosen for ecological stability. Often this is not possible.
3. All community development is site specific. A community can’t go too far in
the planning stage before a site is chosen.

COMMUNITY STRUCTURE:
 Size; population size and physical size
 Density of population desired
 Type of housing; individual or shared
 Diversity; who will be included
 Resource sharing
 Responsibility sharing
 Development of By-Laws
PROJECT STRUCTURE:
 Developer/owner
 One landowner with other homeowners
 Land owned collectively
 Leasing land
 Land held in trust
 All options have pros and cons. Must have support from town political
structure and financial institutions

RESOURCE USE:
 Air supply. As one of our most important resources, a location must be chosen with clean air
in mind. You usually cannot fix this on a neighborhood or community level if it is a problem.
 Water: a. Supply - there must be enough for the planned community.
b. Quality - a source of uncontaminated water must be available.
c. Flood Control - some system to manage water flow and drainage through
the community.
Possible solutions to water issues:
a. supply: install cisterns for rainwater collection, use water conservation methods,
use dual piping methods to utilize gray water when feasible, plant drought tolerant
plants rather then lawns.
b. quality: use no chemicals or fertilizers, use integrated pest management, choose a
location far from industry or conventional agriculture, develop artificial wetlands.
c. flood control: reduce pavement, develop artificial wetlands, install natural
drainage system.

3. Food supply and quality: achieved through decentralized organic food production.
Utilize a diversity of plants. Small household gardens are the most ecologically sound.
Food processing can be done efficiently in communities. Buy from local producers.
Enough land must be designated for agriculture to support the food needs of the
community at a sustainable level, whether it is in large areas or small plots.
(4) Shelter: needed for protection from weather and sense of security.
*providing a mix of housing types is best - large, small, rental, own.
*develop ways to be inclusive - labor as down payment, build your own.
*creative financing is often necessary
- HUD, USDA Rural Development, small local banks
*use green design whenever possible

(5) Energy:
*conserve whenever possible.
*use alternative sources - solar (passive and active), wind, biomass, small-scale
hydroelectric, geothermal, fuel cells.
*Structure for low energy usage - most important. Make pedestrian and bicycle traffic
convenient, minimize automobile use, locate near public transportation or incorporate
it into your plan, locate near services and schools or incorporate into your plan.
(6) Other resources: Incorporate into your plan mechanisms to reduce resource use.
Reduce, reuse, recycle.

AESTHETICS:
In order to be sustainable, a community must be pleasing for the residents who live there.
Recreational facilities should be provided for the enjoyment of the members.
Gathering places are essential.

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION:
Community members must feel like their voice is heard.
Some system for consensus building must be utilized.
Case study : VILLAGE HOMES

 1972, Davis, California. Developed by Michael and Judy Corbett, Garden village
concept.
 60 Acres, 242 units (apts & houses), 650 people. 16% low income, labor can be
down payment.
 Community base.
 Agricultural land throughout with organic orchards, vineyards and gardens.
Greenbelts connect all. Can go to center without crossing streets.
 Green buildings, south orientation.
 Passive and active solar.
 Natural drainage system.
 Cul-de-sacs with narrow streets.
 Common spaces for neighbor interaction.
 Parks and swimming pool
Case Study: in detail
VILLAGE HOMES, DAVIS, CALIFORNIA
When Village Homes was built in the 1970s, the local realtors refused to show anyone round the 70 acre, 240 home
development because they didn’t think anyone would want to live there. There were no front roads, no storm drains, and
the houses all faced the same way - for solar gain. Today, it is one of the most sought-after subdivisions in Davis, and
Coldwell Banker Residential identified Village Homes as "Davis’s most desirable subdivision". The crime rate is 10th that of
Davis as whole, and in 1995 the homes sold for 13% more than the equivalent-sized homes in a traditional post WWII
subdivision located across the road.
Design Features
· ECOLOGICAL PROTECTION: 12 acres of greenbelt & open space; 12 acres of common agricultural land.
· DENSITY & URBAN DESIGN: A whole-systems approach to design. The houses are clustered into groups of 8 and are
surrounded by common space. The early residents were responsible for the landscaping and design of the green space in
front of their housing clusters. 25% of the acreage is open space (agricultural and recreational).
· LOCAL ECONOMY: 4000 square feet of commercial office space. Thanks to the agricultural space, by 1989, much of
the Village Homes residents’ food was being grown in the neighbourhood. The agricultural areas include commercial fruit
and nut orchards, a commercial organic produce farm, home-scale garden plots and edible landscaping along pathways and
roads.
· TRANSPORTATION: Vehicle access is by the back lanes only, with pedestrian lanes for walking and cycling. The "front
streets" are designed by the residents as grassy areas, gardens with shrubs, etc. Pedestrian paths and traffic calming designs
with narrow streets encourage a strong sense of community and high property values. The compact design encourages
residents to walk rather than drive for their daily needs. The grocery store is 10’ walk away, and the largest employer - the
university - is nearby.
· AFFORDABLE HOUSING:
A ‘sweat equity’ programme allowed several low-income construction workers to buy homes, and
some apartment units are part of the development project as well.
· LIVABLE COMMUNITIES:
The local Homeowners Association owns and manages the household commons, greenbelt commons,
agricultural lands and the community center, and handles the revenues from office space and some
rental units. There are frequent community events, and 80% of the residents participate in community
activities.
· Community barbecue pits encourage spontaneous evening gatherings. The turnover rate is very
low, with most residents preferring to remodel and add on, rather than move to a larger home.
· SEWAGE & STORMWATER:
The narrower streets produce less stormwater run-off, which is handled by simple infiltration swales
and on-site detention basins instead of storm drains, saving nearly $200,000 (1980 dollars). These
savings were invested into public parks, walkways, gardens and other amenities.
· ENERGY:
All the houses are passive solar designed, with natural cooling and solar hot water. The overall design,
with reduced pavement and more space for trees, lowers ambient air temperature and reduces the
need for air-conditioning. Annual household bills are 1/2 to 1/3rd less than those of surrounding
neighbourhoods, because of the locally grown food and the energy savings.
Barriers/Successes:
When Village Homes went through the planning process in the 1970s, the plans were opposed by the
planning staff, the public works department and the Federal Housing Authority (FHA). The police had
concerns about patrolling the narrower streets, and the fire officials worried about maneuvering their fire
trucks. The FHA questioned the inclusion of agricultural uses, fearing that it would reduce property values.
The engineers opposed the natural drainage system, saying that it wouldn’t work, and would harbor
"vermin". In order to get approval, Michael Corbett, the developer, had to put up a bond to pay for
retrofitting with storm sewers in case the system failed. Soon after, Davis was hit with a 100-year storm,
when the Village Homes system worked fine, and also handled some of the run-off from the neighbouring
subdivisions, whose storm sewers failed.
In normal circumstances, the opposition from multiple organizations would have killed the project, and
Village Homes would never have been built. At the time, however, three of Davis’s City Council Members
were environmental activists who were willing to read Corbett’s point-by-point rebuttal of the objections,
made up their own minds and approved the project against the advice of their staff. Obtaining the financing
was also a problem. The banks turned him down because he had no track record as a developer, and they
didn’t approve of the project’s many innovative features. Corbett eventually obtained infrastructure
financing for the first 10 acres, was able to buy the land over a 5-year period, and raised $120,000 from 13
investors, who realized a 30% return on their money.
Case Study:
Southeast False Creek,
Vancouver, British Columbia
Project History
In the mid 1990s, in response to regional concerns of air quality and goals of densification and family housing in the
downtown, Vancouver City Council gave instructions to its Planning Department and Real Estate Services to begin planning
a model sustainable urban neighbourhood with a focus on housing for families for an 80 acre site in the downtown, along
False Creek. (between Cambie and Main Streets, north of West 2nd Avenue.) The City owns over half (45 acres) of this site.
The planning began with economic feasibility studies in 1996. Development planning began in 1997, using a three step
process: Developing a Policy Statement, creating an Official Development Plan, and Rezoning the development parcels.
Following these stages, development can begin as the market allows

The SEFC Policy Statement was adopted by City Council in October 1999, following over two years of planning work,
including the widest public involvement process ever undertaken for the Policy Statement stage of any single development
in the city. The Official Development Plan (ODP), which will locate buildings, streets, parks, etc... and ensure the intent and
targets set in the Policy Statement will be met, will take about 1 ½ years to complete, and will ultimately be adopted by City
Council as a bylaw, giving it legal status. The third and final step in the planning process is the rezoning of the site, into
development parcels, with legal rights and responsibilities, permitted land uses, densities, and form of development
guidelines attached to each parcel. These parcels can be then sold for development. The zoning and associated guidelines
will ensure it is built as planned.
Following consultant studies and much public consultation, the city settled on an approach to sustainability which noted
that to be classified as "sustainable", at the neighbourhood scale, SEFC needed to make a significant contribution to the
larger goals of global sustainability, as summarized below.
· Promote healthy social community;
· Promote a stable, diverse site & context economy, which assists all in meeting their needs;
· Reduce the consumption of non-renewable energy and resources;
· Reduce the production of waste and pollution; and
· Enhance the health of the environment, both locally and globally.
The Policy Statement outlines a vision and detailed policies to achieve one of the first complete, "high-density", sustainable,
urban neighbourhoods ever planned.

Design Features
ECOLOGICAL PROTECTION:
High density will help preserve farmland and natural areas in the region. Waterfront and parks areas will have designed
habitat areas. Surface water management will increase biodiversity and livability. Contaminated soils will be entombed
and/or treated over time to help clean groundwater. Native plants and non-native plants used in landscape which support
native species of insects, birds and other wildlife.
DENSITY & URBAN DESIGN: High density design, celebrating magnificent views, providing for extensive open space areas.
Street wall podiums with a high degree of pedestrian permeability will make it urban but livable. Some small development
parcels will allow smaller development groups to try innovative housing forms, such as cohousing. Live/work promoted.
Solar access preserved throughout.
URBAN INFILL: Reuse and rehabilitation of derelict and contaminated industrial land in the downtown, to provide a
diversity of high density housing close to the downtown job base. Existing clean industry will be encouraged to stay.
TOWN/VILLAGE CENTRE: Commercial areas will be provided, allowing retail, commercial, office and clean industry
(high tech) throughout the neighbourhood, providing some "centres" as well as linear links to the surrounding
neighbourhoods. All such uses will be linked closely with transit.
LOCAL ECONOMY: A wide range of commercial and employment opportunities will be offered, including low,
medium and high income jobs, to reflect the housing mix. Mixed use zoning will be employed throughout.
Jobs/housing mix analysis includes employment base offered in downtown as part of larger strategy.
Environmentally and socially responsible business practices promoted. Full cost accounting methodology to be
created to understand long term economic analysis of development.
TRANSPORTATION: Fine-grained network of pedestrian and bicycle paths throughout, connecting to nearby
neighbourhoods and shopping/employment areas, particularly the downtown. Public transit includes bus, streetcar
and elevated rapid transit all provided on or immediately adjacent the site. All residences within a 400m distance of
a transit stop, most much closer. Narrow streets, with extensive traffic calming measures. A reduced parking
requirement. Extensive live/work development promoted.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Housing will be provided for between 4,500 - 7,500 people. 20% of total housing capacity
reserved for (publicly funded) social housing. Some small development parcels to allow smaller developers / co-ops
to build. 35% of the market housing to meet guidelines for housing families at high-density. Aging-in-place oriented
design encouraged.
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES: Full community facilities planned, including community centre, public art, outdoor recreation and
performance areas, a neighbourhood office, a demonstration garden, waterfront boating facilities, and probably a school.
Heritage conservation of many buildings on site, and heritage qualities to be enhanced through public art and landscape
design throughout. A major park (over 26 acres) will be provided to offer a full range of recreational opportunities. The park
will also offer areas of urban forest, native species habitat, surface water management systems, and a significant
component of community gardens.
SEWAGE & STORMWATER: Surface water management system to be employed, including cleaning road runoff. Alternative
sewage management systems promoted, including composting toilets.
WATER: Low flow fixtures required throughout. Rainwater harvesting from building roofs used for irrigation. No/low
irrigation landscape design. Surface water management landscape plan. Education for residents. Possibly water metering at
the unit. Goal is up to 50% reduction in per capita water use.
ENERGY: 80% of energy to be from renewable sources (including hydroelectric). Alternative, renewable and district energy
systems promoted, including ground source and solar. Green building strategy to be created and implemented. Low-energy
maintenance landscape design. Goal of 40% per capita reduction in green house gas emissions. Air quality strategy created
and implemented for neighbourhood.
THE 3 'R'S: Full recycling systems in every residential and commercial unit. Industrial ecology waste recycling system
promoted. Goal of 80% of demolition waste diverted from landfills to recycling depots. Landscape waste composted on or
near site. Residential composting systems and education. Green building strategy, including recycled materials.
BARRIERS: Existing government regulations and policies, including the Building Code, that prohibit innovative work. Added
legal liability for innovative on-site systems is a barrier. Financing ‘green’ buildings has proven to be difficult.
 Case study :
ABUNDANCE ECOVILLAGE

 2000, Fairfield, Iowa. Modeled after Village Homes. Founded by Lawrence

Gamble and Mark Olson.
 15 Acres, 21 single family, 3 - 3 family; common buildings.
 Agricultural base with 4000 square foot greenhouse.
 Solar and wind as energy source.
 Rain catchment and water recycling.

EARTHAVEN ECOVILLAGE

 1991, Black Mountain, North Carolina. Founded by Geoph Kozeny.

 325 Acres, 60 people hoping to grow to 150. Eventually 11 neighborhoods around a
central core.
 Spiritual base.
 Agriculture essential, with permaculture design,
managed by Imani Farm. Forest management.
 Educational Center.
ECO VILLAGE

 1992, Ithaca, New York. Founded by Joan Bokaer and Liz Walker.
 175 Acres, 60 homes, 150 people. 2 neighborhoods built.
 Community base with agriculture component essential. 80% greenspace, 55A in
permanent conservation easement, 10 A organic farm run as CSA.
 Education on sustainability primary concern.

THE FARM

 1971, Summertown, Tennessee. Founded by Stephen

Gaskin with many friends from California.
 Over 800 Acres, 250 people.
 Spiritual base. “We are all one.”
 Agricultural base. Organic farming with sustainable
practices.
 FINDHORN ECOVILLAGE

 1962, Moray, Scotland.

 45 buildings, 300 people. Many community buildings and spaces.
 Agricultural base. 15A CSA “Earthshare” provides 70% of fresh food
for community. Meat, etc, provided by 95A farm nearby.
 Green buildings and systems. 15% electricity from wind. “Living
Machine” waste treatment.
 Many community businesses.

SIRIUS COMMUNITY

 1980, Shutesbury, Massachusetts.

 Spiritual base.
 Agricultural base. Organic farming with sustainable
practices.
 Education an important component.
 Sustainable Communities-
These are places that offer the positive environments needed to ensure that all residents of varied income levels
are provided the opportunities and tools to build assets, to participate in their communities, and to become part
of the mainstream economy. They are, in effect, the embodiment of both "community" and "development" —
places where human opportunity and social and economic vitality combine with a continuous process of growth,
adaptation, and improvement.

CONCLUSION:
 Sustainable community development requires new ways of thinking about the interrelationship
between economy, environment and community and new ways of examining the full costs and
benefits of alternatives to conventional approaches to development.
 There are many barriers to the implementation of sustainable communities that cut across the twelve
major features described above.
 The benefits of implementing sustainable communities can be significant in both the short and long
term – for developers, residents and society in general.
 This framework should help those who are working to implement sustainable community
development projects by bringing a more holistic approach to these developments .