s13-d_3_final

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/s13-d3final 1/84

The International Journal of

Sustainability Policy

and Practice

ONSUSTAINABILITY.COM

VOLUME 9 ISSUE 3

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final


The International Journal of

Sustainability Policy and Practice…………………………………

The Sustainabil ity Collection

VOLUME 9 ISSUE 3

APRIL 2014

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final


THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABILITY POLICY AND PRACTICE

www.onsustainability.com

First published in 2014 in Champaign, Illinois, USA

by Common Ground Publishing LLC www.commongroundpublishing.com

ISSN 2325-1166

© 2014 (individual papers), the author(s)

© 2014 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground

All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes

of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may be

reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact

[email protected].

Journal Titleis peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion-

referenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance

and highest significance is published.

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final


EDITOR

…………………………………

Amareswar Galla, International Institute for the Inclusive Museum; ICOM Cross Cultural Task Force,

Paris, Chicago, Sydney, and Hyderbad

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

…………………………………

Dang Van Bai, Ministry of Culture and Information, Vietnam

Michael Cameron, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

Richard M. Clugston, University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, Washington, D.C., USA

John Dryzek, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

Robyn Eckersley, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Steven Engelsman, Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde, Leiden, The Netherlands

John Fien, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

Suzanne Grant, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

Steve Hamnett, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia

Charles Hopkins, UNESCO Chair, Reorienting Teacher Education to Address Sustainability, York

University, Toronto, Canada

David Humphreys, The Open University, UK

Paul James, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

Lily Kong, National University of Singapore, Singapore

Jim McAllister, Central Queensland University, Rockhamptom, Australia

Helena Norberg-Hodge, The International Society for Ecology and Culture (ISEC), United Kingdom

Peter Phipps, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia Behzad Sodagar, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, United Kingdom

Judy Spokes, Cultural Development Network, Melbourne, Australia

Manfred Steger, Illinois State University, Normal, USA; RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

Spencer S. Stober, Alvernia University, USA

Douglas Worts, LEAD Fellow (Leadership for Environment and Development), Toronto, Canada

David Wood, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada

Lyuba Zarsky, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia; Tufts University, Medford, USA

David Wood, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada

Lyuba Zarsky, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia; Tufts University, Medford, USA

ASSOCIATE EDITORS

…………………………………

David Rylander

Matthew Lunde

Patricia Hanney

Julia Mirsky

Murugesh Arunachalam

Cat Goughnour

Nerisa PaladanNicole Spiegelaar

Debora Scarpato

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final


7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final


Scope and Concerns…………………………………

Our times call for interdisciplinary and holistic approaches to the relation of humans with the

environment. As the challenges to our human and planetary existence become less capable of being addressed by purely personal, corporate, local or short term solutions, so too, narrowness

of thinking will no longer suffice. Of course, we should continue to pursue careful, finelygrained, locally nuanced and deeply grounded knowledge and social practices of sustainability.Such perspectives are, if anything, more critical than ever. But increasingly these need also to besituated in the context of longer, broader and deeper views.

FOUR FUNDAMENTALS

………………………………… Four foundations – four fundamentals – constitute a fourfold ‘bottom line’ for sustainability.

Environment: Nature is a dynamic thing in and of itself, and sometimes convulsively so.

Humans are its beneficiaries and at times its victims. They are also increasingly agents,interacting in and with natural processes. Over several millennia, the human species has becomeone of the forces of nature, a critical part of its destiny, and ever more so today and tomorrow.Perhaps even, the human species may be a catalyst in another convulsion in the course of naturalhistory. As nature more and more becomes an object of human artifice, its prospects move to theforefront of human consciousness. ‘What have we done with nature?’ we may well ask ourselves.What have been the forms and effects of our interventions? What are the implications of ournewfound species-role as a force of nature, and what the responsibilities that accompany thisrole? How can we create a viable home for ourselves alongside the other lifeforms of the planet?

Culture: this is the stuff of our human natures, our subjectivities, our shared meanings and our

memories. Culture is the glue of similarity (‘identity’, literally) that grounds our sociability. It isalso a matter of difference or cultures in the plural, the multilayered combinations of whichforms persons in the plural: ways of seeing, ways of thinking, ways of meaning, ways of relatingto each other, ways of connecting with nature. The challenge of culture is as much to forge a

productive diversity for the human species (ethnos, gender, ecosystemics) as it is to nurture thesources of cohesion and commonality.

Economy: Here we consider the dynamics of our material life, where in our social relations and

using our tools we mix our energies with the natural world to meet our human needs. Thechallenge is to create economic systems which are environmentally viable, not destroying ordamaging our life sources as natural beings. Such systems also need to be culturally viable, not

harming our identities and ultimately what is humane in our natures. And they need to be sociallyviable, not creating destructive tensions and unsustainable injustices around axes of inequality ofaccess to material and social resources.

Society: To these perspectives we need to add our systems of regulation, governance andresource distribution. What allows for all our participation as autonomous yet social beings?What makes for good citizenship? How do we create, manage and propagate knowledge? Howdo we ensure justice? How do we integrate the four fundamentals of environment, culture,

economy and society so we can address our human futures and live to the full our human potentials?

This knowledge community attempts to locate what is experienced here and now in the contextof longer, broader and deeper views of the four fundamentals of sustainability.

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final


LONGER VIEWS

…………………………………

On a length dimension, we may wish to question the now-ness of our interests and actions:organizations which measure performance in solely in terms financial years; consumers who

measure wellbeing in terms of instant gratification; and communities which compromise future

generations by satisfying their wants in the present. Of course, we need to live in the here andnow, but that living is limited if it is purely for the here and the now and so prejudicesenvironment, culture, economy or society in the longer view.

BROADER VIEWS

…………………………………

On a breadth dimension, we may need to question the here-ness of our interests and actions:acting locally without thinking globally; living personally without knowing politically; living inour cultures but sensitive to the diversity of others; operating to narrow economic or social goalswithout taking into account their ecosystemic sources and effects.

DEEPER VIEWS

…………………………………

On a depth dimension, we may question the this-ness of our interests: what we feel in oureveryday lifeworlds in relation to deep and less immediately tangible social, economic andecological structures; our individual and corporate motivations in relation to human and

ecological values; monetary value in relation to human value; the hidden hand of personal self-interest as opposed to the conscious hand of good governance, responsible citizenship and thevalues of caring for nature and each other.

This knowledge community provides a forum for discussion of the connections betweenenvironment, culture, economy and society. The perspectives presented range from big pictureanalyses which address global and universal concerns, to detailed case studies which speak oflocalized applications of the principles and practices of sustainability. Conference presentationsand publications traverse a broad terrain, sometimes technically and other times socially oriented,sometimes theoretical and other times practical in their perspective, and sometimes reflecting

dispassionate analysis whilst at other times suggesting interested strategies for action.

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final


The International Journal of Sustainability Policy and Practice

Volume 9, 2014, www.onsustainability.com, ISSN 2325-1166

© Common Ground, Authors, All Rights Reserved

Permissions:[email protected]

Table of Contents

Social Sustainability: Participant-led Dialogue as a Basis for the Development of a

Conceptual Framework for Energy Infrastructure Decisions ................................... 1

John Whitton, Ioan Parry, and Joseph Howe

Sustainable Development: Alternative Market Models for Practical

Implementation ......................................................................................................... 15

Călin Gurău and Agnès Le Bellac

Evaluating the Sustainability of Roadway Redevelopment: Lessons Learned from

Marcellus Shale Drilling ........................................................................................... 31

Michelle Oswald Beiler and Victoria Caudullo

Utopian Ideas about Sustainability? The Case of Chemical Management in the EU................................................................................................................................... 47

Oksana Udovyk and Johan Hedren

The Study of Food Environments as a Strategy of Social Sustainability in the

Mexican Northeast .................................................................................................... 57

Ana Elisa Castro-Sánchez, Carlos Estuardo Aparicio-Moreno, and Esteban Gilberto

Ramos-Peña

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final


7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final


Social Sustainability: Participant-led Dialogue as a

Basis for the Development of a Conceptual

Framework for Energy Infrastructure Decisions

John Whitton, University of Central Lancashire, U.K.Ioan Parry, University of Central Lancashire, U.K.Joseph Howe, University of Central Lancashire, U.K.

The concept of social sustainability is discussed in a wide range of literatures with varying emphases; relating to multiple

disciplines such as urban planning, international development and accountancy. Authors agree that a notion of social

sustainability is difficult to define and comprises numerous component parts or criteria, such as community cohesion,

human wellbeing, effective dialogue and the access that individuals and communities have to those that make important

decisions on their behalf. The definition and measurement of these criteria and the role of social sustainability in decision

making is a contentious issue (the holistic versus reductionist debate). We outline our journey towards a conceptual

framework for social sustainability and how our earlier research on the role of dialogue during engagement on energy

infrastructure development has led us to propose a conceptual framework for the inclusion of social sustainability

criteria in decision making within a range of settings.

Keywords: Social Sustainability, Energy infrastructure, Dialogue, Decision making, Criteria

Introduction

nterest in social sustainability as a research topic has grown considerably since itsacknowledgement at the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 andthe proceeding ‘Brundtland’ report (WCED, 1987). With a greater focus on social

sustainability research in recent years (Colantonio, 2007, 2009; Dillard, Dujon and King, 2009;

Vallance, Perkins and Dixon, 2011), academics and authors have sought to understand socialsustainability and its critical components. In this paper, we reflect on our research journeytowards a conceptual framework for social sustainability. We describe how our earlier researchon the role of dialogue during decision making for large scale energy infrastructure projects inthe UK has led us to propose a conceptual framework for the inclusion of social sustainabilitycriteria in decision making within a range of settings.

The decisions made regarding the management of new and aging energy infrastructure are of

local, national and international importance. We embrace the move towards a participatory basedform of dialogue in decisions rather than a technocratic ‘top down’, expert-led, ‘one-way’ formof consultation. In this approach, dialogue is not only ‘two-way’, but multi-directional anddimensional, incorporating multiple stakeholders (Innes and Booher, 2004). This shift in the

nature of the energy stakeholder-industry relationship in the UK has been documented byWhitton (2009, 2010). Improved dialogue between industry and stakeholders can significantlyimpact upon the quality of decision-making (Webler, Tuler and Krueger, 2001), demonstrating amore democratic decision-making process; the literature supports democracy in governance andsociety, to be a key theme of social sustainability (Magis and Shinn, 2009).

The current research builds upon previous work by Whitton (2009, 2011), Lawless andWhitton (2008), and also an unpublished thesis by Parry (2011), detailing public perceptions ofenergy industry-stakeholder engagement.

I


Volume 9, 2014, onsustainability.com, ISSN: 2325-1166

© Common Ground, John Whitton, Ioan Mihangel Parry, Joseph M. Howe,

All Rights Reserved. Permissions: [email protected]

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final


7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final


WHITTON, ET AL.: SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY

the Netherlands (Cuppen et al., 2010), as for any large development with significantenvironmental impacts:

“…in order to deal with complex environmental issues, structured stakeholder dialoguesare needed that map out and articulate the various perspectives – values, interests,

knowledge claims and underlying assumptions – that exist with regard to the issue” (p.579).

However, appropriate public engagement and stakeholder dialogue remains to be a persistentissue for some energy infrastructure developments. For example, Evans, Parks and Theobold’s(2011) UK study, of proposals by supermarket chain ASDA for the construction of wind turbinesin semi-rural areas, highlighted an inadequate ‘business-as-usual’ approach to engagement. Thisincluded presumptions made in regards to public perceptions of Renewable Energy Technology

(RET) developments. Whitton (2009, 2011) and Lawless and Whitton (2008) have criticallyanalysed the nature and effectiveness of stakeholder dialogue during nuclear decommissioning,focusing on the perception of stakeholders regarding the nature of the dialogue used to engage

them and their perceived influence on decision-making.

Participation and Stakeholders

Above, we have made the basis of our approach clear; public participation and dialogue isessential to any notion of social sustainability. But who is this public and who can we describe as

a stakeholder in any decision either made by or on behalf of a community when seeking socialsustainability? For the purpose of theorizing a social sustainability conceptual framework, thisconsideration is essential. The most common definitions of the term ‘stakeholder’ view these asany group or individual that can affect or is affected by a proposal, project or decision. Thisdefinition is broad and does not aim to categorize or understand any requirements that

stakeholders may have. As Aaltonen et al (2008) discuss, stakeholder theory provides a solidstarting point for identifying, classifying and categorizing stakeholders and understanding their

behaviour in order to better manage them. Research usually adopts the perspectives of theorganisation convening the engagement process rather than the participants, to describe andanalyse the different stakeholder management strategies adopted. We adopt an alternativedefinition of the term stakeholder presented by Mitchell et al. (1997) referring to those

individuals whose claims are perceived to be more salient in terms of power, legitimacy andurgency.

Accepting the definition, how this ‘power, legitimacy and urgency’ is translated to decisionmakers through engagement practice is important if engagement is to be considered a worthwhileexercise. Previous work has reviewed the move in the UK towards open and accessible

stakeholder dialogue and references recent work carried out with participants of the engagement process associated with the decommissioning of UK nuclear power station sites (Whitton, 2011).This highlighted the shift towards attempts at deliberative dialogue during engagement and

provided a definition of deliberation based on the literature. The paper also highlighted the roleof stakeholder influence (power) on decision making and relates this to the concept of fairness.Deliberation, influence and fairness are proposed as emerging themes in stakeholder theory andcontribute towards a conceptual framework for social sustainability, discussed further below.

Dialogue

Whitton (2010) worked with community participants between 2007 and 2010 at a biannual UK

wide gathering of stakeholders for the decommissioning of UK nuclear sites, as a representativesample to generate research data on their perceptions of the process of dialogue. Twoquestionnaires were issued, 18 months apart, and the data received allowed the author to gain

3

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



insight into individuals’ perceptions of the type of dialogue used to engage them and their perceived influence on decision making.

The action orientated approach of diagnostic research, reflection, data gathering followed byfurther reflection and the author’s positionality as a member of the group provided the

opportunity to present the findings back to participants. This was to meet the emancipator aims

of raising awareness amongst participants regarding their role, the nature of the dialogue used toengage them and their perceived influence on decision making.

Political theorists and social scientists have traditionally argued that concepts related to public acceptance (e.g. fairness) are of greatest importance regarding participation in policysetting, while those arguing from an economic and scientific perspective have argued that thequality of the decision and process is more important (and often, that lay persons, lackingknowledge, should have little role to play in technical/scientific policy making) (Rowe andFrewer, 2000). When discussing highly technical projects, the argument regarding the need forquality decisions, based on the best technical data available is hardly surprising. However, thistechnocratic approach to decision making has failed in the past when decisions made have been

subjected to public scrutiny (Whitton, 2010). In this paper, we argue the approach is not socially

sustainable where there is a clear public interest. The option based on the pinnacle of technicalexcellence may not be acceptable to the wider public or appropriate in a community setting.

According to Habermas (1970, 1987) in his Theory of Communicative Action, good participation is seen as both fair and competent. But how does this fairness and competencetranslate to a conceptual framework of social sustainability? Beierle (2002), states that fairness isachieved by broad representation and equalization of participants’ power, whilst competenceoften involves the use of scientific information and technical analysis to settle factual claims.Other authors have disputed this equalization of participants’ power as an ideal not alwaysrepresented in deliberative practice. Stokkom (2005) emphasises that deliberative processes toinform policy do not always meet equality and rationality ideals. Behind the ideal of rationaldialogue between equal participants the author finds an interplay of power and emotion dynamics

that can aid or impede deliberation.Any attempts towards the control of participants by a convening organization, or between

participants themselves, would appear to work against those ideals of fairness and the discursivevalidity of the freedom to participate and influence decisions, proposed by Habermas. The authorstresses the need for greater levels of participation in all areas of life where important publicdecisions are made, but White (1980) highlights that Habermas provides us with littleinformation on what type of institutional forms are appropriate for this purpose. Habermas doesnot propose democratic institutional control by its citizens, but rather that the principle of

participation should act as a burden of proof on the convening organization to demonstrate whythere could not be greater participation in decisions which affect citizens and communities. Ashighlighted previously with reference to Rowe and Frewer (2000), the concept of fairness also

relates to the public acceptance of a particular process of participation.The research carried out by Whitton (2010) concentrates on the dialogue used to engage

participants and a concept of fairness, by empowering stakeholders not just to consider whether ameeting or process has been a ‘success’, but also to consider their role in the dialogue processand how they perceive their influence on the decisions made. Influence through deliberation isconsidered by the author to add to this concept of fairness. By moving away from technocraticdecision making towards a deliberative model of engagement informed by technical specialists,stakeholders can realize a level of influence through fair and socially sustainable dialogue. Thisis discussed in terms of the links between the engagement process and the decisions made. Wealso recognise, citing Reed (2008), that the structure of the convening institution and its ability toinstitutionalize stakeholder engagement as a method to influence strategy is also fundamental to

successful engagement and understanding the current approach adopted.

4

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Parry (2011) carried out research on the island of Anglesey, North Wales to investigate local public opinion and perceptions of risk towards nuclear energy infrastructure. Data was gatheredfrom questionnaires distributed by hand to three different social groups; farmers, the general

public, and students aged 16-17. Responses were recorded using a five point Likert scale. Among

the topics covered by the questionnaire were appropriate levels of dialogue and participation. The

results recorded that a significant majority of all three social groups perceived the amount ofdialogue that had taken place was insufficient. Regarding public participation during decision-making, farmers demonstrated significant uncertainty and disagreement towards the sufficiencyof current participation levels. Both students and the general public demonstrated lessdisagreement than farmers, but considerable uncertainty about the appropriateness of currentlevels of public in nuclear infrastructure decision making. In the context of dialogue and

participation as components of social sustainability, the findings are profound. Should wehighlight various social and stakeholder groups within a community, with the potential fornumerous social sustainability pathways existing within a locality?

The degree of importance of dialogue and participation to those questioned could not be

deduced from the results of the above study. However, participant responses suggest that, in

regards to dialogue and participation for energy developments and decision-making, significantwork is required (and perhaps a change in emphasis regarding the role of the community) toestablish a basis for a socially sustainable approach.

The literature highlights a community-led desire to become more involved in decision-making processes, particularly regarding large-scale developments which can potentially impactupon the social, environmental and economic fabric of society (Bronfman et al., 2012; Doukas etal., 2011; Glasson, 2005; Rogers et al., 2008; Shamsuzzoha et al., 2012). Continuing at thecurrent level of community participation in decision-making may negatively impact upon thesocial sustainability of local communities, such as Anglesey, if decisions are made without thosewhom they impact upon most greatly, or without their tangible influence.

We agree with Reed (2008), concluding that many of the limitations experienced in

participatory processes have their roots in the organisational cultures of those who sponsor or participate in them. For example, non-negotiable positions, or as was evident in our previousresearch lack of clarity regarding the influence of participants may simply be the result of pre-determined positions decided at higher levels within the organisation prior to participation in the

process that representatives do not feel able to negotiate. The conceptual framework proposed below would represent a radical shift in the organisational culture of government agencies andother institutions. Clearly, access to and how citizens engage with institutions and decisionmakers is an important aspect of social sustainability.

Conceptual Framework and Criteria

The need for a conceptual framework to improve understanding of what social sustainabilityinvolves and requires has been acknowledged for some time. Lake and Hanson (2000) emphasizethis, whilst promoting urban sustainability:

“Given the conceptual vacuity burdening much of the debate, the question is notwhether sustainability can be resuscitated conceptually but what conceptual frameworkoffers the greatest promise of constructive understanding. Given the term's co-optation

by interests across the political spectrum, the question is not whether sustainability can be achieved but what must be achieved to assure sustainability?” (p. 2).

Previous conceptual frameworks for social sustainability include Yitfachel and Hedgcock (1993)

for urban social sustainability and Jones and Tonts (1995) for rural social sustainability, the latter being an adaptation of the former. These present urban and rural sustainability as beinginfluenced by social, environmental and economic components, in simple diagrams where these

5

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



relationships are one-way, feeding into the urban or rural sustainability systems, with no self-reinforcing relationships identified, as proposed by Cuthill (2010). The factors contributing to thesocial component of both frameworks are identified as equity, community, and urbanality(Yitfachel and Hedgcock, 1993) or rurality (Jones and Tonts, 1995), equity being the only

component which remains common in modern social sustainability criteria. This not only

demonstrates the how the understanding of key social sustainability components in the literaturehas progressed over the past two decades but also the lack of progression over the same period indeveloping an appropriate conceptual framework for social sustainability.

Cuthill (2010) demonstrates a recent attempt to improve understanding of the socialsustainability concept; employing an action research approach based on rapid urban growth inSouth Eastern Queensland, Australia. Cuthill provides a framework employing theoretical,operational, ethical and methodological components deemed essential to regional socialsustainability; social capital, social infrastructure, social justice and engaged governancerespectively. Cuthill describes these components as having an “interdependent and self-reinforcing relationship” (p.366), as does the social sustainability dimension have with

environmental and economic sustainability dimensions, albeit more indirectly.

Our conceptual framework does not aim to contend this regional framework, as our approachaims to be community led. Rather, the regional conceptual framework, which provides afoundation from which to build upon, will inform our proposed components of socialsustainability. This links to a wider discussion regarding social sustainability at the communitylevel. At what scale should social sustainability be considered: stakeholder, group, community?Responses from the various social groups in our research (farmers, schools) have clearlyrecorded different priorities. If there are significant priority disparities between social groups,how does this impact upon achieving or working towards social sustainability withincommunities? Practically, can all social groups be involved decision-making, and indeed shouldthey be? Does sustainable decision-making require full community participation?

It would seem an obvious point; social groups have different priorities. This has not been

acknowledged sufficiently in the literature on social sustainability. The literature does notconsider social sustainability from the perspective of different social groups and the various

pathways to social sustainability which may exist within a community. However, differences between communities, described as “area specific and ‘hidden’ conditions” (Turcu, 2012: 18),and issues of “local accuracy” and greater incorporation of “local values and priorities” (ibid : 19)during sustainability indicator development, have been highlighted (Reed and Dougill, 2002;Turcu, 2012). As Turcu (2012: 20) states, indicators are only appropriate when they are flexible,“accounting for local priorities and needs”, and that there exists “multiple pathways to urbansustainability, as areas and communities have different circumstances and priorities” ( ibid: 19). Itis with this consideration that we aim to construct a conceptual framework, not only identifying

potential criteria and drivers of social sustainability, but also identifying the numerous

stakeholder groups within a community and the alternative pathways to social sustainable thatmay exist for these groups (Fig. 1). This reflects a ‘community-led’ approach, embracing thediffering needs of various stakeholders or groups within a community.

6

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for Establishing Community-level Social Sustainability Criteriafor Decision Making

Social sustainability criteria proposed here for consideration within the conceptualframework (Table 1) are based on a review of the academic literature (e.g. Colantonio, 2007,2009; Cuthill, 2010; Dempsey et al., 2011; Omann and Spangenberg, 2002). Criteria arequantitative and qualitative. Interestingly, we have noted during our research that criteria vary

when comparing criteria in the academic literature with those included in governmental andinternational reports (DEFRA, 2010; ODPM, 2004; OECD, 2011). The latter are not included inthe current study but may form the basis of future work in this area.

7

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Table 1: Key Social Sustainability Themes and Criteria

Authors Social Sustainability themes and criteria

Chambers and Conway (1992)

livelihood; equity; capability to withstand external

pressures; safety nets

Sachs (1999)

inclusion; democracy; human rights; socialhomogeneity; equitable income distribution;

employment; equitable access to resources andsocial services

Littig (2001)

social security; health; social integration; participation; gender equity; justice and welfare

orientation; personal freedom concerning way of life

Omann and Spangenberg (2002)

education; skills; experience; consumption; income;

employment; participation

Baines and Morgan (2004), andSinner et al. (2004)

meeting basic needs; addressing personal disability; personal and social responsibility; social capital for

trusting, harmonious and co-operative behaviour;equity in development opportunities, intra and inter-

generationally; acknowledging cultural andcommunity diversity, and fostering tolerance;

empowerment for participation in development anddecision-making

Bramley et al. (2006)

interactions in the community/social networks;

community participation; pride and sense of place;community stability; security (crime)

Colantonio (2007)

access to resources; addressing community needs;conflicts mitigation; cultural promotion; education;enabling knowledge management; freedom; gender

equity; happiness; health; civic pride;neighbourhood perceptions; integration of

newcomers and residents; leadership; justice andequality; leisure and sport facilities; population

change; poverty eradication; quality of life; security

and crime; skills development; social diversity and

multiculturalism; well-being; capacity building participation and empowerment; social capital(including trust); employment; informal activities;

partnership/collaboration; inclusive design;infrastructures; housing (quality and tenure mix);

transport; spatial inequalities

Magis and Shinn (2009)human well-being; equity; democratic government;

democratic civil society

Cuthill (2010)social justice and equity; social infrastructure;

engaged governance; social capital

Dempsey et al. (2011)education and training; social justice (inter and

intra-generational); participation and local

8

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



democracy; health, quality of life and well-being;

social inclusion (and eradication of socialexclusion); social capital; community; safety; mixedtenure; fair income distribution; social order; social

cohesion; community cohesion; social networks;social interaction; sense of community and

belonging; employment; residential stability (vs.turnover); active community organisations; culturaltraditions; urbanity; attractive public realm; decent

housing; accessibility (to local services andfacilities); sustainable urban design; neighbourhood;

walkable neighbourhood (pedestrian friendly)

Weingaertner and Moberg (2011)

accessibility (e.g. access to employment, openspaces, local services, resources); social capital and

networks; health and well-being; social cohesionand inclusion (between and among different

groups); safety and security (real and perceived);fair distribution of income, employment; localdemocracy, participation and empowerment

(community consultation); cultural heritage (e.g.local heritage and listed buildings); education andtraining; equal opportunities and equity; housing

and community stability; connectivity andmovement (e.g. pedestrian friendly, good transport

links); social justice (inter-generational and intra-generational); sense of place and belonging; mixed

use and tenure; attractive public realm; localenvironmental quality and amenity

Turcu (2012)

(social and institutional) sense of community;moving in and out of an area; crime and safety; mix

(tenure, income, ethnic); local authority services;

community activity; local partnerships

Conclusions and Future Work

Previous research (Whitton, 2011) highlights the role of dialogue and participation as acomponent of social sustainability. However, we propose that a broader framework is requiredthat comprises the component parts of a theory of social sustainability. From this initial, literature

based theoretical framework, we aim to test our framework by carrying out practice based studiesregarding the perception of social sustainability by local communities. We aim to provideclarification as to whether the development of a singular definition of social sustainability and

associated criteria is possible or even appropriate, and whether definition and measurement areindeed fluid and context dependent; whether social sustainability is different for each individualcommunity or stakeholder group.

9

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



REFERENCES

Aaltonen, K., Jaakko, K. and Tuomas, O. 2008. “Stakeholder Salience in Global Projects.” International Journal of Project Management 26: 509 – 516.

Baines, J. & Morgan, B. 2004. “Chapter 5: Sustainability Appraisal: A Social Perspective”. In

Dalal-Clayton, B. & Sadler, B. (Eds) Sustainability Appraisal. A Review of International Experience and Practice. First Draft of Work in Progress, InternationalInstitute for Environment and Development.

Beierle, T.C. 2002. “The Quality of Stakeholder – Based Decisions.” Risk Analysis 22 (4): 739 –749.

Bijl, R. 2011. “Never Waste a Good Crisis: Towards Social Sustainable Development.” Social

Indicators Research 102: 157 – 168.Bond, A., Palerm, J. & Haigh, P. 2004. “Public Participation in EIA of nuclear power plant

decommissioning projects: a case study analysis.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24: 617 – 641.

Bramley, G., Dempsey, N., Power, S. & Brown, C. (2006) “What is ‘Social

Sustainability’ and How do our Existing Urban Forms Perform in Nurturing it?”. Paper presented at the ‘Sustainable Communities and Green Futures’ Conference, BartlettSchool of Planning, University College London, London. In Colantonio, A. 2009.“Social sustainability: a review and critique of traditional versus emerging themes and

assessment methods.” 2nd International Conference on Whole Life Urban Sustainabilityand its Assessment (Loughborough, UK, 22 - 24 April, 2009).

Bronfman, N.C., Jiménez, R.B., Ar évalo, P.C. & Cifuentes, L.A. 2012. “Understanding

social acceptance of electricity generation sources.” Energy Policy 46: 246 – 252.Chambers, R. & Conway, G. 1992. “Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st

century.” IDS Discussion Paper 296, IDS, Brighton. In Colantonio, A. 2009. “Social

sustainability: a review and critique of traditional versus emerging themes and

assessment methods.” 2nd International Conference on Whole Life Urban Sustainabilityand its Assessment (22 - 24 April, 2009: Loughborough, UK).

Colantonio, A. 2007. “Social Sustainability: An exploratory Analysis of its Definition,Assessment Methods, Metrics and Tools.” OISD (EIB) Working Paper No.1.

Colantonio, A. 2009. “Social sustainability: a review and critique of traditional versus emerging

themes and assessment methods.” 2nd

International Conference on Whole Life UrbanSustainability and its Assessment (Loughborough, UK, 22 - 24 April, 2009).

Cotton, M. & Devine-Wright, P. 2012a. Putting pylons into place: a UK case study of public perspectives on the impacts of high voltage overhead transmission lines. Journal of

Environmental Planning and Management p. 1 – 21 [Available at:http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09640568.2012.716756] [Accessed31/10/12].

Cotton, M. & Devine-Wright, P. 2012b. “Making electricity networks “visible”: Industry actorrepresentations of “publics” and public engagement in infrastructure planning.” Public

Understanding of Science, 21 (1): 17 – 35.Cowell, R., Bristow, G. & Munday, M. 2011. “Acceptance, acceptability and environmental

justice: the role of community benefits in wind energy development.” Journal of

Environmental Planning and Management 54 (4): 539 – 557.Cuppen, E., Breukers, S., Hisschemöller, M. & Bergsma, E. 2010. “Q methodology to select

participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands.” Ecological Economics 69: 579 – 591.

Cuthill, M. 2010. “Strengthening the ‘Social’ in Sustainable Development: Developing aConceptual Framework for Social Sustainability in a Rapid Urban Growth Region inAustralia.” Sustainable Development 18: 362 – 373.

10

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Dawson, J.I. & Darst, R.G. 2006. “Meeting the Challenge of Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposalin an Expanding Europe: Transparency, Trust and Democracy.” Environmental Politics

15 (4): 610 – 627.Dave, S. 2011. “Neighbourhood density and social sustainability in cities of developing

countries.” Sustainable Development 19: 189–205.

DEFRA. 2010. Measuring Progress: Sustainable Development Indicators 2010. NationalStatistics Compendium. Crown Copyright. [Available at:http://sd.defra.gov.uk/documents/SDI2010_001.pdf] [Accessed 13/08/2012]

Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S. & Brown, C. 2011. “The Social Dimension of SustainableDevelopment: Defining Urban Social Sustainability.” Sustainable Development 19: 289

– 300.Devine-Wright, P., Devine-Wright, H. & Sherry-Brennan, F. 2010. “Visible technologies,

invisible organisations: An empirical study of public beliefs about electricity supplynetworks.” Energy Policy 38: 4127 - 4134

Dillard, J., Dujon, V. & King, M.C. 2009. Understanding the Social Aspect of Sustainability.

New York: Routledge.

Doukas, H., Karakosta, C., Flamos, A. & Psarras, J. 2011. “Electric power transmission: Anoverview of associated burdens.” International Journal of Energy Research 35: 979 –988.

Evans, B., Parks, J. & Theobald, K. 2011. “Urban wind power and the private sector: community benefits, social acceptance and public engagement.” Journal of Environmental Planningand Management 54 (2): 227 – 244.

Glasson, J. 2005. “Better monitoring for better impact management: the local socio-economicimpacts of constructing Sizewell B nuclear power station.” Impact Assessment and

Project Appraisal 23 (3): 215 – 226.Habermas, J. 1970. “Towards a Theory of Communicative Competence.” Inquiry 13: 363 – 372.Habermas, J. 1987. Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 2: Reason and the Rationalization of

Society. Boston: Beacon Press.Innes, J.E. & Booher, D.E. 2004. “Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21

st Century.” Planning, Theory and Practice 5 (4): 419 – 436.

Jones, R. & Tonts, M. 1995. “Rural restructuring and social sustainability: some reflections on

the Western Australian wheatbelt.” Australian Geographer 26 (2): 133 - 140Kemp, R.V., Bennett, D.G. & White, M.J. 2006. “Recent trends and developments in dialogue on

radioactive waste management: Experience from the UK.” Environment InternationaL

32: 1021 – 1032.Krütli, P., Stauffacher, M., Flüeler, T. & Scholz, R.W. 2010. “Functional-dynamic public

participation in technological decision-making: site selection processes of nuclear wasterepositories.” Journal of Risk Research 13 (7): 861 – 875.

Lake, R.W. & Hanson, S. 2000. “Needed: Geography Research on Urban Sustainability.” UrbanGeography 21(1): 1 – 4.

Lawless, W.F. & Whitton, J. 2008. “Case Studies from the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates of Stakeholder Decision Making on Radioactive Waste Management.” American

Society of Civil Engineers: Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste

Management 12 (2): 70 - 78. Lidskog, R. & Sundqvist, G. 2004. “On the right track? Technology, geology and society in

Swedish nuclear waste management.” Journal of Risk Research 7 (2): 251 – 268.Littig, B. 2001. Zur sozialen Dimension nachhaltiger Entwicklung, Strategy Group

Sustainability. In Omann, I. and Spangenberg, J.H. 2002. “ Assessing Social

Sustainability: The Social Dimension of Sustainability in a Socio-Economic Scenario.”

Paper presented at the 7th Biennial Conference of the International Society forEcological Economics (Sousse, Tunisia, 6 – 9 March, 2002).

11

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Littig, B. & Grießler, E. 2005. Social sustainability: a catchword between political pragmatismand social theory. International Journal of Sustainable Development 8 (1/2): 65 – 76.

Magis, K. & Shinn, C. 2009. “Emergent themes of social sustainability.” In Dillard, J., Dujon,V. & King, M.C. 2009. Understanding the Social Aspect of Sustainability. New York:

Routledge.

McCool, S.F. & Stankey, G.H. 2004. “Indicators of Sustainability: Challenges and Opportunitiesat the Interface of Science and Policy.” Environmental Management 33 (3): 294 – 305.

Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. & Wood, D.J. 1997. “Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identificationand Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts.” Academy of

Management Review 22 (4): 853 – 86.ODPM. 2004. The Egan Review: skills for sustainable communities. London: Office of the

Deputy Prime Minister.OECD. 2011. “Society at a Glance 2011 - OECD Social Indicators”. The Organisation for

Economic Co-operation and Development [Available at:www.oecd.org/els/social/indicators/SAG ] [Accessed 29/08/12].

Omann, I. & Spangenberg, J.H. 2002. “Assessing Social Sustainability: The Social Dimension of

Sustainability in a Socio-Economic Scenario.” Paper presented at the 7th BiennialConference of the International Society for Ecological Economics (6 – 9 March: Sousse,Tunisia).

Parry, I.M. 2011. “Public opinion and perceptions of risk towards local nuclear power inAnglesey, north Wales”. Keele University (MSc thesis)

Reed, M. & Dougill, A.J. 2002. “Participatory selection process for indicators of rangelandcondition in the Kalahari.” The Geographical Journal 168 (3): 224–234.

Reed, S.L. 2008. “Stakeholder Participation for Environmental Management: A LiteratureReview.” Biological Conservation 141: 2417 – 2431.

Rogers, J.C., Simmons, E.A., Convery, I. & Weatherall, A. 2008. “Public perceptions ofopportunities for community-based renewable energy projects”. Energy Policy 36: 4217

– 4226.Rojanamon,R., Chaisomphob, T. & Bureekul, T. 2012. “Public Participation in Development of

Small Infrastructure Projects.” Sustainable Development 20: 320 – 334.Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. 2000. “Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation.”

Science, Technology and Human Values 25 (1): 3 - 29.Sachs, I. 1999. “Social sustainability and whole development: exploring the dimensions of

sustainable development.” In Egon, B. and Thomas, J. (Eds.) Sustainability and the

social sciences: a cross-disciplinary approach to integrating environmental

considerations into theoretical reorientation. London: Zed Books.Shamsuzzoha, A.H.M., Grant, A. & Clarke, J. 2012. “Implementation of renewable energy in

Scottish rural area: A social study.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16: 185

– 191.Sinner, J., Baines, J., Crengle, H., Salmon, G., Fenemor, A. & Tipa, G. 2004. “Sustainable

Development: A summary of key concepts.” Ecologic Research Report No. 2, NewZealand.

Stokkom, B.V. 2005. “Deliberative Group Dynamics: Power, Status and Affect in InteractivePolicy Making.” Policy and Politics 33 (3): 387 – 409.

Turcu, C. 2012. “Re-thinking sustainability indicators: local perspectives of urbansustainability.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management p.1 - 25

[Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09640568.2012.698984][Accessed 14/02/13].

Vallance, S., Perkins, H.C. & Dixon, J.E. 2011. “What is social sustainability? A clarification of

concepts.” Geoforum 42: 342 – 348.

12

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



West Cumbria Managing Radioactive Waste Safely Partnership (WCMRWS). 2012. The Final

Report of the West Cumbria Managing Radioactive Waste Safely Partnership (August

2012). Published by Copeland Borough Council, Copeland [Available at:http://www.westcumbriamrws.org.uk/images/final-report.pdf] [Accessed 12/02/13].

Webler, T., Tuler, S. & Kreuger, R. 2001. “What Is a Good Public Participation Process? Five

Perspectives from the Public.” Environmental Management 27 (3): 435 – 450.Weingaertner, C. & Moberg, Å. 2011. “Exploring Social Sustainability: Learning from

Perspectives on Urban Development and Companies and Products.” Sustainable Development

(Early view). [Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.536/abstract][Accessed 21/08/12].

White, S.K. 1980. “Reason and Authority in Habermas: A Critique of the Critics.” The American

Political Science Review 74 (4): 1007 – 1017.Whitton, J. 2009. “Stakeholder Participation for the Legacy Ponds and Legacy Silos (LP&LS)

Facility at Sellafield, Cumbria, UK: The Nature and Effectiveness of the Dialogue.”Proceedings of ICEM ’09. Liverpool, 11th – 15th October, 2009.

Whitton, J. 2010. “Participant Perceptions on the Nature of Stakeholder Dialogue Carried Out by

the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA). PhD Thesis submitted to theUniversity Of Manchester”.

Whitton, J. 2011. “Emergent Themes in Nuclear Decommissioning Dialogue: A SystemsPerspective.” Systemist 33 (2/3): 132 - 149

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our Common Future.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wright, Z.M. 2012. “A Voice for the Community: Public Participation in Wind Energy

Development.” Dalhousie Journal of Interdisciplinary Management 8 (1).

[Available at: http://ojs.library.dal.ca/djim/article/view/2012vol8Wright][Accessed 13/02/13].

Yiftachel, O. & Hedgcock, D. 1993. “Urban social sustainability: The planning of anAustralian city.” Cities 11 (2): 139 – 157.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr John Whitton: Centre Manager, Centre for Energy and Power Management, University ofCentral Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, U.K.

Mr Ioan Parry: PhD Student, Centre for Energy and Power Management, University of Central

Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, U.K.

Professor Joe Howe: Director Centre for Sustainable Development, University of CentralLancashire, Preston, Lancashire, U.K.

13

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final


7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final


Sustainable Development: Alternative Market

Models for Practical Implementation

Călin Gurău, Groupe Sup de Co Montpellier Business School, France

Agnès Le Bellac, Groupe Sup de Co Montpellier Business School, France

Abstract: The paradigm of sustainable development is regarded as a necessary solution for the present environmental

crisis. The implementation of this new socio-economic model implies a complex collaboration between companies,

customers and governments. Considering the specific role played by these three categories of stakeholders, this study

attempts to identify and discuss alternative market models that can be used to realize the transition towards a sustainable

socio-economic system. The two sustainable market systems presented in this paper have the classical disadvantages of

any abstract model: they are simplified versions of reality that include a limited number of elements, processes and

relationships. However, despite their simplicity, they can provide a useful insight into alternative solutions for

implementing a sustainable economy based on free market exchanges. Ultimately, the choice between these two

alternative systems should be determined by their effectiveness and efficiency in creating a functional sustainable

economy. The first model is largely based on the present market situation. Many specialists are optimistic regarding its

success, given enough time for the gradual change of business and consumer values (Choi and Gray 2008; Deloitte 2009;

Fisk 1997; Parrish and Foxon 2009). The second model starts from two basic elements that represent the main barriers for the further development of the present sustainable system: the lack of clear, standardized information regarding the

negative impact of various business and consumption activities, and the integration of these negative externalities in the

total cost of products and services. The implementation of these two measures, properly managed by the government, can

determine a quick restructuring of the present market environment and the development of a much needed market for

environmental protection and regeneration services. This model clearly represents a generalized exchange system as

defined by Bagozzi (1975).

Keywords: Sustainable Development, Marketing Strategy, Alternative Market Models

Introduction

uman activities driven by the growing population and increased consumption are already producing more waste than the natural system can absorb (Anex, 2000). The paradigm of

sustainable development was developed as a response to a potential ecologic crisis.

United Nations (1987) defines as sustainable a development which meets the needs of the present

without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The

implementation of sustainable development represents a process of change in which the

exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technologicaldevelopment, and institutional change are made consistent with the future as well as present

needs (United Nations, 1987).

These definitions outline the systemic, dynamic and temporal dimensions of sustainable

development, which require the change of values, attitudes and behaviors of all the participantsin the socio-economic system in order to harmonize the present and the future needs of all

stakeholder groups (Lindgree et al., 2008). However, despite the theoretical clarity of this

approach, the implementation of the sustainable development paradigm requires practical

solutions to a series of conflicting situations:

a. Individuals and organizations have different interests depending on the role(s) they play in the socio-economic system. A person affected by climate change may desire

a systemic reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, but at the same time, s/he might

H


Volume 8, 2013, onsustainability.com, ISSN: 2325-1166© Common Ground, Călin Gurău and Agnès Le Bellac All Rights ReservedPermissions: [email protected]

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



enjoy the comfort of driving a car to work, or obtaining dividends from highly

profitable companies which pollute the environment.

b. In taking decisions, individuals and organizations must mitigate between presentand future needs. Research has shown that most people prefer an immediate and

certain gain to a present loss or to a future gain (Zsolnai, 2002), a choice stronglyreinforced by the consumerist ideology which promises an instant gratification of

consumers’ needs and wants. In other words, the consumer is mainly focused on

satisfying his/her present needs and wants, rather than considering the needs of

future generations.

c. The effects of business activities and consumption are often complex and difficult

to evaluate. A product may satisfy an essential need (e.g. therapeutic drugs), but its

manufacturing process may significantly damage the environment at the present

level of technological development. This contradiction is enhanced by the lack of

precise information regarding the environmental impact of various human

activities. In many cases, there is no clear causal connection between an activity performed at local level (e.g. carbon dioxide emissions) and an effect manifest at

global scale (e.g. global warming).

The pervasive use of marketing in the modern world can be seen both as a blessing and a

curse for sustainable development (Fisk, 1997). On one hand, the complexity of modern

marketing techniques provides powerful tools for influencing and changing human perceptions,

attitudes and behaviors; on the other hand, marketing is considered as the main engine for

increased consumption, which leads to natural resource depletion, pollution and waste.

Ultimately, this problem is determined by the incapacity of managers to accept the failure of the

present model of economic development and business organization (Ehrenfeld, 2005).

Considering the main actors of the present socio-economic system, this paper attempts toidentify and discuss the alternative market models for implementing the sustainable development

paradigm, and the role of marketing theory and practice in this process.

The Functional Economy

A possible solution to the present systemic crisis is the concept of functional economy proposed by Stahel (1997). Stahel (1997, p. 91) outlines that functional economy “optimizes the use (or

function) of goods and services and thus the management of existing wealth (goods, knowledge,

and nature). The economic objective of the functional economy is to create the highest possible

use value for the longest possible time while consuming as few material resources and energy as

possible”. Stahel (1997) identifies the main problems of the present crisis, translating them in business

and economic concepts: resource-use policies and oversupply. On the other hand, the existing

solutions applied to reduce pollution and waste, such as recycling, are not capable to reduce the

accelerated flow of resources, preserving the existing logic of the industrial system. The solution

envisaged by Stahel (1997) are based on reducing the use of natural resources by increasing the

product lifecycle and eliminating the forced obsolescence of products. Another viable solution is

the implementation of a service-based economy, in which companies must re-focus their

corporate mission on providing benefits and services rather than manufacturing goods.

16

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final


GURAU: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The Main Actors of the Socio-Economic System

Corporations

The financial theory of the firm (Jensen & Meckling, 1976) postulates that profit maximizationrepresents the only relevant criteria of firm performance (Friedman, 1970), either denying the

existence of any negative externalities, or shifting the responsibility of managing such

externalities to third parties (e.g. government, foundations). However, the emergence of

corporate social responsibility theories has expanded the role of business organizations to socialand environmental protection issues (Gauthier, 2005; Keeble et al. 2003; Lindgreen, et al. 2009).

From this perspective, the firm is embedded in a complex network of relationships with various

stakeholders, which have the power to influence the direction and the performance of its

activities (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). The long-term survival and performance of the firm

depends on creating value for various categories of stakeholders (Payne & Holt, 2001), while

limiting the negative externalities of its activities.

The application of corporate social responsibility principles is considered by manyspecialists as an opportunity to develop a new type of competitive advantage, differentiating the

strategic positioning of the firm (Clulow, 2005; Mirvis, 2008; Payne & Holt, 2001). This change

of corporate orientation is initiated by sustainable entrepreneurs (Choi & Gray, 2008) who act as

catalysts of socio-economic structural transformations (Parrish & Foxon, 2009). Using acomprehensive audit of their entire organizational structure and processes, they identify the

critical operations that create significant negative externalities and implement solutions to reduce

their negative impact on the natural environment (Fuller, 1999; Fuller & Gillett, 1999).

Consumers

Recent studies indicate that modern consumers are highly aware of the necessity to implementthe sustainable development paradigm, but are less enthusiastic in adopting themselves the

principles of sustainable consumption (Deloitte, 2009; Horne, 2009; Mirvis, 2008). A recent

study realized by Deloitte in collaboration with the Grocery Manufacturers Association (Deloitte,

2009) indicates that 95% of the interviewed shoppers are ready and willing to consume moresustainable products, but only 22% of them have actually bought green products during their

shopping trip. Although findings show that sustainability becomes an important brand

differentiator, many consumers do not understand why a green product should cost more if it was

manufactured with less packaging and was transported on shorter distances. A minority of highly

committed and proactive consumers is willing to pay more for sustainable products, but mostshoppers require price and performance parity for sustainable products, since sustainability does

not represent their dominant purchase driver. These findings are supporting the conclusions of previous studies, which show that the majority of consumers rate environmental concerns behind

past experience, price, brand recommendation, peer recognition and convenience, as a criteria for

product and brand choice (Speer, 1997; Bahn & Wright, 2001; Lindgreen et al., 2009).

Iyer (1999) considers that the sustainable development paradigm cannot be implementedonly by encouraging sustainable consumer behavior. In order to make informed choices,

customers need complete and relevant information about the available consumption alternatives.

Only knowledge can provide the necessary level of behavioral control to implement sustainable

consumption patterns (Guiltinan, 2009; Moisander, 2007). In contrast to these imperatives, a

study by Niva and Timonen (2001) showed that (1) consumers lack knowledge about the

environmental implications of their purchase, even for product categories that are widely

discussed in the media, and (2) consider that manufacturers are responsible to produceenvironmentally benign product, and distributors to screen and select products for such qualities,

while consumers have little impact on these activities. In these conditions the probability that

17

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



customers will actively use their consumption behavior as a pro-sustainability vote seems quitelow (Shaw et al., 2006).

Governments

Traditionally, governments have been considered responsible for limiting the effects ofenvironmental damage, by enacting and enforcing environmental regulations (Kärnä et al., 2003).

This approach was successful in limiting ‘end-of-pipe’ pollution, but is insufficient in creating a

proactive movement towards generalized sustainable development (Anex, 2000). The further

reduction of pollution and resource depletion requires innovation in manufacturing processes,

product design and consumption behavior.

Norberg-Bohm (1997) considers that government’s capacity in directly enhancing thedevelopment of green technology is limited by three elements:

(a)

the aim of sustainable development is to incorporate environmental objectives into

the existing technology, and not to create a new type of technology;

(b)

the government is not the main customer for green technology, nor can develop

markets for so many new technologies;

(c) there is no clear consensus regarding the necessary level of environmental

protection.

For this reason, the government needs to create policies that enhance the initiative of the

private sector to implement green technology, and develop the final demand for sustainable

products. These policies can create either direct economic incentives such as taxes, subsidies or

penalties for noncompliance, or indirect effects, by providing information to the general public

regarding the environmental performance of companies. In addition, governments can reduce the

market uncertainty associated with investment in sustainable technology through direct procurement and a clear long-term commitment in continuous environmental improvement.

Finally, governments can help firms to identify opportunities for waste and pollution reduction

by requiring the application of a full cost accounting system that includes the environmental cost

of company’s products and activities (Anex, 2000).

A document published by OECD (2008) presents a series of best practices already

implemented by OECD member countries for promoting sustainable consumption:

• Standards and mandatory labeling: establishing clear sustainability standards

and enforcing the mandatory labeling of products with information regardingtheir environmental impact, governments are able to influence directly both the

demand and offer of industrial and consumer products;

• Taxes and charges: by raising the cost, and therefore the price of less

sustainable products, they force firms to internalize the negative externalities of

their activity, and allow the free market to adjust the existing patterns of

consumption. On the other hand, these taxes provide important resources that

help governments to fight and reduce environmental degradation and social

inequalities;

• Subsidies and incentives: are usually directed to consumers and households toencourage the adoption of sustainable products, which are often more

expensive than traditional products;

18

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



• Communication campaigns: the diffusion of relevant information about the

necessity of implementing a sustainable development system can raise the

awareness and change the behavior of firms, investors and final consumers.

These campaigns are applying the principles of social marketing

communications and multi-media techniques;

• Education: UNESCO has designated 2005-2014 as the Decade of Education for

Sustainable Development, to which OECD countries will contribute by

introducing and highlighting good sustainable development practices in school

curricula;

• Voluntary labeling: the labels provided by trusted governmental or non-

governmental institutions can clearly indicate to customers the level of eco-sustainability of various products and/or services. Unfortunately, the recent

proliferation of voluntary labels has created confusion between unverified self-

declarations and third-parties certified labels (Poncibo 2007);

• Corporate reporting: although the number of companies that include

sustainability information in their corporate reports is increasing, this

information is often incomplete or unverified. Governments can significantly

enhance this practice by developing and enforcing mandatory requirementsregarding the reporting of sustainable issues in corporate publications. For

example, in May 2001, France became the first country to mandate triple

bottom line reporting for publicly-listed companies, including labor standards

and the environmental consequences of their activities;

•

Advertising regulation: commercial advertising represents a powerful

instrument in changing the perceptions, attitudes and behavior of finalconsumers, and help to identify the firms that promote sustainable products and

services. However, governments have to ensure the truthfulness of these

communication campaigns, by regulating and punishing misleading

advertising;

•

Public procurement: the government often represents the largest consumer of

goods and services, which offers the opportunity to strongly influence the

market by applying sustainability criteria in public procurement projects;

•

Understanding consumer behavior: to effectively encourage sustainable

consumption patterns through targeted policies, governments need to identifyvarious categories of consumers in relation to their demographic characteristics

and lifestyle profile, and to correctly understand their specific behavior;

•

Combining policy instruments: considering the complexity of promoting

sustainable development, governments should identify the best combination of policy instruments that can effectively lead towards this socio-economic

transformation. An effective policy approach will be determined by a range of

factors including the existing legal framework and the socio-cultural

environment of the country;

•

Institutionalizing sustainable consumption: the lack of coherent strategies to promote sustainable consumption by creating synergies across social,

economic, educational and environmental policies can reduce the effectiveness

19

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



of governmental regulations and initiatives. From this perspective, the creationof consumer policy agencies is particularly important, in order to provide the

necessary interface between government and citizens, and to adapt

governmental policies to the specific needs and profile of various categories of

consumers.

The analysis of the main actors of the present socio-economic system indicates the

importance of marketing theories and practice for successfully implementing the sustainable

development paradigm. It is therefore necessary to investigate this process taking into account

the fundamental marketing concepts.

Fundamental Marketing Concepts

Most marketing definitions are developed from the interplay of three fundamental concepts:

need, value and exchange. According to Kotler (2000), marketing is a societal process by which

individuals and groups obtain what they need and want through creating, offering and freely

exchanging products and services of value with others. The concept of value was developed and refined by economic theorists. In the 18th century,

Adam Smith (1776) developed an intrinsic theory of value, considering that the exchange value

of goods is proportional with the labour required to produce them. Ricardo and then Marx have

further developed this theory of objective value, in which the exchange value of goods is

determined only by the quantities of raw materials, labour and capital incorporated in the

processed product (Aurier et al., 2004). On the other hand, the theory of marginal utilitydeveloped by Carl Menger (1976) postulates that value is subjectively attributed to a good in

relation to its capacity to fulfil a need. Menger considered that the nature and measure of value

are subjective, depending upon the specific needs of various individuals and on the degree of

satisfaction determined by the consumption of goods in specific circumstances (Lagueux, 1998).

At the same time, Menger attempted a unification of the two theoretical perspectives, consideringvalue-in-use and value-in-exchange as equivalent (Lagueux, 1998). In reality, it is the aim of

marketing to realize the equivalence between these two value perspectives, helping the firms to

develop and produce goods that have a value-in-use at least equivalent with the value of

resources incorporated in the manufactured product.

Bagozzi (1975) expanded the analysis of marketing as an exchange process, developing a

typology of exchanges, which includes the category of ‘generalized exchanges’. Generalizedexchanges take place among at least three parties that are involved in univocal, reciprocal

relationships, in which the actors benefit only indirectly. An illustration of this type of exchanges

is particularly relevant: in the social marketing system society authorizes the government to

provide the necessary social services to needy and dependent people; the government obtains the

necessary resources to fulfill this function through a system of taxes; finally, the collectedfinancial resources are then used to develop the general infrastructure of social welfare and to

pay the salaries of social workers.

In the following section these fundamental marketing concepts are used to analyze the

exchange relations developed in a system of sustainable development and to define two

alternative market models.

20

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Analysing the Implementation of Sustainable Development in Relation to

Fundamental Marketing Concepts

Considering the restricted model of a market transaction (Bagozzi, 1975), the exchange value of

a specific product, determined by the cost of resources spent by the firm plus a profit margin,should be equal with the value-in-use of the product, defined by the degree of satisfaction

derived by the customer while using the product to satisfy a specific need - formula (1).

(1)

exchange value (cost of resources + profit margin) = value-in-use (degree of

satisfaction)

This vision corresponds to the financial theory of the firm, in which only the firm and its

customers are taken into account, the firm aiming for profit maximisation, either through cost

reduction, or through an increase of product’s value-in-use. On the other hand, if we consider thetemporal dimension of firm’s activities, the formula can be further developed (2):

(2)

(cost of resources + profit margin) x number of products sold in a period of time =

value-in-use of sold products in a period of time

This explains the phenomenon of planned obsolescence, in which the value-in-use of a product is artificially reduced by the firm, determining the customer to re-purchase the same or

an improved product version (Guiltinan, 2009).

However, adding the negative externalities determined by the activities of the firm – which

result in the depletion and deterioration of the ‘natural capital’ (Lozada & Mintu-Wimsatt, 1996),

formula (2) is transformed in (3):

(3)

(cost of resources + negative externalities + profit margin) x number of productssold in a period of time = value-in-use of sold products in a period of time

This equation supports the opinion of Fuller (1999), who considers that market and,

implicitly, marketing activities, send erroneous signals to customers, because product prices do

not reflect the true costs of doing business, including the ecological costs that express the

externalities of the business process.

An analysis of formula (3) offers an insight into the challenges of implementing a

sustainable development system:

a.

The cost of negative externalities should be included in the exchange value of the product, or reduced/eliminated through new technological or marketing solutions.

Another possibility of reducing the negative externalities in a given period of time

is to reduce the number of products sold by the firm.

The second and the third option represent fundamental principles of the ‘functional

economy’ proposed by Stahel (1997). However, all three options will determine, at least initially,an increase in the price of sustainable products: in the first case, this increase is direct,

determined by the inclusion of negative externalities; in the second case, the reduction of

negative externalities will require investment in developing new technologies or marketing

systems (such as the service-based economy advocated by Stahel), while in the third case the

costs of producing more durable goods are likely to increase significantly. On the other hand, the

firm might also increase the profit margin of more durable products, in order to maintain the previous level of profitability.

21

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final


7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Figure 1. The sustainable market system driven by marketing opportunities

In this market system, sustainability is considered an opportunity for competitive differentiation

and a new criterion for segmenting the consumer market. This opportunity is exploited not only by the genuinely committed firms, but also by opportunist corporations which create a false

image of sustainability through corporate communication messages, targeting the committed and

interested groups of consumers (Peattie & Crane, 2005). Since the selling price of their products

is usually equal with the price established by committed firms, but their costs are significantlylower - they make no investment in developing sustainable technologies and products – these

opportunistic firms are more profitable than the committed ones. This situation is facilitated by

the lack of transparence and standardized evaluation in measuring the negative externalities of

business activities and products. The present market environment is already crowded with many

types of ‘green’ or ‘sustainability’ labels that use different evaluation criteria, creating consumer

confusion and making almost impossible a direct comparison between various products (Harris,

2007; Horne, 2009).

23

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Finally, conservative firms are preserving their existing competitive advantage and strategic positioning, totally neglecting the market for sustainable products. These firms enjoy the

advantage of lower price levels (in comparison with similar sustainable products), and of a large

segment of conservative customers.

In these circumstances, only committed firms and governments have an indirect impact on

the protection and regeneration of the natural environment. However, this impact is limited bythe size of the existing market for sustainable products, and by the scarce resources available tothe government to fight pollution and environmental degradation.

A Sustainable Market System Based on the Real Cost of Negative Externalities

Another possible sustainable market model may be based on the official recognition andevaluation of the negative externalities created through business and consumption activities. The

initial premise of such a model is the development and implementation of a standardized system

for evaluating the impact of product manufacturing and product consumption activities on the

natural environment – such as the ‘carbon footprint’ (Cervi, 2008). The cost of negative

externalities should then be charged by the government in the form of sustainability taxes appliedto companies and customers. The funds thus collected can be used by the government to develop

sustainability policies and, most importantly, to initiate the public procurement of environmental

protection services delivered by specialized firms or public agencies. This government initiative

represents a possible solution to the paradox that despite a clear need for bio-protection and bio-

remediation services, this market sector is presently underdeveloped.

The application of sustainability taxes will also restructure the market environment and thestrategic options of companies (see Figure 2). The inclusion of this tax in the cost of

manufactured goods or provided services will automatically increase their price levels. The

magnitude of this increase, associated with the diffusion of mandatory information regarding the

negative externalities of various products or services, will send a clear signal to customers,

creating the premise of an informed choice (Proto & Supino, 1999). On the other hand, the levelof purchasing power will force companies to reduce their profit margin to keep the prices withinreasonable limits.

In these circumstances, firms are likely to adopt three main strategic orientations:

a. Sustainability leadership: reducing the negative externalities of their productsand activities, through product re-engineering or technological innovation,

these firms will pay a lower tax, increasing their profitability and/or reducing

price levels;

b.

Cost leadership: these firms will aim to increase their profitability and/or

reduce price levels by reducing the cost of resources incorporated in the processed goods;

c. Niche positioning: the firms unwilling or incapable to adopt one of the

previous two strategic orientations will focus on a specific market niche

including customers willing to pay the cost of negative externalities.

This system has the advantage of creating positive synergies and incentives for a quickintroduction of the sustainable development paradigm, but requires a more proactive attitude of

governments in creating the necessary premises of a new market model.

24

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Figure 2. The sustainable market system based on the real cost of negative externalities

Concluding Remarks

The two sustainable market systems presented in this paper have the classical disadvantages of

any abstract model: they are simplified versions of reality that include a limited number ofelements, processes and relationships. However, despite their simplicity, they can provide a

25

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



useful insight into the alternative solutions for implementing a sustainable economy based onfree market exchanges.

Ultimately, the choice between these two alternative systems should be determined by their

effectiveness and efficiency in creating a sustainable functional economy. The first model is

largely based on the present market situation. Many specialists are optimistic regarding its

success, given enough time for the gradual change of business and consumer values (Choi &Gray, 2008; Deloitte, 2009; Fisk, 1997; Parrish & Foxon, 2009).

The second model starts from two basic elements that represent the main barriers for the

further development of the present sustainable system: the lack of clear, standardized information

regarding the negative impact of various business and consumption activities, and the integration

of these negative externalities in the total cost of products and services. The implementation of

these two measures, properly managed by the government, can determine a quick restructuring of

the present market environment and the development of a much needed market for environmental protection and regeneration services. This model clearly represents a generalized exchange

system as defined by Bagozzi (1975).

The second model may be considered utopian and unrealistic because of the necessity to

introduce new governmental taxes. There is also the alternative to provide specific governmentalincentives for implementing green production and consumption, such as tax reductions or

subsidies. However, this solution may represent an additional burden to the governmental budget,and will not accurately represent the costs of negative externalities associated with polluting

products and services. Future studies should attempt to further analyze the possible macro- and

micro-economic implications of these two models, using simulation methods and/or experiments.

The positive transformation of the present market system depends on the clear understanding of

both the advantages and challenges of each alternative model, in the context of the existingsocio-economic conditions.

26

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



REFERENCES

Anex, R. P. (2000). Stimulating innovation in green technology: Policy alternatives and

opportunities. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(2), 188-212.

Aurier, P., Evrard, Y., & N’Goala, G. (2004). Comprendre et mesurer la valeur du point de vue

du consommateur. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 19(3), 1-20.Bahn, K. D., & Wright, N. W. (2001). Antecedents of green product purchase behavior.

Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Studies, 6 (2), 51-55.

Cervi, B. (2008) Can you calculate the carbon cost of your shopping? Engineering and

Technology, 18 November. Retrieved November 2009 from

http://kn.theiet.org/magazine/issues/0820/calculate-carbon-cost.cfm.Choi, D. Y., & Gray E. R. (2008). The venture development processes of “sustainable”

entrepreneurs. Management Research News, 31(8), 558-569.

Clulow, V. (2005). Future dilemmas for marketers: can stakeholder analysis add value?

European Journal of Marketing, 39(9/10), 978-997.

Daub, C.-H., & Ergenzinger, R. (2005). Enabling sustainable management through a new multi-

disciplinary concept of customer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing, 39(1/2),998-1012.

Deloitte (2009). Finding the green in today’s shoppers: Sustainability trends and new shopper

insights. Retrieved December 2009 from

www.gmabrands.com/publications/greenshopper09.pdf.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L.E. (1995). The stakeholders theory of corporation: concepts,evidences and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.

Ehrenfeld, J.R. (2005). The roots of sustainability. Sloan Management Review, 46 (2), 22-25.

Fisk, G. (1997). Questioning eschatological questions about marketing apocalypse conditional.

European Journal of Marketing, 31(9/10), 720-729.

Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New

York Times Magazine, September 13. Retrieved December 2009 fromhttp://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-

business.html.

Fuller, D. A. (1999). Sustainable Marketing: Managerial-Ecological Issues. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Fuller, D. A., & Gillett, P. L. (1999). Sustainable marketing: Strategies playing in the

background. American Marketing Association Conference Proceedings, 10, 222-223.Gauthier, C. (2005). Measuring corporate social and environmental performance: The extended

life-cycle assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(2), 199-206.

Guiltinan, J. (2009). Creative destruction and destructive creations: Environmental ethics and

planned obsolescence. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(1), 19-28.

Harris, S. M. (2007). Does sustainability sell? Market responses to sustainability certification. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 18 (1), 50-60.

Horne, R. E. (2009). Limits to labels: The role of eco-labels in the assessment of product

sustainability and routes to sustainable consumption. International Journal of Consumer

Studies, 33(2), 175-182.

Iyer, G. (1999). Business, consumers and sustainable living in an interconnected world: A

multilateral ecocentric approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 20(4), 273-288.Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm, managerial behavior, agency costs and

ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(2), 469-506.

Kärnä, J., Hansen, E., & Juslin, H. (2003). Social responsibility in environmental marketing

planning. European Journal of Marketing, 37 (5/6), 848-871.

27

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Keeble, J. J., Topiol, S., & Berkeley, S. (2003). Using indicators to measure sustainability performance of a corporate and project level. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2), 149-

158.

Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of

niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis &

Strategic Management, 10(2), 175-195.Kotler, P. (2000). Marketing Management . Millennium Edition, Harlow: Prentice Hall.Lagueux, M. (1998). Menger and Jevons on value: A crucial difference. Retrieved March 2006

from http://www.philo.umontreal.ca/textes/Lagueux_on_value.pdf.

Lindgreen, A., Antioco, M., Harness, D., & Van der Sloot, R. (2009). Purchasing and marketing

of social and environmental sustainability for high-tech medical equipment. Journal of

Business Ethics, 85(4), 445-462.

Lozada, H.R., & Mintu-Wimsatt, A. (1996). Sustainable development and international business:A holistic perspective. Journal of Euro-Marketing, 5(3), 65-74.

Menger, C. (1976). Principles of Economics. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Mirvis, P. H. (2008). Commentary: Can you buy CSR? California Management Review, 51(1),

109-116.Moisander, J. (2007). Motivational complexity of green consumption. International Journal of

Consumer Studies, 31(4), 404-409. Niva, M., & Timonen, P. (2001). The role of consumers in product-oriented environmental

policy: Can the consumer be the driving force for environmental improvements?

International Journal of Consumer Studies, 25(4), 331-338.

Norberg-Bohm, V. (1997). Stimulating “green” technological innovation: An analysis of

alternative policy mechanisms. Working Paper ETP97-01. Cambridge: MITEnvironmental Technology and Public Policy Program.

OECD (2008). Promoting Sustainable Consumption. Good Practices in OECD Countries.

Retrieved November 2009 from http,//www.bcsdportugal.org/files/1890.pdf.

Parrish, B. D., & Foxon, T. J. (2009). Sustainable entrepreneurship and equitable transitions to alow-carbon economy. Greener Management International, 55, 47-62.

Payne, A., & Holt, S. (2001). Diagnosing customer value: Integrating the value process andrelationship marketing. British Journal of Management, 12(2), 159-182.

Peattie, K., & Crane, A. (2005). Green marketing, legend, myth, farce or prophesy? Qualitative

Market Research, 8 (4), 357-370.

Poncibo, C. (2007). Private certification schemes as consumer protection: A viable supplement to

regulation in Europe? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(6), 656-661.

Proto, M., & Supino, S. (1999). The quality of environmental information: a new tool inachieving customer loyalty. Total Quality Management, 10(4/5), 679-683.

Shaw, D., Newholm, T., & Dickinson, R. (2006). Consumption as voting: An exploration of

consumer empowerment. European Journal of Marketing, 40(9/10), 1049-1067.Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into The Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Retrieved

November 2008 from http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study/xsmith.htm.Speer, T. L. (1997). Growing the green market. American Demographics,

19(8), 45-49.

Stahel, W.R. (1997). The functional economy: Cultural and organizational change. In D.J.

Richards (Ed.), The Industrial Green Game (pp. 91–100). Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.

United Nations (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development .

General Assembly Resolution 42/187, 11 December 1987. United Nations.Zsolnai, L. (2002). Green business or community economy? International Journal of Social

Economics, 29(7/8), 652-662.

28

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Călin Gurău: Dr. Călin Gurău is an associate professor of marketing at GSCM - MontpellierBusiness School in France. He is a Junior Fellow of the World Academy of Art and Science in

Minneapolis, USA. He worked as marketing manager in two Romanian companies and has

received degrees and distinctions for studies and research from University of Triest in Italy;

University of Vienna in Austria; Duke University in the USA; University of Angers in France;

and Oxford University, Southampton Business School and Heriot-Watt University in the United

Kingdom. His present research interests are focused on marketing strategies for high-technologyfirms and innovative pedagogy. He has published more than 30 papers in internationally-refereed

journals, such as International Marketing Review, the Journal of Consumer Marketing, the

Journal of Marketing Communications, etc.

Agnès Le Bellac: Is presently the Head of the Marketing Department and teaches marketing

courses at Groupe Sup de Co Montpellier Business School, France.

29

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final


7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final


Evaluating the Sustainability of Roadway

Redevelopment: Lessons Learned from Marcellus

Shale Drilling

Michelle Oswald Beiler, Bucknell University, U.S.A.Victoria Caudullo, Bucknell University, U.S.A.

Abstract: New developments in horizontal drilling methods have allowed for the previously untouched basin of energy

called Marcellus Shale, spanning from northern Ohio and West Virginia into Pennsylvania and New York, to be

explored. As a result, the Marcellus Shale drilling initiative has impacted townships due to the rise in traffic flow of

heavy trucks commuting to and from drilling sites, increasing the overall transportation demand on roadways. However,

drilling companies have contributed to the redevelopment of rural roads due to their responsibility in maintaining

roadway conditions such as paving dirt roads, filling ruts, and widening roads, to enable safe truck travel. This research

explores the sustainability of the redevelopment of rural roads as a result of Marcellus Shale drilling. A Project

Evaluation Survey and a Pairwise Comparison Survey are used to identify sustainable practices for integration into these

redevelopment projects, based on existing sustainable transportation rating systems. The results are synthesized and

provide sustainable roadway redevelopment recommendations specific to Marcellus Shale projects. As the demand fordrilling continues to rise, it is important to promote sustainable transportation practices for future redevelopment

projects.

Keywords: Transportation, Sustainability, Marcellus Shale, Decision Making, Performance Measures

Introduction

rior to the development of horizontal drilling methods, the Marcellus Shale basin, covering

95,000 square miles from northern Ohio and West Virginia into Pennsylvania and New

York, was located in such a way that drilling for natural gas was not economical (Howe et

al., 2009). New horizontal drilling methods have revealed the basin to be a “gold mine” ofuntouched energy in the United States, with 262 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable

natural gas (DOE, 2004). As a result, the Marcellus Shale drilling initiative has impacted

townships economically, socially, and environmentally due to the rise in traffic flow of heavy

trucks commuting to and from drilling sites, which increases the overall transportation demand

on rural roads (Considine et al., 2009). The transportation impacts associated with drilling has led

municipalities to require baseline data of the original state of the roadways prior to drilling sothat companies are held responsible for road maintenance during and after drilling (Marcellus

Education Team, 2008).

Motivation

Roadway redevelopment projects including paving dirt roads, filling ruts, and widening roads, to

enable safe truck travel, continue to be implemented. The degree of sustainable

design/construction practices being implemented on these projects varies. Most prominent

pavement improvements include Full Depth Reclamation (FDR), mill and fill, and overlay. FDR

includes removing and recycling the roadway material which is mixed with cement to provide amore stabilized base (Portland Cement Association, 2012). Mill and fill involves removing and

replacing a thin layer of the roadway (City of Kelowna, 2009), while overlay is when a new layer

of pavement is placed on top of the existing (Josephine County Oregon, 2012). From the 200+

P

The International Journal of Sustainability Policy and PracticeVolume 9, 2014, onsustainability.com, ISSN: 2325-1166

© Common Ground, Michelle Oswald Beiler, Victoria Caudullo, All Rights ReservedPermissions: [email protected]

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



state roadway projects within the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation jurisdiction during2010-2011, 41.5% were FDR, 12% were mill and fill, and 34% were overlay (PennDOT, 2012).

The remaining 12.5% projects are combinations of these types which total to 100%. These

projects reflect the growing need and demand for transportation redevelopment within the

Marcellus Shale region. As projects continue, more opportunities to encourage sustainable

practices throughout the process arise.Interest in sustainable practices is rising in relation to green design and construction,

specifically in regards to environmental awareness and impact (Oswald and McNeil, 2010).

Sustainable roadway development is beneficial as it aims to balance environmental, economic

and social objectives (Litman and Burwell, 2006). Roads that are redeveloped with these

objectives in mind encourage the sustainability of future roadway redevelopment projects as well

as promote market recognition for sustainability efforts within the transportation sector (Litman

and Burwell, 2006).Rating systems, consisting of sustainable performance measures, have developed in the area

of transportation planning and roadway construction (Oswald, 2012). An example of a

sustainable transportation rating system is GreenLITES (Green Leadership in Transportation

Environmental Sustainability), which is developed by the New York State Department ofTransportation to assist transportation planners in integrating sustainable practices into design

(NYSDOT, 2012). Although these rating systems can be applied to roadway redevelopment projects, directly applying them to projects related to the Marcellus Shale drilling poses

challenges due to the unique characteristics of rural roads and the specific needs of the

redevelopment process. For example, short-term overlay projects most likely will not go through

the traditional long-term planning process including context sensitive design.

Research Method

This research explores the sustainability of the redevelopment of rural roads as a result of

Marcellus Shale drilling. The primary goal is to evaluate existing and proposed projects in orderto recommend applying sustainable practices based on established metrics and performancemeasures. The research method includes four major steps:

1. Literature Review- investigate Marcellus Shale drilling, roadway impacts, and

sustainable transportation rating systems.

2. Data Collection-develop and distribute two surveys based on sustainable

transportation practices from GreenLITES.

3. Data Analysis- review the survey results and identify trends in sustainabletransportation practice as they relate to Marcellus Shale projects.

4. Recommendations- recommend sustainable transportation practices are for

implementation based on the survey results.

In terms of the data collection process, two surveys are used. To obtain a baseline of existing

Marcellus Shale roadway redevelopment projects and their current degree of sustainable practice

implementation, a Project Evaluation Survey is distributed to project teams with past or existing

projects. In addition, a Pairwise Comparison Survey is used to survey transportation experts in

determining key sustainable practices that are most relevant to Marcellus Shale redevelopment

projects. The results of these surveys are analyzed in order to promote the implementation of

sustainable transportation practices into future Marcellus Shale roadway redevelopment projects.

32

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final


BEILER AND CAUDULLO: THE SUSTAINABILITY OF ROADWAY REDEVELOPMENT

Background on Marcellus Shale

In the region spanning from northern Ohio and West Virginia into Pennsylvania and New York,

roughly one mile under the surface is a formation of sedimentary rock referred to as Marcellus

Shale; named for its distinct outcropping of the formation in Marcellus, NY (Marcellus Shale

Formation Information Site, 2008). Prior to new developments in horizontal drilling methods,Marcellus Shale was an economically unviable source of energy (Howe et al., 2009). With the

development of these new methods, the demand for drilling has increased, altering the region

socially, politically and economically (Considine, et al., 2009). For example, social inequities are

rising as a result of drilling companies paying property owners to sign right-of-way agreements

that allow natural gas pipelines and drilling pads to be built on or across their land. In addition,the influx of drilling workers is increasing the demand for short-term revenue through property

rentals, hotel reservations, and local dining. An indirect result of this demand for short-term

accommodation is increasing costs. Therefore, local residents are faced with the challenge of

managing the higher cost of living (Kelsey et al., 2011).

The natural environment is also impacted as a result of Marcellus Shale drilling. The process

of drilling for natural gas involves pumping millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicalsthrough pipes into the ground to push the gas up into the pipes for collection (Center for

Transportation Advancement and Regional Development, 2010). This method, commonly

referred to as “fracking”, is controversial because of its direct environmental impacts (water

supply and quality) as well as indirect impacts such as the deterioration of rural roads because of

the high number of vehicles transporting supplies, water, sand and chemicals (Considine et al.,2011).

Transportation Impact

The transportation impacts of Marcellus Shale drilling can be attributed to both impacts on

mobility and infrastructure. The mobility impacts of Marcellus Shale drilling are primarily dueto an increase in truck traffic, which raises the overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Truck

traffic has increased greatly, because trucks are the primary mode used to transport materials

needed for drilling (Considine et al., 2011). The materials used to construct well pads and lay the

pipelines, as well as sand, water, and chemicals needed to extract the gas, must be transported to

and from each well pad site by truck. Oil and gas specialists estimate anywhere from 320 to1,365 truckloads of equipment/materials are needed to bring a well into production (Moss et al.,

2009).

The majority of roadways are often rural roads (paved, unpaved, dirt or gravel), the impacts

of increased levels of truck traffic leads to detrimental roadway infrastructure impacts

(Considine, et al., 2011). As a result of drilling companies hauling materials to build well pads

and drill for natural gas, rural roads are in need of redevelopment to withstand the increasedweight associated with multi-axle vehicles. Types of projects, in addition to pavement

improvement, include widening the road, paving dirt roads, adding “Slow Vehicle Lanes”,

improving lighting, etc. Drilling companies are often responsible for funding the redevelopment

projects, as they are the primary contributors to the mobility and infrastructure impact (Center for

Transportation Advancement and Regional Development, 2010).

Sustainable Transportation Practices

Interest in addressing the sustainability of transportation systems as evidenced by a number of

“green” initiatives in the area of transportation planning, is growing (Jeon and Amekudzi, 2005).

Sustainable transportation has been defined in many contexts, and therefore, there is no singledefinition (Oswald, 2012). However, the Transportation Research Board’s Sustainable

33

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Transportation Indicators Subcommittee (2011) uses the following description; a sustainabletransportation system is one that “allows the basic access and development needs of individuals,

companies, and society to be met safely and in a manner consistent with human and ecosystem

health and promotes equity within and between successive generations”.

As a result of this interest, sustainable transportation metrics and performance measures have

emerged. Studies by Jeon and Amekudzi (2005), Litman (2011), and Ramani et al., (2011) havedeveloped processes and frameworks for developing well-measured, comprehensive, andrelevant sustainable metrics specifically for the transportation sector. Oswald and McNeil (2010)

created a process for developing a sustainability index using a decision analysis method, Analytic

Hierarchy Process (AHP), developed by Saaty (1982) to prioritize metrics based on the

importance to transportation corridor development and redevelopment projects. In 2011, the

Environmental Protection Agency released a “Guide to Sustainable Transportation Performance

Measures” in response to the demand for addressing sustainability in transportation decision-making (EPA, 2011). Also in 2011, the Transportation Research Board (TRB) published “A

Guidebook for Sustainability Performance Measurement for Transportation Agencies” which

includes a sustainability measures checklist and a comprehensive performance measurement

compendium that provides agencies with examples of objectives to integrate into their planning process (Transportation Research Board, 2011). In addition to these efforts, sustainable

transportation rating systems, based on the principles of green building rating systems, are beingdeveloped to quantify sustainable transportation practices for roadway projects.

Rating Systems

In an effort to quantify the sustainability of roadways, sustainable transportation ratings systems

have been recently developed. Example rating systems include the following:

•

I-LAST: Livable and Sustainable Transportation Rating System (Illinois

Department of Transportation, 2010)•

Sustainable Highways-Project Development (Federal Highway Administration,

2010)

•

STARS: Sustainable Transportation Analysis (Access) and Rating System (Portland

Bureau of Transportation and North American Sustainable Transportation Council,

2011)

•

Greenroads (University of Washington and CH2M Hill, 2011)

•

GreenLITES: Green Leadership in Transportation Environmental Sustainability(NYSDOT, 2012)

Each of these rating systems includes sustainable transportation metrics (or performance

measures) that are used as credits that can be earned by a project team. Each credit has a point

value based on its relevance and importance to achieving the overall goal of the rating system.

The total number of points achieved determines the level of certification (or incorporation of

sustainability practices). GreenLITES has a similar framework as it is based on Greenroads principles but is tailored to the needs of a Department of Transportation (DOT) agency

(NYSDOT, 2012). NYSDOT developed GreenLITES with the intention of being “committed to

improving the quality of our transportation infrastructure in ways that minimize impacts to the

environment” (NYSDOT, 2012). Due to the regional location of Marcellus Shale projects

(which includes New York), as well as its comprehensiveness, GreenLITES serves as the

foundation for this study.

34

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Data Collection

To obtain a baseline of existing Marcellus Shale redevelopment projects and their current degree

of sustainable practice implementation, two surveys were used: (1) Project Evaluation Survey

and (2) a Pairwise Comparison Survey. Both surveys were based on the sustainable practices in

GreenLITES rating system, which was selected for use in this study due to its comprehensivenessand regional application. The GreenLITES rating system was evaluated based on the credits that

are relevant and applicable to the Marcellus Shale roadway redevelopment projects. Therefore,

credits were selected for inclusion in the study based on their applicability. Table 1 displays the

credits, under each of the five categories (Sustainable Sites, Water Quality, Materials and

Resources, Energy and Atmosphere, and Innovation and Design), selected from GreenLITES forapplication in the surveys.

Table 1- List of Credits used for Survey on Marcellus Shale Projects

Sustainable Practices for Marcellus Shale Roadway Redevelopment

Sustainable Sites Water Quality Materials andResources

Energy andAtmosphere

Innovationand

Design

Alignment

Selection

Storm-water

Management

(Volume &

Quality)

Reuse of

Materials

Improved Traffic

Flow

Innovation

Context SensitiveSolutions

Best ManagementPractices (BMPs)

RecycledContent

Reduce PetroleumConsumption

Unlisted

Land Use/

Community

Planning

Local Materials Improve Bicycle

and Pedestrian

Facilities

Habitat Protection Bioengineering

Techniques

Noise Abatement

Plant and Tree

Protection

Hazardous

Material

Minimization

Stray Light

Reduction

*Credits based on GreenLITES Rating System (NYSDOT, 2012)

Project Evaluation Survey

In order to determine the practices used in Marcellus Shale redevelopment projects, a Project

Evaluation Survey was developed. This survey focuses on identifying which sustainable practices (based on GreenLITES credits that pertain to Marcellus Shale roadway redevelopment

projects) are being implemented. The credits included in the survey are those that are relevant

and applicable to redevelopment projects. Under each credit, there are specific practices that are

listed in GreenLITES that are also included in the survey based on their relevance to Marcellus

Shale roadway projects.The survey is organized into sections based on the five categories of credits in GreenLITES

(NYSDOT, 2012). Under each section, respondents were asked to “check” the box next to the

practices (for each category and credit) implemented on past or current projects. For example,

under the category Sustainable Sites, the credit Alignment Selection, includes a number of

specific practices such as “avoidance of previously undeveloped lanes”. If the specific practice

under the category-credit is achieved, it is checked by the respondent (NYSDOT, 2012). Figure 1includes an excerpt of the Project Evaluation Survey.

35

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



*Descriptions based on GreenLITES (NYSDOT, 2012)

Figure 1: Excerpt of the Project Evaluation Survey

Survey participants for the Project Evaluation Survey are representatives from companies

that are leading roadway redevelopment projects related to the Marcellus Shale drilling. The

participants were volunteers from the Marcellus Shale Coalition's Road Use Committee. Once participants (four volunteers from varying companies) agreed to complete the survey, it was

distributed electronically, in which survey participants input their answers. Although there were

only four participants that completed the survey, they each represent companies that oversee a

number of projects and are well-known within the Marcellus Shale drilling industry. Therefore,

the results represent multiple projects under those companies, reflective of many of the MarcellusShale roadway projects.

Pairwise Comparison Survey

The second survey focuses on identifying which sustainable practices (based on GreenLITEScredits) are most important for implementing redevelopment projects related to the Marcellus

Shale drilling. Since this survey requires background knowledge of sustainability practices,

sustainable transportation experts were surveyed. Survey participants include representatives

from private transportation companies as well as public transportation agencies including DOTs

and Metropolitan Planning Organizations. They were selected based on their familiarity with

sustainable transportation practices and the regional impact of Marcellus Shale drilling. Seven participants were distributed the survey and seven responded.

In order to prioritize the credits, a decision analysis method, Analytic Hierarchy Process

(AHP) is used, as recommended in Oswald and McNeil (2010). AHP, developed by Saaty(1982), is a method to prioritize qualitative concepts (such as credits) using pairwise comparison

surveys that enable the comparison of the individual credits and overall categories based on their

36

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



importance with respect to the overarching goal of the rating system (Oswald and McNeil, 2010).In this study, the overall goal is to promote sustainable transportation practices in Marcellus

Shale roadway redevelopment projects. The categories and credits are identical to those used in

the Project Evaluation Survey, which were based on GreenLITES. The pairwise comparisons are

based on a standard scale of importance from one (equal) to nine (extreme) (Saaty, 1982). All

credits and all categories are compared using this approach.Table 2 displays an example pairwise comparison under the category of Sustainable Sites for

the credit Alignment Selection. This question reads, “With respect to the Sustainable Sites

category, which credit holds more importance and to what degree: A (Alignment Selection) or B

(Context Sensitive Solutions)? The value “3” is circled under the column of “moderate” where

“A is more important than B, which means, with respect to the category of Sustainable Sites,

credit A (Alignment Selection) holds “moderate” importance over credit B (Context Sensitive

Solutions).

Results

Once the surveys were submitted, the data for both the Project Evaluation Survey and thePairwise Comparison Survey were analyzed. The results for both surveys are described and used

in order to make recommendations for incorporating sustainability practices into future projects.

Project Evaluation Survey

The results of the Project Evaluation Survey were analyzed to compare credits applied on past

and current projects. Figure 2 shows the results of the number of practices achieved under eachcategory and related credit by each of the four companies. The total number of possible practices

for each category-credit is listed in parentheses along the horizontal axis. For example, for

Sustainable Sites, there are 40 practices listed in the survey, therefore, participants can mark up

to 40 practices under this category.

37

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



38

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Figure 2: Project Evaluation Survey Results

From Figure 2 it can be inferred that few companies (in this case one out of four) are active

in applying sustainability practices when redeveloping roads. As can be seen in Figure 2,Company B far surpassed Companies A, C, and D based on the sustainability credits included in

GreenLITES. Company A’s implementation of practices are solely in Energy and Atmosphere,

and Innovation and Design, while Company C has implemented credits in Sustainable Sites and

Water Quality. Company D implemented one credit, in the Materials and Resources category. In

contrast, Company B has addressed practices in every category, and shows that the use of

sustainable practices in Marcellus Shale roadway redevelopment projects is feasible.

Pairwise Comparison Survey

Once the current state of the practice is identified, it is useful to prioritize the credits based on

importance and relevance to Marcellus Shale roadway redevelopment projects. Therefore, the pairwise comparisons from each of the survey participants were used to apply the AHP method

via Expert Choice (an AHP-based software program). The software is used to combine the

participant responses as well as synthesize the results. The category weights are embedded into

the individual credit weights based on the pairwise comparisons from all participants (Expert

Choice, 2012).There are two types of modes for synthesizing the pairwise comparison results in Expert

Choice (2012): ideal and distributive. The ideal mode combines the results of all participants as

well as all weights for categories and credits. One benefit of the ideal mode versus the

distributive is that the category weight is applied to the credits without regards to the number of

credits within the category. For example, if a category has two credits and another has six, the

category with fewer credits is not penalized as being less important due to the fewer number ofcredits. Therefore, the ideal mode, normalized from 1.0 (high priority) to 0 (low priority), is used

to analyze the results.

Figure 3 displays the final weights for each of the credits based on the ideal, normalized

synthesis method. The consistency ratio, the measure of how consistent the participants are

when completing the pairwise comparisons, determines the validity of the results. In order for the

39

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



results to be valid, the ratio should be less than 0.1, according to Saaty (1982). The ratio fromthis survey is 0.02 as shown in Figure 3; therefore, the results are valid and can be analyzed.

Figure 3: Screenshot of Expert Choice SynthesisSoftware Source: Expert Choice, 2012

In addition to knowing the value of each credit to Marcellus Shale roadway redevelopment

projects, the overall category importance is useful as well. The final category weights include:

Sustainable Sites- 0.369, Water Quality-0.295, Materials and Resources, 0.10, Energy and

Atmosphere- 0.114, and Innovation and Design- 0.122. Therefore, the most valued category,

based on the participant responses, is Sustainable Sites followed by Water Quality. Tosummarize the results, Table 3 identifies the credit’s order of importance with its associatedcategory.

40

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Table 3: Credit Importance toward Marcellus Shale Roadway Redevelopment Projects

Order of

Importance

Credit Category Normalized

Weight

1 Alignment Selection Sustainable Sites 1.000

2 Land Use/ Community

Planning

Sustainable Sites 0.829

3 SWM Volume and Quality Water Quality 0.799

4 Habitat Protection Sustainable Sites 0.738

5 Context Sensitive Solutions Sustainable Sites 0.603

6 Plant and Tree

Protection/Mitigation

Sustainable Sites 0.501

7 Best Management Practices Water Quality 0.397

8 Innovation Innovation & Design 0.331

9 Improved Traffic Flow Energy & Atmosphere 0.30910 Hazardous Material

Minimization

Materials & Resources 0.272

11 Reuse of Materials Materials & Resources 0.244

12 Reduce Petroleum

Consumption

Energy & Atmosphere 0.173

13 Recycled Content Materials & Resources 0.150

14 Improve Bicycle and

Pedestrian Facilities

Energy & Atmosphere 0.131

15 Bio-engineering techniques Materials & Resources 0.126

16 Unlisted Innovation & Design 0.10017 Local Materials Materials & Resources 0.096

18 Noise Abatement Energy & Atmosphere 0.084

19 Stray Light Reduction Energy & Atmosphere 0.058

Reflection and Recommendations

The objectives of determining the current progress in implementing sustainable practices in past

and current roadway redevelopment projects as well as identifying the importance of sustainable

transportation performance measures to Marcellus Shale projects were achieved through the use

of the two surveys.The Project Evaluation Survey suggests that most companies are not fully incorporating

sustainable practices into their redevelopment projects, most likely due to the short-term nature

of the project (in contrast to the long-term nature of sustainability impacts). However, the use of

rating systems can encourage companies to be more aware of sustainable transportation practices,

and therefore, it is recommended that programs such as GreenLITES, or a newly developed

program specific to Marcellus Shale projects, be used as a metric for sustainable roadwayredevelopment projects.

Furthermore, while all possible sustainable credits could ideally be applied in future roadway

redevelopment projects, the data from the Pairwise Comparison Survey indicates the credits are

most valuable and relevant for implementation. Credits such as Alignment Selection, Land

Use/Community Planning, and Stormwater Volume and Quality are ranked the highest based ontheir importance to Marcellus Shale roadway projects. This correlates to the highest rankedcategories: Sustainable Sites and Water Quality. Therefore, efforts should be made to incorporate

41

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



practices, specifically those that focus on reducing impacts on the surrounding area as well asenhancing water quality, into future projects. Although many times the location is determined,

efforts to reduce impacts to the specific area through context sensitive design and community

planning are viable.

The results of the Pairwise Comparison Survey provide recommendations not only for

implementation of specific practices to future projects but also as a foundation for the next stepof developing a rating system specific for redevelopment projects related to the Marcellus Shaledrilling. The credit prioritization based on AHP provides specific weights indicating the

importance of each credit to the overall goal of promoting sustainable practices. Therefore, this

research provides the first step in the development of a rating system for Marcellus Shale

redevelopment projects.

Conclusion

The Marcellus Shale drilling initiative has impacted townships economically, socially, and

environmentally due to the rise in traffic flow of heavy trucks commuting to and from drilling

sites, increasing the overall transportation demand on rural roads (Considine et al., 2009).Roadway redevelopment projects to enable safe truck travel including paving dirt roads, filling

ruts, and widening roads, continue to be implemented. Therefore, the opportunity to encourage

sustainable practices to be implemented in roadway redevelopment projects is necessary.This research explores the sustainability of the redevelopment of rural roads as a result of

Marcellus Shale drilling through two surveys: a Project Evaluation Survey and a Pairwise

Comparison Survey. The surveys are based on sustainable practices established in the

GreenLITES rating system as a basis for determining which credits are most applicable and

relevant to Marcellus Shale roadway redevelopment projects.The results of the Project Evaluation Survey indicate that companies are not adequately

addressing sustainable practices (related to site location, water quality, materials, energy) in past

and existing projects. However, the results of the Pairwise Comparison Survey suggest thatthere are sustainability practices that should be applied, specifically those within the category of

Sustainable Sites and Water Quality. Ideally, expanding the survey to a number of respondents

reflective of other companies is a future goal. Although there are limitations associated with thesurvey, these results serve as a foundation for continuing the investigation of how to implement

sustainability practices using transportation rating systems.

Future work associated with this study is to develop a rating system specific to Marcellus

Shale roadway redevelopment projects using the results of the credit prioritization. The

prioritization of credits developed using Expert Choice provides specific weights indicating the

importance of each credit to the overall goal of promoting sustainable practices in MarcellusShale roadway projects. This research provides the foundation for how companies, such as those

included in the study, can begin to identify and implement relevant sustainability practices intotheir roadway redevelopment projects as a result of the Marcellus Shale drilling.

42

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



REFERENCES

Center for Transportation Advancement and Regional Development. (2010). "Natural Gas

Drilling in the Marcellus Shale: Regional Economic Opportunities and Infrastructure

Challenges." National Association of Development Organizations Research Foundation,

4.City of Kelowna. (2009) “Pavement Management Program.” City of Kelowna: Residents:

Transportation: Roadway Maintenance and Equipment: Pavement Management

Program. Web 13 July 2012. < http://www.kelowna.ca/CM/Page1033.aspx>.

Considine, Timothy J., Robert W. Watson, and Nicholas B. Considine. (2011). "The Economic

Opportunities of Shale Development." Energy Policy and the Environment Report.

Considine T., Watson, R., Entler, R., and Sparks, J. (2009). An Emerging Giant: Prospects and

Economic Impacts of Developing the Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Play. Pennsylvania

State University. Retrieved March 11, 2010 from

http://www.alleghenyconference.org/PDFs/PELMisc/PSUStudyMarcellusShale072409.

pdf.

DOE. (2004). U.S. Department of Energy. Modern shale gas development in the United States: a primer . Retrieved March 11, 2010 from http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-

gas/publications/EPreports/Shale_Gas_Primer_2009.pdf

EPA. (2011). Guide to Sustainable Transportation Performance Measures. United States

Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from

http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/transpo_performance.htm.

Expert Choice. (2012). Expert Choice Desktop Software. Retrieved from

http://expertchoice.com/.

Federal Highway Administration. (2010). Sustainable Highways Self-Evaluation Tool. U.S.

Department of Transportation. Retrieved on January 4, 2012 from

http://sustainablehighways.org/.

Howe, Rod, Jeffrey Jacquet, William Pammer, and Loretta Sullivan. (2009). "Impacts to LocalGovernments and Municipalities from Natural Gas Drilling." Cornell University

Cooperative Extension. Cornell Cooperative Extension Natural Gas Development

Resource Center. Retrieved from

http://cce.cornell.edu/EnergyClimateChange/NaturalGasDev/.

Illinois Department Of Transportation. (2010). Illinois-Livable and Sustainable Transportation

Rating System and Guide. IDOT Division of Highways. Retrieved on January 4, 2012from http://www.dot.state.il.us/green/documents/I-LASTGuidebook.pdf.

Jeon, C., and Amekudzi, A. (2005). Addressing Sustainability in Transportation Systems:

Definitions, Indicators, and Metrics. Journal of Infrastructure Systems. American

Society of Civil Engineering. 11(1), 31-50.

Josephine County Oregon. (2012) “Road Surfacing.” Josephine County Oregon: Operations:Road Surfacing: Asphalt Overlay. Web 13 July 2012.<http://www.co.josephine.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=261>

Kelsey, Timothy W. and Murphy, Thomas B. (2011). “Impact of Marcellus Shale on Housing

Needs.” Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Cascade No. 77. Retrieved on June 2,

2012 from http://www.phil.frb.org/community-

development/publications/cascade/77/08_impact-of-marcellus-shale-on-housing-needs.cfm.

Litman, T. (2011). Well Measured: Developing Indicators for Comprehensive and Sustainable

Transport Planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria.

Litman, T. and Burwell, D. (2006). “Issues in Sustainable Transportation.” Journal of Global

Environmental Issues, 6(4), 331-346.

43

http://www.kelowna.ca/CM/Page1033.aspx

http://www.alleghenyconference.org/PDFs/PELMisc/PSUStudyMarcellusShale072409.pdf


http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/publications/EPreports/Shale_Gas_Primer_2009.pdf



http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/transpo_performance.htm


http://expertchoice.com/

http://www.co.josephine.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=261

http://www.phil.frb.org/community-development/publications/cascade/77/08_impact-of-marcellus-shale-on-housing-needs.cfm






http://www.co.josephine.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=261

http://expertchoice.com/





















http://www.kelowna.ca/CM/Page1033.aspx

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Marcellus Shale Formation Information Site. (2008). What is the Marcellus Shale Formation.

Retrieved on June 2, 2012 from http://marcellusshaleformation.com/.

Marcellus Education Team. (2008) "Marcellus Shale: What Local Governments Need to Know."

Penn State Agriculture Research and Cooperative Extension. Retrieved from

http://www.coshoctoncounty.net/cpa/images/marcellusshalewhatlocalgovernmentofficia

lsneedtoknow. Moss, Kerry, Carol McCoy, Pat O’Dell, Gilbert Garcia, Stephen Simon, Gary Rosenlieb, Pete

Penoyer, and Holly Salazer. (2009). “Development of the Natural Gas Resources in the

Marcellus Shale.” U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. 11 June.

2012. Retrieved from

http://marcellus.psu.edu/resources/PDFs/marcellusshalereport09.pdf.

Oswald, M. (2012). Measuring Sustainable Transportation: Incorporating Social Sustainability

Indicators into Transportation Rating Systems. International Journal of Environmental

Sustainability, Vol. 8 (1), 101-114.

Oswald, Michelle, and McNeil, Sue. (2010). Rating Sustainability: Transportation Investments

in Urban Corridors as a Case Study. Journal of Urban Planning and Development .

American Society of Civil Engineering. 136 (3), 177-185. NYSDOT. (2012). GreenLITES. Retrieved from https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/greenlites.

PennDOT. (2012). Marcellus Shale 2010-2011 Upgrade List. Bureau of Maintenance andOperations, PennDOT.

Portland Bureau of Transportation and North American Sustainable Transportation Council.

(2011). Sustainable Transportation Analysis (Access) and Rating System. Retrieved on

January 4, 2012 from

http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=34749&a=330336. Portland Cement Association. (2012) “Full Depth Reclamation With Cement.” Portland Cement

Association: Pavements: Soil-Cement. Web. 13 July 2012.

<http://www.cement.org/pavements/pv_sc_fdr.asp>

Ramani, T.L., Zietsman, J., Gudmundsson, H., Hall, R., and Marsden, G., (2011). Frameworkfor Sustainability Assessment by Transportation Agencies. Transportation Research

Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2242, TransportationResearch Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, 9-18.

Saaty, T.L. (1982). “Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytical Hierarchy Process for

Decisions in a Complex World .” Lifetime Learning Publications, Belmont.

Transportation Research Board. (2011). NCHRP Report 708: A Guidebook for Sustainability

Performance Measurement for Transportation Agencies. National Academy of

Sciences, Washington D.C. Retrieved on January 4, 2012 from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_708.pdf.

Transportation Research Board’s Sustainable Transportation Indicators Subcommittee. (2011).

Sustainable Transportation Indicators: A Recommended Research Program for Developing Sustainable Transportation Indicators and Data. Retrieved on October 11,

2011 from www.vtpi.org/sustain/sti.pdf. University of Washington and CH2M Hill. (2011). Greenroads Abridged Manual Version 1.5.

Retrieved from http://www.greenroads.org/366/download-the-manual.html.

44

http://marcellusshaleformation.com/

http://www.coshoctoncounty.net/cpa/images/marcellusshalewhatlocalgovernmentofficialsneedtoknow


http://marcellus.psu.edu/resources/PDFs/marcellusshalereport09.pdf

https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/greenlites

http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=34749&a=330336

http://www.cement.org/pavements/pv_sc_fdr.asp

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_708.pdf


http://www.vtpi.org/sustain/sti.pdf

http://www.greenroads.org/366/download-the-manual.html

http://www.greenroads.org/366/download-the-manual.html































http://www.cement.org/pavements/pv_sc_fdr.asp

http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=34749&a=330336

https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/greenlites

http://marcellus.psu.edu/resources/PDFs/marcellusshalereport09.pdf



http://marcellusshaleformation.com/

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr. Michelle Oswald Beiler: Michelle Beiler, a LEED AP and EIT, is an Assistant Professor incivil and environmental engineering at Bucknell University. She has completed her doctoral

degree in civil engineering with a concentration in transportation engineering at the University of

Delaware. She has also completed a Master of Arts in urban and regional planning as well as aMaster in Civil Engineering at the University of Delaware, specializing in sustainable

transportation planning. She received a Bachelor of Science in civil engineering from Lafayette

College. Her research is focused on sustainable transportation rating systems, climate changeadaptation, and resilient transportation corridors.

Victoria Caudullo: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Bucknell University,

U.S.A.

45

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final


7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final


Utopian Ideas about Sustainability? The Case of

Chemical Management in the EU

Oksana Udovyk, Södertörn University, SwedenJohan Hedren, Linköping University, Sweden

Abstract: This study examines EU chemical management regimes with a focus on the treatment of uncertainty. Referring

to current discourses on sustainability, the study criticizes existing practices and discusses alternative approaches to

chemical management. In addition to highly discussed options for management under conditions of uncertainty (e.g.,

precautionary management and adaptive management), we argue that chemical management might also benefit from

introducing the “sufficiency” concept into the production context. More generally, this would entail a shift in seeing

quality of life as based on a sufficiency rather than an abundance of chemicals. The article concludes that, although these

chemical management ideas might be very problematic, more integrated and holistic visions of future chemical and

environmental policies might emerge from considering new sustainability ideas in various branches of the current

economic system.

Keywords: Uncertainty, REACH, Environment, De-growth, Utopian Thought

Introduction

hemical management is increasingly being discussed in the frame of sustainability, as it issituated at the crossroads of the socio–economic benefits of chemical use and socio– environmental concerns related to human and environmental health risks. Inherently

problematic, chemical management is being challenged by increasingly recognized uncertainties.Chemicals are ubiquitous, being found in water, air, manufactured products, human bodies,

mothers’ milk, etc. (Thibodeaux 1996; Solomon and Weiss 2002; Kampa and Castanas 2008).What this means for human and environmental health is poorly understood because of knowledge

limitations. For example, in addition to a basic lack of data, very little is known about direct links between specific chemicals and adverse effects on humans and the environment (Carpenter,Arcaro, and Spink 2002). These uncertainties, in combination with existing arrays of complex

political and other social arrangements, allow stakeholders to compete over the interpretation ofeither data or the lack of data, to shape final decisions (Eriksson et al. 2010).

While debates over lack of knowledge and various interpretations continue, the number ofnewly synthesized chemicals is continuously growing; for example, over 60 million unique

organic and inorganic substances worldwide have been assigned numbers in the CAS Registry1

(Binetti, Costamagna, and Marcello 2008). While the scientific and industrial capacity to developnew chemicals is increasing, knowledge and tools for chemical accounting and safe managementare lagging behind.

Numerous studies indicate that chemical pollution is among the main anthropogenic pressures on Earth (McMichael 1993; Rockström et al. 2009). For example, studies demonstratethat chemical pollution contributes to infertility, immune suppression, cancer, and developmentaldisorders in humans and wildlife (Thornton 2001). This situation could well be pivotal for futurehuman and environmental health, indicating a need for a paradigm shift in the chemicalmanagement system. Though several publications call for fundamental shifts in chemicalassessment and policy (Thornton 2000; Rockström et al. 2009), most environmental science

1 CAS Registry Numbers are unique numerical identifiers assigned to all chemicals described in the open scientificliterature, including elements, isotopes, organic and inorganic compounds, ions, organometallics, metals, andnonstructurable materials (www.cas.org).

C


Volume 9, 2014, onsustainability.com, ISSN: 2325-1166© Common Ground, Oksana Udovyk and Johan Hedren, All Rights ReservedPermissions: [email protected]

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



publications discuss only the improvement of current practices (e.g., methodological,institutional, and technological improvements) (Thornton 2001; Princen 2003).

In dealing with contemporary environmental issues, major shifts are possible only afterdetailed reflection on the current situation and awareness of the deadlock induced by theentrenched policy approaches and societal behaviors of modern industrial society. Beck, whose

prominent writings are the basis of the concept of “reflexivity” applied in socio–political science,emphasizes the importance of political, public, and academic reflection (Beck 1992).

Several studies have demonstrated how many current strands of environmental politics and practice suffer from only perfunctory reflection on alternative development paths (e.g. Hedrénand Linnér 2009). Such an instrumental politics, or “post-politics,” stands in contrast to ideal,genuine politics that addresses as many as possible of the competing values, interests,knowledge, interpretations, and goals of concerned people. Such politics requires a spirit ofimagination, (Bradley and Hedrén, forthcoming).

This study examines the EU chemical management paradigm in light of ideas inspired bynew sustainability ideas. The sustainability concept, offers a formulation of alternatives withwhich existing societies can be compared (Boström 2012). Here we refer to some of the new

currents/visions of sustainability thought, for example, those based on the “degrowth” movement(Garcia 2012) and on the ideas of steady-state economics (Daly 1991). By doing so, this essayaims not only to criticize current EU chemical management but also to generate discussion of thetrajectory of an alternative policy.

Current Sustainability Ideas

The term “sustainability” and its underlying meaning are constantly changing and evolving.Today, it is more common to refer to “sustainability,” omitting the problematic “development”

part of sustainable development, as the latter recalls the “destructive power of unlimited growth”.However, the meaning of sustainability is probably the main target of current discussions of

sustainability (Rogers et al. 2012; Scott 2012; Foxon et al. 2013). Factors such as happiness,wellbeing, and peace tend to be mentioned more frequently. Evolving mostly as a social alarm,these components have attracted the attention of scientists and international institutions,

exemplified by a recent United Nations high-level meeting on wellbeing and happiness2 or the

2011 UN General Assembly motion calling for governments to promote polices focusing onsustainability, happiness, and wellbeing as opposed to narrower definitions of economic growthmeasured solely by the expansion of GDP (Burns 2011).

Current sustainability thought has become an umbrella framework for several ideas that build on a detailed philosophical, cultural, anthropological, and institutional critique of thenotions of growth and development dating back at least to the 1970s (Illich 1973). Among themost referenced such critiques in the scientific literature are those of steady-state economics(SSE) (Daly 1991) and the degrowth movement (Garcia 2012). SSE calls for stable populationand consumption that remain at or below Earth’s carrying capacity. The concept is typicallyapplied to a national economy, but can also be applied to the economic system of a city, region,or the entire planet (Daly 1991; Daly and Townsend 1993). Degrowth ideas argue fortranscending the contemporary world through a more radical reform within the institutionalframework of the market economy, which involves reframing present institutions according tovarious principles with the aim of downscaling the economy (Fotopoulos 2010). Despite the lackof a common definition in the literature, the de-growth concept can be explained as a sociallysustainable and equitable reduction (and eventually stabilization) of societies’ throughput. Ingeneral, degrowth advocates downsizing, rescaling, and limiting current production,

2 This UN high-level meeting on ”Well- being and Happiness: Defining a New Economic Paradigm” was held as a follow-up to the previous year’s ”Bhutan Conference on Happiness and Economic Development,” and reiterated the idea ofintegrating the gross national happiness (GNH) index into the public policy agenda (http://www.2apr.gov.bt).

48

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final


UDOVYK AND HEDREN: UTOPIAN IDEAS ABOUT SUSTAINABILITY?

consumption, etc., without compromising human wellbeing, arguing that societies today areneither equitable nor sustainable.

These ideas are somewhat ambiguous, though this can be said of many normative socialscience concepts, but this does not necessarily compromise their usefulness (Kallis 2011). Theseand other sustainability ideas centre not only on the physical reduction/stabilization of energy

and material consumption for the sake of social wellbeing and environmental sustainability, butalso emphasize the notion of “needs.” These sustainability ideas can be seen as signaling therebirth of the “needs” and “sufficiency” debate in ecological economics (Martínez-Alier et al.2010). They emphasize a “selective approach” and expand discussions about what society reallyneeds. The selective approach fosters debate about the value of consuming goods, energy, andmaterials, etc. It promotes sufficiency in these parameters and criticizes the pursuit of luxury andexcess consumption (Kallis 2011). Despite being problematic, “sufficiency” research has beenreceiving increasing attention in sustainability science (Princen 2003; Jäger 2009). The latestEEA report, Signals 2012, raises the issue of “needs” in a green economy and suggests creativesolutions to preserve the environment, among them reducing consumption (EEA 2012).

EU Chemical Management Paradigm

Synthetic chemicals were long allowed to enter the European market with little control, except inthe case of food additives, pharmaceuticals, and biocides (Karlsson, Gilek, and Udovyk 2011). Insome cases, this uncontrolled entry resulted in the release of chemicals with serious side effectson human and environmental health, for example, in the cases of DDT and PCB. Responding toemerging health and environmental problems rather than emerging chemicals was the mainmanagement approach (Karlsson 2006; Selin 2007).

It was difficult if not impossible to restrict the use of a substance in that system withoutscientific consensus as to its hazardous properties. Chemicals were released on the market until

proven “guilty.” Therefore, a lack of data has more or less been regarded as indicating an absence

of human and environmental health risks (Karlsson 2006; Karlsson 2010; Selin 2007).Major concerns were raised in 1981 when the EU chemical management system attempted to

register substances. However the system covered only approximately 140 substances and, due toa strong burden of proof placed on the public domain, the process was never applied to allsubstances (Karlsson 2010).

A new EU chemical regulation (the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restrictionof Chemical substances (REACH)) entered into force in 2007, ushering in a new paradigm ofchemical management (EC 2006). The paradigm is based on precautionary considerations andensures that chemicals cannot be placed on the market unless information about them isavailable. Chemical producers are obliged to conduct risk assessments for each chemical to beused in the EU, according to REACH. This new paradigm places a binding burden of proof on

the industry to provide data.At the same time, the provision regarding compulsory data for low-volume substances is

problematic. In cases in which chemicals are produced in quantities below 1 tonne, there is noregistration requirement, meaning that thousands of low-volume substances not covered byREACH. When it comes to substances that affect organisms in very small doses (e.g. endocrinedisruptors), amounts less than one tonne can cause serious human health and environmentaldamage.

In addition, REACH supports new non-animal-testing assessment methodologies. On theone hand, these constitute important alternative approaches, as animal testing of all chemicals inuse would require the use of millions of test organisms (Hansson and Rudén 2010). On the otherhand, given the current lack of ecotoxicological data, model interpretation will increase existing

uncertainty.

49

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Moreover, the quality, credibility, and scientific validity of the chemical assessment dossiers produced by industry are often questioned. The responsible agency for the control of registeredinformation, i.e., the European Chemicals Agency, will obviously not be able to check all of thedossiers (Karlsson, Gilek, and Udovyk 2011; Udovyk et al. 2010).

All these factors clearly emphasize that uncertainty remains a major challenge facing EU

chemical management, despite significant improvements introduced by REACH.In addition to these obvious types of uncertainty, there are several other significant

“unknowns” in the EU chemical management paradigm. It generally overestimates the ability ofscience and technology to address chemical pollution in complex socio–ecological systems. Theframework is based on the demonstrably false notion that it is possible to determine the ecotoxic

properties of chemicals, their behavior in the environment, and the attendant risk of chemical pollution and to regulate them accordingly. Current studies have demonstrated that scientificresults are often inconclusive or cannot provide the expected certainty regarding the behavior ofindividual chemicals or mixtures of chemicals in the environment (Kortenkamp 2008; Maximand Van der Sluijs, Jeroen P 2007; Ruden and Gilek 2010; Verdonck et al. 2007) . For example,an analysis of a single chemical in the laboratory can say very little about its toxicity and effects

on the constituent parts of an ecosystem and on the whole ecosystem. Taking into account ourlack of knowledge of ecosystems and their natural variability, the task of ecotoxicologists andrisk assessors is becoming even more complicated. In addition to the “cocktail mix” effects ofchemicals in the environment, the long-term effects and ecosystem-specific behavior ofchemicals make the current system of chemical risk analysis especially problematic (Karlsson,Gilek, and Udovyk 2011).

In addition to uncertainty-related problems, the current risk paradigm also faces difficultiesrelated to its basic assumptions. Central to this risk control paradigm is that pollution is

permitted, providing a particular release rate is achieved. This notion is based partly on the beliefthat ecosystems have an assimilative capacity to absorb and degrade pollutants without harm, aslong as exposure is below a threshold level, and partly on the assumption that hazardous

chemicals can be “stored and controlled” (Thornton 2001). For example, according to the termsof REACH, even when proven hazardous, particular chemicals can be still placed on the marketif the producer can prove that there will be no exposure to the chemical or that it will be properlycontrolled (EC 2006). The production of proven hazardous chemicals is a continuous trend in

both previous and current management paradigms (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Production of Toxic Chemicals (millions of tonnes)Source: Eurostat

50

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



The continuing (given the slow REACH assessment process) lack of data on chemical properties and on general ecosystem-related uncertainties, together with the continuous production of hazardous chemicals, highlight the intrinsic ill-suitedness of the current chemicalassessment and regulation system for preventing chemical pollution.

The lack of data and basic knowledge in this system permits a broad group of stakeholders to

compete over the appropriate scope of analysis and how to interpret the associated uncertainty,often leading to disagreements, politicization, and conflict, which deflects attention from themain question – the production of hazardous chemicals as such. This has been obvious in thedebate on REACH, from the initial call for a new regulation in 1999, and persisting even after itentered into force in 2007. It has been said that REACH was the most contested and disputed

piece of legislation in the history of the EU (Hansson and Rudén 2010).

Analysis

For decades, the overarching focus of EU chemical policy on production directed all relevantdiscussions in the area. Most environmental and health-related discussions were in line with

increased production, though raising some health and environmental safety concerns. Theseconcerns or emerging crisis forced the policy to acknowledge a need to improve safety, thoughleaving the “consumer sovereignty” concept in place (Princen 2003).

Thus, up to now the industrial society has developed on the principle that innovations aresafe until proved dangerous. Turning it round to the adoption and implementation of a“precautionary principle” is an enormous task for REACH. However, despite its novelty,REACH paradigm has some serious drawbacks and uncertainties are the main of them. Giventhat the uncertainties inherent to the lack of data and knowledge about ecosystem complexity andabout the complex behavior of chemicals (and their mixtures) in the environment will prevail forthe foreseeable future, it is problematic to draw any definite conclusions about chemical safety.Assuming that chemical risk assessments can never be totally conclusive, guaranteeing safety is

problematic.Most current initiatives to improve chemical management typically include actions to reduce

existing uncertainties: improved understanding, for example, of the “cocktail effect” of chemicalmixtures in water bodies; improved assessment methodologies; or to increase safety: by forexample engineering solutions (e.g., better storage facilities). However, the focus onuncertainties reduction and safety improvement can be misleading, and obviously draws attentionfrom the core problems of this system. One obvious practical reflection of the safetyimprovement approach is the fact that REACH permits chemical production, use, and releaseeven proven hazardous, ensuring the good functioning of the EU internal market (if risk is

properly controlled).Analogous to technological innovation for sustainable development, such as “green”

capitalism (Greider 2004) or “ecological modernization” (Young, 2000), and to such proposals asenergy-efficient technologies, new energy sources, and cap and trade schemes, safetyimprovement in chemical management can be criticized (Boonstra and Joose 2013). This is

because technological fixes and efficiency improvements paradoxically increase rather thandecrease consumption levels and often lead to increased CO2 emissions, a phenomenon alsoknown as the “Jevons paradox” (Alcott 2005).

While it is possible to elaborate on how to improve chemical management assessment,safety, monitoring, and knowledge, new sustainability ideas can guide the discussion in adifferent direction, by providing an alternative vision of possible action. While the dominantmarket ideology is based on the assumption that the only way to progress is by developing and

producing more material products, including chemicals, new sustainability ideas call for the

development of a less material-intensive way of life, a reduction in the quantities of materialsextracted and processed, an increase in the recycling of materials and product modules, and,

51

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



eventually, the closing of material loops (Mont, Singhal, and Fadeeva 2006). Applying the ideaof degrowth in chemical management would entail the voluntary reduction of chemical

production, while the SSE approach would entail the possibility of chemical productionstabilization.

However, a single-minded focus on the reduction/stabilization of chemical production can be

misleading and even completely impossible to realize. Nowadays, chemicals are ubiquitouslyused in and considered integral to modern society. The latest OECD report states: “modern lifewithout chemicals is inconceivable; chemicals are part of our daily lives, whether in paints,insect sprays, computers, kitchen appliances, medicines or sun screens, to name a few of themillions of items and products” (OECD 2011).

In this respect, Geus (1999) believes that, when developing the appropriate policies, it isimportant to be careful what aspects to embrace. In the case of chemical management, it isimportant that environmental concerns not conflict with social and economic ones. In this regard,new sustainability ideas also state that reduction/stabilization of energy and materialconsumption should not be experienced as loss of wellbeing – wellbeing being the key aspecthere (Kallis 2011). Keeping in mind that many of the produced chemicals are considered vital for

wellbeing, it seems reasonable to apply the “sufficiency” approach when seeking clarity (Kallis2011). The idea underlying current sustainability discourse seeks to limit growth for the sake ofgrowth, and to focus instead on results, services, properties, etc. This implies a shift of

perception, seeing quality of life as based on sufficiency and not on abundance of commodities,which in turn is closely connected to the production of chemicals.

In this way, new sustainability ideas bring into discourse the question of “needs” that used to be animatedly debated in the 1930s and was broached by Keynes (Martínez-Alier et al. 2010).The question of “needs” is omitted from most existing chemical policies, the development ofwhich is mainly market driven. At the same time, the question of “needs” could change thenature of the discussions and controversies related to chemical management.

Focusing on “needs” and sufficiency raises many feedback questions, for example,

concerning what sufficiency is and who is to make decisions concerning it. Despite greatly promoting the idea of “enough” or optimal scale, Daly and Townsend (1993) recognize that theseideas are daunting; they also recognize that asking questions of sufficiency requires the furtherdevelopment of the concept. According to them, it is difficult to define sufficiency and to buildthe concept into economic theory and practice. However, they also argue that it is far more

problematic to continue to operate as if there were no such thing as enough (Daly and Townsend1993). Thus, research that focuses on analyzing and defining need in society and on ongoingsocial learning and raising awareness is needed in order to make new sustainability ideasoperational.

Discussion

Chemical management systems have been based on a reactive approach allowing uncontrolledchemical release, with the burden of proof of adverse effects placed on society. Although this

paradigm is still applied in many parts of the globe, alternative approaches have been initiated inthe EU with the introduction of REACH. This program implements the precautionary principle,requiring adequate assessment of a chemical before it is placed on the market. However, REACHcurrently addresses only a small fraction of the chemicals that pose potential health andenvironmental risks. Moreover, for all its virtues, the program cannot completely guarantee thesafety of the regulated chemicals under the condition of uncertainty.

By highlighting existing uncertainties, this study explores the limits of the current paradigm,which focuses on safety improvement. If certainty as to the behavior of chemicals and their

effects on ecosystems and human health is unattainable, then what should guide chemicalmanagement under conditions of uncertainty?

52

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Current sustainability thought allows us to scrutinize the existing chemical management paradigm. We can question the growth in chemical synthesis and production as such, especiallyunder conditions of uncertainty. This thought also articulates a vision of an alternativemanagement paradigm based on seeing quality of life in terms of a sufficiency rather than anabundance of chemicals. This approach focuses on reducing chemical production while still

taking social wellbeing into consideration. The aim is not to terminate chemical production butrather to introduce “needs” or “sufficiency” parameters into chemical assessment andmanagement practices.

Despite being problematic, several approaches based on “needs” or “sufficiency” parametersare already in use. One such example is a shift in focus to selling services rather than products.This does not mean that material products can be replaced with immaterial services, but thatcustomer needs come first and could well be satisfied with less material- and energy-intensivesystems. In this framework, customers pay per function or service unit delivered and are notnecessarily responsible for the products during their use and end-of-life stages. This concept is

being developed under several names: eco-efficient services, product–service systems (Mont,Singhal, and Fadeeva 2006), and, in the chemical area, “chemical leasing.” Practically, it would

mean paying for a unit of service, for example, a car-painting job, rather than buying the paintsthemselves (Mont, Singhal, and Fadeeva 2006). This limits the production of chemicals for thesake of “selling,” instead developing a focus on services. Chemical leasing has severaladvantages for both service providers and customers, but what is more important is that it givesno incentives to the chemical producer (which is also a service provider) to use more chemicalsthan are needed (Mont, Singhal, and Fadeeva 2006).

Furthermore, using cradle-to-cradle approach (see McDonough and Braungart 2010), somecompanies shortlisted and used chemicals with “known” characteristics, instead of focusing onlimiting exposure of hazardous substances (Beard et al. 2013; Heine and Franjevic 2013). Ingeneral, selection of “whitelist” or “positive” substances can be alternative to current approachthat focuses on identifying risks.

These are just a few examples, and in general, the practical implementation of newsustainability ideas, can be deeply problematic. Because they raise several questions,concerning, for example, who should determine chemical “needs” and identify what constitutessufficiency of them, and how to limit the production growth of these “needed” chemicals. At thesame time, Harvey (2000) argues that we can and must use the force of imagination. This forcecould result in more integrated and holistic visions of future chemical use and environmental

policies. The challenge now is how to scrutinize the requirements, side effects, and possibilitiesfor integrating the implementation of these ideas.

53

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



REFERENCES

Alcott, Blake. 2005. “‘Jevons’ Paradox.” Ecological Economics 54(1): 9–21.Beard, A., Whittaker, M.H., Bolus, J., Dick, R., Morose, G., Hester, R. & Harrison, R. 2013,

Chemical Alternatives Assessments, Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, UK.

Beck, Ulrich. 1992. “The Risk Society” (trans. Mark Ritter), first ed. London. Sage Publications.Binetti, Roberto, Francesca Marina Costamagna, and Ida Marcello. 2008. “Exponential Growth

of New Chemicals and Evolution of Information Relevant to Risk Control.” Annali

dell'Istituto superiore di sanità 44(1): 13–15.Boonstra, Wiebren J., and Sofie Joose. 2013. “The Social Dynamics of Degrowth.”

Environmental Values 22(2): 171–189.Boström, Magnus. 2012. “A Missing Pillar? Challenges in Theorizing and Practicing Social

Sustainability: Introduction to the Special Issue.” Sustainability: Science, Practice, &

Policy 8(1): 3–14.Bradley, Karin, and Johan Hedrén. Forthcoming. Green Utopianism: Politics, Perspectives and

Micro-practices. New York: Routledge.

Burns, George W. 2011. “Gross National Happiness: A Gift from Bhutan to the World.” In Positive Psychology as Social Change, edited by Robert Biswas-Diener, 73–87.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.

Carpenter, David O., Kathleen Arcaro, and David C. Spink. 2002. “Understanding the HumanHealth Effects of Chemical Mixtures.” Environmental Health Perspectives 110(Supp.1): 25–42.

Daly, Herman E., and Kenneth N. Townsend. 1993. Valuing the Earth: Economics, Ecology,

Ethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Daly, Herman E. 1991. Steady-state Economics. Washington, DC: Island Press.European Commission. 2006. “Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and

of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation,

Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH).” Official Journal of the European Union 49:L396.

EEA. 2012. Building the Future We Want . EEA Signals 2012. European Environment Agency.Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Fotopoulos, Takis. 2010. “The De-growth Utopia: The Incompatibility of De-growth within anInternationalised Market Economy.” In Eco-socialism as Politics, edited by QingzhiHuan, 103–121. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.

Foxon, Timothy J., Jonathan Köhler, Jonathan Michie, and Christine Oughton. 2013. “Towards a New Complexity Economics for Sustainability.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 37(1): 187–208.

Garcia, Ernest. 2012. “Degrowth, the Past, the Future, and the Human Nature.” Futures 44(6):

546–552.Geus, Marius De. 1999. Ecological utopias: Envisioning the sustainable society. Utrecht:

International Books.Greider, William. 2004. The Soul of Capitalism: Opening Paths to a Moral Economy. New York:

Simon and Schuster.Harvey, David. 2000. Spaces of Hope. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Hansson, Sven Ove, and Ruden, Christina. 2010. “REACH: What has been achieved and what

needs to be done?” In Regulating chemical risks: European and global challenges, ed.Eriksson. J, Gilek. M and Ruden, C. Dordrecht. Springer

Hedrén, Johan, and Björn-Ola Linnér. 2009. “Utopian Thought and the Politics of SustainableDevelopment.” Futures 41(4): 210–219.

Heine, L.G. & Franjevic, S.A. 2013, "Chemical Hazard Assessment and the GreenScreenTM forSafer Chemicals", Chemical Alternatives Assessments, vol. 36, pp. 129.

54

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Illich, Ivan. 1973. Tools for Conviviality. New York: Harper & Row.Jäger, Jill. 2009. Sustainability Science in Europe. Background Paper prepared for DG Research.

Brussels: European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.Kallis, Giorgos. 2011. “In Defence of Degrowth.” Ecological Economics 70(5): 873–880.Kampa, Marilena, and Elias Castanas. 2008. “Human Health Effects of Air Pollution.”

Environmental Pollution 151(2): 362–367.Karlsson, Mikael. 2006. “Science and Norms in Policies for Sustainable Development: Assessing

and Managing Risks of Chemical Substances and Genetically Modified Organisms inthe European Union.” Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 44(1): 49–56.

Karlsson, M. 2010, The precautionary principle in EU and U.S. chemicals policy: A comparisonof industrial chemicals legislation. In Regulating chemical risks: European and globalchallenges, ed. J. Eriksson, M. Gilek, and C. Ruden. Springer. Dordrecht.

Karlsson, Mikael, Michael Gilek, and Oksana Udovyk. 2011. “Governance of Complex Socio-Environmental Risks: The Case of Hazardous Chemicals in the Baltic Sea.” AMBIO: A

Journal of the Human Environment 40(2): 144–157.Kortenkamp, A. 2008, "Low dose mixture effects of endocrine disrupters: implications for risk

assessment and epidemiology", International journal of andrology, vol. 31, no. 2, pp.233-240.

Martínez-Alier, Joan, Unai Pascual, Franck-Dominique Vivien, and Edwin Zaccai. 2010.“Sustainable De-growth: Mapping the Context, Criticisms and Future Prospects of anEmergent Paradigm.” Ecological Economics 69(9): 1741–1747.

Maxim, L. & Van der Sluijs, Jeroen P 2007, "Uncertainty: Cause or effect of stakeholders'debates?: Analysis of a case study: The risk for honeybees of the insecticide Gaucho®",Science of the Total Environment, vol. 376, no. 1, pp. 1-17.

McDonough, W. & Braungart, M. 2010, Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things,

Macmillan, London, UK.McMichael, Anthony J. 1993. Planetary Overload: Global Environmental Change and the

Health of the Human Species. Cambridge, UK: University Press.Mont, Oksana, Pranshu Singhal, and Zinaida Fadeeva. 2006. “Chemical Management Services in

Sweden and Europe: Lessons for the Future.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 10(1–2):279–292.

OECD. 2011. 40 Years of Chemical Safety at the OECD: Quality and Efficiency. Paris: OECDPublications.

Princen, Thomas. 2003. “Principles for Sustainability: From Cooperation and Efficiency toSufficiency.” Global Environmental Politics 3(1): 33–50.

Rockström, Johan, Will Steffen, Kevin Noone, Åsa Persson, F. Stuart III Chapin, Eric Lambin,Timothy M. Lenton, Marten Scheffer, Carl Folke, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Björn

Nykvist, Cynthia A. de Wit, Terry Hughes, Sander van der Leeuw, Henning Rodhe,

Sverker Sörlin, Peter K. Snyder, Robert Costanza, Uno Svedin, Malin Falkenmark,Louise Karlberg, Robert W. Corell, Victoria J. Fabry, James Hansen, Brian Walker,Diana Liverman, Katherine Richardson, Paul Crutzen, and Jonathan Foley. 2009.“Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity.” Ecology

and Society 14(2): 32.Rogers, Deborah S., Anantha K. Duraiappah, Daniela Christina Antons, Pablo Munoz, Xuemei

Bai, Michail Fragkias, and Heinz Gutscher. 2012. “A Vision for Human Well-being:Transition to Social Sustainability.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4(1): 61–73.

Ruden, C. & Gilek, M. 2010, "Scientific uncertainty and science-policy interactions in the riskassessment of hazardous chemicals" in Regulating Chemical Risks, eds. J. Eriksson, M.

Gilek & C. Rudén, Springer, Netherlands, pp. 151-161.Scott, Karen. 2012. Measuring Wellbeing: Towards Sustainability? London: Routledge.

55

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Selin, H. 2007, "Coalition politics and chemicals management in a regulatory ambitious Europe",Global Environmental Politics, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 63-93.

Solomon, Gina M., and Pilar M. Weiss. 2002. “Chemical Contaminants in Breast Milk: TimeTrends and Regional Variability.” Environmental Health Perspectives 110(6): 339–347.

Thibodeaux, Louis J. 1996. Environmental Chemodynamics: Movement of Chemicals in Air,

Water, and Soil. New York: Wiley-InterScience.Thornton, Joseph. 2001. Pandora’s Poison: Chlorine, Health, and a New Environmental

Strategy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Thornton, Joseph. 2000. “Beyond Risk: An Ecological Paradigm to Prevent Global Chemical

Pollution.” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 6(4): 318– 330.

Udovyk, O., Rabilloud, L., Gilek, M. & Karlsson, M. 2010, Hazardous Substances: a Case Studyof Environmental Risk Governance in the Baltic Sea Region. Deliverable 5 within theRISKGOV project. Available online at http://www.sh.se/riskgov .

Udovyk, O. & Gilek, M. 2013, "Coping with uncertainties in science-based advice informingenvironmental management of the Baltic Sea", Environmental Science & Policy, vol.

29, pp. 12-23.Verdonck, F.A., Souren, A., van Asselt, M., Van Sprang, P.A. & Vanrolleghem, P.A. 2007,

"Improving uncertainty analysis in European Union risk assessment of chemicals", Integrated environmental assessment and management, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 333-343.

Young, Stephen C. 2000. The Emergence of Ecological Modernisation: Integrating the Environment and the Economy? London: Routledge.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Oksana Udovyk: Ph.D. student, Life Science Department, Södertörn University, Sverige,Sweden.

Johan Hedren: Senior lecturer, Water and Environmental Studies, Linköping University,Linköping, Sweden.

56

http://www.sh.se/riskgov

http://www.sh.se/riskgov

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final


The International Journal of Sustainability Policy and PracticeVolume 9, 2014, onsustainability.com, ISSN: 2325-1166© Common Ground, Ana Elisa Castro-Sánchez, Carlos Estuardo Aparicio-Moreno,Esteban Gilberto Ramos-Peña, All Rights ReservedPermissions: [email protected]

The Study of Food Environments as a Strategy ofSocial Sustainability in the Mexican Northeast

Ana Elisa Castro-Sánchez, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, MexicoCarlos Estuardo Aparicio-Moreno, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Mexico

Esteban Gilberto Ramos-Peña, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Mexico

Abstract: Inspired on Social Sustainability as a health matter, this article displays an approach to analyze the Mexican food environment by observing the space distribution patterns of fast food establishments and convenience stores with greater presence in Monterrey’s Metropolitan Area, located in Northeastern Mexico. Particularly, we aim to identify and

describe the allocation pattern of fast food places in relation to their spatial location, considering the circulation routeshierarchy, the poverty polygons, and the socioeconomic characteristics of the population that lives surrounding these

polygons. The results show that the space distribution is mainly characterized by three types of commercialconglomerates patterns; the most of them are located on main routes and in a very short distance to poverty polygons.This urban structure facilitates the existence of socially unsustainable environmental conditions because it speciallyaffects the nutrition health of people living in lower income communities.

Keywords: Social sustainability, food environment, socio-spatial distribution, fast food, convenience stores

Introduction

ocial sustainability implies social justice, respect to differences and equality (Collada2009). Social sustainability includes the creation of social networks to organize the urbanspace. Furthermore, Osorio-Moranchel, Vázquez and Tanka (2007, 79-81) define health as

“the physical, mental and social well-being that supposes sustainable environmental conditionsand a healthy social atmosphere”. The “healthy” social environment includes access to healthconditions and services. In the social dimension of sustainable development, health or illnesses

are linked to representative life styles where people grow. In other words, “sickness is a productof the unsustainable social ambiance where we are living”; it involves “stress, smoking,alcoholism, drugs addiction, obesity, dia betes, plus physical inactivity.” Consequently, the foodenvironments are associated to the nourishing modernity and to different factors resulting fromthe globalization process like industrialization, urbanization and salary (Contreras and Gracia2005).

Particularly, Anthropology of Food (Contreras and Gracia 2005) has shown that life styles ingreat metropolitan areas incorporate individualization and simplification of meals (Contreras andGracia 2005, 419) with parallel phenomena as: de-concentration (the main food around a single

plate); de-implantation (there are not fixed hours for eating); de-synchronization (every one eatsin a different time, and the food is no more an encounter activity); and de-localization (the new

eating forms are not inside home spaces like kitchens or dining rooms). In this context, the foodindustry produces frozen and precooked “food-service” plates prepared in individual portions,commercialized through an efficient system of convenience stores, great supermarkets andcommercial centers (Contreras and Gracia 2005, 418-423). When these products are distributedin ambiances where the social differentiation of space is evident, they accentuate phenomenasuch as socio-spatial inequality, spatial segregation and urban fragmentation (González andVilleneuve 2007; Aparicio, Ortega and Sandoval 2011).

The study of food environments aims to understand the roll that the environment plays inhealth problems, such as illnesses linked to malnutrition (overnutrition) like chronic obesity,

S

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



diabetes and alcoholism (Oláiz et al. 2006). Researchers as Gibson (2011) propose the hypothesisthat there are two elements constituting the food environment: the availability of food on retailand the number of establishments offering food services.

Relevant previous studies (McDonald et al. 2007; Neckerman et al. 2010; Austin et al. 2005)of food environments around the world with dietetic cultures and diverse development levels

have shown that location and density of food retail sale, in addition to the exposition degree of people to cheap meals with high energetic density, constitutes a factor of health environmentalrisk. Moreover, McDonald et al (2007) have shown that Scots and English neighborhoods in

poverty are the more exposed to obesity and health environmental risk factors. And also, in thecontext of New York City, Neckerman et al (2010) showed that low income Latin students arethe most frequently exposed to unhealthy food. While about Chicago, Austin et al (2005)reported that fast food restaurants are concentrated within a short walking distance from publicschools, exposing children to poor-quality food environments in their school neighborhoods. Thisdetriment is related to socio-spatial inequality processes since it affects minority groups, young

people with low income and children (Day and Pearce 2011; Gibson 2011; Skidmore et al. 2010;Seliske et al. 2009; Sturm 2008; McDonald, Cummins and Macintyre 2007; Austin et al. 2005).

Although their results have been variable, the coincidence relies on the great proliferation ofestablishments selling unhealthy and hyper-caloric food for the nutrition health of populations.Among these companies we find mainly shops, fast food restaurants, as well as conveniencestores.

The objective of this study was to identify and describe the patterns of fast food associated tothe main fast food establishments’ spatial location, considering the circulation routes hierarchy,

the poverty polygons, and the socioeconomic characteristics of the population living near these polygons.

Definition of Mexican Food Environments

Commonly known as fast food , “self -service”, “food to go” and “limited service” restaurants(INEGI 2007b), they work under the “Fast Service System”. They are defined as those who

prepare food and drinks for immediate consumption. In these sites, the client orders through acounter, a bar, by telephone or drive-thru, and he pays before or at the time of delivery. These“eating places” do not have a waiter’s service and they offer a restricted standardized menu,

based on breaded fried chicken, pizza, hamburgers, fried potatoes and sweetened gaseous drinks.These food options are highly processed; they are produced, frozen, distributed and stored inindustrial amounts. The flavors, consistency and colors are homogeneous; furthermore, they areserved on disposable materials (OCT 2005). In the case of the convenience stores, they are retailcommercial establishments selling industrialized precooked and/or frozen meals, alcoholic andnonalcoholic gaseous drinks, tobacco, coffee, candies, and industrial bakery. Fast food is also

known as unhealthy food especially because it has been associated to chronic diseases increase; itis hyper caloric, poor in fiber with high salt, sugar, trans fat and conservatives content (Bauer andWaldrop 2009; Lora et al. 2007; Bowman et al. 2004; Wiecha et al. 2006).

In Mexico, during the first decade of the 21st century, the number of convenience stores hadan approximate 15% annual growth. In this branch, 2 out of the 5 main chains have nearly 85%of the establishments (10 160 sale points), and they belong to the two greatest commercial chainswith bigger expansion in North America (ICD- Research 2011).

The Economic Censuses carried out by the Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI) between 1981 and 2009 showed an increase of 700% in the “Food to goservices”. In 2009, the “self -service”, “food to go” and other “limited service” restaurants

represented around 97%, as opposed to only less than 3% of the restaurants with complete

service (INEGI 1988, 1991, 1993, 1996, 2002, 2006, 2010). Moreover, the National Survey of

58

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final


CASTRO-SÁNCHEZ, ET AL.: STUDY OF FOOD ENVIRONMENTS FOR SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY

Income and Expenditures of Households ( ENIGH )1 shows that from the beginning of the 21stcentury the number of households that consume food and drinks outside home have grown 63.7%and the cost in the same heading 99.9% (INEGI 2003, 2005, 2007a, 2009, 2011).

In Mexico, the studies on food environments are almost nonexistent, although the chronicdiseases associated to diet and to malnutrition (overnutrition) represent a serious public health

problem, such as obesity and type 2 diabetes (Oláiz et al. 2006; ENSANUT 2006). It is importantto mention that Mexicans are among the primary world-wide positions on this matter.

The present work is part of a wide research on the transformation of nourishing habits in the Northeastern Mexico. It is an analysis of the Mexican food environment observed in the spatialdistribution patterns of fast food establishments and convenience stores. The study was carriedout at Monterrey Metropolitan Area (MMA)2. This urban zone is composed by ninemunicipalities (Fig 1), it is located at 220 km from the USA border, and it has 4 036 112inhabitants (INEGI 2012). The MMA is highly industrialized and it is a region where the averageBody Mass Index (BMI) has increased from 25 to 27 since 1999, with a prevalence of obesity inadults and children over the national averages. The MMA average in the case of children is28.6% (considering 31.3% for girls and 25.5% for boys) and in adults is 71% (Oláiz et al. 2006;ENSANUT 2006).

1 ENIGH: Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares.2 The MMA is officially integrated since the 1980s decade by Monterrey, San Pedro Garza García, Guadalupe, San Nicolás de los Garza, Santa Catarina, General Escobedo, Apodaca, Juárez and García.

59

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Figure 1. The Monterrey Metropolitan Area: Municipalities and urbanized surface in 2005. Elaborated by Castro, Aparicio, and Ramos. Sources: INEGI 2000, 2012; fieldwork.

Sources and Methodology

Different data bases were integrated and geo-referenced between January 2009 and December2011. We inspired on the Germain and Polèse (1995) work and used the MapInfo software. Westudied the Mexican cities’ socio-spatial structure by consulting INEGI’s (2003) population datacorresponding to the 2000 year and identifying conditions of food environments within theMMA. First, we studied the cartographic delimitation of the nine municipalities’ surfaces that

officially integrate the MMA and its urbanized area in 2005, as well as the streets’ conformationand residential blocks.

We placed the totality of fast food restaurants from the four chains with greater presence inthe MMA: Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC), McDonald’s (McD), Burger King (BK), and Carl's

Jr . (CJ). Also, we mapped the two convenience store chains with bigger presence in national andlocal levels: Seven-Eleven and Oxxo. A thousand fourteen (1014) establishments were registered,576 and 438 respectively, representing 7.1% and 39% at a national level.

In addition, we identified 192 fast food conglomerates inside commercial malls and chainsupermarkets. We located 41 commercial malls and 151 supermarkets chain stores. Thesesupermarkets were: Wal-Mart , Soriana, HEB, S-Mart , Bodega Aurrerá, Mi Tienda del Ahorro,Sam's Club, Costco and City Club.

The SCIAN Mexico (INEGI, 2007b) was referenced for the identification and description ofthe fast food patterns. The analysis included the places where the clients order their meals, the

60

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



moment when they pay, the site where they eat, and the location of the restaurants. Therefore, weobserved if the restaurant was located on a street or an avenue, inside a commercial center, a mallor a supermarket.

Following the Corral (2004, 57-71) criteria on the analysis of the road hierarchical structure,we traced the 113 main roads of the MMA, considering only the controlled access roads3, as well

as the primary streets4. In addition, we represented cartographically the 68 poverty polygonsfrom the MMA that the Social Development Office of Nuevo Leon5 considers (Martínez, Treviñoand Gómez 2009).

As we already mentioned, we took the 2000 Census statistics, because those of 2005 did notconsider income levels, and those from 2010 were not available at the time of the study. Athousand hundred eighteen (1118) Census tracks (AGEB)6 were analyzed; and organizedaccording to the inhabitants’ income levels. We determined that there are only four AGEB where

more than 50% of the EAP7 earn less than 1 MMW8, whereas only in six AGEB more than 50%of the population receives between 1 and 2 MMW. Moreover, in 598 AGEB (53.49% from thetotal) more than 50% of the EAP earn between 2 and 5 MMW. Also, we located 107 AGEB

(9.57%) where more than 50% of the worker population receives more than 5 MMW.For the categories of convenience store chains, fast food restaurants, commercial malls and

supermarket chains, we proceeded to make the spatial comparative of their distribution in theMMA by municipality. We located these establishments in relation to the main circulation routesand the poverty polygons. Also, we determined the location of these commercial chains: 500meters and 1 kilometer away from the poverty polygons. The cartographic treatment alsoincluded the determination, of each one of the mentioned establishments, according to itslocation within the AGEB groups by the EAP´s income level in MMW greater than 50%.

Finally, we made a comparative between the main circulation routes and their accessibilityto the poverty polygons. For the results report, descriptive statistic was used; for comparing theresults between municipalities, the hypothesis test for proportions on two populations was used,

the confidence level is 95% having a level of error not greater than 5%.

Results

The spatial distribution of fast food restaurants and convenience stores in the MMA follows basically three patterns, producing three kinds of conglomerates: “Primary Closed

Conglomerates” (PCC), “Secondary or Domestic Closed Conglomerates” (SCC), and “OpenConglomerates” (OC).

First, 41 PCC were identified; their type of distribution corresponds to a commercial mall(Fig 2). This is an agglomerate of multiple self-service restaurants occupying a special areainside a commercial mall. Diverse retail foods are sold for their immediate consumption or for

delivery. The clients order through a counter or bar, they pay before the order delivery and theyeat in a common area. The clients can come from different municipalities. Only 4.88% of thePCC are inside the poverty polygons, 34.14% are 500 meters away; and 60.98% are 1 km away.

3 Controlled access roads are considered those whose use is for the vehicular flow exclusively. In its two traffic senses ithas high speed three lanes, moreover two lateral ones for communicating with several street blocks and for connectingwith other roads. Parking is not allowed in central and lateral lanes.4 The primary streets provide fluidity to the circulation, in addition to relieve the transit from the secondary and localstreets of a neighborhood. This type of roads presents a central separating physic strip (ridge) and double sense.5 Secretaría de Desarrollo Social de Nuevo León.6

A Census track in Mexico is called AGEB (Área Geo-Estadística Básica). It is the minimum geographic division usedfor official data by the INEGI.7 Economically Active Population.8 Monthly Minimum Wage.

61

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



We identified 151 SCC. They are linked to a supermarket chain store located on a mainavenue (Fig 2). A SCC is an agglomerate of multiple self-service restaurants occupying a specialarea for eating services located inside of a supermarket chain and generally on a parallel corridorto the store cashiers’ area. Diverse retail foods are sold for their immediate consumption or fordelivery. The majority of the clients come from surrounding neighborhoods. With regards to the

location of the SCC and the polygons of poverty, 38.42% are 500 meters nearby; 55.62% at a 1km distance and only 5.96% are inside the polygons.

Figure 2. Location of Primary Closed Conglomerates (commercial malls) and SecondaryConglomerated Closed (supermarkets chains) in the Monterrey Metropolitan Area in 2011.

Elaborated by Castro, Aparicio, and Ramos. Sources: INEGI 2000, 2012; fieldwork.

We found also 18 OC (Fig 3). An OC is an agglomerate of commercial malls, supermarketschains, fast food restaurants and convenience stores located on a specific section of a mainavenue or federal road. In these places diverse kinds of food are sold by retail for the immediateconsumption and “to go”. Mostly, clients order through a counter, bar or drive -thru and they pay

bef ore the order’s delivery. Some of them offer home delivery service.

62

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Figure 3. Location of Primary Closed Conglomerates (commercial malls) and SecondaryConglomerated Closed (supermarkets chains) in the Monterrey Metropolitan Area in 2011.

Elaborated by Castro, Aparicio, and Ramos. Sources: INEGI 2000, 2003, 2012; Corral 2004; fieldwork.

Regarding the main circulation routes and poverty polygons (Figure 4), we analyzed 113circulation main routes and we found that 81 of them (71.6%) go through poverty polygons,whereas 56 (83%) poverty polygons are communicated by main circulation routes.

63

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Figure 4. Relation between poverty polygons and circulation main routes in the MonterreyMetropolitan Area.

Elaborated by Castro, Aparicio, and Ramos. Sources: INEGI 2000, 2003, 2012; Martínez,Treviño and Gómez 2009; Corral 2004; fieldwork.

Spatial Distr ibuti on of the Main Transnational Fast Food Restaurant Chains

We mapped 105 sale points that are part of the already mentioned fast food restaurant chains:40% correspond to KFC, 21.9% to McD, 15.2% to BK and 22.9% to CJ. A ninety nine percent(93%) of these are located on main circulation routes (Fig 5). Furthermore, in relation to thelocation of these restaurants and the poverty polygons, 32.3% restaurants are placed 500 metersfrom these polygons; 60% nearly 1 km away, and only 7.62% are inside. This last percentagecorresponds to KFC and BK.

Regarding the population’s income level, we only found four AGEB wher e more than 50%of the EAP earn less than 1 MMW. Inside this category, only one AGEB contains 5 fast foodrestaurants, and it is located in Monterrey’s downtown. Two of these restaurants belong to KFC,

1 to BK, 1 to McD and 1 to CJ. Thus, there are only six AGEB where more than 50% of the EAPearn between 1 and 2 MMW, and fast food establishments are not found.

64

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Figure 5. Location of the establishments of the main chains of restaurants of fast food on primaryroads and access controlled in the Metropolitan Area of Monterrey.


There are 598 AGEB (53.49%) where more than 50% of the EAP earn between 2 and 5 MMW,within these we find 21 fast food restaurants (20% of the total). Fourteen (14) of theserestaurants belong to KFC, 3 to BK, and in equal number (2) to McD and CJ. There are 107AGEB (9.57%) where more than 50% of the EAP receive more than 5 MMW, containing 27 fastfood restaurants (25.71% of the total); 7 of them belong to KFC, 3 to BK, 9 to McD and 8 to CJ.

Spatial Distri bution of the Two Main Convenience Store Chains

The total surface of the MMA is 3 147.81 km2 and its occupancy average is 18.18%. The rank ofoccupation of the municipal surface varies between 1.33% and 100%. Monterrey, San PedroGarza García, Guadalupe and San Nicolás de los Garza are the most urbanized municipalities.

Referring to convenience stores by municipalities, three of them contain 74.85%, the rest isdistributed among the six remaining. Oxxo has the greater percentage of these stores. Regardingthe number of stores per km2 of urban surface, two municipalities have the greater density ofconvenience stores with more than two stores per km2. On the contrary, two have less than aconvenience store per km2; the rest of the municipalities have between one and two stores perkm2 (Figure 6).

65

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Figure 6. Comparison between urban and municipal surfaces, in addition to the number,

percentage and density (stores by km

2

) of the two main convenience stores chains in MonterreyMetropolitan Area by municipality. Elaborated by Castro, Aparicio, and Ramos. Sources: INEGI 2000, 2003, 2012; fieldwork

Municipality Urban

Surface km²

Municipal

Surface km²

%

urbanized

Total (both chains)

No. % Density

1. Monterrey 200.30 323.10 61.99 465 45.9 2.32

2. San Pedro

Garza García

47.77 73.19 65.26 56 5.51.17

3 . Guadalupe 84.91 118.00 71.96 156 15.4 1.83

4. San Nicolás

de los Garza

60.72 60.72 100.00 131 12.92.15

5.Santa

Catarina

35.09 886.60 3.69 55 5.41.56

6.General

Escobedo

47.23 151.20 31.24 52 5.11.10

7. Apodaca 61.51 246.60 24.94 81 8.01.32

8. Juárez 18.53 247.40 7.49 6 0.60.32

9. García 13.86 1041.00 1.33 12 1.20.86

TOTAL 569.92 3147.81 18.10 1014 100.01.78

66

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Figure 7. Convenience stores according their location in circulation main routes by municipalitiesin Monterrey Metropolitan Area.


As for the convenience stores located on main routes, 3 municipalities have percentagesgreater than 80%; the rest have between 60% and 80%. Inside each municipality, the differences

67

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



in percentage referring to both chains vary from 63.6% and 100% in the case of Seven-Eleven,and between 0% and 79% for Oxxo. In all the cases where there was a significant difference, theSeven-Eleven chain had a greater percentage (p< 0.05) (Figure 7).

Out of the total of convenience stores within poverty polygons, the greater proportion(77.4%) concentrates in 3 municipalities. The chain Seven-Eleven concentrates 71.7% in 2

municipalities, whereas Oxxo concentrates 77.7% in the same municipalities plus another. The percentage of the convenience stores belonging to the Seven-Eleven chain is significantlygreater than that of the Oxxo chain in Monterrey (p < 0.05), whereas in San Nicolás the

percentage of convenience stores from the Oxxo chain with respect to Seven-Eleven is greater (p< 0.05) (Figure 8).

Referring to the convenience stores located 500 meters from the poverty polygons, 76.9%are congregated in 3 municipalities, where Seven-Eleven concentrates 80% of its establishments.Therefore, from the total of convenience stores located 1 km from the poverty polygons, thesame municipalities concentrate 79.5%. Following the same municipal order; Seven Elevenaccumulates 80.9% and Oxxo 78.6%. There is not a significant difference between the

percentage of both chains by municipality (p > 0.05) (Figure 8).

68

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Figure 8. Relation between convenience and poverty polygons by municipalities in MonterreyMetropolitan Area.

Elaborated by Castro, Aparicio, and Ramos. Sources: INEGI 2000, 2003, 2012; Martínez,

Treviño and Gómez 2009; fieldwork.

Municipality

Inside de poverty polygons500 meters outside the

poverty polygons

1 km outside the poverty

polygons

TOTAL 7-11 OXXO TOTAL 7-11 OXXO TOTAL 7-11 OXXO

No % No % No % No % No % No % No % No. % No. %

1 74 40.9 30

50.0* 44 36.4 144 47.1 60 48.0 84 46.4 282 53.9 117 54.4 165 53.6

2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 0 0.0 1 0.6 2 0.4 0 0.0 2 0.6

3 47 26.0 13 21.7 34 28.1 59 19.3 23 18.4 36 19.9 78 14.9 32 14.9 46 14.9

4 19 10.5 3 5.0 16 13.2* 32 10.5 17 13.6 15 8.3 56 10.7 25 11.6 31 10.1

5 15 8.3 4 6.7 11 9.1 25 8.2 9 7.2 16 8.8 32 6.1 12 5.6 20 6.5

6 14 7.7 5 8.3 9 7.4 16 5.2 5 4.0 11 6.1 27 5.2 9 4.2 18 5.8

7 10 5.5 5 8.3 5 4.1 23 7.5 7 5.6 16 8.8 36 6.9 13 6.0 23 7.5

8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 1.3 4 3.2* 0 0.0 5 1.0 5 2.3 0 0.0

9 2 1.1 0 0.0 2 1.7 2 0.7 0 0.0 2 1.1 5 1.0 2 0.9 3 1.0

TOTAL 181 100.0 60 100.0 121 100.0 306 100 125 100 181 100 523 100.0 215 100.0 308 100.0

*95% Significance

69

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



Discussion

In Mexico, the fast food and hyper-caloric consumption rations have increased mainly in the lastdecade (ENSANUT, 2006). This is a factor that has influenced the augmentation of chronicdiseases such as obesity. In this study, we found that there is more than one convenience store

per km2; nevertheless, in two municipalities this number is above 2. But, this density is higher ifwe consider the quantity of commercial malls and supermarkets having their fast food areas. Thespatial distribution of this type of establishments along with the analyzed restaurants ischaracterized by the formation of three different types of conglomerates (Primary ClosedConglomerates – PCC; Secondary or Domestic Closed Conglomerates – SCC; and, OpenConglomerates – OC), the majority of them located on main circulation routes and nearby the

poverty polygons. However, the SCC and the OC are particularly popular in poor neighborhoods.Specifically, referring to the income level, data indicated that low income groups have more

availability of fast food inside the commercial malls (PCC) and supermarkets (SCC), as well asinside convenience stores, than in transnational fast food restaurants. These findings coincidewith Austin et al (2005) in the sense of fast-food restaurant owners would be reluctant to locate

in impoverished areas; also these authors have found evidence of fast food clustering in themedian household income areas; these restaurants are located mainly in middle-class incomezones. Our findings have shown that in the MMA the majority of fast food restaurants areclustered in a distance between 500 and 1000 meters around communities in poverty; it meansthat this kind of establishments are located at the entrance or pass to poverty polygons and awayfrom highest income areas. Nevertheless, we saw that only two chains have locations inside the

poverty polygons, those who sell low cost hamburgers and breaded fried chicken.The density and proximity of fast food restaurants indicate that people who live or move in

the surroundings of these restaurants can access very easily to their meal offers. By walking, itcould take a person approximately 5 minutes to arrive to these establishments. But, if thedisplacement is in car, it is possible to find one of these establishments on main routes every one

minute or less. In short, any person can enter these places every day of the year, 24 hours a day,to have hyper-caloric meals and drinks.

This exploratory and descriptive study coincides with other researches (Day and Pearce,2011; Neckerman et al, 2010; Gibson et al, 2011) in the sense that the high concentration of fastfood establishments, within a short distance to poverty polygons is a major problem of publichealth. It represents a deterioration of the food environment and undermines the efforts toimprove the nutritious state of the lowest-income population groups (Austin et al. 2005). We cansee that there are differences between socio-demographic groups and these disparities mayrepresent an important type of social environmental injustice for minorities and low-incomeyouth. There are potential adverse consequences in dietary behavior as well (McDonald,Cummnins and Macintyre 2007; Sturm 2008).

Retaking to Osorio-Moranchel, Helder and Tanka (2007, 81-82), the illnesses linked toMexican food environments are “diseases product of an unsustainable social environment. Thestress is part of life styles linked to car displacements.” Also, convenience stores make moreaffordable the consumption of tobacco and alcohol. The easy access to these products and thefacilities for consumption in fast food restaurants, allow the proliferation of heart diseases,obesity and diabetes (Austin et al. 2005; Gibson 2011). In terms of social sustainability, only anadequate organization of urban space will allow the existence of socially sustainableenvironmental conditions and healthy food environments. The urban environment should aim toavoid inheriting atmospheres that enable the proliferation of "diseases to the next generations".

Unlike previous studies (Austin et al. 2005; Day and Pearce 2011; McDonald, Cummins andMacintyre 2007) this study shows that international franchises are a widespread foreign foodculture within Mexican food environments and this could be a clear symbol of the globalizationrisks and social inequalities.

70

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final


7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



REFERENCES

Aparicio, Carlos, Ortega, M.E., and E. Sandoval. 2011. “La segregación socio-espacial enMonterrey a lo largo de su proceso de metropolización” (The socio-spatial segregationin Monterrey during its metropolisation process). Región y Sociedad 52: 273-207.

http://www.redalyc.org/src/inicio/ArtPdfRed.jsp?iCve=10221416006#. Austin, S. B., Melly, S., Sánchez, B., Patel, A., Buka, S., and Steven L. Gortmaker. 2005.

“Clustering of fast-food restaurants around schools: a novel application of spatialstatistics to the study of food environments.” American Journal of Public Health 95:1575-1581. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.056341

Contreras, Jesús and Mabel Gracia. 2005. “Una síntesis: la modernidad alimentaria, entre la

globalización y los particularismos” (A synthesis: the nourishing modernity, betweenthe globalization and the particularities). In Alimentación y cultura. Perspectivasantropológicas (Eating and culture. Anthropological perspectives), 405-458, Barcelona:Ariel.

Bauer LR. and J. Waldrop. 2009. “Trans fat intake in children: risks and recommendations.”

Pediatric Nursing 35 (6): 346-352.Bowman SA, Gortmaker SL, Ebbeling CB, Pereira MA, and D. Ludwig. 2004. “Effects of fast-

food consumption on energy intake and diet quality among children in a NationalHousehold Survey.” J Pediatr 113(1): 112-118.

Corral, Carlos. 2004. Lineamientos de diseño urbano (Urban Design Guidelines). México, DF:Trillas.

Collada, Pablo. 2009. Sustentabilidad social . (Social sustainability ). México, DF: Excélsior.Accesed november 2012. http://tomo.com.mx/2009/09/07/sustentabilidad-social.

Day, Peter and Jamie Pearce. 2011. “Obesity promoting food environments and the spatial

clustering of food outlets around schools.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 40:113-21.doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2010.10.018

Germain, Annick and Mario Polèse. 1995. “La structure sociorésidentielle de Puebla, Mexique :essai d’écologie urbain” (The socioresidential structure of Puebla City, Mexico: UrbanEcology essay). Cahiers de Géographie du Québec (Geography of Quebec Notebooks)39:309-33. doi:10.7202/022501ar.

González, Salomón and Paul Villeneuve. 2007. “Transformaciones en el espacio socioresidencialde Monterrey, 1990-2000” (Transformations in the socio-residential space ofMonterrey, 1990-2000). Estudios demográficos y urbanos 22:144-78.http://codex.colmex.mx:8991/exlibris/aleph/a18_1/apache_media/M9IPVNG4LH4VR1BSXFFJE4CBT4NS55.pdf

Gibson, Diana. 2011. “The neighborhood food environment and adult weight status: estimatesfrom longitudinal data.” American Journal of Public Health 101:71-78.doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.187567

ICD-Research. 2011. “Convenience stores & Gas stations in Latin America to 2015: market

guide.” Market Research Report.http://www.reportbuyer.com/consumer_goods_retail/shopping/convenience_stores/convenience_stores_gas_stations_latin _america_2015_market_guide.html

INEGI. 1988. VIII Censo de Servicios 1981 (VIII Census of Services 1981). México: INEGI.INEGI. 1991. Censo Económico 1986 (Economic Census 1986). México: INEGI.INEGI. 1993. Censo Económico 1989 (Economic Census 1989). México: INEGI.INEGI. 1996. Censo Económico 1994 (Economic Census 1994). México: INEGI.INEGI. 2002. Censo Económico 1999 (Economic Census 1999). México: INEGI.INEGI. 2003. SCINCE 2000 (Census Information Consultation System 2000), México: INEGI.INEGI. 2003. ENIGH 2002 (National Survey of Income and Expenditure of Households 2002.

México: INEGI.

72

http://www.redalyc.org/src/inicio/ArtPdfRed.jsp?iCve=10221416006

http://tomo.com.mx/2009/09/07/sustentabilidad-social

http://codex.colmex.mx:8991/exlibris/aleph/a18_1/apache_media/M9IPVNG4LH4VR1BSXFFJE4CBT4NS55.pdf


http://www.reportbuyer.com/consumer_goods_retail/shopping/convenience_stores/convenience_stores_gas_stations_latin%20_america_2015_market_guide.html






http://tomo.com.mx/2009/09/07/sustentabilidad-social

http://www.redalyc.org/src/inicio/ArtPdfRed.jsp?iCve=10221416006

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



INEGI. 2005. ENIGH 2004 (National Survey of Income and Expenditure of Households 2004).México: INEGI.

INEGI. 2006. Censo Económico 2004 (Economic Census 2004). Aguascalientes, México:INEGI.

INEGI. 2007a. ENIGH 2006 (National Survey of Income and Expenditure of Households 2006).

México: INEGI.INEGI. 2007b. SCIAN 2007 (Industrial Classification System for North America, Mexico.

México: INEGI.INEGI. 2009. ENIGH 2008 (National Survey of Income and Expenditure of Households 2008).

México: INEGI.INEGI. 2010. Censos Económicos 2009 (Economic Census 2009). México: INEGI.INEGI. 2011. ENIGH 2010 (National Survey of Income and Expenditure of Households 2010).

México: INEGI.INEGI. 2012. Censo de Población y Vivienda 2010: Nuevo León (Population and Housing

Census 2010). México: INEGI.Lora K., Morse K., Gonzalez-Kruger G., and J. Driskell. 2007. “High saturated fat and

cholesterol intakes and abnormal plasma lipid concentrations observed in a group of 4-8year old children of Latino immigrants in rural Nebraska.” J Nut Res 27(8):483-491.doi:10.1016/j.nutres.2007.06.006

Martínez, Irma, Treviño, J. A., and M. Gómez. 2009. Mapas de Pobreza y Rezago Social. Área Metropolitana de Monterrey (Poverty Maps and Social Backwardness. MonterreyMetropolitan Area). 70-229. México: UANL.

McDonald, Laura, Cummnins, S., and Sally Macintyre. 2007. “Neighborhood fast foodenvironment and area deprivation- substitution or concentration?” Appetite 49:251-54.doi:10.1016/j.appet.2006.11.004

Osorio-Moranchel, Helder, Vázquez, S., and Beata Tanka. 2007. “La salud sustentable y

ambiente social” (The sustainable health and social environment). Aportes [on line], vol.

XII:79-92http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/src/inicio/ArtPdfRed.jsp?iCve=37612480006.

OCT. 2005. Boletín 6: El Sector de la Comida Rápida [monografía electrónica] (Bulletin 6: TheFast Food Sector [electronic monograph]).http://www.ideas.coop/descargas/cat_view/40-investigacion/43-boletines-observatorio.html?start=10.

Oláiz, G., Rivera, J., Shamah, T., Rojas, R., Villalpando, S., Hernández, M. I. and J. Sepúlveda.2006. ENSANUT 2006 (National Survey of Health and Nutrition 2006). Cuernavaca,México: INSP.

SSA. 2010. Acuerdo Nacional para la Salud Alimentaria. Estrategia contra el sobrepeso y laobesidad (National Accord for the Healthy Food: A Strategy to Combat Overweight and

Obesity). México: SS.Seliske, Laura M., Pickett, W., Boyce, F., and Ian Janssen. 2009. “Association between the food

retail environment surrounding schools and overweight in Canadian youth.” Public Nutrition Health 12:1384-91. doi: 10.1017/S1368980008004084

Skidmore, P., Welch, A., Van Sluijs, E., Jones, A., Harvey, Ian, Harrison, F., Griffin, S., andAedin Cassidy. 2010. “Impact of neighborhood food environment on food consumptionin children aged 9-10 years in the UK SPEEDY study.” Public Health Nutrition 13:1022-30. doi:10.10177/S1368980009992035

Sturm, Roland. 2008. “Disparities in the food environment surrounding US middle and highschools.” Public Health 122:681-90.doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2007.09.004

Wiecha J., Finkelstein D., Troped P., Fragala M., and K. Peterson. 2006. “School vending

machine use and fast-food restaurant use are associated with sugar-sweetened beverageintake in youth.” J Am Diet Assoc 106(10): 1624-1630.

73

http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/src/inicio/ArtPdfRed.jsp?iCve=37612480006

http://www.ideas.coop/descargas/cat_view/40-investigacion/43-boletines-observatorio.html?start=10




http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/src/inicio/ArtPdfRed.jsp?iCve=37612480006

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final



ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr. Ana El isa Castro-Sánchez: Professor, Faculty of Public Health and Nutrition, UniversidadAutónoma de Nuevo León, Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico

Dr. Carlos Estuardo Aparicio-Moren: Coordinator, Master ’s Sciences in Architecture andUrban Subjects Program, Faculty of Architecture and Graduate Studies, Universidad Autónomade Nuevo León, Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico

Dr. Esteban Gilberto Ramos-Peña: Subdirector of Postgraduate Studies, Faculty of PublicHealth and Nutrition, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico

74

7/25/2019 S13-d_3_Final


s13-d_3_final

Documents