Proposiciones sexuales a niños, niñas y adolescentes

Table 5-2 summarises the questions asked of participants. Speaking to three candidates from the City of Portland provided insights from City Council perspective. The key findings from the interviews are discussed below within each of the identified themes.

5.1.1 Enabling factors for green infrastructure

Interviews with candidates from the City of Portland identified various enabling factors which prompted the exploration and later the uptake of green infrastructure. These factors are important as they were the initial compelling elements of the business case, which adds further meaning to the economic push factor identified in Table 4-3 – stormwater management.

• Political pressure: The Federal Clean Water Act, such as the Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program were triggers for cities throughout the United States to manage stormwater at a local level. This set the specific task for cities to carefully and intentionally tackle this rising issue.

• Externality pressure: The economic push factor, stormwater management, was confirmed by all participants. In fact, this presented members from the Sustainable Stormwater Management Division with a compelling incentive to search for creative cost effective options.

• Cultural ethos of sustainability: Participants explained an inherent cultural appreciation of Portland’s natural ecosystems is apparent. The community more often than not supports habitat restoration, protection and sustainability in general, as one interview participant suggested, “…this is the Portland way”. This no doubt facilitated community support and confidence when the transition from strictly grey facilities to a mixed approach took place in Portland.

5.1.2 Method of economic enquiry

Interview participants were also asked to comment on the most compelling components that triggered urban greening in Portland. A thematic analysis of the interview shed light on the role of demonstrating fiscal returns. This is discussed further below:

• Narrow objectives: The interview participants explained the bureau was tasked with a very specific mission: operations and maintenance of the city’s sewer and stormwater systems for public health and water quality. With this very specific mission statement, the most compelling benefit for the business case was ensuring the cost effectiveness of

stormwater management. An interview participate added that Green streets were function first, a solution to a prominent problem.

• Exchange value theory: This confirms the economic paradigm which drives the business case in Portland. An interview participant explained that:

“As far as economics goes, I think that we really tried to include the economic argument because it’s really what has been driving our machine as a utility here…We’ve been able to show that in a cost comparison that an entirely grey approach, based on the case study that we’ve performed here, costs considerably more than an integrated green and grey approach [and that money is savings that goes to the ratepayers] and that helps us reduce our future cost for operations and maintenance over time.”

5.1.3 Compelling ecosystem factors

The interview participants offered interesting insights into the prominent ecosystem services that played and continue to play a significant role in the business case. These are discussed below:

• Regulating factors: Addressing CSO issues was first priority; hence utilising the most effective technologies was crucial. Interviews explained that this was perhaps most compelling for political and community buy-in, more so than demonstrating the monetary savings. Particularly on bureaucratic level, demonstrating and quantifying the effectiveness of these facilities in terms water pollutants, peak flow and volume reductions and infiltration rate. The monetary savings was an added incentive to an efficient and effective technology.

• Cultural factors: Interviews highlighted that introducing green infrastructure is always a challenge as community opinion was not always universally positive and often this has stemmed from a misunderstanding of this new technology. In this instance, the wider benefits served as complementary to the initial objective – stormwater management cost savings. Seamless integration of this technology into the fabric of pedestrian network certainly assisted in the marketability of this new technology. Visual amenity served as secondary benefits in their public education and outreach programs.

• Demonstrating risk levels: Risk assessment from the field of asset management, an interview participant explained has become a very useful tool in assisting in decision making in terms of investments in sewage and water pipe infrastructure. Measuring, evaluating and demonstrating the level of risk as well as precise location has been a major contributor of their infrastructure decisions. This has been a particularly beneficial tool in predicting future potential risks and setting up appropriate measures to tackle them.

• Minimal role of other benefits: Participants also explained that the role of green infrastructure in how urban nature could benefit health, wellbeing and liveability in the city is not necessarily important for the business case. This was deemed unnecessary due to the difficulty in quantification of these benefits. Firstly, benefits from green infrastructure do not always accrue to the place where costs are borne.

As mentioned earlier, funding sources are tied to particular narrowly defined missions and do not lend themselves to application on a broader system wide, multi-objective scale. For this reason, the broader benefits were not particularly important, particularly as they operate within a conservative political arena. One participant explained that quantifying these benefits was not part of their mission statement as they “don’t speak in those terms”. Interviews also highlighted that findings from research conducted served as supporting evidence to demonstrate the widespread success of their green infrastructure initiative, but not necessarily most compelling for Council. All participants agreed that findings from the 2010 Ecosystem Services report play a minimal role in informing the business case.

5.1.4 Disabling factors

While participants discussed the many factors that assisted in strengthening the business case for green streets, they also offered insights into the hindering factors that they needed to and at time still need to overcome. Factors such as government structure, methodology and risk assessment presented difficulties for the green streets case. These are discussed in more details below:

• Silo government departments: One participant explained whilst Green Infrastructure is widely accepted and the social benefits are understood, they are still constrained due to narrow objectives within departments. Their first priority remains demonstrating savings in terms of stormwater services as they have a responsibility to ratepayers. Being tied to a particular mission, their cost benefit analysis solely relies on enhanced water quality and treatment plant benefits. Internally, the wider benefits are to a certain extent insignificant.

Silo departments are useful in assigning specific roles to ensure effective outcomes, however complex issues such as sustainability and urban health often calls for a holistic approach. One can argue that collaborations across departments could provide holistic, more efficient solutions ensuring multiple challenges are tackled. This also strengthens the feasibility and potential of green infrastructure when multiple agendas are met from a single solution.

• Sensitive to government change: As with many programs, the grey to green initiative has been susceptible to government change. This has caused a current slow down to the

program. This has challenged the Bureau to reconsider their planning efforts in order to comprehensively demonstrate the full value of their program as well as assess the urgency of risk mitigation. This entails carefully articulating the pressing need to tackle the most prominent risks and ultimately demonstrating the cost avoided in doing so. • Inconsistent methodology: A lack of a consistent data and reliable economic

methodology has made full economic valuation of their projects difficult. One participant recognises the value in adopting a reliable methodology that the department could use to assess projects. This also hinders the confident use and referral to the qualitative benefits. Lack of absolute certainty and accuracy makes it risky to confidently refer to these benefits.

• Challenges in assessing risk: It is quite challenging to assess the level of risks in terms of environmental degradation, as some of these factors remain difficult to quantify and evaluate. One participant stressed the need for a multidisciplinary approach to analysis in order to comprehensively present a risk analysis in mitigating against climate change and urban related challenges.

• Risks of economic analysis: One interview candidate shared a very interesting point regarding the risk in relying on economic rationale in sustainability. At times the economic business case does not stack up and could occasionally work against habitat protection and sustainability.