CAPÍTULO III. RESERVAS Y ADSCRIPCIONES
SECCIÓN 2. SERVICIOS DE TEMPORADA EN PLAYAS
Early discussion of how to pursue neighborhood-‐scale sustainability focused around what the organization calls “hardware” and “software.” The conversation lent heavier towards the hardware side-‐ questions of how do we optimize these mechanical systems across multiple buildings and save money became a huge focus, rather than the software related questions such as how do we use EcoDistricts as a way to build and leverage community and bring people together? While the software efforts were on the table, there wasn’t enough movement, thus, efforts remained mostly technical. Eventually, the organization realized the hardware wasn’t going to work without good process and without people making that the first part of the
strategy. They increasingly learned how important the people were and how it’s a starting point for other conversations. According to Fletcher Beaudoin, Sustainability Partnerships Director at the Institute for Sustainable Solutions, “It’s all about the people who want to be engaged in a place and support it and from there you can do a lot of things-‐ district energy systems, etc.”
After editing the EcoDistrict Framework to reflect the organization’s focus on grassroots, software efforts, the EcoDistrict organization then shifted their focus to national EcoDistrict programs. Through the mayoral change, the allocation of resources changed as well, and there were only so many resources within Portland to focus on Portland; while many more resources available on a national scale. As the EcoDistricts organization currently exists, efforts are focused on the success 18 “incubator” cities, which stretch from Vancouver, B.C., to
Guadalajara, Mexico, as well as launching future movements in more cities. (EcoDistricts, 2013)
Conclusions
The Future of EcoDistricts as a Driver
When it EcoDistricts started originally, there was little activity around the movement, but EcoDistricts has done a good job cultivating movement and an image, and now they see a need for a national discussion. Educating city leaders across the nation on the concept of EcoDistricts has become the current focus of the EcoDistrict organization. With their 18 incubator cities, Target Cities program, and their yearly summit, EcoDistricts has removed themselves from their Portland pilots, and rather than being on the ground, working in the various districts, the organization has begun to emphasize their overarching role (Personal
contact, Fletcher Beaudoin). While this poses challenges, this shift in scale has some serious benefits. As the most well-‐known neighborhood-‐scale sustainability effort, it is important for the organization to spread their knowledge and knowhow across the globe, starting in Portland, and then moving transnationally. As Fletcher Beaudoin puts it, “I genuinely hope that they’re (EcoDistricts) able to refine and cultivate innovation at this district scale. And provide learning and synthesis in a way that’s helpful in cultivating and growing innovation in various contexts, but continuing to be a voice based on what works and what doesn’t work based on conditions.”
Acting as the knowledge hub, EcoDistricts has fostered relative success in various cities. For example, the SW EcoDistrict in Washington D.C. has created a plan to renovate a 15-‐block federal precinct in hopes of producing a system for onsite stormwater management and energy creation. The South of Market Central Corridor EcoDistrict in San Francisco is working to
perpetuate smart growth practices and create 10,000 new housing units and 35,000 new jobs. Boston’s Innovation EcoDistrict is working to develop its neighborhood with the most
undeveloped land in the city through sustainable infrastructure investments. A repurposed power plant, affordable housing, increased transit, increased greenspace, and a new library will all be a part of Austin’s Seaholm EcoDistrict (EcoDistricts, 2013). Now, whether or not
EcoDistricts decide to turn any focus back on their pilot programs in Portland, only time will tell. Though it must be understood the problems inherent in the organization’s decision to remove themselves from their initial districts.
Challenges
As Portland’s South Waterfront EcoDistrict has collapsed, and many other local districts are in this nebulous space of not knowing exactly who they are and where they are going, it is a huge threat to the EcoDistricts organization that their personally erected pilot districts are not as successful as their frameworks and roadmaps suggest. One must ask what sort of evidence they are giving these target and incubator cities to prove this neighborhood-‐scale method is a viable solution if they are unable to show how their districts have been successful, under the constraints of their framework. It does not help that if one were to look at the EcoDistrict website, they would find Portland’s non-‐operational South Waterfront EcoDistrict as a case study, and even a highlight of its success. When looking at the South of Market case study, a person looking to ascertain information on the district might feel frustrated finding out their listed person to contact is no longer even employed by SoMa. As an organization based in Portland, it is also slightly off-‐putting that a student researching their organization, at the university one of their more successful districts partners with so strongly, was unable to make contact with anyone at EcoDistricts.
In the beginning of the organization’s work, employees of EcoDistricts were on the ground, in the districts, working to set-‐up a stable volunteer base, people to see the actions of the each of the districts through. EcoDistricts created issues for themselves by not ensuring the funding of at least one, part-‐time person for each district. In Fletcher Beaudoin’s words, “in the successful districts, there’s a person thinking about collaboration, the collective, the drum beat.” Kate Carone, the representative from Foster Green, made mention of the challenges
with having an entirely volunteer board. People have jobs and other responsibilities outside of their volunteer work, so, often times capacity falls short. Even in South of Market, with a paid, part-‐time employee of the district, Liz Hormann expressed a lack capacity.
Based on the state in which Portland pilot EcoDistricts find themselves in, it could be believed that the EcoDistricts organization departed from their home districts all too soon, without giving the districts enough resources to be as successful as they had projected. While there are positive implications in letting their “children” grow on their own, govern themselves, and ensure their own success—which seems to have been their intentions—how they set them up must be refined for future success. For example, a better understanding for how to best allocate funding might be surmised.
One of the most evident issues plaguing EcoDistricts today is the rooted in the concept of scale. EcoDistricts has made their name by working on this neighborhood scale, but how are they defining neighborhood scale? In the simplest terms, EcoDistricts, a body of well-‐connected industry leaders, came together and created a framework to implement the concept of
neighborhood scale sustainability. They then established pilot EcoDistricts within boundaries that are completely different than that of traditional Portland neighborhood boundaries. After which, they entered these districts and attempted to set goals for the community to achieve, with very little resources and the expectation that it is up to them to make it happen. Even in layman’s terms, this approach sounds particularly top-‐down. Now, this is not saying that top-‐ down is necessarily a bad thing, but this is saying that to establish and perpetuate successful, sustainable districts, EcoDistricts must understand the dynamic between top-‐down approaches
and grassroots implementation, and how the two can work together harmoniously. To live their “vision for creating sustainable cities from the neighborhood up,” EcoDistricts must be
challenged to work cross-‐scale (EcoDistricts, 2013).
Work done by Cash et al, suggests there are common issues in working cross-‐scale without having a clear understanding that one is even working cross-‐scale. An issue that is present in EcoDistricts is what Cash et al calls “mismatch.” According to the piece, “mismatch is the challenge of matching the scale of what is known about the world and the scale at which decisions are made and action taken.” Simply, large-‐scale knowledge about what is best that is irrelevant to local bodies (Cash et al., 2006). In EcoDistricts’ case, the creation of a framework with district-‐specialized roadmaps that district representatives can willingly admit they have read little of, and roadmaps with proposed actions are completely misaligned with actions the various districts are actually taking. According to the research done by Cash et al, to take part is successful cross-‐scale work, it is critical to understand one’s position in the production. A clearer identification for EcoDistricts as an organization is posed in the suggestions portion of this paper.
There are also challenges inherent in the organization’s decision to match their district’s boundaries with Urban Renewal Area boundaries. When in contact with representatives from South of Market and Foster Green, both mentioned the complications with resident’s lack of identification with their EcoDistrict. With no set understanding for what their EcoDsitrict actually is, people within the pilot districts have little perception for what the term EcoDistrict means to them. Especially in the co0ntext of cities, people have a tendency to identify with
their neighborhood and hold more stake in the success of their neighborhood. The resident’s lack of knowledge, involvement, and stake in their EcoDistrict is rooted in their inability to identify with their district’s boundaries. It is a mutual partnership between the people and their neighborhood—if people are able to identify with and appreciate their neighborhood, then they are able to perpetuate the success of their neighborhood. And if the people directing the neighborhood efforts understand the people within the district, they will have a much better understanding of what is good for them. What’s more, if people are able to hold a conversation at the grassroots, neighborhood scale about sustainability and what it means directly to people in their homes, issues like climate change and other major global issues that are very difficult for people to grasp will become much easier to swallow. Embedding sustainable practices into our daily lives will only help further us down the road in the way we think about sustainability, and how we do business. It is hard to envision these conversations happening on a regular basis between residents within their ambiguous EcoDistrict.
What this Means for Neighborhood Scale Sustainability Efforts
There is no “one size fits all” plan to promote neighborhood scale sustainability. The social, economic, and environmental makeup various tremendously from neighborhood to neighborhood. Comparing both Foster Green and SoMa’s original goals to the actions they have actually taken to build their respective districts, it is seen that operating under a set of goals laid out by a higher organization is relatively ineffective. Without allowing the neighborhood effort to be foster organically, the necessary level of capacity needed to cultivate a sustainable district is hard to create. Establishing district boundaries in Urban Renewal Areas rather than
traditional neighborhood boundaries has made it nearly impossible to identify with one’s district, unless they are directly involved with the daily operations of the districts. Looking at Living Cully, the district was formed through four organizations who had a handle on what movements were bubbling under the surface, really listening to what residents could coalesce around. Hearing this, they built off their existing assets to create a district and an effort residents could identify with. Residents of Cully have a strong understanding of what they are fighting for, and how success in sustainable efforts might affect them. While Living Cully is still in its initial phases, it will be exciting to watch what comes of their efforts.
So, what does that say for neighborhood scale sustainability efforts? That they need to be exactly that—neighborhood efforts. The piece by piece neighborhood efforts that hopefully will make up a city-‐wide movement towards sustainability is sensible and a nice thought, but to start from the ground-‐up with a grassroots movement, people of the community need to be on board and have a clear understanding of what it means to them. EcoDistricts operates as a nice namesake for up-‐and-‐coming neighborhood efforts, but, at the end of the day, it is up to neighborhood residents to decide what goals and actions they can work together around.
With this being said, all EcoDistricts studied in this paper experienced a relative level of success, and all have at least somewhat established where their strengths lie as they have all formed or been formed around three different drivers. For example, SoMa’s strong partnership with PSU has encouraged multiple applied learning projects for students that benefit both the district and the students. Foster Green has done quite a successful job cultivating a committed volunteer base, even post initial funding, and have been able to tack on several small,
successful community projects to their name. Living Cully has become the ideal example for learning how to develop environmentally consciously and equitably. Thus, however successful the processes were in setting up these various districts, they have all brought about varying levels of positive neighborhood change; and however minimal their impact on the larger effort, EcoDistricts are a step in the right direction towards the sustainable future.
Suggestions
As stated before, were EcoDistricts to have a better understanding for their position in their cross-‐scale relationship with local, neighborhood-‐based efforts in the push for city-‐wide sustainability, salient, harmonious processes might occur. Referencing the Cash et al piece, EcoDistricts, as it is today, classifies as a “bridging organization,” organizations that “play an intermediary role between different arenas, levels, or scales and facilitate the co-‐production of knowledge.” (Cash et al, 2006). In EcoDistricts’ case, the bridge between industry experts, city officials, other people in power, and community leaders, residents of the district. As the acting hub of knowledge and connection to resources, it is imperative for EcoDistricts to understand everywhere does neighborhoods differently, and there is no one overarching framework that can be prescribed to every neighborhood. In understanding this, EcoDistricts’ position in their cross-‐scale relationship might just be best suited for that of a sort of educational hub that helps guide neighborhoods to resources, connections, and solutions that are best suited for their individual neighborhood.
In regards to the Portland pilots, establishing these districts involuntarily, unlike that of the rest of the EcoDistricts across the nation who voluntarily took park in the summit or
incubator out of pure interest, poses its own set of challenges. There is a definite need for the EcoDistricts organization to shift some focus back on the pilot EcoDistricts. As stated before, it is imperative for the organization to have something to show for themselves. Understandably, this contradicts the earlier suggestion of acting as the “educational bridge,” but as Portland remains as the original testing grounds for this style of neighborhood-‐scale sustainability, it is important to come back to Portland and look to establish reasons why these district’s successes are relatively lackluster, and look into ways to boost efforts.
Now, herein lies a whole other set of suggestions to bolster EcoDistricts within Portland. To start, a hat tipped to Living Cully for their decision to build off of existing assets, rather than starting from scratch with something brand new. Cully established an understanding for the social, economic, and physical makeup of their neighborhood, and used that to leverage an entire movement around the equitable vitality of their neighborhood. With the four
organizations that make up the Living Cully umbrella, they also have the organizational capacity to continue to move forward. As for Foster Green and SoMa, with little committed personnel, it is important to get creative with resources. In talking with Fletcher Beaudoin, the Sustainability Partnerships Director for the Institute of Sustainable Solutions, he sold his opinions on the power of the university, “I think that there is a fundamental role for universities to engage with district scale sustainability efforts. Our neighborhood sustainability initiative is particularly aimed at that, usually these district scale, grassroots sustainability efforts aren’t well resourced and can use energy and support from a variety of sources, but I think students and researchers are a great place for that because I think that the neighborhoods are also a little more of a
testing ground, there’s a little less of a barrier for students to enter and get engaged.” There is real power in managing a student and district interface, where students are posed with applied learning projects that benefit the community, and do not overburden them.
The use of universities also plays well into another suggestion, education. Educating the residents of the importance of their EcoDistrict and how it affects them not only acts as a sustainable practice accelerator, but also a community-‐building tactic. And this can be interfaced with another important feature Portland pilots are missing—district identity. Something as simple a community gathering type meet-‐and-‐greet allows the chance for a district to come together meet their neighbors, learn about the importance and benefits of a sustainable district, and build stronger community ties to the neighborhood. In research based around social theory, it was found that social constructs, whether they be in the classroom or your neighbors, have tremendous impacts on sustainable practices in the household
(Goldsmith, E.B., Goldsmith, R.E., 2011).
Districts also need to be monitored. Hearing the representative from South of Market has never even spoken once with someone from EcoDistricts suggests the districts might not be monitored. Successful programs are monitored to ascertain information on changes in the environment, and how these changes were brought about, whether they be positive or negative (Vos, P., Meelis, E., Ter Keurs, W.J., 1999). This role is one that is well-‐suited for the EcoDistricts organization. As a body with the most expertise on how to encourage
keep an eye on the success of the districts, at least while there are still a relatively small number of district efforts housed under the title of “EcoDistrict.”
Future Research
This research has broken down the processes, goals, and actions that have formed three of Portland’s EcoDistricts, and has established barriers to the success of the EcoDistrict
framework. Future research lies in the breaking down these barriers for a more effective
movement around neighborhood-‐scale sustainability. Future research topics might include how to work cross-‐scale with the EcoDistricts framework, what is the most effective role for the overarching EcoDistricts organization, and how to better engage the masses in this “grassroots” neighborhood effort.
References
Banuelos, R., Jordan, B., Kennedy, R., Norby, D., Olson, E., Watters, C. (2013). Not in Cully: Anti-‐ Displacement Strategies for the Cully Neighborhood. Living Cully: A Cully EcoDistrict.
http://www.pdx.edu/usp/sites/www.pdx.edu.usp/files/A_LivingCully_PrinterFriendly_0.pdf Beaudoin, Fletcher. Personal Interview. (2014).
Cash, D.W., Adger, W.N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L., Young, O. “Scale and Cross-‐Scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multilevel World.” Ecology