Carolina Planning Journal

Bridging Theory and Practice Since 1974

Tag: Land Use

From the Archives: Saving Patients but Harming the Planet? Hospitals as Stewards of the Trash Crisis

February 11, 2022 /

This post was originally published on December 3, 2019. As we enter year three of the COVID-19 pandemic, we reflect on another global consequence – mountains of waste. A July 2021 study by MIT found that the pandemic alone has generated 7,200 tons of medical waste every day, largely disposable masks.

By Emily Gvino, MCRP/MPH ’21

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, Americans produce 25% more trash than usual between Thanksgiving and New Year’s Day, generating 1 million tons more waste every week during this time frame.[1] However, the life cycle of this country’s waste poses a critical issue throughout the year. Urban planners, public works departments, and local officials are already dealing with the downstream impacts of our trash generation problems; land use decisions must handle a community’s needs for housing and economic development but also balance the increasing amount of land required to create landfills and resources to facilitate trash management. The upstream causes of waste management should also be the concern of major businesses and employers, such as healthcare organizations. Hospitals – which have relied on single-use plastic items since the 1970s – could step up in an environmental stewardship role for their communities by tackling their plastic waste generation.

The Issue: The Unending Waste Problem 

In 2017, representatives from China notified the World Trade Organization of their intent to ban solid waste imports from the United States, Canada, Australia, and other countries at the Committee on Import Licensing.[2] China’s decision marks a monumental shift in global waste management that has sent municipalities and businesses across the United States into a panic. China has long been the main recipient of our garbage, and now manufacturing companies and public works departments alike must scramble to find waste management solutions.[3] Pictures of dump trucks moving debris have been splashed across the news since then, juxtaposed with impoverished workers whose daily job includes sifting through mounds of trash by hand for items that can be recycled. These images dig at our moral sensibilities, as no individual is guilt-free from contributing to this system of unnecessary accumulation. Attention to this issue is framed in the media as a problem for the greedy consumer that gets their coffee to go, orders pizza for dinner in that large cardboard box, and requires multiple plastic bags for every grocery trip.

Source:  Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan. 2018. “Municipal Solid Waste Factsheet.” Pub. No. CSS04-15.

For decades, the environmental movement has emphasized these individual choices as the essential mechanisms for preventing impending environmental crises: Don’t buy single-use plastics. Recycle your bottles, cardboard, and paper. Accumulate reusable tote bags and use them whenever you go shopping. The maxim of “reduce, reuse, recycle” has become so ingrained that it stands as a cliché, a slogan for an indifferent public. On a community level, we can do better: a Pew Research Center survey from 2016 found that one in five Americans lives in a community that does not encourage recycling, while half live in a community that encourages “but doesn’t seem overly concerned with” recycling efforts, mirroring this sentiment of apathy.[4]

While our garbage accumulation crisis may seem to be a concern only for environmental advocates, we also face more public health threats due to waste. The World Health Organization reports that mercury poisoning can occur through contact or through waterway contamination by chemicals that leach into water systems from landfills.[5] Without China and other countries to process our waste, more plastic products will end up in landfills and incinerators, which can release toxic chemicals harmful to our health. In Chapel Hill, North Carolina, the Roger Eubanks neighborhood faced the public health and environmental justice consequences of a waste disaster.[6] The community, whose residents are a majority African American, was the site of a landfill and waste transfer station. Meanwhile, the neighborhood was denied sewage service until 2017.[7] The Roger Eubanks neighborhood stands as a lesson for all municipal planners and public works directors of the potential environmental justice issues ahead as we will continue to grapple with our waste problem.    

Hospitals: Grounds for Impactful Change

We cannot place the sole blame for our trash crisis on the individual who insists on using plastic straws. Large corporations and business entities have manufactured products with cheap plastics for decades without concern for the consequences down the line.[8] The hospital sector has remained unjustifiably free from the line of fire in the environmental movement. A study published by the American Chemical Society in 2015 found that one hysterectomy, the most common surgical procedure on women in the United States, can produce at a minimum 20 pounds of plastic waste. With 500,000 hysterectomies performed in the US each year, that quickly adds up to 10 to 16.5 million pounds of trash annually from hysterectomies alone.[9] According to the Healthcare Plastics Recycling Council, all U.S. healthcare facilities generate 14,000 tons of waste per day, equivalent to the weight of almost 115 blue whales.[10][11] That level of waste generation presents a terrible dichotomy of hospitals working hard to save patients’ lives while simultaneously polluting the air, contaminating the ground, and massively contributing to landfills in the communities they are aiming to heal. 

Understandably, perceived barriers to sustainability abound when discussing the options for hospital systems: concerns about sterile environments and patient safety, cost effectiveness of materials, and the efficiency of hospital operations, from surgery in the operating room to outpatient procedures. Given the evidence that single-use plastics were made for convenience rather than medical hygiene, healthcare systems should not remain exempt from our nation’s larger conversation about how we contribute to landfills.[12]

The snag here is convincing a healthcare system to become a champion of environmental stewardship. However, it’s not a far-fetched plan: for example, the Cleveland Clinic launched a pilot of reducing plastic waste in their operating rooms in 2011 by tackling operating room surgery products that were opened during surgery but unused. Their single-use plastic program diverted these unused products from the regulated medical waste incineration path, recycled and reprocessed the items, and sold products to other healthcare providers at a lower cost. The reprocessed products were created under stricter regulations than the original devices and were resold with a higher safety standard.[13] In 2017 alone, Cleveland Clinic reprocessed 66 tons of plastic that would have otherwise ended up in a landfill. Their secondary program to recycle medical plastics also created 50 jobs in 5 years for those with developmental disabilities. A follow-up study by the Government Accountability Office echoed the idea that reprocessing medical products emphasized the reliability and safety of these products, supporting adoption nationwide.[14]

In fact, healthcare systems are the ideal place to implement innovative changes for a few key reasons: First, they are centers of innovation by nature of their sector. A leading healthcare system can create its own standard for plastic waste reduction and roll it out to all of their hospital locations and facilities. Competitor hospitals will see the cost-savings of other sustainability campaigns—and surrounding media attention – and will want to follow suit both in the service of their community and to help their bottom line.[15] Healthcare systems are major employers for many communities and often tied closely with university and research institutions. Voluntary policy adoption in a healthcare system doesn’t require the same amount of lobbying and leadership buy-in as passing mandatory legislation forcing commercial businesses to adjust their practices. These characteristics create the perfect combination of an organization willing to make systemic change with the resources to accomplish this.

Looking Ahead: Future of Plastic Reduction 

Practice Greenhealth, which focuses on environmental initiatives for hospitals, has 1,100 member hospitals, and finds that hospital leadership is interested in making changes but lacks the technical knowledge and support to take steps in the right direction.[16] Stories of hope continue to emerge: Dr. Ravi Gupta, a physician at Inova Fairfax Hospital, advocated for reducing plastic waste and campaigned the hospital administration for a better waste management program. As a result, Inova Fairfax reduced its waste by 1 million pounds in one year while also saving $200,000, and can now market itself as a true sustainable healthcare leader.[17] Inova Fairfax and UNC Healthcare have similar surgical procedure volumes but are on opposite ends of the sustainability leadership spectrum. Inova Fairfax completed 19,402 inpatient surgeries in 2010, while UNC Healthcare completed 20,598.[18] In comparison, UNC Healthcare –despite its connection to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Three Zeros Environmental Initiative –still lacks a sustainability plan or concrete actions regarding the reduction their environmental footprint.  

A multifaceted campaign with accompanying policies to decrease plastic waste in hospitals could make a dramatic impact. The Cleveland Clinic was able to record substantial improvements with a simple, two-pronged approach for reprocessing single use plastics for resale and recycling other medical plastics. Change doesn’t have to come in sweeping steps; 90% of IV bags do not need to be processed as regulated medical waste and redirecting IV bags alone could reduce hospital plastic waste by 10%.[19] Practice Greenhealth reports that recycling the blue wrap, which wraps surgical instruments for sterilization, could divert over 255 million pounds of waste per year.[20] Better yet, blue wraps are made with #5 plastic, one of the easiest plastic types to reuse or reprocess. Case studies across the United States have found that plastic waste reduction programs can carry significant cost savings, an added bonus.[21]

Source: Gibbens, S. (2019, October 4). Can medical care exist without plastic? The National Geographic. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/10/can-medical-care-exist-without-plastic

Hospital leadership should invest planning efforts and resources into medical waste reduction programs, for the sake of their patients, communities, and bottom line. By starting small with plastic waste reprocessing programs – even for a single product –  they can create a huge impact.

Featured image: Plastic tubes, test strips and insertion devices that have accumulated after many months before they are discarded as medical waste. Laura Forlano.

About the author: Emily Gvino is a second-year master’s student seeking dual degrees from the Department of City and Regional Planning and the Gillings School of Global Public Health. Her research interests involve how the built environment can address social justice issues and the impact of climate change and the environment on health. Prior to attending UNC, Emily earned her bachelor’s degree in urban & environmental planning and Spanish at the University of Virginia.

[1]  Doran, G., & Kidwell, J. (2016, December). Creative Ways to Cut Your Holiday Waste. The EPA Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.epa.gov/2016/12/21/creative-ways-to-cut-your-holiday-waste/

[2] WTO. (2017). China’s import ban on solid waste queried at import licensing meeting. World Trade Organization, (October 2017), 2017–2019. Retrieved from https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news17_e/impl_03oct17_e.htm

[3] Semuels, A. (2019, March 5). What Happens Now That China Won’t Take U.S. Recycling – The Atlantic. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/china-has-stopped-accepting-our-trash/584131/

[4]  Pew Research Center. (2016, October 7). Recycling perceptions, realities vary widely in U.S. Retrieved November 23, 2019, from FactTank website: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/07/perceptions-and-realities-of-recycling-vary-widely-from-place-to-place/

[5] Health care solid waste. (n.d.). Retrieved November 23, 2019, from World Health Organization (WHO) website: https://www.who.int/sustainable-development/health-sector/health-risks/solid-waste/en/

[6] UNC Center for Civil Rights. (2017). The State of Exclusion: Orange County, N.C. – An In-depth Analysis of the Legacy of Segregated Communities. 1–10. Retrieved from www.uncinclusionproject.org

[7] Friend, E. (2016, December 27). Sewer lines approved for Rogers Road as ‘reparations’ for housing Orange County landfill. The News and Observer. Retrieved from https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/community/chapel-hill-news/article122983359.html

[8] Hodges, S. (2017). Hospitals as factories of medical garbage. Anthropology and Medicine, 24(3), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/13648470.2017.1389165

[9] Thiel, C. L., Eckelman, M., Guido, R., Huddleston, M., Landis, A. E., Sherman, J., … Bilec, M. M. (2015). Environmental impacts of surgical procedures: Life cycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States. Environmental Science and Technology, 49(3), 1779–1786. https://doi.org/10.1021/es504719g

[10] Healthcare Plastics Recycling Solutions for Hospitals. (2019). Retrieved November 23, 2019, from Healthcare Plastics Recycling Council website: https://www.hprc.org/hospitals

[11] Mallos, N. (2013, May 14). What Does 10 Million Pounds of Trash Look Like? Ocean Conservancy. Retrieved from https://oceanconservancy.org/blog/2013/05/14/what-does-10-million-pounds-of-trash-look-like

[12] Hodges, Sarah. (2017) Hospitals as factories of medical garbage, Anthropology & Medicine, 24:3, 319-333, DOI: 10.1080/13648470.2017.1389165

[13] Additionally: I’m trying to find a header photo for her. Does it need to be open source if I cite it at the bottom? And either way, is there a special way to cite the header photo?

[14] Williamson, R. (2008). REPROCESSED SINGLE-USE MEDICAL DEVICES: FDA Oversight Has Increased, and Available Information Does Not Indicate That Use Presents an Elevated Health Risk. (January), 38. Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08147.pdf

[15] Health Research & Educational Trust. (2014, May). Environmental sustainability in hospitals: The value of efficiency. Chicago, IL: Health Research & Educational Trust. Accessed at www.hpoe.org

[16] Chen, I. (2010, July 5). In World of Throwaways, Making a Dent in Medical Waste. The New York. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/health/06waste.html

[17] Nix, M. (2011). Case Study: Inova Fairfax Hospital: Regulated Medical Waste Reduction and Minimization Demographic. Retrieved from www.GreeningTheOR.org

[18] Nix, M. (2011). Case Study: Inova Fairfax Hospital: Regulated Medical Waste Reduction and Minimization Demographic. Retrieved from www.GreeningTheOR.org

Embracing Excellence: The University of North Carolina Health Care System 2010 Annual Report. (2010).

[19] Gibbens, S. (2019, October 4). Can medical care exist without plastic? The National Geographic. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/10/can-medical-care-exist-without-plastic

[20] Bodkin, C. (2018, November 1). Blue Wrap and the Circular Economy. Practice Greenhealth. Retrieved from https://practicegreenhealth.org/about/news/blue-wrap-and-circular-economy

[21] Kaplan, S., Sadler, B., Little, K., Franz, C., & Orris, P. (2012). Can Sustainable Hospitals Help Bend the Health Care Cost Curve? The Commonwealth Fund, 29(1641). Retrieved from www.hpoe.orgcontact:hpoe@aha.orgor

The Potential Impacts of Autonomous Vehicles on Future U.S. Land Use

March 4, 2021 /
By Will Anderson

The following is written under the assumption that by the year 2050, the United States will have completely converted to the usage of level 5 autonomous vehicles (AVs). This means that all vehicles will be fully automated and capable of performing all driving functions under any conditions. Innovations such as camera sensors, Lidar, Radar, ultrasound, and computer vision will enable AVs to resolve technical problems and safety issues currently of concern. Consequently, the conversion to AVs throughout the U.S. will create both benefits and drawbacks related to land use planning, subsequently facilitating various economic scenarios. The primary land use benefits and concerns are outlined below, along with policy recommendations to address them.

Benefits
Improved Efficiency of Parking Structure and Location

The conversion to level 5 AVs throughout the United States enables the improved efficiency of parking facilities in regards to location and design. The use of autonomous vehicles lessens the need for onsite parking due to built-in self-parking capabilities. Instead of requiring on-site parking, AVs, whether public or private, can drop off and pick-up users as needed. As a result, parking in urban areas can be consolidated outside of the city center where the land value is cheaper. Currently, the average comprehensive parking costs in the U.S. range from $3,300 to $5,600 per parking space in central business districts. On the other hand, the cost of parking falls to $680 to $2,400 in peripheral urban areas. Consequently, parking companies are incentivized to relocate parking structures to the urban periphery where there is still demand but costs are lower. Since parking will be consolidated in the urban peripheries, AVs enhance the viability of combined parking structures for people shopping, commuting, and engaging in leisure activities.

Automated parking systems also allow parking to be more space-efficient. Developers predict that through replacing ramps and aisles with lift shafts and reducing the size of parking spots, each parking deck will be able to hold 60% more parking. Combined with the consolidation of parking spaces in the urban peripheries, improved space-efficiency will significantly lower the amount of land dedicated to parking. Currently, there are 800 million surface parking spaces in US urban areas, equal to 1/3 of the United States’ combined downtown area. By cutting down on these parking spaces, the quality of the built environment will be improved by replacing urban parking structures with new land uses such as residential, commercial, and green spaces. The change of land uses will subsequently increase the density of core urban areas, which allows for enhanced economic activity.

Redistribution of Road Spaces

Similar to parking, the proliferation of AVs enables the redistribution of road spaces into more efficient uses. Due to AVs’ automation and safety capabilities, planners no longer need to account for human error in the design of roads and lanes. Assuming vehicles remain the same size, engineers believe lane size can be reduced by 20%. Moreover, since AVs have a significantly faster reaction time and can communicate with other vehicles, they are capable of traveling closer together than human-operated vehicles. This increases throughput of each lane, which reduces the demand for lane expansions and can potentially lead to fewer traffic lanes. Additionally, the use of medians as a method of providing a safety buffer between traffic lanes will no longer be needed, allowing roads to consolidate space.

Throughout the United States, road networks are a major land use of any city or suburban area, constituting 25% to 35% of the total land. Therefore, the redistribution of roadways can create a significant amount of space for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, active streetscapes, and greenspaces. As seen below in Figure 1, the use of AVs can transform American streetscapes into complete streets, allowing for a more diverse system of transportation for many different modes. The implementation of complete streets creates many long-term economic benefits for urban areas, including increased property values and opportunities for private investment along the roadways.

Figure 1: The Transformation to Complete Streets with AVs (Source: Florida DOT)
Drawbacks
Greater Urban Sprawl

While the change to fully autonomous vehicles does create beneficial land-use impacts, AVs may also facilitate the continuation of urban sprawl. Planners have discovered that individuals believe their living environment and quality of life to be more important than living near where they work. Since AVs create travel that is less burdensome for riders, riders are incentivized to continue living in cheaper and greener areas located farther from the city center. A survey completed by the Transportation Institute at Texas A&M found that 80% of respondents want to remain within suburban areas while utilizing an AV. Furthermore, 20% of respondents expressed a desire to relocate farther away from the city center after obtaining an AV. As seen in this survey, the conversion to AVs increases an individual’s willingness to live farther away from work because the cost of traveling is worth living farther from the city center.

Due to this increased urban sprawl, residential and commercial land use patterns will continue to disperse and fragment. The construction of low-density single-family dwellings will spread throughout rural domains, which will also incentivize the creation of new commercial strip developments. As development grows farther away from urban cores, greater economic deterioration may occur in those areas. Moreover, the combination of commercial and residential relocation away from city centers creates urban decay as property values and public investments decline. Overall, AVs will make transportation easier for riders, resulting in increased urban sprawl and economic disinvestment in urban areas.

Policy Recommendations
Supporting the Potential Land Use Benefits

For AVs to create land use benefits, planners must ensure that any new policies or repurposing of public roads and parking spaces prioritize the needs of the whole community, rather than focusing strictly on serving vehicles. For public roads, city and regional planners can utilize federal grants to fund capital investments in surface transportation infrastructure such as encouraging the redistribution of road spaces and implementation of complete streets. In the case of Saint Paul, Minnesota, planners utilized a USDOT TIGER II grant to create a street design manual to be used to implement complete streets throughout the city. Furthermore, the use of public engagement strategies will educate public stakeholders about the benefits of reducing lane sizes, adding bike lanes, and increasing sidewalk size. Such demonstrations can help garner public support, enhancing the viability of new complete street policies.

Additionally, planners can incentivize public infill of abandoned parking facilities by implementing smart growth policies that reduce the amount of parking within urban areas. According to the EPA, a 50% reduction in parking would reduce parking capital costs by 25% and allow for 20% more residential units. As a result, developers can lower their capital costs and increase profitability. This increased profitability will incentivize more investment in public infill areas, increasing opportunities for inner-city development and economic revitalization.

Preventing Potential Land Use Drawbacks

Other than supporting the aforementioned benefits, planners must also implement policies that actively prevent the spread of urban sprawl and incentivize the densification of living spaces. Urban planner Craig Lewis states that sprawl will only continue if planners continue to support sprawl through focusing on free highway infrastructure and providing little access to affordable and attractive alternatives. By eliminating subsidies for highway infrastructure, planners can influence people to remain in their current suburbs or relocate within the city. Local and regional planning organizations can implement land-sharing plans or zoning laws to protect more rural areas from new development. Through these methods, planners can limit the potential for future urban sprawl and redirect movement back into the urban cores.

Conclusion

Within the next 30 years, land use plans will experience a significant change as the nation converts to the use of level 5 autonomous vehicles. In order to promote beneficial land use changes, planning organizations must implement policies that support the redistribution of public road space and incentivize the improved efficiency of parking infrastructure. Additionally, planners will need to develop policies that prevent the expansion of urban sprawl and redirect economic development to the city core. By implementing these measures, planners will promote centralization and rekindle economic growth throughout the nation’s urban landscape.

Will Anderson is a third-year undergraduate student with a major in Environmental Studies and minors in Urban Planning and Geographic Information Science. His academic interests include sustainability, land use planning, transportation planning, urban design, and architecture. I his free time, he enjoys playing tennis, mountain biking, and surfing.

Edited by Emma Vinella-Brusher

Featured Image courtesy of R&D World

Works Cited

Brody, S (2013). (2013). How do development patterns impact our ecological systems and the livability local communities?

Florida DOT (2016). Envisioning Florida’s Future: Transportation and Land Use in Automated Vehicle World.

Fagnant, D. J., & Kockelman, K. (2015). Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: Opportunities, barrier and policy recommendations.

Heinrichs, D. (2016). Autonomous Driving and Urban Land Use.  

Hodgetts, T. (2017). Driverless cars could see humankind sprawl ever further into the countryside. 

NHTSA (2017). Automated Driving Systems 2.0

Lewis, C. (2017). Autonomous Vehicles will change land use planning. What you should be thinking about now.

Long, A. R. (n.d.). Urban Parking As Economic Solution.

Union of Concerned Scientists (2017). Maximizing the Benefits of Self-Driving Vehicles.

U.S. DOT (2015). Complete Streets

U.S. EPA (2014). Smart Growth and Economic Success: Investing in Infill Development.

We Conserve PA (n.d.). Economic Benefits of Smart Growth and Costs of Sprawl.

Yigitcanlar, T., Wilson, M., & Kamruzzaman, M. (2019). Disruptive Impacts of Automated Driving Systems on the Built Environment and Land Use: An Urban Planner’s Perspective. 

Zmud, J., Sener, I. N., & Wagner, J. (2016). Consumer Acceptance and Travel Behavior Impacts of Automated Vehicles.

Saving Patients but Harming the Planet? Hospitals as Stewards of the Trash Crisis

December 3, 2019 /
By Emily Gvino

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, Americans produce 25% more trash than usual between Thanksgiving and New Year’s Day, generating 1 million tons more waste every week during this time frame[1]. However, the life cycle of this country’s waste poses a critical issue throughout the year. Urban planners, public works departments, and local officials are already dealing with the downstream impacts of our trash generation problems; land use decisions must handle a community’s needs for housing and economic development but also balance the increasing amount of land required to create landfills and resources to facilitate trash management. The upstream causes of waste management should also be the concern of major businesses and employers, such as healthcare organizations. Hospitals – which have relied on single-use plastic items since the 1970s – could step up in an environmental stewardship role for their communities by tackling their plastic waste generation.

The Issue: The Unending Waste Problem 

In 2017, representatives from China notified the World Trade Organization of their intent to ban solid waste imports from the United States, Canada, Australia, and other countries at the Committee on Import Licensing[2]. China’s decision marks a monumental shift in global waste management that has sent municipalities and businesses across the United States into a panic. China has long been the main recipient of our garbage, and now manufacturing companies and public works departments alike must scramble to find waste management solutions[3]. Pictures of dump trucks moving debris have been splashed across the news since then, juxtaposed with impoverished workers whose daily job includes sifting through mounds of trash by hand for items that can be recycled. These images dig at our moral sensibilities, as no individual is guilt-free from contributing to this system of unnecessary accumulation. Attention to this issue is framed in the media as a problem for the greedy consumer that gets their coffee to go, orders pizza for dinner in that large cardboard box, and requires multiple plastic bags for every grocery trip.

Source:  Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan. 2018. “Municipal Solid Waste Factsheet.” Pub. No. CSS04-15.

For decades, the environmental movement has emphasized these individual choices as the essential mechanisms for preventing impending environmental crises: Don’t buy single-use plastics. Recycle your bottles, cardboard, and paper. Accumulate reusable tote bags and use them whenever you go shopping. The maxim of “reduce, reuse, recycle” has become so ingrained that it stands as a cliché, a slogan for an indifferent public. On a community level, we can do better: a Pew Research Center survey from 2016 found that one in five Americans lives in a community that does not encourage recycling, while half live in a community that encourages “but doesn’t seem overly concerned with” recycling efforts, mirroring this sentiment of apathy[4].

While our garbage accumulation crisis may seem to be a concern only for environmental advocates, we also face more public health threats due to waste. The World Health Organization reports that mercury poisoning can occur through contact or through waterway contamination by chemicals that leach into water systems from landfills[5]. Without China and other countries to process our waste, more plastic products will end up in landfills and incinerators, which can release toxic chemicals harmful to our health. In Chapel Hill, North Carolina, the Roger Eubanks neighborhood faced the public health and environmental justice consequences of a waste disaster[6]. The community, whose residents are a majority African American, was the site of a landfill and waste transfer station. Meanwhile, the neighborhood was denied sewage service until 2017[7]. The Roger Eubanks neighborhood stands as a lesson for all municipal planners and public works directors of the potential environmental justice issues ahead as we will continue to grapple with our waste problem.    

Hospitals: Grounds for Impactful Change

We cannot place the sole blame for our trash crisis on the individual who insists on using plastic straws. Large corporations and business entities have manufactured products with cheap plastics for decades without concern for the consequences down the line[8]. The hospital sector has remained unjustifiably free from the line of fire in the environmental movement. A study published by the American Chemical Society in 2015 found that one hysterectomy, the most common surgical procedure on women in the United States, can produce at a minimum 20 pounds of plastic waste. With 500,000 hysterectomies performed in the US each year, that quickly adds up to 10 to 16.5 million pounds of trash annually from hysterectomies alone[9]. According to the Healthcare Plastics Recycling Council, all U.S. healthcare facilities generate 14,000 tons of waste per day[10], equivalent to the weight of almost 115 blue whales[11]. That level of waste generation presents a terrible dichotomy of hospitals working hard to save patients’ lives while simultaneously polluting the air, contaminating the ground, and massively contributing to landfills in the communities they are aiming to heal. 

Understandably, perceived barriers to sustainability abound when discussing the options for hospital systems: concerns about sterile environments and patient safety, cost effectiveness of materials, and the efficiency of hospital operations, from surgery in the operating room to outpatient procedures. Given the evidence that single-use plastics were made for convenience rather than medical hygiene, healthcare systems should not remain exempt from our nation’s larger conversation about how we contribute to landfills.[12]

The snag here is convincing a healthcare system to become a champion of environmental stewardship. However, it’s not a far-fetched plan: for example, the Cleveland Clinic launched a pilot of reducing plastic waste in their operating rooms in 2011 by tackling operating room surgery products that were opened during surgery but unused. Their single-use plastic program diverted these unused products from the regulated medical waste incineration path, recycled and reprocessed the items, and sold products to other healthcare providers at a lower cost. The reprocessed products were created under stricter regulations than the original devices and were resold with a higher safety standard[13]. In 2017 alone, Cleveland Clinic reprocessed 66 tons of plastic that would have otherwise ended up in a landfill. Their secondary program to recycle medical plastics also created 50 jobs in 5 years for those with developmental disabilities. A follow-up study by the Government Accountability Office echoed the idea that reprocessing medical products emphasized the reliability and safety of these products, supporting adoption nationwide[14].

In fact, healthcare systems are the ideal place to implement innovative changes for a few key reasons: First, they are centers of innovation by nature of their sector. A leading healthcare system can create its own standard for plastic waste reduction and roll it out to all of their hospital locations and facilities. Competitor hospitals will see the cost-savings of other sustainability campaigns—and surrounding media attention – and will want to follow suit both in the service of their community and to help their bottom line.[15] Healthcare systems are major employers for many communities and often tied closely with university and research institutions. Voluntary policy adoption in a healthcare system doesn’t require the same amount of lobbying and leadership buy-in as passing mandatory legislation forcing commercial businesses to adjust their practices. These characteristics create the perfect combination of an organization willing to make systemic change with the resources to accomplish this.

Looking Ahead: Future of Plastic Reduction 

Practice Greenhealth, which focuses on environmental initiatives for hospitals, has 1,100 member hospitals, and finds that hospital leadership is interested in making changes but lacks the technical knowledge and support to take steps in the right direction[16]. Stories of hope continue to emerge: Dr. Ravi Gupta, a physician at Inova Fairfax Hospital, advocated for reducing plastic waste and campaigned the hospital administration for a better waste management program. As a result, Inova Fairfax reduced its waste by 1 million pounds in one year while also saving $200,000, and can now market itself as a true sustainable healthcare leader[17]. Inova Fairfax and UNC Healthcare have similar surgical procedure volumes but are on opposite ends of the sustainability leadership spectrum. Inova Fairfax completed 19,402 inpatient surgeries in 2010, while UNC Healthcare completed 20,598[18]. In comparison, UNC Healthcare –despite its connection to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Three Zeros Environmental Initiative –still lacks a sustainability plan or concrete actions regarding the reduction their environmental footprint.  

A multifaceted campaign with accompanying policies to decrease plastic waste in hospitals could make a dramatic impact. The Cleveland Clinic was able to record substantial improvements with a simple, two-pronged approach for reprocessing single use plastics for resale and recycling other medical plastics. Change doesn’t have to come in sweeping steps; 90% of IV bags do not need to be processed as regulated medical waste and redirecting IV bags alone could reduce hospital plastic waste by 10%[19]. Practice Greenhealth reports that recycling the blue wrap, which wraps surgical instruments for sterilization, could divert over 255 million pounds of waste per year[20]. Better yet, blue wraps are made with #5 plastic, one of the easiest plastic types to reuse or reprocess. Case studies across the United States have found that plastic waste reduction programs can carry significant cost savings, an added bonus.[21]

Source: Gibbens, S. (2019, October 4). Can medical care exist without plastic? The National Geographic. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/10/can-medical-care-exist-without-plastic

Hospital leadership should invest planning efforts and resources into medical waste reduction programs, for the sake of their patients, communities, and bottom line. By starting small with plastic waste reprocessing programs – even for a single product –  they can create a huge impact.

Featured image: Plastic tubes, test strips and insertion devices that have accumulated after many months before they are discarded as medical waste. Laura Forlano.

About the author: Emily Gvino is a second-year master’s student seeking dual degrees from the Department of City and Regional Planning and the Gillings School of Global Public Health. Her research interests involve how the built environment can address social justice issues and the impact of climate change and the environment on health. Prior to attending UNC, Emily earned her bachelor’s degree in urban & environmental planning and Spanish at the University of Virginia.

[1]  Doran, G., & Kidwell, J. (2016, December). Creative Ways to Cut Your Holiday Waste. The EPA Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.epa.gov/2016/12/21/creative-ways-to-cut-your-holiday-waste/

[2] WTO. (2017). China’s import ban on solid waste queried at import licensing meeting. World Trade Organization, (October 2017), 2017–2019. Retrieved from https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news17_e/impl_03oct17_e.htm

[3] Semuels, A. (2019, March 5). What Happens Now That China Won’t Take U.S. Recycling – The Atlantic. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/china-has-stopped-accepting-our-trash/584131/

[4]  Pew Research Center. (2016, October 7). Recycling perceptions, realities vary widely in U.S. Retrieved November 23, 2019, from FactTank website: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/07/perceptions-and-realities-of-recycling-vary-widely-from-place-to-place/

[5] Health care solid waste. (n.d.). Retrieved November 23, 2019, from World Health Organization (WHO) website: https://www.who.int/sustainable-development/health-sector/health-risks/solid-waste/en/

[6] UNC Center for Civil Rights. (2017). The State of Exclusion: Orange County, N.C. – An In-depth Analysis of the Legacy of Segregated Communities. 1–10. Retrieved from www.uncinclusionproject.org

[7] Friend, E. (2016, December 27). Sewer lines approved for Rogers Road as ‘reparations’ for housing Orange County landfill. The News and Observer. Retrieved from https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/community/chapel-hill-news/article122983359.html

[8] Hodges, S. (2017). Hospitals as factories of medical garbage. Anthropology and Medicine, 24(3), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/13648470.2017.1389165

[9] Thiel, C. L., Eckelman, M., Guido, R., Huddleston, M., Landis, A. E., Sherman, J., … Bilec, M. M. (2015). Environmental impacts of surgical procedures: Life cycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States. Environmental Science and Technology, 49(3), 1779–1786. https://doi.org/10.1021/es504719g

[10] Healthcare Plastics Recycling Solutions for Hospitals. (2019). Retrieved November 23, 2019, from Healthcare Plastics Recycling Council website: https://www.hprc.org/hospitals

[11] Mallos, N. (2013, May 14). What Does 10 Million Pounds of Trash Look Like? Ocean Conservancy. Retrieved from https://oceanconservancy.org/blog/2013/05/14/what-does-10-million-pounds-of-trash-look-like

[12] Hodges, Sarah. (2017) Hospitals as factories of medical garbage, Anthropology & Medicine, 24:3, 319-333, DOI: 10.1080/13648470.2017.1389165

[13] Additionally: I’m trying to find a header photo for her. Does it need to be open source if I cite it at the bottom? And either way, is there a special way to cite the header photo?

[14] Williamson, R. (2008). REPROCESSED SINGLE-USE MEDICAL DEVICES: FDA Oversight Has Increased, and Available Information Does Not Indicate That Use Presents an Elevated Health Risk. (January), 38. Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08147.pdf

[15] Health Research & Educational Trust. (2014, May). Environmental sustainability in hospitals: The value of efficiency. Chicago, IL: Health Research & Educational Trust. Accessed at www.hpoe.org

[16] Chen, I. (2010, July 5). In World of Throwaways, Making a Dent in Medical Waste. The New York. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/health/06waste.html

[17] Nix, M. (2011). Case Study: Inova Fairfax Hospital: Regulated Medical Waste Reduction and Minimization Demographic. Retrieved from www.GreeningTheOR.org

[18] Nix, M. (2011). Case Study: Inova Fairfax Hospital: Regulated Medical Waste Reduction and Minimization Demographic. Retrieved from www.GreeningTheOR.org

Embracing Excellence: The University of North Carolina Health Care System 2010 Annual Report. (2010).

[19] Gibbens, S. (2019, October 4). Can medical care exist without plastic? The National Geographic. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/10/can-medical-care-exist-without-plastic

[20] Bodkin, C. (2018, November 1). Blue Wrap and the Circular Economy. Practice Greenhealth. Retrieved from https://practicegreenhealth.org/about/news/blue-wrap-and-circular-economy

[21] Kaplan, S., Sadler, B., Little, K., Franz, C., & Orris, P. (2012). Can Sustainable Hospitals Help Bend the Health Care Cost Curve? The Commonwealth Fund, 29(1641). Retrieved from www.hpoe.orgcontact:hpoe@aha.orgor

Building with Big Cats in Mind

November 13, 2018 /

Most of us like animals. Maybe not spiders or rats (those poor guys get a bad rap), but adorable bobcats or soaring eagles? Something in these creatures captivates us in an often-unconscious way. This intrigue comes from our biophilia, or ‘love of life,’ which refers to the innate tendency of humans to be drawn to other life forms. Not only do we feel an affinity toward other species, but because we evolved in tandem with nature, we need them for our physical and mental well-being. In fact, studies show that greenspace can improve mental health, particularly through stress reduction, stimulating physical activity and facilitating social cohesion.1

Despite its positive effects, we rarely plan nature into our urban lives. In fact, as human societies build and develop, we seem to plan other creatures out, sometimes pushing them to the very edge of extinction. During a recent stint on the Indonesian island of Sumatra, I witnessed how human land consumption suffocates Sumatran tigers. Plantations producing  palm oil, which is used in everything from shampoo to ice cream, have exploded across the island. This burning of tiger habitat, along with unorganized expansion of human populations and poaching of wild animals, has left us with less than 400 Sumatran tigers total. As top predators, these tigers uphold delicate ecosystems that provide people with many life necessities. Plus, as my friend from West Sumatra explained, tigers represent an important grandmother-like figure for certain Sumatran cultures. Losing Sumatran tigers is not just bad for tigers; it is bad for people, too.

WhatsApp Image 2018-11-07 at 4.43.05 AM

Land devastation in Sumatra. Photo Credit: Lucrecia Aguilar. 

We see the negative impacts of pushing predators out of our lives in the United States as well. Pumas (also known as mountain lions or cougars) used to roam across the Eastern US, happily munching on deer and maintaining balanced ecosystems. However, as we developed most of the land in this half of the country, pumas were forced to retreat to a few strongholds in the west. Naturally, deer populations went berserk with their newfound independence and started breeding like rabbits. This imbalance not only created hordes of angry gardeners, but the increase in deer numbers also costs human lives. The heartbreaking damages caused by deer-vehicle collisions now make deer the most dangerous large mammal in North America. If we brought pumas back, they could eat enough of these ungulates to prevent about 155 human deaths and $2.13 billion in costs every 30 years.2

WhatsApp Image 2018-11-07 at 4.44.20 AM

Singapore’s Supertrees. Photo Credit: Lucrecia Aguilar. 

We can change how we develop to integrate nature. In fact, as we face a rapidly changing climate and the Earth’s sixth mass extinction event, we will have to. Examples of biophilic development and planning already exist. In Singapore, steel Supertrees create vertical gardens covered by over 162,900 plants and include canopies filled with environmentally sustainable functions (such as solar cells).3 Spotted hyenas and people coexist in the Ethiopian city of Harar, where hyenas actually help keep the city clean by eating meat waste. The Living Building Challenge, a sustainability certification program and design framework for our built environment, urges planners to create places that imitate nature’s clean and beautiful functioning. It even includes a biophilic environment imperative to “nurture the innate human/nature connection.”4

As we continue to build our cities and develop our societies, let us remember to plan for the well-being of humans and all other beings. We often think there exists some hard line between humanity and nature, and that each must fit into its own box for sophistication’s sake. But humans are animals; we are part of nature. Let us make it our duty to plan healthy and functional living spaces for all living things . It is not just the logical thing to do; it is the moral thing to do.

About the Author: Lucrecia Kaye Aguilar is a wildlife conservationist studying big cats and human-wildlife coexistence. Passionate about wildlife since childhood, Lucrecia completed her Bachelor of Science in Ecology & Evolutionary Biology at Rice University before receiving the Thomas J. Watson Fellowship to explore big cat conservation around the world. She works to help prevent the extinction of big cat species and the detrimental effects of wildlife declines on people. Currently, Lucrecia is with cheetahs, leopards, and lions in southern Africa. You can find here on Instagram, Twitter, and on her blog. 

Featured Image: A male lion with his cubs in Botswana. Photo Credit: Lucrecia Aguilar.  

1. Vries, S. D., Dillen, S. M., Groenewegen, P. P., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2013). Streetscape greenery and health: Stress, social cohesion and physical activity as mediators. Social Science & Medicine, 94, 26-33. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.06.030

2. Gilbert, S. L., Sivy, K. J., Pozzanghera, C. B., Dubour, A., Overduijn, K., Smith, M. M., . . . Prugh, L. R. (2016). Socioeconomic Benefits of Large Carnivore Recolonization Through Reduced Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions. Conservation Letters, 10(4), 431-439. doi:10.1111/conl.12280

3. Supertree Grove: Facts & figures. (n.d.). Retrieved November 13, 2018, from http://www.gardensbythebay.com.sg/en/attractions/supertree-grove/facts-and-figures.html

4. Health & Happiness Petal Intent: Living Building Challenge. (2018, April 20). Retrieved November 13, 2018, from https://living-future.org/lbc/health-happiness-petal/

Land Use Planning and the Contest for the Meaning of Nature

June 4, 2018 /

At the heart of land use planning, an unspoken battle has been being waged over the very meaning of nature. And for most of its history, land use planners have unwittingly taken sides and acquiesced around a particular anthropocentric conception of nature that has determined the ways that land gets used. The continued consequences of climate change and ecological erosion, as well as economic inequality and cultural deterioration, require land use planners in particular to examine their fundamental approach and open up to new conceptions of our natural world. A growing global movement for the rights of nature has opened new ground on which how we understand the idea of nature is being challenged, and creates new potential for how land use planning can happen.

Land use planners are in a unique position of mediating representations of nature through making land use decisions.[1] Each decision made actuates the particular conception of nature, as it is realized in space. Inversely, how nature is conceptualized informs how land use decisions are made. At its core, land use planning itself assumes a dichotomous relationship between nature, as land, and society, as use. This is true for the traditional liberal approach to land use planning, which emphasizes property rights and a utilitarian approach to nature. Left un-interrogated is the fact that these conceptions are socially constructed, created to fit the needs of the land owners from the beginning days of this country. Through mediating the contested representation of nature, land use planners are situated in a particular position of power.

When the representations and corresponding discourses are identified, as urban planning professor Jean Hillier does, it becomes clear how they might guide land use decisions. For example, a scientific narrative presents as neutral, and is legitimized through the authority of data and experts. However, the scientific narrative is readily manipulated by political actors in order to support a particular agenda. In opposition to those is an Aboriginal narrative, which suggests that humans live in harmony with the land. When land use planners make decisions based on a particular narrative, that narrative is manifested and determines the outcomes. Understanding this phenomenon creates space for land use planners to be open to new narratives that will inform an environmentally ethical land use.

As an example, consider water governance. In a recent journal article, Julian Yates, Leila Harris and Nicole Wilson ask what the implications are for water governance if multiple conceptions of water were made possible, as opposed to the assumed utilitarian approach.[2] They advocate for an embrace of a plurality of water conceptions, what are described as ontologies, to guide water governance, allowing ontological space for diverse understandings of what water is. In examining alternative water conceptions in British Columbia, they suggest that conflict in water governance is often not solely about disagreements in water management approaches or assertion of rights within a legal framework, but rather rooted in a deeper disjuncture over the very essence of water. When the state, which typically approaches water management from the technical perspective of water as a resource for human consumption, doesn’t acknowledge alternative water ontologies, it can lead to ecological degradation and the neglect of social, cultural and spiritual needs of peoples with differing water ontologies, particularly indigenous peoples. In the case of British Columbia, many First Nations that the research examined consider water as lifeblood, seeing water as a living part of the natural world. From this conception, water is interconnected, boundless and exists in all its forms and functions. This understanding of water is so deep that it requires us to “(re)configure ourselves as bodies of water in order to understand how an uneven hydro-politics affects different bodies in variable ways.” [3] In this way, the separation between humans and nature is dissolved, and the rights of nature and that of humans become one and the same.

Nowhere has the contestation of the meaning of nature progressed with such fervor as in the global movement for the rights of nature. The idea of rights of nature is a legal framework, as well as a cultural shift, which re-conceptualizes nature as a legal subject. As a legal framework, it provides recourse to defend natural places where otherwise environmental protections are insufficient. As a cultural shift, where perhaps it has a more transformational potential, rights of nature challenges popularly held understandings of nature. The rights of nature calls for understanding nature as having intrinsic value, rather than just being valued for its utilization by humans, while also complicating the dichotomy between nature and humans.

Senegal’s abandoned Supreme Court, Dakar, Senegal. Photo Credit: Jeff Attaway/Creative Commons

The rights of nature have been established or exercised to varying extents in New Zealand, Bolivia, India and in some municipalities across the United States. However, it has been most comprehensively incorporated, as well as scrutinized, in Ecuador. In 2008, through a popular referendum, Ecuador adopted a new constitution, which incorporated the concept of sumak kawsay, a Quechua indigenous cosmology of living in harmony with nature. In the constitution, sumak kawsay is portrayed as a tool to guide sustainable development in opposition to the dominance of a neoliberal agenda. While its incorporation has been celebrated by the global movement for the rights of nature, its implementation has been fraught with contradictions and subject to critique. After all, the very idea of “sustainable development” presents inherent contradictions which are challenged by the sumak kawsay way of understanding.

What has possibly been the most consequential implications for the adoption of sumak kawsay is how it has compelled a country to rethink its understanding and relationship to nature. Due to the lack of further legislation to interpret how to apply the rights of nature, its implementation has become contested space, with new meanings and norms being vied for through court cases, cultural shifts, political campaigns and governmental action. Despite large scale, state-sanctioned, extractivist mining projects having been carried out under the banner of sumak kawsay, other sites where natural and indigenous rights have been exercised successfully have begun to develop new national paradigms for the interpretation of sumak kawsay. Land use planners can take inspiration from these new discursive spaces to reimagine nature beyond the tired and destructive liberal conceptions and open up to new possibilities for what nature, and in turn land use, can be.

[1] Hillier, Jean. 1998. “Paradise Proclaimed? Towards a Theoretical Understanding of Representations of Nature in Land Use Planning Decision‐making.” Philosophy & Geography 1 (1):77–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668799808573633.

[2] Yates, Julian S, Leila M Harris, and Nicole J Wilson. 2017. “Multiple Ontologies of Water: Politics, Conflict and Implications for Governance.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 35 (5):797–815. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775817700395.

[3] Ibid.

Featured Image: Morenci Mine, Arizona, USA. Photo Credit: Tom Blackwell/Creative Commons

About the Author: Andrew Meeker is a rising second year Master’s candidate in the Department of City and Regional Planning specializing in Land Use and Environmental Planning at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. As a planner, Andrew is interested in learning lessons from trees, decomposers, and water and applying them to the economy. In his free time, he likes to think about crimes he’ll likely never commit.

From Brownfields to Goldfields

January 16, 2017 /

“Potential site contamination. Remediation required.”  

This phrase strikes fear into the hearts of investors and developers looking to finance their next project. An already strenuous process of site evaluation, plan development, and investment soliciting grinds to a halt as developers question whether clean-up efforts and future liabilities are worth further investment of time and resources. It is usually at this point where developers opt for a lower risk route, continuing the site’s cyclical process of abandonment and untapped revitalization.

These sites, known as brownfields, are former industrial or commercial sites suspected of environmental contamination. Brownfields can include places like gas stations, dry cleaning operations, and chemical factories. They can be contaminated with anything from crude oil to lead, and a host of hazardous materials to the environment and human health that enter a site’s soil and groundwater. Over 450,000 brownfield sites are estimated to currently exist in the United States.

5389529869_08f7ddd5f0_b

Brownfield site in Cambridge, MA. Photo Credit: Engineering at Cambridge.

In North Carolina, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) offers incentives for developers to invest in brownfields. The DEQ creates ‘brownfield agreements’ with potential developers, allowing the state to negotiate clean up requirements for developers in exchange for granting ‘not to sue’ covenants to prospective developers. Sharon Eckard of DEQ noted a substantial rise in the number of brownfield agreement applications submitted; almost 90 brownfield agreement applications were submitted in 2015 compared to just 63 in 2014. North Carolina’s Brownfields Program also provides property tax incentives, granting five years of partial exclusion from taxes following the completion of state mandated improvements to brownfield conditions. While participating in the program may cost developers over $30,000, the amount saved over a five year period has proven to entice developers in the state, especially for large-scale commercial projects in downtown areas.

If a developer decides to partake in a brownfield redevelopment process, the site undergoes a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to determine whether contaminants actually exist on the property. If no contaminants are found on the site, development may proceed. However, if the results of the Phase I assessment are inconclusive, a Phase II assessment would be required. While federal funding can be acquired for assessments, evaluation costs can be as high as $20,000. If contaminants are found during Phase II, remediation would be required in order to repurpose the land for uses suitable for humans. While the cost for remediation strategies varies, it is estimated that the average cost of brownfield remediation totals $600,000.

Despite the steep costs of remediations, redeveloped brownfield sites result in an average benefit value of almost $4 million. Many developers across North Carolina have taken advantage of the state’s Brownfield Program incentives. The redevelopment of the American Tobacco Campus in Durham currently serves as the embodiment of how brownfield redevelopment can reignite a city’s economy.

23645604822_4870741bdf_b.jpg

American Tobacco Campus. Photo Credit: Flickr Creative Commons.

Raleigh Union Station is a current brownfield redevelopment project occurring in western Raleigh. Union Station will be a multimodal transit station for Amtrak and the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor (SEHSR) trains, and will be housed in an adaptive reuse of the Viaduct Building, a relic of the city’s industrial past. Once completed in 2018, Union Station will serve not only as a regional transportation hub for the state and the southeastern United States, but also as a civic hall for public events and commercial rental spaces. The alternative for this brownfield site would result in “no revenue for the city” as mentioned by Eckard. She has been involved in revitalizing many of the brownfield sites surrounding the new Union Station. The Contemporary Art Museum of Raleigh, which opened in 2011, and the Dillion, an ambitious seventeen-story mixed used project located at the site of the historic Dillon Supply Company, are both indicators of the untapped potential of brownfields in West Raleigh and other urban centers.

img_0587

Model of Raleigh Union Station presented by John Gallagher. Photo Credit: Pasan Perera.

Though it serves as a tool in combating urban sprawl and economic decline, brownfield redevelopment continues to face an uphill battle. John Gallagher, a former partner of Cherokee Investment Partners, believes one of the major issues he faced when soliciting investors is the negative connotation surrounding brownfields. Rather than referring to these sites as ‘brownfield,’ Gallagher suggests using ‘goldfields’ to indicate an opportunity for growth in investment. This simple change in terminology is believed to make all the difference in swaying community opinions on brownfield redevelopment.

A word of caution from brownfield remediation relates to post-redevelopment results. Often times, remediation and redevelopment increase the property values of former brownfield sites and neighboring areas, which in many cases leads to gentrification and related socioeconomic issues. Northeast Central Durham, a historically African-American neighborhood, currently contains thirteen vacant brownfield sites. Though brownfield redevelopment in this neighborhood may prove to be lucrative, we must remember that the residents lived through the economic hardships embodied by the abandoned building and endured the health and environmental impacts. As planners, we must realize that as new life comes to abandoned sites, those who survived the adverse impacts of these sites must also be able to reap its benefits.

Featured Image: Exterior view of Raleigh Union Station’s main entrance. Photo Credit: NCDOT Communications.

About the Author: Pasan Perera is a first year Master’s student at UNC’s City and Regional Planning Department. He is a native of Carrboro, NC. His interests lie in brownfield remediation and redevelopment, and how these processes impact marginalized communities in the surrounding areas. Outside of school, Pasan enjoys boxing, Law & Order marathons, and frequenting food trucks in the Triangle area. 

Envisioning an Active City: Lessons from Montréal

November 30, 2016 /

Oh, Canada. The United States’ neighbor to the North seems to have public services down to a science. On a recent trip to Montréal, Quebec, my suspicions of superior public amenities were confirmed as seen in the city’s compact urban design and nearly flawless transportation infrastructure. Montréal and other Canadian cities embrace the principles of smart growth with dense urban centers and transit-oriented development, and this approach is supported by a mixture of governmental funding, regulations, and public interest.

Quebec’s most populous city not only boasts frequent, reliable bus and metro service, but also Canada’s largest bikeshare program, Bixi (short for “bicycle taxi”), with a fleet of over 5,000 bikes throughout the city. Montréal is seemingly a bicyclists’ haven: 44 miles of separated bike lanes, over 150 miles of bike routes, and cyclo-centric cafes such as  Café Marius, which conveniently doubles as the office for a cycling nonprofit. In fact, Canadians in general bike a lot more than Americans despite the bitter cold that envelopes the country for half the year.

4052074396_e0b6682b75_z

A Bixi Montréal Station. Photo Credit: Paul Joseph (Flickr Creative Commons).

 

Even without bicycles, the city is human-scale at its finest, making it a breeze to walk just about anywhere, and it is only getting better. In fact, Montréal added several new pedestrian streets this year and local businesses have heralded this as increasing foot traffic two-fold. Even the ubiquitous predicament of food deserts is not an issue in Montréal, and marchés (grocery stores) seem to reside on every street. Active transportation has also been linked to decreased rates of obesity in the city, and Montréal also follows suit with obesity rates below Canada’s national average. Montréal, like many other Canadian cities, is leading North America when it comes to transit-oriented, human-scale development.

15430408322_bd96c1e23f_b

Bike highway in downtown Montréal. Photo Credit: Waferboard (Flickr Creative Commons).

Before you get your passport and fly to Canada’s finest poutinerie, let us explore why Montréal’s development differs so greatly from any American city.  Some hypothesize it is all about density given Canada’s heavy utilization of dense, mixed zoning. These developments make for trip distances that are roughly half as long as trips made by Americans. Another theory centers on demand; less Canadians own cars because the cost of owning and operating a car is higher in Canada than the US. Therefore, people are more likely to demand cost-effective modes of transportation, like public transit options and increased bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

The government’s role in transportation regulation and funding is also a key factor. On both of these counts, Canadian federal, provincial, and local governments have provided more regulations and funding to bike-ped infrastructure, traffic-calming measures, and even cycling education courses. However, income taxes are much higher in The Great White North than the US, and Quebec lays claim to the highest income tax of any Canadian province at 16%, assuming an income near the median for an individual. A small price to pay for superior public services, eh?

8253737602_e42e70b64d_k

Walking in the Plateau borough. Photo Credit: Gerry Lauzon (Flickr Creative Commons).

What would it take for smart growth development to take root in the United States to such a high degree? I propose our efforts must be multi-factorial:

  1. Use active public interest in the form of grassroots advocacy to promote increased public transit service, better bike-ped facilities, and a higher degree of safety for cyclists and pedestrians.
  2. Create regulations to disincentivize car travel. As we see with higher costs of car commuting in Canada and Europe, this tends to be associated with increased use of alternative modes of transit. A local example can be seen in the Wake County Transit Referendum, where increased vehicle registration fees are being used to provide funds for public transit improvements.
  3. Push governments to utilize land use regulations to curb sprawl, increase density, and encourage mixed-use developments, which would lessen trip length and decrease barriers to biking or walking.

With a dynamic approach from both the government and the public, cities and towns in the United States can make strides toward more sustainable, livable communities. 

 

About the Author: Ally Clonch is a North Carolina native and first year graduate student in City & Regional Planning and Gillings School of Global Public Health. She is interested in researching the effects of the built environment on population health outcomes, especially as they relate to health disparities in low-income and minority populations. Outside of school, Ally spends her time perusing thrift stores, getting coffee with friends, or reliving her glory days by watching 90s television shows.

Seven Things Planners Need to Know About Airports

January 6, 2016 /

Planners who aren’t familiar with their local airport can easily overlook the facility. Here is what you should know:

  1. Our aviation system is expansive: At any given time, there are around 7,000 aircraft in the air over the U.S. which are being served by airports of varying sizes and roles. Only 12 percent of the public airports that receive federal funding are primary commercial service airports, meaning that our aviation system is largely composed of facilities mainly used by general aviation aircraft.

Airport Photo 1

Photo Credit, Delta Airport Consultants, Inc.

  1. The airport was probably here first: Many airports in the U.S. have existed since the 20s, 30s or 40s. Over time, many communities have allowed incompatible land uses to encroach into areas around their airport, often resulting in the airport being villainized for operating as it was established to do.
  1. The average citizen contributes very little to the airport: Around 3,300 airports in the US receive federal funding through the FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP). Eligible projects receive from 75% to 95% of project cost from the federal government; the remainder is paid for by the state transportation or aviation department and the locality. Federal AIP funds come from user fees and fuel taxes, not tax dollars from the general public. The same is often true for the state funding match.
  1. Federally-obligated airports must have an approved development plan: Airports who accept AIP funds are obligated to keep their Airport Layout Plan (ALP) up to date. The ALP, a product of the master planning process, depicts the proposed development plan over a 20-year period and beyond. Planners should take into account the 20-year and “Beyond 20 Years” phases of development when making land use decisions. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) applies to projects depicted on the ALP.
  1. Airspace and Safety Basics: There are myriad airspace surfaces and FAA-established design standards; two of the most often cited are the 14 CFR Part 77 “imaginary” surfaces, and the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). The Part 77 surfaces protect airspace and should be incorporated into the local zoning ordinance to prevent heights and land uses that would interfere with pilot visibility and safety (for example, tall cell towers or reflective solar panels). Remember that the approach path extends well beyond the boundaries of airport property.

The RPZ is a trapezoidal area off of each runway end. For their protection, no people or property can locate within the RPZ. FAA recommends that airports own the land within each RPZ.

FAA Form 7460-1 is required by law for development proposed in proximity to any public-use airport. These should all be tied to the local permit review process to prevent incompatible projects from being approved.

aiport photo 2

Conceptual Drawing of Selected Airspace Surfaces, Delta Airport Consultants, Inc.

  1. A well-equipped airport is an economic development engine: The airport is a utility, and the user wants to come and go as safely and as efficiently as possible.  Generally, lower visibility minimums make an airport more attractive to potential businesses, corporate visitors, and tourists. As the visibility improves, the RPZ on each runway end expands, meaning that the airport must secure more land to ensure pilots have adequate margins of error for takeoff and landing.
  1. Land Use Compatibility is the Responsibility of the Locality:  Zoning is arguably the most powerful tool to protect airspace and prevent land use incompatibility.  Planners should discourage noise sensitive uses like residential from locating near an operating airport. Industrial, manufacturing, and some commercial uses are a better fit. When making land use decisions for your community, take into account the “Beyond 20 Year” phase of development on the ALP.  If the airport plans to extend the runway in Year 21 through a future high-density residential area, compatibility issues are sure to follow.

About the Author:  Mary Ashburn Pearson, AICP, is an airport planner and environmental Project Manager at Delta Airport Consultants, Inc.  She lives in Richmond, Virginia.  

Carolina Planning, the oldest student-run planning publication in the country, is produced once a year in UNC's Department of City and Regional Planning. Articles selected for the journal are written by academics and practitioners, covering a wide range of topics relevant to today’s planning challenges.

Join our announcements list

Email:
Copyright © Carolina Planning, All Rights Reserved

Carolina Planning is published with the generous support of the Department of City and Regional Planning at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the North Carolina Chapter of the American Planning Association, and the John A. Parker Trust.

© 2024 Carolina Planning Journal

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑