Sustainable Resource Management: A Pressure-State-Response Framework for Sustainability in the Urban Environment

1. Sustainable resource management: A Pressure-State-Response framework for sustainability in the urban environment Ian Boothroyd Golder Kingett Mitchell (Golder Associates Ltd.), Auckland; and School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland. and Maree Drury EnviroVentures Ltd., Auckland

2. Urbanisation • > 85% of New Zealanders live in urban areas • Nearly 72% live in the 16 largest urban environments (Statistics NZ 2006) • > one million people (>30% of New Zealand’s population) living in Auckland (< 2% of New Zealand’s land area). • Housing, commercial and roading intensification within towns and cities. • Growing demand for lifestyle living in areas surrounding urban centres (i.e., peri-urban development). • Increasing pressure on the existing, and often already limited or highly-modified natural resources. • While at the same time demanding increasing service from these ecosystems (i.e., for stormwater runoff or wastewater disposal).

3. Urban Sustainability Urban sustainability involves creating better places to live, work and play, while solving problems caused in and by our settlements (MFE 2003). New Zealand’s urban areas have not received the attention they need to promote sustainable urban environments and infrastructures(PCE 2002).

4. Driving Forces In urban areas, community well-being is at the heart of sustainability initiatives. Examples: • The overarching principle of the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy is sustainable prosperity. • The Auckland Regional Growth Strategy aims (amongst four key goals) to sustain strong and supportive communities.

5. Generic issues identified for sustainable urban living • (adapted from Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy and Auckland Regional Growth Strategy) • Drawing a defined boundary between urban and rural areas. • Maintaining the character of communities. • Preserving, creating and linking urban and rural open space including parks and recreational areas. • Protecting outstanding landscapes. • Protecting the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water resources. • Protecting and enhancing ecological systems. • Reducing and preventing air, land and water pollution. • Maintaining a secure and productive resource base, including minimizing the loss of productive land. • Provision of more transport options, including walking, cycling and public transport. • Moving goods and people efficiently, making effective use of transportation and service corridors. • Ensuring good stewardship of land, sites and structures with cultural heritage value. • Ensuring adequate, affordable and appropriate housing.

6. Sustainable Catchment Planning • Most catchment planning has provided little focus on the social-emotional context of sustainable management. • On average New Zealanders consider our environment to be moderate to good. • Improving the state of our urban waterways and environment are high priorities for urban dwellers.

7. Sustainable Catchment Planning

8. The Pressure State Response (PSR) framework • Based on the concept that human activities exert pressures on the environment, changing the quality and quantity of natural resources • These changes alter the state of the environment • The human responses to these changes include organised behavior, which aims to reduce, prevent or mitigate effects on the environment • OECD Model

9. Pressures State Responses on the environment of the environment by Society and natural resources Central Government Direct pressures Global Local Government Biological stresses Policies & actions Pressures National Regional Indirect pressures Community sector Human activities Individual/households Local Attitudes & actions Natural events Information Perception of the state of the environment Pressure-State-Response framework for environmental reporting in New Zealand (from MFE 1997).

10. What does PSR provide management • A means of quantifying pressures on the environment, thereby providing a way of measuring change, and the impact of policies and programmes. • Means of quantifying and measuring change in state • Means of determining whether pressures and state are related, and whether management intervention has been worthwhile. • Where to focus intervention. • State of the environment reporting. • Is it a cause-effect relationship? • Establishing cause-effect may be impossible in complex multi-component ecosystems. • Can we separate pressure, condition and response indicators?

11. Effectiveness of PSR: Auckland streams • Alignment between pressures and ecological health indicators is good. • Estuarine sediment better water quality indicator than surface water parameters (long-term changes). • Quantifiable pressure and state indicators developed with threshold values (long-term changes). • Monitoring programme designed to detect changes in state related to pressures. • The outcomes clearly show a relationship between increasing urbanization and a loss of sustainability, as measured by various water, sediment and ecological quality indices. Source: EVA et al. 2003

12. Disadvantages of PSR • Static framework. • Minimises significance of natural pressures. • Ignores societal perceptions and desires. • Assumes cause-effect? • Rarely a single unifying indicator or response.

13. PSR: Natural vs Human influence indicators Long-term vs Short-term Scale

14. Socio-economic-environmental frameworks • Existing PSR anthropogenic focus • No natural pressure indicators • Two parallel systems – environmental and social Benefits: 1. There is an explicit link to the goal of pursuing human and ecosystem well-being together. 2. It recognises that people are part of the environment/ecosystem although for the purposes of analysis they are held separately. 3. It stresses that what has to be managed is human activity/behaviour. 4. Portray and assess benefits achieved by what people do to the ecosystem, and what the ecosystem provides to human/societal well-being.

15. PSR enhancements? • Natural capital which includes the natural environment, ecosystem services, all aspects of nature and those resources which we take from the environment and use either in their raw form or in a production process. • Produced economic capital which include all products that are harvested or manufactured, physical infrastructure that has been constructed, cultural and intellectual property, and financial resources. • Human capital which includes all community members, their age structure, physical/mental well being, education, knowledge, skills, capacity to contribute through production, decision making, developments/use of technology, social interaction, innovation etc. Enhancement of individual and collective wellbeing: • Economic outcomes comprise ‘material well being’ and ‘productivity’ • Social outcomes comprise ‘physical well being and health’, ‘safety’, ‘place in the community’, ‘emotional well being and mental health’, ‘intimate relationships’ ‘culture and recreation’.

16. PSR enhancements? • Framework needs to incorporate: • major economic (e.g., transport, energy), • social (e.g., housing) and • environmental (e.g., ecosystem enhancement) drivers • Incorporate concepts of resilience, adaptability and diversity • As sustainable development initiatives shift focus from the responsive and corrective approach to a more causal approach, there is likely to be more integration of resources and planning for sustainable development.

17. Ecosystem health may be tied to an ecosystem’s ability to use stress (pressures) creatively (i.e., resilience, adaptability, diversity) than its ability to resist stress (pressures) completely.

18. Acknowledgements • We thank Annabel Barnden and Roland Payne for assistance with the collation of literature and search of websites for additional material on urban sustainability. • Bruce Williamson and Geoff Mills for discussion and debate on PSR framework. • MFE for funding Auckland SOE report.