Livability, like sustainability, are concepts that potentially can mean all things to all people. Numerous international and national forums have spent countless hours detailing the principals of sustainability and how sustainable development can practically be achieved.

Indeed, ACF spent almost two years contributing to the development of a National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development . That strategy has now sunk almost without trace. One reason for this I believe has been lack of political commitment. Another equally important one, is that the concept of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) has never been properly communicated to the community. This has allowed decision makers to either ignore it or corrupt it. Thus ecological sustainability has become sustainable growth.

There is a generally accepted definition of ESD though. This is;
development in a manner which ensures that the economic, social, and spiritual needs of present and future generations are met without disrupting the essential ecological processes and systems upon which life depends.

I suggest that the concept of sustainability, or more particularly ESD, is, if not one and the same as livability, then certainly they are very closely linked. Both concepts are essentially about looking at the current and long term well being of society and the planet. And both concepts are essentially about ensuring that environmental and social objections are give equal weight to short term economic objections in decision making.

When we talk of livable cities, therefore, we cannot go past the notion of sustainable cities.

Australians Want Sustainable and Livable Cities.

I also want to suggest that concepts such as ESD and livability, although not well understood, are nevertheless intuitively supported by most Australians. For example a recent survey found that 70 per cent of Australians believe that economic growth should only occur if it does not compromise environmental protection and quality of life (ABS 1996). Similarly, in another survey, 81 per cent of those surveyed suggested they would tolerate higher taxes if it meant supporting a better level and quality of public services and a higher level of expenditure on environmental protection (Withers, Throsby and Johnson 1994).

In other words, Australians, in the main, want clean air, clean water and beaches, green and open spaces, protection of other species and various other factors which might loosely be defined under the heading of ecological sustainability. They also want high quality public services such as health, education and housing and fair and equitable access to those services.

When it comes to sustainable cities, the level of community concern is equally high. Recent surveys have placed urban issues such as air pollution and coastal water pollution at the forefront of Australian¼s environmental concerns (for example ABS 1996). This is not really surprising given that 85 percent of Australians live in cities and major towns and therefore have direct experience of urban environmental problems.

Indicators of Urban Sustainability.

This is not to suggest that achieving sustainable cities, and in particular ecologically sustainable cities, is going to be an easy task. More is needed than simply a high level of community concern and interest.

In the first instance, greatly improved indicators of the state of urban environments are required. Information of this nature is only just now starting to be developed through, for example, state of the environment reports.

The sort of indicators needed essentially fall into two categories.

The first category is the resource inputs which go into sustaining a city.

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development stated in 1992 that the consumption patterns of cities in industrial countries are severely stressing the global ecosystem. Similarly, the 1996 state of the Environment Report for Australia has noted that although cities occupy less then one per cent of the country¼s total land area, they have a pervasive influence on the natural environment (see State of the Environment Advisory Council 1996).

The second category of indicators is waste outputs from production and consumption in cities. These are the environmental indicators which urban communities often, though not always, have direct experience of and therefore, are likely to engender a greater level of community concern and calls for action.

The level of information available in both of these categories is still inadequate for most Australian Cities. What information there is however does not provide an encouraging picture. For example, examination of table 1 indicates that between 1970 and 1990 per capita resource flows into Sydney increased in all categories ‚ energy, food, water ‚ by as much as 40 per cent or more per person in some cases.

Not surprisingly, waste outputs, solid waste, sewage and storm water, hazardous wastes, and air wastes, also increased on a per capita basis in most cases. The one exception to this has been urban air pollutants such as carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.

I would argue strongly, however,. that this trend is not a cause for complacency with respect to urban air pollution. Most of the air emission reductions that have been achieved in our cities over the past twenty years are the result of what can be termed „end of pipe¾ solutions such as catalytic converters fitted to motor vehicles. Yet the number of major vehicles in our cities is set to increase from the current number of about 8 million, to about 10 million by 2010. Most analysts agree that this sheer increase in the number of cars is likely to reverse the recent improvements in urban air quality.

Therefore, I suggest, the level of greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, probably present a truer indicator of the long term sustainability of our urban transport systems than do urban air pollutants.

Pursuing Urban Sustainability

So what is needed to achieve sustainability and livability for our cities? I am not going to attempt to provide a detailed policy prescription here. What I wish to suggest though, are a few principles which I believe are essential components of a broad community response to the issue. (Note there are certainly additional important elements to achieving sustainable cities, but the following three are the ones I believe are in most need of attention).

1. Information.

   As I have already mentioned, current information about the state of the urban environment is still inadequate. Development of this information base requires a comprehensive set of urban environmental indicators and greatly improved environmental monitoring and other data collection processes against those indicators. Government budgetary cuts to environment protection bodies, as has happened here to the Victorian EPA, are likely to retard this process.

   Information,.once collated, must be meaningful. This means that the community is provided with ready access to information in forms that are understandable and relevant. Beyond the general level of concern about urban environmental issues, there is still considerable uncertainty about the causes and connectivity of urban environmental problems and how to deal with them.

2. Consultation and participation processes

   In conjunction with improved information flows to the community about urban environmental issues, decision makers must develop greatly improved consultation and participation processes. It is fairly widely recognised, I believe, that current levels of consultation on matters affecting the urban environment, as well as a range of social issues, has been abysmal, particularly here in Victoria.

   In terms of participation, Australians have shown that they will willingly embrace actions to improve the urban environment if they are provided with the information and wherewithal to do so. The 60 percent of Australians who participate in kerbside recycling programs and the tens of thousands who participate in clean up Australia day activities are testimony to this.

   By way of contrast, although surveys suggest that the majority of Australians are greatly concerned about the environmental impacts resulting from driving their cars, most feel powerless to do anything about it because realistic alternatives, such as rapid and frequent public transport systems, are not being made available (NSW EPA 1994). In the case of urban transport, therefore, there is a yawning gap between what people would like to be able to do and the options which they feel are available to them.

3. Government policy integration

   In no area is the failure of government policy integration more apparent than on urban and transport issues. Decisions are being taken on major infrastructure projects, government services and planning processes, generally on short term economic affordability grounds, with little thought given to the broader and longer term, sustainability consequences.

   A case in point has been the decision this week by the Victorian Government to privatise the public transport system. I would argue that a sustainable city requires a high quality, efficient and safe public transport system to which all members of the community have ready access. Most public transport experts agree that essential components of such a system are high frequency services and an integrated network. Yet there must be serious doubts as to whether a privatised public transport system can deliver these outcomes.

   The Commonwealth government has essentially divested itself of any role in urban and transport planning, arguing that these are state matters. Consequently, there is no national vision about where we want our cities to be heading. The situation has obviously exacerbated the already narrow focus of many State governments.

In conclusion I believe that an integral aspect of achieving livable cities is to ensure that they are sustainable cities. Most Australians have an implicit desire to live in and contribute to the sustainability of their cities. But if we are to have any hope of achieving that objective, then there must be major changes in the way the community is informed and involved in decisions that affect our cities, and greatly improved government policy integration.

References

McLennan W (1996); Australians and the Environment, Australian Bureau of Statistics, catalogue No 4601.0, Canberra.

State of the Environment Advisory Council (1996); Australia State of the Environment 1996, Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra.

Return to speakers list