The Boston Indicators Project
Sector Convening Notes
Environment Convening
Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Brief Project Overview
The Boston Indicators Project is a collaborative project of Greater Boston’s civic community. Recognized for its comprehensive framework and selected by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) to help inform the development of national indicators, the project is coordinated by the Boston Foundation in partnership with the City of Boston and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. Its goals are: to democratize access to high quality data and information; to foster informed public discourse, and; to track progress on shared civic goals. Since 2000, the project has released four biennial reports, the last three as a summary in hard copy and a detailed web-based report on the award-winning www.bostonindicators.org. The Boston Foundation is committed to issuing a biennial report through 2030, Boston’s 400^th anniversary. 

To begin to frame the findings of each report, the project hosts a series of convenings in each of the ten sectors it tracks: Civic Health; Cultural Life and the Arts; Economy; Education; Environment and Energy; Public Health; Public Safety; Housing; Technology; and Transportation. Each convening, chaired by stakeholders from within the field, includes a range of perspectives from academic experts, community-based practitioners, public agency and foundation staff, private sector representatives, and consumers. 

The convenings range in size from about 20 to 100 participants, the latter for large, complex sectors such as education, civic health and housing, which are broken into sub-sectors, each with its own co-chairs. Each convening uses the same structured agenda, eliciting views on key long –term trends, major developments and accomplishments of the previous two years, and key remaining challenges. The notes are then compiled, reviewed by the co-chairs for accuracy and completeness, and used to frame and prioritize the findings of the next Boston Indicators Report.  

What follows are the notes from the Environment convening. 

In Attendance:

Co-Chairs: Lois Adams, Chief of Pesticides, Toxics and Urban Programs, EPA Regional Office; Valerie Burns, President, Boston Natural Areas Network; Vivien Li, Executive Director, Boston Harbor Association

Kathy Abbott, Director, Tenant for Public Land
Julian Agyeman, Associate Professor Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning, Tufts University
Kate Bennett, Director of Planning, Boston Housing Authority
Eugene Benson, Staff Attorney, Alternatives for Community & Environment
Bruce Bernam, Save the Harbor Save the Bay
Laura Bickel, Air Pollution Control Commission, City of Boston Environment Department
Nancy Brennan, Executive Director, Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway Conservancy
Doug Brugge, Associate Professor of Public Health and Family Medicine, Tufts University
Valerie Burns, President, Boston Natural Areas Network
Bryan Glascock, Director of Boston Environmental Department, City of Boston
James Goldstein, Director of Sustainable Community Group, Tellus Institute
Nancy Goodman, Environmental League
Jane Holtz Kay
Patricia Hynes, Professor of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health
Marion Kane, Executive Director, The Barr Foundation
Andy Kendall, President, The Trustees of Reservations
Wendy Landman, Executive Director, WalkBoston
Ben Lasley, Save the Harbor Save the Bay
Ginger Lawrence, Senior Grants and Project Administrator, NESCAUM
Vivien Li, Executive Director, Boston Harbor Association
John Linehan, President and CEO, Zoo New England
Charles Lord, Executive Director of Urban Ecology Institute, Inc., Boston College
Ann McQueen, Senior Program Officer, The Boston Foundation
Evan Moss, Stewardship Program Manager, Charles River Conservancy, Inc
Stephanie Pollack, Senior Research Associate, Center for Urban and Regional Policy, Northeastern University
Sharon Reilly, Director of Community Relations, The Food Project
Bud Ris, President, The New England Aquarium
Colleen Ryan, The Green Roundtable
Mariella Tan Puerto, Senior Program Officer, Barr Foundation

Welcome and Introductions
The co-chairs welcomed participants to the convening and asked participants to describe the primary indicators that they worked with. 

• Number of swimable days at local beaches and the number of days they are tested for bacterial content (also # days the Mystic and Neponset are swimable and fishable)
• Issues surrounding environmental justice and equity; suggestions that we should track both local and global measures and consider broadening our definitions (to include very local disparities (like people living near highways)
• Renewable energy sources
• Smart growth measures and effective/productive use of land
• Per capita climate change and greenhouse gas emissions (question regarding whether we need a new metric on this); also clean air and climate stability
• Public support/funding for the environment, the standard of care for more open space, and environmental stewardship; budgets for parks and open spaces
• Building healthy buildings
• Beautiful, walk able communities, pedestrian-friendly traffic signals, accessibility of open spaces
• Urban food production and food storage
• Tree cover (data showing it relates to climate change *and* social cohesion)
• Finding and generating collaborative opportunities
• Water quality

Key Long-Term Trends, Recent Developments and Accomplishments, and Key Remaining Challenges
The co-chairs then asked participants to brainstorm key long-term trends, recent accomplishments and developments, and remaining challenges.

Key Long-Term Trends

• No recognition of the importance of personal responsibility and individual actions in shaping environmental outcomes (BIP encouraged to retain its style/tone focusing on Boston and landing hard on the impact of individual behaviors: “living large,” which is a continuing trend).  1/3^rd of gases coming from energy sector.  Need to make it relevant to everyone; show that it’s a fundamental issue.  People don’t “get” global warming.
• Reemphasize and redefine standards of environmental equity; it’s not just about who’s defining the environmental agenda.  Suggested that equity issues were not well-reflected in our indicators (want to make an impact, then make it on everyone in the city; show that it’s fundamental to everyone’s life).
• Important to show connections between environment, public health and public safety.  The social health of Boston isn’t present enough (inequalities are hardening; not sufficiently represented in our data?), and these trends will be obstacles to addressing environmental concerns, despite good work in the natural and built environment.  Violence in particular affects the accessibility of open spaces in some neighborhoods, transportation, etc. (violence at home and in neighborhoods; “people are keeping their kids indoors or, if they’re not safe, moving out of Boston”).
• The issue is framed in asset-oriented terminology.  The environment is viewed as a building block.
• There is tension between addressing environmental concerns at the city/regional level and at the very local level; it is possible to see city-wide improvements without seeing them in certain locales (highway pollution); need to think about the local impact of solutions (e.g., smart growth can have a negative impact on some communities; gentrifying Chinatown and making it unlivable for working class families).
• More people are paying attention to walking and the walking environment within Boston (e.g., its role on public health, traffic signal timing, etc.)
• Less people in general are walking (?).
• Trends in improving walking conditions are generally positive but still have lots of gaps, and statistics on this issue are terrible (should understand importance to elderly).  Also provides a link between walking, public health, and environmental justice.
• Improving environmentally-friendly development requires policy support and changes to the zoning laws and permitting process.  It’s difficult to get people to integrate environmental concerns early on in the building process (only bringing it in at the end, when the impact is minimal).  Chicago has done a better job incorporating open space into building requirements and city planning.
• Growing sense of disinvestment in “the Commons” and an unwillingness among taxpayers to finance infrastructure upkeep, etc.  Affects green space, transit, public realm (most of city’s infrastructure is falling apart, b/c we did everything first).
• Adaptation is absent from many of our calculations about environment (thinking is just starting, changes have not).  We must consider how people will adapt to the changing environment and the effects this behavior will have (e.g., how many will buy A/C, how many will have/need health care, etc.) 
• Growing disparity in the public realm; open space quality and accessibility is very poor in some neighborhoods (primarily related to socioeconomics) and isn’t getting better; we’re not dealing with some things, like litter (the number one reason not to walk).  This problem implies an unspoken devaluation of certain people, whose neighborhoods receive no support. 
• Public awareness and attitude towards the poor state of Boston’sinfrastructure is extremely low, as are expectations.  Since the city was first in so many things (19^th C.) its infrastructure is in very poor shape now; history of the city’s infrastructure is no excuse for its poor repair, however (Europe has been doing things longer, and has fantastic infrastructure).  Disinvestment in the public transportation network (never seen guys in suits on the T; no youngish black males on at 8am, different group at 6am): in the time it has taken population to increase 3%, vehicle ownership has increased 30%. 
• The private sector is leading the public in many areas (private mass transit doing better than required by codes; water and environmental conservation, as well).  Growing disparity between private/public spaces in “public realm” w/both gentrification and growing inequities (e.g., litter). 
• Troubling state of the local and regional food supply network; need to make it sustainable (Boston can’t feed itself for two weeks); raises questions regarding how to feed the city and manage land use.  Growing interest in local/regional food system (impacts global warming) 
• Laissez-faire policies regulating chemical production are putting major ecological pressure on the region (thousands in use that haven’t been tested; places a burden on public health and environment; handled much better in EU). 
• The rising crime rate is having a major impact on environmental factors, affecting peoples’ willingness to use public spaces and get involved or volunteer in the community more generally.  Increasing traffic in the inner city and reluctance for greater density in poor urban areas are also a factor in environmental decisions.  Economics more generally is driving environmental policy rather than environmental outcomes driving economics. 
• The public sector has taken an increasingly prominent leadership role in green building, integrating into affordable housing projects (coupled with changing policies/building codes; streamlining, tax credits).  This is not happening with the renovation of aging homes, however.  Process is still a challenge…need to get more buy-in…too often thought of as an add-on. 
• Boston’s economy and civic leadership are in a state of flux and uncertainty (both private and public sector).  Fiscal stress and a lack of effective leadership (few gubernatorial candidates are talking about it at all b/c it polls so low) are preventing an effective focus on the environment. 
• Prevalence of video games and programmed after school time means kids are dissociated from the natural environment; not willing/able to explore and use it informally. 
• There is a perception that business and the economy are important and valuable, but the environment is not; also, different levels of value being assigned to different people/communities implied in public budgets (quietly, invisibly assigned); may necessitate a shift in representation and priorities, not simply more talk (“we need to change who is at the table”).

Developments and Accomplishments, 2004-2006 

• The mayor’s office signed onto the Kyoto Protocol and has played a leadership role in conforming to its standards. 
• A report by Professor Daniel Faber at Northeastern University provides data on how bad environmental justice and equity issues are around the state.  Although the issue is clearly a challenge to overcome, the acquisition of the data is a positive step in addressing one of the most serious issues in the sector. 
• The institutionalization of Boston as a leader in green building has moved beyond the Mayor’s office (“to the point where we don’t even have to ask them to do it anymore; they do it on their own”).  Additionally, the 4^th International Conference on Green roofs was held in Boston. 
• Recommendations from the Sustainable Design Roundtable. 
• By late 2005, new traffic signals and timers were helping to make the city more pedestrian-friendly. 
• The Brownfields Fund was recapitalized. 
• A diverse coalition came together to sponsor a City Council debate on parks and open spaces. 
• Summit on access to healthy food and food security. 
• Spectacle Island opened for business. 
• The Health Disparities Report is significant to the sector (links social issues to the natural and built environment), though it was not delivered with sufficient awareness of environmental impacts on health. 
• Coalition led by NOAA and others to rebuild Chelsea pier. 
• Lead poisoning rates are still falling, due largely to the work of the biggest and most effective anti-lead coalition in the US.  The success of the initiative is helping Boston move towards being the first US city with zero childhood lead poisoning and making its system a model for other cities at the national level. 
• There are more groups addressing asthma hospitalization in Boston and our understanding of the problem as an environmental issue has increased. 
• Thousands of people are engaged in Metro Future, with long range 2030 perspective. 
• The Boston Nature Center in Mattapan has opened (has a green building); expanded its summer camp from 100 to more than 500 students. 
• The Rose Kennedy Greenway Conservancy and harborwalk is a major achievement; more than 80% of the harborwalk system is completed. 
• There appear to be more options for water transfer in the harbor (is ridership up?). 
• The number of community gardens in Boston has held steady.  We are learning more about the health of these gardens and the consequences of using urban soil through partnerships with the EPA and BU (this is still a challenge, as well). 
• The transfer of the Cape Wind project from gubernatorial to Coast Guard control may be beneficial. 
• 65 Boston Public schoolyards were renovated, and BPS is using green cleaning chemicals where possible (so is MBTA).  Efforts are underway to convince the airport to switch to green cleaning materials, as well. 
• The city has retrofitted its buses and (as have privately owned trolley cars) with more environmentally-friendly bio-diesel fuels (6.5% renewable). 
• There is a fuel-efficient vehicle policy before the mayor. 
• An increasing number of youth are engaged in food systems and the environmental movement.  This achievement couples with a powerful and innovative network of environmental youth groups and programs. 
• Progress in greening the visitor industry--the BCEC, Hynes, and Seaport World Trade Center have added impressive recycling programs in the last year; five hotels are now Energy Star certified and many others are working to achieve that designation; and we should have about four or five Green Restaurant Association certified facilities by the end of the year.

Key Remaining Challenges

• Massachusetts needs to sign the regional greenhouse gas initiative.  Additionally, the region is having trouble reaching already agreed-upon emissions standards (reinforcing the need to tie the problem to *personal* behavior). 
• Need to remove pressure-treated wood (arsenic) and other contaminants from 175 Boston community gardens; new issues in understanding urban soils, which have some risk of contact w/skin, etc. 
• Big Dig wouldn’t connect rail lines, which was a small cost relative to the project’s total budget. 
• Work to ensure that education reform is not designed to impede environmental stewardship. 
• Can work of the Office of Community Development be sustained into next administration’s tenure? 
• There are concerns about the potential health effects of eating food grown in urban soil, which would pose a problem for Boston’s community gardens (data forthcoming on this issue). 
• There is a need to more effectively integrate the city’s food planning system (with BRA and other agencies). 
• The environmental and civic community needs to consider where its future leadership is and will be coming from.  The present leaders in the environmental community in particular must be aware of their finite time horizon and look for leadership among a younger generation. 
• Environmental justice is not effectively integrated into (and prioritized in) the civic agenda and it needs to become more coordinated within overall policy.  Needs to be a new way to frame issues (moral as well as scientific problem).  Additionally, there is some question as to who is speaking for new Bostonians, an increasingly large and important sector, on this issue. 
• There is a huge disparity between high income and low-income and minority people in terms of their production greenhouse gases (30-40%).  There is a gulf between policy and equity in environmental issues on this point.  We must also consider whether fatalism, moral arguments, etc. are the best method of reaching people and raising support for the environment. 
• There’s a need to increase public funding for the green infrastructure and built environment.  The T was mentioned several times as needing renovation and higher quality service (litter, A/C, etc.), as was the need to change the incentives around public vs. private/individual transportation to encourage use (raises equity issues). 
• Affordable housing developers often don’t consider the long-term efficiency (only the immediate cost) of green housing in their cost standards.  Under this paradigm, the gains achievable through green housing are limited.  There is also a need for public outreach and education to gain support for affordable, green housing.  Also, urban sprawl continues to run rampant, and despite efforts to locate housing close to transport nodes, there has been no effort to locate jobs and employment locations near transportation. 
• The nonprofit sector has stepped up to take some ownership of the environmental problem, but the strength and capacity of the sector is being challenged (while some organizations are disappearing completely), which calls for support on the part of the environmental community (need shared understanding among NGOs. 
• More research is needed to further bolster the position of environmental advocates.  State legislators are dismissing studies done in California and Europe (on asthma, etc.) as inconclusive to Massachusetts’ situation. 
• There is not a large table for addressing problems regarding transportation, environment, or the watershed. 
• Lack of opportunities for people of color.  Survival stresses of living in Boston (esp. for black youth) mitigates civic participation on environmental (and other) issues; “disconnect of the two worlds” in Boston. 
• There has been little effort to take a collaborative or holistic approach to the development on the lower Charles River, despite the volume of development that is occurring.  Transportation on the river is not being looked at.

Suggestions for Indicators to Highlight
The co-chairs then asked participants for suggestions for indicators to highlight in the next report.

• Suggestion for emphasis on whatever indicators changed the most (positive or negative) or were the most surprising.  Also a suggestion to emphasize indicators easily accessible and understandable to those who aren’t professionally engaged in this sector (e.g., issues like impact on kids/elders, how easy to get to the grocery store, cost of heating home, etc.). 
• The ecological footprint (and equity issues within) and issues around climate change (water rising, temperature) are major factors to consider, since climate change is possibly the worst-case scenario issue.  There was a question regarding whether it is feasible to have a climate change office at the local or regional level to help address this issue.  Measures of climate change and per capita greenhouse gas emissions are possible metrics (though we must ask whether these would be accessible to the layperson). 
• Issues of environmental equity and justice are factors to consider (these came up repeatedly during the discussion), and should be linked cross-sector to housing, income, and transportation (esp. important since children are the real majority-minority demographic, which will make equity across racial/ethnic/class lines more important); it can’t just be an environmental issue. 
• Public funding for open spaces and parks (encouraged to use in a value-loaded sense).  Media coverage for environmental issues is a possible indicator that may tie into the level of public interest/support for the sector. 
• Food system planning and its cross-cutting impact (Agristate? Food Policy Council and Toronto are doing work on this). 
• Suggested possible measures of how public safety affects the environment (measures of social cohesion?  Studies from Chicago/Baltimore on links to environment).  Also suggested were indicators that capture facts/data across the sector and into other fields, such as housing and transportation. 
• Use well-developed measures of sprawl. 
• Lead poison in grates should remain an indicator, if only to demonstrate a success story, showing that change is possible (and requiring focus on disparities). 
• The level of interest, engagement, and volunteering was suggested as an indicator (environmental stewardship in schools, corporate sector).  Middle-income families were blamed for fleeing to the suburbs and failing to address this issue (leaving when kids are old enough to go to school).  Suggestion that we need more people involved in this issue/discussion (can’t dismiss them by saying they don’t want to get involved; have to work to engage them). 
• Reporting on green buildings and green-certified operations in Boston. Good examples that are easy to track include LEED, Energy Star, Green Restaurant Association certifications.

Recent Innovations 
Participants discussed recent innovations.

• Food policy council and systems planning 
• Rating for green homes in the Northeast (new initiative) 
• Regional governance on land use and transportation (Toronto, Portland, Vancouver) 
• Deeper commitment to reducing carbon dioxide emissions is needed (California doing well); CA is also spending substantially (30% of federal grants) on ensuring safe routes to schools
• Transit efficiency and affordability; by investing in the transportation system, Chicago was able to avoid a big fare increase; ridership increased 4% 
• Baltimore is doing better job getting data to law/policymakers than we are; using data to set goals; Baltimore and NYC have goals to increase urban tree canopy. 
• San Francisco has developed precautionary principle 
• Congestion charging in London/energy taxes in Japan (~400%) 
• Taiwan: closing all landfills; dealing with trash by composting (80% recycling) and waste to energy plants with very high efficiency (cleaner than anything we have)