SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AT LOCAL LEVEL
A transport assessment in a Mexican community
Luis Velázquez 12, Berenice Ochoa1, Andrea Zavala 1, Nora Munguia 1,
1University of Sonora, Mexico, Industrial Engineering Department; Sustainable Development
Certificate
2University of Massachusetts Lowell, USA
Blvd. Luis Encinas y Rosales S/N CP 83000, Hermosillo, Sonora México, Luis_Velazquez@industrial.uson.mx, +52 662 2592160.
Abstract
Think global act locally, it is a phrase used to promote the concept of sustainable community. A sustainable community is often defined as a community which uses its resources to meet current needs without compromising the ability of resource usages of future generations to meet their own needs. However, pragmatic evidence has showed that it has been very difficult to put the principles of sustainable development on practice. The purpose of this is research was to identify the sustainability practices that limit sustainability in the transport segment within a neighborhood in the northwestern Mexico. This research consists of an exploratory study in order to gain a greater understanding of how the members in this community are contributing to sustainable development by living under their own behaviors and lifestyles. The study focus on the following segments: transport, environment, housing, social, and economic.
In this paper is presented only the transport segment findings which revealed current transport practices in this community are compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs; therefore, the neighborhood is not sustainable. On the other hand, findings also reveal that there is a real commitment to become a sustainable community in the future in order to maintain their wellness for long time
Keywords
1. Introduction
Sustainable Development is a concept coined in 1987 by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WECD, 1987) that refers to the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs. Although there is not complete agreement about the concept (Rosenbaum, 2004 and Esquer et al. 2008); there is a consensus that this must include economic, social and environmental dimensions (Byrch et al., 2007).
The concept of sustainable community may be regarding as one of the most pragmatic efforts that attempts to inspire actions for reaching sustainable development at local level. This concept requires from neighborhoods changes on behavioral patterns in their daily life. This level is where “the consequences of environmental degradation are most keenly felt and where successful intervention is most noticeable” (Bridger & Luloff, 1999, pp. 380). According to Smith (2008, pp.4), the term community can be associated with a particular place or it also can be applied to a network or group of people with a shared interest (Smith, 2008, pp. 4); however, the term is not only one form of neighborhood, town, city or region, but also is all activities that the environment can sustain and which the citizens want and can afford (Roseland, 2000, pp. 99).
The definition of a sustainable community is a novel concept that appears to be hard to capture in one idea, Bridger & Luloff (1999, pp.182) define a Sustainable Community as the community that “meets the economic needs of their residents, enhance and protect the environment, and promote more humane local societies” Another definition comes from Roseland (2009, pp. 99), who goes a step further than Bridger & Luloff and takes a broader perspective to define sustainable community as community that is continually adjusting to meet the social and economic needs of its residents while preserving the environment’s ability to support it. Others like Girardet (1999, pp 419) refers the concept as a sustainable city rather than a sustainable community, but the principles are the same a city that works so that all its citizens are able to meet their own needs without endangering the well-being of the natural world or the living conditions of other people, now or in the future”. Hart (1999) gives ones of the most complete definitions in the literature; he estates that a sustainable community is one in which the economic, social and environmental systems that make up the community provide a healthy, productive, meaningful life for all community residents, present and future. Sustainable communities acknowledge that there are limits to the natural, social and built systems upon which we depend.
What is true is that as well as sustainable development, communities can be seen differently from several perspectives; therefore, but as a common denominator, it is possible to state
that a sustainable community seeks a better quality of life for all its residents while maintaining nature’s ability to function over time by minimizing waste, preventing pollution, promoting efficiency and developing local resources to revitalize the local economy.
Although there are several segments to consider when assessing the sustainability of a community; this paper considers only the transport segment.
The primary need for transportation has been economic, involving personal traveling for different purposes and the improvement of the society or a nation (Garber, 2001).
According to Schiller (2010); a sustainable transportation system is one that allow the basic access need of individuals and societies to be met safely and in a matter consistent with human and ecosystem health, and with equity within and between generations, it is affordable and it is efficient and limit its environmental impacts.
2. Methodology
This research is an exploratory study under the premise that there is no prior research on the object of study.
2.1 Study object
The assessment was conducted in a Mexican neighborhood named “Casa Grande”. This is a Mexican community of 150 inhabitants located southwest of the town of Hermosillo, comprising some 34 families who have good revenue. Hermosillo is located at the Northwestern part of Mexico.
2.2 Research question
Taking into account the sustainability segments mentioned before, what are the transport practices affecting sustainability within the “Casa Grande” community?
2.3 Data Instruments
As a first step in this study, it was conducted a literature review of published articles, books, reports, and website documents with the goal of identifying sustainability indicators for assessing communities and then, to prepare a questionnaire to be apply in this Mexican community. There were indentifying 400 indicators from the literature analysis; then, they were sorted by its frequency, and only the first 50 indicators with the highest frequency by each segment were selected. About then indicator were aimed at assessing the transportation segment.
Once indicators were selected, a questionnaire was designed containing 130 questions in total divided by each segment. Two pilot tests were conducted with the aim of making the questionnaire more understandable, appropriate, and workable to the context of the
research. The first test was taken by a head of 10 families and the second pilot test was applied to 5 families. In average, the questionnaire was applied in 25 minutes.
Field surveys were taken in the period May-June 2009. The application of questionnaires was made by following the research guidelines from the University of Sonora that indicates the need for at least a a short introduction and identification to perform the research as a member of the institution as well as the need for describing the purpose of the study.
2.4 Sampling
The community of Casa Grande was chosen because of the interest and motivation of the committee of neighborhoods for participating in the research; although this is a non probability method; the selection of individuals was selected by a simple random sampling method. The equation is following showed:
2.5 Data handling
Surveys were reviewed in the field in order to verify their completeness and accuracy and then; processed in Microsoft Office Excel 2007.
3. Results 3.1 Socioeconomics
The questionnaires were answered by 27 families as a total. 11% of the respondents were males and 89% female. 50% of females have a domestic labor while all men work out of home. Most of the respondents have at least a bachelor degree, 59%, and 21% of them completed high school.
Where: n: Sampling size Z: Confidence level p: Positive variation q: Negative variation N: Population size
3.2 Commuting
Table 1 illustrate that all respondents own at least a car that is used for commuting to work or transport children to school. 44.4 % own two cars and 40% three cars.
Table 1: Cars per family
Cars Family % 1 2 7,4 2 12 44,4 3 11 40,7 4 2 7,4 Total 27 100 3.2 Automobile brands
Table 2 shows that most of the car owners drive a sedan or a SUV car and table 3 indicates that Chevrolet, Toyota, Ford and Honda are the preferred brands of respondents.
Table 2: Type of cars
Car Brand Frequency %
Sedan 28 44 SUV 28 44 Truck 7 11 NA 1 1 Total 64 100
Table 3: Car manufacturers Brand Frequency % Chevrolet 10 16 Toyota 10 16 Ford 9 14 Honda 8 12 Chrysler 7 11 Jeep 5 8 Nissan 4 6 Lincoln 3 5 Mazda 2 3 Pontiac 2 3 VW 2 3 BMW 1 1 Mercedes Benz 1 1 Total 64 100 3.2 Fuel
Tables 4 and 5 show that 42% of the respondents claimed that they spent between 500 and 1000 pesos in fuel per month, table and almost 41% declared that Magna is the kind of fuel most bought by them.
Table 4: Gasoline types
Fuel Frequency %
Magna 11 40,7
Premium 10 37
Ambas 6 22,2
Table 5: Money spending in fuel $-Fuel/Month Frequency % $250-500 5 19 $501-1000 11 42 $1001-1500 8 27 $1501-2000 3 12 Total 27 100 3.3 Safety
According to table 6, neighbors drive their cars with responsibility, table 6 illustrates that just 22% of respondents have been involved in a traffic accident during last year. Table 7 shows that almost all use the seat belt. The car is the preferred mean of transport according to table 8. Table 6: Accidents Accidents Frequency % yes 6 22,2 No 21 77,8 Total 27 100
Table 7: Seat belt use
Buckle Up Frequency %
Always 24 88,9
Often 3 11,1
Table 8: Mean of transport and destiny Destiny Mean of transportati on F(x) Hobbie s % Work place % Fa mi ly % % % Scho ol % Mar ket Bicycle 0 0 2 7,4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walking 0 0 1 3,7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Car 27 100 25 93 24 89 27 100 27 100 27 100 Motorcycle 1 3,7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bus, taxi 1 3,7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 27 100 27 100 27 100 27 100 27 100 27 100 4 Discussions
The study showed some significant implications for sustainability within the results related to the transport segment. In 2003, there were in the world about 605,4 millions of vehicles, cars, which is equal to a ratio of 96 vehicles per a thousand of inhabitants or a rate of a vehicle per 10 inhabitants (SMMT 2003). In Mexico, there is a car per 6 inhabitants (INEGI 2008). The rate in Casa Grande is a car per 2 inhabitants. This according to the environmental burden; specially, to the emission of CO2 that is 8 tons per year just because the use of their cars. An average car emits 150 grCO2 per kilometer (Ecología Microsiervos 2008); then, the world rate of emissions is 15grCO2 per kilometer, the Mexican rate is 25grCO2 per kilometer and the community rate is 75 grCO2 per kilometer; therefore, under this indicator the neighbors are less sustainable than Mexican and the world.
According to a report from the Mexican Petroleum Company (PEMEX) (Schifter, I Díaz, L & Guzmán, E 1998), the type of fuel Premium is less dangerous for the environment than Magna;
nonetheless; Magna is used by most of the Mexicans, 76%, and only 17% use Premium. Although in Casa Grande is Magna also the favorite type of fuel, the rates are better being 40.7% for Magna and 37% for premium.
The brands of cars preferred by neighbors at Casa Grande are environmentally sound; the efficiency per kilometer defines this argument; most of the models from Toyota and Honda have a rate of 4.3 liters per 100 kilometers; this is rate better than the average (IDAE, 2010). According to Honda (2009) the efficiency of motorcycles is between 40 and 90 kilometers per litter and it emits 13 times less of CO2 that a sedan. In the world, there are about 200 millions of motorcycles (
Public transportation is used less in the community than in Holland, Canada or USA; according to pusher (1999); public transportation is used by 10% of Netherlanders, 7% of Canadians, and 2% of Americans. Only 1% of the members of Casa Grande use the bus because several factors. First, the public transportation means are only two bus and taxi; however, the only bus stop is located about 300 meters away of the community which means walk about 10 minutes. Service is not always accurate; therefore, it is not unusual to wait for the bus at least 15 minutes. The average destiny takes at minimum 20 minutes and then, it is necessary to walk another 10 minutes for arriving to schools or work center. In total, it takes about one hour. In total the transportation takes about an hour. In addition, weather in the city during summer is above 45C (SIMM 2000) which makes the ride uncomfortable. total, one persons take about.
Shunei 2006; SMMT 2003), this represents a rate of a motorcycle per 32 inhabitants, and the Mexican rate is a motorcycle per 98 inhabitants and the community rate is a motorcycle per 129 inhabitants. This remarks the dependence of the community to the use of cars.
There is neither culture nor infrastructure for practice cycling; therefore, cycling is most for sport practices or specials events. Indicators are far below from cities as Amsterdam and Copenhagen where bicycles are often used by population as a mean of transportation
5 Conclusions
(Roney 2008).
At the glance, the results of the Casa Grande Case-study lead to conclude that this neighborhood is far way to become a sustainable community according to the segment of transport because they are fulfilling their need for transportation in a way that is not consistent with environmental health.
Families in Casa Grande rely too much on the use of cars and there are not motives for expecting changes in the daily transportation patterns on a near future; therefore, the transport indicators, here presented, are below of the world and Mexican standards.
Although community members own environmentally sound cars, the fuel for powering those is not the best one for protecting the environment. This is an enormous challenge to solve in their sustainability path because the combustion of fuels is the major contributor to climate change because CO2 emissions are an unavoidable by product of burning gasoline.
On the other hand, sustainable development also refers to a social dimension reflected in a good quality life. Their transportation style allows members to share more time with family, in particular with their children because they don’t spend a lot time waiting for bus. Identifying transport practices is just the first step in becoming a sustainable community in the transport segment; the following step requires the organization of neighbors to implement sustainable transport initiatives.
The interest of residents for participate in this project can be taken as a proof of their commitment to sustainability and make possible to think in interventions to reduce the environmental burden create for the use of their cars. For instance, promoting the buying of a more expensive gasoline in order to protect the environment is a initiative that would easily be implemented because Casa Grande is a high income neighborhood where members can afford to pay for it without the tradeoff of preventing the buying of other items such as food. Implementing a carpooling program among community member is also very feasible for delivering kids in schools as well as encouraging the use of bicycles when transporting to short distance.
Raising sustainability awareness is necessary to increase the sustainability levels on the neighborhood, only when community members be completely aware of the impacts of their transportation practices, they are going to start to take measurements to become a sustainable community on this segment.
6 References
Bridger, J.C., Luloff, A.E., 1999. ‘Toward an interactional approach to sustainable community development’, Journal of Rural Studies, vol. 15, pp. 377-387.
Byrch, C.; Kearins, K.; Milne, M.; and Morgan, R. (2007), “Sustainable “what”? A cognitive approach to understanding sustainable development”. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 26-52.
Esquer, J.; Velazquez, L. and Munguia, N. (2008), “Perceptions of core elements for sustainability management systems (SMS)”. Management Decision, Vol. 46, No. 7, pp. 1027-1038.
Garber, NJ & Hoel L (2001), Traffic and Highways Engineering. Fourth Edition. CENGAGE Learning. Toronto, Canada.
Girardet, H. (1999). Creating Sustainable Cities, Green Books, Dartington.
Hart, M., 1999. Guide to Sustainable Community Indicators, 2nd edn, QLF/Atlantic Center for the Environment, Ipswich, Mass.
Schiller, P., Brun, E., Kenworthy, J. (2010). An Introduction to Sustainable Transportation: Policy, Planning and Implementation. Earthscan Publications Ltd. London.
Smith, M.K., 2008. ‘Sustainable communities and neighbourhoods. Theory, policy and practice’, The encyclopaedia of informal education, pp. 1-17.
Roseland, M., 2000. ‘Sustainable community development: integrating environmental, economic, and social objectives’, Progress in Planning, vol. 54, pp.73–132.
Rosenbaum, W.A. (2004), Environmental Politics and Policy. CQ Press, Washington, D.C.
WCED. (1987), Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and. Development, Oxford University Press.
