Table of Contents
1. Program Overview
2. Sustainable Lifestyle Campaign
3. How the Program Works
4. Testimonials
5. Sustainable Lifestyle Campaign
A Closer Look
6. Citizen Sustainability Assessment

Program Overview

The Need: Stewardship of Resources by Households and Municipalities

Households play an essential role in the creation of more environmentally sustainable communities. Between 35% to 85% of a community’s natural resources are used at the household level with up to 75% of these resources wasted through inefficiency and lack of awareness. Households are also a major source of a community’s environmental pollution through auto emissions and toxic chemicals entering the ground water. In most communities, the financial burden of this inefficiency and environmental pollution falls upon municipalities as the primary accountable party responsible for providing services such as water, water treatment, landfills, roads and environmental quality.

In today's fiscal climate, local governments have less money than ever before to provide these essential services to the community. Short of raising taxes or reducing services—not politically feasible in most communities—the only alternative is being more cost-effective. One of the major opportunities for cost containment is helping citizens better steward the community’s natural resources. Developing a demand-side management approach is all the more critical in communities experiencing rapid population growth.

With these incentives, municipalities are motivated to help citizens develop lifestyle practices that conserve natural resources and protect the environment. Citizens are generally willing to cooperate, but have a hard time changing ingrained habits. Traditional methods used by municipalities—information and financial incentives—while achieving awareness and some behavior change, are not adequate for helping people change lifelong habits. And they are not tapping the enormous potential for resource savings that citizens are willing and able to achieve. Municipalities need new tools to enable voluntary citizen behavior change.


Sustainable Lifestyle Campaign

Empowerment Institute (EI), working with over 30,000 people in the U.S., has developed a program and delivery strategy that effectively responds to this need of local government agencies. Its Green Living Program empowers individuals to adopt environmentally sustainable lifestyle practices. EI's Sustainable Lifestyle Campaign brings the Green Living Program to municipalities through service contracts with local government agencies and utilities to help them achieve their resource conservation and environmental protection objectives. The Campaign is also attractive to municipalities because of its ability to create neighborhood social cohesiveness and an engaged citizenry.

Citizen participation is achieved by identifying motivated individuals in neighborhoods, and helping them reach out to other neighbors to start the initial EcoTeams. To promote steady growth in participation, EI has designed a dynamic recruitment process. Near the end of the Green Living Program participants are taught how to invite their neighbors to informational events hosted in one of their homes. At these gatherings, neighbors learn about the program and decide if they want to join a team. Using this process, EcoTeams consistently start new neighborhood teams.

The Campaigns are customized to meet the specific needs of each community and can either be delivered by municipal staff who receive comprehensive training and coaching or directly by EI.


How the Program Works

The Green Living Program is simple and strategic. Five or six neighborhood households—an EcoTeam—meet eight times over a four-month period, with the help of a step-by-step workbook and trained volunteer coach. Choosing from a series of practical actions, the team supports one another to reduce waste, use less water and energy, buy “eco-wise” products, reduce air and water pollution, and encourage other neighbors to get involved. More than increasing awareness, the Green Living Program enables people to change the way they live—measurably.

Depending upon the community, participants in the Green Living Program achieve the following average resource savings per year:

  • 35% – 51% less garbage sent into the waste stream
  • 25% – 34% less water used
  • 9% – 17% less energy used
  • 16% – 20% less fuel used for transportation
  • 15% less CO2 emmissions
  • $227 – $389 saved through more efficient use of resources

All while improving the quality of life right where they live!

A less measurable feature of the campaign is the community and social capital building dimension of the neighborhood campaigns. People meet their neighbors and begin acting as a community, often for the first time.

The Benefits

The benefits of EI’s Sustainable Lifestyle Campaign go well beyond the percentage reductions in resource use and waste. While local circumstances influence the nature of these benefits, municipalities can look forward to:

  • Direct financial savings. By serving more people and serving them longer before new landfills, roads and utilities have to be built and operated, substantial financial savings are possible.
  • Enhancing community environmental quality. From reduced air and water pollution to fewer problems with toxic and hazardous substances to less traffic congestion, communities will be cleaner, safer, and higher quality places to live.
  • Promoting existing environmental programs. Many communities have invested substantially in environmental programs. The Green Living program can contribute to making these investments more productive through increasing participation and awareness.
  • Strengthening the fabric of the community by reinforcing neighborhood relationships and enhancing the capacity of citizens to take responsibility for helping themselves and each other.
  • Expanding environmental literacy and building a citizenry that is environmentally motivated.
  • Increasing local government revenues. As Mayor Donald Fraser of Minneapolis observed, "The Green Living Program demonstrates success... (It) can help change behavior so that the buses and trains are full of paying passengers..."
  • Retaining dollars in the local economy that would, without the Green Living Program, leave the community. This adds to employment, business and personal earnings and tax revenues.
  • Achieving more effective, economical, and equitable compliance with state and federal environmental regulations and requirements.
  • Improving the relationship between local government and its citizens. By building active working partnerships with citizens to recycle, rideshare, and conserve resources, the Green Living Program can be a powerful force to strengthen the relationship between local government and the community.
  • Building consumer demand for environmentally sustainable products and services so that it is economically profitable for businesses to meet this demand.
  • Starting a process that catalyzes citizen participation in creating a sustainable community — where progress toward the interdependent goals of prosperity, social equity, environmental protection, governmental efficiency and a higher quality of life can be sustained for the generations to come.

If you would like to print this SLC overview to distribute to colleagues, please Click Here to download the PDF version.

(requires Adobe® Acrobat® Reader)

For more information contact:

Empowerment Institute
PO Box 428
Woodstock, New York 12498
Tel: (845) 246-6290 Fax: (845) 246-6291


Testimonials

"The Sustainable Lifestyle Campaign is skillfully designed to be attractive to individuals, local governments, and businesses... (It) has demonstrated results...it can make a real difference. In our work with communities across America this is exactly the sort of tool for which they are searching."

Molly Olson, Executive Director
President's Council on Sustainable Development


"The Sustainable Lifestyle Campaign is a highly effective new tool for environmental protection. We see it as a significant opportunity to achieve citizen behavior change which has been one of our most difficult challenges in advancing environmental protection. Your program couldn't be more timely."

Lang Marsh, Director,
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality


"We are all optimistic here. You have the entire household involved in a voluntary way instead of having a program that is mandated by the government. This is at the most grassroots level possible, and that makes it more effective."

Mike Lindberg, Commissioner of Public Utilities,
City of Portland, OR


"The potential resource savings are tremendous...and what's truly exciting about the EcoTeam approach is that it can serve as a catalyst to creating a more sustainable community."

Ava Frisinger, Mayor, City of Issaquah, WA


"The EcoTeam approach opens up a new category of policy instruments having to do with voluntary change. The program is more sophisticated than information campaigns, since it gives people the personal support they need to change their ingrained habits of how they use resources."

Paul de Jongh, Deputy Director General for
Environmental Protection, The Netherlands,
Author, Dutch "Green Plan"


"I had thought about all the things I should do and talked about doing them before the Green Living Program; but it took the workbook and group support to turn my thinking and talking into specific and concrete actions. And the changes were relatively easy."

Pat Spindel,
EcoTeam Member
St. Louis, MO


"This program is the first step-by-step plan for turning environmental concern into action."

The Chicago Tribune


"I feel this program is superb, not only because of what it has done for me, but because it has the potential to do so much for the community."

Krista M. Schauer,
EcoTeam Member
Portland, OR


"A movement... of unquestionable zeal is challenging consumption at the grass roots...local support groups called EcoTeams are methodically helping members reduce the amount and kind of material that flows in and out of homes."

The New York Times


"The Environmental Services Department has researched multiple programs and approaches to provide the desired proactive waste prevention education. EcoTeams were the only program that successfully produced measurable resource savings and sustained behavior change."

Alisa Wade, Environmental Services Department
City of San Jose, CA


"This is no frivolous undertaking. It's not just a matter of getting new information... A lot of citizens already know things they could do to reduce the toll they take on the environment, but [EcoTeams] structured group meetings help people put that knowledge to work and actually change their lifestyles."

The Chattanooga Times


"I've lived in the neighborhood for 21 years, but getting to know my neighbors started three years ago with an EcoTeam. We knew a lot of people by sight, but now we know them much better. There is a lot more friendliness on the streets now. It's given us the feeling of being embedded in the community and having roots. I highly recommend the neighborhood EcoTeam process."

Sarah Conn,
EcoTeam member,
West Newton, MA


"One of the most enlightening and useful programs that I have had the privilege to encounter... (It) provides a starting point for America's citizens and communities to begin the journey of becoming more sustainable."

Michele Perrault, Past President The Sierra Club


"The program offers a common sense approach to environmentalism. [One participant says] ‘I love our neighborhood and this is an opportunity for us to make it an even nicer place to live together’."

The Boston Globe


"The process works even for those who consider themselves hard-core environmentalists...[A senior sales executive and an EcoTeam member says] ‘As a result of the awareness the group has brought us, we all have changed our consumption habits and our lifestyles, in the products we purchase, [and] the utilities we use’."

The Philadelphia Inquirer


"The Green Living Program is the most practical and well implemented program to help people create environmentally sustainable lifestyles."

Daphne Gemmill,
Exec. Dir., Project Earthlink, NOAA
U.S. Dept. of Commerce


"When you put things in small, workable chunks as the Green Living Program has done here, it’s easier for people to accomplish things and follow through."

Maria Sichel,
EcoTeam Coach
Medway, MA


"EcoTeams provides a unique approach to help citizens deal with environmental issues... We have to change the attitudes and behaviors of every citizen, in every aspect of their lives, to the point where they automatically act sustainably."

David Crockett,
City Councillor
City of Chattanooga, TN


"Unique and effective... [Empowerment Institute] is a model organization in its agenda and its leadership... responsible and enlightened."

Honorable Maurice Hinchey, Committee on Natural Resources,
Congress of the United States


Sustainable Lifesyle Campaign:
A Closer Look

Empowerment Institute helps government agencies and private utilities enable citizens to conserve the community’s natural resources and protect its environment. This is done under the umbrella of a Sustainable Lifestyle Campaign and its Green Living Program.

Description of Program

The Challenge:

In their blueprint for sustainability, Agenda 21, The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development stated that "the single greatest cause of the deterioration of our global ecosystem is the unsustainable patterns of consumption and production…and the industrialized countries need to take leadership." Empowerment Institute’s Sustainable Lifestyle Campaign is addressing the unsustainable patterns of consumption amongst American citizens, and through dissemination of its tools, other high consumption countries. As 5% of the planet’s population, Americans consume a third of its resources and waste up to 75% through inefficiency and lack of awareness. In US cities households consume between 35% and 85% of its resources.

EI discovered in its research, the principal beneficiary of sustainable consumption, beside households and the planet at-large, are various local government agencies responsible for the communities natural resources and charged with cost-effective management and avoidance of environmental pollution. Their principal tools for citizen education are information brochures and media campaigns which, according to the behavior-change research, raise awareness, but are not effective at changing behavior. They need new tools to be more effective.

Goals and strategy for implementation:

The Sustainable Lifestyle Campaign’s goal is empowering individuals to create environmentally sustainable lifestyles. It does this through delivering its Green Living Program. This program helps households lower their environmental impact by reducing resource use on an annual basis, depending on the city, by an average of 35% to 51% for solid waste, 25% to 34% for water, 9% to 17% for home energy, 16% to 20% for transportation fuel, 16% for CO2 and saves them $227 to $389. These are self-reported results based on program participants filling out a pre and post program assessment.

Program participation is achieved through finding interested individuals, teaching them how to reach out to their neighbors, host information meetings in their homes, and start neighborhood teams. It then helps the teams continue this process. Through a sophisticated neighbor-to-neighbor recruitment strategy, on average 25% of all community residents approached participate on an EcoTeam.

Program’s evolution over the years and where is it going:

EI’s Sustainable Lifestyle Campaign is now appreciated amongst the municipalities where it has been implemented as an effective tool to help them achieve one of their greatest challenges – citizen behavior change. The Green Living Program consistently produces significant resource savings and adoption of environmentally benign lifestyle practices. The behavior change is documented through baseline and follow-up questionnaires. Through longitudinal studies it has been determined that the behavior change is sustained over time.

The program is customized to the unique needs of the government agencies who hire EI and can be delivered either by the municipality through a technology transfer or by locally hired and trained EI staff.

Major challenges faced and overcome:

The major challenges that have been faced and overcome include: getting the program to produce consistent results, getting households to report these results, finding the arguments that could consistently get households interested in starting or joining teams, building a replicable model that could work in any municipality, learning how to customize it to the needs of each government agency and municipality, creating a training model that enables new staff to quickly and competently deliver the program, learning how to manage multiple campaigns, and creating a financially viable business model.

Lessons learned:

Good ideas are hard to come by, but even harder is the effort necessary to perfect a good idea. To be effective one needs, to among other things, develop a learning organization. For EI this has been done by carefully de-briefing program participants, staff and clients. Each household who goes through the program is debriefed in their final meeting. Each community program staff person is carefully debriefed in their weekly coaching call. All staff debrief and support one another in "master classes" which also solve common challenges. Regular discussions take place with clients to explore ways to better accomplish our mutual goals.

What makes the program innovative:

The empowerment of citizens to successfully and voluntarily lower their environmental impact. The enabling of local and state government agencies to effectively help citizens change behavior that negatively impacts the environment. The replicability of the program combined with the ability to customize it to each municipality and client. The way the program both improves the environment and generates social capital that can be reinvested in the neighborhood and community at-large.

How program integrates resource conservation, economic progress and human development:

By helping citizens conserve natural resources, it enables local governments to better steward the community’s natural resources. In certain cases this reduces the costs for service delivery and forestalls new infrastructure expenses. It helps households save money through resource efficiency, approximately $200-$300 per-household per-year. This serves as the equivalent of a yearly tax rebate and economic stimulus for the households and communities participating in the program. It creates an environmentally literate populace and encourages advocacy for sustainable community development policies and programs. The program builds leadership, empowerment and community-building skills within the community’s neighborhoods.


Program Effectiveness

Measures used to determine effectiveness:

The principal measures are natural resource savings, EcoTeam formation, number of neighborhoods in which program is delivered, government agency information or services utilized by residents, and cost-benefit analysis per government agency investor.

Important achievements of program to date:

Achievements include the implementation of campaigns in over a dozen US municipalities; participation in EI’s US programs of over 30,000 people; dissemination of the EI tools to 16 countries with program participation of 120,000 people; and various forms of recognition including contract renewals, awards, media and keynote addresses at national conferences. The Sustainable Lifestyle Campaign has been recognized by the President’s Council on Sustainable Development as one of the most promising sustainability initiatives in America. Renew America awarded this tool its national award for community sustainability. And EPA recognized the program with its Environmental Quality Award.

Does success of program depend on on-going cooperation among diverse groups?

Yes! This program brings all sectors of the community, as well as various local government agencies and private utilities, together in a common effort. Through this, much dialogue, learning and cooperation occur. This process of working together creates the commitment that keeps all the parties involved for the long-term.

What benefits are associated with the program?

This campaign attracts financial resources from government agencies and private utilities that are invested in educating citizens to better steward the community’s natural resources. This benefits the citizens, local government, the environment, neighborhoods and the overall livability of the community. Many of these benefits are brought together at the neighborhood level. As neighbors work together they build more socially cohesive, safer and healthier neighborhoods. Whenever possible, neighborhood visioning processes are held in which citizens who have been on EcoTeams work side-by-side with municipal officials, utilizing the program to determine what’s needed to create more livable neighborhoods. A final benefit is the development of citizenship skills. Many of these campaigns begin or are sustained because citizens lobby their local government officials and encourage them to fund it. Local governments experience citizens doing the right thing. Citizens discover they do make a difference.

Is it innovative in applying existing resources or developing new tools to address a problem?

Yes! The program is a new tool that is directed at the efficient use of existing resources -- natural and financial. The program enables local governments to use financial resources, that often go into expanding infrastructure, to be utilized more cost-effectively by enabling households to develop resource-efficient behaviors that reduce the need for landfill space, water resources, energy resources, road size and rebuilding and health costs through reduced air pollution. Overall it helps the community develop both a practical demand-side management approach and conservation ethic.

Can the program be replicated in other communities with similar challenges?

This program is designed for replication. It has been used in many different size communities urban, suburban and rural in over 30 states. It is flexible enough so it can be customized to the unique situation of each community.


Natural Resource Conservation

How does the program successfully conserve natural resources and reduce waste? The program is designed to help households systematically evaluate their environmental impact, learn of actions they can take to lower it, set up a support group to help them follow-through on the choices they make, and provide feedback to positively reinforce the benefits of the actions taken so they are sustained over time.

Does the program protect one sector without subjecting others to hazards? Yes. The program is designed to help any part of the community that participates with no negative outcomes in any other part. In fact, it spreads positive outcomes to other parts of the community through serving as a role model for the benefits of the program.

Does the program provide financial incentives to pursue environmentally sound practices? The program itself offers a financial incentive by helping households save money through resource-efficient living. EI provides program participants an end-of-program report that documents dollars saved. The money saved we call an "ignorance tax" that they no longer have to pay. Also, whenever possible, campaign funding partners provide financial incentives for households to experiment with new environmental behaviors through opportunities such as free transit passes and reduced costs for compost bins.


Economic Progress

Are jobs, industries, business opportunities created by this program? In each community EI creates at least two to three jobs for program staff. We also strengthen the green businesses of the community by generating new customers.

Does the program reduce costs or improve efficiency? It helps local governments reduce costs of delivering essential services. It helps households reduce costs in managing the household.

What specific economic benefits result from the program and who benefits? Residents of the community benefit by saving money and local government agencies often reduce the costs of delivering services or infrastructure and see increased participation in revenue producing activities such as public transportation.

How does the program contribute to long-term economic renewal and growth? By helping the community better manage its natural resources and improve its environmental quality it becomes a more attractive place to live and work thus attracting and retaining businesses and improving its tax-base. By strengthening neighborhoods and making them more attractive it reduces migration out of the community, particularly in larger cities. By increasing the efficiency of citizen’s natural resource use it defers the cost of major infrastructure projects (i.e. water treatment, landfills) thus making these funds available for other projects of community development.


Human Development

Size of community affected. EI works at the neighborhood level with groups of 5 – 6 households per team. It initially works with 20 to 40 neighborhoods in a municipality – usually representing between 10% to 30% of the community. A campaign is designed to grow and eventually impact larger and larger numbers of community residents through applying a growth model know as "social diffusion." This model was developed by a Stanford University social science researcher through observation of the diffusion of innovations in over 1,500 case studies. Applied to EI’s Sustainable Lifestyle Campaign, we start with households and neighborhoods who are naturally attracted to the new innovation called "early adopters" — usually 10% to 20% of the population. This is designed to create a groundswell so that the program can start diffusing on its own momentum and achieve program participation deep into the neighborhood. EI cultivates this phenomenon within neighborhoods and amongst neighborhoods and has seen diffusion occur quite regularly at the block and neighborhood level.

Does the program reach a unique population? The population reached is a broad cross-section of the community. 80% of residents approached by neighbors are interested in attending the neighborhood information meeting. About half actually come and about 75% of those attending, join teams. This boils down to approximately 1 out of every 4 people approached by a neighbor participates in the program. The program and recruitment model has proven very successful in middle income neighborhoods. The program requires modification and extra resources to work in low income neighborhoods but with these adjustments has been successful.

Does the program address a community health concern? The principal health impacts are on air and water quality. The program’s transportation and energy actions help improve overall air quality and reduce ground-level ozone. The program’s water quality actions help reduce non-point source pollution of the community’s water bodies.

Does the program work with collaborative planning and consensus-building? Collaborative planning and consensus-building is how EcoTeam participants determine which actions they are going to do together. It’s also how the various government agency and private utility financial partners work together to achieve their individual goals within the context of a community-wide campaign. The program also brings citizens together with local government in a spirit of cooperation and collaboration for actively addressing the challenges of developing a sustainable community.


For more information contact:

Empowerment Institute
PO Box 428
Woodstock, New York 12498
Tel: (845) 246-6290 Fax: (845) 246-6291

E-mail: info@empowermentinstitute.net


Citizen Sustainability Assessment

Assessing Citizen Stewardship of the Community's Natural Resources

The Need for Stewardship of Natural Resources by Households

Households play an essential role in the creation of more environmentally sustainable communities. Between 35% to 85% of a community's natural resources are used at the household level with up to 75% of these resources wasted through inefficiency and lack of awareness. Households are also a major source of a community's environmental pollution through auto emissions and toxic chemicals entering the ground water. In most communities, the financial burden of this inefficiency and environmental pollution falls upon municipalities as the primary accountable party responsible for providing services such as water, water treatment, landfills, roads, and environmental quality.

In today's fiscal climate, local governments have less money than ever before to provide these services to the community. Short of raising taxes or reducing services – not politically feasible in most communities – the only alternative is being more cost-effective. One of the major opportunities for cost containment is helping citizens better steward the community's natural resources. Developing a demand management approach is all the more critical in communities experiencing rapid population growth.

With these incentives, municipalities are motivated to help citizens develop lifestyle practices that conserve natural resources and protect the environment. Citizens are generally willing to cooperate, but have a hard time changing ingrained habits. Traditional methods used by municipalities – information and financial incentives – while achieving awareness and some behavior change, are not adequate for helping people change lifelong habits. And, they also do not tap into the enormous potential for resource savings that citizens are willing and able to achieve.1 Municipalities need new tools to benefit from a demand management strategy.

1 ''A Study of the Market Potential for the Green Living Program" Elizabeth Denny, Market Street Research, Northhampton, MA 1996. This independent market research study documents, through randomly selected phone interviews, the large market potential for the Green Living Program. This market potential is corroborated with other studies and surveys done in the past several years indicating significant willingness of Americans to develop resource efficient lifestyle practices. It also documents that EcoTeams achieve large resource savings and sustain them over time.

A Demand Management Assessment Tool:
The Citizen Sustainability Assessment

A starting point for demand management is to assess how well a community currently benefits from citizen resource conservation and the potential for improvement. In this regard, US EPA's Offlce of Urban and Economic Development provided Empowerment Institute (EI) funding to develop a tool which enables municipal decision-makers and citizens to evaluate how sustainably they are utilizing the community's natural resources. This Citizen Sustainability Assessment is the product. It will help a municipality assess:

  • the effectiveness of the various municipal policies and programs that enable citizens to conserve the community's natural resources and protect it's environment, identifying the incentives and disincentives built into the system.
  • the potential of an EI Sustainable Lifestyle Campaign to support the municipality's commitment to citizen resource conservation.

The Citizen Sustainability Assessment is divided into sections on solid waste, water, energy and transportation. In each section the user is guided by a series of questions. If the municipality is doing a self assessment, it will need to appoint a lead agency or staff person to manage the process. This agency or person will then identify representatives of each of the appropriate agencies to do the self assessment.

If the assessment is performed by a citizen advocate or group, they will need to research the data. This will be a remarkable education about the natural resource management of the community. In the beginning of each section there is a list of likely agency sources for the needed information. If the information is not in a readily usable form, persevere! In most cases the data is available, but may need to be interpreted. If after due effort, the data is not available, this knowledge, when remedied, will help the agency improve it's ability to do performance evaluation. For this feedback to be well received by the agency, it needs to be presented in the spirit of collaboration. If lack of time to institute changes is a concern for the agency, suggest that you or your citizen group are willing to provide volunteer help, if useful.

In some cases it will be seen that a new policy needs to be adopted or program improved. This is where this citizen assessment tool can serve as a catalyst for sustainable community development. To create change will generally require combined advocacy from within and outside the agency. A collective effort between the city and its citizens to improve the community’s environmental sustainability is one of the major outcomes of this assessment tool. Since citizens often need municipal services and programs to enable their adoption of sustainable lifestyle choices, and municipal agencies wish citizens to participate in its programs, a mutually beneficial partnership can be developed. And, as citizens take greater responsibility for natural resource sustainability the entire community benefits.

There is much at stake for the future of your community – preserving its natural resources will enable current residents and future generations to enjoy those same resources. Your actions can be of lasting value to your community. Success to you and your community on your path of sustainability!

Assessing the Sustainability of Your Community's
Residential Solid Waste Management

The agencies involved in solid waste management may have different names in each community. Generally they will fall under the following categories: municipal public works or solid waste agency, recycling coordinator, county or regional solid waste agency, private solid waste hauler or recycling hauler, local transfer station, and local landfill operator.

  1. List the programs your community has in place to help citizens reduce the amount of solid waste they generate, e.g., recycling, composting or source reduction programs.
  2. Describe why each program came into existence and its current goals.
  3. What have been the principal strategies utilized to achieve citizen participation? Which have been successful and why? Which have been unsuccessful and why?
  4. How is success measured? Include the numerical targets of the program. If there are no targets, how might targets be established?
  5. What percentage of citizens participate in each program?
  6. What percentage of solid waste does each program divert from the waste stream?
  7. What have been the participation and solid waste diversion rates for each program over the last three years? Have participation and diversion rates increased, leveled off or decreased? Please explain what is causing this trend.
  8. What neighborhoods have the most successful participation and solid waste reduction rates? Why is this? Please describe what has been learned.
  9. What neighborhoods have the least successful participation and solid waste reduction rates? Why is this? Please describe what has been learned.
  10. What incentives are there in the municipality, if any, for solid waste reduction? e.g., regulatory compliance with state or regional targets, landfill closing, avoided costs of expanding or building new infrastructure, increase in tipping fee expenses, city ordinance committing to natural resource conservation as a principal of community sustainability, etc.
  11. Which service providers benefit from residential solid waste reduction? e.g., solid waste haulers in reduced tipping fee expenses, collection and transport costs, recycling service providers in increased feedstock to sell, and landfill operators in extended life of the landfill, e
  12. If fiscal benefits are derived from residential waste reduction, how could these be calculated and projected over time? e.g., pounds of solid waste diverted equals a certain amount of financial savings for hauler, landfill operator, etc.
  13. Are there any policies to reinvest these financial savings into creating greater solid waste reduction? Please describe. If not, how might a policy be established?
  14. What disincentives are there in the municipality, if any, for residential solid waste reduction? e.g., contractual commitment to supply a fixed amount of residential solid waste to be placed in a landfill, financial obligations to pay off landfill site development based on tipping fees, etc.
  15. Which service providers do not benefit from solid waste reduction? e.g., solid waste haulers who increase revenues from pounds of solid waste collected, landfill operators who increase revenues from tipping fees, etc.
  16. Are there any municipal policies for assuring that incentives to solid waste diversion are enhanced, and disincentives eliminated? If not, how might these be pursued?
  17. If the municipality has created disincentives to solid waste diversion, what can be done to remedy this? e.g., renegotiate contracts with service providers based on providing incentives for solid waste reduction, redesign policies, etc.

Assessing the Sustainability of Your Community's
Residential Water Management

The agencies involved in water management may have different names in each community. Generally they will fall under the following categories: municipal public works, water bureau, county or regional water agency, waste water treatment plant.

  1. List the programs your community has in place to help citizens conserve water. e.g., free water saving fixtures, information campaigns, etc.
  2. Describe why each program came into existence and its current goals.
  3. What have been the principal strategies utilized to achieve citizen participation? Which have been successful and why? Which have not been successful and why?
  4. How is success measured? Include the numerical targets of the program. If there are no targets, how might targets be established?
  5. What percentage of citizens participate in each program?
  6. What amount of water does each program conserve?
  7. What has been the participation and amount of water conserved for each program over the last three years? Has participation and conservation increased, leveled off or decreased?
  8. What neighborhoods have the most successful residential participation and water conservation?
  9. What neighborhoods have the least successful residential participation and water conservation? Why is this? Please describe what has been learned.
  10. Are the municipality's storm drains and sewers combined? If so, would water conservation help alleviate any problems of combined sewer overflows?
  11. What incentives are there in the municipality, if any, for water conservation? e.g., regulatory compliance with state or regional targets, avoided costs of building new infrastructure such as wells or wastewater treatment facilities, city ordinance committing to natural resource conservation as a principle of community sustainability, etc.
  12. Which service providers benefit from water conservation? e.g., city water department from reduced costs to meet peak water demand, waste water treatment plant from reduced operating costs and extended life of current facility, etc.
  13. If fiscal benefits are derived from water conservation, how could these be calculated and projected over time? e.g., gallons of water needed to be saved to extend the life of the current facilities by a certain number of years, operational efficiencies of water treatment plant, etc.
  14. Are there any policies to reinvest these financial savings into increased water conservation? Please describe. If not, how could a policy be put in place?
  15. What disincentives are there in the municipality, if any, for residential water conservation? e.g., increased revenues based on residential water use, financial obligations to pay off water treatment plant based on resident fees, etc.
  16. Which service providers do not benefit from water conservation? e.g. city water department who increase revenues from volume of water supplied, companies that build city wells, etc.
  17. Are there any municipal policies for assuring that incentives to water conservation are enhanced, and disincentives eliminated? If not, how might these be pursued?
  18. If the municipality has created disincentives to water conservation, what can be done to remedy this? e.g., renegotiate contracts with service providers based on incentives in water conservation, redesign policies, etc.

Assessing the Sustainability of Your Community's
Residential Energy Management

The agencies likely to be involved in energy conservation will generally fall under the following categories: municipal energy office, state energy office, electric utility, gas utility.

  1. Does the municipality have a sustainable energy policy that includes residential use? If no policy exists, how could one be established?
  2. If yes, how is residential energy conservation encouraged? How is using renewable energy encouraged? Please describe the policy and programs.
  3. List the programs your utility(s) and municipality have in place to help citizens develop more sustainable energy households. e.g., home energy audits, appliance rebates, free energy saving fixtures, building codes promoting energy insulation, green energy products enabling easy use of renewable energy, etc.
  4. Describe why each program came into existence and its current goals.
  5. What have been the principal strategies utilized to achieve citizen participation? Which have been successful and why? Which have been unsuccessful and why?
  6. How is success measured? Include the numerical targets of the program. If there are no targets, how might targets be established?
  7. What percentage of citizens participate in each program?
  8. What percentage of energy is conserved and is of a renewable source?
  9. What has been the participation in each program over the last three years? Have participation, conservation and renewable energy use increased, leveled off or decreased? Please explain what is causing this trend.
  10. Do certain neighborhoods have successful participation in energy conservation and renewable energy use? Why is this? Please describe what has been learned.
  11. What incentives are there in the municipality/state/utility, if any, for providing energy conservation and renewal energy products? e.g., utility compliance with state public service commission to provide energy conservation programs, avoided costs of expanding infrastructure, financial incentives provided by the municipality for selling green power, city ordinance providing incentives for utilities to participate in natural resource conservation as a principal of community sustainability, etc.
  12. Which energy utilities benefit from energy conservation or sale of renewable energy? e.g., utilities supplying their own energy that can avoid infrastructure expansion for peak demand, utilities that promote conservation to create financial capability for households to purchase green power at a premium, utilities that wish to maintain customer loyalty or development a competitive advantage by providing conservation services, etc.
  13. If fiscal benefits are derived from energy conservation or sale of green power, how could these be calculated and projected over time? e.g., energy needed to be saved to extend the life of the current facilities by a certain number of years, operational efficiencies of energy generating plant, cost efficiencies from reaching a certain volume of green power sales, etc.
  14. Are there any policies that the utility has to reinvest these financial savings into creating greater energy conservation or reducing rates for green power? Please describe. If not, how might the municipality, perhaps in cooperation with the public service commission, encourage the establishment of such a policy?
  15. What disincentives are there in the utility, if any, for residential energy conservation? e.g., loss of revenues from less energy being used, etc.
  16. Are there any municipal policies for assuring that incentives to energy conservation and sale of green power are enhanced, and disincentives eliminated? If not, how might these be pursued?

Assessing the Sustainability of Your Community’s Transportation Management

The agencies involved in transportation management may have different names in each community. Generally they will fall under the following categories: regional transit authority, municipal transportation or traffic agency' regional or state air quality control agencies, and regional or state departments of transportation.

  1. Does your municipality have a travel demand management policy?
  2. If yes, list the programs your municipality has in place to help citizens reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and auto emissions e.g., walking and bike paths, shuttle services, public transit system, car pooling/car sharing, auto inspections, etc.
  3. Describe why each program came into existence and its current goals.
  4. What have been the principal strategies utilized to achieve citizen participation? Which have been successful and why? Which have been unsuccessful and why?
  5. How is success measured? Include the numerical targets of the program. If there are no targets, how might targets be established?
  6. What percentage of citizens participate in each program?
  7. What percentage of VMT reduction is achieved through each program?
  8. What has been the participation in each program over the last three years? Have participation and VMT reduction rates increased, leveled off or decreased? Please explain what is causing this trend.
  9. Do certain neighborhoods have successful participation in VMT programs? Why is this? Please describe what has been learned.
  10. What incentives are there, if any, for VMT reduction? e.g. avoided municipal and state penalties for air quality compliance, increased revenues to transit authorities from fares, increased prosperity of the city through quality of life improvement from reduced traffic congestion and noise pollution, city ordinance offering incentives to citizens to participate in natural resource conservation as a principle of community sustainability, etc.
  11. Which transportation agencies benefit from VMT reduction? e.g., transit agencies selling fares, transportation departments in avoided costs of road maintenance and new construction, traffic agencies responsible for improving traffic flow, etc.
  12. If fiscal benefits are derived from reduced VMT how could these be calculated and projected over time? e.g., avoided penalties, increased fares, operational efficiencies of maintaining current roads, etc.
  13. Are there any policies that these agencies have to reinvest these financial savings into creating greater VMT reduction? Please describe. If not, how might the municipality encourage the establishment of such a policy?
  14. What disincentives are there, if any, for VMT reduction? e.g., loss of revenues from toll collection, funding to particular agencies based on total automobiles serviced, etc.
  15. Are there any municipal policies for assuring that incentives to VMT reduction are enhanced, and disincentives eliminated? If not, how might these be pursued?

For more information contact:

Empowerment Institute
PO Box 428
Woodstock, New York 12498
Tel: (845) 246-6290 Fax: (845) 246-6291

E-mail: info@empowermentinstitute.net


Back to top