Institutional Barriers to Sustainable Urban Development: A Case Study of Civano in Tucson, Arizona

Cities and the Environment (CATE)

&41:2+�� @ �88:+�� 79/)1+��

��

Institutional Barriers to Sustainable UrbanDevelopment: A Case Study of Civano in Tucson,ArizonaKelly TurnerKent State University - Kent Campus��;9:73+7��0+39�+*:

A/8��79/)1+�/8�(74:-.9�94�>4:�,47�,7++�'3*�45+3�'))+88�(>�9.+��/414->�'9��/-/9'1��422438�'9��4>41'��'7>24:39�%3/;+78/9>�'3*��4>41'��'<�#).441��9.'8�(++3�'))+59+*�,47�/3)1:8/43�/3��/9/+8�'3*�9.+��3;/7432+39��$��(>�'3�':9.47/?+*�'*2/3/897'947�4,��/-/9'1��422438�'9��4>41'��'7>24:39%3/;+78/9>�'3*��4>41'��'<�#).441��47�247+�/3,472'9/43��51+'8+�)439')9 */-/9'1)422438�12:�+*:�

"+)422+3*+*��/9'9/43$:73+7��+11>�� 389/9:9/43'1��'77/+78�94�#:89'/3'(1+�%7('3��+;+1452+39��'8+�#9:*>�4,��/;'34�/3�$:)843��7/?43'�� Citiesand the Environment (CATE)��&41��88��79/)1+��;'/1'(1+�'9��.D5��*/-/9'1)422438�12:�+*:�)'9+�;41��/88��

digitalcommons.lmu.edu

digitalcommons.lmu.edu

http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate

http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol7

http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol7/iss2

http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol7/iss2/5

mailto:[email protected]

Institutional Barriers to Sustainable Urban Development: A Case Study ofCivano in Tucson, Arizona

#:89'/3'(1+�:7('3/82�'D+2598�94�):79'/1�9.+�3+-'9/;+�+3;/7432+39'1�)438+6:+3)+8�4,�:7('3�857'<1�9.74:-.(+89�57')9/)+8�/3�:7('3�*+8/-3��>+9�9.+7+�/8�'�5+7)+59/43�'243-�+=5+798�9.'9�2'3>�*+;+1452+398�2'>�,'11�8.4794,�/*+'18�/3�57')9/)+��#9:*/+8�.';+�+3:2+7'9+*�2:19/51+�/251+2+39'9/43�('77/+78�'8�+;/*+3)+�4,�8.479)42/3-8�>+9�,+<�89:*/+8�.';+�+25/7/)'11>�1/30+*�('77/+78�94�+3;/7432+39'1�/25')9��$4�'**7+88�9./8�-'5��9./8�89:*>�'808�.4<�*4�/389/9:9/43'1�897:)9:7+8�)43897'/3�9.+�)'5')/9>�94�/251+2+39�*+8/-3�'19+73'9/;+8�'3*�')./+;+�9.++3;/7432+39'1�-4'18�4,�8:89'/3'(1+�:7('3/82��A+�89:*>�57+8+398�/39+7;/+<��*4):2+39��'3*�+3;/7432+39'15+7,472'3)+�*'9'�/3�'3�/389/9:9/43'1�'3'1>8/8�4,�'�)'8+�89:*>��/;'34��'�8:89'/3'(1+�51'33+*�*+;+1452+39�/3$:)843��7/?43'��94�).'7')9+7/?+�/251+2+39'9/43�('77/+78�'3*�)433+)9�9.+2�94�+3;/7432+39'1�5+7,472'3)+4:9)42+8��9�B3*8�9.'9�9.+�)43C:+3)+�4,�3'9/43'1�'19+73'9/;+�+3+7->�*/8)4:78+8��14)'1�1'3*�:8+�'3*�49.+7,472'1�7+-:1'947>�)43C/)98��'3*�9+38/438�</9.�/3,472'1�7+'1�+89'9+�*+;+1452+39�/3*:897>�34728�)7+'9+*)43*/9/438�9.'9�-+3+7'11>�,';47+*�(:/1*/3-�9+).3414->�841:9/438�94�7+*:)+�<'9+7�'3*�+3+7->�)438:259/43�4;+7�8/9+�*+8/-38�94�')./+;+�(74'*+7�+3;/7432+39'1�-4'18��A+�B3*/3-8�8:--+89�9.'9�34;+1�/389/9:9/43'1'77'3-+2+398�</11�(+�7+6:/7+*�94�+3)4:7'-+�57/;'9+�8+)947�/251+2+39'9/43�4,�8:89'/3'(1+�:7('3�*+8/-38�

Keywords

84)/'1�/389/9:9/438�� +<�%7('3/82��14<�/25')9�*+;+1452+39��7+8/*+39/'1�1'3*8)'5+8��:7('3�*+;+1452+39

Acknowledgements

'9/43'1�#)/+3)+��4:3*'9/43�� #��39+-7'9/;+��7'*:'9+��*:)'9/43�'3*�"+8+'7).�$7'/3/3-��"$��%7('3�)414->��7'39� 4�� 9.+��884)/'9/43�4,��2+7/)'3��+4-7'5.+78��/88+79'9/43��7'39�9.+��:2'3��/2+38/438�4,��14('1��.'3-+��#5+)/'19>��74:5��/88+79'9/43��7'39��'3*�9.+#).441�4,��+4-7'5./)'1�#)/+3)+8�'3*�%7('3�!1'33/3-��#�#%!��+1;/3��'7):8�#).41'78./5

A/8�'79/)1+�/8�';'/1'(1+�/3��/9/+8�'3*�9.+��3;/7432+39��$�� .D5��*/-/9'1)422438�12:�+*:�)'9+�;41��/88��


INTRODUCTION Sustainable urbanism seeks to alleviate the detrimental environmental consequences of conventional residential sprawl; yet there is a perception among experts that in practice many developments fall short of these ideals. Sustainable urbanism is critiqued as conventional suburbia capitalizing on sustainability rhetoric to protect established middle-class suburban lifestyles and uses of nature that drive sprawl in the first place (Zimmerman 2001). Such wholesale dismissals notwithstanding, assessing the environmental performance of sustainable urbanism once implemented is difficult due to the lack of studies that directly measure it (Trudeau and Malloy 2011, Conway 2009). In addition, numerous, multi-dimensional barriers exist to the actual implementation of sustainable urbanism. These barriers include the environmental attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors of residents and various municipal regulations and developer implementation practices (Youngentob and Hostetler 2005, Grant 2009, Hostetler and Drake 2009, Hostetler and Noiseux 2010, Göçmen 2013). This research builds on these recent studies that attribute the shortcomings of sustainable urbanism to development barriers by examining the role that institutions play in shaping local circumstances for sustainable urbanism projects.

Institutions refer to the broad-scale, socio-economic and political forces that structure decision-making as well as the formal and informal rules-in-use in society (Ostrom 1990, Adger et al. 2003, Robbins 2012). Institutional research explains local environmental conditions as the outcome of decision-making processes that are mediated by behavioral norms, systems or rules of governance, and political-economic forces. For example, recent studies have linked formal and informal institutions to the proliferation of turf grass lawns and resource-intensive residential lawn care practices in the United States, even in arid environments where water resources are sparse (Cook et al. 2012, Fraser et al. 2013, Larson and Brummund 2014). Similarly, institutional dynamics likely influence the design and environmental performance of the sustainable urbanism alternatives to conventional residential developments (Rybczynski 2007, Hurley 2012). Indeed, insights from institutional perspectives can provide a fuller understanding of how and why sustainable urbanism projects are developed.

This research asks: How do various institutional forces influence the capacity to implement sustainable urbanism and achieve environmental performance improvements over conventional development? The question is addressed through the case study of Civano, a high-profile, self-described sustainable development in Tucson, AZ that has captured local and national interest. It is heralded as template for future development and critiqued as an emblem of the failures of sustainable urbanism (Buntin 2008). Civano is an ideal case study because it was planned and developed over the past 35 years, which is a sufficient period for meaningful analysis of political-economic forces and institutions that shaped it. Furthermore, it was developed via a series of public-private partnerships with multiple levels of decision-making, allowing for analysis of both public sector governance structures and private sector incentives. Unlike most sustainable urbanism developments, the environmental performance of Civano has been monitored and studied, providing critical data linkages between social processes and environmental outcomes. The meaning of sustainability and what constitutes a sustainable urban development has long been contested in academic circles (c.f. Zimmerman 2001, Ellis 2002, Neuman 2005). While the extent to which sustainable urbanism broadly, and Civano specifically,

1

Turner: Institutional Barriers to Sustainable Urban Development

Published by Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School, 2014

is or is not sustainable is debatable; such analysis is beyond the scope of this study. Finally, while the social outcomes of sustainable development, such as equity and diversity, are key dimensions of sustainability, this research is limited in scope to examining the environmental dimensions of sustainable urbanism. BACKGROUND Environmental Performance of Sustainable Urbanism in Theory and Practice

Sustainable urbanism refers to a suite of movements in urban planning, including New Urbanism and Conservation Subdivision Design (CSD) among others. These movements charge that conventional, sprawl-style development creates a suite of negative social and environmental outcomes and propose alternative planning and design strategies to alleviate these outcomes. The low-density and fragmented landscapes of sprawl are considered to be environmentally problematic on several grounds: consuming open space, increasing resource use and waste generation, degrading water and air quality, and contributing to climate change, for example (Johnson 2001). Proposed solutions to these problems vary between movements. New Urbanism prescribes dense, mixed-use neighborhoods connected by a network of multi-modal transportation options and open space buffers (Farr 2008). CSD, by contrast, proposes clustered suburban and exurban development to protect open space (Arendt 2004). A sample of espoused environmental benefits across sustainable urbanism movements include reducing energy consumption, limiting the environmental impact of construction, stormwater and climate regulation, and improved air quality (Ewing et al 2008, Lubell et al. 2009, Low 2010). These design alternatives have gained traction within the planning industry and among some municipalities. The development industry now offers awards for sustainable design. New Urbanist principles are codified in the Leadership in Energy Efficiency and Design for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) rating and certification system. In addition, some municipalities have adopted traditional neighborhood and CSD principles in their master plans and zoning ordinances (Mapes and Wolch 2011, Ohm and Sitkowski 2003, Göçman 2013).

While advocacy for sustainable urbanism has grown, some researchers contend that the actual developments following the sustainability agenda fail to deliver environmental improvements. There is little direct empirical evidence to support or repudiate these claims, however, due to the small number of such developments of a sufficient age on which to evaluate environmental performance. Rather, studies typically rely on indirect sources of evidence, such as plan evaluations, assumptions derived from resident behavior, or studies of single environmental features (e.g.,resident density) (Göçman 2013, Conway 2009). Plan evaluations suggest mixed environmental performance across developments based on siting (Trudeau and Malloy 2011), housing size (Grant 2006), and the influence of land-use mix and transportation on the travel behavior of residents (e.g., Shay and Khattak 2005). Despite sparse empirical evidence of environmental performance, other researchers argue that sustainable urbanism developments fall short of ideals in practice on other criteria, such as greenfield siting at the urban periphery, a focus on single sites that preclude regional or life-cycle analysis, and poor resident awareness about the environment (Skaburskis 2006, Garde 2006, Garde 2009, Hostetler and Noiseux 2010). Other critiques are more fundamental; they contend that sustainable urbanism is essentially an extension of sprawl that reflects a “green” turn in capitalism and promotes anthropogenic versions of nature that align with conventional models of planning and

2

Cities and the Environment (CATE), Vol. 7 [2014], Iss. 2, Art. 5


development (Zimmerman 2001, Till 2001). Both planning practitioners and researchers of sustainable urbanism have chronicled a variety of legal and cultural barriers to implementation (e.g., Thompson 2004; Grant 2009). Furthermore, sustainable urbanism has yet to curtail conventional development practices that drive urban sprawl. Institutional Perspectives on Urban Environmental Patterns and Processes Institutional perspectives view patterns of environmental change and ecological performance as the outcomes of complex societal processes. Within the environmental social sciences, institutions have been characterized as broad scale social processes and the formal and informal rules-in-use in society (Ostrom 1990, Adger 2003, Robbins 2012). These characterizations draw from political ecology perspectives that view environmental outcomes as the product of proximate and distal political, economic, and socio-cultural structures that mediate decisions through power relations as well as post-positivist social sciences that explain environmental outcomes through the combination of formal rules and regulations and informal norms of conduct that shape decisions (Birkenholtz 2011). Adger et al. (2003) describe this as the distinction between institutional frameworks that describe the totality of institutions that define the decision-making context and institutional arrangements, or, the specific rules of operation. Institutional arrangement can be further categorized as formal or informal (Ostrom 1990). Formal institutions are the codified procedures, rules, and regulations (e.g.,laws) promulgated by different types of organizations (e.g.,municipal government). Informal institutions are norms of practice that are unofficially sanctioned through everyday practices (e.g.,procedural norms) or via judgments about how one ought to act (e.g.,injunctive norms) (Schultz et al. 2007, Larson and Brumand 2014). Together, broad-scale, formal, and informal institutions structure decision-making about the environment by influencing individual and group choice.

The interplay between broad-scale institutional drivers and local rules and norms (Figure 1) has large explanatory power in describing environmental patterns and processes in residential landscapes (Roy Chowdhury et al. 2011, Cook et al. 2012, Polsky et al. 2014). Robbins and Sharp (2003) showed that large-scale socio-economic forces, such as shifting financial markets and marketing campaigns by chemical companies, promoted the use of pesticides and lawn fertilizer, creating an environmental and social ethic in support of the lawn economy. Others have shown how the interplay between formal institutions, such as municipal regulations and neighborhood institutions (e.g., homeowners’ associations), along with informal norms and values of homeowners also structure lawn management practices (Turner and Ibes 2011, Fraser et al. 2013, Larson and Brummand 2014). These studies illustrate complex institutional dynamics that combine to explain environmental outcomes at household and neighborhood scales.

3



Figure 1: The Socio-ecology of Residential Landscapes framework drivers (boxes e-g) influence management decisions and the ecology of residential areas.

Residential developments guided by the principles of sustainable urbanism are likely to

encounter similar institutional dynamics that influence patterns of development and environmental performance. For instance, Walker and Hurley (2011) show how institutional frameworks for development are influenced by actors at multiple scales—especially the staterenegotiated over time. In the instance of growth management in Oideology over time combined with local frustrations about inflexibility and transparency after implementation led to loss of support scales. Building on these findings, combination of regional change, local landand residents discursively and materially transformed landscapes in central Oregon.the real estate development process of one case studydevelopment of New Daleville, a New Urbanismplans are subject to and constructed by the realities of real estate development. The real-estate markets and development costs, legal terms of landand the task of selling homes as products to customers all shape the eproduced. The overarching finding profoundly shaped by complex institutional factors spanning private and public sector interests at multiple scales that change over time.

ecology of Residential Landscapes framework (from Cook et al. 2011). Multig) influence management decisions and the ecology of residential areas.

Residential developments guided by the principles of sustainable urbanism are likely to encounter similar institutional dynamics that influence patterns of development and environmental performance. For instance, examining land use policy and planning in OWalker and Hurley (2011) show how institutional frameworks for development are influenced by

especially the state—and how those frameworks are negotiated and renegotiated over time. In the instance of growth management in Oregon, broad-ideology over time combined with local frustrations about inflexibility and the lack of transparency after implementation led to loss of support for urban growth management scales. Building on these findings, Hurley (2012) compared case-studies in CSD and found that a combination of regional change, local land-use regulations, and varied motivations of developers and residents discursively and materially transformed landscapes in central Oregon.

e development process of one case study, Rybczynski (2007) chronicled the velopment of New Daleville, a New Urbanism project in Pennsylvania, revealing that design

plans are subject to and constructed by the realities of real estate development. The estate markets and development costs, legal terms of land-use and infrastructure regulation,

and the task of selling homes as products to customers all shape the eventual landscape that wasThe overarching finding of such studies is that sustainable urbanism projects are

profoundly shaped by complex institutional factors spanning private and public sector interests at over time.

. Multi-scalar human

Residential developments guided by the principles of sustainable urbanism are likely to encounter similar institutional dynamics that influence patterns of development and

examining land use policy and planning in Oregon, Walker and Hurley (2011) show how institutional frameworks for development are influenced by

and how those frameworks are negotiated and -scale shifts in

lack of for urban growth management across

studies in CSD and found that a use regulations, and varied motivations of developers

and residents discursively and materially transformed landscapes in central Oregon. Focusing on , Rybczynski (2007) chronicled the

revealing that design plans are subject to and constructed by the realities of real estate development. The economics of

use and infrastructure regulation, ventual landscape that was

is that sustainable urbanism projects are profoundly shaped by complex institutional factors spanning private and public sector interests at

4



Generally, institutional dynamics have favored the proliferation of conventional, sprawl-style development in many cities in the United States. Broad-scale political and economic forces that favored deregulation of the private sector and decentralization of decision-making in the 20th and 21st century conceded a great deal of control of urban development to the real-estate development industry (Jackson 1985, Weiss 1987). These trends facilitated the creation of relatively dense subdivisions with ready-made, moderately-priced homes on small lots that were developed over short time horizons. Weiss (1987) distinguishes this era of subdivision development from master planning, the latter of which placed greater emphasis on development quality through reduced density and amenity provisioning. Local planning controls, such as zoning ordinances and land-use covenants, were crafted with heavy influence from the development industry. They reinforced suburbanization and accelerated low-density development by separating residential and commercial development and establishing minimum lot densities (Ellis 2002, Weiss 1987, Duany et al. 2000). Under this model, suburban development has trended toward reduced lot density, increased home size, and niche-specific luxury amenities (Beuschel and Rudel 2010, Rudel et al. 2011). Parks and other open space land use amenities in residential subdivisions attract customers, but also can drive greenfield, exurban development and the out-migration of amenities from central cities (Heid 2004, Tilt and Cerveny 2013). The resulting landscape resembles earlier subdivision sprawl, but larger in scale and less dense.

The forces that favor sprawl are reinforced by formal institutional mechanisms that may

act as barriers to implementing sustainable urbanism and account for a gap between sustainable urbanism in theory and practice. For instance, Euclidian-based zoning that separates land-uses and stipulates minimum lot sizes is often cited as a barrier to the implementation of sustainable urbanism because it makes dense, mixed-use planning illegal and creates a burden for developers to override (Duany et al. 2000, Ellis 2002). Although zoning was a tool that was lobbied for by developers and currently reinforces the conventional sprawl development (c.f., Weiss 1985, Duany et al. 2000), more flexible approaches to zoning, such as form-based codes, traditional neighborhood development zoning ordinances, blank slate Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), and density bonuses, have been proposed to tilt development incentives toward sustainable urbanism (Talen 2009, Jabareen 2006, Arendt 2004). These novel land use regulations may promote more widespread adoption of sustainable urbanism through regional spillover effects whereby neighboring communities adopt similar regulations to promote sustainable development (Rudel et al. 2011). The efficacy of these land use regulatory tools is often limited due to ineffective design; for instance, vague regulatory language may be subject to interpretation allowing developers to make decisions that undermine environmental goals (Beuschel and Rudel 2010, Göçman 2013). Even when redesigned to promote sustainable urbanism, existing regulatory tools may be insufficient to alter prevailing development patterns.

Informal norms within the real-estate development industry may also create barriers to

implementing sustainable urbanism. Developers may have poor knowledge of sustainable urbanism and are reluctant to try it owing to a lack experience in this type of development (Grant 2009, Carter 2009). They may also be uncertain about consumer preferences or market demand for sustainable urbanism (Carter 2009), resulting in an underestimation of consumer demand (Bowman and Thompson 2009). This mismatch may be due to developer anxieties about project viability provoked by public opposition to density and desire to preserve local suburban or rural

5



character (Grant 2009, Bjelland et al. 2006). Planners and other municipal agents were reluctant to approve sustainable urbanism projects because they were skeptical of developers’ capacity to implement them, and were concerned that the municipality would have to assume maintenance costs above and beyond conventional development (Bowman et al. 2012). Under these conditions of uncertainty, many sustainable urbanism projects are developed by smaller firms or firms that are created specifically to develop particular project as a response to encroaching conventional development, making access to capital particularly critical to the implementation process (Hurley 2012).

In sum, implementing sustainable urbanism confronts large and varied institutional

constraints. The case study undertaken here examines the implementation process in one high-profile case-study community, Civano, in order to contextualize the variety of institutional barriers encountered and the effect they had on environmental design and performance, within the Socio-Ecology of Residential Landscapes Framework. METHODS

A qualitative case study approach is applied to uncover tensions between institutions and the goals of sustainable urbanism during planning and implementation and to identify factors that account for the gap between the concept goals and practice outcomes of sustainable urbanism. This approach has several advantages. It allows the tracing of pathways through which processes unfold and identification of possible causal mechanisms between processes and outcomes (Bennett and Elman 2006). Case-study methods are also well suited for studies in which there are more variables of interest than data points and, thus, require multiple sources of evidence to triangulate findings (Yin 2014). As such, this research draws upon both primary and secondary data. Primary data for this research were obtained through semi-structured interviews with key informants foremost during site visits with additional phone contacts. Participants were identified through a non-probability, purposive sample in order to target individuals with experience and knowledge about the phenomena of interest (Creswell 2013). Participants were key stakeholders involved in planning, implementation, and managing the case-study development. These stakeholders included members of the planning and development team, municipal employees, and community leaders in the development. Incidentally, many stakeholders from each group were also homeowners. In all, nine interviews lasting 38 to 125 minutes were conducted and recorded in the Fall 2012. Interviews were transcribed and coded using QSR NVivo 10 qualitative analysis software (QSR International, 2010). Secondary data from text and web analysis were used to supplement and corroborate interview data when possible. Supplementary texts included planning documents, land covenants, environmental monitoring reports and assessments, local news coverage and opinion pieces, community web sites and newsletters, and peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed books and articles. Secondary data were also imported into the software. Since case studies are generalizable to theoretical propositions, as opposed to populations or universes, it is important to draw from existing theoretical propositions to contribute empirical evidence to general concepts and to add precision to the process of explanation building (Yin 2014). This analysis was guided by the multi-scalar institutional drivers of land management put forth in the Socio-ecology of Residential Landscapes framework, with a particular emphasis on neighborhood (formal and informal) and broad-scale institutional drivers (Cook et al. 2012). Primary and secondary data were coded inductively for

6



emergent themes and categorized as constraints or facilitationthemes were analyzed using the institutional framework specified above to determine if empirical evidence supports the explanatory power of the framework in case-study. CASE STUDY RESULTS Planning and Development Timeline

Figure 2: Location of Civano relative to Central Tucson, AZ, USA.

Civano is a mixed-use, master planned 1southeastern periphery of Tucson, Arizonapresent) and Sierra Morado (2004marketed as a ‘sustainable community’ because it efficiency and incorporated New hierarchy of streets from boulevards to alleyscongruent with the Sonoran desert and local culture (CNU Charter).Morado, placed less emphasis on ‘sustainability’ and efficiency. Critics claim that Civano’s location far from the city center undermines its sustainability potential because residents must commute to worksector subsidies and accountability issuesproject and durability of environmental goalspioneering efforts in sustainable development and influential role in directing the development of city-wide energy standards as major successes

The planning process for development continues today (Figure 3Village in the 1980s when the Governor

emergent themes and categorized as constraints or facilitation in the development process. These ng the institutional framework specified above to determine if

empirical evidence supports the explanatory power of the framework in this sustainable urbanism

Planning and Development Timeline

Civano relative to Central Tucson, AZ, USA.

use, master planned 1,145 acre (463.3 ha) development built on the outheastern periphery of Tucson, Arizona consisting of two sub-developments:

(2004-present) (Figure 2). The first phase of developmentmarketed as a ‘sustainable community’ because it emphasized water and energy resource

incorporated New Urbanism design principles including clustering of housing, reets from boulevards to alleys, and architectural and landscaping features that are

congruent with the Sonoran desert and local culture (CNU Charter). The second phase, Sierra placed less emphasis on ‘sustainability’ and focused on water and energ

Critics claim that Civano’s location far from the city center undermines its because residents must commute to work. They also point to public

dies and accountability issues that undermine the long-term economic and durability of environmental goals (Jenkins et al. 2006). Supporters point to Civano’s

pioneering efforts in sustainable development and influential role in directing the development of wide energy standards as major successes (Nichols and Laros 2010).

The planning process for Civano began over thirty-five years ago and limited (Figure 3). It was originally conceived of as the Tucson

overnor at the time, Bruce Babbitt, was impressed by a solar

in the development process. These ng the institutional framework specified above to determine if

this sustainable urbanism

development built on the : Civano I (1996-

The first phase of development was emphasized water and energy resource

including clustering of housing, , and architectural and landscaping features that are

The second phase, Sierra focused on water and energy resource

Critics claim that Civano’s location far from the city center undermines its They also point to public-

economic viability of the Supporters point to Civano’s

pioneering efforts in sustainable development and influential role in directing the development of

ago and limited as the Tucson Solar

was impressed by a solar

7



homes showing in Tucson and challenged those involved to develop a solardevelopment (Buntin 2013). A public conversationa decade later it was determined that Tucson residents preferred a more holistic approach to environmental sustainability. The expanded goals included water conservation, recycling, air quality improvement as well as social goals suchconstruction. A guiding plan was developed through a publiccommunity Design Associates of Tucson, the Arizona State Land Department, and the Tucson/Pima County Metropolitan Energy Commidevelopment was then changed to Civano after the Late Classical Period of the Hohokam Civilization that once inhabited the region because it was “an era that balanced natural resources with human needs” (Buntin 2013). Irthe beginning of the decline of the Hohokamconditions (Abbott 2003).

Figure 3: Planning and development timeline, 1980

Local, state, and federal public

of Civano. In 1989, the U.S. Department of manager through the Urban Consortium on Energy Task Forcedevelopment process locally (Corbett and Corbett 2000). of State Trust Land at a subsidized sale price of $2.7 million (Buntin 2013). offered incentives for developmeadditional $3 million in infrastructure improvements for sewers, $4 million for a park and community center after 1support for research, monitoring, and marketingmaster plan (Pittman 2000). Potential developers well as the Integrated Method of Performance and Cost Tracking (IMPACTseries of performance targets and metrics for monitoring progress corresponding with guiding principles (City of Tucson 1998adhere to the IMPACT system for the first phase of development via a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the city;through a city council vote.

homes showing in Tucson and challenged those involved to develop a solar-oriented, mixed). A public conversation involving sixty public workshops

a decade later it was determined that Tucson residents preferred a more holistic approach to environmental sustainability. The expanded goals included water conservation, recycling, air quality improvement as well as social goals such as job creation and affordable housing

A guiding plan was developed through a public-private partnership community Design Associates of Tucson, the Arizona State Land Department, and the Tucson/Pima County Metropolitan Energy Commission (Clark 1994). The name of the

changed to Civano after the Late Classical Period of the Hohokam Civilization that once inhabited the region because it was “an era that balanced natural resources with human needs” (Buntin 2013). Ironically, many researchers suggest that this period

of the decline of the Hohokam due to a failure to adapt to changing environmental

Planning and development timeline, 1980-present

state, and federal public sector partners provided key resources in the development he U.S. Department of Energy appropriated $69,000 to employ a project

manager through the Urban Consortium on Energy Task Force to facilitate the planning and (Corbett and Corbett 2000). The State dedicated 818 acres

at a subsidized sale price of $2.7 million (Buntin 2013). The ent: $30 million in tax-exempt bonds for infrastructure, an

$3 million in infrastructure improvements for sewers, reclaimed-water lines $4 million for a park and community center after 1,000 homes were built, and administrative

t for research, monitoring, and marketing to entice private development according to the Potential developers were expected to adhere to the

the Integrated Method of Performance and Cost Tracking (IMPACT) system,series of performance targets and metrics for monitoring progress corresponding with guiding principles (City of Tucson 1998). Legally, the eventual developers would beadhere to the IMPACT system for the first phase of development via a Memorandum of

city; however, changes could be made to subsequent phases

oriented, mixed-use workshops ensued, and

a decade later it was determined that Tucson residents preferred a more holistic approach to environmental sustainability. The expanded goals included water conservation, recycling, air

as job creation and affordable housing private partnership among the

community Design Associates of Tucson, the Arizona State Land Department, and the The name of the

changed to Civano after the Late Classical Period of the Hohokam Civilization that once inhabited the region because it was “an era that balanced natural resources

this period was also due to a failure to adapt to changing environmental

in the development to employ a project

to facilitate the planning and The State dedicated 818 acres (331 ha)

The City of Tucson exempt bonds for infrastructure, an

water lines and roads, 000 homes were built, and administrative

to entice private development according to the the guiding plans as system, which set a

series of performance targets and metrics for monitoring progress corresponding with Civano’s would be obliged to

adhere to the IMPACT system for the first phase of development via a Memorandum of however, changes could be made to subsequent phases

8



Even with public inducements, finding established developers with experience relevant to sustainable urban development proved elusive. One development firm, the Civano Development Company, led by local affordable housing developers David Case and Kevin Kelly, bid on the land and secured the project. New Urbanist leaders Stefanos Polyzoides and Andres Duany were then invited to hold a design charrette—a collaborative planning process—that yielded a master plan (Rollins 2005). The developers moved forward with $20 million in direct investments and loans from a variety of sources including Bank One, the City of Tucson Municipal Improvement District, Arizona Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, and business associates of Kelly and Case. The Civano Development Company remained controlling partners until the grand opening of Phase I in 1999.

Over the course of implementation, financial pressures led to several changes in the

development team that eventually led to a revision of the environmental goals. After the grand opening of Phase I, Case and Kelly sold their share of investment in Civano. Fannie Mae, which first invested in Civano under the American Community Funds program for innovation in housing, took over as controlling partner in 2000 to complete Civano I, the first phase of development. They attempted to sell the remainder of the property to conventional developer, Diamond Ventures, shortly thereafter, but the City Council of Tucson rejected the purchase against a backdrop of resident and City staff opposition (Lafleur 2000, Jenkins et al. 2006). In 2004, however, the City Council approved the sale of Civano to national builders, Pulte Homes, for $8.57 million with some changes to the IMPACT standards (Pittman 2004). In 2007, Pulte opened the second phase of development, Sierra Morado (Sierra Morado 2007). These changes in leadership have implications for the ways in which sustainability was interpreted and implemented over time.

Environmental Features and Performance of Civano I and Sierra Morado

Not all of environmental features proposed ended up being built in Civano I, and even fewer were implemented in Sierra Morado. All Civano I homes have solar hot water heating systems, non-potable water connections, and can accommodate photovoltaic solar panels. However, builders faced challenges in implementing environmental features. They had difficulty reconciling passive solar orientation with neo-traditional housing design and were unable to utilize natural drainage patterns due to municipal stormwater drainage regulations that required mass grading of the site. Developers also did not incorporate low impact construction materials such as rammed earth and straw bale in buildings other than the model homes and community center due to price constraints (Yost n.d.).

Both development phases greatly reduced energy and water consumption compared to conventional development through building technologies and desert landscaping. These reductions are largely due to the IMPACT System, which established a series of environmental goals that were intended to guide all phases of development including: reduce potable water consumption 65% compared to the Tucson average, reduce home energy consumption 65% over the 1990 and 50% over the 1995 Tucson model energy codes, reduce internal vehicle miles by 40%, and reduce landfill destined solid waste (City of Tucson 1998). Energy consumption was determined by comparing homes in Civano I, Sierra Morado, and homes built after the city passed a municipal energy code in 1999, using homes built prior to the energy code as a baseline.

9



A series of monitoring reports on home energy and water consumption between 2006-8, revealed that Sierra Morado achieved greater energy and water consumption reduction than Civano I (Tables 1 and 2). Both phases of Civano achieved greater energy consumption reduction than homes built in Tucson after the municipality passed an energy code.

Table 1: Percent decrease in energy consumption from heating and cooling and total over pre-Tucson municipal energy code baseline in Civano I, Sierra Morado, and post energy code Tucson homes

2006 2007 2008

Heating/Cooling Total Heating/Cooling Total Heating/Cooling Total

Civano I 59 44 49 39 34 31

Sierra Morado 61 47 40 17 48 38 Post Energy Code 32 7 25 8 n/a n/a

Table 2: Total average annual water consumption per household in Civano I, Sierra Morado, and post energy code Tucson homes. Units are one hundred cubic feet (CCF)1

2006 2007 2008

Civano I 94 92.2 77.6

Sierra Morado 75.5 81.9 62.9 Tucson 151.7 130.98 131

11CCF is equivalent to 748 gallons or 2831.5 liters

Similarly, both phases of Civano consumed far less water than the city average. These findings were confirmed in a study of 2010 of water consumption at the city block scale, that found that both Civano I and Sierra Morado greatly reduced water consumption compared to an adjacent conventional single-family residential subdivision due, in part, to the introduction of non-potable water resources. However, homes in Civano I had direct non-potable water hook-ups, while non-potable water resources were only used in common areas in Sierra Morado.

A study by Turner and Galletti (2014) found that surface temperatures were lower in Civano I than Sierra Morado, most likely due to denser vegetative cover and higher albedo surfaces from clustering of white roofs and salvaging of mature vegetation (Figure 4). Differences in albedo and vegetation are likely the result of differences in land-use regulations and development practices. High albedo roof material is required in the Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CCR) of Civano I and prohibited in Sierra Morado (Sierra Morado 2005). Almost all trees on the site of Civano I were removed and replanted during the development process with a 90% success rate, while it appears that Pulte used new plantings that have yet to mature in Sierra Morado (Yost n.d.). Furthermore, the overall site design of Civano I (e.g.,clustered housing and preservation of open space) may also contribute to lower temperatures. Based on these existing data sources, it appears that water and energy efficiency targets were achieved in both phases of development, but a larger suite of environmental achievements were reached in Civano I compared to Sierra Morado. Other measures of environmental performance such as vehicle miles travelled by residents and life-cycle analysis could provide a more complete picture of environmental performance but are not currently available. Nevertheless, Civano does have more environmental performance data for evaluation than most sustainable urbanism developments.

10



Figure 4: Environmental performance of Civano I (top), Sierra Morado (central), and an adjacent conventional single-family residential subdivision development (bottom) at the city block scale: (a)city blocks in Civano I surface temperatures were 0.37 C cooler on average than in Sierra Morado and low temperature city blocks were significantly more likely to be located in Civano I than in Sierra Morado (top left), (b) vegetative cover, measured through Soil Adjusted Vegetative Index (SAVI) and (c) albedo were significantly denser and higher, respectively in city blocks in Civano I than in Sierra Morado, and (d) mean potable water consumption was slightly less in city blocks in Sierra Morado than in Civano I, but city blocks with low potable water consumption were not significantly more likely to be located in Sierra Morado than in Civano I. Temperatures were higher in city blocks in Civano II than in the conventional residential development. (adapted from Turner and Galletti 2014).

11



Institutional Drivers and Constraints in the Development Process Broad-scale Political and Economic Factors The analysis revealed that municipal and regional institutional factors identified as broad-scale institutional drivers in the Socio-Ecology of Residential Landscapes framework were key factors in Civano’s development. In addition, national and international political and economic forces influenced the course of its development. These factors largely played out as a tension between state and federal interests in solar energy and local interest in creating a “sustainable community” fuelled by the slow growth movement in Tucson and the emergence of the New Urbanism movement nationally. The initial idea for Civano was rooted within the context of the Arab oil embargos and oil crisis of the 1970s, which triggered national interest in alternative energy production. Arizona was keen to establish itself as a leader in solar energy industry. The City of Tucson established the Metropolitan Energy Commission (MEC), which began work on establishing progressive building energy standards. In 1986, the federal government appropriated $1 million in oil industry penalties to Arizona, which was appropriated to Tucson to create a “Solar Village.” In the latter half of the 1980s, local interest in Civano waned, fuelled in part by a downturn in the solar industry during the 1980s that led to large losses of jobs in the industry in Arizona (Jenkins et al. 2006). Resurgent support for environmental agendas nationally and the concerted lobbying efforts of those involved in planning Civano, however, led the federal government to take interest in Civano. The project garnered attention from the Clinton Administration when it was selected as one of five pilot programs in the National Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH) in 1998. At the time of Civano’s grand opening in 1999, Vice President Gore said, “Once in a great while each of us is lucky enough to have an opportunity to clearly see the future. Today, the grand opening of Civano is one of those unique times” (Buntin 2008).

Evidence suggests that federal government attention may have influenced Fannie Mae to finance Civano and take over as controlling partner in 2000. At the time, developer Kevin Kelly remarked, “Fannie Mae’s interest in the project signals to Wall Street that the principles of sustainability are being looked upon in a more-conventional light. While the building ideas at Civano are still new and still cutting edge, they are no longer considered fringe ideas” (Pittman 2000). Despite expressing optimism about the partnership, this statement by Kelly may have been more public rhetoric than reality due to events that unfolded in the aftermath of the sale to Fannie Mae. Respondents indicated that Fannie Mae’s interest in Civano was largely politically motivated. A city official and member of the development team explained: “At this point, Clinton is in the White House, looks like Gore is going to run. Gore is the administration’s environmental guy. To them it’s a way they can capture Gore’s attention when he wins; bad bet.” As a federal mortgage insurance agency, Fannie Mae was not interested in sustainable real estate development and when Civano was no longer a political asset, they: “simply wanted to get out of Dodge for many reasons, so they looked for a large developer who would purchase the rest of the stuff and they could get out,” according to a community leader.

Fannie Mae’s actions while in control of the development appear to confirm allegations about the dubious nature of the partnership. Despite financing the development of Civano, according to one respondent, Fannie Mae was “ironically really scared about sustainability.” For

12



instance, Fannie Mae sales representatives limited the extent to which they communicated Civano’s sustainability goals to potential homebuyers. Several respondents also noted that Fannie Mae attempted to prevent residents from convening socially and organizationally by declaring common spaces off limits. These actions were seen by many respondents as an attempt to pass Civano on to any developer, roll back the environmental requirements in order to attract one, and limit resident capacity to organize against such actions.

Public interest in Civano in Tucson was fuelled by local concerns about rapid urbanization in Tucson. Like many Sunbelt cities, Tucson experienced a period of large population growth and development in the latter half of the 20th century, fueling concerns about urban sprawl. The slow-growth movement in Tucson was a political response to sprawl and the strain of population growth—particularly on stressed water resources—that captured a city council majority during the 1970s through the 1980s (Logan 2006). The slow-growth movement in Tucson was an outlier in Arizona, which was dominated by pro-growth, property-rights oriented politicians that resisted legislative efforts to curtail unchecked urban expansion (Gober 2006). By the time planning commenced for Civano, there were rising concerns among slow-growth advocates and other environmentalists, according to a development team member. Some saw sprawling development in the Houghton Road Corridor in the southeast periphery of Tucson as inevitable and Civano as a more sustainable alternative that could set a precedent for future development. Another response to sprawl, New Urbanism, emerged in the 1980s and gained popularity nationally as an alternative pattern of urban design. Public planning workshops reflected this, indicating that Tucson residents preferred a sustainable community with a broad set of environmental goals and New Urbanist design features to a more narrowly focused solar village. Prominent New Urbanist firms, Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company (DPZ) and Moule and Polyzoides, had a direct influence on the design of Phase I when they were invited to lead a design charette in 1996. After three days of heated disagreement over the direction of the plan, a compromise was reached; DPZ fulfilled their contractual work to yield a plan, which was subsequently refined by Moule and Polyzoides and rest of the design team (Rollins 2005).

This New Urbanist turn attracted residents from across the United States. Several of the

respondents (n=4) were residents that moved locally or from different states to live in Civano precisely because it was a New Urbanist community. The New Urbanist turn also made it clear that a shift away from passive solar design and toward community-oriented design was not only more economically feasible but would also attract consumers. This change may not have created push-back from the energy camp because many of them did not believe that passive solar design was effective anyway.

Civano I was planned and constructed during the peak of interest in energy sustainability and New Urbanism. However, by the time Fannie Mae sold the second phase to national development firm, Pulte, the slow-growth, pro-environment movement in Tucson and nationally had lost influence. By 2004, Tucson was at the height of a housing boom, its city council was repopulated by pro-growth members, and Civano’s environmentalist supporters in the federal government were no longer in power. A municipal official explains, “You had some core supporters with strong environmental values all through the ’90s and the people who took their place didn't share those values. Over the years as Civano got built out, there was nobody left.” Municipal support for the project diminished as “political fatigue” set in and turnover occurred

13



within city council. A respondent recalls the attitude of city council members at that time, “Oh my gosh, this thing is always going on, it’s always complex, we’re hearing stories about its financial failure: move on.” Indeed, rumors about bankruptcy began to circulate around 2000, when one of the builders, RGC, declared bankruptcy, defaulted on contracts, and left several customers without homes (Jenkins et al. 2006). A city official involved in the development summarized, “[Civano] really used people up. I was glad when I got a new assignment to move on because I was exhausted by it.”

Declining support was particularly problematic because the contract between the city council and Civano was not binding in perpetuity. The city Council that approved the development of Civano claimed that they could not contractually oblige future councils to uphold the decisions of present day. The two large firms that expressed interest in becoming the master developer of Civano after Fannie Mae both appear to have worked to weaken the environmental standards created by the City and planning team, claiming they were not in line with their established business model.

In the case of Diamond Ventures, public pressure succeeded in preventing those changes

from occurring. Pulte, on the other hand, appeared willing to work with the Neighborhood Association (NA), comprised of residents of Civano I, on a compromise. Prior to sale, Pulte garnered a written pledge of support from the NA in exchange for a verbal commitment on their part to a collaborative development process. Not all members of the design team believed that it was a prudent decision to take Pulte’s ‘word’ as a pledge of commitment given the extreme power asymmetry between Pulte, a national development firm, and the NA, a small group of local residents. There were a series of collaborative meetings between Pulte and the NA, which one respondent described as “highly scripted presentations” about decisions already reached; however, upon sale, Pulte conspicuously withdrew from collaborative meetings, brought in a new management team, and began redefining design features in ways that narrowly defined sustainability in terms of energy and water efficiency goals. This move aroused suspicion and anger among Civano residents, who wrote in the community newsletter: “It has come to the point where we feel we must seriously consider recommending officially withdrawing the neighborhood associations prior support for Pulte…The future of Civano is at stake,” (Civano Neighbors 2004). A respondent pointed to this waning support as one of the reasons that Pulte was able to negotiate weak environmental standards with the city, against the protests of Civano residents: “It is my thinking that the City is the one that really dropped the ball. How much can a Neighborhood Association really negotiate with a Pulte?”

Respondents differed in their opinions about the legacy of Civano based on which stream—energy or New Urbanism—they believed was the core of the development. When asked about New Urbanism at Civano I respondent remarked: “It was always about energy.” He indicated that success should be measured by energy targets and cited formation of the MEC in 1980 to work on renewable energy issues, the establishment of renewable energy policies by the Arizona Corporation Commission, and the adoption of Civano’s energy standards for city buildings in Tucson as evidence of these goals. Another respondent disagreed: “Civano’s way more than energy…that’s where Pulte fails. That’s why you can feel the line as you walk between Civano and Sierra Morado. They’re just different places.” The respondent is referring to the strong aesthetic divide between the housing style, landscaping, and layout of the two phases

14



of development that is visually striking at tanother respondent, the vast majority of homebuyers chose to live in Civano I for the “look and feel” of the community as a whole, with the energy savings being but one important component of a larger package.

Respondents living in Civano I

as a separate development from the Civano project. The New Urbanist camp citesIMPACT goals as evidence of a broader agenda for Civano, beyond mere energy savings, but they do acknowledge some shortcomings. For instance, thethe State, was a major source of disappointment for the New reflected: “It felt like just another example of urban sprawl. Had it happened closer to the center of the city I think there would have been more support, it would have been easier to sell, and easier to build on. It was always struggling on that distance from the core of the community.”

Figure 5: Aesthetic differences between and Terrain.org).

Formal Rules-and-Regulations Civano’s environmental goals were promulgated through mechanisms that differed in capacity to ensure regulatory tool that guided the development was the IMPACT System MOUframework for cooperative implementation of development between the City and potential developers and established a system for monitoring environmental performance. The IMPACT system was novel because it established environmental performance targets that would guide design and be subject to monitoringCommunity of Civano and all its successors, developers, contractors, builders, anowners who develop within Civano” creation of the Civano Institute, a separate nondevelopers, charged with devisinghomebuilders about environmental designurbanism to homeowners.

of development that is visually striking at the border between them (Figure 5). According to another respondent, the vast majority of homebuyers chose to live in Civano I for the “look and

whole, with the energy savings being but one important component

Respondents living in Civano I often described Sierra Morado as a failure, describing it as a separate development from the Civano project. The New Urbanist camp citesIMPACT goals as evidence of a broader agenda for Civano, beyond mere energy savings, but they do acknowledge some shortcomings. For instance, the site selection, which was dictated by the State, was a major source of disappointment for the New Urbanists. As a municipal official

t felt like just another example of urban sprawl. Had it happened closer to the center ere would have been more support, it would have been easier to sell, and

easier to build on. It was always struggling on that distance from the core of the community.”

tween homes in Sierra Morado (left) and Civano I (right) (Images: Pulte Homes

Civano’s environmental goals were promulgated through several formal institutional in capacity to ensure those goals were achieved. The primary

ry tool that guided the development was the IMPACT System MOU, which outlined a framework for cooperative implementation of development between the City and potential developers and established a system for monitoring environmental performance. The IMPACT system was novel because it established environmental performance targets that would guide design and be subject to monitoring. The MOU was intended to be “binding upon [the] Community of Civano and all its successors, developers, contractors, builders, anowners who develop within Civano” (City of Tucson 1998, 1). The MOU also called

Civano Institute, a separate non-profit from the Community of Civano LLC devising ways to measure environmental performance, educate

about environmental design, and communicate the benefits of sustainable

According to another respondent, the vast majority of homebuyers chose to live in Civano I for the “look and

whole, with the energy savings being but one important component

often described Sierra Morado as a failure, describing it as a separate development from the Civano project. The New Urbanist camp cites the broader IMPACT goals as evidence of a broader agenda for Civano, beyond mere energy savings, but

site selection, which was dictated by . As a municipal official

t felt like just another example of urban sprawl. Had it happened closer to the center ere would have been more support, it would have been easier to sell, and

easier to build on. It was always struggling on that distance from the core of the community.”

(right) (Images: Pulte Homes

formal institutional goals were achieved. The primary

which outlined a framework for cooperative implementation of development between the City and potential developers and established a system for monitoring environmental performance. The IMPACT system was novel because it established environmental performance targets that would guide

. The MOU was intended to be “binding upon [the] Community of Civano and all its successors, developers, contractors, builders, and property

called for the profit from the Community of Civano LLC

, educate , and communicate the benefits of sustainable

15



Not all goals were straightforward to measure, as a member of the Civano Institute remarked, “It was a constant conversation. Okay, we have these very lofty goals, but how do we measure it? And, thinking about something like New Urbanism, well, how do you measure that?” By tying success to performance, goals like New Urbanism that were difficult to define and quantify were more vulnerable to change than targets that were relatively straightforward to quantify, such as energy and water consumption. Additionally, as evidenced by the fact that Pulte negotiated weakened standards, the MOU was, perhaps, a relatively weak form of binding contract. Finally, as a separate entity from the Civano project, the Civano Institute had little authority to influence environmental standards, measurable or otherwise. Even the developers of phase one, who supported the ambitious environmental goals of Civano, were uncomfortable with potential misunderstandings between the environmental standards in the IMPACT system and those being developed for the City of Tucson by the Civano Institute. In a letter to the Civano Institute in 1997 the developer wrote, “The confusion over the Institute using the Civano name may be contributing to …misinformation. I would greatly appreciate it if you and your board of directors could clearly state that opinions expressed by the institute, while helpful, have no direct bearing on The Community of Civano LLC and its business obligations.”

A second set of formal regulations for implementing the sustainability goals of Civano

involved land-use regulations. The City of Tucson utilized a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to create zoning and entitlements (e.g., building permits) in accordance with the general plans for the site. Yet the PUD proved inflexible during construction when the development team began to notice inconsistencies between the plan and land-use regulations or needed mid-stream changes. Reconciling these differences and obtaining approval for changes caused costly delays in the development timeline. Some differences were not reconciled, weakening the environmental design of Civano. For instance, the development team was not able to receive permission to utilize existing topography to direct stormwater into naturally occurring washes, which resulted in the mass grading of the site to comply with conventional stormwater management practices. Reflecting on what he would have done differently to prevent these conflicts, one member of the development team thought several months should have been given to finalizing the plan and reconciling zoning and entitlements prior to development.

Another land-use regulatory tool that was utilized was Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CCR), which established legally enforceable architectural and landscaping design guidelines for each phase of the development. The developers of the first phase utilized this conventional development tool to codify features that would contribute to sustainability goals, such as the use of light colored roofs to reduce near-ground temperatures. The CCR gives a large amount of control to the developer as long as rules and regulations abide by local laws. New Urbanism was favored by the original design and development teams and incorporated into the CCR. As a regulatory tool, however, the CCR lacked the capacity to influence long-term planning because the original planners and developers had no control over the CCR crafted by Pulte once they took over development of phase II. Informal Institutional Norms of Practice Many of the challenges in developing Civano arose from a mismatch between its development model and conventions in the development industry and, to a lesser extent, municipal agencies.

16



For instance, the city and other parties involved in planning Civano had difficulty attracting mainstream developers because the development model violated standard practices in the development industry. Respondents noted that in conventional development, a developer devises a plan, relying heavily on precedent to guide design and reduce risk through market analysis, then looks for a site and financing. Land is developed quickly or in phases to manage land holding and improvement costs and turned over to builders who are responsible for marketing their homes to customers. The planning process of Civano included a design that was conceived with input from the original developers, Kelly and Case; however, Pulte inherited a plan that they had no hand in crafting. Furthermore, Civano required any developer, including Pulte, to concede a great deal of control over the development process to outside parties. From the perspective of Pulte, developing according to the plan and process of Civano I would require compromising self-control of design, developing according to a plan that lacked precedents (beyond Civano I), implementing site layouts outside the scope of the firm’s experience and expertise, and delivering measurable environmental targets to remain in compliance with the IMPACT standards city contract.

Mainstream developers and investors viewed these unconventional dimensions of the Civano project as likely to increase financial and legal liability risk. A municipal employee recalls that the restrictions sounded to a developer like the city was saying: “’We're in charge and you're going to do what we tell you to do.’ And [the developer is] saying we're not going to commit millions of dollars of our own personal money if we're not sure this is going to happen the way we believe it has to happen in order for it to be marketable.” Exacerbating the risk, the city was reluctant to enter into any agreement that guaranteed legislative approval for commitments made by previous legislative bodies. As a member of the development team recalls, “The developers would say, ‘Well, we want a commitment; a guarantee.’” So, the city eventually entered into an official partnership via the MOU to provide a level of commitment with which developers would be comfortable. Investors were similarly skeptical about risk. A member of the development team described the reaction of potential investors after receiving a pitch about the project: “They’d say, ‘that’s a fantastic idea, when you’re doing [sustainable development] number three come talk to us.’” A municipal employee explains the importance of precedents for reducing risk (i.e., financial loss) by conducting market analysis: “How do we find a developer for something that’s basically never been developed? The normal way you do real-estate market analysis is you look at what’s happened for the last five years and then you make some inferences based on what’s going on now and how your product is different. There was no last five years for this.” The city conducted phone surveys with 300 residents of Tucson and asked them if they would be willing to pay for “resource conservation” and “community features” in a development. Survey results found that 80 percent of Tucson residents surveyed would be willing to pay $5,000-10,000 more for a home in a development that had those features (Nichols and Laros 2010). Surveys based on a hypothetical development did not meet conservative industry standards of assessing financial viability via precedents to reduce financial risk, which meant the developer relied on alternative funding sources: low interest city infrastructure bonds and Fannie Mae’s American Communities Fund.

Partnerships with public entities provided key financial and capital resources in the first phase of development but proved insufficient to ensure that Civano would be financially viable in the long run. Public partners subsidized the sale price of land, infrastructure costs, and

17



provided direct financial investments and loans. These resources did not address the primary financial burdens of sustainable development: land holding and improvement costs. A member of the development team explained the challenge of containing land holding costs at Civano: “Here are these two small companies, not very well capitalized, having to bear the interest cost of 800-1,100 acres of land…Things were taking longer—tick, tick, tick—we used to call it the interest clock because everybody that worked there was always looking over their shoulders, ‘How much interest have we spent this month and have we really gotten that far along?’ So this just led to enormous financial pressure.” The developers financed the purchase of the land to develop Civano through investors and loans, which meant they had to pay interest on those loans. That interest cost was especially high because of the size of the land purchased and the length of time it took to improve the land before any lot sales could be realized to begin paying back loans.

Development delays abounded as the development team constantly had to resolve

conflicts between the master plan and municipal zoning ordinances. Low impact development practices like salvaging trees, setting aside 30% of the land for open space, and adding extra community amenities increased improvement costs but improved sales. One respondent reflecting on the cost of low impact development noted, “The struggles we encountered, just would not be there now. It was not the low impact ideas themselves; it was the difficulty of getting them through the approval system [that increased land holding costs].” Funding through subsidies, personal investments, and loans was in insufficient strategy to reduce development costs because these one-time investments did not address protracted development time lines stemming from tensions between the plan and existing land use regulations, which exacerbated already high interest payments on a large piece of land, and generally increasing the land holding costs of development.

The unconventional marketing strategy deployed at Civano in phase I was a source of anxiety for homebuilders and perceived as a legal liability by Fannie Mae. Prior to Fannie Mae taking over as controlling partner, Civano utilized a centralized sales approach in which the development team matched potential homebuyers with homes. A respondent explains, “It was all about control of message. We hired a sales director, six sales people and for four months all they did was learn about New Urbanism and learn how to talk about Civano.” Homebuilders, who typically market directly to the customers, were reportedly anxious about yielding that authority to a centralized office. The centralized sales approach was abandoned by Fannie Mae and marketing Civano as an environmentally sustainable community was scaled back. One municipal official explained, “the lawyers got so nervous. They felt that if you don't tell people they're going to save 50% on their energy bill and they don't see any savings then they're not going to sue us... there were people buying houses in Civano that didn’t even know it was an innovative environmental community.”

Some of the design ideas aligning with New Urbanism, such as historically-derivative architecture, back-loading garage alleyways, and compact lot layout were incompatible with Pulte’s production home model. Energy and water efficiency targets, on the other hand, could be met using their home model. Pulte is a vertically integrated production home firm, meaning that they reduce costs in home construction through economies of scale. When Pulte took over as master developer of Civano in 2003, they were increasing the degree of vertical integration by

18



transitioning to in house production of parts for home construction. A report prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy states (DOE): “Pulte was successful at [meeting energy targets at] Civano because they took a standardized approach to incorporating energy-efficiency measures that could be applied to hundreds of houses,” (U.S. Department of Energy 2007). When asked to incorporate elements of New Urbanist design, one respondent recalls Pulte’s response: “We’ve got a whole system. You’re asking us to turn our boat around and you think we’re a little fishing boat, but we’re a big aircraft carrier with a whole fleet behind us. This is difficult.’” As a large firm with a well-defined business model, Pulte was more amenable to incorporating environmental features that aligned with that business model.

Operational norms within municipal government also created barriers to implementing the plan. As one developer observed, “One thing that I've learned is, anytime you get a politicized entity as a development partner, problems will happen. They're not entrepreneurial. They have a different mindset. And they have a broader agenda that has nothing to do with the project.” In the planning phase, the city offered infrastructure investments, but some of these never materialized because they got embedded in local political debates. For example, the municipality failed to provide a public park, as a member of the development team remarked: “Because there were a lot of people on the bond advisory committee that hated Civano...Why spend money on that when we could build parks on the west wide?” Civano became subject to internal city politics, as another respondent explained, “It’s the west side versus the east side. It’s the inner city versus the periphery. You know, it’s all the issues—slow growth, no growth—that have been fought about in Tucson for years.” In addition, several members of the planning team recalled that some city officials felt that the zoning and entitlement changes required to implement the plan went against their years of experiential knowledge about best practices in development.

Developers typically cease to be directly involved with a project after build out, or shortly thereafter. This means that maintenance and upgrades within the community are the responsibility of homeowners, homeowners’ associations, and property management companies. Despite the institutional durability of energy and water reduction standards, technologically, they may be less enduring. Civano’s standards are based on environmental improvements over 1990 and 1995 baselines and technological innovation and better building practices may well surpass them. One respondent had invested in technology upgrades to make his home “net negative” in energy use; however, he conceded that these retrofits were voluntary and expensive. Responsibility for environmental improvements in the long-run transfers to the residents after the developer relinquishes control of the development.

Linking Institutional Constraints to Environmental Design The broad-scale, formal, and informal institutional factors that shaped the conditions for development of Civano and Sierra Morado had direct and indirect influence on design (Tables 3 and 4). Indirectly, the whole institutional framework within which Civano was conceived and implemented failed to contain costs associated with land development and delays, resolve incongruences between the master plan and Pulte’s development business model, and navigate broader political agendas that did not support New Urbanism design in the long run. Directly, particular institutional arrangements were unable to achieve the full suite of goals outlined by the

19



community, City of Tucson, and others involved in the initial planning stages of Civano. Specifically, interventions that could be achieved through building technologies were more likely to be implemented by Pulte than those that could be achieved through adjustments to the site design. CONCLUSION Examining the institutional factors that shaped development help explain the conditions that created barriers to environmentally sustainable design plans for Civano, with implications for design and performance outcomes. As suggested by the Residential Landscapes framework, and the literature on the role of institutions in environmental management, a complex set of institutional factors influenced design and implementation, including development industry norms, local land use and development regulation, and broad-scale political and economic factors. Echoing the findings of Walker and Hurley (2011) about Oregon’s urban growth management polies, a broad-scale shift in ideology away from slow growth, combined with local frustration about implementation challenges, corroded support for the New Urbanism goals of Civano. Similar to Rybczynski’s (2007) narrative about the New Urbanism project, New Daleville, the norms of practice within the real estate development industry were also critical in shaping the fate of New Urbanist design in Civano. Furthermore, some codified rules and regulations such as the measureable standards in the IMPACT System MOU proved more enduring than the land-use regulations that promoted New Urbanist design. All of the formal institutional mechanisms for facilitating environmental sustainability at Civano proved vulnerable to change, however, when they conflicted with municipal regulations or the primary developer’s priorities. Thus, it is unclear if findings from previous studies that neighborhood norms exert greater influence on environmental management than formal neighborhood institutions (Frasier et al. 2013, Larson and Brummand 2014) hold for new residential development. This issue merits further consideration. Collectively, institutional constraints had a measurable impact on environmental design and performance between Civano I and Sierra Morado (Tables 1 and 2).

Institutional analysis guided by the Residential Landscapes framework, generated new

insights about the barriers to developing sustainable urbanism projects. Conflicts between the overarching development model for Civano and informal institutional norms of the real estate development industry appear to have undermined the viability of Civano and contributed to shortcomings in implementation as well. Especially critical were elements of the development model that failed to address financial and legal risk for the developer. Additionally, one-time financial and infrastructure investments made by the city that failed to offset a key structural source of increased costs of sustainable development: land-holding costs. Finally, both the push for New Urbanism in the second phase of development and the capacity to sustain all aspects of sustainability beyond the developer’s involvement relied on informal injunctive norms—judgments about what ought to occur—as opposed to descriptive norms based on perceived standards of behavior or formal rules and regulations. Residents may or may not be compelled to make upgrades to keep pace with technological changes in energy and water efficiency, just as Pulte was not compelled to make design choices that would undermine profit out of a sense of moral duty.

20



As a case-study, Civano is uniquely suited to integrative approaches to analysis that combine consideration of human drivers and biophysical outcomes; however, there are several limitations to this study. Case-studies provide critical in-depth exploration of complex phenomena, but comparative case-studies in conjunction with quantitative approaches will be necessary to generalize about the process of developing sustainable urbanism projects and making statistical links between human drivers and environmental outcomes. Furthermore, the age of Civano is both an advantage (e.g., examining change over time, measuring biophysical outcomes) and a disadvantage because sustainable urbanism has become more widely accepted since the 1980s. Newer examples of sustainable urbanism will need to be studied to ascertain if some of the challenges that Civano faced, such as developer’s perceptions of risk, still pertain to such developments. This study does not interrogate the use of the term ‘sustainable’ by the various actors involved, nor does it evaluate the extent to which Civano constitutes a sustainable development. These issues merit future investigation.

This research suggests that sustainable urbanism projects should consider devising novel institutional arrangements that tilt incentives toward design innovation in addition to technological interventions—a difficult task in and of itself without considering key human dimensions of sustainability such as equity and justice—and future research should examine if, when, and how such arrangements have been implemented. For instance, it may be helpful to create lasting partnerships with environmental goals that are defined with enough flexibility to adapt over time as contexts change and learning occurs but strong enough to withstand attempts to weaken them. The case study of Civano reveals that sustainable urbanism will continue to encounter barriers that impede widespread impact on the way cities are built without realigning financial and procedural incentives with the informal institutional norms of real estate industry and the private sector more broadly. Examining the processes that lead to shortcomings and successes in sustainable urbanism developments will be instrumental in narrowing the gap between well intentioned plans and improvements in environmental performance.

21



Table 3: Institutional factors influencing the conditions for development of Civano and Sierra Morado Broad-scale Political and Economic Factors Formal Rules and Regulations Informal Institutional Norms of Practice

• International oil crisis drives demand for alternative energy, wanes once oil prices stabilize

• IMPACT System MOU ties success to measurable performance goals

• Developers reluctant to implement plan with unusual constraints

• Arizona supports Civano based on economic interest in solar jobs and political interest in becoming a solar energy leader

• Civano Institute energy standards for the City separate from the development

• Inability to reduce financial risk through conventional precedent-based market analysis

• The Department of Energy allocates funds for project manager through green energy program

• Planned Unit Development creates inflexible zoning, difficult to reconcile or change midstream

• Fannie Mae reluctant to promote sustainability due to legal liability concerns about claims

• Clinton administration selects Civano for housing technology program

• Design principles promulgated via Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions only apply to Civano I

• Lack of mechanisms to control the cost of land improvement

• Presidential candidate, Gore, promotes Civano as part of his environmental agenda, then loses election

• Protracted development timeline creates financial pressure by increasing interest costs

• Fannie Mae funds Civano through community development program as part of political agenda

• Difficult for Pulte to change vertically and horizontally integrated business model to accommodate New Urbanist design

• Local slow growth movement captures then loses political power in Tucson City Council

• City council members prioritize

constituent interests over Civano

• National popularity of New Urbanism peaks during the creation of Civano's master plan

• Municipal agents reluctant to accommodate design elements at Civano that went against conventional wisdom

22



Table 4: Linkages between institutional constraints and environmental designs incorporated in building technology and site design in Civano I and Sierra Morado

Goal Intervention

Type

Achieved (Yes/No) Constraint Civano

I Sierra

Morado

Reduce Energy and Potable Water Consumption

Energy efficient building construction Building

Technology Yes Yes n/a

Energy efficient appliances Building


High albedo building materials Building

Technology Yes No

Formal: Included in CCR for Civano I, which held no legal authority over Sierra Morado

Passive solar design Site Design No No

Broad-scale: Conflicted with New Urbanist design, deemed unimportant by energy camp

Water efficient appliances Building


Non-potable water deliver to homes Building

Technology Yes No

*Formal: IMPACT monitoring revealed these were expensive and nominal contributor to water

efficiency

Non-potable water deliver to common space Site Design Yes Yes n/a

Water efficient landscaping Site Design Yes Yes n/a

Low Impact Development and New Urbanist Design

Utilize natural site drainage for stormwater Site Design No No Formal: Conflict with land use regulations

Salvage on site trees and use native vegetation Site Design Yes No

Informal: Not in line with land improvement cost management

Compact building layout Site Design Yes No Informal: Conflict with national firm's business model; Broad-scale: Political fatigue and turnover

decreased support for Civano; Formal: MOU ultimately weak and subject to change

Narrow, pedestrian oriented streets Site Design Yes No

Mixed-use Site Design Yes No

Alleys Site Design Yes No

23



LITERATURE CITED Abbot, DR. 2003. Centuries of Decline During the Hohokam Classic Period at Pueblo Grande.

The University of Arizona Press: Tucson. Adger, WN., Brown, K., Fairbrass, J., Jordan, A., Paavola, J., Rosendo, S., and Seyfang, G.

2003. Governance for sustainability: towards a ‘thick’ analysis of environmental decision-making. Environment and Planning A, 35:1095-1110.

Arendt, R. 2004. Linked landscapes: Creating greenway corridors through conservation

subdivision design strategies in the northeastern and central United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(2-3):241-269.

Bennet, A. and Elman, C. 2006. Qualitative Research: Recent Developments in Case Study

Methods. Annual Review of Political Science, 9:455-476. Birkenholtz. 2012. Network political ecology: Method and theory in climate change vulnerability

and adaptation research. Progress in Human Geography, 36(3): 295-315. Beuschel, V. and Rudel, TK. 2010. Can real estate developers be ‘green’? Sprawl, environmental

rhetoric, and land use planning in a New Jersey community. Society and Natural Resources, 23:97-110.

Bjelland, MD., Maley, M., Cowger, L., and Barajas, L. 2006. The Quest for Authentic Place:

The Production of Suburban Alternatives in Minnesota’s St. Croix Valley. Urban Geography, 27(3):253-270.

Bowman, T. and Thompson, J. 2009. Barriers to implementation of low-impact and conservation

subdivision design: Developer perceptions and resident demand. Landscape and Urban Planning, 92:96-105.

Bowman, T., Thompson, J., and Tyndall, J. 2012. Resident, developer, and city staff perceptions

of LID and CSD subdivision design approaches. Landscape and Urban Planning, 107:43-54.

Buntin, S. “Beyond the ballpark: thwarted expectations for the Colorado Rockies and the Civano

Town Center?” Next City: Inspiring Better Cities,17 April 2008: http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/beyond-the-ballpark-thwarted-expectations-for-the-colorado-rockies-and-the- [Access Date: 31 May 2014]

Buntin, SB. 2013. Unsprawl: Remixing Spaces as Places. Planetizen Press:

https://www.planetizen.com/store/unsprawl [Access date: 5 May 2014] Carter, T. 2009. Developing conservation subdivisions: Ecological constraints, regulatory

barriers, and market incentives. Landscape and Urban Planning, 92(2):117-124.

24



City of Tucson and Community of Civano, LLC. Civano IMPACT System Memorandum of Understanding on Implementation and Monitoring Process – Summary. Adopted 26 June1998:http://www.civanoneighbors.com/docs/environment/Civano_IMPACT_System_MOU_Summary_Feb_2003.pdf [Access date: 31 May 2014].

Civano Neighbors Leadership Team, Editorial, “Pulte Risks Losing Support of Civano

Neighborhood Association.” The Town Crier, Civano Neighbors Neighborhood One, November 2004: http://www.civanoneighbors.com/docs/towncrier/2004/November2004_TownCrier.pdf

Clark, KN. 1994. Sustainable community planning. Desert Architecture III: Building a

Sustainable Future, 36: http://ag.arizona.edu/oals/ALN/aln36/Clark.html [access date may 20, 2014]

Cook, EM., Hall, SJ., and Larson, KL. 2012. Residential landscapes as social-ecological

systems: a synthesis of multi-scalar interactions between people and their home environment. Urban Ecosystems, 15:19-52.

Conway, T. 2009. Local environmental impacts of alternative forms of residential development.

Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 35:927-943. Corbett, J. and Corbett, M. 2000. Designing Sustainable Communities: Learning from Village

Homes. Island Press: Washington, DC. Creswell, JW. 2013. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five

Approaches, 3rd Edition. SAGE Publications: Lincoln, NE. Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E., and Speck, J. 2000. Suburban nation: the rise of sprawl and the

decline of the American dream. North Point Press: New York. Ellis, C. 2002. The New Urbanism: critiques and rebuttals. Urban Design, 7(3), 261-291. Ewing, R., Bartholomew, K., Winkelman, S., Walters, J., and Chen, D. 2008. Growing cooler:

the evidence on urban development and climate change. Urban Land Institute: Washington, DC.

Farr, D. 2008. Sustainable urbanism: urban design with nature. Wiley: New York. Fraser, JC., Bazuin, JT., Band, LE., and Grove, JM. 2013. Covenants, cohesion, and community:

The effects of neighborhood governance on lawn fertilization. Landscape and Urban Planning, 115:30-38.

Garde, A. 2004. New Urbanism as Sustainable Growth? A supply side story and its implications

for public policy. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(4):154-170.

25



Garde, A. 2009. Sustainable by Design?: Insights From U.S. LEED-ND Pilot Projects. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(4):424-440.

Gober, P. 2006. Metropolitan Phoenix: Place Making and community Building in the Desert.

University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia. Göçmen, ZA. 2013. Barriers to successful implementation of conservation subdivision design: A

closer look at land use regulations and subdivisions permitting process. Landscape and Urban Planning, 110:123-133.

Grant, J. 2006. The ironies of new urbanism. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 15(2): 158-

174. Grant, J. 2009. Theory and Practice in Planning the Suburbs: Challenges to Implementing New

Urbanism, Smart Growth, and Sustainability Principles. Planning Theory & Practice, 10(1): 11-33.

Heid, J. 2004. Greenfield Development Without Sprawl: The Role of Planned Communities.

Urban Land Institute: Washington, D.C. Hostetler, ME. and Drake, D. 2009. Conservation subdivisions: A wildlife perspective.

Landscape and Urban Planning, 90(3-4): 95-101. Hostetler, ME. and Noiseux, K. 2010. Are green residential developments attracting

environmentally savvy homeowners? Landscape and Urban Planning, 94(3-4): 234-243. Hurley, P. 2012. “Whose Sense of Place: A Political Ecology of Amenity Development,” in

Stewart, WP., Williams, DR., and Kruger, LE., eds. Place-Based Conservation: Perspectives from the Social Sciences. Springer: New York, 165-180.

Jabareen, YR. 2006. Sustainable Urban Forms: Their Typologies, Models, and Concepts.

Journal of Planning Education and Research. 26(1): 38-52. Jackson, KT. 1985. Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. Oxford

University Press: Oxford. Jenkins, D., Bauer, J., Bruton, S., Austin, D., and McGuire, T. 2006. “Two Faces of American

Environmentalism: The Quest for Justice in Southern Louisiana and Sustainability in the Sonoran Desert” in Forging Environmentalism: Justice, Livelihood, and Contested Environmentalism, Bauer, J., ed. East Gate: New York.

Johnson, MP. 2001. Environmental impacts of urban sprawl: a survey of the literature and

proposed research agenda. Environment and Planning A, 33: 717-735.

26



Larson, KL. and Brummund, J. 2014. Paradoxes in Landscape Management and Water Conservation: Examining Neighborhood Norms and Institutional Forces. Cities and the Environment, 7: 6.

Lafleur, M. 2000. “Council leaves developer Diamond out of Civano,” Tucson Citizen, 19 Dec.

2000: http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue2/2000/12/19/19613-council-leaves-developer-diamond-out-of-civano/ [Access date: 21 May 2014]

Logan, MF. 2006. Desert City: The Environmental History of Phoenix and Tucson. University of

Pittsburgh Press: Pittsburgh, Pa. Low, TE. 2010. Light imprint handbook: integrating sustainability and community design. Civic by Design: Miami, FL. Lubell, M., Feiock, R. and Handy, S. 2009. City adoption of environmentally sustainable policies

in California’s Central Valley. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(3), 293–308.

Mapes, J. and Wolch, J. 2011. ‘Living green’: the promise and pitfalls of new sustainable

communities. Journal of Urban Design, 16(1): 105-126. Neuman, M. 2005. The Compact Fallacy. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(1):11-

26. Nichols, CA. and Laros, JA. 2010. Inside the Civano Project: A Case Study of Large-Scale

Sustainable Neighborhood Development. McGraw-Hill: New York. Ohm, BW. and Sitkowski, RJ. 2003. The Influence of New Urbanism on Local Ordinances: The

Twilight of Zoning? The Urban Lawyer, 35(4): 783-794. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.

University of Cambridge Press: New York.

Pittman, D. “Fannie Mae gobbles up rest of Civano.” Tucson Citizen, 28 January 2000. http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue2/2000/01/28/201102-fannie-mae-gobbles-up-rest-of-civano/ [Access date: 31 May 2014].

Polsky, C., Grove, JM., Knudson, C., Groffman, PM., Bettez, N., Cavender-Bares, J., Hall, SJ., Heffernan, JB., Hobbie, SE., Larson, KL., Morse, JL., Neill, C., Nelson, KC., Ogden, LA., O’Neil-Dunne, J., Pataki, DE., Roy Chowdhury, R., and Steele, MK. 2014. Assessing the homogenization of urban land management with an application to US residential lawn care. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(12):4432-4437.

QSR International, NVivo qualitative data analysis (QDA) program version 10, 2010.

27



Robbins, P. and Sharp, JT. 2003. Producing and Consuming Chemicals: The Moral Economy of the American Lawn. Economic Geography, 79(4): 425-451.

Robbins, P. 2012. Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction, 2nd Edition. Wiley-Blackwell:

Oxford. Rollins, J. “Birthing Civano…The Design Charette.” In The Town Crier, Civano Neighbors

Neighborhood One, September 2005: 2. http://www.civanoneighbors.com/docs/towncrier/2005/Sept2005_TownCrier.pdf [Access Date: 31 May 2014].

Roy Chowdhury, R., Larson, KL., Grove, JM., Polsky, C., Ogden, L., Onsted, J., Cook, E. 2011.

A multi-scalar approach to theorizing socio-ecological dynamics of urban residential landscapes. Cities and the Environment, 4(1): 6.

Rudel, TK., O’Neil, K., Gottlieb, P., McDermott, M., and Hatfield, C. 2011. From Middle to

Upper Class Sprawl? Land Use Controls and Changing Patterns of Real Estate Development in Northern New Jersey. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 101(3): 609-624.

Rybczynski, W. 2007. Last Harvest: From Cornfield to New Town. Scribner: New York. Schultz, PW., Nolan, JM., Cialdini, RB., Goldstein, NJ., and Griskevicius, V. 2007. The

constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18(5):429-434.

Sierra Morado Community Association, Board of Directors, “Architectural Review Committee

Guidelines for Production Home Common Projects. 1 December 2005. http://www.sierramoradoca.com/ResourceCenter/DocViewer/21482?doc_filename=sierra%20m

orado%20design%20guidelines%2012-1-05.pdf&doc_id=620095&print=1 [Access Date: 31 May 2014]

Sierra Morado, Pulte Homes. “Be our guests at the grand opening (The Gin Blossoms have

already RSVP’d)” 15 April 2007. http://www.pulteaz.com/SierraMorado/images/SMOR_GO_Ad.pdf [Access Date: 31 May 2014].

Skaburskis, A. 2006. New Urbanism and Sprawl: A Toronto Case Study. Journal of Planning

Education and Research, 25:233-248. Shay, E. and Khattak, AJ. 2005. Automobile Ownership and use in Neotraditional and

Conventional Neighborhoods. Transportation Research Record, 1902: 18-25. Talen, E. 2009. Design by the Rules: The Historical Underpinnings of Form-Based Codes.

Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(2): 144-160.

28



Till, KE. 2001. New Urbanism and Nature: Green Marketing and the Neotraditional Community. Urban Geography, 22(3):220-248,

Tilt, JH. and Cerveny, L. 2013. Master-planned in exurbia: Examining the drivers and impacts of

master-planned communities at the urban fringe. Landscape and Urban Planning, 114:102-112.

Thompson, RH. 2004. Overcoming Barriers to Ecologically Sensitive Land Management:

Conservation Subdivisions, Green Developments, and the Development of a Land Ethic. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24:141-153.

Trudeau, D and Malloy, P. 2011. Suburbs in Disguise? Examining the Geographies of the New

Urbanism. Urban Geography, 32(3):424-447. Turner, VK. and Ibes, D. 2011. The impact of homeowners associations on residential water

demand management in Phoenix, Arizona. Urban Geography, 32(8): 1167-1188. Turner, VK. and Galletti, CS. 2014. Do Sustainable Urban Designs Generate More Ecosystem

Services? A Case Study of Civano in Tucson, Arizona. Professional Geographer. Online DOI: 10.1080/00330124.2014.922021.

U.S. Department of Energy, June 2007, Building America: Research Toward Zero Energy

Homes. “Case Study: Pulte Homes – Civano, Tucson, AZ,” in Building America Best Practices Series, High-Performance Home Technologies: Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic Systems. http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/building_america/ba_solar_casestudy_civano.pdf [Access Date: 31 May 2014].

Walker, PA. and Hurley, PT. 2011. Planning Paradise: Politics and Visioning of Land Use in

Oregon. The University of Arizona Press: Tucson. Weiss, M. 1987. The rise of the community builders: the American real estate industry and

urban land planning. Columbia University Press: New York. Yin, RK. 2014. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5th Edition. Sage: Los Angeles. Yost, P. (n.d). “Civano: Is the Debate Over This Project Sustainable?” BuildingGreen.com

BuildingGreen.com: http://greenspec.buildinggreen.com/article/civano-debate-over-project-sustainable [Access Date: 31 May 2014].

Youngentob, K. and Hostetler, ME. 2005. Is a New Urban Development Model Building

Greener Communities? Environment and Behavior, 37(6): 731-759. Zimmerman, J. 2001. The “nature” of urbanism on the New Urbanist frontier: sustainable

development, or defense of the suburban dream? Urban Geography, 22(3): 249-267.

29



Institutional Barriers to Sustainable Urban Development: A Case Study of Civano in Tucson, Arizona

Documents

Transcript of Institutional Barriers to Sustainable Urban Development: A Case Study of Civano in Tucson, Arizona