Grantee Research Project Results
Final Report: Land Use Sustainability Index for Puerto Rico
EPA Grant Number: X3832209Title: Land Use Sustainability Index for Puerto Rico
Investigators: Juncos-Gautier, Marìa , Gonzalez-Toro, Antonio C. , Padin, Carlos M. , Santana, Jose R
Institution: Universidad Metropolitana
EPA Project Officer: Aja, Hayley
Project Period: May 1, 2005 through April 30, 2009
Project Amount: $287,400
RFA: Collaborative Science & Technology Network for Sustainability (2004) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Pollution Prevention/Sustainable Development , Sustainable and Healthy Communities
Objective:
Puerto Rico, a Sustainability Challenge: Puerto Rico faces a considerable amount of challenges regarding sustainable land use planning. As a small Caribbean island, land is a scarce and highly valuable resource. A history of inefficiency in land use has resulted in many environmental, social and economic challenges, and if current practices continue at the same rate they have in the last five decades, the whole island of Puerto Rico will become a suburban megalopolis in less than 75 years, the life span of one generation. [1] With a population density of almost 450 inhabitants per square kilometer, one of the highest in the world, Puerto Rico is running out of space and time. The Island also faces the political reality that its surface area is divided into 78 municipalities. Currently all of these municipalities have the authority to prepare individual land use plans by virtue of the Autonomous Municipalities Act (Public Law 81 of August 30, 1991). However, they lack a broader and comprehensive sustainable land use framework to guide them. Although numerous laws and regulations regarding land use planning have been approved during the past sixty years, the sequence of their enactment and their subsequent ineffective implementation have left the island without an island-wide land use plan.
Aim of Research: Since land use is at the center of sustainable development, the aim of this project is to provide an accessible, easy-to-use and, at the same time, reliable set of indicators and an index model for sustainability of land use at the municipal level to help start to measure and monitor the impact of land use changes for long term sustainability.
Methodology: To achieve the proposed aim, and after reviewing literature on the topic, the project proposes the Current to Optimal Model (CUTOP Model) for Sustainability of Land Use to identify what activities should be modified at a municipal level to help guiding land use towards sustainability. It basically helps to measure how close or far the municipality is from sustainability. Figure 1 in the next page shows a schematic overview of the proposed Model.
The Model defines the indicators as stressors or relievers[2] of sustainability. Each indicator provides information about the actual situation and about an optimal situation to measure progress towards or retrocession from sustainability using specific benchmarks or agreed upon planning objectives[3]. In addition, it assigns a sustainability weight to each indicator under four categories to calculate an index in order to communicate in a condensed and simple way the sustainability status and to measure progress. An External Advisory Committee, composed of stakeholders and local experts from public and private sectors, is an integral part of the Model for decision-making and outreach. The proposed evaluation period is eight years since municipal land use plans have to be revised at least every eight years, as established by Public Law 81. Four municipalities were used as case studies, because they represent different regions and a variety of socio-economic and landscape scenarios: Barceloneta, Caguas, Carolina and Ponce.
Figure 1. Schematic Overview of the CUTOP Model for Sustainability of Land Use
After selecting and applying the benchmarks or planning objectives and assigning weights to each stressor or reliever indicator, the Index of Sustainable Land Use Activity or ISLA, a composite index, was calculated. The n indexed stressors are combined into the Stressors Index (STI), as follows:
The m indexed relievers are then combined into the Relievers Index (RI), as follows:
The relievers and the stressors indices are combined into a single index or summary index (ISLA) to measure sustainability:
Multiplication by 100 and the taking of the square root are mathematical transformations designed to generate an easy-to-read scale for the index. As designed, the index can take on values between 1 and 100. A value of 100 is the best-case state, while a value of 1 is the worst-case state. A value of 10 happens when the STI and RI have the same value, in which case they cancel each other out. For readings below 10, the STI is larger than the RI and ISLA is stressor-dominated (or very low in sustainability). For values higher than 10, ISLA is reliever-dominated (or starting to improve in sustainability). A reading of 10 is a stalemate marking the threshold in sustainability. The figure below presents the proposed interpretation of the ISLA values. Table 3 shows the final results of the ISLA.
Figure 2. ISLA Values
Summary/Accomplishments (Outputs/Outcomes):
After an exhaustive analysis and evaluation of a preliminary group of 50 indicators, a reduced group of 22 indicators is proposed. They were selected with the External Advisory Committee and based on specific criteria for quality control: best reliable and available data, and measurability and feasibility for the municipalities. After their selection, they were divided into four different categories: Environmental, Socio-economic, Infrastructural and Institutional. The decision for the name and the category of each selected indicator were based on: (1) The substantive nature and the main purpose of each one; (2) its benchmark or planning objective based on local idiosyncrasies, challenges and needs, and the people responsible for its achievement; (3) its communication strategy when it was named and categorized to bring attention and incite action from the target audience and for public policy. Table 2 in the next page shows the results of this analytic process and the results by indicator.
Table 1 shows the results of the ISLA after the stressors and relievers indices are combined into a single index.
Table 1. Results of the Relievers (RI) and Stressors (STI) Indices and the composite index (ISLA)
INDICES | PONCE | CAGUAS | BARCELONETA | CAROLINA |
RI | 15.0416 | 14.9922 | 14.6850 | 15.2824 |
STI | 19.4268 | 19.4044 | 18.1049 | 18.9020 |
ISLA | 8.7993 | 8.7899 | 9.0061 | 8.9917 |
The four case studies scored “very low” on sustainability with the ISLA.
Conclusions:
The current situation of many of the 22 indicators for each case study contributed to the low scores which mirrors the widespread unsustainable land use practices on the Island. The combination of the assigned weights and the demanding benchmarks or planning objectives of some of the indicators contributed to the negative results. Special attention needs to be given by the municipalities studied to the following stressor indicators: Inaccessibility to public transportation, The Fiscal Fragility Index, Footprint of public roads, Inaccessibility to safe drinking water. Also, to the following reliever indicators: Total recycled solid non-hazardous waste, Active agricultural lands, Use of public transportation to reach work. These results of these indicators contributed substantially to the low scores.
Table 2. Results by Indicator
PONCE |
CAGUAS |
BARCELONETA |
CAROLINA |
BENCHMARK / OBJECTIVE IN 8 YEARS |
STRESSOR/ RELIEVER |
Assigned Weight |
||
Environmental |
Current Situation |
Optimal Situation |
|
|
||||
1 |
Water pollution risk due to lack of sewer connection Measurement: Houses without a sewage connection to the PR Aqueduct and Sewer Authority as a percentage of the total number of housing units. |
34.0% |
30.0% |
46.0% |
25.0% |
5.5% reduction |
S |
0.5 |
2 |
Development pressure on rural land Measurement: Housing density on land zoned as Common Rural Land (houses per km2). |
50 |
132 |
299 |
131 |
No increase |
S |
1.3 |
3 |
Accessibility to public natural open spaces in urban areas Measurement: Residents living in the urban areas (areas zoned as Urban Land) within a 15-minute walk (500 meters) from parks and other public natural open spaces as a percentage of the total population. |
89.0% |
73.0% |
72.0% |
89.0% |
All the urban residents |
R |
1.5 |
4 |
Solid non-hazardous waste generation per resident Measurement: Solid non-hazardous waste generation in pounds per resident per day from total municipal waste. |
7.51 |
6.66 |
10.63 |
4.85 |
3.6 pounds max / pers / day |
S |
0.6 |
5 |
Total recycled solid non-hazardous waste Measurement: Total recycled solid non-hazardous waste as a percentage of total annual municipal waste. |
2.3% |
3.2% |
0.8% |
6.8% |
35% |
R |
3.9 |
6 |
Coastal flood hazard Measurement: Total housing units in coastal flood hazard areas (Zone VE in FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps or FIRM) to be potentially affected by storm surges. |
53 |
N/A |
54 |
968 |
No housing units (0) |
S |
0.5 |
7 |
CO2 emissions per household Measurement: Annual release in pounds of CO2 per kWh of electric energy consumption per household as provided by the PR Electric Power Authority. |
8,327 |
11,416 |
8,326 |
10, 522 |
16% reduction |
S |
0.4 |
8 |
Release of toxic substances to the environment by industries Measurement: Annual on-site disposal of toxic substances in pounds, per km2, by industries regulated by the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). |
258 |
5 |
5,514 |
720 |
No increase |
S |
0.7 |
9 |
Water consumption per household Measurement: Water consumption in gallons per households (PR Aqueduct and Sewer Authority’s residential clients) per day. |
142 |
164 |
182 |
143 |
27% decrease |
S |
0.6 |
Socioeconomics |
||||||||
10 |
Highly valuable agricultural lands Measurement: Highly valuable agricultural lands as a percentage of total land zoned as Rural Land. |
5.8% |
19.9% |
61.0% |
32.6% |
No change |
R |
1.6 |
11 |
Active agricultural lands Measurement: Active agricultural lands as a percentage of total land zoned as Rural Land. |
41.7% |
21.0% |
28.0% |
30.3% |
No change |
R |
1.0 |
12 |
Residents who work where they live Measurement: Total number of residents who work in the municipality as a percentage of the total number of workers-residents. |
86.4% |
56.1% |
56.2% |
41.8% |
60% |
R |
1.9 |
13 |
Re-population of urban areas Measurement: Population density in areas zoned as Urban Land (persons per km2). |
1,396 |
2,513 |
646 |
3,529 |
11% increase |
R |
2.2 |
14 |
Residents living in floodways Measurement: Total number of residents living in floodways (AE Floodways in FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps or FIRM maps). |
3,236 |
3,839 |
669 |
1,410 |
No residents (0) |
S |
0.9 |
15 |
The Socio-Economic Index Measurement: Index of municipal socio-economic activity calculated and provided by the local economic firm Estudios Técnicos, Inc. using per capita income, median family income, and education, poverty and unemployment levels. |
95.80 |
109.15 |
82.78 |
132.55 |
100 |
R |
2.4 |
Infrastructure |
||||||||
16 |
Inaccessibility to public transportation Measurement: Wards that are not served by at least one public transportation route that connects to the urban center as a percentage of total wards. |
55% |
9% |
0% |
23% |
100% - all wards |
S |
5.8 |
17 |
Use of public transportation to reach work Measurement: Change in percentage points in the use of public transportation to reach work by workers-residents 16 years and over. |
-4.9% |
-7.0% |
-7.4% |
-3.8% |
6% points increase |
R |
1.1 |
18 |
Footprint of public roads Measurement: Kilometers of public roads per square kilometers of municipal land. |
4.36 |
5.18 |
4.6 |
6.11 |
No increase |
S |
1.5 |
19 |
Inaccessibility to safe drinking water Measurement: Total numbers of residents served by PR Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) and the Non-PRASA public water systems that are “significant non-compliers” (SNA) with the Safe Drinking Water Act. |
2,865 |
649 |
0 |
0 |
No residents or 0 SNC water systems |
S |
1.6 |
Institutional |
||||||||
20 |
Approved municipal land-use plan Measurement: Municipal Land Use Plan approved by the PR Planning Board. |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 Approved |
R |
3.8 |
21 |
The Fiscal Fragility Index Measurement: Index to measure the municipal fiscal situation calculated and provided by the local economic firm Estudios Técnicos, Inc. using the deficit or surplus of each municipality divided by the approved budget. The result is then divided by 100. |
13.53 |
-9.51 |
0.22 |
0.06 |
0 |
S |
4.4 |
22 |
Officially protected land Measurement: Land officially and actively protected through management or ownership by federal, state and/or municipal governments, and/or NGOs, classified or zoned as Specially Protected Rural Land, as a percentage of total municipal land. |
33.1% |
4.5% |
52.6% |
22.5% |
No reduction |
R |
1.8 |
Results confirm the urgent need for an island-wide land use plan as required by the Act for the Land Use Plan of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Public Law 550 of October 3, 2004) with specific zoning classifications and sustainable land use policies as guidelines. This will aid municipalities in acquiring a larger framework to guide their activities and plans, especially those related to their individual land use plans as required by the Public Law 81.
Achievements: This is a groundbreaking project for Puerto Rico. It is envisioned as a first step in the process of assessing Puerto Rico’s progress towards (or away from) sustainability using the municipalities as planning units. The model developed is accessible, easy-to-use and, at the same time reliable and feasible. It meets the selected criteria for its indicators. It also allows two levels for communicating the results to stakeholders: it provides uncondensed and detailed information of data sources and methodologies for technical revision and to explore further areas of research. It also provides condensed information to begin analyzing trends for decision-making and public policy in an easy to comprehend language.
The project also achieved a highly satisfactory participation of key stakeholders through an outreach representative group, the External Advisory Committee. The members of the Committee had a 70% participation rate throughout the duration of the project. It also provided an effective team work environment for technical and decision-making personnel of the same programmatic areas but different governmental levels (federal, state and municipal) as well as different expert groups from the academia and professional organizations. This experience is opening the doors for intersectorial collaborative agreements to support municipalities in their specific sustainability projects. The University plans to eventually develop a Puerto Rico “state of land use for sustainability report” where municipalities would be ranked every four to eight years according to their land use “eco-efficiency”.
Main Challenges Encountered and Future Research Areas: In Puerto Rico, reliability and availability of statistical data, as well as metadata for the use of Geographic Information System (GIS), is a major challenge. The selected indicators are based on the best reliable, measurable and readily available statistical information and digital data. Future research areas could be oriented towards enhancing the model, its technical base for the improvement of some the indicators’ limitations, and increase its scope for public policy. Also, the municipality as a territorial unit poses difficulties in data collection and analysis when the scope and origin of many land use activities have a regional or and island-wide nature. A future area of research based on this model could be the development of a regional or an island-wide scale model with regional considerations, like watersheds or regional municipal consortiums. In addition, the modeling method could go further in considering dissimilar conditions across municipalities. As evidenced in the literature reviewed on the topic, there are few, if any, key indicators that could apply exactly the same way across even similar systems.
Supplemental Keywords:
RFA, Scientific Discipline, Ecosystem Protection/Environmental Exposure & Risk, Sustainable Industry/Business, cleaner production/pollution prevention, Monitoring/Modeling, Environmental Monitoring, Urban and Regional Planning, sustainability assessment, ecosystem management model, land use model, urban planning, watershed, developmental stability, geo-spatial internet system, conservation, water supply, GIS, ecological models, pollution preventionRelevant Websites:
www.proyectosambientales.infoIn this web site the Final Report is available with all the details of the study, including the rational, methodology, sources and limitations of each indicator, and references
Progress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.