2010 County Sustainability Strategies

Transcription

1 2010 County Sustainability Strategies TM 1

2 Highlights The most important benefit counties are realizing from sustainability efforts is cost savings. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Generation, and Waste Management are the most common sustainability efforts counties are pursuing. Thirty-four percent of the responding counties identified that they have a staff position to coordinate green efforts. County sustainability coordinators are spread out across several different county departments, with the highest concentrations in County Administration, Operations, Environmental Protection, and Planning and Development. Overwhelmingly, funding is the most significant challenge inhibiting counties from accomplishing all sustainability strategies. The second most cited challenge is staff time. If given the opportunity, the majority of respondents would further invest, in order of priority, in (1) Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Generation followed by Waste Management; (2) Green Building Construction/Renovation, and Water Conservation/Reuse; and (3) Green Purchasing,, and Green Economic Development. In general, counties in the West and Northeast Regions are pursuing all sustainability strategies with greater intensity than South and Midwest counties. Executive Summary The National Association of Counties (NACo) tracks a diverse set of sustainability efforts across America s counties, but there is limited comprehensive research in sustainability trends and investments. As a result, NACo s Green Government Initiative and Touchstone Consulting Group performed a nationwide survey and analysis to assess the current landscape of county sustainability efforts. The report examines county sustainability strategies from four perspectives. The Governance section provides a look at who in county governments are tackling sustainability challenges and which departments they are in; the National Sustainability Assessment provides an analysis of how counties compare nationally including their current investment, benefits realized, anticipated future investments, and barriers; the Regional and State Assessment breaks down the investment, benefits, and barriers analysis by political geography; and finally, the Climate Zone Assessment breaks down the data by climate and weather. The survey analysis that follows offers the state of sustainability efforts in 2010, illustrates counties sustainability desires for the future, and identifies the challenges and barriers they face in accomplishing their sustainability goals. In addition, the survey results provide NACo and its partner organizations with the knowledge they need to offer counties the best support possible to weigh the costs and benefits of specific sustainability efforts and make informed decisions going forward. The most important benefit counties are realizing from sustainability efforts is cost savings. 1

3 Introduction Over the past three years, through its Green Government Initiative, the National Association of Counties has engaged in an extensive sustainability knowledge-sharing effort with America s counties. As a result, counties have learned a myriad of new sustainability strategies and begun to implement many of them in their jurisdictions. The NACo Green Government Initiative conducted a survey in June All 3,068 counties were given an opportunity to answer a set of questions pertaining to their current and future sustainability strategies, priorities, and the challenges counties may encounter in achieving their future sustainability goals. Seven hundred fifty people from 572 counties responded, or 18.6% of all of America s counties. Number of Responses by County Size 13% 43% 44% The report analyzes the respondents demographic and geographic characteristics--including a population analysis and regional and climate assessment. County population sizes are drawn from 2009 U.S. Census population estimates. The report breaks down the findings into: Small Counties (under 50,000 people) Medium Counties (between 50,000 and 500,000 people) Large Counties (over 500,000 people) Medium Large Small In addition, the report utilizes U.S. Census-defined regions and climate zones from the Department of Energy Green Building Program. Input came from sustainability point personnel, elected county officials, administrators, county clerks, planners, and other county professionals. 750 people from 572 separate counties responded to the survey almost 20% of America s counties. 3

4 Sustainability Governance Before delving into the investments, benefits, and barriers of pursuing county sustainability efforts, the survey respondents provided insight into how their greening and sustainability efforts are organized within their counties. While the majority of respondent counties indicated they do not have dedicated staff members responsible for sustainability, 34% of respondent counties have at least one person with this responsibility. Approximately 20% of these respondents reported that their coordinator s title includes the word sustainability, and many of those individuals lead a county-wide Office of Sustainability. While several are appointed directly by county elected officials, the vast majority are permanent county staff. County Sustainability Staff As evident in the chart on the following page, counties likelihood of employing at least one staff member to coordinate green efforts correlates with their size. Large counties are almost twice as likely as medium counties, and four times as likely as small counties, to have a staff dedicated to coordinating green efforts. Creating sustainability positions is a growing trend. Nearly 34% of the respondent counties identified having a staff person to coordinate green efforts. No 66% Yes 34% Illustrates the percentage of counties that reported having staff positions to coordinate green efforts Percentage of Counties with Sustainability Coordinators by Size Large Counties Medium Counties Small Counties 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Counties with Staff Positions Counties without Staff Positions Currently only 11% of county respondents with sustainability staff reported having a stand-alone office dedicated to sustainability, while the rest reported positions in a diversity of departments throughout county government. Most respondent counties base their coordinators in Operations Departments (such as Buildings, Facilities, and Maintenance Departments and offices focused on energy efficiency), Environmental and Natural Resources Departments (including solid waste and recycling offices), Planning and Development Departments (such as Community Development, Economic Development, Parks and Recreation, and Planning Departments), or Executive or Administrator Offices (such as the County Administrator/Manager s Office or the Office of the Chief Elected Official). Several counties report having multiple staff working on sustainability efforts in an uncoordinated manner. 5

5 Where are Green Efforts Coordinated within County Government? Environmental Departments Planning Departments Sustainability Offices (unaffiliated) 11% Planning Departments 14% Multiple Positions/ Green Teams/Other 11% Environmental Departments 16% Executive/ Administrative Offices 18% Solid Waste/Recycling Offices 29% Community Development 11% Facilities 11% Operations Departments 30% Environmental Protection/Natural Resources 71% Planning 71% Parks & Recreation 7% Office of the Chief Elected Official Mayor s Offices 22% County Administrator s/manager s Offices 78% Public Works 7% Maintenance 7% General Services 10% Facilities 42% Operations Department Resource Management 3% Buildings 16% Energy 13% Engineering 2% Individuals who coordinate sustainability efforts work in various county departments, with the highest concentrations in County Administrator s Offices, Operations Departments (namely Buildings, Energy, and Facilities), Environmental Protection, and Planning Departments (especially Planning Divisions). Although the survey did not ask respondents whether their sustainability efforts were focused on internal county efforts or community-wide efforts, some inferences can be made regarding the departments in which these efforts are housed and their job descriptions. After Director of Sustainability, Energy Manager is the second most frequently named coordinator title and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Generation is the second highest-ranked strategy for current investment, and the first-ranked for future investment. At the same time, Waste Management and Green Building Construction/Renovation are in the top three highest ranked future sustainability strategies, and many of the named coordinators have titles associated with solid waste and recycling or facilities and building operations. Considering that the survey returned only one respondent county indicating its coordinator focuses specifically on agricultural issues, it is no surprise that in 2010 ranks lower among current and future investments. Similarly, only one respondent county named its purchasing director as the coordinator, which may explain why is ranked as a lower future priority. 7

6 National Sustainability Assessment Prior to the production this sustainability survey, the national picture of county sustainability efforts was unclear. The survey results have yielded valuable insights that will undoubtedly guide how NACo and its sustainability partners engage and support America s counties. In particular, there is notable diversity related to investment levels, benefits realized, and barriers in sustainability strategies. Current Investments While many counties are undertaking large-scale efforts to implement sustainability strategies and utilizing significant resources to those ends, others are engaging in smaller-scale efforts that utilize fewer resources, while still others are not engaging at all. Five hundred eight respondents indicated that they had sustainability strategies underway in the following major categories: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Generation Green Building Construction and Renovation Green Economic Development Waste Management Water Conservation and Reuse For a more in depth explanation of the categories, see Appendix A. 508 respondents, roughly 70%, affirmed that their county has sustainability strategies underway. Sustainability Strategy Waste Management Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Generation Green Building Construction/Renovation Water Conservation/Resuse Green Economic Development Current Investments in Sustainability Strategies* Lowest Investment Level of Investment Highest Investment * level of investment based on a weighted score on how counties ranked sustainability strategies Counties are putting the majority of their sustainability resources toward Waste Management and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Generation activities. Specifically, within the Waste Management strategy, 95% of the respondents are utilizing recycling programs. Within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Generation strategy, 84% of the respondents are changing employee behavior (i.e. turning off computers and lights); and 91% are retrofitting systems (i.e. HVAC upgrades, insulation, lighting replacement). 9

7 Benefits Analyzing perceived investment following the money is an effective, input-driven strategy for determining sustainability priorities, but analyzing benefits offers an excellent output-driven approach to determining action. Survey respondents noted that they pursue sustainability strategies to: Provide services for county residents n Reduce the cost of running county government Promote partnerships with the private sector n Enhance citizen participation in government The most significant benefit for pursuing sustainability strategies is a reduction in the cost of running county government. In the open comment sections of the survey, counties overwhelmingly reported that budgetary concerns drove them to undertake some type of sustainability measure. # Counties Reporting the Benefit Benefits of Sustainability Strategies Energy Efficiency/ Renewable Energy Generation Green Building Construction/ Renovation Green Economic Development Waste Management Water Conservation/ Reuse Reduces costs of running county government Promotes partnerships with the private sector Provides services for county residents Enhances citizen participation in government Anticipated Future Investments As needs, ability to perform work, and funding sources change, counties adjust their sustainability efforts. From the national perspective, county sustainability investment is set to grow in all categories. The chart offers a glimpse into the future of county sustainability efforts. If given the opportunity, the majority of respondents would further invest, in order of priority, in (1) Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Generation followed by Waste Management; (2) Green Building Construction/Renovation, and Water Conservation/ Reuse; and (3) Green Purchasing, Local Food Systems, and Green Economic Development. Waste Management Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Generation Green Building Construntion/Renovation Water Conservation/Resuse Green Economic Development Current & Anticipated Investments in Sustainability Strategies* Future Investments Current Investments * based on a weighted score of the ranked value (1-5) multiplied by the number of counties that selected the rank 11

8 Challenges and Barriers County sustainability efforts are not without their challenges. Lack of funding, staff time, political and public support, and expertise are some of the potential challenges they face in accomplishing their sustainability goals. Expertise (knowledge of sustainability solutions) Staff Time Funding Political &Public Support # Counties Reporting the Benefit Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy Generation Barriers to Sustainability Strategies Green Building Construction/Renovation Green Economic Development Waste Management Water Conservation/Reuse Overwhelmingly, funding is the most significant challenge inhibiting counties from accomplishing all sustainability strategies. The second most cited challenge is staff time. Regional and State Assessment of County Sustainability The regional and state assessment tested the hypothesis that sustainability strategies differ across geography and political boundaries. The states were broken out into the four U.S. Census Regions Northeast, South, Midwest, and West. For more detail on the U.S. Census Regions and the states they include, see Appendix B. Percentage of Respondent Counties by Region 38% 7% 31% 24% West Midwest South Northeast Counties in the West and Northeast Regions are pursuing all sustainability strategies with more intensity than their South and Midwest counterparts. 13

9 As shown in the graph below, becomes a more prominent activity in the Regional Assessment; and although is relatively lower across the regional sustainability strategies, the West region s intensity significantly outpaces the other regions. An overall analysis of county sustainability strategies across the regions shows slight variations. The challenge may be that within the regions themselves there is too much diversity to pick up specific variations in the data, or that sustainability is just not mature enough of an enterprise to reflect limitations associated with differences across geography. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% County Sustainability Strategies by Region West Midwest South Northeast Region Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Generation Waste Management Water Conservation/ Reuse Green Building Construction/Renovation Green Economic Development Climate Zone Assessment A survey response assessment by climate brings to light much more detailed differences than the regional assessment. The country is sectioned out into 5 distinct climate zones based off of the Department of Energy s Green Building Program. The climate zone assessment was performed to see if county sustainability strategies differ among climates. For instance, counties in the Hot-Dry climate are more focused on water conservation/reuse, while counties in the Cold climate use heating and are more focused on Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Generation. To some extent, this is the case, though not as much as was expected. The Marine Zone, which maintains quite mild weather and temperatures throughout the year, outpaces all other regions in every strategy. Considering the group of counties that make up the Marine Zone, the analysis may say more about progressive perspectives toward sustainability issues than climate. For the climate zone map, see Appendix C. Percentage of Respondent Counties by Climate Zone 37% Mixed-Humid Hot-Humid 5% 28% Cold 10% Hot-Dry 16% Marine 15

10 Climate Percent of Counties with Sustainability Staff by Climate Zone Cold Mixed- Humid Hot-Dry Hot- Humid Marine 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Counties with Staff Positions Counties without Staff Positions % of Counties Using Given Strategy 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Sustainability Priorities by Climate Zone Marine Hot-Humid Hot-Dry Mixed-Humid Cold Climate Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Generation Waste Management Water Conservation/Reuse Green Building Construction/Renovation Green Economic Development Closing Thoughts The national picture of county sustainability efforts looks positive. The majority of survey respondents have sustainability strategies underway, particularly within Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Generation and Waste Management. Counties are experiencing significant cost savings from their efforts, and their investment efforts are expected to increase over the next several years. With all of this in mind, it is safe to say sustainability in some form is here to stay. The regional and climate analysis offered some valuable insight. Counties in the West and Northeast Regions are leading sustainability efforts. Climate will likely be a more significant factor in determining county sustainability investments going forward, though these strategies are currently a bit too nascent to truly define differences by climate zones. For instance, the State of New Jersey s public policy has made it one of the largest solar producers in the country, while it is clear that the South s climate is best suited to produce solar more effectively. Once these energy efficiency and renewable energy strategies mature, climate differences will likely become more evident. The survey results provide some valuable guidance for companies and organizations working in the field of county sustainability. Over the next year NACo will be actively reaching out to America s counties to provide them the technical assistance and support they need to move their sustainability agendas forward. As shown in the chart on the left, Marine Zone Counties are almost twice as likely to have sustainability coordinators than the rest of the climate zones. In terms of priorities, counties in the Marine Climate Zone are pursuing sustainability strategies with much more intensity than their counterparts in the other regions. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Generation and Waste Management still feature most prominently across all climate zones. The national picture of county sustainability efforts looks very positive. 17

11 Appendix A: Sustainability Categories Developed by the National Association of Counties Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy Generation Changing employee behavior (i.e. turning off computers and lights) Generating renewable energy (i.e. geothermal, solar, wind) Measuring building energy use using a tool such as EPA s Energy Star Retrofitting systems (i.e. HVAC Upgrades, insulation, lighting replacement) Green Building Construction and Renovation Incentivizing and/or regulating green building in the community (i.e. NAHB, USGBC s LEED) Using the green building rating system in county facilities (i.e. USGBC s LEED) Using performance contracting Green Economic Development Attracting green businesses Partnering with community colleges and workforce development organizations to train residents Training local residents for jobs Purchasing green office products (i.e. Energy Star certified products, kitchen products, paper, supplies) Transitioning to green fleets (i.e. purchasing new high MPG vehicles, transitioning to alternative fuels, retrofitting existing vehicles) Using green cleaning chemicals and building systems maintenance products Creating community garden/urban farm programs Creating farm to school programs Organizing a local food policy council Waste Management Developing landfill gas to energy projects Disposing of hazardous, medical waste, pharmaceuticals Implementing electronic waste (e waste) programs Utilizing recycling programs Water Conservation and Reuse Changing employee and community behavior (i.e. reducing water use through education) Implementing gray water recycling programs Replacing fixtures (i.e. aerators, automatic sinks, low flow toilets) Appendix B: U.S. Regions For the purposes of analyzing the data for information pertaining to region sustainability activities, the report defines regions by the US Census Bureau. West Region: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming Midwest Region: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin South Region: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia Northeast Region: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and West Virginia 19

12 Appendix C: Climate Zone Map About the NACo Green Government Initiative The NACo Green Government Initiative serves as a catalyst between local governments and the private sector to facilitate green government practices, products and policies that result in financial and environmental savings. Launched in 2007, the Initiative provides comprehensive resources for local governments on all things green, including energy, green building, air quality, transportation, water quality, land use, purchasing and recycling. For more information contact Jared Lang, NACo Program Manager, Green Government Initiative at or jlang@naco.org. NACo wishes to thank its Green Government Initiative Partners for their support in this effort. NACo s Green Government Initiative Partners are all working hard to develop the solutions counties need to accomplish their sustainability goals. Without their support, this work would not be possible. Climate Zones Very Cold Marine Hot Dry Mixed dry Cold Mixed Humid Hot Humid Source: US Department of Energy Green Building Program 25 Massachusetts Avenue, NW l Suite 500 l Washington, DC l l fax l

13 TM